Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
1
2008CASES
Undue delay
Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/ba Supreme Court’sRuling Case Disposition
OFFICE OFTHECOURT sesof
2
2008CASES
Grossneglectofduty andmisconduct.
Act/scomplained Legalbasis/bases Supreme Court’sRuling Case Disposition
ANGELESA. VELASCO of of the charge/s
- versus- The Courtwill nothesitatetoimpose the ultimatepenalty WHEREFORE, the
ATTY.PROSPEROV. - on those whofallshortoftheiraccountabilities.The CourtfindsrespondentretiredClerk
TABLIZO, Sections9(a)and(b Courtcondemnsanddoesnottolerate any ofCourtandEx-OfficioProvincialSheriffAtty.
), 10(c), and14of conductthatviolatesthenormsofpublicaccountability ProsperoV.Tablizo, RegionalTrialCourt, Office
A.M. No. P-05- Rule 39 anddiminishespublic confidence inthe ofthe Clerk of
1999February 22, oftheRulesofCour judicial system.Failure ofsheriffsto Court, Virac,Catanduanes,GUILTY ofGROSS
2008CARPIO, J.: t implementwritsofexecutionconstitutesgrossneglect of NEGLECTOFDUTYandREFUSALTO
duty. PERFORMOFFICIALDUTY.Accordingly,th
e CourtFINES himP40,000.
Assigningof Cases
3
2008CASES
Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/ba Supreme Court’sRuling Case
GREENSTARBOCAYMAN sesofthe DispositionWHEREFORE, the
GANDINGAN charge/s The importance ofassigningcasesby raffle isobvious. Courtfinds:
, -grossignorance Suchmethod ofassignmentsafeguardstherightof the 1. Judge SantosB. AdiongGUILTY
ofthelaw or procedure; Rules3.01[ partiesto be heard by animpartial andunbiasedtribunal, ofgrossignorance ofthe law
-versus- - 2]and while protecting judgesfromanysuspicion aswellasgrossmisconductconstituting violation
manifestunfaithfuln 3.02[3] of ofimpropriety.Forthisreason, disregardofCircular No. oftheCode of JudicialConduct. He
JUDGE SANTOSB. essto abasic legal theCode 7, whichrequiressuchraffle ofcases,cannot be isDISMISSEDfrom theservicewithforfeiture of
ADIONG, etal rule - ofJudicialCo takenlightly. allbenefitsexcepthisaccruedleave credits, ifany.
injudiciousconduct nduct A courtemployee isexpected to dono more Heisfurtherdisqualifiedfromreinstatementor
A.M. No.RTJ-04- - grave abuse thanwhatduty demandsand no lessthanwhatprivilege appointmenttoanypublic office, including
1826February 6, 2008 ofauthority permits.Though hemay beof government-ownedorcontrolledcorporations.
PERCURIAM: -grave misconduct greathelptospecificindividuals, 2. Atty. Cairoding P.MaruhomGUILTY
-conductprejudicial butwhenthathelpfrustratesandbetraysthepublicstrustinthe ofsimple misconduct. He isSUSPENDED
tothe administration systemitcannotandshouldnotremainunchecked.The fromoffice forthree
ofjustice; interestsofthe individual mustgive way to the (3)months,effectiveimmediately.
accommodation ofthe 3. Mr.Masbod M. SybilGUILTY
-violationof publicPrivatumincommodumpublicobonopensatur. ofsimplemisconduct. He
Rules3.01[2]and3.02[ isSUSPENDEDfromofficefor three
3]of (3)months, effective
the Code immediately.SOORDERED.
ofJudicialConduct;
4
2008CASES
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
indirectcontempt
Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/ba Supreme Court’sRuling Case Disposition
sesofthe The Verification/Certification ofthe Petition WHEREFORE, theforegoing
SPOUSESARLEENandL grossignorance of charge/s for Certioraribeforethe CA clearly premisesconsidered,the
ORNA OLIVEROS, thelaw showsthatbothcomplainants signedthe same. Thus,they MOTIONFORPARTIALRECONSIDERAT
v. Rule 71 are presumedto have readitscontents, or since they are IONis DENIEDfor lackof merit. Onthe
HONORABLE DIONISIO oftheRevised supposedlyassisted by counsel, thatthelatterexplained the otherhand,complainant-
C. SISON, Ruleson contentsthereof.Thisshouldhave already made spousesARLEENandLORNA
CivilProcedur themaware ofthe requirement to informthe Courtof OLIVEROSare hereby directedtoSHOW
A.M. NO.RTJ-07-2050 e thefiling ofthecase before the CA considering thatinthe CAUSE, withinTEN (10)DAYSfromreceipt
:March14, lattercase,they are praying for thenullification ofthe ofthisResolution, why they shouldnot be
2008NACHURA, J.: verysameOrderfor whichthey wereseeking citedforcontemptfor violationofSection5, Rule
administrativesanctionsagainstrespondentJudge before 7ofthe RevisedRuleson CivilProcedure.
thisCourt. SOORDERED.
Yetevenin the PetitionforReview itself,they failed
todisclosethatthey hadalready filedanadministrative
caseagainstJudge SisonbeforethisCourtarising
termination of attorney-clientrelation fromthesame orderthey were questioning therein.
Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/bases Supreme Court’sRuling Case Disposition
of the charge/s
HEIRSOFLYDIO"JERRY" Acting The terminationof attorney- WHEREFORE, respondentAtty. Edgar
FALAME, namely: inbehalfofclientswi Section208ofR clientrelationprovidesnojustificationfor a lawyer J.BaguioisfoundGUILTY
MELBAFALAME,LEOFA thoutpermission ule 138 of torepresentaninterestadverse to orinconflictwiththat ofrepresentingconflicting interestsandmetedout
LAME theRulesofCou ofthe formerclient.The client'sconfidence the penaltyof REPRIMAND.
andJERRYFALAME, rt oncereposedshould notbedivested by mere Heisfurtheradmonishedtoobserve a
petitioners,vs. expirationof professionalemployment. Evenafter higherdegree offidelity in thepractice of
ATTY. EDGARJ. Canon15, Rule theseverance of the relation,a lawyershouldnot do hisprofessionand to bearinmindthat a repetition
BAGUIO, respondent. 15.03 of the anything whichwillinjuriouslyaffecthisformerclientinany ofthesameor similaractswillbe dealtwithmore
Codeof matterinwhichhepreviouslyrepresentedhimnorshouldhe severely.
ADM. CASE NO. 6876 ProfessionalResp disclose oruse any of the client'sconfidencesacquiredin SOORDERED.
March7, onsibility thepreviousrelation.
2008TINGA,
J.:
5
2008CASES
Baselessandunfoundedadministrative case
Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/ba Supreme Court’sRuling Case Disposition
sesofthe
JAIMERACINES, , -unjustjudgment charge/s It ispresumedthat a personintendsthe WHEREFORE, the
ordinaryconsequencesofhisvoluntary CourtfindsJaime Racinesand
- versus- -otherdeceits -Article 32 actandunlesstherequirementsforpropersubstitutionwere Atty. Onofre D.Manaladguilty of
ofthe New made, alawyerenjoysthe presumption of authority IndirectContemptunderSection3,Rule 71 ofthe
JUDGE JOSE -violationof the Anti- CivilCode givenhim byhisclient.Racinesdoesnotdeny that 1997RulesofCivil
P.MORALLOSandSHERI Graft thesignaturesinthe pleadingswere his. He Procedure. Atty. Onofre D.Manaladisorderedto
FFIIIBENJAMINCABUS - alsodoesnotclaimthat hewasprevented by Atty. Manalad pay a FINE ofFIVETHOUSANDPESOS
AO, JR. -CorruptPracticesActs Section1,Art fromreading thecontentsthereof. He onlysaidthatsince he withinten(10)daysfromfinality of
icle IIIofthe fully trustedAtty. Manalad he immediately signed the hereinResolution, while
A.M. No.MTJ-08- 1987Constit documents. Fromthe foregoing, itisclear Jaime Racinesis REPRIMANDED.Both
1698March3, 2008 ution thatRacinesacquiescedandgave hisstamp of approvalto are STERNLY WARNEDthat a repetitionof
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.: the pleadingsfiledincourt. Considering howeverthathe asimilaractmay warrant a more severe action
-the Code isnotlearnedinthe intricaciesof law, the Courtfindsthe bythisCourt.
ofJudicialCo penalty ofreprimandwithwarning tobe sufficientinhiscase.
nduct. SOORDERED.
6
2008CASES
Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/ba Supreme Court’sRuling Case
sesofthe Asthe HearingOfficerDesignate himselfnotes, DispositionWH
Judge FATIMA GONZALES- grossneglectforfailureto charge/s Yanezawas“duty bound toprepareandsubmit thereports” EREFORE,
ASDALA,Petitioner, informthe Judge ofa ontime.It isinthislightthatthe CourtfindsYaneza tohave OCA-I.P.I. No.05-2175-PisDISMISSEDfor
V. Notice of Appeal Sec. 23, violatedCivil Service Rules. lack of merit.
VICTORPEDROA. RuleIVofBoo OCA-I.P.I. No.05-2228-PisREDOCKETED
YANEZA (LegalResearcher kVof asa regularadministrative matter.VictorPedro
II)Respondent. ExecutiveOrd A. Yaneza isfoundGUILTYof violationof
erNo. theRevisedUniformRulesonAdministrative
A.M. No. P-08-2455 292 Casesin the Civil Service forfailureto
processdocumentsandcomplete action on
A.M. No. P-08-2456 Rule 11 documentsandpaperswithin a reasonable time
oftheRevisedU frompreparationthereof, andis
A.M. No.RTJ-08- niformRuleso accordingly
2113April 30, 2008 nAdministrativ REPRIMANDEDwithWARNINGthat a
CARPIOMORALES,J.: eCasesin repetition of the sameoffense will be
theCivil dealtwithmore severely.
Service If Yaneza hadreceivedhissalary correspondingto
hisunauthorizedabsencesfromApril 3,2005 to
Article May 31, 2005, heis ORDEREDtoreturnthe
2154of same.The Officeof the
theCivilCod CourtAdministratorisorderedtoverify the
e matterand, ifin the affirmative, to implead the
order.OCA-I.P.I. No.06-2449-
RTJisDISMISSED
for mootness.
Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/ba Supreme Court’sRuling Case Disposition
JUDGE,RTC- sesofthe SOORDERED.
CABARROGUIS, charge/s
QUIRINOV.
ATTY. JESSIE
W.TULDAGUE,
CLERKOFCOURT,
553 SCRA 40 (2008)
blackmail inpleadings
Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/ba Supreme Court’sRuling Case Disposition
sesof
7
2008CASES
reinstatement totheBar
8
2008CASES
ANTINIW,Respondent. Professional andfaithfulcompliance withthe rulesof the resume the practice of law uponpaymentof
Ethics legalprofessionare the conditionsrequiredforremaining therequiredlegalfees.Thisresolutioniseffectiveim
A.C.No.1302,A.C.No.1391, amemberofgoodstanding ofthe barandfor enjoyingthe mediately.
A.C. No. 1543 privilege topractice law. The Supreme Court, asguardian
of the legal profession, hasultimate
June 30, disciplinarypoweroverattorneys. Thisauthority to SOORDERED.
2008LEONARD discipline itsmembersisnotonly arightbut a boundenduty
O-DECASTRO,J.: aswell
9
2008CASES
A.M. NO.RTJ-07-
2037June 30, 2008
10
2008CASES
QUISUMBING,J.:
Negligence asa notary public
Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/ba Supreme Court’sRuling Case Disposition
sesofthe
CHARLESB.BAYLON fraudanddeceitforn charge/s Notarizationisnotanempty, meaningless,routinary act.It WHEREFORE, thenotarialcommission,
V. otarizing a isinvestedwithsubstantive public interest, suchthatonly ifstillextant, of respondentAtty. Jose A.
ATTY. JOSE A. ALMO SpecialPowerofAtt those whoare qualifiedor authorizedmay Almoishereby REVOKED. He is
orney(SPA)bearing actasnotariespublic.Notarizationconvertsa likewise DISQUALIFIEDto be
A.C. No. 6962June theforgedsignature privatedocumentinto a public reappointedasNotary Public for a
25, documentthusmakingthatdocumentadmissible periodoftwoyears.
2008QUISUMBIN inevidence withoutfurtherproofof To enable usto determine the effectivity of
G,J.: itsauthenticity.Anotarialdocumentisby lawentitled tofull thepenalty imposed, the respondent
faithandcredituponitsface.Courts,administrative isDIRECTED toreport thedate of hisreceiptof
agenciesandthe public atlarge must beable to rely thisDecision tothisCourt.
uponthe acknowledgmentexecuted byanotary public Letcopiesof thisDecision be furnished theOffice
andappendedto a private instrument. of theBar Confidant,the IntegratedBarof
thePhilippines, andthe
courtsalloverthecountry.Let a copy
ofthisDecisionlikewisebeattached to the
personalrecordsof therespondent.
The doctrine ofexhaustionof administrative remedies SOORDERED.
Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/ba Supreme Court’sRuling Case Disposition
sesofthe The doctrine ofexhaustionof administrative
LT. GEN. ALFONSO grossignorance of charge/sNew remediesisbasic. Courts, forreasonsoflaw, comity WHEREFORE, the CourtfindsJudge Maximo
P.DAGUDAG(Ret.), thelaw andconduct Code andconvenience, shouldnot G.W. Paderanga, RegionalTrial
ofJudicialCon entertainsuitsunlesstheavailable Court,Branch38, Cagayan deOro
vs. duct administrativeremedieshave firstbeenresortedto and City,GUILTY ofGROSSIGNORANCE
JUDGEMAXIMOG.W. theproperauthoritieshave beengivenanappropriate OFTHE
PADERANGA, Regional opportunity to actandcorrecttheirallegederrors, ifany, LAW andUNBECOMINGCONDUCT.
TrialCourt, Branch38, Cagayan committedinthe administrative forum. Accordingly, the CourtDISMISSEShimfromthe
deOro City ThisCourtin a long line of caseshasconsistently service, withforfeitureofallretirementbenefits,
heldthatbefore a party isallowed to seek the exceptaccruedleave credits, andwithprejudice to
A.M. No.RTJ-06- interventionofthe court, itisa pre-conditionthat reinstatementorappointmenttoany public office,
2017June 19, 2008 heshouldhaveavailed of all the meansof administrative including government-ownedor
PERCURIAM,J.: processesaffordedhim. Hence, ifa remedy within controlledcorporations.
theadministrative machinery canstill beresortedto SOORDERED.
bygiving the
administrativeofficerconcernedeveryopportunity
todecide on amatterthatcomeswithinhis
11
2008CASES
jurisdictionthensuchremedy should be
exhaustedfirstbefore court’sjudicialpowercan be sought.
grossdiscourtesy
Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/ba Supreme Court’sRuling Case Disposition
sesofthe
OFFICE Grave charge/s Anemployee of the judiciary isexpected to WHEREFORE, the charge
OFTHECOURTADMINIS andDisrespec accordrespectforthe againstrespondentJudge MoisesM.
TRATOR tful Rule personandrightsofothersatalltimes,andhisevery PardoisDISMISSED.
conductinthe IV,Section52 actandwordcharacterized
v conductof raffle of (B) by prudence, restraint, courtesy anddignity.Government RespondentClerkof CourtAtty. Jessie
JUDGEMOISES cases (3) service ispeople-orientedandwhere high-strung W.Tuldague isfoundGUILTY of violation
M.PARDOandCLERKOF oftheRevisedU andbelligerentbehaviorisnotallowed. No matter ofSupreme CourtCircularNo.7-2002 and
COURTJESSIE W. niformRuleso howcommendable respondentsmotivesmay be, asa isREPRIMANDEDtherefor. He
TULDAGUE,RTC- nAdministrativ publicofficer, courtesyshould behispolicy always. islikewisefoundGUILTY ofgrossdiscourtesy
CABARROGUIS,QUIRINO eCasesin inthecourse ofofficial
theCivil dutiesandisFINEDtheequivalent of
A.M. No.RTJ-08- Service hissalaryforone month and oneday.
2109April 30, 2008
SOORDERED
CARPIOMORALES,
disruptionof J.:
orderly administration ofjustice
Act/scomplainedofAd Legalbasis/ba Supreme Court’sRuling Case Disposition
GLORIA ministrative charges sesofthe
ESPIRITU, charge/s the administrative chargesare
TheCourthasalwaysbeenpunctiliousaboutanyconduct
ComplainantV DISMISSEDforlack of meritandinsufficiency
,actoromissionthatwouldviolatethenormofpublicaccounta
JUDGE ERLINDAPESTAO of evidence.
bilityordiminishthepeoplesfaithinthejudiciary.Alongthislin
BUTED,RTC,
e,theCourtwillnotshirkfromitsresponsibilityofimposingdis
Branch40, SOORDERED.
ciplineamongmembersof the bench.
NACHURA, and
PalayanCity,Respondent.
A.M. No.RTJ-02-1681
April 30,
2008REYES,
R.T.,J.:
12
2008CASES
LegalProfession
Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/ba Supreme Court’sRuling Case Disposition
WILSONCHAM, sesofthe
Complainant, -non payment charge/s Lawyersmustatalltimesfaithfully performtheirdutiesto WHEREFORE, Atty. EvaPaita-Moya
v ofrentals society, to the bar, to thecourtsand totheir isfoundguilty of grossmisconductandis
ATTY. EVA PAITA-MOYA, Section11,Rule clients. Aspartofthose duties, they mustpromptly hereby SUSPENDEDforone monthfrom
Respondent. 8oftheRulesof paytheirfinancial thepractice of law, effective uponherreceipt
Court obligations.Theirconductmustalwaysreflect the ofthisDecision. She iswarnedthata repetitionof
A.C. No. valuesandnormsof the legalprofessionasembodiedinthe thesameor asimilaractwill
7494June 27, Code Code ofProfessional bedealtwithmoreseverely.
2008 ofProfessiona Responsibility. Onthese considerations, the
lResponsibilit Courtmaydisbaror suspendlawyersforany
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.: yCanon professionalorprivatemisconductshowing themto be
IandRule 1.01 wanting inmoralcharacter, honesty, probity
andgooddemeanor-- ortobe unworthyto continue
asofficersofthe Court.
TOPIC: Grossignorance ofthe law Canon 6of the CJC. Judgesare duty-bound toobey Dismissfromservice
APPROVALOFBAIL Itprovidesthatcompetence courtderivativesfully andpromptly. A withallbenefitsexceptaccruedleave
ESTERF. BARBERO isaprerequisite tothe due judgeshouldperformofficial creditswithprejudicetoreinstatementorappoin
dutieshonestly, tment to any public
13
2008CASES
14
2008CASES
15
2008CASES
speculationandsuspicionalone, ashere.If
anaggrievedparty honestly feelsthata
judge
hadrenderedanerroneousdecisionorgrave
ly abusedhisdiscretionin the exercise
ofhisjudicial functions,the Rulesof
Courtto besure affordssuchparty
adequate judicial remedies.
Anadministrative complaint, with
theendinview of havingthe
judgesuspended, or worse,
dismissedforanyof hisactperceived tobe
irregular orerroneous, canhardly be
consideredasanappropriate corrective
judicialremedy.
TOPIC:GROSSIGNOR Improprietymanifestbiasandp Rule 2.01 ofthe Code To Sec. 8ofRule 112of the GUILTY ofgrossignoranceof the law
ANCE OFTHELAW artiality ofJudicial Rulesdependsupon the imposable andbasic rulesof procedure andis
ANDBASICRULESOFP Conducttomaintainproperde penalty forthe crime chargedinthe hereby FINEDinthe amount ofP20,000.
ROCEDURES corum. complaintorinformationfiledandnotupon
ATTY.RODERICK theimposable penalty forthe offense
M.SANTOSANDALE whichmay be foundto have
XANDERANDRESVS. beencommittedbythe accusedafter a
JUDGELAUROBERN preliminaryinvestigation.RespondentJudg
ARDO e shouldhave remanded the case tothe
A.M. NO.MTJ-07- publicprosecutorforthe
1670JUNE 23, purposesofpreliminary investigation.[The
2008ADOLFOS. Supreme]Courtin a catena of casesheld:
AZCUNA
The absence ofpreliminary
investigationdoesnotaffectthe
court’sjurisdictionover the case. Nor
dothey impair thevalidity of the
information
orotherwiserenderitdefective, butifthere
were nopreliminary investigationand
thedefendants,before
enteringtheirplea,invite the attentionof
the court totheir
16
2008CASES
TOPIC:GROSSMISCO Manifestpartiality, Rule 3.05 ofthe Code Respondentclearlystrayedfromthewe FINE inthe amountofP20,000.00, with
NDUCT,IGNORANCE grossmisconduct, ignorance ofJudicial ll-troddenpathwhen he aSTERNWARNINGthat arepetitionof
OFTHELAW ofthelaw Conductrequiringjudgesto grosslymisappliedthe thesameorsimilaractswill bedealtwith
andunjustandmaliciousdelay dispose RevisedRulesofCriminal Procedure. moreseverely.
in the resolutionof ofcourtbusinesspromptly.
17
2008CASES
disbarmentproceedings, the
burdenofproofisuponthe
complainantand theCourtwillexercise
itsdisciplinary poweronly if
theformerestablishesitscase byclear,
convincing, andsatisfactoryevidence.
Considering the seriousconsequence of
disbarment,thisCourthasconsistently
heldthatonly a
clearpreponderantevidence
wouldwarrantthe impositionofsuch a
harshpenalty.It meansthatthe
recordmustdisclose asfree fromdoubt a
case thatcompelstheexercise bythe court
of itsdisciplinarypowers.The
dubiouscharacter ofthe actdone,
TOPIC:MALPRACTICE, Controversy arose Rule 18.03 ofthe Code aswellasthe
Every case amotivationthereof,mustbe Suspensionfromthe practice of law forsix
GROSSMISCONDUCT betweencomplainantandVil ofProfessionalResponsibilitye clearly demonstrated.
lawyeracceptsdeserveshisfull attention, (6)monthsconsideringthatrespondenthumblyad
ANDFORVIOLATION lasiregarding the billing njoinsa lawyernot to neglecta skillandcompetence,regardlessof mittedhisfaultin not immediatelyinforming
OF HISOATH AS andpayments. legalmatterentrustedtohim, itsimportance andwhetherhe acceptsitfor complainant ofthe statusofthecase.
ALAWYERFIL- andhisnegligence a fee orforfree. Hemust constantly
GARCIA,INC inconnectiontherewithshallren keepinmindthathisactionsoromissionsor
VS.ATTY.FERNANDO derhimliable. nonfeasancewould be
CRESENTE bindinguponhisclient. Thus,he
C. HERNANDEZ isexpected tobe acquaintedwith
A.C. NO. therudimentsoflaw andlegal
7129JULY 16, procedure,and a
2008 clientwhodealswithhimhastheright
REYNATOS. PUNO toexpect not just a goodamountof
professionallearning
andcompetencebutalso a whole-
heartedfealty to theclientscause.
19
2008CASES
TOPIC: Delay in the Section14, Rule 39of It ismandatory for a sheriffto execute LIABLE forNEGLECT OFDUTY. He
NEGLECTOFDUTY, administrationofjustice theRulesonCivil ajudgmentandmake a returnon the isSUSPENDEDfortwo(2)monthswithoutpay
DISHONESTY,ANDVI Procedureprovidesthatthe writof executionwithin andhereby WARNEDthat a
OLATIONOFREPUBL writofexecutionshall theperiodprovidedbythe RulesofCourt. repetitionofthesameorsimilaroffense in the
IC ACTNO.3019 bereturnableto the Section14, Rule39 of theRuleson Civil future shallbe dealtwithmore severely.
ATTY.LEOPOLDOC. courtimmediately afterthe Procedureprovidesthatthe
LACAMBRA, JR. judgmenthadbeensatisfiedinp writofexecutionshallbe returnableto the
VS.CHRISTOPHE art or infull.Ifthe courtimmediatelyafter the
R T.PEREZ judgmentcannot judgmenthadbeensatisfiedinpart
JULY 14, besatisfiedinfullwithin30daysa orinfull.Ifthe judgmentcannot
2008LEONARD fterhisreceiptof the writ,the besatisfiedinfullwithin30daysafterhisrecei
OA.QUISUMBI officershallreport pt of the writ, the officershallreportto
NG tothecourtandstatethereasont the courtand statethe reasontherefor. He
herefor. islikewise required to makea reportto the
courtevery 30
daysuntiljudgmentissatisfiedinfull
oritseffectivity expires.
Suchperiodicreporting on the statusofthe
writsmustbedonebythesheriffregularly
andconsistently every 30 daysuntil the
writsare returnedfully satisfied.
Here, the non-implementation ofthe
20
2008CASES
writ of executionisundisputed.
Recordsshow thatfromthe time thewrit
ofexecutionwasissued onMarch23,
2004,thesame
remainedunimplementedformore
thanthree years. We note
thatPerez’slastattempt to execute the
writwason September22, 2006or
morethantwoyearsfromhispreviousattem
pt onJune 2, 2004. Certainly, thelong
delay in the executionof the
writnegateshisclaimthat he
exertedhisbesteffort to implementthe
same.
Likewise, asshown bythe
records,Perezfailed to
submitperiodicreportstoupdate the court
ofthe proceedingsundertaken
toimplementthe writ.
Hislastsubmissionofthe
Sheriff’sPartialReportwasonJune 14,
2004. Sincethen,he hasnotsubmittedany
report to thecourt.
The delay of more thanthree
yearsandthe failure tosubmitperiodic
reportsclearly show thatPerez
neglectedhisduty. Perez cannotseek
refuge frominconveniencescaused by
distance orthe complainant’sclients’
financialconstraintsto justifyhisfailure
toimplementthe subjectwrit.
Sheriffsplay animportantrole in
theadministrationof justice. They
aretaskedto execute finaljudgmentsof the
courts.Ifnot
enforced,suchdecisionsbecome empty
victoriesofthe prevailingparties.
Asagentsof the law,
sheriffsarecalledupon to discharge
theirdutieswithdue care
andutmostdiligencebecause inserving the
21 court’swritsand
2008CASES
processesandimplementingitsorders,they
cannotaffordto errwithoutaffecting the
integrity oftheiroffice andthe
efficientadministrationof justice.
However, astothe chargesofdishonesty
andgraftandcorruption,wefindthatthere
isinsufficientevidence toprove
them.Itmustalsobe stressedthatthe
charge of
graftandcorruptioniscriminalinnature;
thus, theresolutionthereofcannot be
threshedoutin theinstantadministrative
proceeding.
Under the
UniformRulesonAdministrative Casesin
theCivilService, Simple Neglect ofDuty
isa lessgrave offense whichcarriesa
penalty ofone monthand one day tosix
monthssuspensionfor thefirstoffense.
ConsideringthatthisisPerez’sfirstoffense,
we agree thatsuspensionof
twomonthswouldbe sufficient.
22
2008CASES
churchrulesand, possibly,
ofPhilippinelaws. Coming from a
judgewith theletteraddressedto a
foreignreader,
suchreportcouldindeedhave conveyed
theimpressionof officialrecognition
ornotice of the reportedviolation.
Thesameproblemthattheuseofletterhead
poses, occursinthe useofthetitle ofJudge
orJustice inthecorrespondence ofa
member oftheJudiciary.While the use of
the title isanofficialdesignationaswellas
anhonourthatanincumbenthasearned, a
line stillhasto be drawnbasedon
thecircumstancesoftheuseoftheappellatio
n.While the title can be
usedforsocialandotheridentificationpurp
oses, itcannot be usedwith theintent
touse the prestige ofhisjudicialoffice to
gainfully advance hispersonal,family or
otherpecuniary interests.Norcan the
prestige of a judicialoffice beused or lent
to advance the
privateinterestsofothers,or toconvey
orpermitothersto convey
theimpressionthatthey are in
aspecialposition toinfluence the judge.To
do anyof theseisto crossinto
theprohibitedfield ofimpropriety.
23
2008CASES
However, thejudgesinexcusable
failureto observe the basic
lawsandruleswillrenderthemadministrati
vely
liable.When the law issosimple
andelementary, lack of
conversanceTherewithconstitutesgrossig
norance ofthe law. In any case, to
constitute grossignorance ofthe law,
itisnotenoughthat thesubjectdecision,
order oractuation ofthe judge
intheperformance of hisofficial
dutiesiscontrary toexistinglaw
andjurisprudence
but,mostimportantly,suchdecision, order
oract mustbeattended by badfaith,
fraud,dishonesty,or corruption.
Goodfaithandabsenceof malice,
corruptmotives
orimproperconsiderations, are
sufficientdefensesinwhich a judge
chargedwithignorance ofthe law
canfindrefuge.
24
2008CASES
The filingof
anadministrativecomplaintisnotthe
properremedy forthe correction of
actionsofa judgeperceived to have gone
beyond thenormsofpropriety, where
asufficientjudicial remedy exists.
25
2008CASES
TOPIC: Allegedly using abusive Rule 11.03 A lawyershallemploy SIMPLEMISCONDUCTforusingintem
GRAVEMISCO andoffensive language CANON11 onlyfairandhonestmeanstoattainthe perate language. He isFINEDP2,
NDUCT inpleadingsfiledbefore Rule 8.01 lawfulobjectivesofhisclientandshall 000 with a sternWARNINGthat a
JOSE C. theBangkoSentral ng Pilipinas CANON 8 notpresent,participate inpresenting repetitionof thisorsimilaractwill
SABERONVS.ATTY.F (BSP orthreaten bedealtwithmoreseverely.
ERNANDOT.LARON topresentunfoundedcriminalchargesto
G obtainanimproperadvantageinany case or
A.C. NO. proceeding.
6567APRIL16,
2008CARPIOMORA To besure, the adversarial nature of
LES ourlegal system
hastemptedmembersofthe bar
tousestrong language inpursuitof
theirduty toadvance
theinterestsoftheirclients.
However, while a lawyerisentitled
topresenthiscase
withvigorandcourage,suchenthusiasmdo
esnot justify the useof offensive
andabusive
language. Language
aboundswithcountlesspossibilitiesforone
to beemphatic butrespectful, convincing
butnot derogatory, illuminatingbut
notoffensive. Onmany occasions,
theCourthasremindedmembersof
theBarto
abstainfromalloffensivepersonalityand to
advance no factprejudicial to
thehonororreputationof apartyorwitness,
unlessrequired by the justice ofthe cause
TOPIC:EJECTMENT Motionsfor inhibition Canons10. 11. & 12 andRule withwhich heischarged. Inkeeping with
(1) FINEDin the amountofFive
CASES ofcomplainant onthe 11.04 of the the dignity ofthe legalprofession, a
Whether...thecomplaintfile Thousand(P5,000)Pesos, with a warning
JUDGE ALDEN basisofthe factthatEDC gave CodeofProfessionalRespo dlawyer’slanguage
by eveninhispleadingsmust that arepetitionof the
.CERVANTESVS.ATT himahouse andlotputting nsibilityunderhisoathofoffi be dignified
respondentagainstthecomplainantbefor sameorsimilarquestionedactwill be
Y. JUDE JOSUE intoseriousdoubthisimpartiali ce. e theOffice of dealtwithmore severely.
L.SABIO ty,independence andintegrity. theCourtAdministratorinAdminMatter
OCA IPINo.06-1842-MTJ
wasmalicious, false anduntruthful.
26
2008CASES
A.C.NO.7828AUGU
ST11, (2) Ifinthe affirmative,whether
2008CARPIOMORA ... respondentisguilty underthe Code
LES ofProfessionalResponsibility.
On the firstissue,
theIBPCommissionerdidnotfindrespond
entscomplaintagainsthereincomplainantf
alse anduntruthful, itnoting
thatrespondentscomplaintwasdismissed
bythisCourtdue toinsufficiency
ofevidence which, to the
IBP,merelyshowsa failure onthe
partofrespondenttoprove
hisallegationsagainstcomplainant.
Noting,
however,thisCourtsAugust30,2006Resolu
tionfindingrespondentscomplaintunsubst
antiatedandmotivated by plain,
unfoundedsuspicion,
theInvestigatingCommissionerconcluded
thatrespondentknowingly instituted
notonly a
groundlesssuitagainsthereincomplainant,
butalso asuitbasedsimplyon hisbare
suspicionand
speculation.(underscoringsupplied)
27
2008CASES
The Investigating
Commissionerthusconcludedthat
28
2008CASES
by law, the Rulesof Court, Anonymouscomplaints, asa rule,
orthe Code ofJudicial arereceivedwithcaution.They
Conduct. shouldnotbe dismissedoutright,
however, wheretheiravermentsmay be
easily verifiedandmay,
withoutmuchdifficulty,
besubstantiatedandestablished by
othercompetentevidence.
Here, the
motionandletterssufficientlyaverred the
specific
actsuponwhichrespondentsallegedadmin
istrativeliability
wasanchored.Andtheavermentsare
verifiable from therecordsofthe
trialcourtandtheCAsDecision.
Respondentschallenge
againstthisCourtsjurisdictionover
thepresentcaseisunavailing.Indeed, the
pleadingsofthe partiesand the
communicationsofthe OCA clearly
showthatthedisciplinary proceeding
againsthimwasset
inmotioninNovember2003 whenthe
OCA received a copy ofcomplainants
Motion.
Respondentsretirementinthe
TOPIC: Grossmalpractice, Canon1, Rule 1.01 of interimdoesnotperse
A lawyershallserve DISBARREDandhisname
DISBARMENTTORBE immoralcharacter, theCode of warrantthedismissalofthe anddiligence.
hisclientwithcompetence administrativeA isorderedSTRICKENfrom theRoll
NB.OVERGAARDVS. dishonesty ProfessionalResponsibility complaint. notneglect a
lawyershall ofAttorneys.
ATTY.GODWIN anddeceitfulconduct. statesthat"alawyershall not legalmatterentrustedto him, HeisORDEREDtoimmediatelyreturntoTorbe
R.VALDEZ engage inunlawful, dishonest, andhisnegligence n
A.C. NO. immoralor deceitfulconduct. inconnectiontherewithshallrenderhim B. Overgaardthe amount of$16,854.00 or
7902SEPTEMBER30, liable.Respondentshouldindeed itsequivalentinPhilippine Currency at the
2008 beheldliable, forhe wasnotjust timeof actualpayment,
withlegalinterestofsixpercent(6%)perannumfr
omNovember27,
29
2008CASES
30
2008CASES
superiorcourt; and(7)willfulappearance
asanattorney for a
partywithoutauthority. A lawyermay
bedisbarred
orsuspendedformisconduct,whetherinhi
sprofessional or privatecapacity, which
showshimto bewanting
inmoralcharacter,honesty,probity
andgooddemeanor,orunworthyto
continue asanofficerofthe court.
TOPIC: For manifestbias, Section19 ofthe Delay in the dispositionofcasesnotonly FINEof Twenty
GROSSIGNORANCE partialityandneglect of duty RevisedRulesonSummary depriveslitigantsoftheirrighttospeedy ThousandPesos(P20,000.00)isimposedonJudge
OFTHELAW Procedure dispositionoftheircasesbutalsotarnishesth Tanciongco,thesametobe
FENINAR.SANTOS e image of the deductedfromhisretirementbenefits.
VS. JUDGE ERASTO judiciary. Failure todispose the
D. courtsbusinesspromptly withinthe
PROMULGATED:TA periodsprescribed by law and
NCIONGCO therulesconstitutesgrossinefficiency
A.M. NO.MTJ-06- andwarrantsadministrativesanction
1631SEPTEMBER30, ontheerring judge like respondent
2008REYES, R.T
.
TOPIC: Notarized a Section 1ofPublic Withoutthe appearance of the REVOKED.He isDISQUALIFIEDfrom
DISBARMENTDOLO documentdenominatedasExt ActNo.2103 personwhoactually executed the being commissionedasnotary public for
RESL. DELACRUZ, rajudicialSettlementof the documentinquestion,notariespublic aperiodoftwo(2)years
ETAL. VS.ATTY. Estate withWaiver of Rights. would beunable to verifythe andSUSPENDEDfromthe practice of
JOSER.DIMAANO, JR genuinenessof thesignature of the lawfor a periodof one (1)year, effective
A.C. NO. acknowledging partyand to uponreceipt of a copy ofthisDecision,
7781SEPTEMBER12, ascertainthatthe documentisthepartysfree withWARNINGthat a repetitionof
2008VELASCO, JR act ordeed. Furthermore,notariespublic thesamenegligentactshall be dealtwithmore
are requiredbytheNotarialLaw severely.
tocertifythatthe party tothe
instrumenthasacknowledgedandpresente
dbefore thenotariespublic
theproperresidence certificate (or
31
2008CASES
exemptionfromthe
residencecertificate)andtoenteritsnumber
,place, anddate of issue aspart
ofcertification.Rule II, Sec. 12of the
2004RulesonNotarial Practice now
requiresa party to the instrument
topresentcompetentevidence ofidentity.
Sec. 12provides:
Sec. 12. CompetentEvidence
ofIdentity.The phrase
competentevidenceof identityreferstothe
identification ofanindividual basedon:
(a)atleast one
currentidentificationdocumentissuedby
anofficialagencybearing the
photographandsignature ofthe
individual, suchasbutnotlimited
to,passport,
driverslicense,ProfessionalRegulationsCo
mmissionID,
NationalBureauofInvestigationclearance,
policeclearance, postal ID,voters
ID,Barangay
certification,GovernmentService
Insurance System(GSIS)e-card,Social
Security
System(SSS)card,Philhealthcard,seniorcit
izencard,OverseasWorkersWelfareAdmi
nistration(OWWA)ID,
OFWID,seamansbook, aliencertificate
ofregistration/immigrantcertificate
ofregistration, governmentoffice
ID,certificate from theNationalCouncil
forthe Welfare
ofDisabledPersons(NCWDP),Departme
nt ofSocialWelfare
andDevelopmentcertification[asamended
by A.M.No. 02-8-13-SCdatedFebruary
19, 2008]; or
32
2008CASES
(b) the oath oraffirmation of
onecredible witnessnotprivy
totheinstrument,documentor
transactionwhoispersonally known
tothe notarypublic andwhopersonally
knowstheindividual, or oftwocredible
witnessesneitherofwhomisprivy to
theinstrument,documentor
transactionwhoeachpersonally
knowstheindividualandshowsto
thenotarypublic documentary
identification.
One lastnote.
Lawyerscommissionedasnotariespublic
are mandatedtodischarge withfidelity
thedutiesoftheiroffices,suchdutiesbeingdi
ctated bypublic policy
andimpressedwithpublicinterest.Itmust
be rememberedthatnotarizationisnot a
routinary,meaninglessact,fornotarization
convertsaprivate documentto a
publicinstrument,making itadmissible
inevidence without the necessity
ofpreliminary proof of itsauthenticity
anddue execution. A
notarizeddocumentisby law entitled
tofull
credituponitsfaceanditisforthisreasonthat
notariespublic mustobserve
thebasicrequirementsinnotarizing
documents.Otherwise, the confidence of
the publicon notorizeddocumentswillbe
TOPIC:DISBARMENT Violating Canon11 of the eroded.
A lawyerisfirstandforemostanofficerof SUSPENDEDfrom thepracticeof law for
ATTY.RICARDOSAL hisLawyersOathand/orgross CanonsofProfessionalEthic the court. Assuch,he isexpected aperiodof one (1)yeareffective uponhisreceipt
OMONJR.VS.ATTY. misconductarising s torespectthe of thisDecision.Letnotice of thisDecision be
JOSELITOC. fromhisactuationswithrespe courtsorderandprocesses.Atty. Frial enteredinhispersonalrecordas
ct to twoattached miserably fellshort ofhis
33
2008CASES
For hisnegligence
andunauthorizedpossessionof the cars,
we findAtty.Frial guilty ofinfidelity inthe
custody ofthe attachedcarsandgrave
misconduct.We mustmention,
atthisjuncture, thatthe
victoriouspartiesinthe case are not
withoutlegalrecourse inrecovering the
Volvosvaluefrom Atty.Frial shouldthey
desire todo so.
The Court, nevertheless, isnotinclinedto
impose, ascomplainanturges, theultimate
penalty ofdisbarment.
Theruleisthatdisbarmentismetedoutonly
inclearcasesofmisconductthatseriouslyaff
ect thestanding andmoralcharacterof a
lawyerasanofficerofthe
courtandmemberof the bar. With
theview wetake of the case, there
isnocompellingevidence tending
toshowthatAtty. Frialintended
topervertthe administration ofjustice
forsome dishonestpurpose.
34
2008CASES
shouldnot be decreedwhere
anypunishmentlesssevere,
suchasreprimand,suspension, orfine,
wouldaccomplishthe end
desired.Thisisasitshouldbe considering
the consequenceof disbarmenton the
economic life andhonorof the
erringperson.In the caseof Atty. Frial,
the Courtfindsthat
ayearssuspensionfromthe practice
ofhislegal professionwillprovide
himwithenoughtime to ponderon
andcleanse himselfof hismisconduct.
TOPIC: Notarizingseveraldocumentsd Rule 1.01 ofCanon 1of To besure, the SUSPENDEDfrom thepracticeof law for
DISBARMENTJESSIC espite the expirationof theCode of requirementsfortheissuance of a aperiodof six(6)months.Inaddition,
A C. UY hiscommission. ProfessionalResponsibility, commissionasnotarypublic mustnot be hispresentnotarialcommission,ifany,
VS.ATTY.EMMANUEL treatedasa merecasualformality. The isHEREBYREVOKED, and he
P.SAO Courthascharacterized a isDISQUALIFIEDfromreappointmentasanot
A.C. NO. lawyersactofnotarizingdocumentswithou ary publicfor a periodof two(2)years.
6505SEPTEMBER11, t HeisfurtherWARNEDthatany
2008ANTONIONACH therequisitecommissionthereforasrepreh similaractorinfractionin thefutureshallbe
URA ensible,constituting asitdoes, dealtwithmore severely.
notonlymalpractice, butalsothe crime
offalsificationof public documents.
Forsuchreprehensible conduct,the
Courthassanctionederring
lawyersbysuspensionfromthe practice of
law,revocationof the
notarialcommissionanddisqualificationfr
omacting assuch,andevendisbarment.
35
2008CASES
whoisperforming a
notarialactwithoutsuchcommissionisa
violation ofthelawyersoath toobey the
laws, morespecifically, the Notarial Law.
Then, too,by making itappearthat
heisdulycommissionedwhenhe isnot,
heis,forall legal intentsandpurposes,
indulgingindeliberate falsehood, which
thelawyersoathsimilarly proscribes
TOPIC: GRAVE Failure/refusal toresolve Violation The 1987 Fine ofP10,000.00 forundue delay
ABUSEOF theMotion to ofhisconstitutionalright toa Constitutionrequirestrialjudgesto inresolvingthe Motionto
DISCRETION,GROSSN WithdrawInformation. speedy dispositionof the case. dispose of the courtsbusinesspromptly WithdrawInformationinCriminal CaseNo.
EGLIGENCE,SERIOUS and todecide 6679, andanotherfine ofP10,000.00
INEFFICIENCY casesandmatterswithinthree forherrepeatedfailure to comply withthe
ANDVIOLATIONOFT (3)monthsfromthe filing of the Courtsdirectivestofile hercomment onthe
HECODE lastpleading, brieformemorandum. administrativecomplaintagainsther.
OFJUDICIALCONDUC Inthe disposition ofcases, membersof WeWARNthatanyrepetitionof these
T the orsimilaroffensesinthefutureshall be
MICHAELGAMALIELP benchhavealwaysbeenexhortedtostrictly dealtwithmore severely.
LATA adhereto thisrule topreventdelay, a
VS.JUDGELIZABETH majorculpritinthe erosionofpublic
G. TORRES faithandconfidence inourjustice system.
A.M. NO.MTJ-08- Thespeedy dispositionofcasesby
1721OCTOBER24,200 judgesisinfactunequivocally directed by
8JUSTICE BRION Canon6of the Code ofJudicial Ethics:
Heshouldbe promptindisposing of
allmatterssubmittedto
him,rememberingthatjustice
delayedisoftenjusticedenied. In the
presentcase, it tookrespondentJudge
more thanfive (5)yearsbefore
sheresolved asimplemotionto withdraw
the informationagainst the
complainant.Thisisindicative of the
grossinefficiency thatunderminesthe
peoplesfaithin thejudiciary
andreinforcesinthe mind ofthe
litigantsthe impressionthat thewheelsof
justice grindexceedinglyslow. We
cannotallow thistohappen,
36
2008CASES
particularly at a time whenthe
cloggingof the courtdocketsisoneof the
maincomplaintsagainstthe judiciary.
heracknowledgementthatworthlesscheck
swere issued by herinpayment ofthe
loan.
Immoralconducthasbeendescribedasthat
conductwhichisaswillful, flagrant,or
shamelessastoshow indifference tothe
opinion of
goodandrespectablemembersofthe
community.To be thebasisofdisciplinary
action,suchconductmustnotonly be
immoral, butgrossly immoral. That is,it
mustbeso
39
2008CASES
corruptastovirtually constitute
acriminalact orso unprincipledasto
bereprehensible to a highdegree
orcommittedundersuchscandalousorrev
olting circumstancesasto
shockthecommonsenseofdecency.
A review of therecordsreadily
revealsthatdespite the protracteddelay in
thehearingsmainly caused by
respondentsfailure to appear,
complainantrelentlessly
pursuedthisadministrativecase
againstherhusband.She was, to besure,
able to establish by clear,convincing,
andpreponderantevidencehiscommissio
nofmarital infidelity andabandonmentof
hisfamily.
TOPIC: For Violation ofB.P.22Canon The Courtconsidered the issuance SUSPENDEDfortwoyearsfromthe practiceof
DISBARMENTERRYT. violationofBatasPambansa 1of the Code ofworthlesschecksasviolation of law, effective uponhisreceipt of thisDecision.
WONGVS.ATTY.SALV 22(B.P. 22)andnon- ofProfessionalResponsibili thisRule Heiswarnedthata repetitionof thesameor
ADORN.MOYA II paymentof debt. ty andanactconstitutinggrossmisconduct asimilaractwill bedealtwithmore
. We alsoruledthat the
40
2008CASES
A.C. NO. issuance ofcheckswhichwere severely.
6972OCTOBER17,2 laterdishonoredfor Letcopiesof thisDecision be served
008LEONARDO- havingbeendrawnagainst a ontheCourtAdministratorwhoshall circulate it
DECASTRO closedaccountindicatesalawyersunfitnessf to allcourtsfortheirinformationandguidance
or the trustandconfidence reposed aswellasthe Office
onhim,showssuchlack of oftheBarConfidant,whichisdirectedtoappend a
personalhonesty copyto respondentspersonalrecord.
andgoodmoralcharacterastorenderhimun
worthy ofpublic confidence,
andconstitutesagroundfor disciplinary
action.
41
2008CASES
A.M. NO.08-1982- Complaints. connectionwith a case incourtisshownto
MTJOCTOBER17,2008 be clearly
ANTONIONACHURA unfoundedandbaselessandintended
toharasstherespondent,such a finding
should be includedin
thereportandrecommendationof
theOffice of the
CourtAdministrator.Ifthe
recommendationisapproved
oraffirmedbythe Court, the
complainantmay be requiredtoshow
cause why heshouldnot
beheldincontemptofcourt. If the
complainantis a lawyer, hemay further be
required toshow causewhy heor she
shouldnot beadministratively
sanctionedasa memberof theBar
andasanofficerof the court.
42
2008CASES
duties.Otherwise, the confidence of
thepublic in the integrity
ofthisformofconveyance would be
undermined.
43
2008CASES
on January 15, 2002,he
wasreprimandedandfinedP5,
000.00forincompetence innotacting
speedily onanelectioncase.
TOPIC: Misconduct, Section12 inrelation Asto the charge ofmisleading the CASE BE DISMISSEDforlack of merit.
DISBARMENTANTON concealmentofthe toSection3(f) ofRepublic courtbynot pointing out the notationsin
IO DEZUZUARREGUI, truthandmisleading Act(R.A.)No. 26. thetechnicaldescriptionandsketchplan,th
JRVS.ATTY. thecourt. ere appearsto
APOLONIA A. Requirementsof benomaliceorintentionalmachinationtom
C. SOGUILON theLandRegistrationAuthority islead thecourt. Indeed,
ADM. CASE NO. (LRA). thesaidnotationswerenot
4495JUSTICE TINGA hiddenormanipulatedbyRespondent.It
isclearthatRespondentand the
trialcourtcommittederrorthatshouldbe
characterizedasreversibleerrorin the
absence of proof
ofintentionalmachinationorcollusion.
44
2008CASES
jeopardized the
petitionforreconstitutionoftitle.
Nevertheless, itwasallowed bythe
trialcourt toprosper. Furthermore,
thereappearstobeno
reasonforRespondent todisbelieve or
nottorely ontherepresentationmadeto
herby herclient.
45
2008CASES
supervision.
Rule 140 of theRulesofCourt, asamended
by A.M. No.01-8-10-SC,classifiesthe
actofmaking untruthfulstatementsinthe
certificateof service asa lessseriouscharge
whichcarriesany ofthe
followingsanctions:suspensionfromoffice
withoutsalary andotherbenefitsfornot
lessthanone nor morethanthreemonths,
or a fineof morethanP10, 000.00 butnot
exceeding P20,000.00
TOPIC:
Violation of Lawyer’s Oath,Code ofProfessionalResponsibility,NotarialLaw,andRules onNotarialPractice of2004
47
2008CASES
(2) isnotpersonallyknowntothenota
rypublicorotherwiseidentifiedbythe
notarypublicthroughcompetentevid
enceof
48
2008CASES
identity asdefined by theseRules.
TOPIC:
Violation oftheNew Codeof JudicialConduct
Ajudgecannottakerefugebehindthei
nefficiencyormismanagementofhis
personnel.Heisresponsible,notonlyf
orthedispensationofjusticebutalsof
ormanaginghiscourtefficientlytoens
urethepromptdeliveryofcourtservic
es.Sinceheistheonedirectlyresponsi
blefor the proper
49
2008CASES
dischargeofhisofficialfunctions,hes
houldknowthecasessubmittedtohi
mfordecision,especiallythosependin
gformorethan90days(Visbalv.Sesc
on,A.M.No. RTJ-04-
1890,October11,2005,472SCRA
233).
TOPIC:
ViolationOfTheNotarialLaw,andCommissionofUnlawful,Dishonest,Immoral,AndDeceitfulConduct
50
2008CASES
Byrespondent’sadmission,thesignat
oriestothedocumentdidnotpersonal
lysignitinhispresence.He,however,cl
aimsthattheyappearedbeforehiman
dconfirmedtheiridentitiesandackno
wledgedthatthesignaturesappearing
thereonweretheirs.Bysuchomission,
hefailedtoheedhisdutyasanotarypub
lictodemandthatthedocumentforno
tarizationbesignedinhispresence.(Traya
,Jr.v.Villamor,466Phil.919,923
(2004)
TOPIC:
Gross Ignoranceof the Law AndAbuseOfDiscretion
OFFICEOFTHECOURTADM Section3(d)ofRule102oftheRules
INISTRATOR, JudgePerelloandClerkofCourtAtty. of Court,to wit: Inobstinatelygrantingthewritsof TheCourtfindsJudgeNormaC.Perell
vs.JUDGE LuisBucayonIIforgrossignoranceof habeascorpuseveniftheconvictedpriso oGUILTY of
NORMA C. thelaw,graveabuseofdiscretionandg Sec.3.Requisitesofapplicationtherefor.- nershadonlyservedtheminimumperi gross
PERELLO,formerClerkofCourt ravemisconduct Applicationforthewritshallbebypetit odoftheirsentence,JudgePerellodisp ignoranceofthelawandabuseofdiscr
LUISC.BUCAYONII, ionsignedandverifiedeitherbythepar layedablatantdisregardoftheruleong etion,forwhichsheismetedafine
CourtStenographersTHELMA Insomeofthepetitionsforhabeascorpu tyforwhosereliefitisintended,ofbyso raduationofpenaltiesaswellassettledj ofP40,000.00tobedeductedfromher
A.MANGILIT,CECILIOB.ARG s,respondentJudgePerelloerredinor mepersoninhisbehalf,andshall urisprudencetantamounttogrossign retirementbenefits.
AME,MARICARN.EUGENIO, deringthereleaseoftheprisonersbefo setforth: oranceofthelaw.Asatrialjudge,respo
andRADIGUNDA retheyhaveservedthe ndentisthevisiblerepresentationofla
R.LAMANandInterpreterPAUL fulltermoftheirsentence. (d)Acopyofthecommitmentorcaus wandjustice.
M.RESURRECCION,alloftheR eofdetentionofsuchperson,
egionalTrialCourt,
51
2008CASES
TOPIC:
Violation of Rule II ofthe2004 Rules ofNotarialPractice andCanon 1of the Code ofProfessionalResponsibility
ZENAIDAB.GONZALES,vs. The respondent had no RuleIIof the2004Rulesof The respondentclearlyfailedto ATTY. NARCISO
52
2008CASES
53
2008CASES
lawsofthelandandpromoterespectfo complyingwiththeformalitiesintend
rlawofandlegalprocesses. edtoensuretheintegrityofthenotariz
eddocumentandtheactoractsitembo
Rule1.01- dies(TrayaJr.v.Villamor,A.C.No
Alawyershallnotengageinunlawful,d .5595,February6,2004,422SCRA
ishonest,immoral ordeceitful 293).
conduct
54
2009CASES
TOPIC:
Violation of Canon18 of the Code ofProfessionalResponsibility
CANON18-
OFELIAR.SOMOSOT,vs. Therespondentdeniedthatfailedtoe Alawyershallservehisclientwithcom Heviolatedthebasicrule,expressedu RespondentATTY. GERARDO
ATTY.GERARDOF. LARA xercisethediligencerequiredof petenceanddiligence. nderCanon18oftheCode of F. LARAis
himascounsel ProfessionalRespon hereby SUSPENDEDfrom
A.C. No. Rule18.01- sibility. the
7024January Alawyershallnotundertakealegalser practiceoflawforaperiod ofthree
30,2009BRION, vicewhichheknowsorshouldknowth First,therespondentfailedtoprecisel (3)months,effectiveuponreceiptof a
J.: atheisnot qualifiedto renderxxx yallegeinhissubmissionshowhetried copy ofthisDecision.
tocontactthedefendantonoraboutth
Rule18.02.- etimetheinterrogatoriesandrequestf
Alawyershallnotneglectalegalmatter oradmissionwerepending.Itappears
withoutadequate preparation. thathereallyhadnot;byhisownadmis
sion,hisattempttocontactthecompla
inantcameinDecember2001andonly
Rule18.03.-
toinformherofhisgovernmentappoi
Alawyershallnotneglectalegalmatter
ntmentandtocollecthisbillings.Itwas
entrustedtohim,andhisnegligencein
onlyafterthediscoveryoftheclosureo
connectiontherewithshallrenderhi
fthedefendant'sofficedidtherespon
mliable.
denttrytocontactthecomplainantan
dherhusbandbycellularphone,butth
Rule18.04.- eycouldnotbe reached.
Alawyershallkeeptheclientinformed
of the Second. The
statusofhiscaseandshallrespondwit interrogatories/admissionissuehap
hinareasonabletimetotheclient'sreq penedinAugust2001,whichtellsusth
uestfor information. attherespondentataboutthattimewa
salreadyverysensitiveabouthisbilling
issueagainsthisclientashehadnotbee
npaidfromMaytoAugust2001.Assu
mingthenon-payment
55
2009CASES
tobetrue,suchfailureshouldnotbeare
asonnottoinformtheclientofanimpo
rtantdevelopment,orworse,towithh
oldvitalinformationfromher.Asthec
ourtheldinLuisitoBalatbatv.Atty.
EdgardoArias,(A.C.No.1666,Apr
il13,2007,
521SCRA1),aclientmustneverbeleft
inthedarkfortodosowoulddestroyth
etrust,faithandconfidencereposedin
theretainedlawyerinparticularandth
elegalprofessioningeneral.
Third.Therespondentfailedtoprovid
edetailsonthedevelopmentsthatledt
otheadverserulingsontheinterrogat
ories/admissionsandthejudgment
onthe pleadings.
TOPIC:
Violations ofthe Lawyer’s Oathandthe Code ofProfessionalResponsibility
56
2009CASES
CANON16– unlawful,dishonestanddeceitfulcon
Alawyershallholdintrustallmoneysa ductwhenhe
ndpropertiesofhisclientthatmaycom offeredpropertiesforsaletocomplain
eintohispossession. antonthe
misrepresentationthatcomplainant
Rule16.01– wasdealingwiththetrue
Alawyershallaccountforallmoneyor ownersthereof.
propertycollectedorreceivedfororfr
omthe client." Also,therespondentviolatedCanon
16andRule16.01oftheCPRwhen he
convincedcomplainant to pay bribe
money
toourjudgessince,heclaims,thatitisac
ommonpracticeinthePhilippines.
TOPIC:
Violation ofthe Canons of Responsibility
Theexistenceofanattorney-
WILHELMINAC.VIRGO,vs. ViolationofCanon1,Rule1.01andRu Canon1,Rule 1.01 andRule clientrelationshipbetweenAtty.Amo ResolutionNo.XVIII-2008-
ATTY.OLIVER V.AMORIN le1.02oftheCanonsofResponsibility 1.02oftheCodeofProfessionalRes rinandcomplainantwasnotestablish 77datedFebruary6,2008oftheIntegr
whentherespondentusedhislegalkn ponsibility: ed. atedBarofthePhilippinesisREVER
A.C. No. owledgeandtrainingtoinducecompla SEDandSETASIDE,andtheadmi
7861January inanttopartwithherpropertyandeve Rule1.01- Anattorney- nistrativecasefiledagainstAtty.Olive
30,2009 ntuallydefraudherin the process Alawyershallnotengageinunlawful,d clientrelationshipissaidtoexistwhen rV.AmorindocketedasA.C.No.7861
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,J.: ishonest,immoral ordeceitful alawyeracquiescesorvoluntarilyper isDISMISSEDwithoutprejudice.
conduct. mitstheconsultationofaperson,whoi
nrespecttoabusinessortroubleofany
Rule1.02- kind,consultsalawyerwithaviewofob
Alawyershallnotcounselorabetactivi tainingprofessionaladviceorassistan
tiesaimedatdefianceofthelaworatles ce.Itisnotessentialthattheclientshoul
seningconfidence in the dhaveemployedthelawyeronanypre
legalsystem. viousoccasionorthatany
57
2009CASES
retainershouldhavebeenpaid,promis
edorchargedfor;neitherisitmaterialt
hattheattorneyconsulteddidnotafter
wardundertakethecaseaboutwhicht
heconsultationwashad,foraslongast
headviceandassistanceoftheattorne
yissoughtandreceivedinmattersperti
nenttohisprofession.
Thereareinstances,however,whenth
eCourtfindsthatnoattorney-
clientrelationshipexistsbetweenthep
arties,suchaswhentherelationshipste
mmedfromapersonaltransactionbet
weenthemratherthanthepracticeofla
wofrespondentorwhenthelegalactsd
onewereonlyincidentaltotheirperso
naltransaction.(Uyv.Gonzales, A.
C.No.5280,March30,2004,426
SCRA 422,431).
TOPIC:
Violation oftheSummaryProcedure
Sections10and12ofthe1983Ruleso
NORYNS.TAN,vs.JUDGEMA Respondentissuedthewarrantofarre n Summary Procedure Respondentfailedtoupholdtherules, JudgeMariaClaritaCasuga-
RIACLARITACASUGA-TABIN stonthemistakenbeliefthatcomplain inSpecialCases forwhichsheshould Tabin,MunicipalTrialCourtinCities,
antwasactuallynotifiedof the beheldadministrativelyliable.Section Branch4,BaguioCityisherebyfound
A.M. No. MTJ-09- arraignment Sec.10. DutyoftheCourt.- s10and12ofthe1983RulesonSumma guiltyofabuseofauthorityforwhic
1729January 20,2009 Onthebasisofthecomplaintofinfor ryProcedureinSpecialCaseswerenot hsheisfinedinthesumof₱10,000.00.
mationandtheaffidavitsaccompanyi repealedbythe1991RevisedRules;stil
ngthesame,thecourtshallmakea litdoesnot justifythe warrantof
preliminary arrest
58
2009CASES
determinationwhethertodismissthe issuedinthiscase.
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,J.: caseoutrightforbeingpatentlywithou
tbasisormerit,ortorequirefurtherpro TheCourthasheldthatajudgecommit
ceedingstobetaken.Inthe sgraveabuseofauthoritywhenshehas
lattercase,thecourtmaysetthecaseforim tilyissuesawarrantofarrestagainstthe
mediatearraignmentofanaccusedundercusto accusedinviolationofthesummarypr
dy,andifhepleadsguilty,mayrenderjudgment ocedurerulethattheaccusedshouldfir
forthwith.Ifhepleadsnotguilty,andinallothe stbenotifiedofthechargesagainsthim
r andgiventheopportunitytofilehisco
cases,thecourtshallissueanorder,accom unter-
paniedbycopiesofalltheaffidavitssub affidavitsandcountervailingevidenc
mittedbythecomplainant,directingt e.(Daizv.Adason,353Phil.1, 7
hedefendant(s)toappearandsubmith (1998)
iscounter-
affidavitandthoseofhiswitnessesatas Whilejudgesmaynotalwaysbesubject
pecifieddatenotlaterthanten(10)days edtodisciplinaryactionforeveryerro
fromreceiptthereof. neousorderordecisiontheyrender,th
atrelativeimmunityisnotalicensetob
Failureonthepartofthedefend enegligent,abusiveandarbitraryinthe
anttoappear irprerogatives.Ifjudgeswantonlymis
wheneverrequired,shallcause usethepowersvestedinthembylaw,th
theissuanceofawarrantforhis erewillnotonlybeconfusioninthead
arrestifthecourtshallfindthataprob ministrationofjusticebutalsooppress
ablecauseexistsafteranexaminationi ivedisregard ofthebasic
nwritingandunderoathoraffirmation requirementsof due process.
ofthecomplainantandhiswitnesses.
Whilethereappearstobenomalicious
intentonthepartofrespondent,suchl
Sec.12. Bail not required; Exception. - ackofintent,however,cannotcomple
--
telyfreeherfromliability(Aguilarv.
Nobailshallberequiredexceptwhena
Dalanao,388Phil.717,724
warrantofarrestisissuedinaccordanc
(2000).
ewithSection10hereonorwheretheaccus
ed(a)is
arecidivist;(b)isfugitivefromjustice;(c)ischar
gedwithphysicalinjuries;(d)does
59
2009CASES
notresideintheplacewheretheviolationofthela
worordinancewascommitted,or
(e)hasnoknown residence.
TOPIC:
ViolatedRule 15,Section4of theRules ofCourt
RespondentJudgeactedwithoutthele Rule15,Section4oftheRulesof Respondentindeedtookcognizance TheCourtfindsrespondentGUILT
ATTY.ERNESTOA.TABUJAR galauthorityaspairingjudge Court oftheconsolidatedcaseswithoutprop Yofgrossignoranceoflawandproced
AIII,vs.JUDGEFATIMA ofBranch86consideringthattheregul Section4.Hearingofmotion.— erauthority.UnderSection8and11, ure.Shehavingbeenearlierdismissedf
GONZALES- arpresidingjudgethereatwasstillsittin Exceptformotionswhichthecourtm Rule140oftheRulesofCourt,asame romtheservice,sheisFINEDtheamo
ASDALA gassuchwhensheissuedtheorderof3 ayactuponwithoutprejudicingtherig ndedbyA.M.No.01-8- untofFortyThousand(₱40,000)Peso
1May2006andinviolationofthebasic htsoftheadverseparty,everywritten 10,thepenaltyofgrossignoranceofth stobedeductedfromtheEightyThou
A.M. No. RTJ-08- ruleonproceduraldueprocesswhens motionshallbesetforhearingbythe eprocedureandgrossmisconductisdi sand(₱80,000)PesoswhichthisCourt
2126January he resolvedex- applicant. smissalfromtheservicewithforfeitur withheldpursuanttoitsJanuary15,20
20,2009CARPIOMORA partethemotionofthecomplainant’s Everywrittenmotionrequiredtobehe eofallsalaries,benefitsandleavecredit 08ResolutioninEdañov. Asdala.
LES,J.: wife;and... ardandthenoticeofthehearingthereo stowhichshemaybeentitledandwith
incitingcomplainantincontemptofc fshallbeservedinsuchamannerastoe disqualificationfromreinstatemento
ourtandissuingthebenchwarrantwit nsureitsreceiptbytheotherpartyatlea rappointmenttoanypublicoffice,incl
houtrequiringthecomplainant to stthree(3)daysbeforethedateofheari udinggovernment-ownedor
filehiscommentonsaidex- ng,unlessthecourtforgoodcausesets controlledcorporatio
partemotionandexplainthereasonfo thehearingonshorternotice. (4a) n…
rhisfailuretoappearandbringthemin
orchildduringthehearingon01June2 Section8and11,Rule140oftheRule Respondentgravelyabusedherdiscre
006. sof Court,asamendedby tionwhenshe actedontheUrgentEx-
A.M. No. 01-8-10 ParteMotiontoOrderRespondenttoComply
withtheWritofHabeasCorpuswithUrgent
SEC.8.Seriouscharges.– MotionForPartialReconsideration(Ofthe
Seriouschargesinclude: OrderdatedMay31,2006).ThatJudgeB
1. Bribery, directorindirect; aymayhaveleftthecourtpremisesinth
2. DishonestyandviolationsoftheAn eafternoonofMay31,2006didnotjust
ti-GraftandCorruptPracticesLaw ifyheractingon evendateon
(R.A. No. 3019); motionof
60
2009CASES
3. Grossmisconductconstitutingvi complainant’swife,asherauthorityas
olationsoftheCodeofJudicialCondu pairingjudgecommencedonlythe
ct; followingday,June1,2006,whenJudg
4. Knowinglyrenderinganunjustjud eBay’sleaveofabsencestarted;Nordi
gmentororderasdeterminedbyacom drespondent’sopinionontheurgency
petentcourtinanappropriate ofthecasejustifyhersacrificinglawan
proceeding; dsettledjurisprudenceforthesakeofe
5. Convictionofacrimeinvolvingmo xpediency(Limv.Domagas,
ral turpitude; A.M.No.RTJ-92-
6. Willful failure topay a justdebt; 899,October15,1993,227 SCRA
7. Borrowingmoneyorpropertyfro 258,263).
mlawyersandlitigantsinacasependin
g before the court;
8. Immorality;
9. Grossignoranceofthelaworproce
dure;
10. Partisanpolitical activities; and
11. Alcoholismand/orvicioushabi
ts.
SEC.11.Sanctions.–
A.Iftherespondentisguiltyofaseriou
scharge,anyofthefollowingsanctions
may be imposed:
1. Dismissalfromtheservice,forfeit
ureofallorpartofthebenefitsastheCo
urtmaydetermine,anddisqualificatio
nfrom reinstatement
orappointmenttoanypublicoffic
e,includinggovernment-
ownedorcontrolledcorporations.Pr
ovided,however,thattheforfeitureof
benefitsshallinnocaseincludeaccrue
dleave credits;
2. Suspensionfromofficewithoutsal
aryandotherbenefitsformore
61
2009CASES
thanthree(3)butnotexceedingsix
(6)months; or
3.AfineofmorethanP20,000.00but
not exceedingP40,000.00
B. Iftherespondentisguiltyofalessse
riouscharge,anyofthefollowingsanct
ionsshallbeimposed:
1. Suspensionfromofficewithoutsal
aryandotherbenefitsfornotlessthan
one(1)normorethanthree
(3)months; or
2. AfineofmorethanP10,000.00but
not exceedingP20,000.00.
C.Iftherespondentisguiltyofalightch
arge,anyofthefollowingsanctionssha
ll be imposed:
1. AfineofnotlessthanP1,000.00b
utnotexceedingP10,000.00 and/or
2. Censure;
3. Reprimand;
4. Admonitionwithwarning
TOPIC:
Violation of Lawyer’s Oathandthe Code ofProfessionalResponsibility
62
2009CASES
(2) isnotpersonallyknowntothenota
rypublicorotherwiseidentifiedbythe
notarypublicthroughcompetentevid
enceofidentity asdefined by
theseRules.
63
2009CASES
TOPIC:
Violation ofthe Canons of ProfessionalResponsibility
Rule10.02-
Alawyershallnotknowinglymisquote
ormisrepresentthecontentsofapaper
,thelanguageortheargumentofoppos
ingcounsel,orthetextofadecisionora
uthority,orknowinglyciteaslawaprov
isionalreadyrenderedinoperativebyr
epealoramendment,orassertasafactt
hat
64
2009CASES
whichhasnotbeenproved.
Rule10.03-
Alawyershallobservetherulesofproc
edureandshallnot
misusethemtodefeattheendsofjustic
e.
TOPIC:
Violation ofthe ConstitutionandCode ofJudicialConduct
Rule1.02ofCanon1andRule
MA. THERESA Respondentjudgeisguiltyofunduede 3.05ofCanon3provideasfollows: Wefindunmeritoriousrespondentju RespondentJudge Torresis
G.WINTERNITZan layinrenderingadecisionororder dge’sexcusethatthereasonforherdela herebySUSPENDEDfromofficew
dRAQUEL Rule1.02.Ajudgeshouldadministerj yinresolvingthemotiontowithdrawis ithoutsalaryandotherbenefitsforone
L.GONZALEZ,vs.JUDGELIZA usticeimpartiallyandwithoutdelay. thelackofnoticeofhearinguponthep (1)month,withtheSTERNWARNI
BETHGUTIERREZ-TORRES arties.Firstly,sheshouldhaverealized NGthata
Rule3.05.Ajudgeshoulddisposeoft thatalmostone(1)yearhadalreadyela repetitionofthesameactshallbedealt
A.M. No. MTJ-09-1733February hecourt'sbusinesspromptlyanddeci psedfromthetimeoffilingofthemoti withmore severely.
24,2009LEONARDO- decaseswithintherequiredperiods. onto
DECASTRO,J.: withdrawonMay24,2002uptoitssub
Art.VIII,Section15(1)ofthe1987P missionforresolutiononJanuary13,2
hilippineConstitutionprovides: 003.Secondly,sheisduty-
boundtocomplywithRule3.05,Can
Allcasesormattersfiledaftertheeffect on3oftheCodeofJudicialConduct
ivityofthisConstitutionmust be providingthat a judge shall
decided or resolvedwithintwenty- disposeofthecourt’sbusinessprompt
fourmonthsfromdateofsubmissionf lyanddecidecaseswithintheprescribe
ortheSupremeCourt,and,unlessredu dperiods.ThisCanonisinconsonance
cedbytheSupremeCourt,twelvemon withtheConstitutionalmandatethata
thsforalllowercollegiatecourts,andth lllowercourtsdecideorresolvecaseso
reemonthsforallotherlower rmatterswithinthree(3)monthsfrom
theirdateofsubmission.
65
2009CASES
courts.
Topic:
Gross MisconductandViolation of Code ofProfessionalResponsibility
Alawyermaybedisciplinedforactsco
EUGENIAMENDOZA,vs.ATT Respondentguiltyofgrossmiscondu Canon1,Rule1.01andCanon7,Rul mmittedeveninhisprivatecapacityfo Atty.VictorV.Deciembreisherebyfo
Y. VICTOR ctandviolationoftheCode of e7.03oftheCodeofProfessionalRe ractswhichtendtobringreproachont undGUILTYofGROSSMISCON
V.DECIEMBRE ProfessionalResponsi sponsibilityprovides: helegalprofessionortoinjureitinthef DUCTand
bility avorableopinionofthepublic(Yap- VIOLATIONof Canon1,Rule
A.C. No. CANON1– Parasv. 1.01andCanon7,Rule7.03oftheCod
5338February Alawyershallupholdtheconstitution, Paras ,A.C.No.4947,February14, e of Professional
23,2009PERCUR obeythelawsofthelandandpromoter 2005,451 Responsibility. He
IAM: espectforlaw andlegalprocesses. SCRA194,202).Indeed,thereisnodis isDISBARR
tinctionastowhetherthetransgressio EDfromthepracticeoflawandhisna
Rule1.01.- niscommittedinalawyer'sprivatelife meisorderedstrickenofftheRollofAt
Alawyershallnotengageinunlawful,d orinhisprofessionalcapacity,foralaw torneyseffective immediately.
ishonest,immoral ordeceitful yermaynotdividehispersonalityasan
conduct. attorneyatonetimeandamerecitizena
tanother( Cojuangco,Jr.v.Palm
CANON7– a ,481Phil.646,655
Alawyershallatalltimesupholdtheint (2004).
egrityanddignityofthelegalprofessio
nandsupporttheactivitiesoftheinteg Inthiscase,evidenceaboundsthatres
ratedbar. pondenthasfailedtoliveuptothestan
dardsrequiredofmembersof the
Rule7.03.Alawyershallnotengagein legal profession.
conductthatadverselyreflectsonhisfi Specifically,respondenthastransgres
tnesstopracticelaw,norshouldhe,wh sedprovisionsoftheCodeofProfessi
etherinpublicorprivatelife,behavein onal Responsibility.
ascandalousmannertothediscreditof
the legalprofession.
66
2009CASES
TOPIC:
Violation of Code ofJudicialConductandthe Constitution
Itmustbestressedthateveryofficeror
employeeintheJudiciaryisdutyboun
dtoobeytheordersandprocessesofth
isCourt
67
2009CASES
withouttheleastdelayandtoexercisea
talltimesahighdegreeofprofessionali
sm(Chanv.Castillo,A.M.No.P-
94-
1055,November25,1994,238SCRA
359,361)
TOPIC:
Serious Misconduct
68
2009CASES
9. Grossignoranceofthelaworproce however,thattheforfeitureofbenefit
dure; sshallinnocaseincludeaccruedleavec
10. Partisanpolitical activities; and redits;(2)suspensionfromofficewith
11. Alcoholismand/orvicioushabi outsalaryandotherbenefitsformoret
ts. hanthreebutnotexceedingsixmonth
s;or(3)afineofmorethan
SEC.11.Sanctions. - ₱20,000.00butnot exceeding
A.Iftherespondentisguiltyofaseriou ₱40,000.00.
scharge,anyofthefollowingsanction
smay be imposed:
1. Dismissalfromtheservice,forfeit
ureofallorpartofthebenefitsastheCo
urtmaydetermine,anddisqualificatio
nfrom reinstatement
orappointmenttoanypublicoffic
e,includinggovernment-
ownedorcontrolledcorporations.Pr
ovided,however,thattheforfeitureof
benefitsshallinnocaseincludeaccrue
dleave credits;
2. Suspensionfromofficewithoutsal
aryandotherbenefitsformorethanth
ree(3)butnotexceedingsix
(6)months; or
3. AfineofmorethanP20,000.00but
not exceedingP40,000.00
B. Iftherespondentisguiltyofalessse
riouscharge,anyofthefollowingsanc
tionsshallbeimposed:
1. Suspensionfromofficewithoutsal
aryandotherbenefitsfornotlessthan
one(1)normorethanthree
(3)months; or
2. AfineofmorethanP10,000.00but
not exceedingP20,000.00.
69
2009CASES
C.Iftherespondentisguiltyofalightch
arge,anyofthefollowingsanctionssh
all be imposed:
1. AfineofnotlessthanP1,000.00b
utnotexceedingP10,000.00 and/or
2. Censure;
3. Reprimand;
4. Admonitionwithwarning.
TOPIC:
Gross Ignoranceof the Law andProcedure,Violation of Code ofJudicialConductandCode ofProfessionalResponsibility
70
2009CASES
TOPIC:
Gross Misconduct
RespondentviolatedCanons16and1
MARIAANGALAN,NENAAN Atty. Leonido C. Delante Canons16and17oftheCodeofProf 7of theCode of TheCourtfindsAtty.LeonidoC.Dela
GALAN, wasguilty ofviolatingCanons16and essionalResponsibilityprovides: ProfessionalResponsibility.Canon1 nte GUILTY
DIONICIO 17of the Codeof 6statesthatlawyersshallholdintrus ofviolatingCanons16and17oftheCo
ANGALAN,MAGDALENAAN ProfessionalResponsibility. CANON16- tallpropertiesoftheirclientsthatm deofProfessional Responsibility.
GALAN,FRANCISCAANGALA Alawyershallholdintrustallmoneysa aycomeintotheirpossession.Resp Accordingly, the
N,INISANGALAN,ROSALIN ndpropertiesofhisclientthatmaycom ondentshouldhaveheldintrustTCT CourtDISBARShimfromthepractic
OANGALAN,ANDJOSEFINA eintohisprofession. No.T- eoflawandORDERSthathisnameb
ANGALAN,ALLOF 9926andreturnedthepropertytocom estrickenfromtheRollof Attorneys.
WHOMAREHEIRSOF Rule16.03- plainantsupondemand(Rule
ANGALANSAMALmarriedtoSA "Alawyershalldeliverthefundsandpr 16.03oftheCodeofProfessional
NAANSAMAL,vs.ATTY.LEON opertyofhisclientwhendueorupond Responsibility). Instead
IDOC.DELANTE emand." of
holdingintrustthepropertyofcompla
A.C. No. CANON17- inants,respondent(1)transferredthet
7181February Alawyerowesfidelitytothecauseofhi itleofthepropertytohisname,(2)refus
6,2009PERCUR sclientandheshallbemindfulofthetru edtoreturnthepropertytocomplaina
IAM: standconfidencereposedinhim. nts,and
(3)referredtocomplainants’chargesa
smaliciousanduntruthful.
71
2009CASES
Canon17statesthatlawyersshallbe
mindfulofthetrustandconfidence
reposedinthem.Respondentshoul
dhavebeenmindfulofthetrustandco
nfidencecomplainantsreposedinhim
.Complainantsallegethattheyareillite
rateandthattheSpousesEustaquioto
okadvantageofthem.Complainantse
ngagedtheservicesofrespondentinth
ehopethathewouldhelpthemrecover
theirproperty.Insteadofprotectingth
einterestsofcomplainants,responde
nttookadvantageofcomplainantsan
dtransferredthetitleofthepropertyto
hisname.
ViolationofCanons16and17constitu
tesgrossmisconduct.( Hernandez
v.Go,A.C.No.1526,31January200
5,450SCRA
1).
TOPIC:
Multiple violations of theCode ofProfessionalResponsibility
72
2009CASES
Therespondent’sdisbarmentisanch
oredonhisabandonmentofhisclient.
Hewillnotbeabsolvedfromliabilityo
nthebasisaloneoftheseinconsequent
ialactswhichheclaimstohaveaccomp
lishedbecausetheglaringfactremains
thathehasfailedtoperformhis
73
2009CASES
essentialobligationstohisclient,tothe
courtsandto
society.Asthecomplainant’slawyer,t
herespondentisexpectedtoservehisc
lientwithcompetenceanddiligence(
CodeofProfessionalResponsibili
ty,Canon21).
TOPIC:
Violation ofJudicialEthics
74
2009CASES
id.,citingSorianov.Angeles,339
SCRA366,375(2000);
Peoplev.Kho,G.R.No.139381,A
pril20,2001,357
SCRA
290,citingGov.CA,221SCRA 397
(1993).
AstheCourtfindsnoappreciablepre
senceoffraud,dishonesty,corruptio
norbadfaith,theactsofrespondentr
enderedinhisjudicialcapacityareno
tsubjecttodisciplinaryaction,evenif
theyareerroneous(Datuin,Jr.v.So
riano,supra,citingCansonv.Gar
chitorena,311SCRA268,287(199
9);
Causinv.Demecilio,A.M.
No.RTJ-04-1860,September8,
2004,437SCRA594,606;
Rondinav.Bello,Jr.,A.M.
No.CA-05-43,July8,2005,463
SCRA 1,14.).
TOPIC:
Gross ignorance ofthelaw
TheCourtfindsrespondentJudgeRei
ATTY. NORLINDA Respondentcommittedgrossignora Rule3.02Canon3oftheCodeofJudi Itiselementarythatnoteveryerroror nerioAbraham B. Ramasof
R.AMANTE- nceofthelaw,grossnegligence,andvi cialConduct mistakethatajudgecommitsintheper theRegionalTrialCourtofPagadianC
DESCALLAR,vs. olationoftheCode of Judicial formanceofhisdutiesrendershimliab ity, Branch18, GUILTY:
JUDGE Conduct. CANON3:Ajudgeshouldperformo le,unlessheisshowntohaveactedinba
REINERIOAB fficialdutieshonestly,andwithimparti dfaithorwithdeliberateintenttodoani 1)ofgrossignoranceofthelawinMisc.
RAHAM B. RAMAS, ality anddiligence. njustice.Goodfaithandabsenceof No.2825andMisc.No.2887,forwhic
RegionalTrialCourt,Branch18,P malice,corruptmotivesor hheissuspendedfrom officeforsix
agadianCity RULE3.02- In everycase,a (6)months
A.M. No. RTJ-08-2142
75
2009CASES
TOPIC:
Manipulationormisrepresentation oftherecords ofproceedings
76
2009CASES
lessthananyotherpublicofficer
(Peoplev.Belaro,367Phil.91,
100(1999).Thepresumptionofregula
rityofofficialactsmayberebutted
byaffirmativeevidenceofirregularity
orfailuretoperformaduty(Peoplev.
De Guzman,
G.R.No.106025,9February1994,2
29SCRA795,799).Thepresumption
,however,prevailsuntilitisovercome
bynolessthanclearandconvincingevi
dencetothecontrary.Unlessthepresu
mptionisrebutted,itbecomesconclus
ive.Everyreasonableintendmentwill
bemadeinsupportofthepresumption
andincaseofdoubtastoanofficer’sact
beinglawfulorunlawful,construction
shouldbeinfavorofitslawfulness(M
agsucangv.JudgeBalgos,446
Phil.217,224-225(2003).
Judgesmustnotonlybefullycognizan
tofthestateoftheirdockets;likewise,t
heymustkeepawatchfuleyeonthelev
elofperformanceandconductofthec
ourtpersonnelundertheirimmediate
supervisionwhoareprimarilyemploy
edtoaidin
theadministrationofjustice.Thelenie
ncyofajudgeintheadministrativesup
ervisionofhisemployeesisanundesir
abletrait.It isthereforenecessarythat
77
2009CASES
judgesshouldexerciseclosesupervisi
onovercourtpersonnel(Dysicov.Ju
dgeDacumos,330Phil.834,842(19
96).RespondentJudgePanontongan
must
thereforebewarnedtobemorecircum
spectinhersupervisionofcourtperso
nnel,suchasrespondentProcessServ
erTiraña.
TOPIC:
Violation ofthe Code ofProfessionalResponsibility,andImproperconduct
Itisfoundthatrespondentisnotadmi
ATTY.GODOFREDOC.MANI Allegedcommissionofforumshoppi Canon1,Rule1.01oftheCodeof nistrativelyliableforlackofshowingt ResolutionNo. XVIII-2008-58 of
PUD,vs. nginviolationofhisattorney’soathan ProfessionalResponsibility : hatthefilingofthesecondcomplaint theIntegrated Bar of
ATTY. dinviolationofCanon1, Rule 1.01 wasdonedeliberatelyandwillfullytoc thePhilippinesDISM
FELICIANOM.BAUTISTA of the Code CANON1- ommitforumshopping.Thus: ISSING
ofProfessionalResponsibility,andfo Alawyershallupholdtheconstitution thecomplaintforallegedcommissionoff
A.C. No. r improperconduct ,obeythelawsofthelandandpromote Forumshoppingmustbewillfulandd orumshoppinginviolation of
6943March13,2 respectforlawofandlegalprocesses. eliberate.Section5,Rule7oftheRul hisattorney’soathandinviolationofCan
009 esof on1,Rule1.01oftheCodeofProfessiona
YNARES-SANTIAGO,J.: Rule1.01- Courtrequiresthat,shouldtherebea lResponsibility,andforimpropercondu
Alawyershallnotengageinunlawful, nypendingactionorclaimbeforeany ctfiledby
dishonest,immoral ordeceitful court,tribunalorquasi- Atty.GodofredoC.ManipudagainstAtt
conduct. judicialagency,acompletestatement y.Feliciano M.
ofitsstatusshouldbe given. Baustista,isAFFIRM
Section5,Rule7oftheRulesof ED
Court:
Theobjectiveoftheruleagainstforu
Section5.Certificationagainstf m-
shoppingwascitedinMunicipalityo
orumshopping.—
fTaguig,etalvs.CourtofAppeals.
Theplaintifforprincipalpartyshallce
SaidtheSupreme Court –
rtifyunderoathinthecomplaintorot
herinitiatorypleadingassertinga
claimfor Whatistrulyimportantto
78
2009CASES
relief,orinasworncertificationannex considerindeterminingwhetherforu
ed thereto mshoppingexistsornotisthevexatio
andsimultaneously ncausedthecourtsandparties-
filedtherewith:(a)thathehasnotther litigantsbyapartywhoasksdifferentc
etoforecommencedanyactionorfile ourtsand/oradministrativeagencies
danyclaiminvolvingthesameissuesi toruleonthesameorrelatedcausesan
nanycourt,tribunalorquasi- d/orgrantthesameorsubstantiallyth
judicialagencyand,tothebestofhiskn esame reliefs,inthe
owledge,nosuchotheractionorclaim processcreatingthepossibilityofcon
ispendingtherein;(b)ifthereissuchot flictingdecisionsbeingrenderedbyth
herpendingactionorclaim,acomplet edifferentforaupon thesame issues.
estatementofthepresentstatusthere
of;and(c)ifheshouldthereafterlearnt Inthiscase,nounduevexationwasca
hatthesameorsimilaractionorclaim usedtotheCourtandpetitionerasthef
hasbeenfiledorispending,heshallre actoffilingofthefirstcasewasallegedi
portthatfactwithinfive(5)daystheref nthesecondcomplaintandsecondly,
romtothecourtwhereinhisaforesaid soonthereafter,inasmuchasbothcas
complaintorinitiatory eswereraffledtothesamebranch,the
pleadinghasbeenfiled. firstcasewasdismissedbythesaidCo
urt.Hence,therewasnodangerofdiff
Failuretocomplywiththeforegoingr erentcourtsrulingonthesame issues.
equirementsshallnotbecurablebym
ereamendmentofthecomplaintorot
herinitiatorypleadingbutshallbecau
seforthedismissalofthecasewithout
prejudice,unlessotherwiseprovided
,uponmotionandafterhearing.Thes
ubmissionofafalsecertificationorno
n-
compliancewithanyoftheundertaki
ngsthereinshallconstituteindirectco
ntemptofcourt,withoutprejudicetot
hecorrespondingadministrativeand
criminal
79
2009CASES
actions.Iftheactsofthepartyorhisco
unselclearlyconstitutewillfulanddeli
berateforumshopping,thesameshal
lbegroundforsummarydismissalwit
hprejudiceandshallconstitutedirect
contempt,aswellasacausefor
administrative sanctions. (n)
TOPIC:
Violation ofthe Code ofProfessionalResponsibility
RespondentAtty.CesarR.Tajanlangi
AVITOYU,vs.ATTY.CESAR Complaintfordisbarmentfiledbyco Rule16.01oftheCodeofProfession Recordsshowthatrespondentdidnot tisorderedtorender,withinthirty(30)
R.TAJANLANGITAD mplainantAvitoYuagainstresponde alResponsibility serveascomplainant’slawyerattheinc daysfromnoticeofthisResolution,an
M.CASE ntAtty.CesarR.Tajanlangitforviolati eptionoforduringthetrialofCriminal accountingofallmonieshereceivedfr
NO.5691March13,2009 onofRules CANON16- CaseNo.96- omcomplainantandtoitemizethenat
TINGA,J.: 18.03and16.01oftheCodeofProfessi Alawyershallholdintrustallmoneysa 150393whichresultedtotheconvicti ureofthelegalserviceshehadrendere
onalResponsibility ndpropertiesofhisclientthatmaycom onofthelatter.Infact,respondentwas d,inclusiveoftheexpenseshehadincu
eintohisprofession. onlyengagedascounselafterthewithd rred,incompliancewithRule16.01oft
rawalofappearanceofcomplainant’sl heCodeofProfessionalResponsibilit
Rule16.01- awyersanddenialoftheMotionforRe y.
Alawyershallaccountforallmoneyor considerationand/orNewTrialandt
propertycollectedorreceivedfororfr hesupplementthereto.Atthattime,co Respondent is
omthe client. mplainanthadalready furtherADMO
beenincarcerated. NISHEDthatcommissionofthesam
CANON18- eorsimilaractinthefuturewillbedealt
Alawyershallservehisclientwithcom InGarciav.Atty.Manuel(443Phil. withmoreseverely.
petenceanddiligence. 429(2003),theCourtheldthat"thehig
hlyfiduciaryandconfidentialrelation
Rule18.03- ofattorneyandclientrequiresthatthel
Alawyershallnotneglectalegalmatter awyershouldpromptlyaccountfor all
entrustedtohim,andhisnegligencein
connectiontherewithshallrender
80
2009CASES
himliable. thefundsreceivedfrom,orheldbyhim
for,theclient."Thefactthatalawyerha
salienforhisattorney’sfeesonthemon
eyinhishandscollectedforhisclientdo
esnot relieve himfrom the
obligationtomakeapromptaccounti
ng(Schulzv.Atty.Flores,462Phil.6
01,612-613 (2003).
TOPIC:
Gross Misconduct
81
2009CASES
alwaysbe beyondreproach.
RULE5.04-
Ajudgeoranyimmediatememberoft Nogovernmentpositionismoredem
hefamilyshallnotacceptagift,bequest andingofmoralrighteousnessandupr
,factororloanfromanyoneexceptasm ightnessthanaseatinthejudiciary.Jud
ay be allowed by law. gesasmodelsoflawandjusticeareman
datedtoavoidnotonlyimpropriety,b
utalsotheappearance of
impropriety,becausetheirconductaff
ectsthepeople’sfaithandconfidencei
ntheentirejudicialsystem(Adrianov.
JudgeVillanueva,A.M.No.MTJ-
99-
1232,19February2003,citingYu-
Asensiv.Villanueva,322 SCRA
255,19 January2000).
TOPIC:
Violation ofthe Code ofJudicialConduct
82
2009CASES
TOPIC:
Dishonesty,Gross Ignorance of andContemptforthe Law,Gross Inefficiency andNegligence,andViolations oftheNew Codeof JudicialConductforthe
PhilippineJudiciaryandtheJudge’sOath
PROVINCIAL NewCodeofJudicialConductfort Inthecaseatbar,respondentjudgeviol
PROSECUTORMANUEL Respondentjudgewascomplainedfo hePhilippineJudiciary atedSections1and2ofCanon2andSe ForDishonesty,GrossIgnoranceofa
F.TORREVILLAS,vs.JUDGE rDishonesty,GrossIgnoranceofand ctions1and2,Canon4oftheNewCod ndContemptfortheLaw,GrossIneffi
ROBERTOA.NAVIDAD,REGI ContemptfortheLaw,GrossInefficie CANON2- eofJudicialConductforthePhilippin ciencyandNegligence,andViolations
ONALTRIAL ncyandNegligence,andViolationsoft Integrityisessentialnotonlyto the eJudiciary. oftheNewCodeofJudicialConductf
COURT,BRANCH32,CALBAY heNewCodeofJudicialConductfort properdischargeofthejudicialofficeb orthePhilippineJudiciaryandtheJudg
OGCITY hePhilippineJudiciaryandtheJudge’s utalsotothepersonaldemeanorofjud Inthedischargeofa e’sOath,respondent,JudgeRoberto
Oath ges. judge’sduties,however,whentheinef A.Navidad,whohas,inthemeantime
A.M No. RTJ-06- ficiencyspringsfromafailuretoconsi died,isineachofthese
1976April29,2009 SECTION1.Judgesshallensurethat dersobasicandelementalarule,alawo casessubjectofthisDecisionFINEDt
x- - -- -- - -- -- -- - -- -- -- - -- notonlyistheirconductabovereproac raprinciple,thejudge is heamountofFortyThousand(₱40,00
x h,butthatitisperceivedtobesointhevi eithertooincompete 0)Pesos.TheFinancialManagement
ewofareasonable observer. ntandundeservingofthepositionand Office,OfficeoftheCourtAdministr
REPORTONJUDICIALA titleheholds,oristooviciousthattheo atorisauthorizedtodeductthetotal
UDIT CONDUCTEDIN SEC.2. Thebehaviorandconductof versightor
judgesmustreaffirmthe
83
2009CASES
84
2009CASES
Topic:Dishonesty andgrave misconduct.
Act/s complainedof: Legalbasis/bases Supreme Court’s Ruling Case Disposition
Aquino vs.Manio ofthe charge/s
Thiscaseisaconsolidatedadministrativechar Shetookadvantageofherofficialpositionanddef Respondent was
A.M. NO.P-07- gesagainstCourtInterpreterIIIMaritesR.Ma Violation ofthe Code raudedpotentiallitigant.Heractsclearlyconstitut heldadministrati
2298April 24, 2009 niofordishonestyandgravemisconductandf ofConductforcourtperso edishonestywhichisthe"dispositiontolie,cheat, velyguiltyofdishonestyandgravemisc
Ponente:LEONARDO- orforgingthesignatureofaJudgetodefraudt nnel deceiveordefraud;untrustworthiness;lackofinte onduct.Inviewofherpreviousdismiss
DE CASTRO, J hepublic. grity;lackofhonesty,probity,orintegrity alfromtheservice,aFINEof₱40,000.
inprinciple;lackoffairnessandstraightforwardne 00isimposeduponhertobedeductedfr
Severalcomplainantswenttorespondentan ss;dispositiontodefraud,deceiveorbetray.Thefo omheraccruedleave benefits.
dinquiredfromherifsheknewalawyerwhoco rgerythatshecommittedinfurtheranceofthedec
uldhelpthemforthecorrectionofentryinthe eitconstitutesgravemisconductora"flagrantlyor
marriagecertificate.Respondentmisreprese shamefullywrongorimproperconduct.
ntedthatshehasauthorityandconnectionsto
obtainfavorableconsiderationtothecompla
inants.However,itresultednegative.
Topic:Failed toServehisClientwithCompetenceandDiligence
Carandang vs. ThisisacomplaintfiledbyCarlito Canon18, andRules Atty.ObminaviolatedCanon18,andRules Atty.ObminaisfoundGUILTY
Atty.Obmina P.CarandangagainstAtty.GilbertS.Obmina 18.03 and18.04 of 18.03and18.04oftheCodeofProfessionalRespo ofviolationofCanon18andofRules
.Atty.ObminawascounselforCarandanginc theCode of nsibility.AlsoAtty.ObminaFailedtoServe 18.03and18.04oftheCodeofProfessi
A.C. No. ivilcase.CarandangbroughtsuitforAtty.Ob ProfessionalResponsi Complainant onalResponsibility.TheCourtsuspen
7813April 21, mina’sfailuretoinformhimoftheadversedec bility withCompetence andDiligence. dshimfromthepracticeoflawforoneye
2009CARPIO isioninsaidcaseandforfailuretoappealthede ar,andwarnsthatarepetitionofthesam
,J cision. Atty.Obmina’sfutileeffortsofshiftingtheblame eorsimilaroffensewillbedealtwithmo
onCarandangonlyservetoemphasizehisfailuret re severely.
onotifyCarandangthatthereisalreadyadecisioni
nsaidCivilCasethatwasadversetoCarandang’sin
terests.Atty.ObminacannotoverlookthatCaran
danglearnedaboutthepromulgationofthedecisi
onnotthroughhimbutthroughachance visit
tothe trialcourt.
Topic:GrossIgnoranceoftheLaw,gravemisconduct
85
2009CASES
Baculi vs.Belen ComplainantProsecutorBaculifiledagainstt Rule 1.01.andRule 3.01 Chargesforindirectcontemptshallbecommence RespondentJudgewasguiltyofgrossig
heaccusedJayBallestrinosinformationforfr ofthe Code dbyaverifiedpetitionwithsupportingparticulars noranceofthelawandissuspendedfora
A.M. No.RTJ-09- ustratedhomicide.Inthecourseoftheprocee ofJudicialConduct andcertifiedtruecopiesofdocumentsorpapersin periodofsixmonthswithoutsalaryand
2176April 20, dings,complainantBaculifiledseveralpleadi volvedtherein,anduponfullcompliancewithther otherbenefitsandalsoSTERNLYWA
2009NACHURA, J. ngsthusrespondentJudgedirectedhereinco equirementsforfilinginitiatorypleadingsforcivil RNEDthatarepetitionofthesameorsi
mplainantBaculitoexplainwhyheshouldnot actionsinthe courtconcerned. milaractsshallmeritamore
becitedincontemptofcourtformakingunfo seriouspenalty.
undedstatementsinhispleadings. Ajudgemustbeacquaintedwithlegalnormsandp
Respondent receptsaswellaswithproceduralrules.Verily,failu
foundcomplainantguiltyo retofollowbasiclegalcommandsembodiedinthe
fdirectcontemptformakingscurrilousandco lawandtherulesconstitutesgrossignoranceofthe
ntumaciousstatementsinthelatter’sUrgent law,fromwhichnoone isexcused
ReiterativeMotion.
Thereafter,complainantfiledtheinstantcom
plaint,asseverating,thatrespondentviolated
Section7,Rule71oftheRulesofCourtandpre
vailingjurisprudenceinholdinghimliablefori
ndirectcontemptbecausetheuseofcontemp
tuouslanguagein
apleading,ifsubmittedbeforethesamejudge,
wouldconstituteonly
directcontemptofcourt.
86
2009CASES
the year2003.
Topic:Preparingandnotarizingillegallease contracts,grossmisconduct
Kupersvs. ComplainantclaimedthatascounselforHan Canon 1 Rule 1.02, Canon Respondentsdraftingandpreparingofthesubject Atty.JohnsonB.Hontanosas,isfound
Atty.Hontanosa sandVivianBusse,respondenthadprepared 15 Rule 15.07 contractsclearly guilty ofviolatingthelawyer’soathand
s amemorandumofagreementandacontracto andCanon17 of theCPR showsthatitviolatedthelawlimitingleaseofprivat grossmisconduct.HeisSUSPENDE
fleasebetweenthespousesBusseandHochst elandstoaliensforaperiodoftwentyfive(25)years Dfromthepracticeoflawforsix(6)mo
A.C. No. rasser,aSwissnational.Inanotheragreement Section27,Rule138ofthe renewableforanothertwentyfive(25)years.Inpre nthswitha
5704May 8, preparedbyrespondentforhisforeignclients Rulesof Court. paringandnotarizingillegalleasecontracts,respo WARNINGthatarepetitionofthesa
2009Tinga, J. itstatedthatitwouldleaseVivianBusse’sprop ndentviolatedtheAttorney’sOathandseveralcan meorsimilaractwillbedealtwithmore
ertyinAlcoy,Cebuforfifty(50)years,renewa onsoftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility.O severely
bleforanotherfifty(50)years.Respondentpr neoftheforemostsworndutiesofanattorney-at-
eparedasimilaragreementandleasecontract lawisto "obey the lawsofthe Philippines.
between
thespousesEmberger,aSwissnational,overa
notherparceloflandCebu.Allfour(4)docum
entswerenotarizedbyrespondent.Itwasalso
respondentwho
87
2009CASES
draftedtwodeedsofsaleovertheleasedprope
rties.
Topic:Gross misconductforrepresentingconflictinginterests,gross ignoranceof thelaw
Buehsvs. Atty. Bacatan ApetitionforthedisbarmentofrespondentA Rule 15.01 andRule RespondentwastheVoluntaryArbitratorforthe Atty.InocencioT.BacatanisfoundGU
tty.InocencioT.Bacatanfiledbycomplainan 15.03of theCPR partiesin ILTYofgrossmisconductforrepresen
A.C. No. tRobertBernhardBuehs,chargingresponde theillegaldismissalcase.However,insteadofexhi tingconflictinginterests,grossignoran
6674June 30, ntwithrepresentationofconflicting bitingneutralityandimpartialityexpectedofanar ceofthelawforissuinganorderwithout
2009PERALT interestsandgrossmisconductforusurpatio bitrator,respondentindorsedacriminalcomplai authority,andfailuretoupdatehismem
A, J nofauthority. nttotheOfficeoftheCityProsecutorofZamboan bershipduesto
gaCityforpossiblecriminalprosecutionagainsth theIBP;andisSUSPENDEDfromthe
Complainantallegedthat: ereincomplainant,andsignedthesaidIndorseme practiceoflawfortwo(2)yearswithster
ntascounselforcomplainantsin the illegal nwarningthatarepetitionofthesameo
1. Respondentclearlyrepresentedconflic dismissal case rsimilaractswillbedealtwith
tinginterestsbyactingascounselforAlvareza moreseverely.
ndMalukuhinthecriminalcasetheyfiledagai Grossmisconducthasbeendefinedasanyinexcus
nsthereincomplainantwhilethelaborcasefil able,shamefulorflagrantlyunlawfulconduct on
edbyAlvarezandMalukuhagainstcomplaina the part of the
ntwasstillpending before him. personinvolvedintheadministrationofjustice,co
nductthatisprejudicialtotherightsofthepartieso
2. Respondentusurpedthejudicialpowers rtotherightdeterminationofthecause.Suchcond
oftheRegionalTrialCourtandthehigherjudi uctisgenerallymotivatedbyapremeditated,obsti
cialauthoritiesbyissuingaHoldDepartureO nateorintentionalpurpose.Theterm,however,d
rder/WatchlistOrderwithoutany notice or oesnotnecessarilyimplycorruptionorcriminalin
hearing. tent.
Topic:Violation of NotarialLaw
88
2009CASES
Judge Laquindanum ThisadministrativecaseagainstAtty.Nestor 2004 Ruleson Theactofnotarizingdocumentsoutsideone’sare Atty.NestorQuintana,notarialcommi
vs.Atty. Quintana Q.QuintanastemmedfromaletterfiledbyEx NotarialPractice aofcommissionpartakesofmalpracticeoflawan ssionisrevokedandheisdisqualified
ecutiveJudgeLilyLydia dfalsification.Notarizingdocumentswithanexpi from
A.C. No. A.LaquindanumoftheRegionalTrialCourto Canon 7 andCanon redcommissionisaviolationof beingcommission
7036June 29, fMidsayap,Cotabatorequestingthatproper 9ofthe CPR thelawyer’soathtoobeythelaws.Itamountstoind edasnotarypublicforaperiodoftwo(2)
2009PUNO,C disciplinaryactionbeimposedonhimforperf ulgingindeliberatefalsehood,whichthelawyer'so years.HeisalsoSUSPENDEDfromth
J ormingnotarialfunctionsinMidsayap,Cotab athproscribes. epracticeoflaw for six(6)months.
ato,whichisbeyondthe territorial
jurisdiction Atty.Quintanaispersonallyaccountableforthed
ofthecommissioningcourtthatissuedhisnot ocumentsthatweresignedbyhiswifeandthus,gui
arialcommission,andforallowinghiswife to ltyofviolatingCanon9oftheCodeofProfessional
do notarialactsinhisabsence. Responsibility,whichrequireslawyersnottodirec
tlyorindirectlyassistinthe unauthorizedpractice
of law.
89
2009CASES
20customspersonneltodifferentportsandof
fices.
A.M.No.RTJ-07-
2066respondentdismissedthecivilcaseonth
eprincipalgroundofprescription
Topic:Gross misconduct
Lihaylihay vs. JudgeCandawaschargedof(1)bullying; Section1, Canon Judgesarerequiredtobetemperateintheirlangua JudgeCandaisfinedintheamount
JudgeCanda (2)ridiculing,humiliating,andbesmirchingh 2ofCode of Judicial geatalltimes.Theymustrefrainfrominflammator ₱40,000andsternlywarnsthatarepetiti
erreputationbypublishinginthenewspaperd Conduct yorvilelanguage.Theyshouldbedignifiedindeme onofthesameorsimilaractsshallbedea
A.M.Nos.MTJ-06-1659 escribingherasaGROandawhore;(3)sendin anorandrefinedinspeech,exhibitthattemperam ltwithmoreseverely.
&MTJ-09- gherthreateningtextmessages;and(4)sendin Section6, Canon entofutmostsobrietyandself-
1730June 18, gLihaylihayindecenttextmessages. 4ofCode of Judicial restraint,andbeconsiderate,courteous,andcivilt
2009CARPIO, Conduct oallpersons.Judgemustatalltimesbetemperatein
J. hislanguage.Hemustchoosehiswords,writtenor
Section6, Canon spoken,withutmostcareandsufficientcontrol.
6ofCode of Judicial
Conduct
Topic:Ignorance ofbasiclaw,representingfalsehood onhis client
Esguerra vs. Atty. Mas KeldStemmerikwhoisacitizenandresidento Canon 1of the CPR Lawyers,asmembersofanobleprofession,havet NationalBureauofInvestigation(NBI
fDenmarkconsultedrespondentwhoadvise hedutytopromoterespectforthelawandupholdt )isORDERED to
A.C. No. dhimthathecouldlegallyacquireandownreal Section7,ArticleXIIofthe heintegrityofthebar.Lawyersareservantsofthela locateAtty.Masandfiletheappropriate
8010June 16, propertyinthePhilippines.Respondenteven Constitution w criminal chargesagainsthim.
2009PerCuria suggestedapropertyinQuarry,Agusuin,Caw andthelawistheirmaster.Theyshouldnotsimply
m ag,Subic,Zambaleswiththeassurancethatth obeythelaws,theyshouldalsoinspirerespectfora
epropertywasalienable. ndobediencetheretobyservingasexemplarswort
hy ofemulation.
Becauseofthis,complainantpurchaseaprop
ertythroughrespondentashisrepresentative UndertheConstitution,aliensmaynotacquirepri
orattorney-in- vateoragriculturallands,includingresidentiallan
factinwhichhegave3.8milliontorespondent ds.Respondent,ingivingadvicethatdirectlycontr
.He alsoengagedthe servicesof adictedafundamentalconstitutionalpolicy,show
eddisrespectforthe Constitutionandgross
90
2009CASES
respondentforthepreparationofthenecessa ignoranceofbasiclaw.Worse,hepreparedspurio
rydocumentandpaidagainanamountofPhp usdocumentsthatheknewwerevoidandillegal.
400,000 for
suchservices.Afterthesetransactions,compl
ainanttriedtogetintouchwithrespondentthe
latterbecamescarceandrefusedtoanswerco
mplainant’scallsande-mails.
Topic:Gross neglectofduty
Judge Simbulanvs. JudgeNicasioV.Bartolome,togetherwithoth Rule 3.08 andRule Itistheresponsibilityofthejudgetoalwaysseetoitt PresidingJudgeNicasioBartolome(ret
JudgeBartolome erCourtpersonnelchargedincommittinggrav 3.09of the Code hathis/herordersareproperlyandpromptlyenfo ired)GUILTYofgrossneglectofdutyf
eerrorsanddiscrepanciesinprocessingthesur ofJudicialConduct rced,andthatcaserecordsareproperlystoredand orwhichheismetedafineintheamount
A.M. No.MTJ-05- etybondfortheaccusedinCriminalCase.Alsor kept.Thus,inthepresentcase,respondentJudgeh ofFortyThousandPesos(₱40,000.00)
1588June 5, espondentdelayedinthetransmissionofthisb imselfshouldhaveverifiedthatthedocumentsfor ,tobedeductedfromhisretirementben
2009PERALTA, J. ondandotherdocumentswerenotproperlyatt bailwerecompleteandcorrectinsteadofrelyingo efits;and
ached. ntherepresentationsofhisclerkofcourt.Acourtp
ersonneladmissionofnegligencecannotexcuser
espondentJudgefromliabilityintheirregularproc
essingofthe bail bond.
91
2009CASES
notarypubliccomplementedherfunctionsas unauthorized,isclassifiedasalightoffensepunish
DeputyRegisterofDeedsbecauseresponde able byreprimand
ntcouldimmediatelyhavedocumentsnotari
zedinsteadoftheregistrantsgoingoutoftheo
fficetolookfor a notary public
92
2009CASES
merelysuspendedandnotdismissedfromtheserv
ice,hewasstillboundundertheprohibition.
Topic:Representingclients withconflictinginterest
Pacana, Jr.vs. AdministrativecomplaintfiledbyRolandoP Rule 15.03 oftheCPR Inthecourseofalawyer- AttorneyMaricelPascual-
Atty.Lopez acana,Jr.againstAtty.MaricelPascual- clientrelationship,thelawyerlearnsallthefactsco LopezisherebyDISBARREDforrepr
Lopezchargingthelatterwithflagrantviolati nnectedwiththeclient’scase,includingitsweakan esentingconflictinginterestsandforen
A.C. No. onoftheprovisionsoftheCodeofProfession dstrongpoints.Suchknowledgemustbeconsider gaginginunlawful,dishonestanddecei
8243July 24, alResponsibility.Itallegesthatrespondentco edsacredandguardedwithcare.Noopportunity tfulconductinviolationofherLawyer’s
2009PERCUR mmittedactsconstitutingconflictofinterest, mustbegiven to OathandtheCodeofProfessionalRes
IAM dishonesty,influencepeddling,andfailureto himtotakeadvantageofhisclient;foriftheconfide ponsibility.
renderanaccountingofallthemoneyandpro nceisabused,theprofessionwillsufferbythelosst
pertiesreceivedbyherfrom complainant. hereof.Respondentmusthaveknownthatheract
ofconstantlyandactivelycommunicatingwithco
Inthiscase,complainantsoughttheadviceofr mplainant,who,atthattime,wasbeleagueredwith
espondentwhoalsoamemberoftheCouples demandsfrominvestorsofMultitel,eventuallyle
forChristwherecomplainantandhiswifewer dtotheestablishmentofalawyer-
ealsoactivemembers.Afterafewweeks,com clientrelationship.
plainantwassurprisedtoreceivedemandlette
rfromrespondentaskingforthereturnandset
tlementofthefundsinvestedbyrespondent’s
clientsinMultitel.Whencomplainantconfro
ntedrespondentaboutthedemandletter,thel
atterexplainedthatshehadtosenditsothathe
rclientsthe
defraudedinvestorsofMultitelwouldknowt
hatshewasdoingsomethingforthemandass
uredcomplainantthattherewasnothingtow
orry about.
93
2009CASES
Belleza vs. Atty. Macasa Complainantavailedofrespondent’slegalser Canon17 of the CPR Alawyerwhoacceptsprofessionalemploymentfr Atty.AlanS.MacasaisherebyfoundG
vicesinconnectionwiththecaseofhersonfor omaclientundertakestoservehisclientwithcomp UILTY
A.C. No. allegedviolationofRepublicAct9165whichr Canon18 andRule etenceanddiligence. notonlyofdishonestybutalsoofprofes
7815July 23, espondentagreedfor₱30,000.Complainant 18.03of theCPR Hemustconscientiouslyperformhisdutyarisingf sionalmisconductforprejudicingFran
2009PerCuriam madeapartialpaymentof₱15,000.Thensheg romsuchrelationship.Afteracceptingthecrimin cisJohnBelleza’srighttocounselandto
avehimanadditional₱10,000andpaidthe₱5 Canon19 of the CPR alcaseagainstcomplainant’ssonandreceivinghis bail He
,000balance.Bothpaymentswerealsomadet attorney’sfees,respondentdidnothingthatcould istherefore
hruChuahoweverrespondentdidnotissuea beconsideredaseffectiveandefficientlegalassista DISBARREDfromthepracticeoflaw
nyreceipt.Respondentreceivedalso₱18,000 nce.Forallintentsandpurposes,respondentaban effectiveimmediately.
fromcomplainantforpostingabondtosecur doned the cause of
etheprovisionallibertyofherson.Again,nore hisclient.Thus,alawyerwhodoesnotrenderlegals
ceiptwasissued.Whencomplainantwenttot ervicesisnotentitledto attorney’sfees.
hecourtshefoundoutthatrespondentdidnot
remittheamounttothe court.
Complainantdemandedthereturnof
themoney
fromrespondentbutlatterignoredher.
94
2009CASES
complaintagainstcomplainantsbutitwassett issuanceofastatusquoorderrestraining/enjoini
ledtoacompromiseagreement.Respondent ngfurtherpublishing,televisingandbroadcasting
sentcomplainantanAdvertisingContractas ofanymatterrelativetothecomplaintofCDO,res
kingcomplainanttoadvertiseinitstabloidfor pondentcontinuedwithhisattacksagainstcompl
atotalamountof₱360,000,andaProgramPr ainantanditsproducts.Atthesametime,
ofileofthetelevisionprogram.Howevernota respondentviolatedCanon 1 also of
llofferswastakenbythecomplainant. theCodeofProfessionalResponsibility,whichm
andateslawyersto"upholdtheConstitution,obey
Disappointedwiththeofferrespondentpubl thelawsofthelandandpromote respectforlaw
ishedoffensiveandmaliciousarticlesagainstr andlegalprocesses.
espondentcausingdamagetoitsreputationd
espiteatemporaryrestrainingorderissuedag
ainsthimexpresslyprohibitingsuchactions.
Topic:Gross misconduct
Antolinvs. Judge Quiroz UponJudgeQuirozreturntoofficefromhissi Code of Judicial Conduct In administrative proceedings, The complaintfiledby
ckleavehecalledonthemembers thecomplainanthasburdenof SheriffGarroboagainstrespondentJu
provingthe dge
95
2009CASES
A.M. No.RTJ-09- ofhisstafffortheirmonthlymeeting.JudgeQ allegationsinthecomplaintwithsubstantialevide AlexL.Quiroz,aswellasthecounter-
2186July 14, 2009 uirozusingallhisfilthywordsberatedandlam ncewhichareasonablemindmightacceptasadeq charge,islikewiseDISMISSED.
CARPIOMORALES,J bastedGarroboforservingthewritonPSPI,h uatetojustifyaconclusion.SheriffGarrobo,aside
ence,hisfilingoftheadministrativecomplain fromhisbareallegationsthathewasberatedbyJud
tagainstthe judge forgrossmisconduct. geQuirozinthepresenceofhisofficemates,prese
ntednoevidencetosupporthisassertions.
AlsoJudgeQuiroz,statedthatGarroboaccep
tedmoneyfromMr.Litonjuarepresentativeo Althoughadministrativeproceedingsarenotbou
fPSPIandasexpected,thusimplementation ndbytechnicalrulesofprocedureinadjudicationo
oftheWritwasprejudiced. fcases,itdoesnotdoawaywithcompliancewithba
sicrulesinprovingallegations.Thefundamentalr
equirementofdueprocessrequiresthatifsanction
mustbemetedout,thequantumofproofrequiredi
nadministrative casesshouldbe met
Topic:Gross misconduct
Judge Umali Thistwoconsolidatedcomplaintsaroseonw Canon2, Section 2 and Courtsarelookeduponbythepeoplewithhighres BothJudgeswhere
vs.JudgeVillarante hathappenedduringthejudgesmeeting Canon4, Sections1and pect.Misbehaviorbyjudgesandemployeesneces FINEDintheamountofeleventhousa
onMarch27, 2007. 2New Code of sarilydiminishestheirdignity.Anyfightingormis nd(₱11,000)Pesos.
A.M. No.RTJ-08- JudicialConduct understandingisadisgracefuloccurrencereflecti
2124August27, OnMarch27,2007MonthlyJudgesMeeting ngadverselyonthegoodimageoftheJudiciary.
2009CARPIOMORAL whenthematterofgivingtothenewexecutive Byfightingwithinthecourtpremises,respondent
ES,J. judgetheincreasedallowancesacommotioni judgesfailedtoobservetheproperdecorumexpec
ncurredwhereJudgeVillaranterepeatedlycal tedofmembersoftheJudiciary.Moredetestableis
ledJudgeUmali (complainant) a liarinthe thefactthattheirsquabblearoseoutofamereallow
presenceoffellowJudgesandotheremployee ancecomingfromthelocalgovernment.
sofRTC.
However,bothJudgesactsdoesnotconstitutegro
Asaresultoftheprovocation,JudgeUmalico ssmisconductandshouldbeconsideredonlyasa
ntinuouslyutteredtheremarks"matanda ka violationofSupremeCourtrules,directivesandci
na, halosmalapit ka rculars,whichisclassifiedasa lessseriouscharge.
nasakamatayangumagawakapangganyan,madad
amaypakami" toJudgeAcosta-
Villaranteandalsoattemptingtoinflict
96
2009CASES
harm toJudge Villarante.
Both JudgesintheirCommentbefore
theOCAadmittedsaidactuationsthey’vedo
ne.
Topic:Bias andpartialityin JudgeDecision,gross ignorance of thelaw
Malabed vs. Judge Asis Complainantfiledacivilcaseforejectmentan Rule 1.02, Thechargeofbiasandpartialitymustfail.Asidefro RespondentJudgeEnriqueC.Asisisor
ddamageswiththeMunicipalCircuitTrialCo CanonIoftheCode of mthecomplainant’sallegationofbiasandpartialit deredtopaya FINEof
A.M. No.RTJ-07- urtagainstspousesCericos.BothMCTCand Judicial Conduct ybecausetheSps.CericosarerepresentedbyAtty. ₱20,000.00,withasternwarningthatar
2031August4, RegionalTrialCourtwhererespondentJudge MeljohnDelaPeña,shefailedtosubstantiatehercl epetitionofthesameorsimilaractsinth
2009PERALTA, J. presidedrenderedjudgmentinfavorofcomp aims.Thereversalofajudge’sorderbyasuperiorc efutureshallbedealtwithmore
lainant.HoweverrespondentJudgegrantedt ourtinacertioraricaseis,initself,notagroundfora severely.
hepetitionforrelieffiledbySpousesCericosa nadministrativeactionagainstthejudge.Thefactt
nddeniedthemotionforwritofdemolitionof hatajudge’sorderissetasideoncertioraridoesnot
complainant. connotethathewasbiasedorpartialinfavorofthe
partywhowasbenefitedbytheorder.Onlyjudicial
ComplainantappealedtotheCAwhichrever errorstaintedwithfraud,dishonesty,grossignora
sedthedecisionofrespondentjudge.Asaresu nce,badfaithordeliberateintenttodoaninjustice
lt,complainantfiledacomplaintwiththeOffi willbeadministrativelysanctioned.
ceoftheCourtAdministratorchargingrespo
ndentforexhibitingbiasandpartialitywithre However,respondentjudgeisguiltyofconstitute
gardtoitsCivilCasebecausedefendantsnewc dgrossignoranceofthelawwhenitgranted a
ounsel,Atty.DelaPeña,representedrespond PetitionforRelieffromJudgmentwhichwasfiled
entJudgeinadministrativecomplaints out oftime.
filedagainst the latter.
Topic:BreachofNotarialLaw
97
2009CASES
UlasovsAtty. Lacsamana Bidesamendedthecomplainttodemandthe NotarialLaw Respondent’snotarizingtheamendedverificatio RespondentAtty. Edita Noe-
declarationofnullityofthedeedofsalepertain nandaffidavitofnon- Lacsamana, warnedthat
A.C. No. ingtotheparceloflandsituatedinSanJuan,Me forumshoppingintheabsenceofBidesastheaffia asimilarinfractionin thefuture willbe
7297September29, troManila.Thesaidamendedcomplaintcont ntconstitutedaclearbreachofthenotarialprotoc dealtwith moreseverely.
2009BERSAMIN, ainedaso- olandwashighly censurable.
J. calledamendedverificationandaffidavitofn
on-
forumshoppingonwhichwasasignaturepre Beingalawyercommissionedasanotary,therespo
cededbytheword"for"abovetheprintedna ndentwasmandatedtodischargewithfidelitythes
me"IRENEBIDES."Thesignatureboreap acreddutiesappertainingtohernotarialoffice.Su
ositiveresemblancetotherespondent’ssigna chdutiesbeingdictatedbypublicpolicyandimpre
tureasthenotaryonthejuratoftheamendedv ssedwithpublicinterest,shecouldnotdisregardth
erificationandaffidavitofnon- erequirementsandsolemnitiesoftheNotarialLa
forumshopping.Thus,respondentnotarize w.Itwasemphaticallyherprimarydutyasalawyer-
d notarytoobeythelawsofthelandandtopromoter
theamendedverificationandaffidavitofnon- espectforthelawandlegalprocesses.
forumshoppingeveninthe absence
ofBides.
(3) violationofRule10.3oftheCodeof
98
2009CASES
ProfessionalResponsibilitywhenhefiledam
otionbeforetheRTCseekingtheinclusionof
complainant’snameintheholddeparturelist
oftheBureauofImmigrationandDeportatio
n(BID).
Topic:Gravemisconduct
99
2009CASES
Sarmientovs. Atty.Oliva Complainantsallegedthattheyreceived,aspa Lawyer’sOath RespondentwasalreadydisbarredinLibitv.Attys. Respondenttopaythecomplainantan
ymentforthepurchaseofa₱13millionMakat EdelsonG.OlivaandUmaliforgravemisconduct.N amountof₱11millionandliable for
A.C. No. iCitypropertyfivepostdatedchecksfromres otbeingamemberofthebar,hecannotbesuspend indirectcontempt.
7435September10, pondentwhichweredishonoreddueto"clos edfromthepracticeoflaw.
2009CORONA, J. edaccount”.Respondentrequestedcomplai
nantstoreducehisobligationandcomplainan
tsagreed.Thus,hegavepartialdownpayment Sincerespondenthimselfmadeapositivemisrepr
of₱200,000andissuedfourpostdatedPremi esentationtocomplainantsthathewasstillalawye
erBankchecks.Uponpresentment,thefirstc randevensubmittedhimselftothejurisdictionoft
heckwasdishonoredagaindueto"closedacc heIBP,heisestoppedfromquestioningthejurisdi
ount. ctionoftheIBPoverhim.Moreover,adisbarredla
wyer,whocontinuestorepresenthimselfasa
Complainantsagaindemandedpaymentfro lawyerwiththeauthoritytopracticelawcommitsa
mrespondentbutthedemandwasignored.H contumaciousactandisliableforindirectcontem
ence,thiscomplaint,whichwasoriginallyfile pt.
dwiththeIntegratedBar of the
Philippines(IBP).
Inanothercase,respondentinofficiouslyde Byjudges’appointmenttotheoffice,thepeopleha
mandedthatcomplainantconductaninquest velaidonthemtheirconfidencethattheyarement
atthepolicestationforthepurposeof allyandmorallyfittopassuponthemeritsoftheirv
preventingthereleaseof ariedcontentions.
100
2009CASES
certainTimoteoMigrinowhohadearlierbeen Forthisreason,membersofthejudiciaryareexpec
arrestedwhileallegedlyengagedinillegalgam tedtobefearlessintheirpursuittorenderjustice,to
blingandhadposted beunafraidtodispleaseanyperson, interest
therequiredbail.Notwithstandingtheexplan orpower, andto
ationofcomplainantthatshewasnot beequippedwithamoralfiberstrongenoughtores
authorized to istthetemptationslurking intheiroffice
conductsaidinquestoutsidesaidjudgeinsiste
danddemandedthepolicetoholdMigrinoinj
ailovertheweekend. Unfortunately,respondentJudgefailedtoresistth
etemptationsofpowerwhicheventuallyledherto
ComplainantReyeschargesrespondentJudg transgresstheverylawshe swore to
ewithfalsificationofpublicdocuments.Itap protectanduphold.
pearsthatrespondentJudgeissuedawarrantf
orthearrestofcomplainanteventherewasno
casefiledagainstcomplainant.
JudgeReyesinonecaseinhersalaenforced a
verbaljudgment.
101
2009CASES
5. Entertaininga
secondmotionforreconsideration
TOPIC::Deceitfulanddishonestconduct
102
2009CASES
the appropriate registry Respondentviolated
ofpropertiestoavoidpaying theLawyer’sOath.
taxesaswellasdouble Respondentmusthaveforgottentha
paymentofsalesandtransferexpense ta lawyer
sincase hewoulddecide to sellit to mustrefrainfromcommitting
anotherperson. actswhichgive even a semblance
ofimpropriety tothe profession.
TOPIC:Gross Misconduct,Gross Ignorance ofthelaw orProcedure
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME CASE DISPOSITION
Land Bankof the Despite compliance Code ofJudicialConduct COURT’SRULING Having already
Philippines(LBP)vs. Judge withhisorder,Judge The Supreme retiredfromtheservice asa judge,
Ernesto P.Pagayatan Pagayatanobstinatelyrefusedto Canon 1 CourtfoundJudgePagayatanguilty Pagayatanwasimposed afine
resolve Rules 1.01 of GrossIgnorance of theLaw ofP40,000 ,chargeable to
CASE NO.: theextremelyurgentpetitiontoquash Rule1.02 orProcedure hisretirementbenefits.
A.M. No.RTJ-07-2089 andrecallthe Rule 1.03 andGrossMisconduct.He
DATE OFPROMULGATION: warrantofarrestissuedtoLeticia shouldnothave takencognizance of
September8, 2009 andTeresita whowere, Canon 2 the
asaconsequence, Rule 2.01 petitionforindirectcontemptdueto
PONENTE: detainedintheprovincial jail non-payment of docketfees.It is
Justice Conchita Carpio-Morales fornineteen(19)days. anelementary rule that apetition
Pagayatencited“judicialcourtesy” to forindirectcontemptmustbecomme
the CourtofAppealsto justify nced bya verifiedpetitionthatfully
hisnon-resolutionof complieswith
theurgentpetitionandmotion.Twoa therequirementsofinitiatorypleadin
dministrative gsincludingthe payment
caseswerefiledagainstPagayatan, ofdocketfees.
charginghim,among others, Asforrespondent’sobstinaterefusal
ofgrossignoranceof the law toreleaseLeticia despitecompliance
orprocedure andgrossmisconduct. by LBPwiththeMarch4,
2005Order,the Courtfoundthat
thesame
constitutesGrossMisconductvisa
visRule1.02, Canon 1of the Code
ofJudicial
Conductwhichstatesthat"A judge
shouldadministerjustice
103
2009CASES
impartially andwithoutdelay."
TOPIC:UnethicalSolicitation of LegalBusiness
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME CASE DISPOSITION
PedroL. Linsanganvs. Anadministrative case Code COURT’SRULING Atty.
Atty.NicodemesTolentino wasfiledagainstAtty. ofProfessionalRespo The Supreme CourtruledthatAtty. TolentinowasSUSPENDEDfrom
NicomedesTolentinofor having nsibility Tolentinounlawfullyencroachedup thepracticeof law for a periodof
CASE NO.: “pirated” a clientofAtty. onthe one yeareffective immediately
A.C. No. 6672 Linsanganthroughthewheeling Rule 1.03 professionalemploymentofanothe fromreceiptof theresolution. He
anddealing ofTolentino’sparalegal, Rule 2.03 rlawyer(Rule 8.02)by stealing wasSTERNLY WARNEDthata
DATE OFPROMULGATION: FeMarieLabiano.Toinduce Rule 8.02 anotherlawyer’sclient. repetitionof the
September4, 2009 them,Tolentinoallegedly Rule 16.04 sameorsimilaractsin thefuture
textedandcalledthempersistently. Through thespellbinding shall bedealtwith moreseverely.
PONENTE: Tosupporthisallegation,Linsanganp Canon 3 wordsofFe Labiano,
JusticeRenatoCorona resentedthe swornaffidavit haplessseamenwereenticed to
ofJamesGregorioattesting transferrepresentationunder the
thatLabianotriedto prevail assurance that a morefavorable
overhimto severhisclient- resultcouldbeproduced.Based
attorneyrelationshipwithLinsangan. onthese acts,respondentclearly
Also,he solicitedemploymentviolating Rule
attached“respondent’scallingcard. 2.03,andRule 1.03 andCanon3of
theCPRandsection27,Rule
138ofthe Rulesof Court. Any
actofsolicitationsconstitutesmalpra
ctice whichcallsfortheexercise of
the Court’sdisciplinarypowers.
104
2009CASES
DATE OFPROMULGATION: the administrative Rule 3.01 inefficiency, respondent’sretirementbenefits.
October16, 2009 casefiledagainstMunicipal andseriousmisconductinviolation
CircuitTrialCourtJudge Napy of Canon3 andRule 3.08
PONENTE: Agayan; ofCanon3,bothof the Code
PERCURIAM b) Grave misconductinborrowing, ofJudicialConduct.
possessing, andusing a
Pajerovehicle Pertaining to the
whichwaspreviously borrowingofPajerovehicle, the
thesubjectof aCriminal Case evidenceadducedshowedthat
filedandheardbefore hissala therespondentjudge
forviolationofthe Anti-Fencing violatedRule1.01, Canon 1
Law; and andRule 2.01,Canon2, bothof the
Dishonesty orgrave CodeofJudicial Conduct, infailing
misconductinmodifying, during tomaintain the appearance
itsexecutionphase, a ofintegrity andinfailing to engage
finalandexecutoryjudgmentrendere inconduct topromote
dinanagrarianreformcase. publicconfidence in the judiciary.
105
2009CASES
A.C. No. 6166 grossignorance of the law. Thiscase Rule 18.03 falsificationof public documentdue
stemmedfrom theallegedactof Rule 18.04 to the lack ofpreponderantevidence
DATE OFPROMULGATION: Atty.Rubia offurnishinga copyof a to supportthe allegations.
October2, 2009 complaint, with“Civil CaseNo. Canon22 However, Atty. Rubiashouldbe
4198” disciplinedforherreprehensible act
PONENTE: andrubberstamped“RECEIVED” Violation ofthe Lawyer’sOath ofsuggesting thatthe
JusticeConsueloYnares-Santiago thereon, andwhichwaspurportedto complainantborrow money forthe
have beenfiledbefore the paymentofherattorney’sfees.Thisact
RegionalTrial Court. impressesupon the
UponverificationwiththeClerkof Courtthatrespondentwould
Court, however, Ceniza donothing to the
learnedthat nosuchcase wasfiled. causeofcomplainant’smother-in-law
unlesspaymentof the acceptancefee
ismade. Herduty
torenderlegalservicestoherclientwit
hcompetence anddiligence
shouldnot dependon the
paymentofacceptance fee.
TOPIC:Attorney-clientprivilegeandConflictofInterest
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED LEGAL BASIS SUPREME CASE DISPOSITION
Rebecca J. Palmvs. Atty. Atty. Iledan, asthe Code COURT’SRULING The
FelipeIledan, Jr. retainedcorporate ofProfessionalRespo The complaintfiledagainstAtty.Felipe
counselofComtech,wasconsultedre nsibility complaintfiledwasdismissedbythe Iledan, Jr. wasdismissed forlack of
CASE NO.: gardingtheprocedure inamending Supreme merit.
A.C. No. 8242 thecorporate by-laws. OnJanuary Canon22 Court.Thecommunicationmade
10,2004, Atty. Rule 15.03 bythecorporationwithAtty.
DATE OFPROMULGATION: Iledanwasappointedasthe proxy Iledanisnot intended to be
October2, 2009 ofthe ComtechPresidentinthe confidential.
corporation’sboardmeeting.Duringt The proposedamendmentsmustbe
PONENTE: hemeetinghe objected to the approved by atleast a majorityof
Justice AntonioT. Carpio participation ofStevenandDeanna thestockholders, andcopiesofthe
Palmthroughteleconference amendedby-lawsmustbe filedwith
because thecorporate by- the SEC, andso
lawshadnotyetbeen theinformationcouldnothave
beenintended tobe confidential.
106
2009CASES
properly amended. Forthisact, Thus, the disclosure made
hewascharged of byrespondentduring
havingbreachedthe attorney- thestockholdersmeeting couldnot
clientprivilege. beconsidered a
Atty. Iledanwasalsoclaimed tohave violationofhisclientssecretsandconfi
representedconflictinginterestwhen dence within thecontemplationof
he actedasthe legalcounsel ofElda Canon21of theCode of
Soledad, a ProfessionalResponsibility.
formerdirectorandofficer of
Comtech, ina criminalcase of estafa Also,
filedbyCometechagainstSoledad. Courtfindsnoconflictofinterestwhe
nrespondentrepresentedSoledadin
a case filedby Comtech. There
wasnothing inthe
recordsthatwouldshowthatrespond
entusedagainstComtechany
confidentialinformationacquiredw
hile he
wasstillComtechsretainedcounsel.
Further, respondentmade
therepresentationafter
thetermination
ofhisretaineragreementwithC
omtech.
TOPIC:Lawyer’sresponsibilityto accountforfunds entrustedtohimby his client
107
2009CASES
PONENTE: beenoccupying.
PERCURIAM Afterinforming the University Canon16 RespondentMijareschosenot
thathe succeededingetting Rule 16.01 tobe heard on hisevidence.
theapproval Rule 16.03 Unopposed, the evidence
ofMetroManilaDevelopmentAutho supportsthe findingof guilt
rity (MMDA),he suddenly made Canon18 oftheInvestigating
himselfscarceanddifficulttoreach. Rule 18.04 Commissionerandthe IBPBoardof
The University Governors
terminatedtheservicesofAtty.Mijare
sIIIanddemanded the returnof Even more unfortunate
theP500,000 butthe latterfailed to forMijares, he
doso. Hence, the University admittedunderoathhaving bribed
filedanadministrative charge a governmentofficial to
againstAtty.MijaresIII. actfavorably
onhisclient’sapplicationto acquire
titleto a dried-upcreek.
Thatisquitedishonestandhe
cannotjustbemetedoutwith a
penalty ofindefinitesuspension.
TOPIC:: GrossNegligence or Misconductin HandlingCases
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED LEGAL BASIS SUPREME CASE DISPOSITION
CesarTalentoandModestaHerrera Thisisanadministrative Code COURT’SRULING The Supreme
Talentovs. Atty. Agustin complaintfiled by ofProfessionalRespo The Supreme SUSPENDEDrespondentfromth
F. Paneda motherandsonModestaHerreraTale nsibility Courtdeclaredthatrespondentwasw e practice oflaw for ONE
ntoandCesar Talentocharging Atty. oefully remissinhisdutyto display (1)YEAR effectiveuponfinality of
CASE NO.: Agustin F.Panedaof violationof Canon17 utmostdiligenceandcompetence thisDecision.
A.C. No. 7433 hisoathasalawyerandneglect of inprotecting
duty. Atty. Paneda,asthe lawyer Canon18 theinterestsofhisclients.It
DATE OFPROMULGATION: ofthe complainantsin a civil case Rule 18.02 isbeyonddisputethatrespondentisdu
December23, 2009 forQuieting ofTitle,failed to Rule 18.03 ty-bound by hisoathasa lawyer
appearin a pre-trialconference todiligently prosecute the caseof
PONENTE: whichconsequentlybarred the hisclientstothe best
JusticeTeresita Jose Leonardo- latterinpresenting theirevidence. ofhisabilitywithin theboundsof law.
deCastro Atty. Paneda alsofailedto file Regrettably, the factsof
therequiredAppealBriefwhichled to thiscaseillustraterespondent’sdisma
the lperformance ofthatresponsibility,
dismissalofcomplainant’sappealbef
orethe
108
2009CASES
CA. whichinitstotality couldamountto a
reprehensible abandonment
ofhisclients’
TOPIC:ProfessionalMisconduct
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED LEGAL BASIS SUPREME CASE DISPOSITION
Conrado N.Que vs. A Code COURT’SRULING The Supreme
Atty.AnastacioRevilla, Jr. complaintfordisbarmentwasfiledaga ofProfessionalRespo The Supreme DISBARREDrespondentfromt
instAttorney AnastacioRevilla, nsibility CourtfoundAtty.Revilla, Jr. guilty he practice oflaw.
CASE NO.: Jr.forwillfully delaying offorumshopping.
A.C. No. 7054 thefinaljudgmentof the Canon12 RespondentviolatedRule 12.02
lowercourtagainsthisclient. Atty. Rule 12.02 andRule 12.04,Canon12 of the
DATE OFPROMULGATION: AnastacioRevilla successfully filed a Rule 12.04 Codeof ProfessionalResponsibility,
December4, 2009 petitionfor ceritioraribefore aswell
theCourtofAppeals, astheruleagainstforumshopping,
PONENTE: two(2)petitionsforannulmentoftitle both ofwhichare
PERCURIAM and apetitionfor directedagainstthefilingofmultiple
annulmentofjudgmentbeforethe actionstoattainthesame
RegionalTrialCourtandapetitionfor objective.Bothviolationsconstitute
declaratory reliefbefore the RTC. anabuse
.Therespondent’sprayersforinjuncti ofcourtprocesseswhichtend
vereliefsreveal the todegradethe administration of
latter’spersistenceinpreventing justice,wreakhavoc on orderly
andavoiding theexecution of the judicialprocedure, andaddto
lowercourt’sdecisionagainsthisclien thecongestionof the heavily
t. burdeneddocketsof the courts.
109
2010CASES
TOPIC:ProfessionalMisconduct
TOPIC:Grave Misconduct
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED LEGAL SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION
BenjaminE. Sanga Anadministrative BASIS The Supreme CourtfoundSheriffsAlcantara andBisnarguilty The respondents
vs.FlorencioSJ. complaintwasfiledagainstSherriffsBenjamin Rules wereof grave misconduct.
AlcantaraandSalesT.Bis Sanga andFlorencioSJAlcantara ofCourt UnderSection9, Rule 141ofthe Rules DISMISSED from
nar fordemanding andreceiving money theof Court, the
fromcomplainantwithoutseeking the Rule 141 sheriffisrequired tosecure the court’sprior
CASE NO.: court’spriorapproval Section9 service,withforfeitureofapp
A.M. No. P-09-2657 oftheestimatedfeesandexpensesneeded roval ofthe estimatedexpensesandfeesneededto
toimplementthe allretirementbenefitsandim
DATE WritofDemolitioninviolation plementthe courtprocess.
OFPROMULGATI ofSection9,Rule141 of theRulesofCourt. privileges,exceptaccruedlea
ON: vecredits,ifany,with
January 25, 2010 Sheriffsarenotallowedtoreceiveanyvoluntarypaymentsprejudiceto re-
frompartiesinthecourseoftheperformanceoftheirduties.employmentinanybranchTodosowould
PONENTE: beinimicaltothebestinterestsoftheservice,or instrumentalityof the
PERCURIAM becauseevenassumingarguendothatthe
paymentsweregovernment,includingindeedgivenandreceivedingoodfaith,thisfactalonewouldgo
vernment-ownedornotdispelthesuspicionthatsuchpaymentsweremade
forlesscontrolledcorporations.
thannoble purposes.
110
2010CASES
TOPIC:Gross inefficiency
Article VIIIof A
theConstitution judge’sforemostconsiderationistheadminist
rationof justice.Thus, he shouldfollow
thetime limitsetfordeciding cases.
TOPIC:Gross inefficiency,Undue delayinrendering a decision,Neglectof Duty
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION
Luminza Judge Cruz ischargedwithdelay in the disposition of New The Courtfoundbothrespondents to beremissin
DelosReyesvs. Judge CodeofLRC Case No. R-5740 whileGundranischargedwith Botherespondentsweret
DaniloS.Cruz JudicialConductf heirduties. AsregardstoJudge Cruz, the Court FINEDthe
andClerk ofCourt V ailure to timely transmittherecordsofsaidcase. amountoffoundhim tobe grossly inefficientinfailingto ₱11,000.00. Clerk
GodolfoR.Gundran Complainedclaimedthatitwasonly afterthreesince Canon ofdecide LRC Case No.R-5740 within90 daysfrom Court V GodolfoR.
6the landregistrationcase, where she wasa party, was the time itwassubmittedfordecision.He should Gundranof the
CASE NO.: Section5 were be mindfulthatfailure toresolve casessubmitted meted the penalty of
A.M. No.RTJ-08- submittedforresolutionthat a decisionwasrendered. for decisionwithin theperiodfixed by law suspension
2152 On Gundranspart, oftwomonthsconstitutesaseriousviolation of the constitutional withoutsalary
complainantallegedthataftertheadverse decision,she and
DATE OF timelyfield a notice of appealandpaid the necessary rightof the partiesto thespeedy dispositionof
feesbutdespite the lapse ofmore thansix
benefits.Bothweretheir
monthsfromthe time thatitwasfiled,
cases. STERNLY WARNED
111
2010CASES
TOPIC:Neglect ofDuty
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION
Atty. AttorneyMacalalad, afterhaving received aconsideration Code Atty. Macalaladwasfoundbythe Supreme Courtto Atty.
ElmerC.Solidonvs. ofP50,000forhislegal services, failed tofile any ofProfessional have violatedRule 18.03andRule 16.01 of Macalaladwassuspendedf
Atty.RamilE. petitionforregistrationoverthe propertysoughtto be Responsibility theCode of ProfessionalResponsibility. romthepractice of law
Macalalad titledevenupuntil the filing oftheadministrative Themerefailureofthelawyertoperformtheobligations for six(6)months.
complaint. Hence, Rule 18.03 duetotheclientisconsideredperseaviolation.Alawyer's
CASE NO.: anadministrativecomplaintwasfiledagainsthim. Rule 16.01 dutyto
A.C. No. 8158 hisclientisfiduciaryinnatureonceanengagementforleg
alservicesisaccepted.Alawyersoengagedtorepresentac
DATE lientbearstheresponsibilityofprotectingthelatter'sinte
OFPROMULGATI restwithutmostdiligence.
ON:
February 24, 2010
PONENTE:
TOPIC Gross inefficiency
PERCURIAM
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION
Atty. DennisV. Anadministrative New TheSupremeCourtruledthattherespondentdidnotinc The
Niñovs. Associate complaintwasfiledagainstJusticeNormandieB. Pizarroof CodeofJudicialC urdelayinresolvingthemotionforTROandthatthere administrativecomplaintag
JusticeNormandine theCourtofAppealsfordeferringthe resolution of onduct wasno grossignorance ofthe law. ainstJusticeNormandieB.
B.Pizarro aprayerfor the issuance ofthe PizarrowasDISMISSEDfo
TemporaryRestrainingOrder(TRO), whichvirtually Canon 6 Obviously,complainantdidnotappreciatethefactthata rlack ofmerit.
CASE NO.: restrainedthe trial courtfromfurthertakingany Section5 bsenceof actionon the prayerfor TRO
A.M. No. CA-08-45-J actionrelative to the case. Complainantallegesthat
112
2010CASES
TOPIC:Gross immorality
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION
Maelotisea S. The complainant, respondent’sAtty. Garrido’slegalwife, Code TheSupremeCourtfoundrespondentsguiltyofgrossim Atty. AngelE.
Garridovs. Atty. filed a complaint-affidavitand a ofProfessional moralityinviolationfoRule1.01,Canon7andRule7.03o GarridoandAtty.
Angel supplementalaffidavitfordisbarmentagainstthe Responsibility ftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility. RowenaP.Valencia were
E.GarridoandRoman respondentsAtty.AngelE. Canon 1 disbarredfromthe practice
a GarridoandAtty.RomanaP.Valencia beforethe Rule 1.01 Garridocommittedmultipleviolations.Hedidnotposse of
P. Valencia IntegratedBar ofthe PhilippinesCommittee ssthegoodmoralcharacterrequiredofalawyeratthetime lawandtheirnameswerestri
onDiscipline, chargingthemwithgrossimmorality, Canon 7 ofhisadmissiontotheBar.InmarryingMaelotisea,heco ckenoutfromthe Rollof
CASE NO.: inviolation ofCanon1,Rule 1.01,of the Code Rule 7.03 mmittedthecrimeofbigamy,asheenteredthissecondm Attorneys.
A.C. No. 6593 ofProfessionalResponsibility. arriagewhilehisfirstmarriagewithConstanciawassubsi
ItwasallegedthatAtty.RomanaP.ValenciawasAtty.Angel Violation sting.Heopenlyadmittedhisbigamywhenhefiledhispet
DATE E.Garrido’smistresswithwhomhebegotachild. ofLawyer’s itiontonullifyhismarriage to Maelotisea.
OFPROMULGATI Oath
ON: AstoValencia,herbehaviordemeanedthedignityofand
February 4, 2010 discreditedthelegalprofession.Shesimplyfailedinherd
utyasalawyertoadhereunwaveringly to
PONENTE: thehigheststandardsofmorality.
PERCURIAM
TOPIC:Gross Dishonesty
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION
Judge Delia P. Noel-
113
2010CASES
PONENTE:
Justice
AntonioNachu misconduct
TOPIC:Gross
ra
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION
RolandErnestMarieJ JudgeGaydifredoT. New The Supreme CourtfoundJudge Ocampoguilty Judge
ose Spelmansvs. Ocampoduringanocularinspectionallegedlytookpiecesof CodeofJudicialC ofgrossmisconduct.First, noexplanationwas Ocampowasimposed
antique,includinga onduct a penalty of
114
2010CASES
115
2010CASES
administratively or criminally.
TOPIC Disgracefulandimmoralconduct
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION
Re: CorazonallegedthatAmeliaandNoelcommittedimmoralit Code of NoelandAmeliaweredeclaredliableforimmoralitybyth The Supreme
ComplaintsofMrs. yandbigamybymarryingeachotherinacivilceremonyonFe ConductforCourt emerefactoflivingtogetherandcontractingasubsequen CourtDISMISSEDNoelan
CorazonS.Salvado bruary3,1994evenifNoelhadapriormarriagetoRosemarie Personnel tmarriagebeforetheirrespectivefirstmarriageswerejudi dAmelia fromthe
ragainstSpousesN JimenoonFebruary17,1987.Fromthissubsequentbigamo ciallydissolved.Formarryingeachotherdespitetheirsub service,withforfeiture of
oelandAmelia usmarriage,NoelandAmelia begotthree children. Canon sistingpriormarriages,NoelandAmeliaactedreprehens allbenefitsexceptaccruedlea
Serafico ISection iblyandareguiltyofdisgracefulandimmoralconduct. ve
1 creditsforGraveMisconduc
CASE NO.: t,
A.M. No. 2008-20-SC DisgracefulandImmoralCo
nduct,andviolationof the
DATE Codeof
OFPROMULGATI ConductforCourtPersonne
ON: l. BothNoel
March15, 2010 L.SeraficoandAmelia
G.Seraficowere
PONENTE: BARREDfromreemploym
PERCURIAM entinanybranch or
instrumentalityof
TOPIC:Unlawful,dishonest, ordeceitfulconduct government,includingGO
CCs.
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION
SpousesManuel The complaintallegedthatAtty. RicardoG. Code TherespondentandthedisgracedJudgeDizon,Jr.werec Atty. RicardoG.
C.Rafols, Jr., etal. Barriosfacilitated the meeting between the ofProfessional onspiratorsagainsttheformer'sownclients,whomhewa Barrioswasdisbarred.
vs.Atty. complainantsandJudge Dizon,Jr.of theRTC where the Responsibility ssworntoprotectandtoservewithutmostfidelityandm
RicardoG.Barrios,J case, inwhichthe complainantsare theplaintiffs, Rule 1.01 orality.Therespondentdidnotmeasureuptotheexactin
r. waspending.TheJudge askedforP150,000 inexchange Canon 7 gstandardsoftheLawProfession,whichdemandedofhi
for a decisionthatisfavorable tothe complainants. masanattorneytheabsoluteabdication
CASE NO.: Inaddition,respondentAtty.Barriosaskedcomplainantsto Rules of ofanypersonaladvantagethatconflictedinanyway,direc
A.C. No. 4973 borrowP60,000becauseheneededthemoneytoredeemhis CourtRule 138 tlyorindirectly,withtheinterestofhisclients.Specifically
foreclosedIsuzuElfandheneededP11,000 Section20 [e]) ,the Codeof Professional
DATE togivetohisnephewwhowasduetowork abroad.
OFPROMULGATI
ON:
March15, 2010
116
2010CASES
PONENTE: Responsibilityenjoinsanattorneyfromengaginginunla
PERCURIAMc wful,dishonest,ordeceitfulconduct.Corollarytothisinj
unctionistherulethatanattorneyshallatalltimesupholdt
heintegrityanddignityoftheLegalProfessionandsuppo
rttheactivitiesoftheIntegratedBar.
TOPIC:Simple misconduct
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION
PriscillaL. RegionalTrialCourtLegalResearcherJulianaY.Bengson(B RevisedUniform Bengson’sactofdealingwithHernando,moreparticular The
Hernandovs. Juliana engson)toassistcomplainantPriscillaHernandoinintitling Rules lyofofferingherservicestofacilitatethetitlingofHernan CourtSUSPENDEDthe
YBengson,etc apropertyforaconsiderationofP10,000exclusiveoftheact onAdministrative do’sproperty,whetherdirectlyorthroughanother,certa respondentfrom
ualamountthatwouldbespentforthe titling. Cases in the inlyfellshortoftheyardstickorstandardofconductforco theservice, withoutpay
CASE NO.: Bengsonsucceededinobtainingthetotalamountof CivilService urtemployeesandpersonnel. forone (1)monthandone
A.M. No. P-09-2686 (1)day, with a
WARNINGthat a
repetition ofthe
117
2010CASES
DATE However,theCourtwasnotconvincedthatJudgeBarillo
OFPROMULGATI shouldbeheldliableforgrossmisconductandgrossignor
ON: anceofthelawabsentanyevidenceshowingoutrightbadf
March10, 2010 aith.Nevertheless,theCourtruledthatJudgeBarilloisgui
ltyofsimplemisconduct.
PONENTE:
JusticeTeresitaLeon
ardo-de Castro
TOPIC:Gross misconduct
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION
Reynaria AnadministrativecasewasfiledagainstAtty.AnorlitoAlver Code The Supreme Courtruledthatthere wasa Atty.
Barcenasvs.Atty. oformisappropriatingandconvertingintohis ofProfessio clearbreach of lawyer-clientrelations. AnorlitoAlverowasSUSP
AnorlitoA.Alvero nal ENDEDfora
118
2010CASES
119
2010CASES
120
2010CASES
truth and
disciplineitsmembersaccordingly.Misconductis
atransgression ofsomeestablished and
definiteruleofaction, aforbidden act,a
derelictionof
duty,unlawfulbehavior,willfulincharacter,impr
operorwrong behavior;
while"gross,"hasbeendefined as"outof
allmeasure;beyondallowance;flagrant;shamefu
l;such conductasis notto beexcused.
121
2010CASES
122
2010CASES
Topic: TheCourtfindstheconclusion
Grossignoranceof oftheOCAinorder.Section 7ofRule71
Graveabuseofauth Section8,Rule140 of isclear.Sincewhatcomplainantsviolated isan FINEDin
theLaw ority,violationand theRulesofCourt,as theamountofTwentyFiveTh
MariaPanco,etal.vs.Ju orderoftheMTC,theimposablepenaltyisonemo
ignoranceofthelaw amended,classifiesgrossigno nth,notfour,of imprisonmentora finenot ousand(P25,000)Pesos,to
dgeYAguirre,etc resulting ranceofthelawas bededucted from
A.M. No. RTJ-09- exceedingP5,000 or both.
inviolationofSectio aseriouschargeand When thelawor procedureisso theFiftyThousand
2196April ns4 and 7,Rule71 Section11thereofpenalizesit (P50,000)Pesosretained/wi
7,2010,Antonio elementary,such astheprovisionsof
of . theRulesofCourt,notto know,or thheld
T. Morales theRulesofCivilProc fromhisretirementbenefits.
toactasifonedoesnotknowthesame,constitutes
edure,andGraveOp grossignoranceofthelaw,evenwithoutthecomp
pression lainanthaving to
123
2010CASES
Theadministrationof
justiceiscircumscribedwith a heavyburdenof
Topic: Neglectof Neglectof duty NCJC - Rule1.01 – responsibility.Itrequiresthateveryoneinvolved Reprimanded,witha
dutyRe:Anonynous Ajudgeshould in itsdispensation ―from thepresiding sternwarning
Letter- betheembodimentofcompete judgetothelowliestclerk ― liveup to thatarepetitionofthesameo
ComplaintagainstHo nce,integrity,andindependenc thestricteststandards ffense,orthecommissionof
n.MarilouRunes- e. ofcompetence,honesty,andintegrityinthepubli asimilaroffense,shallbedeal
Tamang,Presiding cservice.Anyimpressionof t withmoreseverely
Judge,MeTCPateros, impropriety,misdeed,ornegligenceintheperfor
ManilaandPresidingJ manceofofficialfunctionsmustbeavoided.TheC
udge,MeTCSanJuan, ourtshallnotcountenanceanyconduct,act,oro
Metro Manila mission on thepartofthoseinvolved in
A.M. No.MTJ-04- theadministration
1558April7,2010,R ofjusticethatviolatesthenorm
eynatoS.Puno ofpublicaccountabilityanddiminishesthefaitho
fthepeopleintheJudiciary.Indeed,publicconfid
enceinourcourtsisvitalto
theeffectivefunctioningoftheJudiciary.
TheNewCodeof
JudicialConductforthePhilippineJudiciaryrequi
resthatamagistratebetheembodimentof
judicialcompetence.
TheCourtexpresslyenjoinsa
judgetocarefullyporeoveralldocumentsbefores
igning thedocumentsandgiving them
officialimprimatur.Thejudgessigningof
ordersmustnotbetaken lightly,or beregarded
astheusualpaperworkthatpassesthrough
thejudgeshands forsignature.Also,according to
124
2010CASES
Suroza v. Honrado,a
judgeisinexcusablynegligentifhefailsto
observeintheperformanceofhisdutiesthatdilig
ence,prudenceand circumspection
thatthelawrequiresin
therenditionofanypublicservice.
Topic:SafeKeepingof Gravemisconducta ROC -Rule 136 As a clerkof DISMISSED from
property– nd Section7. Safekeeping court,Sorioisspecificallymandatedto safeguard theservice,effectiveupon
ClerkofCourt conducthighlypreju ofproperty. — the integrity ofthecourtand theserviceon
RufinaChua dicial to Theclerkshallsafely itsproceedings,and to herofthisResolution,with
vs.EleanorA.Sorio,etc thebestinterestoft keepallrecords,papers,files,ex maintaintheauthenticityand correctness forfeitureofallbenefitsand
., heservice hibitsandpublicpropertycom ofcourtrecords.Herfailureto with
A.M. No.P-07- mittedtohischarge,including obeythismandateconstitutedgravemisconduct prejudicetoreemploymentin
2409April thelibraryofthecourt,and andconducthighlyprejudicial to theGovernmentor
7,2010,ReynatoS.P thesealsand thebestinterestof theservicebased onour anysubdivision,instrumentali
uno furniturebelongingtohisoffice ruling in Almario.Had Sorioperformed herduty ty,or
. to properlysupervisethetransmittalof agencythereof,includinggove
alltherecords of CriminalCaseNo. 44739 rnment-ownedor-controlled
including thepagination,marking,and indexing corporations.
oftheexhibitsthealterationsintheexhibitsand FINEDP5,000.00.
theloss ofthe17February1999 TSN in
therecordsofCriminalCaseNo.44739would
nothavetaken place.
Courthasstressedthatallthoseinvolved
inthedispensationof
justice,fromthepresidingjudgeto
thelowliestclerk,mustalwaysbebeyond
reproach.Theirconductmust,atalltimes,becircu
mscribedwith theheavyburden of
responsibilityfreefrom anysuspicion thatmay
taintthejudiciary.Astheadministrationof
justiceisa sacredtask,thisCourtcondemnsand
cannotcountenanceanyacton thepart of
courtpersonnelthatwouldviolatethenorm
ofpublicaccountabilityand
125
2010CASES
126
2010CASES
Bacalzo.This,however,makesJudgePaderang
aliableforsimplenegligence,andnotgrossign
oranceofthelawand
graveabuseofauthority,ascharged
bySenarlo.
Misconductis atransgression
ofsomeestablishedor definiteruleof
action;moreparticularly,itisan
unlawfulbehaviorby
thepublicofficer.Misconductmeansintentional
wrongdoingor deliberateviolation ofa
ruleoflaworstandardof
behavior,especiallybyagovernmentofficial.Toc
onstituteanadministrativeoffense,misconducts
houldrelatetoorbeconnectedwith
theperformanceoftheofficialfunctionsanddutie
s ofa publicofficer.
127
2010CASES
tortured herto
thepointofdeath.Allthesecircumstancesshow
ed the moralfiberrespondentismadeof,which
[leave]theundersigned with
nochoicebuttorecommend
thedisbarmentofAtty.DaniloS.Velasquez.
Thepracticeof lawisnotarightbuta
privilegebestowed bythestateupon those
whoshowthattheypossess,and continueto
possess,
thequalificationsrequiredbylawfortheconferme
ntofsuch privilege.Whena
lawyersmoralcharacterisassailed,such
thathisrighttocontinuepracticing hischerished
professionisimperiled,itbehooveshimto
meetthechargessquarelyand
presentevidence,to thesatisfactionof
theinvestigating
bodyandthisCourt,thatheismorallyfit tokeep
hisnamein theRollof Attorneys.
Topic:Simpleneglecto Simpleneglectofd Section52(B)(1)oftheRevised TheCourtfindsGalindez GUILTYofsimpleneglectofd
f duty –ProcessServer uty Uniform liableforsimpleneglectof duty.As uty.SUSPENDEDfromofficef
MarieDinah RulesonAdministrativeCasesi aprocessserver,Galindezhasthedutytoensuret orthree(3)monthswithoutp
S.Tolentino- n hatcourtnoticesareproperlyserved to ayand STERNLYWARNS him
Fuentesvs.MichaelPa theCivilService[31]classifiessi theparties. thatarepetitionof
trickA.Galindez , mpleneglectofdutyasalessgra Theduty ofa thesameorsimilaractsshallb
A.M.No. veoffensepunishablebyonem processserverisvitaltothemachinery of edealtwithmoreseverely.
07-2410June18, onthand oneday thejusticesystem.Hisprimarydutyistoservecour
2010,AntonioT.C tosixmonthssuspensionforthe tnoticeswhich preciselyrequiresutmostcareon
arpio firstoffense.Section hispartby
54statesthatthemediumperio seeingtoitthatallnoticesassignedtohimareduly
dof served upon
thepenaltyshallbeimposed theparties.Thus,respondentshould
when thereare nomitigating havecarefullyexamined eachof
and thevoluminousnoticesassigned tohim,scanning
aggravatingcircumstances.
128
2010CASES
JudgeCarbonellfellshortoftheexactingstandards
Topic: Violation CANON 3- setin Section2,Canon 3[18]oftheNewCodeof GUILTYofsimplemisconducta
MisconductJudgeMo ofSection1, Canon Impartialityisessentialto JudicialConductwhich states: nd
naLisaT.Tabora,Regio 3 and theproperdischargeofthejudi CANON FINEhimP10,000.00,tobeded
nalTrialCourt,Br.26Sa Section2,Canon5 cialoffice.Itappliesnotonly 3Impartialityisessentialtotheproperdischargeof uctedfrom
nFernandoCity,Launio tothedecision itselfbutalso thejudicialoffice.Itappliesnotonly to hisretirementbenefits
n vs. JudgeAntonio totheprocessby which thedecisionitselfbutalso to theprocessby which
Carbonell,RegionalTri thedecision ismade. thedecision ismade.
al Court,Branch SEC. 2. Judgesshallensurethathisor
27SanFernandoCity,L SEC. 2. herconduct,both in
aUnion,A.M.No.08- Judgesshallensurethathisor andoutofcourt,maintainsand
2145June18,2010, herconduct,bothin and outof enhancestheconfidenceof thepublic,
Antonio T. Carpio court, maintainsand
enhancestheconfidenceof
thepublic,thelegal
129
2010CASES
130
2010CASES
documentproclaims.
Dishonesty isdefinedasintentionallymaking
afalsestatementonany material factinsecuring
onesexamination,appointment,orregistration.
Dishonestyisa seriousoffensewhich reflects
apersonscharacterandexposesthe
moraldecaywhich virtually
destroyshonor,virtue,andintegrity.Itisamalevol
entactthathasno placein
thejudiciary,asnootherofficein
thegovernmentserviceexactsa
greaterdemandformoralrighteousnessfrom an
employeethanaposition in thejudiciary.
Nodoubt,courtofficialsoccupyan
exaltedposition in society.They enjoy
authoritativeinfluence,which
leavestheinnocentpublicunlikelytoraiseany
objection.Unfortunately,thisisalsothereasonw
hy
theyhavemoreopportunitiestocommitdishone
stacts.Butdishonestyhasnoplaceinthejudiciary
andtheCourtwillnothesitatetoremovefromam
ong itsranksthosefoundtobedishonest.
131
2010CASES
132
2010CASES
administrationof
justice.Tothatend,hisclientssuccessiswholly
subordinate.Hisconductoughttoandmustalway
sbescrupulously
observantofthelawandethics.Anymeans,notho
norable,fairand honestwhich isresorted
tobythelawyer,even inthepursuitof
hisdevotion
Topic: Gravemisconduct Rule7.03-A tohisclientscause,iscondemnableand SUSPENDEDforThreeMonth
GraveMisco and lawyershallnotengagein unethical. swithoutpay,withaWARNIN
nduct willfulfailuretopay conductthatadverselyreflects Gthatarepetitionof
Re:ComplaintsofMrs. justdebts on thesameorsimilaractsshallb
MilagrosLee&Samant hisfitnesstopracticelaw,nors TheCourthasconsistently been edealtwithmoreseverely
haLeeagainstAtty.GilL Violation ofRules hallhewhetherin remindingofficialsandemployeesoftheJudiciary
uisitoR.Capito,A.M.N 7.03 and 8.01 publicorprivatelife,behavein thattheirconductor behavior
o. oftheCodeofProfes ascandalousmannerto iscircumscribedwith a heavyburdenof
2008-19-SCJuly 27, sionalResponsibilit thediscreditof responsibility which,atalltimes,should
2010,ConchitaCar y thelegalprofession. becharacterized
pio-Morales by,amongotherthings,strictproprietyand
Rule8.01-A lawyershallnot,in decorum.Assuch,they should
hisprofessionaldealings,usela notuseabusive,offensive,scandalous,menacing
nguagewhich and improperlanguage.Theireveryact or word
isabusive,offensiveorotherwis should bemarked
eimproper. byprudence,restraint,courtesyand dignity. FINEDin
theamountofP10,000.0
Topic: Impropriety 0.
Rolando STERNLYWARNEDthata
GrossIgnoranceoft
E.Marcosvs.JudgeOfel Section1,Canon4of repetitionof
heLaw,KnowinglyR
ia T.Pinto theNewCodeof thesameorsimilaractssha
endering
A.M. No. RTJ-09- JudicialConductfor llbedealtwithmoresevere
anUnjustJudgment
2180July26,2010,Dios thePhilippineJudiciaryenuncia ly.
/Orderand Tobeheld liableforgrossignoranceof
dado M. Peralta testherulethatJudgesshallavoi
Partiality thelaw,thejudgemustbeshown
dimpropriety and
theappearanceof tohavecommittedan
improprietyinall errorthatwasgrossorpatent,deliberateormalici
oftheiractivities. ous.Alsoadministrativelyliablefor
grossignoranceofthelawis ajudge
133
2010CASES
whoshownto havebeenmotivated by
badfaith,fraud,dishonesty orcorruption
ignored,contradictedor failedtoapplysettled
lawandjurisprudence.
With regardto theaccusation
ofimpropriety,wefind ittobewith
basis.Section1,Canon4of theNewCodeof
JudicialConductforthePhilippineJudiciaryenun
ciatestherulethatJudgesshallavoid
impropriety and theappearanceof
improprietyin all oftheiractivities."
Upon assumption ofoffice,a
judgebecomesthevisiblerepresentationof
thelawand ofjustice.Membership in
theJudiciarycircumscribesones
personalconductandimposesupon him a
number
ofinhibitions,whosefaithfulobservance
istheprice onehastopayforholding
suchanexaltedposition.
Thus, amagistrateof thelaw
mustcomporthimselfatalltimesin sucha
mannerthathisconduct,officialorotherwise,can
withstandthemostsearching
publicscrutiny,fortheethicalprinciplesand
senseof propriety of ajudgeareessentialto
thepreservation ofthepeoplesfaith
inthejudicialsystem.ThisCourtdoes
notrequireof judgesthatthey measureup
tothestandardsofconductofthesaintsand
martyrs,butwedo expectthem
tobelikeCaesarswifeinalltheiractivities.Hence,
werequirethem to abidestrictlyby theCodeof
134
2010CASES
JudicialConduct.
Here,itappearsthatrespondentjudgehasfailed
to liveup
tothoserigorousstandards.Heractofsolemnizing
themarriageofaccused’sson
intheresidenceoftheaccusedspeaksforitself.Itisi
mproperand highlyunethical fora judgeto
actively participateinsuch
socialaffairs,considering thattheaccused isa
partyin a casepending beforeherown
sala.Whatsheshouldhavedonewascourteouslyd
eny thepartiesrequest.Herclaim
thatshewasunawarethatthepartieswererelated
totheaccused failstoconvince.
In pending or
prospectivelitigationsbeforethem,judgesshoul
d bescrupulouslycarefultoavoid anything
thatmay tend toawaken thesuspicion
thattheirpersonal,social
orsundryrelationscould
influencetheirobjectivity.Notonly
mustjudgespossessproficiencyin law,they
mustalso actand
behaveinsuchmannerthatwould
assurelitigantsand theircounselof
Grossignoranceoft Section1,Canon4of Finein theamountof
thejudgescompetence,integrityandindepende
helawandmanifest theNewCodeof FortyThousand
nce.
Topic: Impropriety partiality JudicialConductfor Pesos(P40,000.00)tobededu
Atty.JoseA.Bernasvs thePhilippineJudiciaryenuncia ctedfrom heraccrued
. testherulethatJudgesshallavoi leavecredits,ifsufficient;ifnot
dimpropriety and TheCourtcannotconcludethatrespondentJu ,then sheshould pay
JudgeJuliaA.Reyes,
theappearanceof dgewasguilty thesaidamountdirectly to
MetropolitanTrial
improprietyinall ofsuchmisapplicationofelementarycourtrule thisCourt
Court,Branch69,Pasi
oftheiractivities. sandprocedureastoconstitutegrossignoranc
gCity A.M.
eof thelaw.
However,thesamecircumstances,taken
135
2010CASES
136
2010CASES
tocausean
injustice.Thisdoesnotmean,however,thata
judgeneednotobservepropriety,discreetnessa
ndduecarein
theperformanceofhisofficialfunctions.Indeed,
allmembersof theBench areenjoined
tobehaveatalltimesastopromotepublicconfid DISMISSED
GraveMisconduct CANON 3- encein theintegrity and impartiality
Topic: Misconduct Impartialityisessentialto ofthejudiciary.
OliviaLaurelvs. theproperdischargeofthejudi
JudgePablo cialoffice.Itappliesnotonly
B.Francisco, tothedecision itselfbutalso Asadmitted by MagatandArellano,they
A.M. No. RTJ-10- totheprocessby which hadactuallyavailedthemselvesof
2214July6,2010,Terisi thedecision ismade. Nuestrosservicesseveraltimes,forwhich,appare
ta ntly,theyhadto
J.Leonardo-DeCastro SEC. 2. payNuestro.WhileNuestroshould
Judgesshallensurethathisor nothavebeenallowed toperform thedutiesand
herconduct,bothin and outof functionsof a
court,maintainsand courtemployee,therewasnoclearshowingthat
enhancestheconfidenceof MagatandArellano wereallowedorcoerced
thepublic,thelegalprofession byJudgeFrancisco to useNuestrosservicesand
and litigantsin theimpartiality payingNuestroforthesame.The
of thejudgeandof Courthasconsistently been reminding
thejudiciary. officialsandemployeesoftheJudiciarythattheirc
onductor behavioriscircumscribed with a
heavyburden of
responsibilitywhich,atalltimes,should
becharacterizedby,among
otherthings,strictproprietyanddecorum.Assuch
,theyshould
GraveMisconduct notuseabusive,offensive,scandalous,menacing DISMISSED
and Rule1.01 –A and improperlanguage.Theireveryact or word
Topic:
IgnoranceoftheLa judgeshouldbetheembodime should bemarked
GraveMiscondu
w ntofcompetence,integrity,an byprudence,restraint,courtesyand dignity.
ctand
dindependence.
137
2010CASES
Ignoranceof theLaw
Ruben Salcedo Plainly,theerrorsattributed
vs.JudgeGilBollozo torespondentjudgepertain
s, totheexerciseofhisadjudicativefunctions.As
A.M. No. RTJ-10- amatterof policy,intheabsenceof
2236July5,2010,Artur fraud,dishonesty,andcorruption,theactsofa
oBrion judgein hisofficialcapacity
arenotsubjecttodisciplinaryaction.Hecannotbes
ubjectedtoliabilitycivil,criminal,or
administrativefor any ofhis officialacts,no
matterhowerroneous,aslongasheactsin good
faith.Onlyjudicialerrorstainted with
fraud,dishonesty,grossignorance,bad faith,or
deliberateintenttodoan
injusticewillbeadministrativelysanctioned.Settl
ed istherulethaterrorscommitted byajudgein
theexerciseofhisadjudicativefunctionscannotbe
correctedthrough
administrativeproceedings,butshould instead
beassailedthrough
judicialremedies.Wementionedallthesetoemph
asizeto
therespondentjudgetheneedtobemorejudiciou
sand circumspectin theissuanceof
extraordinary writssuchastheWritof Amparo.
Canon 1.01 oftheCodeofJudicialConduct,
ajudgemustbe"theembodimentofcompetenc
e,integrityand independence." Ajudgeiscalled
upon toexhibitmorethan justa
cursoryacquaintancewith
statutesandproceduralrules;itisimperativetha
thebeconversantwith basiclegalprinciplesand
be
138
2010CASES
awareofwell-
settledauthoritativedoctrines.Heowesto
thepublicand
tothisCourtthedutytobeproficientin the
law.Heisexpectedtokeepabreastoflawsand
prevailingjurisprudence.Judgesmustnotonly
renderjust,correct,and
impartialdecisions,resolutions,andorders,butm
ustdo so in amannerfreeof anysuspicion asto
theirfairness,impartiality,and
Disbarment Section27,Rule138 FINEDP5,000each,STERN
integrity,forgoodjudgesaremenwho
oftheRulesofCourt, LYWARNEDthata
havemastery oftheprinciples of
Topic: Disbarment amemberofthebarmay similaroffensein
lawandwhodischargetheirdutiesin
ReyVargas,etal.vs.At bedisbarredorsuspended thefuturewillbedealtwithm
accordancewithlaw.
ty.MichaelIgnes,etal fromhisofficeasattorneybythe oreseverely.
,A.C. SupremeCourtforanydeceit,m
No.8096July5,2010, alpractice,orothergrossmisco
nductin suchoffice,grossly For
Martin
immoralconduct,orbyreasono respondentswillfulappearanceascounselsofKW
S.Villarama,Jr
f hisconvictionofa D withoutauthority todo so,thereisavalid
crimeinvolving ground toimposedisciplinaryaction
moralturpitude, orforany againstthem.Under Section 27,Rule138 of
violationof theoath theRulesofCourt,amemberofthebarmay
whichheisrequired bedisbarredorsuspended
totakebeforeadmission fromhisofficeasattorneyby
topractice,or for theSupremeCourtforanydeceit,malpractice, or
awillfuldisobedienceofanylaw othergrossmisconductin such office,grossly
fulorderof a superiorcourt,or immoralconduct,or byreasonof
forcorruptly hisconvictionofa
orwillfullyappearing crimeinvolvingmoralturpitude,or forany
asanattorneyfor aparty violationoftheoathwhich
toacasewithoutauthority to heisrequiredtotakebeforeadmission
do so topractice,or for a
willfuldisobedienceofanylawfulorderof
CANON 10–A asuperiorcourt,or forcorruptly
lawyerowescandor,fairness orwillfullyappearing asan attorney fora
and good partytoacasewithoutauthoritytodo so.
139
2010CASES
140
2010CASES
141
2010CASES
standard ofmorality,honesty,integrity
andfairdealing so thatthepeoplesfaith
andconfidencein
thejudicialsystemisensured.They
mustatalltimesfaithfullyperform
theirdutiestosociety,to thebar,thecourtsand
totheirclients,which includepromptpaymentof
financialobligations.They
mustconductthemselvesin DISMISSED
Gravemisconduct From
amannerthatreflectsthevaluesand normsof forlackofevidence
Topic: theevidenceadduced,compl
thelegalprofession asembodied in
Gravemisconduct- ainantfailedtoestablish
theCodeofProfessionalResponsibility.
Sheriff theallegationsofgravemisco
PO2 nductagainstherein
PatrickMejiaGabriel respondent.Inadministrative
vs.WilliamJoseR.Ram proceedings,theburden From
os,A.M.No. P-10-2837 ofproofthatrespondentcom theevidenceadduced,complainantfailed to
August25,2010,Artur mitted theactcomplained establish theallegationsof
oBrion ofrestsonthecomplainant(G gravemisconductagainsthereinrespondent
otgotaoversusMillora,459SC .Inadministrativeproceedings,theburdenof
RA340) proofthatrespondentcommitted
theactcomplained ofrestson
thecomplainant(Gotgotao
versusMillora,459SCRA340)
Violation Canon
Topic: DISBARREDfromthepractice
oftheNotarialLa 1oftheCodeofProfessionalRes
ViolationofNotari of lawand
w(PublicActNo. ponsibilityprovidesthat[a]law
alLaw hisnameisORDEREDSTRICKE
2103), yershalluphold
LuzvimindaR.Luste N from
Canon 1 and Rule theConstitution,obey
sticavs. theRollof Attorneys
1.01 thelawsoftheland
Atty.SergioE.Berna
oftheCodeofProfes andpromoterespectforlawan Therespondentengaged
be, PERPETUALLYDISQUALIFIED
sionalResponsibilit dlegalprocesses. inunlawfulconductwhen hedid
A.C. No. from being
y notobservetherequirementsunderSection
6258August24,2010, commissionedasa
Rule1.01 1oftheOldNotarialLawthatrequiresnotariespubl
ReynatoC. notarypublic
oftheCodeofProfessionalR ic tocertify thatthepartyto theinstrument
esponsibility hasacknowledgedand
142
2010CASES
143
2010CASES
Section6.
Gravemisconduct,F Judgesshallmaintainorderan ASSOCIATEJUSTICE
alsificationofpublic ddecorumin GREGORYS.ONGisorderedto
documents;Impropr allproceedingsbefore paya fineofP15,000.00,with
ietiesin thecourtand a sternwarning
AssistantSpecialPros thehearingofcases; bepatient,dignified and Ong - Withoutdoubt,theChairman,asheadof thatarepetitionof
ecutorIIIRohermiaJ.J and courteousinrelationto theDivision thesameorsimilaroffensessh
amsani-Rodriguez Manifestpartialitya litigants,witnesses,lawyersan undertheinternalrulesoftheSandiganbayan,isp allbedealtwith
vs.JusticeGregoryS.O nd dotherswithwhom rimusinterpares.Hepossessesandwieldspower moreseverely;
ng,etal, grossignoranceof thejudgedealsin s ofsupervision,direction,and
A.M. No.08-19-SB- thelaw anofficialcapacity.Judgesshal controlovertheconductof ASSOCIATEJUSTICEJOSE R.
JAugust24,2010,Luc lrequiresimilarconductof theproceedingscoming beforetheDivision. HERNANDEZisadmonished
asP. Bersamin legalrepresentatives,courtst Hethereby wittingly with awarning
affand failedtoguaranteethathisDivisionsproceedingsc thatarepetitionof
otherssubjecttotheirinfluenc amewithin thebounds thesameorsimilaroffensess
e,directionorcontrol. ofsubstantiveandproceduralrules.Wecannot,of hallbedealtwith
course,presumethathewasunawareofor moreseverely;and
unfamiliarwith thepertinentlawand
correctprocedure,considering hisalreadylong ASSOCIATEJUSTICERODOLF
tenureand experienceas of thenas a OA.PONFERRADA
JusticeoftheSandiganbayan,having risenfrom iswarnedto
AssociateJusticetoChairmanof hisDivision. bemorecautiousaboutthe
properprocedureto
betaken
Itbecomestimely to inproceedingsbeforehisco
reiteratethatanhonorable,competentandind urt.
ependentJudiciaryexiststoadministerjusticei
nordertopromotethestability
ofgovernmentandthewell-being
ofthepeople.
Wewarn,therefore,thatnoconduct,act,oromissi
ononthepartofanyoneinvolved
intheadministrationof justicethatviolatesthe
144
2010CASES
norm ofpublicaccountabilityand
diminishesthefaithofthepeopleintheJudiciarys
hallbecountenanced. Publicconfidencein
thejudicialsystem and in themoralauthority
andintegrity oftheJudiciary isof
utmostimportanceinamoderndemocraticsocie
ty;hence,itisessentialforalljudges,individuallya
Gravemisconduct nd collectively,torespectand
and Rule7.03-A honorthejudicialofficeas apublictrustand SUSPENDEDforThreeMonth
willfulfailuretopay lawyershallnotengagein tostrivetoenhanceandmaintain confidencein swithoutpay,withaWARNIN
Topic:
justdebts conductthatadverselyreflects thejudicialsystem. Gthatarepetitionof
GraveMisco
on thesameorsimilaractsshallb
nduct
Violation ofRules hisfitnesstopracticelaw,nors edealtwithmoreseverely
Re:ComplaintsofMrs.
7.03 and 8.01 hallhewhetherin TheCourthasconsistently been
MilagrosLee&Samant
oftheCodeofPro publicorprivatelife,behavein remindingofficialsandemployeesoftheJudiciary
haLeeagainstAtty.GilL
fessionalRespon ascandalousmannerto thattheirconductor behavior
uisitoR.Capito,A.M.N
sibility thediscreditof iscircumscribedwith a heavyburdenof
o.
thelegalprofession. responsibility which,atalltimes,should
2008-19-SCJuly 27,
2010,ConchitaCarpio- becharacterized
Rule8.01-A lawyershallnot,in by,amongotherthings,strictproprietyand
Morales
hisprofessionaldealings,usela decorum.Assuch,they should
nguagewhich notuseabusive,offensive,scandalous,menacing
isabusive,offensiveorotherwis and improperlanguage.Theireveryact or word
eimproper. should bemarked FINE ofP15,000.00,with
byprudence,restraint,courtesyand dignity. aSTERN
Unduedelayinrende WARNINGagainstthecommi
Rule3.05 –A
ring ssionof
Topic: judgeshalldisposeof
adecisionororder;fo asimilaroffense.(unduedela
UndueDelayinrenderi thecourt’sbusinessprom y)
r fraternizingwith
ng a decisionororder ptly
litigantswith Thechargesofviolating
EvangelineVeracruz anddecidecaseswithin theCodeof
apending casein
therequired periods. JudgeVillegashad fallen shortofthestandards
hiscourtin relation JudicialConductandof
ofefficiencyandpromptnessofaction
toCivilCaseNo.192( fraternizing with
requiredof an administratorofjustice.
entitled alitigantareDISMISSED
forlackofevidence.
145
2010CASES
146
2010CASES
147
2010CASES
nonprofessional,indicating
unfitnessfortheprofession
justifiesdisciplinaryaction.
148
2010CASES
149
2010CASES
150
2010CASES
GrossIneffi A.M. No.MTJ- Judge 1987 Constitution, Judge Quilatanviolatedhismandate when he Fine ofPhp
ciency 09-1745 Quilatanuponhisretirementhadleft48 Section15(1), failedtodecide 34 50,000tobe
OCA casessubmittedfordecision. 34 ArticleVIII, caseswithinthree(3)monthsfromtheirsubmission, deductedfromhisretire
vsJudgeQuilat ofwhichwere alreadybeyond the AdministrativeCircul forwhich heshould be administrativelysanctioned. ment/gratuitybenefits
an reglementary period todecide and no ar No. 3-99 .
J VelascoJr. reason of explanationisindicated
Dishonesty AM No.P-07- Chulyaoemployedhersisterto Civil Service Laws The OCA, adopting theCSC findings,notedthatindeed DISMISSALfromtheser
2292 RE: CSC vs takefor herinherbehalfthe the photoappearingon the picture seatplanover the vice, withforfeitureof
ChulyaoSe CSCExaminations. name andsignatureof Chulyaowasthat ofhersister, allretirementbenefitsand
ptember28 Pangowon. Chulyaoevencategorically admittedthisfact, privileges,
,2010 butdenieditwasintentional. Likewise, exceptaccruedleave
PerCuriam italsofoundsubstantial dissimilarity between the credits, ifany,
signatureappearing inChulyao'spersonaldata withprejudice to
sheetandthesignature appearing on the picture re-
seatplan.The OCAnotedthatwhile employmentinanybranc
Chulyaoinsistedthatthe name andsignature appearing h orinstrumentality of
below the alleged photo ofRaquelPangowonwashersand thegovernment,includi
notofRaquelPangowon,she,however, failed nggovernment-
topresentany evidence to provethatthe signature ownedorcontrolledcorp
appearing onthe picture seatplanwasreally herown. orations
Thus,theOCA concludedthat
theunexplaineddiscrepancy whichisclear tothe
nakedeyeisproofenoughthatindeedanotherperson
Grave A.M. No. P-10- Padillopromisedto preparethe Code of Conductof tooktheexaminationforandinbehalf
Despite of Chulyao.
the withdrawalofthe complaint, theOCA sent Padillo’sretirement
Misconduct 2785 necessary documents for thefiling of a CourtPersonnelSec noticestoPadilloto explainbut the latteralready benefitsexceptaccrued
Escalona vs case inexchange of Php20000 as 2 Canon 1 resigned.The resignationofPadillodidnotrender the leave creditsare
Padillo, Court paymentfor the prosecutor.However, complaintmoot.Resignationisnotandshouldnot be forferited.
Stenographer no case wasfiled. Escalonawithdrew convenientway orstrategy toevade administrative
September21, hercomplaintagainstPadillowhen the liability when a courtemployee isfacing administrative
2010 latterretunedthe money. sanction. Noaffidavit ofdesistance candivestthe court
PerCuriam of itsjurisdiction.Padillowasfoundguilty
151
2010CASES
Impropriety, AM NoRTJ-08- The Judge called theparty ina Code of On the charge ofimpropriety andgrossmisconduct,the FINEofP40,000to
Corruptiona 2136 caseasking forPhp100,000.00 JudicialConduc InvestigatingJustice opinedthat the actofJudgeDuque bedeductedfromhisretir
ndGrossMis SusanReyesvsJU forhimtodeny a pending inembracing andkissingReyes, ementbenefits.
conduct DGEMANUEL motion.Thejudge alsotouched the suckingherbreastsandtouching hermostintimate
N.DUQUE private partsandattemptedtohave partswerecertainly actsof lewdnessthatwere
September21, sexualintercoursewith the latter. downrightobscene,detestable, andunwelcome.These
2010 actswere establishedby substantial evidence, Judge
J Carpio Duque admitted,thatReyeswenttohishouse. The
Investigating
Justicesnarrationwassufficientandthorough.
TheInvestigating Justice
likewiseobservedthatJudgeDuque merely attempted
todestroythe credibility ofReyeswhen he insinuatedthat
she could bea woman ofillrepute or a
highclassprostitute or one whosemoralvalue
isatitslowestlevel. However, no judge has aright
tosolicitsexual favorsfrom a party litigantevenfrom a
woman ofloose morals. He wasfoundGUILTY
Unauthorized AMOCA IPINo. Judge Angelesdidnotfile any leave violation ofIMPROPRIETY andGROSSMISCONDUCT.
Respectingrespondent’spresence at the trialcourton The
Absences 05-2353-RTJ ofabsence on May 3 andAugust 3 ofSupremeCourtCirc May 3, 2005, while admittedly no subpoena earlierresolutionsof
VelascovsJudge whenshe wentshe appearedatthe ulars, wasserved onher toappear onsaiddate thatwasa re- the courtaresetaside,
Angeles trialcourtfor a heating where she theCanonsofJudicial scheduleddate ofhearing, the earlier- the
istheprivate complainant. Ethicsandthe scheduledhearinghaving beenpostponed.There complaintisdismissed.
Codeof Judicial wasthusno absoluteneed for her tobe subpoenaed for
Conduct,specifically the purpose.For acivil servanttothusberequired to file a
forunauthorizedprac leave ofabsence, he/sheshouldhave beenabsentfor
tice of afractionof three-fourthsormore ofa full day. In the
law,unauthorizedabs presentcase, complainantfailedtoprove
encesandfalsification thatrespondentwasaway from herofficefor atleast
ofcertificate sixhours(3/4of 8hoursworking) on
ofservice. August3,2005.Uponthe otherhand,
respondentreportedforwork in the morning, asshown
by copiesoforderswhich she issuedinopencourt on
casescalendaredforconsiderationin themorningof
August3, 2005.
152
2010CASES
Inefficiency A.M. No.MTJ- The judge ischargedforsitting on Rule 140 of Judge Montojosreasonforthe delay in FINEof(P10,000.00)
10- thecase pending before hissala.He theRulesofCou resolving Criminal Case Nos. 4173-4176, to be
1754BernardoJr. onlyconductedtwohearingsonAugust1 rt whichiscomplainantBernardosinsistence on being deductedfromhisretirem
VsMontojoOcto 6 representedbya PAOlawyer, isnotacceptable. A judge entbenefits
ber20,2010J ,2007 andOctober9, 2007. shouldnotbe at the mercy of the whimsof
Leonardo- lawyersandpartiesforitisnottheirconvenience
DeCastro whichshould betheprimordialconsiderationbutthe
administration ofjustice. Asfor Civil CaseNo. 490, the
Courtnotes
thatrespondentJudgeMontojodidnotevenbother
toprovide anexplanationforhisdelay inresolving
thesame.
RespondentJudgeMontojosdelay inacting on
pendingcasesclearly demonstratedhisinefficiency. He
failed to controlthe proceedingsorcourse ofthe cases;
toimpose deadlinesin thesubmissionof
documentsorperformance of actsincidentto the
disposition of cases;and to resolve pending
incidentsontime, andtakeappropriate action on
incidentsarising inthe course of
153
2010CASES
154
2010CASES
Herrera
Misconduct AM No 10-7- Justice Del Castilloisaccused The researcherofJustice DelCastillowasable toprovethat The
17SC ofplagiarismandof twistingthe she unintentionally deleted the reference to complaintisdismisse
In thematterofthe trueintents of the plagiarize sourcesto theliftedpassage; hence, therewasno intent dfor lack ofmerit.
chargesofplagiaris suitthe argumentsof a judgement toplagiarize.The conceptsclaimed tobe
magainstAssociat hepennedin a Special Civil Action twistedprovidedmerebackgroundfactsthatestablished
e ofcertiorarifiled by membersof thestateofinternationallaw atvariousstage of
JusticeMarianoC. theMalaya LolasOrganization. itsdevelopment.
DelCastillo There are neutraldata
PerCuriam thatcouldsupportconflictingtheories.Failure to use
quotationmarks, inadvertentlyomittednecessary
ConductPreju AM No.P-09- Regaladoaskedcomplainantformoney Supreme information do notamount
Regaladoshouldnothave tomisconduct.
receivedmoney fromArgosofor DISMISSEDfrom
dicial tothe 2735 allegedly for travel, CourtAdministrativ histransportation toDaet, withoutpreviouslysubmitting theservice
Bestinterestof Levi fordrinksandpulutaninconnectionwith eCircular No. 35- hisexpensesforthe
theservice ArgosovsAchilles histasktoserve the 04, courtsapproval.Regaladosadmissionthat he
RegaladoII,Sherif writofexecutionforthe return of a ection10, Rule 141of receivedmoneywithoutcomplying
f landtitle. theRulesofCourt, withtheproperprocedure inenforcing writsof
IVOctober12,201 Section52(A)(20)of execution,made himguilty ofconductprejudicial to the
0PerCuriam theRevisedUniform bestinterestof the service.
RulesonAdministrati
ve Cases
undue AM No.MTJ-09- The judge failedtoact on the Rule 3.05, Canon Nothing in the recordsshowsthatthe respondentjudge Fine of 20,000
delayinrender 1738 twourgentex partemotion 3of the Code askedforanextensionof timeto decide
ing adecision Cirila torenderdecision. ofJudicial Conduct thesubjectcriminalcases.In addition, therespondentjudge
RaymundovsJud failed to considerthatthe subjectcasesrequired
geTeresitoAndoy aquickerresolutionasthey were covered bytheRule
October6,2010J onSummary Procedure.Respondentjudge
Brion failedtoobserve the mandatedperiod of time to decide
casesinviolation ofConstitution,
andviolationofCanon3,Rule 3.05 ofthe Code ofJudicial
Conduct
155
2010CASES
Ignorance AM No.MTJ-08- Judge Rabaca denied themotion Code of The judge excuse that hehad lost jurisdictionover Fine of 5,000.00
ofthe 1580 ofimmediate ConductofGovern thecase by virtue of the defendantsappeal,
law,disregard FerrerandArande executionfiledbythecomplainants on mentofficials wasunacceptable inlight oftheclearandexplicittext
ofthe law z vsJudgeRabaca the basisthat oftheSection19 Rule 70ofthe Ruleson Civil Procedure.
October6, 2010J thecourthaslostjurisdictionover The perfectionof the appealbythe
Bersamin thecase because the losing defendantdidnotforbidthe favorable actionon the
partyhasfileda notice of appeal. plaintiffsmotionforimmediate execution. Onlythe filing
ofthe sufficientsupersedeasbondandthe depositwith the
appellatecourtof the amountofrentdue fromtime
totime,coupledwith theperfectionof the appeal,
couldstaythe execution. He couldnotalsocredibly justify
hisomissiontoactaccording tothe provisionby
claiminggoodfaithor honestbelief,or by assertinglack
ofmalice or badfaith. Arule
asclearandexplicitasSection19 couldnot be misread or
misapplied, butshouldbe
Violation AM No CA-10- RespondentJusticesissuedtworesolut Sec 3(e) RA 3019 implementedwithoutevasionor
The assailedResolutionsissued byhesitation.
respondentsfavouring Case dismissed
ofAnti- 50-J ionsallegedly causing undueinjury one party doesnotnecessarilyrenderrespondentsguilty
GraftandCor IndustriesvsJusti tothe complainant,giving ofviolation ofSection3(e)of R.A.No. 3019,
ruptPractices ceRoxaOctober theotherparty absentprovenparticularactsofmanifest,evidentbadfaitho
Act 5, 2010 unwarrantedbenefits,advantage or r grossinexcusable negligence, good
preference through
156
2010CASES
157
2010CASES
GraveMisc AM No.P-10- CashClerk Llamasofferedto assistthe Misconductandviolat Llamasisfoundguilty ofgrave misconduct. In lightof
onduct 2781 respondentin thefacilitation ofthe ion ofRA 3019 The respondentsactswouldhave squarely hispriorresignationand
Pinlac titling of the landthat fallenunderSection52(A)(11), Rule IVof the outofcompassion,
vsLlamasNove heandhissiblingsinheritedfromtheirde UniformRulesonAdministrative Casesin theCivil Service heisfinedP20,000.00
mber24, ceasedparentsinexchange of a total (CSCMemorandumCircularNo.19, seriesof 1999), were
2010 ofP10,000.00. After2 years, itnot for theproventurnoverofthe initially
J Brion respondentfailed to deliverthe demandedP2,000.00 to thesurveyor.Otherthanonthe
promisedtitle. basisofthisprovision,however, the respondentisliable
underSection52(A)(3)forgrave misconduct.
The respondentwasa CashClerk IIwhose dutiesdidnot
involve the discussionofpending caseswithlitigants;
cashclerkssolely attend to official
financialtransactionsbetween the
courtandoutsidepartiesdealing with the court. Second,
the referral tothesurveyorwasnotanordinary concern of
a cashclerkandwasnot a casualreferral. Lastly
andmostimportantly, the firstpaymentwasmade to
therespondenthimself,thusindicating thathisrole was
notasneutralasthe simpleassistance that he termedit
tobe. He wasa part ofthe transaction, although
heostensibly handedthe firstpayment to
thesurveyorandthe lattermade all the subsequentbillings.
Thecomplainantmade hisfollow-up on the release
ofhistitle with therespondentandhadevenasked
therespondenttocontactthe surveyorfor thereturn
ofthemoney paid. These indicatedhow active anddeep
therespondentsrole was.
Grossineffici AM No.MTJ-08- Judge Torres, in 1987 Constitution, The magnitude of hertransgressionsin the DISMISSEDfrom
ency,grossign 1719/AM No. thefirstcomplaint,admitted the Section15(1), presentconsolidatedcases- grossinefficiency, theservice withforfeiture
orance ofthe MTJ-08- defendantsmotion toadmitresponsive ArticleVIII, grossignoranceof the law, dereliction ofduty, violation ofallretirementbenefitsex
law,derelictio 1722/AM pleading despiteinitially denied the AdministrativeCircul ofthe Code ofJudicial Conduct, andinsubordination, ceptearnedleave
nofduty no.MTJ-08- motionforreconsiderationfiledforfailure ar No. 3-99 takencollectively, cast a heavy shadowon andvacationbenefits,
1723 tosubmitanswerto the hermoral,intellectualandattitudinalcompetence. She withprejudice
Atty complaintwithinthe periodof hasshownherselfunworthy ofthe judicial robe andplace toemploymentinanybran
ArnoldLugaresvsJ tendaysandshe did notrenderany of honorreservedforguardiansof justice.Thus, the ch ofthegovernmentor
udgeGuttierrez- decision onthe case despitethe lapse Courtisconstrainedto impose uponherthe any
TorresNovember ofmore than a year. severestofadministrative penaltiesdismissalfrom ofitsinstrumentalities
23, Inthesecondandthirdcomplaint,Judge theservice, to
2010
158
2010CASES
PerCuriam Torresfailed to render a decisionon assurethe peoplesfaithinthe judiciary and the including government-
acase underSummary Procedure speedyadministrationof justice. ownedandcontrolledco
formore thanthree rporations.
years.JudgeTorresalsodidnotsubmither
comment tothe administrative
casesfiledbeforethe OCA.
Malpractice AC No. 5859 Atty De Vera misappropriated Section27,Rule The nature of the casesfiledbythe respondent, the factof Disbarred
andGrossM Atty thegarnishmentofhisclient. After 138of re-filing themafterbeingdismissed, the timingof thefiling
isconduct CarmenAlcantara theIBPBoardofGovernorsheldrespond theRulesofCourt. ofcases,the factthat the respondentwasinconspiracy with
vsAttyEduardo entguiltyof infidelity arenegade memberof thecomplainants family, the
De andrecommendedforone defendantsnamedin the casesand the foullanguage
VeraNovember23 yearsuspension, he filed a total of12 usedin the pleadingsandmotions, allindicate
, casesinvariousdifferentfora thattherespondentwasactingbeyond the desire
2010 againsthisformerclient,client’sfamilyme forjusticeandfairness. Hisactoffiling a barrage
PerCuriam mbers,the family corporation ofthe ofcasesappearstobe anact ofrevengeandhate driven by
client,RTCJudge, angerandfrustrationagainsthisformerclientwhofiled the
andChairmanandmembersofthe disciplinary complaintagainsthimfor infidelity inthe
BoardofGovernorsof IBP. custody of a clientsfund. Further, the respondent
notonly
filedfrivolousandunfoundedlawsuitsthatviolatedhisduties
asanofficerof the courtinaidingin the
properadministrationof justice, buthe did so against a
formerclient to whomhe owesloyalty andfidelity.
Canon21andRule 21.02 of the Codeof
ProfessionalResponsibility[ The cases filed bythe
respondentagainsthisformerclientinvolvedmattersandinf
ormationacquiredbytherespondentduring thetimewhen
he wasstillcounsel. Informationasto thestructure
andoperationsofthe family corporation,private
documents,
andotherpertinentfactsandfiguresusedasbasisor
insupportof the casesfiled by
therespondentinpursuitofhismaliciousmotiveswereall
acquiredthrough the attorney-
clientrelationshipwithhereincomplainants.Suchactisindir
ectviolationof the Canonsandwillnotbe tolerated bythe
Court.
159
2010CASES
GrossMis AC No. 8391 Atty Gutierrez loaned a totalof P90, Rule 1.01 oftheCode Deliberate failure topay justdebtsconstitute In view
conduct Manuel 000.00. He refused topay of grossmisconduct, forwhich a lawyermay be ofthispreviousdisbarme
YuhicovsAtty upondemandclaiming thathe ProfessionalRespons sanctionedwithsuspensionfromthe practice of law. nt, the courthim to pay
FredGutierrez isfinanciallydistressed. ibility Lawyersareinstrumentsforthe administrationofjustice the loanedamount.
November23, andvanguardsofourlegal system. there isno
2010 questionastoGutierrez'sguilt. Hisadmission ofthe loan
PerCuriam hecontractedandhisfailure topay thesame
leavesnoroomfor interpretation.Neithercan he justify
hisactofnon-paymentof debt by hisdire
financialcondition.
Gutierrezshouldnot have
contractedloanswhicharebeyondhisfinancialcapacity to
pay. Lawyersareinstrumentsforthe
administrationofjustice andvanguardsofourlegalsystem.
They are expected tomaintain notonly legalproficiency,
butalso a highstandardof morality, honesty, integrity
andfairdealingso thatthe peoplesfaithandconfidence in
the judicialsystem isensured.They must, atall
times,faithfullyperformtheirdutiestosociety, to the bar,
the courtsand to theirclients, whichinclude
promptpaymentoffinancial obligations. They must
conductthemselvesina
mannerthatreflectsthevaluesandnormsofthe
GraveMisc AMP-06-2225 Limeta, a legalresearcher,received violation ofRA 3019 legalprofessionasembodiedinthe Code of
Limeta committedgrave misconductwhenshe Dismissedfromservicew
onduct BernaletteRamos P35,000 ProfessionalResponsibility.
acceptedmoney from the ithforfeiture of
vsSusanLimetaN asdownpaymentforherservicesinfindin complainantaspaymentforherservicesinassisting the allbenefits,
ovember23, g a competentlawyerfor latterinfiling anannulmentcase exceptaccruedleave
2010 hercousinandinpreparing thenecessary againstherhusband.Indoing so,Limeta violatedSection2, creditsandwithprejudice
PerCuriam documentsneededin thefiling of Canon 1of the Code of ConductforCourtPersonnel, to re-
anannulmentcase, includingthe whichprovidesthat[c]ourtpersonnelshallnot solicit employmentinanybranc
paymentoffilingfeesandotheradministr oracceptany gift,favororbenefitbasedonany h orinstrumentality of
ative expensesforthe filingof explicitunderstanding thatsuchgift, favor orbenefitshall thegovernment,includin
anannulmentcase withtheassurance to influence theirofficial actions. Thenecessity ofacting ggovernment-
the complainantthatshewould not withpropriety anddecorumishighlightedinSection 1ofthe ownedorcontrolledcorp
gothroughthe long same Code of orationsandfinancialinst
andtediouscourtprocess. Conduct,whichprovidesthat[c]ourtpersonnelshallnotuse itutions.
theirofficialpositiontosecure
unwarrantedbenefits,privilegesorexemptionsforthemselv
esorforothers.
160
2010CASES
Grossignora AM No.RTJ-08- Judge Buaya Section9, Rule Under theRulesof Court, notice andhearing Fined P 20,000.00
nce ofthe 2131 grantedanexpartemotionon thesame 114of arerequiredwhetherbail isamatterofrightor withwarning
law Villanueva day itwasfiled theRulesofCourt discretion.The Courthasalwaysstressed the
andgrave vsJudge forbailofanaccusedchargedwith a case indispensablenatureof a bail hearing inpetitionsfor bail.
abuseof BuayaNove withwhich the Wherebail isamatterofdiscretion,the grant orthe denial
authority mber22,2010 prosecutordidnotrecommendany ofbailhingesonthe issue ofwhether or not the evidence
J Brion bail.The onthe guilt ofthe accusedisstrong and the
motionwasgrantedwithouthearing. determinationof whetheror notthe evidence isstrong isa
matterofjudicial discretionwhichremainswiththe judge.
Inorderforthe judge toproperly exercise
thisdiscretion,hemustfirstconduct a hearing to
determine whetherthe evidence of guiltis strong. One
whoacceptstheexaltedposition of a judge owesthe
public andtheCourt the duty
tomaintainprofessionalcompetence atall times.When a
judge displaysanutterlack offamiliarity withthe rules,
heerodesthe confidence ofthe public inthe courts. A
judge owesthe public andthe Courtthe duty to be
proficientin the law andisexpected to keepabreastof
lawsandprevailingjurisprudence. Ignorance ofthe law
bya judge caneasily bethe mainspringof injustice.
Loafing AM NoP-10- Fortaleza isloafing. He wouldleave Section1, Canon Courtpersonnelmustdevote every momentofofficial In view ofhis30 years
2865 the office during officerhourslasting IVofthe Code of time to public service.The conductandbehaviorof inservice, theminimum
Judge Romanvs fromtwo tothree hoursaday, two to ConductforCourt courtpersonnelshould be characterized bya high penalty of suspension
Fortaleza three timesa week. Personnel degree of professionalismandresponsibility, asthey withoutpay forsix
November22, mirror the image of thecourt.Specifically, court monthsismeted
2010 personnelmuststrictly observe officialtime to inspire
J Brion public respectforthe justicesystem.Section1, Canon
IVofthe Code of ConductforCourtPersonnel
mandatesthatcourtpersonnelshallcommitthemselves
exclusively to the businessandresponsibilitiesof their
office during working hours.Loafingresultsin
inefficiency andnon-performance of duty, and
adversely affectsthe promptdelivery of justice.
161
2010CASES
Topic:GraveMisconductAndGrossDishonesty
A.M. No. P-07- Act/scomplainedofRespondentle Legalbasis/bases SupremeCourt’sRuling Case Disposition
2379November17, viedthree (3)motorcyclesbelonging ofthecharge/s Sect Prescinding fromthe foregoing, the
2010Antonio toRUSIMarketing ion9(b),Rule39 of Courtfindsrespondentguiltyof violating Section RespondentVincentHorace
T. Ramas-Uypitching evenifsaidcompanywasnever a theRulesofCourt 9(b),Rule39 of theRulesof Court, considered a Magalona,SheriffIVof theRegionalTrial
vs.VincentHorace U. party to thesaidcaseand, lessgraveoffense, when, instead offaithfully Court,
Magalona consequently, the actuation implementingthe aliaswrituponthe Branch46,BacolodCity, is
ofrespondentcreated a propertiessubjectof foundGUILTY ofviolationof
Ponente: Peralta, J. badimageonthe company thewritthereindefendantPowrollanditsstockholde Section9(b),Rule 39 oftheRulesof
andaffecteditsbusinessdealingswith rs,he arrogateduponhimselftheauthority tolevy Court.Inview of
suppliers,customers, andthe public. the three motorcyclesbelongingto respondentspreviousdismissalfromthe
RUSIMarketing, whichwasnot even a partyto the service, a FINE
case. While respondent'sdefense, thatheenforced ofP20,000.00isinsteadimposed onhim,
the aliaswrituponRUSIMarketing onthe to bedeductedfromhisaccruedleave
pretextthatitsstockholdersare also credits,ifsufficient; otherwise, he
thestockholdersof thereindefendantPowroll, isORDERED topay the
maybe regardedasanactdone ingoodfaith, yet amountofthe fine directly to
thesame isnottotally acceptable. It may thisCourt.
seemthatthe listofstockholdersof
bothcompaniesarethe same,
butsuchfactdidnotgive respondentthe The EmployeesLeave Division,
blanketauthority toundertake the levy onthe Officeof Administrative Servicesof the
propertiesofRUSIMarketing asthesaidcompany Officeof the CourtAdministrator,
wasnotnamedasa defendantinCivilCase No. 4657 isDIRECTED to
andthere wasno judgmentrenderedagainstit by compute
reasonof the causeofaction by respondentsaccruedleavecredits, ifany,
thereinplaintiffagainstthereindefendantPowroll.M anddeducttherefromtheamountrepresen
oreover, RUSIMarketingisa separate entity ting the payment of thefine.
fromthatof itsstockholdersand, therefore,
itspropertiesdo notnecessarilyinclude the
propertiesof itsstockholders.
162
2010CASES
Topic:DisrespectfulConductAndForViolationOfTheProvisionsOfRules136And141OfTheRulesOfCourt
A.M. No. P-09- Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/baseso SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition
2700November15, fthecharge/s Secti WHEREFORE,wefindMelindaM.Dini
2010Atty.NoreenT. Basilio Atty.NoreenT.Basilio,ClerkofCourt on 14, Rule Fromareviewofthecaserecords,theOfficeoftheCo o,CourtStenographerIII,Branch129,Regi
vs.Melinda of Branch129, Regional 136, Section11, urtAdministrator(OCA)foundDinioliablefordisre onalTrialCourt,CaloocanCity,GUILTY
M. TrialCourt(RTC),CaloocanCity,accu Rule 141 and spectfulconductandviolationofSection14,Rule136 ofdisrespectfulconductandforviolationof
DinioPonente:Bri sedCourtStenographerMelindaM.Di Section11,Rule141o andSection11,Rule141oftheRulesofCourt(Rules)f theprovisionsofRules136and141oftheRu
on, J. nioofdisrespectfulconductandinsubo ftheRulesofCourt orthenon- lesofCourtand aFINE
rdinationduetothelattersrefusaltore and remittanceofpaymentofTSN.Whiletheoffenseco ofFiveThousandPesos(P5,000.00)isIMP
mitto AdministrativeMatt mmittedbyDiniocarriesapenaltyofsuspensionfrom OSEDon
theOfficeoftheClerkofCourt(Calooc er(A.M.)No. one(1)monthand1daytosix her, with the
anCity)aportionoftheamountofthree 04-2-04-SC. (6)months,theOCAdeemeditreasonableandsuffici STERNWARNINGthatarepetitionoft
hundredpesos(P300.00)shereceiveda enttorecommendthe hesameorsimilaroffensewillbedealtwith
spaymentforacopyofherstenographi impositionofafineoffivethousandpesos(P5,000.00 moreseverely.
cnotes. )inordernottohamperofficeoperations.TheOCAal
sorecommendedthatDiniobegivenasternwarningt Sheis,
AccordingtoAtty.Basilio,astestifiedt hatarepetitionofthesameorsimilaractshall be likewise,FINEDOneThousandPesos(P
obyCourtAideTeodoricoB.IbasandC dealtwithmoreseverely. 1,000.00)forherfailuretocomplywith the
ourtStenographer Evelyn Resolution ofthisCourtdatedJuly 28,
R.Santander,Att InaResolutiondatedOctober23,2009,[7]thisCourto 2010.
y.JobertPahilgacameintotheirofficeo rderedtheredocketingoftheinstantcomplaintasareg
nJuly30,2008,ataround9:30inthemor ularadministrativematterandrequiredthepartiesto
ning.HeapproachedstenographersDi manifesttheirwillingnesstosubmitthematterforres
nioandSantanderandrequestedforac olutionwithintendaysfromnotice,basedontheplead
opyofthestenographicnotestakenatth ingsalreadyfiled.
ehearingsofhiscase.Atty.Pahilgapaidt
hemtheamountoffivehundredpesos( Forfailureofbothpartiestofiletheirmanifestation,th
P500.00);twohundredpesos(P200.00 isCourt,inanotherResolutionrequiredthemtoshow
)toSantanderandthreehundredpesos( causewhytheyshouldnotbedisciplinarilydealtwith,
P300.00) to Dinio, with orheldincontempt,andtocomplywithitsorderwithi
therequestthatthetranscriptsbemade nten(10)daysfromnotice.
availablebeforehisnextscheduledhear
ing.
163
2010CASES
AfterAtty.Pahilgalefttheoffice,Atty.B
asilioadvisedthestenographerstoremi
taportionoftheamounttheyreceivedt
otheOffice of the Clerk ofCourt.
Topic:Immorality
A.M. No. HOJ-10- Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/baseso SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition
03November15, InanAffidavit- fthecharge/s
2010Thelma ComplaintdatedMarch5,2009,Thelm WefindJudgePajaron’sfindingstobeinorder PhilbertB.CaplesisfoundGUILTYofIm
T. Babante-Caplesvs. Philbert aT.Babante- Section46(b)(5)ofSu — morality,andisorderedtopayaFINEinthea
B. Caplesetc Capleschargedherhusband,PhilbertB btitleA,TitleI,Book aresultofameticulousanddispassionateanalysisofth mountofThirtyThousandPesos(₱30,000.
Ponente: NACHURA, J. .Caples,UtilityWorkerII,HallofJustic V of etestimonies.Butwemodifythepenalty to be 00)tobedeductedfromhisaccruedleavecre
e,MunicipalTrialCourt(MTC),LaPaz, theAdminis imposed. dits,ifsufficient.Otherwise,heshallpaythe
Leyte,withImmorality.Complainant, trativeCode of 1987 Immoralconductisconductwhichis"willful,flagrant amountof₱30,000.00directlytothisCourt.
39yearsold,married,andapublicschoo ,orshameless,andwhichshowsamoralindifferencet
lteacher,narratedthatsheisthelegalwif otheopinionofthegoodandrespectablemembersof
eofrespondentandthattheyhavetwo( thecommunity."8Inseveralcases,9wehaveruledthat
2)legitimatechildren.She abandonmentof one’swife andchildren,
statedthattheirhappyandblissfulmarri andcohabitationwithawomannothiswife,constitut
agewasshatteredbecauseoftheinfideli esimmoralconductthatis subject todisciplinary
tyofrespondent,whohadanillicitrelati action.
onshipwithoneRennalynCordovez. Respondent’sactofmaintaininganillicitrelationship
Shefurthernarratedthattheaffairofthe withawomannothiswifecomeswithinthepurviewof
twohasbecomepublicknowledgeinth disgracefulandimmoralconduct,definedandpunish
eircommunity,andthepublicdisplayof edinSection46(b)(5)ofSubtitleA,TitleI,BookVofth
theirimmoralityhascausedsomuchpai eAdministrativeCodeof1987.Thedisciplinaryauth
ntoherandtotheirchildren. oritymayimposethepenaltyofremovalfromtheservi
ce,demotioninrank,suspensionfornotmorethanon
eyearwithoutpay,fineinanamountnotexceedinghis
salaryforsixmonths, orreprimand.
Topic:Grave ProfessionalMisconduct,ViolationOfAttorneysOathAndActsInimicalToTheIBP
A.M. No. 09-5-2- Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/bases SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition
SCDecember15, ofthecharge/s Arti As a result, the
2010Re:Inthematterof the A.M.No. 09-5-2-SCoriginated cle IV,Vof HavingshownthattheactsofAtty.Vinluanand administrativecomplaintfiledagains
brewing tAttys.Vinluan,
164
2010CASES
4.
TheMay6,2009ResolutionoftheIBPBoar
dofGovernorsrecognizingthefollowingas
the duly-
electedRegionalGovernorsoftheIntegrat
edBarofthePhilippinesfortheterm2009-
2011:
a. NorthernLuzon - Atty.Ma.
MilagrosF. Cayosa
b. CentralLuzon- Atty.
FerdinandY.Miclat
c. SouthernLuzon - Atty.
165
2010CASES
AmadorZ. Tolentino,Jr.
d. GreaterManilaRegion -Atty.
Elpidio G. SorianoIII
e. Bicolandia - Atty.JoseV.
Cabrera
f. WesternVisayas-Atty.Erwin
M. Fortunato
g. EasternVisayas-Atty.Roland
B. Inting
h. EasternMindanao - Atty.
RoanI. Libarios
i. WesternMindanao -
Atty.BenjaminB. Lanto
5. TheproclamationbytheIBPBoardof
GovernorsintheMay9,2009electionofAtt
y.ElpidioG.SorianoIIIastheduly-
electedExecutiveVicePresidentoftheInte
gratedBarofthePhilippinesfor
theterm2009-2011.
6. Thattheadministrativecomplaintaga
instAtty.RogelioVinluan,Atty.AbelardoE
strada,Atty.BonifacioBanrandon, Jr.,
Atty.
EvergistoEscalon,andAtty.RaymundJorg
eMercadobe DISMISSEDforlack
ofmerit.
7. Finally,to ALLOW
Atty.RogelioVinluantoassumehispostasI
BPNationalPresidentfortheremainingpor
tion ofthe term2009-2011.
Withregardtotherecommendationsofthe
SpecialCommitteeonthepossiblerevision
oftheIBPRulesinordertopreventsimilarin
stancesor
166
2010CASES
controversiesinthefuture,saidrecommen
dationsshouldbereferredtotheCourtOver
sightCommitteeonIntegratedBarAffairsf
orfurtherstudyandconsideration.
Topic: GraveMisconduct
A.M. No.RTJ-06- Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/bases SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition
2015December15, 2010 ofthecharge/s A.
Atty.NorlindaR. Amante- ThiscasestemmedfromAdministrativ M. No. 01-8-10- JudgeRamasispresumedtobeawareofhisdutiesandr JudgeReinerio(Abraham)B.Ramasishere
Descallar vs.Judge eCaseNo.05-222- SC, amending esponsibilitiesundertheCodeofJudicialConduct.Ca byfoundGUILTYofmakinguntruthfulst
Reinerio[Abraham]B. PinstitutedbyJudgeReinerio(Abraha Rule140 on non3generallymandatesthatajudgeshouldperform atementsinhisCertificatesofServiceforthe
RamasPonente:LEONARDO m) B. Ramas(Judge theDiscipline officialdutieshonestly,andwithimpartialityanddilig monthsofMayandJune2005andisherebyF
– DECASTRO,J. Ramas)oftheRegionalTrialCourt,Bra ofJusticesandJudge ence. INEDintheamountofFifteenThousandP
nch s Rule3.01requiresthatajudgebefaithfultothelawand esos(P15,000.00),withaWARNINGthat
18(RTC- maintainprofessionalcompetence,whileRule3.09c arepetitionofthesameorsimilarinfractions
Branch18)ofPagadianCity,Zamboan ommandsajudgetoobservehighstandardsofpublics hallbedealtwithmoreseverely.
gadelSur,againstAtty.Norlinda erviceandfidelityatalltimes.
R.Amante- JudgeRamasirrefragablyfailedtoobservethesestand
Descallar(Atty.Descallar),ClerkofCo ardsbymakinguntruthfulstatementsinhisCertificat
urtofthesamecourt,forGraveMiscon esofService to coveruphisabsences.
duct. Atty.
Descallar TheCourthaspreviouslyheldthatajudgessubmissio
allegedlyshowedtheunopenedballotb noffalsecertificatesofserviceseriouslyunderminesa
oxesinsideJudgeRamaschamberstoac ndreflectsonthehonestyandintegrityexpectedofan
ertainAllanSingedas(Singedas).Theb officerofthecourt.Thisisso because a certificate
allotboxeswereinJudgeRamascustod ofservice
yinrelationtoElectionProtestCaseNo isnotmerelyameanstoone'spaycheckbutisaninstru
.0001-2K4pendingbeforehiscourt. mentbywhichtheCourtcanfulfilltheconstitutional
mandateofthepeople'srighttoa speedy
InaVerifiedComment/Counter- dispositionofcases.
ComplaintdatedAugust11,2005,Atty.
Descallarvehementlydeniedtheaccus
ationsagainstherandcounterchargedJ
udgeRamasofbringinghomea
completeset of
167
2010CASES
computer,whichwassubmittedasevid
enceinCriminalCaseNos.5294and52
95,entitledPeoplev.Tesoro,Jr.,forTheft.
ShealsoaccusedJudgeRamasofdishon
estywhenthelatterdidnotreflectinhis
CertificatesofServiceforMayandJune
2005hisabsencesonMay12and13,200
5;forseveralmoredaysafterpromulgat
ionofthedecisioninElectionProtestC
aseNo.0001-2K4 on
May16,2005;andfromJune 1to 21,
2005.
Topic: GrossNegligenceandGrossMisconduct
A.C. No. 7907 Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/bases SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition
December15,2010 ofthecharge/s Co
SpousesVirgilioandAngelina Theinstantcasestemmedfromanadmi de Fromtheforegoing,itisclearthatAtty.Elaydaisdutyb TheresolutionoftheIBPBoardofGovern
Aranda vs. Atty.Emmanuel F. nistrativecomplaintfiledbythespouse ofProfessionalResp oundtoupholdandsafeguardtheinterestsofhisclient orsapprovingandadoptingtheDecisionoft
Elayda sVirgilioandAngelinaAranda(spouse onsibility(Canon17, s. heInvestigatingCommissioner is
Ponente:LEONARDO– sAranda)beforetheIntegratedBaroft 18,19) Heshouldbeconscientious,competentanddiligenti hereby AFFIRMED.
DECASTRO,J. hePhilippines(IBP)CommissiononB nhandlinghisclientscases.Atty.Elaydashouldgivead Accordingly,respondentATTY.EMMA
arDiscipline,chargingtheirformercou equateattention,care,andtimetoallthecasesheishan NUELF.
nsel,Atty.EmmanuelF.Elayda(Atty.E dling. ELAYDA is
layda),withgrossnegligenceorgrossmi AsthespousesArandascounsel,Atty.Elaydaisexpec hereby SUSPENDEDfrom
sconductinhandlingtheircase.Thespo tedtomonitortheprogressofsaidspousescaseandiso the
usesArandawerethedefendantsinCivi bligatedtoexertalleffortstopresenteveryremedyord practiceoflawforaperiodof
lCaseNo.232-0-01,entitledMartin efenseauthorizedbylawtoprotectthecauseespouse SIX(6)MONTHS,withasternwarningth
V.Guballav.SpousesAngelinaandVirgilio dbythespousesAranda. atarepetitionofthesameorasimilaractwill
Aranda,filedbeforetheRegionalTrial be dealtwithmore severely.
Court(RTC)ofOlongapoCity,Branch Regrettably,Atty.Elaydafailedinallthese.Atty.Elayd
72. aevenadmittedthatthespousesArandaneverknewo
fthescheduledhearingsbecausesaidspousesneverca
IntheComplaintdatedAugust11,2006 metohimandthathedidnotknowthespouseswherea
thespousesArandaallegedthatAtty.El bouts. Whileitistruethatcommunicationisa
aydashandlingoftheir sharedresponsibilitybetweenacounselandhisclient
s,itisthe counselsprimarydutytoinformhis
168
2010CASES
casewassorelyinadequate,asshownby clientsofthestatusoftheircaseandtheorderswhichh
hisfailuretofollowelementarynormso avebeenissuedbythecourt.
fcivilprocedure andevidence Hecannotsimplywaitforhisclientstomakeaninquiry
aboutthedevelopmentsintheircase.Closecoordinat
ionbetweencounselandclientisnecessaryforthemto
adequatelyprepareforthecase,aswellastoeffectively
monitortheprogressofthecase.Besides,itiselement
aryprocedureforalawyerandhisclientstoexchangec
ontactdetailsattheinitialstagesinordertohaveconsta
ntcommunicationwitheachother.Again,Atty.Elayd
asexcusethathedidnothavethespousesArandascon
tactnumberandthathedidnotknowtheiraddressissi
mply unacceptable.
Topic: ActsUnbecomingofaPublicOfficial
A.M. No. P-10- Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/bases SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition
2753December15, ofthecharge/s Cod
2010Donnabelle InthemorningofFebruary3,2009,whil e of TheCourtfindstheevaluationandrecommendation CourtfindsRamilL.Abon,UtilityWorkerI
D.Rubenvs.Ramil L. erespondentandanofficemateHartly ConductandEthical bytheOCAwell- oftheOfficeoftheClerkofCourt,Regional
Abon, UtilityWorker I Fernandez(Fernandez)wereconversi StandardsforPublic taken.Indeed,whilerespondentmentionedFernand TrialCourtofBayombong,NuevaVizcaya,
ng,complainantheardrespondentutte OfficialsandEmplo ezandtheClerkofCourttohavebeenpresentattheinc guiltyofviolationoftheCodeofConductan
rintheIlocanodialect yees identthatspawnedthefilingofthepresentcomplainta dEthicalStandardsforPublicOfficialsand
Ponente: CarpioMorales, J. acommentwhich,whentranslatedtoE gainsthim,hefailedtogetanyofthemtocorroborateh EmployeesandisSUSPENDEDfromoffi
nglish,means"there’sacolleaguehere isclaim.Absentanyshowingofillmotiveoncomplain ceforone(1)monthwithoutpay,withSTER
whostabsyouatyourback."Complain ant’sparttofalselychargerespondent,hertalemustbe NWARNINGthatarepetitionofthesame
antatonceinquiredfromrespondentto believed. orcommissionofasimilaroffenseinthefutu
whomhewasreferring,towhichrespo Asdetailedabovethen,respondent’sactsofdisrespec rewillbedealtwithmore severely.
ndentansweredthathewasreferringto ttowardstherightsofcomplainantarecontrarytolaw,
her.Atthatinstant,respondentaskedc goodmoralsandgoodcustoms,whichconstituteavio
omplainantifshewantedtohearavoice lationoftheprescribednormsofconduct
recordproving forpublicofficialsandemployeesthatcallsfor
thatshewastryingtomalignhim.Respo disciplinarysanction.
ndentinfactstartedplaying Respondentneed to beremindedthatascourt
169
2010CASES
the voice employee,
recordbutstoppeditafterthefirstword hisconductmustatalltimesbecharacterized by
andlefttheroom,albeit he returned. propriety anddecorum.He isexpected to be well-
Bycomplainant’sclaim,respondentsh manneredinhisactuationsnot only towardsthe
outedatherduringtheincidentthatocc transacting public,
urredbeforehelefttheroom,andwhen butalsoinhisrelationshipwithco-
respondentreturned,hewasdrunkand workers.Boorishnessandbelligerentbehaviorhave
threatenedherwith a gun. no place ingovernmentservice asitspersonnelare
Respondentdeniedhavingshoutedatc enjoinedto actwithselfrestraintandcivility atall
omplainantorbeingdrunkwhenheret times.
urnedtotheofficeorhaving
threatenedherwith agun
Topic:GrossInnefficiency,IncompetenceandNeglect
A.M. No.RTJ-06- Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/basesoft SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition
1999December8, hecharge/s REVISE
2010BankgoSentral ng Thisisanadministrativecomplaintinst DUNIFORM SheriffCacherocannotfeignignoranceofthetruen DeputySheriffCarmeloV.Cacheroisfoun
Pilipinasvs.Executive ituted, on November12,2003, RULESO atureofthefundshe dGUILTYOFINEFFICIENCYANDI
Judge EnricoA.Lanzanas, bytheBangkoSentralngPilipinas(BSP N garnished.Cacherohimselfwasdeputized,among NCOMPETENCEIN
etal )againstExecutiveJudgeEnricoA.Lan ADMINISTRATIVE othersheriffs,toimplementthewritofgarnishmen THEPERFORMANCEOFOFFICIAL
Ponente:Brion, J. zanas,RegionalTrialCourt(RTC),Bra CASES IN tissuedbyJudgeCarandangoftheRTC,Branch12, DUTIES,
nch7,Manila;ClerkofCourtJenniferde THECIVI Manila,inCivilCaseNo.99- andisSUSPENDEDfornine(9)monthswi
laCruz-BuendiaandSheriffCarmelo L SERVICE, 95993,acasewhereJoseGowasoneamongseveral thoutpay.ClerkofCourtJenniferH.delaCr
V.Cachero,RTC,OfficeoftheClerkof RULEIV,Section52,B defendants,unlikeinCivilCaseNo.01- uz-
Court(OCC),fortheirculpableviolatio (2) 101190whereonlyheandhiswifeElvywerethedef BuendiaisdeclaredGUILTYOFSIMPLE
nofthedutiesoftheirofficewhentheyu endants. NEGLECTOFDUTY and
surpedthefunctionsofthePresidingJu Thegarnishedfunds,therefore,inCivilCaseNo.99 isSUSPENDEDforthree(3)monthswith
dgeofRTC- - outpay.
Manila,Br.12PairingJudgeHon.Cesar 95993cannotbesaidtobelongtothespousesGoor,
Solisbyallowingthewithdrawalandrel attheveryleast,do notbelongto themsolely. BothofthemareSTERNLYWARNEDag
easefromthecustodyofthecourtgarnis Further,Cacheroreceivedofficialnotificationthat ainstthecommissionofasimilaroffense.
hedfundsinthetotalamountofPESOS thefundsinquestionwerealreadythesubjectofano
: NINETY-SEVEN ticeofgarnishmentissued,onJanuary19,2000,byJ TheotherchargesagainstCacheroanddela
udgeCarandanginCivilCaseNo.99- Cruz-BuendiaareDISMISSED forlack of
95993,ascontainedintheOrderoftheJudge, evidence.
attached
170
2010CASES
MILLIONTHREEHUNDREDEI tothereply
GHTY- ofRTCClerkofCourtJesusaP.ManingastoCacher
EIGHTTHOUSANDFOURHUN osnotice of garnishment.
DREDSIXTY-EIGHT& 35/100
(P97,388,468.35) Cacheroerredingarnishingthefundsindispute,inh
toPhilippineBankofCommunication ishastetoenforcethewritofexecutionissuedbyJud
s(PBCOM)anditscounselofrecordwh gePurgananoftheRTC,Branch42,Manila,inCivil
oarenotpartiesto the case. CaseNo.01-
101190,forreasonsonlyknowntohim.
Heforgotthattheverysamefundswereunderthe
custody ofanothercourt, the RTC,
Branch12,Manila,whichearlierissuedawritofatta
chmentoverthesamefunds.
Hecannotnowbeheardthathewasjustperforming
aministerialfunction.
Hekneworshouldhaveknownaboutthetruechara
cterofthefundshegarnished.
AstheOCAnoted,hewasamongagroup of
sheriffswhoweredeputizedtoimplementthewrit
ofattachmentissuedbyJudgeCarandangoftheRT
C,Branch12,Manila.
Topic:Vulgar,InappropriateAndImproperLanguage
A.M. No.RTJ-10- Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/baseso SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition
2253/A.M.No. P-06-2138 fthecharge/s Rule
December8,2010 Atty. WhenAtty.Riconfiledhercomplainta 140, Section10(1) JusticeCarandangmadethefollowingrecommend The Supreme Courtimposed
Perseveranda L.Riconvs. gainstJudgeMarquez,shewastheClerk oftheRulesofCourt ations: aFINE of
JudgePlacidoC.Marquez / ofCourtofBranch39,RTCManila,wh OneThousandPesos(P1,000.00) on
Judge PlacidoC.Marquez vs. osepresidingjudgeatthetime,JudgeLe 1. In A.M. No.RTJ-10-2253, Ricon JudgePlacidoC.Marquez
Atty.PerseverandaL.Ricon ticiaE.Sablan,retiredonFebruary24,2 v. Marquez, Judge oftheRegional Trial
002. Marquezbereprimandedfor using Court,Branch40,Manila,
Ponente:Brion, J. Atty.RiconallegedthatbeforeJudgeSa forusingvulgar,inappropriate
blanretired,thetwoofthempaidacourt vulgar,inappropriateandimproperlang andimproperlanguage.
esycallonJudgeMarquez,then the uage,constitutingconductunbecoming,classified AllotherchargesagainstJudge
pairing judge asalightchargeunderRule140,Section10(1)ofthe Marquez are DISMISSEDforlack of
ofBranch39.Thereafter,orinthefirstw RulesofCourt,asamendedbyA.M.No.01-8-10- merit.
eekofMarch2002,JudgeMarquezseta SC.
UnderSection11(c)ofthesamerule,JudgeMarque In A.M.No. P-06-2138, all
zmaybesanctionedbyanyof the following:(a)a chargesagainstAtty. PerseverandaL.
fineof not less Ricon,Clerk of Court,
Branch39,Regional
171
2010CASES
172
2010CASES
JudgeMarquezwhotreatedthemliketh
elowestkindofanimalandwouldaddre
ssthemlalamonnanaman kayo.Atty.
RiconalsoclaimedthatJudge Marquez
wouldoftentellpeoplethatheisabasurer
ointheoffice,pickingallthemessleftby
hispredecessorsand thestaff.
Topic:RepresentingConflictofInterest
A.M. No. 10-5-7- Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/basesoft SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition
SCDecember7, 2010 hecharge/s Code of
JovitoS.Olazo vs. Justice A disbarmentcase ProfessionalResponsi Generally,alawyerwhoholdsagovernmentoffice TheSupremeCourtDISMISSEDtheadm
Dante O.Tinga (Ret.) wasfiledagainstretiredSupreme bility (Canon1, 6) maynotbedisciplinedasamemberoftheBarformi inistrativecaseforviolationofRule6.02,Rul
PONENTE: Brion,J. CourtAssociateJustice Dante sconductinthedischargeofhisdutiesasagovernme e6.03andRule1.01
O.Tinga ntofficial.HemaybedisciplinedbythisCourtasam oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility,f
(respondent)filed emberoftheBaronlywhenhismisconductalsocon iledagainstretiredSupremeCourtAssociat
byMr.JovitoS.Olazo(complainant). stitutesa violation ofhisoathasalawyer. eJusticeDanteO.Tinga,forlack of merit.
The Theissueinthiscasecallsforadeterminationofwhe
respondentischargedofviolatingRule thertherespondentsactionsconstituteabreachoft
6.02 forexerting undue influence hestandardethicalconductfirst,whiletherespond
over aparcel of landwhile entwasstillanelectivepublicofficialand
inhiscapacityasa Congressman,Rule amemberoftheCommitteeonAwards;andsecon
6.03forpressuringthe d,whenhewasnolongerapublicofficial,butaprivat
awardoflandtoanotherperson, elawyerwhorepresentedaclientbeforetheoffice
andRule 1.01 forawarding a land to he waspreviously connectedwith.
anunqualifiedperson,all of the Code After a careful evaluationof the
ofProfessionalResponsibility pleadingsfiledbybothpartiesandtheirrespectivep
forrepresenting conflicting iecesofevidence,weresolvetodismisstheadminist
interestsineach. rative complaint.
Topic:NeglectofDuty
A.M. No. P-05- Act/scomplainedof Legal SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition
2003December6, 2010 basis/bases
GermanAgunday vs. ThecomplainantallegesthatTablizo,as ofthecharge/s TheSupremeCourtheldVelascoliableforhisfailur SheriffLemuelB.Velascoisfoundguiltyof
LemuelB.Velasco ClerkofCourtandEx- etoreconveythe13.38squaremetersofthesubjectp simpleneglectof
Ponente:Brion, J. OfficioProvincialSheriff,issued,on Uniform Rules ropertytothecomplainant.We dutyandisFINEDinanamount
onAdmini
strativeCases
173
2010CASES
July9,1996,awritofexecutionandposs in the Civil Service findnomeritinhisexcusethathisfailuretoimpleme equivalenttohissalaryforone(1)month.H
essionwhichvariedthetermsofthedisp ntthewritofexecutionandpossessionwasdue e
ositiveportionoftheCAdecision.Purs tothe iswarnedthatthecommissionofthesameo
uanttothiswrit,Velasco,Gonzalesand complainantsrefusaltosigntheCertificateofTurn- ffenseorasimilaractinthefuturewillbedeal
Guerrero,inconspiracywiththeplaintif OverofRealEstate PropertyOwnership. twith moreseverely.
fs,causedthedemolitionofhis(Agunda TherecordsdisclosethatwhenVelascoreceivedth
ys)housewithoutfirstnotifyinghimorh ewritofexecutionandpossession,hesawtheneedf
isbrother-in- orarelocationsurveyinordertodeterminethe13.38
law,SantosBurce.Velasco,Gonzalesa squaremetersthatmustbereconveyedtothecompl
ndGuerreroallegedlyeffectedthedem ainant.HeinformedLopeoftheneedforarelocatio
olitionwithoutcoordinatingwiththeba nsurvey,andlefttohimthehiringofthesurveyor.Lo
rangayofficialsandtheMunicipalEngin pehiredasurveyorandorderedhim(surveyor)toco
eeringOffice,andwithoutsecuringawri nductarelocationsurvey.Thereafter,Lopeordere
tofdemolitionfromtheRTC.Thecom dthedemolitionofthecomplainantshousebasedo
plainantfurtherclaimsthatVelasco,Go ntheresultoftherelocationsurveythatthehousewa
nzalesandGuerrerodidnotpreventthe sencroaching on.
plaintiffsfromtakinghispersonalbelon Astheimplementingsheriff,itwasVelascosdutyto
gingsfromthe demolishedhouse. informbothLopeandthecomplainantregardingthe
Thecomplainantmaintainsthatthe13. needforarelocationsurvey,toensurethatthereloca
38- tionsurveywouldbewitnessedbyallthepartiescon
squaremeterlandsubjectofthemodifie cerned.Hehastopersonallysupervisetheconducto
dCAdecisionhasnotbeenreconveyedt ftherelocationsurvey,andnotdelegatethisdutytoo
ohim.Velasco,however,madeitappear neoftheinterestedparties.Moreimportantly,hesh
intheCertificateofTurn- ouldhaverequestedthesurveyor,duringthesurvey,
OverofRealEstatePropertyOwnershi topointtothecomplainanttheexactmetesandbou
pdatedAugust21,1996,thatthe13.38- ndsofthe property tobe reconveyed to him.
squaremeterlothadalreadybeenturned
over to him(complainant)
Topic:UndueDelayinRenderingDecision
A.M. No.RTJ-06-2007 Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/basesof SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition
174
2010CASES
December6, 2010 thecharge/s
CarmenEdaño vs. Judge Thecomplainantclaimedthattheresp Respondentjudgeisguiltyofunduedelayinrenderi JudgeFatimaG.
G. Asdala ondentjudgemadeitappearthatCivil New Code of ngadecision.Section15,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitu AsdalaisherebyfoundGUILTYofundue
CaseNo.Q-97-30576wasdecidedon JudicialConduct(Can tionrequiresjudgestodecideallcaseswithinthree(3 delayinrenderingadecision.Accordingly,s
Ponente:Brion, J. March22,2005,althoughtherecordss on1, 3) )monthsfromthedateofsubmission.ThisConstit heisFINEDTenThousandPesos(P10,00
howthatshe(respondentjudge)stillrul utionalpolicyisreiteratedinRule 1.02, Canon 1of 0.00),tobedeductedfromtheEightyThou
edonseveral motionsrelating to the Code ofJudicialConductwhichstatesthat sandPesos(P80,000.00)whichtheCourtw
thiscaseevenafterthatdate.Thecompl ajudgeshouldadministerjusticeimpartiallyandwith ithheldpursuanttoitsJanuary 15,
ainantfurtherallegedthattherespond outdelay;andRule3.05,Canon3ofthesameCode 2008Resolution
entjudgeerredindenying hernotice providesthatajudgeshalldisposeofthecourtsbusi
of appeal. nesspromptlyanddecidecaseswithin therequired
TheOfficeoftheCourtAdministrato periods.
r(OCA)requiredtherespondentjudge
tocommentonthe complaint.In
hercomment,therespondentjudgem
aintainedthatshehadrenderedthedec
isionon
March22,2005,althoughitwasmailed
onalaterdate.Evenassumingthatther
ewasdelayinrenderingthedecision,th
edelaywasnotdeliberate.Sheaddedth
atthecomplainantwasnotprejudiced
bythedelayasshecontinuously
received
supportpendentelitefromthedefendant
.
Topic: NeglectofDuty,OversteppingofAuthority
A.M. No. P-09- Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/basesoft SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition
2602December1, 2010 hecharge/s
Atty.JonnaM. Escabarte, etal. Theletter- Genabe ought to be disciplined. LoidaMarcelinaJ.Genabe,LegalResearch
vs.Ms.Loida Marcelina petitionofthestaffoftheRTC,Branch Code of AlthoughshehadalreadybeensanctionedbyJudg er,RTC,Branch275,CityofLas Pias,
J.Genabe / Ms. Loida 275,LasPiasCity,istheoffshootofthe ProfessionalRespons eMacedaforneglectofdutywitha30-
order, ibility,A.M. daysuspension
175
2010CASES
176
2010CASES
to 03-0063). burdenofresponsibility.
Second.WeagreewiththeOCAobservationstha
twhiletheactofJudgeMacedaindiscipliningGena
bewitha30-
daysuspensionisnotoppressive,capriciousordes
potic,thatis,withoutcoloroflaworreason,orwith
outsupportingfacts, hestillhadnoauthorityto
directlydisciplineherunder thetermsof A.M. No.
03-8-02-SC
177
2011CASES
Topic:Impropriety
A.M. No.RTJ-11- Act/scomplainedof Legal SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition
2270, January basis/bases
31,2011., Eladio EladioD.Perfecto(complainant),inaComplain of RespondentsactofproceedingtotheProsecutorsOfficeu JudgeAlmaConsueloDesales-
D.Perfectovs. twhichwasreceivedattheOfficeoftheCourtAd thecharge/s ndertheguiseofsolicitingforareligiouscausebetraysnoto Esiderais,forImproprietyandUnbecomin
JudgeAlma ministrator(OCA)onMarch5,2010,chargesJu nlyherlackofmaturityasajudgebutalsoalackofunderstan gConduct,
ConsueloDesales- dgeAlmaConsueloEsidera(respondent),Presi Code of dingofhervitalroleasanimpartialdispenser ORDEREDtopayafineofTenThousand
Esidera dingJudgeoftheRegionalTrialCourt(RTC)ofN JudicialConductf ofjustice,heldinhighesteemandrespectbythelocalcomm Pesos(P10,000.00)andWARNEDthatar
orthernSamar,Branch20,of or theJudiciary unity,whichmustbepreservedatalltimes.Itspawnstheim epetitionofthesameorsimilaractshallbede
Ponente: Carpio- solicitingandreceivingonJanuary6,2010attheP (Canon4) pressionthatshewasusingherofficetoundulyinfluenceor altwithmore severely.
Morales,J. rosecutorsOfficetheamountofOneThousand pressureAtty.Yruma,aprivatelawyerappearingbeforeher
(P1,000.00)frompractitionerAtty.AlbertYrum sala,andProsecutorDiazintodonatingmoneythroughher
a(Atty.Yruma),andthesameamountfromPubli charismaticgroupforreligiouspurposes.
cProsecutorRosarioDiaz (ProsecutorDiaz), Tostresshowthelawfrownsuponevenanyappearanceofi
purportedlytodefrayexpensesforareligiouscel mproprietyinamagistratesactivities,ithasoftenbeenheldt
ebrationandbarangay fiesta. hatajudgemustbelikeCaesarswife-
Complainantalsoquestionstheconductofresp abovesuspicionandbeyondreproach.Respondentsactdi
ondentinSpecialProceedingsNo.C- sclosesadeficiencyinprudenceanddiscretionthatamemb
360,forCancellationofBirthRegistrationofAlp erofthejudiciarymustexerciseintheperformanceofhisoff
haAcibar,inwhichsheissuedaJanuary5,2010Or icialfunctionsandofhisactivitiesasaprivateindividual.
derdirectingthethereinpetitionertopublishsaid
Orderinanewspaperofgeneralcirculation,inste Itisnevertritetocautionrespondenttobeprudentandcircu
adofintheCatarmanWeeklyTribune(ofwhichco mspectinbothspeechandaction,keepinginmindthatherc
mplainantisthepublisher),theonlyaccreditedn onductinandoutsidethecourtroomisalwaysunderconsta
ewspaperintheprovince. ntobservation
Furthermore,complainantchargesresponden
twithactsofimpropriety─scoldingherstaffino
pencourtandtreatinginaninhumanandhostile
mannerpractitionerswhoarenotherfriends.He
addsthatrespondentevenarrogantlytreatspubli
cprosecutorsassignedtohersala,citinginstance
softhischargeinhiscomplaint.
178
2011CASES
Topic:GrossMisconduct
A.M. No.MTJ-09- Act/scomplainedof Legal SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition
1734., January basis/bases
19,2011., Florenda InherverifiedComplaint,datedJune6,2007,co of Theaforementionedactsofrespondentconstitutegrossm JudgeManuelQ.Limsiaco,Jr.,formerPresi
V.Tobiasvs.Judge mplainantallegedthatrespondentJudgeLimsia thecharge/s isconduct.Misconductmeansatransgressionofsomeesta dingJudgeoftheFourthMunicipalCircuit
Manuel co,Jr.offerspackagedealsforcasesfiledintheco blishedanddefiniteruleofaction,willfulincharacter,impr TrialCourtofValladolid-SanEnrique-
Q.Limsiaco,Jr.,MC urtwherehepresides.Shestatedthatsometimein New Code operorwrongbehavior. Grosshasbeendefinedasout of Pulupandan,Negros Occidental,
TC, June2006,sherequestedhersister,LornaV.Voll ofJudicial allmeasure, isfoundGUILTYofgro
Valladolid,Negros mer,toinquirefromtheFourthMCTCofVallad Conduct(Canon beyondallowance;flagrant;shameful;suchconductasisno ssmisconductforwhichheisFINEDinthe
Occidental olid-San Enrique- 2,3,4) ttobeexcused. amountofTwenty-
Pulupandan,NegrosOccidentalabouttherequi RespondentsactofpreparingtheMotiontoWithdrawthe fiveThousandPesos(P25,000.00).
Ponente: Peralta, J. rementsneededinfilinganejectmentcase.Court AppearanceofAtty. TheOfficeoftheCourtAdministrator
StenographerSalvacionFegidero[allegedlypro Juanilloascounselofcomplainantisinexcusable. isDIRECTEDtodedu
posedto Vollmerthatforthe Insodoing,respondentexhibitedimproperconductthatta ctthefineofP25,000.00fromtheretiremen
sumofP30,000.00,respondentwouldprovidet rnishedtheintegrityandimpartialityofhiscourt,consideri tbenefitsdueto JudgeLimsiaco,Jr.
helawyer,preparethenecessarypleadings,ande ngthatthesaidmotionwasfiledinhisownsala
nsureafavorabledecisionintheejectmentcasew andwasacteduponbyhim.
hichtheycontemplatedtofileagainstthespouse GrossmisconductconstitutingviolationsoftheCodeofJ
sRaymundoandFranciscaBatalla.Fegideroalle udicialConductisaseriouschargeunderSection8, Rule
gedlyrequiredthemtopaytheinitialamountofP 140of the Rulesof Court.
10,000.00andtheremainingbalancewouldbepa
idinthecourseoftheproceedings.Itwasmadecle
arthattheywouldnotgetanyjudicialrelieffromt
heirsquatterproblemunlesstheyacceptedthepa
ckage deal.
Further,complainantallegedthaton
June23,2006,LornaVollmer,accompaniedbyS
alvacionFegidero,deliveredthe
amountofP10,000.00torespondentathisreside
nce.
Subsequently,anejectmentcasewasfiledinresp
ondentscourt,entitledReynoldV.Tobias,represent
edbyhisAttorneyin-factLornaV. Vollmerv. Spouses
179
2011CASES
RaymundoBatallaandFranciscaBatalla,docketedas
CivilCaseNo. 06-007-
V. RespondentallegedlyassignedacertainAtty.
]
RobertG.Juanillotorepresentthecomplainanti
ntheejectmentcase.Complainantstatedthatres
pondent,however,immediatelydemandedfora
nadditionalpaymentof
P10,000.00.Sheallegedlyrefusedtogivetheaddi
tionalamountandearnedthe
ireofrespondent.Sheaskedhersister,LornaVoll
mer,torequestAtty.RobertJuanillotovoluntaril
ywithdrawascounsel,whichhedidon
April16,2007.ComplainantalsoaskedVollmert
owithdrawthecase.RespondentgrantedtheMo
tiontoWithdrawasCounselonApril23,2007an
dtheMotiontoWithdrawCaseon May3,2007.
Topic:Impropriety
A.M. No.RTJ-11- Act/scomplainedof Legal SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition
2267., January basis/bases
19,2011., ThatComplainant,duringthelifetimeofherhus of Under the circumstances, Judge JudgeJoseY.Aguirre,Jr.guiltyofimproprie
MansuetaRubinvs. band,FelicianoRubin,whoistheaforesaidJudici thecharge/s Aguirresactwasimproperconsideringthathe ty,inviolationofCanon2oftheCodeofJudi
JudgeJose alAdministrator,hadwitnessedandexperience openedhimself tosuspicionsinhandlingthe case. cialConductandCanon3oftheCanonsofJ
Aguirre, Jr. dthatherhusbandandtheirfamilywerevictimso New Code Hisactionalsoraiseddoubtsabouthisimpartialityandabo udicialEthics.Weherebyimposea
fGraftandCorruption,GraveInjusticeamounti ofJudicial uthisintegrityinperforminghisjudicial function. fineofP5,000.00whichshallbedeductedfr
Ponente:Brion, J. ngtoViolationoftheConstitution,BetrayalofP ConductCanon We take note thatthe omtheP50,000.00withheldfromhisretire
ublicTrust,GraveMisconduct,GraveAbuseof 2 complainedactwascommittedbefore the New Code mentbenefits.
Authority,GrossIgnoranceofLaw,ConductU ofJudicialConduct took effecton June 1, 2004.
nbecomingofaJudgeorJudicialMagistrate,Man Underthe
ifestBiasandPartiality,andViolationoftheCode circumstances, Judge Aguirre isliable
ofJudicialConduct,onthepartoftheresponden undertheprovisionsofthe Code ofJudicialConductand
tJudgecommittedduringthe theCanons ofJudicial Ethics.]Canon 2ofthe Code
ofJudicial Conductprovidesthat[a]judge
shouldavoidimpropriety andthe appearance of
impropriety inallactivities.Carrying the sameguiding
principle is
180
2011CASES
181
2011CASES
to the
EstatethroughitsthenJudicial[Administrator]
FelicianoRubin
Topic:Grossignoranceofthelaw
A.M. No.RTJ-07- Act/scomplainedof Legal SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition
2062., January basis/bases
18,2011, MarcosaverredthattheactofJudgePamintuani of Inthiscase,theCourtfindsJudgePamintuanaccountablef JudgeFernandoVilPamintuanofthe
ImeldaR.Marcosv nreversing a final thecharge/s orgrossignoranceofthelaw. RegionalTrialCourtof
s.JudgeFernando andexecutoryorderconstitutedgrossignorance Hecouldhavesimplybeensuspendedandfined,buttheCo BaguioCity,Branch3,isDISMISSEDfro
VilPamintuan ofthelaw. Inhercomplaint,citingA.M.No.93- New Code urtcannottakehispreviousinfractionslightly.Hisviolatio mtheservice. He
7-696- ofJudicial nsareseriousincharacter.Havingbeenpreviouslywarned shallforthwithCEA
PerCuriam 0,shearguedthatfinalandexecutoryjudgments ConductCanon andpunishedforvariousinfractions,JudgePamintuanno SE andDESIST
oflowercourtswerenotreviewableevenby the 1 wdeservestheultimateadministrativepenalty−dismissalf fromperforminganyofficialactorfunction
SupremeCourt. romservice. appurtenanttohisofficeuponserviceon
JudgePamintuanreversedafinalandexecutoryo himofthisdecision.
rdernotupontheinstanceofanyofthepartiesin TheCourtdoubtsifheevertookseriouslyitspreviouswarn
CivilCaseNo.3383-Rbutmotuproprio. ingsthatarepetitionofhisoffenseswouldmeritamoreseve
Heevenfailedtoindicatewhereheobtainedthei resanctionfromthisCourt.Hisconductinthiscaseandhisp
nformationthattheGoldenBuddhasittinginhis riorinfractionsaregrosslyprejudicialtothebestinterestoft
salawasamerereplica. heservice.Asshownfromthecitedadministrativecasesfile
Marcosclaimedthathisorderwasinconflictwith dagainstJudgePamintuan,hewasliablenotonlyforgrossig
Rule36oftheRevisedRulesofCivilProcedurew noranceofthelawbutforotherequallyserioustransgressio
hichprovidesthatajudgment ns.ThisCourtshould,therefore,refrainfrombeinglenient,
orfinalordershallstateclearlyanddistinctlythefa whendoingsowouldgivethepublictheimpressionthatinc
ctsandthelawon whichit(hisorder)isbasedxxx. ompetenceandrepeatedoffendersare toleratedin the
judiciary.
Topic: GrossIgnoranceoftheLaw,ConductUnbecoming
182
2011CASES
PerCuriam waspendingbeforeJudgeDinopolssala,thejudg Canon1, 2, 4 Canon3oftheNewCodeofJudicialConductinrelationto hereby
einhibitedhimselffromactingonthecase. ajudgesimpartialityprovides,interalia,asfollows: DISMISSEDfromtheservice,withFOR
Thisnotwithstanding,andtoSyssurprise,Judge Sec.2.Judgesshallensurethathisorherconduct,bothinan FEITUREofallbenefits,exceptaccruedle
DinopolstillhandledMisc.CaseNo.1440- doutofcourt,maintainsandenhancestheconfidenceofth ave credits, ifany, withprejudicetohisre-
24,apetitionfortheissuanceofawritofpossessio epublic,thelegalprofessionandlitigantsintheimpartiality employmentinanybranchorserviceoftheg
nfiledbyMetrobank,amattercloselyintertwine ofthejudgeandthejudiciary. overnment,includinggovernment-
dwithCivilCaseNo.1403-24. Sec.3.Judgesshall,sofarasisreasonable,soconductthems ownedandcontrolledcorporations.
JudgeDinopolthenissuedanordergrantingMet elvesastominimizetheoccasionsonwhichitwillbenecessa
robanktherighttopossesstheforeclosedproper ryforthemtobedisqualifiedfromhearing ordeciding
ties. cases.
Syfurtherallegedthatdespitetheissuancebythe JudgeDinopolviolatedtheaboveprovisionswhenherece
RTC,Branch8,MarawiCity,ofastayorderandth ivedaccommodationsfromSyforthebuildingmaterialshe
eapprovaloftherehabilitationplan,aswellasthe neededfortheconstructionofhishouse.
pendencyofMetrobankspetitionbeforetheCo Hecompromisedhispositionasajudge.Althoughatthetim
urtofAppeals(CA)Twenty- eheandhisfamilyhadbusinessdealingswithSytherewasno
ThirdDivisioninCagayanDeOroCity(CAG.R. pendingcaseinvolvingthebusinessman,heshouldhavebe
SPNo.01824)assailingthevalidityofthestayord enmorecircumspectinsecuringtheconstructionmaterial
er,JudgeDinopolorderedthatthewritof s.ThesphereofSysbusinessoperationswaswithinhisterrit
possession be implemented. orialjurisdiction.AstheOCAaptlynoted,itisneitherimpo
SyclaimedinrelationwithhischargethatwhileCi ssiblenorremotethatacasemightbefiledinhiscourtwithc
vilCaseNo.1403- omplainantasaparty.
24waspendinginJudgeDinopolssala, Insuchacase,his(respondent)businessandfinancialdeali
thejudgeaskedhimforcommodityloansinthefo ngswithcomplainantwouldcreateadoubtabouthisfairne
rmofconstructionmaterials ssandimpartialityindecidingthecaseandwouldtendtocor
tobeusedintheconstructionof the rodetherespectanddignity ofthe court.
judgeshouse.
Topic:GrossIgnoranceoftheLawandProcedure
A.M. No.RTJ-10- Act/scomplainedof Legal SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition
2255., January basis/bases
17,2011, Complainantswerethedefendantsinacivilactio of The OCA foundrespondentjudge to have Judge Godofredo B.Abul, Jr., of
SpousesDemocrit nforPreliminaryInjunction,EasementofRoad thecharge/s beengrossly anddeliberately ignorant ofthe law theRegional Trial
oandOlivia Lago RightofWay,andAttorneysFees,withprayerfor andprocedurefor violationofRule 58 of Court,Branch43,Gingoog City,
vs.Judge a TemporaryRestraining RulesofCourt, theRulesofCourt, specifically by meansof isfoundliableforGrossIgnorance of
Godofredo Rule 58 thefollowing acts: (1) theLaw andProcedure,
183
2011CASES
B. Abul, Jr., Order(TRO),filedonJuly2,2009byChristinaM. when the civilcomplaintwithprayerfor the issuanceof a andisherebymeted a fine
RTC,Br. Obico(Obico)beforetheRTC, Gingoog TROwasfiledonJuly 2, 2009, ofP25,000.00, with a sternwarning thata
43.GingoogCity City,MisamisOriental,anddocketedasCivilCas respondentjudgeassumedjurisdictionthereonand, repetitionof thesame, orany
eNo.2009- withoutthemandatedraffle andnotificationandservice similarinfractionin thefuture,shallbe
Ponente: 905.Theactionwasspawnedbytheallegedthreat ofsummonsto the adverse party, issued a 72- dealtwith moreseverely
Nachura,J. sofcomplainantstoclosetheaccessroadleading hourTROon July 7, 2009; (2)whenrespondentjudge
to set thecase forsummary hearing onJuly 14,
Obicosproperty,wherethelattersmilkfish(bang 2009,purportedly todetermine whether theTROcould
us)farmislocated. beextended for anotherperiod,when the
Obicoclaimedthat,iftheaccessroadleadingtoh hearingshouldbeset within72 hoursfromthe issuance
erpropertywasclosed,shewouldbepreventedfr ofthe TRO; (3)when he eventually
omharvestinghermilkfish,causingmassivefish grantedanextensionofanalready expiredTRO to afull
kills,andleading to heavy 20-dayperiod; and(4)when he issued a writ
financiallossesonherpart.Complainantsassertt ofpreliminaryinjunctioninfavorofObicowithoutpriorn
hatthe otice tohereincomplainantsandwithout
civilcomplaintwasneverraffled,andthatnonoti therequiredhearing.
ceofrafflewaseverserveduponthem,yetthecas We find therecommendationsof the OCA to
ewentdirectlytoBranch43,whererespondentju bewell-taken.
dgeistheactingpresidingjudge.
HeisalsotheactingexecutivejudgeofRTC,
Gingoog
City.ComplainantsclaimthatthisisviolativeofS
ection4(c),Rule58of theRulesof Court.
OnJuly7,2009,respondentjudgeissuedanOrde
rdirectingtheissuanceofaTROeffectivesevent
ytwo(72)hoursfromdateofissue,withoutrequir
ingObicotoputupabond.
Complainantsallegethatatthattime,theyweren
otyetinreceipt
ofthesummonsandcopyofthecomplaint,aswel
lasObicosaffidavitandbond.
ComplainantsclaimthatthisisviolativeofSectio
n4(c)and(d)ofRule58of theRulesof Court.
Topic:Grossmisconduct
A.C. No. Act/scomplainedof Legal SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition
8620.,January 12, basis/basesof
2011,
184
2011CASES
JessieR.DeLeonv OnJanuary2,2006,theGovernmentbroughtsui thecharge/s A lawyersreputation is,indeed,a very fragileobject. Complaint for disbarment
s. Atty. Eduardo tforthepurposeofcorrectingthetransfercertific Code The Court, whose officerevery lawyer orsuspensionfiledagainst
G. Castelo atesoftitle(TCTs)coveringtwoparcelsoflandlo ofProfessiona is,mustshieldsuchfragility frommindlessassault Atty.Eduardo
catedinMalabonCitythenregisteredinthename lResponsibilit bythe unscrupulousandthe malicious. It candoso, G.Casteloisdismissedforutterlackofmerit
Ponente:Be sofdefendantsSpousesLimHioandDoloresCh y(Canon1, 6) firstly, by quickly cuttingdownany patently .
rsamin, J. uduetotheirencroachingonapublic callejon frivolouscomplaintagainsta lawyer; and, secondly,
andonaportionoftheMalabon- bydemanding
NavotasRivershorelinetotheextent,respective goodfaithfromwhoeverbringsanyaccusation of
ly,ofanareaof45squaremetersandofabout600s unethicalconduct. ABar
quaremeters.Thesuit,entitledRepublicofthePhilip thatisinsulatedfromintimidationandharassmentisenco
pines,representedbytheRegionalExecutiveDirector,De uraged to be courageousandfearless,
partmentofEnvironmentandNaturalResourcesv.Spou whichcanthenbestcontribute to the efficientdelivery
sesLimHioandDoloresChu,GorgoniaFlores,andtheR andproperadministration of justice.
egistrarof Deedsof The complainantinitiatedhiscomplaintpossiblyforthe
MalabonCity,wasdocketedasCivilCaseNo.467 sake ofharassing therespondent,either to
4MNoftheRegionalTrialCourt(RTC), vexhimfortaking the
Branch74, inMalabonCity. cudgelsforhisclientsinconnectionwithCivil CaseNo.
De 4674MN, orto geteven for
Leon,havingjoinedCivilCaseNo.4674MNasav animaginedwronginrelationto thesubjectmatterof the
oluntaryintervenortwoyearslater(April21,200 pending action, or to
8),nowaccusestherespondent,thecounselofre accomplishsomeotherdarkpurpose.The
cordofthedefendantsinCivilCaseNo.4674MN worthlessnessof theaccusationapparentfromthe
,withtheseriousadministrativeoffensesofdish beginning hasimpelledusintoresolving
onestyandfalsificationwarrantinghisdisbarme thecomplaintsoonerthanlater.
ntorsuspensionasanattorney.Therespondents
sinwasallegedlycommittedbyhisfilingfordefen
dantsSpousesLimHioandDoloresChuofvario
uspleadings(thatis,
answerwithcounterclaimandcross-
claiminrelationtothemaincomplaint;andanswertot
hecomplaintininterventionwithcounterclaimandcross-
claim)despitesaidspousesbeingalreadydecease
dat the time offiling
185
2011CASES
Topic:UndueDelayindecidingcases
A.M. No.RTJ-09- Act/scomplainedof Legal SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition
2188., January basis/basesoft
10,2011, JudgeEsterfailedtodecidecaseswithintherequi hecharge/s Sect Onthewhole,wefindJudgePiscoso- JudgeEsterPiscoso-
ProsecutorHilario redperiods,citingCriminalCaseNo.127 ion9, Rule140 Florguiltyofunduedelayinthedispositionof Florisdeclaredliablefordelayinthedisposit
Ronson H.Tilan (Peoplev.JuanitoBaguilat)astheprincipalbasisofits of theRulesof cases.Exceptfor People v.Dimpatan,JudgePiscoso- ionofcases. Accordingly,
vs.JudgeEsterPisco conclusion.Inthiscase,theOCAfaultedJudgePi Court Florfailedtoresolvetheothercaseswithintherequiredperi she
so-Flor,etc. scoso- od,inviolationofthelawandtherules. isFINEDP10,000.00,withasternwarning
Florforusingasjustificationforherinactionthep NolessthantheConstitutionsetsthelimitsonthisall- againstthecommissionofasimilaroffense
Ponente:Brion, J. artiesfailure to submit their importantaspectintheadministrationofjustice.Itmandat inthe future.
respectivememoranda.The OCA esthatlowercourtshave three(3)monthsor ninety
opinedthatthisisnotavalidreasonfornotdecidi (90)dayswithinwhichtodecidecasesormatterssubmitted
ngthecase;if she believedshe wouldnotbe tothemforresolution.
abletodecidethe caseon time,she Also,theCodeofJudicialConductrequiresjudgestodispo
couldhaveaskedthe seoftheCourtsbusinesspromptlyanddecidecaseswithint
Courtforanextensionoftherequiredperiod.Th heprescribedperiod.
eOCAacknowledgedthoughthatJudgePiscoso Itcannotbeoveremphasizedthatjudgesneedtodecidecas
- espromptlyandexpeditiously.Delayinthedispositionofc
Florrequestedforanextensiontodecidethecase ases,itmustagainbestated,isamajorcauseintheerosionof
inhermonthlyreportofcasesandcertificateofse publicfaithandconfidenceinthe justicesystem.
rvice Forthisfundamentalandcompellingreason,judgesarereq
uiredtodecidecasesandresolvemotionswithdispatchwit
hinthereglementaryperiod.
Failuretocomplyconstitutesgrossinefficiency,alapsethat
warrantstheimpositionofadministrativesanctionsagains
t the erring magistrate.
186
2011CASES
Ponente:Brion, J. auditteamfoundthefollowinglapsesinprocedu grossneglectofdutywhichischaracterizedbywantofevent ofexecutionofcourtjudgmentsrenderedo
recommittedbytherespectiveOfficers-in- heslightestcare,orbyconsciousindifferencetotheconseq nforfeitedsuretybonds.Sheishereby
ChargeBranchClerksofCourtandtheBranchCl uences,orbyflagrantandpalpablebreachofduty,thereisn WARNEDthata
erksofCourts(respondents)oftheaudited othingintherecordstoshowthatAtty.Gasparwillfullyandi repetitionofthesameorsimilaroffenseshal
RTCbranches: ntentionallyomittedtoissuethesubjectwritsofexecution.[ lbedealtwithmore severely.
first,thefailureoftherespondentstocomplywith 7]Onthecontrary,shecandidlyadmittedthatheromissions
A.M.No.04-7-02- werecausedby
SCregardingthenewguidelinesonthedocumen plainoversight.Shealsoundertookimmediaterectificatio
taryrequirementsforsuretybailbondapplicatio nincompliancewithourdirectives,therebydemonstrating
ns;andsecond,thefailureoftherespondentstoiss hersincerityandlackofmaliceincommittingherlapses.
uethecorrespondingwritsofexecutiononcance
lledorforfeitedbail bonds.
Topic:GrossMisconduct
A.C. No. Act/scomplainedof Legal SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition
5834.,February 22, basis/basesoft
2011,Teresita Thecaseoriginatedfromanadministrativecom hecharge/s Co Asanofficerofthecourt,itisalawyersdutytoupholdthedig ATTY.LUNAB.AVANCE is
D.Santeco vs. plaint[1]filedbyTeresitaD.Santecoagainstresp de nityandauthorityofthecourt.Thehighestformof hereby DISBARREDfor
Atty.Luna B. ondentAtty.LunaB.Avance ofProfessional respectforjudicialauthority grossmiscondu
Avance formishandlingCivilCaseNo.97- Responsibility isshownbyalawyersobediencetocourtordersandprocess ctandwillfuldisobedienceoflawfulorderso
275,anactiontodeclareadeedofabsolutesalenul es.[11] fasuperiorcourt.Hername
PerCuriam landvoidandforreconveyanceanddamages,wh Here,respondentsconductevidentlyfellshortofwhatisex isORDERED
ichcomplainanthadfiledbeforetheRegionalTri pectedofherasanofficerofthecourtassheobviouslyposse STRICKENOFFfromtheRollofAttorn
alCourt(RTC)of MakatiCity. ssesahabitof defyingthisCourtsorders. eys.
InanEnBanc ShewillfullydisobeyedthisCourtwhenshecontinuedherl
Decision[2]datedDecember11,2003,theCourt awpracticedespitethefive-
foundrespondentguiltyofgrossmisconductfor yearsuspensionorderagainstherandevenmisrepresented
,amongothers,abandoningherclientscauseinb herselftobeanotherpersoninordertoevadesaidpenalty.T
adfaithandpersistentrefusaltocomplywithlawf hereafter,whenshewastwiceorderedtocommentonherc
ulordersdirectedatherwithoutanyexplanationf ontinuedlawpracticewhilestillsuspended,nothingwashe
ordoingso. ardfromherdespitereceiptoftwoResolutionsfromthisC
Shewasorderedsuspendedfromthepracticeofl ourt.Neitherdidshepaythe
awforaperiodoffiveyears,andwaslikewisedirec P30,000.00fineimposedinthe September29, 2009
tedtoreturntocomplainant,withinten(10)daysf Resolution.
romnotice,the amountof
P3,900.00whichcomplainantpaidher WehaveheldthatfailuretocomplywithCourtdirectivesco
nstitutesgrossmisconduct,
187
2011CASES
forthefilingofapetitionforcertiorariwiththeCo insubordinationordisrespectwhichmeritsalawyerssuspe
urtofAppeals(CA),whichsheneverfiled. nsion or evendisbarment
Topic:GrossIgnorance oftheLaw
A.M. No.RTJ-11- Act/scomplainedof Legal SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition
2666., February basis/basesofth
15,2011, JosephineJazminesTan(complainant)chargesJ echarge/s Rule Failuretofollow For grossignorance of the law
JosephineJazmines udgeSibanahE.Usman(respondent),Presiding 140 ofRulesof basiclegalcommandsasprescribedbylawandtherulesista andprocedure, Judge
Tan vs.Judge JudgeofBranch28,[2]RegionalTrialCourt,Cat Court ntamounttogrossignoranceofthelaw.Byacceptingtheex SibanahUsmanisFINEDinthe
SibanahE.Usman,R balogan,Samar,withabuseofpowerandauthori altedpositionofajudge,respondentoughttohavebeenfa amount
TC,Branch29,Catb ty,conductunbecomingajudicialofficer,mental miliarwiththe legal normsandpreceptsaswellasthe ofThirtyThousand(P30,000)Pesos,
alogan, Samar dishonesty,gravemisconduct,grossignoranceo proceduralrules.[17] with
fthelawandknowinglyrenderinganunjustorder Contrarytorespondentsclaim,complainanthasnoremed aWARNINGthat arepetition
Ponente: ,andbriberyandcorruption,inconnectionwith yofappeal,astheabove- ofthesameorsimilaractshall
CarpioMorales CivilCaseNo. 7681[3]andCriminal Case No. quotedSection2ofRule71shows.Andthepenaltyfordirec bedealtwithmore severely.
6536.[4]Itappearsthatcomplainant,togetherwi tcontemptifimprisonmentisimposedshouldnot,asSecti
thhisco-plaintiffsinthecivilcase/co- on1ofRule71provides,exceed10days.
accusedinthecriminalcase,filedaMotionforIn Asstatedearlier,complainantwasdetainedfor19daysor9d
hibition[5]againstrespondent.Themovantsatt aysmorethan the limitimposed bythe Rules.
achedtotheirmotiontheAffidavit[6]of
complainant. More.Respondentdidnotfixthebond,inviolationofthesa
Complainantclaimsthatduringthehearingofth meSection2ofRule71,whichcomplainantcouldhavepost
eMotionforInhibition,respondentbecamever edhadshedesiredtochallengetheorder.Andonthesamed
yemotional,coercedhertotestifywithouttheass aytheOrderwasissued,respondentorderedtheconfinem
istanceofcounselanddemandedapublicapolog entofcomplainantto the provincial jail.
yfromher;
andthatwhilesherequestedtoreferthemotiont
otheExecutiveJudge,respondentinterrogated
herrelentlesslyfollowingwhichheissuedanOrd
er[7]
ofAugust28,2009findingherguiltyofDirectCo
ntemptandorderedherdetention.
Topic:GrossIgnorance oftheLaw
188
2011CASES
Topic:Grossmisconduct,IgnoranceoftheLaw
190
2011CASES
preliminaryinvestigationandissuedthewarrant
ofarrest.Complainantclaimsthatthehastyissua
nceofthewarrantofarrestwaswithoutlegalbasis
andunjustlyprejudicedcomplainantanddepriv
edherofherliberty.Complainantsubmitsthatre
spondentjudgeusurpedthepoweroftheprosec
utor,whowasnotevengiventhechancetocomm
entoncomplainantsMotiontoReduceBail.Furt
hermore,complainantallegesthatwhenshelear
nedaboutthewarrantofarrest,shecalledrespon
dentjudgeswife,whosaidshewouldhelpinhavin
gthe bailreducedto P6,000.00
andwouldhavethecasefordirectassaultagainst
hereincomplainantdismissedprovidedhereinc
omplainantcancelthewifesdebtofP35,000.00a
ndprovidedthathereincomplainantloanthewif
e anadditionalamountofP50,000.00.
Topic:GrossIgnoranceofthelawandrules
191
2011CASES
HomicideentitledPeopleofthePhilippinesv.Leonard otherwords,[r]ulesofprocedureareintendedtoensurethe
oLuzon Melgazo. orderlyadministrationofjusticeandtheprotectionofsubs
tantiverightsinjudicialandextrajudicialproceedings.[18]In
thiscase,thereasonofJudgeCanoyishardlypersuasiveeno
ughtodisregardthe Rules.
Fromtheforegoing,theCourtfindsJudgeCanoyguiltyofal
essseriouschargeofviolationofSupremeCourtrules,direc
tivesandcircularsunderSec.9,Rule140forwhichafineofm
orethanPhP10,000butnotexceedingPhP20,000istheim
posablepenaltyunderSec.11(b),Rule140oftheRulesofC
ourt.
AfineofPhP11,000wouldbetheappropriatepenaltyunde
rthecircumstancesofthecase.
Topic:Biasandprejudiceofajudge
A.M. No.MTJ-08- Act/scomplainedof Legal SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition
1714., February basis/basesoft
9,2011, Daniel On July 4, 2007,Daniel G.Sevilla hecharge/s Ne Ascanbeseen,JudgeLindomadeorallowedtoomanyunre JudgeFranciscoS.Lindoguiltyofgravemis
G.Sevilla vs. chargedHon. FranciscoS.Lindo,then the w Code asonablepostponementsthatinevitablydelayedtheproce conduct,and,accordingly,punishhimwith
JudgeFranciscoS.L PresidingJudge ofthe ofJudicial edingsandpreventedthepromptdispositionofCriminalC afineof
indo,Metropolitan MetropolitanTrialCourt(MeTC),Branch55, ConductCanon aseNo.J-L00- P21,000.00,tobedeductedfromhisretirem
TrialCourt, inMalabonCity withdelay in the 1 4260outofmanifestbiasinfavoroftheaccused,tothepreju entbenefits.
Branch55,Malabon dispositionofCriminal CaseNo. J-L00- diceofSevillaasthecomplainantinCriminalCaseNo.J-
City 4260(a prosecutionforviolationof L00-
BatasPambansa Bilang22 [BP22] 4260.Thus,heflagrantlyviolatedtheletterandspiritbotho
Ponente:Be entitledPeople v.NestorLeynes). fRule1.02ofthe CodeofJudicialConduct,
rsamin, J. Sevilla allegedthat he wasthe whichenjoinedalljudgesto administerjustice
privatecomplainantinCriminalCaseNo. J- impartiallyandwithoutdelay;andofCanon6oftheCanonsofJud
L00-4260, whichwasfiledonJune 10, 2003, icialEthics,whichrequiredhimasatrialjudgetobepromptin
andraffledtoBranch55, presided by disposingofallmatterssubmittedtohim,rememberingtha
JudgeLindo; that he testifiedonce in the tjusticedelayedisoftenjustice denied.
case, buthistestimony pertainedonlyto Thathisconductproceededfromhisbiastowardstheaccu
hispersonalcircumstances; thatafter hegave sedrenderedhisactsandomissionsasgrossmisconduct.
suchpartial testimony,Judge Itissettledthatthemisconductisgraveifitinvolvesanyof
Lindoadjournedthe sessionforlack of the additionalelementsof
material time, andpersistentlyresetthe
subsequenthearings
192
2011CASES
TOPIC:
Inmatterofthe charges ofplagiarism,twisting of citedmaterials,andgross neglect.
193
2011CASES
c.EnforcingErgaOmnesObligati deliberate,consciouseffort
onsbyChristianJ.Tams,Cambridg tostealanother’sworkandpassitoffasone‘sown.Infact,the
eUniversityPress(2005). Courtfoundthatbycitingtheforeignauthorofthepassages
claimedtohavebeenliftedfromtheforeignlawarticles.
AstothechargethatJusticedelCastillotwistedthemeaning
otheworksoftheforeignauthors,theCourtruleditwasimp
ossibleforhimtohavedonesobecausefirst,sincetheattribu
tionstoCriddle-
DescentandElliswereaccidentallydeleted,itisimpossiblef
oranypersonreadingthedecisiontoconnectthesametothe
worksofthoseauthorsastoconcludethatinwritingthedecis
ionJusticedelCastillotwistedtheirintendedmessages.And
,second,theliftedpassagesprovidedmerebackgroundfact
sthatestablishedthestateofinternationallawatvariousstag
esofitsdevelopment.
TheCourt,thus,declaredthatonlyerrorsofjudgestaintedw
ithfraud,corruption,ormalicearesubjectofdisciplinaryact
ionandthesewerenotpresentinJusticedelCastillo’scase;th
efailurewasnotattendedbyanymaliciousintentnottoattrib
utetheliftedpassagesto theforeignauthors.
TOPIC:
Violation oftheNew Codeof JudicialConduct
PioAngeliavs.JudgeJesusL.Gra AverifiedComplaintfiledonN TheCourtfindsnomeritinJudgeGrageda’sexplanationthatt GUILTYofunduedelayinres
geda,RegionaltrialCourt,Banch ovember7,2008,bycomplaina Canon1,rule1.02ofNewCodeof hereasonorthedelayinresolvingthemotionwasthepressuref olvingamotioninviolationof
4, PanaboCity ntPioAngelia(Angelia)againstr JudicialConduct:Ajudge romequallyurgentmattersnconnectionwiththe800pending Rule1.02,Canon1andRule3.0
A.M. No.RTJ-10- espondentJudgeJesusL.Grage shouldadministerjusticeimparti casesbeforehissala.Firstly,heisduty- 5,Canon3oftheCodeofJudici
2220.,February 7, 2011 da(JudgeGrageda)oftheRegio ally andwithoutdelay. boundtocomplywiththerulesundertheCanonsintheCodeo alConduct.Heisherebyordere
Jose CatralMendoza nalTrialCourt,Branch4,Panab fJudicialConduct,andtheadministrativeguidelineslaiddown dtopayaFINEintheamounto
oCity,(RTC),forthedelayinthe Canon3,rule3.05ofNewCodeof bythisCourt.Secondly,asthisCourtisnotunmindful o fFIVE THOUSAND
resolutionof JudicialConduct:Ajudgeshould thecircumstancesthatmaydelaythespeedydispositionof
disposeof the
194
2011CASES
motionsrelativetoCivilCaseN court’sbusinesspromptlyandde casesassignedtojudges,respondentJudgeGradedashouldha (₱5,000.00)PESOS,to be
o.54-2001,entitledPioAngelia cidecaseswithintherequiredperi veseasonablyfled deductedfromhisretirementb
v. ArnoldOghayan. ods. arequestoranextensiontoresolvethesubjectmotion. enefits.Letacopyofthisresolu
Forfailingto do so, hecannotevade administrativeliability. tionbeforwardedtotheOffice
SupremeCourtAdministrativeC ofthe CourtAdministrator.
ircularNo.1-
88datedJanuary26,1988states:6.
1AllpresidingJudgesmustendea
vourtoactpromptlyonallmotion
sandinterlocutorymatterspendi
ngbeforetheircourts.
TOPIC:
Falsification ofOfficialDocumentandDishonesty
195
2011CASES
satisfactionofthejudge.Attheve
ryleast,heshouldpresent
corroborating
witnessestoprovehisassertion.
Atbest,
heshouldpresentanexpertwitne
ss.Asarule,forgerycannotbepres
umedandmustbeprovedbyclear
,positiveandconvincingevidenc
eandtheburdenofproofliesonth
eparty alleging forgery.
Section23,RuleXIVoftheAdmi
nistrativeCodeof1987,dishones
ty,paragraphAandfalsificationp
aragraphF.
TOPIC:
Gross Inefficiency,GrossNeglect ofDuty,andSimple Neglectof Duty
Office of the Anadministrativematterorigin Section22, Rule XIV of NolessthantheConstitutionmandatesthat"publicoffice isa (1) Atty. Magdalena
CourtAdministrator vs. atedfromafinancialauditcondu theOmnibusCivil public trust." In along line of cases, the L.Lometillo,formerCle
Atty.Magdalena L. Lometillo, ctedbytheOfficeoftheCourtA ServiceRulesandRegulations. Courthasuntiringlyremindedemployeesinvolvedintheadm rkofCourt,RegionalTrialCou
etc.,etal. dministrator(OCA)ontheboo inistrationofjusticetofaithfullyadheretotheirmandatedduti rt,IloiloCityisherebyfoundG
ksofaccountsoftheOfficeofth esandresponsibilities.Whethercommittedbythehighestoffi UILTY of
A.M. No. P-09-2637., eClerkCourt,RegionalTrialCo cialorbythelowestmemberoftheworkforce,anyactofimpro grossinefficiency
March29, urt,IloiloCity(OCC),coveringt prietycanseriouslyerodethepeople’sconfidenceinthejudici and grossneglect
2011RenatoC. ransactionsfromNovember19 ary.Thus,theCourtdoesnothesitatetocondemnandsanctio of duty.
Corona 93 to February 2004. nsuchimproperconduct,actoromissionofthoseinvolvedint Herretirementbenefits,
headministrationofjusticethatviolatesthenormofpublicacc exceptherterminalleavepay,a
ountabilityanddiminishesortendsto diminish the faith reorderedFORFEITED.Fu
ofthe public intheJudiciary. rther, she
Servicewithloyalty,integrityandefficiencyisrequiredof isDISQUALIFIEDfro
allpublicofficersand mre-
employmentinanybranchor
instrumentalityinthegovern
ment, including
196
2011CASES
employees,whomust,atalltimes,beaccountabletothepeople government-
. ownedandcontrolledcorpora
Inthiscase,itappearsthatAtty.Lometilloutterlyfailedtoperf tions.
ormherdutieswiththedegreeofdiligenceandcompetenceex (2) CashierIIVictoriaS.Pato
pectedofaclerkofcourt.Theperformanceofone’sdutiesinap paten,AdministrativeOfficer
erfunctorymannerisneverjustifiedespeciallywhenrelianceo ILindaC.Guides,ClerkIIILen
nemployeesoflowerrankprojectsnothingelsebutgrossineffi yGemmaP.Castillo,andClerk
ciencyandincompetence. IIIBrendaM.Linaceroareher
ebyfoundGUILTY
ofSimpleNeglectofDuty.The
y are
orderedSUSPENDEDfro
mofficeforthree(3)months
effective
immediatelyupontheirreceipt
ofthisdecision.They are
likewise
STERNLYWARNEDthat
a
repetitionofthe same
orsimilaroffense shall be
dealtwith moreseverely.
(3) ExecutiveJudgeAnto
nioM.
NatinoisDIRECTEDtoCL
OSELY MONITOR
thefinancialtransactionsofhis
court and
to STUDY
andIMPLEMENT
procedures
thatwouldstrengt
heninternalcontrol over
financialtransacti
TOPIC: ons.
Gross MisconductandDishonesty
197
2011CASES
Ashary M. Alauya, etc. WefindtheOCA’srecommendationtobewell- DISMISSEDfromtheservice
vs.Judge CasanAli Anadministrativematteragains RulesofCourt,dishonestyandgr founded.JudgeLimbonacommittedgraveoffenseswhichre effectiveMarch26,1998,thed
L.Limbona,etc. tJudgeCasanAliLimbona,Tent ossmisconductarepunishable nderedhimunfittocontinueasamemberoftheJudiciary.Whe ateofthefilingofhiscertificate
hShari’aCircuitCourt(10thSC bydismissal nhewasappointedasajudge,hetookanoathtoupholdthelaw, ofcandidacy,
A.M. No. SCC-98- C),Tamparan,LanaodelSur.Th yetinfilingacertificateofcandidacyasaparty- with
4.,March22, ismatteristhesubjectoftheMe listrepresentativeintheMay1998electionswithoutgivingup FORFEITUREofallaccrued
2011RenatoC. morandum/ReportoftheOffi hisjudicialpost,JudgeLimbonaviolatednotonlythelaw,butt retirementbenefitsandother
Corona ceoftheCourtAdministrator( heconstitutionalmandatethat"noofficeroremployeeinthec monetaryentitlements,ifany.
OCA)datedAugust7, 2000 ivilserviceshallengagedirectlyorindirectly,inanyelectioneeri HeisBARREDfromre-
ng or partisanpolitical campaign." employmentinthegovernme
InlightofthegravityofJudgeLimbona’sinfractions,wefindO nt,includinggovernment-
CA’srecommendedpenaltyofdismissaltobeappropriate.U ownedandcontrolledcorpora
ndertheRulesofCourt,dishonestyandgrossmisconductare tion.JudgeLimbonais
punishablebydismissal.20WealsoapprovetheOCArecomm DIRECTED TO
endationthatJudgeLimbonabemadetorefundthesalaries/al REFUNDthesalaries,allowa
lowanceshereceivedfromMarch26,1998toNovember30,1 ncesandotherbenefitsherecei
998.Withthisruling,welikewiseresolvethechargeagainstJud vedfromMarch26,1998to
geLimbona— November30,1998,within10
referredtousbytheCourt’sSecondDivisioninitsJune16,200 daysfromthefinalityofthisDe
3ResolutioninA.M.No.SCC-03-08— cision.
thattherespondentjudgecontinuedtoperformjudicialfuncti
onsandtoreceivehissalariesasjudgeafterhehadfiledacertific
ateofcandidacyintheMay 1998 elections.
ThisDecisioniswithoutprejudicetoappropriatecriminaland
civilcasesthatmaybefiledagainstJudgeLimbonafortheactsh
ecommitted.LetacopyofthisDecisionbeservedontheOmb
udsmanforwhateveractionitmay deemappropriate.
TOPIC:
Grave Misconduct
MilagrosVillaceran, etal. Inthepresentcase,respondentTagubaclearlyviolatedtheab GUILTYofGraveMiscondu
vs.Judge MaxwelS. Rosete, An Section2,CanonIoftheCodeofC ovenormsofconductasthecomplainants’allegationsagainst ct.Hisdisabilityretirementbe
etc.,etal administrative onductforCourtPersonnelwhic himstoodcompletelyuncontroverted.RespondentTaguba’ nefitsareherebydeclaredforfe
complaintforviolationofRepu hmandates sproffered itedas
blicActNo.3019filed,
198
2011CASES
A.M. No.MTJ-08-1727,. onAugust12,2003,bycomplain that"[c]ourtpersonnelshallnots explanationthatthe₱25,000.00wasapersonalloanfromcom penaltyforhisoffense,inlieuof
ants olicitoracceptanygift,favororbe plainantVillaceranstrainsbelief;itisalameattempttoexculpat dismissaltheCourtcannolong
March22, Milagros nefitbasedonanyorexplicitunde ehimselffromadministrativeliability.Itisextremelydifficultt erimpose.HeislikewiseBAR
2011RenatoC. VillaceranandOmarT.Mirand rstandingthatsuchgift,favororb obelievethatforapersonalloan,respondentTagubawouldar REDfromre-
Corona aagainstrespondentsPresiding enefitshallinfluencetheirofficial rangetomeetcomplainantVillaceranatherlawyer’soffice. employmentinanybranchori
JudgeMaxwelS.RoseteandPro actions." Whatratherappears,giventheprevailingfactsofthiscase,isth nstrumentalityofgovernment
cessServerEugenioTagubaoft atrespondentTagubaextractedmoneyfromcomplainantVil ,includinggovernment-
heMunicipalTrialCourtinCitie Section2(e),Canon III,on laceranforhispersonalgain,inexchangeforthefavorabletrea ownedorcontrolledcorporati
s(MTCC),Branch2,SantiagoCi theotherhand,mandatesthat"[c] tmentthathewasperceivedtobecapableofdeliveringbecaus ons.
ty, Isabela. ourtpersonnelshallnotxxx[s]oli ehewasacourtemployee.
citoracceptanygift,loan,gratuity, RespondentTaguba'sactofcollectingorreceivingmoneyfro
discount,favor,hospitalityorser malitigantconstitutesgravemisconductinoffice.Gravemisc
viceundercircumstancesfromw onductisagraveoffensethatcarriestheextremepenaltyofdis
hichitcouldreasonablybeinferre missalfromtheserviceevenon a firstoffense,
dthatamajorpurposeofthedono pursuanttoSection52,
ristoinfluencethecourtpersonn RuleIVoftheUniformRulesonAdministrativeCasesintheC
elinperformingofficialduties."T ivilService.Dismissalcarrieswithittheforfeitureofretiremen
heactsaddressedarestrictlyprohi tbenefits,exceptaccruedleavecredits,andperpetualdisqualif
bitedtoavoidtheperceptionthat icationfromre-employmentinthegovernmentservice.
courtpersonnelcanbeinfluence
d
toactfororagainstapartyorperso
ninexchange forfavors.
Section52,RuleIVoftheUnifor
m Rules
onAdministrati
veCasesintheCivil Service.
TOPIC:
Grave Abuseof Discretion,andGross Ignoranceof the Law andProcedure
LydiaA.Benancillovs.JudgeVen Inthiscase,therespondentjudgeactedinappropriatelyincalli GUILTYofConductUnbeco
ancio J. Amila AVerified- Canon4 ngthecomplainantandtheintervenorstoameetinginsidehisc mingofa Judge,andFINE
Complaint1datedNovember2 oftheNewCodeofJudicial hambers.Hisexplanationthathecalledthesaidmeetingtoadv him₱21,000.00.
9,2007filedbycomplainantLyd Conduct: icethepartiesthathewill
iaA.
199
2011CASES
A.M. No.RTJ-08- Benancillo(Lydia)chargingres rescindhisOctober2,2007Orderisnotacceptable.Whywoul
2149.,March9, 2011 pondentJudgeVenancio SECTION1.Judgesshallavoidi dajudgegivethepartiesadvancenoticethatheisgoingtoissuea
RenatoC. Corona J.Amila(JudgeAmila)oftheReg mproprietyandtheappearanceo nOrder,moresorescindhispreviousOrder?Worse,whywou
ionalTrialCourt(RTC),Branch fimproprietyinall of ldhecallontheintervenorswhomhehadearlierruledasnotha
3,TagbilaranCitywithGraveA theiractivities. vinganylegalpersonalityinthiscase?Thisactofrespondentju
buseofDiscretion,GrossIgnor dgewouldlogicallycreateanimpressiontocomplainantthatt
anceoftheLawandProcedure, SECTION6.Judges,likeanyoth hemeetingofthejudgewiththeintervenorshadturnedhisvie
KnowinglyRenderinganUnjus ercitizen,areentitledtofreedom wsaroundtowardsissuinga revocation ofthe October2,
tJudgment orOrder. ofexpression,belief,association 2007 Order.
andassembly,butinexercisingsu Itisreprehensibleforajudgetohumiliatealawyer,litigantorwi
chrights,theyshallalwaysconduc tness.Theactbetrayslackofpatience,prudenceandrestraint.
tthemselvesinsuchamannerasto Thus,ajudgemustatalltimesbetemperateinhislanguage.He
preservethedignityofthejudicial mustchoosehiswords,written
officeandtheimpartialityandind orspoken,withutmostcareandsufficientcontrol.Thewisean
ependenceof theJudiciary. djustmanisesteemedforhisdiscernment.Pleasingspeechinc
reaseshispersuasiveness.
TOPIC:
Violation oftheNew Codeof JudicialConduct
JocelynDatoonvs.JudgeBethan Inlightof theevidence submittedinthiscase,the Dismissed.
yG.Kapili,PresidingJudgeofRe a ArticleVIII,Section6ofthe1987 CourtisoftheviewthatthechargesagainstJudgeKapiliweren
gionalTrialCourt,Branch24,Ma verifiedComplaint1filedonMar Constitution. otsufficientlysubstantiatedbyDatoonwhohastheburdenof
asinCity,SouthernLeyte ch17,2009,bycomplainantJoce proofinadministrative proceedings.
lynDatoon(Datoon) Section26,Rule130of TheCourtcannothelpbutnoticethatDatoon’stestimonywas
A.M. No.RTJ-10- charging theRulesofEvidence alsorepletewithinconsistencies.Astowherethegunwasatthe
2247.,March2, 2011 respondentJudgeBethany timeJudgeKapilifirstenteredthelaborroom,herComplainta
Jose CatralMendoza G.Kapili ndAffidavitstatedthatwhile she "waswaiting to give
(JudgeKapili),PresidingJudge birthinthe
ofRegionalTrial laborroomofthehospital,aman,whowasdrunkandholdinga
CourtBranch24,MaasinCity(R gunsuddenlybargedintotheroomlookingforoneDr.Lorna
TC),withConductUnbecomin Kapili."Onthe
gaMemberoftheJudiciary,and otherhand,duringhertestimony,shestatedthathewas"carryi
GrossMisconductamountingt ngagunonhiswaist"whenhefirstenteredthelaborroom.Shef
oViolationoftheCodeofJudici urthertestifiedthatJudgeKapiliwaslaterholdingagunandpoi
al Conduct. ntingitatherwhenhecamebackintothelabor
200
2011CASES
room.
Furthermore,itwashighlyunlikelythathercryingwouldhave
causedJudgeKapilitopullouthisgunandpointitather,consid
eringthatheknewhewasinthelaborroomofthehospitalwher
epregnantpatientswouldbeinlaborandunderstandablyinpai
n.Datoon’stestimonyiscontradictory,inconsistentandcont
rarytohumannature andexperience.
TOPIC:
Simple Misconduct
AssistantSpecialProsecutorIII (a)theJointMotionforReconsi ThevarianceintheresponsibilitiesofrespondentJusticesas Motions for
RoherminaJ.Jamsani- deration Canon6oftheNewCodeofJudic MembersoftheirDivisioncompelsthedifferentiationofthei Reconsiderations
Rodriguezvs.JusticesGregory datedS ial Conduct: rindividualliabilities.JusticeOng,astheChairperson,wasthe are
S.Ong, etal. eptember14,2010filedbyrespo headoftheDivisionundertheInternalRulesoftheSandiganb Denied.
ndentsSandiganbayanAssociat Section6.Judgesshallmaintainor ayan,beingthemostseniorMember,and,assuch,hepossesse
A.M. No. 08-19-SB- eJusticeGregoryS.Ong(Justice deranddecoruminallproceeding dandwieldedpowersofsupervision,direction,andcontrolov
J.,April 12, 2011 Ong)andAssociateJusticeJose sbeforethecourtandbepatient,di ertheconductoftheproceedingsoftheDivision.Thiscircum
RenatoC. Corona R.Hernandez gnifiedandcourteousinrelationt stancealoneprovidedsufficientjustificationtotreatJusticeO
(Justice olitigants,witnesses,lawyersand ngdifferentlyfromtheotherrespondents.
Hernandez);and(b)theMotion otherswithwhomthejudgedealsi Moreover,wehavenotedintheDecisionthatintheexerciseof
forReconsideration(oftheHon nanofficialcapacity.Judgesshallr hispowersasChairmanoftheFourthDivision,JusticeOngex
orableCourt’sDecisionDated1 equiresimilarconductoflegalrep udedanunexpectedlydismissiveattitudetowardsthevalidobj
September)datedSeptember1 resentatives,court staff ectionsofthecomplainant,andsteeredhisDivisionintothepa
5,2010ofthecomplainant.ofca andotherssubjecttotheirinfluen thofproceduralirregularity;andwittinglyfailedtoguaranteet
sesthatamountedtogrossabuse ce, directionor control. hatproceedingsoftheDivisionthathechairedcamewithinth
ofjudicialauthorityandgravemi eboundsofsubstantiveandproceduralrules.Tobesure,Justic
sconduct. Section3,Canon5oftheNew eHernandezandJusticePonferradadidnotdirectandcontrol
Code of howtheproceedingsoftheDivisionweretobeconducted.Th
JudicialConductforthePhilippi eirnotbeingresponsibleforthedirectionandcontroloftheru
neJudiciary,mandatesjudgestoc nningoftheDivisionandtheirhavingreliedwithoutmaliceon
arryoutjudicial the Justice Ong’sdirectionandcontrolshould
dutieswithappropriateconsider notbereprovedasmuchasJusticeOng’smisconduct.Hence,t
ationforallpersons,suchasthepa heirresponsibilityandliabilityasMembersofthe
rties,witnesses,lawyers,courtsta
ff,andjudicialcolleagues,withou
t
201
2011CASES
differentiationon Divisionwere properly diminished.
anyirrelevantground,immaterial
totheproperperformanceofsuc
hduties.
TOPIC:
Disciplinary Action
Patricio Gone vs. Respondent’sunjustifieddisregardofthelawfulordersofthis FINEDintheamountofFive
Atty.Macario Ga Acomplaintfordisciplinaryacti Canon18oftheCodeofProfessi CourtandtheIBPisnotonlyirresponsible,butalsoconstitute ThousandPesos(₱5,000.00)a
ondated23October1989filedb onalResponsibility: sutterdisrespectfortheJudiciaryandhisfellowlawyers. ndisgivenafinalwarningthata
A.C. No. yPatricioGoneagainstAtty.Ma Hisconductisunbecomingofalawyer,forlawyersareparticul moredrasticpunishmentshall
7771.,April 6, carioGabeforetheCommissio Rule18.03.Alawyershallnotnegl arlycalledupontoobeyCourtordersandprocessesandareexp beimposeduponhimshouldh
2011 nonBarDisciplineoftheIntegr ecta ectedto efailtocomplywiththedirectiv
JosePortugalPerez atedBarofthePhilippines(IBP) legalmatterentrustedtohim,and standforemostincomplyingwithCourtdirectivesbeingthem eforhimtoreconstituteandtur
.ThecomplaintwasduetoAtty. hisnegligenceinconnectionther selvesofficersof the Court. novertherecordsofthecaseto
Ga’sfailuretoreconstituteortur ewithshallrenderhimliable. Respondentshouldstrivehardertoliveuptohisdutiesofobse complainant.
novertherecordsofthecase rvingandmaintainingtherespectduetotheCourts,respectfo
inhispossession. Rule18.04.Alawyershallkeepthe rlawandforlegalprocesses,
clientinformedofthestatusofhis andofupholdingtheintegrityanddignityofthelegalprofessio
caseandshallrespondwithinarea ninordertoperformhisresponsibilitiesasalawyereffectively.
sonabletimetotheclient’sreques
tforinformation.
TOPIC:
Dishonesty,ConductPrejudicialtothe BestInterest of the Service,andViolation ofRepublic ActNo.3019(the Anti-GraftandCorruptPractices Act.)
AnAnonymousComplaintAgai TheCourtagreeswiththeOCAfindingthatbothAtty.Diestaa SUSPENDEDfromtheservi
nstAtty.PortiaDiestaandLuzSa ResolvetheResolutionthecom Section23,RuleXIVoftheOmni ndTaclaareguiltyofthechargesagainstthem.However,theco ceforTHREE(3)monthswith
ntos- plaintagainstAtty.PortiaFlores busRulesImplementingBookV urtdonotagreewiththeOCArecommendationthatAtty.Die outpay,withaSTERNWARN
Tacla,RegionalTrialCourt,Bran - ofExecutiveOrderNo. 292. staandTaclabeonlyreprimandedwithsternwarningthatcom INGthata
ch263, Pasig City Diesta,BranchClerkofCourt,a missionofsimilaractsinthefutureshallbedealtwithmoreseve commissionofthesameorsim
ndLuzSantos- Civil Service Rule XV, Sec. 4. rely.Bothareguiltyoflessgraveoffensesandmustbemetedth ilaractsinthefutureshallbedea
A.M. No. P-05- Tacla,ClerkIII,oftheRegional ecorrespondingpenalties.Atty.Diestaisguilty of simple ltwithmoreseverely.LuzSant
1970.,May 30, 2011 TrialCourt,Branch263(Branch neglect of duty for losing the os-
ArturoD. Brion 263),Pasig City. attendancelogbook,andsheisalsoguiltyofsimplemisconduc Tacla,ClerkIII,RegionalTrial
tforaskingforacommissioner’sfeeandforfailingtohavethep Court,PasigCity,Branch263,i
ublicationofofficialnoticesraffled.Sheshouldbe sSUSPENDEDfromthe
serviceforONE (1)
202
2011CASES
suspendedforthree(3)months.Tacla,whoisguiltyofsimple monthandONE(1)daywitho
misconductfornotfaithfullyaccomplishingherdailytimerec utpay,withaSTERNWARNI
ord,shouldbesuspendedforone(1)month andone (1)day. NGthatacommissionofthesa
meorsimilaractsinthefutures
hallbedealtwithmoreseverely
.
TOPIC:
Gross Ignoranceof the Law
FelicisimaR.Diazvs.JudgeGera Itisthusveryclearthattheperiodforrenditionofjudgmentsin GUILTYofGrossIgnorance
rdoE.Gestopa,Jr.,MunicipalTri An Rule on SummaryProcedure: casesfallingundersummaryprocedureis30days.Thisisinkee oftheLawandisherebyFINE
alCourt,Naga,Cebu administrative pingwiththespiritoftherulewhichaimstoachieveanexpediti DintheamountofTwenty-
complaintfiledbycomplai SEC.7.Preliminaryconference;app ousandinexpensivedetermination ofthe casesfalling OneThousand
A.M. No.MTJ-11- nantFelicisima earanceofparties.- thereunder. Pesos
1786.,June 22, 2011, R.DiazagainstJudgeGerar Notlaterthanthirty(30)daysafterthel Indeed,inFarralesv.Camarista,4theCourtexplainedthatwhi (₱21,000.00),withaSTERN
DiosdadoM.Peralta doE.Gestopa,Jr.,Municip astanswerisfiled,apreliminaryconfer lethelastparagraph of theafore- WARNINGthata
alTrialCourt(MTC),Naga, enceshallbeheld.Therulesonpre- citedprovisionapparentlygivestheCourtdiscretiontorefert repetitionofthesameorsimila
Cebu,forincompetence,gr trialinordinarycasesshallbeapplicabl hecasetotheluponforamicablesettlementalthoughitmayno roffensesinthefutureshallbed
ossignoranceofthelaw,neg etothepreliminaryconferenceunlessi tfallwithintheauthorityofthelupon,thereferralofsaidsubjec ealtwithmore severely.
lectofduty,andconductun nconsistentwith the provisionsof tcivilcasetotheluponissalientlyanunsoundexerciseofdiscre
becomingofajudgerelative thisRule. tion,consideringthatthematterfallsundertheRuleonSumm
toCivilCaseNo.R- aryProcedure.ThereasonisbecausetheRuleonSummaryPr
595entitledFelicisimaRive Thefailureoftheplaintifftoappearint ocedurewaspromulgatedforthepurposeofachieving"anexp
ra- hepreliminaryconferenceshallbeaca editiousandinexpensivedeterminationofcases."Thefacttha
Diazv.SpousesRuel&Dia useforthedismissalofhiscomplaint. tunlawfuldetainercasesfallundersummaryprocedure,speed
naBetitoandIsidroPungko Thedefendantwhoappearsintheabs yresolutionthereofisthusdeemedamatterofpublicpolicy.T
l. enceoftheplaintiffshallbeentitledtoj odootherwisewouldultimatelydefeattheveryessenceofthec
udgmentonhiscounterclaiminaccor reationof theRuleson Summary Procedure.
dancewithSection6hereof.Allcross-
claimsshall be dismissed.
Ifasoledefendantshallfailtoappear,t
heplaintiffshallbeentitledtojudgme
ntinaccordancewithSection6hereof.
ThisRule
203
2011CASES
shallnotapplywhereoneoftwoormor
edefendantssuedunderacommonca
useofactionwhohadpleadedacomm
ondefenseshallappearattheprelimin
aryconference.
SEC.8.Recordofpreliminaryconfere
nce.-
Withinfive(5)daysaftertheterminati
onofthepreliminaryconference,thec
ourtshallissueanorderstatingthemat
terstakenuptherein,includingbut
not limitedto:
a).....Whetherthepartieshavearrived
atanamicablesettlement,andifso,
the termsthereof;
b).....Thestipulationsoradmissionse
nteredintobytheparties;
c).....Whether,onthebasisoftheplead
ingsandthestipulationsandadmissio
nsmadebytheparties,judgmentmayb
e
renderedwithouttheneedoffurtherp
roceedings,inwhicheventthejudgme
ntshallberenderedwithinthirty(30)d
aysfromissuanceofthe order;
d).....Aclearspecificationofmaterialf
actswhichremain
204
2011CASES
controverted; and
e).....Suchothermattersintendedtoex
peditethedispositionofthecase.
SEC.10.Renditionofjudgment.-
Withinthirty(30)daysafterreceiptoft
helastaffidavitsandpositionpapers,o
rtheexpirationoftheperiodforfilingt
hesame,the
courtshallrenderjudgment.
However,shouldthecourtfinditnece
ssarytoclarifycertainmaterialfacts,it
may,duringthesaidperiod,issueanor
derspecifyingthematterstobeclarifie
d,andrequirethepartiestosubmitaffi
davitsorotherevidenceonthesaidma
tterswithinten(10)daysfromreceipto
fsaidorder.Judgmentshallberendere
dwithinfifteen(15)daysaftertherecei
ptofthelastclarificatoryaffidavits,ort
heexpirationoftheperiodforfiling
thesame.
Thecourtshallnotresorttotheclarific
atoryproceduretogaintimefortheren
dition ofthejudgment.
TOPIC:
Gross Ignoranceof the Law,andGross Misconduct
205
2011CASES
Failuretocomplywiththeforegoingr
equirementsshallnotbecurablebyme
reamendmentofthecomplaintoroth
erinitiatorypleadingbutshallbecause
forthedismissalofthe casewithout
206
2011CASES
prejudice,unlessotherwiseprovided,
uponmotionandafterhearing.Thesu
bmissionofafalsecertificationornon
-
compliancewithanyoftheundertakin
gsthereinshallconstituteindirectcon
temptofcourt,withoutprejudicetoth
ecorrespondingadministrativeandcr
iminalactions.Iftheactsofthepartyor
hiscounselclearlyconstitutewillfulan
ddeliberateforumshopping,thesame
shallbegroundforsummarydismissal
withprejudiceandshallconstitutedire
ctcontempt,aswellasacausefor
administrative sanctions.
Rule15ofthe1997RulesofCourt:
SEC.4.Hearingofmotion.–
Exceptformotionswhichthecourtm
ayactuponwithoutprejudicingtherig
htsoftheadverseparty,everywritten
motionshallbesetforhearingbythe
applicant.
Everywrittenmotionrequiredtobeh
eardandthenoticeofthehearingthere
ofshallbeservedinsuchamannerasto
ensureitsreceiptbytheotherpartyatle
astthree(3)daysbeforethedateofhear
ing,unlessthecourtforgoodcauseset
sthehearingonshorter
207
2011CASES
notice.
SEC.5.Noticeofhearing.–
Thenoticeofhearingshallbeaddresse
dtoallpartiesconcerned,andshallspe
cifythetimeanddateofthehearingwhi
chmustnotbelaterthanten(10)daysaf
terthefiling ofthe motion.
Asprescribedbytheaforequotedpro
visions,amovantshallsethismotionf
orhearing,
unlessitisoneofthosewhichacourtca
nactuponwithoutprejudicing
therightsoftheotherparty.Theprevai
lingdoctrineinthisjurisdictionisthata
motionwithoutanoticeofhearingadd
ressedtothepartiesisamerescrapofpa
per.
Rule140,Section8ofthe1997Rulesof
Court.
TOPIC:
Dishonesty
OfficeoftheCourtAdministrato JudgeAguilar’scaseshouldbedistinguishedfromourpreviou GUILTYofdishonestyandis
rvs.JudgeMa.EllenM.Aguilar,R From(1)theundatedletter CivilServiceRulesandRegulationsfo srulingsinOfficeoftheCourtAdministratorv.JudgeEstacio SUSPENDEDfromtheservi
TC,Br70,BurgosPangasinan ofRamonOna- remploymentinthegovernment. n,Jr.,37Gutierrezv.BelanandRe:Non- ceforsix(6)monthswithoutpa
Ligaya(Ligaya)ofOlongap DisclosurebeforetheJudicialandBarCounciloftheAdminis y,withawarningthatarepetitio
A.M. No.RTJ-07- o RuleIV,Section53oftheCivilService trativeCaseFiledAgainstJudgeJaimeV.Quitain39(thelasttw nof
2087.,June 7, 2011 City,addre Rules. ocitedinthereportofInvestigatingJusticeDy- thesameorsimilaractwillbede
TeresitaJ.Leonardo-DeCastro ssedtothenChiefJusticeAr LiaccoFlores).InEstacion,therespondentjudgefailedtodisc altwith moreseverely.
temioV.Panganiban,andt Rule140oftheRulesofCourt,ajudgef losehispendingcriminalcasesforhomicideandattemptedho
heJudicialandBarCouncil( oundguiltyofaseriouscharge,suchas micidewhenheappliedtotheJudiciary;whileinBelan,theresp
JBC), dishonesty,maybe ondentjudgefailedtopreviouslydiscloseapendingcriminal
expressing
disappointmentoverthe
208
2011CASES
appointmentof subjectedtoanyofthefollowingpenal caseforrecklessimprudenceresultinginseriousphysicalinjur
Ma.EllenAguilar(Aguilar) ties: ies.InQuitain,thepreviousadministrativecasewhichtheresp
asjudgeoftheRegionalTria ondentjudgefailedtodiscloseuponhisapplicationforjudges
lCourt(RTC)ofBurgos,Pa Sec.11.Sanctions.— hipwasoneforgravemisconductforwhichhewasdismissedf
ngasinan,sinceshehadbee A.Iftherespondentisguiltyofaseriou romtheservicewithforfeitureofbenefitspriortohisapplicati
nchargedwithseveralcrimi scharge,anyofthefollowingsanction ontotheJudiciary.Theseriousnessofthecaseorcaseswhichre
nal offenses smay be imposed: spondentjudgesfailedtodiscloseintheir PDS
involving orapplicationsforjudgeship,and the
moral 1. Dismissalfromtheservice,forfeit absenceofmitigatingcircumstances,sufficientlydifferentiat
turpitude;and(2)theIndor ureofallorpartofthebenefitsastheCo eEstacion, Belan, andQuitain, fromtheone atbar.
sementletter2datedDece urtmaydetermine,anddisqualificatio Accordingly,theCourtfindsitappropriatetoimposeasuspen
mber4,2006oftheOfficeof nfrom reinstatement sionofsixmonthswithoutpayinlightoftheabove
theCityLegalOfficerofOl orappointmenttoanypublicoffic discussedextenuatingcircumstances.
ongapoCity,referringtoth e,includinggovernment-
eOfficeoftheCourtAdmin ownedorcontrolledcorporations:Pr
istrator(OCA)forappropri ovided,however,thattheforfeitureof
ateactionthedecisionofthe benefitsshallinnocaseincludeaccrue
DeputyOmbudsmanforL dleave credits;
uzoninOMB-L-A-03-
0718- 2. Suspensionfromofficewithoutsal
G,whichimposeduponAtt aryandotherbenefitsformorethanth
y.Aguilar,formerlyCityLeg ree(3)butnotexceedingsix
alOfficerofOlongapoCity, (6)months; or
afineequivalenttoone
monthsalary. 3. Afineofmorethan₱20,000.00but
not exceeding ₱40,000.00.
TOPIC:
Gross Inefficiency,andUndueDelay inRenderinganOrderandin Transmittingthe Recordsof a Case.
Atty.Randy P. Barengvs.Judge WeagreewiththeOCA’sfindingthatJudgeDagunaisliablefo GUILTYofgrossinefficiency
Zenaida R. Daguna AComplaint- Rule3.05,Canon3oftheCodeofJudic rgrossinefficiencyforfailingtoadoptasystemof ,andofunduedelayinrenderin
Affidavit1filedbyAtty.Ran ialEthicsandSection15(1) recordmanagementinhercourt. ganorderandintransmittingth
A.M. No.RTJ-10- dyP.Bareng,onJuly8,2009, and(2). TheinefficiencyoftherespondentJudgeisapparentinthefoll erecordsofacase.Sheishereby
2246.,June 1, 2011, againstPresidingJudgeZe Article VIIof the owinginstances:(1)Sheacknowledgedthefactthatshehadfir FINEDFifteenThousand
ArturoD. Brion naidaDagunaoftheRegion Constitution.Rule3 of the Codeof stknownofthefilingoftheMotiontoResolvefromthecompl Pesos
alTrialCourt(RTC),Branc Judicial ainanthimselfwhichalsoledtoherknowledgeofthefailureto (₱15,000.00),to be
h19, mailher31July2007
209
2011CASES
Rule140oftheRulesofCourtprovide
s:
SECTION9.LessSeriousCharges.
—Lessseriouschargesinclude:
1.Unduedelayinrenderingadecision
ororder,orintransmittingthe
recordsof acase;
xxx
SECTION11. Sanctions. —
B.Iftherespondentisguiltyofalessser
iouscharge,anyofthefollowingsancti
onsshallbe
210
2011CASES
imposed:
1. Suspensionfromofficewithoutsal
aryandotherbenefitsfornotlessthan
one(1)normorethanthree
(3)months; or
2. AfineofmorethanP10,000.00but
not exceedingP20,000.00.
TOPIC:
Gross Ignoranceof the Law
NationalPowerCorporation,re JudgeAdiongfailedtoconductapre- GUILTY
presenteditsPresidentCyrilDel An Section2,22Rule39oftheRulesof trialconferenceinCivilCaseNo.1918- forgrossign
Callarvs.JudgeSantosB.Adiong, administrative Court. 03contrarytoelementaryrulesofprocedurewhichheshouldh oranceofthelaw,FINED
RegionalTrialCourt,BR. complaint1filedbytheNati aveknownalltoowellconsideringhislongyearsofserviceinth inthe amountof
8,Marawi City onal Power Section8,Rule140 of ebench.Themandatorycharacterofpre- ₱40,000.00tobedeductedfro
Corporation(NPC)throug theRulesofCourt. trialisembodiedinAdministrativeCircularNo.3- mhisretained/withheldaccru
A.M. No.RTJ-07- hitspresidentCyrilC.DelC 99datedJanuary15,1999,andfounditswayinSection2,Rule1 edleave credits.
2060.,July 27, 2011 allar,chargingrespondentJ Section11,Rule140oftheRulesof 8oftheRulesofCourt,whichimposesadutyupontheplaintiff
MartinS. Villarama Jr. udgeSantosB.Adiong,Pre Court. topromptlymoveexpartethatthecasebesetforpre-
sidingJudgeoftheRegional trial.Tofurtherimplementthepre-
TrialCourt(RTC),Branch trialguidelines,thisdirectivewasreiteratedinAdministrative
8,MarawiCity,withgrossig MatterNo.03-1-09-
noranceofthelaw,manifes SC25entitled"GuidelinestobeObservedbyTrialCourtJudg
tpartialityandconductunb esandClerksofCourtintheConductofPre-
ecoming amemberof TrialandUseofDeposition-
theJudiciary. DiscoveryMeasures"whichrecognizedtheimportanceofpr
e-trialandthedeposition-
TOPIC: discoverymeasuresasvitalcomponentsofcase
Gross Dishonesty andFalsificationmanagementintrialcourts.
ofanofficialDocument
Atty. Jose Vicente Inthepresentcase,respondentjudgesimilarlyfailedtodisclos GUILTYof
D.Fernandezvs.Judge An UnderSection15(1)17ofArticleVIII einhisapplicationtheseriouschargeofindirectbriberyagainst gross
Angeles administrative ofthe 1987 Constitution. him.WeruleaswedidinYalungv.JudgeEnriqueM.Pascua,w inefficiencyanddishonesty,re
S. Vasquez complaintforgrossdishon herethisCourtfinedandsuspendedrespondentjudgeforsix( spondentJudgeAngeles
esty Canon3,Rule3.0518oftheCodeof 6)monthsforgrossinefficiency anddishonesty. S.Vasquez,RTC,Branch13,Li
A.M. No.RTJ-11-2261., andfalsificatio Judicial Conduct. Andsincepetitionerisalreadycompulsorilyretired,he gaoCity,isherebyorderedtopa
nofanofficialdocumentag yaFINEofSIXTY
ainstJudgeAngelesS.Vasq THOUSAND
uez,
211
2011CASES
July 26, 2011, RegionalTrialCourt(RTC) cannolongerservehissuspension;yet,thisCourtcanstillorde (₱60,000.00)PESOStobe
,Branch13,LigaoCity. Section13oftheRevisedRuleonSum r,inlieuofsuchpenalty,theforfeitureoftheamountequivalen deducted from
JosePortugalPerez mary Procedure. ttopetitioner’ssalaryforsixmonthsfromhisretirementbenef hisretirement
its. benefits.
Section11,Rule14036oftheRulesof Takingintoaccountrespondent’sforty(40)yearsofserviceint
Court. hegovernment,theOCAsubmitsthatthepenaltyimposableu
ponherissuspension.Considering,however,thatsuspension
RuleIV,Section53oftheCivilService cannolongerbeimposedduetorespondent’sretirementonF
Rules. ebruary14,2007,WeopttoimposeuponherafineofTwentyT
housandPesos(₱20,000.00).
Section52,RuleIVoftheUniformRul
esonAdministrativeCases.
TOPIC:
Gross MisconductandConduct of UnbecomingJudge
Atty.ConradoB.Gandez,Jr.vs.j WhileweagreewiththefindingsoftheInvestigatingJudgetha GUILTY of
udgeMariaClaritaC.Tabin,MT An Canon4,Section 1 oftheNewCode trespondentJudgecannotbeheldliableforgrossmisconduct IMPROPRIETYandishereb
CC,Br.4,BaguioCity administrative of Judicial Conduct. andconductunbecomingofajudgeduetolackofevidenceof yREPRIMANDEDandWA
complaint1filedbycompla maliceonthepartofrespondentJudge,we,however,agreewit RNEDthatarepetitionofthes
A.M. No.MTJ-09- inant Canon2oftheCodeofJudicialCondu hthefindingsof the OCAthatJudge Tabinisguilty ameorsimilaractshallbedealt
1736.,July 25, 2011 Atty.Conrado ct. ofimpropriety. with moreseverely.
DiosdadoPeralta B.Gandeza,Jr.againstJudg WehaverepeatedlyremindedmembersoftheJudiciarytobeir
eMariaClaritaC.Tabin, Section11(C),Rule140of reproachableinconductandtobefreefromanyappearanceof
Presiding theRulesofCourt. improprietyintheirpersonalbehavior,notonlyinthedischarg
Judge, eoftheirofficialduties,butalsointheirdailylife.Fornopositio
MunicipalTrialCourtinCit nexactsagreaterdemandformoralrighteousnessandupright
ies(MTCC),Branch4,Bagu nessofanindividualthanaseatintheJudiciary.Theimperative
ioCity,forGrossMiscondu andsacreddutyofeachandeveryoneintheJudiciaryistomaint
ctandConductUnbecomi ainitsgoodnameandstandingasatempleofjustice.TheCourt
ng a Judge. condemnsandwouldnevercountenanceanyconduct,actoro
missiononthepartofallthoseinvolvedintheadministrationo
fjusticewhichwouldviolatethenormofpublicaccountability
ortendtodiminishthefaithofthepeopleintheJudiciary,
asinthe case atbar.
TOPIC:
212
2011CASES
Violation ofNotarialLaw,the 2004 Rules onNotarialPractice andthe Code ofProfessionalResponsibility
RizalinaL.Geminavs.Atty.Isidr TheIBPresolution,basedwhollyonCommissionerMaala’sR GUILTYofviolatingtheNota
oS.Madamba Reviewing Canon 1 of the Code eportandRecommendation,totallymissedanddisregardedt rialLaw,the2004RulesonNot
theRe ofProfessionalResponsibi hesubmittedevidenceandtherespondent’stestimonyduring arialPracticeandtheCodeofP
A.C. No. solutionNo.XVIII-2008- lity. thehearingofthecomplaint.TheIBPapparentlyhadtreatedt rofessionalResponsibility,an
6689.,August24, 101datedMarch6,2008oft herespondentwithexceptionalleniency.Inourview,theresp dherebyorderstheREVOCA
2011ArturoD. heBoardofGovernorsofth 2004 Ruleson Notarial Practice. ondent’sageandsicknesscannotbecitedasreasonstodisregar TIONofhisnotarialcommissi
Brion eIntegratedBarofthePhili dtheseriouslapseshecommittedinthe performance on,ifstillexisting.Heisfurther
ppines ofhisdutiesasa lawyerandasa SUSPENDEDindefinitelyfr
(IBP), notarypublic.TheinaccuraciesinhisNotarialRegisterentries omreappointmentasaNotary
dismissingthecomplaintfil andhisfailuretoenterthedocumentsthatheadmittedlynotari Public.Consideringtheseriou
edbyRizalinaL.Gemina(c zedconstitutederelictionofdutyasanotarypublic.Hecannot snessofhisviolations,hedeser
omplainant).Thecomplai escapeliabilitybyputtingtheblameonhissecretary.Thelawye vesdisbarmentfromthepracti
ntchargedAtty.IsidroS.Ma rhimself,notmerelyhissecretary,shouldbeheldaccountablef ceoflawbuttakingintoaccoun
damba(respondent)withd orthesemisdeeds. thisoldageandsickness,theCo
eceit,malpracticeandgross Anotarypublicisempoweredtoperformavarietyofnotariala urt,forhumanitarian
negligence,andprayedfor cts,mostcommonofwhicharetheacknowledgementandaffi reasons,
his rmationofdocumentsorinstruments.Intheperformanceoft herebyordershisSUSPENSI
suspension/disbarment. hesenotarialacts,thenotarypublicmustbemindfulofthesign ONfromthepracticeoflawfor
ificanceofthenotarialsealaffixedondocuments.Thenotarial aperiodof one (1)year.
sealconvertsadocumentfromaprivatetoapublicinstrument,
afterwhichitmaybepresentedasevidencewithoutneedforpr
oofofitsgenuinenessanddueexecution.Thus,notarizations
houldnotbetreatedasanempty,meaninglessorroutinaryact.
Anotarypublicexercisesdutiescallingforcarefulnessandfait
hfulness.Notariesmustinformthemselvesofthefactstheyce
rtifyto;mostimportantly,theyshouldnottakepartor allow
themselvesto be part ofillegal transactions.
TOPIC:
Violation of Rule 11.03,Canon11 ofthe Code ofProfessionalResponsibility
JudgeReneB.Baculivs.Atty.Mel TheCourtnagreeswiththeIBP’sfindingthattherespondentv GUILTYofviolatingRule11.
chorA.Battung The resolution1of Canon 11 of the Code iolatedRule11.03,Canon11oftheCodeof 03,Canon11oftheCodeof
theBoard ofGovernorsof ofProfessionalResponsibi ProfessionalResponsibility.Atty.Battung Professional
lity:
213
2011CASES
A.C. No. theIntegratedBarofthePhi disrespectedJudgeBaculibyshoutingathiminsidethecourtr Responsibility,forwhichheis
8920.,September28, lippines(IBP)findingAtty. Canon11- oomduringcourtproceedingsinthepresenceoflitigantsandt SUSPENDEDfromthepract
2011ArturoD. MelchorBattungliableforv Alawyershallobserveandmaintainth heircounsels,andcourtpersonnel.Therespondentevencam iceoflawforone(1)yeareffecti
Brion iolatingRule11.03,Canon1 erespectduethecourtsandtojudicialo ebacktoharassJudgeBaculi.Thisbehavior, infront ofmany veuponthefinalityofthisDeci
1oftheCodeofProfessiona fficersandshouldinsistonsimilarcon witnesses, cannot be sion.HeisSTERNLYWARN
lResponsibility ductbyothers. allowed.WenotethattherespondentcontinuedtothreatenJu ED
and dgeBaculiandactedinamannerthatclearlyshoweddisrespect thatarepetitionofasimilaroffe
recommendingthathebere Rule11.03- forhispositionevenafterthelatterhadcitedhimforcontempt. nseshallbedealtwithmore
primanded.Thecomplaina Alawyershallabstainfromscandalou Infact,afterinitiallyleavingthecourt,therespondentreturned severely.
ntisJudgeReneB.Baculi,Pr s,offensiveormenacinglanguageorb tothecourtroomanddisruptedtheongoingproceedings.The
esidingJudgeoftheMunici ehaviourbefore the Courts. seactionswerenotonlyagainsttheperson,thepositionandthe
palTrialCourtinCities,Bra statureofJudgeBaculi,butagainstthecourtaswellwhoseproc
nch2,TuguegaraoCity.Th eedingswereopenlyandflagrantlydisrupted,andbroughtto
erespondent,Atty.Battung disrepute bytherespondent.
,isamemberoftheBarwith
postaladdressonAguinald
o
St.,
TuguegaraoCity.
TOPIC:
Gross Ignoranceof the Law
Atty.EmmanuelR.Andamovs.J Complainant’schargeofgrossignoranceofthelawagainstres DISMISSED.
udgeEdwinG.Larida,etal. Anadministrativecaseagai ActNo.3135,asamendedbyactNo.4 pondentsremainsunfoundedandunsubstantiated.Theevid
nstrespondentsJudgeEdw 118,onextrajudicialforeclosureofrea encewhichcomplainantsubmitted,insteadofhelpinghiscau
A.M. No.RTJ-11- inG.Larida,Jr.(JudgeLarid lestatemortgage. Sections6. se,showedthatitwashewhowasstubbornlyremissinhisdutie
2265.,September21, a,Jr.),Clerkof stohisclientandtothecourt,aswell.Theevidencelikewisesho
2011Jose CourtStanlee ActNo.3135,asamendedbyactNo.4 wedthatcontrarytocomplainant’saccusation,respondentsi
CatralMendoza D.Calma(Atty.Calma)and 118,onextrajudicialforeclosureofrea nfactstrictlycompliedwithapplicablelaws,rules,andjurispru
LegalResearcherDianaG. lestatemortgage. Sections7. dencepertainingtoissuanceofwritsofpossessionorallowanc
Cruz(LRRuiz),alloftheRe eofextrajudicialforeclosure.Verily,complainanthas,among
gionalTrialCourt(RTC),B Section47ofRepublicAct(R.A)No. others,unjustlyinconveniencedandmentallytorturedrespo
ranch18,TagaytayCity. 8791. ndentsbydraggingthemintothisunnecessarybattle.Precious
time,energyandexpensewerewastedwhenthesamecouldha
vebeenbeneficiallyusedfor
214
2011CASES
someotherlawfulpurposebeneficialtotheinterestofpublic
service.
Alawyerisanofficerofthecourts;heis,"likethecourtitself,ani
nstrumentoragencytoadvancetheendsofjustice."Hisdutyis
toupholdthedignityandauthorityofthecourtstowhichheow
esfidelity,"nottopromotedistrustintheadministrationofjust
ice."Faithinthecourtsalawyershouldseektopreserve.For,to
underminethejudicialedifice"isdisastroustothecontinuityo
fgovernmentandtotheattainmentofthelibertiesof
thepeople."
"Alawyerwhofilesanunfoundedcomplaintmustbesanction
edbecause,asanofficerofthecourt,hedoesnotdischargehisd
utybyfilingfrivolouspetitionsthatonlyaddtotheworkloadof
thejudiciary.Suchfilingofbaselesscomplaintsiscontemptuo
usof the courts."
TOPIC:
Disbarment
ValentinC.Mirandavs.Atty.Mac TheCourtnotesthatrespondentdidnotinformcomplainantt SUSPENDEDfromthepract
ario D. Carpio Thisisadisbarmentcaseaga Code of hathewillbetheonetosecuretheowner'sduplicateoftheOCT iceoflawforaperiodofsix(6)m
instAtty.MacarioD.Carpi ProfessionalResponsi fromtheRDandfailedtoimmediatelyinformcomplainantth onths,effectiveuponreceipto
A.C. No. ofiledbyValentin bility: atthetitlewasalreadyinhispossession.Complainant,onApril fthisDecision.Heisorderedto
6281.,September21, C. Miranda. 3,2000,wentto theRDofLasPiñasCityto RETURNtothecomplainant
2011DiosdadoPeral Canon20.Alawyershallchargeonly gettheowner'sduplicateofOCTNo.0- theowner'sduplicateofOCT
ta fairandreasonablefees. 94,onlytobesurprisedthatthesaidtitlehadalreadybeenclaim No.0-
edby,andreleasedto,respondentonMarch29,2000.Alawyer 94immediatelyuponreceiptof
Canon16.Alawyershallholdintrustal mustconducthimself,especiallyinhisdealingswithhisclients thisdecision.HeisWARNED
lmoneysandpropertiesofhisclientth ,withintegrityinamannerthatisbeyondreproach.Hisrelation thatarepetitionofthesameors
atmaycomeintohispossession. shipwithhisclientsshouldbecharacterizedbythehighestdeg imilaractshallbedealtwithmo
reeofgoodfaithandfairness.14Bykeepingsecretwiththeclie reseverely.
Canon16.03.Alawyershalldeliverthe nthisacquisitionofthetitle,
fundsandpropertiesofhisclientwhen respondentwasnotfairinhisdealingwithhisclient.Responde
dueorupondemand. ntcouldhaveeasilyinformedthecomplainantimmediatelyof
hisreceiptoftheowner'sduplicate ofthe
Section37,Rule138oftheRulesof OCTonMarch29,2000,
Court. inordertosavehisclientthetimeandeffortingoingto
215
2011CASES
theRDto getthe title.
Rule1.01ofCanon1oftheCodeof
Professional Responsibility.
Rule16.03ofCanon16oftheCode of
ProfessionalResponsi
bility,
TOPIC:
Violation ofthe Rule oProcedure forSmallClamsCases and theJudicialConduct
ErnestoZ.Obrevs.JudgeManoli Intheinstantcase,itisnoteworthytomentionthatthepostpon GUILTYofUndueDelayinR
toY.Gumarang,PairingJudge, An Section 22 of the Rule ementswerenotattributedtoanyofthepartiestothecase.The enderinga
MunicipalTrialCourt, Imus, administrative ofProcedureforSmall numerouspostponements,whichinsomeinstanceswereupo DecisionandViolationofthe
Cavite complaint1filedbycompla ClaimsCases. nrespondent'sinitiative,wereuncalledforandunjustified,co RuleofProcedureforSmallCl
inantErnestoZ.Orbe(Orb nsideringthatitwasalreadyestablishedthatalleffortsforamic aimsCases,andisherebyORD
A.M. No.MTJ-11- e)againstJudgeManolitoY. Section 19 of the Rule ablesettlementwerefutile.Thus,thepostponementswerecle EREDtopaya
1792.,September21, Gumarang(respondent),P ofProcedure. arviolation ofthe Rule anddefeat the very essence ofthe fineofFiveThousandPesos(₱
2011DiosdadoPeralta airingJudge,MunicipalTria Rule. 5,000.00)andWARNED
lCourt(MTC),Imus,Cavit Section9 (1),Rule140of Timeandagain,wehaveruledthatwhentherulesofprocedure thatarepetitionof
eforViolationoftheRuleof theRevisedRulesof Court. areclearandunambiguous,leavingnoroomforinterpretatio thesameorsimilaractshallbed
ProcedureforSmallClaims n,allthatisneededtodoistosimplyapplyit.Failuretoapplyele ealtwith moreseverely.
CasesandtheCodeof mentaryrulesofprocedureconstitutesgrossignorance
JudicialConduct. ofthelawandprocedure.
Intheinstantcase,neithergoodfaithnorlackofmalicewillexo
neraterespondent,astherulesviolatedwerebasic
proceduralrules.
Wecannotcountenanceunduedelayinthedispositionofcase
sormotions,especiallynowwhenthereisanall-
outefforttominimizeifnottotallyeradicatetheproblemofco
ngestionlongplaguingourcourts.Therequirementthatcases
bedecidedwithinthereglementaryperiodisdesignedtopreve
ntdelayintheadministrationofjustice.Forobviously,justiced
elayedisjustice denied. Delay inthe dispositionof
caseserodesthefaithandconfidenceofourpeopleinthejudici
ary,lowersitsstandards, andbringsitintodisrepute.
TOPIC:
216
2011CASES
Gross Negligence,andDerelictionofSwornDuties
Antonio Conlu vs. Inthiscase,Atty.Ireneoshouldbecalledtotaskfortheinterpla GUILTYofinexcusablenegli
Atty.IreneoAredon Acomplaintfordisbarmen Canon18Rule18.03oftheCodeof yofthefollowing:hisinexcusablenegligencethatresultedinth gence,attemptingtomisleadt
ia, Jr. twithaprayerfordamagesi Professional Responsibility. edismissalofAntonio’sappeal,coupledbyhislackofcandorin heappellatecourt,misuseofC
nstitutedbyAntonio notapprisingAntonioofthestatusofhisappealedcase;hisatte ourtprocesses,andwillfuldiso
A.C. No. Conlu Canon18,Rule18.04oftheCodeof mpttomisleadtheCAinavainbidtoevadetheconsequenceof bediencetolawfulordersofthe
4955.,September12, (Antonio)againstAtty.Iren Professional Responsibility. thebelatedfilingofamotionforreconsideration;and,lastbutn Court.He is
2011PresbiteroJ. eoAredonia,Jr.(Atty.Irene otleast,hiscavalierdisregardoftheCourt’sdirectivesprimaril herebySUSPEN
Velasco, Jr. o)ongroundsofgrossnegli Canon1,Rule1.01oftheCodeofProf yissuedtoresolvethechargesbroughtagainsthimbyAntonio. DEDfromthepracticeoflawf
gence essionalResponsibility WedeemitfittingthatAtty. Ireneo be suspendedfrom the oraperiodofone(1)yeareffecti
andde practice of law for veuponhisreceiptofthisResol
relictionof swornduty. Canon10,Rule10.01oftheCodeof aperiodofoneyear,upfromthepenaltyrecommendedbytheI ution,
Professional Responsibility. BPBoardofGovernors.Thisshouldserveasaconstantremin withWARNING
derofhisdutytorespectcourtsofjusticeandtoobservethatde thatarepetitionofthesameors
Canon12,Rule12.03oftheCodeof greeofdiligencerequiredbythepracticeofthelegalprofession imilaractswillbedealtwithmo
Professional Responsibility. .Hisbeingafirstoffenderdictatesto large degree reseverely.LetacopyofthisDe
thisleniency. cisionbefurnishedtheOfficeo
Canon12,Rule12.04oftheCodeof Theprayerfordamagescannotbegranted.Letalonethe ftheBarConfidant,theIntegra
Professional Responsibility. factthatAntoniochosenot tofile tedBarofthePhilippines,anda
hispositionpaperbeforetheIBP- llcourtsthroughoutthe
CBDand,therefore,wasunabletosatisfactorilyprovehisclai country.
mfordamages,aproceedingfordisbarmentorsuspensionisn
otinanysenseacivilaction;itisundertakenandprosecutedfor
publicwelfare.Itdoesnotinvolveprivateinterestandaffords
no redressforprivate grievance.
TOPIC:
Gross Ignoranceof the Law
Atty.TomasOngCabilivs.Judge Thedoctrineofjudicialstabilityornon- GUILTYofGrossIgnorance
RasadG.Balindong,ActingPres. The 1987Constitution,underArticleVIII interferenceintheregularordersorjudgmentsofaco- oftheLawandFINED inthe
Judge,RTC,Br8MarawiCity administrative , Section1, paragraph2. equalcourtisanelementaryprincipleintheadministrationofj amountof
complaint against ustice:nocourtcaninterferebyinjunctionwiththejudgments ₱30,000.00,withasternWAR
A.M. No.RTJ-10- respondent Rule 65 oftheRulesofCourt. orordersofanothercourtofconcurrentjurisdictionhavingth NINGthatarepetitionofthes
2225.,September6, 2011 Acting epowertograntthereliefsoughtbytheinjunction.Therationa amewillbe dealtwithmore
PresidingJudgeRasadG.B A.M.No.01-8-10- lefortheruleisfoundedontheconceptofjurisdiction:acourtt severely.
alindongoftheRegionalTri SCortheAmendmenttoRule140ofth hatacquiresjurisdictionoverthe
alCourt(RTC)ofMarawiCi eRulesofCourt. caseandrendersjudgmentthereinhas
ty,Branch8,for Gross
217
2011CASES
TOPIC:
Violation ofSection7,Republic ActNo. 3019 andSection9,Republic ActNo.6713
Office of the Court Fromtheforegoing,itisimperativethateve GUILTYofviolationofSection7,R.A.No.3019
ofAdministratorvs.Ju An Section 7ofR.A. No.3019. rypublicofficialorgovernmentemployee andSection8,R.A.No.6713andordershimtopay
dgeUyag administrative mustmakeandsubmitacompletedisclosu aFINEofFiveThousandPesos(₱5,000.00)with
P. Usman proceedingstemmedfrom Section8, R.A.No. 6713. reofhisassets,liabilitiesandnetworthinor aSTERNWARNINGthatarepetitionofthesam
aletter- dertosuppressanyquestionableaccumula eorsimilaractwill be dealtwithmore severely.
A.M. No. SCC-08- complaintdatedApril23,2 tionofwealth.5Thisservesasthebasisofth
12,October19, 008 egovernmentandthepeopleinmonitoring
2011,Jose filedbeforetheOfficeofth theincomeandlifestyleofpublicofficialsa
CatralMendoza eOmbudsman,Mindanao, ndemployeesincompliancewiththeconst
requestingforalifestyleche itutionalpolicytoeradicatecorruption,top
ckonrespondentJudgeUy romotetransparencyingovernment,andt
agP.Usman(respondent), oensurethatallgovernmentemployeesan
PresidingJudge,Shari’aCir dofficialsleadjustandmodestlives,6witht
cuitCourt,PagadianCity,in heendinviewof curtailingand
connectionwithhisacquisi
tionofaSportsUtilityVehic
le(SUV)amountingto₱
218
2011CASES
1,526,000.00. minimizingtheopportunitiesforofficialc
orruptionandmaintainingastandardofho
nestyinthepublicservice.
Inthepresentcase,respondentclearlyviola
tedtheabove-
quotedlawswhenhefailedtofilehisSALN
fortheyears2004-
2008.Hegavenoexplanationeitherwhyhe
failedtofilehisSALNforfive(5)consecuti
veyears.Whileeveryofficeinthegovernme
ntserviceisapublictrust,nopositionexacts
agreaterdemandon
moralrighteousnessanduprightnessofani
ndividualthanaseatintheJudiciary.Hence,
judgesarestrictlymandatedtoabidewithth
elaw,theCodeof
JudicialConductandwithexistingadminis
trativepoliciesinordertomaintainthefaith
ofourpeopleintheadministrationof
justice.
TOPIC:
Violation of Rule 1.01 of Canon1,Canon15,andRule 18.03 of Canon18 oftheCode ofProfessionalResponsibility
NemesioFloranandCaridadFlo Thepracticeoflawisaprivilegebestowedb SUSPENDEDfromthepracticeoflawforsixmo
ranvs.Atty.RoyPruleEdiza An Canon1,Rule1.01oftheCodeofProf ytheStateonthosewhoshowthattheyposs nths,effectiveuponreceiptofthisDecision.Heis
administrativecasea essionalResponsibility. essthelegalqualificationsforit.Lawyersar DIRECTEDtoreturntotheSpousesNemesioa
A.C. No. rose from eexpectedtomaintainatalltimesahighstan ndCaridadFloranthetwo(2)setsofdocumentsth
5325.,October19, anAffidavit/Compl Canon 15 of the Code dardoflegalproficiencyandmorality,inclu athemisledthespousesandSartigaEpaltosign.H
2011AntonioT. aintfiled by ofProfessionalResponsibi dinghonesty,integrityandfairdealing. eisfurtherORDEREDtopaySpousesNemesioa
Carpio spousesNemesio(N lity. Theymustperformtheirfourfolddutytos ndCaridadFloran,within30daysfromreceiptoft
emesio)andCaridad(Carid ociety,thelegalprofession,thecourtsandt hisDecision,theamountof
ad)FloranagainstAtty.Roy Canon18,Rule18.03oftheCodeof heirclients,inaccordancewiththevaluesa ₱125,463.38,withlegalinterestfrom8Septembe
PruleEdiza(Atty.Ediza)fo Professional Responsibility. ndnormsofthelegalprofessionasembodi r2000untilfullypaid.Heiswarnedthatarepetition
runethicalconduct. edintheCodeofProfessionalResponsibili ofthesameorsimilaractsinthefutureshallbedealt
ty. withmore severely.
219
2011CASES
TheSupremeCourt,asguardianofthelegal
profession,hasultimatedisciplinarypowe
roverattorneys.Thisauthoritytodiscipline
itsmembersisnotonlyaright,butamoralan
dlegalobligationaswell.TheCourtwillnott
oleratesuchactionfromamemberofthele
galprofessionwhodeliberatelyandmalici
ouslydidnotprotecthisclient’sinterests.
TOPIC:
Suspension
RodolfoA.Espinosa,etal.vs.Att ThisCourthasruledthattheextrajudicialdi SUSPENDAtty.JulietaA.Omañafromthepract
y. Julieta A. Omana Acomplaintfordisbarmen Canon1,Rule1.01oftheCodeofProf ssolutionoftheconjugalpartnershipwitho iceoflawforONEYEAR.WeREVOKEAtty.O
tfiledbyRodolfoA.Espino essionalResponsibility. utjudicialapprovalisvoid.TheCourthasal maña’snotarialcommission,ifstillexisting,andS
A.C. No. sa(Espinosa)andMaximo soruledthatanotarypublicshouldnotfacili USPENDherasa notary public for
9081.,October12, A.Glindo(Glindo)against tatethedisintegrationofamarriageandthe TWOYEARS.
2011AntonioT. Atty.JulietaA.Omaña familybyencouragingtheseparationofthe
Carpio (Omaña). spousesandextrajudiciallydissolvingthec
onjugalpartnership,3whichisexactlywhat
Omañadidinthiscase.
TheCourtlikewiseagreewiththeIBP-
CBDthatinpreparingandnotarizingavoid
document,OmañaviolatedRule1.01,Can
on1oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsib
ilitywhichprovidesthat"[a]lawyershallnot
engageinunlawful,dishonest,immoralor
deceitfulconduct."Omañaknewfullywell
thatthe"KasunduanNgPaghihiwalay"ha
snolegaleffectandisagainstpublicpolicy.
Therefore,Omañamaybesuspendedfro
mofficeasanattorneyforbreachoftheethi
csofthelegalprofessionasembodiedin
220
2011CASES
the of Professional
Code
Responsibility.
TOPIC:Notarization
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINEDOF: LEGAL BASIS: SUPREME CASE DISPOSITION:
Pacita Caalim-Verzonilla v. COURT’SRULING:
Atty.VictorianoPascua
Atty. Pascua He violatedRule 1.02, Canon Atty. Pascua cannotescape Atty. VictorianoPascua
CASE NO.: draftedandnotarizedaninstrumentt 1ofthe Code liabilityfor makinganuntruthful issuspendedfromthe practiceof law
A.C. No. 6655 hatdidnotstatethe true ofProfessionalResponsibility statementin a public document for a period oftwo(2)years.In
considerationof thesaleso asto foranunlawful purpose. addition,
DATE OFPROMULGATION: reduce the Astheseconddeed he hispresentnotarialcommission,
October11, 2011 capitalgainsandothertaxesdue notarizedindicatedanamountmuchl ifany, isrevoked, andhe
onthetransaction. owerthantheactualprice paid forthe isdisqualifiedfromreappointmentas
PONENTE: propertysold,he a notary publicfor a
Villarama, Jr. abettedindeprivingtheGovernment periodoftwo(2)years.He
ofthe right tocollectthe isfurtherwarnedthatany similaractor
correcttaxesdue. Hisactclearly infractioninthe futureshall
violatedRule 1.02,Canon 1of the bedealtwithmore severely.
Code ofProfessionalResponsibility
whichstatesthat alawyershall not
counselorabetactivitiesaimedatdefia
nce of thelaw or atlessening
confidence inthe legal system.
TOPIC:Grossignorance ofthe law
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINEDOF: LEGAL BASIS: SUPREME CASE DISPOSITION:
Atty. FranklinG. Gacal v. COURT’SRULING:
JudgeJaime I.Infante
Judge Infante grantedbail He violatedRule 114, Section It isaxiomatic thatbailcannot The
CASE NO.: totheaccusedwhoischargedwith 7ofthe Rulesof Court, asamended. beallowed to a personchargedwith courtfindsanddeclaresJudgeJaime
A.M. No.RTJ-04-1845 murderwithoutsetting a acapitaloffense, or I.Infante guilty of grossignorance
hearingfor the anoffensepunishable ofthe law and therules;and,
DATE OFPROMULGATION: applicationofbailand withreclusionperpetuaor life accordingly, fine
October5, 2011 heorderedhisrelease imprisonment, without ahearing himintheamountof P20,000.00,
immediatelyafterallowing bail. uponnotice totheProsecution. Any withasternwarning that a
PONENTE: judge whosoallowsbail isguilty of repetitionof theoffense orthe
gross commissionofanotherseriousoffens
e willbe
221
2011CASES
Bersamin ignorance ofthe law and more severely dealtwith.
therules,andissubject to
appropriateadministrative
sanctions.
TOPIC:Grossignorance ofthe law
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINEDOF: LEGAL BASIS: SUPREME CASE DISPOSITION:
Atty. FranklinG. Gacal v. COURT’SRULING:
JudgeJaime I.Infante
Judge Infante grantedbail He violatedRule 114, Section It isaxiomatic thatbailcannot The
CASE NO.: totheaccusedwhoischargedwith 7ofthe Rulesof Court, asamended. beallowed to a personchargedwith courtfindsanddeclaresJudgeJaime
A.M. No.RTJ-04-1845 murderwithoutsetting a acapitaloffense, or I.Infante guilty of grossignorance
hearingfor the anoffensepunishable ofthe law and therules;and,
DATE OFPROMULGATION: applicationofbailand withreclusionperpetuaor life accordingly, fine
October5, 2011 heorderedhisrelease imprisonment, without ahearing himintheamountof P20,000.00,
immediatelyafterallowing bail. uponnotice totheProsecution. Any withasternwarning that a
PONENTE: judge whosoallowsbail isguilty of repetitionof theoffense orthe
Bersamin grossignorance ofthe law and commissionofanotherseriousoffens
therules,andissubject to e willbemore severely dealtwith.
appropriateadministrative
sanctions.
TOPIC:Grave misconduct
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINEDOF: LEGAL BASIS: SUPREME CASE DISPOSITION:
Tomasp.Tan,Jr. v. Atty. Haide COURT’SRULING:
V.Gumba
Atty. Gumba deceived TheCPRCanonsandRulesshevio Here, Atty.Haide B.Vista-
CASE NO.: Tanintolending money toher. She latedare: respondent’sactionsclearlyshow Gumbaisfoundadministrativelyliable
A.C. No. 9000 offeredassecurity a landcovered that she forgravemisconduct.Sheissuspende
byaTCTunderherfather’sname Canon 7 deceivedcomplainantintolendingm dfromthepracticeoflawforsix(6)mon
DATE OFPROMULGATION: witha SpecialPower of oney toherthroughthe ths,effectiveimmediately,withawarni
October5, 2011 Attorney(SPA)which she falsely Rule 1.01, Canon 1 useofdocumentsandfalse ngthatarepetitionof
misrepresentedasauthorizinghertos representationsandtaking advantage thesameorasimilaractwillbedealtwith
PONENTE: elltheproperty andshe hadledhim of moreseverely.
Villarama, Jr. tobelieve that he hereducationandcomplainant’signo
couldregistertheopendeed ofsale ranceinlegalmatters.
ifshe failsto paythe loan. Asmanifestedbycomplainant, he
wouldhave nevergranted the loanto
respondentwere it
notforrespondent’smisrepresentati
onthat shewasauthorized tosell
theproperty and
222
2011CASES
ifrespondenthad notledhim
tobelieve that he
couldregistertheopendeed ofsale
ifshe failsto paythe loan.
Byhermisdeed,respondenthaserode
dnot
onlycomplainant’sperceptionofthel
egalprofessionbutthe
public’sperceptionaswell.
Heractionsconstitute
TOPIC:Unauthorizedpractice of law grossmisconductforwhich she may
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINEDOF: LEGAL BASIS: be disciplined.
SUPREME CASE DISPOSITION:
Atty. Edita Noe- COURT’SRULING:
Lacsamanav.Atty.
YolandoBusmente Dela Rosa,whoisnot a memberof Atty. Busmente violatedCanon The lawyer’sduty to prevent, or The CourtsuspendsAtty. Yolando
theBar, 9of the Code atthe very leastnot to F. Busmentefrom
CASE NO.: misrepresentedherselfasBusmente ofProfessionalResponsibility assistin,theunauthorizedpractice of thepracticeoflaw for sixmonths.
A.C. No. 7269 ’scollaboratingcounsel in a civil lawisfoundedonpublic
case withtheassistance of Atty. interestandpolicy. Public policy
DATE OFPROMULGATION: Busmente. requiresthatthe practice of law
November23, 2011 belimited tothose
individualsfounddulyqualifiedinedu
cationandcharacter. The permissive
PONENTE: rightconferredon the
Carpio lawyerisanindividual
andlimitedprivilegesubject to
withdrawal ifhe
failstomaintainproperstandardsofm
oralandprofessionalconduct.The
purpose istoprotectthepublic, the
court, the client,andthe barfromthe
incompetence ordishonesty
ofthose unlicensed topractice law
and notsubjectto thedisciplinary
controlof the
Court.Itdevolvesupona lawyer to
see thatthispurpose isattained.
Thus, thecanonsandethicsof the
223
2011CASES
professionenjoinhimnot
topermithisprofessionalservicesorh
isname to be usedinaidof, or
tomake possible the
unauthorizedpractice of law by,
any agency,personalor corporate.
And,thelaw makesit a
misbehavioron hispart, subject to
disciplinary action,to aid a
laymanin theunauthorizedpractice
TOPIC:Client’sfunds of law.
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINEDOF: LEGAL BASIS: SUPREME CASE DISPOSITION:
Teresita Bayonla v. COURT’SRULING:
Atty.PuritaReyes
Atty. Reyesfailed to deliverto She violatedRule 16.01 BynotdeliveringBayonla’ssharede The
CASE NO.: herclient the amount she collected andRule16.03, Canon16 of the spite herdemand, CourtfindsandpronouncesAtty.
A.C. No. 4808 forherdespite CodeofProfessionalResponsibilit Atty.Reyesviolated the Purita A. Reyesguiltyofviolating
demandfromtheclient. y aforestatedcanons.The money Rule 16.01 andRule
DATE OFPROMULGATION: collected by Atty. 16.03 of Canon16 of
November22, 2011 Reyesasthe lawyer ofBayonla theCodeofProfessionalResponsibil
wasunquestionably money ity, andsuspendsherfromthe
PONENTE: heldintrusttobe immediately practice oflaw for a period
Bersamin turnedover to the client. The oftwoyearseffective uponreceipt
unjustifiedwithholdingof money ofthisDecision, withwarning
belongingto the thatasimilaroffense by herwillbe
clientwarrantstheimpositionofdisci dealtwith moreseverely.
plinarysanctionsonthe lawyer.
Hisfailureto immediately
accountfor and todeliver the
money upondemandwasdeceit, for
itsignifiedthat shehadconvertedthe
money toherownuse, inviolationof
TOPIC:Conflict of interest the trustBayonla hadreposedinher.
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINEDOF: LEGAL BASIS: SUPREME CASE DISPOSITION:
Lydia Castro-Justov. COURT’SRULING:
Atty.RodolfoGaling
Atty Galing advisedJustoand He violatedRule 15.03, Canon15 The prohibitionagainst The Courtresolved tosuspend
224
2011CASES
CASE NO.: drafted a of the Code representing conflicting Atty. RodolfoT. Galingfrom
A.C. No. 6174 demandletterforheragainstMs. ofProfessionalResponsibilit interestisfoundedonprinciplesofpu thepractice of law for one
KowhichAtty.Galinglater on y. blicpolicy andgoodtaste. In (1)year,with a warning thata
DATE OFPROMULGATION: representedincourt. thecourse of the lawyer- repetition
November16, 2011 clientrelationship, the ofthesameorsimilaroffensewillwar
lawyerlearnsofthe rant a more severe penalty
PONENTE: factsconnectedwiththeclient’scase,
Perez includingtheweakandstrong points
ofthe case. Thenature ofthe
relationship is,therefore,
oneoftrustandconfidence ofthe
highestdegree.It
behooveslawyersnotonlytokeepinvi
olate the clientsconfidence, butalso
to avoid theappearance of
treachery anddouble-dealing
foronlythencanlitigantsbe
encouraged to
entrusttheirsecretstotheirlawyers,w
hichisofparamountimportancein
TOPIC:Lawyer’scompetence anddiligence theadministrationof justice.
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINEDOF: LEGAL BASIS: SUPREME CASE DISPOSITION:
Rogelio F. Estavillov. COURT’SRULING:
Atty.GemmoGuillermo
Atty. He violatedCanon18 andRule Rule 18.03 ofthe Code The courtadoptedthe
CASE NO.: GuillermoandAtty.Labayogfailed 18.03 of the Codeof ofProfessionalResponsibility IBP’sresolutionthatrespondents
A.C. No. 6899 to file ananswerfortheirclientwithin ProfessionalResponsibility enjoinsa lawyer not to neglect a besuspendedfromthe
theperiodfixed bythe Rulesof legalmatterentrusted tohim, practiceoflaw for three
DATE OFPROMULGATION: Court. andhisnegligence (3)monthsforviolation ofRule
November16, 2011 inconnectiontherewithshall 18.03of theCode of
renderhimliable. Every casea ProfessionalResponsibility.
PONENTE: lawyeracceptsdeserveshis
Brion fullattention,skillandcompetence,re
gardlessof itsimportance
andwhether he acceptsitfor a fee
orforfree. He mustconstantly
keepinmindthathisactionsoromissi
onsornonfeasance would
225
2011CASES
be binding uponhisclient.Thus,he
isexpected tobe acquaintedwith the
rudimentsoflaw andlegalprocedure,
and a
clientwhodealswithhimhastherightt
oexpectnot just a
goodamountofprofessionallearning
andcompetence butalso a whole-
heartedfealty tothe clientscause.
TOPIC:Client’sfunds
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINEDOF: LEGAL BASIS: SUPREME CASE DISPOSITION:
MaritessFreemanv. Atty. COURT’SRULING:
ZenaidaReyes
Atty. Reyesobtainedmoney She violatedCanon16 ofthe Codeof The Courtruledthat Atty. Zenaida P.
CASE NO.: fromherclientwithoutrenderingpr ProfessionalResponsibility andRule therelationbetweenattorney Reyesisfoundguilty of
A.C. No. 6246 operlegalservicestoassistherinsecu 16.03 thereof. andclient ishighly fiduciary grossmisconductandDISBARRED
ring visa applicationsandshe innature. Beingsuch, from the practice oflaw.
DATE OFPROMULGATION: appropriatedthe proceedsofthe itrequiresutmostgoodfaith,loyalty, Lethername bestricken
November15, 2011 insurance fidelity, anddisinterestednesson offtheRollof Attorneys.
policiesofherclient’sdeceasedhusb thepartof theattorney. Itsfiduciary ThisDecisionisimmediately
PONENTE: and. natureisintendedfor executory.RespondentisORDERE
PerCuriam theprotectionof theclient. The Dto turnover to
CanonofProfessionalEthicsprovide complainantMaritesE.Freeman the
sthat proceedsof theinsurance
thelawyershouldrefrainfromany policiesremittedtoherby
actionwhereby LincolnFinancialGroup,in
forhispersonalbenefit orgain, he theamountof10,489.57,
abusesortakesadvantageof the andEagleStarLife Assurance
confidence reposedinhimby CompanyLimited, 471.06, orinthe
hisclient.Money of theclientor totalamountof10,960.63,
collectedfor the whichisapproximately
client,orothertrustproperty coming equivalenttoP700,000.00,
intothepossessionof the lawyer, pursuantto theprevailing exchange
should rate atthetime of the
bereportedandaccountedforprompt subjecttransaction.
ly andshouldnot,underany
circumstances,be
commingledwithhisown orbe
usedby him.
Consequently, a lawyer'sfailure
toreturnupondemand thefundsor
226
2011CASES
property held by himon behalf
ofhisclientgivesrise to
thepresumptionthat
hehasappropriated thesame
forhisownuseto the prejudice of,
andinviolation ofthe
trustreposedinhimby,
hisclient.Itisagrossviolation
ofgeneral moralityaswell asof
professional ethics; itimpairsthe
public confidence inthe
legalprofessionanddeservespunish
TOPIC:Inexcusable ignorance of the law ment.
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINEDOF: LEGAL BASIS: SUPREME CASE DISPOSITION:
Office of the CourtAdministrator COURT’SRULING:
v. Atty. Daniel B.Liangco
Judge He violatedCanon1, Contrary toCanon 1of theCodeof The
CASE NO.: LiangcoacteduponthePetitionforD andCanon10, Rule 10.03 of the Professional CourtresolvestoDISBARAtty.
A.C. No. 5355 eclaratoryRelieffiled bythe Code Responsibility,respondentmalevole Daniel
SangguniangBayan ofProfessionalResponsibility. ntly violatedthe basic B.Liangcoforthefollowing
DATE OFPROMULGATION: ofSanLuis,Pampanga, without constitutionalrightofGozunnot to offenses:
December13, 2011 themandatory notice to be deprivedof arightorproperty GROSSMISCONDUCTin
Gozunwhowould be affected withoutdueprocessof law. Also, violation ofCanon1, Sections4and
PONENTE: bythe action.The judge, underCanon10, Rule 10.03, 5of the New Code
Percuriam uponreceiptofthePetition,haditdoc respondentaslawyerismandatedtoo ofJudicialConductfor
ketedinhiscourt, bserve theRulesofProcedure thePhilippineJudiciary
designatedGozunasrespondentinth andnottomisuse themtodefeatthe INEXCUSABLE IGNORANCE
e case title,andquickly disposed endsofjustice. Inthiscase, however, OFTHE LAW
ofthe matter byissuing theopposite inviolationofCanons1
aResolutionall on thesame day that happened.Respondentrecklessly and10,Rule 10.03ofthe Code
thePetitionwasfiledwithoutnotice used the powers of thecourt ofProfessionalResponsibility.
andhearing.He toinflictinjustice. Asjudgeof a first-
maintainedcloserelationswiththe level court,respondentisexpected to
municipal vice-mayor know that hehasnojurisdiction to
ofSanLuis,Pampanga, a party- entertain a petitionfor declaratory
litigantwhohadanobviousinterestin relief.Moreover,
theoutcome ofthe case. heispresumedtoknow
thatinhiscapacity asjudge, he
cannotrender
227
2011CASES
a legalopinionin theabsenceof
ajusticiable question. Displaying
anutterlack offamiliarity
withtherules, he
ineffecterodesthepublic’sconfiden
ce in thecompetence of ourcourts.
Moreover, he
demonstrateshisignorance ofthe
powerandresponsibility
thatattachto
theprocessesandissuancesofa
judge,andthat he asamemberofthe
TOPIC:Preponderance ofEvidence barshouldknow.
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINEDOF: LEGAL BASIS: SUPREME CASE DISPOSITION:
SiaoAba etal. v. Atty. Salvador COURT’SRULING:
deGuzman, Jr.etal.
Complainantsallegedthatresponde None The Courthasconsistently The Courtaffirmthe Decision
CASE NO.: ntspersuadedthemtofile anillegal heldthatinsuspensionor ofthe Board
A.C.No. 7649 recruitmentcaseagainstcertainpers disbarmentproceedingsagainstlawy ofGovernorsoftheIntegratedBar
onsformoneyandwhenthey had a ers,thelawyerenjoysthe of thePhilippines,adopting
DATE OFPROMULGATION: changeofheart, the respondents presumption ofinnocence, and the theReportandRecommendationof
December14, 2011 instigatedandfiledfabricatedcrimin burdenofproofrestsuponthe theInvestigating
alcomplaintsagainstthem. complainantto provethe Commissioner,anddismissthe
PONENTE: allegationsinhiscomplaint.The chargesagainstAttys.WenceslaoPee
Carpio evidence wee
requiredinsuspensionordisbarment TrinidadandAndresitoFornierforut
proceedingsispreponderance terlackofmerit. We reverse the
ofevidence. In case the evidence Decision ofthe Board
ofthe partiesare equally balanced, ofGovernorsoftheIntegratedBar
theequipoisedoctrinemandatesadeci of thePhilippines,modifying
sioninfavorof andincreasingthepenalty in
therespondent.Complainants failed theReportandRecommendationof
tosubstantiate theInvestigating
theirchargesagainstrespondentsTrin Commissioner,andaccordingly
idadandFornier.The DISMISS the chargesagainstAtty.
Courtreversesthe Decision SalvadorP.DeGuzman, Jr. alsofor
oftheBoardof Governorsand utterlackofmerit.
theReportandRecommendation
ofthe Investigating Commissioner
228
2011CASES
regarding De Guzmansliability
forthe followingreasons:
(a)thedocumentssubmittedbycompl
ainantsinsupportoftheircomplaintar
e notcredible; (b)complainants
didnotappearinanyof the
mandatory
conferenceproceedingsto
substantiate
theallegationsintheircomplaint; and
(c)complainantswere
notabletoprove by
preponderance ofevidence that
De
Guzmancommunicatedwiththem
for thepurpose offiling
TOPIC:Grossmisconduct fabricatedillegalrecruitmentcharge
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINEDOF: LEGAL BASIS: sforpurposesof
SUPREME extortion. CASE DISPOSITION:
Espina &Madarang Co. COURT’SRULING:
&MakarAgricultural Commercial
&DevelopmentCorp. v. Judge Indargrantedanex He violatedCanon 3of theCodeof Here, respondentJudgeIndarfailed The
Hon.Cader partepetitionforthe issuance of Judicial Conduct, particularlythe to conformwiththe CourtfindsrespondentJudgeCader
P.Indar awritof possession torevive followingRules3.01, 3.02, highstandardsofcompetence P. IndarAl Haj GUILTY
anorderwhichhasbeendeclarednull 3.08, and3.09. anddiligence required ofgrossmisconductforcommittingv
CASE NO.: andvoidand set aside ofjudgesunderCanon 3of the Code iolationsof the Code
A.M. No.RTJ-07-2069 bytheCourtofAppealsandaffirmed ofJudicialConduct. Inthe ofJudicialConduct,
bytheSupreme Court. instantcase,respondentJudge andisFINEDtheamountofTwenty-
DATE OFPROMULGATION: Indarfailed toexertdue diligence FiveThousand(P25,000.00)pesos.
December14, 2011 requiredof himto ascertainthe He islikewiseWARNEDthat a
factsofthe casebefore he came repetitionof
PONENTE: outwiththe OrderdatedFebruary theforegoingorsimilartransgression
Leonardo-De Castro 14, 2005.Had hetakentime sshall be dealtwithmoreseverely.
andefforttoreadandexamine the
pleadingsandtherecordsofthe case,
he couldhaveknownthatthe
OrderdatedDecember7, 1983
wasalreadynullifiedandset aside
bytheCourt
229
2011CASES
of Appeals.
230
2012CASES
TOPIC:Simple misconduct
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINEDOF: LEGAL BASIS: SUPREME CASE DISPOSITION:
Aida R. Campos, etal. v. COURT’SRULING:
JudgeEliseo M. Campos
Judge Camposcaused He violatedSection 9 inrelation Simple The CourtfindsrespondentEliseo
CASE NO.: theregistrationof the toSection11(B),Rule 140 misconductisatransgressionofsome M. CamposGUILTY
A.M. No.MTJ-10-1761 landinthename of oftheRulesofCourt. establishedrule of action, ofsimplemisconductandFINE
hisminorson.Hemanipulated the anunlawfulbehavior, ornegligence himTwenty
DATE OFPROMULGATION: transactioninsuch a way that the committedbya public officer. ThousandPesos(P20,000)to be
February 8, 2012 title Inthiscase,respondentknew deductedfromwhateverbenefits,
endedwithhissondespitehisson’slac atthattime ofthe registrationof the ifany, thathe isstillentitled to
PONENTE: kof legalcapacity to enterinto propertythat he had a pending case afterhisresignationfromthe
Carpio thetransactionasthere wasa andthat he couldpossibly lose judiciary.If there
pendingcase againsthimandhe thecase. In order isnone,respondentisORDEREDto
wasafraidthatif he losesthe case, tomanipulatethesituationandtaking paydirectly the fineofP20,000.
theproperty would be advantage ofhisknowledge of the
takenfromhim. law,respondentcausedthe
registrationof the property
inAlistairsnamewith the
intentionofdefrauding apossible
judgment-
obligee.Clearly,itwasanimproperbe
haviorwhichwarrantsa
disciplinarysanction bythisCourt.
TOPIC:Grossignorance ofthe law
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINEDOF: LEGAL BASIS: SUPREME CASE DISPOSITION
SpousesDemocritoandOliviaL COURT’SRULING:
agov. Judge
GodofredoB.Abdul, Jr. Judge Abdul failedto raffle He violatedRule 58, Rule 58, Atty. JoselitoM. Silvosa
thecomplainant’scase andfailed Section5ofthe Rulesof Court asamended,mandatesafullandcomp isherebyDISBARREDandhisnam
CASE NO.: tocause the rehensive hearing forthe eORDEREDSTRICKENfrom
A.M. No.RTJ-10-2255 notificationandserviceof determinationof the proprietyof theRollof Attorneys. Let acopyof
summonstocomplainantsafterhe the issuance of a writofpreliminary thisDecision be furnished tothe
DATE OFPROMULGATION: issuedthe 72- injunction,separatefromthe Office of the Bar Confidant, tobe
January 17, 2011 hourTROagainstthem. He summary hearing for appended
extendedthe 72-hourTRO, theextensionof the 72- torespondent’spersonalrecordasatt
PONENTE: whichhadalready andobviously hourTRO.The preliminary orney.
expired, intoa full20-day TRO injunctionprayedfor bythe
applicantcanonlybe
231
2012CASES
232
2012CASES
actsandomissionsofrespondentju
dge
warrantsanctionfromthisCourt.
TOPIC:Grossmisconduct
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINEDOF: LEGAL BASIS: SUPREME CASE DISPOSITION:
Corazon T.Nevada v. COURT’SRULING:
Atty.Rodolfo D.Casuga
Atty. Casuga He violatedSection27,Rule138of In the instantcase, by the CourtfindsAtty.Rodolfo
CASE NO.: representedhimselfasa duly- theRevisedRulesof maintaininganoffice withinthe D.Casuga GUILTY
A.C. No. 7591 authorizedrepresentativeof Court,Canon16 of the Code Hotel, takingadvantage of ofgrossmisconductforviolationofC
Nevada wheninfact hewasnot. He ofProfessionalResponsibility, hisapparentcloserelationship anon16 of the Codeof
DATE OFPROMULGATION: also tookpossessionofthe andRule 16.03 thereof. toNevada, andthroughthe use ProfessionalResponsibility and
March20, 2012 valuablespurportedly with offalserepresentations, Casuga theNotarialRules.He ishereby
theobligationofsellingthemand ledChul to believe that he SUSPENDEDfor a
PONENTE: toremitany proceedstoNevada. wastheadministratorofthe periodoffour(4)yearsfromthe
Velasco, Jr. However, despite Hotel,wheninfact he wasnot. practice of law.The
repeateddemandsbyNevada for Bydoingso,hemade itappearthathe notarialcommissionof Atty.
Casugatoreturnthe wasdulyauthorized to Casuga, ifstillexisting, ishereby
valuablesorotherwiseremit enterintocontractsfor the REVOKEDandhe
theproceedsof the sale, nojewelry Hotelandto receiverentalsfrom isDISQUALIFIEDfrombeingc
or money waseverreturned. itsoccupants.Hisfraudulentscheme ommissionedasNotary
enabledCasuga to Publicalsoforfour(4)years.
collectrentalsfrom the occupantsof Additionally, he
theHotel, Chul inparticular, which isorderedtoreturnthe amount
hedid not ofPhP90,000,the piece of jewelry
transmittoNevada.Worsestill, subjectof thiscase or
Casuga obtainedmoneybelonging theirequivalent ofPhP300,000,
tothe Hotel. and the Rolex
Suchmisrepresentationproperlycon watchvaluedatUSD12,000
stitutesgrossmisconduct forwhich oritsequivalentinPhilippine Peso
he must be disciplined. toCorazon T.Nevada withinthirty
Having (30)daysfromfinality
beentaskedtosellsuchvaluables, ofthisDecision; otherwise,he
Casuga wasduty-boundto shallbecited for contempt.Lastly,
returnthemuponNevada’sdemand. Atty.Casuga iswarnedthat a
Hisfailure to repetitionof
dosorendershimsubjecttodisciplina thesameorsimilaractswill
ryaction. Having failed bedealtwithmore severely.
toreturn,upondemand,the
itemsentrustedto him byNevada
or remitthe
233
2012CASES
proceedsof thesale,
CasugaviolatedCanon16
andRule16.03of the Code.
TOPIC:Client’sfunds
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINEDOF: LEGAL BASIS: SUPREME CASE DISPOSITION:
Aurora D. Cerdanv. Atty. COURT’SRULING:
CarloGomez
Atty. Gomez enteredinto He violatedCanon16 of theCodeof Atty. Gomez hasno Atty. CarloGomez
CASE NO.: acompromise agreementwhere ProfessionalResponsibility righttounilaterally isherebydeclaredGUILTY
A.C. No. 9154 heagreedthathisclientshallreceive40 andRule 16.01 thereof. retainhislawyer’slien.Having ofviolation ofCanon16 of the
% ofthe obtainedthe fundsin thecourse Code
DATE OFPROMULGATION: proceedsofanaccountwhichwascon ofhisprofessionalemployment,Atty. ofProfessionalResponsibility
March19, 2012 trary to the originalagreement. He Gomez had theobligation andisSUSPENDEDfrom
alsoincludedin thecompromise toaccountanddeliversuchfundsto thepracticeof law for a periodof
PONENTE: agreementotherbakaccountsandoth hisclientwhentheybecame due, or one (1)yeareffective uponreceipt
Mendoza erpropertieswhichwere not upondemand. ofthisResolution, with
includedinthescopeofhisSPA. Moreover, there wasno a WARNINGthata repetition
Atty. Gomez failedtoaccountforthe agreementbetweenhimandcomplain ofthesameorsimilaractswillbedealt
money he antthathe withseverely.
receivedforcomplainantasaresultof coulddeducttherefromhisclaimedatt
thecompromise agreement. orney’sfees.Thefiduciary natureof
Worse,heremittedthe amountof therelationshipbetweencounselandc
₱290,000.00 only, lientimposeson a lawyer theduty
anamountsubstantially lessthanthe toaccount forthe money or
share propertycollected or
ofcomplainant.Recordsrevealthatc receivedfororfromthe client. He
omplainants sharefrom isobliged torender
theFCBsavingsaccountsamounted apromptaccounting ofall
to theproperty andmoney he
₱442,547.88 butonlyP290,000.00 hascollected for hisclient.
wasremittedby Atty. Gomez
TOPIC:Client’sproperty afterdeducting hisshare.
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINEDOF: LEGAL BASIS: SUPREME CASE DISPOSITION:
LorenzoD. Brennisenv. COURT’SRULING:
Atty.Ramon U. Contawi
Atty. Contawimortgagedand sold He violated the following Canons In thiscase, respondent's ATTY.RAMONU. CONTAWI,
234
2012CASES
CASE NO.: Brennisen’sproperty andRulesunderthe Code establishedactsexhibitedhisunfitnes having clearly
A.C. No. 7481 whichwasentrusted tohim, ofProfessionalResponsibility:C sandplaininability todischarge the violatedhislawyer'soathand the
withoutthelatter'sconsent. anon 1 andRule 1.01thereof boundendutiesof amemberof the CanonsofProfessionalResponsibili
DATE OFPROMULGATION: Canon16 andRules16.01 and legalprofession.He failed to prove tythroughhisunlawful,
April 24, 2012 16.03 himselfworthyof the privilege to dishonestanddeceitfulconduct,
thereofCano practice law andto live up tothe isDISBARREDandhisnameordere
PONENTE: n17 exacting standardsdemanded of dSTRICKENfromtheRoll
PerCuriam the membersof thebar. ofAttorneys.
Itbearstostressthat[t]hepractice of
law isa privilegegivento
lawyerswhomeet the
highstandardsoflegalproficiency
andmorality.Any violation
ofthesestandardsexposesthe lawyer
toadministrative liability.
Moreover,
respondent'sargumentthatthere
wasno formallawyer-
clientrelationshipbetweenhimandc
omplainantwillnotserve tomitigate
hisliability. There
isnodistinctionasto whether
thetransgressioniscommittedin
alawyer'sprivate
orprofessionalcapacity, for a
lawyermay notdivide
hispersonality asanattorney at
TOPIC:Client’scause onetime and a
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINEDOF: LEGAL BASIS: merecitizenatanother.
SUPREME CASE DISPOSITION:
Suzette de Mundov. Atty. COURT’SRULING:
ArnelCapistrano
Atty. Capistranofailed to He violatedCanon16 of theCodeof Indeed, when a Atty. Arnel C. Capistrano,
CASE NO.: actonhisclient’scase and tofile ProfessionalResponsibility lawyertakesaclient’scause, he havingclearly violatedCanons16
A.C. No. 6903 theagreedpetitionfor declaration andRules16.01 and16.02 covenantsthat hewillexercise due and18of the Code
ofmarriage afterreceiving thereofandCanon18 of the same diligence inprotectingthe ofProfessionalResponsibility,
DATE OFPROMULGATION: moneyfromher. He anditsRules18.03 and18.04. latter’srights. isSUSPENDEDfromthe practice
April 16, 2012 alsofailedtoaccountandreturnthe Failure to exercise thatdegree of law foroneyearwith a
fundsentrusted to ofvigilance andattentionexpected sternwarning that a
of
235
2012CASES
himfor the costof thesuit. a goodfatherof a family makesthe repetitionof the
PONENTE: lawyerunworthy of the sameorsimilaractsshall be
Perlas-Bernabe trustreposedon himby hisclient dealtwithmoreseverely. He
andmakeshimanswerable isORDEREDtoreturnto
notjusttohisclientbutalsoto SuzetteDelMundo thefull amount
thelegalprofession, the ofPhP73,500.00within30
courtsandsociety.Hisworkloaddoe daysfromnotice
snot justifyneglectinhandling hereofandDIRECTEDto
one’scasebecause itissettledthat a submitto
lawyermustonly acceptcasesas theCourtproofofsuchpayment.
muchashe canefficiently handle.
Moreover, a lawyerisobliged
toholdintrustmoney of
hisclientthatmay come
tohispossession.Astrustee
ofsuchfunds,
heisboundtokeepthemseparate
andapartfromhisown.Moneyentrus
ted to a lawyerfor
aspecificpurpose suchasfor
thefiling andprocessing of a case
ifnotutilized,mustbe
returnedimmediatelyupondemand.
Failure toreturngivesriseto a
presumptionthat
hehasmisappropriateditinviolation
of the trustreposedonhim.Andthe
conversionoffundsentrustedto
himconstitutesgrossviolationof
professionalethicsandbetrayalof
TOPIC:Conflict of interest public confidence inthe
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINEDOF: LEGAL BASIS: legalprofession.
SUPREME CASE DISPOSITION:
Josefina Anionv. Atty. COURT’SRULING:
ClemencioSabitsana, Jr.
Atty. Sabitsana He violatedRule 15.03, The relationshipbetween Atty. ClemencioC. Sabitsana, Jr.
CASE NO.: preparedandexecutedinhisclient’sf Canon15of the Code alawyerandhis/herclientshouldideal isfoundGUILTY ofmisconduct
A.C. No. 5098 avoraDeed of Sale over a ofProfessionalResponsibility. lybeimbuedwiththe highestlevel of forrepresenting conflicting
parcelofland interestsin
236
2012CASES
237
2012CASES
represent one
clientagainstanotherclientinthesam
e action;he alsoaccepted a
newengagementthatentailedhim
tocontendandoppose the
interestofhisotherclientin
apropertyinwhichhislegalservicesha
dbeenpreviouslyretained.
Atty. Sabitsana didnotmake a
fulldisclosure offactsto
thecomplainantandtoZenaida
Caetebefore he accepted
thenewengagementwithZenaida
Caete.Moreover, the recordsshow
thatAtty. Sabitsana failedto obtain
thewrittenconsentofhistwoclients,a
srequiredby Rule 15.03, Canon15
of the Codeof
ProfessionalResponsibility.
TOPIC:Supreme Court’sresolutions
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINEDOF: LEGAL BASIS: SUPREME CASE DISPOSITION:
Office of the CourtAdministrator COURT’SRULING:
v. Judge JamesV. Go
Judge Gofailed to Code of Judicial Conduct ResolutionsofthisCourtshouldno Judge JamesV. Go, presidingjudge
CASE NO.: immediatelyarraign the t be treatedlightly. Asa of theMunicipalTrialCourtinCities,
A.M. No.MTJ-07-1667 accusedin632 criminalcases, to judge,respondentmustbethe Branch2,ButuanCity
archive 140 criminalcases, to firsttoexhibitrespectforauthority. isDISMISSEDfrom
DATE OFPROMULGATION: actonsummons(shouldbe Judgesshouldrespectthe theservice,withforfeiture of
April 10, 2012 subpoenas)issuedin477criminal ordersanddecisionsofhighertribun allretirementbenefits,
cases, toact on 13 caseswhichhad alsmuchmore sothisCourt exceptaccruedleavecredits,
PONENTE: notbeenactedupon fora fromwhichallothercourtsshouldta andwithprejudice
PerCuriam considerable length oftime, ketheirbearings. A resolutionof toreemploymentinany
toresolve the pending theSupreme branch,agency or
incidentsormotionsin15 criminal Courtshouldnotbeconstruedasa instrumentalityofthegovernmentin
cases,to acton 17 civil casesfrom mererequestandshouldnot be cludinggovernment-
the time oftheirfiling,to take compliedwithpartially, ownedorcontrolledcorporations.
furtheractionon 32 civil cases, inadequately orselectively.
andto
resolvemotionsorincidentsin88 civil
238
2012CASES
cases. In the presentcase,
He alsodeliberately thecourtfindsthatJudge
andcontinuously Gofailedtoheedtheabove
failsandrefusestocomply with pronouncements. Hedidnot file the
theresolution of requiredcomment tothe
[theSupreme]Court. court’sshow cause
resolutionsdespiteseveralopportuni
tiesgrantedhimby
thisCourt.Hiswillful disobedience
anddisregardto theshow-
causeresolutionsconstitutesgrave
andseriousmisconductaffectinghisfi
tnessandworthinessofthe
honorandintegrity
attachedtohisoffice. It
isnoteworthy thatJudge Go
wasaffordedseveralopportunitiesto
explainhisfailure to decide
thesubjectcaseslong pending
beforehiscourtandtocomply
withthedirectivesofthisCourt, buthe
hasfailed,
andcontinuouslyrefusestoheed the
same.Thiscontinuedrefusal toabide
by lawfuldirectivesissuedby
thisCourtisglaringproofthat
hehasbecomedisinterestedtoremain
TOPIC:Grossignorance ofthe law withthejudicial systemto which
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINEDOF: LEGAL BASIS: hepurportsto
SUPREME belong. CASE DISPOSITION:
State ProsecutorsIIJosefAlbert COURT’SRULING:
T. Comilang v. Judge
MedelArnaldoBelen Notwithstandingthe Code of Judicial No lessthanthe Code Judge MedelArnaldo
temporaryrestraining Conduct:Canon 2 ofJudicialconductmandatesthat B.Belen,having beenfoundguilty
CASE NO.: order(TRO)enjoiningJudge anditsRule 2.01 ajudgeshall be faithful to the of graveabuse of authority
A.M.No.RTJ-10-2216 Belenfromexecutingandenforcing Canon 3 anditsRule 3.01 lawsandmaintainprofessionalcomp andgrossignorance ofthe law,
hisassailedOrderandDecisionfor a etence.Indeed, competence isa isDISMISSEDfrom
DATE OFPROMULGATION: periodof60days,whichwassubsequ mark of agoodjudge. A judge must theservice,withforfeiture of all
ently extended be benefits
239
2012CASES
241
2012CASES
rulessuchaswhatwasinvolvedinthe
contemptproceedingsbeforehercou
rt.She shouldhave knownthatwhile
the petitionershavetheresponsibility
to move ex parte tohave the case
scheduledforpreliminary
conference, thecourt(through the
branchclerk of court)hasthe duty
toschedule thecasefor pre-trialin
the eventthatthepetitionersfailtofile
the motion.Aspresiding
judge,sheshouldaccount forthe
anomaly thatsincethe
respondentsfiledtheiranswer,the
petitionforcontempthadbeengatheri
ng dustorhadnotmovedin the
respondent’scourt. Clearly,the
respondentfellshortofthestandards
ofcompetence andlegalproficiency
expected of magistratesofthe law
inherhandling ofthe
petitionforcontempt.
TOPIC:Lawyer’sCompetence
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINEDOF: LEGAL BASIS: SUPREME CASE DISPOSITION:
Emilia Hernandez v. COURT’SRULING:
Atty.VenancioPadilla
Atty. Padilla filed a He violatedCanon 5 Rule 18.02 ofthe Code Atty. VenancioPadilla is
CASE NO.: Memorandumof andRules18.02, 18.03, and18.04, providesthat a foundguilty of
A.C. No. 9387 Appealforhisclientinstead Canon18 lawyershallnothandle violatingRules18.02,18.03, 18.04,
ofanAppellant’sBrief. of the Code anylegalmatterwithoutadequatepre aswell asCanon 5ofthe Code
DATE OFPROMULGATION: ofProfessionalResonsibility paration. While itistrue ofProfessionalResponsibility.
June 20, 2012 thatrespondentwasnot Hence, he
complainant’slawyer fromthe isSUSPENDEDfromthepr
PONENTE: trialto theappellate courtstage, actice of law for
Sereno thisfactdidnot excuse SIX(6)MONTHS
himfromhisduty todiligently andSTERNLY
studya case hehadagreed to WARNEDthat a repetitionof
handle. If he felt he did thesameor asimilaroffense will be
242
2012CASES
246
2012CASES
admittedthathe erredininsistingon
the production ofthe
JarderResolutiondespite the
provisionsof the DOJ-
NPSManual,sucherrorcannot be
categorizedasgrossignorance of the
law ashedid not appearto
bemotivated bybadfaith. Indeed,
therulesofprocedure inthe
prosecutionoffice were
notclearastowhetheror
notaninvestigatingprosecutor’sreso
lution
ofdismissalthathadbeenreversedbyt
he city
prosecutorshouldstillformpartof
therecords.
Neitherdidrespondent’sactiona
mount togrossmisconduct.
Grossmisconductpresupposesevid
ence of grave irregularity inthe
performance ofduty.Inthecase
atbar, respondent’sactofrequiring
complainanttoexplainwhy he
shouldnotbe
citedincontemptforhisfailure
tosubmitthe
JarderResolutionincourtwasinaccor
dance
withestablishedrulesofprocedure.
Furthermore,complainantdidnot
abuse hiscontemptpowerashe
didnotpursuethe
proceedingsinviewofthe May 29,
2009 andJune 15,2009 Gellada
orders. Lastly,aspreviously
discussed,respondentissuedthose
ordersingoodfaithashe honestly
believedthattheywere necessary
inthe fairandjustissuance of the
warrantofarrestin
247
2012CASES
Criminal Case No.09-03-16474.
TOPIC:Undue delay incase disposition
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINEDOF: LEGAL BASIS: SUPREME CASE DISPOSITION:
Atty. FelinoBangalanv. COURT’SRULING:
JudgeBenjaminTurgano
Judge Turganodecided the He violatedArticle VIII,Section15 The Judge Benjamin
CASE NO.: caseafter15 months, of the 1987 Constitutionprovidesthatalllowerc D.TurganoisfoundGUILTY
A.M. No.RTJ-12-2317 beyondthe90-day ConstitutionandCanon6, Sec. 5of ourtsmustdecide orresolve ofunduedelay inthe
periodrequired by law. theNew Codeof Judicial casesormattersbroughtbefore dispositionofCivil CaseNo.11140-
DATE OFPROMULGATION: Conductfor themthree monthsfromthe time a 15. He
July 25, 2012 thePhilippineJudiciary. case isherebyREPRIMANDED, with a
ormatterissubmittedfordecision. WARNINGthat the
PONENTE: Canon6,Sec. 5of the New Code commissionof thesameor
Sereno ofJudicialConductfor asimilaroffensewill be
thePhilippineJudiciary, dealtwithmore severely.
whichbecame effectiveon June 1,
2004,
alsoprovidesthatjudgesshallperfor
mall duties,including the delivery
ofreserveddecisions, efficiently,
fairly
andwithreasonablepromptness.
If a judge isunable to comply
withthe 90-day
reglementaryperiodfordeciding
casesormatters, hecan,for
goodreasons, ask foranextension,
whichrequestisgenerally granted.
Indeed,theCourtusually
allowsreasonableextensionsoftime
todecide casesinrecognition ofthe
heavycaseload ofthetrial
courts.Asrespondentfailedto
askforanextensioninthiscase, he
isdeemed to have incurreddelay.
The need to
impressuponjudgesthe importance
of decidingcasespromptly
andexpeditiouslycannotbe
stressedenough, fordelay inthe
dispositionofcasesand
248
2012CASES
mattersunderminesthe
people’sfaithandconfidence in
thejudiciary. Asoftstated,
justicedelayedisjustice denied.
TOPIC:Conflict of interest
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINEDOF: LEGAL BASIS: SUPREME CASE DISPOSITION:
Atty. PolicarioCatalan, Jr. COURT’SRULING:
v.Atty.JoselitoSilvosa
Atty. Silvosa He violatedRule 6.03of theCodeof Anattorney isemployed—that is,he Atty. JoselitoM. Silvosa
CASE NO.: appearedascounselfor the Professional Responsibility isengagedinhisprofessionalcapacity isherebyDISBARREDandhisnam
A.C. No. 7360 accusedin thesamecasefor asa lawyer or counselor eORDEREDSTRICKENfrom
whichhe previously — when he islistening to theRollof Attorneys. Let acopyof
DATE OFPROMULGATION: appearedasprosecutor. hisclient’spreliminary statement thisDecision be furnished tothe
July 24, 2012 Atty. Silvosa made anattempt ofhiscase, orwhen heisgivingadvice Office of the Bar Confidant, tobe
tobribe Pros.Toribioandfailed. thereon, justastrulyaswhen he appended
PONENTE: Atty. Silvosa’wasconvictedof isdrawing hisclient’spleadings, or torespondent’spersonalrecordasatt
Percuriam thecrime of directbribery by advocating hisclient’spleadings,or orney.
theSandiganbayanandsuchbecame advocatinghisclient’scause
final. inopencourt.Hence the necessity
ofsettingdown the existence of the
barerelationship ofattorney
andclientasthe yardstick
fortestingincompatibility
ofinterests.Thissternrule
isdesignednotalone toprevent the
dishonestpractitionerfromfraudule
ntconduct,butaswell to protect the
honestlawyerfromunfoundedsuspi
cionofunprofessional practice. It
isfoundedonprinciplesofpublicpoli
cy, on goodtaste.
Ashasbeensaidinanothercase, the
questionisnotnecessarilyoneoftheri
ghtsof the parties, butasto
whetherthe attorney
hasadheredtoproper
249
2012CASES
professionalstandard. Indeed,
theprohibitionagainstrepresentatio
nof conflicting
interestsappliesalthough the
attorney’sintentionswere honest
and he actedingoodfaith.
Silvosa’sfinal conviction ofthe
crime ofdirectbribery
clearlyfallsunder oneof the
groundsfordisbarmentunderSectio
n27ofRule 138.
Disbarmentfollowsasaconsequence
of Atty. Silvosa’sconvictionof the
crime. Thecourtisconstrainedto
impose a penaltymore severe
thansuspensionbecause
itfindsthatAtty.
Silvosaispredisposed toflout the
exactingstandardsofmorality
anddecencyrequiredof a
memberoftheBar.Hisexcuse
thathisconvictionwasnot
inhiscapacity asa lawyer, butasa
public officer,
isunacceptableandbetraysthe
unmistakable lackof integrity
inhischaracter.Thepractice of law
isa privilege, andAtty. Silvosa
TOPIC:TRAVELING ABROADWITHIOUT COURT’SAUTHORITY hasprovedhimselfunfittoexercise
thisprivilege.
CASE TITLE: ACTSCO LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION
OfficeofAdministrativeServ MPLAINED
ices- OCA Circular No. 49-2003 Fortravelingabroadwithouthavingbeenofficiallyallowedby JudgeIgnacioB.Macarine,MunicipalCir
OfficeoftheCourtAdministr Traveling theCourt,therespondentisguiltyofviolationofOCACircula cuitTrialCourt,Gen.Luna,SurigaodelN
atorvs.JudgeIgnacioB.Maca abroad rNo.49-2003.UnderSection9(4), Rule 140ofthe orte,isherebygiventheADMONITION
rine,MCTC, Gen. Luna, withouthavingbeenofficia RevisedRulesof Court. thathe actedirresponsiblywhenhe
Surigaodel Norte llyallowedbytheCourt. optednot to
250
2012CASES
True,therighttotravelisguaranteedbytheConstitution.How immediatelysecureatravelauthorityandi
CASE NO.: ever,theexerciseofsuchrightisnotabsolute.Section6,Article ssavedonlyfromthefullforcethathisviola
A.M. No.MTJ-10-1770 IIIofthe1987Constitutionallowsrestrictionsonone’srightt tioncarriesbytheattendantmitigating
otravelprovidedthatsuchrestrictionisintheinterestofnation circumstances.
DATE alsecurity,public safety or public healthasmay be
OFPROMULGATI provided by HeisalsoWARNEDthatthecommissio
ON:July 18, 2012 law.This,however,shouldbynomeansbeconstruedaslimitin nofasimilarviolationinthefuturewillmeri
gtheCourt’sinherentpowerofadministrativesupervisionove tamoreseverepenalty.
PONENTE: rlowercourts.
BRION, J TherecommendationoftheOfficeofthe
OCACircularNo.49- CourtAdministrationthathisabsences,w
2003doesnotrestrictbutmerelyregulates,byprovidingguidel hichwereunauthorized,shallnotbededu
inestobecompliedbyjudgesandcourtpersonnelbeforetheyc ctedfromhisleavecreditsbutfromhissala
angoonleavetotravelabroad.To"restrict"istorestrainorpro ryisherebyapproved by the court.
hibitapersonfromdoingsomething;to"regulate"istogovern
or directaccording torule.
TOPIC:GROSS MISCONDUCT ANDGROSS IGNORANCE OFTHE LAW
251
2012CASES
CANON3.IMPARTIALITYISESSENTIALTOTHEPR
OPERDISCHARGEOFTHEJUDICIALOFFICE.ITAP
PLIESNOTONLYTOTHEDECISIONITSELFBUTA
LSOTOTHEPROCESSBY WHICHTHEDECISION
ISTO BEMADE.
Section2.Judgesshallensurethathisorherconduct,bothinan
doutofcourt,maintainsandenhancestheconfidenceofthepu
blic,thelegalprofessionandlitigantsinthe impartiality ofthe
judge and the
judiciary.Section4.Judgesshallnotknowingly,whileaprocee
dingisbefore,orcouldcomebeforethem,makeanycomment
thatmightreasonablybeexpectedtoaffecttheoutcomeofsuc
hproceedingorimpairthemanifestfairnessoftheprocess.No
rshalljudgesmakeanycommentinpublicorotherwisethatmi
ghtaffectthe fairtrial of any person orissue.
CANON4.PROPRIETYANDTHEAPPEARANCEOF
PROPRIETYAREESSENTIALTOTHEPERFORMA
NCEOFALLTHEACTIVITIESOFA
252
2012CASES
JUDGE.
Section1.Judgesshallavoidimproprietyandtheappearance
of impropriety inall of theiractivities.
JudgeClapisisalsoliableforgrossignoranceofthelawforcond
uctingbailhearingswithoutapetitionforbailbeingfiledbythe
accusedandwithoutaffordingtheprosecutionanopportunit
y toprove thattheguiltof theaccusedisstrong.
Section8of
Rule114providesthat"atthehearingofanapplicationforbailf
iledbythepersonwhoisincustodyforthecommissionofanof
fensepunishablebydeath,reclusionperpetuaorlifeimprison
ment, theprosecutionhastheburden
ofshowingthatevidenceofguiltisstrong."Thisrulepresuppo
sesthat:(1)anapplicationfor bail wasfiled, and
(2)thejudgenotifiedtheprosecutorandconductedabailheari
ngfortheprosecutiontoadduceevidencetoprove theguilt
ofthe accused.
Theact ofJudgeClapisisnot
ameredeficiencyinprudence,discretionandjudgmentbutap
atentdisregardofwell-
knownrules.Whenanerrorissogrossandpatent,sucherrorpr
oducesaninferenceofbadfaith,makingthejudgeliableforgro
ssignoranceofthelaw.Ifjudgesareallowedtowantonlymisus
ethepowersvestedinthembythelaw,therewillnotonlybecon
fusionintheadministrationofjusticebutalsooppressivedisre
gardofthebasicrequirementsofdueprocess.
UnderSection8(9),Rule140oftheRulesofCourt,grossmisco
nductandgrossignoranceofthelaworprocedurearebothclas
sifiedasseriouscharges,forwhich the imposable
penaltiesare any of the following:
1.Dismissalfromtheservice,forfeitureofallorpartof
253
2012CASES
thebenefitsastheCourtmaydetermine,anddisqualificationfr
omreinstatementorappointmenttoanypublicoffice,includi
nggovernment-
ownedorcontrolledcorporation:Provided,however,thatthe
forfeitureofbenefitsshallinnocaseincludeaccruedleave
credits;
2.Suspensionfromofficewithoutsalaryandotherbenefitsfor
morethanthree(3)butnotexceedingsix
(6)months;or
3.AfineofmorethanP20,000.00butnotexceedingP40,000.0
0.
TOPIC:DELAY INRENDERING A DECISION
Ontheplaintiffs’motiontodeclaredefendantsasin
254
2012CASES
Therespondentdidnotcommitthemistakeofentertainingint
heunlawfuldetainercaseamotiontodeclarethedefendantsin
default,whichisaprohibitedpleadinginejectmentcasesunder
Section19, Rule IVofthe 1991 RevisedRulesonSummary
Procedure.
TheCourtlikewise,dispelsthecomplainants’assertionsthatS
upremeCourtA.M.No.01-2-
04maybesuppletorilyappliedto
thesubjectunlawfuldetainercaseandthatthefailureofthespo
usesAngangcotopersonallyappearduringthemediationpro
ceedingsshouldhavecausedthedismissaloftheunlawfuldeta
inercomplaint.
Section2,Rule11ofSupremeCourtA.M.No.01-2-
04cannotbesuppletorilyappliedtothesubjectunlawfuldetai
nercase.Thecitedadministrativememorandumspecificallyr
eferstotherulesgoverningintra-
corporatecontroversiesunderR.A.No.8799andappliesonly
tothecasesdefinedunderSection1,Rule1thereof,which
255
2012CASES
doesnotincludeejectmentcases.Also,thereisnothinginSupr
emeCourtA.M.No.01-2-04thatpermitsitssuppletory
applicationto ejectmentcases.
Therespondenthoweverfailedtoexerthisauthorityinexpedi
tingtheproceedingsoftheunlawfuldetainercase.Soundpract
icerequiresajudgetoremain,atalltimes,infullcontrolofthepr
oceedingsinhiscourtandtoadoptafirmpolicyagainstunnece
ssarypostponements.
Innumerousoccasions,weadmonishedjudgestobeprompti
ntheperformanceoftheirsolemndutyasdispensersofjustice
becauseunduedelayintheadministrationofjusticeerodesthe
people’sfaithinthejudicialsystem.Delaynotonlyreinforcest
hebeliefofthepeoplethatthewheelsofjusticeinthiscountrygr
indslowly;italsoinvitessuspicion,howeverunfair,ofulterior
motivesonthepartofthejudge.Judgesshouldalwaysbemindf
uloftheirdutytorenderjusticewithinthe
periodsprescribedby law.
Sections9and11,Rule140oftheRulesofCourt,asamendedby
A.M.No.01-8-10-SC,classifiesunduedelayinrendering a
decisionororderasa lessseriouscharge.
TOPIC:GROSSNEGLIGENCE
256
2012CASES
July 11, 2012 SCRA159)Afailuretofilebriefforhisclientcertainlyconstitut months,withasternwarningthatarepetiti
esinexcusable negligence on hispart. (People onofthesameorasimilarwrongdoingwill
PONENTE: v.Villar,46SCRA107)Therespondenthasindeedcommitted bedealtwithmoreseverely.
SERENO,J. aseriouslapseinthedutyowedbyhimtohisclientaswellastoth
eCourtnottodelaylitigationandtoaidinthespeedyadministra
tionofjustice.(Peoplev.Daban,43SCRA185;Peoplev.Estoc
ada,43SCRA 515).
Respondent’sfailuretoprotecttheinterestofcomplainant,re
spondentindeedviolatedRule18.03,Canon18oftheCodeof
ProfessionalResponsibility.Respondentisremindedthatthe
practiceoflawisaspecialprivilegebestowedonlyuponthosew
hoarecompetentintellectually,academicallyandmorally.Th
eCourthasbeenexactinginitsexpectationsforthememberso
ftheBartoalwaysupholdtheintegrityanddignityofthelegalpr
ofessionandrefrainfromanyactoromissionwhichmightless
enthe trustandconfidenceof the public.
InPeoplev.Cawili,weheldthatthefailureofcounseltosubmit
thebriefwithinthereglementaryperiodisanoffensethatentail
sdisciplinaryaction.Peoplev.Villar,Jr.characterizedalawyer’
sfailuretofileabriefforhisclientasinexcusableneglect.InBlaz
av.CourtofAppeals,thefilingofabriefwithintheperiodsetbyl
awisadutynotonlytotheclient,butalsotothecourt.Perla
Compania de Seguros, Inc. v.
SaquilabonreiteratedFordv.DaitolandInre:SantiagoF.Mar
cosinholdingthatanattorney’sfailuretofileabriefforhisclient
constitutesinexcusable negligence.
TOPIC:GROSSLY IMMORALCONDUCT
257
2012CASES
Rule15.08oftheCodemandatesthatthelawyerismandatedto
informtheclientwhethertheformerisactingasalawyerorinan
othercapacity.Thisdutyisamustinthoseoccupationsrelatedt
othepracticeoflaw.Thereasonisthatcertainethicalconsidera
tionsgoverningtheattorney-
clientrelationshipmaybeoperativeinoneandnotintheother.
Inthiscase,itisconfusingfortheclientifitisnotclearwhetherre
spondentisoffering consultancy or legalservices.
Considering,however,thatcomplainanthasnotproventhed
egreeofprevalenceofthispracticebyrespondent,the
latterviolatedRules2.03and15.08 of the Code.
Respondentexhibited a deplorable lack of thatdegree
ofmoralityrequiredofhimasamemberofthebar.Hemadeam
ockeryofmarriage,asacredinstitutiondemandingrespectand
dignity.Hisactsofcommittingbigamytwiceconstitutedgross
lyimmoralconductandaregroundsfordisbarmentunderSect
ion27,Rule138of theRevisedRulesof Court.
258
2012CASES
TOPIC:DENIALOFDUE PROCESS
2. Earlieron,in2009,IhavealsofiledacasewiththeHLURBag
ainstHillviewMarketingCorporation/itsofficers,forunfair
/irregularrealestatebusinesspractices,refundforthepurchas
epriceregardingthesaleoftheBoracaypropertymadetomeby
Hillview,and some othermatters.
Moreover,intheAnswerfiledbyAtty.JosephTan(Atty.Tan)a
ndAtty.PaoloDestonrelativetoCBDCaseNo.12-
3360pendingbeforetheIntegratedBarofthePhilippines,cop
yofwhichwasattachedtoAtty.
259
2012CASES
Tan’sManifestation,severalcaseswere
mentioned.The MotiontoInhibitisdenied for lack
ofbasis.
"Aninhibitionmustbeforjustandvalidreason.Themereimp
utationofbiasorpartialityisnotenoughgroundtoinhibit,espe
ciallywhenthechargeiswithoutbasis."
Inthiscase,complainant'simputationthatherComplaintwas
decidedbythemagistratesofthisCourtwithextremebiasandp
rejudiceisbaselessandclearlyunfounded.
TOPIC:BETRAYALOFTRUST ANDCONFIDENCE
DATE
OFPROMULGATI
ON:
August15, 2012
PONENTE:
ABAD,J.
TOPIC:GRAVE DISHONESTY ANDGROSSMISCONDUCT
260
2012CASES
PONENTE: Furthermore,respondentdidnotdenytheaccusationthathea
PERLAS-BERNABE,J. bandonedhislegalfamilytocohabitwithhismistresswithwho
mhebegotfourchildrennotwithstandingthathismoralchara
cteraswellashismoralfitnesstoberetainedintheRollofAttor
neyshasbeenassailed.Thesettledruleisthatbetrayalofthemar
italvowoffidelityorsexualrelationsoutsidemarriageisconsid
ereddisgracefulandimmoralasitmanifestsdeliberatedisrega
rdofthesanctityofmarriageandthemaritalvowsprotectedby
theConstitutionandaffirmedbyourlaws.
Consequently,there’snoreasontodisturbtheIBP'sfindingth
atrespondentviolatedtheLawyer'sOathandRule1.01,Cano
n1oftheCodewhichproscribesalawyerfromengagingin"unl
awful,dishonest, immoral ordeceitful conduct."
However,thechargeofengaginginillegalmoneylendinghave
notbeensufficientlyestablished.A"business"requiressomef
ormofinvestmentandasufficientnumberofcustomerstowh
omitsoutputcanbesoldatprofitonaconsistentbasis.Thelend
ingofmoneytoasinglepersonwithoutshowingthatsuchservi
ceismadeavailableto otherpersonson
aconsistentbasiscannotbeconstruedasindiciathatresponde
ntisengagedin thebusinessoflending.
Nonetheless,respondentshouldbesanctionedforhis
261
2012CASES
actions.
TOPIC:DISHONESTY
SincerespondentwithdrewtheconsignationoftheBPImana
gerschecksinthetotalamountofP311,891.94fromtheHLU
RBandthesamewasnotusedtosettlethebalanceofthepurcha
sepriceoftheparceloflandpurchasedbycomplainantfromFil
-
Estate,thenreimbursementwithlegalinterestwasproperlyor
dered
262
2012CASES
bythe IBP.
Respondent'sprofferedexcuseofhavingtoawaittheHLURB
actiononhisallegedmotion--
thefilingofwhichhemiserablyfailedtoprove--
asaconditiontothereturnofthesumofP311,891.94tocompl
ainantcompoundshisliabilityandevenbolsteredhisattitudet
ousedishonestmeansifonlytoevadehisobligation.Itunderli
neshisfailuretomeetthehighmoralstandardsrequiredofme
mbersof thelegalprofession.
TOPIC:GROSSIGNORANCE OFLAW
PONENTE: However,duringthependencyofthiscase,notethatin
PERALTA, J. A.M.No. RTJ-10-
2232,respondenthasalreadybeendismissedfromtheservicet
hatalreadyattainedfinalityconsideringthatrespondentdidno
tfileanymotionforreconsideration.Nevertheless,itshouldb
eemphasizedthatthesamedoesnotrendertheinstantcasemo
otandacademicbecauseaccessorypenaltiesmaystillbeimpos
ed.
UnderSection9(1),Rule140oftheRulesofCourt,asamended
by AdministrativeMatterNo. 01-8-10-SC,
263
2012CASES
respondent'sunduedelayinrenderingadecisionisclassifiedas
alessseriousoffense.Itispunishablebysuspensionfromoffic
ewithoutsalaryandotherbenefitsfornotlessthanonemonth
normorethanthreemonths,orafineofmorethan₱10,000.00
butnotexceeding₱20,000.00. In viewof
respondent'sdismissalfromservice,theOCA'srecommenda
tionofafineintheamountof₱20,000.00is,therefore,inorderc
onsideringthatrespondentwasfoundguiltyforbothunduede
layinrenderinganorderandconductunbecoming of a judge.
TOPIC:SIMPLE MISCONDUCT
PONENTE:
MENDOZA,J.
TOPIC:NEGLECT
264
2012CASES
B. Bautista. Violation of Rule22.02oftheCodeofProf competenceanddiligence.Respondentisalsoguiltyofviolati Bautista GUILTY ofviolatingCanon
Canon18, essionalResponsibility; ngRule18.03oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility,whic 18andRule18.03oftheCodeofProfessio
CASE NO.: Rule18.02,andRule hstatesthat"alawyershallnotneglectalegalmatterentrustedt nalResponsibilityandheisADMONIS
A.C. No. 6733 22.02 of the Article222ofthe CivilCode; ohim,andhisnegligenceinconnectiontherewithshallrender HEDto
CodeofProfessionalResp himliable."However,wedonotfindrespondentguiltyofviola exercise
DATE onsibility,violationof LocalGovernmentCode; tingRule22.02oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility greatercareanddiligenceintheperforma
OFPROMULGATI the lawyer's Republic ActNo. 6713. since respondentimmediately nceofhisdutytohisclients.Atty.Bautistai
ON: oath,gravemiscondu turnedovertocomplainantthefoldercontainingthedocume sorderedtoRESTITUTE
October10, 2012 ct,andconduct ntsandletterspertainingtohercaseupontheseveranceofresp tocomplainantP14,000outoftheP15,00
prejudicial ondent’slegalservices. 0acceptancefee.
PONENTE: tothe best
CARPIO,J. interestofthepublic. Respondentattributeshisdelayinfilingtheappropriatecrimin
alcasetotheabsenceofconciliationproceedingsbetweenco
mplainantandhersiblingsbeforethebarangayasrequiredund
erArticle222oftheCivilCodeandtheLocalGovernmentCod
e.However,thisexcuseisbeliedbytheCertificationtoFileActi
onbythe
OfficeoftheLupongTagapamayapa,OfficeoftheBarangayCou
ncil,BarangayDaanghari,Navotas.TheCertificationtoFileA
ctionwasissuedon1July2002,whichwasmorethanfourmont
hsbeforecomplainantengagedrespondent’slegalserviceson
25November2002.Respondentsallegationthatcomplainan
tfailedtoinformhimabouttheexistenceoftheCertificationto
FileActionishardtobelieveconsideringcomplainant’sdeter
minationtofilethecaseagainsthersiblings.Clearly,responde
nthasbeennegligentinhandlingcomplainantscase.
TOPIC:GROSSIGNORANCE OFLAW
265
2012CASES
AngelesCity, Pampanga. Article222ofthe CivilCode; executory.JudgePinto’sconductwascontrarytotheclearlang of the Lawandishereby
uageofSection24,Rule119ofthe2000RevisedRulesofCrimi DISMISSEDFROMTHE
CASE NO.: LocalGovernmentCode; nalProcedurewhichprovidesthat the reopening of a SERVICE,withforfeitureofallretiremen
A.M. No.RTJ-11-2289 Republic ActNo. 6713. criminalcase may only be tbenefits,exceptaccruedleavecredits,an
availedof"atanytimebeforefinalityofthejudgmentofconvictdwithprejudicetore-
DATE ion:" employmentinanybranch,agencyorinstr
OFPROMULGATI umentalityofthegovernment,includingg
ON: Sec.24. Reopening.– overnment-
October2, 2012 Atanytimebeforefinalityofthejudgmentofconviction,theju ownedorcontrolledcorporations.
dgemay,motupropriooruponmotion,withhearingineitherc
PONENTE: ase,reopentheproceedingstoavoidamiscarriageofjustice.T
PERCURIAM heproceedingsshallbeterminatedwithinthirty(30)daysfrom
the ordergranting it. [italicssupplied]
JudgePinto’sutterdisregardtoapplysettledlawsandrulesof
procedure constitutesgrossignorance of the
lawwhichmeritsadministrativesanction.Section8(9),Rule1
40oftheRulesofCourtclassifiesgrossignoranceasaseriousch
arge.
TOPIC:MALPRACTICES
DATE ConsideringthatJudgeAquinowasnotmotivatedbybadfaith
OFPROMULGATI ,maliceandcausednoharmtoanylitigant,theCourtwillnotme
ON: teoutaseriousadministrativepenaltyatthistime,butrather,wi
November28, 2012 llimposeafineandwarnJudgeAquinothatproceduralomissio
nsinthehearing
PONENTE:
MENDOZA,J.
266
2012CASES
of caseswouldnotalwaysbe tolerated.
TOPIC:GROSSLY IMMORALCONDUCT
PONENTE: Indeed,hisactofhavingcarnalknowledgeofawomanotherth
PERCURIAM anhiswifemanifestshisdisrespectforthelawsonthesanctityo
fmarriageandhisownmaritalvowoffidelity.Moreover,thefa
ctthatheprocuredtheactbyenticingaveryyoungwomanwith
moneyshowedhisutmostmoraldepravityandlowregardfor
thedignityofthehumanpersonandtheethicsofhisprofession
.Respondenthasviolatedthetrustandconfidencereposedon
himbycomplainant,thena13-year-
oldminor,whoforatimewasunderrespondent’scare.Wheth
erthesexualencounterbetweentherespondentandcomplain
antwasorwasnotwiththelatter’sconsentisofnomoment.Res
pondentclearlycommittedadisgraceful,grosslyimmoraland
highlyreprehensibleact.Suchconductisatransgressionofthe
standardsofmoralityrequiredofthelegalprofessionandshou
ld be disciplinedaccordingly.
ThepertinentprovisionsintheCodeofProfessionalRespons
ibilityprovide:CANON1-
ALAWYERSHALLUPHOLDTHE
CONSTITUTION,OBEY
267
2012CASES
THELAWSOFTHELANDANDPROMOTERESPECT
FORLAWANDLEGALPROCESSES.
Rule1.01.-
Alawyershallnotengageinunlawful,dishonest,immoralorde
ceitfulconduct.CANON7-
ALAWYERSHALLATALLTIMESUPHOLDTHEINT
EGRITYANDDIGNITYOFTHELEGALPROFESSIO
NANDSUPPORTTHEACTIVITIESOFTHEINTEGR
ATEDBAR.Rule7.03.-Alawyer
shallnotengageinconductthatadverselyreflectsonhisfitness
topracticelaw,norshallhe,whetherinpublicorprivatelife,beh
aveinascandalousmannertothediscreditof the
TOPIC:NEGLIGENCEANDCONFLICTINGINTEREST legalprofession.
268
2012CASES
act.
WecannotfindAtty.Gonzales-
Alzateprofessionallynegligentinrespectofthefilingandeven
tualdismissalofthesubsequent"PetitionforProtest."Thever
ificationandcertificationagainstforumshoppingattachedtot
hepetitioncontainedhandwrittensuperimpositionsbyAtty.
Gonzales-
Alzate,butsuchsuperimpositionswereapparentlymadeonly
toreflectthecorrectionsofthedatesofsubscriptionandtheno
tarialdocumentnumberanddocketnumberfortheverificatio
nandcertification.Ifthatwasalltherewastothesuperimpositi
ons,thentherewasnothingtosupportthetrialjudge’sobserva
tionthatthe"cutandpaste"methodinpreparingtheverificatio
nandcertificationfornon-
forumshoppingconstituted"professionalnegligence"thatp
rovedfataltoherclient’sprotest.Asamatterofpolicy,acourt-
bounddocumentorpaperpreparedinaslipshodmanneraffec
tsonlytheformbutnotthesubstanceofthesubmission.Suchs
lipshodpreparation,evenassumingittobetrue,wouldnotdes
erveadministrativecensure.Notlettingformprevailoversubs
tancestillremainsto bethe judicial ideal.
TOPIC:NEGLIGENCEANDSOLITICATIONOFMONEY
269
2012CASES
theotherhand,statesthat"[a]lawyershallnotneglectalegalma
tterentrustedtohim,andhisnegligenceinconnection[therew
ith]shallrenderhimliable."
"Oncelawyersagreetotakeupthecauseofaclient,theyowefid
elitytothecauseandmustalwaysbemindful of
thetrustandconfidencereposedinthem."Aclientisentitledto
thebenefitofallremediesanddefensesauthorized by law
andisexpected to rely on hislawyer to avail of these
remediesordefenses.
Atty.Rañeseswrongedhisclient,thejudgeallegedlyonthe"ta
ke,"theJudiciaryasaninstitution,andtheIBPofwhichheisam
ember.TheCourtcannotandshouldnotallowoffensessucha
sthesetopassunredressed.Letthisbeasignaltooneandall–
toalllawyers,theirclientsandthegeneralpublic–
thattheCourtwillnothesitatetoactdecisivelyandwithnoquar
tersgiventodefendtheinterestofthepublic,ofourjudicialsyst
emandtheinstitutionscomposingit,andtoensurethatthesear
enotcompromisedbyunscrupulousormisguidedmemberso
ftheBar.
TOPIC:IBPBY-LAWS
270
2012CASES
DATE
OFPROMULGATI
ON:
December4, 2012
PONENTE:
MENDOZA,J.
271
2013CASES
TOPIC:GROSSIGNORANCEOFTHELAW,MANIFESTPARTIALITY,ANDNEGLECTOFDUTY
272
2013CASES
change,suchthatstickingtotheagreedarrangementwouldno
longerbetothelatter’sbestinterest.Inaveryrealsense,then,aj
udgmentinvolvingthecustodyofaminorchildcannotbeacco
rdedtheforceandeffectofresjudicata.
NOreasontosustainthechargeagainstrespondentjudgeforg
rossignoranceofthelaw.Forclearly,absentanyevidencetoth
econtrary,Geoffrey,Jr.chosetolivewithhismotherforareaso
n,whichrespondentjudge,consistentwiththepromotionoft
hebestinterestofthechild,provisionallygrantedthroughthei
ssuanceofthedisputedMarch15,2011Order.Infact,inissuin
gthedisputedOrder,respondentjudgerectifiedanerrorprevi
ouslymadewhenhehandedouttheJudgmentonCompromis
e Agreementin2006.
273
2013CASES
LiabilityunderCanons15,16and18Wefindtherespondentlia
bleunderCanon15,Rule15.03forrepresentingconflictingint
erestswithoutthewrittenconsentofallconcerned,particularl
ythecomplainant;underCanon16forbeingremissinhisoblig
ationtoholdintrusthisclient’sproperties;andunderCanon18
,Rule18.03forneglectingalegalmatterentrustedtohim.Cano
n15,Rule15.03states:Alawyershallnotrepresentconflictingi
nterestsexceptbywrittenconsentof
allconcernedgivenaftera fulldisclosure of thefacts.
TOPIC:FORUMSHOPPING
274
2013CASES
PONENTE: Thereisforumshoppingwhentheelementsoflitispendenciaa
BRION,J. representorwhereafinaljudgmentinonecasewillamounttor
esjudicatainanother.Theyareasfollows:(a)identityofparties,
oratleastsuchpartiesthatrepresentthesameinterestsinbotha
ctions,(b)identityofrightsorcausesofaction,and(c)identityo
freliefsought.
Underthistest,wefindthatAtty.Gonzalescommittedforums
hoppingwhenhefiledCivilCaseNo.00-99207while Special
Proceeding No. 99-95587 waspending.
TOPIC:INCOMPETENCE
275
2013CASES
Therecordsfurthersubstantiateclearactsofnegligenceon
Atty. Cefra’spartinhandling the complainants’ case.
First,Atty.Cefrafailedtosubmitaformalofferofdocumentar
yevidencewithintheperiodgivenbytheRTC.
Second,Atty.Cefrafailedtocomplywiththetwo(2)ordersoft
heRTCdirectinghimtosubmitaformalofferof
documentary evidence.
Third,Atty.Cefrafailedtofileanappropriatemotionorappeal
,oravailofanyremedialmeasuretocontesttheRTC’sdecision.
Hisclaimthatthecomplainantshadnotbeenprejudiced
bytheRTC’sdecisionisincorrect.
Fourth,Atty.Cefra’sallegationsinhisCommentshowhisfailu
retoeffectivelycommunicatewiththecomplainants.AsAtty.
Cefraputsit,theadministrative
276
2013CASES
complaintwastheresultofthecomplainants’failuretofullyun
derstandtheRTC’sdecision.Inotherwords,headmitsthatthe
presentcasewouldhavebeenavertedhadheexertedreasonabl
eeffortstoinformthecomplainantsofthelegalimplicationsof
theRTC’sdecisionandtoexplaintothemthematerialdevelop
mentsin the case.
277
2013CASES
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Accordingly,respondentisherebyordered.reinstatedtothep
racticeoflaw.Heis,however,remindedthatsuchprivilegeisb
urdenedwithconditionswherebyadherencetotherigidstand
ardsofintellect,moraluprightness,andstrictcompliancewith
therulesandthelaw are continuing requirements.
Inherresolvetodiscreditherjudge,complainantmadeashotg
PONENTE: unimputationofoffensesallegedlycommittedbytheformer.
PEREZ, J. She,however,failedtoshowanyproofthatshewasentitledtob
egivenapermanentposition.Otherthanherallegationthatsh
ewasgiventwo"verysatisfactory"andone"satisfactory"ratin
g,therewasno
278
2013CASES
evidencepresentedthatshehasmettheprescribedqualificatio
nstandardfortheposition."Suchstandardisamixoftheforma
leducation,experience,training,civilserviceeligibility,physic
alhealthandattitudethatthejobrequires."
Respondentjudge,whoistheimmediatesupervisorofcompla
inant,isinthebestpositiontoobservethefitness,proprietyand
efficiencyoftheemployeefortheposition.Itshouldbeimpres
seduponcomplainantthatherappointmentintheJudiciaryis
notavestedright.Itisnotanentitlementthatshecanclaimsimp
lyforthereasonthatshehadbeenintheserviceforalmosttwoy
ears.
Thechangesincomplainant’srating,ifatall,manifestedthatre
spondentjudgehadnotbeencomplacentintheratingofhere
mployees.Asclaimedinhercomment,respondentjudgedoes
notrateheremployeesmechanically.Theywereratedbasedo
ntheevaluationoftheirperformanceduringtheperiodconcer
ned.RecordsfromtheOfficeofAdministrativeServices,OC
Arevealthatduringthesameperiod,almostalltheemployeeso
fRTC,Branch42,Viracreceivedvariedperformance ratings.
Therebeingnoproofthatrespondentjudgeabusedherpositio
n,thecaseagainsthershouldbedismissed.Respondentjudges
hould,however,beremindedtobecircumspectinheractuatio
nssoasnottogivetheimpressionthatshe isguiltyof
favoritism.
279
2013CASES
However,thebecomingmodestythattheSandiganbayanJust
iceshaveexhibitedinthiscasecannotdetractfromthefactthatt
hejudgmentofconvictionof
accusedVelascoshouldhavebeen
280
2013CASES
immediatelyexecuted,absentanyrestrainingorderfromtheC
ourt,inviolationoftheCourt'sdirectiveinA.M.CircularNo.0
7-7-12-
SC,adoptingamendmentstoRule65oftheRulesofCourt,inte
ralia.Thus,Section7ofRule 65.
TOPIC:DISHONESTY
281
2013CASES
the mattersraisedare bestaddressed tothe
evaluationoftheCourtintheresolution
ofAMALI'spetitionforreview on certiorari.
Finally,resorttoadministrativedisciplinaryactionpriortothe
finalresolutionofthejudicialissuesinvolvedconstitutesanab
useofcourtprocessesthatservestodisruptratherthanpromot
etheorderlyadministrationofjusticeandfurtherclogthecour
ts'dockets.Thosewhoseekrelieffromthecourtsmustnotbeal
lowedtoignorebasiclegalrulesandabusecourtprocessesinth
eireffortstovindicate theirrights.
282
2013CASES
Complainantnowasksthatrespondentbedisbarred.Thecou
rtfinds,however,thatsuspensionfromthepracticeoflawissuf
ficienttodiscipline respondent.
Itisworthstressingthatthepowertodisbarmustbeexercised
withgreatcaution.Disbarmentwillbeimposedasapenaltyonl
yinaclearcaseofmisconductthatseriouslyaffectsthestanding
andthecharacterofthelawyerasanofficerofthecourtandame
mberofthebar.Whereanylesserpenaltycanaccomplishtheen
ddesired,disbarmentshouldnotbedecreed.Inthiscase,theC
ourtfindsthepenaltyofsuspensionmoreappropriatebutfind
stherecommendedpenaltyofsuspensionforoneyeartoosev
ere.Consideringthecircumstancesofthiscase,
theCourtbelievesthat asuspension ofsix
monthsissufficient.Afterall,suspensionisnotprimarilyinten
dedasapunishment,butasameanstoprotectthepublicandthe
legalprofession.
Genove’sDigest309-336
283
2013CASES
TOPIC:Conflict ofInterest
“We,likewisefindrespondentguiltyofviolatin
gRule21.01oftheCodeoftheProfessionalRes
Ponente: ponsibility.Inhislast-
Peralta, J. ditchefforttoimpeachthecredibilityofcompl
ainant,dedivulgedinformationswhichheacq
uiredinconfidenceduringtheexistenceofthei
rlawyer-clientrelationship.”
284
2013CASES
TOPIC:DeceitfulandDishonestActs
285
2013CASES
uponcasesandmatterspendingbeforetheirco hersala.SheisFINEDtheamountP2
CaseNo.: Canons6 and7 of urts. 0,000.00forthefirstoffenseandanot
A.M. No.MTJ – 11-1778 theCanonsofJudicial Ethics. herP10,000.00forthesecondoffense
,bothamountstobedeductedfromhe
AstothemeritsoftheAdministrativeComplai raccruedleave credits.
DateofPromulgation: Sec15(1),ArticleVIIIofthe198 nt,thepleadingsandevidenceonrecordclearly
June 5, 2013 7 Philippine Constitution. establishrespondent’sliabilityforunduedelay
inresolvingCivilCase No. 20129.
Ponente:
Villarama, Jr.,J.
TOPIC:Public Accountability
286
2013CASES
period.
TOPIC:GrossNegligence
CaseTitle: ActsComplainedOf: LegalBasis/Basesofthecharge Supreme Court’sRuling: Case Disposition:
REX (s):
POLINAR
DAGOHOY ThattherespondentisguiltyofGross Itisafundamentalruleofethicsthatanattorney TheSupremeCourtSUSPENDSAt
V. Negligence when hefailed Canon18,Rule18.03andRule1 whoundertakestoconductanactionimpliedly ty.ArtemioV.SanJuanfromthepracti
ATTY. toinformtheComplainantofthestatu 8.04oftheCodeofthe stipulatestocarryittoitsconclusion.Itwasther ceoflawforaperiodofone(1)yearwith
ARTEMIOV.SANJUAN softhecaseandforfailuretopreparean Professional espondent’sboundendutytoseehiscasesthro aWARNINGthatthecommissionof
CaseNo.: dfileanappellant’sbriefin the Responsibility. ughuntilpropercompletion;hecouldnotaban thesameorsimilaractshallbedealtwit
A.C. No. 7944 abovementionedcase. donorneglecttheminmidstream,inthe way hmore severely.
he didwithcomplainant’scase.
DateofPromulgation:
June 03, 2013
Ponente:
Brion,J.
287
2013CASES
and FRANKIE thereceiptortruedateofthedecisionof attorney enjoysthe legalpresumptionthat CruzandFrankieO.
O.MAGSALINIII NLRC.Forthemtoextendtheperiod heisinnocentofthechargesmadeagainsthimunti MagsalinIIIisDISMISSEDforlac
withinwhichtofile a l the contrary isproved. kofmerit.
motionforreconsideration.
CaseNo.:
A.C. No. 7686 Inthiscase,complainantsfailedtodischargetheir
burdenofprovingrespondents’administrativeli
ability.GrantingthatthecertificationoftheQCC
DateofPromulgation: POofthe
actualdateofreceiptofthesubjectNLRCdecisio
July 31, 2013
nhasprimafacieevidence,thiscourtfindsitisnots
ufficienttoholdrespondentsadministrativelylia
bleascontendedbycomplainants.
Ponente:
Villarama, Jr.,J.
TOPIC:SeriousorGrave Misconduct
288
2013CASES
the case. judicial functions.
DateofPromulgation:
July 29, 2013
Ponente:
PEREZ, J.
Ponente:
Reyes, J.
289
2013CASES
TOPIC:Conflict ofInterest
Ponente:
Bersamin, J. Thereisconflictofinterestwhenalawyerrepres
entsinconsistentinterestsoftwoormore
opposing parties.
TOPIC:GrossMisconduct,DeceitandGrossDishonesty.
290
2013CASES
CaseNo.: consent. Responsibility. a formalhearing.
Admin. Case. No. 6490
DateofPromulgation:
September29, 2004
Ponente:
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,J.:
291
2013CASES
reglementaryperiod.Heintimatedthathispoo
Ponente: rhealthaffectedhispaceindecidingthecases.H
Bersamin, J. adsuchbeenthecase,thenheshouldhaveexpla
inedhispredicamenttotheCourtandaskedfor
anextensionoftimetodecidethecases.Unfort
unately,hefailed to doso.
TOPIC:GrossNegligence
Ponente: Recordsshowthathefailedtojustifyhisabsenc
Perlas-Bernabe, J, eduringthescheduledpreliminaryconference
hearing.
TOPIC:GrossMiscondut
292
2013CASES
CaseTitle: ActsComplainedOf: LegalBasis/Basesofthecharge( Supreme Court’sRuling: Case Disposition:
RE:LetterComplaintofMerlitaF s):
abianaagainstPresidingJudgeAn
dresB.Reyes,Jr.,AssociateJustic ThattherespondentJusticesandJudge The Complaintlacksmerit. TheSupremeCourtDISMISSESth
esIsaiasP.DicdicanandStephen sareguiltyofGrossMisconductforfail Code of Judicial Conduct. eadministrativecomplaintagainstPr
C.Cruz;CaragJamoraSomeraan uretocorrectlyinterpretthe lawsin a esiding
dVillarealLawOfficesanditsLaw givencase.
yersAttys.ElpidioC.Jamora,Jr.a GiventhenatureoftheJudicialFunction,thep JusticeAndresB.Reyes,Jr.,Associate
ndBeatrizO.Geronilla- owervested bythe Constituionin JusticeIsaias
Villegas,LawyersforMagsaysay theSupremeCourtandthelowercourtsestabli P.DicdicanandAssociateJusticeStep
Maritime shedbylaw,thequestionssubmitstoonlyonea henC.CruzoftheCourtofAppealsfor
CorporationandVisayanSuretya nswer;theadministrativeorcriminalremedies itslack of merit.
ndInsuranceCorporation. areneitheralternativenorcumulativetojudicia
lreviewwheresuchreviewisavailable,andmus
twaitonthe resultthereof.
CaseNo.:
A.M. No. CA-13-51-J
Inthisregard,wereiteratethatajudge’sfailuret
ocorrectlyinterpretthelawortoproperlyappr
eciatetheevidencepresenteddiesnotnecessar
DateofPromulgation: ilyincuradministrativeliability,fortoholdhim
July 02, 2013 administrativelyaccountableforeveryerrone
ousrulingordecisionherenders,assumingheh
aserred,willbenothingshortofharassmentan
Ponente: dwillmakehispositiondoublyunbearable.
Bersamin, J.
TOPIC: ConflictofInterest
293
2013CASES
CaseTitle: ActsComplainedOf: LegalBasis/Basesofthecharge( Supreme Court’sRuling: Case Disposition:
JOSEPHINEL.OROLA,MYR s):
NA
L.OROLA,MANUELL.ORO ThattherespondentisguiltyofConflic Thereisconflictofinterestwhenalawyerrepre RespondentAtty.JosephAdorRamo
LA,MARYANGELYNOROL tingofInterestasmentionedintheCod Rule15.03andRule15.04ofCan sentsinconsistentinterestsoftwoormore sisherebyheldGUILTYofrepresent
A- eofProfessionalResponsibility. on15oftheCodeoftheProfessi opposing parties. ingconflictinginterestinviolationoft
BELARGA,MARJORIEMEL onalResponsibility. heCodeofProfessional
BA OROLA-CALIP, Responsibility.
andKARENOROLA Accordingly,heisherebySUSPEN
V. Recordsrevealthatrespondentwasthecollabo
ATTY. JOSEPH ratingcounselnotonlybyMaricarbutforallthe DEDfromthepracticeoflawforaper
ADORRAMOS HeirsofAntonio.Inthecourse,thereof,theHe iodofthree(3)months,withWARNI
irsofTrinidadandAntoniosucceededinremo NGthatarepetitionofthesameorsim
vingEmilioasadministratorforhavingcommi ilaractsinthefuturewillbedealtwithm
ttedactsprejudicialtotheirinterests.Hence,w ore severely.
CaseNo.: henrespondentproceededtorepresentEmili
A.C. No. 9860 oheclearlyworkedagainsttheveryinterestof
the Heirsof Antonio.
DateofPromulgation:
September11, 2013
Ponente:
Perlas-Bernabe, J.
TOPIC:Negligence andGrossMisconduct
294
2013CASES
ATTY.QUINTINP.ALCID,JR whenhefiledaCriminalCaseofEstafai theCodeofProfessionalRespo Misconduct. thepracticeoflawforaperiodofsix(6)
. nsteadofaCivilCaseofBreachofCont nsibility. months,andSTERNLYWARNE
ractonlyandnotapprisingthecomplai Dthatacommissionofthesameorsim
nantofthestatusofthecasedespiterep Areviewoftheproceedingsandevidenceinthe ilaractsinthefutureshallbedealtwith
CaseNo.: eatedfollow ups. Rule16.01ofCanon16oftheCo caseatbarshowsthatrespondentviolatedtheC moreseverely.
A.C. No. 9149 deofProfessionalResponsibilit odeofProfessionalResponsibilitywhenrespo
y. ndentfiledacriminalcaseofEstafawhenthefa
ctsofthecasewouldhavewarrantedthefilingo
DateofPromulgation: f a civilcase of aBreach ofContract.
September04, 2013 Canon17oftheCodeofProfessi
onalResponsibility.
Thatisnotall.AftertheCriminalandCivilcases
weredismissed,respondentwasplainlyneglig
Ponente:
Rule18.03andRule18.04ofthe entanddidnotapprisecomplainantofthestatu
Villarama, Jr.,J.
Canon18ofProfessionalRespo sandprogressofboth caseshe filedforthe
nsibility. complainant.
TOPIC:GrossMisconduct
295
2013CASES
chargedwithgravemisconductandgrossignor
DateofPromulgation: anceofthelawinfailingtoacttothedispositiono
October17, 2013 f caseswithinthe giventime.
Ponente:
Carpio,J.
TOPIC: GrossIgnoranceoftheLaw
CaseTitle: ActsComplainedOf: LegalBasis/Basesofthecharge( Supreme Court’sRuling: Case Disposition:
ATTY.JEROMENORMAN s):
L.
TACORDAfor:ODELLGED ThattheRespondentisadministrative TheSupremeCourtsustainsthefindingofthe The Supreme
RAGA lyliableforgrossignoranceofthelawfo Rulesof OCAthattheactsofJudgeClemenswerefarfro CourtDISMISSEDth
V. rsupposedlyviolatingtheChildWitne Evidence(ChildWitnessExam mbeingill- ecomplaintagainstRespondentJudg
JUDGE REYNALDO ssExaminationRule. inationRule) motivatedandinbadfaithastojustifyanyadmi eHon.JudgeReynaldoB.Clemensfor
B.CLEMENS nistrativeliabilityonhispart.Hewasvigilantin lack of merit.
hisconduct ofthe proceedings.
New Code of
CaseNo.: JudicialConduct.
A.M. No.RTJ-13-2359 ItisdoubtfulthatJudgeClemensfailedtoimple
mentthedirectiveshehadissuedduringthecon
ductofthetrial.TSNshowedthatrespondent
DateofPromulgation: wasverymuchconcernedwithfollowingthepr
October23, 2013 operconductoftrialandensuringthatOne-
DayExaminationofWitnessRulewasfollowe
d.
296
2013CASES
Ponente:
Sereno,CJ.
TOPIC:Grave Misconduct
CaseNo.:
A.C. No. 6732
DateofPromulgation:
October22, 2013
Ponente:
Bersamin, J.
TOPIC:GrossImmoralConduct.
297
2013CASES
CaseTitle: ActsComplainedOf: LegalBasis/Basesofthecharge( Supreme Court’sRuling: Case Disposition:
JOCELYN DELEON s):
V. ATTY.
TYRONEPEDRENA ThattherespondentisguiltyofGrossI TherecordsshowthatAtty.Pedrenarubbed The Supreme
mmoralConductforhisundesirableac Code of the complainant’srightleg withhishand;tried CourtSUSPENDEDA
tshehaddoneagainst the ProfessionalRespo toinserthisfingerintoherfirmlyclosedhand;gr ttyTyronePedrenafromthepractice
CaseNo.: Complainant. nsibility. abbedherhandandforciblyplaceditonhiscrot oflawfor
A.C. No. 9401 charea;andpressedhisfingeragainstherprivat twoyears,withasternwarningthatare
epart.Giventhecircumstancesinwhichheco petitionofthesameorsimilaractswill
mmittedthem,hisactswerenotmerelyoffensi bedealtwithmoreseverely.
DateofPromulgation: veandundesirablebutrepulsive,disgraceful
andgrossly immoral.
October22, 2013
Thepossessionofgoodmoralcharacterisboth
Ponente: aconditionprecedentand
Bersamin, J. acontinuingrequirementtowarrantadmissio
ntotheBarandtoretainmembershipinthe
LegalProfession.
TOPIC: GrossMisconduct
298
2013CASES
A.C. No. 4945 Canon18asheractionswereevidentlyprejudic
ial to herclients’ interests.
DateofPromulgation:
October8, 2013 Recordsdisclosethatinsteadofdeliveringthe
DeedofSalecoveringthesubjectpropertytohe
rclients,shewilfullynotarizedadeedofsaleove
rthesameproperty infavour
ofanotherperson.
Ponente:
299
2013CASES
Perlas –Bernabe, J.
DateofPromulgation:
October02, 2013 RespondentJudgedemonstratedignoranceof
therulesbyrepeatedlyrefusingtoexecutethefi
nalandexecutorjudgementofconvictionagai
nstacertainperson.
Ponente:
Reyes, J.
ThejustificationprofferedbyJudgePatriciois
notwelltakenandisoffthemerit.
TOPIC: Negligence
300
2013CASES
ATTY. ALBERT tofiletheappropriatepleadingsorpres ProfessionalResponsibility. abilitytopreservehisclients’cause,fortheunw of lawforfive(5)yearsandis
T.VILLASECA entnecessaryevidenceforthecause of averingloyaltydisplayedtohisclientlikewise STERNLYWARNEDthata
hisclient. servesthe endsof justice.” repetitionofthesameorsimilaractwil
lbedealtwithmoreseverely.
CaseNo.:
A.C. No. 7922 Inthesaidcase,AttyVillaseca’sactionoffailure
to submit a demurrerof evidence
inhishandlingofCriminalCaseconstitutesIne
DateofPromulgation: xcusableNegligenceonhispartasalawyer;itsh
owedhislackofdevotionandzealinpreserving
October1, 2013
hisclients’cause.
Weemphasizethatwhilealawyerhascomplete
discretiononwhatlegalstrategytoemployinac
aseentrustedtohim,hemustpresenteveryrem
edyordefensewithintheauthorityofthelawto
supporthisclients’ cause.
TOPIC: Dishonesty
301
2013CASES
A.C. No. 7329 administrative case.
DateofPromulgation: TheallegationsthatAtty.Enriquezwrote"OC
November27, 2013 T"insteadof"TCT"butwiththesamenumber
T-
19723,and"Veran"insteadof"Verar,"aretoot
rivialtogiverisetoadministrativesanction.Bes
Ponente:
ides,thesemistakescouldhavebeenmadeinad
Carpio,J.
vertently.
302
2013CASES
Province ofLanaoDel Sur. intentionallyfabricatedanorderwhichsuppos
edlygrantedamotionforinterventionbytheco
unselfortheincumbentmayorwhosere-
CaseNo.: electioncomplainantandhisco-
petitionerswereallegedlynotwillingtosuppor
A.M. No.MTJ-03-1505.
t.Respondent’sactoffabricatinganordertoco
veruphisofficialshortcomingsconstitutesdis
honesty,areprehensibleactthatwill notbe
DateofPromulgation: sanctionedby thisCourt.
November27, 2013
Clemency,asanactofmercyremovinganydisq
Ponente: ualification,shouldbebalancedwiththepreser
Villarama, Jr.,J. vationofpublicconfidenceinthecourts.TheC
ourtwillgrantitonlyifthereisashowingthatitis
merited.Proofofreformationandashowingof
potentialandpromise are indispensable
Thereisnoindependentevidenceorrelevantci
rcumstancestojustify clemency.
TOPIC:
303
2013CASES
CaseNo.: duediligenceinthesaidcase.Inadditio Rule18.03andRule18.03ofCan fatherofafamilymakesthelawyerunworthyof severely.
A.C. No. 10043 n,alsobyignoringthemandateordirect on18oftheCodeofProfessiona thetrustreposedonhimbyhisclientandmakes
ivesoftheIntegratedBar of lResponsibility. himanswerablenotjusttohisclientbutalsotot
thePhilippines. helegalprofession, the courtsandsociety.
DateofPromulgation:
November20, 2013 RulesandRegulationsSetforth
bytheIntegratedBarof In the presentcase, therespondentmade
thePhilippines. abigmistakewhendespitethefollowupsofthe
complainantheignoredherandmade to
Ponente: believe that the casewasdiligentlybeing
Del Castillo, J. handledwithutmostcare.
Moreover,hedisregardedthedirectivesoftheI
ntegratedBarofthePhilippineswhenhefailedt
oshowhimselfduringthemandatory
conference.
TOPIC:
304
2013CASES
Moreover,therespondenthasapropensitytod
isobeyanddisrespectcourtordersandprocess
eswhenhewasdirectedbythecourttocommen
tagainsttheadministrativecomplaintagainsth
imbutittook 8 yearsforhimtoreply.
TOPIC:Grossly ImmoralConduct
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASEDISPOSI
RolandoCawaling ComplainantswereemployeesofBacmanGeotherm TheCPRrulesandcanonvi Complaintagainstrespondentisdismissed.Disbarmen TION
v.NapoleonMenese et. al,Inc.(Bacman),whoweredismissedfromtheirempl olated the following: tisthemostsevereformofdisciplinarysanctionand,assu The
al. oyment.Theyfiledacomplaintforillegaldismissalagai Canon 1 ch,thepowertodisbarmustalwaysbeexercisedwithgrea complaintagainstNa
nstBacmanGeothermal,Inc. tcaution,onlyforthemostimperativereasonsandinclea poleonM.Menese,Ra
CASE NO.: LaborArbiterrendereda decisioninfavor rcasesofmisconductaffectingthestandingandmoralch ul
A.C. 9698 ofthecomplainantsanddeclaredthem Rule 1.01 aracterofthelawyerasanofficerofthecourtandmember T.AquinoandTeresit
tobeillegallydismissed.Bacmanappealedandfiledan of the bar. a
DATE Appeal. Therebeingamonetaryawardin ThisCourthasconsistentlyheldthatonlyaclearprepond D. Castillon-Lora
OFPROMULGATI thedecision,Bacmanpostedasupersedeasbondissue erantevidencewouldwarranttheimpositionofsuchaha isDISMISSED.
ON: dby IntraStrataAssuranceCorporation rshpenalty.It
November13, 2013
PONENTE:
305
2013CASES
Justice Diosdado (IntraStrata).IntraStratafiledaManifestation.Itstate meansthattherecordmustdiscloseasfreefromdoubtac
M.Peralta dthereinthattheircertificationofaccreditationandaut asethatcompelstheexercisebythecourtofitsdisciplinar
horityfromtheSupremeCourthadexpiredbuttheirap ypowers.Thedubiouscharacteroftheactdone,aswellas
plicationforrenewalispendingbeforetheSupremeC themotivationthereof,mustbeclearlydemonstrated.In
ourt.Complainants,intheirReply/OppositiontoRes disbarmentproceedings,theburdenofproofisuponthe
pondent'sAppeal,assailed complainantandthisCourtwillexerciseitsdisciplinaryp
theregularityofthesuretybond.Complainantsfurthe oweronlyifthecomplainantestablisheshiscasebyclear,
rassertedthatunderSection6,paragraph6ofRuleVIo convincingandsatisfactoryevidence.Thiscomplainant
fthe2011NLRCRulesofProcedure,respondentswer failedtodo.
eunderobligationtoverifyifthebondisregularandgen
uine,andshallcausethedismissalof the
appealshouldthe bond be irregular.
TOPIC:Misconduct
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASEDISPOSI
Hon. RespondentwascounselforthedefendantinCivilCas TheCPRrulesandcanonvi Respondentemployedintemperatelanguageinhisplea TION
MaribethRodriguez eNo.1863asuitfordamagesfiledbeforetheMunicipal olated the following: dings.Asanofficerofthecourt,Atty.Floresisexpectedto Atty.RodolfoFloresis
Manahanv.Atty. TrialCourtofSanMateo,RizalandpresidedbyCompl becircumspectinhislanguage.Rule11.03,Canon11oft FINEDintheamounto
RodolfoFlores ainant.ComplainantissuedanOrderwhereby she heCodeofProfessionalResponsibilityenjoinsallattorn f₱5,000.00with
voluntarily Canon11 eystoabstainfromscandalous,offensiveormenacingla STERN
CASE NO.: inhibitedfromhearingonthesaidCivilCasebecauseof nguageorbehaviorbeforetheCourts.Respondentfaile WARNINGthatthere
A.C. 8954 unethicalactuations,histraitsofdishonestyanddisco dinthisrespect.Respectmustbehadnotbecauseofthein petitionofasimilaroffe
urtesynotonlytohisownbrethreninthelegalprofessio cumbentstothepositions,butbecauseoftheauthorityth nseshallbedealtwith
DATE n,butalsotothebenchandjudges, wouldamount Rule 11.03 atvestsinthem.Disrespecttojudicialincumbentsisdisre moreseverely.
OFPROMULGATI tograve misconduct, specttothatbranchtheGovernment to
ON: ifnotamalpracticeoflaw,aseriousgroundfordisciplin whichtheybelong, aswellasto theState
November13, 2013 aryactionofamemberofthebar.Duringtheprelimina whichhasinstitutedthe judicial system.
ryconference,respondentfailedtoappearandtosubm
PONENTE: ittheproofofMCLEcompliance.TheInvestigatingJu
Associate dgerecommendedthatAtty.Floresbesuspendedfro
JusticeMarianoC. Del mthe practice of law forone year.
Castillo
306
2013CASES
TOPIC:Misappropriation of ClientFunds
TOPIC:UnauthorizedTravelAbroad
307
2013CASES
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASEDIS
RE: Judge Villacorta wasgrantedauthority totravel OCA CircularNo. 49- Unauthorizedabsencesofthoseresponsible POSITION
UnauthorizedTravelAb toCanadafortheperiodcovering20December2010t 2003 (Guidelines fortheadministrationofjustice,especiallyonthepartofa SUPREMECOURT
road ofJudgeCleto R. o3February2011.1Hewasexpectedtoreportforwork onRequests magistrate,areinimicaltopublicservice.JudgeVillacort ISSUEDASTERN
VillacortaIIIRegional on4February2011but,ascertifiedbyClerkofCourt,R forTravelAbroadandExt aisremindedthatreasonableruleswerelaiddowninorde WARNING to
Trial egionalTrialCourt,Branch6BaguioCity,JudgeVillac ensionsforTravel/Stay rtofacilitatetheefficientfunctioningofthecourts.Obse JudgeCletoR.Villacort
CourtBranch6,Baguioci ortareportedbackforworkonlyon16February2011. Abroad). rvancethereofcannotbeexpectedofothercourtperson a
ty Villacortaexplainedthathewasunabletoreturntothec nelifjudgesthemselvescannotbereliedontotakethelea III,
ountryattheexpirationofhistravelauthoritybecauseh d. RegionalTrialCourt,Br
CASE NO.: ehadtoattendfewfamily- Section50 of anch6,BaguioCity,that
A.M. No. 11-9-167-RTC relatedmatters.JudgeVillacortawasgrantedanothera CivilService furtherfailuretoobserv
uthoritytotraveltoCanadafortheperiodcovering1M CommissionMemoran ereasonablerulesandg
DATE ayto2June2011toattendthewakeandfuneralofhissist dumCircularNo. uidelines
OFPROMULGATI er.Memorandumdated12May2011,DeputyCourtA 41,series of 1998, for
ON: dministrator(DCA)andtheOCAOfficeofAdministr applyingfora
November11, 2013 ativeServices(OCA- leaveofabsenceshallbe
OAS)recommendedthatthejudge’sabsenceduringhi dealtwithmoreseverel
PONENTE: sextendedtravelfrom4- y.
ChiefJustice 15February2011beconsideredunauthorized,whichr
MARIA LOURDES P. ecommendationwasapprovedbythethenOCAOffic
A. SERENO er-in-Charge.Also,hisletter-
explanationdated31March2011wasreferredtotheO
CALegalOfficeforappropriateaction.JudgeVillacor
tafailedtoreportforworkon3June2011followinghiss
econdtraveltoCanada.JudgeVillacortasentanotherl
etterrequestingfortheconsolidationofthetwoincide
ntsfortheCourt’saction.Healsostatedthathemeantt
oresigneffective31October2011tosettleabroadand
wishedtobeadvisedontheimplicationsofhisextende
dtravelsonhisintendedresignation.
TOPIC:NotarialLaw
308
2013CASES
309
2013CASES
Public fortwoyears.
TOPIC:Champertous Agreement
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASEDIS
Conchita A. Complainantsengagedtheprofessionalservicesofres Code Anagreementwherebyanattorneyundertakestopaytheexpe POSITION
Baltazaret.Al v. Atty. pondentforthepurposeofassistingthemintheprepar ofProfessional nsesoftheproceedingstoenforcetheclient’srightsinexchang Attorney
JuanB.Bañez, Jr. ationofasettlementagreement.Insteadofdraftingaw Responsibility eforsomebargaintohaveapartofthethingindispute.Suchco JuanB.Bañez,
rittensettlement,respondentencouragedthemtoinst Rule 16.04 ntractsarecontrarytopublic policy andare thusvoid or Jr.isherebyADMO
CASE NO.: ituteactionsagainstFevidalinordertorecovertheirpr inexistent. NISHED
A.C. 9091 operties.Itwasagreedthatcomplainantswouldpayres for advancing
pondent50%ofwhateverwouldberecoveredofthepr thelitigationexpensesi
DATE operties.RespondentpreparedandnotarizedanAffid na
OFPROMULGATI avitofAdverseClaim,seekingtoannotatetheclaimofc legalmatterherhandled
ON:DEC. 11, 2013 omplainantstoatleast195titlesinthepossessionofFe fora
vidal.CertainAndradewastaskedtosubmittheAffida clientwithoutprovidin
PONENTE: vitofAdverseClaimtotheRegisterofDeedsofBataan. gfortermsofreimburse
ChiefJustice Thecostsfortheannotationoftheadverseclaimwerep mentandlending
MARIALOURDES aidbyrespondent.But,Fevidalgotwindofitandconvi money tohisclient, in
P.A.SERENO ncedcomplainantstoagreetoanothersettlement.Res violation
pondentfiledacomplaintforannulment,cancellation ofCanon16.04 of
andrevalidationoftitles,anddamagesagainstFevidal theCode
beforetheRTCofBataan.Complainantsterminatedt ofProfessionalResp
heservicesofrespondentwithdrewtheircomplaintag onsibility.Heussternl
ainstFevidal,andfinalizedtheiramicablesettlement. y warnedthata
RespondentfiledaManifestationandOppositionbef repetitionof
oretheRTC,allegingthattheterminationofhisservice thesameorsimilaractw
sandwithdrawalofthecomplainthadbeendonewitht ould be
heintentofdefraudingcounsel.On the same date,he dealtwithmore
fileda Motion for severely.
310
2013CASES
RecordingofAttorney’sChargingLienintheRecords
oftheAbove-
CaptionedCases.RTCgrantedthewithdrawalofthec
omplaint.Complainantssoughtthesuspension/disb
armentofrespondentthroughaComplaintfiledbefor
eIBP.Itsuspendedrespondentfromthepracticeofla
wforaperiodofoneyearforenteringintoachamperto
usagreement.
TOPIC:Misconduct
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASEDIS
PheschemIndustrialCo ComplainantsoughtthehelpofAtty.Surigao,thenVic Section15 of Thelegislature,hasdelegatedtheexerciseofpolicepowerto POSITION
rporation, vs. e- R.A.No. 7160 localgovernmentunits,asagenciesof The
Attys.Lloyd p. MayorofPalompon,butinsteadofhelpingtheformer, theState,inordertoeffectivelyaccomplishandcarryoutthede disbarmentcomplain
SurigaoandJesusA. Atty.Surigaojoinedtheblockade.Notonlythat,inadia claredobjectsoftheircreation.Thisdelegationisembodiedint tfiledbyPheschemIn
VillardoIII loguehecalledbetweenPheschemandthebarangayof Section447 hegeneralwelfareclause,ofR.A.No.7160.Policepowerisesse dustrialCorporationa
ficials,Atty.SurigaoharanguedPheschemwithalitany oftheRA7160 ntiallyregulatoryinnature,andthepowertoissuelicensesorgr gainstlawyersLloydP
CASE NO.: ofcomplaintsfromthebarangayresidents,whileignor antbusinesspermits,ifexercisedforaregulatoryandnotreven .SurigaoandJesusA.
A.C. No. 8269 ingtheDENR’scertificationsthatPheschemcommit ue-raisingpurpose, iswithin the ambitof thispower. VillardoIIIisDISMI
tedno Thereisampleshowingthattheirconductwaspursuanttothe SSED.
DATE violations,aswellasDENR’sexplanationthatPhesch diligentperformanceoftheirsworndutiesandresponsibilitie
OFPROMULGATI emcouldnot sasdulyelectedofficialsoftheMunicipalityof
ON: bedeniedanEnvironmentalComplianceCertificate( Palompon,Leyte.Theythereforedeservecommendation,ins
December11, 2013 ECC)aslongasitsubstantiallycompliedwiththerequi teadofcondemnation,andnotjustcommendationbutevene
rementstherefor.ItappearsthatAtty.Surigaowasalso ncouragement,fortheirvigilanceandpromptanddecisiveact
PONENTE: theprivatecounseloftherespondentinPheschemInd ionsinhelpingtoprotectandpreservetheenvironmentandna
Associate ustrialCorporation turalresourcesoftheirMunicipality.
JusticeBienvenidoL. v.PablitoMoldez.PheschemnowinsiststhatAtty.Sur
Reyes igaoshouldhaveinhibitedhimselffromtheSanggunia
ngBayan’sdeliberationsonResolutionduetoconflict
ofinterest.PheschemopenedanewquarryinBaranga
yCantandoy,butagainAtty.Surigaoandothertownof
ficialsblockedandstoppeditsoperations.Atty.
311
2013CASES
Surigao,accompaniedbyheadofPalompon’sMENR
O,andseveralpolicemen,enteredPheschem’squarry
siteandseizedthree(3)ofitsdumptrucks.MayorTupa,
Atty.Surigao,andPajaronexecutedaJointComplaint
AffidavitseekingtocancelPheschem’sprovincialqua
rrypermit.But in
aResolutiontheOfficeoftheProvincialGovernorof
Leytedismissedthecomplaint.Pheschemfiledtheinst
antdisbarmentcomplaintagainsthereinrespondents,
"forgross,maliciousandoppressiveviolationoftheir
dutiesundertheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility.I
BPInvestigatingCommissionerissuedherReportan
dRecommendationinA.C.No.8269,21whereinsher
ecommendedthatthedisbarmentcomplaintagainstt
herespondentsbedismissedforlackofmerit.IBPissu
edResolutionadoptingIBPGovernorrulingtosuspe
nd therespondentsforone month.
TOPIC:Misconduct
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASEDISPOSI
RE: TheHeirsofRallos,oneofwhomisco Rule V Aparty- TION
LETTERSOFLUCENAB.RALLOS,F mplainantLucenaB.Rallos(Rallos),a INHIBITIONOF litigantwhodesirestobeinformedoftheinhibitionofaJusticea CourtDISMISSES
ORALLEGEDACTS/INCIDENTS/ ndotherpartiescollectivelyreferredt JUSTICES ndof the
OCCURENCESRELATIVETOTHER oasVicenteRallos,etal.soughtjustco SEC.3. thereasonfortheinhibitionmustfileamotionforinhibitionint administrativecomplai
ESOLUTION(S)ISSUEDIN CA- mpensationfromthecitygovernmen hemannerprovidedunderSection3,RuleVoftheInternalRule ntsagainstCourtofAp
G.R.SP No. t softheCourtofAppeals,supra.Uponthefilingofthemotion,th pealsAssociate
06676BYCOUIRTOFAPPEALSEXE ofCebuCity(CebuCity)fortwoparcel eparty- JusticePampioA.
CUTIVE soflandpertainingtotheestatethatCe litigantbecomesentitledtobenotifiedoftheCA’sactiononthe Abarintos,Associate
JUSTICEPAMPIOABARINTOSandA buCityhadbeenmaintainingaspublic motionforinhibitionand JusticeRamonPaul
SSOCIATEJUSTICES roadswithouttheirconsent. ofthereasonsfortheaction.Likewise,theparty- L.Hernando,
RAMONPAULHERNANDOandVIC litigantmayseekthereconsiderationormayappealtotheCourt AssociateJustice
TORIAISABELPAREDES. anyactionon thepartof theCA onthe motion Victoria Isabel
/RE:COMPLAINTFILEDBY forinhibitionor
LUCENA motionforreconsideration.Alas,Rallosdidnot
B. RALLOSAGAINSTJUSTICE
312
2013CASES
313
2013CASES
motionforexecutionbytheHeirsofV
icenteRallos,etal.,theRTCdirectedth
eissuanceofawritofexecutioninacco
rdancewiththeruling.CebuCityprese
ntedanomnibusmotiontoquashthe
writofexecutionandtoliftthenoticeo
fgarnishment,buttheRTCdeniedthe
omnibusmotion.CebuCitysoughtth
enullificationoftheRTCdecisionsan
dconsolidatedorder;andtheissuance
ofatemporary
restraining
order(TRO)and/orwritofprelimina
ryinjunction"topreventthehasty,ifn
otunlawfulreleaseofgovernmentfun
ds.CA,VisayasStation,whosememb
ersthenwererespondentspromulgat
edaresolutiondirectingCebuCitytor
ectifycertaindefectsinitspetition.Ral
losaverredthattheissuance of the
resolutiondirectingtherectificationo
fthe"fatal"defectsofthepetitionfort
heissuanceoftheTROhadbeenerron
eousissuanceconstitutedseriousmis
conduct.
314
2013CASES
CASE NO.: specialproceedingcasespertainingtothejointsettlem be subjected toliability orderwasissuedintheproperexerciseofhisjudicialfunctions, grossignorance ofthe
A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 10- entofthetestateandintestateestatesofhisparentswhe for any ofhisofficial andassuch,isnotsubjecttoadministrativedisciplinaryaction; law
3492-RTJ rein acts, nomatterhow especiallyconsideringthatthecomplainantfailedtoestablish againstJudgeAfable
heandhissisterviedforappointmentasspecialandreg erroneous, aslong badfaithonthepartofrespondentjudge.Wellentrenchedisth E. Cajigal,Regional
DATE ularadministrator.Complainantclaimedthatsinceres ashe erulethat Trial
OFPROMULGATI pondentjudge’sappointmentaspresidingjudgeofRT actsingoodfaith.Tohol ajudgemaynotbeadministrativelysanctionedformereerrors Court,Branch96,Que
ON: C,Branch96,QuezonCity,thelatterhasdisplayedgros dotherwise would ofjudgmentintheabsenceofshowingofanybadfaith,fraud, zonCity
December4, 2013 sinefficiencybyfailingtoresolvewithintheprescribed betorenderjudicial malice,grossignorance,corruptpurpose,oradeliberateinten isDISMISSEDfor
period.Respondentjudgevehementlydeniedthealleg officeuntenable, for ttodoaninjusticeonhisor herpart. lack
PONENTE: ationsinthecomplaint.Heaverredthatthecomplaint, no onecalledupon to ofmerit.Forhisdelay
Associate whichwasfiledbyadisgruntledpartywhodid try inresolvingthe
JusticeJosePortugal notgetafavorableactioninhiscourt,ispurelypersonal thefactsorinterpretthel pending
Perez andmeantonlytoharasshim.Ithasnobasisinlawandin aw in the motionsinhiscourt,
fact,heclaims.OCAconcludedthatthechargeofgross processofadministerin JudgeCajigal
ignoranceofthelawshouldbegivenscantconsideratio g justicecan be isADMONISHEDt
nconsideringthatascomplainanthimselfhasadmitte infallible o
d,theproprietyofrespondentjudge’sdecisionwasalre inhisjudgment. bemore
adyraisedinthemotionforreconsideration.TheOCA circumspectin the
,however,foundrespondentjudgeliableforunduedel exercise ofhisjudicial
ayinresolvingthemotionforreconsiderationfiledbyc functions.
omplainantandrecommendedthathebefinedinthea
mountof
₱10,000.00
DATE OF
315
2013CASES
316
2013CASES
TOPIC:Violation of Lawyer’s Oath
TOPIC:Gross Negligence
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASEDISPOSI
Felipe C. Dagala, ComplainantassistedbyAtty.Quesadafiledbeforeth Code TheCourthasemphasizedthattherelationshipbetweenala TION
vs.Atty. Jose C. eNLRC- ofProfessionalRespo wyerandhisclientisoneimbuedwithutmosttrustandconfid Atty. Jose
Quesada,Jr. RAB,SanFernandoCity,LaUnionComplaintforilleg nsibility: ence.Inthisregard,clientsareledtoexpectthatlawyerswould C.Quesada,
aldismissal,overtimepay,separationpay,damagesan CANON1. beever- Jr.isfoundGUILTY
CASE NO.: dattorney’sfeesagainstCapitol.The mindfuloftheircauseandaccordinglyexercisetherequiredd of
A.C. No. 5044 saidcasewas,however, egree violating Rule 1.01of
317
2013CASES
318
2014CASES
TOPIC:Deceit
TOPIC:Serious Misconduct
319
2014CASES
320
2014CASES
TOPIC:Grave Misconduct
321
2014CASES
behaviororgrossnegligencebyapublicofficer.”Themiscon courtstrictlytotheletter.Hehasnodiscretionwhetherto be
PONENTE: ductisgraveifitinvolvesanyoftheadditionalelementsofcorr executethejudgmentornot.Whenthewritisplacedinhis dealtwithmoreseve
Associate uption,willfulintenttoviolatethelaw,ortodisregardestablis hands,itishisduty,intheabsenceofanyinstructionstoth rely.
JusticePRESBIT hedrules,allofwhichmustbeestablishedbysubstantialevide econtrary,toproceedwithreasonablecelerityandprom
ERO nce,andmustnecessarilybemanifestinachargeofgravemisc ptnesstoimplementitinaccordancewithitsmandate.Iti
J.VELASCO, JR. onduct. sonlybydoingsocouldheensurethattheorderisexecute
dwithoutunduedelay.Thisholdsespeciallytruehereinw
herethenatureofthecaserequiresimmediateexecution.
AbsentaTRO,anorderofquashal,orcompliancewithSe
c.19,Rule70oftheRulesofCourt,respondentsheriffhas
noalternative buttoenforce the writ.
TOPIC:WillfulDisobedience
322
2014CASES
inadequately, or selectively.
TOPIC:NotarialPractice
TOPIC:Notarization
323
2014CASES
324
2014CASES
PONENTE:
Associate Justice
325
2014CASES
MARTINS.VILL notarypublicmustdischargehispowersanddutieswhic
ARAMA, JR. hareimpressedwithpublicinterest,withaccuracyandfid
elity.Asalawyercommissionedasnotarypublic,Atty.G
upanaismandatedtosubscribetothesacreddutiesapper
tainingtohisoffice,suchdutiesbeingdictatedbypublicp
olicyimpressedwithpublic interest.
326
2014CASES
PONENTE:
Associate
JusticeDIOSDA
DOM.PERALT
A
TOPIC:Fidelity toClient
327
2014CASES
TOPIC:Neglect ofDuty
PONENTE:
Associate Justice
328
2014CASES
JOSE complainanttoremitthefullpaymentofthefilingfeeand
CATRALMEN paythe30%oftheattorney’sfee.Suchjustification,howe
DOZA ver,isnot
avalidexcusethatwouldexoneratehimfromliability.As
stated,everycasethatisentrustedtoalawyerdeserveshisf
ullattentionwhetherheacceptsthisforafeeorfree.Even
assumingthatcomplainanthadnotremittedthefullpay
mentofthefilingfee,heshouldhavefoundawaytospeakt
ohisclientandinformhimabouttheinsufficiencyofthefi
lingfeesohecouldfilethecomplaint.Atty.Agleronobvio
uslylackedprofessionalismindealingwithcomplainant
andshowedincompetencewhenhefailedtofiletheappr
opriatecharges.Alawyershouldneverneglectalegalmat
terentrustedtohim,otherwisehisnegligencerendershi
mliablefordisciplinaryactionsuchassuspensionrangin
gfromthreemonthstotwoyears.
TOPIC:UnprofessionalConduct
329
2014CASES
TOPIC:Unjust Judgment
CASE NO.:
330
2014CASES
DATE
OFPROMULGATI
ON:
March11, 2014
PONENTE:
Associate
JusticeLUCAS
P.BERSAMIN
TOPIC:UndueDelay
PONENTE:
331
2014CASES
Associate regardingthemotionwithin5daysandafterwhichthecourtw
JusticeESTELA illresolvethependingincidents.SpousesMarcelofailedtofil
M.PERLAS- etheircomment,nonetheless,JudgePichaysetthemotionfo
BERNABE rhearing.DisappointedwithJudgePichay’scontinuousinac
tion,SpousesMarcelofiledanadministrativecomplaintbefo
retheOfficeoftheCourtAdministratorcharginghimandSh
eriffEpresswithinordinatedelayinthedispositionofthepen
dingincidentsinrelationtotheimplementationofthewritof
executionofthedecision.
TOPIC:Violation ofNotarialLaw
332
2014CASES
deed.
Associate JusticeMartinS.
333
2014CASES
Villarama, Jr.
TOPIC:ObstructionofJustice
334
2014CASES
TOPIC:IllicitRelationship
335
2014CASES
TOPIC:Misrepresentation
TOPIC:UnethicalBehavior
336
2014CASES
TOPIC:Grave Misconduct
CASE TITLE:
337
2014CASES
OFFICE OFTHECOURT
338
2014CASES
ADMINISTRATOR,
Failure to decide the Rule 1.02, Canon1;and Rule 1.02, Canon 1of the Code The
vs. saidcaseswithin Rule 3.05 ofCanon 3of theCodeof ofJudicial CourtfindsretiredJudgeBorro
thereglementary period. Judicial Conduct Conductstatesthatjudgesshouldadminist meoR.Bustamante,formerPre
JUDGEBUSTAMANTE erjustice withoutdelay.Rule 3.05 sidingJudge oftheMunicipal
ofCanon 3 statesthatjudgesshall dispose Trial CourtinCities,
of thecourt'sbusinesspromptly AlaminosCity,Pangasinan,
anddecide caseswithin guilty ofunduedelay
CASE NO.: therequiredperiods.The Codeof inrendering
JudicialConduct, specifically Canon3, decisionsandorders,
A.M. No.MTJ-12-1806 Rule andimposesuponhim afine of
3.05 mandatesjudgesto attendpromptly ₱20,000.00, to be
to the businessofthe courtanddecide deductedfromhisretirementb
caseswithintheperiodsprescribed by law enefits.
DATEOFPROMULGATION: and theRules. Underthe 1987
Constitution, lowercourtjudgesare
April 7, 2014 alsomandated
todecidecaseswithin90daysfromsubmiss
ion.
PONENTE:
TOPIC:Ignorance ofthelaw
CASE TITLE:
339
2014CASES
vs.
GrossIgnorance of theLaw,Grave Rule 3.05, Canon 3of the Code Judgesarerequiredtoalwaysbetemperate, The
JUDGE AUSTRIA
Abuse ofJudicial Conduct; and patientandcourteous, CourtfindsJudgeAustria
ofAuthority,GrossMisconduct, Rules2.01, 2.02 and2.03, Canon bothinconductandinlanguage. guiltyof grossignorance
Grave Incompetence,Irregularity 2of the Code ofJudicialConduct Sec.1, Canon 2of theNew Code ofthe law forwhich
CASE NO.:
in thePerformance ofDuty, ofJudicial Conductstatesthat sheisfined
A.M. No.RTJ-09-2200
GraveBiasandPartiality,Lack of “Judgesshallensure thatnotonly ₱21,000,00. Judge Austria
Circumspection,ConductUnbecom istheirconductabove reproach, islikewise hereby
ing of a Judge, Failure butthatitisperceived to be sointhe view of admonishedto
toObservethe Reglementary areasonable observer.” refrainfromfurtheractsof
PeriodandViolationof the Code Sec. 6, Canon 4of theNew Code ofJudicial impropriety and
DATEOFPROMULGATION:
ofProfessionalResponsibility. Conduct, however, torefrainfromconductunbec
April 2, 2014
alsoimposesacorrelative restriction on oming of a judge,with the
judges: in theexercise of theirfreedomof sternwarning thata
expression,they repetitionof
shouldalwaysconductthemselvesina thesameorsimilaractsshallbe
mannerthatpreservesthe dignity dealtwith moreseverely.
ofthejudicial office and the impartiality
PONENTE:
andindependence of the Judiciary.
Associate Justice ArturoD.Brion
TOPIC:Suspension
340
2014CASES
TOPIC:Ignorance oftheLaw
341
2014CASES
342
2014CASES
TOPIC:Falsification ofdocuments
343
2014CASES
CASE
TITLE:CRISOS ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASEDIS
TOMO POSITION
vs. The
ATTY. NAZARENO False Rule 7, Sec. 5ofthe Separate from the CourtsuspendedAtty.
declarationsinthecertificationsaga RulesofCourt; and proscriptionagainstforumshopping isthe Nazarenofromthe
instforumshopping subject Code of violation ofthe practice of law fora
CASE NO.: period of1 year.
ofthiscase andmalpractice asa ProfessionalRespons certificationrequirementagainstforumshopping
A.C. No. 6677 Further, he
notarypublic ibility . UnderSec. 5, Rule 7ofthe
RulesofCourt,thesubmissionoffalse entriesin a ispermanentlydisqualifi
certificationagainstforumshopping edfrombeingcommissi
constitutesindirect ordirectcontempt onedasanotary public
DATEOFPROMULGATION: and,his
ofcourt.The submission of afalse certification
ornon-compliance withany
344
2014CASES
of the notarialcommission,
June 10, undertakingsthereinshallconstituteindirectcon ifcurrently existing,
2014PONE temptofcourt,withoutprejudiceto the ishereby revoked.
NTE: corresponding administrative andcriminal
Associate JusticeEstela M.Perlas- actions. n therealmof
Bernabe legalethics,saidinfractionmay be
consideredasaviolation ofRule 1.01, Canon 1
andRule10.01, Canon10 of the Codeof
ProfessionalResponsibility
WhenAtty. Nazarenonotarized
thecertificationsagainstforumshopping
attachedto all the
aforementionedcomplaints,fullyaware thatthey
identically asserted a materialfalsehood.Hence,
he alsoviolatedRule 1.01 ofthe Code
whichproscribeslawyersfromengaging
inunlawful, dishonest, immoral,
ordeceitfulconduct.
TOPIC:ExorbitantAttorney’s Fees
345
2014CASES
TOPIC:Impartiality
346
2014CASES
A.M. No.RTJ-14-2388 Hence, not only musta judge render a justdecision, he disqualifiedfromrei
isalsoduty boundtorenderitin a mannercompletely nstatementorappoi
freefromsuspicionasto itsfairnessanditsintegrity. ntmentinanypublic
Respondent'sconductin theinstantcase office,includinggov
DATEOFPROMUL inevitablyinvitesdoubtsaboutrespondent'sprobity ernmentownedor -
GATION: andintegrity.It givesgroundfor a validreproach. Inthe controlledcorporati
judiciary,moral integrity is more thana cardinal virtue, ons.
June 10, 2014 itisanecessity.Moreover,a judge'slack of impartiality or
themere appearance of biaswouldcause resentmentif
theparty whorefusedthejudge'sproposal subsequently
losthiscase. Itwouldgiverise tosuspicionthat the
PONENTE:P judgmentwas"fixed" beforehand. Suchcircumstance
ERCURIAM tarnishestheimage of the judiciary andbringsto itpublic
contempt,disrepute, andridicule.Thus, we are
constrainedto rulethatrespondentviolatedRule 2.01 of the
Code ofJudicialConduct.
347
2014CASES
handledcaseswithreasonable dispatch,
andurgingtheirterminationevenwithoutprodding
PONENTE: fromtheclient or the court.
Clearly, itcannot bedoubtedthat
Associate JusticeBienvenido therespondentviolatedCanon17, andRule18.03 of
L. Reyes Canon18ofthe Code whichstatesthat"a
lawyerowesfidelity tothe cause of hisclientandhe
shall be mindful of thetrustandconfidence
reposedinhim." Itfurthermandatesthat"a
lawyershallserve hisclientwithcompetence
anddiligence," andthat"a lawyershallnot neglect a
legalmatterentrustedto him, andhisnegligence
inconnectiontherewithshallrenderhimliable.”
348
2014CASES
TOPIC:Gross negligence
349
2014CASES
P.A. Sereno
350
2014CASES
TOPIC:Violation oftheNotarialLaw
351
2014CASES
352
2014CASES
TOPIC:UnethicalBehavior
CASE
TITLE:VIZC ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION
ONDE
vs.
For draftingthe release Canon 1of the Code The primary duty oflawyersisnotto Atty. Verano, Jr.
ATTY. VERANO,JR.
orderandtheusetheDOJletterhead ofProfessional theirclientsbutto the administration of isfoundguilty of
withoutauthority. justice.Tothatend, violatingRules1.02and15.07,
Disrespectforthe law theirclients’successiswhollysubordinate. The inrelationtoCanon13 of the
CASE NO.:
andlegalprocessesindrafting conductofa memberof thebaroughtto Code
thesaidorderandsending it to a andmustalwaysbe scrupulouslyobservant ofthe ofProfessionalResponsibility,f
Adm. Case No. 8108
high-rankingpublic official. law andethics. Any means, or whichhe
nothonorable,fairandhonestwhichisresorted issuspendedfromthe practice
DATEOFPROMULGATION:J tobythe lawyer, evenin the pursuitof of law
uly 15, 2014 hisdevotionto hisclient’scause, iscondemnable for6monthseffectiveimmediat
andunethical. ely.
PONENTE:
TOPIC:Violation oftheNotarialLaw
353
2014CASES
354
2014CASES
TOPIC:ConductUnbecoming a Judge
CASE
TITLE:TAN ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION
vs.
JUDGE USMAN
Bribery andcorruption; No legal The RulesofCourtrequiresthatif a The
GrossMisconduct, basismention judgeshouldbedisciplinedforgrave misconduct or any administrativecomplaint
Knowinglyrendering ed. graveroffense, asinthiscase, the evidence againsthimshould againstJudgeUsmanisdis
CASE NO.:
anUnjustOrder,Abuse be competentandderivedfromdirectknowledge. The missed.
ofPowerandDishonesty; Judiciary towhichrespondentbelongsdemandsno less.Before
A.M. No.RTJ-14-2390
ignorance ofthe law any of itsmemberscould be faulted,
competentevidenceshouldbepresented,since the charge
ispenalincharacter.Thus, thegroundforthe removal of
ajudicial officershouldbeestablishedbeyondreasonable
doubt.Suchistherulewhere the charge on
DATEOFPROMULGATION:
whichremovalissoughtismisconductinoffice, willfulneglect,
August13, 2014 corruption, orincompetence. The generalrulesinregardto
admissibilityof evidence incriminal trialsapply.
Respondentjudge cannot
beblamedforassertingthatcomplainantmerelyfabricated the
PONENTE: allegation ofbribery andcorruptiondue to the latter'sfailure
to presentevidence insupportthereof.Thisislikewise not the
Associate Justice firsttime thatcomplainantraisedanunsubstantiatedaccusation
DiosdadoM.Peralta ofbribery againstrespondent.However,
asinthisCourt'spreviousrulings, inthe absence of evidence to
thecontrary, respondentenjoysthe
presumptionofregularityin the performance of
hisdutiesaswellasthe presumptionof innocence.
355
2014CASES
TOPIC:Negligence in HandlingClient’s Case
419.
356
2014CASES
TOPIC:Misappropriationof Client’s Money
Furthermore,
PONENTE: respondentisorderedtoretur
ntocomplainantAgotthe
Associate JusticeEstela M.Perlas- legalfeeshe
Bernabe receivedfromthelatterin the
amountof
₱350,000.00 within90
daysfromthe finality of
thisDecision. Failure to
complywith the foregoing
directivewillwarrant the
impositionofamore severe
penalty.
420.
357
2014CASES
TOPIC:Misappropriation of Client’s Money
Associate
JusticeMarianoC.DelCastillo
358
2014CASES
TOPIC:IllicitRelationship
However, considering
respondent'sblatantattemptsto deceive the
courtsandthe IBPregarding
histruerelationshipwithcomplainant,we agree
with the IBPBoard of Governorsthatthe
properpenalty inthisinstance isa three-
yearsuspensionfromthe practice of law.
359
2014CASES
(Topic)Impropriety
360
2014CASES
361
2014CASES
362
2014CASES
(Topic)seriousmisconduct
363
2014CASES
and dignityofthelegalprofessionand
refrainfrom any actoromission which
mightlessenthetrustand confidencereposed by
thepublicin thefidelity,honesty,and integrity
ofthelegalprofession.Byno
insignificantmeasure,respondentblemished
notonly hisintegrityas amemberof
theBar,butalso thatof
thelegalprofession.Inotherwords,hisconductfe
llshortof theexacting standardsexpectedof him
as aguardian of lawandjustice.Although toa
lesserextentascompared to whathasbeen
ascribed by
theIBP,theCourtstillholdsrespondentguiltyofvi
olatingRule1. 01,Canon1oftheCode.
Considering
thatthisishisfirstoffenseaswellasthepeculiarcir
cumstances of
thiscase,theCourtbelievesthatafineof
₱15,000.00 wouldsuffice
364
2014CASES
(Topic)Malpractice
365
2014CASES
interestperannumfromthe
timeof
hisreceiptofthefullamounto
fmoneyon
17November2008until
30June2013,then
6%interestperannumfrom
1July2013 untilfullypaid.
(Topic)Grossmisconductand grossviolationoftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility
366
2014CASES
(Topic)manifestpartiality,grossmisconduct,and grossignoranceofthelaw
367
2014CASES
as a
(Ponente) judgerendershimadministrativelyliable.Indeed
BERSAMIN,J.: ,nojudgecan beheld administrativelyliablefor
grossmisconduct,ignoranceofthelaw,or
incompetencein theadjudication
ofcasesunlesshisactsconstituted
fraud,dishonesty or corruption;
orwereimbuedwithmaliceor ill-will,bad faith,
ordeliberateintenttodoan
injustice.Theseexceptionsdidnotobtain
here,for,asJusticeTijamrightlyobserved,MBDC
did notadduceconvincingevidenceshowing
thatJudgeMadrona’sactswereso
grossorpatent,deliberateandmalicious; or
imbuedwithevidentbad faith;or tainted with
biasor partiality.
(Topic)illegalacts
368
2014CASES
dismissalofthecorrespondingcas
es.However,when
thepartiesrequested
forthereleaseof
thesaidmoney,Tuzonwouldfail to
timely complywith thesame.
369
2014CASES
370
2014CASES
371
2014CASES
respondent,especiallyduringMon glaring
daysand Fridays,resultingin proofthathehasbecomedisinterested
delaysinthedispositionofcasesinv toremainwith thejudicialsystem to
iolation ofexisting lawsand which hepurportstobelong.
circularson speedytrial. Finally,theOCAcorrectly
Lastly,upon assumption notedthatrespondent’sautomaticresignation
asExecutiveJudge,respondentord duetohisfiling of a COCforthe2002
eredClerkofCourtAtty.Loriatosub BarangayElectionsdid notdivesttheCourtof
mitallpetitionsforextra- itsjurisdiction indetermining
judicialforeclosurestohimforscrut hisadministrativeliability.Itiswellsettled
iny,especiallythoserequiring thatresignation should notbeused
publication uponfiling,resulting in eitherasanescapeoran easyway outtoevadean
thedelayintheproceedings. administrativeliabilityoradministrativesanction
Respondent alsoordered .Inthislight,respondent’sadministrativeliabilityf
Atty.Loriato orhisactsstands.Thetotality
askfor"greasemoney"from ofrespondent’sactswarrantstheimpositionofth
thenewspaperpublishersunderth epenalty ofdismissalfromservice.Corollary
epainof thereto,suchpenaltycarrieswith
beingblacklisted.Atty.Loria,howe itthefollowingadministrativedisabilities:
ver,neverobeyed (a)cancellationofcivilserviceeligibility;
respondentregarding thismatter. (b)forfeitureofretirementand
otherbenefits,exceptaccruedleavecredits,ifany;
(c) perpetualdisqualification from
reemploymentin anygovernmentagency or
instrumentality,including
anygovernmentownedandcontrolled
corporation
orgovernmentfinancialinstitution;and
(d)barfrom
takingthecivilserviceexaminations.BarangayEle
ctionsdid notdivesttheCourtof itsjurisdiction in
determininghisadministrativeliability.Itiswellse
ttled thatresignationshould notbeusedeither
asan escapeor an
372
2014CASES
easy way outtoevadean
administrativeliabilityoradministrativesanctio
n.In
thislight,respondent’sadministrativeliability
forhisactsstands.
(Topic)suspensionor disbarment
373
2014CASES
(CaseTitle)Sanche Act/scomplained of Legal basis/basesof SupremeCourt’sRuling Case Disposition
z failuretopay justdebtand thecharge/s In RespondentAtty.NicolasC.T
vsTorres(CaseNo. forissuing Canon 1 and Rule1.01 theinstantcase,theexistenceoftheloanobligat orresisherebySUSPENDEDfo
) checkswithoutsufficientfunds ion isundisputed. r aperiod
A.C.No.10240 In Barrientos v.Atty.Libiran-Meteoro,13 of2yearsfromthepracticeofl
(Dateofpromulgation) weheld that: aw.
Nov 25,2014 xxx[the]deliberatefailuretopayjustdebtsand However,considering
(Ponente) theissuanceof thatrespondenthasalready
PER CURIAM worthlesschecksconstitutegrossmisconduct, been
forwhich alawyermaybesanctionedwith previouslydisbarred,thispe
suspensionfrom thepracticeof nalty can
law.Lawyersareinstrumentsfortheadministratio nolongerbeimposed.
nofjusticeand vanguards ofour
legalsystem.They areexpected to maintain
notonlylegal proficiencybutalsoahigh standard
ofmorality,honesty,integrity and fairdealing
sothatthepeople’sfaith andconfidencein
thejudicialsystem isensured.They
mustatalltimesfaithfully perform theirdutiesto
society,to thebar,thecourtsand
totheirclients,which
includepromptpaymentoffinancialobligations.T
hey mustconductthemselvesina
mannerthatreflectthevaluesand
normsofthelegalprofession asembodied in
theCodeofProfessionalResponsibility
374
2014CASES
A.C. No. 4697/ A.C. No. 4728 lateron ProfessionalR an instrumentthatclearly expressestheintentof thisDecision,
(Dateofpromulgation)( claimedthattheagreementwason esponsibility thecontracting parties.A lawyerwhodraftsa withWARNINGthatasimil
Ponente) eofequitablemortgage.Responde Section63 of contractmustseetoit armisconductinthefuture
LEONARDO-DECASTRO, J ntwasalsoguiltyofdeceitor theLandRegistration thattheagreementfaithfullyand shallbedealt
fraudwhen herepresented in Act clearlyreflectstheintentionofthecontracting withmoreseverely.
the"DeedofSalewith Rightto CodeofProfessionalRe parties.Otherwise,therespectiverightsandoblig
Repurchase"datedDecember2,19 sponsibilityCANON11, ationsofthecontracting
81 thatthepropertywascovered CANON12,Rule partieswillbeuncertain,whichopensthedoorto
byTCTNo.T-662,even giving 12.03,Rule12.04 legaldisputesbetween thesaid
complainanttheowner’scopy of parties.Indeed,theuncertaintycaused
thesaidcertificateof byrespondent’spoorformulationof the"Deedof
title,whenthesaidTCThad SalewithRighttoRepurchase"was
alreadybeen cancelledon asignificantfactorin
November17,1972by thelegalcontroversybetween
TCTNo.T3211inthenameofPNB. respondentandcomplainant.Suchpoor
Respondentmademattersevenw formulation reflects attheveryleastnegatively
orse,when hehadTCTNo. T-3211 on thelegalcompetenceofrespondent.
cancelled withtheissuanceof [Having]theproclivityforfraudulentanddeceptiv
TCTNo.T- emisrepresentation,artificeor devicethatisused
7235underhisandhiswife’snameo upon
n January4,1982 anotherwhoisignorantofthetruefacts,totheprej
withoutinformingcomplainant.Th udiceand damageofthepartyimposed
iswascompounded by upon.Inorderto
respondent’ssubsequentmortgag bedeceitful,thepersonmusteitherhaveknowled
e of thepropertytoRBAI,which geof thefalsity oracted in recklessand
ledtotheacquisitionof consciousignorancethereof,especially
thepropertybyRBAIand ifthepartiesarenotonequalterms,andwasdone
thedispossessionthereofof with theintentthattheaggrieved
complainant. partyactthereon,and thelatterindeed acted
inrelianceof thefalsestatementordeed
inthemannercontemplated
tohisinjury.Theactionsof respondentin
connectionwith theexecutionof the"Deed
ofSalewithRightto
375
2014CASES
Repurchase"clearlyfallwithin
theconceptofunlawful,dishonest,and
deceitfulconduct.They violateArticle19 of
theCivilCode.Theyshowadisregard
forSection63oftheLandRegistration
Act.Theyalso reflectbad faith,dishonesty,and
deceiton
respondent’spart.Thus,respondentdeservesto
besanctioned.
Respondent’sinfractionsareaggravated
bythefactthathehasalready been imposed
adisciplinarysanction before.
(Topic)GraveAbuseof Authority
376
2014CASES
377
2014CASES
thejudiciary in general. Asheld in
JoselitoRallos,etal.,vs.JudgeIreneo
LeeGakoJr.,Branch 5RTC,Cebu City.
378
2014CASES
379
2014CASES
380
2014CASES
exchangesonwhattranspired in
thepolicestationsignificantly shed lighton
thisincidentand bolstered
Rivera’sclaimthatJudgeBlancaflorcommitted a
seriousmisconductinrelationwiththeLeron
case.
NotonlydoesitappearthatJudgeBlancaflorinte
rvened in theassignmentoftheLeroncase,he
alsohad a hand inensuring whowould
representthedisputants,bysuggesting,in
thepresenceof
andwiththeactiveparticipationof
Villamar,thatthelawyersfortheparties would
beAtty.Pilaresfor theplaintiffsand
Atty.David)forthedefendants.Heeven wentto
theextentofvoicingouthowthecaseshould
turn out.
JudgeBlancaflor’sinterferencein
thecaseinthewayjustdescribed
isnotonlygrossmisconduct; italsoconstitutes
aviolation of
R.A. No. 3019,theAnti-Graftand
CorruptPracticesAct,particularlySection
3(e)whichprovides:"Inaddition to acts
oromissionsofpublicofficers alreadypenalized
byexistinglaw,thefollowingshallconstitutecorr
uptpracticesofanypublicofficerand
areherebydeclared tobeunlawful:
xxxCausinganyundueinjuryto
anyparty,including theGovernment,or giving
any privateparty anyunwarranted
benefits,advantageorpreferencein
thedischargeof
hisofficialadministrativeorjudicialfunctionsthr
ough
381
2014CASES
manifestpartiality,evidentbad faith
orgrossinexcusablenegligencexxx."
JusticeFernando
stressedthatJudgeBlancaflordid
notcategoricallydenytheallegationsofan
illicitrelationship
withVillamar.Thus,hewasstilla marriedman
atthetimeof hisliaisonwithVillamar.
Formaintaining a relationship with
Villamar,JudgeBlancaflorcrossed thelineof a
properand acceptableconductasa
magistrateand aprivateperson.In
Re:ComplaintofMrs.
RotillaA.Marcosand herchildren
againstJudgeFerdinand J.Marcos,56 wesaid:
"xxxTheCodeof
JudicialEthicsmandatesthattheconductof
ajudgemustbefreeof awhiffofimpropriety
notonlywith
respecttohisperformanceofhisofficialduties,but
alsotohisbehavioroutsidehissalaand as a
privateindividual. Thereisnodichotomy
ofmorality:a publicofficialisalsojudged
byhisprivatemorals.Thecodedictatesthata
judge,inordertopromotepublicconfidenceinthe
integrityand impartiality
ofthejudiciary,mustbehavewith proprietyat
alltimes. xxx."
382
2014CASES
Daging vsDavis formisuseof Rule15.03 of Canon professionalmisconduct,actascounselforapers SUSPENDEDfromthepractic
(CaseNo.) informationobtained 15of onwhoseinterestconflictswith eof lawfor a periodof
A.C. No. 9395 fromhisclientto theCodeofProfessional thatofhispresentor 6monthseffectiveuponrece
(Dateofpromulgation) thedisadvantageofthelatterand Responsibility formerclient."Theprohibitionagainstrepresenti iptofthisResolution.
Nov.12.2014 totheadvantageof ng conflicting interestsisabsoluteand Heiswarned
(Ponente) anotherperson theruleapplieseven ifthelawyerhasacted in thatacommissionofthesame
DEL CASTILLO, J goodfaith and with nointentionto orsimilaroffenseinthefuture
representconflicting willresultin theimpositionof
interests.InQuiambaov.Atty.Bamba,thisCourte a stifferpenalty.
mphasizedthatlawyersareexpectednotonly to
keepinviolatetheclient'sconfidence,butalso to
avoid theappearanceof treacheryand double-
dealing foronlythencan litigantsbeencouraged
to entrusttheirsecretsto
theirlawyers,whichisof
paramountimportanceintheadministration
ofjustice.
(Topic)GrossMisconduct,GrossPartiality,ActsUnbecoming aMemberoftheJudiciciary,Violationof theCodeof JudicialConduct,and ConductUnbecoming a CourtPersonnel
383
2014CASES
384
2014CASES
Thus,allemployeesarerequired to
preservetheJudiciary'sgood name and
standing as atruetempleofjustice. Forsuch
improperremarks,therespondentsand
theircourtpersonnelareadmonished.
(Topic)reinstated as amemberofthePhilippineBar
385
2014CASES
to establish by clearandconvincing
evidencethatheisagain worthyofmembership
inthelegalprofession.Wethusentertain
seriousdoubtsthattherespondenthad
completelyreformed.
(Topic)ethicalimpropriety
386
2014CASES
Complainant'scasewasdism notconfined to
issed.Nothaving one'sbehaviorexhibitedinconnectionwith
beennotified theperformanceofthelawyer'sprofessionalduti
byrespondent. es,butalsocoversanymisconductwhich,albeitu
On February nrelated totheactualpracticeof
2,2011,complainantdecidedtoter hisprofession,would
minatetheservicesofrespondenta showhimtobeunfitfortheofficeand unworthy
shercounselandwrotehima oftheprivilegeswhich hislicenseand
letterof termination thelawvesthim
Subsequently,complainantwrote with.Unfortunately,respondentmustbefound
torespondent,requestinghimtop guilty ofmisconducton bothscores.
ay hertheamountshereceived Therepresentationof conflicting
fromherlessthecontractfeeand interestsisprohibited
theactualcostof thefiling "notonlybecausetherelationofattorneyandclie
fees.Respondentneverreplied. ntisoneoftrustandconfidenceofthehighestdegr
ee,but alsobecauseof
theprinciplesofpublicpolicy andgoodtaste.An
attorneyhasthedutytodeservethefullestconfide
nceofhisclientandrepresenthim with undivided
loyalty.Oncethisconfidenceisabusedorviolatedt
heentireprofession suffers."
(Topic)violationsoftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility(CPR)
387
2014CASES
388
2014CASES
TheCourtholdsthattheevidenceon recordfails
to demonstratethe
claimsofcomplainant.Asdiscussed,thecomplai
nantfailed to establish
theprofessionalrelationship between her and
Atty.Francisco.
Therecordsarefurtherbereftof anyindication
thatthe"advice"regarding thesaleof
theForbespropertywasgiven toAtty.
Franciscoinconfidence.Neitherwasthereademo
nstrationof whatshehadcommunicated
toAtty.Francisconor arecitalof
circumstancesunderwhich
theconfidentialcommunicationwasrelayed.Allt
hatcomplaintalleged in
hercomplainantwasthat"shesoughtlegaladvice
from
respondentinvariousoccasions."Considering
thatcomplainantfailedto attend
thehearingsattheIBP,therewasnotestimonyast
o thespecificconfidentialinformation
allegedlydivulged
byAtty.Franciscowithoutherconsent.Itis,theref
ore,difficult,ifnotimpossible,todetermineifther
ewasanyviolationoftheruleon
privilegedcommunication.Asheld
inMercado,suchconfidentialinformation isa
cruciallinkinestablishing a breach of theruleon
privilegedcommunication between
attorneyandclient.
Itisnotenough to merely asserttheattorney-
clientprivilege.30Itcannotbegainsaid
thenthatcomplainant, whohastheburden
ofproving thattheprivilegeapplies,failed in this
389
2014CASES
regard.
(Topic)Refusaltoreturnmoney ofclient
390
2014CASES
amountclaimed bythelawyer . .
.thelawyershould notarbitrarilyapply
thefundsin hispossession to thepaymentof
hisfees.... "
(Topic)alleged fraud,deceit,malpractice,and grossmisconduct
391
2014CASES
anchoredon
speculationandconjectureandnotin
anywaysupported
byclearsubstantialevidencerequiredto justify
theimpositionofan administrativepenalty on a
memberof theBar.
(Topic)negligencein theperformanceofhisnotarialduty
392
2014CASES
Byleaving hisofficeopen despitehisabsencein
thecountry and with
hissecretaryincharge,hevirtuallyallowed
hissecretary tonotarizedocuments
withoutanyrestraint.
Respondent alsoviolated hisobligation
underCanon
7oftheCPR,whichdirectseverylawyertouphold
atalltimestheintegrityanddignityofthelegalpro
fession.Thepeoplewhocameintohisofficewhile
hewasaway,werecluelessasto theillegalityof
theactivitybeing
conductedtherein.Theyexpected
thattheirdocumentswould
beconvertedintopublicdocuments.Instead,the
y
laterfoundoutthatthenotarizationoftheirdocu
mentswas amereshamandwithoutany
forceandeffect.Byprejudicing
thepersonswhosedocumentswerenotarizedby
anunauthorized person,theirfaith in
theintegrityand dignity of
thelegalprofessionwaseroded.
(Topic)violating theCodeofProfessionalResponsibility(CPR)and thelawyer'soath for neglectingtheinterestsof hisclient
393
2014CASES
394
2015CASES
449.Topic: Administrativecomplaintfordisbarmentandgrossnegligence.
450.Topic:Notarizingdocumentswithout a commission.
395
2015CASES
396
2015CASES
451.Topic: Deceitandgrossmisconduct.
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION
Dr. Villahermosa,
Sr.Vs. Atty. Caracol OCTNo.433 wasa Violation Lawyersmust bemindfulthatanattorney hasno The RulesofCourtunderRule
homesteadpatentgrantedtoMicaelBabela ofoathunderRule powertoactascounselfor a 138, Section21providesfor a
CASE NO.: whohadtwosons, FernandoandEfren. When the sofCourt: personwithoutbeingretainednormay he presumptionof
AC No 7325 agrarianreformlaw appearincourtwithoutbeing employedunlessby alawyer’sappearance on
wasenacted,emancipationpatentsandtitleswere issued leaveof court. Ifanattorney appearson a behalfof hisclient.
DATE toHermogena Section27,Rule client’sbehalfwithout a retaineror the Atty. Caracolknew
OFPROMULGATI andDaniloNipotnipot,beneficiariesofthe program, 138 requisiteauthority neitherthe litigantwhom he thatEfrenhadalready passed
ON:Jan. 21, 2015 whointurnsold the parcelsof purportsto representnorthe adverseparty may away atthetime he filedthe
landtocomplainant’sspouse,Raymunda Villahermosa. beboundoraffectedby hisappearance MotionforIssuance of
PONENTE: TheDepartmentof unlessthepurportedclientratifiesor is estoppedto SecondAliasWritof
JusticeMartin AgrarianReformAdjudicationBoard(DARAB)issued a denyhisassumedauthority.Ifa lawyercorruptly ExecutionandDemolition.Asa
Villarama Jr. decisionorderingthe cancellationof the orwillfully appearsasanattorney for a partyto nhonest,
emancipationpatentsandTCTsderivedfromOCTNo.4 acase withoutauthority, hemaybe disciplinedor prudentandconscientiouslawye
33 stating thatit wasnot punishedfor contemptasanofficerof r, heshouldhave informed
coveredbytheagrarianreformlaw.Thisdecisionwasappe thecourtwhohasmisbehavedinhisofficialtransact theCourtofhisclient’spassingan
aled toandaffirmed bytheDARABCentralBoard and ion. dpresentedauthority thathe
theCourtofAppeals. Atty. Caracol, as“Add’l wasretained by the
Counselfor the Plaintiffs-Movant,” filed a client’ssuccessors-in-
motionforexecutionwith theDARAB,Malaybalay, interestandthusthe partiesmay
Bukidnonpraying for the fullimplementationof the have beensubstituted.
decision. Atty. Caracolwasfoundguiltyof
Atty. Caracolfiled a MotionforIssuance of deceit,
SecondAliasWritofExecutionandDemolitionwhich grossmisconductandviolationo
hesignedas“Counsel forthe foathunderSection27, Rule
PlaintiffEfrenBabela.”Villahermosafiledthiscomplain 138of theRulesofCourt.
talleging thatAtty.Caracolhad no authority tofile the Consequently,he
motionssince heobtained no authority fromthe wassuspendedfrom
plaintiffsandthecounsel ofrecord. Villahermosa thepractice of law for one
positedthatEfrencould not have authorizedAtty. year.
Caracol to file thesecondmotionbecause
Efrenhadalready beendeadfor more than a year. He
claimedthatAtty.
397
2015CASES
Caracol’sreal clientwasa certainErnestoI.
Aguirre,whohadallegedly boughtthesame parcel of
land.
Atty.
CaracolinsiststhatEfrenandErnestoauthorizedhimto
appearas “additional counsel”.He saidthathe
hadconsultedAtty.
Aquinowhoadvisedhimtogoaheadwith the
filing.Moreover,he statedthat he wasnotaware
thatthere wasawaiver of
rightsexecutedinErnestoAguirre’sfavor.
In itsReportandRecommendation, theIntegratedBar
of the PhilippinesCommission
onBarDiscipline(IBPCBD)foundthatAtty.Caracolcom
mitteddeceitfulactsandmisconduct.
452.Topic: Deceitfulandfalseconduct.
398
2015CASES
listing himasastockholder,Chairman ofthe andhasperformedhisdutyasanofficerofthecourti
BoardandPresidentofLCIwhenshe knew that he naccordancewithhisoath.”Groundsforsuchadm
hasalready resignedandhadneverheldany inistrativeactionagainstalawyermaybefoundinSe
sharenorwashe electedaschairperson of the BOD ction27,22Rule138oftheRulesofCourt.Amongt
orbeenPresident ofLCI.Atty. Limpinadmitsthatshe heseare(1)theuseofanydeceit,malpractice,orothe
filedtheGIS with the SEC rgrossmisconductinsuchofficeand
listingGuarinasastockholder, the Chairmanof (2)anyviolationoftheoathwhichheisrequiredtota
theBOD andPresident ofLCI. She averredthat kebeforetheadmissiontopractice.Wethusfindtha
theGIS wasmade tinfilingaGISthatcontainedfalseinformation,Att
andsubmittedingoodfaithandthathercertificationserv y.Limpincommittedaninfractionwhichdidnotco
edtoattestto the information fromthe nformtoheroathasa lawyerinaccordwithCanon
lastBODmeeting. 1 andRule 1.01of the CPR.
453.Topic: GrossNegligenceandirresponsibility.
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION
Soliman Vs.
Atty.Lerios- Complainantclaimedthatshe engaged the servicesof
Amboy Atty. Amboy onMay 27, 2007 inconnectionwith a
partitioncase. Inaccordance with
CASE NO.: theRetainerAgreementbetween the parties,
AC No 10568 Solimanagreed to pay Atty. AmboyP50,000.00
asacceptance fee. Upon the
DATE latter’sengagement,SolimanpaidherP25,000.00.
OFPROMULGATI Later on, Atty.
ON:Jan. 13, 2015 Amboy advisedSoliman tono longerinstitute
apartitioncase since the otherco-
PONENTE: ownersoftheproperty were amenable to the
Justice partitionthereof.Instead, Atty. Amboy justfacilitated
AndresB.Reyes, the issuance ofthe titlesto the saidproperty fromthe
Jr. co-ownerstothe individual owners; the P25,000.00
already paidto
herwasthentreatedaspaymentforherprofessional
services. Later,Solimangave Atty.
399
2015CASES
Amboy P16,700.00 aspayment forthe transfertax.In
thesecondquarterof2009, Atty. Amboy
toldSolimanthatthere wasa delay in the issuance of
thetitlesto the property because of the failure
oftheotherco-ownerstosubmitcertaindocuments.
Atty.Amboy thentoldSolimanthat someonefrom
theRegister ofDeeds(RD)canhelpexpedite
theissuance of the titlesfor afeeof
P80,000.00.OnJune 17, 2009, Atty.
AmboytoldSolimanthathercontactin theRD
agreedtoreduce the amount toP50,000.00. Further,
Solimandeposited the amountof P8,900.00to Atty.
Amboy’sbank accountaspaymentfor the realproperty
tax for the year2009.Thereafter, Solimandeposited
the amount ofP50,000.00 to Atty. Amboy’sbank
accountaspaymentfor the latter’scontactin the RD.
Later,Atty. Amboy informedSolimanthat the
certificatesof title to the property werethenonly
awaiting thesignature of the authorizedofficer.
However, Atty.Amboy failed todeliver therespective
certificatesoftitle of Solimanandherco-ownersto
thesubjectproperty. However, Atty.
Amboy’ssecretaryinformedSolimanthattheircontacti
n theRD wasasking foranadditionalP10,000.00 to
facilitate therelease of the saidcertificatesoftitle.
Solimanthenrefusedto furtherpay.
Solimanthenaskedtheupdatesonthe release of
thesaidtitle butrespondentdidnot answer.
454.Topic: Grossmisconduct.
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION
Chu Vs. Atty.
GuicoJr. ChuretainedAtty. Guicoascounsel tohandle Violation oftheCode In disbarmentproceedings, the Atty.
CASE NO.: thelabordisputesinvolvinghiscompany, CVC San of Professional burdenofproofrestson the complainant to Guico'sactsconstitutedgrossdish
establish onesty anddeceit,and
400
2015CASES
401
2015CASES
except the filing cabinetsandhisdesk,
was"open to thepublic andjustanybody
hasaccessto everything foundtherein." In
ourview, therefore, Atty. Guicomade the
impliedadmissionbecause he wasfully aware
that theusedpaperhadunquestionably come
fromhisoffice.
455.Topic: Anti-GraftandCorruptPractices.
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION
Samabahu Vs. Respondentvehemently denied the charge Violation ofRe:Rule The CourtfindsthatRipdosandHerradurafailed Judge Cesar O.
JudgeUntalan ofsexualharassment.OnRipdos' claim, he presented onAdministrativePr to substantiate theirchargesagainstrespondent Untalanishereby
thefollowing documentary evidence to prove that on ocedure by the requiredquantumofproof.While itistrue EXONERATEDofthe
CASE NO.: allFridaysofApril 2011, exceptApril 22, he inSexualHarassmen thattheiraffidavitswere chargesagainsthim.Theprese
AM No.RTJ-13-2363 conductedhearingsonhisowncourt(Branch149): tCasesandGuideline repletewithdetailsdescribingtheallegedsexualadv ntadministrativecomplaintisa
sonProperWorkDe ances, suchdetailednarration by itselfwillnot ccordinglyDISMISSEDforla
DATE In thiscase, while corumintheJudiciar suffice andwillnotautomatically resultin a guilty ck ofsufficientfactual basis.
OFPROMULGATI respondentexercisedmoralascendancy y: verdict. Ripdosneverreported
ON:Feb. 25, 2015 overRipdosandHerradura, Section3of theallegedlasciviousactsbyrespondentto
hissubordinatesatBranch145where he A.M.No. 03-03- theproperauthoritiesuntiltwoyearslaterwhenthe
PONENTE: hadtemporarilypresidedasPairing Judge at thetime, 13-SC OCA teamwenttotheirbranch.
JusticeMartin theallegedsexualadvancesby respondentwere
Villarama Jr. notprovenwithmoralcertainty.We findthatthe
totalityof evidence failed to convince
thatrespondentcommittedthe actsimputedagainsthim.
402
2015CASES
dismissalforbeingbaselessor unfounded, asitmayeasily
be verifiedandmay, withoutmuchdifficulty,be
substantiated byothercompetentevidence. Whilethe
hereinletter-complaintmay be
treatedasananonymouscomplaint,theCourtmuststillpr
udentlyexamine itin thelight of allevidence presented.
456.Topic: Sexualharassment.
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION
AM No.RTJ-13-
2363,Feb. 25, 2015 Respondentvehemently denied the charge Violation The CourtfindsthatRipdosandHerradurafailed Judge Cesar O.
Samabahu Vs. ofsexualharassment.OnRipdos' claim, he presented Re:Ruleon to substantiate theirchargesagainstrespondent Untalanishereby
JudgeUntalan thefollowing documentary evidence to prove that on AdministrativeProc by the requiredquantumofproof.While itistrue EXONERATEDofthe
CASE allFridaysofApril 2011, exceptApril 22, he edure thattheiraffidavitswere chargesagainsthim.Theprese
NO.:DATE conductedhearingsonhisowncourt(Branch149): inSexualHarassmen repletewithdetailsdescribingtheallegedsexualadv ntadministrativecomplaintisa
OF tCasesandGuideline ances, suchdetailednarration by itselfwillnot ccordinglyDISMISSEDforla
PROMULGATION: In thiscase, while sonProperWorkDe suffice andwillnotautomatically resultin a guilty ck ofsufficientfactual basis.
respondentexercisedmoralascendancy corumintheJudiciar verdict.Ripdosneverreported
PONENTE: overRipdosandHerradura, y: theallegedlasciviousactsbyrespondentto
Associate hissubordinatesatBranch145where he Section3of theproperauthoritiesuntiltwoyearslaterwhenthe
JusticeMartinVillara hadtemporarilypresidedasPairing Judge at thetime, A.M.No. 03-03- OCA teamwenttotheirbranch.
ma Jr. theallegedsexualadvancesby respondentwere 13-SC
notprovenwithmoralcertainty.We findthatthe
totalityof evidence failed to convince
thatrespondentcommittedthe actsimputedagainsthim.
403
2015CASES
be substantiated byothercompetent
evidence. While the hereinletter-complaintmay
betreatedasananonymouscomplaint, the
Courtmuststillprudently examine itinthe light of all
evidencepresented.
457.Topic: Conflictofinterest
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION
Anglo Vs.
Atty.Valencia Inhiscomplaint- Violation The RespondentsAttys. Jose Ma.
affidavit,complainantallegedthatheavailedtheserviceso oftheCPRandca Courtclarifiesthatrespondents'pronouncedliabil V. Valencia, Jose Ma.
CASE NO.: fthelawfirmValenciaCioconDabaoValenciaDeLaPazD non: ity isnot altered bythefactthat the J.Ciocon, Lily Uy-Valencia,
AM NoRTJ-13-2363 ionelaPandanRubicaLawOffice(lawfirm),ofwhichAtty laborcasesagainstcomplainanthadlong Joey
s.Valencia,Ciocon,Dabao,Uy- beenterminated. Verily,the terminationof P.DeLa Paz,
DATE Valencia,DeLaPaz,Dionela,Pandan,Jr.,andRubicawere Canon15 and attorney- CrisG.Dionela,RaymundoT.
OFPROMULGATI partners,fortwo(2)consolidatedlaborcaseswherehewasi Canon21 Rule clientrelationprovidesnojustificationfor a Pandan, Jr.,Rodney K.Rubica,
ON:Feb. 25, 2015 mpleadedasrespondent.Atty.Dionela,apartnerofthelaw 15.03 lawyer torepresentaninterestadverse to or andWilfredRamonM.
firm,wasassignedtorepresentcomplainant.Thelaborcas inconflictwiththatofthe formerclient.The Penalosaare foundGUILTY
PONENTE: eswereterminatedonJune5,2008upon the agreement client'sconfidence oncereposedshould notbe ofrepresenting
Associate ofbothparties divested by conflictinginterestsinviolationo
JusticeEstela Perlas- OnSeptember18,2009,acriminalcaseorqualifiedtheftwa mereexpirationofprofessionalemployment. f Rule15.03, Canon15
Bernabe sfiledagainstcomplainantandhiswifebyFEVEFarmsAg andCanon21 of the Codeof
riculturalCorporation(FEVEFarms)actingthroughacer ProfessionalResponsibility
tainMichaelVillacorta(Villacorta).Villacorta,however,w andaretherefore
asrepresentedbythelawfirm,thesamelawofficewhichha REPRIMANDEDforsaidviola
ndledcomplainant’slaborcases.Aggrieved,complainant tions,
filedthisdisbarmentcaseagainstrespondents,allegingtha withaSTERNWARNINGthat
ttheyviolatedRule15.03,Canon15andCanon21 of the arepetitionof the
CPR. sameorsimilarinfractionwould
bedealtwithmore
severely.Meanwhile, the case
againstAtty.
PhilipDabaoisDISMISSEDinv
iew ofhisdeath.
404
2015CASES
458.Topic: Petitionforcertiorari.
405
2015CASES
ithadsubmittedto the RTCitsReporttogetherwitha
copy of the ArbitralAward. In
anOrderdatedMarch30, 2011, the RTC merely
notedpetitioner’saforesaidmotionsTheRTCconfirme
dthe ArbitralAward. Fromthisorder,
petitionerdidnotfile amotionforreconsideration.Thus,
onJune 15, 2011,respondentmovedfor the issuance
of a writ ofexecution, to
whichnocomment/oppositionwasfiled by
petitionerdespite the RTC’sdirectivetherefor.
InanOrderdatedSeptember12, 2011,theRTC
grantedrespondent’smotion.
459.Topic: Gravemisconduct.
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION
Nate Vs.
JudgeContrera RespondentContrerasallegedly Violation The Court has, inthe past, sanctioned WHEREFORE,
s notarizedanadministrative complaintthatwasprepared ofAdministrative judgesandclerksof courtfornotarizing– respondentJudge Lelu
by herownfatherandfiledwiththisCourtsometime Code of 1987 asexofficionotariespublic – P.ContrerasisfoundLIABLE
CASE NO.: inJune inrelationto documentsthatwerelaterfoundto be fortheunauthorizednotarizati
AM No.RTJ-15-2406 2003.5 ComplainantNatestressesthatrespondentcould the2002 unconnectedwith the exerciseof theirofficial onofdocumentsunrelatedto
not have legally notarized a document. RevisedManualfo functionsandduties.In Astorga heroffice dutieswhile she
DATE HepointsoutthatSection3,Rule 4of the rClerksof Court. v. Salas, the Courtfined a clerk of wasserving asClerkof
OFPROMULGATI 2004RulesofNotarial Practice courtintheamountof₱5,000fornotarizing CourtVIof theRegionalTrial
ON:Feb. 18, 2015 disqualifiesnotariesfromperforming a notarialactifthey severaldocumentsandadministering CourtinIriga City. She
are related to theprincipal withinthe fourthcivil degree oathsinvolvingmattersunrelatedtoherofficial isherebyREPRIMANDED,
PONENTE: ofconsanguinity oraffinity. Furthermore, duties. In Cruz with a
ChiefJustice hearguesthatrespondentactedbeyondherauthority v. Centron,we imposed a fine on the clerk WARNINGthat a
Ma.LourdesSere whenshenotarizedinIriga City a ofcourtwhonotarizedone document – a deed repetitionof thesameor
no documentthatwassignedinthe MunicipalityofBuhi, ofsale – butthe fine wasin theloweramountof asimilaractinthe future will be
whichwasoutside thatcity.We note ₱2,000, since the actwasherfirstoffense. All of dealtwithmore severely.
thatcomplainantwasthe subject oftheadministrative themwere given a sternwarning that
complaintfiled by respondent’sfather. arepetitionof the sameor a similaroffensewould
be dealtwith bythe
Courtmoreseverely.Considering,however,
ComplainantNate claimsthatrespondentcertified thatthe documentsnotarized by
adocumentasatrue copy ofthe original, andthather respondentContrerasdo notinvolve a private
orcommercial undertaking,
406
2015CASES
sister-in-law later on usedthe certifieddocumentin andthatthisisthe firsttimethat
alaborcase thenpending withthe shehasbeencharged, we agree with the
NationalLaborRelationsCommissioninNaga City.6 recommendationofthe OCA thatthe penalty
He points outthatrespondent, asanex officionotary ofreprimand, insteadof a fine, ismore
public, wasempowered to authenticateonly those appropriate under thecircumstances.
documentsthatwere inhercustody. Sincethe document
– anamendedlaborcomplaint –wasnot a
documentpending before theRTC–Iriga City,
respondentallegedly wentbeyondherauthority when
sheauthenticatedit.
Purportedly
withoutthisCourt’spriorwrittenauthority,respondentCo
ntrerasappearedasherfather’scounselbeforethe
CommissiononBarDiscipline of theIBP.7
ComplainantNate
allegesthatrespondentherselfadmittedduring
theproceedingsbefore the IBPthatshe hadnot
yetobtained a writtenauthority.
460.Topic: Disciplinaryaction.
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION
Bernardino Vs.
Atty.Santos ComplainantRobertoC. Bernardinofiled a Letter- Violation The Courtemphasizesthatthe practice of Atty. VictorRey
ComplaintagainstAtty. Victor Rey oftheCode lawisimbuedwithpublic interestandthat"a Santosfoundguilty of
CASE NO.: SantosbeforetheIntegratedBar of thePhilippines, ofProfessionalRes lawyerowessubstantial dutiesnotonly to violatingCanon15, Rule
AC No. 10583 praying thatAtty.Santosbe investigatedandsubjected to ponsibility hisclient,butalsoto hisbrethreninthe profession, 15.03 and
disciplinaryaction. Bernardinoallegedthat the andCanon: to thecourts, and tothe nation, andtakespartin Canon10, Rule 10.01 of
DATE deathcertificate ofhisaunt,Rufina de CastroTurla, oneof the mostimportantfunctionsof the theCode of
OFPROMULGATI wasfalsified by Atty.Santos. Atty. Santosmade State—the administration of justice— ProfessionalResponsibility.Th
ON:Feb. 18, 2015 itappearthatRufinaTurladiedin1992, wheninfact, she Canon10,Rule asanofficerofthe court." Accordingly, e findingsof
diedin1990. 10.01 "lawyersare bound tomaintain factandrecommendationsof
PONENTE: Canon15,Rul theBoardof Governorsof
Associate Justice He allegedthatAtty. Santosused e 15 .03 theIntegratedBarof
thefalsifieddeathcertificate tosupportthe Affidavit of thePhilippinesdatedMay
Self-Adjudicationexecuted by MarianoTurla, husband 10,2013 andMarch22, 2014
of are ACCEPTEDand
407
2015CASES
Marvic Leonen RufinaTurla, whichstates:Being hersurvivingspouse, ADOPTEDwiththeMODI
Iamthesole legalheirentitledtosucceed toandinheritthe FICATIONthatthepenalty
estate of saiddeceasedwhodidnotleave any descendant of suspensionfromthe
or anyotherheirentitledto herestate. practice of law forone
(1)yearisimposeduponAtty.
Asregardsthe issueon conflict of interest, VictorRey Santos.
Atty.Santosarguedthat he Heiswarnedthat a repetition
didnotrepresentandwasnotrepresenting conflicting ofthesameorsimilaractshallbe
interestssince MarianoTurlawasalready dead. Further, dealtwithmore severely.
“he [was]representingMariluTurla againstthose
whoha[d]aninterestinherfather’sestate.”MarianoTurla’s
Affidavitof Self-adjudicationneverstatedthatthere
wasno otherlegalheirbutonly “thatMarianoTurla
wasthe sole heirofRufinaTurla.” Atty.
Santosinsistedthathe
didnotcommitforumshoppingbecause the
variouscasesfiledhaddifferentissues. Asto the
conversion offunds, Atty. Santosexplainedthat
thefundsusedwere being held by hisclientasthe
specialadministratrix of the estate ofMarianoTurla.
According to Atty. Santos, payment of
attorney’sfeesout ofthe estate’sfundscould be
consideredas“expensesofadministration.”
461.Topic: Grossignoranceofthelawandgrossinefficiency.
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION
Sin Vs.
JudgeMange On April 9, 2013, complainantChua Keng Section18 ofthe1991 The Courtwiththe Office of the Judge
nte Sinexecuted a Complaint- RevisedRuleson CourtAdministrator’sfindingthatthe JobM.Mangente,Presiding
AffidavitstatingthatrespondentJudge SummaryProcedure, Complaintagainstrespondentismeritorious. Judge of Branch54of
CASE NO.: JobM.Mangente’sviolationof andRule37, Section Uponthoroughevaluationof the parties’ theMetropolitanTrialCourt,
AM No.MTJ-15-1851 theLocalGovernmentCode’sprovisionson 4oftheRevisedRules respectivearguments,the Office NavotasCity, isguiltyof
KatarungangPambarangay, Section18of the 1991 ofCourt oftheCourtAdministratorfoundthatrespondents grossignorance of
DATE RevisedRulesonSummary Procedure, andRule 37, hould beheldadministratively liable thelawandishereby
OFPROMULGATI Section 4oftheRevisedRulesof Courtdeniedhim forgrossignorance SUSPENDEDFROMSERVI
ON:Feb. 11, 2015 ofhisrightto thespeedy CE FOR SIX
dispositionofhiscase.Complainantasserts (6)MONTHS,
withawarning that a
repetitionof
408
2015CASES
that the lawsandrulesthatrespondentfailed to applyare of the law anddelay. thesameorsimilaractshallbe
PONENTE: so basic Due to theproceduralcarelessnessexhibited dealtwithmore severely.
Associate andelementary,theirviolationconstitutedgrossignoranc byrespondentinCriminalCaseNo. 10-
JusticeMarvic eof the law andgrossinefficiency. 13570,thepenalty imposedshould be increased
Leonen tosuspension ofsix (6)months.
462.Topic: GrossNegligenceandbreachofduty.
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION
Anudon Vs.
Atty.Cefra Complainants Jimmy AnudonandJuanita Anudonare Violation The thusfindthatthe penalty Atty. Arturo B.
brother-andsister-in-law. Complainants, oftheRulesofCourt: recommendedagainstAtty. Cefrashouldbe CefraGUILTY ofnotarizing
CASE NO.: alongwithJimmy’sbrothersandsister, co-own a Rule 138,Section modifiedtotakeintoaccountallhisactsofmiscon theDeed of Absolute Sale
AC No. 5482 4,446square meterparcel of 27,paragraph 1 duct. datedAugust12, 1998
landlocatedinSison,Pangasinan. Atty. Cefra notarized a intheabsence of the affiants,
DATE Deed of AbsoluteSale over a landowned by the aswell asfailure to comply
OFPROMULGATI complainants.Thenamesofpetitionersappearedasvendo withanorderfromthiscourt.
ON:Feb. 10, 2015 rs, while thename of CelinoParan, Jr. appearedasthe Accordingly,
vendee.Thecomplainantsclaimedthatthe Deed of thiscourtSUSPENDShimf
PONENTE: Absolute Salewasfalsified.They allegedthatthey did romthepractice of law
Associate notsignitbefore Atty. Cefra. fortwo(2)years,
JusticeMarvic TheNationalBureauofInvestigation’sQuestionedDocu REVOKEShisincumbentn
Leonen mentsDivisioncertifiedthatJimmy otarialcommission, ifany,
andJuanita’ssignatureswereforged.Thiswascontrary andPERPETUALLY
toAtty. Cefra’sacknowledgmentoverthe DISQUALIFIEShimfrombe
document.Moreover, itwasphysically impossible ing commissionedasanotary
forJimmy’sbrothersandsister tohave signedthe public.RespondentisalsoSTE
documentbecause they weresomewhere else RNLY WARNED
atthattime.Due to theforgery oftheDeed of Absolute thatmore severe penaltieswill
Sale, theAssistantProsecutor, withJimmy andJuanita be
aswitness, filed a case offalsificationof public imposedforanyfurtherbreach
documentagainstAtty. CefraandParan. of the Canonsin the Code
ofProfessionalResponsibility.
409
2015CASES
463.Topic: Gravemisconduct.
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION
TormisVs.
JudgeParedes JillchargedJudgeParedeswithgrave misconduct.Jillwasa Section4, Canon Yes. The Courtadoptsthe
student ofJudge ParedesinPoliticalLawReview. She 3of the New findingsandrecommendationsofJusticeDiy
CASE NO.: averredthatinhisclassdiscussions,Judge CodeofJudicial exceptastothe penalty.
AM No,RTJ-13-2366 Paredesnamedhermother, Judge ConductandSection
RosabellaTormis(JudgeTormis),thenPresiding Judge s1and2, Canon 2of
DATE ofBranch4,MunicipalTrial theCode mandates.
OFPROMULGATI CourtinCities(MTCC),CebuCity, asoneof the
ON:Feb. 4, 2015 judgesinvolvedinthe marriagescamsinCebuCity. Judge
ParedesalsomentionedinhisclassthatJudge
PONENTE: Tormiswasabusiveof herpositionasa judge,
Associate JusticeJose corrupt,andignorantof thelaw Judge
C. Mendoza ParedesfurtherstatedthatwhenJillwasstillhisstudent,she
didnotcomplainaboutor
disputehisdiscussionsinclassregarding
theadministrative liabilitiesof hermotherReplyof
theComplainantInherVerified-Reply,8
datedNovember23, 2011,
Jillcounteredthathermotherhadnothingto do withthe
filing ofthe complaint;that shewasforced toleave
herfamily inCebuCity to continueherlaw
studieselsewherebecause she couldnolongerbear the
discriminating
andjudgmentaleyesofherclassmatesbroughtabout
byJudge Paredes’
frequentdiscussionsinclassofhermother’sadministrative
casesJillclaimedthat the intention tohumiliate herfamily
wasevidentwhenJudge Paredesbrandedherbrother,
Francis, asa "drugaddict." RejoinderofJudge
ParedesInhisRejoinder, datedDecember2,2011, Judge
Paredesassertedthatitwasnot prematureto discussthe
marriage scamsinclassbecause the scandalwasalready
disclosed by Atty.
410
2015CASES
RullynGarcia andwasalsowritteninmany
legalpublications, andthatthe drug addiction
ofFranciswasknowninthe Palace ofJustice of
CebuCity.InitsReport,1 datedSeptember12, 2012,
theOffice ofthe CourtAdministrator(OCA)statedthat
theconflicting
allegationsbythepartiespresentedfactualissuesthatcoul
d notberesolvedbased ontheevidence on recordthen.
Consideringthe gravity andthe sensitive nature of the
charges, a full-blowninvestigationshould be
conducted bythe CA.
464.Topic: Betrayaloftrust,incompetence,andgrossmisconduct.
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION
Sps. Umaguing
Vs.Atty. De Vera MariecrisUmaguingthedaughterofhereinpetitionerran Violation The Court, in the caseofSamontev. Atty.Abellana TheSupremeCourtfoundAtty.
for SKChairmanlast2007 election. oftheCode (Samonte), suspended the lawyerthereinfromthe DeVeraguiltyforviolatingCan
CASE NO.: Unfortunatelysheloseby one (1)vote. The ofProfessionalRes practice of law forsix (6)monthsforfiling a on10ofCodeof Professional
AM No.RTJ-12-2366 hereinpetitionerenlistedAtty.DeVeratofacilitatetheelecti ponsibility spuriousdocumentincourt.In view ofthe Responsibilityaswellasthelawy
onprotest.HoweverAtty.DeVerafiledthecasewhenthede andCanon: antecedentsinthiscase,the er’soath.Heissuspendedtopra
DATE adlinewaslooming.Failureto Rule 10.01 Courtfindsitappropriate to imposethe same cticelawforsix (6)months.
OFPROMULGATI findLachicaandAlmira,whowastheprospectwitness.Atty Canon10 here. AccordingtotheSupremeCour
ON:Feb. 4, 2015 .DeVeralettheirrelativesignedtheiraffidavit.Hetheninclu t,alawyershallnotdofalsehood
dedtheaffidavittothecomplaintandlendingsuchdocume norconsenttothedoing of any
PONENTE: ntwastrue. incourt.
PERCURIAM
465.Topic: Homicideinvolvingmoralturpitude.
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION
Garcia Vs. Sesbreño
411
2015CASES
Garcia allegedthat he
learnedthatSesbreñowasconvicted bytheRegional Trial
CourtofCebuCity,Branch18,forHomicide
inCriminalCase No. CBU-31733. Garcia
allegedthatSesbreñoisonlyon parole.Garcia
allegedthathomicideisa crime againstmoralturpitude;
andthus, Sesbreñoshould notbe allowedto
continuehispractice of law.
In hisanswerto the
complaint,Sesbreñoallegedthathissentence
wascommutedand the phrase
“withtheinherentaccessory penaltiesprovided by law”
wasdeleted. Sesbreñoarguedthatevenif the
accessorypenalty wasnot
deleted,thedisqualificationappliesonly duringthe term
ofthe sentence. Sesbreñofurtherallegedthathomicide
doesnotinvolve moralturpitude.
SesbreñoclaimedthatGarcia’scomplaintwasmotivated
by extreme malice, badfaith, and
412
2015CASES
desire toretaliate againsthim
forrepresentingGarcia’sdaughtersincourt.
466.Topic: Grossmisconduct.
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION
Sps.
ConcepcionVs.Atty. Thisisanadministrative case thatstemmedfrom Violation The Atty. ElmerA. dela Rosa
Dela Rosa aVerifiedComplaintfiled bycomplainants oftheCode CourtconcurswiththeIBP’sfindingsexceptasto isfoundguilty of
SpousesHenry A. Concepcion(Henry)andBlesilda ofProfessionalR itsrecommendedpenalty anditsdirective to violatingCanon 7 andRule
CASE NO.: S.Concepcion(Blesilda; collectively esponsibility: returnthe amount ofP2,500,000.00, withlegal 16.04,Canon16 of the Code
AC No. 10681 complainants)againstrespondentAtty. ElmerA. dela interest, tocomplainants. ofProfessionalResponsibilit
Rosa(respondent), charging y.Accordingly, he
DATE himwithgrossmisconductforviolating, among others, Rule 16.04 isherebySUSPENDEDfro
OFPROMULGATI Rule 16.04 of the Code ofProfessionalResponsibility m thepractice of law for a
ON:Feb. 3, 2015 (CPR). Complainantsallegedthatfrom1997 periodof three
untilAugust2008,respondentservedastheirretainedlawye (3)yearseffectiveuponfinalit
PONENTE: randcounsel.In thiscapacity, respondenthandledmany y of thisDecision, with
Associate of theircasesandwasconsulted on variouslegalmatters, asternwarning that a
JusticeEstela Perlas- among others,the prospectofopeninga commissionof
Bernabe pawnshopbusinesstowardsthe end of 2005. thesameorsimilaractswill be
Saidbusiness, however, failed tomaterialize. Aware of dealtwithmoreseverely.
thefactthatcomplainants hadmoney
intactfromtheirfailedbusinessventure,respondent,
onMarch23,2006, calledHenry toborrow money.The
checkswere personally encashedby
respondent.Demandedthe returnof paymentbutfailed
to doso.RespondentdeniedborrowingP2,500,000.00
fromcomplainants, insisting thatNaultwasthe
realdebtor.18 He alsoclaimedthatcomplainants
hadbeenattempting tocollectfromNaultandthathe
wasengaged for thatspecificpurpose.
In fine,the Investigating Commissionerofthe
IBPconcludedthatrespondent’sactionsdegradedthei
ntegrity of the legalprofessionandclearly violated
413
2015CASES
Rule 16.04 andCanons7and16 of the
CPR.Respondent’sfailure to appearduring the
mandatoryconferencesfurthershowedhisdisrespect to
the IBP-CBD. Accordingly, the Investigating
Commissionerrecommendedthatrespondent be
disbarredandthathebe orderedto
returntheP2,500,000.00 tocomplainants,
withstipulatedinterest.
467.Topic: GrossNegligence.
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION
Ramirez Vs.
Atty.Buhayang- ComplainantReynaldoRamirez (Ramirez)engagedAtty. Violation The courtisnot withoutjurisdictionto Yes, Atty.
Margallo Margallo’sservicesaslegal counsel in a civil casefor oftheCode increasethe penaltiesimposedinorder to MercedesBuhayang-
Quieting ofTitle entitled“SpousesRoque v. ofProfessionalRes addressacurrentneedin the legalprofession.The Margallo’s(Atty.Margallo)inac
CASE NO.: Ramirez.”According toRamirez, Atty. ponsibility desireof theIntegratedBarof the tionresultedinalost appeal,
AC No. 10537 Margallocontactedhimasper a referral from andcanon: Philippinestoensure a higherethical standard terminating thecase of
afriendofRamirez’ssister. He allegedthatAtty. Canon17 and foritsmembers’conductislaudable.The herclientnoton
DATE Margallohadofferedherlegalservicesonthe Canon18,Rules negligenceof themeritsbutdueto
OFPROMULGATI conditionthatshebegiven30% ofthe landsubject of the 18.03 and18.04 respondentAtty.Margallocoupledwithherlack of hernegligence. She made
ON:Feb. 3, 2015 controversyinsteadofattorney’sfees. candorisreprehensible. itappearthat the case
ItwasalsoagreeduponthatRamirez wouldpay Atty. wasdismissedon
PONENTE: MargalloP1,000.00 percourtappearance. themeritswhen, intruth, she
Associate On October19, 2006, the Regional Trial failed tofile the
JusticeMarvic Courtpromulgated aDecisionadverse toRamirez. Appellant’sBriefontime. She
Leonen Atty.Margalloadvisedhimtoappeal the judgment. didnotdischargeherdutiesof
Shecommittedto file the Appealbefore the candor toherclient.
CourtofAppeals. The Appealwasperfectedandthe RespondentAtty.
recordswere sent to the Court ofAppealssometime Margallowasunjustifiably
in2008.On December5, remissinherdutiesaslegal
2008,theCourtofAppealsdirectedRamirez tofile counsel toRamirez.The lack
hisAppellant’sBrief.Ramirez notifiedAtty. Margallo, ofcommunicationandcoordi
whorepliedthat she wouldhave oneprepared. nationbetweenrespondentAt
On January 8, 2009,Ramirez contactedAtty. ty. Margallo
Margalloto followup onthe Appellant’sBrief. Atty.
Margallo
414
2015CASES
informedhimthat he needed to meether andherclientwaspalpablebut
tosignthedocumentsnecessary for thebrief. wasnotdue tothe lackof
Onseveraloccasions,Ramirezfollowedup on the diligence
statusof thebrief, but he wastoldthatthere wasstillno ofherclient.Thiscost
wordfromthe Court of Appeals. complainantRamirez
On August26, 2009, Atty.MargalloinformedRamirez hisentire case andlefthimwith
thathisAppealhadbeendenied. She toldhimthatthe no
Courtof Appeals’ denialwasdue toRamirez’sfailure appellateremedies.Hislegalca
toestablishhisfiliationwithhisallegedfather, usewasorphanednot because
whichwasthe basisofhisclaim. acourtoflaw ruled
Shealsoinformedhimthattheycould no longerappeal onthemeritsof hiscase,
tothiscourtsince the Decisionof the butbecause
CourtofAppealshadbeenpromulgatedandthe apersonprivilegedto
reglementary periodforfiling anAppealhadalready actascounselfailed
lapsed. Ramirez wentto the Court ofAppeals.There, he todischarge herdutieswith
discoveredthat theAppellant’sBriefwasfiledonApril 13, therequisite
2009 with diligence.Herassumptionthat
aMotionforReconsiderationandApologiesforfilingbeyo complainantRamirez
nd the reglementary period. wasnolongerinterested.
468.Topic: GrossNegligence.
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION
AndresVs.
Atty.Nambi The respondentsin the laborcase, namely Violation The The PetitionforReview
theSpousesMercado,doing businessunderthe name oftheCode CourtreprimandsrespondentAtty.SalimatharV. isDENIED.The
CASE NO.: andstyle ofM.A. MercadoConstruction, ofProfessionalRes Nambiforobstinately andunjustifiably refusing RecommendationsandResol
AC No. 7158 interposedanappeal whichwasdismissedforfailure ponsibility toobey lawful ordersofthe Courtandthe utionof theBoard
topostanappeal bond. Thus, anAlias Writ of andcanon: IntegratedBar of thePhilippines, with a warning ofGovernorsof the
DATE Executionwasissuedto implement theDecision. Canon17 and that a repetitionofthesameorsimilaract IntegratedBar of the
OFPROMULGATI Thereafter, the complainants in the laborcase Canon18,Rules oroffense shall be dealtwith moreseverely. PhilippinesdatedMarch21,
ON: filedanEx Parte Motionfor Amendment of 18.03 and18.04 2014
March9, 2015 anAliasWritofExecution. They claimedthatthey isACCEPTED,
couldhardlycollect the judgmentawardfromM.A. ADOPTEDANDAFFIRME
PONENTE: MercadoConstructionbecause itallegedly D.Atty.
Associate transferreditsassetsto M.A.BlocksWork,Inc. They MercedesBuhayang-
JusticeMarianoC. del thusprayedthatthe Margallois
Castillo hereby
SUSPENDEDfromthe
practice of law fortwo
(2)years, witha stern
415
2015CASES
AliasWritofExecution be amended to warning that a
includeM.A.BlocksWork, Inc. andall repetitionofthesameorsimila
itsincorporators/stockholdersasadditionalentity/pers ractshallbe dealtwithmore
onalitiesagainstwhich the writofexecutionshall be severely.Thisdecisionisimme
enforced. diatelyexecuted.
In anOrderdatedFebruary10, 2006,
respondentgranted the motionto amend the
aliaswritofexecution. Accordingly, onFebruary 17,
2006 anAmendedAliasWritof
Executionwasissuedtoenforce themonetary
judgmentamounting toP19,527,623.55
againstM.A.BlocksWork,Inc. andallitsincorporators.
By way of specialappearance, M.A. BlocksWork,Inc.,
togetherwiththree ofitsstockholderswhoarethe
complainantsinthisadministrative case, namelyYolanda
A. Andres,MinetteA.
MercadoandElitoP.Andres,filedanUrgentMotion to
Quash8 theAmendedAliasWritof Execution,
contending thatthey are not bound bythe
judgmentasthey were notpartiesto the laborcase.
InanOrderdatedMarch13,2006, however,
respondentdenied the UrgentMotionto Quash.
Aggrieved, hereincomplainantsfiled the
instantComplaintforDisbarment,whichwe referredto
theIBP onMarch4,
2007forinvestigation,reportandrecommendation.
469.Topic: Grossimmorality.
416
2015CASES
CASE NO.: Catindig toldDr. Perez thathe wasin the ProfessionalRespo to provethe recommendationsof
AC No. 5816 processofobtaining a divorce in a foreigncountryto nsibility claimedamorousrelationshipbetween the theCommissionon
dissolvehismarriage to Gomez, andthat he andcanon: respondents. Asitis, the BarDiscipline of
DATE wouldeventuallymarry heronce the Rule 1.01,Canon7 evidencethatwaspresentedbyDr.Perez to theIntegratedBar of the
OFPROMULGATI divorcehadbeendecreed. Rule 7.03 proveherclaimwasmere allegation, Philippines. Atty.TristanA.
ON: Consequently,sometime in1984, Atty. Catindig ananonymousletterinforming herthatthe Catindig isfoundGUILTY
March10, 2015 andGomez obtained a divorce decree respondentswere indeedhaving anaffairandthe of grossimmorality andof
fromtheDominicanRepublic. purportedlove lettertoAtty. violatingthe
PONENTE: Sometime in2001,Dr.Perez allegedthat she Baydothatwassignedby Atty. Catindig. Lawyer’sOathandRule
PERCURIAM receivedananonymousletterin themailinforming her 1.01, Canon 7 andRule
ofAtty. The Courthasconsistently heldthatinsuspension 7.03of the Code
Catindig’sscandalousaffairwithAtty.Baydo,andthatsom or disbarmentproceedingsagainstlawyers, the ofProfessionalResponsibility
etime later, shecame upon a love lawyerenjoysthe presumptionofinnocence, and andis
letterwrittenandsigned by Atty. Catindig for Atty. the burdenofproofrestsuponthe complainantto hereby
BaydodatedApril 25, 2001.In thesaidletter, Atty. prove the allegationsinhiscomplaint.The DISBARREDfromthe
Catindigprofessedhisloveto Atty.Baydo, promising evidence requiredinsuspensionor practice of law.
tomarryheronce his“impedimentisremoved.” disbarmentproceedingsispreponderance
On October31, 2001, Atty. Catindig ofevidence.
abandonedDr.Perez andtheirson;he moved to
anupscalecondominiuminSalcedoVillage, MakatiCity
whereAtty. Baydowasfrequentlyseen.
Atty. Catindig, inhisComment,admittedthat
hemarriedGomez onMay 18, 1968. He
claimed,however, thatimmediately afterthe wedding,
Gomezshowedsignsthatshe wasincapable of
complyingwithhermarital obligations.Eventually,
theirirreconcilable differencesledto theirde
factoseparationin1984.
Atty. Catindig claimedthatDr. Perez knew of
theforegoing, including thefactthat the divorce
decreedbythe DominicanRepublic courtdoesnothave
anyeffectin thePhilippines.
Atty. Catindig claimedthathisrelationshipwithDr.
417
2015CASES
Perez turnedsour. Eventually, he lefttheirhome
inOctober2001to preventany acrimony
fromdeveloping.
470.Topic: Attemptedmurder.
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION
Caspe Vs. Atty.Mejica
A complaintfordisbarmentwasfiled by PO1 Violation The CourtholdthatAtty.Mejica Atty. Mejica
CASE NO.: JoseB.Caspe againstAtty. AquilinoA. Mejica for oftheCode furtherviolatedCanon11 oftheCPRwhichcallsfor furtherviolatedCanon1145 of
AC No. 10679 allegedviolation ofCode ofProfessionalR alawyer to observe andgive due the CPRwhichcallsfor a
ofProfessionalResponsibility(CPR)specificallyRules1. esponsibility: respecttocourtsandjudicial officers. lawyer toobserve andgive
DATE 03, 1.04, and10.01. due respectto
OFPROMULGATI Petitioner’sContention: Caspe alleged the controversy courtsandjudicialofficers.
ON: startedwhenAtty. Mejica disregardedconflict Rules 1.03,1.04, The Supreme Courtadopts
March10, 2015 ofinterestrules. Caspe saidthatwhenhe fileda and10.01 the findingsof
complaintforattemptedmurderagainstAntonioRodrigue theIBPbutmodify the
PONENTE: z, Jr., Atty. Mejica penaltyimposed.TheIBPCB
Associate servedasCaspe’scounsel.WhenRodriguez, Dconcludedthatthere
JusticeMartrinS. Jr.filedhiscounter-affidavit, itwasAtty. Mejica couldbeno
Villarama whocounseledandrepresentedhim. otherreasonforAtty.Mejica to
Caspe broughtseparate suitsfor file the casesagainst
damagesanddisbarment: onefor conflictof PO1Caspe otherthan to
interestandthepresentcomplaint. Atty. Mejica tried getback
to negotiate asettlement athim.TheHighCourtagreest
butCaspe refused. Atty. Mejica allegedly hattheconfluence of
thenthreatenedCaspe that“he willhelpfile circumstancespointsto Atty.
casesaftercasesagainstthe complainantuntil he Mejica’scorruptmotive
kneelsbeforehim. PO1OnofreLopeña inhelpingGaduena infiling
responded. They recovereda caliber0.357 casesagainstCaspe,
revolverwhichwasturnedovertothe Can-avidPolice inviolationofRules1.03, 1.04
station.The incidentwasrecordedin the police blotter. and10.01 ofthe CPR.
Gaduena evadedarrestwiththe help Withrespect toAtty.
ofbarangaycaptainPrudencioAgda andotherbarangay Mejica’sclaimthathewasnot
tanodswhoallegedly clobberedCaspe and took affordeddueprocess, i.e., he
hisgun.Inthe interestofpeace andharmony, the Chiefof wasnotableto receive a copy
PolicecalledandrequestedthatCaspe desistfromfiling of
acomplaintwhichinturnwas
418
2015CASES
chargesagainstthe the reasonforhimnottohave
barangaycaptainandtanods,specifically attended the
Gaduena.Caspe acceded. However,Gaduena, mandatoryconference,
withAtty.Mejica ascounsel,filed Thiscontentionisuntenable.
acomplaintforseriousslander by
deedagainstCaspe,whichwassupported bya
jointaffidavitof
twobarangay tanods. ItwasallegedthatCaspe
kicked,collaredandslappedGaduena’sface.
471.Topic: Willfuldisobedience.
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION
Feliciano Vs.
Atty.Bautista- AlvinFelicianofiledaninjunctionandTROagainstAtty.Ca Violation The Courtenbanc promulgated a Resolutionin Atty. Carmencita
Lozada rmencitaBautista– oftheRulesofCourt: A.C. No. 6656 entitled“BobieRoseV. Frias BautistaLozada
LozadainrepresentinghishusbandEdilbertoLozadainthe Rule 1.01,1.02 and vs.Atty.Carmencita Bautista Lozada” isherebyfoundguilty of
CASE NO.: latter’scaseagainstthecomplainantonJune5,2007.Felicia Rule 18.01 suspendingAtty. Lozada forviolation violatingRules
AC No. 7593 noallegedthatAtty.Bautista– Section27,Rule ofRules15.03 and 15.03 and16.04 of the
Lozadaappearedasacounselforhishusbandandactivelypa 138 16.04 of the Codeof Codeof
DATE rticipatedinthecourtproceedingswhilesheisstillsuspende ProfessionalResponsibility. ProfessionalResponsibility
OFPROMULGATI dfromthepracticeoflawinreferencetoacourtjudgmenton andofwillfully disobeying a
ON: December15,2005.Felicianoarguedthattheactoftheresp finalandexecutory decisionof
March11, 2015 ondentconstituteswillfuldisobediencetoacourtorder.Inh theCourtofAppeals. She
erreply,AttyBautista– ishereby
PONENTE: Lozadaclaimsthatshewasonlyforcedbythesituationthats SUSPENDEDfromthe
Justice heneededtodefendtherightofhishusbandwhoisembroile practice of law for
DiosdadoPeralta dinalegaldispute.Shebelievesthatsinceshe isrepresenting aperiodoftwo(2)years
hishusbandandnotaclient,itisnotwithintheprohibitionof fromnotice, with a
thelaw.Thecasewasreferred to the IBP STERNWARNINGthat a
forinvestigationandtheIBPInvestigatingOfficerrecomm repetitionof
endeddisbarmentforAtty.Bautista– thesameorsimilaractswill be
LozadainviolationofRule1.01,1.02andRule18.01oftheC dealtwithmoreseverely.
PR.TheIBP-BOG adopted the
recommendationwithmodification
419
2015CASES
to suspensionofonly 3months.
472.Topic: Deceitfulanddishonestconduct.
420
2015CASES
bearsemphasizing
thatanymisconduct on the
partofthe lawyer not
onlyhurtstheclient’scause
butisevenmore disparaging
ontheintegrity of the legal.
473.Topic: Falsifyingacourtorder.
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION
TorresVs.
Atty.Tolentino In theirsworncomplaintfordisbarmentdatedApril23, Violation The CourtDISMISSES Wellentrenchedinthisjurisdicti
CASE NO. 2009 (laterdocketedas A.C. No. 8261), oftheRulesofCourt thebaselessdisbarmentcomplaintsagainstAtty. onistherulethatalawyermaybe
AC Nos. 8261/8725 thecomplainants narratedthatasthesurviving children andcanon: FedericoS. Tolentino,Jr., Atty.RenatoG. disciplinedformisconductcom
DATE ofthe late SpousesAntonioandNemesiaTorres, Canon 7 Cunanan, Atty. Daniel F.Victoria, Jr., Atty. mittedeitherinhisprofessional
OFPROMULGATI theyinheritedupon the deathsof Section27,Rule ElbertT.Quilala andAtty. orprivatecapacity.Thetestiswh
ON: theirparentsaresidentiallotlocatedat No.251 138 ConstanteP. Caluya, Jr. etherhisconductshowshimtob
March11, 2015 BoniSerranoStreet, Murphy,Cubao, QuezonCity ewantinginmoralcharacter,ho
registeredunderTransferCertificate ofTitle (TCT)No. nesty,probity,andgooddemea
RT-64333(35652) of nor,orwhetherhisconductrend
theRegisterofDeedsofQuezonCity; that on August24, ershimunworthytocontinueas
PONENTE:
2006, they discoveredthatTCTNo.RT- anofficeroftheCourt.Verily,Ca
Associate JusticeLucas
64333(35652)hadbeenunlawfully cancelledandreplaced non7oftheCodeofProfessiona
P. Bersamin
by TCTNo.N-290546of lResponsibilitymandatesalllaw
theRegisterofDeedsofQuezonCity under the yerstoupholdatalltimesthedig
namesofRamonandJosefina Ricafort; andthat, nityandintegrityoftheLegalPro
accordingly, theyimmediately caused the fession.Lawyersaresimilarlyre
annotationoftheiraffidavitofadverse claim quiredunderRule1.01,Canon1
onTCTNo.N-290546. Itappearsthatthe ofthesameCodenottoengagei
partiesenteredintoanamicable settlementduringthe nanyunlawful,dishonestandim
pendency of CivilCaseNo. Q-07-59598 inorderto moralor deceitful
endtheirdispute, whereby the complainantsagreedto
sellthe property andtheproceedsthereofwould
beequally dividedbetweenthe parties, andthe
complaintandcounterclaimwould be
withdrawnrespectively bythe
complainants(astheplaintiffs)and the
defendants.Pursuant to thetermsofthe
421
2015CASES
amicable settlement, Atty. Victorio, Jr. filed conduct.Failuretoobservethes
aMotionto Withdraw ComplaintdatedFebruary 26, etenetsoftheCodeofProfessio
2008,which the RTC grantedinitsorderdatedMay nalResponsibilityexposesthela
16,2008 uponnoting the defendants’ lack wyertodisciplinarysanctionsas
ofobjectiontheretoandthe defendants’willingnessto providedinSection27,Rule138
similarlywithdraw theircounterclaim. oftheRulesofCourtasamende
d.
474.Topic: Seriousmisconduct.
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION
Enriquez Vs.
Atty.DeVera TeresitaEnriquezfiledacomplaintforthedisbarmentorsu Violation The Decisionwhereinthe Atty. Trina De Vera
spensionofAtty.TrinaDeVerainrelationtothelatter’sissu oftheCode trialcourtfoundTeresita civilly liable to isSUSPENDEDfrom
CASE NO.: anceofworthlesschecksandnon- ofProfessionalRes MaryJane for540,000.00, and on whichAtty. De thepractice of law for one
AC No. 8330 paymentofaloan.AccordingtoEnriquez,sheisabusiness ponsibility Vera reliesupon, isnotsufficientevidence to (1)year. Let a copy
womaninvolvedinbuildingcellsitetowers.Sheisacquainte andcanon: holdthatthere wasnoseparate ofthisResolution be
DATE dwithAtty.DeVerathroughthebusinessbysubcontractin Canon1,Rule transactionbetweenTeresita andAtty. De enteredinAtty. De
OFPROMULGATI gthecellsiteacquisitionto Atty. De Vera. 1.01,Canon 7 and Vera.The Decisioninvolved the post- Vera'spersonalrecordwiththe
ON: SometimeinApril2006,Atty.DeVeraborrowedPhp500,0 Rule 7.03 datedchecksissued byTeresita toMary Jane Office oftheBar
March16, 2015 00fromEnriquezwithinterestofPhp20,000permonthunt only.Mary Jane merelyclaimedthat she hadno Confidant,and a copy
ilfullypaid.SinceEnriquezdidnothavethefullamount,she personalknowledge ofany beserved tothe
PONENTE: waspersuadedbyAtty.DeVeratoborrowfrom transactionbetweenTeresita andAtty. DeVera. IntegratedBarof
Associate acommonfriend,MaryJaneD.Luzon,bymortgagingherpr The Investigating thePhilippinesandtheOffice
JusticeMarvic opertyinLucenaCity.Atty.DeVeraissuedapost- CommissionercorrectlypointedoutthatAtty. of the
Leonen datedcheckfor 500,000 andtwo morechecksto cover DeVera'sallegation of"lending" CourtAdministratorforcircula
the hercheckstoTeresita iscontrarytoordinary tionto all the courtsin the
interestagreedupon.InJune2006,Atty.DeVeraobtaineda humanexperience.Asa lawyer, Atty.De Vera land.
notherloanfromEnriquez’ssisterfor100,000,towhich,En ispresumedto know
riquezwastheguarantor.Anotherpost- theconsequencesofheracts. She
datedcheckwasissuedbyAtty.DeVeratoEnriquez issuedseveralpost-datedchecksfor
valuethatweredishonoreduponpresentationfor
payment.
422
2015CASES
for the saidamount.
Uponmaturityofthechecks,Enriquezpresentedthemfor
paymentbutthechecksbouncedforbeingdrawnagainstins
ufficientfunds.Whenattemptedtobeencashedasecondti
me,thechecksweredishonouredbecausetheaccountwasc
losed.Thus,EnriquezdemandedpaymentfromAtty.DeV
erabutthelatterfailedtosettleherobligations.Thisprompt
edEnriqueztofileacomplaintagainstAtty.DeVeraforviol
ationofB.P.22andestafaunderArt.315, par. 2(d)of the
RevisedPenalCode.
On the otherhand,Atty. DeVera claimsthatshe
onlyissuedsaidcheckstoguaranty
Enriquez’sloanandthey were not meantto be
deposited.
475.Topic: Unduedelayinrenderingadecision.
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION
Re:
ComplaintdatedJan. OnDecember16,2005,acomplaint3forAnnulmentandQ Violation The CourtDISMISSES forlackof IntheassailedDecision,dated
28, 2014 uietingofTitlewasfiledbeforetheRTC- ofthe1987 merittheadministrative complaintagainstJustice March13,2012,theCAdismisse
ofWenefredoParreno, Branch59bythepetitioners,namely,LeticiaNaguitAquin Constitution: Celia C.Librea-Leagogo, Justice ElihuA. Ybañez dpetitioners'appeal.Itexplaine
etal. Against o,MelvinNaguit,RommelNaguit,ElmaNaguitTayag,Yss andJustice Amy C.Lazaro-Javier dthatunderSection6,Rule16of
Hon.CeliaLibrea- elL.Naguit,RosalinaNaguitAumentado,RizelNaguitCun theRulesofCourt,acourtisallo
Leagogo, etal. anan,CaridadNaguitParajas,MillieNaguitFlorendo,Mar Section15 wedtoconductapreliminaryhe
nelNaguit,EduardoNaguit,JoseNaguit,ZoiloNaguit,and ofArticle aring,motuproprio,onthedefend
CASE NO.: AmeliaNaguitDizon,representedbyYsselL.Naguit(petitio VIII ant'saffirmative
OCA IPINo. 14-220- ners).TheyallegedthattheyweretheheirsofthelateEpifanio defenses,
CA-J MakamandSeverinaBautista,whoacquiredahouseandlot includingthegroundof"lackof
situatedinMagalang,Pampanga,consistingof557squarem causeofactionorfailuretostate
DATE eters,byvirtueofaDeedofSale,datedApril20,1894;thatsin a
OFPROMULGATI cethen,theyandtheirpredecessors-in-interesthadbeen causeofaction."10Itgavetherea
ON: sonthatbecausetherulespoke
March17, 2015
PONENTE:
Associate Justice
423
2015CASES
LucasP.Bersamin inopen,continuous,adverse,andnotoriouspossessionfor ingeneralterms,itsmanifestinte
morethanahundredyears,constructinghousesandpaying ntionwastoapplyittoallground
realestatetaxesontheproperty;thatsometimeinJune2005, sforamotiontodismissunderth
theyreceivedvariousdemandlettersfromtherespondents, eruleswhichwerepleadedasaffi
namely,CesarB.Quiazon,AmandaQuiazon,JoseB.Quiaz rmativedefensesintheresponsi
on,andReynaldoB.Quiazon,representedbyJaimeB.Quia vepleading.Thus,itheldthat
zon(respondents),claimingownershipoverthesubjectprope the trial
rtyanddemandingthattheyvacatethesame;thatuponinqui courtmightconsiderotherevid
rywiththeRegisterofDeedsofSanFernando,Pampanga,t enceasidefromtheavermentsi
heyconfirmedthattheproperty nthecomplaintindeterminingt
hadbeentitledinthenameofrespondentsunderTransferC hesufficiencyofthecauseofacti
ertificateofTitle(TCT)No.213777- on.
R;thatthesaidtitlewasinvalid,ineffective,voidableorunen
forceable;andthattheywerethetrueownersofthe
property.
476.Topic: GrossNegligence.
CASE ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION
TITLE:EDUA
RDOA.MAGL EduardoMaglente,presidentoftheSamahanngmgaMaral Violation The Thecourtaffirmedtherecomme
ENTE itangTagaMa.CorazonIII,IncengagedtheservicesofAtty. oftheCode Courtsustainsthedirectiveforrespondenttoacco ndationoftheIBPwithmodificat
vs. DelfinAgcaoilitodeterminethetrueownerofthelandoccu ofProfessionalR untfororreturn theamountofP48,000.00to iononthepenaltyimposed.Thela
ATTY. piedbytheSamahan.MaglentegaveAtty.Agcaoilitheamou esponsibility: complainant.Itiswell to note that“while wprovidesundertheCanon18an
DELFINR.AGCA ndofPhp48, theCourthaspreviouslyheldthatdisciplinary dRule18.03thatalawyershallser
OILI 000.00tocoverthefilingfees.However,Atty.Agcaoilifaile proceedingsshouldonly revolve aroundthe vehisclientwithcompetenceand
dtofileanactionincourtandclaimsthattheamountgiven Rule 16.01 determinationof therespondent- diligenceandshallnotneglectthe
CASE NO.: byMaglentewasnotenoughtofullypaythefilingfees.Magle lawyer’sadministrative andnot hiscivil liability, alegalmatterentrustedtohimand
A.C No. 10672 ntethenaskedfortherefundofthemoneybut,AttyAgcaoili itmustbe clarifiedthatthisrule hisnegligenceinconnectionther
claimedthathealreadyspentthemoneyandevendemande remainsapplicableonly to ewithshallrenderhim
DATE dmoremoney. WhenMaglente furtherinsistfor the claimedliabilitieswhichare purely civil innature
OFPROMULGATI returnof –forinstance, when the claiminvolvesmoneys
ON:
March18, 2015
PONENTE:
424
2015CASES
Notarization
CRESCENCIANOM. Failure to properly recordentriesin Rule VIthe Notarial Notarizationconvertsa private documentinto a SUSPENDED
PITOGO, Complainant, publicdocument,makingthatdocumentadmissible in fromthe practice of
law for
425
2015CASES
vs. the notarialregister Rules, Sec. 1 and 2 evidence withoutfurtherproof of three
ATTY. JOSELITOTROY itsauthenticity.Forthisreason, notariesmustobserve (3)monthsandisSTE
SUELLO,Respondent withutmostcare thebasic requirementsin the RNLY
A.C. No. performance of theirduties.Otherwise, the confidence WARNEDthatanysimil
10695March18, . of the public in the integrityof thisformof arviolationwill
2015LEONEN conveyancewould be undermined. bedealtwithmoresevere
,J.: Failure to properly recordentriesin the notarialregisterisa ly.
groundforrevocation ofnotarialcommission. Hisnotarialcommission
isimmediately
revokedifpresentlycom
WhenAtty. Suelonegligently failed to missioned.He
enterthedetailsofthe documentsonhisnotarialregister, he isDISQUALIFIEDfr
castdoubton the authenticity ofthe saiddocuments and om
onthe credibility of the notarialregisterand the beingcommissioneda
notarialprocess. He violatedthe law snotary publicforone
whichrequireslawyerstopromote respectforlaw (1)year.
andlegalprocesses. Suelloalsoappeared to have
committeda falsehoodin thepleadingshe
submitted.Initially, Suelloclaimedthat hecertified the
documentsastrue copies. Later,he passedthe blame to
hissecretary. Thisviolatesthe Code
ofProfessionalResponsibility,
whichprohibitslawyersfrom engaging
indishonestandunlawfulconduct.
The secretary cannot
beheldresponsiblefortheerroneousentriesinthe
notarialregister.The notarialcommissionisa license
heldpersonally bythe notarypublic. It cannot
Non-payment ofdebt befurtherdelegated.
ANTONINAS. Atty. Mendoza failedto Rule 1.01 ofthe Code Atty. Mendoza engagedinimproper or wrong ATTY.MANUELV.
SOSA, complywithhisobligationon due ofProfessionalResponsib conduct,asfoundunderRule 1.01, as the failure topay the MENDOZA is
Complainant,vs. datewhich he signedin ility loanwaswillful incharacterandimplied a wrongful SUSPENDEDfromthe
ATTY.MANUELV. apromissorynote having a value intentand not a mere errorinjudgment. practice of law for
MENDOZA,Respondent. ofP500,000.00. It couldhave beenvery easy for him todeliver aperiodof one
theP600,000.00 toMs. Sosa ifhe had the real intention (1)yearfor
to violationofRule
1.01 of the Code of
426
2015CASES
A.C. No. pay. In fact,Ms. Sosa wrote, throughhercounsel, ProfessionalResponsi
8776March25, Atty.Mendoza askinghim tosettle hisobligationbecause bility with
2015BRION, ofhismanifestationthathe already had the money. aSTERNWARNIN
J.: It isunclear to uswhy Atty. Mendoza G
ignoredMs.Sosa’srequestforsettlementafterclaiming that thatcommissionof
healready had the neededfunds. He waseitherlying he thesameorsimilaroffens
hadthe money, orhad nointentionofpaying inthe ein the future
firstplace. willresultin the
To reiterate, hisfailure imposition ofamore
tohonorhisjustdebtconstitutesdishonestanddeceitfulcond severe penalty.
uct. Thisdishonestconductwascompounded by
Atty.Mendoza’sactofinterjectingflimsy excusesthatonly
strengthened the conclusionthat he refusedtopay a
validandjustdebt
427
2015CASES
evidence violating
hisoathasalawyerand the CPR.
Lawyer’sneglect totheirclient’saffairsand, at thesame time, failed to returnthe latter’smoney and/orproperty despite demand.
SHIRLEY OLAYTA- Complainantengagedrespondent’sse Rule 16.01 A lawyer’sneglect of a legalmatterentrusted tohim SUSPENDEDfromthe
CAMBA, rvicesforthe andRule16.03, byhisclientconstitutesinexcusable negligence for practice of law for
Complainant,vs. purposeofreconstitutingfour(4)titles Canon16 of theCode whichhemustbe heldadministratively liable for aperiodof one
ATTY. OTILIOSY aswellaspreparing the Deed, andthat of violatingRule18.03, Canon18 of the CPR (1)month, effective
BONGON,Respondent. thelatterreceivedlegalfeesinconnecti ProfessionalResponsib uponhisreceiptof
ontherewith. Despite ility (CPR) thisResolution, with
A.C. No. this,respondentdidnot aSTERNWARNING
8826March25, performhisundertaking Furthermore, respondentalsoviolatedRules16.01 that a repetition
2015 inaccordance with and16.03, Canon16 of the CPR when he failed ofthesameorsimilaracts
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.: theengagementandlikewise failed torefundthe amountof 55,000.00that he personally willbe
toreturncomplainant’smoney receivedfrom complainantdespiterepeateddemands. dealtwithmoreseverely
despitedemands.
Verily, when a lawyerreceivesmoney fromthe clientfora
particularpurpose,the lawyerisbound
torenderanaccounting to the clientshowing that the
money wasspentforthe intendedpurpose. Consequently,
ifnotusedaccordingly, themoneymustbe
returnedimmediatelyto the client.16Assuch,
alawyer’sfailure toreturnthe money to hisclientdespite
numerousdemandsisa violationof the
trustreposedonhimandisindicative ofhislack
ofintegrity,17asinthiscase.
Irregularitiesinthe managementandoperationofCorporation.
RE: Irregularitiesinthe Section 3(d),Rule 71 of Lokinisobviously lying throughhisteethwhen Suspendedfrom
LETTEROFERLINDAILUSO managementandoperationofPhil hedeniedhaving any knowledge asregardsthe recipient of thepractice of law
RIO-BILDNER,POTC, comsat for
428
2015CASES
PHILCOMSAT,REQUES HoldingsCorporation(PHC). the Rulesof Court the P2,000,000.00 check andwhen he three
TINGINVESTIGATION Withregardto testifiedthatAndalsigned the check (3)monthsforviolating
OFCERTAINMEMBERS theP2,000,000.00check, there isa whenAndalwasinfactalreadybasedinBicol. Theirobstinate Rule 15.03ofthe Code
OFTHE JUDICIARY strong refusalto disclose thetruthisa contumaciousattitude, a ofProfessionalResponsi
probabilitythatLokinisitsrecipient. flouting orarrogantbelligerence indefiance of the bility andrepresenting
A.M. No. 07-11-14- Despitehisclaimthathe Court'sauthority anddignity. Withholding the truthin the conflictinginterests.In
SCApril 14, 2015 neitherreceivedthe check nor knew course ofjudicialproceedingsevidently tends"toimpede, thesameDecision, he
PERCURIAM any VeronicaNepomuceno, the obstruct, ordegrade the administrationofjustice." wassternly warnedthat
testimonyofCasas, Tan Willfully doing soisanaffrontto a court'sauthority arepetitionof the
andBrodettallsupportthe anddignity; itiscontumacious. sameor similaroffense
conclusionthatLokinreceived,or at shallbe
thevery least, knew whoreceived dealtwithmoreseverely.
the proceedsofthecheck It
Finding appearsthatLokinhasno
thatLokinwas"lyingthroughhistee tmendedhisways.
th" indenyingknowledge asto the
recipient ofCheck No. 309381
andthatsuchblatantlying GUILTY
was"contumaciousattitude. ofindirectcontempt
429
2015CASES
A.M. No.RTJ-12-2325 to Manila or malicious, or whena judge ignores, contradictsor
April 14, 2015 failsto apply settledlaw andjurisprudence because of
badfaith, fraud, dishonestyor corruption.
PerCuriam
The OCA
teamuncoveredseveralcriminalcaseswhereJudge
Floresfailed to resolve pending incidentswithinthe
prescribedperiod.
430
2015CASES
April 13, 2015 foremostanofficer ofthe court.Thus,while
he oweshisentire devotionto
DELCASTILLO,J.: theinterestandcausesof hisclient, he
mustensure that he actswithinthe
boundsofreasonandcommonsense,
alwaysawarethat he isaninstrument
oftruthandjustice. More importantly, as
anofficerofthe courtanditsindispensable
partnerinthe sacredtask of administering
justice,graver_responsibility
isimposedupon alawyerthanany otherto
uphold theintegrity of the courtsand
toshow respectto itsprocesses. Thus, any
act on hispartwhichtendsvisibly toobstruct,
pervertorimpede anddegrade the
administrationofjustice
constitutesprofessional misconductcalling
for the exercise
ofdisciplinaryactionagainsthim
431
2015CASES
April 15, Courtforobtaining a
2015REYES,J.: loanfromJMOTC.UnderSection8(7)ofRul
e 140 of theRulesofCourt,
borrowingmoney orproperty
fromlawyersandlitigantsin acase pending
before the courtisconsidered
aseriouschargefor which aJudge may be
administratively sanctioned
432
2015CASES
A.C. No. from "seriousmentalincompetence" enthusiasmdoesnotjustify the
10303April 22, inoneof hispleadings. According useofoffensive andabusive language.
2015BRION, toGimeno, these Languageaboundswithcountlesspossibiliti
J.: statementsconstituteintemperate, esforoneto be emphatic
offensive andabusivelanguage, which a butrespectful,convincing butnot
lawyerisproscribedfromusing derogatory, andilluminating but
inhisdealings. notoffensive
433
2015CASES
June 16,
2015PERCUR
IAM
434
2015CASES
PERCURIAM: complainantforhandling the latter'scase shouldhave disclosedthisfactat the timehe
wasapproached bythe
Not beingforthrightwiththe complainantforhisservices
complainantthat he
wasunderindefinitesuspensionfromthe
practice
Grossdishonesty/Misrepresentationto of law.
client’scause
DOMINIC PAULD. Misrepresentationcommitted CANON1,CANON7, The IBPBoard suspendedfromthe
LAZARETO, byrespondentinrelationto Rule 18.03,Rule 18.04. ofGovernorsmisappreciated the gravity practiceof law forthree
Complainant,vs. theamicablesettlementproposedby oftheCPR and the scopeof (3)yearsfrom andafternotice
ATTY. DENNIS N. respondent’slawyer, Atty. Policarpio, therespondent’sbreachofhiscontractualobli ofthisDecision
ACORDA,Respondent. where gationwithLazaretoandhisfamily.He
Atty.Policarpioassuredhimthatrespondenth hadbeennegligentincarrying outthe task
A.C. No. adalready filed the entrusted to him byLazaretoandhisfamily
9603June 16, extrajudicialsettlementpaperswiththe asfound byComm.Inocencio, a
2015PERCURI Manila Registerof Deeds. clearviolationoftheCodeof
AM: ProfessionalResponsibility.35Hehadbeengr
After thefamily gave ossly dishonestwithrespect
himhisacceptancefee tocertainactionshe claimed he
andprovidedhimwiththe hadtakeninrelation tohistask.
necessaryfundsfor the
undertaking,respondentbecame
inaccessible andunheard of
withrespecttohistask (exceptwhen he
wasasking forfunding), until
Misappropriating court-funds theagreeddeadline for the filing of
OFFICE theextrajudicialsettlementpapersexpired.
Borrowing money fromthe Rule 5.04 ofCanon 5of Courtstressesthatjudgesmustadheretothe DISMISSALfromthes
OFTHECOURTADMINIST variousfundsof the courtcollections. theCode of Judicial highesttenetsof judicial ervice
RATION,Comp Conductstates conduct.11Because ofthe sensitivityof
lainant, Undue delay indeciding hisposition, a judge isrequiredto exhibit,
vs. 33casessubmittedfordecisionandforfailin atalltimes, the highestdegree of honesty
JUDGE ALEXANDER g toresolve 101 motionswithinthe 90- andintegrity andtoobserve exacting
BALUT, Respondent. dayreglementary period. standardsof morality, decency and
competence.12Heshouldadhere tothe
A.M. No.RTJ-15- higheststandardsofpublic accountability
2426June 16, 2015 lesthisactionerodethe public faithin
PerCuriam: theJudiciary
435
2015CASES
The act ofmisappropriatingcourt-
fundsconstitutesdishonesty
andgravemisconduct, punishable by
dismissalfromtheservice even onthe
firstoffense.15Forsaidreason, the
respondentdeservesapenalty no
Neglect a legalmatterentrusted to him lighterthandismissal.
FRANCISCO A considerable length oftime Rule 18.03 ofthe Code Suffice ittostate that a DISMISSED
CAOILE, hadelapsedfromthe time Atty. Macaraeg ofProfessionalResponsibili motionforextensiontofile
Complainant,vs. filed thenotice of appeal onAugust30, 1962 ty anappellant’sbriefcarrieswithit the
ATTY.MARCELINO up tothe time he filedthe presumptionthatthe applicant-
MACARAEG,Respondent. thirdmotionforextensionoftime to filebrief lawyerwillfile the pleadingwithin
on October5, 1963. Despitethe passage of therequestedextendedperiod.Failure to
A.C. No. suchtime,however, Atty. Macaraeg doso withoutany reasonable excuse
720June 17, stillfailed to filethe brief, violatesthe Code
2015 whichresultedinthe dismissal ofhisclients’ ofProfessionalResponsibility.
DELCASTILLO,J.: appeal
436
2015CASES
one and thesame VictorCanaco de
losSantoswhose birthcertificate
hasbeenatissue.Membersof theBar are
expectedatall timestoupholdthe integrity
anddignityof the
legalprofessionandrefrainfromany act or
omission, thatmightlessen
thetrustandconfidence reposed bythe
publicin the fidelity, honesty, andintegrity
Neglected of dutiesascounselandfailed to attendany ofthe hearings of thelegalprofession.
CORAZONM. The complainantallegedthat Sec 27, Rule 138, Otherthanherbare allegations, DISMISSED
DALUPAN, therespondentneglectedhisdutiesascounsela RulesofCourt thecomplainantfailedtopresentany
Complainant,vs. ndfailed to attendany ofthe hearingsbefore evidenceto supportherclaimthat
ATTY. GLENNC. the MTC. In view of therespondentcommittedabandonment
GACOTT1,Respondent. therespondent’srepeatedabsencesbeforethe orneglect ofduty. Thus, we are constrained
MTC, Judge JocelynS. to affirmthe factual findingsof
A.C. No. DiligissuedanOrderwhichappointeda theInvestigatingCommissionerthatthe
5067June 29, counsel de oficioto representthe presumptionofregularity shouldprevail
2015 complainant. infavor oftherespondent. Absentany fault
VILLARAMA, JR.,J.: or negligenceon the part ofthe respondent,
we seenolegalbasisfor theorderof
theInvestigating Commissionerto return
theattorney’sfee (acceptance fee) of
₱5,000.
437
2015CASES
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.: Betterdismissyourhi-track whichsubjectsa lawyer to
lawyerwhowillimpoverishyouwithhisuncons disciplinaryaction.While a lawyerisentitled
cionableprofessionalfee. MaxNoble, topresenthiscase
asshown incourtrecords, withvigorandcourage,suchenthusiasmdoesn
neverappearedevenonce, that'swhy you ot justify the useofoffensive andabusive
lostinthe pre-trial stage. getridof Noble language
asyourlawyer. He isoutto squeeze a lot of
moneyfrom you.xxx daig monga
mismongabogado mong polpol."
Attorney’sliens
JUNB. Entering into a Compromise Article 1878 lawyer[s][are]notentitledtounilaterallyappro SUSPENDEDfrom
LUNA, AgreementwithouthisclientcomplainantL oftheCivilCode, priate [their]clients[’]money thepractice of law
Complainant,vs. una’sconsent,thenrefusingto turnover for[themselves] bythemere factthat fortwo(2)years.
ATTY. DWIGHTM. thesettlementproceedsreceived. Rule 1.01 ofthe Code theclient[s][owe][them]attorney’sfees."They
GALARRITA,Respondent. ofProfessionalResponsibility, must give promptnotice to theirclients
ofany receipt of fundsfor or onbehalf
A.C. No. 10662 Rule 16.03 underCanon oftheirclients.
6ofthe Code
December14, ofProfessionalResponsibility,
1956LEONEN,J.:
Unauthorizedpractice of law
PILARIBANA- Respondentengagedintheunauthorizedpra Section27, Rule 138of Thiscase isnotwithout SUSPENDEDfrom
ANDRADEandCLARE ctice of law, theRulesofCourt, precedent. Previously, we hadalreadystated thepractice of law
SINFOROSAANDRADE- respondentfiledpapersandpleadingsascoun thestandardfordiscipline uponerring foranadditional period
CASILIHAN, Complainants, sel inCivil Case No.7617, despite the lawyerswhocontinuepracticingdespite ofsix (6)monthsfromher
clearlanguage of beingsuspended by the Court, one(1)monthsuspension,
vs. thisCourt’ssuspensionorder. viz:UnderSection27,Rule 138of totalingseven(7)months
ATTY. EVA PAITA- theRulesofCourt, willfuldisobedience toany
MOYA, Respondent. lawfulorderof a
superiorcourtisagroundfordisbarmentorsus
A.C. No. 8313 pensionfrom thepractice of law:
438
2015CASES
July 14,
2015SEREN
O,CJ:
False decision
RE:COMPLAINTDATEDJ JusticeMarilynLagura- Section6, Rule 120of In thiscase, otherthan the DISMISSED
ANUARY 28, Yap(respondentAssociate Justice of the theRulesofCourt. complainant'sbare allegation offraud, there
2015OFCATHERINE Court ofAppeals-Visayas, CebuCity wasnoshowing
DAMAYO,REPRESENTE allegedly renderingfalsedecisionandjudicial thatrespondentwasmotivated
D BYHERMOTHER, fraud, inrelationtoCriminal Case No.DU- bybadfaithorillmotivesinthe
VENIRANDADAMAYO, 14740. allegederroneousjudgment.
AGAINSTHON.MARILYN
LAGURA- Complainantpointedoutthat the From aperusalof the
YAP,ASSOCIATEJUSTICE openingstatementof the disputedJudgmentdatedNovember3,
,COURTOFAPPEALS- JudgmentinCriminalCase No. DU- 2011,
VISAYAS, CEBU 14740statedthat shepleaded"guilty" itappearsthatindeeditiserroneouslystatedi
CITY,CEBU. wheninfact she pleaded"notguilty." n the firstpage
thataccusedpleaded"guilty" of thecharge
A.M. No. CA-15-53-J of estafa againsther.However,
inthebodyof thesaidjudgment,itcan
beinferredfrom the discussionof
July 14, thedefense'sargumentsandstipulationthatc
2015PERALT omplainantwasactually pleading notguilty
A, J.: to the charge againsther
Moral turpitude
RE: The Sandiganbayan, in a Section27, Rule 138of Petitionerineffectadmittedall DISBARRED
DECISIONDATED17MAR DecisiondatedMarch17, theRulesofCourt theelementsof the crime of
CH2011INCRIMINALCAS 2011,foundrespondentguiltybeyondreason directbribery:
E NO.SB-28361 able doubtofdirectbribery
ENTITLED"PEOPLEOFT 1. The offenderisa publicofficer;
HEPHILIPPINES VS.
2. The offenderacceptsanofferor
promiseorreceivesa giftor
439
2015CASES
4. The actwhichthe
offenderagreesto
performorwhichheexecutesisconn
ectedwiththeperformance of
hisofficialduties.
440
2015CASES
MABINICOLLEGES, INC. Complainantwasrespondent’sformercli Canon15, Rule 15.03 of The principle Suspensionfromthe
represented by ent.Andrespondentappearedascounsel theCode of whichforbidsanattorneywhohasbeenengage practiceof law for one year
MARCELN.LUKBAN, ofRBPin a case filed by ProfessionalResponsibility d torepresent a
ALBERTOI.GARCIA,JR., hisformerclientagainstRBP clientfromthereafterappearing onbehalf
andMA.PAMELAROSSAN oftheclient’sopponentappliesequally
A A. eventhoughduring the continuance of
APUYA, theemploymentnothingof a
Complainant,vs. confidentialnature wasrevealed tothe
ATTY. JOSE D. attorney bytheclient
PAJARILLO,Respondent.
We also note that the
A.C. No. respondentactedforthe
10687July 22, complainant’sinterest on the
2015 loantransactionbetweenRBPand
VILLARAMA, JR.,J.: thecomplainantwhen hesent
aletterdatedMay 14, 1999 toRBP toassure
the latterof thefinancialcapacity of
thecomplainant topay the loan.But
ascounselforRBPinthe casefor
annulmentof mortgage, he clearly
Grave abuse ofauthority, grave misconduct actedagainst theinterestof the
ATTY.LUCITA E. Respondentjudge Section4(a), (b), complainant,hisformerclient.
While respondentjudge has REPRIMAND
MARCELA, directedcomplainanttoshow cause whyshe and(c)ofRepublic ActNo. inherentcontemptpowers,thesameshouldbe
Complainant,vs. shouldnot be citedincontemptfornot 6713 (RA6713) exercisedjudiciously,sparingly,
JUDGE PELAGIA appearingduring thehearing of 21January andwithutmostrestraint.
J.DALMACIO- 2011 inCriminalCase No. 10-0090.In Respondentjudgemiserably failedto
JOAQUIN, herCompliance andManifestation, exerciserestraint.
PresidentJudge, complainantexplainedthatshe wasunable Shecitedcomplainantincontempt on the
MunicipalTrial toattendthescheduledhearing because solegroundthatcomplainantfailed to file
CourtinCities, Branch1, San shewasunwell, whichconditionwasrelayed asatisfactory explanationforhernon-
Jose to herclientand theoffice ofthe appearance before the court.Yet,
delMonte,Bulacan,Responde prosecutorfortheinformationof therecordsclearly
nt. thetrialcourt. Complainantattached a showthatcomplainantfileda satisfactory
medicalcertificate to explanation, albeitlacking
A.M. No.MTJ-14-1839 supportherexplanation. therequiredMCLE information.
However, complainant’sCompliance
July 22, 2015 andManifestationlacked thenumberdate
of
441
2015CASES
CARPIO, J.: issueofherMCLE Certificate ofCompliance
or Exemption.For thisreasonalone,
respondentjudge admitsexpungingthe
Compliance
andManifestationandeventually citing
complainantincontemptforfailure tofile a
satisfactory explanationfor hernon-
appearance. Respondentjudgedid
notreview or
considercomplainant’sexplanationforherabs
enceduring thehearing of 21January 2011.
Neglect of legalmatterentrusted tohim
CELINA F. It isapparentthat Rule 1.01 ofCanon 1of Respondentfailed to live upto hisdutiesasa SUSPENDEDfrom
ANDRADA, therespondentdidnotexertany effort theCPR, lawyerwhen he unlawfully withheldthe thepractice of law forONE
Complainant,vs. onhisclient'scase andcompletely reneged complainant'smoney.The moneygiven to (1)YEAR.
ATTY.RODRIGO onthe obligationsduehisclient.The Rule 18.03 ofCanon18 therespondentwasneverusedfor
CERA, Respondent. respondentlied to thecomplainantthathe ofthesame Code itsintendedpurposes, ascould begleaned
hadmade thenecessary fromthe NSO'snon-issuance ofbirth
A.C. No. 10187 applicationandpaymentwiththeNSOforthe certificates8of the complainant'schildren,
issuance of the birthcertificatesof the and by the non-
July 22, complainant'schildren. administrationofpsychologicaltestson the
2015BRION Despite the complainantandherchildren.These
, J.: complainant'srepeatedrequests, omissionsconfirmthepresumptionthatthe
therespondentfailed to respondentmisappropriatedthe funds
complywiththeiragreement toprovide ofhisclient, inviolation ofCanon16 of
apsychologist toadministerthe theCPRthatholdsa
necessarypsychologicaltests,thuscausing lawyerintrustofallmoneysandpropertiesofhi
furtherdelay in the sclientthatmay come intohispossession.
Immoralconduct proceedingsofthecomplainant'sannulmen
ELADIOD. tcase.
PerfectofurtherallegedthatJudgeDesales- Article 349 ofthe Thus, SUSPENDEDfromjudicials
PERFECTO, Esidera falsifiedher RevisedPenalCode, forpurposesofdeterminingadministrative ervice for one (1)month
Complainant,vs. daughter’sbirthcertificate tomake liability oflawyersandjudges, "immoral
JUDGE itappearthatsheandRenatoVeranoEsidera Article 350 ofthe conduct"shouldrelate
ALMACONSU were marriedon March18,1990 RevisedPenalCode totheirconductasofficersofthe court.Tobe
ELOD. andthattheirdaughterwasa legitimate child. provides guilty of "immorality" under the Codeof
ESIDERA,Respondent. Nomarriage tookplace on thatdate Professional Responsibility, a
basedona certificationof nomarriage issued lawyer’sconductmust beso
A.M. No.RTJ-15-2417 by theOffice of theCity Civil Registrar depravedastoreducethe public’sconfidence
ofParanaque City. inthe Rule ofLaw.Religiousmorality
isnotbinding whenever
442
2015CASES
Judge Desales-Esidera didnottake thiscourtdecidesthe administrativeliability
anystep torectify the error of
July 22, onherdaughter’sbirthcertificate. lawyersandpersonsunderthiscourt’ssuperv
2015LEONE ision. Atbest,religiousmorality weighsonly
N,J.: persuasively on us.
Therefore, we cannotproperly
concludethatrespondentjudge’sactsof
contractinga secondmarriage duringthe
subsistenceof herallegedfirstmarriage
andhaving analleged"illicit" affairare
"immoral" basedon
Giving Advise toclient herCatholicfaith.Thiscourtisnotajudge of
GABRIELA Complainantinitiatedthisdisbarmentcaseaga Canon, Rule 1.01 religiousmorality.
Althoughthe respondentoutlined to Suspendedfrom the
CORONEL, Petitioner, instAtty. NelsonA. Cunanan, allegingthat and1.02,CPR thecomplainant the "ordinary procedure" practiceof law for one year
v.ATTY.NELSONA. he hadadvisedandconvincedher toengage ofanextrajudicialsettlement ofestate
CUNANAN, Respondent. him forthe transferof OriginalCertificate asameansoftransferring title, he
ofTitle No. 9616andTransferCertificate alsoproposed theoption of
A.C. No. ofTitle No. T-72074, whichwere both "directregistration" despite being fully
6738,August12, registeredin the name of aware thatsuchoptionwasactually a
2015BERSAMI theirdeceasedgrandparents, tohername and shortcutintended to circumventthelaw,
N, J.: tothe namesofherco- andthuspatently contrary to law. The
heirsbydirectregistrationwiththe Officeof transferunder the
theRegisterof Deedsinviolation latteroptionwouldbypasstheimmediate
oftheproperlegalprocedure; thatfollowing heirsoftheirgrandparents(i.e.,the
the engagement,he hadreceivedfromherthe complainant'sparentandherco-
amountofP70,000.00 for the paymentof heirsparents), andconsequently deprive
the transferandotherfees, theGovernment ofthe corresponding
andhadmisappropriatedthe same; andthat estatetaxesandtransferfeesasidefromrequiri
he hadnotreturned themoney and the ngthe falsificationof the
owner'sduplicate copy transferdocuments.He assuredthathe
ofTransferCertificate ofTitleNo. T-72074 couldenable the directtransferwiththe
helpofhiscontactsintheOffice of
theRegister
ofDeedsandotherrelevantagenciesof the
Government,whichmeantthathe wouldbe
bribingsome
officialsandemployeesofthoseoffices.The
proposal of "directregistration"
wasunquestionably unlawful,
443
2015CASES
MISAPPROPRIATIONOFCLIENTSFUNDS
SpousesByronandMaria Act/scomplainedof: Canon16 and17 Lawyershave the duty to apprise Wherefore, respondentAtty. Lyssa
LuisaSaundersvsAtty.GracePag 1. Atty. Pagano- oftheCode of theirclient of GracePagano-Calde isgiventhe penalty
ano-Calde Calde,despite ProfessionalResposibilit thestatusanddevelopmentsofthe ofreprimandwith a sternwarning
A.C. no. 8708 demandbythecomplain y accountthey are handling. Theymustbe toobserve a higherdegree offidelity in
ChiefJustice Ma. antfailedtoreturnthe consistentlymindful of theirobligation thepractice of herprofession.
LourdesA.Sereno money givento torespondpromptly, shouldthere
heraspaymentofthe bequeriesorrequestsforinformationfrom
purchase price ofthe the client.The
subjectproperty ina Codeexactsfromlawyersnotonlya
civil action firmrespectforlaw, legalprocessesand
sheretainedascounsel. thecourts,butalsomandatesthe
2. She likewise failed utmostdegree of fidelity
tomeetherclientstodis andgoodfaithindealing with the
cussmatterson moneysentrustedtothempursuantto
thepending civil theirfiduciaryrelationship.
caserelated to the
caseshehandle.
Layersare
boundtoprotecttheirclient’sinterestto the
bestof theirability
andwithutmostdiligence. Every case
alawyeracceptsdeservestheirfullattention,
diligence,skillandcompetenceregardlessof
itsimportance. It istheirswornduty
toprotect the interestoftheirclientandto
defenditwithin theauthority of the law.
444
2015CASES
GROSSIGNORANCE OF THE LAW/CONDUCT UNBECOMINGOF A JUDGE
Dr. CorazonD. Paderanga,et. al., Act/scomplainedof: Canon 2 and 3 (section5)0f the While itismorally rightforsiblingsto Consideringtheforegoi
vs.hon. RusticoD. Paderanga 1. RespondentJudge failedtoexertany NewCode of Judicial Conduct settle thingsamongthemselves,there ng,respondentshouldbe
A.M. no.RTJ-14- effortto mediatethe isnothinginlaw thatcompelsor metedwith
2383JusticeLucasP.Bersa differencesandmisunderstandingsbet obligesa Judge tosettle atwomonthsuspension,
min weenhissiblings; Section1, Rule 137of disputesbetweenhisfamily memebers. however,
2.Respondentcompoundedthetrouble theRulesofCourt AJudge isstillbut a manandnot suspensionisnot
betweenhissiblingswhen heinstigated, Godwhocandictate the actionsof feasible since
encourage andadvised theothertofile peoplearoundhim. Further, therespondentisnoware
chargesagainstthe other; inadministrative proceedings, tiredjudgefrom
3. Respondentabusedhispowerasajudg thecomplainanthasthe theJudiciary. In
e by continuously tryingto burdenofproving bysubstantial lieuofsuspension, the
harassandoppresshisfemale evidence Courtimposesonhim a
siblingsbythreatening tofile a civil theallegationsinhiscomplaint.Charges fineof P40,000.00to
andcriminalcasesagainstthemfornotgiv based bedeductedfromwhatev
ing himhisshare ofthe onsuspicionorspeculationcannot be erretirementbenefitsare
fruitsofthelandheldincommonby givencredence. stillduehim.
them.
4.Respondentfailed to
inhibithimselfin a case filedwithhissala The Courthasbeenclearabout
despite thefactthat theparty thecompulsory disqualificationof
involvedisarelated to herandissued a Judgesrelated by consanguinity or
warrantofarrestagainstsuchrelative. affinitytoa party being a duty designed
to freethe
adjudicationofcasesfromsuspicionasto
itsfairnessandintegrity. InGarcia v.
Dela Pena, thecourtemphatically
remindedthe ruleon compulsory
disqualification of ajudge to hear a
case where, asin thecase, the
respondentJudge isarelated to
eitherparty withinthe sixthdegree of
consanguinity oraffinityrestsonthe
salutary principle that
nojudgesshouldpreside in a case
inwhich he isnotwholly
free,disinterested, impartial and
445
2015CASES
independent. A judge hasboth
theduty ofrendering a
justdecisionandthe duty ofdoing itin
a mannercompletely free
fromsuspicionastoitsfairnessandasto
itsintegrity. Thelaw conclusively
presumesthat ajudge
cannotobjectively orimpartially
sitinsuch a caseand, forthatreason,
prohibitshimandstrikesathisauthority
tohearanddecide it,in the absence
ofwrittenconsentofallpartiesconcerne
d. Thepurpose isto preserve the
people’sfaithandconfidence in the
courtsofjustice.
ABUSE OFAUTHORITY
Patrocinia H. Salabaovs. Act/scomplainedof: Rules10.03 and12.04 Respondenthasmade a mockery In lightof the
Atty.AndresC. Villaruel, Jr. 1. Respondentrelentlessly oftheodeofProfessionalResponsibili ofthe judicialprocessby abusing followingaggravatingcir
A.C. no. filedpetitionsandappealsinorder ty. Courtprocess, employing dilatory cumstances:multiplicity
8084AUGUST24, toexhaustall Rule 138, section20 (c)and(g). tacticstofrustrate the executionof a ofmotionsandcasesfiles
2015Del possibleremediestoobtainreliefforhis finaljudgment,andfeigning ignorance byrespondent;
Castillo.,J.: client. Such ofhisdutiesasanofficerofthe court.He themaliceevinced by
as,severalinhibitions,motions,andad hasbreachedhisswornduty hisfiling
ministrative toassistinthe speedy ofvariousmotionstoprev
complaintagainstthepresiding judge. andefficientadministrationof justice ent the
andviolatedthe Code judgesandsherifffromful
ofProfessionalResponsibility fillingtheirlegal
andRulesof Court. Indoing so,he duties;feignedignorance
isadministratively liablefor hisactions. ofhisdutiesasanofficer
ofthe court;
andhislackof
remorseforhisactions,
the courtfindsthat a
penalty
ofsuspensionfor18
446
2015CASES
monthswouldbecom
mensurate
tothedamage
andprejudicethatresp
ondenthasinflicted
onthecomplainantfor
hisactions.
447
2015CASES
MEMBEROFTHE conductandcharacter. Whether it be financial
PHILIPPINEBAR. theapplicantshall bereinstatedin orreputational incause-
August25, theRoll ofAttorneysreststo itstandsfirminitscommit
2015PerCuriam agreatextent on thesounddiscretion ment tothepublic to
oftheCourt. The preservetheintegrity
lawyerhastodemonstrateandprove by andesteem
clearandconvincingevidence that oftheBar.Asheldinprevi
heorshe isagainworthy ofmembership ouscases, inconsideringa
ofthe Bar. lawyer’sapplicationforre
The Courtwilltake instatement
intoconsiderationhisorhercharacter tothepractice of law, the
ofthe charge/sfor which heorshe dutyof the
wasdisbarred, hisor Courtistodetermine
herconductsubsequent tothe whether
disbarment, andthe time hehasestablishedmoralr
thathaselapsedinbetweenthe eformationandrehabilita
disbarmentandthe tion,disregarding
applicationforreinstatement. itsfeelingof sympathy
orpity.
Ultimately, with
theguidelinesnotcompli
edwith, the
Courthastobe objective
and,therefore,
deniesthepetition.
448
2015CASES
applicationbutclaimedthathid]sse standardsof the practice of law. requirementsof
cretary failedto send it; theMCLE
3. After thedenial of andhasfullypaid the
hismotionforreconsideration, requirednon-
respondentstilltookandisstill, taking, compliance
histime tosatisfythe requirementsof andreinstatementfees.
the MCLE;
4. Whwnrespondentindicated “MCLE
ApplicationforExemptionforReconsid
eration” in a pleading, hehad not
filedany
motionforreconsiderationbefore the
MCLEOffice.
MALPRACTICE / GROSSMISCONDUCT
Noel S. Sorreda vs. Atty. David Act/scomplainedof: 2004 Ruleson Notarial Practice The legalpresumptionisthatanattorney Dismissed.
L.Kho 1. he filedanarbitrationcase isinnocentof the
A.C. NO. againsthisformerclients; chargesagainsthimuntil the contrary
10635August26, 2. He isproved.The burden of
2015Carpio,J.: notarizedhisformerclient’saffidavitint proofindisbarmentandsuspensionproc
he saidarbitrationcasedespite being eedingsalwaysrestsonthecomplainant,a
disqualifiedunder thenotarial law of ndthe
2004since they are hissisterinlaw burdenisnotsatisfiedwhencomplainant
andniece; reliesonmere
3. did notfurnishedthe partiesof assumptionsandsuspicionsasevidence.
hiscommentontheirmotion; Considering the
4. did not countervail seriousconsequencesofdisbarmentand
themanifestationalleging the suspension, thisCourthasconsistently
mendacityof hisclientandhim; heldthatclearpreponderantevidence
5. intentionally delayed the isnecessary tojustifythe imposition
receiptmotionfortime extension; ofadministrative penalty.
449
2015CASES
6. Notarized the SPA executed by
hisownlaw firm.
450
2015CASES
PERLAS-BERNABE,J.: documentsexecuted by partieswhoare prohibitshimfrombeing
willing to pay commissionedasa
feesfornotarization.Moreover, notary
notarizationof a private publicfortwoyears. He
document,suchasSPA,convertsthe iswarnedthata
document to apubliconeon which, repeyiyion of thesame
onitsface, offense orsimilaractsin
isgivenfullfaithandcredit.Thus, the thefuture shallbe
failure toobserve the utmostcare dealtwithmoreseverely.
intheperformance of hisduties,
byalawyer, caused not only damaged
tothose directly affected
bythenotarizeddocument,
butalsounderminedthe integrity ofa
notarypublic andtaintedthe function
ofnotarization.
UNLAWFUL, DISHONESTANDDECEITFULCONDUCT
INTESTATE ESTAE OFJOSE UY 1. Using false Canon8, 17,10,1 of the In appropriating WHEREFORE, Atty.
vsAtty Pacifico informationtakenfromanotherinhisple CodeofProfessionalResponsibili informationpertaining tohisopposing PacificoMaghariissusp
M.MaghariA.C.NO. 10525 adingsseveraltimes; ty. counsel,respondentdidnot only endedfrompractice of
SEPTEMBER1, 2015 failtoobserve commoncourtesy. law fortwoyears.
Leonen,J.: Heencroacheduponmattersthat,ultim
ately, are personal to
another.Thisencroachment,notonly
anactof trickery, itisalsoactoflarceny.
Inso doing,he violatedhisduty to
thelegalprofession.
By
hisact,respondentridiculedandtoyedwi
th therequirementsimposedby statute
andthe Court.
Hetrampleduponprofessionalstandard
sestablishednotonlu by the Court,
initscapacity asoverseerofthe legal
451
2015CASES
profession, butbytheRepublic
itself,througha duly enactedstatute.
Insodoing, he
violatedhisdutytosocietyand to the
courts.
GROSSIMMORALITY
Atty. BoyBEcraela vs. Act/scomplainedof: Canon 1 and7 ofthe In therecentcase ofPerez vs.Catindig WHEREBY, in
AttyIanRaymondA.Pngalangan 1. Complainantaversthatwhilelegally CodeofProfessionalResponsib the courtpronouncedthat,the consideration
A.C. No. married, respondenthadseriesof ility. moraldelinquency oftheforegoing,the
10676September8, adulterousandillicitrelationswithmarri thataffectsthefitnessof a memberof Courtresolvesandishere
2015PerCuriam: edandunmarriedwomen. the Bar tocontinue bydisbarredAtty.
2. Abusedhisauthority assuchincludesconductthatoutragesth IanRaymondPangalanga
aseducatorwhen he inducedhismale e generally nandorderthathisnameb
students toengage acceptedmoralstandardsofthe e strickenofffrom
innocturnalpreoccupationsandentertai community,conductforinstance, theRoll ofAttorneys.
nedthe romantic gesturesof hisfemale whichmakesamockery ofthe
studentsinexchangefor passinggrades. inviolablesocialinstitutionofmarriage.
Under the Code
ofprofessionalresponsibility, the
practice oflaw isaprivilege given to
those whopossessandcontinue
topossessthelegalqualificationsforthe
profession.
Good
moralcharacterisnotonlyrequiredforad
mission tothe bar, butmust also
beretainedinorder
tomaintainone’sgoodstanding
inthisexclusive andhonoredfraternity.
GROSSNEGLIGENCE
Felicisima Mendoza vda. Act/scomplainedof: Rule 18.03 and18.04 of theCode The lawyer’sduty to WHEREBY, the
DeRobosavs. Atty. JuanMendoza 1.RespondentNavarrofailed ofProfessionalResponsibility keephisclientconstantly updated courtsuspendsAtty.
andAtty. tosubmitthe appealbriefwithin onthedevelopmentsof hiscase is Eusebio
Eusebio P.Navarro,Jr. thereglementary period; crucialinmaintaining the P. Navarro,Jrfrom
A.C. No. 6056 client’scase.Indeed,the thepractice of law for
relationshipoflawyer-clientbeing sixmonthswithwarning
452
2015CASES
September9, oneof confidence, there that a repetition
2015PresbiteroJ. iseverpresentthe needforthe lawyer ofthesameorsimilarviola
Velasco, Jr. toinformtimely andadequately tionshall be dealtwith
theclient of moreseverely.
importantdevelopmentsaffecting the ThechargesagainstAtty.
client’scase.The lawyershouldnot Juan B.Mendoza
leave the clientinthe darkon howthe aredismissed.
lawyerisdefending theclient’sinterests.
Failure of
counseltosubmittheappealbriefforhis
clientwithin thereglementary
periodconstitutesinexcusable
negligence, an
offensethatentailsdisciplinary action.
Thefiling of a briefwithin
theperiodsetby law isa duty notonly
tothe clientbutalsoto the court.
SIMPLEMISCONDUCT
JosephM. Cabuhatvs. Act/scomplainedof: Section35, RuleIVof the Simple neglect of duty isdefinedasthe Wherefore, the
JudgeReynaldo G.Ros, et. al., 1. Salonga failed to explainwhy UniformRulesonAdminitrative failure ofanemployee courthereby
A.M. No.RTJ-14- therecordof the case endedupin cases. togiveproperattention to arequired suspendsJulius
2386September16, thebodega despite the factthatthere taskorto discharge a duty due B. Salonga
2015JosePortugalPerez wasanincidentstill to beresolved tocarelessnessorindifference.On asClerkofCourtfor 1
bythecourt; theotherhand, grossneglectof duty monthwitha warning
2. Salonga failed to ischaracterized by want of even thatrepetitionof the
performhisdutiesandresponsibilitiesast theslightestcare, orby sameor similaroffense n
he clerk whowasincharge consciousindifference to the thefutureshall be
ofmaintainingorkeeping the recordsof consequences, orby dealtwith moreseverely.
the casesthatwere assignedtohisCourt. flagrantandpalpablebreach ofduty. The
3. It lastedfortenyearsfora case administrativecomplaint
ofsimple collectionofsumofmoney againstJudgeReynaldoR
tobe discoveredthatsome pages osisherebydismissedfor
lack ofmerit.
453
2015CASES
thereofweremissing andtobe
finallyresolve.
FORUMSHOPPING
DavidWilliamsvs. Atty.Rudy Act/scomplainedof: Canon12 of the Code In the caseof Wherefore, Atty.
T.Enriquez 1. Purposely filingof ofProfessional Floresvs.Chua,theCourtheld: a RudyEnriquez
A.C. No. 8319/8329/8366 groundless,false andunlawfulsuit; Resposibility. lawyershall atall timesupholdthe issuspendedfromthe
September16,2015Jo 2. Violation oftheRule integrity anddignity ofthe practice of lawfor a
se CatralMendoza onForumshopping. legalprofession. The periodof sixmonths.
Barshouldmaintain a
highstandardoflegalproficiency
aswellashonesty andfairdealing. A
lawyerbringshonor tothelegal
professionby faithfullyperforming
hisdutiestosociety, totheBar,to the
courtsand tohisclients. Tothisend
amember of thelegal
fraternityshouldrefrainfromdoing any
actwhichmightlesseninany degree the
confidence andtrustreposedbythe
public in thefidelity,honesty
andintegrityof the legalprofession.
VIOLATIONOFTHE NOTARIALLAW
Atty. BenignoT.Bartolomevs. Act/scomplainedof: Section 5(b)of the Notarial Rules A notary public Wherefore, the
Atty.ChristopherA.Basilio Respondentnotarized a Rule 1.01, Canon 1of the Code exercisesdutiescalling for Courthereby
A.C. no. documentpurportedly ofProfessionalResponsibility. carefulnessandfaithfulness.Notariesm suspendsAtty.Christoph
10783October14, subscribedandsworntobefore himbya ustinformthemselvesthe factsthey erBasiliofromthe
2015Perlas- personwhowasalready dead, mustcertifyto,mostimportantly, they practice of lawfor one
Bernabe,J.: andsupposedlyrecordeditinhisnotarial should nottake part or yearandrevokeshisincu
register. allowthemselvesto bepart of illegal mbentcommissionasa
transactions.inline withthismandate, a notarypublic
notary public shouldnot notarize a andprohibitshimfrombe
documentunlessthepersonwhosigned ingcommissionedasanot
thesameisthevery ary publicfortwo
personwhoexecutedand
454
2015CASES
personally appearedbefore him years.
toattestto the contentsandthe
truthofwhatare statedtherein.By
failing inthisregard, the notary
permitsafalsehoodwhichdoesnotonlyt
ransgressthe NotarialRulesbutalsothe
Code ofProfessionalResposibility.
455
2015CASES
or procedure.
GROSSIMMORALITY
NelsonP. Valdez vs. Atty. 1. maintaining Rule 1.01, canon7,Rule 7.03of Morality inourliberal society today Wherefore,
AntolinAllysonDabon, Jr. anillicitrelationshipwithotherwoma theCode of isprobably a farcry fromwhatitusedto Atty.AntolinAllysonDa
A.C.No. 7353 notherthanhiswife. ProfessionalResponsibility. be. Notwithstanding, lawyers, bon,Jr ishereby
November16, askeepersofpublic faith, are disbarredfromthe
2015PerCuriam burdenedwith a highdegree practice oflaw.
ofsocialresponsibility and, hence,
musthandle
theirpersonalaffairswithgreatercaution
.Indeed, those whohave taken the
oathtoassistin
thedispensationofjustice should
bemore possessedof the
consciousnessand the will to
overcome theweaknessofthe flesh.
A grossimmoralactisone
thatthatissocorruptasto
constituteacriminalact, orso
unprincipledastobe reprehensible to a
highdegree
orcommittedundersuchscandalousorr
evolting circumstancesasto shockthe
commonsense ofdecency. It iswillful,
flagrant,orshamelessastoshow
indifference to the opinion
ofgoodandrespectable membersof
thecommunity.
456
2016CASES
GROSSIGNORANCE OF THE LAW/GROSSMISCONDUCT
ArmandoBalanay vs. 1. Allowing the accused Section 9 Rule 114ofthe In Atty, White vs. Judge Wherefore, the
JudgeJulianaAdalim-White sixfurloughsdespite being RulesofCourt Bugtasitwaselucidatedthat a judge courtherby
A.M. No.RTJ-16- chargedwithmurder, anon-bailable iscalleduponto exhibitmore thanjust a suspendsAtty.Juliana
2443January 11, 2016 offense. cursoryacquaintance White fromheroffice for
Del Castillo,J: 2. Grantingthe withstatutesandprocedural rules.It 1 yearwithoutsalary
motiontobailwithoutconducting isimperative thathebe andotherbenefits.
hearingforthe purpose. conversantwithbasiclegalprinciplesand
3. Altering the contentsofthe TSN be aware of well-settledauthoritative
doctrine. Heshouldstrive
forexcellence exceededonly by
hispassionoftruth,to theendthat hebe
the personification ofjustice and
therule of law.When thelaw
issufficiently basic, ajudge owesit to
hisoffice tosimply apply it.
Anything lessthanthatwould
begrossignorance of the law.
GROSSIMMORALCONDUCT
AnteroM. Sison, Jr. vs. Atty, Manuel 1. entering into a Rule1.01, RULE 16.01 ofthe CPR The fiduciaryrelationshipbetwee Wherefore, the
N. Camacho compromisedagreementwithouta thecounselandhisclientimposeson courthreby
A.C No. uthorization thelawyer the duty to accountfor disbarsAtty.ManuelCa
10910January 2. Failure torenderanaccounting themoney or property machofromthe practice
12,2016PerCuri offundswhichwere supposedto be collectedorreceived for of law.
am: paidasadditionaldocketfees. orfromhisclient. Moneyentrusted to a
lawyerfor aspecificpurpose butnot
usedforthe purposeshouldbe
immediatey returned. Alawyer’sfailure
toreturnupondemand, the fundsheld
byhim onbehalf of hisclientgivesriseto
thepresumptionthat
hehasappropriatedthesame
forhisownuse inviolationof the
trustreposedinhimby his
457
2016CASES
458
2016CASES
Cheryle. Vasco-Tamaray 1. Respondentfiled onbehalf of Canon1, Rule 1.01, canon 7Rule Allowing theuseof a The Penalty
vs.Atty.DeborahZ. Daquis thecomplainant,withoutherconsent, 7.03, canon10 Rule 10.01, forgedsignatureon a ofDisbarmentisimposed
A.C. no. aPetitionforDeclarationof Nullity Canon17of theCPR petitionfiledbefore a uponrespondentAtty.D
10868January ofMarriage andforgedhersignature courtistantamountto eborahDaquiz.
26, onthe petition. consentingtothecommissionof a
2016PerCuriam 2. Respondentsignedthe falsehoodbeforecourts.
petitionascounselfor thepetitioner, Every lawyerisa servantofthe
thecomplainantwhennocounsel- law,andhastoobserve andmaintain
clientrelationexistbetweenthembuinfac therule of law aswellasbe
tthe counselofthe husband. anexemplarworthy ofemulationby
others.itisbyno meansa coincidence,
therefore,that the core
valuesofhonesty,integrity,
andtrustworthinessareemphatically
reiterated bythe Code ofProfessional
Resposibilities.
MALPRACTICE
Gregory Fabay vs. 1. Rasuena notarized a Section2, RuleIVofthe2004 Ruleson A notary publicshould notnotarize ACCORDINGLY,
Atty.RexA.Resuena SPAnotwithstandingthe factthattwo NotarialPractice adocumentunlessthe personwhosigned respondentisdisbarredfr
A.C. No. ofthe principalthereinwere already Rule 1.01, Canon 1of theCPR thesame isthe omthe practice of
8723January deadlong before the executionof the verysamepersonwhoexecutedandperso lawandlikewise
26,2016PerCuri SPA. nallyappearedbefore him to attest to perpetuallydisqualifiedfr
am: thecontents and the truthof ombeingcommissioneda
whatarestatedtherein. Without sanotary public.
theappearance of the
personwhoactuallyexecuted the
document,thenotarypublic would be
unableto verify thegenuinenessof the
signatureof theacknowledging party
and toascertain
459
2016CASES
NEGLIGENCE
Atty. PabloB. 1. respondentfailed to Canon10, Rule 10.01 andRule 10.03 Fundamentalistherule Suspensionfrompracti
Franciscovs.Atty.RomeoM. actuponhisclient’scause resulting in andcanon18, Rule 18.03 thatinhisdealingswithhisclientsandwit ce of law
Flores theprescriptionof available h thecourts, every lawyerisexpected to fortwoyearswithsternw
A.C. no. remedies. behonest, imbuedwithintegrity, arning.
10753January 2. he failed to notify the andtrustworthy. These
26, courtthatheiswithdrawing expectations,thoughhighanddemandin
2016Leonen,J.: hisappearance ascounsel g,are
3. made theprofessionalandethicalburdensofev
untruthfulstatementsinthepleadingsfi ery memberof thePhilippine Bar,for
ledbeforethe court tomake they have
itappearthatthe pleadingsarefiled on beengivenfullexpressioninthe
time. lawyer’soaththatevery lawyer of
thiscountryhastakenuponadmissionas
a bona fidememberof the law
profession
VIOLATIONOFTHE NOTARIALLAW
Maria Japitana vs. Atty. Performingnotarial Section 2 RuleIVof Without a commission, WHEREFORE,
SylvesterC.Parado actswithoutauthority to theRulesonNotarialPractice alawyerisunauthorizedto respondentissuspendedf
A.C. no. doso,knowinglynotarizing Canon 1 and 7oftheCPR performanyof thenotarialacts. A romthepractice of law
10859January forgeddocuments, andnotarizing lawyerwhoactsasanotary public fortwoyearsandpermane
26, documentswithoutrequiringsufficienti withoutthe ntlydisqualifiedfrombein
2016PerCuriam dentificationfromthe signatories. necessarynotarialcommissionisremiss gcommissionedasnotary
inhisprofessional public.
dutiesandresponsibilities. Under
theRule, onlypersonswhoare
commissionedasnotary publicmay
performnotarialactswithinthe
territorial jurisdictionof the
courtwhichgrantedthecommission.
MISREPRESENTATION/ACTSUNBECOMING ALAWYER
ENGELPaul Aca vs. Atty.Ronaldo RespondentAtty. Salvadointroduced Canon1, Rule 1.01 andcanon7, Rule Asa man oflaw, a lawyeris Wherefire, the courts
460
2016CASES
P. Salvado himselfasa lawyerand a 7.03 of the CPR. necessarily a leader ofthe suspendsAtty.
A.C. no. businessmanengagedinseveralbusiness community,lookedup toasa model Salvadofromthe
10952January esincluding butnotlimited citizen. Amanlearnedin the law practice of lawfor a
26, tothelending business. isexpected tomake periodoftwoyears.
2016PerCuriam: Enticed,complainantinvestedhismone truthfulrepresentationswhendealing
y andguaranteed bythe respondentthat withpersons, clientsorotherwise.
hewould be given a
hjghinterestrateevery
month.Asconsiderationforhisinvestme
nts,respondentissuedseveralpostdated
checkswhich,however,
wasdishonoreduponpresentmentforlac
k ofsufficientfundorclosedaccount.
VIOLATIONOFTHERULE ONNOTARIALPRACTICE
Erlinda Sistual et. al., vs. Atty. Respondentlawyeraslegalcounsel,wil Section 2(b), RuleIVofthe By notarizing the WHERFORE, Atty.
EliordoOgena lfully, unlawfully 2004RulesonNotarial Practice documents,respondetengagedinunlawf EliordoOgena
A/C. no. 9807 andfeloniouslyfalsifiedseveralDocu ul,dishonest, immoral issuspendedfromthepra
February 2, mentsbymaking itappearthatall ordeceitfulconduct. ctice of law for
2016PerCuriam: theaffiantexecuted the Hisconductisfraughtwithdangerouspos aperiodoftwoyearsandis
documentswhichresultedto sibilitiesconsidering barredpermanentlyfrom
thesubdivisionof thesubjectpropery theconclusivenessonthe due beingcommissionedasn
andeventualsell tointerestedbuyers. executionof a otarypublic.
documentthatourcourtsandthepublic
accord tonotarizeddocuments.Failure
to performhisdutiesasanotary
publicresultednotonly indamaging
complainant’srightsbutalsoinundermini
ngthe integrity of anotary public
andindegrading thefunctionof
notarization.
MORALTURPITUDE
OOFICE OFTHECOURT Respondentwasfoundguilty Section27 Rule 138ofthe It isimmaterialthat Wherefore,
ADMINISTRATORvs.Presiding bytheSandiganbayan for violationof RulesofCourt therespondentwasnot yet a memberof premisesconsidered,J
section3€ ofRepublic Act no.3019and theJudiciarywhen he allegedly UDGEjosephCedrick
committed the acts Ruiz is
461
2016CASES
462
2016CASES
(Topic): GrossMisconduct
SPOUSESJONATHANAND Act/s complained of Legalbasis/basesofthec SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition
ESTER harge/s
LOPEZ,Complainants,vs. Neglect of Duty asa counsel Code AscorrectlypointedoutbytheIB
ATTY.SINAMAR E.LIMOS, ofProfessionalRe PInvestigatingCommissioner,r Atty.SinamarE.Limosisfoundguiltyofviolat
Respondent. sponsibility espondent'sactsconstituteaflagr ing Rule 1.01 ofCanon1, Canon11,
Rule1.01- antviolationoftheCodeofProfes Rule12.04ofCanon12,Rules16.01and
A.C. No. Alawyershallnotengageinunlawful, sionalResponsibility.
dishonest,immoralordeceitfulcon 16.03ofCanon16,andRule18.03
7618February 2, ofCanon18oftheCodeofProfessionalResp
duct.
2016 onsibility.Accordingly,sheisherebysuspend
Rule12.04-
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.: Alawyershallnotundulydelayacase,i Undertheforegoingpr edfromthepracticeoflawforaperiodofthree
mpedetheexecutionofajudgmento ovisions, (3)years.
rmisuseCourtprocesses. oncealawyertakesupthecauseof
ule16.03- hisclient,heisduty-
Alawyershalldeliverthefundsandpr boundtoservethelatterwithcom
opertyofhisclient when petence,andtoattendtosuchclie
dueorupon
nt'scausewithdiligence,care,and
demand.However,heshallhavealie
noverthefundsandmayapplysomu devotionwhetherheacceptsitfor
chthereofasmaybenecessarytosatis afeeorforfree.Heowesfidelityto
fyhislawful suchcauseandmustalwaysbemi
feesanddisbursements,givingnotic ndfulofthetrustandconfidencer
epromptlythereaftertohisclient.He eposeduponhim.Therefore,ala
shallalsohavealientothesameextent wyer'sneglectofalegalmatterent
onalljudgmentsandexecutionsheha rustedtohimbyhisclientconstitu
ssecuredforhisclientas tes
providedforintheRulesofCourt. inexcusable
Rule18.03- negligenceforwhichhemustbe
Alawyershallnotneglectalegalm heldadministratively liable.
atterentrustedtohim,andhisnegl
igenceinconnectiontherewithsh
allrenderhim
463
2016CASES
liable.
(Topic) :Deceit/GraveMisconduct
Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/basesofthec SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition
ADELPHA E.MALABED, Dishonestyandgravemiscond harge/s Respondentcommittedgrossm Atty. MeljohnB.De la peñaguilty
Complainant, uct(deliberatelyandrepeatedly Code isconductfor(1)misrepresentin ofgrossmisconductandaccordinglysuspen
vs. making falsehood) ofProfessionalRe gthathesubmittedacertificateto dhimfrom thepracticeof law
ATTY.MELJOHNB.DE LA sponsibility fileactionissuedbytheLuponTa fortwo(2)yearswith a warningthat
PEÑA,Respondent. Rule10.01- gapamayapawheninfacttherew thecommissionof the sameorsimilaract
Alawyershallnotdoanyfalsehood asnonepriortotheinstitutionoft oractsshall be dealtwithmoreseverely.
A.C. No. ,norconsenttothedoingofanyinC hecivilactionofhisclient,Fortu
7594February 9, ourt;norshallhemislead,orallowt natoJadulco;(2)usingimproperl
2016 heCourttobemisledbyanyartifice anguageinhispleadings;and
CARPIO, J.: . (3)defyingwillfullytheCourt'sp
rohibitiononreemploymentina
Rule10.02- nygovernmentofficeasaccesso
Alawyershallnotknowinglymisq rypenaltyofhisdismissalasajudg
uoteormisrepresentthecontents e.Grossmisconductisdefinedas
ofapaper,thelanguageortheargu "improperorwrongconduct,th
mentofopposingcounsel,orthete etransgressionofsomeestablish
xtofadecisionorauthority,orkno edanddefiniteruleofaction,afor
winglyciteaslawaprovisionalread biddenact,aderelictionofduty,
yrenderedinoperativebyrepealor willfulincharacter,andimpliesa
amendment,orassertasafactthat wrongfulintentandnotamereer
whichhasnotbeenproved. rorinjudgment.
464
2016CASES
(Topic) :GrossMisconduct
NEMESIOFLORANand Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/basesofthec SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition
CARIDADFLORAN, Committinggravemisco harge/s Thepracticeoflawisnotavestedrightbutaprivilege,a
Complainants, nductandwillfulinsubor privilegeclothedwithpublicinterestbecausealawyer Atty.RoyPruleEdiza,havingvio
vs. dination Code owessubstantialdutiesnotonlytohisclient,butalsot latedtheCodeofProfessionalRe
ATTY.ROY PRULE EDIZA, ofProfessionalRespo ohisbrethrenintheprofession,tothecourts,andtoth sponsibilitybycommittinggrave
Respondent nsibility enation,andtakespartinoneofthemost misconductandwillfulinsubord
A.C. No. importantfunctionsoftheState- ination,isdisbarredandhisname
5325February 9, CANON12.Alawyershallexertev theadministrationofjustice- orderedstrickenofftheRollofAt
2016 eryeffortandconsiderithisduty to asanofficerofthecourt.Toenjoytheprivilegesofpra torneyseffectiveimmediately.
PERCURIAM: assistinthe cticinglaw,lawyersmustadheretotherigidstandards
speedyandefficientadministratio ofmentalfitness,maintainthehighestdegreeofmora
nofjustice. lity,andfaithfullycomplywiththerulesofthelegalpro
fession.Clearly,Atty.Ediza'sconducthasmadehimu
Rule12.04- nfittoremainin the legalprofession.
Alawyershallnotundulydelayacas
e,impedetheexecution
ofajudgmentormisuse
Courtprocesses.
Rules of Court
Section27.Disbarmentorsuspensionof
attorneysbySupremeCourt;groundsther
efor.-Amemberofthebar–
maybedisbarredorsuspendedfro
mhisofficeasattorneybytheSupre
meCourtforanydeceit,malpractic
e,orothergrossmisconductinsuch
office,grosslyimmoralconduct,or
byreasonofhisconvictionofacrim
einvolvingmoralturpitude,orfora
nyviolationoftheoathwhichheisr
equired
465
2016CASES
totakebeforeadmissiontopractice
,orforawillfuldisobedienceofanyl
awfulorderofasuperiorcourt,orfo
rcorruptlyorwillfullyappearingas
anattorneyforapartytoacase
withoutauthorityso todo.
(Topic): GrossMisconduct
ANGELITORAMISCAL Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/basesofthec SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition
andMERCEDESORZAME, Grossmisconduct(forfa harge/s AsamemberoftheLawProfessioninthePhilippines,
Complainants, ilureandneglectofduty therespondenthadtheforegoingprofessionalandet Atty.EdgarS.Orroisguiltyofviol
vs. asa counsel) Code hicalburdens.Butheobviouslyfailedtodischargehis atingcanon17,andrules18.03an
ATTY.EDGAR S. ORRO, ofProfessionalRe burdenstothebest of hisknowledge d18.04ofthecodeofprofessiona
Respondent. sponsibility anddiscretionandwithallgoodfidelitytohisclients.B lresponsibility;andsuspendshi
yvoluntarilytakinguptheircause,hegavehisunqualif mfromthepracticeoflawforape
A.C. No. CANON17- iedcommitmenttoadvanceanddefendtheirinterestt riodfortwoyearseffectiveupon
10945(Formerly CBD09- Alawyerowesfidelitytothecauseo herein.Evenifhecouldnottherebyguaranteetothem notice,withthesternwarningtha
2507) fhisclientandheshallbemindfulof thefavorableoutcomeofthelitigation,herenegedon tanysimilarinfractioninthefutur
thetrustandconfidencereposedin hiscommitmentnonethelessbecausehedidnotfileth ewillbedealtwithmoreseverely.
February 23, him. emotionforreconsiderationintheirbehalfdespitere
2016BERSAMIN ceivingfromthemtheP7,000.00hehadrequestedfor
, J.: CANON18 – thatpurpose.Hefurtherneglectedtoregularlyupdate
Alawyershallservehisclientwithc themonthestatusofthecase,particularlyontheadver
ompetence anddiligence. seresult,therebyleavingtheminthedarkon
theproceedingsthatwere gradually turning
againsttheirinterest.
Rule18.03– Basedonallthecircumstancesinthiscase,weapprove
Alawyershallnotneglectalegalmat therecommendationoftheIBPfortherespondent'ss
terentrustedtohim,andhisneglige uspensionfromthepracticeoflawfor a
nceinconnectiontherewithshallre
periodoftwoyears.Althoughthe
nderhimliable.
Rule18.04–
Alawyershallkeeptheclientinfor
medofthestatusofhiscaseandshal
lrespondwithina reasonable
466
2016CASES
(Topic): GrossMisconduct
RE:VERIFIEDCOMPLAINT Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/basesofthec SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition
DATEDJULY 13,2015 Forgravemisconductan harge/s AdministrativecomplaintagainstSan
OFALFONSOV.UMALI,JR., dgrossignoranceofthe Rules of Court Atanyrate,wefindthatthechargeofgrossignoranceo diganbayanAssociateJusticeJoseR.
Complainant, law Rule140Section1.Complaint.- fthelawbasedonwhatUmaliperceivedtobeanerron Hernandezisdismissedfor
vs. Allchargesagainstjudgesoffirstinstan eousconclusionoflawhasnolegalbasis.Toconstitut lackof merit.
HON.JOSER.HERNANDEZ,A ceshallbeinwritingandshallsetoutdist egrossignoranceofthelaw,itisnot
SSOCIATE JUSTICE, inctly,clearly,andconciselythefactsco
enoughthatthesubjectdecision,order,oractuationo
SANDIGANBAYAN, Respondent. mplainedofasconstitutingthealleged
seriousmisconductorinefficiencyoft fajudgeintheperformanceofhisofficialdutiesiscont
herespondent,andshallbesworntoan rarytoexistinglawandjurisprudencebut,mostimpor
IPINo. 15-35-SB-J dsupportedbyaffidavitsofpersonsw tantly,hemustbemovedbybadfaith,fraud,dishonest
hohavepersonalknowledgeofthefact y,orcorruption.Asearlierdiscussed,Umaliutterlyfail
February 23, sthereinalleged,andshallbeaccompa edtosubstantiatehisclaimthatJusticeHernandeztrie
2016BRION, J.: niedwithcopiesofdocumentswhich dtoextortP15millionfromhiminexchange for
maysubstantiatesaidfacts. hisacquittal.
Inaddition,theSandiganbayanrulingwasacollegiald
ecision,withJusticeHernandezastheponente,andAss
ociateJusticesQuirozandCornejoastheconcurring
magistrates.Itbearsstressingthatinacollegialcourt,t
hemembersactonthebasisofconsensusormajorityr
ule.Umalicannotimpute whatheperceivedto
beanerroneousconclusionoflawtoonespecificJusti
ce only.
467
2016CASES
(Topic): Deceit/GrossMisconduct
SPOUSESEDUARDOG.G Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/basesofthec SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition
ACUYA Unauthorizednotarizati harge/s Itmustbeemphasizedanewthat"wherethenotarizat ThenotarialcommissionofAtty.Rey
ANDCARIDADROSARIO on Code ionof a documentisdonebya manA.Solbita,isherebyrevoked,and
GACUYA, andviolati ofProfessionalRe memberofthePhilippineBaratatimewhenhehasno heispermanentlybarredfrombeingc
Complainants, on of Lawyer’sOath sponsibility authorizationorcommissiontodoso,theoffenderm ommissionedasnotarypublic,effecti
vs. (unlawful, Rule1.01.Alawyershallnotengage aybesubjectedtodisciplinaryaction.Forone,perfor veuponreceiptofthecopyofthisdecis
ATTY.REYMANA.SOLBITA, dishonest,immoralorde inunlawful,dishonest,immoral minganotarialactwithoutsuchcommissionisaviolat ion.Heisalsosuspendedfromthepra
Respondent. ceitfulconduct) ordeceitful conduct. ionofthelawyer'soathtoobeythelaws,morespecific cticeoflawforaperiodoftwo(2)years
CANON7- ally,theNotarialLaw.Then,too,bymakingitappeart effectiveimmediately,withawarning
A.C. No. 8840 [Formerly alawyershallatalltimesupholdtheinte hatheisdulycommissionedwhenheisnot,heis,forall thatarepetitionofasimilarviolationw
CBDCaseNo. 11-3121] grityanddignityofthelegalprofession legalintentsandpurposes,indulgingindeliberatefals illbedealtwithevenmoreseverely.He
andsupportthe ehood,whichthelawyer'soathsimilarlyproscribes.T isdirectedtoreportthedateofhisrecei
activitiesoftheintegratedbar. heseviolationsfallsquarelywithintheprohibitionof ptofthisDecisiontoenablethisCourt
March8, 2016
Rule1.01ofCanon1oftheCodeofProfessionalResp todeterminewhenhissuspensionsha
onsibility,whichprovides:'Alawyershallnotengageinunl lltake effect.
PERCURIAM:
awful,dishonest,immoralordeceitfulconduct.'"Byactingasa
notarypublicwithoutthepropercommissiontodoso
,thelawyerlikewiseviolatesCanon7ofthesameCode
,whichdirectseverylawyertoupholdatalltimestheint
egrityanddignityof the legalprofession.
Alltold,Atty.Solbitacannotescapefromdisciplinary
actioninhiscapacityasanotarypublicandasamembe
rofthePhilippineBar.Byhisunauthorizednotarizati
on,heclearlyfellmiserablyshortofhisobligationund
erCanon7oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility
,whichdirectseverylawyertoupholdatalltimesthe
integrity anddignity ofthe legalprofession.
468
2016CASES
(Topic): Malpracticeorothergrossmisconductinoffice
SPOUSESCESAR Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/basesofthec SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition
ANDTHELMA Undue delay harge/s Ajudgeismandatedtoresolvewithdispatchthecases JudgeFriscoT.Lilagan,PresidingJud
SUSTENTO, inrendering Rules of Court andmattersinhiscourt,mindfulthatanydelayintheir geoftheRegionalTrialCourt,Branch
Complainants, anorder. dispositionerodesthefaithofthepeople in the 34,inTaclobanCityguiltyofgrossinef
vs. Grossinefficiencyandn Section9,Rule140,unduedelayinr judicialsystem. ficiencyforhisunduedelayinresolvin
JUDGE FRISCOT.LILAGAN, eglect of duty enderingadecisionororderfallswit Therespondentjudgesoughttojustifyhisdelay gthependingmotionforreconsiderat
Respondent. hinthecategoryofalessseriouscha bycitingthevoluminouscaseloadhehadasthep ion;and,accordingly,fineshiminthea
rge,andispenalizedasfollows: residingjudge.Thejustificationdoesnotpersua mountofP45,000.00,withawarningt
A.M. No.RTJ-11- de.Nojudgeshouldarrogateuntohimselfthepr hatasimilarinfractioninthefuturewill
2275March8, SEC.11.Sanctions.- x xx erogativetoextendtheperiodfordecidingcases bemoreseverelysanctioned.
2016BERSAMIN, beyondthe mandatory 90-day period.
J.: B.Iftherespondentisguiltyofaless Therespondentcannotbesparedfromtheconseque
seriouscharge,anyofthefollowing ncesofhisunduedelaysinthecaseofthecomplainant
sanctionsshallbeimposed: s.HedidnotshowthatheeverrequestedtheCourtfor
theadditionaltimewithinwhichtodisposeofthematt
1.Suspensionfromofficewithouts erstherein.Itthenbecomesinescapableforhimtofac
alaryandotherbenefitsfornotlesst etheconsequencesofhisinexplicableinaction.Hewa
hanone sguiltyofgrossinefficiencyandneglectofduty.Failur
(1)normorethanthree(3)months; etorenderadecisionwithinthe90-
or dayperiodfromthesubmissionofacasefordecisionis
detrimentaltothe honor
2.AfineofmorethanP10,000.00b andintegrityofthejudicialoffice,andconstitutesader
utnotexceedingP20,000.00. ogationofthespeedyadministrationofjustice.
(Topic): Malpracticeorothergrossmisconductinoffice
INTHE Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/basesofthec SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition
MATTEROF:ANONYMOUS harge/s Time andtime again, thisCourthasstressedthat Judge Jaime E. Contrerasishereby
COMPLAINTFORDISHONE
STY,GRAVE
469
2016CASES
(Topic): GrossIgnoranceoftheLaw
470
2016CASES
(Topic): Grossimmoralconduct/ViolationofOathofOffice
THECHRISTIANSPIRITISTSI Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/basesofthec SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition
NTHEPHILIPPINES,INC.,PI Grossmisconduct,viola harge/s Thepartiesputanendtotheirdisputebythedefendan Thecomplaintfordisbarmentagainst
COLOCAL tionof Rules of Court ts,includingthecomplainantandPante,optingtowit Atty.DanielDazonMangallayisdism
CENTER,REPRESENTEDBY thelawyer'soath,anddis Rule139- hdrawtheirnoticeofappealandundertakingtovolun issedforitsutterlack of
THEIRATTORNEY-IN-FACT, obediencetoalawfulord B,Section1.HowInstituted. — tarilyvacateandtopeacefullyturnoverthepremisest merit.
EDWINA.PANTE,Complainant,vs. erof the Proceedingsforthedisbarment,su otherespondentbyAugust31,2013inexchangefor
spension,or
471
2016CASES
(Topic): Grossmisconduct
NENITA D.SANCHEZ, Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/basesofthec SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition
Petitioner, Misconductforrefusalt harge/s Everyattorneyisentitledtohaveandreceiveajustand Atty.RomeoG.Aguilosisherebyfine
vs. oreturnasumofmoney. A.M.02-11-11-SC reasonablecompensationforservicesperformedatt d P10,000.00
ATTY.ROMEOG.AGUILOS, The grounds for hespecialinstanceandrequestofhisclient.Aslong formisrepresentinghis
Respondent. legalseparation asthe attorney professionalcompetencetotheclient
isingoodfaithandhonestlytryingtorepresentandser ,andreprimandshimforhisuseofoffe
A.C. No. vetheinterestsoftheclient,heshouldhaveareasonabl nsiveandimproperlanguagetowards
10543March16, Code ecompensationforsuchservices.Everyattorneyisen hisfellowattorney,withthesternwar
2016BERSAMI ofProfessionalRespo titledtohaveandreceiveajustandreasonablecompen ningthatarepetitionoftheoffensesha
N, J.: nsibility sationforservicesperformedatthespecialinstancea llbeseverelypunished.
Rules18.01-Alawyershallnot ndrequestof
472
2016CASES
Rule18.02-
Alawyershallnothandleanylegalm
atterwithoutadequate
preparation.
Rule18.03-
Alawyershallnotneglectalegalmat
terentrustedtohim,andhisneglige
nceinconnectiontherewithshallre
nderhimliable.
Rules of Court
Section24.Compensationofattorneys;
agreementastofees-
Anattorneyshallbeentitledtohave
andrecoverfromhisclientnomore
thanareasonablecompensationfo
rhisservices.
(Topic): Grossmisconduct
PEDRORAMOS,Complainant,v Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/basesofthec SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition
s. GrossMisconductinviol harge/s Alawyerhasthedutytodeliverhisclient'sfundsorpro
ATTY.MARIA NYMPHA C. ationoftheCodeof pertiesastheyfalldueorupondemand.Hisfailuretore Atty.MariaNymphaC.Mandagangui
Professional Code ofProfessional turntheclient'smoney ltyofviolatingCanon16,Rule
473
2016CASES
(Topic): ChangeofAttorneywithoutnotice
HELENCHANG, Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/basesofthec SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition
Complainant,vs. Withdrawfromacasewit harge/s Atty.JoseR.Hidalgoisfoundguiltyof
ATTY. JOSE R.HIDALGO, houtnoticetotheclienta Rules of Court violatingCanon17andCanon18,Rul
Respondent. ndcomplyingwith the Rule138,Sec.26.Changeofattorneys.- e18.03oftheCodeofProfessionalRe
Respondentadmittedlywithdrewfromthecasesbut
requirement. Anattorneymayretireat
hefailedtoprovideanyevidencetoshowthatcomplai sponsibility.Heissuspendedfromthe
A.C. No. 6934 anytimefromanyactionor practiceoflawforaperiodofone(1)ye
nant,hisclient,agreedtothewithdrawalor,attheveryl
east,knewaboutit. ar,
474
2016CASES
CANON17-
Alawyerowesfidelitytothecauseo
fhisclientandheshallbemindfulof
thetrustandconfidencereposedin
him.
CANON18 –
Alawyershallservehisclientwithc
ompetence anddiligence.
(Topic): Convictionofcrimeinvolvingmoralturpitude
ALEX NULADA, Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/basesofthec SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition
Complainant,vs. Dishonesty harge/s Alawyerisrequiredtoobservethelawandbemindful Atty.OrlandoS.Paulmaisherebysus
ATTY.ORLANDOS. andconvictionof a Rules of Court ofhisorheractionswhetheractinginapublicorprivat pendedfromthepracticeoflawforap
PAULMA, Respondent. crimeinvolving Rule138,Section27.Disbarmentors ecapacity.Anytransgressionofthisdutyon eriodoftwo(2)years,effectiveuponhi
moralturpitude. uspensionofattorneysbySupremeCourt; hispartwould notonly sreceiptofthisResolution.Heiswarn
A.C. No. groundstherefor.- diminishhisreputationasalawyerbutwouldalsoerod edthatarepetitionofthesameorsimil
8172April 12, Amemberofthebarmaybedisbarr ethepublic'sfaithinthelegalprofessionasawhole.Int aractwillbedealtwithmoreseverely.
2016 edorsuspendedfromhisofficeasat hiscase,respondent'sconductfellshortoftheexactin
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.: torneybytheSupremeCourtforan gstandardsexpectedofhimasamemberofthebar,
ydeceit, forwhichhemust sufferthe
475
2016CASES
Rule1.01-
Alawyershallnotengageinunlawf
ul,dishonest,immoral ordeceitful
conduct.
(Topic): ViolationofLawyer’sOath
ARTHUR S. TULIO, Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/basesofthec SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition
Complainant, Dishonesty harge/s Atty.Buhangin’sfailuretosubmithispositionpaper
vs. and withoutanyvalidexplanationisenoughreasontomak Atty.GregoryF.Buhanginisherebyh
ATTY.GREGORY F. violationoftheLawyer’s Code ehimadministrativelyliablesinceheisduty- eldguiltyofrepresentingconflictingi
BUHANGIN,Respondent. OathandtheCodeofPro ofProfessionalRe boundtocomplywithallthelawfuldirectivesoftheIB nterestsinviolationofRule15.03,Can
fessionalResponsibility. sponsibility P,notonlybecauseheisamemberthereof,butmores on15oftheCodeofProfessionalResp
A.C. No. 7110 obecauseIBPistheCourt- onsibility.Accordingly,heisherebysu
CANON15- designatedinvestigatorofthiscase.Asanofficerofth spendedfromthe practiceof
Alawyershallobservecandor,fairn eCourt,respondentisexpectedto
essandloyaltyinallhisdealingsand
476
2016CASES
(Topic): GrossMisconduct
OFFICE OFTHECOURT Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/basesofthec SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition
ADMINISTRATOR,Petitioner, Disrespectnotonlytoits harge/s Concededly,thehonorandintegrityofthejudicialsys
vs. authorityoverlowercou CodeofJudicialConduct temismeasurednotonlybythefairnessandcorrectne JudgeRomeoB.CasalanoftheRegion
CASALAN,[FORMERLY rtjudgesandpersonnel. ssofdecisionsrendered,butalsobytheefficiencywith alTrialCourtofCulasi,Antique,Bran
A.M.N0.14-4-115-RTC(REPORT CANON1.A whichdisputesareresolved."Thus,judgesmustperf ch13,guiltyofthelessseriouscharges
ONTHE FINANCIAL judgeshoulduphold the ormtheirofficialdutieswithutmostdiligenceifpublic ofunduedelayinrenderingdecisiono
AUDITCONDUCTEDINTHE integrityand confidenceinthejudiciaryistobepreserved.Thereis rorderandofviolationofSupremeCo
REGIONAL TRIAL independence of noexcuseformediocrityintheperformanceofjudicia urtrulesanddirectives,underSection
COURT[RTC],BRANCHES13 thejudiciary lfunctions.Thepositionofjudgeexactsnothinglesst 9,Rule140oftheRulesofCourt.Pursu
AND65,CULASI hanfaithfulobservanceofthelawandtheConstitutio anttoSection11ofthesameRule,heis
ANDBUGASONG, Rule1.02- ninthe discharge ofofficial duties." orderedtopayafineintheamountequi
ANTIQUE)].Respondent. Ajudgeshouldadministerjusticeim Itbearsemphasisthatjudgesshouldtreatdirectivesfr valenttoThree(3)months'salaryatth
partiallyandwithoutdelay. omtheOCAasifissueddirectlybytheCourtandcom etimeofhisretirementforunduedelay
A.M. No.RTJ-14- plypromptlyandconscientiouslywiththemsinceitist in thedisposition
2385[FORMERLY A.M. N0.14- CANON3.A hroughtheOCAthatthe ofcasesandforinsubordination,tobe
4-115- judgeshouldperform official Courtexercisesitsconstitutionally-mandated deducted from
RTC} duties honestly, and administrativesupervisionover hisretirement/gr
withimpartiality allcourtsandthepersonnelthereof.Unjustifiedfailur atuity benefits.
April 20, anddiligence etocomplywithsuchdirectivesconstitutesmiscond
2016PERALT uctandexacerbates administrative liability.
A, J.: Rule3.05-
Ajudgeshalldisposeofthecourt'sbusi
nesspromptlyanddecidecaseswithin
therequiredperiods.
1987PhilippineConstitution
ArticleIII, SECTION16.All
477
2016CASES
personsshallhavetherighttoaspee Failuretoresolvecasessubmittedfordecisionwithint
dy heperiodfixedbylawconstitutesaseriousviolationof
dispositionoftheircasesbeforeallj Section16,ArticleIIIoftheConstitution.Failuretore
udicial,quasi- nderdecisionsandorderswithinthereglementaryper
judicial,oradministrativebodies.S iodisalsoabreachofRule3.05Canon3oftheCodeofJ
ECTION16.Allpersonsshallhav udicialConductandSection5,Canon6oftheNewCo
etherighttoaspeedydispositionof deofJudicialConduct.Classifiedaslessseriouscharg
theircasesbeforealljudicial,quasi- esunderSection9,Rule140oftheRulesofCourt,und
judicial,oradministrative bodies. uedelayinrenderingdecisionororder,andviolationo
fSupremeCourtrules,directivesandcirculars,arepe
nalizedwitheithersuspensionwithoutpayforaperio
dofnotlessthanOne(1)month,butnotmorethanTh
ree(3)months,orafineofmorethanP10,000.00,
butnotmore thanP20,000.00
(Topic): Grossmisconduct
DATUISMAEL MALANGAS, Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/basesofthec SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition
Complainant, Dishonesty, breach harge/s "TheCodeofProfessionalResponsibilitydemandst
vs. oftrust, andviolation Code heutmostdegreeoffidelityandgoodfaithindealingw Atty.PaulC.Zaideisherebysuspende
ATTY. PAUL C.ZAIDE, ofthe ofProfessionalRe iththemoneysentrustedtolawyersbecauseoftheirfi dfromthepracticeoflawfortwo(2)ye
Respondent. CanonsofJudicialEthi sponsibility duciaryrelationship."Anylawyerwhodoesnotliveu arseffectiveimmediately.Atty.PaulC
cs ptothisdutymustbepreparedtotaketheconsequenc .Zaideisalsoorderedtopromptlyretu
A.C. No. Rule16.01- esofhiswaywardness. rntocomplainantthesumsgiventohi
10675May 31, Alawyershallaccountforallmoney masacceptancefeeanddocketfeesint
2016 orpropertycollectedorreceivedfo heamountofP70,000.00,fromwhich
DELCASTILLO, J.: r orfromthe client. shouldbedeductedtheamountofP2,
623.60paidasdocketing fees.
Rule16.03-
Alawyershalldeliverthefundsand
propertyofhisclientwhendueoru
pondemand.However,heshallha
vealienoverthefundsand
478
2016CASES
mayapplysomuchthereofasmayb
enecessarytosatisfyhislawfulfeesa
nddisbursements,givingnoticepr
omptlythereaftertohisclient.Hes
hallalsohavealientothesameexten
tonalljudgmentsandexecutionsh
ehassecuredforhisclientasprovid
edforintheRulesofCourt.
(Topic): Grossmisconduct
DIONNIE RICAFORT, Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/basesofthec SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition
Complainant, Grossmisconduct harge/s Theactofhumiliatinganotherinpublicbyslappinghi
vs. Code morheronthefacehintsofacharacterthatdisregardst Atty.ReneO.Medinaisfoundtohave
ATTY.RENE O. MEDINA, ofProfessionalRe hehumandignityofanother.Respondent'squestiont violatedCanon7,Rule7.03oftheCod
Respondent. sponsibility ocomplainant,"Wakamakailasaako?"("Doyounotk eofProfessionalResponsibility,andi
Rule7.03- nowme?")Confirmssuchcharacterandhispotentialt ssuspendedfromthepracticeoflawfo
A.C. No. Alawyershallnotengageinconduc oabusetheprofessionasatoolforbullying,harassme rthree
5179May 31, tthatadverselyreflectsonhisfitnes nt,anddiscrimination. (3)months.
2016LEONE stopracticelaw,norshallhewhethe Goodcharacterisacontinuingqualificationforlawye
N,J.: rinpublicorprivate rs.ThisCourthasthepowertoimposedisciplinarysan
life,behaveinascandalousmanner ctionstolawyerswhocommitactsofmisconductineit
tothediscreditofthelegalprofessio herapublicorprivatecapacityiftheactsshowthemun
n. worthytoremainofficersofthecourt.Asofficersofth
ecourtandofthelaw,lawyersaregrantedtheprivileget
oservethepublic,nottobullythemto submission.
(Topic): ViolationofNotarialLaws
FLORA C.MARIANO, Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/basesofthe SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition
479
2016CASES
(Topic): Grossmisconduct
RONALDOC.FACTURAN, Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/basesofthec SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition
Complainant, Grossmisconductorseri harge/s Generally,alawyerwhoholdsagovernmentoffice ProsecutorAlfredoL.Barcelona,Jr.is
vs. ous Code may not be disciplinedasa member of foundguiltyofviolatingRule6.02,Ca
PROSECUTOR ALFREDOL. gross ofProfessionalRespo theBarformisconductin thedischargeof non6oftheCodeofProfessionalResp
BARCELONA, JR.,Respondent. misconductinoffice,dis nsibility hisdutiesasagovernmentofficial.Hemaybedisciplin onsibility.Heisherebysuspendedfro
honesty, CANON 6- These edbythisCourtasamemberoftheBaronlywhenhism mthepracticeoflawforaperiodofone
A.C. No. andc canonsshallapplytolawyersingov isconductalsoconstitutesaviolationofhisoathasa (1)year,effectiveuponhisreceiptofth
11069June 8, onductunbecomingofal ernmentserviceinthedischargeoft lawyer. isDecision,andissternlywarnedthata
2016 awyerorprosecutor heirofficial tasks. Respondent'sactionsandomissionsinthiscase, repetitionofthesameorsimilaractswi
i.e.,hisfailuretoresolveI.S.No.04-211andto llbedealt
Rule6.02- A lawyerinthe
480
2016CASES
(Topic): Unlawfuldisobedienceoflawfulorder
SPOUSESLAMBERTOV.EUS Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/basesofthec SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition
TAQUIOANDGLORIAJ. Unlawfuldisobedience harge/s TheCourthastheexclusivejurisdictiontoregulateth Atty.EdgarR.Navalesisfoundguilty
EUSTAQUIO,Complainants,v of lawful Republic epracticeoflaw.Assuch,whentheCourtordersalawy ofviolatingSection27,Rule
s. order(misconduct) ActNo.(RA)10071(Prosecutio ersuspendedfromthepracticeoflaw,hemustdesistfr 138oftheRulesofCourt.Accordingly
ATTY.EDGAR R.NAVALES, nService Actof2010) omperformingallfunctionsrequiringtheapplication ,heissuspendedfromthe practice
Respondent. Section9.PowersandFunctionsofthePro oflegalknowledgewithin theperiod of suspension. oflawforanadditionalperiod of six
vincialProsecutororCityProsecutor. Thisincludesdesistingfromholdingapositioningov (6)monthsfromhisoriginalsix(6)-
A.C. No. Rules of Court ernmentrequiringtheauthoritytopracticelaw. The monthsuspension,totallingone(1)ye
10465June 8, Rule138,Section27. practice of law embracesany activity, arfrom
2016 inoroutofcourt,whichrequirestheapplication serviceofthisDecision,withasternwa
rningthatarepetitionof
481
2016CASES
(Topic): Grossignoranceoflaw
MOAMAR PANGANDAG, Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/basesofthec SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition
Complainant, Grossignoranceofthela harge/s Byissuingawarrantofarrest,JudgeAbinalisassumed JudgeOttowaB.
vs. w,abuseand RulesofCourt tohaveappliedSection6(b),Rule112oftheRulesofC Abinal,MunicipalCircuitTrialCourt,
PRESIDINGJUDGEOTTOWA usurpation ourt,whichrequiredtheexaminationofhisownniece Mulondo,Maguing,Lumba-
B. ABINAL, 8THMUNICIPAL Sec. 6.
of todeterminetheexistenceofprobablecause.Further Bayabao,andTaraka,LanaodelSur,is
Whenwarrantofarrestmayissue.
CIRCUIT TRIALCOURT jurisdiction,conductpre (b)BytheMunicipalTrialCourt.- ,heisalsodeemedtohavereliedonhertestimonytodet foundguiltyofgrossignoranceofthel
INMULONDO,MAGUING,LU judicialtotheinterestofp Ifthemunicipaltrialjudgeconducting erminewhethertheendsofjusticenecessitatedthatP aworprocedureforfailingtoimmedia
MBA- ublicservice, andbias. thepreliminaryinvestigationissatisfie angandagbeplacedincustody,insteadofmerelyissui telyinhibithimselfinPeoplev.Gamama,
BAYABAO,ANDTARAKA, dafteranexaminationinwritingandun ngsummonsto CriminalCaseNo. 13-694-MG.
LANAODEL SUR,Respondent. der
482
2016CASES
(Topic): Grossimmoralconduct
MA.CECILIA CLARISSA C, Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/basesofthec SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition
ADVINCULA, Unlawfulandimmoralac harge/s Itisexpectedthateverylawyer,beinganofficerofthe Atty.LeonardoC.Advinculaguiltyofi
Complainant,vs. ts(extra-maritalsexual Code Court,mustnotonlybeinfactofgoodmoralcharacter mmorality;andsuspendshimfromth
ATTY.LEONARDOC. relations) ofProfessionalRe ,butmustalsobeseentobeofgoodmoralcharacteran epracticeoflawforaperiodofthreem
ADVINCULA, Respondent. sponsibility dleadinglivesinaccordancewiththehighestmoralsta onthseffectiveuponnoticehereof,wi
Rule1.01— ndardsofthecommunity.Morespecifically,amembe thasternwarningthatamoreseverepe
A.C. No. 9226 (Formerly CBD06- Alawyershallnotengageinunlawf roftheBarandofficeroftheCourtisrequirednotonly naltyshallbeimposedshouldhecom
1749) ul,dishonest,immoralor torefrainfromadulterousrelationshipsorkeepingmi mitthesameoffenseorasimilaroffens
deceitfulconduct. stressesbutalsotoconducthimselfastoavoidscandal e;directsAtty.Advinculatoreportthe
June 14, izingthepublicbycreatingthebeliefthatheisfloutingt dateofhisreceiptofthedecisiontothis
2016BERSAMI CANON7— hosemoralstandards.Ifthepracticeoflawistoremain court;andordersthechiefoftheperso
N, J.: Alawyershallatalltimesupholdthe anhonorableprofessionandattainitsbasicideals,wh nneldivisionofthenationalbureauofi
integrityanddignityofthelegalprof oeverisenrolledinitsranksshouldnotonlymasteritst nvestigationtoimplementthesuspen
ession,andsupporttheactivitiesof enetsandprinciplesbutshouldalso,intheirlives,acco sionfromofficeofAtty.Advinculaan
theIntegratedBar. rdcontinuingfidelitytothem.Therequirementofgo dtoreportonhiscomplianceinordert
odmoralcharacterisofmuchgreaterimport,asfarast o determinethe dateof
Rule7.03— hegeneralpublic
Alawyershallnotengageinconduc
tthatadverselyreflectsonhisfitnes
stopracticelaw,norshouldhe,whe
therinpublicorprivate life,
483
2016CASES
(Topic) :Gravemisconductandwillfulinsubordination
ARNOLDPACAO,Complainant,v Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/basesofthec SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition
s. For harge/s "[T]hepracticeoflawisnotarightbutaprivilegebesto Atty.SinamarLimos,havingviolatedt
ATTY.SINAMAR LIMOS, conduct RevisedRules ofCourt wedbytheStateuponthosewhoshowthattheyposse heCodeofProfessionalResponsibilit
Respondent. unbecomingofamembe ss,andcontinuetopossess,thequalificationsrequire yby
rof theBar Rule138,Sec.27.Offerofcompromisen dbylawfortheconfermentofsuchprivilege.Member committinggravemisconductandwil
A.C. No. otadmissible.— shipinthebarisaprivilegeburdenedwithconditions. lfulinsubordination,isdisbarredand
11246June 14, Incivilcases,anofferofcompromi ""Ofallclassesandprofessions,thelawyerismostsac hernameorderedstrickenofftheRoll
2016PERCURI seisnotanadmissionofanyliability, redlyboundtoupholdthelaws.Heistheirswornserva ofAttorneyseffectiveimmediately.
AM: andisnotadmissibleinevidenceag nt;andforhim,ofallmenintheworld,torepudiateand
ainst the offeror. overridethelaws,totramplethemunderfootandtoig
noretheverybondsofsociety,arguesrecreancyto
Incriminalcases,exceptthoseinvo hispositionandoffice,andsetsaperniciousexamplet
lving quasi- otheinsubordinateanddangerouselementsof the
offenses(criminalnegligence)orth body politic."
oseallowedbylawtobecompromi
sed,anofferofcompromisedby
the accused
484
2016CASES
maybereceivedinevidenceasanim
pliedadmission of guilt.
Apleaofguiltylaterwithdrawn,ora
nunacceptedofferofapleaofguilty
tolesseroffense,isnotadmissiblei
nevidenceagainsttheaccusedwho
madethepleaor offer.
Anoffertopayorthepaymentofm
edical,hospitalorotherexpenseso
ccasionedbyaninjuryisnotadmissi
bleinevidenceasproofofcivilorcri
minalliabilityfortheinjury.(24a)
(Topic): GrossNeglectofDuty
MARITA CABAS, Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/basesofthec SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition
Petitioner,vs. Grossderelictionofduty harge/s Grossneglectofdutyorgrossnegligencereferstonegl ChargesagainstAtty.RiaNinaL.Susu
ATTY.RIA NINA andviolationofRepublic R.A. No. igencecharacterizedbythewantofevenslightcare,or scoisdismissedforlack
L.SUSUSCOANDCHIEFCITYP Act(R.A.)No. 6033. 6033(anactrequiringcou byactingoromittingtoactinasituationwherethereisa ofmerit.TheResolutionoftheBoard
ROSECUTOR EMELIEFE rtsto give dutytoact,notinadvertentlybutwillfullyandintentio ofGovernorsoftheIntegratedBaroft
DELOSSANTOS,Respondents. preferenceto nally,withaconsciousindifferencetotheconsequenc hePhilippinesagainstProsecutorEm
criminalcaseswhere the es,insofarasotherpersonsmaybeaffected.Itistheom ilieFeDelosSantosisreversed.Howe
A.C. No. partyorpartiesinvolve are issionofthatcarethateveninattentiveandthoughtles ver,ProsecutorEmilieFeDelosSanto
8677June 15, indigents.) smenneverfailtogivetotheirownproperty.Itdenote sisherebysternlywarnedtobecircum
2016PERALT Section4.Anywillfulormalicious saflagrantandculpablerefusalorunwillingnessof spectintheperformanceofherduties,
A, J.: refusalonthepartofanyfiscalorjud apersonto perform andthatarepetitionofthesameorsimi
getocarryouttheprovisionsofthis aduty.Incasesinvolvingpublicofficials,grossneglige laractsinthefutureshallbedealtwith
Actshallconstitutesufficientgrou nceoccurswhena breachof dutyis more severely.
ndfordisciplinaryactionwhichma
yinclude suspension orremoval.
485
2016CASES
flagrantandpalpable.
Inadministrativeproceedings,thequantumofproof
necessaryforafindingofguiltissubstantialevidence,i
.e.,thatamountofrelevantevidencethatareasonable
mindmightacceptasadequatetosupportaconclusio
n.Further,thecomplainanthastheburdenofproving
bysubstantialevidencetheallegationsinhiscomplain
t.Thebasicruleisthatmereallegationisnotevidencea
ndisnotequivalenttoproof.Chargesbasedonmeres
uspicionandspeculationlikewisecannotbegivencre
dence.Inthepresentcase,thereisnosufficient,cleara
ndconvincingevidencetoholdbothAtty.Sususcoan
dPros.EmilieFeDelosSantosadministrativelyliable
forGrossNeglectofDuty.
(Topic): Grossmisconduct
MYRNA M.DEVEZA, Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/basesofthec SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition
Complainant, Fordishonestyandforac harge/s Thepracticeoflawisaprivilegebestowedonlytothos Atty.AlexanderDelPradoguiltyofvi
vs. tsunbecomingalawyer. Code ewhoshowthattheypossessandcontinuetopossesst olatingRule1.01ofCanon1andCano
ATTY.ALEXANDER M.DEL ofProfessionalRe helegalqualificationsforit.Asvanguardsofourlegals n7oftheCodeofProfessionalRespo
PRADO,Respondent. sponsibility ystem,theyareexpectedtomaintainnotonlylegalpro nsibility,theCourtherebySuspends
Rule1.01- ficiencybutalsoahighstandardofmorality,honesty,i himfromthepracticeoflawforFive(5
A.C. No. Alawyershallnotengageinunlawful,d ntegrityandfairdealing.7Becauseoftheirimportantr )yearseffectiveuponreceiptofthisde
9574June 21, ishonest,immoralordeceitfulconduc oleinthesociety,theCourtshallnothesitatetodiscipli cisionwithawarningthatarepetition
t. nealawyerforanyconductthatiswantinginmorality, ofthesameorasimilaractwillbedealt
2016PERCURI CANON7-
AM: honesty,probityandgooddemeanor,whethersuchc withmoreseverely.
Alawyershallatalltimesupholdtheint
egrityanddignityofthelegalprofessio
onductwascommittedintheirprofessionalor
nandsupportthe inprivate
activitiesoftheintegratedbar.
486
2016CASES
capacity.
Inthepresentcase,Atty.DelPradocommittedanact
whichfellshortofthestandardofthenormofconduct
requiredofeverylawyer.Hedeceivedthecomplainan
tbymakinghersignthedeedofsaleandmakingherbeli
evethathewouldpayinfullthebalanceofthepurchase
priceafterhehadthedocumentnotarized.Complain
antwaitedforAtty.DelPradotomakegoodhispromi
setopaybutdespiteseveraldemands,hecontinuedre
negingonhisobligationwhichpromptedhertofileac
aseagainsthim.
(Topic): ViolationofLawyer’sOath
PLUTARCOE.VAZQUEZ, Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/basesofthec SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition
Complainants Violationof harge/s
vs. Lawyer’sOathandCode Code ThisdisbarmentcasecentersonwhetherAtty.Khovi TheinstantAdministrativeComplai
ATTY.DAVIDLIM QUECO ofProfessionalRespons ofProfessionalRespo olatedhislawyer'soaththatheshalldonofalsehoodan ntforviolationofthelawyer'soathand
KHO,Respondent ibility. nsibility dthatheshallnotengageinunlawful,dishonest,immo theCodeofProfessionalResponsibili
CANON1- ral,ordeceitfulconduct.Accordingtocomplainant,a tyfiledagainstAtty.DavidLimQueco
A.C. No. Alawyershallupholdtheconstituti violationoccurredwhenrespondentdeclaredinhisv Khoishereby dismissed.
9492July 11, on,obeythelawsofthelandandpro erifiedCertificateofAcceptanceofNominationthat
2016SERENO moterespectforlawofandlegalpro hewasanatural-
,CJ.: cesses. bornFilipinocitizen.Althoughthequestionofone'sc
itizenshipisnotopentocollateralattack,theCourtack
nowledgestheIBP-
Rule1.01- CBD'spronouncementthatithadtomakealimitedfi
Alawyershallnotengageinunlawf ndingthereon,sincetheallegeddishonestyhinged
ul,dishonest,immoral ordeceitful on thisissue.
conduct.
Lawyer's Oath Wehaveconstantlyruledthatanattackonaperson'sci
tizenshipmayonlybedonethroughadirectactionfori
tsnullity.Adisbarmentcaseis
487
2016CASES
definitelynotthepropervenuetoattacksomeone'scit
izenship.Forthelackofanyrulingfromacompetentc
ourtonrespondent'scitizenship,thisdisbarmentcas
elosesitsonlyleg to standon and, hence,mustbe
dismissed.
(Topic): Malpracticeorothergrossmisconduct
NORMA M.GUTIERREZ, Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/basesofthec SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition
Complainant Gravemisconduct,gros harge/s Rule16.03oftheCodeobligatesalawyertodeliverthe
vs. snegligence,andincomp Code client'sfundsandpropertywhendueor Atty.EleonorA.Maravilla-
ATTY.ELEANOR A. etence ofProfessionalRe upondemand. onaissuspendedfromthepracticeofl
MARAVILLA-ONA, Respondent sponsibility Alawyerisobligedtoholdintrustmoneyofhisclientth awforthree(3)years.SheisWARNE
Rule1.01- atmaycometohispossession.Astrusteeofsuchfunds Dthatarepetitionofthesameorsimila
A.C. No. Alawyershallnotengageinunlawful,d ,heisboundtokeepthemseparateandapartfromhiso roffenseshallbedealtwithmore
10944July 12, ishonest,immoralordeceitfulconduc wn,Moneyentrustedtoalawyerforaspecificpurpose
severely.
t. suchasforthefilingandprocessingofacaseifnotutiliz
2016 CANON16-
PERCURIAM: ed,mustbereturnedimmediatelyupondemand.Fail Atty.Maravilla-
Alawyershallholdintrustallmoneysa
ndpropertiesof his clientthatmay
uretoreturngivesriseto Onaisalsoorderedtoreturntocompla
come intohisprofession. apresumptionthathehasmisappropriateditinviolati inantNormaGutierrezthefullamou
onofthetrustreposedonhim.Andtheconversion of ntofP65,000.00withinninety(90)day
fundsentrusted to sfromthefinalityofthisResolution.F
himconstitutesgrossviolationofprofessionalethics ailuretocomplywiththisdirectivewill
andbetrayalofpublicconfidenceinthelegalprofessi merittheimpositionofthemoresever
on. epenaltyofdisbarqientfromthepract
In the presentcase, Atty. Maravilla-Ona iceoflaw,whichthisCourtshallimpos
receivedmoneyfromherclientforthefilingofacasein ebasedonthecomplainant'smotion
court,Notonlydidshefailtofilethecasebutshealsofai withnoticedulyfurnishedtoAtty.Ma
ledtoreturnherclient'smoney.Theseactsconstitute ravilla-
violationsofAtty.Maravilla- Ona.Thispenaltyshallbeinlieuofthe
Ona'sprofessionalobligationsunderCanon16. penaltyofsuspensionhereinabove
imposed.
488
2016CASES
TOPIC: GoodMoralCharacter
489
2016CASES
490
2016CASES
dealtwithmore severely.
TOPIC: GrossMisconduct
491
2016CASES
disrespectfor the Courtandtherestofthe Judiciary.
TOPIC: GrossMisconduct
GabinoV.Tolentinoa Seriousmisconductforrepe The Commissionon Asa servantofthe law, Atty. Ancheta'sprimary WHEREFORE,
ndFlordelizaC. atedfailure BarDisciplinerecommendedthatAtt dutywasto obey the lawsandpromote respectforthe thecomplaintagainstrespondent
Tolentino tocomplywithseveralof the y. Sobeabsolved ofthe charge lawandlegalprocesses. Corollary to thisduty Atty. Henry
vs. Court'sResolutionsanddec againsthimfor insufficiency of ishisobligation B.
Atty.HenryB. So eit onhisclient. evidence. AstoAtty. Ancheta, the toabstainfromdishonestordeceitfulconduct, SoisDISMISSEDforinsufficienc
andAtty.FerdinandL. Commissionfoundhimguilty aswellasfrom"activitiesaimedatdefianceof the law y of evidence. Onthe
Ancheta ofseriousmisconductanddeceit. oratlessening confidence in the legalsystem." Atty. otherhand,
A.C. No. Hebreached the following Ancheta'sadvice involving corruptionof judicial thisCourtfindsrespondentAtty.
6387July 19, dutiesembodiedinthe Code officerstrampsthe integrity anddignity ofthe legal FerdinandL.Ancheta GUILTY
2016PERCUR ofProfessionalResponsibility: professionandthe judicial system andadversely ofgrossmisconductinviolation
IAM Canon7, 15-15.05-15.06-15.07, 16- reflectson hisfitnesstopractice law. oftheLawyer'sOathandthe
16.01- Atty. Ancheta'scavalierattitude inrepeatedlyignoring CodeofProfessionalResponsibili
16.03, 17 and18-18.03 ofthe CPR the ordersofthisCourtconstitutesutterdisrespect ty andhereby
and the Lawyer’sOath. ofthe judicial institution. Hisconductshowsa DISBARShimfromthepractice
Also,tojustify highdegree ofirresponsibility of law. TheOffice oftheBar
histransgressionfordisbarmentRule andbetraysarecalcitrantflaw inhischaracter. Indeed, ConfidantisDIRECTEDtorem
138, Section27 ofthe Rulesof hiscontinuedindifference ovethename of FerdinandL.
Court. tothisCourt'sordersconstituteswillful disobedience of AnchetafromtheRoll
the lawfulordersof thisCourt, which, underRule 138, ofAttorneys.
Section27ofthe Rulesof Court, isinitself a
sufficientcauseforsuspension or disbarment. RespondentAncheta
The maintenance of a highstandard isORDEREDtoreturntocompla
oflegalproficiency, honesty, andfairdealing69 inants
isaprerequisite tomaking GabinoV.TolentinoandFlordeli
thebaraneffectiveinstrumentin the za C.Tolentino,
properadministrationof justice.70Any member, within30daysfromreceipt of
therefore, whofailstolive upto theexacting thisResolution,thetotalamount
standardsofintegrity andmorality exposeshimselfor of ₱230,000.00,withlegal
herselfto administrative liability. interestat12%perannumfromthe
date ofdemand on
September10, 2003
to June 30,2013, andat6%per
annumfromJuly 1, 2013
untilfullpayment.RespondentAn
cheta isfurtherDIRECTEDto
submittothisCourtproof
ofpayment ofthe amountwithin
492
2016CASES
10 daysfrompayment.
TOPIC: NotarialLaw
Virgilio D. Failure to ascertain By hisneglect, the Asa lawyercommissionedto bea notary public, WHEREFORE, the
MagawayandCesario theidentity ofthe respondentunderminedthe therespondentwasmandated todischarge CourtREVOKESthe
M. personexecuting confidence of thepublic on the hissacreddutieswithfaithful observance notarialcommissionof
Magaway thesameconstitutedgrossn worthof notarizeddocuments. He andutmostrespectfor the legalsolemnity of respondentATTY.MARIA
vs. egligence in thusbreachedCanon Iof the Code anoathinanacknowledgment or jurat. Indeed, NOA.
Atty.MarianoA. theperformance of ofProfessionalResponsibility, suchresponsibilitywasincumbentuponhim byvirtue AVECILLA
Avecilla hisdutiesasa notary bywhich he ofhissolemnLawyer'sOathto dono falsehood or effectiveimmediately;
A.C. No. public. asanattorneycommissionedto consent tothedoing of any, andby DISQUALIFIEShimfromreapp
7072July 27, serve asanotarypublic wasrequired virtueofhisundertaking,pursuant tothe Code ointmentasNotary Public for a
2016BERSAM to uphold theConstitution, obey ofProfessional Responsibility,not to engage periodoftwoyearseffective
IN, J. the lawsof theland, andpromote inunlawful, dishonest, immoralordeceitful immediately;SUSPENDShimfro
respectfor thelaw conductandto upholdatall timestheintegrity mthepractice of law for a
andlegalprocesses. anddignity ofthelegalprofession.Hisfailure to periodofone yeareffective
ascertain the identity of thepersonexecuting thesame immediatelywith the
constitutedgrossnegligence inthe performance WARNINGthattherepetitionof
ofhisdutiesasa notary public. Assuch, itisnow the sameorsimilaractsshall be
unavoidable forhimto accept thecommensurate dealtwithmoreseverely;
consequencesofhisindiscretion. andDIRECTShimtoreportthe
By hisneglect, the respondentundermined date ofreceiptof
theconfidence ofthe public on the worthof thisdecisioninorderto
notarizeddocuments. He thusbreachedCanon Iof the determinewhenhissuspensionsh
Codeof ProfessionalResponsibility, by which he alltakeeffect.
asanattorney commissionedto serve asa notary
publicwasrequiredto uphold theConstitution, obey
thelawsof the land, andpromote respectforthe law
andlegalprocesses.
Time andagain, the Courthasremindednotariespublic
of the importance attached to the act ofnotarization.
We
muststressyetagainthatnotarizationisnotanempty,or
perfunctory, ormeaninglessact,for
itisinvestedwithsubstantialpublic interest.
Courtsandotherpublicoffices, andthe public atlarge
couldrely upon therecitalsof
theacknowledgmentexecutedbythe notary public.
Forthisreason, notariespublicmustobserve with
493
2016CASES
utmostcare the basic requirementsin theperformance
oftheirduties.Otherwise, theconfidence ofthe public
inthe integrity ofthisformof conveyance would be
undermined.
TOPIC: GrossMisconduct
ErnestoB.Balburiasv Threatandarrogance. Violation ofthe Code The CourtnotesthatAtty. Franciscodidnotpersonally WHEREFORE, we DENYthe
s. ofProfessionalResponsibility appearduringthemandatoryconference/hearing petition. We DISMISS
Atty.AmorMiaJ.F bythreatandarrogance andwas only represented byAtty. Naval. The thecomplaintfiledby
rancisco againstthepetitioner. reportdidnot state the reasonforAtty. ErnestoB.BalburiasagainstAtt
A.C. No. Francisco’sabsence. A reading ofthe y. AmorMia J. Francisco.
10631July 27, transcriptshowedthat she hadto undergo a procedure WeADMONISHAtty.
2016CARPIO, butnomedicalcertificate wassubmitted. In any case, Franciscoto be more
J. Atty.NavalstatedthatAtty. Franciscowouldonly circumspectinheractionsandto
confirmwhatwastakenupduring the be morecourteousindealing
mandatoryconference/hearing.TheCourtcanrule withlitigantsinthe future.
based onthepleadingsfiled,the transcript of the case,
and theReportandRecommendation of the
InvestigatingCommissioner.
Atty. Franciscocouldhave avoided the incidentifshe
atleasttriedtotalk toBalburias'scounsel on
thematterofamicable settlement ofthe
criminalcaseinsteadoftalking
toBalburiashimself.Balburiasmisinterpretedthe
approachasanattemptto "buyheropponents." We rule
thatBalburiasfailedtosatisfactorilyshow
thatAtty.Franciscoactedinbadfaith.
DelosSantos'saffidavitshowedthatAtty.
Franciscoimmediately
correctedherselfwhensherealizedthat
shemighthaveoffendedBalburiasbysaying thatshe
wasreferringto the amountof thecomplaint.We
gatheredthesame impressionfromthe
affidavitsofAquinoandAtty. Villanueva.
Nevertheless, we deemitproper to
admonishAtty.Franciscoto be more carefulindealing
withotherlitigantstoavoid a repetitionof a
similarincidentinthe future.
494
2016CASES
TOPIC: GrossMisconduct
495
2016CASES
BudencioDumanlag Grossmisconductinrejecti Violation ofthe Code The Complaintmust be dismissedforutterlack WHEREFORE, the
vs. ng complainant'sclaimover ofProfessionalResponsibility ofmerit. CourtRESOLVES to:
Atty.Jaime a parcel of landbased on a thatlawyersshallperformtheirduty A lawyerischargedwiththe duty to defend"thecause (a)DISMISS
M.Blanco,Jr. SpanishTitle. tothe clientwithinthe boundsof law. of hisclientwithwholeheartedfidelity, the administrative
A.C. No. 8825 care,anddevotion." Nevertheless, the Code complaintfordisbarmentagainst
August03,2016 ofProfessionalResponsibility Atty. Jaime
SERENO, C.J. circumscribesthisdutywith the M. Blancoforutterlack ofmerit;
limitationthatlawyersshallperformtheirduty to the (b)IMPOSE a FINEofP5,000
clientwithintheboundsof law.In thiscase, Atty. on
Blancoperformedthisduty complainantBudencioDumanlag
tohisclientwithoutexceeding thescopeof forfiling amaliciouscomplaint;
hisauthority. and(c)DIRECTcomplainant
Hence, complainanthad a baselessclaim, toSHOW CAUSE why
whichAtty.Blancocorrectly resisted.Inwriting heshouldnot be citedfor
thetwolettersrejecting complainant'sclaim, he merely indirectcontemptforfailing to
actedindefense of the rights of hisclient. In doing so, complywithourfinalandexecutor
heperformedhisdutyto EMIDCIwithinthe yDecisiondated18December199
boundsoflaw. 6, insofarasitenjoinsagentsof the
Consequently, there wasnomisconduct tospeak ofon Estate
the part of Atty. Blanco.In fact, heshouldevenbe ofMarianoSanPedrofromexercisi
commendedashe remainedsteadfast, inmaintaining ng
the causeof hisclientevenashe wassubjected actsofpossessionorownershiport
toharassment. As will be ootherwise dispose ofany
TOPIC: GrossMisconduct discussedbelow,complainant,inhisseconddemandlette landcovered byT.P. 4136.
r, threatenedAtty. Blancowiththe filingof a
WilliamG.Campos,Jr.,R Grossmisconductinr Respondentclearly Respondentclearly
disbarmentcase. violatedCanons15, 16 and20ofthe ACCORDINGLY,
epresented byRosario eceiving a total violatedCanons15, 16 and20 ofthe Code ofProfessionalResponsibility. respondentAtty. AlexanderC.
B.Campos,RitaC.Ba ofP345,000.00 from Code ofProfessionalResponsibility. Estebalishereby
tac andDorinaD. complainants;thatnotwiths CANON15 - foundGUILTY ofviolating the
Carpio tandingreceiptthereof, ALAWYERSHALLOBSERVECANDOR,FAIRN Code
vs. Atty. Estebaldidnot make ESSANDLOYALTYIN ALLHIS ofProfessionalResponsibility
Atty.AlexanderC. any attempt DEALINGSANDTRANSACTIONSWITHHIS andishereby
Estebal toprocessorsubmittheirvisa CLIENTS. SUSPENDEDfromthe
A.C. No. applications; thatevenif the practice of law for aperiodof
10443August08, amountcollectedisconsider CANON16 - one (1)year, effective
2016DELCASTILL edasattorney'sfees, ALAWYERSHALLHOLDINTRUSTALL uponreceipt of
O,J. thesame isexcessive; MONEYSANDPROPERTIESOFHIS thisDecision.HeisalsoORDER
CLIENTTHATMAYCOME ED
INTOHISPOSSESSION. toreturntheamountsofP135,000
.00 toWilliam G. Campos,Jr.,
496
2016CASES
497
2016CASES
thatindeed, Atty. Estebal, Sr. shouldbe
heldadministratively liable.
TOPIC: GrossMisconduct
498
2016CASES
Paler,andAtty.AngelesG for ProfessionalResponsibility. connectiontherewith, paidAttys. Cruz- Rule 1.01, Canon1,Canon7,
randea, legalserviceswhichresp AngelesandPaler the aggregate sum ofP350,000 Canon11, Rule 18.03, Canon
oftheAngeles,Grandea& ondentsfailed representinglegalfees. However, despitethe passage 18, andRules16.01
PalerLawOffice toperform. of morethanfive (5)monthsfromthe and16.03,Canon16 of the
A.C. No. engagement,Attys.Cruz-AngelesandPalerfailed to file Code
11113August09, the appropriatepleading to initiatethe casebefore the ofProfessionalResponsibility.
2016 propercourt;andworse, couldnot evenshow a Accordingly, each of
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. finisheddraftofsuchpleading. Suchneglect of the legal themishereby
matterentrusted tothem by SUSPENDEDfromthepractice
theirclientconstitutesaflagrantviolation ofRule 18.03, of law for a periodofthree
Canon18 of theCPR. Inthisrelation, Attys.Cruz- (3)years, effective uponthe
AngelesandPaleralsoviolatedRules16.01 and16.03, finality ofthisDecision,with a
Canon16 oftheCPRwhenthey failed toreturn to STERNWARNINGthata
complainanttheamountofP350,000representing repetitionof
theirlegal fees. thesameorsimilaractswill be
Furthermore, Attys. Cruz- dealtwithmore severely.
AngelesandPalermisrepresentedto complainantthat
thedelay in thefiling Likewise,
ofhispetitionforannulmentwasdueto thefactthatthey respondentsAtty.RoseBeatrix
werestilllookingfor a "friendly" court,judge, andpublic Cruz-AngelesandAtty. Wylie M.
prosecutorwhowill notbetoomuch of a hindrance PalerareORDEREDtoreturntoc
inachieving successin theannulmentcase.In fact, inthe omplainantCleo B.Dongga-
two(2)billingstatementsdatedOctober5, asthe legalfeesthey
200427andOctober10,2004,28 Attys. Cruz- receivedfromthe latterinthe
AngelesandPalermade itappearthatthey wentto aggregateamountofP350,000.00
variouslocationstolookfora suitable venue infiling withinninety (90)daysfrom
thesaidpetition, thefinality
andevenpaidvariousamountstoprosecutorsandmembe ofthisDecision.Failureto comply
rs ofthe NationalBureau withthe foregoingdirective
ofInvestigationtoactastheir"consultants." willwarranttheimpositionof a
Suchmisrepresentationsanddeceitson the more severepenalty.
partofAttys.Cruz-AngelesandPalerare
violationsofRule 1.01,Canon 1of the CPR.Moreover, Meanwhile, the
Canon 7of theCPRcommandseverylawyer to complaintasagainstAtty.
"atalltimesuphold the integrity anddignityofthe AngelesGrandea
TOPIC: MisappropriationofClient’sFund legalprofession" for the strengthof the legal isDISMISSEDforlack of merit.
professionliesinthe dignity andintegrity of
itsmembers.
499
2016CASES
Adegoke Absconding Respondentviolated the Respondentfailed toserve WHEREFORE,
R.Plumptrevs. withmoneyentrusted followingCanonsofthe Code hisclientwithfidelity,competence, anddiligence. Henot respondentArty.
Atty.Socrates R.Rivera tohimandsoliciting money ofProfessionalResponsibility: onlyneglected theattorney- SocratesR.Rivera
A.C. No. 11350 to bribe ajudge. clientrelationshipestablishedbetweenthem;he isSUSPENDEDfrom
(FormerlyCBDCase No. CANON 1 alsoactedin a reprehensible thepractice of law forthree
14-4211)August09, CANON 7 mannertowardscomplainant, i.e., cussing (3)years. He
2016PERCURIAM CANON16 andthreateningcomplainantandhisfamily withbodily isORDEREDtoreturnto
-Rule harm, hidingfrom complainant,andrefusing complainantAdegoke
16.01CAN withoutreasontoreturnthe money R. Plumptre the amount
ON17CAN entrustedtohimforthe processingof the work ofP28,000.00
ON18 permit.Respondent'sbehaviordemonstrateshislack withinterestat6%perannumfrom
-Rule 18.03. ofintegrity andmoralsoundness. the date ofpromulgation
-Rule 18.04. ofthisResolutionuntil fully
By implying that he cannegotiate a favorable paid.He
rulingfor the sum ofP8,000.00, islikewiseDIRECTEDtosubmitt
respondenttrampleduponthe integrityof the othisCourtproofof payment
judicialsystemanderodedconfidence on the oftheamountwithin10
judiciary.Thisgrossdisrespectofthe daysfrompayment.
judicialsystemshowsthat he iswanting
inmoralfiberandbetraysthe lack ofintegrity
TOPIC: NotarialLaw inhischaracter.The practice oflaw isaprivilege,
andrespondenthasrepeatedly shownthat heis
OscarM.Baysacv Notarizing a Violation of Canon 1oftheCodeof We findSectionit.1ofPublicAct No.
unfittoexercise WHEREFORE,
s. fictitiousorspuriousdocu Professional 2103,29otherwise knownasthe NotarialLaw, to thisCourthereby findsAtty.
Atty.EloisaM.Aceron- ment. Responsibility,particularly betheapplicable law at the time the Eloisa M.Aceron-Papa
Papa Canon1.01. Also,Section complainedactstookplace. GUILTY ofviolating the
A.C. No. 1ofPublic Nonetheless,bothlawsprovide for a Notarial Law andthe Code
10231August10, ActNo.2103(NotarialLaw) similarprovision onacknowledgment. ofProfessionalResponsibility.
2016JARDELE The affidavit ofMs. Angeles, and the findingsof Accordingly,thisCourtREVOK
ZA, J. theNBIprovethatrespondentviolated the ES herincumbentcommission,
NotarialLawwhen she notarized theDeed of Absolute ifanyPROHIBITSherfrombeing
Salewithoutthe personalappearance of commissionedasa notarypublic
complainant.Itwasrespondent'sduty asnotary public fortwo(2)years;
torequire thepersonalappearance of andSUSPENDSherfromtheprac
thepersonexecuting thedocumenttoenable the former tice of law for one
to verify thegenuinenessof hissignature.Doing away (1)year,effective immediately.
with theessentialrequirementof physicalpresence of She isfurtherWARNEDthat a
theaffiantdoesnottake intoaccount the likelihoodthat
500
2016CASES
the documentsmay bespuriousorthatthe repetitionof the
affiantsmay not be whothey purport to be. sameorsimilaroffense shall be
Respondentisremindedthatasa dealtwithmoreseverely.
lawyercommissionedasnotary public, she
isrequiredtoupholdhersacreddutiesappertaining
toheroffice,suchdutiesbeing dictatedbypublic policy
andimpressedwithpublic interest.
More, asa lawyer,respondentbreachedCanon 1ofthe
Code ofProfessionalResponsibility,
particularlyCanon1.01 by notarizingthe Deed of
Absolute Sale,she engagedinunlawful, dishonest,
immoral ordeceitfulconduct.
TOPIC: GrossMisconduct
ArnoldG.Tengson Grossneglectofduty Violation ofSection8,Rule122 Respondentwasonly able totransmitthe WHEREFORE, the
vs. infailing to transmit ofthe Rulesof Court. completerecordsof CriminalCase No. TMCR-038- CourtfindsrespondentAtty.
Atty.MaricelLilledAsun totheCA the recordsof 08 totheCA on February 23, 201525- morethan a MaricelLilledAsuncion-Roxas,
cion-Roxas,Clerkof acriminalcase yearafterthe complainantfiledhisnotice of appeal Clerk ofCourtVIassigned
CourtVI,Branch23,Reg formorethan a year. onNovember4, 2013.Thus, itcannot be toBranch23oftheRegional Trial
ionalTrialCourt,Trece gainsaidthatthe CourtofTreceMartiresCity,
Martires City,Cavite respondentwasindeedremissinherduty asaclerk of Cavite, GUILTYof grossneglect
A.M. No. P-16- court. The respondent'sfailure to transmitthe of duty forthedelay
3515August10, recordsofCriminalCaseNo. TMCR-038-08tothe CA intransmittingto
2016REYES, J. forone yearandthree monthsisunreasonably long; theCourtofAppealsthe
itunquestionably amountstogrossneglect ofduty recordofCriminal Case
considering thatthe caseinvolvestherightof No.TMCR-038-08
anaccused to appealhisconviction tothe CA. entitledPeople of
The respondent'sexcuseofheavy thePhilippinesv. Arnold
workloaddeservesscantconsideration.TheCourtnotest G.Tecson.The
hattrialcourtsare indeedheavily Courtherebyimposesonher a
ladenwithworkloaddue to FINE
thenumberofcasesfiledandpending before ofFifteenThousandPesos(₱15,00
them.Itdoesnot, however,serve asa convenientexcuse 0.00) tobe paidwithin
toevade administrative liability; otherwise, aperiodoften(10)daysuponreceip
everygovernmentemployee facedwithnegligence thereof, with a warningthat a
andderelictionofduty repetition
wouldresorttothatexcusetoevade ·punishment,to the ofthesameorsimilaractshall be
detrimentof thepublicservice. dealtwithmore severely.
501
2016CASES
Jen Sherry Wee-Cruz Issuance of Violation ofRule 1.01, Canon Respondentmust be suspendedfrom the practice WHEREFORE, Atty.
vs. worthlesschecksto 1ofthe Code oflaw for violation ofRule 1.01, Canon 1of the ChichinaFaye
Atty.ChichinaFaye complainant'sbrother. ofProfessionalResponsibility. Codeof Professional Responsibility. LimisSUSPENDEDfromthe
Lim practice of law fortwoyears. Let
A.C. No. Respondentcannotevade disciplinary a copy ofthisDecision be
11380August16, sanctionsbyimplying thatthere wasnoattorney- enteredinherpersonalrecordatthe
2016SERENO, clientrelationshipbetweenher andcomplainant. OfficeoftheBar Confidant,and a
C.J. copybe served onthe
In thiscase, complainantandherbrothercategorically IntegratedBarof
statedthattheyhadagreed to thePhilippinesandtheOffice of
lendsubstantialamountsof moneyto the
respondent,because "she'sa lawyer." Indeed, CourtAdministratorforcirculatio
lawyersare held bythe community invery highesteem; n toall the courtsinthe land.
yetrespondenterodedthisgoodwill whenshe
repeatedly broke herpromisestopay andmake good
on herchecks.
On severaloccasions,thisCourthashad
todisciplinemembersofthe
legalprofessionfortheirissuance ofworthlesschecks.
ThisCourt,however,
agreeswithrespondentthatthepenalty of
disbarmentwouldbetoo harsh.
Recognizing the consequence of disbarmenton
theeconomic life andhonorofanerring lawyer,
thisCourtheldinAnacta v.
Resurrectionthatdisbarmentshouldnot be
decreedwhere any punishmentless
502
2016CASES
severe wouldaccomplishthe enddesired.
TOPIC: GossMisconduct
Nilo Ethical Violation of Canon15 ofthe Canon15 of the Code CCORDINGLY, the
B.Diongz MisconductinRepresenti Codeof Professional ofProfessionalResponsibilityenjoinslawyersto observe CourtAFFIRMS
onvs. ng conflictinginterest. Responsibility. candor, fairnessandloyalty inall theirdealings theResolutionadopted
Atty.WilliamMirano -Canon15.03 andtransactionswiththeirclients. Specifically, onFebruary 13, 2013bythe
A.C. No. 2404 Canon15.03 demandsthat: "Alawyershall Board ofGovernorsofthe
August17,2016 notrepresentconflicting interestsexceptby IntegratedBar
BERSAMIN, J. writtenconsentof allconcernedgivenafter a ofthePhilippines;
fulldisclosure ofthe facts." A FINDSandDECLARES Atty.
conflictofinterestexistswhere a William N.Miranoguilty of
lawyerrepresentsinconsistentinterestsoftwoopposing ethicalmisconductdue to
parties, like when the conflictofinterest,
lawyerperformsanactthatwillinjuriously and,ACCORDINGLY,
affecthisfirstclientinanymatterinwhichhe SUSPENDShimfromtheprac
representedhim, or when thelawyerusesany tice of law forONEYEAR,
knowledge he previously effective
acquiredfromhisfirstclientagainstthe latter. immediatelyuponreceiptof
thisdecision.
The prohibitionagainstconflict of
interestisfoundedonprinciplesofpublic policy
andgoodtaste, inasmuchasthe lawyer-
clientrelationshipisbased on trustandconfidence. A
lawyerhasa dutyto preserve hisclient'sconfidence
inhim, eveniftheirrelationship ends.Thepurpose isto
assurefreedomofcommunicationbetween the
lawyerandthe clientinordertoenablethe
formertoproperlyrepresentandserve the
latter'sinterests. To useagainst the latterany
information the formergainsduring
therelationshipisdeplorable andunethical.
504
2016CASES
vs. amountof₱29,000 andRules1.01, 16.01, 18.03and client'scause and tobe mindful of.the Atty. Freddie A. Venida
Atty.Freddie A.Venida thatcomplaintantentruste 18.04 of the Codeof trustandconfidence reposedinthemto diligently isfoundGUILTY
A.C. No. d tohimandnegligence. ProfessionalResponsibility. prosecutetheirclients' casesthemomentthey agreed ofviolatingCanons16, 17,
11317August23, tohandlethem, asismandatedofthemunderCanon17 and18, and
2016PERCURI oftheCode. They owe entire devotion tothe interestof Rules1.01, 16.01, 18.03and
AM theclient, warmzealin the maintenance and the 18.04 of the
defenseof the client'srights, CodeofProfessionalResponsibili
andtheexertionoftheirutmostlearning andabilitiesto ty.Accordingly, he
the endthatnothingbe takenor withheldfrom the isherebyDISBARREDfrom the
client,save bytherulesof lawlegally applied. Atty. practiceof law andhisname
Venida grossly failed tofulfil thismandate. isORDEREDstrickenoff
fromtheRollof Attorneys,
The recordsdefinitivelyshow thatAtty. Venida effectiveimmediately.
wascompletely
remissandnegligentinhandlingEthelene'scase, Atty. Venida
notwithstanding hisreceipt ofthesum ofTwenty- isorderedtorefundthe amount of
NineThousandPesos(₱29,000)fromher by way ₱29,000to complainantEthelene
ofhisacceptance andfilingfees.Instead offiling the W. SanJuanwithinthirty
petition,Atty. Venida gave hisclient a (30)daysfromnotice.
runaroundandledher to believe Otherwise,he maybe
thatthepetitionhadalready beenfiled. heldincontemptofcourt.
Whenpressedforupdates, Atty. Venida
evadedEthelene andrefusedto returnhercalls. Worse,
the feesremainunaccountedfor, whichwere entrusted
to himforthe filing of the petition.
When a lawyerreceivesmoney from the clientfor
aparticularpurpose, the
lawyerisboundtorenderanaccounting to the
clientshowing that the money
wasspentforthatparticularpurpose. Andif heor
shedoesnot use the moneyforthe
intendedpurpose,the lawyer
mustimmediatelyreturnthe money to theclient.
Consequently, Atty. Venida isduty-
boundtoreturnthe₱29,000 giventohim by Ethelene.
Failureto doso isa breach ofRule16.01 of the Code,
whichprovides:
Rule 16.0 I- A lawyershallaccountforallmoney
orproperty collected orreceived fororfrom the client.
505
2016CASES
Atty. Venida' sagreementtohandle Ethelene'
scase,cemented by hisreceipt of hislegalfees,
isanassurance andrepresentation to hisclientthat
hewould be diligentandcompetentinhandlinghercase.
Thisincludesconstantly updating her, onhisvolition,
of thestatusofhercase. Thus, hisactuationsare
contrary toCanon18, anditsRules
18.03 and18.04, whichstate:
Canon18 - A lawyershallserve
hisclientwithcompetence anddiligence;
Rule 18.03 - A lawyershallnotneglect a
legalmatterentrusted tohimandhisnegligence
inconnectiontherewithshall renderhimliable.1âwphi1
Vicente Grossnegligence Violation ofRule 18.03 andRule Canon18 of the Code WHEREFORE,
M.Gimenavs. inhandling RABCase 18.04 of the Codeof ofProfessionalResponsibility(the forviolatingRules18.03 and18.04
Atty.SalvadorT.Sabio No.06-11-10970-99 ProfessionalResponsibility. "Code")mandatesthata lawyershallserve of Canon18 of the Codeof
A.C. No. hisclientwithcompetence anddiligence. ProfessionalResponsibility,
7178August23, Corollarily,Rule 18.03 directsthat a lawyershall respondentAtty.Salvador T.
2016Jardeleza, J. notneglect alegalmatterentrustedto him. He SabioisherebySUSPENDEDfro
mustexercise thediligence of a goodfatherof a family m thepractice of law
withrespect tothe case that heishandling.Thisistrue forTHREE(3)YEARS. He
whether heaccepted the case forfree or islikewiseSTERNLY
inconsiderationof afee. WARNEDthata
repetitionof the sameorsimilar
506
2016CASES
Respondent'sinattentionisfurtherhighlightedby offense will be
hisdisobedience tothe laborarbiter'sdirective that dealtwithmoreseverely.
hesign the positionpaper.Hisconductevincesa
willfuldisregardto hisduty asofficer of the
court.Thisalone warrants the imposition of
administrativeliability.
Respondent'sirresponsibility wentbeyond
theunsignedpleading andrefusal to obey
courtorders;he alsoadmittedly failed to apprisethe
company andthe complainantof the adverse
decisionagainstthem. He evenhadthe audacity to place
the blameon hisclientfor notcommunicating to
himasregardsthe statusof the case. He
furthermorejustifiedhisomissionby saying that he
wasnot awareof the addressofthe company.
Respondent'sconductisinconsistentwithRule 18.04of
the Code, whichrequiresthat"[a]lawyershallkeep the
clientinformedofthe statusofhiscase
andshallrespondwithin a reasonable time to the
client'srequestfor information."
TOPIC: GrossMisconduct
Officeof the Grossinefficiency Violation of While respondentblatantly WHEREFORE,
CourtAdministrato orneglect of duty CanonsofJudicialEthicswithherparti violatedparticularCanonsofJudicialEthicswithherparti respondentformerJudgeRosabe
r andofgrossignorance of cipationin theallegedmarriage scam, cipationinthe allegedmarriage scam,she similarly lla
vs. the law. shesimilarlybreached the following breached thefollowing CanonsontheCodeof M.TormisisDISBARREDfrom
FormerJudge Rosabella Canonsonthe Code ProfessionalResponsibility: the practice of law
M.Tormis ofProfessionalResponsibility: CANON 1- A lawyershallupholdthe andhername strickenfrom
A.C. No. CANON 1 constitution,obey the lawsof the landandpromote theRollofAttorneys.
9920August30, -Rule 1.01 respectforlaw and for legalprocesses.
2016PERCURI CANON 7 Rule 1.01. - A lawyershall notengage
AM -Rule 7.03. inunlawful,dishonest, immoral ordeceitful
conduct.
CANON 7- A lawyershallatall
timesupholdtheintegrity anddignity
ofthelegalprofession.
Rule 7.03. - A lawyershallnotengage inconductthat
507
2016CASES
adversely reflectson hisfitnesstopractice law.
Respondent'sconducthasfallenshortof
thestrictstandardsrequired by the legalprofession.
Hence,herrepeatedfailure to live up to
thevaluesexpectedof herasanofficerof the
courtrendersherunfittobea memberof the bar.
TOPIC: NotarialLaw
ManuelB.Bernaldezv Grossmisconduct, Violation ofRuleIV, Section2(b)of "In administrative casesagainstlawyers,the quantumof WHEREFORE;
s. deceit,violation the 2004Ruleson NotarialPractice. proofrequiredisclearly preponderantevidenceand the premisesconsidered,the
Atty.WilmaDonnaC.A ofLawyer'sOath, burden ofproofrestsuponthecomplainant."19 Here, CourtRESOLVES to:
nquilo-Garcia andabuse ofauthority the complainantfailed toshowby clearpreponderance (i)NOTE theNotice
A.C. No. asnotary public. of evidence thatAtty.Anquilo-Garcia ofResolutionNo. XXI-2015-
8698August31, coercedanyregisteredvotersintheMunicipality ofBiri, 547datedJune 20, 2015 of
2016REYES, J. NorthernSamartosigntheallegedblank andready-made theIntegratedBar of
affidavits. Apparently,the affidavitspresented bythe thePhilippinesBoardofGovernor
complainantpointtootherpersonsresponsible inthe sadopting
employment offorce, intimidationor threatupon the andapprovingtheReportandReco
votersin theMunicipality. mmendation ofthe Investigating
Commissioner,anddismissing
thecomplaintagainstAtty. Wilma
DonnaC.
508
2016CASES
Lawyerscommissionedasnotariespublic
areremindedthattheirfunctionsshouldnot
betrivializedandthey mustdischarge
theirpowersanddutieswhichare impressedwithpublic
interest, withaccuracy andfidelity. Theymust
informthemselves
509
2016CASES
of thefactsthey certify to;most importantly,
theyshouldnot take partorallow themselvesto be
partof illegal transactions.
TeodoroB.Cruz,Jr. Intentionalmisrepresentati Volation ofRule 15.03of Canon15of Rule 15.03 ofCanon15 ofthe Code of N VIEW OFTHE
vs. on,knowingly handling a the Code ProfessionalResponsibility FOREGOING,respondent'sMo
Attys.JohnG.Reyes,R caseinvolving conflict ofProfessionalResponsibility. providesthat"[a]lawyershall notrepresentconflicting tionforReconsiderationisPARTI
oque ofinterest,falsification,kno interestsexcept by ALLY GRANTED.The
BelloandCarmentcita wingly writtenconsentofallconcernedgivenafter a Resolutionof the Courtdated22
A.Tous-Gonzaga alleginguntruthsinpleading fulldisclosureof thefacts." August2012
A.C. No. sandunethicalconduct. isherebymodifiedinthatresponde
9090August31, Clearly, respondentcannotbe heldliable because ntAtty.
2016PEREZ, J. hewasnever a counselforeitherparty intheCOMELEC JohnG.ReyesisREPRIMANDE
case priortothe filing ofthe saidaction. Dforhisfailure to exercise the
necessaryprudence requiredin
Withrespectto the charge thepractice of the
ofintentionalmisrepresentation, complainantfailed legalprofession.He
tospecifywhichact of respondentconstituted the isfurtherWARNEDthat
allegedoffense. Ifthe arepetitionof the
allegedmisrepresentationpertainstothe act of sameorsimilaractsshall be
respondentofsigning the pleadingprepared by Atty. dealtwithmoreseverely.
Bello, wedo not agree withcomplainantandthe same
cannot be consideredasmisrepresentationsince
respondentspecifiedinhisCommentthat he readthe
pleading before he affixedhissignature thereto.
510
2016CASES
circumstancessurrounding them. We,
nevertheless,agree withrespondentthatsuchnegligence
isnotofcontumaciousproportionsasto
warranttheimpositionof the penalty ofsuspension.
ThisCourtfindsthe penalty ofsuspensionfor one
(1)yearearlierimposed onrespondent
tooharshandnotproportionate to
theoffensecommitted. "The powerto disbar
orsuspendmustbe exercisedwithgreatcaution. Only in
a clearcaseof misconductthatseriously
affectsthestandingandcharacter
ofthelawyerasanofficerof the Courtandmemberof
thebarwilldisbarmentorsuspensionbe
imposedasapenalty."The penalty tobe
metedoutonanerrantlawyerdependsonthe exercise
ofsoundjudicialdiscretiontaking intoconsideration
TOPIC: GrossMisconduct thefactssurrounding eachcase.
511
2016CASES
to misleadthe courts, asitwasmade
withouthesitationnotwithstanding the absence of
anyevidentiary
support.TheCourtcannotcondonethisirresponsible
andunprofessionalbehavior.
512
2016CASES
mustbe remindedthat"enthusiasm,or evenexcessof it,
isnotreally bad. Infact, theoneor the otherisno lessa
virtue, ifchanneledin the rightdirection.However,
itmust be circumscribedwithin theboundsofpropriety
andwithdue regardfortheproperplace of
courtsinoursystemof government."
513
2016CASES
entrusted tohim, andhisnegligence 30,2013, and6%perannum
inconnectiontherewithshallrenderhimliable. fromJuly 1, 2013 until
fullpaymentthereof,
The Lawyer'sOathsimilarlymandatesa lawyer andSTERNLY
toconducthimselfaccording to the best WARNShimthatcommissiono
ofhisknowledge anddiscretion, withall goodfidelity f anysimilarinfractionin
tothe courtsandtohisclients. thefuture willbedealtwithmore
severely.
Clearly here, respondentfailed to competently Finally, he
anddiligently discharge hisduty when he wasunable mustSUBMITtothisCourtwritte
tocause the transferof ownership of property nproof ofhiscompliance
fromcomplainant toJaynie May.Despite doing within30 daysfromnotice of
nothing,he evenobstinately refusedtoreturn the thisResolution.
P40,000.00he receivedasattorney'sfees. No doubt,
respondent"fellshortof the demandsrequired
of[him]asamemberof the bar. Hisinability to
properlydischarge hisduty
tohisclientmakeshimanswerablenot just tohim,
butalsoto thisCourt, tothe legalprofession, and tothe
TOPIC: GrossMisconduct generalpublic.
514
2016CASES
Evenifthischarge washisfirstinfraction,
thegrossnessofhisviolationsof the
Lawyer'sOathandthe variousrelevantcanonsof the
Code ofProfessional Responsibility
quotedearlierabsolutelywarrantedhissuspensionfrom
the practice oflaw forfive yearseffective
uponhisreceiptof thisdecision,withwarning
ofsternersanctionsshould he hereaftercommit
asimilaroffense.Thisdurationofsuspensionwasthepena
lty we prescribedin therecentcase
ofMercullov.Ramon24 where
therespondentlawyerhaddeceived the
complainantsintoparting withthe substantial sum
ofP350,000.00asherattorney'sfeesbutdidnot
subsequentlyperformherprofessionalundertaking.
TheCPRrulesandcanonviolatedthe
FortheCourt'sconsiderationisAtty. following: TheCourtfindsAtty.RobertoP.Tole
CASE TITLE: RobertoP.Tolentino's(Atty.Tolenti ntinoGUILTYofviolatingtheLawye
Dolores Natanauan v. no)motiontohavehisdisbarmentcas Canon1- Atty.Tolentinowasnotdeniedduepr r'sOath,andCanons1,7,and10ofthe
Atty.RobertoTolentin ere- AlawyershallupholdtheConstitution ocessordeprivedofanopportunityto CodeofProfessional
o openedandreheardonthegroundthat ,obeythelawsofthelandandpromoter beheard.Therecordsshowthathisthe Responsibility.
hewasdeniedhisconstitutionalrightt espectforlaw andlegalprocesses. ncounselAtty.FuentesfiledaComme Accordinglyheissuspendedfromthe
CASE NO.: odue process. ntonhisbehalf.HealsofiledaMotionf practiceoflawforTHREE(3)YEAR
Canon7-
AC. No. 4269 or Reconsiderationofthe May13, SEFFECTIVEFROM
Alawyershallatalltimesupholdthe
integrityand
DATE OFPROMULGATION:
Oct11, 2016
515
2016CASES
516
2016CASES
TOPIC : Theissuesthatthecomplainantraised
DisbarmentandSuspension Section27,Rule138oftheRulesof againstsuchfilingandanyothermatter TheCourtABSOLVESrespondents
Court, whichprovides: sincidentaltosuchfilingshouldhaveb Atty.PalMarinRubioandAtty.Nicasi
Underconsiderationisthecomplaintf eenraisedonlyinthetrialcourt,orinthe oT.Rubioofthechargesofgrossmisc
ordisbarmentbroughtonApril11,20 properoffice.Wecannotallowthetriv onduct;andDISMISSESthecompla
08againstrespondentAtty.Palmarin Section27.Disbarmentorsuspension ializationofthesanctionofdisbarmen intfordisbarmentforutterlackofmeri
CASE TITLE: E.Rubio,inhiscapacityastheCityPros ofattorneysbySupremeCourt;groun tbythecomplainant.Heshouldberem tandsubstance.
SANDYV.DOMINGO,VS.ATTY. ecutorofLegazpiCity,forallegedlyref dstherefore indedthatdisbarmentisthemostsever
PALMARINE.RUBIOANDATT usingtoactontheorderoftheSecretar : eformofdisciplinarysanctionagainst
Y.NICASIOT.RUBIO amisbehavingmemberoftheIntegrat
yofJusticeandforallegedlyfraudulent
edBar;assuch,thepowertodisbarisal
lyanddeceitfullywithholdingtheprep
ared motion waysexercisedwithgreatcautiononly
Amemberofthebarmaybedisbarred forthemostimperativereasonsandin
forreconsideration orsuspendedfromhisofficeasattorne
frombeingfiledintheDepartmentofJ ybytheSupremeCourtforanydeceit, casesofclearmisconductaffectingthe
CASE NO.: ustice(DOJ),therebycausingdamage malpractice,orothergrossmisconduc standingandmoralcharacterofthela
AC. No. 7927 andprejudicetothecomplainant- wyerasanofficerofthecourtandmem
tinsuchoffice,grosslyimmoralcondu berof the bar.
anaccusedinparricide- ct,orbyreasonofhisconvictionofacri
therebyviolatingtheLawyer'sOathan meinvolvingmoralturpitude,orforan
dtheCodeofProfessionalResponsibi yviolationoftheoathwhichheisrequir
lity. edtotakebeforeadmissiontopractice, Basedonalltheestablishedattendantc
DATE OFPROMULGATION:
orforawillfuldisobedienceofanylawf ircumstances,thecomplainanthadno
Oct19, 2016 ulorderofasuperiorcourt,orforcorru legal
SandyDomingo,complainant,latero ptlyorwilfullyappearingasanattorney orfactualbasisforhisdisbarmentcom
nchargedrespondentAtty.NicasioT. forapartytoacasewithoutauthorityso plaintagainsttherespondents.Thecas
RubioinhiscapacityasAssistantCityP todo.Thepracticeofsolicitingcasesat einvolvedtheirofficialactsaspublicpr
osecutors,focusingonhowtheyhadp
rosecutorforhisdirectparticipationin lawforthepurposeofgain,eitherpers
PONENTE: theallegedirregularitiesimputedtohis onallyorthroughpaidagentsor roceededinapendingmatterthatwase
BERSAMIN, J co-respondent. brokers, constitutesmalpractice. ntirelywithintheirofficialcompetenc
eandresponsibility.Howtheycouldb
eheldanswerableoraccountable
517
2016CASES
aslawyersfortheirofficialactsescapes
us,,butatleasttheCourtnowgivesthe
msomeconsolationbydismissingthe
disbarmentproceedingsasunworthy
anddevoid ofsubstance.
TOPIC :
Representingadverseinterest,illegalp Thisadministrativecaseconcernsthe Rule6.03ofCanon6oftheCodeof
TheCourtadoptsandaffirmthefindin TheCourtFINDSandPRONOUN
racticeoflaw,conductandconductun respondent,aretiredjudgewhotooko Professional Responsibility
gsandrecommendationoftheIBPBo CESATTY.FELIPE
becominginviolationofthecanonsof nthecasethathehadintervenedinduri ardofGovernorsthatdeterminesthat G.ZAPATOSguiltyofviolatingRule
legalethicswithprayerfordisbarment. nghisincumbencyontheBench.Thec therespondentshouldbesuspendedf 6.03ofCanon6oftheCodeofProfessi
omplainantwasthecounselofrecord
Canon36oftheCanonsofProfession romthepractice or law or onalResponsibility,andSUSPENDS
of the plaintiffin thecase.
al Ethics,viz.: disbarred,itshallissuearesolutionsett himfrom the
ingforthitsfindingsandrecommenda practiceoflawforaperiodofONE(1)
tionswhich,togetherwiththewholere MONTHeffectiveimmediatelyupon
CASE TITLE: Thechargespecifiedthattherespond cordofthecase,shallforthwithbetran receiptofthisdecision,withwarningt
ATTY.RUTILLOB.PASOKv.ATT entwasguiltyof"representingadverse 36.Retirementfromjudicialposition smittedtotheSupremeCourtforfinal hatasimilaroffensebyhimwillbedealt
Y.FELIPE G.ZAPATOS orpublic employment action. withmoreseverely
interest,illegalpracticeoflaw,conduct
andbecomingasaformermemberoft Alawyershouldnotacceptemployme
hebenchandconductunbecomingin ntasanadvocateinanymatteruponthe
violationofthecanonsoflegalethicsw Alawyershouldnotacceptemployme meritsofwhichhe haspreviously
ithprayerfor disbarment. ntasanadvocateinanymatteruponthe actedin a judicialcapacity.
CASE meritsofwhichhe haspreviously
NO.:AC. No. actedin a judicialcapacity.
7388
518
2016CASES
TOPIC : TheCourtsustainsthefindingsoftheI
MisconductandNegligence. Section27,Rule138oftheRulesof BPBoardofGovernors,exceptasto TheCourtREPRIMANDSresponde
Court. thepenalty. ntAtty.WinstonB.Intong(responde
nt)for
refusingtoobeylawfulordersoftheCo
BeforetheCourtisacomplaintdated Section27.Disbarmentorsuspension Ithasbeenstressedthatthedeterminat urtandtheIntegratedBarofthePhilip
CASE TITLE: March19,2010filedbycomplainantD ofattorneysbySupreme Court ionofwhetheranattorneyshouldbedi pines,withawarningthatarepetitiono
DATUBUDENCIOE.DUMANL atuBudencioE.Dumanlag(complain sbarredormerelysuspendedforaperi fthesameorsimilaractoroffenseshall
AGv.ATTY.WINSTONB. ant)againstrespondentAtty.Winston odinvolvestheexerciseofsoundjudic bedealtwithmore severely
INTONG B.Intong(respondent)forgrossmisc
onductandnegligence. Amemberofthebarmaybedisbarred ialdiscretion.Thepenaltiesforalawye
orsuspendedfromhisofficeasattorne r'sfailuretofileabrieforotherpleading
ybytheSupremeCourtforanydeceit, rangefromreprimand,warningwithfi
malpractice,orothergrossmiscondu ne,suspension,and,ingravecases,dis
ctinsuch barment.36Inthepresentcase,
CASE NO.
519
2016CASES
AC. No. 8638 office,grosslyimmoralconduct,orby theCourtfindstooharshtherecomme
reasonofhisconvictionofacrimeinvo ndationoftheIBPBoardofGovernor
lvingmoralturpitude,orforanyviolati sthatrespondentbesuspendedfromt
DATE OFPROMULGATION: onoftheoathwhichheisrequiredtota hepracticeoflaw for a period ofsix
Oct10, 2016 kebeforeadmissiontopractice,orfora months.
willfuldisobedienceofanylawfulorde
rofasuperiorcourt,orforcorruptlyor
willfullyappearingasanattorneyforap Afterall,respondentdidfilehismanda
PONENTE: artytoacasewithoutauthoritytodoso. toryconferencebriefbeforetheIBPw
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. Thepracticeofsolicitingcasesatlawfo herehecitedtheResolutiondatedJuly
rthepurposeofgain,eitherpersonally 19,2010oftheCourt,requiringhimtof
orthroughpaidagentsor brokers, ilehiscommenttothecomplaint.Heal
constitutesmalpractice. soattendedthemandatoryconferenc
e/hearingscheduledbytheIBP,altho
ughhefailedtofilehispositionpaperd
espitethedirectivetodoso.Underthe
circumstances,andconsideringthatt
hisappearstoberespondent'sfirstinfr
action,theCourtfindsitpropertorepri
mandhimwithwarningthatcommissi
onofthesameorsimilarinfractionwill
be dealtwithmore severely.
TOPIC : CommissionerCorverafoundrespon
Grave Misconduct Thisresolvestheadministrativecomp dentsguiltyofgravemisconductandvi
laintfiledbyJoseAntonioF.Balingitag olationofRule1.03,Canon15,Canon
ainstArty.RenatoM.CervantesandA 20,andRule20.04oftheCodeofProfe
tty.TeodoroB.Delarmente ssionalResponsibility(CPR)andreco
forGrave Misconduct CANON15- mmendedthattheybesuspendedfro Atty.TeodoroB.DelarmenteandAtt
CASE TITLE: Alawyershallobservecandor,fairness mthe practiceof y.RenatoM.CervantesareherebySUS
JOSE ANTONIOF.BALINGIT andloyaltyinallhisdealingsand PENDEDfromthepracticeoflawfor
six(6)months.
520
2016CASES
521
2016CASES
may be atstake.
PONENTE:
522
2016CASES
DELCASTILLO,J. upondemand." However,ascorrectlynoted
bytheInvestigatingCommissioner,o
nlytheamountofP165,127.00outoft
Rule 16.01, heallegedP235,127.00wasdulyprove
"lawyershallaccountforallmoneyan dbycomplainanttohavebeenreceive
dpropertycollectedorreceived for dbyrespondentspecificallytodefrayt
orfromthe client." heexpensesforfiling fees.
523
2016CASES
524
2017and2018CASES
525
2017and2018CASES
CASE NO.:
A.C. No. 7478
DATE OF
January 11,2017
PONENTE:
CARPIO, J
526
2017and2018CASES
A.OntheimmediatearchivingofCriminalCaseNo.
527
2017and2018CASES
528
2017and2018CASES
529
2017and2018CASES
TOPIC :
Perjury,FalsificationofPu
Thiscasestemmedfromaverifiedc
blicdocumentsandtheuse RuleIV,Section2(b)ofthe200 Withoutaquibble,Atty.Baylosiswasnegligentintheperform TheCourtAtty.RamoncitoB.Bayl
omplaint[1]fordisbarmentfiledby
ofFalsifieddocuments 4RulesonNotarialPractice anceofhisdutyasanotarypublicwhenhenotarizedthepetitio osisGUILTYofviolatingtheRuleo
complainantSusan specifically nfordeclarationofthenullityofmarriage without the
nNotarialPracticeandRule1.01an
Loberes- provides: presence of Roldan dCanon1oftheCodeofProfession
Pintal(complainant)beforetheInt alResponsibility,theCourtherebyi
CASE TITLE: egratedBarofthePhilippines(IBP) Section2.Prohibitions.a)xxx In notarizing a documentinthe absence of a party, mposesthepenaltyofbeingPERM
SUSANLOBERES- againstrespondentAtty.Ramoncit Atty.Baylosisviolatednotonlytheruleonnotarialpracticebut ANENTLYBARRED
PINTALVs.ATTY.RAM oB.Baylosis(Atty.Baylosis)forgro (b)Apersonshallnotperforma alsotheCodeofProfessionalResponsibilitywhichproscribes frombeingcommissionedasaNota
ONCITO ssviolationofthe notarialactifthepersoninvolv alawyerfromengaginginanyunlawful,dishonest,immoral,or ryPublicwithaSTERNWARNIN
B. 2004RulesonNotarial Practice. edassignatorytotheinstrumen deceitfulconduct.[10]Byaffixinghissignatureandnotarialse Gthatrepetitionofthesameorsimil
BAYLOSIS tordocument - alonthedocument,heattestedthatRoldanpersonallyappeare arconductinthefuturewillbedealt
dbeforehimonthedayitwasnotarizedandverifiedtheconten withmore severely.
(1) isnotinthenotary'spresen tsthereof.Hisconductisfraughtwithdangerouspossibilitiesc
cepersonallyatthetime of the onsideringtheconclusivenessonthedueexecutionofadocu ThisorderisIMMEDIATELYEX
CASE NO.: notarization; and mentthatourcourtsandthepublicaccord to ECUTORY
A.C.No.11545(Formerly notarizeddocuments
CBDcaseNo. 12-3439 (2) isnotpersonallyknowntot
henotarypublicorotherwiseid
entifiedbythenotarypublicthr
oughcompetentevidenceofid
DATE OF entityasdefinedbytheseRules.
January 24, 2017
PONENTE:
530
2017and2018CASES
1. DominadorB.Remiendo,Cler
TOPIC : SherillIVOliverN.Landinginofth Rule10,Article46oftheRevise The Courtclassified the failure of the courtpersonnel kIII,Branch7,RegionalTrialCourt,
Dishonesty and eRTC,Br.7inBaguiocomplainedo dRulesonAdministrativeCase toentertheirtime-inandtime-outintheofficelogbookasa BaguioCity,isherebyfoundLIABL
Falsification fbiasandpartialityagainstJudgeM intheCivil Service lightoffense, to wit: “Heract of not logging EforFalsificationofOfficialDocu
of onaLisaT.Taboraofthesameoffic inandoutoftheattendancelogbookwas,withoutdoubt,herse mentandSeriousDishonesty,andis
Documents eforaffixinghersignatureontheD Section46(A)(6)oftheRRAC condviolationofcivilservicerules.Alightoffensesuchasviola herebymetedthepenaltyofSUSPE
TRBundyCardsofhisotherco- CS tionofreasonableoffensesuchasaviolationofreasonableoffi NSIONforaperiodofsix(6)month
CASE TITLE: employees. cerulesandregulations,ifviolatedforthesecondtime,ispunis swithoutpayandotherbenefitsduri
OfficeoftheCourtAdmini hablebysuspensionfor 1to 30days.” ngthesaidperiod,withastemwarni
strator TheOfficeoftheCourtAdministra ngthatarepetitionofthesameoffen
Vs.E tordirectedtheconduct of InOfficeoftheCourtAdministratorvsKasilag“Falsification sewillbedealtwith moreseverely;
xecutive discreetinvestigat ofaDTRbyacourtpersonnelisagraveoffense.Thenatureoft
Judge ionandfoundthatinsteadofusingt hisinfractionispreciselywhattheOCAstates: 2. ManoloV. Mariano III,
Illuminada P. Cabato, hebundyclocks,thecourtpersonn theactoffalsifyinganofficialdocumentisinitselfgravebecaus UtilityWorker,Branch6,Regional
elweremanuallyenteringtheirarriv eofitspossibledeleteriouseffectsonthegovernmentservice. TrialCourt,BaguioCity,isfoundLI
CASE NO.: altimesintheirbundyclockcardsan Atthesametime,itisalsoanactofdishonesty,whichinvolvesf ABLEforFalsificationofOfficial
A.M. No.RTJ-14-2401 doffice logbooks. undamentalprinciplesofpublicaccountabilityandintegrity. DocumentandSeriousDishonesty
UnderCivilServiceregulations,falsificationofanofficialdoc andisherebymetedthepenaltyofS
DATE OF TheinvestigatingteamissuedaMe umentanddishonestyaredistinctoffenses,butbothmaybeco USPENSIONforaperiodofthree(
January 25, 2017 morandumrecommendingthatse mmittedinoneact,asinthiscase. 3)monthswithoutpayandotherbe
veralemployeesbemadetofiletheir nefitsduringthesaidperiod,withast
commentsonchargesofDishones emwarningthatarepetitionofthesa
PONENTE: tywithin10daysthatincludesclerk meoffensewillbedealtwithmorese
VELASCOJR., J. ofcourtsandjudges. verely
3. JericoG.Gay-
ya,ClerkofCourt,Branch61,Regio
nalTrialCourt,BaguioCity,isfound
LIABLEforFalsificationofOfficia
lDocumentandSimpleNegligence
andisherebymetedthe
penaltyofFINEinthe
531
2017and2018CASES
amountofFiveThousandPesos(P
5,000.00),withastern
warningthatarepetitionofthesame
offenseshallbedealtwithmoreseve
rely;
4. Thefollowingemployeesarefou
ndLIABLEforFalsificationofOffi
cialDocumentandareherebymete
dthepenaltyofFINEintheamount
ofFiveThousandPesos(P5,000.00
)each,withastemwarningthatarepe
titionofthesamewillbedealtwithm
ore severely
5. RuthB.Bawayan,ClerkofCourt
,Branch4,RegionalTrialCourt,Bag
uioCity,isfoundLIABLEforViolat
ionofReasonableOfficeRulesand
RegulationsandSimpleNegligence
andisherebymetedthepenaltyofR
EPRIMAND,withastemwarningt
hatarepetitionofthesameoffenses
hall be dealtwithmoreseverely;
6. Thefollowingemployeesarefou
ndLIABLEforViolationofReason
ableOfficeRulesandRegulationsa
ndareherebymetedthepenaltyofR
EPRIMAND,withasternwarningt
hatarepetitionofthesameshallbed
ealtwithmoreseverely
Finally, the
chargesagainstJudgeAntonioM.E
steves,Branch5,
532
2017and2018CASES
RTC,BaguioCity;JudgeIlluminada
P.Cabato,Branch59,RTC,Baguio
City;JoanG.Castillo,formerLegal
Researcher,Branch61,
RTC,BaguioCity;andRuthC.Laga
n,formerCourtStenographerIII,B
ranch60,RTC,BaguioCity,arehere
byDISMISSEDforbeing moot
andacademic.
533
2017and2018CASES
TOPIC :
Contempt CourtfindsrespondentAtty.Rufin
AcasefiledagainstAtty.RufinoC.L CANON16- TheCourtheldthattheseactionsdemonstratehishighdegree oC.LizardoGUILTYofviolatingC
CASE TITLE: izardoforofviolatingCanons16an Alawyershallholdintrustallm ofirresponsibilityandlackofrespectfortheIBPanditsprocee anons16and17,and
SILVESTRAMEDINA d17,and oneysandpropertiesofhisclie dings.[26]WefindthattheconductofAtty.Lizardo,whilerepr Rules15.03and16.03oftheCodeof
v. ATTY. Rules15.03and16.03oftheCodeof ntthatmaycomeintohisposses ehensibleandunworthyofamemberoftheBar,isnotquiteatp ProfessionalResponsibility.Accor
RUFINOLIZARD ProfessionalResponsibility sion. arwiththatinVillanueva.Moreover,consideringthatwefindi dingly,
O nsufficientbasistoholdAtty.LizardoliableforviolationofCa theCourtSUSPENDShimfromth
CANON17-A non1,Rule1.01andCanon7,Rule7.03atthispointintime,alig epracticeoflawforoneyeareffectiv
CASE lawyerowesfidelitytothecause hterpenaltyisinorder.Suspensionfromthepracticeoflawfor euponfinalityofthisDecision,OR
NO.:AC. No. ofhisclientandheshallbemind oneyearissufficientinthe case atbar. DERShim,underpainofcontempt
10533DATE fulofthetrustandconfidence ,toreturnTCTsNo.3900and13866
OFJan31, 2017 reposedinhim ThecourtagreeswiththeIBP’srecommendationforthesuspe tocomplainantSilvestraMedinawit
nsionofAtty.Lizardofromthepracticeoflawforaperiodoftw hin15daysfromnoticeofthisDecisi
oyears.ThisisthesamepenaltyinVillanuevav.Atty.Gonzales on,andWARNShimthatarepetitio
PONENTE:LE ,[25]oneofthecasescitedintheCommissioner'sReport.Weo nofthesameorsimilaroffenseshall
ONARDO- bserve,however,thatinVillanueva, the lawyer not only bedealtwith moreseverely
DECASTRO,J withheld the
TCTentrustedtohimbyhisclient,butlikewiseavoidedherfor
threeyears,anddidnotgiveheranyinformationaboutthestatu
sofhercaseorrespondtoherrequestforinformation.Helikew
iserepeatedlyfailedtofileananswertothecomplaintandtoap
pearatthemandatoryconference asrequired bythe IBP.
534
2017and2018CASES
TOPIC :
Deceit,Malpractice,Dish Wherefore,ResolutionNo.XX1-2014- Thecourtrulingwasinfavorofthec
onestandDeceitfulcondu Disbarmentcomplaintwasfiledag Rule1.0of the 938datedDecember14,2014oftheIBPBoardofGovernors omplainant,the
ct ainstrespondentAtty.RyanReyL. CodeofProfessionalresponsi whichfoundrespondentAtty.RyanReyIPasaganGUILTYo Courtfoundthattherespondentwa
PasaganibeforetheIntegratedBar bility fviolationforRule1.0iftheCodeofProfessionalresponsibilit sguiltyofdeceit,malpracticeandgro
CASE ofthePhilippines-commission on yaffirmedwithModificationasto thepenalty. ssmisconductinconvertingthemo
TITLE:EUFEMIA barDiscipline(IBP- neyofhisclienttohisownusewitho
CBD),thattherespondentviolated RespondentisinsteadmetedthepenaltyofDisbarment,Resp utherconsent,hisfailureto
A.CAMIN theiragreementforthelattertofacil ondentisfurtherorderedtoReturntheloadproceedsamounti usetheproceedsforthetransferoft
O v. itateandsecurealoantofinancethe ngto1,000.000.00andtopaylegalinterestattherateoftwelvep hetitleincomplainant’sname.Hedi
ATTY.RYA paymentofnecessaryexpensestotr ercentperannumcomputedfromthereleaseoftheloanonFe dnotonlybetraythetrustandconfid
N REY ansferthetitleofacertainpropertyu bruary15,2011uptoJune30,2013andsixpercentperannumfr enceofhisclient,heislikewiseguilty
L.PASAGU nderhername,sheclaimedthatres omJuly1,2013untilfullypaidaswellasthe120,000.00received ofengagingindishonestanddeceitf
I pondentobtainedaloanusingtheir forthepurposeortransferringofthetitleinthenameoftheco ulconduct
propertyasacollateral,butatty.Pas mplainanttopaylegalinterestattherateoftwelvepercentpera
CASE NO.: agniarrogatedtheproceeds.Comp nnumcomputedfromreceiptoftheamountonFebruary3,20 ResolutionNo.XXI-2014-
A. CNo. 11095 lainantclaimsthattheseactsconstit 11uptoJune30,2013andsixpercentperannumfromJuly1,20 938datedDecember14,2014ofthe
utedeceit,Malpractice,dishonesta 13untilfullypaid.Heislikewiseorderedtoreturnallotherdocu IBP-
DATE OF nddeceitfulconduct mentspertinenttotheloadobtainedfromPHCCIandthosere BoardofGovernorswhichfoundre
January 31, 2017 ceivedfromcomplaint. spondentAtty.RyanReyL.Pasagui
GUILTYofviolationofRule1.01o
ftheCodeofProfessionalResponsi
PONENTE: bilityisAFFIRMEDwithMODIFI
CATIONastothepenalty.Respon
dentAtty.RyanReyL.Pasaguiisinst
eadmetedthepenaltyofDISBARM
ENT.RespondentisfurtherORD
EREDtoimmediatelyRETURNt
heloanproceedsamountingto
₱1,000,000.00andtopaylegalintere
stattherateoftwelvepercent(12%)
perannumcomputedfromtherelea
seoftheloanonFebruary15,2011
535
2017and2018CASES
uptoJune30,2013,andsixpercent(
6%)perannumfromJuly 1, 2013
untilfully paid,
536
2017and2018CASES
TOPIC :
GreaterCareandDueDilig Rule18.03,Canon18oftheCo TheCourtmustclarifythattheresolutionofthiscaseshouldno
ence BeforethisCourtisanadministrati deofProfessionalResponsibili tincludeadirectiveforthereturnoftheP35,278astheInvestig Atty.NestorB.BeltranisSUSPEN
vecomplaintagainstrespondent,A ty,"alawyershallnotneglectale atingCommissionerrecommended. DEDFORTWO
CASE TITLE: tty.NestorB.Beltran.Hisderelictio galmatterentrustedtohimand MONTHSfromthepracticeoflaw
HEIRSOFSIXTOL.TA nsallegedlyconsistedofhisbelated hisnegligenceinconnectionth TheInvestigatingCommissionerdidnotexplaintherecomm withawarningthatarepetitionofthe
N, SR. vs. filingofanappealinacriminalcasea erewithshallrenderhimliable endationfortherestitutionofthatsum.Moreover,complaina sameorsimilaractsshallbedealtwit
ATTY.BELTRAN ndfailuretorelayacourtdirectivefo ntsdonotcontestthatrespondentreceivedthissumforfeesan hmoreseverely.HeisADMONIS
rthepaymentofdocketfeesina dothersundryexpenses.Neitherdotherecordsshowthatthey HEDtoexercisegreatercareanddili
CASE NO.: civilcasetohisclients- demandedthereturnofthisamountfromrespondent.Incons genceintheperformanceofhisduti
A.C. No. 5819 complainantsHeirsofSixtoL.Tan, iderationof these facts,thepropercorrective actionisto es.HeisalsoORDEREDTOACC
Sr.representedby Recto orderthe accounting of the fullsum ofP35,278. OUNT
DATE OF A.Tan.Thelatteralsoaccusedhimo fortheP35,278he
PROMULGATION f undulyreceiving receivedfromhisclients,withtheob
February 1, 2017 ₱200,000aspaymentforlegalservi ligationtoreturntheentireamount,
ces. orsomuchthereofremaining, to
complainants.
PONENTE:
SERENO, C.J.
537
2017and2018CASES
TOPIC :
Gravemisconduct,grossv
Thisadministrativecasestemmedf
iolationof oathasapublic TheCourtheldRespondentisadministrativelyliableforwillfu RespondentLouiseMarieTherese
romaletter-
official, ExecutiveOrderNo.(EO)292 lfailuretopayjustdebtsandconductprejudicialto the B.
complaintfiledbySpousesRodela
andviolationof ,otherwiseknownastheAdmi bestinterestof the service. Escobido,ClerkofCourtV,Branch
ndEleanorCanos(Sps.Canos),aga
theCodeofProfessionalR nistrativeCodeof1987,provid 19,RegionalTrialCourt,DigosCityi
esponsibility. instrespondentLouiseMarieTher esthatapublicemployee'sfailu ThecourtagreeswiththeOCAthatEscobido'srepeatedactso sadjudgedGUILTYofwillfulfailur
eseB.Escobido(Escobido),Clerk reto fcontractingloansandpayingthemwithworthlesschecksrefl etopayjustdebtsandconductpreju
CASE ofCourt,Branch19,RegionalTrial payjustdebtsisagroundfordis ectbadfaithonherpart.ItmustbenotedthatEscobido,asclerk dicialtothebestinterestoftheservic
TITLE:SPOUSESROD Court(RTC),DigosCity,beforeth ciplinary action. ofcourt,isnotamerepublicemployee.Sheisbothanemployee e,forwhichsheisherebySUSPEN
ELandELEANORCAN eOfficeofCourtAdministrator(O oftheCourtandamemberoftheBar.Thus,sheisexpectedtom DEDfora period ofONE
OSvsATTY. CA)forgravemisconduct,grossvi Section22,RuleXIVoftheRul eetahighstandardofuprightnessandpropriety.Bydeliberatel (1)YEAR.
LOUISE olationofoathasapublicofficial,an esImplementingBookVofE yfailingtomeethercontractualobligations,shefellshortofsuc
MARIETHERESEB.ES dviolationoftheCodeofProfessio O292,asmodifiedbySection4 hstandard.ThecourtlikewiseagreethatEscobidoholdsaposi Further,sheisSTERNLYWARN
COBIDO, nalResponsibility. 6,Rule10oftheRevisedRuleso tionoftrust:andconfidencewithconcomitantdutiesandresp EDthatcommissionofthesameors
nAdministrativeCasesintheCi onsibilitiesthatrequirefromitsholdercompetence,honesty, imilaractsinthefutureshallbedealt
CASE NO.: vilService(RRACCS),defines andintegritysoessentialfortheproperandeffectiveadministr withmoreseverely.
A.M. No. P-15-3315 "justdebts"asthose:(a)claimsa ationofjustice.Heractuation,althougharisingfromaprivatet
djudicatedbyacourtoflaw;or( ransaction, tarnishedthe imageof the Judiciary
DATE OF b)claimstheexistenceandjust
PROMULGATION nessofwhichareadmitted
February 6, 2017 bythedebtor.
PONENTE:
JARDELEZA, J.
538
2017and2018CASES
TOPIC :
Grossnegligenceintheper
formance of OrlandoCastello,etalreceive Rule1.0of the Asafinalnote,thiscaseshouldserveasareminderfornotariesp Atty.RonaldSegundinoC.Chingisf
hisduties dsummonsfromMetropolitanTri CodeofProfessionalresponsi ublic,aswellasforlawyerswhoareapplyingforacommission,t oundGUILTYofgrossnegligencei
asnotary publicCASE alCourt,Branch22foranejectment bility hatthedutytopublicserviceandtotheadministrationofpubli ntheperformanceofhisdutiesasno
TITLE: casefiledagainstthembyLeonida cjusticeistheprimaryconsiderationinthepracticeoflaw.[37] tarypublic.Hisexistingnotarialco
OrlandoS.Castelo,etal.Vs DelenandSpousesNestorandJesi Thisdutytopublicserviceismademoreimportantwhenalawy mmission,ifany,isherebyREVOK
.Atty.RonaldSegundinoC ebelDelenallegedownerofthe eriscommissionedasanotarypublic.Likethedutytodefendac ED,andheisalso
. Ching residence of the Castellos. lient'scausewithintheboundsoflaw,anotarypublichasthead PERPETUALLY
ditionaldutytopreservepublictrustandconfidenceinhisoffic DISQUALIFIEDfrombeingcom
CASE NO.: Whereinirregularitieswerepresent e[38]byobservingextracareanddiligenceinensuringtheinteg missionedasanotarypublic.Moreo
A.C. No. 11165 intheexecutionandauthorization rityofeverydocumentthatcomesunderhisnotarialseal,andse ver,
oftheDeedofAbsoluteSale.Witht eingtoitthatonlydocumentsthathepersonallyinspectedand heisherebySUSPENDEDFROM
DATE OF heirdiscovery,theCastelloheirsfile whosesignatorieshepersonallyidentifiedarerecordedinhisn THEPRACTICEOFLAWFORS
PROMULGATION dwithIBPanadministrativecaseag otarialbooks.Inaddition,notariespublicshouldproperlysec IX
February 6, 2017 ainstAtty.Chingonthelawyer’sgro uretheequipmenttheyuseinperformingnotarialacts,inorder (6)MONTHS.HeisSTERNLYW
ssnegligenceinnotarizingtheDeed forthemnottofallintothewronghands,andbeusedinactsthat ARNEDthatarepetitionofthesam
.Afterdueproceedings,Commissi wouldunderminethepublic'strustandconfidenceintheoffic eorsimilaractwillbedealtwithmore
PONENTE: onerEduardoRoblesrenderedare e ofthe notary public. severely.
CAGUIOA,J portandrecommendationfinding
Atty.CHingguiltyofgrossnegligen Atty.ChingisalsoDIRECTEDtoi
ceinnotarizingthe Deed. nformtheCourtofthedateofhisrec
eiptofthisDecisiontodetermineth
ereckoningpointoftheeffectivityo
fhissuspension
539
2017and2018CASES
PONENTE:
540
2017and2018CASES
Intheinstantcase,wefindthatCoquiafailedtopresentclearan
TOPIC : PetitionforDisbarmentdatedFeb The2004RulesonNotarialPra dpreponderantevidencetoshowthatAtty.Lafortezahaddire Atty.EmmanuelE.Laforteza'snot
ConductUnbecoming ruary6,2012filedbyFlordelizaE.C cticestressesthenecessityofth ctandinstrumentalparticipation,orwasinconnivancewithth arialcommission,ifthereisany,isR
oquia(Coquia)againstrespondent eaffiant'spersonalappearance eSolis'inthepreparationofthesubjectdocuments.TheCourt EVOKED,andheisDISQUALIF
CASE TITLE: Atty.EmmanuelE.Laforteza(Atty beforethenotarypublicRuleII doesnotthusgivecredencetochargesbasedonmeresuspicio IEDfrombeingcommissionedasa
.Laforteza),docketedasA.C.No.9 ,Section 1 nandspeculation. notarypublicforaperiodofone(1)y
FlordelizaE.CoquiaVs.At 364,forConductUnbecomingofa ear.HeislikewiseSTERNLYWAR
ty. Lawyerduetothe Consequently,theempowermentofexofficionotariespublic NEDthatarepetitionofthesameor
Emmanuel unauthorizednotarization toperformactswithinthecompetencyofregularnotariespubl similaractswillbedealtwithmore
Laforteza ofdocuments icunderthe2004RulesonNotarialPracticeisnowmoreofane severely
xceptionratherthan ageneralrule.
CASE NO.:
A.C. No. 9364 WhileAtty.Lafortezawasmerelyanex-
officionotarypublicbyvirtueofhispositionasclerkofcourtth
DATE OF en,itdidnotrelievehimofcompliancewiththesamestandards
February 8, 2017 andobligationsimposeduponothercommissionednotaries
public.However,thisCourtcannolongeracquireadministrat
ivejurisdictionoverAtty.Lafortezaforthepurposeofimposi
PONENTE: ngdisciplinarysanctionsovererringcourtemployeessinceth
PERALTA, J einstantcomplaintagainsthimwasfiledafter he hasceasedto
bea courtemployee.
541
2017and2018CASES
ThefindingsandrecommendationoftheIBParewell-taken.
TOPIC :
ThepetitionersclarifythattheinstantadministrativecaseisdirTheCourtcommiserateswiththesa
Code of Canon1,Rules1.01and ectedagainstthefitnessoftherespondentsasmembersofthel dplightofthepetitionerswhoaream
ProfessionalResp AdisbarmentcaseagainstAttyBau 1.02oftheCPR,itsCanon5, egalprofessionandnotagainstthevalidity- ongminimum-income
onsibility (CPR)and tistawhowereChiefLegalCounsel ofBoardResolutionNo.48.Theyasseveratethattheissuance earnershighly
the oftheGSISLegalServicesGroupa Attorney'sOath. ofthememorandumbyAtty.Bautistawhichpavedthewayfor dependingontheirwagesfortheird
Attorney'sOath.CASE ndGSISGeneralManager,respect thepassageofBoardResolutionNo.48anditsimplementatio ailyneeds.Nonetheless,theystillre
TITLE:NATIVIDAD ively,forviolationsofRules1.01an nthroughthemanagementofAtty.Garciawereinblatantdisre mainliabletopaythearrearsindicate
R.MUNAR v. d1.02,[5]Canons1[6]and5[7]ofthe gardandflagrantviolationofCanon1,Rules1.01and1.02,Can dintheirGSISrecordsnotonlyforfa
ATTY.ELMER CodeofProfessionalResponsibilit on 5of the CPRand theAttorney'sOath.T ilingtodischargetheburdenofprov
T.BAUTISTA y(CPR)andtheAttorney'sOath. ingtheirallegationsinthecomplaint
Theyfurtherarguethatthecollectionofarrearsonthesuppose butalsoforresortingtoawrongrem
CASE NO.: dhousingloanswasadisguisedpaymentofthepurchaseprice edy.Despitethereof,thenewGSIS
AC. No. 7424 oftherealtiesinvolvedand,thatthepolicyauthorizingitscolle BoardResolution
ctionwasaschemetowindow-dressthe huge financial No.125whichreplacedtheassailed
DATE OF lossessuffered byGSISdue to mismanagement. BoardResolutionNo.48isdeemedt
Feb08, 2017 ohavegiventhemsufficientleewayf
Thedisbarmentsuitisanunwarrantedandimpropercollateral rompaymentbecauseinterestsand
attackagainstthevalidityofaBoardResolutiondulyadoptedb surchargeswillnolongeraccumulat
PONENTE: ytheGSIS[-BOT]inaccordance withitsmandate eandputtoahalt,asexplainedbyAtt
Reyes, J y.Garcia.Therefore,theirchanceso
fpayingthebalanceofthehousinglo
answouldbecomelighterandnolon
gerthatburdensome.
WHEREFORE,thepetitionisDE
NIED
542
2017and2018CASES
TOPIC :
GrossMIsconduct YesSection 9ofRuleof Courtisviolated
Thisisanadministrativecasefiledb Section9ofRule30oftheRules WHEREFORE,JudgeVictoriaVil
CASE TITLE: ytheconcernedlawyersofBulacan ofCourt. Respectingrespondent’sdesignationofOIC- lalon-
ConcernedLawyersVs.Ju againstJudgePornillos. BCCVenusAwinwhoisanon-lawyerto receiveevidenceex- Pornillos,PresidingJudgeofBranc
dge Pornillos Code of Judicial Conduct parte,theCourtfindsthesamecontrarytotheexpressmandat h10oftheRegionalTrialCourtofM
Accordingtothelawyers,JudgePor eofSection9,Rule30oftheRulesofCourtwhichrequiresthat alolosCity,isfoundguiltyofviolati
CASE NO.: nilloscommittedseveralviolations paragraph7,Section8,Rule14 onlyclerksofcourtwhoaremembersof thebarcan be ngparagraph7,Section8,Rule140o
A.M. No.RTJ-09-2183 amongwhichisnon- 0 of theRulesof Court delegated to receive evidenceex-parte. ftheRulesofCourt(borrowingmon
compliancewithSection9ofRule3 eyfromalawyerinacasependingbef
DATE OF 0oftheRulesofCourtandunduedel TheordersofJudgePornillosfortheOIC-BCCtoconductex- orehercourt)whichisalsoagrossmi
PTOMULGATION ayinrenderingdecisionsororders,a partehearingsandtosubmitreportsthereon,asconfirmedbyt sconduct
February 14, 2017 ndviolationofSupremeCourtrule heauditteamfromthewrittenordersintherecords,clearlycon constituting
s, directivesandcirculars tradictandoutweighitsdenialandavowedposturethatsheper violationoftheCodeofJudicialCon
sonallyheardallcases.Aviolationofthebasicruleonreception duct,aggravatedby,interalia,undue
PONENTE: ofevidenceex- delayinrenderingdecisionsororder
parteoranyofitsrelatedcircularsmeritstheimpositionofanad s,andviolationofSupremeCourtru
, ministrativesanction. les, directivesandcirculars
UnderSection9inrelationtoSection11(b)ofRule140oftheR SheisDISMISSEDfromtheservic
ulesofCourt,violationofSupremeCourtrules,directivesand e,withforfeitureofallretirementbe
circularsisalessseriousoffensepunishable nefits,exceptaccruedleavecredits,
bysuspensionfromofficewithoutsalaryandotherbenefitsra withprejudicetore-
ngingfromonetothreemonths,orafine ofmore employmentinanygovernmentage
thanP10,000but not exceeding P20,000. ncyorinstrumentality.Immediatel
yuponserviceonherofthisdecision
,sheisdeemedtohavevacatedherof
ficeandherauthoritytoactasjudgeis
considered
automatically
terminated.
543
2017and2018CASES
TOPIC : Complainants'assertionofrespondentjudge'smanifestparti
Grossignoranceof thelaw alityagainstthemcannotprosper.Manifestpartialitypertainst
Section8of Rule140 on o"aclear,notoriousorplaininclinationorpredilectiontofavor Theadministrativecomplaintagain
CASE Anadministrativecomplaintisnott theDisciplineofJudgesandJus onesideratherthantheother."Thus,amereimputationofbias stJudgeMariettaS.Brawner-
TITLE:DOMINADOR heproperremedyforeveryactiono tices,asamendedby andpartialityagainstajudgeisinsufficientbecause"biasandpa Cualing
BIADOv.MARIETTA fajudgeconsidered"aberrantorirr A.M.No.01-8-10- rtiality cannever be presumed." is
S. BRAWNER- egular"especiallywhen a SC,classifiesgrossignoranceo DISMISSEDforlack of merit
CUALING judicialremedy exists. fthelawandgrossmisconductc Since"badfaithormalicecannotbeinferredsimplybecauseth
onstitutingviolationsoftheCo ejudgmentisadversetoaparty,"itisincumbentuponthecomp
CASE NO.: Thisisanadministrativecomplaint deofJudicial Conduct lainantstoprovethatrespondentjudgewasmanifestlypartiala
AM No.MTJ-17-1891 forgrossignoranceofthelawandm gainstthem.Theirfailuretoprovethisisfataltotheircause.Apa
anifestpartialityrelativeto rtfromtheirbareallegations,complainantsofferednootherin
DATE OF anejectmentcaseanddamagesdoc dependentproof tovalidate thisallegation.[66]
Promulgation ketedasCivilCaseNo.
Feb15, 2017 302againstJudgeMariettaS.Brawn Complainants'failuretosubstantiatetheirclaimsinanadmini
er- strativeproceedingcancausethedismissalofthecaseforlacko
Cualing(respondentjudge)ofthe fmerit.[67]"Intheabsenceofevidencetothecontrary,thepres
PONENTE: MunicipalCircuitTrialCourtofTu umptionthatajudgehasregularly
ba- performedhisdutieswillprevail
Leonen,J Sablan,Benguet.Complainantsins
istthatrespondentjudgeshouldbef
aultedforhercognizance:ofthecivi
lcaseandhersubsequentissuanceo
ftheassaileddecisionandwritofexe
cutiondespitelackofjurisdiction.
544
2017and2018CASES
TOPIC :
gravemisconduct,grossdi Section27ofRule138ofthe Consideringthattheresponsibilityattachedtoanotarypublici RecommendationoftheIntegrated
shonesty,andconductunb Rulesof Court ssensitiverespondentshouldhavebeenmorediscreetandcau BarofthePhilippinesis
ecoming of a lawyer ElizabethRecio,thebondsmanage tiousintheexecutionofhisdutiesassuchandshouldnothavew ADOPTED
rofOrientalAssuranceCorporatio hollyentrustedeverythingtothesecretaries;otherwisehesho withMODIFICATION.
n(ORASCO),seeksthedisbarmen 004RulesonNotarialPractice uldnothavebeencommissionedasnotary public. RespondentAtty.JoselitoI.Fandiñ
CASE TITLE: tofAtty.Joselito 24 oisGUILTYofnegligenceinperfor
ELIZABETHRECIO, I.Fandiñoduetogravemisconduct particularly Forhavingwhollyentrustedthepreparationandothermecha minghisdutiesasanotarypublicand
Complainant,v.ATTY.JO ,grossdishonesty,andconductunb Section2(a)and(c),RuleVII, nicsofthedocumentfornotarizationtothesecretarytherecan ofbreachofthe2004RulesonNotar
SELITO ecomingofalawyer towit: beapossibilitythateventherespondent'ssignaturewhichisth ialPractice.Accordingly, he
I. eonly isSUSPENDEDfromth
FANDIÑO, Sec. 2. Official Seal.- oneleftforhimtodocanbedonebythesecretaryoranybodyfo epracticeoflawforsix(6)months;hi
rthatmatterashadbeen the caseherein. sincumbentcommissionifanyisR
(a)Everypersoncommissione EVOKED;andheisPROHIBITE
CASE NO.: dasnotarypublicshallhavease Asitisrespondenthadbeennegligentnotonlyinthesupposed Dfrombeingcommissionedasanot
A.C. No. 6767 al notarizationbutforemostinhavingallowedtheoffice arypublicfortwo(2)years,effectivei
ofoffice,tobeprocuredathiso secretariestomakethenecessaryentriesinhisnotarialregistry mmediately.HeisWARNEDthata
wnexpense,whichshallnotbe whichwassupposedtobedoneandkeptbyhimalone;andsho repetitionofthesameorsimilaractsi
DATE OF possessedorownedby any uldnothavereliedonsomebody ells nthefutureshallbedealtwithmore
Promulgation otherperson. x severely
October05, 2016
(c)Whennotinuse,theofficials
ealshallbekeptsafeandsecurea
PONENTE: ndshallbeaccessibleonlytothe
JARDELEZA, J.: notarypublicorthepersonduly
authorized by him.
CASE TITLE:
545
2017and2018CASES
DR. RAUL graveabuseofauthority,grossnegl Theabuseofdiscretionmustbesopatentandgrossastoamou Respondentjudge
M.SUNICO ectofduty,andviolationoftheNew nttoan"evasionofapositivedutyortoavirtualrefusaltoperfor cannotfeignignorance astothe
v. CodeofJudicialConduct,inconne madutyenjoinedbylaw,ortoactatallincontemplationoflaw,a effect ofthegrant ofthe
JUDGEPEDR ctiontoCivilCaseNo.R-PSY-12- swherethepowerisexercisedinanarbitraryanddespoticman petitionforcertiorarisince the
O 10726-CV, nerbyreasonofpassionandhostility."Furthermore,theuseof dispositiveportion of appellate
DL.GUTIERR entitled"FelixEspirituv.RaulSuni apetitionforcertiorariisrestrictedonlyto"trulyextraordinary court'sdecisionleavesnoroomfor
EZPRESIDINGJUDG co,inhiscapacityasPresidentofthe caseswherein the act of the lowercourtorquasi- anyinterpretation, towit:
E CulturalCenterof judicialbodyiswhollyvoid."Fromtheforegoingdefinition,iti
thePhilippines." sclearthatthespecialcivilactionofcertiorariunderRule65will PetitionisGRANTED.TheOrd
strikeanactdownforhavingbeendonewithgraveabuseofdisc ersdated25 September2012
CASE NO.: retionifthepetitionercouldmanifestlyshowthatsuchactwas and01 April 2013of
AM No.RTJ-16-2457 patentandgross,[49]aswhathappenedinthiscase. theRegional Trial
Court,NationalCapital Judicial
Region,Branch119, Pasay City,
DATE OF inCivil CaseNo. R-PSY-12-
Promulgation 10726-CV areNULLIFIED.
Feb 21,2017
Accordingly, the
writofpreliminary
PONENTE mandatoryinjunctionissuedinfavo
r ofprivate respondentFelix
Espiritudoing businessunder the
nameandstyle
"YakitoriDoriBarandGrillRestaur
ant" isLIFTEDandany bond
postedbythelatterisCANCELLE
GRAVE MISCONDUCT D.
617.MADRIA Atty.RiverasimulatedCourtdecisi Rules1. 01 and1.02, Canon Falsifying or simulatingthe DISBARMENT
v.ATTY.CARLOS onandcertificateoffinalityofsuch 1, andRule 15.07, Canon courtpapersamountedtodeceit, malpractice or
P.RIVERA decisionwhichhegavetohisclientt 15,Rule 18.04Canon18 misconductinoffice, any ofwhichwasalready a
hecomplainantherein.Asaresult,t oftheCode groundsufficientfordisbarmentunderSection27,Rule
A.C. No. hecomplainantfacedcriminalchar ofProfessionalResponsibility 38oftheRules ofCourt.Themoralstandardsofthe
11256PER gesforviolationofthePhilippineP LegalProfessionexpectedtherespondenttoactwiththe
CURIAM assportActintheRTC. highestdegree ofprofessionalism,decency, andnobility
inthe course oftheirpractice oflaw. He turnedhisback
onsuchstandardsexhibitedhisbaseness, lack
ofmoralcharacter, dishonesty, lack ofprobity
andgeneral
546
2017and2018CASES
unworthinessto continue asanofficerof the Court.
The respondentwaspreviously
sanctionedforunprofessionalconduct.InCruz-Villanuevav.
Rivera, hewassuspendedfromthe practice of law because
he hadnotarizeddocumentswithout a
notarialcommission.Heshouldbe quickly
removedthroughdisbarment.
NOTARIZATION
618. Atty.BalerosnotarizedanApplicat Section12ofRuleIIoftheNota Theactscommittedbytherespondentgobeyondbeingmerel SUSPENDEDfrom the
DR.BASILIO ionforCertificationofAlienablean rialRules;Section2(b)ofRuleI apsesinthefulfilmentofherdutiesundertheNotarialRules, practiceof lawfor six(6)
MALVAR dDisposableLandsanspresenceof VoftheNotarialRulesbyaffixi they comprehend a parallelbreach of theCPRparticularly monthseffectiveimmediately.He
oneoftheparties. ngherofficialsignatureandseal Canon9, Rule 9.01, Canon1, Rule
v. rnotarialcommission,ifstillexistin
onthenotarialcertificateofthe 1.01whichprovidesthat"alawyershallnotengageinunlawful,
ATTY.CORAJANEP.B affidavitcontainedintheAppli dishonest,immoralordeceitfulconduct"andtheLawyer'sOa g,is
ALEROS cationforCertificationofAlie thwhichamplifiestheundertakingtodono.falsehoodandadh herebyREVOKED,andshe
nableandDisposableLandint eretolawsandthelegalsystembeingoneoftheirprimordialtas isherebyDISQUALIFIEDfromre
A.C.No.11346MA heabsenceofthecomplainanta ksasofficersofthecourt.Giventheevidentiaryvalueaccorded appointment as
RCH 08, ndforfailingto tonotarizeddocuments,thefailureofthenotarypublictoreco NotaryPublicforaperiod of
2017REYES, ascertaintheidentityofthe rd the two(2) years.
affiant documentinhernotarialregistercorrespondstofalselymakin
gitappearthatthedocumentwasnotarizedwhen,infact,itwas
not.
Itcannotbeoveremphasizedthatnotariespublicareurged
toobservewithutmostcareandutmostfidelitythebasicrequir
ementsintheperformanceoftheirduties;otherwise,theconfi
denceofthepublicintheintegrityof notarizeddeedswill be
undermined
SIMPLE NEGLECTOFDUTY
619.LIANGFUJI SpecialProsecutorDelaCruzbrou Rule 18.03 ofthe Code ofthe Generally, a lawyerwhoholdsa governmentoffice SUSPENDEDfrom the
v. ghttheformalchargeagainstFujian ProfessionalResponsibility, maynot be disciplinedasamember practiceof lawfor three(3)
ATTY.GEMMAARMI danotherpersonuponherfindingt whichmandatesthat"a oftheBarformisconductin the dischargeof months
hatFuji'sworkvisahadexpiredont lawyershall notneglect a herdutiesasagovernmentofficial. However,
M.DELACRUZ
hebasisoftheMemorandumofthe legalmatterentrusted tohim, ifsaidmisconductasagovernmentofficialalsoconstitutesa
BI-MIS.However,nowhere and violation ofheroathasa lawyerand theCodeof
A.C.No.11043 ProfessionalResponsibility,thenshe maybe
subjecttodisciplinary
547
2017and2018CASES
intheMemorandumwasitstatedth hisnegligence sanction bythe Court.
MARCH 08, atFuji"overstayed"orthat"Liang's inconnectiontherewithshall
2017LEONEN, workingvisaexpiredandhisTVVe renderhimliable Lawyersingovernmentservice should
xpiredasAtty de la Cruz claims. bemoreconscientiouswiththeirprofessionalobligationsco
nsistentwiththe time-honoredprinciple of publicoffice
being a publictrust.The ethical standardsunderthe Code
ofProfessionalResponsibility arerenderedeven more
exacting astogovernmentlawyersbecausethey have the
addedduty toabide bythe policy oftheState to promote a
highstandard of ethics,
competence,andprofessionalisminpublic service.
Inthiscase,respondent'snegligence evincesa failure to
cope withthe
strictdemandsandhighstandardsofpublicserviceand the
legalprofession.
MISCONDUCT
620.ORTIGASPLAZA Atty.Tumulak,accompaniedbyun Canon1,Rules1.01and The swornobligationofevery lawyerunder the SUSPENDEDfrom the
DEVELOPMENTCOR iformed guards of 1.02 of theCode of Lawyer'sOathandtheCodeof Professional Responsibilityto practiceof lawfor aperiod of
PORATION, theNationwide ProfessionalResponsibility;LAW respectthe law and the legalprocessesisa TWO(2)YEARSwiththe
Security YER’SOATH continuingconditionforretaining membershipin
representedbyJAN STERNWARNINGthat
Agency,Inc.,unlaw theLegalProfession.The
ICEMONTERO fullyenteredandtook controlof lawyermustactandcomporthimselforherselfinsuch anysimilarinfractioninthefuturew
v. the entranceandexitof a parcelof amannerthatwouldpromote publicconfidence in the illbedealtwithmoreseverely
ATTY.EUGENIOS.T landownedby integrity of the Legal
UMULAK ORTIGASPLAZADEVELOP Profession.MembersoftheBar are reminded,therefore,
MENTCORPORATION. thattheirFIRSTDuty isto comply with
A.C.No.11385MA therulesofprocedure, ratherthan to seek
RCH 14, exceptionsasloopholes. A lawyerwhoassistsa clientin a
2017PER dishonestscheme or whoconnivesinviolating the law
commitsanactthatwarrantsdisciplinary
CURIAM
actionagainsthim orher.
IMMORAL RELATIONSHIP
621.IN RE: Thereisno evidence onrecordthatwouldshow CASEDISMISSED.
ALLEGEDIMMORALI thatJusticeJuradoandAtty. Buencaminohadanimmoral
TYAND
548
2017and2018CASES
UNEXPLAINEDWEALT relationship. Otherthantheirco-ownership oftheproperty
H covered byTCTNo. T-23271,no otherevidence
OFSANDIGANBAYAN waspresentedtoshow any immoralconduct.
Asto the charge of unexplainedwealth, there
ASSOCIATEJUSTICE
isnoprimafacieshowingthateitherJustice Juradoor.Atty.
ROLANDB.JURADOan Buencaminohasunlawfullyaccumulatedwealth.
dCLERK OFCOURT Bothhadsufficiently explainedhow they
IVMONALISA gotintothebusinessofrealestate whichwasfully supported
A.BUENCAMINO, by theevidence on record.
METROPOLITAN
TRIALCOURT,CA
LOOCANCITY
A.M.No.OCA.IPINo.1
0-21-SB-J
April
4,2017MEN
DOZA
NEGLECT OFDUTY
622.RAPSING Rota failedto refer the Code of Clerksof Courtare atthe DISMISSED FROM SERVICE.
v. casetoJudge Walse- ConductforCourtPersonnel forefrontofjudicialadministrationbecause of All her
JUDGECARIDADM.WA Luteroforresolutionof the theirindispensable role incase benefits,exceptaccruedleavecre
pendingincidents"even with adjudicationandcourtmanagement. They are
LSE-LUTERO dits,ifany,aredeclared
theintermittentfollow-upsof the ... themodelsforthe courtemployees"toactspeedily
A.M.No.MTJ-17- parties." Shelikewise failed to andwithdispatch on theirassignedtask[s] to FORFEITED,withprejudice tore-
1894April reporttoJudgeWalse-Lutero the avoidtheclogging of casesincourtandthereby employmentinany branch or
04,2017LEONEN damage intherecords,thus, assistintheadministrationof justice withoutundue instrumentality ofthe
preventing delay."96Moreover, government,includinggovernme
thereconstitutionofthe aspublicofficers,theyshoulddischarge nt-owned andcontrolled
recordsatthe earliesttime theirtaskswithutmostresponsibility,integrity, loyalty, corporationsandfinancialinstituti
possible. As theadministrative andefficiency guided bythe principlethat"public office ons
assistant ofthepresiding judge, Section9ofRule140ofthe isa public trust."
itwasRota'sduty to
diligentlysupervise andmanage
courtdocketsand
549
2017and2018CASES
records, and to RevisedRulesof Court, Judgeshavethedutytoadministerjusticewithoutdelay.Judge
ensurethattherecordswere Walse- Admonishedforherfailuretoactpr
complete andintact. Luteroshouldbearinmindthatthosechargedwiththetaskofd omptlyonthecomplainant'smotio
ispensingjusticecarryaheavyburdenofresponsibility.65Asaf ns.
rontlineofficialoftheJudiciary,atrialjudgeshouldatalltimes
JudgeWalse- maintainprofessionalcompetenceandobservethe
Luterofailedtoresolve highstandardsofpublicserviceandfidelity.Herdedicationto
twomotionson time. dutyistheleastshecoulddotosustainthepublic'strustandcon
fidencenotonlyinherbutmoreimportantly in the
institutionshe represents
NOTARIZATION
623.FERGUSONv.AT Atty.Ramosnotarizedadeedofsale RuleonNotarialPracticeandR Asa lawyercommissionedasnotary public, SUSPENDEDfromthepracticeof
TY.SALVADOR ofaparceloflandwithoutthe ule1.01andCanon1oftheCod Atty.Ramoswasmandatedto exercise thefunctionof lawfor
P.RAMOS presence of theparties. eofProfessionalResponsibilit hisoffice andmustobserve withutmostcare the six(6)months;REVOKEShisnota
y basicformalitiesofhisoffice
rialcommission;
andrequisitesintheperformance of hisduties.WhenAtty.
A.C.No. 920 Ramosaffixedhissignature andnotarialseal on the andPERMANENTLYBARShim
deedofsale, he ledustobelieve that the partiespersonally frombeingcommissionedasnotar
April appearedbeforehimandattested tothe truthandveracity of y public,
18,2017PER thecontentsthereof. withaSTERNWAR
CURIAM Hisconductwasfraughtwithdangerouspossibilitiesconside NINGthatarepetitionofthesameor
ring the conclusivenesson the due executionof a similarconductwillbedealtwithmo
documentthatourcourtsandthe public reseverely
accordonnotarizeddocuments.Atty.Ramosfailed to
exercise the functionsof the office and tocomply with
themandates of the law
SERIOUSMISCONDUCT
624.THEOFFICEOFT JudgeAventuradofailedtoresolvet Canon 2of the In taking hisoath ofoffice asa judicial officer, heprecisely FINEDintheamountof
HECOURTADMINIST he12casesforwhichhehadrequest CodeofJudicial Conduct; swore to performhisdutiesefficiently inordernot ₱100,000.00for
RATOR edextensionsofhisperiod toprejudice the litigants.Efficiency thusbecame GROSSIRREGULARITYANDS
todecide them. hisprofessionalcommitmentforaslong ashe wason
v. ERIOUSMISCONDUCT; and
Rule 3.05, Canon 3of theBench. He alsowellknew thatSection15(1),
JUDGEJUSTINOG. theCode ofJudicial Conduct; ArticleVIIIofthe 1987
AVENTURADO Constitutionmandatedthatcasesormattersfiledinthe Another P100,000.00
Section9,Rule140of lowercourtsmust be decidedorresolvedwithinthree forGROSS
monthsfromthe time they are VIOLATION OF
550
2017and2018CASES
A.M.No.RTJ-09- theRulesofCourt, submittedfordecisionorresolution. He wasfurtheraware ADMINISTRATIVECIRCULAR
2212April 18,2017 of Rule 3.05, Canon3of theCodeofJudicialConductby NO.43-2004
PER CURIAM whichhe wasexpresslyrequiredasa judge topromptly
dispose ofcourtbusiness, andtodecide caseswithin the
prescribedperiods. He wasexpectedtohavebecome
apprisedthatany delaysin the
dispositionofcaseswouldsurely undermine the
people'sfaithandconfidence in theJudiciary.Accordingly,
he shouldhavebeenimbuedwiththathighsenseofduty
andresponsibility in the discharge of
hisdutiesandobligationsto promptly administerjustice
while hesat asjudge.Hisfailure topromptly disposeof
courtbusiness, andto decide caseswithin the
prescribedperiodsefficiently constitutedgrossinefficiency
andwarranted the impositionofthe
condignadministrativesanctiononhim.
GROSSMISCONDUCT
626.RE:ANONYMOUSL Atty. Rule 140of The Suspendedfor six(6)
ETTERCOMPLAINT RoquefalsifiedhisPersonalData theRulesofCourt, falsificationinrespondentRoque'sPersonalDataSheetisa monthswithoutpay,withastemw
v. SheetwhenheappliedasUtility dishonestactrelated to hisemployment. arningthatthe
WorkerintheSala of Judge Dishonesty isthe concealment or distortion
JUDGEDIVINAT.SA commissionofasimilar
Samson. oftruth,whichshowslack of integrity or a
MSON dispositiontodefraud, cheat, deceive or betray offenseshall be
andanintentiontoviolate the truth. dealtwithmoreseverely.
A.M.No.mtj-16-1870 JudgeSamsonknewthathewasnot
yetdischargedfromprobationand Rule 2.01, RULE 2.03 JudgeSamsonshouldhavebeencircumspectandwaitedforth
yetshe efinaldischargeofrespondentRoquebeforeshe
551
2017and2018CASES
552
2017and2018CASES
NOTARIZATION
629.RE: LETTER NotarialPracti Asa magistrate, JudgeBarcillano, Jr.isexpected tobe COMPLAINTS
OFLUCENAOFENDOR ce anembodimentofprofessionalism,butthe exactopposite ARE
EYESALLEGINGILLICI and wasshowntowardsPOI DISMISSED.
Rule1.01and Marcelo.1âwphi1Ratherthangiving respectto a police officerwhowason-duty atthe
TACTIVITIESOF
Canon 1 time, Judge Barcillano,Jr. expressedmockery and a condescending attitude,
ACERTAINATTY.CAJA ofthe orwithconceitedshowofsuperiority
YONINVOLVINGCASE CodeofProfess
SIN THECOURTOF ionalResponsi
APPEALS,CAGAYAND bility
EOROCITY
A.M.No.16-12-03-
CAJune6,2017PERL
AS-BERNABE
553
2017and2018CASES
UNDUE DELAY
631.FESTINv.ATTY.R Atty. Zubiri Section12 By labeling themasmanifestations,respondentcraftily sidesteppedtherequirementof SUSPENDEDfrom the
OLANDO V. ZUBIRI filedfive (b)and(c) a notice of hearing anddeprivedthe otherparty ofanopportunityto oppose practiceof lawfor three(3)
(5) ofRule 139- hisarguments.Moreover, thefactthathe submittedthesemanifestationsdirectly monthseffectivefrom thefinality
manifestationsbefore Bofthe toCOC, insteadofproperly filing thembefore theRTC,highlights hisfailure ofthisDecision,andisSTERNLY
A.C.No.11600June
the RulesofCourt, toexhibitfairnesstowardstheotherparty by keepingthelattercompletely unaware of
19,2017PERLAS- COCprayin asamended hismanifestations. Undoubtedly, WARNEDthat arepetition
BERNABE g for byBarMatter respondentviolatedhisprofessionalobligationsunder the CPR. ofthesameor similar act
affirmativereliefs No. 1645 shallbedealtwithmoreseverely.
datedOctober
13, 2015;
Canon8 and
Rule 10.03,
Canon10ofthe
CPR
CONTEMPT OFCOURT
632.RIZALADO Rizalado Asa judge, he must beallowedreasonable latitude forthe ComplaintsareDISMISSEDforl
v.PRESIDINGJUDG hasin operationofhisownindividual view of the case, hisappreciation ofthe ack of merit
EGIL G. discriminatelyandrep facts,andhisunderstanding ofthe applicable law on the matter. "Tohold a judge
etitivelyfiledseveralco administratively accountablefor every erroneousruling ordecisionhe renders,
BOLLOZOS,REGIO Complainant Oscar
mplaintsagainst assuming he haserred, wouldbenothingshortofharassmentandwouldmake
NALTRIALCOURT, Judge hispositiondoubly unbearable.To holdotherwise wouldbeto renderjudicialoffice C.RizaladoisfoundGUILTYof
BR. Bollozos,allinconnect untenable, for noone calledupon totry factsorinterpretthe law in the processof contempt
21,CAGAYANDEOR ionwiththelatter'sdisp administering justice canbe infallible inhisjudgment.It isonly wherethe erroris so ofCourtandORDEREDtopaythe
OCITY,MISAMISOR ositionofcivil case gross, deliberate andmalicious, orincurredwithevidentbadfaiththatadministrative FINEinthe amount of
IENTAL sanctionsmay beimposedagainstthe erring judge. ₱20,000.00,with aSTERN
Thefilingofmultiplecomplaintsagainstrespondenthasthereforeresultedinconfusiond WARNINGthat arepetition
OCA IPI No.11-3800- uetothenumberofactionsdocketedbeforetheOCA.Inthisrespect,theCourtconcurswi ofthesameshall be
RTJ ththeOCArecommendationthatRizaladobefoundguilty of contemptofcourt dealtwithmoreseverely.
June19,2017
NOTARIZATION
PERLAS-BERNABE
633.VILLAFLORES- Atty. Arellano NotarialLaw Notarizationisnotanempty,meaninglessandroutineact.Itisinvestedwith SUSPENDEDfromthepractice
554
2017and2018CASES
PUZA,Complainant notarized substantive public interestthatonly those whoare qualified or authorizedmay of lawfor
vs. the actasnotariespublic.Itmustbeemphasizedthattheactofnotarizationbyanotarypublicco three(3)yearsandPERMANENT
ATTY.ROLANDOB. affidavitsheofferedin nvertsaprivatedocumentintoapublicdocumentmakingthatdocumentadmissibleinevi LY
evidencewithoutnota dencewithoutfurtherproof
ARELLANO DISQUALIFIEDfrombeingcomm
ry commission ofauthenticity.Anotarialdocumentisbylawentitledtofullfaithandcredituponitsface,an
dforthisreason,notariespublicmustobservewithutmostcarethebasicrequirementsinth issioned asa NotaryPublic.
A.C.No.11480[Forme e performance oftheirduties
rlyCBDCaseNo.05-
1558]
June20,2017
PER CURIAM
GROSSNEGLECT OFDUTY
634.OFFICEOF Atty. UniformRules Atty. Bantiyanfailed to performhisdutieswiththe degree of diligence FINEDintheamountof
THECOURTADMINIS Bantiyanfailedto on andcompetence expected of him. Hisapparentgoodfaith,hisadmission TwentyThousand
TRATOR performwithutmost Administrative oftheinfractionsandimmediate restitutionof the cashshortages, Pesos(P20,000,00),withaWAR
v.ATTY.JEROMEB.B diligence CasesintheCivi thoughmitigating,cannotexculpate himfromliability. The Courthasto enforce NINGthat arepetitionofthesame
hisfinancialandadmi l Service whatismandatedbythe law and to impose areasonable
ANTIYAN nistrativeresponsibili punishmentforviolationsthereof. or similaroffenseshall be
ties. dealtwith moreseverely.
A.M.No.P-15- Recordsshow thathe Delayintheremittancesofcollectionsconstitutesneglectofdutyonthegroundthatfailure
3335JUNE28,2007 wasremissinhisdutie toremitthecourtcollectionsontimedeprivesthecourtofinterestthatmaybeearnedifthea
MENDOZA, sofdepositingthe mountsaredepositedinabank. FINEDintheamountofTenThousa
courtcollectionson Shortagesintheamountstoberemittedandtheyearsofdelayintheactualremittanceconst ndPesos(₱l0,000.00)andWARN
time, updatingthe ituteneglect of dutyfor whichthe respondentshall be administratively liable EDthatarepetitionofthesameorsi
entriesin theofficial milaroffenseshallbedealtwithmor
cashbooks,andregul eseverely.
arlysubmitting
hismonthlyreports.
Camilofailedtomonit
ortheentriesintheoffi
cialcashbooksbecaus
e
555
2017and2018CASES
shereliedheavilyonN
adosmanwhowasassi
gnedbythePresidingJ
udgetoperformsuchd
utysincethetenureoft
heformerClerkofCou
rt.
SIMPLE NEGLECTOFDUTY
635.OCHEA, Atty. Maratas Section Theimage of FINEinthe amountof
representedbyMIGU submitted 1, thecourtsastheadministratorsanddispensersofjusticeisnotonlyreflectedintheirdecisio ₱5,000.00,withaSTERNWARNI
ELKILANTANG severaldocumen CanonIV ns,resolutions,ororders,butalsomirroredintheconductoftheircourtstaff,itisincumben NGthatarepetitionofthesameora
tsreflectingCivilCase ofthe tuponeverycourtpersonneltoobservethehighestdegreeofefficiencyandcompetencyin
v. ATTY.ANDREA nysimilarinfractionshallbedealtwi
No.2936- CodeofCondu hisorherassignedtasks.Failuretomeetthesestandardswarrantstheimpositionofadmini
P.MARATAS Lintheallegedlistof ct strativesanctions thmoreseverely
casessubmittedto for
A.M.No.P-16-3604 then CourtPersonn
AssistingJudgeT el
JUNE28,2017 rinidadfordecision,
PERALTA none
ofwhichwouldp
rovethat she
indeedproperly
indorsedsaidcas
esso
theassistingjudgecoul
dtaketheappropriatea
ction.Neitherwasther
eanyevidenceshowin
gthatAtty.Maratas
actuallymade
a
properturnover
of thosecases
which
hadbeensubmitt
NEGLECT OFDUTY edfordecision
beforeJudge
Cobarde'scomp
ulsoryretirement.
556
2017and2018CASES
636.SALONOYv.AT Atty.Gatchalianfailed Canon 18, Alawyerneednotwaitfortheirclientstoaskforinformationbutmustadvisethemwithout SUSPENDEDfrom the
TY.EDUARDOZ.GA tofilethenecessarymo Rules 18.03 delayaboutmattersessentialforthemtoavailoflegalremedies.Inthepresentcase,respon practiceof lawfor six(6)
TCHALIAN, tiontopostpone and18.04ofthe dentfailedtoimmediatelynotifycomplainantsabouttheadversedecisionofthetrialcourt monthsand
theh CodeofProfess .Hadthecomplainantsnotinquiredwiththetrialcourt,they wouldhave
A.C.No.8371J isSTERNLYWARNEDthatarep
earingduetoaconflicti ionalResponsi losttheiropportunity toappeal.
UNE28,2017 nhisschedule,andasar bility. etitionofthesame or similaract
PERALTA-BERNABE esult,complainantslos shall be dealtwithmoreseverely.
t their
opportunity
topr
esent
their
evidenceintheejectme
CONLICT OFINTEREST ntcase.
637..CAPINPIN,JR.v.A FLC Canon 15, The Courtcannotoverstressthe duty of a lawyer to uphold, atalltimes,theintegrity SUSPENDEDfromthepracticeof
TTY.ESTANISLAOL.CE engagedAtty.Cesa’sle Rule 15.03 anddignity ofthelegal profession.The ethicsof the legalprofessionrightly lawfor one(1) year
SA,JR., galservicesto andCanon16, enjoinlawyersto actwith the higheststandardsoftruthfulness,fairplay,andnobility
representitinopposin Rule16.01ofth inthe course oftheirpractice oflaw. Clearly, inthiscase, respondentfailed to
gcomplainant'saction e CPR upholdsuchethicalstandardinhispractice oflaw.
A.C.No.6933 sto forestallthe
foreclosureproc
JULY5,2017T eedings.Ascanbe
IJAM, gleaned
fromresponden
t'sposition
paper,
however, it is
admitted
that
respondentextended
helpto the
complainant in
negotiating with
FLC for
thereductio
noftheloanpayment
andcessatio
n of
theforeclos
ureproceedings.
557
2017and2018CASES
CONFLICT OFINTEREST
638.CELEDONIOv.A Atty.Estrabilloinstruc Rule 15.03; Therelationshipbetweenalawyerandhis/herclientshouldideallybeimbuedwiththehig SUSPENDEDfromthepracticeofl
TTY.JAIMEF.ESTRA ted Rule 15.03; hestleveloftrustandconfidence. awforsix(6)monthswithaWARNI
BILLO, his CANON17 Thelegalprofessiondictatesthatitisnotamereduty,butanobligation,ofa.lawyerto'accor NGthatarepetitionofthesameorsi
secretaryto dthehighestdegreeoffidelity,zealandfervorintheprotectionoftheclient'sinterest.Thus,
milaroffensewillwarrant
draftandfilemotionsf partorthelawyer'sdutyinthisregardisto avoidrepresenting,conflictinginterests.
A.C.No.10553 orthecomplainantint Jurisprudenceistotheeffectthatalawyer'sactwhichinvitessuspicionof amoreseverepenalty.
hecivilcasefiledbyhisc unfaithfulnessordouble-dealing in the performance ofhisduty already
JULY05,2017 lientagainstthelatter. evincesinconsistencyofinterests.Inbroadterms,lawyersaredeemedtorepresentconflic
TIJAM, tinginterestswhen,inbehalfofoneclient,itistheirdutytocontendforthatwhichdutyto
anotherclientrequiresthemto oppose.
GROSSIGNORANCE OFTHELAW
639.ALFELOR v. JudgeDiazcarelesslyr Section8, Hon.DiazwascarelessindisposingtheMotionsfiledbycomplainant,inacriminalcasenol FINED in the amount
HON.AUGUSTUSC.DIA endered Rule140ofthe ess.TheOfficeoftheCourtAdministratorcorrectlyunderscoresthathisexperienceasap ofTHIRTYTHOUSAND
Z the RulesofCourt ublicattorneyandprosecutorshouldhaveingrainedinhimwell- PESOS
questionedDecisionc settleddoctrinesandbasictenetsoflaw.Hecannotberelievedfromtheconsequencesofhi
(₱30,000.00) tobe
onvictingAlfelorinthe sactionssimplybecausehewasnewlyappointedandhiscaseloadwasheavy.Thesecircum
A.M.No.MTJ-16- deductedfrom
saidnine(9)checkssub stancesarenotuniquetohim.Hiscarelessdisposition
1883JULY11,2017CAG jectoftheBPBig.22cas ofthemotionsisareflectionofhiscompetencyasajudge indischarging hisofficial duties. hisretirementbenefits.
UIOA es.Butthesubjectcrim
inalcaseinJudgeDiaz's
salapertainedtoonlyo
ne (1)check
.
REINSTATEMENT
640.RE: IN The SC Theprinciplewhichshouldholdtrueforlawyers,beingofficersofthecourt,isthatjudicial PETITIONDENIED
THEMATTER OF Atty.RolandoS.Torre clemency, asanact of mercy removing any disqualification,should
THEPETITIONFORREI sguilty of bebalancedwiththepreservationofpublicconfidenceinthecourts.Thus,theCourtwillgr
grossmisconductand antitonlyifthereisashowingthatitismerited.Proofofreformationand ashowingof
NSTATEMENT
violation potentialandpromise are indispensable.
OFROLANDO S. ofthelawyer'soath,
TORRESASA aswellasCanons1
MEMBER and10of the Code
OFTHEPHILIPPINEBA ofProfessionalRespo
R. nsibility,thereby
rendering
A.C.No.5161
558
2017and2018CASES
JULY11,2017 himunworthy
PER CURIAM ofcontinuingmembe
rshipinthelegalprofe
ssion.Heisthusorder
edDISBARREDfro
mthe practice of
law,andhisname
isorderedstrickenoff
theRollof
Attorneys,
effectiveimmediatel
y.
HepetitionedtheCour
tforhisreinstatement.
559
2017and2018CASES
A.M.No.17-03-03-CA
JULY11,2017
MENDOZA,
560
2017and2018CASES
ATTY.VIVENCIOV.J tofilethenecessarypos Canon10 and also torefrainfromdoing any falsehoodinoroutof courtorfromconsentingtothe existing,is
UMAMIL ition Rule 18.03, doing ofany incourt, and to conducthimselfaccording to the bestofhisknowledge herebyREVOKED,andhe
paper Canon18 anddiscretionwithall goodfidelity tothe courtsaswell astohisclients. Every isDISQUALIFIEDfrom
beforetheNLRC,whi ofthe Code lawyerisaservant of the law, andhastoobserve andmaintain therule of law
A.C.No.11668 beingcommissionedasa
chhadresultedintoana ofProfessional aswellasbe anexemplarworthy of emulation by others.It isbynomeansa
dverserulingagainsthi Responsibility; coincidence, therefore, thatthe core valuesofhonesty, integrity, notarypublicfor aperiod of two
sclient. andtrustworthinessare emphatically reiterated bythe Codeof (2)years.Finally,heisSTERNLY
JULY17,2017PERL 2004RulesonN ProfessionalResponsibility. WARNEDthat arepetition
AS-BERNABE otarialPractice ofthesameor similar
AttyJumamilowesentiredevotiontotheinterestoftheclient,warmzealinthemaintenanc offenseshall be
eanddefenseofhisclient'srights,andtheexertionofhisutmostlearningandabilitytotheen dealtwithmoreseverely.
dthatnothingbetakenorwithheldfromhisclient,savebytherulesoflaw,legallyapplied.T
hissimplymeansthathisclientisentitledtothebenefitofanyandeveryremedyanddefense
thatisauthorizedbythelawofthelandandhemayexpecthislawyertoasserteverysuchrem
edyordefense.Ifmuchisdemandedfromanattorney,itisbecausetheentrustedprivileget
opracticelawcarrieswithitthecorrelativedutiesnotonlytotheclientbutalsotothecourt,t
othebar,andtothepublic.Alawyerwhoperformshisdutywithdiligenceandcandornoton
lyprotectstheinterestofhisclient;healsoservestheendsofjustice,doeshonortothebar,an
dhelpsmaintaintherespectof the communityto thelegalprofession
561
2017and2018CASES
notarialseal.He,however,maintainsthat
hedidnotnotarizethesaiddocumentsandthathissignaturesthereinwereforged,w
hich,however,werenotproveninthiscase.Headmittedthathehasnosoleaccessan
dcontrolofhisnotarialsealasotherpersonscouldmakeuseofthesamewithouthisc
onsentorknowledge
Topic:Misuse of CourtProcesses
Topic:Misconduct
Tijam, J.
Topic: Conflict ofInterest
562
2017and2018CASES
officerofPacesCorp.no thesameactionorontotally years.
w seeksto unrelatedcases.Theprohibitionisfoundedontheprinciplesofpublicpolicyandgo
Peralta, J. representanotherclient odtaste.IntheabsenceoftheexpressconsentofPacesafterfulldisclosuretoitofthec
againstsaidcorp. onflictofinterest,thelawyershouldhaveoutrightlydeclinedrepresentingandenteri
nghisappearance ascounselof theotherparty.
Topic: GrossMisconduct; Immorality
**Itismorallyreprehensibleforamarriedmanorwomantomaintainintimaterelati
onswithapersonotherthanhisorherspouse.Moreover,immoralityisnotbasedalo
neonillicitsexualintercourse.Itisnotconfinedtosexualmatters,butincludescondu
ctsinconsistentwithrectitude,orindicativeofcorruption,indecency,depravity,an
ddissoluteness;oriswillful,flagrantorshamelessconductshowingmoralindifferen
cetoopinionsofrespectablemembersofthecommunity,andaninconsiderateattit
udetowardgoodorderandpublicwelfare.Immoralityisarecognizedgroundforthe
disciplineofjudgesandjusticesundertheRulesofCourt.TheNewCanonofJudicial
ConductforthePhilippineJudiciaryrequiresjudgestoavoid"improprietyandthea
ppearanceofimproprietyinall theiractivities.
Topic: GrossNegligence
563
2017and2018CASES
Sps. Navarrovs. ActsComplainedof: LegalBasisofthe Charge: SC Ruling: Case Disposition:
Atty.Ygona
A.C. No. *Forgery *The 2004 Notarizationisnotmerelyanemptyormeaninglessexercise.Itisinvestedwithpubli Disqualifiedfrombeingc
8450July 26, ofsignaturesin a Deed RulesonNotarial Practice, c interest,suchthatonly those qualifiedandauthorizedmay ommissionedasnotary
2017 of AbsoluteSale; and Rule II,Section1; and actasnotariespublic.Notarizationconvertsaprivatedocumentintoapublicone,m publicfor 2years.
aking itadmissible inevidence withoutfurtherproofofitsauthenticity.
Caguioa, J. **Failure to **The 2004 ThefailureonthepartofAtty.Ygonatorecordthetransactioninhisnotarialregister
recordtransactioni RulesonNotarial Practice, warrants a corresponding sanction.
n Section,Rule VI, Sec. 1.
theNotarialRegiste
Topic:Misappropriationof Client’sFunds
r.
SisonvsAtty. Valdez ActsComplainedof: LegalBasisofthe Charge: SC Ruling: Case Disposition:
A.C. No.
11663July 31, *Failure to *Rule 18.04, Canon18 *Whileitwasacknowledgedthatrespondentdidrendersomelegalservicestocompl Suspendedfrom
2017 renderlegal ofthe CPR; and ainantalbeitonlyintheinitiatorystage,itwasalsoestablishedthatrespondentfailedt thepractice of law
services; and odulyupdatehisclientonthedevelopmentsofthecase.Respondentcannotjustifyh for 3months.
Perlas-Bernabe,J. **Rule 16.01, Canon16 isnon-
**Failure to ofthe CPR. compliancebyshiftingtheblametocomplainantforfailingtomeethim,especiallys
accountcomplainant’s othathefailedtoinformhisclientof the pleadingsheneeded to sign.
money.
**Whencomplainantterminatedhisservices,thefactthatnocasehasbeenfiledsho
uldhavepromptedhimtoimmediatelyreturntocomplainanttheamountsintended
asbondandfilingfees.Hisfailuretoreturngivesrisetoapresumptionthathehasappr
opriateditforhisownuse,andtheconversionoffundsentrustedtohimconstitutesa
grossviolationofhisprofessionalobligationunderCanon16 of the CPR.
Topic:Notarial Law
564
2017and2018CASES
**Failure to notarized,sothatitisnotapublicdocumentandcannotbolsteranyclaimmade notary public.
enterinthe based on thisdocument. The failure of the notary public to
notarialregisterthe recordthedocumentinthenotarialregistryistantamounttofalselymakingitappeart
notarizeddeed. hat the documentwasnotarizedwheninfactitwasnot.
Topic: Conflict ofInterest
Topic: NeglectofClient’sInterest,MisappropriationofClient’sFund
565
2017and2018CASES
fees.
566
2017and2018CASES
Topic:Misappropriationof Client’sFunds
Padilla vs. Atty. Samson ActsComplainedOf: LegalBasisofthe Charge: SC Ruling: Case Disposition:
A.C. No.
10253Aug. 22, *Failure *Canon15, 17, 18 and19, *Clientsareledtoexpectthatlawyerswouldalwaysbemindfuloftheircauseand,acc Suspendedfrom
2017 tocommunicate Rule 18.03 and19.01. ordingly,exercisetherequireddegreeofdiligenceinhandlingtheiraffairs.Ontheot thepractice of law
withtheclient; and herhand,alawyerisexpectedatalltimesahighstandardoflegalproficiency,andtode for 2years.
votehisfullattention,skillandcompetence to the case, regardlessof
Peralta, J. **Failure to itsimportance andwhether he
returntoclientoverpay acceptsitforafee.ThepersistentrefusaltoreturnPadilla’smoneyandcasefilesdespi
mentsevenafterdema tefrequentdemandsclearlyreflectshislackofintegrityandmoralsoundness;heiscli
n. ngingtosomethingthatdoesnotbelongtohim,andthatheabsolutelyhasnorightto
keeporuse,withoutPadilla’spermission.Lawyersaredeemedtoholdintrusttheircli
ent’smoneyandpropertythatmay come intotheirpossession.
Sta. Ana, etal. vs. ActsComplainedOf: LegalBasisofthe Charge: SC Ruling: Case Disposition:
Atty.Cortes
A.C. No. *Notarizationof12fals *Notarial Law andSec. *Respondent’sact ofnotarizingaforgeddeed Suspendedforthepra
6980Aug. 30, ifiedDeedsofDonatio 240of ofdonationoutsidehisterritorialjurisdictionisaviolationofhisdutiesasanotarypu ctice of law for
2017 nsoutside theRevisedAdministrative blic,aswellasablatantfalsificationofpublicdocuments.Thesignaturesonthedeeds 1year,
hisnotarialcommissio Code ofdonationweremere photocopiesattachedto thesaiddeeds. notarialcommissionr
Del Castillo, J. n’sjurisdictionandtheu Lawyersareinstrumentsintheadministrationofjustice.Asvanguardsofthe legal evokedanddisqualifie
seof aspuriousSPA system, they are expected to maintain not onlylegalproficiency but dasnotary publicfor
2
567
2017and2018CASES
so that asale may also a highstandardof morality, honesty, integrity andfairdealing. years.
beeffectedthrough a
co-owner.
Topic: GrossMisconduct
568
2017and2018CASES
Topic: Acting beyond thescope of authority
Cerilla vs. Atty. Lezama ActsComplainedOf: LegalBasisofthe Charge: SC Ruling: Case Disposition:
A.C. No.
11483Oct. 3, *Respondentactedbey *Canons5, 15, and17 *Theprimarydutyoflawyersistoobeythelawsofthelandandpromoterespectforla Suspendedfrom
2017 ond the ofthe CPR. wandlegalprocesses.Theyareexpectedtobeintheforefrontintheobservanceand thepractice of law
authorityconferredup maintenanceoftheruleoflaw.Thisdutycarrieswithit the obligation to be well- for 2years.
Peralta, J. onhimwhen he made informed of the existing lawsand to
theSPA given to keepabreastwithlegaldevelopments,recentenactmentsandjurisprudence.Unless
himasauthority theyfaithfullycomplywithsuchduty,theymaynotbeabletodischargecompetently
tosellthesubjectparcel anddiligently theirobligationsasmembersof the bar.
ofland.
Topic: Unauthorizedpractice of law
569
2017and2018CASES
**Delegation **Respondentcommittedapatentdeviationfromtheruleswhenshewrongfully
ofMediationcasest referred a non-mediatable case to her
ocourtpersonnel. staff,acourtstenographer,whowasnotanaccreditedmediator.Thiswasdespitethe
expectationthatasamemberof thebench, shenot onlyknowsthe
rulespromulgated
bytheCourtbutalsofaithfullycomplieswithit.Indeed,respondentisguiltyofgrave
misconduct.
Topic: GrossIgnorance ofthe Law/GrossIncompetence; GrossNeglectofDuty
Topic:Biased/Partiality of Prosecutors
570
2017and2018CASES
Topic: GrossIgnorance ofthe Law
Topic: GrossNeglectofDuty
**Further,thelawyer’soathenjoinseverylawyernotonlytoobeythelaws
571
2017and2018CASES
ofthelandbutalsorefrainfromdoinganyfalsehoodinoroutofcourtorfromconsen
tingtothedoingofanyincourt.Everylawyerisaservantoflaw,andhastoobserveand
maintaintheruleofthelawaswellasbeanexemplarworthyof emulation by others.
673.TOPIC:Deceitful anddishonestact
572
2017and2018CASES
674.Topic:Malpractice oflaw.
573
2017and2018CASES
CASE ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION
TITLE:TUMBA
GA In a verifiedcomplaint1datedOctober9, 2001 fileddirectly with the Code The Courtagreeswiththe conclusionof WHEREFORE, the
VS.ATTY.TEOX Court,complainantnarratedthatshe ofProfessionalRes theIBPthatthe CourtfindsrespondentAtty.
ON metrespondentsometimeinSeptember1999.He wasthenthe City LegalOfficerof ponsibility actuationsofrespondentinthiscase Manuel P.TeoxonGUILTY
Naga City fromwhomcomplainantsoughtlegal advice. andLawyer'sOath showedhisfailure to live upto the ofgrossimmorality
CASE NO.: Aftercomplainantconsultedwithhim a few violated goodmoralconductrequired ofthe andisherebySUSPENDEDfrom
AC NO. 5573 times,hevisitedheroftenatherresidence andbroughtgiftsforher son, thefollowing: membersofthe legalprofession. thepracticeof law for a periodof
AlGregTumbaga. Respondentevenvolunteered tobethe godfather of AlGreg. three (3)yearseffective
DATE Inoneof hisvisits,respondentassuredcomplainant'smotherthatalthough CanonI,Rule1 uponnoticehereof, with a
OFPROMULGATI hewasalready marriedtoLuzviminda Balang, hismarriage wasasham .01 STERNWARNINGthat a
ON:NOV. 21, 2017 becausetheirmarriage contractwasnot registered.In view repetition
ofrespondent'spersistenceandgenerosity to herson, ofthesameorsimilaroffenseshallb
PONENTE: complainantbelievedhisrepresentationthat he waseligible to marry her. e punishedwith a more
JusticeTeresita Complainantaverredthat onDecember19, 1999,she severepenalty.
J.Leonardo-De movedinwithrespondentatthe Puncia ApartmentinNaga City. In April 2000,
Castro shebecamepregnant.Respondentallegedly wanted to have the
babyabortedbutcomplainantrefused. Afterthe birthof theirson,Billy John,
respondentspentmore time withthem.He usedtheirapartmentasatemporary law
office andhe livedthere fortwoto three daysat a time.
AfterBilly Johnwasbaptized, complainantsecured a Certificate
ofLiveBirthfromthe Office ofthe CivilRegistrarofNaga City andgave it to
respondentto sign.He hesitantly signeditandvolunteered tofacilitate itsfiling.
Afterrespondentfailedto file thesame,
complainantsecuredanotherformandaskedrespondenttosignittwice. On
February 15, 2001,the Certificate ofLive Birthwasregistered.
676.Topic:Dishonestconduct.
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION
Vicka marie isalosv.
574
2017and2018CASES
Atty. Ana luz cristal ComplainantistheDirectorandTreasurerofCFiveHoldings,Management TheCPRrulesandca Aspractice oflaw consideredprivilege Atty. Ana Luz
&ConsultancyInc.RespondentwasCFive’sCorporateSec.andLegalCounselwhoh nonviolatedthe Cristalisbestowed by the State, lawyersare GUILTY of
CASE NO.: andleditsincorporationandregistrationwithSEC.CFivepurchasearesortinLagunaf following:
A.C. NO. 1182 romtherecommendationofRespondentthatithascleantitleandthetaxeswerefullyp violationofRules
aid.CfivehandedP1.2MtoRespondentfor the transferandregistration of the title Canon16 expected to maintainatalltimesa high 16.01 and16.03 Canon16
DATE property ofstandardof legal proficiency, morality, Code of
OFPROMULGATI evidencedbythereceipt.Afterayear,therewasnotitlethatwastransferredinCFive’sn Rule 16.01
Professionalhonesty, integrity andfairdealing and Responsibility.
ON:NOV. 22, 2017 ame.ItdiscoveredthatthetitlecoveringthepropertyisaFreePatentrenderinganysale,
assignmentortransferwithinaperiodof5yearsisnullandvoid.Thus,aformaldemand Rule 16 Accordingly,shemust conformtheirFour-foldduty in
PONENTE: wassenttorespondenttoreturntheP1.2Mbutrespondentunabletoproduce.Respon isSUSPENDEDfrompracticeacc
Associate dentallegedthatshepaidtheBIRRegistrationandotherexpensesasitemizedinaState of law for1 YEAR
JusticeEstela Perlas- mentofExpensesandshewasreadytoreturnthebalancebutCfiverefusedtoreceivet ordance with the valuesandnorms
Bernabe heamountandinsistingtheentire1.2M.Cfivefiledacriminalcomplaintanddisbarme andissternlyembodiedinthe code. Thus,Lawyers warnedthat a
ntcasebeforetheIBP.IBPheldthattherespondentwasadministrativelyliableandrec repetitionofthemay be disciplinedfor any conductthat same actswill be
ommending thesuspensionfromlegalprofessionfor 3 years. dealtwithmore
iswanting of the abovestandards severely
whetherintheirprofessional or
intheirprivate capacity. Also, Money
entrustedto a lawyer for aspecific
purposeshouldimmediately returned.
Failure
toreturnupondemandgivesapresumptio
nthat hehasappropriatedthesame
677.Topic:Grossmisconduct. forhisownuse inviolationof the
trustreposedtohimby hisclient.
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’S CASE
Suchactisa grossviolation ofgeneral
Atty. Torreset. al DISPOSITIONRULING
Vs.Atty. Dalanginet. CBDCase No. 11-3215 isa complaint1 forgrossimmorality, malpractice Code morality, aswell asprofessionalethics.
WHEREFORE,inlightof the
al andgrossmisconductfiledagainstAtty.Dalangin bythe following complainants: ofProfessionalRes Itimpairspublic confidence inthe
foregoing,The Courtfindsit the Courtrulesasfollows:
(1)Atty.Torres; (2)Felicidad O. Samatra (Samatra); (3)Alvaro; (4)Mary ponsibility legalprofessionanddeservespunishment.
appropriate to first
CASE NO.: DF.Noveras(Noveras); and(5)Generosa S. Camacho(Camacho). andcanonviolated addressthe matterof (1) InA.C.No.10758,respondentAtty.
AC. NO. 10758-60 thefollowing: Atty. Dalangin’s Bayani P.
The complaintimputeduponAtty. Dalanginseveralbreachesof hisdutiesasa DalanginisADMONISHEDtoimmediate recourse tothe bemore
DATE lawyer. First,itwasallegedthatAtty. Dalanginfiledagainstemployeesofthe Rule 18.03 prudentandcautiousinhandling his
OFPROMULGATI Judiciary and a fellow lawyergroundlesssuits, whichwere merelyprompted by Courtvia a petitionforpersonalaffairsanddealingswithcourtsandreview
ON:Dec. 5, 2017 hislossin a case andintendedto coveruphisnegligence ascounsel. Byhisacts, Canon18 thatquestionedthethe public, with aSTERNWARNING
Atty. Dalangincommittedgrossmisconduct, and Rules 1.02 and thatIBPBoardofGovernors'any repetitionof thesameorsimilaractsin
PONENTE: resolve toaffirm the the future shall bedealtwithmoreseverely;(2)
575
2017and2018CASES
Justice breachedRule 18.03, Canon18, Rules1.02 and1.03, Canon1, andCanon11of 1.03 Investigating In A.C.No. 10759,Atty. Bayani P.
ANDRESREYE the CPR. DalanginCommissioner's isFINEDFive
S, JR, It appearedthatpriorto theinstitutionofCBDCase No.11-3215, Canon 1& ThousandPesos(₱5,000.00)
acomplaintfordisbannentwasfiledagainstAtty.Torresby Apolonia Canon11 recommendation on his for hisbreach ofRule 7.03,Canon 7of
Marzan(Marzan)and1V1elody Valdez (Valdez), whowere clientsofAtty. theadministrative liability, Code of Professional Responsibility,
Dalanginand the losing partiesinanunlawfuldetainercase decided by Presiding withnotwithstandingthe fact aSTERNWARNINGthat
JudgeEfren B.Mallare (Judge Mallare) of the MunicipalTrial Court(MTC)
amoreseverethat the Courthadnotyet sanctionwill be
ofSto.Domingo,Nueva Ecija. MarzanandValdez laterdisclosed to
Atty.Torresthat the filing ofthe disbarmentcase wasorchestrated byAtty. imposeduponhimfor anytaken a finalaction onthe repetitionof the
Dalangin, whoprepared the affidavitandinstructedthemto sameorsimilaroffense in
signitevenwithoutexplainingthe contentsandtenorofthe document. complaints the future; and(3)In A.C.No.
10760 andA.C. No. 10761,Atty. Bayani P.
Dalangin’spetitionforreview
isDENIED.The
CourtAFFIRMStheIntegratedBar of
thePhilippines(IBP)Boardof
Governors'ResolutionNo. XX-2013-
768datedJune 21, 2013
andResolutiondatedAugust8, 2014,
insofarasthe IBPBoardofGovernorsdismissed
the followingcomplaints:(1)CBDCase No. 12-
3369againstAtty.Rosita L. DelaFuente-
678.Topic:Damagesand injunction.
TorresandAtty. AvelinoAndres;
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING and(2)CBDCaseNo. 12-3458
CASE DISPOSITION
Fajardo againstAtty.Rosita L.DelaFuente-Torres.
Vs.JudgeNatino FajardochargedJudge Natinowith the violationof the Constitutionand CanonandCodeof The Courtagreeswiththe findingsand The
theRulesofCourtrelative tothe latter'sdispositionsinCivilCase No. the Courtagreeswiththerecommendationsof theInvestigating
CASE NO.: 202252entitledLetecia Jaroda Vda. De Lacson, etal. v.LeonardoE. Jiz, etal., a judicialconductvi findingsandrecommendationsJ
AMRTJ-16-2479 casefor annulmentoftitle anddeclaration of nullity ofdocuments ofsale uolatedthe ustice, asadopted bytheOCA except of theInvestigating Justice,as
withdamages, andinCivil CaseNo. 07-29 2 983 entitledPanay News, Inc. v. following: for the penalty charged. adopted bytheOCA except for
DATE RenatoMagbutay andRosendoMejica, anactionfordamagesandinjunction. the penalty charged.
OFPROMULGATI Specifically, assummarizedby Investigating Justice Pamela Canon 3 Indeed, asidefromFajardo’s
ON:Dec. 13, 2017 AnnAbellaMaxino(Justice Maxino)inherReportandRecommendation4 Rule 3.05 uncorroboratedallegations, the records Indeed, asidefromFajardo’sare
datedJune 4,2015, Judge Natinowascharged of thefollowing, towit: bereftofany proofto supportthe uncorroboratedallegations,
PONENTE: 1. Violation ofthe 90-day periodwithinwhich a case isto be theallegation on the intentionaldelay on recordsare bereft of any
Justice Noel G.Tijam resolved,countedfromthe date itissubmittedfordecision, inrelation to Civil proofthe release ofthe Civil CaseNo. 20225, to support the allegationonthe
Case
muchlessthe charge ofcorruption intentional delay onthe release
of the Civil Case No. 20225,
576
2017and2018CASES
No. 20225. Fajardosaidthatthe case wassubmittedfordecision onJanuary23, againstJudge Natino. muchlessthe charge
2007, but a decisionthereonwasonly issuedon April21, 2010. In effect,the ofcorruptionagainstJudgeNatino.
decisionwasonly rendered more thanthree yearsafter the case Likewise, the allegedfalsification
wassubmittedfordecision. ofcertificatesofservice Likewise, the
2. Delay in the release oftheDecision.The decisioninCivil Case No. wasneverproven.Thereisno allegedfalsificationof
20225wasdatedApril 21, 2010butaccording toFajardo, the clearevidence thatJudge certificatesofservice
decisionwasreleased Natinointentionally, wasneverproven.Thereisnocleare
only fourmonthsafter, oronAugust17, 2010. ifatall,falsifiedhismonthly certificate vidence thatJudge
3. Falsification of Certificateof Service, inthat, notwithstanding the ofservice. Admittedly,there may Natinointentionally, ifatall,
factthatJudge Natinofailed toresolve the aforementionedcase within90 havebeen a delay in the renditionof falsifiedhismonthly certificate
days,he adecisioninthiscasebut, ofservice.
continued toreceive hissalary. asitappears,thisisanisolatedcase, Admittedly, there may have
4. Failure toresolvethe matterscoveredintheMotion toShow whichcannotbethe basistosweepingly beena delay in the rendition of
Cause(Contempt), inrelation to CivilCase No. 07-29298. concludethatJudge adecisioninthiscasebut,
Natinohasbeenfalsifyinghiscertificateso asitappears,
fservice tocontinuously receive thisisanisolatedcase,whichcannot
hissalary bethebasistosweepingly conclude
thatJudgeNatinohasbeenfalsifyin
g hiscertificatesofservice
tocontinuously receive hissalary.
2018CASES
679.Topic:FalsificationandGrossMisconductof the law.
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION
Romeo A.
AlmarioVs. Atty. On July 5, 2006, aComplaint forJudicial Code The Courtoptstosuspendrespondentlawyerasa notarypublic Atty. DominicaL.
DominicaLlera- PartitionwithDelivery of Certificate ofTitle, ofProfessionalR fortwomonths, instead of AgnoisherebySUSPENDEDasNotary
Agno docketedasCivil CaseNo. 061154162 (civil esponsibility,Can sixmonthsastheIBPhadrecommended. We are impelled bythe Public forthe
case),wasinstitutedbefore onandand2004 following reasonsfortaking thiscourse of action:first, the aforesaidinfractionfortwomonthsand
CASE NO.: theRegionalTrialCourt(RTC)of Manila bythe RulesonNotarial apparentabsence ofbadfaithinhernotarizing theSPA WARNEDthatthecommissionof a
AC No. 10689 hereincomplainantagainstthereindefendantsAngelita Practiceviolated inquestion; second,thecivilcase wherein the similarinfractionwillbe dealtwithmore
A.Barrameda andseveralotherpersons.It thefollowing: flawedSPAwasusedendedupin a judicialCompromise severely.
DATE wasthereinallegedthatcomplainantisthe sole Agreement; andfinally, thisisherfirstadministrative case since
OFPROMULGATI survivingregisteredowner of a parcel of landsituatedat shewascommissionedasa NotaryPublic in1973.In addition,
ON:Jan. 8, 2018 No. 973 DelPanStreet, SanAntonio,Tondo,Manila, respondentlawyerinvitesour
covered by
577
2017and2018CASES
TransferCertificate ofTitle(TCT) No. 244909, andthatthe Canons 1 and attentionto thefactthatsheisalready in
PONENTE: defendantsthereinare co-ownersofthatparcel ofland by 10Section12 thetwilightyearsofherlife.
ChiefJustice virtue ofintestate succession.
MariaLourdesP. A.
Sereno
681.Topic:Grossunethical conduct.
580