Catalan vs. silvosa
Respondents admitted the filing of the second complaint
Facts:
The
Sandiganbayan convicted Atty. Silvosa for direct bribery
for bribing his then colleague prosecutor.
Atty Silvosa claimed that “it is not the lawyer in respon
dent that was convicted, but his capacity as a public offi
cer, the
charge against respondent for which he was convicted f
alling under the category of crimes against public officer
s.
Issue: won Atty. Silvosa should be disbarred considering
that the crime for which he was convicted was in his ca
pacity as public officer.
Ruling:
Yes.
Disbarment follows as a consequence of Atty. Silvosa’s c
onviction of the crime.
His excuse that his conviction was not in his capacity as
a lawyer, but as a public officer, is unacceptable and bet
rays the unmistakable lack of integrity in his character.
The practice of law is a privilege, and Atty. Silvosa has pr
oved himself unfit to exercise this privilege.
Atty. Joselito M. Silvosa was DISBARRED.
Alonso vs. Relamida, Jr.
A.C. No. 8481
FACTS:
Jennifer Ebanen filed a complaint for illegal dismissal
against Servier Philippines, Incorporated in the NLRC. On
The labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Servier, stating that
Ebanen voluntarily resigned. The case eventually
reached the Supreme Court. The Court’s Resolution has
already become final and executory; thus, a
corresponding Entry of Judgment has been issued
dismissing the petition and holding that there was no
illegal dismissal since Ebanen voluntarily resigned.
However, despite the judgment, Ebanen through Atty.
Relamida, Jr. filed a second complaint for illegal dismissal
based on the same cause of action of constructive
dismissal against Servier. Thus, Servier, thru counsel,
filed a letter-complaint addressed to the then Chief
Justice Hilario Davide, Jr., praying that respondents be
disciplinary sanctioned for violation of the rules on forum
shopping and res judicata.
against Servier. However, they opined that the dismissal
did not amount to res judicata, since the decision was
null and void for lack of due process since the motion for
the issuance of subpoena duces tecum for the
production of vital documents filed by the complainant
was ignored by the Labor Arbiter.
ISSUE: Is the respondent guilty of forum shopping and
res judicata thus violating Canon 12 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility?
HELD:
During the IBP hearing, Atty. Relamida is not a lawyer but
the daughter of Atty. Aurelio the senior partner of A.M.
Sison Jr. and Partners Law Offices where he is employed
as associate lawyer. Atty. Relamida reasoned out that as
a courtesy to Atty. Aurelio and Ebanen, he had no choice
but to represent the latter. Moreover, he stressed that
his client was denied of her right to due process due to
the denial of her motion for the issuance of a subpoena
duces tecum. He then argued that the decision of the
Labor Arbiter was null and void; thus, there was no res
judicata. He maintained that he did not violate the
lawyer’s oath by serving the interest of his client. The
IBP-CBD recommended that Atty. Relamida, Jr. be
suspended for 6 months for violating the rules on forum
shopping and res judicata.
The Supreme Court agrees to this finding. A lawyer owes
fidelity to the cause of his client, but not at the expense
of truth and the administration of justice. The filing of
multiple petitions constitutes abuse of the court’s
processes and improper conduct that tends to impede,
obstruct and degrade the administration of justice and
will be punished as contempt of court. Needless to state,
the lawyer who files such multiple or repetitious
petitions (which obviously delays the execution of a final
and executory judgment) subjects himself to disciplinary
action for incompetence (for not knowing any better) or
for willful violation of his duties as an attorney to act with
all good fidelity to the courts, and to maintain only such
actions as appear to him to be just and are consistent
with truth and honor.
The filing of another action concerning the same subject
matter, in violation of the doctrine of res judicata, runs
contrary to Canon 12 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which requires a lawyer to exert every
effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and
efficient administration of justice. By his actuations,
respondent also violated Rule 12.02 and Rule 12.04 of
the Code, as well as a lawyer’s mandate "to delay no man
for money or malice."
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
WHEREFORE, Resolution No. XVIII-2008-286, dated June
5, 2008, of the IBP, which found respondent Atty. Ibaro
B. Relamida, Jr. guilty of violating the Rules on Res
Judicata and Forum Shopping, is AFFIRMED. Atty.
Relaminda is hereby SUSPENDED for six (6) months from
the practice of law, effective upon the receipt of this
Decision
ELPIDIO P. TIONG v. ATTY. GEORGE M. FLORENDOA.C.
No. 4428, December 12, 2011Atty.
FACTS
George Florendo has been serving as the lawyer of
spouses Elpidio and Ma. Elena Tiong. Elpidio, a US citizen
is often times away. For two years, he suspected that his
wife and Atty. Florendo were having an affair. Finally in
1995, he was able to listen to a telephone conversation
where he heard Atty. Florendo mention amorous words
to Ma. Elena. Atty. Florendo confronted the two and
both eventually admitted to their illicit relationship. Atty.
Florendo and Ma. Elena then executed and signed an
affidavit, which was later notarized, stating that they
admit of their illicit relationship; that they are seeking
the forgiveness of their respective spouse. Elpidio
forgave Florendo and Ma. Elena. But nevertheless,
Elpidio filed a disbarment case against Florendo.
Florendo said he can no longer be sanctioned because he
was already pardoned.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Florendo is correct.
HELD: No. A petition for suspension or disbarment of a
lawyer is a sui generis case. This class of cases is meant
to protect the public and the courts of undesirable
members of the legal profession. As such, pardon by the
offended party of the act complained of does not
operate to offset the ground for disbarment or
suspension. Florendo’s act of having an affair with his
client’s wife manifested his disrespect for the laws on the
sanctity of marriage and his own marital vow of fidelity.
It showed his utmost moral depravity and low regard for
the ethics of his profession. He violated the trust reposed
upon him by his client (Canon 17, Code of Professional
Responsibility). His illicit relationship with Ma. Elena
amounts to a disgraceful and grossly immoral conduct
warranting disciplinary action. Section 27, Rule 138 of
the Rules of Court provides that an attorney may be
disbarred or suspended from his office for any deceit,
malpractice, or other gross misconduct in office, grossly
immoral conduct, among others. It cannot be also said,
as he claims, that their relationship is merely a moment
of indiscretion considering that their affair went on for
more than two years. Florendo was suspended for
6months.
POBRE vs. DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO (A.C. No. 7399, August
25, 2009
FACTS:
Petitioner Antero Pobre made aware to the court the
contents of Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago’s speech
delivered on the senate floor. The following excerpts are
the ones in question:
x x x I am not angry. I am irate. I am foaming in the mouth.
I am homicidal. I am suicidal. I am humiliated, debased,
degraded. And I am not only that, I feel like throwing up
to believing mY middle years in a country of this nature.
I am nauseated. I spit on the face of Chief Justice Artemio
Panganiban and his cohorts in the Supreme court, I am
no longer interested in the position (of Chief Justice) if I
was to be surrounded by idiots. x x x
I would rather be in another environment but not in the
Supreme Court of idiots. x x x. According to Pobre, the
words of the lady senator were disrespectful and
requested that the latter be disbarred or be subjected to
disciplinary action.
RESPONDENT
Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago argued that the
statements she made were covered b# the constitutional
provision on parliamentary immunity, being part of a
speech she delivered in the discharge of her duty as
member of Congress or its committee. She claims to have
made those comments to expose anomalies with regard
to the selection process of the Judicial Bar Council for the
next Chief Justice. The argument of the respondent is
based on Article VI Section 11 which states that:
“A Senator or Member of the House of Representative
shall, in all offenses punishable by not more than six
years imprisonment, be privileged from arrest while the
Congress is in session. No member shall be questioned
nor be held liable in any other place for any speech or
debate in the Congress or in any Committee thereof.”
ISSUE:
WON Miriam Defensor-Santiago can be charged for
her comments on the judiciary.
HELD: NO.
The court ruled in favor of Defensor-Santiago in this case.
The plea of Senator Santiago for the dismissal of the
complaint for disbarment or disciplinary action is well
taken. Indeed, her privilege speech is not actionable
criminally or in a disciplinary proceeding under the Rules
of Court. Despite this, the court feels that the lady
senator has gone beyond the limits of decency and good
conduct for the statements made which were
intemperate and highly improper in substance. The court
is not hesitant to impose some form of disciplinary
sanctions on her, but the factual and legal circumstances
of this case, however, deter the Court from doing so$
even without an# sign of remorse from her. Petition is
DIS1ISSED
ATTY. ELMER C. SOLIDON, complainant,
vs.
ATTY. RAMIL E. MACALALAD, respondent.
[A.C.8158. February 24, 2010]
FACTS:
Complainant, through a mutual acquaintance asked
respondent to handle the judicial titling of a parcel of
land owned by complainant’s relatives. Respondent
accepted the task to be completed within a period of
eight (8) months and received Fifty Thousand Pesos
(P50,000.00) as initial payment; the remaining balance of
Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) was to be paid when
complainant received the certificate of title to the
property. Respondent has not filed any petition for
registration over the property sought to be titled up to
the filing of this case. In the Complaint, Position Papers
and documentary evidence submitted, complainant
claimed that he tried to contact respondent to follow-up
on the status of the case six (6) months after he paid the
initial legal fees. He did this through phone calls and text
messages to their known acquaintances and relatives,
and, finally, through a letter sent by courier to the
respondent. However, he did not receive any return
communication. Complainant sought the disbarment of
respondent for violations of Rule 16.01, Rule 18.03, and
Rule 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
involving negligence in handling a case. Complainant
argued that he had no intention of reneging from his
obligation, as he already had prepared the draft petition,
and he failed to file it because it lacked the needed
documentary requirements that his clients should have
furnished him. The Investigating Commissioner of IBP
made a finding negligence on the part of the respondent.
This was affirmed by the IBP Commission on Bar
Discipline.
ISSUE:
Legal Ethics
(1) Whether or not the respondent’s excuse is
exculpatory.
RULING:
Legal Ethics
(1) No. Respondent’s excuse is not exculpatory. He was
imposed the (modified) penalty of suspension for six (6)
months from the practice of law and was ordered to
return to the complainant the amount of Fifty Thousand
Pesos (P50,000.00) with interest of twelve percent
(12%) per annum from the date of promulgation of the
Decision until the full amount is returned.
In administrative cases against lawyers, the quantum of
proof required is preponderance of evidence which the
complainant has the burden to discharge. We fully
considered the evidence presented and we are fully
satisfied that the complainant’s evidence, as outlined
above, fully satisfies the required quantum of proof in
proving respondent’s negligence. Rule 18.03, Canon 18
of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides for
the rule on negligence and states:
Rule 18.03 – A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter
entrusted to him and his negligence in connection
therewith shall render him liable.
The Court has consistently held, in construing this Rule,
that the mere failure of the lawyer to perform the
obligations due to the client is considered per se a
violation. (underscoring provided)
In addition to the above finding of negligence, [Court]
also [found] respondent guilty of violating Rule 16.01 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility which requires a
lawyer to account for all the money received from the
client. In this case, respondent did not immediately
account for and promptly return the money he received
from complainant even after he failed to render any legal
service within the contracted time of the engagement.

Alcantara vs. de vera

FACTS:

Atty. Eduardo De Vera won a case for Rosario Mercado.

De Vera garnished the bank account of the opposing
party but he did not remit the same to Mercado, instead
he claimed that he used the same to pay off the judge
and what’s left was for his attorney’s fees. Mercado filed
an administrative complaint and eventually De Vera was
suspended from the practice of law for one year. In
obvious retaliation, he filed various complaints against
Mercado and her family, the IBP officers who suspended
and several others. He attempted to re-open the case of
her client in an attempt to collect more attorney’s fees.
He also instigated the opposing party in the case he won
for Mercado to file lawsuits against Mercado. The
complaints were dismissed but he re-filed them
nonetheless.

ISSUE: Whether or not De Vera should be disbarred.

HELD: Yes. What he did is grossly unethical and filled with

ill-motive. It is the duty of the Supreme Court to remove
from the profession a person whose misconduct has
proved him unfit to be entrusted with the duties and
responsibilities belonging to an office of an attorney, and
thus to protect the public and those charged with the
administration of justice, rather than to punish the
attorney.

Further, De Vera is in violation of Canon 21 of the Code

of Professional Responsibility. In filing cases against
Mercado, De Vera used matters and information
acquired by him when he was still the counsel for
Mercado. A lawyer owes loyalty and fidelity to his client
even if the lawyer-client relationship has already
terminated. A lawyer shall preserve the confidence and
secrets of his client even after the attorney-client
relation is terminated.