Conflict of Interest

Carillo vs Angeles, AC 9899-90105, 9/4/18

Buenavista Props. Vs. Deloria, AC 121608/ 8/14/18
Romero vs. Evangelista, AC 11829, 2/26/18
Yumang vs. Alaestante, AC 10992, 6/19/18
BSA Tower vs. Reyes, AC 11944, 6/20/18

Contingeny Fees

Cortez vs Cortes, AC 9119, 3/12/18

SC Jurisdiction

Trovela vs. Robles, AC 11550 6/4/18

Breach of Confidentiality

Guanzon vs. Dojillo Ac 9850, 8/6/18

Ready Form inc. vs. Castillon, AC 11774, 3/21/18
 SECOND DIVISION
[ A.C. No. 11829, February 26, 2018 ]
MARIA ROMERO, COMPLAINANT, V. ATTY. GERONIMO R.
EVANGELISTA, JR., RESPONDENT.

RESOLUTION

REYES, JR., J:

For the Court's resolution is a Complaint[1] for disbarment filed by Maria Romero (Maria) with
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) against Atty. Geronimo R. Evangelista, Jr. (Atty.
Evangelista), for his alleged violation of several provisions[2] of the Code of Professional
Responsibility (CPR) and Canon 6[3] of the Canons of Professional Ethics.

The Facts

In her Complaint, Maria alleged that in several cases, Atty. Evangelista represented her and her
aunt Adela A. Romero (Adela), in their individual capacities and as Heirs of the Late Adela
Aguinaldo Vda. De Romero. However, Atty. Evangelista subsequently represented the Spouses
Joseph and Rosalina Valles in suits against Adela, enumerated as follows:

1. Civil Case No. 319 (Forcible Entry with Damages) - Adela Romero vs. Spouses Joseph and
Rosalina Valles, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, First Judicial Region, Tuba-Sablan, Benguet[4]

2. Civil Case No. 13-CV-2940 (Recovery of Possession and Ownership with Damages) - Adela
Romero vs. Spouses Joseph and Rosalina Valles, Regional Trial Court, First Judicial Region,
Branch 10, Benguet Province[5]

3. Civil Case No. 12-CV-2880 - Adela Romero vs. Spouses Joseph and Rosalina Valles, First
Judicial Region, Branch 10, La Trinidad, Benguet[6]

In his Answer,[7] Atty. Evangelista admitted that he had handled cases involving the properties of
the Romero clan, but not a single case for Maria.[8] He explained that: a) there was never a
lawyer-client relationship between him and Maria; b) his professional services were never
retained by Maria nor did he receive any privileged information regarding Maria's cases; and c)
Maria never paid him any legal fee.[9]

Atty. Evangelista also contended that Adela is not a complainant in the disbarment case against
him nor is there any proof that she authorized Maria to file a complaint on her (Adela's)
behalf.[10]

Report and Recommendation of the IBP

In the Report and Recommendation[11] dated February 27, 2015, the IBP-Commission on Bar
Discipline (CBD) found Atty. Evangelista to have represented conflicting interests and
recommended that he be meted the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for one year.

The IBP-CBD noted that Atty. Evangelista, who once lawyered for Adela, had accepted and
handled legal actions against her. In his defense, Atty. Evangelista argued that Adela herself did
not file a complaint against him. But, according to the IBP-CBD, Adela's participation in the
filing of the action is not necessary since Atty. Evangelista's culpability had been established by
documentary evidence on record.[12]

In its Resolution[13] dated June 6, 2015, the IBP-Board of Governors adopted and approved in
toto the Report and Recommendation of the IBP-CBD. Atty. Evangelista filed a motion for
reconsideration,[14] praying for the mitigation of his penalty. The motion was denied in IBP
Resolution No. XXII-2017-794[15] dated January 27, 2017.

Issue

Whether Atty. Evangelista is guilty of representing conflicting interests

The Court's Ruling

After a judicious review of the records, the Court concurs with the IBP's findings, except for the
recommended penalty.

"The relationship between a lawyer and his client should ideally be imbued with the highest level
of trust and confidence. Necessity and public interest require that this be so. Part of the lawyer's
duty to his client is to avoid representing conflicting interests."[16] In Hornilla vs. Salunat,[17] the
Court explained the concept of conflict of interest, viz:

There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents inconsistent interests of two or more
opposing parties. The test is "whether or not in behalf of one client, it is the lawyer's duty to fight
for an issue or claim, but it is his duty to oppose it for the other client. In brief, if he argues for
one client, this argument will be opposed by him when he argues for the other client." This rule
covers not only cases in which confidential communications have been confided, but also those
in which no confidence has been bestowed or will be used. Also, there is conflict of interests if
the acceptance of the new retainer will require the attorney to perform an act which will
injuriously affect his first client in any matter in which he represents him and also whether he
will be called upon in his new relation to use against his first client any knowledge acquired
through their connection. Another test of the inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance
of a new relation will prevent an attorney from the full discharge of his duty of undivided fidelity
and loyalty to his client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double dealing in the
performance thereof.[18]

The rule against conflict of interest also "prohibits a lawyer from representing new clients whose
interests oppose those of a former client in any manner, whether or not they are parties in the
same action or on totally unrelated cases,"[19] since the representation of opposing clients, even in
unrelated cases, "is tantamount to representing conflicting interests or, at the very least, invites
suspicion of double-dealing which the Court cannot allow."[20] The only exception is provided
under Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the CPR - if there is a written consent from all the parties after
full disclosure.[21] "Such prohibition is founded on principles of public policy and good taste as
the nature of the lawyer-client relations is one of trust and confidence of the highest degree."[22]

With Atty. Evangelista's admission that he retained clients who have cases against Adela without
all the parties' written consent, it is clear that he has violated Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the CPR.
Adela's non-participation in the filing of the instant complaint is immaterial, since it is stated
under Section 1, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, as amended by Bar Matter No. 1645 that,
"[proceedings for the disbarment, suspension or discipline of attorneys may be taken by the
Supreme Court motu proprio, or upon the filing of a verified complaint of any person before the
Supreme Court or the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)."

Considering that this is Atty. Evangelista's first offense in his more than 30 years of practice,[23]
the Court finds a six-month suspension from the practice of law to be an adequate and
appropriate sanction against him. In Atty. Nuique vs. Atty. Sedillo,[24] the Court ordered the
suspension of Atty. Eduardo Sedillo from the practice of law for six (6) months, upon a finding
that he represented opposing clients in unrelated cases. In Tulio vs. Atty. Buhangin,[25] the Court
similarly imposed the penalty of suspension for a period of six (6) months against Atty. Gregory
Buhangin, who, aside from failing to comply with the orders of the IBP, also filed a complaint
against his former client in representation of such client's siblings, involving legal matters which
the former entrusted to him.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court finds Atty. Geronimo R, Evangelista, Jr.
GUILTY of representing conflicting interests in violation of Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility and is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of six
(6) months, effective upon receipt of this Resolution, with a STERN WARNING that a
commission of the same or similar offense in the future will result in the imposition of a more
severe penalty.

Let copies of this Resolution be entered in the personal record of Atty. Geronimo R. Evangelista,
Jr. as a member of the Philippine Bar and furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant, the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all
courts in the country.

SO ORDERED.
A.C. No. 11944 (Formerly CBD No. 12-3463), June 20, 2018 - BSA TOWER CONDOMINIUM
CORPORATION, Complainant, v. ATTY. ALBERTO CELESTINO B. REYES II, Respondent.

SECOND DIVISION

A.C. No. 11944 (Formerly CBD No. 12-3463), June 20, 2018

BSA TOWER CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION, Complainant, v. ATTY. ALBERTO

CELESTINO B. REYES II, Respondent.

DECISION

PERALTA, J.:

The extant case originated from a disbarment complaint which the complainant BSA Tower
Condominium Corporation filed against respondent Atty. Alberto Celestino B. Reyes II.

The pertinent facts of the case are as follows:

Complainant BSA Tower Condominium Corporation alleged that it hired respondent Atty.
Alberto Celestino B. Reyes II sometime in November 2005 to settle its real estate tax problems
with the City of Makati. Between December 2006 and January 2007, Reyes obtained P25 million
from BSA Tower, from which he may draw amounts for legitimate expenses in carrying out his
official duties. However, out of the said amount, Reyes was only able to account for P5 million.
This clearly violated Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).

Also, on June 22, 2011, Reyes entered his appearance as counsel for the plaintiff in Civil Case
09-089 entitled Marietta K. Ilusorio v. BSA Tower Condominium Corp. and Waldo Flores before
the Makati Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 62. Said case was an action for reimbursement
of the amount of P500,000.00 which Ilusorio supposedly gave BSA Tower in advance for the
payment of its electric and water bills. Later, Reyes took the witness stand and testified against
BSA Tower. He likewise admitted that at the time Ilusorio's purported advances were made, he
was BSA Tower's Corporate Secretary. Thus, on October 11, 2011, BSA Tower filed a Motion to
Expunge the Testimony against Reyes. It contended that although the subject matter of the civil
case involved information which Reyes had acquired by virtue of his former professional
relationship with BSA Tower or about which he had been advising the company, he never
obtained its written consent or waiver in the matter of him representing Ilusorio in said case.
Accordingly, he violated Rules 15.03 and 21.02 of the CPR on conflict of interest.

On the other hand, Reyes denied the charges against him. He explained that when BSA Tower
engaged his services, its liability stood at P31 million and the land was set to be sold at public
auction. Their agreement was that Reyes would be paid 10% of whatever savings BSA Tower
would generate through his efforts. Thereafter, BSA Tower's annual realty tax was reduced from
P5 million to only P2 million per year beginning 2007. Reyes asserted that BSA Tower's total
savings reached P21 million, apart from the amount of P25 million when the settlement was
forged. However, BSA Tower never paid him his contingent fee. Hence, he filed a complaint
with the Makati RTC to collect his fee, and the court later ordered BSA Tower to pay him the
amount of P1,920,000.00, plus legal interest from January 2007, until fully paid.

As to his appearance as counsel for the plaintiff in Civil Case No. 09-089, Reyes claimed that he
had asked BSA Tower's authorized representative if she or the corporation had any objection to
his appearance as Ilusorio's counsel. The representative said that she had none. Likewise, when
he formally entered his appearance in said civil case, BSA Tower did not object. Yet, it later
filed a Motion to Expunge his testimony. The court, however, denied said motion.

On June 13, 2013, the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP) recommended the dismissal of the disbarment complaint against Reyes, to wit:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, it is respectfully recommended that the disbarment

complaint filed by complainant BSA Tower Condominium Corporation against respondent Atty.
Alberto Celestino B. Reyes II be DISMISSED.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.1

On June 5, 2015, the IBP Board of Governors passed Resolution No. XXI-2015-377,2 which
adopted the aforementioned recommendation, thus:

RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, the Report
and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in the above-entitled case, herein made
part of this Resolution as Annex "A," finding the recommendation to be fully supported by the
evidence on record and applicable laws. Thus, the case against Respondent is hereby
DISMISSED.

Unfazed, BSA Tower filed a Motion for Reconsideration. On April 19, 2017, the IBP Board of
Governors issued Resolution No. XXII-2017-968,3 which provides:

RESOLVED to DENY the Motion for Reconsideration there being no new reason and/or new
argument adduced to reverse the previous findings and decision of the Board of Governors.

The Court's Ruling

The Court finds no cogent reason to depart from the findings and recommendation of the IBP
that the present disbarment complaint against Reyes must be dismissed.

In administrative proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant. For the court to
exercise its disciplinary powers, the case against the respondent must be established by
convincing and satisfactory proof.4
BSA Tower claims that Reyes violated Rules 16.01, 15.03, and 21.02 of the CPR. Canon 16 and
Rule 16.01 of the CPR provide:

CANON 1 – A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS AND PROPERTIES OF

HIS CLIENT THAT MAY COME INTO HIS POSSESSION.

Rule 16.01 - A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from
the client.

Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the CPR provides:

Rule 15.03 - A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all
concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.

While Rule 21.02, Canon 21 of the CPR states:

Rule 21.02 - A lawyer shall not, to the disadvantage of his client, use information acquired in the
course of employment, nor shall he use the same to his own advantage or that of a third person,
unless the client with full knowledge of the circumstances consents thereto.

In Aniñon v. Atty. Sabitsana, Jr.,5 the Court laid down the tests to determine if a lawyer is guilty
of representing conflicting interests between and among his clients. One of these tests is whether
the acceptance of a new relation would prevent the full discharge of a lawyer's duty of undivided
fidelity and loyalty to the client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the
performance of that duty. Another test is whether a lawyer would be called upon in the new
relation to use against a former client any confidential information acquired through their
connection or previous employment.6

On the matter of the alleged failure of Reyes to account for BSA Tower's funds, the Makati RTC,
Branch 133 had ruled that BSA Tower is even the one that is liable to pay Reyes the amount of
P1,920,000.00. With regard to the purported conflict of interest, the Makati RTC, Branch 146
had also ruled in favor of Reyes, saying that there was no conflict of interest in his appearance as
counsel of Ilusorio. There was no convincing evidence that would show that, at the time that he
was acting as Ilusorio's counsel, Reyes indeed used any confidential information that he had
obtained from BSA Tower when he was still the corporation's Corporate Secretary. The dispute
between Ilusorio and BSA Tower was contractual in nature such that his new relationship with
Ilusorio would not require him to disclose matters obtained during his engagement as the
Corporate Secretary or counsel of the corporation. Neither would his acceptance of Ilusorio as a
new client prevent the full discharge of his duties as a lawyer or invite suspicion of double-
dealing. In other words, the matters being put in issue by BSA Tower in this case had already
been submitted for judicial resolution and the courts had decided against it. It seems, therefore,
that the instant disbarment case against Reyes is just a mere attempt to bring the courts' rulings
for an indirect review through an administrative case, which is an improper remedy. To rule that
there is conflict of interest and that there is misappropriation of BSA Tower's funds would, in
effect, reverse the rulings of the lower courts.
The Court has consistently held that an attorney enjoys the legal presumption that he is innocent
of the charges against him until the contrary is proved, and that as an officer of the court, he is
presumed to have performed his duties in accordance with his oath. Burden of proof, on the other
hand, is defined in Section 1 of Rule 131 as the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in
issue necessary to establish his claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law.7

In administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof necessary for a finding of guilt is substantial
evidence, which is that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion. Further, the complainant has the burden of proving by
substantial evidence the allegations in his complaint. The basic rule is that mere allegation is not
evidence and is not equivalent to proof. Likewise, charges based on mere suspicion and
speculation cannot be given credence. Besides, the evidentiary threshold of substantial evidence
– as opposed to preponderance of evidence – is more in keeping with the primordial purpose of
and essential considerations attending this type of cases. As case law elucidates, disciplinary
proceedings against lawyers are sui generis. Neither purely civil nor purely criminal, they do not
involve a trial of an action or a suit, but is rather an investigation by the Court into the conduct of
one of its officers. Not being intended to inflict punishment, it is in no sense a criminal
prosecution. Accordingly, it also involves neither a plaintiff nor a prosecutor. It may be initiated
by the Court motu proprio. Public interest is its primary objective, and the real question for
determination is whether or not the attorney is still a fit person to be allowed the privileges as
such. Hence, in the exercise of its disciplinary powers, the Court merely calls upon a member of
the Bar to account for his actuations as an officer of the Court with the end in view of preserving
the purity of the legal profession and the proper and honest administration of justice by purging
the profession of members who, by their misconduct, have proved themselves no longer worthy
to be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities pertaining to the office of an attorney.8

Here, BSA Tower seriously failed to discharge said burden of proof. The issues which BSA
Tower presented in this case had already been submitted for judicial resolution and the courts
had ruled in favor of Reyes. Hence, the Court finds that the acts of Reyes are not tantamount to a
violation of any of the CPR provisions.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Court DISMISSES the instant Complaint

against Atty. Alberto Celestino B. Reyes II for utter lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.
A.C. No. 11550, June 04, 2018 - MANUEL B. TROVELA, Complainant, v. MICHAEL B.
ROBLES, ASSISTANT CITY PROSECUTOR; EMMANUEL L. OBUNGEN, PROSECUTOR
II; JACINTO G. ANG, CITY PROSECUTOR; CLARO A. ARELLANO, PROSECUTOR
GENERAL; AND LEILA M. DE LIMA, FORMER SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, Respondents.

THIRD DIVISION

A.C. No. 11550, June 04, 2018

MANUEL B. TROVELA, Complainant, v. MICHAEL B. ROBLES, ASSISTANT CITY

PROSECUTOR; EMMANUEL L. OBUNGEN, PROSECUTOR II; JACINTO G. ANG,
CITY PROSECUTOR; CLARO A. ARELLANO, PROSECUTOR GENERAL; AND
LEILA M. DE LIMA, FORMER SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Respondents.

DECISION

BERSAMIN, J.:

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) has no jurisdiction to investigate government lawyers
charged with administrative offenses involving the performance of their official duties.

The Case

The complainant initiated this disbarment complaint against Pasig City Assistant Prosecutor
Michael B. Robles (Robles) of Pasig City for issuing a resolution dated September 29, 2011
recommending the dismissal of his complaint for estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the
Revised Penal Code against Carlo L. Katigbak (Katigbak), Carlos Pedro C. Salonga (Salonga)
and Barbara B. Reyes (Reyes) for insufficiency of evidence; and against Prosecutor II Emmanuel
L. Obuñgen (Obuñgen) and City Prosecutor Jacinto G. Ang (Ang), both of Pasig City, for
approving the recommendation of dismissal.

The complainant also seeks the disbarment of former Prosecutor General Claro A. Arellano
(Arellano) and former Secretary of Justice Leila M. De Lima (De Lima) for allegedly incurring
inordinate delay in issuing their resolutions resolving his petition for review and motion for
reconsideration before the Department of Justice (DOJ).

Antecedents
On May 25, 2011, the complainant criminally charged Katigbak, Salonga and Reyes with estafa
under Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code.

In his complaint-affidavit, the complainant stated that he became the Employee Relation Director
of Sky Cable on November 1, 2004; that he later on received a termination letter dated July 6,
2006 signed by Salonga informing him of his relief from work and of his compensation being
paid until the effective date of his termination; that his payslips for the periods from July 16,
2006 to July 31, 2006 and from August 1, 2006 to August 15, 2006 still reflected deductions of
his savings contributions to the Meralco Employees Savings and Loan Association (MESALA)
amounting to P2,520.00 per payday period; that withholding taxes of P4,509.45 and P4,235.70,
respectively, were also deducted from his compensation; that he discovered that such deductions
were not remitted to MESALA when he closed his account on September 6, 2006; and that Sky
Cable did not reimburse the amounts of his unremitted deductions despite demand.1

In his resolution dated September 29, 2011,2 Robles recommended the dismissal of the complaint
for insufficiency of evidence.

Obuñgen and Ang approved the recommendation of dismissal on October 11, 2011.

The complainant filed his petition for review dated November 3, 2011 to appeal the dismissal of
his complaint.3

On February 12, 2013, Arellano issued his resolution finding no reversible error in the
September 29, 2011 resolution of Robles, hence, affirming the dismissal of the complaint.4

The complainant moved for reconsideration, but his motion was denied by Secretary De Lima on
April 21, 2015.5

Consequently, the complainant initiated disbarment proceedings against the respondents,

insisting thusly:

I.
THE PREMISES CONSIDERED BY THE OPCP IN NOT FINDING PROBABLE CAUSE IN
THE CASE ARE VERY MUCH CONTRARY TO LONG STANDING JURISPRUDENCE
HOLDING THAT DEMAND IS NOT A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO THE EXISTENCE
OF THE CRIME OF EMBEZZLEMENT WHICH MAY BE ESTABLISHED BY OTHER
PROOF AND THAT FAILURE TO ACCOUNT, UPON DEMAND, FOR FUNDS OR
PROPERTY HELD IN TRUST IS CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF
MISAPPROPRIATION.6

II.
BUT WHILE THE APPLICATION OF THESE RULINGS HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY,
REPEATEDLY AND UNEQUIVOCABLY MADE IN MORE RECENT CASES, IN ACTING
ON MY 3 NOVEMBER 2011 PETITION FOR REVIEW AND ON MY 13 MARCH 2013
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, RESPECTIVELY, RESPONDENTS ARELLANO
AND DE LIMA STILL SUSTAINED THE WRONG PRESUMPTIONS MADE BY THE
OPCP, ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.7

III.
TOGETHER WITH SUCH OMISSIONS, THE INORDINATE DELAYS ON THE PART OF
RESPONDENTS ARELLANO AND DE LIMA IN COMING OUT WITH THEIR
SEPARATE RESOLUTIONS THAT ARE MERELY ANCHORED ON THE GROSSLY
ERRONEOUS FINDINGS OF THE OPCP NEGATE THEIR ALLEGATIONS THAT THEY
ACTUALLY EXAMINED THE RECORDS OF THE CASE AND THE EVIDENCE THAT I
HAVE PRESENTED AND INDICATED THEIR LACK OF RESOLVE TO SEE THAT
JUSTICE IS DONE.8

IV.
WHILE THE PRESENCE OF THE PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF CORRUPTION AND
OTHER ANOMALOUS CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE PERJURY AND UNJUST JUDGMENT
CASES, THE MANIPULATIVE SCHEMES EMPLOYED BY SKY CABLE IN CERTAIN
OF ITS PLEADINGS (sic) AND THE INORDINATE DELAYS IN ALL THE RELATED
CASES ARE VERY OBVIOUS, RESPONDENT DE LIMA, DESPITE BEING THE
SECRETARY OF JUSTICE THEN, TOTALLY IGNORED THE SAME.9

V.
ABOVE ALL, RESPONDENT DE LIMA TOOK ACTION ON THE ESTAFA CASE AHEAD
OF THE OTHER CASES WITHOUT CONSOLIDATING THEM DESPITE THE FACT
THAT ALL INDICATIONS CLEARLY POINT TO SUCH CONSOLIDATION.10

VI.
THAT SAID, IT IS QUITE OBVIOUS THAT ALL OF THE RESPONDENTS HAD NOT
ONLY RENEGED ON THEIR SWORN DUTY TO UPHOLD THE LAWS OF THE LAND,
BASICALLY AS LAWYERS AND AS PROSECUTORS OR DISPENSERS OF JUSTICE,
WHICH COMPROMISED THE EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, BUT
THEY ALSO COMMITTED GROSS VIOLATIONS OF CERTAIN LAWS THEMSELVES.11

Should the respondents be administratively disciplined based on the allegations of the

complainant?

Ruling of the Court

We dismiss the administrative case against the respondents for lack of jurisdiction.

In his complaint-affidavit, the complainant has posited that Robles, Obuñgen and Ang committed
grave errors of facts and law that require an inquiry into their mental and moral fitness as
members of the Bar; and that Arellano and Secretary De Lima be declared guilty of dereliction of
duty or gross inexcusable negligence for belatedly resolving his petition for review and motion
for reconsideration. He specifically prays that the Court grants the following reliefs, namely:
xxxx

1. Finding prima facie cases against them for violation of Art. 208 of the RPC and R.A. No. 3019,
as amended, a.k.a. the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, and referring the matter to the
appropriate governmental agency for the prosecution thereof;

2. Imposing appropriate disciplinary action against them, including their disbarment and/or
removal from office, for gross violation of the canons of the legal profession or for
unprofessional conduct that casts serious doubt upon their mental and moral fitness as members
of the Bar and as prosecutors;

3. Awarding costs of suit hereof in such amounts as may be commensurate with the extent and
degree of misconduct committed by each of them and recommending that I be awarded
corresponding actual, as well as moral, exemplary and compensatory damages; and

4. Providing such other reliefs as this Honorable Court may deem just and equitable under the
premises.12

xxxx

The acts complained of undoubtedly arose from the respondents' performance or discharge of
official duties as prosecutors of the Department of Justice. Hence, the authority to discipline
respondents Robles, Obuñgen, Ang and Arellano exclusively pertained to their superior, the
Secretary of Justice. In the case of Secretary De Lima, the authority to discipline pertained to the
President. In either case, the authority may also pertain to the Office of the Ombudsman, which
similarly exercises disciplinary jurisdiction over them as public officials pursuant to Section 15,
paragraph 1, of Republic Act No. 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989). Indeed, the accountability of
respondents as officials performing or discharging their official duties as lawyers of the
Government is always to be differentiated from their accountability as members of the Philippine
Bar. The IBP has no jurisdiction to investigate them as such lawyers.

The Court has recently made this clear in Alicias, Jr. v. Macatangay13 by holding as follows:

Republic Act No. 6770 (R.A. No. 6770), otherwise known as "The Ombudsman Act of 1989,"
prescribes the jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman. Section 15, paragraph 1 of R.A. No.
6770 provides:

Section 15. Powers, Functions and Duties. — The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the
following powers, functions and duties:

(1) Investigate and prosecute on its own or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of
any public officer or employee, office or agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal,
unjust, improper or inefficient. It has primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the
Sandiganbayan and, in the exercise of his primary jurisdiction, it may take over, at any stage,
from any investigatory agency of Government, the investigation of such cases.
The 1987 Constitution clothes the Office of the Ombudsman with the administrative disciplinary
authority to investigate and prosecute any act or omission of any government official when such
act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient. The Office of the
Ombudsman is the government agency responsible for enforcing administrative, civil, and
criminal liability of government officials "in every case where the evidence warrants in order to
promote efficient service by the Government to the people." In Samson v. Restrivera, the
Court ruled that the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman encompasses all kinds of malfeasance,
misfeasance, and non-feasance committed by any public officer or employee during his or her
tenure. Consequently, acts or omissions of public officials relating to the performance of their
functions as government officials are within the administrative disciplinary jurisdiction of the
Office of the Ombudsman.

In Spouses Buffe v. Secretary Gonzales, the Court held that the IBP has no jurisdiction over
government lawyers who are charged with administrative offenses involving their official duties.
In the present case, the allegations in Alicias' complaint against Atty. Macatangay, Atty. Zema,
Atty. Ronquillo, and Atty. Buenaflor, which include their (1) failure to evaluate CSC records; (2)
failure to evaluate documentary evidence presented to the CSC; and (3) non-service of CSC
Orders and Resolutions, all relate to their misconduct in the discharge of their official duties as
government lawyers working in the CSC. Hence, the IBP has no jurisdiction over Alicias'
complaint. These are acts or omissions connected with their duties as government lawyers
exercising official functions in the CSC and within the administrative disciplinary jurisdiction of
their superior or the Office of the Ombudsman.

WHEREFORE, the Court DISMISSES the disbarment complaint filed against all the
respondents for lack of jurisdiction.

SO ORDERED.
 SECOND DIVISION
[ A.C. No. 9850, August 06, 2018 ]
ATTY. MA. ROWENA AMELIA V. GUANZON, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY.
JOEL G. DOJILLO, RESPONDENT.

DECISION

PERALTA, J.:

Before us is a Complaint for Disbarment[1] dated September 25, 2007, filed by Atty. Ma. Rowena
Amelia V. Guanzon (Atty. Guanzon) against Atty. Joel G. Dojillo (Atty. Dojillo), for violation of
the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Rules of Court on confidentiality of documents
and proceedings, gross misconduct, discourtesy, unfairness, malicious and unethical conduct
towards a fellow lawyer.

The facts are as follows:

Complainant Atty. Guanzon was the counsel of Rosalie Jaype-Garcia (Rosalie) and her minor
children when they filed a Petition for Temporary Protection Order under R.A. No. 9262,
otherwise known as the Anti-Violence against Women and their Children Act of 2004 against
Jesus Chua Garcia (Garcia), Rosalie's husband. Later, the Regional Trial Court (RTC),Branch 41
of Bacolod City granted the temporary protection order (TPO) and financial support in favor of
the clients of Atty. Guanzon.

Subsequently, before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), Garcia then filed a disbarment
complaint against herein complainant Atty. Guanzon docketed as CBD Case No. 06-1710 and
Administrative Case No. 7176 for immorality, grave misconduct and conduct unbecoming of a
member of the Bar. In the said disbarment complaint, Garcia submitted the affidavits of Sheryl
Jamola, former "yaya" of their child and a certain Bernadette Yap (subject documents), who both
alleged that Atty. Guanzon has "romantic and pecuniary interest" on Rosalie and the financial
support which was ordered by the court.

On June 13, 2006, Atty. Guanzon filed a case for Damages against Garcia and docketed as Civil
Case No. 802-C before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 60, Cadiz City. On September
27, 2006, Atty. Guanzon filed anew a case for Unjust Vexation against Garcia and docketed as
Criminal Case No. 06-10-12695 before the MTCC, Branch 6, Bacolod City. On October 12,
2006, Atty. Guanzon filed a case for Grave Oral Defamation against Garcia and docketed as
Criminal Case No. 06-10-12696 before the MTCC, Branch 5, Bacolod City.

In Garcia's Answer and Counter-Affidavits in the aforesaid three (3) complaints, respondent
Atty. Dojillo as counsel of Garcia, attached the documents in the disbarment case, i.e., the
affidavits of Sheryl Jamola and Bernadette Yap against Atty. Guanzon. Thus, the filing of
disbarment complaint against Atty. Dojillo for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility
and Section 18, Rule 139 on the confidentiality of disbarment proceedings and documents.

Atty. Guanzon lamented that Atty. Dojillo knew that there was a disbarment suit filed by his
client against her, yet, with malice and bad faith, he submitted the subject documents as part of
Garcia's Answer and Counter-Affidavits. By doing so, Atty. Dojillo caused the exposure of
confidential records in the disbarment case which damaged her good reputation.

On September 27, 2007, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Commission on Bar Discipline
(IBP-CBD) resolved to require Atty. Dojillo to submit his answer on the charges against him.[2]

In his Answer[3] dated October 26, 2007, Atty. Dojillo averred that he was compelled to attach
the subject documents as part of Garcia's Answer and Counter-Affidavit to establish Atty.
Guanzon's motive since he surmised that the three (3) cases filed by the latter against his client
was merely an afterthought and her way of revenge for filing the disbarment complaint against
her.

Atty. Dojillo further argued that Atty. Guanzon herself attached the very same subject documents
in her Complaint for Contempt against him and his client Garcia, docketed as Civil Case No.
824-C before the RTC, Branch 60, Cadiz City. Atty. Dojillo asserted that if Atty. Guanzon's act
of attaching the subject documents in the said contempt case is not a violation of the
confidentiality rule, then he has not violated the same rule also when he attached the same
subject documents in Garcia's defense. Finally, Atty. Dojillo maintained that there was neither
malice nor willful violation of the Rules of Court on the confidentiality of disbarment
proceedings and the Code of Professional Responsibility when he submitted the subject
documents to the courts.

In its Report and Recommendation,[4] the IBP-CBD recommended that the instant disbarment
complaint against Atty. Dojillo be dismissed for insufficiency of evidence.

Upon investigation, the IBP-CBD was unconvinced that Atty. Dojillo is liable for violation of the
Code of Professional Responsibility and the Rules of Court on confidentiality of disbarment
proceedings. It observed that Atty. Dojillo, as counsel, merely found it necessary to submit said
subject documents in order to defend his client by establishing Atty. Guanzon's real motive in
filing the civil and criminal cases against Garcia.

The IBP-CBD also opined that Atty. Guanzon's successive filing of cases against Garcia gives
the impression that she merely wanted to overwhelm Garcia with several cases and exhaust his
resources in order to get back at him for filing the disbarment case against her.

It likewise noted that in the unjust vexation case which Atty. Guanzon filed against Garcia,
entitled People of the Philippines v. Jesus Chua Garcia, docketed as Criminal Case No. 06-10-
12695, the MTCC, Branch 6, Bacolod City, similarly believed that Atty. Guanzon filed several
cases against Garcia merely in retaliation for the latter's filing of disbarment case against her.
The IBP-CBD, thus, further recommended that Atty. Guanzon be censured for filing harassment
and baseless suits.
In Resolution No. XVIII-2008-645 [5] dated December 11, 2008, the IBP-Board of Governors
adopted and approved with modification the report and recommendation of the Investigating
Commissioner to dismiss complaint against Atty. Dojillo due to insufficiency of evidence. It
further resolved to warn Atty. Guanzon to refrain from filing groundless complaints.

Atty. Guanzon moved for reconsideration, but the same was denied by the IBP-Board of
Governors in Resolution No. :XX-2013-12[6] dated January 3, 2013. It likewise affirmed the
Resolution No. XVIII-2008-645 dated December 11, 2008.[7]

Thus, on April 10, 2013, Atty. Guanzon filed the instant petition for review of IBP Resolution
No. XX-2013-12.[8]

RULING

The Court adopts the findings and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner and the
IBP Board of Governors.

In the instant case, we find that Atty. Guanzon failed to provide clear and convincing evidentiary
support to his allegations against Atty. Dojillo. As the IBP aptly concluded, Atty. Dojillo cannot
be faulted in attaching the disbarment records in his client's Answer and Counter-Affidavit in the
three cases which Atty. Guanzon filed against his client as he found it necessary to establish
factual basis on the motive of Atty. Guanzon in filing said cases against his client. In effect, Atty.
Dojillo's act of attaching said subject documents to his client's Answer was to defend his client's
cause which is his duty as counsel. In the absence of proof that Atty. Dojillo was motivated by
malice or bad faith, or intent to harass or damage Atty. Guanzon's reputation, the instant
disbarment complaint deserves no merit.

As a rule, an attorney enjoys the legal presumption that he is innocent of the charges against him
until the contrary is proved. The burden of proof in disbarment and suspension proceedings
always rests on the complainant. Considering the serious consequence of disbarment or
suspension of a member of the Bar, this Court has consistently held that clear preponderant
evidence is necessary to justify the imposition of administrative penalty. Preponderance of
evidence means that the evidence adduced by one side is, as a whole, superior to or has greater
weight than that of the other. Thus, not only does the burden of proof that the respondent
committed the act complained of rests on complainant, but the burden is not satisfied when
complainant relies on mere assumptions and suspicions as evidence.[9]

It must also be pointed out that the confidentiality in disciplinary actions for lawyers is not
absolute. It is not to be applied, under any circumstance, to all disclosures of any nature.[10] The
confidentiality rule requires only that proceedings against attorneys be kept private and
confidential. The rule does not extend so far that it covers the mere existence or pendency of
disciplinary actions.[11] Thus, Atty. Dojillo, in attaching the subject documents to his client's
Answer, did not per se violate the confidentiality rule as the purpose was to inform the court of
its existence.
Moreover, the subject documents become part of court records which are protected by A.M. No.
03-06-13-SC,[12] to wit:

CANON II

CONFIDENTIALITY

SECTION 1. Court personnel shall not disclose to any unauthorized person any confidential
information acquired by them while employed in the Judiciary, whether such information came
from authorized or unauthorized sources.

Confidential information means information not yet made a matter of public record relating to
pending cases, as well as information not yet made public concerning the work of any justice
or judge relating to pending cases, including notes, drafts, research papers, internal
discussions, internal memoranda, records of internal deliberations, and similar papers.

The notes, drafts, research papers, internal discussions, internal memoranda, records of
internal deliberations and similar papers that a justice or judge uses in preparing a decision,
resolution or order shall remain confidential even after the decision, resolution or order is
made public.

SEC. 2. Confidential information available to specific individuals by reason of statute, court rule
or administrative policy shall be disclosed only by persons authorized to do so.

SEC. 3. Unless expressly authorized by the designated authority, court personnel shall not
disclose confidential information given by litigants, witnesses or attorneys to justices, judges or
any other person.

SEC. 4. Former court personnel shall not disclose confidential information acquired by them
during their employment in the Judiciary when disclosure by current court personnel of the same
information would constitute a breach of confidentiality. Any disclosure in violation of this
provision shall constitute indirect contempt of court.[13]

Thus, in view of the above-quoted policies, even if Atty. Dojillo attached said subject documents
to Garcia's Answer and Counter-Affidavit filed before the courts, the same remains private and
confidential. In fact, even after the decision, resolution, or order is made public, such information
that a justice or judge uses in preparing a decision, resolution, or order shall remain
confidential.[14]

In fine, since Atty. Guanzon failed to discharge the onus of proving her charges against Atty.
Dojillo by clear, convincing and satisfactory evidence, her present petition for review of the
IBP's dismissal of her complaint must fail.

This Court will not hesitate to mete out proper disciplinary punishment upon lawyers who are
shown to have failed to live up to their sworn duties, but neither will it hesitate to extend its
protective arm to them when the accusation against them is not indubitably proven.[15]

WHEREFORE, the instant petition for review is DENIED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

SECOND DIVISION

A.C. No. 11774 (Formerly CBD Case No. 14-4186), March 21, 2018

READY FORM INCORPORATED, Complainant, v. ATTY. EGMEDIO J. CASTILLON,

JR., Respondent.

DECISION

CAGUIOA, J.:

Before this Court is an administrative complaint1 filed with the Commission on Bar Discipline of
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (CBD-IBP) by Complainant Ready Form, Inc. (Ready
Form) against Respondent Atty. Egmedio J. Castillon, Jr. (Atty. Castillon), for his alleged
violation of Rules 1.01, 1.02, and 1.03 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
when he allegedly used Ready Form's Income Tax Return (ITR) in filing a Petition for
Suspension and Blacklisting2 (Petition for Blacklisting) against Ready Form before the National
Printing Office (NPO).

The Factual Antecedents

Ready Form was one of the companies who participated in a public bidding conducted by the
NPO on October 17, 2008. Thereafter, the NPO Bids and Awards Committee (NPO-BAC)
required all bidders to re-submit their eligibility documents, which includes the bidders' past
ITRs and financial documents stamp received by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR).3 After
reviewing these submissions, the NPO-BAC imposed a suspension of one (1) year against Ready
Form effective from December 22, 2008 to December 21, 20094 due to the supposed
misrepresentation and misdeclaration it committed when it submitted alleged false ITRs and
financial statements for the calendar year 2007.
Subsequently, on September 18, 2009, Eastland Printink Corporation (Eastland) filed a Petition
for Blacklisting with the NPO against Ready Form, wherein Eastland alleged that Ready Form
had committed other violations, such as (1) misrepresentation, when it also filed with the NPO
false ITRs for the year 2006, (2) unlawfully soliciting printing jobs and services from various
local government offices or agencies, and (3) undermining the authority and jurisdiction of the
NPO by disseminating letters which suggested that the NPO no longer has exclusive jurisdiction
over printing services.5 As Eastland's counsel, Atty. Castillon signed the Petition on behalf of his
client.

The NPO then asked both parties to file position papers in relation to the Petition for
Blacklisting. Eastland filed a position paper6 which stated that:
The figures declared by respondent in its financial statement submitted to the Securities and
Exchange Commission indicate that (sic) a total net sale of P78,639,134.73, but respondent net
sales with NPO alone yielded P80,063.932, (sic) or a discrepancy of P1,424,797.27. The figures
speak for themselves where false statements and/or information were clearly resorted to by the
respondent. These documents are material for eligibility requirements which bespeak of
respondent's deliberate act of misrepresentation.

The respondent has intentionally and consciously falsified its Financial Statement and Income
Tax Return for 2006 by stating and declaring the reduced and wrong amount of annual net sales
to gainfully reduce payment of taxes due the government.

It has been a pattern of respondent in reporting the reduced and incorrect net sales for two (2)
years in a row. It did in 2006 and 2007. In fact, it was duly reflected in its 2006 and 2007
falsified Financial Statements submitted before the Securities and Exchange Commission.7
On December 1, 2009, the NPO issued a Resolution8 suspending and blacklisting Ready Form
for a period of five (5) years after finding, among others, that:
Respondent (sic) 2006 Financial Statement contains false information; hence, it is a falsified
document. As part of its eligibility requirements, respondent submitted to NPO its 2006
Financial Statement (earlier submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission in
compliance with its reportorial requirements) which contains false information. Evidently, the
same is (sic) fictitious, false and falsified document.

Respondent intentionally reported the reduced amount of its net sales for 2006 in its Financial
Statement by declaring only Seventy Eight Million Six Hundred Thirty Nine Thousand One
Hundred Thirty Four and Seventy Three Centavos (P78,639,134.73). However, its net sales
alone in NPO reached Eighty Million Sixty Three Thousand Nine Hundred Thirty Two and
Twenty Nine Centavos (P80,063,932.29). The under declaration was not only conscious and
deliberate but also it was purposely done by respondent two (2) years in a row solely intended to
evade payment of correct taxes due to government.

Its (sic) worth recalling that in 2007, respondent also under declared its nets (sic) sales by stating
in its 2007 Financial Statement the amount of Seventy Four Million Three Hundred Seventy
Seven Thousand Five Hundred Ninety Three Pesos and Twenty Three Centavos
(P74,377,593.23). But in truth and in fact, its net sales for NPO alone hit One Hundred Seven
Million Three Hundred One Thousand Twelve Pesos and Ninety Four Centavos
(P107,301,012.94). In fact, the respondent was suspended for one (1) year from 22 December
2008 up to 22 December 2009 for that reason. An appeal was filed by respondent to the Office of
the Press Secretary. However, the appeal was dismissed and the imposition of administrative
sanction of one (1) year was affirmed. The same has already become final and executory since
respondent neither filed a motion for reconsideration nor a Petition for Review to the Court of
Appeals timely filed.9 (Emphasis and underscoring in the original)
On April 4, 2014, Ready Form filed a Complaint-Affidavit (Complaint) before the CBD-IBP
praying that Atty. Castillon be disbarred due to allegedly violating Rules 1.01, 1.02, and 1.03 of
Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, alleging as a ground therefor Atty.
Castillon's supposed unlawful use of Ready Form's ITRs. Complainant alleges that this is in
violation of Sections 4 and 278 of Republic Act No. 8424,10 otherwise known as the National
Internal Revenue Code (NIRC), which state that:
SEC. 4. Power of the Commissioner to Interpret Tax Laws and to Decide Tax Cases. - The
power to interpret the provisions of this Code and other tax laws shall be under the exclusive and
original jurisdiction of the Commissioner, subject to review by the Secretary of Finance.

The power to decide disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other
charges, penalties imposed in relation thereto, or other matters arising under this Code or other
laws or portions thereof administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue is vested in the
Commissioner, subject to the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals.

xxxx

SEC. 278. Procuring Unlawful Divulgence of Trade Secrets. Any person who causes or
procures an officer or employee of the Bureau of Internal Revenue to divulge any confidential
information regarding the business, income or inheritance of any taxpayer, knowledge of which
was acquired by him in the discharge of his official duties, and which it is unlawful for him to
reveal, and any person who publishes or prints in any manner whatever, not provided by law, any
income, profit, loss or expenditure appearing in any income tax return, shall be punished by a
fine of not more than Two thousand pesos (P2,000), or suffer imprisonment of not less than six
(6) months nor more than five (5) years, or both. (Emphasis and italics in the original)
Complainant further alleges that Atty. Castillon's supposed act was in violation of Section 30.1
of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 918411 or the Government
Procurement Reform Act which mandates that the Bids and Awards Committee concerned shall
use a non discretionary "pass/fail" criterion in determining the eligibility of bidding documents
submitted to it. The said section states that:
30.1. The BAC shall open the first bid envelopes in public to determine each bidder's
compliance with the documents required to be submitted for eligibility and for the
technical requirements, as prescribed in this IRR. For this purpose, the BAC shall check
the submitted documents of each bidder against a checklist of required documents to
ascertain if they are all present, using a non discretionary "pass/fail" criterion, as stated in
the Instructions to Bidders. If a bidder submits the required document, it shall be rated
"passed" for that particular requirement. In this regard, bids that fail to include any
requirement or are incomplete or patently insufficient shall be considered as "failed."
Otherwise, the BAC shall rate the said first bid envelope as "passed."
During the mandatory conference of the case before the CBD-IBP, the parties agreed to limit the
issue on whether or not Atty. Castillon's act of attaching Ready Form's audited financial
statements in the Petition for Blacklisting he filed with the NPO constitutes a violation of
Sections 4 and 238 of the NIRC.12 Consequently, the answer to the said question also determines
whether Atty. Castillon violated Rules 1.01, 1.02, and 1.03 of Canon 1 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.

Atty. Castillon, in his position paper submitted to the CBD-IBP, stressed that what was
submitted in support of the Petition for Blacklisting with the NPO was Ready Form's audited
financial statements which were acquired from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
Atty. Castillon categorically denied that he acquired, much less attached, an ITR of complainant
Ready Form.13

After due proceedings, Commissioner Maria Editha A. Go-Biñas (Commissioner Go-Biñas)

rendered a Report and Recommendation14 on July 21, 2016, absolving Atty. Castillon from the
charges filed by Ready Form. Commissioner Go-Biñas found that Ready Form's claims were
unfounded, as there is no proof that Atty. Castillon procured Ready Form's ITR, or that he used it
in the Petition for Blacklisting. The dispositive portion of Commissioner Go-Biñas' Report and
Recommendation reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, it is most respectfully recommended that
the instant case be dismissed for utter lack of merit.15
On September 23, 2016, the IBP Board of Governors passed a Resolution adopting the findings
of fact and recommendation of Commissioner Go-Biñas and resolved to dismiss the complaint,
thus:
RESOLVED to ADOPT the findings of fact and recommendation of the Investigating
Commissioner dismissing the complaint.16
The Court's Ruling

After a judicious examination of the records and submission of the parties, the Court finds no
compelling reason to diverge from the factual findings of Commissioner Go-Biñas as adopted by
IBP Board of Governors.

Ready Form's central issue against Atty. Castillon is that he allegedly violated the law,
particularly the NIRC, when he supposedly attached a copy of its ITR for 2006 when he filed the
Petition for Blacklisting. A perusal of the records will reveal, however, that what Atty. Castillon
attached in the Petition for Blacklisting is Ready Form's audited financial statement for the year
2006 and not the latter's ITR. Ready Form harps on the fact that the following paragraphs, which
mentions Ready Form's ITR, were in the Petition for Blacklisting signed by Atty. Castillon:17
4. The aforecited suspension was brought about by the misrepresentation and misdeclaration
committed by herein respondent on its Income Tax Return and Financial Statement and other
documents submitted before this Office covering the period 2007;

5. Previous to the said violation, respondent had committed acts of similar nature in their Income
Tax Returns and Financial Statements and other documents submitted before this office covering
the year 2006, among other things, which underscores a deliberate scheme of submitting false
declarations. A photocopy of the 2006 Financial Statement is hereto attached and marked as
Annexes "B" and made integral part hereof.18
Ready Form repeatedly made an issue out of the fact that its ITR was mentioned in the Petition
for Blacklisting, and later on in the Position Paper filed by Eastland, both signed by Atty.
Castillon. They did not, however, offer proof to substantiate its claims that its ITR was attached
to the Petition for Blacklisting despite the clear and express statement therein that only its
audited financial statement, which is available to the public through the SEC, was attached
thereto. During the mandatory conference, it was clear that only an audited financial statement
was attached by Atty. Castillon. Ready Form only wants the IBP, and consequently this Court, to
hold that Atty. Castillon used confidential information by doing such act:
ATTY. MISON [counsel for Ready Form]:

This is Annex "G" to the complaint. Also paragraph 5 if I may mention, previous to this a
photocopy of the 2006 Financial Statement is hereto attached and marked as Annex "B" so that
is admitted?

ATTY. CASTILLON:

That Financial Statement no ITR as mentioned previously.

ATTY. MISON:

But the premise of the paragraph it made mentioned (sic) of that.

ATTY. CASTILLON:

There is that phrase, Your Honor, but meaning attaching ITR there really was none, Your
Honor.

xxxx

COMM. BINAS:

If any of these pleadings that you have there and the cases, I'm sure you have the files, right?

ATTY. MISON:

Yes.

COMM. BINAS:

Did you notice any attachment about the ITR as submitted by the respondent? Because I'm sure
it should have been an annexed (sic) there or ........

ATTY. MISON:
 Well, Your Honor, if the Commission should take somehow judicial notice that the financial
statement is attached to the ITR, the ITR merely contains the summary, the total amount but the
details of the total amount appearing in the Income Tax Return, they are all reflected in the
Financial Statement. Meaning, the Financial Statements contains the details while the ITR itself
is just a summary. So, you cannot say, o (sic) I just filed the financial statement I did not file
the ITR. But all the information appearing on the Financial Statement necessarily appears in the
ITR.

xxxx

COMM. BINAS:

So, as of now the complainant is pounding on the fact that there was this use of confidential
data.

ATTY. MISON:

Yes, Your Honor.

COMM. BINAS:

That is the meat of the complaint.

ATTY. MISON:

Yes, Your Honor. Violation and not only that, Section 4, Your Honor, where no person has the
power to interpret even to make allegations that base (sic) on financial statements falsified, they
have usurp (sic) the power exclusively vested to the BIR and the Court of Tax Appeals, Section
4 of R.A. 8424 and Section 278 of R.A. 8424.

COMM. BINAS:

So, insofar as the complainant is concerned the act of using the confidential tax data emanated
from the fact that he submitted the financial statement.

ATTY. MISON:

Yes, Your Honor. And we contend, Your Honor, that the financial statement contains a more
detailed figures vis-a-vis the income tax return.19
Clearly, therefore, the complainant wants this Court to penalize the respondent for using a
publicly-available document to support allegations in a pleading signed by him. This, the Court
refuses to do.

The Court takes judicial notice20 of the fact that audited financial statements submitted by
corporations, as required by Section 141 of the Corporation Code, are made available to the
public by the SEC. Hence, the Court fails to see how Atty. Castillon violated any law when he
attached a copy of Ready Form's audited financial statements in the Petition for Blacklisting he
filed with the NPO.

Thus, the Court agrees with Commissioner Go-Biñas when she correctly said:
He who alleges should prove his case in a very clear and convincing manner.

An individual should not be allowed to claim relief just because a lawyer is aiding or was
hired by an opponent. To do so would create more injustice and lead to an even more erroneous
practice.

"While courts will not hesitate to mete out proper disciplinary punishment upon lawyers who fail
to live up to their sworn duties, they will on the other hand, protect them from the unjust
accusations of dissatisfied litigants. The success of a lawyer in his profession depends most
entirely on his reputation. Anything which will harm his good name is to be deplored. Private
persons and particularly disgruntled opponents, may not, therefore, be permitted to use the
courts as vehicles through which to vent their rancor on members of the Bar" (Santos vs.
Dichoso, Adm. Case No. 1825, August 22, 1978).21 (Emphasis in the original)
All told, the Court finds that the evidence adduced is wholly insufficient to support the
allegations against Atty. Castillon. As such, the Court fails to see how Atty. Castillon had
violated Rules 1.01, 1.02, and 1.03 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Hence, the Court affirms the IBP's recommendation to dismiss the Complaint.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Complaint filed by Ready Form, Inc. against Atty.
Egmedio J. Castillon, Jr. is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.