Stemmerik v.

Mas Respondent’s Administrative Infractions And His Liability Therefor

Per Curiam: Keld Stemmerik is a citizen and resident of Denmark. In one of his trips to the PH, he was Mas committed a serious breach of lawyer’s oath and is also guilty of violation of the CPR. That oath
introduced to respondent Atty. Leonuel N. Mas. That was his misfortune. is a sacred trust that should be upheld& kept inviolable at all times. Lawyers are servants of the law
and the law is their master. They should not simply obey the laws, they should also inspire respect
In one visit to the PH, Keld expressed interest in acquiring real property here and consulted Mas who for and obedience thereto by serving as exemplars worthy of emulation. Indeed, that is the first
advised him that he could legally acquire & own real property in the PH & suggested an 86,998 sqm precept of the CPR:
property in Subic, Zambales assuring that the property was alienable. Keld purchased the property CANON 1 – A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND
through him and engaged his services for prep of the necessary docs. Mas demanded and received a PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES.
₱400k fee. Confident that respondent would carry out his task, complainant returned to Denmark.
Section 7, Article XII of the Constitution provides:
Thereafter, Mas prepared a contract to sell the property between complainant, represented by him, SEC. 7. Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private lands shall be transferred or conveyed
and a Bonifacio de Mesa, the owner of the property. Mas also prepared and notarized a deed of sale in except to individuals, corps, or associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain.
which de Mesa sold and conveyed the property to a certain Ailyn Gonzales for ₱3.8 mil. Mas also drafted
an agreement between Keld and Gonzales stating it was Keld who paid for the purchase of the property. Mas, in giving advice that directly contradicted a fundamental constitutional policy, showed
Keld then gave him the full amount of the purchase price (₱3.8 mil) for which respondent issued an disrespect for Consti & gross ignorance of basic law. Worse, he prepared spurious docs that he knew
acknowledgment receipt. After the contracts and agreements were executed, complainant tried to get were void+ illegal. He falsified public documents and knowingly violated the Anti-Dummy Law.
in touch with respondent to inquire about when the property could be registered in his name, but Mas
By advising complainant that a foreigner could legally and validly acquire real estate in the PH and
refused to answer complainant’s calls and e-mails.
by assuring complainant that the property was alienable, Mas deliberately foisted a falsehood on
his client and did not give due regard to the Keld’s trust and confidence in him.
When Keld visited PH again, he went to a Law Office to know the status of the property he supposedly
bought. He learned that aliens could not own land under PH laws and that the property was inalienable,
He also transgressed the following provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility:
situated within the former US Military Reservation, and was not subject to acquisition under RA 141.
Rule 1.01. – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
Rule 1.02. – A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening
Thereafter, Keld exerted efforts to locate respondent for purposes of holding him accountable for his
confidence in the legal system.
fraudulent acts. Inquiry with IBP disclosed that Mas was in arrears in his annual dues and he already
CANON 7 – A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL
abandoned his law office in Olongapo.
PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR.
Keld filed a complaint for disbarment against respondent in the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of
CANON 15 – A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND LOYALTY IN ALL HIS DEALINGS AND
the IBP. He deplored respondent’s acts of serious misconduct. In particular, he sought the expulsion of
TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS CLIENT.
respondent from the legal profession for gravely misrepresenting that a foreigner could legally acquire
land in the PH and for maliciously absconding with complainant’s ₱3.8 mil.
CANON 16 – A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS & PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT THAT MAY
COME INTO HIS POSSESSION.
Respondent failed to file his answer despite service of notice at his last known address. Neither did he
appear in the scheduled mandatory conference. In this connection, the CBD found that respondent
CANON 17 – A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE OF HIS CLIENT AND HE SHALL BE MINDFUL
abandoned his law practice in Olongapo after his transaction with complainant and that he did not see
OF THE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM. (emphasis supplied)
it fit to contest the charges against him.
A lawyer who resorts to nefarious schemes to circumvent the law and uses his legal knowledge to
further his selfish ends to the great prejudice of others, poses a clear and present danger to the rule
The CBD ruled that Mas used his position as a lawyer to mislead Keld on the matter of land ownership
of law and to the legal system. He does not only tarnish the image of the bar & degrade the integrity
by a foreigner and went through the prep of falsified & fictitious contracts, deeds and agreements. For
& dignity of the legal profession, he also betrays everything that the legal profession stands for.
all these shameless acts, he collected ₱400k from Keld & pocketed the ₱3.8 mil and absconded with it.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Mas is hereby DISBARRED. The Clerk of Court is directed to remove his name the
The CBD found respondent to be "nothing more than an embezzler" who misused his professional status
Roll of Attorneys. Mas is ORDERED to return to Keld Stemmerik ₱4.2 mil with interest at 12% per
as an attorney to deceive Keld and absconding with his money. Respondent was dishonest and deceitful.
annum. The NBI is ORDERED to locate Atty. Mas and file the charges against him.
He abused the trust and confidence reposed by complainant in him. The CBD recommended the
disbarment of respondent. The Board of Governors of the IBP agreed with modification that respondent
Galicinao v. Castro
was further required to return the amount of ₱4.2 mil to respondent. We agree with the IBP.
TINGA, J.: This admin case concerns a lawyer who hurled insults at a Clerk of Court. Members of the
bar decorum must at all times comfort themselves in a manner befitting their noble profession.
Lawyers must update their records with the IBP by informing the IBP Nat’l Office or their respective
chapters of any change in office or residential address and other contact details.
Atty. Galicinao is the Clerk of Court of the RTC of Bambang, Nueva Vizcaya. She filed a Complaint-
Affidavit with supporting docs against Atty. Castro for Unprofessional Conduct, specifically violation of
Canon 7, Rule 7.03, Canon 8 and Rule 8.02 of the CPR. The charge is as follows:
Castro, a private practitioner and VP of IBP-Nueva Vizcaya, went to complainant's office to inquire
whether the complete records of Civil Case No. 784 had already been remanded to the court of origin,
MCTC Dupax del Norte. Castro was not the counsel of record of either party in Civil Case No. 784.
Galicinao informed respondent that the record had not yet been transmitted since a certified true copy
of the decision of the CA should first be presented to serve as basis for the transmittal of the records to
the court of origin.
Castro: Who will certify the CA's Decision, the CA? You mean to say, I would still have to go to Manila to
get a certified true copy?”
Galicinao: 'Sir, it's in the Rules but you could show us the copy sent to the party you claim to be
representing”.
Castro: You should have notified me of the said requirement. That was two weeks ago and I have been
frequenting your office since then, but you never bothered to notify me.
Galicinao: 'It is not our duty, Sir, to notify you of the said requirement.”
Castro: 'You mean to say it is not your duty to remand the record of the case?
Galicinao: No, Sir, I mean, it's not our duty to notify you that you have to submit a copy of the CA’s
decision.
Castro, angrily in Ilocano: 'Kayat mo nga saw-en, awan pakialam yon? Kasdiay? (You mean to say you
dont care anymore? Is that the way it is?'). He then turned and left the office, banging the door on his
way out to show his anger. The banging of the door was so loud it was heard by the people at the
adjacent RTC, Branch 30 where a hearing was taking place.
After a few minutes, respondent returned to the office, still enraged, and pointed his finger at her and
shouted, 'Ukinnan, no adda ti unget mo iti kilientek haan mo nga ibales kaniak ah! (Vulva of your
mother! If you are harboring ill feelings against my client, dont turn your ire on me!') Complainant was
shocked at respondent's words but still managed to reply, 'I dont even know your client, Sir”.
Respondent left the office and as he passed by complainant's window, he again shouted, 'Ukinnam nga
babai! (Vulva of your mother, you woman!')
Complainant suffered acute embarrassment at the incident, as it happened in her office of which she is
the head and in front of her staff. She felt that her credibility had been tarnished.
The Complaint-Affidavit, filed 3 days after the incident, was supported by an Affidavit signed by
witnesses/employees of the RTC. The Affidavit narrated same incident as witnessed by the employees.
Castro submitted his Compliance and explained that he was counsel for the plaintiffs in Civil Case No.
847. Before the incident, he went to the office of complainant to request for the transmittal of the
records of the case to the MCTC and the complainant reassured him. Respondent admits having
inquired about the status of the transmittal of the records on 5 May 2003. However, he has no
explanation as to what transpired on that day and instead narrates that 12 days after the incident, the
records had not yet been transmitted, and he subsequently learned that these records were returned
to the court of origin.
Castro expressed his public apology to the complainant in a Manifestation. Complainant expressed
desire not to appear on the next hearing in view of respondent's public apology, adding that respondent
personally and humbly asked for forgiveness which she accepted.
The Investigating Commissioner recommended that respondent be reprimanded and warned that
any other complaint for breach of his professional duties shall be dealt with more severely. The IBP
submitted to this Court a Notice of Resolution adopting and approving the recommendation of the
Investigating Commissioner.
It should be noted that Castro was not the counsel of record of Civil Case No. 784. Had he been
counsel of record, it would’ve been easy for him to present the required certified true copy of the
decision of the CA. He need not have gone to Manila to procure a certified true copy of the decision
since the CA furnishes the parties and their counsel of record a duplicate original or certified true
copy of its decision. Not being the counsel of record and there being no authorization from either
the parties to represent them, respondent had no right to impose his will on the clerk of court.
Rule 8.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states:
Rule 8.02A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, encroach upon the professional
employment of another lawyer; however, it is the right of any lawyer, without fear or favor,
to give proper advice and assistance to those seeking relief against unfaithful or neglectful
counsel.
Through his acts of constantly checking the transmittal of the records of Civil Case No. 784,
respondent deliberately encroached upon the legal functions of the counsel of record of that case.
It does not matter whether he did so in good faith.
Moreover, respondent acted rudely towards an officer of the court. He raised his voice at the clerk
of court and uttered at her the most vulgar of invectives. Not only was it ill-mannered but also
unbecoming considering that he did all these to a woman and in front of her subordinates.
As held in Alcantara v. Atty. Pefianco, respondent ought to have realized that this sort of public
behavior can only bring down the legal profession in the public estimation and erode public respect
for it. These acts violate Rule 7.03, Canon 8 and Rule 8.01, to wit:
Rule 7.03 ' A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflect on his fitness to practice
law, now shall he, whether in public or private life behave in scandalous manner to the
discredit of the legal profession.
Canon 8 ' A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor toward his
professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel.
Rule 8.01 ' A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive,
offensive or otherwise improper.
Moreover, Canon 8 of the CPR demands that lawyers conduct themselves with courtesy, fairness
and candor toward their fellow lawyers. They must act honorably, fairly and candidly towards each
other and otherwise conduct themselves without reproach at all times.
Complainant also alleged in her Complaint-Affidavit that respondent's uncharacteristic behavior
was not an isolated incident. He has supposedly done the same to other attorneys. We, however,
cannot acknowledge such allegation absent any evidence showing the veracity of such claim. No
affidavits to that effect were submitted by either lawyers.
Nonetheless, the penalty to be imposed should be tempered owing to the fact that respondent had
apologized to the complainant and the latter had accepted it. This is not to say, however, that
respondent should be accountable. The fact remains that things done cannot be undone and words
uttered cannot be taken back. Hence, he should bear the consequences of his actions.
The highest reward that can be bestowed on lawyers is the esteem of their brethren, which emanates
solely from integrity, character, brains and skills in the honorable performance of professional duty.
WHEREFORE, respondent is hereby FINED in the amount of P10,000 with a warning that any similar
infraction with be dealt with more severely. SO ORDERED.
PANELCO v. Montemayor
PER CURIAM: An admin complaint filed by Pangasinan Electric Cooperative I (PANELCO I) charging Atty.
Juan Ayar Montemayor with negligence in handling the cases assigned to him which caused
unwarranted financial losses to the complainant, approximately in the total amount of PhP 16 mil.
Records show that for years, PANELCO I, a rural electric cooperative, retained the services of Atty. Juan
Ayar Montemayor as its counsel. In its Complaint, PANELCO I stated that while acting as counsel for the
cooperative, respondent was negligent in handling its cases, alleging the following:
4. One of the cases assigned to Atty. Montemayor filed with the RTC Lingayen, Pangasinan
entitled "Rural Power Corporation vs. PANELCO I." After the trial court rendered a Decision adverse
to PANELCO I, it was decided that the case be appealed to the CA;
5. However, the CA ordered the Dismissal of the appeal for the failure of Atty. Montemayor to serve
and file the required number of copies within the time provided by the Rules of Court.
6. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, the Decision of the trial court became final and
executory, and the judgment award in the amount of P2,179,209.18 was paid by the complainant;
7. Another case assigned to Atty. Montemayor was the case of "Engineering and Construction
Corporation of Asia (ECCO-ASIA) vs. PANELCO I," filed with the RTC QC. Again, the decision was
appealed by PANELCO I to the CA, through Atty. Montemayor;
8. In a Resolution, the CA considered the appeal Abandoned due to the failure of Atty.
Montemayor to serve and file the required Appellant's Brief despite the lapse of the two extensions
of time granted.
9. Thus, the funds of PANELCO I deposited in banks were garnished until the judgment award was paid
to the Plaintiff ECCO-ASIA, in the amount of P13,836,676.25;
10. Sometime last year, Atty. Montemayor informed the undersigned (complainant) of the
judgment of the RTC QC, and that he had filed his appeal;
11. Upon receipt of the Notice of Garnishments, I (complainant) confronted Atty. Montemayor on the
matter, and he uttered "napabayaan ko itong kaso...ano ang gagawin natin";
12. As a consequence of the negligence of Atty. Montemayor, the complainant was forced to
settle with the Plaintiffs without the benefit of an approved time-table, and is presently in a dire
financial situation, which has caused difficulty in meeting its monthly power bills with the NAPOCOR.
In a Resolution, the respondent was required to file his Comment on the admin charges within 10 days
from notice. He subsequently filed with this Court a Motion for Extension of Time to File his Comment;
however, despite an extension of 15 days from the expiration of the original period given by the Court,
respondent failed to file his Comment. Thus, the Court declared respondent to have WAIVED the filing
of Comment on the Complaint. The Court also referred the case to the IBP for investigation, report, and
recommendation or decision.
At conference, respondent admitted all the allegations in the Complaint, particularly the fact that he
failed to attend to the appeal of complainant's cases. Then, Commissioner San Juan submitted her
Report and Recommendation finding respondent guilty of Violation of the CPR, and recommending his
disbarment from law practice. The Report reads: The records show that respondent Atty. Montemayor
did not even bother to answer the complaint nor present his defense, we are now constrained to impose
sanctions on his gross negligence as counsel for complainant which resulted [in] the damage of
PANELCO I. It is recommended that he be DISBARRED for Violation of the CPR..
The IBP Board of Governors passed CBD Resolution No. XVI-2005-68 adopting with modification
Report and Recomm, thus: considering Respondent’s gross negligence, as counsel for complainant
which resulted [in] the damage of PANELCO I, Atty. Juan Ayar Montemayor is hereby SUSPENDED
INDEFINITELY from the practice of law.
The only issue to be resolved is W/N respondent committed gross negligence or misconduct in
mishandling complainant’s cases on appeal, which eventually led to their dismissal, to the prejudice
of the complainant. After a careful consideration, the Court agrees with the IBP in its findings and
conclusion that respondent has been remiss in his responsibilities.
The pertinent Canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility provide:
CANON 12 - A LAWYER SHALL EXERT EVERY EFFORT AND CONSIDER IT HIS DUTY TO ASSIST IN THE
SPEEDY AND EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.
x x x x Rule 12.03 - A lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions of time to file pleadings,
memoranda or briefs, let the period lapse without submitting the same or offering an explanation
for his failure to do so.
CANON 17 — A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE OF HIS CLIENT AND HE SHALL BE MINDFUL
OF THE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM.
CANON 18 – A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.
xxxx
Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him liable.
xxxx
CANON 19 - A LAWYER SHALL REPRESENT HIS CLIENT WITH ZEAL WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE LAW.
Manifestly, respondent has fallen short of the competence and diligence required of every member
of the Bar in relation to his client. As counsel for complainant, respondent had the duty to present
every remedy/defense authorized by law to protect his client. When he undertook his client’s cause,
he made a covenant that he will exert all efforts for its prosecution until its final conclusion. He
should undertake the task with dedication and care, and if he should do no less, then he is not true
to his lawyer's oath.
The records of this case clearly show that respondent failed to live up to his duties and
responsibilities as a member of the legal profession. Respondent did not offer a plausible
explanation for not doing his level best in representing his client’s cause on appeal; thus, making
complainant suffer serious losses.
There is no doubt that it was part of respondent’s obligation to complainant, as the latter’s counsel
of record in the civil cases, to prosecute with assiduousness said cases on appeal in order to
safeguard complainant's rights, but it was respondent’s negligence or omission which has caused
damage to such interests.
As held in Aromin v. Atty. Boncavil: Once he agrees to take up the cause of a client, the lawyer owes
fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. He
must serve the client with competence and diligence, and champion the latter’s cause with
wholehearted fidelity, care, and devotion. This simply means that his client is entitled to the benefit
of any and every remedy and defense that is authorized by the law of the land he may expect his lawyer
to assert every such remedy or defense. A lawyer who performs his duty with diligence and candor not
only protects the interest of his client; he also serves the ends of justice, does honor to the bar, and
helps maintain the respect of the community to the legal profession.
Thus, for inexcusable neglect of his professional obligations to the prejudice of his client’s interests, the
IBP Investigating Commissioner recommended the disbarment of respondent from the practice of law.
The IBP Board of Governors, however, recommended that Atty. Montemayor be suspended indefinitely
from the practice of law.
Atty. Montemayor is guilty not only of his unjustified failure to file the appellant’s brief of his client not
only once but twice. Moreover the Court notes the huge losses suffered by PANELCO I in the total
amount of PhP 16 mil. Lastly, he demonstrated an utter lack of regard for the very serious charges
against him and a gross disrespect for the Court when he failed to file his comment after being required
to file his response to the said charges.
We find that Atty. Montemayor does not deserve anymore to remain as an active member of the legal
profession. The breaches of the CPR and the palpable sloth and irresponsibility he demonstrated in the
cases of his client reveal that he has become more of a liability than an asset to the legal profession.
WHEREFORE, AMontemayor is DISBARRED from the practice of law. SO ORDERED.
Reyes v. Chiong Jr.
PANGANIBAN, J.: Lawyers should treat each other with courtesy, dignity and civility. The bickering and
the hostility of their clients should not affect their conduct and rapport with each other as professionals
and members of the bar. Before us is a complaint filed by Atty. Ramon P. Reyes with the Office of the
Bar Confidant of this Court, seeking the disbarment of Atty. Victoriano T. Chiong Jr. for violation of his
lawyer’s oath and of Canon 8 of the CPR. Case was referred to the IBP, which resolved to suspend him:
". . . [C]onsidering that respondent is bound by his oath which binds him in the obligation that he will
not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent
to the same. In addition, Canon 8 of the CPR provides that a lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy,
fairness and candor towards his professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against
opposing counsel. In impleading complainant and Prosecutor Salanga in Civil Case No. 4884, when it
was apparent that there was no legal ground to do so, respondent violated his oath of office as well as
the above-quoted Canon of the Code of Professional Responsibility, [r]espondent is hereby SUSPENDED
from the practice of law for 2 years."
The Facts: Atty. Reyes was counsel for Zonggi Xu, a Chinese-Taiwanese, in a business venture that went
awry. Xu invested P300,000 on a Cebu-based fishball, tempura and seafood products factory being set
up by a certain Chia Hsien Pan, another Chinese-Taiwanese residing in Zamboanga City. Eventually, the
former discovered that the latter had not established a fishball factory. When Xu asked for his money
back, Pan became hostile, making it necessary for the former to seek legal assistance. Atty. Chiong was
counsel for Pan.
Xu sued Pan for estafa. The Complaint was assigned to Assistant Manila City Prosecutor Pedro B.
Salanga, who issued a subpoena for Pan to appear for preliminary investigation. The latter neither
appeared on the two scheduled hearings nor submitted his counter-affidavit. Hence, Prosecutor Salanga
filed a Criminal Complaint for estafa against him before the RTC Manila. Then, the Manila RTC issued a
Warrant of Arrest against Pan.
Thereafter, Chiong filed an Urgent Motion to Quash the Warrant of Arrest and (with the RTC
Zamboanga) a Civil Complaint for the collection of a sum of money and damages as well as for the
dissolution of a business venture against complainant, Xu and Prosecutor Salanga.
When confronted by Reyes, Chiong explained that it was Pan who had decided to institute the civil
action against Atty. Reyes. Chiong claimed he would suggest to his client to drop the civil case, if
complainant would move for the dismissal of the estafa case. However, the two lawyers failed to reach
a settlement.
In his Comment, Chiong argued that he had shown no disrespect in impleading Atty. Reyes as co-
defendant in Civil Case No. 4884. He claimed that there was no basis to conclude that the suit was
groundless, and that it had been instituted only to exact vengeance. He alleged that Prosecutor
Salanga was impleaded as an additional defendant because of the irregularities the latter had
committed in conducting the criminal investigation. Specifically, Prosecutor Salanga had resolved to
file the estafa case despite the pendency of Pan’s Motion for an Opportunity to Submit Counter-
Affidavits and Evidence, of the appeal to the justice secretary, and of the Motion to Defer/Suspend
Proceedings.
On the other hand, Reyes was impleaded because he allegedly connived with his client (Xu) in filing
the estafa case, which the former knew fully well was baseless. The Third Division of this Court
referred the case to the IBP for investigation, report and recommendation.
Report and Recommendation of the IBP
Commissioner San Juan said there was no need to implead complainant and Prosecutor Salanga,
since they had never participated in the business transactions between Pan and Xu. Improper and
highly questionable was the inclusion of the prosecutor and complainant in the civil case instituted
by respondent on the alleged prodding of his client. Verily, the suit was filed to harass complainants
and Prosecutor Salanga.
San Juan held that respondent had no ground to implead Prosecutor Salanga and complainant in
Civil Case No. 4884. In so doing, respondent violated his oath of office and Canon 8 of the CPR. The
IBP adopted the investigating commissioner’s recommendation for his suspension from the practice
of law for 2 years.
This Court’s Ruling
We agree with the IBP’s recommendation. Canon 8 of the CPR provides that" [a] lawyer shall
conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor towards his professional colleagues, and shall
avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel." Respondent’s actions do not measure up to this
Canon. Civil Case No. 4884 was for the "collection of a sum of money, damages and dissolution of
an unregistered business venture." It had originally been filed against Spouses Xu, but was later
modified to include complainant and Prosecutor Salanga.
We concur with the IBP that the amendment of the Complaint and the failure to resort to the proper
remedies strengthen complainant’s allegation that the civil action was intended to gain leverage
against the estafa case. If respondent or his client did not agree with Prosecutor Salanga’s
resolution, they should have used the proper procedural and administrative remedies. Respondent
could have gone to the justice sec. and filed a Motion for Recon or a Motion for Reinvestigation of
Prosecutor Salanga’s decision to file an information for estafa.
In the trial court, a Motion to Dismiss was available to him if he could show that the estafa case was
filed without basis. Moreover, he could have instituted disbarment proceedings against Reyes and
Prosecutor Salanga, if he believed that the two had conspired to act illegally. As a lawyer, respondent
should have advised his client of the availability of these remedies. Thus, the filing of the civil case had
no justification.
The lack of involvement of complainant and Prosecutor Salanga in the business transaction subject of
the collection suit shows that there was no reason for their inclusion in that case. It appears that
respondent took the estafa case as a personal affront and used the civil case as a tool to return the
inconvenience suffered by his client. His actions demonstrate a misuse of the legal process. The aim of
every lawsuit should be to render justice to the parties according to law, not to harass them. Lawyers
should treat their opposing counsels and other lawyers with courtesy, dignity and civility. A great part
of their comfort, as well as of their success at the bar, depends upon their relations with their
professional brethren.
Furthermore, the Lawyer’s Oath exhorts law practitioners not to "wittingly or willingly promote or sue
any groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent to the same." Respondent claims that it
was his client who insisted in impleading complainant and Prosecutor Salanga. Such excuse is flimsy and
unacceptable. While lawyers owe entire devotion to the interests of their clients, their office does not
permit violation of the law or any manner of fraud or chicanery. Their rendition of improper service
invites stern and just condemnation. Correspondingly, they advance the honor of their profession and
the best interests of their clients when they render service or give advice that meets the strictest
principles of moral law.
The highest reward that can be bestowed on lawyers in the esteem of their professional brethren. This
esteem cannot be purchased, perfunctorily created, or gained by artifice or contrivance. It is born of
sharp contests and thrives despite conflicting interests. It emanates solely from integrity, character,
brains and skill in the honorable performance of professional duty. WHEREFORE, respondent is found
guilty as charged and is hereby SUSPENDED for 2 years from the practice of law. SO ORDERED.
Suspension of Bagabuyo
Facts: Admin case stemmed from the events of the proceedings in Criminal Case, People v. Luis Plaza.
Plaza was accused of murdering a policeman. It was originally raffled to Judge Buyser, where he denied
Demurrer to the Evidence of the accused, declaring that evidence presented was sufficient to prove the
crime of homicide but not murder.
Counsel for Plaza filed a Motion to Fix Amount of Bail, but Senior State Prosecutor Bagabuyo (who was
in charge of the case) objected thereto on the ground that the original charge of murder was not subject
to bail (Rules of Court). Judge Buyser inhibited himself from trying the case because of the “harsh
insinuation” of Bagabuyo that he “lacks the cold neutrality of an impartial magistrate” by allegedly
suggesting the filing of the motion to fix the amount of bail.
Case was transferred to Judge Tan, who fixed the amount of bail at P40k. Instead of availing of judicial
remedies, Bagabuyo published an article about the Order granting the bail in the Mindanao Gold Star
Daily, “Senior prosecutor lambasts Surigao judge for allowing murder suspect to bail out.”
In the article, Bagabuyo argued that the crime of murder is non-bailable, but admitted that a judge could
still opt to allow a murder suspect to bail out in cases when the evidence of the prosecution is weak. He
claims that the former judge found the evidence to be strong. He stated that he was not afraid to be
cited for contempt because it was the only way for the public to know that there are judges
displaying judicial arrogance.
RTC directed Bagabuyo (and the writer of the article) to explain why he should not be cited for
indirect contempt of court for the publication of the article which degraded the court with its
presiding judge with its lies and misrepresentations. Bagabuyo refused to explain and the RTC held
him in contempt of court, sentencing him to 30 days in jail (he posted a bail bond and was released).
Despite this, Bagabuyo presented himself to the media for interviews in Radio Station DXKS and
again, attacked the integrity of Judge Tan. In the radio interview, Bagabuyo called Judge Tan a liar,
ignorant of the law and that as a mahjong aficionado, he was studying mahjong instead of studying
the law.
RTC required Bagabuyo to explain and show cause why he should not be held in contempt and be
suspended from the practice of law for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility (Rule 11.05
and Rule 13.02). Bagabuyo denied the charge that he sought to be interviewed. He justified his
response to the interview (at the instance of his friend) as a simple exercise of his constitutional
right of freedom of speech and that it was made without malice.
RTC found his denials lame, held him in contempt, and suspended him from the practice of law for
1 year. In accordance with the Rules of Court, the case was transmitted to the Office of the Bar
Confidant, which recommended the implementation of the RTC’s order of suspension.
Issue: Was the respondent be held in contempt and suspended for violating Rule 11.05, Canon 11
and Rule 13.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility?
Held: Yes, the respondent was guilty of violating Rule 11.05, Canon 11 and Rule 13.02 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility.
Canon 11 mandates a lawyer to observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial
officers. Bagabuyo violated Canon 11 when he indirectly stated that Judge Tan was displaying
judicial arrogance in the published article and when he stated that Judge Tan was ignorant of the
law and that as a mahjong aficionado, he was studying mahjong instead of the law.
Rule 11.05 states that a lawyer shall submit grievances against a judge to the proper authorities.
Bagabuyo violated Rule 11.05 when he caused the holding of a press conference and submitted to
a radio interview to air out his grievances against Judge Tan.
Rule 13.02 states that a lawyer shall not make public statements in the media regarding a pending
case tending to arouse public opinion for or against a party. Bagabuyo violated Rule 13.02 when he
made statements in the article, which were made while Criminal Case No. 5144 was still pending in
court.
A lawyer may be disbarred or suspended for any violation of Lawyer’s Oath, a patent disregard of
his duties, or an odious deportment unbecoming of an attorney. As a senior state prosecutor and
officer of the court, respondent should have set the example of observing and maintaining the
respect due to the courts and to judicial officers. The Court is not against lawyers raising grievances
against erring judges but the rules clearly provide for the proper venue and procedure for doing so,
precisely because respect for the institution must always be maintained.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Bagabuyo is found guilty of violating Rule 11.05, Canon 11 and Rule 13.02, Canon 13
of the CPR, and the Lawyer's Oath, for which he is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year,
with a STERN WARNING that repetition of a similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.
Justo v. Galing
PEREZ, J.: Justo said she engaged the services of Atty. Galing in connection with dishonored checks
issued by Manila City Councilor Ms. Koa. After she paid professional fees, the respondent drafted and
sent a letter to Ms. Koa demanding payment of the checks. Galing advised Justo to wait for the lapse of
the period indicated in the demand letter before filing her complaint.
Then, Justo filed a criminal complaint against Ms. Koa for estafa and violation of B.P. Blg. 22. She then
received a copy of a Motion for Consolidation filed by Galing for and on behalf of Ms. Koa, the accused
in the criminal cases, and the latter’s daughter Ms. Torralba. Further, Galing appeared as counsel for
Ms. Koa before the prosecutor of Manila. Justo submits that by representing conflicting interests,
respondent violated the CPR.
Galing denied the allegations against him. He admitted that he drafted a demand letter for complainant
but argued that it was made only in deference to their long standing friendship and not by reason of a
professional engagement as professed by complainant. He denied receiving any professional fee for the
services he rendered. It was allegedly their understanding that complainant would have to retain the
services of another lawyer. He alleged that complainant, based on that agreement, engaged the services
of Atty. Manuel A. Año. To bolster this claim, Galing pointed out that the complaint filed by Justo against
Ms. Koa for estafa and violation of B.P. Blg. 22 was based not on the demand letter he drafted but on
the demand letter prepared by Atty. Manuel A. Año.
Respondent contended that he is a close friend of the opposing parties in the criminal cases & further
contended that Justo and Ms. Koa are longtime friends, (they are "comares" for 30+ years) since Justo
is the godmother of Ms. Torralba. He maintained that the filing of the Motion for Consolidation which
is a non-adversarial pleading does not evidence the existence of a lawyer-client relationship between
him and Ms. Koa and Ms. Torralba. Likewise, his appearance in the joint proceedings should only be
construed as an effort on his part to assume the role of a moderator or arbiter of the parties.
He insisted that his actions were merely motivated by an intention to help the parties achieve an out of
court settlement and possible reconciliation. He reported that his efforts proved fruitful insofar as he
had caused Ms. Koa to pay Justo ₱50k in settlement of one of the two checks subject of I.S. No. 03G-
19484-86. Justo averred that the failure of Ms. Koa and Ms. Torralba to make good the other checks
caused a lot of consternation on the part of complainant. This allegedly led her to vent her ire on
respondent and file the instant administrative case for conflict of interest.
The Board of Governors of the IBP found respondent guilty of violating Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the CPR
by representing conflicting interests and for his daring audacity and for the pronounced malignancy of
his act. It was recommended that he be suspended from the practice of law for 1 year with a warning
that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
We agree with the Report and Recommendation. It was established that in April 2003, respondent was
approached by complainant regarding the dishonored checks issued by Manila City Councilor Koa.
Galing argued that no lawyer-client relationship existed between him and complainant because there
was no professional fee paid for the services he rendered. Moreover, he argued that he drafted the
demand letter only as a personal favor to complainant who is a close friend.
We are not persuaded. A lawyer-client relationship can exist notwithstanding the close friendship
between complainant and respondent. The relationship was established the moment complainant
sought legal advice from respondent regarding the dishonored checks. By drafting the demand
letter respondent further affirmed such relationship. The fact that the demand letter was not
utilized in the criminal complaint filed and that respondent was not eventually engaged by
complainant to represent her in the criminal cases is of no moment. As observed by the Investigating
Commissioner, by referring to Justo as "my client" in the demand letter sent to the defaulting
debtor, Galing admitted the existence of the lawyer-client relationship. Such admission effectively
estopped him from claiming otherwise.
Likewise, the non-payment of professional fee will not exculpate respondent from liability. Absence
of monetary consideration does not exempt lawyers from complying with the prohibition against
pursuing cases with conflicting interests. The prohibition attaches from the moment the attorney-
client relationship is established and extends beyond the duration of the professional
relationship.11 We held in Burbe v. Atty. Magulta12 that it is not necessary that any retainer be paid,
promised or charged; neither is it material that the attorney consulted did not afterward handle the
case for which his service had been sought.13
Under Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the CPR, "[a] lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except
by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts." Respondent was
therefore bound to refrain from representing parties with conflicting interests in a controversy. By
doing so, without showing any proof that he had obtained the written consent of the conflicting
parties, respondent should be sanctioned.
The prohibition against representing conflicting interest is founded on principles of public policy and
good taste.14 In the course of the lawyer-client relationship, the lawyer learns of the facts connected
with the client’s case, including the weak and strong points of the case. The nature of the
relationship is, therefore, one of trust and confidence of the highest degree.15 It behooves lawyers
not only to keep inviolate the client’s confidence, but also to avoid the appearance of treachery and
double-dealing for only then can litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their lawyers,
which is of paramount importance in the administration of justice.
The excuse by respondent that it was not him but Atty. Año who was eventually engaged by
complainant will not exonerate him from the clear violation of Rule 15.03 of the CPR. The take- over
of a client’s cause of action by another lawyer does not give the former lawyer the right to represent
the opposing party. It is not only malpractice but also constitutes a violation of the confidence
resulting from the attorney-client relationship.
Considering that this is respondent’s first infraction, the disbarment sought in the complaint is
deemed to be too severe. As recommended by the Board of Governors of the IBP, the suspension
from the practice of law for 1 year is warranted. Accordingly, the Court resolved to SUSPEND Atty.
Rodolfo T. Galing from the practice of law for 1 year, with a WARNING that a repetition of the same
or similar offense will warrant a more severe penalty.
Mendoza v. Deciembre
PER CURIAM: Eugenia Mendoza is seeking the disbarment of Atty. Victor V. Deciembre for his acts
of fraudulently filling up blank postdated checks without her authority and using the same for filing
unfounded criminal suits against her.
Mendoza, a mail sorter at the Central Post Office Manila, borrowed from Rodela Loans, Inc., through
Deciembre, the amount of P20k payable in 6 months at 20% interest. She was unable to pay on due
dates, but she made remittances to Deciembre's Metrobank account in the total sum
of P12,910.00. Claiming that the amounts remitted were not enough to cover the penalties, interests
and other charges, Deciembre warned her that he would deposit Postal Check No. 47253 filled up by
him on March 30, 1999 in the amount of P16,000.00. Afraid he might sue her, Mendoza made good said
check and he was able to encash the same on Mar 30, 1999. Then, Mendoza made subsequent
payments to the Metrobank account of respondent, paying respondent the total sum of P35,690.00.
Mendoza further claimed that, later, Deciembre filled up two of the postal checks she issued in blank,
Check Nos. 47261 and 47262 with the amount of P50k, which Deciembre claims was in exchange for
the P100k cash that complainant received. Mendoza insisted however that she never borrowed P100k
from him and that it was unlikely that he would lend her, a mail sorter with a basic monthly salary of
less than P6k, such amount. Mendoza also claimed that respondent victimized other employees of the
Postal Office by filling up, without authorization, blank checks issued to him as condition for loans.
Deciembre averred that his dealings with complainant were done in his private capacity and not as a
lawyer, and that when he filed a complaint for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 against her, he was only
vindicating his rights as a private citizen. He alleged further that: it was complainant who deliberately
deceived him by not honoring her commitment to their Nov 15, 1999 transaction involving P100,000.00
and covered by two checks which bounced for the reason "account closed"; the October 13, 1999
transaction was a separate and distinct transaction; complainant filed the disbarment case against him
to get even with him for filing the estafa and B.P. Blg. 22 case against the former; complainant's claim
that respondent filled up the blank checks issued by complainant is a complete lie; the truth was that
the checks referred to were already filled up when complainant affixed her signature thereto; it was
unbelievable that complainant would issue blank checks, and that she was a mere low-salaried
employee, since she was able to maintain several checking accounts; and if he really intended to defraud
complainant, he would have written a higher amount on the checks instead of only P50k.
The case was referred to the IBP. Mendoza also alleged that Deciembre, after the hearing on the
disbarment case before the IBP, again filled up three of her blank checks, Check Nos. 47263, 47264 and
47265, totaling P100k, to serve as basis for another criminal complaint, since the earlier estafa and B.P.
Blg. 22 case filed by respondent against her before the Office of the Prosecutor of Pasig City was
dismissed on Aug 14, 2000.9
Respondent insisted, however, that complainant borrowed P100k in exchange for two postdated
checks, and that since he had known her for quite some time, he accepted said checks on complainant's
assurance that they were good as cash.
Investigating Commissioner Reyes submitted his Report finding respondent guilty of dishonesty and
recommended respondent's suspension from the practice of law for one year. The Report was adopted
and approved by the IBP Board of Governors in its Resolution.
Case was remanded to IBP for formal investigation. After the hearings, Investigating Commissioner Funa
submitted his Report finding respondent guilty of gross misconduct and violation of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, and recommended respondent's suspension for 3 years. Commissioner
Funa held that while it was difficult at first to determine who between complainant and respondent was
telling the truth, in the end, respondent himself, with his own contradicting allegations, showed that
complainant's version should be given more credence. Commissioner Funa noted that although
complainant's total obligation to respondent was only P24k, since the loan obtained by complainant
on Oct 13, 1998 was P20k at 20% interest payable in six months, by Apr 13, 1999, however,
complainant had actually paid respondent the total amount of P30,240.00. Thus, even though the
payment was irregularly given, respondent actually earned more than the agreed upon 20%
interest. Moreover, the amounts of P50,000.00 as well as the name of the payee in the subject
checks were all typewritten.
Commissioner Funa gave credence to complainant's claim that it was respondent's modus operandi
to demand a certain amount as "settlement" for the dropping of estafa complaints against his
borrowers. As Funa explains:
[A] complaint for estafa/violation of BP 22 was filed against [complainant] before the Prosecutor's
Office in Pasig but was dismissed. On Oct 2, 2000, Mendoza filed this disbarment case. About one
year later, or on Sep 5, 2001, Complainant was surprised to receive a demand letter demanding
payment once again for another P100,000.00 corresponding to another three checks, Check Nos.
0047263, 0047264 and 0047265.
Furthermore, Respondent filed another criminal complaint for estafa/violation of BP 22 dated Oct
17, 2001, this time before the QC Prosecutor's Office. The prosecutor recommended the filing of
the criminal case for one of the checks.
xxx
Respondent's version, on the other hand, is that Check Nos. 0047261 and 0047262 were given to
him for loans (rediscounting) contacted on Nov 15, 1999 and not for a loan contracted on Oct 13,
1998. x x x He claims that the Oct 13, 1998 transaction is an earlier and different transaction. x x x
On the very next day, or on Nov 16, 1999, Complainant again allegedly contracted another loan for
another P100,000.00 for which Complainant allegedly issued the following Postal Bank checks
[Check No. 0047263 dated May 16, 2001 for P20,000.00; Check No. 0047264 dated May 30, 2001
for P30,000.00 and Check No. 0047265 dated June 15, 2001 for P50,000.00].
xxx
Oddly though, Respondent never narrated that Complainant obtained a second loan on Nov 16,
1999 in his Answer [dated Jan 18, 2000] and in his Position Paper [dated October 8, 2001]. He did
not even discuss it in his Motion for Reconsideration dated Dec 20, 2002, although he attached the
Resolution of the QC Prosecutor's Office. Clearly, the November 16, 1999 transaction was a mere
concoction that did not actually occur. It was a mere afterthought. Respondent once again filled-up
three of the other checks in his possession (checks dated May 16, 2001, May 30, 2001 and June 15,
2001) so that he can again file another estafa/BP 22 case against Mendoza (Oct 17, 2001) AFTER
the earlier complaint he had filed before the Pasig City Prosecutor's Office had been dismissed (Aug
14, 2000) and AFTER herein Complainant had filed this disbarment case (Oct 2, 2000).
Circumstances of this second loan of Nov 16, 1999 is where he gets caught. He alleges that the loan
was contracted on Nov 16, 1999 for which Complainant supposedly issued checks dated May 16,
2001, May 30, 2001 and June 15, 2001. Note that May 16, 2001 is 18 months, or 1 year and 6
months, from Nov 16, 1999. This is strangely a long period for loans of this nature. Clearly, this is a
non-existent transaction. It was merely concocted by Respondent.
More importantly, and this is where Respondent commits his fatal blunder thus exposing his illegal
machinations, Complainant allegedly received P100k in cash on Nov 16, 1999 for which Complainant
gave Respondent, in return, checks also amounting to P100,000.00. The checks were supposedly
dated May 16, 2001, May 30, 2001 and June 15, 2001 x x x.
Now then, would not Respondent suffer a financial loss if he gave away P100,000.00 on Nov 16, 1999
and then also receive P100,000.00 on May 16, 2001 or 1 year and 6 months later? A person engaged in
lending business would want to earn interest. The same also with a person re-discounting checks. In this
instance, in his haste to concoct a story, Respondent forgot to factor in the interest. At 20% interest,
assuming that it is per annum, for 1' years, Respondent should have collected from Complainant at
least P130,000.00. And yet the checks he filled up totaled only P100,000.00. The same is true in re-
discounting a check. If Complainant gave Respondent P100,000.00 in checks, Respondent should be
giving Complainant an amount less than P100,000.00. This exposes his story as a fabrication. The same
observations can be made of the first loan of P100k secured by Check Nos. 0047261 and 0047262.x x x
We take note further that Complainant is a mere mail sorter earning less than P6,000.00 per month.
Who would lend P200k to an employee earning such a salary, nowadays, and not even secure such a
loan with a written document or a collateral? It defies realities of finance, economy and business. It
even defies common sense. Commissioner Funa also took note that the instant case had practically the
same set of facts as in Olbes v. Deciembre21 and Acosta v. Deciembre.22 In Olbes, complainants therein,
who were also postal employees.
The IBP Board of Governors issued a resolution adopting Commissoner Funa's Report, with modification:
“finding Respondent's gross misconduct and for practically found guilty of committing the same set of
facts alleged in AC 5365, Atty. Deciembre is hereby SUSPENDED INDEFINITELY from the practice of law
to be served successively after the lifting of Respondent's Indefinite Suspension.
The IBP elevated to this Court the entire records of the case for appropriate action. The Court agrees
with the findings of the IBP, but finds that disbarment and not just indefinite suspension is in order. The
fact that there is no attorney-client relationship in this case and the transactions entered into by
respondent were done in his private capacity cannot shield respondent, as a lawyer, from liability.
A lawyer may be disciplined for acts committed even in his private capacity for acts which tend to bring
reproach on the legal profession or to injure it in the favorable opinion of the public. There is no
distinction on whether the transgression is committed in a lawyer's private life or professional capacity,
for a lawyer may not divide his personality as an attorney at one time and a mere citizen at another.
In this case, evidence abounds that respondent has failed to live up to the standards required of
members of the legal profession. Specifically, respondent has transgressed provisions of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, to wit:
CANON 1 - A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for
law and legal processes.
Rule 1.01. - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.x x x
CANON 7 - A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and support
the activities of the integrated bar. x x x
Rule 7.03. A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor
should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal
profession.
Agree with IBP Investigating Commissioner Funa. Considering these circumstances and the sequence of
dates when respondent filed his criminal cases against complainant, and complainant her disbarment
case against respondent, what truly appears more believable is complainant's claim that respondent
was merely utilizing the blank checks, filling them up, and using them as bases for criminal cases in order
to harass complainant.
The Court also notes that the checks being refuted by complainant, dated Jan 15 and 20, 2000, May
16, 2001, May 30, 2001 and June 15, 2001 had its dates, amounts and payee's name all typewritten,
while the blanks on the check for P16k dated March 30, 1999 which complainant used to pay part
of her original loan, were all filled up in her handwriting.
Respondent's offenses are manifold. First, he demands excessive payments from his borrowers;
then he fills up his borrowers' blank checks with fictitious amounts, falsifying commercial documents
for his material gain; and then he uses said checks as bases for filing unfounded criminal suits against
his borrowers in order to harass them. Such acts manifest respondent's perversity of character,
meriting his severance from the legal profession.
WHEREFORE, Deciembre is found GUILTY of GROSS MISCONDUCT and VIOLATION of Canon 1, Rule
1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is DISBARRED from the
practice of law and his name is ordered stricken off the Roll of Attorneys effective immediately. SO
ORDERED.
Bernardo v. Mejia
NACHURA, J.: Petition for review of Admin Case No. 2984 with plea for reinstatement in the practice
of law filed by Ismael F. Mejia (Mejia) who is already 71 years old and barred from the practice of
law for 15 years.
The antecedent facts that led to Mejia’s disbarment are as follows.
Bernardo, Jr. accused his retained attorney Ismael F. Mejia, of the ff. administrative offenses:
1) misappropriating and converting to his personal use:
a) part of the sum of ₱27,710.00 entrusted to him for payment of real estate taxes on
property belonging to Bernardo, situated in a subdivision known as Valle Verde I; and
b) part of another sum of ₱40,000.00 entrusted to him for payment of taxes and
expenses in connection with the registration of title of Bernardo to another property in
a subdivision known as Valle Verde V;
2) falsification of certain documents, to wit:
a) a special power of attorney purportedly executed in his favor by Bernardo;
b) a deed of sale dated October 22, 1982; and
c) a deed of assignment purportedly executed by the spouses Tomas and Remedios
Pastor, in Bernardo’s favor;
3) issuing a check, knowing that he was without funds in the bank, in payment of a loan obtained
from Bernardo in the amount of ₱50,000.00, and thereafter, replacing said check with others
known also to be insufficiently funded.1
The SC rendered a Decision Per Curiam: Atty. Ismael F. Mejia, guilty of all the charges against him.
Penalty of DISBARMENT. Atty. Ismael F. Mejia is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law.
Mejia filed a Petition praying that he be allowed to reengage in the practice of law. SC denied.
Whether the applicant shall be reinstated in the Roll of Attorneys rests to a great extent on the
sound discretion of the Court..
In the petition, Mejia acknowledged his indiscretions in the law profession. Fifteen years had already
elapsed since Mejia’s name was dropped from the Roll of Attorneys. At the age of 71, he is begging
for forgiveness and pleading for reinstatement. According to him, he has long repented and he has
suffered enough. Through his reinstatement, he wants to leave a legacy to his children and redeem
the indignity that they have suffered due to his disbarment.
After his disbarment, he put up the Mejia Law Journal, a publication containing his religious and social
writings. He also organized a religious organization and named it "El Cristo Movement and Crusade on
Miracle of Heart and Mind."
The Court is inclined to grant the present petition. Although the Court does not lightly take the bases
for Mejia’s disbarment, it also cannot close its eyes to the fact that Mejia aged. While the age of the
petitioner and the length of time during which he has endured the ignominy of disbarment are not the
sole measure in allowing a petition for reinstatement, the Court takes cognizance of the rehabilitation
of Mejia. Since his disbarment in 1992, no other transgression has been attributed to him, and he has
shown remorse. Obviously, he has learned his lesson from this experience, and his punishment has
lasted long enough. Thus, while the Court is ever mindful of its duty to discipline its erring officers, it
also knows how to show compassion when the penalty imposed has already served its purpose. After
all, penalties, such as disbarment, are imposed not to punish but to correct offenders. The petition for
reinstatement in the Roll of Attorneys by Ismael F. Mejia is hereby GRANTED. SO ORDERED.
In Re: Supreme Court Resolution dated 28 April 2003 in G.R. Nos. 145817 and 145822 A.C. No. 6332,
April 17, 2012. Per Curiam:
FACTS: Atty. Magdaleno M. Pena filed a complaint against Urban Bank and certain members of its Board
of Directors for recovery of agent’s compensation and attorney’s fees for his services rendered in
evicting the occupants of a bank property in Pasay City.
The RTC ruled in favour of Pena but the bank appealed to CA and motioned to approve a Php 40-million
supersedeas bond for the stay of the execution of the RTC decision pending adjudication of its
appeal in the main case. The court granted the motion and with this, the Urban Bank’s successor in
interest requested not to cancel the bank’s shares that were previously sold at a public auction. Because
of the ensuing disputes, MSCI sought clarification from the court on whether its resolution prohibited
MSCI from transferring Urban Bank’s shares to the winning bidders.
Urban Bank also filed an identical motion for clarification. The court acting on the two motions stated
that its approval of the supersedeas bond suspended the running of the one year period for the Bank
to redeem the properties sold at the auction and prohibited the transfer of Union Bank;s MSCI club
shares to the winning bidders. On December 2002, Pena filed an urgent motion to expunge the bank’s
motion for clarification and recall the Court’s resolution on the ground that he was not furnished a copy
of the motion nor given opportunity to be heard on it.
Pena also filed a motion to inhibit and to resolve his urgent motion enclosing as Annexes B and C
purported photocopies of pages 61-62 of the Court’s supplemental agenda, internal docs that are
engaged as highly confidential. Pena alleged that based on the handwritten notes on the right hand
margin of the supplemental agenda, the Court merely took note of the filing of the motion for
clarification and did not act further on it. However, the resolution which granted the motion had been
falsified.
Bothered by Pena’s allegations, the Court conducted a hearing on where he got the annexes and if they
were authentic. After the hearing, it was believed that the document was indeed a copy of the agenda
but the handwritten notations did not belong to Justice Carpio. Further, Atty. Pena when asked where
ho obtained such documents could not provide the court a proper and justified answer as he only said
that the document was in a sealed envelope and was anonymously mailed to him.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Pena violated the Code of Professional Responsibility
RULING: The court ruled that Atty. Pena has violated several canons namely that of Canon, 8, 10 and
11 for failing to give due respect to the Courts. His conduct, demeanor and language with respect
to his cause of action tend to undermine the integrity and reputation of the judiciary as well as inflict
unfounded accusations against colleagues. The most disconcerting for the Court is his uncanny
ability to obtain confidential and internal court orders and to use them shamelessly in his pleadings
to further his cause. With this, the Court hereby disbars from practicing law Atty. Pena.
Rules of Court
Rule 138, Section 20
Section 20. Duties of attorneys. — It is the duty of an attorney:
(a) To maintain allegiance to the Republic of the PH and to support the Consti and obey the laws of
the Philippines.
(b) To observe and maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers;
(c) To counsel or maintain such actions or proceedings only as appear to him to be just, and such
defenses only as he believes to be honestly debatable under the law.
(d) To employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to him, such means only as are
consistent with truth and honor, and never seek to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an
artifice or false statement of fact or law;
(e) To maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to himself, to preserve the secrets of his
client, and to accept no compensation in connection with his client's business except from him or
with his knowledge and approval;
(f) To abstain from all offensive personality and to advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or
reputation of a party or witness, unless required by the justice of the cause with which he is charged;
(g) Not to encourage either the commencement or the continuance of an action or proceeding, or
delay any man's cause, from any corrupt motive or interest;
(h) Never to reject, for any consideration personal to himself, the cause of the defenseless or
oppressed;
(i) In the defense of a person accused of crime, by all fair and honorable means, regardless of his
personal opinion as to the guilt of the accused, to present every defense that the law permits, to
the end that no person may be deprived of life or liberty, but by due process of law.
Week 2-4 (Letter I)
Phil Const., Section 20, Art XI
ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS
Section 1. Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must, at all times, be
accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency;
act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives
SECTION 8. The Ombudsman and his Deputies shall be natural-born citizens of the PH, and at the
time of their appointment, at least 40 y/o, of recognized probity and independence, & members of
the PH bar, & must not have been candidates for any elective office in the immediately preceding
election. The Ombudsman must have for 10 years or more been a judge or engaged in the practice
of law in the PH.
During their tenure, they shall be subject to the same disqualifications and prohibitions as provided for
in Section 2 of Article IX-A of this Constitution.
Section 14, Art. VI
SECTION 14. No Senator or Member of the House of Reps may personally appear as counsel before any
court of justice or before the Electoral Tribunals, or quasi-judicial and other admin bodies. Neither shall
he, directly or indirectly, be interested financially in any contract with, or in any franchise or special
privilege granted by the Gov’t, or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including any
gov’t-owned or controlled corporation, or its subsidiary, during his term of office. He shall not intervene
in any matter before any office of the Gov’t for his pecuniary benefit or where he may be called upon
to act on account of his office.
Section 13, Art. VII
SECTION 13. The Pres, VP, the Members of the Cabinet, and their deputies or assistants shall not, unless
otherwise provided in this Constitution, hold any other office or employment during their tenure. They
shall not, during said tenure, directly or indirectly, practice any other profession, participate in any
business, or be financially interested in any contract with, or in any franchise, or special privilege granted
by the Gov’t or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including gov’t-owned or controlled
corps or their subsidiaries. They shall strictly avoid conflict of interest in the conduct of their office.
Section 2, Art. IX-A
ARTICLE IX
Constitutional Commissions
A. Common Provisions
SECTION 1. The Constitutional Commissions, which shall be independent, are the Civil Service
Commission, the Commission on Elections, and the Commission on Audit.
SECTION 2. No Member of a Constitutional Commission shall, during his tenure, hold any other office
or employment. Neither shall he engage in the practice of any profession or in the active management
or control of any business which in any way be affected by the functions of his office, nor shall he be
financially interested, directly or indirectly, in any contract with, or in any franchise or privilege granted
by the Govt, any of its subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities, including govt-owned or controlled
corporations or their subsidiaries.
Rules of Court. Section 33, 35
Section 33. Standing in court of person authorized to appear for Govt. — Any official or other person
appointed or designated in accordance with law to appear for the Gov’t of the Philippines shall have all
the rights of a duly authorized member of the bar to appear in any case in which said government has
an interest direct or indirect.
Section 35. Certain attorneys not to practice. — No judge or other official or employee of the superior
courts or of the Office of the Solicitor General, shall engage in private practice as a member of the bar
or give professional advice to clients.
Local Gov’t Code of 1991
Section 90(a) and (b), 481
Section 90. Practice of Profession.
(a) All governors, city and municipal mayors are prohibited from practicing their profession or engaging
in any occupation other than the exercise of their functions as local chief executives.
(b) Sanggunian members may practice their professions, engage in any occupation, or teach in
schools except during session hours: Provided, That sanggunian members who are also members of
the Bar shall not:
(1) Appear as counsel before any court in any civil case wherein a local government unit or
any office, agency, or instrumentality of the government is the adverse party;
(2) Appear as counsel in any criminal case wherein an officer or employee of the national or
local government is accused of an offense committed in relation to his office.
(3) Collect any fee for their appearance in administrative proceedings involving the local
government unit of which he is an official; and
(4) Use property and personnel of the gov’t except when the sanggunian member
concerned is defending the interest of the government.
ARTICLE XI
The Legal Officer
Section 481. Qualifications, Terms, Powers and Duties.
(a) No person shall be appointed legal officer unless he is a citizen of the PH, a resident of the local
gov’t concerned, of good moral character, and a member of the PH Bar. He must have practiced his
profession for at least 5 years in the case of the provincial and city legal officer, and 3 years in the
case of the municipal legal officer.
The term of the legal officer shall be coterminous with that of his appointing authority.
The appointment of legal officer shall be mandatory for the provincial and city govts and optional
for the municipal government.
(b) The legal officer, the chief legal counsel of the local government unit, shall take charge of the
office of legal services and shall:
(1) Formulate measures for the consideration of the sanggunian and provide legal assistance
and support to the governor or mayor, as the case may be, in carrying out the delivery of basic
services and provisions of adequate facilities as provided for under Sec. 17 of this Code;
(2) Develop plans and strategies and upon approval thereof by the governor or mayor, as the
case may be, implement the same, particularly those which have to do with programs and
projects related to legal services which the governor or mayor is empowered to implement
and which the sanggunian is empowered to provide for under this Code;
(3) In addition to the foregoing duties and functions, the legal officer shall:
(i) Represent the local gov’t unit in all civil actions and special proceedings wherein the
local gov’t unit or any official thereof, in his official capacity, is a party: Provided, That, in actions
or proceedings where a component city or municipality is a party adverse to the provincial
government or to another component city or municipality, a special legal officer may be employed
to represent the adverse party;
(ii) When required by the governor, mayor or sanggunian, draft ordinances, contracts,
bonds, leases and other instruments, involving any interest of the local government unit and
provide comments and recommendations on any instrument already drawn;
(iii) Render his opinion in writing on any question of law when requested to do so by the
governor, mayor or sanggunian;
 (iv) Investigate or cause to be investigated any local official or employee for
administrative neglect or misconduct in office, and recommend appropriate action to the
governor, mayor or sanggunian, as the case may be;
(v) Investigate or cause to be investigated any person, firm or corporation holding any
franchise or exercising any public privilege for failure to comply with any term or condition in the
grant of such franchise or privilege, and recommending appropriate action to the governor, mayor
or sanggunian, as the case may be;
(vi) When directed by the governor, mayor, or sanggunian, initiate & prosecute in the
interest of the local government unit concerned any civil action on any bond, lease or other
contract upon any breach or violation thereof; and
(vii) Review and submit recommendations on ordinances approved and execute orders
issued by component units;
(3) Recommend measures to the sanggunian and advise the governor or mayor as the case
may be on all other matters related to upholding the rule of law;
(4) Be in the frontline of protecting human rights and prosecuting any violations thereof,
particularly those which occur during and in the aftermath of man-made or natural disasters
or calamities; and
(5) Exercise such other powers and perform such other duties and functions as may be
prescribed by law or ordinance.
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 910
An Act To Provide For The Retirement Of Justices Of The SC And Of The CA, For The Enforcement Of The
Provisions Hereof By The Gov’t Service Insurance System, And To Repeal Commonwealth Act Numbered
Five Hundred And Thirty-Six
Section 1. When a Justice of the SC or of the CA who has rendered at least 20 years' service either
in the judiciary or in any other branch of the Gov't, or in both, (a) retires for having attained the age
of 70 years, or (b) resigns by reason of his incapacity to discharge the duties of his office, he shall
receive during the residue of his natural life, in the manner hereinafter provided, the salary which
he was receiving at the time of his retirement or resignation. And when a Justice of the SC or of the
CA has attained the age of fifty-seven years and has rendered at least 20-years' service in the Gov’t,
ten or more of which have been continuously rendered as such Justice or as judge of a court of
record, he shall be likewise entitled to retire and receive during the residue of his natural life, in the
manner also hereinafter prescribed, the salary which he was then receiving. It is a condition of the
pension provided for herein that no retiring Justice during the time that he is receiving said pension
shall appear as counsel before any court in any civil case wherein the Gov’t or any subdivision or
instrumentality thereof is the adverse party, or in any criminal case wherein and officer or employee
of the Gov’t is accused of an offense committed in relation to his office, or collect any fee for his
appearance in any administrative proceedings to maintain an interest adverse to the Gov’t, insular,
provincial or municipal, or to any of its legally constituted officers.
CPR, CANON 6 - THESE CANONS SHALL APPLY TO LAWYERS IN GOV’T SERVICES IN THE DISCHARGE
OF THEIR TASKS.
Rule 6.01 - The primary duty of a lawyer engaged in public prosecution is not to convict but to see
that justice is done. The suppression of facts or the concealment of witnesses capable of establishing
the innocence of the accused is highly reprehensible and is cause for disciplinary action.
Rule 6.02 - A lawyer in the government service shall not use his public position to promote or
advance his private interests, nor allow the latter to interfere with his public duties.
Rule 6.03 - A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service, accept engagement or employment
in connection with any matter in which he had intervened while in said service.
Admin Code of 1987
Title III, Chapter 12, Sections 35, 35(7), and 35(8)
SECTION 35. Powers and Functions.—The Office of the Solicitor General shall represent the Gov’t of
the PH, its agencies and instrumentalities and its officials and agents in any litigation, proceeding,
investigation or matter requiring the services of a lawyer. When authorized by the President or head
of the office concerned, it shall also represent government-owned or controlled corporations. The
OSG shall constitute the law office of the Gov’t and, as such, shall discharge duties requiring the
services of a lawyer. It shall have the following specific powers and functions:
(1) Represent the Gov’t in the SC and the CA in all criminal proceedings; represent the
Government and its officers in the SC, the CA, and all other courts or tribunals in all civil actions and
special proceedings in which the Government or any officer thereof in his official capacity is a party.
(2) Investigate, initiate court action, or in any manner proceed against any person,
corporation or firm for the enforcement of any contract, bond, guarantee, mortgage, pledge or
other collateral executed in favor of the Gov’t. Where proceedings are to be conducted outside of
the PH the Solicitor General may employ counsel to assist in the discharge of the aforementioned
responsibilities.
(3) Appear in any court in any action involving the validity of any treaty, law, executive
order or proclamation, rule or regulation when in his judgment his intervention is necessary or when
requested by the Court.
(4) Appear in all proceedings involving the acquisition or loss of Philippine citizenship.
(5) Represent the Government in all land registration and related proceedings. Institute
actions for the reversion to the Government of lands of the public domain and improvements
thereon as well as lands held in violation of the Constitution.
(6) Prepare, upon request of the President or other proper officer of the National
Government, rules and guidelines for government entities governing the preparation of contracts,
making of investments, undertaking of transactions, and drafting of forms or other writings needed
for official use, with the end in view of facilitating their enforcement and insuring that they are
entered into or prepared conformably with law and for the best interests of the public.
(7) Deputize, whenever in the opinion of the Solicitor General the public interest requires,
any provincial or city fiscal to assist him in the performance of any function or discharge of any duty
incumbent upon him, within the jurisdiction of the aforesaid provincial or city fiscal. When so
deputized, the fiscal shall be under the control and supervision of the Solicitor General with regard
to the conduct of the proceedings assigned to the fiscal, and he may be required to render reports
or furnish information regarding the assignment.
(8) Deputize legal officers of government departments, bureaus, agencies and offices to
assist the Solicitor General and appear or represent the Government in cases involving their
respective offices, brought before the courts, and exercise supervision and control over such legal
Officers with respect to such cases.