January 19, 2016

A.C. No. 10912

PAULINA T. YU, Complainant,

vs.
ATTY. BERLIN R. DELA CRUZ, Respondent.

While the lawyer-client relationship was subsisting, respondent lawyer borrowed pieces
of jewelry from complainant and pledged the same with the Citystate Savings Bank, Inc.
for the amount of P29,945.50, as shown in the Promissory Note with Deed of
Pledge.3 Respondent lawyer appropriated the proceeds of the pledge to his personal
use. In order to facilitate the redemption of the said jewelry, respondent lawyer issued to
complainant, Citystate Savings Bank Check No. 0088551, dated August 31, 2011, in the
amount of P34,500.00. Upon presentment, however, complainant was shocked to learn
that the check was dishonored for the reason, "Account Closed. "Complainant
immediately notified respondent lawyer of the dishonor of the check.

Issue: Whether or not respondent violated the Code of Professional Conduct

Ruling

Yes. the complaint stemmed from the use by respondent lawyer of his client's
property. He had, indeed, come into possession of valuable pieces of jewelry which he
presented as security in a contract of pledge. Complainant voluntarily and willingly
delivered her jewelry worth Pl35,000.00 to respondent lawyer who meant to borrow it
and pawn it thereafter. This act alone shows respondent lawyer's blatant disregard of
Rule 16.04. Complainant's acquiescence to the "pawning" of her jewelry becomes
immaterial considering that the CPR is clear in that lawyers are proscribed from
borrowing money or property from clients, unless the latter's interests are fully protected
by the nature of the case or by independent advice. Here, respondent lawyer's act of
borrowing does not constitute an exception. Respondent lawyer used his client's jewelry
in order to obtain, and then appropriate for himself, the proceeds from the pledge. In so
doing, he had abused the trust and confidence reposed upon him by his client.

WHEREFORE, finding respondent Atty. Berlin R. Dela Cruz GUILTY of violating

Canons 1, 16, 17, and Rules 1.01 and 16.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
the Court hereby SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for THREE YEARS with a
STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act would be dealt with more
severely.
 June 6, 2017

A.C. No. 10911

VIRGILIO J. MAPALAD, SR., Complainant

vs.
ATTY. ANSELMO S. ECHANEZ, Respondent

Complainant alleged that in an action for Recovery of Possession and Damages with
Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction docketed as Civil Case No. 1635-1-784 before
the Municipal Trial Court in Santiago City, Isabela, complainant was one of the plaintiffs
while respondent was the defendants' counsel therein. As the said case was decided in
favor of the plaintiffs, respondent filed a Notice of Appeal dated May 22, 2009, in which
respondent indicated his Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) Compliance
No. II-0014038 without indicating the date of issue thereof. On appeal, respondent filed
the appellants' brief, again only indicating his MCLE Compliance Number.

Upon inquiry with the MCLE Office, complainant discovered that respondent had
no MCLE compliance yet. The MCLE Office then issued a Certification dated
September 30, 2009, stating that respondent had not yet complied with his MCLE
requirements for the First Compliance Period (April 15, 2001 to April 14, 2004) and
Second Compliance Period (April 15, 2004 to April 14, 2007).

Should respondent be administratively disciplined based on the allegations in the

complaint and evidence on record?

Ruling:

Yes. Despite such non-compliance, respondent repeatedly indicated a false

MCLE compliance number in his pleadings before the trial courts. In indicating patently
false information in pleadings filed before the courts of law, not only once but four times,
as per records, the respondent acted in manifest bad faith, dishonesty, and deceit. In so
doing, he indeed misled the courts, litigants - his own clients · included - professional
colleagues, and all others who may have relied on such pleadings containing false
information

Respondent's act of filing pleadings that he fully knew to contain false information is a
mockery of the courts, especially this Court, considering that it is this Court that
authored the rules and regulations that the respondent violated.
The Lawyer's Oath in Rule 138, Section 3 of the Rules of Court requires commitment to
obeying laws and legal orders, doing no falsehood, and acting with fidelity to both court
and client, among others, viz.:

I, x x x do solemnly swear that I will maintain allegiance to the Republic of the

Philippines, I will support the Constitution and obey the laws as well as the legal orders
of the duly constituted authorities therein; I will do no falsehood, nor consent to the
doing of any in court; I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false,
or unlawful suit, or give aid nor consent to the same; I will delay no man for money or
malice, and will conduct myself as a lawyer according to the best of my knowledge and
discretion, with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to my clients; and I impose upon
myself these, voluntary obligations without any mental reservation or purpose of
evasion. So help me God. (emphasis supplied)

WHEREFORE, respondent Anselmo S. Echanez is hereby DISBARRED from the

practice of law, and his name is ORDERED STRICKEN FROM THE ROLL OF
ATTORNEYS. Let a copy of this Decision be entered in his record as a member of the
Bar; and let notice of the same be served on the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and
on the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts in the country.