Case Digest: Presiding Judge Jose L.

Madrid, Regional Trial Court, Branch 51, Sorsogon City,

Complainant, v. Atty. Juan S. Dealca, Respondent | A.C. No. 7474, 9 September 2014

Presiding Judge Jose L. Madrid, Regional Trial Court, Branch 51, Sorsogon City, Complainant, v. Atty.
Juan S. Dealca, Respondent
A.C. No. 7474, 9 September 2014

FACTS:

The complainant hired the services of Atty. Juan S. Dealca as his counsel in collaboration with Atty.
Ronando L. Gerona in a pending case docketed at the Court of Appeals wherein the complainant was the
plaintiff-appellant.

The parties agreed upon PhP 15,000.00 as attorney’s fees with the following breakdown: 50% payable
upon acceptance of the case; and the remaining balance upon termination of the case. Complainant
paid the respondent PhP 7,500.00.

Prior to preparing the appellant’s brief, respondent demanded payment of PhP 4,000.00. The
complainant obliged though it was contrary to the original agreement.

Before filing the appellant's brief, respondent demanded payment of the balance amounting to PhP
3,500.00. When complainant was unable to do so, respondent withdraw his appearance as complaint’s
counsel without informing the complainant.

Thus, the complainant charged the respondent with misconduct and praying the respondent be “sternly
dealt with administratively.”

ISSUE:
Whether respondent committed misconduct and violated the provisions of the Code of Professional
Responsibility (CPR).

HELD:
The Supreme Court find the respondent violated Canon 22 of the CPR for withdrawing from the
complainant’s case without a good cause. Respondent also violated Rule 20.4, Canon 20 of the CPR for
demanding full payment before submission of the complainant-appellant’s brief even though they have
an agreement that final payment will be given upon termination of the case.

The Supreme Court reprimanded the respondent.

PATROCINIA H. SALABAO v. ATTY. ANDRES C. VILLARUEL, AC. No. 8084,
2015-08-24
FACTS:
Complainant narrates that in 1995 she filed a case against Elmer Lumberio for
his deceitful or fraudulent conduct of taking her precious real property situated
in Taguig City. After hearing, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 162, Pasig
City issued its resolution... in her favor in 2002.
Respondent then entered the picture as counsel for Lumberio. From then on,
Complainant complained that Respondent had made her suffer because of his
abuse of processes and disregard for her rights as a litigant.
In his Report and Recommendation, the Investigating Commissioner found at
respondent "relentlessly filed petitions and appeals in order to exhaust all
possible remedies to obtain relief for his client"... which he considered as
tantamount to "abusive and a... spiteful effort to delay the execution of
Judgment."
He thus recommended that respondent be meted out the penalty of suspension
for four months.
ISSUES:
Atty. Andres C. Villaruel, Jr. (respondent) for abuse of court processes in
violation of Canons  10 and  12 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
RULING:
While it is true that lawyers owe "entire devotion" to the cause of their clients,...
it cannot be emphasized enough that their first and primary duty is "not to the
client but to the administration of justice."
Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that "A lawyer shall
exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient
administration of justice."
Thus, in the use of Court processes, the lawyer's zeal to win must be... tempered
by the paramount consideration that justice be done to all parties involved, and
the la|wyer for the losing party should not stand in the way of the execution of a
valid judgment.
The Lawyer's Oath:... x x x I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any
groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor 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 x x x (Emphasis supplied)
Because a lawyer is an officer of the court called upon to assist in the
administration of justice, any act of a lawyer that obstructs, perverts, or
impedes the administration of justice constitutes misconduct and justifies
disciplinary action against him.[
From the nature and sheer number of motions and cases filed, it is clear that
respondent's intention was to delay the execution of the final judgment.
But even assuming for the sake of argument that respondent was only doing his
duty as a lawyer to exhaust all legal remedies to protect the interest of his
client, his other actions belie his claim of good faith. Respondent filed a civil
case for damages with the Regional Trial
Court of Mauban, Quezon in what was clearly a case of forum-shopping.
Moreover, respondent filed three Motions to Inhibit against the three judges
hearing these cases, and even a motion to cite the sheriff in contempt of court
who was simply carrying out his duty to execute the... decision.
It is quite clear that respondent has made a mockery of the judicial process by
abusing Court processes, employing dilatory tactics to frustrate the execution of
a final judgment, and feigning ignorance of Ms duties as an officer of the court.
He has breached his sworn duty to... assist in the speedy and efficient
administration of justice, and violated the Lawyer's Oath, Rules 10.03 and 12.04
of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and Rule 138, Sec. 20 (c) and (g) of
the Rules of Court. In so doing, he is administratively liable for his... actions.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent Atty. Andres C. Villaruel, Jr. is
hereby found GUILTY of violation of the Lawyer's Oath and Rules 10.03 and
12.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is hereby suspended from
the practice of law for a period of... eighteen (18) months.
SO ORDERED.
Principles:
The Lawyer's Oath:... x x x I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any
groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor 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 x x x (Emphasis supplied)
ALEX NULADA v. ATTY. ORLANDO S. PAULMA, AC. No. 8172, 2016-04-
12
FACTS:
Complainant alleged that on September 30, 2005, respondent issued in his favor
a check in the amount of P650,000.00 as payment for the latter's debt.
Because of respondent's standing as a respected member of the community and
his being a member of the Sangguniang Bayan of the Municipality of Miagao,[2]
Province of Iloilo, complainant accepted the check without question.
it was dishonored due to insufficient fluids.
Respondent failed to make good the amount of the check despite notice of
dishonor and repeated demands, prompting complainant to file a criminal
complaint for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang (BP) 22... the Office of the
Provincial Prosecutor... issued a Resolution... recommending the filing of the
appropriate information against respondent before the Municipal Trial Court of
Miagao, Province of Iloilo (MTC).
the MTC rendered a Decision... finding respondent guilty of violation of BP 22
and ordering him to pay the amount of P150,000.00 as fine, with subsidiary
imprisonment in case of failure to pay. Furthermore, he was ordered to pay: (1)
the sum of P650,000.00 representing the amount of the check with interest
pegged at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum computed from the time
of the filing of the complaint; (2) filing fees in the amount of P10,000.00; and (3)
attorney's fees in the amount of P20,000.00 plus appearance fees of P1,500.00
per hearing.
the RTC affirmed in toto the MTC ruling.
became final and executory.
Prior to the promulgation of the RTC Decision, or on February 12, 2009,
complainant filed this administrative complaint before the Court, through the
Office of the Bar Confidant.
respondent denied that he committed dishonesty against complainant, as prior
to September 30, 2005, he informed the latter that there were insufficient funds
to cover the amount of the check.
he merely issued the check in order to accommodate a friend in whose favor he
obtained the loan, stressing that he did not personally benefit from the proceeds
thereof.
said friend had died and respondent had no means by which to pay for the
amount of the check.
the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD)... recommending that respondent be
suspended from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months for violation of
the lawyer's oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), as well as
for having been found guilty of a crime involving moral turpitude.
violation of BP 22, involved moral turpitude, and that he violated his lawyer's
oath and the CPR when he committed the said offense.
the IBP Board of Governors... adopting and approving with modification...
suspending respondent from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years for
having violated the lawyer's oath and the CPR
, as well as for having been found guilty of a crime involving moral turpitude.
ISSUES:
The issue advanced for the Court's resolution is whether or not respondent
should be administratively disciplined for having been found guilty of a crime
involving moral turpitude.
RULING:
The Court sustains the findings and conclusions of the CBD of the IBP, as
approved, adopted, and modified by the IBP Board of Governors.
In Enriquez v. De Vera,[28] the Court discussed the purpose and nature of a
violation of BP 22 in relation to an administrative case against a lawyer, as in
this case, to wit:[BP] 22 has been enacted in order to safeguard the interest of
the banking system and the legitimate public checking account users. The
gravamen of the offense defined and punished by [BP] 22 [x x x] is the act of
making and issuing a worthless check, or any check that is dishonored upon its
presentment for payment and putting it in circulation; the law is designed to
prohibit and altogether eliminate the deleterious and pernicious practice of
issuing checks with insufficient funds, or with no credit, because the practice is
deemed a public nuisance, a crime against public order to be abated.x x x
xBeing a lawyer, respondent was well aware of the objectives and coverage of
[BP] 22. If he did not, he was nonetheless presumed to know them, for the law
was penal in character and application. His issuance of the unfunded check
involved herein knowingly violated [BP] 22, and exhibited his indifference
towards the pernicious effect of his illegal act to public interest and public order.
He thereby swept aside his Lawyer's Oath that enjoined him to support the
Constitution and obey the laws.
Clearly, the issuance of worthless checks in violation of BP Blg. 22 indicates a
lawyer's unfitness for the trust and confidence reposed on him, shows such lack
of personal honesty and good moral character as to render him unworthy of
public confidence, and constitutes a ground for disciplinary action.
respondent's conviction for violation of BP 22, a crime involving moral turpitude,
had been indubitably established. Such conviction has, in fact, already become
final. Consequently, respondent violated the lawyer's oath, as well as Rule 1.01,
Canon 1 of the CPR, as aptly found by the IBP and, thus, must be subjected to
disciplinary action.
Accordingly, and in view of the foregoing instances when the erring lawyer was
suspended for a period of two (2) years for the same violation, the Court finds it
appropriate to mete the same penalty to respondent in this case.
respondent Atty. Orlando S. Paulma is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of
law for a period of two (2) years, effective upon his receipt of this Resolution. He
is warned that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more
severely.
JUTTA KRURSEL v. ATTY. LORENZA A. ABION, AC. No. 5951, 2016-07-
12
FACTS:
In a verified Complaint,[1] filed on January 23, 2003, complainant Jutta Krursel, a
German national, charges respondent Atty. Lorenza A. Abion with forgery,
swindling, and falsification of a public document. She asks that respondent be
disbarred.[2]
Complainant alleges that she engaged the services of respondent to assist her
in filing a case against Robinsons Savings Bank - Ermita Branch land its officers,
in relation to the bank's illegal withholding/blocking of her account.[3]
In March 2002, respondent filed, on complainant's behalf, a complaint against
Robinsons Savings Bank and its officers before the Monetary Board I of the
Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas for "Conducting Business in an Unsafe and Unsound
Manner in violation of Republic Act No. 8791[.]"
Without complainant's knowledge, respondent withdrew the complaint with
prejudice through a letter[5] dated April 15, 2002 addressed to I the Monetary
Board. Complainant claims that respondent forged her signature and that of a
certain William Randeli Coleman (Coleman) in the letter.[6] She adds that she
never authorized nor acceded to... respondent's withdrawal of the complaint.[7]
Complainant was further surprised to discover two (2) Special Powers of
Attorney dated March 7, 2002[8] and March 24, 2002,[9] which appear to have
her and Coleman's signature as principals.
Again, complainant claims that the signatures were forged.[11] She denies ever
having executed a special power of attorney for responden
Complainant further alleges that on March 24, 2002, respondent filed before this
Court a Complaint for "Writ of Preliminary Prohibitive and Mandatory Injunction
with Damages[.]"[13] For such services, respondent demanded and received the
following amounts on May 7, 2002:
Respondent failed to account for these amounts despite complainant's demands
for a receipt.[15]
Instead of providing a receipt for the amounts received, respondent allegedly
presented complainant a document purporting to be an Order[17] dated May 10,
2002 from... this Court's First Division, resolving the case' in complainant's
favor. The Order was purportedly signed by Atty. Virginia; R. Soriano, "Division
Clerk of the First Division of the Supreme Court.
Atty. Soriano replied[21] denying the signature as hers. She stated that the
Order did not even follow this Court's format, and that, on the contrary, the case
had been dismissed.[22
Finally, complainant alleges that in April 2002, while she was sick and in the
hospital, respondent asked for complainant's German passportj to secure its
renewal from the German Embassy.[23] For this service, respondent asked for
the total... amount of P440,000.00 to cover the
These sums were allegedly not properly accounted for despite complainant's
demand.[25] Respondent eventually presented a purportedly renewed German
passport, which complainant rejected because it was obviously fake.[26]
Complainant later found out that her original German passport was in the
possession of Robinsons Savings Bank.[27]
Complainant avers that respondent's malicious acts warrant her removal from
the roster of lawyers.[28] She adds that she and Coleman filed before the Office
of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City a criminal Complaint[29] against
respondent for the unlawful acts committed against them.[30]
In the Resolution[31] dated February 24, 2003, this Court required respondent
to file her comment.
However, these were returned unserved with the notations "Unclaimed," "Party
Moved Out," "Moved Out," and "Party in Manila."[32] This Court requested the
assistance of the National Bureau of Investigation, but respondent could still not
be found.[33]... referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for
investigation, report, and recommendation.
On March 14, 2012, the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines directed both parties to appear for mandatory conference.[35]
However, copies of the Notice of Mandatory Conference were returned unserved
as both parties were stated to have "moved out."[36]
Investigating Commissioner Peter Irving C. Corvera recommended that
respondent be disbarred for fabricating and forging Special Powers of Attorney
and an order from this Court, coupled with her exaction of money from
complainant without receipt or accounting despite demands.[39
These acts are in culpable violation of Canon 1; Rule 1.01; Canon 16, Rule
16.01; and Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.[40]... adopted
and approved the findings and recommendations
ISSUES:
The issue for resolution is whether respondent should be disbarred for
committing forgery, falsification, and swindling.
RULING:
WHEREFORE, this Court finds respondent Arty. Lorenza A. Abion GUILTY of gross
misconduct in violation of the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional
Responsibility. She is hereby DISBARRED from the practice of law. The Office of
the Bar Confidant is DIRECTED to remove the name of Lorenza A. Abion from the
Roll of Attorneys.