Legal Ethics
Legal Ethics
integrated bar, and legal assistance to the shall have the power to promulgate rules concerning the admission
CHED merely: in the conduct of litigation, but embraces the preparation of pleadings,
in his office. It is of importance to the welfare of the public that these therefore, lawyers who are employed in COA now would have the
manifold customary functions be performed by persons possessed of
Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea
LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
necessary qualifications in accordance with the Provision on as the planner, the diagnostician and the trial lawyer, the surgeon. I[t]
qualifications under our provisions on the Commission on Audit. And, need not [be] stress[ed] that in law, as in medicine, surgery should be
therefore, the answer is yes. avoided where internal medicine can be effective." (Business Star,
MR. OPLE. Yes. So that the construction given to this is that this is "Corporate Finance Law," Jan. 11, 1989, p. 4).
equivalent to the practice of law. In the course of a working day the average general practitioner will
MR. FOZ. Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer. engage in a number of legal tasks, each involving different legal
MR. OPLE. Thank you. doctrines, legal skills, legal processes, legal institutions, clients, and
... ( Emphasis supplied) other interested parties. Even the increasing numbers of lawyers in
Section 1(1), Article IX-D of the 1987 Constitution, provides, among specialized practice will usually perform at least some legal services
others, that the Chairman and two Commissioners of the Commission on outside their specialty. And even within a narrow specialty such as tax
Audit (COA) should either be certified public accountants with not less practice, a lawyer will shift from one legal task or role such as advice-
than ten years of auditing practice, or members of the Philippine Bar who giving to an importantly different one such as representing a client before
have been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years. an administrative agency. (Wolfram, supra, p. 687).
(emphasis supplied) By no means will most of this work involve litigation, unless the lawyer is
Corollary to this is the term "private practitioner" and which is in many one of the relatively rare types a litigator who specializes in this work to
ways synonymous with the word "lawyer." Today, although many the exclusion of much else. Instead, the work will require the lawyer to
lawyers do not engage in private practice, it is still a fact that the majority have mastered the full range of traditional lawyer skills of client
of lawyers are private practitioners. (Gary Munneke, Opportunities in counselling, advice-giving, document drafting, and negotiation. And
Law Careers [VGM Career Horizons: Illinois], [1986], p. 15). increasingly lawyers find that the new skills of evaluation and mediation
At this point, it might be helpful to define private practice. The term, as are both effective for many clients and a source of employment. (Ibid.).
commonly understood, means "an individual or organization engaged in Most lawyers will engage in non-litigation legal work or in litigation work
the business of delivering legal services." (Ibid.). Lawyers who practice that is constrained in very important ways, at least theoretically, so as to
alone are often called "sole practitioners." Groups of lawyers are called remove from it some of the salient features of adversarial litigation. Of
"firms." The firm is usually a partnership and members of the firm are the these special roles, the most prominent is that of prosecutor. In some
partners. Some firms may be organized as professional corporations and lawyers' work the constraints are imposed both by the nature of the client
the members called shareholders. In either case, the members of the and by the way in which the lawyer is organized into a social unit to
firm are the experienced attorneys. In most firms, there are younger or perform that work. The most common of these roles are those of
more inexperienced salaried attorneys called "associates." (Ibid.). corporate practice and government legal service. (Ibid.).
The test that defines law practice by looking to traditional areas of law In several issues of the Business Star, a business daily, herein below
practice is essentially tautologous, unhelpful in defining the practice of quoted are emerging trends in corporate law practice, a departure from
law as that which lawyers do. (Charles W. Wolfram, Modern Legal Ethics the traditional concept of practice of law.
[West Publishing Co.: Minnesota, 1986], p. 593). The practice of law is We are experiencing today what truly may be called a revolutionary
defined as the performance of any acts . . . in or out of court, commonly transformation in corporate law practice. Lawyers and other professional
understood to be the practice of law. (State Bar Ass'n v. Connecticut groups, in particular those members participating in various legal-policy
Bank & Trust Co., 145 Conn. 222, 140 A.2d 863, 870 [1958] [quoting decisional contexts, are finding that understanding the major emerging
Grievance Comm. v. Payne, 128 Conn. 325, 22 A.2d 623, 626 [1941]). trends in corporation law is indispensable to intelligent decision-making.
Because lawyers perform almost every function known in the commercial Constructive adjustment to major corporate problems of today requires
and governmental realm, such a definition would obviously be too global an accurate understanding of the nature and implications of the
to be workable.(Wolfram, op. cit.). corporate law research function accompanied by an accelerating rate of
The appearance of a lawyer in litigation in behalf of a client is at once the information accumulation. The recognition of the need for such improved
most publicly familiar role for lawyers as well as an uncommon role for corporate legal policy formulation, particularly "model-making" and
the average lawyer. Most lawyers spend little time in courtrooms, and a "contingency planning," has impressed upon us the inadequacy of
large percentage spend their entire practice without litigating a case. traditional procedures in many decisional contexts.
(Ibid., p. 593). Nonetheless, many lawyers do continue to litigate and the In a complex legal problem the mass of information to be processed, the
litigating lawyer's role colors much of both the public image and the self sorting and weighing of significant conditional factors, the appraisal of
perception of the legal profession. (Ibid.). major trends, the necessity of estimating the consequences of given
In this regard thus, the dominance of litigation in the public mind reflects courses of action, and the need for fast decision and response in
history, not reality. (Ibid.). Why is this so? Recall that the late Alexander situations of acute danger have prompted the use of sophisticated
SyCip, a corporate lawyer, once articulated on the importance of a lawyer concepts of information flow theory, operational analysis, automatic data
as a business counselor in this wise: "Even today, there are still processing, and electronic computing equipment. Understandably, an
uninformed laymen whose concept of an attorney is one who principally improved decisional structure must stress the predictive component of
tries cases before the courts. The members of the bench and bar and the policy-making process, wherein a "model", of the decisional context
the informed laymen such as businessmen, know that in most developed or a segment thereof is developed to test projected alternative courses
societies today, substantially more legal work is transacted in law offices of action in terms of futuristic effects flowing therefrom.
than in the courtrooms. General practitioners of law who do both litigation Although members of the legal profession are regularly engaged in
and non-litigation work also know that in most cases they find themselves predicting and projecting the trends of the law, the subject of corporate
Page 5
spending more time doing what [is] loosely desccribe[d] as business finance law has received relatively little organized and formalized
counseling than in trying cases. The business lawyer has been described attention in the philosophy of advancing corporate legal education.
Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea
LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
Nonetheless, a cross-disciplinary approach to legal research has lawyer is one who surmounts them." (Business Star, "Corporate Finance
become a vital necessity. Law," Jan. 11, 1989, p. 4).
Certainly, the general orientation for productive contributions by those Today, the study of corporate law practice direly needs a "shot in the
trained primarily in the law can be improved through an early introduction arm," so to speak. No longer are we talking of the traditional law teaching
to multi-variable decisional context and the various approaches for method of confining the subject study to the Corporation Code and the
handling such problems. Lawyers, particularly with either a master's or Securities Code but an incursion as well into the intertwining modern
doctorate degree in business administration or management, functioning management issues.
at the legal policy level of decision-making now have some appreciation Such corporate legal management issues deal primarily with three (3)
for the concepts and analytical techniques of other professions which are types of learning: (1) acquisition of insights into current advances which
currently engaged in similar types of complex decision-making. are of particular significance to the corporate counsel; (2) an introduction
Truth to tell, many situations involving corporate finance problems would to usable disciplinary skins applicable to a corporate counsel's
require the services of an astute attorney because of the complex legal management responsibilities; and (3) a devotion to the organization and
implications that arise from each and every necessary step in securing management of the legal function itself.
and maintaining the business issue raised. (Business Star, "Corporate These three subject areas may be thought of as intersecting circles, with
Finance Law," Jan. 11, 1989, p. 4). a shared area linking them. Otherwise known as "intersecting managerial
In our litigation-prone country, a corporate lawyer is assiduously referred jurisprudence," it forms a unifying theme for the corporate counsel's total
to as the "abogado de campanilla." He is the "big-time" lawyer, earning learning.
big money and with a clientele composed of the tycoons and magnates Some current advances in behavior and policy sciences affect the
of business and industry. counsel's role. For that matter, the corporate lawyer reviews the
Despite the growing number of corporate lawyers, many people could globalization process, including the resulting strategic repositioning that
not explain what it is that a corporate lawyer does. For one, the number the firms he provides counsel for are required to make, and the need to
of attorneys employed by a single corporation will vary with the size and think about a corporation's; strategy at multiple levels. The salience of
type of the corporation. Many smaller and some large corporations farm the nation-state is being reduced as firms deal both with global
out all their legal problems to private law firms. Many others have in- multinational entities and simultaneously with sub-national governmental
house counsel only for certain matters. Other corporation have a staff units. Firms increasingly collaborate not only with public entities but with
large enough to handle most legal problems in-house. each other often with those who are competitors in other arenas.
A corporate lawyer, for all intents and purposes, is a lawyer who handles Also, the nature of the lawyer's participation in decision-making within
the legal affairs of a corporation. His areas of concern or jurisdiction may the corporation is rapidly changing. The modem corporate lawyer has
include, inter alia: corporate legal research, tax laws research, acting out gained a new role as a stakeholder in some cases participating in the
as corporate secretary (in board meetings), appearances in both courts organization and operations of governance through participation on
and other adjudicatory agencies (including the Securities and Exchange boards and other decision-making roles. Often these new patterns
Commission), and in other capacities which require an ability to deal with develop alongside existing legal institutions and laws are perceived as
the law. barriers. These trends are complicated as corporations organize for
At any rate, a corporate lawyer may assume responsibilities other than global operations. ( Emphasis supplied)
the legal affairs of the business of the corporation he is representing. The practising lawyer of today is familiar as well with governmental
These include such matters as determining policy and becoming policies toward the promotion and management of technology. New
involved in management. ( Emphasis supplied.) collaborative arrangements for promoting specific technologies or
In a big company, for example, one may have a feeling of being isolated competitiveness more generally require approaches from industry that
from the action, or not understanding how one's work actually fits into the differ from older, more adversarial relationships and traditional forms of
work of the orgarnization. This can be frustrating to someone who needs seeking to influence governmental policies. And there are lessons to be
to see the results of his work first hand. In short, a corporate lawyer is learned from other countries. In Europe, Esprit, Eureka and Race are
sometimes offered this fortune to be more closely involved in the running examples of collaborative efforts between governmental and business
of the business. Japan's MITI is world famous. (Emphasis supplied)
Moreover, a corporate lawyer's services may sometimes be engaged by Following the concept of boundary spanning, the office of the Corporate
a multinational corporation (MNC). Some large MNCs provide one of the Counsel comprises a distinct group within the managerial structure of all
few opportunities available to corporate lawyers to enter the international kinds of organizations. Effectiveness of both long-term and temporary
law field. After all, international law is practiced in a relatively small groups within organizations has been found to be related to indentifiable
number of companies and law firms. Because working in a foreign factors in the group-context interaction such as the groups actively
country is perceived by many as glamorous, tills is an area coveted by revising their knowledge of the environment coordinating work with
corporate lawyers. In most cases, however, the overseas jobs go to outsiders, promoting team achievements within the organization. In
experienced attorneys while the younger attorneys do their "international general, such external activities are better predictors of team
practice" in law libraries. (Business Star, "Corporate Law Practice," May performance than internal group processes.
25,1990, p. 4). In a crisis situation, the legal managerial capabilities of the corporate
This brings us to the inevitable, i.e., the role of the lawyer in the realm of lawyer vis-a-vis the managerial mettle of corporations are challenged.
finance. To borrow the lines of Harvard-educated lawyer Bruce Current research is seeking ways both to anticipate effective managerial
Wassertein, to wit: "A bad lawyer is one who fails to spot problems, a procedures and to understand relationships of financial liability and
Page 6
good lawyer is one who perceives the difficulties, and the excellent insurance considerations. (Emphasis supplied)
work. Yet, many would admit to ignorance of vast tracts of the financial that arise during a negotiation. Besides top officials of the Borrower
concerned, there are the legal officer (such as the legal counsel), the
Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea
LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
finance manager, and an operations officer (such as an official involved Appointment is an essentially discretionary power and must be
in negotiating the contracts) who comprise the members of the team. performed by the officer in which it is vested according to his best lights,
(Guillermo V. Soliven, "Loan Negotiating Strategies for Developing the only condition being that the appointee should possess the
Country Borrowers," Staff Paper No. 2, Central Bank of the Philippines, qualifications required by law. If he does, then the appointment cannot
Manila, 1982, p. 11). (Emphasis supplied) be faulted on the ground that there are others better qualified who should
After a fashion, the loan agreement is like a country's Constitution; it lays have been preferred. This is a political question involving considerations
down the law as far as the loan transaction is concerned. Thus, the meat of wisdom which only the appointing authority can decide. (emphasis
of any Loan Agreement can be compartmentalized into five (5) supplied)
fundamental parts: (1) business terms; (2) borrower's representation; (3) No less emphatic was the Court in the case of (Central Bank v. Civil
conditions of closing; (4) covenants; and (5) events of default. (Ibid., p. Service Commission, 171 SCRA 744) where it stated:
13). It is well-settled that when the appointee is qualified, as in this case, and
In the same vein, lawyers play an important role in any debt restructuring all the other legal requirements are satisfied, the Commission has no
program. For aside from performing the tasks of legislative drafting and alternative but to attest to the appointment in accordance with the Civil
legal advising, they score national development policies as key factors Service Law. The Commission has no authority to revoke an
in maintaining their countries' sovereignty. (Condensed from the work appointment on the ground that another person is more qualified for a
paper, entitled "Wanted: Development Lawyers for Developing Nations," particular position. It also has no authority to direct the appointment of a
submitted by L. Michael Hager, regional legal adviser of the United substitute of its choice. To do so would be an encroachment on the
States Agency for International Development, during the Session on Law discretion vested upon the appointing authority. An appointment is
for the Development of Nations at the Abidjan World Conference in Ivory essentially within the discretionary power of whomsoever it is vested,
Coast, sponsored by the World Peace Through Law Center on August subject to the only condition that the appointee should possess the
26-31, 1973). ( Emphasis supplied) qualifications required by law. ( Emphasis supplied)
Loan concessions and compromises, perhaps even more so than purely The appointing process in a regular appointment as in the case at bar,
renegotiation policies, demand expertise in the law of contracts, in consists of four (4) stages: (1) nomination; (2) confirmation by the
legislation and agreement drafting and in renegotiation. Necessarily, a Commission on Appointments; (3) issuance of a commission (in the
sovereign lawyer may work with an international business specialist or Philippines, upon submission by the Commission on Appointments of its
an economist in the formulation of a model loan agreement. Debt certificate of confirmation, the President issues the permanent
restructuring contract agreements contain such a mixture of technical appointment; and (4) acceptance e.g., oath-taking, posting of bond, etc.
language that they should be carefully drafted and signed only with the . . . (Lacson v. Romero, No. L-3081, October 14, 1949; Gonzales, Law
advise of competent counsel in conjunction with the guidance of on Public Officers, p. 200)
adequate technical support personnel. (See International Law Aspects The power of the Commission on Appointments to give its consent to the
of the Philippine External Debts, an unpublished dissertation, U.S.T. nomination of Monsod as Chairman of the Commission on Elections is
Graduate School of Law, 1987, p. 321). ( Emphasis supplied) mandated by Section 1(2) Sub-Article C, Article IX of the Constitution
A critical aspect of sovereign debt restructuring/contract construction is which provides:
the set of terms and conditions which determines the contractual The Chairman and the Commisioners shall be appointed by the
remedies for a failure to perform one or more elements of the contract. President with the consent of the Commission on Appointments for a
A good agreement must not only define the responsibilities of both term of seven years without reappointment. Of those first appointed,
parties, but must also state the recourse open to either party when the three Members shall hold office for seven years, two Members for five
other fails to discharge an obligation. For a complete debt restructuring years, and the last Members for three years, without reappointment.
represents a devotion to that principle which in the ultimate analysis is Appointment to any vacancy shall be only for the unexpired term of the
sine qua non for foreign loan agreements-an adherence to the rule of law predecessor. In no case shall any Member be appointed or designated
in domestic and international affairs of whose kind U.S. Supreme Court in a temporary or acting capacity.
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. once said: "They carry no banners, Anent Justice Teodoro Padilla's separate opinion, suffice it to say that
they beat no drums; but where they are, men learn that bustle and bush his definition of the practice of law is the traditional or stereotyped notion
are not the equal of quiet genius and serene mastery." (See Ricardo J. of law practice, as distinguished from the modern concept of the practice
Romulo, "The Role of Lawyers in Foreign Investments," Integrated Bar of law, which modern connotation is exactly what was intended by the
of the Philippine Journal, Vol. 15, Nos. 3 and 4, Third and Fourth eminent framers of the 1987 Constitution. Moreover, Justice Padilla's
Quarters, 1977, p. 265). definition would require generally a habitual law practice, perhaps
Interpreted in the light of the various definitions of the term Practice of practised two or three times a week and would outlaw say, law practice
law". particularly the modern concept of law practice, and taking into once or twice a year for ten consecutive years. Clearly, this is far from
consideration the liberal construction intended by the framers of the the constitutional intent.
Constitution, Atty. Monsod's past work experiences as a lawyer- Upon the other hand, the separate opinion of Justice Isagani Cruz states
economist, a lawyer-manager, a lawyer-entrepreneur of industry, a that in my written opinion, I made use of a definition of law practice which
lawyer-negotiator of contracts, and a lawyer-legislator of both the rich really means nothing because the definition says that law practice " . . .
and the poor verily more than satisfy the constitutional requirement that is what people ordinarily mean by the practice of law." True I cited the
he has been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years. definition but only by way of sarcasm as evident from my statement that
Besides in the leading case of Luego v. Civil Service Commission, 143 the definition of law practice by "traditional areas of law practice is
Page 8
SCRA 327, the Court said: essentially tautologous" or defining a phrase by means of the phrase
itself that is being defined.
Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea
LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
Justice Cruz goes on to say in substance that since the law covers RUTHIE LIM-SANTIAGO, Complainant,
almost all situations, most individuals, in making use of the law, or in vs.
advising others on what the law means, are actually practicing law. In ATTY. CARLOS B. SAGUCIO, Respondent.
that sense, perhaps, but we should not lose sight of the fact that Mr. DECISION
Monsod is a lawyer, a member of the Philippine Bar, who has been CARPIO, J.:
practicing law for over ten years. This is different from the acts of persons The Case
practicing law, without first becoming lawyers. This is a disbarment complaint against Atty. Carlos B. Sagucio for
Justice Cruz also says that the Supreme Court can even disqualify an violating Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and for
elected President of the Philippines, say, on the ground that he lacks one defying the prohibition against private practice of law while working as
or more qualifications. This matter, I greatly doubt. For one thing, how government prosecutor.
can an action or petition be brought against the President? And even The Facts
assuming that he is indeed disqualified, how can the action be Ruthie Lim-Santiago ("complainant") is the daughter of Alfonso Lim and
entertained since he is the incumbent President? Special Administratrix of his estate. 1Alfonso Lim is a stockholder and the
We now proceed: former President of Taggat Industries, Inc. 2
The Commission on the basis of evidence submitted doling the public Atty. Carlos B. Sagucio ("respondent") was the former Personnel
hearings on Monsod's confirmation, implicitly determined that he Manager and Retained Counsel of Taggat Industries, Inc. 3 until his
possessed the necessary qualifications as required by law. The appointment as Assistant Provincial Prosecutor of Tuguegarao,
judgment rendered by the Commission in the exercise of such an Cagayan in 1992. 4
acknowledged power is beyond judicial interference except only upon a Taggat Industries, Inc. ("Taggat") is a domestic corporation engaged in
clear showing of a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess the operation of timber concessions from the government. The
of jurisdiction. (Art. VIII, Sec. 1 Constitution). Thus, only where such Presidential Commission on Good Government sequestered it sometime
grave abuse of discretion is clearly shown shall the Court interfere with in 1986, 5 and its operations ceased in 1997. 6
the Commission's judgment. In the instant case, there is no occasion for Sometime in July 1997, 21 employees of Taggat ("Taggat employees")
the exercise of the Court's corrective power, since no abuse, much less filed a criminal complaint entitled "Jesus Tagorda, Jr. et al. v. Ruthie Lim-
a grave abuse of discretion, that would amount to lack or excess of Santiago," docketed as I.S. No. 97-240 ("criminal complaint"). 7 Taggat
jurisdiction and would warrant the issuance of the writs prayed, for has employees alleged that complainant, who took over the management
been clearly shown. and control of Taggat after the death of her father, withheld payment of
Additionally, consider the following: their salaries and wages without valid cause from 1 April 1996 to 15 July
(1) If the Commission on Appointments rejects a nominee by the 1997. 8
President, may the Supreme Court reverse the Commission, and thus in Respondent, as Assistant Provincial Prosecutor, was assigned to
effect confirm the appointment? Clearly, the answer is in the negative. conduct the preliminary investigation. 9 He resolved the criminal
(2) In the same vein, may the Court reject the nominee, whom the complaint by recommending the filing of 651 Informations 10 for violation
Commission has confirmed? The answer is likewise clear. of Article 288 11 in relation to Article 116 12 of the Labor Code of the
(3) If the United States Senate (which is the confirming body in the U.S. Philippines. 13
Congress) decides to confirm a Presidential nominee, it would be Complainant now charges respondent with the following violations:
incredible that the U.S. Supreme Court would still reverse the U.S. 1. Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
Senate. Complainant contends that respondent is guilty of representing
Finally, one significant legal maxim is: conflicting interests. Respondent, being the former Personnel Manager
We must interpret not by the letter that killeth, but by the spirit that giveth and Retained Counsel of Taggat, knew the operations of Taggat very
life. well. Respondent should have inhibited himself from hearing,
Take this hypothetical case of Samson and Delilah. Once, the procurator investigating and deciding the case filed by Taggat
of Judea asked Delilah (who was Samson's beloved) for help in capturing employees. 14Furthermore, complainant claims that respondent
Samson. Delilah agreed on condition that instigated the filing of the cases and even harassed and threatened
No blade shall touch his skin; Taggat employees to accede and sign an affidavit to support the
No blood shall flow from his veins. complaint. 15
When Samson (his long hair cut by Delilah) was captured, the procurator 2. Engaging in the private practice of law while working as a government
placed an iron rod burning white-hot two or three inches away from in prosecutor
front of Samson's eyes. This blinded the man. Upon hearing of what had Complainant also contends that respondent is guilty of engaging in the
happened to her beloved, Delilah was beside herself with anger, and private practice of law while working as a government prosecutor.
fuming with righteous fury, accused the procurator of reneging on his Complainant presented evidence to prove that respondent
word. The procurator calmly replied: "Did any blade touch his skin? Did received P10,000 as retainers fee for the months of January and
any blood flow from his veins?" The procurator was clearly relying on the February 1995, 16 another P10,000 for the months of April and May
letter, not the spirit of the agreement. 1995, 17 and P5,000 for the month of April 1996. 18
In view of the foregoing, this petition is hereby DISMISSED. Complainant seeks the disbarment of respondent for violating Rule 15.03
of the Code of Professional Responsibility and for defying the prohibition
A.C. No. 6705 March 31, 2006 against private practice of law while working as government prosecutor.
Page 9
Rodolfo B. Cadelina last 4 January 1999. 34 Hence, the criminal personalities he dealt with as Personnel Manager and Legal Counsel of
complaint was dismissed. 35 Taggat. Respondent dealt with these persons in his fiduciary relations
Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea
LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
with Taggat. Moreover, he was an employee of the corporation and part employment. 49 In essence, what a lawyer owes his former client is to
of its management. maintain inviolate the clients confidence or to refrain from doing anything
xxxx which will injuriously affect him in any matter in which he previously
As to the propriety of receiving "Retainer Fees" or "consultancy fees" represented him. 50
from herein Complainant while being an Assistant Provincial Prosecutor, In the present case, we find no conflict of interests when respondent
and for rendering legal consultancy work while being an Assistant handled the preliminary investigation of the criminal complaint filed by
Provincial Prosecutor, this matter had long been settled. Government Taggat employees in 1997. The issue in the criminal complaint pertains
prosecutors are prohibited to engage in the private practice of law (see to non-payment of wages that occurred from 1 April 1996 to 15 July 1997.
Legal and Judicial Ethics, Ernesto Pineda, 1994 ed., p. 20; People v. Clearly, respondent was no longer connected with Taggat during that
Villanueva, 14 SCRA 109; Aquino v. Blanco 70 Phil. 647). The act of period since he resigned sometime in 1992.
being a legal consultant is a practice of law. To engage in the practice of In order to charge respondent for representing conflicting interests,
law is to do any of those acts that are characteristic of the legal evidence must be presented to prove that respondent used against
profession (In re: David, 93 Phil. 461). It covers any activity, in or out of Taggat, his former client, any confidential information acquired through
court, which required the application of law, legal principles, practice or his previous employment. The only established participation respondent
procedures and calls for legal knowledge, training and experience (PLA had with respect to the criminal complaint is that he was the one who
v. Agrava, 105 Phil. 173; People v. Villanueva, 14 SCRA 111; Cayetano conducted the preliminary investigation. On that basis alone, it does not
v. Monsod, 201 SCRA 210). necessarily follow that respondent used any confidential information from
Respondent clearly violated this prohibition. his previous employment with complainant or Taggat in resolving the
As for the secondary accusations of harassing certain employees of criminal complaint.
Taggat and instigating the filing of criminal complaints, we find the The fact alone that respondent was the former Personnel Manager and
evidence insufficient. Retained Counsel of Taggat and the case he resolved as government
Accordingly, Respondent should be found guilty of conflict of interest, prosecutor was labor-related is not a sufficient basis to charge
failure to safeguard a former clients interest, and violating the prohibition respondent for representing conflicting interests. A lawyers immutable
against the private practice of law while being a government duty to a former client does not cover transactions that occurred beyond
prosecutor. 40 the lawyers employment with the client. The intent of the law is to impose
The IBP Board of Governors forwarded the Report to the Court as upon the lawyer the duty to protect the clients interests only on matters
provided under Section 12(b), Rule 139-B 41 of the Rules of Court. that he previously handled for the former client and not for matters that
The Ruling of the Court arose after the lawyer-client relationship has terminated.
The Court exonerates respondent from the charge of violation of Rule Further, complainant failed to present a single iota of evidence to prove
15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility ("Code"). However, the her allegations. Thus, respondent is not guilty of violating Rule 15.03 of
Court finds respondent liable for violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the the Code.
Code of Professional Responsibility against unlawful Respondent engaged in the private practice of law while working as a
conduct. 42 Respondent committed unlawful conduct when he violated government prosecutor
Section 7(b)(2) of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public The Court has defined the practice of law broadly as
Officials and Employees or Republic Act No. 6713 ("RA 6713"). x x x any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of law,
Canon 6 provides that the Code "shall apply to lawyers in government legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience. "To engage in the
service in the discharge of their official duties." 43 A government lawyer practice of law is to perform those acts which are characteristics of the
is thus bound by the prohibition "not [to] represent conflicting profession. Generally, to practice law is to give notice or render any kind
interests." 44However, this rule is subject to certain limitations. The of service, which device or service requires the use in any degree of legal
prohibition to represent conflicting interests does not apply when no knowledge or skill." 51
conflict of interest exists, when a written consent of all concerned is given "Private practice of law" contemplates a succession of acts of the same
after a full disclosure of the facts or when no true attorney-client nature habitually or customarily holding ones self to the public as a
relationship exists. 45 Moreover, considering the serious consequence of lawyer. 52
the disbarment or suspension of a member of the Bar, clear Respondent argues that he only rendered consultancy services to
preponderant evidence is necessary to justify the imposition of the Taggat intermittently and he was not a retained counsel of Taggat from
administrative penalty. 46 1995 to 1996 as alleged. This argument is without merit because the law
Respondent is also mandated under Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 not to engage does not distinguish between consultancy services and retainer
in "unlawful x x x conduct." Unlawful conduct includes violation of the agreement. For as long as respondent performed acts that are usually
statutory prohibition on a government employee to "engage in the private rendered by lawyers with the use of their legal knowledge, the same falls
practice of [his] profession unless authorized by the Constitution or law, within the ambit of the term "practice of law."
provided, that such practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with [his] Nonetheless, respondent admitted that he rendered his legal services to
official functions." 47 complainant while working as a government prosecutor. Even the
Complainants evidence failed to substantiate the claim that respondent receipts he signed stated that the payments by Taggat were for
represented conflicting interests "Retainers fee." 53 Thus, as correctly pointed out by complainant,
In Quiambao v. Bamba, 48 the Court enumerated various tests to respondent clearly violated the prohibition in RA 6713.
determine conflict of interests. One test of inconsistency of interests is However, violations of RA 6713 are not subject to disciplinary action
Page 11
whether the lawyer will be asked to use against his former client any under the Code of Professional Responsibility unless the violations also
confidential information acquired through their connection or previous constitute infractions of specific provisions of the Code of Professional
Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea
LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
Responsibility. Certainly, the IBP has no jurisdiction to investigate been appointed to the position of Assistant Provincial Fiscal or City Fiscal
violations of RA 6713 the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for and therein qualified, by operation of law, he ceased to engage in private
Public Officials and Employees unless the acts involved also law practice." Counsel then argued that the JP Court in entertaining the
transgress provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility. appearance of City Attorney Fule in the case is a violation of the above
Here, respondents violation of RA 6713 also constitutes a violation of ruling. On December 17, 1960 the JP issued an order sustaining the
Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, which mandates that "[a] lawyer shall not engage legality of the appearance of City Attorney Fule.
in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct." Respondents Under date of January 4, 1961, counsel for the accused presented a
"Motion to Inhibit Fiscal Fule from Acting as Private Prosecutor in this
admission that he received from Taggat fees for legal services while
Case," this time invoking Section 32, Rule 27, now Sec. 35, Rule 138,
serving as a government prosecutor is an unlawful conduct, which
Revised Rules of Court, which bars certain attorneys from practicing.
constitutes a violation of Rule 1.01.
Counsel claims that City Attorney Fule falls under this limitation. The JP
Respondent admitted that complainant also charged him with unlawful Court ruled on the motion by upholding the right of Fule to appear and
conduct when respondent stated in his Demurrer to Evidence: further stating that he (Fule) was not actually enagaged in private law
In this instant case, the complainant prays that the respondent be practice. This Order was appealed to the CFI of Laguna, presided by the
permanently and indefinitely suspended or disbarred from the practice of Hon. Hilarion U. Jarencio, which rendered judgment on December 20,
the law profession and his name removed from the Roll of Attorneys on 1961, the pertinent portions of which read:
the following grounds: The present case is one for malicious mischief. There being no
xxxx reservation by the offended party of the civil liability, the civil action was
d) that respondent manifested gross misconduct and gross violation of deemed impliedly instituted with the criminal action. The offended party
his oath of office and in his dealings with the public. 54 had, therefore, the right to intervene in the case and be represented by
On the Appropriate Penalty on Respondent a legal counsel because of her interest in the civil liability of the accused.
The appropriate penalty on an errant lawyer depends on the exercise of Sec. 31, Rule 127 of the Rules of Court provides that in the court of a
sound judicial discretion based on the surrounding facts. 55 justice of the peace a party may conduct his litigation in person, with the
aid of an agent or friend appointed by him for that purpose, or with the
Under Civil Service Law and rules, the penalty for government
aid of an attorney. Assistant City Attorney Fule appeared in the Justice
employees engaging in unauthorized private practice of profession is
of the Peace Court as an agent or friend of the offended party. It does
suspension for six months and one day to one year. 56 We find this
not appear that he was being paid for his services or that his appearance
penalty appropriate for respondents violation in this case of Rule 1.01, was in a professional capacity. As Assistant City Attorney of San Pablo
Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. he had no control or intervention whatsoever in the prosecution of crimes
WHEREFORE, we find respondent Atty. Carlos B. Sagucio GUILTY of committed in the municipality of Alaminos, Laguna, because the
violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional prosecution of criminal cases coming from Alaminos are handled by the
Responsibility. Accordingly, we SUSPEND respondent Atty. Carlos B. Office of the Provincial Fiscal and not by the City Attorney of San Pablo.
Sagucio from the practice of law for SIX MONTHS effective upon finality There could be no possible conflict in the duties of Assistant City Attorney
of this Decision. Fule as Assistant City Attorney of San Pablo and as private prosecutor
Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant in this criminal case. On the other hand, as already pointed out, the
to be appended to respondents personal record as an attorney, the offended party in this criminal case had a right to be represented by an
Integrated Bar of the Philippines, the Department of Justice, and all agent or a friend to protect her rights in the civil action which was
courts in the country for their information and guidance. impliedly instituted together with the criminal action.
In view of the foregoing, this Court holds that Asst. City Attorney Ariston
D. Fule may appear before the Justice of the Peace Court of Alaminos,
G.R. No. L-19450 May 27, 1965 Laguna as private prosecutor in this criminal case as an agent or a friend
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, of the offended party.
vs. WHEREFORE, the appeal from the order of the Justice of the Peace
SIMPLICIO VILLANUEVA, defendant-appellant. Court of Alaminos, Laguna, allowing the apprearance of Ariston D. Fule
Office of the Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee. as private prosecutor is dismissed, without costs.
Magno T. Buese for defendant-appellant. The above decision is the subject of the instant proceeding.
PAREDES, J.: The appeal should be dismissed, for patently being without merits.
Aside from the considerations advanced by the learned trial judge,
On September 4, 1959, the Chief of Police of Alaminos, Laguna, charged heretofore reproduced, and which we consider plausible, the fallacy of
Simplicio Villanueva with the Crime of Malicious Mischief before the the theory of defense counsel lies in his confused interpretation of
Justice of the Peace Court of said municipality. Said accused was Section 32 of Rule 127 (now Sec. 35, Rule 138, Revised Rules), which
represented by counsel de officio but later on replaced by counsel de provides that "no judge or other official or employee of the superior courts
parte. The complainant in the same case was represented by City or of the office of the Solicitor General, shall engage in private practice
Attorney Ariston Fule of San Pablo City, having entered his appearance as a member of the bar or give professional advice to clients." He claims
as private prosecutor, after securing the permission of the Secretary of that City Attorney Fule, in appearing as private prosecutor in the case
Justice. The condition of his appearance as such, was that every time he was engaging in private practice. We believe that the isolated
would appear at the trial of the case, he would be considered on official appearance of City Attorney Fule did not constitute private practice within
leave of absence, and that he would not receive any payment for his the meaning and contemplation of the Rules. Practice is more than an
services. The appearance of City Attorney Fule as private prosecutor isolated appearance, for it consists in frequent or customary actions, a
was questioned by the counsel for the accused, invoking the case of
Page 12
responsibility, the administration of justice will undoubtedly fairer, if he passes the bar examinations. chan robles virtual law library
The Court allowed respondent to take his oath as a member of the Bar Respondent filed a Reply (Re: Reply to Respondents Comment)
during the scheduled oath-taking on 22 May 2001 at the Philippine reiterating his claim that the instant administrative case is "motivated
International Convention Center. However, the Court ruled that mainly by political vendetta."
respondent could not sign the Roll of Attorneys pending the resolution of
the charge against him. Thus, respondent took the lawyers oath on the On 17 July 2001, the Court referred the case to the Office of the Bar
scheduled date but has not signed the Roll of Attorneys up to now. Confidant ("OBC") for evaluation, report and recommendation.
Complainant charges respondent for unauthorized practice of law and OBCs Report and Recommendation
grave misconduct. Complainant alleges that respondent, while not yet a
lawyer, appeared as counsel for a candidate in the May 2001 elections The OBC found that respondent indeed appeared before the MBEC as
before the Municipal Board of Election Canvassers ("MBEC") of counsel for Bunan in the May 2001 elections. The minutes of the MBEC
Mandaon, Masbate. Complainant further alleges that respondent filed proceedings show that respondent actively participated in the
with the MBEC a pleading dated 19 May 2001 entitled Formal Objection proceedings. The OBC likewise found that respondent appeared in the
to the Inclusion in the Canvassing of Votes in Some Precincts for the MBEC proceedings even before he took the lawyers oath on 22 May
Office of Vice-Mayor. In this pleading, respondent represented himself 2001. The OBC believes that respondents misconduct casts a serious
as "counsel for and in behalf of Vice Mayoralty Candidate, George doubt on his moral fitness to be a member of the Bar. The OBC also
Bunan," and signed the pleading as counsel for George Bunan believes that respondents unauthorized practice of law is a ground to
("Bunan"). deny his admission to the practice of law. The OBC, therefore,
recommends that respondent be denied admission to the Philippine Bar.
On the charge of violation of law, complainant claims that respondent is
a municipal government employee, being a secretary of the On the other charges, OBC stated that complainant failed to cite a law
Sangguniang Bayan of Mandaon, Masbate. As such, respondent is not which respondent allegedly violated when he appeared as counsel for
allowed by law to act as counsel for a client in any court or administrative Bunan while he was a government employee. Respondent resigned as
body. secretary and his resignation was accepted. Likewise, respondent was
authorized by Bunan to represent him before the MBEC.
On the charge of grave misconduct and misrepresentation, complainant
accuses respondent of acting as counsel for vice mayoralty candidate The Courts Ruling
George Bunan ("Bunan") without the latter engaging respondents
services. Complainant claims that respondent filed the pleading as a We agree with the findings and conclusions of the OBC that respondent
ploy to prevent the proclamation of the winning vice mayoralty candidate. engaged in the unauthorized practice of law and thus does not deserve
admission to the Philippine Bar.
On 22 May 2001, the Court issued a resolution allowing respondent to
take the lawyers oath but disallowed him from signing the Roll of Respondent took his oath as lawyer on 22 May 2001. However, the
Attorneys until he is cleared of the charges against him. In the same records show that respondent appeared as counsel for Bunan prior to 22
resolution, the Court required respondent to comment on the complaint May 2001, before respondent took the lawyers oath. In the pleading
against him. entitled Formal Objection to the Inclusion in the Canvassing of Votes in
Some Precincts for the Office of Vice-Mayor dated 19 May 2001,
In his Comment, respondent admits that Bunan sought his "specific respondent signed as "counsel for George Bunan." In the first paragraph
assistance" to represent him before the MBEC. Respondent claims that of the same pleading respondent stated that he was the "(U)ndersigned
"he decided to assist and advice Bunan, not as a lawyer but as a person Counsel for, and in behalf of Vice Mayoralty Candidate, GEORGE T.
who knows the law." Respondent admits signing the 19 May 2001 BUNAN." Bunan himself wrote the MBEC on 14 May 2001 that he had
pleading that objected to the inclusion of certain votes in the canvassing. "authorized Atty. Edwin L. Rana as his counsel to represent him" before
He explains, however, that he did not sign the pleading as a lawyer or the MBEC and similar bodies. chan robles virtual law library
represented himself as an "attorney" in the pleading.
On 14 May 2001, mayoralty candidate Emily Estipona-Hao also
On his employment as secretary of the Sangguniang Bayan, respondent "retained" respondent as her counsel. On the same date, 14 May 2001,
claims that he submitted his resignation on 11 May 2001 which was Erly D. Hao informed the MBEC that "Atty. Edwin L. Rana has been
allegedly accepted on the same date. He submitted a copy of the authorized by REFORMA LM-PPC as the legal counsel of the party and
Certification of Receipt of Revocable Resignation dated 28 May 2001 the candidate of the said party." Respondent himself wrote the MBEC
signed by Vice-Mayor Napoleon Relox. Respondent further claims that on 14 May 2001 that he was entering his "appearance as counsel for
the complaint is politically motivated considering that complainant is the Mayoralty Candidate Emily Estipona-Hao and for the REFORMA LM-
daughter of Silvestre Aguirre, the losing candidate for mayor of PPC." On 19 May 2001, respondent signed as counsel for Estipona-Hao
Page 16
Mandaon, Masbate. Respondent prays that the complaint be dismissed in the petition filed before the MBEC praying for the proclamation of
for lack of merit and that he be allowed to sign the Roll of Attorneys. Estipona-Hao as the winning candidate for mayor of Mandaon, Masbate.
In Philippine Lawyers Association v. Agrava,[1] the Court elucidated Respondent tendered his resignation as secretary of the Sangguniang
that: Bayan prior to the acts complained of as constituting unauthorized
The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in practice of law. In his letter dated 11 May 2001 addressed to Napoleon
court; it embraces the preparation of pleadings and other papers incident Relox, vice- mayor and presiding officer of the Sangguniang Bayan,
to actions and special proceedings, the management of such actions and respondent stated that he was resigning "effective upon your
proceedings on behalf of clients before judges and courts, and in acceptance."[10] Vice-Mayor Relox accepted respondents resignation
addition, conveyancing. In general, all advice to clients, and all action effective 11 May 2001.[11] Thus, the evidence does not support the
taken for them in matters connected with the law, incorporation services, charge that respondent acted as counsel for a client while serving as
assessment and condemnation services contemplating an appearance secretary of the Sangguniang Bayan.
before a judicial body, the foreclosure of a mortgage, enforcement of a
creditor's claim in bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings, and On the charge of grave misconduct and misrepresentation, evidence
conducting proceedings in attachment, and in matters of estate and shows that Bunan indeed authorized respondent to represent him as his
guardianship have been held to constitute law practice, as do the counsel before the MBEC and similar bodies. While there was no
preparation and drafting of legal instruments, where the work done misrepresentation, respondent nonetheless had no authority to practice
involves the determination by the trained legal mind of the legal effect of law. chan robles virtual law library
facts and conditions. (5 Am. Jur. p. 262, 263). [Italics supplied] x x x
chan robles virtual law library WHEREFORE, respondent Edwin L. Rana is DENIED admission to the
In Cayetano v. Monsod,[2] the Court held that "practice of law" means Philippine Bar.
any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of law, legal
procedure, knowledge, training and experience. To engage in the SO ORDERED.
practice of law is to perform acts which are usually performed by
members of the legal profession. Generally, to practice law is to render E. Good Moral Character
any kind of service which requires the use of legal knowledge or skill. Continued possession of good moral character after
admission is a requirement for enjoyment of privilege to practice.
Verily, respondent was engaged in the practice of law when he appeared
in the proceedings before the MBEC and filed various pleadings, without Moral character is what a person really is as distinguished from
license to do so. Evidence clearly supports the charge of unauthorized good reputation or opinion generally entertained of him.
practice of law. Respondent called himself "counsel" knowing fully well Includes at least common honesty.
that he was not a member of the Bar. Having held himself out as Opposite of immorality, which is the indifference to the moral norms
"counsel" knowing that he had no authority to practice law, respondent of society.
has shown moral unfitness to be a member of the Philippine Bar.[3]
This requirement aims to maintain and uphold the high moral
The right to practice law is not a natural or constitutional right but is a standard and the dignity of the legal profession.
privilege. It is limited to persons of good moral character with special A.C. No. 5095 November 28, 2007
qualifications duly ascertained and certified. The exercise of this FATHER RANHILIO C. AQUINO, LINA M. GARAN, ESTRELLA C.
privilege presupposes possession of integrity, legal knowledge, LOZADA, POLICARPIO L. MABBORANG, DEXTER R. MUNAR,
educational attainment, and even public trust[4] since a lawyer is an MONICO U. TENEDRO, ANDY R. QUEBRAL, NESTOR T. RIVERA,
officer of the court. A bar candidate does not acquire the right to EDUARDO C. RICAMORA, ARTHUR G. IBAEZ, AURELIO C.
practice law simply by passing the bar examinations. The practice of law CALDEZ and DENU A. AGATEP, complainants,
is a privilege that can be withheld even from one who has passed the bar vs.
examinations, if the person seeking admission had practiced law without ATTY. EDWIN PASCUA, respondent.
a license.[5] DECISION
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:
The regulation of the practice of law is unquestionably strict. In Beltran,
Jr. v. Abad,[6] a candidate passed the bar examinations but had not For our resolution is the letter-complaint dated August 3, 1999 of Father
taken his oath and signed the Roll of Attorneys. He was held in contempt Ranhilio C. Aquino, then Academic Head of the Philippine Judicial
of court for practicing law even before his admission to the Bar. Under Academy, joined by Lina M. Garan and the other above-named
Section 3 (e) of Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, a person who engages in complainants, against Atty. Edwin Pascua, a Notary Public in Cagayan.
the unauthorized practice of law is liable for indirect contempt of court.[7] In his letter-complaint, Father Aquino alleged that Atty. Pascua falsified
chan robles virtual law library two documents committed as follows:
(1) He made it appear that he had notarized the "Affidavit-Complaint" of
True, respondent here passed the 2000 Bar Examinations and took the one Joseph B. Acorda entering the same as "Doc. No. 1213, Page No.
lawyers oath. However, it is the signing in the Roll of Attorneys that 243, Book III, Series of 1998, dated December 10, 1998".
finally makes one a full-fledged lawyer. The fact that respondent passed (2) He also made it appear that he had notarized the "Affidavit-
the bar examinations is immaterial. Passing the bar is not the only a Complaint" of one Remigio B. Domingo entering the same as "Doc. No.
qualification to become an attorney-at-law.[8] Respondent should know 1214, Page 243, Book III, Series of 1998, dated December 10, 1998.
that two essential requisites for becoming a lawyer still had to be Father Aquino further alleged that on June 23 and July 26, 1999, Atty.
performed, namely: his lawyers oath to be administered by this Court Angel Beltran, Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Tuguegarao, certified
and his signature in the Roll of Attorneys.[9] that none of the above entries appear in the Notarial Register of Atty.
Page 17
Pascua; that the last entry therein was Document No. 1200 executed on
dishonesty of the highest order. By any standard, respondent had before Notary Public Bibiano M. Bustamante of Davao City on 22
manifestly shown that he is unfit to discharge the functions of his office. November 2001, reveals that he concealed material facts and even
Commission (Napolcom) vowed yesterday to clear his name in court Judge with the JBC, he had no knowledge that he was administratively
from charges of tampering with an official receipt.
office, including such circumstances as may reflect on his integrity and controlled corporations. Provided, however, That the forfeiture of
benefits shall in no case include accrued leave credits;
vs. After his disbarment, he put up the Mejia Law Journal, a publication
ATTY. ISMAEL F. MEJIA, Respondent. containing his religious and social writings. He also organized a religious
1) respondent's alleged misrepresentation in concealing the suspension and justices, and to increase filing fees.3
order rendered against him by the State Bar of California; and
IBP National President and the IBP as a whole.11 appear that the IBP Board of Governors approved the resolution,
both the President and the Executive Vice President, the Board of THE MORAL T[U]RPITUDE, AS BASIS FOR DISBARMENT OF
RESPONDENT IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING.
proscription in registering one's preference is that a lawyer cannot be a and constitutes an absolute bar to subsequent actions involving the
member of more than one chapter at the same time. same claim, demand, or cause of action. Res judicata is based on the
a hearing officer of the State Bar of California suspending him from the explained that "[a] foreign judgment is presumed to be valid and binding
practice of law for three years. We held in that case that in the country from which it comes, until a contrary showing, on the basis
Atty. de Vera vehemently insists that the foregoing facts do not prove even before the filing of the administrative case against him in the State
that he misappropriated his client's funds as the latter's father (the elder Bar of California.46
IBP EVP who will automatically succeed to the National Presidency for We are in agreement with the IBP Board.
the next term. Our Code of Professional Responsibility as well as the
complainant member and the respondent member. The reason therefore subjects himself to disciplinary action by the body.
is that such members are interested parties and are thus presumed to
Resolution, dated 13 May 2005, of the Board of Governors of the 138 of the Rules of Court and the ruling of the Court En Banc in
Integrated Bar of the Philippines removing him from his posts as Cantimbuhan v. Judge Cruz, Jr.2 that a non-lawyer may appear before
THE RESPONDENT METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS an attorney. In any other court, a party may conduct his litigation
DISCRETION WHEN IT DENIED THE MOTION TO HOLD IN
unlawful suit nor give aid nor consent to the same; I will not delay any
mans cause for money or malice and will conduct myself as a lawyer
H. Membership to IBP been uniformly and universally sustained as a valid exercise of the police
[A.C. No. 1928. August 3, 1978.] power over an important profession. The practice of law is not a vested
MEASURE NOT PROHIBITED BY LAW. There is nothing in the Thereafter, the case was set for hearing on June 3, 1976. After the
Constitution that prohibits the Supreme Court, under its constitutional hearing, the parties were required to submit memoranda in amplification
An "Integrated Bar" is a State-organized Bar, to which every lawyer must of the Bar . . .",
belong, as distinguished from bar associations organized by individual and Section 1 of Republic Act No. 6397, which reads:
September 1987 Resolution 3 of the "Tanodbayan" in TBP Case No. 87- while rich and influential persons get favorable actions from the Supreme
01304 recommending that additional criminal charges for graft and
Moreover, the Supreme Court has inherent to punish for contempt, to Hence, in the exercise of its disciplinary powers, the Court merely calls
control in the furtherance of justice the conduct of ministerial officers of upon a member of the Bar to account for his actuations as an officer of
Respondent Gonzalez was in effect saying, firstly, that the Supreme general public scorn for and distrust in the Supreme Court and, more
Court deliberately rendered an erroneous or wrong decision when it generally, the judicial institutions of the Republic.
members of this Tribunal can still act with unbiased demeanor towards Atty. del mar made the following statements:
him; and
Sept. 10, 1968). to the Philippine Government, including the sugar price premium,
The precepts, the teachings, the injunctions just recited are not He expressed the hope that by divesting himself of his title by which he
unfamiliar to lawyers. And yet, this Court finds in the language of Atty. earns his living, the present members of the Supreme Court 'will become
are plainly contemptuous and disrespectful, and reference to the recent for their grievances or protection of their rights when these are trampled
killing of two employees is but a covert threat upon the members of the upon, and if the people lose their confidence in the honesty and integrity
motion contains a more or less veiled threat to the court because it is outside the internal world of subjective intent, is clearly demonstrated by
insinuated therein, after the author shows the course which the voters of the filing of a complaint for impeachment of thirteen (13) out of the then
administration of justice "53 is heavier that of a private practicing lawyer. and member of the Bar.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Edwin A. Hidalgo is hereby found x x x it is evident that respondent notarized the Special Power of Attorney
GUILTY of negligence in the performance of his duties as notary public dated 4 January 2001 purportedly executed by Juanito C. Benitez long
foisted on the public a spurious contract all to the extreme prejudice with Carlos Ui but to no avail. The illicit relationship persisted and
It would therefore be logical and safe to state that the "relationship" of grounds, namely:
respondents started and was discovered by complainant sometime in
complainant, there is no showing that respondent had knowledge of the If good moral character is a sine qua non for admission to the bar, then
fact of marriage of Carlos Ui to complainant. The allegation that her the continued possession of good moral character is also a requisite for
legal profession. Complainants bare assertions to the contrary deserve Upon complainants motion, the Court authorized the taking of
no credit. After all, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant, and testimonies of witnesses by deposition in 1972. On February 18, 1974,
1990). We should add that the crimes of which respondent was convicted
also import deceit and violation of her attorney's oath and the Code of
dealings is so gross a character as to show him morally unfit for the office admonishes that for a willful violation of this rule an attorney may be
and unworthy of the privilege which his licenses and the law confer on subjected to disciplinary action.[36] It is noteworthy that in the past, the
subsequently disbarred. (respondent) for unprofessional and unethical conduct, stemming from a
complaint filed by private complainant Rebecca Marie Uy Yupangco-
Rebeccas motion to withdraw did notserve as a bar for the further exhibited prudent restraint becoming of a legal exemplar. He should not
consideration and investigation ofthe administrative case against have exposed himself even to the slightest risk of committing a property
Mr. Donton. property despite its transfer in complainants name. In effect, respondent
conclusion that they were such as to justify the court below in arriving at foregoing criminal cases against his client be dismissed.
the conclusion that the knowledge and acts of the accused in connection
merit. (Rollo, p. 37.) why he should not be sanctioned for conduct unbecoming a lawyer and
an officer of the Court.
What is the legal effect of that violation of President Estradas right to due benefits were forfeited.
process of law? It renders the decision in Estrada vs. Arroyo
in the hearing of the case set for January 26, 2000, despite notice. Thus, - v e r s u s -.
respondent was considered to have waived his right to present evidence ATTY. NICOMEDES TOLENTINO,
Back
SERVICES OFFERED: This rule proscribes ambulance chasing (the solicitation of almost any
CONSULTATION AND ASSISTANCE kind of legal business by an attorney, personally or through an agent in
TO OVERSEAS SEAMEN order to gain employment)[17] as a measure to protect the community
REPATRIATED DUE TO ACCIDENT, from barratry and champerty.[18]
INJURY, ILLNESS, SICKNESS, DEATH Complainant presented substantial evidence[19] (consisting of the sworn
AND INSURANCE BENEFIT CLAIMS statements of the very same persons coaxed by Labiano and referred to
ABROAD. respondents office) to prove that respondent indeed solicited legal
(emphasis supplied) business as well as profited from referrals suits.
Hence, this complaint.
Respondent, in his defense, denied knowing Labiano and authorizing the Although respondent initially denied knowing Labiano in his answer, he
printing and circulation of the said calling card.[7] later admitted it during the mandatory hearing.
The complaint was referred to the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD)
of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and Through Labianos actions, respondents law practice was benefited.
recommendation.[8] Hapless seamen were enticed to transfer representation on the strength
Based on testimonial and documentary evidence, the CBD, in its report of Labianos word that respondent could produce a more favorable result.
Page 66
Rule 16.04 A lawyer shall not borrow money from his client unless the WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino for violating
clients interests are fully protected by the nature of the case or by Rules 1.03, 2.03, 8.02 and 16.04 and Canon 3 of the Code of
independent advice. Neither shall a lawyer lend money to a client except, Professional Responsibility and Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of
when in the interest of justice, he has to advance necessary expenses Court is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one
in a legal matter he is handling for the client. year effective immediately from receipt of this resolution. He
The rule is that a lawyer shall not lend money to his client. The only is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the
exception is, when in the interest of justice, he has to advance necessary future shall be dealt with more severely.
expenses (such as filing fees, stenographers fees for transcript of
stenographic notes, cash bond or premium for surety bond, etc.) for a Let a copy of this Resolution be made part of his records in the Office of
matter that he is handling for the client. the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court of the Philippines, and be furnished
to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Office of the Court
The rule is intended to safeguard the lawyers independence of mind so Administrator to be circulated to all courts.
that the free exercise of his judgment may not be adversely affected.[22] It
seeks to ensure his undivided attention to the case he is handling as well SO ORDERED.
as his entire devotion and fidelity to the clients cause. If the lawyer lends
money to the client in connection with the clients case, the lawyer in RULE 1.04: ENCOURAGE CLIENT TO AVOID CONTROVERSY
effect acquires an interest in the subject matter of the case or an A lawyer shall encourage his clients to avoid, end or settle a
additional stake in its outcome.[23] Either of these circumstances may controversy if it will admit of a fair settlement.
lead the lawyer to consider his own recovery rather than that of his client,
or to accept a settlement which may take care of his interest in the verdict G.R. No. 104599 March 11, 1994
to the prejudice of the client in violation of his duty of undivided fidelity to JON DE YSASI III, petitioner,
the clients cause.[24] vs.
As previously mentioned, any act of solicitation constitutes NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (FOURTH DIVISION),
malpractice[25] which calls for the exercise of the Courts disciplinary CEBU CITY, and JON DE YSASI,respondents.
powers. Violation of anti-solicitation statutes warrants serious sanctions F.B. Santiago, Nalus & Associates for petitioner.
for initiating contact with a prospective client for the purpose of obtaining Ismael A. Serfino for private respondent.
employment.[26] Thus, in this jurisdiction, we adhere to the rule to protect
the public from the Machiavellian machinations of unscrupulous lawyers REGALADO, J.:
and to uphold the nobility of the legal profession. The adage that blood is thicker than water obviously stood for naught in
this case, notwithstanding the vinculum of paternity and filiation between
Considering the myriad infractions of respondent (including violation of the parties. It would indeed have been the better part of reason if herein
the prohibition on lending money to clients), the sanction recommended petitioner and private respondent had reconciled their differences in an
by the IBP, a mere reprimand, is a wimpy slap on the wrist. The proposed extrajudicial atmosphere of familial amity and with the grace of reciprocal
penalty is grossly incommensurate to its findings. concessions. Father and son opted instead for judicial intervention
despite the inevitable acrimony and negative publicity. Albeit with
A final word regarding the calling card presented in evidence by distaste, the Court cannot proceed elsewise but to resolve their dispute
petitioner. A lawyers best advertisement is a well-merited reputation for with the same reasoned detachment accorded any judicial proceeding
professional capacity and fidelity to trust based on his character and before it.
conduct.[27] For this reason, lawyers are only allowed to announce their The records of this case reveal that petitioner was employed by his
services by publication in reputable law lists or use of simple professional father, herein private respondent, as farm administrator of Hacienda
cards. Manucao in Hinigaran, Negros Occidental sometime in April, 1980. Prior
Professional calling cards may only contain the following details: thereto, he was successively employed as sales manager of Triumph
International (Phil.), Inc. and later as operations manager of Top Form
(a) lawyers name; Manufacturing (Phil.), Inc. His employment as farm administrator was on
Page 67
(b) name of the law firm with which he is connected; a fixed salary, with other allowances covering housing, food, light, power,
(c) address; telephone, gasoline, medical and dental expenses.
12, 1992 largely reiterating its earlier position in support of the findings defeat, justice. For this reason, we cannot indulge private respondent in
of the Executive Labor Arbiter. 8 his tendency to nitpick on trivial technicalities to boost his arguments.
and strained family relation with respondent Jon de Ysasi II may be during the time that petitioner was in charge of farm operations.
considered as justifiable reason for petitioner Jon de Ysasi III's absence
abandonment may justly be made there must be a concurrence of two ATTORNEY-IN-FACT being herein given the power and authority to sign
elements, viz.: (1) the failure to report for work or absence without valid for me and in my name, place and stead, the receipt or receipts or payroll
Implementing the Labor Code applies only to cases where the employer he failed to notify the Department of
seeks to terminate the services of an employee on any of the grounds Labor and Employment for his sons' (sic)/complainants' (sic)
to the time of his reinstatement. (Morales vs. NLRC, 188 SCRA 295). But pay equivalent to one (1) month('s) salary for every year of service, a
in Pacific Cement Company, Inc. vs. NLRC, 173 SCRA 192, this fraction of six months being considered as one (1) year in accordance
VENANCIO CASTANEDA and NICETAS HENSON, petitioners, for certiorari and prohibition with this Court under date of May 26, 1966,
vs. docketed as L-26116, praying for a writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin
Diego) that it is much too late in the day for the respondents Agos to technicality in the conduct of litigation instead of a true exponent of the
raise the question that part of the property is unleviable because it primacy of truth and moral justice.
despite the pendency of L-19718 where Pastor Ago contested the of the supplemental complaint and the amended supplemental
amount of P99,877.08 out of the judgment value of P172,923.37 in civil complaint, the validity of the cause of action would depend upon the
Notaries public are expected to exert utmost care in the performance of As to his alleged violation of Rule 12.08 of the CPR, respondent argued
their duties, which are impressed with public interest. They are enjoined that lawyers could testify on behalf of their clients on substantial matters,
to comply faithfully with the solemnities and requirements of the Notarial in cases where [their] testimony is essential to the ends of justice.
Law. This Court will not hesitate to mete out appropriate sanctions to Complainant charged respondents clients with attempted murder.
those who violate it or neglect observance thereof. Respondent averred that since they were in his house when the alleged
__________________ crime occurred, his testimony is very essential to the ends of justice.
The Case and the Facts
Page 76
The CBD received complainants Memorandum[18] on September 26, For this reason, notaries public should not take for granted the solemn
2001. Respondent did not file any. duties pertaining to their office. Slipshod methods in their performance
of the notarial act are never to be countenanced. They are expected to
The IBPs Recommendation exert utmost care in the performance of their duties,[25] which are
dictated by public policy and are impressed with public interest.
On September 27, 2003, the IBP Board of Governors issued Resolution
No. XVI-2003-172[19] approving and adopting the Investigating It is clear from the pleadings before us -- and respondent has readily
Commissioners Report that respondent had violated specific admitted -- that he violated the Notarial Law by failing to enter in the
requirements of the Notarial Law on the execution of a certification, the documents notations of the residence certificate, as well as the entry
entry of such certification in the notarial register, and the indication of the number and the pages of the notarial registry.
affiants residence certificate. The IBP Board of Governors found his
excuse for the violations unacceptable. It modified, however, the Respondent believes, however, that noncompliance with those
recommendation[20] of the investigating commissioner by increasing the requirements is not mandatory for affidavits relative to cases pending
fine to P3,000 with a warning that any repetition of the violation will be before the courts and government agencies. He points to similar
dealt with a heavier penalty. practices of older notaries in Nueva Ecija.
The other charges -- violation of Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of We cannot give credence to, much less honor, his claim. His belief that
Court; and Canons 1.01 to 1.03, 12.07 and 12.08 of the CPR -- were the requirements do not apply to affidavits is patently irrelevant. No law
dismissed for insufficiency of evidence. dispenses with these formalities. Au contraire, the Notarial Law makes
no qualification or exception. It is appalling and inexcusable that he did
The Courts Ruling away with the basics of notarial procedure allegedly because others
were doing so. Being swayed by the bad example of others is not an
acceptable justification for breaking the law.
We note further that the documents attached to the verified Complaint
We agree with the Resolution of the IBP Board of Governors. are the Joint Counter-Affidavit of respondents clients Ernesto Ramos
and Rey Geronimo, as well as their witnesses Affidavits relative to
Criminal Case No. 69-2000 for attempted murder, filed by complainants
Respondents Administrative Liability brother against the aforementioned clients. These documents became
the basis of the present Complaint.
Violation of the Notarial Law As correctly pointed out by the investigating commissioner, Section 3 of
Rule 112 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure expressly requires
respondent as notary -- in the absence of any fiscal, state prosecutor or
The Notarial Law is explicit on the obligations and duties of notaries government official authorized to administer the oath -- to certify that he
public. They are required to certify that the party to every document has personally examined the affiants and that he is satisfied that they
Page 77
acknowledged before them has presented the proper residence voluntarily executed and understood their affidavits. Respondent failed
certificate (or exemption from the residence tax); and to enter its number, to do so with respect to the subject Affidavits and Counter-Affidavits in
suspect the truthfulness of the lawyer because they cannot believe the
lawyer as disinterested. The people will have a plausible reason for
Time and time again, lawyers are reminded that the practice of law is a
persistently called them and sent them text messages.
profession and not a business; lawyers should not advertise their talents
Through Labianos actions, respondents law practice was benefited. (a) lawyers name;
Hapless seamen were enticed to transfer representation on the strength (b) name of the law firm with which he is connected;
of Labianos word that respondent could produce a more favorable result. (c) address;
Based on the foregoing, respondent clearly solicited employment (d) telephone number and
violating Rule 2.03, and Rule 1.03 and Canon 3 of the CPR and Section (e) special branch of law practiced.[28]
27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
With regard to respondents violation of Rule 8.02 of the CPR, settled is
the rule that a lawyer should not steal another lawyers client nor induce Labianos calling card contained the phrase with financial assistance.
the latter to retain him by a promise of better service, good result or The phrase was clearly used to entice clients (who already had
reduced fees for his services.[20] Again the Court notes that respondent representation) to change counsels with a promise of loans to finance
never denied having these seafarers in his client list nor receiving their legal actions. Money was dangled to lure clients away from their
benefits from Labianos referrals. Furthermore, he never denied Labianos original lawyers, thereby taking advantage of their financial distress and
connection to his office.[21] Respondent committed an unethical, emotional vulnerability. This crass commercialism degraded the integrity
predatory overstep into anothers legal practice. He cannot escape of the bar and deserved no place in the legal profession. However, in the
liability under Rule 8.02 of the CPR. absence of substantial evidence to prove his culpability, the Court is not
Moreover, by engaging in a money-lending venture with his clients as prepared to rule that respondent was personally and directly responsible
borrowers, respondent violated Rule 16.04: for the printing and distribution of Labianos calling cards.
Rule 16.04 A lawyer shall not borrow money from his client unless the WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino for violating
clients interests are fully protected by the nature of the case or by Rules 1.03, 2.03, 8.02 and 16.04 and Canon 3 of the Code of
independent advice. Neither shall a lawyer lend money to a client except, Professional Responsibility and Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of
when in the interest of justice, he has to advance necessary expenses Court is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one
in a legal matter he is handling for the client. year effective immediately from receipt of this resolution. He
The rule is that a lawyer shall not lend money to his client. The only is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the
Page 80
exception is, when in the interest of justice, he has to advance necessary future shall be dealt with more severely.
expenses (such as filing fees, stenographers fees for transcript of
prohibition should be abandoned. Thus, he prayed that he be There is no question that respondent committed the acts complained of.
exonerated from all the charges against him and that the Court He himself admits that he caused the publication of the advertisements.
with more severely. charge and be paid. That activity falls squarely within the jurisprudential
definition of "practice of law." Such a conclusion will not be altered by the
procuring his photograph to be published in connection with causes in the fact that the disciplinary rule involved in said case explicitly allows a
which the lawyer has been or is engaged or concerning the manner of lawyer, as an exception to the prohibition against advertisements by
reproduced are champertous, unethical, demeaning of the law that the advertisements have on the reading public.
profession, and destructive of the confidence of the community in the
concluded that the above impressions one may gather from the disclaimer that it is not authorized to practice law or perform legal
advertisements in question are accurate. The Sharon Cuneta-Gabby services. cdrep
As advertised, it offers the general public its advisory services on Philippines are solemnized only by officers authorized to do so under the
Persons and Family Relations Law, particularly regarding foreign
empted by lawyers, or custom placed a lawyer always at the elbow of (a) The legal question is subordinate and incidental to a major non-legal
the lay personnel man. But this is not the case. The most important body problem;
giving of advice and counsel by the defendant relating to specific A person is also considered to be in the practice of law when he:
problems of particular individuals in connection with a divorce,
modern information technology in the gathering, processing, storage, residents or the interns. We can take care of these matters on a while
transmission and reproduction of information and communication, such you wait basis. Again, kung baga sa ospital, out-patient, hindi kailangang
Paralegals in the United States are trained professionals. As admitted by establishment of a well-merited reputation for professional capacity and
respondent, there are schools and universities there which offer studies
Besides, even the disciplinary rule in the Bates case contains a proviso Narvasa, C .J ., Cruz, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Grio-Aquino, Davide, Jr.,
that the exceptions stated therein are "not applicable in any state unless Romero, Nocon, Bellosillo, Melo and Quiason, JJ ., concur.
conceived related to disbarments of members of the bar. In 1919 at the facts, the respondent stands convicted of having solicited cases in
instigation of the Philippine Bar Association, said codal section was defiance of the law and those canons. Accordingly, the only remaining
As pointed out by the Solicitor General, respondents' use of the firm 37. A typographical error was committed in the complaint which stated
name Baker & McKenzie constitutes a representation that being that the address of defendant is No. 63-C instead of 63-B, P. Tuazon
1997, but neither complainant nor her counsel appeared, despite due included in that firm. I told her that I have not assumed any position in
notice. The return of service of the Order setting the last hearing stated that law firm. And I am with the Judiciary. since I passed the bar. It is
Second, he owes it to his profession to take an active interest activity wherever it may be available to earn credit unit toward
in the maintenance of high standards of legal education; compliance with the MCLE requirement.
establishment of the program. Members admitted or readmitted to the SECTION 1. Classes of Credit units. -- Credit units are either
Bar after the establishment of the program shall be assigned to the participatory or non-participatory.
appropriate Compliance Group based on their Chapter membership on SEC. 2. Claim for participatory credit units. -- Participatory
the date of admission or readmission. credit units may be claimed for:
The initial compliance period after admission or readmission shall begin (a) Attending approved education activities like seminars, conferences,
on the first day of the month of admission or readmission and shall end conventions, symposia, in-house education programs, workshops,
on the same day as that of all other members in the same Compliance dialogues or round table discussion.
Group. (b) Speaking or lecturing, or acting as assigned panelist, reactor,
(a) Where four (4) months or less remain of the initial compliance period commentator, resource speaker, moderator, coordinator or facilitator in
after admission or readmission, the member is not required to comply approved education activities.
with the program requirement for the initial compliance. (c) Teaching in a law school or lecturing in a bar review class.
(b) Where more than four (4) months remain of the initial compliance SEC. 3. Claim for non-participatory credit units. Non-participatory
period after admission or readmission, the member shall be required to credit units may be claimed per compliance period for:
complete a number of hours of approved continuing legal education (a) Preparing, as an author or co-author, written materials published or
activities equal to the number of months remaining in the compliance accepted for publication, e.g., in the form of an article, chapter, book, or
period in which the member is admitted or readmitted. Such member book review which contribute to the legal education of the author
shall be required to complete a number of hours of education in legal member, which were not prepared in the ordinary course of the members
ethics in proportion to the number of months remaining in the compliance practice or employment.
period. Fractions of hours shall be rounded up to the next whole number. (b) Editing a law book, law journal or legal newsletter.
Rule 4. COMPUTATION OF CREDIT UNITS(CU) Rule 6. COMPUTATION OF CREDIT HOURS (CH)
SECTION 1. Guidelines. - CREDIT UNITS ARE EQUIVALENT TO SECTION 1. Computation of credit hours. -- Credit hours are computed
CREDIT HOURS. CREDIT UNITS measure compliance with the based on actual time spent in an education activity in hours to the nearest
MCLE requirement under the Rules, based on the category of the one-quarter hour reported in decimals.
lawyers participation in the MCLE activity. The following are the Rule 7. EXEMPTIONS
guidelines for computing credit units and the supporting SECTION 1. Parties exempted from the MCLE. -- The following
documents required therefor: members of the Bar are exempt from the MCLE requirement:
PROGRAMS/ACTIVITY CREDIT UNITS SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS (a) The President and the Vice President of the Philippines, and the
1. SEMINARS, CONVENTIONS, CONFERENCES, SYMPOSIA, IN- Secretaries and Undersecretaries of Executive Departments;
HOUSE EDUCATION PROGRAMS, WORKSHOPS, DIALOGUES, (b) Senators and Members of the House of Representatives;
ROUND TABLE DISCUSSIONS BY APPROVED PROVIDERS UNDER (c) The Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court,
RULE 7 AND OTHER RELATED RULES incumbent and retired members of the judiciary, incumbent members of
1.1 PARTICIPANT/ 1 CU PER HOUR OF CERTIFICATE OF the Judicial and Bar Council and incumbent court lawyers covered by the
ATTENDEE ATTENDANCE ATTENDANCE WITH Philippine Judicial Academy program of continuing judicial education;
NUMBER OF HOURS (d) The Chief State Counsel, Chief State Prosecutor and Assistant
1.2 LECTURER FULL CU FOR THE PHOTOCOPY OF Secretaries of the Department of Justice;
RESOURCE SUBJECT PER PLAQUE OR (e) The Solicitor General and the Assistant Solicitors General;
SPEAKER COMPLIANCE PERIOD SPONSORS (f) The Government Corporate Counsel, Deputy and Assistant
CERTIFICATION Government Corporate Counsel;
1.3 PANELIST/REACTOR 1/2 OF CU FOR THE CERTIFICATION (g) The Chairmen and Members of the Constitutional Commissions;
COMMENTATOR/ SUBJECT PER FROM (h) The Ombudsman, the Overall Deputy Ombudsman, the Deputy
MODERATOR/ COMPLIANCE PERIOD SPONSORING Ombudsman and the Special Prosecutor of the Office of the
COORDINATOR/ ORGANIZATION Ombudsman;
FACILITATOR (i) Heads of government agencies exercising quasi-judicial functions;
2. AUTHORSHIP, EDITING AND REVIEW (j) Incumbent deans, bar reviewers and professors of law who have
2.1 LAW BOOK OF NOT FULL CU FOR THE PUBLISHED BOOK teaching experience for at least ten (10) years in accredited law schools;
LESS THAN 100 PAGES SUBJECT PER (k) The Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor and members of the Corps of
COMPLIANCE PERIOD Professors and Professorial Lecturers of the Philippine Judicial
2.2 BOOK EDITOR 1/2 OF THE CU OF PUBLISHED BOOK Academy; and
AUTHORSHIP CATEGORY WITH PROOF AS (l) Governors and Mayors.
EDITOR SEC. 2. Other parties exempted from the MCLE. The following Members
2.3 RESEARCH PAPER 1/2 OF CU FOR THE DULY of the Bar are likewise exempt:
INNOVATIVE PROGRAM/ SUBJECT PER CERTIFIED/ (a) Those who are not in law practice, private or public.
CREATIVE PROJECT COMPLIANCE PERIOD PUBLISHED (b) Those who have retired from law practice with the approval of the IBP
TECHNICAL Board of Governors.
REPORT/PAPER SEC. 3. Good cause for exemption from or modification of requirement A
2.4 LEGAL ARTICLE OF AT 1/2 OF CU FOR THE PUBLISHED member may file a verified request setting forth good cause for
ARTICLE exemption (such as physical disability, illness, post graduate study
LEAST TEN (10) PAGES SUBJECT PER abroad, proven expertise in law, etc.) from compliance with or
COMPLIANCE PERIOD modification of any of the requirements, including an extension of time
2.5 LEGAL NEWSLETTER/ 1 CU PER ISSUE PUBLISHED for compliance, in accordance with a procedure to be established by the
LAW JOURNAL EDITOR NEWSLETTER/JOURNAL MCLE Committee.
2.6 PROFESSORIAL CHAIR/ FULL CU FOR THE CERTIFICATION OF SEC. 4. Change of status. The compliance period shall begin on the first
BAR REVIEW LECTURE SUBJECT PER LAW DEAN OR day of the month in which a member ceases to be exempt under Sections
Page 96
LAW TEACHING/ COMPLIANCE PERIOD BAR REVIEW 1, 2, or 3 of this Rule and shall end on the same day as that of all other
DIRECTOR members in the same Compliance Group.
activities (e.g., accounting-tax or medical-legal) that enhance legal skills SECTION 1. Payment of fees. Application for approval of an education
or the ability to practice law, as well as subjects in legal writing and oral activity or accreditation as a provider requires payment of the appropriate
advocacy. fee as provided in the Schedule of MCLE Fees.
(c) The activity shall be conducted by a provider with adequate Rule 11. GENERAL COMPLIANCE PROCEDURES
professional experience. SECTION 1. Compliance card. -- Each member shall secure from the
(d) Where the activity is more than one (1) hour in length, substantive MCLE Committee a Compliance Card before the end of his compliance
written materials must be distributed to all participants. Such materials period. He shall complete the card by attesting under oath that he has
must be distributed at or before the time the activity is offered. complied with the education requirement or that he is exempt, specifying
(e) In-house education activities must be scheduled at a time and the nature of the exemption. Such Compliance Card must be returned to
location so as to be free from interruption like telephone calls and other the Committee not later than the day after the end of the members
distractions. compliance period.
Rule 9. ACCREDITATION OF PROVIDERS SEC. 2. Member record keeping requirement. -- Each member shall
SECTION 1. Accreditation of providers. -- Accreditation of providers maintain sufficient record of compliance or exemption, copy furnished
shall be done by the MCLE Committee. the MCLE Committee. The record required to be provided to the
SEC. 2. Requirements for accreditation of providers. Any person or members by the provider pursuant to Section 3 of Rule 9 should be a
group may be accredited as a provider for a term of two (2) years, which sufficient record of attendance at a participatory activity. A record of non-
may be renewed, upon written application. All providers of continuing participatory activity shall also be maintained by the member, as referred
legal education activities, including in-house providers, are eligible to be to in Section 3 of Rule 5.
accredited providers. Application for accreditation shall: Rule 12. NON-COMPLIANCE PROCEDURES
(a) Be submitted on a form provided by the MCLE Committee; SECTION 1. What constitutes non-compliance. The following shall
(b) Contain all information requested in the form; constitute non-compliance:
(c) Be accompanied by the appropriate approval fee. (a) Failure to complete the education requirement within the compliance
SEC. 3. Requirements of all providers. -- All period;
approved accredited providers shall agree to the following: (b) Failure to provide attestation of compliance or exemption;
(a) An official record verifying the attendance at the activity shall be (c) Failure to provide satisfactory evidence of compliance (including
maintained by the provider for at least four (4) years after the completion evidence of exempt status) within the prescribed period;
date. The provider shall include the member on the official record of (d) Failure to satisfy the education requirement and furnish evidence of
attendance only if the members signature was obtained at the time of such compliance within sixty (60) days from receipt of non-compliance
attendance at the activity. The official record of attendance shall contain notice;
the members name and number in the Roll of Attorneys and shall identify (e) Failure to pay non-compliance fee within the prescribed period;
the time, date, location, subject matter, and length of the education (f) Any other act or omission analogous to any of the foregoing or
activity. A copy of such record shall be furnished the MCLE intended to circumvent or evade compliance with the MCLE
COMMITTEE. requirements.
(b) The provider shall certify that: SEC. 2. Non-compliance notice and 60-day period to attain
(1) This activity has been approved BY THE MCLE COMMITTEE in the compliance. -Members failing to comply will receive a Non-Compliance
amount of ________ hours of which ______ hours will apply in (legal Notice stating the specific deficiency and will be given sixty (60) days
ethics, etc.), as appropriate to the content of the activity; from the date of notification to file a response clarifying the deficiency or
(2) The activity conforms to the standards for approved education otherwise showing compliance with the requirements. Such notice shall
activities prescribed by these Rules and such regulations as may be contain the following language near the beginning of the notice in capital
prescribed by the MCLE COMMITTEE. letters:
(c) The provider shall issue a record or certificate to all participants IF YOU FAIL TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE PROOF OF COMPLIANCE
identifying the time, date, location, subject matter and length of the WITH THE MCLE REQUIREMENT BY (INSERT DATE 60 DAYS FROM
activity. DATE OF NOTICE), YOU SHALL BE LISTED AS A DELINQUENT
(d) The provider shall allow in-person observation of all approved MEMBER AND SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED TO PRACTICE LAW
continuing legal education activity by THE MCLE COMMITTEE, UNTIL SUCH TIME AS ADEQUATE PROOF OF COMPLIANCE IS
members of the IBP Board of Governors, or designees of the Committee RECEIVED BY THE MCLE COMMITTEE.
Page 97
and IBP staff Board for purposes of monitoring compliance with these Members given sixty (60) days to respond to a Non-Compliance Notice
Rules. may use this period to attain the adequate number of credit units for
As the late Chief Justice Fred Ruiz Castro said: ATTY. JOSE R. IMBANG,
Respondent. Promulgated:
A person takes an oath when he is admitted to the Bar which is designed
to impress upon him his responsibilities. He thereby becomes an "officer August 23, 2007
of the court" on whose shoulders rests the grave responsibility of
assisting the courts in the proper, fair, speedy, and efficient
administration of justice. As an officer of the court he is subject to a rigid x---------------------------------------------------
discipline that demands that in his every exertion the only criterion he x
that truth and justice triumph. This discipline is what has given the law
profession its nobility, its prestige, its exalted place. From a lawyer, to RESOLUTION
paraphrase Justice Felix Frankfurter, are expected those qualities of
truth-speaking, a high sense of honor, full candor, intellectual honesty,
PER CURIAM:
and the strictest observance of fiduciary responsibility all of which,
throughout the centuries, have been compendiously described as moral
character.
This is a complaint for disbarment or suspension[1] against Atty. Jose R.
Imbang for multiple violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Membership in the Bar is in the category of a mandate to public service
of the highest order. A lawyer is an oath-bound servant of society whose
THE COMPLAINT
conduct is clearly circumscribed by inflexible norms of law and ethics,
and whose primary duty is the advancement of the quest of truth and
In 1992, the complainant Diana Ramos sought the assistance of
justice, for which he has sworn to be a fearless crusader. (Apostacy in
respondent Atty. Jose R. Imbang in filing civil and criminal actions
the Legal Profession, 64 SCRA 784, 789- 790; emphasis supplied.)
against the spouses Roque and Elenita Jovellanos.[2] She gave
respondent P8,500 as attorney's fees but the latter issued a receipt
The Code of Professional Responsibility applies to lawyers in
for P5,000 only.[3]
government service in the discharge of their official tasks (Canon 6). Just
as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials
The complainant tried to attend the scheduled hearings of her cases
requires public officials and employees to process documents and
against the Jovellanoses. Oddly, respondent never allowed her to enter
papers expeditiously (Sec. 5, subpars. [c] and [d] and prohibits them from
the courtroom and always told her to wait outside. He would then come
directly or indirectly having a financial or material interest in any
out after several hours to inform her that the hearing had been cancelled
transaction requiring the approval of their office, and likewise bars them
and rescheduled.[4] This happened six times and for each appearance in
from soliciting gifts or anything of monetary value in the course of any
court, respondent charged her P350.
transaction which may be affected by the functions of their office (See.
7, subpars. [a] and [d]), the Code of Professional Responsibility forbids
After six consecutive postponements, the complainant became
a lawyer to engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct
suspicious. She personally inquired about the status of her cases in the
(Rule 1.01, Code of Professional Responsibility), or delay any man's
trial courts of Bian and San Pedro, Laguna. She was shocked to learn
cause "for any corrupt motive or interest" (Rule 103).
that respondent never filed any case against the Jovellanoses and that
he was in fact employed in the Public Attorney's Office (PAO).[5]
A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness
to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a
scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession. (Rule 7.03,
RESPONDENT'S DEFENSE
Code of Professional Responsibility.)
According to respondent, the complainant knew that he was in the
government service from the very start. In fact, he first met the
Page 100
This Court has ordered that only those who are "competent, honorable,
complainant when he was still a district attorney in the Citizen's Legal
and reliable" may practice the profession of law (Noriega vs. Sison, 125
SCRA 293) for every lawyer must pursue "only the highest standards in
The CBD noted that the receipt[17] was issued on July 15, 1992 when (1) Engage in the private practice of profession unless authorized by the
respondent was still with the PAO.[18] It also noted that respondent Constitution or law, provided that such practice will not conflict with their
described the complainant as a shrewd businesswoman and that official function.[25]
respondent was a seasoned trial lawyer. For these reasons, the
complainant would not have accepted a spurious receipt nor would
respondent have issued one. The CBD rejected respondent's claim that Thus, lawyers in government service cannot handle private cases for
he issued the receipt to accommodate a friend's request. [19] It found they are expected to devote themselves full-time to the work of their
respondent guilty of violating the prohibitions on government lawyers respective offices.
from accepting private cases and receiving lawyer's fees other than their
salaries.[20] The CBD concluded that respondent violated the following In this instance, respondent received P5,000 from the complainant and
provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility: issued a receipt on July 15, 1992 while he was still connected with the
PAO. Acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney-client
Rule 1.01. A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or relationship.[26] Respondent's admission that he accepted money from
deceitful conduct. the complainant and the receipt confirmed the presence of an attorney-
client relationship between him and the complainant. Moreover, the
Rule 16.01. A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or receipt showed that he accepted the complainant's case while he was
received for or from a client. still a government lawyer. Respondent clearly violated the prohibition on
private practice of profession.
Rule 18.01. A lawyer should not undertake a legal service which he
knows or should know that he is not qualified to render. However, he may Aggravating respondent's wrongdoing was his receipt of attorney's fees.
render such service if, with the consent of his client, he can obtain as The PAO was created for the purpose of providing free legal assistance
collaborating counsel a lawyer who is competent on the matter. to indigent litigants.[27] Section 14(3), Chapter 5, Title III, Book V of the
Revised Administrative Code provides:
Thus, it recommended respondent's suspension from the practice of law Sec. 14. xxx
for three years and ordered him to immediately return to the complainant
the amount of P5,000 which was substantiated by the receipt.[21] The PAO shall be the principal law office of the Government in extending
free legal assistance to indigent persons in criminal, civil, labor,
Page 101
The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the findings of the administrative and other quasi-judicial cases.[28]
CBD that respondent violated Rules 1.01, 16.01 and 18.01 of the Code
prosecution is not to convict but to see that justice is done. The case.
suppression of facts or the concealment of witnesses capable of
by certiorari to the Supreme Court, the latter has no jurisdiction to service. Respondent subsequently questioned said administrative order
before this Court through a petition for certiorari, mandamus, and
Pursuant to this resolution, Atty. Benjamin B. Bernardino, Director for Bar Chapter. This directive had the approval of the IBP Board of Governors
Discipline, wrote a letter dated 23 October 1996 addressed to Governor through its Resolution No. XIV-2001-271 issued on 30 June 2001, to wit:
lawyer simply because he has joined the government service. In fact, by basis of the facts borne out by the record, the charge of deceit and
the express provision of Canon 6 thereof, the rules governing the grossly immoral conduct has been duly proven. This rule is premised on
Promulgated: In addition, the complainant alleged that in May 1999, the respondent
December 7, 2010 met with Manuel for the purpose of nullifying the conveyance of rights
x--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- over the land to Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez. The complainant claimed that
-x the respondent wanted the rights over the land transferred to one
Rolando Olazo, the Barangay Chairman of Hagonoy, Taguig.The
DECISION respondent in this regard executed an Assurance where he stated that
he was the lawyer of Ramon Lee and Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez.
Before us is the disbarment case against retired Supreme Court The complainant alleged that the respondent engaged in unlawful
Associate Justice Dante O. Tinga (respondent) filed by Mr. Jovito S. conduct considering his knowledge that Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez was
Olazo (complainant). The respondent is charged of violating Rule not a qualified beneficiary under Memorandum No. 119. The
6.02,[1] Rule 6.03[2] and Rule 1.01[3] of the Code of Professional complainant averred that Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez is not a bona
Responsibility for representing conflicting interests. fide resident of the proclaimed areas and does not qualify for an award.
Factual Background Thus, the approval of his sales application by the Committee on Awards
amounted to a violation of the objectives of Proclamation No. 172 and
In March 1990, the complainant filed a sales application covering a Memorandum No. 119.
parcel of land situated in Barangay Lower Bicutan in the Municipality of
Taguig. The land (subject land) was previously part of Fort Andres The complainant also alleged that the respondent violated Section
Bonifacio that was segregated and declared open for disposition 7(b)(2) of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials
pursuant to Proclamation No. 2476,[4] issued on January 7, 1986, and and Employees or Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6713 since he engaged in the
Proclamation No. 172,[5] issued on October 16, 1987. practice of law, within the one-year prohibition period, when he appeared
as a lawyer for Ramon Lee and Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez before the
Page 106
To implement Proclamation No. 172, Memorandum No. 119 was issued Committee on Awards.
by then Executive Secretary Catalino Macaraig, creating a Committee
(5) The respondents participation in the transaction between Miguel Accountability of a government lawyer in public office
Olazo and Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez involved the payment of the loan
that the respondent extended to Miguel Olazo. Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility highlights the
continuing standard of ethical conduct to be observed by government
(6) Manuels belated and secondhand allegation in his Sinumpaang lawyers in the discharge of their official tasks. In addition to the standard
Salaysay, dated January 20, 2000, regarding what his father told him, of conduct laid down under R.A. No. 6713 for government employees, a
cannot prevail over his earlierSinumpaang Salaysay with Francisca lawyer in the government service is obliged to observe the standard of
Olazo, dated August 2, 1997. In the said Sinumpaang Salaysay, Manuel conduct under the Code of Professional Responsibility.
categorically asserted that his father Miguel Olazo, not the complainant,
was the farmer-beneficiary. Manuel also expressed his agreement to the Since public office is a public trust, the ethical conduct demanded upon
transfer of rights (Pagpapatibay Sa Paglilipat Ng Karapatan) in favor of lawyers in the government service is more exacting than the standards
Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez, and the withdrawal of his fathers application for those in private practice. Lawyers in the government service are
to give way to Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguezs application. subject to constant public scrutiny under norms of public
accountability. They also bear the heavy burden of having to put aside
(7) The complainants allegation that the respondent had pressured and their private interest in favor of the interest of the public; their private
influenced Miguel Olazo to sell the subject land was not sufficient as it activities should not interfere with the discharge of their official
was lacking in specificity and corroboration. The DENR decision was functions.[11]
clear that the complainant had no rights over the subject land.
Page 107
DENR, not by the Committee on Awards. As proof that the respondent was engaged in an unauthorized practice
of law after his separation from the government service, the complainant
Section 7. Prohibited Acts and Transactions. In addition to acts and Rule 1.01 prohibits a lawyer from engaging in unlawful, immoral or
omissions of public officials and employees now prescribed in the deceitful conduct. From the above discussion, we already struck down
Constitution and existing laws, the following shall constitute prohibited the complainants allegation that respondent engaged in an unauthorized
acts and transactions of any public official and employee and are hereby practice of law when he appeared as a lawyer for Ramon Lee and
declared to be unlawful: Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez before the Committee on Awards.
engagement or employment in connection with any matter in which he codes became extremely popular that states adopted them as binding
had intervened while in the said service. rules of law. Critical to the development of the new codes was the re-
ABA Model Code of Professional Responsibility.[33] The basic ethical disqualify Atty. Mendoza as counsel for respondents Tan, et al. The
principles in the Code of Professional Responsibility were supplemented PCGG insists that Atty. Mendoza, as then Solicitor General, actively
the head of the appropriate supervising or examining department or his functions to pay its liabilities as they fall due in the usual and ordinary
examiners or agents into the condition of any bank or non-bank financial course of business. Provided, however, That this shall not include the
the Rule do not exist where the government lawyer does an act which the opponent, and observed that the tactic was so prevalent in large civil
can be considered as innocuous such as x x x drafting, enforcing or cases in recent years as to prompt frequent judicial and academic
strictness for it correctly disfavors lawyers who switch sides. It is any prescriptive period and retroactively, at that. Their concern is
claimed that switching sides carries the danger that former government
Philippines. Respondent explained thus: consequences of having signed the same and therefore I had to answer
for it and pay. I tried to raised the fund needed but up to the present my
advantage of his position with the Board of Special Inquiry of the Bureau permanent visa and that of your family.
of Immigration and Deportation, makes it more reprehensible as it has
interest. Promotion of private interest includes soliciting gifts or anything lawyer may be disbarred or suspended by this Court for any of the
of monetary value in any transaction requiring the approval of his office following acts: (1) deceit; (2) malpractice; (3) gross misconduct in office;
complainants Asset Management Group, he intervened in the handling appropriate to emphasize the paramount importance of avoiding the
of the loan account of the spouses Ponciano and Eufemia Almeda with representation of conflicting interests. In the similar case of Pasay Law
that in connection with the election of members of the Board of by any other member, directly or indirectly, in any form or manner, by
Governors and of the House of Delegates, there is a widespread belief, himself or through another person:
Democrito M. Perez, Abelardo Fermin, Diosdado B. Villarin, Jr., Daniel for Executive Vice President, Salvador Lao for Chairman of the House of
C. Macaraeg, Confesor R. Sansano Dionisio E. Bala, Jr., Emesto A. Delegates, and, for Governors: Basil Rupisan (Northern 'Luzon), Acong
Drilon group (t.s.n. July 5,1989, pp. 7678) during the legal aid seminar
(b) ATTY. VIOLETA C. DRILON and the IBP convention. Most of the members of his law firm are fraternity
brothers of Secretary Drilon (meaning, members of the Sigma Rho
(7) Paying the dues or other indebtedness of any number (Sec. 14[e], 29,1989,p.111)
IBP BY-Laws).
ticket to enable them to "assess their chances" among the chapter 3. The former system of having the IBP President and Executive Vice-
presidents in the Bicol provinces; the printing and distribution of tickets President elected by the Board of Governors (composed of the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 66, Makati, denying respondents motion for
13. Pending such special elections, a caretaker board shall be appointed reconsideration of his conviction, in Criminal Case No. 11787, for
by the Court to administer the affairs of the IBP. The Court makes clear violation of Art. 316, par. 2 of the Revised Penal Code.
of the proper IBP O.R. and PTR numbers in his pleadings (Annexes "A",
the final bar questions were questions prepared by Atty. Balgos; 25% connected to the internet (Exh. M). Atty. Balgos law partner, former
prepared by Justice Vitug himself, were included in the final bar
my mind. It is just unfortunate that the incident subject matter of your compliance with the subpoena that was issued to him. Garvida
memorandum occurred. Rest assured, though, that I have never been graduated from FEU College of Law in 2000. He is about 32 years of
who had received them from Randy Iigo. "By transmitting and distributing the stolen test questions to some
members of the Beta Sigma Lambda Fraternity, possibly for pecuniary
which he is quite proficient. Atty. Balgos should therefore have prepared reported that the system, which was developed by the MISO, was
the test questions in his trusty typewriter, in the privacy of his home, intended for the exclusive use of the Court. The installation thereof to
of discussing proposals for the creation of an inactive status for its while tax purpose of a tax is a revenue. If the judiciary has inherent power
members, which if approved by the Board of Governors and by this to regulate the Bar, it follows that as an incident to regulation, it may
We agree with the IBP that the defense of in pari delicto is not feasible. harassing tactics against opposing counsel.
The Court held in Mortel vs. Aspiras:
ATTY. ANASTACIO REVILLA, Promulgated: Additionally, the complaint accused the respondent of representing fifty-
JR. two (52) litigants in Civil Case No. Q-03-48762 when no such authority
Respondent. December 4, 2009 was ever given to him.
In a complaint for disbarment,[1] Conrado Que (complainant) accused With respect to paragraph 1 of the disbarment complaint, the respondent
Atty. Anastacio Revilla, Jr. (respondent) before the Integrated Bar of the professed his sincerity, honesty and good faith in filing the petitions
Philippines Committee on BarDiscipline (IBP Committee on Bar complained of; he filed these petitions to protect the interests of his
Discipline or CBD) of committing the following violations of the provisions clients in their property. The respondent asserted that these petitions
of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 138 of the Rules of were all based on valid grounds the lack of jurisdiction of the MeTC
Court: and the RTC over the underlying unlawful detainer case, the extrinsic
fraud committed by the late Atty. Catolico, and the extrinsic fraud
(1) The respondents abuse of court remedies and processes by filing a committed by the complainant and his family against his clients; he
petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA), two petitions for discovered that the allegedly detained property did not really belong to
annulment of title before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), a petition for the complainant and his family but is a forest land. The respondent also
annulment of judgment before the RTC and lastly, a petition for asserted that his resort to a petition for annulment of judgment and a
declaratory relief before the RTC (collectively, subject cases) to assail petition for declaratory relief to contest the final judgments of the MeTC
and overturn the final judgments of the Metropolitan Trial Court[2] (MeTC) and RTC were all parts of his legal strategy to protect the interests of his
and RTC[3] in the unlawful detainer case rendered against the clients.
respondents clients. The respondent in this regard, repeatedly raised the
issue of lack of jurisdiction by the MeTC and RTC knowing fully-well that On the allegations of falsehood in the motion for reconsideration of the
these courts have jurisdiction over the unlawful detainer case. The order of dismissal of the petition for annulment of judgment (covered by
respondent also repeatedly attacked the complainants and his siblings paragraph 3 of the disbarment complaint), the respondent maintained
titles over the property subject of the unlawful detainer case; that his allegations were based on his observations and the notes he had
taken during the proceedings on what the presiding judge dictated in
(2) The respondents commission of forum-shopping by filing the subject open court.
cases in order to impede, obstruct, and frustrate the efficient
administration of justice for his own personal gain and to defeat the right The respondent denied that he had made any unauthorized appearance
of the complainant and his siblings to execute the MeTC and RTC in court (with respect to paragraphs 5 and 6 of the disbarment complaint).
judgments in the unlawful detainer case; He claimed that the 52 litigants in Civil Case No. Q-03-48762 were
impleaded by inadvertence; he immediately rectified his error by
(3) The respondents lack of candor and respect towards his adversary dropping them from the case. On the petition for annulment of judgment,
and the courts by resorting to falsehood and deception to misguide, the respondent claimed that a majority (31 out of 49) of the litigants who
obstruct and impede the due administration of justice. The respondent signed the certification constituted sufficient compliance with the rules on
asserted falsehood in the motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of forum-shopping. The respondent likewise denied having represented the
Republic of the Philippines in the second petition for annulment of title.
Page 136
likewise brushed aside the respondents argument regarding his case. The records show that these petitions were both dismissed for lack
misrepresentation in the second complaint for annulment of title since he of legal personality on the part of the plaintiffs to file the petition.[19]
The respondent likewise violated Rule 12.02 and Rule 12.04, Canon 12 Likewise, the proceedings on said date of hearing (June 28, 2002) show,
of the Code of Professional Responsibility,[21] as well as the rule against that after both counsel have argued on the aforesaid pending
forum shopping, both of which are directed against the filing of multiple incident, the Honorable Presiding Judge, in open court, and in the
actions to attain the same objective. Both violations constitute abuse of presence and within the hearing distance of all the plaintiffs and their
court processes; they tend to degrade the administration of justice; counsel as well as the counsel of the defendants resolved: TO DENY
wreak havoc on orderly judicial procedure;[22] and add to the congestion THE MOTION TO DISMISS FILED AND DIRECTED DEFENDANTS
of the heavily burdened dockets of the courts.[23] COUNSEL TO FILE AN ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT WITHIN THE
REMAINING PERIOD.[27][Underscoring and emphasis theirs]
While the filing of a petition for certiorari to question the lower courts
jurisdiction may be a procedurally legitimate (but substantively
erroneous) move, the respondents subsequent petitions involving the The records, however, disclose that the scheduled hearing for June 28,
same property and the same parties not only demonstrate his attempts 2002 was actually for the respondents application for temporary
to secure favorable ruling using different fora, but his obvious objective restraining order and was not a hearing on the adverse partys motion to
as well of preventing the execution of the MeTC and RTC decisions in dismiss.[28] The records also show that RTC-Branch 101 held in
the unlawful detainer case against his clients. This intent is most obvious abeyance the respondents application for injunctive relief pending the
with respect to the petitions for annulment of judgment and declaratory resolution of the motion to dismiss filed by the adverse party.[29] As stated
relief, both geared towards preventing the execution of the unlawful in the order of the Presiding Judge of RTC-Branch 101:
detainer decision, long after this decision had become final. Browsing over the records of this case specifically the transcripts of
Willful, intentional and deliberate stenographic notes as transcribed by the Stenographer, the same will
falsehood before the courts indicate that the allegations in the Motion for Reconsideration are not
true.
The records also reveal that the respondent committed willful, intentional
and deliberate falsehood in the pleadings he filed with the lower courts. how can this Court make a ruling on the matter even without stating the
factual and legal bases as required/mandated by the Rules. Moreover,
First, in the petition for annulment of judgment filed before the RTC, there are no indications or iota of irregularity in the preparation by
Branch 101, Quezon City, the respondent cited extrinsic fraud as one of Stenographer of the transcripts, and by the Court interpreter of the
the grounds for the annulment sought. The extrinsic fraud was alleged in Minutes of the open Court session.[Underscoring theirs]
the last paragraph of the petition, as follows: The records further disclose that despite knowledge of the falsity of his
allegations, the respondent took advantage of his position and the trust
In here, counsel for the petitioners (defendants therein), deliberately reposed in him by his clients (who are all squatters) to convince them to
neglected to file the proper remedy then available after receipt of the support, through their affidavits, his false claims on what allegedly
denial of their Motion for Reconsideration thuscorruptly sold out the transpired in the June 28, 2002 hearing. [30]
Page 138
interest of the petitioners (defendants therein) by keeping them away For these acts, we find the respondent liable under Rule 10.01 of Canon
to the Court and in complete ignorance of the suit by a false pretense of 10 the Code of Professional Responsibility for violating the lawyers duty
CANON 19 A LAWYER SHALL REPRESENT HIS CLIENT WITH ZEAL In the second instance, which occurred in the second complaint for
WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF LAW annulment of title, the respondent knew that only the Solicitor General
can legally represent the Republic of the Philippines in actions for
Rule 19.01 A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain reversion of land. Nevertheless, he filed an amended petition where he
the lawful objectives of his clients x x x impleaded the Republic of the Philippines as plaintiff without its authority
and consent, as a surreptitious way of forcing the Republic to litigate.
Notably, he signed the amended complaint on behalf of all the plaintiffs
This Canon obligates a lawyer, in defending his client, to employ only his clients and the Republic.
such means as are consistent with truth and honor.[36] He should not In both instances, the respondent violated Sections 21 and 27, Rule 138
prosecute patently frivolous and meritless appeals or institute clearly of the Rules of Court when he undertook the unauthorized appearances.
groundless actions.[37] The recital of what the respondent did to prevent The settled rule is that a lawyer may not represent a litigant without
the execution of the judgment against his clients shows that he actually authority from the latter or from the latters representative or, in the
committed what the above rule expressly prohibits. absence thereof, without leave of court.[40] The willful unauthorized
appearance by a lawyer for a party in a given case constitutes
Maligning the name of his fellow lawyers contumacious conduct and also warrants disciplinary measures against
the erring lawyer for professional misconduct.[41]
The Respondents Defenses
To support the charge of extrinsic fraud in his petition for annulment of
judgment, the respondent attacked (as quoted above) the name and We find no merit in the respondents defenses.
reputation of the late Atty. Catolico and accused him of deliberate
neglect, corrupt motives and connivance with the counsel for the adverse Good faith connotes an honest intention to abstain from taking
party. unconscientious advantage of another. Accordingly, in University of the
East v. Jader we said that "[g]ood faith connotes an honest intention to
We find it significant that the respondent failed to demonstrate how he abstain from taking undue advantage of another, even though the forms
came upon his accusation against Atty. Catolico. The respondent, by his and technicalities of law, together with the absence of all information or
own admission, only participated in the cases previously assigned to belief of facts, would render the transaction unconscientious."[42] Bad
Atty. Catolico after the latter died. At the same time, the respondents faith, on the other hand, is a state of mind affirmatively operating with
petition for annulment of judgment also represented that no second furtive design or with some motive of self-interest, ill will or for an ulterior
motion for reconsideration or appeal was filed to contest the MeTC and purpose.[43] As both concepts are states of mind, they may be deduced
RTC decisions in the unlawful detainer case for the reason that the from the attendant circumstances and, more particularly, from the acts
respondent believed the said decisions were null and void ab initio. and statements of the person whose state of mind is the subject of
inquiry.
Under these circumstances, we believe that the respondent has been
less than fair in his professional relationship with Atty. Catolico and is In this case, we find that the respondent acted in bad faith in defending
thus liable for violating Canon 8 of the Code of Professional the interests of his clients. We draw this conclusion from the
Responsibility, which obligates a lawyer to conduct himself with misrepresentations and the dubious recourses he made, all obviously
courtesy, fairness, and candor toward his professional colleagues. He geared towards forestalling the execution of the final judgments of the
was unfair because he imputed wrongdoing to Atty. Catolico without MeTC and RTC. That he took advantage of his legal knowledge and
showing any factual basis therefor; he effectively maligned Atty. Catolico, experience and misread the Rules immeasurably strengthen the
who is now dead and unable to defend himself. presence of bad faith.
Page 139
Unauthorized appearances
It may be initiated by the Court motu proprio. Public interest is its primary [A.C. No. 4807. March 22, 2000]
objective, and the real question for determination is whether or not the MANUEL N. CAMACHO, complainant, vs. ATTYS. LUIS MEINRADO
attorney is still a fit person to be allowed the privileges as such. Hence, C. PANGULAYAN, REGINA D. BALMORES, CATHERINE V. LAUREL
in the exercise of its disciplinary powers, the Court merely calls upon a and HUBERT JOAQUIN P. BUSTOS of PANGULAYAN AND
Page 140
member of the Bar to account for his actuations as an officer of-the Court ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICES, respondents.
with the end in view of preserving the purity of the legal profession and D E C I S IO N
Following the execution of the letters of apology and Re-Admission assistance to those seeking relief against unfaithful or neglectful
Agreements, a Manifestation, dated 06 June 1997, was filed with the trial counsel.
Judge Miguel Avestruz of Daram, Samar, declared that the respondent respondent is grave, hence it warrants a more drastic sanction than that
appeared as counsel in civil case No. 39 in the Municipal Court of Daram, of reprimand recommended by Judge Zosa. We find no alternative than
Before us is an original petition[1] for contempt filed by petitioners Rogelio (e) Assuming to be an attorney or an officer of a court, and acting as
Tan, Norma Tan and Maliyawao Pagayokan against respondent such without authority;
Benedicto Balajadia.
x x x x.
Petitioners allege that on May 8, 2005, respondent filed a criminal case
against them with the Office of the City of Prosecutor of Baguio City for In several cases,[10] we have ruled that the unauthorized practice of law
usurpation of authority, grave coercion and violation of city tax ordinance by assuming to be an attorney and acting as such without authority
due to the alleged illegal collection of parking fees by petitioners from constitutes indirect contempt which is punishable by fine or imprisonment
respondent. In paragraph 5 of the complaint-affidavit, respondent or both. The liability for the unauthorized practice of law under Section
asserted that he is a practicing lawyer based in Baguio City with office 3(e), Rule 71 of the Rules of Court is in the nature of criminal contempt
address at Room B-207, 2/F Lopez Building, Session and the acts are punished because they are an affront to the dignity and
Road, Baguio City.[2] However, certifications issued by the Office of the authority of the court, and obstruct the orderly administration of justice. In
Bar Confidant[3] and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines[4] showed that determining liability for criminal contempt, well-settled is the rule that
respondent has never been admitted to the Philippine Bar.Hence, intent is a necessary element, and no one can be punished unless the
petitioners claim that respondent is liable for indirect contempt for evidence makes it clear that he intended to commit it.[11]
misrepresenting himself as a lawyer.
In the case at bar, a review of the records supports respondents claim
In his Comment,[5] respondent avers that the allegation in paragraph 5 of that he never intended to project himself as a lawyer to the public. It was
the complaint-affidavit that he is a practicing lawyer was an honest a clear inadvertence on the part of the secretary of Atty Aquino. The
mistake. He claims that the secretary of Atty. Paterno Aquino prepared affidavit of Liza Laconsay attesting to the circumstances that gave rise
the subject complaint-affidavit which was patterned after Atty. Aquinos to the mistake in the drafting of the complaint-affidavit conforms to the
complaint-affidavit.[6] It appears that Atty. Aquino had previously filed a documentary evidence on record. Taken together, these circumstances
complaint-affidavit against petitioners involving the same subject matter. show that the allegation in paragraph 5 of respondents complaint-
affidavit was, indeed, the result of inadvertence.
Respondent claims that two complaint-affidavits were drafted by the
same secretary; one for the May 5, 2005 parking incident at 10:00 Respondent has satisfactorily shown that the allegation that he is a
oclock in the morning and another for the parking incident on the same practicing lawyer was the result of inadvertence and cannot, by itself,
date but which occurred at 1:00 oclock in the afternoon. Respondent establish intent as to make him liable for indirect contempt. In the cases
insists that the complaint-affidavit regarding the 1:00 oclock parking where we found a party liable for the unauthorized practice of law, the
incident correctly alleged that he is a businessman with office address at party was guilty of some overt act like signing court pleadings on behalf
Room B-204, 2/F Lopez Building, Session of his client;[12] appearing before court hearings as an
Road, Baguio City.[7] However, the complaint-affidavit regarding attorney;[13] manifesting before the court that he will practice law despite
the 10:00 oclock parking incident, which is the subject of the instant being previously denied admission to the bar;[14] or deliberately
petition, erroneously referred to him as a practicing lawyer because Atty. attempting to practice law and holding out himself as an attorney through
Aquinos secretary copied verbatim paragraph 5 of Atty. Aquinos circulars with full knowledge that he is not licensed to do so.[15]
complaint-affidavit. Hence, it was inadvertently alleged that respondent
is a practicing lawyer based in Baguio City with office address at Room In the case at bar, no evidence was presented to show that respondent
B-207, 2/F Lopez Building, Session Road, Baguio City, which statement acted as an attorney or that he intended to practice law. Consequently,
referred to the person of Atty. Aquino and his law office address. he cannot be made liable for indirect contempt considering his lack of
Page 144
he decided to assist and advice Bunan, not as a lawyer but as a person Candidate Emily Estipona-Hao and for the REFORMA LM-PPC. On
who knows the law. Respondent admits signing the 19 May 2001 19 May 2001, respondent signed as counsel for Estipona-Hao in the
respondent stated that he was resigning effective upon your as LRC Case No. B-2610.
acceptance.[10] Vice-Mayor Relox accepted respondents resignation
possessed and continue to possess the legal qualifications for it. Indeed, complainant the amount he received by way of legal fees pursuant to
lawyers are expected to maintain at all times a high standard of legal existing jurisprudence.19
PLUS BUILDERS, INC., and A.C. No. 7056 Respondent duly filed a motion for reconsideration within the
EDGARDO C. GARCIA, Present: reglementary period, appealing to the Court to take a second look at his
Complainants, case and praying that the penalty of suspension of two years be reduced
PUNO, C J., to mere reprimand or admonition for the sake of his family and the poor
QUISUMBING, clients he was defending.[2]
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
CARPIO, Respondent maintains that he did not commit the acts complained
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, of. The courses of action he took were not meant to unduly delay the
CORONA, execution of the DARAB Decision dated November 19, 1999, but were
CARPIO MORALES, based on his serious study, research and experience as a litigation
AZCUNA, lawyer for more than 20 years and on the facts given to him by his clients
-versus- TINGA, in the DARAB case. He believes that the courses of action he took were
CHICO-NAZARIO, valid and proper legal theory designed to protect the rights and interests
VELASCO, JR., of Leopoldo de Guzman, et. al.[3] He stresses that he was not the original
NACHURA, lawyer in this case. The lawyer-client relationship with the former lawyer
LEONARDO-DE was terminated because Leopoldo de Guzman, et. al. felt that their
CASTRO, former counsel did not explain/argue their position very well, refused to
BRION, and listen to them and, in fact, even castigated them. As the new counsel,
PERALTA, JJ. respondent candidly relied on what the tenants/farmers told him in the
course of his interview. They maintained that they had been in open,
ATTY. ANASTACIO E. Promulgated: adverse, continuous and notorious possession of the land in the concept
REVILLA, JR., February 11, 2009 of an owner for more than 50 years. Thus, the filing of the action to quiet
Respondent. title was resorted to in order to determine the rights of his clients
respecting the subject property. He avers that he merely exhausted all
possible remedies and defenses to which his clients were entitled under
RESOLUTION the law, considering that his clients were subjected to harassment and
threats of physical harm and summary eviction by the complainant.[4] He
NACHURA, J. posits that he was only being protective of the interest of his clients as a
good father would be protective of his own family,[5] and that his services
Before us is a motion for reconsideration of our Decision dated to Leopoldo de Guzman, et. al were almost pro bono.[6]
September 13, 2006, finding respondent guilty of gross misconduct for
committing a willful and intentional falsehood before the court, misusing Anent the issue that he permitted his name to be used for unauthorized
court procedure and processes to delay the execution of a judgment and practice of law, he humbly submits that there was actually no sufficient
collaborating with non-lawyers in the illegal practice of law. evidence to prove the same or did he fail to dispute this, contrary to the
findings of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). He was counsel of
To recall, the antecedents of the case are as follows: Leopoldo de Guzman, et al. only and not of the cooperative Kalayaan
Development Cooperative (KDC). He was just holding his office in this
On November 15, 1999, a decision was rendered by the Provincial cooperative, together with Attys. Dominador Ferrer, Efren Ambrocio, the
Adjudicator of Cavite (PARAD) in favor of herein complainant, Plus late Alfredo Caloico and Marciano Villavert. He signed the retainer
Builders, Inc. and against the tenants/farmers Leopoldo de Guzman, agreement with Atty. Dominador to formalize their lawyer-client
Heirs of Bienvenido de Guzman, Apolonio Ilas and Gloria Martirez relationship, and the complainants were fully aware of such
Siongco, Heirs of Faustino Siongco, Serafin Santarin, Benigno Alvarez arrangement.[7]
and Maria Esguerra, who were the clients of respondent, Atty. Anastacio
E. Revilla, Jr. The PARAD found that respondents clients were mere Finally, he submits that if he is indeed guilty of violating the rules in the
tenants and not rightful possessors/owners of the subject land. The case courses of action he took in behalf of his clients, he apologizes and
was elevated all the way up to the Supreme Court, with this Court supplicates the Court for kind consideration, pardon and forgiveness. He
sustaining complainants rights over the land. Continuing to pursue his reiterates that he does not deserve the penalty of two years
clients lost cause, respondent was found to have committed intentional suspension, considering that the complaint fails to show him wanting in
falsehood; and misused court processes with the intention to delay the character, honesty, and probity; in fact, he has been a member of the bar
execution of the decision through the filing of several motions, petitions for more than 20 years, served as former president of the IBP
Page 148
for temporary restraining orders, and the last, an action to quiet title Marinduque Chapter, a legal aide lawyer of IBP Quezon City handling
despite the finality of the decision. Furthermore, he allowed non-lawyers detention prisoners and pro bono cases, and is also a member of the
his receipt of said Resolution within ten (10) days from receipt thereof. officers of the court, participate in the dispensation of justice, to behave
at all times in a manner consistent with truth and honor.15 The common
that should not be reason for us to impose it as a penalty for his After a second Motion for Extension of Time to Submit
professional misconduct. We would be going beyond the purpose of this Comment,9 respondent submitted her Comment alleging the following:
Resolution No. XII-96-149 dated 30 March 1996. The IBP Board of dismissed outright.48
Governors adopted and approved Investigating Commissioner Joses
partially, inadequately, or selectively."60 Respondents obstinate refusal The penalty of suspension or disbarment is meted out in clear cases of
to comply with the Courts orders "not only betrays a recalcitrant flaw in misconduct that seriously affect the standing and character of the lawyer
For his part, respondent Susa argues in his comment that he was no on December 15, 2000 does not exonerate them. The fact remains that
longer in court when his co-respondents filed the Manifestation with
1. On November 22, 2000 Atty. Ferrer, as plaintiffs counsel in Civil Case In his reply affidavit,[2] Atty. Barandon brought up a sixth ground for
7040, filed a reply with opposition to motion to dismiss that contained disbarment. He alleged that on December 29, 2000 at about 1:30 p.m.,
abusive, offensive, and improper language which insinuated that while Atty. Ferrer was on board his sons taxi, it figured in a collision with
Atty. Barandon presented a falsified document in court. a tricycle, resulting in serious injuries to the tricycles passengers. [3] But
neither Atty. Ferrer nor any of his co-passengers helped the victims and,
2. Atty. Ferrer filed a fabricated charge against Atty. Barandon in Civil during the police investigation, he denied knowing the taxi driver and
Case 7040 for alleged falsification of public document when the blamed the tricycle driver for being drunk. Atty. Ferrer also prevented an
document allegedly falsified was a notarized document executed on eyewitness from reporting the accident to the authorities.[4]
February 23, 1994, at a date when Atty. Barandon was not yet a lawyer
nor was assigned in Camarines Norte. The latter was not even a Atty. Barandon claimed that the falsification case against him had
signatory to the document. already been dismissed. He belittled the citations Atty. Ferrer allegedly
received. On the contrary, in its Resolution 00-1,[5] the IBP-
3. On December 19, 2000, at the courtroom of Municipal Trial Court Camarines Norte Chapter opposed his application to serve as judge of
(MTC) Daet before the start of hearing, Atty. Ferrer, evidently drunk, the MTC of Mercedes, Camarines Sur, on the ground that he did not
threatened have the qualifications, integrity, intelligence, industry and character of a
Atty.Barandon saying, Laban kung laban, patayan kung patayan, kasa trial judge and that he was facing a criminal charge for acts of
ma ang lahat ng pamilya. Wala na palang magaling na abogado sa Ca lasciviousness and a disbarment case filed by an employee of the same
marines Norte, ang abogadona rito ay mga taga- IBP chapter.
Camarines Sur, umuwi na kayo sa Camarines Sur, hindi kayo taga-rito.
On October 10, 2001 Investigating Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan
4. Atty. Ferrer made his accusation of falsification of public document of the IBP-CBD submitted to this Court a Report, recommending the
without bothering to check the copy with the Office of the Clerk of Court suspension for two years of Atty.Ferrer. The Investigating Commissioner
and, with gross ignorance of the law, failed to consider that a notarized found enough evidence on record to prove Atty. Ferrers violation of
document is presumed to be genuine and authentic until proven Canons 8.01 and 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He
otherwise. attributed to Atty. Barandon, as counsel in Civil Case 7040, the
falsification of the plaintiffs affidavit despite the absence of evidence that
5. The Court had warned Atty. Ferrer in his first disbarment case against the document had in fact been falsified and that Atty. Barandon was a
repeating his unethical act; yet he faces a disbarment charge for sexual party to it. The Investigating Commissioner also found that
harassment of an office secretary of the IBP Chapter Atty. Ferrer uttered the threatening remarks imputed to him in the
in Camarines Norte; a related criminal case for acts of lasciviousness; presence of other counsels, court personnel, and litigants before the start
and criminal cases for libel and grave threats that Atty.Barandon filed of hearing.
against him. In October 2000, Atty. Ferrer asked Atty. Barandon to
falsify the daily time record of his son who worked with the Commission On June 29, 2002 the IBP Board of Governors passed Resolution XV-
on Settlement of Land Problems, Department of Justice. When 2002-225,[6] adopting and approving the Investigating Commissioners
Atty. Barandon declined, Atty. Ferrer repeatedly harassed him with recommendation but reduced the penalty of suspension to only one year.
inflammatory language.
Atty. Ferrer filed a motion for reconsideration but the Board denied it in
Atty. Ferrer raised the following defenses in his answer with motion to its Resolution[7] of October 19, 2002 on the ground that it had already
dismiss: endorsed the matter to the Supreme Court. On February 5, 2003,
however, the Court referred back the case to the IBP for resolution of
1. Instead of having the alleged forged document submitted for Atty. Ferrers motion for reconsideration.[8] On May 22, 2008 the IBP
examination, Atty. Barandon filed charges of libel and grave threats Board of Governors adopted and approved the Report and
against him. These charges came about because Atty. Ferrers clients Recommendation[9] of the Investigating Commissioner that denied
filed a case for falsification of public document against Atty. Barandon. Atty. Ferrers motion for reconsideration.[10]
2. The offended party in the falsification case, Imelda Palatolon, On February 17, 2009, Atty. Ferrer filed a Comment on Board of
vouchsafed that her thumbmark in the waiver document had been Governors IBP Notice of Resolution No. XVIII-2008.[11] On August 12,
falsified. 2009 the Court resolved to treat Atty.Ferrers comment as a petition for
review under Rule 139 of the Revised Rules of
3. At the time Atty. Ferrer allegedly uttered the threatening remarks Court. Atty. Barandon filed his comment,[12] reiterating his arguments
Page 155
against Atty. Barandon, the MTC Daet was already in session. It was before the IBP. Further, he presented certified copies of orders issued
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
myth instead of the facts. He fixed his sights on the tent in front of complainants, but due to the acts of the employer and the respondents,
the wall and closed his eyes to the open wide passage way and gate
execution of these waivers if these were executed freely by his clients? ...
No. 60727, dated August 25, 1989), the movants have raised no new
Venturanza, L-20417, decided by this Court on May 30, 1966, as the in an open and public hearing" so that this Court could observe his
sincerity and candor. He also asked for leave to file a written explanation
Court has performed its duties. We never interfered nor obstruct in the facts and parties involved." Pertinent here is the observation of Mr.
performance of their duties. But in the end, after seeing that the
proceedings," it traced the procedural lines etched by this Court in a evaluation of their performance. 13 For like the executive and the
legislative branches, the judiciary is rooted in the soil of democratic
express declaration take upon themselves, when they are admitted to criticism members of the bar may make regarding the capacity,
the Bar, is not merely to be obedient to the Constitution and laws, but to impartiality, or integrity of the courts, even though it extends to the
the judicial integrity of the court from which the appeal was taken. Such polluted water supply than is the health of the thought of a community
action, the Court said, constitutes unprofessional conduct justifying toward the judiciary by the filthy wanton, and malignant misuse of
however he proceeded and thus assailed the Chief Justice personally, suspension for 18 months for publishing a letter in a newspaper in which
he exercised no right which the court can recognize, but, on the contrary,
newspaper a statement expressing his regret "that our High Tribunal has has repeatedly fallen whenever the jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial
not only erroneously interpreted said law, but it is once more putting in Relations comes into question. That pitfall is the tendency of this Court
perpetrated during the pendency of the said appeal. in the papers of an account of his actuations, in a calculated effort ;to
startle the public, stir up public indignation and disrespect toward the
well as the people themselves whose rights, fortunes and properties, CARPIO M
nay, even lives, would be placed at grave hazard should the - versus - TINGA,
was admitted and consolidated with the complaints of Del Castillo Cesar Goco was duly authorized to sign the verification and certification
Appeals,[27] the law firm states that hiring private counsel is proper where admissions may not necessarily prevail over documentary
CARPIO, J.: x x x The defendant filed a Motion for Reconsideration, and after a very
questionable SHORT period of time, came this STUNNING and
xxxx
Velasco-Jacoba moved for reconsideration of the 13 September 2001
7. FINALLY, the Honorable Pairing Court Presiding Judge Ridiculously order. She recounted that on her way out of the house for an afternoon
ERRED in Ordering the Defendant To Pay P10,000.00 to the Plaintiff As hearing, Atty. Ellis Jacoba (Jacoba) stopped her and
Payment for Plaintiffs HOUSE: said O, pirmahan mo na ito kasi last day na, baka mahuli. (Sign this as it
is due today, or it might not be filed on time.) She signed the pleading
THIS IS the Last STRAW, but it is also the Best ILLUSTRATION of the handed to her without reading it, in trusting blind faith on her husband of
Manifold GLARING ERRORS committed by the Hon. Pairing Court 35 years with whom she entrusted her whole life and future.[17] This
Judge. pleading turned out to be the 30 July 2001 motion which Jacoba drafted
but could not sign because of his then suspension from the practice of
xxxx law.[18]
This Order of the Court for the plaintiff to sell his RESIDENTIAL HOUSE Velasco-Jacoba lamented that Judge Lacurom had found her guilty of
to the defendant for the ridiculously LOW price of P10,000.00 best contempt without conducting any hearing. She accused
illustrates the Long Line of Faultyreasonings and ERRONEOUS Judge Lacurom of harboring a personal vendetta, ordering her
conclusions of the Hon. Pairing Court Presiding Judge. Like the imprisonment despite her status as senior lady lawyer of the
proverbial MONSTER, the Monstrous Resolution should be slain on IBP Nueva Ecija Chapter, already a senior citizen, and a grandmother
sight![8] many times over.[19] At any rate, she argued, Judge Lacurom should
have inhibited himself from the case out of delicadeza because
The 30 July 2001 motion prayed that (1) Judge Lacurom inhibit himself [Veneracion] had already filed against him criminal cases before the
in order to give plaintiff a fighting chance and (2) the Resolution be Office of the City Prosecutor of Cabanatuan City and before the
reconsidered and set aside.[9]Atty. Olivia Velasco-Jacoba (Velasco- Ombudsman.[20]
Jacoba) signed the motion on behalf of the Jacoba-Velasco-Jacoba Law
Firm. The records show that with the assistance of counsel Jacoba and
the Jacoba-Velasco-Jacoba Law Firm, Veneracion had executed an
Page 173
On 6 August 2001, Judge Lacurom ordered Velasco-Jacoba to appear affidavit on 23 August 2001 accusing Judge Lacurom of knowingly
before his sala and explain why she should not be held in contempt of
Judge Lacurom issued another order on 21 September 2001, this time The petition for certiorari, instituted by Veneracion and Velasco-
directing Jacoba to explain why he should not be held in Jacoba on 4 October 2001, seeks to nullify the following orders issued
contempt.[25] Jacoba complied by filing an Answer with Second Motion by Judge Lacurom in Civil Case No. 2836: (1) the Orders dated 26
for Inhibition, wherein he denied that he typed or prepared the 30 July September 2001 and 9 November 2001 denying respondents respective
2001 motion. Against Velasco-Jacobas statements implicating motions for inhibition; and (2) the 13 September 2001 Order which found
him, Jacobainvoked the marital privilege rule in Velasco-Jacoba guilty of contempt. The petitioners allege that
evidence.[26] Judge Lacurom later rendered a Judge Lacurom acted with grave abuse of discretion [amounting] to lack
decision[27] finding Jacoba guilty of contempt of court and sentencing him of jurisdiction, in violation of express provisions of the law and applicable
to pay a fine ofP500. decisions of the Supreme Court.[36]
On 22 October 2001, Judge Lacurom filed the present complaint against Plainly, the issue before us is respondents liability under the Code of
respondents before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). Professional Responsibility. The outcome of this case has no bearing on
the resolution of the petition for certiorari, as there is neither identity of
issues nor causes of action.
Report and Recommendation of the IBP
Neither should the Courts dismissal of the administrative complaint
Respondents did not file an answer and neither did they appear at the against Judge Lacurom for being premature impel us to dismiss this
hearing set by IBP Commissioner Atty. Lydia A. Navarro (IBP complaint. Judge Lacuroms orders in Civil Case No. 2836 could not be
Commissioner Navarro) despite sufficient notice.[28] the subject of an administrative complaint against him while a petition for
certiorari assailing the same orders is pending with an
IBP Commissioner Navarro, in her Report and Recommendation of 10 appellate court.Administrative remedies are neither alternative nor
October 2002, recommended the suspension of respondents from the cumulative to judicial review where such review is available to the
practice of law for six months.[29]IBP Commissioner Navarro found that aggrieved parties and the same has not been resolved with finality. Until
respondents were prone to us[ing] offensive and derogatory remarks and there is a final declaration that the challenged order or judgment is
phrases which amounted to discourtesy and disrespect for manifestly erroneous, there will be no basis to conclude whether the
authority.[30] Although the remarks were not directed at judge is administratively liable.[37]
Judge Lacurom personally, they were aimed at his position as a judge,
which is a smack on the judiciary system as a whole.[31] The respondents are situated differently within the factual setting of this
case. The corresponding implications of their actions also give rise to
The IBP Board of Governors (IBP Board) adopted IBP Commissioner different liabilities. We first examine the charge against Velasco-Jacoba.
Navarros Report and Recommendation, except for the length of
suspension which the IBP Board reduced to three months.[32] On 10 There is no dispute that the genuine signature of Velasco-
December 2002, the IBP Board transmitted its recommendation to this Jacoba appears on the 30 July 2001 motion. Velasco-
Court, together with the documents pertaining to the case. Jacobas responsibility as counsel is governed by Section 3, Rule 7 of
the Rules of Court:
Several days later, Velasco-Jacoba sought reconsideration of the IBP SEC. 3. Signature and address.Every pleading must be signed by the
Board decision, thus:[33] party or counsel representing him x x x.
Appeals.[34] (Emphasis supplied) According to Velasco-Jacoba, [s]o implicit is [their] trust for each other
that this happens all the time. Through the years, [she] already lost count
Well-recognized is the right of a lawyer, both as an officer of the court Rule 11.05 A lawyer shall submit grievances against a judge to
and as a citizen, to criticize in properly respectful terms and through the proper authorities already.
legitimate channels the acts of courts and judges.[45] However, even the A lawyer is an officer of the court. He occupies a quasi-judicial
Page 175
most hardened judge would be scarred by the scurrilous attack made by office with a tripartite obligation to the courts, to the public and
the 30 July 2001 motion on Judge Lacuroms Resolution. On its face, the to his clients.
deaf and dumb." He then vows to argue the cause of his client "in the
people's forum," so that "the people may know of the silent injustice's Inc. vs. Batu Construction & Co., G.R. No. L-16636, June 24, 1965),
committed by this Court," and that "whatever mistakes, wrongs and
Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea
LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
which did not interrupt the running of the period to appeal, and, require Atty. Almacen to state, within five days from notice hereof, his
consequently, the appeal was perfected out of time. reasons for such request, otherwise, oral argument shall be deemed
Atty. Almacen moved to reconsider this resolution, urging that Manila waived and incident submitted for decision." To this resolution he
Surety & Fidelity Co. is not decisive. At the same time he filed a pleading manifested that since this Court is "the complainant, prosecutor and
entitled "Latest decision of the Supreme Court in Support of Motion for Judge," he preferred to be heard and to answer questions "in person and
Reconsideration," citing Republic of the Philippines vs. Gregorio A. in an open and public hearing" so that this Court could observe his
Venturanza, L-20417, decided by this Court on May 30, 1966, as the sincerity and candor. He also asked for leave to file a written explanation
applicable case. Again, the Court of Appeals denied the motion for "in the event this Court has no time to hear him in person." To give him
reconsideration, thus: the ampliest latitude for his defense, he was allowed to file a written
Before this Court for resolution are the motion dated May 9, 1967 and explanation and thereafter was heard in oral argument.
the supplement thereto of the same date filed by defendant- appellant, His written answer, as undignified and cynical as it is unchastened, offers
praying for reconsideration of the resolution of May 8, 1967, dismissing -no apology. Far from being contrite Atty. Almacen unremittingly repeats
the appeal. his jeremiad of lamentations, this time embellishing it with abundant
Appellant contends that there are some important distinctions between sarcasm and innuendo. Thus:
this case and that of Manila Surety and Fidelity Co., Inc. vs. Batu At the start, let me quote passages from the Holy Bible, Chapter 7, St.
Construction & Co., G.R. No. L- 16636, June 24, 1965, relied upon by Matthew:
this Court in its resolution of May 8, 1967. Appellant further states that in "Do not judge, that you may not be judged. For with what judgment you
the latest case,Republic vs. Venturanza, L-20417, May 30, 1966, judge, you shall be judged, and with what measure you measure, it shall
decided by the Supreme Court concerning the question raised by be measured to you. But why dost thou see the speck in thy brother's
appellant's motion, the ruling is contrary to the doctrine laid down in the eye, and yet dost not consider the beam in thy own eye? Or how can
Manila Surety & Fidelity Co., Inc. case. thou say to thy brother, "Let me cast out the speck from thy eye"; and
There is no substantial distinction between this case and that of Manila behold, there is a beam in thy own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the
Surety & Fidelity Co. beam from thy own eye, and then thou wilt see clearly to cast out the
In the case of Republic vs. Venturanza, the resolution denying the speck from thy brother's eyes."
motion to dismiss the appeal, based on grounds similar to those raised "Therefore all that you wish men to do to you, even to do you also to
herein was issued on November 26, 1962, which was much earlier than them: for this is the Law and the Prophets."
the date of promulgation of the decision in the Manila Surety Case, which xxx xxx xxx
was June 24, 1965. Further, the resolution in the Venturanza case was Your respondent has no intention of disavowing the statements
interlocutory and the Supreme Court issued it "without prejudice to mentioned in his petition. On the contrary, he refirms the truth of what he
appellee's restoring the point in the brief." In the main decision in said stated, compatible with his lawyer's oath that he will do no falsehood, nor
case (Rep. vs. Venturanza the Supreme Court passed upon the issue consent to the doing of any in court. But he vigorously DENY under oath
sub silencio presumably because of its prior decisions contrary to the that the underscored statements contained in the CHARGE are insolent,
resolution of November 26, 1962, one of which is that in the Manila contemptuous, grossly disrespectful and derogatory to the individual
Surety and Fidelity case. Therefore Republic vs. Venturanza is no members of the Court; that they tend to bring the entire Court, without
authority on the matter in issue. justification, into disrepute; and constitute conduct unbecoming of a
Atty. Almacen then appealed to this Court by certiorari. We refused to member of the noble profession of law.
take the case, and by minute resolution denied the appeal. Denied xxx xxx xxx
shortly thereafter was his motion for reconsideration as well as his Respondent stands four-square that his statement is borne by TRUTH
petition for leave to file a second motion for reconsideration and for and has been asserted with NO MALICE BEFORE AND AFTER
extension of time. Entry of judgment was made on September 8, 1967. THOUGHT but mainly motivated with the highest interest of justice that
Hence, the second motion for reconsideration filed by him after the Said in the particular case of our client, the members have shown callousness
date was ordered expunged from the records. to our various pleas for JUSTICE, our pleadings will bear us on this
It was at this juncture that Atty. Almacen gave vent to his disappointment matter, ...
by filing his "Petition to Surrender Lawyer's Certificate of Title," already xxx xxx xxx
adverted to a pleading that is interspersed from beginning to end with To all these beggings, supplications, words of humility, appeals for
the insolent contemptuous, grossly disrespectful and derogatory remarks charity, generosity, fairness, understanding, sympathy and above all in
hereinbefore reproduced, against this Court as well as its individual the highest interest of JUSTICE, what did we get from this COURT?
members, a behavior that is as unprecedented as it is unprofessional. One word, DENIED, with all its hardiness and insensibility. That was the
Nonetheless we decided by resolution dated September 28, 1967 to unfeeling of the Court towards our pleas and prayers, in simple word, it
withhold action on his petition until he shall have actually surrendered his is plain callousness towards our particular case.
certificate. Patiently, we waited for him to make good his proffer. No word xxx xxx xxx
came from him. So he was reminded to turn over his certificate, which Now that your respondent has the guts to tell the members of the Court
he had earlier vociferously offered to surrender, so that this Court could that notwithstanding the violation of the Constitution, you remained
act on his petition. To said reminder he manifested "that he has no unpunished, this Court in the reverse order of natural things, is now in
pending petition in connection with Case G.R. No. L-27654, Calero vs. the attempt to inflict punishment on your respondent for acts he said in
Yaptinchay, said case is now final and executory;" that this Court's good faith.
September 28, 1967 resolution did not require him to do either a positive Did His Honors care to listen to our pleadings and supplications for
or negative act; and that since his offer was not accepted, he "chose to JUSTICE, CHARITY, GENEROSITY and FAIRNESS? Did His Honors
pursue the negative act." attempt to justify their stubborn denial with any semblance of reason,
In the exercise of its inherent power to discipline a member of the bar for NEVER. Now that your respondent is given the opportunity to face you,
contumely and gross misconduct, this Court on November 17, 1967 he reiterates the same statement with emphasis, DID YOU? Sir. Is this.
resolved to require Atty. Almacen to show cause "why no disciplinary the way of life in the Philippines today, that even our own President, said:
action should be taken against him." Denying the charges contained in "the story is current, though nebulous ,is to its truth, it is still being
the November 17 resolution, he asked for permission "to give reasons circulated that justice in the Philippines today is not what it is used to be
Page 177
and cause why no disciplinary action should be taken against him ... in before the war. There are those who have told me frankly and brutally
an open and public hearing." This Court resolved (on December 7) "to that justice is a commodity, a marketable commodity in the Philippines."
forcertiorari. departure by the lower court, as to call for the exercise of the power of
supervision.
assails their actuations. 10 For courageous and fearless advocates are officers." 15 The first canon of legal ethics enjoins him "to maintain
the strands that weave durability into the tapestry of justice. Hence, as towards the courts a respectful attitude, not for the sake of the temporary
affirmed the two-year suspension of an attorney who published a circular an attorney transcends the limits of legitimate criticism that he will be
assailing a judge who at that time was a candidate for re-election to a held responsible for an abuse of his liberty of speech. We well
that members of the bar who are sworn to act honestly and honorably The conduct of the accused was in every way discreditable; but so far as
both with their client and with the courts where justice is administered, if he exercised the rights of a citizen, guaranteed by the Constitution and
v. Green, 7 Colo 237, 244, 3 Pac. 65, 374, 49 Am. Rep. 351; Smith's J. Francisco's client ... .
Appeal, 179 Pa. 14, 36 Atl. 134; Scouten's Appeal, 186 Pa. 270, Atl. 481.
jurisdiction" of the Court of Industrial Relations, our condemnation of publication. In the second, the contempt exists, with or without a pending
hypocrisy," he categorically denounces the justice administered by this the exercise of its disciplinary powers, the Court acts as an entity
Court to be not only blind "but also deaf and dumb." With unmitigated separate and distinct from the individual personalities of its members.
Respondent utterly failed in this regard. was conduct unbecoming of a member of the bar and an officer of the
court. Respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by
of forum-shopping is the VEXATION caused the courts appointed others to replace the removed directors, and appointed
and party-litigants by a party who asks different courts respondent as Board Secretary.
X X X PROMOTED OR SUED A GROUNDLESS, FALSE OR Respondents counsel who represented him during the conference
UNLAWFUL SUIT, AND GAVE AID AND CONSENT TO THE SAME[11] proposed the issue of whether, on the basis of the allegations of the
complaint, misconduct was committed by respondent.[22]
X X X DISOBEYED LAWS OF THE LAND, PROMOTE[D]
DISRESPECT FOR LAW AND THE LEGAL PROFESSION[12] After the conclusion of the conference, both parties were ordered to
submit position papers.[23] Complainant filed hers,[24] but respondent,
X X X DID NOT CONDUCT HIMSELF WITH COURTESY, FAIRNESS despite grant, on his motion, of extension of time, did not file any position
AND CANDOR TOWARD HIS PROFESSIONAL COLLEAGUE AND paper.
ENGAGED IN HARASSING TACTICS AGAINST OPPOSING
COUNSEL[13] In her Report and Recommendation,[25] Investigating Commissioner
Lolita A. Quisumbing found respondent guilty of violating the Lawyers
X X X VIOLATED CANON 19 A LAWYER SHALL REPRESENT HIS Oath as well as Canons 1, 8, 10, and Rule 12.03 of the Code of
CLIENT WITH ZEAL WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE LAW[14] Professional Responsibility. Noting that respondent had already been
previously suspended for six months, the Commissioner recommended
X X X RUINED AND DAMAGED NOT ONLY THE GEN. MARIANO that respondent be suspended for two years.
ALVAREZ SERVICES COOPERATIVE, INC. (GEMASCO, INC.) BUT
THE ENTIRE WATER-CONSUMING COMMUNITY AS WELL[15] The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) Board of Governors opted
for the dismissal of the complaint, however, for lack of merit.[26]
Despite the Courts grant,[16] on respondents motion,[17] of extension of
time to file Comment, respondent never filed any comment. The Court On Motion for Reconsideration,[27] the IBP-CBD Board of Governors
thus required him to showcause why he should not be disciplinarily dealt recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law
with,[18] but just the same he failed to comply.[19] for six months.
The Court finds that by conniving with Gerangco in taking over the Board
The Court thus referred the complaint to the Integrated Bar of the of Directors and the GEMASCO facilities, respondent violated the
Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report, and recommendation.[20] provisions of the Cooperative Code of the Philippines and the
GEMASCO By-Laws. He also violated the Lawyers Oath, which provides
It appears that during the mandatory conference before the IBP, that a lawyer shall support the Constitution and obey the laws.
complainant proposed the following issues:
When respondent caused the filing of baseless criminal complaints
1. Whether or not the acts of respondent constitute violations of the against complainant, he violated the Lawyers Oath that a lawyer shall
Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly the following: not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful
suit, nor give aid or consent to the same.
1.1 Canon 1 A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the
land and promote respect for law and legal [processes]. When, after obtaining an extension of time to file comment on the
complaint, respondent failed to file any and ignored this Courts
1.2 Canon 8 A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness, and subsequent show cause order, he violated Rule 12.03 of the Code of
candor toward his professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing Professional Responsibility, which states that A lawyer shall not, after
tactics against opposing counsel. obtaining extensions of time to file pleadings, memoranda or briefs, let
the period lapse without submitting the same or offering an explanation
1.3 Canon 10 A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court. for his failure to do so. Sebastian v. Bajar[28] teaches:
1.4 Canon 19 A lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within the x x x Respondents cavalier attitude in repeatedly ignoring the orders of
Page 188
bounds of the law. the Supreme Court constitutes utter disrespect to the judicial
institution. Respondents conduct indicates a high degree of
complainant, Atty. Villasecas negligence in handling the case resulted lack of devotion and zeal in preserving his clients cause. We point out
in her own and her husbands conviction. that nine months had lapsed from the time the RTC granted Atty.
latter's interest with utmost diligence. It is his duty to serve his client with G.R. No. 133090 January 19, 2001
competence and diligence, and he should exert his best efforts to protect,
CONCEPCION: Register of Deeds. I am only the Deputy Register of BUGARING: not yet the defense. This is a criminal proceedings,
Deeds and I was not informed by the receiving clerk contempt proceedings is a criminal.
of our office regarding this case. As a matter of fact
belied by his behavior therein: But "a lawyer should not be carried away in espousing his client's cause"
(Buenaseda v. Flavier, 226 SCRA 645, 656). He should not forget that
1967, a motion for reconsideration of the aforesaid order was filed with X-rayed. From that hospital he was transferred to the Quezon Institute
the averment that petitioner was not aware of any decision rendered in where he was subsequently admitted. The attending physician testified
already Atty, Camacho who was handling the case, and Atty. Camacho, a turn of events. Even if it were an honest mistake, the consequences
according to Atty. Corpuz, even had the records of the case."10In view of were still deplorable.
way of attorneys fees and, further, in a Motion to Intervene, claimed to into by Atty. Principe and Elfa was dated 01 April 1997, the special power
be a co-owner of Malonsos property.[3] of attorney he executed bore a much later date, 27 November 1997.
Legal Services. Thus, the Report concluded that the right of co- cannot accept the explanation[22] of Atty. Carlos L. Valdez, Jr. on the non-
ownership could not be derived from the said documents.[10] holding of a formal voting for respondents case that:
Anything, which will harm his good name, is to be deplored.[25] And yet the incorporation of the landowners into SANDAMA was made and
the IBP Board of Governors, despite clear evidence to the contrary, and initiated by respondents firm so as to make negotiations with NAPOCOR
by the trial court. Prescinding from the ultimate outcome of an VELASCO, JR., JJ.
independent action to recover attorneys fees, the Court does not see any Promulgated:
DECISION Respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the above-mentioned
backwages including the various monetary claims stated in the
Manifestation dated August 24, 1998 except payment of overtime pay
CARPIO MORALES, J.: and to pay 10% attorneys fees of all sums owing to
Complainants, via a complaint[1] filed before the Integrated Bar of the complainants.[4] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Philippines (IBP), have sought the disbarment of Atty. Jose A. Suing
(respondent) on the grounds of deceit, malpractice, violation of Lawyers
Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.[2] The Decision having become final and executory, the Labor Arbiter
issued on September 2, 2003 a Writ of Execution.[5]
Herein complainants were among the complainants in NLRC Case No. In the meantime, on the basis of individual Release Waiver and
00-0403180-98, Microplast, Inc. Workers Union, Represented by its Quitclaims dated February 27, 2004 purportedly signed and sworn to by
Union President Zoilo Ardan, et al. v. Microplast, Incorporated and/or seven of the complainants in the ULP and Illegal Dismissal case before
Johnny Rodil and Manuel Rodil, for Unfair Labor Practice (ULP) and Labor Arbiter Santos in the presence of respondent, the Labor Arbiter
Illegal Dismissal, while respondent was the counsel for the therein dismissed said case insofar as the seven complainants were concerned,
respondents. Said case was consolidated with NLRC Case No. 00-04- by Order dated March 9, 2004. [6]
03161-98, Microplast Incorporated v. Vilma Ardan, et al., for Illegal Herein complainants, four of the seven who purportedly executed the
Strike. Release Waiver and Quitclaims, denied having signed and sworn to
before the Labor Arbiter the said documents or having received the
By Decision of August 29, 2001,[3] Labor Arbiter Ariel Cadiente Santos considerations therefor. Hence, spawned the administrative complaint at
dismissed the Illegal Strike case, and declared the employer-clients of bar, alleging that respondent, acting in collusion with his clients Johnny
respondent guilty of ULP.Thus, the Labor Arbiter disposed: and Manuel Rodil, frustrated the implementation of the Writ of Execution
by presenting before the Labor Arbiter the spurious documents.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the complaint for illegal strike is
dismissed for lack of merit. In a related move, complainants also filed a criminal complaint for
Falsification against respondent, together with his clients Johnny and
Respondents Microplast, Inc., Johnny Rodil and Manuel Rodil are Manuel Rodil, before the Prosecutors Office of Quezon City where it was
hereby declared guilty of Unfair Labor Practice for union busting and that docketed as I.S. No. 04-5203.[7]
the dismissal of the nine (9) complainants are declared illegal. All the In his Report and Recommendation[8] dated September 27, 2005, IBP
respondents in NLRC Case No. 00-04-03161-98 for illegal dismissal are Commissioner Salvador B. Hababag, who conducted an investigation of
directed to reinstate all the complainants to their former position with the administrative complaint at bar, recommended that respondent be
full backwagesfrom date of dismissal until actual reinstatement faulted for negligence and that he be reprimanded therefor with warning,
computed as follows: in light of his following discussion:
xxxx
The issue to be resolved is whether or not respondent can be
3. CRISANTO CONOS disbarred for his alleged manipulation of four alleged RELEASE
Backwages: WAIVER AND QUITCLAIM by herein complainants who subsequently
Basic Wage: disclaimed the same as bogus and falsified.
2/21/98 10/30/99 = 20.30 mos.
P198.00 x 26 days x 20.30 = P104, 504.40 A lawyer takes an oath when he is admitted to the Bar. By doing so he
10/31/99 - 10/31/00 = 12 mos. thereby becomes an Officer of the Court on whose shoulders rests the
P223.50 x 26 days x 12 = 69, 732.00 grave responsibility of assisting the courts in the proper, fair, speedy and
11/01/00 - 8/30/01 = 10 mos. efficient administration of justice.
P250.00 x 26 days x 10 = 65,000.00
P239,236.40 Mindful of the fact that the present proceedings involve, on the one hand,
13th Month Pay: the right of a litigant to seek redress against a member of the Bar who
1/12 of P239,236.40 = 19,936.36 has, allegedly caused him damaged, either through malice or
SILP negligence, while in the performance of his duties as his counsel, and,
2/16/98 - 12/31/98 = 10.33 mos. on the other, the right of that member of the Bar to protect and preserve
P198.00 x 5 days x 10.33/ 12 = 852.22 his good name and reputation, we have again gone over and considered
1/1/99 - 12/31/99 = 12mos. [the] aspects of the case.
P223.50 x 5 days x 12/12 = 1,117.50
1/1/00 - 10/30/01 = 20 mos. All the cases protesting and contesting the genuineness, veracity and
P250.00 x 5 days x 20/12 = 2,083.33 due execution of the questioned RELEASE WAIVER AND QUITCLAIM
4,053.05 namely: Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to Recall, Appeal and Falsification
P263,225.81 are PENDING resolution in their respective venues. Arbiter Ariel
xxxx Cadiente Santos, who was supposed to know the identities of the herein
Page 201
In respondents Motion to Amend the IBP Board Resolution, he does not Just because it happened before you did not bother to see to it that there
deny that those whom he met face to face before Commissioner is a voucher so you just rely on your precedent, is that what you mean?
Hababag were not the same persons whom he saw before Labor Arbiter
Santos on February 27, 2004. [13] He hastens to add though that he was ATTY. SUING:
not familiar with the complainants as they were not attending the
hearings before Arbiter Santos.[14] Complainants[15] and their former Yes, Your Honor, because I always believe that the parties who are
counsel Atty. Rodolfo Capocyan[16] claim otherwise, however. And the talking and it is my client who knows them better than I do, Your Honor.
Minutes[17] of the proceedings before the National Conciliation Mediation
Board in a related case, NCMB-NCR-NS-02-081-98, Re: Microplast, COMM. HABABAG:
Inc., Labor Dispute, which minutes bear respondents and complainants
signatures, belie respondents claim that he had not met complainants So, you just followed the instruction of your client to be present at Arbiter
before. Cadiente Santos office because there would be signing of Quitclaim
Receipt and Release, it that clear?
Respondent, who declared that he went to the Office of the Labor Arbiter
on February 27, 2004 on the request of his clients who told him that on ATTY. SUING:
February 27, 2004 the seven claimants w[ould] be at the office of Arbiter
Santos [to] submit their respective quitclaims and waivers, heaps on the Yes, Your Honor.
Labor Arbiter the responsibility of ascertaining the identity of the parties
who executed the Release Waiver and Quitclaims. But respondent COMM. HABABAG:
himself had the same responsibility. He was under obligation to protect
his clients interest, especially given the amount allegedly given by them [You] [d]id not bother to ask your client where is the
in consideration of the execution of the documents. His answers to the money intended for the payment of these workers?
clarificatory questions of Commissioner Hababag do not, however, show
that he discharged such obligation. ATTY. SUING:
But is it not a fact [that it is] also your duty to ask.. that the money of your COMM. HABABAG:
client would go to the deserving employee?
Page 202
You did not asked [sic] your client who will prepare the documents?
ATTY. SUING:
To go there, Your Honor, and represent them and see that these COMM. HABABAG:
document[s] are properly signed and that these people are properly Pag sinabi mong kami yata ang may gawa sino sa inyong mga officer,
identified and verified them in front of Arbiter Ariel Cadiente tauhan o abogado ang gumawa nito?
Santos.[19] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
MR. RODIL:
That there was an alleged precedent in 1998 when a group of Matagal na ho yan eh.
complainants entered into a compromise agreement with his clients in
which he did not participate and from which no problem arose did not xxxx
excuse him from carrying out the admitted purpose of going to the Labor
Page 203
Arbiters office that [the complainants] are properly identified . . . in front COMM. HABABAG:
of [the] Arbiter.
ATTY. SUING: Thus, not only did respondent try to coach his client or influence him to
Wait. I did not bring the documents. The Commissioner is asking kung answer questions in an apparent attempt not to incriminate him
sino ang nagdala ng mga dokumento? (respondent). His client contradicted respondents claim that the Release
MR. RODIL: Waiver and Quitclaim which he (respondent) prepared was not the one
Yong mga tao. presented at the Arbiters Office, as well as his implied claim that he was
not involved in releasing to the complainants the money for and in
xxxx consideration of the execution of the documents.
COMM. HABABAG: As an officer of the court, a lawyer is called upon to assist in the
Simple ang tanong ko ha. Intindihin mo muna. Kanino mo inabot administration of justice. He is an instrument to advance its cause. Any
ang bayad sa nakalagay dito sa Release waiver and Quitclaim? act on his part that tends to obstruct, perverts or impedes the
administration of justice constitutes misconduct.[23] While the
MR. RODIL: Commission on Bar Discipline is not a court, the proceedings therein are
Kay attorney po. nonetheless part of a judicial proceeding, a disciplinary action being in
reality an investigation by the Court into the misconduct of its officers or
an examination into his character.[24]
COMM. HABABAG:
Pag sinabi mong kay attorney sinong tinutukoy mong attorney? In Bantolo v. Castillon, Jr.[25] the respondent lawyer was found guilty of
gross misconduct for his attempts to delay and obstruct the investigation
ATTY. SUING: being conducted by the IBP. Nonetheless, this Court found that a
Yong ibinigay na pera pambayad saan, yon ang tanong. suspension of one month from the practice of law was enough to give
him the opportunity to retrace his steps back to the virtuous path of the
legal profession.
COMM. HABABAG: While the disbarment of respondent is, under the facts and
Sundan mo ang tanong ko ha. Ako ang nagtatanong hindi ang abogado circumstances attendant to the case, not reasonable, neither is
mo. reprimand as recommended by the IBP. This Court finds that
respondents suspension from the practice of law for six months is in
MR. RODIL: order.
Opo.
WHEREFORE, respondent, Atty. Jose A. Suing, is found GUILTY of
COMM. HABABAG: negligence and gross misconduct and is SUSPENDED from the practice
Huwag kang tatawa. Im reminding you serious tayo dito. of law for a period of Six (6) Months, with WARNING that a repetition of
the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
MR. RODIL:
COMM. HABABAG: Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant,
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and all courts throughout the
Sabi mo may inabutan kang taong pera? country.
ang perang inabot kay Atty. Suing? delays the apprehension of suspects and the investigation and
prosecution of criminal cases by committing any of the following acts:
Nat. M. Balboa and Dominador J. Endriga for appellant. sold said property to Mariano Santos for P8,600.1awphil.net
Antonio Gonzales for appellee.
P. En este documento aparece que usted, por consideracion de valor JUZGADO. Puede contestar.
recibido del Banco Nacional demandante en la presente causa, renuncia
a su derecho de recompra de la propiedad vendida por el Sheriff en Sr. ENDRIGA. Excepcion.
publica subasta el catorce de octubre de mil novecientos veintecuatro a
favor del Banco Nacional; quiere usted explicar al Honorable Juzgado, R. Me dijo que para que usted no cobre alquileres y no pague intereses
cual es esta consideracion de valor? R. Si, seor. Esto desde mil deje usted esos terrenos de Ronquillo y terreno de Paco para cubrir ya
novecientos veintitres o mil novecientos veintecuatro, no recuerdo bien, todas mis deudas. Entonces dije ya, si, como yo tengo buena fe con este
me haba dicho el seor Pecson, porque algunas veces yo no podia Banco. Hasta que al fin yo dije que queria yo comprar.
pagar esos intereses mensuales. Entonces me dijo Pecson, "como
puede usted recibir alquileres y no paga usted intereses?" P. Cuando usted firmo el once de febrero de mil novecientos veintecinco
este documento Exhibit 1, recibio usted algun centimo de dinero del
P. Quien es ese seor Pecson? R. Era encargado de este asunto. Banco? R. Nada, absolutamente.
P. Que era el del Banco Nacional, usted sabe? R. Era encargado de When asked on cross-examination if Pecson was not in Iloilo at the time
estas transacciones. Cuando tenia necesidad siempre llamaba yo al of the execution of defendant's waiver of his right to redeem, the
seor Pecson. Entonces hable al seor Pecson que somos defendant answered that he did not know; asked when Pecson had
comerciantes, algunas veces los alquileres no pueden cobrarse por spoken to him about the matter, the defendant replied that he did not
anticipado. remember.
Sr. ENDRIGA. No es responsiva la contestacion a la pregunta. One of the attorneys for the plaintiff testified that the defendant
renounced his right to redeem the parcel of land in Calle Ronquillo,
Sr. GONZALEZ. Si esta explicando y no ha terminado el testigo su Exhibit 1, because a friend of the defendant was interested in buying it.
contestacion.
The bank ought to have presented Pecson as a witness, or his
JUZGADO. Que la termine. deposition, if he was not residing in Manila at the time of the trial.
TESTIGO. Me dijo el seor Pecson que es cosa mala para mi "por que With respect to the testimony of the bank's attorney, we should like to
usted cobra alquileres y no paga los intereses? Mejor deje usted ya observe that although the law does not forbid an attorney to be a witness
todos sus bienes para cubrir sus deudas. and at the same time an attorney in a cause, the courts prefer that
counsel should not testify as a witness unless it is necessary, and that
P. El seor Pecson le dijo a usted "mejor deje usted ya todos sus they should withdraw from the active management of the case. (Malcolm,
bienes," a que bienes se referia el ? R. Al terreno de Ronquillo y al Legal Ethics, p. 148.) Canon 19 of the Code of Legal Ethics reads as
terreno de Paco. follows:
P. Cual de esos terrenos, el de Ronquillo o el de Paco, el que se refiere When a lawyer is a witness for his client, except as to merely formal
aqui en el Exhibit 1? R. Paco, primeramente, los dos ambos. matters, such as the attestation or custody of an instrument and the like,
he should leave the trial of the case to other counsel. Except when
P. Pero este Exhibit 1, a que se refiere; al de Paco o al de Ronquillo? essential to the ends of justice, a lawyer should avoid testifying in court
R. Parece que Paco. in behalf of his client.
P. No recuerda usted muy bien? R. No recuerdo. Defendant's testimony as to the alleged agreement is very uncertain.
Page 206
This is a Petition[1] filed by Attys. Oliver Owen L. Garcia, Emmanuel On the following day, May 30, 2003, acting upon the petitioners
Ravanera and Tony Velez, mainly seeking the disqualification of application, this Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO),
made after, not before, the election. He posits further that following the a Manifestation[19] dated 29 August 2003, reiterating the position stated
rotation rule, only members from the Surigao del Norte and Agusan del in its Resolution dated 29 May 2003 that it finds the petition to be
Integration of the Philippine Bar in accordance with Rule 139-A, of the the eligibility of a candidate must be raised prior to the casting of ballots,
and shall be immediately decided by the Chairman. An appeal from such
Petitioner Garcia is from Bukidnon IBP Chapter while the other which provides that elections of Chapter Officers and Directors shall be
petitioners, Ravanera and Velez, are from the Misamis Oriental IBP held on the last Saturday of February of every other year.36 Between
On September 19, 1957, petitioner Timoteo Cruz wrote to respondent defendants named Salvador Realista y de Guzman was not included for
Salva asking for the transfer of the preliminary investigation from the reason that he was arrested and was placed within the jurisdiction of
session hall of the Municipal Court of Pasay City evidently, to disciplinary action and penalty. No costs.
accommodate the big crowd that wanted to witness the proceeding,
prejudicial comment about the case. ... In these circumstances, we specification jointly tried, all of the accused are entitled to only one
peremptory challenge and that with respect to specifications tried
dislike. 2) Because, upon challenges for cause shown, if the reason letter[1]requesting this Court to allow live media coverage of the
assigned prove insufficient to set aside the juror, perhaps the bare anticipated trial of the plunder and other criminal cases filed against
the effective presentation of his defense. focuses on."[11] Even while it may be difficult to quantify the influence, or
pressure that media can bring to bear on them directly and through the
OK, at meron akong pa-contest, total magpapasko na o ha, meron pa- xxxx
contest si Batas Mauricio ang Batas ng Bayan. Ito yung ating pa-contest, 2.R. Can an ordinary person like Villarez simply be tossed around,
hulaan ninyo, tatawag kayo sa telepono, 433-7549 at 433-7553. Ang waiting for miracles to happen?
mga premyo babanggitin po natin sa susunod pero ito muna ang contest,
o, aling liver spread ang may uod? Yan kita ninyo yan, ayan 2.S. Why? How much miracle is needed to happen here before this
malalaman ninyo yan. Pagka-nahulaan yan ah, at sasagot kayo sa Office would ever act on his complaint?
akin, aling liver spread ang may uod at anong companya ang
gumagawa nyan? Itawag po ninyo sa 433-7549 st 433-7553. Open po xxxx
an[g] contest na ito sa lahat ng ating tagapakinig. Pipiliin natin ang
mananalo, kung tama ang inyong sagot. Ang tanong, aling liver 8. With a City Prosecutor acting the way he did in the case filed by
spread sa Pilipinas an[g] may uod? [8] (Emphasis and italics in the Villarez, and with an investigating prosecutor virtually kowtowing to the
original; underscoring supplied) wishes of his boss, the Chief Prosecutor, can Respondents expect
justice to be meted to them?
And respondent wrote in his columns in the tabloids articles which put 9. With utmost due respect, Respondents have reason to believe that
complainant in bad light. Thus, in the August 31- September 6, 2004 justice would elude them in this Office of the City Prosecutor of
issue of Balitang Patas BATAS, he wrote an article captioned KADIRI Valenzuela City, not because of the injustice of their cause, but, more
ANG CDO LIVER SPREAD! In another article, he wrote IBA PANG importantly, because of the injustice of the system;
PRODUKTO NG CDO SILIPIN![9] which appeared in the same
publication in its September 7-13, 2004 issue. And still in the same 10. Couple all of these with reports that many a government office in
publication, its September 14-20, 2004 issue, he wrote another article Valenzuela City had been the willing recipient of too many generosities
entitled DAPAT BANG PIGILIN ANG CDO.[10] in the past of the Complainant, and also with reports that a top official of
the City had campaigned for his much coveted position in the past
Respondent continued his tirade against complainant in his distributing products of the Complainant, what would one expect the
column LAGING HANDA published in another tabloid, BAGONG Respondents to think?
TIKTIK, with the following articles:[11] (a) Uod sa liver spread, Setyembre
6, 2004 (Taon 7, Blg.276);[12] (b) Uod, itinanggi ng CDO, Setyembre 7, 11. Of course, not to be lost sight of here is the attitude and behavior
2004 (Taon 7, Blg.277);[13] (c) Pagpapatigil sa CDO, Setyembre 8, 2004 displayed even by mere staff and underlings of this Office to people who
(Taon 7, Blg.278);[14] (d) Uod sa liver spread kumpirmado, Setyembre 9, dare complain against the Complainant in their respective turfs. Perhaps,
2004 (Taon 7, Blg.279);[15] (e) Salaysay ng nakakain ng uod, Setyembre top officials of this Office should investigate and ask their associates and
10, 2004 (Taon 7, Blg.280);[16] (f)Kaso VS. CDO itinuloy, Setyembre 11, relatives incognito to file, even if on a pakunwari basis only, complaints
2004 (Taon 7, Blg.281);[17] (g) Kasong Kidnapping laban sa CDO guards, against the Complainant, and they would surely be given the same rough
Setyembre 14, 2004 (Taon 7, Blg.284);[18] (h) Brutalidad ng CDO and insulting treatment that Respondent Villarez got when he filed his
guards, Setyembre 15, 2004 (Taon 7, Blg.285);[19] (i) CDO guards kidnapping charge here;[30]
pinababanatan sa PNP, Setyembre 17, 2004 (Taon 7,
Blg.287);[20] (j) May uod na CDO liver spread sa Puregold binili,
Setyembre 18, 2004 (Taon 7, Blg.288);[21] (k) Desperado na ang And in a Motion to Dismiss [the case] for Lack of Jurisdiction[31] which
CDO, Setyembre 20, 2004 (Taon 7, Blg.290);[22] (l) Atty. Rufus respondent filed, as counsel for his therein co-respondents-staffers of
Rodriguez pumadrino sa CDO, Setyembre 21, 2004 (Taon 7,Blg. the newspaper Hataw!, before the Office of the City Prosecutor of
291);[23] (m) Kasunduan ng CDO at Pamilya Cordero, Setyembre 22, Valenzuela City, respondent alleged:
2004 (Taon 7,Blg. 292);[24] (n) Bakit nagbayad ng P50 libo ang CDO,
Setyembre 23, 2004 (Taon 7,Blg. 293).[25] xxxx
In his September 8, 2004 column Anggulo ng Batas published in Hataw!,
respondent wrote an article Reaksyon pa sa uod ng CDO Liver 5. If the Complainant or its lawyer merely used even a little of
Spread.[26] whatever is inside their thick skulls, they would have clearly deduced
that this Office has no jurisdiction over this action.[32] (Emphasis
And respondent, in several episodes in September 2004 of his television supplied)
program Kakampi Mo ang Batas aired over UNTV, repeatedly
complained of what complainant claimed to be the same baseless and xxxx
malicious allegations/issues against it.[27]
Meanwhile, on October 26, 2004, complainant filed a civil case against
Complainant thus filed criminal complaints against respondent and respondent and several others, docketed as Civil Case No. 249-V-
several others for Libel and Threatening to Publish Libel under Articles 04,[33] before the Regional Trial Court, Valenzuela City and raffled to
353 and 356 of the Revised Penal Code before the Office of the City Branch 75 thereof.
Prosecutor of Quezon City and Valenzuela City. The complaints were The pending cases against him and the issuance of a status quo order
pending at he time of the filing of the present administrative complaint.[28] notwithstanding, respondent continued to publish articles against
complainant[34] and to malign complainant through his television shows.
In the criminal complaints pending before the Office of the City
Prosecutor of Valenzuela City, docketed as I.S. Nos. V-04-2917-2933, Acting on the present administrative complaint, the Investigating
Page 221
respondent filed his Entry of Appearance with Highly Urgent Motion to Commissioner of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) came up with
Elevate These Cases to the Department of Justice,[29] alleging:
In Civil Case No. 249-V-04 entitled Foodsphere, Inc. vs. Atty. [Melanio] In its Order dated 16 August 2004, the Bureau of Food and Drugs
Mauricio, et al., the Order dated 10 December 2004 (Annex O of the recognized that the said Kasunduan was not contrary to law, morals,
Complaint) was issued by Presiding Judge Dionisio C. Sison which in good customs, public order and policy, and this accordingly dismissed
part reads: the complaint filed by the Spouses Cordero against herein complainant.
Anent the plaintiffs prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining However, even after the execution of the Kasunduan and the
order included in the instant plaintiffs motion, this Court, inasmuch as the consequent dismissal of the complaint of his clients against herein
defendants failed to appear in court or file an opposition thereto, is complainant, respondent inexplicably launched a media offensive
constrained to GRANT the said plaintiffs prater, as it is GRANTED, in intended to disparage and put to ridicule herein complainant. On record
order to maintain STATUS QUO, and that all the defendants, their are the numerous articles of respondent published in 3 tabloids
agents, representatives or any person acting for and in behalf are hereby commencing from 31 August to 17 December 2004 (Annexes G to Q-1).
restrained/enjoined from further publishing, televising and/or As already above-stated, respondent continued to come out with these
broadcasting any matter subject of the Complaint in the instant articles against complainant in his tabloid columns despite a temporary
case more specifically the imputation of vices and/or defects on plaintiff restraining order issued against him expressly prohibiting such actions.
and its products. Respondent did not deny that he indeed wrote said articles and
submitted them for publication in the tabloids.
Complainant alleged that the above-quoted Order was served on
respondent by the Branch Sheriff on 13 December 2004. Respondent Respondent claims that he was prompted by his sense of public service,
has not denied the issuance of the Order dated 10 December 2004 or that is, to expose the defects of complainants products to the consuming
his receipt of a copy thereof on 13 December 2004. public. Complainant claims that there is a baser motive to the actions of
respondent. Complainant avers that respondent retaliated for
Despite his receipt of the Order dated 10 December 2004, and the clear complainants failure to give in to respondents request that complainant
directive therein addressed to him to desists [sic] from further publishing, advertise in the tabloids and television programs of respondent.
televising and/or broadcasting any matter subject of the Complaint in the Complainants explanation is more credible. Nevertheless, whatever the
instant case more specifically the imputation of vices and/or defects on true motive of respondent for his barrage of articles against complainant
plaintiff and its products, respondent in clear defiance of this Order came does not detract from the fact that respondent consciously violated the
out with articles on the prohibited subject matter in his column Atty. spirit behind the Kasunduan which he himself prepared and signed and
Batas, 2004 in the December 16 and 17, 2004 issues of the tabloid submitted to the BFAD for approval. Respondent was less than forthright
Balitang Bayan Toro (Annexes Q and Q-1 of the Complaint). when he prepared said Kasunduan and then turned around and
proceeded to lambaste complainant for what was supposedly already
The above actuations of respondent are also in violation of Rule 13.03 settled in said agreement. Complainant would have been better of with
of the Canon of Professional Responsibility which reads: A lawyer shall the BFAD case proceeding as it could have defended itself against the
not make public statements in the media regarding a pending case charges of the Spouses Cordero. Complainant was helpless against the
tending to arouse public opinion for or against a party. attacks of respondent, a media personality. The actuations of
respondent constituted, to say the least, deceitful conduct contemplated
II. under Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
xxxx Responsibility.[36](Underscoring supplied)
In I.S. No. V.04-2917-2933, then pending before the Office of the City
Prosecutor of Valenzuela City, respondent filed his Entry of Appearance The IBP Board of Governors, by Resolution No. XVIII-2006-114 dated
with Highly Urgent Motion to Elevate These Cases To the Department of March 20, 2006, adopted the findings and recommendation of the
Justice. In said pleading, respondent made the following statements: Investigating Commissioner to suspend respondent from the practice of
law for two years.
xxxx
The Court finds the findings/evaluation of the IBP well-taken.
The above language employed by respondent undoubtedly casts
aspersions on the integrity of the Office of the City Prosecutor and all the The Court, once again, takes this occasion to emphasize the necessity
Prosecutors connected with said Office. Respondent clearly assailed the for every lawyer to act and comport himself in a manner that promotes
impartiality and fairness of the said Office in handling cases filed before public confidence in the integrity of the legal profession,[37] which
it and did not even design to submit any evidence to substantiate said confidence may be eroded by the irresponsible and improper conduct of
wild allegations. The use by respondent of the above-quoted language a member of the bar.
in his pleadings is manifestly violative of Canon 11 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility which provides: A lawyer [s]hall [o]bserve By the above-recited acts, respondent violated Rule 1.01 of the Code of
and [m]aintain [t]he [re]spect [d]ue [t]o [t]he [c]ourts [a]nd [t]o [j]udicial Professional Responsibility which mandates lawyers to refrain from
[o]fficers [a]nd [s]hould [i]nsist [o]n [s]imilar [c]onduct [b]y [o]thers. engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. For, as
the IBP found, he engaged in deceitful conduct by, inter alia, taking
advantage of the complaint against CDO to advance his interest to obtain
III. funds for his BATAS Foundation and seek sponsorships and
Page 222
CANON 8 - A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and Rule 13.03 A lawyer shall not brook or invite interference by
candor toward his professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing another branch or agency of the government in the normal course
tactics against opposing counsel. of judicial proceedings.
The judge has the corresponding duty not to convey or permit
Rule 8.01 A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language others to convey the impression that they are in a special
which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper, by using intemperate position to influence the judge.
language. Discussing cases with the judge privately should be avoided.
Test when public statement is contemptuous: The character
Apropos is the following reminder in Saberon v. Larong:[38]
of the act done and its direct tendency to prevent and obstruct
the discharge of official duty.
To be sure, the adversarial nature of our legal system has tempted
members of the bar to use strong language in pursuit of their duty to To warrant a finding of prejudicial publicity, there must be
advance the interests of their clients. an allegation and proof that the judges have been unduly
However, while a lawyer is entitled to present his case with vigor and influenced, not simply that they might be, by the barrage of
courage, such enthusiasm does not justify the use of offensive and publicity.
abusive language. Language abounds with countless possibilities for Lawyer is equally guilty as the client if he induces the latter to
one to be emphatic but respectful, convincing but not derogatory, cause the publicity.
illuminating but not offensive.
G.R. No. 90083 October 4, 1990
On many occasions, the Court has reminded members of the Bar KHALYXTO PEREZ MAGLASANG, accused-petitioner,
to abstain from all offensive personality and to advance no fact vs.
prejudicial to the honor and reputation of a party or witness, unless PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Presiding Judge ERNESTO B.
required by the justice of the cause with which he is charged. In keeping TEMPLADO (San Carlos City Court), Negros
with the dignity of the legal profession, a lawyers language even in his Occidental, respondents.
pleadings must be dignified.[39](Underscoring supplied) Marceliano L. Castellano for petitioner.
RESOLUTION
PER CURIAM:
By failing to live up to his oath and to comply with the exacting standards On June 22, 1989, a petition for certiorari 1 entitled "Khalyxto Perez
of the legal profession, respondent also violated Canon 7 of the Code of Maglasang vs. People of the Philippines, Presiding Judge, Ernesto B.
Professional Responsibility, which directs a lawyer to at all times uphold Templado (San Carlos City Court) Negros Occidental," was filed by
the integrity and the dignity of the legal profession.[40] registered mail with the Court. Due to non-compliance with the
requirements of Circular No. 1-88 of the Court, specifically the non-
The power of the media to form or influence public opinion cannot be payment of P316.50 for the legal fees and the non-attachment of the
underestimated. In Dalisay v. Mauricio, Jr.,[41] the therein complainant duplicate originals or duly certified true copies of the questioned decision
engaged therein-herein respondents services as she was impressed by and orders of the respondent judge denying the motion for
the pro-poor and pro-justice advocacy of respondent, a media reconsideration, the Court dismissed the petition on July 26, 1989. 2
personality,[42] only to later find out that after he demanded and the On September 9, 1989, Atty. Marceliano L. Castellano, as counsel of the
therein complainant paid an exorbitant fee, no action was taken nor any petitioner, moved for a reconsideration of the resolution dismissing the
pleadings prepared by him. Respondent was suspended for six months. petition. 3 This time, the amount of P316.50 was remitted and the Court
was furnished with a duplicate copy of the respondent judge's decision,
On reading the articles respondent published, not to mention listening to and also the IBP O.R. No. and the date of the payment of his
him over the radio and watching him on television, it cannot be gainsaid membership dues. The motion for reconsideration did not contain the
that the same could, to a certain extent, have affected the sales of duplicate original or certified true copies of the assailed orders. Thus, in
Page 223
complainant. a Resolution dated October 18, 1989, the motion for reconsideration was
denied "with FINALITY."4
Judge Ernesto B. Templado, . . . 14 It is clear that the case was lost not by the alleged injustices Atty.
IX Castellano irresponsibly ascribed to the members of the Court's Second
In his Comment,6 respondent states that it is of vital significance that the After careful consideration of the records of the case, the Court finds the
Court notes that he was not the original counsel of the accused. He only suspension recommended by the IBP proper.
sent to PO3 Joaquin, the Court cannot lend credence to respondents Jose M. Chua and [a]ttempted [h]omicide of Mario C. Macato."23 Rule
naked claim, especially so that complainants have been resolute in their 14.0124 of the Code of Professional Responsibility clearly directs lawyers
Section 8. Time for counsel de oficio to prepare for arraignment. G.R. No. L-26868 February 27, 1969
Whenever a counsel de oficio is appointed by the court to defend IN THE MATTER OF ATTORNEY LOPE E. ADRIANO Member of the
the accused at the arraignment, he shall be given a reasonable time Philippine Bar. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
to consult with the accused as to his plea before proceeding with vs.
the arraignment. (8) REMIGIO ESTEBIA, accused-appellant.
SANCHEZ, J.:
ROC RULE 124 Section 2. Appointment of counsel de oficio for the Once again, this Court is confronted with the unwanted task of
accused. If it appears from the record of the case as transmitted ascertaining whether certain acts and conduct of a member of the Bar
that (a) the accused is confined in prison, (b) is without counsel de deserve disciplinary action.
parte on appeal, or (c) has signed the notice of appeal himself, the The problem arose because of facts that follow:
clerk of court of the Court of Appeals shall designate a counsel de One Remigio Estebia was convicted of rape by the Court of First Instance
oficio. of Samar, 1 and sentenced to suffer the capital punishment. His case
came up before this Court on review.
An appellant who is not confined in prison may, upon request, be On December 14, 1966, Lope E. Adriano, a member of the Bar, was
Page 228
assigned a counsel de oficio within ten (10) days from receipt of the appointed by this Court as Estebia's counselde oficio. In the notice of his
notice to file brief and he establishes his right thereto. (2a) appointment, Adriano was required to prepare and file his brief within
accused defendant expects of him due diligence, not mere perfunctory Court issued a show-cause order why disciplinary action should not be
representation. We do not accept the paradox that responsibility is less taken against him. The explanation was considered unsatisfactory. This
parents; and only after he was convinced that Ilo was not under undue dealing for only then can litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets
office of Atty. Ortiz to follow-up the progress of the case. After a final visit services of lawyers. The efforts of private practitioners who assist in this
at the office of Atty. Ortiz in April of 2000, during which Canoy was told goal are especially commendable, owing to their sacrifice in time and
filing the position paper on time or informing Canoy that the paper could furnished to all chapters of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and to
all the courts in the land.
merit. Four years after the death of complainants father is simply too long On March 30, 2001, when this case was called for hearing records show
a period for him not to have known of his clients death, especially as it that Atty. Villar, Jr., counsel for the plaintiff has not complied yet with the
adopted and approved said Report and Recommendation of the As we reiterated in Aromin, et al. v. Boncavil, A. C. No. 5135, September
Investigating Commissioner. 22, 1999:
arises with respect to the same general matter and is applicable however imposed upon respondent.[4]
slight such adverse interest may be. It applies although the attorneys
Jalandoni being married to her eldest daughter, Carmen J. quorum, [among other things]. Were it not for said fiduciary relation
Jalbuena. The other directors/officers of PRC were comprised of the between client and lawyer, respondent will not be in a position to furnish
Section 4, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court explicitly provides that: To File Answer and ultimately, [he] filed an Answer With Counter-Claim
And Prayer For Issuance Of Writ Of Preliminary Injunction.
As to the bill of P 5,000, respondent stated: Pasig City, June 20, 2002.[18]
That Mr. Lim begrudge[s] [him] for billing Mrs. Jalandoni Five Thousand The IBP Board of Governors (Board), however, reversed the
(Php5,000.00) Pesos. Mr. Humberto C. Lim Jr. conveniently forgets that recommendation of the investigating commissioner and resolved to
the net worth of the property together with its improvements, under dismiss the case on August 3, 2002.[19] Lumot A. Jalandoni filed a motion
litigation in that Cabiles, et al. vs. Gargoles et al. case, is a minimum for reconsideration (MR) on October 18, 2002 but the Board denied the
of THIRTY MILLION (Php30,000,000.00) PESOS then, and more so MR since it no longer had jurisdiction to consider and resolve a matter
now. [He] cannot find any law which prohibits a counsel from billing a already endorsed to this Court.[20]
client for services in proportion to the services he rendered.[16]
Before delving into the core issues of this case, we need to address
In view of these developments, respondent was adamant that: some preliminary matters.
Page 239
And, in Civil Case No. 99-10660, a collection case against PRC, Atty.
Respondent failed to substantiate his allegation that Lims complaint was Alminaza of PRC was alarmed by the appearance of respondent at the
defective in form and substance, and that entertaining it would result in table in court for AAQSCs counsel.[30]
a miscarriage of justice. For the same reason, we will no longer put in
issue the filing at the onset of a motion to dismiss by respondent instead Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) highlights
of an answer or comment.[25] the need for candor, fairness and loyalty in all the dealings of lawyers
with their clients. Rule 15.03 of the CPR aptly provides:
The core issues before us now are:
Rule 15.03 A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by
1. whether there existed a conflict of interest in the cases written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.
represented and handled by respondent, and
2. whether respondent properly withdrew his services as
counsel of record in Civil Case No. 97-9865. It is only upon strict compliance with the condition of full disclosure of
facts that a lawyer may appear against his client; otherwise, his
CONFLICT OF INTEREST representation of conflicting interests is reprehensible.[31] Conflict of
interest may be determined in this manner:
Petitioners alleged that as an offshoot of representing conflicting There is representation of conflicting interests if the acceptance of the
interests, breach of attorney-client confidentiality and deliberate new retainer will require the attorney to do anything which will
withholding of records were committed by respondent. To effectively injuriously affect his first client in any matter in which he represents
unravel the alleged conflict of interest, we must look into the cases him and also whether he will be called upon in his new relation, to use
Page 240
involved. against his first client any knowledge acquired through their
connection.[32] (emphasis ours)
The rule on termination of attorney-client relations may be summarized That Mrs. Jalandoni continued with Atty. Alminazas professional
as follows: engagement on her behalf despite respondents withdrawal did not
Page 241
Law and Associates. As a partner in the said law firm, he only filed a
Manifestation of Extreme Urgency in OMB Case No. 0-97-0695.[4] On the for the corporations behalf is only nominal party. The corporation should
other hand, SEC Case No. 05-97-5657 was handled by another partner be included as a party in the suit.[12]
- versus - AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, the high-ranking official, but after realizing that he would be abdicating a
CALLEJO, and sworn duty to delay no man for money or malice, respondent entered his
The claim of respondent that there is no conflict of interests in this case, Thus, for violation of Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional
as the civil case handled by their law firm where Gonzales is the Responsibility and taking into consideration the aforementioned
complainant and the criminal cases filed by Gonzales against the mitigating circumstances, we impose the penalty of fine of P2,000.00.
Gatcheco spouses are not related, has no merit. The representation of
opposing clients in said cases, though unrelated, constitutes conflict of WHEREFORE, Resolution No. XVI-2005-153 of the Integrated Bar of the
interests or, at the very least, invites suspicion of double-dealing which Philippines is APPROVED with MODIFICATION that respondent Atty.
this Court cannot allow.[30] Marcelino Cabucana, Jr. isFINED the amount of Two Thousand Pesos
(P2,000.00) with a STERN WARNING that a commission of the same or
Respondent further argued that it was his brother who represented similar act in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
Gonzales in the civil case and not him, thus, there could be no conflict of
interests. We do not agree. As respondent admitted, it was their law firm SO ORDERED.
which represented Gonzales in the civil case. Such being the case, the
rule against representing conflicting interests applies. [A.C. No. 5580. June 15, 2005]
SAN JOSE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC., as represented by
As we explained in the case of Hilado vs. David:[31] REBECCA V. LABRADOR, complainant, vs. ATTY. ROBERTO B.
[W]e can not sanction his taking up the cause of the adversary of the ROMANILLOS,respondent.
party who had sought and obtained legal advice from his firm; this, not DECISION
necessarily to prevent any injustice to the plaintiff but to keep above PER CURIAM:
reproach the honor and integrity of the courts and of the bar. Without This is a Petition[1] for disbarment against Atty. Roberto B. Romanillos
condemning the respondents conduct as dishonest, corrupt, or for allegedly representing conflicting interests and for using the title
fraudulent, we do believe that upon the admitted facts it is highly Judge despite having been found guilty of grave and serious misconduct
inexpedient. It had the tendency to bring the profession, of which he is a in Zarate v. Judge Romanillos.[2]
distinguished member, into public disrepute and suspicion and The facts are as follows:
undermine the integrity of justice.[32] In 1985, respondent represented San Jose Homeowners Association,
The claim of respondent that he acted in good faith and with honest Inc. (SJHAI) before the Human Settlements Regulation Commission
intention will also not exculpate him as such claim does not render the (HSRC) in a case[3] against Durano and Corp., Inc. (DCI) for violation of
prohibition inoperative.[33] the Subdivision and Condominium Buyers Protection Act (P.D. No. 957).
In the same manner, his claim that he could not turn down the spouses SJHAI alleged that Lot No. 224 was designated as a school site in the
as no other lawyer is willing to take their case cannot prosper as it is subdivision plan that DCI submitted to the Bureau of Lands in 1961 but
settled that while there may be instances where lawyers cannot decline was sold by DCI to spouses Ramon and Beatriz Durano without
representation they cannot be made to labor under conflict of interest disclosing it as a school site.
between a present client and a prospective one.[34] Granting also that While still the counsel for SJHAI, respondent represented Myrna and
there really was no other lawyer who could handle the spouses case Antonio Montealegre in requesting for SJHAIs conformity to construct a
other than him, still he should have observed the requirements laid down school building on Lot No. 224 to be purchased from Durano.
by the rules by conferring with the prospective client to ascertain as soon When the request was denied, respondent applied for clearance before
as practicable whether the matter would involve a conflict with another the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) in behalf of
Page 245
client then seek the written consent of all concerned after a full disclosure Montealegre. Petitioners Board of Directors terminated respondents
Board for imposition on Respondent: minimum penalty of reprimand to a consistent with the penalties imposed in Valenzuela (supra.), hereby
maximum penalty of four (4) months suspension. It is further orders the FORFEITURE of all leave and retirement benefits and
The case started when, in an AFFIDAVIT-COMPLAINT[1] bearing 9. I specifically deny the allegation of F/SUPT. MA. LUISA C. HADJULA
date September 7, 2002 and filed with the IBP Commission on Bar in paragraph 8 of her AFFIDAVIT-COMPLAINT, the truth of the matter is
Discipline, complainant charged Atty. Roceles F. Madianda with violation that her ILLICIT RELATIONSHIP and her illegal and unlawful activities
of Article 209[2] of the Revised Penal Code and Canon Nos. 15.02 and are known in the Bureau of Fire Protection since she also filed CHILD
21.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. SUPPORT case against her lover where she has a child .
In said affidavit-complaint, complainant alleged that she and respondent Moreover, the alleged DOCUMENTS she purportedly have shown to me
used to be friends as they both worked at the Bureau of Fire Protection sometime in 1998, are all part of public records .
(BFP) whereat respondent was the Chief Legal Officer while she was the
Chief Nurse of the Medical, Dental and Nursing Services. Complainant Furthermore, F/SUPT. MA. LUISA C. HADJULA, is filing the instant case
claimed that, sometime in 1998, she approached respondent for some just to get even with me or to force me to settle and withdraw the CASES
legal advice. Complainant further alleged that, in the course of their I FILED AGAINST HER since she knows that she will certainly be
conversation which was supposed to be kept confidential, she disclosed DISMISSED FROM SERVICE, REMOVED FROM THE PRC ROLL and
personal secrets and produced copies of a marriage contract, a birth CRIMINALLY CONVICTED of her ILLICIT, IMMORAL, ILLEGAL and
certificate and a baptismal certificate, only to be informed later by the UNLAWFUL ACTS.
respondent that she (respondent) would refer the matter to a lawyer
friend. It was malicious, so complainant states, of respondent to have
refused handling her case only after she had already heard her secrets.
On October 7, 2004, the Investigating Commissioner of the IBP
Continuing, complainant averred that her friendship with respondent Commission on Bar Discipline came out with a Report and
soured after her filing, in the later part of 2000, of criminal and disciplinary Recommendation, stating that the information related by complainant to
actions against the latter. What, per complainants account, precipitated the respondent is protected under the attorney-client privilege
the filing was when respondent, then a member of the BFP promotion communication. Prescinding from this postulate, the Investigating
board, demanded a cellular phone in exchange for the complainants Commissioner found the respondent to have violated legal ethics when
promotion. she [revealed] information given to her during a legal consultation, and
accordingly recommended that respondent be reprimanded therefor,
According to complainant, respondent, in retaliation to the filing of the thus:
aforesaid actions, filed a COUNTER COMPLAINT[3] with the
Ombudsman charging her (complainant)with violation of Section 3(a) of
Republic Act No. 3019,[4] falsification of public documents and WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully recommended
immorality, the last two charges being based on the disclosures that respondent Atty. Roceles Madianda be reprimanded for revealing
complainant earlier made to respondent. And also on the basis of the the secrets of the complainant.
same disclosures, complainant further stated, a disciplinary case was
also instituted against her before the Professional Regulation
Commission. On November 4, 2004, the IBP Board of Governors issued Resolution
No. XVI-2004-472 reading as follows:
Complainant seeks the suspension and/or disbarment of respondent for RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and
the latters act of disclosing personal secrets and confidential information APPROVED, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating
she revealed in the course of seeking respondents legal advice. Commissioner of the above-entitled case, herein made part of this
Resolution as Annex A; and , finding the recommendation fully supported
In an order dated October 2, 2002, the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, and
required respondent to file her answer to the complaint. considering the actuation of revealing information given to respondent
during a legal consultation, Atty. Roceles Madianda is
In her answer, styled as COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT,[5] respondent denied hereby REPRIMANDED.
giving legal advice to the complainant and dismissed any suggestion
about the existence of a lawyer-client relationship between them.
Respondent also stated the observation that the supposed confidential We AGREE with the recommendation and the premises holding it
data and sensitive documents adverted to are in fact matters of common together.
knowledge in the BFP. The relevant portions of the answer read:
As it were, complainant went to respondent, a lawyer who incidentally
5. I specifically deny the allegation of F/SUPT. MA. LUISA C. HADJULA was also then a friend, to bare what she considered personal secrets
in paragraph 4 of her AFFIDAVIT-COMPLAINT for reason that she never and sensitive documents for the purpose of obtaining legal advice and
WAS MY CLIENT nor we ever had any LAWYER-CLIENT assistance. The moment complainant approached the then receptive
RELATIONSHIP that ever existed ever since and that never obtained respondent to seek legal advice, a veritable lawyer-client relationship
any legal advice from me regarding her PERSONAL PROBLEMS or evolved between the two. Such relationship imposes upon the lawyer
PERSONAL SECRETS. She likewise never delivered to me legal certain restrictions circumscribed by the ethics of the profession. Among
documents much more told me some confidential information or the burdens of the relationship is that which enjoins the lawyer,
Page 248
secrets. That is because I never entertain LEGAL QUERIES or respondent in this instance, to keep inviolate confidential information
CONSULTATION regarding PERSONAL MATTERS since I know as a acquired or revealed during legal consultations. The fact that one is, at
Hence, practising lawyers may accept only as many cases as they can SO ORDERED.
efficiently handle.[13] Otherwise, their clients would be prejudiced. Once
file his Comment. Respondent, through his counsel, the Escobido and proven to this effect by complainant. xxx
Pulgar Law Offices, filed a motion for extension for thirty days or up to
Complainant was later to discover that 996 square meters of the 27- In light of the foregoing developments, complainants counsel, by letter
hectare property had been purchased by Aldio Properties, Inc. in an dated December 19, 2005,[22] demanded from respondent the return of
extrajudicial foreclosure sale, which sale Teresita challenged in an action the amount of US$3,000,000, claimed to be part of the total sum of
for annulment before the Regional Trial Court of Tagaytay City. In said money she had sent to him for all the transactions that did not come
action, respondent was Teresitas counsel of record.[10] about. No amount has been returned to complainant.
Re the Las Pias City Property Hence, spawned the filing on January 27, 2006[23] of the present
complaint for disbarment against respondent.
Respondent offered to complainant the option to purchase a house and
lot located at Las Pias City, which were encumbered by a mortgage, and By his Comment, respondent admits receiving a total of US$544,828
which respondent represented as owned and being sold by one from complainant[24] which amount he claims was used not only for the
Francisca Parales (Francisca)[11] to finance an urgently needed heart purchase of the Las Pias property and discharge of the mortgage
surgery of her daughter.[12] thereon, but also for the setting up of the earlier mentioned corporations,
as well as for the downpayment on the Makati property and related
On respondents advice, complainant obtained a franchise to operate a expenses.[25]
Jollibee food outlet, with the agreement that out of the profits that its
operation would generate, she would get 50% while respondent and Respondent likewise admits having represented to complainant that the
Immaculada would share the remaining 50%.[13] Complainant thus sent Las Pias City property belonged to one Francisca,[26] certificate of title to
respondent sums of money for the acquisition of both the Las Pias which and the corresponding deed of sale signed by Francisca, by his
property and a franchise to operate a Jollibee outlet.[14] claim, are in his possession; but the title has not been transferred to
Tanu, Inc., as agreed, in view of complainants failure to provide the
Page 253
Re the Makati City Property money needed therefor, he adding that he is also exercising his retaining
lien over the Las Pias documents.[27]
With respect to the Quezon City property, respondent states that he is CANON 16 A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his
willing to surrender all the documents pertaining thereto, but would do so client that may come into his possession.
only if complainant is first ordered to pay him his professional fees.[30]
Rule 16.01 A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or
As for the Pasay City property, respondent denies complainants claims received for or from the client.
thereon as mere preposterous allegations. He failed to account for the sums of money he received from
complainant and failed to return the same upon demand. (Copy of
Following the filing by complainant of her Reply, the Court referred the demand letter dated 19 December 2005, Exhibit T)
case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report
and recommendation/decision by Resolution of January 22, 2007.[31] 4. Respondent violated Rule 15.06 of the CPR which provides:
At the mandatory conference scheduled by the IBP Commission on Bar A lawyer shall not state or imply that he is able to influence any public
Discipline on September 13, 2007 before Commissioner Lolita A. official, tribunal or legislative body.
Quisumbing (the Commissioner),[32]respondent failed to appear despite
notice. He instead sent a representative who sought a resetting as, He convinced complainant to pay bribe money to our judges since, he
allegedly, respondent was in Ilocos attending to an important family claims, that it is a common practice in the Philippines.[37] (Underscoring
matter.[33] The Commissioner, finding respondents absence supplied)
inexcusable, given that he had ample time to file a motion for resetting
but he did not, considered respondent to have waived his right to
participate in the proceedings.[34] Complainant thereupon presented The Commissioner thus recommended that respondent be disbarred;
evidence ex-parte and submitted her position paper.[35] that his name be ordered stricken from the roll of attorneys; and that he
be ordered to return the total amount of US$3,000,000 to complainant.
In her Report and Recommendation[36] submitted to the IBP Board of
Governors on December 14, 2007, the Commissioner found respondent By Resolution of January 17, 2008,[38] the IBP Board of Governors
to have committed fraudulent acts which constitute violations of the adopted and approved the Report and Recommendation of the
lawyers oath and numerous provisions of the Code of Professional Commissioner, with the modification that respondent was ordered
Responsibility (CPR), viz: to return only the admitted amount he received from complainant
(US$544,828), without prejudice to complainants recovery of the other
1. Respondent violated CANON 1 which states: A lawyer shall uphold amounts claimed in the appropriate forum.
the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for the
law and for legal processes. The Court sustains the IBP Board of Governors, except its
findings/conclusion that respondent committed estafa and
Respondent committed estafa punishable under Art. 315 of the Revised falsification. This is not the proper forum to determine whether he
Penal Code. With unfaithfulness and abuse of confidence, he committed these offenses.
misappropriated millions of pesos which was [sic] given to him on his
misrepresentation that such were needed for the acquisition of the The Court finds, however, that respondents dishonest and deceitful
aforementioned properties. conduct with respect to the intended transactions, real property
acquisitions which turned out to be bogus, is sufficiently established.
Respondent also committed an unlawful act (i.e., falsification as part of
his fraudulent scheme) when he tampered with the Articles of It bears emphasis that respondent admits having received from
Incorporation of Tanu, Inc.. A perusal of the Articles of Incorporation complainant at least US$544,828. He claims, however, that the amount
given by respondent to complainant shows that the incorporators are was used for the purchase of the Las Pias property and the discharge of
Tanu Reddi, Michael Lee, Prasuna Reddy, Ahalya Devi, and Robert the mortgage thereon, the setting up of the corporations earlier
Juntilla. When complainant obtained a copy of the same in September mentioned, and the downpayment on the Makati property and related
2005, she discovered that other names were inserted. The names of representation expenses therefor. The Court finds that the claim does
respondent, Clarito D. Cardozo, Brian Pellazar, and Michael Angelo not lie.
Lopez were intercalated. (Exhibit W)
All that respondent presented to account for the money is a handwritten
2. He likewise violated Rule 1.01 of the CPR which provides: A lawyer acknowledgment of a supposed partial payment of P500,000 for the
shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. Makati property, purportedly executed by one Mangco.[39] By any
standard, this document is a mere piece of paper, Mangco not having
He engaged in unlawful, dishonest and deceitful conduct when he been presented, if he exists at all, to confirm that he indeed issued the
offered properties for sale to complainant on the misrepresentation that receipt. Since respondent failed to credibly account, upon demand, for
complainant was dealing with the true owners thereof. This is very clear the money held by him in trust an element of
from the documents he asked complainant to sign; namely, the misappropriation[40] complainants claim that respondent employed
Page 254
Memorandum of Agreement (Exhibit D) for the Tagaytay property, Deed deceit on her is established.
of Conditional Sale (Exhibit U) for the Pasay City property, and
A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as ATTY. JAMES BENEDICT
attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross FLORIDO, Promulgated:
misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his Respondent.
conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the June 18, 2010
oath which he is required to take before admission to practice, or for a x--------------------------------------------------x
willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly
or willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority
to do so. x x x.
DECISION
According to Commissioner Villadolid, Jr., respondent knew or ought to WHEREFORE, we find respondent Atty. James Benedict
have known that his clients could not just forcibly take over the Florido GUILTY of violating Canon 19 and Rules 1.02 and 15.07 of the
management and premises of RBCI without a valid court Code of Professional Responsibility.Accordingly,
order. Commissioner Villadolid, Jr. noted that the right to manage and we SUSPEND respondent from the practice of law for one year effective
gain majority control over RBCI was one of the issues pending before upon finality of this Decision.
the trial court in Civil Case No. 6628. Commissioner Villadolid, Jr. said Let copies of this decision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant,
that respondent had no legal basis to implement the take over of RBCI to be appended to respondents personal record as attorney. Likewise,
and that it was a naked power grab without any semblance of legality copies shall be furnished to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and in
whatsoever. all courts in the country for their information and guidance.
collective bargaining agreement; (b) P13,833,597.96 for the salary comment thereon to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for
increases of faculty members from 1 June 1991 to 31 October 1992;
attorney and interested party being one of the dismissed employees Equally important, since respondent and the other union officers and
seeking his own restitution, and thereafter, when he obtained the directors were to get for themselves a lions share of the compromise as
punish the individual attorney as to protect the dispensation of justice by In his sworn complaint[1] filed before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
sheltering the judiciary and the public from the misconduct or inefficiency (IBP) on December 22, 2006, complainant Atty. Ricardo M. Salomon, Jr.
shop, the unnamed driver bought a new battery for the car which was
not inappropriate since a battery was for the preservation of the car; (3)
execution for the satisfaction of the decision. A court order2 dated 2 He shall also have a lien to the same extent on all judgments and
March 2000 granted the Omnibus Motion for Execution and Withdrawal
the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline, by Order of October 12, This Court finds that indeed, respondent is guilty of gross misconduct.
2001,[14] directed complainants to just file their position paper with
the Philippines, and the Office of the Bar Confidant. when in truth and in fact he is not. Consequently, complainant made
SO ORDERED. several verbal demands to the respondent to remit to him the amount
when an Alias Writ of Execution was issued and being implemented Rule 16.02 A lawyer shall keep the funds of each client separate
when complainant discovered that spouses Lopez had already given and apart from his own and those of others kept by him.
the complainant in favor of the respondent without monetary and confidence in herein respondent, that when she engaged his
services, she entrusted to him her land titles and allowed him to sell her
ordered STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys EFFECTIVE required them to add some more amount (dagdagan niyo ng konti).[3] To
IMMEDIATELY. raise the P65,000.00 for the Tarogs, therefore, Vidal solicited a loan from
In his defense, Atty. Ricafort denied that the P65,000.00 was intended to During the clarificatory questioning, the Undersigned Commissioner also
be deposited in court, insisting that the amount was payment for his legal asked Atty. Ricafort why he did not answer the demand letter sent by
services under a package deal, that is, the amount included his Arnulfo Tarog and the proof of service of the said letter was presented
acceptance fee, attorneys fee, and appearance fees from the filing of the by the complainant. Conveniently, Atty. Ricafort stated that he did not
complaint for annulment of sale until judgment, but excluding appeal. He receive the letter and it was received by their helper who did not forward
claimed that the fees were agreed upon after considering the value of the letter to him. He also adopted the position that the complainant was
the property, his skill and experience as a lawyer, the labor, time, and demanding the P65,000.00 wherefore this case was filed. When
trouble involved, and his professional character and social standing; that confronted by the testimony of Mr. Vidal Miralles, the respondent Atty.
at the time he delivered the check, Arnulfo read, understood, and agreed Ricafort just denied the allegation that he received the P65,000.00 for
to the contents of the complaint, which did not mention anything about deposit to the court. He also denied that Mr. Miralles has visited his
any consignation;[8] and that Arnulfo, being a retired school principal, was residence for follow-up the reimbursement.
a learned person who would not have easily fallen for any scheme like
the one they depicted against him. The Undersigned Commissioner asked the respondent if he has
personal animosity with Arnuldo Tarog, Erlinda Tarog and Vidal Miralles
Findings of the IBP Commissioner and if there are any reason why this case was filed against him. In his
answer the respondent stated that we have been very good friends for
Following his investigation, Commissioner Wilfredo E.J.E. Reyes of the the past ten (10) years and he said that in fact he was surprised when
Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Commission on Bar Discipline rendered the complaint was filed against him and they even attached the decision
his Report and Recommendation dated October 7, 2004,[9] in which he of the Supreme Court for his suspension and maybe they are using this
concluded that: case to be able to collect from him.
It is respectfully recommended that respondent, Atty. Romulo L. Ricafort The main defense of the respondent is that the complainant in this case
be DISBARRED and be ordered to return the amount of P65,000 testified that the total amount to redeem his property is P240,000.00 and
and P15,000 which he got from his client. when asked whether he consigned the money to the court to redeem the
property he answered in the negative.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
The alleged payment of P65,000.00 was made prior to the said
Commissioner Reyes regarded the testimonies of Erlinda and Vidal more testimony sometime in 1992. Hence, it was stated on complainants
credible than the testimony of Atty. Ricafort, observing: affidavit that on November 7, 1992, prior to filing said complaint I had
Page 268
given him the sum of Sixty Five Thousand Pesos to be deposited to the
Regional Trial Court representing redemption money of the Real Estate
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and Atty. Ricafort admitted receiving the P65,000.00 from the Tarogs. Even
APPROVED, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating so, we have two versions about the transaction. On the one hand, the
Commissioner of the above-entitled case herein made part of this Tarogs insisted that the amount was to be consigned in court for
Resolution as Annex A and, finding the recommendation fully supported purposes of their civil case; on the other hand, Atty. Ricafort claimed that
by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, and the amount was for his fees under a package deal arrangement.
considering that Respondent has taken advantage of his client [sic]
vulnerability and has been dishonest with his dealings to his client, Atty. Commissioner Reyes considered the Tarogs version more credible.
Romulo L. Ricafort is hereby DISBARRED and Ordered to Return the
amount ofP65,000 and P15,000 to complainant. We hold that Commissioner Reyes appreciation of the facts was correct
and in accord with human experience.
Atty. Ricafort moved for reconsideration,[14] maintaining that a retainer
agreement was immaterial because he had affirmed having received Firstly, it is easier to believe that Atty. Ricafort persuaded the Tarogs on
the P65,000.00 and having issued a receipt for the amount; that he had the need for that amount to be deposited in court for purposes of their
not kept the receipt because the practice of lawyers in most instances is civil case. Being non-lawyers, they had no idea about the requirement
Page 269
that receipt is issued without duplicate as it behooves upon the client to for them to consign any amount in court, due to the substantive and
demand for a receipt;[15] that considering that the Tarogs had produced procedural implications of such requirement being ordinarily known only
Thirdly, Atty. Ricafort explained that he had no copies of the receipts for Comm. Reyes: Alam niyo ba kung ano ang nangyari doon sa tseke na
the P65,000.00 and P15,000.00 issued to the Tarogs because the idiniposit?
practice of lawyers in most instances is that receipt is issued without
duplicate as it behooves upon the client to demand for a receipt.[21] But Witness: Noong una sinabi niya sa amin na ididiposit niya sa court.
such explanation does not persuade us. Ethical and practical
considerations made it both natural and imperative for him to issue Comm. Reyes: Nalaman niyo ba na hindi naman pala idiniposit sa
receipts, even if not demanded, and to keep copies of the receipts for his court?
own records. He was all too aware that he was accountable for the
moneys entrusted to him by the clients, and that his only means of Witness: Opo.
ensuring accountability was by issuing and keeping receipts. Rule 16.01
of theCode of Professional Responsibility expressly enjoins such Comm. Reyes: Kailan niyo nalaman?
accountability, viz:
Witness: Nagsabi siya tapos sinabi pa niya na yong interest sa bank
Rule 16.01 - A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected ay ibinigay niya sa amin ang sabi naming salamat.[24]
or received for or from the client.
Definitely, Atty. Ricafort had a highly fiduciary and confidential relation
with the Tarogs. As such, he was burdened with the legal duty to B.
promptly account for all the funds received from or held by him for Atty. Ricaforts acts and actuations constituted
them.[22] serious breach of his fiduciary duties as an attorney
And, fourthly, to buttress his denial that the P65,000.00 was not intended The Code of Professional Responsibility demands the utmost degree of
for deposit in court, Atty. Ricafort insisted that Arnulfo did not object to fidelity and good faith in dealing with the moneys entrusted to lawyers
the omission from the complaint in the civil action of any mention of because of their fiduciary relationship.[25] In particular, Rule 16.01 of
consignation. However, the complaint that he himself had written and the Code of Professional Responsibility states:
filed for the Tarogs contradicted his insistence, specifically in its
paragraph 16, which averred the plaintiffs (i.e., Tarogs) readiness and Rule 16.01 - A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected
willingness to deposit the amount of P69,345.00 (inclusive of the or received for or from the client.
redemption price and interest) in court, thus:
Undoubtedly, Atty. Ricafort was required to hold in trust any money and
16. And to show willingness and sincerity of the plaintiffs, they are ready property of his clients that came into his possession,[26] and he needed
and willing to deposit the amount of P69,345.00 as redemption price plus to be always mindful of the trust and confidence his clients reposed in
reasonable accrued interests, if there are any; [23] him.[27] Thus, having obtained the funds from the Tarogs in the course of
his professional employment, he had the obligation to deliver such funds
Nor could the Tarogs have conjured or invented the need for to his clients (a) when they became due, or (b) upon demand.[28]
consignation. The consignation was a notion that could have emanated
only from him as their lawyer. In fact, Erlinda recalled while testifying Furthermore, Rule 16.02 of the Code of Professional
before the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline that they had brought to Responsibility, imposes on an attorney the positive obligation to keep all
their meeting with Atty. Ricafort only P60,000.00 for the consignation, but funds of his client separate and apart from his own and from those of
that Atty. Ricafort had to instruct them to raise the amount. The excerpt others kept by him, to wit:
Page 270
Atty. Ricaforts plain abuse of the confidence reposed in him by his clients A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest and immoral or deceitful
rendered him liable for violation of Canon 16,[32] particularly Rule conduct.
16.01, supra, and Canon 17,[33] all of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. His acts and actuations constituted a gross violation of Respondents claim of good faith in closing his account because he
general morality and of professional ethics that impaired public thought complainant has already encashed all checks is preposterous.
confidence in the legal profession and deserved punishment.[34] The account was closed on or before 26 February 1996. He knew that
there were still other checks due on 29 February 1996 and 15 March
Without hesitation, therefore, we consider Atty. Ricaforts acts and 1996 which could not be encashed before their maturity dates.
conduct as gross misconduct, a serious charge under Rule 140 of
the Rules of Court, to wit: By violating Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, respondent diminished public confidence in the law and
Section 8. Serious charges. Serious charges include: the lawyers (Busios v. Ricafort, 283 SCRA 407 [1997]; Ducat v. Villalon,
xxx 337 SCRA 622 [2000]). Instead of promoting such confidence and
3. Gross misconduct constituting violations of the Code of Judicial respect, he miserably failed to live up to the standards of the legal
Conduct; profession (Gonato v. Adaza, 328 SCRA 694 [2000];Ducat v.
xxx Villalon, supra).
That this offense was not the first charged and decided against Atty. Respondents act of issuing bad checks in satisfaction of the alias writ of
Ricafort aggravated his liability. In Nuez v. Ricafort,[35] decided in execution for money judgment rendered by the trial court was a clear
2002, the Court found him to have violated Rules 1.01[36] of Canon 1 and attempt to defeat the ends of justice. His failure to make good the checks
Rule 12.03[37] and Rule 12.04[38] of Canon 12 of the Code of Professional despite demands and the criminal cases for violation of B.P. Blg. 22
Responsibility in relation to his failure to turn over the proceeds of the showed his continued defiance of judicial processes, which he, as an
sale of realty to the complainant (who had authorized him to sell the officer of the court, was under continuing duty to uphold.[39]
realty in her behalf). His failure to turn over the proceeds compelled the
complainant to commence in the RTC a civil action to recover the Bearing in mind his administrative record, and considering that the
proceeds against him and his wife. The penalty for violation of Canon 16 ranges from suspension for six
Court meted on him the penalty of indefinite suspension, and warned him months,[40] to suspension for one year,[41] to suspension for two
against the commission of similar acts, stating: years,[42] depending on the amount involved and the severity of the
lawyers misconduct, we rule that disbarment is the commensurate
We concur with the findings of the Investigating Commissioner, as punishment for Atty. Ricafort, who has shown no reformation in his
adopted and approved by the Board of Governors of the IBP, that handling of trust funds for his clients.
respondent Atty. Romulo Ricafort is guilty of grave misconduct in his
dealings with complainant. Indeed, the record shows respondents grave WHEREFORE, we find and declare Atty. Romulo L. Ricafort guilty of a
misconduct and notorious dishonesty. violation of Canon 16, Rule 16.01 and Canon 17 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and, accordingly, disbar him. The Bar
There is no need to stretch ones imagination to arrive at an inevitable Confidant is directed to strike out his name from the Roll of Attorneys.
conclusion that respondent gravely abused the confidence that
complainant reposed in him and committed dishonesty when he did not Atty. Ricafort is ordered to return to Erlinda R. Tarog the sums
Page 271
turn over the proceeds of the sale of her property. Worse, with palpable of P65,000.00 and P15,000.00, plus interest of six percent per
bad faith, he compelled the complainant to go to court for the recovery
of complainants evidence and submission of a report and of Evidence, April 18, 1997). She clarified that respondent withdrew only
recommendation thereon. the sum of P30,000.00 from the Clerk of Court, while the P5,000.00 was
Q-16433, Branch IV, Quezon City, entitled "Celedonio Quilban, et al., (Exhibit "E") was signed by 21 plaintiffs during a meeting held for the
Plaintiffs, vs. Maximo Rivera, et al., Defendants." with the principal purpose on 24 November 1980 to the effect that they had decided to
members of the Samahan signed the agreement to discharge Atty. We agree with the Solicitor General that complainants' evidence on this
Robinol and hire a substitute counsel as shown by Annex "3", which is a score is the more credible and that he had, in fact, received the total sum
by independent advice. Neither shall a lawyer lend money to a his membership in the legal profession. His failure to transfer the title of
the property under the name of the complainant was caused by his
No. XV-2002-550 adopting and approving the Investigating used complainants money to alleviate if not solve his financial
woes. What compounded respondents unethical conduct was his
was duly established in the record that the application for registration of Domingo Rubias the land technically described in psu-99791 (Exh. "A").
the land in question filed by Francisco Militante, plaintiff's vendor and
of 26 November 1964dismissing plaintiff's therein complaint for administration of justice, the property and rights of in litigation or levied
ejectment against defendant, the iloilo court expressly found "that upon an execution before the court within whose jurisdiction or territory
The four points on which defendant on his part reserved the presentation consequently denied, and upon appeal by Palarca to the Supreme Court,
of evidence at the trial dealing with his and his ancestors' continuous, the judgement of the lower court was affirmed by a decision promulgated
confirmation or ratification, holding that: plaintiff's alleged cause of action founded thereon were being asserted
against defendant-appellant. The principles governing the nullity of such
with competence and diligence in violation of Canon 18 of the Code. In as the acceptance fee in this case). Hence, considering further that the
the same regard, he also remained unmindful of his clients trust in him fact of respondents receipt of the P150,000.00 acceptance fee from
In the afternoon of October 9,1987, the complainant was made to sign product of one's imagination and only intended to harrass him. 6
by respondent what she described as a "[h]astily prepared, poorly
are being hurled at the legal profession, strict compliance with one's oath Bernardo B. Pablo and Benito Jalandoon, Sr. (herein respondent) signed
of office and the canons of professional ethics is an imperative. as counsel.
aforethought because there is no "proof of collusion or conspiracy duplicity and lack of candor in his dealings with his client, which call for
between respondent and those who would benefit from the dismissal of the exercise of this Court's disciplinary power.
he prepared the latter's affidavit when he was still their counsel. clients in violation of paragraph (e), Section 20, Rule 138 of the Rules of
Court. Inasmuch as respondent failed to answer the complaint filed
jurisdiction, where he has also been admitted as an attorney, is also a comply with the requirement in Rule 1.8 (a) of the Model Rules that a
ground for his disbarment or suspension in this realm, provided the lawyer shall not enter into a business transaction with a client or
disbarment or suspension (Emphasis supplied). or suspension in this jurisdiction.[35] Likewise, the judgment of the
Superior Court of Guam only constitutes prima facie evidence of
payment of the acceptance fee. An acknowledgment receipt evidenced Paguinto never filed the annulment case in court.
this payment.[1] Parias gave Paguinto a diskette containing a narration of
afford no redress for private grievance. They are undertaken solely for recommendation.[9]
the public welfare. x x x The attorney is called upon to answer to the court
recommendation of the Commission on Bar Discipline. The IBP Board of Preparation of Pleadings, Interviewing the Witnesses, What to do in
Governors found respondent guilty of negligence in handling the Case of Conflict of Trial Dates. Adoption of System to Insure
severely in the future.[4] The report and recommendation of the of his client, he also has the responsibility of employing only fair and
honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client and he should
of the case. to be ever mindful of the responsibilities that should be expected of him.
He is mandated to exert his best efforts to protect the interest of his client
(sic) in interest, in addition to the fact that there is no privity of contract On July 28, 1993, this Court directed respondent to file his rejoinder
within ten days from notice of our Resolution.[24] But he failed to do so
only once but a number of times in regard to the handling of his clients render him liable.
5.s. Complainant was very grateful at the time, even shedding a tear or As a lawyer, respondent is expected to know this Rule. Instead of
two simply because Respondent had agreed to handle her case at a inaction, he should have confronted complainant and ask her to rectify
greatly reduced acceptance fee. her fraudulent representation. If complainant refuses, then he should
terminate his relationship with her.
Statements of similar tenor can also be found in respondents Understandably, respondent failed to follow the above-cited Rule. This
Memorandum[8] filed with the IBP. is because there is no truth to his claim that he did not render legal
Undoubtedly, respondents present version is a flagrant departure from service to complainant because she falsified the documentary evidence
his previous pleadings. This cannot be countenanced. A party should in Civil Case No.00-044. This brings us to the second reason why we
decide early what version he is going to advance. A change of theory in cannot sustain his fourth argument. The pleadings show that he learned
the latter stage of the proceedings is objectionable, not due to the strict of the alleged falsification long after complainant had terminated their
application of procedural rules, but because it is contrary to the rules of attorney-client relationship. It was a result of his active search for a
fair play, justice and due process.[9] The present administrative case was justification of his negligence in Civil Case No. 00-044. As a matter of
resolved by the IBP on the basis of respondents previous admission that fact, he admitted that he verified the authenticity of complainants title
complainant engaged his legal services in Civil Case No. 00-044. He only after the news of his suspension spread in the legal community. To
cannot now unbind himself from such admission and its consequences. our mind, there is absurdity in invoking subsequent knowledge of a fact
In fact, if anything at all has been achieved by respondents inconsistent as justification for an act or omission that is fait accompli.
assertions, it is his dishonesty to this Court. Obviously, in filing falsification charges against complainant, respondent
At any rate, assuming arguendo that complainant indeed engaged was motivated by vindictiveness.
respondents services in filing the two (2) new petitions, instead of Civil In fine, let it be stressed that the authority of an attorney begins with his
Case No. 00-044, still, his liability is unmistakable. There is nothing in or her retainer.[12] It gives rise to a relationship between an attorney and
the records to show that he filed any petition. The ethics of the profession a client that is highly fiduciary in nature and of a very delicate, exacting,
demands that, in such a case, he should immediately return the filing and confidential character, requiring a high degree of fidelity and good
fees to complainant. In Parias v. Paguinto,[10] we held that a lawyer shall faith.[13] If much is demanded from an attorney, it is because the
account for all money or property collected from the client. Money entrusted privilege to practice law carries with it the correlative duties not
entrusted to a lawyer for a specific purpose, such as for filing fee, but not only to the client but also to the court, to the bar, and to the public. A
used for failure to file the case must immediately be returned to the client lawyer who performs his duty with diligence and candor not only protects
on demand. Per records, complainant made repeated demands, but the interest of his client; he also serves the ends of justice, does honor
respondent is yet to return the money. to the bar, and helps maintain the respect of the community to the legal
Neither do we find merit in respondents second argument. The fact profession.[14] Indeed, law is an exacting goddess demanding of her
that Civil Case No. 00-044 was already submitted for decision does not votaries not only intellectual but also moral discipline.
Page 299
justify his inaction. After agreeing to handle Civil Case No. 00-044, his WHEREFORE, we DENY respondents motion for reconsideration. Our
duty is, first and foremost, to enter his appearance. Sadly, he failed to do Decision dated April 22, 2005 is immediately executory. Respondent is
DECISION Respondent filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 275, Las
Pias City, a complaint[6] for collection of sum of money and damages
against all petitioners, alleging that it was through her effort as a real
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.: estate broker that she was able to bring about the consummation of the
sale of the subject property, to petitioners' immense gain and benefits;
that despite the sale and her repeated demands, petitioners refused to
Before us is a petition for review on certiorari and mandamus seeking pay her broker's fee.
that the Resolutions dated September 21, 2004[1] and December 21,
2004[2] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 85872 be Petitioners Domingo Ruiz, et al. filed their Answer with counterclaim and
reversed and set aside; and that the CA be directed to give due course alleged as affirmative defense that at the time of the consummation of
to the petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus filed before it by the sale of the subject properties, there was no longer any
herein petitioners. existing broker's agreement between them; that respondent had no more
authority from them to sell the properties or, assuming there was such
A brief factual background is necessary for a proper perspective in the authority, the same had already lapsed or expired; that it was petitioners'
resolution of herein petition. understanding at the time of the sale of the subject properties that
Dominga, Apolonia, Florencio, Cornelia, Tomasa and Olimpio, all Tantiansu, the buyer, would be responsible for the payment of the
surnamed Ruiz (petitioners), were the original owners of seven parcels broker's commission, whoever the broker may be; that petitioners knew
of land with a total area of 194,284 square meters located that respondent had initially claimed her broker's commission from
Page 300
in Barangay Kaytinga, Alfonso, Cavite, covered by OCT No. P-4017 in Tantiansu; but after Tantiansu's death, and failing to collect any broker's
the name of Tomasa, covering 46,235 sq. meters; OCT No. P-4018 in
On September 22, 2003, the RTC[7] rendered its judgment, the On September 21, 2004, the CA dismissed the petition, the dispositive
dispositive portion of which reads: portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered in favor of plaintiff [respondent] WHEREFORE, for being procedurally flawed, at the very least, this
and against the defendants [petitioners], ordering the latter to pay the petition is hereby DENIED DUE COURSE, and consequently
plaintiff jointly and severally the sum of P2,447,524.80 plus legal interest DISMISSED. And since the temporary restraining order and/or writ of
thereon from the filing of the complaint and moral damages preliminary injunction is merely an adjunct to the main case, the same
of P500,000.00 as well as exemplary damages of P200,000.00 and must be pro tanto denied. [16]
attorney's fees of P100,000.00 and P2,000.00 per court appearance and
to pay the cost.[8] The reasons given by the CA dismissing the petition outright are as
follows:
Petitioners filed their notice of appeal.[9] On November 6, 2003,
respondent filed her Comment and/or opposition thereto, alleging that (1) No motion for reconsideration was filed against the challenged
the appeal was not perfected for failure of petitioners to file the Order issued by the respondent judge on January 16, 2004. Well settled
docket/appeal fee within the reglementary period to appeal. is the rule that a filing of a motion for reconsideration is a prerequisite to
the institution of a special civil action for certiorari.
In an Order[10] dated January 16, 2004, the RTC denied petitioners'
appeal and considered the appeal barred for failure of petitioners to pay (2) The names of the heirs of the petitioner Tomasa Ruiz are not
the appeal fee within the reglementary period as provided under Section indicated, in violation of the first par. Section 3, Rule 46 of the 1997
4, Rule 41 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. It ruled that the decision had Rules, which requires that the petition shall contain the full names and
already become final and executory, and there was nothing more to be actual addresses of all petitioners and respondents, a concise statement
appealed to the CA. of the matters involved, the factual background of the case, and the
grounds relied upon for the relief prayed for.
With the denial of their appeal, petitioners filed a petition for
relief[11] alleging that they were prevented from awaiting themselves of (3) There is no special power of attorney executed by the said heirs
an appeal due to mistake and excusable negligence of their counsel on authorizing Dominga to sign the verification and certification in their own
record, and that they had a good and substantial defense. Attached to behalf.[17]
the petition was the Affidavit of Merit of Atty. Mark Edsel Ang (Atty. Ang),
petitioners' former counsel, wherein he stated that when he received the Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied in the assailed
decision on September 30, 2003, he immediately sent copies thereof to Resolution dated December 21, 2004, as the CA found that the
petitioners by registered mail, as four of the six petitioners live abroad arguments put forward in the motion were a virtual rehash of those
while the other two live in Cavite; that he communicated with the RTC alleged in support of the petition.
Clerk of Court the fact that a notice of appeal was already filed and the Hence, herein petition raising the following issues:
fees would be paid as soon as he got the confirmation of petitioners'
desire to appeal, to which the clerk of court gave her assurance on the 1. WHETHER A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION IS
acceptance of the late payment of docket fees; that he received a long REQUIRED BEFORE RESORTING TO THE PETITION FOR
distance call from petitioner Cornelia on October 15, 2003 confirming CERTIORARI FILED BY PETITIONERS BEFORE THE CA;
petitioners' desire to appeal the decision; thus, he paid the appellate fees
on October 24, 2003. Atty. Ang admitted that it was through his
negligence that the appeal was belatedly filed. 2. WHETHER THE NAMES OF THE HEIRS OF THE
PETITIONER TOMASA RUIZ ARE INDICATED IN THE PETITION;
In its Decision[12] dated June 18, 2004, the RTC denied the petition for
relief for lack of merit. The RTC found no merit in petitioners' contention 3. WHETHER THERE IS NO SPECIAL POWER OF
that the error of counsel to pay the appellate fees in due time was a ATTORNEY EXECUTED BY SAID HEIRS AUTHORIZING
mistake constituting excusable negligence and ruled that the mistake of PETITIONER TO SIGN THE VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION ON
counsel binds his client. The RTC held that petitioners' claim of a good THEIR OWN BEHALF.
and valid defense was belied by the court's findings and conclusions
contained in its Decision dated September 22, 2003. 4. WHETHER THE CA ACTED WITH HASTE ON ITS
BASESLESS CONCLUSION THAT PETITIONERS' MOTION FOR
In an Order[13] dated June 24, 2004, the RTC granted the motion for RECONSIDERATION IS A VIRTUAL REHASH OF THOSE ALLEGED
execution filed by respondent on the ground that the decision IN SUPPORT OF ITS PETITION.[18]
dated September 22, 2003 had already become final and executory.
The parties filed their respective memoranda.
On July 5, 2004, notices of garnishment[14] were issued to the different
banks by sheriff Josefino Ortiz. Notice[15] of sale on execution of the Anent the first issue, petitioners assert that the CA erred in finding that
subject property was scheduled on September 3, 2004. the filing of a motion for reconsideration is a prerequisite for the institution
Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus with of a special civil action for certiorari.
prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order/writ of
preliminary injunction with the CA, verified and certified by Dominga, Under the peculiar circumstances of the present case, we agree with
Page 301
seeking to set aside the following: (1) Order dated January 16, 2004, petitioners. There is no question that the filing of a motion for
which denied petitioners' notice of appeal; (2) Decision dated June 18, reconsideration before resort to certiorari will lie is intended to afford the
However, the filing of a motion for reconsideration before availing of the As to the third issue, we also find that the CA erred in finding that there
remedy of certiorari is not always a sine qua non[20] requirement, as were no special powers of attorney (SPAs) executed by the heirs of
there are recognized exceptions: (a) where the order is a patent nullity, Tomasa authorizing petitioner Dominga to sign the verification and
as where the court a quo has no jurisdiction; (b) where the questions certification on their behalf. However, an examination of the
raised in the certiorari proceedings have been duly, or are the same as CA rollo shows that when the petition was filed with the CA, attached
those, raised and passed upon by the lower court; (c) where there is an were separate SPAs[23] of petitioners Apolonia, Cornelia, Olimpio,
urgent necessity for the resolution of the question and any further delay Florencio, the heirs of Tomasa, executed in favor of their co-petitioner
would prejudice the interests of the government or of the petitioner, or Dominga, giving her the authority to sign the required verification and
the subject matter of the action is perishable; (d) where, under the certification of non-forum shopping.
circumstances, a motion for reconsideration would be useless; (e) where
petitioner was deprived of due process and there is extreme urgency for Anent the fourth issue, we rule that the CA hastily concluded that the
relief; (f) where, in a criminal case, relief from an order of arrest is urgent allegations in petitioners' motion for reconsideration of the Resolution
and the granting of such relief by the trial court is improbable; (g) where dated September 21, 2000, were a mere rehash of those in support of
the proceedings in the lower court are a nullity for lack of due process; their petition for certiorari. Notably, the motion had sufficiently stated the
(h) where the proceedings were ex parte, or in which the petitioner had circumstances which would excuse petitioners for their non-filing of a
no opportunity to object; and (i) where the issue raised is one purely of motion for reconsideration of the RTC decision dated June 24, 2004
law, or public interest is involved.[21] We find this case falling under before resorting to a petition for certiorari in the CA, to wit: the RTC's
exceptions b, c and d. declaration that its decision had already become final and executory and
that there was nothing more to be appealed to the CA; and the granting
Petitioners' notice of appeal was earlier denied by the RTC due to the of respondent's motion for execution as well as the sheriff's
late payment of docket fees, and it ruled that its decision implementation of such writ by the issuance of notices of
dated September 22, 2003 had already become final and executory and garnishment.Petitioners also pointed out to the CA that it had overlooked
there was nothing more to be appealed to the CA. Clearly then, a motion the fact that the names of the heirs of Tomasa Ruiz were alleged in the
for reconsideration would be useless in the light of such declaration by petition and clarified that they were the only heirs of petitioner Tomasa
the RTC. and that they had executed separate SPAs in favor of petitioner
Dominga.
Petitioners' subsequent petition for relief from the denial of appeal was
denied by the RTC in its Decision dated June 18, 2004. The court Thus, the CA committed a reversible error in outrightly dismissing the
reiterated its disquisition found in its main decision dated September 22, petition and not giving due course to it as well as in denying petitioners'
2003. In fact, just after the petition for relief was denied on June 18, motion for reconsideration.
2004, the RTC issued an Order dated June 24, 2004 granting the motion Petitioners further claim that the RTC should have given due course to
for execution filed by respondent. Thereafter, on July 5, 2004, notices of their notice of appeal of the RTC Decision dated September 22, 2003 to
garnishment of petitioners' goods, stocks, interest on stocks, shares and the CA since the late payment of appellate docket fees was due to the
any other personal properties in their control and possession were mistake and excusable negligence of their counsel and they had a good
already served by the sheriff on the different banks. Thus, petitioners and substantial defense.
sufficiently showed that there was an urgent necessity for the filing of the
petition with the CA to rule on the issue of the denial of appeal and the Instead of remanding the case to the CA which would only unduly
petition for relief. prolong the disposition of the case between the parties, we shall
resolve[24] the substantive issue raised in the petition forcertiorari filed
Anent the second issue, the CA erred in finding that the names of the with the CA, to wit: Whether the RTC committed grave abuse of
heirs of petitioner Tomasa Ruiz were not indicated in the petition. In the discretion in denying petitioners' petition for relief from denial of appeal.
petition filed before the CA, it was alleged that the petitioners are as
follows: To begin with, petitioners, through counsel, received a copy of the RTC
decision dated September 22, 2003 on September 30 2003. Thus,
Dominga Ruiz, resident of Kaytinga, Alfonso Cavite; petitioners had until October 15, 2003 within which to perfect their appeal
Apolonia Ruiz, resident of 105 Eagle Head Drive, Fort by filing the notice of appeal[25] and paying the appellate docket and other
Washington, Maryland, USA; legal fees.[26] On October 14, 2003, petitioners filed their notice of appeal
Cornelia Ruiz, resident of 12903 Turnberry Circle, Fort through registered mail without paying the appeal fees.
Washington, Maryland, USA;
Olimpio Ruiz, resident of 4510 N. Troy, Chicago, Illinois, USA; It is a well-settled rule that the mere filing of the notice of appeal is not
Florencio Ruiz, resident of Detecon Al Saudia Co. Ltd., PO Box 31443, enough, for it must be accompanied by the payment of the correct
Jeddah, 21497; appellate docket fees.[27] Payment in full of docket fees within the
Heirs of Tomasa Ruiz, all the above residents of the above-mentioned prescribed period is mandatory.[28] It is an essential requirement without
addresses.[22] which the decision appealed from would become final and executory as
if no appeal has been filed.Failure to perfect an appeal within the
In their motion for reconsideration of the CA Resolution dated September prescribed period is not a mere technicality but jurisdictional, and failure
21, 2004, petitioners alleged that there was substantial compliance with to perfect an appeal renders the judgment final and executory.[29]
the requirement that the full names and actual residents of all petitioners
must be stated, since all the petitioners are the only children of the late Hence, there is no question that the RTC correctly dismissed petitioners'
Tomasa Ruiz, a fact that they had sufficiently alleged in their petition. We appeal pursuant to Section 13, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court which
find such explanation plausible, considering that the phrase heirs of reads:
Page 302
Tomasa Ruiz was followed by the words all the above, which means that
present case do not give us sufficient reason to suspend the rules of the
SPS. ANTONIO and A.C. No. 4676 The said motion is well-taken for the reason that the records failed to
NORMA SORIANO, show that plaintiffs filed pre-trial brief. They are thus, declared as non-
Complainants, Present: suited.
Promulgated:
On 20 October 1997, the Supreme Court referred[9] the case to the On 28 May 2003, Investigating Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and found respondent negligent in handling the cases of complainants;
recommendation or decision. hence, said Investigating Commissioner recommended that he be
In his Comment,[10] respondent admitted that he was hired by the disbarred. The pertinent portions of the report read:
complainants in the case against the Peninsula Development Bank in the
latter part of 1990. He averred that Peninsula Development Bank There is no question that the respondent was engaged by the
foreclosed the property of the complainants for failure to pay monetary complainants as their counsel in two cases, namely Civil Case No. 20-
obligations amounting to several millions of pesos. He said that some of 465-90 and Civil Case No. 22-674-94. The respondent accepted both
the properties of the complainants were foreclosed in 1989, and the one- cases by filing a case of Nullity with Injunction and/or Restraining Order
year redemption period was to expire in the latter part of 1990. About before the Regional Trial Court Br. 13, Davao City, against Peninsula
one week before the expiration of the redemption period, the Development Bank and againstLivelihood Resource Center for
complainants, through the respondent, filed a case against the Peninsula Declaration of Nullity with Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order
Development Bank before the RTC of Davao City, which was docketed docketed as 22-674-94, Br. 16 RTC Davao City. The failure and
as Civil Case No. 20-465-90. From the time of the filing of the complaint negligence of respondent in handling the aforementioned cases is fully
up to the present, herein complainants are in continuous possession of reflected in the Order of the Court re: Civil Case No. 20-465-90 which
the already foreclosed properties, consisting of a Ford Econovan and reads:
farm tractors. According to respondent, complainants are still holding
office in the real properties subject of the foreclosure and a portion On record is a pretrial brief filed by defendant thru counsel, Atty. Marlon
thereof is being rented by a big taxi company. He disclosed that at the B. Llander and this morning a supplemental pretrial brief was submitted
time he was hired in 1990, the agreement was that he would be paid the by defendants counsel, Atty. Reynaldo Reyes, counsel for the plaintiff is
amount of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00) as attorneys present in court but he moved for a suspension of the pretrial conference
fees in five years. Respondent claimed that he assisted complainants in this morning for the reason that plaintiffs are proposing to amicably settle
applying for a loan to pay off their obligations with Peninsula this case. Defendants counsel vehemently objected to the postponement
Development Bank but because of the numerous estafa cases filed of the pretrial conference and instead moved for a declaration of plaintiffs
against complainants, said loans did not materialize. Respondent further as nonsuited for the reason that up to this time, plaintiff have not
claimed that their agreed strategy was to arrange a settlement with submitted their pretrial brief in violation of the Order of the Court, dated
regard to Civil Case No. 20-465-90. Respondent said he later realized October 11, 1991 wherein plaintiffs counsel was afforded five (5) days
that the complainants had no interest in paying their obligations to time from date within which to submit to court plaintiffs pretrial brief.
Peninsula Development Bank, and his attorneys fees. Respondent
added that they differed in opinion with regard to the handling of the case The motion is well taken for the reason that the records failed to show
and that complainants did not understand that the filing of the case had that plaintiffs filed pretrial brief. They are thus declared as nonsuited.
already helped them gain time to negotiate with the bank especially on
the matter of interest incurred by their loans. Finally, respondent This case is hereby ordered dismissed. x x x Regarding Civil Case No.
concluded by saying that his attorneys fees, paid in meager installments, 22-674-94, Regional Trial Court Br. 16, Davao City in the case filed
remain outstanding and unpaid. against Technology and Livelihood Resource Center the court issued an
Order dated May 5, 1995 which reads:
In their reply,[11] complainants refuted respondents allegation of the
alleged numerous estafa cases filed against them. Complainants The record show that summons with a copy of the Complaint have been
averred that the certification attached by respondent showing that there served upon the defendant on May 11, 1994, but plaintiffs did not file the
were estafa cases filed against them has no bearing insofar as the necessary pleadings in order to prosecute the same.
disbarment case is concerned. They likewise denied that respondent
assisted them in their loan application. They engaged the services of the In view hereof, for failure to prosecute this case is ordered Dismissed.
respondent to prevent them from losing their properties to the Peninsula x x x The records show that the real status of the cases were kept from
Development Bank and for no other reason. Finally, complainants the complainants by respondent. Despite the dismissal of both cases due
maintained that respondent was paid his attorneys fees. to respondents negligence and irresponsibility he continued receiving
compensation from complainants are evidenced by the receipts and
As early as 27 June 2000, the case had already been scheduled for vouchers which respondent acknowledged with his signatures. (Exhibits
Page 305
hearing by Commissioner Agustine V. Gonzaga of the Commission on F, G, H, H-1 and I). Likewise, the respondent deceived the complainant
Bar Discipline. On 18 January 2002, after several hearings, the
All the foregoing show that there is clear violation of his oath as a lawyer 4. That the foregoing facts and information that herein
particularly Canon 17 and Canon 18 of the Code of Professional undersigned complainant learned after she gave her testimony seriously
Responsibility. Thus, it is submitted that Atty. Reynaldo P. Reyes be prompts her to seek the withdrawal of her testimony and her evidence in
meted the penalty of Disbarment.[12] order that she can re-evaluate the same; and
2. That subsequently to the undersigned complainants A case of suspension or disbarment may proceed regardless of interest
testimony and presentation of evidence, she has come upon information or lack of interest of the complainant.[16] What matters is whether, on the
and facts that need to be reviewed and re-examine[d] in the highest basis of the facts borne out by the record, the charge of negligence has
interests of justice; been duly proved. This rule is premised on the nature of disciplinary
proceedings. A proceeding for suspension or disbarment is not in any
3. That before going into those information and facts that she sense a civil action where the complainant is a plaintiff and the
came to learn after she gave her testimony before this Honorable Board, respondent lawyer is a defendant. Disciplinary proceedings involve no
it is important to stress the following antecedent circumstances: private interest and afford no redress for private grievance. They are
undertaken and prosecuted solely for the public welfare. They are
(a) That it was undersigned complainants late husband who undertaken for the purpose of preserving courts of justice from the official
conferred constantly with respondent Atty. Reynaldo P. Reyes; ministration of persons unfit to practice in them. The attorney is called to
answer to the court for his conduct as an officer of the court. The
(b) That herein complainant was not present in a conference complainant or the person who called the attention of the court to the
with Atty. Reyes at the time his professional services were hired. So, it attorneys alleged misconduct is in no sense a party, and has generally
was only the deceased complainant Antonio Soriano who was familiar no interest in the outcome except as all good citizens may have in the
with the scope of professional engagement; proper administration of justice. Hence, if the evidence on record
warrants, the respondent may be suspended or disbarred despite the
(c) That undersigned complainant did not participate in the desistance of complainant or his withdrawal of the
conference between her late husband and respondent counsel on the charges.[17] Accordingly, notwithstanding the motion to withdraw
agreed strategy because the late husband was the one actively evidence and testimony, the disbarment proceeding should proceed.
managing the affairs of the family. Moreover, herein complainant was not
really knowledgeable of the facts and details involved in the cases Looking into the merits of the complaint against respondent, we decide
handled by respondent counsel; to modify the findings of the IBP.
(d) That for example, it was only later after her testimony that As to Civil Case No. 20-465-90, records show that it was dismissed for
she learned that respondent was also attending to and handling the other failure of respondent to file the pre-trial brief.
cases of the late complainant AntonioSoriano, especially those cases
filed in Makati, Complainant herein had the mistaken impression that the Respondents failure to file the pre-trial brief constitutes inexcusable
complainant-decedent had availed of the services of lawyers inMakati. negligence.[18] The importance of filing a pre-trial brief cannot be
Hence, the fees that respondent Atty. Reyes received after the cases gainsaid. For one, the lawyers are compelled to prepare their cases in
below were for those cases in Makati; advance. They eliminate haphazard preparation. Since pre-trial is a
serious business of the court, preparation of the lawyers and parties for
(e) That it was a surprise for herein undersigned complainant the pre-trial in both questions of fact and of law cannot be
to also learn that respondent Atty. Reyes went out of his way to overemphasized as an essential requirement for a pre-trial conference.
accompany her late husband to a financier, who was an intimate friend They enable both parties to view the documentary evidence of the other
of respondent, in Quezon City for the purpose (sic) sourcing the even before they are presented in court. They enable the parties to know
necessary funds to pay off our obligations to some creditors as the the testimonies of each others witnesses. Pre-trial briefs also apprise the
agreed strategy at the very start. Thus, it appears that respondent courts of the additional points the parties are willing to stipulate upon, or
counsel went out of his way to help the late complainant the additional points which could be inquired into for the purpose of
Antonio Soriano solve his problems; and additional stipulations. They also apprise the court of the respective
demands of the parties, thus, enabling the court to discuss more
(f) That I likewise subsequently learned that when respondent intelligently an amicable settlement between or among the
Page 306
counsel became a city councilor of Davao City, he did what he can to parties.[19] The failure to submit a pre-trial brief could very well, then, be
fatal to the case of the client as in fact it is a ground for dismissal of the
An attorney is bound to protect his clients interest to the best of his ability In Garcia v. Atty. Manuel,[26] this Court found therein respondent lawyer
and with utmost diligence. A failure to file brief for his client certainly in bad faith for failing to inform his client of the status of the case. In said
constitutes inexcusable negligence on his part. The respondent has decision, the court has adamantly stressed that the lawyer-client
indeed committed a serious lapse in the duty owed by him to his client relationship is highly fiduciary.[27] There is always a need for the client to
as well as to the Court not to delay litigation and to aid in the speedy receive from the lawyer periodic and full updates on developments
administration of justice. affecting the case. The lawyer should apprise the client on the mode and
In this case, respondent did not only fail to file the pre-trial brief within manner that the lawyer is utilizing to defend the clients interests.[28]
the given period. Worse, he had not submitted the required pre-trial brief
even at the time he filed a motion for reconsideration of the order of In failing to inform his clients of the status of their cases, respondent
dismissal several months later. Expectedly, the motion for failed to exercise such skill, care, and diligence as men of the legal
reconsideration was denied by the court. Respondents negligence is profession commonly possess and exercise in such manners of
apparent in the trial courts denial of the motion for reconsideration, to wit: professional employment.[29]
The court, in the exercise of sound discretion, afforded the plaintiffs who Time and again we have stated that disbarment is the most severe form
were then present, five (5) days from October 11, 1991, within which to of disciplinary sanction, and, as such, the power to disbar must always
submit to the Court plaintiff pre-trial brief, but despite the order, and until be exercised with great caution for only the most imperative reasons and
December 16, 1991, a period of more than two (2) months has elapsed, in clear cases of misconduct affecting the standing and moral character
yet herein plaintiffs still failed to file or submit the required pre-trial brief, of the lawyer as an officer of the court and a member of the
which to the mind of this Court, is an obstinate refusal on the part of the bar. Accordingly, disbarment should not be decreed where any
plaintiffs to file said pre-trial brief, despite counsels knowledge of the punishment less severe such as a reprimand, suspension, or fine would
importance of the same. accomplish the end desired.[30]
The plaintiffs, even in the filing of their Motion for reconsideration did not The appropriate penalty on an errant lawyer depends on the exercise of
even care to attach pre-trial brief if indeed they are sincere in their sound judicial discretion based on the surrounding facts. The penalties
intention to do so. for a lawyers failure to file the required brief or pleading range from
reprimand, warning with fine, suspension and in grave cases,
disbarment. In one case,[31] the penalty for a lawyers failure to file a pre-
Clearly, respondent was not able to protect his clients interest through trial brief and other pleadings such as position papers leading to the
his own fault. dismissal of the case, is suspension of six months. Therefore, we find
the penalty of disbarment as recommended by the IBP to be unduly
A lawyer is expected to be familiar with the rudiments of law and harsh and we deem it appropriate to impose the penalty of one (1) year
procedure and anyone who acquires his service is entitled to, not just suspension, taking into account that this appears to be his first offense.
competent service, but also whole-hearted devotion to his
clients cause. It is the duty of a lawyer to serve his client with WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, respondent Atty. Reynaldo
competence and diligence and he should exert his best efforts to protect, Reyes is found GUILTY of violating Canons 17 and 18 of the
within the bounds of law, the interest of his client. A lawyer should never Code of Professional Responsibility and is SUSPENDED from the
neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, otherwise his negligence in practice of law for one (1) year effective upon finality hereof with
fulfilling his duty will render him liable for disciplinary action.[22] WARNING that a repetition of the same negligent act charged in this
complaint will be dealt with more severely.
Canon 18, Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
provides that a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar
and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. In this Confidant, to be appended to respondents personal records as
case, by reason of Atty. Reyess negligence, complainant suffered actual attorney; the
loss. He should have given adequate attention, care and time to his
cases. This is why a practicing lawyer may accept only so many cases
that he can efficiently handle. Otherwise, his clients will be
prejudiced. Once he agrees to handle a case, he should undertake the
task with dedication and care. If he should do any less, then he is not
true to his lawyers oath.[23]
Anent Civil Case No. 22-624-94, the case was indeed dismissed for
failure to prosecute although the said dismissal was later on
reconsidered. However, this does not detract to the conclusion that, truly,
Page 307
The Factual Background 4. Desperate, he filed a notice of withdrawal of appearance with the
explanation that the conformity of the complainant could not be obtained
In support of her complaint for disbarment, the complainant alleged that since the complainant's corporation had moved its office without
she retained the services of the respondent as her counsel in Civil Case informing him of its new location, and the complainant had not been
No. Q01-43544, entitledGolden Collection Marketing Corporation v. communicating with him.[5] He later learned that the complainant had
Ofelia Somosot, et al., filed against her and her co-defendants for the moved to Pasig City.
collection of a sum of money amounting to P1.3 Million. Her defense was
that it was the plaintiff who actually owed her P800,000.00. She claimed 5. In late December 2001, he was able to talk with the complainant by
that she had the evidence to prove this defense at the trial. The phone and he informed her that he could no longer handle cases for the
respondent agreed to handle the case and duly entered his appearance complainant's company, thereby terminating his relationship with
as counsel after securing his acceptance fee. complainant. He advised the complainant to look for another lawyer; the
complainant replied that she already had another lawyer.
The complainant expected the respondent to perform his duty as counsel
and to defend her interests to the utmost. She alleged, however, that 6. Despite his situation and aware that the court had denied his motion
after filing the Answer to the Complaint, the respondent failed to fully to withdraw from the case, the respondent continued rendering legal
inform her of further developments in the case. She only heard about the services as the complainant's counsel. He filed a motion for
case when there was already a decision against her and her co- reconsideration of the Court's decision dated June 3, 2002. He likewise
defendants. She even belatedly learned that the respondent had sought filed an urgent opposition to the winning partys motion for execution.
his discharge as counsel without her knowledge and consent. Contrary
to the respondent's claim that he could no longer locate her, she claimed 7. On September 2, 2005, he received a letter from the complainant
that the respondent knew all along where she lived and could have easily giving him one final opportunity to convince me, why she should not
contacted her had he been in good faith. pursue disbarment proceedings.He promptly prepared a reply which,
upon her suggestion, he delivered at the complainant's residence.
After the court denied the respondent's motion to withdraw from the case,
the complainant claimed that the respondent represented her interests 8. He thought that he had given the complainant a satisfactory
in a half-hearted manner, resulting in the grant of the plaintiff's motion for explanation only to learn later that she filed a complaint for disbarment
judgment on the pleadings. Allegedly, the respondent failed to properly against him.
oppose the motion and she was thereafter deprived of the chance to
present her evidence. Execution of the courts decision followed, resulting 9. The respondent expressed his regret for what happened to the
in the sale of her house and lot at public auction despite her efforts to case, but stressed that he did not abandon the complainant and the
Page 308
reverse the judgment with the help of another lawyer. Thereafter, a third cases he had been handling for her company. He did not likewise neglect
party to whom her property had been mortgaged sued her. to perform his duties as counsel. On the insinuation that he may have
The respondent never bothered to explain this court order whose What lightens the impact of the respondents mishandling of the case is
highlighted portions give hints on the reasons for the adverse the complainants own failings as a client. The non-payment of fees is a
developments for the defendants. While the records do not explicitly factor that we cannot simply disregard. As a rule, law practice is not a pro
state what remedies the respondent took to react to the Order and to the bono proposition and a lawyers sensitivity and concern for unpaid fees
trial court ruling on the interrogatories/admission issue, we feel it safe to are understandable; lawyers incur expenses in running their practice and
Page 310
assume that the respondent did not move at all to question the trial courts generally depend, too, on their law practice income for their living
rulings; nowhere in the records, both from the complainants and the expenses. Likewise, the respondents appointment as a consultant
The general public must know that the legal profession is a closely
regulated profession where transgressions merit swift but commensurate RESOLUTION
penalties; it is a profession that they can trust because we guard our
ranks and our standards well. The Bar must sit up and take notice of
what happened in this case to be able to guard against any repetition of TINGA, J.:
the respondents transgressions, particularly his failure to report the
developments of an ongoing case to his clients. Unless the Bar takes a In this administrative complaint, a lawyer is charged with violation of Rule
pro-active stance, we cannot really blame members of the public who 19.01 of Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for writing
are not very well disposed towards, and who may even distrust, the legal a demand letter the contents of which threatened complainant with the
profession after hearing experiences similar to what the complainant filing of criminal cases for tax evasion and falsification of documents.
suffered. The administration of justice is served well when we
demonstrate that effective remedies exist to address the injustice and
inequities that may result from transgressions by those acting in the Atty. Lolito G. Aparicio (respondent) appeared as legal counsel for Grace
dispensation of justice process. C. Hufana in an illegal dismissal case before the National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC). Sometime in August 2005, complainant
In these lights, we hold that while the respondent is liable for a clear case Fernando Martin O. Pena, as President of MOF Company, Inc. (Subic),
of misconduct that seriously affects his standing and character as an received a notice from the Conciliation and Mediation Center of the
officer of the Court and as a member of the Bar, this liability ought to be NLRC for a mediation/conciliation conference. In the conference,
Page 311
tempered by the mitigating circumstances we pointed out above. We respondent, in behalf of his client, submitted a claim for separation pay
therefore cannot impose disbarment as penalty. Given the mitigating arising from her alleged illegal dismissal. Complainant rejected the claim
1. Tax evasion by the millions of pesos of income not reported to the Complainant, however, omitted to offer any explanation in his petition
government. before this Court for his failure to attach a certification against forum
2. Criminal Charges for Tax Evasion shopping in his complaint against respondent.
3. Criminal Charges for Falsification of Documents
4. Cancellation of business license to operate due to violations of The requirement of a certification against forum shopping was originally
laws. required by Circular No. 28-91, dated 8 February 1994, issued by this
Court for every petition filed with the Court or the Court of
These are reserved for future actions in case of failure to pay the above Appeals. Administrative Circular No. 04-94, made effective on 1 April
amounts as settlements in the National Labor Relations Commission 1994, expanded the certification requirement to include cases filed in
(NLRC).[1] courts and quasi-judicial agencies below this Court and the Court of
Appeals. Ultimately, the Court adopted paragraphs (1) and (2) of
Believing that the contents of the letter deviated from accepted ethical Administrative Circular No. 04-94 tobecome Section 5, Rule 7 of the
standards, complainant filed an administrative complaint[2] with the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.[15] Said rule states that a violation thereof
Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines would constitute contempt of court and be cause for the summary
(IBP). Respondent filed an Answer with Impleader (Motion to Dismiss dismissal of both petitions without prejudice to the taking of appropriate
and Counterclaims)[3] claiming that Atty. Emmanuel A. Jocson, action against the counsel of the party concerned.[16]
complainants legal counsel, also played an important part in imputing the
malicious, defamatory, and fabricated charges against him. Respondent The Investigating Commissioner and the IBP Board of Governors took
also pointed out that the complaint had no certification against forum against complainant his failure to attach the certification against forum
shopping and was motivated only to confuse the issues then pending shopping to his complaint and consequently dismissed his complaint.
before the Labor Arbiter. By way of counterclaim, respondent asked for This Court, however, disagrees and, accordingly, grants the petition.
damages and for the disbarment of Atty. Jocson. Respondent also asked However, a remand of the case to the IBP would unduly prolong its
the IBP to endorse the prosecution of Atty. Jocson for Usurpation of adjudication.
Public Functions[4] and for violation of the Notarial Law.[5]
The Courts determination is anchored on the sui generis nature of
A mandatory conference was held on 6 December 2005 but respondent disbarment proceedings, the reasons for the certification against forum
failed to appear.[6] Both parties were thereafter required to submit their shopping requirement, complainants subsequent compliance with the
position papers. requirement, and the merit of complainants complaint against
respondent.
The Report and Recommendation[7] of Investigating Commissioner
Milagros V. San Juan found that complainant, failed to file his position The Court, in the case of In re Almacen,[17] dwelt on
paper and to comply with Administrative Circular No. 04-94 requiring a the sui generis character of disciplinary proceedings against lawyers,
certificate against forum shopping and, accordingly, recommended the thus:
dismissal of the complaint against respondent. On 26 May 2006, the IBP
Board of Governors adopted and approved the Report and
Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner.[8] On 10 July 2006, Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui generis. Neither purely
the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline transmitted to the Supreme Court civil nor purely criminal, they do not involve a trial of an action or a suit,
the notice of said Resolution and the records of the case.[9] Thereafter, but is rather an investigation by the Court into the conduct of one of its
on 18 August 2006, respondent filed with the IBP a Motion for officers. Not being intended to inflict punishment, it is in no sense a
Reconsideration (for Modification of Decision)[10] reiterating his claim of criminal prosecution. Accordingly, there is neither a plaintiff nor a
damages against complainant in the amount of four hundred million prosecutor therein. It may be initiated by the Court motu proprio. Public
pesos (P400,000,000.00), or its equivalent in dollars, for filing the false, interest is its primary objective, and the real question for determination
malicious, defamers [sic], fraudulent, illegal fabricators [sic], is whether or not the attorney is still a fit person to be allowed the
malevolent[,] oppressive, evasive filing [of] a groundless and false suit.[11] privileges as such. Hence, in the exercise of its disciplinary powers, the
Court merely calls upon a member of the Bar to account for his
Complainant thereafter filed this Petition for Review (of the Resolution of actuations as an officer of the Court with the end in view of preserving
the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline)[12] alleging that he personally the purity of the legal profession and the proper and honest
submitted and filed with the IBP his position paper, after serving a copy administration of justice by purging the profession of members who by
thereof on respondent by registered mail. He further alleges that he was their misconduct have proved themselves no longer worthy to be
deprived of his right to due process when the IBP dismissed his entrusted with the duties and responsibilities pertaining to the office of
complaint without considering his position paper and without ruling on an attorney. In such posture, there can thus be no occasion to speak of
the merits thereof. a complainant or a prosecutor.[18] [Emphasis supplied]
Page 312
the lawyers client.[25] However, while the writing of the letter went beyond ethical standards,
we hold that disbarment is too severe a penalty to be imposed on
main responsibility remains with the lawyer to inquire and know the best Paguinto[24] where we imposed on the respondent lawyer suspension of
CANON 20 A LAWYER SHALL CHARGE ONLY FAIR AND Had the four attendant circumstances not afflicted the original case, it
REASONABLE FEES. would have been an open-and-shut review where this Court, applying
even just the minimum equitable principle against unjust enrichment
URBAN BANK, INC, G.R. No. 145817 would have easily affirmed the grant of fair recompense to Atty. Pea for
Petitioner, services he rendered for Urban Bank if such had been ordered by the
trial court.
- versus -
MAGDALENO M. PEA,
Respondent.
x---------------------------------------------x That Atty. Pea should be paid something by Urban Bank is not in dispute
the Court of Appeals (CA) and the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bago
DELFIN C. GONZALEZ, JR., BENJAMIN L. G. R. No. 145822 City, agreed on that. What they disagreed on is the basis and the size of
DE LEON, and ERIC L. LEE, the award. The trial court claims that the basis is an oral contract of
agency and the award should be PhP28,5000,000; while, the appellate
Petitioners, court said that Atty. Pea can only be paid under the legal principle against
unjust enrichment, and the total award in his favor should only amount
- versus - to PhP3,000,000.
MAGDALENO M. PEA,
Respondent. In the eyes of the trial court, the controlling finding is that Atty. Pea should
x---------------------------------------------x be believed when he testified that in a telephone conversation, the
president of Urban Bank, Teodoro Borlongan, a respondent herein,
MAGDALENO M. PEA, G. R. No. 162562 agreed to pay him for his services 10% of the value of the property then
Petitioner, worth PhP240,000,000, or PhP24,000,000. Costs and other awards
Present: additionally amount to PhP4,500,000, for a total award of
PhP28,500,000 according to the trial court. To the Court of Appeals, such
- versus - BRION, J., an award has no basis, as in fact, no contract of agency exists between
Acting Atty. Pea and Urban Bank. Hence, Atty. Pea should only be
Chairperson, recompensed according to the principle of unjust enrichment, and that
URBAN BANK, INC., TEODORO VILLARAMA,* he should be awarded the amount of PhP3,000,000 only for his services
BORLONGAN, DELFIN C. GONZALEZ, MENDOZA,** and reimbursements of costs.
JR., BENJAMIN L. DE LEON, P. SIERVO H. SERENO, and
DIZON, ERIC L. LEE, BEN T. LIM, JR., PERLAS-
CORAZON BEJASA, and ARTURO BERNABE,*** JJ. The disparity in the size of the award given by the trial court vis--vis that
MANUEL, JR., of the Court of Appeals (PhP28,500,000 v. PhP3,000,000) must be
Respondents. Promulgated: placed in the context of the service that Atty. Pea proved that he
rendered for Urban Bank. As the records bear, Atty. Peas services
consisted of causing the departure of unauthorized sub-tenants in
October 19, 2011 twenty-three commercial establishments in an entertainment compound
along Roxas Boulevard. It involved the filing of ejectment suits against
x--------------------------------------------------- them, Peas personal defense in the counter-suits filed against him, his
Page 316
At core, these petitions can be resolved if we answer the following ISCI then instructed Pea, who was its director and corporate secretary,
questions: to take over possession of the Pasay property[22] against the tenants
upon the expiration of the lease. ISCIs president, Mr. Enrique G. Montilla
III (Montilla), faxed a letter to Pea, confirming the latters engagement as
1. What is the legal basis for an award in favor of Pea for the services he the corporations agent to handle the eviction of the tenants from the
rendered to Urban Bank? Should it be a contract of agency the fee for Pasay property, to wit:[23]
which was orally agreed on as Pea claims? Should it be the application
of the Civil Code provisions on unjust enrichment? Or is it to be based MEMORANDUM
on something else or a combination of the legal findings of both the RTC TO: Atty. Magdaleno M. Pena
and the CA? How much should the award be? Director
Page 317
2. Are the officers and directors of Urban Bank liable in their personal FROM: Enrique G. Montilla III
capacities for the amount claimed by Pea? President
You are hereby directed to recover and take possession of the On the same day that the TRO was recalled, petitioner-respondent Pea
property of the corporation situated at Roxas Boulevard covered by immediately contacted ISCIs president, Mr. Montilla, who in turn
TCT No. 5382 of the Register of Deeds for Pasay City immediately confirmed the sale of the Pasay property to Urban Bank.[47] Pea told Mr.
upon the expiration of the contract of lease over the said property Montilla that because of the break-open order of the RTC-Pasay City, he
on 29 November 1994. For this purpose you are authorized to engage (Pea) would be recalling the security guards he had posted to secure the
the services of security guards to protect the property against intruders. property. Mr. Montilla, however, asked him to suspend the planned
You may also engage the services of a lawyer in case there is a need to withdrawal of the posted guards, so that ISCI could get in touch with
go to court to protect the said property of the corporation. In addition you petitioner-respondent bank regarding the matter.[48]
may take whatever steps or measures are necessary to ensure our
continued possession of the property. Later that same day, Pea received a telephone call from respondent
Bejasa. After Pea informed her of the situation, she allegedly told him
(sgd.) ENRIQUE G. MONTILLA III that Urban Bank would be retaining his services in guarding the Pasay
President[24] property, and that he should continue his efforts in retaining possession
thereof. He insisted, however, on talking to the Banks president.
Respondent Bejasa gave him the contact details of respondent
On 29 November 1994, the day the lease contract was to expire, ISCI Borlongan, then president of Urban Bank.[49]
and Urban Bank executed a Deed of Absolute Sale[25] over the Pasay
property for the amount agreed upon in the Contract to Sell, but subject The facts regarding the following phone conversation and
to the above escrow provision.[26] The title to the land was eventually correspondences are highly-controverted. Immediately after talking to
transferred to the name of Urban Bank on 05 December 1994.[27] respondent Bejasa, Pea got in touch with Urban Banks president,
respondent Borlongan. Pea explained that the policemen in Pasay City
On 30 November 1994, the lessee duly surrendered possession of the were sympathetic to the tenants and were threatening to force their way
Pasay property to ISCI,[28] but the unauthorized sub-tenants refused to into the premises. He expressed his concern that violence might erupt
leave the area.[29] Pursuant to his authority from ISCI, Pea had the gates between the tenants, the city police, and the security guards posted in
of the property closed to keep the sub-tenants out.[30] He also posted the Pasay property. Respondent Borlongan supposedly assured him that
security guards at the property,[31] services for which he advanced the bank was going to retain his services, and that the latter should not
payments.[32] Despite the closure of the gates and the posting of the give up possession of the subject land. Nevertheless, petitioner-
guards, the sub-tenants would come back in the evening, force open the respondent Pea demanded a written letter of authority from the bank.
gates, and proceed to carry on with their businesses.[33] On three Respondent Borlongan acceded and instructed him to see respondent
separate occasions, the sub-tenants tried to break down the gates of the Bejasa for the letter.[50]
property, threw stones, and even threatened to return and inflict greater
harm on those guarding it.[34] In the same telephone conversation, respondent Borlongan allegedly
asked Pea to maintain possession of the Pasay property and to
In the meantime, a certain Marilyn G. Ong, as representative of ISCI, represent Urban Bank in any legal action that might be instituted relative
faxed a letter to Urban Bank addressed to respondent Corazon Bejasa, to the property. Pea supposedly demanded 10% of the market value of
who was then the banks Senior Vice-President requesting the issuance the property as compensation and attorneys fees and reimbursement for
of a formal authority for Pea.[35] Two days thereafter, Ms. Ong faxed all the expenses incurred from the time he took over land until
another letter to the bank, this time addressed to its president, possession was turned over to Urban Bank. Respondent Borlongan
respondent Teodoro Borlongan.[36] She repeated therein the earlier purportedly agreed on condition that possession would be turned over to
request for authority for Pea, since the tenants were questioning ISCIs the bank, free of tenants, not later than four months; otherwise, Pea
authority to take over the Pasay property.[37] would lose the 10% compensation and attorneys fees. [51]
In response to the letters of Ms. Ong, petitioner-respondent bank, Later that afternoon, Pea received the banks letter dated 19 December
through individual respondents Bejasa and Arturo E. Manuel Senior 1994, which was signed by respondents Bejasa and Manuel, and is
Vice-President and Vice-President, respectively advised Pea[38] that the quoted below:
bank had noted the engagement of his services by ISCI and stressed
that ISCI remained as the lawyers principal.[39] This is to confirm the engagement of your services as the
authorized representative of Urban Bank, specifically to hold and
To prevent the sub-tenants from further appropriating the Pasay maintain possession of our abovecaptioned property [Pasay
property,[40] petitioner-respondent Pea, as director and representative of property] and to protect the same from former tenants, occupants
ISCI, filed a complaint for injunction[41] (the First Injunction Complaint) or any other person who are threatening to return to the said
with the RTC-Pasay City.[42] Acting on ISCIs prayer for preliminary relief, property and/or interfere with your possession of the said property
the trial court favorably issued a temporary restraining order for and in our behalf.
(TRO),[43] which was duly implemented.[44] At the time the First Injunction You are likewise authorized to represent Urban Bank in any court action
Complaint was filed, a new title to the Pasay property had already been that you may institute to carry out the aforementioned duties, and to
issued in the name of Urban Bank.[45] prevent any intruder, squatter or any other person not otherwise
authorized in writing by Urban [B]ank from entering or staying in the
On 19 December 1994, when information reached the judge that the premises.[52] (Emphasis supplied)
Pasay property had already been transferred by ISCI to Urban Bank, the
trial court recalled the TRO and issued a break-open order for the On even date, ISCI sent Urban Bank a letter, which acknowledged ISCIs
property. According to Pea, it was the first time that he was apprised of engagement of Pea and commitment to pay for any expenses that may
the sale of the land by ISCI and of the transfer of its title in favor of the be incurred in the course of his services. ISCIs letter reads:
Page 318
bank.[46] It is not clear from the records how such information reached This has reference to your property located along Roxas Boulevard,
the judge or what the break-open order was in response to. Pasay City [Pasay property] which you purchased from Isabela Sugar
While the Second Injunction Complaint was pending, Pea made efforts WHEREFORE, premised from the foregoing, judgment is hereby
to settle the issue of possession of the Pasay property with the sub- rendered ordering defendants to pay plaintiff jointly and severally the
tenants. During the negotiations, he was exposed to several civil and following amounts:
criminal cases they filed in connection with the task he had assumed for 1. P24,000,000 as compensation for plaintiffs services plus
Urban Bank, and he received several threats against his life.[59] The sub- the legal rate of interest from the time of demand until fully paid;
tenants eventually agreed to stay off the property for a total consideration 2. P3,000,000 as reimbursement of plaintiffs expenses;
of PhP1,500,000.[60] Pea advanced the payment for the full and final 3. P1,000,000 as and for attorneys fees;
settlement of their claims against Urban Bank.[61] 4. P500,000 as exemplary damages;
5. Costs of suit.
Pea claims to have borrowed PhP3,000,000 from one of his friends in SO ORDERED.[73]
order to maintain possession thereof on behalf of Urban
Bank.[62] According to him, although his creditor-friend granted him
several extensions, he failed to pay his loan when it became due, and it Urban Bank and the individual defendant bank directors and officers filed
later on became the subject of a separate collection suit for payment with a common Notice of Appeal,[74] which was given due course.[75] In the
interest and attorneys fees.[63] This collection suit became the basis for appeal, they questioned the factual finding that an agency relationship
Atty. Peas request for discretionary execution pending appeal later on. existed between the bank and Pea.[76]
On 07 February 1995, within the four-month period allegedly agreed Although they put up a single defense in the proceedings in the lower
upon in the telephone conversation, Pea formally informed Urban Bank court, Urban Bank and individual defendants contracted different counsel
that it could already take possession of the Pasay property.[64] There was and filed separate Briefs on appeal in the appellate court.
however no mention of the compensation due and owed to him for the
services he had rendered. In its Brief,[77] Urban Bank[78] assigned as errors the trial courts reliance
on the purported oral contract of agency and Peas claims for
compensation during the controverted telephone conversation with
Borlongan, which were allegedly incredible.
On 31 March 1995, the bank subsequently took actual possession of the Meanwhile, Benjamin L. de Leon, Delfin Gonzalez, Jr., and Eric L. Lee
property and installed its own guards at the premises.[65] (the De Leon Group),[79] the petitioners in the instant Petition docketed
Page 319
as G. R. No. 145822, argued that, even on the assumption that there had
been an agency contract with the bank, the trial court committed
On 29 October 1999, the RTC-Bago City, through Judge Henry J. On the same day the CA denied its Motion for Reconsideration, the De
Trocino,[97] favorably granted Peas motion and issued a Special Order Leon Group immediately moved for the stay of execution pending appeal
authorizing execution pending appeal.[98] In accordance with this Special upon the filing of a supersedeas bond.[118]
Order, Atty. Josephine Mutia-Hagad, the clerk of court and ex
officio sheriff, issued a Writ of Execution[99] on the same day.[100] The On 31 October 2000, the CA[119] granted the stay of the execution upon
Special Order and Writ of Execution were directed at the properties the filing by the De Leon Group of a PhP40,000,000 bond in favor of
owned by Urban Bank as well as the properties of the eight individual Pea.[120] Pea moved for the reconsideration of the stay order.[121]
bank directors and officers.
In its Resolution dated 08 December 2000,[122] the appellate court denied
Page 320
Peas Motion for Reconsideration and a stay order over the execution
pending appeal was issued in favor of the De Leon Group, after they had
August
2000[183]
managers checks. Thus, on 29 October 2002, EIB, through a motion, been previously registered in his name, and the clubs bylaws prohibited
was prompted to turn over the checks to the trial court itself.[199] a natural person from owning more than one share.[225]Meanwhile, one
In its Motion for Clarification dated 06 August 2002, Urban Bank likewise Intervenor Unimega then requested that a writ of possession be issued
requested clarification of whether the stay order suspended, as well, its in its favor covering the 10 condominium units sold during the public
right to redeem the properties sold at a public auction.[228] The copy of auction.[242] The Court required the parties to file their comments on the
Urban Banks motion for clarification intended for Pea was mistakenly request.[243] The Lim[244] and Borlongan Groups[245] manifested
sent to the wrong counsel. separately that they would not be affected by a resolution of the request
of intervenor Unimega, since the latter was not among the contending
In its Resolution dated 13 November 2002, the Court explained that its parties to the incident. Pea similarly interposed no objection to the
earlier stay order prohibited the MSCI from transferring the shares, and issuance of the writ of possession.[246] In contrast, Urban Bank opposed
that the one-year period for redemption of the banks properties was the application of Unimega on the ground that the latter was not entitled
likewise suspended: to possession of the levied properties, because the rules of extrajudicial
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby RESOLVES to clarify that as a foreclosure were not applicable to execution sales under Rule 39, and
consequence of its approval of the supersedeas bond, the running of that intervenor was also not a buyer in good faith. [247] In a similar vein,
the one-year period for petitioner Urban Bank to redeem the the De Leon Group opposed the application for a writ of possession, and
properties sold at the public auctions held on October 4, 11 and 25, further argued that the Court had already suspended the running of the
2001 as well as the consolidation of the titles in favor of the buyers, one-year period of redemption in the execution sale.[248] Accordingly,
is SUSPENDED OR STAYED. MSCI is also prohibited from transferring intervenor Unimega countered that the right of redemption of the levied
petitioner Urban Banks MSCI club shares to the winning bidders in the properties had already expired without having been exercised by the
execution sale held on October 11, 2001.[229] (Emphasis supplied) judgment debtor.[249]
On 09 December 2002, Pea moved that the Courts Resolution be
recalled, because he was not given an opportunity to be heard on Urban In summary, the Court shall resolve the substantial issues in the
Banks Motion for Clarification, which was sent to a different following: (a) the Petition of Pea (G. R. No. 162562) assailing the CAs
counsel.[230] Interposing its objection, the bank argued that the error in decision on the substantive merits of the case with respect to his claims
mistakenly sending the Motion for clarification to a different counsel was of compensation based on an agency agreement; and (b) the Petitions
by sheer inadvertence,[231] but Pea was nonetheless aware of the of Urban Bank (G. R. No. 145817) and the De Leon Group (G R. No.
motion, and that the Courts clarification did not create or diminish his 145822) questioning the propriety of the grant of execution pending
rights in any case.[232] appeal.
OUR RULING
The Motion for Clarification filed by Urban Bank, the Courts Resolution I
dated 13 November 2002 and Peas Omnibus Motion praying for the Pea is entitled to payment for compensation for services rendered
recall of the said Resolution became the subject of an administrative as agent of Urban Bank, but on the basis of the principles of unjust
case (Administrative Case No. 6332), which was treated as a separate enrichment andquantum meruit, and not on the purported oral
matter and later on de-consolidated with the instant Petitions.[233]The contract.
Court had even called for an executive session[234] in which Pea, among The Court finds that Pea should be paid for services rendered under the
others, appeared and was questioned by the then members of the Courts agency relationship that existed between him and Urban Bank based on
First Division, namely retired Chief Justice Hilario Davide, Justices Jose the civil law principle against unjust enrichment, but the amount of
Vitug, Antonio Carpio and Adolfo Azcuna. Although the Petitions had payment he is entitled to should be made, again, under the principle
earlier been assigned to Justice Carpio, he has since taken no part in against unjust enrichment and on the basis of quantum meruit.
the proceedings of this case and this resulted in the re-raffling of the
Petitions. The transfer and unloading of the case by the subsequently In a contract of agency, agents bind themselves to render some service
assigned Justices as well as Peas numerous motions for inhibition or to do something in representation or on behalf of the principal, with
and/or re-raffle has likewise cause considerable delay in the disposition the consent or authority of the latter.[250] The basis of the civil law
of the instant Petitions and the Administrative Case. relationship of agency is representation, [251] the elements of which
include the following: (a) the relationship is established by the parties
Unimega, which was the winning bidder of some of the publicly executed consent, express or implied; (b) the object is the execution of a juridical
condominium units of Urban Bank, moved to intervene in the case and act in relation to a third person; (c) agents act as representatives and not
to have the Courts same Resolution suspending the one-year period of for themselves; and (d) agents act within the scope of their authority.[252]
redemption of the properties be reconsidered.[235] Unimega claimed that
ownership of the banks titles to the 10 condominium units had already Whether or not an agency has been created is determined by the fact
been transferred to the former at the time the Court issued the that one is representing and acting for another.[253] The law makes no
Resolution; and, thus, there was no more execution to be suspended or presumption of agency; proving its existence, nature and extent is
stayed. Only Urban Bank[236]opposed the motion[237]of intervenor incumbent upon the person alleging it.[254]
Unimega on the ground that the latter was not a buyer in good faith, and
that the purchase price was grossly disproportional to the fair market With respect to the status of Atty. Peas relationship with Urban Bank, the
value of the condominium units.[238] trial and the appellate courts made conflicting findings that shall be
reconciled by the Court. On one end, the appellate court made a
Page 324
The Court eventually granted the Motion to Intervene considering that definitive ruling that no agency relationship existed at all between Pea
the intervenors title to the condominium units purchased at the public and the bank, despite the services performed by Pea with respect to the
Based on the evidence on records and the proceedings below, the It is clear from the above that ISCI was asking Urban Bank for help to
Court concludes that Urban Bank constituted Atty. Pea as its agent comply with ISCIs own contractual obligation with the bank under the
to secure possession of the Pasay property. This conclusion, terms of the sale of the Pasay property. Urban Bank could have ignored
however, is not determinative of the basis of the amount of payment the request, since it was exclusively the obligation of ISCI, as the seller,
that must be made to him by the bank. The context in which the to deliver a clean property to Urban Bank without any help from the latter.
agency was created lays the basis for the amount of compensation
Atty. Pea is entitled to. A full-bodied and confident interpretation of the contracts between ISCI
and Urban Bank should have led the latter to inform the unauthorized
The transactional history and context of the sale between ISCI and Urban sub-tenants that under its obligation as seller to Urban Bank, it was under
Bank of the Pasay property, and Atty. Peas participation in the transfer duty and had continuing authority to recover clean possession of the
of possession thereof to Urban Bank provide crucial linkages that property, despite the transfer of title. Yet, what unauthorized sub-tenant,
establish the nature of the relationship between the lawyer and the especially in the kind of operations being conducted within the Pasay
landowner-bank. property, would care to listen or even understand such argument?
The evidence reveals that at the time that the Contract to Sell was Urban Bank thus chose to cooperate with ISCI without realizing the kind
executed on 15 November 1994, and even when the Deed of Absolute of trouble that it would reap in the process. In an apparent attempt to
Sale was executed two weeks later on 29 November 1994, as far as allow the efforts of ISCI to secure the property to succeed, it recognized
Urban Bank was concerned, Pea was nowhere in the picture. All Peas role in helping ISCI, but stopped short of granting him authority to
discussions and correspondences were between the President and act on its behalf. In response to the two written requests of ISCI, Urban
Corporate Secretary of Urban Bank, on one hand, and the President of Bank sent this letter to Pea on 15 December 1994:
ISCI, on the other. The title to the Pasay property was transferred to This is to advise you that we have noted the engagement of your services
Urban Bank on 5 December 1994. Interestingly, Pea testifies that it was by Isabela Sugar Company to recover possession of the Roxas
only on 19 December 1994 that he learned that the land had already Boulevard property formerly covered by TCT No. 5382, effective
been sold by ISCI to Urban Bank, notwithstanding the fact that Pea was November 29, 1994. It is understood that your services have been
a director of ISCI. Pea was not asked to render any service for Urban contracted by and your principal remains to be the Isabela Sugar
Bank, neither did he perform any service for Urban Bank at that point. Company, which as seller of the property and under the terms of our
ISCI undertook in the Contract to Sell, to physically deliver the property Contract to Sell dated November 29, 1994, has committed to deliver the
to Urban Bank, within 60 days from 29 November 1994,[256] under full and actual possession of the said property to the buyer, Urban Bank,
conditions of full and actual possession and control ..., free from tenants, within the stipulated period. [262] (Emphasis supplied)
occupants, squatters or other structures or from any liens,
encumbrances, easements or any other obstruction or impediment to the Up to this point, it is unmistakable that Urban Bank was staying clear
free use and occupancy by the buyer of the subject Property or its from making any contractual commitment to Pea and conveyed its sense
exercise of the rights to ownership over the subject Property....[257] To that whatever responsibilities arose in retaining Pea were to be
guarantee this undertaking, ISCI agreed to the escrow provision where shouldered by ISCI.
PhP25,000,000 (which is a little over 10% of the value of the Pasay
property) would be withheld by Urban Bank from the total contract price According to the RTC-Bago City, in the reversed Decision, Atty. Pea only
until there is full compliance with this undertaking. knew of the sale between ISCI and Urban Bank at the time the RTC-
Pasay City recalled the TRO and issued a break-open order:
Apparently to ensure that ISCI is able to deliver the property physically
clean to Urban Bank, it was ISCIs president, Enrique Montilla who when information reached the (Pasay City) judge that the Pasay property
directed on 26 November 1994 one of its directors, Pea, to immediately had already been transferred by ISCI to Urban Bank, the trial court
recover and take possession of the property upon expiration of the recalled the TRO and issued a break-open order for the property.
contract of lease on 29 November 1994.[258] Pea thus first came into the According to Pea, it was the first time that he was apprised of the sale of
picture as a director of ISCI who was constituted as its agent to recover the land by ISCI and of the transfer of its title in favor of the bank.[263]
the Pasay property against the lessee as well as the sub-tenants who
were occupying the property in violation of the lease agreement. [259] He There is something contradictory between some of the trial courts factual
was able to obtain possession of the property from the lessee on the findings and Peas claim that it was only on 19 December 1994 that he
following day, but the unauthorized sub-tenants refused to vacate the first learned of the sale of the property to Urban Bank. It is difficult to
property. believe Pea on this point considering: (1) that he was a board director of
It was only on 7 December 1994, that Urban Bank was informed of the ISCI and a sale of this significant and valuable property of ISCI requires
Page 325
services that Pea was rendering for ISCI. The faxed letter from ISCIs the approval of the board of directors of ISCI; and (2) that ISCI twice
Marilyn Ong reads: requested Urban Bank for authority to be issued in his favor (07 and 9
them. However, the evidence does not support Peas claim that Urban clean possession of the property so that it may be turned over to Urban
Bank. This is an ordinary legal phenomenon that an agent would be an
That the agency between ISCI and Pea continued, that ISCI is to Peas account of an oral agreement with Urban Bank for the payment of
shoulder the agency fee and reimbursement for costs of Pea, and that PhP24,000,000 is just too much for any court to believe. Whatever may
Urban Bank never agreed to pay him a 10% agency fee is established be the agreement between Pea and ISCI for compensation is not before
and supported by the following: this Court. This is not to say, however, that Urban Bank has no liability
to Pea. It has. Payment to him is required because the Civil Code
First, the initial agency relationship between ISCI and Pea persisted. No demands that no one should be unjustly enriched at the expense of
proof was ever offered that the letter of 26 November 1994 of Mr. Montilla another. This payment is to be measured by the standards of quantum
of ISCI to Pea, for the latter to immediately recover and take possession meruit.
of the property upon expiration of the contract of lease on 29 November
1994 was terminated. It is axiomatic that the appointment of a new agent Amount of Compensation
for the same business or transaction revokes the previous agency from Agency is presumed to be for compensation. But because in this case
the day on which notice thereof was given to the former agent.[271] If it is we find no evidence that Urban Bank agreed to pay Pea a specific
true that the agency relationship was to be borne by Urban Bank alone, amount or percentage of amount for his services, we turn to the principle
Pea should have demonstrated that his previous agency relationship against unjust enrichment and on the basis of quantum meruit.
with ISCI is incompatible with his new relationship with Urban Bank, and
was thus terminated.
Second, instead, what is on the record is that ISCI confirmed the Since there was no written agreement with respect to the compensation
continuation of this agency between Pea and itself and committed to pay due and owed to Atty. Pea under the letter dated 19 December 1994, the
for the services of Pea, in its letter to Urban Bank dated 19 December Court will resort to determining the amount based on the well-established
1994 which reads: rules on quantum meruit.
In line with our warranties as the Seller of the said property and our
undertaking to deliver to you the full and actual possession and control Agency is presumed to be for compensation.[273] Unless the contrary
of said property, free from tenants, occupants or squatters and from any intent is shown, a person who acts as an agent does so with the
obstruction or impediment to the free use and occupancy of the expectation of payment according to the agreement and to the services
property by Urban Bank, we have engaged the services of Atty. rendered or results effected.[274] We find that the agency of Pea
Magdaleno M. Pea to hold and maintain possession of the property comprised of services ordinarily performed by a lawyer who is tasked
and to prevent the former tenants or occupants from entering or with the job of ensuring clean possession by the owner of a property. We
returning to the premises. In view of the transfer of the ownership of thus measure what he is entitled to for the legal services rendered.
the property to Urban Bank, it may be necessary for Urban Bank to
appoint Atty. Pea likewise as its authorized representative for purposes A stipulation on a lawyers compensation in a written contract for
of holding/maintaining continued possession of the said property and to professional services ordinarily controls the amount of fees that the
represent Urban Bank in any court action that may be instituted for the contracting lawyer may be allowed to collect, unless the court finds the
abovementioned purposes. amount to be unconscionable.[275] In the absence of a written contract for
It is understood that any attorneys fees, cost of litigation and any professional services, the attorneys fees are fixed on the basis
other charges or expenses that may be incurred relative to the ofquantum meruit,[276] i.e., the reasonable worth of the attorneys
exercise by Atty. Pea of his abovementioned duties shall be for the services.[277] When an agent performs services for a principal at the
account of Isabela Sugar Company and any loss or damage that may latters request, the law will normally imply a promise on the part of the
be incurred to third parties shall be answerable by Isabela Sugar principal to pay for the reasonable worth of those services.[278] The intent
Company.[272] (Emphasis supplied) of a principal to compensate the agent for services performed on behalf
of the former will be inferred from the principals request for the
Third, Pea has never shown any written confirmation of his 10% agency agents.[279]
fee, whether in a note, letter, memorandum or board resolution of Urban
Bank. An agency fee amounting to PhP24,000,000 is not a trifling In this instance, no extra-ordinary skills employing advanced legal
amount, and corporations do not grant their presidents unilateral training nor sophisticated legal maneuvering were required to be
authority to bind the corporation to such an amount, especially not a employed in ejecting 23 sub-tenants who have no lease contract with the
banking corporation which is closely supervised by the BSP for being a property owner, and whose only authority to enter the premises was
business seriously imbued with public interest. There is nothing on unlawfully given by a former tenant whose own tenancy has clearly
record except the self-serving testimony of Pea that Borlongan agreed expired. The 23 sub-tenants operated beer houses and nightclubs,
to pay him this amount in the controverted telephone conversation. ordinary retail establishments for which no sophisticated structure
prevented easy entry. After Pea succeeded in locking the gate of the
Fourth, while ordinarily, uncontradicted testimony will be accorded its full compound, the sub-tenants would open the padlock and resume their
Page 327
weight, we cannot grant full probative value to the testimony of Pea for businesses at night. Indeed, it appears that only security guards, chains
the following reasons: (a) Pea is not a credible witness for testifying that and padlocks were needed to keep them out. It was only the alleged
find reason to reduce. Neither will the Court accede to the settlement or members of the board of directors of Urban Bank, no specific acts
offer of Pea to Urban Bank of at least PhP38,000,000 for alleged legal were alleged and proved to warrant a finding of solidary liability. At
As the complainant on the trial court level, Pea carried the burden of Considering that the Special Order and Writ of Execution was a result of
proving that the eight individual defendants performed specific acts that the trial courts earlier award of PhP28,500,000, the nullification or
justify immediate execution lest the judgment becomes illusory. where the motion for execution pending appeal is filed with the appellate
The circumstances must be superior, outweighing the injury or damages
no matter how flimsy.[316] As quoted above, the trial court noted Atty. to have been in danger of insolvency, is not sufficient reason to allow
Peas total obligation to his creditor-friend as of May 1999 was already
and later on declared under receivership. main case will render moot and academic a petition questioning the
exercise of the trial courts discretion in allowing execution pending
Third, the public auction sales conducted in the execution pending Acting on Atty. Peas Omnibus Motion dated 09 December 2002[344] and
appeal sold more properties of Urban Bank and the directors than what Unimegas Motion for Reconsideration dated 10 December 2002[345] with
was sufficient to satisfy the debt. Indeed, the conservative value of the respect to the Courts Order dated 13 November 2002[346] that clarified
properties levied herein by the sheriff amounting to more the earlier stay order against the execution pending appeal,[347] the Court
than PhP181,919,190, consisting of prime condominium units in the hereby denies both motions. The Court is fully correct in suspending the
heart of the Makati Business district, a lot in Tagaytay City, shares in period for the running of the redemption period of the properties of Urban
exclusive clubs, and shares of stock, among others, was more than Bank and its officers and directors that were levied and subject of
sufficient to answer for the PhP28,500,000 judgment debt six times over. execution sale to satisfy the judgment debt in favor of Atty. Pea, the Court
Rather than stop when the properties sold had approximated the having conclusively determined that the supersedeas bond filed was
monetary award, the execution sale pending appeal continued and sufficient and considering the subsequent finding that the said execution
unduly benefitted Atty. Pea, who, as judgment creditor and, at times, the pending appeal lacks any sufficient ground for the grant thereof.
winning bidder, purchased most of the properties sold.
As to the theory of Atty. Pea that the actuations of Justice Carpio, the
Fourth, it was supremely disconcerting how Urban Bank, through its then ponente of this case, in drafting the questioned Order should
successor EIB, was unduly deprived of the opportunity to redeem the positively impact his motion for reconsideration of the same, the Court
properties, even after presenting managers checks[339] equal to the finds this argument utterly devoid of merit.
purchase price of the condominium units sold at the execution sale. No
reason was offered by the trial court[340] or the sheriff[341] for rejecting the In the first place, that questioned Order was not the decision of only a
redemption price tendered by EIB in order to recover the properties single member of the Court, Justice Carpio, but of the entire division to
executed and sold in public auction pending appeal. which he belonged, then composed of retired Chief Justice Hilario
Davide, Justices Jose Vitug, Consuelo Ynares-Santiago and Adolfo
Finally, the Court cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that there was Azcuna. This Order was affirmed by the same Division as its duly-
already a sufficient supersedeas bond given to answer for whatever promulgated order. In relation to this, the affirmation by the Division of
Page 333
monetary award will be given in the end. To recall, the De Leon Group this Order demonstrates that there is no truth to Atty. Peas claim that
had already tendered a supersedeas bond of PhP40,000,000 in the Justice Carpio fabricated the Order.
It must be emphasized that the prolonged resolution of the procedural Due to the complete reversal of the trial courts award for damages, which
issue in the Petitions in G. R. Nos. 145817 and 145822 on the execution was the basis of the Special Order and Writ of Execution allowing
pending appeal is due in no small part to the delays arising from Peas execution pending appeal, intervenor Unimega and other bidders who
peculiar penchant for filing successive motions for inhibition and re- participated in the public auction sales are liable to completely restore to
raffle.[351] The Court cannot sanction Peas repeated requests for petitioner-respondent bank all of the properties sold and purchased
voluntary inhibition of members of the Court based on the sole ground of therein. Although execution pending appeal is sanctioned under the rules
his own self-serving allegations of lack of faith and trust, and would like and jurisprudence, when the executed decision is reversed, the
to reiterate, at this point, the policy of the Court not to tolerate acts of premature execution is considered to have lost its legal bases. The
litigants who, for just about any conceivable reason, seek to disqualify a situation necessarily requires equitable restitution to the party prejudiced
judge (or justice) for their own purpose, under a plea of bias, hostility, thereby.[359] As a matter of principle, courts are authorized at any time to
prejudice or prejudgment.[352] The Court cannot allow the unnecessary order the return of property erroneously ordered to be delivered to one
and successive requests for inhibition, lest it opens the floodgates to party, if the order is found to have been issued without jurisdiction.[360]
forum-shopping where litigants look for a judge more friendly and
sympathetic to their cause than previous ones.[353] As a purchaser of properties under an execution sale, with an appeal on
the main case still pending, intervenor Unimega knew or was bound to
Restitution of the Banks Executed Properties know that its title to the properties, purchased in the premature public
The Court is still confronted with the supervening acts related to the auction sale, was contingent on the outcome of the appeal and could
execution pending appeal and the reversal of the award of damages, possibly be reversed. Until the judgment on the main case on which the
which affect the rights of the parties as well as of the intervenors to the execution pending appeal hinges is rendered final and executory in favor
case, specifically, intervenor Unimega. In completely resolving the of the prevailing judgment creditor, it is incumbent on the purchasers in
differing claims and performing its educational function, the Court shall the execution sale to preserve the levied properties. They shall be
briefly encapsulate and restate the operational rules governing execution personally liable for their failure to do so, especially if the judgment is
pending appeal when there has been a reversal of the trial courts reversed, as in this case.[361] In fact, if specific restitution becomes
Decision on the award of damages in order to guide the parties as well impracticable such as when the properties pass on to innocent third
as the bench and bar in general. The necessity of making these detailed parties the losing party in the execution even becomes liable for the full
instructions is prompted by the most natural question an ordinary person value of the property at the time of its seizure, with interest. The Court
with a sense of justice will ask after reading the facts: How can an has ruled:
obligation to pay for the services of a lawyer so that 23 unwanted tenants
leave a corporation's property lead to the loss or the impairment of use When a judgment is executed pending appeal and subsequently
of more than PhP181 Million worth of properties of that corporation and overturned in the appellate court, the party who moved for immediate
of its officers and directors? Obviously, this Court must undertake execution should, upon return of the case to the lower court, be required
Page 334
corrective actions swiftly. to make specific restitution of such property of the prevailing party as he
or any person acting in his behalf may have acquired at the execution
Because so much suspicious circumstances have attended the EVANGELINA MASMUD (as substitute G.R. No. 183385
execution in this case by the Regional Trial Court of Bago City, the complainant for ALEXANDER J. MASMUD),
proceedings with respect to any restitution due and owing under the Petitioner, Present:
circumstances shall be transferred to the Regional Trial Court in the
National Capital Region, Makati City, a court with venue to hear cases YNARES-
involving Urban Bank/Export and Industry Bank whose headquarters is - versus - SANTIAGO, J.,
located in Makati City. The Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court Chairperson,
of Makati City is ordered to include the execution of the Decision and the AUSTRIA-
proceedings for the restitution of the case in the next available raffle. MARTINEZ,
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS CHICO-NAZARIO,
The Regional Trial Court of Makati City, to which the case shall be raffled, COMMISSION (First Division) and ATTY. NACHURA, and
is hereby designated as the court that will fully implement the restorative ROLANDO B. GO, JR., PERALTA, JJ.
directives of this Decision with respect to the execution of the final Respondents.
judgment, return of properties wrongfully executed, or the payment of the Promulgated:
value of properties that can no longer be restored, in accordance with
Section 5, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. The parties are directed to February 13, 2009
address the implementation of this part of the Decision to the sala to
which the case will be raffled. x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
REPUBLIC ACT No. 5185: AN ACT GRANTING FURTHER Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari[1] assailing the
AUTONOMOUS POWERS TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS Decision[2] dated October 31, 2007 and the Resolution dated June 6,
Section 6. Prohibition Against Practice. A member of the Provincial 2008 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 96279.
Board or City or Municipal Council shall not appear as counsel before The facts of the case are as follows:
any court in any civil case wherein the province, city or municipality, as
the case may be, is the adverse party: Provided, however, That no On July 9, 2003, Evangelina Masmuds (Evangelina) husband, the late
member of the Provincial Board shall so appear except in behalf of his Alexander J. Masmud (Alexander), filed a complaint[3] against First
Page 336
province in any civil case wherein any city in the province is the adverse Victory Shipping Services and Angelakos (Hellas) S.A. for non-payment
party whose voters are en-franchised to vote for provincial officials, nor of permanent disability benefits, medical expenses, sickness allowance,
In consideration of Atty. Gos legal services, Alexander agreed to pay WHEREFORE, premises considered, and further considering the
attorneys fees on a contingent basis, as follows: twenty percent (20%) of substitute complainants initial payment of 20% to movant-counsel of the
total monetary claims as settled or paid and an additional ten percent monetary claims as paid, let the balance or unpaid twenty (20%) per cent
(10%) in case of appeal. It was likewise agreed that any award of of attorneys fees due movant-counsel (or the amount of P839,587.39)
attorneys fees shall pertain to respondents law firm as compensation. be recorded as lien upon all the monies that may still be paid to substitute
complainant Evangelina Masmud.
On November 21, 2003, the Labor Arbiter (LA) rendered a Decision
granting the monetary claims of Alexander. The dispositive portion of the Accordingly, the NLRC Cashier is directed to pay movant-counsel the
decision, as quoted in the CA Decision, reads: amount of P677,589.96 which is currently deposited therein to partially
satisfy the lien.
WHEREFORE, foregoing considered, judgment is rendered finding the
[First Victory Shipping Services and Angelakos (Hellas) S.A.] jointly and SO ORDERED.[8]
severally liable to pay [Alexanders] total permanent disability benefits in
the amount of US$60,000.00 and his sickness allowance of
US$2,348.00, both in Philippine currency at the prevailing rate of Evangelina questioned the February 14, 2005 Order of the LA before the
exchange at the time of payment; and to pay further the amount NLRC. On January 31, 2006, the NLRC issued a Resolution[9] dismissing
of P200,000.00 as moral damages, P100,000.00 as the appeal for lack of merit.
exemplary damages and attorneys fees equivalent to ten percent (10%)
of the total monetary award. Evangelina then elevated the case to the CA via a petition
[Alexanders] claim for payment of medical expenses is dismissed for lack for certiorari.[10] On October 31, 2007, the CA rendered a
of basis. Decision[11] partially granting the petition. The dispositive portion of the
decision reads:
SO ORDERED.[4]
WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Resolutions
dated January 31, 2006 and July 18, 2006 are hereby AFFIRMED with
Alexanders employer filed an appeal before the National Labor Relations MODIFICATION in that the Attorneys fees of respondent Atty. Rolando
Commission (NLRC). During the pendency of the proceedings before the B. Go, Jr. is declared fully compensated by the amount of P1,347,950.11
NLRC, Alexander died. After explaining the terms of the lawyers fees to that he has already received.
Evangelina, Atty. Go caused her substitution as complainant. On April SO ORDERED.[12]
30, 2004, the NLRC rendered a Decision dismissing the appeal of
Alexanders employer. The employer subsequently filed a motion for
reconsideration. The NLRC denied the same in an Order dated October Evangelina filed a motion for reconsideration. However, on June 6, 2008,
26, 2004. the CA issued a Resolution[13] denying the motion for reconsideration for
lack of merit.
On appeal before the CA, the decision of the LA was affirmed with
modification. The award of moral and exemplary damages was Hence, the instant petition.
deleted.[5] Alexanders employers filed a petition for certiorari[6] before
this Court. On February 6, 2006, the Court issued a Resolution Evangelina presented this issue, viz.:
dismissing the case for lack of merit.
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS AND
Eventually, the decision of the NLRC became final and executory. Atty. REVERSIBLE ERROR OF LAW IN ITS DECISION DATED 31
Go moved for the execution of the NLRC decision, which was later OCTOBER 2007 AND RESOLUTION DATED 6 JUNE 2008 INSOFAR
granted by the LA. The surety bond of the employer was garnished. Upon AS IT UPHOLDS RESPONDENT LAWYERS CLAIM OF FORTY
motion of Atty. Go, the surety company delivered to the NLRC Cashier, PERCENT (40%) OF THE MONETARY AWARD IN A LABOR CASE AS
through the NLRC Sheriff, the check amounting to P3,454,079.20. ATTORNEYS FEES.[14]
Thereafter, Atty. Go moved for the release of the said amount to
Evangelina.
In effect, petitioner seeks affirmance of her conviction that the legal
On January 10, 2005, the LA directed the NLRC Cashier to release the compensation of a lawyer in a labor proceeding should be based on
amount of P3,454,079.20 to Evangelina. Out of the said amount, Article 111 of the Labor Code.
Evangelina paid Atty. Go the sum ofP680,000.00.
There are two concepts of attorney's fees. In the ordinary sense,
Dissatisfied, Atty. Go filed a motion to record and enforce the attorneys attorney's fees represent the reasonable compensation paid to a lawyer
lien alleging that Evangelina reneged on their contingent fee agreement. by his client for the legal services rendered to the latter. On the other
Evangelina paid only the amount of P680,000.00, equivalent to 20% of hand, in its extraordinary concept, attorney's fees may be awarded by
the award as attorneys fees, thus, leaving a balance of 10%, plus the the court as indemnity for damages to be paid by the losing party to the
award pertaining to the counsel as attorneys fees. prevailing party,[15] such that, in any of the cases provided by law where
such award can be made, e.g., those authorized in Article 2208 of the
In response to the motion filed by Atty. Go, Evangelina filed a comment Civil Code, the amount is payable not to the lawyer but to the
with motion to release the amount deposited with the NLRC Cashier. In client, unless they have agreed that the award shall pertain to the lawyer
her comment, Evangelina manifested that Atty. Gos claim for attorneys as additional compensation or as part thereof.[16]
Page 337
fees of 40% of the total monetary award was null and void based on
Article 111 of the Labor Code.
CANON 20 A LAWYER SHALL CHARGE ONLY FAIR AND WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Decision dated October 31,
REASONABLE FEES. 2007 and the Resolution dated June 6, 2008 of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. SP No. 96279 are hereby AFFIRMED.
Rule 20.01. A lawyer shall be guided by the following factors in
determining his fees: SO ORDERED.
(a) The time spent and the extent of the services rendered or required; ATTY. VICTORIANO V. OROCIO, G.R. No. 179892-93
Petitioner,
(b) The novelty and difficulty of the question involved; Present:
AUSTRIA-
(c) The importance of the subject matter; MARTINEZ, J.,
Page 338
January 30, 2009 On 11 May 2004, the NAPOCOR-WFBT, with authority from the
x--------------------------------------------------- Commission on Audit, approved Resolution No. 2004-001 authorizing
x the release of P184 million (which represented 40% of the liquid assets
of NAPOCOR Welfare Fund in the total amount of P462 million as of 16
April 2004) for distribution to the NAPOCOR Welfare Fund members who
DECISION resigned, retired, or separated upon the effectivity of EPIRA on 26 June
2001 (EPIRA separated members).[9]
The facts culled from the records are as follows: This prompted Mrs. Perla A. Segovia (Segovia), former Vice-President
of Human Resources and Administration and former Ex-
On 26 September 1978, the National Power Corporation Board of Officio Chairman of the NAPOCOR-WFBT, in behalf of the 559 non-
Directors (NAPOCOR Board), pursuant to its specific power and duty to EPIRA separated members and in her own personal capacity, to write a
fix the compensation, allowance and benefits of the NAPOCOR letter to Mr. Rogelio M. Murga, then NAPOCOR President, demanding
employees under Section 6(c) of Republic Act No. 6395, as amended, their equal shares in the remaining assets of the NAPOCOR Welfare
passed Resolution No. 78-119 approving the grant of a monthly welfare Fund and access to information and records thereof.[11]
allowance equivalent to 10% of an employees basic pay to all
NAPOCOR employees effective 1 October 1978.[5] Pursuant thereto, the On 13 July 2004, there being no action or response on her letter,
NAPOCOR Welfare Plan Committee, renamed and reconstituted later Segovia, together with Mrs. Emma C. Baysic (Baysic), former President
on as the NAPOCOR Welfare Fund Board of Trustees (NAPOCOR- of the NAPOCOR Employees Association and former member of the
WFBT), issued and promulgated a charter for the NAPOCOR Welfare NAPOCOR-WFBT, in their personal capacities and on behalf of the 559
Fund which includes the following provisions: non-EPIRA separated members, filed with the Quezon City Regional
Trial Court (RTC), Branch 217, a Petition for Mandamus, Accounting and
ARTICLE VII Liquidation with a Prayer for the Issuance of Temporary Restraining
Order and Injunction against respondents NAPOCOR, the NAPOCOR
TERMINATION/AMENDMENT OF THE PLAN Board, Anguluan (as NAPOCOR Vice-President, Human Resources,
Administration and Finance Department) and Lorna T. Dy (as
Section 1. Termination/Amendment of the Plan The Board of Directors NAPOCOR Senior Department Manager on Finance).[12] The Petition
may amend, revise, repeal any or all of the provisions herein contained was docketed as Civil Case No. Q04-53121.
and/or terminate the Plan, subject to the pertinent provisions of the Trust
Agreement. Segovia, Baysic and the 559 non-EPIRA separated members were
represented in Civil Case No. Q04-53121 by petitioner Atty. Victoriano
Section 2. Payment of Members share In the event of termination of the V. Orocio under a Legal Retainer Agreement[13] dated 1 September
Plan, the balance to the credit of each member and the General Reserve 2004, pertinent portions of which are reproduced below:
for Employee Benefits shall be paid to the members in full. The SUBJECT: Petition for Mandamus with Damages
accumulated amount in the General Reserve for Employee Benefits shall Temporary Restraining Order/Injunction, etc. with the Court
be distributed among the members in the proportion to the amount NPC RETIREES versus NPC, NP Board of Directors, et. al. before the
outstanding to their credit as of the time of termination.[6] RTC Quezon City for the payment/settlement of their claims for NPC
Welfare Fund (P462 Million assets and other assets liquid or non-liquid).
The NAPOCOR Board subsequently passed Resolution No. 82-172 Dear Ms. Segovia and Ms. Baysic:
fixing a NAPOCOR employees contribution to the NAPOCOR Welfare
Fund in a sum equivalent to 5% of his basic pay.[7] In connection with the above-stated subject, hereunder are our terms
and conditions, to wit:
Almost two decades thereafter, on 8 June 2001, Congress passed
Republic Act No. 9136, otherwise known as the Electric Power Industry 1. No acceptance fee;
Reform Act (EPIRA). EPIRA directed the restructuring of the power
industry which includes the reorganization of NAPOCOR. Following the 2. All costs of litigation ([filing] and docket fees, etc.),
directive of EPIRA, the NAPOCOR Board passed Resolution No. 2003- miscellaneous and out-of-pocket expenses the prosecution of said action
Page 339
43 on 26 March 2003 abolishing the NAPOCOR Welfare Fund shall be for the account of the clients;
Department and other departments, and dissolving the NAPOCOR
WHEREAS, the parties have agreed to settle the instant case amicably. On 10 April 2006, petitioner filed with the RTC a Motion for Approval of
Charging (Attorneys) Lien. Petitioner asked the RTC to issue an order
PREMISES CONSIDERED, the parties herein have agreed as follows: declaring him entitled to collect an amount equivalent to 15% of the
monies due the non-EPIRA separated members as his attorneys fees in
1. Both the NPC EPIRA separated members (those members of the conformity with the Compromise Agreement.[18] In an Order dated 15
Welfare Fund affected by the EPIRA law and ceased to be members May 2006, the RTC granted petitioners motion and decreed that he is
of the Welfare Fund anytime from June 26, 2001 [effectivity of the entitled to collect the amount so demanded.[19]
EPIRA LAW] to March 1, 2003 [implementation of the EPIRA law and
date of abolition of the Welfare Fund]) and NPC non-EPIRA On 20 June 2006, petitioner filed with the RTC a Motion for the Issuance
separated members (those who ceased to be members of the Fund of a Writ of Execution of the RTC Order dated 15 May
prior to June 26, 2001) are entitled to Earnings Differential of the 2006.[20] Respondents opposed the motion on the ground that there was
NPC Welfare Fund; no stipulation in the Compromise Agreement to the effect that petitioner
is entitled to collect an amount equivalent to 15% of the monies due the
2. Corrected Earnings Differential refers to a benefit which is a non-EPIRA separated members. Respondents contended that the
result of re-computation of Members Equity Contributions and amount of P119,196,000.00 due the non-EPIRA separated members
Earnings using the correct rates of return vis--vis what was used under the compromise agreement was a mere estimate and, as such,
when they were separated. Period covered by the discrepancy is cannot be validly used by petitioner as basis for his claim of 15%
from 1989 to 2003. Hence, affected are WF members separated attorneys fees.[21]
anytime within the period 1989 to 2003;
The RTC issued an Order on 25 July 2006 granting petitioners
xxxx Motion[22] and, accordingly, a Writ of Execution of the RTC Order dated
15 May 2006 was issued on 26 July 2006. Pursuant to the said Writ of
4. The Corrected Earnings Differential of all affected WF separated Execution, RTC Branch Sheriff Reynaldo B. Madoloria (Sheriff
members shall earn 6% legal interest per annum computed from the Madoloria) issued a Notice of Garnishment to Ms. Aurora Arenas
separation of the members from service up to March 31, 2006 for all the (Arenas), Assistant Vice-President and Business Manager of the
non-EPIRA separated members and May 31, 2006 for the EPIRA Philippine National Bank (PNB)-NAPOCOR Extension Office, Diliman,
separated members; Quezon City, and to Mr. Emmanuel C. Mendoza (Mendoza), Unit Head
of the Landbank of the Philippines-NAPOCOR Extension Office, Diliman,
5. As of March 2006, the estimated Corrected Earnings Differential Quezon City.[23]
for the non-EPIRA separated members is P119.196 Million while for
the EPIRA separated members isP173.589 Million or a total Respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the RTC Order dated
of P292.785 Million, inclusive of the 6% legal interest; 25 July 2006.[24]
6. In conformity with the Retainer Agreement dated September 1, On 12 August 2006, Sheriff Madoloria served to Arenas an Order for
2004 between Mrs. Perla A. Segovia, Mrs. Emma Y. Baysic and Atty. Delivery of Money.[25]
Victoriano V. Orocio; and Irrevocable Special Power of Attorney
dated July 20, 2005 executed by Mrs. Perla A. Segovia and Mrs. Respondents Anguluan and Dy filed before the Court of Appeals on 22
Emma Y. Baysic in favor of Atty. Victoriano V. Orocio, counsel for August 2006 a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court,
petitioners, (copies attached as Annexes A and B respectively), docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 95786, assailing the RTC Order dated 25
15% attorneys fees shall be deducted from the corresponding July 2006 and praying that a temporary restraining order and/or a writ of
Corrected Earnings Differential of those non-EPIRA separated preliminary injunction be issued enjoining the implementation of the said
members who have already executed the corresponding Special RTC order.[26] Respondent NAPOCOR filed with the Court of Appeals on
Power of Attorney/Written Authority for the deduction/payment of the same date another Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules
said attorneys fees, and shall be paid to V.V. Orocio and Associates of Court, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 95946, also challenging the RTC
Page 340
Law Office, represented by Atty. Victoriano V. Orocio, as Order dated 25 July 2006 and praying that it be set aside and a
temporary restraining order and/or a writ of preliminary injunction be
On 31 October 2006, the Court of Appeals issued a Resolution granting Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the aforementioned
respondents application for a TRO and writ of preliminary injunction. It Decision but this was denied by the Court of Appeals in its Resolution
enjoined the RTC from implementing its Order dated 25 July 2006 and dated 27 September 2007.[31]
the corresponding writ of execution and notice of garnishment during the
pendency of CA-G.R. SP No. 95946 and No. 95786.Petitioner filed a Hence, petitioner brought the instant petition before us assigning the
motion for reconsideration of the said resolution.[29] following errors:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed July 25, 2006 Order, In its Resolution dated 31 October 2006, the Court of Appeals granted
the July 26, 2006 Writ of Execution, the July 28, 2006 Notice of respondents application for a writ of preliminary injunction based on the
Garnishment, and the August 10, 2006 Order of Delivery of Money are following reasons:
hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE, and a new one is
ordered, CAPPING at P3,512,007.32, the amount manifested to have This Court finds that [herein respondents] have prima facie established
already been received from the welfare fund as attorneys fees, as [their] compliance with strict requirements for issuance of a writ of
Page 341
the maximum amount that may be billed or collected as attorneys fees preliminary injunction in this case. Under the leading case of Valencia
from the whole welfare fund which amount is NOTED to have already vs. Court of Appeals, 352 SCRA 72 (2001), the requisites of preliminary
preliminary injunction will not issue to protect a right not in esse and fee. The non-EPIRA separated members expressly agreed to pay
which may never arise.[39] It may be issued only if the applicant has petitioner contingency or success fees of fifteen percent (15%) of
claims of the non-EPIRA separated members;[53] (3) he prepared and was originally filed before us, without any judicial or administrative
presented several witnesses and numerous pertinent documents before proceedings below; as well as the fundamental ethical principle that the
These are the two orders which are assailed in this case.
REGALADO, J.:
the respondent court which holds that the alleged confirmation to of the parcels of land.
attorney's fees should not adversely affect the non-signatories thereto,
initiative of the plaintiffs "in view of the frill satisfaction of their due his client from the adverse party in any action or proceeding in which
claims." 8 The dismissal order neither provided for any money judgment the attorney is employed, but such lien does not extend to land which is
Research in May 1985 while this case has been in progress. (Records,
p.770). By this time also, the defendant Research has been enjoined by
In its Order[8] of 12 January 1994, the trial court denied the petitioner's Finding nothing new in the motion for reconsideration, the Court of
motion for reconsideration of the above order. Appeals denied it in the re-solution [16] of 15 February 1996.
was governed by a retainer contract dated 9 April 1985. The petitioner's [B]ut whether the plaintiff's services were solicited or whether they were
undertakings thereunder are outlined as follows: offered to the defendant for his assistance, inasmuch as these services
Indisputably then, the private respondent's attorney's fee on "contingent attorney's fees and, thereafter, fix it in light of Section 24, Rule 138 of the
basis" in Civil Case No. 612 is unwarranted. If at all, he could only be Rules of Court; Rule 20.1, Canon 20 of the Code of Professional
2. A petition for attorneys fees may be filed before the Respondent about the necessity of a letter of authority in favor of the
judgment in favor of the client is satisfied or the latter, granting him the authority to represent Complainant in maintaining
proceeds thereof delivered to the client.
Intelligentia et Scientia Semper Mea
LEGAL ETHICS PINEDAPCGRNMAN
possession of the aforesaid property and to represent Complainant in complainant accepted the benefits of his service, just as it never
any court action that may be instituted in connection with the exercise of disclaimed that he was acting in its behalf during the period of
said duty. engagement.
7. Complainant acceded to the request and issued a letter-authority We referred the matter to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for
dated 15 December 1994, but only after making it very clear to the investigation. Both parties presented their respective evidence before
Respondent that it was ISC which contracted his services and not the Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP. After only one hearing, and
Complainant. This clarification was communicated to Respondent by upon agreement of the parties, the case was submitted for resolution on
Atty. Corazon M. Bejasa and Mr. Arturo E. Manuel, Jr., Senior Vice- the basis of their respective pleadings and annexes thereto. The
President and Vice-President, respectively of Complainant bank in a investigating officer, Commissioner Navarro, required both parties to file
letter addressed to respondent dated 15 December 1994. A copy of said their own memoranda. The commissioner made the following findings:
letter is attached hereto and made an integral part of this Complaint After going over the evidence submitted by the parties, the Undersigned
as Annex E. noted that the complainant (plaintiff) in RTC Bago City Civil Case is the
8. Subsequently however, Respondent requested for a modification of respondent in the present case which only showed that to get even with
said letter of authority by furnishing Complainant with a draft containing the respondent, complainant instituted the present case as leverage for
the desired wordings (including the date, i.e., 19 December 1994) and respondents complaint in the civil case. The complainant in the RTC
asking Complainant to modify the previous letter by issuing a new one Bago City Civil case is the respondent in the present case and vice-
similarly worded as his draft. A copy of said request is attached hereto versa; therefore there was no institution by the same party for remedies
and made an integral part of this Complaint asAnnex F. in different fora which negates forum shopping.
9. If only to expedite and facilitate matters, Complainant willingly obliged The fact remains however that complainant never contested the
and re-issued a new letter of authority to Respondent, this time actuations done by the respondent to rid its property from tenants and
incorporating some of Respondents suggestions. Thus it came to pass intruders; and even executed a letter of authority in favor of respondent
that the actual letter of authority was dated 19 December 1994, while dated December 19, 1994; otherwise complainant should have engaged
Complainants clarificatory letter was dated 15 December 1994. the services of other lawyers.
10. Eventually, the eviction of the occupants of the property in question Nevertheless, it is not for this Office to determine who should pay the
was successfully carried out. After the lapse of more than thirteen (13) respondent for this is a matter not within its jurisdiction but for the proper
months, Respondent filed a collection suit against herein Complainant court to do so.
and its senior officers for recovery of agents compensation and The only issue for resolution of this Office is whether or not respondent
expenses, damages and attorneys fees, on the strength of the letter of committed malpractice, deceit and gross misconduct in the practice of
authority issued by Atty. Bejasa and Mr. Manuel, Jr. A copy of the his profession as member of the bar.
complaint filed by herein Respondent with the Bago City Regional Trial The evidence on record showed that respondent successfully performed
Court is attached hereto and made an integral part hereof as Annex G. his task of evicting the tenants and intruders in the property in
11. The act of Respondent in securing the letter of authority from question. More so, no less than Senior Vice-President Corazon Bejasa
Complainant, ostensibly for the purpose of convincing the occupants was very thankful for his job well done.
sought to be evicted that he was duly authorized to take possession of Complainant benefited from respondents task and for a period of fifty
the property and then using the same letter as basis for claiming agents (50) days no behest or complaint was received by the respondent from
compensation, expenses and attorneys fees from Complainant, knowing the complainant. It was only when payment for his legal services was
fully well the circumstances surrounding the issuance of said letter of demanded that complainant re-acted when it is incumbent upon the
authority, constitutes deceit, malpractice and gross misconduct under benefactor of services that just compensation should be awarded.
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court. Said provision It is but just and proper that if refusal to pay just compensation ensues
enumerates the grounds for the suspension and disbarment of lawyers, in any transaction, the proper remedy is to institute an action before the
namely: proper court and such actuation of the respondent herein did not
Sec. 27. Attorneys removed or suspended by Supreme Court, on what constitute deceit, malpractice or gross misconduct.
grounds, - A member of the bar may be removed or suspended from his In view of the foregoing, the Undersigned hereby recommends that the
office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice or complaint against Atty. Magdaleno Pea be dismissed for lack of merit.[3]
other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct or by Thereafter, IBP Board of Governors passed a Resolution DISMISSING
reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any the Complaint based on the Report and Recommendation of
violation of the oath of which he is required to take before Commissioner Navarro. It appears that on April 26, 2000, the
admission to practice, or for willful disobedience of any lawful order of complainant was closed by the Monetary Board of the Bangko Sentral
a superior court or for corruptly or wilfully appearing as an attorney for a Ng Pilipinas and was placed under receivership of the Philippine Deposit
party to a case without any authority to do so.The practice of soliciting Insurance Corporation (PDIC). On May 8, 2000, it received a notice of
cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid the resolution. With the PDIC now acting as its counsel, it sought
agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice. (Emphasis supplied)[1] reconsideration of the resolution with the IBP, which was denied there
In answer to these allegations, respondent submitted with this Court his being no substantive reason to reverse the findings therein and because
Comment, wherein he refuted all the charges against him. Preliminarily, the pleading is improper as the remedy of the complainant is to file the
he claimed that the present complaint should be dismissed outright since appropriate Motion with the Supreme Court within fifteen days from
its filing constitutes forum shopping and it involves a matter which is sub- receipt of notice of said Decision pursuant to Section 12 of Rule 139-B.[4]
judice, in view of the pending civil action involving the same On October 5, 2000, we received a Manifestation from the complainant,
parties. Respondent then disputed that he was guilty of deceit, represented this time by Corazon M. Bejasa, praying that the IBP
malpractice or gross misconduct. He declared that complainant, through Commission on Bar Discipline and Board of Governors be ordered to
its duly authorized officers, engaged his services to rid the property of make a more thorough determination of whether or not respondent
tenants and intruders in the course of a telephone conversation. He committed the acts of deceit, malpractice and gross misconduct
added that there was no reason for him to deceive complainant into complained of as grounds for the latters disbarment. We then resolved
writing a letter of authority because he knew very well that the verbal to treat this manifestation as an appeal. Disbarment proceedings are
agreement was sufficient to constitute an attorney-client matters of public interest,[5] undertaken for public welfare and for the
Page 352
relationship. The request for a letter of authority, according to him, was purpose of preserving courts of justice from the official ministration of the
merely to formalize the engagement.[2] Lastly, he argued that the persons unfit to practice them.[6]
to 10 % of the the market value of the property prevailing at the time of The reason for the award of attorneys fees must be stated in
payment; the text of the decision; otherwise, if it is stated only in the
meals, transportation and other incidental expenses. Complainant Code of Professional Responsibility for demanding the delivery of 1,000
sq. m. parcel of land which was the subject of litigation.
is unethical, respondents act does not fall within the purview of Article and SELIM JACOB ASSAD,respondents.
1491. The letter of demand dated January 29, 2003 was made long after
matter involved in the litigation, the court need not inquire as to how and independent fee for consultation and advice was conceived and
much knowledge the attorney acquired from his former during that authorized. "A retaining fee is a preliminary fee given to an attorney or
were ignored by the complainant and his wife hence he was constrained
to file criminal complaints for estafa thru concealment of documents; that
ATTY. OLEDAN: only filed the papers at SEC and aside from that when the corporation,
the Solar Farms was already formed and the property which he is now
legal fraternity which might tend to lessen in any degree the confidence foreclosure case. Complainant further pointed to paragraph 12 of
respondents Answer, thus:
9. . . . [T]he family of the complainant and that of the respondent were (a) there was no actual hearing of the case wherein respondent could
very close and intimate with each other. Complainant, as well as two of have fully ventilated and defended his position;
her sisters, had served respondents family as household helpers for
many years when they were still in Manila, and during all those times (b) the subject Resolution gravely modified the Report and
Page 362
they were treated with respect, affection, and equality. They were Recommendation of the Trial Commissioner, Hon. Pedro Magpayo, Jr.,
considered practically part of respondents own family.
In her comment, complainant states that her primary interest is to recover A lawyer shall not borrow money from his client unless the clients
the amount of P25,000.00 with interest and that she is leaving it to the interests are fully protected by the nature of the case or by independent
Court to decide whether respondent deserves the penalty recommended advice (Rule 16.04, Code of Professional Responsibility). This rule is
by the IBP.[6] intended to prevent the lawyer from taking advantage of his influence
over the client.
The Court resolves to partially grant the petition. In his report and
recommendation, Investigating Commissioner Magpayo, Jr. made the This rule is especially significant in the instant case where the
following findings: respondent enjoys an immense ascendancy over the complainant who,
as well as two of his sisters, had served respondents family as household
In his Answer, the respondent ADMITS all the allegations in paragraph helpers for many years.
4 of the complaint which avers:
Having gained dominance over the complainant by virtue of such long
4. On 21 August 1995, complainant entrusted to respondent the amount relation of master and servant, the respondent took advantage of his
of P25,000.00 in cash to be used in the redemption of the aforesaid influence by not returning the money entrusted to him. Instead, he
property (parcel of land covered by TCT No. 20394 registered in the imposed his will on the complainant and borrowed her funds without
name of complainants parents located at Concepcion, Loay, Bohol). giving adequate security therefor and mindless of the interest of the
Respondent received the said amount as evidenced by an complainant.
acknowledgment receipt (Annex A).
In the light of the foregoing, . . . respondent has committed an act which
By way of confession and avoidance, the respondent, . . . however, falls short of the standard of the norm of conduct required of every
contended that when the mortgagee refused to accept the sum tendered attorney. If an ordinary borrower of money is required by the law to repay
as the period of redemption had already expired, he requested the the loan failing which he may be subjected to court action, it is more so
complainant to allow him in the meantime to use the money for his in the case of a lawyer whose conduct serves as an example.[7]
childrens educational expenses[,] to which request the complainant
allegedly acceded and respondent even executed a promissory note It would indeed appear from the records of the case that respondent was
(please see 4th par. of Annex B of complaint). allowed to borrow the money previously entrusted to him by complainant
for the purpose of securing the redemption of the property belonging to
Respondent takes further refuge in the intimate and close relationship complainants parents. Respondent, however, did not give adequate
existing between himself and the complainants family on the basis of security for the loan and subsequently failed to settle his obligation.
which his legal services were purely gratuitous or simply an act of a friend Although complainant denied having loaned the money to respondent,
for a friend with no consideration involved. Unfortunately, his efforts to the fact is that complainant accepted the promissory note given her by
redeem the foreclosed property, as already stated, did not produce the respondent on December 12, 1996. In effect, complainant consented to
desired result because the mortgagee would not budge anymore and and ratified respondents use of the money. It is noteworthy that
would not accept the sum offered. complainant did not attach this promissory note to her complaint nor
explain the circumstances surrounding its execution. She only
Thus, the respondent concluded that there was, strictly speaking, no mentioned it in her demand letter of March 12, 1998 (Annex B), in which
attorney-client [relationship] existing between them. Rather, right from she referred to respondents undertaking to pay her the P25,000.00 on
the start[,] everything was sort of personal, he added. or before January 1997. Under the circumstances and in view of
complainants failure to deny the promissory note, the Court is
Granting to the respondent the benefit of the doubt, we shall assume that constrained to give credence to respondents claims that the money
there was in reality a loan in the amount of P25,000.00. This is likewise previously entrusted to him by complainant was later converted into a
confirmed by the execution of a promissory note on 12 December 1996 loan.
by the respondent who undertook to pay Mrs. Junio on or before January
1997 (Annex B of complaint). Moreover, the demand letter of 12 March Respondents liability is thus not for misappropriation or embezzlement
1998 (Annex B) mentions of reimbursement of the sum received and but for violation of Rule 16.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
interest of 24% per annum until fully paid giving the impression that the which forbids lawyers from borrowing money from their clients unless the
funds previously intended to be used for the repurchase of a certain latters interests are protected by the nature of the case or by independent
property (Annex A of complaint) was converted into a loan with the advice. In this case, respondents liability is compounded by the fact that
consent of the complainant who gave way to the request of the not only did he not give any security for the payment of the amount
respondent to help defray his childrens educational expenses (par. 8 of loaned to him but that he has also refused to pay the said amount. His
Page 363
Answer). claim that he could not pay the loan because circumstances . . . did not
allow it and that, because of the passage of time, he somehow forgot
Revelation of secrets. In addition to the proper administrative East, Rosales, Pangasinan, and F. Madayag, with office address at A12,
action, the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum 2/F Vira Mall Shopping Complex, Greenhills, San Juan, Metro Manila,
period, or a fine ranging from P200 to P1000, or both, shall
protect his interest over the property coupled with his desire to get hold nature cannot be "interrupted by reason of desistance, settlement,
of TCT No. T-5165 the earliest possible time, he offered his assistance compromise, restitution, withdrawal of the charges, or failure of the
Commissioner in the above-entitled case, herein made part of this attorneys fees. In fact, complainant exerted honest efforts to fulfill his
Resolution/Decision as Annex A; and, finding the recommendation fully obligation. Respondents contemptuous conduct does not speak well of
Complainants alleged that they directed the respondent to either file a Thereafter, the IBP Board of Governors passed Resolution[10] No. XVII-
Motion for Reconsideration or a Notice of Appeal, but respondent failed 2006-457 dated 8 September 2006, approving and adopting the
or refused to do so. The 15-day period within which to file an appeal or recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner, thus:
a motion for reconsideration of the MTC Decision expired on 18 March
Page 369
2004. Complainant Elisa V. Venterez was constrained to contract RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and
another lawyer to prepare the Motion for Reconsideration which was filed APPROVED, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating
The Decision in Civil Case No. 981 was rendered by the MTC of Rule 22.01-- A lawyer may WITHDRAW his services in any of the
Calasaio, Pangasinan, on 25 February 2004. Respondent following cases:
admitted[16] that he was served a copy of the said Decision on 4 March
2004. After having received a copy of the MTC Decision, respondent did a) When the client pursues an illegal or immoral course of conduct in
not bother to file a Motion for Reconsideration or a notice of appeal with connection with the matter he is handling;
the proper courts. Thus, complainants were compelled to engage the
services of a new counsel to file a Motion for Reconsideration with the b) When the client insists that the lawyer pursue conduct violative of
MTC who did not, however, enter his appearance as new counsel. It these canons and rules;
bears stressing that during this time, respondent had not yet filed any
notice of withdrawal as counsel for the complainants in Civil Case No. c) When his inability to work with co-counsel will not promote the best
981.Respondent only formally withdrew as counsel for complainant in interest of the client;
Civil Case No. 981 when he filed with the MTC his Notice[17] of
Retirement as Counsel on 5 May 2004, on the ground that "he was also d) When the mental or physical condition of the lawyer renders it difficult
retired as Counsel for the [complainants] two days after he received copy for him to carry out the employment effectively;
of the decision rendered in this case when SALVADOR RAMIREZ, a
representative of the [complainants], withdrew all the records of the case e) When the client deliberately fails to pay the fees for the services or
from [respondent] to be given to his new counsel. fails to comply with the retainer agreement;
We cannot accept respondents defense that he had already withdrawn f) When the lawyer is elected or appointed to public office; and
from the case two days after his receipt of the MTC Decision and that he
had allegedly communicated this withdrawal to Salvador Ramirez, son g) Other similar cases.
of one of the herein complainants, Inocencia Ramirez. It is an apparent
attempt on the part of respondent to wash his hands of any liability for
failing to pursue any of the available remedies to complainants from the The instant case does not fall under any of the grounds
adverse MTC Decision. aforementioned. Neither can the circumstances of this case be
considered analogous to the grounds thus explicitly
The rule in this jurisdiction is that a client has the absolute right to enumerated. Contrary to respondents contention, his professional
terminate the attorney-client relation at any time with or without relations as a lawyer with his clients are not terminated by the simple
cause.[18] The right of an attorney towithdraw or terminate the relation turnover of the records of the case to his clients. Respondents defense
other than for sufficient cause is, however, considerably completely crumbles in face of the fact that Salvador Ramirez is not even
restricted.[19] Among the fundamental rules of ethics is the principle that a party in Civil Case No. 981 and, hence, had no authority to withdraw
an attorney who undertakes to conduct an action impliedly stipulates to the records of the said case from respondent or to terminate the latters
carry it to its conclusion.[20] He is not at liberty to abandon it without services.
reasonable cause.[21] A lawyer's right towithdraw from a case before its
final adjudication arises only from the client's written consent or from a Assuming, nevertheless, that respondent was justified in withdrawing his
good cause.[22] services, he, however, cannot just do so and leave complainants in the
Page 370
cold, unprotected. The lawyer has no right to presume that his petition
Section 26, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court provides: for withdrawal will be granted by the court.[24] Until his withdrawal shall
[A.C. No. 5486. August 15, 2001] Reconsideration/Reinvestigation. The motion was grounded on the
In Re: Atty. David Briones alleged denial of due process in the course of the investigation. Atty.
that should be expected of him. He is mandated to exert his best efforts Requirements for the Substitution of Counsel in a Case:
to protect within the bounds of the law the interest of his client. The Code 1. written application
that the questioned and the standard signatures were not made by the
same person.[7] This led to the indictment and the conviction of Petitioner SUSPEND PROCEEDINGS.
Applying this principle to the case at bar, the respondents did not waive SO ORDERED.
their right to move for the dismissal of the civil case based on Petitioner