Prob Areas CASES1
Prob Areas CASES1
8096 July 5, 2010 counsel of KWD and stated that the retainership contract
REY J. VARGAS AND EDUARDO A. PANES, JR., of Atty. Ignes had expired on January 14, 2007.
Complainants,
vs. In its letter10 dated March 2, 2007, the OGCC also
ATTY. MICHAEL A. IGNES, ATTY. LEONARD addressed Eleanor P. Gombas insistence that the
BUENTIPO MANN, ATTY. RODOLFO U. VIAJAR, JR., retainership contract of Atty. Ignes will expire on April 17,
AND ATTY. JOHN RANGAL D. NADUA, Respondents. 2007. The OGCC stated that as stipulated, the KWD or
RESOLUTION OGCC may terminate the contract anytime without need
VILLARAMA, JR., J.: of judicial action; that OGCCs grant of authority to
private counsels is a privilege withdrawable under
Before the Court is a petition for review of Resolution No. justifiable circumstances; and that the termination of Atty.
XVIII-2008-3351 passed on July 17, 2008 by the Board of Igness contract was justified by the fact that the Local
Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Water Utilities Administration had confirmed the
in CBD Case No. 07-1953. The IBP Board of Governors Yaphockun board as the new Board of Directors of KWD
dismissed the disbarment case filed by the complainants and that said board had terminated Atty. Igness services
against the respondents. and requested to hire another counsel.
The facts and proceedings antecedent to this case are Alleging that respondents acted as counsel for KWD
as follows: without legal authority, complainants filed a disbarment
complaint11 against the respondents before the IBP
Koronadal Water District (KWD), a government-owned Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD), docketed as CBD
and controlled corporation (GOCC), hired respondent Case No. 07-1953. Complainants alleged that
Atty. Michael A. Ignes as private legal counsel for one (1) respondents filed SCA Case No. 50-24 and Civil Case
year effective April 17, 2006.2 The Office of the No. 1799 as counsels of KWD without legal authority.
Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC) and the They likewise stated in their position paper12 that Atty.
Commission on Audit (COA) gave their consent to the Ignes continued representing KWD even after the OGCC
employment of Atty. Ignes.3 However, controversy later had confirmed the expiration of Atty. Igness contract in
erupted when two (2) different groups, herein referred to its April 4, 2007 manifestation/motion13 in Civil Case No.
as the Dela Pea board and Yaphockun board, laid claim 1796-25 entitled Koronadal Water District (KWD),
as the legitimate Board of Directors of KWD. represented herein by its General Manager, Eleanor
Pimentel Gomba v. Supreme Investigative and Security
Agency, represented by its Manager Efren Y. Cabucay.
On December 28, 2006, the members of the Dela Pea
board filed Civil Case No. 17934 for Injunction and
Damages, seeking to annul the appointment of two (2) In his defense,14 Atty. Mann stated that he and his fellow
directors, Joselito T. Reyes and Carlito Y. Uy, who will respondents can validly represent KWD until April 17,
allegedly connive with Director Allan D. Yaphockun 2007 since Atty. Ignes was not notified of his contracts
whose hostility to the "present" Board of Directors, the pre-termination. Atty. Mann also stated that he stopped
Dela Pea board, is supposedly of public knowledge. representing KWD after April 17, 2007 in deference to
the OGCCs stand. Attys. Ignes, Viajar, Jr. and Nadua
echoed Atty. Manns defense.15
On January 18, 2007, the Dela Pea board also adopted
Resolution No. 0095 appointing respondents Atty.
Rodolfo U. Viajar, Jr. and Atty. Leonard Buentipo Mann On March 10, 2008, complainants filed a manifestation 16
as private collaborating counsels for all cases of KWD before the IBP with the following attachments: (1) the
and its Board of Directors, under the direct supervision transcript of stenographic notes taken on January 28,
and control of Atty. Ignes. 2008 in Civil Case No. 1799, and (2) the notice of appeal
dated February 28, 2008 of the January 7, 2008 Order
dismissing Civil Case No. 1799. Aforesaid transcript
Subsequently, on February 9, 2007, Attys. Ignes, Viajar,
showed that Atty. Ignes appeared as counsel of KWD
Jr. and Mann filed SCA Case No. 50-24 for Indirect
and Ms. Gomba. He also signed the notice of appeal.
Contempt of Court6 entitled Koronadal Water District
(KWD), represented herein by its General Manager,
Eleanor Pimentel-Gomba v. Efren V. Cabucay, et al. On In his report and recommendation,17 the Investigating
February 19, 2007, they also filed Civil Case No. 1799 Commissioner recommended that the charge against
for Injunction and Damages7 entitled Koronadal Water Atty. Ignes be dismissed for lack of merit. The
District (KWD), represented herein by its General Investigating Commissioner held that Atty. Ignes had
Manager, & Eleanor Pimentel-Gomba v. Rey J. Vargas. valid authority as counsel of KWD for one (1) year, from
On March 9, 2007, KWD and Eleanor Pimentel-Gomba April 2006 to April 2007, and he was unaware of the pre-
filed a supplemental complaint8 in Civil Case No. 1799. termination of his contract when he filed pleadings in
SCA Case No. 50-24 and Civil Case No. 1799 in
February and March 2007.
Meanwhile, in Contract Review No. 0799 dated February
16, 2007, the OGCC had approved the retainership
contract of Atty. Benjamin B. Cuanan as new legal As to Attys. Viajar, Jr., Mann and Nadua, the
Investigating Commissioner recommended that they be lawyer or law firm. In Phividec Industrial Authority v.
fined P5,000 each for appearing as attorneys for a party Capitol Steel Corporation,20 we listed three (3)
without authority to do so, per Santayana v. Alampay. 18 indispensable conditions before a GOCC can hire a
The Investigating Commissioner found that they failed to private lawyer: (1) private counsel can only be hired in
secure the conformity of the OGCC and COA to their exceptional cases; (2) the GOCC must first secure the
engagement as collaborating counsels for KWD. written conformity and acquiescence of the Solicitor
General or the Government Corporate Counsel, as the
As aforesaid, the IBP Board of Governors reversed the case may be; and (3) the written concurrence of the COA
recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner and must also be secured.
dismissed the case for lack of merit.
In the case of respondents, do they have valid authority
Hence, the present petition. to appear as counsels of KWD?
Complainants contend that the IBP Board of Governors We find that Attys. Nadua, Viajar, Jr. and Mann had no
erred in dismissing the case because respondents had valid authority to appear as collaborating counsels of
no authority from the OGCC to file the complaints and KWD in SCA Case No. 50-24 and Civil Case No. 1799.
appear as counsels of KWD in Civil Case No. 1799, SCA Nothing in the records shows that Atty. Nadua was
Case No. 50-24 and Civil Case No. 1796-25. engaged by KWD as collaborating counsel. While the 4th
Complainants point out that the retainership contract of Whereas Clause of Resolution No. 009 partly states that
Atty. Ignes had expired on January 14, 2007; that the he and Atty. Ignes "presently stand as KWD legal
"Notice of Appeal filed by Atty. Ignes, et al." in Civil Case counsels," there is no proof that the OGCC and COA
No. 1799 was denied per Order dated April 8, 2008 of approved Atty. Naduas engagement as legal counsel or
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) "for being filed by one not collaborating counsel. Insofar as Attys. Viajar, Jr. and
duly authorized by law;" and that the authority of Attys. Mann are concerned, their appointment as collaborating
Viajar, Jr. and Mann as collaborating counsels is infirm counsels of KWD under Resolution No. 009 has no
since Resolution No. 009 of the Dela Pea board lacks approval from the OGCC and COA.
the conformity of the OGCC. As a consequence,
according to complainants, respondents are liable for Attys. Nadua, Viajar, Jr. and Mann are in the same
willfully appearing as attorneys for a party to a case situation as the private counsel of Phividec Industrial
without authority to do so. Authority in Phividec. In that case, we also ruled that
said private counsel of Phividec Industrial Authority, a
In his comment, Atty. Ignes admits that their authority to GOCC, had no authority to file the expropriation case in
represent KWD had expired on April 17, 2007, but he Phividecs behalf considering that the requirements set
and his fellow respondents stopped representing KWD by Memorandum Circular No. 9 were not complied
after that date. He submits that they are not guilty of with.21 Thus, Resolution No. 009 did not grant authority
appearing as counsels without authority. In their to Attys. Nadua, Viajar, Jr. and Mann to act as
comment, Attys. Viajar, Jr. and Nadua propound similar collaborating counsels of KWD. That Atty. Ignes was not
arguments. They also say that their fees were paid from notified of the pre-termination of his own retainership
private funds of the members of the Dela Pea board contract cannot validate an inexistent authority of Attys.
and KWD personnel who might need legal Nadua, Viajar, Jr. and Mann as collaborating counsels.
representation, not from the public coffers of KWD. In his
own comment, Atty. Mann submits similar arguments. In the case of Atty. Ignes, he also appeared as counsel
of KWD without authority, after his authority as its
After a careful study of the case and the parties counsel had expired. True, the OGCC and COA
submissions, we find respondents administratively liable. approved his retainership contract for one (1) year
effective April 17, 2006. But even if we assume as true
that he was not notified of the pre-termination of his
At the outset, we note that the parties do not dispute the
contract, the records still disprove his claim that he
need for OGCC and COA conformity if a GOCC hires
stopped representing KWD after April 17, 2007.
private lawyers. Nonetheless, we shall briefly recall the
legal basis of this rule. Under Section 10, Chapter 3, Title
III, Book IV of the Administrative Code of 1987, it is the Atty. Ignes offered no rebuttal to the verified
OGCC which shall act as the principal law office of all manifestation of complainants filed with the IBP on
GOCCs. And Section 3 of Memorandum Circular No. 9,19 March 10, 2008. Attached therein was the transcript of
issued by President Estrada on August 27, 1998, enjoins stenographic notes22 in Civil Case No. 1799 taken on
GOCCs to refrain from hiring private lawyers or law firms January 28, 2008 when Atty. Ignes argued the extremely
to handle their cases and legal matters. But the same urgent motion for the immediate return of the facilities of
Section 3 provides that in exceptional cases, the written the KWD to the KWD Arellano Office. The RTC was
conformity and acquiescence of the Solicitor General or compelled to ask him why he seeks the return of KWD
the Government Corporate Counsel, as the case may properties if he filed the motion as counsel of Ms.
be, and the written concurrence of the COA shall first be Gomba. When the RTC noted that KWD does not
secured before the hiring or employment of a private appear to be a party to the motion, Atty. Ignes said that
KWD is represented by Ms. Gomba per the caption of from the public coffers of KWD. To be sure, the facts
the case. Atty. Ignes also manifested that they will file a were clear that they appeared as counsels of KWD
motion for reconsideration of the orders dismissing Civil without authority, and not merely as counsels of the
Case No. 1799 and Civil Case No. 1793. The RTC ruled members of the Dela Pea board and KWD personnel in
that it will not accept any motion for reconsideration in their private suits.
behalf of KWD unless he is authorized by the OGCC, but
Atty. Ignes later filed a notice of appeal23 dated February Consequently, for respondents willful appearance as
28, 2008, in Civil Case No. 1799. As the notice of appeal counsels of KWD without authority to do so, there is a
signed by Atty. Ignes was filed by one (1) not duly valid ground to impose disciplinary action against them.
authorized by law, the RTC, in its Order24 dated April 8, Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, a
2008, denied due course to said notice of appeal. member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from
his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any
As we see it, Atty. Ignes portrayed that his appearance deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such
on January 28, 2008 was merely as counsel of Ms. office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his
Gomba. He indicted himself, however, when he said that conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any
Ms. Gomba represents KWD per the case title. In fact, violation of the oath which he is required to take before
the extremely urgent motion sought the return of the admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience of any
facilities of KWD to its Arellano Office. Clearly, Atty. Ignes lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willfully
filed and argued a motion with the interest of KWD in appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without
mind. The notice of appeal in Civil Case No. 1799 further authority to do so.
validates that Atty. Ignes still appeared as counsel of
KWD after his authority as counsel had expired. This fact Disbarment, however, is the most severe form of
was not lost on the RTC in denying due course to the disciplinary sanction, and, as such, the power to disbar
notice of appeal. must always be exercised with great caution, and should
be imposed only for the most imperative reasons and in
Now did respondents willfully appear as counsels of clear cases of misconduct affecting the standing and
KWD without authority? moral character of the lawyer as an officer of the court
and member of the bar. Accordingly, disbarment should
The following circumstances convince us that, indeed, not be decreed where any punishment less severe such
respondents willfully and deliberately appeared as as a reprimand, suspension or fine, would accomplish
counsels of KWD without authority. One, respondents the end desired.28 In Santayana,29 we imposed a fine of
have admitted the existence of Memorandum Circular P5,000 on the respondent for willfully appearing as an
No. 9 and professed that they are aware of our ruling in attorney for a party to a case without authority to do so.
Phividec.25 Thus, we entertain no doubt that they have The respondent therein also appeared as private
full grasp of our ruling therein that there are counsel of the National Electrification Administration, a
indispensable conditions before a GOCC can hire private GOCC, without any approval from the OGCC and COA.
counsel and that for non-compliance with the
requirements set by Memorandum Circular No. 9, the Conformably with Santayana, we impose a fine of
private counsel would have no authority to file a case in P5,000 on each respondent.
behalf of a GOCC. Still, respondents acted as counsels On another matter, we note that respondents stopped
of KWD without complying with what the rule requires. short of fully narrating what had happened after the RTC
They signed pleadings as counsels of KWD. They issued four (4) orders on March 24, 2007 and on April
presented themselves voluntarily, on their own volition, 13, 2007 in Civil Case No. 1799.30 As willingly revealed
as counsels of KWD even if they had no valid authority by complainants, all four (4) orders were nullified by the
to do so. Court of Appeals.31 We are compelled to issue a
reminder that our Code of Professional Responsibility
Two, despite the question on respondents authority as requires lawyers, like respondents, to always show
counsels of KWD which question was actually raised candor and good faith to the courts.321awphi1
earlier in Civil Case No. 1799 by virtue of an urgent WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed
Resolution No. XVIII-2008-335 passed on July 17, 2008 by the
motion to disqualify KWDs counsels26 dated February
IBP Board of Governors in CBD Case No. 07-1953 is
21, 2007 and during the hearing on February 23, 2007 27 REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
respondents still filed the supplemental complaint in the Respondents Attys. Michael A. Ignes, Leonard Buentipo Mann,
case on March 9, 2007. And despite the pendency of this Rodolfo U. Viajar, Jr., and John Rangal D. Nadua are found
case before the IBP, Atty. Ignes had to be reminded by GUILTY of willfully appearing as attorneys for a party to a case
the RTC that he needs OGCC authority to file an without authority to do so and FINED P5,000 each, payable to
intended motion for reconsideration in behalf of KWD. this Court within ten (10) days from notice of this Resolution.
They are STERNLY WARNED that a similar offense in the
future will be dealt with more severely.
With the grain of evidence before us, we do not believe Let a copy of this Resolution be attached to respondents
that respondents are innocent of the charge even if they personal records in the Office of the Bar Confidant.
insist that the professional fees of Attys. Nadua, Viajar, SO ORDERED.
Jr. and Mann, as collaborating counsels, were paid not
G.R. No. 176530 June 16, 2009 land was covered by the CARP, and CLOAs had been
awarded to tenants. Respondents opposed the motion,
SPOUSES CONSTANTE AGBULOS AND ZENAIDA arguing that the motion had been filed beyond the period
PADILLA AGBULOS, Petitioners, for filing an Answer, that the RTC had jurisdiction over
the case based on the allegations in the complaint, and
that the DARAB had no jurisdiction since the parties had
vs.
no tenancy relationship.
NICASIO GUTIERREZ, JOSEFA GUTIERREZ and
In an Order2 dated October 24, 2002, the RTC granted
ELENA G. GARCIA, Respondents.
the petitioners motion and dismissed the complaint for
lack of jurisdiction. The RTC held that the DARAB had
RESOLUTION jurisdiction, since the subject property was under the
CARP, some portions of it were covered by registered
NACHURA, J.: CLOAs, and there was prima facie showing of tenancy. 3
This petition for review on certiorari seeks the review of Respondents filed a motion for reconsideration. On
the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated November 13, 2003, the RTC denied the motion.4
February 6, 2007 in CAG.R. CV No. 83994 which set
aside the dismissal of a complaint for declaration of Atty. Magbitang filed a Notice of Appeal5 with the RTC,
nullity of contract, cancellation of title, reconveyance and which gave due course to the same.6 The records reveal
damages. that on December 15, 2003, respondent Elena G. Garcia
wrote a letter to Judge Arturo M. Bernardo, Acting Judge
The case stems from the following antecedents: of RTC Gapan, Branch 87, stating that they were
surprised to receive a communication from the court
On October 16, 1997, respondents, Dr. Nicasio G. informing them that their notice of appeal was ready for
Gutierrez, Josefa Gutierrez de Mendoza and Elena G. disposition. She also stated in the letter that there was
Garcia, through their counsel, Atty. Adriano B. no formal agreement with Atty. Magbitang as to whether
Magbitang, filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of they would pursue an appeal with the CA, because one
Gapan, Nueva Ecija, a complaint against petitioners, of the plaintiffs was still in America.7
spouses Constante Agbulos and Zenaida Padilla
Agbulos, for declaration of nullity of contract, cancellation On February 6, 2007, the CA rendered a Decision in
of title, reconveyance and damages. The complaint favor of respondents. The dispositive portion of the
alleged that respondents inherited from their father, decision reads:
Maximo Gutierrez, an eight-hectare parcel of land
located in Callos, Penaranda, Nueva Ecija, covered by WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is
Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. NT-123790 in the hereby GRANTED and the assailed Order dated October
name of Maximo Gutierrez. Through fraud and deceit, 24, 2002 issued by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
petitioners succeeded in making it appear that Maximo Gapan, Nueva Ecija, Branch 87, is REVERSED and SET
Gutierrez executed a Deed of Sale on July 21, 1978 ASIDE. Accordingly, the subject complaint is reinstated
when, in truth, he died on April 25, 1977. As a result, and the records of the case is (sic) hereby remanded to
TCT No. NT-123790 was cancelled and a new one, TCT the RTC for further proceedings.1avvphi1
No. NT-188664, was issued in the name of petitioners.
Based on the notation at the back of the certificate of
SO ORDERED.8
title, portions of the property were brought under the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) and
awarded to Lorna Padilla, Elenita Nuega and Suzette The CA concluded that the dispute between the parties
Nuega who were issued Certificates of Land Ownership was purely civil, not agrarian, in nature. According to the
Award (CLOAs). CA, the allegations in the complaint revealed that the
principal relief sought was the nullification of the
purported deed of sale and reconveyance of the subject
In their defense, petitioners averred that respondents
property. It also noted that there was no tenurial,
were not the real parties in interest, that the Deed of
leasehold, or any other agrarian relations between the
Sale was regularly executed before a notary public, that
parties.
they were possessors in good faith, and that the action
had prescribed.
Thus, this petition, raising the following issues for the
resolution of this Court:
On the day set for the presentation of the respondents
(plaintiffs) evidence, petitioners filed a Motion to
Dismiss, assailing the jurisdiction of the RTC over the 1. Whether or not the CA erred in not dismissing the
subject matter of the case. Petitioners contended that appeal despite the undisputed fact that Atty. Magbitang
the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board filed the notice of appeal without respondents
(DARAB), not the RTC, had jurisdiction since the subject knowledge and consent;
2. Whether or not the CA erred in giving due course to elements of a tenancy relationship, to wit: (1) that the
the appeal despite the fact that Atty. Magbitangs parties are the landowner and the tenant or agricultural
appellants brief failed to comply with the mandatory lessee; (2) that the subject matter of the relationship is
requirements of Section 13, Rule 44 of the Rules of an agricultural land; (3) that there is consent between the
Court regarding the contents of an appellants brief; and parties to the relationship; (4) that the purpose of the
relationship is to bring about agricultural production; (5)
3. Whether or not the CA erred in ruling that the RTC that there is personal cultivation on the part of the tenant
(Regional Trial Court), not the DARAB (Department of or agricultural lessee; and (6) that the harvest is shared
Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board) or the between the landowner and the tenant or agricultural
PARAD/RARAD (Provincial/Regional Agrarian Provincial lessee.14
Agrarian Reform Adjudicator), has jurisdiction over
respondents complaint.9 Basic is the rule that jurisdiction is determined by the
allegations in the complaint.15 Respondents complaint
The CA did not err in giving due course to the appeal, on did not contain any allegation that would, even in the
both procedural and substantive grounds. slightest, imply that there was a tenancy relation
between them and the petitioners. We are in full
agreement with the following findings of the CA on this
A lawyer who represents a client before the trial court is
point:
presumed to represent such client before the appellate
court. Section 22 of Rule 138 creates this presumption,
thus: x x x A reading of the material averments of the
complaint reveals that the principal relief sought by
plaintiffs-appellants is for the nullification of the
SEC. 22. Attorney who appears in lower court presumed
supposedly forged deed of sale which resulted in the
to represent client on appeal. An attorney who
issuance of TCT No. NT-188664 covering their 8-hectare
appears de parte in a case before a lower court shall be
property as well as its reconveyance, and not for the
presumed to continue representing his client on appeal,
cancellation of CLOAs as claimed by defendants-
unless he files a formal petition withdrawing his
appellees. Moreover, the parties herein have no tenurial,
appearance in the appellate court.
leasehold, or any other agrarian relations whatsoever
that could have brought this controversy under the ambit
A reading of respondent Elena Garcias letter to the RTC of the agrarian reform laws. Neither were the CLOA
would show that she did not actually withdraw Atty. awardees impleaded as parties in this case nor the
Magbitangs authority to represent respondents in the latters entitlement thereto questioned. Hence, contrary
case. The letter merely stated that there was, as yet, no to the findings of the RTC, the herein dispute is purely
agreement that they would pursue an appeal. civil and not agrarian in nature falling within the exclusive
jurisdiction of the trial courts.
In any case, an unauthorized appearance of an attorney
may be ratified by the client either expressly or impliedly. On the alleged deficiency of the appellants brief filed
Ratification retroacts to the date of the lawyers first before the CA by the respondents, suffice it to state that
appearance and validates the action taken by him. 10 the requirements in Section 13, Rule 44 are intended to
Implied ratification may take various forms, such as by aid the appellate court in arriving at a just and proper
silence or acquiescence, or by acceptance and retention resolution of the case. Obviously, the CA found the
of benefits flowing therefrom.11 Respondents silence or appellants brief sufficient in form and substance as the
lack of remonstration when the case was finally elevated appellate court was able to arrive at a just decision. We
to the CA means that they have acquiesced to the filing have repeatedly held that technical and procedural rules
of the appeal. are intended to help secure, not to suppress, substantial
justice. A deviation from a rigid enforcement of the rules
Moreover, a lawyer is mandated to "serve his client with may, thus, be allowed in order to attain this prime
competence and diligence."12 Consequently, a lawyer is objective for, after all, the dispensation of justice is the
entreated not to neglect a legal matter entrusted to him; core reason for the existence of courts.16
otherwise, his negligence in connection therewith shall
render him liable.13 In light of such mandate, Atty. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is
Magbitangs act of filing the notice of appeal without DENIED. The Court of Appeals Decision dated February
waiting for her clients to direct him to do so was 6, 2007 is AFFIRMED.
understandable, if not commendable.
SO ORDERED.
The CA was likewise correct in holding that the case is
within the jurisdiction of the RTC, not the DARAB.
In his Complaint-Affidavit, complainant alleged that [i]t Additionally, respondent declared that in the first week of
appears that there was irregularity with the check, it May 1999, on the representation of Garcia that he had
having been issued payable to him, but and/or AMADEO talked to complainant about respondents retention of fifty
BALON was therein intercalated after his (complainants) percent (50%) of the insurance proceeds for professional
name.[if !supportFootnotes][14][endif] fees less expenses,[if !supportFootnotes][25][endif] he gave Garcia,
on a staggered basis, the total amount of P233,000.00
Maintaining that respondent was entitled to only which, so respondent averred, is the amount of
P50,000.00 in attorneys fees,[if !supportFootnotes][15][endif] insurance claim complainant is entitled to receive less
complainant decried respondents continued possession attorneys fees and expenses.[if !supportFootnotes][26][endif] Thus,
of the proceeds of his claim[if !supportFootnotes][16][endif]and his respondent claimed that he gave Garcia the amount of
misrepresentations that the recovery thereof was fraught P30,000.00 on May 31, 1999 at Dulcinea Restaurant in
with difficulties.[if !supportFootnotes][17][endif] Greenbelt, Makati; the amounts of P50,000.00,
P20,000.00 and P30,000.00 on different occasions at his
(respondents) former address through his executive
In his Counter-Affidavit[if !supportFootnotes][18][endif] of February 18, secretary Sally I. Leonardo; the amount of P20,000.00 at
2000, respondent asserted that his continued retention the office of his (respondents) former employer
of the proceeds of complainants claim is in lawful Commonwealth Insurance Company through his
exercise of his lien for unpaid attorneys fees. He subordinate Glen V. Roxas; and several other payments
expressed readiness, however, to account for and turn at Dulcinea, and at Manila Intercontinental Hotels coffee
them over once he got paid fifty percent (50%) thereof, shop sometime in October 1999.[if !supportFootnotes][27][endif]
he citing the so called contingent fee billing method of no Respondent submitted the separate sworn statements of
cure, no pay adopted by practicing lawyers in the Leonardo and Roxas.[if !supportFootnotes][28][endif]
insurance industry as the basis of the amount of his
attorneys fees,[if !supportFootnotes][19][endif] which to him was
justified in the absence of an attorney-client contract Explaining why no written memorandum of the turn over
between him and complainant, the latter having rejected of various payments to Garcia was made, respondent
respondents letter-proposal of October 21, 1998.[if ! alleged that there was no need therefor since he very
supportFootnotes][20][endif] well knew Garcia who is a co-Rotarian and co-attorney-
in-fact and whom he really dealt with regarding
complainants claim.[if !supportFootnotes][29][endif]
Respondent also highlighted the value of the time and
efforts he extended in pursuing complainants claim and
the expenses he incurred in connection therewith. He Respondent furthermore declared that he rejected
went on to assert that his inability to contact complainant complainants offer to pay him P50,000.00 for his
whose whereabouts he did not know prompted him to services, insisting that since there had been no clear-cut
encash the check and keep the proceeds thereof in agreement on his professional fees and it was through
conformity with the Special Power of Attorney executed him that Metropolitan Insurance favorably reconsidered
in his favor.[if !supportFootnotes][21][endif] its initial rejection of complainants claim, he is entitled to
a contingent fee of 50% of the net proceeds thereof. [if !
supportFootnotes][30][endif]
During the hearings conducted by the IBP Investigator,
complainant echoed his allegations in his Complaint-
Affidavit and stressed that he turned down as Finally, respondent declared that he, in connection with
unreasonable respondents proposal in his October 21, his follow-up of the insurance claim, incurred
1998 letter that he be paid 25% of the actual amount representation expenses of P35,000.00, entertainment
collected for his legal services.[if !supportFootnotes][22][endif] And he and other representation expenses on various occasions
presented documentary evidence, including the March of P10,000.00, and transportation and gasoline
26, 1999 letter of respondent informing his co-attorney- expenses and parking fees of P5,000.00;[if !supportFootnotes][31]
[endif]
in-fact Garcia of the supposedly still unrecovered claim and that his retention of complainants money was
and suggesting acceptance of the purported offer of justified in light of his apprehension that complainant,
Metropolitan Insurance to settle complainants claim at being an alien without a valid working permit in the
P350,000.00. Philippines, might leave the country anytime without
settling his professional fees.[if !supportFootnotes][32][endif] CANON15Alawyershallobservecandor,fairnessand
loyaltyinallhisdealingsandtransactionswithhisclients.
The Investigating Commissioner, by Report and
Recommendation[if !supportFootnotes][33][endif] of October 26, 2001, RULE15.06Alawyershallnotstateorimplythatheisable
found respondent guilty of misconduct and toinfluenceanypublicofficial,tribunalorlegislativebody.
recommended that he be disbarred and directed to
immediately turn over to complainant the sum of xxx
P475,000.00 representing the amount of the
P525,000.00 insurance claim less respondents
professional fees of P50,000.00, as proposed by CANON16Alawyershallholdintrustallmoneysand
complainant. propertiesofhisclientthatmaycomeintohispossession.
The records of the case are before this Court for final RULE18.04Alawyershallkeeptheclientinformedofthe
action. statusofhiscaseandshallrespondwithinareasonabletimeto
theclientsrequestforinformation.
Respondent, by a Motion for Reconsideration[if filed with
this Court, assails the Investigating Commissioners
xxx
Report and Recommendation as not supported by clear,
convincing and satisfactory proof. He prays for the
reopening of the case and its remand to the Investigator RULE21.02Alawyershallnot,tothedisadvantageofhis
so that Garcia can personally appear for his client,useinformationacquiredinthecourseofemployment,
(respondents) confrontation. norshallheusethesametohisadvantageorthatofathird
person,unlesstheclientwithfullknowledgeofthe
There is no need for a reopening of the case. The facts circumstancesconsentsthereto.
material to its resolution are either admitted or
documented. Specifically with respect to above-quoted provision of
Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the
This Court is in full accord with the findings of the IBP Filipino lawyers principal source of ethical rules, which
Investigator that respondent violated the following Canon 16 bears on the principal complaint of
provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility, to complainant, a lawyer must hold in trust all moneys and
wit: properties of his client that he may come to possess.
This commandment entails certain specific acts to be
done by a lawyer such as rendering an accounting of all
RULE1.01Alawyershallnotengageinunlawful,
money or property received for or from the client[if !
dishonest,immoralordeceitfulconduct. supportFootnotes][36][endif]
as well as delivery of the funds or
property to the client when due or upon demand.[if !
xxx supportFootnotes][37][endif]
Respondent breached this Canon when
after he received the proceeds of complainants
insurance claim, he did not report it to complainant, who was already asking for 50%, objection to which
had a given address in Makati, or to his co-attorney-in- complainant communicated to him. Why respondent had
fact Garcia who was his contact with respect to to doubly increase his fees after the lapse of about one
complainant. year when all the while he has been in custody of the
proceeds of the check defies comprehension. At any
In fact, long after respondent received the December 23, rate, it smacks of opportunism, to say the least.
1998 check for P525,000.00 he, by his letter of March
26, 1999 to Garcia, had even the temerity to state that As for respondents claim in his June 2001 Supplement
the claim was still pending and recommend acceptance to his Counter-Affidavit that he had on several occasions
of the 50% offer . . . which is P350,000.00 pesos. His from May 1999 to October 1999 already delivered a total
explanation that he prepared and sent this letter on of P233,000.00 out of the insurance proceeds to Garcia
Garcias express request is nauseating. A lawyer, like in trust for complainant, this does not persuade, for it is
respondent, would not and should not commit bereft of any written memorandum thereof. It is difficult to
prevarication, documented at that, on the mere request believe that a lawyer like respondent could have
of a friend. entrusted such total amount of money to Garcia without
documenting it, especially at a time when, as respondent
By respondents failure to promptly account for the funds alleged, he and Garcia were not in good terms.[if !
supportFootnotes][43][endif]
he received and held for the benefit of his client, he Not only that. As stated earlier,
committed professional misconduct.[if !supportFootnotes][38][endif] respondents Counter-Affidavit of February 18, 2000 and
Such misconduct is reprehensible at a greater degree, his December 7, 1999 letter to complainant
for it was obviously done on purpose through the unequivocally contained his express admission that the
employment of deceit to the prejudice of complainant total amount of P525,000.00 was in his custody. Such
who was kept in the dark about the release of the check, illogical, futile attempt to exculpate himself only
until he himself discovered the same, and has to date aggravates his misconduct. Respondents claim
been deprived of the use of the proceeds thereof. discredited, the affidavits of Leonardo and Roxas who,
acting allegedly for him, purportedly gave Garcia some
amounts forming part of the P233,000.00 are thus highly
A lawyer who practices or utilizes deceit in his dealings
suspect and merit no consideration.
with his client not only violates his duty of fidelity, loyalty
and devotion to the clients cause but also degrades
himself and besmirches the fair name of an honorable The proven ancillary charges against respondent
profession.[if !supportFootnotes][39][endif] reinforce the gravity of his professional misconduct.
That respondent had a lien on complainants funds for his The intercalation of respondents name to the Chinabank
attorneys fees did not relieve him of his duty to account check that was issued payable solely in favor of
for it.[if !supportFootnotes][40][endif] The lawyers continuing exercise complainant as twice certified by Metropolitan
of his retaining lien presupposes that the client agrees Insurance[if !supportFootnotes][44][endif] is clearly a brazen act of
with the amount of attorneys fees to be charged. In case falsification of a commercial document which respondent
of disagreement or when the client contests that amount resorted to in order to encash the check.
for being unconscionable, however, the lawyer must not
arbitrarily apply the funds in his possession to the Respondents threat in his December 7, 1999 letter to
payment of his fees.[if !supportFootnotes][41][endif] He can file, if he expose complainant to possible sanctions from certain
still deems it desirable, the necessary action or proper government agencies with which he bragged to have a
motion with the proper court to fix the amount of such good network reflects lack of character, self-respect, and
fees.[if !supportFootnotes][42][endif] justness.
In respondents case, he never had the slightest attempt It bears noting that for close to five long years
to bring the matter of his compensation for judicial respondent has been in possession of complainants
determination so that his and complainants sharp funds in the amount of over half a million pesos. The
disagreement thereon could have been put to an end. deceptions and lies that he peddled to conceal, until its
Instead, respondent stubbornly and in bad faith held on discovery by complainant after about a year, his receipt
to complainants funds with the obvious aim of forcing of the funds and his tenacious custody thereof in a
complainant to agree to the amount of attorneys fees grossly oppressive manner point to his lack of good
sought. This is an appalling abuse by respondent of the moral character. Worse, by respondents turnaround in
exercise of an attorneys retaining lien which by no his Supplement to his Counter-Affidavit that he already
means is an absolute right and cannot at all justify delivered to complainants friend Garcia the amount of
inordinate delay in the delivery of money and property to P233,000.00 which, so respondent claims, is all that
his client when due or upon demand. complainant is entitled to, he in effect has declared that
he has nothing more to turn over to complainant. Such
Respondent was, before receiving the check, proposing incredible position is tantamount to a refusal to remit
a 25% attorneys fees. After he received the check and complainants funds, and gives rise to the conclusion that
after complainant had discovered its release to him, he he has misappropriated them.[if !supportFootnotes][45][endif]
In fine, by respondents questioned acts, he has shown
that he is no longer fit to remain a member of the noble
profession that is the law.
SO ORDERED.
GENERAL: Well developed, nourished, cooperative, Complainant described the lock in their room as an
walking, conscious, coherent Filipina. ordinary doorknob, similar to that on the door of the
courtroom which, even if locked, could still be opened
from the inside, and she added that there was a sliding
BREAST: Slightly globular with brown colored areola and
lock inside the room. According to her, they stayed at
nipple.
Sunset Garden for three days and three nights but she
never noticed if appellant ever slept because everytime
EXTERNAL EXAM.: Numerous pubic hair, fairly she woke up, appellant was always beside her. She
developed labia majora and minora, hymenal opening never saw him close his eyes.
stellate in shape, presence of laceration superficial,
longitudinal at the fossa navicularis, approximately 1/2
Helen Taha, the mother of complainant, testified that
cm. length.
when the latter arrived at their house in the morning of
January 22, 1994, she noticed that Mia appeared weak
INTERNAL EXAM.: Hymenal opening, stellate in shape, and her eyes were swollen. When she asked her
laceration noted, hymenal opening admits 2 fingers with daughter if there was anything wrong, the latter merely
slight resistance, prominent vaginal rugae, cervix closed. kept silent. That afternoon, she allowed Mia to go with
appellant because she knew he was her teacher.
CONCLUSION: Hymenal opening admits easily 2 fingers However, when Mia and appellant failed to come home
with slight resistance, presence of laceration, longitudinal at the expected time, she and her husband, Adjeril, went
at the fossa navicularis approximately 1/2 cm. length. to look for them at Ipilan. When they could not find them
Hymenal opening can admit an average size penis in there, she went to the house of appellant because she
erection with laceration. 4 was already suspecting that something was wrong, but
appellant's wife told her that he did not come home.
Dr. Divinagracia further testified that the hymenal
opening was in stellate shape and that there was a Early the next morning, she and her husband went to the
laceration, which shows that complainant had Philippine National Police (PNP) station at Pulot,
participated in sexual intercourse. On the basis of the Brooke's Point and had the incident recorded in the
inflicted laceration which was downward at 6 o'clock police blotter. The following day, they went to the office of
position, he could not say that there was force applied the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) at Puerto
because there were no scratches or bruises, but only a Princess City, then to the police station near the NBI,
week-old laceration. He also examined the patient bodily and finally to the radio station airing the Radyo ng Bayan
but found no sign of bruises or injuries. The patient told program where she made an appeal to appellant to
him that she was raped. return her daughter. When she returned home, a certain
Naem was waiting there and he informed her that Mia
During the cross-examination, complainant denied that was at Brooke's Point. He further conveyed appellant's
she wrote the letters marked as Exhibits "1" and "2"; that willingness to become a Muslim so he could marry Mia
she never loved appellant but, on the contrary, she hated and thus settle the case. Helen Taha readily acceded
because she wanted to see her daughter. that she was having an affair with appellant. Desirous
that such illicit relationship must be stopped, Erna
In the morning of January 27, 1994, she went to the Baradero informed appellant's wife about it when the
house of Naem who sent somebody to fetch latter arrived from Manila around the first week of
complainant. She testified that when Mia arrived, she February, 1994.
was crying as she reported that she was raped by
appellant, and that the latter threatened to kill her if she Upon the request of appellant's wife, Erna Baradero
did not return within an hour. Because of this, she executed an affidavit in connection with the present
immediately brought Mia to the hospital where the latter case, but the same was not filed then because of the
was examined and then they proceeded to the municipal affidavit of desistance which was executed and
hall to file a complaint for rape and kidnapping. Both Mia submitted by the parents of complainant. In her sworn
and Helen Taha executed separate sworn statements statement, later marked in evidence as Exhibit "7", Erna
before the PNP at Brooke's Point. Baradero alleged that on January 21, 1994, she
confronted Mia Taha about the latter's indiscretion and
Later, Fruit Godoy, the wife of appellant, went to their reminded her that appellant is a married man, but
house and offered P50,000.00 for the settlement of the complainant retorted, "Ano ang pakialam mo," adding
case. On their part, her husband insisted that they just that she loves appellant very much.
settle, hence all three of them, Adjeril, Helen and Mia
Taha, went to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor Appellant testified that on January 21, 1994, at around
where they met with the mother of appellant who gave 7:00 P.M., Mia Taha went to his office asking for help
them P30,000.00. Adjeril and Helen Taha subsequently with the monologue that she would be presenting for the
executed an affidavit of desistance in Criminal Case No. Miss PNS contest. He agreed to meet her at the house
7687 for kidnapping pending in the prosecutor's office, of her cousin, Merlylyn Casantosan. However, when he
which was sworn to before Prosecutor II Chito S. reached the place, the house was dark and he saw Mia
Meregillano. Helen Taha testified that she agreed to the waiting for him outside. Accordingly, they just sat on a
settlement because that was what her husband wanted. bench near the road where there was a lighted electric
Mia Taha was dropped from the school and was not post and they talked about the matter she had earlier
allowed to graduate. Her father died two months later, asked him about. They stayed there for fifteen minutes,
supposedly because of what happened. after which complainant returned to her boarding house
just across the street while appellant headed for home
The defense presented a different version of what some fifteen meters away.
actually transpired.
It appears that while complainant was then waiting for
According to appellant, he first met Mia Taha sometime appellant, Filomena Pielago, a former teacher of Mia at
in August, 1993 at the Palawan National School (PNS). PNS and who was then on her way to a nearby store,
Although he did not court her, he fell in love with her saw her sitting on a bench and asked what she was
because she often told him "Sir, I love you." What started doing there at such a late hour. Complainant merely
as a joke later developed into a serious relationship replied that she was waiting for somebody. Filomena
which was kept a secret from everybody else. It was on proceeded to the store and, along the way, she saw
December 20, 1993 when they first had sexual Inday Zapanta watering the plants outside the porch of
intercourse as lovers. Appellant was then assigned at the her house. When Filomena Pielago returned, she saw
Narra Pilot Elementary School at the poblacion because complainant talking with appellant and she noticed that
he was the coach of the Palawan delegation for chess. they were quite intimate because they were holding
At around 5:00 P.M. of that day, complainant arrived at hands. This made her suspect that the two could be
his quarters allegedly because she missed him, and she having a relationship. She, therefore, told appellant that
then decided to spend the night there with him. his wife had finished her aerobics class and was already
waiting for him. She also advised Mia to go home.
Exactly a month thereafter, specifically in the evening of
January 20, 1994, Erna Baradero, a teacher at the PNS, Prior to this incident, Filomena Pielago already used to
was looking inside the school building for her husband, see them seated on the same bench. Filomena further
who was a security guard of PNS, when she heard testified that she had tried to talk appellant out of the
voices apparently coming from the Orchids Room. She relationship because his wife had a heart ailment. She
went closer to listen and she heard a girl's voice saying also warned Mia Taha, but to no avail. She had likewise
"Mahal na mahal kita, Sir, iwanan mo ang iyong asawa told complainant's grandmother about her activities. At
at tatakas tayo." Upon hearing this, she immediately the trial, she identified the handwriting of complainant
opened the door and was startled to see Mia Taha and appearing on the letters marked as Exhibits "1" and "2",
Danny Godoy holding hands. She asked them what they claiming that she is familiar with the same because Mia
were doing there at such an unholy hour but the two, was her former student. On cross-examination, Filomena
who were obviously caught by surprise, could not clarified that when she saw the couple on the night of
answer. She then hurriedly closed the door and left. January 21, 1994, the two were talking naturally, she did
According to this witness, complainant admitted to her not see Mia crying, nor did it appear as if appellant was
pleading with her. that what they were doing was wrong but he allegedly
could not avoid Mia because of her threat that she would
In the afternoon of the following day, January 22, 1994, commit suicide if he left her. Thus, according to
appellant met Mia's mother on the road near their house appellant, on January 24, 1994 he asked Isagani Virey to
and she invited him to come up and eat "buko," which accompany him to the house of Romy Vallan, a
invitation he accepted. Thirty minutes thereafter, policeman, to report the matter.
complainant told him to ask permission from her mother
for them to go and solicit funds at the poblacion, and he Additionally, Virey testified that appellant and Mia went to
did so. Before they left, he noticed that Mia was carrying see him at his aunt's house to ask for assistance in
a plastic bag and when he asked her about it, she said procuring transportation because, according to appellant,
that it contained her things which she was bringing to her the relatives of Mia were already looking for them and so
cousin's house. Appellant and Mia went to the poblacion they intend to go to Puerto Princesa City. Virey
where they solicited funds until 6:30 P.M. and then had accompanied them to the house of Romy Vallan, whose
snacks at the Vic Tan Store. wife was a co-teacher of appellant's wife, but the latter
refused to help because of the complicated situation
Thereafter, complainant told appellant that it was already appellant was in.
late and there was no more available transportation, so
she suggested that they just stay at Sunset Garden. Nevertheless, Vallan verified from the police station
Convinced that there was nothing wrong in that because whether a complaint had been filed against appellant
they already had intimate relations, aside from the fact and after finding out that there was none, he told
that Mia had repeatedly told him she would commit appellant to just consult a certain Naem who is an
suicide should he leave her, appellant was prevailed "imam." Appellant was able to talk to Naem at Vallan's
upon to stay at the hotel. Parenthetically, it was house that same day and bared everything about him
complainant who arranged their registration and and Mia. Naem suggested that appellant marry
subsequently paid P400.00 for their bill from the funds complainant in Muslim rites but appellant refused
they had solicited. That evening, however, appellant told because he was already married. It was eventually
complainant at around 9:00 P.M. that he was going out to agreed that Naem would just mediate in behalf of
see a certain Bert Dalojo at the latter's residence. In appellant and make arrangements for a settlement with
truth, he borrowed a motorcycle from Fernando Rubio Mia's parents. Later that day, Naem went to see the
and went home to Pulot. He did not bring complainant parents of complainant at the latter's house.
along because she had refused to go home.
The following day, January 25, 1994, allegedly because
The following morning, January 23, 1994, appellant went complainant could no longer afford to pay their hotel
to the house of complainant's parents and informed them bills, the couple were constrained to transfer to the
that Mia spent the night at the Sunset Garden. Mia's house of appellant's friend, Fernando Rubio, at Edward's
parents said that they would just fetch her there, so he Subdivision where they stayed for two days. They just
went back to Sunset Garden and waited for them outside walked along the national highway from Sunset Garden
the hotel until 5:00 P.M. When they did not arrive, he to Edward's Subdivision which was only five hundred to
decided to go with one Isagani Virey, whom he saw while seven hundred meters away. The owner of the house,
waiting near the road, and they had a drinking session Fernando Rubio, as well as his brother Benedicto Rubio,
with Virey's friends. Thereafter, Virey accompanied him testified that the couple were very happy, they were
back to Sunset Garden where they proceeded to Mia's intimate and sweet to each other, they always ate
room. Since the room was locked from the inside, Virey together, and it was very obvious that they were having a
had to knock on the door until it was opened by her. relationship.
Once inside, he talked to complainant and asked her In fact, Fernando Rubio recalled that complainant even
what they were doing, but she merely answered that called appellant "Papa." While they were there, she
what she was doing was of her own free will and that at would buy food at the market, help in the cooking, wash
that moment her father was not supposed to know about clothes, and sometimes watch television. When
it for, otherwise, he would kill her. What complainant did Fernando Rubio once asked her why she chose to go
not know, however, was that appellant had already with appellant despite the fact the he was a married
reported the matter to her parents, although he opted not man, Mia told him that she really loved appellant. She
to tell her because he did not want to add to her never told him, and Fernando Rubio never had the
apprehensions. Isagani Virey further testified that when slightest suspicion, that she was supposed to have been
he saw appellant and complainant on January 23 and kidnapped as it was later claimed. He also testified that
24, 1994, the couple looked very happy. several police officers lived within their neighborhood
and if complainant had really been kidnapped and
Appellant denied that they had sexual intercourse during detained, she could have easily reported that fact to
their entire stay at Sunset Garden, that is, from January them. Mia was free to come and go as she pleased, and
22 to 24, 1994, because he did not have any idea as to the room where they stayed was never locked because
what she really wanted to prove to him. Appellant knew the lock had been destroyed.
On cross-examination, Fernando Rubio declared that fact in Pulot. However, he decided to have a relationship
appellant was merely an acquaintance of his; that it was with her because he wanted to change her and that was
Naem who went to the lodging house to arrange for Mia what they had agreed upon. Appellant denied that,
to go home; that complainant's mother never went to his during the time when they were staying together, Mia
house; and that it was Chief of Police Eliseo Crespo who had allegedly asked permission to leave several times
fetched appellant from the lodging house and brought but that he refused. On the contrary, he claimed that on
him to the municipal hall. January 27, 1994 when she told him that her parents
wanted to see her, he readily gave her permission to go.
Shortly before noon of January 26, 1994, Naem again
met with appellant at Edward's Subdivision and informed He also identified the clothes that Mia brought with her
him that complainant's parents were willing to talk to him when they left her parents' house on January 22, 1994,
at Naem's house the next day. The following morning, or but which she left behind at the Rubios' lodging house
on January 27, 1994, appellant was not able to talk to after she failed to return on January 27, 1994. The bag
complainant's parents because they merely sent a child of clothes was brought to him at the provincial jail by
to fetch Mia at Edward's Subdivision and to tell her that Benedicto Rubio.
her mother, who was at Naem's house, wanted to see
her. Appellant permitted complainant to go but he told Appellant likewise declared that he had been detained at
her that within one hour he was be going to the police the provincial jail since January 27, 1994 but the warrant
station at the municipal hall so that they could settle for his arrest was issued only on January 28, 1994; and
everything there. that he did not submit a counter-affidavit because
according to his former counsel, Atty. Paredes, it was no
After an hour, while appellant was already on his way out longer necessary since the complainants had already
of Edward's Subdivision, he was met by Chief of Police executed an affidavit of desistance. He admits having
Eliseo Crespo who invited him to the police station. signed a "Waiver of Right to Preliminary Investigation" in
Appellant waited at the police station the whole connection with these cases.
afternoon but when complainant, her parents and
relatives arrived at around 5:00 P.M., he was not given On rebuttal, Lorna Casantosan, the cousin of Mia Taha,
the chance to talk to any one of them. That afternoon of denied that she delivered any letter to appellant when
January 27, 1994, appellant was no longer allowed to the latter was still detained at the provincial jail. She
leave and he was detained at the police station after Mia admitted, on cross-examination, that she was requested
and her parents lodged a complaint for rape and by Mia Taha to testify for her, although she clarified that
kidnapping against him. she does not have any quarrel or misunderstanding with
appellant.
During his detention, Mia's cousin, Lorna Casantosan,
delivered to appellant on different occasions two letters Mia Taha was again presented on rebuttal and she
from complainant dated February 27, 1994 and March 1, denied the testimony of Erna Baradero regarding the
1994, respectively. As Mia's teacher, appellant is familiar incident at the Orchids Room because, according to her,
with and was, therefore, able to identify the handwriting the truth was that she was at the boarding house of Toto
in said letters as that of Mia Taha. After a time, he came Zapanta on that date and time. She likewise negated the
to know, through his mother, that an affidavit of claim that Erna Baradero confronted her on January 21,
desistance was reportedly executed by complainants. 1994 about her alleged relationship with appellant
However, he claims that he never knew and it was never contending that she did not see her former teacher on
mentioned to him, not until the day he testified in court, that day. Similarly, she disclaimed having seen and
that his mother paid P30,000.00 to Mia's father because, talked to Filemona Pielago on the night of January 21,
although he did not dissuade them, neither did he 1994. She vehemently disavowed that she and appellant
request his mother to talk to complainants in order to were lovers, much less with intimate relations, since
settle the case. there never was a time that they became sweethearts.
Under cross-examination, appellant denied that he She sought to rebut, likewise through bare denials, the
poked a knife at and raped Mia Taha on January 21, following testimonies of the defense witnesses: that she
1994. However, he admitted that he had sex with Mia at told appellant "iwanan mo ang iyong asawa at tatakas
the Sunset Garden but that was already on January 24, tayo;" that she answered "wala kang pakialam" when
1994. While they were at Edward's Subdivision, they Erna Baradero confronted her about her relationship with
never had sexual relations. Appellant was told, when appellant; that she was the one who registered them at
complainant visited him in jail, that her father would kill Sunset Garden and paid for their bill; that appellant left
her if she refused to testify against him, although by the her at Sunset Garden to go to Ipil on January 22, 1994;
time she testified in court, her father had already died. that Isagani Virey came to their room and stayed there
for five minutes, because the only other person who
Appellant further testified that complainant has had went there was the room boy who served their food; that
several illicit relations in the boarding house of her they went to the house of Virey's aunt requesting help for
cousin, Merlylyn Casantosan, which was a well-known transportation; and that she was free to roam around or
to go out of the lodging house at Edward's Subdivision. pursuant to a joint resolution 11 issued on March 11, 1994
by Prosecutor II Reynaldo R. Guayco of the Office of the
Mia Taha also rejected as false the testimony of Provincial Prosecutor, two separate informations for rape
appellant that she went to see him at Narra, Palawan to and for kidnapping with serious illegal detention were
have sex with him and claims that the last time she went nevertheless filed against appellant Danny Godoy with
to Narra was when she was still in Grade VI; that she no bail recommended in both charges.
ever told him "I love you, sabik no sabik ako sa iyo"
when she allegedly went to Narra; that she wrote to him, Appellant is now before us seeking the reversal of the
since the letters marked as Exhibits "1" and "2" are not judgment of the court below, on the following assignment
hers; that she threatened to commit suicide if appellant of errors:
would leave her since she never brought a blade with
her; and that at Sunset Garden and at Edward's I. The trial court erred in convicting the accused-
Subdivison, she was not being guarded by appellant. appellant (of) the crime of rape despite the fact that the
prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable
However, on cross-examination, complainant identified doubt.
her signature on her test paper marked as Exhibit "4"
and admitted that the signature thereon is exactly the II. The trial court erred by failing to adhere to the
same as that appearing on Exhibits "1" and "2". Then, doctrine/principle in reviewing the evidence adduced in a
contradicting her previous disclaimers, she also admitted prosecution for the crime of rape as cited in its decision
that the handwriting on Exhibits "1" and "2" all belong to reiterating the case of People vs. Calixto (193 SCRA
her. 303).
On sur-rebuttal, Armando Pasion, a provincial guard of III. The trial court erred in concluding that the accused-
the Provincial Jail, Palawan who volunteered to testify in appellant had consummated the crime of rape against
these cases, identified Lorna Casantosan as the person private complainant.
who visited appellant in jail on February 27, 1994 at
around 4:00 P.M. Since he was on duty at that time, he IV. The trial court erred by its failure to give any credence
asked her what she wanted and she said she would just to Exhibits "1" and "2" as evidence of the defense.
visit appellant. Pasion then called appellant and told him
he had a visitor. Lorna Casantosan and appellant talked
at the visiting area which is around ten meters away from V. The trial court erred in convicting the accused-
his post, and then he saw her hand over to appellant a appellant of the crime of kidnapping with serious illegal
letter which the latter immediately read. This witness detention as the prosecution failed to prove his guilt
declared that appellant never requested him to testify. beyond reasonable doubt.
Another sur-rebuttal witness, Desmond Selga, a jeepney VI. The trial court erred in giving full faith and credence
driver, testified that in the afternoon of January 22, 1994, to the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and
he was plying his regular route in going to Brooke's Point completely ignoring the testimonies of the defense
and, when he passed by Ipilan, he picked up appellant witnesses.
and Mia Taha. At that time, there were already several
passengers inside his jeepney. The two got off at the VII. The trial court erred in concluding that there was
poblacion market. He denied that he brought them to the implied admission of guilt on the part of the accused-
Sunset Garden. appellant in view of the offer to compromise.
On May 20, 1994, the court a quo rendered judgment 5 VIII. The trial court erred in ordering that the complainant
finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the be indemnified in the sum of one hundred thousand
crimes of rape and kidnapping with serious illegal pesos (P100,000.00) for each of the alleged crimes
detention, and sentencing him to the maximum penalty committed.
of death in both cases. 6 By reason of the nature of the
penalty imposed, these cases were elevated to this IX. The trial court gravely erred by imposing the death
Court on automatic review. penalty for each of the crimes charged on the accused-
appellant despite the fact that the crimes were allegedly
The records show that, on the basis of the complaints for committed prior to the effectivity of Republic Act No.
rape 7 and kidnapping with serious illegal detention 8 filed 7659. 12
by Mia Taha and Helen Taha, respectively, the Municipal
Trial Court of Brooke's Point issued a resolution 9 on A. The Rape Case
February 4, 1994 finding the existence of a prima facie
case against appellant. On February 10, 1994, the A rape charge is a serious matter with pernicious
spouses Adjeril Taha and Helen Taha executed an consequences. It exposes both the accused and the
affidavit of desistance withdrawing the charge of accuser to humiliation, fear and anxieties, not to mention
kidnapping with serious illegal detention. 10 However, the stigma of shame that both have to bear for the rest of
their 1. The prosecution has palpably failed to prove beyond
peradventure of doubt that appellant had sexual
lives. 13 By the very nature of the crime of rape, congress with complainant against her will. Complainant
conviction or acquittal depends almost entirely on the avers that on the night of January 21, 1994, she was
credibility of the complainant's testimony because of the sexually assaulted by appellant in the boarding house of
fact that usually only the participants can testify as to its her cousin, Merlelyn Casantosan. Appellant, on the other
occurrence. 14 This notwithstanding, the basic rule hand, denied such a serious imputation and contends
remains that in all criminal prosecutions without regard to that on said date and time, he merely talked with
the nature of the defense which the accused may raise, complainant outside that house. We find appellant's
the burden of proof remains at all times upon the version more credible and sustained by the evidence
prosecution to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable presented and of record.
doubt. If the accused raises a sufficient doubt as to any
material element, and the prosecution is then unable to According to complainant, when she entered the kitchen
overcome this evidence, the prosecution has failed to of the boarding house, appellant was already inside
carry its burden of proof of the guilt of the accused apparently waiting for her. If so, it is quite perplexing how
beyond a reasonable doubt and the accused must be appellant could have known that she was going there on
acquitted. 15 that particular day and at that time, considering that she
does not even live there, unless of course it was
The rationale for the rule is that, confronted by the full appellant's intention to satisfy his lustful desires on
panoply of State authority, the accused is accorded the anybody who happened to come along. But then this
presumption of innocence to lighten and even reverse would be stretching the imagination too far, aside from
the heavy odds against him. Mere accusation is not the fact that such a generic intent with an indeterminate
enough to convict him, and neither is the weakness of victim was never established nor even intimated by the
his defense. The evidence for the prosecution must be prosecution.
strong per se, strong enough to establish the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt. 16 In other words, the Moreover, any accord of credit to the complainant's story
accused may be convicted on the basis of the lone is precluded by the implausibility that plagues it as
uncorroborated testimony of the offended woman, regards the setting of the supposed sexual assault. 20 It
provided such testimony is clear, positive, convincing will be noted that the place where the alleged crime was
and otherwise consistent with human nature and the committed is not an ordinary residence but a boarding
normal course of things. house where several persons live and where people are
expected to come and go. The prosecution did not even
There are three well-known principles that guide an bother to elucidate on whether it was the semestral
appellate court in reviewing the evidence presented in a break or that the boarding house had remained closed
prosecution for the crime of rape. These are: (1) while for some time, in order that it could be safely assumed
rape is a most detestable crime, and ought to be that nobody was expected to arrive at any given time.
severely and impartially punished, it must be borne in
mind that it is an accusation easy to be made, hard to be Appellant, on the other hand, testified that on that fateful
proved, but harder to be defended by the party accused, day, he went to the boarding house upon the invitation of
though innocent; 17 (2) that in view of the intrinsic nature complainant because the latter requested him to help her
of the crime of rape where only two persons are usually with her monologue for the Miss PNS contest. However,
involved, the testimony of the complainant must be they were not able to go inside the house because it was
scrutinized with extreme caution; 18 and (3) that the locked and there was no light, so they just sat on a
evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own bench outside the house and talked. This testimony of
merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the appellant was substantially corroborated by defense
weakness of the evidence for the defense. 19 witness Filomena Pielago. She affirmed that in the
evening of January 21, 1994, she saw both appellant
In the case at bar, several circumstances exist which and complainant seated on a bench outside the boarding
amply demonstrate and ineluctably convince this Court house, and that she even advised them to go home
that there was no rape committed on the alleged date because it was already late and appellant's wife, who
and place, and that the charge of rape was the was the head teacher of witness Pielago, was waiting for
contrivance of an afterthought, rather than a truthful him at the school building. On rebuttal, complainant
plaint for redress of an actual wrong. could only deny that she saw Pielago that night.
Doctrinally, where the inculpatory facts and
circumstances are capable of two or more explanations
I. Two principal facts indispensably to be proven beyond
one of which is consistent with the innocence of the
reasonable doubt for conviction of the crime of rape
accused and the other consistent with his guilt, then the
under paragraph (1), Article 335 of the Revised Penal
evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty and is
Code are, first, that the accused had carnal knowledge
not sufficient to support a conviction. 21
of the complainant; and, second, that the same was
accomplished through force or intimidation.
It was further alleged by complainant that after her
alleged ravishment, she put on her panty and then stated that on January 21, 1994 at around 7:00 P.M., she
appellant openly accompanied her all the way to the gate was at the boarding house conversing with her cousin.
of the house where they eventually parted ways. This is Then in the course of her narration, she gave another
inconceivable. It is not the natural tendency of a man to version and said that when she reached the boarding
remain for long by the side of the woman he had raped, house it was dark and there was nobody inside.
22
and in public in a highly populated area at that. Given
the stealth that accompanies it and the anxiety to end The apparent ease with which she changed or adjusted
further exposure at the scene, the logical post-incident her answers in order to cover up or realign the same with
impulse of the felon is to distance himself from his victim her prior inconsistent statements is readily apparent from
as far and as soon as practicable, to avoid discovery and her testimony even on this single episode, thus:
apprehension. It is to be expected that one who is guilty
of a crime would want to dissociate himself from the Q Sometime on January 21, 1994, at about 7:00 o'clock
person of his victim, the scene of the crime, and from all in the evening, do you remember where you were?
other things and circumstances related to the offense
which could possibly implicate him or give rise to even
the slightest suspicion as to his guilt. Verily, the guilty A Yes, sir.
flee where no man pursueth.
Q Where were you?
It is of common knowledge that facts which prove or tend
to prove that the accused was at the scene of the crime A I was in the boarding house of Merlylyn Casantosan,
are admissible as relevant, on the theory that such Sir.
presence can be appreciated as a circumstance tending
to identify the appellant. 23 Consequently, it is not in xxx xxx xxx
accord with human experience for appellant to have let
himself be seen with the complainant immediately after Q Why were you there?
he had allegedly raped her. 24 It thus behooves this Court
to reject the notion that appellant would be so foolhardy
A I was conversing with my friend there, Sir.
as to accompany complainant up to the gate of the
house, considering its strategic location vis-a-vis
complainant's boarding house which is just across the COURT:
street, 25 and the PNS schoolbuilding which is only
around thirty meters away. 26 Q Conversing with whom?
Complainant mentioned in her narration that right after A With my cousin, Your Honor.
the incident she went directly to her boarding house
where she saw her landlady. Yet, the landlady was never Q Your cousin's name?
presented as a witness to corroborate the story of
complainant, despite the fact that the former was the A Merlylyn Casantosan, Your Honor.
very first person she came in contact with from the time
appellant allegedly left her at the gate of the Casantosan
boarding house after her alleged traumatic ordeal. Even xxx xxx xxx
though they supposedly did not talk, the landlady could
at least have testified on complainant's physical PROSECUTOR GUAYCO:
appearance and to attest to the theorized fact that
indeed she saw complainant on said date and hour, Q You said that this Dane or Danny Godoy raped you,
possibly with dishevelled hair, bloody skirt and all. will you please relate to this Honorable Court how that
rape happened?
We are, therefore, justifiedly inclined to believe
appellant's version that it was Mia Taha who invited him A On Friday and it was 7:00 o'clock in the evening.
to the boarding house to help her with the monologue
she was preparing for the school contest. This is even COURT:
consonant with her testimony that appellant fetched her
the following day in order to solicit funds for her
Q Of what date?
candidacy in that same school affair.
A January 21, 1994, Your Honor.
In contrast, complainant's professed reason for going to
the boarding house is vague and tenuous. At first, she
asserted that she was at the boarding house talking with xxx xxx xxx
a friend and then, later, she said it was her cousin.
Subsequently, she again wavered and said that she was PROSECUTOR GUAYCO:
not able to talk to her cousin. Furthermore, she initially
Q Then what happened? legal expert opined that it could not be categorically
stated that there was force involved. On further
A I went to the boarding house of my cousin Merlylyn questioning, he gave a straightforward answer that force
Casantosan. I passed (through) the kitchen and then was not applied. 31 He also added that when he
when I opened the door somebody grabbed me examined the patient bodily, he did not see any sign of
suddenly. bruises. 32 The absence of any sign of physical violence
on the complainant's body is an indication of
complainant's consent to the act. 33 While the absence in
xxx xxx xxx
the medical certificate of external signs of physical
injuries on the victim does not necessarily negate the
Q During that time were there other people present in commission of rape, 34 the instant case is clearly an
that boarding house where you said Danny Godoy raped exception to this rule since appellant has successfully
you? cast doubt on the veracity of that charge against him.
A None, Sir. Even granting ex gratia argumenti that the medical report
and the laceration corroborated complainant's assertion
COURT: that there was sexual intercourse, of course the same
cannot be said as to the alleged use of force. It has been
Q So, the house was empty? held that such corroborative evidence is not considered
sufficient, since proof of facts constituting one principal
A Yes, Your Honor. element of the crime is not corroborative proof of facts
necessary to constitute another equally important
element of the crime. 35
Q I thought your cousin was there and you were
conversing?
Complainant testified that she struggled a little but it was
not really strong because she was afraid of appellant.
A When I went there she was not there, Your Honor. 27
Again assuming that a sexual assault did take place as
(Corrections and emphasis supplied.)
she claims, we nevertheless strongly believe that her
supposed fear is more imaginary than real. It is evident
2. Complainant testified that appellant raped her through that complainant did not use the manifest resistance
the use of force and intimidation, specifically by holding a expected of a woman defending her honor and chastity.
knife to her neck. However, the element of force was not 36
She failed to make any outcry when appellant
sufficiently established. The physical facts adverted to by allegedly grabbed her and dragged her inside the house.
the lower court as corroborative of the prosecution's There is likewise no evidence on record that she put up
theory on the use of force are undoubtedly the medico- a struggle when appellant forced her to lie on the floor,
legal findings of Dr. Rogelio Divinagracia. Upon closer removed her panty, opened the zipper of his trousers,
scrutiny, however, we find that said findings neither and inserted his organ inside her genitals. Neither did
support nor confirm the charge that rape was so she demonstrate that appellant, in committing the
committed through forcible means by appellant against heinous act, subjected her to any force of whatever
complainant on January 21, 1994. nature or form.
The reported hymenal laceration which, according to Dr. Complainant's explanation for her failure to shout or
Divinagracia, was a week old and already healed, and struggle is too conveniently general and ruefully
the conclusion therefrom that complainant had sexual unconvincing to make this Court believe that she
intercourse with a man on the date which she alleged, do tenaciously resisted the alleged sexual attack on her by
not establish the supposed rape since the same findings appellant. And, if ever she did put up any struggle or
and conclusion are likewise consistent with appellant's objected at all to the involuntary intercourse, such was
admission that coitus took place with the consent of not enough to show the kind of resistance expected of a
complainant at Sunset Garden on January 24, 1994. 28 woman defending her virtue and honor. 37 Her failure to
Further, rather than substantiating the prosecution's do anything while allegedly being raped renders doubtful
aforesaid theory and the supposed date of commission her charge of rape, 38 especially when we consider the
of rape, the finding that there were no evident signs of actual mise-en-scene in the context of her
extra-genital injuries tends, instead, to lend more asseverations.
credence to appellant's claim of voluntary coition on a
later date and the absence of a struggle or the lack of
There is a rule that the rape victim's panty and blood-
employment of physical force. 29 In rape of the nature
stained dress are not essential, and need not be
alleged in this case, we repeat, the testimony of the
presented, as they are not indispensable evidence to
complainant must be corroborated by physical evidence
prove rape. 39 We incline to the view, however, that this
showing use of force. 30
general rule holds true only if there exist other
corroborative evidence sufficiently and convincingly
Thus, on the basis of the laceration inflicted, which is proving the rape charge beyond reasonable doubt. The
superficial at 6 o'clock position, the aforesaid medico-
rule should go the other way where, as in the present retribution for her outrageous violation, and
case, the testimony of complainant is inherently weak condemnation of the rapist. However, being interpreters
and no other physical evidence has been presented to of the law and dispensers of justice, judges must look at
bolster the charge of sexual abuse except for the a rape charge without those proclivities, and deal with it
medical report which, as earlier discussed, even negated with extreme caution and circumspection. Judges must
the existence of one of the essential elements of the free themselves of the natural tendency to be
crime. We cannot, therefore, escape the irresistible overprotective of every woman decrying her having been
conclusion that the deliberate non-presentation of sexually abused, and demanding punishment for the
complainant's blood-stained skirt, if it did exist, should abuser. While they ought to be cognizant of the anguish
vigorously militate against the prosecution's cause. and humiliation the rape victim goes through as she
demands justice, judges should equally bear in mind that
II. The conduct of the outraged woman immediately their responsibility is to render justice based on the law.
44
following the alleged assault is of the utmost importance
as tending to establish the truth or falsity of the charge. It
may well be doubted whether a conviction for the offense The rule, therefore, that this Court generally desists from
of rape should even be sustained from the disturbing the conclusions of the trial court on the
uncorroborated testimony of the woman unless the court credibility of witnesses 45 will not apply where the
is satisfied beyond doubt that her conduct at the time evidence of record fails to support or substantiate the
when the alleged rape was committed and immediately lower court's findings of fact and conclusions; or where
thereafter was such as might be reasonably expected the lower court overlooked certain facts of substance
from her under all the circumstances of the and value that, if considered, would affect the outcome
of the case; or where the disputed decision is based on a
case. 40 misapprehension of facts. 46
Complainant said that on the day following the supposed The trial court here unfortunately relied solely on the lone
rape, appellant went to her parents' house and asked testimony of complainant regarding the January 21, 1994
permission from them to allow her to go with him to incident. Indeed, it is easy to allege that one was raped
solicit funds for her candidacy. Nowhere throughout her by a man. All that the victim had to testify to was that
entire testimony did she aver or imply that appellant was appellant poked a knife at her, threatened to kill her if
armed and that by reason thereof she was forced to she shouted and under these threats, undressed her and
leave with him. In brief, she was neither threatened nor had sexual intercourse with her. The question then that
intimidated by appellant. Her pretense that she was confronts the trial court is whether or not complainant's
afraid of the supposed threat previously made by testimony is credible. 47 The technique in deciphering
appellant does not inspire belief since appellant was testimony is not to solely concentrate on isolated parts of
alone and unarmed on that occasion and there was no that testimony. The correct meaning of the testimony can
showing of any opportunity for him to make good his often be ascertained only upon a perusal of the entire
threat, even assuming that he had really voiced any. On testimony. Everything stated by the witness has to be
the contrary, complainant even admitted that appellant considered in relation to what else has been stated. 48
respectfully asked permission from her parents for her to
accompany him. In the case at bar, the challenged decision definitely
leaves much to be desired. The court below made no
Complainant's enigmatic behavior after her alleged serious effort to dispassionately or impartially consider
ravishment can only be described as paradoxical: it was the totality of the evidence for the prosecution in spite of
so strangely normal as to be abnormal. 41 It seems odd, if the teaching in various rulings that in rape cases, the
not incredible, that upon seeing the person who had testimony of the offended party must not be accepted
allegedly raped her only the day before, she did not with precipitate credulity. 49 In finding that the crime of
accuse, revile or denounce him, or show rage, revulsion, rape was committed, the lower court took into account
and disgust. 42 Instead, she meekly went with appellant only that portion of the testimony of complainant
despite the presence of her parents and the proximity of regarding the January 21, 1994 incident and
neighbors which, if only for such facts, would naturally conveniently deleted the rest. Taken singly, there would
have deterred appellant from pursuing any evil design. be reason to believe that she was indeed raped. But if
From her deportment, it does not appear that the alleged we are to consider the other portions of her testimony
threat made by appellant had instilled any fear in the concerning the events which transpired thereafter, which
mind of complainant. Such a nonchalant, unconcerned unfortunately the court a quo wittingly or unwittingly
attitude is totally at odds with the demeanor that would failed or declined to appreciate, the actual truth could
naturally be expected of a person who had just suffered have been readily exposed.
the ultimate invasion of her womanhood. 43
There are easily perceived or discernible defects in
III. Rape is a very emotional word, and the natural complainant's testimony which inveigh against its being
human reactions to it are categorical: admiration and accorded the full credit it was given by the trial court.
sympathy for the courageous female publicly seeking Considered independently of any other, the defects
might not suffice to overturn the trial court's judgment of Witness holding the doorknob.
conviction; but assessed and weighed conjointly, as logic
and fairness dictate, they exert a powerful compulsion COURT:
towards reversal of said judgment. 50 Thus:
The key is made to open if you are outside, but as you're
1. Complainant said that she was continuously raped by were (sic) inside you can open it?
herein appellant at the Sunset Garden and around three
times at Edward's Subdivision. In her sworn statement A Yes, sir.
she made the same allegations. If this were true, it is
inconceivable how the investigating prosecutor could
have overlooked these facts with their obvious legal Q Is there no other lock aside from that doorknob that
implications and, instead, filed an information charging you held?
appellant with only one count of rape. The incredibility of
complainant's representations is further magnified by the A There was, Your Honor.
fact that even the trial court did not believe it, as may be
inferred from its failure to consider this aspect of her Q What is that?
testimony, unless we were to uncharitably assume that it
was similarly befuddled. A The one that slides, Your Honor.
2. She claims that appellant always carried a knife, but it Q And that is used when you are already inside?
was never explained how she was threatened with the
same in such a manner that she was allegedly always
A Yes, Your Honor. 52 (Emphases ours.)
cowed into giving in to his innumerable sexual demands.
We are not unaware that in rape cases, this claim that
complainant now advances appears to be a common 5. During their entire stay at the Sunset Garden or even
testimonial expedient and face-saving subterfuge. at Edward's Subdivision, beyond supposedly offering
token or futile resistance to the latter's sexual advances,
she made no outcry, no attempt to flee or attract
3. According to her, they stayed at Sunset Garden for
attention to her plight. 53 In her own declaration,
three days and three nights and that she never noticed if
complainant mentioned that when they checked in at
appellant slept because she never saw him close his
Sunset Garden, she saw the cashier at the information
eyes. Yet, when asked if she slept side by side with
counter where appellant registered. She did not do
appellant, complainant admitted that everytime she woke
anything, despite the fact that appellant at that time was
up, appellant was invariably in bed beside her. 51
admittedly not armed. She likewise stated that a room
boy usually went to their room and brought them food. If
4. She alleged that she could never go out of the room indeed she was bent on fleeing from appellant, she could
because it was always locked and it could not be opened have grabbed every possible opportunity to escape.
from the inside. But, this was refuted by complainant's Inexplicably, she did not. What likewise appears puzzling
own testimony, as follows: is the prosecution's failure to present these two people
she mentioned and whose testimonies could have
Q And yet the door could be opened by you from the bolstered or corroborated complainant's story.
inside?
6. When appellant fetched complainant in the afternoon
A No, Sir, it was locked. of January 22, 1994, they left the house together and
walked in going to the highway. In her own testimony,
Q Can you describe the lock of that room? complainant stated that appellant went ahead of her. It is
highly improbable, if appellant really had evil motives,
A It's like that of the door where there is a doorknob. that he would be that careless. It is likewise beyond
comprehension that appellant was capable of instilling
such fear in complainant that she could not dare take
ATTY. EBOL: advantage of the situation, in spite of the laxity of
appellant, and run as far away from him as possible
Let it be recorded that the lock is a doorknob and may I despite all the chances therefor.
ask that the door be locked and opened from the inside.
7. Helen Taha, the mother of Mia, testified that as a
COURT: result of the filing of the rape case, complainant was
dropped from school and was not allowed to graduate.
Alright (sic) you go down the witness stand and find out This is absurd. Rather than support and commiserate
for yourself if you can open that door from the inside. with the ill-fated victim of rape, it would appear that the
school authorities were heartless people who turned
CLERK OF COURT: their backs on her and considered her an outcast. That
would be adding insult to injury. But what is more
abstruse yet significant is that Mia and her parents were see that the couple were happy together. 59
never heard to complain about this apparent injustice.
Such complacency cannot but make one think and 4. Isagani Virey, who knew appellant because the
conclude that there must necessarily have been a valid Municipal Engineering Office where he worked was
justification for the drastic action taken by the school and located within the premises of PNS, attested that he was
the docile submission thereto by the Taha family. able to talk to the couple and that when he was advising
appellant that what he was doing is wrong because he is
On the other hand, in evaluating appellant's testimony, married and Mia is his student, complainant reacted by
the trial court's decision was replete with sweeping saying that no matter what happened she would not
statements and generalizations. It chose to focus on leave Godoy, and that if she went home her father would
certain portions of appellant's testimony, declared them kill her. 60 He also observed that they were happy. 61
to be preposterous and abnormal, and then hastened to
conclude that appellant is indeed guilty. The court in 5. Erna Baradero, a co-teacher of appellant, saw the
effect rendered a judgment of conviction based, not on couple the day before the alleged rape incident, inside
the strength of the prosecution's evidence, but on the one of the classrooms and they were holding hands, and
weakness of that of the defense, which is totally she heard Mia tell appellant, "Mahal na mahal kita Sir,
repugnant to the elementary and time-honored rule that iwanan mo ang iyong asawa at tatakas tayo." 62 She tried
conviction should be made on the basis of strong, clear to dissuade complainant from continuing with her
and compelling evidence of the prosecution. 54 relationship with appellant. 63
IV. The main defense proffered by appellant is that he The positive allegations of appellant that he was having
and complainant were sweethearts. While the an intimate relationship with complainant, which were
"sweetheart theory" does not often gain favor with this substantially corroborated by several witnesses, were
Court, such is not always the case if the hard fact is that never successfully confuted. The rebuttal testimony of
the accused and the supposed victim are, in truth, complainant merely consisted of bare, unexplained
intimately related except that, as is usual in most cases, denials of the positive, definite, consistent and detailed
either the relationship is illicit or the victim's parents are assertions of appellant. 64 Mere denials are self-serving
against it. It is not improbable that in some instances, negative evidence. They cannot obtain evidentiary
when the relationship is uncovered, the alleged victim or weight greater than the declarations of credible
her parents for that matter would rather take the risk of disinterested witnesses. 65
instituting a criminal action in the hope that the court
would take the cudgels for them than for the woman to Besides, appellant recounted certain facts that only he
admit to her own acts of indiscretion. And this, as the could have supplied. They were replete with details
records reveal, is precisely what happened to appellant. which could have been known only to him, thereby
lending credence and reliability thereto. 66 His assertions
Appellant's claim that he and complainant were lovers is are more logical, probable and bear the earmarks of
fortified by the highly credible testimonies of several truth. This is not to say that the testimony of appellant
witnesses for the defense, viz.: should be accorded full credence. His self-interest must
have colored his account, even on the assumption that
1. Filomena Pielago testified that on the night of January he could be trusted to stick to the literal truth.
21, 1994, she saw appellant and complainant sitting on a Nonetheless, there is much in his version that does not
bench in front of the house where the sexual attack strain the limits of credulity. More to the point, there is
allegedly took place, and the couple were talking enough to raise doubts that do appear to have some
intimately. She had warned Mia about the latter's illicit basis in reality. 67
affair with appellant.
Thus, the trial court's hasty pontification that appellant's
2. Fernando Rubio, an acquaintance of appellant and testimony is improbable, ridiculous, nonsensical and
owner of the house at Edward's Subdivision, testified incredible is highly uncalled for. The rule of falsus in uno,
that he asked Mia why she decided to have an affair with falsus in omnibus is not mandatory. It is not a positive
appellant who is a married man. Mia answered that she rule of law and is not an inflexible one. 68 It does not
really loves him. 55 He heard her call appellant "Papa". 56 apply where there is sufficient corroboration on many
The couple looked happy and were sweet to each other. grounds of the testimony and the supposed
57
inconsistencies arise merely from a desire of the witness
to exculpate himself although not completely. 69
3. Benedicto Rubio, the younger brother of Fernando,
testified on redirect examination that he asked Mia if she Complainant's denial that she and appellant were lovers
knew what she getting into and she answered, "Yes;" is belied by the evidence presented by the defense, the
then he asked her if she really loved Sir Godoy, and she most telling of which are her two handwritten letters,
again answered in the affirmative. When he was trying to Exhibits "1" and "2", which she sent to the latter while he
give counsel to appellant, complainant announced that if was detained at the provincial jail. For analysis and
appellant left her, she would commit suicide. 58 He could emphasis, said letters are herein quoted in full:
27 Feb. 94 ganon ang hangarin ko sa iyo. higit pa sa binilanggo ang
kalagayan ko kong alam mo. kinukunsinsiya, nagtitiis na
Dane, saktan at pagsasakripisyo ng damdamin ko na gusto
kang makita at yakapin ka pero ano ang magagawa ko
kong ang paglabas ko ng bahay ay hindi ako makalabas
Kumusta kana? Kong ako hito hindi na makatiis sa sakit.
ng mag isa may guardiya pa. tanungin mo si Lorna kong
ano ginagawa nilang pagbantay sa akin para akong
Sir, sumulat ako sa inyo dahil gusto kong malaman mo puganti. hindi ito ayon sa kagustuhan ng mga magulang
ang situation ko. Sir, kong mahal mo ako gagawa kang ko sarili kong plano ito. Magtitiis pa ba akong hindi
paraan na mailayo ako dito sa bahay. nalaman ng nanay makakain maghapon tubig lang ang laman ng tiyan,
at tatay ko na delayed ang mens ko ng one week. kong may masama akong hangarin sa iyo.
pinapainom nila ako ng pampalaglag pero ayaw ko.
pagnalaman nila na hindi ko ininom ang gamot
Oo, magtiis ako para maipakita kong mahal rin kita.
sinasaktan nila ako.
March 2 darating ako sa bahay na sinasabi mo. hindi ko
matiyak kong anong oras dahil kukuha pa ako ng
Sir, kong maari ay huwag ng maabutan ng Martes. dahil tiyempo na wala rito ang tatay ko. Alam mo bang pati
naabutan nila akong maglayas sana ako. kaya ngayon ang kapatid kong si Rowena ay inuutusan akong
hindi ako makalabas ng bahay kong wala akong lumayas dahil naawa no siya sa situation ko. siya lang
kasama, kong gaano sila kahigpit noon doble pa ngayon. ang kakampi ko rito sa bahay malaki ang pag-asa kong
ang mga gamit ko ngayon ay wala sa lalagyan ko. tinago makalabas ako ng bahay sa tulong niya.
nila hindi ko makita, ang narito lang ay ang bihisan kong
luma. Sir kong manghiram ka kaya ng motor na
Love you
gagamitin sa pagkuha sa akin. Sa lunes ng gabi
manonood kami Ng Veta eksakto alas 9:00 ay dapat dito
ka sa lugar na may Veta. tanungin mo lang kay Lorna (Sgd.) Mia Taha 71
kong saan ang Veta nila Navoor Lozot. Mag busina ka
lang ng tatlo bilang senyas na lalabas na ako at huwag There is absolutely nothing left to the imagination. The
kang tatapat ng bahay dahil nandoon ang kuya ko. kong letters eloquently speak for themselves. It was
ano ang disisyon mo maari bang magsulat ka at ipahatid complainant's handwriting which spilled the beans, so to
kay Lorna. speak. Aside from appellant, two other defense
witnesses identified the handwriting on the letters as
alang-alang sa bata. Baka makainon ako ng gamot dahil belonging to Mia Taha. They are Filomena Pielago and
baka pagkain ko hahaluan nila. Erna Baradero who were admittedly the former teachers
of complainant and highly familiar with her handwriting.
The greatest blunder committed by the trial court was in
Please sir . . .
ignoring the testimonies of these qualified witnesses and
refusing to give any probative value to these two vital
(Sgd.) Mia Taha 70 pieces of evidence, on the dubious and lame pretext that
no handwriting expert was presented to analyze and
3/1/94 evaluate the same.
Q Did I get you right on rebuttal that Mrs. Erna Baradero A Yes, sir.
and Filomena Pielago were your teachers?
Q In fact, these letters in alphabet here are in your own
A Yes, sir. handwriting?
Q And they have been your teachers for several months A Yes, sir.
before this incident of January 21, 1994, am I not
correct? xxx xxx xxx
A That is true, sir. Q You will deny this Exhibit "1" your signature?
Q And you have (sic) during these past months that they xxx xxx xxx
have been your teachers you took examinations in their
classes in their particular subject(s)? Q You will deny that this is your handwriting?
Q And some of those test papers are in the possession Q Also Exhibit "2"?
of your teachers, am I correct?
A Yes, sir. 74
A Yes, sir.
While rebuttal witness Lorna Casantosan insisted that
Q I will show you Exhibit "4" previously marked as she never delivered any letter of complainant to herein
Exhibit "4", it appears to be your test paper and with your appellant, the witness presented by the defense on sur-
signature and the alphabet appears in this exhibit rebuttal, Armando Pasion, who was the guard on duty at
appears to be that of Mia Taha, please examine this and the provincial jail at that time, testified of his own accord
tell the Honorable Court if that is your test paper? because he knew that what Casantosan said was a
blatant lie. Appellant never talked to Amando Pasion nor
A Yes, sir. requested him to testify for the defense, as related by the
witness himself. Hence, there exists no reason
Q That signature Mia Taha I understand is also your whatsoever to disbelieve the testimony of witness Pasion
signature? to the effect that Lorna Casantosan actually went to visit
appellant in jail and in truth handed to him what turned
A Yes, sir. out to be the letters marked as Exhibits "1" and "2" for
the defense.
Q I will show you Exhibit "4-A", will you please examine
this Exhibit "4-A" and tell this Honorable Court if you are V. The prosecution insists that the offer of compromise
familiar with that. made by appellant is deemed to be an admission of guilt.
This inference does not arise in the instant case. In
criminal cases, an offer of compromise is generally
A What subject is that? admissible as evidence against the party making it. It is a
legal maxim, which assuredly constitutes one of the
bases of the right to penalize, that in the matter of public moral pressure exerted upon her by her mother, she was
crimes which directly affect the public interest, no forced to concoct her account of the alleged rape.
compromise whatever may be entered into as regards
the penal action. It has long been held, however, that in The Court takes judicial cognizance of the fact that in
such cases the accused is permitted to show that the rural areas in the Philippines, young ladies are strictly
offer was not made under a consciousness of guilt, but required to act with circumspection and prudence. Great
merely to avoid the inconvenience of imprisonment or for caution is observed so that their reputations shall remain
some other reason which would justify a claim by the untainted. Any breath of scandal which brings dishonor
accused that the offer to compromise was not in truth an to their character humiliates their entire families. 80 It
admission of his guilt or an attempt to avoid the legal could precisely be that complainant's mother wanted to
consequences which would ordinarily ensue therefrom. 75 save face in the community where everybody knows
everybody else, and in an effort to conceal her
A primary consideration here is that the evidence for the daughter's indiscretion and escape the wagging tongues
defense overwhelmingly proves appellant's innocence of of their small rural community, she had to weave the
the offense charged. Further, the supposed offer of scenario of this rape drama.
marriage did not come from appellant but was actually
suggested by a certain Naem, who is an imam or Muslim Although the trial court did observe that a mother would
leader and who likewise informed appellant that he could not sacrifice her daughter to tell a story of defloration,
be converted into a Muslim so he could marry that is not always the case as this Court has noted a
complainant. As a matter of fact, when said offer was long time ago. The books disclose too many instances of
first made to appellant, he declined because of the fact false charges of rape. 81 While this Court has, in
that he was already married. On top of these, appellant numerous cases, affirmed the judgments of conviction
did not know, not until the trial proper, that his mother rendered by trial courts in rape charges, especially
actually paid P30,000.00 for the settlement of these where the offended parties were very young and
cases. Complainant's own mother, Helen Taha, testified presumptively had no ill motives to concoct a story just to
that present during the negotiations were herself, her secure indictments for a crime as grave as rape, the
husband, Mia, and appellant's mother. Appellant himself Court has likewise reversed judgments of conviction and
was never present in any of said meetings. 76 acquitted the accused when there are strong indications
pointing to the possibility that the rape charges were
It has been held that where the accused was not present merely motivated by some factors except the truth as to
at the time the offer for monetary consideration was their commission. 82 This is a case in point. The Court,
made, such offer of compromise would not save the day therefore, cannot abdicate its duty to declare that the
for the prosecution. 77 In another case, this Court ruled prosecution has failed to meet the exacting test of moral
that no implied admission can be drawn from the efforts certainty and proof of guilt of appellant beyond
to arrive at a settlement outside the court, where the reasonable doubt.
accused did not take part in any of the negotiations and
the effort to settle the case was in accordance with the This is not to say that the Court approves of the conduct
established tribal customs, that is, Muslim practices and of appellant. Indisputably, he took advantage of
traditions, in an effort to prevent further deterioration of complainant's feelings for him and breached his vow of
the relations between the parties. 78 fidelity to his wife. As her teacher, he should have acted
as adviser and counselor to complainant and helped her
VI. Generally, an affidavit of desistance by the develop in manners and virtue instead of corrupting her.
83
complainant is not looked upon with favor. It may, Hence, even as he is freed from physical detention in
however, create serious doubts as to the liability of a prison as an instrument of human justice, he remains
appellant, especially if it corroborates appellant's in the spiritual confinement of his conscience as a
explanation about the filing of criminal charges. 79 measure of divine retribution. Additionally, these
ruminations do not rule out such other legal options
In the cases at bar, the letters written by complainant to against him as may be available in the arsenal of
appellant are very revealing. Most probably written out of statutory law.
desperation and exasperation with the way she was
being treated by her parents, complainant threw all VII. The trial court, in holding for conviction, relied on the
caution to the winds when she wrote: "Oo, aaminin ko presumptio hominis that a young Filipina will not charge
nagkasala ako sa iyo, pinabilanggo kita dahil nagpanig a person with rape if it is not true. In the process,
ako sa mga magulang ko nadala nila ako sa sulsul nila, however, it totally disregarded the more paramount
hindi ko naipaglaban ang dapat kong ipaglaban," constitutional presumption that an accused is deemed
obviously referring to her ineptitude and impotence in innocent until proven otherwise.
helping appellant out of his predicament. It could,
therefore, be safely presumed that the rape charge was It frequently happens that in a particular case two or
merely an offshoot of the discovery by her parents of the more presumptions are involved. Sometimes the
intimate relationship between her and appellant. In order presumptions conflict, one tending to demonstrate the
to avoid retribution from her parents, together with the guilt of the accused and the other his innocence. In such
case, it is necessary to examine the basis for each consonance with the rule that conflicts in evidence must
presumption and determine what logical or social basis be resolved upon the theory of innocence rather than
exists for each presumption, and then determine which upon a theory of guilt when it is possible to do so. 88
should be regarded as the more important and entitled to
prevail over the other. It must, however, be remembered On the basis of the foregoing doctrinal tenets and
that the existence of a presumption indicating guilt does principles, and in conjunction with the overwhelming
not in itself destroy the presumption against innocence evidence in favor of herein appellant, we do not
unless the inculpating presumption, together with all of encounter any difficulty in concluding that the
the evidence, or the lack of any evidence or explanation, constitutional presumption on the innocence of an
is sufficient to overcome the presumption of innocence accused must prevail in this particular indictment.
by proving the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt. Until the defendant's guilt is shown in this manner, B. The Kidnapping/Illegal Detention Case
the presumption of innocence continues. 84
It is basic that for kidnapping to exist, there must be
The rationale for the presumption of guilt in rape cases indubitable proof that the actual intent of the malefactor
has been explained in this wise: was to deprive the offended party of her liberty. 89 In the
present charge for that crime, such intent has not at all
In rape cases especially, much credence is accorded the been established by the prosecution. Prescinding from
testimony of the complaining witness, on the theory that the fact that the Taha spouses desisted from pursuing
she will not choose to accuse her attacker at all and this charge which they themselves instituted, several
subject herself to the stigma and indignities her grave and irreconcilable inconsistencies bedevil the
accusation will entail unless she is telling the truth. The prosecution's evidence thereon and cast serious doubts
rape victim who decides to speak up exposes herself as on the guilt of appellant, as hereunder explained:
a woman whose virtue has been not only violated but
also irreparably sullied. In the eyes of a narrow-minded To recall, complainant testified that appellant by himself
society, she becomes a cheapened woman, never mind went to fetch her at her parents' house the day after the
that she did not submit to her humiliation and has in fact alleged rape incident. In her own words, appellant
denounced her assailant. At the trial, she will be the courteously asked her parents to permit her to help him
object of lascivious curiosity. People will want to be solicit contributions for her candidacy. When they left the
titillated by the intimate details of her violation. She will house, appellant walked ahead of her, obviously with her
squirm through her testimony as she describes how her parents and their neighbors witnessing their departure. It
honor was defiled, relating every embarrassing is difficult to comprehend how one could deduce from
movement of the intrusion upon the most private parts of these normal and innocuous arrangement any felonious
her body. Most frequently, the defense will argue that intent of appellant to deprive complainant of her liberty.
she was not forced to submit but freely conjoined in the One will look in vain for a case where a kidnapping was
sexual act. Her motives will be impugned. Her chastity committed under such inauspicious circumstances as
will be challenged and maligned. Whatever the outcome described by complainant.
of the case, she will remain a tainted woman, a pariah
because her purity has been lost, albeit through no fault
of hers. This is why many a rape victim chooses instead Appellant declared that when they left the house of the
to keep quiet, suppressing her helpless indignation Taha family, complainant was bringing with her a plastic
rather than denouncing her attacker. This is also the bag which later turned out to contain her clothes. This
reason why, if a woman decides instead to come out bag was left behind by Mia at Edward's Subdivision, as
openly and point to her assailant, courts hereinbefore noted, and was later delivered to appellant
by Benedicto Rubio. Again, we cannot conceive of a
ridiculous situation where the kidnap victim was first
are prone to believe that she is telling the truth allowed to prepare and pack her clothes, as if she was
regardless of its consequences. . . . 85 merely leaving for a pleasant sojourn with the criminal,
all these with the knowledge and consent of her parents
The presumption of innocence, on the other hand, is who passively looked on without comment.
founded upon the first principles of justice, and is not a
mere form but a substantial part of the law. It is not Complainant alleged that appellant always kept her
overcome by mere suspicion or conjecture; a probability locked inside the room which they occupied, whether at
that the defendant committed the crime; nor by the fact Sunset Garden or at Edward's Subdivision, and that she
that he had the opportunity to do so. 86 Its purpose is to could not unlock the door from the inside. We must,
balance the scales in what would otherwise be an however, recall that when she was asked on cross-
uneven contest between the lone individual pitted examination about the kind of lock that was used, she
against the People and all the resources at their pointed to the doorknob of the courtroom. The court then
command. Its inexorable mandate is that, for all the ordered that the door of the courtroom be locked and
authority and influence of the prosecution, the accused then asked complainant to open it from the inside. She
must be acquitted and set free if his guilt cannot be was easily able to do so and, in fact, she admitted that
proved beyond the whisper of a doubt. 87 This is in the two locks in the room at Sunset Garden could also
be opened from the inside in the same manner. This and highly regarded disquisition of this Court against the
demonstrably undeniable fact was never assailed by the practice of excluding evidence in the erroneous manner
prosecution. It also failed to rebut the testimony of adopted by the trial court:
Fernando Rubio that the room which was occupied by
the couple at Edward's Subdivision could not even be It has been observed that justice is most effectively and
locked because the lock thereof was broken. expeditiously administered where trivial objections to the
admission of proof are received with least favor. The
When the couple transferred to Edward's Subdivision, practice of excluding evidence on doubtful objections to
they walked along the national highway in broad its materiality or technical objections to the form of the
daylight. Complainant, therefore, had more than ample questions should be avoided. In a case of any intricacy it
opportunity to seek the help of other people and free is impossible for a judge of first instance, in the early
herself from appellant if it were true that she was forcibly stages of the development of the proof, to know with any
kidnapped and abused by the latter. 90 In fact, several certainty whether the testimony is relevant or not; and
opportunities to do so had presented themselves from where there is no indication of bad faith on the part of the
the time they left complainant's home and during their attorney offering the evidence, the court may as a rule
extended stay in the hotel and in the lodging house. safely accept the testimony upon the statement of the
attorney that the proof offered will be connected later.
According to appellant, he went to see the parents of Moreover, it must be remembered that in the heat of the
complainant the day after they went to Sunset Garden to battle over which he presides, a judge of first instance
inform them that Mia spent the night in said place. This may possibly fall into error in judging the relevancy of
was neither denied nor impugned by Helen Taha, her proof where a fair and logical connection is in fact
husband, or any other person. On the other hand, the shown. When such a mistake is made and the proof is
allegation of Helen Taha that she made a report to the erroneously ruled out, the Supreme Court, upon appeal,
police about her missing daughter was not supported by often finds itself embarrassed and possibly unable to
any corroborative evidence, such as the police blotter, correct the effects of the error without returning the case
nor was the police officer to whom she allegedly reported for a new trial, a step which this court is always very
the incident ever identified or presented in court. loath to take. On the other hand, the admission of proof
in a court of first instance, even if the question as to its
form, materiality, or relevancy is doubtful, can never
We agree with appellant's contention that the
result in much harm to either litigant, because the trial
prosecution failed to prove any motive on his part for the
judge is supposed to know the law and it is its duty, upon
commission of the crime charged. In one case, this Court
final consideration of the case, to distinguish the relevant
rejected the kidnapping charge where there was not the
and material from the irrelevant and immaterial. If this
slightest hint of a motive for the crime. 91 It is true that, as
course is followed and the cause is prosecuted to the
a rule, the motive of the accused in a criminal case is
Supreme Court upon appeal, this court then has all the
immaterial and, not being an element of a crime, it does
materials before it necessary to make a correct
not have to be proved. 92 Where, however, the evidence
judgment. 94
is weak, without any motive being disclosed by the
evidence, the guilt of the accused becomes open to a
reasonable doubt and, hence, an acquittal is in order. 93 At any rate, despite that procedural lapse, we find in the
Nowhere in the testimony of either the complainant or records of these cases sufficient and substantial
her mother can any ill motive of a criminal nature be evidence which warrant and demand the acquittal of
reasonably drawn. What actually transpired was an appellant. Apropos thereto, we take this opportunity to
elopement or a lovers' tryst, immoral though it may be. repeat this age-old observation and experience of
mankind on the penological and societal effect of capital
punishment: If it is justified, it serves as a deterrent; if
As a closing note, we are bewildered by the trial court's
injudiciously imposed, it generates resentment.
refusal to admit in evidence the bag of clothes belonging
to complainant which was presented and duly identified
by the defense, on its announced supposition that the Finally, we are constrained to reiterate here that
clothes could have easily been bought from a Republic Act No. 7659 which reimposed the death
department store. Such preposterous reasoning founded penalty on certain heinous crimes took effect on
on a mere surmise or speculation, aside from the fact December 31, 1993, that is, fifteen days after its
that on rebuttal the prosecution did not even seek to publication in the December 16, 1993 issues of the
elicit an explanation or clarification from complainant Manila Bulletin, Philippine Star, Malaya and Philippine
about said clothes, strengthens and reinforces our Times Journal, 95 and not on January 1, 1994 as is
impression of an apparently whimsical exercise of sometimes misinterpreted.
discretion by the court below. Matters which could have
been easily verified were thus cavalierly dismissed and WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby
supplanted by a conjecture, and on such inferential basis REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and accused-appellant
a conclusion was then drawn by said court. Danny Godoy is hereby ACQUITTED of the crimes of
rape and kidnapping with serious illegal detention
We accordingly deem it necessary to reiterate an early charged in Criminal Cases Nos. 11640 and 11641 of the
Regional Trial Court for Palawan and Puerto Princesa may compel obedience to its orders, it must have the right to
City, Branch 49. It is hereby ORDERED that he be inquire whether there has been any disobedience thereof, for
released forthwith, unless he is otherwise detained for to submit the question of disobedience to another tribunal
any other valid cause. would operate to deprive the proceeding of half its efficiency.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. DANNY GODOY 1. Indirect contempt committed against inferior court may
also be tried by the proper regional trial court, regardless of
JUDGE EUSTAQUIO Z. GACOTT, JR vs. MAURICIO REYNOSO, the imposable penalty.
JR. and EVA P. PONCE DE LEON
2. Indirect contempt against the Supreme Court may be
Facts: A complaint was filed by judge Eustaquio Z. Gacott, Jr. caused to be investigated by a prosecuting officer and the
of the Regional Trial Court of Palawan and Puerto Princesa charge may be filed in and tried by the regional trial court, or
City, Branch 47, to cite for indirect contempt Mauricio the case may be referred to it for hearing and
Reynoso, Jr., a columnist, and Eva P. Ponce de Leon, publisher recommendation where the charge involves questions of fact.
and chairman of the editorial board, respectively, of the
Palawan Times. His Honor's plaint is based on an article 3. In People vs. Alarcon, et al., supra, this Court ruled that "in
written by respondent Reynoso, Jr. in his column, "On the the interrelation of the different courts forming our integrated
Beat," and published in the July 20, 1994 issue of said judicial system, one court is not an agent or representative of
newspaper which is of general circulation in Puerto Princesa another and may not, for this reason, punish contempts in
City. The complaint avers that the article tends to impede, vindication of the authority and decorum which are not its
obstruct, belittle, downgrade and degrade the administration own. The appeal transfers the proceedings to the appellate
of justice; that the article contains averments which are court , and this last court becomes thereby charged with the
disrespectful, discourteous, insulting, offensive and authority to deal with contempts committed after the
derogatory; that it does not only cast aspersions on the perfection of the appeal." The apparent reason is that both
integrity and honesty of complainant as a judge and on his the moral and legal effect of a punishment for contempt
ability to administer justice objectively and impartially, but is would be missed if it were regarded as the resentment of
an imputation that he is biased and he prejudges the cases personal affronts offered to judges. Contempts are punished
filed before him; and that the article is sub judice because it is as offenses against the administration of justice, and the
still pending automatic review. offense of violating a judicial order is punishable by the court
which is charged with its enforcement, regardless of the court
Issue: Who has jurisdiction in contempt proceedings where which may have made the order. However, the rule
the alleged contumely is committed against a lower court presupposes a complete transfer of jurisdiction to the
while the case is pending in the Appellate or Higher Court appellate court, and there is authority that where the
contempt does not relate to the subject matter of the appeal,
Held: In whatever context it may arise, contempt of court jurisdiction to punish remains in the trial court.
involves the doing of an act, or the failure to do an act, in such
a manner as to create an affront to the court and the 4. A court may punish contempts committed against a court
sovereign dignity with which it is clothed. As a matter of or judge constituting one of its parts or agencies, as in the
practical judicial administration, jurisdiction has been felt case of a court composed of several coordinate branches or
properly to rest in only one tribunal at a time with respect to divisions.
a given controversy. Partly because of administrative
considerations, and partly to visit the full personal effect of 5. The biggest factor accounting for the exceptions is where
the punishment on a contemnor, the rule has been that no the singular jurisdiction of a given matter has been
other court than the one contemned will punish a given transferred from the contemned court to another court. One
contempt. of the most common reasons for a transfer of jurisdiction
among courts is improper venue. The cases involving venue
The rationale that is usually advanced for the general rule that deal primarily with the question whether a change of venue is
the power to punish for contempt rests with the court available after a contempt proceeding has been begun. While
contemned is that contempt proceedings are sui generis and generally a change of venue is not available in a contempt
are triable only by the court against whose authority the proceeding, some jurisdictions allow such a change in proper
contempt are charged; the power to punish for contempt circumstances.
exists for the purpose of enabling a court to compel due
decorum and respect in its presence and due obedience to its 6. A new court wholly replacing a prior court has jurisdiction
judgments, orders and processes: and in order that a court
to punish for violations of orders entered by its predecessor, the appellate court. Accordingly, this Court having acquired
although where the successor court is created by a statute jurisdiction over the complaint for indirect contempt against
which does not extinguish jurisdiction in the predecessor, an herein respondents, it has taken judicial cognizance thereof
affirmative transfer of jurisdiction before the contempt occurs and has accordingly resolved the same.
is necessary to empower the successor court to act.
tried before the court actually contemned. G.R. No. 169517 March 14, 2006
The rule, as now accepted and deemed applicable to the ROGELIO A. TAN, NORMA TAN and MALIYAWAO
present incident, is that where the entire case has already PAGAYOKAN, Petitioners,
been appealed, jurisdiction to punish for contempt rests with
the appellate court where the appeal completely transfers the vs.
proceedings thereto or where there is a tendency to affect
the status quo or otherwise interfere with the jurisdiction of BENEDICTO M. BALAJADIA, Respondent.
DECISION In their Reply,9 petitioners reiterate that respondent
should be made liable for indirect contempt for having
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: made untruthful statements in the complaint-affidavit and
that he cannot shift the blame to Atty. Aquinos secretary.
Before us is an original petition1 for contempt filed by
petitioners Rogelio Tan, Norma Tan and Maliyawao The sole issue for resolution is whether respondent is
Pagayokan against respondent Benedicto Balajadia. liable for indirect contempt.
Petitioners allege that on May 8, 2005, respondent filed Section 3(e), Rule 71 of the Rules of Court provides:
a criminal case against them with the Office of the City of
Prosecutor of Baguio City for usurpation of authority, Section 3. Indirect contempt to be punished after charge
grave coercion and violation of city tax ordinance due to and hearing. After a charge in writing has been filed,
the alleged illegal collection of parking fees by petitioners and an opportunity given to the respondent to comment
from respondent. In paragraph 5 of the complaint- thereon within such period as may be fixed by the court
affidavit, respondent asserted that he is a "practicing and to be heard by himself or counsel, a person guilty of
lawyer based in Baguio City with office address at Room any of the following acts may be punished for indirect
B-207, 2/F Lopez Building, Session Road, Baguio City." 2 contempt:
However, certifications issued by the Office of the Bar
Confidant3 and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines4 xxxx
showed that respondent has never been admitted to the
Philippine Bar. Hence, petitioners claim that respondent (e) Assuming to be an attorney or an officer of a court,
is liable for indirect contempt for misrepresenting himself and acting as such without authority;
as a lawyer.
x x x x.
In his Comment,5 respondent avers that the allegation in
paragraph 5 of the complaint-affidavit that he is a
practicing lawyer was an honest mistake. He claims that In several cases,10 we have ruled that the unauthorized
the secretary of Atty. Paterno Aquino prepared the practice of law by assuming to be an attorney and acting
subject complaint-affidavit which was patterned after as such without authority constitutes indirect contempt
Atty. Aquinos complaint-affidavit.6 It appears that Atty. which is punishable by fine or imprisonment or both. The
Aquino had previously filed a complaint-affidavit against liability for the unauthorized practice of law under
petitioners involving the same subject matter. Section 3(e), Rule 71 of the Rules of Court is in the
nature of criminal contempt and the acts are punished
because they are an affront to the dignity and authority
Respondent claims that two complaint-affidavits were of the court, and obstruct the orderly administration of
drafted by the same secretary; one for the May 5, 2005 justice. In determining liability for criminal contempt, well-
parking incident at 10:00 oclock in the morning and settled is the rule that intent is a necessary element, and
another for the parking incident on the same date but no one can be punished unless the evidence makes it
which occurred at 1:00 oclock in the afternoon. clear that he intended to commit it.11
Respondent insists that the complaint-affidavit regarding
the 1:00 oclock parking incident correctly alleged that he
is "a businessman with office address at Room B-204, In the case at bar, a review of the records supports
2/F Lopez Building, Session Road, Baguio City."7 respondents claim that he never intended to project
However, the complaint-affidavit regarding the 10:00 himself as a lawyer to the public. It was a clear
oclock parking incident, which is the subject of the inadvertence on the part of the secretary of Atty Aquino.
instant petition, erroneously referred to him as a The affidavit of Liza Laconsay attesting to the
practicing lawyer because Atty. Aquinos secretary circumstances that gave rise to the mistake in the
copied verbatim paragraph 5 of Atty. Aquinos complaint- drafting of the complaint-affidavit conforms to the
affidavit. Hence, it was inadvertently alleged that documentary evidence on record. Taken together, these
respondent is a "practicing lawyer based in Baguio City circumstances show that the allegation in paragraph 5 of
with office address at Room B-207, 2/F Lopez Building, respondents complaint-affidavit was, indeed, the result
Session Road, Baguio City," which statement referred to of inadvertence.
the person of Atty. Aquino and his law office address.
Respondent has satisfactorily shown that the allegation
Liza Laconsay, Atty. Aquinos secretary, executed an that he is a practicing lawyer was the result of
affidavit8 admitting the mistake in the preparation of the inadvertence and cannot, by itself, establish intent as to
complaint-affidavit. Respondent alleged that he did not make him liable for indirect contempt. In the cases where
read the complaint-affidavit because he assumed that we found a party liable for the unauthorized practice of
the two complaint-affidavits contained the same law, the party was guilty of some overt act like signing
allegations with respect to his occupation and office court pleadings on behalf of his client;12 appearing before
address. Respondent claims that he had no intention of court hearings as an attorney;13 manifesting before the
misrepresenting himself as a practicing lawyer. court that he will practice law despite being previously
denied admission to the bar;14 or deliberately attempting
to practice law and holding out himself as an attorney
through circulars with full knowledge that he is not
licensed to do so.15
SO ORDERED.
vs.
The petition at bar raises procedural and substantive The nineteenth century has been termed the "dark
issues of law. In view, however, of the import and impact ages" of legal ethics in the United States. By mid-
century, American legal reformers were filling the void in In 1917, the Philippine Bar found that the oath and
two ways. First, David Dudley Field, the drafter of the duties of a lawyer were insufficient to attain the full
highly influential New York "Field Code," introduced a measure of public respect to which the legal profession
new set of uniform standards of conduct for lawyers. was entitled. In that year, the Philippine Bar Association
This concise statement of eight statutory duties became adopted as its own, Canons 1 to 32 of the ABA Canons
law in several states in the second half of the nineteenth of Professional Ethics.24
century. At the same time, legal educators, such as
David Hoffman and George Sharswood, and many other As early as 1924, some ABA members have questioned
lawyers were working to flesh out the broad outline of a the form and function of the canons. Among their
lawyer's duties. These reformers wrote about legal ethics concerns was the "revolving door" or "the process by
in unprecedented detail and thus brought a new level of which lawyers and others temporarily enter government
understanding to a lawyer's duties. A number of mid- service from private life and then leave it for large fees in
nineteenth century laws and statutes, other than the private practice, where they can exploit information,
Field Code, governed lawyer behavior. A few forms of contacts, and influence garnered in government
colonial regulations e.g., the "do no falsehood" oath service."25 These concerns were classified as adverse-
and the deceit prohibitions -- persisted in some states. interest conflicts" and "congruent-interest conflicts."
Procedural law continued to directly, or indirectly, limit an "Adverse-interest conflicts" exist where the matter in
attorney's litigation behavior. The developing law of which the former government lawyer represents a client
agency recognized basic duties of competence, loyalty in private practice is substantially related to a matter that
and safeguarding of client property. Evidence law started the lawyer dealt with while employed by the government
to recognize with less equivocation the attorney-client and the interests of the current and former are adverse. 26
privilege and its underlying theory of confidentiality. On the other hand, "congruent-interest representation
Thus, all of the core duties, with the likely exception of conflicts" are unique to government lawyers and apply
service to the poor, had some basis in formal law. Yet, as primarily to former government lawyers. 27 For several
in the colonial and early post-revolutionary periods, years, the ABA attempted to correct and update the
these standards were isolated and did not provide a canons through new canons, individual amendments and
comprehensive statement of a lawyer's duties. The interpretative opinions. In 1928, the ABA amended one
reformers, by contrast, were more comprehensive in canon and added thirteen new canons. 28 To deal with
their discussion of a lawyer's duties, and they actually problems peculiar to former government lawyers, Canon
ushered a new era in American legal ethics.21 36 was minted which disqualified them both for
"adverse-interest conflicts" and "congruent-interest
Toward the end of the nineteenth century, a new form representation conflicts."29 The rationale for
of ethical standards began to guide lawyers in their disqualification is rooted in a concern that the
practice the bar association code of legal ethics. The government lawyers largely discretionary actions would
bar codes were detailed ethical standards formulated by be influenced by the temptation to take action on behalf
lawyers for lawyers. They combined the two primary of the government client that later could be to the
sources of ethical guidance from the nineteenth century. advantage of parties who might later become private
Like the academic discourses, the bar association codes practice clients.30 Canon 36 provides, viz.:
gave detail to the statutory statements of duty and the
oaths of office. Unlike the academic lectures, however, 36. Retirement from judicial position or public
the bar association codes retained some of the official employment
imprimatur of the statutes and oaths. Over time, the bar
association codes became extremely popular that states A lawyer should not accept employment as an advocate
adopted them as binding rules of law. Critical to the in any matter upon the merits of which he has previously
development of the new codes was the re-emergence of acted in a judicial capacity.
bar associations themselves. Local bar associations
formed sporadically during the colonial period, but they
disbanded by the early nineteenth century. In the late A lawyer, having once held public office or having
nineteenth century, bar associations began to form been in the public employ should not, after his
again, picking up where their colonial predecessors had retirement, accept employment in connection with
left off. Many of the new bar associations, most notably any matter he has investigated or passed upon while
the Alabama State Bar Association and the American Bar in such office or employ.
Association, assumed on the task of drafting substantive
standards of conduct for their members.22 Over the next thirty years, the ABA continued to amend
many of the canons and added Canons 46 and 47 in
In 1887, Alabama became the first state with a 1933 and 1937, respectively.31
comprehensive bar association code of ethics. The 1887
Alabama Code of Ethics was the model for several In 1946, the Philippine Bar Association again adopted
states codes, and it was the foundation for the American as its own Canons 33 to 47 of the ABA Canons of
Bar Association's (ABA) 1908 Canons of Ethics.23 Professional Ethics.32
3. The Central Bank shall inform the principal SEC. 29. Proceedings upon insolvency. Whenever,
stockholders of Genbank of the foregoing decision to upon examination by the head of the appropriate
liquidate the bank and the liquidation plan approved by supervising or examining department or his examiners or
the Monetary Board. agents into the condition of any bank or non-bank
financial intermediary performing quasi-banking
4. The Solicitor General shall then file a petition in the functions, it shall be disclosed that the condition of the
Court of First Instance reciting the proceedings which same is one of insolvency, or that its continuance in
had been taken and praying the assistance of the Court business would involve probable loss to its depositors or
in the liquidation of Genbank. creditors, it shall be the duty of the department head
concerned forthwith, in writing, to inform the Monetary
The PCGG further cites the Minutes No. 13 dated March Board of the facts, and the Board may, upon finding the
29, 1977 of the Monetary Board where it was shown that statements of the department head to be true, forbid the
Atty. Mendoza was furnished copies of pertinent institution to do business in the Philippines and shall
documents relating to GENBANK in order to aid him in designate an official of the Central Bank or a person of
filing with the court the petition for assistance in the recognized competence in banking or finance, as
banks liquidation. The pertinent portion of the said receiver to immediately take charge of its assets and
minutes reads: liabilities, as expeditiously as possible collect and gather
all the assets and administer the same for the benefit of
its creditors, exercising all the powers necessary for
The Board decided as follows:
these purposes including, but not limited to, bringing
suits and foreclosing mortgages in the name of the bank
... or non-bank financial intermediary performing quasi-
banking functions.
E. To authorize Management to furnish the Solicitor
General with a copy of the subject memorandum of the ...
Director, Department of Commercial and Savings Bank
dated March 29, 1977, together with copies of:
If the Monetary Board shall determine and confirm within
the said period that the bank or non-bank financial
1. Memorandum of the Deputy Governor, Supervision intermediary performing quasi-banking functions is
and Examination Sector, to the Monetary Board, dated insolvent or cannot resume business with safety to its
March 25, 1977, containing a report on the current depositors, creditors and the general public, it shall, if the
situation of Genbank; public interest requires, order its liquidation, indicate the
manner of its liquidation and approve a liquidation plan. non-bank financial intermediary performing quasi-
The Central Bank shall, by the Solicitor General, file a banking functions caused by extraordinary demands
petition in the Court of First Instance reciting the induced by financial panic commonly evidenced by a run
proceedings which have been taken and praying the on the bank or non-bank financial intermediary
assistance of the court in the liquidation of such performing quasi-banking functions in the banking or
institution. The court shall have jurisdiction in the same financial community.
proceedings to adjudicate disputed claims against the
bank or non-bank financial intermediary performing The appointment of a conservator under Section 28-A of
quasi-banking functions and enforce individual liabilities this Act or the appointment of a receiver under this
of the stockholders and do all that is necessary to Section shall be vested exclusively with the Monetary
preserve the assets of such institution and to implement Board, the provision of any law, general or special, to the
the liquidation plan approved by the Monetary Board. contrary notwithstanding. (As amended by PD Nos. 72,
The Monetary Board shall designate an official of the 1007, 1771 & 1827, Jan. 16, 1981)
Central Bank, or a person of recognized competence in
banking or finance, as liquidator who shall take over the We hold that this advice given by respondent Mendoza
functions of the receiver previously appointed by the on the procedure to liquidate GENBANK is not the
Monetary Board under this Section. The liquidator shall, "matter" contemplated by Rule 6.03 of the Code of
with all convenient speed, convert the assets of the Professional Responsibility. ABA Formal Opinion No.
banking institution or non-bank financial intermediary 342 is clear as daylight in stressing that the "drafting,
performing quasi-banking functions to money or sell, enforcing or interpreting government or agency
assign or otherwise dispose of the same to creditors and procedures, regulations or laws, or briefing abstract
other parties for the purpose of paying the debts of such principles of law" are acts which do not fall within the
institution and he may, in the name of the bank or non- scope of the term "matter" and cannot disqualify.
bank financial intermediary performing quasi-banking
functions, institute such actions as may be necessary in
the appropriate court to collect and recover accounts and Secondly, it can even be conceded for the sake of
assets of such institution. argument that the above act of respondent Mendoza
falls within the definition of matter per ABA Formal
Opinion No. 342. Be that as it may, the said act of
The provisions of any law to the contrary respondent Mendoza which is the "matter" involved in
notwithstanding, the actions of the Monetary Board Sp. Proc. No. 107812 is entirely different from the
under this Section and the second paragraph of Section "matter" involved in Civil Case No. 0096. Again, the
34 of this Act shall be final and executory, and can be set plain facts speak for themselves. It is given that
aside by the court only if there is convincing proof that respondent Mendoza had nothing to do with the decision
the action is plainly arbitrary and made in bad faith. No of the Central Bank to liquidate GENBANK. It is also
restraining order or injunction shall be issued by the given that he did not participate in the sale of GENBANK
court enjoining the Central Bank from implementing its to Allied Bank. The "matter" where he got himself
actions under this Section and the second paragraph of involved was in informing Central Bank on the
Section 34 of this Act, unless there is convincing proof procedure provided by law to liquidate GENBANK thru
that the action of the Monetary Board is plainly arbitrary the courts and in filing the necessary petition in Sp. Proc.
and made in bad faith and the petitioner or plaintiff files No. 107812 in the then Court of First Instance. The
with the clerk or judge of the court in which the action is subject "matter" of Sp. Proc. No. 107812, therefore,
pending a bond executed in favor of the Central Bank, in is not the same nor is related to but is different from
an amount to be fixed by the court. The restraining order the subject "matter" in Civil Case No. 0096. Civil Case
or injunction shall be refused or, if granted, shall be No. 0096 involves the sequestration of the stocks
dissolved upon filing by the Central Bank of a bond, owned by respondents Tan, et al., in Allied Bank on the
which shall be in the form of cash or Central Bank alleged ground that they are ill-gotten. The case does
cashier(s) check, in an amount twice the amount of the not involve the liquidation of GENBANK. Nor does it
bond of the petitioner or plaintiff conditioned that it will involve the sale of GENBANK to Allied Bank. Whether
pay the damages which the petitioner or plaintiff may the shares of stock of the reorganized Allied Bank are ill-
suffer by the refusal or the dissolution of the injunction. gotten is far removed from the issue of the dissolution
The provisions of Rule 58 of the New Rules of Court and liquidation of GENBANK. GENBANK was liquidated
insofar as they are applicable and not inconsistent with by the Central Bank due, among others, to the alleged
the provisions of this Section shall govern the issuance banking malpractices of its owners and officers. In other
and dissolution of the restraining order or injunction words, the legality of the liquidation of GENBANK is not
contemplated in this Section. an issue in the sequestration cases. Indeed, the
jurisdiction of the PCGG does not include the dissolution
Insolvency, under this Act, shall be understood to mean and liquidation of banks. It goes without saying that
the inability of a bank or non-bank financial intermediary Code 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
performing quasi-banking functions to pay its liabilities as cannot apply to respondent Mendoza because his
they fall due in the usual and ordinary course of alleged intervention while a Solicitor General in Sp.
business. Provided, however, That this shall not include Proc. No. 107812 is an intervention on a matter
the inability to pay of an otherwise non-insolvent bank or
different from the matter involved in Civil Case No. as to the actual participation of respondent Mendoza in
0096. the subsequent proceedings. Indeed, the case was in
slumberville for a long number of years. None of the
Thirdly, we now slide to the metes and bounds of the parties pushed for its early termination. Moreover, we
"intervention" contemplated by Rule 6.03. "Intervene" note that the petition filed merely seeks the assistance
means, viz.: of the court in the liquidation of GENBANK. The principal
role of the court in this type of proceedings is to assist
the Central Bank in determining claims of creditors
1: to enter or appear as an irrelevant or extraneous
against the GENBANK. The role of the court is not
feature or circumstance . . . 2: to occur, fall, or come in
strictly as a court of justice but as an agent to assist the
between points of time or events . . . 3: to come in or
Central Bank in determining the claims of creditors. In
between by way of hindrance or modification:
such a proceeding, the participation of the Office of the
INTERPOSE . . . 4: to occur or lie between two things
Solicitor General is not that of the usual court litigator
(Paris, where the same city lay on both sides of an
protecting the interest of government.
intervening river . . .)41
II
On the other hand, "intervention" is defined as:
III
At most, this Court would only counsel the respondent to Complainant is the registered owner of a parcel of land
be more careful and cautious in signing his name so as located in San Dionisio, Paraaque City covered by
Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 211762 of the 3. The property of the complainant was mortgaged to a
Register of Deeds for the Province of Rizal. Being a certain Roberto Ho;
resident of the United States of America (USA), he
entrusted the administration of the subject property to 4. The title to the property of complainant was cancelled
respondent, together with the corresponding owner's in year 2000 and a new one, TCT No. 150814 was
duplicate title. issued in favor of Mr. Roberto Ho;
Unbeknownst to complainant, however, respondent, 5. The Special Power of Attorney dated 24 February
through a spurious Special Power of Attorney (SPA) 3 1989 in favor of Atty. Ramon U. Contawi is spurious and
dated February 22, 1989, mortgaged and subsequently was not signed by complainant Lorenzo D. Brennisen;
sold the subject property to one Roberto Ho ("Ho"), as
evidenced by a Deed of Absolute Sale4 dated November 6. That respondent received Php100,000.00 of the
15, 2001. As a result, TCT No. 21176 was cancelled and mortgage loan secured by the mortgagee on the
replaced by TCT No. 1508145 issued in favor of Ho. aforementioned property of complainant;
Thus, on April 16, 2007, complainant filed the instant 7. That respondent did not inform the complainant about
administrative complaint against respondent for having the unauthorized mortgage and sale of his property;
violated his oath as a lawyer, causing him damage and
prejudice.
8. That respondent has a loan obligation to Mr. Roberto
6 Ho;
In his counter-affidavit, respondent denied any formal
lawyer-client relationship between him and the
complainant, claiming to have merely extended his 9. That respondent has not yet filed any case against the
services for free. He also denied receiving money from person whom he claims to have falsified his signature;
the complainant for the purpose of paying the real estate
taxes on the property. Further, he averred that it was his 10. That respondent did not notify the complainant that
former office assistants, a certain Boy Roque ("Roque") the owner's copy of TCT No. 21176 was stolen and was
and one Danilo Diaz ("Diaz"), who offered the subject taken out from his office.8
property to Ho as collateral for a loan. Nevertheless,
respondent admitted to having confirmed the spurious In its Report9 dated July 10, 2009, the IBP Commission
SPA in his favor already annotated at the back of TCT on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD), through Commissioner
No. 21176 upon the prodding of Roque and Diaz, and Eduardo V. De Mesa, found that respondent had
because he was also in need of money at that time. undeniably mortgaged and sold the property of his client
Hence, he signed the real estate mortgage and received without the latter's knowledge or consent, facilitated by
his proportionate share of P130,000.00 from the the use of a falsified SPA. Hence, in addition to his
proceeds of the loan, which he asserted to have fully possible criminal liability for falsification, the IBP-CBD
settled. deduced that respondent violated various provisions of
the Canons of Professional Responsibility and
Finally, respondent denied signing the Deed of Absolute accordingly recommended that he be disbarred and his
Sale in favor of Ho and insisted that it was a forgery. name stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.
Nonetheless, he sought complainant's forgiveness and
promised to repay the value of the subject property. On May 14, 2011, the IBP Board of Governors adopted
and approved the report of Commissioner De Mesa
In the Resolution7 dated July 16, 2008, the Court through Resolution No. XIX-2011-24810 as follows:
resolved to refer the case to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and "RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby
recommendation. unanimously ADOPTED and APPROVED the Report
and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner
The Action and Recommendation of the IBP in the above-entitled case, herein made part of this
Resolution as Annex 'A' and finding the recommendation
During the mandatory conference held on October 21, fully supported by the evidence on record and the
2008, the parties stipulated on the following matters: applicable laws and rules, and finding Respondent guilty
of falsification; making or using falsified documents; and
for benefiting from the proceed[s] of his dishonest acts,
1. That complainant is the owner of a property covered Atty. Ramon U. Contawi is hereby DISBARRED."
by TCT No. 21176 (45228) of the Register of Deeds of
Paraaque;
The Issue
2. Respondent was in possession of the Owner's
Duplicate Certificate of the property of the complainant; The sole issue before the Court is whether respondent
violated his lawyer's oath when he mortgaged and sold
complainant's property, which was entrusted to him,
without the latter's consent. In Flores v. Chua,12 the Court disbarred the respondent
lawyer for having deliberately made false
The Court's Ruling representations that the vendor appeared personally
before him when he notarized a forged deed of sale. He
was found guilty of grave misconduct.
After a punctilious examination of the records, the Court
concurs with the findings and recommendation of
Commissioner De Mesa and the IBP Board of Governors In this case, respondent's established acts exhibited his
that respondent acted with deceit when, through the use unfitness and plain inability to discharge the bounden
of a falsified document, he effected the unauthorized duties of a member of the legal profession. He failed to
mortgage and sale of his client's property for his prove himself worthy of the privilege to practice law and
personal benefit. to live up to the exacting standards demanded of the
members of the bar. It bears to stress that "[t]he practice
of law is a privilege given to lawyers who meet the high
Indisputably, respondent disposed of complainant's
standards of legal proficiency and morality. Any violation
property without his knowledge or consent, and partook
of these standards exposes the lawyer to administrative
of the proceeds of the sale for his own benefit. His
liability."13
contention that he merely accommodated the request of
his then financially-incapacitated office assistants to
confirm the spurious SPA is flimsy and implausible, as he Moreover, respondent's argument that there was no
was fully aware that complainant's signature reflected formal lawyer-client relationship between him and
thereon was forged. As aptly opined by Commissioner complainant will not serve to mitigate his liability. There
De Mesa, the fraudulent transactions involving the is no distinction as to whether the transgression is
subject property were effected using the owner's committed in a lawyer's private or professional capacity,
duplicate title, which was in respondent's safekeeping for a lawyer may not divide his personality as an attorney
and custody during complainant's absence. at one time and a mere citizen at another.141wphi1
Consequently, Commissioner De Mesa and the IBP With the foregoing disquisitions, the Court thus finds the
Board of Governors correctly recommended his penalty of disbarment proper in this case, as
disbarment for violations of the pertinent provisions of recommended by Commissioner De Mesa and the IBP
the Canons of Professional Responsibility, to wit: Board of Governors. Section 27, Rule 38 of the Rules of
Court provides:
Canon 1 A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey
the laws of the land and promote respect for law and "SEC. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by
legal processes. Supreme Court; grounds therefor. - A member of the bar
may be disbarred or suspended from his office as
attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit,
Canon 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
xxx or for any violation of the oath which he is required to
take before admission to practice xxx" (emphasis
Canon 16 A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and supplied)
properties of his client which may come into his
possession.
The Court notes that in administrative proceedings, only
substantial evidence, i.e., that amount of relevant
Canon 16.01 A lawyer shall account for all money or evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as
property collected or received for or from client. adequate to support a conclusion, is required.15 Having
carefully scrutinized the records of this case, the Court
Canon 16.03 A lawyer shall deliver the funds and therefore finds that the standard of substantial evidence
property of his client when due or upon demand. has been more than satisfied.
Canon 17 A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his WHEREFORE, respondent ATTY. RAMON U.
client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence CONTAWI, having clearly violated his lawyer's oath and
reposed in him. the Canons of Professional Responsibility through his
unlawful, dishonest and deceitful conduct, is
In Sabayle v. Tandayag,11 the Court disbarred one of the DISBARRED and his name ordered STRICKEN from
respondent lawyers and ordered his name stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.
the Roll of Attorneys on the grounds of serious
dishonesty and professional misconduct. The Let copies of this Decision be served on the Office of the
respondent lawyer knowingly participated in a false and Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and
simulated transaction not only by notarizing a spurious all courts in the country for their information and
Deed of Sale, but also and even worse sharing in the guidance. Let a copy of this Decision be attached to
profits of the specious transaction by acquiring half of the respondent's personal record as attorney.
property subject of the Deed of Sale.
SO ORDERED.
PER CURIAM:
On 28 September 1985, respondent finally filed an On 26 February 1990, the Office of the Solicitor General
Answer with a Motion to Set Aside and/or Lift submitted its "Report and Recommendation" to this
Suspension Order. In his Answer, Atty. Terre averred that Court. The Report summarized the testimony of the
he had contracted marriage with complainant Dorothy complainant in the following manner:
Terre on 14 June 1977 upon her representation that she
was single; that he subsequently learned that Dorothy Complainant Dorothy Terre took the witness stand and
was married to a certain Merlito A. Bercenilla sometime testified substantially as follows: she and respondent met
in 1968; that when he confronted Dorothy about her prior for the first time in 1979 as fourth year high school
marriage, Dorothy drove him out of their conjugal classmates in Cadiz City High School (tsn, July 7, 1986,
residence; that Dorothy had mockingly told him of her p. 9); she was then married to Merlito Bercenilla, while
private meetings with Merlito A. Bercenilla and that the respondent was single (id.); respondent was aware of
child she was then carrying (i.e., Jason Terre) was the her marital status (ibid, p. 14); it was then that
son of Bercenilla; that believing in good faith that his respondent started courting her but nothing happened of
marriage to complainant was null and void ab initio, he the courtship (ibid, p. 10); they [complainant and
contracted marriage with Helina Malicdem at Dasol, respondent] moved to Manila were they respectively
Pangasinan. 4 pursued their education, respondent as a law student at
the Lyceum University (tsn, July 7, 1986, p. 12, 15-16);
In her Reply, complainant Dorothy denied that Jason respondent continued courting her, this time with more
Terre was the child of Merlito A. Bercenilla and insisted persistence (ibid, p. 11); she decided nothing would
that Jason was the child of respondent Jordan Terre, as come of it since she was married but he [respondent]
evidenced by Jason's Birth Certificate and physical explained to her that their marriage was void ab initio
resemblance to respondent. Dorothy further explained since she and her first husband were first cousins (ibid,
that while she had given birth to Jason Terre at the p. 12); convinced by his explanation and having secured
PAFGH registered as a dependent of Merlito Bercenilla, favorable advice from her mother and
she had done so out of extreme necessity and to avoid
risk of death or injury to the fetus which happened to be ex-in-laws, she agreed to marry him [respondent] (ibid,
in a difficult breech position. According to Dorothy, she 12-13, 16); in their marriage license, despite her
had then already been abandoned by respondent Jordan [complainant's] objection, he [respondent] wrote "single"
Terre, leaving her penniless and without means to pay as her status explaining that since her marriage was void
for the medical and hospital bills arising by reason of her ab initio, there was no need to go to court to declare it as
pregnancy. such (ibid, 14-15); they were married before Judge
Priscilla Mijares of the City Court of Manila on June 14,
The Court denied respondent's Motion to Set Aside or 1977 (Exhibit A; tsn, July 7, 1986, pp. 16-17); Jason
Lift the Suspension Order and instead referred; by a Terre was born of their union on June 25, 1981 (Exhibit
Resolution dated 6 January 1986, the complaint to the B, tsn, July 7, 1986, p. 18); all through their married state
Office of the Solicitor General for investigation, report up to the time he [respondent] disappeared in 1981,
and recommendation. 5 complainant supported respondent, in addition to the
allowance the latter was getting from his parents (ibid,
pp. 19-20); she was unaware of the reason for his
Then Solicitor Pio C. Guerrero was appointed
disappearance until she found out later that respondent
investigator by the Office of the Solicitor General. He set
married a certain Vilma [sic] Malicdem (Exhibit C, tsn,
the case for hearing on 7 July 1986 with notice to both
July 7, 1986, pp. 21-22); she then filed a case for
parties. On 7 July 1986, complainant Dorothy appeared
abandonment of minor with the City Fiscal of Pasay City
and presented her evidence ex parte, since respondent
(ibid, p. 23) which was subsequently filed before Branch
did not so appear. 6 The Investigating Solicitor scheduled
II of the City Court of Pasay City as Criminal Case No.
and held another hearing on 19 August 1986, where he
816159 (Exhibit D; tsn, July 7, 1986, p. 24); she likewise
put clarificatory questions to the complainant;
filed a case for bigamy against respondent and Helina
respondent once again did not appear despite notice to
Malicdem with the office of the Provincial Fiscal of being supported by complainant, with some assistance
Pangasinan, where a prima facie case was found to exist from respondent's parents. After respondent had finished
(Exhibit E; tsn, July 7, pp. 25-26); additionally, his law course and gotten complainant pregnant,
complainant filed an administrative case against respondent abandoned the complainant without support
respondent with the Commission on Audit where he was and without the wherewithal for delivering his own child
employed, which case however was considered closed safely in a hospital.
for being moot and academic when respondent was
considered automatically separated from the service for Thus, we agree with the Solicitor General that
having gone on absence without official leave (Exhibit F; respondent Jordan Terre, by his actions, "eloquently
tsn, July 7, 1986, pp. 28-29). 7 displayed, not only his unfitness to remain as a member
of the Bar, but likewise his inadequacy to uphold the
There is no dispute over the fact that complainant purpose and responsibility of his gender" because
Dorothy Terre and respondent Jordan Terre contracted marriage is a basic social institution. 9
marriage on 14 July 1977 before Judge Priscilla Mijares.
There is further no dispute over the fact that on 3 May In Pomperada v. Jochico, 10 the Court, in rejecting a
1981, respondent Jordan Terre married Helina Malicdem petition to be allowed to take the oath as a member of
in Dasol, Pangasinan. When the second marriage was the Bar and to sign the Roll of Attorneys, said through
entered into, respondent's prior marriage with Mme. Justice Melencio-Herrera:
complainant was subsisting, no judicial action having
been initiated or any judicial declaration obtained as to It is evident that respondent fails to meet the standard of
the nullity of such prior marriage of respondent with moral fitness for membership in the legal profession.
complainant. Whether the marriage was a joke as respondent claims,
or a trick played on her as claimed by complainant, it
Respondent Jordan Terre sought to defend himself by does not speak well of respondent's moral values.
claiming that he had believed in good faith that his prior Respondent had made a mockery of marriage, a basic
marriage with complainant Dorothy Terre was null and social institution which public policy cherishes and
void ab initio and that no action for a judicial declaration protects (Article 216, Civil Code). 11
of nullity was necessary.
In Bolivar v. Simbol, 12 the Court found the respondent
The Court considers this claim on the part of respondent there guilty of "grossly immoral conduct" because he
Jordan Terre as a spurious defense. In the first place, made a dupe of complainant, living on her bounty and
respondent has not rebutted complainant's evidence as allowing her to spend for his schooling and other
to the basic facts which underscores the bad faith of personal necessities while dangling before her the
respondent Terre. In the second place, that pretended mirage of a marriage, marrying another girl as soon as
defense is the same argument by which he had inveigled he had finished his studies, keeping his marriage a
complainant into believing that her prior marriage to secret while continuing to demand money from
Merlito A. Bercenilla being incestuous and void ab initio complainant. . . . ." The Court held such acts "indicative
(Dorothy and Merlito being allegedly first cousins to each of a character not worthy of a member of the Bar." 13
other), she was free to contract a second marriage with
the respondent. Respondent Jordan Terre, being a We believe and so hold that the conduct of respondent
lawyer, knew or should have known that such an Jordan Terre in inveigling complainant Dorothy Terre to
argument ran counter to the prevailing case law of this contract a second marriage with him; in abandoning
Court which holds that for purposes of determining complainant Dorothy Terre after she had cared for him
whether a person is legally free to contract a second and supported him through law school, leaving her
marriage, a judicial declaration that the first marriage without means for the safe delivery of his own child; in
was null and void ab initio is essential. 8 Even if we were contracting a second marriage with Helina Malicdem
to assume, arguendo merely, that Jordan Terre held that while his first marriage with complainant Dorothy Terre
mistaken belief in good faith, the same result will follow. was subsisting, constituted "grossly immoral conduct"
For if we are to hold Jordan Terre to his own argument, under Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court,
his first marriage to complainant Dorothy Terre must be affording more than sufficient basis for disbarment of
deemed valid, with the result that his second marriage to respondent Jordan Terre. He was unworthy of admission
Helina Malicdem must be regarded as bigamous and to the Bar in the first place. The Court will correct this
criminal in character. error forthwith.
That the moral character of respondent Jordan Terre was WHEREFORE, the Court Resolved to DISBAR
deeply flawed is shown by other circumstances. As respondent Jordan Terre and to STRIKE OUT his name
noted, he convinced the complainant that her prior from the Roll of Attorneys. A copy of this decision shall
marriage to Bercenilla was null and void ab initio, that be spread on the personal record of respondent Jordan
she was still legally single and free to marry him. When Terre in the Bar Confidant's Office. A copy of this
complainant and respondent had contracted their resolution shall also be furnished to the Integrated Bar of
marriage, respondent went through law school while the Philippines and shall be circularized to all the courts
of the land.
SO ORDERED.
Thus, necessitated the filing of the Manifestation11 by the On December 10, 1993, there were several criminal and
Office of the Bar Confidant on January 27, 1998, civil actions scheduled for trial, which commenced at
inquiring from the Court whether to proceed with the about 10:00 in the morning, before Br. 17, including Civil
investigation of the case in view of the aforementioned Case No. V-6186, which was listed number four in the
incidents. court calendar. Judge Alovera presided over the hearing
and Teresita V. Bauzon, court stenographer of Br. 17,
On February 18, 1998, the Court directed the Office of took down notes of the Proceedings. Atty. Villaruz
the Bar Confidant to proceed with the investigation of the appeared for the accused in a criminal case16 before Br.
instant case.12 17 at the time. The court had a recess at 11:10 and
resumed at 11:35 in the morning. After the hearing of
Judge Julius Abela, Nenita M. Aluad, legal researcher, criminal cases was through, Civil Case No. V-6186 was
Teresita V. Bauzon, court stenographer, Concepcion called at about 11:55 in the morning, but the plaintiffs as
Alcazar, clerk-in-charge of civil cases and special well as their counsel, Atty. Villaruz, were no longer inside
proceedings, all of Regional Trial Court, Br. 17, Roxas the courtroom. The session thus adjourned at 11:57 in
City, Rosa Dapat, court stenographer of Regional Trial the morning without Civil Case No. V-6186 being
Court, Br. 15, Roxas City and the complainant herself heard.17
testified as witnesses for the complainant.
At about 11:30 in the morning of the same date, Atty.
The respondent presented as his lone witness, Mrs. Villaruz approached Rosa Dapat, who was the court
Rosa Dapat, who merely testified on the January 10, stenographer at the time of RTC, Br. 15, Roxas City,
1993 proceedings inside his chambers. Respondent while she was in her office. Atty. Villaruz told her that
himself did not testify and neither did any other witness Judge Alovera was requesting her to assist in the
testify for him, despite the issuance of subpoena ad proceedings of Civil Case No. V-6186. At first she was
testificandum on Ireneo Borres and Ludovico Buhat, who hesitant to accede to the request as Br. 17 had also its
both failed to appear at the investigation. In lieu of their own court stenographer. She relented though when told
oral testimonies, respondent offered and presented their that Br. 17 as well as the other branches had no
respective affidavits.13 Complainant chose not to object available court stenographer. She then went to Br. 17
thereto and even waived her right, through her counsel, and saw Atty. Villaruz standing by the door of the
to cross-examine them. chambers of Judge Alovera. Atty. Villaruz motioned her
to enter the chambers, which is separate from the
courtroom. While inside the chambers, she saw Judge
The established facts, as quoted from the Report dated
Alovera behind his desk and other people whom she did
November 17, 1999 of the Office of the Bar Confidant,
not know. Upon being told that Mrs. Dapat would be the
are as follows:
stenographer, Judge Alovera told Atty. Villaruz to start
the proceedings. Following the manifestation made by
On July 2, 1992, the heirs of the late Faustina Borres, Atty. Villaruz, a witness, whom she later recognized to be
Segundina Borres, Felisa Borres, Micaela Borres, Maria Atty. Arturo Agudo, was called. At that instant Judge
Bores, and Sixto Borres (hereinafter "Borres heirs") Alovera stood up and said, "All right, you just continue,"
through their counsel, Atty. Alberto A. Villaruz, filed an and then went out of the chambers.18 Judge Alovera
action for Partition and Accounting, docketed as Civil would occasionally return to the chambers in the course
Case No. V-6186, with the Regional Trial Court, Br. 15, of the proceedings, but he would just sit down and listen
Roxas City, against herein complainant, Victoria V. while Atty. Villaruz was conducting his direct examination
Radjaie, who was presumably an heir of the late of the witness and presenting documentary evidence. 19
Faustina Borres. The action sought, among others, the The proceedings lasted up to 12:10 in the afternoon, with
cancellation of Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-24150 in Judge Alovera making only two rulings in the course
the name of herein complainant covering a parcel of land thereof, including the one he made at the end when he
with an area of 215,777 square meters situated in ordered the plaintiffs to file their written offer of evidence
Panay, Capiz, and the declaration of the said parcel of
on January 20, 1994.20 decision executed when, on January 31, 1996, the
lessee of the property, which is the subject matter of Civil
From this point on, complainant would establish how the Case No. V-6186, surrendered possession of the said
January 30, 1995 decision of Judge Alovera in Civil Case property in favor of the Borres heirs,32 Said transfer of
No. V-6186 came about. possession was made pursuant to the writ of execution
issued on January 19, 1996 by the Acting Presiding
Judge of Br. 17, Hon. Delano F. Villaruz, through Clerk of
Prior to his retirement from the judiciary on January 31,
Court Susan Mendoza Arce.33
1995, or on January 5, 1995, Judge Alovera designated
his legal researcher, Mrs. Nenita Aluad, to be the OIC
Branch Clerk of Court.21 As part of her functions as such Meanwhile, complainant, who had been working in
OIC, all decisions, orders and resolutions of Br. 17 would Japan together with his husband who is employed at the
first be received by her from the judge, and would stamp Turkish Embassy in Tokyo, Japan, learned of what
them "RECEIVED" and put thereon the date of receipt as happened to her property in Panay, Capiz.34 She was
well as her initial or signature.22 This is in accordance thus prompted to come back to the Philippines, which
with Sec. 1, Rule 36 of the Rules of Court.23 resulted in losing her job in Japan.
Sometime in February of 1995, Mrs. Teresita V. Bauzon, Back home, complainant, on March 5, 1996, filed a
court stenographer of Br. 17 since 1993, was asked to Petition for Relief from Order, questioning the January
type the draft decision in Civil Case No. V-6186 in Judge 30, 1995 decision and the January 19, 1996 Writ of
Alovera's house. When she inquired if he can still do it, Execution.35 She also prayed "that disciplinary and
Judge Alovera told her that he had one (1) year more to contempt proceedings be taken against those involved in
decide cases. With this assurance, she typed the draft the perfidious anomaly to tamper with the administration
decision on a single bond paper without a duplicate as of justice."36
Judge Alovera was dictating it.24
Judge Julius L. Abela took cognizance of Civil Case No.
On August 1, 1995 at about 9:30 in the morning, retired V-6186 as he was the acting presiding judge of Br. 17 at
Judge Alovera came to Br. 17, with a man and a woman, the time of the filing of said petition for relief from order. 37
later identified as the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. V-6186, In the course of the proceedings thereof, he noticed that
behind him. While he was approaching Nenita Aluad, he the Formal Offer of Exhibits purportedly filed by the
uttered to the latter, "Receive this, receive this, " referring plaintiffs, i.e., Borres heirs, was dated January 20, 1995,
to the questioned January 30, 1995 decision, which he while the PTR of their counsel, Atty. Alberto Villaruz, was
was holding. As he spread the decision on her table, he issued on January 31, 1995. He concluded then that the
continued, "Because I will defend you even up to the said offer could not have been filed on January 20, 1995.
Plaza Miranda. And give copies to these two, pointing to When he asked Atty. Villaruz about it, the latter refused
the plaintiffs who were at his back.25 Almost to answer and just kept quiet.38 He likewise observed
instantaneously, Mrs. Aluad replied, " I would not receive that there was no order in Civil Case No. V-6186
it because it is already August 1, 1995," and she did not submitting the same for decision, except for the order
argue with him anymore so as not to embarrass him for made by Judge Alovera on December 10, 1993 during
being her former superior.26 She then went out of the the "simulated proceedings" inside his chambers, where
office while retired Judge Alovera, as well as the two he directed the counsel for the plaintiffs to file his offer of
plaintiffs were still inside.27 At about the same time, Mrs. exhibits.39 Mrs. Rosa Dapat, who took down notes during
Concepcion Alcazar, another employee of Br. 17 and the the said proceedings and who was not a member of the
clerk-in-charge of civil cases and special proceedings staff of Br. 17, was not even acknowledged on the
therein, saw Judge Alovera inside the office of Br. 17 records as the official stenographer in the course
while trying to have her co-employees receive the thereof.40 Thus, in his resolution of September 25, 1997,
questioned decision. Nobody, however, received the Judge Abela granted the petition for relief filed by
same because it was already seven (7) months after his complainant and the latter was ordered reinstated to the
retirement.28 A little later, she found the questioned possession of the property in question. In the same
decision, together with the formal offer of exhibits of resolution, Judge Abela declared the January 30, 1995
January 20, 1995 and the order of January 25, 1995, on decision null and void, the same not being filed with the
the top of her table. Although she noticed that these clerk of court and not properly rendered in accordance
records were not stamped "RECEIVED" as a matter of with Section 1, Rule 36, Rules of Court.41
procedure, she went on to attach the said records to the
expediente of Civil Case No. V-6186.29 She even gave a Prompted by what he considered to be anomalous
copy of the questioned decision to one of the plaintiffs, proceedings, coupled with the prayer of complainant in
Ireneo Borres, and to Atty. Villaruz, which was received her petition for relief "that disciplinary and contempt
for him by Ireneo Borres.30 After keeping the expediente, proceedings be taken against those involved in the
she then entered the questioned decision in her perfidious anomaly to tamper with the administration of
logbook.31 justice," Judge Abela conducted an investigation into the
said anomaly.42 After considering the testimonies of
The Borres heirs succeeded in having the questioned Misses Aluad, Dapat, Bauzon and Alcazar during the
investigation, together with the documentary evidence Based on the foregoing findings, the Bar Confidant
presented, he concluded, thus: recommended the disbarment of respondent, declaring
that it found more than sufficient evidence to sustain
From the foregoing facts and circumstances the complainant's charge against respondent that, indeed,
following facts are established that: the January 30, 1995 decision in Civil Case No. V-6186,
which divested complainant of her property in Panay,
Capiz, was penned by respondent after his retirement
1) Civil Case No. V-6186 was not tried on December 10,
from the judiciary on January 31, 1995.
1993. What transpired was a mock or simulated trial
inside the chamber of Judge Alovera where only Atty.
Alberto Villaruz, the plaintiffs and Mrs. Rosa Dapat, a This Court finds the recommendation of the Office of the
court stenographer from another court, were present. No Bar Confidant to be well-taken. Respondent has thus
Judge or RTC Branch 17 court personnel were present sufficiently demonstrated that he is morally and legally
as there was actual court session in open court going on unfit to remain in the exclusive and honorable fraternity
at that time. of the legal profession.
2) The records of Civil Case No. V-6186 were with Judge In his long years as a lawyer, respondent has forgotten
Jose O. Alovera and remained with him even after his his sworn pledge as a lawyer. It is time once again that
retirement on January 31, 1995. He did not return the the Court inculcate in the hearts of all lawyers that
record to Mrs. Concepcion Alcazar, Court Clerk III in pledge; thus -
Charge of Civil Cases.
LAWYER'S OATH
3) The record of Civil Case No. V-6186 turned up on the
table of Mrs. Alcazar together with the "Offer of Exhibits" " I, x x x, do solemnly swear that I will maintain
of Atty. Villaruz dated January 20, 1995 and the "Order" allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines; I will
dated January 25, 1995, after the retirement of Judge support and defend its Constitution and obey the laws as
Alovera. Both the Offer and the Order admitting the well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities
exhibits were not properly filed and do not bear markings therein; I will do no falsehood nor consent to its
of having been received by the court. commission; I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue
any groundless, false or unlawful suit nor give aid nor
4) The "decision" of Judge Jose O. Alovera, though consent to the same; I will not delay any man's cause for
dated January 30, 1995, was filed with the court on money or malice and will conduct myself as a lawyer
August 1, 1995 by former Judge Alovera himself and according to the best of my knowledge and discretion
because he was no longer a judge his submission was with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to my clients
refused. and I impose upon myself this obligation voluntary,
without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion.
- CONCLUSIONS -
SO HELP ME GOD.
The "Offer of Exhibits" of Atty. Alberto Villaruz though
dated January 20, 1995 bears signature and PTR No. This oath to which all lawyers have subscribed in solemn
issued on January 31, 1995. This simply means that the agreement to dedicate themselves to the pursuit of
pleadings (were) ante dated. It is impossible for Atty. justice, is not a mere ceremony or formality for practicing
Villaruz to affix his PTR No. dated January 31, 1995 or law44 to be forgotten afterwards nor is it mere words, drift
any date prior to its issuance. The Offer of Exhibits could and hollow, but a sacred trust that every lawyer must
have been made only on January 31, 1995 or later. uphold and keep inviolable at all times.45 This oath is
Because this is so, the Order of Judge Alovera dated firmly echoed and reflected in the Code of Professional
January 25, 1995 is also ante dated and could have Responsibility, the particular provisions of which are
been made only on a date beyond the filing of the Offer applicable to the case at bar, provide, to wit:
of Exhibits. So also with the decision of former Judge
Alovera dated January 30, 1995. CANON 1 - A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey
the laws of the land and promote respect for law and for
xxx xxx xxx legal processes.
The Order admitting the exhibits and the decision were Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
made after the retirement of Judge Alovera. He was no dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
longer a judge.
Rule 1.02 - A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities
The acts of Attys. Alberto Villaruz and Jose O. Alovera aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence
constitute deceit, malpractice, serious and grave in the legal system.
misconduct as lawyer justifying their suspension from the
practice of law and ultimately their disbarment.43 xxx xxx xxx
CANON 7 - A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity maintains that degree of morality and integrity which at
and dignity of the legal profession, and support the all times is expected of him.50
activities of the Integrated Bar.
Given the peculiar factual circumstances prevailing in
Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that this case, the Court finds as appropriate the
adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor recommended penalty of the Office of the Bar Confidant
should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a in its Report. Such gross misconduct of the respondent
scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal brings intolerable dishonor to the legal profession and
profession. calls for the severance of respondents privilege to
practice law for life.
xxx xxx xxx
WHEREFORE, respondent JOSE O. ALOVERA is
CANON 10 - A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good hereby DISBARRED. The Office of the Clerk of Court is
faith to the court. directed to strike out his name from the Roll of Attorneys
and to inform all courts of this Decision.
Rule 10.01 - A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor
consent to the doing of any in court; nor shall he mislead SO ORDERED.
or allow the court to be misled by any artifice.
Upon the instance of the Court, respondent filed his There is no showing that respondent, despite the
comment refuting the charges of deceit and gross adverse decision, returned or offered to return the
misconduct against him. Respondent denied employing money he took from the complainant bank. The bank
any deceit or misrepresentation in obtaining a loan from then instituted this disbarment proceeding against the
respondent.3 (TSN, Hearing March 15, 1993, pp. 22-23, Civil Case
No. 1, RTC, Branch LX, Cadiz City, Negros Occidental)
The IBP found from the above facts that respondent
violated his oath as a lawyer to do no falsehood, thus: If indeed, respondent is not responsible for the
falsification of the Special Power of Attorney, why did he
This office believes that the actuation of the respondent not explain before the trial court or before this office the
constitutes a betrayal of his oath as a lawyer. The circumstances on how he obtained the same. He did not
findings of the Regional Trial Court of Negros Occidental even bother to identify his alleged client who provided
has persuasive effect in this proceeding. him the forged Special Power of Attorney. Instead,
respondent is banking on his defense that the
complainant bank has not introduced any evidence to
As found by the Regional Trial Court of Negros
prove that he forged the Special Power of Attorney. He
Occidental in its decision in Civil Case No. 1-C, entitled
relied on the argument that his transaction with the
"Spouses Oscar D. Granada and Lolita L. Granada vs.
complainant bank was purely commercial business and
Ernesto H. Pilla, et al", the plaintiffs Granada spouses
did not involve his capacity as a lawyer. Further, if it is
have not signed the questioned Special Power of
true that the respondent maintains the highest degree of
Attorney in favor of the respondent and the said
morality and integrity as he asserted, why did he
spouses' signatures as appearing in the Special Power
represent before the notary public that the signatures
of Attorney are not their true and genuine signatures for
appearing in the Special Power of Attorney were the
actually they have not executed nor granted a Special
signatures of the real owners if he was not actually
Power of Attorney in favor of herein respondent
aware that the signatures were that of the real owners.
authorizing him to mortgage the one-third (1/3) share of
the said spouses in the mortgaged property. The trial
court stressed that: The office is convinced that the actuation of the
respondent is misrepresentation constituting gross
misconduct at the very least. This is a violation of his
"...Although there is no showing that Atty. Ernesto H.
oath as a lawyer to do falsehood to no man.4
Pilla has actually falsified the signatures of the spouses,
Atty. Oscar D. Granada, yet considering that he actually
benefited from the said falsified documents, he is In conclusion, Commissioner Elamparo recommended
presumed to have a hand on the same. that respondent be suspended from the practice of law
for five (5) years. The IBP, through Resolution No. XIV-
00-175, dated 7 April 2000, of its Board of Governors,
substantially adopted and approved the report and
recommendation of Commissioner Elamparo but
Defendant Antonio Pura testified and in fact he admitted modified the penalty. The IBP RESOLVED as follows:
that he notarized the said documents, Exhibit "A" and "B"
with the assurance of Atty. Pilla that the signatures
...to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED
appearing in the said documents were the signatures of
and APPROVED, the Report and Recommendation of
Atty. Oscar D. Granada and of Pedro Torres, registered
the Investigating Commissioner of the above-entitled
owners of the property in question."
case, herein made part of this Resolution/Decision as
Annex "A", and, finding the recommendation fully
Antonio G. Pura, the notary public who notarized the supported by the evidence on record and the applicable
questioned Special Power of Attorney in favor of the laws and rules, said recommendation is with
respondent, testified in said Civil Case as follows: modification that Respondent be SUSPENDED from
the practice of law for THREE (3) years for
"Q Now, compaero, will you please relate to this misrepresentation.5
Honorable Court the circumstances under which you
notarized this Special Power of Attorney now marked as We fully agree with the findings of the Investigating
Exh. "A" on April 21, 1975? Commissioner.
"A Yes, sir. I remember that on that same day, April As correctly pointed out by the trial court in Civil Case
21, 1975, defendant Atty. Ernesto H. Pilla personally No. 1-C, since respondent actually benefited from the
appeared before me and he brought along with him this falsified document, he is presumed to have a hand in the
Special Power of Attorney executed in his favor. He told falsification of the same. Respondent miserably failed to
me to notarize it. I asked him about the signature of Atty. rebut this presumption with his barefaced denial that he
Oscar D. Granada if this is his signature and he said had no knowledge of the forgery. The Court cannot give
"Yes". I also asked him about the signature of the other credence to respondent's negative assertion that he did
principal and he said also "yes". With that assurance and not know that the special power of attorney issued in his
being a brother lawyer I accommodated him. Knowing favor was falsified. As a lawyer, respondent knows or
that he will not do anything that is illegal and I have ought to know that parties to a public document must
confidence in him considering that he is a lawyer and he personally appear before the notary public to attest that
knows what he was doing, I accommodated him." the same is their own free act and deed. In utter
disregard of this requirement, respondent caused the
special power of attorney to be notarized without the
parties appearing before the notary public. Thereafter,
respondent presented the same to complainant rural
bank in order to obtain a loan therefrom. It is thus
apparent that respondent had a hand in the falsification
of the document especially considering that it was he
who chiefly benefited from it. Indeed, "the settled rule is
that in he absence of satisfactory explanation, one found
in possession of and who used a forged document is the
forger and therefore guilty of falsification."6 Further, "if a
person had in his possession a falsified document and
he made use of it (uttered it), taking advantage of it and
profiting thereby, the clear presumption is that he is the
material author of the falsification."7
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished, upon its A.C. No. 8392 June 29, 2010[ Formerly CBD
finality, to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and all the Case No. 08-2175 ]
courts in the Philippines, and spread on the personal ROSARIO T. MECARAL, Complainant,
record of respondent in the Office of the Bar Confidant, vs.
Supreme Court of the Philippines.1wphi1.nt ATTY. DANILO S. VELASQUEZ, Respondent.
DECISION
SO ORDERED. Per Curiam:
Her mother, Delia Tambis Vda. De Mecaral (Delia), CANON 1 A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey
having received information that she was weak, pale and the laws of the land and promote respect for law and
walking barefoot along the streets in the mountainous legal processes.
area of Caibiran, sought the help of the Provincial Social
Welfare Department which immediately dispatched two xxxx
women volunteers to rescue her. The religious group
refused to release her, however, without the instruction
of respondent. It took PO3 Delan G. Lee (PO3 Lee) and In the long line of cases, the Supreme Court has
PO1 Arnel S. Robedillo (PO1 Robedillo) to rescue and consistently imposed severe penalty for grossly immoral
reunite her with her mother. conduct of a lawyer like the case at bar. In the celebrated
case of Joselano Guevarra vs. Atty. Jose Manuel Eala,
the [Court] ordered the disbarment of the respondent for
Hence, the present disbarment complaint against maintaining extra-marital relations with a married
respondent. Additionally, complainant charges woman, and having a child with her. In the instant case,
respondent with bigamy for contracting a second not only did the respondent commit bigamy for
marriage to Leny H. Azur on August 2, 1996, despite the contracting marriages with Shirley Yunzal in 1990 and
subsistence of his marriage to his first wife, Ma. Shirley Leny Azur in 1996, but the respondent also made his
G. Yunzal. secretary (complainant) his mistress and subsequently,
tortured her to the point of death. All these
In support of her charges, complainant submitted circumstances showed the moral fiber respondent is
documents including the following: Affidavit3 of Delia made of, which [leave] the undersigned with no choice
dated February 5, 2008; Affidavit of PO3 Lee and PO1 but to recommend the disbarment of Atty. Danilo S.
Robedillo4 dated February 14, 2008; photocopy of the Velasquez.13 (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Certificate of Marriage5 between respondent and Leny H.
Azur; photocopy of the Marriage Contract6 between The IBP Board of Governors of Pasig City, by
respondent and Shirley G. Yunzal; National Statistics Resolution14 dated December 11, 2008, ADOPTED the
Office Certification7 dated April 23, 2008 showing the Investigating Commissioners findings and APPROVED
marriage of Ma. Shirley G. Yunzal to respondent on April the recommendation for the disbarment of respondent.
27, 1990 in Quezon City and the marriage of Leny H.
Azur to respondent on August 2, 1996 in Mandaue City,
Cebu; and certified machine copy of the Resolution 8 of As did the IBP Board of Governors, the Court finds the
the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Naval, Biliran IBP Commissioners evaluation and recommendation
and the Information9 lodged with the RTC-Branch 37- well taken.
Caibiran, Naval, Biliran, for Serious Illegal Detention
against respondent and Bernardita Tadeo on complaint The practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed
of herein complainant. by the state upon those who show that they possess,
and continue to possess, the qualifications required by
Despite respondents receipt of the February 22, 2008 law for the conferment of such privilege.15 When a
Order10 of the Director for Bar Discipline for him to lawyers moral character is assailed, such that his right
submit his Answer within 15 days from receipt thereof, to continue
and his expressed intent to "properly make [his] defense
in a verified pleading,"11 he did not file any practicing his cherished profession is imperiled, it
Answer.1avvphi1 behooves him to meet the charges squarely and present
evidence, to the satisfaction of the investigating body
On the scheduled Mandatory Conference set on and this Court, that he is morally fit to keep his name in
September 2, 2008 of which the parties were duly the Roll of Attorneys.16
notified, only complainants counsel was present.
Respondent and his counsel failed to appear. Respondent has not discharged the burden. He never
attended the hearings before the IBP to rebut the
Investigating Commissioner Felimon C. Abelita III of the charges brought against him, suggesting that they are
CBD, in his Report and Recommendation12 dated true.17 Despite his letter dated March 28, 2008
manifesting that he would come up with his defense "in a underscoring supplied)
verified pleading," he never did.
That, as reflected in the immediately-quoted Resolution
Aside then from the IBPs finding that respondent in the criminal complaint against respondent, his therein
violated Canon 1 of the Code of Professional co-respondent corroborated the testimonies of
Responsibility, he also violated the Lawyers Oath complainants witnesses, and that the allegations against
reading: him remain unrebutted, sufficiently prove the charges
against him by clearly preponderant evidence, the
I _________, having been permitted to continue in the quantum of evidence needed in an administrative case
practice of law in the Philippines, do solemnly swear that against a lawyer.20
I recognize the supreme authority of the Republic of the
Philippines; I will support its Constitution and obey the In fine, by engaging himself in acts which are grossly
laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted immoral and acts which constitute gross misconduct,
authorities therein; I will do no falsehood, nor consent to respondent has ceased to possess the qualifications of a
the doing of any in court; I will not wittingly or willingly lawyer.21
promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit,
nor give aid nor consent to the same; I will delay no man WHEREFORE, respondent, Atty. Danilo S. Velasquez, is
for money or malice, and will conduct myself as a lawyer DISBARRED, and his name ORDERED STRICKEN
according to the best of my knowledge and discretion from the Roll of Attorneys. This Decision is immediately
with all good fidelity as well as to the courts as to my executory and ordered to be part of the records of
clients; and I impose upon myself this voluntary respondent in the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme
obligation without any mental reservation or purpose of Court of the Philippines.
evasion. So help me God, (underscoring supplied),
Let copies of the Decision be furnished the Integrated
and Rule 7.03, Canon 7 of the same Code reading: Bar of the Philippines and circulated to all courts.
Carlos Ui admitted to complainant his relationship with It is respondent's contention that her relationship with
the respondent. Complainant then visited respondent at Carlos Ui is not illicit because they were married abroad
her office in the later part of June 1988 and introduced and that after June 1988, when respondent discovered
herself as the legal wife of Carlos Ui. Whereupon, Carlos Ui's true civil status, she cut off all her ties with
respondent admitted to her that she has a child with him. Respondent averred that Carlos Ui never lived with
Carlos Ui and alleged, however; that everything was her in Alabang, and that he resided at 26 Potsdam
over between her and Carlos Ui. Complainant believed Street, Greenhills, San Juan, Metro Manila. It was
the representations of respondent and thought things respondent who lived in Alabang in a house which
would turn out well from then on and that the illicit belonged to her mother, Rosalinda L. Bonifacio; and that
relationship between her husband and respondent would the said house was built exclusively from her parents'
come to an end. funds.6 By way of counterclaim, respondent sought moral
damages in the amount of Ten Million Pesos
However, complainant again discovered that the illicit (Php10,000,000.00) against complainant for having filed
relationship between her husband and respondent the present allegedly malicious and groundless
continued, and that sometime in December 1988, disbarment case against respondent.
respondent and her husband, Carlos Ui, had a second
child. Complainant then met again with respondent In her Reply7 dated April 6, 1990, complainant states,
sometime in March 1989 and pleaded with respondent to among others, that respondent knew perfectly well that
discontinue her illicit relationship with Carlos Ui but to no Carlos Ui was married to complainant and had children
avail. The illicit relationship persisted and complainant with her even at the start of her relationship with Carlos
even came to know later on that respondent had been Ui, and that the reason respondent went abroad was to
employed by her husband in his company. give birth to her two (2) children with Carlos Ui.
A complaint for disbarment, docketed as Adm. Case No. During the pendency of the proceedings before the
3319, was then filed on August 11, 1989 by the Integrated Bar, complainant also charged her husband,
complainant against respondent Atty. Iris Bonifacio Carlos Ui, and respondent with the crime of
before the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Concubinage before the Office of the Provincial Fiscal of
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (hereinafter, Rizal, docketed as I.S. No. 89-5247, but the same was
Commission) on the ground of immorality, more dismissed for insufficiency of evidence to establish
particularly, for carrying on an illicit relationship with the probable cause for the offense charged. The resolution
complainant's husband, Carlos Ui. In her Answer,2 dismissing the criminal complaint against respondent
respondent averred that she met Carlos Ui sometime in reads:
1983 and had known him all along to be a bachelor, with
the knowledge, however, that Carlos Ui had children by a Complainant's evidence had prima facie established the
Chinese woman in Amoy, China, from whom he had long existence of the "illicit relationship" between the
been estranged. She stated that during one of their trips respondents allegedly discovered by the complainant in
abroad, Carlos Ui formalized his intention to marry her December 1987. The same evidence however show that
and they in fact got married in Hawaii, USA in 1985 3. respondent Carlos Ui was still living with complainant up
Upon their return to Manila, respondent did not live with to the latter part of 1988 and/or the early part of 1989.
Carlos Ui. The latter continued to live with his children in
their Greenhills residence because respondent and It would therefore be logical and safe to state that the
Carlos Ui wanted to let the children gradually to know "relationship" of respondents started and was discovered
and accept the fact of his second marriage before they by complainant sometime in 1987 when she and
would live together.4 respondent Carlos were still living at No. 26 Potsdam
Street, Northeast Greenhills, San Juan, Metro Manila
In 1986, respondent left the country and stayed in and they, admittedly, continued to live together at their
Honolulu, Hawaii and she would only return occasionally conjugal home up to early (sic) part of 1989 or later
to the Philippines to update her law practice and renew 1988, when respondent Carlos left the same.
legal ties. During one of her trips to Manila sometime in
June 1988, she was confronted by a woman who From the above, it would not be amiss to conclude that
insisted that she was the lawful wife of Carlos Ui. Hurt altho (sic) the relationship, illicit as complainant puts it,
and desolate upon her discovery of the true civil status of had been prima facie established by complainant's
Carlos Ui, respondent then left for Honolulu, Hawaii evidence, this same evidence had failed to even prima
sometime in July 1988 and returned only in March 1989 facie establish the "fact of respondent's cohabitation in
with her two (2) children. On March 20, 1989, a few days the concept of husband and wife at the 527 San Carlos
St., Ayala Alabang house, proof of which is necessary what appeared on the copy of the marriage certificate in
and indispensable to at least create probable cause for her possession.
the offense charged. The statement alone of
complainant, worse, a statement only of a conclusion Respondent filed her Memorandum 16 on February 22,
respecting the fact of cohabitation does not make the 1995 and raised the lone issue of whether or not she has
complainant's evidence thereto any better/stronger (U.S. conducted herself in an immoral manner for which she
vs. Casipong and Mongoy, 20 Phil. 178). deserves to be barred from the practice of law.
Respondent averred that the complaint should be
It is worth stating that the evidence submitted by dismissed on two (2) grounds, namely:
respondents in support of their respective positions on
the matter support and bolster the foregoing (i) Respondent conducted herself in a manner consistent
conclusion/recommendation. with the requirement of good moral character for the
practice of the legal profession; and
WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully recommended that
the instant complaint be dismissed for want of evidence (ii) Complainant failed to prove her allegation that
to establish probable cause for the offense charged. respondent conducted herself in an immoral manner.
Almost always, when a married man courts a single d. a person of good moral character;
woman, he represents himself to be single, separated, or
without any firm commitment to another woman. The e. he must show that no charges against him involving
reason therefor is not hard to fathom. By their very moral turpitude, are filed or pending in court;
nature, single women prefer single men.
f. possess the required educational qualifications; and
The records will show that when respondent became
aware the (sic) true civil status of Carlos Ui, she left for g. pass the bar examinations. 25 (Emphasis supplied)
the United States (in July of 1988). She broke off all
contacts with him. When she returned to the Philippines
Clear from the foregoing is that one of the conditions
in March of 1989, she lived with her brother, Atty.
prior to admission to the bar is that an applicant must
Teodoro Bonifacio, Jr. Carlos Ui and respondent only
possess good moral character. More importantly,
talked to each other because of the children whom he
possession of good moral character must be continuous
was allowed to visit. At no time did they live together.
as a requirement to the enjoyment of the privilege of law woman were indeed unmarried. Also, despite their
practice, otherwise, the loss thereof is a ground for the marriage in 1987, Carlos Ui never lived with respondent
revocation of such privilege. It has been held and their first child, a circumstance that is simply
incomprehensible considering respondent's allegation
If good moral character is a sine qua non for admission that Carlos Ui was very open in courting her.
to the bar, then the continued possession of good moral
character is also a requisite for retaining membership in All these taken together leads to the inescapable
the legal profession. Membership in the bar may be conclusion that respondent was imprudent in managing
terminated when a lawyer ceases to have good moral her personal affairs. However, the fact remains that her
character. (Royong vs. Oblena, 117 Phil. 865). relationship with Carlos Ui, clothed as it was with what
respondent believed was a valid marriage, cannot be
A lawyer may be disbarred for "grossly immoral conduct, considered immoral. For immorality connotes conduct
or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral that shows indifference to the moral norms of society
turpitude". A member of the bar should have moral and the opinion of good and respectable members of the
integrity in addition to professional probity. community. 27 Moreover, for such conduct to warrant
disciplinary action, the same must be "grossly immoral,"
that is, it must be so corrupt and false as to constitute a
It is difficult to state with precision and to fix an inflexible
criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to
standard as to what is "grossly immoral conduct" or to
a high degree. 28
specify the moral delinquency and obliquity which render
a lawyer unworthy of continuing as a member of the bar.
The rule implies that what appears to be unconventional We have held that "a member of the Bar and officer of
behavior to the straight-laced may not be the immoral the court is not only required to refrain from adulterous
conduct that warrants disbarment. relationships . . . but must also so behave himself as to
avoid scandalizing the public by creating the belief that
he is flouting those moral standards." 29 Respondent's
Immoral conduct has been defined as "that conduct
act of immediately distancing herself from Carlos Ui
which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which shows
upon discovering his true civil status belies just that
a moral indifference to the opinion of the good and
alleged moral indifference and proves that she had no
respectable members of the community." (7 C.J.S. 959).
26 intention of flaunting the law and the high moral standard
of the legal profession. Complainant's bare assertions to
the contrary deserve no credit. After all, the burden of
In the case at bar, it is the claim of respondent Atty. proof rests upon the complainant, and the Court will
Bonifacio that when she met Carlos Ui, she knew and exercise its disciplinary powers only if she establishes
believed him to be single. Respondent fell in love with her case by clear, convincing and satisfactory evidence.
him and they got married and as a result of such 30
This, herein complainant miserably failed to do.
marriage, she gave birth to two (2) children. Upon her
knowledge of the true civil status of Carlos Ui, she left
On the matter of the falsified Certificate of Marriage
him.
attached by respondent to her Answer, we find
improbable to believe the averment of respondent that
Simple as the facts of the case may sound, the effects of she merely relied on the photocopy of the Marriage
the actuations of respondent are not only far from Certificate which was provided her by Carlos Ui. For an
simple, they will have a rippling effect on how the event as significant as a marriage ceremony, any normal
standard norms of our legal practitioners should be bride would verily recall the date and year of her
defined. Perhaps morality in our liberal society today is a marriage. It is difficult to fathom how a bride, especially a
far cry from what it used to be before. This lawyer as in the case at bar, can forget the year when
permissiveness notwithstanding, lawyers, as keepers of she got married. Simply stated, it is contrary to human
public faith, are burdened with a higher degree of social experience and highly improbable.
responsibility and thus must handle their personal affairs
with greater caution. The facts of this case lead us to
Furthermore, any prudent lawyer would verify the
believe that perhaps respondent would not have found
information contained in an attachment to her pleading,
herself in such a compromising situation had she
especially so when she has personal knowledge of the
exercised prudence and been more vigilant in finding out
facts and circumstances contained therein. In attaching
more about Carlos Ui's personal background prior to her
such Marriage Certificate with an intercalated date, the
intimate involvement with him.
defense of good faith of respondent on that point cannot
stand.
Surely, circumstances existed which should have at least
aroused respondent's suspicion that something was
It is the bounden duty of lawyers to adhere unwaveringly
amiss in her relationship with Carlos Ui, and moved her
to the highest standards of morality.1avvphi1 The legal
to ask probing questions. For instance, respondent
profession exacts from its members nothing less.
admitted that she knew that Carlos Ui had children with a
Lawyers are called upon to safeguard the integrity of the
woman from Amoy, China, yet it appeared that she never
Bar, free from misdeeds and acts constitutive of
exerted the slightest effort to find out if Carlos Ui and this
malpractice. Their exalted positions as officers of the
court demand no less than the highest degree of
morality.
SO ORDERED.
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
Again, on March 6, 2005, at about past 10:00 in the On the following day, March 7, 2005 respondent sent
morning, she met respondent at Starbucks coffee shop another message to complainant at 3:55:32 pm saying "I
in West Avenue, Quezon City to finalize the draft of the dont know wat 2 do s u may 4give me. "Im realy sri.
complaint to be filed in Court. After the meeting, Puede bati na tyo." (I dont know what to do so you may
respondent offered again a ride, which he usually did forgive me. Im really sorry. Puede bati na tayo).
every time they met. Along the way, complainant was
wandering (sic) why she felt so sleepy where in fact she
Respondent replied "talk to my lawyer in due time." Then
just got up from bed a few hours ago. At along Roosevelt
another message was received by her at 4:06:33 pm
Avenue immediately after corner of Felipe St., in San
saying "Ano k ba. Im really sri. Pls. Nxt ime bhave n
Francisco Del Monte, Quezon City when she was almost
me." (Ano ka ba. Im really sorry. Please next time
restless respondent stopped his car and forcefully hold
behave na ko), which is a clear manifestation of
(sic) her face and kissed her lips while the other hand
admission of guilt.2
was holding her breast. Complainant even in a state of
shocked (sic) succeeded in resisting his criminal attempt
and immediately manage (sic) to go (sic) out of the car. In his answer,3 respondent admitted that he agreed to
provide legal services to the complainant; that he met
with complainant on 10 February 2005 and 6 March
In the late afternoon, complainant sent a text message to
2005, to discuss the relevant matters relative to the case
respondent informing him that she decided to refer the
which complainant was intending to file against the
case with another lawyer and needs (sic) to get back the
owners of Queensway Travel and Tours for collection of
case folder from him. The communications transpired
a sum of money; that on both occasions, complainant
was recorded in her cellular phone and read as follows:
rode with him in his car where he held and kissed
complainant on the lips as the former offered her lips to
Sent by complainant - forget the case. I decided to refer it with him; and, that the corner of Cooper Street and Roosevelt
other lawyer Avenue, where he dropped off the complainant, was a
At 5:33:46 pm busy street teeming with people, thus, it would have
been impossible to commit the acts imputed to him.
replied by - "does this mean I can not c u anymore" By way of defense, respondent further elucidated that: 1)
respondent there was a criminal case for Acts of Lasciviousness filed
(Does this mean I cannot see you by complainant against respondent pending before the
at 6:16:11 pm Office of the City Prosecutor in Quezon City; 2) the legal
anymore) name of complainant is Cynthia Advincula Toriana since
she remains married to a certain Jinky Toriana because
the civil case for the nullification of their marriage was
sent by complainant - I feel bad. I cant expect that u will take archived pursuant to the Order dated 6 December 2000
advantage of the situation. issued by the Regional Trial Court of Maburao,
at 6:17:59 pm Occidental Mindoro; 3) the complainant was living with a
man not her husband; and 4) the complainant never
bothered to discuss respondents fees and it was
Follow-up message - wrong to kiss a girl especially in the lips if respondent who always paid for their bills every time
you dont have relationship with her. they met and ate at a restaurant.
Sent by complainant
A hearing was conducted by the Commission on Bar
At 6:29:30 pm Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) at
the IBP Building, Ortigas Center, Pasig City, on 26 July
2005.
Replied by - "Im veri sri. Its not tking advantage of the
respondent situation, 2 put it rightly it s an expression of On 30 September 2005, Investigating Commissioner
feeling. S sri" (Im very sorry. Its not taking Dennis A. B. Funa submitted his Report and
At 6:32:43 pm advantage of the situation, to put it rightly it is Recommendation,4 recommending the imposition of the
an expression of feeling) penalty of one (1) month suspension on respondent for
violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Thereafter, the IBP passed Resolution No. XVII-2006- condition to preserve their membership in the Bar in
117 dated 20 March 2006, approving and adopting, with good standing. The continued possession of good moral
modification, the recommendation of the Investigating character is a requisite condition for remaining in the
Commissioner, thus: practice of law.6 In Aldovino v. Pujalte, Jr.,7 we
emphasized that:
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby
ADOPTED and APPROVED, with modification, the This Court has been exacting in its demand for integrity
Report and Recommendation of the Investigating and good moral character of members of the Bar. They
Commissioner of the above-entitled case, herein made are expected at all times to uphold the integrity and
part of this Resolution as Annex "A"; and, finding the dignity of the legal profession and refrain from any act or
recommendation fully supported by the evidence on omission which might lessen the trust and confidence
record and the applicable laws and rules, and reposed by the public in the fidelity, honesty, and
considering the behavior of Respondent went beyond integrity of the legal profession. Membership in the legal
the norms of conduct required of a lawyer when dealing profession is a privilege. And whenever it is made to
with or relating with a client, Atty. Ernesto A. Macabata is appear that an attorney is no longer worthy of the trust
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3) and confidence of the public, it becomes not only the
months.5 right but also the duty of this Court, which made him one
of its officers and gave him the privilege of ministering
The issue to be resolved in this case is: whether within its Bar, to withdraw the privilege.
respondent committed acts that are grossly immoral or
which constitute serious moral depravity that would It is the bounden duty of lawyers to adhere unwaveringly
warrant his disbarment or suspension from the practice to the highest standards of morality. The legal profession
of law. exacts from its members nothing less. Lawyers are
called upon to safeguard the integrity of the Bar, free
Simple as the facts of the case may be, the manner by from misdeeds and acts constitutive of malpractice. Their
which we deal with respondents actuations shall have a exalted positions as officers of the court demand no less
rippling effect on how the standard norms of our legal than the highest degree of morality. 8 We explained in
practitioners should be defined. Perhaps morality in our Barrientos v. Daarol9 that, "as officers of the court,
liberal society today is a far cry from what it used to be. lawyers must not only in fact be of good moral character
This permissiveness notwithstanding, lawyers, as but must also be seen to be of good moral character and
keepers of public faith, are burdened with a high degree leading lives in accordance with the highest moral
of social responsibility and, hence, must handle their standards of the community."
personal affairs with greater caution.
Lawyers are expected to abide by the tenets of morality,
The Code of Professional Responsibility provides: not only upon admission to the Bar but also throughout
their legal career, in order to maintain their good
standing in this exclusive and honored fraternity. They
CANON I x x x
may be suspended from the practice of law or disbarred
for any misconduct, even if it pertains to his private
Rule 1.01-- A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, activities, as long as it shows him to be wanting in moral
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. character, honesty, probity or good demeanor.10
CANON 7-- A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity In Bar Matter No. 1154,11 good moral character was
and dignity of the legal profession and support the defined as what a person really is, as distinguished from
activities of the Integrated Bar. good reputation, or from the opinion generally
entertained of him, or the estimate in which he is held by
xxxx the public in the place where he is known. Moral
character is not a subjective term but one which
Rule 7.03-- A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that corresponds to objective reality.
adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall
he, whether in public or private life, behave in a It should be noted that the requirement of good moral
scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal character has four ostensible purposes, namely: (1) to
profession. protect the public; (2) to protect the public image of
lawyers; (3) to protect prospective clients; and (4) to
As may be gleaned from above, the Code of protect errant lawyers from themselves.12
Professional Responsibility forbids lawyers from
engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful In the case at bar, respondent admitted kissing
conduct. complainant on the lips.
Lawyers have been repeatedly reminded that their In his Answer,13 respondent confessed, thus:
possession of good moral character is a continuing
27. When she was about to get off the car, I said can I have an appointment. So we went out, we went inside
kiss you goodnight. She offered her left cheek and I my car and I said where to? Same place, she said, so
kissed it and with my left hand slightly pulled her right then at the same corner. So before she went down ,
face towards me and kissed her gently on the lips. We before she opened the door of the car, I saw her offered
said goodnight and she got off the car. her left cheek. So I kissed her again.
35. When I stopped my car I said okay. I saw her offered Pardon?
(sic) her left cheek and I lightly kissed it and with my right
hand slightly pulled her right cheek towards me and plant ATTY. MACABATA:
(sic) a light kiss on her lips. There was no force used. No
intimidation made, no lewd designs displayed. No breast I saw her offered her left cheek like that, so I kissed her
holding was done. Everything happened very again and then with the use of my left hand, pushed a
spontaneously with no reaction from her except saying little bit her face and then kissed her again softly on the
"sexual harassment." lips and thats it. x x x.14 (Emphases supplied.)
During the hearing held on 26 July 2005 at the 3rd floor, It is difficult to state with precision and to fix an inflexible
IBP Building, Dona Julia Vargas Avenue, Ortigas City, standard as to what is "grossly immoral conduct" or to
respondent candidly recalled the following events: specify the moral delinquency and obliquity which render
a lawyer unworthy of continuing as a member of the bar.
ATTY. MACABATA: The rule implies that what appears to be unconventional
behavior to the straight-laced may not be the immoral
That time in February, we met I fetched her I should conduct that warrants disbarment.15
say, somewhere along the corner of Edsa and Kamuning
because it was then raining so we are texting each other. In Zaguirre v. Castillo,16 we reiterated the definition of
So I parked my car somewhere along the corner of Edsa immoral conduct, as such conduct which is so willful,
and Kamuning and I was there about ten to fifteen flagrant, or shameless as to show indifference to the
minutes then she arrived. And so I said she opened opinion of good and respectable members of the
my car and then she went inside so I said, would you like community. Furthermore, for such conduct to warrant
that we have a Japanese dinner? And she said yes, disciplinary action, the same must not simply be
okay. So I brought her to Zensho which is along Tomas immoral, but grossly immoral. It must be so corrupt as to
Morato. When we were there, we discussed about her constitute a criminal act, or so unprincipled as to be
case, we ordered food and then a little while I told her, reprehensible to a high degree or committed under such
would it be okay for you of I (sic) order wine? She said scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the
yes so I ordered two glasses of red wine. After that, after common sense of decency.
discussing matters about her case, so I said its about
9:00 or beyond that time already, so I said okay, lets go. The following cases were considered by this Court as
So when I said lets go so I stood up and then I went to constitutive of grossly immoral conduct:
the car. I went ahead of my car and she followed me
then she rode on (sic) it. So I told her where to? She told
me just drop me at the same place where you have been In Toledo v. Toledo,17 a lawyer was disbarred from the
dropping me for the last meetings that we had and that practice of law, when he abandoned his lawful wife and
was at the corner of Morato and Roosevelt Avenue. So, cohabited with another woman who had borne him a
before she went down, I told her can I kiss you child.
goodnight? She offered her left cheek and I kissed it and
with the slight use of my right hand, I ... should I say In Obusan v. Obusan, Jr.,18 a lawyer was disbarred after
tilted her face towards me and when shes already facing complainant proved that he had abandoned her and
me I lightly kissed her on the lips. And then I said good maintained an adulterous relationship with a married
night. She went down the car, thats it. woman. This court declared that respondent failed to
maintain the highest degree of morality expected and
COMM. FUNA: required of a member of the bar.
WHEREFORE, the complaint for disbarment against A.C. No. 5916 July 1, 2003
respondent Atty. Ernesto Macabata, for alleged SELWYN F. LAO, complainant,
immorality, is hereby DISMISSED. However, respondent vs.
is hereby REPRIMANDED to be more prudent and ATTY. ROBERT W. MEDEL, respondent.
cautious in his dealing with his clients with a STERN PANGANIBAN, J.:
WARNING that a more severe sanction will be imposed
on him for any repetition of the same or similar offense in The deliberate failure to pay just debts and the issuance
the future. of worthless checks constitute gross misconduct, for
which a lawyer may be sanctioned with one-year
SO ORDERED. suspension from the practice of law.
The Case and the Facts a violation of Article 315, paragraph 2, (d), RPC, which is
issuing a post-dated check or a check in payment of an
This administrative case stems from a Complaint- obligation, with insufficient funds in the drawee bank,
Affidavit1 filed with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines- through false pretenses or fraudulent acts, executed
Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) by Selwyn F. prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the
Lao. Atty. Robert W. Medel was charged therein with fraud, which is a crime involving moral turpitude;
dishonesty, grave misconduct and conduct unbecoming
an attorney. "(b). If the respondent is to be disciplined by the
Supreme Court, under Sec. 27, Rule 138 of the Rules,
The material averments of the Complaint are for the issuance of a worthless check, in violation of B.P.
summarized by the IBP-CBD in this wise: 22, for payment of a pre-existing obligation to the
complainant, then, verily, the said Rule 138, Sec. 27,
would be a cruel and an unjust law, which the Honorable
"The Complaint arose from the [respondents] persistent
Supreme Court would not countenance;
refusal to make good on four (4) RCBC checks totaling
[t]wenty [t]wo [t]housand (P22,000.00) [p]esos. These
dishonored checks were issued by defendant in "(c). A careful examination of the specific grounds
replacement for previous checks issued to the enumerated, for disbarment or suspension of a member
complainant. Based on the exchange of letters between of the Bar, under Sec. 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules,
the parties, it appears that [respondent], in a letter dated clearly shows beyond a shadow of doubt that the alleged
June 19, 2001, had committed to forthwith effect issuance of a worthless check, in violation of B.P. 22, is
immediate settlement of my outstanding obligation of NOT one of the grounds for disciplinary action against a
P22,000.00 with Engr. Lao, at the earliest possible time, member of the Bar, to warrant his disbarment or
preferably, on or before the end of June 2000. Again, in suspension from his office as attorney, by the Supreme
a letter dated July 3, 2000, the [respondent] made a Court; and
request for a final extension of only ten (10) days from
June 30, 2000 (or not later than July 10, 2000), within "(d). The issuance of a worthless check by a member of
which to effect payment of P22,000.00 to Engr. Lao. the Bar, in violation of B.P. 22, does NOT constitute
Needless to say, the initiation of this present complaint dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct, under Canon 1
proves that contrary to his written promises, Atty. Medel and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
never made good on his dishonored checks. Neither has This is because, the door to the law profession swings
he paid his indebtedness."2 on reluctant hinges. Stated otherwise, unless there is a
clear, palpable and unmitigated immoral or deceitful
In his Answer3 dated July 30, 2001, Atty. Medel reasons conduct, of a member of the Bar, in violation of his oath
that because all of his proposals to settle his obligation as an attorney, by the mere issuance of a worthless
were rejected, he was unable to comply with his promise check, in violation of B.P. 22, the Supreme Court is
to pay complainant. Respondent maintains that the inclined to give the said attorney, the benefit of the
Complaint did not constitute a valid ground for doubt."4
disciplinary action because of the following:
On August 22, 2001, complainant submitted his Reply. 5
"(a). Under Sec. 27, Rule 138 of the Rules, a member of Thereafter, IBP-CBD Commissioner Renato G.
the Bar, may be disbarred or suspended from his office Cunanan, to whom the case was assigned by the IBP for
as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, investigation and report, scheduled the case for hearing
malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, on October 4, 2001. After several cancellations, the
grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction parties finally met on May 29, 2002. In that hearing,
of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation respondent acknowledged his obligation and committed
of the oath which he is required to take before admission himself to pay a total of P42,000 (P22,000 for his
to practice, or for a wil[l]ful disobedience of any lawful principal debt and P20,000 for attorneys fees).
order of a superior court, or for corruptly or wil[l]fully Complainant agreed to give him until July 4, 2002 to
appearing as an attorney for a party to case without settle the principal debt and to discuss the plan of
authority so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at law payment for attorneys fees in the next hearing.
for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid
agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice; On July 4, 2002, both parties appeared before the IBP-
CBD for their scheduled hearing. But, while waiting for
"(a.1). Applying the afore-cited legal provision to the the case to be called, respondent suddenly insisted on
facts obtaining in the present case, it is clear that the leaving, supposedly to attend to a family emergency.
offense with which the respondent is being charged by Complainants counsel objected and Commissioner
the complainant, is merely a violation of Batas Cunanan, who was still conducting a hearing in another
Pambansa Bilang 22 (B.P. 22, for brevity), which is a case, ordered him to wait. He, however, retorted in a
special law, and is not punishable under the Revised loud voice, "Its up to you, this is only disbarment, my
Penal Code (RPC, for brevity). It is self-evident family is more important."6 And, despite the objection
therefore, that the offense is not in the same category as and the warning, he arrogantly left. He made no effort to
comply with his undertaking to settle his indebtedness the latter had refused to accept the formers plan of
before leaving. payment. It must be pointed out that complainant had no
obligation to accept it, considering respondents previous
Report and Recommendation of the IBP failure to comply with earlier payment plans for the same
debt.
In his September 19, 2002 Report,7 Commissioner
Cunanan found respondent guilty of violating the Moreover, before the IBP-CBD, respondent had
attorneys oath and the Code of Professional voluntarily committed himself to the payment of his
Responsibility. The former explained that, contrary to the debts, yet failed again to fulfill his promise. That he had
latters claim, violation of BP 22 was a crime that no real intention to settle them is evident from his
involved moral turpitude. Further, he observed that unremitting failed commitments. His cavalier attitude in
[w]hile no criminal case may have been instituted incurring debts without any intention of paying for them
against [respondent], it is beyond cavil that indeed, [the puts his moral character in serious doubt.
latter] committed not one (1) but four counts of violation
of BP 22."8 The "refusal [by respondent] to pay his Verily, lawyers must at all times faithfully perform their
indebtedness, his broken promises, his arrogant attitude duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and to their
towards complainants counsel and the [commission clients. As part of those duties, they must promptly pay
sufficiently] warrant the imposition of sanctions against their financial obligations. Their conduct must always
him."9 Thus, the investigating commissioner reflect the values and norms of the legal profession as
recommended that respondent be suspended from the embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility. On
practice of law. these considerations, the Court may disbar or suspend
lawyers for any professional or private misconduct
In Resolution No. XV-2002-598,10 the Board of showing them to be wanting in moral character, honesty,
Governors of the IBP adopted the Report and probity and good demeanor -- or to be unworthy to
Recommendation of Commissioner Cunanan and continue as officers of the Court.12
resolved to suspend respondent from the practice of law
for two years. The Resolution, together with the records It is equally disturbing that respondent remorselessly
of the case, was transmitted to this Court for final action, issued a series of worthless checks, unmindful of the
pursuant to Rule 139-B Sec. 12(b). deleterious effects of such act to public interest and
public order.13
The Courts Ruling
Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
We agree with the findings and recommendation of the mandates all members of the bar to obey the laws of the
IBP Board of Governors, but reduce the period of land and promote respect for law. Rule 1.01 of the Code
suspension to one year. specifically provides that "[a] lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct." In Co
v. Bernardino,14 the Court considered the issuance of
Administrative Liability of Respondent
worthless checks as a violation of this Rule and an act
constituting gross misconduct. It explained thus:
Lawyers are instruments for the administration of justice.
As vanguards of our legal system, they are expected to
"The general rule is that a lawyer may not be suspended
maintain not only legal proficiency but also a high
or disbarred, and the court may not ordinarily assume
standard of morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing. 11
jurisdiction to discipline him for misconduct in his non-
In so doing, the peoples faith and confidence in the
professional or private capacity (In Re Pelaez, 44 Phil.
judicial system is ensured.
5569 [1923]). Where, however, the misconduct outside
of the lawyer's professional dealings is so gross a
In the present case, respondent has been brought to this character as to show him morally unfit for the office and
Court for failure to pay his debts and for issuing unworthy of the privilege which his licenses and the law
worthless checks as payment for his loan from confer on him, the court may be justified in suspending
complainant. While acknowledging the fact that he or removing him from the office of attorney (In Re Sotto,
issued several worthless checks, he contends that such 38 Phil. 569 [1923]).
act constitutes neither a violation of the Code of
Professional Responsibility; nor dishonest, immoral or
"The evidence on record clearly shows respondent's
deceitful conduct.
propensity to issue bad checks. This gross misconduct
on his part, though not related to his professional duties
The defense proffered by respondent is untenable. It is as a member of the bar, puts his moral character in
evident from the records that he made several promises serious doubt. The Commission, however, does not find
to pay his debt promptly. However, he reneged on his him a hopeless case in the light of the fact that he
obligation despite sufficient time afforded him. Worse, he eventually paid his obligation to the complainant, albeit
refused to recognize any wrongdoing and transferred the very much delayed.
blame to complainant, on the contorted reasoning that
"While it is true that there was no attorney-client the officer assigned to investigate his case. Assuming
relationship between complainant and respondent as the that he had a very important personal matter to attend to,
transaction between them did not require the he could have politely explained his predicament to the
professional legal services of respondent, nevertheless investigating commissioner and asked permission to
respondent's abject conduct merits condemnation from leave immediately. Unfortunately, the former showed
this Court. dismal behavior by raising his voice and leaving without
the consent of complainant and the investigating
"As early as 1923, however, the Court laid down in In Re commissioner.
Vicente Pelaez [44 Phil.567 (1923)] the principle that it
can exercise its power to discipline lawyers for causes We stress that membership in the legal profession is a
which do not involve the relationship of an attorney and privilege.16 It demands a high degree of good moral
client x x x In disciplining the respondent, Mr. Justice character, not only as a condition precedent to
Malcolm said: x x x As a general rule, a court will not admission, but also as a continuing requirement for the
assume jurisdiction to discipline one of its officers for practice of law.17 In this case, respondent fell short of the
misconduct alleged to have been committed in his exacting standards expected of him as a guardian of law
private capacity. But this is a general rule with many and justice.18
exceptions x x x. The nature of the office, the trust
relation which exists between attorney and client, as well Accordingly, administrative sanction is warranted by his
as between court and attorney, and the statutory rules gross misconduct. The IBP Board of Governors
prescribing the qualifications of attorneys, uniformly recommended that he be suspended from the practice of
require that an attorney shall be a person of good moral law for two years. However, in line with Co v.
character. If that qualification is a condition precedent to Bernardino,19 Ducat Jr. v. Villalon Jr.20 and Saburnido v.
a license or privilege to enter upon the practice of the Madroo21 -- which also involved gross misconduct of
law, it would seem to be equally essential during the lawyers -- we find the suspension of one year sufficient
continuance of the practice and the exercise of the in this case.
privilege. So it is held that an attorney will be removed
not only for malpractice and dishonesty in his profession, WHEREFORE, Atty. Robert W. Medel is found guilty of
but also for gross misconduct not connected with his gross misconduct and is hereby SUSPENDED for one
professional duties, which shows him to be unfit for the year from the practice of law, effective upon his receipt of
office and unworthy of the privileges which his license this Decision. He is warned that a repetition of the same
and the law confer upon him x x x. or a similar act will be dealt with more severely.
"Ten years later, in Piatt v. Abordo where the erring Let copies of this Decision be entered in the record of
lawyer was suspended for one year from the practice of respondent and served on the IBP, as well as on the
law for attempting to engage in an opium deal, Justice court administrator who shall circulate it to all courts for
Malcolm reiterated that an attorney may be removed not their information and guidance.
only for malpractice and dishonesty in his profession, but
also for gross misconduct not related to his professional
duties which show him to be an unfit and unworthy SO ORDERED.
lawyer. The courts are not curators of the morals of the
bar. At the same time the profession is not compelled to
harbor all persons whatever their character, who are
fortunate enough to keep out of prison. As good
character is an essential qualification for admission of an
attorney to practice, when the attorney's character is bad
in such respects as to show that he is unsafe and unfit to
be entrusted with the powers of an attorney, the courts
retain the power to discipline him x x x Of all classes and
professions, the lawyer is most sacredly bound to uphold
the law x x x and to that doctrine we give our unqualified
support."
Thus, it was imperative for him to respect the authority of Before Us is a Complaint1 for disbarment filed by
complainant Wilson Cham against respondent Atty. Eva
Paita-Moya, who he alleged committed deceit in On 8 September 2006, Investigating Commissioner
occupying a leased apartment unit and, thereafter, Acerey C. Pacheco submitted his Report and
vacating the same without paying the rentals due. Recommendation,7 recommending the imposition of the
penalty of three-month suspension on respondent for
According to the Complaint, on 1 October 1998, violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, to
respondent entered into a Contract of Lease2 with wit:
Greenville Realty and Development Corp. (GRDC),
represented by complainant as its President and General WHEREFORE, it is respectfully recommended that
Manager, involving a residential apartment unit owned by herein respondent be held guilty of having violated the
GRDC located at No. 61-C Kalayaan Avenue, Quezon aforequoted provision of the Code of Professional
City, for a consideration of P8,000.00 per month for a Responsibility and imposed upon her the penalty of three
term of one year. (3) months suspension from the practice of law.
Upon the expiration of said lease contract, respondent The IBP Board of Governors, however, passed
informed the complainant that she would no longer Resolution No. XVII-2006-5858 dated 15 December
renew the same but requested an extension of her stay 2006, amending the recommendation of the Investigating
at the apartment unit until 30 June 2000 with a Commissioner and approving the dismissal of the
commitment that she would be paying the monthly rental Complaint, thus:
during the extension period. Complainant approved such
request but increased the rental rate to P8,650.00 per RESOLVED to AMEND, as it is hereby AMENDED, the
month for the period beginning 1 October 1999 until 30 Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner,
June 2000. and to APPROVE the DISMISSAL of the above-entitled
case for lack of merit.
Respondent stayed at the leased premises up to
October 2000 without paying her rentals from July to We do not agree with the foregoing Resolution of the IBP
October 2000. She also failed to settle her electric bills Board of Governors. The Complaint should not be
for the months of September and October 2000. The dismissed and respondent must face the consequences
Statement of Account as of 15 October 20043 shows that of her actions.
respondents total accountability is P71,007.88.
It is undisputed that by virtue of a lease contract she
Sometime in October 2000, a report reached executed with GRDC, respondent was able to occupy
complainants office that respondent had secretly the apartment unit for a period of one year, from 1
vacated the apartment unit, bringing along with her the October 1998 to 30 September 1999, paying a monthly
door keys. Also, respondent did not heed complainants rental of P8,000.00. Upon the expiration of the lease
repeated written demands for payment of her obligations contract9 on 30 September 1999, the same was
despite due receipt of the same, compelling complainant renewed, but on a month-to-month basis at an increased
to file the present Complaint. rental rate of P8,650.00. Under such an arrangement,
respondent was able to stay at the leased premises until
In her Answer,4 respondent alleged that she had October 2000, undoubtedly incurring electric bills during
religiously paid her monthly rentals and had not vacated the said period.
the apartment unit surreptitiously. She also averred that
she transferred to another place because she was given A review of the records would reveal that respondent is,
notice by the complainant to vacate the premises to give indeed, guilty of willful failure to pay just debt.
way for the repair and renovation of the same, but which Complainant is able to fully substantiate that respondent
never happened until presently. Respondent actually has existing obligations that she failed to settle.
wanted to ask that complainant to account for her
deposit for the apartment unit, but she could not do so Annex "D"10 of the Complaint is a letter dated 11
since she did not know complainants address or contact September 2000 signed by complainant and addressed
number. For the same reason, she could not turn over to to respondent demanding that she settle her unpaid
the complainant the door keys to the vacated apartment rentals for the period of three months, particularly, from 1
unit. July to 30 September 2000. The letter appears to have
been received by one Purificacion D. Flores. Annex "H"
After the mandatory preliminary conference conducted of the same Complaint is another letter dated 30 August
by the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated 2004 by complainant reiterating his earlier demand for
Bar of the Philippines (IBP) at the IBP Building, Ortigas respondent to settle her unpaid rentals, as well as her
Center, Pasig City, the parties were given time to submit unpaid Meralco bills. This second letter of demand was
their respective Position Papers per Order5 dated 17 sent through registered mail and received by one Nonie
February 2006. On 29 March 2006, complainant filed his Catindig. Respondent did not expressly deny receipt of
Position Paper.6 Respondent, despite the extension both letters of demand in her Answer to the Complaint.
given, did not file hers. Hence, the case was deemed Having failed to rebut the foregoing allegations, she must
submitted for resolution. be deemed to have admitted them. Section 11, Rule 8 of
the Rules of Court, provides: Respondents defense that she does not know where to
find the complainant or his office is specious and does
SECTION 11. Allegations not specifically denied deemed not inspire belief considering that she had been
admitted. Material averment in the complaint, other occupying the apartment unit and paying the rents due
than those as to the amount of unliquidated damage, (except for the period complained of) for almost two
shall be deemed admitted when not specifically denied. years. How she could have dealt with complainant and
GRDC for two years without at all knowing their office
address and contact numbers totally escapes this Court.
Moreover, a settled rule of evidence is that the one who
This is only a desperate attempt to justify what is clearly
pleads payment has the burden of proving it. Even
an unjustifiable act.
where it is the plaintiff (complainant herein) who alleges
non-payment, the general rule is that the burden rests on
the defendant (respondent herein) to prove payment, Lawyers are instruments for the administration of justice.
rather than on the plaintiff to prove non-payment. The As vanguards of our legal system, they are expected to
debtor has the burden of showing with legal certainty maintain not only legal proficiency but also a high
that the obligation has been discharged by payment.11 standard of morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing. 15
In so doing, the peoples faith and confidence in the
judicial and legal system is ensured.
Apropos is another well-settled rule in our jurisprudence
that a receipt of payment is the best evidence of the fact
of payment.12 In Monfort v. Aguinaldo,13 the receipts of Verily, lawyers must at all times faithfully perform their
payment, although not exclusive, were deemed to be the duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and to their
best evidence. A receipt is a written and signed clients. As part of those duties, they must promptly pay
acknowledgment that money or goods have been their financial obligations. Their conduct must always
delivered. In the instant case, the respondent failed to reflect the values and norms of the legal profession as
discharge the burden of proving payment, for she was embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility. On
unable to produce receipts or any other proof of payment these considerations, the Court may disbar or suspend
of the rentals due for the period of 1 July to 20 lawyers for any professional or private misconduct
September 2000. showing them to be wanting in moral character, honesty,
probity and good demeanor -- or to be unworthy to
continue as officers of the Court.16
It is thus evident to this Court that respondent willfully
failed to pay her just debts. Her unpaid rentals and
electric bills constitute "just debts," which could be any of The Court stresses that membership in the legal
the following: (1) claims adjudicated by a court of law; or profession is a privilege.17 It demands a high degree of
(2) claims the existence and justness of which are good moral character, not only as a condition precedent
admitted by the debtor.14 to admission, but also as a continuing requirement for
the practice of law.18 In this case, respondent fell short of
the exacting standards expected of her as a guardian of
Having incurred just debts, respondent had the moral
law and justice.19
duty and legal responsibility to settle them when they
became due. Respondent should have complied with
just contractual obligations, and acted fairly and adhered Any gross misconduct of a lawyer in his or her
to high ethical standards to preserve the courts integrity, professional or private capacity is a ground for the
since she is an employee thereof. Indeed, when imposition of the penalty of suspension or disbarment
respondent backtracked on her duty to pay her debts, because good character is an essential qualification for
such act already constituted a ground for administrative the admission to the practice of law and for the
sanction. continuance of such privilege.20 The Court has held that
the deliberate failure to pay just debts and the issuance
of worthless checks constitute gross misconduct,21 for
Respondent left the apartment unit without settling her
which a lawyer may be sanctioned with one years
unpaid obligations, and without the complainants
suspension from the practice of law,22 or a suspension of
knowledge and consent. Respondents abandonment of
six months upon partial payment of the obligation. 23
the leased premises to avoid her obligations for the rent
and electricity bills constitutes deceitful conduct violative
of the Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly Accordingly, administrative sanction is warranted by
Canon I and Rule 1.01 thereof, which explicitly state: respondents gross misconduct. The case at bar merely
involves the respondents deliberate failure to pay her
just debts, without her issuing a worthless check, which
"CANON 1- A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey
would have been a more serious offense. The
the laws of the land and promote respect for law and
Investigating Commissioner of the IBP recommended
legal processes.
that she be suspended from the practice of law for three
months, a penalty which this Court finds sufficient.
"Rule 1.01- A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct."
WHEREFORE, Atty. Eva Paita-Moya is found guilty of
gross misconduct and is hereby SUSPENDED for one
month from the practice of law, effective upon her receipt
of this Decision. She is warned that a repetition of the
same or a similar act will be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
This administrative complaint arose from a paid In the meantime, respondent filed an Urgent Motion for
advertisement that appeared in the July 5, 2000 issue of Reconsideration,8 which was denied by the IBP in
the newspaper, Philippine Daily Inquirer, which reads: Resolution No. XV-2002-606 dated October 19, 2002 9
"ANNULMENT OF MARRIAGE Specialist 532-4333/521-
2667."1 Hence, the instant petition for certiorari, which was
docketed as G.R. No. 157053 entitled, "Atty. Rizalino T.
Ms. Ma. Theresa B. Espeleta, a staff member of the Simbillo, Petitioner versus IBP Commission on Bar
Public Information Office of the Supreme Court, called Discipline, Atty. Ismael G. Khan, Jr., Asst. Court
up the published telephone number and pretended to be Administrator and Chief, Public Information Office,
an interested party. She spoke to Mrs. Simbillo, who Respondents." This petition was consolidated with A.C.
claimed that her husband, Atty. Rizalino Simbillo, was an No. 5299 per the Courts Resolution dated March 4,
expert in handling annulment cases and can guarantee a 2003.
court decree within four to six months, provided the case
will not involve separation of property or custody of In a Resolution dated March 26, 2003, the parties were
children. Mrs. Simbillo also said that her husband required to manifest whether or not they were willing to
charges a fee of P48,000.00, half of which is payable at submit the case for resolution on the basis of the
the time of filing of the case and the other half after a pleadings.10 Complainant filed his Manifestation on April
decision thereon has been rendered. 25, 2003, stating that he is not submitting any additional
pleading or evidence and is submitting the case for its
Further research by the Office of the Court Administrator early resolution on the basis of pleadings and records
and the Public Information Office revealed that similar thereof. 11 Respondent, on the other hand, filed a
advertisements were published in the August 2 and 6, Supplemental Memorandum on June 20, 2003.
2000 issues of the Manila Bulletin and August 5, 2000
issue of The Philippine Star.2 We agree with the IBPs Resolutions Nos. XV-2002-306
and XV-2002-606.
On September 1, 2000, Atty. Ismael G. Khan, Jr., in his
capacity as Assistant Court Administrator and Chief of Rules 2.03 and 3.01 of the Code of Professional
the Public Information Office, filed an administrative Responsibility read:
complaint against Atty. Rizalino T. Simbillo for improper
advertising and solicitation of his legal services, in Rule 2.03. A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done
violation of Rule 2.03 and Rule 3.01 of the Code of any act designed primarily to solicit legal business.
Professional Responsibility and Rule 138, Section 27 of
the Rules of Court.3
Rule 3.01. A lawyer shall not use or permit the use of
any false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, undignified,
In his answer, respondent admitted the acts imputed to self-laudatory or unfair statement or claim regarding his
him, but argued that advertising and solicitation per se qualifications or legal services.
are not prohibited acts; that the time has come to change
our views about the prohibition on advertising and
solicitation; that the interest of the public is not served by Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court states:
the absolute prohibition on lawyer advertising; that the
Court can lift the ban on lawyer advertising; and that the SEC. 27. Disbarment and suspension of attorneys by
rationale behind the decades-old prohibition should be Supreme Court, grounds therefor. A member of the bar
abandoned. Thus, he prayed that he be exonerated from may be disbarred or suspended from his office as
all the charges against him and that the Court attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit,
promulgate a ruling that advertisement of legal services malpractice or other gross misconduct in such office,
offered by a lawyer is not contrary to law, public policy grossly immoral conduct or by reason of his conviction of
and public order as long as it is dignified.4 a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of
the oath which he is required to take before the
The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience
Philippines for investigation, report and appearing as attorney for a party without authority to do
recommendation.5 On June 29, 2002, the IBP so.
Commission on Bar Discipline passed Resolution No.
XV-2002-306,6 finding respondent guilty of violation of It has been repeatedly stressed that the practice of law is
Rules 2.03 and 3.01 of the Code of Professional not a business.12 It is a profession in which duty to public
Responsibility and Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of service, not money, is the primary consideration.
Court, and suspended him from the practice of law for Lawyering is not primarily meant to be a money-making
one (1) year with the warning that a repetition of similar venture, and law advocacy is not a capital that
acts would be dealt with more severely. The IBP necessarily yields profits.13 The gaining of a livelihood
Resolution was noted by this Court on November 11, should be a secondary consideration.14 The duty to
public service and to the administration of justice should brief biographical and informative data is likewise
be the primary consideration of lawyers, who must allowable. As explicitly stated in Ulep v. Legal Clinic,
subordinate their personal interests or what they owe to Inc.:22
themselves.15 The following elements distinguish the
legal profession from a business: Such data must not be misleading and may include only
a statement of the lawyers name and the names of his
1. A duty of public service, of which the emolument is a professional associates; addresses, telephone numbers,
by-product, and in which one may attain the highest cable addresses; branches of law practiced; date and
eminence without making much money; place of birth and admission to the bar; schools attended
with dates of graduation, degrees and other educational
2. A relation as an "officer of the court" to the distinctions; public or quasi-public offices; posts of honor;
administration of justice involving thorough sincerity, legal authorships; legal teaching positions; membership
integrity and reliability; and offices in bar associations and committees thereof,
in legal and scientific societies and legal fraternities; the
fact of listings in other reputable law lists; the names and
3. A relation to clients in the highest degree of fiduciary;
addresses of references; and, with their written consent,
the names of clients regularly represented.
4. A relation to colleagues at the bar characterized by
candor, fairness, and unwillingness to resort to current
The law list must be a reputable law list published
business methods of advertising and encroachment on
primarily for that purpose; it cannot be a mere
their practice, or dealing directly with their clients.16
supplemental feature of a paper, magazine, trade journal
or periodical which is published principally for other
There is no question that respondent committed the acts purposes. For that reason, a lawyer may not properly
complained of. He himself admits that he caused the publish his brief biographical and informative data in a
publication of the advertisements. While he professes daily paper, magazine, trade journal or society program.
repentance and begs for the Courts indulgence, his Nor may a lawyer permit his name to be published in a
contrition rings hollow considering the fact that he law list the conduct, management, or contents of which
advertised his legal services again after he pleaded for are calculated or likely to deceive or injure the public or
compassion and after claiming that he had no intention the bar, or to lower dignity or standing of the profession.
to violate the rules. Eight months after filing his answer,
he again advertised his legal services in the August 14,
The use of an ordinary simple professional card is also
2001 issue of the Buy & Sell Free Ads Newspaper. 17 Ten
permitted. The card may contain only a statement of his
months later, he caused the same advertisement to be
name, the name of the law firm which he is connected
published in the October 5, 2001 issue of Buy & Sell. 18
with, address, telephone number and special branch of
Such acts of respondent are a deliberate and
law practiced. The publication of a simple announcement
contemptuous affront on the Courts authority.
of the opening of a law firm or of changes in the
partnership, associates, firm name or office address,
What adds to the gravity of respondents acts is that in being for the convenience of the profession, is not
advertising himself as a self-styled "Annulment of objectionable. He may likewise have his name listed in a
Marriage Specialist," he wittingly or unwittingly erodes telephone directory but not under a designation of
and undermines not only the stability but also the special branch of law. (emphasis and italics supplied)
sanctity of an institution still considered sacrosanct
despite the contemporary climate of permissiveness in
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, respondent
our society. Indeed, in assuring prospective clients that
RIZALINO T. SIMBILLO is found GUILTY of violation of
an annulment may be obtained in four to six months from
Rules 2.03 and 3.01 of the Code of Professional
the time of the filing of the case, 19 he in fact encourages
Responsibility and Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of
people, who might have otherwise been disinclined and
Court. He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for
would have refrained from dissolving their marriage
ONE (1) YEAR effective upon receipt of this Resolution.
bonds, to do so.
He is likewise STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of
the same or similar offense will be dealt with more
Nonetheless, the solicitation of legal business is not severely.
altogether proscribed. However, for solicitation to be
proper, it must be compatible with the dignity of the legal
Let copies of this Resolution be entered in his record as
profession. If it is made in a modest and decorous
attorney and be furnished the Integrated Bar of the
manner, it would bring no injury to the lawyer and to the
Philippines and all courts in the country for their
bar.20 Thus, the use of simple signs stating the name or
information and guidance.
names of the lawyers, the office and residence address
and fields of practice, as well as advertisement in legal
periodicals bearing the same brief data, are permissible. SO ORDERED.
Even the use of calling cards is now acceptable. 21
Publication in reputable law lists, in a manner consistent
with the standards of conduct imposed by the canon, of
A.C. No, 6854 April 25, 2007[Formerly CBD
Case No. 04-1380]
JUAN DULALIA, JR., Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. PABLO C. CRUZ, Respondent.
DECISION
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
As for respondents September 13, 2004 letter, there is In St. Louis University Laboratory High School v. De la
nothing to show that he opposed the application for Cruz,26 this Court declared that the therein respondents
act of contracting a second marriage while the first law schools as well as in the practical training of law
marriage was still subsisting constituted immoral students and assist in disseminating information
conduct, for which he was suspended for two years after regarding the law and jurisprudence.
the mitigating following circumstances were considered:
Respondents claim that he was not aware that the
a. After his first failed marriage and prior to his second Family Code already took effect on August 3, 1988 as he
marriage or for a period of almost seven (7) years, he was in the United States from 1986 and stayed there
has not been romantically involved with any woman; until he came back to the Philippines together with his
second wife on October 9, 1990 does not lie, as
b. His second marriage was a show of his noble "ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance
intentions and total love for his wife, whom he described therewith."
to be very intelligent person;
Apropos is this Courts pronouncement in Santiago v.
c. He never absconded from his obligations to support Rafanan:29
his wife and child;
It must be emphasized that the primary duty of lawyers is
d. He never disclaimed paternity over the child and to obey the laws of the land and promote respect for the
husbandry (sic) with relation to his wife; law and legal processes. They are expected to be in the
forefront in the observance and maintenance of the rule
of law. This duty carries with it the obligation to be
e. After the annulment of his second marriage, they have
well-informed of the existing laws and to keep
parted ways when the mother and child went to
abreast with legal developments, recent enactments
Australia;
and jurisprudence. It is imperative that they be
conversant with basic legal principles. Unless they
f. Since then up to now, respondent remained celibate. 27 faithfully comply with such duty, they may not be
able to discharge competently and diligently their
In respondents case, he being out of the country since obligations as members of the bar. Worse, they may
1986, he can be given the benefit of the doubt on his become susceptible to committing mistakes. 30
claim that Article 83 of the Civil Code was the applicable (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
provision when he contracted the second marriage
abroad. From 1985 when allegedly his first wife WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Pablo C. Cruz is guilty
abandoned him, an allegation which was not refuted, of violating Rule 1.01 and Canon 5 of the Code of
until his marriage in 1989 with Imelda Soriano, there is Professional Responsibility and is SUSPENDED from
no showing that he was romantically involved with any the practice of law for one year. He is WARNED that a
woman. And, it is undisputed that his first wife has similar infraction will be dealt with more severely.
remained an absentee even during the pendency of this
case.
Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Office of the
Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and
As noted above, respondent did not deny he contracted all courts throughout the country.
marriage with Imelda Soriano. The community in which
they have been living in fact elected him and served as
SO ORDERED.
President of the IBP-Bulacan Chapter from 1997-1999
and has been handling free legal aid cases.