Pale Digests
Pale Digests
Rule 1.01 of the Code states that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, They must, at all times, faithfully perform their duties to society, to the bar, the courts
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. It instructs that as officers of the court, and to their clients, which include prompt payment of financial obligations.
lawyers are bound to maintain not only a high standard of legal proficiency, but
also of morality, honesty, integrity, and fair dealing. Respondent did not regularly update his client - Respondent cannot invoke the
distance of the parties or the erratic internet service in failing to comply with his duty as a
Rule 16.04 of the Code states that a lawyer shall not borrow money from his
lawyer. If respondent was sincere in updating complainant with her case, then he should
client unless the client's interest are fully protected by the nature of the case or
have availed of the numerous and modern channels of communication to reach his client,
by independent advice. The rule against borrowing of money by a lawyer from his
but he failed to do so. Hence, respondent violated Rule 18.04, which requires that a
client is intended to prevent the lawyer from taking advantage of his influence
lawyer must regularly update his or her client regarding the status of his or her case. As
over his client.
an officer of the court, it is the duty of an attorney to inform his client of whatever
On the other hand, Rule 18.04 of the Code states that a lawyer shall keep the
important information he may have acquired affecting his client's case. He should notify
client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable
his client of any adverse decision to enable his client to decide whether to seek an
time to the client's request for information. It is the lawyer's duty to keep his
appellate review thereof. Keeping the client informed of the developments of the case will
client constantly updated on the developments of his case as it is crucial in
minimize misunderstanding and loss of trust and confidence in the attorney.
maintaining the latter's confidence.
RULING:
In this case, the Court finds that respondent violated Rule 1.01, Rules 16.04, and 18.04 of
GUILTY of violating Rules 1.01, 16.04, and 18.04 of the Code of Professional
the Code based on the substantial evidence presented by complainant.
Responsibility
Fake complaint for ejectment - By delivering a fake receiving copy of the complaint to DISBARRED from the practice of law and his name stricken off the Roll of
his client, thereby deceiving the latter in filing the case, respondent participated in Attorneys
deceitful conduct towards his client in violation of Rule 1.01 of the Code. As a lawyer, ORDERED to return to complainant Rosalie P. Domingo the amount of
respondent should have noticed these irregularities before furnishing his client with the P50,000.00, as legal deposit to cover the expenses related to the expected
copy of the said complaint. Further, respondent did not give any concrete detail on the litigation, and P100,000.00, as cash advance chargeable against his appearance
consequences incurred by his messenger; whether appropriate criminal or disciplinary fees and other fees, with interest of 6% per annum reckoned from the date of
charges were instituted against him for faking the said receiving copy. In any case, the receipt of this Decision
respondent cannot "pass the buck" to his messenger and escape liability because he has a FINE in the amount P5,000.00 for disobedience to the orders of the Integrated
sworn duty to observe due diligence and honesty in dealing with his client. Bar of the Philippines - Commission on Bar Discipline. These payments shall be
made within ten (10) days from the receipt of this Decision.
Respondent borrowed money from his client; return of the amounts - Unless the
client's interests are fully protected, a lawyer must never borrow money from his or her
client. The Court has consistently held that deliberate failure to pay just debts constitutes
MA. VICTORIA S.D. CARPIO AND JOHN PERSIUS S.D. CARPIO been taking steps towards delaying the case. Moreover, she insisted that her actions were
v. JUDGE ELENITA C. DIMAGUILA not brought about by her utter lack of familiarity and disregard of the rules, since she
readily issues orders directing the parties in other cases to report to the CAM mediator
A.M. NO. MTJ-17-1897 [FORMERLY OCA IPI NO. 16-2832-MTJ), NOVEMBER 21, 2018 after the accused's arraignment.
FACTS: Respondent presided over a case for Grave Coercion against complainants Ma. ISSUE: WON the Court's Resolution dated April 17, 2017 finding respondent guilty of
Victoria S.D. Carpio and John Persius S.D. Carpio (complainants). During the proceedings, Gross Ignorance of the Law should be reconsidered.
respondent allegedly refused to refer the case to the mandatory Court-Annexed Mediation
and Judicial Dispute Resolution, pursuant to A.M. No. 11-1-6-SC-PHILJA, otherwise known RULING: YES
as the "Consolidated and Revised Guidelines to Implement the Expanded Coverage of
Court-Annexed Mediation (CAM) and Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR)." Accordingly, After a judicious study of the case, the Court finds sufficient basis to hold respondent
complainants filed a Joint Complaint Affidavit for Gross Ignorance of the Law, Manifest liable only for Violation of Supreme Cout Rules, Directives, and Circulars (a less serious
Bias and Partiality, Patently Erroneous and Serious Irregularity of Judgment, and Grave charge), instead of Gross Ignorance of the Law (a serious charge).
Abuse of Authority/Discretion against respondent before the Office of the Court
Administrator (OCA). Under Section 8, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, Gross Ignorance of the Law or Procedure
is classified as a serious charge. For liability to attach, the assailed order, decision or
Respondent maintained that she is aware of the Court's guidelines under A.M. No. 11-1-6- actuation of the judge in the performance of official duties must not only be found to be
SC-PHILJA but opted not to refer Criminal Case No. 14-0504 to the mandatory CAM and erroneous but, most importantly, it must be established that the issuance thereof was
JDR in order to avoid further delay, considering that complainants categorically declared in actuated by bad faith, dishonesty, hatred or some other like motive.
open court that they were no longer interested in settling the civil aspect of the case.
On the basis of the foregoing, it can be said that respondent's failure to refer the civil
Office Of The Court Administrator: recommended that: (a) the Joint Complaint aspect of Criminal Case No. 14-0504 to the mandatory CAM and JDR proceedings does not
Affidavit be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter against respondent; and (b) amount to Gross Ignorance of the Law. While respondent deviated from the required
respondent be fined in the amount of P10,000.00 for Gross Ignorance of the Law, with a procedure under A.M. No. 11-1-6-SC-PHILJA, such act is not outrageous so as to
stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more constitute "gross ignorance." Records reveal that she is fairly acquainted with the
severely. However, the OCA noted that the said incident was respondent's first guidelines prescribed for the CAM and JDR, as in fact, she readily implements the same by
administrative offense, which is a mitigating circumstance in her favor. ordering the parties in other cases to report to the CAM mediator after
arraignment. Moreover, she explicitly stated in the said orders that her referral to the said
In a Resolution dated April 17, 2017, the Court adopted and approved the findings and mediator is in accordance with the provisions of A.M. No. 11-1-6-SC-PHILJA. Verily,
recommendation of the OCA, and accordingly, found respondent guilty of Gross Ignorance respondent is well-aware of the rules involving the CAM and JDR, as well as its application
of the Law. and implementation.
Aggrieved, respondent moved for reconsideration, alleging that her failure to refer the The fault of respondent, however, lies in her belief that an exception to the foregoing was
case to the mandatory CAM and JDR was a mere slight deviation from the provisions of warranted by the circumstances. Respondent pointed out that the parties had
A.M. No. 11-1-6-SC-PHILJA, and was thus not intended to frustrate the ends of unequivocally expressed their disinterest in settling the civil aspect of the case. Thus, to
justice.She added that the same was fully justified, considering that complainants had her mind, referring the same to the CAM and JDR would be a mere exercise of futility, and
would then cause further delay in the disposition of the case. As such, respondent decided
to deviate from the normal course of procedure in order not to hamper and frustrate the
ends of justice.
While respondent had good motives in not referring the case to the CAM and JDR, the
Court still finds her administratively liable for not complying with the provisions of A.M.
No. 11-1-6-SC-PHILJA. It bears stressing that under the said rules, cases involving less
grave felonies, where the offended party is a private person, are required to be referred to
the CAM and JDR proceedings, as in this case. Such requirement did not carve out any
explicit exception and hence, evinces its mandatory nature, notwithstanding the parties'
desire to forego with the settlement of the civil aspect of the case.
RULING:
Violation of Supreme Court Rules, Directives, and Circulars and imposing the
penalty of REPRIMAND with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same
or similar acts in the future shall definitely be dealt with more severely.