4 Felipe V Macapagal
4 Felipe V Macapagal
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
199
RESOLUTION
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
_______________
[1] Rollo, pp. 1-8. Filed by Nestor V. Felipe, Alberto V. Felipe, Aurora Felipe-Orante,
Asuncion Felipe-Domingo, Milagros Felipe-Cabigting and Rodolfo V. Felipe.
[2] Id., at p. 44.
[3] See Registry Return Receipt, id. (attached to the dorsal portion).
[4] Id., at pp. 49-50.
[5] Id., at p. 51.
[6] Id., at pp. 53-54.
[7] Id., at p. 70.
[8] IBP records (attached to the Rollo), p. 1.
[9] Id., at p. 3.
200
showed that both parties were present. The next hearing was set on
November 6, 1997[10] but was postponed upon request of the complainants’
counsel.[11] Noting that more than five months had lapsed after the
postponement of the last hearing, complainants moved to calendar the case.
[12]
The new Investigating Commissioner, Arturo C. Delos Reyes, set the
hearing of the case on January 12, 1999.[13]During the scheduled hearing,
complainants appeared and were directed to submit their Position Paper.
Respondent failed to attend despite receipt of notice.[14] Complainants
submitted their Position Paper[15] on January 28, 1999.[16]
It took 11 years, more particularly on February 26, 2010, before the IBP,
thru Investigating Commissioner Agustinus V. Gonzaga, submitted its
Report and Recommendation.[17]
In his Report, the Investigating Commissioner quoted verbatim the
allegations in the Petition; he then narrated the proceedings undertaken by
the IBP. Unfortunately, no discussion was made regarding the merits of the
complaint. However, it was recommended that respondent be suspended
from the practice of law for one (1) month.
In Resolution No. XX-2011-246 dated November 19, 2011, the IBP Board
of Governors adopted the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating
Commissioner with modification that respondent be suspended from the
practice of law for one (1) year.
In their Petition, complainants alleged that they are co-plaintiffs in Civil
Case No. A-95-22906 pending before Branch
_______________
[10] Id.
[11] Id., at pp. 4-5.
[12] Id., at pp. 6-8.
[13] Id., at p. 9.
[14] Id., at p. 11.
[15] Id., at pp. 12-25.
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001710ad71c461c35b8dc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/6
3/24/2020 CentralBooks:Reader
[16] Id., at p. 12.
[17] Id., unpaginated.
201
216 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City while respondent is the
counsel for the defendants therein; that respondent committed dishonesty
when he stated in the defendants’ Answer in Civil Case No. A-95-22906 that
the parties therein are strangers to each other despite knowing that the
defendants are half-brothers and half-sisters of complainants; and that they
filed a criminal case for Perjury [against the defendants in Civil Case No. A-
95-22906] docketed as Criminal Case No. 41667 pending before Branch 36 of
the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila.
Complainants also alleged that respondent introduced a falsified
Certificate of Marriage as part of his evidence in Civil Case No. A-95-22906;
and that they filed another Perjury charge [against the defendants in Civil
Case No. A-9522906] before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City,
docketed as I.S. No. 95-15656-A.
Next, complainants averred that respondent knowingly filed a totally
baseless pleading captioned as Urgent Motion to Recall Writ of Execution of
the Writ of Preliminary Injunction; that said pleading is not in accordance
with the rules of procedure; that the said filing delayed the proceedings in
Civil Case No. A-95-22906; and that they filed a Vigorous Opposition to the
said pleading.
Complainants insisted that by the foregoing actuations, respondent
violated his duty as a lawyer and prayed that he be disbarred and ordered to
pay complainants the amount of P500,000 representing the damages that
they suffered.
In fine, complainants charged respondent with dishonesty (1) when he
stated in the defendants’ Answer in Civil Case No. A-95-22906 that the
parties therein are strangers to each other; (2) when he introduced a
falsified Certificate of Marriage as part of his evidence in Civil Case No. A-
95-22906; and (3) when he knowingly filed a totally baseless pleading
captioned as Urgent Motion to Recall Writ of Execution of the Writ of
Preliminary Injunction in the same case.
202
_______________
[18] A.C. No. 9074, August 14, 2012, 678 SCRA 352.
[19] Id., at pp. 365-366.
[20] A.C. No. 7861, January 30, 2009, 577 SCRA 188.
[21] Id., at p. 199.
204
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001710ad71c461c35b8dc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/6
3/24/2020 CentralBooks:Reader
comment. Neither did he file his Position Paper as ordered by the IBP. And
for this, he must be sanctioned.
Respondent’s unjustified disregard of the lawful orders of this Court and the IBP
is not only irresponsible, but also constitutes utter disrespect for the judiciary and
his fellow lawyers. His conduct is unbecoming of a lawyer, for lawyers are
particularly called upon to obey court orders and processes and are expected to stand
foremost in complying with court directives being themselves officers of the court.
As an officer of the court, respondent is expected to know that a resolution of this
Court is not a mere request but an order which should be complied with promptly
and completely. This is also true of the orders of the IBP as the investigating arm of
the Court in administrative cases against lawyers.[22]
_______________
[22] Sibulo v. Ilagan, 486 Phil. 197, 203-204; 444 SCRA 1, 7 (2004).
[23] In Sibulo v. Ilagan, id., at pp. 204-205; pp. 8-9, the Court also reprimanded the therein
respondent ratiocinating in this wise:
Considering, however, that respondent was absolved of the administrative charge against
him and is being taken to task for his intransigence and lack of respect, the Court finds that the
penalty of suspension would not be warranted under the circumstances.
In previously decided cases where a respondent lawyer was likewise found to have ignored
lawful orders of this Court, suspension was imposed only where the respondent was also found
guilty of violating his duties as a lawyer, such as the duty to observe good
205
Carpio (Chairperson), Brion, Perez and Perlas-Bernabe,JJ., concur.
_______________
faith and fairness in dealing with his client, or to serve his client with diligence and
competence.
To the Court’s mind, a reprimand and a warning are sufficient sanctions for respondent’s
disrespectful actuations directed against the Court and the IBP. The imposition of these
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001710ad71c461c35b8dc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/6
3/24/2020 CentralBooks:Reader
sanctions in the present case would be more consistent with the avowed purpose of a
disciplinary case, which is “not so much to punish the individual attorney as to protect the
dispensation of justice by sheltering the judiciary and the public from the misconduct or
inefficiency of officers of the court.”
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001710ad71c461c35b8dc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/6