Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Republic of The Philippines Manila: Snprejde Couri
Republic of The Philippines Manila: Snprejde Couri
SnpreJDe Couri
Manila
EN BANC
GESMUNDO, CJ,*
PERLAS-BERNABE,
LEONEN,
ATTY. JAIME V. LOPEZ,
CAGUIOA,
HERNANDO,
Respondent.
CARANDANG,
LAZARO-JAVIER,
INTING,
ZALAMEDA,
LOPEZ,M.,
GAERLAN,
ROSARIO, and
LOPEZ, J., JJ
Promulgated:
July 27;2021
DECISION
PERCURIAM:
* Took no part.
Decision 2 A.C. No. 7986
The Case
Antecedents
6 Id.atl27-128.
7 Id. at 127.
8 Id. at 127-128.
9 Id. at 128-129.
10 Id. at 128.
11 Id. at 129-131.
12 Id.
Decision 4 A.C. No. 7986
13 Id. at 131-132.
14 Id. at 131.
15 Id. at 111-113.
16 Id.
17 Id. at 110-123. Penned by Carlos E. Velarde, Judge of the State Bar Court.
Decision 5 A.C. No. 7986
XXX
18 Id. at 109.
19 Id
20 Id at 1.
Decision 6 A.C. No. 7986
(The Investigative Commissioner notes that the Pasay City address was
indicated in Atty. Lopez's Motion for Extension of Time.)
The January 20, 2009 Resolution was mailed to Blk. 2, Lot 1, St.
Augustine St., Maricaban, Pasay City but was returned unserved with the
notation "RTS Moved Out"
3. Requiring Atty. Lopez to file his pleadings under the proper title;
and
The Investigating Commissioner of the IBP set the case for mandatory
conference on 06 September 2013. However, respondent failed to appear
despite due notice. A second mandatory conference was set on 11 October
2013. Still, respondent did not appear. 22
21 Id at 367-372.
22 Notices for the mandatory conferences were sent to Lyceum Makati-College of Law (COL),
respondent's address, which were marked as received in the registry return cards.
23 The Order was sent to Lyceum Makati-COL, and the registry return card was also marked received.
24 Rollo, pp. 372-373.
25 ld. at 373-374.
Decision 9 A.C. No. 7986
Consistent with the rule on disciplinary actions under Section 27, Rule
138 of the Rules of Court, the Investigating Commissioner held that
respondent's acts in 1, 2, and 3 violate Canon 16 and Rules 16.01, 16.02, and
16.03 of the CPR; respondent's acts in 3 and 4 violate Canon 1 and Rule
1.01 of the CPR; and respondent's acts in 1, 2, 3, and 4 violate Canon 7 and
Rule 7. 03 of the CPR. 26
When the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) reported the IBP Board
of Governors' Resolution on 12 April 2016, it noted that no motion for
reconsideration nor petition for review was filed by either party. 30 This Court
noted the 18 April 2015 Resolution of the IBP Board of Governors in a
Resolution31 dated 01 June 2016.
26 Id. at 374-376.
27 Id. at 380.
28 Id. at 382.
29 Id. at 364.
30 Id. at 383.
31 Id. at 384.
Decision 10 A.C. No. 7986
Only one lawyer bears the name "Jaime V. Lopez" in the Roll of
Attorneys. 32 Respondent finished his Bachelor of Laws degree at the
University of the Philippines. He took and passed the 1979 Bar
Examinations but was admitted to the Philippine Bar only on O1 July 1981
due to the pendency of a criminal case filed against him. 33 As of O1 April
2008, respondent is a bona fide lifetime member of the IBP, having paid the
required lifetime dues and building contribution, and had no pending
administrative nor disbarment case filed against him. 34
Reciprocal Discipline
32 Id. at 143.
33 Id. at 8.
34 Id. at 12.
35 Id. at 126.
36 Id. at 110.
37 <http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/Licensee/Detail/134226> (accessed 27 June 2021).
38 See C. Stephen Lawrence, In Re Goldberg: Standards for Imposing Concurrent Reciprocal Bar
Discipline, 22 Cath. U. L. Rev. 1165 (1984) <https://scholarship.Iaw.edu/lawreview/vol33/iss44/13>
(accessed 07 July 2021); Citations omitted.
Decision 11 A.C. No. 7986
39 Included among regulatory responses to transnational legal practice as well as admission in multiple
jurisdictions are Rule 8.5 of the American Bar Association (ABA) Model Rules of Professional Conduct
(R8.5) read in coordination with Rule 22 of the ABA Model Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary
Enforcement (R22), and the European Union's (EU) Lawyers' Services Directive (77/249) read in
coordination with the EU's Lawyer's Establishment Directive (98/5).
R8.5(a) provides for the disciplinary authority and choice of law in regulation of conduct of a lawyer
admitted in multiple jurisdictions or of a lawyer providing legal services in multiple jurisdictions
<https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of__professi
onal_conduct/rule_8_5 _disciplinary_authority_choice_ot:_Jaw/> (accessed 09 July 2021)
Rule 22(e) specifically provides that "a final adjudication in another jurisdiction that a lawyer, whether
or not admitted in that jurisdiction, has been guilty of misconduct x x x shall establish conclusively the
misconduct or the disability for purposes of a disciplinary or disability proceeding in this jurisdiction."
The judicial determination of misconduct is thus not subject to relitigation.
<https ://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsib ii ity/resources/lawyer_ethics_regulation/ m
odel_rules_for_lawyer_disciplinary_ enforcement/rule_22/> (accessed 09 July 2021 ). See also Section
48, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court in footnote 13 infra.
77 /249 facilitates the exercise of lawyers in EU member states. Lawyers in representation of clients are
subject to the rules of professional conduct of the host state, without prejudice to obligations in his
home state. Lawyers who pursue activities not in representation of clients are subject to the rules of
professional conduct of the home state, without prejudice to respect the professional rules of the host
state. <https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:31977L0249&from=EN>
(accessed 09 July 2021)
\Article 7 of98/5 provides that the home state is informed of the disciplinary action of the host state and
is allowed to make submissions in the disciplinary proceedings. In light of a decision of the host state,
the home state shall decide its own action under its own procedural and substantive rules. If the home
state withdraws authority to practice the profession, iemporarily or permanently, then the authority in
the host state is automatically withdrawn. <https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?
uri=CELEX:31998L0005&from=EN> (accessed 09 July 2021).
Decision 12 A.C. No. 7986
40 Explanation is from footnote 36 ofln re Atty. Leon G. Maquera,479 Phil.322, 330-334 (2004). Section
48, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court reads: Effect offoreign judgments or.final orders. - The effect of a
judgment or final order of a tribunal of a foreign country, having jurisdiction to render the judgment or
final order is as follows:
(a) In case of a judgment or final order upon a specific thing, the judgment or final order, is
conclusive upon the title to the thing, and
(b) In case of a judgment or final order against a person, the judgment or final order is
presumptive evidence of a right as between the parties and their successors in interest by a subsequent
title.
In either case, the judgment or final order may be repelled by evidence of a want of
jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact.
41 Fujiki v. Marinay, 712 Phil. 524, 546-547 (2013), [Per J. Carpio], citing Mijares v. RaP'lada, 495 Phil.
372, 386 (2005), [Per J. Tioga]. "Otherwise known as the policy of preclusion, it seeks to protect party
expectations resulting from previous litigation, to safeguard against the harassment of defendants, to
insure that the task of courts not be increased by never-ending litigation of the same disputes, and - in a
larger sense - to promote what Lord Coke in the Ferrer's Case of 1599 stated to be the goal of all law:
'rest and quietness.'" (Citations omitted)
42 Fujiki v. Marinay, id at 547, citing Mijares v. RaP'lada, id. at 382. "The rules of comity, utility and
convenience of nations have established a usage among civilized states by which final judgments of
foreign courts of competent jurisdiction are reciprocally respected and rendered efficacious under
certain conditions that may vary in different countries." (Citations omitted)
Decision 13 A.C. No. 7986
43 Velez v. De Vera. 528 Phil. 763, 794-795 (2006), [Per Curiam], citing Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial
Relations, 69 Phil. 635, 640 (1940), [Per J. Laurel]
44 Rollo, p. 296.
45 Id
46 Id at 56.
47 Id. at 55.
Decision 14 A.C. No. 7986
or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before admission
to practice, or for a willful disobedience appearing as attorney for a party to
a case without authority to do so." 48 If the answer is in the affirmative, then
there is a ground for the imposition of disciplinary penalty in the Philippines
against respondent.
Upon meticulous review of the records, the Court agrees with the
findings of the Investigating Commissioner that respondent's acts as charged
in Case Nos. 96-0-04592 and 96-0-06201 violate the standards of ethical
behavior for members of the Philippine bar and thus constitute grounds for
the imposition of disciplinary penalty in this jurisdiction.
Investigation. Upon joinder issues or upon failme of the respondent to answer, the Investigator
shall, with deliberate speed, proceed with the investigation of the case. He shall have the power to
issue subpoenas and administer oaths. The respondent shall be given full opportunity to defend
himself, to present witnesses on his behalf, and be heard by himself and counsel. However, if upon
reasonable notice, the respondent fails to appear, the investigation shall proceed ex parte .
The Investigator shall terminate the investigation within three (3) months from the date of its
commencement, unless extended for good cause by the Board of Governors upon prior
application.
Willful failure to refusal to obey a subpoena or any other lawful order issued by the Investigator
shall be dealt with as for indirect contempt of court. The corresponding charge shall be filed by the
Investigator before the IBP Board of Governors which shall require the alleged contemnor to show
cause within ten (10) days from notice. The IBP Board of Governors may thereafter conduct
hearings, if necessary, in accordance with the procedure set forth in this Rule for hearing before
the Investigator. Such hearing shall as far as practicable be terminated within fifteen (15) days
form its commencement. Thereafter, the IBP Board of Governors shall within a like period of
fifteen (15) days issue a resolution setting forth its findings and recommendations, which shall
forthwith be transmitted to the Supreme Court for final action and if warranted, the imposition of
penalty.
Decision 15 A.C. No. 7986
Rule 16.01 - A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or
received for or from the client.
Rule 16.02 - A lawyer shall keep the funds of each client separate and
apart from his own and those of others kept by him.
Rule 16.03 - A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client
when due or upon demand. However, he shall have a lien over the funds
and may apply so much thereof as may be necessary to satisfy his lawful
fees and disbursements, giving notice promptly thereafter to his client. He
shall also have a lien to the same extent on all judgments and executions
he has secured for his client as provided for in the Rules of Court.
v. Atty. Balon, Jr. (Lemoine), 55 where it was decreed that failure to promptly
account for funds received and held for the client's benefit amounts to
professional misconduct. Monte-Alegre's funds, as held in trust by
regpondent, were overdrawn without any disbursement made to Monte-
Alegre 's account.
Respondent never had any check bounced from his trust account.
Respondent's trust account has no history of returned checks due to
insufficient funds from his trust account. He closely monitored his trust
account because of its sensitive and sacrosanct nature. He made sure that
there were more than enough buffer funds to cover all issued checks. He
hired accountants and bought computer accounting software to help him
manage his trust account. x x x56
55 460 Phil. 702 (2003), A.C. No. 5829, 28 October 2003 [Per Curiam].
56 Rollo, pp. 57-58.
57 Id at 86.
Decision 17 A.C. No. 7986
Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on
his fitness to practice law, nor shall he whether in public or private life,
behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
number (402962), his roll number (31382), and his address (Block 2, Lot 1,
Saint Augustine St., Maricaban, Pasay City, Metro Manila). However,
notices sent to the address provided in said pleadings were returned unserved
prompting Us to obtain assistance from the NBI. In the course of
investigation, Agent Banawa of the NBI was informed by one Zeny Nebrija
and Elmer Tordisillas, the occupants of respondent's address in Pasay City,
that respondent already passed away. 61 They directed Agent Banawa to
respondent's secretary, Nina Tordisillas, who gave the information that Atty.
Lopez died on 23 July 2005. Curiously, however, Atty. Lopez was able to
file his Comment62 on 28 April 2009, or almost four years after his alleged
death in 2005, as noted in our 02 March 2010 Resolution. On 09 March
2011, Agent Banawa reported that he found two more addresses for
58 591 Phil. 1 (2008), A.C. No. 7505, 24 October 2008 [Per J. Ceonardo-De Castro].
59 Rollo, p. 34. ·
60 Id. at 47-48.
61 Id. at 148.
62 Id at 54-95.
Decision 18 A.C. No. 7986
Indeed, respondent was less than candid in his dealings with this
Court. When he filed his motions for extension and his Comment, he was
already aware that there were court proceedings that required his
participation. However, respondent chose to not participate and not notify
the Court of his updated address, notwithstanding repeated directives from
this Court. Unfortunately for respondent, ignoring the proceedings do not
make them go away. Respondent's version of ghosting does not work in his
favor. If at all, respondent displayed contumacious conduct and a contempt
for court processes. Respondent's lack of respect for court processes can
likewise be gleaned from his refusal to file his pleadings under the correct
docket number. Despite this Court's directive, he still referred to his case as
A.M. No. 07-4-11-SC.
We find that respondent's behavior violates Canon 10, Rule 10.01 and
10.03; Canon 11; and Canon 12, Rule 12.03:
Rule 10.01 -A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing
of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by
any artifice.
Rule 10.03 - A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not
misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.
Rule 12.03 - A lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions of time to file
pleadings, memoranda or briefs, let the period lapse without submitting
the same or offering an explanation for his failure to do so.
Rule 12.04 -A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution
of a judgment or misuse Court processes.
63 Id at 166-167.
64 A.C. No. 5314, 23 June 2020 [Per Curiam].
Decision 19 A.C. No. 7986
On the other hand, the Court found disbarment the proper penalty in
Lemoine for respondent's refusal to tum over to his client the proceeds of the
insurance claim of the latter despite repeated demands. We likewise ordered
the disbarment of respondents in Cuna and Lapitan. In Cuna, respondent
failed to promptly deliver to his client funds received by him on the latter's
behalf, disobeyed orders of the IBP, and engaged in unauthorized practice of
law. In Lapitan, respondent repeatedly disregarded the lawful orders of the
Court being a fugitive from justice and employed deceitful conduct to
complainant therein.
The Court has invariably emphasized that membership in the bar is only
bestowed upon individuals who are not only learned in law, but also
known to possess good moral character. Thus, to preserve the nobility and
honor of the legal profession, disbarment, no matter how harsh it may be,
is a remedy resorted to by the Court in order to purge the law profession of
unworthy members of the bar. 69
SO ORDERED.
. ESTELA M~ti£K~BERNABE .·
Associate Justice
. ,
AM RO-JAVIER
Associate Justice
== :--s:~
SAMUEL H. G A ~
Associate Justice