Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Cases 11-13
Cases 11-13
People
FACTS:
The Court of Appeals dismissed petitioners appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that it
is the Sandiganbayan which has exclusive appellate jurisdiction thereon. Petitioner,
admitting the procedural error committed by her former counsel, implores the Court to
relax the Rules to afford her an opportunity to fully ventilate her appeal on the merits
and requests the Court to endorse and transmit the records of the cases to the
Sandiganbayan in the interest of substantial justice.
ISSUE:
HELD:
Since the appeal involves criminal cases, and the possibility of a person being deprived
of liberty due to a procedural lapse militates against the Courts dispensation of justice,
the Court grants petitioners plea for a relaxation of the Rules.
For rules of procedure must be viewed as tools to facilitate the attainment of justice,
such that any rigid and strict application thereof which results in technicalities tending to
frustrate substantial justice must always be avoided.
In Ulep v. People, the Court remanded the case to the Sandiganbayan when it found
that
x x x petitioners failure to designate the proper forum for her appeal was inadvertent.
The omission did not appear to be a dilatory tactic on her part. Indeed, petitioner had
more to lose had that been the case as her appeal could be dismissed outright for lack
of jurisdiction which was exactly what happened in the CA.
The trial court, on the other hand, was duty bound to forward the records of the case to
the proper forum, the Sandiganbayan. It is unfortunate that the RTC judge concerned
ordered the pertinent records to be forwarded to the wrong court, to the great prejudice
of petitioner. Cases involving government employees with a salary grade lower than 27
are fairly common, albeit regrettably so. The judge was expected to know and should
have known the law and the rules of procedure. He should have known when appeals
are to be taken to the CA and when they should be forwarded to the Sandiganbayan.
He should have conscientiously and carefully observed this responsibility specially in
cases such as this where a persons liberty was at stake. (emphasis and underscoring
supplied)
The slapdash work of petitioners former counsel and the trial courts apparent ignorance
of the law effectively conspired to deny petitioner the remedial measures to question her
conviction.[11]
While the negligence of counsel generally binds the client, the Court has made
exceptions thereto, especially in criminal cases where reckless or gross negligence of
counsel deprives the client of due process of law; when its application will result in
outright deprivation of the clients liberty or property; or where the interests of justice so
require. [12] It can not be gainsaid that the case of petitioner can fall under any of these
exceptions.
Moreover, a more thorough review and appreciation of the evidence for the prosecution
and defense as well as a proper application of the imposable penalties in the present
case by the Sandiganbayan would do well to assuage petitioner that her appeal is
decided scrupulously.
Atty. Apoya, Jr.'s failure to live up to his duties as a lawyer in consonance with the
strictures of his oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. The acts committed
by Atty. Apoya, Jr. thus fall squarely within the prohibition of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, Rule
16.01 of Canon 16, and Rule 18.03 and Rule 18.04 of Canon 18 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility CPR. Any act or omission that is contrary to, or prohibited or
unauthorized by, or in defiance of, disobedient to, or disregards the law is unlawful. To
this end, nothing should be done by any member of the legal fraternity which might tend
to lessen in any degree the confidence of the public in the fidelity, honesty and integrity
of the profession FALLO: WHEREFORE, the Court finds Atty. Dionisio B. Apoya, Jr.
LIABLE for violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01, Canon 16, Rule 16.01, Canon 18, and Rule
18.03 and Rule 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and he is hereby
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months effective immediately upon
receipt of this Decision. Atty. Apoya, Jr. is also ordered to return the amount of Ten
Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) to complainant Martin J. Sioson within thirty (30) days
from receipt of this Decision.
Facts
Judge Nimfa Penaco-Sitaca seeks the disbarment of Atty. Diego M. Palomares, Jr., for
having filed a falsified bail bond.
Judge Nimfa Penaco-Sitaca was the Acting Presiding Judge of Branch 35 of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Ozamis City. Among the cases in her sala was Criminal
Case No. RTC-1503 for murder against Dunhill Palomares, a son of Atty. Diego M.
Palomares, Jr., herein respondent. Sometime in September 1997, Atty. Palomares, in
representation of Dunhill, filed a bail bond of P200,000.00 to secure the latters release.
The bail bond was purportedly signed and approved by the late Judge Nazar U.
Chavez, then Presiding Judge of RTC Branch 18 of Cagayan de Oro City, and with it
was a corresponding order of release signed by RTC Branch 18 Clerk of Court Atty.
Glenn Peter C. Baldado. When informed of the filing by Atty. Palomares of the bail
bond, ostensibly signed by Judge Chavez, Judge Sitaca approved the release of the
accused.
When RTC Branch 35 Clerk of Court Atty. Roy P. Murallon later requested Atty.
Baldado to forward to the Ozamis City RTC the original records and supporting
documents on the bail bond, Atty. Baldado, by then already a practicing lawyer,
disavowed the existence of the bail bond. Atty. Baldado wrote to say that per the official
records of Cagayan de Oro RTC, Branch 18, the bail bond did not exist, that no
approval was made by Judge Chavez, and that no order for the release of Dunhill was
issued. Atty. Baldado concluded that the bail bond was a forged document.
Judge Sitaca directed Atty. Palomares to explain. In his letter to Judge Sitaca, Atty.
Palomares stated that he was the corporate legal counsel of Bentley House
International Corporation, and when the bail application was approved for P200,000.00,
he requested the amount from Jonathon Stevenz and Cristina Q. Romarate, Chief
Operations Officer and Treasurer, respectively, of Bentley House International
Corporation. Instead of giving the money, Stevenz and Romarate proposed to utilize the
services of William Guialani. He acceded. Guialani then delivered the release order,
which Atty. Palomares immediately presented to the Branch 35 clerk of court of RTC
Ozamis City. The clerk of court read the release order and then issued the
corresponding order for the release of Dunhill Palomares. Atty. Palomares denied any
wrongdoing in connection with the submission of the falsified bail bond and offered, in
any event, to replace the bail bond with a cash bond.
The Court, in its 02 nd August 2000 resolution, required Atty. Palomares to comment on
the complaint for disbarment. In his comment, Atty. Palomares reiterated his previous
explanation to Judge Sitaca. In addition, he intimated that Judge Sitaca was covering up
for the negligence of her clerk of court. He claimed that Judge Sitaca was not around
when the release order was issued because it was a Saturday and only a skeletal force
was in the office. Atty. Palomares said that he had asked the help of Atty. Manuel
Ravanera to prove that the bail bond was secured by Guialani who could have possibly
been in cahoots with some court employees.
In its resolution of 19 March 2003, the Court referred the case to the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation.