SPS. CONSTANTE AGBULOS AND ZENAIDA PADILLA AGBULOS v.

NICASIO GUTIERREZ, GR No. 176530, 2009-06-16

Facts:

This petition for review on certiorari seeks the review of the

Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated February 6, 2007 in CA-
G.R. CV No. 83994 which set aside the dismissal of a complaint for
declaration of nullity of... contract, cancellation of title, reconveyance
and damages.

On October 16, 1997, respondents, Dr. Nicasio G. Gutierrez, Josefa

Gutierrez de Mendoza and Elena G. Garcia, through their counsel, Atty.
Adriano B. Magbitang, filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Gapan, Nueva Ecija, a complaint against petitioners, spouses
Constante

Agbulos and Zenaida Padilla Agbulos, for declaration of nullity of

contract, cancellation of title, reconveyance and damages. The
complaint alleged that respondents inherited from their father, Maximo
Gutierrez, an eight-hectare parcel of land located in Callos, Penaranda,
Nueva

Ecija, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. NT-123790 in

the name of Maximo Gutierrez. Through fraud and deceit, petitioners
succeeded in making it appear that Maximo Gutierrez executed a Deed
of Sale on July 21, 1978 when, in truth, he died on April 25, 1977. As
a... result, TCT No. NT-123790 was cancelled and a new one, TCT No.
NT-188664, was issued in the name of petitioners. Based on the
notation at the back of the certificate of title, portions of the property
were brought under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program
(CARP) and... awarded to Lorna Padilla, Elenita Nuega and Suzette
Nuega who were issued Certificates of Land Ownership Award
(CLOAs).

In their defense, petitioners averred that respondents were not the real
parties in interest, that the Deed of Sale was regularly executed before
a notary public, that they were possessors in good faith, and that the
action had prescribed.

Atty. Magbitang filed a Notice of Appeal[5] with the RTC, which gave
due course to the same.[6] The records reveal that on December 15,
2003, respondent Elena G. Garcia wrote a letter to Judge Arturo M.
Bernardo, Acting Judge of RTC

Gapan, Branch 87, stating that they were surprised to receive a

communication from the court informing them that their notice of
appeal was ready for disposition. She also stated in the letter that
there was no formal agreement with Atty. Magbitang as to whether
they would... pursue an appeal with the CA, because one of the
plaintiffs was still in America.

Issues:

Whether or not the CA erred in not dismissing the appeal despite the
undisputed fact that Atty. Magbitang filed the notice of appeal without
respondents' knowledge and consent

Ruling:

The CA did not err in giving due course to the appeal, on both
procedural and substantive grounds.

A lawyer who represents a client before the trial court is presumed to

represent such client before the appellate court. Section 22 of Rule
138 creates this presumption, thus:

SEC. 22. Attorney who appears in lower court presumed to represent

client on appeal. An attorney who appears de parte in a case before a
lower court shall be presumed to continue representing his client on
appeal, unless he files a formal petition... withdrawing his appearance
in the appellate court.

A reading of respondent Elena Garcia's letter to the RTC would show

that she did not actually withdraw Atty. Magbitang's authority to
represent respondents in the case. The letter merely stated that there
was, as yet, no agreement that they would pursue an appeal.

In any case, an unauthorized appearance of an attorney may be ratified

by the client either expressly or impliedly. Ratification retroacts to the
date of the lawyer's first appearance and validates the action taken by
him.[10] Implied ratification may take... various forms, such as by
silence or acquiescence, or by acceptance and retention of benefits
flowing therefrom.[11] Respondents' silence or lack of remonstration
when the case was finally elevated to the CA means that they have
acquiesced to the filing of... the appeal.

Moreover, a lawyer is mandated to "serve his client with competence

and diligence."[12] Consequently, a lawyer is entreated not to neglect
a legal matter entrusted to him; otherwise, his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him liable.[13] In light of such
mandate, Atty. Magbitang's act of filing the notice of appeal without
waiting for her clients to direct him to do so was understandable, if not
commendable
TOMAS P. TAN v. GUMBA, AC. No. 9000, 2018-01-10

Facts:

August 1999, respondent obtained from him a P350,000.00 loan with

12% interest per annum. Incidental thereto, respondent executed in
favor of complainant an undated Deed of Absolute Sale

105-square meter lot located in Naga City... complainant may register

the Deed of Absolute Sale with the Register of Deeds

Respondent failed to pay her loan when it fell due. And despite
repeated demands, she failed to settle her obligation. Complainant
attempted to register the Deed of Absolute Sale with the RD of Naga
City but to no avail because the aforesaid SPA only covered the
authority of respondent to mortgage the property to a bank, and not to
sell it.[

Commissioner de la Rama) faulted respondent for failing to file an

answer, and participate in the mandatory conference. He further
declared that the SPA specifically authorized respondent to mortgage
the property with a bank. He stressed that for selling the property, and
not just mortgaging it to complainant, who was not even a bank,
respondent acted beyond her authority.
he recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of
law for one year

(IBP-BOG) resolved to adopt and approve the Report and

Recommendation of Commissioner de la Rama.

Court nonetheless found the reduction of the penalty proper, pursuant

to its sound judicial discretion and on the facts of the case.
Accordingly, it suspended respondent from the practice of law for six
months, effective immediately,... Court resolved to serve anew the
October 5, 2011 Resolution upon respondent because its previous copy
sent to her was returned unserved.

Judge Armea) of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities of Naga City,

Branch 2 wrote a letter[16] inquiring from the Office of the Court
Administrator (OCA) whether respondent could continue representing
her clients and appear in courts.

the OCA if the decision relating to respondent's suspension, which was

downloaded from the internet, constitutes sufficient notice to
disqualify her to appear in courts for the period of her suspension.

inquiry arose because respondent represented a party in a case

pending in her court; and, the counsel of the opposing party called
Judge Armea's attention regarding the legal standing of respondent to
appear as counsel. Judge Armea added that respondent denied that
she was suspended to practice law since she (respondent) had not yet
received a copy of the Court's resolution

She insisted that service of any pleading or judgment cannot be made

through the internet. She further claimed that she had not received an
authentic copy of the Court's October 5, 2011 Resolution.

According to Commissioner Cachapero, there is no rule allowing the

service of judgments through the internet; and Judge Armea and Judge
Formaran III acted ahead of time when they implemented the
suspension of respondent even before the actual service upon her of
the resolution concerning her suspension... stressed that respondent
received the August 13, 2012 Resolution (denying her motion for
reconsideration on the October 5, 2011 Resolution) on November 12...
effectivity of respondent's suspension was from November 12, 2012
until May 12, 2013.

OBC also pointed out that suspension is not automatically lifted by

mere lapse of the period of suspension. It is necessary that an order be
issued by the Court lifting the suspension to enable the concerned
lawyer to resume practice of law.

OBC issued a Certification,[28] which stated that respondent had been

ordered suspended from the practice of law for six months, and as of
the issuance of said certification, the order of her suspension had not
yet been lifted.

respondent filed with the RTC a verified Complaint[29] for nullity of

clearance, damages, and preliminary injunction... respondent accused
the OCA and the OBC of suspending her from the practice of law even if
the administrative case against her was still pending with the IBP.

Issues:

whether respondent disobeyed a lawful order of the Court by not

abiding by the order of her suspension; and b) whether respondent
deserves a stiffer penalty for such violation.

Is respondent administratively liable for engaging in the practice of law

during the period of her suspension and prior to an order of the Court
lifting such suspension?

Ruling:

guidelines for the lifting of an order of suspension, to wit:... respondent

lawyer must be suspended from the practice of law, the Court shall
render a decision imposing the penalty;

Unless the Court explicitly states that the decision is immediately

executory upon receipt thereof, respondent has 15 days within which
to file a motion for reconsideration thereof. The denial of said motion
shall render the decision final and executory;... expiration of the period
of suspension, respondent shall file a Sworn Statement with the Court,
through the Office of the Bar Confidant, stating therein that he or she
has desisted from the practice of law and has not appeared in any
court

Sworn Statement shall be furnished to the Local Chapter of the IBP and
to the Executive Judge of the courts where respondent has pending
cases... proof of respondent's compliance with the order of
suspension... finding or report contrary to the statements made by the
lawyer under oath shall be a ground for the imposition of a more severe
punishment, or disbarment,... While, indeed, service of a judgment or
resolution must be done only personally or by registered mail,[39] and
that mere showing of a downloaded copy of the October 5, 2011
Resolution to respondent is not a valid service, the fact however, that
respondent was duly informed of her suspension remains unrebutted...
respondent's six months suspension commenced from the notice of the
denial of her motion for reconsideration on November 12, 2012 until
May 12, 2013.

common sense that when the Court orders the suspension of a lawyer
from the practice of law, the lawyer must desist from performing all
functions which require the application of legal knowledge... by
practice of law, we refer to "any activity, in or out of court, which
requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training,
and experience.

includes performing acts which are characteristic of the legal

profession, or rendering any kind of service which requires the use in
any degree of legal knowledge or skill

Clearly, such acts of respondent are in violation of the order of her

suspension to practice law.

lifting of a suspension order is not automatic. It is necessary that there

is an order from the Court lifting the suspension of a lawyer to practice
law.

Section 27,[45] Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, a member of the bar
may be disbarred or suspended from practice of law for willful
disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, among other
grounds... willfully disobeyed the Court's lawful orders by failing to
comply with the order of her suspension, and to the Court's directive to
observe the guidelines for the lifting thereof
PETER T. DONTON v. ATTY. EMMANUEL O. TANSINGCO, AC. NO. 6057,
2006-06-27

Facts:

Issues:

respondent liable for violation of Canon 1 and Rule 1.02 of the Code.

Ruling:

The Court finds respondent liable for violation of Canon 1 and Rule 1.02
of the Code.

A lawyer should not render any service or give advice to any client
which will involve defiance of the laws which he is bound to uphold and
obey.

By his own admission, respondent admitted that Stier, a U.S. citizen,

was disqualified from owning real property.

Yet, in his motion for reconsideration,... respondent admitted that he

caused the transfer of ownership to the... parcel of land to Stier.
Respondent, however, aware of the prohibition, quickly rectified his act
and transferred the title in complainant's name. But respondent
provided "some safeguards" by preparing several documents,...
including the

Occupancy Agreement, that would guarantee Stier's recognition as the

actual owner of the property despite its transfer in complainant's
name. In effect, respondent advised and aided Stier in circumventing
the constitutional prohibition against foreign ownership of... lands

Respondent had sworn to uphold the Constitution. Thus, he violated his

oath and the Code when he prepared and notarized the Occupancy
Agreement to evade the law against foreign ownership of lands.
Respondent used his knowledge of the law to achieve an unlawful
end.

Such an act amounts to malpractice in his office, for which he may be

suspended.

WHEREFORE, we find respondent Atty. Emmanuel O. Tansingco

GUILTY of violation of Canon 1 and Rule 1.02 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, we SUSPEND respondent
Atty. Emmanuel O. Tansingco from the practice of law for

SIX MONTHS effective upon finality of this Decision.

Advincula vs. Macabata, A.C. No. 7204 – Case Digest

Post published:March 7, 2007


 Reading time:4 mins read
CANON I, Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.

FACTS

A complaint for disbarment was filed by Cynthia Advincula

against herein Respondent, Atty. Ernesto M. Macabata,
charging the latter with Gross Immorality. It was alleged that
sometime in December 2004, Advincula sought legal advice
from Atty. Macabata about filing a complaint against
Queensway Travel and Tours for not settling their accounts as
demanded.

Consequently, the two met on two separate occasions: the first

was on February 10, 2005, where he sent Advincula home and
gave her a kiss on the cheek and embraced her very tightly,
while the other incident took place on March 6, 2005, where
Atty. Macabata allegedly kissed Advincula forcefully while his
other hand was holding her breast.

In his answer, Respondent admitted that he agreed to provide

legal services to the complainant; that on both times,
complainant rode with him in his car where he held and kissed
complainant on the lips as the former offered her lips to him;
and, that the corner of Cooper Street and Roosevelt Avenue,
where he dropped off the complainant, was a busy street
teeming with people, thus, it would have been impossible to
commit the acts imputed to him.

ISSUE

Whether or not Respondent committed acts that are grossly

immoral, or which constitute serious moral depravity that
would warrant his disbarment or suspension from the practice
of law.

RULING

NO. The Court held that the acts of Atty. Macabata would not
suffice to warrant a disbarment or suspension from the practice
of law. Citing the case of Zaguirre v. Castillo, the SC reiterated
the definition of “immoral conduct”, as such conduct which is
so willful, flagrant, or shameless as to show indifference to the
opinion of good and respectable members of the community.
Furthermore, for such conduct to warrant disciplinary action,
the same must not simply be immoral, but “grossly immoral”:
(1) It must be so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act, (2) or
so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree or; (3)
committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances
as to shock the common sense of decency.

Guided by the definitions above, the Court perceived acts of

kissing or beso-beso on the cheeks as mere gestures of
friendship and camaraderie, forms of greetings, casual and
customary. The acts of Respondent, though, in turning the head
of complainant towards him and

kissing her on the lips are distasteful. However, such act, even
if considered offensive and undesirable, cannot be considered
grossly immoral.

In the case at bar, complainant miserably failed to comply with

the burden of proof required of her; a mere charge or allegation
of wrongdoing does not suffice. Moreover, while Respondent
admitted having kissed complainant on the lips, the same was
not motivated by malice. Be it noted also that the incident
happened in a place where there were several people in the
vicinity considering that Roosevelt Avenue is a major jeepney
route for 24 hours. If Respondent truly had malicious designs
on complainant, he could have brought her to a private place or
a more remote place where he could freely accomplish the
same.

The complaint for disbarment against the Atty. Macabata for

alleged gross immorality is therefore dismissed. However, he is
reprimanded to be more prudent and cautious in dealing with
his clients with a stern warning that a more severe sanction will
be imposed on him for any repetition of the same or similar
offense in the future.
Disbarment Case:
Crisanta G. Hosoya Vs. Atty. Allan C. Contado

A.C. No. 10731. October 5, 2021

COMPLAINANT: Crisanta G. Hosoya

RESPONDENT: Atty. Allan C. Contado

FACTS:

Complainant Crisanta G. Hosoya filed a Complaint for Disbarment charging

respondent Atty. Allan C. Contado with violations of the Lawyers' Oath and
the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). Crisanta claimed that she met
Atty. Contado in 2003. She alleged that he immediately courted her and
represented that he was already separated-in-fact from his wife. Atty.
Contado also mentioned that he was already working out the dissolution for
his marriage through a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage. In
2010, Crisanta agreed with Atty. Contado’s proposal to live together as
husband and wife. During that time, however, Crisanta discovered that Atty.
Contado was also cohabiting with and impregnated other women (apart from
her). Despite the knowledge of these, Crisanta admitted that she continued
living with him and their cohabitation resulted in two children. Later on,
things got complicated, and their relationship turned sour. Crista claimed
that they were having financial problems, and that Atty. Contado left her
alone in settling the obligations. At this point, the parties were constrained
to move to another place. She also claimed that she and her children no
longer received support from Atty. Contado despite demand. Moreover, she
alleged that Atty. Contado took her vehicle and despite demand to return it,
Atty. Contado did not do so. Crisanta alleged in her complaint that Atty.
Contado’s acts constituted continuous violations of several laws: RA 7610,
RA 9262 or and carnapping. In response, Atty. Contado denied the
allegations in the Complaint. He indeed confirmed having a relationship with
the complainant but denied that having remised his obligations to them. He
even attached receipts and deposit slips to show that he is sending money
and supplies to Crisanta. He also admitted that the car was still in his
possession because the same still needs to be repaired.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. Contado violated Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of
Professional Responsibility?

Ruling:

Yes.
A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct. A law shall likewise faithfully perform at all times his duties to
society, to the bar, to the courts and to the clients. For the imposition of the
penalty of disbarment on the ground of immorality, the conduct complained
of must not only be immoral, but must be grossly immoral. In the instant
case, Atty. Contado’s statements made it clear to the court that he
abandoned his legal wife and family to cohabit with Crisanta that resulted in
two children. Such admission can serve as to find him guilty of violating the
CPR for committing grossly immoral acts. It is well-settled that a married
person’s abandonment of his or her spouse to live with and cohabit with
another constitutes gross immorality as it amounts to either adultery or
concubinage. As to the return of the subject vehicle, the ourt finds that the
excuse given by Atty. Contado is flimsy and unacceptable. Refusal to return
property despite lawful demand is akin to deliberate failure to pay debt.
Failure to pay debt despite repeated demands constitutes dishonest and
deceitful conduct. Thus, the Court finds Atty. Allan C. Contado guilty of
gross immorality in violation of Rule 1.01 and Rule 7.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. He is disbarred from the practice of law effective
upon receipt of this Decision. His name is ordered stricken off from the Roll
of Attorneys.
ATTY. ALAN F. PAGUIA v. ATTY. MANUEL T. MOLINA, AC. No. 9881,
2014-06-04

Facts:

The case involves a conflict between neighbors in a four-unit

compound named "Times Square" at Times Street, Quezon City. The
neighbors are the following: 1) Mr. And Mrs. Gregorio M. Abreu, clients
of Atty. Paguia; 2) Mr. And Mrs. Wilson Lim, clients of respondent
Molina; 3) Dr.

and Mrs. Eduardo Yap; and Dr. Belinda San Juan.

The clients of Atty. Molina entered into a contract with the other unit
owners save for Mr. Abreu.

The agreement, covered by a document titled "Times Square

Preamble," establishes a set of internal rules for the neighbors on
matters such as the use of the common right of way to... the exit gate,
assignment of parking areas, and security. Mr. Abreu, the client of
complainant, Atty. Paguia, was not a party to the contract since the
former did not agree with the terms concerning the parking
arrangements.

On 4 February 2010, Atty. Paguia filed a Complaint for Dishonesty...

with the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline against Atty. Molina[2] for
allegedly giving legal advice to the latter's clients to the effect that the
Times Square

Preamble was binding on Mr. Abreu, who was never a party to the
contract.

In his Answer,... Atty. Molina downplayed the case as a petty quarrel

among neighbors.

On 3 August 2010, Investigating Commissioner Victor C. Fernandez

rendered a Report and Recommendation. He recommended dismissal
for lack of merit, based on the following grounds: 1) the complaint
consisted only of bare allegations; and 2) even assuming that
respondent Molina... gave an erroneous legal advice, he could not be
held accountable in the absence of proof of malice or bad faith.

Issues:

reason to deviate from the findings of the IBP Board of Governors.

Ruling:

In the present case, we find that the Complaint is without factual

basis. Complainant Atty. Paguia charges Atty. Molina with providing
legal advice to the latter's clients to the effect that the Times Square
Preamble is binding on complainant's client, Mr. Abreu, who was not
a... signatory to the agreement. The allegation of giving legal advice,
however, was not substantiated in this case, either in the complaint or
in the corresponding hearings. Nowhere do the records state that Atty.
Paguia saw respondent giving the legal advice to the clients of the...
latter. Bare allegations are not proof.

Even if we assume that Atty. Molina did provide his clients legal
advice, he still cannot be held administratively liable without any
showing that his act was attended with bad faith or malice. The rule on
mistakes committed by lawyers in the exercise of their profession is
as... follows:

An attorney-at-law is not expected to know all the law. For an honest

mistake or error, an attorney is not liable. Chief Justice Abbott said
that, no attorney is bound to know all the law; God forbid that it should
be imagined that an attorney or a counsel, or... even a judge, is bound
to know all the law.
The default rule is presumption of good faith. On the other hand, bad
faith is never presumed. It is a conclusion to be drawn from facts. Its
determination is thus a question of fact and is evidentiary.

There is no evidence, though, to show that the... legal advice,

assuming it was indeed given, was coupled with bad faith, malice, or
ill-will. The presumption of good faith, therefore, stands in this case.

The foregoing considered, complainant failed to prove his case by clear

preponderance of evidence.

WHEREFORE, the Resolution of the IBP Board of Governors adopting

and approving the Decision of the Investigating Commissioner is
hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.
RE: PETITION OF AL ARGOSINO TO TAKE LAWYER'S OATH, BAR
MATTER No. 712, 1997-03-19

Facts:

Petitioner Al Caparros Argosino passed the bar examinations held in

1993. The Court however deferred his oath-taking due to his previous
conviction for Reckless Imprudence Resulting In Homicide.

neophyte during fraternity initiation rites sometime in September 1991.

accused a sentence of imprisonment of from two (2) years four (4)

months and one (1) day to four (4) years.

Senior Associate Justice Florentino P. Feliciano issued a resolution

requiring petitioner Al C. Argosino to submit to the Court evidence that
he may now be regarded as complying with the requirement of good
moral character imposed upon... those seeking admission to the bar.

petitioner submitted no less than fifteen (15) certifications/letters

executed by among others two (2) senators, five (5) trial court judges,
and six (6) members of religious orders. Petitioner likewise submitted
evidence that a... scholarship foundation had been established in honor
of Raul Camaligan, the hazing victim, through joint efforts of the
latter's family and the eight (8) accused in the criminal case.

Atty Gilbert Camaligan,... accused took advantage of the neophyte's

helplessness implying... abuse of confidence, taking advantage of
superior strength and treachery.

He is not in a position to say whether petitioner is now morally fit for

admission to the bar.

Issues:

whether petitioner has purged himself of the obvious deficiency in

moral character referred to above.

Ruling:

It is the sworn duty of this Court not only to "weed out"... lawyers who
have become a disgrace to the noble profession of the law but, also of
equal importance, to prevent "misfits" from taking the lawyer' s oath,
thereby further tarnishing the public image of lawyers which in recent
years has undoubtedly become less than... irreproachable.

vident absence of that moral fitness required for... admission to the bar
since they were totally irresponsible, irrelevant and uncalled for.
we resolve to allow petitioner Al Caparros Argosino to take the
lawyer's oath, sign the Roll of Attorneys and practice the legal
profession with the following admonition:

In allowing Mr. Argosino to take the lawyer's oath, the Court

recognizes that Mr. Argosino is not inherently of bad moral fiber. On the
contrary, the various certifications show that he is a devout Catholic
with a genuine concern for civic duties and public service.

The Court is persuaded that Mr. Argosino has exerted all efforts to
atone for the death of Raul Camaligan. We are prepared to give him the
benefit of the doubt, taking judicial notice of the general tendency of
youth to be rash, temerarious and uncalculating.

the lawyer's oath is NOT a mere ceremony or formality for practicing

law. Every lawyer should at ALL TIMES weigh his actions according to
the sworn promises he makes when taking the lawyer's oath. If all
lawyers conducted themselves strictly... according to the lawyer's oath
and the Code of Professional Responsibility, the administration of
justice will undoubtedly be faster, fairer and easier for everyone
concerned.
EMILIO GRANDE v. ATTY. EVANGELINE DE SILVA, AC. No. 4838, 2003-
07-29

Facts:

Complainant Emilio Grande was the private offended party in Criminal

Cases Nos. 96-1346 to 96-1353, filed with the Regional Trial Court of
Marikina City, Branch 273, for Estafa and Violation of Batas Pambansa
Bilang 22, entitled "People of... the Philippines, Plaintiff versus Sergio
Natividad, Accused."... uring the proceedings, respondent Atty.
Evangeline de Silva, counsel for the accused, tendered to complainant
Check No. 0023638... as settlement of the civil aspect of the case
against her client.

Thus, respondent was prevailed upon by complainant to accept the

check. Consequently, he desisted from participating as a complaining
witness in the criminal case, which led to the dismissal of the same
and the release of the accused, Sergio

Natividad.

When complainant deposited the check, the same was returned unpaid
by the drawee bank for the reason: "Account Closed." On June 19,
1997, complainant wrote a letter to respondent demanding that she
pay the face value of the check.

However, his demand was... ignored by respondent; hence, he

instituted a criminal complaint against her for Estafa and Violation of
Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 with the Office of the City Prosecutor of
Marikina, which was docketed as I.S. No. 97-1036. On September 22,
1997, the Marikina City
Prosecutor filed the necessary information for violation of Batas
Pambansa Bilang 22 against respondent Atty. Evangeline de Silva.

On November 10, 1997, complainant filed the instant administrative

complaint for disbarment of respondent for deceit and violation of the
Lawyer's Oath.

Issues:

complainant filed the instant administrative complaint for disbarment

of respondent for deceit and violation of the Lawyer's Oath.

Ruling:

In a Report dated December 6, 2001, Investigating Commissioner

Florimond C. Rous found respondent guilty of deceit, gross misconduct
and violation of the Lawyer's Oath. Thus, he recommended that
respondent be suspended from the practice of law for two (2) years.

The record shows that respondent prevailed upon complainant to

accept her personal check by way of settlement for the civil liability of
her client, Sergio Natividad, with the assurance that the check will
have sufficient funds when presented for payment. In doing so, she...
deceived complainant into withdrawing his complaint against her
client in exchange for a check which she drew against a closed
account.

It is clear that the breach of trust committed by respondent in issuing a

bouncing check amounted to deceit and constituted a violation of her
oath, for which she should be accordingly penalized.[8] Such an act
constitutes gross misconduct and the penalties... for such malfeasance
is prescribed by Rule 138, Section 27of the Rules of Court, to wit:

SEC. 27. Disbarment and suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court,

grounds therefore. - A member of the bar may be disbarred or
suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any
deceit, malpractice or other gross misconduct in such office,... grossly
immoral conduct or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving
moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to
take before the admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience
appearing as attorney for a party without authority to do... so.

Moreover, the attitude of respondent in deliberately refusing to accept

the notices served on her betrays a deplorably willful character or
disposition which stains the nobility of the legal profession.[13] Her
conduct not only underscores her utter lack of... respect for authority;
it also brings to the fore a darker and more sinister character flaw in
her psyche which renders highly questionable her moral fitness to
continue in the practice of law: a defiance for law and order which is at
the very core of her profession.
Indeed, the first and foremost command of the Code of Professional
Responsibility could not be any clearer:

CANON 1.

A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION OBEY THE LAWS OF

THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LEGAL PROCESSES.

Needless to state, respondent's persistent refusal to comply with

lawful orders directed at her with not even an explanation for doing so
is contumacious conduct which merits no compassion. The duty of a
lawyer is to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession at...
all times. She can only do this by faithfully performing her duties to
society, to the bar, to the courts and to her clients.[14] We can not
tolerate any misconduct that tends to besmirch the fair name of an
honorable profession

FERDINAND A. CRUZ v. ALBERTO MINA, GR No. 154207, 2007-04-27

Facts:

On September 25, 2000, Ferdinand A. Cruz (petitioner) filed before the

MeTC a formal Entry of Appearance, as private prosecutor, in Criminal
Case No. 00-1705 for Grave Threats, where his father, Mariano Cruz, is
the complaining witness.
The petitioner, describing himself as a third year law student, justifies
his appearance as private prosecutor on the bases of Section 34 of
Rule 138 of the Rules of Court and the ruling of the Court En Banc in
Cantimbuhan v. Judge Cruz, Jr.[2] that a non-lawyer may appear before
the inferior courts as an agent or friend of a party litigant.

However, in an Order dated February 1, 2002, the MeTC denied

permission for petitioner to appear as private prosecutor on the ground
that Circular No. 19 governing limited law student practice in
conjunction with Rule 138-A of the Rules of Cour

On February 13, 2002, petitioner filed before the MeTC a Motion for
Reconsideration seeking to reverse the February 1, 2002 Order alleging
that Rule 138-A, or the Law Student Practice Rule, does not have the
effect of superseding Section 34 of Rule 138, for the authority to...
interpret the rule is the source itself of the rule, which is the Supreme
Court alone.

March 4, 2002, the MeTC denied the Motion for Reconsideration.

April 2, 2002, the petitioner filed before the RTC a Petition for
Certiorari and Mandamus with Prayer for Preliminary Injunction and
Temporary Restraining Order against the private respondent and the
public respondent MeTC.

the RTC, in a Resolution dated May 3, 2002, resolved to deny the

issuance of an injunctive writ... on the ground that the crime of Grave
Threats, the subject of Criminal Case No. 00-1705, is one that can be
prosecuted de oficio, there being no claim for civil indemnity, and that
therefore, the intervention of a private prosecutor is not legally
tenable.

The petitioner argues that nowhere does the law provide that the crime
of Grave Threats has no civil aspect. And last, petitioner cites Bar
Matter No. 730 dated June 10, 1997 which expressly... provides for the
appearance of a non-lawyer before the inferior courts, as an agent or
friend of a party litigant, even without the supervision of a member of
the bar.

On June 5, 2002, the RTC issued its Order denying the petitioner's
Motion for Reconside

Issues:

The basic question is whether the petitioner, a law student, may

appear before an inferior court as an agent or friend of a party litigant.

Ruling:

The courts a quo held that the Law Student Practice Rule as
encapsulated in Rule 138-A of the Rules of Court, prohibits the
petitioner, as a law student, from entering his appearance in behalf of
his father, the private complainant in the criminal case without the...
supervision of an attorney duly accredited by the law school.

However, in Resolution[6] dated June 10, 1997 in Bar Matter No. 730,
the Court En Banc clarified:

The rule, however, is different if the law student appears before an

inferior court, where the issues and procedure are relatively simple. In
inferior courts, a law student may appear in his personal capacity
without the supervision of a lawyer.

ec. 34. By whom litigation is conducted. In the court of a justice of the

peace, a party may conduct his litigation in person, with the aid of an
agent or friend appointed by him for that purpose, or with the aid of an
attorney. In any other court, a... party may conduct his litigation
personally or by aid of an attorney, and his appearance must be either
personal or by a duly authorized member of the bar.

Thus, a law student may appear before an inferior court as an agent or

friend of a party without the supervision of a member of the bar.[

There is really no problem as to the application of Section 34 of Rule

138 and Rule 138-A. In the former, the appearance of a non-lawyer, as
an agent or friend of a party litigant, is expressly allowed, while the
latter rule provides for conditions when a law student, not as an...
agent or a friend of a party litigant, may appear before the courts.

Petitioner expressly anchored his appearance on Section 34 of Rule

138. The court a quo must have been confused by the fact that
petitioner referred to himself as a law student in his entry of
appearance. Rule 138-A should not have been used by the courts a quo
in... denying permission to act as private prosecutor against petitioner
for the simple reason that Rule 138-A is not the basis for the
petitioner's appearance.

Section 34, Rule 138 is clear that appearance before the inferior courts
by a non-lawyer is allowed, irrespective of whether or not he is a law
student.

Petitioner further argues that the RTC erroneously held that, by its very
nature, no civil liability may flow from the crime of Grave Threats, and,
for this reason, the intervention of a private prosecutor is not possible.

It is clear from the RTC Decision that no such conclusion had been
intended by the RTC. In denying the issuance of the injunctive court,
the RTC stated in its Decision that there was no claim for civil liability
by the private complainant for damages, and that the records of the...
case do not provide for a claim for indemnity; and that therefore,
petitioner's appearance as private prosecutor appears to be legally
untenable.

Under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, every person criminally
liable for a felony is also civilly liable except in instances when no
actual damage results from an offense, such as espionage, violation of
neutrality, flight to an enemy country, and crime against popular...
representation.

The petitioner is correct in stating that there being no reservation,

waiver, nor prior institution of the civil aspect in Criminal Case No. 00-
1705, it follows that the civil aspect arising from Grave Threats is
deemed instituted with the criminal action, and, hence, the... private
prosecutor may rightfully intervene to prosecute the civil aspect