Facts:
Atty. Christian Monsod was nominated by President Corazon C. Aquino t
o the position ofchairman of the COMELEC. (person who approaches a
court for help) argued/against thenomination because (claimed to
be) Monsod does not possess needed/demanded qualificationof having
been started/working
at the practice of law for at least ten years. The 1987 constitutionprovi
des in Section 1, Article IX-C: There will be a Commission on Elections c
omposed of aChairman and six (government workers in
charge) who will be natural-born people (who lawfully live in a country,
state,
etc.) of the Philippines and, at the time of their appointment, at leastthi
rty-five years of age, holders of a college degree, and must not have be
en candidates for anyelective position in the immediately previous/com
ing before elections. However, a majority of that/of
it, including the Chairman, will be members of the Philippine Bar who h
ave beenstarted/working at the practice of law for at least ten years.
Issue:
1. Whether or not Monsod has been started/working
at the practice of law for 10 years.
2. Whether or not the Commission on Appointments did/done/performe
d grave (very mean, unfair treatment) of (ability to make wise
decisions) in confirming Monsod's appointment.
Held:
1. YES. The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or law
suits in court. Ithugs/supports the preparation of pleadings and other p
apers event to actions and special (series of
events), the management of such actions and (series of
events) for clients, and other workswhere the work done involves the st
rong desire/formal decision about
something of the trainedlegal mind of the legal effect of facts and cond
itions (PLA vs. Agrava.) The records of the 1986(agreeing with, or
related to, the Constitution) commission show that the (understanding/
explanation) of the term practice of law was liberal as to think
about lawyers employed in theCommission of Audit as started/working
at the practice of law gave/given that they use their legalknowledge or
talent in their (pertaining to each person or
thing) work. The court also referred toan article in the January 11,
1989 issue of the Business Star, that lawyers now/recently have theiro
wn (made to do one thing very well) fields such as tax lawyers, lawyers
(who try to prove people
guilty), etc., that because of the demands of their (focusing on doing
one thing very well), lawyersstart/work
at other works or functions to meet them. These days, for example, mo
ame of the Sps. Abuel. Atty. Pablito Castillo was the advice
of the Sps.Abuel in the
(earlier-said) criminal and lawsuits.
During the (time period where everyone is waiting for the next step in
a
process) of these cases,one Gregorio Lantin filed a lawsuit for collectio
n of a sum of money based on a (written promise to
pay), also with the Pasig (related to a large
area) Trial Court, against the Sps. Abuel. In the saidcase Gregorio Lanti
n was represented by Atty. Alfonso Martija. In this case, the Sps. Abuel
weredeclared in default for their failure to file the necessary (able to
reply or react/quick to respond)pleading and (event(s) or object(s) that
prove something) exparte was received against themfollowed by a judgment by default ma
de/gave/given in favor of Gregorio Lantin. An (official written
order) of execution was, in due time, issued and the same property (be
fore that/before now) attached by complainant was charged and
collected upon.
It is further accused (of a
crime) that in all the pleadings filed in these three (3) previouslymentioned cases, Atty. Pablito Castillo and Atty. Alfonso Martija placed t
he same address, thesame PTR and the same IBP receipt number.
So, complainant decided
that the lawsuit filed by Gregorio Lantin was only a part of the big
plan/layout/dishonest plan of the Sps. Abuel to frustrate the happiness
(from meeting a need or reaching a
goal) of the money judgment which complainant might get in the lawsu
it he filed.
After hearing, the IBP Board of Governors issued it Resolution with the f
ollowing findings and
recommendations:
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully recommended that Atty. Pablito M. Castill
o be SUSPENDED fromthe practice of law for a period of six (6) months
for using the IBP Official Receipt No. of his co-person who
responded Atty. Alfonso M. Martija.The complaint against Atty. Martija is
herebyDISMISSED for lack of (event(s) or object(s) that prove
something).
Issue:
Whether or not person who
responded is guilty of violating the Code of ProfessionalResponsibility.
Ruling:
The Court agreed with the previous findings and recommendations. Th
e practice of law is not aright but a privilege given
by the State on those who show that they possess, and continue topos
CANON 1
A.C. No. 6116
August 1, 2012
ENGR. GILBERT TUMBOKON, Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. MARIANO R. PEFIANCO, Respondent.
Facts:
Gilbert Tumbokon filed a case for disbarment against Atty. Mariano. Acc
ording to him, hereferred the case of Amable and Rosalinda in a case fo
r dividing
wall/section of the estate of thelate Benjamin Yap. They agreed that Gil
bert Tumbokon would
get ten percent of the lawyer's feesthat Atty. Mariano Pefianco would
get from the case, which agreement they reduced into writing.However
, even after Atty. Mariano Pefianco received about P40 Million as lawyer
's fees, the last thing just
mentioned refused to pay, stating in a letter that the (husband or
wife)s will be the oneto shoulder his commission after his lawyers fees
was reduced from 20% to 17%. (even though there is the existence
of) demand, Mariano refused to pay, because of
this Gilbert Tumbokonfiled the disbarment case against Mariano, furthe
r accusing that the last thing just mentionedwas also guilty of socially
wrong behavior for leaving alone (and
forgetting) his legal wifeMilagros, and her four children, and living
together with Mae Flor. He also charged him (with a crime) of working
at money-lending operation without the needed/demanded authority fr
om theBangko Sentral ng Pilipinas.
In his defense, he promised that he accepted the case of the (husband
or wife)s on a (related to one thing depending on another thing that
might or might not
happen) basis, and advances allthe expenses. The letter according to h
im was a (fake item/making fake items), and it was the(husband or
wife)s who promised to assume the payment of Gilbert Tumbokon's co
mmission.
The IBP recommended that Atty. Mariano Pefianco be suspended for on
e year from the practiceof law.
Issue: Whether or Not Atty. Mariano Pefianco violated the Lawyer's Pro
mise, Rule 1.01, Canon 1;Rule 7.03, Canon 7 and Rule 9.02, Canon 9 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Ruling:
The practice of law is carefully thought about/believed a privilege given
by the State on thosewho show that they possess and continue to poss
ess the legal qualifications for the job/line of
work. So, lawyers are expected to maintain at all times a high standard
of legal skill, sense of right and wrong, honesty, good
quality/completeness and fair dealing, and must (do/complete)their fou
r-fold duty to (community of people/all good people in the
world), the legal job/line of
work, the courts and their clients, obeying the values and normal
behaviors included in the Code.Lawyers may, this
way, be controlled/punished for any behavior that is wanting of the abo
vestandards whether in their professional or in their private ability (to
hold or do something).
In the present case, person who responded's defense that (fake
item/making fake items) hadattended the execution of the August 11,
1995 letter was shown as false by his July 16,
1997 letteradmitting to have
begun/tried the payment of complainant's commission but passing on t
heresponsibility to Sps. Yap. Clearly, person who
responded has violated Rule 9.02,[12] Canon 9 ofthe Code which prohi
bits a lawyer from dividing or saying to divide a fee for legal services wi
thpeople not licensed to practice law, except in certain cases which do
not get in the case at bar.
What's more, person who responded did not deny the statement (that
someone has done something
bad) that he forgotten his legal family to live
with with his mistress with whom hecreated four children not
was a certain Rubio. Moreno also admittedthat there was a pending leg
al arguments over the lot. Complainant demanded the return of thepai
d amount and filed a criminal case against person who
responded. MTC convicted Moreno ofthe crime of other forms of swindli
ng under Article 316, paragraph 1 of RPC, and sentenced himof penalty
of (state of being locked in a
prison) for one month and ordered the return of theamount.
RTC set aside the MTC decision and (decided that someone didn't
commit a crime) Moreno. Roafiled with the IBP an StatementComplaint against Moreno.
Moreno explained that he only sold a right over the use of the lot to Ro
a. He also claimed that itwas a certain Benjamin Hermida who received
the purchase price, and that it was one Edwin Tanwho paid the purchas
e price, and not Roa.
IBP suspended Moreno from practice of law for 3 months and ordered h
im to return the amountof P70,000 to Roa within 30 days from
receiving (see/hear/become aware
of). IBP Board ofGovernors forwarded present case to the Court.
Issue:
Whether or not person who
responded is guilty of violating Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code ofProfes
sional Responsibility.
Ruling:
YES. The Court gave belief to Roa's version of the facts. Moreno's belie
vability is (possibly not true, good, or
honest). The Certificate of Land Occupancy he issued has all the badge
s of intent tostealing/criminal. It claims
to be issued by the "Office of the General Supervisor" and containschec
king (for
truth) by the "Lead, Record Deparment" that the lot plan "conforms wit
h the recordon file." It can easily pass off as a document evidencing titl
e.
He acted in his private ability (to hold or do something) and lied
about that he owned the lot hesold. He also refused to return the amou
nt paid and denied having any transaction with Roa.Moreno's behavior i
s ugly of a member of the bar and officer of the court. He did
not live up tothe strict standard of (doing a very good job in an adult
way) needed/demanded by the Code ofProfessional Responsibility.
Lawyers must behavior themselves beyond criticism at all times, not ju
st in their dealings withtheir clients but
The Court did not sustain IBP's recommendation for the return of mone
y because the only (topic that is important now) is person who
responded's (related to managing and running a company or
organization) (something you owe/something you're responsible
for/disadvantage).Suspension of three months is not enough.
The Court finds Moreno GUILTY of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Pro
fessional Responsibilityand SUSPENDS him from the practice for two ye
ars.
A.C. No. 6655 Promulgated: October 11, 2011
PACITA CAALIM-VERZONILLA, Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. VICTORIANO G. PASCUA, Respondent.
Facts:
Pacita Verzonilla filed a complaint looking (for) the disbarment of Atty.
Victoriano Pascua forfalsifying a public document and escaping the pay
ment of correct taxes through the use offalsified documents. It was pos
sible that person who responded prepared and notarized twoDeeds of E
xtra-(law-related) Settlement of the Estate of Dead Run Caalim with Sal
e. The first deedwas for an important thing to think about of P1,000,00
0 and appears to have been legallyused/obeyed and signed by Run's s
urviving (husband or wife), Caridad Tabarrejos, and herchildren (compla
inant, Virginia Caalim-Inong and Marivinia Caalim) in favor of (husband
or wife)sMadki and Shirley Mipanga. The second deed was for an impor
tant thing to think about ofP250,000 and appears to have been legally
used/obeyed by and for the benefit of the sameparties as the first deed
. The two deeds have identical registration numbers, page numbers an
dbook numbers in the notarial portion. Complainant promises that both
deeds are false becauseall the heirs' signatures were falsified.
In his comment, person who responded admits having prepared and no
tarized the two arguedagainst Deeds of Extra-(law-related) Settlement
of the Estate with Sale, but denies any suspiciousthing/mistake in their
execution. He narrates that the vendors, Caridad, Virginia, Pacita(compl
ainant) and Marivinia as well as the vendee, Shirley Mpanga were there
as well as the twopromising witnesses when he notarized the said docu
ments. The first document was a sale ofsubject property for an importa
nt thing to think about of P1,000,000. Person who respondedadds that t
hey had disagreement as to who will shoulder the payment of taxes ov
er the property.Later, the parties visited person who responded at his h
ouse and pleaded with him to preparethe second deed with the reduce
d selling price. Moved by his kind and kind personality/desire,person w
ho responded gave in to the parties' plea. In the presence of all the hei
rs, the vendeesand the instrumental witnesses, person who responded
prepared and notarized the seconddeed providing for the lower (seriou
s thought/something to think about/respect) of onlyP250,000.
Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Pascua did/done/performed acts of dishonesty this
way violating his dutiesas a lawyer and a (person approved to serve as
a witness for the signing of importantdocuments) Public.
Ruling:
Yes. By person who responded's own account of the facts or conditions
(that surround someone)surrounding the execution and notarization of
the subject deeds of sale, there is a clear basis forcontrolling/punishing
him as a member of the bar and as (person approved to serve as a wit
nessfor the signing of important documents). Person who responded di
d not deny preparing andnotarizing the subject deeds. He promises tha
t the true (serious thought/something to thinkabout/respect) for the tra
nsaction is P1,000,000 as (claimed to be) agreed upon by the partiesw
hen they appeared before him for the preparation of the first document
as well as thenotarization of that/of it. He then claimed to have been "
moved by his kind and kindpersonality/desire" when he agreed to the p
arties' plea that he prepare and notarize the seconddeed with a lower (
serious thought/something to think about/respect) of P250,000 in order
toreduce the almost the
same tax money owed. With his (act of letting someone enter/speaking
the truth about something bad) that he drafted and notarized another (
device that makes music)that did not state the true (serious thought/so
mething to think about/respect) of the
sale to reduce the (when things become more valuable) and other taxe
s due on the transaction,person who responded cannot escape (respon
sibility for/blame for) making a dishoneststatement in a public docume
nt for an illegal purpose. Person who responded violated Canon 1and R
ule 1.02 of Canon 1 Code of Professional responsibility.
In this case, person who responded went ahead to notarize the second
deed (even though thereis the existence of) knowledge of its illegal pur
pose. His claimed want to change something (tohelp someone)/take ca
re of someone the request of his client will not forgive person whorespo
nded who, as a member of the legal job/line of work, should have stood
his ground and notcooperated with/produced/gave up to the beggings
of his clients. Person who responded shouldhave been more smart and
remained unstoppable in his serious promise not to commitlie/dishones
ty nor permit to the doing of any.
Atty. Victoriano Pascua is suspended from the practice of law for a perio
d of two (2) years. Also,his present notarial commission, if any, is hereb
y took back/taken back, and he is disqualifiedfrom reappointment as a
of) theknowledge that Stier was disqualified to own a real property for
being a foreign national.
On Oct 1, 2003 the Court referred the matter to the IBP for (act of
asking questions and trying to find the truth about
something) and on Feb 26, 2004, Commissioner San Juan found person
who responded responsible for taking part in a big
plan/layout/dishonest plan to avoid the (agreeing with, or related to,
the
Constitution) prohibition against foreign ownership of land in thePhilipp
ines and recommended person who
responded's suspension from the practice of law for2 years and cancell
ation of his commission as (person authorized to serve as a witness for
the signing of important documents) Public.
On April 16,
2004, the IBP Board of Governors adopted the report with change andr
ecommended person who
responded's suspension from the practice of law for 6 months. Thenon J
uly 28, 2004, person who
responded filed a movement for reconsideration before the IBPstating t
hat his practice of law is his only means of supporting his family and 6
minor children.
Issue:
WON person who
responded is guilty of violation of Canon I and Rule 1.02 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
Held:
A lawyer should not make/give any service or give guidance to any clie
nt which will involverefusal to obey
the laws which he is bound to support/judge as correct. Person who
responded'sknowledge that Stier, a US person (who lawfully lives in a
country, state,
etc.), was disqualifiedfrom owning real property and his preparation of
Occupancy Agreement that would (promise that something will
definitely happen or that something will definitely work as
described) Stier'srecognition as the actual owner of the property, helpe
d in avoiding the (agreeing with, or related to, the
Constitution) prohibition against foreign ownership of lands. So, he viol
ated his promiseand the Code when he prepared and notarized the Occ
upancy Agreement. Person who
responded used his knowledge of the law to (accomplish or gain with
effort) an illegal end. Suchan act amounts to (serious medical mistakes
that cause injury or
Issue:
Whether or not accusations of complainant make up/be equal
to political (teasing and threatening over and over again in a mean
way), a violation of Rules 1.02,
1.03 and 12.02 of theCode of Professional Responsibility and a ground f
or disbarment.
Ruling:
The basic issue for our (strong state of mind to do
something) is whether the filing by people who
responded with the MTC of an election protest and with the RTC a writt
en request for legal orderagainst complainant makes up/is equal
to forum shopping.
It is obvious that forum shopping does not exist in the instant case. The
accusations in theelection protest and the written request for legal
order show that, although there is an identity ofparties, there is no iden
tity of rights defended/expressed and reliefs prayed for. In the election
protest filed with the MTC, the issue is who between the parties won. P
eople who
respondedprayed that Naputo be declared the rightful winner.
As the causes of action and the reliefs prayed for in the election protest
and written request forlegal
order are completely different, there can be no forum shopping.
Here, complainant chose to file a (related to managing and running a
company or organization)case for disbarment against people who
responded. Unfortunately, he did not prove hisaccusation that people
who responded submitted to the RTC a false certification on nonforumshopping for actually they did not work at forum shopping.
(related to managing and running a company or
organization) Complaint for disbarment isDISMISSED.
CANON 2
G.R. No. L-23815 June 28, 1974
ADELINO H. LEDESMA, petitioner,
vs.
HON. RAFAEL C. CLIMACO, Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance
of Negros Occidental, Branch I, Silay City, respondent.
Facts:
(person who approaches a court for
help) Ledesma was assigned as advice de parte for a(charged with a
together) but the person who responded did not appear; this
way, the IBPthought about/believed the person who
responded in default for his failure to appear and for notfiling an answe
r (even though there is the existence
of) extensions granted. The case was thensubmitted for report and rec
ommendation that ATTY. PABLO A. BERNARDO be SUSPENDED for aperi
od of TWO YEARS from the practice of his job/line of
work as a lawyer and as a member ofthe Bar. The IBP Board of Governo
rs issued a Resolution Adopting and Approving the report andrecomme
ndation of the (asking lots of questions about/trying to find the truth
about)Commissioner with Change.
On May 16, 2007, the person who
responded quickly filed a Movement for Reconsideration of the(earliersaid) Resolution of the The Court adopts and agrees with the findings a
nd ends/end results of the IBP.
Issue:
Whether person who responded is guilty of committing (serious
medical mistakes that cause injury or death) and (bad
behavior) a member of the Bar and violation of his duties and promisea
s a lawyer.
Ruling:
The court adopted and agreed with the findings and ends/end
results of the IBP.
The court ruled that the person who
responded's defense of prescription is ridiculous. The Courthas held tha
t (related to managing and running a company or
organization) cases against lawyersdo not prescribe. The lapse of (a)
long
time from the commission of the offending act to theinstitution of the (r
elated to managing and running a company or
organization) complaint will noterase the (related to managing and
running a company or
organization) fault of a lawyer.Otherwise, members of the bar would on
ly be bold to ignore the very promise they took aslawyers, taking
back from the fact that as long as no private complainant would immed
iatelycome forward, they stand a chance of being completely cleared
from guilt from whatever (related to managing and running a company
or organization) (something you owe/something you're responsible
for/disadvantage) they should answer for.
Further, agreeing with/matching up with/working regularly
with his failure to file his answer afterhe himself pleaded for a
few extensions of time to file the same, the person who responded did
cannot be allowed.
Lawyers may be controlled/punished - whether in their professional or i
n their private ability (to hold or do
something) - for any behavior that is lacking sense of right and
wrong, honesty,honesty and good personality. It is included
in Rule 2.03 that A lawyer will not do or permit to bedone any act desig
ned mostly to ask
for/encourage legal business and Rule 3.01 that A lawyerwill not use or
permit the use of any false, fake/illegal, sneaky and
false, dishonest, undignified,self-wonderful or unfair statement or claim
(related to/looking at/thinking about) hisqualifications or legal services.
It is also settled that a disbarment going
ahead is separate and clear/separate from a criminalaction filed agains
t a lawyer (even though there is the existence
of) having involved the same setof facts. Laws has it "that a finding of
guilt in the criminal case will not necessarily result in afinding of (some
thing you owe/something you're responsible
for/disadvantage) in the (related to managing and running a company
or organization) case. (in the opposite way), the person who
responded's (finding not
guilty) does not necessarily forgive him (related to managers).
As the records show/tell
about, the RTC eventually convicted the person who
responded for thecrime of Estafa for which he was meted the penalty o
f sentenced to suffer six (6) years and one(1) day of Prision Mayor as m
inimum to twelve (12) years and one (1) day of Reclusion Time-related
as highest value. Such criminal (judgment of guilt in
court) clearly interferes with theperson who
responded's moral fitness to be a member of the Bar. Rule 138, Section
27.
Atty. Pablo S. Bernardo is found guilty of violating the Code of Professio
nal Responsibility and in the same way/in that
way is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for ONE (1) YEAR effective
upon(see/hear/become aware
of) hereof. Further, the Court ORDERS Atty. Pablo S. Bernardo (1) toRET
prisoners before serving them their Release Orders, and from (people i
n a lawsuit) by offering totell about private information in advance of it
s unauthorized release).
The Court found that the (before that/before now)-talked
about/said charges were not supportedby (event(s) or object(s) that pr
ove something) since those who filed statements as (event(s) orobject(
s) that prove something) against Almarvez were not presented at the h
earings. The onlyoffense which Almarvez was found to commit was ine
CANON 5
A.C. No. 6353
February 27, 2006
SPOUSES DAVID and MARISA WILLIAMS, Complainants,
vs.
ATTY. RUDY T. ENRIQUEZ, Respondent.
Facts:
(husband or wife)s Williams are the people (who are being sued or who
were sued) in a Civil Casewhere the person (who sued or is suing
someone)'s advice is (in this/within this) person who
responded. According to Marissa Williams bought the lot subject of the
arguing. in the Move (from one place to
another) Certificate of Title, it was stated that she is a Filipino married t
o DavidWilliams. Person who
responded Enriquez then filed a criminal case for falsification of publicd
ocument. According to Enriquez, referring
to a stale law, Marisa automatically lost her Filipino(living in a country
you were born in, or having the same rights in a country as someone
who was born there) when she married an American, and
so is prohibited to own a land in the Philippines,by that/in that
way making her guilty of falsification. he quoted a more outdated law
when hesaid that the "act of marrying" her husband is equal to rejectin
g her (living in a country you were born in, or having the same rights in
a country as someone who was born there).
So, (in this/within
On February 2, 1994, a complaint for violation of the AntiDummy Law (C.A. No. 108) was filed byAsst. City
Lawyer (who tries to prove someone
guilty) Perfecto E. Pe against people who
responded Stromand Reyes. The person (who might be a
criminal) filed a Movement to Quash/Dismiss the criminalcase arguing t
hat since the power to (start a trial in court against someone/perform
an action) isvested only in the AntiDummy Board under Republic Act No. 1130, the City Lawyer (who tries
to prove someone
guilty) of Puerto Princesa has no power or authority to file the same. Th
eprosecution filed a (fighting force/bad
feelings) pointing out that the Anti-Dummy Board hasalready been stop
ped by Letter of Putting into use No. 2, Series of 1972. (even though
there is the existence of) such (fighting force/bad
feelings), however, person who
responded judgegranted the movement supporting the position that th
e Letter Of Putting into use relied upon bythe City Moneyrelated is not the "law" thought
about in Article 7 of the New Civil Code which canundo another law suc
h as R.A. 1130. So, person who
responded judge in the attacked order ofMarch 18,
1994 held that the City Lawyer (who tries to prove someone
guilty) has no power orauthority to file and (start a trial in court against
someone/perform an
action) the case andordered that the case be stopped.
Issue:
Whether or not person who
responded judge in granting the Movement to Stop seriously(treated or
used in a very mean, unfair way) his (ability to make smart
decisions) as to warrantthe issuance of a (written order) of certiorari
Ruling:
Yes. The error committed by person who
responded judge in dismissing the case is quite obviousin the light of P.
D. No. 1, LOI No. 2 and P.D. No. 1275 previouslymentioned. The intent to end theAnti-Dummy Board could not have be
en expressed more clearly than in the aforequoted LOI.Even assuming t
hat the City Money-related of Puerto Princesa did not refer to P.D. No.
1 in hisfighting against/bad feelings about the Movement to Stop, a
little reading of the text of LOI No.
2would have immediately informed the person who
responded judge of the fact that LOI No. 2was issued in (putting into)
thought
of begun only upon the payment of the proper docket fees. To his opini
on, theneeded/demanded fees in this case was not yet paid by the prot
estant. Because of
this, thiscomplaint charging him mostly with gross knowing nothing
about the law.
Issue:
Whether or not Judge Gacott Jr. is guilty of gross knowing nothing
about the law.
Held:
Based on the facts and facts or conditions (that surround
someone) attendant to the case, theelection protest was properly filed.
In fact, the original Judge already made an order that fromthe deposit g
iven by the protestant for the expenses of reopening the questioned ba
llots, anamount will be set apart and given
out for the payment of the needed/demanded fees. Moreimportantly, t
he Court held that the Manchester ruling relied upon by person who
respondedJudge does not apply to election cases. In a latter case ( Pahi
lan), the evil tried
to be avoided inthe Manchester case does not exist in election cases. T
ruth is, the paperwork
charge in anelection case is fixed and the claim for damages, to which
the docket fees will be made to apply,is only helping
thing to main cause of action and is not even (serving to decide or
settle something) of the court's control/area of control.
While it is true that not every error or mistake of a judge makes/gives h
im (related to
managers)responsible, in this case, it is clear that the person who
responded judge was in completeignoring (people's
feelings) of established rules amounting to gross knowing nothing
about thelaw. The Pahilan case was decided long before the person
who responded made a ruling on theelection case. So, the person who
responded judge was duty bound to stick
to, and apply therecent ruling, and he cannot fake (having no
knowledge) of that/of it, because the Code of (law-related) (rules and
beliefs related to doing the right
thing) needs/demands him to be a form of,among other things, (lawrelated) ability. One of the principal duties of a judge is to be knowing
about law and laws since the management of justice needs/demands c
ontinuous study of the lawand laws. A reading of the challenge order s
hows/tells about that person who responded judgedid
not live up to what is expected of him as a dispenser of justice.
Judge Eustaquio Z. Gacott, Jr. is found GUILTY of gross knowing nothing
about the law and ishereby ordered to pay a fine of Fifteen Thousand (P
15,000.00) Pesos, with a warning that arepetition of the same or almos
t the same act will be punished worsely.
CANON 6
A.C. No. 6707
March 24, 2006
GISELA HUYSSEN, Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. FRED L. GUTIERREZ, Respondent.
Facts:
Complainant Huyssen filed a disbarment case against person who
responded Gutierrez whichcame from/was caused by a visa (online or
paper form that asks for a job, money, admission,
etc.), for which complainant along with her three sons, applied for. In
the same way/in that way,person who
responded told complainant that in order that their visa (online or
paper forms that ask for a job, money, admission,
etc.) will be positively/well acted by the Bureau of (entering a
country) and (removal from a
country) (BID), complainant needed to deposit a certain sum ofmoney f
or a period of one year which could be withdrawn after one year. Believ
ing that thedeposit was in
fact needed/demanded by law, complainant deposited with person who
responded the amount totaling $20,000. Person who
responded prepared vouchers/ receipts forcomplainant as proof that he
received the amount but refused to give her complainant officialreceipt
s (even though there is the existence
of) demands. After one year, complainant demandedfrom the person
who responded the return of $20,000 who promised
to/certain her that saidamount would be returned. However, person
who responded did
not return the money.Demands were made by the complainant and the
World Mission for Jesus, but demands remain disobeyed. Person who
responded issued a
fewpost dated checks to cover the deposited amount, but the same we
re dishonored. So,complainant file a complaint before the Commission
on Bar Control/field of study of the (Having different things working
together as one
unit) Bar of the Philippines trial for the disbarmentresulted.
Issue:
Whether or not person who
responded's behavior violated the Code of ProfessionalResponsibility a
nd good qualities the penalty of disbarment.
Ruling:
Person who responded disbarred. The Supreme Court ordered person
who
responded Atty.Gutierrez DISBARRED from the practice of law and orde
red the return of the amount he receivedfrom the complainant with leg
al interest from his receipt until payment. The same case is alsoreferre
d to the Office of the Ombudsman for criminal prosecution and DOJ fro
m appropriate(related to managing and running a company or
organization) action.
In its decision, the Supreme Court gave focus
on the violation of the person who
responded ofRule 6.02 of Canon 6 of the CPR. The court further referre
d to Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the CPR,which prohibit members of the bar
from engaging or participating in any illegal, dishonest, anddishonest a
cts. Acts of person who
responded in asking for money from the complainant in(serious
thought/something to think about/respect) of the complainants (online
or paper form that asks for a job, money, admission,
etc.) for visas in violation of Rule 1.01. The issuance ofunpaid checks w
as also thought about/believed by the SC.
A.C. No. 4984
April 1, 2003
ATTY. JULITO D. VITRIOLO, PRECILLANA J. HONORICA, ARLEEN J. RAMOS,
DR. ROGER PEREZ, DR. IMELDA DARAUG, DR. REMIGIA NATHANIELZ,
CELEDONIA CORONACION, and JOSE RABALO, complainants,
vs.
ATTY. FELINA DASIG, respondent.
Facts:
FACTS:
1. Almost all complainants are high-ranking officers of the CHED. They
accuse (of a crime)/say or
report Angero did/done/performed acts that are grounds for disbarment
under Section 27, Rule138 of the Rules of Court
2. During her time in power as OIC, Legal Services, CHED, tried
to steal from Betty C. Mangohon,Rosalie B. Dela Torre, Rocella G. Eje, a
nd Jacqueline N. Ng sums of money as (serious thought/something to
think about/respect) for her good action on their pending (online or
paper forms that ask for a job, money, admission,
responded was SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3)years.
Issue:
Whether or not person who responded lawyer-atlaw, may be controlled/punished by this Courtfor her wrongdoing disob
edient of CPR 6.02
Ruling:
YES.
1. Generally speaking, a lawyer who holds a government office may no
t be controlled/punishedas a member of the Bar for bad
behavior in the (doing/completing) of his duties as a governmentofficial
. However, if
said bad behavior as a government official also makes up
a violation of his promise as a lawyer,then he may be controlled/punish
ed by this Court as a member of the Bar.
2. The Lawyer's Promise is the source of the responsibilities and duties
of every lawyer and anyviolation of that/of
it is a ground for disbarment, suspension, or other (related to control or
punishment) action. Said duty is further stressed in Rule 1.03 of the Co
de of ProfessionalResponsibility.
3. Person who responded's bad
behavior as a lawyer of the CHED is of such a character as toaffect her
qualification as a member of the Bar, for as a lawyer, she should have
known that itwas clearly bad and illegal for her to demand sums of mo
ney as (serious thought/something to think
about/respect) for the approval of (online or paper forms that ask for a
job, money, admission, etc.) and requests waiting
for action by her office.
4. A member of the Bar who assumes public office does not shed his pr
ofessionalresponsibilities. Hence, the Code of Professional Responsibilit
y, was not meant to govern thebehavior of private professionals alone,
but of all lawyers including those in government service.This is clear fro
m Canon 6 of said Code.
5. Person who responded's tries
to steal money from people with (online or paper forms that ask for a
job, money, admission,
etc.) or requests pending before her office are disobedient of Rule1.01
of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits members of t
he Bar fromengaging or participating in any illegal, dishonest, or disho
nest acts. More than that, said actsmake up/be equal to a failure (or
break)
of Rule 6.02 of the Code which bars lawyers ingovernment service from
(helping increase/showing in a good
way) their private interests.Promotion of private interests includes aski
ng for/encouraging gifts or anything of moneybasedvalue in any transaction needing/ordering the approval of his offi
ce or which may be affected bythe functions of his office. Person who
responded's behavior in office falls short of the good
quality/completeness and good moral character needed/demanded fro
m all lawyers, speciallyfrom one occupying a high public office. For a la
wyer in public office is expected not only to stopany act or (something
left
out) which might tend to lessen the trust and confidence of the peoplei
n government, she must also support/judge as correct the selfrespect/worth of the legal job/line of
work at all times and watch/notice a high standard of honesty and fair
dealing.
6. Person who responded was found responsible for gross bad
behavior and dishonesty inviolation of the Lawyer's Promise as well as t
he Code of Professional Responsibility, and wasordered DISBARRED.
A.C. No. 7332
June 18, 2013
EDUARDO A. ABELLA, Complainant,
vs.
RICARDO G. BARRIOS, JR., Respondent.
Facts:
Complainant received/got a good judgment from the Court of Appeals i
nvolving a Labor Case.Complainant then filed a Movement for Issuance
of a (written order) of Execution before the(related to a large area) Hea
ring Branch which the person who responded was the Labor Judge.After
the lapse of five (5) months, complainant's movement remained unact
ed, causing/bringingabout/reminding him to file a Second Movement fo
r Execution. However, still, there was noaction until the complainant ag
reed to give person who responded a part of/amount of themoneybased award of that/of it after the last thing just talked
about/said asked from the formerhow much would be his share. After th
at, person who responded issued a (written order) ofexecution but the
employer of the complainant moved to stop the said (written order).Ev
entually, issued a new (written order) of execution (in which/during whi
ch/in what way/in what)complainant's money-based awards were reduc
ed to the effect that it changes the DECISION ofthe CA. Complainant no
w filed the instant disbarment complaint before the (Having differentthi
ngs working together as one unit) Bar of the Philippines (IBP), promisin
g that person whoresponded violated the Code of Professional Responsi
bility for (a) asking for/encouraging moneyfrom complainant in exchan
ge for a good resolution; and (b) issuing a wrong decision to givebenefi
t and advantage to PT&T, complainant's employer.
Issue:
Whether or not person who responded is guilty of gross socially wrong
behavior for his violationof Rules 1.01 and 1.03, Canon 1, and Rule 6.0
2, Canon 6 of the Code.
Ruling:
YES. The above-referred to rules, which are contained under Chapter 1
of the Code,describe/separate the lawyer's responsibility to (communit
y of people/all good people in theworld): Rule 1.01 writes the most imp
ortant prohibition against lawyers from working at anyillegal, dishonest
, socially wrong and dishonest behavior; Rule 1.03 forbids lawyers from
encouraging any suit or going ahead or delaying any man's cause for a
ny dishonest reason (fordoing something) or interest; meanwhile, Rule
6.02 is especially directed to lawyers ingovernment service, prohibiting
them from using one's public position to: (1)
(help increase/showin a good way) private interests;
(2) advance private interests; or (3) allow private interests tointerfere
with public duties. It is well to note that a lawyer who holds a governm
ent office may becontrolled/punished as a member of the Bar only whe
n his bad behavior also makes up aviolation of his promise as a lawyer.
The rule violations of the person who responded make up/be equal to g
ross bad behavior. Lawslights up/educates that socially wrong behavior
involves acts that are stubborn/(done onpurpose), bad, or bold, and tha
t show a moral (not caring about) the opinion of the upright andrespect
able members of the community. It treads the line of (disgusting nature
) when it is sodishonest as to make up/be equal to a criminal act, or so
law-breaking as to be shameful to ahigh degree, or when committed un
der such disgraceful or disgusting/(angrily fighting authority)facts or co
nditions (that surround someone) as to shock the community's sense of
decency. Onthe other hand, gross bad behavior makes up/is equal to "i
mproper or wrong behavior, thecrime/disobeying of some established a
nd definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a refusal ofwork, stubborn/
(done on purpose) in character, and hints a wrongful intent and not me
re errorof judgment."
In this relation, Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court states that w
hen a lawyer is foundguilty of gross socially wrong behavior or gross ba
d behavior, he may be suspended ordisbarred.However, the Court take
s (law-related) written statement/attention of the fact that hehad alrea
dy been disbarred in a previous (related to managing and running a co
mpany ororganization) case, entitled Sps. Rafols, Jr. v. Ricardo G. Neigh
borhoods, Jr., which thereforeprevents the Court from dishonestly sayin
g the same. In view of the previous, the Court thinks ofit proper to, inst
ead, force (on people) a fine in the amount of P40,000.00 in order to pu
nishperson who responded's crime/disobeyings as discussed (in this/wit
hin this) and to equallydiscourage the commission of the same or
almost the same acts in the future.
CANON 7
A.C. No. 7136
August 1, 2007
JOSELANO GUEVARRA, complainant,
vs.
ATTY. JOSE EMMANUEL EALA, respondent.
Facts:
Joselano Guevarra filed a Complaint for Disbarment before the (Having
different things working together as one
unit) Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Committe on Bar Control/field of
study (CBD)against Atty. Jose Emmanuel M. Eala a.k.a Noli Eala for "ext
remely socially
wrong behavior andtotal violation of the lawyer's promise."
In his complaint, Mr. Guevarra accused that his wife Irene Moje have be
en maintaining an illegalaffair with Atty. Eala during their marriage, and
presented certain facts proving such accusation.These includes a social
card, the preparation of which was admitted by the person who
responded and their (Atty. Eala and Ms. Moje) living together in a house
which was a few blocksaways from the church where Ms. Moje had exc
hange marriage-related promises with thecomplainant. Also accused a
nd proven was the fact that the person who
responded was thefather of the complainant's daughter. The complaina
nt further went on saying that Atty. Eala andhis wife have been openly
showing off their cheating relationship.
For Mr. Guevarra, person who responded's extremely socially
wrong behavior runs on the wrong side
of the Constitution and the laws he, as a lawyer, has been sworn to sup
port/judge as correct.In chasing after (when you can't stop thinking
about something or
someone)ly his illegal love forthe complainant's wife, Atty. Eala was cha
rged to have made fun
of the institution of marriage,betrayed his own family, broke up the co
mplainant's marriage, does/performs dishonesty withhis wife, and insul
ts the legal job/line of work.
The (Having different things working together as one
unit) Bar of the Philippines - Committee onBar Control/field of
study found the charge against (good or well
enough) proven andrecommended that Atty. Eala be disbarred for viola
ting Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code ofProfessional Responsibility. The
IBP Board of Governors, however, canceled and set aside theRecomme
ndation of the (asking lots of questions about/trying to find the truth
about)Commissioner and in the same way/in that
way dismissed the case for lack of
vs.
ATTY. CHARLIE L. BANCOLO and ATTY. JANUS T. JARDER, Respondents.
Facts:
Rodrigo Tapay and Anthony Rustia, both workers of the Sugar Legal/law
-based Managementreceived an Order from the Office of the Ombudsm
an-Visayas needing/ordering them to file acounter-statement to a comp
laint for abuse of authority, falsification of public document, anddishon
esty and dishonest
actions filed against them by Nehimias Divinagracia, Jr., a coemployee.The Complaint was (claimed to
be) signed for Divinagracia by Atty. Charlie L. Bancolo. When Atty.Banc
olo and Rustia (without any advance planning) accidentally
met each other, the last thing just
mentioned informed Atty. Bancolo of the case filed against them. Atty.
Bancolo denied thathe represented Divinagracia since he had yet to m
eet Divinagracia and declared that thesignature in the Complaint was n
ot his. So, Atty. Bancolo signed a statement denying the saidsignature.
This statement was used by Tapay and Rustia in filing a counterstatement (charging with a
crime) Divinagracia of falsifying the signature of Atty. Bancolo. Divinagr
acia, denying thesame, presented as (event(s) or object(s) that prove
something) a statement by Richard A.Cordero, the legal helper of Atty.
Bancolo, that the Jarder Bancolo Law Office acceptedDivinagracia's cas
e and that the Complaint filed with the Office of the Ombudsman was si
gned bythe office secretary per Atty. Bancolo's instructions. The case w
as then dismissed.
Tapay and Rustia then later filed with the (Having different things
working together as one
unit)Bar of the Philippines a complaint to disbar Atty. Bancolo and Atty.
Jarder, Atty. Bancolo's lawpartner. The complainants accused that not o
nly were people who responded
working at (not mature, polite, and
honest) and bad practices, they were also involved infalsification of doc
uments used to (tease and threaten over and over again in a mean
way) andabuse innocent people. In their Answer, people who
responded admitted that due to someminor lapses, Atty. Bancolo permi
tted that the pleadings be signed in his name by the secretaryof the la
w office. After (act of asking questions and trying to find the truth
about something), Atty.Lolita A. Quisumbing, the (asking lots of
questions about/trying to find the truth
about)Commissioner of the Commission on Bar Control/field of
study of the IBP, submitted her Report.Atty. Quisumbing found that Atty
. Bancolo violated Rule 9.01 of Canon 9 of the Code ofProfessional Resp
onsibility while Atty. Jarder violated Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the same C
ode, andrecommended that Atty. Bancolo be suspended for two years f
rom the practice of law and Atty.Jarder be criticized for his failure to exe
rcise certain responsibilities in their law firm.
Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Bancolo is guilty of violating Canon 9 of the Code
of ProfessionalResponsibility.
Ruling:
YES. Atty. Bancolo admitted that the Complaint he filed for a former clie
nt before the Office ofthe Ombudsman was signed in his name by a sec
retary of his law office. He also absolutelystated that because of some
minor lapses, the communications and pleadings filed against Tapayan
d Rustia were signed by his secretary, although with his tolerance. Clea
rly, he violated Rule9.01 of Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Respon
sibility (CPR), which provides:
CANON
9 - A LAWYER SHALL NOT, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, ASSIST IN THE UN
AUTHORIZEDPRACTICE OF LAW.
Rule 9.01 - A lawyer will not (transfer power to/give an assignment
to) to any unqualified personthe performance of any job which by law
may only be (did/done/completed) by a member of theBar in good stan
ding.
Atty. Bancolo's authority and duty to sign a pleading are personal to hi
m. Although he may(transfer power to/give an assignment
to) the signing of a pleading to another lawyer, he may not(transfer
power to/give an assignment to) it to a nonlawyer. Further, under the Rules of Court, acounsel's signature serves a
s a certification that (1) he has read the pleading;
(2) to the best of hisknowledge, information and belief there is good gr
ound to support it; and (3) it is not inserted fordelay. So, by attaching o
ne's signature to a pleading, it is advice alone who has the responsibilit
yto certify to these matters and give legal effect to the document. For
violating rule 9.01 of theCPR, Atty. Bacolo was meted with the penalty t
he suspension from the practice of law for oneyear.
A.C. No. 6290
July 14, 2004
ANA MARIE CAMBALIZA, complainant,
vs.
ATTY. ANA LUZ B. CRISTAL-TENORIO, respondent.
Facts:
Complainant is the former employee of the person who
responded in her law office. The formercharged the last thing just
Issues:
1. Whether or not person who
responded is guilty of helping in the unauthorized practice of law.
2. Whether or not a Movement to Withdraw Complaint in a disbarment
going ahead, the casemay succeed.
Ruling:
1. YES. A lawyer who allows a non-member of the Bar to lie
about himself as a lawyer and topractice law is guilty of violating Cano
n 9 and Rule 9.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.Public polic
y needs/demands that the practice of law be limited to those people fo
und dulyqualified in education and character. The purpose is to protect
the public, the court, the client,and the bar from the (can't do
something) or dishonesty of those unlicensed to practice law andnot su
bject to the (related to control or
punishment) control of the Court. It breaks
down upon alawyer to see that this purpose is reached, otherwise, the l
aw makes it a misbehavior on his partsubject to (related to control or
punishment) action, to aid a person in the unauthorized practiceof law.
2. YES. A case of suspension or disbarment may go ahead (without any
concern about/having nothing to do
with) interest or lack of interest of the complainant. (related to control
or punishment) (series of
events) involve no private interest and afford no (fixing something
wrong)for private complaint. They are begun/tried and (started a trial
in court against someone/performed an
as one unit) Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for (act of asking questions and
trying to find the truth about something), report and recommendation.
Issue: WoN the person who
responded Atty. violates Rule 12.02, Canon 12 of CPR and the rule onfo
rum shopping.
running a company or
organization) charges against Judge Rafael B. Hidalgoof (related to a
large
area) Trial Court Branch 68 of Tarlac, Tarlac. In the resolution dated Jun
e 20, 1989 dismissing105J-89299, the Court criticized the complainant "to exercise more care and go
od behavior infiling (without a good
reason) and weak/imaginary charges against officers of the court in ord
erto maintain and support/judge as correct the selfrespect/worth of the same of which he is apart. Complainant did not ob
ey the warning and instead continued to file charges against person
who
responded. The OCA noted that they found the actions of complainant,
his toughness infiling charges against person who
responded shows/indicates a desire to (without a good
reason)bring the last thing just
mentioned to public dislike. OCA recommends complainant's suspensio
nfrom practice of law for three (3) months.
ISSUE: Whether or not complainant be suspended due to his (constant/
not going away) filing ofcharges person who responded.
HELD: (thinking about/when one thinks
about) the nature, frequency and careless filing of sillycharges and (ev
en though there is the existence
of) the warning of the Court which thecomplainant wilfully ignored and
disobeyed by showing/presenting the intent to file more of thesame, th
e complainant (forced (on people)/caused an inconvenient
situation) upon the time,useful things/valuable
supplies and delay of the Court and (changed to focus on, or point at, a
different direction) the energies of person who
responded judge who has been called upon tocomment and defend his
every action. As a member of the bar, the complainant hasresponsibilit
y to the (judge and court
system). The Code of Professional Responsibility and therules thereund
er force responsibilities on the lawyer in relation to the Court: Canon 10
statesthat a lawyer owes honesty-related, fairness and good faith to th
e Court. Canon 11 provides thatalways will watch/notice and maintain t
he respect due to the Court and to (law-related) officers,while Canon 1
2 orders that a lawyer will watch/notice and (use/put into
action) every effort andthink
about/believe it his duty to help in the quick and (producing a lot with
very little
waste)management of justice. Through his unwise filing of (related to
managing and running a company or
organization) cases against person who
responded, complaint has disobeyed the(legal
rules) of the code of Professional Responsibility and terribly did
Based on the tape of the event and the (list of school grades/written
version of spoken words) ofstenographic notes, (Combined different
things together so they worked as one
unit) Bar of thePhilippines (IBP) Investigative Commissioner Jose de la R
ama, Jr. found that the person who
responded was the one who shouted first at the complainant, (even
though there is the existence of) the last thing just
mentioned's claim that he was caused/started by the (person who
approaches a court for
help). The Commissioner further stated that the person who
respondeddid
not watch/notice Rule 11.03, Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Resp
onsibility whichprovides that a lawyer will avoid disgraceful, offensive o
r threatening language or behaviourbefore the courts. The IBP Board of
Governors passed a Resolution adopting and approving theReport and
ure to present its witnesses during the scheduled hearings for the writt
enrequest for bail (even though there is the existence of) the issuance
of orders (to makesomething known for a trial) to said witnesses.
-Complainants after that filed the instant (related to managing and run
ning a company ororganization) case against person who responded Ju
dge, claiming that her issuance of the August14,
1997 Order reflects gross knowing nothing about the law,
(can't do something) and grave(very mean, unfair treatment) of (ability
to make smart decisions) on her part, since said Ordergranting bail did
not contain a summary of (event(s) or object(s) that prove something)
presentedby the prosecution which
summary is necessary to decide/figure out whether a judge has (good)
enough basis for grantingbail.
Issue: Whether or not person who responded is guilty violating Code of
ProfessionalResponsibility
Ruling:
The criminal case before person who responded Judge involved a (char
ged with a crime) who wascharged with murder, a capital offense.[12]
So, the behavior of a hearing on the person (whomight be a criminal)
(online or paper form that asks for a job, money, (act of letting
someone enter/speaking the truth about something
bad), etc.) for bail was necessary before the
trial court could grant bail. The records of the case however show/tell a
bout that although thetrial court set a few dates for the hearing on the
(online or paper form that asks for a job, money,(act of letting
someone enter/speaking the truth about something
bad), etc.) for bail, the partieswere not able to bring up (event(s) or obj
ect(s) that prove something) which would enable thetrial court to decid
e/figure out whether the (event(s) or object(s) that prove something) of
theperson (who might be a criminal) guilt was strong, for purposes of r
esolving the issue of whetherthe last thing just talked
about/said is entitled to bail. A judge is in fact needed/demanded toincl
ude in his or her order granting or refusing bail a summary of
the
(event(s) or object(s) that prove something) presented by the prosecuti
on; otherwise, suchorder would be uncontrolled and may be thought of
unpredictable or playful.[15]
.RespondentJudges act of granting bail to the person (who might be a c
riminal) without hearing
the parties on the matter or asking searching and clarificatory question
s is different from the ruleneeding/ordering the conduct of a hearing on
a written request for bail in cases where a(charged with a crime) is cha
rged with a capital offense.
However, the Court notes that the prosecutions failure to present (even
t case before the Office of the Bar Friend who made/gave/given aRepor
t/Recommendation to the Court. The Court in its resolution forced on
people among othersthe filing of a (related to managing and running a
company or organization) case against Atty.Aredonia before the IBPCommission on Bar Control/field of study.
ISSUES: 1. Whether or not there is bad
behavior on the part of Atty.Aredonia.
2. Whether or not res ipsa loquitur applies in this case.
3. Whether or not complainant is entitled for damages.
RULING:
On the first issue, the Court ruled that the failure to file a brief resulting
to the dismissal of a(taking a court case to a higher court for
review) makes up/is equal
to inexcusableirresponsibility. This default and his failure to inform his c
lient of the status of the case translatesto a violation of Canon 18 of th
e Code of Professional Responsibility, which states,
"Canon 18 - A Lawyer Will Serve His Client With Ability And Care.
Rule
18.03 - A lawyer will not neglect a matter trusted to him, and his irresp
onsibility inconnection therewith will make/give him responsible.
Rule
18.04 - A lawyer will keep the client informed of the status of his case a
nd will respondwithin a reasonable time to the client's request for infor
mation."
On the second issue, the Court held that the way of thinking/basic
truth/rule of res ipsa loquiturapplies in this case as Atty. Aredonia had d
efinitely been tired in the performace of his duty asAntonio's advice. H
e neglect without reason to file the applellant's brief before the CA. He
failed,in short to (use/put into
action) his extreme ability and to give his full loyalty to/promise
tomaintain and defend Antonio's right. Antonio, by choosing Atty. Irene
o to represent him, reliedupon and rested his trust and confidence on t
he last thing just mentioned, as his advice, to do at
all was legally necessary to protect Antonio's interest, if not to secure a
good judgment. Oncethey agree to take up the cause of a client, lawye
rs, (without any concern about/having nothing to do
with) the importance of the subject matter sued or (money-related) arr
angements agreedupon, owe loyalty to such cause and should always
be aware of/careful of the trust andconfidence rested on them.
On the third issue, the Court ruled that the complainant is not entitle to
damages for failure toacceptably prove his claim for damages.
WHEREFORE, person who
responded Atty. Ireneo Aredonia, Jr. is declared GUILTY of inexcusableirr
esponsibility, trying to be dishonest to/lie to the (court that hears court
cases again), (wrong and bad use of) Court processes, and stubborn/
(done on purpose) (not obeying
rules) to lawfulorders of the Court. He is hereby SUSPENDED from the p
ractice of law for a period of one (1)year effective upon his receipt of th
is Resolution, with WARNING that a repetition of the same oralmost the
same acts will be dealt with worsely.
PLUS BUILDERS, INC. & GARCIA vs. ATTY. REVILLA, JR.
(A.C. No. 7056, February 11, 2009)
FACTS:
A Written
request for Disbarment was filed by Plus Builders Inc. and Edgardo C. G
arcia before the(Having different things working together as one
unit) Bar of the Philippines (IBP) against Atty.Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr. for
committing a stubborn/(done on purpose) and (on
purpose)lie/dishonesty before the court; (using something the wrong
way) court procedure and processesto delay the execution of a judgme
nt; and cooperating with non-lawyers in the illegal practice oflaw.On No
vember 15, 1999, a decision was made by the (related to a local
area) Judge ofCavite(PARAD) in favor of complainant, Plus Builders, Inc.
and against the (people or businesses who occupy a house, office,
etc.)/farmers Leopoldo de Guzman, et. al., who were the clients ofperso
n who
responded Atty. Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr. The PARAD found that person
who responded's clients were mere (people or businesses who occupy
a house, office,
etc.) and notrightful owners/owners of the subject land. The case was h
igh/higher all the way up to theSupreme Court, with this Court sustaini
ng complainant's rights over the land. Continuing tochase
after his clients' lost cause, person who
responded was found to have did/done/performed(on
purpose) lie/dishonesty; and (used in a wrong or bad
way) court processes with theplan/purpose to delay the execution of th
e decision through the filing of a fewmovements,petitions for (lasting
for a short
time) limiting orders, and the last, an action to quiettitle (even though
there is the existence of) the (the definite end of
something) of the decision.What's more, he allowed nonlawyers to work
at the unauthorized practice of law - holdingthemselves out as his part
ners/associates in the law firm.Respondent denied all accusations andb
elieves that the courses of action he took were valid and proper legal e
xplanation designed toprotect the rights and interests of Leopoldo de G
uzman,et. al. The lawyer-client relationship withthe former lawyer was
ended/fired because Leopoldo de Guzman, et. al. felt that their formera
dvice did not explain/argue their position very well,refused to listen to t
hem and, in fact, evenpunished them. As the new advice, person who
responded depended on what the (people or businesses who occupy a
house, office,
etc.)/farmers told him in the course of his interview. Hepromises that h
e only exhausted all possible fixes and defenses to which his clients we
re entitledunder the law. He submitted that if he was in
fact guilty of violating the rules in the courses ofaction he took in behal
f of his clients, he apologizes and prays the Court for kind (serious
thought/something to think about/respect), pardon and (state of mind
where you no longer are angry at or want to punish someone).
ISSUE:
Whether or not person who
responded guilty of violating the lawyer's promise, Canon 9 and Rule9.
01of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
HELD:
The Court held that Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr. is hereby found guilty of gro
ss bad
behavior.Takingthe clubs from the former lawyer in this case is rather g
reat, but person who
responded shouldnot forget his first responsibility as an officer of the c
ourt. In support of the cause of their clients,lawyers have the duty to pr
esent every fix or defense within the authority of the law. This(responsi
bility/duty), however, is not to be (did/done/completed) at the expense
of truth andjustice. This is the judging
requirement that must be carried in mind in every
hard
work a lawyer gives to his case. Under the Code of Professional Respon
sibility, a lawyer hasthe duty to help in the quick and (producing a lot
with very little
waste) management of justice,and is prohibited from unnecessarily del
aying a case by stopping execution of a judgment or by(using
something the wrong way) court processes. After a (lots of serious
thought) of (in this/within this) person who
responded's movement for reconsideration and humble response ofhis
misfeasance, the Court was convinced to extend a degree of kindness t
owards the person who
responded by reducing his suspension period from two years to six mo
nths.
[WSDIS ERROR:MUST HAVE DIGIT 1 THRU 9 AFTER > FOR WORD %c
ourses-NS BEFORE NEXT WORD BEGINS]
CANON 13
Amparo Bueno vs Atty. Ramon A. Raneses
Adm. Case No. 8383
FACTS:
Amparo Bueno related that she hired Atty. Raeses to represent her i
n Civil Case. In (serious thought/something to think
about/respect) for his services, Bueno paid Atty. Raeses a prepayment fee of P3,000.00. She also agreed to pay him P300.00 for ever
y hearing he attended. Noreceipt was issued for the pre-payment fee p
aid. Atty. Raeses prepared and filed an answer inher behalf. On a
few occasions, Atty. Raeses would either be (not there; not
present) or late.Bueno accused that on November 14,
1988, Atty. Raeses asked for P10,000.00. This amountwould (claime
d to
be) be divided between him and Judge Nidea, the judge hearing on his
CivilCase, so that they would not lose the case. Atty. Raeses told Bu
eno not to tell anyone aboutthe matter. Atty. Raeses asked for anoth
er P5,000.00 sometime in December 1988, becausethe amount she ha
d (before that/before now) given was not
enough. Atty. Raeses hid thedevelopment of the case. In fact, she w
as shocked when a court sheriff arrived sometime in May1991 to execu
te the decision against them. Bueno went to Atty. Raeses' office to a
sk him aboutwhat happened to the case. Atty. Raeses told her that h
e had not received any decision. Buenolater discovered from court reco
rds that Atty. Raeses actually received a copy of the decisionon Dec
ember 3, 1990. When she argued
with Atty. Raeses about her discovery and showedhim a court-issued
certification, Atty. Raeses simply denied any knowledge of the decisi
on. Atsome point, the case was reassigned to Commissioner De los Rey
es who scheduled anotherhearing on March 14,
2003. During the hearing, only Bueno and her advice were present.
ISSUE: Whether or not the person who
responded should be disbar from practice of law forviolating the Canon
18 of the Code Professional Responsibility.
HELD: The Court approves the IBP's findings but promises
to disbar Atty. Raeses from thepractice of law obeying Commissione
r Limpingco's recommendation and based on our own(instances of
watching, noticing, or making statements) and findings in the case.
The charge of Irresponsibility
According to Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, lawye
rs should serve theirclients with ability and care. Specifically, Rule 18.0
2 provides that "[a] lawyer will not handle anylegal matter without (goo
d) enough
preparation." Rule 18.03, on the other hand, states that "[a] lawyer will
not neglect a legal mattertrusted to him, and his irresponsibility in con
nection [therewith] will make/give him responsible."
"Once lawyers agree to take up the cause of a client, they owe loyalty t
o the cause and mustalways be aware of/careful
of the trust and confidence rested in them."20 A client is entitled tothe
benefit of all fixes and defenses approved by law, and is expected to d
epend on his lawyer touse/advantage of these fixes or defenses.21
The Charge of Asking for/encouraging Money
By its very nature, the act [of] asking for/encouraging money for (the
crime of paying money to get
favors) purposes would necessarily happen in secrecy with only person
who responded Atty.Raeses and complainant Bueno in-the-know
about it. Complainant Amparo Bueno has ran/runsworn statements and
had easily promised/stated as true her accusations this
way in hearingsheld before the IBP (asking lots of questions
about/trying to find the truth about) (government workers in
charge). Person who
responded Atty. Raeses, for his part, has not even seen it fit tofile an
y answer to the complaint against him, much less appear in any hearin
gs scheduled in this(act of asking questions and trying to find the truth
about something).
Further, the false claim made by Atty. Raeses to the (asking lots of
questions about/trying to find the truth about) (government workers in
charge) shows his natural tendency for lying. Itconfirms, a little
bit, the kind of lawyer that Bueno's statements show him to be.
Rather than only suspend Atty. Raeses as had been done in Bildner,
the Court believes thatAtty. Raeses good
qualities the final/best (related to managing and running a company or
organization) penalty of disbarment because of the multi-layered hit/eff
ect andeffects/results/suggestions of what he did; by his acts he proved
himself to be what a lawyershould not be, in a lawyer's relations to the
client, to the court and to the (Having different things working together
as one unit) Bar.
First, he (pulled out or taken from something
else) money from his client for a purpose that isboth false and fake/ille
gal.1wphi1 It is false because no (the crime of paying money to get
favors) (based on what's seen or what seems
obvious) happened as Atty. Raeses in fact lostthe case. It is fake/ille
gal because the said/taught purpose of the exaction was the crime of (t
he crime of paying money to get
favors). Beyond these, he disliked the judge and the (judge and court
system) by giving the impression that court cases are won, not on the
Pressure and large volume of legal work provide no excuse for the pers
on who responded'sinability to exercise careful
review in the performance of his duty to file an answer. Every case ala
wyer accepts deserves his full attention, care, skill, and ability, (without
any concern about/having nothing to do
with) its importance and whether he accepts it for a fee or for free.Wha
t's more, a failure (or break)
of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility whichneeds/dem
ands him to serve his clients, the complainants (in this/within
this), with care and,more specifically, Rule 18.03 of that/of
it which provides:
"A lawyer will not neglect a legal mattertrusted to him, and his irrespon
sibility in connection therewith will make/give him responsible."
Atty. Fojas's irresponsibility is not excused by his claim that Civil Case N
o. 3526-V91 was in fact a"losing cause". The Supreme Court held that he should
have seasonably informed thecomplainants of that/of
it. Rule 15.05, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility(clear
ly/for a single
purpose) provides: A lawyer, when advising his client, will give a hones
t andhonest opinion on the good
qualities and probable results of the client's case, neither overstatingno
r understanding the hopes of/future
of the case. REPRIMANDED AND ADMONISHED
Patricio Gone vs. Atty. Macario Ga
A.C. No. 7771 April 6, 2011
FACTS: The case came from/was caused by the complaint for (related
to control or
punishment)action dated 23 October 1989 filed by Patricio Gone agains
t Atty. Macario Ga before theCommission on Bar Control/field of
study of the (Having different things working together as one
unit) Bar of the Philippines (IBP). The complaint was due to Atty. Ga's fa
ilure to build up again orturn over the records of the
case in his possession. Complainant Gone reported that Atty. Ga is his
advice in NLRC Caseentitled "Patricio Gone v. Solid Mills, Inc." The case
was dismissed by the Labor Judge and washigh/higher to the National L
abor Relations Commission (NLRC).Complainant Gone furtherreported t
hat as early as 8 March 1984, Atty. Ga had
gotten a certification from the NLRC that therecords were burned. (eve
n though there is the existence
of) knowledge of the destruction of therecords, Atty. Ga (claimed to
be) did not do anything to build up
again the records of theappealed case.
On 9 September 1989, complainant (claimed to
ervice business/government
unit/power/functioning) under her brothermanagement. It was to compl
ement the business of AIB which was then in ruin, that SESSI wasestabl
ished.IBP Commissioner suspend person who
responded for one year but IBP Board ofGovernors reduced it to criticiz
e.
ISSUE:
Whether or not person who responded guilty of serious bad
behavior for representingdisagreeing interests?
RULING: Yes, Rule 15.03, Canon 5 of the Code of CPR provides: a lawye
r will not representdisagreeing interests except by written permission o
f all concerned given after a (being completely honest and telling
people everything) of the facts. This prohibition is founded on ways of
thinking/basic
truths/rules of public policy and good taste. In the course of a lawyerclientrelationship, the lawyer learns all the facts connected with the cli
ent's case, including the weakand strong points of the case. The nature
of that relationship is, therefore, one of trust andconfidence of the high
est degree. It benefits lawyers not only to keep untouched the client'sc
onfidence, but also to avoid the appearance of bad
behavior and double-dealing for only thencan (people in a
lawsuit) be encouraged to trust their secrets to their lawyers, which is
of most important importance in the management of justice.
.
ISSUE: Whether or not person who
responded is guilty of violating the Code of ProfessionalResponsibility?
RULING: The court agreed with the recommendation of the IBP. Person
who
responded's act ofhaving borrowed the title to the land of complainant,
his assumed use of the said title for hispersonal gain, his failure to retu
rn the same (even though there is the existence
of) repeateddemands and worse, his issuance of three checks in excha
nge for the said land title whichbounced, make up/be equal
to gross bad
behavior for which he must be controlled/punished. Inthis connection R
ule 16.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility is definite. It states:
Rule
16.04 - A lawyer will not borrow money from his client unless the client'
s interests are fullyprotected by the nature of the case or by independe
nt guidance. Neither will a lawyer lendmoney to a client except, when i
n the interest of justice, he has to advance necessary expenses ina leg
al matter he is handling for the client
This Court, in a few cases, has time and again ruled that the (trustrelated) duty of a lawyer andfighter (for
something) is what places the law job/line of work in a (like nothing
else) position oftrust and confidence, and distinguishes it from any oth
er calling. Once this trust and confidenceis betrayed, the faith of the pe
ople not only in the individual lawyer but also in the legal job/line of
work as a whole is worn-away. To this end, all members of the bar are s
trictlyneeded/demanded to at all times maintain the highest degree of
public confidence in the loyalty,honesty and good
quality/completeness of their job/line of work.
Canon
15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility orders that a lawyer shoul
d watch/noticehonesty-related, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings a
nd transactions with his client.[
A lawyer may be controlled/punished for any behavior, in his profession
al or private ability (to hold or do
something), that makes him unfit to continue to be an officer of the cou
rt. Everylawyer should act and behave himself in such a
way that would (help increase/show in a good
way) public confidence in the good
quality/completeness of the legal job/line of work.
Canon
7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility commands all lawyers at all
times tosupport/judge as correct the self-respect/worth and good
quality/completeness of the legaljob/line of work
thought/something to think
about/respect) of the cases he was supposed tohandle for the complain
ant.16 However, complainant was unable to get any word from thepers
on who responded (even though there is the existence
of) repeated and continuous effortsto get in touch with him.
Issue: WON person who
responded violated Code of Professional Responsibility
Ruling: Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility st
ates that "a lawyer will notwork at illegal, dishonest, socially
wrong or dishonest behavior." Dishonest behavior involvesgross and
disgusting
behavior and includes anything done opposite to justice, shyness or go
odmorals.25 It is an act of baseness, evil or craziness in the private an
d social duties which a manowes to his fellowmen or to (community of
people/all good people in the
world) in general,opposite to justice, honesty, shyness, or good morals.
The relationship of a lawyer to his client is highly (trust-related). Canon
15 of the Code ofProfessional Responsibility provides that "a lawyer will
watch/notice honesty-related, fairnessand loyalty in all his dealings and
transactions with his client." Need and public interest prohibitlawyers t
o be honest and truthful when dealing with his client. A lawyer owes lo
yalty to the causeof his client and will be aware of/careful
of the trust and confidence rested in him.29 Rule 16.01,Canon 16 of th
e Code of Professional Responsibility, provides that "a lawyer will accou
nt for allmoney and property collected or received for and from the clie
nt." The complainant paid$16,854.00 to the person who
responded via telegraphic bank move (from one place to
another).This was carefully thought
about/believed as complete payment for the PhP900,000.00 that wassa
id as the (serious thought/something to think
about/respect) for the legal services to bemade/gave/given. However, s
ince the person who
responded did not carry out any of theservices he was engaged to perf
orm, nor did he appear in court or make any payment inconnection wit
h lawsuits, or give any explanation as to how such a large sum of mone
y wasspent and gave
out, he must immediately return the money he received from the client
upondemand. However, he refused to return the money he received fro
m the complainant (even though there is the existence
of) written demands, and was not even able to give a single report(rela
ted to/looking at/thinking about) the status of the cases.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, person who
responded Atty. Godwin R. Valdez is hereby DISBARRED and hisname is
ordered STRICKEN from the Roll of Lawyers. He is ORDERED to immedi
ately return toTorben B. Overgaard the amount of $16,854.00 or its equ
al in Philippine Currency at the time ofactual payment, with legal intere
ead so that he (Atty. Ricafort) would be the one toencash it and then de
posit the amount in court. On that representation, Arnulfo handed thec
heck to Atty. Ricafort.
After some time, the Tarogs visited Atty. Ricafort to (check for
truth/prove
true) the status of thegiveation. Atty. Ricafort informed them that he ha
d not deposited the amount in court, but in hisown account. He promis
ed to return the money, plus interest.
The Tarogs further claimed that the (related to a large
area) Trial Court, Branch 52, in Sorsogon(RTC), where their complaint fo
r cancellation of sale was being heard, had needed/demanded theparti
es to file their note. In the same way/in that
way, they delivered P15,000.00 to Atty. Ricafortfor that purpose, but he
did not file the note.
When it became seen/obvious to the Tarogs that Atty. Ricafort would no
t make good his promiseof returning the P65,000.00, plus interest, Arn
ulfo demanded by his letter dated December 3,
2002, that Atty. Ricafort return the P65,000.00, plus interest, and the P
15,000.00 paid for the filingof the note. Yet, they did not receive any re
ply from Atty. Ricafort.
In his defense, Atty. Ricafort denied that the P65,000.00 was meant to
be deposited in court,insisting that the amount was payment for his leg
al services under a "package deal," that is, theamount included his acc
eptance
fee, lawyer's fee, and appearance fees from the filing of the complaint f
or cancellation of saleuntil judgment, but leaving out/keeping
out appeal.Hie claimed that the fees were agreed uponafter (thinkin
g about/when one thinks
about) the value of the property, his skill and experienceas a lawyer, th
e labor, time, and trouble involved, and his professional character and
socialstanding; that at the time he delivered the check, Arnulfo read, u
nderstood, and agreed to thecontents of the complaint, which did not
talk
about anything about any giveation and thatArnulfo, being a retired sc
hool principal, was a learned person who would not have easily fallenfo
r any big plan/layout/dishonest
plan like the one they showed against him.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the acts of Atty. Ricafort make up/be equal to a very
bad/very serious violation ofthe Code of Professional Responsibility.
RULING:
Following the (act of asking questions and trying to find the truth about
something), of an IBPCommissioner - Commission on Bar Control/field
of
study made/gave/given his Report andRecommendation dated October
Person who
responded denied all the accusations of complainant (related
to/looking at/thinking
about) how he handled the repurchase money. He promised that the ac
cusations of thecomplainant in her complaint were only the result of a
minor (mistake in
understanding) and thathe and complainant had already resolved the
matter. In fact, he said, the complainant hadexecuted an Statement of
Stopance[18] dated August 9, 1999, (in which/during which/in what
way/in
what) complainant accused, among others, that the filing of the case w
as a result of a(mistake in
understanding) and could not be blamed for any criminal focused
on the part of theperson who responded. What's
more, in view of the settlement of the civil aspect of the case, sheis no
longer willing to chase after her complaint against the person who
responded.
ISSUE: The issue is whether the Statement of Stopance removed the S
C of its control/area of control to force (on people)
administrative sanctions upon person who responded.
HELD: No. While the complaint for estafa had been dismissed, the dism
issal was on account ofcomplainant's (something you choose to do, but
is not required) stopance and not upon a findingof innocence. The first
(or most important) object of (related to managing and running a
company or
organization) cases against lawyers is not only to punish and control
(over behavior)the (making
mistakes) individual lawyers but also to safeguard the management of j
ustice byprotecting the courts and the public from the bad
behavior of lawyers, and to remove from thelegal job/line of
work people whose total ignoring (people's
feelings) of their lawyer's promisehave proven them unfit to continue di
scharging the trust rested in them as members of the bar.(related to
managing and running a company or
organization) cases against lawyers can still go ahead (even though
there is the existence
of) the dismissal of civil and/or criminal complaintsagainst them.
The relationship between a lawyer and a client is highly (trust-related);
it needs/demands a highdegree of loyalty and good faith. It is designed
to remove all such (something that makes you want to do
something/the feeling of wanting to do
something) and to prevent everything of thatkind from being done for t
he protection of the client.
So, Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a
lawyer will hold in trust allmoneys and properties of his client that may
come into his possession. What's
more, Rule 16.01of the Code also states that a lawyer will account for a
ll money or property collected or receivedfor or from the client. The Ca
nons of Professional (rules and beliefs related to doing the right
thing) is even more clear:
The lawyer should stop any action within which/by
which for his personal benefit or gain he(treats or uses in a very mean,
unfair
way) or takes advantage of the confidence rested in him byhis client.
Money of the client collected for the client or other trust property comi
ng into the possession ofthe lawyer should be reported and accounted
for quickly and should not under any
situations bemixed with his own or be used by him.
WHEREFORE, person who
responded Judge Ismael L. Salubre is hereby found guilty of violation of
Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for his failure to ret
urn and immediatelydeliver the money of his former client, Petra M. Se
villa upon demand, and Canon 2 of the Canonsof (law-related) (rules
and beliefs related to doing the right
thing) for his failure to avoid theappearance of improper
behavior. The person who
responded is hereby ordered to pay a fine inthe amount of P20,000.00
with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same and almost the
same acts will be dealt with worsely.
CANON 17
AC No. 5841
Emily Sencio VS. Atty. Robert Calvadores
Facts: Complainant Sencio accused that sometime in 1997 her oldest s
on, Herbert Sencio, died ina (motor vehicle-related) (sudden unplanned
bad event/crash). She was referred by her mother-in-law to person who
responded Calvadores to (start a trial in court against
someone/perform an action) the civil aspect of the
case. On 19 May 1998 she at first gave the person who
responded the amount of P1,500 andpromised to pay the lawyer's fees
later.
On 20 August 1998, after having piled
up enough money, the complainant paid the person who
responded the amount of P12,000 as lawyer's fees and for other expen
ses relating to the case.The payment was duly admitted/recognized/res
ponded to by the person who responded. 2
From that time on, complainant Sencio regularly contacted the person
who responded to updateherself of the status of the case. The person
who responded kept on promising to her thateverything would be get
on/on fire. Finally, however, complainant discovered that the person
who responded did not file any case, a fact which the person who
responded admitted. The last thing just
punishment)action. 9
WHEREFORE, person who
responded ATTY. ROBERT CALVADORES is hereby SUSPENDED fromthe
practice of law for a period of six (6) months effective immediately, and
ordered to return toEmily Sencio, within thirty (30) days from written
statement/attention of this Resolution, theamount of Twelve Thousand
Pesos (P12,000) with interest at 12% per
year from the date of theteaching of this Resolution until its return. The
person who
responded is further warned that acommission of the same or almost
the same act in the future will be dealt with worsely.
HELD:
Yes. It was established that Atty. Elayda was careless and irresponsible i
n handling the Arandacase. Although it is true that the client and their
advice must equally share the responsibility ofcommunication, it is the
first (or most
important) duty of the advice to inform the client of thestatus of their c
ase in court and the orders which have been issued by the court. He ca
nnotsimply wait for his clients to make a question (or
investigation) about the developments in theircase. Close coordination
between advice and client is necessary for them to do enough
toprepare for the case, as well as to effectively monitor the progress of
the case. Also, his excusethat he did not appear in court because the (
husband or wife)s did
not appear in court is notreasonable. His attendance at the hearing sho
uld not be made to depend on the whether the(husband or
wife)s Aranda will come or not.
The IBP Board of Governors recommended a 6 month suspension. This
was adopted by thecourt.
The Canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility provide:
CANON
17 A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE OF HIS CLIENT AND HE SH
ALL BE MINDFULOF THE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM.
CANON
18 A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGE
NCE.
Rule 18.02 A lawyer will not handle any legal matter without (good)
enough preparation.
Rule
18.03 A lawyer will not neglect a legal matter trusted to him, and his irr
esponsibility inconnection therewith will make/give him responsible.
Rule
18.04 A lawyer will keep the client informed of the status of his case an
d will respond withina reasonable time to the clients request for inform
ation.
CANON
19 A LAWYER SHALL REPRESENT HIS CLIENT WITH ZEAL WITHIN THE B
OUNDS OF THELAW.
From the previous, it is clear that Atty. Elayda is duty bound to support/
judge as
correct andsafeguard the interests of his clients. He should be careful,
skillful and careful in handling hisclients cases. Atty. Elayda should give
(good)
enough attention, care, and time to all the cases heis handling. As the (
husband or wife)s Arandas advice, Atty. Elayda is expected to
watch theprogress of said (husband or
anon 17, and Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of Canon 18 of the Code clearly
show/include theseperfect/extremely important orders and so, (match
up each pair of items in order) state:
CANON
17 - A lawyer owes loyalty to the cause of his client and he will be awar
e of/careful of thetrust and confidence rested in him.
CANON 18 - A lawyer will serve his client with ability and care.
Rule
18.03 - A lawyer will not neglect a legal matter trusted to him, and his i
rresponsibility inconnection therewith will make/give him responsible.
Rule
18.04 - A lawyer will keep the client informed of the status of his case a
nd will respondwithin a reasonable time to the client's request for infor
mation.
Records show that he did not permit his (not being there; not being
present) during thescheduled early/incomplete (meeting to discuss
things/meeting together) hearing in Civil CaseNo.
1972 which led the same to be immediately submitted for decision. As
correctlywatched/followed by the (asking lots of questions about/trying
to find the truth about)Commissioner, person who
responded could have exercised ordinary care by asking from thecourt
as to whether the said hearing would push through, especially so since
it was onlypossibly/uncertainly set and (thinking about/when one thinks
about) further that he was still togive/discuss with the opposite (or
fighting against) advice. The fact that person who
respondedhad an important commitment during that day hardly forgive
s him from his (something left
out)since the smart course of action would have been for him to send a
substitute advice to appearfor
him. In fact, he should have been more careful to make sure
that the (earlier-said) hearingwould not have been left unattended in vi
ew of its bad results, (in other words), that the person (who is being
sued or who was
sued)'s failure to appear at the early/incomplete (meeting to discuss
things/meeting together) already entitles the person (who sued or is
suing someone) to ajudgment.31 In fact, secondguessing the conduct of the (series of
events), much less without anycontingent measure, shows person who
responded's inexcusable lack of care and care inmanaging his client's c
ause.1wphi1
WHEREFORE, person who
responded Atty. Ramon SG Cabanes, Jr. is found guilty of bad
behaviorin violation of Canon 17, and Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of Canon
18 of the Code of ProfessionalResponsibility. He is hereby SUSPENDED f
rom the practice of law for a period of six (6) months,effective upon his
receipt of this Resolution, and is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of t
de provides that a lawyer will represent his client with energy within th
ebounds of the law. It is his duty to advise his clients to use peaceful an
d lawful methods inlooking (for) justice and stop doing an (on
purpose) wrong to their enemies. A lawyer's duty is notto his client but
to the management of justice. To that end, his client's success is compl
etelysubordinate. His conduct should and must always be carefully (not
ices many little things/carefully follows a religion) of the law and (rules
and beliefs related to doing the right
thing). Any means, not honorable, fair and honest which is chose
to/chosen
to by the lawyer,even in the pursuit of his loyalty to his client's cause, i
s criticizeable and bad.
ATTY. GEORGE C. BRIONES v. ATTY. JACINTO D. JIMENEZ
A.C. No. 6691, 27 April 2007, THIRD DIVISION (Austria-Martinez, J.)
FACTS: Atty. Briones is the Special Manager of the Estate of Luz J. Hens
on while Atty. Jacinto D.Jimenez is the advice for the Heirs of Henson. Af
ter the probate (series of
events), the RTC issuedan order directing Jimenez to deliver the residue
of the estate to the Heirs in proportion to theirshares. Atty Briones refu
sed to deliver the estate. As a
result, Atty. Jimenez and the Heirs filed acriminal complaint and execut
ed a statement against Atty Briones for resisting and seriouslydisobeyi
ng the RTC Order. Atty. Briones filed a (related to managing and
running a company or
organization) complaint against Atty. Jimenez for forum shopping and vi
olation of Canons 19 and12 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility. Person who
responded claims that he acted in good faithand in fact, did not violate
Rule 19.01 because he helped the Heirs in filing the criminal complaint
against (in this/within this) complainant after the last thing just
mentioned ignored the demandletters sent to him; and that a lawyer o
wes his client the exercise of extreme caution and ability.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty Jimenez violated Canons 19 and 12 of the C
ode of ProfessionalResponsibility
HELD: A lawyer must represent his client with energy, however, the per
formance of his dutiestowards his clients must be within the bounds of
law.
The Court agrees with the OBC that person who
responded is not guilty of forum shopping.Records show that person
who
responded, as advice for the heirs of the late Luz J. Henson, fileda speci
al civil action docketed as CA-G.R. SP No.
70349 dangerous the Order of March 12, 2002(assigning to a
position) the accounting firm of Alba, Romeo and Co. as person (who
carefully checks business
who
responded refused without just cause to deliver the copy TCT and even
challenged them to file a case in any court.
3. That such challenged is a sign of boldness, taking due advantage of
his professional ability (to hold or do something).
4. That (even though there is the existence
of) the repeated demands to deliver the TCT, person who
responded still did not deliver to the (unfair, pre-decided bad
opinions) of the complainants.
Issue: Whether or not person who
responded is guilty of violating the Code of ProfessionalResponsibility.
Ruling:
(based on what's seen or what seems obvious), person who
responded has ignored CanonCanon 15, Rule 15.07 of the Code of Prof
essional Responsibility which provides that a lawyer willimpress upon hi
s client the need for obedience of the laws and ways of thinking/basic
truths/rules of fairness. Instead, he unfairly refused to give to complain
ants their certifcates oftitles (probably) to enforce payment of their pos
sible (money-related) responsibilities to his clientand probably to impre
ss the last thing just mentioned of his power to do so.
Canon
19, Rule 19.01 makes/orders that a lawyer will employ only fair and ho
nest means toreach the lawful goals of his client and will not present, p
articipate in presenting, or threaten topresent (without a good
reason) charges to get an improper advantage in any case or going
ahead. Person who
responded has closely skirted this forbidding, if he has not in fact disob
eyedthe same. WHEREFORE, Atty. Miguel Sabacajan is hereby SUSPEN
DED from the practice of lawuntil he can duly show to this Court that th
e fightd certifcates of title have been returned to andthe receipt of
that/of it duly admitted/recognized/responded
to by complainants, or can presenta (law-related) order or appropriate l
egal authority permitting the possession by him or his clientof said cert
ifcates.
CANON 20
A.C. 5798 January 20, 2005
Alex B. Cueto Vs Atty Jose B. Jimenez, Jr
Engr. Alex Cueto accused that sometime in October 1999 he engaged t
he services of person who responded as (person authorized to serve as
a witness for the signing of important documents),the last thing just
mentioned being the father of the owner of the building subject of theC
onstruction Agreement[2] to be notarized. He was then with a certain V
al Rivera, the buildingmanager of people who
responded son Jose Jimenez III.
After notarizing the agreement, person who
guilty), Pasig City,entitled Atty. Julito Angero, et al. v. Rose Dela Cruz F.
Mercado, and docketed as I.S. No. PSG 99-9823, for violation of Articles
171 and 172
(falsification of public document) of the ChangedPrison/punishment Co
de.[5]Respondent accused that complainant made false entries in theC
ertificates of Live Birth of her children, Angelica and Katelyn Anne. Mor
e specifically,complainant (claimed to be) pointed
to/showed in said Certificates of Live Birth that she ismarried to a certa
in Ferdinand Fernandez, and that their marriage was remembered on A
pril 11,
1979, when in truth, she is legally married to Ruben G. Mercado and th
eir marriage happened onApril 11, 1978.
Complainant denied the statements (that someone has done
something bad) of person who
responded against her. She denied using any other name than Rosa F.
Mercado. She also insistedthat she has gotten married only once, on Ap
ril 11, 1978, to Ruben G. Mercado.
Issue: WON person who responded violated CPR
Ruling: In engaging the services of a lawyer, the client rests on him spe
cial powers of trust andconfidence. Their relationship is strictly persona
l and highly private and (trust-related). Therelation is of such delicate, t
aking
and private nature that is needed/demanded by need andpublic interes
t.[15] Only by such (keeping private information
private) and protection will aperson be encouraged to rest his confiden
ce in a lawyer. The guess is that (not doing something)from looking
(for) legal guidance in a good cause is an evil which is deadly to the ma
nagement ofjustice.[16] So, the preservation and protection of that rela
tion will encourage a client to trust hislegal problems to a lawyer, whic
h is of most important importance to the management of justice.
[17] One rule started obeying to serve this purpose is the lawyerclient privilege: a lawyer is tokeep untouched his clients secrets or con
fidence and not to (treat or use in a very mean, unfair way) them.
[18] So, the duty of a lawyer to keep
his clients secrets and confidence outlasts theend/ending/firing of the l
awyer-client relationship,[19] and continues even after the clients deat
h.[20] It is the glory of the legal job/line of
work that its loyalty to its client can be depended on, andthat a man m
ay safely go to a lawyer and talk
with him upon his rights or supposed rights in anylawsuits with total pr
omise that the lawyers tongue is tied from ever telling it.[21] With (bei
ng completely honest and telling people
everything) of the facts of the case by the client to hislawyer, (good)
enough legal
help will result in the learnment and enforcement of rights or theprosec
ution or defense of the clients cause.
guilty) Office ofTagum, Davao; the Davao City Lawyers (who try to
prove people guilty) Office; the IBP-Commission on Bar Control/field of
study; the Department of Land-related Reform; and theSupreme Court.
Further, the person who
responded not only filed silly/disrespectful and (without a good
reason)lawsuits that violated his duties as an officer of the court in help
ing in the proper management ofjustice, but he did so against a former
client to whom he owes loyalty and loyalty. Canon 21 andRule 21.02 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility[19]provides:
CANON
21 - A lawyer will preserve the confidence and secrets of his client even
after the lawyer-client relation is ended/fired.
Rule
21.02 A lawyer will not, to the disadvantage of his client, use informati
on got in the course ofemployment, nor will he use the same to his own
advantage or that of a third person, unless theclient with full knowledg
e of the facts or conditions (that surround
someone) permission thereto.
WHEREFORE, person who
responded Atty. Eduardo C. De Vera is hereby DISBARRED from theprac
tice of law effective immediately upon his receipt of this Resolution.
A.C. No. 5128
Elesio C. Pormento Sr.
Vs Atty Alias A. Pontevedra
FACTS:
Complainant claims that person who
responded, who was his lawyer in in Civil Case No. 1648, (in a carefullyplanned way) did
not inform him of the dismissal of his counterclaim (even though there
is the existence
of) receipt of the order of dismissal by the trial court, as a result of whic
h,complainant was
starved of his right to appeal said order. Complainant defends/expresse
s thathe only came to know of the existence of the trial courts order wh
en the bad party in the saidcase extrajudicially (forced people out of a
house because they didn't
pay) the mortgage killedover the parcel of land which is the subject ma
tter of the suit. In order to recover his ownershipover the said parcel of
land, complainant was held back to hire a new lawyer as Atty.
Pontevedra refused to start
an action for the recovery of the subject property.[
Complainant also claims that in order to further protect his rights and i
nterests over the saidparcel of land, he was forced to start a criminal c
ase for qualified theft against the relatives of thepossible new owner of
the said land. Person who responded is the advice of the person (who
The client has the total right to end the lawyer-client relation at any tim
e with or without cause.The right of a lawyer to withdraw or end the rel
ation other than for (good)
enough cause is,however, much restricted. A lawyer who begins/tries t
o conduct an action (in a suggested or hinted
way) says to carry it to its end/end result. He cannot (leave behind and
alone) it withoutreasonable cause. A lawyer's right to withdraw from a
case before its final judging rises only fromthe client's written permissi
on or from a good cause. Section 26 of Rule 138 of the Changed Ruleso
f Court provides: "Sec.
26. Change of lawyers -- A lawyer may retire at any time from any actio
nor special going
ahead, by the written permission of his client filed in court. He may als
o retire atany time from an action or special going
ahead, without the permission of his client, should thecourt, (on a list
of people that are being warned about something bad that will
happen) to theclient and lawyer, and on hearing, decide/figure
out that he should be allowed to retire. In case ofsubstitution, the nam
e of the lawyer newly employed will be entered on the docket of the co
urtin place of the former one, and written written
statement/attention of the change will be given tothe bad party." In the
present case, Orcina did not give her written permit
to Gaspar'swithdrawal. He did not even file an (online or paper form
that asks for a job, money, admission,
etc.) with the court for it to decide/figure
out whether he should be allowed to withdraw.
But granting that person who
responded's movement without complainant's permission was an(onlin
e or paper form that asks for a job, money, admission,
etc.) for withdrawal with the court,the Supreme Court found this reason
not
enough to permit the withdrawal. Atty. Gaspar'swithdrawal was made o
n the ground that "there no longer exists the xxx confidence" betweent
hem and that there had been "serious differences between them relati
ng to the manner ofprivate prosecution. Rule 22.01 of Canon 22 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility provides:
"CANON 22 -- A LAWYER SHALL WITHDRAW HIS SERVICES ONLY FOR GO
OD CAUSE AND UPONNOTICE APPROPRIATE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES. R
ule 22.01- A lawyer may withdraw his servicesin any of the following ca
ses: a) When the client chases after an illegal or socially
wrong course ofbehavior in connection with the matter he is handling;
b) When the client insists that the lawyerchase
after behavior disobedient of these canons and rules; c) When his inabi
lity to work with co-advice will not (help increase/show in a good
way) the best interest of the client; d) When themental or physical con
dition of the lawyer makes/gives it hard
for him to carry out theemployment effectively; e) When the client (in a
carefully-planned way) does not pay the fees forthe services or does
not obey the pre-payment agreement; f) When the lawyer is elected or
selected to public office; and g) Other almost the
same cases." The instant case does not fallunder any of the grounds tal
ked about/said. Neither can this be thought about/believed almost the
same or the same as any. Orcina was upset by Atty. Gaspar's (not being
there; not being
present) at the hearing where bail was granted to the suspected killers
of her husband and it wasthis
way natural for her to react by argument. Her words were
spoken in a burst of passion andcannot be interpreted to have meant t
o end Atty. Gaspar's services. She made this clear whenshe refused to
sign his "Movement to Withdraw as Advice." Even if Atty. Gaspar was
(done for good
reason) in ending his services, he, however, cannot just do so and leav
e complainant in thecold unprotected. The lawyer has no right to assu
me that his written
request for withdrawal willbe granted by the court. Until his withdrawal
will have been approved, the lawyer remains advice of record.
Return the amount owed to Orcina. Criticized to exercise caution.
A.C. No. 4215
May 21, 2001
FELICISIMO M. MONTANO
V INTGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES AND ATTY. JUAN S. DEALCA
FACTS:
The complainant hired the services of Atty. Juan S. Dealca as his
advice in cooperation
with Atty.Ronando L. Gerona in a case pending before the Court of App
eals docketed (in which/during which/in what way/in
what) the complainant was the person (who sued or is suing someone)person.
The parties agreed upon lawyer's fees in the amount of P15,000.00 fift
y percent (50%) of whichwas payable upon acceptance of the case and
the remaining balance upon the end/ending/firingof the case. In the
same way/in that way, complainant paid person who
responded the amount ofP7,500.00 representing 50% of the lawyer's fe
e.
After that, even before person who
responded advice had prepared the appellant's brief andopposite to th
eir agreement that the remaining balance be payable after the end/end
ing/firing ofthe case, Atty. Dealca demanded an
added payment from complainant obliged by paying theamount of P4,0
00.00.
Before the filing of the appellant's brief, person who