Anda di halaman 1dari 7

HUEYSUWAN-FLORIDO vs FLORIDO congenital prevaricator, hardly measures to the sobriety of

Reference: AC No. 5624 January 20, 2004 speech demanded of a lawyer.

FACTS: This is an administrative complaint for the disbarment DE ZUZUARREGUI VS ATTY SOGUILON
of respondent Atty. James Benedict C. Florido and his eventual
removal from the Roll of Attorneys for allegedly violating his FACTS: Before us is an administrative case for disbarment filed
oath as a lawyer by manufacturing, flaunting and using a by complainant against respondent Atty. Apolonia A.C.
spurious and bogus Court of Appeals Resolution. Soguilon. Complainant accuses respondent of misconduct,
concealment of the truth and misleading the court.
Natasha V. Heysuwan-Florido, the complainant, averred that
she was the legitimate spouse of the respondent Atty. James Respondent acted as counsel for the petitioner in a petition for
Benedict Florido, the respondent, but because of the estranged reconstitution, respondent introduced as evidence the certified
relation, they lived separately. They have two children whom copy of the technical description and the sketch plan of the
the complainant has the custody. Complainant filed a case for land. Exhibits F and G,- This is not an updated survey data;
the annulment of her marriage; meanwhile there, was another This plan is used for reference purposes only. the trial court
related case pending in the Court of Appeals. allowed reconstitution of the title. As such, complainant
submitted that respondent was remiss in not calling the
Sometime in the middle of December 2001, respondent went attention of the trial court to the notations indicated in the
to complainants residence in Tanjay City, Negros Oriental and documents, emphasizing her duty to avoid concealment of the
demanded that the custody of their two minor children be truth from the court.
surrendered to him. He showed complainant a photocopy of an
alleged Resolution issued by the Court of Appeals which In answer to these allegations, she refuted all the charges
supposedly granted his motion for temporary child custody. against her. Anent the annotations on the documents,
Complainant called up her lawyer but the latter informed her respondent stated that she could not be charged of concealing
that he had not received any motion for temporary child facts from the court as she had submitted the documents
custody filed by respondent. without alteration for the evaluation of the trial court.

Complainant asked respondent for the original copy of the The Court referred the matter to the IBP for investigation.
alleged resolution of the Court of Appeals, but respondent Decided - Clearly, what should have been fatal omissions on the
failed to give it to her. Complainant then examined the part of Respondent, as counsel of the petitioner in the Petition
resolution closely and noted that it bore two dates: November for Reconstitution were allowed to pass without challenge. A
12, 2001 and November 29, 2001. Sensing something amiss, simple perusal of the Decision x x x shows that there was
she refused to give custody of their children to respondent. The reversible error on the part of the presiding judge of RTC of
complainant verified the authenticity of the Resolution and Quezon City.
obtained a certification dated January 18, 2005[from the Court
x x x However, the disciplinary process does not punish errors,
of Appeals stating that no such resolution ordering complainant
mistakes or incompetence. Errors and mistakes are corrected
to surrender custody of their children to respondent had been
by legal remedies such as motions for reconsideration, appeals,
issued.
and petitions for relief. The reversal of the June 5, 1995
ISSUES: Whether or not Atty. Florido was liable for making false Decision of the trial court has remedied the error committed.
court resolution?
PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is submitted that respondent did not
RULINGS: YES. A lawyer who used a spurious Resolution of the commit any act for which she should be disciplined or
Court of Appeals is presumed to have participated in its administratively sanctioned.
fabrication.
It is therefore recommended that this CASE BE DISMISSED for
Candor and fairness are demanded of every lawyer. The burden lack of merit.
cast on the judiciary would be intolerable if it could not take at
ISSUE: WON respondent employ deceit or misrepresentation in
face value what is asserted by counsel. The time that will have
acting as counsel for the petitioner in the petition for
to be devoted just to the task of verification of allegations
reconstitution of title.
submitted could easily be imagined. Even with due recognition
then that counsel is expected to display the utmost zeal in the RULING: NO- Respondents failure to point out the notations in
defense of a clients cause, it must never be at the expense of the documents she had submitted, in the Courts opinion, the
the truth. Thus, the Code of professional Responsibility states: Commissioner correctly observed that there was absence of
proof that respondent had intended to mislead or deceive the
CANON 10. A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD
trial court. In fact, the said notations were laid bare for the trial
FAITH TO THE COURT.
courts evaluation. There were no attempts on respondents
Rule 10.01 - A lawyer shall not do any falsehood; nor consent part to manipulate or hide them.
to the doing of any in court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the
In administrative cases for disbarment or suspension against
Court to be misled by any artifice.
lawyers, the quantum of proof required is clearly preponderant
Rule 10.02 - A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or evidence and the burden of proof rests upon the complainant.
misrepresent the contents of a paper, the language or the In the present case, the Court finds that complainant, who
argument of an opposing counsel, or the text of a decision or notably owns one of the properties subject of the title sought
authority, or knowingly cite as a law a provision already to be reconstituted, and is consequently an adverse party,
rendered inoperative by repeal or amendment, or assert as a failed to present clear and preponderant evidence to show
fact that which has not been proved. respondents guilt of the charges he had leveled against her. In
any event, it is worth mentioning that the prejudice, if any,
The records show that respondent used offensive language in caused by respondents oversight against complainant and
his pleadings in describing complainant and her relatives. A other interested parties had been rectified later on by a
lawyers language should be forceful but dignified, emphatic but different judge who set aside the order of reconstitution.
respectful as befitting an advocate and in keeping with the
dignity of the legal profession. The lawyers arguments whether All told, the lapses of respondent were committed without
written or oral should be gracious to both court and opposing malice and devoid of any desire to dupe or defraud the
counsel and should be of such words as may be properly opposing party. They are innocuous blunders that were made
addressed by one gentlemen to another. By calling without intent to harm. As plain acts of inadvertence, they do
complainant, a sly manipulator of truth as well as a vindictive not reach the level of professional incompetence. While
professional incompetence is not among the grounds of
disbarment enumerated in Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised unseated, and withdrawal from the case was his best recourse.
Rules of Court yet there are instances where a lawyer may be This Court set aside complainants inhibition after finding no
disciplined for inexcusable ignorance as the list is not exclusive. strong and valid reason therefor, and directed him to continue
Indeed, the Court is convinced that respondent should not be hearing the case and to resolve it with reasonable dispatch.
sanctioned.
Deploring the act of respondent as serious deceit, malpractice,
The petition for review is DENIED. The Resolution of the Board gross misconduct as a lawyer and in utter violation of the
of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines is lawyers oath, complainant requested the IBP to investigate
AFFIRMED. the matter and recommend to the Court an appropriate
penalty against respondent. He failed to file his answer and
MARIVELES VS ATTY MALLARI personally appear before the IBP investigation, as a result
decision was rendered based on the pleading and was
FACTS: Mario S. Mariveles filed an administrative complaint
suspended from the practice of law for 2 years. - It reduced the
against his former counsel, Attorney Odilon C. Mallari, whose
suspension of respondent to 6 months.
legal services he had engaged in 1984 to handle his defense in
Criminal Case (BP Blg 22). After an adverse decision was ISSUE: WON respondent violated his lawyers aoth and the act
rendered, Mariveles instructed Attorney Mallari to appeal the would be a violation of the lawyers duty of candor, fairness and
trial court's decision to the Court of Appeals, which the good faith to the court.
respondent did. However, in the Court of Appeals, despite
numerous extensions of time, totalling 245 days, which he RULING: We affirm the findings of the IBP on the culpability of
obtained from the Court, Attorney Mallari failed to file the respondent.
appellant's brief, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal.
All members of the legal profession made a solemn oath to,
ISSUE: WON Atty Mallari is guilty of abandonment and inter alia, do no falsehood and conduct [themselves] as
dereliction of duty toward his client? [lawyers] according to the best of [their] knowledge and
discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to [their]
RULING: YES. The Court finds respondent Attorney Odilon C. clients. These particular fundamental principles are reflected
Mallari guilty of abandonment and dereliction of duty toward in the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically:
his client and hereby orders him DISBARRED from the legal
profession and to immediately cease and desist from the Canon 10 A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to
practice of law. The respondent demonstrated not only the court.
appalling indifference and lack of responsibility to the courts
and his client but also a shameless disregard for his duties as a Rule 10.01 A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent
lawyer. He is unfit for membership in this noble profession. to the doing of any in Court, nor shall he mislead, or allow the
Court to be misled by an artifice.
In sum, what was committed by the respondent is a blatant
violation of our Code of Professional Responsibility. When respondent executed his affidavit retracting his reason
for withdrawing as counsel for Norma T. Lim, he acknowledged,
Rule 12.03 A lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions of under oath, his misrepresentation.
time to file pleadings, memoranda or briefs, let the period
lapse without submitting the same or offering an explanation Candor towards the courts is a cardinal requirement of the
for his failure to do so. practicing lawyer. In fact, this obligation to the bench for candor
and honesty takes precedence. Thus, saying one thing in his
Rule 18.03 A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for Private Protestee and
entrusted to him and his negligence in connection therewith another in his subsequent affidavit is a transgression of this
shall render him liable. imperative which necessitates appropriate punishment.

Suffice it to state that a lawyer has no business practicing his The circumstances in this case demand that respondent be
profession if in the course of that practice, he will eventually imposed suspension from the practice of law for one (1) year.
wreck and destroy the future and reputation of his client and This serves the purpose of protecting the interest of the court,
thus disgrace the law profession. The last thing that his peers in the legal profession and the public. For indeed, if respect for
the law profession and the IBP would do is to disrobe a the courts and for judicial process is gone or steadily weakened,
member of the profession, for he has worked for the no law can save us as a society.
attainment of his career burning the midnight oil throughout
school and passing the bar. The undersigned, however, could LIBIT V OLIVA
not find any mitigating circumstances to recommend a lighter
A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing
penalty. Disbarment is the only recourse to remove a rotten
of any in court nor shall he mislead or allow the court to be
apple if only to instill and maintain the respect and confidence
misled by any artifice.
of all and sundry to the noble profession.
FACTS: Judge Domingo Panis in Pedro Cutingting v. Alfredo Tan
MACIAS VS ATTY SELDA
ordered the NBI Director to conduct an investigation to
FACTS: Petition for Administrative Discipline against Atty. determine the author of the falsified Sheriffs return in said
Alanixon A. Selda for violation of the lawyers oath. case. As a result of which, the NBI charged respondents Attys.
Edelson Oliva and Florando Umali for obstruction of justice.
Respondent Selda withdrew as counsel for one Norma T. Lim,
private protestee in Election Case. He basically submitted as The case was referred to the Commission on Bar Discipline of
ground for his withdrawal that he could not cope up with the the IBP.
pace of the proceedings in view of his workload. He claimed
In view of NBIs report that Umalis signature in the complaint
that the hearings of the election protest case would run from
in the civil case was not his, the case was dismissed with
2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. and he still had to attend to his other
respect to him.
cases including classes at Philippine Advent College, which start
at 5:30 p.m. on Mondays and Wednesdays. However, ISSUE: W/N respondent violated Code of Ethics
respondent executed an affidavit disavowing his grounds for
withdrawing as counsel for private protestee. He swore that he HELD: Yes. After the careful review of the record of the case
only filed the Motion on account of the pre-judgment of the and the report and recommendation of the IBP, the Court finds
case by complainant, who, on several occasions insinuated to that respondent Atty. Edelson G. Oliva committed acts of
him that his client would lose in the protest. He stated that he misconduct which warrant the exercise by the Court of its
was convinced that chaos would result if his client were disciplinary powers. The facts, as supported by the evidence,
obtaining in this case indubitably reveal respondents failure to many times that a certain Alex of EDC would go to the court
live up to his duties as a lawyer in consonance with the bearing certain papers for the signature of complainant; that
strictures of the lawyers oath, the Code of Professional he came to learn that a consideration of P500.00 would be
Responsibility, and the Canons of Professional Ethics. A lawyers given for every order or decision released by complainant in
responsibility to protect and advance the interests of his client favor of EDC; and that he also came to know that attempts at
does not warrant a course of action propelled by ill motives and postponing the hearings of the complaints filed by EDC were
malicious intentions against the other party. thwarted by complainant as he wanted to expedite the
disposition thereof.
In this case, respondent Atty. Edelson Oliva has manifestly
violated that part of his oath as a lawyer that he shall not do By Resolution of August 30, 2006 , this Court, after noting the
any falsehood. He has likewise violated Rule 10.01 of the Code July 20, 2006 Memorandum of the Office of the Court
of Professional Responsibility which provides: Administrator (OCA) relative to respondent's complaint against
complainant, approved the recommendation of the OCA to
A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing dismiss the complaint for lack of merit, "the complaint being
of any in court nor shall he mislead or allow the court to be unsubstantiated and motivated by plain unfounded suspicion,
misled by any artifice. and for having been filed after the effectivity of his optional
retirement."
Accordingly, the Court resolved to impose upon Atty. Edelson
Oliva the supreme penalty of DISBARMENT. His license to Thus, spawned the present verified December 18, 1996 letter-
practice law in the Philippines is CANCELLED and the Bar complaint of complainant against respondent, for disbarment.
Confidant is ordered to strike out his name from the Roll of The Investigating Commissioner thus concluded that while the
Attorneys. evidence on record is sufficient to show that the allegations in
respondent's affidavit-complaint against herein complainant
MOLINA VS ATTY MAGAT
were false, the evidence nonetheless show[s] that respondent
Before the Court is the undated Resolutionof the Board of had knowingly and maliciously instituted a groundless suit,
Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) finding based simply on his unfounded suspicions against complainant
Atty. Ceferino R. Magat (Atty. Magat) liable for unethical and that he violated Canons 10, 11, & 12 and Rule 11.04 of the
conduct and recommending that he be reprimanded. Code of Professional Responsibility under his oath of office.

Attorney; False and untruthful statements in pleadings. The He accordingly recommended that respondent be fined in the
practice of law is a privilege bestowed on those who show that amount of P5,000, with a stern warning that a repetition of the
they possess and continue to possess the legal qualifications for same or similar act will be dealt with more severely.
it. Lawyers are expected to maintain at all times a high standard
The Board of Governors of the IBP, by Notice of Resolution,
of legal proficiency and morality, including honesty, integrity
informs that on November 22, 2007, it adopted the following
and fair dealing. They must perform their four-fold duty to
Resolution adopting and approving with modification the
society, the legal profession, the courts and their clients, in
Report and Recommendation of the Investigating
accordance with the values and norms of the legal profession
Commissioner.
as embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility.
ISSUES: (1)Whether or not the complaint filed by respondent
Atty. Magats act clearly falls short of the standards set by the
against the complainant before the Office of the Court
Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly Rule 10.01,
Administrator in Admin Matter OCA IPI No. 06-1842-MTJ was
which provides:
malicious, false and untruthful.
Rule 10.01 A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent
(2)If in the affirmative, whether or not, respondent is guilty
to the doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the
under the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Court to be misled by any artifice.
RULINGS: (1) the IBP Commissioner did not find respondents
The Court ruled that there was a deliberate intent on the part
complaint against herein complainant false and untruthful, it
of Atty. Magat to mislead the court when he filed the motion to
noting that respondents complaint was dismissed by this Court
dismiss the criminal charges on the basis of double jeopardy.
due to insufficiency of evidence which, to the IBP, merely shows
Atty. Magat should not make any false and untruthful
a "failure on the part of respondent to prove his allegations"
statements in his pleadings. If it were true that there was a
against complainant. Noting, however, this Courts August 30,
similar case for slight physical injuries that was really filed in
2006 Resolution finding respondents complaint
court, all he had to do was to secure a certification from that
"unsubstantiated and motivated by plain, unfounded"
court that, indeed, a case was filed.
suspicion, the Investigating Commissioner concluded that
CERVANTES V SABIO AC NO 7828, AUG 11, 2008 respondent "knowingly instituted not only a groundless suit
against herein complainant, but also a suit based simply on his
FACTS: Judge Cervantes (complainant) was the presiding judge bare suspicion and speculation."
of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Cabuyao, Laguna until his
optional retirement on November 23, 2005. Some of the cases (2) the IBP found that by filing the groundless bribery charge
lodged in his sala were ejectment cases filed by Extra-Ordinary against complainant, respondent violated the proscription of
Development Corporation (EDC) against the clients of Atty. Jude the Code of Professional Responsibility against "wittingly or
Josue L. Sabio (respondent). It appears that respondent had willingly promot[ing] or su[ing] any groundless suit" including
filed motions for inhibition of complainant "on the basis of the baseless administrative complaints against judges and other
fact that EDC gave him a house and lot putting into serious court officers and employees. The Investigating Commissioner
doubt his impartiality, independence and integrity." The thus concluded that while the evidence on record is sufficient
motions were denied. to show that the allegations in respondents affidavit-complaint
against herein complainant were false, the evidence
After the retirement of complainant, respondent, by Affidavit- nonetheless show[s] that respondent had knowingly and
Complaint sought the investigation of complainant for bribery. maliciously instituted a groundless suit, based simply on his
unfounded suspicions against complainant; and that he
In support of the charge, respondent submitted a Sinumpaang violated Canons 10, 11, & 12 and Rule 11.0411 of the Code of
Salaysay of Edwin P. Cardeo , a utility worker in the MTC of Professional Responsibility under his oath of office.
Cabuyao, stating that inter alia , orders and decisions of
complainant were not generated from the typewriter of the He accordingly recommended that respondent be fined in the
court but from a computer which the court did not have, it amount of P5,000, with a stern warning that a repetition of the
having acquired one only on May 2, 2005; that there had been same or similar act will be dealt with more severely.
ALONSO VS. RELAMIDA, JR. AC NO 8481 ZALDIVAR VS GONZALES 166 SCRA 316, OCT 7, 1988

FACTS: Jennifer Ebanen filed a complaint for illegal dismissal FACTS: Zaldivar was the governor of Antique. He was charged
against Servier Philippines, Incorporated in the NLRC. On July 5, before the Sandiganbayan for violations of the Anti-Graft and
2002, the labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Servier, stating that Corrupt Practices Act. Gonzales was the then Tanodbayan who
Ebanen voluntarily resigned. Ebanen appealed at the NLRC was investigating the case. Zaldivar then filed with the Supreme
which only affirmed the appealed decision. Ebanen filed for Court a petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus
reconsideration but was denied. The case eventually reached assailing the authority of the Tanodbayan to investigate graft
the Supreme Court. On February 17, 2005, the Courts cases under the 1987 Constitution. The Supreme Court, acting
Resolution dated August 4, 2004 has already become final and on the petition issued a Cease and Desist Order against
executory; thus, a corresponding Entry of Judgment has been Gonzalez directing him to temporarily restrain from
issued dismissing the petition and holding that there was no investigating and filing informations against Zaldivar.
illegal dismissal since Ebanen voluntarily resigned.
Gonzales however proceeded with the investigation and he
However, despite the judgment, Ebanen through Atty. filed criminal informations against Zaldivar. Gonzalez even had a
Relamida, Jr. filed a second complaint on August 5, 2005 for newspaper interview where he proudly claims that he scored
illegal dismissal based on the same cause of action of one on the Supreme Court; that the Supreme Courts issuance
constructive dismissal against Servier. Thus, on October 13, of the TRO is a manifestation theta the rich and influential
2005, Servier, thru counsel, filed a letter-complaint addressed persons get favorable actions from the Supreme Court, [while]
to the then Chief Justice Hilario Davide, Jr., praying that it is difficult for an ordinary litigant to get his petition to be
respondents be disciplinary sanctioned for violation of the rules given due course.
on forum shopping and res judicata.
Zaldivar then filed a Motion for Contempt against Gonzalez. The
Respondents admitted the filing of the second complaint Supreme Court then ordered Gonzalez to explain his side.
against Servier. However, they opined that the dismissal did not Gonzalez stated that the statements in the newspapers were
amount to res judicata, since the decision was null and void for true; that he was only exercising his freedom of speech; that he
lack of due process since the motion for the issuance of is entitled to criticize the rulings of the Court, to point out
subpoena duces tecum for the production of vital documents where he feels the Court may have lapsed into error. He also
filed by the complainant was ignored by the Labor Arbiter. said, even attaching notes, that not less than six justices of the
Supreme Court have approached him to ask him to go slow
ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent guilty of forum on Zaldivar and to not embarrass the Supreme Court.
shopping and res judicata thus violating Canon 12 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility? ISSUE: Whether or not Gonzalez is guilty of contempt.

RULING: During the IBP hearing, Atty. Relamida is ot a lawyer RULING: Yes. The statements made by respondent Gonzalez
but the daughter of Atty. Aurelio the senior partner of A.M. clearly constitute contempt and call for the exercise of the
Sison Jr. and Partners Law Offices where he is employed as disciplinary authority of the Supreme Court. His statements
associate lawyer. Atty. Relamida reasoned out that as a necessarily imply that the justices of the Supreme Court
courtesy to Atty. Aurelio and Ebanen, he had no choice but to betrayed their oath of office. Such statements constitute the
represent the latter. Moreover, he stressed that his client was grossest kind of disrespect for the Supreme Court. Such
denied of her right to due process due to the denial of her statements very clearly debase and degrade the Supreme Court
motion for the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum. He then and, through the Court, the entire system of administration of
argued that the decision of the Labor Arbiter was null and void; justice in the country.
thus, there was no res judicata. He maintained that he did not
violate the lawyers oath by serving the interest of his client. Gonzalez is entitled to the constitutional guarantee of free
The IBP-CBD recommended that Atty. Relamida, Jr. be speech. What Gonzalez seems unaware of is that freedom of
suspended for 6 months for violating the rules on forum speech and of expression, like all constitutional freedoms, is
shopping and res judicata. not absolute and that freedom of expression needs on occasion
to be adjusted to and accommodated with the requirements of
The Supreme Court agrees to this finding. A lawyer owes equally important public interests. One of these fundamental
fidelity to the cause of his client, but not at the expense of public interests is the maintenance of the integrity and orderly
truth and the administration of justice. The filing of multiple functioning of the administration of justice. There is no
petitions constitutes abuse of the courts processes and antinomy between free expression and the integrity of the
improper conduct that tends to impede, obstruct and degrade system of administering justice.
the administration of justice and will be punished as contempt
of court. Needless to state, the lawyer who files such multiple Gonzalez, apart from being a lawyer and an officer of the court,
or repetitious petitions (which obviously delays the execution is also a Special Prosecutor who owes duties of fidelity and
of a final and executory judgment) subjects himself to respect to the Republic and to the Supreme Court as the
disciplinary action for incompetence (for not knowing any embodiment and the repository of the judicial power in the
better) or for willful violation of his duties as an attorney to act government of the Republic. The responsibility of Gonzalez to
with all good fidelity to the courts, and to maintain only such uphold the dignity and authority of the Supreme Court and not
actions as appear to him to be just and are consistent with to promote distrust in the administration of justice is heavier
truth and honor. than that of a private practicing lawyer.

The filing of another action concerning the same subject Gonzalez is also entitled to criticize the rulings of the court but
matter, in violation of the doctrine of res judicata, runs contrary his criticisms must be bona fide. In the case at bar, his
to Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which statements, particularly the one where he alleged that
requires a lawyer to exert every effort and consider it his duty members of the Supreme Court approached him, are of no
to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. By relation to the Zaldivar case.
his actuations, respondent also violated Rule 12.02 and Rule
The Supreme Court suspended Gonzalez indefinitely from the
12.04 of the Code, as well as a lawyers mandate "to delay no
practice of law.
man for money or malice."
MACEDA VS OMBUDSMAN G.R. NO. 102781. APRIL 22, 1993
WHEREFORE, Resolution No. XVIII-2008-286 of the IBP, which
found respondent Atty. Ibaro B. Relamida, Jr. guilty of violating FACTS: Respondent Napoleon Abiera of PAO filed a complaint
the Rules on Res Judicata and Forum Shopping, is AFFIRMED. before the Office of the Ombudsman against petitioner RTC
Atty. Relaminda is hereby SUSPENDED for six (6) months from Judge Maceda. Respondent Abiera alleged that petitioner
the practice of law, effective upon the receipt of this Decision Maceda has falsified his certificate of service by certifying that
all civil and criminal cases which have been submitted for approve the report and recommendation of the Investigating
decision for a period of 90 days have been determined and Commissioner
decided on or before January 31, 1989, when in truth and in
fact, petitioner Maceda knew that no decision had been ISSUE: Whether or not Aquino failed to perform his duties
rendered in 5 civil and 10 criminal cases that have been expected of an attorney as provided under the existing Canons
submitted for decision. Respondent Abiera alleged that of Professional Ethics and Sec. of Rule of the ROC in force at the
petitioner Maceda falsified his certificates of service for 17 time of the commission of the acts in question
months.
RULING: The Revised Rules of Court provides that it is the duty
ISSUE: Whether or not the investigation made by the of an attorney to counsel or maintain such actions or
Ombudsman constitutes an encroachment into the SCs proceedings only as appear to him to be just, and such
constitutional duty of supervision over all inferior courts defenses only as he believes to be honestly debatable under
the law. Respondent Atty. Aquino should not have filed a
RULING: A judge who falsifies his certificate of service is petition for certiorari considering that there was no apparent
administratively liable to the SC for serious misconduct and purpose for it than to delay the execution of a valid judgment.
under Sec. 1, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, and criminally Aquino committed falsehood when he stated in his Urgent
liable to the State under the Revised Penal Code for his Motion for Postponement that he had to attend the hearing of
felonious act. In the absence of any administrative action taken a special proceedings case the same day as the pretrial of the
against him by the Court with regard to his certificates of Civil Case. Such act violates the Canons of Professional Ethics
service, the investigation being conducted by the Ombudsman which obliges an attorney to avoid the concealment of the
encroaches into the Courts power of administrative truth from the court. A lawyer is mandated not to mislead the
supervision over all courts and its personnel, in violation of the court in any manner. Lower court correctly declared
doctrine of separation of powers. Art. VIII, Sec. 6 of the respondent in contempt of court for conduct tending, directly
Constitution exclusively vests in the SC administrative or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the
supervision over all courts and court personnel, from the administration of justice, in violation of Section d, Rule of the
Presiding Justice of the CA down to the lowest municipal trial Revised Rules of Court. Atty. Aquino purposely allowed the
court clerk. By virtue of this power, it is only the SC that can court to believe that he was still employed with the Citizens
oversee the judges and court personnels compliance with all Legal Assistance Office when in fact he had been purged from
laws, and take the proper administrative action against them if said office. The Court hereby finds respondent Atty. Angel G.
they commit any violation thereof. No other branch of Aquino guilty of malpractice and SUSPENDS him from the
government may intrude into this power, without running afoul practice of law for six months commencing upon receipt of
of the doctrine of separation of powers. Where a criminal notice hereof.
complaint against a judge or other court employee arises from
their administrative duties, the Ombudsman must defer action FABROA VS. PAGUINTO [A.C. NO. 6273, MARCH 15, 2010]
on said complaint and refer the same to the SC for
FACTS: Complainant, Atty. Iluminada M. Vaflor-Fabroa, who was
determination whether said judge or court employee had acted
Chairperson of the General Mariano Alvarez Service
within the scope of their administrative duties.
Cooperative, Inc. (GEMASCO), was removed as a member of
AFURONG VS AQUINO AC NO 1571 SEPT 23, 1999 the Board of Directors (the Board) and thereafter, respondent,
Oscar Paguinto and his group took over the GEMASCO office
FACTS: Afurong filed a complaint for ejectment against and its premises, the pumphouses, water facilities, and
Victorino Flores for nonpayment of rentals and the court operations. Complainant thus filed a complaint for annulment
rendered judgment in favor of petitioner and the court issued a of the proceedings of her removal as well as other members of
writ of execution. Facing eviction, Flores sought help from the Board and a complaint against respondent for disbarment
Citizens Legal Assistance Office and they assigned Atty. Angel G alleging that respondent had violated the Code of Professional
Aquino to his case. He filed two petitions. Responsibility, particularly, among others, Canon 10 A lawyer
owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court, when having
When the court set a pre trial, he filed an Urgent Motion for ordered to submit position papers and despite grant, on his
Postponement and signed his name as counsel for Flores and motion, of extension of time, did not file any position paper
indicated the address of Citizens Legal Assistance Office as his and further ignored the Courts subsequent show cause order.
office address notwithstanding the fact that he was separated Moreover, respondent caused the filing of baseless criminal
from Citizens Legal Assistance Office at that time. In the complaints against complainant.
aforesaid motion, he stated that he could not attend the
pretrial conference because he had to attend the hearing of a ISSUE: Whether or not respondents acts constitute a violation
Habeas Corpus Case before the Juvenile and Domestic of the provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
Relations Court that same day and hour. But the Clerk of Court particularly, Canon 10.
of the JDR Court certified that a decision had been rendered on
the aforementioned special proceedings case and that there HELD: Yes, lawyers are called upon to obey court orders and
was no hearing. Thus, Afurong filed a verified letter complaint processes and respondents deference is underscored by the
for disbarment against Aquino, for filing frivolous harassment fact that willful disregard thereof will subject the lawyer not
cases to delay the execution of a final decision, committing only to punishment for contempt but to disciplinary sanctions
falsehood in an Urgent Motion for Postponement, and as well. In fact, graver responsibility is imposed upon a lawyer
misrepresenting himself as an attorney for the Citizens Legal than any other to uphold the integrity of the courts and to
Assistance Office. show respect to their processes. The Court further noted that
respondent had previously been suspended from the practice
Atty. Aquino denied the charges against him and contended of law for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
that such acts had been done without malice. In a Reply, however, that respondent has not reformed his ways. Hence, a
complainant asserted that Atty. Aquino was declared guilty of more severe penalty is thus called for, respondent was
contempt of court and correspondingly fined by this Court for subjected to suspension for two years.
making false allegations in his Urgent Motion for
Postponement. The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline FORONDA VS. GUERRERO, A.C. NO. 5469. AUGUST 10, 2004
submitted a Report finding that Aquino failed to perform his
FACTS: The complainant [attorney-in-fact] alleged that his
duties expected of an attorney as provided under the existing
principals, Ramona and Concepcion Alcaraz, filed Civil Case for
Canons of Professional Ethics and Sec. of Rule of the ROC in
specific performance and damages before the Regional Trial
force at the time of the commission of the acts in question.
Court of Quezon City. The case involved a parcel of land which
They recommended that he be penalized with months
were sold to the Alcarazes. Thereafter, while the case was
suspension. Board of Gov. of the IBP resolved to adopt and
pending, Catalina Balais-Mabanag, assisted by her husband
Eleuterio Mabanag, and with the respondent as their lawyer, 3. Lack of candor toward his adversary (Atty. Uy) and the courts
intervened in the case. In their intervention, Spouses Mabanag by resorting to numerous falsehoods;
questioned the eligibility of the Alcarazes to won lands in the
Philippines. 4. The willful insult and maligning of his clients former and
deceased counsel Atty. Catolico;
The RTC rendered a Decision in favor of the plaintiffs Alcarazes.
Mabanag, through the assistance of respondent Guerrero as 5. Unauthorized appearance for 15 of his clients, most of whom
her counsel appealed the decision to the CA. The CA affirmed were deceased;
the decision. Unsatisfied with the decision of the CA, Mabanag
6. Filing a second and fraudulent petition for annulment of title
and respondent as counsel appeal the decision to the SC. The
as counsel for the Republic of the Philippines
SC affirmed the decision of the court a qou.
when obviously unauthorized to do so (only the Solicitor
Respondent in trying to justify his acts contended that his
General can do this)
action of questioning the eligibility of the Spouses Alcazares is
necessary in the validity of the decision and the determination ISSUE 1. Whether or not respondent ought to be disbarred for
of the validity of the sale. If the Spouses Alcazares are ineligible his numerous infractions of the laws.
to own lands in the Philippines then the sale is void.
HELD/RATIO: 1. YES. The respondent has violated the following:
ISSUE: Whether or not the act of respondent constitutes forum
shopping, thus warrant sanction. a. Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility;
HELD: Yes, explained the court- "it has, thus, been clearly
established that in filing such numerous petitions in behalf of b. Rule 10.03, Canon 10 of the Code of Professional
his client, the respondent thereby engaged in forum Responsibility;
shopping. The essence of forum shopping is the filing of
multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause of c. Rule 12.02, Rule 12.04, Canon 12 of the Code of Professional
action, either simultaneously or successively, for the purpose of Responsibility;
obtaining a favorable judgment. It exists when, as a result of an
d. Rule 19.01, Canon 19 of the Code of Professional
adverse opinion in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion
Responsibility;
in another, or when he institutes two or more actions or
proceedings grounded on the same cause to increase the e. Rule against forum-shopping;
chances of obtaining a favorable decision. An important factor
in determining the existence of forum shopping is the vexation f. Sections 20(d), 21 and 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court
caused to the courts and the parties-litigants by the filing of
similar cases to claim substantially the same reliefs. Aside from these, respondent also resulted to fraud before the
court and even represented the Republic without its consent.
Indeed, while a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client, it The Court decided it had given respondent enough
should not be at the expense of truth and the administration of opportunities to stop, but he didnt comply, so, he was
justice. Such filing of multiple petitions constitutes abuse of disbarred.
the Courts processes and improper conduct that tends to
impede, obstruct and degrade the administration of justice and MEJIA VS. REYES
will be punished as contempt of court. In filing multiple
FACTS: Francisco S. Reyes, a practicing lawyer, was appointed
petitions before various courts concerning the same subject
bank attorney and notary public for the Baguio Branch of the
matter, the respondent violated Canon 12 of the Code of
Philippine National Bank. While still holding such position his
Professional Responsibility, which provides that a lawyer shall
professional services were engaged by Jose G. Mejia and Emilia
exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the
N. Abrera, residents of Baguio City, to bring an action in court
speedy and efficient administration of justice. He also violated
against the Philippine National Bank and the Rehabilitation
Rule 12.02 and Rule 12.04 of the Code, as well as a lawyers
Finance Corporation (now the Development Bank of the
mandate to delay no man for money or malice.
Philippines) as successor-in-interest of the defunct Agricultural
Respondent is suspended for 1 year in the practice of law. and Industrial Bank for the cancellation of a mortgage on a
parcel of land situated in Baguio City.
CONRADO QUE V. ATTY. ANASTACIO REVILLA, JR. (2009)
[C]omplainants Jose G. Mejia and Emilia N. Abrera allege that
Doctrine: they had desired to take an appeal from the judgment
rendered by the Court of First Instance of Baguio but did not,
- While a lawyer owes absolute fidelity to the cause of his upon the respondents advice; that thereafter for the first time
client, full devotion to his genuine interest, and warm zeal in they learned that the respondent was counsel and notary
the maintenance and defense of his rights, as well as the public of the Baguio Branch of the Philippine National Bank;
exertion of his utmost learning and ability, he must do so only that his representing them against the Philippine National
within the bounds of the law. Bank, in whose Baguio Branch he was bank attorney and notary
public, without revealing to them such connection with the
FACTS: Respondent former Atty. Anastacio Revilla represented
Bank, constitutes malpractice; and pray this Court to disbar
numerous clients that lost to an unlawful detainer case against
him.
complainant Conrado Que. However, even before representing
these people, the SC had opportunity to discipline him in two ISSUE: Whether or not the Atty. Reyes is guilty of malpractice
prior cases: Plus Builders, Inc. and Edgardo Garcia v. Atty and should be disbarred.
Anastacio Revilla, Jr. Now for this case, respondent is facing a
complaint for the following acts, all orchestrated to stall the HELD: YES. But the malpractice committed is not so serious.
execution of the MTCs final judgment in favor of the Respondent was just admonished and warned not to repeat it.
complainant:
Lawyers are prohibited from representing conflicting interests
1. Respondents abuse of court processes in remedies: he filed in a case. The respondents act of appearing and acting as
two petitions for annulment of title, a petition for annulment of counsel for the complainants Jose G. Mejia and Emilia N.
judgment and a petition for declaratory relief. He also raised Abrera in the civil case against the Philippine National Bank,
the lack of jurisdiction of the MTC and RTC in these petitions; that had appointed him bank attorney and notary public,
constitutes malpractice. However, it does not appear
2. Commission of forum-shopping; satisfactorily proven that during the pendency of their case the
complaints did not know of the respondents connection with
the bank as attorney and notary public. Evidence shows that RULINGS: The Court accordingly finds that respondent has not
the Philippine National Bank knew that the respondent was exercised the good faith and diligence required of lawyers in
appearing as counsel for the complainants, yet it did not revoke handling the legal affairs of their clients. If complainants did
or cancel his appointment as bank attorney and notary public. have the alleged monetary obligations to his client, that does
not warrant his summarily confiscating their certificates of title
NICANOR GONZALES vs. ATTY. MIGUEL SABACAJAN since there is no showing in the records that the same were
given as collaterals to secure the payment of a debt. Neither is
FACTS: The verified complaint wherefor alleges:
there any intimation that there is a court order authorizing him
xxx xxx xxx to take and retain custody of said certificates of title.

4. That sometime in October, 1994, complainants were Apparently, respondent has disregarded Canon 15, Rule 15.07
informed by the Register of Deeds of Cagayan de Oro City that of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that a
the complainants' owner's duplicate of title covering their lawyer shall impress upon his client the need for compliance
lands, Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. T-91736 and T-91735 with the laws and principles of fairness. Instead, he unjustly
were entrusted to the office secretary of the respondent who refused to give to complainants their certificates of titles
in torn entrusted the same to respondent; supposedly to enforce payment of their alleged financial
obligations to his client and presumably to impress the latter of
5. That respondent admitted and confirmed to the his power to do so.
complainants that their titles are in his custody and has even
shown the same (to) the complainant Salud B. Pantanosas but Canon 19, Rule 19.01 ordains that a lawyer shall employ only
when demanded (sic) to deliver the said titles to the fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his
complainant in a formal demand letter, marked as ANNEX "A," client and shall not present, participate in presenting, or
respondent refused and continues to refuse without any threaten to present unfounded charges to obtain an improper
justification to give their titles (and) when confronted, advantage in any case or proceeding. Respondent has closely
respondent challenged the complainants to file any case in any skirted this proscription, if he has not in fact transgressed the
court even in the Honorable Supreme Court; same.

As a lawyer, respondent should know that there are lawful


remedies provided by law to protect the interests of his client.
6. That respondent's dare or challeng(e) is a manifestation of The records do not show that he or his client have availed of
his arrogance taking undue advantage of his legal profession said remedies, instead of merely resorting to unexplained, if
over the simplicity, innocence and ignorance of the not curt, refusals to accommodate the requests of
complainants, one of whom is his blood relative, his aunt, for complainants. Also, he cannot be unaware of the imposable
which complainants shudder with mental anguish; sanctions on a counsel who resorts to unlawful means that
would cause injustice to the adversaries of his client.
7. That due to his challeng(e), the complainants sent a letter
to the Honorable Supreme Court for enlightenment, copy of The Court finds that respondent admitted having taken
which is attached as ANNEX "B", for which the Honorable possession of the certificates of title of complainants but
Supreme Court required 19 legible copies of a verified refused to surrender the same despite demands made by the
complaint; latter. It follows, therefore, that it was incumbent upon him to
show that he was legally justified in doing so. Instead, all he did
8. That in spite of repeated demands, request(s) and pleas was to inform this Court that "his obligation to deliver the
towards respondent, respondent still fail(ed) and stubbornly certificates to Mr. Samto Uy excludes the delivery of said
refused without justification to surrender the said titles to the certificates to anyone else."
rightful owners, the complainants here(in), which act is
tantamount to willful and malicious defiance of legal and moral Respondent attached some certifications to his "Answer" to
obligations emanating from his professional capacity as a support his contention that complainants are notorious
lawyer who had sworn to uphold law and justice, to the characters. However, the certifications indicate that most of the
prejudice and damage of the complainants; cases stated therein, especially those involving fraud, have
been dismissed. With respect to those still pending, there is no
xxx xxx xxx indication as to the identity of the party who instituted the
same, aside from the consideration that the remedy thereon is
On March 22, 1995, the Court required respondent to
judicial in nature. At any rate, these aspersions on the character
comment on the foregoing complaint. In his unverified
of complainants have no bearing on the misconduct of
"Answer" thereto, respondent admitted having met Salud
respondent charged in the present case.
Pantanosas but claims that, to his recollection, "Nicanor
Gonzales/Serdan" has never been to his office. Respondent Respondent likewise submitted xerox copies of certain
likewise denied that he challenged anyone to file a case in any certificates of title in an effort to explain why he kept the
court, much less the Supreme Court. He also claims that he certificates of title of complainants, that is, supposedly for the
referred complainant Pantanosas to his client, Mr. Samto M. Uy purpose of subdividing the property. However, an examination
of Iponan, Cagayan de Oro City, for whom he worked out the of the same does not show any connection thereof to
segregation of the titles, two of which are the subject of the respondent's claim. In fact, the two sets of certificates of title
instant case. appear to be entirely different from each other.
He contends that the truth of the matter is that complainants
have been charged with a number of criminal and civil
complaints before different courts. He also asserts that he was
holding the certificates of title in behalf of his client, Samto M.
Uy.

Atty. Sabacajan stresses, by way of defense, that "the instant


action was chosen precisely to browbeat him into delivering
the Certificates of Title to them without said certificates
passing the hands of Mr. Samto Uy with whom the
complainants have some monetary obligations."

ISSUE: WON respondent violated the Code of Professional


Responsibility?

Anda mungkin juga menyukai