JUDGE MARIBETH MANAHAN vs. ATTY.

RODOLFO FLORES
A.C. No. 8954, November 13, 2013, 709 SCRA 297

FACTS: Atty. Flores was the counsel for the defendant in a civil case before the sala of Judge
Manahan. During the preliminary conference, Atty. Flores entered his appearance and was
given time to file a Pre-Trial Brief.

Later, Atty. Flores filed his Pre-Trial Brief but without proof of MCLE compliance hence it was
expunged from the records without prejudice to the filing of another Pre-Trial Brief containing
the required MCLE compliance, however, Atty. Flores asked for ten (10) days to submit proof.

The preliminary conference was set several times and Atty. Flores was given several occasions
to submit the brief with the proper MCLE compliance.

On the final instance, instead of submitting the promised proof of MCLE compliance, Atty.
Flores filed a letter stating that he was no longer representing the defendant. Such was stated
in what was deemed as intemperate language.

ISSUE: Whether Atty. Flores is guilty of disrespect to court orders.

HELD: YES. Court orders are to be respected not because the judges who issue them should be
respected, but because of the respect and consideration that should be extended to the judicial
branch of the Government.

Atty. Flores failed to obey the trial court’s order to submit proof of his MCLE compliance
notwithstanding the several opportunities given him. Furthermore, he used intemperate
language in his pleadings and dealing with the court.

As an officer of the court, he must be circumspect in his language and should have abstained
from scandalous, offensive or menacing language or behavior before the court.
Donton v. Atty. Tansingco, A.C. No. 6057, June 27, 2006

Facts:
Peter Donton filed a complaint against Atty. Emmanuel Tansingco, as the notary public who
notarized the Occupancy Agreement, and against others (Duane Stier, and Emelyn Manggay)
for estafa thru falsification of public document. A disbarment complaint filed by petitioner on
May 20, 2003 against respondent Atty. Emmanual O. Tansingco for serious misconduct and
deliberate violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and 1.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
arose when respondent Atty. Tansingco filed a counter-charge of perjury against Donton. Atty.
Tansingco in his complaint stated that he prepared and notarized the Occupancy Agreement at
the request of Mr. Stier, an owner and long-time resident of a real property located at Cubao,
Quezon City. Since Mr. Stier is a U.S. Citizen and thereby disqualified to own real property in his
name, he agreed that the property be transferred in the name of Mr. Donton, a Filipino.

Donton averred that Atty. Tansingco’s act of preparing the Occupancy Agreement, despite
knowledge that Stier is a foreign national, constitutes serious misconduct and is a deliberate
violation of the Code. Donton prayed that Atty. Tansingco be disbarred. Atty. Tansingco claimed
that complainant Donton filed disbarment case against him upon the instigation of
complainant ’s counsel, Atty. Bonifacio A. Aletajan, because he refused to act witness in the
criminal case against Stier and Manggay. In Resolution dated October 1, 2003, the court
referred the matter to the IBP for investigation, report and recommendation and for which the
latter, through Commissioner Milagros San Juan of the IBP Commission of Discipline
recommended suspension from the practice of law for two years and cancellation of his
commission as Notary Public. The IBP Board of Governors adopted, with modification, the
Report and recommended respondent’s suspension from the practice of law for six
months. The report was then forwarded to SC as mandated under Section 12(b), Rule 139-B
of the Rules of Court.

Issue:
Whether or Not Atty. Tansingco is guilty of serious misconduct?

Ruling:
Yes. Atty. Tansingco is liable for violation of Canon 1 and Rule 1.02 of the Code. The Court ruled
that a lawyer should not render any service or give advice to any client which will involve
defiance of the laws which he is bound to uphold and obey. A lawyer who assists a client in a
dishonest scheme or who connives in violating law commits an act which justifies disciplinary
action against the lawyer. Atty. Tansingco had sworn to uphold the Constitution. Thus, he
violated his oath and the Code when he prepared and notarized the Occupancy Agreement to
evade the law against foreign ownership of lands. Atty. Tansingco used his knowledge of the
law to achieve an unlawful end. Such an act amounts to malpractice in his office, for which he
may be suspended. As such, respondent is being suspended for six (6) months.
[A.C. No. 7269. November 23, 2011.]
ATTY. EDITA NOE-LACSAMANA, VS
ATTY. YOLANDO F.BUSMENTE respondent

FACTS:
Noe-Lacsamana alleged in her complaint that she was the counsel for Irene Bides, the plaintiff
in Civil Case No. SCA-2481 before the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 167, while
Busmente was the counsel for the defendant Imelda B. Ulaso (Ulaso). Noe-Lacsamana alleged
that Ulaso's deed of sale over the property subject of Civil Case No. SCA-2481 was annulled,
which resulted in the ling of an ejectment case before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC), San
Juan, docketed as Civil Case No. 9284,where Busmente appeared as counsel. Another case for
falsification was led against Ulaso where Busmente also appeared as counsel. Noe-Lacsamana
alleged that one Atty. Elizabeth Dela Rosa or Atty. Liza Dela Rosa (Dela Rosa) would accompany
Ulaso incourt, projecting herself as Busmente's collaborating counsel. Dela Rosa signed the
minutes of the court proceedings in Civil Case No. 9284 nine times from 25 November2003 to 8
February 2005. Noe-Lacsamana further alleged that the court orders andnotices speci ed Dela
Rosa as Busmente's collaborating counsel. Noe-Lacsamanaalleged that upon veri cation with
this Court and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines,she discovered that Dela Rosa was not a
lawyer.

Busmente alleged that Dela Rosa was a law graduate and was his paralegal assistant for a few
years. Busmente alleged that Dela Rosa's employment with him ended in 2000 but Dela Rosa
was able to continue misrepresenting herself as a lawyer with the help of Regine Macasieb
(Macasieb), Busmente's former secretary. Busmente alleged that he did not represent Ulaso in
Civil Case No. 9284 and that his signature in the Answer presented as proof by Noe-Lacsamana
was forged.

ISSUE:
The issue in this case is whether Busmente is guilty of directly or indirectly assisting Dela Rosa in
her illegal practice of law that warrants his suspension from the practice of law.

RULING:
The Court ruled that the term practice of law implies customarily or habitually holding oneself
out to the public as a lawyer for compensation as a source of livelihood or in consideration of
his services. The Court further ruled that holding ones self out as a lawyer may be shown by
acts indicative of that purpose, such as identifying oneself as attorney, appearing in court in
representation of a client, or associating oneself as a partner of a law office for the general
practice of law

It has been established that Dela Rosa who is not a member of the Bar misrepresented herself
as respondent’s collaborating counsel. There was also sufficient evidence to prove that
respondent allowed Dela Rosa to illegally practice law, appear in court, and give legal assistance
to respondent’s client. This is in violation of Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
which states that “[a] lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, assist in the unauthorized practice
of law.” The term “practice of law” implies customarily or habitually holding oneself out to the
public as a lawyer for compensation as a source of livelihood or in consideration of his
services. Holding one’s self out as a lawyer may be shown by acts indicative of that purpose,
such as identifying oneself as attorney, appearing in court in representation of a client, or
associating oneself as a partner of a law office for the general practice of law.
A.M. No. 94-9-297-RTC December 22, 1994

IN RE: REPORT ON THE AUDIT CONDUCTED ON THE CASHBOOKS OF THEN CLERK OR COURT
PRISCILLA HERNANDEZ OF THE RTC, TANGUB CITY, MISAMIS OCCIDENTAL, NOW PRESIDING
JUDGE OF THE MCTC OF JIMENEZ-SINACABAN, MISAMIS OCCIDENTAL.

FACTS:
Last June 1993, the City Auditor of Tangub City conducted an audit of the cash and accounts of
Atty. Hernandez covering the period from October 23, 1992 to June 15, 1993. The audit showed
shortages totalling to P8,637.00. However, it was found out that the shortages were not
directly incurred by her but by her designated Collecting Officer, Mr. Macutob, a Staff Assistant
III. Although Mr. Macutob immediately restituted the whole amount, the Supreme Court, in its
resolution dated March 11, 1994, dismissed Mr. Macutob from the service with forfeiture of all
benefits and the Clerk of Court was not, in any way, made responsible for the irregularity.
When Clerk of Court Priscilla Hernandez was promoted as Judge last December, 1993, she was
required by our Office to submit all her Judicial cashbooks together with other pertinent
documents for audit purposes. Unfortunately, she was not able to comply with all the
requirements. We were able to reconcile her cashbooks for Judiciary Development Fund and
our audit shows a zero accountability. However, for Clerk of Court General Fund, there appears
a shortage amounting to P412.00.

As Clerk of Court, Atty. Hernandez has general administrative supervision over all personnel of
said court. Even if Mr. Macutob was the designated collecting officer, still the Clerk of Court
remains to be the Accountable Officer and, as such, must closely supervise the proper handling
of collections and deposits to avoid any mishandling of government funds. As can be gleaned
from the explanation given by Mr. Macutob on the En Banc Resolution dated March 11, 1994, it
is always the practice to bring home daily collections and official receipts, an [sic] accountable
forms, and nobody seems to mind that practice which is beyond the normal procedure. Added
to this, how come Mr. Macutob was allowed to handle collections from June to November,
1993, inspite of the discovery of same irregularities last June 15, 1993.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Priscilla Hernandez is liable.

RULING:
From the records of this instant administrative matter, it was culled that the shortages in the
Office of the Clerk of Court, RTC, Tangub City per audit conducted by the City Auditor of Tangub
City were not directly incurred by then Clerk of Court Priscilla T. Hernandez but by her
designated Collecting Officer, Mr. Nemesio Macutob, a Staff Assistant III. In the Resolution of
this Court dated March 11, 1994, issued in A.M. No.

P-94-1014, Mr. Macutob was dismissed from the service with forfeiture of all benefits and then
Clerk of Court Priscilla Hernandez was not, in any way, made responsible for the irregularity.
Per audit findings of Mrs. Antonina A. Soria, Director III, Fiscal Audit Division, this Court, the
Office of the Clerk of Court, RTC, Tangub City has a balance of unremitted collection for the
Sheriff General Fund in the amount of P480.78 based on the documents submitted by then
Clerk of Court Priscilla Hernandez.

While she (Hernandez) was not held responsible for the irregularities committed by Mr.
Nemesio Macutob, sanction may be imposed upon her for negligence in not exercising strict
supervision over her subordinates as then Clerk of Court and Accountable Officer of the RTC of
Tangub City.

In her letter of 16 November 1994, the respondent admitted the shortage but claimed,
nevertheless, that she had already remitted on 7 June 1994 the amount of P312.00 and had
asked the OIC of the Office of the Clerk of Court, RTC, Branch 16, Tangub City "to remit the
under remittance of P100.00 to the Land Bank of the Philippines [at] Ozamis City." However,
she opted not to deny her negligence by not showing cause, as required in the resolution, why
she should not be administratively disciplined for such negligence, if not dishonesty.

We do not, however, find any dishonesty on the respondent's part. Nevertheless, we find the
respondent's tacit admission of negligence to be a mitigating circumstance and considering that
this is her first administrative offense, the fine recommended by the Office of the Court
Administrator may be reduced to P500.00.