Vaflor-Fabroa v.

Paguinto
AC 6273 March 15, 2010

FACT:
June 21 2001, An information for estafa was filed against Atty. Illuminada Vaflor-Fabroa (Petitioner)
amongst others. Atty. Oscar Pagunto prepared and notarized the joint affidavit-complained.
The affidavit-complaint didn't include Vaflor-Fabroa's involvement. She filed a motion to quash the
information. Trial Court granted the motion. Atty. Paguinto's motion for reconsideration was denied.
Atty. Paguinto filed six other criminal complaints against Vaflor-Fabroa against violations of Art 21 of RA
6938 (Cooperative Code of the Philippines). He filed a motion to withdraw those.

October 21 2001 Atty. Vaflor-Fabroa, as chair of the General Mariano Alvarez Service Cooperative
(GEMASCO) received a notice of a special general assembly on Oct 14, 2001. Agenda was to consider
the removal of 4 members of the Board of Directors including her and the General Manager.

October 14, 2001, PNP Sr Supt Angelito Gerango, complainant's predecessor, presided over Special GA
that included people who were not members of current Board. Gerangco declared himself Chair,
appointed others to replaced removed directors and appointed Atty. Paguinto as Board Secretary.

October 15 2001, Gerango and his group took over GEMASCO offices and pumpohouses, water facilities
and operations. Atty Paguinto sent notices to Chair and removed directors of their removial of the board.
They advised recipients to cease and desist discharging duties of their position.

October 16 2001, Atty. Vaflor-Fabroa filed complaint for annulment of proceedings from Oct 14, with the
Cooperative Development Authority –Calamba (CDA).

February 21 2002, The CDA Acting Regional Director issued a resolution declaring the assembly null and
void due to being in violation of GEMASCO’s by laws and cooperative code. CDA later vacated the
Regional Director’s decision for lack of jurisdiction.

Atty. Vaflor-Fabroa then filed a disbarment case alleging that he:

1. Promoted or sued groundless, false, unlawful suit
2. Disobeyed laws of the land, promoted disrespect for the law and legal profession
3. Did not conduct himself with courtesy, fairness, candor toward his professional colleague and engaged
in harassing tactics against opposing counsel
4. Violated canon 19 – a lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within the bounds of the law Ruined
5. Damaged not only GEMASCO but water consuming community too

Court granted Paguinto’s request for extension. He didn’t file an answer. He was asked to show just
cause but failed to do so. Case was recommended to IBP for investigation, report and recommendation.

IBP: Violations against Code of Professional Responsibility: Canons 1, 8, 10, 19, Rule 12.03
Violations against lawyers oath: “Promoted or sued groundless, false, unlawful suit, “Will do no falsehood
nor consent to the doing of any in court” “Will delay no man for money or malice”

After conference, both parties were asked to file position paper on issue of whether misconduct was
committed by respondent. Atty Vaflor- Fabroa complied while Atty Paguinto again failed to submit an a
position paper.

Commissioner Quisumbing found him guilty of violations against lawyers oath, and canons 1,8,10 and
rule 12.03. She recommended a suspension of 2 years. He was previously suspended for 6 months.

IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline opted to dismiss the complaint for lack of merit. After M for
Reconsideration, IBP-CBD recommended 6 month suspension

SC:
1. violation was conniving with GEMASCO board and Gerango on the take over, he violated its by-laws
and the Cooperative Code. He violated lawyers oath :  to uphold constitution and obey laws
2. violation committed when he filed baseless criminal complaints which promoted or sued groundless,
false, unlawful suit. He violated lawyer’s oath.
3. he failed to submit comment after asking for an extension, he ignored court’s order show a cavalier
attitude towards the court and disrespect for its institution.
Sebastien v. Bajar, repeatedly ignoring orders of the SC constitutes disrespect for judicial institution
Lawyers must respect court orders and processes and deference shows wilful disregard that must be
punished or subject to disciplinary action.

Because he was previously suspended, he must be meted a higher penalty.

He is suspended for two years from the practice of law for violation of Canons 1, 8, 10, and Rule 12.03 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer’s Oath, effective immediately.