A.

The Lawyer and Society

A.C. No. 10134 November 26, 2014

PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF COURT EMPLOYEES (PACE), represented by its President, ATTY.

VIRGINIA C. RAFAEL, Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. EDNA M. ALIBUTDAN-DIAZ, Respondent.

FACTS: This resolves the complaint for suspension or disbarment filed by the Philippine Association of Court
Employees (PACE) through its president, Atty. Virginia C. Rafael (Atty. Rafael), on July 17, 2008 against Atty.
Edna M. Alibutdan-Diaz (Atty. Diaz), former National Treasurer of PACE, before the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP). PACE, the umbrella association of 1st and 2nd level court employees in the Judiciary held its
11th National Convention/Seminar in Davao City from October 6 to 8, 2005. As then National Treasurer of
PACE, Atty. Diaz was entrusted with all the money matters of PACE.

The complainant alleged that the liquidation for the 11th PACE national convention was submitted by Atty.
Diaz only on March 29, 2007, during the 12th PACE national convention in Iloilo City; that during the 12th
convention, an election of officers was conducted and Atty. Diaz ran for the position of National Treasurer, but
she was not elected; that on the last day of the convention or on March 31, 2007,the outgoing Board of
Directors, including Atty. Diaz, passed and approved Resolution No. 1-2007 appropriating the amount of
30,000.00 as term-end bonus for each PACE official qualified thereto; that Atty. Diaz did not submit a
liquidation report for the 12th convention; that there was no turn over of monies belonging to the association as
a matter of procedure despite a letter of demand, dated June 20, 2007 sent to Atty. Diaz; and that the new set
of PACE officers issued Board Resolution No. 00-07 directing past president, Rosita D. Amizola; and past
treasurer, Atty. Diaz, to explain why they failed to liquidate the finances of PACE for the Davao and Iloilo
conventions.

In her defense, Atty. Diaz countered that she had filed the Statement of Liquidation for the 11th national
convention in Davao in less than a week after the said convention; that it was duly audited by the national
auditor, Letecia Agbayani; that the net proceeds of that convention was "fully accounted, liquidated and entirely
deposited to PACE accounts;"5 that she also filed the Statement of Liquidation for the 12th national convention
on May 22, 2007; that the report, together with the cash, checks and original receipts, were received by Rosita
Amisola and witnessed by former PACE officers;6 that she denied running for re-election as PACE national
treasurer during the Iloilo convention as she had already filed her certificate of candidacy for Board Member of
the First District of Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay;7 that the approval of the ₱30,000.00 term-end bonus did not rest
with her solely, rather, it was approved by the previous board of directors; and that she never sponsored the
bonus, as it was initiated by Aliven Maderaza and seconded by Atty. Lourdes Garcia and Sarah Ampong.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Diaz violated Chapter 1, Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility (CPR), which reads: "A lawyer should not engage in an unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.
HELD: This Court agrees with the IBP-BOG and adopts its June 21, 2013 Extended Resolution. Everyone
should keep in mind that the practice of law is only a privilege. It is definitely not a right. Inorder to enjoy this
privilege, one must show that he possesses, and continues to possess, the qualifications required by law for
the conferment of such privilege.
One of those requirements is the observance of honesty and candor. Candor in all their dealings is the very
essence of a practitioner's honorable membership in the legal profession. Lawyers are required to act with the
highest standard of truthfulness, fair play and nobility in the conduct of litigation and in their relations with their
clients, the opposing parties, the other counsels and the courts. They are bound by their oath to speak the
truth and to conduct themselves according to the best of their knowledge and discretion, and with fidelity to the
courts and their clients.19Time and again, the Court has held that the practice of law is granted only to those of
good moral character. The Bar maintains a high standard of honesty and fair dealing. Thus, lawyers must
conduct themselves beyond reproach at all times, whether they are dealing with their clients or the public at
large, and a violation of the high moral standards of the legal profession justifies the imposition of the
appropriate penalty, including suspension and disbarment
It bears stressing that Atty. Diaz is a servant of the law and belongs to that profession which society entrusts
with the administration of law and the dispensation of justice. For this, he or she is an exemplar for others to
emulate and should not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. Necessarily, this Court
has been exacting in its demand for integrity and good moral character from members of the Bar. They are
always expected to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and to refrain from any act or
omission which might lessen the trust and confidence reposed by the public in the fidelity, honesty, and
integrity of this noble profession.21
Atty. Diaz' delay in the liquidation of the finances of PACE; her running for re-election, including her non-
admission that she ran for said election as shown not by her certificate of candidacy but by the affidavits of
former PACE officers; and her involvement in the approval or passage of the questioned term-end bonus of
PACE officers, including herself even though she was no longer working in the Judiciary, were definitely not
the candor the Court speaks of. There was much to be desired in Atty. Diaz' actions/ inactions.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Edna M. Alibutdan-Diaz is found GUILTY of violating Chapter 1, Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility, and is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of
three (3) months.
Alonso vs. Relamida, Jr. A.C. No. 8481
FACTS:
In March 2001, Jennifer Ebanen filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Servier Philippines, Incorporated
in the NLRC. On July 5, 2002, the labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Servier, stating that Ebanen voluntarily
resigned. Ebanen appealed at the NLRC which only affirmed the appealed decision. Ebanen filed for
reconsideration but was denied. The case eventually reached the Supreme Court. On February 17, 2005, the
Court’s Resolution dated August 4, 2004 has already become final and executory; thus, a corresponding Entry
of Judgment has been issued dismissing the petition and holding that there was no illegal dismissal since
Ebanen voluntarily resigned.
However, despite the judgment, Ebanen through Atty. Relamida, Jr. filed a second complaint on August 5,
2005 for illegal dismissal based on the same cause of action of constructive dismissal against Servier. Thus,
on October 13, 2005, Servier, thru counsel, filed a letter-complaint addressed to the then Chief Justice Hilario
Davide, Jr., praying that respondents be disciplinary sanctioned for violation of the rules on forum shopping
and res judicata.
Respondents admitted the filing of the second complaint against Servier. However, they opined that the
dismissal did not amount to res judicata, since the decision was null and void for lack of due process since the
motion for the issuance of subpoena duces tecum for the production of vital documents filed by the
complainant was ignored by the Labor Arbiter.
ISSUE: Is the respondent guilty of forum shopping and res judicata thus violating Canon 12 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility?
HELD:
During the IBP hearing, Atty. Relamida is ot a lawyer but the daughter of Atty. Aurelio the senior partner of
A.M. Sison Jr. and Partners Law Offices where he is employed as associate lawyer. Atty. Relamida reasoned
out that as a courtesy to Atty. Aurelio and Ebanen, he had no choice but to represent the latter. Moreover, he
stressed that his client was denied of her right to due process due to the denial of her motion for the issuance
of a subpoena duces tecum. He then argued that the decision of the Labor Arbiter was null and void; thus,
there was no res judicata. He maintained that he did not violate the lawyer’s oath by serving the interest of his
client. The IBP-CBD recommended that Atty. Relamida, Jr. be suspended for 6 months for violating the rules
on forum shopping and res judicata.
The Supreme Court agrees to this finding. A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client, but not at the
expense of truth and the administration of justice. The filing of multiple petitions constitutes abuse of the court’s
processes and improper conduct that tends to impede, obstruct and degrade the administration of justice and
will be punished as contempt of court. Needless to state, the lawyer who files such multiple or repetitious
petitions (which obviously delays the execution of a final and executory judgment) subjects himself to
disciplinary action for incompetence (for not knowing any better) or for willful violation of his duties as an
attorney to act with all good fidelity to the courts, and to maintain only such actions as appear to him to be just
and are consistent with truth and honor.
The filing of another action concerning the same subject matter, in violation of the doctrine of res judicata, runs
contrary to Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which requires a lawyer to exert every effort
and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. By his actuations,
respondent also violated Rule 12.02 and Rule 12.04 of the Code, as well as a lawyer’s mandate "to delay no
man for money or malice."
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
WHEREFORE, Resolution No. XVIII-2008-286, dated June 5, 2008, of the IBP, which found respondent Atty.
Ibaro B. Relamida, Jr. guilty of violating the Rules on Res Judicata and Forum Shopping, is AFFIRMED. Atty.
Relaminda is hereby SUSPENDED for six (6) months from the practice of law, effective upon the receipt of this
Decision
OVERGAARD V. VALDEZ Sept. 30, 2008
FACTS: Overgaard is a Dutch national who engaged the services of Atty. Valdez. They entered into a retainer
agreement, providing that for 900K, Valdez would represent Overgaard as counsel in 2 cases filed by him (Estafa and
a mandamus case) and 2 cases filed against him (Other Light threats and violation of the Anti-Violation against
women and their children act).
Overgaard sent $16, 854 to Atty. Valdez via telegraphic bank transfer. 4 months after, Overgaard demanded for a
report on the status of his cases. In spite of many phone calls and emails, Valdez couldn’t be reached. Hence,
Overgaard inquired on his own, and discovered that Valdez didn’t file his entry of appearance in any of the cases, that
a counter-affidavit was required from him, and that the criminal cases against him have already been arraigned and
warrants were issued for his arrest. He was constrained to find a new lawyer.
Overgaard then wrote again and tried to locate Valdez to demand the return of documents entrusted to the latter, as
well as the $16K payment. No word was heard from Valdez. Overgaard filed a case with the IBP for Valdez’s
dismissal for gross malpractice, immoral character, dishonesty and deceitful conduct. The IBP required Valdez to file
an answer, but he did not comply. He also failed to attend the hearing and was declared in default. Later, a
clarificatory hearing was set, but Valdez never showed. IBP found him guilty of violating canons 1, 15, 16, 17, and 18
and his penalty was a 3-year suspension and he was ordered to return Overgaard’s money.
ISSUE: W/N Valdez should be disbaared? Yes
HELD: SC agrees with the findings of IBP, but declared that Valdez be disbarred for falling below the standards
required of lawyers.
Canon 18 provides that a lawyer must serve his client with competence and diligence. Rule 18.03 requires a lawyer
to not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence will make him liable. Valdez should indeed be liable
because he was not just incompetent, he was useless; not just negligent, he was indolent; and rather than helping his
client, he prejudiced him. He abandoned his client and left him without any recourse. It was a clear evasion of duty.
Also, his failure to act on the disbarment case against him, without any explanation, is a clear evidence of negligence
on his part. Rule 18.04 requires that a lawyer keep his client informed of the status of his case and to respond within
reasonable time to the client’s request for information. Despite Overgaard’s efforts, Valdez avoided his client and
never bothered to reply. Clearly, the rule was violated.
Valdez committed multiple violations of the canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility by having taken full
retainer's fee and not having done anything regarding Complainant Overgaard's cases to the latter's prejudice and
dismay.
Rule 139, Sec. 27 Grounds for DISBARMENT/suspension:
 deceit
 malpractice or other gross misconduct in such office
 grossly immoral conduct
 conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude
 violation of the lawyer's oath
 willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court
 willful appearance as an attorney for a party without authority
In this case, SC finds that suspension for 3 years recommended by the IBP is not sufficient punishment for the
unacceptable acts and omissions of Respondent Valdez. For violating elementary principles of professional ethics
and failing to observe the fundamental duties of honesty and good faith, respondent has proven himself unworthy of
membership in this noble profession.
Joselano Guevarra v. Atty Jose Emmanuel Eala, AC No.7136, August 1, 2007
Facts: Wife of petitioner, Irene Moje was having an illicit affair with respondent. In his complaint, Guevarra gave the
following account: He first met respondent in January 2000 when his then-fiancee Irene introduced respondent to him
as her friend who was married to Marianne (sometimes spelled Mary Ann) Tantoco with whom he had three children
After his marriage to Irene on October 7, 2000, complainant noticed that from January to March 2001, Irene had been
receiving from respondent cellphone calls, as well as messages some of which read I love you, I miss you, or Meet
you at Megamall. Complainant also noticed that Irene habitually went home very late at night or early in the morning
of the following day, and sometimes did not go home from work. When he asked about her whereabouts, she replied
that she slept at her parents house in Binangonan, Rizal or she was busy with her work. Guevarra saw Irene and
respondent together on two occasions. On the second occasion, he confronted them following which Irene
abandoned the conjugal house. On April 22, 2001, complainant went uninvited to Irenes birthday celebration at which
he saw her and respondent celebrating with her family and friends. Out of embarrassment, anger and humiliation, he
left the venue immediately. Following that incident, Irene went to the conjugal house and hauled off all her personal
belongings, pieces of furniture, and her share of the household appliances.
After leaving the conjugal home, petitioner found out that Irene and respondent was living together in a residential
house few blocks away from the church they were married. Few months thereafter, Irene gave birth to a baby girl and
wrote the name of the respondent as the father in the certificate of live birth.
Petitioner filed a petition for annulment of marriage to Irene and a criminal complaint for adultery against respondent
and Irene. Petitioner also filed a complaint for disbarment before the IBP-CBD on the ground of gross immoral
conduct and unmitigated violation of the lawyer's oath which was dismissed by the IBP Board of Governors due to
lack of merit.
Hence, the petition of complaint before the Supreme Court.
Issue: Would an illicit affair between a married lawyer and a married woman constitute gross immoral conduct?
Ruling: Yes. Eala is DSIBAARED. Whether a lawyer's sexual congress with a woman not his wife or without the
benefit of marriage should be characterized as 'grossly immoral conduct' depends on the surrounding circumstances."
The case at bar involves a relationship between a married lawyer and a married woman who is not his wife. It is
immaterial whether the affair was carried out discreetly. Sexual relations outside marriage is considered disgraceful
and immoral as it manifests deliberate disregard of the sanctity of marriage and the marital vows protected by the
Constitution and affirmed by our laws. (Vitug v. Rongcal)
Respondent has been carrying on an illicit affair with a married woman, a grossly immoral conduct and indicative of
an extremely low regard for the fundamental ethics of his profession. This detestable behavior renders him regrettably
unfit and undeserving of the treasured honor and privileges which his license confers upon him. Eala in fact also
violated the lawyer's oath he took before admission to practice law.
Respondent admittedly is aware of Section 2 of Article XV (The Family) of the Constitution reading: Section 2.
Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the family and shall be protected by the State.
In this connection, the Family Code (Executive Order No. 209), which echoes this constitutional provision, obligates
the husband and the wife "to live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render mutual help and
support." Furthermore, respondent violated Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which
proscribes a lawyer from engaging in "unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct," and Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 of
the same Code which proscribes a lawyer from engaging in any "conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to
practice law."
WHEREFORE, Petition is GRANTED. Respondent, Atty. Jose Emmanuel M. Eala, is DISBARRED for grossly
immoral conduct, violation of his oath of office, and violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility.
Jasper Rodica vs Atty. Manuel Lazaro et al, AC No. 9259, August 23, 2012

"The power to disbar or suspend ought always to be exercised on the preservative and not on the vindicative
principle, with great caution and only for the most weighty reasons."

Facts: This is a disbarment complaint filed by Rodica against the respondent Atty. Lazaro on grounds of gross and
serious misconduct, deceit, malpractice, grossly immoral conduct and violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. On May 5, 2011, William Strong was arrested and detained by the Bureau of Immigration for allegedly
being involved in an international gang and conspiracy in Brazil on fraud involving the creation of hundreds of dollars
in illegal securities. Strong requested his friend Philip Apostol to look for a lawyer. Apostol recommended the Lazaro
Law Office represented by Atty. Manuel Lazaro and his associates who initially declined but later accepted to handle
the deportation case.

Strong initiated giving the information that his deportation case may be due to the complaint filed by his live-in partner
Jasper Rodica before the RTC against the Hillview Marketing Corporation for recovery and possession and damages
involving a property they have in Boracay which is represented by Atty. Tan. Rodica was represented by Atty.
Ibutnande in this case. Apparently, Rodica claimed that Atty. Manuel met with Atty. Tan to discuss the settlement
package on the deportation case they filed against Strong on the condition that Rodica withdraws her complaint from
the RTC of Cebu.

On May 25, 2011 the Bureau of Immigration rendered a judgment deporting Strong to leave the country. On June 6,
2011 Rodica filed before the RTC a motion to withdraw her complaint against Hillview. Rodica now alleges that after
Strong was deported and withdrawing the case before the RTC, she was deceived by Atty Manuel et al for over
settlement of 7 million which was allegedly extorted from her after misrepresenting that the withdrawal of the case
before the RTC is only a part of the settlement package.

It appears on the record that Atty. Espejo, an associate of the Lazaro Law office helped in drafting the Manifestation
with Motion to Withdraw Motion for Reconsideration after Rodica pleaded him to prepare the motion and was
requested further to indicate the name of the Lazaro Law Office including the name of Atty. Manuel and Atty. Michelle
to give more weight on the pleading. Rodica promised Atty. Espejo to talk to Atty. Manuel about it. The case before
the RTC was actually dismissed on March 29, 2011 for failure to show cause of action but a motion for
reconsideration was filed by Rodica.

Issue: Whether or not the allegations of Rodica merit the disbarment of the respondents.

Ruling The court ruled that Rodica failed to overcome the presumption of innocence of the respondents. As a general
rule, lawyers enjoy the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof rests upon the complainant to clearly prove
the allegations made against them. The required quantum of proof is preponderance of evidence which is an
evidence which is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto.

On Rodica's claim with regards to the settlement package, the court find it without merit because she withdrew her
complaint only after the deportation of Strong. It was also evident on record that the said case was already dismissed
even before the deportation case was filed only she filed a motion for reconsideration. Therefore, it cannot be said
that her withdrawal of the complaint is a settlement consideration regarding the deportation case of Strong. Moreover,
Strong is not a party to the case she filed before the RTC therefore there is no connection between these 2 cases.

There was sufficient preponderance of evidence that was presented that the cause of her withdrawal of the complaint
is to facilitate the sale of her property in Boracay. According to Atty. Espejo who helped Rodica draft the motion for
withdrawal of the complaint, the said withdrawal is for the purpose of selling her property to Apostol. Apostol further
corroborated that he told Rodica he is willing to purchase the property once it is free from any pending case. Rodica
promised him to work on the termination of the pending case attached to the property to make the sale.
On her claim to have paid 7 million to Atty. Manuel et al, she failed to substantiate such claim despite showing off
withdrawals from her bank account certain amount of money after failing to prove that the said amount was paid to
the respondents. Moreover, the court held that Rodica is not a client of Lazaro Law Office. They merely handled the
deportation case of Strong.

As for Atty. Espejo, the court found him to have aided Rodica for misrepresenting before the court that she was aided
by the Lazaro Law Office when in fact she is not. Atty. Espejo explained that Rodica assured him to talk to Atty.
Manuel and Atty. Michelle about including their name on the pleading but she did not do so. Atty. Espejo should have
known better that Atty. Ibutnande was the counsel on record on the case before the RTC and therefore it is not his
duty to prepare said pleading. He also should have known that all pleadings before the court are acted based on merit
or the lack of it and not by the name of the law firm. However, the court give due recognition on the fact that Atty.
Espejo expressed remorse on his conduct and made a sincere apology to the RTC for wrongly employing the name
of the Lazaro Law Office and that he was newly admitted to the Bar in 2010, the court find it proper to give him a
warning to become more prudent on his actuation in the practice of his profession.

The complaint for disbarment was dismissed.

B. The Lawyer and the Legal Profession
 ATTY. ISMAEL KHAN V. ATTY RIZALINO SIMBILLO

FACTS
A paid advertisement in the Philippine Daily Inquirer was published which
reads: “Annulment of Marriage Specialist [contact number]”. Espeleta, a staff of the
Supreme Court, called up the number but it was Mrs. Simbillo who answered. She
claims that her husband, Atty. Simbillo was an expert in handling annulment cases
and can guarantee a court decree within 4-6mos provided the case will not involve
separation of property and custody of children. It appears that similar advertisements
were also published.
An administrative complaint was filed which was referred to the IBP for
investigation and recommendation. The IBP resolved to suspend Atty. Simbillo for
1year. Note that although the name of Atty. Simbillo did not appear in the
advertisement, he admitted the acts imputed against him but argued that he should
not be charged. He said that it was time to lift the absolute prohibition against
advertisement because the interest of the public isn’t served in any way by the
prohibition.

ISSUE
Whether or not Simbillo violated Rule2.03 & Rule3.01.

HELD
Yes!
The practice of law is not a business --- it is a profession in which the
primary duty is public service and money. Gaining livelihood is a secondary
consideration while duty to public service and administration of justice should be
primary. Lawyers should subordinate their primary interest.
Worse, advertising himself as an “annulment of marriage specialist” he
erodes and undermines the sanctity of an institution still considered as sacrosanct ---
he in fact encourages people otherwise disinclined to dissolve their marriage bond.
Solicitation of business is not altogether proscribed but for it to be proper it
must be compatible with the dignity of the legal profession. Note that the law list
where the lawyer’s name appears must be a reputable law list only for that purpose --
- a lawyer may not properly publish in a daily paper, magazine…etc., nor may a
lawyer permit his name to be published the contents of which are likely to deceive or
injure the public or the bar.
Narido v Linsangan 157 Phil 87
This case arose from a labor dispute where Atty. Rufino Risma
represented Flora Narido, an indigent client against her employer
Vergel De Dios, the client of Atty. Jaime Linsangan. During the
proceedings in the trial court, Atty. Risma vehemently opposed the
submission of a certain affidavit executed by De Dios because, in
the belief of Risma, said affidavit is perjured. He threatened Atty.
Linsangan that if said affidavit is submitted in court, they shall file a
disbarment case against him. The affidavit was filed and so Risma
and Narido filed an administrative case against Linsangan.
Linsangan on the other hand filed a separate administrative case
against Risma where he accused Risma of instigating his client to
file an administrative case against him; that said administrative
case is groundless; that it was only filed to spite him and is just a
mere scheme to threaten him and to ensure that Risma and Narido
has an edge over the labor case.
ISSUE: Whether or not both administrative cases should prosper.
HELD: No. The Supreme Court adopted the findings of the
Solicitor General where it was recommended that both
administrative cases are not well merited.
In the administrative case against Linsangan, it was found out that
there is no sufficient evidence to prove that De Dios’ affidavit is
perjured. Or if even so, there is no showing that Linsangan was in
bad faith for it was not proven that he has the intention of
misleading the court.
In the administrative case against Risma, it was not proven that he
instigated Narido. It was Risma’s zeal in protecting his client’s
interest that made him to convince Narido to file an administrative
case against Linsangan. There was no bad faith on the part of
Risma. He even advanced the expenses because Narido is
indigent.
HOWEVER, it was found that Risma made an arrangement with
Narido that he shall collect 15% from whatever amount they shall
collect from De Dios as a result of the labor case. Risma was
admonished for this; that under the Workmen’s Compensation Act,
he’s only allowed to collect a maximum of 10%. He’s advised to
keep abreast of said law.