Anda di halaman 1dari 8

SECOND DIVISION

[A.C. No. 4634. September 24, 1997]

JESUS CABARRUS, JR., complainant, vs. JOSE ANTONIO BERNAS, respondents.

DECISION
TORRES, JR., J.:

On August 30, 1996, Mr. Jesus Cabarrus, Jr. filed and administrative complaint for
disbarment against Atty. Jose Antonio Bernas for alleged violations of Article 172 of the Revised
Penal Code and Code of professional Resposibility. In his complaint-affidavit [1] dated August
12, 1996, complainant alleged as follows:

A.That on April 16, 1996, respondent Ramon B. Pascual, Jr., subscribe under oath before Marie
Lourdes T. SiaBernas, a notary public in Makati City, wife of lawyer jose Antonio Bernas, a
verification and certification of non-forum shopping which was appended to a complaint for
reconveyance of property and damages, denominated as Civil Case No. 65646, filed before the
Regional Trial Court in National Capital Region, RTC, which case was raffled to RTC Branch
159 in Pasig City. A photocopy of said complaint is hereto attached and marked as Annexex (sic)
A, A-1, A-3, A-4, A-5 and A-6;

B.That as basis for the instant complaint for falsification of public document, I am hereto quoting
verbatim, the test (sic) of Annex A-6, the verification and certification of non-forum shopping
which states:

Ramon B. Pascual, Jr., under oath, depose and states:

He is the plaintiff in this case, and certify that he cause the preparation of the foregoing pleading,
the content of which are true to his personal knowledge and that he has not commenced any
other action or proceeding involving the same issues in any court, including the Supreme Court,
the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency. If he should learn that a similar action of
(sic) proceeding has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court or any other Tribunal
agency, he undertake to report to (sic) that the fact within Five (5) days from the notice to this
notice (sic) to this Honorable Court. Underscoring supplied.

C.That the cause of action relied upon by the respondents in Civil Case No. 65646 is fraud,
facilitated by forgery as gleaned from paragraph 15, 16, and 22;

D.That contrary to the tenor, import and meanoing (sic) of the allegation under 1-B of the instant
complaint, respondent and his counsel Jose Antonio Bernas caused the preparation and filing of a
criminal complaint for falsification of a public document on April 11, 1996, (three days before
the filing of the aforecited Civil Case) at the AOED of the National Bureau of Investigation if
(sic) Taff (sic) Ave., a xerox copy of said complaint is hereto attached and marked as Annex B.

D-1.That as stated in Annex B, the gravaman of the affidavit complaint of the respondent is
forgery, the same legal issue in Civil Case No. 65646;

D-2.That as early as August 14, 1995, respondent counsel, Jose Antonio Bernas filed a written
complaint at the NBI for the same cause of action which was reiterated in another letter
submitting to the NBI standard specimen signitures dated October 1995, copies of said letter
complaint are hereto attached and marked as Annexes (sic) C.
E. That respondent Ramon B. Pascual, Jr., on the basis of Annexes A, B, C, D, inclusive of
submarkings knowingly subverted and perverted the truth when he falsify certified (sic) and
verified under oath in the verification and certification of non-forum shopping, that:

He has not commenced any other action or proceeding involving the same issues in any court,
including the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other Tribunal or agency. Where
verification-certification was placed under oath and was conveniently notarized by the wife of
the counsel of respondent in both cases at Branch 159 of the RTC in Pasig and at the NBI, an
agency within the ambis (sic) and purview of the circulus (sic) of the Supreme Court prohibiting
forum shopping.

F. That Jose Antonio Bernas, the counsel on record of the respondents in Civil Case No. 65646 is
the same lawyer who instigated a criminal complaint at the NBI for forgery and respondents
themselves conspired and confabulated with each other in facilitating and insuring the open,
blatant and deliberate violation of Art. 172 of the Revised Penal Code which states:

Art. 172. Falsification by private individual and use of falsified documents.- The penalty of
prison correctional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine of not more than p 5,000
pesos shall be imposed upon:

1. Any private individual who shall commit any of the falsifications enumerated in the next
preceding article in any public or official document or letter of exchange (sic) or any other kind
of commercial documents; and

2. Any person who, to the damage of the third party, or with the intent to cause such damage,
shall in any private document commit any of the acts of falsification enumerated in the next
preceding article.

Any person who shall knowingly introduce in evidence in any judicial proceeding or the damage
of another or who, with the intent to cause such damage , shall use any of the false documents
embraced in the next preceding article, or any of the foregoing subdivisions of this article, shall
be punished by the penalty next lower in degree.

G. That Atty. Jose Antonio Bernas should be disbarred for having instigated abetted and
facilitated the perversion and subversion of truth in the said verification and certification of non-
forum shopping.Contrary to Canon 1, Rule 1.01, 1.02, Canon 3, 3.01, Canon 10 of the code of
Professional responsibility for Lawyers, the pertinent provisions of which are herein below
quoted and a copy of said code is hereto attached and marked as Annex E;

CANON 1. A. LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF


THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES.

Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in lawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful (sic) conduct.

Rule 1.02 - A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities simed (sic) at defiance of the law or at
lessening confidence in the legal system.

CANON 3 A. LAWYER IN MAKING KNOWN HIS LEGAL SERVICES SHALL USE ONLY
TRUE, HONEST, FAIR, DIGNIFIED AND OBJECTIVE INFORMATION OF (sic)
STATEMENT OF FACTS.

Rule 3.01 - A lawyer shall not use or permit the use of any false, fraudulent, misleading,
deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory or unfair statement or claim regarding his qualified (sic) or
legal services.

CANON 10. A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE
COURT.
In his Comment, [2] respondents Jose Antonio Bernas avers that he has not committed forum
shopping because the criminal action is not an action that involves the same issue as those in the
civil action and both suits can exist without constituting forum shopping so long as the civil
aspect has not yet been prosecuted in the criminal case. He emphasized that forum shopping only
exist when identical reliefs are issued by the same parties in multiple fora.
In his Supplemental Comment,[3] respondent further contends that neither he or his client
Pascual has commenced any criminal action. Pascual merely requested the NBI to assist in the
investigation or prosecution, and left it to the NBI to determine whether the filing of an
endorsement to the prosecutor, who would determine probable caused, would be appropriate. It
was only upon request of the NBI the he assisted Ramon Pascual in drafting an affidavit-
complaint for falsification of public documents against complainant. Likewise, respondent by
counsel reiterates that the letter transmitted to the NBI cannot constitute an action or proceeding
because the NBIs functions are merely investigatory and informational in nature. NBI has no
prosecutorial functions or quasi-judicial power and is incapable of granting relief or remedy. The
NBI cannot be an agency contemplated by the circular.
The core issue to be resolved here is whether respondent Atty. Bernas transgressed Circular
No. 28-91, Revised Circular No. 28-91, and administrative Circular No. 04-94 on forum
shopping.
After a careful scrutiny of the records, we find the administrative complaint bereft of merit
and should be dismissed.
There is forum-shopping whenever, as a result of an adverse opinion in one forum, a party
seeks a favorable opinion (other than by appeal or certiorari) in another. Therefore, a party to a
case resort to forum shopping because by filling another petition involving the same essential
facts and circumstances, xxx, respondents approached two different for a in order to increase
their chances of obtaining a favorable decision or action, [4] In this case, there is no forum
shopping to speak of Atty. Bernas, as counsel of Mr. Pascual, Jr., merely requested the assistance
of the NBI to investigate the the alleged fraud and forgery committed by Mr. Jesus
Cabarrus.[5] The filing of the civil case for conveyance and damages before the Regional Trial
Court of Pasig City does not preclude respondent to institute a criminal action. The rule allows
the filing of a civil case independently with the criminal case without violating the circulars on
forum shopping. It is scarcely necessary to add that Circular No. 28-91 must be so interpreted
and applied as to achieve the purposes projected by the Supreme Court when it promulgated that
Circular No. 28-91 was designed to serve as an instrument to promote and facilitate the orderly
administration of justice and should not be interpreted with such absolute literalness as to subvert
and legitimate objective or the goal of all rules of procedure-which is to achieve substantial
justice as expeditiously as possible.[6]
Adjunct to this, Act No. 157 [7], specifically section 1 hereof provides, viz:

Section 1. There is hereby created a Bureau of Investigation under the Department of Justice
which shall have the following functions:

(a) To undertake investigation of crimes and other offenses against the laws of the Philippines,
upon its initiative and as public interest may require;

(b) To render assistance, whenever properly requested in the investigation or detection of crimes
and other offenses;

(c) To act as a national clearing house of criminal and other infromations for the benefit and use
of the prosecuting and law-enforcement entities of the Philippines, identification records
of all person without criminal convictions, records of identifying marks, characteristics,
and ownership or possession of all firearms as well as bullets fired therefrom;

(d) To give technical aid to all prosecuting and law-enforcement officers and entities of the
Government as well as the courts that may request its services;
(e) To extend its services, whenever properly requested in the investigation of cases of
administrative or civil nature in which the Government is interested;

(f) To undertake the instruction and training of representative number of city and municipal
peace officers at the request of their respective superiors along effective methods of
crime investigation and detection in order to insure greater efficiency in the discharge of
their duties;

(g) To establish and maintain an up-to-date scientific crime laboratory and to conduct researches
inn furtherance of scientific knowledge in criminal investigation;

(h) To perform such other related function as the secretary of Justice may assign from time to
time.

Explicitly, the function of the National Bureau of Investigations are merely investigatory
and informational in nature. It has no judicial or quasi-judicial powers and is incapable of
granting any relief to a party. It cannot even determine probable cause. It is an investigative
agency whose findings are merely recommendatory. It undertakes investigation of crimes upon
its own initiative and as public welfare may require. It renders assistance when requested in the
investigation or detection of crimes which precisely what Atty. Bernas sought in order to
prosecute those person responsible for defrauding his client.
The courts, tribunal and agencies referred to under Circular No. 28-91, revised Circular No.
28-91 and Administrative Circular No. 04-94 are those vested with judicial powers or quasi-
judicial powers and those who not only hear and determine controversies between adverse
parties, but to make binding orders or judgments. As succinctly put it by R.A. 157, the NBI is not
performing judicial or quasi-judicial functions. The NBI cannot therefore be among those forums
contemplated by the Circular that can entertain an action or proceeding, or even grant any relief,
declaratory or otherwise.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant complaint is hereby DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.

FIRST DIVISION

PEDRO L. LINSANGAN, A.C. No. 6672


Complainant,
Present:
PUNO, C.J., Chairperson,
CARPIO,
- v e r s u s - CORONA,
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO and
BERSAMIN, JJ.
ATTY. NICOMEDES TOLENTINO,
Respondent. Promulgated:
September 4, 2009
x-----------------------------------------x
RESOLUTION

CORONA, J.:
This is a complaint for disbarment[1] filed by Pedro Linsangan of the
LinsanganLinsangan&Linsangan Law Office against Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino for solicitation
of clients and encroachment of professional services.
Complainant alleged that respondent, with the help of paralegal Fe Marie Labiano, convinced his
clients[2] to transfer legal representation. Respondent promised them financial assistance[3] and
expeditious collection on their claims.[4] To induce them to hire his services, he persistently
called them and sent them text messages.

To support his allegations, complainant presented the sworn affidavit[5] of James Gregorio
attesting that Labiano tried to prevail upon him to sever his lawyer-client relations with
complainant and utilize respondents services instead, in exchange for a loan of P50,000.
Complainant also attached respondents calling card:[6]

Front 6th Ave., cor M.H. Del Pilar Fax: (632) 362-
7821
NICOMEDES TOLENTINO
Grace Park, Caloocan City Cel.: (0926)
LAW OFFFICE
2701719
CONSULTANCY & MARITIME
SERVICES
Back
W/ FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
SERVICES OFFERED:
CONSULTATION AND ASSISTANCE
Fe Marie L. Labiano
TO OVERSEAS SEAMEN
Paralegal
REPATRIATED DUE TO ACCIDENT,
INJURY, ILLNESS, SICKNESS, DEATH
1st MIJI Mansion, 2nd Flr. Rm. M-01 Tel:
362-7820 AND INSURANCE BENEFIT CLAIMS
ABROAD.
(emphasis supplied)
Hence, this complaint.
Respondent, in his defense, denied knowing Labiano and authorizing the printing and circulation
of the said calling card.[7]
The complaint was referred to the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation.[8]
Based on testimonial and documentary evidence, the CBD, in its report and
recommendation,[9] found that respondent had encroached on the professional practice of
complainant, violating Rule 8.02[10] and other canons[11] of the Code of Professional
Responsibility (CPR). Moreover, he contravened the rule against soliciting cases for gain,
personally or through paid agents or brokers as stated in Section 27, Rule 138[12] of the Rules of
Court. Hence, the CBD recommended that respondent be reprimanded with a stern warning that
any repetition would merit a heavier penalty.
We adopt the findings of the IBP on the unethical conduct of respondent but we modify the
recommended penalty.
The complaint before us is rooted on the alleged intrusion by respondent into complainants
professional practice in violation of Rule 8.02 of the CPR. And the means employed by
respondent in furtherance of the said misconduct themselves constituted distinct violations of
ethical rules.
Canons of the CPR are rules of conduct all lawyers must adhere to, including the manner by
which a lawyers services are to be made known. Thus, Canon 3 of the CPR provides:

CANON 3 - A LAWYER IN MAKING KNOWN HIS LEGAL SERVICES SHALL USE


ONLY TRUE, HONEST, FAIR, DIGNIFIED AND OBJECTIVE INFORMATION OR
STATEMENT OF FACTS.
Time and time again, lawyers are reminded that the practice of law is a profession and not a
business; lawyers should not advertise their talents as merchants advertise their wares.[13] To
allow a lawyer to advertise his talent or skill is to commercialize the practice of law, degrade the
profession in the publics estimation and impair its ability to efficiently render that high character
of service to which every member of the bar is called.[14]

Rule 2.03 of the CPR provides:

RULE 2.03. A LAWYER SHALL NOT DO OR PERMIT TO BE DONE ANY ACT


DESIGNED PRIMARILY TO SOLICIT LEGAL BUSINESS.

Hence, lawyers are prohibited from soliciting cases for the purpose of gain, either personally or
through paid agents or brokers.[15] Such actuation constitutes malpractice, a ground for
disbarment.[16]

Rule 2.03 should be read in connection with Rule 1.03 of the CPR which provides:

RULE 1.03. A LAWYER SHALL NOT, FOR ANY CORRUPT MOTIVE OR INTEREST,
ENCOURAGE ANY SUIT OR PROCEEDING OR DELAY ANY MANS CAUSE.

This rule proscribes ambulance chasing (the solicitation of almost any kind of legal business by
an attorney, personally or through an agent in order to gain employment)[17] as a measure to
protect the community from barratry and champerty.[18]
Complainant presented substantial evidence[19] (consisting of the sworn statements of the very
same persons coaxed by Labiano and referred to respondents office) to prove that respondent
indeed solicited legal business as well as profited from referrals suits.
Although respondent initially denied knowing Labiano in his answer, he later admitted it during
the mandatory hearing.
Through Labianos actions, respondents law practice was benefited. Hapless seamen were enticed
to transfer representation on the strength of Labianos word that respondent could produce a more
favorable result.
Based on the foregoing, respondent clearly solicited employment violating Rule 2.03, and Rule
1.03 and Canon 3 of the CPR and Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
With regard to respondents violation of Rule 8.02 of the CPR, settled is the rule that a lawyer
should not steal another lawyers client nor induce the latter to retain him by a promise of better
service, good result or reduced fees for his services.[20] Again the Court notes that respondent
never denied having these seafarers in his client list nor receiving benefits from Labianos
referrals. Furthermore, he never denied Labianos connection to his office.[21] Respondent
committed an unethical, predatory overstep into anothers legal practice. He cannot escape
liability under Rule 8.02 of the CPR.
Moreover, by engaging in a money-lending venture with his clients as borrowers, respondent
violated Rule 16.04:
Rule 16.04 A lawyer shall not borrow money from his client unless the clients interests are fully
protected by the nature of the case or by independent advice. Neither shall a lawyer lend money
to a client except, when in the interest of justice, he has to advance necessary expenses in a legal
matter he is handling for the client.
The rule is that a lawyer shall not lend money to his client. The only exception is, when in the
interest of justice, he has to advance necessary expenses (such as filing fees, stenographers fees
for transcript of stenographic notes, cash bond or premium for surety bond, etc.) for a matter that
he is handling for the client.
The rule is intended to safeguard the lawyers independence of mind so that the free exercise of
his judgment may not be adversely affected.[22] It seeks to ensure his undivided attention to the
case he is handling as well as his entire devotion and fidelity to the clients cause. If the lawyer
lends money to the client in connection with the clients case, the lawyer in effect acquires an
interest in the subject matter of the case or an additional stake in its outcome.[23] Either of these
circumstances may lead the lawyer to consider his own recovery rather than that of his client, or
to accept a settlement which may take care of his interest in the verdict to the prejudice of the
client in violation of his duty of undivided fidelity to the clients cause.[24]
As previously mentioned, any act of solicitation constitutes malpractice[25] which calls for the
exercise of the Courts disciplinary powers. Violation of anti-solicitation statutes warrants serious
sanctions for initiating contact with a prospective client for the purpose of obtaining
employment.[26] Thus, in this jurisdiction, we adhere to the rule to protect the public from the
Machiavellian machinations of unscrupulous lawyers and to uphold the nobility of the legal
profession.
Considering the myriad infractions of respondent (including violation of the prohibition on
lending money to clients), the sanction recommended by the IBP, a mere reprimand, is a wimpy
slap on the wrist. The proposed penalty is grossly incommensurate to its findings.
A final word regarding the calling card presented in evidence by petitioner. A lawyers best
advertisement is a well-merited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust based on
his character and conduct.[27] For this reason, lawyers are only allowed to announce their services
by publication in reputable law lists or use of simple professional cards.
Professional calling cards may only contain the following details:

(a) lawyers name;


(b) name of the law firm with which he is connected;
(c) address;
(d) telephone number and
(e) special branch of law practiced.[28]

Labianos calling card contained the phrase with financial assistance. The phrase was clearly
used to entice clients (who already had representation) to change counsels with a promise of
loans to finance their legal actions. Money was dangled to lure clients away from their original
lawyers, thereby taking advantage of their financial distress and emotional vulnerability. This
crass commercialism degraded the integrity of the bar and deserved no place in the legal
profession. However, in the absence of substantial evidence to prove his culpability, the Court is
not prepared to rule that respondent was personally and directly responsible for the printing and
distribution of Labianos calling cards.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino for violating Rules 1.03, 2.03, 8.02 and
16.04 and Canon 3 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Section 27, Rule 138 of the
Rules of Court is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one
year effective immediately from receipt of this resolution. He is STERNLY WARNED that a
repetition of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
Dacanay vs. Baker & McKenzie [10 May 1985]
Post under case digests, Legal Ethics at Monday, March 05, 2012 Posted by Schizophrenic Mind
Facts: Lawyer Adriano E. Dacanay sought to enjoin respondents from practicing law under the
name of Baker &McKenize, a law firmorganized in Illinois.

A letter dated 16 November 1979, using the letterhead of the said firm and carrying the name of
the respondents, requested Rosie Clurman to release 87 shares of Cathay Products International,
Inc. to H.E. Gabriel, a client. Atty. Dacanay, in his reply dated 07 December 1979, denied any
liability of Clurman to Gabriel. He asked whether Gabriel is represented by Baker & McKenzie,
and if not, why they misrepresented themselves by using the letterhead of another law firm. Not
receiving a reply, he filed this instant complaint.

Issue: Whether or not respondents can make use of the firm name Baker & McKenzie

Held: Baker & McKenzie, being an alien law firm, cannot practice law in the Philippines. The
respondents, members of the PhilippineBar and practicing under the firm name of Guerrero &
Torres, are members or associates of Baker & McKenzie. Respondents’ use ofthe firm name
constitutes a representation that they could “render legal services of the higher quality to
multinational business enterprises and others engaged in foreign trade and investment.” This is
unethical, as Baker & McKenzie is unauthorized to practise here.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai