CAYETANO V.
MONSOD Interpreted in the light of the various definitions of the term "Practice
FACTS: Respondent Christian Monsod was nominated by President
Corazon C. Aquino to the position of Chairman of the COMELEC in a
letter received by the Secretariat of the Commission on Appointments
on April 25, 1991. Petitioner opposed the nomination because
allegedly Monsod does not possess the required qualification of having
been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.
On June 5, 1991, the Commission on Appointments confirmed the
nomination of Monsod as Chairman of the COMELEC. On June 18,
1991, he took his oath of office. On the same day, he assumed office as
Chairman of the COMELEC.
Challenging the validity of the confirmation by the Commission on
Appointments of Monsod's nomination, petitioner as a citizen and
taxpayer, filed the instant petition for certiorari and Prohibition praying
that said confirmation and the consequent appointment of Monsod as
Chairman of the Commission on Elections be declared null and void.
Atty. Christian Monsod is a member of the Philippine Bar, having
passed the bar examinations of 1960 with a grade of 86-55%. He has
been a dues paying member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
since its inception in 1972-73. He has also been paying his
professional license fees as lawyer for more than ten years. (p. 124,
Rollo)
ISSUE: WN Christian Monsod has engaged in the practice of law for
at least 10 years?
HELD: YES. Practice of law means any activity, in or out of court,
which requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge,
training and experience. "To engage in the practice of law is to perform
those acts which are characteristics of the profession. Generally, to
practice law is to give notice or render any kind of service, which
device or service requires the use in any degree of legal knowledge or
skill."
of law". particularly the modern concept of law practice, and taking
into consideration the liberal construction intended by the framers of
the Constitution, Atty. Monsod's past work experiences as a lawyer-
economist, a lawyer-manager, a lawyer-entrepreneur of industry, a
lawyer-negotiator of contracts, and a lawyer-legislator of both the rich
and the poor — verily more than satisfy the constitutional requirement
— that he has been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.
Victor Lingan VS. Attys. Romeo Calubaquib and Jimmu P. Baliga
A.C. No. 5377, June 15, 2006
FACTS: A complaint for disbarment was filed by Victor
Lingan against Attys. Romeo Calubaquib and Jimmy Baliga on
November 16, 2000. Complainant alleged that respondents, both
notaries public, falsified certain public documents.
Respondents Calubaquib and Baliga both admitted the
incorrectness of the entries and simply attributed them to the
inadvertence in good faith of their secretary and legal assistants to
whom they had left the task of entering all his notarial documents.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondents violated the Notarial Practice Law
RULING: It is abundantly clear that the notary public is personally
accountable for all entries in his notarial register. Section 245 of
the Notarial Law provides that every notary public shall keep a register
to be known as the notarial register, wherein record shall be made
of all his official acts as notary; and he shall supply a certified copy of
such record, or any part thereof, to any person applying for it and
paying the legal fees therefore.
Respondents cannot be relieved of responsibility for the
violation of the aforesaid sections by passing the buck to their
secretaries, a reprehensible practice which to this day persists despite
our open condemnation.
Notarization is not an empty, meaningless or routinary act but
one invested with substantive public interest, such that only those who
are qualified or authorized to do so may act as notaries public. The
protection of that interest necessarily requires that those not qualified
or authorized to act must be prevented from inflicting themselves upon
the public, the courts and the administrative offices in general.
Notarization by a notary public converts a private document
into a public one and makes it admissible in evidence without further
proof of its authenticity. Notaries public must therefore observe utmost
care with respect to the basic requirements of their duties.
DOMINADOR P. BURBE VS. ATTY. ALBERTO C. MAGULTA
AC NO. 99-634. JUNE 10, 2002
FACTS: Petitioner engaged the services of the respondent to help him
recover a claim of money against a creditor. Respondent prepared
demand letters for the petitioner, which were not successful and so the
former intimated that a case should already be filed. As a result,
petitioner paid the lawyer his fees and included also amounts for the
filing of the case.
Suspicious of the acts of the lawyer, petitioner personally went
to the office of the clerk of court to see for himself the status of his
case. Petitioner found out that no such case has been filed.
Petitioner confronted Atty. Magulta where he continued to lie
to with the excuse that the delay was being caused by the court
personnel, and only when shown the certification did he admit that he
has not at all filed the complaint because he had spent the money for
the filing fee for his own purpose; and to appease petitioner’s feelings,
he offered to reimburse him by issuing two (2) checks, postdated June
1 and June 5, 1999, in the amounts of P12,000.00 and P8,000.00,
respectively.
ISSUE: Whether or not the lawyer should be disbarred.
HELD: Yes. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the
Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP as follows: “It is evident that
the P25,000 deposited by complainant with the Respicio Law Office
was for the filing fees of the Regwill complaint. With complainant’s
deposit of the filing fees for the Regwill complaint, a corresponding
obligation on the part of respondent was created and that was to file
the Regwill complaint within the time frame contemplated by his
client. The failure of respondent to fulfill this obligation due to his
misuse of the filing fees deposited by complainant, and his attempts to
cover up this misuse of funds of the client, which caused complainant
additional damage and prejudice, constitutes highly dishonest conduct
on his part, unbecoming a member of the law profession. The
subsequent reimbursement by the respondent of part of the money
deposited by complainant for filing fees, does not exculpate the
respondent for his misappropriation of said funds.”
ANGELITO RAMISCAL AND MERCEDES ORZAME V. ATTY.
EDGAR S. ORRO
AC NO. 10945, FEEBRUARY 23, 2016
FACTS: Complainants spouses Angelito Ramiscal and Mercedes
Orzame were engaged in the legal services of respondent Atty. Edgar
S. Orro to handle a case in which they were the defendants seeking the
declaration of the nullity of title to a land in Isabela. Upon receiving
the 10,000 pesos acceptanc fee, atty. Orro handled the case: It reched
the RTC and was decided in their favor. The spouses filed an
administrative complaint against atty. Orro: the court referred the
complaint to ibp for appropriate evaluation, report and
recommendation. Despite several notices, the spouses failed to appear
the scheduled mandatory conferences set by ibp nor submitted their
evidences. The ibp commissioner rendered his findings to the effect
that atty. Orro violated that canons of the code of professional
responsibility and recommended a one year suspension. Later on, the
ibp Board of Goverrnors adopted the report of the IBP commissioner
but modified his recommendation of increasing the penalty of
suspension for two years.
ISSUE: Whther or not atty. Orro did not competently and diligently
discharge his duties as the lawyer of the spouses ramiscal.
HELD: Yes. Atty. Orro did not competently and diligently discharge
his duties as the lawyers of the spouses ramiscals. There can be no
question tht a lawyer is guilty of misconduct sufficient to justify his
suspension or disbarment if he so acts ass to be uworthy of the trust
and confidence involved in his official oath and is found to be wanting
in that honesty and integrity that must characterize the member of the
Bar in the performance of their professional duties. Based on all
circumstances in this case, the Supreme Court approved the
recommendation of the IBP for the respondents suspension from the
practice of law for a period of two years. Although the court imposed a
six month suspension fro the practice of lawyers violating canonc 17
and 18 of the code
MARY ANN T. MATTUS V. ALBERT T. VILLASECA,
A.C. NO. 7922, OCTOBER 1, 2013
FACTS: Respondent Villaseca was charged for gross and inexcusable
negligence in handling a criminal case, as a consequence of which the
complainants were convicted. Furthermore, Atty. Villaseca’s failure to
present any testimonial, object or documentary evidence for the
defense reveals his lack of diligence in performing his duties as an
officer of the Court; it showed his indifference towards the cause of his
clients.
ISSUE: Whether or not, respondents’s failure to submit a demurrer to
evidence constitutes inexcusable negligence.
HELD: Yes. it showed his lack of devotion and zeal in preserving his
clients’ cause. Considering that the liberty and livelihood of his clients
were at stake, Atty. Villaseca should have exerted efforts to rebut the
presented prosecution evidence. The Court emphasized that while a
lawyer has complete discretion on what legal strategy to employ in a
case entrusted to him, he must present every remedy or defense within
the authority of the law to support his client’s cause. .
RAMIREZ V. BAGAYANG-MARGALLO
A.C. No. 10537 February 3, 2015
FACTS: Complainant Reynaldo Ramirez (Ramirez) engaged Atty.
Margallo’s services as legal counsel in a civil case for Quieting of Title
entitled “Spouses Roque v. Ramirez.” According to Ramirez, Atty.
Margallo contacted him as per a referral from a friend of Ramirez’s
sister. He alleged that Atty. Margallo had offered her legal services on
the condition that she be given 30% of the land subject of the
controversy instead of attorney’s fees. It was also agreed upon that
Ramirez would pay Atty. Margallo P1,000.00 per court appearance.
The Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines adopted and approved the recommendation of the
Commission on Bar Discipline. The Board of Governors resolved to
recommend a penalty of reprimand to Atty. Margallo with a stern
warning that repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with
more severely.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Margallo should be held administratively
liable?
HELD: Yes, Atty. Mercedes Buhayang-Margallo’s (Atty. Margallo)
inaction resulted in a lost appeal, terminating the case of her client not
on the merits but due to her negligence. She made it appear that the
case was dismissed on the merits when, in truth, she failed to file the
Appellant’s Brief on time. She did not discharge her duties of candor
to her client. This is an admission that she abandoned her obligation as
counsel on the basis of an assumption. Respondent Atty. Margallo
failed to exhaust all possible means to protect complainant Ramirez’s
interest, which is contrary to what she had sworn to do as a member of
the legal profession. For these reasons, she clearly violated Canon 17
and Canon 18, Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
IN RE: LETTER OF PJ VASQUEZ
DECISION: this is a per curiam decision on an administrative matter
arising from the letter of court of appeals presiding Justice Vasquez
which refered to the SC for appropriate action the charges of
impropriety among the CA justices involved in the controversial
GSIS- Meralco case. Pursuant to said letter, the sc formed a 3- person
panel investigators to look into the matter.
The Drama Behind Aforequoted Summary, which transpired before
expiration of the issued TRO. The internal conflict in the CA was, for
the most part, centered on the question which division should hear the
GSISMeralco case—the special 9th Division (of Acting Chairperson J.
Sabio) or the 8th Division (of J. Reyes). Said conflict ensued when
Acting Chairperson J. Sabio refused to relinquish post to Chairperson
J. Reyes upon his return from his LOA, despite the latter’s invocation
of the Internal Rules of the CA (IRCA).
The CA knew that the said decision would have repercussions. Thus PJ
Vasquez wrote the instant letter to the SC. 4. The investigation of the
SC would reveal that each of the involved Justices has his own share in
the whole CA hullabaloo despite some of them being the offended and
the victims themselves. The SC sanctioned said actions which it
deemed “detrimental to the proper administration of justice and
damaging to the institutional integrity, independence, and public
respect for the Judiciary.” It also referred the cases of non-CA
individuals who have been involved in the alleged bribery of some
Justices to rightful bodies (e.g. DOJ, Bar Confidant).
Presiding Jusice Vasquez - PUNO’T DULO. Much of the trouble could
have been averted by timely judicious and decisive action on his part. -
Failed to provide leadership expected of him as Head of CA -
Indecisive in all issues that plagued the Meralco case. a) chairmanship
between J. Reyes and J. Sabio b) reported bribe-offer by Meralco to J.
Sabio - Pleaded “lack of authority” contrary to Rule VIII, Section 11
IRCA which authorizes him to act on “any matter” involving the Court
and its members including those not mentioned in the Rules. Penalty is
severely reprimanded.
FE YLAYA VS. ATTY. GACOTT
FACTS: Fe Ylaya filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. GacOtt.
According to her, Atty. Gacott deceived her and her late husband,
Laurentino, into signing a preparatory deed of sale which they thought
would be used in the sale of the properties to the City Government of
Puerto Prinsesa because at that time the said properties were subject to
expropriation proceedings. But to their dismay, according to her, it was
converted into a deed of absolute sale in favor of Atty. Gacott’s uncle
Reynolds So.
Atty. Gacott denied these and claimed that Laurentino and Reynold
had originally purchased the properties, that they were co owners and
that Laurentino subsequently sold his share to Reynold under the deed
of absolute sale. He also argued that it was clear from the document
that the intended buyer was a natural person, not juridical. because
there were spaces for the buyer’s legal age, marital status, and
citizenship. Also, he claimed that he was even constrained to file a
subsequent motion to intervene on behalf of Reynold because the
complainant maliciously retained the TCTs to the subject properties
after borrowing them from his office.
Then, after some time, Fe Ylaya submitted a motion to withdraw and
executed an affidavit affirming and confirming the existence,
genuineness, and due execution of the deed of aabsolute sale.
The IBP governor resolved to suspend Atty. Gacott to 2 years, finding
him guilty of violation of Rule 1.01 and canon 16 of the code of
professional responsibility.
ISSUE: whether or not the motion to withdraw and affidavit affirming
and confirming the existence, genuiness, and due execution will affect
the disbarment proceedings.
HELD: No. While Fe Ylaya submitted the motion to withdraw the
verified complaint and the affidavit appear to exonerate Atty. Gacott,
complete exoneration is not the necessary legal effect as they are
immaterial for purposes of the disbarment proceedings. According to
Sec 5 Rule 139-B of the rules of Court, “no investigation shall be
interrupted or terminated by reason of desistance, settlement,
compromise, restitution, withdrawal of charges or failure of the
complainant to prosecute the same”.
Disciplinary proceedings involve no private interest and afford no
redress for private grievances. They are undertaken and prosecutes
solely for the public welfare.
Atty. Gacott was suspended from practice of law for one year.
WILFREDO ANGLO, COMPLAINANT, V. ATTY. JOSE MA. V.
VALENCIA, ATTY. JOSE MA. J. CIOCON, ATTY. PHILIP Z.
DABAO, ATTY. LILY UYV ALENCIA, ATTY. JOEY P. DE LA
PAZ, ATTY. CRIS G. DIONELA, ATTY. RAYMUNDO T.
PANDAN, JR., ATTY. RODNEY K. RUBICA, AND ATTY.
WILFRED RAMON M. PENALOSA, RESPONDENTS | A.C.
NO. 10567, 25 FEBRUARY 2015
FACTS: Complainant alleged that he availed the services of the law
firm of the respondents for labor cases. Atty. Dionela, a partner of the
law firm, was assigned to represent the complainant. The labor cases
were terminated upon the agreement of both parties. A criminal case
for qualified theft was filed against the complainant and his wife by
FEVE Farms, represented by the law which handled the complainant’s
labor cases. Aggrieved. Complainant filed disbarment case against the
respondents, alleging that they violated the rule on conflict of interest.
IBP Commissioner found the respondents to have violated the rule
on conflict of interest and recommended that the respondents be
reprimanded.
ISSUE: Whether or not the respondents are guilty of representing
conflicting interests in violation of the pertinent provisions of Code of
Professional Responsibility (CPR).
HELD: There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents
inconsistent interests of two or more opposing parties. The Supreme
Court found the respondents guilty of representing conflicting interests
in violation of Rule 15.03, Canon 15 and Canon 21 of the CPR and are
therefore Reprimanded for said violations, with a Stern Warning that a
repetition of the same or similar infraction would be dealt with more
severely. Meanwhile, the case against Atty. Philip Dabao is Dismissed
in view of his death.
NAZARIA S. HERNANDEZ (DECEASED), SUBSTITUTED BY
LUCIANO S. HERNANDEZ, JR., COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY.
JOSE C. GO, RESPONDENT.
[A.C. NO. 1526. JANUARY 31, 2005]
FACTS: Complainant engaged respondent’s services, she entrusted to
him her land titles and allowed him to sell her lots, believing that the
proceeds thereof would be used to pay her creditors. Respondent
abused her trust and confidence when he did not sell her properties to
others but to himself and spent his own money to pay her obligations.
Obviously, had he sold the lots to other buyers, complainant could
have earned more. Records show that she did not receive any amount
from respondent.
ISSUE: Whether or not he is entitled for disbarment.
HELD: DISBARRED. “A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and
properties of his client that may come into his possession.”
Such conduct on the part of respondent degrades not only himself but
also the name and honor of the legal profession. He violated this
Court’s mandate that lawyers must at all times conduct themselves,
especially in their dealing with their clients and the public at large,
with honesty and integrity in a manner beyond reproach.
“A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be
mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.”
Membership in the legal profession is a privilege. When it appears that
an attorney is no longer worthy of the trust and confidence of his
clients and the public, it becomes not only the right but also the duty of
this Court to withdraw the privilege. Respondent, by his conduct,
blemished not only his integrity as a member of the Bar, but also the
legal profession.
Public interest requires that an attorney should exert his best efforts
and ability to protect the interests of his clients. A lawyer who
performs that duty with diligence and candor not only protects his
client’s cause; he also serves the ends of justice and does honor to the
bar and helps maintain the respect of the community to the legal
profession.
NELSON P. VALDEZ, vs. ATTY. ANTOLIN ALLYSON
DABON, JR.,
A.C. No. 7353
FACTS: Complainant Nelson charged respondent Atty. Dabon, a
Division Clerk of Court of the Court of Appeals (CA), with gross
immorality for allegedly carrying on an adulterous relationship with
his wife, Sonia Romero Valdez (Sonia), which was made possible by
sexual assaults and maintained through threat and intimidation.
Nelson Averred that he married Sonia on January 28, 1998 in Paniqui,
Tarlac; that Sonia was employed as Court Stenographer of the CA
from 1992 until her resignation on May 15, 2006;2 that Sonia admitted
to have had an adulterous and immoral relationship with Atty. Dabon,
from 2000 to 2006, a span of more than five years; that he came to
know of the relationship only on April 18, 2006 after receiving an
anonymous text message hinting/stating about the existence of an
illicit affair between the two; and that initially, Sonia denied the affair
but eventually broke down and admitted her sexual liaison with Atty.
Dabon when confronted with a text message he received from Atty.
Jocelyn Dabon (Atty. Joy), the wife of the respondent.
Nelson also asserted that Sonia confessed her infidelity and described
her extramarital affair with Atty. Dabon to have been attended by
sexual assaults and maintained through intimidation and threats of
exposure, humiliation and embarrassment.
Sonia narrated that her illicit relationship with Atty. Dabon started
sometime in November 2000 and ended in March 2006 when she,
bothered by her conscience, decided to break it off; that Atty. Dabon
relentlessly pursued her for years and even admitted that he fell in love
with her the first time he laid eyes on her; that on November 13, 2000,
Atty. Dabon lured her to what appeared to be a mere friendly lunch
date, managed to put sleep-inducing drug into her food or drink
causing her to feel drowsy and weak and, thereafter, brought her to
Victoria Court Motel where he sexually molested her while she was
asleep; that she opted to keep silent about the incident for fear of its
adverse repercussions of shame and embarrassment to her and her
family; that she pleaded with Atty. Dabon to leave her and forget what
had happened, but the respondent instead taunted her by laughing at
her misery; that since then, Atty. Dabon succeeded in having repeated
carnal knowledge of her once or twice a week through intimidation
and threats; that Atty. Dabon threatened her that he would tell
everyone that she had been playing around with him, if she would not
yield to his lascivious cravings; and that she suffered in silence for
years and submitted herself to the bestial desires of Atty. Dabon, until
she even thought that she was in love with him.
In his Comment, Atty. Dabon denied the charges of grossly immoral
and unlawful acts through sexual assaults, abuses, threats and
intimidation. He posited that the allegations of spouses Nelson and
Sonia in their respective affidavits were nothing but pure fabrication
solely intended to malign his name and honor.
ISSUE: WON Atty Dabon violated CPR?
HELD: Lawyers have been repeatedly reminded by the Court that
possession of good moral character is both a condition precedent and a
continuing requirement to warrant admission to the Bar and to retain
membership in the legal profession. This proceeds from the lawyer's
bounden duty to observe the highest degree of morality in order to
safeguard the Bar's integrity, and the legal profession exacts from its
members nothing less. Lawyers are called upon to safeguard the
integrity of the Bar, free from misdeeds and acts constitutive of
malpractice. Their exalted positions as officers of the court demand no
less than the highest degree of morality.
the Court notes from the respondent's Comment that he appeared to be
perplexed as to whether or not he would admit his extramarital liaisons
with Sonia. As Investigating Commissioner Chan stated in his report,
Atty. Dabon interposed a blanket denial of the romantic involvement
but at the same time, he seemed to have tacitly admitted the illicit
affair only that it was not attended by sexual assaults, threats and
intimidations. The Court also observed that he devoted considerable
effort to demonstrate that the affair did not amount to gross immoral
conduct and that no sexual abuse, threat or intimidation was exerted
upon the person of Sonia, but not once did he squarely deny the affair
itself.
In other words, the respondent's denial is a negative pregnant, a denial
coupled with the admission of substantial facts in the pleading
responded to which are not squarely denied.
It is clear from Atty. Dabon's Comment that his denial only pertained
as to the existence of a forced illicit relationship. Without a categorical
denial thereof, he is deemed to have admitted his consensual affair
with Sonia.
More telling of the existence of a romantic relationship are the notes
and cards that Sonia sent to Atty. Dabon containing personal and
intimate messages in her own handwriting. The messages conveyed
Sonia's affection towards him as she even referred to him as "hon" or
"honey." There were also gifts she gave him on special occasions such
as signature shoes, watch and shirts. It also appeared that Sonia
frequently visited him in his office either to bring him food, fruits and
other goodies or to invite him to lunch which apparently displayed her
emotional attachment to him. Curiously, the foregoing was never
refuted by Sonia. Such "ego-boosting admissions" of Atty. Dabon
indeed proved that a consensual relationship between him and Sonia
existed.
It has been repeatedly held that to justify suspension or disbarment, the
act complained of must not only be immoral, but grossly immoral. A
grossly immoral act is one that is so corrupt as to constitute a criminal
act, or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree or
committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to
shock the common sense of decency. It is willful, flagrant, or
shameless as to show indifference to the opinion of good and
respectable members of the community.
In the case at bench, Atty. Dabon's intimate relationship with a woman
other than his wife showed his moral indifference to the opinion of the
good and respectable members of the community. It manifested his
disrespect for the laws on the sanctity of marriage and for his own
marital vow of fidelity. It showed his utmost moral depravity and low
regard for the fundamental ethics of his profession. Indeed, he has
fallen below the moral bar. Such detestable behavior warrants a
disciplinary sanction. Even if not all forms of extramarital relations are
punishable under penal law, sexual relations outside of marriage are
considered disgraceful and immoral as they manifest deliberate
disregard of the sanctity of marriage and the marital vows protected by
the Constitution and affirmed by our laws.
GORETTI ONG vs. ATTY. JOEL M. GRIJALDO A.C. No. 4724,
30 April 2003
FACTS: Ong engaged the services of respondent as private prosecutor
in a criminal case for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22. During
one of the hearings of the case, the accused offered to amicably settle
their civil obligation to complainant by paying the amount of
P180,000.00 which was accepted by Atty. Grijaldo. 100k in cash was
given to Ong and a check for 80k. Consequently, Ong was prevailed
by Grrijaldo to sign an affidavit of desistance but she instructed the
latter not to file it in court until the check is cleared. Upon presentment
of the check, it was dishonored.
When she went to the Court to have some update about the case, she
was surprised to discover that it was already dismissed 3 months ago.
When Ong confronted respondent, he admitted to her that he had
already received the amount of P80,000.00 from the adverse counsel
but he used the same to pay for his financial obligations.
RULING: The IBP Investigating Commissioner recommended the
disbarment of respondent. However, the IBP Board of Governors
modified the penalty of disbarment and recommended instead
respondents indefinite suspension from the practice of law for grossly
immoral conduct and deceit.
The Supreme Court ordered disbarment.
It is clear that respondent gravely abused the trust and confidence
reposed in him by his client, the complainant. Were it not for
complainants vigilance in inquiring into the status of her case, she
would not have known that the same had already been dismissed.
Worse, respondent used the money which he received from Atty.
Reyes to pay for his own obligations which violated Canon 16 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, which states that a lawyer shall
hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into
his possession.
Furthermore, respondent violated his oath of office and duties as
counsel when he approached his clients opponent and offered to delay
the case in exchange for money.
Finally, respondents cavalier attitude in repeatedly ignoring the
directives of this Court to file his comment constitutes utter disrespect
to the judicial institution.
AC. NO. 7110
ARTHUR TULIO V. ATTY. GREGORY F. BUHANGIN
FACTS: Before us is a Complaint for Disbarment filed by Arthur S.
Tulio (Tulia) against respondent Atty. Gregory F. Buhangin (Atty.
Buhangin), docketed as A.C. No. 7110 for Gross Dishonesty in
violation of the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
Complainant alleged that the actions of Atty. Buhangin were
deliberate and intentional in order to serve his own personal interests
against his interests as his client, hence, constitutes gross dishonesty in
violation of his oath and responsibility as a lawyer and notary public.
In a Notice of Resolution dated May 11, 2013, the IBP-Board
of Governors adopted and approved in toto the Report and
Recommendation of the IBP-CBD. No motion for reconsideration has
been filed by either party.
ISSUE: whether or not the respondent violated the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
RULING: Yes, respondent Atty. Buhangin violated Canon 15 Rule 3
of the said Code, which states that, “A lawyer shall not represent
conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given
after a full disclosure of the facts.”
The prohibition is founded on the principles of public policy and good
taste. It behooves lawyers not only to keep inviolate the client's
confidence, but also to avoid the appearance of treachery and double-
dealing for only then can litigants be encouraged to entrust their
secrets to their lawyers, which is of paramount importance in the
administration of justice
considering that aside from his violation of the rule on conflict of
interest, he has also shown wanton disregard of the IBP' s orders which
caused undue delay in the resolution of this case and we deemed it
appropriate to modify and increase the recommended penalty of
suspension from the practice of law from two (2) months to six ( 6)
months.
EVANGELINE, VICENTE, JR., AND ARMAND, ALL
SURNAMED CADAVEDO, G.R. NO. 173188. JANUARY 15,
2014.
FACTS: Spouses Cadavedo hired Atty. Lacaya on a contingency basis.
The stipulation contained in the amended complaint filed by Atty.
Lacaya clearly stated that the spouses Cadavedo hired the former on a
contingency basis; the Spouses Cadavedo undertook to pay their
lawyer ₱2,000.00 as attorney’s fees. Granting arguendo that the
spouses Cadavedo and Atty. Lacaya indeed entered into an oral
contingent fee agreement securing to the latter one-half of the subject
lot, the agreement is void.
ISSUE: Whether or not such agreement between parties is
champertous.
HELD: The Supreme Court held that the agreement is champertous
and is contrary to public policy. Any agreement by a lawyer to
“conduct the litigation in his own account, to pay the expenses thereof
or to save his client therefrom and to receive as his fee a portion of the
proceeds of the judgment is obnoxious to the law. The rule of the
profession that forbids a lawyer from contracting with his client for
part of the thing in litigation in exchange for conducting the case at the
lawyer’s expense is designed to prevent the lawyer from acquiring an
interest between him and his client.
IN THE MATTER OF THE BREWING CONTROVERSIES IN
THE ELECTIONS OF THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE
PHILIPPINES, A.M. No. 09-5-2-SC, April 11, 2013
DECISION: election of IBP governors; strict rotation on election of
EVP. On December 4, 2012, the Court issued a resolution addressing
the issues with respect to the election of governor for IBP-Western
Visayas. In clarifying that the rotational rule was one by exclusion, the
Court explained that in the election of governor of a region, all
chapters of the region should be given the opportunity to have their
nominees elected as governor, to the exclusion of those chapters that
had already served in the rotational cycle. Once a rotational cycle
would be completed, all chapters of a region, except the chapter which
won in the immediately preceding elections, could once again have the
equal opportunity to vie for the position of governor of their region.
The chapter that won in the immediately preceding election, under the
rotational cycle just completed, could only vie for the position of
governor after the election of the first governor in the new cycle.
MANUEL B. BERNALDEZ VS. ATTY. WILMA DONNA C.
ANQUILO-GARCIA; A.C. NO. 8698; AUGUST 31, 2016
FACTS: For resolution is the complaint dated August 2, 2010 filed by
Manuel B. Bernaldez (complainant) charging respondent Atty. Wilma
Donna C. Anquilo-Garcia (Atty. Anquilo-Garcia) with gross
misconduct, deceit, violation of Lawyer’s Oath, and abuse of authority
as notary public.
The violation of the rotation rule in any election shall be
penalized by annulment of the election and disqualification of the
offender from election or appointment to any office in the IBP.”
From the above, it is clear that the amendment was effected to
underscore the shift of the rotation from the position of president to
that of EVP. The purpose of the system being to ensure that all the
regions will have an equal opportunity to serve as EVP and then
automatically succeed as president.
On April 29, 2015, Commissioner Giovanne T. Lim (Commissioner
Lim) issued his Report and Recommendation[13]recommending that
the instant case against Atty. Anquilo-Garcia be dismissed without
prejudice. Commissioner Lim stated that since the alleged
irregularities perpetrated by Atty. Anquilo-Garcia are the subject of the
election protest filed by the complainant before the RTC and made
subject of this disbarment case, it is premature to rule on the
administrative liability of Atty. Anquilo-Garcia pending resolution of
the election protest.[14]
As to the withdrawal of the complaint, Commissioner Lim held that in
disbarment cases, the desistance or withdrawal on the part of the
complainant is not sufficient to terminate the administrative
proceedings.
On June 20, 2015, the IBP Board of Governors issued a Notice of
Resolution[15] adopting and approving the Report and
Recommendation of Commissioner Lim after finding the same to be
supported by the evidence on record and applicable laws.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. ANquilo-Garcia is liable for such
negligence as a notary public and as a lawyer.
HELD: The Court now resolves the substantive matters surrounding
the case. Atty. Anquilo-Garcia’s failure to perform her duty as a
notary public undermines the integrity of a notary public and degrades
the function of notarization. Thus, she should be liable for such
negligence, not only as a notary public but also as a lawyer.
The Supreme Court resolve to SUSPEND Atty. Wilma Donna C.
Anquilo-Garcia from the practice of law for a period of SIX (6)
MONTHS effective immediately for violation of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. She is further WARNED that a repetition
of the same or of similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.
ELADIO D. PERFECTO, Complainant, v. JUDGE ALMA
CONSUELO DESALES-ESIDERA, Respondent.
A.M. No. RTJ-11-2258 : June 20, 2012
FACTS: In support of the charges, the complainant alleges that he
filed a Petition to Cite for Contempt against one Dalmacio Grafil and a
Ven S. Labro. The complainant laments that the case has since been
gathering dust in the court of the respondent. He maintains that the
respondent should be made administratively liable for her failure to act
on the case within a reasonable period of time.
On the second cause of action, the complainant claims that he is the
publisher and Editor-in-Chief of the Catarman Weekly Tribune (CWT),
the only accredited newspaper in Northern Samar. He claims that in
Special Proceedings Nos. C-346 (for adoption and change of name)
and C-352 (for adoption), the respondent directed the petitioners to
have her orders published in a newspaper of national circulation.
Through these directives, the complainant posits, the respondent
betrayed her ignorance of the law, considering that all judicial notices
and orders emanating from the courts of Catarman, Northern Samar
should be published only in the CWT, pursuant to Presidential Decree
No. 1079.
The Court issued a Resolution re-docketing the case as a formal
administrative complaint against the respondent.
Respondent advises the Court that she is of the firm belief that the
second cause of action for ignorance of the law (non-publication of
court orders/notices in CWT) had already been passed upon by the
Court (Third Division) in its Decision in A.M. No. RTJ-11-2270.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent is guilty of ignorance of the law?
HELD: Indeed, the respondent deserves to be sanctioned for gross
ignorance of the law. With her inaction on the petition for contempt,
she betrayed her unbecoming lack of familiarity with basic procedural
rules such as what was involved in the contempt proceedings before
her court. She should have known that while the petitioners have the
responsibility to move ex parte to have the case scheduled for
preliminary conference, the court (through the branch clerk of court)
has the duty to schedule the case for pre-trial in the event that the
petitioners fail to file the motion.
The respondent cannot pass the blame for the lack of movement in the
case to her staff who, she claims, were monitoring the case. As
presiding judge, she should account for the anomaly that since the
respondents filed their answer, the petition for contempt had been
gathering dust or had not moved in the respondent's court. Clearly, the
respondent fell short of the standards of competence and legal
proficiency expected of magistrates of the law in her handling of the
petition for contempt. As in Magpali v. Pardo, she should be fined
P10,000.00 for gross ignorance of the law.
Judge Alma Consuelo Desales-Esidera is found LIABLE for gross
ignorance of the law.
BARIAS VS. JUDGE RUBIA, A.M. NO. RTJ-14-2388, JUNE 10,
2014.
FACTS: respondent has failed to live up to those rigorous standards.
Whether or not he purposely went to the Manila Hotel on November
25, 1998 to meet complainant or only had a chance meeting with him,
his act of trying to convince complainant to agree to his proposal is an
act of impropriety. It is improper and highly unethical for a judge to
suggest to a litigant what to do to resolve his case for such would
generate the suspicion that the judge is in collusion with one party.
A litigant in a case is entitled to no less than the cold neutrality of an
impartial judge. Judges are not only required to be impartial, but also
to appear to be so, for appearance is an essential manifestation of
reality. Moreover, a judge’s lack of impartiality or the mere appearance
of bias would cause resentment if the party who refused the judge’s
proposal subsequently lost his case. It would give rise to suspicion that
the judgment was “fixed” beforehand. Such circumstance tarnishes the
image of the judiciary and brings to it public contempt, disrepute, and
ridicule. Thus, we are constrained to rule that respondent violated Rule
2.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. His misconduct is not excused
but rather made more glaring by the fact that the controversy involving
complainant was pending in his own sala.
ISSUE: Whether or not the action of Judge Rubia is a clear
manifestation of a lack of integrity and impartiality essential to a
judge.
By meeting with complainant, respondent Judge Rubia also violated
Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct:
A judge is the visible representation of the law. Thus, he must behave,
at all times, in such a manner that his conduct, official or otherwise,
can withstand the most searching public scrutiny. The ethical
principles and sense of propriety of a judge are essential to the
preservation of the people’s faith in the judicial system.
Because of the meeting, and the subsequent orders issued after the
meeting, respondent Judge Rubia violated the notions of propriety
required of his office. Respondents have relentlessly stood by their
position that the meeting was a chance encounter, and, thus, no
impropriety could be attributed to the meeting itself.
Respondent Judge Rubia’s actions belittled the integrity required of
judges in all their dealings inside and outside the courts. For these
actions, respondent Judge Rubia now lost the requisite integrity,
impartiality, and propriety fundamental to his office. He cannot be
allowed to remain a member of the judiciary.
Respondents in this case failed to subscribe to the highest moral fiber
mandated of the judiciary and its personnel. Their actions tainted their
office and besmirched its integrity. In effect, both respondents are
guilty of gross misconduct. This court defined misconduct as “a
transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more
particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer”
Thus, a magistrate of the law must comport himself at all times in such
a manner that his conduct, official or otherwise, can withstand the
most searching public scrutiny, for the ethical principles and sense of
propriety of a judge are essential to the preservation of the people’s
faith in the judicial system. This Court does not require of judges that
they measure up to the standards of conduct of the saints and martyrs,
but we do expect them to be like Caesar’s wife in all their activities.
Hence, we require them to abide strictly by the Code of Judicial
Conduct.