Professional Documents
Culture Documents
EN BANC
SPOUSES MANUEL C.
RAFOLS, JR. and LOLITA
B. RAFOLS, Complainants,
-versus -
Antecedents
ATTY. RICARDO G.
JR., Respondent.
BARRIOS,
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
PER CURIAM:
of
Spouses
Manuel
B. Rafols (complainants),
[4]
C. Rafols,
Jr.
and
Lolita
The
primary
objective
of
administrative cases against lawyers is not
only to punish and discipline the erring
individual lawyers but also to safeguard the
administration of justice by protecting the
courts and the public from the misconduct
of lawyers, and to remove from the legal
profession persons whose utter disregard of
their lawyers oath has proven them unfit to
continue discharging the trust reposed in
them as members of the bar. A lawyer may
be disbarred or suspended for misconduct,
whether in his professional or private
capacity, which shows him to be wanting in
moral character, honesty, probity and good
demeanor or unworthy to continue as an
officer of the court.
attached
to
the
letter
of
the
IBP
Chapter
SCRA 1.
Jr., as follows:
By its Board Resolution No. 1 dated March 7, 1998,
the
South Cotabato-Sarangani-General
Santos
xxx
5. The
Office
of
the
Bar
Confidant be FURNISHED with a copy of the
letter-note and its attachments so that it
may conduct its own investigation in the
matter with respect to the actuations of
Atty. Ricardo Barrios, Jr.[8]
xxx
City
Barrios,
on March
the
24,
1998,
SOCSARGEN IBP
Chapter
as
Administrative
Matter
C. Rafols and
(AM)
Lolita
thereon.
Judge Teodoro Dizon, Jr., RTC, General Santos City, Branch 37,
[2]
including
government-owned
and
government
-controlled corporations.
the
OBC.
However,
the
complainants
and
the
as
the
Investigating
Justice.
Also
Evidenc
e for the
Complainants
parents to return his call, leaving his cell phone number. When
Manuel returned the call the next day, the judge instructed
Manuel to see him in his office. During their meeting in his
Manuel
clarified
to
the
judge
that
his
balance
was
to the East Royal Hotels coffee shop where Judge Dizon, Jr.
hissala. The judge likewise said that he would resolve the case
to inquire whether the P30,000.00 was ready for pick up. After
Manuel replied that he was ready with the amount, the judge
would wait for the money until noon of that day. Thus, Manuel
asked him to wait for 20 minutes. The judge and his driver
instructed
Manuel
to
come
up
with
the
money
before noon because the judge badly needed it. The two of
up
them
by
that
then told Manuel that the RTC judge in Iloilo City before whom
went
to
Allan Rafols,
lending
but
Manuel
Allans
institution,
was
accompanied
told
wife,
who
there
offered
to
until
somewhere
inside
On their way to the bank, Manuel, Allan and Ditas dropped off
the respondent
otherwise, they should not blame him for the outcome of the
Judge Dizon,
Jr.
the
the
money
latter
was
to
forthcoming.
assure
case.
Manuel
from
their
respective
bank accounts, and went back to the hotel with the cash.
There, they saw the judge and his driver, who beckoned to
they ultimately sensed that they were being fooled about their
the money to the judge, who told Manuel after asking about
local newspaper.
to
the
complainants,
demanded P25,000.00 as
his
the
expenses
respondent
in
securing
the
collect
his
unpaid
attorneys
fees
from
the
case; and that the judge did not ask money from the
respondent
requested
the
complainants
to
case.
On January
28,
abroad.
complainants
1998,
the
residence,
respondent
but
was
returned
surprised
to
to
the
find
Evidence for
the Respondent
they had given him P30,000.00 only the week before. She
divulged that the judge had told her that their case would
[10]
the
was mahinangklase; (b) the judge hearing Civil Case No. 5645
in Iloilo and the woman who had testified in Civil Case No.
6029 had not been presented; and (c) they would have to
respondent
and
gave
him P2,000.00.
When
the
house of the respondent, but the latter was not home. The
[13]
and that the judge did not tell him (respondent) what
was being borrowed by the judge for his swimming pool. Later
respondent
and
headed
judges
wristwatch
[14]
they
the
where,
judges
driver
according
redeemed
the
to
the
judges
respondent
told
the
judge
about
the
refusal
of
the
that
the
respondent denied that Judge Dizon, Jr. asked money from the
complainants;
and
stated
that
he
27,
did
1998,
[11]
not
see
the
establishes
the
complaint
by
clearly
respondents
Based on the facts already established and identified,
as
rendered
in
the
decision
dated January
Lolita
21,
B. Rafols v.
presumed
innocence
and
the
presumed
We
approve
and
adopt
the
report
and
and
suspension
of
we
unqualifiedly
accept
the
the
Thus,
governs
clients.
attorneys,
provides:
Secondly, the respondents insistence that he did not
Section
27. Disbarment
and
suspension
of
attorneys
by
the
Supreme Court;
grounds therefor.
A
member of the bar may be disbarred or
suspended from his office as attorney by the
Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice,
or other gross misconduct in such office,
grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his
conviction for a crime involving moral
turpitude, or for any violation of the oath
which he is required to take before
himself
received
theP80,000.00 from
the
proved that the respondent had known all along of the illegal
Specifically,
the Code
of
Professional
being heard before the judge, the respondent could not but
know that for the judge to borrow money from his clients was
an
instruction.
attorney
the
absolute
abdication
of
any
personal
mulcting they had suffered at the hands of the judge and their
Verily,
misconduct,
the
which
respondent
is
improper
was
or
guilty
wrong
of
gross
conduct,
the
between
[33]
Manuel
and
Judge Dizon,
Jr.,
but
had
also
The
disgraced
II
conclusion
Judge Dizon,
that
Jr.
the
respondent
and
the
the
conditions.
[24]
of
our
are ensured.
[25]
WHEREFORE,
disbarred.
Atty.
Ricardo
G.
Barrios,
Jr.
is
SO ORDERED.
Intemperate Language
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
A.C. No. 8954
Upon receipt of the copy of the above Order, the Office of the
Bar Confidant (OBC) deemed the pronouncements of Judge
Manahan as a formal administrative Complaint against Atty.
Flores. Docketed as A.C. No. 8954, the case was referred to
the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Rizal for
investigation, report and recommendation.3
With the small respect that still remains, I have asked the
defendant to look for another lawyer to represent him for I am
no longer interested in this case because I feel I cannot do
anything right in your sala.5
Court agrees with the IBP that his failure to disclose the
required information for MCLE compliance in the complaint for
damages he had filed against his brother Marcelo is not a
ground for disbarment. At most, his violation shall only be
cause for the dismissal of the complaint as well as the
expunction thereof from the
records.30ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Atty. Orlando O.
Ailes GUILTY of violating Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 as well as the
entire Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is
herebyADMONISHED to be more circumspect in dealing with
his professional colleagues and STERNLY WARNED that a
commission of the same or similar acts in the future shall be
dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
SECOND DIVISION
A.C. No. 10303, April 22, 2015
JOY A. GIMENO, Complainant, v. ATTY. PAUL CENTILLAS
ZAIDE, Respondent.
DECISION
BRION, J.:
We review Resolution No. XX-2011-2641 of the Board of
Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) in CBD
Case No. 07-2069, which imposed on Atty. Paul Centillas Zaide
(Atty. Zaide) the penalty of one-year suspension from the
practice of law, revocation of notarial commission, if existing,
and two years suspension from being commissioned as a
notary public, for violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial
Practice (Notarial Practice Rules).2
The Case
On August 8, 2007, complainant Joy A. Gimeno (Gimeno) filed
a complaint3 with the IBP's Commission on Bar Discipline,
charging Atty. Zaide with: (1) usurpation of a notary public's
office; (2) falsification; (3) use of intemperate, offensive and
abusive language; and (4) violation of lawyer-client trust.
In her complaint, Gimeno alleged that even before Atty.
Zaide's admission4 to the Bar and receipt5 of his notarial
commission, he had notarized a partial extrajudicial partition
with deed of absolute sale on March 29, 2002.6 She also
accused Atty. Zaide of making false and irregular entries in his
notarial registers.7
Gimeno further submitted that she was Atty. Zaide's former
client. She engaged the services of his law firm ZaragozaMakabangkit-Zaide Law Offices (ZMZ) in an annulment of title
case that involved her husband and her parents-in-law.
Despite their previous lawyer-client relationship, Atty. Zaide
still appeared against her in the complaint for estafa and
violation of RA 30198 that one Priscilla Somontan (Somontan)
filed against her with the Ombudsman. Gimeno posited that
by appearing against a former client, Atty. Zaide violated the
prohibition against the representation of conflicting clients'
interests.9
Lastly, Gimeno contended that Atty. Zaide called her a
"notorious extortionist" in the same administrative complaint
that Somontan filed against her.10 In another civil case where
she was not a party, Gimeno observed that Atty. Zaide
referred to his opposing counsel as someone suffering from
"serious mental incompetence" in one of his
pleadings.11 According to Gimeno, these statements constitute
intemperate, offensive and abusive language, which a lawyer
is proscribed from using in his dealings.
In his answer12 dated September 13, 2007, Atty. Zaide argued
that he did not notarize the March 29, 2002 partial
extrajudicial partition. As it appeared on the notarial page of
this document, his notarial stamp and falsified signature were
superimposed over the typewritten name of Atty. Elpedio
Cabasan, the lawyer who actually notarized this
document.13 Atty. Zaide claimed that Gimeno falsified his
signature to make it appear that he notarized it before his
admission to the Bar.
On the alleged falsification of his notarial entries, Atty. Zaide
contended that he needed to simultaneously use several
maintain only one active notarial register and ensure that the
entries in it are chronologically arranged. The "one active
notarial register" rule is in place to deter a notary public from
assigning several notarial registers to different offices manned
by assistants who perform notarial services on his behalf.
Since a notarial commission is personal to each lawyer, the
notary public must also personally administer the notarial
acts29 that the law authorizes him to execute. This important
duty is vested with public interest. Thus, no other person,
other than the notary public, should perform it.
On the other hand, entries in a notarial register need to be in
chronological sequence in order to address and prevent the
rampant practice of leaving blank spaces in the notarial
register to allow the antedating of notarizations.
In these lights, we cannot accept Atty. Zaide's explanation
that he needed to maintain several active notarial registers in
separate offices so he could accommodate the increasing
number of his clients requiring his notarial services.
This Court stresses that a notary public should not
trivialize his functions as his powers and duties are
impressed with public interest.30 A notary public's office is
not merely an income-generating venture. It is a public duty
that each lawyer who has been privileged to receive a notarial
commission must faithfully and conscientiously perform.
Atty. Zaide should have been acutely aware of the
requirements of his notarial commission. His flagrant violation
of Section 1, Rule VI of the Notarial Practice Rules is not
merely a simple and excusable negligence. It amounts to a
clear violation of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which provides that "a lawyer [should] uphold
the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote
respect for law and legal processes."
Representing conflicting interests
The investigating commissioner properly noted that Atty.
Zaide should not be held liable for representing conflicting
clients' interests.
Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility provides:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Rule 15.03 - A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests
except by written consent of all concerned given after a full
disclosure of the facts.
In Aninon v. Sabitsana,31 the Court laid down the tests to
determine if a lawyer is guilty of representing conflicting
interests between and among his clients.
One of these tests is whether the acceptance of a new
relation would prevent the full discharge of a lawyer's
duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to the client or
invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in
the performance of that duty.32
Another test is whether a lawyer would be called upon in the
new relation to use against a former client any
confidential information acquired through their
connection or previous employment.33
Applying these tests, we find no conflict of interest when Atty.
Zaide appeared against Gimeno, his former law firm's client.
The lawyer-client relationship between Atty. Zaide and Gimeno
ceased when Atty. Zaide left ZMZ. Moreover, the case where
Gimeno engaged ZMZ's services is an entirely different
subject matter and is not in any way connected to the
complaint that Somontan filed against Gimeno with the
Ombudsman.
The prior case where Gimeno hired ZMZ and where Atty. Zaide
represented her family pertained to the annulment of a land
title. Somontan was never a party to this case since this only
involved Gimeno's relatives. On the other hand, the case
where Atty. Zaide appeared against Gimeno involved
Somontan's Ombudsman complaint against Gimeno for her
alleged mishandling of the funds that Somontan entrusted to
her, and for Gimeno's alleged corruption as an examiner in
the Register of Deeds of Iligan City. Clearly, the annulment
of title case and the Ombudsman case are totally
unrelated.
There was also no double-dealing on the part of Atty. Zaide
because at the time Somontan engaged his services, he had
already left ZMZ. More importantly, nothing in the record
shows that Atty. Zaide used against Gimeno any
confidential information which he acquired while he
was still their counsel in the annulment of title case.
Promulgated:
August 25, 2009
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
VELASCO, JR., J.:
department.
Without
parliamentary
immunity,
for
the
dismissal
of
the
complaint
for
disbarment
or
the Court, the lady senator has undoubtedly crossed the limits
of decency and good professional conduct. It is at once
apparent that her statements in question were intemperate
and highly improper in substance. To reiterate, she was
quoted as stating that she wanted to spit on the face of Chief
Justice Artemio Panganiban and his cohorts in the Supreme
Court, and calling the Court a Supreme Court of idiots.
of
her
official
parliamentary
functions.
Even
disgust.
Authorities
are
agreed
that parliamentary
[8]
have
no
official
duty
to
nominate
candidates
for
the Bar and officer of the court, like any other, is duty-bound
service are keepers of public faith and are burdened with the
xxxx
x x x.[9]
v.
Ang[17] who
repeatedly
insulted
and
from doing so, even without any sign of remorse from her.
Basic
constitutional
consideration
dictates
this
kind
of
disposition.
remind
her
anew
that
the
parliamentary
non-
them
against
prosecutions for
their
own
as their
[15]
in
their private
capacity,
as
long
Miriam
to
Art.
VI,
Defensor-Santiago
Sec.
11
of
the
Constitution, DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
June 4, 2009
xxx
4. That the application for commission was on the condition
that respondent cannot charge fees for documents required
by the Office to be presented and under oath. 10
(b) Outside employment and other activities related thereto. Public officials and employees during their incumbency shall
not:
xxx
which
query
the
latter
referred
to
the
Court
for
already separated
from
government
her
letter-query,
Atty.
Buffe
posed
these
Atty. Buffe alleged that Section 7(b)(2) of R.A. No. 6713 gives
preferential treatment to an incumbent public employee, who
may engage in the private practice of his profession so long
as this practice does not conflict or tend to conflict with his
official functions. In contrast, a public official or employee who
has retired, resigned, or has been separated from government
service like her, is prohibited from engaging in private
xxx
work, for a period of one (1) year from the date of her
xxx
of that Branch.
Deputy
Court
Administrator
(now
Court
[7]
and
last
par.
thereof,
apparently
contains
an
express
issued
an En Banc Resolution
dated November
11,
Preliminary Considerations
and
she
filed
Manifestation
same
branch
she
served
and
immediately
after
her
that she cannot run away from under the cover of the letter-
query she filed and her petition for declaratory relief, whose
well, she informed the Court that she had previously taken the
1.
SCA No. 089119028
(Annex C), filed with Branch 54 of the RTC
Manila, which had been dismissed without
prejudice on July 23, 2008 (Annex D) a
recourse taken when undersigned was
still a private practitioner;
2.
SCA
No.
08120423
(Annex A), filed with Branch 17 of the RTC of
Manila, which had been also dismissed (with
or without prejudice) on December 4, 2008
(Annex
B) a
recourse
taken
when
undersigned was already a public
prosecutor appearing before the same
Branch 81, after she took her oath of office
as such on August 15, 2008.[Emphasis
supplied]
to
elevate
the
dismissal
to
this
Court
for
resolution. The first, filed before the RTC, Branch 54, Manila,
She also made known her intent to elevate the dismissal of
Court may put to rest the legal issue/s presented in the above
petitions which is, why is it that R.A. No. 6713, Sec. 7 (b)(2)
and
will
not
generally
terminate
the
uncertainty
or
filed
with
the
RTC,
Branch
the filing of the two declaratory petitions the intent to shop for
Parenthetically,
in
the
case
of
court
(a)
appearances
before
Branch
81;
she
expressly
(c)
private
practice
of
their
profession
during
their
from the service and without any period limitation that applies
[17]
respect to the office he or she used to work with and only for
exists. This
premises.
analysis
again
disproves
Atty.
Buffes
basic
Section 7.
A worrisome aspect of Atty. Buffes approach to
Section 7 (b)(2) is her awareness of the law and her readiness
the one-year
period
of
the law. We find it disturbing that she first violated the law
before making any inquiry. She also justifies her position by
referring to the practice of other government lawyers known
to her who, after separation from their judicial employment,
immediately engaged in the private practice of law and
appeared as private counsels before the RTC branches where
they were previously employed. Again we find this a cavalier
attitude
on
Atty.
Buffes
part
and,
to
our
mind,
only
xxx
she
had
about
Section
(b)(2)s
Also
on
the basis
[27]
in Richards v. Asoy,
of this
principle, we
ruled
person to be disciplined.[29]
into practice in the very same court they came from. She, like
contempt. The Court took note that the respondent did not
with
following tenor:
she followed
up
7(b)(2),
the
principle
of res
ipsa
loquitur finds
in Zaldivar
v.
was
FIRST DIVISION
DECISION
Responsibility.
of
Ten
She
Thousand
is
hereby FINED in
Pesos
the
(P10,000.00),
DECISION
PERALTA, J.:
Before us is a Petition for Disbarment/Disciplinary Action
dated November 26, 20121 filed against respondents
Napoleon M. Menese,2 Raul T. Aquino and Teresita D. CastillonLora, Commissioners of the Second Division of the NLRC, for
gross misconduct, gross ignorance of the law and procedure,
and violation of Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
Complainants were employees of Bacman Geothermal, Inc.
(Bacman), who were dismissed from their employment. They
filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Bacman
Geothermal, Inc., Danilo G. Catigtig, Ernesto Espinosa and
Oscar M. Lopez.
On January 23, 2011, the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision 3 in
favor of the complainants and declared them to be illegally
dismissed. Bacman appealed and filed an Appeal
Memorandum4 on February 22, 2012. The appeal was raffled
to the Second Division of the NLRC where respondents were
sitting as Commissioners. There being a monetary award in
the decision, Bacman posted a supersedeas bond issued by
Intra Strata Assurance Corporation (Intra Strata) on February
23, 2012.
Meanwhile, Intra Strata filed a Manifestation 5 dated February
23, 2012 before the Regional Arbitration Branch No. V of the
NLRC. It stated therein that their certification of accreditation
and authority from the Supreme Court had expired on January
31, 2012, but their application for renewal is pending before
the Supreme Court.