NATASHA HUEYSUWAN-FLORIDO, complainant, vs. ATTY. JAMES BENEDICT C. FLORIDO, Respondent. [A.C. No.

5624 : January 20, 2004] This is an administrative complaint for the disbarment of respondent Atty. James Benedict C. Florido and his eventual removal from the Roll of Attorneys for allegedly violating his oath as a lawyer by manufacturing, flaunting and using a spurious and bogus Court of Appeals Resolution/Order.[1] In her Complaint-Affidavit, Natasha V. Heysuwan-Florido averred that she is the legitimate spouse of respondent Atty. James Benedict C. Florido, but that they are estranged and living separately from each other. They have two children namely, Kamille Nicole H. Florido, five years old, and James Benedict H. Florido, Jr., three years old both of whom are in complainants custody. Complainant filed a case for the annulment of her marriage with respondent, docketed as Civil Case No. 23122, before the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 24. Meanwhile, there is another case related to the complaint for annulment of marriage which is pending before the Court of Appeals and docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 54235 entitled, James Benedict C. Florido v. Hon. Pampio Abarientos, et al. Sometime in the middle of December 2001, respondent went to complainants residence in Tanjay City, Negros Oriental and demanded that the custody of their two minor children be surrendered to him. He showed complainant a photocopy of an alleged Resolution issued by the Court of Appeals which supposedly granted his motion for temporary child custody.[2] Complainant called up her lawyer but the latter informed her that he had not received any motion for temporary child custody filed by respondent. Complainant asked respondent for the original copy of the alleged resolution of the Court of Appeals, but respondent failed to give it to her. Complainant then examined the resolution closely and noted that it bore two dates: November 12, 2001 and November 29, 2001. Sensing something amiss, she refused to give custody of their children to respondent. In the mid-morning of January 15, 2002, while complainant was with her children in the ABC Learning Center in Tanjay City, respondent, accompanied by armed men, suddenly arrived and demanded that she surrender to him the custody of their children. He threatened to forcefully take them away with the help of his companions, whom he claimed to be agents of the National Bureau of Investigation. Alarmed, complainant immediately sought the assistance of the Tanjay City Police. The responding policemen subsequently escorted her to the police station where the matter could be clarified and settled peacefully. At the police station, respondent caused to be entered in the Police Blotter a statement that he, assisted by agents of the NBI, formally served on complainant the appellate courts resolution/order.[3] In order to diffuse the tension, complainant agreed to allow the children to sleep with respondent for one night on condition that he would not take them away from Tanjay City. This agreement was entered into in the presence of Tanjay City Chief of Police Juanito Condes and NBI Investigator Roger Sususco, among others. In the early morning of January 16, 2002, complainant received information that a van arrived at the hotel where respondent and the children were staying to take them to Bacolod City. Complainant rushed to the hotel and took the children to another room, where they stayed until later in the morning. On the same day, respondent filed with the Regional Trial Court of Dumaguete City, Branch 31, a verified petition[4] for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus asserting his right to custody of the children on the basis of the alleged Court of Appeals resolution. In the meantime, complainant verified the authenticity of the Resolution and obtained a certification dated January 18, 2002[5] from the Court of Appeals stating that no such resolution ordering complainant to surrender custody of their children to respondent had been issued. At the hearing of the petition for habeas corpus on January 23, 2002, respondent did not appear. Consequently, the petition was dismissed. Hence, complainant filed the instant complaint alleging that respondent violated his attorneys oath by manufacturing, flaunting and using a spurious Court of Appeals Resolution in and outside a court of law. Furthermore, respondent abused and misused the privileged granted to him by the Supreme Court to practice law in the country. After respondent answered the complaint, the matter was referred to the IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline for investigation, report and recommendation. The IBP-CBD recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three years with a warning that another offense of this nature will result in his disbarment.[6] On June 23, 2003, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the Report and recommendation of the Commission with the modification that the penalty of suspension be increased to six years. The issue to be resolved is whether or not the respondent can be held administratively liable for his reliance on and attempt to enforce a spurious Resolution of the Court of Appeals. In his answer to the complaint, respondent claims that he acted in good faith in invoking the Court of Appeals Resolution which he honestly believed to be authentic. This, however, is belied by the fact that he used and presented the spurious resolution several times. As pointed out by the Investigating Commissioner, the assailed Resolution was presented by respondent on at least two occasions: first, in his Petition for Issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus docketed as Special Proc. Case No. 3898,[7] which he filed with the Regional Trial Court of Dumaguete City; and second, when he sought the assistance of the Philippine National Police (PNP) of Tanjay City to recover custody of his minor children from complainant. Since it was respondent who used the spurious Resolution, he is presumed to have participated in its fabrication. Candor and fairness are demanded of every lawyer. The burden cast on the judiciary would be intolerable if it could not take at face value what is asserted by counsel. The time that will have to be devoted just to the task of verification of allegations submitted could easily be imagined. Even with due recognition then that counsel is expected to display the utmost zeal in the defense of a clients cause, it must never be at the expense of the truth.[8] Thus, the Code of professional Responsibility states: CANON 10.A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT. Rule 10.01 -A lawyer shall not do any falsehood; nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice. Rule 10.02 -A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the contents of a paper, the language or the argument of an opposing counsel, or the text of a decision or authority, or knowingly cite as a law a provision already rendered inoperative by repeal or amendment, or assert as a fact that which has not been proved. Moreover, the records show that respondent used offensive language in his pleadings in describing complainant and her relatives. A lawyers language should be forceful but dignified, emphatic but respectful as befitting an advocate and in keeping with the dignity of the legal profession.[9] The lawyers arguments whether written or oral should be gracious to both court and opposing counsel and should be of such words as may be properly addressed by one gentlemen to another.[10] By calling complainant, a sly manipulator of truth as well as a vindictive congenital prevaricator, hardly measures to the sobriety of speech demanded of a lawyer. Respondents actions erode the public perception of the legal profession. They constitute gross misconduct and the sanctions for such malfeasance is prescribed by Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court which states: SEC. 27. Disbarment and suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court, grounds therefore.- 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 of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before the admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience appearing as attorney for a party without authority to do so. Considering the attendant circumstances, we agree with the recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors that respondent should be suspended from the practice of law. However, we find that the period of six years is too harsh a penalty. Instead, suspension for the lesser period of two years, which we deem commensurate to the offense committed, is hereby imposed on respondent. WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, Atty. James Benedict C. Florido is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years. Let copies of this resolution be entered in the personal record of respondent as a member of the Bar and furnished the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) and the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts of the country.

SO ORDERED. A.C. No. 3294 February 17, 1993 MARIO S. MARIVELES, complainant, vs. ATTY. ODILON C. MALLARI, respondent. Rodolfo B. Ta-asan for complainant. PER CURIAM: On January 11, 1989, Mario S. Mariveles of Davao City filed an administrative complaint against his former counsel, Attorney Odilon C. Mallari, whose legal services he had engaged in 1984 to handle his defense in Criminal Case No. 6608 of the Regional Trial Court of Davao City where he was charged with violation of B.P. Blg. 22, otherwise known as the Bouncing Checks Law. After an adverse decision was rendered on December 26, 1986, Mariveles instructed Attorney Mallari to appeal the trial court's decision to the Court of Appeals, which the respondent did. However, in the Court of Appeals, despite numerous extensions of time, totalling 245 days, which he obtained from the Court, Attorney Mallari failed to file the appellant's brief, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal. Complainant discovered his lawyer's desertion only when he was subpoenaed by the trial court to appear before it for the execution of the decision which had become final. Through new counsel, complainant filed a Petition for Reinstatement of Appeal, Cancellation of Entry of Judgment and Admission of Appellant's Brief in CA-G.R. CR No. 04482, but it was denied by the appellate court. He sought relief in this court (G.R. No. 85964, "Mario S. Mariveles vs. Court of Appeal, et al.") which, on March 13, 1989, granted his petition, ordered the Court of Appeals to cancel the entry of judgment in CA-G.R. CR No. 04482, reinstate the appeal, and admit the appellant's brief filed by his new counsel. The Court said: It is true that the failure of counsel to file brief for the appellant which led to the dismissal of the appeal does not necessarily warrant the reinstatement thereof. However, where the negligence of counsel is so great that the rights of accused are prejudiced and he is prevented from presenting his defense, especially where the appellant raises issues which place in serious doubt the correctness of the trial court's judgment of conviction, the aforesaid rule must not be rigidly applied to avoid a miscarriage of justice. These teachings of jurisprudence are present in the case at bar. On the first aspect, the failure of petitioner's former counsel to file the brief, for reasons unknown and without any cause imputable to petitioner, amounted to deliberate abandonment of his client's interest and justifies reinstatement with consequent due consideration of petitioner's appeal through a new counsel. (pp. 106-107, Rollo). On February 15, 1989, the administrative complaint was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation. The IBP's Committee on Bar Discipline investigated the complaint and held hearings. On March 3, 1992, it submitted to this Court a report/resolution finding: In sum, what was committed by the respondent is a blatant violation of our Code of Professional Responsibility. xxx xxx xxx Rule 12.03 A lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions of time to file pleadings, memoranda or briefs, let the period lapse without submitting the same or offering an explanation for his failure to do so. Rule 18.03 A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. Suffice it to state that a lawyer has no business practicing his profession if in the course of that practice, he will eventually wreck and destroy the future and reputation of his client and thus disgrace the law profession. The last thing that his peers in the law profession and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines would do is to disrobe a member of the profession, for he has worked for the attainment of his career burning the midnight oil throughout school and passing the bar. The undersigned, however, could not find any mitigating circumstances to recommend a lighter penalty. Disbarment is the only recourse to remove a rotten apple if only to instill and maintain the respect and confidence of all and sundry to the noble profession. (pp. 249250, Rollo) The Court concurs with the above observations. The respondent demonstrated not only appalling indifference and lack of responsibility to the courts and his client but also a shameless disregard for his duties as a lawyer. He is unfit for membership in this noble profession. WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Attorney Odilon C. Mallari guilty of abandonment and dereliction of duty toward his client and hereby orders him DISBARRED from the legal profession and to immediately cease and desist from the practice of law. Let the Office of the Court Administrator and the Executive Judges of the Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh and Twelfth Judicial Regions, be furnished with copies of this resolution for dissemination to all the courts in those regions. SO ORDERED. HON. MARIANO S. MACIAS, complainant, vs. ATTY. ALANIXON A. SELDA, respondent. DECISION PUNO, J.: For violation of the l awyers oath, Judge Mariano S. Macias, Presiding Judge of Regional Trial Court, Branch 28, Liloy, Zamboanga del Norte, filed before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) a Petition for Administrative Discipline against Atty. Alanixon A. Selda.[1] The facts are undisputed. On January 24, 2000, respondent Selda withdrew as counsel for one Norma T. Lim, private protestee in Election Case No. SE-01 entitled Ruth Maraon v. The Municipal Board of Canvassers, Salud, Zamboanga del Norte, and Norma T. Lim for Annulment of Election, etc.[2] He basically submitted as ground for his withdrawal that he could not cope up with the pace of the proceedings in view of his workload. He claimed that the hearings of the election protest case would run from 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. and he still had to attend to his other cases including classes at Philippine Advent College, which start at 5:30 p.m. on Mondays and Wednesdays. In light of these representations, complainant granted the Motion and ordered respondent relieved of all his responsibilities as counsel for private protestee. However, on May 22, 2000, respondent executed an affidavit disavowing his grounds for withdrawing as counsel for private protestee. He swore that he only filed the Motion on account of the pre-judgment of the case by complainant, who, on several occasions insinuated to him that his client would lose in the protest. He stated that he was convinced that chaos would result if his client were unseated, and withdrawal from the case was his best recourse. On the basis of respondents affidavit, his former clie nt and private protestee in subject election protest case, moved for the inhibition of complainant. On June 2, 2000, complainant granted the motion for his inhibition if only to disabuse any doubt on his

impartiality. But on August 23, 2000, this Court set aside complainants inhibition after finding no strong and valid reason therefor, and directed him to continue hearing the case and to resolve it with reasonable dispatch. Deploring the act of respondent as serious deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct as a lawyer and in utter violation of the lawyers oath, complainant requested the IBP to investigate the matter and recommend to the Court an appropriate penalty aga inst respondent. On January 30, 2002, the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline [3] required respondent to answer. He failed. On November 21, 2003, after several postponements filed by the parties, their failure to personally appear before the IBP investigating commission, and the request of complainant to resolve the case on the basis of the pleadings, Commissioner Rebecca Villanueva-Maala, submitted her report and recommended to the IBP Board of Governors that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for two (2) years. The Board, in its Resolution No. XVI-2004-122 dated February 27, 2004, adopted and approved with modification the Report and Recommendation of Commissioner Maala. It reduced the suspension of respondent to six (6) months; hence, the transmittal of the case and its records to this Court for final resolution [4] pursuant to Rule 139-B, Section 12(b) of the Rules of Court, viz: Review and Decision by the Board of Governors. x x x x (b) If the Board, by the vote of a majority of its total membership, determines that the respondent should be suspended from the practice of law or disbarred, it shall issue a resolution setting forth its findings and recommendations which, together with the whole record of the case, shall forthwith be transmitted to the Supreme Court for final action. We affirm the findings of the IBP on the culpability of respondent. All members of the legal profession made a solemn oath to, inter alia, do no falsehood and conduct [themselves] as [lawyers] according to the best of [their] knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to [their] clients. These particular fundamental principles are reflected in the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically: Canon 10 A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court. Rule 10.01 A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court, nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by an artifice. When respondent executed his affidavit of May 22, 2000 retracting his reason for withdrawing as counsel for Norma T. Lim, he acknowledged, under oath, his misrepresentation. He misled the court in clear violation of his oath as lawyer and failed to abide by the Code of Professional Responsibility. Candor towards the courts is a cardinal requirement of the practicing lawyer. [5] In fact, this obligation to the bench for candor and honesty takes precedence.[6] Thus, saying one thing in his Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for Private Protestee and another in his subsequent affidavit is a transgression of this imperative which necessitates appropriate punishment. The appropriate penalty to be imposed on an errant attorney involves the exercise of sound judicial discretion based on the facts of the case. Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides, viz: Sec. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by 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 of a crime involving moral turpitude or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority to do so. The practice of soliciting cases for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice. The circumstances in this case demand that respondent be imposed suspension from the practice of law for one (1) year. This serves the purpose of protecting the interest of the court, the legal profession and the public. For indeed, if respect for the courts and for judicial process is gone or steadily weakened, no law can save us as a society. [7] IN VIEW WHEREOF, the February 27, 2004 Resolution of the IBP Board of Governors in CBD Case No. 02-921 is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that respondent Atty. Alanixon A. Selda is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year, to commence upon receipt of this Decision. He is further sternly warned that a repetition of a similar offense will call for a more severe consequence. Let a copy of this Decision be attached to the personal record of respondent with the Office of the Bar Confidant. Likewise, let copies of this Decision be furnished the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and all its chapters, and to all the courts in the land. Austria-Martinez, Callejo, Sr., Tinga, and Chico-Nazario, JJ., concur. AC No. 2837 | October 7, 1994 | Per Curiam A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court nor shall he mislead or allow the court to be misled by any artifice. Facts: Judge Domingo Panis in Pedro Cutingting v. Alfredo Tan ordered the NBI Director to conduct an investigation to determine the author of the falsified Sheriffs return in said case. As a result of which, the NBI charged respondents Attys. Edelson Oliva and Fl orando Umali for obstruction of justice. The case was referred to the Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP. In view of NBIs report that Umalis signature in the complaint in the civil case was not his, the case was dismissed with re spect to him. Issue: W/N respondent violated Code of Ethics Held: Yes. After the careful review of the record of the case and the report and recommendation of the IBP, the Court finds that respondent Atty. Edelson G. Oliva committed acts of misconduct which warrant the exercise by the Court of its disciplinary powers. The facts, as supported by the evidence, obtaining in this case indubitably reveal respondents failure to live up to his duties as a lawye r in consonance with the strictures of the lawyers oath, the Code of Professional Responsibility, and the Canons of Professional Ethics. A lawyers responsibility to protect and advance the interests of his client does not warrant a course of action propelled by ill motives and malicious intentions against the other party. In this case, respondent Atty. Edelson Oliva has manifestly violated that part of his oath as a lawyer that he shall not do any falsehood. He has likewise violated Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides: A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court nor shall he mislead or allow the court to be misled by any artifice. Accordingly, the Court resolved to impose upon Atty. Edelson Oliva the supreme penalty of DISBARMENT. His license to practice law in the Philippines is CANCELLED and the Bar Confidant is ordered to strike out his name from the Roll of Attorneys. A.C. No. 1900 June 13, 2012 RODRIGO A. MOLINA, Complainant, vs. ATTY. CEFERINO R. MAGAT, Respondent. DECISION MENDOZA, J.: Before the Court is the undated Resolution1 of the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines(IBP) finding Atty. Ceferino R. Magat (Atty. Magat) liable for unethical conduct and recommending that he be reprimanded. The Facts:

The case stemmed from a complaint for disbarment2 filed by Rodrigo A. Molina (complainant) against Atty. Magat before the Court on May 5, 1978. The complaint alleged, among others, that complainant filed cases of Assault Upon an Agent of a Person in Authority and Breach of the Peace and Resisting Arrest against one Pascual de Leon (de Leon) before the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Manila; that the counsel of record for accused de Leon in both cases was Atty. Magat; that a case for slight physical injuries was filed against him (Molina) by de Leon as a counter-charge and Atty. Magat was also the private prosecutor; that Atty. Magat subsequently filed a motion to quash the information on Assault upon an Agent of a Person in Authority on the sole ground of double jeopardy claiming that a similar case for slight physical injuries was filed in court by a certain Pat. Molina (Molina); that based on the record, no case of slight physical injuries was filed by Molina against de Leon; that Atty. Magat was very much aware of such fact as he was the counsel and private prosecutor on record of de Leon from the very start of the case way back on May 24, 1974; that Atty. Magats act of filing the Motion to Quash was a malicious act done in bad faith to mislead the court, thus, a betrayal of the confidence of the court of which he is an officer; and that Atty. Magat likewise committed willful disobedience of the court order when he appeared as counsel for de Leon on two (2) occasions despite the fact that he was suspended from the practice of law. In his Answer,3 Atty. Magat averred that in so far as the filing of the motion to quash was concerned, he was really under the impression that a criminal case in lieu of the two (2) charges was indeed filed and that the said motion was opposed by the other party and was denied by the court. He admitted his appearances in court while under suspension. He explained that his appearance in the December 21, 1977 hearing was to inform the court that the accused was sick and to prevent the issuance of a warrant of arrest against the accused. In the January 9, 1978 hearing, he appeared because the accused had no money and pleaded that his testimony be finished. Atty. Magat begged for the indulgence of the court and conveyed his repentance and apology and promised that the same would not happen again. The complaint was endorsed to the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) for investigation, report and recommendation. 4 Thereafter, the OSG transmitted the records of the case to the IBP for proper disposition. In his Report and Recommendation5 dated March 20, 2009, the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline found merit in the complaint and recommended that Atty. Magat be reprimanded and fined P50,000.00. It stated that: This Commission finds it hard to believe that respondent would have mistakenly been under the impression that a case for physical injuries was filed against his client when there was no such case filed. Respondent was either negligently reckless or he had mischievous intentions to deceive the trial court. In any case, he committed a transgression for which he should be punished. However, the graver sin of respondent is, and this he admits, that he appeared as counsel before a trial court on at least two (2) occasions notwithstanding the fact that he had been suspended by the Supreme Court from the practice of law. Despite professing his contrition in his Answer, this Commission is not convinced. Otherwise, respondent should have had, at the onset of the proceedings, admitted to his misdeeds and put his fate squarely with the disciplinary body. Yet, he proceeded to fight the charges against him. Moreover, if respondent was indeed moved by altruistic intentions when he made those appearances before the trial court despite having been suspended, he could have so informed the Presiding Judge of his plight and explained why the party he was representing could not attend. Yet, what he proceeded to do was to enter his appearance as counsel. Indeed, it is beyond doubt he trifled with the suspension order handed by the Supreme Court. If there is one thing going for respondent, it is that the passage of time with which this case remains pending makes it difficult to impose a penalty of suspension on him. Under normal circumstances, this Commission would not have thought twice of suspending respondent. However, the acts committed by respondent occurred over TWENTY (20) YEARS ago. It would not be fair to now impose a suspension on respondent, more so considering that he is, in all likelihood, in the twilight of his career. On the other hand, there is still a need to discipline respondent if only to set an example to other lawyers that suspension orders of the Supreme Court cannot simply be ignored. Thus, it is the recommendation of the undersigned that respondent be meted a fine of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P 50,000.00) and that he be heavily reprimanded for his actions, the passage of time notwithstanding. 6 On May 14, 2011, the IBP Board of Governors passed its Resolution 7 adopting the findings of the Investigating Commissioner. It, however, deleted the imposition of fine. The Court agrees with the findings of the IBP but not with respect to the penalty. The practice of law is a privilege bestowed on those who show that they possess and continue to possess the legal qualifications for it. Indeed, lawyers are expected to maintain at all times a high standard of legal proficiency and morality, including honesty, integrity and fair dealing. They must perform their four-fold duty to society, the legal profession, the courts and their clients, in accordance with the values and norms of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility.8 Atty. Magats act clearly falls short of the standards set by the Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly Rule 10.0 1, which provides: Rule 10.01 A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice. In this case, the Court agrees with the observation of the IBP that there was a deliberate intent on the part of Atty. Magat to mislead the court when he filed the motion to dismiss the criminal charges on the basis of double jeopardy. Atty. Magat should not make any false and untruthful statements in his pleadings. If it were true that there was a similar case for slight physical injuries that was really filed in court, all he had to do was to secure a certification from that court that, indeed, a case was filed. Furthermore, Atty. Magat expressly admitted appearing in court on two occasions despite having been suspended from the practice of law by the Court. Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, a member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from office as an attorney for a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court and/or for corruptly or wilfully appearing as an attorney without authority to do so.1wphi1 It provides: SEC. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by 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 of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice. [Underlining supplied] As stated, if Atty. Magat was truly moved by altruistic intentions when he appeared before the trial court despite having been suspended, he could have informed the Presiding Judge of his plight and explained why the party he was representing could not attend. On the contrary, Atty. Magat kept his silence and proceeded to represent his client as counsel. WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Ceferino R. Magat is hereby ordered SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months with a WARNING that the commission of the same or similar offense in the future would be dealt with more severely. SO ORDERED A.C. No. 7828 August 11, 2008 JUDGE ALDEN V. CERVANTES, complainant, vs. ATTY. JUDE JOSUE L. SABIO, respondent. DECISION CARPIO MORALES, J.: Judge Alden V. Cervantes (complainant) was the presiding judge of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Cabuyao, Laguna until his optional retirement on November 23, 2005. Some of the cases lodged in his sala were ejectment cases filed by Extra-Ordinary Development Corporation (EDC) against the clients of Atty. Jude Josue L. Sabio (respondent). It appears that respondent had filed

motions for inhibition of complainant "on the basis of the fact that EDC gave him a house and lot putting into serious doubt his impartiality, independence and integrity." The motions were denied. After the retirement of complainant, respondent, by Affidavit-Complaint dated April 6, 2006,1 sought the investigation of complainant for bribery. In support of the charge, respondent submitted a Sinumpaang Salaysay dated March 6, 2006 of Edwin P. Cardeo,2 a utility worker in the MTC of Cabuyao, stating that, inter alia, orders and decisions of complainant were not generated from the typewriter of the court but from a computer which the court did not have, it having acquired one only on May 2, 2005; that there had been many times that a certain Alex of EDC would go to the court bearing certain papers for the signature of complainant; that he came to learn that a consideration of P500.00 would be given for every order or decision released by complainant in favor of EDC; and that he also came to know that attempts at postponing the hearings of the complaints filed by EDC were thwarted by complainant as he wanted to expedite the disposition thereof. By Resolution of August 30, 2006,3 this Court, after noting the July 20, 2006 Memorandum of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) relative to respondents complaint against complainant, approved the recommendation of the OCA to dismiss the complaint for lack of merit, "the complaint being unsubstantiated and motivated by plain unfounded suspicion, and for having been filed after the effectivity of his optional retirement" (underscoring supplied). Thus, spawned the present verified December 18, 1996 letter-complaint4 of complainant against respondent, for disbarment. The complaint was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation. From the Report and Recommendation5 of the IBP Investigating Commissioner, Randall C. Tabayoyong, it is gathered that despite the January 12, 2007 Order for respondent to file an answer to the complaint, he failed to do so, prompting the Commissioner to declare him in default. It is further gathered that after the conduct by the Investigating Commissioner of a mandatory conference on May 25, 2007, the parties were ordered to file their respective position papers. In compliance with the Order, complainant submitted his verified position paper.6 Respondent did not. Defined as issues before the IBP were: (1) Whether . . . the complaint filed by respondent against the complainant before the Office of the Court Administrator in Admin Matter OCA IPI No. 06-1842-MTJ was malicious, false and untruthful. (2) If in the affirmative, whether . . . respondent is guilty under the Code of Professional Responsibility. On the first issue, the IBP Commissioner did not find respondents complaint against herein complainant false and untruthful, it noting that respondents complaint was dismissed by this Court due to insufficiency of evidence which, to the IBP, merely shows a "failure on the part of respondent to prove his allegations" against complainant. Noting, however, this Courts August 30, 2006 Resolution finding respondents complaint "unsubstantiated and motivated by pla in, unfounded" suspicion, the Investigating Commissioner concluded that respondent "knowingly instituted not only a groundless suit against herein complainant, but also a suit based simply on his bare suspicion and speculation." (underscoring supplied) On the second issue, the IBP found that by filing the groundless bribery charge against complainant, respondent violated the proscription of the Code of Professional Responsibility against "wittingly or willingly promot[ing] or su[ing] any groundless suit" including baseless administrative complaints against judges and other court officers and employees. The Investigating Commissioner thus concluded that while the evidence on record is sufficient to show that the allegations in respondents affidavit -complaint against herein complainant were false, the evidence nonetheless show[s] that respondent had knowingly and maliciously instituted a groundless suit, based simply on his unfounded suspicions against complainant; 7 (Underscoring supplied) and that he violated Canons 10,8 11,9 & 1210 and Rule 11.0411 of the Code of Professional Responsibility under his oath of office. He accordingly recommended that respondent be fined in the amount of P5,000, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely. 12 The Board of Governors of the IBP, by Notice of Resolution, informs that on November 22, 2007, it adopted the following Resolution adopting and approving with modification the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner, viz: RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby unanimously ADOPTED and APPROVED, with modification, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner of the above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex "A"; and, finding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, and considering Respondents violation of Canons 10, 11 and 12 and Rule 11.04 of the Code of Professional responsibility for filing a groundless suit against complainant, Atty. Jude Sabio is hereby REPRIMANDED with Stern Warning that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely. (Emphasis in the original) The Court finds the action taken by the IBP Board of Governors well taken. Respondent ought to be aware that if a court official or employee or a lawyer is to be disciplined, the evidence against him should be substantial, competent and derived from direct knowledge, not on mere allegations, conjectures, suppositions, or on the basis of hearsay.13 No doubt, it is this Courts duty to investigate the truth behind charges against judges and lawyers. But it is also its duty to shield them from unfounded suits which are intended to, among other things, harass them. WHEREFORE, respondent, Atty. Jude Josue L. Sabio, is FINED in the amount of Five Thousand (P5,000) Pesos, with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar questioned act will be dealt with more severely. SO ORDERED. ATTY. JOSABETH V. ALONSOand SHALIMAR P. LAZATIN, Complainants - versus ATTY. IBARO B. RELAMIDA, JR., Respondent. x --------------------------------------------------x

In March 2001, Jennifer Ebanen filed a Complaint for illegal dismissal against Servier Philippines, Incorporated (Servier) docketed as NLRC-NCR-Case No. 30-03-01583-01, alleging constructive dismissal with prayer for reinstatement or payment of separation pay, backwages, moral and exemplary damages. On July 5, 2002, the Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Servier. [2] It held that Ebanen voluntarily resigned from Servier and was, therefore, not illegally dismissed. Ebanen appealed at the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). On March 31, 2003, the NLRC-Third Division affirmed the Decision of the Labor Arbiter.[3] Thus, Ebanen moved for reconsideration. However, the NLRC denied the same in a Resolution[4] dated May 5, 2003. Unsatisfied, Ebanen filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals which was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 77968. In a Decision[5] dated January 16, 2004, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the findings of the NLRC that Ebanen voluntarily resigned and that there was no constructive dismissal. Ebanen moved anew for reconsideration, but was denied in a Resolution[6] dated April 30, 2004. Unrelenting, Ebanen filed a Petition for Review before the Supreme Court. However, in a Resolution[7] dated August 4, 2004, the Court found no reversible error on the part of the CA, thus, denied said petition. Ebanen filed a motion for reconsideration, but was denied with finality in a Resolution[8] dated October 11, 2004. Ebanen filed a Motion for Leave to Admit Second Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolutions dated August 4, 2004 and October 11, 2004, respectively. On January 19, 2005, the Court denied her motion.[9] Persistent, Ebanen filed a Motion to Admit a Third Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution dated January 19, 2005. On April 20, 2005, the Court denied her motion for being a prohibited pleading and noted without action Ebanens third motion for reconsid eration.[10] On July 27, 2005, the Second Division of the Supreme Court noted without action Ebanens Motion for Leave to Admit Supplement al Third Motion for Reconsideration dated June 1, 2005, in view of the entry of judgment on February 17, 2005. [11] On February 17, 2005, the Courts Resolution dated August 4, 2004 has already become final and executory; thus, a correspondi ng Entry of Judgment [12] has been issued. However, despite said entry of judgment, Ebanen, thru her counsel, Atty. Relamida, filed a second complaint on August 5, 2005 for illegal dismissal based on the same cause of action of constructive dismissal against Servier, now docketed as NLRC-NCR Case No. 00-08-07222-05. 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. Subsequently, in a Resolution[13] dated November 15, 2005, the Court required both Ebanen and Atty. Relamida to comment on the letter-complaint against them. On January 16, 2006, respondents filed their Comments.[14] Both respondents admitted the filing of the second complaint against Servier. They claimed that the judgment rendered by the Labor Arbiter was null and void for want 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. They opined that the dismissal did not amount to res judicata, since the decision was null and void for lack of due process. As a result, they claimed that there was also no violation of the rule on forum shopping. [15] On February 7, 2006, the Court referred the instant bar matter to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation.[16] On January 22, 2007, the Labor Arbiter dismissed the second complaint on the grounds of res judicata and forum shopping. It further reiterated that Ebanen voluntarily resigned from employment and was not constructively dismissed. On March 14, 2008, during the mandatory conference before the IBP, complainants failed to appear. Ebanen manifested that she is not a lawyer. Both parties were required to submit their respective position papers. Atty. Relamida reiterated that Ebanen is not a lawyer and that she is the daughter of Atty. Leonardo Aurelio (Atty. Aurelio), the senior partner of A.M. Sison Jr. and Partners Law Offices where he is employed as associate lawyer. He narrated that on March 28, 2001, Ebanen filed a Complaint for illegal dismissal against Servier. He claimed that in the beginning, Atty. Aurelio was the one who prepared and reviewed all the pleadings and it was Atty. Lapulapu Osoteo who stood as counsel for Ebanen in the said labor case. Atty. Relamida admitted, however, that during the filing of the second complaint he took over as counsel of Ebanen, as requested by Atty. Aurelio.[17] He also admitted that during the pendency of the first complaint, he occasionally examined pleadings and signed as counsel for Ebanen.[18] 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.[19] He maintained that he did not violate the lawyers oath by serving the interest of his client. Servier, on the other hand, argued that the filing of the second complaint is a violation of the rights of Servier, since the issue has already attained finality. It contended that Atty. Relamida violated the rules on forum shopping for the same act of filing a second complaint. As a consequence, they are being made to defend themselves in a case that has been settled before the labor tribunals and courts. Likewise, Servier insisted that the filing of the second complaint was also a blatant violation of the rule on res judicata. Hence, Servier prayed that Atty. Relamida be disciplinary dealt with due to his abuse of the processes of the courts. On April 19, 2008, the IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) recommended that respondent Atty. Relamida be suspended from the practice of law for six (6) months. It imposed no sanction on Ebanen for being a non-lawyer. In its Report, the IBP found that by filing the second complaint, Atty. Relamida was guilty of violating the rules on res judicata and forum shopping. It concluded that Atty. Relamida abused his right of recourse to the courts by filing a complaint for a cause that had been previously rejected by the courts.

DECISION

PERALTA, J.: Before us is a Complaint [1] dated October 13, 2005 for disciplinary action against respondent Atty. Ibaro B. Relamida, Jr. filed by Attys. Josabeth V. Alonso and Shalimar P. Lazatin, counsel of Servier Philippines, Incorporated for violating the rules on forum shopping and res judicata. The antecedent facts of the case are as follows:

On June 5, 2008, the IBP Board of Governors resolved to adopt and approve with modification as to penalty the report of the IBPCBD. Instead, it recommended that Atty. Relamida be suspended from the practice of law for one (1) month for his violation of the rules on res judicata and forum shopping. On December 7, 2009, the Office of the Bar Confidant recommended that the instant complaint be re-docketed as a regular administrative case against Atty. Relamida. We sustain the findings of the IBP-CBD. All lawyers must bear in mind that their oaths are neither mere words nor an empty formality. When they take their oath as lawyers, they dedicate their lives to the pursuit of justice. They accept the sacred trust to uphold the laws of the land. As the first Canon of the Code of Professional Responsibility states, "[a] lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes." Moreover, according to the lawyers oath they took, lawye rs should "not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor give aid or consent to the same." [20] In the instant case, it is clear that Atty. Relamida is guilty of forum shopping and violation of the rule on res judicata. Atty. Relamida should have refrained from filing the second complaint against Servier. He ought to have known that the previous dismissal was with prejudice, since it had the effect of an adjudication on the merits. He was aware of all the proceedings which the first complaint went through as by his own admission, he participated in the preparation of the pleadings and even signed as counsel of Ebanen occasionally.[21] He knew that the decision in the subject case had already attained finality. Atty. Relamida was well aware that when he filed the second complaint, it involved the same parties and same cause of action, albeit, he justified the same on the ground of nullity of the previous dismissal. His allegation that he was not the original counsel of Ebanen and that his intention was only to protect the rights of his clients whom he believed were not properly addressed in the prior complaint deserves scant consideration. He should know that once a case is decided with finality, the controversy is settled and the matter is laid to rest. The prevailing party is entitled to enjoy the fruits of his victory, while the other party is obliged to respect the courts verdict and to comply with it. [22] The essence of forum shopping is the filing of multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, for the purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment. It exists when, as a result of an adverse opinion in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion in another, or when he institutes two or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause to increase the chances of obtaining a favorable decision. An important factor in determining its existence is the vexation caused to the courts and the parties-litigants by the filing of similar cases to claim substantially the same reliefs. Forum shopping exists where the elements of litis pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another. Thus, the following requisites should concur:[23] x x x (a) identity of parties, or at least such parties as represent the same interests in both actions, (b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts, and (c) the identity of the two preceding particulars is such that any judgment rendered in the other action will, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the action under consideration.

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 courts 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.[24] 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 lawyers mandate "to delay no man for money or malice."[25] The Court has, time and again, warned lawyers not to resort to forum shopping for this practice clogs the court dockets. Their primary duty is to assist the courts in the administration of justice. Any conduct which tends to delay, impede or obstruct the administration of justice contravenes such lawyers duty.[26] This we will not tolerate. In cases of similar nature,[27] the penalty imposed by this Court was six (6) months suspension from the practice of law. Thus, consistent with the existing jurisprudence, we find that, in this case, the suspension of six (6) months from practice of law is proper. 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 herebySUSPENDED for six (6) months from the practice of law, effective upon the receipt of this Decision. He is warned that a repetition of the same or a similar act will be dealt with more severely. Let a copy of this Decision be furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant, to be appended to the personal record of Atty. Relamida as a member of the Bar; the Integrated Bar of the Philippines; and the Office of the Court Administrator, for circulation to all courts in the country for their information and guidance. This Decision shall be immediately executory. SO ORDERED.