CHAPTER III.

THE LAWYER AND THE COURTS

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 opposing counsel, or the text of a decision or authority, or knowingly
cite as law a provision already rendered inoperative by repeal or amendment, or assert as a fact that
which has not been proved.
Rule 10.03 - A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat the
ends of justice.
A.C. No. 5624

January 20, 2004

CASE 51
NATASHA HUEYSUWAN-FLORIDO, Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. JAMES BENEDICT C. FLORIDO, Respondent.

DECISION

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

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 XXxx

In the meantime, complainant verified the authenticity of the Resolution and obtained a certification
dated January 18, 20025 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.

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.
Ruling

Candor and fairness are demanded of every lawyer.1wphi1 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.
DECISION:
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.

CASE 52
ADM. CASE No. 4495

October 8, 2008

ANTONIO DE ZUZUARREGUI, JR., complainant,

vs.
ATTY. APOLONIA A. C. SOGUILON, Respondent.

RESOLUTION

TINGA, J.:

Before us is an administrative case for disbarment filed by complainant Antonio de Zuzuarregui, Jr.
against respondent Atty. Apolonia A.C. Soguilon. Complainant accuses respondent of misconduct,
concealment of the truth and misleading the court.

Respondent acted as counsel for the petitioner in LRC No. Q-7195 (95) before the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 93. In his letter1 dated 15 September 1995, complainant
narrated that in the course of the presentation of evidence in support of the petition for
reconstitution, respondent introduced as evidence the certified copy of the technical description and
the sketch plan of the land both issued by the Land Management Services. The documents were
subsequently marked as Exhibits "F" and "G," respectively.
A closer study of the documents however revealed that they contained the following notations:
XX

The above-quoted notations notwithstanding, the trial court allowed reconstitution of the title. As
such, complainant submitted that respondent was remiss in not calling the attention of the trial court
to the notations indicated in the documents, emphasizing her duty to avoid concealment of the truth
from the court.
ISSUE:
The crux of the controversy is whether respondent maliciously misled the court by failing to point out
material notations in the documents she had submitted; whether she deliberately omitted mention of
certain persons entitled to notice under the law; and whether she fraudulently claimed that she had
complied with the LRA requirements or whether all these omissions could be considered honest
mistakes or errors.
RULING:
The Court finds no reason to disturb the findings of the Commissioner.

The Court agrees with the Commissioners evaluation that respondent did not employ deceit or
misrepresentation in acting as counsel for the petitioner in the petition for reconstitution of title.
Anent respondents failure to point out the notations in the documents she had submitted, in the

Courts opinion, the Commissioner correctly observed that there was absence of proof that
respondent had intended to mislead or deceive the trial court. In fact, the said notations were laid
bare for the trial courts evaluation. There were no attempts on respondents part to manipulate or
hide them.

As regards respondents failure to state in the petition certain persons entitled to notice under the
law, specifically the parties allegedly in possession of the properties, respondent unflinchingly
countered that she had duly asked of her client the names of the persons having interest in the
property subject of the title sought to be reconstituted.11 In fact, the petition for reconstitution filed
before the court contained the names and addresses of the adjoining land owners.12 And even in
retrospect, it appears that there was no reason for respondent to disbelieve the representations
made by her client on the matter.

Regarding respondents claim that she had complied with the LRA requirements when in truth she
had not, the Court concurs with the Commissioners finding that respondent was not sufficiently
informed that compliance was insufficient and improper.

In administrative cases for disbarment or suspension against lawyers, the quantum of proof required
is clearly preponderant evidence and the burden of proof rests upon the complainant.13 In the
present case, the Court finds that complainant, who notably owns one of the properties subject of
the title sought to be reconstituted,14 and is consequently an adverse party, failed to present clear
and preponderant evidence to show respondents guilt of the charges he had leveled against her. In
any event, it is worth mentioning that the prejudice, if any, caused by respondents oversight against
complainant and other interested parties had been rectified later on by a different judge who set
aside the order of reconstitution.15

All told, the lapses of respondent were committed without malice and devoid of any desire to dupe or
defraud the opposing party. They are innocuous blunders that were made without intent to harm. As
plain acts of inadvertence, they do not reach the level of professional incompetence. While
professional incompetence is not among the grounds of disbarment enumerated in Section 27, Rule
138 of the Revised Rules of Court yet there are instances where a lawyer may be disciplined for
inexcusable ignorance as the list is not exclusive. Indeed, the Court is convinced that respondent
should not be sanctioned.

Pertinently, the Court expressed in Mendoza v. Mercado,16 to wit:

An attorney-at-law is not expected to know all the law. For an honest mistake or error, an attorney is
not liable. Chief Justice Abbott said that, "no attorney is bound to know all the law; God forbid that it

should be imagined that an attorney or a counsel, or even a judge, is bound to know all the law."
(Montorious v. Jefferys, 2 Car. & P. 113, cited in In Re Filart, 40 Phil. 205, 208).17
DECISION:
WHEREFORE, the petition for review is DENIED. The Resolution of the Board of Governors of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines dated 25 June 2005 in Adm. Case No. 4495 is AFFIRMED. The
administrative complaint for disbarment of respondent Atty. Apolonia A.C. Soguilon is DISMISSED
for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.
CAS 53
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

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:

FACTS:
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:
ISSUE: WON failure of petitioner's former counsel to file the brief, for reasons unknown and without
any cause VIOLATES CPR
RULING: YES
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. 249-250, 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.
DECISION:
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.
CASE 54
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

SECOND DIVISION

A.C. No. 6442

October 21, 2004

HON. MARIANO S. MACIAS, complainant,

vs.
ATTY. ALANIXON A. SELDA, respondent.

DECISION

PUNO, J.:

For violation of the lawyers 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

FACTS
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.
ISSUE:
WON RESPONDENTS
VIOLATED HIS CPR

RETRACTION

OF

HIS

WITHDRAWAL

(MISREPRESENTATION)

RULING:
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
DECISION:
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.

CASE 55

A.C. No. 2837 October 7, 1994

ESTEBAN M. LIBIT, complainant,

vs.
ATTYS. EDELSON G. OLIVA and FLORANDO A. UMALI, respondent.

RESOLUTION

PER CURIAM:
FACTS:
In civil Case No. 84-24144 of the Court of First Instance of Manila, entitled "Pedro Cutingting,
plaintiff versus Alfredo Tan, defendant", the Honorable Presiding Judge Domingo Panis issued the
following order:

The Director of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) is hereby ordered to conduct an
investigation with the end in view of determining the author of the Sheriff's Return which appears to
have been falsified and to institute such criminal action as the evidence will warrant. (p. 1, Final
Report.)

Pursuant to Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court and the resolution of the Court En Banc of April 12,
1988, the case was referred to the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report, and recommendation.

In view, however, of the report of the National Bureau of Investigation to the effect that the signature
above the typewritten name Florando Umali on the last page of the complaint in said civil case is not
his signature, complainant, through counsel, agreed to the dismissal of the case with respect to Atty.
Umali.

With respect to Atty. Edelson G. Oliva, the IBP submitted the following report and recommendation:

There is ample evidence extant in the records to prove that

Atty. Oliva has something to do with the falsification of the Sheriff's Return on the Summons in said
Civil Case No. 84-24144.
ISSUE: WON ATTY. OLIVA VIOLATED HIS CPR?
RULING:
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 respondent's failure to live up to his duties as a lawyer in consonance
with the strictures of the lawyer's oath, the Code of Professional Responsibility, and the Canons of
Professional Ethics. A lawyer's 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.

At this juncture, it is well to stress once again that the practice of law is not a right but a privilege
bestowed by the State on those who show that they possess, and continue to possess, the
qualifications required by law for the conferment of such privilege. One of these requirements is the
observance of honesty and candor. It can not be gainsaid that candidness, especially towards the
courts, is essential for the expeditious administration of justice. Courts are entitled to expect only
complete candor and honesty from the lawyers appearing and pleading before them. A lawyer, on
the other hand, has the fundamental duty to satisfy the expectation. It is essential that lawyers bear
in mind at all times that their first duty is not to their clients but rather to the courts, that they are
above all court officers sworn to assist the courts in rendering justice to all and sundry, and only
secondarily are they advocates of the exclusive interests of their clients. For this reason, he is
required to swear to do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court (Chavez vs. Viola, 196
SCRA 10 [1991].

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.
DECISION:

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.

The case is ordered dismissed as against Atty. Florando Umali.

SO ORDERED.

CASE
56
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

THIRD DIVISION

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.
ISSUE:
WON ATTY. MAGAT VIOLATED CANON 10
RULING:
YES
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 10.01, 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.

JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA

Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

CASE 57
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

SECOND DIVISION

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.
XX
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.
ISSUES:

(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.
RULING:

The Board of Governors of the IBP, by Notice of Resolution,12 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 aboveentitled 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)
RULING:
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.
DECISION:
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.

Quisumbing, Chairperson Corona*, Velasco, Jr., Brion, JJ., concur.

CASE 58
A.C. No. 8481

August 3, 2010

[Formerly B.M. No. 1524]

ATTY. JOSABETH V. ALONSO and SHALIMAR P. LAZATIN, Complainants,

vs.
ATTY. IBARO B. RELAMIDA, JR., Respondent.

DECISION

PERALTA, J.:

Before us is a Complaint1 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:

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.
XX
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.

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.

On June 5, 2008, the IBP Board of Governors resolved to adopt and approve with modification as to
penalty the report of the IBP-CBD. 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.
ISSUE:
WON THE filing the second complaint, Atty. Relamida was guilty of violating the rules on res judicata
and forum shopping AND his CPR?

RULING:
YES.
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,
lawyers 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.1avvphi1

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 hereby SUSPENDED 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.