http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/aug1991/ac_3056_1991.

html
A.C. No. 3056 August 16, 1991 FERNANDO T. COLLANTES, complainant, vs. ATTY. VICENTE C. RENOMERON respondent. PER CURIAM

This complaint for disbarment is related to the administrative case which complainant Attorney Fernando T. Collantes, house counsel for V & G Better omes !ubdivision, "nc. #V & G for short$, filed a%ainst Attorney Vicente C. &enomeron, &e%ister of 'eeds of Tacloban City, for the latter(s irre%ular actuations with re%ard to the application of V & G for re%istration of )*+ pro forma 'eeds of Absolute !ale with Assi%nment of lots in its subdivision. The present complaint char%es the respondent with the followin% offenses, ). -e%lectin% or refusin% inspite #sic$ repeated re.uests and without sufficient /ustification, to act within reasonable time #sic$ the re%istration of )*+ 'eeds of Absolute !ale with Assi%nment and the eventual issuance and transfer of the correspondin% )*+ transfer certificates of titles to the G!"!, for the purpose of obtainin% some pecuniary or material benefit from the person or persons interested therein. 0. Conduct unbecomin% of public official. +. 'ishonesty. 1. 23tortion. 4. 'irectly receivin% pecuniary or material benefit for himself in connection with pendin% official transaction before him. *. Causin% undue in/ury to a party, the G!"! 5or6 Government throu%h manifest partiality, evident bad faith or %ross ine3cusable ne%li%ence. 7. Gross i%norance of the law and procedure. #p. )8, &ollo.$ As early as 9anuary )4, ):;7, V & G had re.uested the respondent &e%ister of 'eeds to re%ister some )*+ deeds of sale with assi%nment #in favor of the G!"!$ of lots of the V & G mort%a%ed to G!"! by the lot buyers. There was no action from the respondent. Another re.uest was made on February )*, ):;7 for him to approve or deny re%istration of the uniform deeds of absolute sale with assi%nment. !till no action e3cept to re.uire V & G to submit proof of real estate ta3 payment and to clarify certain details about the transactions. Althou%h V & G complied with the desired re.uirements, respondent &enomeron suspended the re%istration of the documents pendin% compliance by V & G with a certain <special arran%ement< between them, which was that V & G should provide him with a wee=ly round trip tic=et from Tacloban to >anila plus ?0,888.88 as poc=et money per trip, or, in lieu thereof, the sale of respondent(s @ueAon City house and lot by V & G or G!"! representatives. Bn >ay ):, ):;7, respondent confided to the complainant that he would act favorably on the )*+ re%istrable documents of V & G if the latter would e3ecute clarificatory affidavits and send money for a round trip plane tic=et for him. The plane fare amountin% to ?;88 #without the poc=et money of ?0,888$ was sent to respondent throu%h his niece. Because of V & G(s failure to %ive him poc=et money in addition to plane fare, respondent imposed additional re%istration re.uirements. Fed up with the respondent(s e3tortionate tactics, the complainant wrote him a letter on >ay 08, ):;7 challen%in% him to act on all pendin% applications for re%istration of V & G within twentyCfour #01$ hours. Bn >ay 00, ):;7, respondent formally denied re%istration of the transfer of )*+ certificates of title to the

G!"! on the uniform %round that the deeds of absolute sale with assi%nment were ambi%uous as to parties and sub/ect matter. Bn >ay 0*, ):;7, Attorney Collantes moved for a reconsideration of said denial, stressin% that, ... since the year ):7+ continuously up to 'ecember ):;* for a period of nearly fifteen #)4$ years or for a sum total of more than 0,888 same set of documents which have been repeatedly and uniformly re%istered in the Bffice of the &e%ister of 'eeds of Tacloban City under Attys. >odesto Garcia and ?ablo Amascual 9r., it is only durin% the incumbency of Atty. Vicente C. &enomeron, that the very same documents of the same tenor have been refused or denied re%istration ... #p. )4, &ollo.$ Bn >ay 07, ):;7, respondent elevated the matter en consulta to the Administrator, -ational Dand Titles and 'eeds &e%istration Administration #-DT'&A$ #now the Dand &e%istration Authority 5D&A6$. "n a &esolution dated 9uly 07,):;7 #Consulta -o. )47:$, the -DT'&A ruled that the .uestioned documents were re%istrable. eedless of the -DT'&A(s opinion, respondent continued to sit on V & Gs )*+ deeds of sale with assi%nment. 23asperated by respondent(s conduct, the complainant filed with the -DT'&A on 9une 1, ):;7 administrative char%es #doc=eted as Adm. Case -o. ;7C)4$, a%ainst respondent &e%ister of 'eeds. Epon receipt of the char%es, -DT'&A Administrator Teodoro G. Bonifacio directed respondent to e3plain in writin% why no administrative disciplinary action should be ta=en a%ainst him. &espondent was further as=ed whether he would submit his case on the basis of his answer, or be heard in a formal investi%ation. "n his answer dated 9uly :, ):;7, respondent denied the char%es of e3tortion and of directly receivin% pecuniary or material benefit for himself in connection with the official transactions awaitin% his action. Althou%h an investi%ator was appointed by -DT'&A Administrator Bonifacio to hear Attorney Collantes( char%es a%ainst him, Attorney &enomeron waived his ri%ht to a formal investi%ation. Both parties submitted the case for resolution based on the pleadin%s. The investi%ator, Attorney Deonardo 'a 9ose, recommended droppin% the char%es of, #)$ dishonestyF #0$ causin% undue in/ury to a party throu%h manifest partiality, evident bad faith or %ross ine3cusable ne%li%enceF and #+$ %ross i%norance of the law and procedure. e opined that the char%e of ne%lectin% or refusin%, in spite repeated re.uests and without sufficient /ustification, to act within a reasonable time on the re%istration of the documents involved, in order to e3tort some pecuniary or material benefit from the interested party, absorbed the char%es of conduct unbecomin% of a public official, e3tortion, and directly receivin% some pecuniary or material benefit for himself in connection with pendin% official transactions before him. Brushin% aside the investi%ator(s recommendation, -DT'&A Administrator Teodoro G. Bonifacio on February 00, ):;;, recommended to !ecretary of 9ustice !edfrey A. BrdoGeA that the respondent, #)$ be found %uilty of simple ne%lect of duty, #0$ be reprimanded to act with dispatch on documents presented to him for re%istrationF and #+$ be warned that a repetition of similar infraction will be dealt with more severely. After due investi%ation of the char%es, !ecretary BrdoGeA found respondent %uilty of %rave misconduct. Bur study and consideration of the records of the case indicate that ample evidence supports the "nvesti%atin% Bfficer(s findin%s that the respondent committed %rave misconduct. The respondent unreasonably delayed action on the documents presented to him for re%istration and, notwithstandin% representations by the parties interested for e3peditious action on the said documents, he continued with his inaction. The records indicate that the respondent eventually formally denied the re%istration of the documents involvedF that he himself elevated the .uestion on the re%istrability of the said documents to Administrator Bonifacio after he formally denied the re%istration thereof, that the Administrator then resolved in favor of the re%istrability of the said documents in .uestionF and that, such resolution of the Administrator notwithstandin%, the respondent still refused the re%istration thereof but demanded from the parties interested the submission of additional re.uirements not adverted to in his previous denial.

333 333 333 "n relation to the alle%ed (special arran%ement,( althou%h the respondent claims that he neither touched nor received the money sent to him, on record remains uncontroverted the circumstance that his niece, >s. de la CruA, retrieved from him the amount of ?;88.88 earlier sent to him as plane fare, not in the ori%inal denomination of ?)88.88 bills but in ?48.88 bills. The respondent had ample opportunity to clarify or to countervail this related incident in his letter dated 4 !eptember ):;7 to Administrator Bonifacio but he never did so. ... He believe that, in this case, the respondent(s bein% new in office cannot serve to miti%ate his liability. is bein% so should have motivated him to be more aware of applicable laws, rules and re%ulations and should have prompted him to do his best in the dischar%e of his duties. #pp. )7C);, &ollo.$ !ecretary BrdoGeA recommended to ?resident CoraAon C. A.uino that &enomeron be dismissed from the service, with forfeiture of leave credits and retirement benefits, and with pre/udice to reCemployment in the %overnment service, effective immediately. As recommended by the !ecretary of 9ustice, the ?resident of the ?hilippines, by Adm. Brder -o. )*4 dated >ay +, )::8, dismissed the respondent from the %overnment service #pp. )1):, &ollo$. Dess than two wee=s after filin% his complaint a%ainst &enomeron in the -DT'&A, Attorney Collantes also filed in this Court on 9une )*, ):;7, a disbarment complaint a%ainst said respondent. The issue in this disbarment proceedin% is whether the respondent re%ister of deeds, as a lawyer, may also be disciplined by this Court for his malfeasances as a public official. The answer is yes, for his misconduct as a public official also constituted a violation of his oath as a lawyer. The lawyer(s oath #&ule )+;, !ection )7, &ules of CourtF ?eople vs. 'e Duna, )80 ?hil. :*;$, imposes upon every lawyer the duty to delay no man for money or malice. The lawyer(s oath is a source of his obli%ations and its violation is a ground for his suspension, disbarment or other disciplinary action #De%al 2thics, &uben 2. A%palo, ):;+ 2dition, pp. **C*7$. As the late Chief 9ustice Fred &uiA Castro said, A person ta=es an oath when he is admitted to the Bar which is desi%ned to impress upon him his responsibilities. e thereby becomes an <officer of the court< on whose shoulders rests the %rave responsibility of assistin% the courts in the proper. fair, speedy, and efficient administration of /ustice. As an officer of the court he is sub/ect to a ri%id discipline that demands that in his every e3ertion the only criterion he that truth and /ustice triumph. This discipline is what as %iven the law profession its nobility, its presti%e, its e3alted place. From a lawyer, to paraphrase Justice Felix Frankfurter, are expected those qualities of truthspeaking, a high sense of honor, full candor, intellectual honesty, and the strictest observance of fiduciary responsibility all of which, throughout the centuries, have been compendiously described as moral character. embership in the !ar is in the category of a mandate to public service of the highest order. A lawyer is an oathCbound servant of society whose conduct is clearly circumscribed by infle3ible norms of law and ethics, and whose primary duty is the advancement of the .uest of truth and /ustice, for which he has sworn to be a fearless crusader. #Apostacy in the De%al ?rofession, *1 !C&A 7;1, 7;:C 7:8F emphasis supplied.$ The Code of ?rofessional &esponsibility applies to lawyers in %overnment service in the dischar%e of their official tas=s #Canon *$. 9ust as the Code of Conduct and 2thical !tandards for ?ublic Bfficials re.uires public officials and employees to process documents and papers e3peditiously #!ec. 4, subpars. 5c6 and 5d6 and prohibits them from directly or indirectly havin% a financial or material interest in any transaction re.uirin% the approval of their office, and li=ewise bars them from solicitin% %ifts or anythin% of monetary value in the course of any transaction which may be affected by the functions of their office #!ee. 7, subpars. 5a6 and 5d6$, the Code of ?rofessional &esponsibility forbids a lawyer to en%a%e in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct #&ule ).8), Code of ?rofessional &esponsibility$, or delay any man(s cause <for any corrupt motive or interest< #&ule )8+$.

A lawyer shall not en%a%e in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession. #&ule 7.8+, Code of ?rofessional &esponsibility.$ This Court has ordered that only those who are <competent, honorable, and reliable< may practice the profession of law #-orie%a vs. !ison, )04 !C&A 0:+$ for every lawyer must pursue <only the hi%hest standards in the practice of his callin%< #Court Administrator vs. ermoso, )48 !C&A 0*:, 07;$. The acts of dishonesty and oppression which Attorney &enomeron committed as a public official have demonstrated his unfitness to practice the hi%h and noble callin% of the law #Bautista vs. 9ud%e Guevarra, )10 !C&A *+0F Court Administrator vs. &odolfo G. ermoso, )48 !C&A 0*:$. e should therefore be disbarred. H 2&2FB&2, it is hereby ordered that Attorney Vicente C. &enomeron be disbarred from the practice of law in the ?hilippines, and that his name be stric=en off the &oll of Attorneys !B B&'2&2'. Fernan, ".J., #arvasa, elencio-$errera, %utierre&, Jr., "ru&, 'aras, Feliciano, %ancayco, 'adilla, !idin, (armiento, %ri)o-*quino, edialdea, +egalado and ,avide, Jr., JJ., concur.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6707_2006.html
A.C. No. 6!0! M"#$% &', &006 (ISELA )UYSSEN, Complainant, vs. ATTY. FRED L. (UTIERRE*, &espondent. '2C"!"BPER CURIAM This treats of a Complaint) for 'isbarment filed by Gisela GutierreA. uyssen a%ainst respondent Atty. Fred D.

Complainant alle%ed that in )::4, while respondent was still connected with the Bureau of "mmi%ration and 'eportation #B"'$, she and her three sons, who are all American citiAens, applied for ?hilippine Visas under !ection )+5%6 of the "mmi%ration Daw. &espondent told complainant that in order that their visa applications will be favorably acted upon by the B"' they needed to deposit a certain sum of money for a period of one year which could be withdrawn after one year. Believin% that the deposit was indeed re.uired by law, complainant deposited with respondent on si3 different occasions from April )::4 to April )::* the total amount of E!I08,888. &espondent prepared receiptsJvouchers as proofs that he received the amounts deposited by the complainant but refused to %ive her copies of official receipts despite her demands. After one year, complainant demanded from respondent the return of E!I08,888 who assured her that said amount would be returned. Hhen respondent failed to return the sum deposited, the Horld >ission for 9esus #of which complainant was a member$ sent a demand letter to respondent for the immediate return of the money. "n a letter dated ) >arch ):::, respondent promised to release the amount not later than : >arch ):::. Failin% to comply with his promise, the Horld >ission for 9esus sent another demand letter. "n response thereto, respondent sent complainant a letter dated ): >arch )::: e3plainin% the alle%ed reasons for the delay in the release of deposited amount. e enclosed two blan= chec=s postdated to * April and 08 April )::: and authoriAed complainant to fill in the amounts. Hhen complainant deposited the postdated chec=s on their due dates, the same were dishonored because respondent had stopped payment on the same. Thereafter, respondent, in his letter to complainant dated 04 April ):::, e3plained the reasons for stoppin% payment on the chec=s, and %ave complainant five postdated chec=s with the assurance that said chec=s would be honored. Complainant deposited the five postdated chec=s on their due dates but they were all dishonored for havin% been drawn a%ainst insufficient funds or payment thereon was ordered stopped by respondent. After respondent made several unfulfilled promises to return the deposited amount, complainant referred the matter to a lawyer who sent two demand letters to respondent. The demand letters remained unheeded.

Thus, a complaint0 for disbarment was filed by complainant in the Commission on Bar 'iscipline of the "nte%rated Bar of the ?hilippines #"B?$. Bn )4 -ovember 0888, Victor C. FernandeA, 'irector for Bar 'iscipline, re.uired + respondent to submit his answer within )4 days from receipt thereof. "n his CounterCAffidavit dated 0 9uly 088), 1 respondent denied the alle%ations in the complaint claimin% that havin% never physically received the money mentioned in the complaint, he could not have appropriated or poc=eted the same. e said the amount was used as payment for services rendered for obtainin% the permanent visas in the ?hilippines. &espondent e3plained thus, a$ Throu%h a closeCfriend, 9ovie Galara%a, a ?astor and li=ewise a friend of the complainant, the latter was introduced to me at my office at the Bureau of "mmi%ration with a bi% problem concernin% their stay in the ?hilippines, herself and three sons, one of which is already of ma/or a%e while the two others were still minors then. Their problem was the fact that since they have been stayin% in the ?hilippines for almost ten #)8$ years as holders of missionary visas #:G$ they could no lon%er e3tend their said status as under the law and related polic5i6es of the %overnment, missionary visa holders could only remain as such for ten #)8$ years after which they could no lon%er e3tend their said status and have to leave the country. b$ !tudyin% their case and bein% E.!. CitiAen #sic$, " advised them that they better secure a permanent visa under !ection + of the ?hilippine "mmi%ration Daw otherwise =nown as @uota Visa and thereafter, provided them with list of the re.uirements in obtainin% the said visa, one of which is that the applicant must have a I18,888 deposited in the ban=. " also inform that her son >arcus uyssen, who was already of ma/or a%e, has to have the same amount of show money separate of her money as he would be issued separate visa, while her two minor children would be included as her dependents in her said visa application. " advised them to %et a lawyer #sic$, complainant further re.uested me to refer to her to a lawyer to wor= for their application, which " did and contacted the late Atty. >endoAa, an "mmi%ration lawyer, to do the /ob for the complainant and her family. c$ The application was filed, processed and followedCup by the said Atty. >endoAa until the same was finished and the correspondin% permanent visa were obtained by the complainant and her family. er son >arcus uyssen was %iven an independent permanent visa while the other two were made as dependents of the complainant. "n between the processin% of the papers and becomin% very close to the complainant, " became the intermediary between complainant and their counsel so much that every amount that the latter would re.uest for whatever purpose was coursed throu%h me which re.uest were then transmitted to the complainant and every amount of money %iven by the complainant to their counsel were coursed thru me which is the very reason why my si%nature appears in the vouchers attached in the complaintCaffidavitF d$ That as time %oes by, " noticed that the amount appeared to be hu%e for services of a lawyer that " myself be%an to wonder why and, to satisfy my curiosity, " met Atty. >endoAa and in.uired from him re%ardin% the matter and the followin% facts were revealed to me, )$ That what was used by the complainant as her show money from the ban= is not really her money but money of Horld >ission for 9esus, which therefore is a serious violation of the "mmi%ration Daw as there was a misrepresentation. This fact was confirmed later when the said entity sent their demand letter to the undersi%ned affiant and which is attached to the complaintCaffidavitF 0$ That worst, the same amount used by the complainant, was the very same amount used by her son >arcus uyssen, in obtainin% his separate permanent visa. These acts of the complainant and her son could have been a %round for deportation and li=ewise constitute criminal offense under the "mmi%ration Daw and the &evised ?enal Code. These could have been the possible reason why complainant was made to pay for .uite hu%e amount. e$ That after they have secured their visas, complainant and her family became very close to undersi%ned and my family that " was even invited to their residence several timesF f$ owever after three years, complainant demanded the return of their money %iven and surprisin%ly they want to recover the same from me. By twist of fate, Atty. >endoAa is no lon%er

around, he died sometime )::7F %$ That it is unfortunate that the real facts of the matter is now bein% hidden and that the amount of money is now bein% sou%ht to be recovered from meF h$ That the fact is " si%ned the vouchers and bein% a lawyer " =now the conse.uences of havin% si%ned the same and therefore " had to answer for it and pay. " tried to raised the fund needed but up to the present my standby loan application has not been released and was informed that the same would only be forthcomin% second wee= of Au%ust. The same should have been released last >arch but was aborted due to prevalent condition. The amount to be paid, accordin% to the complainant has now become doubled plus attorneyKs fees of ?088,888.88. Complainant submitted her evidence on 1 !eptember 0880 and April 088+, and filed her Formal Bffer of 2vidence on 04 Au%ust 088+. Bn several occasions, the complaint was set for reception of respondentKs evidence but the scheduled hearin%s #)) settin%s$ were all reset at the instance of the respondent who was alle%edly out of the country to attend to his clientKs needs. &eception of respondentKs evidence was scheduled for the last time on 0; !eptember 0881 and a%ain respondent failed to appear, despite due notice and without /ust cause. Bn 4 -ovember 0881, "nvesti%atin% Commissioner >ila%ros V. !an 9uan submitted her report4 recommendin% the disbarment of respondent. !he /ustified her recommendation in this manner, At the outset it should be noted that there is no .uestion that respondent received the amount of E!I08,888 from complainant, as respondent himself admitted that he si%ned the vouchers #Anne3es A to F of complainant$ showin% his receipt of said amount from complainant. &espondent however claims that he did not appropriate the same for himself but that he delivered the said amount to a certain Atty. >endoAa. This defense raised by respondent is untenable considerin% the documentary evidence submitted by complainant. Bn record is the ) >arch )::: letter of respondent addressed to the Horld >ission for 9esus #Anne3 of Complaint$ where he stated thus, <" really understand your feelin%s on the delay of the release of the deposit but " repeat, nobody really intended that the thin% would happen that way. >any events were the causes of the said delay particularly the death of then Commissioner D. Verceles, whose sudden death prevented us the needed papers for the immediate release. "t was only from compilin% all on the first wee= of 9anuary this year, that all the said papers were recovered, hence, the process of the release /ust started thou%h some important papers were already finished as early as the last .uarter of last year. He are /ust %oin% throu%h the normal standard operatin% procedure and there is no day since 9anuary that " do not ma=e any follow L ups on the pro%ress of the same.< and his letter dated ): >arch )::: #Anne3 D of Complaint$ where he stated thus, <" am sendin% you my personal chec=s to cover the refund of the amount deposited by your %ood self in connection with the procurement of your permanent visa and that of your family. "t mi%ht ta=e some more time before the Bureau could release the refund as some other pertinent papers are bein% still compiled are bein% loo=ed at the files of the late Commissioner Verceles, who approved your visa and who died of heart attac=. Anyway, " am sure that everythin% would be fine later as all the documents needed are already intact. This is /ust a bureaucratic delay.< From the above letters, respondent ma=es it appear that the E!I08,888 was officially deposited with the Bureau of "mmi%ration and 'eportation. owever, if this is true, how come only ?etty Cash Vouchers were issued by respondent to complainant to prove his receipt of the said sum and official receipts therefore were never issued by the said BureauM Also, why would respondent issue his personal chec=s to cover the return of the money to complainant if said amount was really officially deposited with the Bureau of "mmi%rationM All these actions of respondent point to the inescapable conclusion that respondent received the money from complainant and appropriated the same for his personal use. "t should also be noted that respondent has failed to establish that the <late Atty. >endoAa< referred to in his CounterCAffidavit really e3ists. There is not one correspondence from Atty. >endoAa re%ardin% the visa application of complainant and his family, and complainant has also testified that she never met this Atty. >endoAa referred to by respondent.

Considerin% that respondent was able to perpetrate the fraud by ta=in% advanta%e of his position with the Board of !pecial "n.uiry of the Bureau of "mmi%ration and 'eportation, ma=es it more reprehensible as it has caused dama%e to the reputation and inte%rity of said office. "t is submitted that respondent has violated &ule *.80 of Canon * of the Code of ?rofessional &esponsibility which reads, <A lawyer in the %overnment service shall not use his public position to promote or advance his private interests, nor allow the latter to interfere with his public duties.< Bn 1 -ovember 0881, the "B? Board of Governors approved * the "nvesti%atin% CommissionerKs report with modification, thus, &2!BDV2' to A'B?T and A??&BV2, as it hereby A'B?T2' and A??&BV2', with modification, the &eport and &ecommendation of the "nvesti%atin% Commissioner of the aboveCentitled case, herein made part of this &esolution as Anne3 <A<F and, findin% the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and applicable laws and rules, and considerin% respondentKs violation of &ule *.80 of Canon * of the Code of ?rofessional &esponsibility, Atty. Fred D. GutierreA is hereby '"!BA&&2' from the practice of law and ordered to return the amount with le%al interest from receipt of the money until payment. This case shall be referred to the Bffice of the Bmbudsman for prosecution for violation of AntiCGraft and Corrupt ?ractices Acts and to the 'epartment of 9ustice for appropriate administrative action. He a%ree with the "B? Board of Governors that respondent should be severely sanctioned. He be%in with the veritable fact that lawyers in %overnment service in the dischar%e of their official tas= have more restrictions than lawyers in private practice. Hant of moral inte%rity is to be more severely condemned in a lawyer who holds a responsible public office. 7 "t is undisputed that respondent admitted ; havin% received the E!I08,888 from complainant as shown by his si%natures in the petty cash vouchers : and receipts)8 he prepared, on the false representation that that it was needed in complainantKs application for visa with the B"'. &espondent denied he misappropriated the said amount and interposed the defense that he delivered it to a certain Atty. >endoAa who assisted complainant and children in their application for visa in the B"'. )) !uch defense remains unsubstantiated as he failed to submit evidence on the matter. Hhile he claims that Atty. >endoAa already died, he did not present the death certificate of said Atty. >endoAa. Horse, the action of respondent in shiftin% the blame to someone who has been naturally silenced by fate, is not only impudent but downri%ht i%nominious. Hhen the inte%rity of a member of the bar is challen%ed, it is not enou%h that he deny the char%es a%ainst himF he must meet the issue and overcome the evidence a%ainst him. )0 e must show proof that he still maintains that de%ree of morality and inte%rity which at all times is e3pected of him. "n the case at bar, respondent clearly fell short of his duty. &ecords show that even thou%h he was %iven the opportunity to answer the char%es and controvert the evidence a%ainst him in a formal investi%ation, he failed, without any plausible reason, to appear several times whenever the case was set for reception of his evidence despite due notice. The defense of denial proferred by respondent is, thus, not convincin%. "t is settled that denial is inherently a wea= defense. To be believed, it must be buttressed by a stron% evidence of nonCculpabilityF otherwise, such denial is purely selfCservin% and is with nil evidentiary value. Hhen respondent issued the postdated chec=s as his moral obli%ation, he indirectly admitted the char%e. !uch admissions were also apparent in the followin% letters of respondent to complainant, )$ Detter)+ dated 8) >arch )::0, pertinent portion of which reads, Be that as it may, may " assure you for the last time that the said deposit is forthcomin%, the latest of which is 8: >arch ):::. !hould it not be released on said date, " understand to pay the same to you out of my personal money on said date. -o more reasons and no more alibis. !end somebody here at the office on that day and the amount would be %iven to you wether #sic$ from the Bureau or from my own personal money. 0$ Detter)1 dated ): >arch ):::, reads in part, " am sendin% you my personal chec=s to cover the refund of the amount deposited by your %oodself in connection with the procurement of your permanent visa and that of your family.

"t mi%ht ta=e some more time before the Bureau could release the refund as some other pertinent papers are still bein% compiled and are bein% loo=ed at the files of the late Commissioner Verceles, who approved your visa and who died of heart attac=. Anyway, " am sure that everythin% would be fine later as all the documents needed are already intact. This is /ust a bureaucratic delay. 3333 As you would see, " have to pay you in peso. " have issued you 0 chec=s, one dated April *, )::: and the other one dated April 08, ):::. " leave the amount vacant because " would want you to fill them up on their due dates the peso e.uivalent to I)8,888 respectively. This is to be sure that the peso e.uivalent of your ?08,888 would be well e3chan%ed. " have postdated them to enable me to raise some more pesos to cover the whole amount but donKt worry as the Dord had already provided me the means. +$ Detter)4 dated 04 April )::: provides, Anyway, let me apolo%iAe for all these troubles. Nou are aware that " have done my very best for the early return of your money but the return is becomin% blea= as " was informed that there are still papers lac=in%. Hhen " stopped the payment of the chec=s " issued, " was of the impression that everythin% is fine, but it is not. " %uess it is time for me to accept the fact that " really have to personally return the money out of my own. The issue should stop at my end. This is the truth that " must face. "t may hurt me financially but it would set me free from worries and an3ieties. " have arran%ed for a loan from money lenders and was able to secure one last !aturday the releases of which are on the followin%, >ay 1, ):::C 088,888 >ay )), )::: C088,888 >ay 08, ):::C088,888 9une 1, ):::C088,888 " have %iven my property #lot situated in the province$ as my collateral. " am therefore puttin% an end to this trouble. " am issuin% four chec=s which " assure you will be sufficiently funded on their due dates by reason of my aforestated loans. 9ust bear with me for the last time, if any of these chec=s, is returned, donKt call me anymore. 9ust file the necessary action a%ainst me, " /ust had to put an end to this matter and loo= forward. 3 3 3 1$ Detter)* dated )0 >ay ):::, which reads, The other day " deposited the amount of ?0;:,888 to the ban= to cover the first chec= " issued. "n fact " stopped all payments to all other chec=s that are becomin% due to some of my creditors to %ive preference to the chec= " issued to you. This mornin% when " went to the Ban=, " learned that the ban= instead of returnin% the other chec=s " re.uested for stop payment C instead honored them and mista=enly returned your chec=. This was a very bi% surprise to me and discoura%ement for " =now it would really upset you. "n view of this " thou%ht of sendin% you the amount of ?088,888 in cash which " initially plan to withdraw from the Ban=. owever, " could not entrust the same amount to the bearer nor can " brin% the same to your place considerin% that its .uite a bi% amount. " am /ust sendin% a chec= for you to immediately deposit today and " was assured by the ban= that it would be honored this time. -ormally, this is not the actuation of one who is falsely accused of appropriatin% the money of another. As correctly observed by the "nvesti%atin% Commissioner, respondent would not have issued his personal chec=s if said amount were officially deposited with the B"'. This is an admission of misconduct. &espondentKs act of as=in% money from complainant in consideration of the latterKs pendin% application for visas is violative of &ule ).8))7 of the Code of ?rofessional &esponsibility, which prohibits members of the Bar from en%a%in% or participatin% in any unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful acts. >oreover, said acts constitute a breach of &ule *.80 ); of the Code which bars lawyers in %overnment service from promotin% their private interest. ?romotion of private interest includes solicitin% %ifts or anythin% of monetary value in

any transaction re.uirin% the approval of his office or which may be affected by the functions of his office.): &espondentKs conduct in office betrays the inte%rity and %ood moral character re.uired from all lawyers, especially from one occupyin% a hi%h public office. A lawyer in public office is e3pected not only to refrain from any act or omission which mi%ht tend to lessen the trust and confidence of the citiAenry in %overnmentF he must also uphold the di%nity of the le%al profession at all times and observe a hi%h standard of honesty and fair dealin%. Btherwise said, a lawyer in %overnment service is a =eeper of the public faith and is burdened with hi%h de%ree of social responsibility, perhaps hi%her than his brethren in private practice. "n a desperate attempt to put up a smo=e or to camoufla%e his misdeed, he went on committin% another by issuin% several worthless chec=s, thereby compoundin% his case. "n a recent case, we have held that the issuance of worthless chec=s constitutes %ross misconduct, 08 as the effect <transcends the private interests of the parties directly involved in the transaction and touches the interests of the community at lar%e. The mischief it creates is not only a wron% to the payee or holder, but also an in/ury to the public since the circulation of valueless commercial papers can very well pollute the channels of trade and commerce, in/ure the ban=in% system and eventually hurt the welfare of society and the public interest. Thus, paraphrasin% Blac=Ks definition, a drawer who issues an unfunded chec= deliberately rene%es on his private duties he owes his fellow men or society in a manner contrary to accepted and customary rule of ri%ht and duty, /ustice, honesty or %ood morals.< 0) Conse.uently, we have held that the act of a person in issuin% a chec= =nowin% at the time of the issuance that he or she does not have sufficient funds in, or credit with, the drawee ban= for the payment of the chec= in full upon its presentment, is also a manifestation of moral turpitude. 00 &espondentKs acts are more despicable. -ot only did he misappropriate the money of complainantF worse, he had the %all to prepare receipts with the letterhead of the B"' and issued chec=s to cover up his misdeeds. Clearly, he does not deserve to continue, bein% a member of the bar. Time and a%ain, we have declared that the practice of law is a noble profession. "t is a special privile%e bestowed only upon those who are competent intellectually, academically and morally. A lawyer must at all times conduct himself, especially in his dealin%s with his clients and the public at lar%e, with honesty and inte%rity in a manner beyond reproach. e must faithfully perform his duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and to his clients. A violation of the hi%h standards of the le%al profession sub/ects the lawyer to administrative sanctions which includes suspension and disbarment. 0+ >ore importantly, possession of %ood moral character must be continuous as a re.uirement to the en/oyment of the privile%e of law practiceF otherwise, the loss thereof is a %round for the revocation of such privile%e. 01 "ndeed, the primary ob/ective of administrative cases a%ainst lawyers is not only to punish and discipline the errin% individual lawyers but also to safe%uard the administration of /ustice by protectin% the courts and the public from the misconduct of lawyers, and to remove from the le%al profession persons whose utter disre%ard of their lawyerKs oath have proven them unfit to continue dischar%in% the trust reposed in them as members of the bar.04 These pronouncement %ain practical si%nificance in the case at bar considerin% that respondent was a former member of the Board of !pecial "n.uiry of the B"'. "t bears stressin% also that %overnment lawyers who are public servants owe fidelity to the public service, a public trust. As such, %overnment lawyers should be more sensitive to their professional obli%ations as their disreputable conduct is more li=ely to be ma%nified in the public eye.0* As a lawyer, who was also a public officer, respondent miserably failed to cope with the strict demands and hi%h standards of the le%al profession. !ection 07, &ule )+; of the &evised &ules of Court mandates that a lawyer may be disbarred or suspended by this Court for any of the followin% acts, #)$ deceitF #0$ malpracticeF #+$ %ross misconduct in officeF #1$ %rossly immoral conductF #4$ conviction of a crime involvin% moral turpitude F #*$ violation of the lawyerKs oathF #7$ willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior courtF and #;$ willfully appearin% as an attorney for a party without authority to do so. 07 "n Atty. Vitriolo v. Atty. 'asi%,0; we ordered the disbarment of a lawyer who, durin% her tenure as B"C, De%al !ervices, Commission on i%her 2ducation, demanded sums of money as consideration for the approval of applications and re.uests awaitin% action by her office. "n Dim v. Barcelona, 0: we also disbarred a senior

lawyer of the -ational Dabor &elations Commission, who was cau%ht by the -ational Bureau of "nvesti%ation in the act of receivin% and countin% money e3torted from a certain person. &espondentKs acts constitute %ross misconductF and consistent with the need to maintain the hi%h standards of the Bar and thus preserve the faith of the public in the le%al profession, respondent deserves the ultimate penalty of e3pulsion from the esteemed brotherhood of lawyers. +8 H 2&2FB&2, Atty. Fred D. GutierreA is hereby '"!BA&&2' from the practice of law and ordered to return the amount he received from the complainant with le%al interest from his receipt of the money until payment. This case shall be referred to the Bffice of the Bmbudsman for criminal prosecution for violation of AntiCGraft and Corrupt ?ractices Acts and to the 'epartment of 9ustice for appropriate administrative action. Det copies of this 'ecision be furnished the Bar Confidant to be spread on the records of the respondentF the "nte%rated Bar of the ?hilippines for distribution to all its chaptersF and the Bffice of the Court Administrator for dissemination to all courts throu%hout the country. !B B&'2&2'.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1967/jul1967/gr_l-26222_1967.html
(.R. No. L+&6&&& ,u-. &1, 196! T)E PEOPLE OF T)E P)ILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. )ONORA/LE ,UD(E )ERNANDO PINEDA o0 t%1 Cou#t o0 F2#st I3st"3$1 o0 L"3"o 41- No#t15 "34 TOMAS NAR/ASA, TAM/AC ALINDO "34 RUFINO /ORRES, respondents. ,ominador -. 'adilla for petitioner. #arbasa, .ambac *lindo and !orres for respondents. SANC)E*, J.: &espondents Tomas -arbasa, Tambac Alindo and &ufino Borres stand indicted before the Court of First "nstance of Danao del -orte, as principals, in five #4$ separate cases, four for murder, vi&, Criminal Case )01* O murder of -eceforo >endoAaF Criminal Case )017 O murder of 2pifania >endoAaF Criminal Case )01; O frustrated murder of Valeriana Bontilao de >endoAaF Criminal Case )01: O murder of Teofilo >endoAaF Criminal Case )048 O murder of >arcelo >endoAa. The five informations were planted upon facts %athered by the prosecutin% attorney from his investi%ation. Bf course, the truth of these facts is yet to be tested in the crucible of a fullCdress trial on the merits. The indictments are bottomed upon the followin% alle%ed pivotal facts, Bn the ni%ht of 9uly 0:, ):*4, the occupants of the home of the spouses Teofilo >endoAa and Valeriana Bontilao de >endoAa in ?u%aan City of "li%an, were asleep. "t was then that %uns #rifle, caliber 00$ and paliuntod#homemade %un$ were fired in rapid succession from outside the house. Teofilo >endoAa fell dead. Thereafter, defendants below destroyed the door of the house, entered therein, and let loose several shots =illin% -eceforo >endoAa, O all minor children of the couple O and woundin% Valeriana Bontilao de >endoAa. Two of the three defendants in the five criminal cases heretofore listed O Tomas -arbasa and Tamba= Alindo O moved for a consolidation thereof <into one #)$ criminal case.< Their plea is that <said cases arose out of the same incident and motivated by one impulse.< Givin% the nod to defendants( claim, respondent 9ud%e, in an order dated >ay )+, ):**, directed the City Fiscal to unify all the five criminal cases, and to file one sin%le information in Case )01*. e also ordered that the other four cases, -os. )017, )01;, )01: and )048 <be dropped from the doc=et.<

The City Fiscal bal=ed at the fore%oin% order, sou%ht reconsideration thereof, upon the %round that <more than one %un was used, more than one shot was fired and more than one victim was =illed.< The defense opposed. Bn >ay +), ):**, respondent 9ud%e denied the motion to reconsider. e too= the position that the acts complained of <stemmed out of a series of continuin% acts on the part of the accused, not by different and separate sets of shots, moved by one impulse and should therefore be treated as one crime thou%h the series of shots =illed more than one victimF< and that only one information for multiple murder should be filed, to obviate the necessity of tryin% five cases instead of one.< ?rimarily to annul respondent 9ud%e(s orders of >ay )+, ):** and >ay +), ):**, as havin% been issued without or in e3cess of /urisdiction andJor with %rave abuse of discretion, the ?eople came to this Court on certiorari with a prayer for a writ of preliminary in/unction, and for other reliefs. This Court, on 9uly ), ):**, issued the ceaseCandCdesist order prayed for. The .uestion here presented, simply is this, !hould there be one information, either for the comple3 crime of murder and frustrated murder or for the comple3 crime of robbery with multiple homicide and frustrated homicideM Br, should the five indictments remain as they areM ). The case before us calls into .uestion the applicability of Article 1; of the &evised ?enal Code, as amended, which reads, Art. 1;. 'enalty for complex crimes. O Hhen a sin%le act constitutes two or more %rave or less %rave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for committin% the other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its ma3imum period. &ead as it should be, Article 1; provides for two classes of crimes where a sin%le penalty is to be imposed, first, where a sin%le act constitutes two or more %rave or less %rave felonies # delito compuesto$F and, second, when an offense is a necessary means for committin% the other # delito comple/o$.) Best e3emplified by the first of the two cases is where one shot from a %un results in the death of two or more persons. 9urisprudence teaches that, in this factual settin%, the comple3 crime defined in the first part of Article 1; finds application.0 A similar rule obtains where one stabbed another and the weapon pierced the latter(s body throu%h and wounded another. The first died instantaneouslyF the second, seven days later. This Court convicted the assailant of double murder. + !o where a person plants a bomb in an airplane and the bomb e3plodes, with the result that a number of persons are =illed, that sin%le act a%ain produces a comple3 crime.1 A different rule %overns where separate and distinct acts result in a number =illed. 'eeply rooted is the doctrine that when various victims e3pire from separate shots, such acts constitute separate and distinct crimes.4 Thus, where the si3 defendants, with others #armed with pistols, carbines and also a submachine %un and Garand rifles$, fired volleys into a house =illin% eleven and woundin% several others, each of the said accused is <%uilty of as many crimes of murder as there were deaths #eleven$. * A%ain, eleven persons were indicted for .uadruple murder O with the use of bolos, a pistol, a barbed arrow and a piece of bamboo O of a man, his commonClaw wife, and their two children in cold blood. The accused were found %uilty by the trial court of such offense. This Court, in reversin% this rulin% below, held that <5t6he four victims were not =illed by a sin%le act but by various acts committed on different occasions and by different parties<F that such acts <may not be re%arded as constitutin% one sin%le crime<F and that <5t6hey should be held as separate and distinct crimes.< 7 And a third. At the commencement e3ercises of an elementary school, <a shot suddenly ran% out< followed by a <series of shots< O from a pistol. Two persons lay dead and a third seriously wounded but who later on also died. This Court there ruled that there were <three distinct and separate murders< committed by appellant 9uan >ones. ; And finally, in 'eople vs. %atbunton, DC01+4, >ay )8, ):48, the spouses >ariano !ebastian and >a3ima Capule O who were asleep O were =illed by one burst of machine%un fireF and then, by a second burst of machine%un fire, two of the couple(s children O also asleep O were =illed. The accused, Tomas Gatbunton, was found %uilty by the trial court of .uadruple murder. Bn appeal, this Court declared that <appellant must be declared %uilty of four murders.< : The present ease is to be differentiated from 'eople vs. -awas, DC7*);C08, 9une +8, ):44. There, on a sin%le occasion, about fifty >aranaos were =illed by a %roup of home %uards. "t was held that there was only one comple3 crime. "n that case, however, there was no conspiracy to perpetuate the =illin%. "n the

case at bar, defendants performed several acts. And the informations char%e conspiracy amon%st them. -eedless to state, the act of one is the act of all. )8 -ot material here, therefore is the findin% in -awas that <it is impossible to ascertain the individual deaths caused by each and everyone< of the accused. "t is to be borne in mind, at this point, that apply the first half of Article 1;, heretofore .uoted, there must be sin%ularity of criminal actF sin%ularity of criminalimpulse is not written into the law.)) The respondent 9ud%e reasons out in his order of >ay +), ):** that consolidation of the five cases into one would have the salutary effect of obviatin% the necessity of tryin% five cases instead of one. To save time, indeed, is laudable. -onetheless, the statute confers upon the trial /ud%e the power to try these cases /ointly, such that the fear entertained by respondent 9ud%e could easily be remedied. )0 Epon the facts and the law, we hold that the City Fiscal of "li%an City correctly presented the five separate informations O four for murder and one for frustrated murder. 0. He have not overloo=ed the su%%estion in the record that, because of an affidavit of one of the witnesses, possibility e3ists that the real intent of the culprits was to commit robbery, and that the acts constitutin% murders and frustrated murder complained of were committed in pursuance thereof. "f true, this would brin% the case within the covera%e of the second portion of Article 1;, which treats as a comple3 crime a case where an offense is a necessary means for committin% the other. A rule of presumption lon% familiar, however, is that official duty has been re%ularly performed. )+ "f the Fiscal has not seen fit to %ive wei%ht to said affidavit wherein it is alle%ed that certain personal properties #transistor radio and money$ were ta=en away by the culprits after the shootin%, we are not to /ettison the prosecutor(s opinion thereon. The Fiscal could have had reasons for his act. For one thin%, there is the %rave problem of provin% the elements of that offense O robbery. For another, the act could have been but a blind to cover up the real intent to =ill. Appropriately to be noted here is that all the informations char%ed evident premeditation. Hith ponderables and imponderables, we are reluctant to haAard a %uess as to the reasons for the Fiscal(s action. He are not now to say that, on this point, the Fiscal has abused his discretion. A prosecutin% attorney, by the nature of his office, is under no compulsion to file a particular criminal information where he is not convinced that he has evidence to prop up the averments thereof, or that the evidence at hand points to a different conclusion. This is not to discount the possibility of the commission of abuses on the part of the prosecutor. But we must have to reco%niAe that a prosecutin% attorney should not be unduly compelled to wor= a%ainst his conviction. "n case of doubt, we should %ive him the benefit thereof. A contrary rule may result in our courts bein% unnecessarily swamped with unmeritorious cases. Horse still, a criminal suspect(s ri%ht to due process O the sportin% idea of fair play O may be trans%ressed. !o it is, that in 'eople vs. (ope 74 ?hil. ;)8, ;)4, this Court made the pronouncement that <5i6t is very lo%ical that the prosecutin% attorney, bein% the one char%ed with the prosecution of offenses, should determine the information to be filed and cannot be controlled by the off ended party.<)1 +. The impact of respondent 9ud%e(s orders is that his /ud%ment is to be substituted for that of the prosecutor(s on the matter of what crime is to be filed in court. The .uestion of institutin% a criminal char%e is one addressed to the sound discretion of the investi%atin% Fiscal. The information he lod%es in court must have to be supported by facts brou%ht about by an in.uiry made by him. "t stands to reason then to say that in a clash of views between the /ud%e who did not investi%ate and the fiscal who did, or between the fiscal and the offended party or the defendant, those of the Fiscal(s should normally prevail. "n this re%ard, he cannot ordinarily be sub/ect to dictation. He are not to be understood as sayin% that criminal prosecution may not be bloc=ed in e3ceptional cases. A relief in e.uity <may be availed of to stop it purported enforcement of a criminal law where it is necessary #a$ for the orderly administration of /usticeF #b$ to prevent the use of the stron% arm of the law in an oppressive and vindictive mannerF #c$ to avoid multiplicity of actionsF #d$ to afford ade.uate protection to constitutional ri%htsF and #e$ in proper cases, because the statute relied upon is unconstitutional or was (held invalid.( < )4 -othin% in the record would as much as intimate that the present case fits into any of the situations /ust recited.
)PwphQ).GRt

And at this distance and in the absence of any compellin% fact or circumstance, we are loathe to ta% the City Fiscal of "li%an City with abuse of discretion in filin% separate cases for murder and frustrated murder, instead of a sin%le case for the comple3 crime of robbery with homicide and frustrated homicide under the provisions of Article 0:1 #)$ of the &evised ?enal Code or, for that matter, for multiple murder and frustrated murder. He state that, here, the Fiscal(s discretion should not be controlled.

Epon the record as it stands, the writ of certiorari prayed for is hereby %rantedF the orders of respondent 9ud%e of >ay )+, ):*4 and >ay +), ):** are hereby set and declared null and void, and, in conse.uence, the writ of preliminary in/unction heretofore issued is made permanent insofar as it stops enforcement of the said ordersF and the respondent 9ud%e, or whoever ta=es his place, is hereby directed to reinstate Criminal Cases )01*, )017, )01;, )01: and )048 as they were commenced, and to ta=e steps towards the final determination thereof. Costs a%ainst respondents Tomas -arbasa, Tambac Alindo and &utino Borres. !o ordered. +eyes, J.!.-., akalintal, !eng&on J.'., 0aldivar, "astro, *ngeles and Fernando, JJ., concur. "oncepcion, ".J. and ,i&on, J., took no part.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1976/aug1976/am_1 1!_1976.html
A.M. No. 1'16 August 31, 19!6 ,OSE MISAMIN, complainant, vs. ATTORNEY MI(UEL A. SAN ,UAN, respondent. &2!BDET"BFERNANDO, J.: "t certainly fails to reflect credit on a captain in the >etro >anila ?olice Force and a member of the bar, respondent >i%uel A. !an 9uan, to be char%ed with bein% the le%al representative of certain establishments alle%edly owned by Filipinos of Chinese descent and, what is worse, with coercin% an employee, complainant 9ose >isamin, to a%ree to drop the char%es filed by him a%ainst his employer Tan ua, owner of -ew Cesar(s Ba=ery, for the violation of the >inimum Ha%e Daw. There was a denial on the part of respondent. The matter was referred to the Bffice of the !olicitorCGeneral for investi%ation, report and recommendation. Thereafter, it would seem there was a chan%e of heart on the part of complainant. That could very well be the e3planation for the nonC appearance of the lawyer employed by him at the scheduled hearin%s. The efforts of the !olicitor General to %et at the bottom of thin%s were thus set at nau%ht. Ender the circumstances, the outcome of such referral was to be e3pected. For the law is rather e3actin% in its re.uirement that there be competent and ade.uate proof to ma=e out a case for malpractice. -ecessarily, the recommendation was one of the complaints bein% dismissed, This is one of those instances then where this Court is left with hardly any choice. &espondent cannot be found %uilty of malpractice. &espondent, as noted in the &eport of the !olicitorCGeneral, <admits havin% appeared as counsel for the -ew Cesar(s Ba=ery in the proceedin% before the -D&C while he held office as captain in the >anila >etropolitan ?olice. owever, he contends that the law did not prohibit him from such isolated e3ercise of his profession. e contends that his appearance as counsel, while holdin% a %overnment position, is not amon% the %rounds provided by the &ules of Court for the suspension or removal of attorneys. The respondent also denies havin% conspired with the complainant >isamin(s attorney in the -D&C proceedin% in order to tric= the complainant into si%nin% an admission that he had been paid his separation pay. Di=ewise, the respondent denies %ivin% ille%al protection to members of the Chinese community in !ta. CruA, >anila.< 1 Then came a detailed account in such &eport of the proceedin%s, <?ursuant to the resolution of this onorable Court of >arch 0), ):74, the !olicitor General(s Bffice set the case for investi%ation on 9uly 0 and +, ):74. The counsel for the complainant failed to appear, and the investi%ation was reset to Au%ust )4, ):74. At the latter date, the same counsel for complainant was absent. "n both instances, the said counsel did not file written motion for postponement but merely sent the complainant to e3plain the reason for his absence. Hhen the case was a%ain called for hearin% on Bctober )*, ):74, counsel for complainant failed once more to appear. The complainant who was present e3plained that his lawyer was busy <preparin% an affidavit in the Court of First "nstance of >anila.< Hhen as=ed if he was willin% to proceed with the hearin%( in the absence of his counsel, the complainant declared, apparently without any proddin%, that he wished his complaint withdrawn. e e3plained that he brou%ht the present action in an outburst of an%er believin% that the respondent !an 9uan too= active part in the un/ust dismissal of his complaint with

the -D&C. The complainant added that after ree3aminin% his case, he believed the respondent to be without fault and a truly %ood person.< & The &eport of the !olicitorCGeneral did not ta=e into account respondent(s practice of his profession notwithstandin% his bein% a police official, as <this is not embraced in !ection 07, &ule )+; of the &evised &ules of Court which provides the %rounds for the suspension or removal of an attorney. The respondent(s appearance at the labor proceedin% notwithstandin% that he was an incumbent police officer of the City of >anila may appropriately be referred to the -ational ?olice Commission and the Civil !ervice Commission.< 3 As a matter of fact, separate complaints on this %round have been filed and are under investi%ation by the Bffice of the >ayor of >anila and the -ational ?olice Commission.< As for the char%es that respondent conspired with complainant(s counsel to mislead complainant to admittin% havin%( received his separation pay and for %ivin% ille%al protection to aliens, it is understandable why the &eport of the !olicitorC General recommended that they be dismissed for lac= of evidence. The conclusion arrived at by the !olicitorCGeneral that the complaint cannot prosper is in accordance with the settled law. As far bac= as in re Tion=o, ' decided in ):00, the authoritative doctrine was set forth by 9ustice >alcolm in this wise, <The serious conse.uences of disbarment or suspension should follow only where there is a clear preponderance of evidence a%ainst the respondent. The presumption is that the attorney is innocent of the char%es preferred and has performed his duty as an officer of the court in accordance with his oath.< 5 The Tion=o doctrine has been subse.uently adhered to. 6 This resolution does not in any wise ta=e into consideration whatever violations there mi%ht have been of the Civil !ervice Daw in view of respondent practicin% his profession while holdin% his position of Captain in the >etro >anila police force. That is a matter to be decided in the administrative proceedin% as noted in the recommendation of the !olicitorCGeneral. -onetheless, while the char%es have to be dismissed, still it would not be inappropriate for respondent member of the bar to avoid all appearances of impropriety. Certainly, the fact that the suspicion could be entertained that far from livin% true to the concept of a public office bein% a public trust, he did ma=e use, not so much of whatever le%al =nowled%e he possessed, but the influence that laymen could assume was inherent in the office held not only to frustrate the beneficent statutory scheme that labor be /ustly compensated but also to be at the bec= and call of what the complainant called alien interest, is a matter that should not pass unnoticed. &espondent, in his future actuations as a member of the bar. should refrain from layin% himself open to such doubts and mis%ivin%s as to his fitness not only for the position occupied by him but also for membership in the bar. e is not worthy of membership in an honorable profession who does not even ta=e care that his honor remains unsullied H 2&2FB&2, this administrative complaint a%ainst respondent >i%uel A. !an 9uan is dismissed for not havin% been duly proved. Det a copy of this resolution be spread on his record. !arredo, *ntonio, *quino and "oncepcion, Jr., JJ., concur.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1995/mar1995/ac_3701_1995.html
A.C. No. 3!01 M"#$% &6, 1995 P)ILIPPINE NATIONAL /AN7, complainant, vs. ATTY. TELESFORO S. CEDO, respondent. &2!BDET"B/IDIN, J.: "n a verified letterCcomplaint dated Au%ust )4, )::), complainant ?hilippine -ational Ban= char%ed respondent Atty. Telesforo !. Cedo, former Asst. ViceC?resident of the Asset >ana%ement Group of complainant ban= with violation of Canon *, &ule *.8+ of the Code of ?rofessional &esponsibility, thus, A lawyer shall not, after leavin% %overnment service, accept en%a%ement or employment in connection with any matter in which he had intervened while in said service. by appearin% as counsel for individuals who had transactions with complainant ban= in which respondent

durin% his employment with aforesaid ban=, had intervened. Complainant averred that while respondent was still in its employ, he participated in arran%in% the sale of steel sheets #denominated as Dots 41C> and 44C>$ in favor of >ila%ros Bn% !iy for ?088,888. e even <noted< the %ate passes issued by his subordinate, >r. 2mmanuel 2lefan, in favor of >rs. Bn% !iy authoriAin% the pullCout of the steel sheets from the '>C >an 'ivision Compound. Hhen a civil action arose out of this transaction between >rs. Bn% !iy and complainant ban= before the &e%ional Trial Court of >a=ati, Branch )1*, respondent who had since left the employ of complainant ban=, appeared as one of the counsels of >rs. Bn% !iy. !imilarly, when the same transaction became the sub/ect of an administrative case filed by complainant ban= a%ainst his former subordinate 2mmanuel 2lefan, for %rave misconduct and dishonesty, respondent appeared as counsel for 2lefan only to be later dis.ualified by the Civil !ervice Commission. >oreover, while respondent was still the Asst. Vice ?resident of complainantKs Asset >ana%ement Group, he intervened in the handlin% of the loan account of the spouses ?onciano and 2ufemia Almeda with complainant ban= by writin% demand letters to the couple. Hhen a civil action ensued between complainant ban= and the Almeda spouses as a result of this loan account, the latter were represented by the law firm <Cedo, Ferrer, >ayni%o & Associates< of which respondent is one of the !enior ?artners. "n his Comment on the complaint, respondent admitted that he appeared as counsel for >rs. Bn% !iy but only with respect to the e3ecution pendin% appeal of the &TC decision. e alle%ed that he did not participate in the liti%ation of the case before the trial court. Hith respect to the case of the Almeda spouses, respondent alle%ed that he never appeared as counsel for them. e contended that while the law firm <Cedo Ferrer, >ayni%o & Associates< is desi%nated as counsel of record, the case is actually handled only by Atty. ?edro Ferrer. &espondent averred that he did not enter into a %eneral partnership with Atty. ?edro Ferrer nor with the other lawyers named therein. They are only usin% the aforesaid name to desi%nate a law firm maintained by lawyers, who althou%h not partners, maintain one office as well as one clerical and supportin% staff. 2ach one of them handles their own cases independently and individually receives the revenues therefrom which are not shared amon% them. "n the resolution of this Court dated 9anuary 07, )::0, this case was referred to the "nte%rated Bar of the ?hilippines #"B?$, for investi%ation, report and recommendation. 'urin% the investi%ation conducted by the "B?, it was discovered that respondent was previously fined by this Court in the amount of ?),888.88 in connection with G.&. -o. :114* entitled <>ila%ros Bn% !iy vs. on. !alvador Tensuan, et al.< for forum shoppin%, where respondent appeared as counsel for petitioner >ila%ros Bn% !iy <throu%h the law firm of Cedo Ferrer >ayni%o and Associates.< The "B? further found that the char%es herein a%ainst respondent were fully substantiated. &espondent(s averment that the law firm handlin% the case of the Almeda spouses is not a partnership deserves scant consideration in the li%ht of the attestation of complainant(s counsel, Atty. ?edro !in%son, that in one of the hearin%s of the Almeda spouses( case, respondent attended the same with his partner Atty. Ferrer, and althou%h he did not enter his appearance, he was practically dictatin% to Atty. Ferrer what to say and ar%ue before the court. Furthermore, durin% the hearin% of the application for a writ of in/unction in the same case, respondent impliedly admitted bein% the partner of Atty. Ferrer, when it was made of record that respondent was wor=in% in the same office as Atty. Ferrer. >oreover, the "B? noted that assumin% the alle%ed setCup of the firm is true, it is in itself a violation of the Code of ?rofessional &esponsibility #&ule )4.80$ since the clientKs secrets and confidential records and information are e3posed to the other lawyers and staff members at all times. From the fore%oin%, the "B? found a deliberate intent on the part of respondent to devise ways and means to attract as clients former borrowers of complainant ban= since he was in the best position to see the le%al wea=nesses of his former employer, a convincin% factor for the said clients to see= his professional service. "n sum, the "B? saw a deliberate sacrifice by respondent of his ethics in consideration of the money he e3pected to earn. The "B? thus recommended the suspension of respondent from the practice of law for + years. The records show that after the Board of Governors of the "B? had, on Bctober 1, )::1, submitted to this

Court its &eport and recommendation in this case, respondent filed a >otion for &econsideration dated Bctober 04, )::1 of the recommendation contained in the said &eport with the "B? Board of Governors. Bn 'ecember )0, )::1, respondent also filed another <>otion to !et earin%< before this Court, the aforesaid >otion for &econsideration. "n resolvin% this case, the Court too= into consideration the aforesaid pleadin%s. "n addition to the findin%s of the "B?, this Court finds this occasion appropriate to emphasiAe the paramount importance of avoidin% the representation of conflictin% interests. "n the similar case of 'asay -aw and "onscience 1nion, 2nc. vs. 'a&, #:4 !C&A 01 5):;86$ where a former De%al Bfficer and De%al ?rosecutor of ?A&GB who participated in the investi%ation of the AntiCGraft case a%ainst >ayor ?ablo Cuneta later on acted as counsel for the said >ayor in the same antiC%raft case, this Court, citin% #ombrado vs. $ernande& #0* !C&A )+ )):*;)$ ruled, The !olicitor General is of the opinion, and we find no reason to disa%ree with him, that even if respondent did not use a%ainst his client any information or evidence ac.uired by him as counsel it cannot be denied that he did become privy to information re%ardin% the ownership of the parcel of land which was later liti%ated in the forcible entry case, for it was the dispute over the land that tri%%ered the maulin% incident which %ave rise to the criminal action for physical in/uries. This Court(s remar=s in $ilado vs. ,avid, ;1 ?hil. 47), are apropos, <Communications between attorney and client are, in a %reat number of liti%ations, a complicated affair, consistin% of entan%led relevant and irrelevant, secret and wellC=nown facts. "n the comple3ity of what is said in the course of dealin%s between an attorney and client, in.uiry of the nature su%%ested would lead to the revelation, in advance of the trial, of other matters that mi%ht only further pre/udice the complainant(s cause.< Hhatever may be said as to whether or not respondent utiliAed a%ainst his former client information %iven to him in a professional capacity, the mere fact of their previous relationship should have precluded him from appearin% as counsel for the other side in the forcible entry case. "n the case of$ilado vs. ,avid, supra, this Tribunal further said, ence the necessity of settin% the e3istence of the bare relationship of attorney and client as the yardstic= for testin% incompatibility of interests. This stern rule is desi%ned not alone to prevent the dishonest practitioner from fraudulent conduct, but as well to protect the honest lawyer from unfounded suspicion of unprofessional practice. . . . "t is founded on principles of public policy, of %ood taste. As has been said in another case, the .uestion is not necessarily one of the ri%hts of the parties, but as to whether the attorney has adhered to proper professional standard. Hith these thou%hts in mind, it behooves attorney, li=e Caesar(s wife, not only to =eep inviolate the client(s confidence, but also to avoid the appearance of treachery and double dealin%. Bnly thus can liti%ants. be encoura%ed to entrust their secrets to their attorneys which is of paramount importance in the administration of /ustice. The fore%oin% dis.uisition on conflictin% interest applies with e.ual force and effect to respondent in the case at bar. avin% been an e3ecutive of complainant ban=, respondent now see=s to liti%ate as counsel for the opposite side, a case a%ainst his former employer involvin% a transaction which he formerly handled while still an employee of complainant, in violation of Canon * of the Canons of ?rofessional 2thics on adverse influence and conflictin% interests, to wit, "t is unprofessional to represent conflictin% interests, e3cept by e3press conflictin% consent of all concerned %iven after a full disclosure of the facts. Hithin the meanin% of this canon, a lawyer represents conflictin% interest when, in behalf on one client, it is his duty to contend for that which duty to another client re.uires him to oppose. ACCB&'"-GDN, this Court resolves to !E!?2-' respondent ATTN. T2D2!FB&B !. C2'B from the practice of law for T &22 #+$ N2A&!, effective immediately. Det copies of this resolution be furnished the "nte%rated Bar of the ?hilippines and all courts in >etro >anila.

!B B&'2&2'. #arvasa, ".J., Feliciano, 'adilla, +egalado, ,avide, +omero, !ellosillo, 5apunan, endo&a and Francisco, JJ., concur. elo, 3uiason, 'uno, 4itug,