WELLINGTON REYES vs. ATTY. SALVADOR M.

GAA

A.M. No. 1048/ 246 SCRA 64 July 14, 1995

Case Nature: DISBARMENT- Violation of lawyers oath (RULE 138, Section 27, Rules of
Court)
FACTS
Wellington Reyes, a complainant, reported to the National Bureau of Investigation
(NBI) that he had been the victim of extortion by Atty. Gaa, a respondent lawyer and a
former Assistant City Fiscal of Manila, who was investigating a complaint for estafa filed by
complainants business rival. According to complainant, he had given respondent P500.00 on
March 1, 1971 and a total of P1, 500.00 on three other occasions. He said that another
payoff was scheduled at 11:00 A.M. on the same day in respondents office at the City
Hall. An entrapment was set up by the NBI after complainant furnished the NBI agents
several peso bills totaling P150.00 for marking. The paper bills were sent to the Forensic and
Chemistry Division of the NBI and subsequently returned to complainant for use in the
entrapment. When complainant went to respondents office, he was told that the latter would
not return until around 2:30 P.M. As there were other persons doing business with
respondent. When finally complainant was able to see the respondent after thirty minutes of waiting,
the complainant then handed to respondent the marked money which he placed inside his right
pocket. The NBI agents then apprehended respondent and brought him to the NBI Forensic and
Chemistry Division for examination. Respondents hands were found positive of the yellow

florescent powder applied earlier to the marked money. Respondent was thereafter taken to
the Office of the Anti-Organized Crime Division of the NBI where he was photographed,
fingerprinted and record checked. Respondent declined to give a sworn statement to explain
his side of the case, invoking his right against self-incrimination. Thereafter, the NBI
recommended the prosecution of respondent for violation of Section 3(b) of R.A. No. 3019.
The NBI recommended to the Secretary of Justice the filing of administrative charges and the
institution of disbarment proceedings against him. An administrative complaint for disbarment
charges respondent with malpractice and willful violation of his oath as an attorney. In an answer to
such complaint, respondent asserted that complainant surreptitiously planted the marked money in his
pocket without his knowledge and consent. He further said that the criminal case (IS No. 71-6558)
filed against him by the NBI was still pending preliminary investigation by the City Fiscal of Manila.
In connection with the incident of March 30, 1971, he said that he had filed a criminal complaint for
incriminatory machination, perjury and attempted corruption of a public official against complainant
with the City Fiscal of Manila. In reply to the answer, complainant denied that the several cases
against respondent were motivated by revenge, malice or personal ill will. He said that the
investigating fiscal had recommended the dismissal of the charges filed by his business rival. In a
resolution dated December 23, 1971, this Court resolved to refer the disbarment case to the Solicitor
General for investigation, report and recommendation. However, upon the adoption of Rule 139-B of
the Revised Rules of Court, the case was transferred to the IBP Board of Governors for investigation
and disposition. On March 15, 1993, Commissioner Vicente Q. Roxas of the Commission on Bar
Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) recommended that respondent be disbarred.

ISSUE
Whether or not the extortion committed by Atty. Salavador Gaa, a respondent lawyer,
shall be considered as a ground for disbarment?
HELD
YES. The extortion committed by respondent constitutes misconduct as a public
official, which also constitutes a violation of his oath as a lawyer. The lawyers oath (Revised
Rules of Court, Rule 138, Section 18; People v. De Luna, 102 Phil. 968 [1958]) imposes
upon every lawyer the duty to delay no man for money or malice. The lawyers oath is a
source of his obligations and its violation is a ground for his suspension, disbarment or other
disciplinary action. Where the misconduct of a lawyer as a government official is of such a
character as to affect his qualification as a lawyer or to show moral delinquency, then he may be
disciplined as a member of the bar on such grounds (Gonzales-Austria v. Abaya, 176 SCRA 634
[1989]). The respondent is DISBARRED and his name is ordered STRICKEN OFF from the Roll of
Attorneys.

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK vs. ATTY. TELESFORO S. CEDO

Adm. Case No. 3701/ 243 SCRA 1 March 28, 1995
Case Nature: Violation of Canon 6, Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
FACTS
The Philippine National Bank (PNB) charged respondent Atty. Telesforo S. Cedo, former
Asst. Vice-President of the Asset Management Group of complainant bank, with violation of Canon 6,
Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, thus: A lawyer shall not, after leaving
government service, accept engagement or employment in connection with any matter in which he
had intervened while in said service. Complainant averred that while respondent was still in its
employ, he participated in arranging the sale of steel sheets (denominated as Lots 54-M and 55-M) in
favor of Milagros Ong Siy for P200, 000. He even noted the gate passes issued by his subordinate,
Mr. Emmanuel Elefan, in favor of Mrs. Ong Siy authorizing the pull-out of the steel sheets from the
DMC Man Division Compound. When a civil action arose out of this transaction between Mrs. Ong
Siy and complainant bank before the RTC of Makati, Branch 146, respondent who had since left the
employ of complainant bank, appeared as one of the counsels of Mrs. Ong Siy. Moreover, while
respondent was still the Asst. Vice President of complainants Asset Management Group, he
intervened in the handling of the loan account of the spouses Ponciano and Eufemia Almeda with
complainant bank by writing demand letters to the couple. When a civil action ensued between
complainant bank and the Almeda spouses as a result of this loan account, the latter were represented
by the law firm Cedo, Ferrer, Maynigo &Associates of which respondent is one of the Senior
Partners. In his Comment on the complaint, respondent admitted that he appeared as counsel for Mrs.
Ong Siy but only with respect to the execution pending appeal of the RTC decision. He alleged that
he did not participate in the litigation of the case before the trial court. With respect to the case of the
Almeda spouses, respondent alleged that he never appeared as counsel for them. He contended that
while the said law firm is designated as counsel of record, the case is actually handled only by Atty.
Pedro Ferrer. Respondent averred that he did not enter into a general partnership with Atty. Ferrer nor
with the other lawyers named therein. They are only using the aforesaid name to designate a law firm
maintained by lawyers, who although not partners, maintain one office as well as one clerical and
supporting staff. On the other hand, during the investigation conducted by the IBP, it was discovered
that respondent was previously fined by this Court in the amount of P1, 000.00 in connection with the
cases entitled Milagros Ong Siy vs. Hon. Salvador Tensuan, et al. for forum shopping, where
respondent appeared as counsel for petitioner Milagros through the said law firm. The IBP further
found that the charges against respondent were fully substantiated. In one of the hearings of the
Almeda spouses case, respondent attended the same with his partner Atty. Ferrer, and although he did
not enter his appearance, he was practically dictating to Atty. Ferrer what to say and argue before the
court. Furthermore, during the hearing of the application for a writ of injunction in the same case,
respondent impliedly admitted being the partner of Atty. Ferrer, when it was made of record that
respondent was working in the same office as Atty. Ferrer. The IBP noted that assuming the alleged
set-up of the firm to be true, it is in itself a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility (Rule
15.02) since the clients secrets and confidential records and information are exposed to the other
lawyers and staff members at all times. The IBP thus recommended the suspension of respondent
from the practice of law for 3 years.

ISSUE
Whether or not the Atty. Cedo, a former Asst. Vice-President act of PNB, may be
suspended by acting as a counsel of other party in a case against PNB, his former employer?
HELD
YES. The Court finds the occasion appropriate to emphasize the paramount
importance of avoiding the representation of conflicting interests. The alleged set-up of the
firm is in itself a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Having been an
executive of complainant bank, respondent now seeks to litigate as counsel for the opposite
side, a case against his former employer involving a transaction which he formerly handled
while still an employee of complainant, in violation of Canon 6 of the Canons of Professional
Ethics on adverse influence and conflicting interests. ACCORDINGLY, this Court resolves to
SUSPEND respondent ATTY. TELESFORO S. CEDO from the practice of law for THREE
(3) YEARS, effective immediately.

MAXIMINO GAMIDO Y BUENAVENTURA vs. NEW BILIBID PRISONS (NBP)

OFFICIALS G.R. No. 114829 March 1, 1995
Case Nature: Grave Misconduct
FACTS
The respondent, Atty. Icasiano M. dela Rea of No. 42 National Road corner Bruger
Subdivision, Putatan, Muntinglupa, Metro Manila was under a disciplinary action when he
appeared in the jurat of the petition in this case that the petitioner subscribed the verification
and swore to before him, as notary public, on 19 April 1994, when in truth and in fact the
petitioner did not. However, he later admitted having executed the jurat without the presence
of petitioner Gamido. He honestly admits that he notarized the document not in Gamidos
presence. He was in a belief that since it is jurat and not an acknowledgment, its alright
to do so considering that prior to April 19, 1994 and thereafter, he know Mr. Gamido since he
have been in and out of New Bilibid Prisons, not only because his office is there only across
the Municipal Building of Muntinlupa, Metro Manila but because he handled a number of
cases involving prisoners and guards of NBP as well as some of its personnels That in fact,
he attempted to have the document personally signed by Gamido but considering that he have
to strictly observe rules and regulations of the NBP, particularly on visit, he did not pursue
anymore his intention to have it notarized before him. Further, Atty. Dela Rea claimed that in
notarizing the document, he honestly feel and by heart and in good faith, that as a notary
public and as a practicing lawyer, he could modestly contribute in the orderly administration
of justice. He contended that he signed the petition not in Gamidos presence it is never
intended to do a wrong, to commit illegal or criminal acts but merely in the honest and
sincere belief that it is valid and legal. Thus, the Hon. Supreme Court is assured that it is
never intended for malice or for money. In lieu thereof, he apologizes to the Honorable
Supreme Court and assures it that henceforth he would be more careful and circumspect. The
latter is assured that it is never intended for malice or for money. Atty. dela Reas explanation
is unsatisfactory; however, his spontaneous voluntary admission may be considered in
mitigation of his liability.
ISSUE
Whether or not Atty. Icasiano M. dela Rea s claim or belief that the presence of
petitioner Gamido was not necessary for the execution of jurat constitutes a grave
misconduct?
HELD
YES. A jurat is not a part of a pleading but merely evidences the fact that the
affidavit was properly made but, in a jurat, the affiant must sign the document in the presence
of and take his oath before a notary public or any other person authorized to administer oaths.
Administratively, as a lawyer commissioned as a notary public, Atty. Icasiano M. dela Rea
committed grave misconduct when he agreed to prepare the jurat in the petition in this case in
the absence of petitioner Gamido, thereby making it appear that the latter personally signed
the certification of the petition and took his oath before him when in truth and in fact the said
petitioner did not. . If this had been his belief since he was first commissioned as a notary
public, then he has been making a mockery of the legal solemnity of an oath in a jurat.
Notaries public and others authorized by law to administer oaths or to take acknowledgments
should not take for granted the solemn duties appertaining to their offices. Such duties are
dictated by public policy and are impressed with public interest.
He is hereby FINED in the sum of FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00), without
prejudice to criminal prosecution as may be warranted under the circumstances. He is
WARNED that the commission of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with
more severely.

NICANOR GONZALES and SALUD B. PANTANOSASvs. ATTY. MIGUEL SABACAJAN

Adm. Case No. 4380/ 249 SCRA 276 October 13, 1995
Case Nature: Violations of Canon 15, Rule 15.07 and Canon 19, Rule 19.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility
FACTS
An administrative case was filed by Nicanor Gonzales and Salud B. Pantanosas
against Atty. Miguel Sabacajan. In a verified complaint, it alleged that complainants were
informed by the Register of Deeds of Cagayan de Oro City that the complainants owners
duplicate of title covering their lands, Transfer Certificate of Titles were entrusted to the
office secretary of the respondent who in turn entrusted the same to respondent. However the
latter admitted and confirmed to the complainants that their titles are in his custody and has
even shown the same the complainant Salud B. Pantanosas but when demanded to deliver the
said titles to the complainant in a formal demand letter, the respondent refused without any
justification to give their titles and when confronted, respondent challenged the complainants
to file any case in any court even in the Honorable Supreme Court. That respondents dare or
challenge is a manifestation of his arrogance taking undue advantage of his legal profession over
innocence and ignorance of the complainants, one of whom is his blood relative, his aunt, for which
complainants shudder with mental anguish. In spite of repeated demands, the respondent still

refused to surrender the said titles to the rightful owners, the complainants which act is
tantamount to willful and malicious defiance of legal and moral obligations emanating from
his professional capacity as a lawyer who had sworn to uphold law and justice, to the
prejudice and damage of the complainants. In an answer, the respondent admitted having met
Salud Pantanosas but claims that, to his recollection, Nicanor Gonzales/Serdan has never been to
his office. Respondent likewise denied that he challenged anyone to file a case in any court, much less
the Supreme Court. He also claims that he referred complainant Pantanosas to his client, Mr. Samto
M. Uy of Iponan, Cagayan de Oro City, for whom he worked out the segregation of the titles, two of
which are the subject of the instant case. Respondent likewise submitted xerox copies of certain
certificates of title in an effort to explain why he kept the certificates of title of complainants, that is,
supposedly for the purpose of subdividing the property. However, an examination of the same does
not show any connection thereof to respondents claim. In fact, the two sets of certificates of title
appear to be entirely different from each other.

ISSUE
Whether or not Atty. Sabacajan have violated the Code of Professional Responsibility
for his refusal without just cause to return/ give to complainants their certificates of titles?
HELD
YES. The Court accordingly finds that respondent has not exercised the good faith
and diligence required of lawyers in handling the legal affairs of their clients. If complainants
did have the alleged monetary obligations to his client, that does not warrant his summarily
confiscating their certificates of title since there is no showing in the records that the same
were given as collaterals to secure the payment of a debt. Neither is there any intimation that
there is a court order authorizing him to take and retain custody of said certificates of title.
Apparently, respondent has disregarded Canon 15, Rule 15.07 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which provides that a lawyer shall impress upon his client the need for
compliance with the laws and principles of fairness. Instead, he unjustly refused to give to
complainants their certificates of titles supposedly to enforce payment of their alleged
financial obligations to his client and presumably to impress the latter of his power to do so.
In addition, Canon 19, Rule 19.01 ordains that a lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to
attain the lawful objectives of his client and shall not present, participate in presenting, or threaten to
present unfounded charges to obtain an improper advantage in any case or proceeding. Respondent
has closely skirted this proscription, if he has not in fact transgressed the same.
Atty. Miguel Sabacajan is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law until he can duly show to
this Court that the disputed certificates of title have been returned to and the receipt thereof duly
acknowledged by complainants, or can present a judicial order or appropriate legal authority justifying
the possession by him or his client of said certificates. He is further WARNED that a repetition of the same or
similar or any other administrative misconduct will be punished more severely.

ELENA VDA. DE ECO vs. ATTY. BENJAMIN RAMIREZ

A.C. No. 1647 January 20, 1995
Case Nature: Malpractice: Violation Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court
FACTS
Elena Vda. De Eco, an illiterate from Sorsogon, filed a complaint against respondent
Benjamin Ramirez. The latter was then counsel for Communications Insurance Co., Inc.
Vda. De Eco filed suit against the Hapseng Bakery and Grocery and its insurer,
Communications Insurance Co., Inc. for the death of her husband while in the employ of the
bakery. Accordingly, she went to the office of Communications Insurance Co., Inc. to follow
up the case. Complainant and her daughter Beata Elona were met by respondent lawyer who
asked them to wait a while. Afterward, he told them that the insurance company was not
liable for her husbands death but the company will help by giving them P650.00 as limos.
He asked her to get a residence certificate in order for her to receive the money. Once she had
the residence certificate, she received the money only after she thumb marked a blank piece
of paper and her daughter signed as witness. Later, the Workmens Commission decided the
case in favor of Vda. De Eco and ordered the Hapseng Bakery and the Insurance Co. jointly
and severally to pay the sum of P4, 880.00. Atty.Ramirez made to believe them that the sum
of P4, 880.00 was already paid to Vda. De Eco but in truth and in fact he gave her only
P650.00. In his answer, respondent lawyer admitted having met Vda. De Eco at his office in
January 1976 but denied that he gave her only P650.00. He claims that complainant signed a
receipt on January 15, 1976 for P4, 880.00 and not a blank piece of paper. The IBP
commenced its investigation, the complainant failed to appear; nor could service of notices
be made on her. The Investigating Commissioner however, pointed out in his report that
under Rule 139-B, the IBP cannot dismiss outright a complaint against a member of the bar
simply because the complainant has lost interest in the case, specially where prima facie
evidence exists.3 Moreover, respondent lawyers verified answer and admissions during
hearings before the Investigating Commissioner constitute sufficient evidence for a just
disposition of the case. The IBP Board of Governors resolved to adopt and approve the report
of Investigating Commissioner Vicente Q. Roxas finding respondent lawyer Benjamin
Ramirez guilty of having committed acts not befitting a member of the bar. The Board of
Governors also increased the recommended penalty from six (6) months to one year
suspension.
ISSUE
Whether or not the Atty. Ramirezs act of deceiving his client into signing a receipt
for the Commissions award without receiving the full amount constitutes malpractice and
may be suspended?
HELD
YES. By preponderance of evidence, it has been amply proved that respondent
lawyer Benjamin Ramirez deceived complainant by making it appear in a document on
January 15, 1976 that she received P4, 880.00 or more than what she actually received.
Under Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, a member of the bar may be removed
or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice or
other gross misconduct in such office. Respondents act of defrauding an illiterate
complainant of the monetary award for her husbands death, for which she waited nearly ten
years, is deplorable and should not be viewed lightly. Not only does respondent degrade
himself as a lawyer but he thereby besmirches the honorable profession to which he belongs.
For the foregoing reasons, the respondent is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a
period of one year from receipt of this Resolution.