Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Macarubbo
Re: Petition (For Extraordinary Mercy) Of Edmundo L. Macarubbo
AC No. 6148 , January 22, 2013
Perlas-Bernabe, J.:
FACTS:
In 2004, the Court disbarred respondent from the practice of law for having contracted a
bigamous marriage with complainant Florence Teves and a third marriage with one Josephine
Constantino while his first marriage to Helen Esparza was still subsisting, which acts constituted
gross immoral conduct in violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration/Appeal for Compassion and Mercy which the
Court denied with finality. Eight years after, respondent filed the instant Petition (For
Extraordinary Mercy) seeking judicial clemency and reinstatement in the Roll of Attorneys. The
Court initially treated the present suit as a second motion for reconsideration and accordingly,
denied it for lack of merit. Months after, the same petition was endorsed to this Court by the
Office of the Vice President7 for re-evaluation, prompting the Court Court to look into the
substantive merits of the case
ISSUE:
Is there merit on the respondents petition for reinstatement as a member of the bar?
RULING:
YES. The Court finds the petition meritorious.
In Re: Letter of Judge Augustus C. Diaz, Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 37,
Appealing for Clemency, the Court laid down the following guidelines in resolving requests for
judicial clemency:
1. There must be proof of remorse and reformation.
2. Sufficient time must have lapsed from the imposition of the penalty to ensure a period
of reform.
3. The age of the person asking for clemency must show that he still has productive years
ahead of him that can be put to good use by giving him a chance to redeem himself.
4. There must be a showing of promise (such as intellectual aptitude, learning or legal
acumen or contribution to legal scholarship and the development of the legal system or
administrative and other relevant skills), as well as potential for public service.
5. There must be other relevant factors and circumstances that may justify clemency.
Moreover, to be reinstated to the practice of law, the applicant must, like any other candidate for
admission to the bar, satisfy the Court that he is a person of good moral character.
Applying the foregoing standards to this case, the Court finds the instant petition meritorious.
Respondent has sufficiently shown his remorse and acknowledged his indiscretion in the legal
profession and in his personal life. He has asked forgiveness from his children by complainant
Teves and maintained a cordial relationship with them a. Records also show that after his
disbarment, respondent returned to his hometown in Enrile, Cagayan and devoted his time
tending an orchard and taking care of his ailing mother until her death in 2008. In 2009, he was
appointed as Private Secretary to the Mayor of Enrile, Cagayan and thereafter, assumed the
position of Local Assessment Operations Officer II/ Office-In-Charge in the Assessors Office,
which office he continues to serve to date. Moreover, he is a part-time instructor at the University
of Cagayan Valley and F.L. Vargas College during the School Year 2011-2012. Respondent
likewise took an active part in socio-civic activities by helping his neighbors and friends who are
in dire need. These were correspondingly supported by testimonies and affidavit by prominent
figures in his locality and the IBP
The Court notes the eight (8) long years that had elapsed from the time respondent was disbarred
and recognizes his achievement as the first lawyer product of Lemu National High School, and
his fourteen (14) years of dedicated government service from 1986 to July 2000 as Legal Officer
of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports; Supervising Civil Service Attorney of the
Civil Service Commission; Ombudsman Graft Investigation Officer; and State Prosecutor of the
Department of Justice. From the attestations and certifications presented, the Court finds that
respondent has sufficiently atoned for his transgressions. At 58 years of age, he still has
productive years ahead of him that could significantly contribute to the upliftment of the law
profession and the betterment of society. While the Court is ever mindful of its duty to discipline
and even remove its errant officers, concomitant to it is its duty to show compassion to those
who have reformed their way.
Accordingly, respondent is hereby ordered .reinstated to the practice of law. He is, however,
reminded that such privilege is burdened with conditions whereby adherence. to the rigid
standards of intellect, moral uprightness, and strict compliance with the rules and the law are
continuing requirements.
FACTS:
Bansig, respondents sister-in-law alleged that respondents act of contracting marriage a second
marriage while his marriage is still subsisting, constitutes grossly immoral and conduct
unbecoming of a member of the Bar, which renders him unfit to continue his membership in the
Bar.
Despite several notices sent out by the Court, respondent neither gave his answer to the
complaint nor attend to hearings.
ISSUE:
Did the complaint against Atty Celery and the evidence presented merit to the latters disbarment
for Gross Immoral Conduct.
RULING:
YES. In the instant case, there is a preponderance of evidence that respondent contracted a
second marriage despite the existence of his first marriage. Bansig submitted certified xerox
copies of the marriage certificates to prove that respondent entered into a second marriage while
the latters first marriage was still subsisting. We note that the second marriage apparently took
place barely a year from his first marriage to Bunagan which is indicative that indeed the first
marriage was still subsisting at the time respondent contracted the second marriage with Alba.
For purposes of this disbarment proceeding, these Marriage Certificates bearing the name of
respondent are competent and convincing evidence to prove that he committed bigamy, which
renders him unfit to continue as a member of the Bar. Specifically, he was found to have violated
Canon 1, particularly Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03.
Respondent exhibited a deplorable lack of that degree of morality required of him as a member
of the Bar. He made a mockery of marriage, a sacred institution demanding respect and dignity.
His act of contracting a second marriage while his first marriage is subsisting constituted grossly
immoral conduct and are grounds for disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised
Rules of Court. Respondents defiant stance against the Court as demonstrated by his repetitive
disregard of its Resolution requiring him to file his comment on the complaint despite numerous
directives in the course of the ten years in which the case dragged on.
Considering respondent's propensity to disregard not only the laws of the land but also the lawful
orders of the Court, it only shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity and
good demeanor. He is, thus, unworthy to continue as an officer of the court.
The Court found respondent guilty of grossly immoral conduct and willful disobedience of
lawful orders rendering him unworthy of continuing membership in the legal profession. He was
thus ordered disbarred from the practice of law and his name stricken of the Roll of Attorneys.
Aida R. Campos Et Al VS. Atty Eliseo Camos
A.C. No. 8644, January 22, 2014
Reyes. J.:
FACTS:
The complainant, Aida Campos, together with children Alistair and Charmaine, filed the instant
complaint for disbarment7 against her husband, Judge Eliseo Campos. They alleged that Eliseo
committed acts of dishonesty, immorality and serious misconduct in :a) causing the issuance of
the original land title in Alistairs name; b) subsequently misrepresenting himself as the real
owner of the lot ; c) falsely declaring under oath in the Affidavit of Loss executed on that the
owners copy of the property was missing despite his knowledge that the said title is with
Alistair; d) stating in his petition for annulment of marriage that he is a homosexual despite his
admission of an intimate relation with another woman; and e) choking and boxing his children
during a conference in the judges chamber.
ISSUE:
Did the above mentioned acts constitute dishonesty, immorality and serious misconduct?
RULING:
Of the five issues raised, only the allegation of Eliseos engagement in the scuffle inside the
chamber of the judge shall be resolved. In the instant disbarment complaint, tirades and bare
accusations were exchanged. It bears stressing that not one of the parties had presented even one
independent witness to prove what transpired inside the chamber of Judge Casals That a scuffle
took place is a fact, but the question of who started what cannot be determined with much
certainty. While admitting his engagement in the scuffle, Eliseo vigorously attempts to justify his
conduct as self-defense on his part. While this Court finds credence and logic in Eliseos
narration of the incident, and understands that the successive acts of the parties during the tussle
were committed at a time when passions ran high, he shall not be excused for comporting
himself in such an undignified manner.
Sans any descriptive sophistry, what Eliseo did was to engage in a brawl with no less than his
own children inside the chamber of a judge. This Court shall not countenance crude social
behavior. Besides, the courtroom is looked upon by people with high respect and is regarded as a
sacred place where litigants are heard, rights and conflicts settled, and justice solemnly
dispensed. Misbehavior within or around the vicinity diminishes its sanctity and dignity.
Although Alistair and Charmaine were not entirely faultless, a higher level of decorum and
restraint was then expected from Eliseo, whose conduct failed to show due respect for the court
and lend credit to the nobility of the practitioners of the legal profession. Further, albeit not
raised as an issue, the Court views with disfavor Eliseos statement during the hearing conducted
by the Committee on Bar Discipline on March 18, 2011 that he doubts Alistair to be his
biological son. As a lawyer, Eliseo is presumably aware that ascribing illegitimacy to Alistair in a
proceeding not instituted for that specific purpose is nothing short of defamation.
All told, Eliseo violated Rule 7.03, Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility when he
conducted himself in a manner not befitting a member of the bar by engaging in the scuffle with
his own children in the chamber of Judge Casals and recklessly expressing his doubt anent the
legitimacy of his son Alistair during the hearing before the CBD.
Victoria C. Heenan VS. Atty Erlina Espejo
A.C. No. 10050, December 3, 2013
Velasco, Jr. J.:
FACTS:
Despite being new acquaintances, Victoria Heenan loaned Atty. Espejo P250,000 as the latter
was introduced to her as her godmothers lawyer. To secure the payment of the loan, Atty Espejo
turned over a check covering the loan and agreed interest amounting to P275,000. Heenan was
not able to encash said check on its due date upon request of the respondent. The respondent
issued a second check amounting to the agreed interest which was similarly dishonored by the
bank due to insufficiency of funds.
With the sustained failure to pay and disregard of notices and subpoenas issued by the court,
Heenan fied a criminal complaint against the respondent for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22
and estafa. After the only preliminary investigation which respondent attended, she issued
another check amounting to P275,000, which was again dishonored due to insufficiency of
funds. After the case was submitted for resolution, complainant filed the instant administrative
case against Espejo before the Committee on Bar Discipline. The respondent did not submit any
answer to the case filed nor appeared for a mandatory conference.
ISSUE:
Was the case filed by Heenan against Espejo valid despite the fact that the acts complained were
not committed in her capacity as a lawyer?
RULING:
YES. The fact that Atty. Espejo obtained the loan and issued the worthless check in her private
capacity and not as an attorney of Victoria is of no moment. As we have held in several cases, a
lawyer may be disciplined not only for malpractice and dishonestly n his profession but also for
gross misconduct outside of his professional capacity. While the Court may not ordinarily
discipline a lawyer for misconduct committed in his non-professional or private capacity, the
Court may be justified in suspending or removing him as an attorney where his misconduct
outside of the lawyers professional dealings is so gross in character as to show him morally unfit
and unworthy of the privilege which his licenses and the law confer.
Atty. Espejos issuance of worthless checks and her blatant refusal to heed the directives of the
Quezon City Prosecutors Office and the IBP contravene Canon 1, Rule 1.01; Canon 7, Rule
7.03; and Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.In line with this, the Supreme
Court upheld the recommendation of the CBP to penalize Espejo with suspension from the
practice of law for two (2) years. However, it did not sustain the IBPs recommendation to order
Atty. Espejo to return the money she borrowed from Victoria. The Court claimed that in
disciplinary proceedings against lawyers, the only issue is whether the officer of the court is still
fit to be allowed to continue as a member of the Bar. Therefore, its concern is the determination
of respondents administrative liability. Its findings have no material bearing on other judicial
action which the parties may choose to file against each other.
In Re: Supreme Court Resolution dated 28 April 2003 in G.R. Nos. 145817 and 145822
A.C. No. 6332, April 17, 2012
Per Curiam:
FACTS:
Atty. Magdaleno M. Pena filed a complaint against Urban Bank and certain members of its
Board of Directors for recovery of agents compensation and attorneys fees for his services
rendered in evicting the occupants of a bank property in Pasay City. The RTC ruled in favour of
Pena but the bank appealed to the Court of Appeals and motioned to approve a Php 40-million
supersedeas bond for the stay of the execution of the RTC decision pending adjudication of its
appeal in the main case. The court granted the motion and with this, the Urban Banks successor
in interest requested not to cancel the banks shares which were previously sold at a public
auction. Because of the ensuing disputes, MSCI sought clarification from the court on whether
its resolution prohibitied MSCI from transferring Urban Banks shares to the winning bidders.
Urban Bank also filed an identical motion for clarification.
The court acting on the two motions stated that its approval of the supersedeas bond suspended
the running of the one year period for the Bank to redeem the properties sold at the auction and
prohibitied the transfer of Union Bank;s MSCI club shares to the winning bidders.
On December 2002, Pena filed an urgent motion to expunge the banks motion for clarification
and recall the Courts resolutioin on the ground that he was not furnished a copy of the motion
nor given opportunity to be heard on it.
Pena also filed a motion to inhibit and to resolve his urgent motion enclosing as Annexes B and
C purported photocopies of pages 61 and 62 of the Courts supplemental agenda, internal
documents that are engaged as highly confidential. Pena alleged that based on the handwritten
notes on the right hand margin of the supplemental agenda, the Court merely took note of the
filing of the motion for clarification and did not act further on it. However, the resolution which
granted the motion had been falsified.
Bothered by Penas allegations, the First Division of the Court conducted a hearing on where he
got the annexes and if they were authentic. After the hearing, it was believed that the document
was indeed a copy of the agenda but the handwritten notations did not belong to Justice Carpio.
Further, Atty. Pena when asked where ho obtained such documents could not provide the court a
proper and justified answer as he only said that the document was in a sealed envelope and was
anonymously mailed to him.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Pena violated the Code of Professional Responsibility
RULING:
The court ruled that Atty. Pena has violated several canons namely that of Canon, 8, 10 and 11
for failing to give due respect to the Courts. His conduct, demeanor and language with respect to
his cause of action tend to undermine the integrity and reputation of the judiciary as well as
inflict unfounded accusations against colleagues. The most disconcerting for the Court is his
uncanny ability to obtain confidential and internal court orders and to use them shamelessly in
his pleadings to further his cause. With this, the Court hereby disbars from practicing law Atty.
Pena.
Felipe C. Dagala VS. Atty. Jose C. Quesada, Jr. And Atty. Amado T. Adquilen
A.C. No. 5044, December 02, 2013
Perlas-Bernabe, J.
FACTS:
Complainant Dagala, assisted by Atty. Quesada filed before the National Labor Relations
Commission, Regional Arbitration Branch No. I, San Fernando City, La Union a Complaint for
illegal dismissal, overtime pay, separation pay, damages and attorneys fees against Capitol
Allied Trading & Transport on November 8, 1994. However, the case was dismissed for failure
of complainant and Atty. Quesada to appear during the two scheduled mandatory conference
hearings despite due notice. Thereafter, complainant engaged the services of Atty. Adquilen, a
former Labor Arbiter, who re-filed his labor case. Similarly, the case was dismissed due to the
parties failure to submit their respective position papers. Complainant and Atty. Adquilen refiled the case for a third time on August 27, 1996.During the pendency of the case, the
representative of Capitol allegedly offered the amount of P74,000.00 as settlement of
complainants claim, conditioned on the submission of the latters position paper. Atty. Adquilen,
however, failed to submit one, resulting in the dismissal of the complaint for lack of interest and
failure to prosecute. On July 11, 1997, complainant this time assisted by Atty. Imelda L. Picar
filed a motion for reconsideration from the February 27, 1997 Order, which was treated as an
appeal and transmitted to the NLRC-National Capital Region. However, the NLRC-NCR
dismissed the same in a Resolution for having been filed out of time, adding that the negligence
of counsel binds the client. Due to the foregoing, Atty. Picar sent separate letters dated November
18, 1998 to respondents, informing them that complainant is in the process of pursuing
administrative cases against them before the Court. The Court directed respondents to comment
on the Complaint within ten days from notice. However, despite notices and the extension
granted, Atty. Adquilen failed to comply with the directive and the subsequent show-cause
resolutions. He also claimed that when he was informed of the dismissal of the case without
prejudice, he advised complainant to re-file the case with the assistance of another lawyer as he
had to attend to his duties as Chairman of the Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino for the Second
District of La Union Province.
ISSUE:
Whether Atty. Quesada should be held administratively liable for gross negligence in handling
complainants labor case
RULING:
The Court emphasized that the relationship between a lawyer and his client is one imbued with
utmost trust and confidence. In this regard, clients are led to expect that lawyers would be evermindful of their cause and accordingly exercise the required degree of diligence in handling their
affairs. For his part, the lawyer is required to maintain at all times a high standard of legal
proficiency, and to devote his full attention, skill, and competence to the case, regardless of its
importance and whether he accepts it for a fee or for free. He is likewise expected to act with
honesty in all his dealings, especially with the courts. These principles are embodied in Rule 1.01
of Canon 1, Rule 10.01 of Canon 10, Canon 17 and Rule 18.03 of Canon 18 of the Code.
7 and Rule 9.02, Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Respondent moved for
reconsideration which was denied.
ISSUE:
Whether respondent should be held for grave dishonesty, gross misconduct constituting deceit
and grossly immoral conduct
RULING:
In the case at bar, respondent's defense that forgery had attended the execution of the August 11,
1995 letter was belied by his July 16, 1997 letter admitting to have undertaken the payment of
complainant's commission but passing on the responsibility to spouses Yap. Clearly, respondent
has violated Rule 9.02, Canon 9 of the Code which prohibits a lawyer from dividing or
stipulating to divide a fee for legal services with persons not licensed to practice law, except in
certain cases which do not obtain in the case at bar. However, the court finds the charge of
engaging in illegal money lending not to have been sufficiently established. A "business"
requires some form of investment and a sufficient number of customers to whom its output can
be sold at profit on a consistent basis. The lending of money to a single person without showing
that such service is made available to other persons on a consistent basis cannot be construed that
respondent is engaged in the business of lending. Nonetheless, that respondent should be
sanctioned for his actions, that the power to disbar should be exercised with great caution and
only in clear cases of misconduct that seriously affect the standing and character of the lawyer as
an officer of the court and as member of the bar, or the misconduct borders on the criminal, or
committed under scandalous circumstance, which do not obtain here. Considering the
circumstances of the case, the court deems it appropriate that respondent be suspended from the
practice of law for a period of one (1) year as recommended.
negative but told him that he can refer him to his former client, a certain Jaime "Jimmy" Vistan,
who may be able to help him. The complainant had a conversation with Vistan over the phone.
Sometime thereafter, he received a call from Vistan who told him that he was given P350,000.00
as facilitation fee. After their conversation, he never heard from Vistan again.
ISSUE:
Whether Respondent is guilty of violating of the lawyer's oath and the Code of Professional
Responsibility
RULING:
It is well to remember that in disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the
complainant. For the Court to exercise its disciplinary powers, the case against the respondent
must be established by convincing and satisfactory proof. In the absence of preponderant
evidence, the presumption of innocence of the lawyer subsists and the complaint against him
must be dismissed. After a careful review of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court
finds that the evidence submitted by the complainant fell short of the required quantum of proof.
Aside from bare allegations, no evidence was presented to convincingly establish that the
respondent engaged in unlawful and dishonest conduct, particularly in extortion and influencepeddling. The respondent, however, is not entirely faultless. He has, nonetheless, engendered the
suspicion that he is engaged in an illegal deal when he introduced the complainant to Vistan, who
was the one who allegedly demanded P1,000,000.00 in facilitation fee from the union members.
The respondent, however, instead of promptly declining the favor sought in order to avoid any
appearance of impropriety, even volunteered to introduce the complainant to Vistan. His
connection with Vistan was the reason why the complainant had suspected that he was in
connivance with him and that he got a portion of the loot. In doing so, he has exposed the legal
profession to undeserved condemnation and invited suspicion on the integrity of the judiciary for
which he must be imposed with a disciplinary sanction. Canon 7 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility mandates that a "lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the
legal profession." For, the strength of the legal profession lies in the dignity and integrity of its
members. It is every lawyers duty to maintain the high regard to the profession by staying true
to his oath and keeping his actions beyond reproach.
Also, the respondent, as a member of the legal profession, has a further responsibility to
safeguard the dignity of the courts which the public perceives as the bastion of justice. He must
at all times keep its good name untarnished and not be instrumental to its disrepute. For having
committed an act which compromised the publics trust in the justice system, Atty. Reynaldo V.
Abdon is hereby suspended from the practice of law for a period of one (1) month with a stern
warning that a repetition of the same or similar act in the future shall be dealt with severely.
In the case of Atty. Jarder, the Court did not find any evidence that he was directly involved or
had knowledge of the wrongful practice of Atty. Bancolo. Therefore, he is not found
administratively liable for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Re: Verified Complaint for Disbarment of AMA Land, Inc. (Represented by Joseph B.
Usita) Against Court of Appeals Associate Justices Hon. Danton Q. Bueser, Hon. Sesinando
E. Villon and Hon. Ricardo R. Rosario
OCA IPI No. 12-204-CA-J, March 11, 2014
Bersamin, J.:
FACTS:
AMALI is the owner and developer of a 37-storey condominium project in Mandaluyong City.
Due to its location, AMALI would have to use Fordham Street as an access road where thy set up
a field office which the Wack Wack Residents Association, Inc (WWRAI) demolished. This
prompted AMALI to file a petition of easement of right of way which included a TRO but the
Court of Appeals rendered a decision in favour of WWRAI and allegedly left the other motions
of AMALI unresolved. This led to the filing of an administrative complaint against CA Justices
Bueser, Villon and Rosario for rendering an unjust judgment and deciding in bad faith and with
deliberate intent to favour WWRAI.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Justices violated Canon 1 and 10
HELD:
In administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of proving the allegations by
substantial evidence. Failure to do so would dismiss the complaint for lack of merit for the
reason that any charge against any judicial officer must be supported by at least substantial
evidence. But when the charge equates to a criminal offense, the showing of culpability on the
part of the judicial officer should be nothing short of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
AMALI then must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Justices had intended to perpetrate
injustice when it rendered its decision in favour of WWRAI. There was also no evidence
presented that is indicative of bias and partiality. With this, the court ruled that the Justices did
not violate the Code of Professional Responsibility as AMALI was not able to establish that the
CA rendered an unjust judgement.
ISSUE:
The issue in this case is whether Atty. Nonnatus P. Chua's acts violated Canon 10 of the Code on
Professional Responsibility.
RULING:
The Court suspended Atty. Nonnatus P. Chua from the practice of law for 6 months. In the
present case, respondent Atty. Chua claimed or made to appear that STEELCORP was the
licensee of the technical information and the patent on Hot Dip Coating of Ferrous Strands or
Philippine Patent No. 16269. Investigation made by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines'
Commission on Bar Discipline showed that STEELCORP has only rights as a licensee of the
technical information and not the rights as a licensee of the patent. Rule 10.01 of the Code of the
Professional Responsibility provides that, "A lawyer shall do no falsehood, nor consent to the
doing of any in Court, nor shall he mislead or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice."
ISSUE:
The issue in this case is whether William Co, acting through the guidance and advice of his
counsel, Atty. Oscar C. Maglaque, were intended to delay the Trial Court's proceedings.
RULING:
The Commission on Bar Discipline-Integrated Bar of the Philippines is directed to investigate
the acts of Atty. Oscar C. Maglaque that appear to have violated the Code on Professional
Responsibility, his Lawyer's Oath and the Rule on Forum Shopping. However, it appears that
Atty. Maglaque's conduct contravened the Code on Professional Responsibility which enjoins
lawyers to observe the rules of procedure and not to misuse them to defeat the ends of justice as
mandated by Rule 10.03, Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and also not
unduly delay a cause or misuse Court's processes using Rule 12.04, Canon 12 of the Code on
Professional Responsibility as basis.
ISSUE:
The issue in this case is whether respondent Atty. Angelito Villarin should be administratively
sanctioned for sending demand letters despite a final and executory HLURB decision directing
the payment of the purchase price of the lots by the subdivision buyers.
RULING:
The Court reprimanded respondent Atty. Angelito Villarin with a warning that a repetition of the
same or a similar act shall be dealt with more severely. The Court adopted the recommendation
of the IBP board of governors that the issuance of the contested demand letters was not
malicious. The Code of Professional Responsibility provides that lawyers shall perform their
duties to their client within the bounds of law. Respondent's act of issuing demand letters was
legally sanctional. Despite knowledge of the aforementioned falsity totally disregarded the
HLURB Decision, he advances the interests of his client through means that are inconsistent
with the requirements of fairness and honesty.
ISSUE:
The issue in this case is whether or not Atty. Nazareno should be held administratively liable for
making false declarations in the certifications against forum shopping.
RULING:
The Court found respondent Atty. Philip Z. A. Nazareno guilty of making false declarations in
the certification against forum shopping. He is suspended from the practice of law for a period of
one year and permanently disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public. Canon 10 of
the Code on Professional Responsibility states that, "A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS
AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT."
ISSUE:
The issue in this case is whether Atty. Juvy Mell Sanchezmalit was guilty of violating Canon 18
and Rule 18.03 of the Code on Professional Responsibility when he drafted and notarized the
real estate mortgage contract.
RULING:
The Court found respondent Atty. Juvy Mell Sanchez-Malit guilty of violating Canons 1 and
Rules 1.01, 1.02 and 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility as well as her oath as
notary public. The Court found that respondent committed misconduct and grievously violated
her oath as a notary public. Respondent herein fully knew that complainant was not the owner of
the mortgaged market stall. It is noteworthy, that a notary public should not notarize a document
unless verified by the very same ones executing it and must personally appear before a notary
public to attest the authenticity with regards to the contents and truth of its content.
Spouses George A. Warriner and Aurora R. Warriner vs. Atty. Reni M. Dublin
A.C. No. 5239, November 18, 2013
Facts:
Complainant spouses alleged that they secured the services respondent Atty. Reni M. Dublin for
claim of damages against E.B. Villarosa & Partner Co. Ltd. Respondent requested the RTC for a
period of 10 days within which to submit his Formal Offer of Documentary Evidence. However,
respondent did not send anything. This prompted the RTC to dismiss the Civil Case to the
prejudice of the complainants. On 26 June 2000, respondent was directed to file his comment to
the administrative complaint. He thereafter requested an extension of 30 days which the court
eventually granted. However respondent had not yet filed his comment as of August 5, 2002 or
after a lapse of almost two years. Respondent did not show any cause why he should not be
disciplinary dealt with or held in contempt. On March 10, 2008, the court resolved to order
respondent's arrest and detention. In his side, respondent Atty. Dublin claimed that complainant
Warriner's cause in filing the Civil Case No. 23, 396-95 is vitiated by fraud, thus, led him to
believe that his late comment in the instant case was with the contention of protecting the legal
profession and in accordance with his oath not to do any falsehood or promote unlawful causes.
Issue:
The issue in this case is whether Atty. Reni M. Dublin should be held guilty of violating Canon
18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility in representing the cause of herein complainant
spouses George A. Warriner and Aurora R. Warriner
Ruling:
The Court suspended respondent Atty. Reni M. Dublin from the practice of law for six months.
The court held that respondent is guilty of mishandling Civil Case No. 23, 396-95. Responded,
thus, violated Canon 18 and Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which states
that A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence" and "A lawyer shall not
neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection there with shall render
him liable ". Respondents admittedly claim that he deliberately failed to timely file a formal offer
of exhibits.
Mariano Agadan, Eden Mollejon, Arsenio Igme, Jose Numbas, Cecilia Langawan, Pablo
Palma, Joselito Claveria, Miguel Fores and Albert Gaydowen vs. Atty. Richard Baltazar
Kilaan
A.C. No 9385, November 11, 2013
Facts:
Complainants herein filed a complaint before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Baguio
Benguet Chapter against respondent Atty. Richard Baltazar Kilaan for falsification of documents,
dishonesty and deceit. Complainants alleged that respondent introduced certain entries in the
application for issuance of Certificate of Public Convenience to before the Land Transportation
Franchising and Regulatory Board-Cordillera Administrative Region to operate public utility
jeepney. After the complaint was formally endorsed to the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline,
Atty. Kilaan was directed to submit his answer. In his answer, respondent denied all the
allegations against him by the complainants. He disclaimed any participation in the preparation
of Decision with respect to the application of Joseph Batingued for CPC. Respondent further
claimed that the complainants instituted this case in retaliation after this application for CPC
were later on dismissed.
Issue:
The issue in this case is whether Atty. Richard Baltazar Kilaan committed falsehood in the
pleadings he submitted before the IBP.
Ruling:
Yes. The Court disqualified respondent Atty. Richard Baltazar Kilaan from being commissioned
as notary public for a period of one (1) year. He was also suspended from the practice of law for
3 months. The Court's ruling was anchored on Rule 10 of the CPR which expressly provides that
a lawyer shall do no falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead or
allow the Court to be misled by any artifice. Clearly, Atty. Kilaan tried to deceive the authorities
by attempting to defend himself by pleasing allegations which were later found to be untrue.
ISSUE:
Whether Judge Indar violated Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
RULING:
Judge Indar, who had sworn to faithfully uphold the law, issued decisions on the questioned
annulment of marriage cases, without any showing that such cases underwent trial and complied
with the statutory and jurisprudential requisites for voiding marriages. Such act undoubtedly
constitutes gross misconduct. The Court condemns Judge Indars reprehensible act of issuing
Decisions that voided marital unions, without conducting any judicial proceedings. Such
malfeasance not only makes a mockery of marriage and its life-changing consequences but
likewise grossly violates the basic norms of truth, justice, and due process. Not only that, Judge
Indars gross misconduct greatly undermines the peoples faith in the judiciary and betrays public
trust and confidence in the courts. Judge Indars utter lack of moral fitness has no place in the
Judiciary. Judge Indar deserves nothing less than dismissal from the service. Indisputably, Judge
Indars gross misconduct and dishonesty constitute a breach of Canons 1 and 7 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.