SECONDDIVISION

JUVYP.CIOCONREER,A.M.OCAIPINo.093210RTJ
ANGELINAP.CIOCON,
MARIVITP.CIOCONPresent:
HERNANDEZ,and
REMBERTOC.KARAAN,SR.,CARPIO,J.,Chairperson,
Complainants,BRION,
PERALTA,*
SERENO,and
versusREYES,JJ.
JUDGEANTONIOC.LUBAO,
RegionalTrialCourt,Branch22,
GeneralSantosCity,Promulgated:
Respondent.June20,2012
xx

RESOLUTION

CARPIO,J.:

TheCase

JuvyP.CioconReer,AngelinaP.Ciocon,MarivitP.CioconHernandez,andRembertoC.
Karaan, Sr. (complainants) filed an administrative complaint against Judge Antonio C.
Lubao(JudgeLubao)oftheRegionalTrialCourtofGeneralSantosCity,Branch22,for
gross ignorance of the law, rules or procedures gross incompetence and inefficiency
violationofSection3(e)ofRepublicActNo.3019violationsofArticles171and172of
the Revised Penal Code violations of pertinent provisions of the Code of Judicial
Conduct,TheNewCodeofJudicialConductperA.M.No.030501SC,andCanonsof
JudicialEthicsanddishonestyandgravemisconduct.

TheAntecedentFacts

Complainants are the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 7819 (Juvy P. CioconReer, et al. v.
GasparMayo,etal.)forUnlawfulDetainer,Damages,Injunction,etc.,anappealedcase
from the MunicipalTrial Court of General Santos City, Branch 3. Complainants alleged
thaton12September2008,JudgeLubaoissuedanOrderdirectingthepartiestosubmit
theirrespectivememorandawithin30daysfromreceiptoftheorder.Complainantsfurther
allegedthaton30September2008,acopyoftheorderwassentbyregisteredmailtothe
defendants, which they should have received within one week or on 7 October 2008.
Complainantsallegedthatthe30dayperiodwithinwhichtosubmitmemorandaexpired
on 6 November 2008. Since the defendants failed to submit their memorandum on 6
November 2008, complainants alleged that they should be deemed to have waived their
righttoadduceevidenceandJudgeLubaoshouldhavedecidedthecase.Yet,fourmonths
passedfrom6November2008andJudgeLubaostillfailedtomakehisdecision.

In his Comment, Judge Lubao explained that the parties were required to submit their
respectivememorandaon12September2008.TheOrderwassenttothepartiesthrough
registeredmailon30September2008.JudgeLubaoallegedthattheplaintiffssubmitted
theirmemorandumon10November2008butthecourtdidnotreceivetheregistryreturn
cardonthenoticetothedefendants.On10December2008,thebranchclerkofcourtsent
a letterrequest to the Post Office of General Santos City asking for certification as to
whentheOrderof12September2008,sentunderRegistryReceiptNo.690,wasreceived
bythedefendants.However,thecourtdidnotreceiveanyreplyfromthePostOffice.

JudgeLubaofurtherexplainedthaton20May2009,forthegreaterinterestofsubstantial
justice,thedefendantsweregiventheirlastchancetosubmittheirmemorandumwithin30
daysfromreceiptoftheorder.Inthesameorder,hedirectedtheplaintiffstocoordinate
withthebranchsheriffforpersonaldeliveryoftheordertothedefendants.However,the
plaintiffs failed to coordinate with the branch sheriff and the order was sent to the
defendants,againbyregisteredmail,onlyon17June2009.

Judge Lubao informed the Court that complainant Remberto C. Karaan, Sr. (Karaan) is

engaging in the practice of law even though he is not a lawyer. Judge Lubao asked this
Court to require Karaan to show cause why he should not be cited in contempt for
unauthorizedpracticeoflaw.

Karaan filed a supplemental complaint alleging that Judge Lubaos failure to submit his
commentontimetocomplainantsadministrativecomplaintisaviolationoftheexisting
rules and procedure and amounts to gross ignorance of the law.As regards his alleged
unauthorizedpracticeoflaw,KaraanallegedthatJudgeLubaowasmerelytryingtoevade
theissuesathand.

TheFindingsoftheOCA

In its Memorandum dated 13April 2010, the Office of the CourtAdministrator (OCA)
reportedthataverificationfromtheDocketandClearanceDivisionofitsOfficerevealed
[1]
thatKaraanalsofilednumerousadministrativecomplaints againstjudgesfromdifferent
courts,allofwhichweredismissedbythisCourt.

Initsevaluationofthecase,theOCAfoundthattherewasnoevidencetoshowthatthe
ordersissuedbyJudgeLubaoweretaintedwithfraud,dishonestyorbadfaith.TheOCA
stated that the matters raised by complainants could only be questioned through judicial
remedies under the Rules of Court and not by way of an administrative complaint. The
OCAstatedthatKaraancouldnotsimplyassumethattheorderof12September2008had
beenreceivedbythedefendantswithouttheregistryreturncardwhichwasnotreturnedto
thetrialcourt.

TheOCAfoundthatbasedonthepleadingsattachedtotherecords,itwouldappearthat
Karaanwasengagedinthepracticeoflaw.TheOCAalsonotedthenumerousfrivolous
andadministrativecomplaintsfiledbyKaraanagainstseveraljudgeswhichtendtomock
thejudicialsystem.

The OCA recommended the dismissal of the complaint against Judge Lubao for lack of
merit. The OCA further recommended that Karaan be required to show cause why he

should not be cited for contempt of court for violation of Section 3(e), Rule 71 of the
RevisedRulesofCourt.

In its Resolution dated 24 November 2010, this Court dismissed the complaint against
JudgeLubaoforbeingjudicialinnatureandforlackofmerit.ThisCourtlikewisedirected
KaraantoshowcausewhyheshouldnotbecitedforcontemptforviolatingSection3(e),
Rule71oftheRevisedRulesofCourt.

KaraanfiledamotionforreconsiderationofthedismissalofthecomplaintagainstJudge
Lubao. Karaan denied that he had been assuming to be an attorney or an officer of the
courtandactingassuchwithoutauthority.HeallegedthathedidnotindicateanyPTR,
Attorneys Roll, or MCLE Compliance Number in his documents. He further stated that
A.M.No.071674filedagainstJudgeLindowasnotactuallydismissedasreportedbythe
OCA.

Karaan thereafter filed Supplemental Arguments to the motion for reconsideration and
compliancetotheshowcauseorder.Karaanreiteratedthatheneverrepresentedhimselfto
anyoneasalawyerorofficerofthecourtandthathisparalegalservices,renderedfreeof
charge, were all for the public good. He stated that he assists organizations which
represent the interests of senior citizens, the indigents, and members of the community
withlimitedmeans.

In a Memorandum dated 8 November 2011, the OCA found no merit in the motion for
reconsideration.The OCA noted Judge Lubaos explanation that the case was summarily
dismissed by the municipal trial court without service of summons on the defendants.
Thus,JudgeLubaodeemeditpropertoissuetheorderrequiringallpartiestosubmittheir
memorandumtogiveallconcernedtheopportunitytobeheard.TheOCAstatedthatthe
remedyagainstJudgeLubaosactionwasjudicialinnature.TheOCAfoundthattheclaim
of Karaan that he could prove the receipt of the order by one Mr. Mayo is immaterial
becauseitwasnotintherecordsofthecasewhereJudgeKaraanbasedhisorder.

The OCA noted that Karaan, through the use of intemperate and slanderous language,
continuallyattributedallsortsofmaliciousmotivesandnefariousschemestoJudgeLubao
regardingtheconductofhisofficialfunctionbutfailedtosubstantiatehisallegations.The
OCAfurthernotedthatthiscaseisjustoneofthemanycasesKaraanfiledagainstvarious
judgesinothercourtswherethesamepatternofaccusationscouldbeobserved.

The OCA found Karaans explanation on the show cause order unsatisfactory.The OCA
noted Karaans modus operandi of offering free paralegal advice and then making the
partiesexecuteaspecialpowerofattorneythatwouldmakehimanagentofthelitigants
and would allow him to file suits, pleadings and motions with himself as one of the
plaintiffsactingonbehalfofhisclients.TheOCAnotedthatKaraansservices,onbehalf
oftheunderprivilegedheclaimedtobehelping,fallwithinthepracticeoflaw.TheOCA
recommended that Karaan be declared liable for indirect contempt and be sentenced to
serve a term of imprisonment for 10 days at the Manila City Jail and to pay a fine of
P1,000 with a warning that a repetition of any of the offenses, or any similar or other
offense,againstthecourts,judgesorcourtemployeeswillmeritmoreserioussanctions.

TheRulingofthisCourt

We agree with the OCAs recommendation that the motion for reconsideration of the
Courts24November2010ResolutiondismissingthecomplaintagainstJudgeLubaohas
nomerit.

Not all administrative complaints against judges merit a corresponding penalty. In the
absenceoffraud,dishonestyorcorruption,theactsofajudgeinhisjudicialcapacityare
[2]
not subject to disciplinary action. We agree with the OCA that the remedy of the
complainants in this case is judicial in nature. Hence, the denial of their motion for
reconsiderationofthisCourts24November2010Resolutiondismissingtheadministrative
case against Judge Lubao is in order. As the OCA stated, Karaan could not make
assumptionsastowhenthedefendantsreceivedthecopyofJudgeLubaosorderwithout
the registry return receipt. While Karaan claimed that he knew when one of the parties
receivedacopyoftheorder,thisclaimwasunsupportedbyevidenceandwasnotinthe

records of the case when Judge Lubao issued his 20 May 2009 Order giving the
defendantstheirlastchancetosubmittheirmemorandum.Therecordswouldalsoshow
thatJudgeLubaohadbeenverycarefulinhisactionsonthecase,ashisbranchclerkof
courtevenwrotethePostOfficeofGeneralSantosCityaskingforcertificationastowhen
theOrderof12September2008,sentunderRegistryReceiptNo.690,wasreceivedbythe
defendants. There was no evidence that Judge Lubao acted arbitrarily or in bad faith.
Further,JudgeLubaocouldnotbefaultedfortryingtogiveallthepartiesanopportunity
to be heard considering that the records of the case would show that the court a quo
summarilydismissedthecasewithoutissuingsummonstothedefendants.

WelikewiseagreewiththeOCAthatKaraanwasengagedinunauthorizedpracticeoflaw.

[3]
InCayetanov.Monsod, theCourtruledthatpracticeoflawmeansanyactivity,inor
out of court, which requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training
and experience. To engage in the practice of law is to perform acts which are usually
[4]
performedbymembersofthelegalprofession. Generally,topracticelawistorender
[5]
anykindofservicewhichrequirestheuseoflegalknowledgeorskill. Here,theOCA
was able to establish the pattern in Karaans unauthorized practice of law. He would
requirethepartiestoexecuteaspecialpowerofattorneyinhisfavortoallowhimtojoin
them as one of the plaintiffs as their attorneyinfact.Then, he would file the necessary
complaint and other pleadings acting for and in his own behalf and as attorneyinfact,
agentorrepresentativeoftheparties.ThefactthatKaraandidnotindicateinthepleadings
that he was a member of the Bar, or any PTR, Attorneys Roll, or MCLE Compliance
Numberdoesnotdetractfromthefactthat,byhisactions,hewasactuallyengagedinthe
practiceoflaw.

UnderSection3(e),Rule71ofthe1997RulesofCivilProcedure,aperson[a]ssumingto
beanattorneyoranofficerofacourt,andactingassuchwithoutauthority,isliablefor
indirect contempt of court. Under Section 7 of the same rules, a respondent adjudged
guilty of indirect contempt committed against a Regional Trial Court or a court of
equivalentorhigherrankmaybepunishedbyafinenotexceedingthirtythousandpesos

orimprisonmentnotexceedingsix(6)months,orboth.Ifarespondentisadjudgedguilty
ofcontemptcommittedagainstalowercourt,hemaybepunishedbyafinenotexceeding
fivethousandpesosorimprisonmentnotexceedingone(1)month,orboth.

[6]
Following the ruling of this Court in In re: Joaquin T. Borromeo, the OCA
recommended that Karaan be cited for indirect contempt and be sentenced to serve an
imprisonment of ten days at the Manila City Jail, and to pay a fine of P1,000 with a
warningthatarepetitionofanyoftheoffenses,oranysimilarorotheroffenseagainstthe
courts,judgesorcourtemployeeswillmeritfurtherandmoreserioussanctions.TheOCA
furtherrecommendedthatamemorandumbeissuedtoallcourtsofthelandtonotifythe
judgesandcourtemployeesofKaraansunauthorizedpracticeoflawandtoreporttothe
OCA any further appearance to be made by Karaan. However, the records would show
thatKaraanisalready71yearsold.Inconsiderationofhisoldageandhisstateofhealth,
wedeemitpropertoremovethepenaltyofimprisonmentasrecommendedbytheOCA
andinsteadincreasetherecommendedfinetoP10,000.

WHEREFORE,weDENYthemotionforreconsiderationoftheCourtsResolutiondated
24 November 2010 dismissing the complaint against JudgeAntonio C. Lubao for being
judicialinnature.WefindREMBERTOC.KARAAN,SR.GUILTYofindirectcontempt
under Section 3(e), Rule 71 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure and impose on him a
FineofTenThousandPesos(P10,000).

Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished all courts of the land for their guidance and
information.ThecourtsandcourtemployeesarefurtherdirectedtoreporttotheOfficeof
theCourtAdministratoranyfurtherappearancebyRembertoC.Karaan,Sr.beforetheir
sala.

SOORDERED.

ANTONIOT.CARPIO

SeniorAssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

ARTUROD.BRION
AssociateJustice

DIOSDADOM.PERALTAMARIALOURDESP.A.SERENO
AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice

BIENVENIDOL.REYES
AssociateJustice
*DesignatedadditionalmemberperRaffledated18June2012.
[1]
OCA IPI No. 082053MTJ, Re: Sps. Hospicio D. Santos, et al., represented by Remberto C. Karaan, Sr. v. Judge
ManodonOCAIPINo.082025MTJ, Re:RembertoC.Karaan,Sr.,etal.v.JudgeBuenaventura,etal. OCA IPI
No.082041,Re:RembertoC.Karaan,Sr.,etal.v.JudgeBravoA.M.No.071674(formerlyOCAIPINo.041550
MTJ),Re:RembertoC.Karaan,Sr.v.JudgeLindo,etal.OCAIPINo.051796MTJ,Re:RembertoC.Karaan,Sr.v.
JudgeOrtiz OCA IPI No. 081974MTJ, Re: Remberto C. Karaan, Sr. v. Judge Ocampo and 021203MTJ, Re: