JULY SEPTEMBER 2015

Cases in Legal and Judicial Ethics

Submitted by:
Ivn Maj M. Nopuente
Rosana T. Palayon

Submitted to:
Judge Caroline R. Colasito

SECOND DIVISION
A.M. No. RTJ-15-2422 [Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 13-4129-RTJ], July 20, 2015
FLOR GILBUENA RIVERA, Complainant, v. HON. LEANDRO C. CATALO,
PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 256, MUNTINLUPA
CITY, Respondent.
DECISION
MENDOZA, J.:
Rivera filed a complaint for the issuance of new owners duplicate of copy for TCT
3460. Such case was raffled to the respondent judge. Thereafter, the respondent
rendered his decision granting the petition for issuance of new owner's duplicate
copy on the basis of the evidence ex parte presented by complainant. The
Registry of Deeds then informed complainant that the Affidavit of Loss, annotated
on the said TCT, was being recalled considering that the said title was already
cancelled and being a cancelled title, it could no longer be a subject of any
transaction.
More than a year after his earlier decision, respondent recalled and set aside the
May 18, 2012 decision of the RTC.
On the basis of the respondents action, complainant filed the subject
administrative complaint before the Court alleging that Judge Catalo committed
gross misconduct for recalling a final and executory judgment especially so when
more than a year has already elapsed.
He contends that the respondents act of recalling and setting aside the said
decision was of doubtful legal and moral basis. Complainant adds that his act of
flip-flopping was considered a violation of the Canon on Judicial Conduct as it
flagrantly disregarded well-known legal rules and constituted grave misconduct
punishable by dismissal from the service.
The OCA opined that Judge Catalo was administratively liable, not for gross

misconduct, but for gross ignorance of the law. It stated that the May 18, 2012
decision became final and executory on July 3, 2012, it became immutable and
unalterable.
ISSUE:
WON the judge should be held liable for recalling a final and executor decision.
Ruling:
NO.
Gross ignorance of the law by a judge presupposes an appalling lack of familiarity
with simple rules of law or procedures and well-established jurisprudence that
tends to erode the public trust in the competence and fairness of the court which
he personifies. In this case, the Court is not at all convinced that Judge Catalo
committed gross ignorance of the law.
Judge Catalo correctly rectified his questionable decision. Had he not acted
responsibly, the void judgment would have spawned double and conflicting titles
and would have wreaked havoc on the revered Torrens System of land
registration.

EN BANC
A.M. No. CA-15-53-J [Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 15-230-CA-J], July 14, 2015
RE: COMPLAINT DATED JANUARY 28, 2015 OF CATHERINE DAMAYO,
REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER, VENIRANDA DAMAYO, AGAINST HON.
MARILYN LAGURA-YAP, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEALS-VISAYAS,
CEBU CITY, CEBU.
DECISION
PERALTA, J.:
FACTS:LawlibraryofCRAlaw
An criminal complaint of Estafa was lodged against Catherine Damayo, before the
RTC Mandaue which was presided by the respondent. The herein complainant was
later on convicted despite her non-attendance.
Thereafter, she filed a notice of appeal which was subsequently dismissed on the
ground of wrong mode of appeal. Aggrieved, she filed the instant complaint
against the respondent.She alleged that her conviction was fraudulent.
Complainant pointed out that the opening statement of the Judgment in Criminal
Case No. DU-14740 stated that she pleaded guilty when in fact she pleaded not
guilty. Complainant claimed that respondent purportedly made a detailed
narration of the case to sustain the alleged plea of guilt. She further averred that
the judgment against complainant was not promulgated and that they only knew
of the spurious judgment when they went to the trial court to inquire about the
status of the case.
Respondent maintained that the mistakes committed were not serious enough.
ISSUE:
WON the judge should be held liable. Redarclaw
RULING:
NO. The burden of proof is on the complainant which she failed to even
substantiate with merit. No fraud or bad faith was proved.

FIRST DIVISION
A.M. No. 2014-07-SC, July 08, 2015
RE: REPORT OF ATTY. CARIDAD A. PABELLO, CHIEF OF OFFICE, OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES- OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR
(OAS-OCA), ON NEGLECT OF DUTY OF FERDINAND F. ANDRES, HUMAN
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT OFFICER III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT (RTC)PERSONNEL DIVISION, OAS-OCA, THE PROCESSOR-IN-CHARGE OF
APPOINTMENT AND THE ALLEGED ERRONEOUS RECORDING, ERASURE,
AND ALTERATION OF THE PERFORMANCE RATING ON THE RECORD BOOK.
RESOLUTION
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
FACTS:
Andres is the Processor in charge who is tasked to process vacancies in the trial
courts in his jurisdiction. On the basis of Pabellas documents that he had a VERY
SATISFACTORY RATING, Andres transmitted his records to the Board of
Promotions. However, Andres discovered that Pabellas rating was indeed only
Satisfactory and therefore he was disqualified from being promoted. It was
determined that there was tampering committed by Andres or at least negligence
by Pabella in not checking the template saved in his computer.
OAS-SC found Pabella to be guilty of simple neglect while the allegations against
Andres that he tampered the document was found insufficient in evidence.
ISSUE:
WON Andres should be held liable.
RULING:
YES.
His task is afforded with great competence that heavy workload as a reason
cannot be given credence. Given the sensitivity of his position, he should have
observed the proper diligence in handling the tasks at hand.

FIRST DIVISION
A.C. No. 8708 (CBD Case No. 08-2192), August 12, 2015
SPOUSES BYRON AND MARIA LUISA SAUNDERS, Complainants, v. ATTY.
LYSSA GRACE S. PAGANO-CALDE, Respondent.
DECISION
SERENO, C.J.:
FACTS:
Complainants obtained the services of respondent in relation to the sale of a
property registered in the name of Virgilio. Respondent also represented
complainants in the case involving the partition of the subject property. A
conditional sale was thereafter effected in which the complainant gave to the
respondent the amount of P530,000 as the price of the property and other
documents, to be held by her in trust. When the sale did not push through, the
respondent failed to account for the money when demanded to do so. As a result,
a complaint was filed against her.
The IBP recommended dismissal of the case since a criminal case for estafa was
already filed, making the fact of misappropriation impossible to be resolved yet
until the criminal case is disposed of fully.
ISSUE:
WON the lawyer should be held liable.
RULING:
YES. A disbarment proceeding is distinct and separate from a criminal case. A
separate determination may still be made on that proceeding. The lawyer is held
liable for violation of the canon requiring lawyers to hold all funds and properties
of their client which come into their possession by virtue of their professional
capacity.

SECOND DIVISION
A.C. No. 9834, August 26, 2015
SAMUEL B. ARNADO, Complainant, v. ATTY. HOMOBONO A.
ADAZA, Respondent.
DECISION
CARPIO, J.:
FACTS:
The complainant inquired at the MCLE Office on the MCLE exemption status of the
respondent upon seeing in the pleadings filed by the latter that he is indeed MCLE
Exempt. However, the office issued a certification holding otherwise. It was found
out that his application for exemption, on the ground of his expertise in law, was
denied.
However, he denied receiving any formal letter of denial from the said office. He
then proceeded to enumerate all of his achievements.
ISSUE:
WON Atty. Adaza shall be held liable.
RULING:
YES. He was suspended for 6 months because of his failure to explain his noncompliance with the MCLE requirement particularly on the matter of exemption.
He is also liable because of stating his exemption in the pleadings he prepared
despite formal denial of his application before. The Court also disallowed his
exemption.

SECOND DIVISION
A.M. No. CA-12-26-P, August 17, 2015
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. ANA MARIE
ABARENTOS, RECORDS OFFICER IV, COURT OF APPEALS, CEBU
CITY, Respondent.
RESOLUTION
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
FACTS:
Abarintos was alleged to have tampered the date of the pleading filed by her
husbands kumpare to make it appear that the same was filed on time. She was
also alleged to have withdrawn from the ATM Card of a certain Elizabeth Gilos
without authority of the amount of P10,000.
The Investigating Justice found insufficiency of evidence as regards the allegation
of tampering as there was proof that the pleadings were received on the day after.
As regards the withdrawal, the same was found to be true as the respondent was
positively identified by Gilos from the CCTV footage, and hence, she shall be held
liable for grave misconduct. OCA affirmed the recommendation but found her
liable for tampering.
ISSUE:
WON Abarentos be held liable.
RULING:
YES, but only as to the unauthorized withdrawal since the same was proved
sufficiently after careful perusal of their testimonies. The same constitutes grave
misconduct and dishonesty. However, the tampering allegation was not
sufficiently proved. It was held that administrative liability may not rest on
suspicions and surmises.

SECOND DIVISION
A.C. No. 10635, August 26, 2015
NOEL S. SORREDA, Complainant, v. ATTY. DAVID L. KHO, Respondent.
RESOLUTION
CARPIO, J.:
The Case
Before the Court is an administrative case filed by Noel S. Sorreda (Sorreda)
against Atty. David L. Kho (Kho) for malpractice and/or gross misconduct.
The Facts
Sorreda filed a complaint, similar to what his client Macarilay previously filed,
against Kho on the ground that Kho was disqualified from notarial practice since
the documents he notarized were from Candelaria and Imelda who were her
sister-in-law and niece, respectively. Kho admitted this, but reasoned out that at
the time of the notarization, he was not yet conversant of the new rule, the old
rule being conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude as the only
disqualification.
ISSUE:
WON Kho shall be held liable.
RULING:
NO. Res judicata applies because the same allegations were decided upon by the
Supreme Court in another case. Further, Sorreda failed to dispose of his burden of
proof.

EN BANC
A.C. No. 7073, September 01, 2015
FIRE OFFICER I DARWIN S. SAPPAYANI, Complainant, v. ATTY. RENATO G.
GASMEN,Respondent.
RESOLUTION
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
The Facts
Sappayani stated in his complaint that respondent notarized documents which he
purportedly executed, particularly, a SPA in favor of NGC through Maravillas and a
loan application with AMWSLAI. The SPA, which was notarized by Atty. Gasmen on
March 29, 2000, authorized NGC through Maravillas to complete the loan
application with AMWSLAI and thereafter, receive its proceeds. Thus, by virtue of
said notarized documents, AMWSLAI released to Maravillas, as representative of
NGC, a loan amounting to P157,301.43.
However, Sappayani denied executing said documents, claiming that his signature
found on the SPA was forged as he did not know Maravillas.
IBP found that the signature was forged and recommended suspension of the
notarial commission of the respondent considering that he notarized documents
which had defects in their due execution.
ISSUE:
WON the respondent shall be held liable.
RULING:
YES. It is clear from the evidence adduced that the documents which were
purportedly acknowledged by the lawyer were not executed in his presence when
in fact it is the very requirement in such a notarial act. Hence, suspension from
the practice of law for one year and revocation of his notarial commission are
proper penalties for his violations of his Code of Professional Responsibility and
the Rules on Notarial Practice.

THIRD DIVISION
A.M. No. P-14-3214 [Formerly OCA [I.P.I. No. 11-3747-P], September 14,
2015
VICENTE RAUT-RAUT, REPRESENTED BY JOVENCIO RAUTRAUT, Complainant, v. ROMEO B. GAPUTAN, SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT, BRANCH 27, GINGOOG CITY, MISAMIS ORIENTAL, Respondent.
DECISION
PERALTA, J.:
FACTS:
Complainant Raut-Raut is one of the heirs of the defendant in the abovementioned civil case. A decision was rendered by Branch 27, RTC, Gingoog City,
Misamis Oriental, in favor of the plaintiffs in the same case. A writ of execution
was issued ordering the respondent to enforce the said judgment upon posting of
the bond by the plaintiffs. However, the respondent-sheriff proceeded with the
execution despite failure of the plaintiffs to file the required bond. Also, the
sheriffs return was filed two years after the issuance of the writ of execution.
ISSUE:
WON Gaputan shall be held liable for his acts.
RULING:
YES. The Rules of Court makes it mandatory for a sheriff to make a return
immediately upon satisfaction of the judgment, whether partial or full. Failure to
do so warrants liability. He is guilty of simple neglect of duty and fined equivalent
to his salary of one month.

THIRD DIVISION
A.C. No. 6056, September 09, 2015
FELICISIMA MENDOZA VDA. DE ROBOSA, Complainant, v. ATTYS. JUAN B.
MENDOZA AND EUSEBIO P. NAVARRO, JR., Respondents.
DECISION
VILLARAMA, JR., J.:
FACTS:
Eladio Mendoza applied for original registration for two parcels of land. After he
died while the application was still pending, his children pushed for the execution
of a SPA, prepared and notarized by Atty. Mendoza who is also their relative, in
favor of Felicisima, one of Eladios heirs. Upon the instruction of said lawyer, a
contract of service was executed between them. There was only a partial grant of
the application. However, the agreed compensation of the lawyer was not
satisfied and as a result, respondent filed a case against Felicisima.
Felicisima and her siblings hired the services of Atty. Navarro as their counsel in
Civil Case No. T-1080. Judgment was in favor of Atty. Mendoza. On appeal, Atty.
Navarro failed to file the appellants brief on time which, according to Felicisma, is
negligence attributable to Atty. Navarro. Hence, a complaint against the two
lawyers were instituted.
ISSUE:
WON the two lawyers shall be held liable.
RULING:
As to Atty. Navarro, YES. As to Atty. Mendoza, NO. The contract with Atty. Mendoza
is one of contingent fees. It was validly proved by Mendoza in his complaint but
Felicisima failed to disprove such statements and proofs. Equipoise doctrine will
apply here where doubt shall be reslolved with the respondent. As to Atty.
Navarro, while he diligently pursued the case before the trial court, nothing was
heard of him again since the decision was made. As a lawyer, he owes great
fidelity and competence to his client. He shall be dismissed.