1/15/2017

A.C.No.7474

TodayisSunday,January15,2017

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
ENBANC
A.C.No.7474September9,2014
PRESIDINGJUDGEJOSEL.MADRID,REGIONALTRIALCOURT,BRANCH51,SORSOGONCITY,
Complainant,
vs.
ATTY.JUANS.DEALCA,Respondent.
DECISION
BERSAMIN,J.:
Complainant Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court has had enough of the respondent, a law practitioner,
whohadengagedintheunethicalpracticeoffilingfrivolousadministrativecasesagainstjudgesandpersonnelof
the courts because the latter filed a motion to inhibit the complainant from hearing a pending case. Hence, the
complainanthasinitiatedthiscomplaintforthedisbarmentofrespondentonthegroundofgrossmisconductand
grossviolationoftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility.
Antecedents
On February 7, 2007, Atty. Juan S.Dealca entered his appearance in Criminal Case No. 20066795, entitled
"PeopleofthePhilippinesv.PhilipWilliamArsenault"thenpendinginBranch51oftheRegionalTrialCourt(RTC)
in Sorsogon City, presided by complainant Judge Jose L. Madrid.1 Atty. Dealca sought to replace Atty. Vicente
Judarwhohadfiledamotiontowithdrawascounselfortheaccused.Butasidefromenteringhisappearanceas
counsel for the accused, Atty. Dealca also moved that Criminal Case No. 20066795 be reraffled to another
Branch of the RTC "[c]onsidering the adverse incidents between the incumbent Presiding Judge and the
undersigned," where" he does not appear before the incumbent Presiding Judge, and the latter does not also
hearcaseshandledbytheundersigned."2
JudgeMadriddeniedAtty.DealcasmotiontorerafflethroughanorderissuedonFebruary14,2007,3viz:
xxxx
ThisCourtwillnotallowthatacaseberemovedfromitjustbecauseofthepersonalsentimentsofcounselwho
wasnoteventheoriginalcounselofthelitigant.
Moreover,themotionofAtty.DealcaisanaffronttotheintegrityofthisCourtandtheotherCourtsinthisprovince
ashewouldlikeittoappearthatjurisdictionoveraFamilyCourtcaseisbasedonhiswhimsicaldictates.
ThiswassobecauseAtty.DealcahadfiledAdministrativeaswellascriminalcasesagainstthisPresidingJudge
which were all dismissed by the Hon. Supreme Court for utter lack ofmerit. This is why he should not have
acceptedthisparticularcasesoasnottoderailthesmoothproceedingsinthisCourtwithhisbaselessmotions
for inhibition. It is the lawyers duty to appear on behalf of a client in a case but not to appear for a client to
removeacasefromtheCourt.Thisisunethicalpracticeinthefirstorder.
WHEREFORE,foregoingconsidered,theMotionofAtty.JuanS.DealcaisherebyDENIED.RelativetotheMotion
to Withdraw as Counsel for the Accused filed by Atty. Vicente C. Judar dated January 29, 2007, the same is
herebyDENIEDforbeingviolativeoftheprovisionsofSection26ofRule138oftheRulesofCourt.
Soalso,theAppearanceofAtty.JuanS.DealcaasnewcounselforaccusedPhilipWilliamArsenaultislikewise
DENIED.
SOORDERED.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/ac_7474_2014.html

1/8

1/15/2017

A.C.No.7474

Consequently, Judge Madrid filed a letter complaint4 in the Office of the Bar Confidant citing Atty.
Dealcasunethicalpracticeofenteringhisappearanceandthenmovingfortheinhibitionofthepresidingjudgeon
thepretextofpreviousadverseincidentsbetweenthem.
On April 10, 2007, we treated the complaint as a regular administrative complaint, and required Atty. Dealca to
submithiscomment.5
Inhiscommentcomplaint,6 Atty. Dealca asserted that Judge Madrids issuance of the February 14, 2007 order
unconstitutionallyandunlawfullydeprivedtheaccusedoftherighttocounsel,todueprocess,andtoafairand
impartial trial that Judge Madrid exhibited bias in failing to act on the motion to lift and set aside the warrant
ofarrest issued against the accused and that it should be Judge Madrid himself who should be disbarred and
accordinglydismissedfromtheJudiciaryforgrossignoranceofthelaw.
On July 17, 2007, the Court referred the matter to the IBP for appropriate investigation,report and
recommendation.7 Several months thereafter, the Court also indorsed pertinent documents in connection with
A.M. OCA IPI No. 052385RTJ, entitled "Joseph Yap III v. Judge Jose L. Madrid and Court Stenographer
MerlynD.Dominguez,bothoftheRegionalTrialCourt(RTC)Branch51,SorsogonCity"(Yapv.JudgeMadrid).8
On June 6, 2007, the Court in Yap v. Judge Madriddismissed for its lack of merit the administrative complaint
againstJudgeMadridforallegedlyfalsifyingthetranscriptofstenographicnotesofthehearingonMarch4,2005
inCivilCaseNo.20016842entitledJosephD.YapV,etal.v.JosephH.YapIII,butreferredtotheIntegratedBar
of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation the propensity of Atty. Dealca to file
administrative or criminal complaints against judges and court personnel whenever decisions, orders or
processeswereissuedadverselytohimandhisclients.9
In compliance with the referral,the IBPSorsogon Chapter submitted its report with the following findings and
recommendation:10
xxxx
The documentary evidence offered by complainants show that respondent Atty. Juan S. Dealca filed by himself
(1)BarMatterNo.1197andactingascounselforthecomplainants(2)Adm.MatterOCAIPINo.042113RTJ
(3)OMBLC050478E(4)Adm.MatterOCAIPINo.052385RTJand(5)Adm.MatterOCAIPINo.052191
RTJ.Thesefive(5)casesarefactualevidenceofthecasesthatrespondenthadfiledbyhimselfandascounsel
for the complainants against court officers, judges and personnel as a consequence of the IBP Election and
incidentsincasesthatrespondenthadhandledascounselforthepartiesinthesaidcases.
ItwillbenotedthatinBarMatterNo.1197,therespondentswerejudges(JudgeJoseL.Madrid&JudgeHonesto
A.Villamor)andlawyersinIBPSorsogonChapters,whoarenodoubtofficersofthecourt,andthecasearoused
(sic) out ofthe unfavorable consensus of the IBP chapter members that was adverse to the position of the
respondent.Theotherfour(4)casesaroused[sic]outofthecaseshandledbyrespondentforthecomplainants
whofailedtosecureafavorableactionfromthecourt.
Specifically, Adm. Matter OCA IPI No. 042113RTJ was a result of the case before the sala of Judge Jose L.
Madrid (RTC 51) entitled "Alita P. Gomez vs. Rodrigo Jarabo, et al.," for: Accion Publiciana and Damages, that
washandledbyrespondentforthecomplainantAlitaGomez.OMBLC0478EwasanoffshootofCivilCaseNo.
20016842entitled"MarilynD.Yap,JosephD.YapV,etal.,vs.JosephH.YapIII"for:Supportpendingbeforethe
salaofcomplainantJudgeJoseL.Madrid(RTC51).Respondent,afteranunfavorabledecisionagainstdefendant
Joseph H. Yap III, entered his appearance and pleaded for the latter. As a result of an adverse order, this
ombudsmancasearose.
Administrative Matter OCA IPI No. 052191RTJ was also a result of the Civil Case No. 5403 entitled "Salve
Dealca Latosa vs. Atty. Henry Amado Roxas, with Our Ladys Village Foundation and Most Reverend Arnulfo
Arcilla,DDasthirdpartydefendantthatwasheard,tried,decidedandpendingexecutionbeforethesalaofJudge
HonestoA.Villamor(RTC52).
Administrative Matter OCA IPI No. 052385RTJ was also a consequence of Civil Case No. 20016842 entitled
"MarilynD.Yap,JosephD.YapV,etal.,vs.JosephH.YapIII"forSupportpendingbeforethesalaofcomplainant
JudgeJoseL.Madrid(RTC51).
All these four (4) cases are precipitated by the adverse ruling rendered by the court against the clients of the
respondentthatinsteadofresortingtotheremediesavailableundertheRulesofProcedure,respondentassisted
hisclientsinfilingadministrativeandcriminalcaseagainstthejudgesandpersonnelofthecourt.
The other documentary evidence of the complainants such as the (a) VERIFIED COMPLAINT dated March 7,
2003inCivilServiceCaseentitled"EDNAGOROSPEDEALCAvs.JULIANAENCINASCARINO,etal.(b)NOTICE
OFRESOLUTIONonOctober22,2005inAdm.CaseNo.6334entitled"SOFIAJAOvs.ATTY.EPIFANIARUBY
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/ac_7474_2014.html

2/8

1/15/2017

A.C.No.7474

VELACRUZOIDA"passedbytheBoardofGovernorsoftheIntegratedBarofthePhilippineswhichResolutionNo.
XVII200592 provides: "RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE the Report and Recommendation of the
InvestigatingCommissionerdismissingthecaseforlacks(sic)merit(c)RESOLUTIONoftheThirdDivisionofthe
SupremeCourtdatedFebruary1,2006inAdministrativeCaseNo.6334(SofiaJaovs.EpifaniaRubyVelacruz
Oida)ThenoticeofresolutiondatedOctober22,2005oftheIntegratedBarofthePhilippines(IBP)dismissing
thecaseforlackofmerit(d)VERIFIEDCOMPLAINTinAdm.CaseNo.6334datedFebruary17,2004entitled
"Sofia Jao vs. Atty. Epifania Ruby VelacruzOida" for: Malpractice (Forum Shopping), and (e) ORDER dated
January 18, 2007 by Acting Presiding Judge RAUL E. DE LEON in Criminal Cases Nos. 2451 to 2454 entitled
"PeopleofthePhilippinesvs.CynthiaMarcial,etal.For:FalsificationofMedicalRecords"whichprovidesforthe
dismissal of the cases against all the accused, do not show participation on the part of the respondent that he
signed the pleadings, although the verified complaint is one executed by the wife of the respondent. Moreover,
thesecasesarepertainingtopersonsotherthanjudgesandpersonnelofthecourtthatarenotsquarelycovered
bythepresentinvestigationagainstrespondent,although,itisanundeniablefactthatrespondenthadappeared
for and in behalf of his wife, the rest of the complainants in the Civil Service Case and Sofia Jao against Land
Bank of the Philippines, the latter case resulted in the administrative case of Atty. Epifania Ruby VelacruzOida,
respondentssistermemberoftheBar.Allthesedocumentaryevidencefrom(a)to(e)arehelpfulindetermining
the"PROPENSITY"oftherespondentasamemberofthebarinresortingtoharassmentcasesinsteadofgoing
throughtheproceduresprovidedforbytheRulesofCourtintheeventofadverseruling,orderordecisionofthe
court.
xxxx
WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully recommended that in view of the aboveforegoings [sic], a penalty of
SUSPENSIONinthepracticeoflawforaperiodofsix(6)monthsfromfinalityofthedecisionbeorderedagainst
respondentAtty.JuanS.Dealca.
FindingsandRecommendationoftheIBP
IBP Commissioner Salvador B. Hababag ultimately submitted his Report and Recommendation11 finding Atty.
Dealca guilty of violating the Lawyers Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility by filing frivolous
administrative and criminalcomplaints and recommending that Atty. Dealca be suspended from the practice of
law for one year because his motion to inhibit Judge Madrid was devoid of factual or legal basis, and was
groundedonpurelypersonalwhims.
InResolutionNo.XVIII200841,12theIBPBoardofGovernorsmodifiedtherecommendationanddismissedthe
administrativecomplaintforitslackofmerit,thus:
RESOLVEDtoAMEND,asitisherebyAMENDED,theRecommendationoftheInvestigatingCommissioner,and
APPROVEtheDISMISSALoftheaboveentitledcaseforlackofmerit.JudgeMadridfiledapetition,13whichthe
IBPBoardofGovernorstreatedasamotionforreconsideration,andsoondeniedthroughitsResolutionNo.XX
2012545.14
Issues
(1)DidAtty.Dealcafilefrivolousadministrativeandcriminalcomplaintsagainstjudgesandcourtpersonnel
inviolationoftheLawyersOathandtheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility?
(2)WasAtty.DealcaguiltyofunethicalpracticeinseekingtheinhibitionofJudgeMadridinCriminalCase
No.20066795?
RulingoftheCourt
WeREVERSEResolutionNo.XX2012545.
I
Atty.Dealcamustguardagainsthisownimpulseofinitiatingunfoundedsuits
Atty. Dealca insists on the propriety of the administrative and criminal cases he filed against judges and court
personnel,includingJudgeMadrid.Hearguesthatasavigilantlawyer,hewasdutyboundtobringandprosecute
casesagainstunscrupulousandcorruptjudgesandcourtpersonnel.15
WeseenomeritinAtty.Dealcasarguments.
AlthoughtheCourtalwaysadmiresmembersoftheBarwhoareimbuedwithahighsenseofvigilancetoweed
out from the Judiciary the undesirable judges and inefficient or undeserving court personnel, any acts taken in
thatdirectionshouldbeunsulliedbyanytaintofinsincerityorselfinterest.Thenoblecauseofcleansingtheranks
oftheJudiciaryisnotadvancedotherwise.ItisforthatreasonthatAtty.DealcascomplaintagainstJudgeMadrid
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/ac_7474_2014.html

3/8

1/15/2017

A.C.No.7474

hasfailedourjudiciousscrutiny,fortheCourtcannotfindanytraceofidealismoraltruisminthemotivationsfor
initiating it. Instead, Atty. Dealca exhibited his proclivity for vindictiveness and penchant for harassment,
considering that, as IBP Commissioner Hababag pointed out,16 his bringing of charges against judges, court
personnel and even his colleagues in the Law Profession had all stemmed from decisions or rulings being
adverse to his clients or his side. He well knew, therefore, that he was thereby crossing the line of propriety,
because neither vindictiveness nor harassment could be a substitute for resorting tothe appropriate legal
remedies. He should now be reminded that the aim of every lawsuit should be to render justice to the parties
accordingtolaw,nottoharassthem.17
TheLawyersOathisasourceofobligationsanddutiesforeverylawyer,andanyviolationthereofbyanattorney
constitutes a ground for disbarment, suspension, or other disciplinary action.18 The oath exhorts upon the
membersoftheBarnotto"wittinglyorwillinglypromoteorsueanygroundless,falseorunlawfulsuit."Theseare
notmerefacilewords,driftandhollow,butasacredtrustthatmustbeupheldandkeepinviolable.19
Asalawyer,therefore,Atty.DealcawasawareofhisdutyunderhisLawyersOathnottoinitiategroundless,false
orunlawfulsuits.ThedutyhasalsobeenexpresslyembodiedinRule1.03,Canon1oftheCodeofProfessional
Responsibilitythuswise:
Rule1.03Alawyershallnot,foranycorruptmotiveorinterest,encourageanysuitorproceedingordelayany
manscause.
His being an officer of the court should have impelled him to see to it that the orderly administration of justice
must not be unduly impeded. Indeed, as he must resist the whims and caprices ofhis clients and temper his
clientspropensitiestolitigate,20somustheequallyguardhimselfagainsthisownimpulsesofinitiatingunfounded
suits.WhileitistheCourtsdutytoinvestigateanduncoverthetruthbehindchargesagainstjudgesandlawyers,it
is equally its duty to shield them from unfounded suits that are intended to vex and harass them, among other
things.21
Moreover,Atty.Dealcamustbemindfulofhismissiontoassistthecourtsintheproperadministrationofjustice.
He disregarded his mission because his filing of the unfounded complaints, including this one against Judge
Madrid, increased the workload of the Judiciary. Although no person should be penalized for the exercise ofthe
righttolitigate,therightmustnonethelessbeexercisedingoodfaith.22 Atty. Dealcas bringing of the numerous
administrativeandcriminalcomplaintsagainstjudges,courtpersonnelandhisfellowlawyersdidnotevinceany
goodfaithonhispart,consideringthathemadeallegationsagainstthemthereinthathecouldnotsubstantially
prove,andarerightfullydeemedfrivolousandunworthyoftheCourtsprecioustimeandseriousconsideration.
Repeatedly denying any wrongdoing in filing the various complaints, Atty. Dealca had the temerity to confront
eventheCourtwiththefollowingarroganttirade,towit:
With due respect, what could be WRONG was the summary dismissal of cases filed against erring judges and
courtpersonnelforlackofmerit,i.e.withoutevendiscussingthefactsandthelawofthecase.23
Atty. Dealca was apparently referring to the minute resolutions the Court could have promulgated in frequently
dismissing his unmeritorious petitions. His arrogant posturing would not advance his cause now. He thereby
demonstratedhisplainignoranceoftherulesofprocedureapplicabletotheCourt.Theminuteresolutionshave
beenissuedforthepromptdispatchoftheactionsbytheCourt.24WhenevertheCourtthendismissesapetition
forreviewforitslackofmeritthroughaminuteresolution,itisunderstoodthatthechallengeddecisionororder,
together with all its findings of fact and law, is deemed sustained or upheld,25 and the minute resolution then
constitutes the actual adjudication on the merits of the case. The dismissal of the petition, or itsdenial of due
courseindicatestheCourtsagreementwithanditsadoptionofthefindingsandconclusionsofthecourtaquo.26
TherequirementforstatingthefactsandthelawdoesnotapplytotheminuteresolutionsthattheCourtissuesin
disposingofacase.TheCourtexplainedwhyinBorromeov.CourtofAppeals:27
The[Supreme]Courtxxxdisposesofthebulkofitscasesbyminuteresolutionsanddecreesthemasfinaland
executory, as where a case is patently without merit, where the issues raised are factual in nature, where the
decisionappealedfromissupportedbysubstantialevidenceandisinaccordwiththefactsofthecaseandthe
applicablelaws,whereitisclearfromtherecordsthatthepetitionisfiledmerelytoforestalltheearlyexecutionof
judgment and for noncompliance with the rules. The resolution denying due course or dismissing the petition
alwaysgivesthelegalbasis.
xxxx
The Court is not duty bound to render signed Decisions all the time. It has ample discretion to formulate
Decisionsand/orMinuteResolutions,providedalegalbasisisgiven,dependingonitsevaluationofacase.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/ac_7474_2014.html

4/8

1/15/2017

A.C.No.7474

TheconstitutionalityoftheminuteresolutionswastheissueraisedinKomatsuIndustries(Phils.),Inc.v.Courtof
Appeals.28 The petitioner contended that the minute resolutions violated Section 14,29 Article VIII of the
Constitution. The Court, throughJustice Regalado, declared that resolutions were not decisions withinthe
constitutionalcontemplation,fortheformer"merelyholdthatthepetitionforreviewshouldnotbeentertainedand
even ordinary lawyers have all this time so understood it and the petition to review the decisionof the Court of
Appealsisnotamatterofrightbutofsoundjudicialdiscretion,hencethereisnoneedtofullyexplaintheCourts
denial since, for one thing, the facts and the law are already mentioned in the Court of Appeals decision." It
pointed out that the constitutional mandate was applicable only in cases submitted for decision, i.e., given due
coursetoandafterthefilingofbriefsormemorandaand/orotherpleadings,butnotwherethepetitionwasbeing
refused due course, with the resolutions for that purpose stating the legal basis of the refusal. Thus, when the
Court,afterdeliberatingonthepetitionandthesubsequentpleadings,decidedtodenyduecoursetothepetition
andstatedthatthequestionsraisedwerefactual,ortherewasnoreversibleerrorinthelowercourtsdecision,
therewasasufficientcompliancewiththeconstitutionalrequirement.30
II
Atty.DealcaviolatedCanon11andRule11.04oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility
Atty.DealcamaintainsthatJudgeMadridshouldhave"ingoodgraceinhibitedhimself"uponhismotiontoinhibitin
order to preserve "confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary."31 However, IBP Commissioner Hababag has
recommended that Atty. Dealca be sanctioned for filing the motion to inhibit considering that the motion, being
purelybasedonhispersonalwhims,wasbereftoffactualandlegalbases.32
TherecommendationofIBPCommissionerHababagiswarranted.
Lawyersarelicensedofficersofthecourtsempoweredtoappear,prosecuteanddefendthelegalcausesfortheir
clients. As a consequence, peculiar duties, responsibilities and liabilities are devolved upon them by law. Verily,
theirmembershipintheBarimposescertainobligationsuponthem.33
Inthisregard,Canon11andRule11.04oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibilitypertinentlystate:
Canon 11 A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to the judicial officers and
shouldinsistonsimilarconductbyothers.
xxxx
Rule11.04AlawyershallnotattributetoaJudgemotivesnotsupportedbytherecordorhavenomaterialityto
thecase.
1 w p h i1

In light of the foregoing canons, all lawyers are bound to uphold the dignity and authority of the courts, and to
promoteconfidenceinthefairadministrationofjustice.Itistherespectforthecourtsthatguaranteesthestability
ofthejudicialinstitutionelsewise,theinstitutionwouldberestingonaveryshakyfoundation.34
ThemotiontoinhibitfiledbyAtty.Dealcacontainedthefollowingaverment,towit:
Considering the adverse incidents between the incumbent Presiding Judge and the undersigned, he does not
appear before the incumbent Presiding Judge, andthe latter does not also hear cases handled by the
undersignedxxx.35(Boldemphasissupplied)
Atty. Dealcas averment that Judge Madrid did not hear cases being handled by him directly insinuated that
judgescouldchoosethecasestheyheard,andcouldrefusetohearthecasesinwhichhostilityexistedbetween
the judges and the litigants or their counsel. Such averment, if true at all, should have been assiduously
substantiatedbyhimbecauseitputinbadlightnotonlyJudgeMadridbutalljudgesingeneral.Yet,hedidnot
evenincludeanyparticularsthatcouldhavevalidatedtheaverment.Nordidheattachanydocumenttosupport
it.
Worthstressing,too,isthattherightofapartytoseektheinhibitionordisqualificationofajudgewhodoesnot
appeartobewhollyfree,disinterested,impartialandindependentinhandlingthecasemustbebalancedwiththe
latters sacred duty to decide cases without fear of repression. Thus, it was incumbent upon Atty. Dealca to
establishbyclearandconvincingevidencethegroundofbiasandprejudiceinordertodisqualifyJudgeMadrid
from participating in a particular trial in which Atty. Dealca was participating as a counsel.36 The latters bare
allegations of Judge Madrids partiality or hostility did not suffice,37 because the presumption that Judge Madrid
would undertake his noble role to dispense justice according to law and the evidence and without fear or favor
should only be overcome by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.38 As such, Atty. Dealca clearly
contravenedhisdutiesasalawyerasexpresslystatedinCanon11andRule11.04,supra.
Onafinalnote,itcannotescapeourattentionthatthisisnotthefirstadministrativecomplainttobeeverbrought
againstAtty.Dealca. InMontanov.IntegratedBarofthePhilippines,39wereprimandedhimforviolatingCanon
1 a v v p h i1

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/ac_7474_2014.html

5/8

1/15/2017

A.C.No.7474

22andRule20.4,Canon20oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility,andwarnedhimthatarepetitionofthe
sameoffensewouldbedealtwithmoreseverely.Accordingly,basedonthepenaltiestheCourtimposedonerring
lawyersfoundviolatingCanon1,Rule1.03,40andCanon11,Rule11.0441oftheCode,wedeemappropriateto
suspend Atty. Dealca from the practice of law for a period one year. ACCORDINGLY, the Court FINDS and
DECLARESrespondentATTY.JUANS.DEALCAGUILTYofviolatingCanon1,Rule1.03andCanon11,Rule11.
04oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibilityandSUSPENDShimfromthepracticeoflawforoneyeareffective
from notice of this decision, with a STERN WARNING that any similar infraction in the future will be dealt with
moreseverely.
Let copies of this decision be furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant to be appended to Atty. Dealca's
personalrecordasanattorneytotheIntegratedBarofthePhilippinesandtoallcourtsinthecountryfortheir
informationandguidance.
SOORDERED.
LUCASP.BERSAMIN
AssociateJustice
WECONCUR:
(OnLeave)
MARIALOURDESP.A.SERENO*
ChiefJustice
ANTONIOT.CARPIO**
AssociateJustice
ActingChiefJustice

PRESBITEROJ.VELASCO,JR.
AssociateJustice

TERESITAJ.LEONARDODECASTRO
AssociateJustice

ARTUROD.BRION
AssociateJustice

DIOSDADOM.PERALTA
AssociateJustice

MARIANOC.DELCASTILLO
AssociateJustice

MARTINS.VILLARAMA,JR.
AssociateJustice

JOSEPORTUGALPEREZ
AssociateJustice

ESTELAM.PERLASBERNABE
AssociateJustice

MARIOVICTORF.LEONEN
AssociateJustice

FRANCISH.JARDELEZA
AssociateJustice

Footnotes
*

OnWellnessLeave.

**

ActingChiefJusticeinlieuofChiefJusticeMariaLourdesP.A.Sereno,whoisonWellnessLeave,per
SpecialOrderNo.1770.
1

Rollo,p.26.

Id.at26.

Id.at45.

Id.at2.

Id.at7.

Id.at1017.

Id.at92.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/ac_7474_2014.html

6/8

1/15/2017

A.C.No.7474
8

Id.at95,99120.Thefollowingwereendorsed:(a)MotionforReconsiderationandRequestforInhibition
datedFebruary22,2007ofAtty.Dealca(b)CommentofJudgeMadridand(c)RejoinderofAtty.Dealca.
9

Id.at144.

10

Id.at146155.

11

Id.at287292.

12

Id.at286.

13

Id.at295298.

14

Id.at408.

15

Id.at384.

16

Id.at291,whereIBPCommissionerHababagobservedinhisreportthat:
There were other administrative/criminal cases lodged by the respondent against fellow lawyer[s],
courtpersonnel,governmentemployees.Mostofallcasesweredismissedforutterlackofmerit.All
actsintensifies[sic]theconclusionthatrespondentinsteadofgoingthroughtheproceduresprovided
for by the Rules in the event of adverse ruling, order or decision of the court, have resorted to
harassmentcases.

17

Reyesv.Chiong,Jr.,A.C.No.5148,July1,2003,405SCRA212,218.

18

Vitriolov.Dasig,A.C.No.4984,April1,2003,400SCRA172,179.

19

Sebastianv.Calis,A.C.No.5118,September9,1999,314SCRA1,7.

20

Aguilarv.ManilaBankingCorporation,G.R.No.157911,September19,2006,502SCRA354,381.

21

Cervantesv.Sabio,A.C.No.7828,August11,2008,561SCRA497,501Dayagv.Gonzales,A.M.No.
RTJ051903,June27,2006,493SCRA51,6162.
22

Arnadov.Suarin,A.M.No.P052059,August19,2005,467SCRA402,408.

23

Rollo,p.384.

24

SeparateOpinionofJ.MeloinYaleLandDevelopmentCorporationv.Caragao,G.R.No.135244.April15,
1999,306SCRA1,12.
25

PEPSICO, Inc. v. Lacanilao, G.R. No. 146007. June 15, 2006, 490 SCRA 615, 623 Complaint of Mr.
AurelioIndenciaArriendaAgainstSCJusticesPuno,Kapunan,Pardo,YnaresSantiago,etal.,A.M.No.03
1130SC, June 9, 2005, 460 SCRA 1, 14Tan v. Judge Nitafan, G.R. No. 76965, March 11, 1994, 231
SCRA129,136.
26

Agoy v. Araneta Center, Inc., G.R. No. 196358, March 21, 2012, 668 SCRA 883, 889Smith Bell and
Company(Phils.),Inc.v.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.56294,May20,1991,197SCRA201,207208.
27

G.R.No.82273,June1,1990,186SCRA1,5.

28

G.R.No.127682,April24,1998,289SCRA604,608citingNovinov.CourtofAppeals,No.L21098,
May31,1963,8SCRA279,280
29

Section14.Nodecisionshallberenderedbyanycourtwithoutexpressingthereinclearlyanddistinctly
thefactsandthelawonwhichitisbased.Nopetitionforreviewormotionforreconsiderationofadecision
ofthecourtshallberefusedduecourseordeniedwithoutstatingthelegalbasistherefor.
30

KomatsuIndustries(Phils.),Inc.v.CourtofAppeals,supranote28,citingQuev.People,Nos.L75217
18,September21,1987,154SCRA160,165Nunalv.CommissiononAudit,G.R.No.78648,January24,
1989, 169 SCRA 356, 362363 and Cadiente v. Narisma, A.M. No. MTJ91576, En Banc Resolution,
March11,1993.
31

Rollo,p.368.

32

Id.at292.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/ac_7474_2014.html

7/8

1/15/2017

A.C.No.7474
33

Re: Suspension of Atty. Rogelio Z. Bagabuyo, Former Senior State Prosecutor, Adm. Case. No. 7006,
October9,2007,535SCRA200,214Reyesv.Chiong,Jr.,A.C.No.5148,July1,2003,405SCRA212,
217.
34

Roxasv.DeZuzuarregui,Jr.,G.R.No.152072,July12,2007,527SCRA446,463464.

35

Rollo,p.26.

36

People v. Ong, G.R. Nos. 16213039, May 5, 2006, 489 SCRA 679, 688 Webb v. People, G.R. No.
127262,July24,1997,276SCRA243,253.
37

DeutscheBankManilav.Sps.ChuaYokSee,G.R.No.165606,February6,2006,481SCRA672,695.

38

Dumav.Espinas,G.R.No.141962,January25,2006,480SCRA53,67.

39

A.C.No.4215,May21,2001,358SCRAI.

40

Saav.IntegratedBarofthePhilippines,G.R.No.132826,September3,2009,598SCRA6.

41

Baculiv.Battung,A.C.No.8920,September28,2011,658SCRA209.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/ac_7474_2014.html

8/8