Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Chan vs NLRC commission to Atty. Paras attending surgeon, Dr. Francisco Hernandez, Jr. Soriano sustained a
AC 6792 Jan 25, 2006 spinal cord injury, which caused paralysis on the left part of his body
and disabled him for his job as a taxi driver.
DECISION
The trial court promulgated its Decision dated November 29,
PER CURIAM: 2001. On January 18, 2002, respondent filed an application for
probation, which was granted by the court on several
Before us is a Complaint-Affidavit[1] for the disbarment of Atty. conditions. These included satisfaction of the civil liabilities
Manuel Dizon, filed by Roberto Soriano with the Commission on Bar imposed by [the] court in favor of the offended party, Roberto
Discipine (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Soriano.[10]
(IBP). Complainant alleges that the conviction of respondent for a
crime involving moral turpitude, together with the circumstances According to the unrefuted statements of complainant, Atty. Dizon,
surrounding the conviction, violates Canon 1 of Rule 1.01 of the who has yet to comply with this particular undertaking, even
Code of Professional Responsibility;[2] and constitutes sufficient appealed the civil liability to the Court of Appeals.[11]
ground for his disbarment under Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules
of Court.[3] In her Report and Recommendation, Commissioner Herbosa
recommended that respondent be disbarred from the practice of
Because of the failure of Atty. Dizon to submit his Answer to the law for having been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude.
Complaint, the CBD issued a Notice dated May 20, 2004, informing
him that he was in default, and that an ex-parte hearing had been The commissioner found that respondent had not only been
scheduled for June 11, 2004.[4] convicted of such crime, but that the latter also exhibited an obvious
lack of good moral character, based on the following facts:
After that hearing, complainant manifested that he was submitting
the case on the basis of the Complaint and its 1. He was under the influence of liquor while driving his car;
attachments.[5] Accordingly, the CBDdirected him to file his 2. He reacted violently and attempted to assault Complainant
Position Paper, which he did on July 27, 2004.[6] Afterwards, the only because the latter, driving a taxi, had overtaken him;
case was deemed submitted for resolution. 3. Complainant having been able to ward off his attempted
assault, Respondent went back to his car, got a gun, wrapped the
On December 6, 2004, Commissioner Teresita J. Herbosa rendered same with a handkerchief and shot Complainant[,] who was
her Report and Recommendation, which was later adopted and unarmed;
approved by the IBP Board of Governors in its Resolution No. XVI- 4. When Complainant fell on him, Respondent simply pushed him
2005-84 dated March 12, 2005. out and fled;
5. Despite positive identification and overwhelming evidence,
In his Complaint-Affidavit, Soriano alleged that respondent had Respondent denied that he had shot Complainant;
violated Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional 6. Apart from [his] denial, Respondent also lied when he claimed
Responsibility; and that the conviction of the latter for frustrated that he was the one mauled by Complainant and two unidentified
homicide,[7] which involved moral turpitude, should result in his persons; and,
disbarment. 7. Although he has been placed on probation, Respondent has[,]
The facts leading to respondents conviction were summarized by to date[,] not yet satisfied his civil liabilities to Complainant.[12]
Branch 60 of the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City in this wise:
x x x. The accused was driving his brown Toyota Corolla and was on On July 8, 2005, the Supreme Court received for its final action the
his way home after gassing up in preparation for his trip to IBP Resolution adopting the Report and Recommendation of the
Concepcion, Tarlac with his wife. Along Abanao Street, a taxi driver Investigating Commissioner.
overtook the car driven by the accused not knowing that the driver
of the car he had overtaken is not just someone, but a lawyer and a We agree with the findings and recommendations of Commissioner
prominent member of the Baguio community who was under the Herbosa, as approved and adopted by the IBP Board of Governors.
influence of liquor. Incensed, the accused tailed the taxi driver until
the latter stopped to make a turn at [the] Chugum and Carino Under Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, conviction for a
Streets. The accused also stopped his car, berated the taxi driver crime involving moral turpitude is a ground for disbarment or
and held him by his shirt. To stop the aggression, the taxi driver suspension. By such conviction, a lawyer is deemed to have become
forced open his door causing the accused to fall to the ground. The unfit to uphold the administration of justice and to be no longer
taxi driver knew that the accused had been drinking because he possessed of good moral character.[13] In the instant case,
smelled of liquor. Taking pity on the accused who looked elderly, respondent has been found guilty; and he stands convicted, by final
the taxi driver got out of his car to help him get up. But the accused, judgment, of frustrated homicide. Since his conviction has already
by now enraged, stood up immediately and was about to deal the been established and is no longer open to question, the only issues
taxi driver a fist blow when the latter boxed him on the chest that remain to be determined are as follows: 1) whether his crime of
instead. The accused fell down a second time, got up again and was frustrated homicide involves moral turpitude, and 2) whether his
about to box the taxi driver but the latter caught his fist and turned guilt warrants disbarment.
his arm around. The taxi driver held on to the accused until he could
be pacified and then released him. The accused went back to his car Moral turpitude has been defined as everything which is done
and got his revolver making sure that the handle was wrapped in a contrary to justice, modesty, or good morals; an act of baseness,
handkerchief. The taxi driver was on his way back to his vehicle vileness or depravity in the private and social duties which a man
when he noticed the eyeglasses of the accused on the ground. He owes his fellowmen, or to society in general, contrary to justice,
picked them up intending to return them to the accused. But as he honesty, modesty, or good morals.[14]
was handing the same to the accused, he was met by the barrel of The question of whether the crime of homicide involves moral
the gun held by the accused who fired and shot him hitting him on turpitude has been discussed in International Rice Research Institute
the neck. He fell on the thigh of the accused so the latter pushed (IRRI) v. NLRC,[15] a labor case concerning an employee who was
him out and sped off. The incident was witnessed by Antonio dismissed on the basis of his conviction for homicide. Considering
Billanes whose testimony corroborated that of the taxi driver, the the particular circumstances surrounding the commission of the
complainant in this case, Roberto Soriano.[8] crime, this Court rejected the employers contention and held that
homicide in that case did not involve moral turpitude. (If it did, the
crime would have been violative of the IRRIs Employment
It was the prosecution witness, Antonio Billanes, who came to the Policy Regulations and indeed a ground for dismissal.) The Court
aid of Soriano and brought the latter to the hospital. Because the explained that, having disregarded the attendant circumstances, the
bullet had lacerated the carotid artery on the left side of his employer made a pronouncement that was
neck,[9] complainant would have surely died of hemorrhage if he precipitate. Furthermore, it was not for the latter to determine
conclusively whether a crime involved moral turpitude. That All told, Atty. Dizon has shown through this incident that he is
discretion belonged to the courts, as explained thus: wanting in even a basic sense of justice. He obtained the
benevolence of the trial court when it suspended his sentence and
x x x. Homicide may or may not involve moral turpitude depending granted him probation. And yet, it has been four years[21] since he
on the degree of the crime. Moral turpitude is not involved in every was ordered to settle his civil liabilities to complainant. To date,
criminal act and is not shown by every known and intentional respondent remains adamant in refusing to fulfill that obligation. By
violation of statute, but whether any particular conviction involves his extreme impetuosity and intolerance, as shown by his violent
moral turpitude may be a question of fact and frequently depends reaction to a simple traffic altercation, he has taken away the
on all the surrounding circumstances. x x x.[16] (Emphasis supplied) earning capacity, good health, and youthful vigor of his victim. Still,
Atty. Dizon begrudges complainant the measly amount that could
never even fully restore what the latter has lost.
In the IRRI case, in which the crime of homicide did not involve Conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude may relate, not to
moral turpitude, the Court appreciated the presence of incomplete the exercise of the profession of lawyers, but certainly to their good
self-defense and total absence of aggravating circumstances. For a moral character.[22] Where their misconduct outside of their
better understanding of that Decision, the circumstances of the professional dealings is so gross as to show them morally unfit for
crime are quoted as follows: their office and unworthy of the privileges conferred upon them by
their license and the law, the court may be justified in suspending or
x x x. The facts on record show that Micosa [the IRRI removing them from that office.[23]
employee] was then urinating and had his back turned when the
victim drove his fist unto Micosa's face; that the victim then forcibly We also adopt the IBPs finding that respondent displayed an utter
rubbed Micosa's face into the filthy urinal; that Micosa pleaded to lack of good moral character, which is an essential qualification for
the victim to stop the attack but was ignored and that it was while the privilege to enter into the practice of law. Good moral character
Micosa was in that position that he drew a fan knife from the left includes at least common honesty.[24]
pocket of his shirt and desperately swung it at the victim who
released his hold on Micosa only after the latter had stabbed him In the case at bar, respondent consistently displayed dishonest and
several times. These facts show that Micosa's intention was not to duplicitous behavior. As found by the trial court, he had sought,
slay the victim but only to defend his person. The appreciation in his with the aid of Vice-Mayor Daniel Farias, an out-of-court
favor of the mitigating circumstances of self-defense and voluntary settlement with complainants family.[25] But when this effort
surrender, plus the total absence of any aggravating circumstance failed, respondent concocted a complete lie by making it appear that
demonstrate that Micosa's character and intentions were not it was complainants family that had sought a conference with him
inherently vile, immoral or unjust.[17] to obtain his referral to a neurosurgeon.[26]
The lies of Atty Dizon did not end there. He went on to fabricate an
entirely implausible story of having been mauled by complainant
The present case is totally different. As the IBP correctly found, and two other persons.[27] The trial court had this to say:
the circumstances clearly evince the moral turpitude of respondent
and his unworthiness to practice law. The physical evidence as testified to by no less than three (3)
Atty. Dizon was definitely the aggressor, as he pursued and shot doctors who examined [Atty. Dizon] does not support his allegation
complainant when the latter least expected it. The act of aggression that three people including the complainant helped each other in
shown by respondent will not be mitigated by the fact that he was kicking and boxing him. The injuries he sustained were so minor
hit once and his arm twisted by complainant. Under the that it is improbable[,] if not downright unbelievable[,] that three
circumstances, those were reasonable actions clearly intended to people who he said were bent on beating him to death could do so
fend off the lawyers assault. little damage. On the contrary, his injuries sustain the complainants
version of the incident particularly when he said that he boxed the
We also consider the trial courts finding of treachery as a accused on the chest. x x x.[28]
further indication of the skewed morals of respondent. He shot the
victim when the latter was not in a position to defend himself. In
fact, under the impression that the assault was already over, the
unarmed complainant was merely returning the eyeglasses of Atty. Lawyers must be ministers of truth. No moral qualification for bar
Dizon when the latter unexpectedly shot him. To make matters membership is more important than truthfulness.[29] The rigorous
worse, respondent wrapped the handle of his gun with a ethics of the profession places a premium on honesty and condemns
handkerchief so as not to leave fingerprints. In so doing, he duplicitous behavior.[30] Hence, lawyers must not mislead the court
betrayed his sly intention to escape punishment for his crime. or allow it to be misled by any artifice. In all their dealings, they are
expected to act in good faith.
The totality of the facts unmistakably bears the earmarks of moral
turpitude. By his conduct, respondent revealed his extreme The actions of respondent erode rather than enhance public
arrogance and feeling of self-importance. As it were, he acted like a perception of the legal profession. They constitute moral turpitude
god on the road, who deserved to be venerated and never to be for which he should be disbarred. Law is a noble profession, and
slighted. Clearly, his inordinate reaction to a simple traffic incident the privilege to practice it is bestowed only upon individuals who are
reflected poorly on his fitness to be a member of the legal competent intellectually, academically and, equally important,
profession. His overreaction also evinced vindictiveness, which was morally. Because they are vanguards of the law and the legal
definitely an undesirable trait in any individual, more so in a system, lawyers must at all times conduct themselves, especially in
lawyer. In the tenacity with which he pursued complainant, we see their dealings with their clients and the public at large, with honesty
not the persistence of a person who has been grievously wronged, and integrity in a manner beyond reproach.[31]
but the obstinacy of one trying to assert a false sense of superiority
and to exact revenge. The foregoing abhorrent acts of respondent are not merely
dishonorable; they reveal a basic moral flaw. Considering the
It is also glaringly clear that respondent seriously transgressed depravity of the offense he committed, we find the penalty
Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility through his illegal recommended by the IBP proper and commensurate.
possession of an unlicensed firearm[18] and his unjust refusal to
satisfy his civil liabilities.[19] The purpose of a proceeding for disbarment is to protect the
administration of justice by requiring that those who exercise this
He has thus brazenly violated the law and disobeyed the lawful important function be competent, honorable and reliable -- lawyers
orders of the courts. We remind him that, both in his attorneys in whom courts and clients may repose confidence.[32] Thus,
oath[20] and in the Code of Professional Responsibility, he bound whenever a clear case of degenerate and vile behavior disturbs that
himself to obey the laws of the land. vital yet fragile confidence, we shall not hesitate to rid our
profession of odious members.
We remain aware that the power to disbar must be exercised with 6. That I did not stop from unearthing the
great caution, and that disbarment should never be decreed when truth until I was able to secure the
any lesser penalty would accomplish the end desired. In the instant Certificate of Live Birth of the child, stating
case, however, the Court cannot extend that munificence to among others that the said child is their
respondent. His actions so despicably and wantonly disregarded his daughter and that Atty. Angel Escobar
duties to society and his profession. We are convinced that meting Garrido and Atty. Romana
out a lesser penalty would be irreconcilable with our lofty aspiration Paguida Valencia were married at
for the legal profession -- that every lawyer be a shining exemplar of Hongkong sometime on 1978.
truth and justice.
7. That on June 1993, my husband left our
We stress that membership in the legal profession is a privilege conjugal home and joined Atty. Ramona
demanding a high degree of good moral character, not only as a Paguida Valencia at their residence x x x
condition precedent to admission, but also as a continuing
requirement for the practice of law. Sadly, herein respondent has 8. That since he left our conjugal home he
fallen short of the exacting standards expected of him as a vanguard failed and still failing to give us our needed
of the legal profession. financial support to the prejudice of our
In sum, when lawyers are convicted of frustrated homicide, the children who stopped schooling because of
attending circumstances not the mere fact of their conviction financial constraints.
would demonstrate their fitness to remain in the legal profession. In
the present case, the appalling vindictiveness, treachery, and brazen x x x x
dishonesty of respondent clearly show his unworthiness to continue
as a member of the bar. That I am also filing a disbarment
proceedings against his mistress as alleged in the
WHEREFORE, RESPONDENT MANUEL DIZON is same affidavit, Atty. Romana P. Valencia
hereby DISBARRED, and his name is ORDERED STRICKEN from the considering that out of their immoral acts I
Roll of Attorneys. Let a copy of this Decision be entered in his suffered not only mental anguish but also
record as a member of the Bar; and let notice of the same be served besmirch reputation, wounded feelings and
on the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and on the Office of the sleepless nights; x x x
Court Administrator for circulation to all courts in the country.
After due consideration, we resolve to adopt the findings In several cases, we applied the above standard in
of the IBP Board of Governors against Atty. Garrido, and to reject considering lawyers who contracted an unlawful second marriage or
its recommendation with respect to Atty. Valencia. multiple marriages.
While Atty. Valencia contends that Atty. Garridos marriage In imposing the penalty of disbarment upon the
with Maelotisea was null and void, the fact remains that he took a respondents, we are aware that the power to disbar is one to be
man away from a woman who bore him six (6) children. Ordinary exercised with great caution and only in clear cases of misconduct
decency would have required her to ward off Atty. Garridos that seriously affects the standing and character of the lawyer as a
advances, as he was a married man, in fact a twice-married man legal professional and as an officer of the Court.[42]
with both marriages subsisting at that time; she should have said no
to Atty. Garrido from the very start. Instead, she continued her We are convinced from the totality of the evidence on
liaison with Atty. Garrido, driving him, upon the death of Constancia, hand that the present case is one of them. The records show the
away from legitimizing his relationship with Maelotisea and their parties pattern of grave and immoral misconduct that demonstrates
children. Worse than this, because of Atty. Valencias presence and their lack of mental and emotional fitness and moral character to
willingness, Atty. Garrido even left his second family and six children qualify them for the responsibilities and duties imposed on lawyers
for a third marriage with her. This scenario smacks of immorality as professionals and as officers of the court.
even if viewed outside of the prism of law.
While we are keenly aware of Atty. Garridos plea for
We are not unmindful of Atty. Valencias expressed belief compassion and his act of supporting his children with Maelotisea
that Atty. Garridos second marriage to Maelotisea was invalid; after their separation, we cannot grant his plea. The extent of his
hence, she felt free to marry Atty. Garrido. While this may be correct demonstrated violations of his oath, the Rules of Court and of the
in the strict legal sense and was later on confirmed by the Code of Professional Responsibility overrides what under other
declaration of the nullity of Atty. Garridos marriage to Maelotisea, circumstances are commendable traits of character.
we do not believe at all in the honesty of this expressed belief.
In like manner, Atty. Valencias behavior over a long period
The records show that Atty. Valencia consented to be of time unequivocally demonstrates a basic and serious flaw in her
married in Hongkong, not within the country. Given that this character, which we cannot simply brush aside without undermining
marriage transpired before the declaration of the nullity of Atty. the dignity of the legal profession and without placing the integrity
Garridos second marriage, we can only call this Hongkong marriage of the administration of justice into question. She was not an on-
a clandestine marriage, contrary to the Filipino tradition of looker victimized by the circumstances, but a willing and knowing
celebrating a marriage together with family. Despite Atty. Valencias full participant in a love triangle whose incidents crossed into the
claim that she agreed to marry Atty. Garrido only after he showed illicit.
her proof of his capacity to enter into a subsequent valid
marriage, the celebration of their marriage in Hongkong[39] leads us WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court resolves to:
to the opposite conclusion; they wanted to marry in Hongkong for
the added security of avoiding any charge of bigamy by entering into (1) DISBAR Atty. Angel E. Garrido from the practice of
the subsequent marriage outside Philippine jurisdiction. In this law for gross immorality, violation of the Lawyers
regard, we cannot help but note that Atty. Valencia afterwards Oath; and violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 7 and Rule
opted to retain and use her surname instead of using the surname of 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility; and
her husband. Atty. Valencia, too, did not appear to mind that her
husband did not live and cohabit with her under one roof, but with (2) DISBAR Atty. Romana P. Valencia from the practice of
his second wife and the family of this marriage. Apparently, Atty. law for gross immorality, violation of Canon 7 and
Valencia did not mind at all sharing her husband with another Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
woman. This, to us, is a clear demonstration of Atty. Valencias
perverse sense of moral values. Let a copy of this Decision be attached to the personal
records of Atty. Angel E. Garrido and Atty. Romana P. Valencia in the
Measured against the definition of gross immorality, we Office of the Bar Confidant, and another copy furnished the
find Atty. Valencias actions grossly immoral. Her actions were so Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
corrupt as to approximate a criminal act, for she married a man
who, in all appearances, was married to another and with whom he The Clerk of Court is directed to strike out the names
has a family. Her actions were also unprincipled and reprehensible of Angel E. Garrido and Rowena P. Valencia from the Roll of
to a high degree; as the confidante of Atty. Garrido, she preyed on Attorneys.
his vulnerability and engaged in a romantic relationship with him
during the subsistence of his two previous marriages. As already SO ORDERED.
mentioned, Atty. Valencias conduct could not but be scandalous
and revolting to the point of shocking the communitys sense of
decency; while she professed to be the lawfully wedded wife, she
helped the second family build a house prior to her marriage to Atty.
Garrido, and did not object to sharing her husband with the woman
of his second marriage.
annulment of judgment. Complainant alleges that respondent
A.M. Case No. 3195. December 18, 1989 promised her that the necessary restraining order would be secured
if only because the judge who would hear the matter was his
MA. LIBERTAD SJ CANTILLER, complainant, "katsukaran" (close friend).
vs. ATTY. HUMBERTO V. Thereupon, the petition was filed with the Regional Trial Court,
POTENCIANO, respondent. Branch 153, Pasig, Metro Manila and docketed as Civil Case No.
55118. Respondent demanded from the complainant one thousand
pesos (P l,000.00) as attorney's fee which the latter paid that same
Eduardo Cabreros, Jr. for complainant.
afternoon.
RESOLUTION
However, when the case was raffled and assigned to Branch 153, the
presiding judge asked respondent to withdraw as counsel in the case
on the ground of their friendship.
PER CURIAM On October 11, 1987, respondent went to the house of complainant
and asked her to be ready with two thousand pesos (P 2,000.00) to
Public interest requires that an attorney exert his be given to another judge who will issue the restraining order in the
best efforts and ability in the prosecution or ejectment case (Civil Case No. 6046). Complainant and her sister
defense of his client's cause. A lawyer who were only able to raise the amount of one thousand pesos which
performs that duty with diligence and candor they immediately gave to respondent.
not only protects the interests of his client; he
also serves the ends of justice, does honor to the Later respondent informed the complainant and her sister that he
bar and helps maintain the respect of the could not locate the judge who would issue the restraining order.
community to the legal profession. This is so The parties, then, instead went to the Max's Restaurant where
because the entrusted privilege to practice law respondent ordered some food - including two plastic bags of food
carries with it the correlative duties not only to allegedly to be given to the judge who would issue the restraining
the client but also to the court, to the bar or to order. At this juncture, respondent asked for the remaining balance
the public. That circumstance explains the public of the two thousand pesos (P 2,000.00) which he earlier demanded.
concern for the maintenance of an untarnished Complainant gave her last money-a ten dollar ($ 10.00) bill.
standard of conduct by every attorney towards
his client. 1
Sometime after the filing of Civil Case No. 55118, respondent
informed complainant and Peregrina that there was a need to file
Subject of this administrative complaint is Humberto V. Potenciano, another case with the Regional Trial Court to enable them to retain
a practicing lawyer and a member of the Philippine Bar under Roll possession of the apartment. For this purpose, respondent told
No. 21862. He is charged with deceit, fraud, and misrepresentation, complainant to prepare the amount of Ten Thousand Pesos (P
and also with gross misconduct, malpractice and of acts unbecoming 10,000.00) allegedly to be deposited with the Treasurer's Office of
of an officer of the court. Pasig as purchase price of the apartment and another one thousand
pesos (P 1,000.00) to cover the expenses of the suit. Respondent
The essential facts are as follows: 2 stressed to the complainant the need and urgency of filing the new
complaint.
Complainant herein is the sister of Peregrina Cantiller, defendant in
an action for "ejectment" docketed as Civil Case No. 6046 before the Complainant and Peregrina raised the said amounts through the
Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila, Branch 57, San Juan, Metro kindness of some friends and relatives. On October 26,1987, the
Manila. money was handed over to the respondent.
Another action, likewise involving Peregrina but this time as plaintiff, On the same date, a complaint for "Specific Performance,
was then pending before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 168, Pasig, Annulment of Simulated or Spurious Sale with Damages," later
Metro Manila docketed as Civil Case No. 54117 for "reconveyance docketed as Civil Case No. 55210, was filed by respondent with the
with damages." Both actions involve the apartment unit being Regional Trial Court, Branch 165, Pasig, Metro Manila.
rented by complainant and her sister.
At the hearing of the preliminary injunction in Civil Case No. 55118
When the two cases were concluded, Peregrina came out the losing on October 30, 1987, respondent, contrary to his promise that he
party. Civil Case No. 54117 for reconveyance was ordered dismissed would secure a restraining order, withdrew his appearance as
by the Regional Trial Court on June 8, 1987 while Civil Case No. 6046 counsel for complainant. Complainant was not able to get another
for ejectment was decided by the Metropolitan Trial Court against lawyer as replacement. Thus, no restraining order or preliminary
her. injunction was obtained. As a consequence, the order to vacate in
Civil Case No. 6046 was eventually enforced and executed.
On October 8, 1987 pursuant to the writ of execution issued in Civil
Case No. 6046 for ejectment, complainant and Peregrina were Sometime thereafter, it came to complainant's knowledge that
served a notice to vacate the rented premises within four (4) days there was really no need to make a deposit of ten thousand pesos (P
from receipt of notice. l0,000.00) relative to Civil Case No. 55210. After further inquiry, she
found out that in fact there was no such deposit made. Thus, on
Desperate and at a loss on what to do, they consulted a certain December 23,1987, complainant sent a demand letter to
Sheriff Pagalunan, on the matter. Pagalunan, in turn, introduced respondent asking for the return of the total amount of eleven
them to herein respondent. After such introduction, the parties thousand pesos (P 11,000.00) which the former earlier gave to the
"impliedly agreed" that respondent would handle their case. latter. However, this letter was never answered and the money was
Forthwith, a petition entitled "Annulment of Judgment, Annulment never returned. Hence, complainant lodged this administrative
of Sale and Damages with prayer for Preliminary Injunction and/or complaint against herein respondent.
Status Quo Order, etc." was prepared by respondent to forestall the
execution of the order to vacate in Civil Case No. 6046. Meanwhile, on December 29,1987, the Regional Trial Court, Branch
153, dismissed Civil Case No. 55118 for failure to state a cause of
In the afternoon of October 9,1987, the complainant was made to action. 4 On January 20,1988, Civil Case No. 5521 0 was likewise
sign by respondent what she described as a "[h]astily prepared, dismissed for being identical with Civil Case No. 55118. 5
poorly conceived, and haphazardly composed 3 petition for
Respondent in his answer contends that the filing of Civil Cases Nos. The allegation of respondent that the ten thousand pesos (P
55118 and 55210 was done in good faith and that the allegations of 10,000.00) was given to him as fee for his services, is simply
complainant relative to the administrative charge against him are all incredible. Indeed, such amount is grossly disproportionate with the
lies, product of one's imagination and only intended to harrass service he actually rendered. 11 And his failure to return even a
him. 6 portion of the amount upon demand of complainant all the more
bolsters the protestation of complainant that respondent does not
This Court agrees that the petitions in Civil Cases Nos. 55118 and deserve to remain as an officer of the court.
55210 appear to be poorly prepared and written. having
represented himself capable of picking up the cudgels for the Lawyers are indispensable part of the whole system of administering
apparently lost cause of complainant respondent should have justice in this jurisdiction. At a time when strong and disturbing
carefully prepared the pleadings if only to establish the justness of criticisms are being hurled at the legal profession, strict compliance
his representation. The little time involved is no excuse. with one's oath of office and the canons of professional ethics is an
Complainant reposed full faith in him. His first duty was to file the imperative.
best pleading within his capability. Apparently respondent was more
interested in getting the most out of the complainant who was in a Lawyers should be fair, honest, respectable, above suspicion and
hopeless situation. He bragged about his closeness to the judge beyond reproach in dealing with their clients. The profession is not
concerned in one case and talked about the need to "buy" the synonymous with an ordinary business proposition. It is a matter of
restraining order in the other. Worse still he got P 10,000.00 as public interest.
alleged deposit in court which he never deposited. Instead he
pocketed the same. The pattern to milk the complainant dry is
WHEREFORE, after considering the entirety of the circumstances
obvious.
present in this case, this Court finds Atty. Humberto V. Potenciano
to be guilty of the charges against him and hereby SUSPENDS him
When a lawyer takes a client's cause, he thereby covenants that he from the practice of law for an indefinite period until such time he
will exert all effort for its prosecution until its final conclusion. The can demonstrate that he has rehabilitated himself as to deserve to
failure to exercise due diligence or the abandonment of a client's resume the practice of law.
cause makes such lawyer unworthy of the trust which the client had
reposed on him. The acts of respondent in this case violate the most
Finally, respondent is hereby ordered to return to complainant
elementary principles of professional ethics . 7
herein the sum of eleven thousand pesos (P11,000.00) with legal
interest from the date of this resolution until it is actually returned.
The Court finds that respondent failed to exercise due diligence in
protecting his client's interests. Respondent had knowledge
SO ORDERED.
beforehand that he would be asked by the presiding judge in Civil
Case No. 55118 to withdraw his appearance as counsel by reason of
their friendship. Despite such prior knowledge, respondent took no [A.C. No. 5299. August 19, 2003]
steps to find a replacement nor did he inform complainant of this
fact.
ATTY. ISMAEL G. KHAN, JR., Assistant Court
Even assuming that respondent had no previous knowledge that he Administrator and Chief, Public Information
would be asked to withdraw, the record is quite clear that four (4) Office, complainant, vs. ATTY. RIZALINO T.
days prior to the hearing of the preliminary injunction in Civil Case SIMBILLO,respondent.
No. 55118 respondent already filed a motion therein withdrawing as
complainant's counsel interposing as reason therefor his frequent
attacks of pain due to hemorrhoids. Despite this void, respondent [G.R. No. 157053. August 19, 2003]
failed to find a replacement. He did not even ask complainant to hire
another lawyer in his stead. 8 ATTY. RIZALINO T. SIMBILLO, petitioner, vs. IBP
COMMISSION ON BAR DISCIPLINE and ATTY.
His actuation is definitely inconsistent with his duty to protect with
utmost dedication the interest of his client and of the fidelity, trust
ISMAEL G. KHAN, JR., in his capacity as
and confidence which he owes his client. 9 More so in this case, Assistant Court Administrator and Chief, Public
where by reason of his gross negligence complainant thereby Information Office, respondents.
suffered by losing all her cases.
RESOLUTION
The filing of Civil Case No. 55210 on October 26, 1987, the same day
that he had already filed a motion to withdraw as counsel for YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
complainant in Civil Case No. 55118, reveals his lack of good faith as
an advocate. He also failed to appear for the complainant in said This administrative complaint arose from a paid advertisement
case. It was all a show to get more money from her. This adversely that appeared in the July 5, 2000 issue of the newspaper, Philippine
reflects on his fitness to practice law. When confronted with this Daily Inquirer, which reads: ANNULMENT OF MARRIAGE Specialist
evident irregularity, he lamely stated that while he did not physically 532-4333/521-2667.[1]
appear for complainant he nevertheless prepared and drafted the
pleadings. Ms. Ma. Theresa B. Espeleta, a staff member of the Public
Information Office of the Supreme Court, called up the published
telephone number and pretended to be an interested party. She
His services were engaged by complainant hoping that the property
spoke to Mrs. Simbillo, who claimed that her husband, Atty. Rizalino
subject of the ejectment proceeding would be returned to her. In
Simbillo, was an expert in handling annulment cases and can
fact, it was respondent who persuaded complainant that the filing of
guarantee a court decree within four to six months, provided the
these two cases simultaneously were the means by which this
case will not involve separation of property or custody of
objective can be achieved. His duty was not only to prepare the
children. Mrs. Simbillo also said that her husband charges a fee of
pleadings but to represent complainant until the termination of the
P48,000.00, half of which is payable at the time of filing of the case
cases. This he failed to do.
and the other half after a decision thereon has been rendered.
His representation that there was an immediate need to file Civil Further research by the Office of the Court Administrator and
Case No. 55210 when he already knew that he could no longer the Public Information Office revealed that similar advertisements
physically handle the same is an act of deception of his client. 10 It were published in the August 2 and 6, 2000 issues of theManila
shows lack of fidelity to his oath of office as a member of the Bulletin and August 5, 2000 issue of The Philippine Star.[2]
Philippine bar.
On September 1, 2000, Atty. Ismael G. Khan, Jr., in his capacity meant to be a money-making venture, and law advocacy is not a
as Assistant Court Administrator and Chief of the Public Information capital that necessarily yields profits.[13] The gaining of a livelihood
Office, filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Rizalino T. should be a secondary consideration.[14] The duty to public service
Simbillo for improper advertising and solicitation of his legal and to the administration of justice should be the primary
services, in violation of Rule 2.03 and Rule 3.01 of the Code of consideration of lawyers, who must subordinate their personal
Professional Responsibility and Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of interests or what they owe to themselves.[15]The following elements
Court.[3] distinguish the legal profession from a business:
In a Resolution dated March 26, 2003, the parties were What adds to the gravity of respondents acts is that in
required to manifest whether or not they were willing to submit the advertising himself as a self-styled Annulment of Marriage
case for resolution on the basis of the pleadings.[10]Complainant filed Specialist, he wittingly or unwittingly erodes and undermines not
his Manifestation on April 25, 2003, stating that he is not submitting only the stability but also the sanctity of an institution still
any additional pleading or evidence and is submitting the case for its considered sacrosanct despite the contemporary climate of
early resolution on the basis of pleadings and records permissiveness in our society. Indeed, in assuring prospective
thereof. [11] Respondent, on the other hand, filed a Supplemental clients that an annulment may be obtained in four to six months
Memorandum on June 20, 2003. from the time of the filing of the case,[19] he in fact encourages
people, who might have otherwise been disinclined and would have
We agree with the IBPs Resolutions Nos. XV-2002-306 and XV- refrained from dissolving their marriage bonds, to do so.
2002-606.
Nonetheless, the solicitation of legal business is not altogether
Rules 2.03 and 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility proscribed. However, for solicitation to be proper, it must be
read: compatible with the dignity of the legal profession. If it is made in a
modest and decorous manner, it would bring no injury to the lawyer
Rule 2.03. A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act and to the bar.[20] Thus, the use of simple signs stating the name or
designed primarily to solicit legal business. names of the lawyers, the office and residence address and fields of
practice, as well as advertisement in legal periodicals bearing the
same brief data, are permissible. Even the use of calling cards is
Rule 3.01. A lawyer shall not use or permit the use of any false,
now acceptable.[21]Publication in reputable law lists, in a manner
fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory or
consistent with the standards of conduct imposed by the canon, of
unfair statement or claim regarding his qualifications or legal
brief biographical and informative data is likewise allowable. As
services.
explicitly stated in Ulep v. Legal Clinic, Inc.:[22]
It has been repeatedly stressed that the practice of law is not a The law list must be a reputable law list published primarily for that
business.[12] It is a profession in which duty to public service, not purpose; it cannot be a mere supplemental feature of a paper,
money, is the primary consideration. Lawyering is not primarily magazine, trade journal or periodical which is published principally
for other purposes. For that reason, a lawyer may not properly
publish his brief biographical and informative data in a daily paper,
magazine, trade journal or society program. Nor may a lawyer
permit his name to be published in a law list the conduct,
management, or contents of which are calculated or likely to deceive
or injure the public or the bar, or to lower dignity or standing of the
profession.
SO ORDERED.