B.R. Sebastian Enterprises v CA, B.R. Sebastian Enterprises v CA case digest, B.R.

Sebastian Enterprises v CA GR

41862, GR 41862, Legal Ethics

FACTS:
Eulogio B. Reyes, now deceased, filed an action for damages against the Director of Public
Works and BR Sebastian Enterprises. Trial court found B.R. Sebastian liable for damages but
absolved other defendants. B.R. Sebastian, thru its counsel, the law firm of Baizas, Alberto
and Associates, timely appealed the adverse decision to the respondent Court of Appeals.
During the pendency of the appeal, Eulogio B. Reyes died and was substituted by his heirs.
On February 1974, B.R Sebastian, thru its counsel of record, received notice to file
Appellants Brief within 45 days from receipt thereof; however, it failed to comply. Court of
Appeals issued a Resolution requiring said counsel to show cause why the appeal should not
be dismissed for failure to file the Appellants Brief within the reglementary period. On
September 1974, Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal. On September 1974, petitioner,
this time thru the BAIZAS LAW OFFICE, filed a motion for reconsideration of the resolution
dismissing its appeal alleging that as a result of the death of Atty. Crispin Baizas, senior
partner in the law firm. Atty. Rodolfo Espiritu, the lawyer who handled this case in the trial
court and who is believed to have also attended to the preparation of the Appellants Brief
but failed to submit it through oversight and inadvertence, had also left the firm. Court
denied the motion for reconsideration. No action was taken by petitioner from within the
period to file a petition for review, the same became final and executory, and the records of
the case were remanded. Trial court issued a writ of execution. But on November 1975,
petitioner filed with Court of Appeals a Motion to Reinstate Appeal with Prayer for Issuance
of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction but was subsequently denied. Petitioner filed prohibition
and mandamus, with prayer for preliminary injunction with the Supreme Court to Court of
Appeals denial of petitioners motion. SC required them to comment and soon after, some
amendments were made. Ultimately, the petition was denied. But on May 1976, petitioner
filed a motion for its reconsideration claiming that since it was deprived of the right to
appeal without fault on its part, the petition should be given due course. Supreme Court
reconsidered and required both parties to submit simultaneously their respective
Memoranda.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in denying
petitioners motion to reinstate its appeal, previously dismissed for failure to file the
Appellants Brief
HELD:
No. The Supreme Court held that no fraud is involved in the present case. What was present
was simple negligence on the part of petitioners counsel, which is neither excusable nor
unavoidable. Petitioner thus failed to demonstrate sufficient cause to warrant a favorable
action on its plea. Granting that the power or discretion to reinstate an appeal that had
been dismissed is included in or implied from the power or discretion to dismiss an appeal,
still such power or discretion must be exercised upon a showing of good and sufficient
cause, in like manner as the power or discretion vested in the appellate court to allow
extensions of time for the filing of briefs. There must be such a showing which would call
for, prompt and justify its exercise. Otherwise, it cannot and must not be upheld. The
confusion in the office of the law firm following the death of Atty. Crispin Baizas is not a
valid justification for its failure to file the Brief. With Baizas death, the responsibility of Atty.
Alberto and his Associates to the petitioner as counsel remained until withdrawal by the
former of their appearance in the manner provided by the Rules of Court. The law firm
should have re-assigned the case to another associate or, it could have withdrawn as
counsel in the manner provided by the Rules of Court so that the petitioner could contract
the services of a new lawyer. The rule is settled that negligence of counsel binds the client.
Moreover, petitioner itself was guilty of negligence when it failed to make inquiries from
counsel regarding its case.

Petition DISMISSED.
CONSOLIDATED FARMS, INC., acting thru its President ANTONIO C. OPPEN, complainant, vs. ATTY.
CRISANTO E. ALPON, JR., respondent.

RESOLUTION

GARCIA, J.:

Before the Court is this complaint for disbarment filed by complainant Consolidated Farms, Inc., thru its
President Antonio C. Oppen, against respondent Atty. Crisanto E. Alpon, Jr.for gross negligence,
incompetence, dereliction of duty and violation of his oath as counsel to protect the interest of his
client.

Record reveals that complainant hired the services of respondent as counsel in its case before the Social
Security Commission, docketed as SSC Case No. 3-13961-93, entitled Agapita Padohinog vs. Margarita
C. Vda. De Oppen et al. and the Social Security System.

Complainant alleged that respondent, as its counsel in said case, did not submit the position paper
despite being required by the Social Security Commission, and that he likewise failed to attend the
scheduled hearings of the case despite due notice. On account thereof, complainant was considered to
have waived the right to present evidence and to cross examine those of the other party. As a
consequence, the Social Security Commission, in its resolution dated February 7, 1996, held complainant
liable in SSC Case No. 3-13961-93 and ordered it to remit to the Social Security System the amount
of P27,117.09, representing the other partys claim for retirement benefits.

Complainant thus pray that respondent be disbarred; dismissed from the service as municipal judge of
Castellana, Negros Occidental; and required to reimburse the amount ofP27,117.09 it paid to the Social
Security System.

In his COMMENT, respondent denied that he is the presiding judge of the Municipal Trial Court of La
Castellana, Negros Occidental. He manifested willingness to reimburse complainant the amount of the
judgment decreed in the February 7, 1996 resolution in SSC Case No. 3-1361-93.

Respondent explains that he stopped reporting to the Octaviano, Pelayo and Associates Law
Office where he was previously connected as he was hounded by marital problems, adding that the
notices issued by the Social Security Commission were not sent to him by the said law office. He asserts
that he is not habitually negligent of his cases, albeit admitting that SSC Case No. 3-13961-93 was an
oversight on his part. He also stresses that he did not represent any client before the courts except
close friends and relatives on a pro-bono basis during the period 1995 to 1999. According to him, he
limited his practice to being a consultant to local government leaders in the field of administration and
development planning.

Upon verification with the Office of the Court Administrator, it was confirmed that respondent is not a
municipal judge of Castellana, Negros Occidental, hence not a member of the Judiciary.
In a resolution dated March 10, 2003, the Court referred the case to the Commission on Bar Discipline of
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation. In time, the
Commission designated Atty. Milagros V. San Juan as Investigating Commissioner.

On October 25, 2003, the IBP Board of Governors passed Resolution No. XVI-2003-229, adopting and
approving the report and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner, to wit:

RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, the Report and
Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner of the above-entitled case, herein made part of this
Resolution/Decision as annex A, and, finding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on
record and the applicable laws and rules, and considering that respondent violated Rule 18.03, Canon 18
of the Code of Professional Responsibility, Atty. Crisanto E. Alpon, Jr. is hereby SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for three (3) months with a stern Warning that a similar offense in the future will be dealt
with more severely.

We agree with the aforestated recommendation.

Records show that respondent admitted under oath the acts imputed against him and even offered to
make amends by reimbursing the amount of P27,117.09 to the complainant.

In People vs. Sevillano,[1] we ruled:

Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requires every lawyer to serve his client with
utmost dedication, competence and diligence. He must not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and
his negligence in this regard renders him administratively liable.

As complainants counsel in SSC Case No. 3-13961-93, respondent is duty bound to monitor the
progress of the case he is handling. He should have put himself on guard on all the processes issued by
the hearing body relative thereto and should have, thus, anticipated a resolution thereof. So it is that
in Re: Vicente Y. Bayani,[2] we have made it clear that [A] lawyer owes his client the exercise of utmost
prudence and capability in that representation.

Respondent, through gross negligence and incompetence, failed to perform what is required of him. As
it were, he fell short of the demands required of him as a lawyer and as a member of the bar. His offer
to pay the amount of P27,117.09 would not exonerate him from liability.

This Court has always reminded the members of the legal profession that every case they handle
deserves full and undivided attention, diligence, skill and competence, regardless of its importance and
whether they accept it for a fee or for free, and to constantly keep in mind that not only the property
but also the life of their clients may be at stake.

Verily, in Del Rosario vs. Court of Appeals,[3] as reiterated in Rosita Tan vs. Atty. Jose L. Lapak,[4] we ruled:

An Attorney is bound to protect his clients interest to the best of his ability and with utmost diligence.
Respondent placed much emphasis on the fact that during the time complainant engaged his services as
counsel in the case in question, he was still connected with the Octaviano, Pelayo and Associates Law
Office, thereby suggesting that the blame should lay at the doorstep of said law firm for not sending him
all the notices relative to the subject SSC case.

Evidently, respondent would want us to view his situation in the light of our ruling in Rilloraza, Africa, De
Ocampo and Africa vs. Eastern Telecommunications Phils., Inc.,[5] where this Court ruled that when a
client employs the services of a law firm, he does not employ the services of the lawyer who is assigned
to personally handle the case, as well as that in Five Star Bus Company, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals,[6] where
we declared that if a party is represented by a law firm, it means that any of the firms members could
lawfully act as his counsel during trial.

Regrettably, respondents attempt to pass the buck, so to speak, falls flat on its face considering that
the evidence on record point to his own gross negligence.

For one, in his Entry of Appearance and Motion to Reset Case for Hearing, bearing date November 19,
1993,[7] respondent affixed his signature under the representation of the Antonio de Luzuriaga and
Crisanto E. Alpon, Jr. Law Office as counsel for complainant. This clearly shows that respondent was
personally hired as counsel to the subject SSC case even before he became an associate of
the Octaviano, Pelayo and Associates Law Office. Clearly, complainant did not hire the services of the
latter law firm to represent it in that case.

For another, the following processes were issued in the said SSC case during the period 1994 when
respondent was still very much connected with the Octaviano, Pelayo and Associates Law Office: Order
dated March 27, 1994, requiring the submission of the parties respective position papers and resetting
the case for hearing[8]; Order dated August 15, 1994, granting last chance to respondents client to
submit verified position paper and resetting the case for clarificatory questions[9]; and Order dated
November 15, 1994, granting one last chance to the client to submit the required verified position
paper, with a clear warning that failure to do so would amount to a waiver.[10] Respondent, therefore,
could not use the excuse that he was not notified of the processes issued by the hearing officer. At the
very least, respondent should have inquired from the same hearing officer the status of his clients case.
Unfortunately, through manifest gross negligence, respondent failed to attend to the case.

On the issue of reimbursement of the amount of P27,119.09 which complainant was ordered to pay the
Social Security System in the same case, it appears that on May 26, 2003, complainant filed
a Compliance, therein stating that srespondents proposal for settlement of the instant administrative
case has been accepted by it and that it was just waiting for the payment to be made by respondent. On
September 3, 2003, respondent filed a Manifestation of Settlement of Case, whereunder he stated that
complainant has accepted his proposal for reimbursement and had in fact paid complainant the amount
of P27,117.00.

Not being a municipal judge of Castellana, Negros Occidental per verification from the records of the
Office of the Court Administrator, complainants additional prayer for respondents dismissal from the
Judiciary is not possible.
All told, we rule and so hold that on account of his failure to file the required Position Paper for his
client, as well as attend the scheduled hearings in SSC Case No. 3-13961-93, respondent indeed violated
Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, stating that [A] lawyer shall not neglect
a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.

WHEREFORE, the resolution of the IBP Board of Governors approving and adopting the report and
recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner is hereby AFFIRMED. Accordingly, ATTY. CRISANTO
E. ALPON, JR. is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of THREE (3) MONTHS, with a
stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar wrongdoing will be dealt with more severely.

Artezuela v Maderazo

Facts: Echavia crashed the car he is driving which is owned by Kiyami, but was registered in the name of
Villapez. The car rammed into a small carinderia owned by Artezuela. The destruction of the carinderia
caused the cessation its operation, resulting to her financial dislocation. Artezuela incurred debts from
her relatives and due to financial constraints, stopped sending her two children to college. Artezuela
hired Maderazo in filing a damage suit against Echavia, Villapez and Kiyami. For his services, Artezuela
paid Maderazo 10,000 as attorneys fees and 2,000 as filing fee. However, the case was dismissed,
allegedly upon the instance of the Artezuela and her husband. Because of the dismissal of the case,
Artezuela filed a civil case for damages against the Maderazo.The case was dismissed.

Artezuela filed for disbarment against the Maderazo. Artezuela argues that Maderazo engaged in
activities inimical to her interests. While acting as her counsel, Maderazo prepared Echavias Answer to
the Amended Complaint. The said document was even printed in Maderazos office. Artezuela further
averred that it was Maderazo who sought the dismissal of the case, misleading the trial court into
thinking that the dismissal was with her consent. Maderazo denied Artezuelas allegations. However, he
admitted that Echavias Answer to the Amended Complaint was printed in his office but denied having
prepared the document and having acted as counsel of Echavia.

Case was referred to IBP. IBP investigated the case. IBP found Maderazo guilty of representing
conflicting interests, in violation of Canon 15 and Rule 15.03 of the Code of ProfessionalResponsibility,
as well as, of Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Ethics.

Issues:

(1) Whether Maderazo violated Canon 15 and Rule 15.03 (conflict of interest) of the Code of
Professional Responsibility

(2) Whether Maderazo had a direct hand in the preparation of Echavias Answer to the Amended
Complaint.

Held: YES to both

Maderazo was actually giving advice to Echavias but he was not the counsel of record. Maderazo does
not have to publicly hold himself as the counsel of the adverse party, nor make his efforts to advance
the adverse partys conflicting interests of record. It is enough that the counsel of one party had a hand
in the preparation of the pleading of the other party, claiming adverse and conflicting interests with that
of his original client. To require that he also be counsel-of-record of the adverse party would punish only
the most obvious form of deceit and reward, with impunity, the highest form of disloyalty.

An attorney owes his client undivided allegiance. Because of the highly fiduciary nature of the attorney-
client relationship, sound public policy dictates that a lawyer be prohibited from representing conflicting
interests or discharging inconsistent duties. Good faith and honest intention on the part of the erring
lawyer does not make this rule inoperative. The lawyer is an officer of the court and his actions are
governed by the uncompromising rules of professional ethics.

Pimentel Jr. vs Atty. Llorente and Salayon

Facts: This is a complaint for disbarment against respondents Antonio M. Llorente and Ligaya P. Salayon
for gross misconduct, serious breach of trust, and violation of the lawyer's oath in connection with
the discharge of their duties as members of the Pasig City Board of Canvassers in the May 8, 1995
elections. Salayon, then election officer of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), was designated
chairman of said Board, while Llorente, who was then City Prosecutor of Pasig City, served as its ex oficio
vice-chairman as provided by law. Complainant, now a senator, was also a candidate for the Senate in
that election.

Then Senatorial candidate Aquilino Pimentel, Jr. alleged that the respondents tampered with the votes
received by them by either adding more votes for particular candidates in their Statement of Votes (SoV)
or reducing the number of votes of particular candidates in their SoV. Pimentel filed an administrative
complaint for their disbarment. Respondents denied the allegations against them. They alleged that the
preparation of the SoVs was made by the 12 canvassing committees which the Board had constituted to
assist in the canvassing. They claimed that the errors pointed out by complainant could be attributed to
honest mistake, oversight, and/or fatigue.

Issue: Whether the respondents are held guilty of misconduct.

Held: YES. A lawyer who holds a government position may not be disciplined as a member of the bar for
misconduct in the discharge of his duties as a government official. However, if the misconduct also
constitutes a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility or the lawyers oath or is of such
character as to affect his qualification as a lawyer or shows moral delinquency on his part,
such individual may be disciplined as a member of the bar for such misconduct. Here, by certifying as
true and correct the SoVs in question, respondents committed a breach of Rule 1.01 of the Code which
stipulates that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. By
express provision of Canon 6, this is made applicable to lawyers in the government service. In addition,
they likewise violated their oath of office as lawyers to do no falsehood. It may be added that, as
lawyers in the government service, respondents were under greater obligation to observe this basic
tenet of the profession because a public office is a public trust.

Respondents' participation in the irregularities herein reflects on the legal profession, in general, and on
lawyers in government in particular. Such conduct in the performance of their official duties, involving
no less than the ascertainment of the popular will as expressed through the ballot, would have merited
for them suspension were it not for the fact that this is their first administrative transgression and, in
the case of Salayon, after a long public service. Under the circumstances, a penalty of fine in the amount
of P10,000.00 for each of the respondents should be sufficient and issued a stern warning that similar
conduct in the future will be severely punished.

DAN JOEL V. LIM* and RICHARD C. TAN, complainants, vs. ATTY. EDILBERTO BARCELONA, respondent.

RESOLUTION

PER CURIAM:

On May 9, 2001, Dan Joel V. Lim and Richard C. Tan,[1] both businessmen, filed a complaint for alleged
robbery or extortion and violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Actagainst Atty. Edilberto
Barcelona, a lawyer formerly employed with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The
complaint was simultaneously filed with this Court and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.[2]

Complainant Lim alleged that on the first week of August 2000, respondent phoned him and introduced
himself as a lawyer and chief of the Public Assistance Center, NLRC. Respondent informed him that his
employees filed a labor complaint against him in his office and it was necessary for him to see and talk
with respondent. From then on respondent would often call him. Respondent visited him in his office
and told him to settle the case or else his business, Top Gun Billiards, would be shut down. Lim recalled
that on August 14, 2000, at around 7:30 p.m., respondent again visited his establishment and told him
to settle the case for P20,000.00.

In support of his allegations, Lim submitted a written complaint of Arnel E. Ditan and Pilipino Ubante; an
endorsement letter dated August 2, 2000 of Atty. Jonathan F. Baligod of the Presidential Action Center;
handwritten calling cards of the respondent; and an affidavit of desistance executed by Ditan and
Ubante.

In their joint affidavit, Ditan and Ubante confirmed the filing of their complaint against their employer,
Lim, and that after some dialogue, the aforenamed employees executed an affidavit dated August 8,
2000 withdrawing their complaint. According to Ditan and Ubante, they met the respondent in Top Gun
Billiards where the latter often played billiards. One day, respondent gave them a letter and asked them
to sign it. Since they were busy at that time, they signed it without reading and understanding its
contents. Their employer, Lim, asked what it was about and they told him that they were just made to
sign a document without their understanding it. They added, they did not have any complaint against
their employer. Despite such withdrawal, respondent still called Lim threatening the latter that he
would pursue the case, have his establishment closed and he would be jailed if he did not come up
with P20,000.00 as settlement. In the evening of August 14, 2000, respondent reiterated his demand
for P20,000.00, again with the threat of closure of the billiard center and putting Lim in jail.

Complainant Lim said that after his meeting with respondent, he agreed to give the amount but did not
fix any date when payment would be made, whereupon, respondent gave notice that he would drop in
at around 7:00 in the evening, on August 16, 2000, to pick up the money.

Aurora Cruz y Libunao, owner of the carinderia adjacent to Top Gun Billiards, stated in her sworn
statement as well as court testimony that she met respondent when he ate in her carinderia. She
recalled that the respondent told her that he would shut down the billiard business if the owner would
not talk to him. She also recounted that on August 14, 2000, at around8:30 p.m., she saw on the second
floor of the pool house, the respondent and Lim talking. After a while, the respondent came down and
passed by her carinderia. The respondent then informed her that he and Lim talked about
the P20,000.00 which respondent would give to his alleged boss in Malacaang. During the hearing, she
also recalled seeing Lim hand money to respondent who in turn put the cash in his attach case and
immediately thereafter, she saw three men arrest respondent.[3]

Notably, almost nine months before the filing of his complaint, or on August 14, 2000, complainant Lim
personally submitted a letter to the NBI requesting the NBI to investigate respondent Atty. Edilberto
Barcelona.[4] According to the NBI report, after due investigation, it decided to conduct an entrapment
operation. On August 15, 2000, Special Investigator Marvin de Jemil, sent nine five hundred peso bills
and five one hundred peso bills for fluorescent powder dusting to the NBI Forensic Chemistry Division.
Further, the NBI reported that thru the NBI Identification and Records Division, it found no record of
such person named Edilberto Barcelona.

The NBI report also stated that on August 16, 2000, Lim informed the NBI operatives that at around 7:00
p.m. respondent would drop by his pool house to collect the money. At around6:30 p.m., the operatives
went to the pool house and strategically positioned themselves and posed as pool players. At
about 7:20 p.m., respondent arrived, sat on a plastic chair and talked to complainant Lim. At
around 7:30 p.m., Lim handed the marked money to the respondent who, in turn, received it. While
respondent was counting the money and about to place it inside his bag, he was immediately arrested.
The respondent initially resisted and tried to create scandal but was later pacified.

The NBI averred that the respondent was informed of his constitutional rights and was brought to the
NBI office where he was booked and fingerprinted. In his fingerprint chart, the respondent indicated
that he was a government lawyer and assigned at the office of the Chief, Public Assistance Center, NLRC,
Banawe, Quezon City. He showed his identification card. Later he was brought to the Forensic
Chemistry Division for ultraviolet examination. The certification issued by Forensic Chemist Loren G.
Janobas stated that there were yellow fluorescent specks and smudges on the back and palm of the
left and right hand of the respondent. On August 17, 2000, the NBI turned over respondent to the City
Prosecutor of Manila who eventually indicted him for robbery/extortion.[5]
Complainant Richard Tan, owner of Tai Hing Glass Supply, a co-signee in the herein complaint, executed
a sworn statement dated August 16, 2000. In it he alleged that he went to the Criminal Intelligence
Division, Intelligence Service of the NBI to complain about respondent Barcelona. He said that
sometime during the last week of July, respondent called him, introduced himself and informed him that
one of his employees filed an illegal dismissal case against him. He remembered that before
respondents call, he had suspended an employee, Bryan Tellen, for leaving his workplace without
permission. Tellen received several warning letters from him regarding his misdemeanors. Tan
remembered that Tellen once hinted that he knew someone in the Department of Labor, who turned
out to be herein respondent, Atty. Barcelona. Before Tan sent his accountant, Ditas Guitierrez, to
respondents office to represent him, he told her to bring a copy of Tellens suspension letter and to
inform respondent that Tellen had not been dismissed. When Guitierrez returned, she told him that
respondent wanted him to pay his employee. She added that respondent did not give her any copy of a
formal complaint on the alleged illegal dismissal. After two days, according to Tan, respondent went to
his office, showed him an identification card and gave him a handwritten calling card. Respondent told
him to pay his employee P20,000.00 to P30,000.00, otherwise respondent would go on with the filing of
the illegal dismissal case. When he said he did not have that kind of money, respondent lowered the
amount to P15,000.00. Complainant Tan added that when he gave respondent the money, the latter
promised to take care of the illegal dismissal complaint. On July 29, 2000, according to Tan, respondent
came to see him again. Respondent appeared drunk and told Tan to go to the respondents office
because a problem regarding the case arose. Tan stated that before respondent left, respondent invited
his employees to a game of billiards. Tan said he did not consent to the employees playing because they
had work. On July 31, 2000, respondent went to him a third time and asked for an additionalP10,000.00
allegedly for his employee, Tellen, since the P15,000.00 Tan gave earlier was for respondent only. After
a few more visits by respondent, Tan finally told the respondent to show him the formal complaint and
he would just get himself a lawyer.[6]

The Joint Affidavit of Arrest, signed on August 17, 2000 by Agent Don R. Hernandez, SI Felix O. Senora
and SI Marvin de Jemil, cited complainant Tans allegations.[7]

Respondent Atty. Barcelona filed his Comment[8] on December 10, 2001, praying for the dismissal of the
complaint against him. Respondent, in his defense, alleges that he normally played billiards at the Top
Gun Billiard Center where he would drop by from his office before going to his residence; that when
certain employees of the billiard center learned that he was a lawyer and Chief of the Public Assistance
Center of the NLRC, they confided in him their grievance against their employer, Lim, for alleged
violation of labor laws, there respondent gave them assistance; that with the proper complaint and
required documentation accomplished, respondents office scheduled the case for a dialogue-
conference between the complaining workers and their employer; that on instigation and coercion of
complainant Lim, respondent became a victim of theft, billiard hustling, swindling and syndicated
gambling on August 9, 2000; that on or about August 9, 2000, respondent filed a complaint for theft of
cellphone and pack of cigarettes, billiard hustling, syndicated gambling, and swindling against Lim and
his three workers, eventually docketed as I.S. No. 38251 to 53.[9]
Respondents Comment narrated his version on how the money allegedly was given to him. According to
the respondent, on August 16, 2000, at about 3 p.m., he received a phone call from complainant Lim
informing him that Ian Gonvan,[10] one of the accused in I.S. No. 38251, admitted taking his cellphone
and was willing and ready to return it at around 7 p.m., at the Top Gun Billiard Center. It was the
birthday of his daughter that was why he took the day off from office. At about 7:30 p.m., he arrived at
the billiard hall and there found Lim with one of his complaining workers, fixing the lamp of one of the
billiard tables. He did not see Gonvan within the premises so he sat and watched the billiard games
going on while he waited. After about 15 minutes Lim sat beside him and told him that Gonvan could no
longer return the cellphone and instead Gonvan entrusted Lim with the equivalent value in
cash. According to respondent, Lim persistently whispered to him to accept and count the wad of paper
money Lim pulled out. According to respondent, he consistently refused to touch the money and he
insisted, Gusto ko munang makaharap ang sinasabi mong si Gumban,[11] continuously refusing to
accept, much less count, the offered wad of money. Respondent added that when Lim realized that he
could not be prevailed upon to accept it, he placed and inserted the wad of money in the open side
pocket of respondents shoulder bag that respondent normally carried, again pleading to respondent
that he should count the money. Respondent added that Lims behavior was rude and intimidating so
much so that respondent protested such rudeness. But respondent said while he was trying to retrieve
the wad of money to throw it back to Lim, about five or seven burly men accosted respondent and
handcuffed him over his vehement protestations.[12]

On Tans complaint, respondent declared that he never demanded nor received money from Tan, and
Tans accusations are but a product of the formers fertile imagination as leverage because he actively
assisted a complaining worker of Tan.[13] Respondent added that a formal labor complaint has been filed
against Tan.[14]

Eventually, we referred the complaint against Atty. Barcelona to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation. Its report with recommendation is now before
us. We shall now proceed to the merits of the complaint.

Respondents version seeks to discredit the NBI report to the effect that respondent accepted the
marked money which Lim handed to him. His version, however, fails to explain why he was found
positive for yellow fluorescent specks and smudges in his dorsal and palmar aspects of the left and right
hands by the Forensic Department of the NBI.

Respondent claims that he continuously refused to accept, much less count, the offered wad of
money. Because of such refusal, according to respondent, Lim inserted the wad of money in
respondents shoulder bags open pocket while complainant Lim was still pleading to count the wad of
money.

Respondent alleges that the alleged bribery or extortion is a mere concoction of complainant and as
leverage for the cases against Lim and Tan.
Based on the NBI report, this case appears to be an entrapment operation. Notably, Atty. Don
Hernandez and his team of arresting officers confirm the entrapment operation against respondent on
the basis of complainant Lims call for NBI assistance.

While respondent alleges that complainant Lim merely concocted a charge of extortion against him in
retaliation to a complaint for theft which he had filed, it may be noted that the complaint for theft was
not directed against Lim but only against his workers who were accused by respondent. Hence, there
appears to be no strong reason for Lim to resort to a counter-charge for extortion against respondent.

The Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP concluded that it is highly improbable that the NBI could be
misled by complainant Lim into conducting an entrapment operation against respondent, if there was
no merit to his complaint against respondent. From a reading of the NBI Report as well as the
documents attached to said report, it is evident that the NBI considered the merits of Lims complaint of
extortion against respondent. Finding it worth pursuing, the NBI conducted an entrapment operation
against respondent. On the basis of the entrapment operation conducted by the NBI, respondent was
caught in the act, so to speak, of attempted extortion. Respondent was brought to the City Prosecutor
of Manila for inquest and the appropriate complaint for Robbery/Extortion was filed against
respondent.[15]

Based on its own evaluation and the NBI Report, the Investigating Commissioner of the Commission on
Bar Discipline recommended the suspension of respondent from the practice of law for a period of two
years.[16]

In the final resolution dated September 27, 2003, the Board of Governors of the IBP imposed the penalty
of disbarment for the reason that respondent in fact attempted to extort money as Chief of the Public
Assistance Center of the NLRC to threaten/coerce Lim and that no less than the NBI caught him in the
act of receiving and counting the money extorted from Lim.[17]

The grounds for disbarment or suspension of an attorney are: (1) deceit; (2) malpractice or other gross
misconduct in office; (3) grossly immoral conduct; (4) conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude; (5)
violation of the lawyers oath; (6) willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court; and (7)
willfully appearing as an attorney for a party without authority.[18]

The NBI found that respondents hands had yellow fluorescent specks and smudges with which the
money used for the entrapment of the respondent had been powdered. We find no reason to doubt the
NBI report. Also, we see no basis to overturn the presumption that the NBI had done its duty regularly.

Respondent would make us believe that the specks and smudges of yellow fluorescent were in his hands
because Lim offered him what was allegedly the payment for the stolen cellphone by a certain Gonvan.
Regrettably, there is no corroboration from Gonvan nor anyone else on this matter. Thus, respondents
story appears to us entirely self-serving.

We had held previously that if a lawyers misconduct in the discharge of his official duties as government
official is of such a character as to affect his qualification as a lawyer or to show moral delinquency, he
may be disciplined as a member of the Bar on such ground.[19] More significantly, lawyers in government
service in the discharge of their official tasks have more restrictions than lawyers in private
practice. Want of moral integrity is to be more severely condemned in a lawyer who holds a responsible
public office. [20] Rule 1.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer shall not
counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system.
Extortion by a government lawyer, an outright violation of the law, calls for the corresponding grave
sanctions. With the aforesaid rule a high standard of integrity is demanded of a government lawyer as
compared to a private practitioner because the delinquency of a government lawyer erodes the
peoples trust and confidence in the government.

Needless to say, lawyers owe it to the court and to society not to stir up litigations. Employees of the
billiards hall, Ditan and Ubante, swore that respondent public officer encouraged complainant Lims
workers to file a case against the latter. Rule 1.03 of the same Code states that a lawyer shall not, for
any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit or proceeding or delay any mans cause.

Noteworthy, as an Attorney IV and Chief of the Public Assistance Center of the NLRC, respondent failed
to observe prudence by hanging out and playing in the billiard hall. By so doing, he exposed himself
unnecessarily to certain elements and situations which could compromise his official position and his
status as a lawyer.

Time and again, we have declared that the practice of law is a noble profession. It is a special privilege
bestowed only upon those who are competent intellectually, academically and morally. A lawyer must
at all times conduct himself, especially in his dealings with his clients and the public at large, with
honesty and integrity in a manner beyond reproach. He must faithfully perform his duties to society, to
the bar, to the courts and to his clients. A violation of the high standards of the legal profession subjects
the lawyer to administrative sanctions which includes suspension and disbarment.[21] More importantly,
possession of good moral character must be continuous as a requirement to the enjoyment of the
privilege of law practice; otherwise, the loss thereof is a ground for the revocation of such privilege.[22]

Indeed, the primary objective of administrative cases against lawyers is not only to punish and discipline
the erring individual lawyers, but also to safeguard the administration of justice by protecting the courts
and the public from the misconduct of lawyers and to remove from the legal profession persons whose
utter disregard of the lawyers oath has proven them unfit to continue discharging the trust reposed in
them as members of the bar.[23] These pronouncements gain practical significance in this case,
considering that respondent is a senior lawyer of the NLRC. It bears stressing also that government
lawyers who are public servants owe fidelity to the public service, a public trust. As such, government
lawyers should be more sensitive to their professional obligations as their disreputable conduct is more
likely to be magnified in the public eye.[24]

As a lawyer, who was also a public officer, respondent miserably failed to cope with the strict demands
and high standards of the legal profession.

In Montano v. IBP,[25] this Court said that only in a clear case of misconduct that seriously affects the
standing and character of the lawyer may disbarment be imposed as a penalty. In the instant case, the
Court is convinced that the evidence against respondent is clear and convincing. He is administratively
liable for corrupt activity, deceit, and gross misconduct. As correctly held by the Board of Governors of
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, he should not only be suspended from the practice of law but
disbarred.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Edilberto Barcelona is found administratively guilty of corrupt activity,
deceit, and gross misconduct and is hereby ordered DISBARRED. Let his name be stricken from the Roll
of Attorneys effective immediately, and this resolution spread in his record in this Court and circulated
to all courts in the Philippines.

Maglasang vs.PP

Facts: Khalyxto Maglasang was convicted in the court in San Carlos, Negros Occidental. His counsel, Atty.
Castellano, filed for apetition for certiorari through registered mail. Due to non-compliance with
the requirements, the court dismissed the petition and a motion for reconsideration. Atty. Castellano
then sent a complaint to the Office of the President where he accused the five justices of the 2nd
division, with biases and ignorance of the law or knowingly rendering unjust judgments. He accused
the court of sabotaging the Aquino administration for being Marcos appointees, and robbing the Filipino
people genuine justice and democracy. He also said that the SC is doing this to protect the judge who
was impleaded in the petition and for money reasons. He alleges further that the court is too expensive
to be reached by ordinary men. The court is also inconsiderate and overly strict and meticulous. When
asked to show cause why he should not be cited in contempt, Castellano said that the complaintwas
constructive criticism intended to correct in good faith the erroneous and very strict practices of the
justices concerned. He also said that the justices have no jurisdiction over his act and that they should
just answer the complaint. The SC found him guilty of contempt and improper conduct and ordered to
pay P1, 000 or imprisonment of 15 days, and to suffer six months suspension.

Issue: Whether or not the Atty. Castellanos acts constitute a violation of the provisions of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.

Held: Yes. The court found his comments scurrilous and contumacious. He went beyond the bounds of
constructive criticism. What he said are not relevant to the cause of his client. They cast aspersion on
the Courts integrity as a neutral and final arbiter of all justiciable controversies before it.

The explanation of Castellano in his negligence in the filing of the petition for certiorari did not render
his negligence excusable. It is clear that the case was lost not by the alleged injustices Castellano
irresponsibly ascribed to the members of the Court, but his inexcusable negligence and incompetence.

As an officer of the court, he should have known better than to smear the honor and integrity of the
Court just to keep the confidence of his client.
Also, with the complaint he filed, the most basic tenet of the system of government separation of
power - has been lost. He should know that not even the President of the Philippines can pass judgment
on any of the Courts acts.