Professional Documents
Culture Documents
- Absence of pubic hair healed hymenal lacerations, After Oleby's direct examination had been finished, Atty.
incomplete at 1, 5, 8, 11 o'clock positions. Brotonel, accused-appellant's counsel, did not conduct any
cross examination on the ground that he was convinced Oleby
INTERNAL EXAMINATION: was telling the truth.[15]
- Vagina admits 1 finger with ease. On that same day, Maricris also testified. She related how she
- Cervix small (-) bleeding was raped by her father on March 3, 1996, the year before,
- Uterus not enlarged. when she was 11 years old. At about eight o'clock in the
-Adnexae (-). evening of said date, while her brother and sisters were
sleeping, she was pulled by her father towards his bed and
LABORATORY EXAMINATION told to lie down. Accused-appellant then placed himself on
top of Maricris and inserted his penis into her vagina. Maricris
- Smear for the presence of spermatozoa revealed Negative pleaded "Papa, huwag po, maawa naman kayo sa
result. amin." Ignoring his daughter's pleas, accused-appellant
continued raping her by making a pumping motion and
In the case of Maricris Nadera, Dr. Fesalbon explained that the threatened to kill all of them if she cried. Accused-appellant
hymenal lacerations could have been caused by penetration afterwards asked Maricris to put on her shorts and panties
such as through instrumentation or insertion of an object and return to bed. He told Maricris not to cry so as not to
inside the vagina. They could also have been caused by the awaken her siblings. She did not tell anyone what befell her
penetration of the penis. Upon inquiry from the court, Dr. because she was afraid. A neighbor, named Lita Macalalad,
Fesalbon stated that the fact that Maricris had more hymenal asked her if Oleby had been raped by their father. It turned
lacerations than Oleby could be due to the difference in the out Oleby had told her ordeal to Lita Macalalad while they
impact of penetration. She added that the number of times were washing clothes and talking about Oleby's parents.
each of the girls had sexual intercourse could not be Oleby also told Lita Macalalad that Maricris had been raped
ascertained merely from the hymenal lacerations, although it by their father as well, a fact related to Oleby by Maricris. [16]
could be concluded that an object had been inserted in the
vagina.[13] Daisy Nadera, accused-appellant's wife, also testified for the
prosecution. Her testimony focused on the dates of births of
Oleby Nadera testified about the rapes committed by her her children and the fact that she was out of the country
father against her as follows: when the alleged rapes occurred. She testified that she and
her daughters filed a complaint for rape against accused-
On May 17, 1992, at around 10 o'clock in the evening, while appellant after discovering his hideous acts. Thereafter, her
Daisy was away working as a domestic helper in Bahrain, children were subjected to a medical examination.[17]
accused- appellant pulled Oleby, then nine years of age,
towards a bed, removed her panties and shorts and ordered On August 12, 1997, the prosecution formally offered its
her to keep quiet. He then placed himself on top of her and documentary evidence and rested its case thereafter.
inserted his penis into her vagina. He proceeded to make an
up and down motion while on top of his daughter. All the Accused-appellant did not present any evidence in his
while, Oleby was crying, pleading with her father, "Huwag defense.
po!", "Huwag po!" Accused-appellant again ordered Oleby to
keep quiet lest her brother and sisters were awakened. On August 27, 1997, the trial court rendered judgment finding
Afterwards, accused-appellant told Oleby to put on her accused-appellant guilty of four counts of rape against his
panties and shorts and to go to sleep. Oleby went to the bed daughters. The dispositive portion of its decision[18] reads:
where her brother and sisters were sleeping and cried.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court finds accused Elegio Nadera, Jr.,
guilty beyond reasonable doubt, as principal, of the crime of
Rape [4 counts] with the qualifying circumstance that the 4982 to C-4985.[22] On what exactly accused-appellant said in
victims are under 18 years of age and the offender is a parent. entering his plea of guilty and what exactly he had been told
He is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty ofReclusion by the trial judge, the records shed no light. There is thus no
Perpetua ranging from 20 years and 1 day to 40 years for the evidence to show that accused-appellant's guilty plea was
rape committed on May 17, 1992 and three DEATH voluntarily made or that he had fully understood the
PENALTIES for the rape committed on April 17 and 24, 1995 consequences of such plea.
and March 3, 1996, together with the accessory penalties
provided by law. He is also ordered to indemnify victim Oleby In its decision, the trial court described the manner in which
Nadera the total amount of P150,000.00 in Criminal Case Nos. the accused pleaded guilty, thus:
C-4982, C-4983 and C-4984 and Maricris Nadera, the amount
of P50,000.00 in Criminal Case No. C-4985, without subsidiary Upon arraignment, accused, assisted by Atty. Manolo A.
imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs. Brotonel of the Public Attorney's Office, pleaded not guilty to
the crime charged. However, on August 5, 1997, when these
S OO R D E R E D. cases were called for pre-trial and trial, counsel for the
accused manifested that the accused, realizing the futility of
As already stated, accused-appellant's lone assignment of entering into trial and considering that he actually committed
error is that the trial court accepted his plea of guilty to a the acts complained of, intimated his intention to enter a plea
capital offense without making a searching inquiry to of guilty to the above- mentioned charges. The accused was
determine whether he understood the consequences of his then asked by this Court if he was aware of the consequences
plea. In support of his contention, accused-appellant invokes of a plea of guilty to a capital offense: that for the rape he
the ruling in the case of People v. Dayot[19] in which this Court committed on May 17, 1992 against his daughter, Oleby
ruled that, in criminal cases, the judge must be convinced that Nadera, who was 9 years old at the time, he would be
the accused, in pleading guilty, is truly guilty. This could be sentenced to reclusion perpetua and for the three other
done by requiring him to narrate the events leading to the counts of rape committed on April 17 and 24, 1995 [both
crime, making him reenact it, or asking him to supply missing against Oleby Nadera] and on March 3, 1996 [against Maricris
details. The judge must satisfy himself that: (1) the accused is Nadera, 11 years old at the time], he would be sentenced to
voluntarily pleading guilty, and (2) he is truly guilty and there death by lethal injection. After having been informed of this,
is a rational basis for a finding of guilt based on his testimony. he insisted that he is willing to enter a plea of guilty to the
crimes charged and is ready to face the consequences
We find merit in accused-appellant's allegations. In addition, thereof.[23]
we find that there was inadequate representation of his case
in court, thus necessitating the remand of this case for further The warnings given by the trial court in this case fall short of
proceedings. the requirement that it must make a searching inquiry to
determine whether accused-appellant understood fully the
I. import of his guilty plea. As has been said, a mere warning
that the accused faces the supreme penalty of death is
Rule 116 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure provides: insufficient.[24] For more often than not, an accused pleads
guilty upon bad advice or because he hopes for a lenient
treatment or a lighter penalty. The trial judge must erase such
SEC. 3. Plea of guilty to capital offense; reception of evidence.-
mistaken impressions.[25] He must be completely convinced
When the accused pleads guilty to a capital offense, the court
that the guilty plea made by the accused was not made under
shall conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and
duress or promise of reward. The judge must ask the accused
full comprehension of the consequences of his plea and
the manner the latter was arrested or detained, and whether
require the prosecution to prove his guilt and the precise
he was assisted by counsel during the custodial and
degree of culpability. The accused may also present evidence
preliminary investigations. In addition, the defense counsel
on his behalf.
should also be asked whether he conferred with the accused
and completely explained to him the meaning and the
Under this Rule, three things are enjoined upon the trial court consequences of a plea of guilt. Furthermore, since the age,
when a plea of guilty to a capital offense is entered: (1) the educational attainment and socio-economic status of the
court must conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness accused may reveal insights for a proper verdict in the case,
of the plea and the accused's full comprehension of the the trial court must ask questions concerning them. [26] In this
consequences thereof; (2) the court must require the case, absent any showing that these questions were put to
prosecution to present evidence to prove the guilt of the accused-appellant, a searching inquiry cannot be said to have
accused and the precise degree of his culpability; and, (3) the been undertaken by the trial court.
court must ask the accused if he desires to present evidence
on his behalf and allow him to do so if he desires.[20]
What the trial court did in this case, as described in its
decision, is similar to what happened in People v. Sevilleno.
What constitutes a searching inquiry, as explained in People v. [27]
In that case, the accused was charged with the rape and
Alicando,[21] is that the plea of guilt must be based on a free homicide of a nine-year old girl. The accused pleaded guilty
and informed judgment. Hence, a searching inquiry must whereupon the judge asked him questions: (1) Do you
focus on: (1) the voluntariness of the plea, and (2) the full understand your plea of guilt? and (2) Do you know that your
comprehension of the consequences of the plea. plea of guilt could bring the death penalty? This Court held
that these questions did not constitute a searching inquiry.
In the case at bar, the record does not show what exactly
transpired at the re-arraignment of accused-appellant, for . . . In every case where the accused enters a plea of guilty to
what reason he changed his plea from "not guilty" to "guilty," a capital offense, especially where he is an ignorant person
and whether he fully understood the consequences of his with little or no education, the proper and prudent course to
guilty plea. The only indication in the record that accused- follow is to take such evidence as are available and necessary
appellant changed his plea to guilty is the Certificates of Re- in support of the material allegations of the information,
Arraignment, dated August 5, 1997, in Criminal Case Nos. C- including the aggravating circumstances therein enumerated,
not only to satisfy the trial judge himself but also to aid the finding of facts or the rulings on points of law with which he
Supreme Court in determining whether the accused really disagrees. More than that, the requirement is an assurance to
and truly understood and comprehended the meaning, full the parties that, in reaching judgment, the judge did so
significance and consequences of his plea.[28] through the processes of legal reasoning. It is, thus, a
safeguard against the impetuosity of the judge, preventing
Clearly, the plea of guilty of accused-appellant in this case was him from deciding by ipse dixit. Vouchsafed neither the sword
made improvidently. nor the purse by the Constitution but nonetheless vested with
the sovereign prerogative of passing judgment on the life,
II. liberty or property of his fellowmen, the judge must
ultimately depend on the power of reason for sustained
public confidence in the justness of his decision. The decision
Convictions based on an improvident plea of guilt are set
of the trial court in this case disrespects the judicial function.
aside only if such plea is the sole basis of the judgment. If the
trial court relied on sufficient and credible evidence to convict
the accused, the conviction must be sustained, because then Second. The cavalier attitude of accused-appellant's counsel,
it is predicated not merely on the guilty plea of the accused Atty. Manolo A. Brotonel of the Public Attorney's Office,
but on evidence proving his commission of the offense cannot go unnoticed. It is discernible in (a) his refusal to cross
charged.[29] examine Oleby Nadera; (b) the manner in which he conducted
Maricris Nadera's cross examination; and, (c) his failure not
only to present evidence for the accused but also to inform
As already stated, the prosecution evidence consisted of the
the accused of his right to do so, if he desires.
testimonies of Oleby and Maricris Nadera, the results of their
medical examinations, and the testimonies of their mother,
Daisy, and the physician who conducted the medical Only faithful performance by counsel of his duty towards his
examination of the two girls, Dr. Cynthia Fesalbon. Certain client can give meaning and substance to the accused's right
circumstances present in this case, however, persuade us that to due process and to be presumed innocent until proven
a remand of this case is necessary. otherwise. Hence, a lawyer's duty, especially that of a defense
counsel, must not be taken lightly. It must be performed with
all the zeal and vigor at his command to protect and
First. A perusal of the decision of the court reveals that the
safeguard the accused's fundamental rights.
trial judge failed to state the factual and legal reasons on
which he based accused-appellant's conviction. Except for the
narration of the prosecution's evidence and a bare recital of In the case of People vs. Bermas,[31] no less than three PAO
R.A. No.7659, amending Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code, lawyers were found by the Court to have failed in performing
there is nothing else to indicate the reason for the decision. their duties to their client, an accused charged with raping his
There is no evaluation of the evidence and no reason given daughter. The first lawyer inexplicably waived the cross
why the court found the testimonies of the witnesses examination of the private complainant and later asked to be
credible. Rule 120 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure relieved of her duties as counsel de oficio. A second lawyer
provides: appointed by the court missed several hearings during the
trial and could no longer be located. The third PAO lawyer
appointed by the trial court accepted his duties reluctantly
Sec. 2. Form and contents of judgment.- The judgment must
and later ceased to appear for the accused. This Court held
be written in the official language, personally and directly
that:
prepared by the judge and signed by him and shall contain
clearly and distinctly a statement of the facts proved or
admitted by the accused and the law upon which the The right to counsel must be more than just the presence of a
judgment is based. lawyer in the courtroom or the mere propounding of standard
questions and objections. The right to counsel means that the
accused is amply accorded legal assistance extended by a
If it is of conviction, the judgment shall state (a) the legal
counsel who commits himself to the cause for the defense
qualification of the offense constituted by the acts committed
and acts accordingly. The right assumes an active involvement
by the accused, and the aggravating or mitigating
by the lawyer in the proceedings, particularly at the trial of
circumstances attending the commission thereof, if there be
the case, his bearing constantly in mind of the basic rights of
any; (b) participation of the accused in the commission of the
the accused, his being well-versed on the case and his
offense, whether as principal, accomplice, or accessory after
knowing the fundamental procedures, essential laws and
the fact; (c) the penalty imposed upon the accused; and (d)
existing jurisprudence. The right of an accused to counsel
the civil liability or damages caused by the wrongful act to be
finds substance in the performance by the lawyer of his sworn
recovered from the accused by the offended party, if there be
duty of fidelity to his client. Tersely put, it means an efficient
any, unless the enforcement of the civil liability by a separate
and truly decisive legal assistance and not a simple
action has been reserved or waived.
perfunctory representation.
In case of acquittal, unless there is a clear showing that the
Measured by this standard, the defense counsels conduct in
act from which the civil liability might arise did not exist, the
this case falls short of the quality of advocacy demanded of
judgment shall make a finding on the civil liability of the
him, considering the gravity of the offense charged and the
accused in favor of the offended party.
finality of the penalty. A glaring example of his manifest lack
of enthusiasm for his client's cause is his decision not to cross
In People v. Bugarin,[30] we stated: examine Oleby Nadera, as revealed in the following portion of
the records:
The requirement that the decisions of courts must be in
writing and that they must set forth clearly and distinctly the COURT:
facts and the law on which they are based serves many
functions. It is intended, among other things, to inform the
.Any cross?
parties of the reason or reasons for the decision so that if any
of them appeals, he can point out to the appellate court the
ATTY. BROTONEL: conformity to the admission of the same. Neither did he
present any evidence on behalf of accused-appellant.
[37]
.....If Your Honor please, we are not conducting any cross- Worse, nowhere in the records is it shown that accused-
examination, because this representation, from the demeanor appellant was informed, either by his counsel or by the court,
of the witness, I am convinced that she is telling the truth. [32] of his right to present evidence, if he so desires.
It may be so that defense counsel personally found Oleby's Atty. Brotonel, as counsel de oficio, had the duty to defend his
testimony to be believable. Nonetheless, he had the bounden client and protect his rights, no matter how guilty or evil he
duty to scrutinize private complainant's testimony to ensure perceives accused-appellant to be. The performance of this
that the accused's constitutional right to confront and duty was all the more imperative because the life of accused-
examine the witnesses against him was not rendered for appellant hangs in the balance. His duty was no less because
naught. he was counsel de oficio.
It bears pointing out that in rape cases, it is often the word of In view of the foregoing, we find it necessary to remand the
the complainant against that of the accused, the two being case for the proper arraignment and trial of the accused,
the only persons present during the commission of the considering not only the accused's improvident plea of guilt
offense. While the lone testimony of the victim is sufficient to but also his lawyer's neglect in representing his cause. A new
convict the accused, such testimony must be clear, positive, trial has been ordered in criminal cases on the ground of
convincing and consistent with human nature and the normal retraction of witnesses, negligence or incompetency of
course of things. Complainant's testimony cannot be accepted counsel, improvident plea of guilty, disqualification of an
with precipitate credulity without denying the accused's attorney de oficio to represent the accused in the trial court,
constitutional right to be presumed innocent.[33] This is where and where a judgment was rendered on a stipulation of facts
cross examination becomes essential to test the credibility of entered into by both the prosecution and the defense.[38]
the witnesses, expose falsehoods or half-truths, uncover the
truth which rehearsed direct examination testimonies may WHEREFORE, the decision, dated April 27, 1997, of the
successfully suppress, and demonstrate inconsistencies in Regional Trial Court, Branch 40, Calapan, Oriental Mindoro, is
substantial matters which create reasonable doubt as to the hereby SET ASIDE and Criminal Case Nos. C-4982, C-4983, C-
guilt of the accused and thus to give substance to the 4984 and C-4985 are REMANDED to it for further proceedings
constitutional right of the accused to confront the witnesses in accordance with this decision. The trial court is enjoined to
against him. For unless proven otherwise to be guilty beyond conduct the proper trial of accused-appellant with all
all reasonable doubt, the accused is presumed to be innocent. deliberate speed upon receipt of the records of the cases.
[34]
SO ORDERED.2/28/00 9:29 AM
Indeed, cross examining Oleby Nadera becomes indispensable
if her testimony is viewed together with the results of her Hadjula vs. Atty Madiana [A.C. No. 6711. July 3, 2007]
medical examination. Oleby Nadera claimed that she was last
raped by her father on April 24, 1995. [35] Yet, the medical FACTS:
examination conducted on her on April 30, 1996 [36] revealed
the presence of spermatozoa in the vaginal canal on that [C]omplainant alleged that she and respondent used to be
date. This was a year after the last rape allegedly committed friends as they both worked at the Bureau of Fire Protection
by her father. This evident discrepancy leads to only one (BFP), claimed that she approached respondent for some
natural conclusion: Oleby engaged in sexual intercourse a few
legal advice and further alleged that in the course of their
days before she was examined. This raises a number of
questions that bear upon the credibility of Oleby as a witness conversation which was supposed to be kept confidential she
and upon the guilt of accused- appellant. This may not disclosed personal secrets only to be informed later by the
necessarily mean that she was lying when she said that on respondent that she (respondent) would refer the matter to a
April 24, 1995 she had been raped by accused-appellant, but lawyer friend. It was malicious, so complainant states, of
it does indicate a necessity-that of cross examining her in respondent to have refused handling her case only after she
order to ferret out the truth. had already heard her secrets.
The same may be said of defense counsel's treatment of [R]espondent denied giving legal advice to the complainant
Maricris' testimony. While she was cross examined by defense and dismissed any suggestion about the existence of a lawyer-
counsel, the examination was at best a half-hearted attempt
client relationship between them. Respondent also stated the
to comply with a lawyer's obligation, lacking the rigor and zeal
required considering that a man's life is at stake. The cross observation that the supposed confidential data and sensitive
examination centered on what Maricris did or did not do documents adverted to are in fact matters of common
while she witnessed her sister being raped, and on her failure knowledge in the BFP.
to report the allegedly incestuous rapes against them. Said
cross examination did not even touch upon the specific details ISSUE:
concerning the rape committed against her. Containing lurid
details as it may be, it was nonetheless important to probe Whether or not the Atty. Madiana breached her duty of
Maricris' testimony, especially since it was substantially preserving the confidence of a client and violated the Code of
similar to the first incident of rape narrated by her sister, and Professional Responsibility.
thus raised the possibility that it was a rehearsed, if not
concocted, story. HELD:
Lastly, not only did defense counsel fail to object to the YES. Respondent was reprimanded and admonished.
documentary evidence presented by the prosecution,
according to the trial court's decision, he even expressed his RATIO:
The moment complainant approached the then receptive demands upon respondent to return and account to her the
respondent to seek legal advice, a veritable lawyer-client amounts previously consigned with the HLURB. Respondent
relationship evolved between the two. Such relationship did not comply. Thus, complainant prays that respondent be
imposes upon the lawyer certain restrictions circumscribed by disbarred.
the ethics of the profession. Among the burdens of the
relationship is that which enjoins the lawyer, respondent in In his answer, respondent admitted substantially all of the
this instance, to keep inviolate confidential information allegations in the complaint. In defense, he claims that the
acquired or revealed during legal consultations. amount of P311,819.94 was consigned to the HLURB to cover
the full payment of the balance of the purchase price of the
The seriousness of the respondents offense notwithstanding, lot with Fil-Estate. Fil-Estate, however, did not accept the
the Supreme Court feels that there is room for compassion, same as it wanted complainant to also pay interests and
absent compelling evidence that the respondent acted with surcharges totalling more than P 800,000.00. Because the
ill-will. Without meaning to condone the error of amount was formally consigned with the HLURB, he allegedly
respondents ways, what at bottom is before the Court is two filed a motion1 to verify if the judgment in the case was
former friends becoming bitter enemies and filing charges already satisfied. He claimed that his motion has not yet been
and counter-charges against each other using whatever acted upon; hence, he did not deem it proper as yet to return
convenient tools and data were readily available. the consigned amount.
Unfortunately, the personal information respondent gathered
from her conversation with complainant became handy in her Following the submission by complainant of her verified
quest to even the score. At the end of the day, it appears clear position paper and the failure of respondent to submit his,
to the Court that respondent was actuated by the urge to despite having been given ample opportunity to do so, the
retaliate without perhaps realizing that, in the process of Commission on Bar Discipline, through Attorney Gerely C.
giving vent to a negative sentiment, she was violating the rule Rico, submitted its Report and Recommendation finding
on confidentiality. complainant to have sufficiently established that respondent
violated Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
A.C. No. 9390 August 1, 2012 It also found respondent to have submitted a false and
EMILIA O. DHALIWAL, Complainant, fabricated piece of documentary evidence, as the January
vs. 2004 Motion attached to his answer as Annex A did not bear
ATTY. ABELARDO B. DUMAGUING, Respondent.
any proof of service upon the opposing party and proof of
RESOLUTION
filing with the HLURB. The Commission recommended that
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a
Emilia O. Dhaliwal filed a complaint for violation of Canon 16 period of one (1) year. On September 19, 2007, the IBP Board
of the Code of Professional Responsibility against Atty. of Governors passed Resolution No. XVIII-2007-93, adopting
Abelardo B. Dumaguing. with modification the Commissions Report and
Recommendation, to wit:
In her sworn statement, complainant alleged that she
engaged the services of respondent in connection with the RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED
purchase of a parcel of land from Fil-Estate Development, Inc. and APPROVED, with modification, the Report and
(Fil-Estate). On June 13, 2000, upon the instruction of Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner of the
respondent, complainants daughter and son-in-law above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as
withdrew P 342,000.00 from the Philippine National Bank Annex A; and, finding the recommendation fully supported
(PNB) and handed the cash over to respondent. They then by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules,
proceeded to BPI Family Bank Malcolm Square Branch where and considering Respondents violation of Canon 16 of the
respondent purchased two managers checks in the amounts Code of Professional Responsibility by his failure to return and
of P 58,631.94 and P 253,188.00 both payable to the order of account to complainant the amount previously consigned
Fil-Estate Inc. When asked why the managers checks were with the HLURB despite demand, Atty. Abelardo B.
not purchased at PNB, respondent explained that he has Dumaguing is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for
friends at the BPI Family Bank and that is where he maintains six (6) months and Ordered to Return the amount
an account. These managers checks were subsequently of P 311,819.94 to complainant within thirty (30) days from
consigned with the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board receipt of notice.
(HLURB) after complainants request to suspend payments to
Respondents motion for reconsideration was denied by the
Fil-Estate had been granted. On September 22, 2000,
IBP Board of Governors in Resolution No. XX-2012-42.
respondent, on behalf of complainant, filed with the HLURB a
complaint for delivery of title and damages against Fil-Estate. The Court adopts the IBPs findings of fact and conclusions of
A week after or on September 29, 2000, he withdrew the two law.
managers checks that were previously consigned. On March
3, 2003, complainant informed the HLURB through a letter The Code of Professional Responsibility provides:
that respondent was no longer representing her. On March
11, 2003, the HLURB promulgated its Decision, adverse to Canon 16-A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and
complainant, finding the case for delivery of title and properties of his client that may come into his possession.
damages premature as there was no evidence of full payment
Rule 16.01-A lawyer shall account for all money or property
of the purchase price. Thereafter, complainant made
collected or received for or from the client.
Rule 16.02-A lawyer shall keep the funds of each client National Labor Relations. Respondent was their counsel.
separate and apart from his own and those of others kept by Judgment was rendered in their favor, in the amount of
him. P6,500. After the decision became final, a writ of execution
issued. However, without authority from his clients,
Rule 16.03-A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of respondent compromised the award and was able to collect
his client when due or upon demand. P5,500 only.
Money entrusted to a lawyer for a specific purpose, such as Complainants said they made several demands upon
payment for the balance of the purchase price of a parcel of respondent to turn over to them the amount collected minus
land as in the present case, but not used for the purpose, the agreed upon attorney's fees of thirty percent (30%), but
should be immediately returned.2 A lawyers failure to return Atty. Angeles refused and offered to give them only the sum
upon demand the funds held by him on behalf of his client of P2,650.
gives rise to the presumption that he has appropriated the
same for his own use in violation of the trust reposed in him Respondent counsel stated that he offered to give
by his client. Such act is a gross violation of general morality complainants their money, but they insisted that he "deduct
as well as of professional ethics. It impairs public confidence from this attorney's fees the amount of P2,000, representing
in the legal profession and deserves punishment. 3 the amount discounted by the counsel of the Philippine
Racing Club Restaurant, together with sheriff legal fees and
Since respondent withdrew the consignation of the BPI other administrative expenses." Respondent claimed that to
managers checks in the total amount of P 311,891.94 from accept complainants' proposition meant that he "would not
the HLURB and the same was not used to settle the balance be compensated for prosecuting and handling, the case.
of the purchase price of the parcel of land purchased by
complainant from Fil-Estate, then reimbursement with legal ISSUE:
interest4 was properly ordered by the IBP.
Whether respondent Atty. Francisco F. Angeles should be
Respondents proffered excuse of having to await the HLURB suspended from the practice of law because of grave
action on his alleged motion the filing of which he miserably misconduct related to his clients' funds.
failed to prove as a condition to the return of the sum
of P 311 ,891.94 to complainant compounds his liability and HELD
even bolstered his attitude to use dishonest means if only to
Where a member of the bar stands charged with malpractice,
evade his obligation. It underlines his failure to meet the high
the proceedings are not meant solely to rule on his culpability
moral standards required of members of the legal profession.
but also to determine if the lawyer concerned is possessed of
WHEREFORE, Atty. Abelardo B. Dumaguing is that good moral character, which is a condition precedent to
adjudged GUILTY of violating Canon 16 of the Code of the privilege of practicing law and continuing in the practice
Professional Responsibility. He is hereby SUSPENDED from thereof.
the practice of law for a period of six (6) months effective
Money claims due to workers cannot, as a rule, be the object
upon receipt of this Resolution. He is also ordered to return to
of settlement or compromise effected by counsel without the
complainant Emilia O. Dhaliwal, the amount of P311,819.94
consent of the workers concerned . A client has every right to
with legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum from the
expect from his counsel that nothing will be taken or withheld
time of his receipt of the money on September 29, 2000 up to
from him, save by the rules of law validly applied. By
the finality of this Resolution and twelve percent (12%) per
compromising the judgment without the consent of his
annum from finality thereof until paid.
clients, respondent not only went against the stream of
Let copies of this Resolution be furnished the Office of the Bar judicial dicta, he also exhibited an uncaring lack of devotion to
Confidant to be entered into respondents personal records as the interest of his clients as well as want of zeal in the
attorney. Copies shall likewise be furnished the IBP and the maintenance and defense of their rights. In so doing, he
Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts violated Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
concerned.
A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his
SO ORDERED. client that may come into his possession. In the instant case,
the records clearly and abundantly point to respondent's
receipt of and failure to deliver upon demand, the amount of
P4,550 intended for his clients. This is a clear breach of Rule
16.03, Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
A.C. No. 8158 February 24, 2010 complainant submitted in his position paper the affidavit of
ATTY. ELMER C. SOLIDON, Complainant, Flordeliz Cabo-Borata, the mutual acquaintance of both
vs. complainant and respondent. In the said affidavit, Mrs. Cabo-
ATTY. RAMIL E. MACALALAD, Respondent.
Borata described how she repeatedly followed-up the matter
DECISION
with respondent and how respondent turned a deaf ear
BRION, J.:
towards the same. There is nothing on record which would
In a verified complaint1 before the Commission on Bar prompt this Office to view the allegations therein with
Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP caution. In fact, considering that the allegations corroborate
Commission on Bar Discipline), Atty. Elmer C. Solidon (Atty. the undisputed facts of the instant case
Solidon) sought the disbarment of Atty. Ramil E. Macalalad
As respondent has failed to duly present any reasonable
(Atty. Macalalad) for violations of Rule 16.01,2 Rule
18.03,3 and Rule 18.044 of the Code of Professional excuse for the non-filing of the application despite the lapse
of about a year from the time his services were engaged, it is
Responsibility involving negligence in handling a case.
plain that his negligence in filing the application remains
The Facts uncontroverted. And such negligence is contrary to the
mandate prescribed in Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of
Atty. Macalalad is the Chief of the Legal Division of the Professional Responsibility, which enjoins a lawyer not to
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), neglect a legal matter entrusted to him. In fact, Rule 18.03
Regional Office 8, Tacloban City. Although he is in public even provides that his negligence in connection therewith
service, the DENR Secretary has given him the authority to shall render him liable.
engage in the practice of law.
Acting on this recommendation, the Board of Governors of
While on official visit to Eastern Samar in October 2005, Atty. the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline passed Resolution No.
Macalalad was introduced to Atty. Solidon by a mutual XVIII-2008-336 dated July 17, 2008, holding that:
acquaintance, Flordeliz Cabo-Borata (Ms. Cabo-Borata). Atty.
Solidon asked Atty. Macalalad to handle the judicial titling of a RESOLVED TO ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby
parcel of land located in Borongan, Eastern Samar and owned unanimously ADOPTED and APPROVED, with modification,
by Atty. Solidons relatives. For a consideration of Eighty the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating
Thousand Pesos (P80,000.00), Atty. Macalalad accepted the Commissioner of the above-entitled case, herein made part of
task to be completed within a period of eight (8) months. Atty. this Resolution and, finding the recommendation fully
Macalalad received Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws
initial payment; the remaining balance of Thirty Thousand and rules, and considering Respondents violation of Rule
Pesos (P30,000.00) was to be paid when Atty. Solidon 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, Atty. Ramil E.
received the certificate of title to the property. Macalalad is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for
three (3) months and Ordered to Return the amount of Fifty
Atty. Macalalad has not filed any petition for registration over Thousand Pesos (P50,000) with 12% interest per annum to
the property sought to be titled up to the present time. complainant
In the Complaint, Position Papers5 and documentary evidence The case is now before this Court for our final action pursuant
submitted, Atty. Solidon claimed that he tried to contact Atty. to Section 12(b), Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, considering
Macalalad to follow-up on the status of the case six (6) that the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline imposed the
months after he paid the initial legal fees. He did this through penalty of suspension on Atty. Macalalad.
phone calls and text messages to their known acquaintances
and relatives, and, finally, through a letter sent by courier to The Courts Ruling
Atty. Macalalad. However, he did not receive any
We agree with the IBPs factual findings and legal conclusions.
communication from Atty. Macalalad.
In administrative cases against lawyers, the quantum of proof giving these cases appropriate attention and due preparation,
required is preponderance of evidence which the complainant is expected from a lawyer.20
has the burden to discharge.8 We fully considered the
evidence presented and we are fully satisfied that the The records in this case tell us that Atty. Macalalad failed to
complainants evidence, as outlined above, fully satisfies the act as he committed when he failed to file the required
required quantum of proof in proving Atty. Macalalads petition. He cannot now shift the blame to his clients since it
negligence. was his duty as a lawyer to communicate with them. At any
rate, we reject Atty. Macalalads defense that it was his clients
Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional who failed to contact him. Although no previous
Responsibility provides for the rule on negligence and states: communication transpired between Atty. Macalalad and his
clients, the records nevertheless show that Atty. Solidon, who
Rule 18.03 A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter contracted Atty. Macalalads services in behalf of his relatives,
entrusted to him and his negligence in connection therewith tried his best to reach him prior to the filing of the present
shall render him liable. disbarment case. Atty. Solidon even enlisted the aid of Ms.
Cabo-Borata to follow-up on the status of the registration
This Court has consistently held, in construing this Rule, that
application with Atty. Macalalad.
the mere failure of the lawyer to perform the obligations due
to the client is considered per se a violation. As narrated by Ms. Cabo-Borata in her affidavit,21 she
succeeded several times in getting in touch with Atty.
Thus, in Villafuerte v. Cortez,9 we held that a lawyer is
Macalalad and on those occasions asked him about the
negligent if he failed to do anything to protect his clients
progress of the case. To use Ms. Cabo-Boratas own words,
interest after receiving his acceptance fee. In In Re: Atty.
she received no clear-cut answers from him; he just
Briones,10 we ruled that the failure of the counsel to submit
informed her that everything was on process. We give
the required brief within the reglementary period (to the
credence to these narrations considering Atty. Macalalads
prejudice of his client who languished in jail for more than a
failure to contradict them or deny their veracity, in marked
year) is an offense that warrants disciplinary action. In Garcia
contrast with his vigorous denial of Atty. Solidons allegations.
v. Atty. Manuel, we penalized a lawyer for failing to inform the
client of the status of the case, among other matters. 11 We consider, too, that other motivating factors specifically,
the monetary consideration and the fixed period of
Subsequently, in Reyes v. Vitan,12 we reiterated that the act of
performance should have made it more imperative for Atty.
receiving money as acceptance fee for legal services in
Macalalad to promptly take action and initiate
handling the complainants case and, subsequently, in failing
communication with his clients. He had been given initial
to render the services, is a clear violation of Canon 18 of
payment and should have at least undertaken initial delivery
the Code of Professional Responsibility. We made the same
of his part of the engagement.
conclusion in Canoy v. Ortiz13 where we emphatically stated
that the lawyers failure to file the position paper was per se a We further find that Atty. Macalalads conduct refutes his
violation of Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional claim of willingness to perform his obligations. If Atty.
Responsibility. Macalalad truly wanted to file the petition, he could have
acquired the necessary information from Atty. Solidon to
The circumstance that the client was also at fault does not
enable him to file the petition even pending the IBP
exonerate a lawyer from liability for his negligence in handling
Commission on Bar Discipline investigation. As matters now
a case. In Canoy, we accordingly declared that the lawyer
stand, he did not take any action to initiate communication.
cannot shift the blame to his client for failing to follow up on
These omissions unequivocally point to Atty. Macalalads lack
his case because it was the lawyers duty to inform his client
of due care that now warrants disciplinary action.
of the status of the case.14 Our rulings in Macarilay v.
Seria,15 in Heirs of Ballesteros v. Apiag,16 and in Villaflores v. In addition to the above finding of negligence, we also find
Limos17 were of the same tenor. In Villaflores, we opined that Atty. Macalalad guilty of violating Rule 16.01 of the Code of
even if the client has been equally at fault for the lack of Professional Responsibility which requires a lawyer to account
communication, the main responsibility remains with the for all the money received from the client. In this case, Atty.
lawyer to inquire and know the best means to acquire the Macalalad did not immediately account for and promptly
required information. We held that as between the client and return the money he received from Atty. Solidon even after he
his lawyer, the latter has more control in handling the case. failed to render any legal service within the contracted time
of the engagement.22
All these rulings drive home the fiduciary nature of a lawyers
duty to his client once an engagement for legal services is The Penalty
accepted. A lawyer so engaged to represent a client bears the
responsibility of protecting the latters interest with utmost Based on these considerations, we modify the IBP
diligence.18 The lawyer bears the duty to serve his client with Commission on Bar Disciplines recommended penalty by
competence and diligence, and to exert his best efforts to increasing the period of Atty. Macalalads suspension from the
protect, within the bounds of the law, the interest of his or practice of law from three (3) months, to six (6) months.23 In
her client.19 Accordingly, competence, not only in the this regard, we follow the Courts lead in Parias v.
knowledge of law, but also in the management of the cases by Paguinto24 where we imposed on the respondent lawyer
suspension of six (6) months from the practice of law for
violations of Rule 16.01 and Rule 18.03 of the Code of are, first and foremost, officers of the court, bound to exert
every effort to assist in the speedy and efficient administration
Professional Responsibility.
of justice.
Now, there is nothing ethically remiss in a lawyer who files Rule 21.02 A lawyer shall not, to the disadvantage of his
numerous cases in different fora, as long as he does so in client, use information acquired in the course of employment,
good faith, in accordance with the Rules, and without any ill- nor shall he use the same to his own advantage or that of a
motive or purpose other than to achieve justice and fairness. third person, unless the client with full knowledge of the
In the present case, however, we find that the barrage of circumstances consents thereto.
cases filed by the respondent against his former client and
The cases filed by the respondent against his former client
others close to her was meant to overwhelm said client and
involved matters and information acquired by the respondent
to show her that the respondent does not fold easily after he
during the time when he was still Rosarios counsel.
was meted a penalty of one year suspension from the
Information as to the structure and operations of the family
practice of law.
corporation, private documents, and other pertinent facts
The nature of the cases filed by the respondent, the fact of re- and figures used as basis or in support of the cases filed by
filing them after being dismissed, the timing of the filing of the respondent in pursuit of his malicious motives were all
cases, the fact that the respondent was in conspiracy with a acquired through the attorney-client relationship with herein
renegade member of the complainants family, the complainants. Such act is in direct violation of the Canons and
defendants named in the cases and the foul language used in will not be tolerated by the Court.
the pleadings and motions15 all indicate that the respondent
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Eduardo C. De Vera is hereby
was acting beyond the desire for justice and fairness. His act
DISBARRED from the practice of law effective immediately
of filing a barrage of cases appears to be an act of revenge
upon his receipt of this Resolution.
and hate driven by anger and frustration against his former
client who filed the disciplinary complaint against him for Let copies of this Resolution be furnished the Bar Confidant to
infidelity in the custody of a clients funds. be spread on the records of the respondent; the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines for distribution to all its chapters; and
In the case of Prieto v. Corpuz,16 the Court pronounced that it
the Office of the Court Administrator for dissemination to all
is professionally irresponsible for a lawyer to file frivolous
courts throughout the country.
lawsuits. Thus, we stated in Prieto,
SO ORDERED.
Atty. Marcos V. Prieto must be sanctioned for filing this
unfounded complaint. Although no person should be
penalized for the exercise of the right to litigate, however, this
right must be exercised in good faith.17