PALE case no.

Cleto Docena vs Atty. Dominador Q. Limon

A.C. No. 2387 September 10, 1998

FACTS

On April 15, 1982, a complaint for disbarment was filed by Cleto Docena against Atty.

Dominador Q. Limon, Sr., on grounds of malpractice, gross misconduct, and violation of

attorney's oath.

Atty. Limon was complainant's lawyer on appeal for Forcible Entry. While the appeal was

pending before the Court of First Instance of Eastern Samar, respondent required Docena

spouses to post a bond of P10,000.00 to stay the execution of the appealed decision.

The Respondent even sent a letter dated September 2, 1979 to the Spouses demanding

delivery of the balance (P 4,860.00) for the alleged Bond.

On November 14, 1980, Court rendered a decision on the appealed case in favor of the Docena

spouses. The complainant then went to the CFI to withdraw the supersedeas bond of

P10,000.00, but he thereupon discovered that no such bond was ever posted by respondent.

The IBP suspended Atty. Limon for one year. Hence this petition.

ISSUE

Whether or not the suspension of the IBP is valid

SC RULING

The Court finds the recommended penalty too light. Truly, the amount involved may be small,

but the nature of the transgression calls for a heavier sanction. Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 and Rule

16.01 of Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides conduct the lawyers

must abide.

Respondent infringed and breached these rules. Verily, good moral character is not only a

condition precedent to admission to the legal profession, but it must also be possessed at all

times in order to maintain one's good standing in character that exclusive and honored

fraternity.

He has sullied the integrity of his brethren in the law and has, indirectly, eroded the peoples'

confidence in the judicial system. By his reprehensible conduct, which is reflective of his

depraved character, respondent has made himself unworthy to remain in the Roll of Attorneys.
He should be disbarred.

NELIA A. ZIGA, COMPLAINANT, VS.JUDGE RAMON A. AREJOLA, RESPONDENT, A.M. No. MTJ-99-
1203, June 10, 2003

Facts:

This is a complaint filed by Nelia A. Ziga against his co-heir Judge Ramon A. Arejola for appearing as a
counsel in a land registration case without permission from the Supreme Court.

While respondent was employed as an attorney in a Public Attorney's Office (PAO), he filed in behalf
of his co-heirs, an application for registration of title of the lot. On June 9, 1997, respondent was
appointed judge of the MTC of Daet, Camarines Norte and took his oath on August 1, 1997.
Respondent Judge continued to appear in the land registration case despite his appointment.

On October 31, 1997, he was requested by the court hearing the land registration case to submit his
written authority from the Supreme Court to appear as counsel in the said case. This order was
reiterated on June 15, 1998.

In the present complaint, Nelia Arejola Ziga alleges that respondent should be disciplined for
appearing before a court as counsel without securing the permission of the Supreme Court and for
asking contingent attorney's fees and agent's commission amounting to 30% of the gross selling
price of the property subject of the land registration case.

Issue:

Whether or not the respondent is liable for illegal practice of law.

Ruling:

Yes. Under Rule 138, Section 35 of the Revised Rules of Court, judges are prohibited from engaging
in the private practice of law or giving professional advice to clients. This is reiterated in Canon 5 of
the Code of Judicial Conduct which enjoins members of the bench to regulate their extra-judicial
activities to minimize the risk of conflict with their judicial duties. Rule 5.07 of the Code in particular
states:
A judge shall not engage in the private practice of law. Unless prohibited by the Constitution or law,
a judge may engage in the practice of any other profession provided that such practice will not
conflict or tend to conflict with judicial functions.

These provisions are based on public policy for there is no question that the rights, duties, privileges
and functions of the office of an attorney-at-law are inherently incompatible with the high official
functions, duties, powers, discretion and privileges of a judge. It also aims to ensure that judges give
their full time and attention to their judicial duties, prevent them from extending special favors to
their own private interests and assure the public of their impartiality in the performance of their
functions. These objectives are dictated by a sense of moral decency and desire to promote the
public interest.

It should be clarified that prohibited private practice of a profession is more than an isolated
court appearance, for it consists in frequent or customary action, a succession of acts of the
same nature habitually or customarily holding ones self to the public as a lawyer. [32] It is
evident that the instances when respondent appeared and represented his co-heirs are not
isolated, thus, constituting the private practice of the law profession as contemplated by law.

I. TITLE: CRUZ VS ATTY. CABRERA

II. CITATION: A.C. No. 5737. October 25, 2004

III. TOPIC: MISCONDUCT

IV. FACTS:

Complainant alleges that he is a fourth year law student. Since the latter part of 2001, he instituted
several actions against his neighbors and appeared for and in his behalf in his own cases. He met
respondent who acted as the counsel of his neighbors. In one case before the Regional Trial Court,
respondent asked the complainant whether he is a lawyer or not and the complainant remarked that
respondent engulfed with anger in a raising voice said, Appear ka ng appear, pumasa ka muna; x x x.

Respondents imputations were uncalled for and the latters act of compelling the court to ask
complainant whether he is a lawyer or not was intended to malign him before the public, inasmuch
as respondent knew that complainant is not a lawyer, having appeared for and in his behalf as a
party litigant in prior cases; respondents imputations of complainants misrepresentation as a lawyer
was patently with malice to discredit his honor, with the intention to threaten him not to appear
anymore in cases respondent was handling; the manner, substance, tone of voice and how the
words appear ka ng appear, pumasa ka muna! were uttered were totally with the intention to
annoy, vex and humiliate, malign, ridicule, incriminate and discredit complainant before the public.

Complainant claims that respondents display of improper attitude, arrogance, misbehavior,

misconduct in the performance of his duties both as a lawyer and officer of the court, before the
public and the court, was a patent transgression of the very ethics that lawyers are sworn to uphold
in their dealings with society and corresponding appropriate penalty or sanctions for the said
administrative violations should be imposed on the respondent.

V. ISSUE:

Whether or not the act of respondent violates the Code of Professional Responsibility.

VI. RULING:

We hold that respondents outburst of appear ka ng appear, pumasa ka muna does not amount to a
violation of Rule 8.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Based on the facts of this case, such outburst came about when respondent pointed out to the trial
court that complainant is not a lawyer to correct the judges impression of complainants appearance,
inasmuch as the judge, in her Order of January 14, 2002, noted that complainant is a lawyer. Such
single outburst, though uncalled for, is not of such magnitude as to warrant respondents suspension
or reproof. It is but a product of impulsiveness or the heat of the moment in the course of an
argument between them. It has been said that lawyers should not be held to too strict an account
for words said in the heat of the moment, because of chagrin at losing cases, and that the big way is
for the court to condone even contemptuous language

Nonetheless, we remind respondent that complainant is not precluded from litigating personally his
cases. A partys right to conduct litigation personally is recognized by Section 34 of Rule 138 of the
Rules of Court:

On the other hand, all lawyers should take heed that lawyers are licensed officers of the courts who
are empowered to appear, prosecute and defend; and upon whom peculiar duties, responsibilities
and liabilities are devolved by law as a consequence. Membership in the bar imposes upon them
certain obligations. Mandated to maintain the dignity of the legal profession, they must conduct
themselves honorably and fairly Though a lawyers language may be forceful and emphatic, it should
always be dignified and respectful, befitting the dignity of the legal profession. The use of
intemperate language and unkind ascriptions has no place in the dignity of judicial forum.

WHEREFORE, the complaint against respondent Atty. Stanley Cabrera for misconduct in violation of
the Code of Professional Responsibility is DISMISSED for lack of merit. He is, however, admonished
to be more circumspect in the performance of his duties as an officer of the court.

FACTS:

A complaint for misrepresentation and non-payment of IBP dues was filed against Attorney
Francisco Llamas.

In the complaint, the respondent was also cited for non-payment of his professional taxes or PTR as
pleadings made by him were filed in court.
ISSUE:

WON Atty. Francisco Llamas is a member of good standing in the Integrated Bar?

RULING:

In accordance with these provisions, respondent can engage in the practice of law only by paying his
dues, and it does not matter that his practice is "limited." While it is true that R.A. No. 7432, 4 grants
senior citizens "exemption from the payment of individual income taxes: provided, that their annual
taxable income does not exceed the poverty level as determined by the National Economic and
Development Authority (NEDA) for that year," the exemption does not include payment of
membership or association dues.

Second. By indicating "IBP-Rizal 259060" in his pleadings and thereby misrepresenting to the public
and the courts that he had paid his IBP dues to the Rizal Chapter, respondent is guilty of violating the
Code of Professional Responsibility which provides:

Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

CANON 7 - A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL
PROFESSION, AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR. Esmso

CANON 10 - A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT.

Rule 10.01 - A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any court; nor shall he
mislead or allow the court to be misled by any artifice.

Respondents failure to pay his IBP dues and his misrepresentation in the pleadings he filed in court
indeed merit the most severe penalty. However, in view of respondents advanced age, his express
willingness to pay his dues and plea for a more temperate application of the law,[8] we believe the
penalty of one year suspension from the practice of law or until he has paid his IBP dues, whichever
is later, is appropriate.

ARTEMIO ENDAYA vs. ATTY. WILFREDO OCA

[A.C. No. 3967. September 3, 2003.]

Facts:
This case unfolded with a verified Complaint filed on January 12, 1993 by complainant
Artemio Endaya against respondent Atty. Wilfredo Oca for violation of the lawyer's oath and what
complainant termed as "professional delinquency or infidelity." The antecedents are:
 On November 7, 1991, a complaint for unlawful detainer docketed as Civil Case No. 34-MCTC-
T was filed with the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Taysan-Lobo, Batangas by Apolonia H. Hornilla,
Pedro Hernandez, Santiago Hernandez and Dominador Hernandez against complainant and his
spouse Patrosenia Endaya.
On December 13, 1991, the complainant and his wife as defendants in the case filed their answer
which was prepared by a certain Mr. Isaias Ramirez. A preliminary conference was conducted on
January 17, 1992, which complainant and his wife attended without counsel. During the conference,
complainant categorically admitted that plaintiffs were the declared owners for taxation purposes of the
land involved in the case. Continuation of the preliminary conference was set on January 31, 1992.
Thereafter, complainant sought the services of the Public Attorney's Office in Batangas City and
respondent was assigned to handle the case for the complainant and his wife.
At the continuation of the preliminary conference, respondent appeared as counsel for
complainant and his spouse. He moved for the amendment of the answer previously filed by
complainant and his wife, but his motion was denied. Thereafter, the court, presided by Acting Trial
Court Judge Teodoro M. Baral, ordered the parties to submit their affidavits and position papers within
ten days from receipt of the order. The court also decreed that thirty days after receipt of the last affidavit
and position paper, or upon expiration of the period for filing the same, judgment shall be rendered on
the case.
Respondent failed to submit the required affidavits and position paper, as may be gleaned from
the Decision dated March 19, 1992 of the MCTC where it was noted that "only the plaintiffs submitted
their affidavits and position papers." Nonetheless, the court dismissed the complaint for unlawful
detainer principally on the ground that the plaintiffs are not the real parties-in-interest.
Plaintiffs appealed the Decision to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Batangas City, Branch 1,
where the case was docketed as Civil Case No. 3378. On April 10, 1992, the RTC directed the parties
to file their respective memoranda. Once again, respondent failed the complainant and his wife. As
observed by the RTC in its Decision the decision appealed from as it held that plaintiffs are the co-
owners of the property in dispute and as such are parties-in-interest. It also found that the verbal lease
agreement was on a month-to-month basis and perforce terminable by the plaintiffs at the end of any
given month upon proper notice to the defendants. It also made a finding that defendants incurred
rentals in arrears.
Complainant received a copy of the Decision on October 7, 1992. Two days later, or on October
9, 1992, complainant confronted respondent with the adverse decision but the latter denied receipt of a
copy thereof. Upon inquiry with the Branch Clerk of Court, however, complainant found out that
respondent received his copy back on September 14, 1992.
Having lost the unlawful detainer case, on January 12, 1993 complainant filed the present
administrative complaint against the respondent for professional delinquency consisting of his failure to
file the required pleadings in behalf of the complainant and his spouse. Complainant contends that due
to respondent's inaction he lost the opportunity to present his cause and ultimately the case itself.

Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Oca violated the CPR?

Held:
Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that respondent violated the lawyer's oath and several of the Canons in
the Code of Professional Responsibility. In this case, evidence abound that respondent failed to
demonstrate the required diligence in handling the case. Every case a lawyer accepts deserves full
attention, diligence, skill, and competence, regardless of its importance and whether he accepts it for a
fee or for free. In other words, whatever the lawyer's reason is for accepting a case, he is duty bound
to do his utmost in prosecuting or defending it. When respondent was directed to file the required
pleadings, he had no choice but to comply. However, respondent did not bother to do so, in total
disregard of the court orders. This constitutes negligence and malpractice.The facts and circumstances
in this case indubitably showed respondent's failure to live up to his duties as a lawyer in consonance
with the strictures of the lawyer's oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility, thereby warranting
his suspension from the practice of law. The Court ordered the suspension of respondent from the
practice of law for two months.