SC DISBARS LAWYER FOR FORGING COURT DECISION

The Supreme Court (SC) disbarred lawyer Carlos Rivera for having falsified a court ruling on the nullity of a marriage of his client.
“Simulating or participating in the simulation of a court decision and a certificate of finality of the same decision is an outright
criminal falsification or forgery,” the SC said in its 9-page decision.
“One need not be a lawyer to know so, but it was worse in the respondent’s case because he was a lawyer. Thus, his acts were legally
intolerable,” said the High Court
The disbarment stemmed from the complaint filed by Rivera’s former client, Flordeliza Madria.
She had been charged with violating the Philippine Passport Act when she declared she was single and used as supporting
documents the forged decision when she applied for renewal of passport.

SC DISBARS PASAY JUDGE OVER HARASSMENT

The Supreme Court (SC) disbarred a Pasay judge who was earlier dismissed for harassing a fellow judge and refusing to take night
court duty.
In a 22-page resolution dated March 14, 2017, the high court denied with finality Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) Branch 47 Judge
Eliza Yu’s motion for reconsideration on the dismissal order and also rejected her answers to the earlier show cause order on the
disbarment.
The disbarment order is immediately executory as the SC wanted all courts nationwide and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
notified of the ruling.
The high court ordered the cancellation of the dismissed judge’s license to practice law and removal from the rolls of attorneys.
”The Court denies the motion for reconsideration with explanation for the show cause order with finality, disbars effectively
immediately the respondent Eliza B. Yu pursuant to A.M. No. 02-9-02-SC for violation of the Lawyer’s Oath, the Code of Professional
Responsibility and the Canons of Professional Ethics; and orders the striking off of respondent name from the Roll of Attorneys,” the
SC said.
The SC cited the same violations committed by the judge as basis for her disbarment, saying her liabilities under the New Code of
Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary also made her liable under the Code of Professional Conduct for Lawyers.
The high court held that Yu violated Canon 1 of the Code, which requires lawyers to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the
land and promote respect for law and legal processes, for her non-compliance with SC Administrative Order (AO) 19-2011, which
established night courts.
The SC ruled that she also violated Canon 11, which requires lawyers to maintain respect to the courts and judicial officers, by
sending inappropriate messages with sexual undertones to a fellow judge.
It also found Yu guilty of gross misconduct, violation of the lawyer’s oath and willful disobedience of any lawful order.
“Given her wanton defiance of the Court’s own directives, her open disrespect to her fellow judges, her blatant abuse of the powers
appurtenant to her judicial office, and her perchant for threatening the defenseless with legal actions to make them submit to her
will, we should also be imposing the penalty of disbarment,” read the ruling promulgated last March 14.
In its earlier decision, the SC ordered Yu dismissed as a judge after finding her guilty of gross insubordination, gross ignorance of the
law, gross misconduct, grave abuse of authority, oppression and conduct unbecoming of a judicial official.
The SC also ordered the forfeiture of all her benefits, except accrued leave credits, and disqualified her from any public office or
employment, including to one in any government-owned or government-controlled corporations.
Based on SC’s findings, Yu constantly sent alarming messages with sexual undertones via Facebook and e-mail to a fellow judge.
The high court noted that while the Facebook and Yahoo messages started in 2009 when Yu was then a public prosecutor, she could
still be disciplined for such acts committed prior to appointment to the judiciary because her Internet stalking of her fellow judge
continued after she became an MTC judge in Pasay on Jan. 12, 2010 until July 2010. (PNA)

SC DISBARS ABOGADO FOR FALSELY CLAIMING MCLE COMPLIANCE

The Supreme Court (SC) has disbarred abogado Anselmo Echanez for falsely claiming to have his Mandatory Continuing Legal
Education (MCLE) compliance.
In a recent 9-page en banc decision, the High Court ordered the abogado’s name stricken off the roll of attorneys for using a false
MCLE compliance number in his pleadings.
Considering that he had already been sanctioned twice in previous separate cases—for two instances of engaging in notarial practice
without commission—the SC decided to prevent him from further engaging in legal practice.
“Of all classes and professions, the lawyer is most sacredly bound to uphold the laws. He is their sworn servant; and for him, of all
men in the world, to repudiate and override the laws, to trample them underfoot and ignore the very bonds of society, is unfaithful
to his position and office and sets a detrimental example to the society,” read the decision penned by Associate Justice Noel Tijam.
The case arose from the complaint of Virgilio Mapalad, Sr., the plaintiff in a recovery of possession suit where Echanez represented
the defendants.
Mapalad said he discovered the anomaly when Echanez only put his MCLE Compliance Number in his pleadings in 2009, without
stating the date. Upon inquiry, the MCLE Office issued a certification on September 30, 2009 that Echanez had no MCLE compliance
yet.

EX-CHIEF JUSTICE SEES 'ANOMALOUS' VOTE RESULT UNDER JOINT CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY

MANILA - Former Chief Justice Reynato Puno said the Supreme Court could ultimately step in and break a congressional impasse on
how to vote as a constituent assembly over a new constitution.
Puno warned of an “anomalous result” if the much bigger House of Representatives would insist on a joint vote, a scenario senators
fear would render their 24-man chamber irrelevant.
“You don't resort to an interpretatation (of the constitution) that will bring you an anomalous result,” he said in a two-part ANC Early
Edition interview to be aired starting Wednesday.
“The anomalous result here is to negate totally the powers of the Senate as an institution.”
Senators and House leaders are divided over the interpretation of the provision saying Congress could amend or revise the
constitution “upon a vote of three-fourths of all its members.”
Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez earlier said the House could proceed even without the senators, who insist on separate voting.
Puno said the matter could be brought to the Supreme Court if the Senate passes its own constituent assembly resolution but calls
for separate, not joint, voting.
“That conflict is, to me, a justiciable issue. That is a matter that is proper and fit for interpretation by the Supreme Court,” he said.
LITERAL
But the high court, he said, could not intervene in a scenario where the Senate goes for a constititional convention or decides against
amending or revising the constitution at this time.
“That position, to me, is a political judgment, which involves a political question. And therefore, given our age-old jurisprudence, that
is not reviewable by the Supreme Court,” he said, noting that neither chamber could compel the other to support its preferred mode.
Puno described Alvarez’s reading of the con-ass vote provision as “literal.”
“That is not the way to interpret the Constitution.
When you interpret a provision of the Constitution, the first thing you do is to look at its history, its inception, and how it was
reworded along the way,” the retired chief justice said.
“If you are able to do that, then you comprehend the spirit of the provision. And as they say, when the spirit ceases, the law ceases
because the intent is the more important.”
Puno said senators and House members sitting as a constituent assembly should hold a joint session but vote separately.