[A.C. No. 2884. January 28, 1998]
00) which sum of money
IRENE RAYOS-OMBAC, complainant, vs. ATTY. ORLANDO A. RAYOS,
respondent.
DECISION
PUNO, J.:
This case stemmed from a petition for disbarment filed with this Court
by Mrs. Irene Rayos-Ombac against her nephew, Atty. Orlando A. Rayos, a
legal practitioner in Metro Manila, for "his failure to adhere to the standards
of mental and moral fitness set up for members of the bar."i
The records show that in January 1985, respondent induced
complainant who was then 85 years old to withdraw all her bank deposits
and entrust them to him for safekeeping. Respondent told her that if she
withdraws all her money in the bank, they will be excluded from the estate
of her deceased husband and his other heirs will be precluded from
inheriting part of it.
Acting on respondent's suggestion, complainant preterminated all her
time deposits with the Philippine National Bank on January 18, 1985. She
withdrew P588,000.00.
Respondent then advised complainant to deposit the money with Union
Bank where he was working. He also urged her to deposit the money in his
name to prevent the other heirs of her husband from tracing the same.
Complainant heeded the advice of respondent. On January 22, 1985,
respondent deposited the amount of P588,000.00 with Union Bank under the
name of his wife in trust for seven beneficiaries, including his son. The
maturity date of the time deposit was May 22, 1985.
On May 21, 1985, complainant made a demand on respondent to return
the P588,000.00 plus interest. Respondent told her that he has renewed the
deposit for another month and promised to return the whole amount
including interest on June 25, 1985. Respondent, however, failed to return the
money on June 25, 1985.
On August 16, 1985, respondent informed complainant that he could
only return P400,000.00 to be paid on installment. Complainant acceded to
respondent's proposal as she was already old and was in dire need of money.
On the same date, respondent and complainant executed
memorandum of agreement stating:
"WHEREAS, on January 22, 1985, (complainant) entrusted for
safekeeping to (respondent) the sum of FIVE HUNDRED EIGHTY
EIGHT THOUSAND PESOS (P588,000.
was withdrawn by the parties from the Philippine National Bank
on said date.
WHEREAS, the said amount was deposited by (respondent)
with the consent of (complainant) with the UNION BANK, J.P.
Rizal Branch, Makati, Metro Manila.
WHEREAS, upon mutual agreement of the parties, they have
agreed as they hereby agree on the following terms for the purpose
of disposing of the above sum, to wit:
1. Of the sum of P588,000.00 received in trust,
(respondent) shall return only the sum of P400,000.00 to
(complainant) in the following manner:
a) P100,000.00 upon execution of this
agreement;
b) P200,000.00 on or before October 19,
1985, to be covered by postdated check;
c) P100,000.00 on or before November 19,
1985, to be covered by a postdated check.
2. (Respondent) hereby undertakes and guarantees
that at the time the aforesaid postdated checks fall due,
the same should be backed up with sufficient funds on a
best efforts basis.
3. That the remaining balance of P188,000.00,
(respondent) hereby acknowledges the same as his
indebtedness to (complainant) to be paid by the former
when able or at his option. (Complainant) however
assures (respondent) that she will not institute any
collection suit against (respondent) (sic), neither will she
transmit the same by way of testamentary succession to
her heirs, neither are (respondent's) heirs liable.
4. That the parties have executed this agreement
with the view of restoring their previous cordial filial
relationship."ii
a In accordance with the memorandum of agreement, respondent issued
to complainant the following checks:
1. UCPB Check No. 487974 dated August 19, 1985 in the amount of
P100,000.00;
 2. UCPB Check No. 487975 dated October 19, 1985 in the amount of
P200,000;
3. UCPB Check No. 487976 dated November 19, 1985 in the amount
of P100,000.00.
Complainant was not able to encash UCPB Check No. 487974 as it was
dishonored due to insufficient funds.
Respondent, nonetheless, asserted that he was not duty-bound to fund
the check because under paragraph 2 of the memorandum of agreement, he
only guaranteed that the checks shall be "backed up with sufficient funds on
a best efforts basis." This prompted the other relatives of respondent and
complainant to intervene in the brewing dispute between the two. They
begged respondent to pay his obligation to complainant. Heeding their plea,
respondent replaced UCPB Check No. 487974 with two new checks, one for
P64,800.00 and another for P35,200.00. Complainant was able to encash the
first check but not the second because it was dishonored by the drawee bank.
The remaining checks, UCPB Check No. 487975 and UCPB Check No. 487976,
were likewise dishonored by the drawee bank for lack of funds.
On November 15, 1985, complainant filed a complaint for estafa against
respondent and a corresponding information was filed against him by the
provincial fiscal.
Respondent thereafter made a proposal to complainant for an amicable
settlement. To pay his debt, respondent offered to complainant two second
hand cars and cash amounting to P40,000.00. Complainant refused the offer
because she needed cash to provide for her daily needs.
The records also show that respondent filed several suits against
complainant.
First, in February 1985, respondent filed a criminal case for estafa
against complainant. It appears that respondent has previously told the
tenants of a parcel of land owned by complainant that she had promised to
sell them the land and that she had authorized him to negotiate with them.
He obtained from the tenants advance payment for the lots they were
occupying. Respondent then prepared a special power of attorney iii
authorizing him to sell the land and asked complainant to sign it.
Complainant, however, refused to sign because she did not intend to make
respondent her attorney-in-fact. Hence, the tenants sued respondent for
estafa. Respondent, in turn, sued complainant for estafa for allegedly
reneging on her promise to sell the land.
Then, on April 5, 1986, respondent filed a pleading entitled "Motion to
Review Acts of Administratrix as a Prelude for Formal Motion to (sic) her
Discharge" in Special Proceedings No. 5544 for the settlement of the estate of
complainant's husband, pending before the Regional Trial Court of Lingayen,
Pangasinan.iv Respondent filed the pleading although he was not a party to
the case.
Finally, on May 19, 1986, respondent indicted complainant for
"falsification by private individuals and use of falsified documents under
Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code" for allegedly making untruthful
statements in her petition for appointment as administratrix of the estate of
her deceased husband.v
Thus, in June 1986, complainant filed with this Court a complaint to
disbar respondent on two grounds: (1) that respondent employed clever
scheme to defraud complainant, and (2) that respondent filed frivolous cases
against complainant to harass her.
Respondent subsequently filed a complaint for disbarment against
complainant's counsel, Atty. Abelardo Viray. The complaint cited four causes
of action: (1) assisting client to commit tax fraud; (2) use of unorthodox
collection method; (3) ignorance of the law; and (4) subornation of perjury. vi
Both disbarment cases were consolidated and referred to the Office of
the Solicitor General for investigation, report and recommendation.
The cases were transferred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
for investigation and disposition pursuant to Section 20 Rule 139-B which
took effect on June 1, 1988.
After investigation, the Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP
recommended the suspension of respondent from the practice of law for two
years. It also recommended the dismissal of the complaint to disbar Atty.
Viray for lack of merit.vii
On January 27, 1996, the Board of Governors of the IBP passed
Resolution No. XII-96-22 stating:
"RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED
and APPROVED, the Report and Recommendation of the
Investigating Commissioner in the above entitled case, hereinmade
part of this Resolution/Decision as Annex "A"; and, finding the
recommendation therein to be supported by the evidence on
record and the applicable laws and rules, Respondent Atty.
Orlando A. Rayos is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law
for two (2) years and the complaint against Atty. Abelardo V.
Viray is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit." viii
 On June 6, 1996, respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration with
regard to Administrative Case No. 2884.ix The Board of Governors of the IBP,
however, denied the motion in Resolution No. XII-96-193.x
On September 15, 1997, respondent filed with this Court a Motion to Lift
Suspension for Two Years, alleging that complainant has executed an
affidavit withdrawing the complaint for disbarment. xi
We deny the motion of respondent.
Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states:
"A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct."
Rule 1.03 of the same Code, on the other hand, provides:
preserving courts of justice from the official ministration of persons unfit to
practice in them. The attorney is called to answer to the court for his conduct
as an officer of the court. The complainant or the person who called the
attention of the court to the attorney's alleged misconduct is in no sense a
party, and has generally no interest in the outcome except as all good citizens
may have in the proper administration of justice. xiv Hence, if the evidence on
record warrants, the respondent may be suspended or disbarred despite the
desistance of complainant or his withdrawal of the charges. In the instant
case, it has been sufficiently proved that respondent has engaged in deceitful
conduct, in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, respondent is hereby DISBARRED. Let a copy of
this decision be attached to respondent's record in the Bar Confidant's Office
and furnished the IBP and all our courts.

"A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage SO ORDERED.
any suit or proceeding or delay any man's cause."
Respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility, as well as
his oath as an attorney when he deceived his 85-year old aunt into entrusting
to him all her money, and later refused to return the same despite demand.
Respondent's wicked deed was aggravated by the series of unfounded suits
he filed against complainant to compel her to withdraw the disbarment case
she filed against him. Indeed, respondent's deceitful conduct makes him
unworthy of membership in the legal profession. The nature of the office of a
lawyer requires that he shall be of good moral character. This qualification is
not only a condition precedent to admission to the legal profession, but its
continued possession is essential to maintain one's good standing in the
profession.xii
Considering the depravity of respondent's offense, we find the penalty
recommended by the IBP to be too mild. Such offense calls for the severance
of respondent's privilege to practice law not only for two years, but for life.
The affidavit of withdrawal of the disbarment case allegedly executed
by complainant does not, in any way, exonerate the respondent. A case of
suspension or disbarment may proceed regardless of interest or lack of
interest of the complainant. What matters is whether, on the basis of the facts
borne out by the record, the charge of deceit and grossly immoral conduct
has been duly proven.xiii This rule is premised on the nature of disciplinary
proceedings. A proceeding for suspension or disbarment is not in any sense
a civil action where the complainant is a plaintiff and the respondent lawyer
is a defendant. Disciplinary proceedings involve no private interest and
afford no redress for private grievance. They are undertaken and prosecuted
solely for the public welfare. They are undertaken for the purpose of
A.C. No. 5948 January 22, 2003
(Formerly A.M. No. CBD-354)
GAMALIEL ABAQUETA, complainant,
vs.
ATTY. BERNARDITO A. FLORIDO, respondent.
RESOLUTION
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
This is an administrative complaint 1 against Atty. Bernardito A. Florido
filed with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar
Discipline, praying that appropriate sanctions be imposed on respondent for
representing conflicting interests.
Complainant is a Filipino by birth who had acquired American citizenship.
He resides at 15856 N. 15th Way, Phoenix, Arizona 85022, U.S.A. Respondent
is a practicing lawyer based in Cebu City.
On November 28, 1983, complainant engaged the professional services of
respondent trough his attorney-in-fact, Mrs. Charito Y. Baclig, to represent
him in Special Proceedings No. 3971-R, entitled, "In the Matter of the Intestate
Estate of Deceased Bonifacia Abaqueta,2 Susana Uy Trazo, petitioner" before the
Regional Trial court of Cebu.3
Accordingly, respondent entered his appearance in Special Proceedings No.
3971-R as counsel for herein complainant.4 Subsequently, he filed
complainant's "Objections and Comments to Inventory and Accounting,"
registering complainant's objection —
. . . to the inclusion of the properties under Items 1 to 5
contained in the inventory of the administratrix dated
November 9, 1983. These properties are the sole and exclusive
properties of the oppositor per the latest tax declarations
already marked as Exhibits "2", "3", "4", "5" and "6" in the
Formal Offer of Exhibits by oppositor in writing dated
August 17, 1983 x x x .5
Several years later, Milagros Yap Abaqueta filed an action for sum of money
against complainant, docketed as Civil Case No. CEB-11453 and entitled,
"Milagros Yap Abaqueta vs. Gamaliel Abaqueta and Casiano Gerona."6 Respondent
signed the Complaint as counsel for plaintiff Milagros Yap Abaqueta,
averring, inter alia, that:
Plaintiff and defendant Gamaliel Abaqueta are the conjugal
owners of those certain parcels of land, more particularly as
follows . . .
The "parcels of land" referred to as conjugal property of complainant and
Milagros Yap-Abaqueta are the very same parcels of land in Special
Proceedings No. 3971-R which respondent, as lawyer of complainant, alleged
as the "sole and exclusive properties" of complainant. In short, respondent
lawyer made allegations in Civil Case No. CEB-11453 which were contrary to
and in direct conflict with his averments as counsel for complainant in
Special Proceedings No. 3971-R.
Complainant further averred that respondent admitted he was never
authorized by the former to appear as counsel for complainant's ex-wife in
Civil Case No. CEB-11453; that respondent failed to indicate in the
Complaint the true and correct address of herein complainant, which
respondent knew as far back as August 2, 1990, when he wrote a letter to the
complainant at the said address.7 Consequently, complainant failed to
receive summons and was declared in default in Civil Case No. CEB-11453.
While the order of default was eventually set aside, complainant incurred
expenses to travel to the Philippines, which were conservatively estimated at
$10,000.00. He argues that respondent's conduct constitute professional
misconduct and malpractice as well as trifling with court processes.
In his defense, respondent claims in his Answer 8 that he always acted in
good faith in his professional relationship with complainant in spite of the
fact that they have not personally met. He based the matters he wrote in the
Complaint on information and documents supplied by Mrs. Charito Y.
Baclig, complainant's sister-in-law and attorney-in-fact, indicating that he
was sole and exclusive owner of the properties. This was sometime in
November 1983. No affidavit of adjudication was ever furnished respondent
by complainant and this was apparently suppressed because it would show
that the properties formed part of the estate.
Eight years later, in November 1991, long after Special Proceedings No. 3971-
R was settled and the attorney-client relationship between complainant and
respondent was terminated, Mrs. Milagros Abaqueta through Mrs. Baclig,
engaged his services to file Civil Case No. CEB-11453. Mrs. Baclig presented
to him a deed of absolute sale dated July 7, 1975,9 showing that the
properties subject hereof were not complainant's exclusive property but his
conjugal property with his wife, the same having been acquired during the
subsistence of their marriage. Thus, in all good faith, respondent alleged in
the complaint that said properties were conjugal assets of the spouses.
Respondent further pointed out that his law firm handles on the average
eighty new court cases annually and personally interviews four or five
clients, prospective clients and/or witnesses daily except Saturdays and
Sundays. It regularly closes to the public at 7:00 p.m., but work continues
sometimes until 8:30 p.m. This has been going on for the last twenty-five
years out of respondent's thirty-three years of private practice. The absence
of personal contact with complainant and the lapse of eight years resulted in
the oversight of the respondent's memory that complainant was a former
client. Furthermore, the caption of the Special Proceeding was not in the
name of complainant but was entitled, "In the Matter of the Intestate Estate of
Bonifacia Payahay Abaqueta."
Respondent expressed regret over the oversight and averred that
immediately after discovering that the formerly represented complainant in
Special Proceeding No. 3971-R, he filed a motion to withdraw as counsel for
plaintiff, which was granted by the trial court.10 He denied any malice in his
acts and alleged that it is not in his character to do malice or falsehood
particularly in the exercise of his profession.
In his Comments/Observations on Respondent's Answer,11 complainant
averred that respondent's conduct was geared towards insuring a court
victory for Milagros Yap in Civil Case No. CEB-11453, wherein he
deliberately stated that complainant's address was 9203 Riverside Lodge
Drive, Houston, Texas 77083, U.S.A., when he knew fully well that
complainant's true and correct address was c/o V.A. Hospital, 7th Street &
Italian School Road, Phoenix, Arizona, 85013, U.S.A. By falsely stating and
concealing his true and correct address, respondent eventually succeeded in
obtaining a default judgment in favor of his client.
During the pendency of these proceedings before the IBP, it appeared that
respondent's son got married to the daughter of IBP National President
Arthur D. Lim. Thus, Atty. Lim inhibited himself from participating in the
resolution of the case.12 Subsequently, a Resolution was issued requiring the
IBP to elevate the entire records of the case within thirty (30) days from
notice.13
The main issue to be resolved in the case at bar is whether or not respondent
violated Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The
investigating Commissioner found that respondent clearly violated the
prohibition against representing conflicting interests and recommended that
he be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three (3) months.
We find the recommendation well-taken.
Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility explicitly provides that
—
RULE 15.03. — A lawyer shall not represent conflicting
interests except by written consent of all concerned given
after a full disclosure of the facts.
There is a conflict of interest if there is an inconsistency in the interests of two
or more opposing parties. The test is whether or not in behalf of one client, it
is the lawyer's duty to fight for an issue or claim but it is his duty to oppose it
for the other client.14 In short, if he argues for one client, this argument will
be opposed by him when he argues for the other client.15
There is a representation of conflicting interests if the acceptance of the new
retainer will require the attorney to do anything which will injuriously affect
his first client in any matter in which he represents him and also whether he
will be called upon in his new relation, to use against his first client any
knowledge acquired through their connection.16
As pointed out by the investigating commissioner, respondent does not deny
that he represented complainant in Special Proceedings No. 3971-R. He also
does not deny that he is the lawyer of Milagros Yap Abaqueta in Civil Case
No. CEB-11453, filed against complainant and involving the same properties
which were litigated in Special Proceedings No. 3971-R. Respondent also
admitted that he did not secure the consent of complainant before he agreed
to act as Milagros Yap Abaqueta's lawyer in Civil Case No. CEB-11453.
The reasons proffered by respondent are hardly persuasive to excuse his
clear representation of conflicting interests in this case. First, the
investigating commissioner observed that the name "Gamaliel Abaqueta" is
not a common name. Once heard, it will surely ring a bell in one's mind if he
came across the name again.
In this case, respondent actively prosecuted the cause of complainant in
Special Proceedings No. 3971-R, such that it would be impossible for
respondent not to have recalled his name.
Second, assuming arguendo that respondent's memory was indeed faulty, still
it is incredible that he could not recall that complainant was his client,
considering that Mrs. Charito Baclig, who was complainant's attorney-in-fact
and the go-between of complainant and respondent in Special Proceedings
No. 3971-R, was the same person who brought Milagros Yap Abaqueta to
him. Even a person of average intelligence would have made the connection
between Mrs. Baclig and complainant under such circumstances.
Lastly, the fact that the subject matter of Civil Case No. CEB-11453 and
Special Proceedings No. 3971-R are the same properties could not have
escaped the attention of respondent. With such an abundance of
circumstances to aid respondent's memory, it simply strains credulity for
him to have conveniently forgotten his past engagement as complainant's
lawyer. What rather appears, given the prevailing facts of this case, is that he
chose to ignore them on the assumption that the long period of time
spanning his past and present engagement would effectively blur the
memories of the parties to such a discrepancy.
itself prove malice on the part of respondent. A new address was furnished
by Milagros Yap Abaqueta days before the complaint was filed. Respondent
had no reason to doubt the correctness of the address of the complainant
given to him by Milagros Yap Abaqueta considering that she was
complainant's wife.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Bernardito A. Florido is SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for Three (3) months. He is further ADMONISHED to
exercise greater care and diligence in the performance of his duties towards
his clients and the court. He is warned that a repetition of the same or similar
offense will be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED

It is axiomatic that no lawyer is obliged to act either as adviser or advocate

for every person who may wish to become his client. He has the right to
decline such employment,17 subject, however, to Canon 14 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.18 Once he agrees to take up the cause of the
client, the lawyer owes fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of
the trust and confidence reposed in him.19 He must serve the client with
competence and diligence20 and champion the latter's cause with
wholehearted fidelity, care and devotion.21

A lawyer May not, without being guilty of professional misconduct, act as

counsel for a person whose interest conflicts with that of his former client22
The reason for the prohibition is found in the relation of attorney and client
which is one of trust and confidence of the highest degree. 23 Indeed, as we
stated in Sibulo v. Cabrera,24 "The relation of attorney and client is based on
trust, so that double dealing, which could sometimes lead to treachery,
should be avoided."25

Credence cannot, however, be given to the charge that respondent

fraudulently and maliciously falsified the true and correct address of the
complainant notwithstanding respondent's knowledge thereof. Lawyers
normally do not have knowledge of the personal circumstances of a party in
a case and usually rely on the information supplied by their clients. The fact
that respondent sent a letter to complainant at the latter's correct address26
sixteen months before the filing of Civil Case No. CEB-11453 does not by
A.C. No. 5246 March 20, 2003
EDGAR O. PEREA, complainant,
vs.
ATTY. RUBEN ALMADRO, respondent.
RESOLUTION
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
Before the Court is a complaint for disbarment filed by Edgar O. Perea
against Atty. Ruben Almadro for gross neglect of his duties as lawyer of
herein complainant.
Complainant narrates: Respondent was his counsel before the Regional Trial
Court of Quezon City (Branch 99) where he (complainant Perea) is being
charged with the crime of Frustrated Homicide. On February 26, 1996, the
said RTC issued an order granting Atty. Almadro’s motion for leave to file
demurrer to evidence within ten (10) days from said date. All the while,
complainant thought that respondent filed said demurrer and the case
against him dismissed. It was only sometime in 1999 that complainant
learned that Atty. Almadro failed to file any demurrer. The trial court
ordered the herein complainant to present evidence in his defense. Later, a
warrant was issued for his arrest prompting him to surrender to the court
and post bail. Complainant suffered financially and emotionally due to
respondent’s neglect of his duties. Respondent has not attended any of his
hearings which led complainant to plead with respondent to withdraw
formally as his counsel so he could hire another lawyer. Because of Atty.
Almadro’s neglect, complainant is now facing the loss of his freedom and
livelihood.1
Respondent filed three motions for extension of time to file comment. 2 On
November 13, 2000, the Court resolved to grant the said motions with a
warning that no further extensions shall be granted. 3 On November 17, 2000,
respondent, through the law firm Sua and Alambra, filed a Manifestation
and Motion that respondent has not yet received a copy of the complaint
hence it asked the Court to order the complainant to furnish them a copy.4
On December 20, 2000, respondent through said law firm submitted an
Answer5 to the complaint, contending that: two days after the RTC granted
the manifestation of defense to file motion for leave to file demurrer to
evidence, he had finished the draft of the motion and the accompanying
pleading which he stored in a magnetic computer diskette intended for
editing prior to its submission in court; a few days before the deadline,
herein respondent tried to retrieve the draft from the diskette but said drafts
were nowhere to be found despite efforts to retrieve them; this led him to
believe that the drafts must have been finalized and the edited versions
accordingly filed since it is his practice to expunge from the diskette drafts
that were already finalized and acted upon; meanwhile, the presiding judge
of the RTC retired, as a consequence, actions on pending cases were held in
abeyance; moreover, communications with the herein complainant had
become rarer; thereafter, towards the end of 1997 up to the next five months
of 1998, respondent was preoccupied with the congressional elections in
Biliran where he ran and subsequently lost; then he was offered a position at
the Philippine Stock Exchange as head of the Compliance and Surveillance
Division which he accepted; his time and attention was spent in the
performance of his demanding job at the PSE as well as in the preparation of
his testimony before the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee in connection with
the "BW" scam; anent the case of herein complainant, he offered on several
occasions to withdraw as one of the defense counsel of the complainant even
to the extent of offering to return his acceptance fee which the latter however
refused;6 it is not true that complainant pleaded with respondent to
withdraw as his counsel, the truth being that it was complainant who
refused to let go of respondent as his counsel; also, while he is a counsel of
complainant in the criminal case before the RTC, he was merely a
collaborating counsel, the lead counsel being Atty. Solomon Villanueva; 7
finally, he was actually mulling over the possible procedural steps to take
with regard to complainant’s case when he received instead, a copy of the
present complaint.8
On February 28, 2001, the Court issued a Resolution9 referring the case to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation, report and
recommendation.
On June 13, 2001, the IBP through Commissioner Renato G. Cunanan
submitted its report, pertinent portions of which are quoted verbatim:
"We are not convinced about the truth of respondent’s
affirmative allegations. It is clear that he as well as his counsels
are lying. First off, the manifestation with motion filed by
respondent’s counsels, Sua and Alambra is incredibly
unbelievable. In fact, to be blunt about it, respondent’s
counsels were clearly lying when they manifested that the
respondent "has yet to receive a copy of the complaint..."
This is an outrageous lie. The respondent’s three (3) motions
never once mentioned that he had not received copy of the
complaint. In fact, in his second motion for further extension
of time to file comment, Atty. Almadro CLEARLY stated in
the second paragraph thereof that:
‘He is in the process of reviewing an initial draft of said
comment and will need said period of ten (10) days to
complete and finalize the draft.’
"From the afore-quoted portion of Mr. Almadro’s
manifestation and motion, it is obvious he already had a
copy of the complaint. The manifestation and motion filed
on his behalf by Attys. Sua and Alambra with the Honorable
Supreme Court is a brazen and deliberate misrepresentation
which deserves an uncompromising and vigorous
condemnation.
"The respondent claims he is in solo practice. How then can
he honestly claim that when he could not find the draft of
his demurrer in the magnetic computer diskette where he
allegedly stored it, he was led "to believe that the drafts must
have been finalized and the edited versions thereof
accordingly filed." This allegation is pure unadulterated
garbage. All Mr. Almadro had to do was check his case
folder to see if a demurrer had indeed been filed. As a solo
practitioner like this representation, we can only surmise
that logically, nothing happens or "goes down" in Mr.
Almadro’s office without his knowledge and indispensable
participation. If so, how could he have been led to believe
anything? To be sure, he would have read and signed the
demurrer before it was "accordingly filed." Being a solo
practitioner no one else could have signed that demurrer.
And does Mr. Almadro expect anyone to believe that after
finishing the draft (in his computer) he would not even
bother to print a hard copy for him to read, edit and correct
without having to do so from his computer monitor?
"Incidentally, this representation verified the records of the
complainant’s criminal case before RTC-Branch 99, Quezon
City. We came upon an Order of the incumbent presiding
judge declaring the respondent herein in contempt of court
for repeatedly failing to submit an explanation as ordered by
the court.
"The undersigned is convinced that Atty. Ruben L.
Almadro’s actuations reveal not only serious neglect or
indifference to his duties as a lawyer but more gravely his
open disrespect for the court and the authority it represents.
"We wish to put on record our extreme DISPLEASURE at
the behavior of respondent Atty. Ruben L. Almadro. We
strongly recommend that respondent be suspended from the
practice of law for two (2) years and that he be fined Ten
Thousand (PhP10,000.00) Pesos. We likewise recommend
strongly that Attys. Sua and Alambra be ordered to explain
why they should not be held in contempt for deliberately
foisting a deliberate falsehood and misrepresentation on the
Honorable Supreme Court by declaring that their client had
not received a copy of the complaint when such was not true.
By their misrepresentation the afore-named counsels have
exhibited contemptible disrespect not only for the Court but
also the authority it represents."10
The report was adopted and approved by the Board of Governors of the IBP
Commission on Bar Discipline with some modifications thus:
"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, with modification, and
considering that Atty. Ruben L. Almadro’s actuations reveal
not only serious neglect or indifference to his duties as a
lawyer but more gravely his open disrespect for the court
and the authority it represent. Respondent is hereby
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year and
FINED for Ten Thousand (P 10,000.00) Pesos. Likewise, Atty.
Sua and Atty. Alambra are ordered to explain why they
should not be held in contempt for deliberately foisting a
deliberate falsehood and misrepresentation."11
Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration on September 11, 2002, this
time in his own behalf, of the above quoted IBP Board Resolution. 12 This was
denied on October 19, 2002.13
We are in full accord with the findings and recommendation of the IBP.
As clearly stated in the Code of Professional Responsibility -
CANON 18 --- A lawyer shall serve his client with
competence and diligence.
Rule 18.03 --- A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter
entrusted to him and his negligence in connection therewith
shall render him liable.
Rule 18.04 --- A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the
status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time
to the client’s request for information.
It is plain from the records that respondent lawyer failed to submit a
demurrer to evidence for which he had earlier asked permission from the
trial court and which his client, herein complainant was relying on. More
than that, he failed to contact his client and to apprise the latter about the
developments of the case leaving complainant completely surprised and
without any protection when years later, he received summons from the trial
court asking him to present evidence in his defense and, not long after, the
trial court issued a warrant for his arrest.
In the recent case of Sps. Galen et al. vs. Atty. Paguirigan14 the Court is explicit
in its pronouncement that:
"An attorney is bound to protect his client’s interest to the
best of his ability and with utmost diligence. A failure to file
brief for his client certainly constitutes inexcusable
negligence on his part. The respondent has indeed
committed a serious lapse in the duty owed by him to his
client as well as to the Court not to delay litigation and to aid
in the speedy administration of justice.
xxx xxx xxx
"A lawyer is expected to be familiar with these rudiments of
law and procedure and anyone who acquires his service is
entitled to not just competent service but also whole-hearted
devotion to his client’s cause. It is the duty of a lawyer to
serve his client with competence and diligence and he
should exert his best efforts to protect within the bounds of
law the interest of his client. A lawyer should never neglect a
legal matter entrusted to him, otherwise his negligence in
fulfilling his duty will render him liable for disciplinary
action."15
In other cases, the Court also held that while a lawyer may decline a person
to become his client for valid reasons, once he agrees to take up the cause of a
client, he begins to owe fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of
the trust and confidence reposed in him. As a lawyer, he must serve the
client with competence and diligence, and champion the latter’s cause with
wholehearted fidelity, care and devotion. Indeed, he owes entire devotion to
the interest of his client, warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his
client’s rights, and the exertion of his utmost learning and ability to the end
that nothing be taken or withheld from his client, save by the rules of law
legally applied.16 His client is entitled to the benefit of any and every remedy
and defense that is authorized by the law of the land and he may expect his
lawyer to assert every such remedy or defense.17
Respondent’s negligence is compounded by his attempt to have this tribunal
believe the story of how his draft, stored in a magnetic diskette, mysteriously
disappeared and how the absence of such file in his diskette led him to
believe that the same was already filed in court. In his Answer, he even tried
to depict himself as a conscientious lawyer by stating that he was actually
mulling on the procedural steps he would undertake regarding
complainant’s case when instead he received a copy of this complaint for
disbarment. Such story, as observed by the IBP, is not only outrageous but is
contemptuous as it makes a mockery of the Court.
Again, the Code of Professional Responsibility is explicit on this matter:
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 in court; nor shall he mislead or
allow the court to be misled by any artifice.
In Benguet Electric Cooperative, Inc. vs Atty. Flores,18 the Court, aside from
citing Canon 10 above stated that "a lawyer must be a disciple of truth."
Indeed, it cannot be stressed enough how important it is for a lawyer as an
officer of the court to observe honesty at all times, especially before the
courts.

Respondent would have this Court believe a very preposterous story of how
his draft disappeared, all the time avoiding the simple fact that he failed to
submit the necessary pleading before the trial court. Such behavior cannot be
countenanced and deserves stern penalty therefor.

The act of the IBP in requiring Atty. Kenton Sua and Atty. Alan
Alambra to show cause why they should not be held in contempt