Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Respondent lawyer was the Provincial Legal Officer of Albay. He was granted
authority to engage in private practice by the DILG and the provincial
governor with conditions for his first term but was not given the same
privilege in his second and third term. He violated the prohibition against
conflict of interest because he was the counsel of the new board of directors
of the Albay Electric Company and the old board of directors were ousted, in
two civil cases wherein the old board and the new board have conflicting
causes of action for injunction and other reliefs in the management of the
Company.
The main charge against Atty. Lizardo is his alleged violation of Rule
15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
This Court has explained the test in determining whether conflicting
interests are being represented in this wise:
There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents inconsistent
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. In brief, if he argues for
one client, this argument will be opposed by him when he argues for the
other client." This rule covers not only cases in which confidential
communications have been confided, but also those in which no
confidence has been bestowed or will be used.
Also, there is conflict of interests if the acceptance of the new retainer will
require the attorney to
perform an act 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.
What a lawyer owes his former client is to maintain inviolate the client's
confidence or to refrain from doing anything which will injuriously affect him
in any matter in which he previously represented him.
Penalty : one year suspension for Canons 16 and 17, and Rules 15.03 and
16.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is further ordered to
return the titles to
complainants.
Complainant denies having appeared befor Atty. Loforteza who was then a
clerk of court of RTC Pangasinan. Complainant was able to prove that she was
in Manila attending her classes at the CEU. Atty. Laforteza only accommodated
the request of his office mate and blood relative to notarize a two pre-signed
document of payment with the assurance of his office mate that it was signed
by complainant. He was disqualified from being commissioned for one year
with warning and revocation of commission, if he has.
Complainant hired the services of respondent lawyer for the annulment of her
marriage. Respondent assured her that she need not appear in court so
complainant paid the amount the lawyer demanded in installment. When
complainant went to the court, she was handed a decision in her favor so that
she used this decision to renew her passport. She found out that the decision
was fake. Worse, she was investigated by the NBI for violation of the passport
law. His defense that his act was due to the persistent prodding of the
complainant is not meritorious. Penalty : Disbarment.
LIANG FUJI vs. ATTY. GEMMA ARMI M. DELA CRUZ, March 8, 2017
Failure to exercise utmost prudence in reviewing the immigration
records of an alien, which resulted in the alien's wrongful detention, opens
the special prosecutor in the Bureau of Immigration to administrative
liability.
Respondent added that as a civil servant, she enjoyed the presumption
of regularity in the performance of her duties.28 She had no intention to
violate any law and did not commit any flagrant disregard of the rules, or
unlawfully used her station to procure some benefit for herself or for other
persons.29 Respondent pointed out that the Ombudsman had in fact
dismissed the complainant's charges against her. She added that Fuji stated
in his March 29, 2016 Affidavit of Desistance that he had mistakenly signed
some documents including the administrative complaint.
Atty. Dela Cruz failed to observe Rule 18.03 of the Code of the
Professional Responsibility, which mandates that "a lawyer shall not neglect
a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith
shall render him liable." As a special prosecutor in the Bureau of
Immigration, she is the representative, not of any private party, but of the
State. Her task was to investigate and verify facts to determine whether a
ground for deportation exists, and if further administrative action - in the
form of a formal charge - should be taken against an alien.
Had respondent carefully reviewed the records of Fuji, she would
have found out about the approval of Fuji's application, which would negate
her finding of overstaying. Because of her negligence, Fuji was deprived of
his liberty for almost eight (8) months, until his release on March 23, 2016.
Simple neglect of duty is defined as a failure to, give attention to a task
due to carelessness or indifference. In this case, respondent's negligence
shows her indifference to the fundamental right of every person, including
aliens, to due process and to the consequences of her actions. Penalty :
Suspension for three (3) months.
ROSA YAP PARAS vs. JUSTO DE JESUS PARAS, March 13, 2017
Respondent Paras was found GUILTY of violating Section 27, Rule 138 of the
Rules of Court. Accordingly, he is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a
period of six ( 6) months. However, considering that respondent has already
been previously disbarred, this penalty can no longer be imposed.
The sworn obligation of every lawyer under the Lawyer's Oath and
the Code of Professional Responsibility to respect the law and the legal
processes is a continuing condition for retaining membership in the Legal
Profession. The lawyer must act and comport himself or herself in such a
manner that would promote public confidence in the integrity of the Legal
Profession. 16 Members of the Bar are reminded, therefore, that their first
duty is to comply with the rules of procedure, rather than to seek exceptions
as loopholes. 17 A lawyer who assists a client in a dishonest scheme or who
connives in violating the law commits an act that warrants disciplinary
action against him or her. PENALTY : Suspension for TWO (2) YEARS with
STERN WARNING.
SPOUSES EMILIO AND ALICIA JACINTO VS. ATTY. EMELIE P. BANGOT, JR.,
October 5, 2016
It was not disputed that only the filing of the two-paged Manifestation
for Information constituted the respondent’s rendition of professional
services for the complainants.
He certainly transgressed the Lawyer’s Oath by receiving property of a
substantial value from the complainants after having made them believe that
he could ensure their land from intrusion by third parties. He took advantage
of them who had reposed their full trust and confidence in his ability to
perform the task by virtue of his being a lawyer. He was definitely bent on
obtaining Lot No. 37925-G than in protecting the complainants’ interest in
their property. He exhibited this zeal by refusing their offer to give cash for his
attorney’s fees instead of the land.
His changing the property ostensibly agreed upon with the bigger lot as
payment for his legal services14 reflected his deceit at the start of the
relationship. He maintained the deceit by ultimately enforcing the MOA
against them through the action for specific performance.
SPOUSES NUNILO and NEMIA ANAYA, vs. ATTY. JOSE B. ALVAREZ, JR., August 1, 2016
The court found that: (1) Atty. Alvarez prepared and notarized the deeds of sale of the three (3)
properties they sold; (2) Atty. Alvarez asked them for cash in exchange for his four (4) Allied Bank
checks with the assurance that the checks would be honored upon presentment to the drawee bank
once they fell due as they would be fully funded on due date; (3) they eventually agreed to give cash
to Atty. Alvarez in exchange for the said checks relying on his assurance and professional stature;
(4) the checks were dishonored.
In his Answer,6 Atty. Alvarez admitted his obligation but claimed that the cash he obtained from
spouses Anaya was a simple loan with an interest of two percent (2%) per month and that, at the
very outset, they knew that the checks were issued mainly as a collateral for the loan and that the
checks were not funded. He asserted that he had no intention of defrauding them and, in fact, he
went to their residence and offered to pay the loan at P20,000.00 plus 2% interest a month but his
request was not granted. Atty. Alvarez reiterated his request to settle his obligation on a monthly
basis plus the 2% monthly interest.
The deliberate failure to pay debts and the issuance of a worthless checks constitute gross
misconduct. and a a manifestation of moral turpitude.
Penalty : : SUSPENSION for 1 year with the WARNING that a repetition of the same or any other
misconduct will be dealt with more severely.
Obviously, the complainants failed to get the US visa. There was even no
attempt on the part of the respondent to submit the application form for US
Visa before the US Embassy. Respondent failed to attach any record that will
show that he made an attempt to submit the same either individually or
collectively.
While lawyers are entitled to the payment of attorney’s fees, the same should
be reasonable under the circumstances. Even if we base the attorney’s fees of
the respondent on x x x quantum meruit, still, the amount collected by the
respondent is still excessive. The Supreme Court, in justifying quantum
meruit, has laid down the following requisites:
Indeed, respondent could have simply stated the ultimate facts relative
to the alleged indebtedness of complainants to his client, made the demand
for settlement thereof, and refrained from the imputation of criminal
offenses against them, especially considering that there is a proper forum
therefor and they have yet to be found criminally liable by a court of proper
jurisdiction. Respondent's use of demeaning and immoderate language put
complainants in shame and disgrace. Moreover, it is important to consider
that several other persons had been copy furnished with the demand letter.
As such, respondent could have besmirched complainants' reputation to its
recipients.
Penalty : SUSPENSION from the practice of law for three (3) years. He is
ORDERED to return to complainant Adegoke R. Plumptre the amount of
P28,000.00 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of promulgation of
this Resolution until fully paid.
A lawyer has a duty to preserve his client's confidence in him, even if their
relationship ends. The purpose is to assure freedom of communication
between the lawyer and the client in order to enable the former to properly
represent and serve the latter's interests. To use against the latter any
information the former gains during the relationship is deplorable and
unethical.
The SC further notes that suspension from the practice of law for
one year was imposed on the lawyer who had appeared as defense counsel
for the accused in an estafa case despite having written and sent the demand
letter for the complainant in the same case.
In another case, the same penalty was imposed on the lawyer who had
initially drafted a deed of sale for the client, and who eventually filed a case
against said client to annul the same contract. Penalty : Due to conflict of
interest, respondent lawyer was suspended from the practice of law for ONE
YEAR.
ETHELENE W. SAN JUAN vs. Atty. Freddie Venida, August 23, 2016
The complainant did not allege, much less prove, that the respondent
had been convicted by final judgment of any criminal offense involving
moral turpitude. On the contrary, the criminal cases that were the sole bases
for the complaint for disbarment had already been dismissed after due
proceedings. Case against respondent was dismissed.
PLUTARCO E. VAZQUEZ vs. ATTY. DAVID LIM QUECO KHO, July 11, 2016
Vazquez and Atty. Kho were both members of the Coalition of
Associations of Senior Citizens in the Philippines (Coalition), an accredited
party-list group that participated in the national elections of 10 May 2010.
The Complaint arose from an allegedly false statement made in respondent's
Certificate of Acceptance of Nomination for the Coalition. Complainant
contested the truth of the statement made under oath that Atty. Kho was a
natural-born Filipino citizen. An attack on a person's citizenship may
only be done through a direct action for its nullity. A disbarment case is
definitely not the proper venue to attack someone's citizenship. For the lack
of any ruling from a competent court on respondent's citizenship, this
disbarment case loses its only leg to stand on and, hence, must be dismissed.
Case DISMISSED.
Atty. Maravilla-Ona received money from her client for the filing of a case in
court, but failed to do so. She also did not return a substantial portion of the
attorney's fees paid to her by her client. Under these circumstances, her
unjustified withholding of her client's funds warrants disciplinary action and
the imposition of sanctions.
We note, too, that Atty. Maravilla-Ona's misconduct is aggravated by
her failure to file an answer to the complaint and to appear at the mandatory
conference. These omissions displayed her lack of respect for the IBP and
its proceedings. While the board was correct that the penalty for the
respondents acts merit a higher penalty than the two-year suspension
imposed by the investigating commissioner, we do not fully agree with the
board's justification for the imposition of a graver penalty, i.e., "her pending
cases and previous sanctions." Penalty : Respondent SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for three (3) years with warning, and to return amount
received from complainant. Failure to comply with this directive will
merit the imposition of the more severe penalty of disbarment.
PATRICK A. CARONAN vs. RICHARD A. CARONAN a.k.a.
"ATTY. PATRICK A. CARONAN," July 12, 2016
In this connection, lawyers must update their records with the IBP
by informing the IBP National Office or their respective chapters of any
change in office or residential address and other contact details. In case
such change is not duly updated, service of notice on the office or
residential address appearing in the records of the IBP National Office
shall constitute sufficient notice to a lawyer for purposes of administrative
proceedings against him.
A lawyer, once he takes up the cause of his client, has the duty to
serve such client with competence, and to attend to his client's cause with
diligence, care and devotion, whether he accepts the engagement for free or
for a fee. 1 Moreover, lawyers should refrain from obtaining loans from their
clients, in order to avoid the perils of abusing the trust and confidence
reposed upon him by such client. Complainant paid the filing fees and also
part of the acceptance fees, Respondent (who was the professor of the
complainant) did not bother to file any complaint before the court. Worse,
Respondent knew for a long time that she required additional documents
from Complainant before filing the complaint, yet Respondent did not appear
to exert any effort to contact Complainant in order to obtain the said
documents and finally file the said case. Respondent even exacerbated her
infractions when she issued worthless checks to pay for her debts.
The respondent also commingled client's funds for her personal use and
deposited the same in her personal account.
Penalty : Suspension for THREE (3) YEARS, return amount collected from
complainant with warning.
"
GABINO V. TOLENTINO and FLORDELIZA C. TOLENTINO,
vs. ATTY. HENRY B. SO and ATTY. FERDINAND L.ANCHETA, July 19, 2016
The suspension from the practice of law will not be a penalty if it does not
negate his continuance in office for the period of the suspension. If the rule is
different, this exercise of reprobation of an erring lawyer by the Court is
rendered inutile and becomes a mockery because he can continue to receive
his salaries and other benefits by simply going on leave for the duration of his
suspension from the practice of law. Penalty : 3 months suspension with
warning,
[Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the Regional Trial Court, Branch
60, Barili, Cebu) and A.M. No 04-7-374-RTC [Violation of Judge Ildefonso
Suerte, Regional Trial Court, Branch 60, Barili, Cebu of Administrative Order
No. 36-2004 dated March 3, 2004], Prosecutor MARY ANN T. CASTRO-ROA,
June 29,.. 2016 ,
This is an administrative case from the findings in the Judicial Audit
conducted by the Supreme Court in Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 60,
Barili, Cebu in the sala of Judge Ildefonso Suerte. In the course of the audit,
it was found that respondent Prosecutor Mary Ann T. Castro-Roa (CastroRoa)
filed two separate petitions for annulment of marriage in two different
courts, one in the sala of Judge Ildefonso Suerte and the other in the sala of
Judge Jesus de la Pena.
Respondent Castro-Roa committed forum shopping. Her defense that
the two cases "involved two different set of facts, two distinct
issues, two separate grounds and were based on two different causes of
action" is not meritorious as the filing of the cases is
based on the same cause of action but with different prayers.
The First Petition was to declare the marriage "null and void ab initio" and the
relief in the Second was for the marriage to be "annulled and voided," an
examination of the records would reveal that Castro-Roa alleged the same
facts and circumstances in both petitions. This leads to the conclusion that the
reliefs sought are based on the same cause of action and are founded on the
same basis.
Penalty : Prosecutor Mary Ann T. Castro-Roa was SUSPENDED
from the practice of law for six ( 6) months with warning,