UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER

INSTITUTE FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

SELECTED CASES IN LEGAL ETHICS FOR 2016 AND 2017
MCLE, JULY 13, 2017
JUDGE PHILIP A. AGUINALDO

Elicias vs. Atty. Macatangay, et al. Jan. 11, 2017.

This is a case filed by complainant against the Dean of the College of Education
of UP for violation of the Civil Service Law. The IBP has no jurisdiction over
government lawyers charged with administrative offenses involving their
official duties of evaluating documents. The complaint should be filed with
Ombudsman.

Monares vs. Atty. Munoz, Jan. 24, 2017

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.

Penalty : 3 years suspension.

Susan Loberes-Pintal vs. Atty. Baylosis, Jan. 24, 2017

Atty. Ramoncito B. Baylosis violated 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice when he

notarized the verification and certification of non-forum shopping when the
affiant was out of the country.
Atty. Baylosis further averred that the date of recording of the Verification and
Certification of the petition was an honest mistake and excusable error on the
part of his staff. Atty. Baylosis was negligent in the performance of
his duty as a notary public, and violated not only the rule on notarial practice
but also the Code of Professional Responsibility which proscribes a lawyer
from engaging in any unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.
Atty. Baylosis was permanently barred from being
commissioned a notary public.
The Court would like to stress the prevailing ruling that desistance of
the complainant or withdrawal of the complaint does not necessarily warrant
the dismissal of an administrative proceeding.

SILVESTRA MEDINA and SANTOS MEDINA LORAYA vs. ATTY. RUFINO

LIZARDO, January 31, 2017

Complainants firmly believe that as their lawyer, Atty. Lizardo should

protect their interests and legal rights, and should not favor other
persons except his clients. The complainants alleged that they sold only two
lots but the lawyer made it appear that they sold 3 lots. The buyer of the lots
was the one who shouldered all legal expenses including that
of the respondent. Respondent should not have allowed the same to
happen because definitely, a conflict of interest might arise later on, as
what is happening now. Respondent is lawyering for the complainants
and at the same time, lawyering for the interest of the buyer.

It was the position of the respondent that the Commission on Bar

Discipline had no jurisdiction on the subject controversy because it involved
the delivery of titles but the SC held that the IBP upheld its jurisdiction which
covers transactions committed either in their personal or professional
capacity.

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.

Another test of the inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance of a

new relation will prevent an attorney from the full discharge of his duty
of undivided fidelity and loyalty to his client or invite suspicion of
unfaithfulness or double dealing in the
performance thereof.

The rule prohibiting conflict of interest applies to situations

wherein a lawyer would be representing a client whose interest is directly
adverse to any of his present or former clients. It also applies when the
lawyer represents a client against a former client in a controversy that is
related, directly or indirectly, to the subject matter of the previous
litigation in which he appeared for the former client. This rule applies
regardless of the degree of adverse interests.

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.

A lawyer may only be allowed to represent a client involving the same or a

substantially related matter that is materially adverse to the former client
only if the former client consents to it after consultation.

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.

Tan vs. Atty. Beltran, Feb. 1, 2017

Respondent lawyer belated filed a petition for review in the DOJ of the
dismissed criminal case filed by petitioners for falsification of public
documents, in Albay. He also failed to inform the complainants of the
directive of the office of the clerk of court to pay the proper amount of docket
fees of the civil case for the recovery of a commercial property worth P30M
due to an error in computation.
The respondent lawyer contends that when he received the order of the court
to pay additional filing fee, he already withdrew from the case which had the
conformity of the complainant. The IBP Board of Governors dismissed the
complaint but the SC set it aside because it has no basis.

Respondent lawyer is negligent. Lawyers are expected to be acquainted with

the rudiments of the law and legal procedure. Clients have the right to expect
not just a good amount of professional learning and competence but also
wholehearted dedication to the client's cause. Penalty : 2 months suspension
and to account money he received.

Castelo, et al, vs. Atty. Ching, February 6, 2016

Atty. Ching denied having notarized the Deed of

Sale by showing the discrepancy between his purported signature therein and
the specimen signatures he submitted in his answer but he miserably failed to
explain how the Deed ended up in his notarial books. Penalty : perpetual
disqualification, revocation, suspension for 6 months and warning.

Murray vs. Atty. Cervantes, Feb. 7, 2017

Complainant hired the services of respondent lawyer for the naturalization of
his son. Respondent failed to deliver the legal services agreed upon. He was
suspended for 1 yr. and 6 months with the warning that for every month (or
fraction) that he fails to restitute the P80,000 amount he received from the
complainant, he shall suffer an additional one month suspension.

Coquia vs. Atty. Laforteza, Feb. 8, 2017

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.

Madria vs. Atty. Rivera, March 7, 2017

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.

Malvar vs. Atty. Baleros, March 8, 2017

Respondent lawyer was disqualified for reappointment as notary public,

suspended for 6 months with warning, for notarizing a document without the
complainant who was then in Manila as a medical doctor. The pending
criminal complaint for falsification of public document is not a ground to stop
the administrative case for reason of sui generis. Moreover, lawyer cannot
point the blame to her staff for the double entry of the document in her
notarial register.

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.

Respondent is administratively liable for her negligence in

her failure to ascertain the facts before levying the formal charge
against Fuji for overstaying.

Generally, the SC defers from taking cognizance of disbarment

complaints against lawyers in government service arising from their
administrative duties, and refers the complaint first either to the proper
administrative body that has disciplinary authority over the erring public
official or employee or the Ombudsman.

A lawyer who holds a government office may not be

disciplined as a member of the Bar for misconduct in the discharge of her ~
duties as a government official. However, if said misconduct as a
government official also constitutes a violation of her oath as a lawyer and
the Code of Professional Responsibility, then she may be subject to
disciplinary sanction by this Court.

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.

ORTIGAS PLAZA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,

- versus - ATTY. EUGENIO S. TUMULAK, March 14, 2017
The present complaint asks for the disbarment of Atty. Eugenio S.
Tumulak for his participation in the forcible intrusion into the complainant's
property. Atty. Tumulak, accompanied by uniformed guards of the Nationwide
Security Agency, Inc., unlawfully entered and took control of the entrance
and exit of the property. It appears that prior to the incident, Atty. Tumulak
had furnished several documents to the complainant, including the deed of
assignment executed by one Henry F. Rodriguez as the administrator of the
Estate of the late Don Hermogenes R. Rodriguez designating Atty. Tumulak
as an assignee. 1 The documents furnished by Atty. Tumulak were all related
to the intestate proceedings of the Estate of the late Don Hermogenes
Rodriguez docketed as S.P. No. IR-1110 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch
34, in Iriga City (RTC), which involved the claim of the heirs of the late Don
Hermogenes Rodriguez to several parcels of land situated all over the
country, including the Provinces of Rizal, Quezon, and Bulacan, and Quezon
City, Caloocan City, Pasay City, Antipolo City, Muntinlupa City, Parafiaque
City, Marikina City, Baguio City, Angeles City, San Fernando City and
Tagaytay City.

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.

JOSE ANTONIO F. BALINGIT vs. ATTY. RENATO M. CERVANTES and

ATTY. TEODORO B. DELARMENTE,
November 9, 2016

Respondents clearly transgressed the CPR when they failed

and refused to file the separate civil action for damages against
despite their receipt of payment and the relevant documents from
complainant.
The CPR advises lawyers to avoid controversies with
clients concerning their compensation and to resort to judicial action only to
prevent imposition, injustice or fraud. This is because matters of fees present
an irreconcilable conflict of interests between a client and his lawyer.41
Suits to collect fees should be avoided and should be filed only when
circumstances force lawyers to resort to it,42 such as "when [a] conflict has
reached such point that it only becomes the lawyer's duty to withdraw from
the action but to assert his right to compensation because of the intolerable
differences. The filing of a motion for intervention as a measure to protect a
counsel's right to the fees agreed upon with his client is preferred to avoid
multiplicity of suit rather than filing an independent civil action
against his client for the payment of his fees. ·In the present case, when
complainant refused to pay, Atty. Cervantes proceeded to file a criminal case
for estafa and deportation proceedings against complainant and his family.
Penalty : Suspension of 6 months, warning and to return amount received.

Chua vs. Atty. Jimenez, Nov. 28, 2016

While the same Code of Professional Responsibility recognizes the right of a
lawyer to have a lien over the funds and property of his client as may be
necessary to satisfy his lawful fees, Rule 16.03 demands that "[a] lawyer shall
deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon demand." This
is a reiteration of Rule 16.01, which states that "[a] lawyer shall account for all
money and property collected or received for or from the client."
Respondent was SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months and
ORDERED to return to complainant within ten (10) days from notice all the
pertinent records and documents, and the amounts of ₱l00,000.00;
₱23,000.00; ₱13,653.50; another ₱13,653.50; and ₱15,000.00, or a total of
₱165,127.00, with interest of 12% per annum reckoned from the respective
date of receipt until June 30, 2013, and 6% per annum from July 1, 2013 until
full payment. Respondent is WARNED that commission of the same or similar
infraction in the future will merit a more severe penalty. Respondent is also
directed to submit proof of his compliance within 30 days from receipt of this
Decision.

SPOUSES EMILIO AND ALICIA JACINTO VS. ATTY. EMELIE P. BANGOT, JR.,
October 5, 2016

To determine the reasonableness of attorney’s fees, the following

factors as enumerated in Rule 20.1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility may serve as a guide, to wit: (a) the time spent and the extent
of the services rendered or required; (b) the novelty and difficulty of the
questions involved; (c) the importance of the subject matter; (d) the skill
demanded; (e) the probability of losing other employment as a result of
acceptance of the proffered case; (f) the customary charges for similar
services and the schedule of fees of the IBP chapter to which he belongs; (g)
the amount involved in the controversy and the benefits resulting to the
client from the service; (h) the contingency or certainty of compensation; (i)
the character of the employment, whether occasional or established; and (j)
the professional standing of the lawyer.

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.

Surely, the totality of the respondent’s actuations inevitably eroded

public trust in the Legal Profession. On the basis of his acts and actuations,
the attorney’s fees in the form of the lot he charged from them were
unconscionable and unreasonable, and should be struck down for failing to
pass muster under the aforestated guidelines.

The respondent appears to have impressed on the complainants at the

time of their negotiations that the attorney’s fees in the form of the lot would
be delivered to him only on a contingent basis. Again, he had misrepresented
himself to them because the express terms of the MOA stipulated that “this
agreement shall take effect immediately upon the signing of the parties [and]
cannot be revoked, amended or modified by the Second Party without the
consent of the First Party.”

As worded, the agreement was not a contingent fee arrangement.

Indeed, a contingent fee arrangement is a contract in writing in which the
fee, usually a fixed percentage of what may be recovered in the action, is
made to depend upon the success in the effort to enforce or defend a
supposed right.15 The amount of the contingent fee agreed upon by the
parties is subject to the stipulation that counsel will be paid for his legal
services only if the suit or litigation prospers. A much higher compensation
is allowed as contingent fee in consideration of the risk that the lawyer may
get nothing should the suit fail. Such arrangement is generally recognized as
valid and binding in this jurisdiction but its terms must be reasonable.16
Canon 13 of the Canons of Professional Ethics states that “a contract for a
contingent fee, when sanctioned by law, should be reasonable under all the
circumstances of the case including the risk and uncertainty of the
compensation, but should always be subject to the supervision of a court, as to
its reasonableness.” A contract of this nature is permitted because it
redounds to the benefit of the poor client and the lawyer especially in cases
where the client has a meritorious cause of action but has no means with
which to pay for the legal services unless he can, with the sanction of law,
make a contract for a contingent fee to be paid out of the proceeds of the
litigation. Oftentimes, such arrangement is the only means by which the poor
and helpless can seek redress for injuries sustained and have their rights
vindicated.17
Considering that a contingent fee arrangement is susceptible to abuse,
the courts should closely scrutinize it to protect the client from unjust
charges. The court looks in large measure at the reasonableness of the
stipulated fee under the circumstances of each case. PENALTY : SUSPENSION
for five years, not entitled to atty.'s fees, and warning.

THE LAW FIRM OF CHAVEZ

MIRANDA ASEOCHE represented by its
founding partner, ATTY. FRANCISCO I.
CHAVEZ vs. ATTYS. RESTITUTO S. LAZARO and
RODELR. MORTA, Sept. 5, 2016

Non-joinder of a party is not a ground to dismiss a disciplinary proceeding.

They had argued that the public prosecutor was an indispensable party to the
proceeding, and that her non-joinder was a ground for the dismissal of the
case. That ruling is patently erroneous.
In previous cases, the Court has explained that disciplinary
proceedings against lawyers are sui generis. 29 These proceedings are neither
purely civil nor purely criminal,30 but are rather investigations by the Court
into the conduct of its officers.31 Technical rules of procedure are not strictly
applied, 32 but are construed in a manner that allows us to determine
whether lawyers are still fit to fulfill the duties and exercise the privileges of
their The fact that Public Prosecutor Jaban-Fama also signified her conformity
to the pleadings containing these statements is irrelevant to the issue of
whether respondents' conduct warrants the imposition of disciplinary
sanctions.

Respondents cannot utilize the presumption of regularity accorded

to acts of the public prosecutor as a defense for their own misconduct.
The claim of respondents that they relied in good faith on the approval
of the public prosecutor is likewise untenable. As lawyers, they have a
personal obligation to observe the Code of Professional Responsibility. This
obligation includes the duty to conduct themselves with courtesy, fairness
and candor towards their professional colleagues, including opposing
counsel. Respondents cannot disregard this solemn duty solely on the basis
of the signature of a public prosecutor and later seek to absolve themselves
from liability by pleading good faith.
Respondents violated Canons 8 and 10 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
Lawyers are urged to utilize only respectful and
temperate language in the preparation of pleadings, in keeping with the
dignity of the legal profession.40 Their arguments, whether written or oral,
should be gracious to both the court and the opposing counsel and should
consist only of such words as may be properly addressed by one honorable
member of the bar to another.41 In this case, respondents twice accused
complainant of antedating a petition it had filed with the DOJ without any
proof whatsoever. This allegation of impropriety undoubtedly brought
complainant and its lawyers into disrepute. The accusation also tended to
mislead the courts, as it was made without hesitation notwithstanding the
absence of any evidentiary support. The Court cannot condone this
irresponsible and unprofessional behavior.
Penalty : Respondent lawyers were ADMONISHED to use
only respectful and temperate language in the preparation of pleadings and
to be more circumspect in dealing with their professional colleagues. They
are likewise STERNLY WARNED that a commission of the same or
similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely.

Prosecutor BACATAN vs. ATTY. MERARI D. DADULA, Sept. 7, 2016

Complainant found probable cause for libel against the client of respondent
and recommended its filing in court.

The unfavourable resolutions against her client prompted respondent

to hurl accusations of irregularity and bribery against complainant. Strongly
worded statements and intemperate language by a lawyer against opposing
counsel, if justified by the records, may not justify disciplinary actions against
the former. 30 But such is not the case here. Respondent's tirades against
complainant have proven
to be baseless.
Further, the attack on the character of the complainant is also
completely unnecessary in the motion for determination of probable cause
on the libel case. Contrary to respondent's contention, her misconduct is not
cured nor justified by the eventual acquittal of her client.
Penalty : FINE of P2,000.00 with STERN WARNING.

PATRICKR. FABIE vs, AITY. LEONARDO M. REAL, September 20, 2016

 It is undisputed that respondent received documents and money from
complainant. What is at issue, however, are the circumstances surrounding
such receipt. To recap, complainant asserts that respondent received the
items because he engaged the latter to cause the transfer of ownership of a
land from him to his sister Jaynie May. Respondent, however, denies this and
instead avers that he received the documents and the money in connection
with the settlement of the estate of complainant's father Esteban for which he
was employed by the latter's heirs.
Unfortunately, none of the parties was able to present a written contract
which would have been the best evidence of their respective claims of
professional engagement Be that as it may, the Court has carefully scrutinized
the presented by both parties.
First, the documents received by respondent support the transaction for
which complainant claims to have engaged his services. Plainly, the Deed of
Absolute Sale and Deed of Donation by and between complainant and Jaynie
May are the primary documents necessary to facilitate the transfer of
ownership of property between them. On the other hand, these documents
have no significance to the purported settlement of estate of Esteban.
Moreover, if respondent indeed received the documents for purposes of
settlement proceedings, why were such documents, which notably relate to
just a single property, the only ones given to him when respondent himself
alleges in his Answer that the estate of Esteban comprises of prime properties
located in Mandaluyong, Quezon City, and Antipolo? Why were titles and
documents pertaining to such other properties not among those received by
him?
Penalty : SUSPENSION for six months, return to complainant
the sum of P40,000.00 with legal interest, and warning.

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.

BUDENCIO DUMANLAG vs. ATTY. JAIME M. BLANCO, Jr., August 3, 2016

This is an administrative Complaint for Disbarment

against respondent Atty. Jaime M. Blanco for rejecting complainant's claim
over a parcel of land based on a Spanish Title.
Complainant Budencio Dumanlag sent a letter dated 9 August 2010 to
EMIDCI' s President, Victoriano Chung, claiming to be an agent of the Heirs
of Don Mariano San Pedro (the Heirs of San Pedro) based on a Special Power
of Attorney dated 14 October 1999.2

The Heirs of San Pedro claimed ownership

of a total land area of approximately 173,000 hectares on the basis of a
Spanish title, Titulo de Propriedad Numero 4136 dated 25 April 1894. The
claim covered lands in the provinces ofNueva Ecija, Bulacan, Rizal, Laguna
and Quezon, and even cities in Metro Manila such as Quezon City, Caloocan
City, Pasay City, City of Pasig and City of Manila.
This Court dubbed the theory of the petitioners therein as "the most
fantastic land claim in the history of the Philippines." 19 In discarding the
claim, the SC relied on Presidential Decree No. 892, which abolished the
system of registration under the Spanish Mortgage Law and directed all
holders of Spanish Titles to cause their lands to be registered under the Land
Registration Act within six months from date of effectivity of the law or
until 16 August 1976.
The SC RESOLVED to: (a) DISMISS the
administrative complaint for disbarment against Atty. Jaime M. Blanco for
utter lack of merit; (b) IMPOSE a FINE of P5,000 on complainant
Budencio Dumanlag for filing a malicious complaint; and ( c) DIRECT
complainant to SHOW CAUSE why he should not be cited for indirect
contempt for failing to comply with our final and executory Decision dated
18 December 1996, insofar as it enjoins agents of the Estate of Mariano San
Pedro from exercising acts of possession or ownership or to otherwise
dispose of any land covered by the Spanish Title.

WILLIAM G. CAMPOS, JR. et al., vs. ATTY. ALEXANDER C. ESTEBAL, August

8, 2016

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:

Recovery of attorney’s fees on the basis of quantum meruit is authorized (1)

when there is no express contract for payment of attorney’s fees (2) when
although there is a formal contract for attorney’s fees, the fees stipulated are
found unconscionable or unreasonable by the Court (3) when the contract for
attorney’s fees is void due to purely formal defects of execution (4) when the
lawyer for justifiable cause was not able to finish the case for its conclusion
(5) when the lawyer and the client disregard the contract for attorney’s fees
and (6) when the client dismissed his client before the termination of the case
or the latter withdrew therefrom for valid reason (Rillaroza Africa de Ocampo
and Africa vs. Eastern telecommunications Phils., Inc., 128 SCRA 475).
Penalty : SUSPENSION for a period of one (1) year, to return the amounts of
₱135,000.00 to William G. Campos, Jr., P60,000.00 to Rita C. Batac; and Pl
05,000.00 to Dorina D. Carpio, with warning.

SPOUSES MANOLO AND MILINIA NUEZCA vs. ATTY. ERNESTO v.

VILLA GARCIA, August 8, 2016
In this case, the demand letter that respondent sent to complainants
contained not merely a demand for them to settle their monetary obligations
to respondent's client, but also used words that maligned their character. It
also imputed crimes against them, i.e., that they were criminally liable for
worthless or bum checks and estafa. The relevant portion of the demand
letter states:
II. Your several issued BDO checks in 2003 and thereabouts were
all unencashed as they proved to be "worthless and unfounded." By law,
you are liable under BP 22 (Boun[c]ing Checks Law) and Art. 315, Par. 2
(d) SWINDLING/ESTAFA, RPC.
III. For all your deceit, fraud, schemes and other manipulations to
defraud Mrs. Arcilla, taking advantage of her helplessness, age and
handicaps to her grave and serious damage, you are also criminally liable
under ART. 318, OTHER DECEITS, RPC. 16

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.

At this juncture, it bears noting that respondent failed to answer the

verified complaint and attend the mandatory hearings set by the IBP. Hence,
the claims and allegations of the complainants remain uncontroverted. The SC
ruled that "[a lawyer's] failure to answer the
complaint against him and his failure to appear at the investigation are
evidence of his flouting resistance to lawful orders of the court and illustrate
his despiciency for his oath of office in violation of Section 3, Rule 138,
Rules of Court." 18
Though a lawyer's 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.
Penalty : SUSPENSION from the practice of law for a
period of one (1) month with STERNLY WARNING.

CLEO B. DONGGA-AS vs. ATTY. ROSE BEATRIX

CRUZ-ANGELES, ATTY. WYLIE M. PALER, and
ATTY. ANGELES GRANDEA, of the ANGELES, GRANDEA
& PALER LAW OFFICE, August 9, 2016

A judicious perusal of the records reveals that sometime in May 2004,

complainant secured the services of Attys. Cruz-Angeles and Paler for the
purpose of annulling his marriage with Mutya, and in connection therewith,
paid Attys. Cruz-Angeles and Paler the aggregate sum of P350,000.00
representing legal fees. However, despite the passage of more than five (5)
months from the engagement, Attys. Cruz-Angeles and Paler failed to file
the appropriate pleading to initiate the case before the proper court; and
worse, could not even show a finished draft of such pleading. Such neglect
of the legal matter entrusted to them by their client constitutes a flagrant
violation of the CPR.
Attys. Cruz-Angeles and Paler misrepresented to
complainant that the delay in the filing of his petition for annulment was due
to the fact that they were still looking for a "friendly" court, judge, and
public prosecutor who will not be too much of a hindrance in achieving
success in the annulment case.
Penalty : SUSPENSION for a period of three
(3) years with a STERN WARNING and to return the legal fees they received
from the latter in the aggregate amount of P350,000.00 within ninety (90)
days from the finality of this Decision.
The case against Atty. Angeles Grandea was dismissed for lack of merit.

ADEGOKE R. PLUMPTRE vs. ATTY. SOCRATES R. RIVERA, Aug. 9, 2016

This resolves a disbarment case against respondent Atty. Socrates R.
Rivera for absconding with money entrusted to him and soliciting money to
bribe a judge. Complainant alleges that he called respondent and
asked for help in his application for a work permit from the Bureau of
Immigration.

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.

NILO B. DIONGZON vs. ATTY. WILLIAM MIRANO. August 17, 2016

A lawyer who agrees to represent a client's interests in the latter's
business dealings is duty-bound to keep the confidence of such client, even
after their lawyer-client relationship had ended. If he represents any other
party in a case against his former client over a business deal he oversaw
during the time of their professional relationship, he is guilty of representing
conflicting interests, and should be properly sanctioned for ethical
misconduct.
In his answer dated September 9, 1982,11 the respondent stated that the
complainant had been his client in a different civil case; that the complainant
had never consulted him upon any other legal matter; that the complainant
had only presented the deeds of sale prepared by another lawyer because he
had not been contented with the terms thereof; that he had not been the
complainant's retained counsel because the retainer agreement did not take
effect; that he had returned the am01μ1t paid to him by .the complainant; that
he had appeared for the Gonzaleses only after their evidence against the
complainant had been presented; that the complainant had approached him
when he needed a lawyer to defend him from an estafa charge; and that the
complainant had even wanted him to falsify documents in relation to that
estafa case, but because he had refused his bidding, the complainant had
then filed this administrative case against him. 12

Was the respondent guilty of representing conflict of interest?

The lawyer-client relationship begins from the moment a client seeks

the lawyer's advice upon a legal concern. The seeking may be for
consultation on transactions or other legal concerns, or for representation of
the client in an actual case in the courts or other fora. From that moment on,
the lawyer is bound to respect the relationship and to maintain the trust and
confidence of his client. No written agreement is necessary to generate a
lawyer-client relationship, but in formalizing it, the lawyer may present a
retainer agreement to be considered and agreed to by the client. As with all
contracts, the agreement must contain all the terms and conditions agreed
upon by the parties.

A conflict of interest exists when a

lawyer represents inconsistent interests of two opposing parties, like when
the lawyer performs an act that will injuriously affect his first client in any
matter in which he represented him, or when the lawyer uses any knowledge
he previously acquired from his first client against the latter. 15 The
prohibition against conflict of interest is founded on principles of public
policy and good taste, inasmuch as the lawyer-client relationship is based on
trust and confidence.

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.

AVIDA LAND CORPORATION vs. ATTY. AL C. ARGOSINO, August 17, 2016

Respondent is guilty of professional misconduct. Despite the simplicity of the
issue involved in the HLURB case, the path towards its resolution became
long, tedious, and frustrating because of the deliberate attempts of respondent
to delay the actual execution of the judgment therein. He continued to file
pleadings over issues already passed upon even after being enjoined not to do
so, and made unfounded accusations of bias or procedural defects. These acts
manifest his propensity to disregard the authority of a tribunal and abuse
court processes, to the detriment of the administration of justice.
The defense that respondent is merely defending the cause of his
client is untenable.
As a lawyer, respondent indeed owes fidelity to the cause of his client
and is expected to serve the latter with competence and diligence. As such,
respondent is entitled to employ every honorable means to defend the cause
of his client and secure what is due the latter. Penalty : SUSPENSION for one
( 1) year with warning.

ETHELENE W. SAN JUAN vs. Atty. Freddie Venida, August 23, 2016

Sometime in 2007, Ethelene required the services of a lawyer to handle the

petition for the declaration of nullity of her marriage that she was considering
to file. Even after receiving the money by way of acceptance, filing, and docket
fees. Atty. Venida failed to file the petition.
Respondent failed to inform complainant of the progress of the case and even
failed to attend the hearing in the IBP. As there were previous disbarment
cases against respondent, he was disbarred and was ordered to refund the
money he collected from the complainant.

Gimena vs. Atty. Sabio, Aug. 23, 2016

Respondent's irresponsibility went beyond the unsigned pleading and refusal
to obey court orders; he also admittedly failed to apprise the company and the
complainant of the adverse decision against them. He even had the audacity to
place the blame on his client for not communicating to him as regards the
status of the case. He furthermore justified his omission by saying that he was
not aware of the address of the company. The foregoing excuses should be
rejected. As the IBP correctly observed, respondent overlooked the attached
affidavit of the complainant in the unsigned position paper, which clearly
indicates that the principal office address of the company is at Quirino
Highway, Sacred Heart Village IV, Novaliches, Caloocan City.50 Respondent
himself had notarized the affidavit.51 Thus, contrary to his contention, it
appears from the records that he was fully aware of the address of the
company. There was no justifiable reason for him not to notify complainant
and the company of the adverse decision against them.
Penalty : Suspension for 3 years with warning.
INTERADENT ZAHNTECHNIK vs. ATTY. REBECCA S. FRANCISCO, Aug. 24,
2016
A complaint for disbarment based on the respondent attorney's
alleged moral turpitude cannot prosper after the criminal cases charging him
with offenses involving moral turpitude were dismissed by the competent
trial courts. The rule regarding this ground for disbarment requires the
respondent attorney's conviction of the offense involving moral turpitude by
final judgment.
This administrative case started as a complaint to
prevent the respondent from being admitted to the Philippine Bar on the
ground of the existence of criminal charges brought against her for crimes
involving moral turpitude. In order to hold the lawyer amenable to
disbarment by reason of his or her having committed a crime involving
moral turpitude, it is not enough to show that there is a pending case
involving moral turpitude against him or her, because Section 27 of Rule
138 expressly requires that he or she must have been found by final
judgment guilty of the crime involving moral turpitude.

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.

OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR vs. FORMER JUDGE ROSABELLA M.

TORMIS, August 30, 2016

A judge should know, or ought to know, his or her role as a

solemnizing officer. Respondent used her authority as a judge to make a
mockery of marriage. As a judicial officer, she is expected to know the law on
solemnization of marriages. 143 "A judge is not only bound by oath to apply
the law; he [or she] must also be conscientious and thorough in doing so.
Respondent's undue haste in repeatedly solemnizing marriages despite
incomplete and irregular requirements shows indifference to her role as an
officer of the court. The repetitiveness of her acts shows her proclivity in
transgressing the law and protecting these violations with her authority. A
lawyer, as an officer and an essential partner of the court in the solemn task
of giving justice, is given the grave obligation of maintaining the integrity of
the courts. 148 This is especially so with judges. A judge is "the visible
representation of law and justice from whom the people draw their will and
awareness to obey the law. Penalty : Respondent was DISBARRED.

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.

NORMA M. GUTIERREZ vs, ATTY. ELEANOR A. MARAVILLA-ONA.

July 12, 2016

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

Respondent falsely used complainant's name, identity, and school records to

gain admission to the Bar. Since complainant - the real "Patrick A. Caronan" -
never took the Bar Examinations, the SC resolved that the name "Patrick A.
Caronan" be stricken off the Roll of Attorneys.

JUTTA KRURSEL vs. ATTY. LORENZA A. ABION, July 12, 2016 ~

Respondent's legal services was hired by complainant, a German, to

assist her in filing a case against Robinsons Savings Bank - Ermita Branch
and its officers, in relation to the bank's illegal withholding/blocking of her
account. Respondent filed the complaint but withdrew the complaint with
prejudice without complainant's knowledge. In numerous documents,
respondent forged her signature to withdraw complainant's money and to
perpetuate other fraudulent transactions,

Notices and summons cannot be served because respondent's cannot be

found in her addresses. The SC held that proper notice of the disbarment
proceedings was given to the respondent lawyer who abandoned her law
office after committing the embezzlement against his client. Thus: Respondent
should not be allowed to benefit from his disappearing act.

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.

Under the circumstances, respondent is deemed to have waived

her right to present her evidence for she cannot use her disappearance as a
shield against any liability she may have incurred.

Respondent's evasive attitude is tantamount to "a willful disobedience

of any lawful order of a superior court,"47 which alone is a ground for
disbarment or suspension. Penalty : Respondent was DISBARRED.

AURORA AGUILAR DYQUIANGCO vs. ATTY. DIANA LYNN M. ARELLANO, July

12, 2016

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

Complainants Flordeliza and Gabino V. Tolentino, her husband,

learned that the Court of Appeals affirmed the Regional Trial
Court Decision against complainant Flordeliza. Complainants contend that
Atty. So did not inform them nor take the necessary action to elevate the
case to this Court. 6 Thus, they were compelled to secure the legal services
of Atty. Ferdinand L. Ancheta (Atty. Ancheta), whom they paid P30,000.00
as acceptance fee.
Atty. Ancheta allegedly promised them that there was still a remedy
against the adverse Court of Appeals Decision, and that he would file a
"motion to reopen appeal case."8 Atty. Ancheta also inveigled them to part
with the amount of P200,000.00 purportedly to be used for making
arrangements with the Justices of the Court of Appeals before whom their
case was pending. Nothing happened.

Atty. Ancheta's cavalier attitude in repeatedly ignoring the orders of

this Court constitutes utter disrespect of the judicial institution. His conduct
shows a high degree of irresponsibility and betrays a recalcitrant flaw in his
character.

The SC DISMISSED the complainant against Atty. So for insufficiency of

evidence. On the other hand, Atty. Ferdinand L. Ancheta was DISBARRED,
and ordered to return to amount he received with legal rate of interest.

IN RE: RESOLUTION DATED AUGUST 14, 2013, ATTY. GIDEON D.V.

MORTEL, Respondent, July 25, 2016
The Court of Appeals issued a Notice for Atty. Mortel to file an appellant’s brief
on behalf of his client, Angelita De Jesus, within the reglementary period of 45
days from notice. Atty. Mortel recently moved out of his office due to the high
cost of maintenance and requested to use the address of his friend’s law firm
as his address on record. Atty. Marcelino Ferdinand V.Jose (Atty. Jose),
Managing Partner of MFV Jose Law Office, granted this request. Atty. Mortel’s
address on record was then listed at Unit 2106, Philippine AXA Life Center,
1286 Sen. Gil Puyat Ave., Makati City,11 the same address as MFV Jose Law
Office. The notices and communication of Atty. Mortel were not picked up by
Atty. Mortel's messenger.
Issues :First, whether there are grounds for this Court to probe into Atty.
Marcelino Ferdinand V. Jose’s possible administrative liability; and
Second, whether respondent Atty. Gideon D.V. Mortel should be
imposed a disciplinary sanction.
Implicit in Atty. Jose and respondent’s arrangement is that Atty. Jose
would update respondent should there be any communication sent to
respondent through his law firm, and that respondent would regularly check
with the law firm if any court-delivered mail arrives for him.
Yet, Atty. Jose failed to measure up to his part of the deal. He delegated
everything to his messenger without adequately supervising him.
HELD : Atty. Marcelino Ferdinand V. Jose was DIRECTED to
show cause why he should not be disciplined by the SC while
Respondent Atty. Gideon D.V. Mortel was SUSPENDED for one
( 1) year with warning

ERNESTO B. BALBURIAS vs. ATTY. AMOR MIA J. FRANCISCO,

July 27, 2016
Balburias alleged that in one of the hearings of the labor case, Atty.
Francisco approached him and contemptuously and boastfully told him
“kaya ka naming bayaran” in front of a lot of people. Balburias alleged that
he was shocked by Atty. Francisco’s unprofessional behavior and he asked
her, “kaya mo akong bayaran?” to which she replied “kaya kitang bayaran
sa halaga ng complaint mo.” Balburias claimed that he was embarrassed by
Atty. Francisco’s treatment and he told her, “kahit isang pera lang ang
halaga ng buhay ko, hindi ako magpapabayad sa iyo.”

The Court’s impression is that the case is a result of a misunderstanding

between Balburias and Atty. Francisco. The incident happened two years prior
to the filing of this case but it was aggravated by Balburias’s dissatisfaction
with the progress of the labor case.
HELD : Complaint DISMISS but with admonition against respondent.

SPOUSES LAMBERTO V. EUSTAQUIO AND GLORIA J.

EUSTAQUIO versus ATTY. EDGAR R. NA VALES, June 8, 2016
Respondent, a public prosecutor of QC, violated the terms and conditions of
the his contract of lease when he failed to pay monthly rentals in the
aggregate amount of P139,000.00 and to vacate the leased premises despite
repeated oral and written demands.

During the pendency of the ejectment case, respondent was appointed as an

Assistant City Public Prosecutor of Quezon City but continued appearing in
court even after he was suspended from the practice of law for a period of six
( 6) months,
Penalty : Respondent was SUSPENDED from the practice of law for an
additional period of six (6) months from his original six (6)-month
suspension, totaling one ( 1) year from service of this Decision, with a STERN
WARNING.

MA. CECILIA CLARISSA C . ADVINCULA vs. ATTY. LEONARDO C.

ADVINCULA, June 14, 2016

In her complaint,1 Dr. Advincula has averred that Atty. Advincula

while Atty. Advincula was still married to her, he had extra-marital sexual
relations with Ma. Judith Ortiz Gonzaga (Ms. Gonzaga);3 that the extra-marital
relations bore a child; and that Atty. Advincula failed to give financial support
to their own.
In his answer, 13 Atty. Advincula denied the accusations but .
admitted that he got into a brief relationship with Ms. Gonzaga after their
separation; and that he did not contract a second marriage with Ms. Gonzaga.

On different occasions, the SC has disbarred or suspended lawyers for

immorality based on the surrounding circumstances of each case. In
Bustamante-Alejandro v. Alejandro,34 the extreme penalty of disbarment was
imposed on the respondent who had abandoned his wife and maintained an
illicit affair with another woman. Likewise, disbarment was the penalty for a
lawyer who carried on an extra-marital affair with a married woman prior to
the judicial declaration that her marriage was null and void, while he himself
was also married.35 In another case, the SC has suspended for two years, a
married attorney who had sired a child with a former client.36 In Samaniego
v. Ferrer,37 suspension of six months from the practice of law was meted on
the philandering lawyer.

Yet, we cannot sanction Atty. Advincula with the same gravity.

Although his siring the child with a woman other than his legitimate wife
constituted immorality, he committed the immoral conduct when he was not
yet a lawyer. The degree of his immoral conduct was not as grave than if he
had committed the immorality when already a member of the Philippine Bar.
Even so, he cannot escape administrative liability. Taking all the
circumstances of this case into proper context, the Court considers
suspension from the practice of law for three months to be condign and
appropriate.

As a last note, Atty. Advincula manifested in his compliance dated

February 26, 2013 that he had immediately accepted the resolution of the
IBP Board of Governors suspending him from the practice of law for two
months as final and executory; that he had then gone on leave from work in
the NBI for two months starting in November and lasting until the end of
December, 2012; and that such leave from work involved refraining from
performing his duties as a Legal Officer of the NBI.

The manifestation of compliance is unacceptable. A lawyer like him

ought to know that it is only the Court that wields the power to discipline
lawyers. The IBP Board of Governors did not possess such power, rendering
its recommendation against him incapable of finality. It is the Court's final
determination of his liability as a lawyer that is the reckoning point for the
service of sanctions and penalties. As such, his supposed compliance with
the recommended two-month suspension could not be satisfied by his going
on leave from his work at the NBI. Moreover, his being a government
employee necessitates that his suspension from the practice of law should
include his suspension from office. A leave of absence will not suffice. This
is so considering that his position mandated him to be a member of the
Philippine Bar in good standing.

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,

MYRNA M. DEVEZA vs. ATTY. ALEXANDER M. DEL

PRADO, June 21, 2016
In the present case, Atty. Del Prado committed an act which fell short
of the standard of the norm of conduct required of every lawyer. He
deceived the complainant by making her sign the deed of sale and making
her believe that he would pay in full the balance of the purchase price after
he had the document notarized.
Atty. Del Prado wantonly disregarded the lawful orders of
the Court and IBP-CBD to file his comment and position paper and to
appear in the mandatory conference despite due notice.
Penalty : respondent lawyer suspended for five (5) years effective upon
receipt of this decision with a 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,

DIONNIE RICAFORT vs. ATTY. RENE 0. MEDINA, M:ty 31,2016.

Respondent, a member of the Provincial Board of Surigao del Norte, was

driving on October 4, 1999, at about 7:30 a.m. The tricycle of respondent
sideswiped respondent's car. Respondent alighted from his car and
confronted complainant. and slapped complainant and said: "Wa ka makaila
sa aka?" ("Do you not know me?") .
Penalty : SUSPENSION for three (3) months.

PEDRO RAMOS vs. ATTY. MARIA NYMPHA C. REYES MANDANGAN, April 6,

2016
Ramos alleged that Atty. Mandagan demanded from him the· amount of Three
Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00) in connection with the criminal case
filed against him for murder before the Sandiganbayan. According to Ramos,
the P300,000.00 shall be used as bail bond in the event that his petition for
bail in the said criminal case is granted.

In her Answer,6 Atty. Mandagan argued that the amount of

₱300,000.00 was not intended for payment of bail, but as mobilization
expenses for preparation of witnesses, defenses, and other documentary
exhibits for both Ramos and his co-accused Gary Silawon.7 Atty. Mandagan
likewise alleged that Ramos never paid her for acceptance, appearance fees,
and legal services rendered in the entire course of the proceedings until her
withdrawal as counsel. PENALTY : SUSPENSIION for one (1) year with
WARNING.

HELEN CHANG vs. ATTY. JOSE R. HIDALGO, April 6, 2016

A lawyer cannot simply withdraw from a case without notice to the
client and complying with the requirements of the
Rules of Court.
Atty. Hidalgo insisted that due to the “transigient [sic] and
uncooperative”32 attitude of Chang, he decided that he “could no longer
perform [his job as Chang’s counsel] adequately.”33 He reasoned that he
could not put up an effective defense due to his illness and his impoverished
state. Respondent lawyer was SUSPENDED for a period of TWO (2)
YEARS from the practice of law, with a STERN WARNING.

ARTHURS. TULIO vs. Atty. Gregory Buhangin, April 20, 2016

Complainant alleged that as a surveyor then, Atty.
Buhangin was the one who prepared survey plans for the complainant in
connection with the estate left by his mother. Eventually, when he became a
lawyer. A case was filed by the siblings of Tulio against him and Atty.
Buhangin represented his siblings over legal matters
which Tulio had entrusted to Atty. Buhanging. Atty. Buhangin filed a Motion to
Withdraw4 as counsel. It was stated in the said motion that Atty. Buhangin:
"due to conflict of interest, undersigned respectfully requests that he be allowed
by this Honorable Court to withdraw his appearance in this case as counsel for
the plaint{ff." Penalty : 6 months suspension with warning for
representing conflicting interest.
NENITA D. SANCHEZ vs. ATTY. ROMEO G. AGUILOS, March 16, 2016

The respondent should not have accepted the engagement because as

it was later revealed, it was way above his ability and competence to handle
the case for annulment of marriage. As a consequence, he had no basis to
accept any amount as attorney’s fees from the complainant. He did not even
begin to perform the contemplated task he undertook for the complainant
because it was improbable that the agreement with her was to bring the
action for legal separation. His having supposedly prepared the petition for
legal separation instead of the petition for annulment of marriage was either
his way of covering up for his incompetence, or his means of charging her
more. Either way did not entitle him to retain the amount he had already
received.

Accordingly, the respondent shall be fined in the amount of

P10,000.00 for his misrepresentation of his professional competence, and he
is further to be ordered to return the entire amount of P70,000.00 received
from the client, plus legal interest with warning. The SC further
REPRIMANDED him for his use of offensive and improper language towards
his fellow attorney when he answered the demand letter of the new counsel
that letter should go to the "urinal of the MMDA where it may serve its rightful
purpose.".

ERLINDA SISTUAL, et al., vs. ATTY. ELIODORO OGENA, Feb. 2, 2016.

Atty. Ogena denied that the aforementioned documents were falsified

as they were actually executed and duly signed by all the parties therein; and
that all the signatures of complainants appearing in the aforementioned
documents were identical; that the deeds of donation were duly attested to
by Barangay Captain Conrado Toledo and the barangay kagawads;21 and that
the aforementioned documents did not in any way prejudiced the
complainants. The execution thereof did not defraud them or any of the heirs
of Martin Sistual as the issuance of the nine (9) new and separate titles in
the names of all the heirs, as co-owners, was beneficial and favorable to all
of them. Atty. Ogena, however, notarized the document without the presence of
the parties.
PENALTY: Atty. Eliordo Ogena is SUSPENDED from
the practice of law for two (2) years and is BARRED PERMANENTLY from
being commissioned as Notary Public.