2008CASES

Derelictionofduty, grossneglect, insubordinationandviolation ofthe Code ofProfessionalResponsibility

FERDINANDS.BASCOS Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/ba Supreme Court’sRuling Case Disposition
v. sesofthe
ATTY.RAYMUNDOA. -Neglect of duty charge/s The stringentprovisionsof P.D. No. 1079 wereintended WHEREFORE,theCourtfindsClerkofC
RAMIREZ - topreventunfaircompetition, meantultimatelyfor the ourtandEx-
-Arrogance SupremeCour protectionof the press. Specifically providing OfficioProvincialSheriffoftheRegionalTrialCourt
A.M.No.P-08-2418 tCircularNo. inparagraphfive, ofIlagan,Atty.RaymundoA.Ramirez, GUILTY
-Willful 5-98 preventcrosscommercialismandunfaircompetitionamong ofderelictionofduty,grossneglect,insubordination
January 31, anddeliberateviolation community newspapers, whichconditionsprove to andforviolatingtheCodeofProfessionalResponsib
2008CARPIOMORAL ofcircularsinrelation -P.D. beinimical to the development of atruly free ility.Heis orderedtopaya FINE
ES,J toPresidentialDecree No.1079 andresponsible press. ofTwentyThousand(P20,000)Pesos,withWARNI
(P.D.)No. Respondentsfailure to heedthe mandate of the law NGthatthecommissionofthesameorsimilaractsint
1079, andSupreme Courtdirectivesconstitutesunjustified hefutureshallbedealtwith moreseverely.
andneglectfulconductprejudicial to the bestinterestofthe
- judicial systemandthe public, andsignifiesinefficiency
Severalattemptsatex andincompetence in the performance ofofficial
tortion. duties.Asa memberof the bar, respondent is,moreover,
chargedwiththe duty to obey the lawsof
thelandandpromote respectforlaw andlegalprocesses.
Preventivesuspension
Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/ba Supreme Court’sRuling Case Disposition
Re: sesofthe
CONVICTIONOFJUDGE -moral turpitude charge/s The mere existence ofpending criminalchargesagainstthe WHEREFORE, the
ADORACIONG.ANGEL -Rule 139- respondent-lawyercannot bea instantadministrativecomplaintishereby
ES,REGIONALTRIALCO -suspension BSec. 15 groundfordisbarmentorsuspensionof the latter.To DISMISSED for lack ofmerit. Nevertheless,
URT,BRANCH121,CALO holdotherwise wouldopenthe door respondentAdoracionG.Angeles, Presiding
OCANCITY -Rule 138, toharassmentofp attorneysthrough themere filing of Judge ofthe Regional
IN CRIMINALCASE Section27 numerouscriminalcasesagainstthem.Byparityof TrialCourt ofCaloocanCity, Branch121,
NOS.Q-97-69655to 56 reasoning,thefact ofrespondent'sconvictionby the RTC ishereby REPRIMANDEDforheruse
FORCHILDABUSE doesnotnecessarilywarranthersuspension.We agree ofintemperate language inherpleadingsand
A.M. No. 06-9-545- withrespondent'sargumentthatsince herconviction ofthe isSTERNLY WARNEDthat a repetitionof
RTCJanuary 31, 2008 crime ofchildabuse iscurrently onappealbefore the CA, thesameorsimilaractshall merit
thesamehasnot yetattainedfinality.Assuch, she amoreseveresanction.
NACHURA, J stillenjoystheconstitutionalpresumptionof innocence.
Neglect of duty
Act/scomplainedof Legal Supreme Court’sRuling Case Disposition

1
 2008CASES

MAYOR SHIRLEY basis/basesoft While the erroneousinterpretation by WHEREFORE,respondentJudgeInocencio

M.PANGILINAN -grossignorance he charge/s respondentJudgeof the Comelec OrderdatedMay 24, M.JaurigueisfoundGUILTYofgrossinefficiency,s
v. ofthelaw - 2002 may notbeconsideredgrossignoranceof the law, eriousmisconductandgrossneglect of
JUDGEINOCENCIOM.J ElectionCase( hisfailuretorectify hisOrderdatedJune5, 2002 duty and ishereby
AURIGUE, -abuse ofauthority EC) No. 19 whencomplainantfiledanurgentmotionforpostponement SUSPENDEDfromoffice,withoutpay,forsix(6)m
andATTY.CIRILOQ.TEJ withmanifestationandclarification, onths.RespondentClerkofCourtAtty.CiriloQ.
OSO, JR. -disobedience to constitutesgrossinefficiency. Tejoso, Jr.ishereby
A.M. NO.RTJ-08- asuperiororder REPRIMANDEDforfailuretoexercisereasonable
2100January 31, The recordsandcopiesofthe Ordersissued diligenceintheperformanceofhisduty with a
2008AZCUNA, J.: byrespondentJudge inrelationto the Ordersof warningthat a repetitionof thesamewill
theComelec clearly support thefinding bemoreseverely dealtwith.
ofgrossinefficiency. The admissionof respondentJudge
in theface of hispatently lame excusesequally
bearsouthisseriousmisconductandgrossneglect ofduty.
Supersedeasbond,Ignorance of the law
Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/bas Supreme Court’sRuling Case Disposition
VICKY C. MABANTO esofthe Grossignoranceofthelawisaseriouschargewhichispenalized
v -SeriousMisconduct charge/sSecti witheitherdismissalfromservice,suspensionforthree
WHEREFORE,
Judge on3(e)ofthe (3)monthswithoutsalaryandbenefitsorafineof respondent
MAMERTOY.COLI -Inefficiency Anti- notlessthanP20,000butnotmorethanP40,000.Grossignora Judge MamertoY.Coliflores
FLORES GraftandCorr nceofthelawbuttakingintoaccountthatnonefariousmotiveo isfoundGUILTYOFGROSSIGNORANCEOF
-GrossIgnorance uptPracticesA nthepartofrespondentshadbeenshown,thisCourtimposeda THELAWfor
Adm. Matter No.MTJ-04- ofthe Law ct(R.A. No. fineofP2,000 with a warning. whichheisFINEDP2,000tobedeductedfromhisret
1533 3019)
irementbenefits.
January 28,
2008AZCUNA,
J.

Undue delay
Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/ba Supreme Court’sRuling Case Disposition
OFFICE OFTHECOURT sesof

2
 2008CASES

ADMINISTRATOR the charge/s

vs. -Undue delay
JUDGE ERNESTOA. -Section5, WHEREFORE,respondentJudgeErnestoA.Reye
REYESandActing Clerk Canon 6ofthe s,formerjudgeoftheRTCofPasayCity,Branch111,i
ofCourtRICARDOR.ADO New Codeof sfoundGUILTY
LFO JudicialCondu ofunduedelayinrenderingjudgmentandishereby
ct FINEDintheamountofP20,000.00tobedeductedf
A.M. No.RTJ-05- romhisretirementpayandbenefits.RespondentRic
1892January 24, -Section 9of ardoR.Adolfo,ActingClerkofCourt,alsooftheRTC
2008REYES, R.T.,J.: Rule 140 ofPasayCity,Branch111,isfoundGUILTY
ofthe ofmisconduct.HeisorderedtopayaFINE
RulesofCou intheamountofP10,000.00,witha
rt STERNWARNINGthatarepetitionofthesameors
imilarinfractionshallbedealtwithmore severely.

Grossneglectofduty andmisconduct.
Act/scomplained Legalbasis/bases Supreme Court’sRuling Case Disposition
ANGELESA. VELASCO of of the charge/s
- versus- The Courtwill nothesitatetoimpose the ultimatepenalty WHEREFORE, the
ATTY.PROSPEROV. - on those whofallshortoftheiraccountabilities.The CourtfindsrespondentretiredClerk
TABLIZO, Sections9(a)and(b Courtcondemnsanddoesnottolerate any ofCourtandEx-OfficioProvincialSheriffAtty.
), 10(c), and14of conductthatviolatesthenormsofpublicaccountability ProsperoV.Tablizo, RegionalTrialCourt, Office
A.M. No. P-05- Rule 39 anddiminishespublic confidence inthe ofthe Clerk of
1999February 22, oftheRulesofCour judicial system.Failure ofsheriffsto Court, Virac,Catanduanes,GUILTY ofGROSS
2008CARPIO, J.: t implementwritsofexecutionconstitutesgrossneglect of NEGLECTOFDUTYandREFUSALTO
duty. PERFORMOFFICIALDUTY.Accordingly,th
e CourtFINES himP40,000.

Assigningof Cases

3
 2008CASES
Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/ba Supreme Court’sRuling Case
GREENSTARBOCAYMAN sesofthe DispositionWHEREFORE, the
GANDINGAN charge/s The importance ofassigningcasesby raffle isobvious. Courtfinds:
, -grossignorance Suchmethod ofassignmentsafeguardstherightof the 1. Judge SantosB. AdiongGUILTY
ofthelaw or procedure; Rules3.01[ partiesto be heard by animpartial andunbiasedtribunal, ofgrossignorance ofthe law
-versus- - 2]and while protecting judgesfromanysuspicion aswellasgrossmisconductconstituting violation
manifestunfaithfuln 3.02[3] of ofimpropriety.Forthisreason, disregardofCircular No. oftheCode of JudicialConduct. He
JUDGE SANTOSB. essto abasic legal theCode 7, whichrequiressuchraffle ofcases,cannot be isDISMISSEDfrom theservicewithforfeiture of
ADIONG, etal rule - ofJudicialCo takenlightly. allbenefitsexcepthisaccruedleave credits, ifany.
injudiciousconduct nduct A courtemployee isexpected to dono more Heisfurtherdisqualifiedfromreinstatementor
A.M. No.RTJ-04- - grave abuse thanwhatduty demandsand no lessthanwhatprivilege appointmenttoanypublic office, including
1826February 6, 2008 ofauthority permits.Though hemay beof government-ownedorcontrolledcorporations.
PERCURIAM: -grave misconduct greathelptospecificindividuals, 2. Atty. Cairoding P.MaruhomGUILTY
-conductprejudicial butwhenthathelpfrustratesandbetraysthepublicstrustinthe ofsimple misconduct. He isSUSPENDED
tothe administration systemitcannotandshouldnotremainunchecked.The fromoffice forthree
ofjustice; interestsofthe individual mustgive way to the (3)months,effectiveimmediately.
accommodation ofthe 3. Mr.Masbod M. SybilGUILTY
-violationof publicPrivatumincommodumpublicobonopensatur. ofsimplemisconduct. He
Rules3.01[2]and3.02[ isSUSPENDEDfromofficefor three
3]of (3)months, effective
the Code immediately.SOORDERED.
ofJudicialConduct;

Substanstial Evidence -biasandpartiality.

Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/ba Supreme Court’sRuling Case
sesofthe DispositionWHEREFORE,
ASUNCIONREYES -bias charge/s Indeed, eventhough a judgemay not alwaysbe subjected respondent
-ignorance of the todisciplinary actionforevery erroneousorderor decision Judge RusticoD. Paderangaishereby
- versus- lawandprocedure Section1, he renders, thatrelative immunity isnot alicense to be foundGUILTY ofgrossignorance of the lawfor,
-antedating Rule 137 negligentor abusive andarbitrary inperforming whichhe isfinedP20,000.00; andunduedelay
JUDGERUSTICOD.P orders,failure ofthe hisadjudicatoryprerogatives. Itdoesnotmeanthat a judge inresolving a motionandindeciding anappeal, for
ADERANGA, toresolve caseswithin RulesofCou neednotobserve propriety,discreetnessanddue care inthe which heisfinedP15,000.00 with
the reglementary period rt performance ofhisofficial functions.Thisisbecause aSTERNWARNINGthat amore severe
A.M. No.RTJ-06- -refusal to ifjudgeswantonlymisuse the powersvestedinthem bythe penaltywill be metedoutforthe
1973(Formerly inhibitinseveralcases law, there willbenot only confusionintheadministrationof commissionofsimilaroffense in thefuture.
OCAIPINo.05-2329-RTJ) pendingbefore justice butalsooppressive disregardof the basic
hiscourt requirementsof SOORDERED.

4
 2008CASES

March14, 2008 due process.

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:

indirectcontempt
Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/ba Supreme Court’sRuling Case Disposition
sesofthe The Verification/Certification ofthe Petition WHEREFORE, theforegoing
SPOUSESARLEENandL grossignorance of charge/s for Certioraribeforethe CA clearly premisesconsidered,the
ORNA OLIVEROS, thelaw showsthatbothcomplainants signedthe same. Thus,they MOTIONFORPARTIALRECONSIDERAT
v. Rule 71 are presumedto have readitscontents, or since they are IONis DENIEDfor lackof merit. Onthe
HONORABLE DIONISIO oftheRevised supposedlyassisted by counsel, thatthelatterexplained the otherhand,complainant-
C. SISON, Ruleson contentsthereof.Thisshouldhave already made spousesARLEENandLORNA
CivilProcedur themaware ofthe requirement to informthe Courtof OLIVEROSare hereby directedtoSHOW
A.M. NO.RTJ-07-2050 e thefiling ofthecase before the CA considering thatinthe CAUSE, withinTEN (10)DAYSfromreceipt
:March14, lattercase,they are praying for thenullification ofthe ofthisResolution, why they shouldnot be
2008NACHURA, J.: verysameOrderfor whichthey wereseeking citedforcontemptfor violationofSection5, Rule
administrativesanctionsagainstrespondentJudge before 7ofthe RevisedRuleson CivilProcedure.
thisCourt. SOORDERED.
Yetevenin the PetitionforReview itself,they failed
todisclosethatthey hadalready filedanadministrative
caseagainstJudge SisonbeforethisCourtarising
termination of attorney-clientrelation fromthesame orderthey were questioning therein.
Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/bases Supreme Court’sRuling Case Disposition
of the charge/s
HEIRSOFLYDIO"JERRY" Acting The terminationof attorney- WHEREFORE, respondentAtty. Edgar
FALAME, namely: inbehalfofclientswi Section208ofR clientrelationprovidesnojustificationfor a lawyer J.BaguioisfoundGUILTY
MELBAFALAME,LEOFA thoutpermission ule 138 of torepresentaninterestadverse to orinconflictwiththat ofrepresentingconflicting interestsandmetedout
LAME theRulesofCou ofthe formerclient.The client'sconfidence the penaltyof REPRIMAND.
andJERRYFALAME, rt oncereposedshould notbedivested by mere Heisfurtheradmonishedtoobserve a
petitioners,vs. expirationof professionalemployment. Evenafter higherdegree offidelity in thepractice of
ATTY. EDGARJ. Canon15, Rule theseverance of the relation,a lawyershouldnot do hisprofessionand to bearinmindthat a repetition
BAGUIO, respondent. 15.03 of the anything whichwillinjuriouslyaffecthisformerclientinany ofthesameor similaractswillbe dealtwithmore
Codeof matterinwhichhepreviouslyrepresentedhimnorshouldhe severely.
ADM. CASE NO. 6876 ProfessionalResp disclose oruse any of the client'sconfidencesacquiredin SOORDERED.
March7, onsibility thepreviousrelation.
2008TINGA,
J.:

5
 2008CASES

Baselessandunfoundedadministrative case
Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/ba Supreme Court’sRuling Case Disposition
sesofthe
JAIMERACINES, , -unjustjudgment charge/s It ispresumedthat a personintendsthe WHEREFORE, the
ordinaryconsequencesofhisvoluntary CourtfindsJaime Racinesand
- versus- -otherdeceits -Article 32 actandunlesstherequirementsforpropersubstitutionwere Atty. Onofre D.Manaladguilty of
ofthe New made, alawyerenjoysthe presumption of authority IndirectContemptunderSection3,Rule 71 ofthe
JUDGE JOSE -violationof the Anti- CivilCode givenhim byhisclient.Racinesdoesnotdeny that 1997RulesofCivil
P.MORALLOSandSHERI Graft thesignaturesinthe pleadingswere his. He Procedure. Atty. Onofre D.Manaladisorderedto
FFIIIBENJAMINCABUS - alsodoesnotclaimthat hewasprevented by Atty. Manalad pay a FINE ofFIVETHOUSANDPESOS
AO, JR. -CorruptPracticesActs Section1,Art fromreading thecontentsthereof. He onlysaidthatsince he withinten(10)daysfromfinality of
icle IIIofthe fully trustedAtty. Manalad he immediately signed the hereinResolution, while
A.M. No.MTJ-08- 1987Constit documents. Fromthe foregoing, itisclear Jaime Racinesis REPRIMANDED.Both
1698March3, 2008 ution thatRacinesacquiescedandgave hisstamp of approvalto are STERNLY WARNEDthat a repetitionof
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.: the pleadingsfiledincourt. Considering howeverthathe asimilaractmay warrant a more severe action
-the Code isnotlearnedinthe intricaciesof law, the Courtfindsthe bythisCourt.
ofJudicialCo penalty ofreprimandwithwarning tobe sufficientinhiscase.
nduct. SOORDERED.

Necessity tocall the attention of the PresidingJudge forappealsinspecialproceedingsandunauthorizedabsences

6
 2008CASES
Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/ba Supreme Court’sRuling Case
sesofthe Asthe HearingOfficerDesignate himselfnotes, DispositionWH
Judge FATIMA GONZALES- grossneglectforfailureto charge/s Yanezawas“duty bound toprepareandsubmit thereports” EREFORE,
ASDALA,Petitioner, informthe Judge ofa ontime.It isinthislightthatthe CourtfindsYaneza tohave OCA-I.P.I. No.05-2175-PisDISMISSEDfor
V. Notice of Appeal Sec. 23, violatedCivil Service Rules. lack of merit.
VICTORPEDROA. RuleIVofBoo OCA-I.P.I. No.05-2228-PisREDOCKETED
YANEZA (LegalResearcher kVof asa regularadministrative matter.VictorPedro
II)Respondent. ExecutiveOrd A. Yaneza isfoundGUILTYof violationof
erNo. theRevisedUniformRulesonAdministrative
A.M. No. P-08-2455 292 Casesin the Civil Service forfailureto
processdocumentsandcomplete action on
A.M. No. P-08-2456 Rule 11 documentsandpaperswithin a reasonable time
oftheRevisedU frompreparationthereof, andis
A.M. No.RTJ-08- niformRuleso accordingly
2113April 30, 2008 nAdministrativ REPRIMANDEDwithWARNINGthat a
CARPIOMORALES,J.: eCasesin repetition of the sameoffense will be
theCivil dealtwithmore severely.
Service If Yaneza hadreceivedhissalary correspondingto
hisunauthorizedabsencesfromApril 3,2005 to
Article May 31, 2005, heis ORDEREDtoreturnthe
2154of same.The Officeof the
theCivilCod CourtAdministratorisorderedtoverify the
e matterand, ifin the affirmative, to implead the
order.OCA-I.P.I. No.06-2449-
RTJisDISMISSED
for mootness.
Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/ba Supreme Court’sRuling Case Disposition
JUDGE,RTC- sesofthe SOORDERED.
CABARROGUIS, charge/s
QUIRINOV.
ATTY. JESSIE
W.TULDAGUE,
CLERKOFCOURT,
553 SCRA 40 (2008)
blackmail inpleadings
Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/ba Supreme Court’sRuling Case Disposition
sesof

7
 2008CASES

grossmisconduct the charge/s Respondentsinvocation ofthe rule of WHEREFORE,

JOSE C. SABERON, privilegedcommunicationin the complainantsandrespondentsrespective
Article 354 presentadministrativematterismisplaced. MotionsforReconsideration
versus (1) Itbehoovestostate thatthisdefense ispeculiar to the are
oftheRevised criminal casefor libelthatrespondentfaces, DENIED.SOO
ATTY.FERNANDOT. PenalCode whichdependson a totally RDERED.
LARONG differentandevidentlyhigherquantum of
A.C. No. evidencethanisrequiredinthisadministrative
6567August11, case.Needlesstosay, thisCourtsruling asto the
2008 administrative liabilityof respondentisnotconclusive
CARPIOMORALES,J.: ofhisguilt or innocence in the libelcase.

undue delay inrendering a decision

Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/bas Supreme Court’sRuling Case Disposition
esofthe
JULIANITOM. unjustjudgmentandgr charge/sCano For a judge toexhibitindifference to a resolutionrequiring CONSIDERINGTHEFOREGOING,the
SALVADOR ossignorance of n12 ofthe him to comment on the chargesof knowingly rendering
v. thelaw Code accusationsinthecomplaintthoroughly andsubstantially unjustjudgmentandgrossignorance ofthe law
JUDGEMANUELQ.L ofProfessional isgrossmisconduct, andmay evenbe againstrespondentJudge Manuel Q. Limsiaco,Jr.
IMSIACO,JR., Responsibility. consideredasoutrightdisrespectfor the Court.The office areDISMISSEDforlack of merit.
ofthe judge requireshim to obey all the However,forfailing to timely heed the
A.M. NO.MTJ-06- lawfulordersofhissuperiors. Court'sdirectivesrequiring him to comment
1626March17, 2006 onanadministrativecase filedagainsthim,
JudgeLimsiacoisREPRIMANDED,
CALLEJO, SR.,J.: andisSTERNLY
WARNEDthat a repetitionof
thesameorsimilaractshall be
dealtwithmoreseverely.SOORDERED.

reinstatement totheBar

Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/ba Supreme Court’sRuling Case Disposition

CONSTANCIA L. sesofthe
VALENCIA, malpractice charge/s The practice oflaw isaprivilege WHEREFORE, the disbarment ofDIONISIO
Complainant,v infalsifyinga burdenedwithconditions.Adherence tothe C. ANTINIW fromthe practice of law
ATTY. DIONISIO C. notarizeddeed ofsale Canon of rigidstandardsofmentalfitness, maintenance of isLIFTEDand heistherefore allowed to
thehighestdegree ofmorality

8
 2008CASES

ANTINIW,Respondent. Professional andfaithfulcompliance withthe rulesof the resume the practice of law uponpaymentof
Ethics legalprofessionare the conditionsrequiredforremaining therequiredlegalfees.Thisresolutioniseffectiveim
A.C.No.1302,A.C.No.1391, amemberofgoodstanding ofthe barandfor enjoyingthe mediately.
A.C. No. 1543 privilege topractice law. The Supreme Court, asguardian
of the legal profession, hasultimate
June 30, disciplinarypoweroverattorneys. Thisauthority to SOORDERED.
2008LEONARD discipline itsmembersisnotonly arightbut a boundenduty
O-DECASTRO,J.: aswell

blatantdisrespectto theproceedingsof the Commissionon BarDiscipline

Act/scomplainedoff Legalbasis/ba Supreme Court’sRuling Case Disposition
orgery sesofthe The courtfindsthe recommendeddismissalof
LUZ VECINO, charge/s thecomplaint tobe inorder, consideringthe absence WHEREFORE, the
Complainant,v ofanyevidence substantiating the allegationthatitwasAtty. instantadministrativecomplaint
ATTY. GERVACIOB. Ortiz whonotarizedtheDeed of Sale. Regarding isDISMISSED.However,Atty. Gervacio
ORTIZ,JR.,Respondent. theissueonforgery, the courtshallhowever, B.Ortiz, Jr. ishereby
refrainfrommaking a pronouncementthereon, inview ADMONISHEDforfailingto comply witha
C. No. 6909 ofthepending case againstMariaElena lawfulorder ofthe IBP.He
June 30, Espino(ManolitoEspinoswidow),for allegedly falsifying isfurtherWARNEDthathiscommissionofanothe
2008QUISUMBIN the subjectDeedof Sale. rorsimilaroffense shall be dealtwithmore
G,J.: The CourtalsoagreesthatAtty. Ortizshould be severely.
heldadministratively liable forhisfailure
tosubmithispositionpapersince heisduty-boundto
comply withallthe lawfuldirectivesofthe IBP, notonly
because he isamemberthereof, butmore sobecause
IBPisthe Court-designatedinvestigatorof thiscase.
Respectincourt
Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/ba Supreme Court’sRuling Case Disposition
ATTY.MELVIND.C. sesofthe
MANE,Complainant, demeaning, charge/s Analumnusof a particularlawschool hasno monopolyof WHEREFORE, respondent, Judge
V humiliatingandberatings knowledge of the law. Byhurdling the MedelArnaldo B.Belen, PresidingJudge
JUDGEMEDELARNALDO tatementsfromthe judge Canon BarExaminationswhichthisCourtadministers, takingof oftheRegional Trial Court,Branch36,Calamba
B. 3ofthe theLawyersoath, andsigning oftheRollof Attorneys, City,isfoundGUILTY ofconductunbecoming of
BELEN,REGIONALTRIA Code alawyerispresumed tobe competenttodischarge ajudge andisREPRIMANDEDtherefor.
LCOURT,BRANCH36, ofJudicialC hisfunctionsanddutiesas,interalia, anofficerof the Heisfurtherwarnedthat a repetition
CALAMBA CITY, onduct court,irrespectiveof wherehe obtainedhislaw degree. For ofthesameorsimilaractshall be
ajudge to determine the fitnessor competence ofa lawyer dealtwithmoreseverely.

9
 2008CASES

Respondent. primarily on the basisofhisalma materisclearly SOORDERED.

anengagementinanargumentumadhominem.
A.M. No.RTJ-08-
2119June 30, 2008 A judge must addressthemeritsof the case andnotonthe
CARPIOMORALES,J.: personof the counsel. Ifrespondentfeltthathisintegrity
anddignity were being assaulted,he actedproperly
whenhe directedcomplainanttoexplainwhyhe
shouldnotbe citedforcontempt.He
wentoutofbounds,however, whenhe,asthe above-
quotedportionsof thetranscriptofstenographic
notesshow,engaged on a superciliouslegal
andpersonaldiscourse.
Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/ba Supreme Court’sRuling Case Disposition
sesofthe
ATTY. NORITOE.TORRES, -grave abuse charge/s anadmonitiontorespondent to be carefulinsigningorders, WHEREFORE, thecomplaint
ATTY. EPIFANIO ofauthority to bemore efficientin the performance of duty,and to isDISMISSEDfor lack
G. -grossignorance Republic closelysupervise ofsufficientbasis.However,
BOLANDO,GERONIMOM ofthelaw ActNo. 3019, herpersonnelwillsuffice.Therespondentthereinforfailureto respondentJudgeIrma Zita V.Masamayor,
EJIAS,OSMUNDOFLORES, -grave orthe Anti- observe the care anddiligence required ofhiminthe presiding judgeof theRegionalTrial Court
AMADORLABASTIDA,ELE misconduct,obviou GraftandCorr performance ofhisdutiesasa judge. Considering ofTalibon, Bohol,
NA ANASCO,ROSABELLA sbiasandpartiality, uptPracticesA thatrespondentissimilarlyliable merely for inadvertence, Branch52,isADMONISHEDto be careful
GUDES,ALEJANDROPAJU - ct. andconsidering furtherthatrespondentactedwithoutany insigning
LERAS,CELSOPETALCORI grossviolationofRepubl intentto do orders, to bemore efficientin the
N,CARLITOLOBERTERNO ic ActNo. 3019 wrong,thisCourtfindsasimilaradmonitionappropriate. performanceof herduty, and to closely
S,DOLORESESTRADA,PEL supervise herpersonnel. Repetitionof
ARDUPA, thesameorsimilarincidentsshallmerit a more
severe penalty.
v. Complainantsare alsoreminded of
possibleadverse consequencesoffalse
JUDGEIRMA ZITA V. statementsmadeunderoath,hence the
MASAMAYOR, needforcandor,
PresidingJudge, accuracyandtruthfulnessinswornstatements.
RegionalTrial
Court,Branch52,Talibon,Bo
hol,

A.M. NO.RTJ-07-
2037June 30, 2008

10
 2008CASES

QUISUMBING,J.:
Negligence asa notary public
Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/ba Supreme Court’sRuling Case Disposition
sesofthe
CHARLESB.BAYLON fraudanddeceitforn charge/s Notarizationisnotanempty, meaningless,routinary act.It WHEREFORE, thenotarialcommission,
V. otarizing a isinvestedwithsubstantive public interest, suchthatonly ifstillextant, of respondentAtty. Jose A.
ATTY. JOSE A. ALMO SpecialPowerofAtt those whoare qualifiedor authorizedmay Almoishereby REVOKED. He is
orney(SPA)bearing actasnotariespublic.Notarizationconvertsa likewise DISQUALIFIEDto be
A.C. No. 6962June theforgedsignature privatedocumentinto a public reappointedasNotary Public for a
25, documentthusmakingthatdocumentadmissible periodoftwoyears.
2008QUISUMBIN inevidence withoutfurtherproofof To enable usto determine the effectivity of
G,J.: itsauthenticity.Anotarialdocumentisby lawentitled tofull thepenalty imposed, the respondent
faithandcredituponitsface.Courts,administrative isDIRECTED toreport thedate of hisreceiptof
agenciesandthe public atlarge must beable to rely thisDecision tothisCourt.
uponthe acknowledgmentexecuted byanotary public Letcopiesof thisDecision be furnished theOffice
andappendedto a private instrument. of theBar Confidant,the IntegratedBarof
thePhilippines, andthe
courtsalloverthecountry.Let a copy
ofthisDecisionlikewisebeattached to the
personalrecordsof therespondent.
The doctrine ofexhaustionof administrative remedies SOORDERED.
Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/ba Supreme Court’sRuling Case Disposition
sesofthe The doctrine ofexhaustionof administrative
LT. GEN. ALFONSO grossignorance of charge/sNew remediesisbasic. Courts, forreasonsoflaw, comity WHEREFORE, the CourtfindsJudge Maximo
P.DAGUDAG(Ret.), thelaw andconduct Code andconvenience, shouldnot G.W. Paderanga, RegionalTrial
ofJudicialCon entertainsuitsunlesstheavailable Court,Branch38, Cagayan deOro
vs. duct administrativeremedieshave firstbeenresortedto and City,GUILTY ofGROSSIGNORANCE
JUDGEMAXIMOG.W. theproperauthoritieshave beengivenanappropriate OFTHE
PADERANGA, Regional opportunity to actandcorrecttheirallegederrors, ifany, LAW andUNBECOMINGCONDUCT.
TrialCourt, Branch38, Cagayan committedinthe administrative forum. Accordingly, the CourtDISMISSEShimfromthe
deOro City ThisCourtin a long line of caseshasconsistently service, withforfeitureofallretirementbenefits,
heldthatbefore a party isallowed to seek the exceptaccruedleave credits, andwithprejudice to
A.M. No.RTJ-06- interventionofthe court, itisa pre-conditionthat reinstatementorappointmenttoany public office,
2017June 19, 2008 heshouldhaveavailed of all the meansof administrative including government-ownedor
PERCURIAM,J.: processesaffordedhim. Hence, ifa remedy within controlledcorporations.
theadministrative machinery canstill beresortedto SOORDERED.
bygiving the
administrativeofficerconcernedeveryopportunity
todecide on amatterthatcomeswithinhis

11
 2008CASES

jurisdictionthensuchremedy should be
exhaustedfirstbefore court’sjudicialpowercan be sought.
grossdiscourtesy
Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/ba Supreme Court’sRuling Case Disposition
sesofthe
OFFICE Grave charge/s Anemployee of the judiciary isexpected to WHEREFORE, the charge
OFTHECOURTADMINIS andDisrespec accordrespectforthe againstrespondentJudge MoisesM.
TRATOR tful Rule personandrightsofothersatalltimes,andhisevery PardoisDISMISSED.
conductinthe IV,Section52 actandwordcharacterized
v conductof raffle of (B) by prudence, restraint, courtesy anddignity.Government RespondentClerkof CourtAtty. Jessie
JUDGEMOISES cases (3) service ispeople-orientedandwhere high-strung W.Tuldague isfoundGUILTY of violation
M.PARDOandCLERKOF oftheRevisedU andbelligerentbehaviorisnotallowed. No matter ofSupreme CourtCircularNo.7-2002 and
COURTJESSIE W. niformRuleso howcommendable respondentsmotivesmay be, asa isREPRIMANDEDtherefor. He
TULDAGUE,RTC- nAdministrativ publicofficer, courtesyshould behispolicy always. islikewisefoundGUILTY ofgrossdiscourtesy
CABARROGUIS,QUIRINO eCasesin inthecourse ofofficial
theCivil dutiesandisFINEDtheequivalent of
A.M. No.RTJ-08- Service hissalaryforone month and oneday.
2109April 30, 2008
SOORDERED
CARPIOMORALES,
disruptionof J.:
orderly administration ofjustice
Act/scomplainedofAd Legalbasis/ba Supreme Court’sRuling Case Disposition
GLORIA ministrative charges sesofthe
ESPIRITU, charge/s the administrative chargesare
TheCourthasalwaysbeenpunctiliousaboutanyconduct
ComplainantV DISMISSEDforlack of meritandinsufficiency
,actoromissionthatwouldviolatethenormofpublicaccounta
JUDGE ERLINDAPESTAO of evidence.
bilityordiminishthepeoplesfaithinthejudiciary.Alongthislin
BUTED,RTC,
e,theCourtwillnotshirkfromitsresponsibilityofimposingdis
Branch40, SOORDERED.
ciplineamongmembersof the bench.
NACHURA, and
PalayanCity,Respondent.

A.M. No.RTJ-02-1681
April 30,
2008REYES,
R.T.,J.:

Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/ba Supreme Court’sRuling Case Disposition

CITYOFCEBU,Complainant, sesof

12
 2008CASES

V -seriousmisconduct the charge/s allmembersof the WHEREFORE, retiredJudge IreneoLeeGakoof

JUDGEIRENEOLEE -grossignorance benchshouldcomportthemselvesblamelessly inorderto theRegionalTrialCourtof CebuCity,Branch5,
GAKO, JR., Presiding ofthelaw Canon advance public confidence intheintegrity andimpartiality isherebyfoundGUILTY of unduedelay
Judge,Regional Trial - willful violation 3ofthe ofthe judiciary. inrendering a decisioninCivil Case No.CEB-
Court,Branch5, CebuCity, ofrulesandlaws Code 29570. Respondentis ORDEREDtopaythe
Respondent. -judicial interference - ofJudicialC FINE ofForty ThousandPesos(P40,000.00)to be
tolerating forum- onduct deductedfromhisretirementbenefits.
A.M. No.RTJ-08- shopping,
2111May 7, -violationof the SOORDERED.
2008NACHURA, J.: Codeof Judicial
Ethics.

LegalProfession
Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/ba Supreme Court’sRuling Case Disposition
WILSONCHAM, sesofthe
Complainant, -non payment charge/s Lawyersmustatalltimesfaithfully performtheirdutiesto WHEREFORE, Atty. EvaPaita-Moya
v ofrentals society, to the bar, to thecourtsand totheir isfoundguilty of grossmisconductandis
ATTY. EVA PAITA-MOYA, Section11,Rule clients. Aspartofthose duties, they mustpromptly hereby SUSPENDEDforone monthfrom
Respondent. 8oftheRulesof paytheirfinancial thepractice of law, effective uponherreceipt
Court obligations.Theirconductmustalwaysreflect the ofthisDecision. She iswarnedthata repetitionof
A.C. No. valuesandnormsof the legalprofessionasembodiedinthe thesameor asimilaractwill
7494June 27, Code Code ofProfessional bedealtwithmoreseverely.
2008 ofProfessiona Responsibility. Onthese considerations, the
lResponsibilit Courtmaydisbaror suspendlawyersforany
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.: yCanon professionalorprivatemisconductshowing themto be
IandRule 1.01 wanting inmoralcharacter, honesty, probity
andgooddemeanor-- ortobe unworthyto continue
asofficersofthe Court.

TOPIC: Grossignorance ofthe law Canon 6of the CJC. Judgesare duty-bound toobey Dismissfromservice
APPROVALOFBAIL Itprovidesthatcompetence courtderivativesfully andpromptly. A withallbenefitsexceptaccruedleave
ESTERF. BARBERO isaprerequisite tothe due judgeshouldperformofficial creditswithprejudicetoreinstatementorappoin
dutieshonestly, tment to any public

13
 2008CASES

VS. JUDGE CESAR performance of andwithimpartiality anddiligence, office includingGOCC’s

M.DUMLAO judicialoffice.Sec 17. Rule 114 whilejudgesa are not
A.M NO.MTJ-07- oftheROC.Provide thatbail expectedtohaveencyclopedic recollection
1682JUNE 19, may befiledwith the ofapplicablelaws, we issue periodically
2008REYNATOS. courtwhere the caseinpending. inthedischarge oftheirresponsibilities,
PUNO Unless; the theyneverthelesshave boundenduty to
judgeinthatcourtisabsentoruna keepabreastwiththe law
vailable or, thatbailshouldbe andchangesthereinaswellasthe
filedwithanotherbranch ofthe decisionofthiscourt.
same court.

TOPIC: Immorality, Rule 1.01 - A We ruledthatsuspensionfrom SUSPENDhimfromthe practice of law forsix

GROSSIMMORALI abandonmentandwillful lawyershallnotengage thepractice of law (6)monthseffective uponnotice
TYMARJORIEF.SA refusal to givesupportto inunlawful, dishonest,immoral fortwoyearswasanadequate penalty hereof,withWARNINGthatthe same
MANIEGOVS.ATT theirdaughter ordeceitful conduct.Canon 7- imposedon the orsimilaractin the future will be dealtwith
Y. ANDREW A lawyershall lawyerwhowasfoundguilty moreseverely.
V.FERRER atalltimesupholdthe integrity ofgrossimmorality.Insaidcase, we
JUNE 18, anddignity ofthe consideredthe absence of
2008LEONAR legalprofessionandsupportthe aggravatingcircumstancessuchasanadulte
DOQUISUMBI activitiesofthe integratedbar. rousrelationshipcoupledwithrefusal
NG Rule 7.03 - A tosupporthisfamily;or maintaining
lawyershallnotengage illicitrelationshipswithatleast
inconductthatadversely twowomenduring thesubsistence of
reflectson hisfitnesstopractice hismarriage;or abandoning
law, norshallhe, hislegalwifeandcohabiting
whetherinpublic orprivate withotherwomen.
life, behave in In thiscase, we find nosimilaraggravating
ascandalousmannerto circumstances. Thuswe findthe penalty
thediscreditof the recommendedbythe IBPandOffice of
legalprofession. theBar Confidantasadequate
sanctionforthe grosslyimmoralconduct
ofrespondent.
On anotherpoint, we may agree
withrespondent'scontentionthatcomplai
nantwasnotentirely blameless.She knew
abouthiswife butblindlybelievedhim to
be unmarried. However,that one
complicitinthe affair

14
 2008CASES

complained of immorality againsther

co-principaldoesnotmake thiscase
lessserioussince
itisimmaterialwhetherMs.
Samaniegoisinparidelicto. Wemust
emphasize
thatthisCourt'sinvestigationisnotaboutM
s.
Samaniego'sactsbutAtty.
Ferrer'sconductasone of
itsofficersandhisfitnesstocontinue asa
TOPIC: For granting the Sec. 3, Rule 49 ofthe member oftheBar.
Being mainly a review court,the CA
GROSSIGNORANCE petitiondespite motionto RulesofCourttellsusthatmotio hasthe discretiontohear themotionof
OFTHELAW withdrawpetitionbased nsshall aparty.
ERLINDABILDNERVS onmemorandum notbesetforhearingand, Ithasnotbeensufficientlydemonstratedth
. JUSTICE ofunderstanding unlessthe [CA]otherwise atrespondentJusticeabusedhisdiscretioni
VICENTEROXAS directs,no hearingor nnotgrantingcomplainant'sprayerfor a
A.M. OCA I.P.ONO. 07- oralargumentshall hearingconsideringthatthe issue
108-CA-J beallowedinsupportthereof ontheauthority ofNieto'scounselcan
JUNE 12, beresolvedsansthe
2008PRESBITE requestedhearingbasedsolely on
RO thesubmissionsof theparties.Besides, the
J.VELASCO, JR matterwasinconsequentialto the
issueofjurisdiction.
One lastnote.
Withoutnecessarilyreflecting
onthebonafidesof thefilingof
thiscomplaint, the Courtnotesthatthe
complainantimputesillmotivesonrespond
entjustice and, without
somuchaspresenting proof
tosupportherimputation,seeksaninvestiga
tionastohismotives.
Allegationsofgrossignorance, illmotives,
andbiasagainst amagistrate
areseriouscharges. Theycannot be made
torest on pure

15
 2008CASES

speculationandsuspicionalone, ashere.If
anaggrievedparty honestly feelsthata
judge
hadrenderedanerroneousdecisionorgrave
ly abusedhisdiscretionin the exercise
ofhisjudicial functions,the Rulesof
Courtto besure affordssuchparty
adequate judicial remedies.
Anadministrative complaint, with
theendinview of havingthe
judgesuspended, or worse,
dismissedforanyof hisactperceived tobe
irregular orerroneous, canhardly be
consideredasanappropriate corrective
judicialremedy.
TOPIC:GROSSIGNOR Improprietymanifestbiasandp Rule 2.01 ofthe Code To Sec. 8ofRule 112of the GUILTY ofgrossignoranceof the law
ANCE OFTHELAW artiality ofJudicial Rulesdependsupon the imposable andbasic rulesof procedure andis
ANDBASICRULESOFP Conducttomaintainproperde penalty forthe crime chargedinthe hereby FINEDinthe amount ofP20,000.
ROCEDURES corum. complaintorinformationfiledandnotupon
ATTY.RODERICK theimposable penalty forthe offense
M.SANTOSANDALE whichmay be foundto have
XANDERANDRESVS. beencommittedbythe accusedafter a
JUDGELAUROBERN preliminaryinvestigation.RespondentJudg
ARDO e shouldhave remanded the case tothe
A.M. NO.MTJ-07- publicprosecutorforthe
1670JUNE 23, purposesofpreliminary investigation.[The
2008ADOLFOS. Supreme]Courtin a catena of casesheld:
AZCUNA
The absence ofpreliminary
investigationdoesnotaffectthe
court’sjurisdictionover the case. Nor
dothey impair thevalidity of the
information
orotherwiserenderitdefective, butifthere
were nopreliminary investigationand
thedefendants,before
enteringtheirplea,invite the attentionof
the court totheir

16
 2008CASES

absence, the courtinstead

ofdismissingthe
information,shouldconductsuchinvestiga
tion,orderthe fiscal to conductit
orremand the caseto the
inferiorcourtsothatpreliminary
investigationmay be conducted.
The issue raised by complainantdoesnot
pertain to anerror of judgment ortoone
pertainingto theexerciseof
sounddiscretion by respondent. Rather,
theissueiswhetherrespondentcompliedwit
h the proceduralrulessoelementarythat to
digressfromthemamountstoignorance
ofthe law. Since the rulesonpreliminary
investigationarebasic andclearly
expressedintheRevisedRulesofCriminal
Procedure,
respondent’sactuationindenying the same
isdeemedto have beenattended by
grossignorance ofthe law andprocedure.
[The
Supreme]Courthasconsistentlyheldthatla
ck of conversance
withlegalprinciplessufficiently basic
andelementary
constitutesgrossignoranceof the law.
Asanadvocate ofjustice anda visible
representation ofthe law, ajudge
isexpected tobe proficientin
theinterpretationofourlaws.

TOPIC:GROSSMISCO Manifestpartiality, Rule 3.05 ofthe Code Respondentclearlystrayedfromthewe FINE inthe amountofP20,000.00, with
NDUCT,IGNORANCE grossmisconduct, ignorance ofJudicial ll-troddenpathwhen he aSTERNWARNINGthat arepetitionof
OFTHELAW ofthelaw Conductrequiringjudgesto grosslymisappliedthe thesameorsimilaractswill bedealtwith
andunjustandmaliciousdelay dispose RevisedRulesofCriminal Procedure. moreseverely.
in the resolutionof ofcourtbusinesspromptly.

17
 2008CASES

EMILJ.BIGGELVS.JU incidentsinCriminal Case No. Thereshouldbeno more doubtthatundue

DGE 25383-R inactiononjudicial concernsisnot
FERNANDOPAMIN justundesirable butmoresodetestable
TUANA.M.NO.RTJ- especially nowwhenourall-
08-2101JULY 23, outeffortisdirectedtowardsminimizing,
2008LEONARDOA.Q ifnottotally eradicating
UISUMBING theperennialproblemofcongestionanddel
ay long plaguing
ourcourts.Therequirementthatcasesbe
decidedwithinthe reglementary
periodisdesigned topreventdelay in the
administrationofjustice, forobviously,
justicedelayedisjustice denied.
Anunwarrantedslowdownin the
dispositionof caseserodesthe
faithandconfidence of ourpeople in the
judiciary,
lowersitsstandardsandbringsitintodisrepu
te.
TOPIC: Negligence andirregularity No legal basis A perusalof DisbarmentisDENIEDforlack of
DISBARMENTELAIN inhandling laborcase therecordsshowsthattheevidence merit.Nevertheless, respondentAtty. Anita
E V. ARMA VS.ATTY. adduced bythe C.
ANITA complainantisinsufficient Montevilla is
C.MONTEVILLAA.C.N towarrantdisbarment. hereby REPRIMANDEDandWARNEDthata
O.4829 Disbarmentisthe mostsevere form repetitionof thesameorsimilaractsshall
JULY 21, ofdisciplinarysanctionand, as such, bedealtwithmore severely.
2008ANTONIOEDUAR thepower to
DO disbarmustalwaysbeexercisedwithgreatca
B. NACHURA ution,only forthemost
imperativereasonsandinclearcasesofmisc
onductaffecting thestanding
andmoralcharacter
ofthelawyerasanofficerof the
courtandmemberof the bar.
Asa rule, anattorney enjoysthe
legalpresumptionthat heisinnocent of
thechargesprofferedagainsthimuntiltheco
ntrary isproved, andthatasanofficerof the
court,
hehasperformedhisdutiesinaccordance
withhisoath.In
18
 2008CASES

disbarmentproceedings, the
burdenofproofisuponthe
complainantand theCourtwillexercise
itsdisciplinary poweronly if
theformerestablishesitscase byclear,
convincing, andsatisfactoryevidence.
Considering the seriousconsequence of
disbarment,thisCourthasconsistently
heldthatonly a
clearpreponderantevidence
wouldwarrantthe impositionofsuch a
harshpenalty.It meansthatthe
recordmustdisclose asfree fromdoubt a
case thatcompelstheexercise bythe court
of itsdisciplinarypowers.The
dubiouscharacter ofthe actdone,
TOPIC:MALPRACTICE, Controversy arose Rule 18.03 ofthe Code aswellasthe
Every case amotivationthereof,mustbe Suspensionfromthe practice of law forsix
GROSSMISCONDUCT betweencomplainantandVil ofProfessionalResponsibilitye clearly demonstrated.
lawyeracceptsdeserveshisfull attention, (6)monthsconsideringthatrespondenthumblyad
ANDFORVIOLATION lasiregarding the billing njoinsa lawyernot to neglecta skillandcompetence,regardlessof mittedhisfaultin not immediatelyinforming
OF HISOATH AS andpayments. legalmatterentrustedtohim, itsimportance andwhetherhe acceptsitfor complainant ofthe statusofthecase.
ALAWYERFIL- andhisnegligence a fee orforfree. Hemust constantly
GARCIA,INC inconnectiontherewithshallren keepinmindthathisactionsoromissionsor
VS.ATTY.FERNANDO derhimliable. nonfeasancewould be
CRESENTE bindinguponhisclient. Thus,he
C. HERNANDEZ isexpected tobe acquaintedwith
A.C. NO. therudimentsoflaw andlegal
7129JULY 16, procedure,and a
2008 clientwhodealswithhimhastheright
REYNATOS. PUNO toexpect not just a goodamountof
professionallearning
andcompetencebutalso a whole-
heartedfealty to theclientscause.

While pressure ofworkorsome

otherunavoidable reasonsmay
constrainalawyer to file a
motionforextensionoftime to file
pleadings, heshould
notpresumethathismotionforextension
of time will be granted. Well-settledis

19
 2008CASES

the rule thatmotionsforextensionoftime

to file a pleading are notgrantedasa
matter ofcourse butlie inthe
sounddiscretion ofthe court.
Itisthusincumbentonany
movantforextensionto exercise due
diligence
toinformhimselfassoonaspossibleof
theCourt'sactionon hismotion, by
timelyinquiry fromthe Clerk of Court.
Shouldhe neglect to
doso,herunstheriskoftime running
outon him, forwhich hewillhave nobody
buthimself to blame.

TOPIC: Delay in the Section14, Rule 39of It ismandatory for a sheriffto execute LIABLE forNEGLECT OFDUTY. He
NEGLECTOFDUTY, administrationofjustice theRulesonCivil ajudgmentandmake a returnon the isSUSPENDEDfortwo(2)monthswithoutpay
DISHONESTY,ANDVI Procedureprovidesthatthe writof executionwithin andhereby WARNEDthat a
OLATIONOFREPUBL writofexecutionshall theperiodprovidedbythe RulesofCourt. repetitionofthesameorsimilaroffense in the
IC ACTNO.3019 bereturnableto the Section14, Rule39 of theRuleson Civil future shallbe dealtwithmore severely.
ATTY.LEOPOLDOC. courtimmediately afterthe Procedureprovidesthatthe
LACAMBRA, JR. judgmenthadbeensatisfiedinp writofexecutionshallbe returnableto the
VS.CHRISTOPHE art or infull.Ifthe courtimmediatelyafter the
R T.PEREZ judgmentcannot judgmenthadbeensatisfiedinpart
JULY 14, besatisfiedinfullwithin30daysa orinfull.Ifthe judgmentcannot
2008LEONARD fterhisreceiptof the writ,the besatisfiedinfullwithin30daysafterhisrecei
OA.QUISUMBI officershallreport pt of the writ, the officershallreportto
NG tothecourtandstatethereasont the courtand statethe reasontherefor. He
herefor. islikewise required to makea reportto the
courtevery 30
daysuntiljudgmentissatisfiedinfull
oritseffectivity expires.
Suchperiodicreporting on the statusofthe
writsmustbedonebythesheriffregularly
andconsistently every 30 daysuntil the
writsare returnedfully satisfied.
Here, the non-implementation ofthe

20
2008CASES

writ of executionisundisputed.
Recordsshow thatfromthe time thewrit
ofexecutionwasissued onMarch23,
2004,thesame
remainedunimplementedformore
thanthree years. We note
thatPerez’slastattempt to execute the
writwason September22, 2006or
morethantwoyearsfromhispreviousattem
pt onJune 2, 2004. Certainly, thelong
delay in the executionof the
writnegateshisclaimthat he
exertedhisbesteffort to implementthe
same.
Likewise, asshown bythe
records,Perezfailed to
submitperiodicreportstoupdate the court
ofthe proceedingsundertaken
toimplementthe writ.
Hislastsubmissionofthe
Sheriff’sPartialReportwasonJune 14,
2004. Sincethen,he hasnotsubmittedany
report to thecourt.
The delay of more thanthree
yearsandthe failure tosubmitperiodic
reportsclearly show thatPerez
neglectedhisduty. Perez cannotseek
refuge frominconveniencescaused by
distance orthe complainant’sclients’
financialconstraintsto justifyhisfailure
toimplementthe subjectwrit.
Sheriffsplay animportantrole in
theadministrationof justice. They
aretaskedto execute finaljudgmentsof the
courts.Ifnot
enforced,suchdecisionsbecome empty
victoriesofthe prevailingparties.
Asagentsof the law,
sheriffsarecalledupon to discharge
theirdutieswithdue care
andutmostdiligencebecause inserving the
21 court’swritsand
 2008CASES

processesandimplementingitsorders,they
cannotaffordto errwithoutaffecting the
integrity oftheiroffice andthe
efficientadministrationof justice.
However, astothe chargesofdishonesty
andgraftandcorruption,wefindthatthere
isinsufficientevidence toprove
them.Itmustalsobe stressedthatthe
charge of
graftandcorruptioniscriminalinnature;
thus, theresolutionthereofcannot be
threshedoutin theinstantadministrative
proceeding.
Under the
UniformRulesonAdministrative Casesin
theCivilService, Simple Neglect ofDuty
isa lessgrave offense whichcarriesa
penalty ofone monthand one day tosix
monthssuspensionfor thefirstoffense.
ConsideringthatthisisPerez’sfirstoffense,
we agree thatsuspensionof
twomonthswouldbe sufficient.

TOPIC: For hisuse in a Code of Judicial We do not departfromthisrule on ADMONISHhimto beevermindful

IMPROPERCOND privatecommunicationof Conductparticularly theuseofofficialstationary.We ofthestandardshehastoobserve inhisuse
UCTAS hisofficialcourtstationery Section1, Canon4 clarify,however, thatthe useof a ofhisletterheadandtitle, andWARN.
AMEMBEROFTHE andhistitleasa judge. Rule 2.03 ofthe Code of letterheadshouldnot be
JUDICIARYCONR theJudicial Conduct consideredindependentlyof
ADOY.LADIGNO thesurrounding circumstancesof
NVS.JUDGERIXO theusethe underlying
NM.GARONG reasonthatmarkstheuse withthe element
A.M. NO.MTJ-08- ofimpropriety orappearance of
1712AUGUST20, impropriety. In thepresentcase, the
2008ARTUROD. respondentJudgecrossed the line
BRION ofpropriety when heusedhisletterheadto
reporta complaintinvolving
anallegedviolation of

22
 2008CASES
churchrulesand, possibly,
ofPhilippinelaws. Coming from a
judgewith theletteraddressedto a
foreignreader,
suchreportcouldindeedhave conveyed
theimpressionof officialrecognition
ornotice of the reportedviolation.

Thesameproblemthattheuseofletterhead
poses, occursinthe useofthetitle ofJudge
orJustice inthecorrespondence ofa
member oftheJudiciary.While the use of
the title isanofficialdesignationaswellas
anhonourthatanincumbenthasearned, a
line stillhasto be drawnbasedon
thecircumstancesoftheuseoftheappellatio
n.While the title can be
usedforsocialandotheridentificationpurp
oses, itcannot be usedwith theintent
touse the prestige ofhisjudicialoffice to
gainfully advance hispersonal,family or
otherpecuniary interests.Norcan the
prestige of a judicialoffice beused or lent
to advance the
privateinterestsofothers,or toconvey
orpermitothersto convey
theimpressionthatthey are in
aspecialposition toinfluence the judge.To
do anyof theseisto crossinto
theprohibitedfield ofimpropriety.

TOPIC: Undue Delay inRendering Petitionforcertiorari,prohibiti While we concurwith Respondentshould notbe

GROSSMISCO aDecisionorOrderandGrossI onandmandamusunderRule theInvestigatingJusticesfinding sanctionedforherfailure to acton the notice
NDUCT gnorance of theLaw 65 ofthe thatrespondentisnotguilty of ofappealaftershehadinhibitedherselffromthe
JESUS ofProcedurerelative to RulesofCourtwiththe Court grossmisconduct,we are not case.
G.CRISOLOGOVS. thedenial of theMotionfor ofAppeals inagreementwithhisrecommendationthat
JUDGEMARIVICTRAB respondent be heldadministratively
AJODARAY

23
 2008CASES

A.M.NO.RTJ-07- Interventionfiled liable for undue delay inrendering

2036AUGUST20, bycomplainantinCivil adecisionororderandgrossignorance
2008ANTONIOEDUAR Case ofthe law or procedure.
DO It issettledthatasa matterof policy,
B. NACHURA theactsof a judge inhisjudicial capacity
arenot subject to disciplinary action.
Hecannot be subjected to liability
civil,criminal or administrative forany of
hisofficialacts, nomatter
howerroneous,aslong ashe
actsingoodfaith. Toholdotherwise would
betorenderjudicialoffice untenable,forno
onecalleduponto try the factsor
interpretthe law in theprocessof
administering justice can beinfallible
inhisjudgment.

However, thejudgesinexcusable
failureto observe the basic
lawsandruleswillrenderthemadministrati
vely
liable.When the law issosimple
andelementary, lack of
conversanceTherewithconstitutesgrossig
norance ofthe law. In any case, to
constitute grossignorance ofthe law,
itisnotenoughthat thesubjectdecision,
order oractuation ofthe judge
intheperformance of hisofficial
dutiesiscontrary toexistinglaw
andjurisprudence
but,mostimportantly,suchdecision, order
oract mustbeattended by badfaith,
fraud,dishonesty,or corruption.
Goodfaithandabsenceof malice,
corruptmotives
orimproperconsiderations, are
sufficientdefensesinwhich a judge
chargedwithignorance ofthe law
canfindrefuge.

24
2008CASES

The allowance or disallowance of

amotionto intervene isaddressedto
thesounddiscretionof the court.
Thepermissive tenorof the
rulesshowstheintentionto give tothe
court the fullmeasure
ofdiscretioninpermitting ordisallowing
the intervention.Here
isnodoubtthatrespondentwascognizant
ofthe rule on intervention,
andshecompliedwithitingoodfaith.
Infact,respondenthasexplainedthat
shedenied the
motionforinterventionbecause
itwouldonlydelay, to theprejudice of the
original parties, the
civilcaseswhichhadalready
beenpendingfor almost a
decade.Respondentmaintainsthatshe
sincerelybelievedthatthe rightsof the
complainantwould bebetterprotectedin
aseparate
action. Underthe rule on
intervention,these are
validconsiderationsindeciding
whetheror notto grant amotionto
intervene. There isnoshowing
thatrespondentjudge wasmotivated by
any ill-willindenying thecomplainants
motionforintervention;hence, she
cannot besanctionedtherefor.

The filingof
anadministrativecomplaintisnotthe
properremedy forthe correction of
actionsofa judgeperceived to have gone
beyond thenormsofpropriety, where
asufficientjudicial remedy exists.

25
 2008CASES
TOPIC: Allegedly using abusive Rule 11.03 A lawyershallemploy SIMPLEMISCONDUCTforusingintem
GRAVEMISCO andoffensive language CANON11 onlyfairandhonestmeanstoattainthe perate language. He isFINEDP2,
NDUCT inpleadingsfiledbefore Rule 8.01 lawfulobjectivesofhisclientandshall 000 with a sternWARNINGthat a
JOSE C. theBangkoSentral ng Pilipinas CANON 8 notpresent,participate inpresenting repetitionof thisorsimilaractwill
SABERONVS.ATTY.F (BSP orthreaten bedealtwithmoreseverely.
ERNANDOT.LARON topresentunfoundedcriminalchargesto
G obtainanimproperadvantageinany case or
A.C. NO. proceeding.
6567APRIL16,
2008CARPIOMORA To besure, the adversarial nature of
LES ourlegal system
hastemptedmembersofthe bar
tousestrong language inpursuitof
theirduty toadvance
theinterestsoftheirclients.
However, while a lawyerisentitled
topresenthiscase
withvigorandcourage,suchenthusiasmdo
esnot justify the useof offensive
andabusive
language. Language
aboundswithcountlesspossibilitiesforone
to beemphatic butrespectful, convincing
butnot derogatory, illuminatingbut
notoffensive. Onmany occasions,
theCourthasremindedmembersof
theBarto
abstainfromalloffensivepersonalityand to
advance no factprejudicial to
thehonororreputationof apartyorwitness,
unlessrequired by the justice ofthe cause
TOPIC:EJECTMENT Motionsfor inhibition Canons10. 11. & 12 andRule withwhich heischarged. Inkeeping with
(1) FINEDin the amountofFive
CASES ofcomplainant onthe 11.04 of the the dignity ofthe legalprofession, a
Whether...thecomplaintfile Thousand(P5,000)Pesos, with a warning
JUDGE ALDEN basisofthe factthatEDC gave CodeofProfessionalRespo dlawyer’slanguage
by eveninhispleadingsmust that arepetitionof the
.CERVANTESVS.ATT himahouse andlotputting nsibilityunderhisoathofoffi be dignified
respondentagainstthecomplainantbefor sameorsimilarquestionedactwill be
Y. JUDE JOSUE intoseriousdoubthisimpartiali ce. e theOffice of dealtwithmore severely.
L.SABIO ty,independence andintegrity. theCourtAdministratorinAdminMatter
OCA IPINo.06-1842-MTJ
wasmalicious, false anduntruthful.

26
 2008CASES

A.C.NO.7828AUGU
ST11, (2) Ifinthe affirmative,whether
2008CARPIOMORA ... respondentisguilty underthe Code
LES ofProfessionalResponsibility.

On the firstissue,
theIBPCommissionerdidnotfindrespond
entscomplaintagainsthereincomplainantf
alse anduntruthful, itnoting
thatrespondentscomplaintwasdismissed
bythisCourtdue toinsufficiency
ofevidence which, to the
IBP,merelyshowsa failure onthe
partofrespondenttoprove
hisallegationsagainstcomplainant.

Noting,
however,thisCourtsAugust30,2006Resolu
tionfindingrespondentscomplaintunsubst
antiatedandmotivated by plain,
unfoundedsuspicion,
theInvestigatingCommissionerconcluded
thatrespondentknowingly instituted
notonly a
groundlesssuitagainsthereincomplainant,
butalso asuitbasedsimplyon hisbare
suspicionand
speculation.(underscoringsupplied)

On thesecondissue, the IBPfoundthatby

filing the groundlessbribery
chargeagainstcomplainant,respondentvio
lated the proscriptionof the Code
ofProfessionalResponsibility
againstwittingly or willinglypromoting
orsuingAny groundlesssuitincluding
baselessadministrative
complaintsagainstjudgesandothercourtof
ficersandemployees.

27
 2008CASES
TOPIC: The authority SECTION1. How
GROSSMISCO ofrespondenttoissue inthe instituted.Proceedingsfor the
NDUCTDATU above-saidcivilcase a disciplineof
OMARS.SINSU Temporary Judgesofregularandspecial
ATAND RestrainingOrder(TRO)and a courtsandJusticesofthe
MARIANOH. PAPS writofpreliminary injunction. CourtofAppealsand
VS.JUDGE VICENTE the Sandiganbayanmay
A.HIDALGO beinstitutedmotuproprio by
A.M. NO.RTJ-08- theSupreme Court orupon
2133AUGUST6, averifiedcomplaint,
2008CARPIOMORAL supportedby
ES affidavitsofpersonswhohave
personalknowledge ofthe
factsallegedtherein or
bydocumentswhichmaysubsta
ntiate saidallegations,or
uponananonymouscomplaint,s
upported bypublic
recordsofindubitableintegrity.
The complaintshallbe
inwriting andshallstateclearly
andconcisely the
actsandomissionsconstitutingv
iolationsofstandardsofconduct
prescribedforJudges
28
The Investigating
Commissionerthusconcludedthat
while the evidence on recordissufficient
toshowthat the
allegationsinrespondentsaffidavit-
complaintagainsthereincomplainantwere
false, theevidence
nonethelessshow[s]thatrespondenthadk
nowingly
andmaliciously instituted
agroundlesssuit, basedsimply on
hisunfoundedsuspicionsagainstcomplai
nant;
There are three waysby GUILTY
whichadministrative ofgrossmisconductandgrossignorance ofthe
proceedingsagainstjudgesmay be law andimposesuponhim afine ofP40, 000,
instituted: (1)motuproprio bythe tobe deductedfromhisretirementbenefits
Supreme Court;
(2)uponverifiedcomplaintwithaffidavits
of personshaving personalknowledgeof
thefactsallegedthereinor
bydocumentswhichmay substantiate
saidallegations;
or(3)uponananonymouscomplaintsupp
orted bypublic recordsof indubitable
integrity.
While the copy
oftheMotionwhichcomplainants
furnishedtheOCA wasunverifiedaswere
theirsubsequentletters, the OCA
correctly
treatedthemasanonymouscomplaint.
The Courthas,onseveraloccasions,
beenentertaining complaintsofthis
nature especially where
respondentsadmitted thematerial
allegationsof
thecomplainantsasinrespondentscase.
 2008CASES
by law, the Rulesof Court, Anonymouscomplaints, asa rule,
orthe Code ofJudicial arereceivedwithcaution.They
Conduct. shouldnotbe dismissedoutright,
however, wheretheiravermentsmay be
easily verifiedandmay,
withoutmuchdifficulty,
besubstantiatedandestablished by
othercompetentevidence.

Here, the
motionandletterssufficientlyaverred the
specific
actsuponwhichrespondentsallegedadmin
istrativeliability
wasanchored.Andtheavermentsare
verifiable from therecordsofthe
trialcourtandtheCAsDecision.

Respondentschallenge
againstthisCourtsjurisdictionover
thepresentcaseisunavailing.Indeed, the
pleadingsofthe partiesand the
communicationsofthe OCA clearly
showthatthedisciplinary proceeding
againsthimwasset
inmotioninNovember2003 whenthe
OCA received a copy ofcomplainants
Motion.

Respondentsretirementinthe
TOPIC: Grossmalpractice, Canon1, Rule 1.01 of interimdoesnotperse
A lawyershallserve DISBARREDandhisname
DISBARMENTTORBE immoralcharacter, theCode of warrantthedismissalofthe anddiligence.
hisclientwithcompetence administrativeA isorderedSTRICKENfrom theRoll
NB.OVERGAARDVS. dishonesty ProfessionalResponsibility complaint. notneglect a
lawyershall ofAttorneys.
ATTY.GODWIN anddeceitfulconduct. statesthat"alawyershall not legalmatterentrustedto him, HeisORDEREDtoimmediatelyreturntoTorbe
R.VALDEZ engage inunlawful, dishonest, andhisnegligence n
A.C. NO. immoralor deceitfulconduct. inconnectiontherewithshallrenderhim B. Overgaardthe amount of$16,854.00 or
7902SEPTEMBER30, liable.Respondentshouldindeed itsequivalentinPhilippine Currency at the
2008 beheldliable, forhe wasnotjust timeof actualpayment,
withlegalinterestofsixpercent(6%)perannumfr
omNovember27,

29
 2008CASES

PERCURIAM incompetent, hewaspractically useless;he 2006, the date of extra-judicial demand.

wasnot justnegligent, Atwelve percent(12%)interestperannum, inlieu
hewasindolent;andratherthanbeing of of sixpercent(6%),shall be imposed
helpto the complainant, heprejudiced onsuchamountfromthe dateof
theclient.Respondent'sinactionwithrespe promulgationofthisdecisionuntil the
ctto the mattersentrusted to hiscare paymentthereof. HeisfurtherORDERED
isobvious; andhisfailure to file ananswer toimmediately
tothe returnallpapersanddocumentsreceived
complaintfordisbarmentagainsthimandto fromthecomplainant.
attendthe
hearingsinconnectiontherewith,
withoutanyexplanation
orrequestforresetting,despite
propernotice fromthe IBP,
isclearevidence of negligence on
hispart.The Code
ofProfessionalResponsibilityfurtherprovi
desthat a lawyerisrequiredto keep the
clientinformedof thestatusof hiscase and
torespondwithin areasonable timeto the
client'srequestfor information.The
respondentdid theopposite. Despite the
complainant'seffortstoconsulthimandnot
withstandingnumerousattemptstocontact
him,simply to ask foranupdateof
thestatusofthe
cases,therespondentwasableto avoid
thecomplainantandneverbothered
toreply.
UnderSection27,Rule 138of
theRevisedRulesof Court, a member
oftheBarmay be disbarredor
suspendedon any of the following
grounds: (1)deceit; (2)malpractice
orothergrossmisconductinoffice;
(3)grosslyimmoral conduct;
(4)conviction ofacrime involvingmoral
turpitude; (5)violation ofthe
lawyer'soath; (6)willfuldisobedience
ofany lawfulorderof a

30
 2008CASES
superiorcourt; and(7)willfulappearance
asanattorney for a
partywithoutauthority. A lawyermay
bedisbarred
orsuspendedformisconduct,whetherinhi
sprofessional or privatecapacity, which
showshimto bewanting
inmoralcharacter,honesty,probity
andgooddemeanor,orunworthyto
continue asanofficerofthe court.

TOPIC: For manifestbias, Section19 ofthe Delay in the dispositionofcasesnotonly FINEof Twenty
GROSSIGNORANCE partialityandneglect of duty RevisedRulesonSummary depriveslitigantsoftheirrighttospeedy ThousandPesos(P20,000.00)isimposedonJudge
OFTHELAW Procedure dispositionoftheircasesbutalsotarnishesth Tanciongco,thesametobe
FENINAR.SANTOS e image of the deductedfromhisretirementbenefits.
VS. JUDGE ERASTO judiciary. Failure todispose the
D. courtsbusinesspromptly withinthe
PROMULGATED:TA periodsprescribed by law and
NCIONGCO therulesconstitutesgrossinefficiency
A.M. NO.MTJ-06- andwarrantsadministrativesanction
1631SEPTEMBER30, ontheerring judge like respondent
2008REYES, R.T

.
TOPIC: Notarized a Section 1ofPublic Withoutthe appearance of the REVOKED.He isDISQUALIFIEDfrom
DISBARMENTDOLO documentdenominatedasExt ActNo.2103 personwhoactually executed the being commissionedasnotary public for
RESL. DELACRUZ, rajudicialSettlementof the documentinquestion,notariespublic aperiodoftwo(2)years
ETAL. VS.ATTY. Estate withWaiver of Rights. would beunable to verifythe andSUSPENDEDfromthe practice of
JOSER.DIMAANO, JR genuinenessof thesignature of the lawfor a periodof one (1)year, effective
A.C. NO. acknowledging partyand to uponreceipt of a copy ofthisDecision,
7781SEPTEMBER12, ascertainthatthe documentisthepartysfree withWARNINGthat a repetitionof
2008VELASCO, JR act ordeed. Furthermore,notariespublic thesamenegligentactshall be dealtwithmore
are requiredbytheNotarialLaw severely.
tocertifythatthe party tothe
instrumenthasacknowledgedandpresente
dbefore thenotariespublic
theproperresidence certificate (or

31
2008CASES

exemptionfromthe
residencecertificate)andtoenteritsnumber
,place, anddate of issue aspart
ofcertification.Rule II, Sec. 12of the
2004RulesonNotarial Practice now
requiresa party to the instrument
topresentcompetentevidence ofidentity.
Sec. 12provides:
Sec. 12. CompetentEvidence
ofIdentity.The phrase
competentevidenceof identityreferstothe
identification ofanindividual basedon:

(a)atleast one
currentidentificationdocumentissuedby
anofficialagencybearing the
photographandsignature ofthe
individual, suchasbutnotlimited
to,passport,
driverslicense,ProfessionalRegulationsCo
mmissionID,
NationalBureauofInvestigationclearance,
policeclearance, postal ID,voters
ID,Barangay
certification,GovernmentService
Insurance System(GSIS)e-card,Social
Security
System(SSS)card,Philhealthcard,seniorcit
izencard,OverseasWorkersWelfareAdmi
nistration(OWWA)ID,
OFWID,seamansbook, aliencertificate
ofregistration/immigrantcertificate
ofregistration, governmentoffice
ID,certificate from theNationalCouncil
forthe Welfare
ofDisabledPersons(NCWDP),Departme
nt ofSocialWelfare
andDevelopmentcertification[asamended
by A.M.No. 02-8-13-SCdatedFebruary
19, 2008]; or

32
 2008CASES
(b) the oath oraffirmation of
onecredible witnessnotprivy
totheinstrument,documentor
transactionwhoispersonally known
tothe notarypublic andwhopersonally
knowstheindividual, or oftwocredible
witnessesneitherofwhomisprivy to
theinstrument,documentor
transactionwhoeachpersonally
knowstheindividualandshowsto
thenotarypublic documentary
identification.

One lastnote.
Lawyerscommissionedasnotariespublic
are mandatedtodischarge withfidelity
thedutiesoftheiroffices,suchdutiesbeingdi
ctated bypublic policy
andimpressedwithpublicinterest.Itmust
be rememberedthatnotarizationisnot a
routinary,meaninglessact,fornotarization
convertsaprivate documentto a
publicinstrument,making itadmissible
inevidence without the necessity
ofpreliminary proof of itsauthenticity
anddue execution. A
notarizeddocumentisby law entitled
tofull
credituponitsfaceanditisforthisreasonthat
notariespublic mustobserve
thebasicrequirementsinnotarizing
documents.Otherwise, the confidence of
the publicon notorizeddocumentswillbe
TOPIC:DISBARMENT Violating Canon11 of the eroded.
A lawyerisfirstandforemostanofficerof SUSPENDEDfrom thepracticeof law for
ATTY.RICARDOSAL hisLawyersOathand/orgross CanonsofProfessionalEthic the court. Assuch,he isexpected aperiodof one (1)yeareffective uponhisreceipt
OMONJR.VS.ATTY. misconductarising s torespectthe of thisDecision.Letnotice of thisDecision be
JOSELITOC. fromhisactuationswithrespe courtsorderandprocesses.Atty. Frial enteredinhispersonalrecordas
ct to twoattached miserably fellshort ofhis

33
 2008CASES

FRIAL vehicles dutiesassuchofficer.He trifledwith anattorney withthe Officeof

M. A.C. NO. thewrit of attachmentthe courtissued. theBarConfidantandnotice ofthesame
7820SEPTEMBER12, servedonthe IBPandon theOffice of the
2008VELASCO, JR Very patently, Atty. CourtAdministratorforcirculation to all the
Frialwasremissinhisobligation oftaking courtsconcerned.
goodcare of theattachedcars. He
alsoallowed theuseofthe NissanSentra
car by personswhohad no businessusing
it. Hedid notinform the courtoratleastthe
sheriffofthe destructionof the Volvocar.
Whatisworse isthat he took custody of
themwithoutso muchasinforming the
court,letalone securing, itsauthority.

For hisnegligence
andunauthorizedpossessionof the cars,
we findAtty.Frial guilty ofinfidelity inthe
custody ofthe attachedcarsandgrave
misconduct.We mustmention,
atthisjuncture, thatthe
victoriouspartiesinthe case are not
withoutlegalrecourse inrecovering the
Volvosvaluefrom Atty.Frial shouldthey
desire todo so.
The Court, nevertheless, isnotinclinedto
impose, ascomplainanturges, theultimate
penalty ofdisbarment.
Theruleisthatdisbarmentismetedoutonly
inclearcasesofmisconductthatseriouslyaff
ect thestanding andmoralcharacterof a
lawyerasanofficerofthe
courtandmemberof the bar. With
theview wetake of the case, there
isnocompellingevidence tending
toshowthatAtty. Frialintended
topervertthe administration ofjustice
forsome dishonestpurpose.

Disbarment, jurisprudence teaches,

34
 2008CASES
shouldnot be decreedwhere
anypunishmentlesssevere,
suchasreprimand,suspension, orfine,
wouldaccomplishthe end
desired.Thisisasitshouldbe considering
the consequenceof disbarmenton the
economic life andhonorof the
erringperson.In the caseof Atty. Frial,
the Courtfindsthat
ayearssuspensionfromthe practice
ofhislegal professionwillprovide
himwithenoughtime to ponderon
andcleanse himselfof hismisconduct.

TOPIC: Notarizingseveraldocumentsd Rule 1.01 ofCanon 1of To besure, the SUSPENDEDfrom thepracticeof law for
DISBARMENTJESSIC espite the expirationof theCode of requirementsfortheissuance of a aperiodof six(6)months.Inaddition,
A C. UY hiscommission. ProfessionalResponsibility, commissionasnotarypublic mustnot be hispresentnotarialcommission,ifany,
VS.ATTY.EMMANUEL treatedasa merecasualformality. The isHEREBYREVOKED, and he
P.SAO Courthascharacterized a isDISQUALIFIEDfromreappointmentasanot
A.C. NO. lawyersactofnotarizingdocumentswithou ary publicfor a periodof two(2)years.
6505SEPTEMBER11, t HeisfurtherWARNEDthatany
2008ANTONIONACH therequisitecommissionthereforasrepreh similaractorinfractionin thefutureshallbe
URA ensible,constituting asitdoes, dealtwithmore severely.
notonlymalpractice, butalsothe crime
offalsificationof public documents.
Forsuchreprehensible conduct,the
Courthassanctionederring
lawyersbysuspensionfromthe practice of
law,revocationof the
notarialcommissionanddisqualificationfr
omacting assuch,andevendisbarment.

Time andagain, we have

heldthatwherethe notarization of
adocumentisdonebya memberof
thePhilippine Bar at atime when he
hasno authorization orcommissionto
doso, the offendermaybe subjected
todisciplinary action. One

35
 2008CASES
whoisperforming a
notarialactwithoutsuchcommissionisa
violation ofthelawyersoath toobey the
laws, morespecifically, the Notarial Law.
Then, too,by making itappearthat
heisdulycommissionedwhenhe isnot,
heis,forall legal intentsandpurposes,
indulgingindeliberate falsehood, which
thelawyersoathsimilarly proscribes
TOPIC: GRAVE Failure/refusal toresolve Violation The 1987 Fine ofP10,000.00 forundue delay
ABUSEOF theMotion to ofhisconstitutionalright toa Constitutionrequirestrialjudgesto inresolvingthe Motionto
DISCRETION,GROSSN WithdrawInformation. speedy dispositionof the case. dispose of the courtsbusinesspromptly WithdrawInformationinCriminal CaseNo.
EGLIGENCE,SERIOUS and todecide 6679, andanotherfine ofP10,000.00
INEFFICIENCY casesandmatterswithinthree forherrepeatedfailure to comply withthe
ANDVIOLATIONOFT (3)monthsfromthe filing of the Courtsdirectivestofile hercomment onthe
HECODE lastpleading, brieformemorandum. administrativecomplaintagainsther.
OFJUDICIALCONDUC Inthe disposition ofcases, membersof WeWARNthatanyrepetitionof these
T the orsimilaroffensesinthefutureshall be
MICHAELGAMALIELP benchhavealwaysbeenexhortedtostrictly dealtwithmore severely.
LATA adhereto thisrule topreventdelay, a
VS.JUDGELIZABETH majorculpritinthe erosionofpublic
G. TORRES faithandconfidence inourjustice system.
A.M. NO.MTJ-08- Thespeedy dispositionofcasesby
1721OCTOBER24,200 judgesisinfactunequivocally directed by
8JUSTICE BRION Canon6of the Code ofJudicial Ethics:
Heshouldbe promptindisposing of
allmatterssubmittedto
him,rememberingthatjustice
delayedisoftenjusticedenied. In the
presentcase, it tookrespondentJudge
more thanfive (5)yearsbefore
sheresolved asimplemotionto withdraw
the informationagainst the
complainant.Thisisindicative of the
grossinefficiency thatunderminesthe
peoplesfaithin thejudiciary
andreinforcesinthe mind ofthe
litigantsthe impressionthat thewheelsof
justice grindexceedinglyslow. We
cannotallow thistohappen,

36
 2008CASES
particularly at a time whenthe
cloggingof the courtdocketsisoneof the
maincomplaintsagainstthe judiciary.

TOPIC: Obtained a CANON 1 Respondentdid notdeny that SUSPENDEDFORTHREE

DECEITFULANDDI loanfromthecomplainantan sheobtained a loaninthe amount MONTHSfrom thepracticeof law
SHONESTCONDUC dissuedtwo of P250,000.00 withwarning thatrepetitionofthe
T (2)postdatedchecksin withinterestfromthecomplainant.Respon sameorsimilaractswillmerit
WALTER WILKIE thelattersfavortopay dentsbare claimthat the loanwas, infact, amoreseverepenalty. Let acopy of
VS.ATTY. thesaidloandespite knowledge only anaccommodationfor thisDecision beenteredin
SINAMARE.LIMOS ofinsufficiency of fundsto aformerclientwhoaccording to therespondentsrecordasa memberof
A.C. NO. coverthe same. respondenthadalreadydiedcannot be theBar,andnotice ofthesamebe served on
7505OCTOBER24,2 givencredence and,indeed, theIntegratedBar of thePhilippines, and
008LEONARDO- toospeciousto be ontheOffice of the
DECASTRO believed. Besides,she didnotfile CourtAdministratorforcirculation to all
anyanswer tothe courtsinthe country.
complaintnorevenappearedpersonally
before the CBDdespite being duly
notified, toallegesuchclaim.
Addedtothisobservationisthe
factthatinherManifestationandMotiondat
edFebruary 23, 2006,nomentionwasmade
withregard
tothecomplainantsAugust24,2005
Affidavitof Desistance. Itwasonly
mentionedinherletterto
theIBPdatedDecember14, 2006
whichwasreceivedin the IBP-CBD
onJanuary 3, 2007.Bythen,
theReportandRecommendationdatedJuly
28, 2006 of theCommissionerwasalready
submitted tothe Board
ofGovernorswhichresolvedtoaffirmsaidR
eportinitsResolution
datedDecember15, 2006.

Atany rate, the excusesgiven

byrespondentcannotexculpate
herfromanadministrative
sanctionconsidering
37
2008CASES

heracknowledgementthatworthlesscheck
swere issued by herinpayment ofthe
loan.

We have heldthat the issuance

ofcheckswhichwere
laterdishonoredforhaving
beendrawnagainst a
closedaccountindicatesa
lawyersunfitnessforthe
trustandconfidence reposed onher.
Itshowsa lack of personal
honestyandgoodmoralcharacterasto
renderherunworthy ofpublic confidence.
Theissuance of a seriesof
worthlesschecksalsoshowsthe
remorselessattitude
ofrespondent,unmindful to
thedeleteriouseffectsofsuchact to
thepublic interestandpublic order. It
alsomanifestsa lawyerslowregard to
hercommitment tothe
oathshehastakenwhen she
joinedherpeers, seriously andirreparably
tarnishing theimageof theprofessionshe
shouldholdinhighesteem.
Respondent, however, tosecure
herexonerationfromthe consequence
ofheractinissuing
worthlesschecks,heavily relieson the
complainantsAffidavitofDesistance
datedAugust24,2005. Butsuchreliance
ismisplacedbecause while the
complainantfiledhisaffidavitwiththe trial
court,he did notdo the same thing
inthiscase.Notably,at the time of the
mandatoryconference/hearing before
the CBDonMarch29,
2006,complainantdidnot
eveninformtheCommissionerthat he
already desisted
38
 2008CASES
inprosecuting the criminal caseshe
filedwith the MTC against the
respondentandthatsuchdesistance
resultedin thedismissalofsaidcases. Inany
event,
theCourthasconsistentlyfrowneduponthe
desistance of complainantsbecauseof
TOPIC: THE Immorality Rule 1.01 legal andjurisprudentialinjunction.
AsthisCourtoftenremindsmembersofthe DISBARRED.Let a copy ofthisDecision
COURTEXERCISE andAbandonm CANON 7 bar, therequirement of beenteredintothe recordsof respondentin
ITSDISCIPLINARYP ent. Rule 7.03 goodmoralcharacterisofmuchgreaterimp theOffice of theBar
OWER ort,asfarasthe generalpublic Confidantandhisnamestrickenfrom theRoll
REBECCA isconcerned,than the ofAttorneys.Likewise,copiesofthisDecisionshal
B.ARNOBITV possessionoflegallearning. lbe furnishedtheIBPandcirculated bythe
S. Good moralcharacterisnotonly CourtAdministratorto all appellate andtrial
ATTY.PONCIANOP. aconditionprecedentforadmission tothe courts.
ARNOBIT legal profession,
A.C. NO. butitmustalsoremainintactinorderto
1481OCTOBER17,2 maintainonesgoodstanding
008PERCURIAM inthatexclusive andhonoredfraternity.
Goodmoralcharacterismore thanjustthe
absenceof badcharacter.
Suchcharacterexpressesitselfinthe will
todo theunpleasantthing ifitisrightand
theresolve not todo the pleasantthing
ifitiswrong.Thismust beso because
vastinterestsare committedto hiscare; he
isthe
recipientofunboundedtrustandconfidenc
e; he dealswithhisclientsproperty,
reputation, hislife,hisall.

Immoralconducthasbeendescribedasthat
conductwhichisaswillful, flagrant,or
shamelessastoshow indifference tothe
opinion of
goodandrespectablemembersofthe
community.To be thebasisofdisciplinary
action,suchconductmustnotonly be
immoral, butgrossly immoral. That is,it
mustbeso

39
 2008CASES
corruptastovirtually constitute
acriminalact orso unprincipledasto
bereprehensible to a highdegree
orcommittedundersuchscandalousorrev
olting circumstancesasto
shockthecommonsenseofdecency.

Asofficersof the court, lawyersmustnot

only infact
beofgoodmoralcharacterbutmustalso
beseen to beofgoodmoral
characterandleading livesinaccordance
with the highestmoralstandardsof the
community.A memberof
thebarandanofficerofthe courtisnot
onlyrequiredtorefrainfromadulterousrelat
ionshipsorkeeping
amistressbutmustalsoso behave
himselfasto avoidscandalizing thepublic
bycreating the impressionthathe
isfloutingthose moralstandards.

A review of therecordsreadily
revealsthatdespite the protracteddelay in
thehearingsmainly caused by
respondentsfailure to appear,
complainantrelentlessly
pursuedthisadministrativecase
againstherhusband.She was, to besure,
able to establish by clear,convincing,
andpreponderantevidencehiscommissio
nofmarital infidelity andabandonmentof
hisfamily.
TOPIC: For Violation ofB.P.22Canon The Courtconsidered the issuance SUSPENDEDfortwoyearsfromthe practiceof
DISBARMENTERRYT. violationofBatasPambansa 1of the Code ofworthlesschecksasviolation of law, effective uponhisreceipt of thisDecision.
WONGVS.ATTY.SALV 22(B.P. 22)andnon- ofProfessionalResponsibili thisRule Heiswarnedthata repetitionof thesameor
ADORN.MOYA II paymentof debt. ty andanactconstitutinggrossmisconduct asimilaractwill bedealtwithmore
. We alsoruledthat the

40
 2008CASES
A.C. NO. issuance ofcheckswhichwere severely.
6972OCTOBER17,2 laterdishonoredfor Letcopiesof thisDecision be served
008LEONARDO- havingbeendrawnagainst a ontheCourtAdministratorwhoshall circulate it
DECASTRO closedaccountindicatesalawyersunfitnessf to allcourtsfortheirinformationandguidance
or the trustandconfidence reposed aswellasthe Office
onhim,showssuchlack of oftheBarConfidant,whichisdirectedtoappend a
personalhonesty copyto respondentspersonalrecord.
andgoodmoralcharacterastorenderhimun
worthy ofpublic confidence,
andconstitutesagroundfor disciplinary
action.

The act of a lawyerinissuinga

checkwithoutsufficientfundsto cover
thesame
constitutessuchwillfuldishonestyandimm
oralconductasto underminethe public
confidence in thelegalprofession. He
cannotjustify hisact ofissuing
worthlesschecksbyhisdirefinancialcondit
ion.Respondentshouldnot have
contracteddebtswhicharebeyondhisfinan
cialcapacity to pay. Ifhe suffered a
reversal offortune, heshouldhave
explainedwithparticularitythe
circumstanceswhichcausedhisfailure
tomeethisobligations.Hisgeneralizedand
unsubstantiatedallegationsastowhy he
renegedin thepayment of
hisdebtspromptly
despiterepeateddemandsandsufficientti
TOPIC: Usurpationofauthority,serious A.M. No. 03-10-01- meaffordedhimcannotwithstandscrutiny
If uponaninformal preliminary ComplainantDanielP. Almaden, Jr.
EJECTMENTSUITWIT misconduct, SC, .
inquirybythe Office of the isherebyfoundGUILTYOF CONTEMPTOF
HDAMAGESDANIELP. issuingunjustorder, ignorance entitledResolutionPrescribi CourtAdministrator, COURTandisMETED a penalty ofFINE
ALMADEN,JRVS.HON. ofthelaw andgrave abuse ngMeasurestoProtectMemb anadministrativecomplaintagainstany inthe amountof twothousandpesos(P2,000.00).
VICTORIO ofauthority ersof theJudiciary Justice of
L.GALAPON, JR fromBaselessandUnfounde theCourtofAppealsorSandiganbayan
dAdministrative orany Judge of the lowercourtsfiledin

41
 2008CASES
A.M. NO.08-1982- Complaints. connectionwith a case incourtisshownto
MTJOCTOBER17,2008 be clearly
ANTONIONACHURA unfoundedandbaselessandintended
toharasstherespondent,such a finding
should be includedin
thereportandrecommendationof
theOffice of the
CourtAdministrator.Ifthe
recommendationisapproved
oraffirmedbythe Court, the
complainantmay be requiredtoshow
cause why heshouldnot
beheldincontemptofcourt. If the
complainantis a lawyer, hemay further be
required toshow causewhy heor she
shouldnot beadministratively
sanctionedasa memberof theBar
andasanofficerof the court.

TOPIC: Falsificationof a Code of It cannotbe Atty. MagnoV.Toribioishereby foundGUILTY

GRAVEMISCONDUCT SpecialPowerofAttorney ProfessionalResponsibility overemphasizedthatnotarizationof
,GRAVE (SPA). and theruleson documentsisnot anempty,
DISHONESTYJOFEL notarialpractice meaninglessorroutinary act. It
P.LEGASPIVS.ATTYS. isinvestedwithsubstantivepublic
RAMONLANDRITO,M interest,suchthatonly those whoare
AGNOTORIBIO qualified orauthorizedmay
OCTOBER15,2008J actasnotariespublic. Itisthroughthe act of
USTICE TINGA notarizationthat aprivate
documentisconvertedinto apublic one,
making itadmissible inevidence
withoutneedofpreliminaryproof of
authenticity anddue
execution. Indeed, a
notarialdocumentisby law
entitledtofullfaithandcredituponitsface,
andforthisreason,notariespublic
mustobserveutmostcare incomplying
withthe elementaryformalitiesinthe
performance of their
ofviolatingthe Code of
ProfessionalResponsibility and theRuleson
NotarialPractice. He ishereby
SUSPENDEDfromthepractice of law for
six(6)months, with a sternwarning
thatrepetitionofthe sameorsimilarconductinthe
future will bedealtwithmoreseverely.
Hisnotarial commission, ifany, isalsohereby
SUSPENDEDfor six(6)months.
The case againstAtty. Ramon P.
Landritoishereby DISMISSEDforlackof
merit.

42
 2008CASES
duties.Otherwise, the confidence of
thepublic in the integrity
ofthisformofconveyance would be
undermined.

A notary publicshould notnotarize

adocumentunlessthe personswhosigned
thesame are the
verysamepersonswhoexecutedandperson
allyappearedbefore him to attest to
thecontentsand the truthof whatare
statedtherein.

The responsibilityto faithfully

observeandrespectthe legalsolemnity
of theoathinanacknowledgmentor jurat
ismore pronouncedwhenthe
notarypublic isa lawyer.A
graverresponsibility isplaceduponhim
byreasonofhissolemnoathunder theCode
of ProfessionalResponsibility toobey the
lawsandto do nofalsehoodorconsentto
the doing ofany.

TOPIC: Breach Section8, Rule 140of The GUILTY OFGROSSMISCONDUCTand

GROSSMISCONDUC ofprocedure/ignorance theRulesofCourt, CourtnotesthatJudgeAsishasbeenfoundg DISHONESTY andimposeson him a
TATTY. ofthelaw andknowingly asamendedby A.M. No. 01- uilty of variousadministrative FINEof TWENTYTHOUSANDPESOS
NENITACENIZA assertingfalsehoodinhisorde 8-10-SC, offensesinthree (3)cases. OnJanuary 30, (P20,000.00)to be
LAYESE VS.JUDGE rs. dishonesty 1996,respondentjudge wasfinedP10, deductedfromhisretirementpay.
ENRIQUE andgrossmisconductare 000.00for grossirregularity inthe
C.ASIS seriousoffensespunishableby performance of duties,violation
A.M. NO.RTJ-07- eitherdismissal fromthe ofSupreme Courtcirculars,abuse of
2034REYES, R.T service,suspensionfromoffice authority, andconductunbecoming of a
orfineunderSection11of the judge. OnApril 6,2000, respondentjudge
samerule. was suspendedfor
ten(10)daysandfinedP40,
000.00forseriousinefficiency. Again,

43
 2008CASES
on January 15, 2002,he
wasreprimandedandfinedP5,
000.00forincompetence innotacting
speedily onanelectioncase.

In the presentcase, indeed,

respondentsinfractionsare
equivalenttodishonestyandgrossmiscond
uct. Clearly, hetransgressed
thestandardsofintegrity,competence,
anddiligence under theCode of Judicial
Conduct.Ineffect,respondentsviolationsd
isplayedhislackof competence, probity,
andmoraluprightness,the essential
qualitiesof amemberof theJudiciary.

TOPIC: Misconduct, Section12 inrelation Asto the charge ofmisleading the CASE BE DISMISSEDforlack of merit.
DISBARMENTANTON concealmentofthe toSection3(f) ofRepublic courtbynot pointing out the notationsin
IO DEZUZUARREGUI, truthandmisleading Act(R.A.)No. 26. thetechnicaldescriptionandsketchplan,th
JRVS.ATTY. thecourt. ere appearsto
APOLONIA A. Requirementsof benomaliceorintentionalmachinationtom
C. SOGUILON theLandRegistrationAuthority islead thecourt. Indeed,
ADM. CASE NO. (LRA). thesaidnotationswerenot
4495JUSTICE TINGA hiddenormanipulatedbyRespondent.It
isclearthatRespondentand the
trialcourtcommittederrorthatshouldbe
characterizedasreversibleerrorin the
absence of proof
ofintentionalmachinationorcollusion.

Thesamefindingsare true for thecharge

of deliberate omission of personsentitled
to notice underR.A.No. 26.
The saidomissionshouldhave
beenfatal omissionsthatshouldhave

44
 2008CASES
jeopardized the
petitionforreconstitutionoftitle.
Nevertheless, itwasallowed bythe
trialcourt toprosper. Furthermore,
thereappearstobeno
reasonforRespondent todisbelieve or
nottorely ontherepresentationmadeto
herby herclient.

Asto the allegedfraudulentclaim

ofcompliance withLRA requirements,
itisnotedthatthe trialjudge of
RTC, QuezonCity, andBranch93 didnot
citeRespondentincontempt ofcourt.
However,the disciplinary
processdoesnotpunisherrors,
mistakesorincompetence.
Errorsandmistakesarecorrected by
legalremediessuchasmotionsforreconside
ration,appeals,andpetitionsforrelief.
Thereversal ofthe June 5,
1995Decisionofthe
trialcourthasremediedthe
errorcommitted.PREMISES
CONSIDERED,itis
submittedthatrespondent did
notcommitany actforwhichshe should
bedisciplinedoradministrativelysanctione
d.
TOPIC: Unjustifiedabsenceswithoutlea Rule 139-Bof The Courtfindsthe GUILTY ofmaking untruthful
DISHONESTY,VIOLA ve, untruthful statementsinthe theRulesofCourt. evaluationandrecommendation ofthe statementsinhiscertificate ofservice forthe
TIONOFREPUBLIC certificate ofservice. InvestigatingJustice to be well- monthofSeptember2001for whichhe
ACT(R.A.)NO. 3019, takenexceptfor isSUSPENDEDfromoffice
GROSSMISCONDUCT, therecommendedpenalty. withoutsalaryandotherbenefitsfor a period
VIOLATIONOFTHEC Judges, asthe presidingmagistratesofthe of one (1)monthfromreceiptof
ODE courts, are duty-boundtoscrupulously hereinResolution.
OFJUDICIALCONDU adhereto, andholdsacred,the tenetsof the
CT professionof law. They

45
 2008CASES

LILIA C.RAGA shouldkeepinmindthat a certificate

VS.JUDGE ofservice isnotmerely a
SIBANAHE.USMAN meanstoreceiveone’ssalary.It
A.M. NO.RTJ-07- ispartofthesacred taskof dispensing
2053AUSTRIA- justice.It isaninstrumentessential to
MARTINEZ thefulfilment bythe judgesof theirduty
todispose oftheircasesSpeedily
asmandated by theConstitution.
In thiscase, complainantwasable
toshow
thatrespondentwasabsentonSeptemb
er 7 and21,2001
yetrespondentstatedinhiscertificate
ofservice that he did
notincuranyabsencesforthe
saidmonth.
Respondent'sdenialisweakin the faceof
the documentary
proofspresentedbycomplainant,
specifically
theindorsementandconstanciassignedby
Atty. Escobar, the authenticity of
whichrespondentdidnot
assail.Respondentalsotriedto
claimthathissignature inthe certificate
ofserviceforSeptember2001 wasforged.
AsfoundbytheInvestigating Justice
however,respondentfailedto substantiate
andprove suchallegation.
Respondentalsotried topassthe blameon
complainant,whoishissubordinate.Unfort
unately, he cannotusethe
allegedinefficiency
andantagonisticattitude
ofhisstafftowardshimasadefense.Whatev
erblame hetriestoimpute to
complainantfor
hispresentpredicamentultimately
goesback tohim, foritshowshisinability to
controlanddiscipline
hisstaffanddemonstrateshisweaknessinad
46 ministrative

Violation of Lawyer’s Oath,Code ofProfessionalResponsibility,NotarialLaw,andRules onNotarialPractice of2004
GRACEDELACRUZ- Atty.Panganconspiringandconfeder
SILLANOvs.ATTY.WILFRED atingwiththeotheraccusedR.F.Apos
OPAULD.PANGAN tolfalsifiedandforgedaSpecialPower
ofAttorney(byforgeringthesignature
A.C. No. ofmydeceasedmotherandnotarizing
5851November25,2 thesame),whichempoweredthe
008CARPIO,J.: accusedRonaldo
F.Apostoltoprocess,receiveclaiman
dencashcheckrepresentingbenefitsa
risingfromtheinsurancepolicyofmy
deceasedmotherZenaidaApostoldel
aCruz(ofwhichIamthebeneficiary).
Theaccusedsuccessfullyencashthec
heckintheamountofP71,033.53tom
y meishis
2008CASES
supervision.
Rule 140 of theRulesofCourt, asamended
by A.M. No.01-8-10-SC,classifiesthe
actofmaking untruthfulstatementsinthe
certificateof service asa lessseriouscharge
whichcarriesany ofthe
followingsanctions:suspensionfromoffice
withoutsalary andotherbenefitsfornot
lessthanone nor morethanthreemonths,
or a fineof morethanP10, 000.00 butnot
exceeding P20,000.00
TOPIC:
Section1ofPublicActNo.2103orth Atty.Panganwasguiltyfornotarizinga Atty.WilfredoPaulD.PanganGUIL
e NotarialLaw provides: SpecialPowerofAttorneyintheAbse TY ofviolatingtheCode of
nceoftheAffiant.Therespondentdoe ProfessionalResponsi
Sec.1.(a)Theacknowledgementshal snotdenynotarizingthequestionedS bility.
lbebeforeanotarypublicoranofficerd pecialPowerofAttorney,insteadthea
ulyauthorizedbylawofthecountrytot ffidavitspresentedbyrespondentpro TheCourtSUSPENDShimfromthe
akeacknowledgementsofinstrument vethataffiantwasnotinthepersonalpr practice of law forone year;
sordocumentsintheplacewherethea esenceofrespondentatthetimeofthe
ctisdone.Thenotarypublicortheoffic notarization. REVOKEShis
ertakingtheacknowledgementshallc incumbent
ertifythatthepersonacknowledgingt Doingawaywiththeessentialrequire notarialcommission, ifany;
heinstrumentordocumentisknownt mentofphysicalpresenceoftheaffian
ohimandthatheisthesamepersonwh tdoesnottakeintoaccountthelikeliho PROHIBITShimfrombeingcomm
oexecutedit,acknowledgedthatthesa odthatthedocumentsmaybe issionedasanotarypublicfor one
spuriousor year, effective
immediately,withasternwarningthat
arepetitionofthesameorsimilaroffen
seshall bedealtwithmore
47
 2008CASES

damage andprejudice. freeactanddeed.Thecertificateshallb thattheaffiantsmaynotbewhothey severely.

emadeundertheofficialseal,ifheisreq purport to be. A
uiredbylawtokeepaseal,andifnot,his notarypublicshouldnotnotarizeadoc
certificate shallsostate. umentunlessthepersonswhosignedt
hesamearetheverysamepersonswho
TheCodeofProfessionalResponsi executedandpersonallyappearedbef
bilityprovides: orehimtoattesttothecontentsandtru
thofwhatarestatedtherein.Thepurpo
Canon1.AlawyershallupholdtheCo seofthisrequirementistoenablethen
nstitution,obeythelawsofthelandan otarypublictoverifythegenuinenesso
dpromoterespectforthe law fthesignatureoftheacknowledgingp
andlegalprocesses. artyandtoascertainthatthedocument
istheparty'sfreeactanddeed(Bernar
Rule1.01.Alawyershallnotengagein dov.Atty.Ramos,433Phil.8,16(200
unlawful,dishonest,immoral 2).
ordeceitful conduct.
Respondent'sfailuretoperformhisdu
Section2(b)ofRuleIVoftheRules tyasanotarypublicresultednotonlyin
onNotarialPracticeof2004emphas damagingcomplainant'srightsbutals
izesthenecessityoftheaffiant'sperso oinunderminingtheintegrityofanota
nalappearancebefore the notary rypublicandindegradingthefunction
public: ofnotarization.Hence,respondentsh
ouldbeliableforsuchnegligence,noto
Apersonshallnotperformanotarialac nlyasanotarypublicbutalsoasalawyer
tifthepersoninvolvedassignatorytot .(Folloscov.Atty.Mateo,
heinstrumentordocument - 466Phil.305,313 (2004)
(1) isnotinthenotary'spresencepers
onallyatthetimeofthenotarization;
and

(2) isnotpersonallyknowntothenota
rypublicorotherwiseidentifiedbythe
notarypublicthroughcompetentevid
enceof

48
 2008CASES
identity asdefined by theseRules.

TOPIC:
Violation oftheNew Codeof JudicialConduct

OFFICEOFTHECOURTADM TheOCAfoundthatJudgeDoyonfail Art.VIII,Section15(1)ofthe1987P TheConstitutionrequirestrialjudge The CourtfindsJudgeOrlando

INISTRATOR, edtoresolvewithinthereglementaryp hilippineConstitutionprovides: stodisposeofallcasesormatterswithi F.DoyonoftheRegionalTrialCourt,
vs. eriodninemotionssubmittedforresol nthreemonths.Thereasonforthisrule Branch34,Cabadbaran,AgusandelN
JUDGEORLANDOP. ution,incurreddelayindecidingsixcas Allcasesormattersfiledaftertheeffect isthatjusticedelayedisjusticedenied. orte,
DOYON,BranchClerkofCourt,A essubmittedfordecision,failedtodeci ivityofthisConstitutionmust be Unduedelayinthedispositionofcases GUILTYofunduedelayinrendering
tty.CUSTODIOB.COMPENDI deSP.43- decided or resolvedwithintwenty- resultsinadenialofjusticewhich,intur decisionsandordersfor
O,JR.,and 04whichwassubmittedfordecisionas fourmonthsfromdateofsubmissionf n,bringsthecourtsintodisreputeandu whichheisFINEDP20,000.00tobe
Clerks-in- earlyasJuly18,2005andnoactionwast ortheSupremeCourt,and,unlessredu ltimatelyerodesthefaithandconfiden deductedfromhisretirementbenefits
ChargeNOELB.ALBIVAandJE akeninCrim.CaseNo.2004- cedbytheSupremeCourt,twelvemon ceofthepublicin the judiciary. Thus, .
ANNETTET. 116whereinawarrantofarrestwasissu thsforalllowercollegiatecourts,andth the failure
SAYAS,alloftheRegionalTrialCo edon August16, 2004. reemonthsforallotherlowercourts. ofjudgestorenderjudgmentswithint
urt,Branch34,Cabadbaran,Agus herequiredperiodconstitutesgrossin
andelNorte. TheNewCodeofJudicialConduct efficiencyandwarrantstheimpositio
alsoprovidesinCanon6,Section5 nofadministrativesanction(Re:Cas
A.M. No. RTJ-08- thereofthatjudgesshallperformalljud esLeftUndecidedbyRetiredJudg
2108November25,2008AUS icialduties,includingthedeliveryofres eBenjaminA.BongolanoftheReg
TRIA-MARTINEZ,J. : erveddecisions,efficiently,fairlyand ionalTrialCourt,Branch2,Bangu
withreasonablepromptness. ed,Abra,A.M.No.98-12-392-
RTC,October20,2005,473
SCRA 428).

Ajudgecannottakerefugebehindthei
nefficiencyormismanagementofhis
personnel.Heisresponsible,notonlyf
orthedispensationofjusticebutalsof
ormanaginghiscourtefficientlytoens
urethepromptdeliveryofcourtservic
es.Sinceheistheonedirectlyresponsi
blefor the proper

49
 2008CASES

dischargeofhisofficialfunctions,hes
houldknowthecasessubmittedtohi
mfordecision,especiallythosependin
gformorethan90days(Visbalv.Sesc
on,A.M.No. RTJ-04-
1890,October11,2005,472SCRA
233).

TOPIC:
ViolationOfTheNotarialLaw,andCommissionofUnlawful,Dishonest,Immoral,AndDeceitfulConduct

MARISA RespondentnotarizedaDeclarationo Section13ofthe2004RulesofNotar Thedocumentdoesnotbearthereside ThepetitionisGRANTED.Atty.Ro

BACATAN fHeirshipandPartitionmakingitappe ialPractice,aresidencecertificateisn ncecertificatenumberofLuciaBrione drigoIcaoisSUSPENDEDfromthe
WILLIAMSandORLANDOVE arthatthreeofitssignatories– olongerconsideredacompetentproo s,oneofthesignatories. In notarizing practiceoflawandfromhiscommissio
RARRIAN,JR., LuciaBriones,RamonVerar,andMar foftheaffiant’sidentity. itwithoutrecordingLucia’sresidence nasanotarypublicforaperiodofoneye
vs.ATTY.RODRIGOICAO. tinUmbac– certificate,respondentviolatedtheN ar,effectiveimmediately,withwarnin
signeditinhispresencewhenintruthth otarialLawtheneffective(Section13 gthat
A.C. No. ey didnot ofthe2004RulesofNotarialPractic acommissionofthesameorsimilaract
6882December24,2008C e)whichrequiredthenotarypublictoc sinthefutureshallbedealtwith
ARPIOMORALES,J. : ertifythatapartytotheinstrumentwhi moreseverely.
chwasacknowledgedbeforehimhad
presentedtheproperresidencecertifi
cate(orexemptionfromtheresidence
certificate)andtoenteritsnumber,pla
ceanddateofissueaspartofthecertific
ation.Thisformalityismandatoryand
cannotbeneglected,failuretocomply
withwhichresultsintherevocationof
anotary’scommission.(Sorianov.B
asco,
A.C.No. 6648,September21,

50
 2008CASES

2005,470 SCRA 423,429)

Byrespondent’sadmission,thesignat
oriestothedocumentdidnotpersonal
lysignitinhispresence.He,however,cl
aimsthattheyappearedbeforehiman
dconfirmedtheiridentitiesandackno
wledgedthatthesignaturesappearing
thereonweretheirs.Bysuchomission,
hefailedtoheedhisdutyasanotarypub
lictodemandthatthedocumentforno
tarizationbesignedinhispresence.(Traya
,Jr.v.Villamor,466Phil.919,923
(2004)

TOPIC:
Gross Ignoranceof the Law AndAbuseOfDiscretion
OFFICEOFTHECOURTADM Section3(d)ofRule102oftheRules
INISTRATOR, JudgePerelloandClerkofCourtAtty. of Court,to wit: Inobstinatelygrantingthewritsof TheCourtfindsJudgeNormaC.Perell
vs.JUDGE LuisBucayonIIforgrossignoranceof habeascorpuseveniftheconvictedpriso oGUILTY of
NORMA C. thelaw,graveabuseofdiscretionandg Sec.3.Requisitesofapplicationtherefor.- nershadonlyservedtheminimumperi gross
PERELLO,formerClerkofCourt ravemisconduct Applicationforthewritshallbebypetit odoftheirsentence,JudgePerellodisp ignoranceofthelawandabuseofdiscr
LUISC.BUCAYONII, ionsignedandverifiedeitherbythepar layedablatantdisregardoftheruleong etion,forwhichsheismetedafine
CourtStenographersTHELMA Insomeofthepetitionsforhabeascorpu tyforwhosereliefitisintended,ofbyso raduationofpenaltiesaswellassettledj ofP40,000.00tobedeductedfromher
A.MANGILIT,CECILIOB.ARG s,respondentJudgePerelloerredinor mepersoninhisbehalf,andshall urisprudencetantamounttogrossign retirementbenefits.
AME,MARICARN.EUGENIO, deringthereleaseoftheprisonersbefo setforth: oranceofthelaw.Asatrialjudge,respo
andRADIGUNDA retheyhaveservedthe ndentisthevisiblerepresentationofla
R.LAMANandInterpreterPAUL fulltermoftheirsentence. (d)Acopyofthecommitmentorcaus wandjustice.
M.RESURRECCION,alloftheR eofdetentionofsuchperson,
egionalTrialCourt,

51
 2008CASES

Branch276,MuntinlupaCity ifitcan UnderCanon1.01oftheCodeofJudi

beprocuredwithoutimpairingtheeffi
A.M. No. RTJ-05- ciencyoftheremedy; xxx.
1952December24,2008LEONA
RDO-DECASTRO,J. : Canon1.01oftheCodeofJudicialC
onduct, provides:
RULE1.01-
Ajudgeshouldbetheembodimentofc
ompetence,integrity
andindependence
cialConduct,sheisexpectedtobe"th
eembodimentofcompetence,integri
tyandindependence."Judgesareexpe
cted to
keepabreastofdevelopmentsinlawan
djurisprudence(Dizonv.Calimag,
A.M.No.RTJ-99-
1472,September20,2001,365SCRA
448,454).Heshouldstriveforexcelle
nceexceededonlybyhispassionfortru
th,totheendthathebethepersonificat
ionofjusticeandtheRuleofLaw.Whe
n
thelawissufficientlybasic,ajudgeowe
sittohisofficetosimplyapplyit;anythi
nglessthanthatwouldbegrossignora
nceofthelaw(Vicentev.Majaduco
n,
A.M.No.RTJ-02-
1698,June23,2005,461SCRA12,22)
.JudgePerellomusttherebyhavemore
thanacursoryknowledgeofthelawon
graduationofpenaltiesandtheimposa
blepenaltyforviolationof the
DangerousDrugsAct.

TOPIC:
Violation of Rule II ofthe2004 Rules ofNotarialPractice andCanon 1of the Code ofProfessionalResponsibility

ZENAIDAB.GONZALES,vs. The respondent had no RuleIIof the2004Rulesof The respondentclearlyfailedto ATTY. NARCISO

52
 2008CASES

ATTY. participationinthepreparationorkno NotarialPracticeprovides: faithfullycomplywiththeforegoingru PADIERNOSof103DelPilarStreet

NARCISO wledgeofthefalsityofthespuriousdoc leswhenhenotarizedthethreedocum ,CabanatuanCity,isSUSPENDEDf
PADIERNOS uments,andfoundmeritinthecompla SECTION1.Acknowledgment.- entssubjectofthepresentcomplaint. rom
inant'scontentionthattherespondent "Acknowledgment"referstoanactin Therespondentdidnotknowthecom the
A.C. No. "wasnegligentintheperformanceof whichanindividualonasingle plainantpersonally,yethedidnotrequ practiceof lawfor a periodof
6713December8,2 hisdutiesasa notary public." occasion: ireproofofidentityfromthepersonw THREE(3)MONTHS,and
008BRION,J.: hoappearedbeforehimandexecuteda hisnotarialcommissionishereby
(a) appearsinpersonbeforethenotar ndauthenticatedthethreedocuments REVOKED.
ypublicandpresentanintegrallycomp .TheIBPReportobservedthathadthe
leteinstrumentondocument; respondentdoneso,"thefraudulenttr
ansferofcomplainant'spropertycoul
(b) isattestedtobepersonallyknown dhave beenprevented."
tothenotarypublicoridentifiedbythe
notarypublicthroughcompetentevid Throughhisnegligenceintheperform
enceofidentityasdefinedbytheseRul anceof
es;and hisdutyasanotarypublicresultinginth
elossof propertyof
(c) representstothenotarypublicthat anunsuspectingprivatecitizen,the
thesignatureontheinstrumentordoc respondenterodedthecomplainant’s
umentwasvoluntarilyaffixedbyhimf andthepublic’sconfidenceinthenota
orthepurposestatedin the rialsystem; he
instrumentordocument,declaresthat broughtdisreputetothe system.
hehasexecutedtheinstrumentordoc As we
umentashisfree heldinPantojaMumarvs.Fl
andvoluntaryactanddeed,and,ifheac ores, (A.C.No. 5426,April4,2007;
tsinaparticularrepresentativecapacit 520SCRA470),hetherebybreached
ythathehastheauthoritytosigninthat Canon1oftheCodeofProfessionalR
capacity." esponsibilityaswellasRule 1.01 of
thesameCode.
Canon1oftheCodeofProfessional
Responsibility Therespondentshouldberemindedt
hatanotarialdocumentis,onitsfacean
CANON1- dbyauthorityoflaw,entitledto full
ALawyershallupholdtheConstitutio faithandcredit.Forthisreason,notari
n,obeythe espublicmust observeutmostcarein

53
 2008CASES

lawsofthelandandpromoterespectfo complyingwiththeformalitiesintend
rlawofandlegalprocesses. edtoensuretheintegrityofthenotariz
eddocumentandtheactoractsitembo
Rule1.01- dies(TrayaJr.v.Villamor,A.C.No
Alawyershallnotengageinunlawful,d .5595,February6,2004,422SCRA
ishonest,immoral ordeceitful 293).
conduct

54
 2009CASES
TOPIC:
Violation of Canon18 of the Code ofProfessionalResponsibility
CANON18-
OFELIAR.SOMOSOT,vs. Therespondentdeniedthatfailedtoe Alawyershallservehisclientwithcom Heviolatedthebasicrule,expressedu RespondentATTY. GERARDO
ATTY.GERARDOF. LARA xercisethediligencerequiredof petenceanddiligence. nderCanon18oftheCode of F. LARAis
himascounsel ProfessionalRespon hereby SUSPENDEDfrom
A.C. No. Rule18.01- sibility. the
7024January Alawyershallnotundertakealegalser practiceoflawforaperiod ofthree
30,2009BRION, vicewhichheknowsorshouldknowth First,therespondentfailedtoprecisel (3)months,effectiveuponreceiptof a
J.: atheisnot qualifiedto renderxxx yallegeinhissubmissionshowhetried copy ofthisDecision.
tocontactthedefendantonoraboutth
Rule18.02.- etimetheinterrogatoriesandrequestf
Alawyershallnotneglectalegalmatter oradmissionwerepending.Itappears
withoutadequate preparation. thathereallyhadnot;byhisownadmis
sion,hisattempttocontactthecompla
inantcameinDecember2001andonly
Rule18.03.-
toinformherofhisgovernmentappoi
Alawyershallnotneglectalegalmatter
ntmentandtocollecthisbillings.Itwas
entrustedtohim,andhisnegligencein
onlyafterthediscoveryoftheclosureo
connectiontherewithshallrenderhi
fthedefendant'sofficedidtherespon
mliable.
denttrytocontactthecomplainantan
dherhusbandbycellularphone,butth
Rule18.04.- eycouldnotbe reached.
Alawyershallkeeptheclientinformed
of the Second. The
statusofhiscaseandshallrespondwit interrogatories/admissionissuehap
hinareasonabletimetotheclient'sreq penedinAugust2001,whichtellsusth
uestfor information. attherespondentataboutthattimewa
salreadyverysensitiveabouthisbilling
issueagainsthisclientashehadnotbee
npaidfromMaytoAugust2001.Assu
mingthenon-payment

55
 2009CASES

tobetrue,suchfailureshouldnotbeare
asonnottoinformtheclientofanimpo
rtantdevelopment,orworse,towithh
oldvitalinformationfromher.Asthec
ourtheldinLuisitoBalatbatv.Atty.
EdgardoArias,(A.C.No.1666,Apr
il13,2007,
521SCRA1),aclientmustneverbeleft
inthedarkfortodosowoulddestroyth
etrust,faithandconfidencereposedin
theretainedlawyerinparticularandth
elegalprofessioningeneral.

Third.Therespondentfailedtoprovid
edetailsonthedevelopmentsthatledt
otheadverserulingsontheinterrogat
ories/admissionsandthejudgment
onthe pleadings.

TOPIC:
Violations ofthe Lawyer’s Oathandthe Code ofProfessionalResponsibility

TANU REDDI, Respondentdeceivedthecomplainan Rule1.01oftheCodeofProfessiona TheCourtfinds,however,thatrespon RespondentDiosdadoC.Sebrio,Jr.is

vs.ATTY.DIOSD tintogivinghim lResponsibilitywhichprovides:"Al dent’sdishonestanddeceitfulconduc DISBARRED,
ADOC.SEBRIO,JR. atotalofUS$3,000,000forthepurpos awyershallnotengageinunlawful,dis twithrespecttotheintendedtransacti andhisnameisORDEREDSTRICK
eofpurchasingseveralrealestateprop honest,immoral ordeceitful ons,realpropertyacquisitionswhicht ENfrom
A.C. No. ertiesforresale. conduct." urnedouttobebogus,issufficientlyest theRollofAttorneys.HeisORDERE
7027January ablished. DTORETURNto
30,2009PER Canon16andRule16.01oftheCode complainanttheamountofUS$544,8
CURIAM: of RespondentviolatedRule1.01ofthe 28.
ProfessionalRespons CPR ashe engagedin
ibility whichstate:

56
 2009CASES

CANON16–
Alawyershallholdintrustallmoneysa
ndpropertiesofhisclientthatmaycom
eintohispossession.
Rule16.01–
Alawyershallaccountforallmoneyor
propertycollectedorreceivedfororfr
omthe client."
unlawful,dishonestanddeceitfulcon
ductwhenhe
offeredpropertiesforsaletocomplain
antonthe
misrepresentationthatcomplainant
wasdealingwiththetrue
ownersthereof.
Also,therespondentviolatedCanon
16andRule16.01oftheCPRwhen he
convincedcomplainant to pay bribe
money
toourjudgessince,heclaims,thatitisac
ommonpracticeinthePhilippines.

TOPIC:
Violation ofthe Canons of Responsibility
Theexistenceofanattorney-
WILHELMINAC.VIRGO,vs. ViolationofCanon1,Rule1.01andRu Canon1,Rule 1.01 andRule clientrelationshipbetweenAtty.Amo ResolutionNo.XVIII-2008-
ATTY.OLIVER V.AMORIN le1.02oftheCanonsofResponsibility 1.02oftheCodeofProfessionalRes rinandcomplainantwasnotestablish 77datedFebruary6,2008oftheIntegr
whentherespondentusedhislegalkn ponsibility: ed. atedBarofthePhilippinesisREVER
A.C. No. owledgeandtrainingtoinducecompla SEDandSETASIDE,andtheadmi
7861January inanttopartwithherpropertyandeve Rule1.01- Anattorney- nistrativecasefiledagainstAtty.Olive
30,2009 ntuallydefraudherin the process Alawyershallnotengageinunlawful,d clientrelationshipissaidtoexistwhen rV.AmorindocketedasA.C.No.7861
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,J.: ishonest,immoral ordeceitful alawyeracquiescesorvoluntarilyper isDISMISSEDwithoutprejudice.
conduct. mitstheconsultationofaperson,whoi
nrespecttoabusinessortroubleofany
Rule1.02- kind,consultsalawyerwithaviewofob
Alawyershallnotcounselorabetactivi tainingprofessionaladviceorassistan
tiesaimedatdefianceofthelaworatles ce.Itisnotessentialthattheclientshoul
seningconfidence in the dhaveemployedthelawyeronanypre
legalsystem. viousoccasionorthatany

57
 2009CASES

retainershouldhavebeenpaid,promis
edorchargedfor;neitherisitmaterialt
hattheattorneyconsulteddidnotafter
wardundertakethecaseaboutwhicht
heconsultationwashad,foraslongast
headviceandassistanceoftheattorne
yissoughtandreceivedinmattersperti
nenttohisprofession.

Thereareinstances,however,whenth
eCourtfindsthatnoattorney-
clientrelationshipexistsbetweenthep
arties,suchaswhentherelationshipste
mmedfromapersonaltransactionbet
weenthemratherthanthepracticeofla
wofrespondentorwhenthelegalactsd
onewereonlyincidentaltotheirperso
naltransaction.(Uyv.Gonzales, A.
C.No.5280,March30,2004,426
SCRA 422,431).

TOPIC:
Violation oftheSummaryProcedure
Sections10and12ofthe1983Ruleso
NORYNS.TAN,vs.JUDGEMA Respondentissuedthewarrantofarre n Summary Procedure Respondentfailedtoupholdtherules, JudgeMariaClaritaCasuga-
RIACLARITACASUGA-TABIN stonthemistakenbeliefthatcomplain inSpecialCases forwhichsheshould Tabin,MunicipalTrialCourtinCities,
antwasactuallynotifiedof the beheldadministrativelyliable.Section Branch4,BaguioCityisherebyfound
A.M. No. MTJ-09- arraignment Sec.10. DutyoftheCourt.- s10and12ofthe1983RulesonSumma guiltyofabuseofauthorityforwhic
1729January 20,2009 Onthebasisofthecomplaintofinfor ryProcedureinSpecialCaseswerenot hsheisfinedinthesumof₱10,000.00.
mationandtheaffidavitsaccompanyi repealedbythe1991RevisedRules;stil
ngthesame,thecourtshallmakea litdoesnot justifythe warrantof
preliminary arrest

58
 2009CASES

determinationwhethertodismissthe issuedinthiscase.
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,J.: caseoutrightforbeingpatentlywithou
tbasisormerit,ortorequirefurtherpro TheCourthasheldthatajudgecommit
ceedingstobetaken.Inthe sgraveabuseofauthoritywhenshehas
lattercase,thecourtmaysetthecaseforim tilyissuesawarrantofarrestagainstthe
mediatearraignmentofanaccusedundercusto accusedinviolationofthesummarypr
dy,andifhepleadsguilty,mayrenderjudgment ocedurerulethattheaccusedshouldfir
forthwith.Ifhepleadsnotguilty,andinallothe stbenotifiedofthechargesagainsthim
r andgiventheopportunitytofilehisco
cases,thecourtshallissueanorder,accom unter-
paniedbycopiesofalltheaffidavitssub affidavitsandcountervailingevidenc
mittedbythecomplainant,directingt e.(Daizv.Adason,353Phil.1, 7
hedefendant(s)toappearandsubmith (1998)
iscounter-
affidavitandthoseofhiswitnessesatas Whilejudgesmaynotalwaysbesubject
pecifieddatenotlaterthanten(10)days edtodisciplinaryactionforeveryerro
fromreceiptthereof. neousorderordecisiontheyrender,th
atrelativeimmunityisnotalicensetob
Failureonthepartofthedefend enegligent,abusiveandarbitraryinthe
anttoappear irprerogatives.Ifjudgeswantonlymis
wheneverrequired,shallcause usethepowersvestedinthembylaw,th
theissuanceofawarrantforhis erewillnotonlybeconfusioninthead
arrestifthecourtshallfindthataprob ministrationofjusticebutalsooppress
ablecauseexistsafteranexaminationi ivedisregard ofthebasic
nwritingandunderoathoraffirmation requirementsof due process.
ofthecomplainantandhiswitnesses.
Whilethereappearstobenomalicious
intentonthepartofrespondent,suchl
Sec.12. Bail not required; Exception. - ackofintent,however,cannotcomple
--
telyfreeherfromliability(Aguilarv.
Nobailshallberequiredexceptwhena
Dalanao,388Phil.717,724
warrantofarrestisissuedinaccordanc
(2000).
ewithSection10hereonorwheretheaccus
ed(a)is
arecidivist;(b)isfugitivefromjustice;(c)ischar
gedwithphysicalinjuries;(d)does

59
 2009CASES

notresideintheplacewheretheviolationofthela
worordinancewascommitted,or
(e)hasnoknown residence.

TOPIC:
ViolatedRule 15,Section4of theRules ofCourt
RespondentJudgeactedwithoutthele Rule15,Section4oftheRulesof Respondentindeedtookcognizance TheCourtfindsrespondentGUILT
ATTY.ERNESTOA.TABUJAR galauthorityaspairingjudge Court oftheconsolidatedcaseswithoutprop Yofgrossignoranceoflawandproced
AIII,vs.JUDGEFATIMA ofBranch86consideringthattheregul Section4.Hearingofmotion.— erauthority.UnderSection8and11, ure.Shehavingbeenearlierdismissedf
GONZALES- arpresidingjudgethereatwasstillsittin Exceptformotionswhichthecourtm Rule140oftheRulesofCourt,asame romtheservice,sheisFINEDtheamo
ASDALA gassuchwhensheissuedtheorderof3 ayactuponwithoutprejudicingtherig ndedbyA.M.No.01-8- untofFortyThousand(₱40,000)Peso
1May2006andinviolationofthebasic htsoftheadverseparty,everywritten 10,thepenaltyofgrossignoranceofth stobedeductedfromtheEightyThou
A.M. No. RTJ-08- ruleonproceduraldueprocesswhens motionshallbesetforhearingbythe eprocedureandgrossmisconductisdi sand(₱80,000)PesoswhichthisCourt
2126January he resolvedex- applicant. smissalfromtheservicewithforfeitur withheldpursuanttoitsJanuary15,20
20,2009CARPIOMORA partethemotionofthecomplainant’s Everywrittenmotionrequiredtobehe eofallsalaries,benefitsandleavecredit 08ResolutioninEdañov. Asdala.
LES,J.: wife;and... ardandthenoticeofthehearingthereo stowhichshemaybeentitledandwith
incitingcomplainantincontemptofc fshallbeservedinsuchamannerastoe disqualificationfromreinstatemento
ourtandissuingthebenchwarrantwit nsureitsreceiptbytheotherpartyatlea rappointmenttoanypublicoffice,incl
houtrequiringthecomplainant to stthree(3)daysbeforethedateofheari udinggovernment-ownedor
filehiscommentonsaidex- ng,unlessthecourtforgoodcausesets controlledcorporatio
partemotionandexplainthereasonfo thehearingonshorternotice. (4a) n…
rhisfailuretoappearandbringthemin
orchildduringthehearingon01June2 Section8and11,Rule140oftheRule Respondentgravelyabusedherdiscre
006. sof Court,asamendedby tionwhenshe actedontheUrgentEx-
A.M. No. 01-8-10 ParteMotiontoOrderRespondenttoComply
withtheWritofHabeasCorpuswithUrgent
SEC.8.Seriouscharges.– MotionForPartialReconsideration(Ofthe
Seriouschargesinclude: OrderdatedMay31,2006).ThatJudgeB
1. Bribery, directorindirect; aymayhaveleftthecourtpremisesinth
2. DishonestyandviolationsoftheAn eafternoonofMay31,2006didnotjust
ti-GraftandCorruptPracticesLaw ifyheractingon evendateon
(R.A. No. 3019); motionof

60
 2009CASES

3. Grossmisconductconstitutingvi complainant’swife,asherauthorityas
olationsoftheCodeofJudicialCondu pairingjudgecommencedonlythe
ct; followingday,June1,2006,whenJudg
4. Knowinglyrenderinganunjustjud eBay’sleaveofabsencestarted;Nordi
gmentororderasdeterminedbyacom drespondent’sopinionontheurgency
petentcourtinanappropriate ofthecasejustifyhersacrificinglawan
proceeding; dsettledjurisprudenceforthesakeofe
5. Convictionofacrimeinvolvingmo xpediency(Limv.Domagas,
ral turpitude; A.M.No.RTJ-92-
6. Willful failure topay a justdebt; 899,October15,1993,227 SCRA
7. Borrowingmoneyorpropertyfro 258,263).
mlawyersandlitigantsinacasependin
g before the court;
8. Immorality;
9. Grossignoranceofthelaworproce
dure;
10. Partisanpolitical activities; and
11. Alcoholismand/orvicioushabi
ts.

SEC.11.Sanctions.–
A.Iftherespondentisguiltyofaseriou
scharge,anyofthefollowingsanctions
may be imposed:
1. Dismissalfromtheservice,forfeit
ureofallorpartofthebenefitsastheCo
urtmaydetermine,anddisqualificatio
nfrom reinstatement
orappointmenttoanypublicoffic
e,includinggovernment-
ownedorcontrolledcorporations.Pr
ovided,however,thattheforfeitureof
benefitsshallinnocaseincludeaccrue
dleave credits;
2. Suspensionfromofficewithoutsal
aryandotherbenefitsformore

61
 2009CASES

thanthree(3)butnotexceedingsix
(6)months; or
3.AfineofmorethanP20,000.00but
not exceedingP40,000.00

B. Iftherespondentisguiltyofalessse
riouscharge,anyofthefollowingsanct
ionsshallbeimposed:
1. Suspensionfromofficewithoutsal
aryandotherbenefitsfornotlessthan
one(1)normorethanthree
(3)months; or
2. AfineofmorethanP10,000.00but
not exceedingP20,000.00.

C.Iftherespondentisguiltyofalightch
arge,anyofthefollowingsanctionssha
ll be imposed:
1. AfineofnotlessthanP1,000.00b
utnotexceedingP10,000.00 and/or
2. Censure;
3. Reprimand;
4. Admonitionwithwarning

TOPIC:
Violation of Lawyer’s Oathandthe Code ofProfessionalResponsibility

AVELINOO.ANGELES,LAUR Respondentviolatedhisoathasalawy Section1ofPublicActNo.2103,ort Thephysicalpresenceoftheaffiantse CourtfindsrespondentAtty.Amado

OO.ANGELES,MARIAO.ANG erandtheCodeofProfessionalRespo heNotarialLaw,provides: nablesthenotarypublictoverifythege O.Ibañez
ELES,ROSALINAO. nsibilitywhenhe notarizedthe nuinenessofthesignaturesoftheackn GUILTYofnotarizingthe"Extrajud
ANGELES, "Extrajudicial owledging icialPartitionwithAbsoluteSale"in

62
 2009CASES
CONNIE M. ANGELES,vs. PartitionwithAbsoluteSale"inthe
ATTY.AMADO O. IBAÑEZ absence ofthe affiants. Sec.1.(a)Theacknowledgementshall
bebeforeanotarypublicoranofficerd
A.C. No. ulyauthorizedbylawofthecountrytot
7860January akeacknowledgementsofinstrument
15,2009CARPIO sordocumentsintheplacewherethea
,J.: ctisdone.Thenotarypublicortheoffic
ertakingtheacknowledgementshallc
ertifythatthepersonacknowledgingt
heinstrumentordocumentisknownt
ohimandthatheisthesamepersonwh
oexecutedit,acknowledgedthatthesa
meishisfreeactanddeed.Thecertifica
teshallbemadeundertheofficialseal,i
fheisrequiredbylawtokeepaseal,andi
fnot,hiscertificate shallsostate.
Section2(b)ofRuleIVoftheRules
onNotarialPracticeof2004reads:A
personshallnotperformanotarialacti
fthe
personinvolvedassignatorytotheinst
rumentor document -
(1) isnotinthenotary’spresencepers
onallyatthetimeofthenotarization;
and
(2) isnotpersonallyknowntothenota
rypublicorotherwiseidentifiedbythe
notarypublicthroughcompetentevid
enceofidentity asdefined by
theseRules.
63
partiesandtoascertainthatthedocum theabsenceoftheaffiants.Accordingl
entistheparties’freeactanddeed(Ber y, the
nardov.Atty.Ramos,433Phil.8,16 CourtSUSPENDShimfromthepra
(2002). cticeof lawfor
oneyear,REVOKEShisincumbentn
Notarizationofa otarialcommission,ifany,andPRO
privatedocumentconvertssuchdocu HIBITShimfrombeingcommission
mentintoapublicone,andrendersitad edasanotarypublicforoneyear,effecti
missibleincourtwithoutfurtherproof veimmediately,withasternwarningth
ofitsauthenticity.Courts,administrat atarepetitionofthesameorsimilaroff
iveagenciesandthepublicatlargemus enseshallbedealtwithmore severely.
tbeabletorelyupontheacknowledgm
entexecutedbyanotarypublicandapp
endedtoaprivateinstrument.Notariz
ationisnotanemptyroutine;tothecon
trary,itengagespublicinterestinasubs
tantialdegreeandtheprotectionoftha
tinterestrequirespreventingthosewh
oarenotqualifiedorauthorizedtoacta
snotariespublicfromimposingupon
the public and the
courtsandadministrativeofficesgene
rally(Josonv.Baltazar,A.C.No.575
,14February1991,194SCRA
114,119).
 2009CASES

TOPIC:
Violation ofthe Canons of ProfessionalResponsibility

CONRADO G. Fernandezfiledacomplaintfordisbar CanonsofProfessionalResponsib Thechargesagainsttherespondentdo ThecomplaintforDisbarmentishere

FERNANDEZ,vs.ATTY.MARI mentagainstAtty.Villalonforviolatio ility. notconstitutesufficientgroundsfordi by orderedDISMISSED
AANGELICAP.DERAMOS- nofRule1.01,Rule7.03,Rule10.01,Ru sbarment.
VILLALON le10.02,andRule10.03oftheCanonso Rule1.01-
fProfessionalResponsibility. Alawyershallnotengageinunlawful,d Alawyer,asanofficerofthecourt,hasa
A.C. No. ishonest,immoral ordeceitful dutytobetruthfulinallhisdealings.(M
7084February conduct. arcelov.Javier,A.C.No.3248.Sept
27,2009BRION,J. ember18,1992,214SCRA
: Rule7.03- 1)However,thisdutydoesnotrequiret
Alawyershallnotengageinconductth hatthelawyeradvancemattersofdefe
atadverselyreflectsonhisfitnesstopra nseonbehalfofhisorherclient’soppo
cticelaw,norshallhewhetherinpublic nent.Alawyerishisorherclient’sadvo
orprivatelife,behaveinascandalousm cate;whileduty-
annertothediscreditof the boundtoutternofalsehood,anadvoca
legalprofession. teisnotobligedtobuildthecaseforhis
orherclient’sopponent.
Rule10.01-
Alawyershallnotdoanyfalsehood,no
rconsenttothedoingofanyinCourt;n
orshallhemislead,orallowtheCourtt
obemisled by any artifice.

Rule10.02-
Alawyershallnotknowinglymisquote
ormisrepresentthecontentsofapaper
,thelanguageortheargumentofoppos
ingcounsel,orthetextofadecisionora
uthority,orknowinglyciteaslawaprov
isionalreadyrenderedinoperativebyr
epealoramendment,orassertasafactt
hat

64
 2009CASES

whichhasnotbeenproved.

Rule10.03-
Alawyershallobservetherulesofproc
edureandshallnot
misusethemtodefeattheendsofjustic
e.

TOPIC:
Violation ofthe ConstitutionandCode ofJudicialConduct
Rule1.02ofCanon1andRule
MA. THERESA Respondentjudgeisguiltyofunduede 3.05ofCanon3provideasfollows: Wefindunmeritoriousrespondentju RespondentJudge Torresis
G.WINTERNITZan layinrenderingadecisionororder dge’sexcusethatthereasonforherdela herebySUSPENDEDfromofficew
dRAQUEL Rule1.02.Ajudgeshouldadministerj yinresolvingthemotiontowithdrawis ithoutsalaryandotherbenefitsforone
L.GONZALEZ,vs.JUDGELIZA usticeimpartiallyandwithoutdelay. thelackofnoticeofhearinguponthep (1)month,withtheSTERNWARNI
BETHGUTIERREZ-TORRES arties.Firstly,sheshouldhaverealized NGthata
Rule3.05.Ajudgeshoulddisposeoft thatalmostone(1)yearhadalreadyela repetitionofthesameactshallbedealt
A.M. No. MTJ-09-1733February hecourt'sbusinesspromptlyanddeci psedfromthetimeoffilingofthemoti withmore severely.
24,2009LEONARDO- decaseswithintherequiredperiods. onto
DECASTRO,J.: withdrawonMay24,2002uptoitssub
Art.VIII,Section15(1)ofthe1987P missionforresolutiononJanuary13,2
hilippineConstitutionprovides: 003.Secondly,sheisduty-
boundtocomplywithRule3.05,Can
Allcasesormattersfiledaftertheeffect on3oftheCodeofJudicialConduct
ivityofthisConstitutionmust be providingthat a judge shall
decided or resolvedwithintwenty- disposeofthecourt’sbusinessprompt
fourmonthsfromdateofsubmissionf lyanddecidecaseswithintheprescribe
ortheSupremeCourt,and,unlessredu dperiods.ThisCanonisinconsonance
cedbytheSupremeCourt,twelvemon withtheConstitutionalmandatethata
thsforalllowercollegiatecourts,andth lllowercourtsdecideorresolvecaseso
reemonthsforallotherlower rmatterswithinthree(3)monthsfrom
theirdateofsubmission.

65
 2009CASES

courts.

Topic:
Gross MisconductandViolation of Code ofProfessionalResponsibility
Alawyermaybedisciplinedforactsco
EUGENIAMENDOZA,vs.ATT Respondentguiltyofgrossmiscondu Canon1,Rule1.01andCanon7,Rul mmittedeveninhisprivatecapacityfo Atty.VictorV.Deciembreisherebyfo
Y. VICTOR ctandviolationoftheCode of e7.03oftheCodeofProfessionalRe ractswhichtendtobringreproachont undGUILTYofGROSSMISCON
V.DECIEMBRE ProfessionalResponsi sponsibilityprovides: helegalprofessionortoinjureitinthef DUCTand
bility avorableopinionofthepublic(Yap- VIOLATIONof Canon1,Rule
A.C. No. CANON1– Parasv. 1.01andCanon7,Rule7.03oftheCod
5338February Alawyershallupholdtheconstitution, Paras ,A.C.No.4947,February14, e of Professional
23,2009PERCUR obeythelawsofthelandandpromoter 2005,451 Responsibility. He
IAM: espectforlaw andlegalprocesses. SCRA194,202).Indeed,thereisnodis isDISBARR
tinctionastowhetherthetransgressio EDfromthepracticeoflawandhisna
Rule1.01.- niscommittedinalawyer'sprivatelife meisorderedstrickenofftheRollofAt
Alawyershallnotengageinunlawful,d orinhisprofessionalcapacity,foralaw torneyseffective immediately.
ishonest,immoral ordeceitful yermaynotdividehispersonalityasan
conduct. attorneyatonetimeandamerecitizena
tanother( Cojuangco,Jr.v.Palm
CANON7– a ,481Phil.646,655
Alawyershallatalltimesupholdtheint (2004).
egrityanddignityofthelegalprofessio
nandsupporttheactivitiesoftheinteg Inthiscase,evidenceaboundsthatres
ratedbar. pondenthasfailedtoliveuptothestan
dardsrequiredofmembersof the
Rule7.03.Alawyershallnotengagein legal profession.
conductthatadverselyreflectsonhisfi Specifically,respondenthastransgres
tnesstopracticelaw,norshouldhe,wh sedprovisionsoftheCodeofProfessi
etherinpublicorprivatelife,behavein onal Responsibility.
ascandalousmannertothediscreditof
the legalprofession.

66
 2009CASES

TOPIC:
Violation of Code ofJudicialConductandthe Constitution

EDGARDOD.AREOLA(a.k.a. RespondentJudgewasremissinhisdu Art.VIII,Section15(1)ofthe1987P UndertheConstitution,trialjudgesa JudgeBayaniY.IlanoisherebyIMPO

MOHAMMAD tyforhisfailuretoresolvethepending hilippineConstitutionprovides: regivenonlyninety(90)daysfromthefi SEDaFINEof₱20,000.00
KAHDAFFY),vs. JUDGE motionforreconsiderationwithdispa lingofthelastpleadingwithinwhichto chargeable to his
BAYANIY.ILANO,RegionalTri tch Allcasesormattersfiledaftertheeffect resolvethematterathand(Abarquez retirementbenefits.
alCourt,Branch71,AntipoloCity ivityofthisConstitutionmust be v.Rebosura,A.M.No.MTJ-94-
decided or resolvedwithintwenty- 986,January28,1998,285SCRA
A.M. No. RTJ-09- fourmonthsfromdateofsubmissionf 109).Rule3.05,Canon3oftheCode
2163February ortheSupremeCourt,and,unlessredu ofJudicialConduct,likewise,enunci
18,2009NACHURA,J.: cedbytheSupremeCourt,twelvemon atesthatjudgesshouldadministerjusti
thsforalllowercollegiatecourts,andth cewithoutdelayanddisposeofthecou
reemonthsforallotherlowercourts. rt’sbusinesspromptlywithintheperio
dprescribedbylaw.Whenrespondent
CANON3:Ajudgeshouldperform Judgetookoverthecase,themotionfo
official rreconsiderationhadalreadybeenlon
dutieshonestly,andwithimpartiality gpendingandseveralmotionswerefil
anddiligence. edforitsurgentresolution.Responde
ntJudgeactedonsaidmotiononlyafter
RULE3.05- five(5)monthsfromthetimethecase
Ajudgeshalldisposeofthecourt'sbusi wasassignedtohim.Unfortunately,re
nesspromptlyanddecidecaseswithin spondentJudge’sexplanationonthis
the requiredperiods. matteriswantingashefailedtofileanyc
ommentonthechargeshurledagainst
him.1a

Itmustbestressedthateveryofficeror
employeeintheJudiciaryisdutyboun
dtoobeytheordersandprocessesofth
isCourt

67
 2009CASES

withouttheleastdelayandtoexercisea
talltimesahighdegreeofprofessionali
sm(Chanv.Castillo,A.M.No.P-
94-
1055,November25,1994,238SCRA
359,361)

TOPIC:
Serious Misconduct

SYLVIASANTOS,vs. Clearly,substantialevidenceexistsint RULE140:DisciplineOfJudgesOfR Misconductisatransgressionofsome JudgeEvelynS.Arcaya-

JUDGEEVELYNS. ARCAYA- hiscasetoholdrespondentliable for egularAndSpecialCourtsAndJustice establishedanddefiniteruleofaction, ChuaoftheRegionalTrialCourt,Bran
CHUA, grossmisconduct. sOfTheCourtOfAppealsAndThe aforbiddenact,aderelictionofduty,u ch144,MakatiCityisfoundGUILTY
RegionalTrialCourt,Branch144, Sandiganbayan nlawfulbehavior,willfulincharacter,i of
MakatiCity mproperor grossmiscond
SEC.8.Seriouscharges. - wrongbehavior;while"gross,"hasbe uct and
A.M. No. RTJ-07- Seriouschargesinclude: endefinedas"outofallmeasure;beyo ishereby
2093February 1. Bribery, directorindirect; ndallowance;flagrant;shameful;such SUSPENDEDfromofficeforsix(6)
13,2009AUSTRIA- 2. DishonestyandviolationsoftheA conductasisnottobeexcused(Vidal monthswithoutsalaryandotherbenefi
MARTINEZ,J.: nti- lon- ts.SheisWARNEDthatthecommissi
GraftandCorruptPracticesLaw(R.A Magtolisv.Salud ,supranote onofthesameorasimilaractinthefutur
. No. 3019); 23,at469). eshallmeritamoreseverepenalty.
3. Grossmisconductconstitutingvi
olationsoftheCodeofJudicialCondu UnderSections8and11ofRule140,a
ct; judgefoundguiltyofgrossmisconduc
4. Knowinglyrenderinganunjustjud tmaybepunishedwithanyofthefollo
gmentororderasdeterminedbyacom wingsanctions:(1)dismissalfromthes
petentcourtinanappropriate ervice,forfeitureofallorpartofthebe
proceeding; nefitsastheCourtmaydetermine,and
5. Convictionofacrimeinvolvingmo disqualificationfrom
ral turpitude; reinstatement
6. Willful failure topay a justdebt; orappointmenttoanypu
7. Borrowingmoneyorpropertyfro blicoffice,includinggovernment-
mlawyersandlitigantsinacasependin ownedorcontrolledcorporations,pr
g before the court; ovided,
8. Immorality;

68
 2009CASES

9. Grossignoranceofthelaworproce however,thattheforfeitureofbenefit
dure; sshallinnocaseincludeaccruedleavec
10. Partisanpolitical activities; and redits;(2)suspensionfromofficewith
11. Alcoholismand/orvicioushabi outsalaryandotherbenefitsformoret
ts. hanthreebutnotexceedingsixmonth
s;or(3)afineofmorethan
SEC.11.Sanctions. - ₱20,000.00butnot exceeding
A.Iftherespondentisguiltyofaseriou ₱40,000.00.
scharge,anyofthefollowingsanction
smay be imposed:
1. Dismissalfromtheservice,forfeit
ureofallorpartofthebenefitsastheCo
urtmaydetermine,anddisqualificatio
nfrom reinstatement
orappointmenttoanypublicoffic
e,includinggovernment-
ownedorcontrolledcorporations.Pr
ovided,however,thattheforfeitureof
benefitsshallinnocaseincludeaccrue
dleave credits;
2. Suspensionfromofficewithoutsal
aryandotherbenefitsformorethanth
ree(3)butnotexceedingsix
(6)months; or
3. AfineofmorethanP20,000.00but
not exceedingP40,000.00
B. Iftherespondentisguiltyofalessse
riouscharge,anyofthefollowingsanc
tionsshallbeimposed:
1. Suspensionfromofficewithoutsal
aryandotherbenefitsfornotlessthan
one(1)normorethanthree
(3)months; or
2. AfineofmorethanP10,000.00but
not exceedingP20,000.00.

69
 2009CASES
C.Iftherespondentisguiltyofalightch
arge,anyofthefollowingsanctionssh
all be imposed:
1. AfineofnotlessthanP1,000.00b
utnotexceedingP10,000.00 and/or
2. Censure;
3. Reprimand;
4. Admonitionwithwarning.
TOPIC:
Gross Ignoranceof the Law andProcedure,Violation of Code ofJudicialConductandCode ofProfessionalResponsibility
DANILO DAVID Respondentviolatedbasicprocedure Rule3.05,Canon3oftheCodeof
S.MARIANO,vs andthecodeofjudicialconduct.Also, JudicialConduct
. JUDGE JOSE hehadbeenpreviouslyadmonishedfo
P.NACIONAL rgrossignoranceofthelaw,derelictio RULE3.05-
nofduty,partiality,oppressionandinc Ajudgeshalldisposeofthecourt'sbusi
A.M. No. MTJ-07- ompetenceinPradov.JudgeNacional. nesspromptlyanddecidecaseswithin
1688February the requiredperiods.
10,2009CORONA,J.:
Section15(1)and(2),ArticleVIIIof
theConstitutionprovides:
Allcasesormattersfiledaftertheeffect
ivityofthisConstitutionmust be
decided or resolvedwithintwenty-
fourmonthsfromdateofsubmissionf
ortheSupremeCourt,and,unlessredu
cedbytheSupremeCourt,twelvemon
thsforalllowercollegiatecourts,andth
reemonthsforallotherlowercourts.
70
Rule3.05,Canon3oftheCodeofJudi
cialConductadmonishesalljudgest
odisposeofthecourt’sbusinessprom
ptlyanddecidecaseswithintheperiod
specifiedinSection15(1)and(2),Artic
leVIIIoftheConstitution.Thisissup
plementedbySection5,Canon6ofthe
NewCodeofJudicialConductfort
hePhilippineJudiciary
requiringjudgestoperformalljudicial
dutiesefficiently,fairlyandwithreaso
nable promptness.
Wereiteratethatajudge(byhimself)ca
nnotchoosetoprolongtheperiodfor
decidingcasesbeyondthatauthorized
bylaw( Reyes-
Garmsenv.Bello,Jr. ,A.M.No.R
TJ-04-
1877,21December2004,447SCRA
377,
RespondentJudgeJoseP.Nacionalis
hereby
foundGUILTYof
gross
ignoranceofthelawandprocedurefor
whichheisFINED₱40,000.Heisals
ofoundGUILTYofviolationofRule
3.05,Canon3oftheCodeofJudicialC
onductandSection5,Canon6oftheN
ewCodeofJudicialConductforthePh
ilippineJudiciaryfor
whichheisFINED₱20,000.Respon
dentisfurthermorefoundGUILTYo
fviolationofCanons1and12aswellas
Rules1.03,10.03and12.04oftheCode
ofProfessionalResponsibilityforwhi
chheisFINED₱10,000.
Heisherebyorderedtoremitpayment
of the fineswithinten
 2009CASES

Section5,Canon6oftheNewCode 382).Ifajudgeneedsmoretimetodeci (10)daysfromreceiptofthisresolutio

ofJudicialConduct deacase,heshouldformallyrequestthi n.
sCourtforanextensionof the
SEC.5.Judgesshallperformalljudicia deadline. Respondent
lduties,includingthedeliveryofreserv isSTERNLY
eddecisions,efficiently,fairlyandwith WARNEDthatarepetitionofthesa
reasonable promptness. meorsimilaroffenseshallwarrantane
venmoreseverepenalty.

TOPIC:
Gross Misconduct
RespondentviolatedCanons16and1
MARIAANGALAN,NENAAN Atty. Leonido C. Delante Canons16and17oftheCodeofProf 7of theCode of TheCourtfindsAtty.LeonidoC.Dela
GALAN, wasguilty ofviolatingCanons16and essionalResponsibilityprovides: ProfessionalResponsibility.Canon1 nte GUILTY
DIONICIO 17of the Codeof 6statesthatlawyersshallholdintrus ofviolatingCanons16and17oftheCo
ANGALAN,MAGDALENAAN ProfessionalResponsibility. CANON16- tallpropertiesoftheirclientsthatm deofProfessional Responsibility.
GALAN,FRANCISCAANGALA Alawyershallholdintrustallmoneysa aycomeintotheirpossession.Resp Accordingly, the
N,INISANGALAN,ROSALIN ndpropertiesofhisclientthatmaycom ondentshouldhaveheldintrustTCT CourtDISBARShimfromthepractic
OANGALAN,ANDJOSEFINA eintohisprofession. No.T- eoflawandORDERSthathisnameb
ANGALAN,ALLOF 9926andreturnedthepropertytocom estrickenfromtheRollof Attorneys.
WHOMAREHEIRSOF Rule16.03- plainantsupondemand(Rule
ANGALANSAMALmarriedtoSA "Alawyershalldeliverthefundsandpr 16.03oftheCodeofProfessional
NAANSAMAL,vs.ATTY.LEON opertyofhisclientwhendueorupond Responsibility). Instead
IDOC.DELANTE emand." of
holdingintrustthepropertyofcompla
A.C. No. CANON17- inants,respondent(1)transferredthet
7181February Alawyerowesfidelitytothecauseofhi itleofthepropertytohisname,(2)refus
6,2009PERCUR sclientandheshallbemindfulofthetru edtoreturnthepropertytocomplaina
IAM: standconfidencereposedinhim. nts,and
(3)referredtocomplainants’chargesa
smaliciousanduntruthful.

71
 2009CASES

Canon17statesthatlawyersshallbe
mindfulofthetrustandconfidence
reposedinthem.Respondentshoul
dhavebeenmindfulofthetrustandco
nfidencecomplainantsreposedinhim
.Complainantsallegethattheyareillite
rateandthattheSpousesEustaquioto
okadvantageofthem.Complainantse
ngagedtheservicesofrespondentinth
ehopethathewouldhelpthemrecover
theirproperty.Insteadofprotectingth
einterestsofcomplainants,responde
nttookadvantageofcomplainantsan
dtransferredthetitleofthepropertyto
hisname.

ViolationofCanons16and17constitu
tesgrossmisconduct.( Hernandez
v.Go,A.C.No.1526,31January200
5,450SCRA
1).

TOPIC:
Multiple violations of theCode ofProfessionalResponsibility

TORBEN B. Respondentabandonedhislawoffice Code of Therespondentisclearlyguiltyofgros TheMotionforReconsiderationisD

OVERGAARD,vs. withoutadvisinghisclientandwithout ProfessionalRespons snegligence.Alawyercannotsimplydi ENIED.ThisCourt’senbancdecisio
ATTY. makingsurethatthecaseshewashandl ibility,Canon16,Rule16.01andCano sappearandabandonhisclientsandth ninAdministrativeCaseNo.7902dat
GODWINR.VALDEZ ing n21 provides: enrelyontheconvenientexcusethatth edSeptember30,2008,entitledTorbe
forhisclientwereproperlyattendedto erewere nB.
A.C. No. 7902 during CANON16-Alawyershallhold

72
 2009CASES
hisabsence,andwithoutmakingarran intrustallmoneysandpropertiesofhis
March31,2009 gementswherebyhewouldreceive clientthatmaycomeintohisprofessio
importantmail. n.
PERCURIAM:
Rule16.01-
Alawyershallaccountforallmoneyor
propertycollectedorreceivedfororfr
omthe client.
CANON21-
Alawyershallpreservetheconfidence
andsecretsofhisclientevenaftertheat
torney-clientrelationisterminated.
73
threatstohissafety.Evenassumingth Overgaardv.Atty.GodwinR.Valdez,
attherewereseriousthreatstohispers isAFFIRMED.
on,thisdidnotgivehimthepermission
todeserthisclientandleavethecasese
ntrustedtohiscarehanging.Heshould
haveatleastexercisedreasonableando
rdinarycareanddiligencebytakingste
pstoensurethatthecaseshewashandli
ngwereattendedtoandthathisclient’s
interestwassafeguarded.Ifitwasnotp
ossibleforhimtohandlethecasesentr
ustedtohiscare,heshouldhaveinform
edthecomplainantofhispredicament
andaskedthathebeallowedtowithdra
wfromthecasetoenabletheclienttoen
gagetheservicesofanothercounselw
hocouldproperlyrepresenthim.(Ve
ntura
v.Santos,59Phil.123,128(1933).Th
erespondentjustdisappeared,deserte
dhisclientandforgotaboutthecasese
ntrustedtohiscare,tothecomplainant
’sdamageandprejudice.
Therespondent’sdisbarmentisanch
oredonhisabandonmentofhisclient.
Hewillnotbeabsolvedfromliabilityo
nthebasisaloneoftheseinconsequent
ialactswhichheclaimstohaveaccomp
lishedbecausetheglaringfactremains
thathehasfailedtoperformhis
 2009CASES

essentialobligationstohisclient,tothe
courtsandto
society.Asthecomplainant’slawyer,t
herespondentisexpectedtoservehisc
lientwithcompetenceanddiligence(
CodeofProfessionalResponsibili
ty,Canon21).

TOPIC:
Violation ofJudicialEthics

LORENA P. ONG,vs. Respondentwaschargedforgrossvi Section1,Canon4oftheNewCode Theestablishedruleisthatinadminis The

JUDGE OSCAR E. olationofjudicialethicsandknowin ofJudicialConductprovides: trativeproceedings,thecomplainan complaintagainstrespondentisDISMISS
DINOPOL,RegionalTrialCour glyrenderinganunjustjudgmentrela tbearstheonusofproving,ingeneral ED.He
t,Branch24,KoronadalCity,Sout tivetoCivilCaseNo.1632andundul CANON4:Proprietyandtheappea bysubstantialevidence,theallegatio isREMINDEDandWARNED,
hCotabato yandunreasonablydelayingtheresol ranceofproprietyareessential to nsinthecomplaint(Datuin,Jr.v.So however,againstentertaininglitigantsoutsi
utionofhermotiontoinhibit. theperformanceofall the riano,A.M.No.RTJ-01- dethecourtpremises,failingwhichhe could
A.M. No. RTJ-07- activitiesof a judge. 1640,October15,2002,391 be faulted.
2052March30,2009CARP SCRA1,5,citingLorenav.
IOMORALES,J.: SECTION1.Judgesshallavoidimp Encomienda,302SCRA632,
roprietyand the 641(1999)andOfficeoftheCourt
appearanceofimproprietyinallofth Administratorv.Sumilang,271S
eiractivities. CRA316,324(1997).Suchburden
mustovercomethepresumptionofr
egularityintheperformanceofajudg
e’sfunctions.Thepresumptionnece
ssarilyspringsfromajudge’ssolemn
oathofofficetoadministerjusticeac
cordingtothelawandevidence,with
outrespecttoanypersonandwithou
tfearorfavour(Datuin,Jr.v.Sorian
o,

74
 2009CASES

id.,citingSorianov.Angeles,339
SCRA366,375(2000);
Peoplev.Kho,G.R.No.139381,A
pril20,2001,357
SCRA
290,citingGov.CA,221SCRA 397
(1993).

AstheCourtfindsnoappreciablepre
senceoffraud,dishonesty,corruptio
norbadfaith,theactsofrespondentr
enderedinhisjudicialcapacityareno
tsubjecttodisciplinaryaction,evenif
theyareerroneous(Datuin,Jr.v.So
riano,supra,citingCansonv.Gar
chitorena,311SCRA268,287(199
9);
Causinv.Demecilio,A.M.
No.RTJ-04-1860,September8,
2004,437SCRA594,606;
Rondinav.Bello,Jr.,A.M.
No.CA-05-43,July8,2005,463
SCRA 1,14.).

TOPIC:
Gross ignorance ofthelaw
TheCourtfindsrespondentJudgeRei
ATTY. NORLINDA Respondentcommittedgrossignora Rule3.02Canon3oftheCodeofJudi Itiselementarythatnoteveryerroror nerioAbraham B. Ramasof
R.AMANTE- nceofthelaw,grossnegligence,andvi cialConduct mistakethatajudgecommitsintheper theRegionalTrialCourtofPagadianC
DESCALLAR,vs. olationoftheCode of Judicial formanceofhisdutiesrendershimliab ity, Branch18, GUILTY:
JUDGE Conduct. CANON3:Ajudgeshouldperformo le,unlessheisshowntohaveactedinba
REINERIOAB fficialdutieshonestly,andwithimparti dfaithorwithdeliberateintenttodoani 1)ofgrossignoranceofthelawinMisc.
RAHAM B. RAMAS, ality anddiligence. njustice.Goodfaithandabsenceof No.2825andMisc.No.2887,forwhic
RegionalTrialCourt,Branch18,P malice,corruptmotivesor hheissuspendedfrom officeforsix
agadianCity RULE3.02- In everycase,a (6)months
A.M. No. RTJ-08-2142

75

March20,2009
YNARES-SANTIAGO,J.:
RODOLFOB.BAYGAR,Sr.,
vs. Judge LILIAN
D.PANONTONGAN
and
ProcessServerALADINOV.TIR
AÑA,bothofTheMunicipalTrial
Court,Binangonan,Rizal
A.M. No. MTJ-08-
1699March17,2009CHI
CO-NAZARIO,J.:
Manipulationormisrepresentation oftherecords ofproceedings
JudgePanontonganhadadirectpartic
ipation"inwhatappearstobe
manipulation
ormisrepresentationofth
e — Thefollowing
recordsofproceedingsduringthesess
ionof12August2000otherthanmerel
ypreparingtheDecisionwhicheventu
allyresultedintherelease of
complainant."
2009CASES
judgeshallendeavordiligentlytoascer
tainthefactsandtheapplicablelawuns
wayedbypartisaninterests,publicopi
nionor fearofcriticism.
TOPIC:
Rule131,Section3(m)of theRules
of Court
Section3.Disputablepresumptions.
presumptionsare satisfactory
ifuncontradicted,butmay be
contradictedandovercome by
otherevidence:
(m)Thatofficialduty
hasbeenregularly performed;
76
improperconsiderationsaresufficien withoutsalary andotherbenefits;
tdefensesinwhichajudgechargedwit
hignoranceofthelawcanfindrefuge( 2)ofnegligenceinMisc.No.2860and
PhilippineAmusementandGa Misc.No.2824,forwhichheismeted a
mingCorporationv.Hon.Rom FINE ofP5,000.00.
uloA.Lopez,A.M.No.RTJ-04-
1848,October25,2005, RespondentisSTERNLYWARNE
474SCRA76,99).InMaquiran Dthatarepetitionofthesameorsimila
v.Grageda ,(A.M.No.RTJ-04- ractsshallbedealtwith moreseverely.
1888,February11,2005,451SCRA1
5,43-
44)theCourtheldthatallegederrorco
mmittedbyjudgesintheexerciseofthe
iradjudicativefunctionscannotbecor
rectedthroughadministrativeprocee
dingsbutshouldinsteadbeassailedthr
oughjudicial remedies.
Administrativecomplaintsleveledag TheCourtherebyRESOLVEStoto
ainstjudgesmustalwaysbeexamined WARNJudgeLilianD.Panontongan
witha tobemorecircumspectinherduties
discriminatingeye,fortheirconseque
ntialeffectsare,bytheirnature,highly
penal,suchthatrespondentsstandtof
acethesanctionofdismissaland/ordi
sbarment(Dayagv.JudgeGonzale
s,A.M.No.RTJ-05-
1903,27June2006,493 SCRA
51,61.).
Ajudgeenjoysthepresumptionofreg
ularityintheperformanceof
hisfunctionno
2009CASES

lessthananyotherpublicofficer
(Peoplev.Belaro,367Phil.91,
100(1999).Thepresumptionofregula
rityofofficialactsmayberebutted
byaffirmativeevidenceofirregularity
orfailuretoperformaduty(Peoplev.
De Guzman,
G.R.No.106025,9February1994,2
29SCRA795,799).Thepresumption
,however,prevailsuntilitisovercome
bynolessthanclearandconvincingevi
dencetothecontrary.Unlessthepresu
mptionisrebutted,itbecomesconclus
ive.Everyreasonableintendmentwill
bemadeinsupportofthepresumption
andincaseofdoubtastoanofficer’sact
beinglawfulorunlawful,construction
shouldbeinfavorofitslawfulness(M
agsucangv.JudgeBalgos,446
Phil.217,224-225(2003).

Judgesmustnotonlybefullycognizan
tofthestateoftheirdockets;likewise,t
heymustkeepawatchfuleyeonthelev
elofperformanceandconductofthec
ourtpersonnelundertheirimmediate
supervisionwhoareprimarilyemploy
edtoaidin
theadministrationofjustice.Thelenie
ncyofajudgeintheadministrativesup
ervisionofhisemployeesisanundesir
abletrait.It isthereforenecessarythat

77
 2009CASES

judgesshouldexerciseclosesupervisi
onovercourtpersonnel(Dysicov.Ju
dgeDacumos,330Phil.834,842(19
96).RespondentJudgePanontongan
must
thereforebewarnedtobemorecircum
spectinhersupervisionofcourtperso
nnel,suchasrespondentProcessServ
erTiraña.

TOPIC:
Violation ofthe Code ofProfessionalResponsibility,andImproperconduct
Itisfoundthatrespondentisnotadmi
ATTY.GODOFREDOC.MANI Allegedcommissionofforumshoppi Canon1,Rule1.01oftheCodeof nistrativelyliableforlackofshowingt ResolutionNo. XVIII-2008-58 of
PUD,vs. nginviolationofhisattorney’soathan ProfessionalResponsibility : hatthefilingofthesecondcomplaint theIntegrated Bar of
ATTY. dinviolationofCanon1, Rule 1.01 wasdonedeliberatelyandwillfullytoc thePhilippinesDISM
FELICIANOM.BAUTISTA of the Code CANON1- ommitforumshopping.Thus: ISSING
ofProfessionalResponsibility,andfo Alawyershallupholdtheconstitution thecomplaintforallegedcommissionoff
A.C. No. r improperconduct ,obeythelawsofthelandandpromote Forumshoppingmustbewillfulandd orumshoppinginviolation of
6943March13,2 respectforlawofandlegalprocesses. eliberate.Section5,Rule7oftheRul hisattorney’soathandinviolationofCan
009 esof on1,Rule1.01oftheCodeofProfessiona
YNARES-SANTIAGO,J.: Rule1.01- Courtrequiresthat,shouldtherebea lResponsibility,andforimpropercondu
Alawyershallnotengageinunlawful, nypendingactionorclaimbeforeany ctfiledby
dishonest,immoral ordeceitful court,tribunalorquasi- Atty.GodofredoC.ManipudagainstAtt
conduct. judicialagency,acompletestatement y.Feliciano M.
ofitsstatusshouldbe given. Baustista,isAFFIRM
Section5,Rule7oftheRulesof ED
Court:
Theobjectiveoftheruleagainstforu
Section5.Certificationagainstf m-
shoppingwascitedinMunicipalityo
orumshopping.—
fTaguig,etalvs.CourtofAppeals.
Theplaintifforprincipalpartyshallce
SaidtheSupreme Court –
rtifyunderoathinthecomplaintorot
herinitiatorypleadingassertinga
claimfor Whatistrulyimportantto

78
 2009CASES

relief,orinasworncertificationannex considerindeterminingwhetherforu
ed thereto mshoppingexistsornotisthevexatio
andsimultaneously ncausedthecourtsandparties-
filedtherewith:(a)thathehasnotther litigantsbyapartywhoasksdifferentc
etoforecommencedanyactionorfile ourtsand/oradministrativeagencies
danyclaiminvolvingthesameissuesi toruleonthesameorrelatedcausesan
nanycourt,tribunalorquasi- d/orgrantthesameorsubstantiallyth
judicialagencyand,tothebestofhiskn esame reliefs,inthe
owledge,nosuchotheractionorclaim processcreatingthepossibilityofcon
ispendingtherein;(b)ifthereissuchot flictingdecisionsbeingrenderedbyth
herpendingactionorclaim,acomplet edifferentforaupon thesame issues.
estatementofthepresentstatusthere
of;and(c)ifheshouldthereafterlearnt Inthiscase,nounduevexationwasca
hatthesameorsimilaractionorclaim usedtotheCourtandpetitionerasthef
hasbeenfiledorispending,heshallre actoffilingofthefirstcasewasallegedi
portthatfactwithinfive(5)daystheref nthesecondcomplaintandsecondly,
romtothecourtwhereinhisaforesaid soonthereafter,inasmuchasbothcas
complaintorinitiatory eswereraffledtothesamebranch,the
pleadinghasbeenfiled. firstcasewasdismissedbythesaidCo
urt.Hence,therewasnodangerofdiff
Failuretocomplywiththeforegoingr erentcourtsrulingonthesame issues.
equirementsshallnotbecurablebym
ereamendmentofthecomplaintorot
herinitiatorypleadingbutshallbecau
seforthedismissalofthecasewithout
prejudice,unlessotherwiseprovided
,uponmotionandafterhearing.Thes
ubmissionofafalsecertificationorno
n-
compliancewithanyoftheundertaki
ngsthereinshallconstituteindirectco
ntemptofcourt,withoutprejudicetot
hecorrespondingadministrativeand
criminal

79
 2009CASES

actions.Iftheactsofthepartyorhisco
unselclearlyconstitutewillfulanddeli
berateforumshopping,thesameshal
lbegroundforsummarydismissalwit
hprejudiceandshallconstitutedirect
contempt,aswellasacausefor
administrative sanctions. (n)

TOPIC:
Violation ofthe Code ofProfessionalResponsibility
RespondentAtty.CesarR.Tajanlangi
AVITOYU,vs.ATTY.CESAR Complaintfordisbarmentfiledbyco Rule16.01oftheCodeofProfession Recordsshowthatrespondentdidnot tisorderedtorender,withinthirty(30)
R.TAJANLANGITAD mplainantAvitoYuagainstresponde alResponsibility serveascomplainant’slawyerattheinc daysfromnoticeofthisResolution,an
M.CASE ntAtty.CesarR.Tajanlangitforviolati eptionoforduringthetrialofCriminal accountingofallmonieshereceivedfr
NO.5691March13,2009 onofRules CANON16- CaseNo.96- omcomplainantandtoitemizethenat
TINGA,J.: 18.03and16.01oftheCodeofProfessi Alawyershallholdintrustallmoneysa 150393whichresultedtotheconvicti ureofthelegalserviceshehadrendere
onalResponsibility ndpropertiesofhisclientthatmaycom onofthelatter.Infact,respondentwas d,inclusiveoftheexpenseshehadincu
eintohisprofession. onlyengagedascounselafterthewithd rred,incompliancewithRule16.01oft
rawalofappearanceofcomplainant’sl heCodeofProfessionalResponsibilit
Rule16.01- awyersanddenialoftheMotionforRe y.
Alawyershallaccountforallmoneyor considerationand/orNewTrialandt
propertycollectedorreceivedfororfr hesupplementthereto.Atthattime,co Respondent is
omthe client. mplainanthadalready furtherADMO
beenincarcerated. NISHEDthatcommissionofthesam
CANON18- eorsimilaractinthefuturewillbedealt
Alawyershallservehisclientwithcom InGarciav.Atty.Manuel(443Phil. withmoreseverely.
petenceanddiligence. 429(2003),theCourtheldthat"thehig
hlyfiduciaryandconfidentialrelation
Rule18.03- ofattorneyandclientrequiresthatthel
Alawyershallnotneglectalegalmatter awyershouldpromptlyaccountfor all
entrustedtohim,andhisnegligencein
connectiontherewithshallrender

80
 2009CASES

himliable. thefundsreceivedfrom,orheldbyhim
for,theclient."Thefactthatalawyerha
salienforhisattorney’sfeesonthemon
eyinhishandscollectedforhisclientdo
esnot relieve himfrom the
obligationtomakeapromptaccounti
ng(Schulzv.Atty.Flores,462Phil.6
01,612-613 (2003).

TOPIC:
Gross Misconduct

PERLABURIAS,vs.JUDGEMIR ComplainantchargedJudgeMirafe Rule5.02,Canon5oftheCodeofJudic Rule5.02,Canon5oftheCodeofJudic JudgeMirafeB.ValenciaoftheMTCo

AFE B. VALENCIA, B.Valencia(respondent),thenPresidi ial Conduct ialConduct,judgeshouldsomanagein fIrosin,Sorsogonismetedwith a
MTC-Irosin,Sorsogon ngJudgeoftheMunicipalTrialCourt( vestmentsandotherfinancialinterest FINE of ₱20,000.00.
MTC)ofIrosin,Sorsogon, CANON5- sastominimizethenumberofcasesgiv
A.M. No. MTJ-07- ofgrossmisconduct. Ajudgeshouldregulateextra- inggroundsfordisqualification.
1689March13,2009TIN judicialactivitiestominimizetherisko
GA,J.: fconflictwithjudicial duties UnderRule5.04ofCanon5,ajudgema
yobtainaloanifnolawprohibitssuchl
RULE5.02- oan.However,thelawprohibitsajudg
Ajudgeshallrefrainfromfinancialand efromengaginginfinancialtransactio
businessdealingthattendtoreflectad nswithaparty-
verselyonthecourt'simpartiality,inte litigant.Respondentadmittedborrow
rferewiththeproperperformanceofj ingmoneyfromcomplainantduringt
udicialactivitiesorincreaseinvolveme hependencyofthecase.Thisactalonei
ntwithlawyersorpersonslikelytocom spatentlyinappropriateTheimpressi
ebeforethecourt.Ajudgeshouldsom onthatrespondentwouldruleinfavor
anageinvestmentsandotherfinanciali ofcomplainantbecausetheformerisi
nterestsastominimize ndebtedtothelatteriswhattheCourts
thenumberofcasesgivinggroundsfor eekstoavoid.Ajudge’sconductshoul
disqualifications. d

81
 2009CASES

RULE5.04-
Ajudgeoranyimmediatememberoft
hefamilyshallnotacceptagift,bequest
,factororloanfromanyoneexceptasm
ay be allowed by law.
alwaysbe beyondreproach.
Nogovernmentpositionismoredem
andingofmoralrighteousnessandupr
ightnessthanaseatinthejudiciary.Jud
gesasmodelsoflawandjusticeareman
datedtoavoidnotonlyimpropriety,b
utalsotheappearance of
impropriety,becausetheirconductaff
ectsthepeople’sfaithandconfidencei
ntheentirejudicialsystem(Adrianov.
JudgeVillanueva,A.M.No.MTJ-
99-
1232,19February2003,citingYu-
Asensiv.Villanueva,322 SCRA
255,19 January2000).

TOPIC:
Violation ofthe Code ofJudicialConduct

ATTY.ANTONIOG.CAÑEDA, Respondentwascomplainedforviola Canons2,section1and2oftheNewC Thejudgehimselfmustobservedecor Judge ERICF.MENCHAVEZ,

vs.JUDGEERICF.MENCHAV tionofSection6(3),Rule140oftheRul odeofJudicialConductprovides: umbyactingwithdignityandcourtesyt oftheRegionalTrialCourt,Branch21,
EZ esofCourtinrelationwithCanons2.0 oallthosepresentinthecourtroom.T CebuCity,isherebydeclaredLIABL
1,3.01and3.03oftheCodeofJudicial SECTION1.Judgesshallensurethat his,therespondentjudgefailedtodo.T Eforvulgarandunbecomingconduct
A.M. No. RTJ-06- Conductforthe Philippine Judiciary. notonlyistheirconductabovereproac heseverityofhisviolationisnottampe asajudge.Accordingly,afineof₱10,0
2026March4,2009BRI h,butthatitisperceivedtobesointhevi redbyhisallegationthatthecomplaina 00.00isimposeduponhimwithaWA
ON,J.: ewofareasonable observer. nthimselfcontributedtotheeventsth RNINGthatarepetitionofthesameo
atledtotherespondent’sshow rsimilarinfractionwillbedealtwithmo
SEC.2.Thebehaviorandconductofj oftemper reseverely.Thecomplainant is
udgesmustreaffirmthepeople’sfaithi giventheADM
n the integrityof UndertheNewCodeofJudicialCon ONITIONthatinrepresentinghiscli
thejudiciary.Justicemustnotmerely duct(AdoptingtheNewCodeofJudicialCo ents,heshouldeverbemindfulofthere
nductfor thePhilippine spectdue

82
 2009CASES

bedonebutmustalsobeseentobe Judiciary,A.M.No.03-05-01- to the

done.
Code ofJudicialConduct
CANON3-
Ajudgeshouldperformofficialduties
honestly,andwithimpartiality
anddiligence
RULE3.03-
Ajudgeshallmaintainorderandprope
rdecoruminthe court
SC,April27,2004)therespondentviol courtandavoidactionsbordering on
atedthisrulewhen,afterashowofange disrespect.
r,hebroughtandopenlydisplayedhisg
unonhiscourtroomtablewhilehurlin
gaconfrontationalquestionattheoffe
ndingcounsel.WhiletheNewCodeof
JudicialConductrequiresamagistrate
tomaintainorderanddecoruminthec
ourt,theCodeitselfsetslimitson
howajudgeshoulddothis(Rule3,Ca
non3oftheCodeof
JudicialConduct).

TOPIC:
Dishonesty,Gross Ignorance of andContemptforthe Law,Gross Inefficiency andNegligence,andViolations oftheNew Codeof JudicialConductforthe
PhilippineJudiciaryandtheJudge’sOath
PROVINCIAL NewCodeofJudicialConductfort Inthecaseatbar,respondentjudgeviol
PROSECUTORMANUEL Respondentjudgewascomplainedfo hePhilippineJudiciary atedSections1and2ofCanon2andSe ForDishonesty,GrossIgnoranceofa
F.TORREVILLAS,vs.JUDGE rDishonesty,GrossIgnoranceofand ctions1and2,Canon4oftheNewCod ndContemptfortheLaw,GrossIneffi
ROBERTOA.NAVIDAD,REGI ContemptfortheLaw,GrossInefficie CANON2- eofJudicialConductforthePhilippin ciencyandNegligence,andViolations
ONALTRIAL ncyandNegligence,andViolationsoft Integrityisessentialnotonlyto the eJudiciary. oftheNewCodeofJudicialConductf
COURT,BRANCH32,CALBAY heNewCodeofJudicialConductfort properdischargeofthejudicialofficeb orthePhilippineJudiciaryandtheJudg
OGCITY hePhilippineJudiciaryandtheJudge’s utalsotothepersonaldemeanorofjud Inthedischargeofa e’sOath,respondent,JudgeRoberto
Oath ges. judge’sduties,however,whentheinef A.Navidad,whohas,inthemeantime
A.M No. RTJ-06- ficiencyspringsfromafailuretoconsi died,isineachofthese
1976April29,2009 SECTION1.Judgesshallensurethat dersobasicandelementalarule,alawo casessubjectofthisDecisionFINEDt
x- - -- -- - -- -- -- - -- -- -- - -- notonlyistheirconductabovereproac raprinciple,thejudge is heamountofFortyThousand(₱40,00
x h,butthatitisperceivedtobesointhevi eithertooincompete 0)Pesos.TheFinancialManagement
ewofareasonable observer. ntandundeservingofthepositionand Office,OfficeoftheCourtAdministr
REPORTONJUDICIALA titleheholds,oristooviciousthattheo atorisauthorizedtodeductthetotal
UDIT CONDUCTEDIN SEC.2. Thebehaviorandconductof versightor
judgesmustreaffirmthe

83
 2009CASES
THE REGIONAL people’sfaithin the integrityof
TRIALCOURT,BRANCH thejudiciary.Justicemustnotmerelyb
32,CALBAYOGCITY edonebutmustalsobeseentobe
done.
A.M No. RTJ-06-
1977April29,2009 CANON4-
CARPIOMORALES,J.: Proprietyandtheappearanceofpropr
ietyareessentialtotheperformanceof
allthe activitiesof a judge.
SECTION1.Judgesshallavoidimpr
oprietyandtheappearanceofimpropr
iety inall oftheiractivities.
SEC.2.Asasubjectofconstantpublic
scrutiny,judgesmustacceptpersonalr
estrictionsthatmightbeviewedasbur
densomebytheordinarycitizenandsh
oulddosofreelyandwillingly.Inpartic
ular,judgesshallconductthemselvesi
nawaythatisconsistentwiththedignit
y ofthe judicial office.
84
omissionwasdeliberatelydoneinbadf sumofEightyThousand(P80,000)Pe
aithandingraveabuseofjudicialautho sosfromthebenefitsduerespondenta
rity.Iftheruleorlawissoelementary,as ndtoreleasetheremainingamounttoh
theabove- isheirsunlessthereexistsanotherlawf
quotedsectionsofRule114are,nottok ulcause for withholding thesame.
nowitortoactasifhedoesnotknowitc
onstitutesgrossignoranceofthelaw,
withouteventhecomplainanthavingt
oprovemaliceorbadfaithontheparto
fthejudge,asitcanbeclearlyinferredfr
omtheerrorcommitted.(Jandav.Ro
jas,A.M.No.RTJ-07-
2054,August23,2007,530
SCRA796,808.).Onthisscore,asrefl
ectedintheInvestigatingJustice’sand
theOCA’sseparatereports,theCourt
findsrespondentguiltyofgrossignora
nce ofthelaw.
Respondentalsocommittedunduede
layindisposingofthecasesassignedto
him.Judgeshavethesworndutytoad
ministerjusticewithoutunduedelay.
Ajudgewhofailsto do
sohastosuffertheconsequencesofhis
omission,asanydelayinthedispositio
nofcasesunderminesthepeople’sfait
hintheJudiciary(Galanzav.Trocino
,A.M.NoRTJ-07-
2057,August7,2007,
529 SCRA 200,212).

Topic:Dishonesty andgrave misconduct.
Act/s complainedof:
Aquino vs.Manio
Thiscaseisaconsolidatedadministrativechar
A.M. NO.P-07- gesagainstCourtInterpreterIIIMaritesR.Ma
2298April 24, 2009 niofordishonestyandgravemisconductandf
Ponente:LEONARDO- orforgingthesignatureofaJudgetodefraudt
DE CASTRO, J hepublic.
Severalcomplainantswenttorespondentan
dinquiredfromherifsheknewalawyerwhoco
uldhelpthemforthecorrectionofentryinthe
marriagecertificate.Respondentmisreprese
ntedthatshehasauthorityandconnectionsto
obtainfavorableconsiderationtothecompla
inants.However,itresultednegative.
2009CASES
Legalbasis/bases Supreme Court’s Ruling
ofthe charge/s
Shetookadvantageofherofficialpositionanddef
Violation ofthe Code raudedpotentiallitigant.Heractsclearlyconstitut
ofConductforcourtperso edishonestywhichisthe"dispositiontolie,cheat,
nnel deceiveordefraud;untrustworthiness;lackofinte
grity;lackofhonesty,probity,orintegrity
inprinciple;lackoffairnessandstraightforwardne
ss;dispositiontodefraud,deceiveorbetray.Thefo
rgerythatshecommittedinfurtheranceofthedec
eitconstitutesgravemisconductora"flagrantlyor
shamefullywrongorimproperconduct.
Case Disposition
Respondent was
heldadministrati
velyguiltyofdishonestyandgravemisc
onduct.Inviewofherpreviousdismiss
alfromtheservice,aFINEof₱40,000.
00isimposeduponhertobedeductedfr
omheraccruedleave benefits.

Topic:Failed toServehisClientwithCompetenceandDiligence
Carandang vs. ThisisacomplaintfiledbyCarlito Canon18, andRules Atty.ObminaviolatedCanon18,andRules Atty.ObminaisfoundGUILTY
Atty.Obmina P.CarandangagainstAtty.GilbertS.Obmina 18.03 and18.04 of 18.03and18.04oftheCodeofProfessionalRespo ofviolationofCanon18andofRules
.Atty.ObminawascounselforCarandanginc theCode of nsibility.AlsoAtty.ObminaFailedtoServe 18.03and18.04oftheCodeofProfessi
A.C. No. ivilcase.CarandangbroughtsuitforAtty.Ob ProfessionalResponsi Complainant onalResponsibility.TheCourtsuspen
7813April 21, mina’sfailuretoinformhimoftheadversedec bility withCompetence andDiligence. dshimfromthepracticeoflawforoneye
2009CARPIO isioninsaidcaseandforfailuretoappealthede ar,andwarnsthatarepetitionofthesam
,J cision. Atty.Obmina’sfutileeffortsofshiftingtheblame eorsimilaroffensewillbedealtwithmo
onCarandangonlyservetoemphasizehisfailuret re severely.
onotifyCarandangthatthereisalreadyadecisioni
nsaidCivilCasethatwasadversetoCarandang’sin
terests.Atty.ObminacannotoverlookthatCaran
danglearnedaboutthepromulgationofthedecisi
onnotthroughhimbutthroughachance visit
tothe trialcourt.

Topic:GrossIgnoranceoftheLaw,gravemisconduct

85
 2009CASES
Baculi vs.Belen ComplainantProsecutorBaculifiledagainstt Rule 1.01.andRule 3.01
heaccusedJayBallestrinosinformationforfr ofthe Code
A.M. No.RTJ-09- ustratedhomicide.Inthecourseoftheprocee ofJudicialConduct
2176April 20, dings,complainantBaculifiledseveralpleadi
2009NACHURA, J. ngsthusrespondentJudgedirectedhereinco
mplainantBaculitoexplainwhyheshouldnot
becitedincontemptofcourtformakingunfo
undedstatementsinhispleadings.
Respondent
foundcomplainantguiltyo
fdirectcontemptformakingscurrilousandco
ntumaciousstatementsinthelatter’sUrgent
ReiterativeMotion.
Chargesforindirectcontemptshallbecommence RespondentJudgewasguiltyofgrossig
dbyaverifiedpetitionwithsupportingparticulars noranceofthelawandissuspendedfora
andcertifiedtruecopiesofdocumentsorpapersin periodofsixmonthswithoutsalaryand
volvedtherein,anduponfullcompliancewithther otherbenefitsandalsoSTERNLYWA
equirementsforfilinginitiatorypleadingsforcivil RNEDthatarepetitionofthesameorsi
actionsinthe courtconcerned. milaractsshallmeritamore
seriouspenalty.
Ajudgemustbeacquaintedwithlegalnormsandp
receptsaswellaswithproceduralrules.Verily,failu
retofollowbasiclegalcommandsembodiedinthe
lawandtherulesconstitutesgrossignoranceofthe
law,fromwhichnoone isexcused

Thereafter,complainantfiledtheinstantcom
plaint,asseverating,thatrespondentviolated
Section7,Rule71oftheRulesofCourtandpre
vailingjurisprudenceinholdinghimliablefori
ndirectcontemptbecausetheuseofcontemp
tuouslanguagein
apleading,ifsubmittedbeforethesamejudge,
wouldconstituteonly
directcontemptofcourt.

Topic:Usurpingthe authorityof anotary publicanddishonesty(misappropriation)

Manzano vs. Dishonesty(misappropriation)andmisrepr Violation Respondentheldhimselfandactedasnotarypubli Atty.
Atty.Santiago esentationand/orusurpingtheauthority of ofNotarialLawandLawyer’ cfortheprovinceofCamarineswithoutproperco Santiagowasdisbarredfromthe
a notary public. sOath mmission. practice of law
A.C. No.
8051April 07, Accordingtocomplainant,sheengagedresp Healsoauthenticatedaconveyingdeed,onewhic
2009PerCuria ondent'sservicestopursuecollectioncasesfr hheprepared,andhehimselfwasthetransferee
m omindividualsdealingwithherconstructions ofthe lot.
upply/hardwarebusiness.Afteratime,comp
lainantnoticedthatnota single Hisguiltfortheactscomplainedconstitutedishon
successfulcollectionwasevermade. esty,gravemisconductand/orseriousmalpractic
e,nottomentionhisdelinquencyinthepaymentof
hisannualIBPduessince

86
 2009CASES
the year2003.

Topic:Gross ignorance ofthe law andgravemisconduct

Pros. Visbal vs. Thecomplainantinthiscriminalcaseiswithth Canon1.01 of the
JudgeVanilla eLeyteProvincialProsecutionOfficeandhec Codeof Judicial
hargedrespondentwithgravemisconductan Conduct
A.M. No.MTJ-06- dgrossignoranceofthelawfororderingCrimi
1651April 7, 2009 nalCaseNo.2000-08-OD-
BRION, J 01tobearchived.Thecomplainantallegedth
atatthetimetherespondentjudgeorderedthe
criminalcasearchived,eventhewitnessesfort
heProsecutionwereable,ready,andwillingto
testify,withduenoticetotheaccusedafter he
hadbeenarraigned.
Ajudgeiscalledupontoexhibitmorethanjustacur Consideringthatnomaliceorbadfaith
soryacquaintancewithstatutesandproceduralrul hasbeenestablishedandthatthisisther
es;itisimperativethathebeconversantwithbasicl espondentjudge'sfirstadministrative
egalprinciplesandbeawareof well- offense,wedeemitjustandreasonablet
settledauthoritativedoctrines. oimposeuponhim a fine
HeowestothepublicandtothisCourtthedutytob of₱10,000.00.
eproficientinthelaw.Heisexpectedtokeepabreas
toflawsandprevailingjurisprudence.Judgesmust
notonlyrenderjust,correct,andimpartialdecisio
ns,resolutions,andorders,butmustdosoinaman
nerfreeofanysuspicionastotheirfairness,imparti
ality,andintegrity,forgoodjudgesaremenwhoha
vemasteryoftheprinciplesoflawandwhodischar
getheirdutiesinaccordance withlaw.

Topic:Preparingandnotarizingillegallease contracts,grossmisconduct
Kupersvs. ComplainantclaimedthatascounselforHan Canon 1 Rule 1.02, Canon
Atty.Hontanosa sandVivianBusse,respondenthadprepared 15 Rule 15.07
s amemorandumofagreementandacontracto andCanon17 of theCPR
fleasebetweenthespousesBusseandHochst
A.C. No. rasser,aSwissnational.Inanotheragreement Section27,Rule138ofthe
5704May 8, preparedbyrespondentforhisforeignclients Rulesof Court.
2009Tinga, J. itstatedthatitwouldleaseVivianBusse’sprop
ertyinAlcoy,Cebuforfifty(50)years,renewa
bleforanotherfifty(50)years.Respondentpr
eparedasimilaragreementandleasecontract
between
thespousesEmberger,aSwissnational,overa
notherparceloflandCebu.Allfour(4)docum
entswerenotarizedbyrespondent.Itwasalso
respondentwho
Respondentsdraftingandpreparingofthesubject
contractsclearly
showsthatitviolatedthelawlimitingleaseofprivat
elandstoaliensforaperiodoftwentyfive(25)years
renewableforanothertwentyfive(25)years.Inpre
paringandnotarizingillegalleasecontracts,respo
ndentviolatedtheAttorney’sOathandseveralcan
onsoftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility.O
neoftheforemostsworndutiesofanattorney-at-
lawisto "obey the lawsofthe Philippines.
Atty.JohnsonB.Hontanosas,isfound
guilty ofviolatingthelawyer’soathand
grossmisconduct.HeisSUSPENDE
Dfromthepracticeoflawforsix(6)mo
nthswitha
WARNINGthatarepetitionofthesa
meorsimilaractwillbedealtwithmore
severely

87
 2009CASES
draftedtwodeedsofsaleovertheleasedprope
rties.
Topic:Gross misconductforrepresentingconflictinginterests,gross ignoranceof thelaw
Buehsvs. Atty. Bacatan ApetitionforthedisbarmentofrespondentA Rule 15.01 andRule
tty.InocencioT.Bacatanfiledbycomplainan 15.03of theCPR
A.C. No. tRobertBernhardBuehs,chargingresponde
6674June 30, ntwithrepresentationofconflicting
2009PERALT interestsandgrossmisconductforusurpatio
A, J nofauthority.
Complainantallegedthat:
1. Respondentclearlyrepresentedconflic
tinginterestsbyactingascounselforAlvareza
ndMalukuhinthecriminalcasetheyfiledagai
nsthereincomplainantwhilethelaborcasefil
edbyAlvarezandMalukuhagainstcomplaina
ntwasstillpending before him.
2. Respondentusurpedthejudicialpowers
oftheRegionalTrialCourtandthehigherjudi
cialauthoritiesbyissuingaHoldDepartureO
rder/WatchlistOrderwithoutany notice or
hearing.
Topic:Violation of NotarialLaw
88
RespondentwastheVoluntaryArbitratorforthe Atty.InocencioT.BacatanisfoundGU
partiesin ILTYofgrossmisconductforrepresen
theillegaldismissalcase.However,insteadofexhi tingconflictinginterests,grossignoran
bitingneutralityandimpartialityexpectedofanar ceofthelawforissuinganorderwithout
bitrator,respondentindorsedacriminalcomplai authority,andfailuretoupdatehismem
nttotheOfficeoftheCityProsecutorofZamboan bershipduesto
gaCityforpossiblecriminalprosecutionagainsth theIBP;andisSUSPENDEDfromthe
ereincomplainant,andsignedthesaidIndorseme practiceoflawfortwo(2)yearswithster
ntascounselforcomplainantsin the illegal nwarningthatarepetitionofthesameo
dismissal case rsimilaractswillbedealtwith
moreseverely.
Grossmisconducthasbeendefinedasanyinexcus
able,shamefulorflagrantlyunlawfulconduct on
the part of the
personinvolvedintheadministrationofjustice,co
nductthatisprejudicialtotherightsofthepartieso
rtotherightdeterminationofthecause.Suchcond
uctisgenerallymotivatedbyapremeditated,obsti
nateorintentionalpurpose.Theterm,however,d
oesnotnecessarilyimplycorruptionorcriminalin
tent.

Judge Laquindanum ThisadministrativecaseagainstAtty.Nestor
vs.Atty. Quintana Q.QuintanastemmedfromaletterfiledbyEx
ecutiveJudgeLilyLydia
A.C. No. A.LaquindanumoftheRegionalTrialCourto
7036June 29, fMidsayap,Cotabatorequestingthatproper
2009PUNO,C disciplinaryactionbeimposedonhimforperf
J ormingnotarialfunctionsinMidsayap,Cotab
ato,whichisbeyondthe territorial
jurisdiction
ofthecommissioningcourtthatissuedhisnot
arialcommission,andforallowinghiswife to
do notarialactsinhisabsence.
Topic:Gross ignorance ofthe law
Republic vs. ThreeadministrativecasesagainstJudgeRa
JudgeCaguioa mon S. Caguioa
A.M. No.RTJ-07- Forgrossignoranceofthelaw,manifestpartia
2063June 26, 2009 lity,gravemisconductandconductprejudicia
PerCuriam ltothebestinterestoftheservice
A.M.No.RTJ-07-
2063wasgroundednorespondentjudgeorde
rgrantingtheDeclaratoryReliefwithPrayerf
orTemporaryRestrainingOrder(TRO)and
PreliminaryMandatoryInjunctionofthecoll
ection/paymentofexcise taxes.
A.M.No.RTJ-07-
2064respondentgrantedaPetitionforMand
amus,withPrayerfortheIssuanceofaTempo
raryRestrainingOrder(TRO)andWritofPrel
iminaryInjunction,ofthereassigning
2009CASES
2004 Ruleson Theactofnotarizingdocumentsoutsideone’sare Atty.NestorQuintana,notarialcommi
NotarialPractice aofcommissionpartakesofmalpracticeoflawan ssionisrevokedandheisdisqualified
dfalsification.Notarizingdocumentswithanexpi from
Canon 7 andCanon redcommissionisaviolationof beingcommission
9ofthe CPR thelawyer’soathtoobeythelaws.Itamountstoind edasnotarypublicforaperiodoftwo(2)
ulgingindeliberatefalsehood,whichthelawyer'so years.HeisalsoSUSPENDEDfromth
athproscribes. epracticeoflaw for six(6)months.
Atty.Quintanaispersonallyaccountableforthed
ocumentsthatweresignedbyhiswifeandthus,gui
ltyofviolatingCanon9oftheCodeofProfessional
Responsibility,whichrequireslawyersnottodirec
tlyorindirectlyassistinthe unauthorizedpractice
of law.
Code of Judicial Conduct Respondentjudgeguiltyofgrossignoranceofthel RamonS.Caguioa,PresidingJudgeoft
awandconductprejudicialtothebestinterestof heRegionalTrialCourtofOlongapo
the service. City,
isfoundGUILT
Ignoranceofthelawisthemainspringofinjustice.J Yofgrossignoranceofthelawandcond
udgesarecalledupontoexhibitmorethanjustacur uctprejudicialtothebestinterestofthes
soryacquaintancewithstatutesandproceduralrul ervice,andisherebyorderedDISMISS
es.Basicrulesshouldbeatthepalmoftheirhands. EDFROMTHE SERVICEwith
Theirinexcusablefailuretoobservebasiclawsand forfeitureofretirementbenefits,excep
ruleswillrenderthemadministrativelyliable.Whe tleave credits
rethelawinvolvedissimpleandelementary,lackof
conversancewithitconstitutesgrossignoranceof
thelaw."Verily,fortransgressingtheelementaryj
urisdictionallimitsofhiscourt,respondentshoul
dbeadministrativelyliableforgrossignorance
ofthe law.
89
 2009CASES
20customspersonneltodifferentportsandof
fices.

A.M.No.RTJ-07-
2066respondentdismissedthecivilcaseonth
eprincipalgroundofprescription

Topic:Gross misconduct
Lihaylihay vs. JudgeCandawaschargedof(1)bullying; Section1, Canon Judgesarerequiredtobetemperateintheirlangua JudgeCandaisfinedintheamount
JudgeCanda (2)ridiculing,humiliating,andbesmirchingh 2ofCode of Judicial geatalltimes.Theymustrefrainfrominflammator ₱40,000andsternlywarnsthatarepetiti
erreputationbypublishinginthenewspaperd Conduct yorvilelanguage.Theyshouldbedignifiedindeme onofthesameorsimilaractsshallbedea
A.M.Nos.MTJ-06-1659 escribingherasaGROandawhore;(3)sendin anorandrefinedinspeech,exhibitthattemperam ltwithmoreseverely.
&MTJ-09- gherthreateningtextmessages;and(4)sendin Section6, Canon entofutmostsobrietyandself-
1730June 18, gLihaylihayindecenttextmessages. 4ofCode of Judicial restraint,andbeconsiderate,courteous,andcivilt
2009CARPIO, Conduct oallpersons.Judgemustatalltimesbetemperatein
J. hislanguage.Hemustchoosehiswords,writtenor
Section6, Canon spoken,withutmostcareandsufficientcontrol.
6ofCode of Judicial
Conduct
Topic:Ignorance ofbasiclaw,representingfalsehood onhis client
Esguerra vs. Atty. Mas KeldStemmerikwhoisacitizenandresidento Canon 1of the CPR Lawyers,asmembersofanobleprofession,havet NationalBureauofInvestigation(NBI
fDenmarkconsultedrespondentwhoadvise hedutytopromoterespectforthelawandupholdt )isORDERED to
A.C. No. dhimthathecouldlegallyacquireandownreal Section7,ArticleXIIofthe heintegrityofthebar.Lawyersareservantsofthela locateAtty.Masandfiletheappropriate
8010June 16, propertyinthePhilippines.Respondenteven Constitution w criminal chargesagainsthim.
2009PerCuria suggestedapropertyinQuarry,Agusuin,Caw andthelawistheirmaster.Theyshouldnotsimply
m ag,Subic,Zambaleswiththeassurancethatth obeythelaws,theyshouldalsoinspirerespectfora
epropertywasalienable. ndobediencetheretobyservingasexemplarswort
hy ofemulation.
Becauseofthis,complainantpurchaseaprop
ertythroughrespondentashisrepresentative UndertheConstitution,aliensmaynotacquirepri
orattorney-in- vateoragriculturallands,includingresidentiallan
factinwhichhegave3.8milliontorespondent ds.Respondent,ingivingadvicethatdirectlycontr
.He alsoengagedthe servicesof adictedafundamentalconstitutionalpolicy,show
eddisrespectforthe Constitutionandgross

90
 2009CASES
respondentforthepreparationofthenecessa
rydocumentandpaidagainanamountofPhp
400,000 for
suchservices.Afterthesetransactions,compl
ainanttriedtogetintouchwithrespondentthe
latterbecamescarceandrefusedtoanswerco
mplainant’scallsande-mails.
Topic:Gross neglectofduty
Judge Simbulanvs. JudgeNicasioV.Bartolome,togetherwithoth Rule 3.08 andRule
JudgeBartolome erCourtpersonnelchargedincommittinggrav 3.09of the Code
eerrorsanddiscrepanciesinprocessingthesur ofJudicialConduct
A.M. No.MTJ-05- etybondfortheaccusedinCriminalCase.Alsor
1588June 5, espondentdelayedinthetransmissionofthisb
2009PERALTA, J. ondandotherdocumentswerenotproperlyatt
ached.
Topic:Engagingin private practice while ingovernmentservice shouldbe withwrittenauthorityof Dept.head
Abella vs. Atty. Cruzabra Complainantchargedrespondentwithengag UniformRulesonAdmin
inginprivatepracticeoflawwhileemployedin istrative Casesinthe
A.C. No. thegovernmentservice.Complainantassert Civil Service
5688June 4, edthatasDeputyRegisterofDeeds,responde
2009CARPIO ntfiledapetitionforcommissionasanotaryp
,J ublicandthereafterwascommissionedwitho
utobtainingpriorauthorityfromtheSecretar
yoftheDepartmentofJustice(DOJ).Compla
inantclaimedthatrespondenthasnotarizeds
ome3,000document.
Respondentreasonedthatherbeinga
91
ignoranceofbasiclaw.Worse,hepreparedspurio
usdocumentsthatheknewwerevoidandillegal.
Itistheresponsibilityofthejudgetoalwaysseetoitt PresidingJudgeNicasioBartolome(ret
hathis/herordersareproperlyandpromptlyenfo ired)GUILTYofgrossneglectofdutyf
rced,andthatcaserecordsareproperlystoredand orwhichheismetedafineintheamount
kept.Thus,inthepresentcase,respondentJudgeh ofFortyThousandPesos(₱40,000.00)
imselfshouldhaveverifiedthatthedocumentsfor ,tobedeductedfromhisretirementben
bailwerecompleteandcorrectinsteadofrelyingo efits;and
ntherepresentationsofhisclerkofcourt.Acourtp
ersonneladmissionofnegligencecannotexcuser
espondentJudgefromliabilityintheirregularproc
essingofthe bail bond.
Whenrespondentfiledherpetitionforcommissi Atty.AsteriaE.Cruzabraguiltyofenga
onasanotarypublic,shedidnotobtainawrittenpe ginginnotarialpracticewithoutthewrit
rmissionfromtheSecretaryoftheDOJ.Respond tenauthorityfromtheSecretaryofthe
ent’ssuperior,theRegisterofDeeds,cannotissue DepartmentofJustice, and
anyauthorizationbecauseheisnottheheadofthe accordinglywe
Department.AndevenassumingthattheRegister REPRIMANDher.
ofDeedsauthorizedher,respondentfailedtopres
entanyproofofthatwrittenpermission.
UndertheUniformRulesonAdministrativeCase
sintheCivilService,engagingintheprivatepractic
eof profession,when

notarypubliccomplementedherfunctionsas
DeputyRegisterofDeedsbecauseresponde
ntcouldimmediatelyhavedocumentsnotari
zedinsteadoftheregistrantsgoingoutoftheo
fficetolookfor a notary public
Topic:Lawyershallservehis clientwithcompetence anddiligence
Camara vsAtty.Reyes Complainanthiredtheservicesofresponden
ttohandlehercase.Aspartialacceptancefee,r
A.C. No. espondentreceivedfromcomplainant₱50,0
6121July 31, 00.00evidencedbyareceiptplacedonhiscalli
2009NACHU ngcard.Respondent,however,tooknostepst
RA, J. oprotectcomplainant’sinterest.Asnoservic
ewasrendered,complainantaskedresponde
nttoreturntheamountforrepairofhishouse.
Respondentofferedthat he wouldtake
charge ofrepairing
thehouse.Yet,heagainfailedtofulfillhispro
mise,whichpromptedthecomplainanttoreit
erateherdemandforthe return ofthe
money.
Topic:Judges cannotengage inthe private practiceduringhis preventive suspensionunless withauthorizationfromthe SupremeCourt
AlayBinalayvs. Atty.BinalayheadagentoftheNBINuevaViz
JudgeLelina caya,administrativelychargedJudgeLelina,J
r.forviolationofSection35,Rule138oftheRu
A.M. No.RTJ-08- lesofCourtandRule5.07,Canon5oftheCode
2132July 31, 2009 ofJudicialConductforengagingintheprivate
CARPIO MORALES,J practiceduringhispreventivesuspension.
2009CASES
unauthorized,isclassifiedasalightoffensepunish
able byreprimand
Canon18 andRule Theactofreceivingmoneyasacceptancefeeforle Atty.OscarAmandyReyesisherebySU
180.03 of the galservicesinhandlingcomplainant’scaseandsub SPENDEDforaperiodofSIX(6)MO
CodeofProfessionalR sequentlyfailingtorendersuchservicesisaclearvi NTHSfromthepractice of law.
esponsibility olationofCanon18oftheCodeofProfessionalRe
sponsibility,whichprovidesthatalawyershallser
vehisclientwithcompetenceanddiligence.Ame
mberofthelegalprofessionoweshiscliententired
evotiontothelatter’sgenuineinterest,andwarmz
ealinthemaintenanceanddefenseofhisrights.An
attorneyisexpectedtoexerthisbesteffortsandabil
itytopreservehisclient’scause,fortheunwaverin
gloyaltydisplayedtohisclient,likewise, servesthe
endsof justice.
Section35,Rule138oftheRu Wherethelawdoesnotdistinguish,thecourtssho Suspendedfromofficeforthree(3)Mo
lesofCourt19 uldnotdistinguish.SinceSection35,Rule138ofth nthswithoutsalaryandotherbenefitsa
eRulesofCourtandSection11,Canon4oftheNe ndsternlywarnedthatarepetitionofthe
Section11,Canon4oftheNe wCodeofJudicialConductforthePhilippineJudi sameorsimilaractsshallbedealtwithm
wCodeofJudicialConduct ciarydoesnotmakeanydistinctioninprohibitingj oreseverely.
udgesfromengagingintheprivatepracticeoflaw
whileholdingjudicialoffice,nodistinctionshould
bemadeinitsapplication.Inthepresentcase,resp
ondenthavingbeen
92
 2009CASES
merelysuspendedandnotdismissedfromtheserv
ice,hewasstillboundundertheprohibition.

Topic:Representingclients withconflictinginterest
Pacana, Jr.vs. AdministrativecomplaintfiledbyRolandoP Rule 15.03 oftheCPR Inthecourseofalawyer- AttorneyMaricelPascual-
Atty.Lopez acana,Jr.againstAtty.MaricelPascual- clientrelationship,thelawyerlearnsallthefactsco LopezisherebyDISBARREDforrepr
Lopezchargingthelatterwithflagrantviolati nnectedwiththeclient’scase,includingitsweakan esentingconflictinginterestsandforen
A.C. No. onoftheprovisionsoftheCodeofProfession dstrongpoints.Suchknowledgemustbeconsider gaginginunlawful,dishonestanddecei
8243July 24, alResponsibility.Itallegesthatrespondentco edsacredandguardedwithcare.Noopportunity tfulconductinviolationofherLawyer’s
2009PERCUR mmittedactsconstitutingconflictofinterest, mustbegiven to OathandtheCodeofProfessionalRes
IAM dishonesty,influencepeddling,andfailureto himtotakeadvantageofhisclient;foriftheconfide ponsibility.
renderanaccountingofallthemoneyandpro nceisabused,theprofessionwillsufferbythelosst
pertiesreceivedbyherfrom complainant. hereof.Respondentmusthaveknownthatheract
ofconstantlyandactivelycommunicatingwithco
Inthiscase,complainantsoughttheadviceofr mplainant,who,atthattime,wasbeleagueredwith
espondentwhoalsoamemberoftheCouples demandsfrominvestorsofMultitel,eventuallyle
forChristwherecomplainantandhiswifewer dtotheestablishmentofalawyer-
ealsoactivemembers.Afterafewweeks,com clientrelationship.
plainantwassurprisedtoreceivedemandlette
rfromrespondentaskingforthereturnandset
tlementofthefundsinvestedbyrespondent’s
clientsinMultitel.Whencomplainantconfro
ntedrespondentaboutthedemandletter,thel
atterexplainedthatshehadtosenditsothathe
rclientsthe
defraudedinvestorsofMultitelwouldknowt
hatshewasdoingsomethingforthemandass
uredcomplainantthattherewasnothingtow
orry about.

Topic: Lawyershallservehis clientwithcompetence anddiligence,professionalmisconductanddishonesty

93

Belleza vs. Atty. Macasa Complainantavailedofrespondent’slegalser
vicesinconnectionwiththecaseofhersonfor
A.C. No. allegedviolationofRepublicAct9165whichr
7815July 23, espondentagreedfor₱30,000.Complainant
2009PerCuriam madeapartialpaymentof₱15,000.Thensheg
avehimanadditional₱10,000andpaidthe₱5
,000balance.Bothpaymentswerealsomadet
hruChuahoweverrespondentdidnotissuea
nyreceipt.Respondentreceivedalso₱18,000
fromcomplainantforpostingabondtosecur
etheprovisionallibertyofherson.Again,nore
ceiptwasissued.Whencomplainantwenttot
hecourtshefoundoutthatrespondentdidnot
remittheamounttothe court.
2009CASES
Canon17 of the CPR Alawyerwhoacceptsprofessionalemploymentfr
omaclientundertakestoservehisclientwithcomp
Canon18 andRule etenceanddiligence.
18.03of theCPR Hemustconscientiouslyperformhisdutyarisingf
romsuchrelationship.Afteracceptingthecrimin
Canon19 of the CPR alcaseagainstcomplainant’ssonandreceivinghis
attorney’sfees,respondentdidnothingthatcould
beconsideredaseffectiveandefficientlegalassista
nce.Forallintentsandpurposes,respondentaban
doned the cause of
hisclient.Thus,alawyerwhodoesnotrenderlegals
ervicesisnotentitledto attorney’sfees.
Atty.AlanS.MacasaisherebyfoundG
UILTY
notonlyofdishonestybutalsoofprofes
sionalmisconductforprejudicingFran
cisJohnBelleza’srighttocounselandto
bail He
istherefore
DISBARREDfromthepracticeoflaw
effectiveimmediately.

Complainantdemandedthereturnof
themoney
fromrespondentbutlatterignoredher.

Topic:Violation ofthelawyer’s oathandbreachof ethics ofthe legalprofession

FoodsphereInc.vs. Foodsphere,Inc.underthebrandname"CD
Atty.MauricioJr. O,"filedaVerifiedComplaintfordisbarment
againstAtty.MelanioL.Mauricio,Jr.,popular
A.C. No. lyknownas"BatasMauricio"awriter/colum
7199July 22, nistoftabloidsandahostofatelevisionprogra
2009 mandofaradioprogramfor(1)grosslyimmor
CARPIOMORALES,J. alconduct;(2)violationoflawyer’soathand(3
)disrespecttothecourtsandtoinvestigating
prosecutors.
ThiscasestemmedfromtheAlbertoCordero
foundthespreadhadacolonyofwormsinside
thecan.Corderofileda
Rule 1.01 andRule RespondentviolatedRule1.01oftheCodeofProf Atty.MelanioMauriciois,forviolation
13.02of the Code essionalResponsibility ofthelawyer’soathandbreachofethics
ofProfessionalResponsib whichmandateslawyerstorefrainfromengagingi ofthelegalprofessionasembodiedinth
ility nunlawful,dishonest,immoralordeceitfulcondu eCode of
ct.Heengagedindeceitfulconductbytakingadva ProfessionalResponsib
Canon 1of the CPR ntageofthecomplaintagainstCDOtoadvancehis ility,SUSPENDEDfromthe practice
interest– of law forthreeyears.
toobtainfundsforhisBatasFoundationandseeks
ponsorshipsandadvertisementsforthetabloidsa
ndhistelevisionprogram.
HealsoviolatedRule13.02oftheCodeofProfessi
onalResponsibility.Fordespitethependency of
the civilcase againsthimand the

94
 2009CASES
complaintagainstcomplainantsbutitwassett
ledtoacompromiseagreement.Respondent
sentcomplainantanAdvertisingContractas
kingcomplainanttoadvertiseinitstabloidfor
atotalamountof₱360,000,andaProgramPr
ofileofthetelevisionprogram.Howevernota
llofferswastakenbythecomplainant.
Disappointedwiththeofferrespondentpubl
ishedoffensiveandmaliciousarticlesagainstr
espondentcausingdamagetoitsreputationd
espiteatemporaryrestrainingorderissuedag
ainsthimexpresslyprohibitingsuchactions.
Topic:Lawyersnegligence on a legalmatterentrusted tohim
Uy vs. Atty.Tansinsin Complainantwasthedefendantinanejectme Rule 18.03 and18.04
ntcasewhereinrespondentwashereattorney. ofthe CPR
A.C. No. AdecisionwasrenderedbytheMeTCagainstt
8252July 21, hecomplainant.Complainant,throughresp
2009Nachura, ondent,elevatedthecasetotheRTC
J. byfilingaNoticeofAppeal.
HowevertheRTCdismissedtheappealsolely
becauseofthefailureofrespondenttofileame
morandumonappeallikewisethemotionforr
econsiderationwasdeniedforhavingbeenfil
edoutoftime.Realizingthatshelosthercaseb
ecauseofthenegligenceofhercounsel,compl
ainantinitiatedthedisbarmentcaseagainstre
spondent.
Topic:Gross misconduct
Antolinvs. Judge Quiroz UponJudgeQuirozreturntoofficefromhissi Code of Judicial Conduct
ckleavehecalledonthemembers
95
issuanceofastatusquoorderrestraining/enjoini
ngfurtherpublishing,televisingandbroadcasting
ofanymatterrelativetothecomplaintofCDO,res
pondentcontinuedwithhisattacksagainstcompl
ainantanditsproducts.Atthesametime,
respondentviolatedCanon 1 also of
theCodeofProfessionalResponsibility,whichm
andateslawyersto"upholdtheConstitution,obey
thelawsofthelandandpromote respectforlaw
andlegalprocesses.
Respondent’sfailuretofiletherequiredpleadingsi ATTY.TANSINSINisherebySUSP
sperseaviolationofRule18.03oftheCodeofProf ENDEDfromthepracticeoflawforap
essionalResponsibility.Asidefromfailingtofilet eriodofTHREE(3)MONTHS,witha
herequiredpleadings,respondentalsolackedcan sternwarningthatarepetitionofthesa
dorindealingwithhisclient,asheomittedtoappris meorsimilarwrongdoingwillbedealtw
ecomplainantofthestatusofherejectmentcase.A ith moreseverely.
lawyer-
clientrelationshipisoneoftrustandconfidence.T
hus,thereisaneedfortheclienttobeadequatelyan
dfullyinformedaboutthe
developmentsinhiscase.
In administrative proceedings, The complaintfiledby
thecomplainanthasburdenof SheriffGarroboagainstrespondentJu
provingthe dge

A.M. No.RTJ-09- ofhisstafffortheirmonthlymeeting.JudgeQ
2186July 14, 2009 uirozusingallhisfilthywordsberatedandlam
CARPIOMORALES,J bastedGarroboforservingthewritonPSPI,h
ence,hisfilingoftheadministrativecomplain
tagainstthe judge forgrossmisconduct.
AlsoJudgeQuiroz,statedthatGarroboaccep
tedmoneyfromMr.Litonjuarepresentativeo
fPSPIandasexpected,thusimplementation
oftheWritwasprejudiced.
Topic:Gross misconduct
Judge Umali Thistwoconsolidatedcomplaintsaroseonw
vs.JudgeVillarante hathappenedduringthejudgesmeeting
onMarch27, 2007.
A.M. No.RTJ-08-
2124August27, OnMarch27,2007MonthlyJudgesMeeting
2009CARPIOMORAL whenthematterofgivingtothenewexecutive
ES,J. judgetheincreasedallowancesacommotioni
ncurredwhereJudgeVillaranterepeatedlycal
ledJudgeUmali (complainant) a liarinthe
presenceoffellowJudgesandotheremployee
sofRTC.
Asaresultoftheprovocation,JudgeUmalico
ntinuouslyutteredtheremarks"matanda ka
na, halosmalapit ka
nasakamatayangumagawakapangganyan,madad
amaypakami" toJudgeAcosta-
Villaranteandalsoattemptingtoinflict
2009CASES
allegationsinthecomplaintwithsubstantialevide AlexL.Quiroz,aswellasthecounter-
ncewhichareasonablemindmightacceptasadeq charge,islikewiseDISMISSED.
uatetojustifyaconclusion.SheriffGarrobo,aside
fromhisbareallegationsthathewasberatedbyJud
geQuirozinthepresenceofhisofficemates,prese
ntednoevidencetosupporthisassertions.
Althoughadministrativeproceedingsarenotbou
ndbytechnicalrulesofprocedureinadjudicationo
fcases,itdoesnotdoawaywithcompliancewithba
sicrulesinprovingallegations.Thefundamentalr
equirementofdueprocessrequiresthatifsanction
mustbemetedout,thequantumofproofrequiredi
nadministrative casesshouldbe met
Canon2, Section 2 and Courtsarelookeduponbythepeoplewithhighres BothJudgeswhere
Canon4, Sections1and pect.Misbehaviorbyjudgesandemployeesneces FINEDintheamountofeleventhousa
2New Code of sarilydiminishestheirdignity.Anyfightingormis nd(₱11,000)Pesos.
JudicialConduct understandingisadisgracefuloccurrencereflecti
ngadverselyonthegoodimageoftheJudiciary.
Byfightingwithinthecourtpremises,respondent
judgesfailedtoobservetheproperdecorumexpec
tedofmembersoftheJudiciary.Moredetestableis
thefactthattheirsquabblearoseoutofamereallow
ancecomingfromthelocalgovernment.
However,bothJudgesactsdoesnotconstitutegro
ssmisconductandshouldbeconsideredonlyasa
violationofSupremeCourtrules,directivesandci
rculars,whichisclassifiedasa lessseriouscharge.
96
 2009CASES
harm toJudge Villarante.
Both JudgesintheirCommentbefore
theOCAadmittedsaidactuationsthey’vedo
ne.
Topic:Bias andpartialityin JudgeDecision,gross ignorance of thelaw
Malabed vs. Judge Asis Complainantfiledacivilcaseforejectmentan Rule 1.02,
ddamageswiththeMunicipalCircuitTrialCo CanonIoftheCode of
A.M. No.RTJ-07- urtagainstspousesCericos.BothMCTCand Judicial Conduct
2031August4, RegionalTrialCourtwhererespondentJudge
2009PERALTA, J. presidedrenderedjudgmentinfavorofcomp
lainant.HoweverrespondentJudgegrantedt
hepetitionforrelieffiledbySpousesCericosa
nddeniedthemotionforwritofdemolitionof
complainant.
ComplainantappealedtotheCAwhichrever
sedthedecisionofrespondentjudge.Asaresu
lt,complainantfiledacomplaintwiththeOffi
ceoftheCourtAdministratorchargingrespo
ndentforexhibitingbiasandpartialitywithre
gardtoitsCivilCasebecausedefendantsnewc
ounsel,Atty.DelaPeña,representedrespond
entJudgeinadministrativecomplaints
filedagainst the latter.
Topic:BreachofNotarialLaw
97
Thechargeofbiasandpartialitymustfail.Asidefro RespondentJudgeEnriqueC.Asisisor
mthecomplainant’sallegationofbiasandpartialit deredtopaya FINEof
ybecausetheSps.CericosarerepresentedbyAtty. ₱20,000.00,withasternwarningthatar
MeljohnDelaPeña,shefailedtosubstantiatehercl epetitionofthesameorsimilaractsinth
aims.Thereversalofajudge’sorderbyasuperiorc efutureshallbedealtwithmore
ourtinacertioraricaseis,initself,notagroundfora severely.
nadministrativeactionagainstthejudge.Thefactt
hatajudge’sorderissetasideoncertioraridoesnot
connotethathewasbiasedorpartialinfavorofthe
partywhowasbenefitedbytheorder.Onlyjudicial
errorstaintedwithfraud,dishonesty,grossignora
nce,badfaithordeliberateintenttodoaninjustice
willbeadministrativelysanctioned.
However,respondentjudgeisguiltyofconstitute
dgrossignoranceofthelawwhenitgranted a
PetitionforRelieffromJudgmentwhichwasfiled
out oftime.

UlasovsAtty. Lacsamana Bidesamendedthecomplainttodemandthe
declarationofnullityofthedeedofsalepertain
A.C. No. ingtotheparceloflandsituatedinSanJuan,Me
7297September29, troManila.Thesaidamendedcomplaintcont
2009BERSAMIN, ainedaso-
J. calledamendedverificationandaffidavitofn
on-
forumshoppingonwhichwasasignaturepre
cededbytheword"for"abovetheprintedna
me"IRENEBIDES."Thesignatureboreap
ositiveresemblancetotherespondent’ssigna
tureasthenotaryonthejuratoftheamendedv
erificationandaffidavitofnon-
forumshopping.Thus,respondentnotarize
d notarytoobeythelawsofthelandandtopromoter
theamendedverificationandaffidavitofnon-
forumshoppingeveninthe absence
ofBides.
Topic:Gross ignorance ofthe law
Chen vs. Attty.Pichay AcomplaintwasfiledbyWenMingWChen,al
soknownasDomingoTan,beforetheIBPag
A.C. No. ainstAtty.F.D.Nicolas
7910September18, B. Pichay for:
2009
YNARES- 1.)violationofRule1.01oftheCodeofProfes
SANTIAGO,J sionalResponsibilitywhenheallegedlyextort
edmoneyfromthecomplainant;
(2) grossmisconductamountingtogrossine
xcusableignorance ofthe
lawwhenhefiledcomplaintsfordamagesbef
oretheDepartmentofJustice (DOJ)
(3) violationofRule10.3oftheCodeof
2009CASES
NotarialLaw Respondent’snotarizingtheamendedverificatio RespondentAtty. Edita Noe-
nandaffidavitofnon- Lacsamana, warnedthat
forumshoppingintheabsenceofBidesastheaffia asimilarinfractionin thefuture willbe
ntconstitutedaclearbreachofthenotarialprotoc dealtwith moreseverely.
olandwashighly censurable.
Beingalawyercommissionedasanotary,therespo
ndentwasmandatedtodischargewithfidelitythes
acreddutiesappertainingtohernotarialoffice.Su
chdutiesbeingdictatedbypublicpolicyandimpre
ssedwithpublicinterest,shecouldnotdisregardth
erequirementsandsolemnitiesoftheNotarialLa
w.Itwasemphaticallyherprimarydutyasalawyer-
espectforthelawandlegalprocesses.
Rule 1.01 andRule Evenassumingthatthecasesfiledwerecivilaction ComplaintfiledagainstAtty.F.D.Nico
10.03of the Code sfordamages,thesamedoesnotmeritrespondent lasB.PichayisDISMISSEDfor lack
ofProfessionalResponsib ’sdisbarmentorsuspension. ofmerit.
ility
Ifatall,itwasanerrorofjudgmentsansbadfaith.It
hasbeenheldthatnotallmistakesofmembersofth
eBarjustifytheimpositionofdisciplinaryactions.
Anattorney-at-
lawisnotexpectedtoknowallthelaw.Foranhones
tmistakeorerror,anattorney
isnotliable.2Theallegederrorsarenotofsuchnatu
rewhichwouldwarranttheimpositionof the
penaltyofsuspensionfor one year.
98
 2009CASES

ProfessionalResponsibilitywhenhefiledam
otionbeforetheRTCseekingtheinclusionof
complainant’snameintheholddeparturelist
oftheBureauofImmigrationandDeportatio
n(BID).

Topic:Gravemisconduct

99
 2009CASES
Sarmientovs. Atty.Oliva Complainantsallegedthattheyreceived,aspa Lawyer’sOath
ymentforthepurchaseofa₱13millionMakat
A.C. No. iCitypropertyfivepostdatedchecksfromres
7435September10, pondentwhichweredishonoreddueto"clos
2009CORONA, J. edaccount”.Respondentrequestedcomplai
nantstoreducehisobligationandcomplainan
tsagreed.Thus,hegavepartialdownpayment
of₱200,000andissuedfourpostdatedPremi
erBankchecks.Uponpresentment,thefirstc
heckwasdishonoredagaindueto"closedacc
ount.
Complainantsagaindemandedpaymentfro
mrespondentbutthedemandwasignored.H
ence,thiscomplaint,whichwasoriginallyfile
dwiththeIntegratedBar of the
Philippines(IBP).
Topic:Grave abuse of authority,gravemisconduct,gross ignorance of thelaw
Pros. FiveadministrativecaseswerefiledagainstJu Sec.1,2and6ofCodeofJudic
Reyesvs.JudgeReyes dgeJuliaA.ReyesoftheMeTCof PasigCity. ial Conduct
A.M. No.MTJ-06- Inonecase,respondentJudgeordereddeclari 1987 Constitution
1623September18, ngthecomplainantincontemptandissuingw
2009PerCuriam arrantsfortheirarrest.
Alsoshefixanatrociouslyexcessivebailinsaid
casethusdeprivingcomplainantofherliberty
. niesof a religiousliturgy.
Inanothercase,respondentinofficiouslyde
mandedthatcomplainantconductaninquest
atthepolicestationforthepurposeof
preventingthereleaseof
100
RespondentwasalreadydisbarredinLibitv.Attys. Respondenttopaythecomplainantan
EdelsonG.OlivaandUmaliforgravemisconduct.N amountof₱11millionandliable for
otbeingamemberofthebar,hecannotbesuspend indirectcontempt.
edfromthepracticeoflaw.
Sincerespondenthimselfmadeapositivemisrepr
esentationtocomplainantsthathewasstillalawye
randevensubmittedhimselftothejurisdictionoft
heIBP,heisestoppedfromquestioningthejurisdi
ctionoftheIBPoverhim.Moreover,adisbarredla
wyer,whocontinuestorepresenthimselfasa
lawyerwiththeauthoritytopracticelawcommitsa
contumaciousactandisliableforindirectcontem
pt.
Theadministration JudgeJuliaA.Reyes,,isDISMISSEDfr
ofjusticeisaloftyfunctionandisnolesssacredthan omtheservicewithforfeitureofallretir
areligiousmissionitself.Thosewhoarecalledupo ementbenefitsexceptaccruedleavecre
ntorenderserviceinitmustfollowthatnormofco dits,ifany,andwithprejudicetore-
nductcompatibleonlywithpublicfaithandtrustin employmentinanybranchofthegover
theirimpartiality,senseofresponsibility,exercisin nmentincludinggovernment-
gthesamedevotiontodutyandunctiondonebyap ownedorcontrolledcorporations.
riestintheperformanceofthemostsacredceremo
Byjudges’appointmenttotheoffice,thepeopleha
velaidonthemtheirconfidencethattheyarement
allyandmorallyfittopassuponthemeritsoftheirv
ariedcontentions.

certainTimoteoMigrinowhohadearlierbeen
arrestedwhileallegedlyengagedinillegalgam
blingandhadposted
therequiredbail.Notwithstandingtheexplan
ationofcomplainantthatshewasnot
authorized to
conductsaidinquestoutsidesaidjudgeinsiste
danddemandedthepolicetoholdMigrinoinj
ailovertheweekend.
ComplainantReyeschargesrespondentJudg
ewithfalsificationofpublicdocuments.Itap
pearsthatrespondentJudgeissuedawarrantf
orthearrestofcomplainanteventherewasno
casefiledagainstcomplainant.
JudgeReyesinonecaseinhersalaenforced a
verbaljudgment.
Topic:Gross inefficiencyof a Judge
Fajardo vs.Judge Natino JudgeNatinowaschargedofthefollowing,
towit:
A.M. No.RTJ-16-
2479December13, l.Violationofthe90-
2017TIJAM,J. dayperiodwithinwhichacaseistoberesolved
,countedfromthedateitissubmitted
fordecision,inrelationtoacivilcase.Fajardos
aidthatthecasewassubmittedfordecisionon
aspecifieddate,buta
decisionthereonwasonlyissuedonlymoreth
anthreeyearsafterthecasewassubmittedfor
decision.
2.DelayinthereleaseoftheDecision.The
decisioninsaidcivil case
2009CASES
Forthisreason,membersofthejudiciaryareexpec
tedtobefearlessintheirpursuittorenderjustice,to
beunafraidtodispleaseanyperson, interest
orpower, andto
beequippedwithamoralfiberstrongenoughtores
istthetemptationslurking intheiroffice
Unfortunately,respondentJudgefailedtoresistth
etemptationsofpowerwhicheventuallyledherto
transgresstheverylawshe swore to
protectanduphold.
ArticleVIII,Section15(1)of TheCourthasconsistentlyimpresseduponjudge JudgeAntonioM.Natino,formerjudg
the 1987 Constitution stheneedtodecidecasespromptlyandexpeditiou ewasguiltyofunduedelayinrenderinga
slyunderthe time- decision,forwhichheisFINEDinthea
Canon3, Rule 3.05 honoredpreceptthatjusticedelayedisjusticedeni mountofTenThousandPesos(Pl0,00
of theCodeof ed.Everyjudgeshoulddecidecaseswithdispatcha 0),tobedeductedfromhis·
JudicialConduct ndshouldbecareful,punctual,andobservantinth retirementbenefits
eperformanceof
hisfunctionsfordelayinthedispositionofcaseser
odesthe faithandconfidence of
ourpeopleintheJudiciary,lowersitsstandardsan
dbringsitintodisrepute.Failuretodecideacasewit
hinthereglementaryperiodisnotexcusableandco
nstitutesgrossinefficiencywarrantingtheimposi
tionofadministrativesanctionsonthe defaulting
judge.
101
 2009CASES

3. Falsification of Certificateof Service ThisCourthasconstantlyemphasizedthattheoffi

ceofajudgeexactsnothinglessthanfaithfulobser
4. Failuretoresolvethematterscoveredin vanceoftheConstitutionandthe law in the
the Motionto Show discharge ofofficial duties.
Cause(Contempt).Fajardostressedthatinsai
dcase,PanayNewsfiledamotiontoshowcaus
efor contemptagainstMejica,forthe
latter'sfailuretocomplywiththeOrder
ordering him to
depositP572,000.00.Themotiontoshow
causefor contempt, according toFajardo,
wasneveractedupon bytheRTC.

5. Entertaininga
secondmotionforreconsideration

TOPIC::Deceitfulanddishonestconduct

CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME CASE DISPOSITION

Hegna v. Atty. Paderanga
To prevent the levy
CASE NO.: andexecutionof
A.C. No. 5955 certainproperties(aparcel oflotand
a vehicle)for thesatisfactionof a
DATE OFPROMULGATION: finalcourtjudgment,
September8, 2009 Atty.Paderanga cameforwardasa
third-party claimantto
PONENTE: thesaidproperties. He
Justice Diosdado M.Peralta claimedownershipoverthose
propertiesandpresented a Deed of
Saletoprove it. He admittedthatthat
hedid not
intentionallyregisterhisownershipo
verthose propertiesin
COURT’SRULING
Code
ofProfessionalRespo The CourtruledthatAtty.Paderanga
nsibility violatedRule 1.01 of theCode
ofProfessionalResponsibility. While
Rule 1.01 theRTC wascorrectinholding
thatsaidomissiononrespondent’spar
tmaynot be consideredfalsification,
Violation ofthe Lawyer’sOath hehad shown anintentto defraud
thegovernment,whichhad
therightto collectrevenue
fromhim,aswellasfromotherpersons
whomay have
aninterestinsaidproperties.
Atty. Paderanga
wasdeclaredguiltyof engaging
indishonestanddeceitfulconduct,
andwasSUSPENDEDfrom
thepracticeof law for one (1)year,
withasternwarning that a
repetitionof
thesameorsimilaroffense
inthefuture
wouldresultintheimpositionof a
more severepenalty.

102

TOPIC:Gross Misconduct,Gross Ignorance ofthelaw orProcedure
CASE TITLE:
Land Bankof the
Philippines(LBP)vs. Judge
Ernesto P.Pagayatan
CASE NO.:
A.M. No.RTJ-07-2089
DATE OFPROMULGATION:
September8, 2009
PONENTE:
Justice Conchita Carpio-Morales
the appropriate registry
ofpropertiestoavoidpaying
taxesaswellasdouble
paymentofsalesandtransferexpense
sincase hewoulddecide to sellit to
anotherperson.
ACTSCOMPLAINED:
Despite compliance
withhisorder,Judge
Pagayatanobstinatelyrefusedto
resolve
theextremelyurgentpetitiontoquash
andrecallthe
warrantofarrestissuedtoLeticia
andTeresita whowere,
asaconsequence,
detainedintheprovincial jail
fornineteen(19)days.
Pagayatencited“judicialcourtesy” to
the CourtofAppealsto justify
hisnon-resolutionof
theurgentpetitionandmotion.Twoa
dministrative
caseswerefiledagainstPagayatan,
charginghim,among others,
ofgrossignoranceof the law
orprocedure andgrossmisconduct.
2009CASES
Respondentviolated
theLawyer’sOath.
Respondentmusthaveforgottentha
ta lawyer
mustrefrainfromcommitting
actswhichgive even a semblance
ofimpropriety tothe profession.
LEGAL BASIS SUPREME CASE DISPOSITION
Code ofJudicialConduct COURT’SRULING Having already
The Supreme retiredfromtheservice asa judge,
Canon 1 CourtfoundJudgePagayatanguilty Pagayatanwasimposed afine
Rules 1.01 of GrossIgnorance of theLaw ofP40,000 ,chargeable to
Rule1.02 orProcedure hisretirementbenefits.
Rule 1.03 andGrossMisconduct.He
shouldnothave takencognizance of
Canon 2 the
Rule 2.01 petitionforindirectcontemptdueto
non-payment of docketfees.It is
anelementary rule that apetition
forindirectcontemptmustbecomme
nced bya verifiedpetitionthatfully
complieswith
therequirementsofinitiatorypleadin
gsincludingthe payment
ofdocketfees.
Asforrespondent’sobstinaterefusal
toreleaseLeticia despitecompliance
by LBPwiththeMarch4,
2005Order,the Courtfoundthat
thesame
constitutesGrossMisconductvisa
visRule1.02, Canon 1of the Code
ofJudicial
Conductwhichstatesthat"A judge
shouldadministerjustice
103

TOPIC:UnethicalSolicitation of LegalBusiness
CASE TITLE:
PedroL. Linsanganvs.
Atty.NicodemesTolentino
CASE NO.:
A.C. No. 6672
DATE OFPROMULGATION:
September4, 2009
PONENTE:
JusticeRenatoCorona
TOPIC:Gravemisconduct,gross partiality andgross ignorance of thelaw
CASE TITLE:
Mercado vs.Judge
SalcedoVelasco vs. Judge
Salcedo
CASE NO.:
A.M. No.RTJ-03-1781
ACTSCOMPLAINED:
Anadministrative case
wasfiledagainstAtty.
NicomedesTolentinofor having
“pirated” a clientofAtty.
Linsanganthroughthewheeling
anddealing ofTolentino’sparalegal,
FeMarieLabiano.Toinduce
them,Tolentinoallegedly
textedandcalledthempersistently.
Tosupporthisallegation,Linsanganp
resentedthe swornaffidavit
ofJamesGregorioattesting
thatLabianotriedto prevail
overhimto severhisclient-
attorneyrelationshipwithLinsangan.
Also,he
attached“respondent’scallingcard.
ACTSCOMPLAINED
RespondentJudge
ErastoSalcedowasalleged to have
committed thefollowing:
a) Biasandgrosspartiality
inhandling the
investigationof
2009CASES
impartially andwithoutdelay."
LEGAL BASIS SUPREME CASE DISPOSITION
Code COURT’SRULING Atty.
ofProfessionalRespo The Supreme CourtruledthatAtty. TolentinowasSUSPENDEDfrom
nsibility Tolentinounlawfullyencroachedup thepracticeof law for a periodof
onthe one yeareffective immediately
Rule 1.03 professionalemploymentofanothe fromreceiptof theresolution. He
Rule 2.03 rlawyer(Rule 8.02)by stealing wasSTERNLY WARNEDthata
Rule 8.02 anotherlawyer’sclient. repetitionof the
Rule 16.04 sameorsimilaractsin thefuture
Through thespellbinding shall bedealtwith moreseverely.
Canon 3 wordsofFe Labiano,
haplessseamenwereenticed to
transferrepresentationunder the
assurance that a morefavorable
resultcouldbeproduced.Based
onthese acts,respondentclearly
solicitedemploymentviolating Rule
2.03,andRule 1.03 andCanon3of
theCPRandsection27,Rule
138ofthe Rulesof Court. Any
actofsolicitationsconstitutesmalpra
ctice whichcallsfortheexercise of
the Court’sdisciplinarypowers.
LEGAL BASIS SUPREME CASE DISPOSITION
Code ofJudicialConduct COURT’SRULING Having already
Forfailing retiredfromserviceasa judge, the
Rule 3.08 tofaithfullyperformthe tasksof Supreme Courtimposed atotal
Rule 1.01 investigating MCTCJudge fineofP120,000whichistobe
Rule 2.01 Agayan, the deductedfrom the
respondentcommitteddishonest
y,
104

DATE OFPROMULGATION: the administrative
October16, 2009 casefiledagainstMunicipal
CircuitTrialCourtJudge Napy
PONENTE: Agayan;
PERCURIAM b) Grave misconductinborrowing,
possessing, andusing a
Pajerovehicle
whichwaspreviously
thesubjectof aCriminal Case
filedandheardbefore hissala
forviolationofthe Anti-Fencing
Law; and
Dishonesty orgrave
misconductinmodifying, during
itsexecutionphase, a
finalandexecutoryjudgmentrendere
dinanagrarianreformcase.
TOPIC:Grave MisconductandViolationofthe Lawyer’s Oath
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED
Maria Earl Beverly C. Atty. Rubia
Cenizavs.Atty. Vivian G. Rubia wasadministrativelycharged
forfalsificationofpublicdocuments,
CASE NO.: grossmisconductand
2009CASES
Rule 3.01 inefficiency, respondent’sretirementbenefits.
andseriousmisconductinviolation
of Canon3 andRule 3.08
ofCanon3,bothof the Code
ofJudicialConduct.
Pertaining to the
borrowingofPajerovehicle, the
evidenceadducedshowedthat
therespondentjudge
violatedRule1.01, Canon 1
andRule 2.01,Canon2, bothof the
CodeofJudicial Conduct, infailing
tomaintain the appearance
ofintegrity andinfailing to engage
inconduct topromote
publicconfidence in the judiciary.
Lastly, inrelationto the
agrarianreformcase, the
Courtfound therespondentjudge
guilty of grossignorance ofthe law
Formodifying a
finalandexecutorydecisioninthe
course of itsexecution. The rule
ofimmutability
ofjudgmentissoelementary
thatfailure considerandapply
itistantamount togrossignorance
ofthe law.
LEGAL BASIS SUPREME CASE DISPOSITION
Code COURT’SRULING The Supreme Courtsuspended
ofProfessionalRespo The Supreme therespondentfromthe practice
nsibility CourtexculpatedAtty oflaw for six(6)months.
Rubiafrom the chargeof
105

A.C. No. 6166 grossignorance of the law. Thiscase
stemmedfrom theallegedactof
DATE OFPROMULGATION: Atty.Rubia offurnishinga copyof a
October2, 2009 complaint, with“Civil CaseNo.
4198”
PONENTE: andrubberstamped“RECEIVED”
JusticeConsueloYnares-Santiago thereon, andwhichwaspurportedto
have beenfiledbefore the
RegionalTrial Court.
UponverificationwiththeClerkof
Court, however, Ceniza
learnedthat nosuchcase wasfiled.
TOPIC:Attorney-clientprivilegeandConflictofInterest
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED
Rebecca J. Palmvs. Atty. Atty. Iledan, asthe
FelipeIledan, Jr. retainedcorporate
counselofComtech,wasconsultedre
CASE NO.: gardingtheprocedure inamending
A.C. No. 8242 thecorporate by-laws. OnJanuary
10,2004, Atty.
DATE OFPROMULGATION: Iledanwasappointedasthe proxy
October2, 2009 ofthe ComtechPresidentinthe
corporation’sboardmeeting.Duringt
PONENTE: hemeetinghe objected to the
Justice AntonioT. Carpio participation ofStevenandDeanna
Palmthroughteleconference
because thecorporate by-
lawshadnotyetbeen
2009CASES
Rule 18.03 falsificationof public documentdue
Rule 18.04 to the lack ofpreponderantevidence
to supportthe allegations.
Canon22 However, Atty. Rubiashouldbe
disciplinedforherreprehensible act
Violation ofthe Lawyer’sOath ofsuggesting thatthe
complainantborrow money forthe
paymentofherattorney’sfees.Thisact
impressesupon the
Courtthatrespondentwould
donothing to the
causeofcomplainant’smother-in-law
unlesspaymentof the acceptancefee
ismade. Herduty
torenderlegalservicestoherclientwit
hcompetence anddiligence
shouldnot dependon the
paymentofacceptance fee.
LEGAL BASIS SUPREME CASE DISPOSITION
Code COURT’SRULING The
ofProfessionalRespo The complaintfiledagainstAtty.Felipe
nsibility complaintfiledwasdismissedbythe Iledan, Jr. wasdismissed forlack of
Supreme merit.
Canon22 Court.Thecommunicationmade
Rule 15.03 bythecorporationwithAtty.
Iledanisnot intended to be
confidential.
The proposedamendmentsmustbe
approved by atleast a majorityof
thestockholders, andcopiesofthe
amendedby-lawsmustbe filedwith
the SEC, andso
theinformationcouldnothave
beenintended tobe confidential.
106
 2009CASES
properly amended. Forthisact, Thus, the disclosure made
hewascharged of byrespondentduring
havingbreachedthe attorney- thestockholdersmeeting couldnot
clientprivilege. beconsidered a
Atty. Iledanwasalsoclaimed tohave violationofhisclientssecretsandconfi
representedconflictinginterestwhen dence within thecontemplationof
he actedasthe legalcounsel ofElda Canon21of theCode of
Soledad, a ProfessionalResponsibility.
formerdirectorandofficer of
Comtech, ina criminalcase of estafa Also,
filedbyCometechagainstSoledad. Courtfindsnoconflictofinterestwhe
nrespondentrepresentedSoledadin
a case filedby Comtech. There
wasnothing inthe
recordsthatwouldshowthatrespond
entusedagainstComtechany
confidentialinformationacquiredw
hile he
wasstillComtechsretainedcounsel.
Further, respondentmade
therepresentationafter
thetermination
ofhisretaineragreementwithC
omtech.
TOPIC:Lawyer’sresponsibilityto accountforfunds entrustedtohimby his client

CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED LEGAL BASIS SUPREME CASE DISPOSITION

ArellanoUniversity, Inc.
vs.Atty.Leovigildo H.MijaresIII
CASE NO.:
A.C. No. 8380
DATE OFPROMULGATION:
November20, 2009
ArellanoUniveristy handedtoAtty. Code COURT’SRULING The Supreme Courtimposed
LeovigildoH. ofProfessionalRespo The Supreme onhim the penalty
MijaresIIIanamountofP500,000 nsibility CourtfoundAtty.MijaresIIIof of ofDISBARMENT.
andall thedocumentsnecessary to violationof Rules
“facilitateandprocess” the Rule 1.01 1.01 and1.02, Canon15, Rule15.05,
acquisitionof acertificate oftitle Rule 1.02 Canon16, Rules16.01 and16.03,
over adriedupportion ofthe andCanon18, Rule 18.04ofthe
Estero de SanMiguel thatthe Canon15 Code ofProfessionalResponsibility.
University had Rule 15.05

107

PONENTE: beenoccupying.
PERCURIAM Afterinforming the University
thathe succeededingetting
theapproval
ofMetroManilaDevelopmentAutho
rity (MMDA),he suddenly made
himselfscarceanddifficulttoreach.
The University
terminatedtheservicesofAtty.Mijare
sIIIanddemanded the returnof
theP500,000 butthe latterfailed to
doso. Hence, the University
filedanadministrative charge
againstAtty.MijaresIII.
TOPIC:: GrossNegligence or Misconductin HandlingCases
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED
CesarTalentoandModestaHerrera Thisisanadministrative
Talentovs. Atty. Agustin complaintfiled by
F. Paneda motherandsonModestaHerreraTale
ntoandCesar Talentocharging Atty.
CASE NO.: Agustin F.Panedaof violationof
A.C. No. 7433 hisoathasalawyerandneglect of
duty. Atty. Paneda,asthe lawyer
DATE OFPROMULGATION: ofthe complainantsin a civil case
December23, 2009 forQuieting ofTitle,failed to
appearin a pre-trialconference
PONENTE: whichconsequentlybarred the
JusticeTeresita Jose Leonardo- latterinpresenting theirevidence.
deCastro Atty. Paneda alsofailedto file
therequiredAppealBriefwhichled to
the
dismissalofcomplainant’sappealbef
orethe
2009CASES
Canon16 RespondentMijareschosenot
Rule 16.01 tobe heard on hisevidence.
Rule 16.03 Unopposed, the evidence
supportsthe findingof guilt
Canon18 oftheInvestigating
Rule 18.04 Commissionerandthe IBPBoardof
Governors
Even more unfortunate
forMijares, he
admittedunderoathhaving bribed
a governmentofficial to
actfavorably
onhisclient’sapplicationto acquire
titleto a dried-upcreek.
Thatisquitedishonestandhe
cannotjustbemetedoutwith a
penalty ofindefinitesuspension.
LEGAL BASIS SUPREME CASE DISPOSITION
Code COURT’SRULING The Supreme
ofProfessionalRespo The Supreme SUSPENDEDrespondentfromth
nsibility Courtdeclaredthatrespondentwasw e practice oflaw for ONE
oefully remissinhisdutyto display (1)YEAR effectiveuponfinality of
Canon17 utmostdiligenceandcompetence thisDecision.
inprotecting
Canon18 theinterestsofhisclients.It
Rule 18.02 isbeyonddisputethatrespondentisdu
Rule 18.03 ty-bound by hisoathasa lawyer
todiligently prosecute the caseof
hisclientstothe best
ofhisabilitywithin theboundsof law.
Regrettably, the factsof
thiscaseillustraterespondent’sdisma
lperformance ofthatresponsibility,
108
 2009CASES
CA. whichinitstotality couldamountto a
reprehensible abandonment
ofhisclients’

TOPIC:ProfessionalMisconduct
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED LEGAL BASIS SUPREME CASE DISPOSITION
Conrado N.Que vs. A Code COURT’SRULING The Supreme
Atty.AnastacioRevilla, Jr. complaintfordisbarmentwasfiledaga ofProfessionalRespo The Supreme DISBARREDrespondentfromt
instAttorney AnastacioRevilla, nsibility CourtfoundAtty.Revilla, Jr. guilty he practice oflaw.
CASE NO.: Jr.forwillfully delaying offorumshopping.
A.C. No. 7054 thefinaljudgmentof the Canon12 RespondentviolatedRule 12.02
lowercourtagainsthisclient. Atty. Rule 12.02 andRule 12.04,Canon12 of the
DATE OFPROMULGATION: AnastacioRevilla successfully filed a Rule 12.04 Codeof ProfessionalResponsibility,
December4, 2009 petitionfor ceritioraribefore aswell
theCourtofAppeals, astheruleagainstforumshopping,
PONENTE: two(2)petitionsforannulmentoftitle both ofwhichare
PERCURIAM and apetitionfor directedagainstthefilingofmultiple
annulmentofjudgmentbeforethe actionstoattainthesame
RegionalTrialCourtandapetitionfor objective.Bothviolationsconstitute
declaratory reliefbefore the RTC. anabuse
.Therespondent’sprayersforinjuncti ofcourtprocesseswhichtend
vereliefsreveal the todegradethe administration of
latter’spersistenceinpreventing justice,wreakhavoc on orderly
andavoiding theexecution of the judicialprocedure, andaddto
lowercourt’sdecisionagainsthisclien thecongestionof the heavily
t. burdeneddocketsof the courts.

109
 2010CASES
TOPIC:ProfessionalMisconduct

CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION

Conrado N.Que AcomplaintfordisbarmentwasfiledagainstAttorne Code The SupremeCourtfoundAtty.Revilla,Jr.The Supreme DISBARRED
vs.Atty. yAnastacioRevilla,Jr.forwillfullydelayingthefinalju ofProfessional guiltyofforumshopping.Respondentviolated respondentfromthe practice of
AnastacioRevilla, Jr. dgmentofthelowercourtagainsthisclient.Atty.Ana Responsibility law.Rule12.02andRule12.04,Canon12ofthe
stacioRevillasuccessfullyfiledapetitionforceritiora CodeofProfessionalResponsibility,aswellasthe
CASE NO.: ribeforetheCourtofAppeals,two(2)petitionsforan Canon12 rule againstforumshopping, both
A.C. No. 7054 nulmentoftitleandapetitionforannulmentofjudgm Rule 12.02 ofwhicharedirectedagainstthefilingofmultipleact
entbeforetheRegionalTrialCourtandapetitionford Rule 12.04 ionstoattainthesameobjective.Bothviolationscon
DATE eclaratoryreliefbeforetheRTC..Therespondent’sp stituteanabuseofcourtprocesseswhichtendtodeg
OFPROMULGATI rayersforinjunctivereliefsrevealthelatter’spersisten radetheadministrationofjustice,wreakhavoconor
ON: ceinpreventingandavoidingtheexecutionofthelow derlyjudicialprocedure,andaddtothecongestiono
December4, 2009 ercourt’sdecisionagainsthisclient. ftheheavilyburdeneddocketsofthe courts.
PONENTE:
PERCURIAM

TOPIC:Grave Misconduct
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED LEGAL SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION
BenjaminE. Sanga Anadministrative BASIS The Supreme CourtfoundSheriffsAlcantara andBisnarguilty The respondents
vs.FlorencioSJ. complaintwasfiledagainstSherriffsBenjamin Rules wereof grave misconduct.
AlcantaraandSalesT.Bis Sanga andFlorencioSJAlcantara ofCourt UnderSection9, Rule 141ofthe Rules DISMISSED from
nar fordemanding andreceiving money theof Court, the
fromcomplainantwithoutseeking the Rule 141 sheriffisrequired tosecure the court’sprior
CASE NO.: court’spriorapproval Section9 service,withforfeitureofapp
A.M. No. P-09-2657 oftheestimatedfeesandexpensesneeded roval ofthe estimatedexpensesandfeesneededto
toimplementthe allretirementbenefitsandim
DATE WritofDemolitioninviolation plementthe courtprocess.
OFPROMULGATI ofSection9,Rule141 of theRulesofCourt. privileges,exceptaccruedlea
ON: vecredits,ifany,with
January 25, 2010 Sheriffsarenotallowedtoreceiveanyvoluntarypaymentsprejudiceto re-
frompartiesinthecourseoftheperformanceoftheirduties.employmentinanybranchTodosowould
PONENTE: beinimicaltothebestinterestsoftheservice,or instrumentalityof the
PERCURIAM becauseevenassumingarguendothatthe
paymentsweregovernment,includingindeedgivenandreceivedingoodfaith,thisfactalonewouldgo
vernment-ownedornotdispelthesuspicionthatsuchpaymentsweremade
forlesscontrolledcorporations.
thannoble purposes.
110
 2010CASES
TOPIC:Gross inefficiency

CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION

Office of the A judicial auditconductedinthe New CodeofJudicial The Supreme Courtfoundthe respondent he respondentswere
CourtAdministrator Regional Trial Courtpresidedover by Conduct Tfined20,000
vs.JudgeHarunB. respondentJudge HarunB.Ismael Canon 3 Judge guilty ofgrossinefficiency andand forviolatingtheNewodeof
Ismael unearthed thefactthatthe latter Rule 3.05 PJudicial Conductand10,000
failed to decide on currentand violation ofSection5, Canon 6of the New forviolatingtheCodef
CASE NO.: inheritedcaseswhichwere already Canon 6 CJudicialResponsibility.
A.M. No.RTJ-07-2045 submittedfordecisionwithin the Section5 Code of Judicial Conduct. He alsoviolated
reglementary period. Section15 (1 and2) P
DATE Canons1 and12 aswell asRules1.03, 10.03
OFPROMULGATI Code o
ON: ofProfessionalRespo and12.04 of the Code ofProfessionalResponsibility.
January 19, 2010 nsibilityCanon 1
Rule 1.03 It issettledthatfailure todecide or
PONENTE: resolvecaseswithinthe reglementary
JusticeRenatoCorona Canon12 periodconstitutesgrossinefficiency
Rule 12.04. andisnotexcusable.

Article VIIIof A
theConstitution judge’sforemostconsiderationistheadminist
rationof justice.Thus, he shouldfollow
thetime limitsetfordeciding cases.
TOPIC:Gross inefficiency,Undue delayinrendering a decision,Neglectof Duty
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION
Luminza Judge Cruz ischargedwithdelay in the disposition of New The Courtfoundbothrespondents to beremissin
DelosReyesvs. Judge CodeofLRC Case No. R-5740 whileGundranischargedwith Botherespondentsweret
DaniloS.Cruz JudicialConductf heirduties. AsregardstoJudge Cruz, the Court FINEDthe
andClerk ofCourt V ailure to timely transmittherecordsofsaidcase. amountoffoundhim tobe grossly inefficientinfailingto ₱11,000.00. Clerk
GodolfoR.Gundran Complainedclaimedthatitwasonly afterthreesince Canon ofdecide LRC Case No.R-5740 within90 daysfrom Court V GodolfoR.
6the landregistrationcase, where she wasa party, was the time itwassubmittedfordecision.He should Gundranof the
CASE NO.: Section5 were be mindfulthatfailure toresolve casessubmitted meted the penalty of
A.M. No.RTJ-08- submittedforresolutionthat a decisionwasrendered. for decisionwithin theperiodfixed by law suspension
2152 On Gundranspart, oftwomonthsconstitutesaseriousviolation of the constitutional withoutsalary
complainantallegedthataftertheadverse decision,she and
DATE OF timelyfield a notice of appealandpaid the necessary rightof the partiesto thespeedy dispositionof
feesbutdespite the lapse ofmore thansix
benefits.Bothweretheir
monthsfromthe time thatitwasfiled,
cases. STERNLY WARNED

111
 2010CASES

PROMULGATION: Gundranstillfailed to transmit therecordsto that a repetition

January 18, 2010 theappellate court. ForrespondentGundran,theCourtruledthat ofthesameorsimilaroffe
heisguiltyofsimpleneglectofdutyforfailuretotimelytra nsewill be
PONENTE: nsmittherecordsofLRCCaseNo.R- dealtwithmoreseverely.
JusticeMarianoC. 5740.Thedutytoverifythecorrectnessandcompletenes
Del Castillo softherecordsofthecaserestswiththerespondent.How
ever,inthiscase,respondentClerkofCourtGundranrele
gatedtheperformanceofhisjobtoanothercourtemploy
eewithoutanyjustifiablereason.

TOPIC:Neglect ofDuty
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION
Atty. AttorneyMacalalad, afterhaving received aconsideration Code Atty. Macalaladwasfoundbythe Supreme Courtto Atty.
ElmerC.Solidonvs. ofP50,000forhislegal services, failed tofile any ofProfessional have violatedRule 18.03andRule 16.01 of Macalaladwassuspendedf
Atty.RamilE. petitionforregistrationoverthe propertysoughtto be Responsibility theCode of ProfessionalResponsibility. romthepractice of law
Macalalad titledevenupuntil the filing oftheadministrative Themerefailureofthelawyertoperformtheobligations for six(6)months.
complaint. Hence, Rule 18.03 duetotheclientisconsideredperseaviolation.Alawyer's
CASE NO.: anadministrativecomplaintwasfiledagainsthim. Rule 16.01 dutyto
A.C. No. 8158 hisclientisfiduciaryinnatureonceanengagementforleg
alservicesisaccepted.Alawyersoengagedtorepresentac
DATE lientbearstheresponsibilityofprotectingthelatter'sinte
OFPROMULGATI restwithutmostdiligence.
ON:
February 24, 2010

PONENTE:
TOPIC Gross inefficiency
PERCURIAM
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION
Atty. DennisV. Anadministrative New TheSupremeCourtruledthattherespondentdidnotinc The
Niñovs. Associate complaintwasfiledagainstJusticeNormandieB. Pizarroof CodeofJudicialC urdelayinresolvingthemotionforTROandthatthere administrativecomplaintag
JusticeNormandine theCourtofAppealsfordeferringthe resolution of onduct wasno grossignorance ofthe law. ainstJusticeNormandieB.
B.Pizarro aprayerfor the issuance ofthe PizarrowasDISMISSEDfo
TemporaryRestrainingOrder(TRO), whichvirtually Canon 6 Obviously,complainantdidnotappreciatethefactthata rlack ofmerit.
CASE NO.: restrainedthe trial courtfromfurthertakingany Section5 bsenceof actionon the prayerfor TRO
A.M. No. CA-08-45-J actionrelative to the case. Complainantallegesthat

112
 2010CASES

there wasanundue delay in the resolutionof amounts to a denialof thesame.

DATE themotionofTROsince fromAugust2006 until the
OFPROMULGATI filingofthe administrative complaint, datedJune AS to the inclusionin the footnote Gentle
ON: 18,2007, respondenthadnot yetacted on Supremehadalreadybeenenjoyingpossessionofthepro
February 22, 2010 themotion.Grossignoranceofthelawwasalsoimputedagai perty,itwasanhonestmistaketootrivialtoprejudice the
nstrespondentfornotinginaresolutionheissuedthatGentl resolution ofthe meritsofthe case.
PONENTE: eSupremeInc.isalready“inpossession”ofthesubjectprope
JusticeJosePerez rtyforbeingtheauctionbuyerignoringthelawwhichprovide
sthatpossessioncanonlybegrantedtotheauctionbuyerone
yearfromregistrationof the certificate ofsale.

TOPIC:Gross immorality
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION
Maelotisea S. The complainant, respondent’sAtty. Garrido’slegalwife, Code TheSupremeCourtfoundrespondentsguiltyofgrossim Atty. AngelE.
Garridovs. Atty. filed a complaint-affidavitand a ofProfessional moralityinviolationfoRule1.01,Canon7andRule7.03o GarridoandAtty.
Angel supplementalaffidavitfordisbarmentagainstthe Responsibility ftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility. RowenaP.Valencia were
E.GarridoandRoman respondentsAtty.AngelE. Canon 1 disbarredfromthe practice
a GarridoandAtty.RomanaP.Valencia beforethe Rule 1.01 Garridocommittedmultipleviolations.Hedidnotposse of
P. Valencia IntegratedBar ofthe PhilippinesCommittee ssthegoodmoralcharacterrequiredofalawyeratthetime lawandtheirnameswerestri
onDiscipline, chargingthemwithgrossimmorality, Canon 7 ofhisadmissiontotheBar.InmarryingMaelotisea,heco ckenoutfromthe Rollof
CASE NO.: inviolation ofCanon1,Rule 1.01,of the Code Rule 7.03 mmittedthecrimeofbigamy,asheenteredthissecondm Attorneys.
A.C. No. 6593 ofProfessionalResponsibility. arriagewhilehisfirstmarriagewithConstanciawassubsi
ItwasallegedthatAtty.RomanaP.ValenciawasAtty.Angel Violation sting.Heopenlyadmittedhisbigamywhenhefiledhispet
DATE E.Garrido’smistresswithwhomhebegotachild. ofLawyer’s itiontonullifyhismarriage to Maelotisea.
OFPROMULGATI Oath
ON: AstoValencia,herbehaviordemeanedthedignityofand
February 4, 2010 discreditedthelegalprofession.Shesimplyfailedinherd
utyasalawyertoadhereunwaveringly to
PONENTE: thehigheststandardsofmorality.
PERCURIAM

TOPIC:Gross Dishonesty
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION
Judge Delia P. Noel-

113
 2010CASES

Bertulfovs. Fyndee Courtaideadmittedtobetheoneresponsibleforstealingmo Omnibus TheSupremeCourtfoundrespondentguiltyofgrossdis Respondentwasorderedt

P.Nuñez neyfromthechambersofJudgeDeliaP.Noel- CivilService honesty.Respondentsubmittedhiscommentorexplan o sufferthe penalty
Bertulfo.Hewasadministrativechargedforgrossdishonest RulesandRegula ationtothecomplaintfiledagainsthim.Forthatthereaso ofFORFEITURE of
CASE NO.: yduetothisadmission.Onthedayoffilingthisadministrative tions n,theCourtwasleftwithnochoicebuttodeducehisimpli whateverbenefitsstillduehi
A.M. No. P-10-2758 complaint, hetenderedhisresignationeffective citadmissionof the chargeslevelledagainsther. mfromthe
immediately. Rule government,exceptaccrued
DATE XIVSectio leavecredits, ifany, that he
OFPROMULGATI n23 hadearned,
ON: andislikewisedeclared to
February 2, 2010 beDISQUALIFIEDfrom
employmentinanybranchor
PONENTE: instrumentality of
PERCURIAM theGovernment,
includinggovernment-
ownedorcontrolledcorpora
TOPIC:Practice oflaw afterservinga periodof suspension tions.

CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION

Ligaya Maniago Anadministrativecaseseekingdisbarmentwasfiledagainst No Theliftingofalawyer’ssuspensionisnotautomaticupon The Supreme
vs.Atty. Atty.LourdesI.DeDiosforengaginginthepracticeoflawde specificruleso theendoftheperiodstatedintheCourt’sdecision,andan Courtdidnot orderany
LourdesI.DeDios spitehavingbeensuspendedbytheCourt. r law orderfromtheCourtliftingthesuspensionattheendofth penalty butitonly issued a
AttyDeDiosexplainedthatshehasalreadyservedtheperiod wasmentione eperiodisnecessaryinordertoenable[him]toresumethe guidelinethatneedsto be
CASE NO.: of suspensionandwasneithersuspendednorinany way d practice of hisprofession. followedin the matter of
A.C. No. 7472, prohibitedfrompractice. liftingofanordersuspendi
ng alawyer fromthe
DATE practiceof law.
OFPROMULGATI
ON:
March30, 2010

PONENTE:
Justice
AntonioNachu misconduct
TOPIC:Gross
ra
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION
RolandErnestMarieJ JudgeGaydifredoT. New The Supreme CourtfoundJudge Ocampoguilty Judge
ose Spelmansvs. Ocampoduringanocularinspectionallegedlytookpiecesof CodeofJudicialC ofgrossmisconduct.First, noexplanationwas Ocampowasimposed
antique,includinga onduct a penalty of

114
 2010CASES

Judge Gaydifredo marblebustofSpelmansmother,aflowerpot,astatue,andac forwardedon why Spelman’swife, Vilan, SUSPENSIONfrom

T.Ocampo opperscaleofjusticefromthecomplainant’srentedhouse. Canon 1 wouldentrust tohim the antique items. Second, office withoutsalary
Itwasonlyaftertheadministrativecasewasfiledorfour(4)ye Section6 thepurpose ofthe andotherbenefitsfor
CASE NO,: arsfromthedateofocularinspection,thathe returnedthose ocularinspectionwasnotjustified.Third,IfJudge six(6)month with a
A.M. No.MTJ-07- antique itemstothe complainant. Canon 2 Ocamporeceived the piecesofantique STERNWARNINGthat
1663 Section1 fromVillanforsafekeeping, thismeantthata relation arepetitionof the
oftrustexistedbetweenthem. sameorsimilaractshall be
DATE Canon 4 Consequently, Judge Ocampohadevery reason dealtwith moreseverely.
OFPROMULGATI Section1 toinhibithimselffrom the casefromthe
ON: beginning.Fourth,
March26, 2010 Judge’sOcampo’syearsofpossessionobviously
wentbeyondmeresafekeeping.
PONENTE:
JusticeRobertoA. Respondentjudgeshouldbemadeaccountableforgross
Abad misconductconstitutingviolationsoftheNewCodeofJ
udicialConduct,specificallySection6ofCanon1,Sectio
n1ofCanon2,andSection1
TOPIC:Gross misconduct of Canon4.

CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASEDIS

Crisostomo InherapplicationforthepositionasClerkofCourt,itwasalle UniformRuleson The Supreme CourtruledinfavorAtty. Zabala-Cariño. POSITION
M.Plopiniovs. Atty. gedthatAtty.LizaZabala- AdministrativeCa Theintentiontofalsifyormisrepresent,asfoundbytheInvestigati The
LizaZabala-Cariño, Cariñowasdishonestinnotdisclosingthefactthathehadbee ses in the ngJudge,isabsentonthepartofrespondentAtty.Cariñowhenshe administrativecom
etc ncriminallyandadministrativelychargedbeforetheOfficeo CivilService answeredthequestion“Haveyoueverbeenformallycharged?” plaintagainstAtty.
ftheOmbudsman,forviolationofSection4(c),RepublicAct Whenshefilled- Liza Zabala-
CASE NO.: No.6713 andSection3(e),RepublicAct No. 3019. Section8 upherPDS,shehadinmindtheUniformRulesonAdministrative Cariñowasdismisse
A.M. No. P-08-2458 Section16 CasesintheCivilServicethatapersonshallbeconsideredformally dfor lackof merit.
Section34 chargedinadministrativeproceedings–
DATE (a)uponthefilingofacomplaintattheinstanceofthedisciplininga
OFPROMULGATI RevisedRules uthority;or(b)uponthefindingoftheexistenceofaprimafaciecas
ON: ofCriminalPr ebythediscipliningauthority,incaseofacomplaintfiledbyaprivat
March22, 2010 ocedure eperson.Thus,fromthecomplaintitself,itisevidentthatatthetim
erespondentAtty.CariñowasapplyingforthepositionofClerkof
PONENTE: Rule 112 Court,she hadnotyetbeen“formallycharged”
JusticeJosePerez

115
 2010CASES

administratively or criminally.
TOPIC Disgracefulandimmoralconduct
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION
Re: CorazonallegedthatAmeliaandNoelcommittedimmoralit Code of NoelandAmeliaweredeclaredliableforimmoralitybyth The Supreme
ComplaintsofMrs. yandbigamybymarryingeachotherinacivilceremonyonFe ConductforCourt emerefactoflivingtogetherandcontractingasubsequen CourtDISMISSEDNoelan
CorazonS.Salvado bruary3,1994evenifNoelhadapriormarriagetoRosemarie Personnel tmarriagebeforetheirrespectivefirstmarriageswerejudi dAmelia fromthe
ragainstSpousesN JimenoonFebruary17,1987.Fromthissubsequentbigamo ciallydissolved.Formarryingeachotherdespitetheirsub service,withforfeiture of
oelandAmelia usmarriage,NoelandAmelia begotthree children. Canon sistingpriormarriages,NoelandAmeliaactedreprehens allbenefitsexceptaccruedlea
Serafico ISection iblyandareguiltyofdisgracefulandimmoralconduct. ve
1 creditsforGraveMisconduc
CASE NO.: t,
A.M. No. 2008-20-SC DisgracefulandImmoralCo
nduct,andviolationof the
DATE Codeof
OFPROMULGATI ConductforCourtPersonne
ON: l. BothNoel
March15, 2010 L.SeraficoandAmelia
G.Seraficowere
PONENTE: BARREDfromreemploym
PERCURIAM entinanybranch or
instrumentalityof
TOPIC:Unlawful,dishonest, ordeceitfulconduct government,includingGO
CCs.
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION
SpousesManuel The complaintallegedthatAtty. RicardoG. Code TherespondentandthedisgracedJudgeDizon,Jr.werec Atty. RicardoG.
C.Rafols, Jr., etal. Barriosfacilitated the meeting between the ofProfessional onspiratorsagainsttheformer'sownclients,whomhewa Barrioswasdisbarred.
vs.Atty. complainantsandJudge Dizon,Jr.of theRTC where the Responsibility ssworntoprotectandtoservewithutmostfidelityandm
RicardoG.Barrios,J case, inwhichthe complainantsare theplaintiffs, Rule 1.01 orality.Therespondentdidnotmeasureuptotheexactin
r. waspending.TheJudge askedforP150,000 inexchange Canon 7 gstandardsoftheLawProfession,whichdemandedofhi
for a decisionthatisfavorable tothe complainants. masanattorneytheabsoluteabdication
CASE NO.: Inaddition,respondentAtty.Barriosaskedcomplainantsto Rules of ofanypersonaladvantagethatconflictedinanyway,direc
A.C. No. 4973 borrowP60,000becauseheneededthemoneytoredeemhis CourtRule 138 tlyorindirectly,withtheinterestofhisclients.Specifically
foreclosedIsuzuElfandheneededP11,000 Section20 [e]) ,the Codeof Professional
DATE togivetohisnephewwhowasduetowork abroad.
OFPROMULGATI
ON:
March15, 2010

116
 2010CASES

PONENTE: Responsibilityenjoinsanattorneyfromengaginginunla
PERCURIAMc wful,dishonest,ordeceitfulconduct.Corollarytothisinj
unctionistherulethatanattorneyshallatalltimesupholdt
heintegrityanddignityoftheLegalProfessionandsuppo
rttheactivitiesoftheIntegratedBar.

TOPIC:Dutyto supportthe Constitutionandobeythe laws

CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION
IluminadaM. Vaflor- ThecomplaintallegedthatrespondentAtty.OscarPaguinto Code TheCourtfoundthatbyconnivingwithGerangcointaki Atty. OscarP.
Fabroa vs.Atty. byconnivingwithPNPSr.Supt.AngelitoGerangcointaking ofProfessional ngovertheBoardofDirectorsandtheGEMASCOfacili PaguintowasSUSPEND
OscarPaguinto overtheBoardofDirectorsandtheGeneralMarianoAlvare Responsibility ties,respondentviolatedtheprovisionsoftheCooperati EDfortwoyearsfromthe
zServiceCooperative,Inc.(GEMASCO)facilities,respond Canon 1 veCodeofthePhilippinesandtheGEMASCOBy- practice of law
CASE NO.: entviolatedtheprovisionsoftheCooperativeCodeofthePh Canon8 Laws.HealsoviolatedtheLawyer'sOath,whichprovide effectiveimmediately.
A.C. No. 6273 ilippinesand the GEMASCOBy-Laws. Canon10 sthatalawyershallsupporttheConstitutionandobeythel
Atty.Paguintoalsofiledbaselesscriminalcomplaintsagains Rule 12.03 aws.
DATE tcomplainant.
OFPROMULGATI Violation Whenrespondentcausedthefilingofbaselesscriminalc
ON: ofLawyer’s omplaintsagainstcomplainant,heviolatedtheLawyer's
March15, 2010 Oath Oaththatalawyershall"notwittinglyorwillinglypromot
eorsueanygroundless,falseorunlawfulsuit,norgiveaido
PONENTE: rconsentto thesame."
Justice
ConchitaCarpio
-Morales

TOPIC:Simple misconduct
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION
PriscillaL. RegionalTrialCourtLegalResearcherJulianaY.Bengson(B RevisedUniform Bengson’sactofdealingwithHernando,moreparticular The
Hernandovs. Juliana engson)toassistcomplainantPriscillaHernandoinintitling Rules lyofofferingherservicestofacilitatethetitlingofHernan CourtSUSPENDEDthe
YBengson,etc apropertyforaconsiderationofP10,000exclusiveoftheact onAdministrative do’sproperty,whetherdirectlyorthroughanother,certa respondentfrom
ualamountthatwouldbespentforthe titling. Cases in the inlyfellshortoftheyardstickorstandardofconductforco theservice, withoutpay
CASE NO.: Bengsonsucceededinobtainingthetotalamountof CivilService urtemployeesandpersonnel. forone (1)monthandone
A.M. No. P-09-2686 (1)day, with a
WARNINGthat a
repetition ofthe

117
 2010CASES

DATE Seventy- Section52(B)(2)] sameorsimilaractsinthefut

OFPROMULGATI SixThousand(₱76,000.00)Pesos.UponinquirywiththeBu Employeesofthejudiciaryshouldbelivingexamplesofu ure will bedealtwithmore
ON: reauofLands,however,Hernandofoundoutthatno prightnessnotonlyintheperformanceofofficialdutiesb severely.
March10, 2010 suchtransferoftitlewasbeingprocessed.Thus,thisadminist utalsointheirpersonalandprivatedealingswithotherpe
rativecomplaintwasfiled. oplesoastopreserveatalltimesthegoodnameandstandi
PONENTE: ng of thecourtsinthe community.
JusticeJose
C.Mendoza
TOPIC:Gross misconduct
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION
Hon. Hector JudgeHectorBarillowasadministrativelychargedforallowi Code of TheCourtruledthatJudgeBarillowasgrievouslymistake Judge
B.Barillovs. Hon. ngasuspendedlawyertoappearbeforehissala.Hewasalsoall JudicialCond ninallowingasuspendedlawyertoappearbeforehiscour HectorB.BarillowasSUS
RalphLantion, egedtobenegligentandgrosslyignorantofthelawwhenhe,o uct t.Theliftingofanorderofsuspensionisnotautomaticup PENDEDfor
etal./Walter n ontheendoftheperiodstatedintheCourt’sdecision,and aperiodofThree
J. Aragonesvs. hisowninitiative,fieldananswerorcommentinaPetitionfor Rule 1.01 anorderfromtheCourtliftingthesuspensionattheendof (3)MonthsandgivenaSTE
Hon.HectorB. Certiorariwherehe wasjustimpleadedasa nominalparty. Rule 2.01 theperiodisnecessaryinordertoenablehimtoresume RNWARNING
Barillo Rule 3.02 the practice ofhisprofession. that a repetition
ofthesameorsimilaracts
CASE NO.: ItwasnotalsoproperfortheJudgetofileananswerorcom willbe
A.M. No.MTJ-10- mentinthePetitionforCeriorariwithoutbeing asked dealtwithmoreseverely.
1752 todo so.

DATE However,theCourtwasnotconvincedthatJudgeBarillo
OFPROMULGATI shouldbeheldliableforgrossmisconductandgrossignor
ON: anceofthelawabsentanyevidenceshowingoutrightbadf
March10, 2010 aith.Nevertheless,theCourtruledthatJudgeBarilloisgui
ltyofsimplemisconduct.
PONENTE:
JusticeTeresitaLeon
ardo-de Castro

TOPIC:Gross misconduct
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION
Reynaria AnadministrativecasewasfiledagainstAtty.AnorlitoAlver Code The Supreme Courtruledthatthere wasa Atty.
Barcenasvs.Atty. oformisappropriatingandconvertingintohis ofProfessio clearbreach of lawyer-clientrelations. AnorlitoAlverowasSUSP
AnorlitoA.Alvero nal ENDEDfora

118
 2010CASES

personalneedstheamountofP300,000thathewastaskedto Responsibility periodoftwo(2)yearsfromt

CASE NO.: delivertocertainAmandaGasta.Despiterepeateddemands, Whenalawyerreceivesmoneyfromaclientforaparticula he practice of law,effective
A.C. No. 8159 he failedto give back the money. Canon 1 rpurpose,thelawyerisboundtorenderanaccountingtot uponthe receiptof
Rule 1.01 heclientshowingthatthemoneywasspentforaparticula thisDecision. He
DATE rpurpose.Andifhedoesnotusethemoneyfortheintend waswarnedthat a
OFPROMULGATI Canon16 edpurpose,thelawyermustimmediatelyreturnthemon repetitionofthesameor a
ON: Rule 16.01 eytohisclient. These, Atty. Alverofailed to do. similaractwill be
April 23, 2010 Rule 16.02 dealtwithmoreseverely.
PONENTE: Rule 16.03
JusticeDiosdadoP
eralta
TOPIC:Bias andprejudice of a judge
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION
Hadja ComplainantallegedthatJudgeMangotaradisplayedbiasan Rules of On the charge ofbiasandpartiality resulting Judge Mangotara
SohurahDipatuan dprejudiceagainstherhusbandDipatuanwhenhedidnotinh CourtRule 140 tograve abuse of authority, theCourtruledin wasimposed afine
vs.PresidingJudge ibithimselffromthecase,consideringthatheisarelativebyaf Section8,as thenegative. Complainantfailedto specify the ofP20,000whichistobe
Mamindiara finityandconsanguinityofthevictimEliasAliTaher.Compl amended by degreeof relationshipofrespondentJudge to aparty deductedfromhisretireme
P.Mangotara ainantalsopointedoutthatdespitethedesignationofJudgeB A.M. No. 01-8-10- inthe subjectcase. ntbenefits.
usranasActingPresidingJudgeofBranch10onDecember2 SC
CASE NO.: 6,2007,JudgeMangotara,actingwithgraveabuseofauthorit On the chargefor grave abuse of
A.M. No.RTJ-09- y,illegallyandmaliciouslyrenderedtheDecember28,2007D Rules of authority,Mangotara actedingoodfaithwhen he
2190 ecisionaswellasthetwoOrdersdatedFebruary1,2008.Lastl CourtRule 114 issued thesubjectdecision, since he receivednotice
y,JudgeMangotrawaschargedwithgrossignoranceofthela Section5 of hisreplacement by JudgeBusran,
DATE wforincreasing,insteadof cancelling, the bail bond of datedDecember26,2007, only on January 26, 2008.
OFPROMULGATI the accusedsentencedtoreclusion perpetua.
ON: Astothechargeofgrossignoranceofthelaw,hewasfoun
April 23, 2010 dguilty.Hisactofincreasingthebailbondoftheaccusedi
nsteadofcancellingit,itisnotameredeficiencyinpruden
PONENTE: ce,discretionandjudgmentonthepartofrespondentJud
JusticeDiosdadoP ge,butapatentdisregardofwell-knownrules.
eralta

119
 2010CASES

(CaseTitle)(Ca Act/scomplained Legalbasis/basesofthec Supreme Court’sRuling Case Disposition

seNo.)(Date of harge/s (brieflystatetheruling with itslegalbasis) (statethepenalty
ofpromulgatio (asindicated (CodeofProfessionalResponsi orsanction imposedor
n)(Ponente) inthedecision) bility/CodeofJudicialEthics/Ru ifthecasewasdismissed)
lesofCourt/NotarialLawetc.;
stateparticularsection/rule/ca
non)

Topic: CJC - RULE1.02 - A judge

IssuanceofTPO Graveabuseofauth should If a judgeshould bedisciplined Dismissed
Francisco P. ority,grossignoranc administerjusticeimparti formisconduct,theevidenceagainsthimshould
Ocampovs. eof ally and withoutdelay. becompetent.
JudgeEvelyn S.Arcaya- thelaw,grossmisco RespondentJudgecannotbefaulted
Chua,etc.A.M.OCAIPI nduct,manifestpart astothealleged suddennessofthesaid
No.07-2630-RTJ,April ialityand/orconduc hearing,becauseaprayerforTPOrequirestobeac
23, tprejudicial to tedupon with dispatch.In thatrespect,no
2010,ReynatoS.P thebestinterestoft wrong-doing,fraud,bad faith,maliceor
uno heservice evenarbitrarinesscanbeattributed
torespondentJudge.TheissuanceoftheTPObyre
spondentJudgeArcaya-Chuaeven before
complainantOcampocould
filehisanswerwasneitherirregular nor
RULE2.01- improper.
GrossMisconduct Theofficeof ajudgeissacred and imbuedwith
Topic: Ajudgeshouldsobehaveatallti
publicinterest.Theneed to maintain SUSPENDEDfrom
GrossMiscondu mesastopromotepublicconfid
thepublic’sconfidencein officeforsix(6)monthswitho
ct enceintheintegrityand
thejudiciarycannotbemadeto depend solely on utsalaryandotherbenefits
SylviaSantosvs.J impartialityof thejudiciary.
thewhimsandcapricesof
udgeEvelyn complainantswhoare,in a realsense,only
S.Arcaya- witnessestherein.Thus,withdrawalof
Chua,etc acomplaintor desistancefroma
A.M. No. RTJ- complaintwillnotdeprivethisCourtof
2093,April itspowerundertheConstitution toferretoutthe
23,2010,ReynatoS.
Puno

120
 2010CASES

truth and
disciplineitsmembersaccordingly.Misconductis
atransgression ofsomeestablished and
definiteruleofaction, aforbidden act,a
derelictionof
duty,unlawfulbehavior,willfulincharacter,impr
operorwrong behavior;
while"gross,"hasbeendefined as"outof
allmeasure;beyondallowance;flagrant;shamefu
l;such conductasis notto beexcused.

Topic: GrossMisconduct Rule1.01-A SUSPENDEDfromthepractice

lawyershallnotengagein Itiscrystal-clearin the mind of of lawforthree(3)monthsand
GrossMisco
unlawful,dishonest,immoralo theCourtthathefellshortof Ordered toReturn
nduct
rdeceitfulconduct. hisdutyunderRule1.01,Canon theSeventyThousand
AlfredoRoavs.
1oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility.Weca Pesos(P70,000.00)to
Atty.Juan
Rule7.03-A nnot,and weshould complainantwithin
Moreno,A.C.No.
lawyershallnotengagein not,letrespondentsdishonestand thirty(30)daysfromreceiptof
8382,April21,
2010,ConchintaCar conductthatadverselyreflects deceitfulconductgounpunished. notice
on Respondentsrefusaltoreturntocomplainantthe
pio-Morales
hisfitnesstopracticelaw,nors moneypaid forthelotisunbecoming
hallhewhetherin amemberofthebarand
publicorprivatelife,behavein anofficerofthecourt.Byhisconduct,respondentf
ascandalousmannerto ailed toliveup tothestrictstandard of
thediscreditof professionalismrequiredbytheCodeofProfessio
thelegalprofession. nalResponsibility.
Respondentsactsviolatedthetrustandrespectco
mplainantreposed in himas
amemberoftheBarand anofficerofthecourt.
FINE ofP5,000.00 with
Violation astern warning
Topic: ofRule2.03 Rule2.03-A Whiletherewas nocategoricalfinding of thatarepetitionof
IntegrityandImparti lawyershallnotdoorpermitto badfaith ormaliceon thepartof thesameor
ality bedoneanyactdesigned respondentJudge,who
AlfredoFavorvs. primarilyto wasmotivatedbythenoble

121
 2010CASES

JudgeCesar solicitlegalbusiness. intentionof similaractsinthefuturesh

O.Untalan,etc.A.M.N settlingthepropertydisputebetween Lozadaand allbedealtwithmoreseve
o. RTJ-08-2158April Abando,however,hemustbearinmind rely
13,2010,Diosdado thathisofficedemandsanexacting standard
M. Peralta ofdecorumtopromotepublicconfidencein
theintegrityandimpartiality of
thejudiciary.RespondentJudgeshould
bemoreprudentintheobservanceofhisdealings
withthepublicto obviatethemistaken
impressionof improprietyin
thatheisprobablyusing hisposition as
ajudgetoimposeimproperpressureor
exertundueinfluencesoasto
obtainthedesiredresultinagiven
situation.Thus,considering
thatrespondentJudgeviolatedRule2.03
oftheCodeof
JudicialConduct,theCourtdeemsitappropriateto
imposea stifferpenalty of afineofP5,000.00
withstern a warning
soastodeterhimfromcommitting thesameor
similaractsinthefuture.
Byusing hisposition tohelp
privatepersonssettlea
legaldispute,respondentJudgeisadministrativ
elyliableunderRule2.03 of theCodeof
JudicialConduct.Hisintentionsmayhavebeen
nobleashesoughtto
makecomplainantrealizethathehad
beenoccupying by
mistakethepropertysubjectofthedispute,butr
espondentJudgeshould bemindful to
conducthimselfin a
mannerthatgivesnoground for reproach.

122
 2010CASES

Topic: GrossDishonesty ROC -Rule 136 Section7,Rule136 of theRules BARRED fromfuturere-

GrossDishonesty and and Section7. Safekeeping ofCourtisexplicitthattheclerkof employmentin
GraveMisconduct/Saf GraveMisconduc ofproperty. — courtshallsafelykeepallrecords,papers,files,exh anybranch,agency or
eKeepingof property t Theclerkshallsafely ibitsand publicpropertycommittedto instrumentalityofthegovern
–Clerkof Court keepallrecords,papers,files,ex hercharge.Theclerkof courtperformsa very ment,includinggovernment-
Jonathan hibitsandpublicpropertycom delicatefunction,having ownedorcontrolled
A.Rebongvs. mittedtohischarge,including controlandmanagementofallcourtrecords,exhi corporations
ElizabethR.Tengco,et thelibraryofthecourt,and bits,documents,propertiesandsupplies.Being
c.A.M.No.P-07- thesealsand thecustodian thereof,theclerkof
2338April7, furniturebelongingtohisoffice courtisliableforanyloss,shortage,destruction
2010,ReynatoS.P . orimpairmentof said
uno fundsandproperties.Asthecustodian of the
officialreceipts,respondent'sliabilityfortheirlos
scannotbegainsaid.
More,ascustodian
ofcourtfundsandrevenues,itwaslikewiserespon
dent'sduty
toimmediatelydepositthefundsreceived
byherto theauthorized
governmentdepositories.

Topic: TheCourtfindstheconclusion
Grossignoranceof oftheOCAinorder.Section 7ofRule71
Graveabuseofauth Section8,Rule140 of isclear.Sincewhatcomplainantsviolated isan FINEDin
theLaw ority,violationand theRulesofCourt,as theamountofTwentyFiveTh
MariaPanco,etal.vs.Ju orderoftheMTC,theimposablepenaltyisonemo
ignoranceofthelaw amended,classifiesgrossigno nth,notfour,of imprisonmentora finenot ousand(P25,000)Pesos,to
dgeYAguirre,etc resulting ranceofthelawas bededucted from
A.M. No. RTJ-09- exceedingP5,000 or both.
inviolationofSectio aseriouschargeand When thelawor procedureisso theFiftyThousand
2196April ns4 and 7,Rule71 Section11thereofpenalizesit (P50,000)Pesosretained/wi
7,2010,Antonio elementary,such astheprovisionsof
of . theRulesofCourt,notto know,or thheld
T. Morales theRulesofCivilProc fromhisretirementbenefits.
toactasifonedoesnotknowthesame,constitutes
edure,andGraveOp grossignoranceofthelaw,evenwithoutthecomp
pression lainanthaving to

123
 2010CASES

provemaliceor bad faith.

Theadministrationof
justiceiscircumscribedwith a heavyburdenof
Topic: Neglectof Neglectof duty NCJC - Rule1.01 – responsibility.Itrequiresthateveryoneinvolved Reprimanded,witha
dutyRe:Anonynous Ajudgeshould in itsdispensation ―from thepresiding sternwarning
Letter- betheembodimentofcompete judgetothelowliestclerk ― liveup to thatarepetitionofthesameo
ComplaintagainstHo nce,integrity,andindependenc thestricteststandards ffense,orthecommissionof
n.MarilouRunes- e. ofcompetence,honesty,andintegrityinthepubli asimilaroffense,shallbedeal
Tamang,Presiding cservice.Anyimpressionof t withmoreseverely
Judge,MeTCPateros, impropriety,misdeed,ornegligenceintheperfor
ManilaandPresidingJ manceofofficialfunctionsmustbeavoided.TheC
udge,MeTCSanJuan, ourtshallnotcountenanceanyconduct,act,oro
Metro Manila mission on thepartofthoseinvolved in
A.M. No.MTJ-04- theadministration
1558April7,2010,R ofjusticethatviolatesthenorm
eynatoS.Puno ofpublicaccountabilityanddiminishesthefaitho
fthepeopleintheJudiciary.Indeed,publicconfid
enceinourcourtsisvitalto
theeffectivefunctioningoftheJudiciary.
TheNewCodeof
JudicialConductforthePhilippineJudiciaryrequi
resthatamagistratebetheembodimentof
judicialcompetence.
TheCourtexpresslyenjoinsa
judgetocarefullyporeoveralldocumentsbefores
igning thedocumentsandgiving them
officialimprimatur.Thejudgessigningof
ordersmustnotbetaken lightly,or beregarded
astheusualpaperworkthatpassesthrough
thejudgeshands forsignature.Also,according to

124
 2010CASES

Suroza v. Honrado,a
judgeisinexcusablynegligentifhefailsto
observeintheperformanceofhisdutiesthatdilig
ence,prudenceand circumspection
thatthelawrequiresin
therenditionofanypublicservice.
Topic:SafeKeepingof Gravemisconducta ROC -Rule 136 As a clerkof DISMISSED from
property– nd Section7. Safekeeping court,Sorioisspecificallymandatedto safeguard theservice,effectiveupon
ClerkofCourt conducthighlypreju ofproperty. — the integrity ofthecourtand theserviceon
RufinaChua dicial to Theclerkshallsafely itsproceedings,and to herofthisResolution,with
vs.EleanorA.Sorio,etc thebestinterestoft keepallrecords,papers,files,ex maintaintheauthenticityand correctness forfeitureofallbenefitsand
., heservice hibitsandpublicpropertycom ofcourtrecords.Herfailureto with
A.M. No.P-07- mittedtohischarge,including obeythismandateconstitutedgravemisconduct prejudicetoreemploymentin
2409April thelibraryofthecourt,and andconducthighlyprejudicial to theGovernmentor
7,2010,ReynatoS.P thesealsand thebestinterestof theservicebased onour anysubdivision,instrumentali
uno furniturebelongingtohisoffice ruling in Almario.Had Sorioperformed herduty ty,or
. to properlysupervisethetransmittalof agencythereof,includinggove
alltherecords of CriminalCaseNo. 44739 rnment-ownedor-controlled
including thepagination,marking,and indexing corporations.
oftheexhibitsthealterationsintheexhibitsand FINEDP5,000.00.
theloss ofthe17February1999 TSN in
therecordsofCriminalCaseNo.44739would
nothavetaken place.
Courthasstressedthatallthoseinvolved
inthedispensationof
justice,fromthepresidingjudgeto
thelowliestclerk,mustalwaysbebeyond
reproach.Theirconductmust,atalltimes,becircu
mscribedwith theheavyburden of
responsibilityfreefrom anysuspicion thatmay
taintthejudiciary.Astheadministrationof
justiceisa sacredtask,thisCourtcondemnsand
cannotcountenanceanyacton thepart of
courtpersonnelthatwouldviolatethenorm
ofpublicaccountabilityand

125
 2010CASES

diminish oreven justtendtodiminishthefaithof

thepeoplein thejudiciary.
To
Topic: Grossignoranceoft Rule3.01 –A theeyesofthisCourt,JudgePaderangaisnotguil GUIlLTYofSIMPLEMI
MisconductCeciliaGa helaw,knowinglyre judgeshallbefaithful to ty SCONDUCT.Heis
drinabSenarlo vs. ndering thelawandmaintain ofgrossignoranceofthelawandprocedure.Tob ORDERED topay a
JudgeMaximo unjustjudgment,a professionalcompetence. eheldliableforgrossignoranceof thelaw,the FINEofTEN THOUSAND
G.W.Paderanga,etcA. ndgraveabuseofau judgemustbeshowntohavecommittedan PESOS
M.No. RTJ-06- thority errorthatwasgrossor (P10,000.00),which
2025April patent,deliberateormalicious.Alsoadministra shallbededucted from
5, 2010 tivelyliableforgrossignoranceofthelawis a hisaccruedleavecreditswith
TerisitaJ.Leonardo- judge whoshown tohavebeenmotivated by held bytheCourt.
DeCastro bad faith,fraud,dishonesty orcorruption
ignored,contradicted orfailedtoapplysettled
lawand jurisprudence.
A heavyworkload
doesnotexcuseJudgePaderangafromascertaini
ng allpertinentfactsthatwould haveenabled
him to justlyresolveor decideacase.
Ajudgemustnotsacrificetheorderlyadministrati
onofjusticein favorofa
speedybutrecklessdisposition ofa case.
Aprudentjudgeshould
haveascertainedthefactsbeforereachingconclu
sionsand issuing orders.Itisroutinaryin
everycasethatthejudgecarefullyevaluatesfacts
beforeissuing an
orderincourt.Otherwise,thejudgemaybeheld
liablefor culpablenegligence.
Evidently,JudgePaderangafailed
toexercisethenecessarydiligencebeforeissuing
theOrderdatedNovember9,2005dismissing
CivilCaseNo.2005-160,totheprejudiceof

126
 2010CASES

Bacalzo.This,however,makesJudgePaderang
aliableforsimplenegligence,andnotgrossign
oranceofthelawand
graveabuseofauthority,ascharged
bySenarlo.
Misconductis atransgression
ofsomeestablishedor definiteruleof
action;moreparticularly,itisan
unlawfulbehaviorby
thepublicofficer.Misconductmeansintentional
wrongdoingor deliberateviolation ofa
ruleoflaworstandardof
behavior,especiallybyagovernmentofficial.Toc
onstituteanadministrativeoffense,misconducts
houldrelatetoorbeconnectedwith
theperformanceoftheofficialfunctionsanddutie
s ofa publicofficer.

Topic:GrossMis GrossMisconducta CANON 1A lawyershalluphold DISBARRED,and

conductandGro nd theconstitution,obeythelaws In thelong hisnameORDERED
ssImmoralCond GrossImmoralCon oftheland lineofcases,theSupremeCourthasconsistentlyi STRICKEN from
uct duct andpromoterespectforlawan mposed severepenaltyforgrossly theRollof Attorneys
RosarioT.Mecaralvs.A dlegalprocesses. immoralconductofa lawyerlikethecaseatbar.In
tty.Danilo thecelebrated caseofJoselanoGuevarravs.
S.Velasquez , Rule7.03Alawyershallnoteng Atty.JoseManuelEala,the[Court]orderedthedis
A.C.No.8392June29,2 agein barmentoftherespondentformaintaining
010, conductthatadverselyreflects extra-
ReynatoS.Corona on maritalrelationswithamarriedwoman,and
hisfitnesstopracticelaw,nors having achild with
hallhe,whetherin her.Intheinstantcase,notonlydidtheresponden
publicorprivatelife,behavein tcommitbigamy forcontracting
ascandalousmannerto marriageswithShirleyYunzalin1990 and
thediscreditof LenyAzurin 1996,buttherespondentalso
thelegalprofession. madehissecretary(complainant)hismistressand
subsequently,

127

Topic:Simpleneglecto Simpleneglectofd Section52(B)(1)oftheRevised
f duty –ProcessServer uty Uniform
MarieDinah RulesonAdministrativeCasesi
S.Tolentino- n hatcourtnoticesareproperlyserved to
Fuentesvs.MichaelPa theCivilService[31]classifiessi
trickA.Galindez , mpleneglectofdutyasalessgra
A.M.No. veoffensepunishablebyonem
07-2410June18, onthand oneday
2010,AntonioT.C tosixmonthssuspensionforthe
arpio firstoffense.Section
54statesthatthemediumperio
dof
thepenaltyshallbeimposed
when thereare nomitigating
and
aggravatingcircumstances.
2010CASES
tortured herto
thepointofdeath.Allthesecircumstancesshow
ed the moralfiberrespondentismadeof,which
[leave]theundersigned with
nochoicebuttorecommend
thedisbarmentofAtty.DaniloS.Velasquez.
Thepracticeof lawisnotarightbuta
privilegebestowed bythestateupon those
whoshowthattheypossess,and continueto
possess,
thequalificationsrequiredbylawfortheconferme
ntofsuch privilege.Whena
lawyersmoralcharacterisassailed,such
thathisrighttocontinuepracticing hischerished
professionisimperiled,itbehooveshimto
meetthechargessquarelyand
presentevidence,to thesatisfactionof
theinvestigating
bodyandthisCourt,thatheismorallyfit tokeep
hisnamein theRollof Attorneys.
TheCourtfindsGalindez GUILTYofsimpleneglectofd
liableforsimpleneglectof duty.As uty.SUSPENDEDfromofficef
aprocessserver,Galindezhasthedutytoensuret orthree(3)monthswithoutp
ayand STERNLYWARNS him
theparties. thatarepetitionof
Theduty ofa thesameorsimilaractsshallb
processserverisvitaltothemachinery of edealtwithmoreseverely.
thejusticesystem.Hisprimarydutyistoservecour
tnoticeswhich preciselyrequiresutmostcareon
hispartby
seeingtoitthatallnoticesassignedtohimareduly
served upon
theparties.Thus,respondentshould
havecarefullyexamined eachof
thevoluminousnoticesassigned tohim,scanning
128
 2010CASES

and reading everypageto

ensurethateverynoticetotheparty concerned
willbeservedproperly.
Galindezsexcusesforhisfailureto
servecourtnoticesproperlyare weakand
unpersuasive.In Seangio v. Parce,theCourtheld
thathavinga heavy workload isnota compelling
reasontojustifyfailuretoperform
onesdutiesproperly.Otherwise,every
governmentemployeecharged
withnegligenceanddereliction ofduty
[would]alwaysproffer
asimilarexcusetoescapepunishment,to
thegreatprejudiceofpublicservice.
Simpleneglectof dutyisfailureto
giveproperattention toarequired
task.Itsignifiesdisregard of dutydueto
carelessnessorindifference.

JudgeCarbonellfellshortoftheexactingstandards
Topic: Violation CANON 3- setin Section2,Canon 3[18]oftheNewCodeof GUILTYofsimplemisconducta
MisconductJudgeMo ofSection1, Canon Impartialityisessentialto JudicialConductwhich states: nd
naLisaT.Tabora,Regio 3 and theproperdischargeofthejudi CANON FINEhimP10,000.00,tobeded
nalTrialCourt,Br.26Sa Section2,Canon5 cialoffice.Itappliesnotonly 3Impartialityisessentialtotheproperdischargeof uctedfrom
nFernandoCity,Launio tothedecision itselfbutalso thejudicialoffice.Itappliesnotonly to hisretirementbenefits
n vs. JudgeAntonio totheprocessby which thedecisionitselfbutalso to theprocessby which
Carbonell,RegionalTri thedecision ismade. thedecision ismade.
al Court,Branch SEC. 2. Judgesshallensurethathisor
27SanFernandoCity,L SEC. 2. herconduct,both in
aUnion,A.M.No.08- Judgesshallensurethathisor andoutofcourt,maintainsand
2145June18,2010, herconduct,bothin and outof enhancestheconfidenceof thepublic,
Antonio T. Carpio court, maintainsand
enhancestheconfidenceof
thepublic,thelegal

129
 2010CASES

profession and litigantsin thelegalprofession and litigantsin

theimpartiality of theimpartiality of thejudgeandof
thejudgeandof thejudiciary. thejudiciary.
Lowercourtjudgesplay a
pivotalroleinthepromotionof thepeoplesfaith
in thejudiciary.Theyarefront-linerswho
givehuman facetothejudicialbranch
atthegrassrootslevelintheirinteraction with
litigantsand thosewhodobusinesswith
thecourts.Thus,theadmonition
thatjudgesmustavoid notonlyimpropriety
butalsotheappearanceofimpropriety
ismoresternly applied to them.
Section52,RuleXIVoftheOmni
Topic: Dishonesty busRulesImplementingBookV GUILTYofdishonesty
Dishonestyand andfalsificationofa ofExecutiveOrderNo. 292 and With respectto theallegedfalsification andfalsificationofa
falsificationofapubli publicdocument– OtherPertinentCivilServiceLa ofthechildsbirth certificate,wefind publicdocumentand
cdocument– CourtInterpreter ws,dishonestyand respondentguiltyofdishonesty and SUSPENDEDfor
CourtInterpreterAn falsificationofa falsificationof apublicdocument. A six(6)monthsand one
onymousvs. publicdocumentareconsidere birthcertificate,being (1) daywithoutpay with
EmmaB.Curamen, dgraveoffensespunishableby apublicdocument,servesasprimafacieevidence aSTERN
A.M. No.08- dismissalforthefirstoffense. of filiation.Themaking of WARNINGthatarepetition
2549June18,2010 afalsestatementtherein of
,Antonio T. constitutesdishonestyandfalsificationofa thesameorsimilaractsinth
Carpio publicdocument. efutureshallbedealtwithm
Respondentcannotescapeliabilityby oreseverely
claimingthatshedid nothaveanyintentionto
concealtheidentity of thechild
norcausethelossofanytraceasto
thechildstruefiliationto
thechildsprejudice.When
publicdocumentsarefalsified,theintentto
injurea thirdpersonneed
notbepresentbecausetheprincipalthing
punished istheviolation ofthepublicfaith and
thedestructionofthetruth the

130
 2010CASES

documentproclaims.
Dishonesty isdefinedasintentionallymaking
afalsestatementonany material factinsecuring
onesexamination,appointment,orregistration.
Dishonestyisa seriousoffensewhich reflects
apersonscharacterandexposesthe
moraldecaywhich virtually
destroyshonor,virtue,andintegrity.Itisamalevol
entactthathasno placein
thejudiciary,asnootherofficein
thegovernmentserviceexactsa
greaterdemandformoralrighteousnessfrom an
employeethanaposition in thejudiciary.
Nodoubt,courtofficialsoccupyan
exaltedposition in society.They enjoy
authoritativeinfluence,which
leavestheinnocentpublicunlikelytoraiseany
objection.Unfortunately,thisisalsothereasonw
hy
theyhavemoreopportunitiestocommitdishone
stacts.Butdishonestyhasnoplaceinthejudiciary
andtheCourtwillnothesitatetoremovefromam
ong itsranksthosefoundtobedishonest.

Topic: Gravecoercion Canon 19 of Thefirstand foremostduty of SUSPENDEDfrom

Gravecoercionand andthreat theCodeprovidesthata alawyeristomaintain allegianceto theRepublic thepracticeof
threat lawyershallrepresenthisclient ofthePhilippines,uphold theConstitutionand lawforoneyeareffectiveupon
RuralBankof Violation with zealwithin obeythelawsoftheland.Likewise,itisthelawyers finalityof theDecision
Calape,Inc.(RBCI),Boh ofCanon19andRule theboundsofthelaw. dutytopromoterespectforthelawand
olvs.Atty.JamesBene s1.02and 15.07 legalprocessesandto abstain from
dictFlorido,A.C. No. oftheCodeofProfes Rule15.07. - A activitiesaimed
5736June18,2010, sional lawyershallimpressupon
hisclientcompliancewith
thelawsand

131

Antonio T. Carpio Responsibility theprinciplesof fairness.
Rule1.02-A
lawyershallnotcounselor
abetactivitiesaimed
atdefianceof the lawor
atlessening
confidenceinthelegalsystem.
2010CASES
atdefianceofthelaw or lessening confidencein
thelegalsystem.
Canon 19 of theCodeprovidesthata
lawyershallrepresenthisclientwith zealwithin
thebounds ofthelaw.
Forthisreason,Rule15.07of theCoderequires a
lawyertoimpressuponhisclientcompliancewitht
helawandprinciples of fairness. A
lawyermustemployonlyfairand honestmeansto
attainthelawfulobjectivesofhisclient.Itishisduty
tocounselhisclientsto usepeacefuland
lawfulmethodsin seeking justiceand refrain
fromdoing anintentionalwrong to
theiradversaries.
Lawyersareindispensableinstrumentsofjusticea
nd peace.Upon taking
theirprofessionaloath,they
becomeguardiansoftruth and therule of
law.Verily,when
theyappearbeforeatribunal,theyactnotmerelya
srepresentativesofa
partybut,firstandforemost,as
officersofthecourt.Thus,theirdutytoprotectthei
rclientsinterestsissecondaryto theirobligation
toassistin
thespeedyandefficientadministrationofjustice.
Whiletheyare obliged
topresenteveryavailablelegalremedy or
defense,their fidelityto
theirclientsmustalwaysbemadewithinthepara
metersof lawand ethics,neverattheexpenseof
truth, thelaw,and thefairadministrationof
justice.
A lawyersdutyisnotto hisclientbutto the
132
 2010CASES

administrationof
justice.Tothatend,hisclientssuccessiswholly
subordinate.Hisconductoughttoandmustalway
sbescrupulously
observantofthelawandethics.Anymeans,notho
norable,fairand honestwhich isresorted
tobythelawyer,even inthepursuitof
hisdevotion
Topic: Gravemisconduct Rule7.03-A tohisclientscause,iscondemnableand SUSPENDEDforThreeMonth
GraveMisco and lawyershallnotengagein unethical. swithoutpay,withaWARNIN
nduct willfulfailuretopay conductthatadverselyreflects Gthatarepetitionof
Re:ComplaintsofMrs. justdebts on thesameorsimilaractsshallb
MilagrosLee&Samant hisfitnesstopracticelaw,nors TheCourthasconsistently been edealtwithmoreseverely
haLeeagainstAtty.GilL Violation ofRules hallhewhetherin remindingofficialsandemployeesoftheJudiciary
uisitoR.Capito,A.M.N 7.03 and 8.01 publicorprivatelife,behavein thattheirconductor behavior
o. oftheCodeofProfes ascandalousmannerto iscircumscribedwith a heavyburdenof
2008-19-SCJuly 27, sionalResponsibilit thediscreditof responsibility which,atalltimes,should
2010,ConchitaCar y thelegalprofession. becharacterized
pio-Morales by,amongotherthings,strictproprietyand
Rule8.01-A lawyershallnot,in decorum.Assuch,they should
hisprofessionaldealings,usela notuseabusive,offensive,scandalous,menacing
nguagewhich and improperlanguage.Theireveryact or word
isabusive,offensiveorotherwis should bemarked
eimproper. byprudence,restraint,courtesyand dignity. FINEDin
theamountofP10,000.0
Topic: Impropriety 0.
Rolando STERNLYWARNEDthata
GrossIgnoranceoft
E.Marcosvs.JudgeOfel Section1,Canon4of repetitionof
heLaw,KnowinglyR
ia T.Pinto theNewCodeof thesameorsimilaractssha
endering
A.M. No. RTJ-09- JudicialConductfor llbedealtwithmoresevere
anUnjustJudgment
2180July26,2010,Dios thePhilippineJudiciaryenuncia ly.
/Orderand Tobeheld liableforgrossignoranceof
dado M. Peralta testherulethatJudgesshallavoi
Partiality thelaw,thejudgemustbeshown
dimpropriety and
theappearanceof tohavecommittedan
improprietyinall errorthatwasgrossorpatent,deliberateormalici
oftheiractivities. ous.Alsoadministrativelyliablefor
grossignoranceofthelawis ajudge

133
2010CASES

whoshownto havebeenmotivated by
badfaith,fraud,dishonesty orcorruption
ignored,contradictedor failedtoapplysettled
lawandjurisprudence.
With regardto theaccusation
ofimpropriety,wefind ittobewith
basis.Section1,Canon4of theNewCodeof
JudicialConductforthePhilippineJudiciaryenun
ciatestherulethatJudgesshallavoid
impropriety and theappearanceof
improprietyin all oftheiractivities."
Upon assumption ofoffice,a
judgebecomesthevisiblerepresentationof
thelawand ofjustice.Membership in
theJudiciarycircumscribesones
personalconductandimposesupon him a
number
ofinhibitions,whosefaithfulobservance
istheprice onehastopayforholding
suchanexaltedposition.
Thus, amagistrateof thelaw
mustcomporthimselfatalltimesin sucha
mannerthathisconduct,officialorotherwise,can
withstandthemostsearching
publicscrutiny,fortheethicalprinciplesand
senseof propriety of ajudgeareessentialto
thepreservation ofthepeoplesfaith
inthejudicialsystem.ThisCourtdoes
notrequireof judgesthatthey measureup
tothestandardsofconductofthesaintsand
martyrs,butwedo expectthem
tobelikeCaesarswifeinalltheiractivities.Hence,
werequirethem to abidestrictlyby theCodeof

134
 2010CASES

JudicialConduct.
Here,itappearsthatrespondentjudgehasfailed
to liveup
tothoserigorousstandards.Heractofsolemnizing
themarriageofaccused’sson
intheresidenceoftheaccusedspeaksforitself.Itisi
mproperand highlyunethical fora judgeto
actively participateinsuch
socialaffairs,considering thattheaccused isa
partyin a casepending beforeherown
sala.Whatsheshouldhavedonewascourteouslyd
eny thepartiesrequest.Herclaim
thatshewasunawarethatthepartieswererelated
totheaccused failstoconvince.
In pending or
prospectivelitigationsbeforethem,judgesshoul
d bescrupulouslycarefultoavoid anything
thatmay tend toawaken thesuspicion
thattheirpersonal,social
orsundryrelationscould
influencetheirobjectivity.Notonly
mustjudgespossessproficiencyin law,they
mustalso actand
behaveinsuchmannerthatwould
assurelitigantsand theircounselof
Grossignoranceoft Section1,Canon4of Finein theamountof
thejudgescompetence,integrityandindepende
helawandmanifest theNewCodeof FortyThousand
nce.
Topic: Impropriety partiality JudicialConductfor Pesos(P40,000.00)tobededu
Atty.JoseA.Bernasvs thePhilippineJudiciaryenuncia ctedfrom heraccrued
. testherulethatJudgesshallavoi leavecredits,ifsufficient;ifnot
dimpropriety and TheCourtcannotconcludethatrespondentJu ,then sheshould pay
JudgeJuliaA.Reyes,
theappearanceof dgewasguilty thesaidamountdirectly to
MetropolitanTrial
improprietyinall ofsuchmisapplicationofelementarycourtrule thisCourt
Court,Branch69,Pasi
oftheiractivities. sandprocedureastoconstitutegrossignoranc
gCity A.M.
eof thelaw.
However,thesamecircumstances,taken

135
 2010CASES

No. MTJ-09-1728 July togetherandmeasured

21,2010,TerisitaJ.Le againstthehighethicalstandards
onardo-DeCastro setformembersoftheJudiciary,areclearindicat
ors ofmanifestbiasand
partialityaswellasgraveabuseofauthorityonth
epart of respondentJudge.
Indubitably,theunseemly hastewith
whichrespondentJudgeissued
theAugust17,2004Decisionwithoutwaiting
forcomplainantsexplanationto
herAugust16,2004show-causeorderplainly
prejudiced complainantand favored
theotherparty.
Established isthenorm thatjudgesshould
notonlybeimpartialbutshould
alsoappearimpartial.Judgesmustnotonlyrende
rjust,correctand
impartialdecisions,butmustdosoin
amannerfreefrom
anysuspicionastotheirfairness,impartiality and
integrity.Thisreminderappliesevenmoretolowe
rcourtjudgeslikeherein
respondentbecausetheyarejudicialfront-liners
whohavedirectcontactwith litigants.
As amatterof publicpolicy, notevery
errorormistakeof ajudgein
theperformanceofhisofficialdutiesrendershim
liable.In theabsenceof fraud,dishonesty or
corruption,theactsof a judgein
hisofficialcapacitydonotalwaysconstitutemisco
nductalthoughsaid
actsmaybeerroneous.Itistruethatajudgemayno
tbedisciplinedfor
errorofjudgmentabsentproofthatsuch
errorwasmadewith aconsciousand
deliberateintent

136
 2010CASES

tocausean
injustice.Thisdoesnotmean,however,thata
judgeneednotobservepropriety,discreetnessa
ndduecarein
theperformanceofhisofficialfunctions.Indeed,
allmembersof theBench areenjoined
tobehaveatalltimesastopromotepublicconfid DISMISSED
GraveMisconduct CANON 3- encein theintegrity and impartiality
Topic: Misconduct Impartialityisessentialto ofthejudiciary.
OliviaLaurelvs. theproperdischargeofthejudi
JudgePablo cialoffice.Itappliesnotonly
B.Francisco, tothedecision itselfbutalso Asadmitted by MagatandArellano,they
A.M. No. RTJ-10- totheprocessby which hadactuallyavailedthemselvesof
2214July6,2010,Terisi thedecision ismade. Nuestrosservicesseveraltimes,forwhich,appare
ta ntly,theyhadto
J.Leonardo-DeCastro SEC. 2. payNuestro.WhileNuestroshould
Judgesshallensurethathisor nothavebeenallowed toperform thedutiesand
herconduct,bothin and outof functionsof a
court,maintainsand courtemployee,therewasnoclearshowingthat
enhancestheconfidenceof MagatandArellano wereallowedorcoerced
thepublic,thelegalprofession byJudgeFrancisco to useNuestrosservicesand
and litigantsin theimpartiality payingNuestroforthesame.The
of thejudgeandof Courthasconsistently been reminding
thejudiciary. officialsandemployeesoftheJudiciarythattheirc
onductor behavioriscircumscribed with a
heavyburden of
responsibilitywhich,atalltimes,should
becharacterizedby,among
otherthings,strictproprietyanddecorum.Assuch
,theyshould
GraveMisconduct notuseabusive,offensive,scandalous,menacing DISMISSED
and Rule1.01 –A and improperlanguage.Theireveryact or word
Topic:
IgnoranceoftheLa judgeshouldbetheembodime should bemarked
GraveMiscondu
w ntofcompetence,integrity,an byprudence,restraint,courtesyand dignity.
ctand
dindependence.

137
 2010CASES

Ignoranceof theLaw
Ruben Salcedo Plainly,theerrorsattributed
vs.JudgeGilBollozo torespondentjudgepertain
s, totheexerciseofhisadjudicativefunctions.As
A.M. No. RTJ-10- amatterof policy,intheabsenceof
2236July5,2010,Artur fraud,dishonesty,andcorruption,theactsofa
oBrion judgein hisofficialcapacity
arenotsubjecttodisciplinaryaction.Hecannotbes
ubjectedtoliabilitycivil,criminal,or
administrativefor any ofhis officialacts,no
matterhowerroneous,aslongasheactsin good
faith.Onlyjudicialerrorstainted with
fraud,dishonesty,grossignorance,bad faith,or
deliberateintenttodoan
injusticewillbeadministrativelysanctioned.Settl
ed istherulethaterrorscommitted byajudgein
theexerciseofhisadjudicativefunctionscannotbe
correctedthrough
administrativeproceedings,butshould instead
beassailedthrough
judicialremedies.Wementionedallthesetoemph
asizeto
therespondentjudgetheneedtobemorejudiciou
sand circumspectin theissuanceof
extraordinary writssuchastheWritof Amparo.
Canon 1.01 oftheCodeofJudicialConduct,
ajudgemustbe"theembodimentofcompetenc
e,integrityand independence." Ajudgeiscalled
upon toexhibitmorethan justa
cursoryacquaintancewith
statutesandproceduralrules;itisimperativetha
thebeconversantwith basiclegalprinciplesand
be

138

Disbarment Section27,Rule138
oftheRulesofCourt,
Topic: Disbarment amemberofthebarmay
ReyVargas,etal.vs.At bedisbarredorsuspended
ty.MichaelIgnes,etal fromhisofficeasattorneybythe
,A.C. SupremeCourtforanydeceit,m
No.8096July5,2010, alpractice,orothergrossmisco
nductin suchoffice,grossly
Martin
immoralconduct,orbyreasono
S.Villarama,Jr
f hisconvictionofa
crimeinvolving
moralturpitude, orforany
violationof theoath
whichheisrequired
totakebeforeadmission
topractice,or for
awillfuldisobedienceofanylaw
fulorderof a superiorcourt,or
forcorruptly
orwillfullyappearing
asanattorneyfor aparty
toacasewithoutauthority to
do so
CANON 10–A
lawyerowescandor,fairness
and good
2010CASES
awareofwell-
settledauthoritativedoctrines.Heowesto
thepublicand
tothisCourtthedutytobeproficientin the
law.Heisexpectedtokeepabreastoflawsand
prevailingjurisprudence.Judgesmustnotonly
renderjust,correct,and
impartialdecisions,resolutions,andorders,butm
ustdo so in amannerfreeof anysuspicion asto
theirfairness,impartiality,and
FINEDP5,000each,STERN
integrity,forgoodjudgesaremenwho
LYWARNEDthata
havemastery oftheprinciples of
similaroffensein
lawandwhodischargetheirdutiesin
thefuturewillbedealtwithm
accordancewithlaw.
oreseverely.
For
respondentswillfulappearanceascounselsofKW
D withoutauthority todo so,thereisavalid
ground toimposedisciplinaryaction
againstthem.Under Section 27,Rule138 of
theRulesofCourt,amemberofthebarmay
bedisbarredorsuspended
fromhisofficeasattorneyby
theSupremeCourtforanydeceit,malpractice, or
othergrossmisconductin such office,grossly
immoralconduct,or byreasonof
hisconvictionofa
crimeinvolvingmoralturpitude,or forany
violationoftheoathwhich
heisrequiredtotakebeforeadmission
topractice,or for a
willfuldisobedienceofanylawfulorderof
asuperiorcourt,or forcorruptly
orwillfullyappearing asan attorney fora
partytoacasewithoutauthoritytodo so.
139
 2010CASES

faith to thecourt. Disbarment,however,is themostsevereformof

disciplinary
sanction,and,assuch,thepowertodisbarmustal
waysbeexercisedwithgreatcaution,and should
beimposedonly forthemostimperative
reasonsand in clearcasesofmisconductaffecting
the standing
andmoralcharacterofthelawyerasanofficerofth
ecourtandmemberofthebar.Accordingly,disbar
mentshould
notbedecreedwhereanypunishmentlessseveres
uch as a
reprimand,suspensionoWearecompelled
toissueareminderthatour
Disgracefulandi Theseexacting CodeofProfessionalResponsibilityrequireslawy DISMISSED
Topic: Disgracefuland mmoralconduct standardsofmorality and ers,likerespondents,toalwaysshowcandorand
immoralconduct decencyarerequired goodfaith to thecourts.
-CourtStenographer ofemployeesof
JulieAnn thejudiciaryinordertopreserv
C.DelaCruzvs. ethefaithofthepeopleintheco
SelimaB.Omaga, urtsasdispensersofjustice.(Na
A.M. No.P-08- varrov Navarro) Administrativeactionscannotdepend onthewill
2590July5,2010,Jos orpleasureofthecomplainantwho may,for
eCatralMendoza reasonsofhisown,condonewhatmay
bedetestable.Neithercan the Courtbebound
bytheunilateralactofthecomplainantin
amatterrelating toitsdisciplinarypower.
DesistancecannotdivesttheCourtofitsjurisdicti
on toinvestigateand
decidethecomplaintagainsttherespondent.Tob
esure,publicinterestisatstakeintheconductand
actuationsofofficialsand employeesof
thejudiciary.And theprogram and effortsof
thisCourtin improving thedeliveryofjusticeto

140
 2010CASES

thepeopleshould notbefrustrated and

puttonaughtbyprivatearrangementsbetweenth
eparties.Well-established
istheprinciplethatpublicofficeis a
publictrust.NolessthantheConstitution
requiresthat:
Publicofficersandemployeesmustatalltimesbea
ccountabletothepeople,servethem with
utmostresponsibility,integrity,loyalty,andefficie
ncy,actwith patriotismand justice,and
leadmodestlives.
Ona finalnote,theCourtwould
liketopointoutthat,in
theabsenceofclearandconvincingevidence,itwo
uld beinsensitivetocondemn
therespondentforsimplybeing
anunmarriedmotherofthree.Therehasbeen
noshowing thatshehaslivedherlifein
ascandalousand
disgracefulmannerwhich,byanymeans,hasaffec
Violation Canon 1- A lawyershalluphold ted herstandingin SUSPENDEDfortwo(2)year
ofBatasPambansa theconstitution,obeythelaws thecommunity.Tospeculatethatshedid sowould sfromthepracticeoflaw
Topic: Blg.22(B.P.22)and oftheland betantamounttocommitting adiscrimination Warned thata
ViolationofBatasPam non-paymentof andpromoterespectforlawan againsta soloparent. repetitionofthesameora
bansaBlg.22 debt dfor legalprocesses. similaractwillbedealtwithmo
(B.P.22)and non- reseverely.
paymentof debt Rule1.01Alawyershallnoten Thedeliberatefailuretopayjustdebtsandtheissu
A-1Financial gagein anceofworthlesschecksconstitutegrossmiscon
Services,Inc.vs. unlawful,dishonest,immora duct,forwhich a
Atty.LaarniN.Valerio, lordeceitfulconduct. lawyermaybesanctionedwithsuspension
A.C.No. 8390July fromthepracticeof
2,2010, law.Lawyersareinstrumentsfortheadministrati
Diosdado M. Peralta onof justiceand vanguards
ofourlegalsystem.Theyareexpectedto
maintainnotonlylegalproficiency butalso a
high

141
 2010CASES

standard ofmorality,honesty,integrity
andfairdealing so thatthepeoplesfaith
andconfidencein
thejudicialsystemisensured.They
mustatalltimesfaithfullyperform
theirdutiestosociety,to thebar,thecourtsand
totheirclients,which includepromptpaymentof
financialobligations.They
mustconductthemselvesin DISMISSED
Gravemisconduct From
amannerthatreflectsthevaluesand normsof forlackofevidence
Topic: theevidenceadduced,compl
thelegalprofession asembodied in
Gravemisconduct- ainantfailedtoestablish
theCodeofProfessionalResponsibility.
Sheriff theallegationsofgravemisco
PO2 nductagainstherein
PatrickMejiaGabriel respondent.Inadministrative
vs.WilliamJoseR.Ram proceedings,theburden From
os,A.M.No. P-10-2837 ofproofthatrespondentcom theevidenceadduced,complainantfailed to
August25,2010,Artur mitted theactcomplained establish theallegationsof
oBrion ofrestsonthecomplainant(G gravemisconductagainsthereinrespondent
otgotaoversusMillora,459SC .Inadministrativeproceedings,theburdenof
RA340) proofthatrespondentcommitted
theactcomplained ofrestson
thecomplainant(Gotgotao
versusMillora,459SCRA340)
Violation Canon
Topic: DISBARREDfromthepractice
oftheNotarialLa 1oftheCodeofProfessionalRes
ViolationofNotari of lawand
w(PublicActNo. ponsibilityprovidesthat[a]law
alLaw hisnameisORDEREDSTRICKE
2103), yershalluphold
LuzvimindaR.Luste N from
Canon 1 and Rule theConstitution,obey
sticavs. theRollof Attorneys
1.01 thelawsoftheland
Atty.SergioE.Berna
oftheCodeofProfes andpromoterespectforlawan Therespondentengaged
be, PERPETUALLYDISQUALIFIED
sionalResponsibilit dlegalprocesses. inunlawfulconductwhen hedid
A.C. No. from being
y notobservetherequirementsunderSection
6258August24,2010, commissionedasa
Rule1.01 1oftheOldNotarialLawthatrequiresnotariespubl
ReynatoC. notarypublic
oftheCodeofProfessionalR ic tocertify thatthepartyto theinstrument
esponsibility hasacknowledgedand

142

Corona prohibits a
lawyerfromengaging in
unlawful,dishonest,im
moralordeceitfulcondu
ct.
Section1ofPublicActNo.21
03 (Old NotarialLaw)
(a)Theacknowledgmentshallb
emadebeforeanotary public
oran officerdulyauthorized
bylawofthecountry
totakeacknowledgmentsofins
trumentsordocumentsinthepl
acewheretheactisdone.Then
otarypublicortheofficertaking
theacknowledgmentshallcerti
fythatthepersonacknowledgi
ng
theinstrumentordocumentisk
nownto him and
thatheisthesamepersonwhoe
xecuted it,andacknowledged
thatthesameishisfreeactand
deed.Thecertificateshallbe
madeunderhisofficialseal,ifhe
isbylawrequired to
keepaseal,and
ifnot,hiscertificateshall
sostate.
2010CASES
presented,beforethenotariespublic,theproperr
esidencecertificate(orexemptionfrom
theresidencecertificate)andto
entertheresidencecertificatesnumber,place,an
ddateof
issueaspartofthecertification.Theunfilled
spacesintheAcknowledgmentwheretheresiden
cecertificatenumbersshould havebeen clearly
establishedthattherespondentdid
notperformthislegalduty.Withtheseconsiderati
ons,wefind thattheimposition
ofadministrativesanctions.
A lawyershallatalltimesuphold theintegrityand
dignityofthelegalprofession.Thebarshould
maintain a high standard of
legalproficiencyaswellashonestyand
fairdealing.A lawyerbringshonorto
thelegalprofessionbyfaithfullyperforming
hisdutiestosociety,to thebar,to
thecourtsandtohisclients.Tothisend
amemberofthelegalfraternityshould refrain
fromdoing anyactwhichmightlessen in
anydegreetheconfidenceand
trustreposedbythepublicin
thefidelity,honestyand integrity
ofthelegalprofession.
143
 2010CASES

Section6.
Gravemisconduct,F Judgesshallmaintainorderan ASSOCIATEJUSTICE
alsificationofpublic ddecorumin GREGORYS.ONGisorderedto
documents;Impropr allproceedingsbefore paya fineofP15,000.00,with
ietiesin thecourtand a sternwarning
AssistantSpecialPros thehearingofcases; bepatient,dignified and Ong - Withoutdoubt,theChairman,asheadof thatarepetitionof
ecutorIIIRohermiaJ.J and courteousinrelationto theDivision thesameorsimilaroffensessh
amsani-Rodriguez Manifestpartialitya litigants,witnesses,lawyersan undertheinternalrulesoftheSandiganbayan,isp allbedealtwith
vs.JusticeGregoryS.O nd dotherswithwhom rimusinterpares.Hepossessesandwieldspower moreseverely;
ng,etal, grossignoranceof thejudgedealsin s ofsupervision,direction,and
A.M. No.08-19-SB- thelaw anofficialcapacity.Judgesshal controlovertheconductof ASSOCIATEJUSTICEJOSE R.
JAugust24,2010,Luc lrequiresimilarconductof theproceedingscoming beforetheDivision. HERNANDEZisadmonished
asP. Bersamin legalrepresentatives,courtst Hethereby wittingly with awarning
affand failedtoguaranteethathisDivisionsproceedingsc thatarepetitionof
otherssubjecttotheirinfluenc amewithin thebounds thesameorsimilaroffensess
e,directionorcontrol. ofsubstantiveandproceduralrules.Wecannot,of hallbedealtwith
course,presumethathewasunawareofor moreseverely;and
unfamiliarwith thepertinentlawand
correctprocedure,considering hisalreadylong ASSOCIATEJUSTICERODOLF
tenureand experienceas of thenas a OA.PONFERRADA
JusticeoftheSandiganbayan,having risenfrom iswarnedto
AssociateJusticetoChairmanof hisDivision. bemorecautiousaboutthe
properprocedureto
betaken
Itbecomestimely to inproceedingsbeforehisco
reiteratethatanhonorable,competentandind urt.
ependentJudiciaryexiststoadministerjusticei
nordertopromotethestability
ofgovernmentandthewell-being
ofthepeople.
Wewarn,therefore,thatnoconduct,act,oromissi
ononthepartofanyoneinvolved
intheadministrationof justicethatviolatesthe

144
 2010CASES

norm ofpublicaccountabilityand
diminishesthefaithofthepeopleintheJudiciarys
hallbecountenanced. Publicconfidencein
thejudicialsystem and in themoralauthority
andintegrity oftheJudiciary isof
utmostimportanceinamoderndemocraticsocie
ty;hence,itisessentialforalljudges,individuallya
Gravemisconduct nd collectively,torespectand
and Rule7.03-A honorthejudicialofficeas apublictrustand SUSPENDEDforThreeMonth
willfulfailuretopay lawyershallnotengagein tostrivetoenhanceandmaintain confidencein swithoutpay,withaWARNIN
Topic:
justdebts conductthatadverselyreflects thejudicialsystem. Gthatarepetitionof
GraveMisco
on thesameorsimilaractsshallb
nduct
Violation ofRules hisfitnesstopracticelaw,nors edealtwithmoreseverely
Re:ComplaintsofMrs.
7.03 and 8.01 hallhewhetherin TheCourthasconsistently been
MilagrosLee&Samant
oftheCodeofPro publicorprivatelife,behavein remindingofficialsandemployeesoftheJudiciary
haLeeagainstAtty.GilL
fessionalRespon ascandalousmannerto thattheirconductor behavior
uisitoR.Capito,A.M.N
sibility thediscreditof iscircumscribedwith a heavyburdenof
o.
thelegalprofession. responsibility which,atalltimes,should
2008-19-SCJuly 27,
2010,ConchitaCarpio- becharacterized
Rule8.01-A lawyershallnot,in by,amongotherthings,strictproprietyand
Morales
hisprofessionaldealings,usela decorum.Assuch,they should
nguagewhich notuseabusive,offensive,scandalous,menacing
isabusive,offensiveorotherwis and improperlanguage.Theireveryact or word
eimproper. should bemarked FINE ofP15,000.00,with
byprudence,restraint,courtesyand dignity. aSTERN
Unduedelayinrende WARNINGagainstthecommi
Rule3.05 –A
ring ssionof
Topic: judgeshalldisposeof
adecisionororder;fo asimilaroffense.(unduedela
UndueDelayinrenderi thecourt’sbusinessprom y)
r fraternizingwith
ng a decisionororder ptly
litigantswith Thechargesofviolating
EvangelineVeracruz anddecidecaseswithin theCodeof
apending casein
therequired periods. JudgeVillegashad fallen shortofthestandards
hiscourtin relation JudicialConductandof
ofefficiencyandpromptnessofaction
toCivilCaseNo.192( fraternizing with
requiredof an administratorofjustice.
entitled alitigantareDISMISSED
forlackofevidence.

145
 2010CASES

vs. EvangelineVeraCruz Hehad becomedeaf,in

JudgeWinstonM.Ville v. thisparticularcase,totheage-
gas,A.M.No. LorenzoVeraCruz,et oldmaximjusticedelayed
RTJ-09-2211 August al.,for declaration isjusticedenied.Aswestressedin an
12,2010,Arturo ofnullityofmarriage earlieradministrativematter.Failureto decidea
Brion );and, caseor
forviolationoftheCo resolveamotionwithinthereglementaryperiod
deof constitutesgrossinefficiencyandwarrantstheim
JudicialConduct. positionofadministrativesanction
againsttheerringmagistrate.Thedelayin
resolvingmotionsandincidentspending beforea
judgewithin thereglementaryperiod ofninety
(90)daysfixedbytheConstitutionand
thelawisnotexcusable.
Unduedelayinrendering adecisionororder,or
CANON 1A lawyershalluphold in transmitting therecords of acaseisclassified SUSPENDEDfromthepractice
Disbarment theconstitution,obeythelaws asa lessseriouscharge. of lawforsix(6)monthswith
oftheland thewarningthata
andpromoterespectforlawan repetitionof thesameor any
dlegalprocesses. Lawyersareinstrumentsfortheadministrationof othermisconduct
Topic: Rule1.01Alawyershallnoten justice.Theyareexpected tomaintain willbedealtwithmoreseverely
GrossMisco gagein notonlylegalproficiencybut alsoahigh standard
nduct unlawful,dishonest,immoral ofethics,honesty,integrityandfairdealing.In
CarlosReyesvs. ordeceitfulconduct. thisway, thepeoplesfaith andconfidencein
Atty.Jeremias thejudicialsystemisensured.
R.Vitan/CeliaArroyo- As a lawyer,hewasawarethatthepreparationof
Posidio vs. Atty. promissory noteswasnotamereformality;ithad
Jeremias legalconsequences.Itisquitefar-fetched for a
R.Vitan/VioletaTaha lawyertoassumetheroleof
wvs. Atty.Jeremias guarantor,withoutsaying so in thenotes.
R.Vitan/MarkYusonvs
.Atty.Jeremias
R.Vitan,A.C. No.6955
August10,2010,

146
 2010CASES

Artemio Panganiban therecordssatisfactorilyrevealthefailureofresp

ondentto liveup tohisdutiesasa lawyerin
consonancewith thestricturesof
theLawyersOath,theCodeofProfessionalRespo
nsibility,and
theCanonsofProfessionalEthics,thereby
degrading
notonlyhispersonbuthisprofessionaswell.Sofar,
wefind thathislackof sincerity in fulfilling
hisobligationsisrevealed byhisactsof issuing
promissorynotesand renegingon them;
executing asimulatedDeedof AbsoluteSale;
and breakinghispromiseto redeem
thepropertyfrom themortgagee.
Therepeated failure of Atty.Vitan
tofulfillhispromiseputsinquestion
hisintegrityandcharacter.Indeed,notonly
hisintegrityasanindividualbut,moreimportant,
hisstatureasa memberofthebarisaffected by
hisactsofwelching onhispromisesand
misleadingcomplainant.Canon1andRule1.01
oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibilityexplicit
lystatethus:
CANON 1A lawyershalluphold
theconstitution,obeythelawsoftheland
andpromoterespectforlawand
legalprocesses.
Rule1.01Alawyershallnotengageinunlawf
ul,dishonest,immoral or
deceitfulconduct.
Anywrongdoing,whetherprofessionalor

147
2010CASES

nonprofessional,indicating
unfitnessfortheprofession
justifiesdisciplinaryaction.

148
 2010CASES

Topic Case Act/scomplainedof LegalBasis/Basesoft Supreme Court’sruling Case Disposition

Title/CaseNo. he Charge
Date
ofpromulgation
Grave Ponente
Michael The judge wrote lettersto The judge usedhispositionto promote FINEofP11,000,
Abuseof B.BelenvsJudge governmentauthoritiestosecure hispersonalinterest. Whiletheuseof the title withastern warning
Authorityand Medel,RTCBran publicinformationregarding isanofficialdesignationaswellasanhonor, a line hasto be that arepetitionof the
ConductUnb ch36Calamba complainantsbusinesstoinformaddress drawnbased on the circumstancesof the use sameor similaractshall
ecomingof a CityAM eesof thelawsallegedly violated by oftheappellation. It cannot beusedwith the intentto use bedealtwithmoresevere
Judge No.RTJ-08- complainant;and to theprestige ofhisjudicial office to gainfully advance ly.
2139 August remindthemtheirdutiesasgovernmentof hispersonal,family orotherpecuniary interestviolative
6,2010 ficialsandwarnthemof possible of Section 4of Canon 1andSection 1of Canon 4ofthe
J Carpio legaleffectsofneglect ofpublic duties.In New Code ofJudicialConductforthe
hisletter, the PhilippineJudiciary.
judgeusedhispersonalstationerywithlett
erheadindicatinthat heis thepresiding
judge ofRTC of Calambaandstatedthat
the letterwasfromhischambers
Misconduct Atty The Judge NCJC Canon 4 Sec 1 A judge isthe visible representationof the Php 10,000fine
RaulCorreavsJud disagreedwithvariousitemsinthe & Sec 6 andCanon 5 law.Thus,hemustbehave, atalltimes,insuch a
geMedel,RTCBra AdministratorsReport,including the Sec 3 mannerthathisconduct, official or otherwise,
nch36,Calamba auditedFinancial Reportcovering canwithstandthe mostsearching publicscrutiny. The
CityAM thesaidestate, andimmediately ethical principlesandsenseofproprietyof a judgeare
No.RTJ-10-2242 ruledthatthey should bedisallowed. essentialto thepreservationofthe people’sfaithinthe
August6,2010 TheJudge askedthecomplainant judicial system.
J Nachura tostandupwhile
thelatterdictatedhisorder A judge must consistentlybe temperate
ontheirAdministratorsReport.TheJudg inwordsandinactions.RespondentJudge
e Belensinsultingstatements,tending
alsorebukedcomplainantforsomemista toprojectcomplainantsignorance ofthe
kesinmanaging theaffairsoftheestate, lawsandprocedure, coming
adding thatitis fromhisinconsideratebeliefthat the lattermishandledthe
regrettable because Atty. cause of hisclientisobviously andclearly insensitive,
RaulCorreaisa U.P. Law Graduate distasteful, andinexcusable. Suchabuse
anda BarTopnotcheratthat.Thejudge ofpowerandauthority couldonly invite
furtherissuedanorderwhichcontained disrespectfromcounselsandfromthepublic.Patience
snideremarks, citing isone virtuethatmembersof thebenchshouldpractice
complainantforindirectcontemptforsu atalltimes, andcourtesy toeveryone isalwayscalled for.
rreptitiouslyandunlawfully
withdrawingfrom and

149
 2010CASES

emptying the accountofTan.

Undue Judge The Judge aversthat the decisionin Violationsof The judge cannotbe foundto be heldguilty Consideringthatthisish
Delayinrende AdoracionAngel acriminalcase where the Section15 (1), Article ofunreasonable delay inrendering the erfirstinfraction,
ringdecision esvsJudgeMaria complainantisa party wasbelatedly VIII jointdecisiongivenherseasonably filedrequestsfor sheisadmonished.
&Dishonesty ElisaSempio-DY renderedbecausethere wasa lapse if 6 of the extensionof time.
AM NoRTJ-10- monthsfromthetime 1987Constitution; However, TheJudge isheldliable for forgetting aboutthe
2248 September itwassubmittedforresolutiontothe time Canon2 and 6 pending motionforreconsiderationafterthe casebecame
29, 2010 itwaspromulgated.Thejudge moved the NCJC; inactive due to failure of the defense tosubmititsreply.
J Mendoza promulgation 4 timesdue to Canon 1 and 3ofthe A judge oughtto know the
variousreasons. In Code casessubmittedtoherfordecision/resolutionandisexpecte
addition,complainantalsoaversthatthere ofJudicialConduct; dtokeepherownrecordof casessothatshe may act on
solutiondenyingthe accused’ Number 6of the thempromptly.
urgentmotionforreconsiderationwasiss Code ofJudicial
uedlate. Ethics;Rule1.01,
Canon 1of theCode
of
ProfessionalRespons
ibility;Republic
Simple TANCHINGL. Both complainantsandrespondent ActNo. ofcivil
violation The reportedexchangesinthe courtpremisesandin Both are finedPhp 1000
Misconduct WEE, SheriffIV accuse eachother ofthrowing 6713; law,
service Falsification
special the presence of theJudge &Asst.Prosecutoris andare reprimanded.
vs. unsavouryremarksagainsteachother. ofOfficialDocument
lawsand disgraceful behaviour. Shouting exhibitsdiscourtesy
VIRGILIOT. The spousesWee conferredwith the s;andDishonesty
administrative anddisrespect.
BUNAO,JR., AssistantProsecutorforrectification circularsof the
Court of anerrorintheTSN.MrsWee Supreme Court
A.M. No. P-08- allegedthat she saidNo instead of
2487 Bunaovs Yes. Bunaowhowaslistening
Wee intervenedandinsistedthatMrsWee
A.M. No. P-08- answeredYes.They thenexchanged
2493 profanities
September29,
2010
J Carpio

150
 2010CASES

GrossIneffi A.M. No.MTJ- Judge 1987 Constitution, Judge Quilatanviolatedhismandate when he Fine ofPhp
ciency 09-1745 Quilatanuponhisretirementhadleft48 Section15(1), failedtodecide 34 50,000tobe
OCA casessubmittedfordecision. 34 ArticleVIII, caseswithinthree(3)monthsfromtheirsubmission, deductedfromhisretire
vsJudgeQuilat ofwhichwere alreadybeyond the AdministrativeCircul forwhich heshould be administrativelysanctioned. ment/gratuitybenefits
an reglementary period todecide and no ar No. 3-99 .
J VelascoJr. reason of explanationisindicated

Dishonesty AM No.P-07- Chulyaoemployedhersisterto Civil Service Laws The OCA, adopting theCSC findings,notedthatindeed DISMISSALfromtheser
2292 RE: CSC vs takefor herinherbehalfthe the photoappearingon the picture seatplanover the vice, withforfeitureof
ChulyaoSe CSCExaminations. name andsignatureof Chulyaowasthat ofhersister, allretirementbenefitsand
ptember28 Pangowon. Chulyaoevencategorically admittedthisfact, privileges,
,2010 butdenieditwasintentional. Likewise, exceptaccruedleave
PerCuriam italsofoundsubstantial dissimilarity between the credits, ifany,
signatureappearing inChulyao'spersonaldata withprejudice to
sheetandthesignature appearing on the picture re-
seatplan.The OCAnotedthatwhile employmentinanybranc
Chulyaoinsistedthatthe name andsignature appearing h orinstrumentality of
below the alleged photo ofRaquelPangowonwashersand thegovernment,includi
notofRaquelPangowon,she,however, failed nggovernment-
topresentany evidence to provethatthe signature ownedorcontrolledcorp
appearing onthe picture seatplanwasreally herown. orations
Thus,theOCA concludedthat
theunexplaineddiscrepancy whichisclear tothe
nakedeyeisproofenoughthatindeedanotherperson
Grave A.M. No. P-10- Padillopromisedto preparethe Code of Conductof tooktheexaminationforandinbehalf
Despite of Chulyao.
the withdrawalofthe complaint, theOCA sent Padillo’sretirement
Misconduct 2785 necessary documents for thefiling of a CourtPersonnelSec noticestoPadilloto explainbut the latteralready benefitsexceptaccrued
Escalona vs case inexchange of Php20000 as 2 Canon 1 resigned.The resignationofPadillodidnotrender the leave creditsare
Padillo, Court paymentfor the prosecutor.However, complaintmoot.Resignationisnotandshouldnot be forferited.
Stenographer no case wasfiled. Escalonawithdrew convenientway orstrategy toevade administrative
September21, hercomplaintagainstPadillowhen the liability when a courtemployee isfacing administrative
2010 latterretunedthe money. sanction. Noaffidavit ofdesistance candivestthe court
PerCuriam of itsjurisdiction.Padillowasfoundguilty

151
 2010CASES

Impropriety, AM NoRTJ-08- The Judge called theparty ina Code of On the charge ofimpropriety andgrossmisconduct,the FINEofP40,000to
Corruptiona 2136 caseasking forPhp100,000.00 JudicialConduc InvestigatingJustice opinedthat the actofJudgeDuque bedeductedfromhisretir
ndGrossMis SusanReyesvsJU forhimtodeny a pending inembracing andkissingReyes, ementbenefits.
conduct DGEMANUEL motion.Thejudge alsotouched the suckingherbreastsandtouching hermostintimate
N.DUQUE private partsandattemptedtohave partswerecertainly actsof lewdnessthatwere
September21, sexualintercoursewith the latter. downrightobscene,detestable, andunwelcome.These
2010 actswere establishedby substantial evidence, Judge
J Carpio Duque admitted,thatReyeswenttohishouse. The
Investigating
Justicesnarrationwassufficientandthorough.
TheInvestigating Justice
likewiseobservedthatJudgeDuque merely attempted
todestroythe credibility ofReyeswhen he insinuatedthat
she could bea woman ofillrepute or a
highclassprostitute or one whosemoralvalue
isatitslowestlevel. However, no judge has aright
tosolicitsexual favorsfrom a party litigantevenfrom a
woman ofloose morals. He wasfoundGUILTY
Unauthorized AMOCA IPINo. Judge Angelesdidnotfile any leave violation ofIMPROPRIETY andGROSSMISCONDUCT.
Respectingrespondent’spresence at the trialcourton The
Absences 05-2353-RTJ ofabsence on May 3 andAugust 3 ofSupremeCourtCirc May 3, 2005, while admittedly no subpoena earlierresolutionsof
VelascovsJudge whenshe wentshe appearedatthe ulars, wasserved onher toappear onsaiddate thatwasa re- the courtaresetaside,
Angeles trialcourtfor a heating where she theCanonsofJudicial scheduleddate ofhearing, the earlier- the
istheprivate complainant. Ethicsandthe scheduledhearinghaving beenpostponed.There complaintisdismissed.
Codeof Judicial wasthusno absoluteneed for her tobe subpoenaed for
Conduct,specifically the purpose.For acivil servanttothusberequired to file a
forunauthorizedprac leave ofabsence, he/sheshouldhave beenabsentfor
tice of afractionof three-fourthsormore ofa full day. In the
law,unauthorizedabs presentcase, complainantfailedtoprove
encesandfalsification thatrespondentwasaway from herofficefor atleast
ofcertificate sixhours(3/4of 8hoursworking) on
ofservice. August3,2005.Uponthe otherhand,
respondentreportedforwork in the morning, asshown
by copiesoforderswhich she issuedinopencourt on
casescalendaredforconsiderationin themorningof
August3, 2005.

152
 2010CASES

SimpleMisc AM-P-10-2860 The sheriffisaccusedof RulesofCourtSectio The respondentfailedtocomply with FINEof

onduct Garcia thefollowing:receiving Php 7000
vsMontejarOctob assheriff’sfeewithoutcourtapprovedesti
er20, 2010J Brion mate ofexpenses, failure to
attachreceipts/documentsto
liquidatethemoney
receivedandfailuretoexecutewrit.
n10, Rule 141 therules.Headmittedthathe directly received fromthe TwentyThousand
complainantbank the amount ofP7,000.00 Pesos(P20,000.00)
assheriffexpenses.Healsostatedthat he gave the to be
amountofP1,000.00toanothersheriffwhoassistedhim, deductedfrom
instead of using theamount toimplement the writ. thebenefitsdue to
Therespondentfurtheradmittedthathisconductinpreparin him(orhisestate)
g,submitting andsubstantiatinghisliquidationreportsfell
below thestandardprescribed by the above rule. He
admittedthathisexpensesinhisliquidationreportwere
notsubstantiated byreceipts.Moreover,the
respondentfailed to properly liquidatethe P2,000.00 he
receivedfor the executionof the writ.
These circumstancesshowwithoutdoubtthat
therespondentisliable forsimple
misconduct,definedasatransgressionofsome
establishedruleof action, anunlawfulbehavior,or
negligence committed bya publicofficer

Inefficiency A.M. No.MTJ- The judge ischargedforsitting on Rule 140 of Judge Montojosreasonforthe delay in FINEof(P10,000.00)
10- thecase pending before hissala.He theRulesofCou resolving Criminal Case Nos. 4173-4176, to be
1754BernardoJr. onlyconductedtwohearingsonAugust1 rt whichiscomplainantBernardosinsistence on being deductedfromhisretirem
VsMontojoOcto 6 representedbya PAOlawyer, isnotacceptable. A judge entbenefits
ber20,2010J ,2007 andOctober9, 2007. shouldnotbe at the mercy of the whimsof
Leonardo- lawyersandpartiesforitisnottheirconvenience
DeCastro whichshould betheprimordialconsiderationbutthe
administration ofjustice. Asfor Civil CaseNo. 490, the
Courtnotes
thatrespondentJudgeMontojodidnotevenbother
toprovide anexplanationforhisdelay inresolving
thesame.
RespondentJudgeMontojosdelay inacting on
pendingcasesclearly demonstratedhisinefficiency. He
failed to controlthe proceedingsorcourse ofthe cases;
toimpose deadlinesin thesubmissionof
documentsorperformance of actsincidentto the
disposition of cases;and to resolve pending
incidentsontime, andtakeappropriate action on
incidentsarising inthe course of

153
 2010CASES

proceedings. A judge shouldatall

timesremaininfullcontrolof
theproceedingsinhissala.Courtmanagementisultimately
GrossMisc AM No.P-08- Abellanosa solicitedmoney hisresponsibility.
P.D. 1079, Section22 Abellanosa failed toovercome the positive DISMISSEDfrom
onduct 2472 frompartylitigantsincasespending (c) ofRule XIVof the andstraightforwardtestimony ofthe complainingparty- theservice withforfeiture
Judge Delorino before theRTCso that OmnibusRulesImple litigants.It iswellsettledthat to findmeritindenial, thesame ofallretirementbenefitsa
vAbellanosa theProsecutorwould notobject to the mentingBookVofEx must be buttressedby strong evidence of non- ndwithprejudice tore-
AM NoRTJ-08- accusedMR. Abellanosaallegedly ecutiveOrderNo. 292 culpability.She alsofailed todeny having employmentinthegovern
2106 received Php 20,000 fromAtty Palafox andOtherPertinentCi solicitedandreceivedmoney from theparty-litigantsandto ment,includinggovernm
Abellanosa inexchange forfacilitating ex parte vilService Laws explainwhy the latterwouldpointtoherasthe ent-
vsJudge issuanceof a writof preliminary personwhosolicitedmoney fromthem.The evidence on ownedorcontrolledcorp
DelorinoAM attachment.Abellanosaalsoinstructed a recordclearly showsthat theOrderof theRTC ofMakati, orations
No.P-08-2420 petitionerin a case toprepare Php9,500 Branch137 issuedthereinwaspublishedin
Abellanosa forthe publicationof the orderof the Taliba newspaper, butitdid not gothrough
vsRamos thehearing.Thehearing themandatedprocedure fordistributionof
October19,2010 waspublishedbutwithouttherubberstam judicialnoticesor ordersby raffle to
PerCuriam pofthe office of the clerkof court. qualifiednewspapersorperiodicalsunderPresidential
Decree (P.D.)No. 1079.She isguilty.
HabitualAbs AM No.P-07- StenographerFernandez Civil Service Rules Fernandez habitualtardinessandabsenteeism, DISMISSEDfrom
enteeismand 2358 reportedforwork on time only twice coupledwithhersubmissionof a falsifieddocumentto theservice,
Dishonesty IsabelMarquez andwasonunauthorizedabsence coverupsomeofherabsences, donotspeak well withforfeitureof
vsJocelynFernand severaltimesalthoughshe ofherfitnessfor employmentinthepublic service, allbenefits,
ezOctober19,201 wasseenatthese timesatthe especially in thejudiciary.While she exceptearnedleave
0PerCuriam courtpremisesandattheMunicipal Hall hadinjuredherarmand the injurycausedherattendance
wherethe courtislocated. Fernandez problems, there were indicationsthat not allthese
made the situationworseby problemswere traceable to herinjuries.Though the
makingitappearthat falsificationitselfmay not
shestayedfortreatmentofherarminjuryin beenoughbasistosanctionFernandez for lack ofdefinitive
the hospitalhowever proofthatshe didit, the courtcannotignorethe
shewasonlyexamined for a day. grossdishonesty involvedinhersubmissionof
afalsifieddocumentto coverupseveral
unauthorizedabsences. She isfoundGUILTY
Malpractice, AM No 2655 Atty Asoy wasretained OFHABITUALTARDINESS,ABSENTEEISMandDIS
Respondentfailed to comment on the charge Atty Asoy
Negligencea LeonardRichards bycomplainantin a civil case.The HONESTY
filedandRespondenthasgone intohiding wassuspended
ndLack vsPatricio casewasdismissedforfailureofAtty andisevadingserviceof pleadings/orders/processesof .
ofZeal AsoyOctober12, Asoyto prosecute the case. the court.
2010J Melencio

154
 2010CASES

Herrera

Misconduct AM No 10-7- Justice Del Castilloisaccused The researcherofJustice DelCastillowasable toprovethat The
17SC ofplagiarismandof twistingthe she unintentionally deleted the reference to complaintisdismisse
In thematterofthe trueintents of the plagiarize sourcesto theliftedpassage; hence, therewasno intent dfor lack ofmerit.
chargesofplagiaris suitthe argumentsof a judgement toplagiarize.The conceptsclaimed tobe
magainstAssociat hepennedin a Special Civil Action twistedprovidedmerebackgroundfactsthatestablished
e ofcertiorarifiled by membersof thestateofinternationallaw atvariousstage of
JusticeMarianoC. theMalaya LolasOrganization. itsdevelopment.
DelCastillo There are neutraldata
PerCuriam thatcouldsupportconflictingtheories.Failure to use
quotationmarks, inadvertentlyomittednecessary
ConductPreju AM No.P-09- Regaladoaskedcomplainantformoney Supreme information do notamount
Regaladoshouldnothave tomisconduct.
receivedmoney fromArgosofor DISMISSEDfrom
dicial tothe 2735 allegedly for travel, CourtAdministrativ histransportation toDaet, withoutpreviouslysubmitting theservice
Bestinterestof Levi fordrinksandpulutaninconnectionwith eCircular No. 35- hisexpensesforthe
theservice ArgosovsAchilles histasktoserve the 04, courtsapproval.Regaladosadmissionthat he
RegaladoII,Sherif writofexecutionforthe return of a ection10, Rule 141of receivedmoneywithoutcomplying
f landtitle. theRulesofCourt, withtheproperprocedure inenforcing writsof
IVOctober12,201 Section52(A)(20)of execution,made himguilty ofconductprejudicial to the
0PerCuriam theRevisedUniform bestinterestof the service.
RulesonAdministrati
ve Cases
undue AM No.MTJ-09- The judge failedtoact on the Rule 3.05, Canon Nothing in the recordsshowsthatthe respondentjudge Fine of 20,000
delayinrender 1738 twourgentex partemotion 3of the Code askedforanextensionof timeto decide
ing adecision Cirila torenderdecision. ofJudicial Conduct thesubjectcriminalcases.In addition, therespondentjudge
RaymundovsJud failed to considerthatthe subjectcasesrequired
geTeresitoAndoy aquickerresolutionasthey were covered bytheRule
October6,2010J onSummary Procedure.Respondentjudge
Brion failedtoobserve the mandatedperiod of time to decide
casesinviolation ofConstitution,
andviolationofCanon3,Rule 3.05 ofthe Code ofJudicial
Conduct

155
 2010CASES

Delay AM No.MTJ-10- Judge Ampuanincurreddelay RespondentJudge really failedinhisduty to Reprimanded

inrendering 1769 inrendering a decisionin acivilcase.The promptlyandexpeditiously dispose of Civil Case No.
adecision, OlaguervsJudge judge decided the case ayearafterthe 27653. Inso failing, heranafoulof Supreme
Grossineffi AmpuanOctober complainantfiledanexpartemanifestatio CourtAdministrative CircularNo.28 datedJuly 3,
ciency 6, 2010J npraying 1989.Lackof transcript ofstenographicnotesshallnot bea
Bersamin foritssubmissionfordecisionforfailure validreasontointerruptorsuspend the
ofthe defendantto periodfordecidingthe case unlessthe case
filedtheirmemorandum, way waspreviouslyheard byanotherjudge not thedeciding
beyondthe three-monthreglementary judge inwhichcase thelattershallhave the fullperiod of
period. ninety (90)daysforthe completion ofthe transcripts
withinwhichtodecide the same.
The Judgeshouldhave forthwithissued the
orderdirecting thestenographerstosubmit
theTSNsafterthe complainanthadmanifestedthatthe
defendantshad not filedtheirmemorandum.

Ignorance AM No.MTJ-08- Judge Rabaca denied themotion Code of The judge excuse that hehad lost jurisdictionover Fine of 5,000.00
ofthe 1580 ofimmediate ConductofGovern thecase by virtue of the defendantsappeal,
law,disregard FerrerandArande executionfiledbythecomplainants on mentofficials wasunacceptable inlight oftheclearandexplicittext
ofthe law z vsJudgeRabaca the basisthat oftheSection19 Rule 70ofthe Ruleson Civil Procedure.
October6, 2010J thecourthaslostjurisdictionover The perfectionof the appealbythe
Bersamin thecase because the losing defendantdidnotforbidthe favorable actionon the
partyhasfileda notice of appeal. plaintiffsmotionforimmediate execution. Onlythe filing
ofthe sufficientsupersedeasbondandthe depositwith the
appellatecourtof the amountofrentdue fromtime
totime,coupledwith theperfectionof the appeal,
couldstaythe execution. He couldnotalsocredibly justify
hisomissiontoactaccording tothe provisionby
claiminggoodfaithor honestbelief,or by assertinglack
ofmalice or badfaith. Arule
asclearandexplicitasSection19 couldnot be misread or
misapplied, butshouldbe
Violation AM No CA-10- RespondentJusticesissuedtworesolut Sec 3(e) RA 3019 implementedwithoutevasionor
The assailedResolutionsissued byhesitation.
respondentsfavouring Case dismissed
ofAnti- 50-J ionsallegedly causing undueinjury one party doesnotnecessarilyrenderrespondentsguilty
GraftandCor IndustriesvsJusti tothe complainant,giving ofviolation ofSection3(e)of R.A.No. 3019,
ruptPractices ceRoxaOctober theotherparty absentprovenparticularactsofmanifest,evidentbadfaitho
Act 5, 2010 unwarrantedbenefits,advantage or r grossinexcusable negligence, good
preference through

156
 2010CASES
J CarpioMorales manifestpartiality, evident badfaith,or
grossinexcusable negligence in
thedischarge oftheirjudicial
functions.RespondentJusticesalsoregu
larlydispensedTROsandinjunctionsat
amaximumoffive daysfromthe
filingof the pleadings.
AC No. 3872 JudgeLucsonseeksforthedismissalof
Irorita the administrative
vsAttyLucsonO complaintfordisbarmentfiledagainsthisf
ctober4, 2010J atherAttyJimmy C. Luczon.He
Peralta contendedthathe isnotthe
AttyLuczonreferredtoasrespondentin
the instantcase
buthisfatherwhoisnowdeceased.
JudgeLuczoncompulsory retire
butHisretirementbenefits,
aswellasthemonetary value
ofhisleavecredits,however, have yet to
be releasedsincethe necessary
clearancescannot beissueddueto the
pendencyof theinstantcase. He
presumedthat thedocketing ofthe case
withonly Atty.Jimmy Luczonstatedin
thecase titleprobably
causedconfusion,since
heandhisfatherare namesakes.
157
faithandregularity being generally presumedin
theperformance of officialdutiesby public officers.
Sincethe impleading ofadditionalparties,
onmotionofanyparty ormotu proprioatany stageof the
actionand/orsuchtimesasare justisallowed, the
Courtfindsthatrespondentsparticipationinthe
admissionof thesupplementalpetitionsimpleading
hereincomplainantsasrespondentsinCA-G.R.SP No.
87104 doesnotrenderthemadministrativelyliable. While
respondentsmay have based the
assailedResolutionsonmereallegations,
thusdisregardingwhathasbeenestablishedinjurisprudence
thatmere allegationthat a corporationisthe alteregoof
the individual
stockholdersisinsufficient,thisdoesnotrenderthemadmin
istrativelyliable because not every error ormistake that a
judgecommitsin theperformanceof
hisdutiesrendershimliable, unlessheis shown tohave
actedinbadfaithorwithdeliberate intent todoaninjustice,
whichisnotthe
The case here.
courtgrantedthe ManifestationandMotion.Thecase Manifestationand
againstAtty Jimmy C. Luczonisdimissed. Motiongranted
TheCourtfurtherORDERS theOffice of
theBarConfidanttomake the necessary
correctionintherecordsof bothAtty. Jimmy C.
LuczonandJudgeJimmy Henry F.Luczon,
Jr.,inordertofacilitate therelease of the
retirementbenefitsofJudge Luczoninthe eventthatthere
isno otherpending administrativecomplaintagainsthim.
 2010CASES

GraveMisc AM No.P-10- CashClerk Llamasofferedto assistthe Misconductandviolat Llamasisfoundguilty ofgrave misconduct. In lightof
onduct 2781 respondentin thefacilitation ofthe ion ofRA 3019 The respondentsactswouldhave squarely hispriorresignationand
Pinlac titling of the landthat fallenunderSection52(A)(11), Rule IVof the outofcompassion,
vsLlamasNove heandhissiblingsinheritedfromtheirde UniformRulesonAdministrative Casesin theCivil Service heisfinedP20,000.00
mber24, ceasedparentsinexchange of a total (CSCMemorandumCircularNo.19, seriesof 1999), were
2010 ofP10,000.00. After2 years, itnot for theproventurnoverofthe initially
J Brion respondentfailed to deliverthe demandedP2,000.00 to thesurveyor.Otherthanonthe
promisedtitle. basisofthisprovision,however, the respondentisliable
underSection52(A)(3)forgrave misconduct.
The respondentwasa CashClerk IIwhose dutiesdidnot
involve the discussionofpending caseswithlitigants;
cashclerkssolely attend to official
financialtransactionsbetween the
courtandoutsidepartiesdealing with the court. Second,
the referral tothesurveyorwasnotanordinary concern of
a cashclerkandwasnot a casualreferral. Lastly
andmostimportantly, the firstpaymentwasmade to
therespondenthimself,thusindicating thathisrole was
notasneutralasthe simpleassistance that he termedit
tobe. He wasa part ofthe transaction, although
heostensibly handedthe firstpayment to
thesurveyorandthe lattermade all the subsequentbillings.
Thecomplainantmade hisfollow-up on the release
ofhistitle with therespondentandhadevenasked
therespondenttocontactthe surveyorfor thereturn
ofthemoney paid. These indicatedhow active anddeep
therespondentsrole was.
Grossineffici AM No.MTJ-08- Judge Torres, in 1987 Constitution, The magnitude of hertransgressionsin the DISMISSEDfrom
ency,grossign 1719/AM No. thefirstcomplaint,admitted the Section15(1), presentconsolidatedcases- grossinefficiency, theservice withforfeiture
orance ofthe MTJ-08- defendantsmotion toadmitresponsive ArticleVIII, grossignoranceof the law, dereliction ofduty, violation ofallretirementbenefitsex
law,derelictio 1722/AM pleading despiteinitially denied the AdministrativeCircul ofthe Code ofJudicial Conduct, andinsubordination, ceptearnedleave
nofduty no.MTJ-08- motionforreconsiderationfiledforfailure ar No. 3-99 takencollectively, cast a heavy shadowon andvacationbenefits,
1723 tosubmitanswerto the hermoral,intellectualandattitudinalcompetence. She withprejudice
Atty complaintwithinthe periodof hasshownherselfunworthy ofthe judicial robe andplace toemploymentinanybran
ArnoldLugaresvsJ tendaysandshe did notrenderany of honorreservedforguardiansof justice.Thus, the ch ofthegovernmentor
udgeGuttierrez- decision onthe case despitethe lapse Courtisconstrainedto impose uponherthe any
TorresNovember ofmore than a year. severestofadministrative penaltiesdismissalfrom ofitsinstrumentalities
23, Inthesecondandthirdcomplaint,Judge theservice, to
2010

158

PerCuriam Torresfailed to render a decisionon
acase underSummary Procedure
formore thanthree
years.JudgeTorresalsodidnotsubmither
comment tothe administrative
casesfiledbeforethe OCA.
Malpractice AC No. 5859 Atty De Vera misappropriated
andGrossM Atty thegarnishmentofhisclient. After
isconduct CarmenAlcantara theIBPBoardofGovernorsheldrespond
vsAttyEduardo entguiltyof infidelity
De andrecommendedforone
VeraNovember23 yearsuspension, he filed a total of12
, casesinvariousdifferentfora
2010 againsthisformerclient,client’sfamilyme
PerCuriam mbers,the family corporation ofthe
client,RTCJudge,
andChairmanandmembersofthe
BoardofGovernorsof IBP.
2010CASES
assurethe peoplesfaithinthe judiciary and the including government-
speedyadministrationof justice. ownedandcontrolledco
rporations.
Section27,Rule The nature of the casesfiledbythe respondent, the factof Disbarred
138of re-filing themafterbeingdismissed, the timingof thefiling
theRulesofCourt. ofcases,the factthat the respondentwasinconspiracy with
arenegade memberof thecomplainants family, the
defendantsnamedin the casesand the foullanguage
usedin the pleadingsandmotions, allindicate
thattherespondentwasactingbeyond the desire
forjusticeandfairness. Hisactoffiling a barrage
ofcasesappearstobe anact ofrevengeandhate driven by
angerandfrustrationagainsthisformerclientwhofiled the
disciplinary complaintagainsthimfor infidelity inthe
custody of a clientsfund. Further, the respondent
notonly
filedfrivolousandunfoundedlawsuitsthatviolatedhisduties
asanofficerof the courtinaidingin the
properadministrationof justice, buthe did so against a
formerclient to whomhe owesloyalty andfidelity.
Canon21andRule 21.02 of the Codeof
ProfessionalResponsibility[ The cases filed bythe
respondentagainsthisformerclientinvolvedmattersandinf
ormationacquiredbytherespondentduring thetimewhen
he wasstillcounsel. Informationasto thestructure
andoperationsofthe family corporation,private
documents,
andotherpertinentfactsandfiguresusedasbasisor
insupportof the casesfiled by
therespondentinpursuitofhismaliciousmotiveswereall
acquiredthrough the attorney-
clientrelationshipwithhereincomplainants.Suchactisindir
ectviolationof the Canonsandwillnotbe tolerated bythe
Court.
159
 2010CASES

GrossMis AC No. 8391 Atty Gutierrez loaned a totalof P90, Rule 1.01 oftheCode Deliberate failure topay justdebtsconstitute In view
conduct Manuel 000.00. He refused topay of grossmisconduct, forwhich a lawyermay be ofthispreviousdisbarme
YuhicovsAtty upondemandclaiming thathe ProfessionalRespons sanctionedwithsuspensionfromthe practice of law. nt, the courthim to pay
FredGutierrez isfinanciallydistressed. ibility Lawyersareinstrumentsforthe administrationofjustice the loanedamount.
November23, andvanguardsofourlegal system. there isno
2010 questionastoGutierrez'sguilt. Hisadmission ofthe loan
PerCuriam hecontractedandhisfailure topay thesame
leavesnoroomfor interpretation.Neithercan he justify
hisactofnon-paymentof debt by hisdire
financialcondition.
Gutierrezshouldnot have
contractedloanswhicharebeyondhisfinancialcapacity to
pay. Lawyersareinstrumentsforthe
administrationofjustice andvanguardsofourlegalsystem.
They are expected tomaintain notonly legalproficiency,
butalso a highstandardof morality, honesty, integrity
andfairdealingso thatthe peoplesfaithandconfidence in
the judicialsystem isensured.They must, atall
times,faithfullyperformtheirdutiestosociety, to the bar,
the courtsand to theirclients, whichinclude
promptpaymentoffinancial obligations. They must
conductthemselvesina
mannerthatreflectsthevaluesandnormsofthe
GraveMisc AMP-06-2225 Limeta, a legalresearcher,received violation ofRA 3019 legalprofessionasembodiedinthe Code of
Limeta committedgrave misconductwhenshe Dismissedfromservicew
onduct BernaletteRamos P35,000 ProfessionalResponsibility.
acceptedmoney from the ithforfeiture of
vsSusanLimetaN asdownpaymentforherservicesinfindin complainantaspaymentforherservicesinassisting the allbenefits,
ovember23, g a competentlawyerfor latterinfiling anannulmentcase exceptaccruedleave
2010 hercousinandinpreparing thenecessary againstherhusband.Indoing so,Limeta violatedSection2, creditsandwithprejudice
PerCuriam documentsneededin thefiling of Canon 1of the Code of ConductforCourtPersonnel, to re-
anannulmentcase, includingthe whichprovidesthat[c]ourtpersonnelshallnot solicit employmentinanybranc
paymentoffilingfeesandotheradministr oracceptany gift,favororbenefitbasedonany h orinstrumentality of
ative expensesforthe filingof explicitunderstanding thatsuchgift, favor orbenefitshall thegovernment,includin
anannulmentcase withtheassurance to influence theirofficial actions. Thenecessity ofacting ggovernment-
the complainantthatshewould not withpropriety anddecorumishighlightedinSection 1ofthe ownedorcontrolledcorp
gothroughthe long same Code of orationsandfinancialinst
andtediouscourtprocess. Conduct,whichprovidesthat[c]ourtpersonnelshallnotuse itutions.
theirofficialpositiontosecure
unwarrantedbenefits,privilegesorexemptionsforthemselv
esorforothers.

160
 2010CASES

Grossignora AM No.RTJ-08- Judge Buaya Section9, Rule Under theRulesof Court, notice andhearing Fined P 20,000.00
nce ofthe 2131 grantedanexpartemotionon thesame 114of arerequiredwhetherbail isamatterofrightor withwarning
law Villanueva day itwasfiled theRulesofCourt discretion.The Courthasalwaysstressed the
andgrave vsJudge forbailofanaccusedchargedwith a case indispensablenatureof a bail hearing inpetitionsfor bail.
abuseof BuayaNove withwhich the Wherebail isamatterofdiscretion,the grant orthe denial
authority mber22,2010 prosecutordidnotrecommendany ofbailhingesonthe issue ofwhether or not the evidence
J Brion bail.The onthe guilt ofthe accusedisstrong and the
motionwasgrantedwithouthearing. determinationof whetheror notthe evidence isstrong isa
matterofjudicial discretionwhichremainswiththe judge.
Inorderforthe judge toproperly exercise
thisdiscretion,hemustfirstconduct a hearing to
determine whetherthe evidence of guiltis strong. One
whoacceptstheexaltedposition of a judge owesthe
public andtheCourt the duty
tomaintainprofessionalcompetence atall times.When a
judge displaysanutterlack offamiliarity withthe rules,
heerodesthe confidence ofthe public inthe courts. A
judge owesthe public andthe Courtthe duty to be
proficientin the law andisexpected to keepabreastof
lawsandprevailingjurisprudence. Ignorance ofthe law
bya judge caneasily bethe mainspringof injustice.
Loafing AM NoP-10- Fortaleza isloafing. He wouldleave Section1, Canon Courtpersonnelmustdevote every momentofofficial In view ofhis30 years
2865 the office during officerhourslasting IVofthe Code of time to public service.The conductandbehaviorof inservice, theminimum
Judge Romanvs fromtwo tothree hoursaday, two to ConductforCourt courtpersonnelshould be characterized bya high penalty of suspension
Fortaleza three timesa week. Personnel degree of professionalismandresponsibility, asthey withoutpay forsix
November22, mirror the image of thecourt.Specifically, court monthsismeted
2010 personnelmuststrictly observe officialtime to inspire
J Brion public respectforthe justicesystem.Section1, Canon
IVofthe Code of ConductforCourtPersonnel
mandatesthatcourtpersonnelshallcommitthemselves
exclusively to the businessandresponsibilitiesof their
office during working hours.Loafingresultsin
inefficiency andnon-performance of duty, and
adversely affectsthe promptdelivery of justice.

161

Topic:GraveMisconductAndGrossDishonesty
A.M. No. P-07- Act/scomplainedofRespondentle
2379November17, viedthree (3)motorcyclesbelonging
2010Antonio toRUSIMarketing
T. Ramas-Uypitching evenifsaidcompanywasnever a
vs.VincentHorace U. party to thesaidcaseand,
Magalona consequently, the actuation
ofrespondentcreated a
Ponente: Peralta, J. badimageonthe company
andaffecteditsbusinessdealingswith
suppliers,customers, andthe public.
2010CASES
Legalbasis/bases SupremeCourt’sRuling
ofthecharge/s Sect Prescinding fromthe foregoing, the
ion9(b),Rule39 of Courtfindsrespondentguiltyof violating Section
theRulesofCourt 9(b),Rule39 of theRulesof Court, considered a
lessgraveoffense, when, instead offaithfully
implementingthe aliaswrituponthe
propertiessubjectof
thewritthereindefendantPowrollanditsstockholde
rs,he arrogateduponhimselftheauthority tolevy
the three motorcyclesbelongingto
RUSIMarketing, whichwasnot even a partyto the
case. While respondent'sdefense, thatheenforced
the aliaswrituponRUSIMarketing onthe
pretextthatitsstockholdersare also
thestockholdersof thereindefendantPowroll,
maybe regardedasanactdone ingoodfaith, yet
thesame isnottotally acceptable. It may
seemthatthe listofstockholdersof
bothcompaniesarethe same,
butsuchfactdidnotgive respondentthe
blanketauthority toundertake the levy onthe
propertiesofRUSIMarketing asthesaidcompany
wasnotnamedasa defendantinCivilCase No. 4657
andthere wasno judgmentrenderedagainstit by
reasonof the causeofaction by
thereinplaintiffagainstthereindefendantPowroll.M
oreover, RUSIMarketingisa separate entity
fromthatof itsstockholdersand, therefore,
itspropertiesdo notnecessarilyinclude the
propertiesof itsstockholders.
162
Case Disposition
RespondentVincentHorace
Magalona,SheriffIVof theRegionalTrial
Court,
Branch46,BacolodCity, is
foundGUILTY ofviolationof
Section9(b),Rule 39 oftheRulesof
Court.Inview of
respondentspreviousdismissalfromthe
service, a FINE
ofP20,000.00isinsteadimposed onhim,
to bedeductedfromhisaccruedleave
credits,ifsufficient; otherwise, he
isORDERED topay the
amountofthe fine directly to
thisCourt.
The EmployeesLeave Division,
Officeof Administrative Servicesof the
Officeof the CourtAdministrator,
isDIRECTED to
compute
respondentsaccruedleavecredits, ifany,
anddeducttherefromtheamountrepresen
ting the payment of thefine.
 2010CASES
Topic:DisrespectfulConductAndForViolationOfTheProvisionsOfRules136And141OfTheRulesOfCourt
A.M. No. P-09- Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/baseso SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition
2700November15, fthecharge/s Secti WHEREFORE,wefindMelindaM.Dini
2010Atty.NoreenT. Basilio Atty.NoreenT.Basilio,ClerkofCourt on 14, Rule Fromareviewofthecaserecords,theOfficeoftheCo o,CourtStenographerIII,Branch129,Regi
vs.Melinda of Branch129, Regional 136, Section11, urtAdministrator(OCA)foundDinioliablefordisre onalTrialCourt,CaloocanCity,GUILTY
M. TrialCourt(RTC),CaloocanCity,accu Rule 141 and spectfulconductandviolationofSection14,Rule136 ofdisrespectfulconductandforviolationof
DinioPonente:Bri sedCourtStenographerMelindaM.Di Section11,Rule141o andSection11,Rule141oftheRulesofCourt(Rules)f theprovisionsofRules136and141oftheRu
on, J. nioofdisrespectfulconductandinsubo ftheRulesofCourt orthenon- lesofCourtand aFINE
rdinationduetothelattersrefusaltore and remittanceofpaymentofTSN.Whiletheoffenseco ofFiveThousandPesos(P5,000.00)isIMP
mitto AdministrativeMatt mmittedbyDiniocarriesapenaltyofsuspensionfrom OSEDon
theOfficeoftheClerkofCourt(Calooc er(A.M.)No. one(1)monthand1daytosix her, with the
anCity)aportionoftheamountofthree 04-2-04-SC. (6)months,theOCAdeemeditreasonableandsuffici STERNWARNINGthatarepetitionoft
hundredpesos(P300.00)shereceiveda enttorecommendthe hesameorsimilaroffensewillbedealtwith
spaymentforacopyofherstenographi impositionofafineoffivethousandpesos(P5,000.00 moreseverely.
cnotes. )inordernottohamperofficeoperations.TheOCAal
sorecommendedthatDiniobegivenasternwarningt Sheis,
AccordingtoAtty.Basilio,astestifiedt hatarepetitionofthesameorsimilaractshall be likewise,FINEDOneThousandPesos(P
obyCourtAideTeodoricoB.IbasandC dealtwithmoreseverely. 1,000.00)forherfailuretocomplywith the
ourtStenographer Evelyn Resolution ofthisCourtdatedJuly 28,
R.Santander,Att InaResolutiondatedOctober23,2009,[7]thisCourto 2010.
y.JobertPahilgacameintotheirofficeo rderedtheredocketingoftheinstantcomplaintasareg
nJuly30,2008,ataround9:30inthemor ularadministrativematterandrequiredthepartiesto
ning.HeapproachedstenographersDi manifesttheirwillingnesstosubmitthematterforres
nioandSantanderandrequestedforac olutionwithintendaysfromnotice,basedontheplead
opyofthestenographicnotestakenatth ingsalreadyfiled.
ehearingsofhiscase.Atty.Pahilgapaidt
hemtheamountoffivehundredpesos( Forfailureofbothpartiestofiletheirmanifestation,th
P500.00);twohundredpesos(P200.00 isCourt,inanotherResolutionrequiredthemtoshow
)toSantanderandthreehundredpesos( causewhytheyshouldnotbedisciplinarilydealtwith,
P300.00) to Dinio, with orheldincontempt,andtocomplywithitsorderwithi
therequestthatthetranscriptsbemade nten(10)daysfromnotice.
availablebeforehisnextscheduledhear
ing.

163

Topic:Immorality
A.M. No. HOJ-10-
03November15,
2010Thelma
T. Babante-Caplesvs. Philbert
B. Caplesetc
Ponente: NACHURA, J.
Topic:Grave ProfessionalMisconduct,ViolationOfAttorneysOathAndActsInimicalToTheIBP
A.M. No. 09-5-2- Act/scomplainedof
SCDecember15,
2010Re:Inthematterof the
brewing
AfterAtty.Pahilgalefttheoffice,Atty.B
asilioadvisedthestenographerstoremi
taportionoftheamounttheyreceivedt
otheOffice of the Clerk ofCourt.
Act/scomplainedof
InanAffidavit-
ComplaintdatedMarch5,2009,Thelm
aT.Babante-
Capleschargedherhusband,PhilbertB
.Caples,UtilityWorkerII,HallofJustic
e,MunicipalTrialCourt(MTC),LaPaz,
Leyte,withImmorality.Complainant,
39yearsold,married,andapublicschoo
lteacher,narratedthatsheisthelegalwif
eofrespondentandthattheyhavetwo(
2)legitimatechildren.She
statedthattheirhappyandblissfulmarri
agewasshatteredbecauseoftheinfideli
tyofrespondent,whohadanillicitrelati
onshipwithoneRennalynCordovez.
Shefurthernarratedthattheaffairofthe
twohasbecomepublicknowledgeinth
eircommunity,andthepublicdisplayof
theirimmoralityhascausedsomuchpai
ntoherandtotheirchildren.
Legalbasis/bases SupremeCourt’sRuling
ofthecharge/s Arti
A.M.No. 09-5-2-SCoriginated
2010CASES
Legalbasis/baseso SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition
fthecharge/s
WefindJudgePajaron’sfindingstobeinorder PhilbertB.CaplesisfoundGUILTYofIm
Section46(b)(5)ofSu — morality,andisorderedtopayaFINEinthea
btitleA,TitleI,Book aresultofameticulousanddispassionateanalysisofth mountofThirtyThousandPesos(₱30,000.
V of etestimonies.Butwemodifythepenalty to be 00)tobedeductedfromhisaccruedleavecre
theAdminis imposed. dits,ifsufficient.Otherwise,heshallpaythe
trativeCode of 1987 Immoralconductisconductwhichis"willful,flagrant amountof₱30,000.00directlytothisCourt.
,orshameless,andwhichshowsamoralindifferencet
otheopinionofthegoodandrespectablemembersof
thecommunity."8Inseveralcases,9wehaveruledthat
abandonmentof one’swife andchildren,
andcohabitationwithawomannothiswife,constitut
esimmoralconductthatis subject todisciplinary
action.
Respondent’sactofmaintaininganillicitrelationship
withawomannothiswifecomeswithinthepurviewof
disgracefulandimmoralconduct,definedandpunish
edinSection46(b)(5)ofSubtitleA,TitleI,BookVofth
eAdministrativeCodeof1987.Thedisciplinaryauth
oritymayimposethepenaltyofremovalfromtheservi
ce,demotioninrank,suspensionfornotmorethanon
eyearwithoutpay,fineinanamountnotexceedinghis
salaryforsixmonths, orreprimand.
CaseDisposition
As a result, the
cle IV,Vof HavingshownthattheactsofAtty.Vinluanand administrativecomplaintfiledagains
tAttys.Vinluan,
164
 2010CASES

controversiesin the fromthree(3)separateProtestsfiledreg IBPBy- thefourothermembersoftheBOGwereinaccordan Estrada,Barandon,Jr.,EscalonandMercad

electionin the IBP arding
theelectionsfortheRegionalGoverno
rsoftheIntegratedBarofthePhilippine
s(IBP)fortheGreaterManilaRegion(h
ereafter,GMR),WesternVisayas,and
WesternMindanaoheldinApril 2007
for a term of two
(2)yearsstarting July1,2007.
ConsolidatedwithA.M.No.09-5-2-
SCisA.C.No.8292filedbyAttys.Marci
alM.Magsino,Manuel
M.MarambaandNasserA.Marohoms
alicagainstAttys.RogelioA.Vinluan,E
vergistoS.Escalon,BonifacioT.Baran
don,Jr.,AbelardoC.Estrada,andRaym
undJorge A.Mercado
Lawsingeneral cewiththeIBPBy-
Laws,Iseenoreasontoholdthemliableforgravemisc
onduct,violationoftheiroathaslawyers,andforcom
mittingactsinimicaltotheinterestoftheIBP.Asamatt
eroffact,respondentAttys.Vinluan,Estrada,Barand
on,Jr.,EscalonandMercadohavealwaysfollowedtot
heletter,therelevantprovisionsof theIBPBy-Laws.
Butthesamecannotbesaidwithregardtotheactionst
akenbyAtty.Bautistaandhisgroup,whichalsoinclud
eshisco-
complainants,Atty.ManuelMarambaandAtty.Nass
erMarohomsalic.TheevidenceclearlyshowsthatAtt
y.Bautistasactuationsproducedconflictamong the
leadersandmembersof theIBP.
Onelastpoint.Thecomplainantsfailedtoclearlysho
wthattherespondentsweremotivatedbyulteriormot 3. TheproclamationofAtty.Erwin
ivesincommittingtheactsallegedtobeviolativeofthe M.Fortunatoastheduly-
iroathasmembersofthe legalprofession.
oshouldbedismissedforlackof merit.
WHEREFORE,IrecommendthatthisCo
urtRULE andUPHOLDthefollowing:
1. TheproclamationofAtty.Elpidio
G.SorianoIIIastheduly-
electedGovernorfortheGreaterManilaRe
gionoftheIntegratedBarofthePhilippines
for theterm2009-2011;
2. TheproclamationofAtty.BenjaminB
.Lantoastheduly-
electedGovernorfortheWesternMindana
oRegionoftheIntegratedBarofthePhilippi
nesfor theterm2009-2011;
electedGovernorfortheWesternVisayasR
egionoftheIntegratedBarofthePhilippine
sfor theterm2009-2011;

4.
TheMay6,2009ResolutionoftheIBPBoar
dofGovernorsrecognizingthefollowingas
the duly-
electedRegionalGovernorsoftheIntegrat
edBarofthePhilippinesfortheterm2009-
2011:

a. NorthernLuzon - Atty.Ma.
MilagrosF. Cayosa
b. CentralLuzon- Atty.
FerdinandY.Miclat
c. SouthernLuzon - Atty.

165
2010CASES

AmadorZ. Tolentino,Jr.
d. GreaterManilaRegion -Atty.
Elpidio G. SorianoIII
e. Bicolandia - Atty.JoseV.
Cabrera
f. WesternVisayas-Atty.Erwin
M. Fortunato
g. EasternVisayas-Atty.Roland
B. Inting
h. EasternMindanao - Atty.
RoanI. Libarios
i. WesternMindanao -
Atty.BenjaminB. Lanto

5. TheproclamationbytheIBPBoardof
GovernorsintheMay9,2009electionofAtt
y.ElpidioG.SorianoIIIastheduly-
electedExecutiveVicePresidentoftheInte
gratedBarofthePhilippinesfor
theterm2009-2011.

6. Thattheadministrativecomplaintaga
instAtty.RogelioVinluan,Atty.AbelardoE
strada,Atty.BonifacioBanrandon, Jr.,
Atty.
EvergistoEscalon,andAtty.RaymundJorg
eMercadobe DISMISSEDforlack
ofmerit.

7. Finally,to ALLOW
Atty.RogelioVinluantoassumehispostasI
BPNationalPresidentfortheremainingpor
tion ofthe term2009-2011.

Withregardtotherecommendationsofthe
SpecialCommitteeonthepossiblerevision
oftheIBPRulesinordertopreventsimilarin
stancesor

166

Topic: GraveMisconduct
A.M. No.RTJ-06- Act/scomplainedof
2015December15, 2010
Atty.NorlindaR. Amante- ThiscasestemmedfromAdministrativ
Descallar vs.Judge eCaseNo.05-222-
Reinerio[Abraham]B. PinstitutedbyJudgeReinerio(Abraha
RamasPonente:LEONARDO m) B. Ramas(Judge
– DECASTRO,J. Ramas)oftheRegionalTrialCourt,Bra
nch
18(RTC-
Branch18)ofPagadianCity,Zamboan
gadelSur,againstAtty.Norlinda
R.Amante-
Descallar(Atty.Descallar),ClerkofCo
urtofthesamecourt,forGraveMiscon
duct. Atty.
Descallar
allegedlyshowedtheunopenedballotb
oxesinsideJudgeRamaschamberstoac
ertainAllanSingedas(Singedas).Theb
allotboxeswereinJudgeRamascustod
yinrelationtoElectionProtestCaseNo
.0001-2K4pendingbeforehiscourt.
InaVerifiedComment/Counter-
ComplaintdatedAugust11,2005,Atty.
Descallarvehementlydeniedtheaccus
ationsagainstherandcounterchargedJ
udgeRamasofbringinghomea
completeset of
2010CASES
controversiesinthefuture,saidrecommen
dationsshouldbereferredtotheCourtOver
sightCommitteeonIntegratedBarAffairsf
orfurtherstudyandconsideration.
Legalbasis/bases SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition
ofthecharge/s A.
M. No. 01-8-10- JudgeRamasispresumedtobeawareofhisdutiesandr JudgeReinerio(Abraham)B.Ramasishere
SC, amending esponsibilitiesundertheCodeofJudicialConduct.Ca byfoundGUILTYofmakinguntruthfulst
Rule140 on non3generallymandatesthatajudgeshouldperform atementsinhisCertificatesofServiceforthe
theDiscipline officialdutieshonestly,andwithimpartialityanddilig monthsofMayandJune2005andisherebyF
ofJusticesandJudge ence. INEDintheamountofFifteenThousandP
s Rule3.01requiresthatajudgebefaithfultothelawand esos(P15,000.00),withaWARNINGthat
maintainprofessionalcompetence,whileRule3.09c arepetitionofthesameorsimilarinfractions
ommandsajudgetoobservehighstandardsofpublics hallbedealtwithmoreseverely.
erviceandfidelityatalltimes.
JudgeRamasirrefragablyfailedtoobservethesestand
ardsbymakinguntruthfulstatementsinhisCertificat
esofService to coveruphisabsences.
TheCourthaspreviouslyheldthatajudgessubmissio
noffalsecertificatesofserviceseriouslyunderminesa
ndreflectsonthehonestyandintegrityexpectedofan
officerofthecourt.Thisisso because a certificate
ofservice
isnotmerelyameanstoone'spaycheckbutisaninstru
mentbywhichtheCourtcanfulfilltheconstitutional
mandateofthepeople'srighttoa speedy
dispositionofcases.
167

Topic: GrossNegligenceandGrossMisconduct
A.C. No. 7907 Act/scomplainedof
December15,2010
SpousesVirgilioandAngelina
Aranda vs. Atty.Emmanuel F.
Elayda
Ponente:LEONARDO–
DECASTRO,J.
computer,whichwassubmittedasevid
enceinCriminalCaseNos.5294and52
95,entitledPeoplev.Tesoro,Jr.,forTheft.
ShealsoaccusedJudgeRamasofdishon
estywhenthelatterdidnotreflectinhis
CertificatesofServiceforMayandJune
2005hisabsencesonMay12and13,200
5;forseveralmoredaysafterpromulgat
ionofthedecisioninElectionProtestC
aseNo.0001-2K4
May16,2005;andfromJune 1to 21,
2005.
Theinstantcasestemmedfromanadmi
nistrativecomplaintfiledbythespouse
sVirgilioandAngelinaAranda(spouse
sAranda)beforetheIntegratedBaroft
hePhilippines(IBP)CommissiononB
arDiscipline,chargingtheirformercou
nsel,Atty.EmmanuelF.Elayda(Atty.E
layda),withgrossnegligenceorgrossmi
sconductinhandlingtheircase.Thespo
usesArandawerethedefendantsinCivi
lCaseNo.232-0-01,entitledMartin
V.Guballav.SpousesAngelinaandVirgilio
Aranda,filedbeforetheRegionalTrial
Court(RTC)ofOlongapoCity,Branch
72.
IntheComplaintdatedAugust11,2006
thespousesArandaallegedthatAtty.El
aydashandlingoftheir
2010CASES
on
Legalbasis/bases SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition
ofthecharge/s Co
de Fromtheforegoing,itisclearthatAtty.Elaydaisdutyb TheresolutionoftheIBPBoardofGovern
ofProfessionalResp oundtoupholdandsafeguardtheinterestsofhisclient orsapprovingandadoptingtheDecisionoft
onsibility(Canon17, s. heInvestigatingCommissioner is
18,19) Heshouldbeconscientious,competentanddiligenti hereby AFFIRMED.
nhandlinghisclientscases.Atty.Elaydashouldgivead Accordingly,respondentATTY.EMMA
equateattention,care,andtimetoallthecasesheishan NUELF.
dling. ELAYDA is
AsthespousesArandascounsel,Atty.Elaydaisexpec hereby SUSPENDEDfrom
tedtomonitortheprogressofsaidspousescaseandiso the
bligatedtoexertalleffortstopresenteveryremedyord practiceoflawforaperiodof
efenseauthorizedbylawtoprotectthecauseespouse SIX(6)MONTHS,withasternwarningth
dbythespousesAranda. atarepetitionofthesameorasimilaractwill
be dealtwithmore severely.
Regrettably,Atty.Elaydafailedinallthese.Atty.Elayd
aevenadmittedthatthespousesArandaneverknewo
fthescheduledhearingsbecausesaidspousesneverca
metohimandthathedidnotknowthespouseswherea
bouts. Whileitistruethatcommunicationisa
sharedresponsibilitybetweenacounselandhisclient
s,itisthe counselsprimarydutytoinformhis
168
 2010CASES
casewassorelyinadequate,asshownby
hisfailuretofollowelementarynormso
fcivilprocedure andevidence
clientsofthestatusoftheircaseandtheorderswhichh
avebeenissuedbythecourt.
Hecannotsimplywaitforhisclientstomakeaninquiry
aboutthedevelopmentsintheircase.Closecoordinat
ionbetweencounselandclientisnecessaryforthemto
adequatelyprepareforthecase,aswellastoeffectively
monitortheprogressofthecase.Besides,itiselement
aryprocedureforalawyerandhisclientstoexchangec
ontactdetailsattheinitialstagesinordertohaveconsta
ntcommunicationwitheachother.Again,Atty.Elayd
asexcusethathedidnothavethespousesArandascon
tactnumberandthathedidnotknowtheiraddressissi
mply unacceptable.

Topic: ActsUnbecomingofaPublicOfficial
A.M. No. P-10- Act/scomplainedof
2753December15,
2010Donnabelle InthemorningofFebruary3,2009,whil
D.Rubenvs.Ramil L. erespondentandanofficemateHartly
Abon, UtilityWorker I Fernandez(Fernandez)wereconversi
ng,complainantheardrespondentutte
rintheIlocanodialect
Ponente: CarpioMorales, J. acommentwhich,whentranslatedtoE
nglish,means"there’sacolleaguehere
whostabsyouatyourback."Complain
antatonceinquiredfromrespondentto
whomhewasreferring,towhichrespo
ndentansweredthathewasreferringto
her.Atthatinstant,respondentaskedc
omplainantifshewantedtohearavoice
recordproving
thatshewastryingtomalignhim.Respo
ndentinfactstartedplaying
Legalbasis/bases SupremeCourt’sRuling
ofthecharge/s Cod
e of TheCourtfindstheevaluationandrecommendation
ConductandEthical bytheOCAwell-
StandardsforPublic taken.Indeed,whilerespondentmentionedFernand
OfficialsandEmplo ezandtheClerkofCourttohavebeenpresentattheinc
yees identthatspawnedthefilingofthepresentcomplainta
gainsthim,hefailedtogetanyofthemtocorroborateh
isclaim.Absentanyshowingofillmotiveoncomplain
ant’sparttofalselychargerespondent,hertalemustbe
believed.
Asdetailedabovethen,respondent’sactsofdisrespec
ttowardstherightsofcomplainantarecontrarytolaw,
goodmoralsandgoodcustoms,whichconstituteavio
lationoftheprescribednormsofconduct
forpublicofficialsandemployeesthatcallsfor
disciplinarysanction.
Respondentneed to beremindedthatascourt
CaseDisposition
CourtfindsRamilL.Abon,UtilityWorkerI
oftheOfficeoftheClerkofCourt,Regional
TrialCourtofBayombong,NuevaVizcaya,
guiltyofviolationoftheCodeofConductan
dEthicalStandardsforPublicOfficialsand
EmployeesandisSUSPENDEDfromoffi
ceforone(1)monthwithoutpay,withSTER
NWARNINGthatarepetitionofthesame
orcommissionofasimilaroffenseinthefutu
rewillbedealtwithmore severely.

169
 2010CASES
the voice
recordbutstoppeditafterthefirstword
andlefttheroom,albeit he returned.
Bycomplainant’sclaim,respondentsh
outedatherduringtheincidentthatocc
urredbeforehelefttheroom,andwhen
respondentreturned,hewasdrunkand
threatenedherwith a gun.
Respondentdeniedhavingshoutedatc
omplainantorbeingdrunkwhenheret
urnedtotheofficeorhaving
threatenedherwith agun
employee,
hisconductmustatalltimesbecharacterized by
propriety anddecorum.He isexpected to be well-
manneredinhisactuationsnot only towardsthe
transacting public,
butalsoinhisrelationshipwithco-
workers.Boorishnessandbelligerentbehaviorhave
no place ingovernmentservice asitspersonnelare
enjoinedto actwithselfrestraintandcivility atall
times.

Topic:GrossInnefficiency,IncompetenceandNeglect
A.M. No.RTJ-06- Act/scomplainedof
1999December8,
2010BankgoSentral ng Thisisanadministrativecomplaintinst
Pilipinasvs.Executive ituted, on November12,2003,
Judge EnricoA.Lanzanas, bytheBangkoSentralngPilipinas(BSP
etal )againstExecutiveJudgeEnricoA.Lan
Ponente:Brion, J. zanas,RegionalTrialCourt(RTC),Bra
nch7,Manila;ClerkofCourtJenniferde
laCruz-BuendiaandSheriffCarmelo
V.Cachero,RTC,OfficeoftheClerkof
Court(OCC),fortheirculpableviolatio
nofthedutiesoftheirofficewhentheyu
surpedthefunctionsofthePresidingJu
dgeofRTC-
Manila,Br.12PairingJudgeHon.Cesar
Solisbyallowingthewithdrawalandrel
easefromthecustodyofthecourtgarnis
hedfundsinthetotalamountofPESOS
: NINETY-SEVEN
Legalbasis/basesoft SupremeCourt’sRuling
hecharge/s REVISE
DUNIFORM SheriffCacherocannotfeignignoranceofthetruen
RULESO atureofthefundshe
N garnished.Cacherohimselfwasdeputized,among
ADMINISTRATIVE othersheriffs,toimplementthewritofgarnishmen
CASES IN tissuedbyJudgeCarandangoftheRTC,Branch12,
THECIVI Manila,inCivilCaseNo.99-
L SERVICE, 95993,acasewhereJoseGowasoneamongseveral
RULEIV,Section52,B defendants,unlikeinCivilCaseNo.01-
(2) 101190whereonlyheandhiswifeElvywerethedef
endants.
Thegarnishedfunds,therefore,inCivilCaseNo.99
- outpay.
95993cannotbesaidtobelongtothespousesGoor,
attheveryleast,do notbelongto themsolely.
Further,Cacheroreceivedofficialnotificationthat
thefundsinquestionwerealreadythesubjectofano
ticeofgarnishmentissued,onJanuary19,2000,byJ
udgeCarandanginCivilCaseNo.99-
95993,ascontainedintheOrderoftheJudge,
attached
CaseDisposition
DeputySheriffCarmeloV.Cacheroisfoun
dGUILTYOFINEFFICIENCYANDI
NCOMPETENCEIN
THEPERFORMANCEOFOFFICIAL
DUTIES,
andisSUSPENDEDfornine(9)monthswi
thoutpay.ClerkofCourtJenniferH.delaCr
uz-
BuendiaisdeclaredGUILTYOFSIMPLE
NEGLECTOFDUTY and
isSUSPENDEDforthree(3)monthswith
BothofthemareSTERNLYWARNEDag
ainstthecommissionofasimilaroffense.
TheotherchargesagainstCacheroanddela
Cruz-BuendiaareDISMISSED forlack of
evidence.

170
 2010CASES
MILLIONTHREEHUNDREDEI tothereply
GHTY- ofRTCClerkofCourtJesusaP.ManingastoCacher
EIGHTTHOUSANDFOURHUN osnotice of garnishment.
DREDSIXTY-EIGHT& 35/100
(P97,388,468.35) Cacheroerredingarnishingthefundsindispute,inh
toPhilippineBankofCommunication ishastetoenforcethewritofexecutionissuedbyJud
s(PBCOM)anditscounselofrecordwh gePurgananoftheRTC,Branch42,Manila,inCivil
oarenotpartiesto the case. CaseNo.01-
101190,forreasonsonlyknowntohim.
Heforgotthattheverysamefundswereunderthe
custody ofanothercourt, the RTC,
Branch12,Manila,whichearlierissuedawritofatta
chmentoverthesamefunds.
Hecannotnowbeheardthathewasjustperforming
aministerialfunction.
Hekneworshouldhaveknownaboutthetruechara
cterofthefundshegarnished.
AstheOCAnoted,hewasamongagroup of
sheriffswhoweredeputizedtoimplementthewrit
ofattachmentissuedbyJudgeCarandangoftheRT
C,Branch12,Manila.
Topic:Vulgar,InappropriateAndImproperLanguage
A.M. No.RTJ-10- Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/baseso SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition
2253/A.M.No. P-06-2138 fthecharge/s Rule
December8,2010 Atty. WhenAtty.Riconfiledhercomplainta 140, Section10(1) JusticeCarandangmadethefollowingrecommend The Supreme Courtimposed
Perseveranda L.Riconvs. gainstJudgeMarquez,shewastheClerk oftheRulesofCourt ations: aFINE of
JudgePlacidoC.Marquez / ofCourtofBranch39,RTCManila,wh OneThousandPesos(P1,000.00) on
Judge PlacidoC.Marquez vs. osepresidingjudgeatthetime,JudgeLe 1. In A.M. No.RTJ-10-2253, Ricon JudgePlacidoC.Marquez
Atty.PerseverandaL.Ricon ticiaE.Sablan,retiredonFebruary24,2 v. Marquez, Judge oftheRegional Trial
002. Marquezbereprimandedfor using Court,Branch40,Manila,
Ponente:Brion, J. Atty.RiconallegedthatbeforeJudgeSa forusingvulgar,inappropriate
blanretired,thetwoofthempaidacourt vulgar,inappropriateandimproperlang andimproperlanguage.
esycallonJudgeMarquez,then the uage,constitutingconductunbecoming,classified AllotherchargesagainstJudge
pairing judge asalightchargeunderRule140,Section10(1)ofthe Marquez are DISMISSEDforlack of
ofBranch39.Thereafter,orinthefirstw RulesofCourt,asamendedbyA.M.No.01-8-10- merit.
eekofMarch2002,JudgeMarquezseta SC.
UnderSection11(c)ofthesamerule,JudgeMarque In A.M.No. P-06-2138, all
zmaybesanctionedbyanyof the following:(a)a chargesagainstAtty. PerseverandaL.
fineof not less Ricon,Clerk of Court,
Branch39,Regional

171
 2010CASES
meetingwiththestaffofBranch39andJ
udgeSablan.ThefirstthingJudgeMarq
uezaskedatthemeetingwaswhoamon
gthestaffhadalreadyrenderedfive(5)y
earsofserviceinthegovernment.
Mostofthestaffproudlyraisedtheirha
nds,buttheyfeltinsultedwhenJudgeM
arquezsaidthatemployeeswhohavebe
eninthepublicserviceforfiveyearsare
corrupt,gago,tamadatmakakapal ang
mgamukha.
Thestaffwereshocked,butdidnotreac
ttoJudgeMarquezstiradeoutofrespect
forhim.
XxxxxxEverytimeJudgeMarquezdisc
overedcaserecordsnot
preparedaccordingtohisspecification
s,hewouldgetmadandvoiceoutoffens
iveremarkslike tamad,hindiginagawa
ang mga trabahoand
thestaffwouldbeinsultedeveninthepr
esenceofotherpeopleandevenduring
hearings.JudgeMarqueztoldthestafft
hatall
thejudgeswhoprecededhimhadnotmi
ndedtherecordswellanditwasonlyhe
whohaddonegoodthingsintheoffice.
He described
hispredecessorsasni
lalahatkonaangmgahuwesnanaupodito,wal
angnagawangtama!Malisilanglahat,mgawa
langalam[acharacterizationAtty.Ricon
disagreedwithasshebelievedthatJudg
eMarquezspredecessorswereallhones
t,efficientandconsiderate,unlike
172
thanP1,000.00,butnotexceeding Trial Court, Manila,
P10,000.00;and/or(b)censure,(c)reprimand,and are DISMISSEDlikewiseforlack
(d)admonitionwithwarning. ofmerit.
Althoughtherecommendedsanctioncannolong
erbemetedonJudgeMarquez,inviewofhisretirem
ent,it,however,canbeenteredinhis201
filesforrecordpurposes.
2. AllotherchargesagainstJudgeMarq
uez be dismissedforlackof merit.
3. InA.M.No.P-06-2138, Marquez
v.Ricon,allthechargesagainstAtty.Riconbedismiss
edfor lack ofmerit.
TheSupremeCourtapproveandadoptJusticeCar
andangsrecommendations.Thefindingsandconc
lusionsonwhichtheywerebasedweretheresultofa
thoroughandpainstakinginvestigation.Indeed,Ju
dgeMarquez,byverballyexpressinghimself,onvar
iousoccasionsininsulting,unsavoryandintemper
atelanguage,toAtty.RiconandthestaffofBanch39
,RTC,Manila,aswellastolitigantsinhiscourt,devia
tedfromtheproperandaccepteddecorumofamagi
strate.
Hecalledunnecessarynegativeattentiontohimself
andhisofficebyhisuseofunprofessionalanduneth
icallanguageinhisdealingswithhisstaffandwithliti
gants.
AswesaidinBenjaminv.JudgeGonzales-Decano,
asajudge,therespondentshouldnotresorttotheus
eofundignifiedlanguage.
Heshouldnotforgetthatajudgeshouldbeprudent
andmorecircumspectinhisorherutterances,reme
mberingthathisorherconductinandoutside the
courtroom
isunderconstantobservation.

JudgeMarquezwhotreatedthemliketh
elowestkindofanimalandwouldaddre
ssthemlalamonnanaman kayo.Atty.
RiconalsoclaimedthatJudge Marquez
wouldoftentellpeoplethatheisabasurer
ointheoffice,pickingallthemessleftby
hispredecessorsand thestaff.
Topic:RepresentingConflictofInterest
A.M. No. 10-5-7- Act/scomplainedof
SCDecember7, 2010
JovitoS.Olazo vs. Justice A disbarmentcase
Dante O.Tinga (Ret.) wasfiledagainstretiredSupreme
PONENTE: Brion,J. CourtAssociateJustice Dante
O.Tinga
(respondent)filed
byMr.JovitoS.Olazo(complainant).
The
respondentischargedofviolatingRule
6.02 forexerting undue influence
over aparcel of landwhile
inhiscapacityasa Congressman,Rule
6.03forpressuringthe
awardoflandtoanotherperson,
andRule 1.01 forawarding a land to
anunqualifiedperson,all of the Code
ofProfessionalResponsibility
forrepresenting conflicting
interestsineach.
Topic:NeglectofDuty
A.M. No. P-05- Act/scomplainedof
2003December6, 2010
GermanAgunday vs. ThecomplainantallegesthatTablizo,as ofthecharge/s
LemuelB.Velasco ClerkofCourtandEx-
Ponente:Brion, J. OfficioProvincialSheriff,issued,on Uniform Rules
strativeCases
2010CASES
Legalbasis/basesoft SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition
hecharge/s Code of
ProfessionalResponsi Generally,alawyerwhoholdsagovernmentoffice TheSupremeCourtDISMISSEDtheadm
bility (Canon1, 6) maynotbedisciplinedasamemberoftheBarformi inistrativecaseforviolationofRule6.02,Rul
sconductinthedischargeofhisdutiesasagovernme e6.03andRule1.01
ntofficial.HemaybedisciplinedbythisCourtasam oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility,f
emberoftheBaronlywhenhismisconductalsocon iledagainstretiredSupremeCourtAssociat
stitutesa violation ofhisoathasalawyer. eJusticeDanteO.Tinga,forlack of merit.
Theissueinthiscasecallsforadeterminationofwhe
thertherespondentsactionsconstituteabreachoft
hestandardethicalconductfirst,whiletherespond
entwasstillanelectivepublicofficialand
amemberoftheCommitteeonAwards;andsecon
d,whenhewasnolongerapublicofficial,butaprivat
elawyerwhorepresentedaclientbeforetheoffice
he waspreviously connectedwith.
After a careful evaluationof the
pleadingsfiledbybothpartiesandtheirrespectivep
iecesofevidence,weresolvetodismisstheadminist
rative complaint.
Legal SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition
basis/bases
TheSupremeCourtheldVelascoliableforhisfailur SheriffLemuelB.Velascoisfoundguiltyof
etoreconveythe13.38squaremetersofthesubjectp simpleneglectof
ropertytothecomplainant.We dutyandisFINEDinanamount
onAdmini
173
 2010CASES
July9,1996,awritofexecutionandposs in the Civil Service
essionwhichvariedthetermsofthedisp
ositiveportionoftheCAdecision.Purs
uanttothiswrit,Velasco,Gonzalesand
Guerrero,inconspiracywiththeplaintif
fs,causedthedemolitionofhis(Agunda
ys)housewithoutfirstnotifyinghimorh
isbrother-in-
law,SantosBurce.Velasco,Gonzalesa
ndGuerreroallegedlyeffectedthedem
olitionwithoutcoordinatingwiththeba
rangayofficialsandtheMunicipalEngin
eeringOffice,andwithoutsecuringawri
tofdemolitionfromtheRTC.Thecom
plainantfurtherclaimsthatVelasco,Go
nzalesandGuerrerodidnotpreventthe
plaintiffsfromtakinghispersonalbelon
gingsfromthe demolishedhouse.
Thecomplainantmaintainsthatthe13.
38-
squaremeterlandsubjectofthemodifie
dCAdecisionhasnotbeenreconveyedt
ohim.Velasco,however,madeitappear
intheCertificateofTurn-
OverofRealEstatePropertyOwnershi
pdatedAugust21,1996,thatthe13.38-
squaremeterlothadalreadybeenturned
over to him(complainant)
Topic:UndueDelayinRenderingDecision
A.M. No.RTJ-06-2007 Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/basesof
174
findnomeritinhisexcusethathisfailuretoimpleme equivalenttohissalaryforone(1)month.H
ntthewritofexecutionandpossessionwasdue e
tothe iswarnedthatthecommissionofthesameo
complainantsrefusaltosigntheCertificateofTurn- ffenseorasimilaractinthefuturewillbedeal
OverofRealEstate PropertyOwnership. twith moreseverely.
TherecordsdisclosethatwhenVelascoreceivedth
ewritofexecutionandpossession,hesawtheneedf
orarelocationsurveyinordertodeterminethe13.38
squaremetersthatmustbereconveyedtothecompl
ainant.HeinformedLopeoftheneedforarelocatio
nsurvey,andlefttohimthehiringofthesurveyor.Lo
pehiredasurveyorandorderedhim(surveyor)toco
nductarelocationsurvey.Thereafter,Lopeordere
dthedemolitionofthecomplainantshousebasedo
ntheresultoftherelocationsurveythatthehousewa
sencroaching on.
Astheimplementingsheriff,itwasVelascosdutyto
informbothLopeandthecomplainantregardingthe
needforarelocationsurvey,toensurethatthereloca
tionsurveywouldbewitnessedbyallthepartiescon
cerned.Hehastopersonallysupervisetheconducto
ftherelocationsurvey,andnotdelegatethisdutytoo
neoftheinterestedparties.Moreimportantly,hesh
ouldhaverequestedthesurveyor,duringthesurvey,
topointtothecomplainanttheexactmetesandbou
ndsofthe property tobe reconveyed to him.
SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition

December6, 2010
CarmenEdaño vs. Judge
G. Asdala
Ponente:Brion, J.
Topic: NeglectofDuty,OversteppingofAuthority
A.M. No. P-09- Act/scomplainedof
2602December1, 2010
Atty.JonnaM. Escabarte, etal.
vs.Ms.Loida Marcelina
J.Genabe / Ms. Loida
2010CASES
thecharge/s
Thecomplainantclaimedthattheresp Respondentjudgeisguiltyofunduedelayinrenderi JudgeFatimaG.
ondentjudgemadeitappearthatCivil New Code of ngadecision.Section15,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitu AsdalaisherebyfoundGUILTYofundue
CaseNo.Q-97-30576wasdecidedon JudicialConduct(Can tionrequiresjudgestodecideallcaseswithinthree(3 delayinrenderingadecision.Accordingly,s
March22,2005,althoughtherecordss on1, 3) )monthsfromthedateofsubmission.ThisConstit heisFINEDTenThousandPesos(P10,00
howthatshe(respondentjudge)stillrul utionalpolicyisreiteratedinRule 1.02, Canon 1of 0.00),tobedeductedfromtheEightyThou
edonseveral motionsrelating to the Code ofJudicialConductwhichstatesthat sandPesos(P80,000.00)whichtheCourtw
thiscaseevenafterthatdate.Thecompl ajudgeshouldadministerjusticeimpartiallyandwith ithheldpursuanttoitsJanuary 15,
ainantfurtherallegedthattherespond outdelay;andRule3.05,Canon3ofthesameCode 2008Resolution
entjudgeerredindenying hernotice providesthatajudgeshalldisposeofthecourtsbusi
of appeal. nesspromptlyanddecidecaseswithin therequired
TheOfficeoftheCourtAdministrato periods.
r(OCA)requiredtherespondentjudge
tocommentonthe complaint.In
hercomment,therespondentjudgem
aintainedthatshehadrenderedthedec
isionon
March22,2005,althoughitwasmailed
onalaterdate.Evenassumingthatther
ewasdelayinrenderingthedecision,th
edelaywasnotdeliberate.Sheaddedth
atthecomplainantwasnotprejudiced
bythedelayasshecontinuously
received
supportpendentelitefromthedefendant
.
Legalbasis/basesoft SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition
hecharge/s
Theletter- Genabe ought to be disciplined. LoidaMarcelinaJ.Genabe,LegalResearch
petitionofthestaffoftheRTC,Branch Code of AlthoughshehadalreadybeensanctionedbyJudg er,RTC,Branch275,CityofLas Pias,
275,LasPiasCity,istheoffshootofthe ProfessionalRespons eMacedaforneglectofdutywitha30-
order, ibility,A.M. daysuspension
175
 2010CASES

Marcelina J. Genabe vs. datedDecember21, 2006, of No. 03-8-02-SC (fortheNovember29,2006incident), isdeclaredGUILTY of

JudgeBonifacioSanz Maceda, JudgeMacedasuspendingGenabefor
etal 30daysforneglectofduty.
EscabarteandhergroupallegedthatG
Ponente:Brion, J. enabecontinuedtorenderservicedesp
iteher30-
daysuspensionbyJudgeMacedaandt
hejudgesrecommendation,containe
dinhisinvestigation,reportandrecom
mendation(IRRC),datedJanuary18,2
007, submitted totheOfficeof the
CourtAdministrator(OCA),
thatGenabebepreventivelysuspende
dand,thereafter,dismissedfromthese
rvice.
Accordingtothejudge,heissuedtheo
rderafterGenabebecameunrulyandh
ighlycombativeduringthestaffmeeti
nginhischambersonNovember29,20
06,shoutingdisrespectfullytohim,
hindinakokailangankarinyokarinyohinpa
ninyo x x x angkakapalnyox xx
hindikagalanggalang,anddisruptingthe
meeting;Genabesoutburstwasareacti
ontoEscabartesmemorandumdated
November20,2006,citingherfornegl
ectfullyleavingforBaguioCityonNov
ember16,2006,toattendtheconventi
onoflegalresearchers,withoutfinishi
ngherassignedtasktosummarizethest
atementoffactsofacriminalcasesetfo
rpromulgationonNovember21,2006
(CriminalCaseNos.03-0059
wecannotcloseoureyestoherworkethicandquarr
elsomedeportmentinofficeasshownbytheDece
mber27,2006incidentinvolvingherandAgbayani
. Asabundantlydemonstrated
bythestaffoftheRTC,Branch275,LasPiasCity,sh
ehadthehabitofhurlinginvectivesathersuperiors
andco-
employeeswhodispleasedherandwhomshesusp
ectedof havingcausedhersuspension. The
OCAitselffoundtheunsavoryanddefamatoryre
marksGenabethrewatherofficematestohavebee
nmadeinafitofanger,theproductofuncontrolled
rageandpassionateoutburstofemotions,unavoi
dablycreatinganunwholesomeatmospherein
thecourt.Itisno surprise
thenthatthecourtstaffurgedJudgeMacedatoden
yGenabeslateraltransferandtoaskherto
resignandseek employmentelsewhere.
Withoutdoubt,Genabesnegativeattitudeandpe
nchantforusingoffensivelanguagecanonlypreju
dicethebestinterestoftheservice,nottomentiont
hattheyconstituteconductunbecomingacourte
mployee.
ItiswelltoremindGenabethattheconductandbe
haviorofeveryoneconnectedwith
xxxthedispensationofjustice,fromthepresidingj
udgeto thexxx lowliestclerk xxx
mustbecharacterizedwithproprietyanddecorum
,[19]asGenabesattitudegoesagainsttheprinciples
ofpublicservice.Also,everyofficialandemployee
ofanagencyinvolvedintheadministrationofjusti
ce,liketheCourtofAppeals,fromthePresidingJus
ticetothemostjuniorclerk,shouldbe
circumscribedwiththe heavy
conductprejudicial
tothebestinterestoftheserviceandconduc
tunbecomingofacourtemployee;isordere
dto payaFINE equivalent to her one
monthssalary;andisWARNEDthat
asimilarviolationinthefutureshallbedealt
with moreseverely.
JudgeBonifacioSanzMacedaisWARNE
Dagainsta
similarviolationinthefutureofA.M.No.03
-8-02-
SC,andisadvisedtoavoidanyappearanceo
fimproprietyinthehandlingoffinancialass
istancefromthe localgovernment.
Thechargesofdishonestyandfalsification
ofpublicdocumentsin
A.M.OCAIPINo.08-2792-
RTJagainstJonnaM.Escabarte,LeticiaAg
bayani,NellyChavez,JosefinoOrtiz,Claire
Gerero,SoteraJavier,AnaRamosandEdga
rVillarare DISMISSEDforlack ofmerit.

176
 2010CASES

to 03-0063). burdenofresponsibility.
Second.WeagreewiththeOCAobservationstha
twhiletheactofJudgeMacedaindiscipliningGena
bewitha30-
daysuspensionisnotoppressive,capriciousordes
potic,thatis,withoutcoloroflaworreason,orwith
outsupportingfacts, hestillhadnoauthorityto
directlydisciplineherunder thetermsof A.M. No.
03-8-02-SC

177

Topic:Impropriety
A.M. No.RTJ-11- Act/scomplainedof
2270, January
31,2011., Eladio EladioD.Perfecto(complainant),inaComplain
D.Perfectovs. twhichwasreceivedattheOfficeoftheCourtAd
JudgeAlma ministrator(OCA)onMarch5,2010,chargesJu
ConsueloDesales- dgeAlmaConsueloEsidera(respondent),Presi
Esidera dingJudgeoftheRegionalTrialCourt(RTC)ofN
orthernSamar,Branch20,of
Ponente: Carpio- solicitingandreceivingonJanuary6,2010attheP
Morales,J. rosecutorsOfficetheamountofOneThousand
(P1,000.00)frompractitionerAtty.AlbertYrum
a(Atty.Yruma),andthesameamountfromPubli
cProsecutorRosarioDiaz (ProsecutorDiaz),
purportedlytodefrayexpensesforareligiouscel
ebrationandbarangay fiesta.
Complainantalsoquestionstheconductofresp
ondentinSpecialProceedingsNo.C-
360,forCancellationofBirthRegistrationofAlp
haAcibar,inwhichsheissuedaJanuary5,2010Or
derdirectingthethereinpetitionertopublishsaid
Orderinanewspaperofgeneralcirculation,inste
adofintheCatarmanWeeklyTribune(ofwhichco
mplainantisthepublisher),theonlyaccreditedn
ewspaperintheprovince.
Furthermore,complainantchargesresponden
twithactsofimpropriety─scoldingherstaffino
pencourtandtreatinginaninhumanandhostile
mannerpractitionerswhoarenotherfriends.He
addsthatrespondentevenarrogantlytreatspubli
cprosecutorsassignedtohersala,citinginstance
softhischargeinhiscomplaint.
2011CASES
Legal SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition
basis/bases
of RespondentsactofproceedingtotheProsecutorsOfficeu JudgeAlmaConsueloDesales-
thecharge/s ndertheguiseofsolicitingforareligiouscausebetraysnoto Esiderais,forImproprietyandUnbecomin
nlyherlackofmaturityasajudgebutalsoalackofunderstan gConduct,
Code of dingofhervitalroleasanimpartialdispenser ORDEREDtopayafineofTenThousand
JudicialConductf ofjustice,heldinhighesteemandrespectbythelocalcomm Pesos(P10,000.00)andWARNEDthatar
or theJudiciary unity,whichmustbepreservedatalltimes.Itspawnstheim epetitionofthesameorsimilaractshallbede
(Canon4) pressionthatshewasusingherofficetoundulyinfluenceor altwithmore severely.
pressureAtty.Yruma,aprivatelawyerappearingbeforeher
sala,andProsecutorDiazintodonatingmoneythroughher
charismaticgroupforreligiouspurposes.
Tostresshowthelawfrownsuponevenanyappearanceofi
mproprietyinamagistratesactivities,ithasoftenbeenheldt
hatajudgemustbelikeCaesarswife-
abovesuspicionandbeyondreproach.Respondentsactdi
sclosesadeficiencyinprudenceanddiscretionthatamemb
erofthejudiciarymustexerciseintheperformanceofhisoff
icialfunctionsandofhisactivitiesasaprivateindividual.
Itisnevertritetocautionrespondenttobeprudentandcircu
mspectinbothspeechandaction,keepinginmindthatherc
onductinandoutsidethecourtroomisalwaysunderconsta
ntobservation
178
 2011CASES

Topic:GrossMisconduct
A.M. No.MTJ-09- Act/scomplainedof Legal SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition
1734., January basis/bases
19,2011., Florenda InherverifiedComplaint,datedJune6,2007,co of Theaforementionedactsofrespondentconstitutegrossm JudgeManuelQ.Limsiaco,Jr.,formerPresi
V.Tobiasvs.Judge mplainantallegedthatrespondentJudgeLimsia thecharge/s isconduct.Misconductmeansatransgressionofsomeesta dingJudgeoftheFourthMunicipalCircuit
Manuel co,Jr.offerspackagedealsforcasesfiledintheco blishedanddefiniteruleofaction,willfulincharacter,impr TrialCourtofValladolid-SanEnrique-
Q.Limsiaco,Jr.,MC urtwherehepresides.Shestatedthatsometimein New Code operorwrongbehavior. Grosshasbeendefinedasout of Pulupandan,Negros Occidental,
TC, June2006,sherequestedhersister,LornaV.Voll ofJudicial allmeasure, isfoundGUILTYofgro
Valladolid,Negros mer,toinquirefromtheFourthMCTCofVallad Conduct(Canon beyondallowance;flagrant;shameful;suchconductasisno ssmisconductforwhichheisFINEDinthe
Occidental olid-San Enrique- 2,3,4) ttobeexcused. amountofTwenty-
Pulupandan,NegrosOccidentalabouttherequi RespondentsactofpreparingtheMotiontoWithdrawthe fiveThousandPesos(P25,000.00).
Ponente: Peralta, J. rementsneededinfilinganejectmentcase.Court AppearanceofAtty. TheOfficeoftheCourtAdministrator
StenographerSalvacionFegidero[allegedlypro Juanilloascounselofcomplainantisinexcusable. isDIRECTEDtodedu
posedto Vollmerthatforthe Insodoing,respondentexhibitedimproperconductthatta ctthefineofP25,000.00fromtheretiremen
sumofP30,000.00,respondentwouldprovidet rnishedtheintegrityandimpartialityofhiscourt,consideri tbenefitsdueto JudgeLimsiaco,Jr.
helawyer,preparethenecessarypleadings,ande ngthatthesaidmotionwasfiledinhisownsala
nsureafavorabledecisionintheejectmentcasew andwasacteduponbyhim.
hichtheycontemplatedtofileagainstthespouse GrossmisconductconstitutingviolationsoftheCodeofJ
sRaymundoandFranciscaBatalla.Fegideroalle udicialConductisaseriouschargeunderSection8, Rule
gedlyrequiredthemtopaytheinitialamountofP 140of the Rulesof Court.
10,000.00andtheremainingbalancewouldbepa
idinthecourseoftheproceedings.Itwasmadecle
arthattheywouldnotgetanyjudicialrelieffromt
heirsquatterproblemunlesstheyacceptedthepa
ckage deal.
Further,complainantallegedthaton
June23,2006,LornaVollmer,accompaniedbyS
alvacionFegidero,deliveredthe
amountofP10,000.00torespondentathisreside
nce.
Subsequently,anejectmentcasewasfiledinresp
ondentscourt,entitledReynoldV.Tobias,represent
edbyhisAttorneyin-factLornaV. Vollmerv. Spouses

179
 2011CASES

RaymundoBatallaandFranciscaBatalla,docketedas
CivilCaseNo. 06-007-
V. RespondentallegedlyassignedacertainAtty.
]

RobertG.Juanillotorepresentthecomplainanti
ntheejectmentcase.Complainantstatedthatres
pondent,however,immediatelydemandedfora
nadditionalpaymentof
P10,000.00.Sheallegedlyrefusedtogivetheaddi
tionalamountandearnedthe
ireofrespondent.Sheaskedhersister,LornaVoll
mer,torequestAtty.RobertJuanillotovoluntaril
ywithdrawascounsel,whichhedidon
April16,2007.ComplainantalsoaskedVollmert
owithdrawthecase.RespondentgrantedtheMo
tiontoWithdrawasCounselonApril23,2007an
dtheMotiontoWithdrawCaseon May3,2007.

Topic:Impropriety
A.M. No.RTJ-11- Act/scomplainedof
2267., January
19,2011., ThatComplainant,duringthelifetimeofherhus
MansuetaRubinvs. band,FelicianoRubin,whoistheaforesaidJudici
JudgeJose alAdministrator,hadwitnessedandexperience
Aguirre, Jr. dthatherhusbandandtheirfamilywerevictimso
fGraftandCorruption,GraveInjusticeamounti
Ponente:Brion, J. ngtoViolationoftheConstitution,BetrayalofP
ublicTrust,GraveMisconduct,GraveAbuseof
Authority,GrossIgnoranceofLaw,ConductU
nbecomingofaJudgeorJudicialMagistrate,Man
ifestBiasandPartiality,andViolationoftheCode
ofJudicialConduct,onthepartoftheresponden
tJudgecommittedduringthe
Legal SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition
basis/bases
of Under the circumstances, Judge JudgeJoseY.Aguirre,Jr.guiltyofimproprie
thecharge/s Aguirresactwasimproperconsideringthathe ty,inviolationofCanon2oftheCodeofJudi
openedhimself tosuspicionsinhandlingthe case. cialConductandCanon3oftheCanonsofJ
New Code Hisactionalsoraiseddoubtsabouthisimpartialityandabo udicialEthics.Weherebyimposea
ofJudicial uthisintegrityinperforminghisjudicial function. fineofP5,000.00whichshallbedeductedfr
ConductCanon We take note thatthe omtheP50,000.00withheldfromhisretire
2 complainedactwascommittedbefore the New Code mentbenefits.
ofJudicialConduct took effecton June 1, 2004.
Underthe
circumstances, Judge Aguirre isliable
undertheprovisionsofthe Code ofJudicialConductand
theCanons ofJudicial Ethics.]Canon 2ofthe Code
ofJudicial Conductprovidesthat[a]judge
shouldavoidimpropriety andthe appearance of
impropriety inallactivities.Carrying the sameguiding
principle is

180
 2011CASES

conductoftheproceedingsinSpecialProceedin Canon 3of the Canonsof JudicialEthicswhichstates,

gNo.28,IntestateEstateoftheSpousesDioscor [a]judgesofficial conductshould be free fromthe
oRubinandEmperatrizRubin,andinCivilCase appearance of impropriety, andhispersonalbehavior,
No.184,anAnnulmentofAdoptionpendingbef notonly upon thebenchandin theperformance of
orehim, asfollows: judicial duties, butalsoinhiseveryday life, shouldbe
A. TherespondentJudge,bywayofdeviouss beyondreproach
chemesandclevermachinationsextortedmone
yfromtheaforesaidEstatebylendingexpertisein
connivancewithotherlawyerinpursuinganalleg
edclaimagainsttheEstateallegedlyintendedfor
workerswagesasmoneyclaimsagainsttheEstat
e,inalaborcaseentitledConstanciaAmar,et.(sic
)al.versusHaciendaFannyandDioscoroRubin,
RABCaseNos.1092-81andA-593-
81,bothconsolidatedandnumberedas0104-
82,whichwasthenpendinganddecidedbyLabor
ArbiterRicardoT. Octavio;
B. Thattheaforesaidconsolidatedlaborcases
weredecidedandbecamefinalandexecutoryand
thejudgmentwasalreadysatisfiedandpaid
forpersonally
byDioscoroRubinwhenhewasstillaliveinthea
mountofP44,000.00intheformofcheckwhich
wasgiventoAtty.Corral,counselfortheclaiman
ts,throughAtty.RogelioNecessario,counselfor
HaciendaFanny andDioscoroRubinxx x.
C. ThatrespondentJudgeactedwithgraveabus
eofdiscretionandgraveabuseofauthoritybyord
eringtheaforesaidEstatetopayP205,125.00up
onaMotionbasedonanon-
existingfinalorexecutorydecision,whichorder
wasillegalandimproperandwithoutanynoticea
nd/orhearingaccorded

181
 2011CASES

to the
EstatethroughitsthenJudicial[Administrator]
FelicianoRubin
Topic:Grossignoranceofthelaw
A.M. No.RTJ-07- Act/scomplainedof
2062., January
18,2011, MarcosaverredthattheactofJudgePamintuani
ImeldaR.Marcosv nreversing a final
s.JudgeFernando andexecutoryorderconstitutedgrossignorance
VilPamintuan ofthelaw. Inhercomplaint,citingA.M.No.93-
7-696-
PerCuriam 0,shearguedthatfinalandexecutoryjudgments
oflowercourtswerenotreviewableevenby the
SupremeCourt.
JudgePamintuanreversedafinalandexecutoryo
rdernotupontheinstanceofanyofthepartiesin
CivilCaseNo.3383-Rbutmotuproprio.
Heevenfailedtoindicatewhereheobtainedthei
nformationthattheGoldenBuddhasittinginhis
salawasamerereplica.
Marcosclaimedthathisorderwasinconflictwith
Rule36oftheRevisedRulesofCivilProcedurew
hichprovidesthatajudgment
orfinalordershallstateclearlyanddistinctlythefa
ctsandthelawon whichit(hisorder)isbasedxxx.
Legal SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition
basis/bases
of Inthiscase,theCourtfindsJudgePamintuanaccountablef JudgeFernandoVilPamintuanofthe
thecharge/s orgrossignoranceofthelaw. RegionalTrialCourtof
Hecouldhavesimplybeensuspendedandfined,buttheCo BaguioCity,Branch3,isDISMISSEDfro
New Code urtcannottakehispreviousinfractionslightly.Hisviolatio mtheservice. He
ofJudicial nsareseriousincharacter.Havingbeenpreviouslywarned shallforthwithCEA
ConductCanon andpunishedforvariousinfractions,JudgePamintuanno SE andDESIST
1 wdeservestheultimateadministrativepenalty−dismissalf fromperforminganyofficialactorfunction
romservice. appurtenanttohisofficeuponserviceon
himofthisdecision.
TheCourtdoubtsifheevertookseriouslyitspreviouswarn
ingsthatarepetitionofhisoffenseswouldmeritamoreseve
resanctionfromthisCourt.Hisconductinthiscaseandhisp
riorinfractionsaregrosslyprejudicialtothebestinterestoft
heservice.Asshownfromthecitedadministrativecasesfile
dagainstJudgePamintuan,hewasliablenotonlyforgrossig
noranceofthelawbutforotherequallyserioustransgressio
ns.ThisCourtshould,therefore,refrainfrombeinglenient,
whendoingsowouldgivethepublictheimpressionthatinc
ompetenceandrepeatedoffendersare toleratedin the
judiciary.

Topic: GrossIgnoranceoftheLaw,ConductUnbecoming

A.M. No.RTJ-09- Act/scomplainedof Legal SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition

2189, January basis/bases
18,2011, SyallegedinhiscomplaintthatwhileCivilCaseN of Theabovedisclaimernotwithstanding,wefindJudgeDin JudgeOscarE.Dinopol,RegionalTrialCou
VictorianoSy vs. o.1403- thecharge/s opoltohavecommittedaseriousimproprietyinhisorhisfa rt,Branch24,KoronadalCity,isdeclaredG
JudgeOscar 24(inwhichheandhiswifesoughtthedeclaratio milysfinancialorbusinessdealingswithSy. UILTYOFGROSSMISCONDUCT
E. Dinopol, etc. nofnullityoftheforeclosureproceedingsagains New Code and is
tMetrobank) ofJudicial
Conduct

182

PerCuriam waspendingbeforeJudgeDinopolssala,thejudg Canon1, 2, 4
einhibitedhimselffromactingonthecase.
Thisnotwithstanding,andtoSyssurprise,Judge
DinopolstillhandledMisc.CaseNo.1440-
24,apetitionfortheissuanceofawritofpossessio
nfiledbyMetrobank,amattercloselyintertwine
dwithCivilCaseNo.1403-24.
JudgeDinopolthenissuedanordergrantingMet
robanktherighttopossesstheforeclosedproper
ties.
Syfurtherallegedthatdespitetheissuancebythe
RTC,Branch8,MarawiCity,ofastayorderandth
eapprovaloftherehabilitationplan,aswellasthe
pendencyofMetrobankspetitionbeforetheCo
urtofAppeals(CA)Twenty-
ThirdDivisioninCagayanDeOroCity(CAG.R.
SPNo.01824)assailingthevalidityofthestayord
er,JudgeDinopolorderedthatthewritof
possession be implemented.
SyclaimedinrelationwithhischargethatwhileCi
vilCaseNo.1403-
24waspendinginJudgeDinopolssala,
thejudgeaskedhimforcommodityloansinthefo
rmofconstructionmaterials
tobeusedintheconstructionof the
judgeshouse.
Topic:GrossIgnoranceoftheLawandProcedure
A.M. No.RTJ-10- Act/scomplainedof
2255., January
17,2011, Complainantswerethedefendantsinacivilactio
SpousesDemocrit nforPreliminaryInjunction,EasementofRoad
oandOlivia Lago RightofWay,andAttorneysFees,withprayerfor
vs.Judge a TemporaryRestraining
Godofredo
2011CASES
Canon3oftheNewCodeofJudicialConductinrelationto hereby
ajudgesimpartialityprovides,interalia,asfollows: DISMISSEDfromtheservice,withFOR
Sec.2.Judgesshallensurethathisorherconduct,bothinan FEITUREofallbenefits,exceptaccruedle
doutofcourt,maintainsandenhancestheconfidenceofth ave credits, ifany, withprejudicetohisre-
epublic,thelegalprofessionandlitigantsintheimpartiality employmentinanybranchorserviceoftheg
ofthejudgeandthejudiciary. overnment,includinggovernment-
Sec.3.Judgesshall,sofarasisreasonable,soconductthems ownedandcontrolledcorporations.
elvesastominimizetheoccasionsonwhichitwillbenecessa
ryforthemtobedisqualifiedfromhearing ordeciding
cases.
JudgeDinopolviolatedtheaboveprovisionswhenherece
ivedaccommodationsfromSyforthebuildingmaterialshe
neededfortheconstructionofhishouse.
Hecompromisedhispositionasajudge.Althoughatthetim
eheandhisfamilyhadbusinessdealingswithSytherewasno
pendingcaseinvolvingthebusinessman,heshouldhavebe
enmorecircumspectinsecuringtheconstructionmaterial
s.ThesphereofSysbusinessoperationswaswithinhisterrit
orialjurisdiction.AstheOCAaptlynoted,itisneitherimpo
ssiblenorremotethatacasemightbefiledinhiscourtwithc
omplainantasaparty.
Insuchacase,his(respondent)businessandfinancialdeali
ngswithcomplainantwouldcreateadoubtabouthisfairne
ssandimpartialityindecidingthecaseandwouldtendtocor
rodetherespectanddignity ofthe court.
Legal SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition
basis/bases
of The OCA foundrespondentjudge to have Judge Godofredo B.Abul, Jr., of
thecharge/s beengrossly anddeliberately ignorant ofthe law theRegional Trial
andprocedurefor violationofRule 58 of Court,Branch43,Gingoog City,
RulesofCourt, theRulesofCourt, specifically by meansof isfoundliableforGrossIgnorance of
Rule 58 thefollowing acts: (1) theLaw andProcedure,
183
 2011CASES
B. Abul, Jr., Order(TRO),filedonJuly2,2009byChristinaM. when the civilcomplaintwithprayerfor the issuanceof a andisherebymeted a fine
RTC,Br. Obico(Obico)beforetheRTC, Gingoog TROwasfiledonJuly 2, 2009, ofP25,000.00, with a sternwarning thata
43.GingoogCity City,MisamisOriental,anddocketedasCivilCas respondentjudgeassumedjurisdictionthereonand, repetitionof thesame, orany
eNo.2009- withoutthemandatedraffle andnotificationandservice similarinfractionin thefuture,shallbe
Ponente: 905.Theactionwasspawnedbytheallegedthreat ofsummonsto the adverse party, issued a 72- dealtwith moreseverely
Nachura,J. sofcomplainantstoclosetheaccessroadleading hourTROon July 7, 2009; (2)whenrespondentjudge
to set thecase forsummary hearing onJuly 14,
Obicosproperty,wherethelattersmilkfish(bang 2009,purportedly todetermine whether theTROcould
us)farmislocated. beextended for anotherperiod,when the
Obicoclaimedthat,iftheaccessroadleadingtoh hearingshouldbeset within72 hoursfromthe issuance
erpropertywasclosed,shewouldbepreventedfr ofthe TRO; (3)when he eventually
omharvestinghermilkfish,causingmassivefish grantedanextensionofanalready expiredTRO to afull
kills,andleading to heavy 20-dayperiod; and(4)when he issued a writ
financiallossesonherpart.Complainantsassertt ofpreliminaryinjunctioninfavorofObicowithoutpriorn
hatthe otice tohereincomplainantsandwithout
civilcomplaintwasneverraffled,andthatnonoti therequiredhearing.
ceofrafflewaseverserveduponthem,yetthecas We find therecommendationsof the OCA to
ewentdirectlytoBranch43,whererespondentju bewell-taken.
dgeistheactingpresidingjudge.
HeisalsotheactingexecutivejudgeofRTC,
Gingoog
City.ComplainantsclaimthatthisisviolativeofS
ection4(c),Rule58of theRulesof Court.
OnJuly7,2009,respondentjudgeissuedanOrde
rdirectingtheissuanceofaTROeffectivesevent
ytwo(72)hoursfromdateofissue,withoutrequir
ingObicotoputupabond.
Complainantsallegethatatthattime,theyweren
otyetinreceipt
ofthesummonsandcopyofthecomplaint,aswel
lasObicosaffidavitandbond.
ComplainantsclaimthatthisisviolativeofSectio
n4(c)and(d)ofRule58of theRulesof Court.

Topic:Grossmisconduct
A.C. No. Act/scomplainedof Legal SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition
8620.,January 12, basis/basesof
2011,

184

JessieR.DeLeonv OnJanuary2,2006,theGovernmentbroughtsui
s. Atty. Eduardo tforthepurposeofcorrectingthetransfercertific
G. Castelo atesoftitle(TCTs)coveringtwoparcelsoflandlo
catedinMalabonCitythenregisteredinthename
Ponente:Be sofdefendantsSpousesLimHioandDoloresCh
rsamin, J. uduetotheirencroachingonapublic callejon
andonaportionoftheMalabon-
NavotasRivershorelinetotheextent,respective
ly,ofanareaof45squaremetersandofabout600s
quaremeters.Thesuit,entitledRepublicofthePhilip
pines,representedbytheRegionalExecutiveDirector,De
partmentofEnvironmentandNaturalResourcesv.Spou
sesLimHioandDoloresChu,GorgoniaFlores,andtheR
egistrarof Deedsof
MalabonCity,wasdocketedasCivilCaseNo.467
4MNoftheRegionalTrialCourt(RTC),
Branch74, inMalabonCity.
De
Leon,havingjoinedCivilCaseNo.4674MNasav
oluntaryintervenortwoyearslater(April21,200
8),nowaccusestherespondent,thecounselofre
cordofthedefendantsinCivilCaseNo.4674MN
,withtheseriousadministrativeoffensesofdish
onestyandfalsificationwarrantinghisdisbarme
ntorsuspensionasanattorney.Therespondents
sinwasallegedlycommittedbyhisfilingfordefen
dantsSpousesLimHioandDoloresChuofvario
uspleadings(thatis,
answerwithcounterclaimandcross-
claiminrelationtothemaincomplaint;andanswertot
hecomplaintininterventionwithcounterclaimandcross-
claim)despitesaidspousesbeingalreadydecease
dat the time offiling
2011CASES
thecharge/s A lawyersreputation is,indeed,a very fragileobject. Complaint for disbarment
Code The Court, whose officerevery lawyer orsuspensionfiledagainst
ofProfessiona is,mustshieldsuchfragility frommindlessassault Atty.Eduardo
lResponsibilit bythe unscrupulousandthe malicious. It candoso, G.Casteloisdismissedforutterlackofmerit
y(Canon1, 6) firstly, by quickly cuttingdownany patently .
frivolouscomplaintagainsta lawyer; and, secondly,
bydemanding
goodfaithfromwhoeverbringsanyaccusation of
unethicalconduct. ABar
thatisinsulatedfromintimidationandharassmentisenco
uraged to be courageousandfearless,
whichcanthenbestcontribute to the efficientdelivery
andproperadministration of justice.
The complainantinitiatedhiscomplaintpossiblyforthe
sake ofharassing therespondent,either to
vexhimfortaking the
cudgelsforhisclientsinconnectionwithCivil CaseNo.
4674MN, orto geteven for
animaginedwronginrelationto thesubjectmatterof the
pending action, or to
accomplishsomeotherdarkpurpose.The
worthlessnessof theaccusationapparentfromthe
beginning hasimpelledusintoresolving
thecomplaintsoonerthanlater.
185
 2011CASES
Topic:UndueDelayindecidingcases
A.M. No.RTJ-09- Act/scomplainedof Legal SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition
2188., January basis/basesoft
10,2011, JudgeEsterfailedtodecidecaseswithintherequi hecharge/s Sect Onthewhole,wefindJudgePiscoso- JudgeEsterPiscoso-
ProsecutorHilario redperiods,citingCriminalCaseNo.127 ion9, Rule140 Florguiltyofunduedelayinthedispositionof Florisdeclaredliablefordelayinthedisposit
Ronson H.Tilan (Peoplev.JuanitoBaguilat)astheprincipalbasisofits of theRulesof cases.Exceptfor People v.Dimpatan,JudgePiscoso- ionofcases. Accordingly,
vs.JudgeEsterPisco conclusion.Inthiscase,theOCAfaultedJudgePi Court Florfailedtoresolvetheothercaseswithintherequiredperi she
so-Flor,etc. scoso- od,inviolationofthelawandtherules. isFINEDP10,000.00,withasternwarning
Florforusingasjustificationforherinactionthep NolessthantheConstitutionsetsthelimitsonthisall- againstthecommissionofasimilaroffense
Ponente:Brion, J. artiesfailure to submit their importantaspectintheadministrationofjustice.Itmandat inthe future.
respectivememoranda.The OCA esthatlowercourtshave three(3)monthsor ninety
opinedthatthisisnotavalidreasonfornotdecidi (90)dayswithinwhichtodecidecasesormatterssubmitted
ngthecase;if she believedshe wouldnotbe tothemforresolution.
abletodecidethe caseon time,she Also,theCodeofJudicialConductrequiresjudgestodispo
couldhaveaskedthe seoftheCourtsbusinesspromptlyanddecidecaseswithint
Courtforanextensionoftherequiredperiod.Th heprescribedperiod.
eOCAacknowledgedthoughthatJudgePiscoso Itcannotbeoveremphasizedthatjudgesneedtodecidecas
- espromptlyandexpeditiously.Delayinthedispositionofc
Florrequestedforanextensiontodecidethecase ases,itmustagainbestated,isamajorcauseintheerosionof
inhermonthlyreportofcasesandcertificateofse publicfaithandconfidenceinthe justicesystem.
rvice Forthisfundamentalandcompellingreason,judgesarereq
uiredtodecidecasesandresolvemotionswithdispatchwit
hinthereglementaryperiod.
Failuretocomplyconstitutesgrossinefficiency,alapsethat
warrantstheimpositionofadministrativesanctionsagains
t the erring magistrate.

Topic: Gross NeglectofDuty

A.M. No. P-07- Act/scomplainedof Legal SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition
2325., February basis/basesofth
28,2011, Office of Thechargearoseoutofthephysicalinventoryof echarge/s Canon Wefindherliableforsimpleneglectofduty,bearinginmind Atty.RosarioE.Gaspar,BranchClerkofCo
theCourtAdministr cash,propertyandsuretybondsconductedonFe IVoftheCode of ourrulinginLigayaV.Reyesv.MarioPablico,etc.wherewedefi urt,RegionalTrialCourt,Branch2,Balanga
ator vs.Atty. bruary20to25,2006bytheauditteamoftheOffic Conductfor nedsimpleneglectofdutyasthefailureofanemployeetogiv City,Bataan,isFINEDintheamountofOn
RosarioE.Gaspar, eoftheCourtAdministrator(OCA)inBranches CourtPersonnel eproperattentiontoarequiredtaskortodischargeadutydu eThousandPesos(P1,000.00)forsimplene
etc 1,2,3,4and5oftheRTCinBataan.The etocarelessnessorindifference.Asdistinguishedfrom glectofdutyinfailingtoimmediatelyissueth
ewrits

186

Ponente:Brion, J. auditteamfoundthefollowinglapsesinprocedu
recommittedbytherespectiveOfficers-in-
ChargeBranchClerksofCourtandtheBranchCl
erksofCourts(respondents)oftheaudited
RTCbranches:
first,thefailureoftherespondentstocomplywith
A.M.No.04-7-02-
SCregardingthenewguidelinesonthedocumen
taryrequirementsforsuretybailbondapplicatio
ns;andsecond,thefailureoftherespondentstoiss
uethecorrespondingwritsofexecutiononcance
lledorforfeitedbail bonds.
Topic:GrossMisconduct
A.C. No. Act/scomplainedof
5834.,February 22,
2011,Teresita Thecaseoriginatedfromanadministrativecom
D.Santeco vs. plaint[1]filedbyTeresitaD.Santecoagainstresp de
Atty.Luna B. ondentAtty.LunaB.Avance
Avance formishandlingCivilCaseNo.97-
275,anactiontodeclareadeedofabsolutesalenul
PerCuriam landvoidandforreconveyanceanddamages,wh
ichcomplainanthadfiledbeforetheRegionalTri
alCourt(RTC)of MakatiCity.
InanEnBanc
Decision[2]datedDecember11,2003,theCourt
foundrespondentguiltyofgrossmisconductfor
,amongothers,abandoningherclientscauseinb
adfaithandpersistentrefusaltocomplywithlawf
ulordersdirectedatherwithoutanyexplanationf
ordoingso.
Shewasorderedsuspendedfromthepracticeofl
awforaperiodoffiveyears,andwaslikewisedirec
tedtoreturntocomplainant,withinten(10)daysf
romnotice,the amountof
P3,900.00whichcomplainantpaidher
2011CASES
grossneglectofdutywhichischaracterizedbywantofevent ofexecutionofcourtjudgmentsrenderedo
heslightestcare,orbyconsciousindifferencetotheconseq nforfeitedsuretybonds.Sheishereby
uences,orbyflagrantandpalpablebreachofduty,thereisn WARNEDthata
othingintherecordstoshowthatAtty.Gasparwillfullyandi repetitionofthesameorsimilaroffenseshal
ntentionallyomittedtoissuethesubjectwritsofexecution.[ lbedealtwithmore severely.
7]Onthecontrary,shecandidlyadmittedthatheromissions
werecausedby
plainoversight.Shealsoundertookimmediaterectificatio
nincompliancewithourdirectives,therebydemonstrating
hersincerityandlackofmaliceincommittingherlapses.
Legal SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition
basis/basesoft
hecharge/s Co Asanofficerofthecourt,itisalawyersdutytoupholdthedig ATTY.LUNAB.AVANCE is
nityandauthorityofthecourt.Thehighestformof hereby DISBARREDfor
ofProfessional respectforjudicialauthority grossmiscondu
Responsibility isshownbyalawyersobediencetocourtordersandprocess ctandwillfuldisobedienceoflawfulorderso
es.[11] fasuperiorcourt.Hername
Here,respondentsconductevidentlyfellshortofwhatisex isORDERED
pectedofherasanofficerofthecourtassheobviouslyposse STRICKENOFFfromtheRollofAttorn
ssesahabitof defyingthisCourtsorders. eys.
ShewillfullydisobeyedthisCourtwhenshecontinuedherl
awpracticedespitethefive-
yearsuspensionorderagainstherandevenmisrepresented
herselftobeanotherpersoninordertoevadesaidpenalty.T
hereafter,whenshewastwiceorderedtocommentonherc
ontinuedlawpracticewhilestillsuspended,nothingwashe
ardfromherdespitereceiptoftwoResolutionsfromthisC
ourt.Neitherdidshepaythe
P30,000.00fineimposedinthe September29, 2009
Resolution.
WehaveheldthatfailuretocomplywithCourtdirectivesco
nstitutesgrossmisconduct,
187
 2011CASES
forthefilingofapetitionforcertiorariwiththeCo
urtofAppeals(CA),whichsheneverfiled.
Topic:GrossIgnorance oftheLaw
A.M. No.RTJ-11- Act/scomplainedof Legal
2666., February basis/basesofth
15,2011, JosephineJazminesTan(complainant)chargesJ echarge/s Rule
JosephineJazmines udgeSibanahE.Usman(respondent),Presiding 140 ofRulesof
Tan vs.Judge JudgeofBranch28,[2]RegionalTrialCourt,Cat Court
SibanahE.Usman,R balogan,Samar,withabuseofpowerandauthori
TC,Branch29,Catb ty,conductunbecomingajudicialofficer,mental
alogan, Samar dishonesty,gravemisconduct,grossignoranceo
fthelawandknowinglyrenderinganunjustorder
Ponente: ,andbriberyandcorruption,inconnectionwith
CarpioMorales CivilCaseNo. 7681[3]andCriminal Case No.
6536.[4]Itappearsthatcomplainant,togetherwi
thhisco-plaintiffsinthecivilcase/co-
accusedinthecriminalcase,filedaMotionforIn
hibition[5]againstrespondent.Themovantsatt
achedtotheirmotiontheAffidavit[6]of
complainant.
Complainantclaimsthatduringthehearingofth
eMotionforInhibition,respondentbecamever
yemotional,coercedhertotestifywithouttheass
istanceofcounselanddemandedapublicapolog
yfromher;
andthatwhilesherequestedtoreferthemotiont
otheExecutiveJudge,respondentinterrogated
herrelentlesslyfollowingwhichheissuedanOrd
er[7]
ofAugust28,2009findingherguiltyofDirectCo
ntemptandorderedherdetention.
Topic:GrossIgnorance oftheLaw
insubordinationordisrespectwhichmeritsalawyerssuspe
nsion or evendisbarment
SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition
Failuretofollow For grossignorance of the law
basiclegalcommandsasprescribedbylawandtherulesista andprocedure, Judge
ntamounttogrossignoranceofthelaw.Byacceptingtheex SibanahUsmanisFINEDinthe
altedpositionofajudge,respondentoughttohavebeenfa amount
miliarwiththe legal normsandpreceptsaswellasthe ofThirtyThousand(P30,000)Pesos,
proceduralrules.[17] with
Contrarytorespondentsclaim,complainanthasnoremed aWARNINGthat arepetition
yofappeal,astheabove- ofthesameorsimilaractshall
quotedSection2ofRule71shows.Andthepenaltyfordirec bedealtwithmore severely.
tcontemptifimprisonmentisimposedshouldnot,asSecti
on1ofRule71provides,exceed10days.
Asstatedearlier,complainantwasdetainedfor19daysor9d
aysmorethan the limitimposed bythe Rules.
More.Respondentdidnotfixthebond,inviolationofthesa
meSection2ofRule71,whichcomplainantcouldhavepost
edhadshedesiredtochallengetheorder.Andonthesamed
aytheOrderwasissued,respondentorderedtheconfinem
entofcomplainantto the provincial jail.
188

A.M. No.MTJ-08- Act/scomplainedof
1710., February
15,2011, Rene Rene C. Ricablanca
C.Ricablanca (complainant),CourtStenographerIof
vs.Judge theMunicipalTrialCourt(MTC)
HectorB.Barillo ofGuihulngan,NegrosOriental,chargedJudge
HectorBarillo, PresidingJudge ofthe
Ponente: Carpio- Municipal Trial CourtinCities(MTCC),
Morales,J. CanlaonCity, withGrave
JudicialMisconductandGrossIgnorance of
theLaw.Before the filing
ofthecomplaint,respondenthadadministrativ
ely chargedcomplainantforgoingon Absence
WithoutOfficialLeave (AWOL).
It appearsthatwhile
respondentwasstillActing Presiding Judge of
theMTCGuihulngan, he
issuedordersarchiving thefollowing
criminalcasescognizable bytheRegional Trial
Court(RTC)of
Guihulngan,insteadofforwarding themto
the Office ofthe
ProvincialProsecutorforreview
andappropriate action.
By complainantsclaim,
respondentinhibitedhimselffromhearing
CriminalCase No. 2-01-173,People
v.BennyBarillo,but, to take hisplace, he
(respondent)successfully
recommendedanotherjudgewhom he
couldinfluence asinfact the latterarchived the
case.
Still by
complainantsclaim,respondentrefusedto
inhibithimself, inviolationof theCode of
Judicial Conduct, inCivil Case No.04-1-
178,Rural Bank ofGuihulngan, NegrosOriental,
Inc., represented byRenatoMiguelDionaldoGarcia v.
EvangelineRicablanca, et
al., despite the factthat
theplaintiffRuralBanksrepresentative isa
sister of
2011CASES
Legal SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition
basis/basesoft
hecharge/s Rul TheCourtfindsthat,indeed,respondentisliableforgrossi ForGrossIgnoranceoftheLaw,JudgeHect
esofCourt gnorance of the law. orB.BarilloismetedaFINEofThirtyThou
Ajudgeowesittohimselfandhisofficetoknowbasiclegalp sand(P30,000.00)Pesos,tobedeductedfro
rinciplesbyheartandtoharnessthatknowledgecorrectlya mhisretirementbenefits.
ndjustly,failingwhichpublicsconfidence in the
courtsiseroded.
Inissuingtheordersarchivingthefiveabove-
citedcriminalcases,respondentfailedtoconsiderthathew
asacting not asatrialjudgebutaninvestigatingjudge
ofanMTCwhoseactionswerethusgovernedbySection5,
Rule112oftheRulesofCriminalProcedureonpreliminary
investigations.Heoughttohaveknownthatafterconducti
ngpreliminaryinvestigationonthecriminalcases,itwashis
dutyto transmithisresolutionthereonto
theprovincialorcityprosecutorforappropriateaction.His
failuretodosobetraysanutterlackoffamiliaritywith
theRules.
Thecomplaintagainstrespondentisforgrossignoranceo
fthelawinwhichtheactscomplainedofmustnotonlybeco
ntrarytoexistinglawandjurisprudence;itmusthavebeenm
otivatedbybadfaith,fraud,dishonestyorcorruptionthepr
esenceofwhichin the presentcase isnot clear.
Bethatasitmay,suchleewayaffordedajudgedoesnotmea
nthatheshouldnotevinceduecareintheperformanceofhi
sadjudicatoryfunctions.Sanctionsarestillinorderassuchl
apsesinjudgmentcannotbecountenanced.AstheCourtha
srepeatedly
stressed,ajudge,havingappliedforthepositionandappoin
tedassuch,ispresumedtoknowthelaw.Thus,whenthelaw
issoelementary,nottobeawareofitconstitutesgrossignor
anceof the law
189
 2011CASES
respondentswife andrespondentswife
isinfactanemployee ofthe bank;
andthatrespondentrenderedjudgmentbasedo
n acompromise agreement,without
thedefendantbeing assisted bycounsel,
whichcompromise agreementiscontrary
tolaw,morals,public orderandpublic policy.

Topic:Grossmisconduct,IgnoranceoftheLaw

A.M. No.MTJ-09- Act/scomplainedof Legal SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition

1737., February
9,2011, Lydelle Complainantallegedthaton4July2008,acrimin
L.Conquilla vs. alcomplaintfordirectassaultwasfiledagainsthe
JudgeLauro rbeforethe MTCofBocaue,
G.Bernardo, Bulacan.ThecomplaintwassignedbyPoliceChi ConductCanon3,
MTC,Bocaue, efOn8July2008,respondentjudgeconducteda 4
Bulacan preliminaryinvestigationandfoundprobableca
usetoholdthecomplainantfortrialforthecrime
Ponente:LEONA ofdirectassault.Respondentjudgethenissueda
RDO- warrantofarrestdated8July2008,with the bail
DECASTRO,J. fixedatP12,000.
On10July2008,uponmotionofcomplainant,r
espondentjudgeissuedanorderreducingthebail
forcomplainantsprovisionallibertytoP6,000.
Onthesamedate,complainantpostedcashbailo
f P6,000 forherprovisionalliberty.
Complainantthenfiledanadministrativecomp
laint,allegingthatunderA.M.No.05-08-[2]6-
SC,firstlevelcourtjudgesnolongerhavetheauth
oritytoconductpreliminaryinvestigations.Thu
s,complainantaversthatrespondentjudgecom
mittedanillegalactconstitutinggrossignorance
ofthelawandprocedurewhenhe
conductedthe
basis/basesofthe
charge/s New TheCourtfoundrespondentjudgeguiltyofgrossignoranc JudgeLauroG.BernardoGUILTY
Code eof ofgrossignoranceof the
ofJudicial thelawandbasicrulesofprocedureandfinedhimP20,000, lawandSUSPENDhimfromofficeforape
withasternwarningthatarepetitionofthesameorsimilarac riodofsix(6)monthswithoutsalaryandoth
tswouldbedealtwithmoreseverely.15TheCourtfoundno erbenefits,withasternwarningthatarepetit
meritinrespondentjudgessuppositionthatgravecoercion ionofthesameorsimilaractsshall be
isanoffensenotsubjecttopreliminaryinvestigation.TheC dealtwithmoreseverely.
ourt,however,emphasizedthatwhenthecomplaintwasfil
edon3January2006,respondentjudgenolongerhadautho
ritytoconductpreliminaryinvestigationbyvirtueofA.M.
No.05-8-26-
SC.Thus,theCourtheldthatrespondentjudgeshouldhave
referredthecomplainttotheOfficeoftheProvincialProse
cutorinsteadofissuingthesubpoenadirecting
complainantsto appearbeforethe Court.

190
 2011CASES
preliminaryinvestigationandissuedthewarrant
ofarrest.Complainantclaimsthatthehastyissua
nceofthewarrantofarrestwaswithoutlegalbasis
andunjustlyprejudicedcomplainantanddepriv
edherofherliberty.Complainantsubmitsthatre
spondentjudgeusurpedthepoweroftheprosec
utor,whowasnotevengiventhechancetocomm
entoncomplainantsMotiontoReduceBail.Furt
hermore,complainantallegesthatwhenshelear
nedaboutthewarrantofarrest,shecalledrespon
dentjudgeswife,whosaidshewouldhelpinhavin
gthe bailreducedto P6,000.00
andwouldhavethecasefordirectassaultagainst
hereincomplainantdismissedprovidedhereinc
omplainantcancelthewifesdebtofP35,000.00a
ndprovidedthathereincomplainantloanthewif
e anadditionalamountofP50,000.00.

Topic:GrossIgnoranceofthelawandrules

A.M.No.RTJ-11- Act/scomplainedof Legal SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition

2262., February basis/basesoft
9,2011, TheadministrativecomplaintagainstJudgeVict hecharge/s Rul AsregardstheinsistenceofJudgeCanoythatsuchmaybeco JudgeVictorA.CanoyisfoundGUILTYof
Gaudencio orA.Canoy(JudgeCanoy)oftheRegionalTrialC esofCourt nsideredasconstructivebail,thereisnosuchspeciesofbail violationofSupremeCourtrules,directives
B. PantiloIIIvs.Ho ourt(RTC),Branch29inSurigaoCitystemsfrom undertheRules.Despitethenoblestofreasons,theRulesof ,andcirculars. He ismetedthe
n. VictorA.Canoy, acomplaintfiledbyGaudencioPantiloIII(Panti Courtmaynotbeignoredatwillandatrandomtotheprejudi penaltyofaFINE
presidingJudge lo),chargingJudgeCanoywithseveralcountsofg ceoftherights of another. ofeleventhousandpesos(PhP11,000).
RTC, Br. rossignoranceofthelawand/orprocedures,gra He isSTERNLY
29,SurigaoCity veabuseofauthority,andappearanceofimpropr In WARNEDthatarepetitionofsimilaroran
iety(Canon2,CodeofJudicialConduct).Pantilo BPIv.CourtofAppeals,Weunderscoredthatproceduralrules alogousinfractionsinthefutureshall be
Ponente: praysforJudgeCanoysdisbarmentinrelationto havetheirownwholesomerationaleintheorderlyadminist dealtwithmoreseverely.
VelascoJr., J. CriminalCaseNo.8072forRecklessImprudenc rationofjustice.Justicehastobeadministeredaccordingto
eResultingin theRulesinordertoobviatearbitrariness,caprice,or
whimsicality.[17]In

191
 2011CASES
HomicideentitledPeopleofthePhilippinesv.Leonard otherwords,[r]ulesofprocedureareintendedtoensurethe
oLuzon Melgazo. orderlyadministrationofjusticeandtheprotectionofsubs
tantiverightsinjudicialandextrajudicialproceedings.[18]In
thiscase,thereasonofJudgeCanoyishardlypersuasiveeno
ughtodisregardthe Rules.
Fromtheforegoing,theCourtfindsJudgeCanoyguiltyofal
essseriouschargeofviolationofSupremeCourtrules,direc
tivesandcircularsunderSec.9,Rule140forwhichafineofm
orethanPhP10,000butnotexceedingPhP20,000istheim
posablepenaltyunderSec.11(b),Rule140oftheRulesofC
ourt.
AfineofPhP11,000wouldbetheappropriatepenaltyunde
rthecircumstancesofthecase.

Topic:Biasandprejudiceofajudge
A.M. No.MTJ-08- Act/scomplainedof Legal SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition
1714., February basis/basesoft
9,2011, Daniel On July 4, 2007,Daniel G.Sevilla hecharge/s Ne Ascanbeseen,JudgeLindomadeorallowedtoomanyunre JudgeFranciscoS.Lindoguiltyofgravemis
G.Sevilla vs. chargedHon. FranciscoS.Lindo,then the w Code asonablepostponementsthatinevitablydelayedtheproce conduct,and,accordingly,punishhimwith
JudgeFranciscoS.L PresidingJudge ofthe ofJudicial edingsandpreventedthepromptdispositionofCriminalC afineof
indo,Metropolitan MetropolitanTrialCourt(MeTC),Branch55, ConductCanon aseNo.J-L00- P21,000.00,tobedeductedfromhisretirem
TrialCourt, inMalabonCity withdelay in the 1 4260outofmanifestbiasinfavoroftheaccused,tothepreju entbenefits.
Branch55,Malabon dispositionofCriminal CaseNo. J-L00- diceofSevillaasthecomplainantinCriminalCaseNo.J-
City 4260(a prosecutionforviolationof L00-
BatasPambansa Bilang22 [BP22] 4260.Thus,heflagrantlyviolatedtheletterandspiritbotho
Ponente:Be entitledPeople v.NestorLeynes). fRule1.02ofthe CodeofJudicialConduct,
rsamin, J. Sevilla allegedthat he wasthe whichenjoinedalljudgesto administerjustice
privatecomplainantinCriminalCaseNo. J- impartiallyandwithoutdelay;andofCanon6oftheCanonsofJud
L00-4260, whichwasfiledonJune 10, 2003, icialEthics,whichrequiredhimasatrialjudgetobepromptin
andraffledtoBranch55, presided by disposingofallmatterssubmittedtohim,rememberingtha
JudgeLindo; that he testifiedonce in the tjusticedelayedisoftenjustice denied.
case, buthistestimony pertainedonlyto Thathisconductproceededfromhisbiastowardstheaccu
hispersonalcircumstances; thatafter hegave sedrenderedhisactsandomissionsasgrossmisconduct.
suchpartial testimony,Judge Itissettledthatthemisconductisgraveifitinvolvesanyof
Lindoadjournedthe sessionforlack of the additionalelementsof
material time, andpersistentlyresetthe
subsequenthearings

192
 2011CASES

for lack ofmaterial time; thatJudge corruption,willfulintenttoviolatethelaw,ordisregardoflo

Lindosindifference wasdesignedtoforce ng-
himtoaccept the offerof anamicable standingrules,whichmustbeestablishedbysubstantialevi
settlementmade bythe accused; dence;otherwise,themisconductisonly simple.
andthatJudge GrossmisconductconsistinginviolationsoftheCodeofJudi
Lindoscoercionwasmanifestedinopencourta cialConductisaseriouschargeunderSection8of Rule
ndinhischamber by tellinghimin thepresence 140,Rules ofCourt
ofthe accused:Mr.Sevilla, .
anghirapmonamangpakiusapan. Kontingpera
langyan.
Bahala ka maghintay sa wala.

TOPIC:
Inmatterofthe charges ofplagiarism,twisting of citedmaterials,andgross neglect.

Case Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/basesofthec SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition

In matter ofthe
chargesofplagiarism, etc.
againstAssociate
JusticeMarianoC.Del Castillo
A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC.,
February 8,
2011RenatoC.
Corona
An
administrative
disciplinarycasewasfiledagains
tSupremeCourtJusticeMarian
oC.DelRosarioforplagiarismc
hargesontheIsabelitaC.Vinuya
,etal.v.ExecutiveSecretary
decision.Pro
mulgatedonApril282010,theV
inuyaDecisionwasdismissedwi
th13JusticesothisCourtagreein
gto the ruling.
harge/s
ThechargesagainstJusticeDelCast
illoofcopyingwithoutacknowledg
ement
certain
passagesfromthreeforeignarticles
: ver,theCourtconcludedthatthefailuretoattributedidnota
a. AFiduciaryTheoryofJusCoge
nsbyEvanJ.CriddleandEvanFox-
Decent,YaleJournalo
InternationalLaw (2009);
b. BreakingtheSilence:RapeasanI
nternationalCrimebyMarkEllis,C
aseWesternReserveJournalofInte
rnationalLaw(2006); and
InaDecisiondatedOctober12,2010,theCourtresolvedto DISMISSED.
dismisstheplagiarismchargesagainstJusticedelCastillo.Itr
ecognizedthatindeedcertainpassagesoftheforeignlegalar
ticlewereliftedandusedinVintuyaDecisionandthatno
attributionsweremadetotheauthorsinitsfootnotes.Howe
mounttoplagiarismbecausenomaliciousintentattendedt
hefailure;theattributionsweresimplyaccidentallydeletedi
nthecourseofdraftingprocess.Maliciousintentwasdeeme
danessentialelement,asplagiarismisessentiallyaformoffra
udwheretheintentofdeceiveisinherent.CitingtheBlackLa
Dictionarydefinitionofplagiarismthedeliberateandknow
ingpresentationofanotherperson’soriginalideasorcreativ
eexpressionsasone’sownheCourtdeclaredthatplagiarism
presupposesintentand

193

PioAngeliavs.JudgeJesusL.Gra
geda,RegionaltrialCourt,Banch
4, PanaboCity
A.M. No.RTJ-10-
2220.,February 7, 2011
Jose CatralMendoza
AverifiedComplaintfiledonN
ovember7,2008,bycomplaina
ntPioAngelia(Angelia)againstr
espondentJudgeJesusL.Grage
da(JudgeGrageda)oftheRegio
nalTrialCourt,Branch4,Panab
oCity,(RTC),forthedelayinthe
resolutionof
2011CASES
c.EnforcingErgaOmnesObligati
onsbyChristianJ.Tams,Cambridg
eUniversityPress(2005).
TOPIC:
Violation oftheNew Codeof JudicialConduct
Canon1,rule1.02ofNewCodeof
JudicialConduct:Ajudge
shouldadministerjusticeimparti
ally andwithoutdelay.
Canon3,rule3.05ofNewCodeof
JudicialConduct:Ajudgeshould
disposeof the
194
deliberate,consciouseffort
tostealanother’sworkandpassitoffasone‘sown.Infact,the
Courtfoundthatbycitingtheforeignauthorofthepassages
claimedtohavebeenliftedfromtheforeignlawarticles.
AstothechargethatJusticedelCastillotwistedthemeaning
otheworksoftheforeignauthors,theCourtruleditwasimp
ossibleforhimtohavedonesobecausefirst,sincetheattribu
tionstoCriddle-
DescentandElliswereaccidentallydeleted,itisimpossiblef
oranypersonreadingthedecisiontoconnectthesametothe
worksofthoseauthorsastoconcludethatinwritingthedecis
ionJusticedelCastillotwistedtheirintendedmessages.And
,second,theliftedpassagesprovidedmerebackgroundfact
sthatestablishedthestateofinternationallawatvariousstag
esofitsdevelopment.
TheCourt,thus,declaredthatonlyerrorsofjudgestaintedw
ithfraud,corruption,ormalicearesubjectofdisciplinaryact
ionandthesewerenotpresentinJusticedelCastillo’scase;th
efailurewasnotattendedbyanymaliciousintentnottoattrib
utetheliftedpassagesto theforeignauthors.
TheCourtfindsnomeritinJudgeGrageda’sexplanationthatt GUILTYofunduedelayinres
hereasonorthedelayinresolvingthemotionwasthepressuref olvingamotioninviolationof
romequallyurgentmattersnconnectionwiththe800pending Rule1.02,Canon1andRule3.0
casesbeforehissala.Firstly,heisduty- 5,Canon3oftheCodeofJudici
boundtocomplywiththerulesundertheCanonsintheCodeo alConduct.Heisherebyordere
fJudicialConduct,andtheadministrativeguidelineslaiddown dtopayaFINEintheamounto
bythisCourt.Secondly,asthisCourtisnotunmindful o fFIVE THOUSAND
thecircumstancesthatmaydelaythespeedydispositionof

motionsrelativetoCivilCaseN
o.54-2001,entitledPioAngelia
v. ArnoldOghayan.
2011CASES
court’sbusinesspromptlyandde casesassignedtojudges,respondentJudgeGradedashouldha (₱5,000.00)PESOS,to be
cidecaseswithintherequiredperi veseasonablyfled deductedfromhisretirementb
ods. arequestoranextensiontoresolvethesubjectmotion. enefits.Letacopyofthisresolu
Forfailingto do so, hecannotevade administrativeliability. tionbeforwardedtotheOffice
SupremeCourtAdministrativeC ofthe CourtAdministrator.
ircularNo.1-
88datedJanuary26,1988states:6.
1AllpresidingJudgesmustendea
vourtoactpromptlyonallmotion
sandinterlocutorymatterspendi
ngbeforetheircourts.

TOPIC:
Falsification ofOfficialDocumentandDishonesty

VivianT.Dabu,Asst.Provincial Falsification of Section22,Rule132oftheRuleso TheCourtfindsspecioustheallegationofJudgeKapunanthat GUILTYoffalsificationofoff

Prosecutorvs.EduardoRodenE OfficialDocu fCourt,thegenuinenessofhand the"processing"ofcaseswerecommittedbyGaloallbyhersel icialdocumentsanddishonest
.Kapunan,Pres.Judge,Branch5 mentandDishonesty writingmaybeprovedinthefollo f,andthatheconducteda"discreetinvestigation"whenhelear y,the
1andActing judge, Branch52, wing manner: nedofheractivities.JudgeKapunanofferednoplausiblereaso CourtherebyorderstheirDIS
etal. nwhyhefailedtofinishhisinvestigationotherthanthelameex MISSALfromtheservice,wit
[1]byanywitnesswhobelievesitt cusethathestoppedhisinvestigationduetothefilingoftheco hforfeitureofallretirementbe
A.M. No.RTJ-00- obethehandwritingofsuchperso mplaint.Thereasonisclear.Therewasnoinvestigationcondu nefitsandprivileges,exceptac
1600.,February 1, nbecausehehasseenthepersonw cted.AsopinedbytheInvestigatingJustice,12hadtherebeena cruedleavecredits,ifany,with
2011RenatoC. Corona rite;orhehasseenwritingpurport ninvestigation,JudgeKapunanshouldhavecompletedit,fou prejudicetoreemploymentina
ingtobehisuponwhichthewitne ndtheculprit,filed the appropriate charges, nybranchorinstrumentalityof
sshasacted on or beencharged; andclearedhisname. thegovernment,includinggov
ernment-
[2]byacomparison,madebyawit Takingalltheseintoconsideration,itisundeniablethatJudge ownedorcontrolledcorporati
nessorthecourt,withwritingsad Kapunan,GaloandCortezactedtogetherinissuingquestiona ons.
mittedortreatedasgenuinebythe bleordersanddecisionsthroughfalsificationof public
partyagainstwhomtheevidencei documents.
soffered,orprovedtobegenuinet
othe

195
 2011CASES
satisfactionofthejudge.Attheve
ryleast,heshouldpresent
corroborating
witnessestoprovehisassertion.
Atbest,
heshouldpresentanexpertwitne
ss.Asarule,forgerycannotbepres
umedandmustbeprovedbyclear
,positiveandconvincingevidenc
eandtheburdenofproofliesonth
eparty alleging forgery.

Section23,RuleXIVoftheAdmi
nistrativeCodeof1987,dishones
ty,paragraphAandfalsificationp
aragraphF.

Gross Inefficiency,GrossNeglect ofDuty,andSimple Neglectof Duty
Office of the Anadministrativematterorigin
CourtAdministrator vs. atedfromafinancialauditcondu
Atty.Magdalena L. Lometillo, ctedbytheOfficeoftheCourtA
etc.,etal. dministrator(OCA)ontheboo
ksofaccountsoftheOfficeofth
A.M. No. P-09-2637., eClerkCourt,RegionalTrialCo
March29, urt,IloiloCity(OCC),coveringt
2011RenatoC. ransactionsfromNovember19
Corona 93 to February 2004.
TOPIC:
Section22, Rule XIV of
theOmnibusCivil
ServiceRulesandRegulations.
NolessthantheConstitutionmandatesthat"publicoffice isa (1) Atty. Magdalena
public trust." In along line of cases, the L.Lometillo,formerCle
Courthasuntiringlyremindedemployeesinvolvedintheadm rkofCourt,RegionalTrialCou
inistrationofjusticetofaithfullyadheretotheirmandatedduti rt,IloiloCityisherebyfoundG
esandresponsibilities.Whethercommittedbythehighestoffi UILTY of
cialorbythelowestmemberoftheworkforce,anyactofimpro grossinefficiency
prietycanseriouslyerodethepeople’sconfidenceinthejudici and grossneglect
ary.Thus,theCourtdoesnothesitatetocondemnandsanctio of duty.
nsuchimproperconduct,actoromissionofthoseinvolvedint Herretirementbenefits,
headministrationofjusticethatviolatesthenormofpublicacc exceptherterminalleavepay,a
ountabilityanddiminishesortendsto diminish the faith reorderedFORFEITED.Fu
ofthe public intheJudiciary. rther, she
Servicewithloyalty,integrityandefficiencyisrequiredof isDISQUALIFIEDfro
allpublicofficersand mre-
employmentinanybranchor
instrumentalityinthegovern
ment, including

196
 2011CASES

employees,whomust,atalltimes,beaccountabletothepeople government-
. ownedandcontrolledcorpora
Inthiscase,itappearsthatAtty.Lometilloutterlyfailedtoperf tions.
ormherdutieswiththedegreeofdiligenceandcompetenceex (2) CashierIIVictoriaS.Pato
pectedofaclerkofcourt.Theperformanceofone’sdutiesinap paten,AdministrativeOfficer
erfunctorymannerisneverjustifiedespeciallywhenrelianceo ILindaC.Guides,ClerkIIILen
nemployeesoflowerrankprojectsnothingelsebutgrossineffi yGemmaP.Castillo,andClerk
ciencyandincompetence. IIIBrendaM.Linaceroareher
ebyfoundGUILTY
ofSimpleNeglectofDuty.The
y are
orderedSUSPENDEDfro
mofficeforthree(3)months
effective
immediatelyupontheirreceipt
ofthisdecision.They are
likewise
STERNLYWARNEDthat
a
repetitionofthe same
orsimilaroffense shall be
dealtwith moreseverely.
(3) ExecutiveJudgeAnto
nioM.
NatinoisDIRECTEDtoCL
OSELY MONITOR
thefinancialtransactionsofhis
court and
to STUDY
andIMPLEMENT
procedures
thatwouldstrengt
heninternalcontrol over
financialtransacti
TOPIC: ons.
Gross MisconductandDishonesty

197

Ashary M. Alauya, etc.
vs.Judge CasanAli Anadministrativematteragains
L.Limbona,etc. tJudgeCasanAliLimbona,Tent
hShari’aCircuitCourt(10thSC
A.M. No. SCC-98- C),Tamparan,LanaodelSur.Th
4.,March22, ismatteristhesubjectoftheMe
2011RenatoC. morandum/ReportoftheOffi
Corona ceoftheCourtAdministrator(
OCA)datedAugust7, 2000
2011CASES
RulesofCourt,dishonestyandgr
ossmisconductarepunishable
bydismissal
WefindtheOCA’srecommendationtobewell- DISMISSEDfromtheservice
founded.JudgeLimbonacommittedgraveoffenseswhichre effectiveMarch26,1998,thed
nderedhimunfittocontinueasamemberoftheJudiciary.Whe ateofthefilingofhiscertificate
nhewasappointedasajudge,hetookanoathtoupholdthelaw, ofcandidacy,
yetinfilingacertificateofcandidacyasaparty- with
listrepresentativeintheMay1998electionswithoutgivingup FORFEITUREofallaccrued
hisjudicialpost,JudgeLimbonaviolatednotonlythelaw,butt retirementbenefitsandother
heconstitutionalmandatethat"noofficeroremployeeinthec monetaryentitlements,ifany.
ivilserviceshallengagedirectlyorindirectly,inanyelectioneeri HeisBARREDfromre-
ng or partisanpolitical campaign." employmentinthegovernme
InlightofthegravityofJudgeLimbona’sinfractions,wefindO nt,includinggovernment-
CA’srecommendedpenaltyofdismissaltobeappropriate.U ownedandcontrolledcorpora
ndertheRulesofCourt,dishonestyandgrossmisconductare tion.JudgeLimbonais
punishablebydismissal.20WealsoapprovetheOCArecomm DIRECTED TO
endationthatJudgeLimbonabemadetorefundthesalaries/al REFUNDthesalaries,allowa
lowanceshereceivedfromMarch26,1998toNovember30,1 ncesandotherbenefitsherecei
998.Withthisruling,welikewiseresolvethechargeagainstJud vedfromMarch26,1998to
geLimbona— November30,1998,within10
referredtousbytheCourt’sSecondDivisioninitsJune16,200 daysfromthefinalityofthisDe
3ResolutioninA.M.No.SCC-03-08— cision.
thattherespondentjudgecontinuedtoperformjudicialfuncti
onsandtoreceivehissalariesasjudgeafterhehadfiledacertific
ateofcandidacyintheMay 1998 elections.
ThisDecisioniswithoutprejudicetoappropriatecriminaland
civilcasesthatmaybefiledagainstJudgeLimbonafortheactsh
ecommitted.LetacopyofthisDecisionbeservedontheOmb
udsmanforwhateveractionitmay deemappropriate.

MilagrosVillaceran, etal.
vs.Judge MaxwelS. Rosete, An
etc.,etal administrative
complaintforviolationofRepu
blicActNo.3019filed,
TOPIC:
Grave Misconduct
Inthepresentcase,respondentTagubaclearlyviolatedtheab GUILTYofGraveMiscondu
Section2,CanonIoftheCodeofC ovenormsofconductasthecomplainants’allegationsagainst ct.Hisdisabilityretirementbe
onductforCourtPersonnelwhic himstoodcompletelyuncontroverted.RespondentTaguba’ nefitsareherebydeclaredforfe
hmandates sproffered itedas

198

A.M. No.MTJ-08-1727,. onAugust12,2003,bycomplain
ants
March22, Milagros
2011RenatoC. VillaceranandOmarT.Mirand
Corona aagainstrespondentsPresiding
JudgeMaxwelS.RoseteandPro
cessServerEugenioTagubaoft
heMunicipalTrialCourtinCitie
s(MTCC),Branch2,SantiagoCi
ty, Isabela.
2011CASES
that"[c]ourtpersonnelshallnots explanationthatthe₱25,000.00wasapersonalloanfromcom penaltyforhisoffense,inlieuof
olicitoracceptanygift,favororbe plainantVillaceranstrainsbelief;itisalameattempttoexculpat dismissaltheCourtcannolong
nefitbasedonanyorexplicitunde ehimselffromadministrativeliability.Itisextremelydifficultt erimpose.HeislikewiseBAR
rstandingthatsuchgift,favororb obelievethatforapersonalloan,respondentTagubawouldar REDfromre-
enefitshallinfluencetheirofficial rangetomeetcomplainantVillaceranatherlawyer’soffice. employmentinanybranchori
actions." Whatratherappears,giventheprevailingfactsofthiscase,isth nstrumentalityofgovernment
atrespondentTagubaextractedmoneyfromcomplainantVil ,includinggovernment-
Section2(e),Canon III,on laceranforhispersonalgain,inexchangeforthefavorabletrea ownedorcontrolledcorporati
theotherhand,mandatesthat"[c] tmentthathewasperceivedtobecapableofdeliveringbecaus ons.
ourtpersonnelshallnotxxx[s]oli ehewasacourtemployee.
citoracceptanygift,loan,gratuity, RespondentTaguba'sactofcollectingorreceivingmoneyfro
discount,favor,hospitalityorser malitigantconstitutesgravemisconductinoffice.Gravemisc
viceundercircumstancesfromw onductisagraveoffensethatcarriestheextremepenaltyofdis
hichitcouldreasonablybeinferre missalfromtheserviceevenon a firstoffense,
dthatamajorpurposeofthedono pursuanttoSection52,
ristoinfluencethecourtpersonn RuleIVoftheUniformRulesonAdministrativeCasesintheC
elinperformingofficialduties."T ivilService.Dismissalcarrieswithittheforfeitureofretiremen
heactsaddressedarestrictlyprohi tbenefits,exceptaccruedleavecredits,andperpetualdisqualif
bitedtoavoidtheperceptionthat icationfromre-employmentinthegovernmentservice.
courtpersonnelcanbeinfluence
d
toactfororagainstapartyorperso
ninexchange forfavors.

Section52,RuleIVoftheUnifor
m Rules
onAdministrati
veCasesintheCivil Service.

TOPIC:
Grave Abuseof Discretion,andGross Ignoranceof the Law andProcedure
LydiaA.Benancillovs.JudgeVen Inthiscase,therespondentjudgeactedinappropriatelyincalli GUILTYofConductUnbeco
ancio J. Amila AVerified- Canon4 ngthecomplainantandtheintervenorstoameetinginsidehisc mingofa Judge,andFINE
Complaint1datedNovember2 oftheNewCodeofJudicial hambers.Hisexplanationthathecalledthesaidmeetingtoadv him₱21,000.00.
9,2007filedbycomplainantLyd Conduct: icethepartiesthathewill
iaA.

199

A.M. No.RTJ-08-
2149.,March9, 2011
RenatoC. Corona
JocelynDatoonvs.JudgeBethan
yG.Kapili,PresidingJudgeofRe
gionalTrialCourt,Branch24,Ma
asinCity,SouthernLeyte
A.M. No.RTJ-10-
2247.,March2, 2011
Jose CatralMendoza
Benancillo(Lydia)chargingres
pondentJudgeVenancio
J.Amila(JudgeAmila)oftheReg
ionalTrialCourt(RTC),Branch
3,TagbilaranCitywithGraveA
buseofDiscretion,GrossIgnor
anceoftheLawandProcedure,
KnowinglyRenderinganUnjus
tJudgment orOrder.
a ArticleVIII,Section6ofthe1987 CourtisoftheviewthatthechargesagainstJudgeKapiliweren
verifiedComplaint1filedonMar Constitution.
ch17,2009,bycomplainantJoce
lynDatoon(Datoon)
charging theRulesofEvidence
respondentJudgeBethany
G.Kapili
(JudgeKapili),PresidingJudge
ofRegionalTrial
CourtBranch24,MaasinCity(R
TC),withConductUnbecomin
gaMemberoftheJudiciary,and
GrossMisconductamountingt
oViolationoftheCodeofJudici
al Conduct.
2011CASES
SECTION1.Judgesshallavoidi
mproprietyandtheappearanceo
fimproprietyinall of
theiractivities.
SECTION6.Judges,likeanyoth
ercitizen,areentitledtofreedom
ofexpression,belief,association
andassembly,butinexercisingsu
chrights,theyshallalwaysconduc
tthemselvesinsuchamannerasto
preservethedignityofthejudicial
officeandtheimpartialityandind
ependenceof theJudiciary.
TOPIC:
Violation oftheNew Codeof JudicialConduct
Section26,Rule130of
200
rescindhisOctober2,2007Orderisnotacceptable.Whywoul
dajudgegivethepartiesadvancenoticethatheisgoingtoissuea
nOrder,moresorescindhispreviousOrder?Worse,whywou
ldhecallontheintervenorswhomhehadearlierruledasnotha
vinganylegalpersonalityinthiscase?Thisactofrespondentju
dgewouldlogicallycreateanimpressiontocomplainantthatt
hemeetingofthejudgewiththeintervenorshadturnedhisvie
wsaroundtowardsissuinga revocation ofthe October2,
2007 Order.
Itisreprehensibleforajudgetohumiliatealawyer,litigantorwi
tness.Theactbetrayslackofpatience,prudenceandrestraint.
Thus,ajudgemustatalltimesbetemperateinhislanguage.He
mustchoosehiswords,written
orspoken,withutmostcareandsufficientcontrol.Thewisean
djustmanisesteemedforhisdiscernment.Pleasingspeechinc
reaseshispersuasiveness.
Inlightof theevidence submittedinthiscase,the Dismissed.
otsufficientlysubstantiatedbyDatoonwhohastheburdenof
proofinadministrative proceedings.
TheCourtcannothelpbutnoticethatDatoon’stestimonywas
alsorepletewithinconsistencies.Astowherethegunwasatthe
timeJudgeKapilifirstenteredthelaborroom,herComplainta
ndAffidavitstatedthatwhile she "waswaiting to give
birthinthe
laborroomofthehospital,aman,whowasdrunkandholdinga
gunsuddenlybargedintotheroomlookingforoneDr.Lorna
Kapili."Onthe
otherhand,duringhertestimony,shestatedthathewas"carryi
ngagunonhiswaist"whenhefirstenteredthelaborroom.Shef
urthertestifiedthatJudgeKapiliwaslaterholdingagunandpoi
ntingitatherwhenhecamebackintothelabor

AssistantSpecialProsecutorIII
RoherminaJ.Jamsani-
Rodriguezvs.JusticesGregory
S.Ong, etal.
A.M. No. 08-19-SB-
J.,April 12, 2011
RenatoC. Corona
2011CASES
room.
Furthermore,itwashighlyunlikelythathercryingwouldhave
causedJudgeKapilitopullouthisgunandpointitather,consid
eringthatheknewhewasinthelaborroomofthehospitalwher
epregnantpatientswouldbeinlaborandunderstandablyinpai
n.Datoon’stestimonyiscontradictory,inconsistentandcont
rarytohumannature andexperience.
TOPIC:
Simple Misconduct
(a)theJointMotionforReconsi ThevarianceintheresponsibilitiesofrespondentJusticesas Motions for
deration Canon6oftheNewCodeofJudic MembersoftheirDivisioncompelsthedifferentiationofthei Reconsiderations
datedS ial Conduct: rindividualliabilities.JusticeOng,astheChairperson,wasthe are
eptember14,2010filedbyrespo headoftheDivisionundertheInternalRulesoftheSandiganb Denied.
ndentsSandiganbayanAssociat Section6.Judgesshallmaintainor ayan,beingthemostseniorMember,and,assuch,hepossesse
eJusticeGregoryS.Ong(Justice deranddecoruminallproceeding dandwieldedpowersofsupervision,direction,andcontrolov
Ong)andAssociateJusticeJose sbeforethecourtandbepatient,di ertheconductoftheproceedingsoftheDivision.Thiscircum
R.Hernandez gnifiedandcourteousinrelationt stancealoneprovidedsufficientjustificationtotreatJusticeO
(Justice olitigants,witnesses,lawyersand ngdifferentlyfromtheotherrespondents.
Hernandez);and(b)theMotion otherswithwhomthejudgedealsi Moreover,wehavenotedintheDecisionthatintheexerciseof
forReconsideration(oftheHon nanofficialcapacity.Judgesshallr hispowersasChairmanoftheFourthDivision,JusticeOngex
orableCourt’sDecisionDated1 equiresimilarconductoflegalrep udedanunexpectedlydismissiveattitudetowardsthevalidobj
September)datedSeptember1 resentatives,court staff ectionsofthecomplainant,andsteeredhisDivisionintothepa
5,2010ofthecomplainant.ofca andotherssubjecttotheirinfluen thofproceduralirregularity;andwittinglyfailedtoguaranteet
sesthatamountedtogrossabuse ce, directionor control. hatproceedingsoftheDivisionthathechairedcamewithinth
ofjudicialauthorityandgravemi eboundsofsubstantiveandproceduralrules.Tobesure,Justic
sconduct. Section3,Canon5oftheNew eHernandezandJusticePonferradadidnotdirectandcontrol
Code of howtheproceedingsoftheDivisionweretobeconducted.Th
JudicialConductforthePhilippi eirnotbeingresponsibleforthedirectionandcontroloftheru
neJudiciary,mandatesjudgestoc nningoftheDivisionandtheirhavingreliedwithoutmaliceon
arryoutjudicial the Justice Ong’sdirectionandcontrolshould
dutieswithappropriateconsider notbereprovedasmuchasJusticeOng’smisconduct.Hence,t
ationforallpersons,suchasthepa heirresponsibilityandliabilityasMembersofthe
rties,witnesses,lawyers,courtsta
ff,andjudicialcolleagues,withou
t
201

Patricio Gone vs.
Atty.Macario Ga Acomplaintfordisciplinaryacti
ondated23October1989filedb
A.C. No. yPatricioGoneagainstAtty.Ma
7771.,April 6, carioGabeforetheCommissio
2011 nonBarDisciplineoftheIntegr
JosePortugalPerez atedBarofthePhilippines(IBP)
.ThecomplaintwasduetoAtty.
Ga’sfailuretoreconstituteortur
novertherecordsofthecase
inhispossession.
2011CASES
differentiationon Divisionwere properly diminished.
anyirrelevantground,immaterial
totheproperperformanceofsuc
hduties.
TOPIC:
Disciplinary Action
Respondent’sunjustifieddisregardofthelawfulordersofthis FINEDintheamountofFive
Canon18oftheCodeofProfessi CourtandtheIBPisnotonlyirresponsible,butalsoconstitute ThousandPesos(₱5,000.00)a
onalResponsibility: sutterdisrespectfortheJudiciaryandhisfellowlawyers. ndisgivenafinalwarningthata
Hisconductisunbecomingofalawyer,forlawyersareparticul moredrasticpunishmentshall
Rule18.03.Alawyershallnotnegl arlycalledupontoobeyCourtordersandprocessesandareexp beimposeduponhimshouldh
ecta ectedto efailtocomplywiththedirectiv
legalmatterentrustedtohim,and standforemostincomplyingwithCourtdirectivesbeingthem eforhimtoreconstituteandtur
hisnegligenceinconnectionther selvesofficersof the Court. novertherecordsofthecaseto
ewithshallrenderhimliable. Respondentshouldstrivehardertoliveuptohisdutiesofobse complainant.
rvingandmaintainingtherespectduetotheCourts,respectfo
Rule18.04.Alawyershallkeepthe rlawandforlegalprocesses,
clientinformedofthestatusofhis andofupholdingtheintegrityanddignityofthelegalprofessio
caseandshallrespondwithinarea ninordertoperformhisresponsibilitiesasalawyereffectively.
sonabletimetotheclient’sreques
tforinformation.

TOPIC:
Dishonesty,ConductPrejudicialtothe BestInterest of the Service,andViolation ofRepublic ActNo.3019(the Anti-GraftandCorruptPractices Act.)
AnAnonymousComplaintAgai TheCourtagreeswiththeOCAfindingthatbothAtty.Diestaa SUSPENDEDfromtheservi
nstAtty.PortiaDiestaandLuzSa ResolvetheResolutionthecom Section23,RuleXIVoftheOmni ndTaclaareguiltyofthechargesagainstthem.However,theco ceforTHREE(3)monthswith
ntos- plaintagainstAtty.PortiaFlores busRulesImplementingBookV urtdonotagreewiththeOCArecommendationthatAtty.Die outpay,withaSTERNWARN
Tacla,RegionalTrialCourt,Bran - ofExecutiveOrderNo. 292. staandTaclabeonlyreprimandedwithsternwarningthatcom INGthata
ch263, Pasig City Diesta,BranchClerkofCourt,a missionofsimilaractsinthefutureshallbedealtwithmoreseve commissionofthesameorsim
ndLuzSantos- Civil Service Rule XV, Sec. 4. rely.Bothareguiltyoflessgraveoffensesandmustbemetedth ilaractsinthefutureshallbedea
A.M. No. P-05- Tacla,ClerkIII,oftheRegional ecorrespondingpenalties.Atty.Diestaisguilty of simple ltwithmoreseverely.LuzSant
1970.,May 30, 2011 TrialCourt,Branch263(Branch neglect of duty for losing the os-
ArturoD. Brion 263),Pasig City. attendancelogbook,andsheisalsoguiltyofsimplemisconduc Tacla,ClerkIII,RegionalTrial
tforaskingforacommissioner’sfeeandforfailingtohavethep Court,PasigCity,Branch263,i
ublicationofofficialnoticesraffled.Sheshouldbe sSUSPENDEDfromthe
serviceforONE (1)

202

FelicisimaR.Diazvs.JudgeGera
rdoE.Gestopa,Jr.,MunicipalTri
alCourt,Naga,Cebu
A.M. No.MTJ-11-
1786.,June 22, 2011,
DiosdadoM.Peralta
2011CASES
suspendedforthree(3)months.Tacla,whoisguiltyofsimple monthandONE(1)daywitho
misconductfornotfaithfullyaccomplishingherdailytimerec utpay,withaSTERNWARNI
ord,shouldbesuspendedforone(1)month andone (1)day. NGthatacommissionofthesa
meorsimilaractsinthefutures
hallbedealtwithmoreseverely
.
TOPIC:
Gross Ignoranceof the Law
Itisthusveryclearthattheperiodforrenditionofjudgmentsin GUILTYofGrossIgnorance
An Rule on SummaryProcedure: casesfallingundersummaryprocedureis30days.Thisisinkee oftheLawandisherebyFINE
administrative pingwiththespiritoftherulewhichaimstoachieveanexpediti DintheamountofTwenty-
complaintfiledbycomplai SEC.7.Preliminaryconference;app ousandinexpensivedetermination ofthe casesfalling OneThousand
nantFelicisima earanceofparties.- thereunder. Pesos
R.DiazagainstJudgeGerar Notlaterthanthirty(30)daysafterthel Indeed,inFarralesv.Camarista,4theCourtexplainedthatwhi (₱21,000.00),withaSTERN
doE.Gestopa,Jr.,Municip astanswerisfiled,apreliminaryconfer lethelastparagraph of theafore- WARNINGthata
alTrialCourt(MTC),Naga, enceshallbeheld.Therulesonpre- citedprovisionapparentlygivestheCourtdiscretiontorefert repetitionofthesameorsimila
Cebu,forincompetence,gr trialinordinarycasesshallbeapplicabl hecasetotheluponforamicablesettlementalthoughitmayno roffensesinthefutureshallbed
ossignoranceofthelaw,neg etothepreliminaryconferenceunlessi tfallwithintheauthorityofthelupon,thereferralofsaidsubjec ealtwithmore severely.
lectofduty,andconductun nconsistentwith the provisionsof tcivilcasetotheluponissalientlyanunsoundexerciseofdiscre
becomingofajudgerelative thisRule. tion,consideringthatthematterfallsundertheRuleonSumm
toCivilCaseNo.R- aryProcedure.ThereasonisbecausetheRuleonSummaryPr
595entitledFelicisimaRive Thefailureoftheplaintifftoappearint ocedurewaspromulgatedforthepurposeofachieving"anexp
ra- hepreliminaryconferenceshallbeaca editiousandinexpensivedeterminationofcases."Thefacttha
Diazv.SpousesRuel&Dia useforthedismissalofhiscomplaint. tunlawfuldetainercasesfallundersummaryprocedure,speed
naBetitoandIsidroPungko Thedefendantwhoappearsintheabs yresolutionthereofisthusdeemedamatterofpublicpolicy.T
l. enceoftheplaintiffshallbeentitledtoj odootherwisewouldultimatelydefeattheveryessenceofthec
udgmentonhiscounterclaiminaccor reationof theRuleson Summary Procedure.
dancewithSection6hereof.Allcross-
claimsshall be dismissed.
Ifasoledefendantshallfailtoappear,t
heplaintiffshallbeentitledtojudgme
ntinaccordancewithSection6hereof.
ThisRule
203
 2011CASES

shallnotapplywhereoneoftwoormor
edefendantssuedunderacommonca
useofactionwhohadpleadedacomm
ondefenseshallappearattheprelimin
aryconference.

Section 8ofsaidRule readsinfull:

SEC.8.Recordofpreliminaryconfere
nce.-
Withinfive(5)daysaftertheterminati
onofthepreliminaryconference,thec
ourtshallissueanorderstatingthemat
terstakenuptherein,includingbut
not limitedto:

a).....Whetherthepartieshavearrived
atanamicablesettlement,andifso,
the termsthereof;

b).....Thestipulationsoradmissionse
nteredintobytheparties;

c).....Whether,onthebasisoftheplead
ingsandthestipulationsandadmissio
nsmadebytheparties,judgmentmayb
e
renderedwithouttheneedoffurtherp
roceedings,inwhicheventthejudgme
ntshallberenderedwithinthirty(30)d
aysfromissuanceofthe order;

d).....Aclearspecificationofmaterialf
actswhichremain

204
 2011CASES

controverted; and

e).....Suchothermattersintendedtoex
peditethedispositionofthecase.

SEC.10.Renditionofjudgment.-
Withinthirty(30)daysafterreceiptoft
helastaffidavitsandpositionpapers,o
rtheexpirationoftheperiodforfilingt
hesame,the
courtshallrenderjudgment.

However,shouldthecourtfinditnece
ssarytoclarifycertainmaterialfacts,it
may,duringthesaidperiod,issueanor
derspecifyingthematterstobeclarifie
d,andrequirethepartiestosubmitaffi
davitsorotherevidenceonthesaidma
tterswithinten(10)daysfromreceipto
fsaidorder.Judgmentshallberendere
dwithinfifteen(15)daysaftertherecei
ptofthelastclarificatoryaffidavits,ort
heexpirationoftheperiodforfiling
thesame.

Thecourtshallnotresorttotheclarific
atoryproceduretogaintimefortheren
dition ofthejudgment.

Rule 140 of theRulesofCourt.

TOPIC:
Gross Ignoranceof the Law,andGross Misconduct

205

Atty.FacundoT.Bautistavs.Jud
geBlasO.Causapin,Jr.,Regional
TrialCourt,Br.32.Guimba,
Nueva Ecija
A.M. No.RTJ-07-
2044.,June 22, 2011
TeresitaJ.Leonardo-DeCastro
2011CASES
An Rule7,Section5ofthe1997RulesofC
administrative ourtprescribes:
ComplaintfiledbyAtty.Fa
cundoT.Bautista(Atty.Ba SEC.5.Certificationagainstforumsh
utista)againstJudgeBlasO. opping.–
Causapin,Jr.(JudgeCausap Theplaintifforprincipalpartyshallcer
in),PresidingJudgeoftheR tifyunderoathinthecomplaintorothe
egionalTrialCourt(RTC), rinitiatory pleading asserting a
Branch32ofGuimba,Nue claimforrelief,orinasworncertificati
vaEcija,forgrossignoranc onannexedtheretoandsimultaneous
eofthelawandgrossmisco lyfiledtherewith:(a)thathehasnotthe
nduct. retoforecommencedanyactionorfile
danyclaiminvolvingthesameissuesin
anycourt,tribunalorquasi-
judicialagencyand,tothebestofhiskn
owledge,nosuchotheractionorclaim
ispendingtherein;(b)ifthereissuchot
herpendingactionorclaim,acomplet
estatementofthepresentstatusthere
of;and(c)ifheshouldthereafterlearnt
hatthesameorsimilaractionorclaimh
asbeenfiledorispending,heshallrepo
rtthatfactwithinfive(5)daystherefro
mtothecourtwhereinhisaforesaidco
mplaintorinitiatorypleading
hasbeenfiled.
Failuretocomplywiththeforegoingr
equirementsshallnotbecurablebyme
reamendmentofthecomplaintoroth
erinitiatorypleadingbutshallbecause
forthedismissalofthe casewithout
206
Ithasbeensaidthat"expartemotionsarefrequentlypermissib GUILTYofbothgrossignora
leinproceduralmatters,andalsoinsituationsandundercircu nceofthelawandgrossmiscon
mstancesofemergency;andanexceptiontoarulerequiringno ductandisaccordinglyFINE
ticeissometimesmadewherenoticeortheresultingdelaymig Dtheamountof₱20,000.00,t
httendtodefeatthe objectionof the motion." obedeductedfromhisretirem
Consideringthatamotionforextensionoftimemaybeactedu entbenefitsoraccruedleavecr
ponbythecourtexparteorwithouthearing,thenitneednotco edits;andifsuchamountisinsu
ntainanoticeofhearing.Itisequallyunnecessaryforthecourtt fficienttoanswerforthesaidfi
owaituntilmotionday,underRule15,Section736ofthe1997 ne,JudgeCausapinshallpayth
RulesofCourt,toactonamotionforextensionoftime.Theref e balance thereof.
ore,contrarytothefindingoftheOCA,JudgeCausapindidno
tcommitabuseofdiscretioningrantingdefendants’motionsf
orextensionoftimeonthesamedaysaidmotionswerefiledan
devenwhenthesamemotionsdid not contain a notice
ofhearing.
Inconclusion,theCourtfindsJudgeCausapinguiltyof
(1)grossignoranceofthelawfordismissing,withouthearing,t
hecomplaintinCivilCaseNo.1387-Gonthegroundofnon-
compliancewithRule7,Section5ofthe1997RulesofCourton
executionofacertificateofnon-
forumshopping;and(2)grossmisconductforhavingdrinkin
gspreeswith thedefendantsinCivilCaseNo.1387-
GandrequestingAtty.Bautistatowithdrawplaintiffs’motion
todeclaredefendantsindefaultinCivil Case No. 1387-G.
 2011CASES

prejudice,unlessotherwiseprovided,
uponmotionandafterhearing.Thesu
bmissionofafalsecertificationornon
-
compliancewithanyoftheundertakin
gsthereinshallconstituteindirectcon
temptofcourt,withoutprejudicetoth
ecorrespondingadministrativeandcr
iminalactions.Iftheactsofthepartyor
hiscounselclearlyconstitutewillfulan
ddeliberateforumshopping,thesame
shallbegroundforsummarydismissal
withprejudiceandshallconstitutedire
ctcontempt,aswellasacausefor
administrative sanctions.

Rule15ofthe1997RulesofCourt:

SEC.4.Hearingofmotion.–
Exceptformotionswhichthecourtm
ayactuponwithoutprejudicingtherig
htsoftheadverseparty,everywritten
motionshallbesetforhearingbythe
applicant.

Everywrittenmotionrequiredtobeh
eardandthenoticeofthehearingthere
ofshallbeservedinsuchamannerasto
ensureitsreceiptbytheotherpartyatle
astthree(3)daysbeforethedateofhear
ing,unlessthecourtforgoodcauseset
sthehearingonshorter

207

OfficeoftheCourtAdministrato
rvs.JudgeMa.EllenM.Aguilar,R
TC,Br70,BurgosPangasinan
A.M. No.RTJ-07-
2087.,June 7, 2011
TeresitaJ.Leonardo-DeCastro
2011CASES
notice.
SEC.5.Noticeofhearing.–
Thenoticeofhearingshallbeaddresse
dtoallpartiesconcerned,andshallspe
cifythetimeanddateofthehearingwhi
chmustnotbelaterthanten(10)daysaf
terthefiling ofthe motion.
Asprescribedbytheaforequotedpro
visions,amovantshallsethismotionf
orhearing,
unlessitisoneofthosewhichacourtca
nactuponwithoutprejudicing
therightsoftheotherparty.Theprevai
lingdoctrineinthisjurisdictionisthata
motionwithoutanoticeofhearingadd
ressedtothepartiesisamerescrapofpa
per.
Rule140,Section8ofthe1997Rulesof
Court.
TOPIC:
Dishonesty
JudgeAguilar’scaseshouldbedistinguishedfromourpreviou GUILTYofdishonestyandis
From(1)theundatedletter CivilServiceRulesandRegulationsfo srulingsinOfficeoftheCourtAdministratorv.JudgeEstacio SUSPENDEDfromtheservi
ofRamonOna- remploymentinthegovernment. n,Jr.,37Gutierrezv.BelanandRe:Non- ceforsix(6)monthswithoutpa
Ligaya(Ligaya)ofOlongap DisclosurebeforetheJudicialandBarCounciloftheAdminis y,withawarningthatarepetitio
o RuleIV,Section53oftheCivilService trativeCaseFiledAgainstJudgeJaimeV.Quitain39(thelasttw nof
City,addre Rules. ocitedinthereportofInvestigatingJusticeDy- thesameorsimilaractwillbede
ssedtothenChiefJusticeAr LiaccoFlores).InEstacion,therespondentjudgefailedtodisc altwith moreseverely.
temioV.Panganiban,andt Rule140oftheRulesofCourt,ajudgef losehispendingcriminalcasesforhomicideandattemptedho
heJudicialandBarCouncil( oundguiltyofaseriouscharge,suchas micidewhenheappliedtotheJudiciary;whileinBelan,theresp
JBC), dishonesty,maybe ondentjudgefailedtopreviouslydiscloseapendingcriminal
expressing
disappointmentoverthe
208

Atty.Randy P. Barengvs.Judge
Zenaida R. Daguna
A.M. No.RTJ-10-
2246.,June 1, 2011,
ArturoD. Brion
2011CASES
appointmentof subjectedtoanyofthefollowingpenal caseforrecklessimprudenceresultinginseriousphysicalinjur
Ma.EllenAguilar(Aguilar) ties: ies.InQuitain,thepreviousadministrativecasewhichtheresp
asjudgeoftheRegionalTria ondentjudgefailedtodiscloseuponhisapplicationforjudges
lCourt(RTC)ofBurgos,Pa Sec.11.Sanctions.— hipwasoneforgravemisconductforwhichhewasdismissedf
ngasinan,sinceshehadbee A.Iftherespondentisguiltyofaseriou romtheservicewithforfeitureofbenefitspriortohisapplicati
nchargedwithseveralcrimi scharge,anyofthefollowingsanction ontotheJudiciary.Theseriousnessofthecaseorcaseswhichre
nal offenses smay be imposed: spondentjudgesfailedtodiscloseintheir PDS
involving orapplicationsforjudgeship,and the
moral 1. Dismissalfromtheservice,forfeit absenceofmitigatingcircumstances,sufficientlydifferentiat
turpitude;and(2)theIndor ureofallorpartofthebenefitsastheCo eEstacion, Belan, andQuitain, fromtheone atbar.
sementletter2datedDece urtmaydetermine,anddisqualificatio Accordingly,theCourtfindsitappropriatetoimposeasuspen
mber4,2006oftheOfficeof nfrom reinstatement sionofsixmonthswithoutpayinlightoftheabove
theCityLegalOfficerofOl orappointmenttoanypublicoffic discussedextenuatingcircumstances.
ongapoCity,referringtoth e,includinggovernment-
eOfficeoftheCourtAdmin ownedorcontrolledcorporations:Pr
istrator(OCA)forappropri ovided,however,thattheforfeitureof
ateactionthedecisionofthe benefitsshallinnocaseincludeaccrue
DeputyOmbudsmanforL dleave credits;
uzoninOMB-L-A-03-
0718- 2. Suspensionfromofficewithoutsal
G,whichimposeduponAtt aryandotherbenefitsformorethanth
y.Aguilar,formerlyCityLeg ree(3)butnotexceedingsix
alOfficerofOlongapoCity, (6)months; or
afineequivalenttoone
monthsalary. 3. Afineofmorethan₱20,000.00but
not exceeding ₱40,000.00.
TOPIC:
Gross Inefficiency,andUndueDelay inRenderinganOrderandin Transmittingthe Recordsof a Case.
WeagreewiththeOCA’sfindingthatJudgeDagunaisliablefo GUILTYofgrossinefficiency
AComplaint- Rule3.05,Canon3oftheCodeofJudic rgrossinefficiencyforfailingtoadoptasystemof ,andofunduedelayinrenderin
Affidavit1filedbyAtty.Ran ialEthicsandSection15(1) recordmanagementinhercourt. ganorderandintransmittingth
dyP.Bareng,onJuly8,2009, and(2). TheinefficiencyoftherespondentJudgeisapparentinthefoll erecordsofacase.Sheishereby
againstPresidingJudgeZe Article VIIof the owinginstances:(1)Sheacknowledgedthefactthatshehadfir FINEDFifteenThousand
naidaDagunaoftheRegion Constitution.Rule3 of the Codeof stknownofthefilingoftheMotiontoResolvefromthecompl Pesos
alTrialCourt(RTC),Branc Judicial ainanthimselfwhichalsoledtoherknowledgeofthefailureto (₱15,000.00),to be
h19, mailher31July2007
209
 2011CASES

Manila.Atty.Barengaccuse Conductthatprovides: Order;(2)Shelikewiselearnedfirsthand,whenshereceivedac deductedfromtheFiftyThous

dJudgeDagunaofgrossmis opyofthepresentadministrativecomplaint,thather21May2 and
conductandmanifestabus Rule3.08– 008Ordergivingduecoursetothecomplainant’sNoticeofAp Pesos
eoffunctionsofheroffice. Ajudgeshoulddiligentlydischargead pealwasnotreleasedontime;(3)Sheattemptedtoescaperesp (₱50,000.00)withheldfromhe
ministrativeresponsibilities, onsibilityasregardsthefailureofthecourtstaffinmailingthesa rretirementbenefits.
maintain idtwinOrdersbystatingthattheywereresolvedontime.Itisno
professionalcompetenceincourtma tlikewiseclearwhytherespondentJudgedidnotpaymuchatte
nagement,andfacilitatetheperforma ntiontothedesistorderoftheappellatecourt.
nceoftheadministrativefunctionsor Thatjudgesarenotallowedtousetheirstaffasshieldstoevader
otherjudgesandcourtpersonnel.1av esponsibilityformistakesandmishapsinthecourseoftheperf
vphi1 ormanceoftheirduties(HilariovConcepcion,327SCRA96).
Heshouldbethemasterofhisowndomainandtakeresponsibi
Rule3.09– lityforthemistakesofhissubjects(Pantaleonv
Ajudgeshouldorganizeandsupervise Guadiz,Jr.,323SCRA147).Judgesareboundtodisposeofthe
thecourtpersonneltoensurethepro court’sbusinesspromptlyandtodecidecaseswithintherequir
mptandefficientdispatchofbusiness, edperiod(DelaCruzvBersamira,336SCRA253).Delayinthe
andrequireatalltimestheobservance dispositionofevenone(1)caseconstitutesgrossinefficiency
ofhighstandardsofpublic service which theSupreme Courtwillnottolerate.
andfidelity.

Rule140oftheRulesofCourtprovide
s:

SECTION9.LessSeriousCharges.
—Lessseriouschargesinclude:

1.Unduedelayinrenderingadecision
ororder,orintransmittingthe
recordsof acase;

xxx

SECTION11. Sanctions. —

B.Iftherespondentisguiltyofalessser
iouscharge,anyofthefollowingsancti
onsshallbe

210

NationalPowerCorporation,re
presenteditsPresidentCyrilDel An
Callarvs.JudgeSantosB.Adiong,
RegionalTrialCourt,BR.
8,Marawi City
A.M. No.RTJ-07-
2060.,July 27, 2011
MartinS. Villarama Jr.
Atty. Jose Vicente
D.Fernandezvs.Judge An
Angeles
S. Vasquez
A.M. No.RTJ-11-2261.,
2011CASES
imposed:
1. Suspensionfromofficewithoutsal
aryandotherbenefitsfornotlessthan
one(1)normorethanthree
(3)months; or
2. AfineofmorethanP10,000.00but
not exceedingP20,000.00.
TOPIC:
Gross Ignoranceof the Law
JudgeAdiongfailedtoconductapre- GUILTY
Section2,22Rule39oftheRulesof trialconferenceinCivilCaseNo.1918- forgrossign
administrative Court. 03contrarytoelementaryrulesofprocedurewhichheshouldh oranceofthelaw,FINED
complaint1filedbytheNati aveknownalltoowellconsideringhislongyearsofserviceinth inthe amountof
onal Power Section8,Rule140 of ebench.Themandatorycharacterofpre- ₱40,000.00tobedeductedfro
Corporation(NPC)throug theRulesofCourt. trialisembodiedinAdministrativeCircularNo.3- mhisretained/withheldaccru
hitspresidentCyrilC.DelC 99datedJanuary15,1999,andfounditswayinSection2,Rule1 edleave credits.
allar,chargingrespondentJ Section11,Rule140oftheRulesof 8oftheRulesofCourt,whichimposesadutyupontheplaintiff
udgeSantosB.Adiong,Pre Court. topromptlymoveexpartethatthecasebesetforpre-
sidingJudgeoftheRegional trial.Tofurtherimplementthepre-
TrialCourt(RTC),Branch trialguidelines,thisdirectivewasreiteratedinAdministrative
8,MarawiCity,withgrossig MatterNo.03-1-09-
noranceofthelaw,manifes SC25entitled"GuidelinestobeObservedbyTrialCourtJudg
tpartialityandconductunb esandClerksofCourtintheConductofPre-
ecoming amemberof TrialandUseofDeposition-
theJudiciary. DiscoveryMeasures"whichrecognizedtheimportanceofpr
e-trialandthedeposition-
TOPIC: discoverymeasuresasvitalcomponentsofcase
Gross Dishonesty andFalsificationmanagementintrialcourts.
ofanofficialDocument
Inthepresentcase,respondentjudgesimilarlyfailedtodisclos GUILTYof
UnderSection15(1)17ofArticleVIII einhisapplicationtheseriouschargeofindirectbriberyagainst gross
administrative ofthe 1987 Constitution. him.WeruleaswedidinYalungv.JudgeEnriqueM.Pascua,w inefficiencyanddishonesty,re
complaintforgrossdishon herethisCourtfinedandsuspendedrespondentjudgeforsix( spondentJudgeAngeles
esty Canon3,Rule3.0518oftheCodeof 6)monthsforgrossinefficiency anddishonesty. S.Vasquez,RTC,Branch13,Li
andfalsificatio Judicial Conduct. Andsincepetitionerisalreadycompulsorilyretired,he gaoCity,isherebyorderedtopa
nofanofficialdocumentag yaFINEofSIXTY
ainstJudgeAngelesS.Vasq THOUSAND
uez,
211

July 26, 2011,
JosePortugalPerez
2011CASES
RegionalTrialCourt(RTC)
,Branch13,LigaoCity. Section13oftheRevisedRuleonSum
mary Procedure.
Section11,Rule14036oftheRulesof
Court.
RuleIV,Section53oftheCivilService
Rules.
Section52,RuleIVoftheUniformRul
esonAdministrativeCases.
cannolongerservehissuspension;yet,thisCourtcanstillorde (₱60,000.00)PESOStobe
r,inlieuofsuchpenalty,theforfeitureoftheamountequivalen deducted from
ttopetitioner’ssalaryforsixmonthsfromhisretirementbenef hisretirement
its. benefits.
Takingintoaccountrespondent’sforty(40)yearsofserviceint
hegovernment,theOCAsubmitsthatthepenaltyimposableu
ponherissuspension.Considering,however,thatsuspension
cannolongerbeimposedduetorespondent’sretirementonF
ebruary14,2007,WeopttoimposeuponherafineofTwentyT
housandPesos(₱20,000.00).

Atty.ConradoB.Gandez,Jr.vs.j
udgeMariaClaritaC.Tabin,MT
CC,Br.4,BaguioCity
A.M. No.MTJ-09-
1736.,July 25, 2011
DiosdadoPeralta
TOPIC:
Gross MisconductandConduct of UnbecomingJudge
WhileweagreewiththefindingsoftheInvestigatingJudgetha GUILTY of
An Canon4,Section 1 oftheNewCode trespondentJudgecannotbeheldliableforgrossmisconduct IMPROPRIETYandishereb
administrative of Judicial Conduct. andconductunbecomingofajudgeduetolackofevidenceof yREPRIMANDEDandWA
complaint1filedbycompla maliceonthepartofrespondentJudge,we,however,agreewit RNEDthatarepetitionofthes
inant Canon2oftheCodeofJudicialCondu hthefindingsof the OCAthatJudge Tabinisguilty ameorsimilaractshallbedealt
Atty.Conrado ct. ofimpropriety. with moreseverely.
B.Gandeza,Jr.againstJudg WehaverepeatedlyremindedmembersoftheJudiciarytobeir
eMariaClaritaC.Tabin, Section11(C),Rule140of reproachableinconductandtobefreefromanyappearanceof
Presiding theRulesofCourt. improprietyintheirpersonalbehavior,notonlyinthedischarg
Judge, eoftheirofficialduties,butalsointheirdailylife.Fornopositio
MunicipalTrialCourtinCit nexactsagreaterdemandformoralrighteousnessandupright
ies(MTCC),Branch4,Bagu nessofanindividualthanaseatintheJudiciary.Theimperative
ioCity,forGrossMiscondu andsacreddutyofeachandeveryoneintheJudiciaryistomaint
ctandConductUnbecomi ainitsgoodnameandstandingasatempleofjustice.TheCourt
ng a Judge. condemnsandwouldnevercountenanceanyconduct,actoro
missiononthepartofallthoseinvolvedintheadministrationo
fjusticewhichwouldviolatethenormofpublicaccountability
ortendtodiminishthefaithofthepeopleintheJudiciary,
asinthe case atbar.

TOPIC:

212
 2011CASES
Violation ofNotarialLaw,the 2004 Rules onNotarialPractice andthe Code ofProfessionalResponsibility
RizalinaL.Geminavs.Atty.Isidr TheIBPresolution,basedwhollyonCommissionerMaala’sR GUILTYofviolatingtheNota
oS.Madamba Reviewing Canon 1 of the Code eportandRecommendation,totallymissedanddisregardedt rialLaw,the2004RulesonNot
theRe ofProfessionalResponsibi hesubmittedevidenceandtherespondent’stestimonyduring arialPracticeandtheCodeofP
A.C. No. solutionNo.XVIII-2008- lity. thehearingofthecomplaint.TheIBPapparentlyhadtreatedt rofessionalResponsibility,an
6689.,August24, 101datedMarch6,2008oft herespondentwithexceptionalleniency.Inourview,theresp dherebyorderstheREVOCA
2011ArturoD. heBoardofGovernorsofth 2004 Ruleson Notarial Practice. ondent’sageandsicknesscannotbecitedasreasonstodisregar TIONofhisnotarialcommissi
Brion eIntegratedBarofthePhili dtheseriouslapseshecommittedinthe performance on,ifstillexisting.Heisfurther
ppines ofhisdutiesasa lawyerandasa SUSPENDEDindefinitelyfr
(IBP), notarypublic.TheinaccuraciesinhisNotarialRegisterentries omreappointmentasaNotary
dismissingthecomplaintfil andhisfailuretoenterthedocumentsthatheadmittedlynotari Public.Consideringtheseriou
edbyRizalinaL.Gemina(c zedconstitutederelictionofdutyasanotarypublic.Hecannot snessofhisviolations,hedeser
omplainant).Thecomplai escapeliabilitybyputtingtheblameonhissecretary.Thelawye vesdisbarmentfromthepracti
ntchargedAtty.IsidroS.Ma rhimself,notmerelyhissecretary,shouldbeheldaccountablef ceoflawbuttakingintoaccoun
damba(respondent)withd orthesemisdeeds. thisoldageandsickness,theCo
eceit,malpracticeandgross Anotarypublicisempoweredtoperformavarietyofnotariala urt,forhumanitarian
negligence,andprayedfor cts,mostcommonofwhicharetheacknowledgementandaffi reasons,
his rmationofdocumentsorinstruments.Intheperformanceoft herebyordershisSUSPENSI
suspension/disbarment. hesenotarialacts,thenotarypublicmustbemindfulofthesign ONfromthepracticeoflawfor
ificanceofthenotarialsealaffixedondocuments.Thenotarial aperiodof one (1)year.
sealconvertsadocumentfromaprivatetoapublicinstrument,
afterwhichitmaybepresentedasevidencewithoutneedforpr
oofofitsgenuinenessanddueexecution.Thus,notarizations
houldnotbetreatedasanempty,meaninglessorroutinaryact.
Anotarypublicexercisesdutiescallingforcarefulnessandfait
hfulness.Notariesmustinformthemselvesofthefactstheyce
rtifyto;mostimportantly,theyshouldnottakepartor allow
themselvesto be part ofillegal transactions.

JudgeReneB.Baculivs.Atty.Mel
chorA.Battung
TOPIC:
Violation of Rule 11.03,Canon11 ofthe Code ofProfessionalResponsibility
TheCourtnagreeswiththeIBP’sfindingthattherespondentv GUILTYofviolatingRule11.
The resolution1of Canon 11 of the Code iolatedRule11.03,Canon11oftheCodeof 03,Canon11oftheCodeof
theBoard ofGovernorsof ofProfessionalResponsibi ProfessionalResponsibility.Atty.Battung Professional
lity:

213
 2011CASES
A.C. No. theIntegratedBarofthePhi disrespectedJudgeBaculibyshoutingathiminsidethecourtr Responsibility,forwhichheis
8920.,September28, lippines(IBP)findingAtty. Canon11- oomduringcourtproceedingsinthepresenceoflitigantsandt SUSPENDEDfromthepract
2011ArturoD. MelchorBattungliableforv Alawyershallobserveandmaintainth heircounsels,andcourtpersonnel.Therespondentevencam iceoflawforone(1)yeareffecti
Brion iolatingRule11.03,Canon1 erespectduethecourtsandtojudicialo ebacktoharassJudgeBaculi.Thisbehavior, infront ofmany veuponthefinalityofthisDeci
1oftheCodeofProfessiona fficersandshouldinsistonsimilarcon witnesses, cannot be sion.HeisSTERNLYWARN
lResponsibility ductbyothers. allowed.WenotethattherespondentcontinuedtothreatenJu ED
and dgeBaculiandactedinamannerthatclearlyshoweddisrespect thatarepetitionofasimilaroffe
recommendingthathebere Rule11.03- forhispositionevenafterthelatterhadcitedhimforcontempt. nseshallbedealtwithmore
primanded.Thecomplaina Alawyershallabstainfromscandalou Infact,afterinitiallyleavingthecourt,therespondentreturned severely.
ntisJudgeReneB.Baculi,Pr s,offensiveormenacinglanguageorb tothecourtroomanddisruptedtheongoingproceedings.The
esidingJudgeoftheMunici ehaviourbefore the Courts. seactionswerenotonlyagainsttheperson,thepositionandthe
palTrialCourtinCities,Bra statureofJudgeBaculi,butagainstthecourtaswellwhoseproc
nch2,TuguegaraoCity.Th eedingswereopenlyandflagrantlydisrupted,andbroughtto
erespondent,Atty.Battung disrepute bytherespondent.
,isamemberoftheBarwith
postaladdressonAguinald
o
St.,
TuguegaraoCity.

TOPIC:
Gross Ignoranceof the Law
Atty.EmmanuelR.Andamovs.J Complainant’schargeofgrossignoranceofthelawagainstres DISMISSED.
udgeEdwinG.Larida,etal. Anadministrativecaseagai ActNo.3135,asamendedbyactNo.4 pondentsremainsunfoundedandunsubstantiated.Theevid
nstrespondentsJudgeEdw 118,onextrajudicialforeclosureofrea encewhichcomplainantsubmitted,insteadofhelpinghiscau
A.M. No.RTJ-11- inG.Larida,Jr.(JudgeLarid lestatemortgage. Sections6. se,showedthatitwashewhowasstubbornlyremissinhisdutie
2265.,September21, a,Jr.),Clerkof stohisclientandtothecourt,aswell.Theevidencelikewisesho
2011Jose CourtStanlee ActNo.3135,asamendedbyactNo.4 wedthatcontrarytocomplainant’saccusation,respondentsi
CatralMendoza D.Calma(Atty.Calma)and 118,onextrajudicialforeclosureofrea nfactstrictlycompliedwithapplicablelaws,rules,andjurispru
LegalResearcherDianaG. lestatemortgage. Sections7. dencepertainingtoissuanceofwritsofpossessionorallowanc
Cruz(LRRuiz),alloftheRe eofextrajudicialforeclosure.Verily,complainanthas,among
gionalTrialCourt(RTC),B Section47ofRepublicAct(R.A)No. others,unjustlyinconveniencedandmentallytorturedrespo
ranch18,TagaytayCity. 8791. ndentsbydraggingthemintothisunnecessarybattle.Precious
time,energyandexpensewerewastedwhenthesamecouldha
vebeenbeneficiallyusedfor

214
 2011CASES
someotherlawfulpurposebeneficialtotheinterestofpublic
service.
Alawyerisanofficerofthecourts;heis,"likethecourtitself,ani
nstrumentoragencytoadvancetheendsofjustice."Hisdutyis
toupholdthedignityandauthorityofthecourtstowhichheow
esfidelity,"nottopromotedistrustintheadministrationofjust
ice."Faithinthecourtsalawyershouldseektopreserve.For,to
underminethejudicialedifice"isdisastroustothecontinuityo
fgovernmentandtotheattainmentofthelibertiesof
thepeople."
"Alawyerwhofilesanunfoundedcomplaintmustbesanction
edbecause,asanofficerofthecourt,hedoesnotdischargehisd
utybyfilingfrivolouspetitionsthatonlyaddtotheworkloadof
thejudiciary.Suchfilingofbaselesscomplaintsiscontemptuo
usof the courts."

TOPIC:
Disbarment
ValentinC.Mirandavs.Atty.Mac TheCourtnotesthatrespondentdidnotinformcomplainantt SUSPENDEDfromthepract
ario D. Carpio Thisisadisbarmentcaseaga Code of hathewillbetheonetosecuretheowner'sduplicateoftheOCT iceoflawforaperiodofsix(6)m
instAtty.MacarioD.Carpi ProfessionalResponsi fromtheRDandfailedtoimmediatelyinformcomplainantth onths,effectiveuponreceipto
A.C. No. ofiledbyValentin bility: atthetitlewasalreadyinhispossession.Complainant,onApril fthisDecision.Heisorderedto
6281.,September21, C. Miranda. 3,2000,wentto theRDofLasPiñasCityto RETURNtothecomplainant
2011DiosdadoPeral Canon20.Alawyershallchargeonly gettheowner'sduplicateofOCTNo.0- theowner'sduplicateofOCT
ta fairandreasonablefees. 94,onlytobesurprisedthatthesaidtitlehadalreadybeenclaim No.0-
edby,andreleasedto,respondentonMarch29,2000.Alawyer 94immediatelyuponreceiptof
Canon16.Alawyershallholdintrustal mustconducthimself,especiallyinhisdealingswithhisclients thisdecision.HeisWARNED
lmoneysandpropertiesofhisclientth ,withintegrityinamannerthatisbeyondreproach.Hisrelation thatarepetitionofthesameors
atmaycomeintohispossession. shipwithhisclientsshouldbecharacterizedbythehighestdeg imilaractshallbedealtwithmo
reeofgoodfaithandfairness.14Bykeepingsecretwiththeclie reseverely.
Canon16.03.Alawyershalldeliverthe nthisacquisitionofthetitle,
fundsandpropertiesofhisclientwhen respondentwasnotfairinhisdealingwithhisclient.Responde
dueorupondemand. ntcouldhaveeasilyinformedthecomplainantimmediatelyof
hisreceiptoftheowner'sduplicate ofthe
Section37,Rule138oftheRulesof OCTonMarch29,2000,
Court. inordertosavehisclientthetimeandeffortingoingto

215
 2011CASES
theRDto getthe title.
Rule1.01ofCanon1oftheCodeof
Professional Responsibility.

Rule16.03ofCanon16oftheCode of
ProfessionalResponsi
bility,
TOPIC:
Violation ofthe Rule oProcedure forSmallClamsCases and theJudicialConduct
ErnestoZ.Obrevs.JudgeManoli Intheinstantcase,itisnoteworthytomentionthatthepostpon GUILTYofUndueDelayinR
toY.Gumarang,PairingJudge, An Section 22 of the Rule ementswerenotattributedtoanyofthepartiestothecase.The enderinga
MunicipalTrialCourt, Imus, administrative ofProcedureforSmall numerouspostponements,whichinsomeinstanceswereupo DecisionandViolationofthe
Cavite complaint1filedbycompla ClaimsCases. nrespondent'sinitiative,wereuncalledforandunjustified,co RuleofProcedureforSmallCl
inantErnestoZ.Orbe(Orb nsideringthatitwasalreadyestablishedthatalleffortsforamic aimsCases,andisherebyORD
A.M. No.MTJ-11- e)againstJudgeManolitoY. Section 19 of the Rule ablesettlementwerefutile.Thus,thepostponementswerecle EREDtopaya
1792.,September21, Gumarang(respondent),P ofProcedure. arviolation ofthe Rule anddefeat the very essence ofthe fineofFiveThousandPesos(₱
2011DiosdadoPeralta airingJudge,MunicipalTria Rule. 5,000.00)andWARNED
lCourt(MTC),Imus,Cavit Section9 (1),Rule140of Timeandagain,wehaveruledthatwhentherulesofprocedure thatarepetitionof
eforViolationoftheRuleof theRevisedRulesof Court. areclearandunambiguous,leavingnoroomforinterpretatio thesameorsimilaractshallbed
ProcedureforSmallClaims n,allthatisneededtodoistosimplyapplyit.Failuretoapplyele ealtwith moreseverely.
CasesandtheCodeof mentaryrulesofprocedureconstitutesgrossignorance
JudicialConduct. ofthelawandprocedure.
Intheinstantcase,neithergoodfaithnorlackofmalicewillexo
neraterespondent,astherulesviolatedwerebasic
proceduralrules.
Wecannotcountenanceunduedelayinthedispositionofcase
sormotions,especiallynowwhenthereisanall-
outefforttominimizeifnottotallyeradicatetheproblemofco
ngestionlongplaguingourcourts.Therequirementthatcases
bedecidedwithinthereglementaryperiodisdesignedtopreve
ntdelayintheadministrationofjustice.Forobviously,justiced
elayedisjustice denied. Delay inthe dispositionof
caseserodesthefaithandconfidenceofourpeopleinthejudici
ary,lowersitsstandards, andbringsitintodisrepute.

TOPIC:

216
 2011CASES
Gross Negligence,andDerelictionofSwornDuties
Antonio Conlu vs. Inthiscase,Atty.Ireneoshouldbecalledtotaskfortheinterpla GUILTYofinexcusablenegli
Atty.IreneoAredon Acomplaintfordisbarmen Canon18Rule18.03oftheCodeof yofthefollowing:hisinexcusablenegligencethatresultedinth gence,attemptingtomisleadt
ia, Jr. twithaprayerfordamagesi Professional Responsibility. edismissalofAntonio’sappeal,coupledbyhislackofcandorin heappellatecourt,misuseofC
nstitutedbyAntonio notapprisingAntonioofthestatusofhisappealedcase;hisatte ourtprocesses,andwillfuldiso
A.C. No. Conlu Canon18,Rule18.04oftheCodeof mpttomisleadtheCAinavainbidtoevadetheconsequenceof bediencetolawfulordersofthe
4955.,September12, (Antonio)againstAtty.Iren Professional Responsibility. thebelatedfilingofamotionforreconsideration;and,lastbutn Court.He is
2011PresbiteroJ. eoAredonia,Jr.(Atty.Irene otleast,hiscavalierdisregardoftheCourt’sdirectivesprimaril herebySUSPEN
Velasco, Jr. o)ongroundsofgrossnegli Canon1,Rule1.01oftheCodeofProf yissuedtoresolvethechargesbroughtagainsthimbyAntonio. DEDfromthepracticeoflawf
gence essionalResponsibility WedeemitfittingthatAtty. Ireneo be suspendedfrom the oraperiodofone(1)yeareffecti
andde practice of law for veuponhisreceiptofthisResol
relictionof swornduty. Canon10,Rule10.01oftheCodeof aperiodofoneyear,upfromthepenaltyrecommendedbytheI ution,
Professional Responsibility. BPBoardofGovernors.Thisshouldserveasaconstantremin withWARNING
derofhisdutytorespectcourtsofjusticeandtoobservethatde thatarepetitionofthesameors
Canon12,Rule12.03oftheCodeof greeofdiligencerequiredbythepracticeofthelegalprofession imilaractswillbedealtwithmo
Professional Responsibility. .Hisbeingafirstoffenderdictatesto large degree reseverely.LetacopyofthisDe
thisleniency. cisionbefurnishedtheOfficeo
Canon12,Rule12.04oftheCodeof Theprayerfordamagescannotbegranted.Letalonethe ftheBarConfidant,theIntegra
Professional Responsibility. factthatAntoniochosenot tofile tedBarofthePhilippines,anda
hispositionpaperbeforetheIBP- llcourtsthroughoutthe
CBDand,therefore,wasunabletosatisfactorilyprovehisclai country.
mfordamages,aproceedingfordisbarmentorsuspensionisn
otinanysenseacivilaction;itisundertakenandprosecutedfor
publicwelfare.Itdoesnotinvolveprivateinterestandaffords
no redressforprivate grievance.

TOPIC:
Gross Ignoranceof the Law
Atty.TomasOngCabilivs.Judge Thedoctrineofjudicialstabilityornon- GUILTYofGrossIgnorance
RasadG.Balindong,ActingPres. The 1987Constitution,underArticleVIII interferenceintheregularordersorjudgmentsofaco- oftheLawandFINED inthe
Judge,RTC,Br8MarawiCity administrative , Section1, paragraph2. equalcourtisanelementaryprincipleintheadministrationofj amountof
complaint against ustice:nocourtcaninterferebyinjunctionwiththejudgments ₱30,000.00,withasternWAR
A.M. No.RTJ-10- respondent Rule 65 oftheRulesofCourt. orordersofanothercourtofconcurrentjurisdictionhavingth NINGthatarepetitionofthes
2225.,September6, 2011 Acting epowertograntthereliefsoughtbytheinjunction.Therationa amewillbe dealtwithmore
PresidingJudgeRasadG.B A.M.No.01-8-10- lefortheruleisfoundedontheconceptofjurisdiction:acourtt severely.
alindongoftheRegionalTri SCortheAmendmenttoRule140ofth hatacquiresjurisdictionoverthe
alCourt(RTC)ofMarawiCi eRulesofCourt. caseandrendersjudgmentthereinhas
ty,Branch8,for Gross

217
 2011CASES

RenatoC. Corona IgnoranceoftheLaw,Grav jurisdictionoveritsjudgment,totheexclusionofallothercoor

eAbuseofAuthority,Abus dinatecourts,foritsexecutionandoverallitsincidents,andtoc
eofDiscretion, ontrol,infurtheranceofjustice,theconductofministerialoffi
and/orGra cersactinginconnectionwiththisjudgment.
ve Thus,wehaverepeatedlyheldthatacasewhereanexecutionor
Misconduct derhasbeenissuedisconsideredasstillpending, so thatall
PrejudicialtotheInterestof the proceedingson the
theJudicial Service. executionarestillproceedingsinthesuit.Acourtwhichissued
awritofexecutionhastheinherentpower,fortheadvancemen
tofjustice,tocorrecterrorsofitsministerialofficersandtocon
trolitsownprocesses.Toholdotherwise would betodivide
the jurisdiction of
theappropriateforumintheresolutionofincidentsarisingine
xecutionproceedings.Splittingofjurisdictionisobnoxiousto
the orderly administrationof justice.
Jurisprudenceshowsthataviolationofthisrulewarrants the
impositionofadministrativesanctions.

TOPIC:
Violation ofSection7,Republic ActNo. 3019 andSection9,Republic ActNo.6713
Office of the Court Fromtheforegoing,itisimperativethateve GUILTYofviolationofSection7,R.A.No.3019
ofAdministratorvs.Ju An Section 7ofR.A. No.3019. rypublicofficialorgovernmentemployee andSection8,R.A.No.6713andordershimtopay
dgeUyag administrative mustmakeandsubmitacompletedisclosu aFINEofFiveThousandPesos(₱5,000.00)with
P. Usman proceedingstemmedfrom Section8, R.A.No. 6713. reofhisassets,liabilitiesandnetworthinor aSTERNWARNINGthatarepetitionofthesam
aletter- dertosuppressanyquestionableaccumula eorsimilaractwill be dealtwithmore severely.
A.M. No. SCC-08- complaintdatedApril23,2 tionofwealth.5Thisservesasthebasisofth
12,October19, 008 egovernmentandthepeopleinmonitoring
2011,Jose filedbeforetheOfficeofth theincomeandlifestyleofpublicofficialsa
CatralMendoza eOmbudsman,Mindanao, ndemployeesincompliancewiththeconst
requestingforalifestyleche itutionalpolicytoeradicatecorruption,top
ckonrespondentJudgeUy romotetransparencyingovernment,andt
agP.Usman(respondent), oensurethatallgovernmentemployeesan
PresidingJudge,Shari’aCir dofficialsleadjustandmodestlives,6witht
cuitCourt,PagadianCity,in heendinviewof curtailingand
connectionwithhisacquisi
tionofaSportsUtilityVehic
le(SUV)amountingto₱

218
 2011CASES
1,526,000.00. minimizingtheopportunitiesforofficialc
orruptionandmaintainingastandardofho
nestyinthepublicservice.
Inthepresentcase,respondentclearlyviola
tedtheabove-
quotedlawswhenhefailedtofilehisSALN
fortheyears2004-
2008.Hegavenoexplanationeitherwhyhe
failedtofilehisSALNforfive(5)consecuti
veyears.Whileeveryofficeinthegovernme
ntserviceisapublictrust,nopositionexacts
agreaterdemandon
moralrighteousnessanduprightnessofani
ndividualthanaseatintheJudiciary.Hence,
judgesarestrictlymandatedtoabidewithth
elaw,theCodeof
JudicialConductandwithexistingadminis
trativepoliciesinordertomaintainthefaith
ofourpeopleintheadministrationof
justice.

TOPIC:
Violation of Rule 1.01 of Canon1,Canon15,andRule 18.03 of Canon18 oftheCode ofProfessionalResponsibility
NemesioFloranandCaridadFlo Thepracticeoflawisaprivilegebestowedb SUSPENDEDfromthepracticeoflawforsixmo
ranvs.Atty.RoyPruleEdiza An Canon1,Rule1.01oftheCodeofProf ytheStateonthosewhoshowthattheyposs nths,effectiveuponreceiptofthisDecision.Heis
administrativecasea essionalResponsibility. essthelegalqualificationsforit.Lawyersar DIRECTEDtoreturntotheSpousesNemesioa
A.C. No. rose from eexpectedtomaintainatalltimesahighstan ndCaridadFloranthetwo(2)setsofdocumentsth
5325.,October19, anAffidavit/Compl Canon 15 of the Code dardoflegalproficiencyandmorality,inclu athemisledthespousesandSartigaEpaltosign.H
2011AntonioT. aintfiled by ofProfessionalResponsibi dinghonesty,integrityandfairdealing. eisfurtherORDEREDtopaySpousesNemesioa
Carpio spousesNemesio(N lity. Theymustperformtheirfourfolddutytos ndCaridadFloran,within30daysfromreceiptoft
emesio)andCaridad(Carid ociety,thelegalprofession,thecourtsandt hisDecision,theamountof
ad)FloranagainstAtty.Roy Canon18,Rule18.03oftheCodeof heirclients,inaccordancewiththevaluesa ₱125,463.38,withlegalinterestfrom8Septembe
PruleEdiza(Atty.Ediza)fo Professional Responsibility. ndnormsofthelegalprofessionasembodi r2000untilfullypaid.Heiswarnedthatarepetition
runethicalconduct. edintheCodeofProfessionalResponsibili ofthesameorsimilaractsinthefutureshallbedealt
ty. withmore severely.

219
 2011CASES
TheSupremeCourt,asguardianofthelegal
profession,hasultimatedisciplinarypowe
roverattorneys.Thisauthoritytodiscipline
itsmembersisnotonlyaright,butamoralan
dlegalobligationaswell.TheCourtwillnott
oleratesuchactionfromamemberofthele
galprofessionwhodeliberatelyandmalici
ouslydidnotprotecthisclient’sinterests.

TOPIC:
Suspension
RodolfoA.Espinosa,etal.vs.Att ThisCourthasruledthattheextrajudicialdi SUSPENDAtty.JulietaA.Omañafromthepract
y. Julieta A. Omana Acomplaintfordisbarmen Canon1,Rule1.01oftheCodeofProf ssolutionoftheconjugalpartnershipwitho iceoflawforONEYEAR.WeREVOKEAtty.O
tfiledbyRodolfoA.Espino essionalResponsibility. utjudicialapprovalisvoid.TheCourthasal maña’snotarialcommission,ifstillexisting,andS
A.C. No. sa(Espinosa)andMaximo soruledthatanotarypublicshouldnotfacili USPENDherasa notary public for
9081.,October12, A.Glindo(Glindo)against tatethedisintegrationofamarriageandthe TWOYEARS.
2011AntonioT. Atty.JulietaA.Omaña familybyencouragingtheseparationofthe
Carpio (Omaña). spousesandextrajudiciallydissolvingthec
onjugalpartnership,3whichisexactlywhat
Omañadidinthiscase.
TheCourtlikewiseagreewiththeIBP-
CBDthatinpreparingandnotarizingavoid
document,OmañaviolatedRule1.01,Can
on1oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsib
ilitywhichprovidesthat"[a]lawyershallnot
engageinunlawful,dishonest,immoralor
deceitfulconduct."Omañaknewfullywell
thatthe"KasunduanNgPaghihiwalay"ha
snolegaleffectandisagainstpublicpolicy.
Therefore,Omañamaybesuspendedfro
mofficeasanattorneyforbreachoftheethi
csofthelegalprofessionasembodiedin

220
 2011CASES

the of Professional
Code
Responsibility.

TOPIC:Notarization
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINEDOF: LEGAL BASIS: SUPREME CASE DISPOSITION:
Pacita Caalim-Verzonilla v. COURT’SRULING:
Atty.VictorianoPascua
Atty. Pascua He violatedRule 1.02, Canon Atty. Pascua cannotescape Atty. VictorianoPascua
CASE NO.: draftedandnotarizedaninstrumentt 1ofthe Code liabilityfor makinganuntruthful issuspendedfromthe practiceof law
A.C. No. 6655 hatdidnotstatethe true ofProfessionalResponsibility statementin a public document for a period oftwo(2)years.In
considerationof thesaleso asto foranunlawful purpose. addition,
DATE OFPROMULGATION: reduce the Astheseconddeed he hispresentnotarialcommission,
October11, 2011 capitalgainsandothertaxesdue notarizedindicatedanamountmuchl ifany, isrevoked, andhe
onthetransaction. owerthantheactualprice paid forthe isdisqualifiedfromreappointmentas
PONENTE: propertysold,he a notary publicfor a
Villarama, Jr. abettedindeprivingtheGovernment periodoftwo(2)years.He
ofthe right tocollectthe isfurtherwarnedthatany similaractor
correcttaxesdue. Hisactclearly infractioninthe futureshall
violatedRule 1.02,Canon 1of the bedealtwithmore severely.
Code ofProfessionalResponsibility
whichstatesthat alawyershall not
counselorabetactivitiesaimedatdefia
nce of thelaw or atlessening
confidence inthe legal system.
TOPIC:Grossignorance ofthe law
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINEDOF: LEGAL BASIS: SUPREME CASE DISPOSITION:
Atty. FranklinG. Gacal v. COURT’SRULING:
JudgeJaime I.Infante
Judge Infante grantedbail He violatedRule 114, Section It isaxiomatic thatbailcannot The
CASE NO.: totheaccusedwhoischargedwith 7ofthe Rulesof Court, asamended. beallowed to a personchargedwith courtfindsanddeclaresJudgeJaime
A.M. No.RTJ-04-1845 murderwithoutsetting a acapitaloffense, or I.Infante guilty of grossignorance
hearingfor the anoffensepunishable ofthe law and therules;and,
DATE OFPROMULGATION: applicationofbailand withreclusionperpetuaor life accordingly, fine
October5, 2011 heorderedhisrelease imprisonment, without ahearing himintheamountof P20,000.00,
immediatelyafterallowing bail. uponnotice totheProsecution. Any withasternwarning that a
PONENTE: judge whosoallowsbail isguilty of repetitionof theoffense orthe
gross commissionofanotherseriousoffens
e willbe

221
 2011CASES
Bersamin ignorance ofthe law and more severely dealtwith.
therules,andissubject to
appropriateadministrative
sanctions.
TOPIC:Grossignorance ofthe law
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINEDOF: LEGAL BASIS: SUPREME CASE DISPOSITION:
Atty. FranklinG. Gacal v. COURT’SRULING:
JudgeJaime I.Infante
Judge Infante grantedbail He violatedRule 114, Section It isaxiomatic thatbailcannot The
CASE NO.: totheaccusedwhoischargedwith 7ofthe Rulesof Court, asamended. beallowed to a personchargedwith courtfindsanddeclaresJudgeJaime
A.M. No.RTJ-04-1845 murderwithoutsetting a acapitaloffense, or I.Infante guilty of grossignorance
hearingfor the anoffensepunishable ofthe law and therules;and,
DATE OFPROMULGATION: applicationofbailand withreclusionperpetuaor life accordingly, fine
October5, 2011 heorderedhisrelease imprisonment, without ahearing himintheamountof P20,000.00,
immediatelyafterallowing bail. uponnotice totheProsecution. Any withasternwarning that a
PONENTE: judge whosoallowsbail isguilty of repetitionof theoffense orthe
Bersamin grossignorance ofthe law and commissionofanotherseriousoffens
therules,andissubject to e willbemore severely dealtwith.
appropriateadministrative
sanctions.
TOPIC:Grave misconduct
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINEDOF: LEGAL BASIS: SUPREME CASE DISPOSITION:
Tomasp.Tan,Jr. v. Atty. Haide COURT’SRULING:
V.Gumba
Atty. Gumba deceived TheCPRCanonsandRulesshevio Here, Atty.Haide B.Vista-
CASE NO.: Tanintolending money toher. She latedare: respondent’sactionsclearlyshow Gumbaisfoundadministrativelyliable
A.C. No. 9000 offeredassecurity a landcovered that she forgravemisconduct.Sheissuspende
byaTCTunderherfather’sname Canon 7 deceivedcomplainantintolendingm dfromthepracticeoflawforsix(6)mon
DATE OFPROMULGATION: witha SpecialPower of oney toherthroughthe ths,effectiveimmediately,withawarni
October5, 2011 Attorney(SPA)which she falsely Rule 1.01, Canon 1 useofdocumentsandfalse ngthatarepetitionof
misrepresentedasauthorizinghertos representationsandtaking advantage thesameorasimilaractwillbedealtwith
PONENTE: elltheproperty andshe hadledhim of moreseverely.
Villarama, Jr. tobelieve that he hereducationandcomplainant’signo
couldregistertheopendeed ofsale ranceinlegalmatters.
ifshe failsto paythe loan. Asmanifestedbycomplainant, he
wouldhave nevergranted the loanto
respondentwere it
notforrespondent’smisrepresentati
onthat shewasauthorized tosell
theproperty and

222
 2011CASES
ifrespondenthad notledhim
tobelieve that he
couldregistertheopendeed ofsale
ifshe failsto paythe loan.
Byhermisdeed,respondenthaserode
dnot
onlycomplainant’sperceptionofthel
egalprofessionbutthe
public’sperceptionaswell.
Heractionsconstitute
TOPIC:Unauthorizedpractice of law grossmisconductforwhich she may
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINEDOF: LEGAL BASIS: be disciplined.
SUPREME CASE DISPOSITION:
Atty. Edita Noe- COURT’SRULING:
Lacsamanav.Atty.
YolandoBusmente Dela Rosa,whoisnot a memberof Atty. Busmente violatedCanon The lawyer’sduty to prevent, or The CourtsuspendsAtty. Yolando
theBar, 9of the Code atthe very leastnot to F. Busmentefrom
CASE NO.: misrepresentedherselfasBusmente ofProfessionalResponsibility assistin,theunauthorizedpractice of thepracticeoflaw for sixmonths.
A.C. No. 7269 ’scollaboratingcounsel in a civil lawisfoundedonpublic
case withtheassistance of Atty. interestandpolicy. Public policy
DATE OFPROMULGATION: Busmente. requiresthatthe practice of law
November23, 2011 belimited tothose
individualsfounddulyqualifiedinedu
cationandcharacter. The permissive
PONENTE: rightconferredon the
Carpio lawyerisanindividual
andlimitedprivilegesubject to
withdrawal ifhe
failstomaintainproperstandardsofm
oralandprofessionalconduct.The
purpose istoprotectthepublic, the
court, the client,andthe barfromthe
incompetence ordishonesty
ofthose unlicensed topractice law
and notsubjectto thedisciplinary
controlof the
Court.Itdevolvesupona lawyer to
see thatthispurpose isattained.
Thus, thecanonsandethicsof the

223
 2011CASES
professionenjoinhimnot
topermithisprofessionalservicesorh
isname to be usedinaidof, or
tomake possible the
unauthorizedpractice of law by,
any agency,personalor corporate.
And,thelaw makesit a
misbehavioron hispart, subject to
disciplinary action,to aid a
laymanin theunauthorizedpractice
TOPIC:Client’sfunds of law.
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINEDOF: LEGAL BASIS: SUPREME CASE DISPOSITION:
Teresita Bayonla v. COURT’SRULING:
Atty.PuritaReyes
Atty. Reyesfailed to deliverto She violatedRule 16.01 BynotdeliveringBayonla’ssharede The
CASE NO.: herclient the amount she collected andRule16.03, Canon16 of the spite herdemand, CourtfindsandpronouncesAtty.
A.C. No. 4808 forherdespite CodeofProfessionalResponsibilit Atty.Reyesviolated the Purita A. Reyesguiltyofviolating
demandfromtheclient. y aforestatedcanons.The money Rule 16.01 andRule
DATE OFPROMULGATION: collected by Atty. 16.03 of Canon16 of
November22, 2011 Reyesasthe lawyer ofBayonla theCodeofProfessionalResponsibil
wasunquestionably money ity, andsuspendsherfromthe
PONENTE: heldintrusttobe immediately practice oflaw for a period
Bersamin turnedover to the client. The oftwoyearseffective uponreceipt
unjustifiedwithholdingof money ofthisDecision, withwarning
belongingto the thatasimilaroffense by herwillbe
clientwarrantstheimpositionofdisci dealtwith moreseverely.
plinarysanctionsonthe lawyer.
Hisfailureto immediately
accountfor and todeliver the
money upondemandwasdeceit, for
itsignifiedthat shehadconvertedthe
money toherownuse, inviolationof
TOPIC:Conflict of interest the trustBayonla hadreposedinher.
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINEDOF: LEGAL BASIS: SUPREME CASE DISPOSITION:
Lydia Castro-Justov. COURT’SRULING:
Atty.RodolfoGaling
Atty Galing advisedJustoand He violatedRule 15.03, Canon15 The prohibitionagainst The Courtresolved tosuspend

224
 2011CASES
CASE NO.: drafted a of the Code representing conflicting Atty. RodolfoT. Galingfrom
A.C. No. 6174 demandletterforheragainstMs. ofProfessionalResponsibilit interestisfoundedonprinciplesofpu thepractice of law for one
KowhichAtty.Galinglater on y. blicpolicy andgoodtaste. In (1)year,with a warning thata
DATE OFPROMULGATION: representedincourt. thecourse of the lawyer- repetition
November16, 2011 clientrelationship, the ofthesameorsimilaroffensewillwar
lawyerlearnsofthe rant a more severe penalty
PONENTE: factsconnectedwiththeclient’scase,
Perez includingtheweakandstrong points
ofthe case. Thenature ofthe
relationship is,therefore,
oneoftrustandconfidence ofthe
highestdegree.It
behooveslawyersnotonlytokeepinvi
olate the clientsconfidence, butalso
to avoid theappearance of
treachery anddouble-dealing
foronlythencanlitigantsbe
encouraged to
entrusttheirsecretstotheirlawyers,w
hichisofparamountimportancein
TOPIC:Lawyer’scompetence anddiligence theadministrationof justice.
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINEDOF: LEGAL BASIS: SUPREME CASE DISPOSITION:
Rogelio F. Estavillov. COURT’SRULING:
Atty.GemmoGuillermo
Atty. He violatedCanon18 andRule Rule 18.03 ofthe Code The courtadoptedthe
CASE NO.: GuillermoandAtty.Labayogfailed 18.03 of the Codeof ofProfessionalResponsibility IBP’sresolutionthatrespondents
A.C. No. 6899 to file ananswerfortheirclientwithin ProfessionalResponsibility enjoinsa lawyer not to neglect a besuspendedfromthe
theperiodfixed bythe Rulesof legalmatterentrusted tohim, practiceoflaw for three
DATE OFPROMULGATION: Court. andhisnegligence (3)monthsforviolation ofRule
November16, 2011 inconnectiontherewithshall 18.03of theCode of
renderhimliable. Every casea ProfessionalResponsibility.
PONENTE: lawyeracceptsdeserveshis
Brion fullattention,skillandcompetence,re
gardlessof itsimportance
andwhether he acceptsitfor a fee
orforfree. He mustconstantly
keepinmindthathisactionsoromissi
onsornonfeasance would

225
 2011CASES
be binding uponhisclient.Thus,he
isexpected tobe acquaintedwith the
rudimentsoflaw andlegalprocedure,
and a
clientwhodealswithhimhastherightt
oexpectnot just a
goodamountofprofessionallearning
andcompetence butalso a whole-
heartedfealty tothe clientscause.
TOPIC:Client’sfunds
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINEDOF: LEGAL BASIS: SUPREME CASE DISPOSITION:
MaritessFreemanv. Atty. COURT’SRULING:
ZenaidaReyes
Atty. Reyesobtainedmoney She violatedCanon16 ofthe Codeof The Courtruledthat Atty. Zenaida P.
CASE NO.: fromherclientwithoutrenderingpr ProfessionalResponsibility andRule therelationbetweenattorney Reyesisfoundguilty of
A.C. No. 6246 operlegalservicestoassistherinsecu 16.03 thereof. andclient ishighly fiduciary grossmisconductandDISBARRED
ring visa applicationsandshe innature. Beingsuch, from the practice oflaw.
DATE OFPROMULGATION: appropriatedthe proceedsofthe itrequiresutmostgoodfaith,loyalty, Lethername bestricken
November15, 2011 insurance fidelity, anddisinterestednesson offtheRollof Attorneys.
policiesofherclient’sdeceasedhusb thepartof theattorney. Itsfiduciary ThisDecisionisimmediately
PONENTE: and. natureisintendedfor executory.RespondentisORDERE
PerCuriam theprotectionof theclient. The Dto turnover to
CanonofProfessionalEthicsprovide complainantMaritesE.Freeman the
sthat proceedsof theinsurance
thelawyershouldrefrainfromany policiesremittedtoherby
actionwhereby LincolnFinancialGroup,in
forhispersonalbenefit orgain, he theamountof10,489.57,
abusesortakesadvantageof the andEagleStarLife Assurance
confidence reposedinhimby CompanyLimited, 471.06, orinthe
hisclient.Money of theclientor totalamountof10,960.63,
collectedfor the whichisapproximately
client,orothertrustproperty coming equivalenttoP700,000.00,
intothepossessionof the lawyer, pursuantto theprevailing exchange
should rate atthetime of the
bereportedandaccountedforprompt subjecttransaction.
ly andshouldnot,underany
circumstances,be
commingledwithhisown orbe
usedby him.
Consequently, a lawyer'sfailure
toreturnupondemand thefundsor
226

TOPIC:Inexcusable ignorance of the law
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINEDOF:
Office of the CourtAdministrator
v. Atty. Daniel B.Liangco
Judge
CASE NO.: LiangcoacteduponthePetitionforD
A.C. No. 5355 eclaratoryRelieffiled bythe
SangguniangBayan
DATE OFPROMULGATION: ofSanLuis,Pampanga, without
December13, 2011 themandatory notice to
Gozunwhowould be affected
PONENTE: bythe action.The judge,
Percuriam uponreceiptofthePetition,haditdoc
ketedinhiscourt,
designatedGozunasrespondentinth
e case title,andquickly disposed
ofthe matter byissuing
aResolutionall on thesame day that
thePetitionwasfiledwithoutnotice
andhearing.He
maintainedcloserelationswiththe
municipal vice-mayor
ofSanLuis,Pampanga, a party-
litigantwhohadanobviousinterestin
theoutcome ofthe case.
2011CASES
property held by himon behalf
ofhisclientgivesrise to
thepresumptionthat
hehasappropriated thesame
forhisownuseto the prejudice of,
andinviolation ofthe
trustreposedinhimby,
hisclient.Itisagrossviolation
ofgeneral moralityaswell asof
professional ethics; itimpairsthe
public confidence inthe
legalprofessionanddeservespunish
ment.
LEGAL BASIS: SUPREME CASE DISPOSITION:
COURT’SRULING:
He violatedCanon1, Contrary toCanon 1of theCodeof The
andCanon10, Rule 10.03 of the Professional CourtresolvestoDISBARAtty.
Code Responsibility,respondentmalevole Daniel
ofProfessionalResponsibility. ntly violatedthe basic B.Liangcoforthefollowing
constitutionalrightofGozunnot to offenses:
be deprivedof arightorproperty GROSSMISCONDUCTin
withoutdueprocessof law. Also, violation ofCanon1, Sections4and
underCanon10, Rule 10.03, 5of the New Code
respondentaslawyerismandatedtoo ofJudicialConductfor
bserve theRulesofProcedure thePhilippineJudiciary
andnottomisuse themtodefeatthe INEXCUSABLE IGNORANCE
endsofjustice. Inthiscase, however, OFTHE LAW
theopposite inviolationofCanons1
happened.Respondentrecklessly and10,Rule 10.03ofthe Code
used the powers of thecourt ofProfessionalResponsibility.
toinflictinjustice. Asjudgeof a first-
level court,respondentisexpected to
know that hehasnojurisdiction to
entertain a petitionfor declaratory
relief.Moreover,
heispresumedtoknow
thatinhiscapacity asjudge, he
cannotrender
227
 2011CASES
a legalopinionin theabsenceof
ajusticiable question. Displaying
anutterlack offamiliarity
withtherules, he
ineffecterodesthepublic’sconfiden
ce in thecompetence of ourcourts.
Moreover, he
demonstrateshisignorance ofthe
powerandresponsibility
thatattachto
theprocessesandissuancesofa
judge,andthat he asamemberofthe
TOPIC:Preponderance ofEvidence barshouldknow.
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINEDOF: LEGAL BASIS: SUPREME CASE DISPOSITION:
SiaoAba etal. v. Atty. Salvador COURT’SRULING:
deGuzman, Jr.etal.
Complainantsallegedthatresponde None The Courthasconsistently The Courtaffirmthe Decision
CASE NO.: ntspersuadedthemtofile anillegal heldthatinsuspensionor ofthe Board
A.C.No. 7649 recruitmentcaseagainstcertainpers disbarmentproceedingsagainstlawy ofGovernorsoftheIntegratedBar
onsformoneyandwhenthey had a ers,thelawyerenjoysthe of thePhilippines,adopting
DATE OFPROMULGATION: changeofheart, the respondents presumption ofinnocence, and the theReportandRecommendationof
December14, 2011 instigatedandfiledfabricatedcrimin burdenofproofrestsuponthe theInvestigating
alcomplaintsagainstthem. complainantto provethe Commissioner,anddismissthe
PONENTE: allegationsinhiscomplaint.The chargesagainstAttys.WenceslaoPee
Carpio evidence wee
requiredinsuspensionordisbarment TrinidadandAndresitoFornierforut
proceedingsispreponderance terlackofmerit. We reverse the
ofevidence. In case the evidence Decision ofthe Board
ofthe partiesare equally balanced, ofGovernorsoftheIntegratedBar
theequipoisedoctrinemandatesadeci of thePhilippines,modifying
sioninfavorof andincreasingthepenalty in
therespondent.Complainants failed theReportandRecommendationof
tosubstantiate theInvestigating
theirchargesagainstrespondentsTrin Commissioner,andaccordingly
idadandFornier.The DISMISS the chargesagainstAtty.
Courtreversesthe Decision SalvadorP.DeGuzman, Jr. alsofor
oftheBoardof Governorsand utterlackofmerit.
theReportandRecommendation
ofthe Investigating Commissioner

228

TOPIC:Grossmisconduct
CASE TITLE:
Espina &Madarang Co.
&MakarAgricultural Commercial
&DevelopmentCorp. v.
Hon.Cader
P.Indar
CASE NO.:
A.M. No.RTJ-07-2069
DATE OFPROMULGATION:
December14, 2011
PONENTE:
Leonardo-De Castro
ACTSCOMPLAINEDOF:
Judge Indargrantedanex
partepetitionforthe issuance of
awritof possession torevive
anorderwhichhasbeendeclarednull
andvoidand set aside
bytheCourtofAppealsandaffirmed
bytheSupreme Court.
2011CASES
LEGAL BASIS:
He violatedCanon 3of theCodeof
Judicial Conduct, particularlythe
followingRules3.01, 3.02,
3.08, and3.09.
regarding De Guzmansliability
forthe followingreasons:
(a)thedocumentssubmittedbycompl
ainantsinsupportoftheircomplaintar
e notcredible; (b)complainants
didnotappearinanyof the
mandatory
conferenceproceedingsto
substantiate
theallegationsintheircomplaint; and
(c)complainantswere
notabletoprove by
preponderance ofevidence that
De
Guzmancommunicatedwiththem
for thepurpose offiling
fabricatedillegalrecruitmentcharge
sforpurposesof
SUPREME extortion. CASE DISPOSITION:
COURT’SRULING:
Here, respondentJudgeIndarfailed The
to conformwiththe CourtfindsrespondentJudgeCader
highstandardsofcompetence P. IndarAl Haj GUILTY
anddiligence required ofgrossmisconductforcommittingv
ofjudgesunderCanon 3of the Code iolationsof the Code
ofJudicialConduct. Inthe ofJudicialConduct,
instantcase,respondentJudge andisFINEDtheamountofTwenty-
Indarfailed toexertdue diligence FiveThousand(P25,000.00)pesos.
requiredof himto ascertainthe He islikewiseWARNEDthat a
factsofthe casebefore he came repetitionof
outwiththe OrderdatedFebruary theforegoingorsimilartransgression
14, 2005.Had hetakentime sshall be dealtwithmoreseverely.
andefforttoreadandexamine the
pleadingsandtherecordsofthe case,
he couldhaveknownthatthe
OrderdatedDecember7, 1983
wasalreadynullifiedandset aside
bytheCourt

229
2011CASES

of Appeals.

230

TOPIC:Simple misconduct
CASE TITLE:
Aida R. Campos, etal. v.
JudgeEliseo M. Campos
CASE NO.:
A.M. No.MTJ-10-1761
DATE OFPROMULGATION:
February 8, 2012
PONENTE:
Carpio
TOPIC:Grossignorance ofthe law
CASE TITLE:
SpousesDemocritoandOliviaL
agov. Judge
GodofredoB.Abdul, Jr.
CASE NO.:
A.M. No.RTJ-10-2255
DATE OFPROMULGATION:
January 17, 2011
PONENTE:
ACTSCOMPLAINEDOF:
Judge Camposcaused
theregistrationof the
landinthename of
hisminorson.Hemanipulated the
transactioninsuch a way that the
title
endedwithhissondespitehisson’slac
kof legalcapacity to enterinto
thetransactionasthere wasa
pendingcase againsthimandhe
wasafraidthatif he losesthe case,
theproperty would be
takenfromhim.
ACTSCOMPLAINEDOF:
Judge Abdul failedto raffle
thecomplainant’scase andfailed
tocause the
notificationandserviceof
summonstocomplainantsafterhe
issuedthe 72-
hourTROagainstthem. He
extendedthe 72-hourTRO,
whichhadalready andobviously
expired, intoa full20-day TRO
2012CASES
LEGAL BASIS:
He violatedSection 9 inrelation
toSection11(B),Rule 140
oftheRulesofCourt.
LEGAL BASIS:
He violatedRule 58,
Section5ofthe Rulesof Court
231
SUPREME
COURT’SRULING:
Simple
misconductisatransgressionofsome
establishedrule of action,
anunlawfulbehavior, ornegligence
committedbya public officer.
Inthiscase,respondentknew
atthattime ofthe registrationof the
propertythat he had a pending case
andthat he couldpossibly lose
thecase. In order
tomanipulatethesituationandtaking
advantage ofhisknowledge of the
law,respondentcausedthe
registrationof the property
inAlistairsnamewith the
intentionofdefrauding apossible
judgment-
obligee.Clearly,itwasanimproperbe
haviorwhichwarrantsa
disciplinarysanction bythisCourt.
SUPREME
COURT’SRULING:
Rule 58,
asamended,mandatesafullandcomp
rehensive hearing forthe
determinationof the proprietyof
the issuance of a writofpreliminary
injunction,separatefromthe
summary hearing for
theextensionof the 72-
hourTRO.The preliminary
injunctionprayedfor bythe
applicantcanonlybe
CASE DISPOSITION:
The CourtfindsrespondentEliseo
M. CamposGUILTY
ofsimplemisconductandFINE
himTwenty
ThousandPesos(P20,000)to be
deductedfromwhateverbenefits,
ifany, thathe isstillentitled to
afterhisresignationfromthe
judiciary.If there
isnone,respondentisORDEREDto
paydirectly the fineofP20,000.
CASE DISPOSITION
Atty. JoselitoM. Silvosa
isherebyDISBARREDandhisnam
eORDEREDSTRICKENfrom
theRollof Attorneys. Let acopyof
thisDecision be furnished tothe
Office of the Bar Confidant, tobe
appended
torespondent’spersonalrecordasatt
orney.
 2012CASES

Nachura Also, he ordered the issuance of heardafterthe

awrit ofpreliminary trialcourthasorderedthe issuance of
injunctionwithoutthe theusual20-day TRO.
requiredhearingandwithoutpriorn Withinthatperiodof20 days, the
otice courtshall order theparty soughtto
tothedefendants,hereincomplaina be enjoinedtoshow cause at
nts. aspecifiedtime andplace why the
injunctionshouldnot be granted.
During thatsameperiod, the
courtshallalsodetermine
thepropriety ofgranting
thepreliminary
injunctionandthenissue the
correspondingordertothateffect. In
the case ofrespondentjudge, he
gravely failedto comply withwhat
therulerequires, i.e., togive
complainantsthe opportunity to
commentorobject, through a full-
blownhearing, to the
writofinjunctionprayed for.Instead,
respondentjudge railroaded the
entire processby treating
thesummary hearingfor the
extension oftheTROasthe very
same hearing required forthe
issuance of the writofpreliminary
injunction. Verily, theabsence of
the hearing required bythe Rulesof
Courtisdownrightreprehensible
and, thus,should not be
countenanced. Therequirementof a
hearing is
sofundamentalthatfailureto
complywithitnotonly amounts
togrossignorance
ofrulesandprocedure,butalsoto
anoutrightdenialofdue
processtothe party deniedsuch a
hearing. Undoubtedly, the

232

TOPIC:Grossmisconduct
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINEDOF:
Corazon T.Nevada v.
Atty.Rodolfo D.Casuga
Atty. Casuga
CASE NO.: representedhimselfasa duly-
A.C. No. 7591 authorizedrepresentativeof
Nevada wheninfact hewasnot. He
DATE OFPROMULGATION: also tookpossessionofthe
March20, 2012 valuablespurportedly with
theobligationofsellingthemand
PONENTE: toremitany proceedstoNevada.
Velasco, Jr. However, despite
repeateddemandsbyNevada for
Casugatoreturnthe
valuablesorotherwiseremit
theproceedsof the sale, nojewelry
or money waseverreturned.
2012CASES
LEGAL BASIS:
He violatedSection27,Rule138of
theRevisedRulesof
Court,Canon16 of the Code
ofProfessionalResponsibility,
andRule 16.03 thereof.
233
actsandomissionsofrespondentju
dge
warrantsanctionfromthisCourt.
SUPREME
COURT’SRULING:
In the instantcase, by
maintaininganoffice withinthe
Hotel, takingadvantage of
hisapparentcloserelationship
toNevada, andthroughthe use
offalserepresentations, Casuga
ledChul to believe that he
wastheadministratorofthe
Hotel,wheninfact he wasnot.
Bydoingso,hemade itappearthathe
wasdulyauthorized to
enterintocontractsfor the
Hotelandto receiverentalsfrom
itsoccupants.Hisfraudulentscheme
enabledCasuga to
collectrentalsfrom the occupantsof
theHotel, Chul inparticular, which
hedid not
transmittoNevada.Worsestill,
Casuga obtainedmoneybelonging
tothe Hotel.
Suchmisrepresentationproperlycon
stitutesgrossmisconduct forwhich
he must be disciplined.
Having
beentaskedtosellsuchvaluables,
Casuga wasduty-boundto
returnthemuponNevada’sdemand.
Hisfailure to
dosorendershimsubjecttodisciplina
ryaction. Having failed
toreturn,upondemand,the
itemsentrustedto him byNevada
or remitthe
CASE DISPOSITION:
the CourtfindsAtty.Rodolfo
D.Casuga GUILTY
ofgrossmisconductforviolationofC
anon16 of the Codeof
ProfessionalResponsibility and
theNotarialRules.He ishereby
SUSPENDEDfor a
periodoffour(4)yearsfromthe
practice of law.The
notarialcommissionof Atty.
Casuga, ifstillexisting, ishereby
REVOKEDandhe
isDISQUALIFIEDfrombeingc
ommissionedasNotary
Publicalsoforfour(4)years.
Additionally, he
isorderedtoreturnthe amount
ofPhP90,000,the piece of jewelry
subjectof thiscase or
theirequivalent ofPhP300,000,
and the Rolex
watchvaluedatUSD12,000
oritsequivalentinPhilippine Peso
toCorazon T.Nevada withinthirty
(30)daysfromfinality
ofthisDecision; otherwise,he
shallbecited for contempt.Lastly,
Atty.Casuga iswarnedthat a
repetitionof
thesameorsimilaractswill
bedealtwithmore severely.
 2012CASES
proceedsof thesale,
CasugaviolatedCanon16
andRule16.03of the Code.

TOPIC:Client’sfunds
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINEDOF:
Aurora D. Cerdanv. Atty.
CarloGomez
Atty. Gomez enteredinto
CASE NO.: acompromise agreementwhere
A.C. No. 9154 heagreedthathisclientshallreceive40
% ofthe
DATE OFPROMULGATION: proceedsofanaccountwhichwascon
March19, 2012 trary to the originalagreement. He
alsoincludedin thecompromise
PONENTE: agreementotherbakaccountsandoth
Mendoza erpropertieswhichwere not
includedinthescopeofhisSPA.
Atty. Gomez failedtoaccountforthe
money he
receivedforcomplainantasaresultof
thecompromise agreement.
Worse,heremittedthe amountof
₱290,000.00 only,
anamountsubstantially lessthanthe
share
ofcomplainant.Recordsrevealthatc
omplainants sharefrom
theFCBsavingsaccountsamounted
to
₱442,547.88 butonlyP290,000.00
wasremittedby Atty. Gomez
TOPIC:Client’sproperty afterdeducting hisshare.
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINEDOF:
LorenzoD. Brennisenv.
Atty.Ramon U. Contawi
Atty. Contawimortgagedand sold
LEGAL BASIS:
He violatedCanon16 of theCodeof
ProfessionalResponsibility
andRule 16.01 thereof.
LEGAL BASIS:
He violated the following Canons
SUPREME CASE DISPOSITION:
COURT’SRULING:
Atty. Gomez hasno Atty. CarloGomez
righttounilaterally isherebydeclaredGUILTY
retainhislawyer’slien.Having ofviolation ofCanon16 of the
obtainedthe fundsin thecourse Code
ofhisprofessionalemployment,Atty. ofProfessionalResponsibility
Gomez had theobligation andisSUSPENDEDfrom
toaccountanddeliversuchfundsto thepracticeof law for a periodof
hisclientwhentheybecame due, or one (1)yeareffective uponreceipt
upondemand. ofthisResolution, with
Moreover, there wasno a WARNINGthata repetition
agreementbetweenhimandcomplain ofthesameorsimilaractswillbedealt
antthathe withseverely.
coulddeducttherefromhisclaimedatt
orney’sfees.Thefiduciary natureof
therelationshipbetweencounselandc
lientimposeson a lawyer theduty
toaccount forthe money or
propertycollected or
receivedfororfromthe client. He
isobliged torender
apromptaccounting ofall
theproperty andmoney he
hascollected for hisclient.
SUPREME CASE DISPOSITION:
COURT’SRULING:
In thiscase, respondent's ATTY.RAMONU. CONTAWI,

234
 2012CASES
CASE NO.: Brennisen’sproperty andRulesunderthe Code establishedactsexhibitedhisunfitnes having clearly
A.C. No. 7481 whichwasentrusted tohim, ofProfessionalResponsibility:C sandplaininability todischarge the violatedhislawyer'soathand the
withoutthelatter'sconsent. anon 1 andRule 1.01thereof boundendutiesof amemberof the CanonsofProfessionalResponsibili
DATE OFPROMULGATION: Canon16 andRules16.01 and legalprofession.He failed to prove tythroughhisunlawful,
April 24, 2012 16.03 himselfworthyof the privilege to dishonestanddeceitfulconduct,
thereofCano practice law andto live up tothe isDISBARREDandhisnameordere
PONENTE: n17 exacting standardsdemanded of dSTRICKENfromtheRoll
PerCuriam the membersof thebar. ofAttorneys.
Itbearstostressthat[t]hepractice of
law isa privilegegivento
lawyerswhomeet the
highstandardsoflegalproficiency
andmorality.Any violation
ofthesestandardsexposesthe lawyer
toadministrative liability.
Moreover,
respondent'sargumentthatthere
wasno formallawyer-
clientrelationshipbetweenhimandc
omplainantwillnotserve tomitigate
hisliability. There
isnodistinctionasto whether
thetransgressioniscommittedin
alawyer'sprivate
orprofessionalcapacity, for a
lawyermay notdivide
hispersonality asanattorney at
TOPIC:Client’scause onetime and a
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINEDOF: LEGAL BASIS: merecitizenatanother.
SUPREME CASE DISPOSITION:
Suzette de Mundov. Atty. COURT’SRULING:
ArnelCapistrano
Atty. Capistranofailed to He violatedCanon16 of theCodeof Indeed, when a Atty. Arnel C. Capistrano,
CASE NO.: actonhisclient’scase and tofile ProfessionalResponsibility lawyertakesaclient’scause, he havingclearly violatedCanons16
A.C. No. 6903 theagreedpetitionfor declaration andRules16.01 and16.02 covenantsthat hewillexercise due and18of the Code
ofmarriage afterreceiving thereofandCanon18 of the same diligence inprotectingthe ofProfessionalResponsibility,
DATE OFPROMULGATION: moneyfromher. He anditsRules18.03 and18.04. latter’srights. isSUSPENDEDfromthe practice
April 16, 2012 alsofailedtoaccountandreturnthe Failure to exercise thatdegree of law foroneyearwith a
fundsentrusted to ofvigilance andattentionexpected sternwarning that a
of

235
 2012CASES
himfor the costof thesuit. a goodfatherof a family makesthe repetitionof the
PONENTE: lawyerunworthy of the sameorsimilaractsshall be
Perlas-Bernabe trustreposedon himby hisclient dealtwithmoreseverely. He
andmakeshimanswerable isORDEREDtoreturnto
notjusttohisclientbutalsoto SuzetteDelMundo thefull amount
thelegalprofession, the ofPhP73,500.00within30
courtsandsociety.Hisworkloaddoe daysfromnotice
snot justifyneglectinhandling hereofandDIRECTEDto
one’scasebecause itissettledthat a submitto
lawyermustonly acceptcasesas theCourtproofofsuchpayment.
muchashe canefficiently handle.
Moreover, a lawyerisobliged
toholdintrustmoney of
hisclientthatmay come
tohispossession.Astrustee
ofsuchfunds,
heisboundtokeepthemseparate
andapartfromhisown.Moneyentrus
ted to a lawyerfor
aspecificpurpose suchasfor
thefiling andprocessing of a case
ifnotutilized,mustbe
returnedimmediatelyupondemand.
Failure toreturngivesriseto a
presumptionthat
hehasmisappropriateditinviolation
of the trustreposedonhim.Andthe
conversionoffundsentrustedto
himconstitutesgrossviolationof
professionalethicsandbetrayalof
TOPIC:Conflict of interest public confidence inthe
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINEDOF: LEGAL BASIS: legalprofession.
SUPREME CASE DISPOSITION:
Josefina Anionv. Atty. COURT’SRULING:
ClemencioSabitsana, Jr.
Atty. Sabitsana He violatedRule 15.03, The relationshipbetween Atty. ClemencioC. Sabitsana, Jr.
CASE NO.: preparedandexecutedinhisclient’sf Canon15of the Code alawyerandhis/herclientshouldideal isfoundGUILTY ofmisconduct
A.C. No. 5098 avoraDeed of Sale over a ofProfessionalResponsibility. lybeimbuedwiththe highestlevel of forrepresenting conflicting
parcelofland interestsin

236
 2012CASES

owned by hisclient’scommon- trustandconfidence. Thisis violation ofRule 15.03,

DATE OFPROMULGATION: lawhusband.He later onfiled thestandardof Canon15of the Code
April 11, 2012 acivilcase againsthisclientfor confidentialitythatmustprevail to ofProfessionalResponsibility. He
theannulmentof the deedinbehalf promote afulldisclosure ofthe isherebySUSPENDEDforone
PONENTE: ofhisclient’scommon-law clientsmostconfidentialinformation (1)yearfromthe practice of law.
Brion husband’slegalwife. tohis/herlawyer for
anunhamperedexchange of
informationbetweenthem.
Needlesstostate, a clientcanonly
entrustconfidentialinformationtohi
s/herlawyerbased on
anexpectationfrom thelawyer of
utmostsecrecy anddiscretion; the
lawyer, forhispart,isduty-boundto
observe candor,fairnessandloyalty
inall dealingsandtransactionswith
the client.
Partof the lawyer’sduty
inthisregardisto
avoidrepresentingconflicting
interests, a mattercovered by Rule
15.03, Canon15of the Code
ofProfessionalResponsibility. To
be heldaccountable underthisrule,
itisenoughthatthe
opposingpartiesin one case,
oneofwhomwouldlosethesuit, are
presentclientsand the natureor
conditionsof
thelawyer’srespectiveretainerswithe
ach of
themwouldaffecttheperformance
ofthe duty ofundividedfidelityto
bothclients.On the basisof the
attendantfactsof the case, the
courtfindssubstantial evidence
tosupportAtty.
Sabitsanasviolationoftheabove rule.
By hisacts,not onlydidAtty.
Sabitsana agree to

237

TOPIC:Supreme Court’sresolutions
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINEDOF:
Office of the CourtAdministrator
v. Judge JamesV. Go
Judge Gofailed to
CASE NO.: immediatelyarraign the
A.M. No.MTJ-07-1667 accusedin632 criminalcases, to
archive 140 criminalcases, to
DATE OFPROMULGATION: actonsummons(shouldbe
April 10, 2012 subpoenas)issuedin477criminal
cases, toact on 13 caseswhichhad
PONENTE: notbeenactedupon fora
PerCuriam considerable length oftime,
toresolve the pending
incidentsormotionsin15 criminal
cases,to acton 17 civil casesfrom
the time oftheirfiling,to take
furtheractionon 32 civil cases,
andto
resolvemotionsorincidentsin88 civil
2012CASES
represent one
clientagainstanotherclientinthesam
e action;he alsoaccepted a
newengagementthatentailedhim
tocontendandoppose the
interestofhisotherclientin
apropertyinwhichhislegalservicesha
dbeenpreviouslyretained.
Atty. Sabitsana didnotmake a
fulldisclosure offactsto
thecomplainantandtoZenaida
Caetebefore he accepted
thenewengagementwithZenaida
Caete.Moreover, the recordsshow
thatAtty. Sabitsana failedto obtain
thewrittenconsentofhistwoclients,a
srequiredby Rule 15.03, Canon15
of the Codeof
ProfessionalResponsibility.
LEGAL BASIS: SUPREME CASE DISPOSITION:
COURT’SRULING:
Code of Judicial Conduct ResolutionsofthisCourtshouldno Judge JamesV. Go, presidingjudge
t be treatedlightly. Asa of theMunicipalTrialCourtinCities,
judge,respondentmustbethe Branch2,ButuanCity
firsttoexhibitrespectforauthority. isDISMISSEDfrom
Judgesshouldrespectthe theservice,withforfeiture of
ordersanddecisionsofhighertribun allretirementbenefits,
alsmuchmore sothisCourt exceptaccruedleavecredits,
fromwhichallothercourtsshouldta andwithprejudice
ketheirbearings. A resolutionof toreemploymentinany
theSupreme branch,agency or
Courtshouldnotbeconstruedasa instrumentalityofthegovernmentin
mererequestandshouldnot be cludinggovernment-
compliedwithpartially, ownedorcontrolledcorporations.
inadequately orselectively.
238

TOPIC:Grossignorance ofthe law
CASE TITLE:
State ProsecutorsIIJosefAlbert
T. Comilang v. Judge
MedelArnaldoBelen
CASE NO.:
A.M.No.RTJ-10-2216
DATE OFPROMULGATION:
cases.
He alsodeliberately
andcontinuously
failsandrefusestocomply with
theresolution of
[theSupreme]Court.
ACTSCOMPLAINEDOF:
Notwithstandingthe
temporaryrestraining
order(TRO)enjoiningJudge
Belenfromexecutingandenforcing
hisassailedOrderandDecisionfor a
periodof60days,whichwassubsequ
ently extended
2012CASES
In the presentcase,
thecourtfindsthatJudge
Gofailedtoheedtheabove
pronouncements. Hedidnot file the
requiredcomment tothe
court’sshow cause
resolutionsdespiteseveralopportuni
tiesgrantedhimby
thisCourt.Hiswillful disobedience
anddisregardto theshow-
causeresolutionsconstitutesgrave
andseriousmisconductaffectinghisfi
tnessandworthinessofthe
honorandintegrity
attachedtohisoffice. It
isnoteworthy thatJudge Go
wasaffordedseveralopportunitiesto
explainhisfailure to decide
thesubjectcaseslong pending
beforehiscourtandtocomply
withthedirectivesofthisCourt, buthe
hasfailed,
andcontinuouslyrefusestoheed the
same.Thiscontinuedrefusal toabide
by lawfuldirectivesissuedby
thisCourtisglaringproofthat
hehasbecomedisinterestedtoremain
withthejudicial systemto which
LEGAL BASIS: hepurportsto
SUPREME belong. CASE DISPOSITION:
COURT’SRULING:
Code of Judicial No lessthanthe Code Judge MedelArnaldo
Conduct:Canon 2 ofJudicialconductmandatesthat B.Belen,having beenfoundguilty
anditsRule 2.01 ajudgeshall be faithful to the of graveabuse of authority
Canon 3 anditsRule 3.01 lawsandmaintainprofessionalcomp andgrossignorance ofthe law,
etence.Indeed, competence isa isDISMISSEDfrom
mark of agoodjudge. A judge must theservice,withforfeiture of all
be benefits
239
 2012CASES

June 26, 2012 with the issuance ofa acquaintedwithlegal exceptaccruedleave

writofpreliminary injunction, normsandpreceptsaswellaswithpro credits,ifany,andwithprejudice
PONENTE: heproceeded to issue ceduralrules. When a judge toreemploymentin the
PerCuriam ordersrequiring complainantto displaysanutterlack offamiliarity governmentor any subdivision,
toexplainhisnon-filing of withtherules, he erodesthe agency orinstrumentality thereof,
asupersedeasbond, public’sconfidence in the includinggovernment-
issuedsubpoenasto competence ofourcourts. ownedandcontrolledcorporationsa
compelhisattendance before Suchisgrossignoranceof the law. ndgovernmentfinancial institutions.
courthearingsrelative to the Verily, failure to followbasic HeshallforthwithCEASE
contemptproceedings, andfinally, legalcommandsembodiedinthe law andDESISTfromperforming any
ajudgedcomplainantguilty and the officialact orfunctionappurtenant
ofindirectcontemptforhisnon- Rulesconstitutesgrossignorance of tohisofficeuponservice on
compliancewith the the law, fromwhich no himofthisDecision.
issuedsubpoenas. oneisexcused, andsurely not a
judge.
Moreover,refusaltohonoraninjuncti
veorderof a
highercourtconstitutescontempt,
asinthiscase, whereJudge Belen,
incontumaciouslydefying the
injunctive orderissuedbythe CA
inCA-G.R. SPNo.
94069, wasfoundguilty
ofindirectcontemptinCA-G.R.
SPNo.
101081.
Judge
Belen'sactuations,therefore,cannot
be
consideredasmereerrorsofjudgment
thatcanbeeasily brushedaside.
Obstinatedisregardof basic
andestablishedrule of law
orprocedure amountsto
inexcusable abuse of
authorityandgrossignorance ofthe
law.
Likewise, citing
StateProsecutorComilang for
indirectcontemptnotwithstandingt
he effectivity ofthe CA-
240 issuedwritof
injunctiondemonstratedhisvexatio
 2012CASES
accountable
andsubjectedtodisciplinary
TOPIC:Actsof a judge inhisjudicial capacity action.
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINEDOF: LEGAL BASIS: SUPREME CASE DISPOSITION:
Juvy Ciocon-Reerv. COURT’SRULING:
JudgeAntonioLubao
Not alladministrative The Courtdeniesthemotion
CASE NO.: complaintsagainstjudgesmerit forreconsiderationof
A.M. OCA IPINo. 09-3210-RTJ acorrespondingpenalty. theCourtsResolutiondated24
Intheabsence of fraud, November2010 dismissing the
DATE OFPROMULGATION: dishonestyorcorruption, the actsof complaintagainstJudge
June 20, 2012 ajudge inhisjudicial capacity are AntonioC.Lubaofor being
notsubjectto disciplinary action. judicial innature.
PONENTE: We agreewith the OCA that the
Carpio remedy ofthe
complainantsinthiscaseisjudicial
innature. Hence, thedenial of
theirmotionforreconsiderationofth
isCourts24November2010Resoluti
ondismissingthe administrative
caseagainstJudgeLubaoisinorder.
TOPIC:Grossignorance ofthe law
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINEDOF: LEGAL BASIS: SUPREME CASE DISPOSITION:
EladioPerfectov.Judge COURT’SRULING:
AlmaConsueloDesalesEsidera
Judge Esiderafailed to Judge Esidera violatedA.M.No.03- The respondentJudgeshould Judge Alma ConsueloDesales-
CASE NO.: actonPerfecto’scase withina 1-09-SC, 16 August2004(Rule beconversantwiththisrule. Esidera, Regional Trial
A.M. No.RTJ-11-2258 reasonableperiodoftime. on Guidelinesto beObserved Shemustknow the lawsandapply Court,Branch20, Catarman,
byTrial themproperly. Service in the NorthernSamar,
DATE OFPROMULGATION: CourtJudgesandClerksofCourtint judiciaryinvolvescontinuousstudy isfoundLIABLEforgrossignorance
June 20, 2012 he ConductofPre-trialand andresearchfrombeginning toend. ofthe law andisfinedTen
UseofDeposition- The ThousandPesos(P10,000.00),with a
PONENTE: DiscoveryMeasures) respondentdeservestobesanctione sternwarning
Brion dfor grossignoranceofthe law. againstthecommissionof a
Withherinactionon thepetitionfor similaroffense.
contempt,shebetrayedherunbeco
ming lackoffamiliarity withbasic
procedural

241
 2012CASES
rulessuchaswhatwasinvolvedinthe
contemptproceedingsbeforehercou
rt.She shouldhave knownthatwhile
the petitionershavetheresponsibility
to move ex parte tohave the case
scheduledforpreliminary
conference, thecourt(through the
branchclerk of court)hasthe duty
toschedule thecasefor pre-trialin
the eventthatthepetitionersfailtofile
the motion.Aspresiding
judge,sheshouldaccount forthe
anomaly thatsincethe
respondentsfiledtheiranswer,the
petitionforcontempthadbeengatheri
ng dustorhadnotmovedin the
respondent’scourt. Clearly,the
respondentfellshortofthestandards
ofcompetence andlegalproficiency
expected of magistratesofthe law
inherhandling ofthe
petitionforcontempt.

TOPIC:Lawyer’sCompetence
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINEDOF: LEGAL BASIS: SUPREME CASE DISPOSITION:
Emilia Hernandez v. COURT’SRULING:
Atty.VenancioPadilla
Atty. Padilla filed a He violatedCanon 5 Rule 18.02 ofthe Code Atty. VenancioPadilla is
CASE NO.: Memorandumof andRules18.02, 18.03, and18.04, providesthat a foundguilty of
A.C. No. 9387 Appealforhisclientinstead Canon18 lawyershallnothandle violatingRules18.02,18.03, 18.04,
ofanAppellant’sBrief. of the Code anylegalmatterwithoutadequatepre aswell asCanon 5ofthe Code
DATE OFPROMULGATION: ofProfessionalResonsibility paration. While itistrue ofProfessionalResponsibility.
June 20, 2012 thatrespondentwasnot Hence, he
complainant’slawyer fromthe isSUSPENDEDfromthepr
PONENTE: trialto theappellate courtstage, actice of law for
Sereno thisfactdidnot excuse SIX(6)MONTHS
himfromhisduty todiligently andSTERNLY
studya case hehadagreed to WARNEDthat a repetitionof
handle. If he felt he did thesameor asimilaroffense will be

242
2012CASES

not have enoughtime tostudy dealtwithmore severely.

thepertinentmattersinvolved,
ashewasapproached by
complainant’shusbandonly
twodaysbefore theexpirationof the
periodforfilingthe Appellants Brief,
respondentshouldhave filed a
motionforextensionoftime to
filetheproperpleading
insteadofwhateverpleading he
couldcome upwith,justtobeat the
deadlinesetbytheCourtofAppeals.
Also, instead ofexplaining
hissideby filing
acomment,asorderedbytheappellate
court, he chose to ignorethe
CAsOrder. Asa litigator,
hewasexpected to
knowthisprocedure. He, ascounsel,
had theduty to informhisclients
ofthestatusoftheircase. Hisfailure
todo so amountedto a violation
ofRule 18.04 ofthe Code,
whichreads:
18.04 - A
lawyershallkeeptheclientinformedo
f thestatusof hiscase
andshallrespondwithin areasonable
timeto theclientsrequestfor
information.
If itwere true
thatallattemptstocontacthisclientpr
ovedfutile,
theleastrespondentcouldhavedone
wasto informthe CA by filing
aNotice of Withdrawal
ofAppearance ascounsel.He
couldhave thusexplainedwhy
hewasnolonger the
counselofcomplainantandherhusba
ndinthe caseand
243

TOPIC:Practice ofLaw
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINEDOF:
Fidela
BengcoandTeresitaBengcov.
Atty.PabloBernardo Atty. Bernardo,
representinghimselfto be the
CASE NO.: lawyer ofGatchalianwhoisthe
A.C. No. 6368 buyerof
thelotwhichcomplainantswanttobu
DATE OFPROMULGATION: y convincedcomplainantstofinance
June 13, 2012 anddeliver
tothemtheamountofP495,000
PONENTE: asadvancemoney forthemto
Reyes expeditethetitling
ofthesubjectland. He
andhiscompanionrepresentedthatt
hey have
contactsatNAMREA,DENR,
CENROandtheRegisterof
Deedswhichrepresentationthey
knew to be false, fraudulent
2012CASES
informed the courtthat hecouldno
longercontactthem.Hisfailureto
take thismeasure
proveshisnegligence.
Lastly, thefailure ofrespondent
tofile the properpleading
andacommentonDuigansMotion
toDismissisnegligence
onhispart.Lawyersshouldnotneglec
tlegalmattersentrustedto
them,otherwisetheirnegligence
infulfilling theirduty
wouldrenderthemliable
fordisciplinary
action.Respondenthasfailedtolive
up tohisdutiesasa lawyer.
Whenalawyerviolateshisdutiestohis
client, he engagesinunethical
andunprofessionalconductforwhic
hhe shouldbe heldaccountable.
LEGAL BASIS: SUPREME CASE DISPOSITION:
COURT’SRULING:
Atty. The practice oflaw isnot Atty.
BernardoviolatedRules2.03and3.01 abusiness.It isa PabloS.Bernardoisfoundguilty of
of the Code professioninwhichduty to public violatingthe
ofProfessionalResponsibility. service, notmoney, isthe CodeofProfessionalResponsibilit
primaryconsideration. Lawyering y.
is notprimarily meantto Accordingly, he
beamoney-making venture, isSUSPENDEDfromthe practice
andlaw advocacyisnot a of law forONE
capitalthatnecessarilyyieldsprofits. (1)YEAReffective
The gaining ofalivelihoodshould uponnoticehereof.
beasecondaryconsideration. The
duty topublicservice and tothe Further, the
administrationof justice should CourtORDERSAtty.PabloS.
betheprimaryconsideration Bernardo(1)toRETURNthe
oflawyers, who amount
ofP200,000.00 to Fidela
BengcoandTeresita
BengcowithinTEN
(10)DAYSfromreceipt ofthis
244

andwere only made to
inducecomplainants to give
anddeliver tothem the
amount.Once inpossessionof
thesaidamount,farfrom complying
withtheirobligation toexpedite
andcausethe titling of
thesubjectland,respondentandMaga
tmisappropriated,misappliedandco
nverted
thesaidamounttotheirpersonaluse
andbenefitanddespite
demanduponthemtoreturnthe
saidamount,they failedandrefused
to do so.
TOPIC:Practice of law
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINEDOF:
RodrigoA. Molina v.
Atty.Ceferino R.Magat
Atty. Magatmisleaded the
CASE NO.: courtwhen he filed themotion
A.C. No. 1900 todismissthe criminalchargeson
thebasisofdouble jeopardy
DATE OFPROMULGATION: wheninfact, no similarcase was
June 13, 2012 filed to bethe basisof double
jeopardy.
PONENTE: Atty.
Mendoza Magatappearedascounselbefore a
trialcourton atleasttwo
(2)occasionsnotwithstanding
thefactthat he
hadbeensuspendedbythe
Supreme Courtfromthepractice
of law.
2012CASES
mustsubordinate Decisionand(2)
theirpersonalinterestsorwhatthe toSUBMIThisproof of compliance
y owe tothemselves. thereofto theCourt, throughthe
Office oftheBar
ConfidantwithinTEN(10)DAYSth
erefrom; with a
STERNWARNINGthatfailureto
do soshall merithimthe
additionalpenalty of
suspensionfromthepractice of law
for one (1)year.
LEGAL BASIS: SUPREME CASE DISPOSITION:
COURT’SRULING:
He violatedRule 10.01of The practice oflaw Atty. CeferinoR.
theCode of isaprivilegebestowedonthose MagatisherebyorderedSUSPEND
ProfessionalResponsibility. whoshow thatthey ED from thepractice of law for
possessandcontinue topossessthe six(6)monthswith a
legal qualificationsforit. Indeed, WARNINGthat thecommissionof
lawyersare expected the sameorsimilaroffense in
tomaintainatall timesa thefuture wouldbedealtwithmore
highstandardof severely.
legalproficiencyandmorality,
includinghonesty,integrity
andfairdealing.
Theymustperformtheirfour-
folddutyto society, the
legalprofession,
thecourtsandtheirclients,
inaccordance with the
valuesandnormsofthe
legalprofessionasembodiedinthe
Code
ofProfessionalResponsibility.
Atty. Magat’sactclearly fallsshortof
thestandardsset bythe Code of
245
 2012CASES
ProfessionalResponsibility,particul
arly Rule 10.01.
theCourtagreeswith
theobservationof theIBPthatthere
wasa deliberateintent onthe part of
Atty. Magatto misleadthe
courtwhenhe filedthe motion to
dismissthe criminalchargeson the
basisofdoublejeopardy. Atty.
Magatshould notmake any false
anduntruthfulstatementsinhispleadi
ngs. Ifitwere true thatthere
wasasimilarcase forslightphysical
injuriesthatwasreally filedincourt,
all he hadto do wasto secure a
certificationfromthatcourtthat,
indeed,a casewasfiled.
TOPIC:Ignorance of thelaw
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINEDOF: LEGAL BASIS: SUPREME CASE DISPOSITION:
City COURT’SRULING:
ProsecutorArmandoP.Aban
adov. Judge Judge Bayona None. The The
AbrahamBayona insistsinorderingthe City Courtfindsthatrespondenterredinin complaintagainstJudgeAbraha
Prosecutor toproduce sisting ontheproduction ofthe mA. Bayona of theMunicipal
CASE NO.: aResolutionwhichwasno JarderResolutionwhenallotherperti Trial
A.M. No.MTJ-12-1804 longerpart ofthe nentdocumentsregarding CourtinCities,BacolodCity,
recordsasitwasdisapproved bythe thepreliminary Branch 7isDISMISSED.
DATE OFPROMULGATION: CityProsecutor. investigationhavebeensubmitted
July 30, 2012 Asitwasnotproduced, heset the tohiscourt,andingoing sofarasto
hearingforcontemptchargesagain motuproprioinitiating a proceeding
PONENTE: sttheprosecutor. forcontemptagainstcomplainant.
PerCuriam However, not every
judicialerroristantamounttoignora
nce of thelaw
andifitwascommittedingoodfaith,t
he judge neednot besubjected to
administrativesanction. While
complainant

246
2012CASES

admittedthathe erredininsistingon
the production ofthe
JarderResolutiondespite the
provisionsof the DOJ-
NPSManual,sucherrorcannot be
categorizedasgrossignorance of the
law ashedid not appearto
bemotivated bybadfaith. Indeed,
therulesofprocedure inthe
prosecutionoffice were
notclearastowhetheror
notaninvestigatingprosecutor’sreso
lution
ofdismissalthathadbeenreversedbyt
he city
prosecutorshouldstillformpartof
therecords.
Neitherdidrespondent’sactiona
mount togrossmisconduct.
Grossmisconductpresupposesevid
ence of grave irregularity inthe
performance ofduty.Inthecase
atbar, respondent’sactofrequiring
complainanttoexplainwhy he
shouldnotbe
citedincontemptforhisfailure
tosubmitthe
JarderResolutionincourtwasinaccor
dance
withestablishedrulesofprocedure.
Furthermore,complainantdidnot
abuse hiscontemptpowerashe
didnotpursuethe
proceedingsinviewofthe May 29,
2009 andJune 15,2009 Gellada
orders. Lastly,aspreviously
discussed,respondentissuedthose
ordersingoodfaithashe honestly
believedthattheywere necessary
inthe fairandjustissuance of the
warrantofarrestin
247
 2012CASES
Criminal Case No.09-03-16474.
TOPIC:Undue delay incase disposition
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINEDOF: LEGAL BASIS: SUPREME CASE DISPOSITION:
Atty. FelinoBangalanv. COURT’SRULING:
JudgeBenjaminTurgano
Judge Turganodecided the He violatedArticle VIII,Section15 The Judge Benjamin
CASE NO.: caseafter15 months, of the 1987 Constitutionprovidesthatalllowerc D.TurganoisfoundGUILTY
A.M. No.RTJ-12-2317 beyondthe90-day ConstitutionandCanon6, Sec. 5of ourtsmustdecide orresolve ofunduedelay inthe
periodrequired by law. theNew Codeof Judicial casesormattersbroughtbefore dispositionofCivil CaseNo.11140-
DATE OFPROMULGATION: Conductfor themthree monthsfromthe time a 15. He
July 25, 2012 thePhilippineJudiciary. case isherebyREPRIMANDED, with a
ormatterissubmittedfordecision. WARNINGthat the
PONENTE: Canon6,Sec. 5of the New Code commissionof thesameor
Sereno ofJudicialConductfor asimilaroffensewill be
thePhilippineJudiciary, dealtwithmore severely.
whichbecame effectiveon June 1,
2004,
alsoprovidesthatjudgesshallperfor
mall duties,including the delivery
ofreserveddecisions, efficiently,
fairly
andwithreasonablepromptness.
If a judge isunable to comply
withthe 90-day
reglementaryperiodfordeciding
casesormatters, hecan,for
goodreasons, ask foranextension,
whichrequestisgenerally granted.
Indeed,theCourtusually
allowsreasonableextensionsoftime
todecide casesinrecognition ofthe
heavycaseload ofthetrial
courts.Asrespondentfailedto
askforanextensioninthiscase, he
isdeemed to have incurreddelay.
The need to
impressuponjudgesthe importance
of decidingcasespromptly
andexpeditiouslycannotbe
stressedenough, fordelay inthe
dispositionofcasesand
248
 2012CASES
mattersunderminesthe
people’sfaithandconfidence in
thejudiciary. Asoftstated,
justicedelayedisjustice denied.

TOPIC:Conflict of interest
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINEDOF:
Atty. PolicarioCatalan, Jr.
v.Atty.JoselitoSilvosa
Atty. Silvosa
CASE NO.: appearedascounselfor the
A.C. No. 7360 accusedin thesamecasefor
whichhe previously
DATE OFPROMULGATION: appearedasprosecutor.
July 24, 2012 Atty. Silvosa made anattempt
tobribe Pros.Toribioandfailed.
PONENTE: Atty. Silvosa’wasconvictedof
Percuriam thecrime of directbribery by
theSandiganbayanandsuchbecame
final.
LEGAL BASIS:
He violatedRule 6.03of theCodeof
Professional Responsibility
SUPREME CASE DISPOSITION:
COURT’SRULING:
Anattorney isemployed—that is,he Atty. JoselitoM. Silvosa
isengagedinhisprofessionalcapacity isherebyDISBARREDandhisnam
asa lawyer or counselor eORDEREDSTRICKENfrom
— when he islistening to theRollof Attorneys. Let acopyof
hisclient’spreliminary statement thisDecision be furnished tothe
ofhiscase, orwhen heisgivingadvice Office of the Bar Confidant, tobe
thereon, justastrulyaswhen he appended
isdrawing hisclient’spleadings, or torespondent’spersonalrecordasatt
advocating hisclient’spleadings,or orney.
advocatinghisclient’scause
inopencourt.Hence the necessity
ofsettingdown the existence of the
barerelationship ofattorney
andclientasthe yardstick
fortestingincompatibility
ofinterests.Thissternrule
isdesignednotalone toprevent the
dishonestpractitionerfromfraudule
ntconduct,butaswell to protect the
honestlawyerfromunfoundedsuspi
cionofunprofessional practice. It
isfoundedonprinciplesofpublicpoli
cy, on goodtaste.
Ashasbeensaidinanothercase, the
questionisnotnecessarilyoneoftheri
ghtsof the parties, butasto
whetherthe attorney
hasadheredtoproper

249
 2012CASES

professionalstandard. Indeed,
theprohibitionagainstrepresentatio
nof conflicting
interestsappliesalthough the
attorney’sintentionswere honest
and he actedingoodfaith.
Silvosa’sfinal conviction ofthe
crime ofdirectbribery
clearlyfallsunder oneof the
groundsfordisbarmentunderSectio
n27ofRule 138.
Disbarmentfollowsasaconsequence
of Atty. Silvosa’sconvictionof the
crime. Thecourtisconstrainedto
impose a penaltymore severe
thansuspensionbecause
itfindsthatAtty.
Silvosaispredisposed toflout the
exactingstandardsofmorality
anddecencyrequiredof a
memberoftheBar.Hisexcuse
thathisconvictionwasnot
inhiscapacity asa lawyer, butasa
public officer,
isunacceptableandbetraysthe
unmistakable lackof integrity
inhischaracter.Thepractice of law
isa privilege, andAtty. Silvosa
TOPIC:TRAVELING ABROADWITHIOUT COURT’SAUTHORITY hasprovedhimselfunfittoexercise
thisprivilege.
CASE TITLE: ACTSCO LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION
OfficeofAdministrativeServ MPLAINED
ices- OCA Circular No. 49-2003 Fortravelingabroadwithouthavingbeenofficiallyallowedby JudgeIgnacioB.Macarine,MunicipalCir
OfficeoftheCourtAdministr Traveling theCourt,therespondentisguiltyofviolationofOCACircula cuitTrialCourt,Gen.Luna,SurigaodelN
atorvs.JudgeIgnacioB.Maca abroad rNo.49-2003.UnderSection9(4), Rule 140ofthe orte,isherebygiventheADMONITION
rine,MCTC, Gen. Luna, withouthavingbeenofficia RevisedRulesof Court. thathe actedirresponsiblywhenhe
Surigaodel Norte llyallowedbytheCourt. optednot to

250
 2012CASES
True,therighttotravelisguaranteedbytheConstitution.How immediatelysecureatravelauthorityandi
CASE NO.: ever,theexerciseofsuchrightisnotabsolute.Section6,Article ssavedonlyfromthefullforcethathisviola
A.M. No.MTJ-10-1770 IIIofthe1987Constitutionallowsrestrictionsonone’srightt tioncarriesbytheattendantmitigating
otravelprovidedthatsuchrestrictionisintheinterestofnation circumstances.
DATE alsecurity,public safety or public healthasmay be
OFPROMULGATI provided by HeisalsoWARNEDthatthecommissio
ON:July 18, 2012 law.This,however,shouldbynomeansbeconstruedaslimitin nofasimilarviolationinthefuturewillmeri
gtheCourt’sinherentpowerofadministrativesupervisionove tamoreseverepenalty.
PONENTE: rlowercourts.
BRION, J TherecommendationoftheOfficeofthe
OCACircularNo.49- CourtAdministrationthathisabsences,w
2003doesnotrestrictbutmerelyregulates,byprovidingguidel hichwereunauthorized,shallnotbededu
inestobecompliedbyjudgesandcourtpersonnelbeforetheyc ctedfromhisleavecreditsbutfromhissala
angoonleavetotravelabroad.To"restrict"istorestrainorpro ryisherebyapproved by the court.
hibitapersonfromdoingsomething;to"regulate"istogovern
or directaccording torule.
TOPIC:GROSS MISCONDUCT ANDGROSS IGNORANCE OFTHE LAW

CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLA LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION

Criselda C. Gacad vs. INED
JudgeHilarion P.
Clapis,Jr.,RTC,Br.3,Nabunt GraveMisconductandCor
uran,Compostela Valley. ruptPractices,GraveAbus
eofDiscretion,GrossIgno
CASE NO.: ranceoftheLaw,andviolati
A.M. No.RJ-10-2257 onsofCanon1 (Rule1.01,
1.02),Canon2 (Rule
DATE 2.01),andCanon3(Rule3.0
OFPROMULGATI 5)oftheCodeofJudicialCo
ON:July 17, 2012 nductrelativetoCriminalC
aseNo.6898entitled"Peop
PONENTE: leofthePhilippinesv.Rodo
PERCURIAM lfoComania."
Canon1(Rule1.01,1.02), NosubstantialevidencethatJudgeClapisreceivedtheP50,00
Canon2 (Rule2.01),and 0givenbyGacadto
Canon3(Rule3.05)oftheCod Arafol,andthatJudgeClapistriedtoborrowanotherP50,000f
e of Judicial Conduct. romGacadsecured
byacheckallegedlysignedbyJudgeClapishimself.Thetestim
onyofGacad,statingthatJudgeClapisreceivedP50,000andtri
edtoborrowanotherP50,000fromher,boththroughArafol,c
annotbegivendueweightforbeinghearsayevidence.Hence,
Gacadfellshortoftherequireddegreeofproofneededinanad
ministrativecharge of corruption.
However,JudgeClapisisliableforgrossmisconduct.InKawv
.Osorio,theCourtheldthatwhile
therespondentjudge,inthatcase,maynotbeheldliableforext
ortionandcorruptionasitwasnotsubstantiallyproven,hesho
uldbe made accountablefor grossmisconduct.
JudgeHilarionP.Clapis,Jr.oftheRegiona
lTrialCourt,Branch3,Nabunturan,Com
postelaValleyisDISMISSEDfromthese
rviceforGrossMisconductandGrossIgn
oranceoftheLaw,withforfeitureof
allbenefitsdue him,
exceptaccruedleavecredits,anddisqualifi
cationfrom appointment to
anypublicofficeincludinggovernment-
ownedorcontrolledcorporations.
HispositionintheRegionalTrialCourt,Br
anch3,Nabunturan,CompostclaValleyis
declaredVACANT.

251
2012CASES

Thearbitraryactionsofrespondentjudge,takentogether,give This is immediately

doubtastohisimpartiality,integrityandpropriety.Hisactsam Decision
ounttogrossmisconductconstitutingviolationsoftheNewC executory.
odeofJudicialConduct, particularly:
CANON2.INTEGRITYISESSENTIALNOTONLYT
OTHEPROPERDISCHARGEOFTHEJUDICIALOFF
ICEBUTALSOTOTHEPERSONALDEMEANOR OF
JUDGES.
Section1.Judgesshallensurethatnotonlyistheirconductabo
vereproach,butthatitisperceivedtobesoin the view of
areasonable observer.
Section2.Thebehaviorandconductofjudgesmustreaffirmth
epeople’sfaithintheintegrityofthejudiciary.Justicemustnot
merelybedonebutmustalsobe seen to be done.

CANON3.IMPARTIALITYISESSENTIALTOTHEPR
OPERDISCHARGEOFTHEJUDICIALOFFICE.ITAP
PLIESNOTONLYTOTHEDECISIONITSELFBUTA
LSOTOTHEPROCESSBY WHICHTHEDECISION
ISTO BEMADE.
Section2.Judgesshallensurethathisorherconduct,bothinan
doutofcourt,maintainsandenhancestheconfidenceofthepu
blic,thelegalprofessionandlitigantsinthe impartiality ofthe
judge and the
judiciary.Section4.Judgesshallnotknowingly,whileaprocee
dingisbefore,orcouldcomebeforethem,makeanycomment
thatmightreasonablybeexpectedtoaffecttheoutcomeofsuc
hproceedingorimpairthemanifestfairnessoftheprocess.No
rshalljudgesmakeanycommentinpublicorotherwisethatmi
ghtaffectthe fairtrial of any person orissue.

CANON4.PROPRIETYANDTHEAPPEARANCEOF
PROPRIETYAREESSENTIALTOTHEPERFORMA
NCEOFALLTHEACTIVITIESOFA

252
2012CASES

JUDGE.
Section1.Judgesshallavoidimproprietyandtheappearance
of impropriety inall of theiractivities.

JudgeClapisisalsoliableforgrossignoranceofthelawforcond
uctingbailhearingswithoutapetitionforbailbeingfiledbythe
accusedandwithoutaffordingtheprosecutionanopportunit
y toprove thattheguiltof theaccusedisstrong.

Section8of
Rule114providesthat"atthehearingofanapplicationforbailf
iledbythepersonwhoisincustodyforthecommissionofanof
fensepunishablebydeath,reclusionperpetuaorlifeimprison
ment, theprosecutionhastheburden
ofshowingthatevidenceofguiltisstrong."Thisrulepresuppo
sesthat:(1)anapplicationfor bail wasfiled, and
(2)thejudgenotifiedtheprosecutorandconductedabailheari
ngfortheprosecutiontoadduceevidencetoprove theguilt
ofthe accused.

Theact ofJudgeClapisisnot
ameredeficiencyinprudence,discretionandjudgmentbutap
atentdisregardofwell-
knownrules.Whenanerrorissogrossandpatent,sucherrorpr
oducesaninferenceofbadfaith,makingthejudgeliableforgro
ssignoranceofthelaw.Ifjudgesareallowedtowantonlymisus
ethepowersvestedinthembythelaw,therewillnotonlybecon
fusionintheadministrationofjusticebutalsooppressivedisre
gardofthebasicrequirementsofdueprocess.

UnderSection8(9),Rule140oftheRulesofCourt,grossmisco
nductandgrossignoranceofthelaworprocedurearebothclas
sifiedasseriouscharges,forwhich the imposable
penaltiesare any of the following:
1.Dismissalfromtheservice,forfeitureofallorpartof

253
 2012CASES
thebenefitsastheCourtmaydetermine,anddisqualificationfr
omreinstatementorappointmenttoanypublicoffice,includi
nggovernment-
ownedorcontrolledcorporation:Provided,however,thatthe
forfeitureofbenefitsshallinnocaseincludeaccruedleave
credits;
2.Suspensionfromofficewithoutsalaryandotherbenefitsfor
morethanthree(3)butnotexceedingsix
(6)months;or
3.AfineofmorethanP20,000.00butnotexceedingP40,000.0
0.
TOPIC:DELAY INRENDERING A DECISION

CASE TITLE: ACTSCO LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION

MurphyChu,etal.vs.Hon.Ma MPLAINED
rioB.Capellan,AssistingJudg Section2,Rule11ofSupreme Nomeritinthecomplainants’allegationsthattherespondent JudgeMarioB.Capellan,AssistingJudge,
e,MeTC,Br.40, GrossIgnoranceoftheLa Court committedgrossignoranceofthelaw,partialityandgraveabus MetropolitanTrialCourt,Branch40,Que
QuezonCity. w,PartialityandGraveAbu AdministrativeMemorandu eofdiscretioninnotissuinganoticefortheholdingoftheNove zonCity,GUILTYofunderdelayinrende
seofDecision. m(A.M.)No.01-2-04; mber25,2008preliminaryconference,andinentertainingthe ringadecisionororderandherebyimpose
CASE NO.: spousesAngangco’soralmotiontodeclarethedefendantsind uponhimaFINEofTwentyThousandPe
A.M. No.MTJ-11-1779 1991RevisedRulesonSumm efault. sos(P20,000.00).
aryProcedureortheRulesofC
DATE ourt,particularlyinSection6, Noviolationcommittedbytherespondentinnotissuinganoti
OFPROMULGATI Rule 18. cefortheNovember25,2008preliminaryconferencebecause
ON:July 16, 2012 hisorderdatedOctober7,2008alreadyconstitutedsufficientn
oticetothepartiesoftheholdingofsuchpreliminaryconferen
PONENTE: ce.Inthedispositiveportionofsaidorder,therespondentclear
BRION, J lysetthecaseforpreliminaryconferenceatexactlyoneo’clocki
ntheafternoonofNovember25,2008.Andbothpartiesinthe
subjectunlawfuldetainercasereceivedcopiesoftheresponde
nt’sorder.Therefore,thecomplainantshaveno
reasontoarguethattheyweredeniedtheirrightsto
dueprocessinthisinstance.

Ontheplaintiffs’motiontodeclaredefendantsasin

254
2012CASES

default, recordrevealsthatdefendantshave not

filedanypre-
trialbriefwiththisCourtdespitethedirectivesettingthecasefo
rpreliminaryconferenceandasmandatedintheNoticeofPre-
TrialConference.Whileamotiontodeclaredefendantsindefa
ultisprohibitedinunlawfuldetainercases,(Section3,Rule70)t
hefailureofthedefendantstofileapre-trialbriefwithinthe3-
dayperiodbeforethepreliminaryconferencenecessitatesaju
dgmentbasedonthefactsallegedintheComplaint.(Section7,
Rule 70[,]inrelationto
Section8,Rule70andSection6,Rule18oftheRulesofCourt)T
hus,theCourtresolvesandtreatstheoralmotionoftheplaintif
fstodeclaredefendantsasindefaultasaMotiontorenderjudg
mentandthattheinstantcaseisnowsubmittedfordecisionont
hebasisofthefactsallegedin the Complaint

Therespondentdidnotcommitthemistakeofentertainingint
heunlawfuldetainercaseamotiontodeclarethedefendantsin
default,whichisaprohibitedpleadinginejectmentcasesunder
Section19, Rule IVofthe 1991 RevisedRulesonSummary
Procedure.

TheCourtlikewise,dispelsthecomplainants’assertionsthatS
upremeCourtA.M.No.01-2-
04maybesuppletorilyappliedto
thesubjectunlawfuldetainercaseandthatthefailureofthespo
usesAngangcotopersonallyappearduringthemediationpro
ceedingsshouldhavecausedthedismissaloftheunlawfuldeta
inercomplaint.

Section2,Rule11ofSupremeCourtA.M.No.01-2-
04cannotbesuppletorilyappliedtothesubjectunlawfuldetai
nercase.Thecitedadministrativememorandumspecificallyr
eferstotherulesgoverningintra-
corporatecontroversiesunderR.A.No.8799andappliesonly
tothecasesdefinedunderSection1,Rule1thereof,which

255
 2012CASES
doesnotincludeejectmentcases.Also,thereisnothinginSupr
emeCourtA.M.No.01-2-04thatpermitsitssuppletory
applicationto ejectmentcases.

Therespondenthoweverfailedtoexerthisauthorityinexpedi
tingtheproceedingsoftheunlawfuldetainercase.Soundpract
icerequiresajudgetoremain,atalltimes,infullcontrolofthepr
oceedingsinhiscourtandtoadoptafirmpolicyagainstunnece
ssarypostponements.

Innumerousoccasions,weadmonishedjudgestobeprompti
ntheperformanceoftheirsolemndutyasdispensersofjustice
becauseunduedelayintheadministrationofjusticeerodesthe
people’sfaithinthejudicialsystem.Delaynotonlyreinforcest
hebeliefofthepeoplethatthewheelsofjusticeinthiscountrygr
indslowly;italsoinvitessuspicion,howeverunfair,ofulterior
motivesonthepartofthejudge.Judgesshouldalwaysbemindf
uloftheirdutytorenderjusticewithinthe
periodsprescribedby law.

Sections9and11,Rule140oftheRulesofCourt,asamendedby
A.M.No.01-8-10-SC,classifiesunduedelayinrendering a
decisionororderasa lessseriouscharge.

TOPIC:GROSSNEGLIGENCE

CASE TITLE: ACTSCO LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION

IsaacC.Basilio,PerlitaPedroz MPLAINED
oandJunBasiliovs.Atty. Rule18.03,Canon18oftheCo Thefailureofrespondenttofiletheappellant’sbriefforcompl TheResolutionoftheIBPBoardofGover
Virgil R. Castro. Gross negligence deofProfessionalResponsibi ainantwithinthereglementaryperiodconstitutesgrossneglig norsapprovingwithmodificationtheRep
inviolationofth lity. enceinviolation of theCode of ortandRecommendationoftheInvestiga
CASE NO.: eCodeofProfessionalRes ProfessionalResponsibility.InPerlaCompaniadeSeguros,I tingCommissionerisAFFIRMEDWIT
A.C. No. 6910 ponsibility. nc.v.Saquilabon, thisCourtheld: HMODIFICATION.Atty.VirgilR.Cast
Anattorneyisboundtoprotecthisclient’sinteresttothebestof roisherebySUSPENDEDfromthepract
DATE hisabilityandwithutmostdiligence.1âwphi1(DelRosariov.C iceoflawforaperiodoftwo
OFPROMULGATI ourtofAppeals,114
ON:

256
 2012CASES
July 11, 2012 SCRA159)Afailuretofilebriefforhisclientcertainlyconstitut months,withasternwarningthatarepetiti
esinexcusable negligence on hispart. (People onofthesameorasimilarwrongdoingwill
PONENTE: v.Villar,46SCRA107)Therespondenthasindeedcommitted bedealtwithmoreseverely.
SERENO,J. aseriouslapseinthedutyowedbyhimtohisclientaswellastoth
eCourtnottodelaylitigationandtoaidinthespeedyadministra
tionofjustice.(Peoplev.Daban,43SCRA185;Peoplev.Estoc
ada,43SCRA 515).

Respondent’sfailuretoprotecttheinterestofcomplainant,re
spondentindeedviolatedRule18.03,Canon18oftheCodeof
ProfessionalResponsibility.Respondentisremindedthatthe
practiceoflawisaspecialprivilegebestowedonlyuponthosew
hoarecompetentintellectually,academicallyandmorally.Th
eCourthasbeenexactinginitsexpectationsforthememberso
ftheBartoalwaysupholdtheintegrityanddignityofthelegalpr
ofessionandrefrainfromanyactoromissionwhichmightless
enthe trustandconfidenceof the public.

InPeoplev.Cawili,weheldthatthefailureofcounseltosubmit
thebriefwithinthereglementaryperiodisanoffensethatentail
sdisciplinaryaction.Peoplev.Villar,Jr.characterizedalawyer’
sfailuretofileabriefforhisclientasinexcusableneglect.InBlaz
av.CourtofAppeals,thefilingofabriefwithintheperiodsetbyl
awisadutynotonlytotheclient,butalsotothecourt.Perla
Compania de Seguros, Inc. v.
SaquilabonreiteratedFordv.DaitolandInre:SantiagoF.Mar
cosinholdingthatanattorney’sfailuretofileabriefforhisclient
constitutesinexcusable negligence.

TOPIC:GROSSLY IMMORALCONDUCT

CASE TITLE: ACTSCO LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION

ManuelG. Villatuyavs.Atty. MPLAINED
Bede S.Tabalingcos. Section27oftheCodeof Anagreementbetween a lawyerand a layperson to share Courtresolvesthefollowingcharges

257
 2012CASES

Unlawfulsolicitationofcas ProfessionalResponsibility; thefeescollectedfromclientssecuredbythelaypersonisnulla againstAtty.BedeS.Tabalingcosasfollow

CASE NO.: es,violationoftheCodeofP Bigamy, RPC. ndvoid,andthatthelawyerinvolvedmaybedisciplinedforune s:
A.C. No. 6622 rofessionalResponsibility thicalconduct.Consideringthatcomplainant’sallegationsint
hiscasehadnotbeenproven,theIBPcorrectlydismissedthec ThechargeofdishonestyisDISMISSED
DATE for hargeagainstrespondent onthismatter. forlack of merit.
OFPROMULGATI nonpaymentoffeestocom RespondentisREPRIMANDEDforact
ON:July 10, 2012 plainant,andgrossimmora Management,Inc.,whichproposedanagreementfortheenga sofillegaladvertisementandsolicitation.
lityformarryingtwoother gementoflegalservices.Theletterclearlystatesthat,shouldth
PONENTE: womenwhilerespondent’s eprospectiveclientagreetotheproposedfees,respondentwo Atty.BedeS.TabalingcosisDISBARRE
PERCURIAM first uldrenderlegalservicesrelatedtotheformer’sloanobligation Dforengaging inbigamy,a grossly
marriage wassubsisting. withabank.Thiscircumventionisconsideredobjectionablea immoralconduct.
ndviolatestheCode,becausetheletterissignedbyrespondent
asPresidentofJesi&JaneManagement,Inc.,andnotaspartne
rorassociate ofa law firm.

Rule15.08oftheCodemandatesthatthelawyerismandatedto
informtheclientwhethertheformerisactingasalawyerorinan
othercapacity.Thisdutyisamustinthoseoccupationsrelatedt
othepracticeoflaw.Thereasonisthatcertainethicalconsidera
tionsgoverningtheattorney-
clientrelationshipmaybeoperativeinoneandnotintheother.
Inthiscase,itisconfusingfortheclientifitisnotclearwhetherre
spondentisoffering consultancy or legalservices.

Considering,however,thatcomplainanthasnotproventhed
egreeofprevalenceofthispracticebyrespondent,the
latterviolatedRules2.03and15.08 of the Code.
Respondentexhibited a deplorable lack of thatdegree
ofmoralityrequiredofhimasamemberofthebar.Hemadeam
ockeryofmarriage,asacredinstitutiondemandingrespectand
dignity.Hisactsofcommittingbigamytwiceconstitutedgross
lyimmoralconductandaregroundsfordisbarmentunderSect
ion27,Rule138of theRevisedRulesof Court.

258
 2012CASES
TOPIC:DENIALOFDUE PROCESS

CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLA LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION

JasperJunnoF.Rodicavs.Att INED
y.ManuelM.Lazaro,etal. International Militia Thecourtfindsnomeritincomplainant’sargumentthattheC MotionforReconsideration&Motionfo
Motion for ofPeopleA ourt’sobservationthat"thewithdrawalshouldnothavebeenli rInhibitionareDENIEDfor lack
CASE NO.: ReconsiderationandInhib gainstCorruption mitedtotheRTCcaseasitappearsthatthereareothercasespen ofmerit.
A.C. No. 9259 itition-DenialofDue & Terrorism v. dingwithothertribunalsandagencies,"iserroneous.Sheclaim
Process. ChiefJustice Davide,Jr. stobeunawareofanyothercasependinginothertribunalsand
DATE (Ret.); agencies.However,thiscontentionisbeliedby
OFPROMULGATI complainant’sowndeclarationinherSwornAffidavitwhich
ON: Battadv. wasincorporatedinherComplaint,viz:
August23, 2012 Senator;Defensor-
Santiago. 1. Sometimein2010,IfiledacivilcaseagainstHillviewMarketi
PONENTE: ngCorporation,StephanieDornauandseveralothers,regardi
DELCASTILLO,J. ngrecoveryofpossession
ofacertainareathatwaslostonmyproperty,theillegalencroac
hmentonmypropertyxxx,forrecoveryofdamagesandasinde
mnitycaptionedasJASPERJ.F.RODICAvs.HILLVIEWM
ARKETINGCORPORATION,etal.anddocketedasCivil
CaseNo.8987,andassignedattheRegionalTrialCourtBranc
hVIof KaliboAklan;

2. Earlieron,in2009,IhavealsofiledacasewiththeHLURBag
ainstHillviewMarketingCorporation/itsofficers,forunfair
/irregularrealestatebusinesspractices,refundforthepurchas
epriceregardingthesaleoftheBoracaypropertymadetomeby
Hillview,and some othermatters.

Moreover,intheAnswerfiledbyAtty.JosephTan(Atty.Tan)a
ndAtty.PaoloDestonrelativetoCBDCaseNo.12-
3360pendingbeforetheIntegratedBarofthePhilippines,cop
yofwhichwasattachedtoAtty.

259
 2012CASES
Tan’sManifestation,severalcaseswere
mentioned.The MotiontoInhibitisdenied for lack
ofbasis.
"Aninhibitionmustbeforjustandvalidreason.Themereimp
utationofbiasorpartialityisnotenoughgroundtoinhibit,espe
ciallywhenthechargeiswithoutbasis."

Inthiscase,complainant'simputationthatherComplaintwas
decidedbythemagistratesofthisCourtwithextremebiasandp
rejudiceisbaselessandclearlyunfounded.

TOPIC:BETRAYALOFTRUST ANDCONFIDENCE

CASE TITLE: ACTSCO LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION

SantosVenturaHocormaFo MPLAINED
undation, Canon15,Rule15.03 Canon15,Rule15.03oftheCPRprovidesthatalawyercannotr Atty.RichardFunkisSUSPENDEDfro
Inc., Betrayalofthetrustandcon oftheCodeofProfessionalRe epresentconflictinginterestsexceptbywrittenconsentofallc mthepracticeoflawforoneyeareffective
representedbyGabrielH.Ab fidenceofaformerclientin sponsibility(CPR)withthe oncernedgivenafterafulldisclosureofthefacts.Here,itisunde immediately.
advs.Atty.RichardV.Funk. violationoftheCPRwhenh aggravating niablethatAtty.FunkwasformerlythelegalcounselofHocor
efiledseveralactionsagains circumstanceofa patternof maFoundation.Yearsafterterminatinghisrelationshipwitht
CASE NO.: tsuchclient on behalfof misconduct. hefoundation,hefiledacomplaintagainstitonbehalfofanoth
A.C. No. 9094 anew one. erclientwithoutthe foundation’swrittenconsent.

DATE
OFPROMULGATI
ON:
August15, 2012

PONENTE:
ABAD,J.
TOPIC:GRAVE DISHONESTY ANDGROSSMISCONDUCT

CASE TITLE: ACTSCO LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION

Engr.GilbertTumbokonvs. MPLAINED
Atty. Mariano R. Lawyer'sOath;Rule1.01, Respondent’sdefensethatforgeryhadattendedthe ATTY. MARIANO R.

260
 2012CASES

Pefianco. Gravedishonesty,grossmi Canon1;Rule7.03,Canon executionoftheAugust11, PEFIANCOisfoundGUILTYofviolat

sconductconstitutingdece 7andRule9.02,Canon9of 1995letterwasbeliedbyhisJuly16,1997letteradmittingtohav ionoftheLawyer’sOath,Rule1.01,Cano
CASE NO.: itandgrosslyimmoralcond the Code eundertakenthepaymentofcomplainant'scommissionbutp n1oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibi
A.C. No. 6116 uct. ofProfessionalResponsibilit assingontheresponsibilitytoSps.Yap.Clearly,respondentha lityandRule9.02,Canon9ofthesame
y. sviolatedRule 9.02,Canon CodeandSUSPENDEDfromtheactiv
DATE 9oftheCodewhichprohibitsalawyerfromdividingorstipulat epracticeof law ONE(1)YEAR
OFPROMULGATI ingtodivideafeeforlegalserviceswithpersonsnotlicensedto effective uponnoticehereof.
ON: practicelaw,exceptincertaincaseswhichdo not obtaininthe
August1, 2012, case atbar.

PONENTE: Furthermore,respondentdidnotdenytheaccusationthathea
PERLAS-BERNABE,J. bandonedhislegalfamilytocohabitwithhismistresswithwho
mhebegotfourchildrennotwithstandingthathismoralchara
cteraswellashismoralfitnesstoberetainedintheRollofAttor
neyshasbeenassailed.Thesettledruleisthatbetrayalofthemar
italvowoffidelityorsexualrelationsoutsidemarriageisconsid
ereddisgracefulandimmoralasitmanifestsdeliberatedisrega
rdofthesanctityofmarriageandthemaritalvowsprotectedby
theConstitutionandaffirmedbyourlaws.
Consequently,there’snoreasontodisturbtheIBP'sfindingth
atrespondentviolatedtheLawyer'sOathandRule1.01,Cano
n1oftheCodewhichproscribesalawyerfromengagingin"unl
awful,dishonest, immoral ordeceitful conduct."

However,thechargeofengaginginillegalmoneylendinghave
notbeensufficientlyestablished.A"business"requiressomef
ormofinvestmentandasufficientnumberofcustomerstowh
omitsoutputcanbesoldatprofitonaconsistentbasis.Thelend
ingofmoneytoasinglepersonwithoutshowingthatsuchservi
ceismadeavailableto otherpersonson
aconsistentbasiscannotbeconstruedasindiciathatresponde
ntisengagedin thebusinessoflending.

Nonetheless,respondentshouldbesanctionedforhis

261
 2012CASES
actions.
TOPIC:DISHONESTY

CASE TITLE: ACTSCO LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION

A.C.No.9390.,AugustEmili MPLAINED
aO.Dhaliwalvs.Atty.Abelar Canon16oftheCodeofProfe TheCourtadoptstheIBP'sfindingsoffactandconclusionsofl Atty.AbelardoB.Dumaguingisadjudged
doB.Dumaguing. Violation of Canon16 ssionalResponsibility. aw. GUILTY of
oftheCodeofProfessional The Code ofProfessionalResponsibility violatingCano
CASE NO.: Responsibility. provides:Canon16- n16oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsi
A.C. No. 9390 Alawyershallholdintrustallmoneysandpropertiesof bility. He
hisclientthatmaycomeintohispossession. ishereby
DATE Rule16.01- SUSPENDEDfromthepracticeoflawf
OFPROMULGATI Alawyershallaccountforallmoneyorpropertycollectedorrec oraperiodofsix(6)monthseffectiveupon
ON: eivedfororfromtheclient.Rule16.02- receiptofthisResolution.Heisalsoordere
August1, 2012 Alawyershallkeepthefundsofeachclientseparateandapartfr dtoreturntocomplainantEmiliaO.Dhali
omhisownandthoseofotherskept by wal,theamountofP311,819.94withlegali
PONENTE: him.Rule16.03- nterestofsixpercent(6%)perannumfro
PERLAS-BERNABE,J. Alawyershalldeliverthefundsandpropertyof mthetimeofhisreceiptofthemoneyonSe
hisclientwhendue orupondemand. ptember29,2000uptothefinalityofthisR
esolutionandtwelvepercent(12%)peran
Moneyentrusted numfromfinalitythereofuntilpaid.
toalawyerforaspecificpurpose,suchaspaymentforthebalan
ceofthepurchasepriceofaparcel of landasin the
presentcase, butnotusedfor thepurpose,should
beimmediatelyreturned."Alawyer'sfailuretoreturnuponde
mandthefundsheldbyhimonbehalfofhisclientgivesrisetoth
epresumptionthathehasappropriatedthesameforhisownus
einviolationofthetrustreposedinhimbyhisclient.Suchactisa
grossviolationofgeneralmoralityaswellasofprofessionaleth
ics.Itimpairspublicconfidenceinthelegalprofessionanddes
ervespunishment.

SincerespondentwithdrewtheconsignationoftheBPImana
gerschecksinthetotalamountofP311,891.94fromtheHLU
RBandthesamewasnotusedtosettlethebalanceofthepurcha
sepriceoftheparceloflandpurchasedbycomplainantfromFil
-
Estate,thenreimbursementwithlegalinterestwasproperlyor
dered

262
 2012CASES
bythe IBP.

Respondent'sprofferedexcuseofhavingtoawaittheHLURB
actiononhisallegedmotion--
thefilingofwhichhemiserablyfailedtoprove--
asaconditiontothereturnofthesumofP311,891.94tocompl
ainantcompoundshisliabilityandevenbolsteredhisattitudet
ousedishonestmeansifonlytoevadehisobligation.Itunderli
neshisfailuretomeetthehighmoralstandardsrequiredofme
mbersof thelegalprofession.
TOPIC:GROSSIGNORANCE OFLAW

CASE TITLE: ACTSCO LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION

LucioO.Magtibayvs.JudgeC MPLAINED
aderP.Indar,AlHaj.,RTC,Br Section9(1),Rule140oftheR Respondentexhibitedrudebehaviorindealingwiththepublic ADERP. INDAR,AIHaj.Is
anch14CotabatoCity. GrossIgnoranceoftheLa ulesofCourt,asamendedbyA .Whethercomplainantandhercounselwereentitledtothereq GUILTYofUndueDelayinRenderingan
wanddeplorableconduct,r dministrativeMatterNo.01- uesteddocumentsisnottheissue,butthemannerofhowhede OrderandConductUnbecomingofaJud
CASE NO.: elativetoSpecialProceedin 8-10-SC. clinedtherequest.Certainly,hisstatementwhichhedidnotde ge,andheisaccordinglyFINEDintheam
A.M. No.RTJ-11-2271 gsNo.2004- ny:"Huwagmongituloyangsasabihinmokumukuloangdugo ountofTwenty Thousand
074entitledInRe:Matterof sainyolumayasnakayomaramiakongproblema"doesnotspe Pesos(R20,000.00),tobe
DATE InsolvenciaVoluntariaDe akwell deductedfromhisleave credits, ifthere
OFPROMULGATI OlarteHermanosyCia,Hei ofhispositionasmemberofthebench.Noticeably,eveninhis isany.
ON: rsoftheLateJosePOlarte, Comment,respondent'schoiceofwordswaslikewiseinappr
September24, 2012 etal. opriate.Thiswewillnottolerate.

PONENTE: However,duringthependencyofthiscase,notethatin
PERALTA, J. A.M.No. RTJ-10-
2232,respondenthasalreadybeendismissedfromtheservicet
hatalreadyattainedfinalityconsideringthatrespondentdidno
tfileanymotionforreconsideration.Nevertheless,itshouldb
eemphasizedthatthesamedoesnotrendertheinstantcasemo
otandacademicbecauseaccessorypenaltiesmaystillbeimpos
ed.

UnderSection9(1),Rule140oftheRulesofCourt,asamended
by AdministrativeMatterNo. 01-8-10-SC,

263
 2012CASES
respondent'sunduedelayinrenderingadecisionisclassifiedas
alessseriousoffense.Itispunishablebysuspensionfromoffic
ewithoutsalaryandotherbenefitsfornotlessthanonemonth
normorethanthreemonths,orafineofmorethan₱10,000.00
butnotexceeding₱20,000.00. In viewof
respondent'sdismissalfromservice,theOCA'srecommenda
tionofafineintheamountof₱20,000.00is,therefore,inorderc
onsideringthatrespondentwasfoundguiltyforbothunduede
layinrenderinganorderandconductunbecoming of a judge.

TOPIC:SIMPLE MISCONDUCT

CASE TITLE: ACTSCO LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION

ProsecutorsHydierabadA.C MPLAINED
asar,JonalE.Hernandez,Dan OfficeoftheCourtAdministr JudgeSolurenopenedherselftochargesofimproprietywhen TtheCourtfindsretiredJudgeCorazonD.
teP.SindacandAtty.JobertD. GrossMisconduct. ator(OCA)Circular No. 03- she went to the Aurora ProvincialJail tosolicit Soluren,RegionalTrialCourt,Branch96,
Reyesvs.CorazonD.Soluren, 2010 thesympathiesandsignaturesoftheprisoners,especiallythos Baler,Aurora,GUILTY of
PresidingJudge,RTC,Branch ewhohadpendingscasesinhersala. SIMPLE
96,Baler, Aurora. MISCONDUCTandimposesuponhert
TheCourthasconsistentlyenjoinedjudgestoavoidnotjustim hepenaltyofFINEin
CASE NO.: proprietyintheirconductbuteventhemereappearanceofimp theamountofTenThousandPesos(P10,
A.M. No.RTJ-12-2333 roprietybecausetheappearanceofbiasorprejudicecanbeda 000.00)tobedeductedfromherretiremen
magingasactualbiasorprejudicetothepublic’sconfidenceon t/gratuity benefits.
DATE theJudiciary’sroleintheadministrationofjustice.Tosaythele
OFPROMULGATI ast,usingdetentionprisonerswhohadcasesbeforeJudgeSolu
ON: rencannotbe countenanced.
October22, 2012

PONENTE:
MENDOZA,J.

TOPIC:NEGLECT

CASE TITLE: ACTSCO LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION

Herminia P. Voluntad- MPLAINED
Ramirezvs. Atty.Rosario Canon18,Rule18.02,and JRespondentbreachedhisdutytoservehisclientwith The CourtfindsAtty.RosarioB.

264
 2012CASES
B. Bautista. Violation of Rule22.02oftheCodeofProf competenceanddiligence.Respondentisalsoguiltyofviolati Bautista GUILTY ofviolatingCanon
Canon18, essionalResponsibility; ngRule18.03oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility,whic 18andRule18.03oftheCodeofProfessio
CASE NO.: Rule18.02,andRule hstatesthat"alawyershallnotneglectalegalmatterentrustedt nalResponsibilityandheisADMONIS
A.C. No. 6733 22.02 of the Article222ofthe CivilCode; ohim,andhisnegligenceinconnectiontherewithshallrender HEDto
CodeofProfessionalResp himliable."However,wedonotfindrespondentguiltyofviola exercise
DATE onsibility,violationof LocalGovernmentCode; tingRule22.02oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility greatercareanddiligenceintheperforma
OFPROMULGATI the lawyer's Republic ActNo. 6713. since respondentimmediately nceofhisdutytohisclients.Atty.Bautistai
ON: oath,gravemiscondu turnedovertocomplainantthefoldercontainingthedocume sorderedtoRESTITUTE
October10, 2012 ct,andconduct ntsandletterspertainingtohercaseupontheseveranceofresp tocomplainantP14,000outoftheP15,00
prejudicial ondent’slegalservices. 0acceptancefee.
PONENTE: tothe best
CARPIO,J. interestofthepublic. Respondentattributeshisdelayinfilingtheappropriatecrimin
alcasetotheabsenceofconciliationproceedingsbetweenco
mplainantandhersiblingsbeforethebarangayasrequiredund
erArticle222oftheCivilCodeandtheLocalGovernmentCod
e.However,thisexcuseisbeliedbytheCertificationtoFileActi
onbythe
OfficeoftheLupongTagapamayapa,OfficeoftheBarangayCou
ncil,BarangayDaanghari,Navotas.TheCertificationtoFileA
ctionwasissuedon1July2002,whichwasmorethanfourmont
hsbeforecomplainantengagedrespondent’slegalserviceson
25November2002.Respondentsallegationthatcomplainan
tfailedtoinformhimabouttheexistenceoftheCertificationto
FileActionishardtobelieveconsideringcomplainant’sdeter
minationtofilethecaseagainsthersiblings.Clearly,responde
nthasbeennegligentinhandlingcomplainantscase.

TOPIC:GROSSIGNORANCE OFLAW

CASE TITLE: ACTSCO LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION

Re:AnonymousLetterdated MPLAINED
August12,2010,complaining Canon18,Rule18.02,andRul JudgePintohadnojurisdictiontoentertainthemotionfiledby JudgeOfeliaT.Pinto,PresidingJudgeoft
againstJudgeOfeliaT.Pinto, Grossignoranceof e22.02oftheCodeofProfessi theaccused-movanttoreopenCriminalCaseNo.91- heRegionalTrialCourt,Branch60,Angel
RegionalTrialCourt,Branch thelaw. onalResponsibility; 937becausetheCA’sdecision,whichaffirmedtheaccused- esCity,Pampanga,isfoundGUlLTY of
60, movant’sconviction,hadbecomefinaland GrossIgnorance

265
 2012CASES
AngelesCity, Pampanga. Article222ofthe CivilCode; executory.JudgePinto’sconductwascontrarytotheclearlang of the Lawandishereby
uageofSection24,Rule119ofthe2000RevisedRulesofCrimi DISMISSEDFROMTHE
CASE NO.: LocalGovernmentCode; nalProcedurewhichprovidesthat the reopening of a SERVICE,withforfeitureofallretiremen
A.M. No.RTJ-11-2289 Republic ActNo. 6713. criminalcase may only be tbenefits,exceptaccruedleavecredits,an
availedof"atanytimebeforefinalityofthejudgmentofconvictdwithprejudicetore-
DATE ion:" employmentinanybranch,agencyorinstr
OFPROMULGATI umentalityofthegovernment,includingg
ON: Sec.24. Reopening.– overnment-
October2, 2012 Atanytimebeforefinalityofthejudgmentofconviction,theju ownedorcontrolledcorporations.
dgemay,motupropriooruponmotion,withhearingineitherc
PONENTE: ase,reopentheproceedingstoavoidamiscarriageofjustice.T
PERCURIAM heproceedingsshallbeterminatedwithinthirty(30)daysfrom
the ordergranting it. [italicssupplied]

JudgePinto’sutterdisregardtoapplysettledlawsandrulesof
procedure constitutesgrossignorance of the
lawwhichmeritsadministrativesanction.Section8(9),Rule1
40oftheRulesofCourtclassifiesgrossignoranceasaseriousch
arge.
TOPIC:MALPRACTICES

CASE TITLE: ACTSCO LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION

OfficeoftheCourtAdministr MPLAINED
atorvs.JudgeLylihaA.Aquin Code of Judicial Conduct. JudgeAquinoindeedadmittedthatshehadviolatedtherulesw TheCourtimposesa·FINEofTenThous
o,RegionalTrialCourt,Branc Nefariousactivitiesandim hensheproceededtohearsomecasesdespitenon- andPesos(PI0,000.00)onJUDGE.LYLI
h4,TuguegaraoCity, peachableactivitiesandma compliancewiththerequirements.Inannulmentofmarriage HAA.AQUINOwith
Cagayan. lpractices. cases,theinvestigationreportoftheprosecutorisaconditions aSTERNWARNINGthatarepetitionof
inequanonforthesettingofpre-trial.Short- thesameorsimilaractsshall be
CASE NO.: cutsinjudicialprocessescannotbecountenancedbythisCour dealtwithmoreseverely.
A.M. No.RTJ-10-2244 tbecausespeedisnottheprincipal objective oftrial.

DATE ConsideringthatJudgeAquinowasnotmotivatedbybadfaith
OFPROMULGATI ,maliceandcausednoharmtoanylitigant,theCourtwillnotme
ON: teoutaseriousadministrativepenaltyatthistime,butrather,wi
November28, 2012 llimposeafineandwarnJudgeAquinothatproceduralomissio
nsinthehearing
PONENTE:
MENDOZA,J.

266
 2012CASES
of caseswouldnotalwaysbe tolerated.
TOPIC:GROSSLY IMMORALCONDUCT

CASE TITLE: ACTSCO LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION

MariaVictoriaB.Venturavs. MPLAINED
Atty. DaniloS. Samson. CANON 1Rule 1.01. Fromtheundisputedfactsgatheredfromtheevidenceandthe RespondentAtty.DaniloS.Samsonisher
Grossly CANON 7Rule 7.03. admissionsofrespondenthimself, ebyDISBARREDforGrossImmoralCo
CASE NO.: immoral thecourtfindsthatrespondent’sactofengaginginsexwithayo nduct,Violationofhisoath of office,
A.C. No. 9608 conduct. unglass,thedaughterofhisformeremployee,constitutesgros andViolationof
simmoralconductthatwarrantssanction.Respondentnoton Canon1,Rule1.01andCanon7,Rule7.03
DATE lyadmittedhehadsexualintercoursewithcomplainantbutals oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibilit
OFPROMULGATI oshowednoremorsewhatsoeverwhenheassertedthathedid y.
ON: nothingwrongbecausesheallegedlyagreedandheevengave
November27, 2012 hermoney.

PONENTE: Indeed,hisactofhavingcarnalknowledgeofawomanotherth
PERCURIAM anhiswifemanifestshisdisrespectforthelawsonthesanctityo
fmarriageandhisownmaritalvowoffidelity.Moreover,thefa
ctthatheprocuredtheactbyenticingaveryyoungwomanwith
moneyshowedhisutmostmoraldepravityandlowregardfor
thedignityofthehumanpersonandtheethicsofhisprofession
.Respondenthasviolatedthetrustandconfidencereposedon
himbycomplainant,thena13-year-
oldminor,whoforatimewasunderrespondent’scare.Wheth
erthesexualencounterbetweentherespondentandcomplain
antwasorwasnotwiththelatter’sconsentisofnomoment.Res
pondentclearlycommittedadisgraceful,grosslyimmoraland
highlyreprehensibleact.Suchconductisatransgressionofthe
standardsofmoralityrequiredofthelegalprofessionandshou
ld be disciplinedaccordingly.

ThepertinentprovisionsintheCodeofProfessionalRespons
ibilityprovide:CANON1-
ALAWYERSHALLUPHOLDTHE
CONSTITUTION,OBEY

267
 2012CASES
THELAWSOFTHELANDANDPROMOTERESPECT
FORLAWANDLEGALPROCESSES.
Rule1.01.-
Alawyershallnotengageinunlawful,dishonest,immoralorde
ceitfulconduct.CANON7-
ALAWYERSHALLATALLTIMESUPHOLDTHEINT
EGRITYANDDIGNITYOFTHELEGALPROFESSIO
NANDSUPPORTTHEACTIVITIESOFTHEINTEGR
ATEDBAR.Rule7.03.-Alawyer
shallnotengageinconductthatadverselyreflectsonhisfitness
topracticelaw,norshallhe,whetherinpublicorprivatelife,beh
aveinascandalousmannertothediscreditof the
TOPIC:NEGLIGENCEANDCONFLICTINGINTEREST legalprofession.

CASE TITLE: ACTSCO LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION

RobertVictorG.Searles,Jr.vs MPLAINED
.Atty.Na.SaniataLiwliwaV. Canon15,Canon17andCano ThecomplaintagainstAtty.Gonzales- TheCourtDISMISSEStheadministrativ
Gonzales-Alzate. Incompetence n18oftheCodeofProfession Alzateisunfoundedanddevoidofsubstance. ecomplaintagainstAtty.SaniataLiwliwa
andpr alResponsibility V.Gonzales-
CASE NO.: ofessionalnegligence,and For administrative liability underCanon18 to attach, Alzateforutterlackofmerit;andADMO
A.C. No. 9058 aviolationoftheprohibitio thenegligentactoftheattorneyshouldbegrossandinexcusabl NISHESRobertVictorG.Seares,Jr.forfi
n eastoleadtoaresultthatwashighlyprejudicialto lingthemaliciouscomplaint,WITHSTE
DATE against theclient’sinterest.Accordingly,theCourthasimposedadmi RNWARNINGthatarepetitionshallbed
OFPROMULGATI representingconflictingint nistrativesanctionsonagrosslynegligentattorneyforunreaso ealtwithmoreseverelyasindirectcontem
ON: erests. nablefailuretofilearequiredpleading,orforunreasonablefail ptof the Court.
November14, 2012 uretofileanappeal,especiallywhenthefailureoccurredaftert
heattorneymovedforseveralextensionstofilethepleadingan
PONENTE:B dofferedseveralexcusesforhisnonfeasance.TheCourthasfo
ERSAMIN,J. undtheattendanceofinexcusablenegligencewhenanattorne
yresortstoawrongremedy,
orbelatedlyfilesanappeal,orinordinatelydelaysthefilingofac
omplaint,orfailstoattendscheduledcourthearings.Grossmi
sconductonthepartofanattorneyisdeterminedfromthecirc
umstancesofthecase,thenatureoftheactdoneandthemotive
thatinducedtheattorneytocommitthe

268
 2012CASES
act.
WecannotfindAtty.Gonzales-
Alzateprofessionallynegligentinrespectofthefilingandeven
tualdismissalofthesubsequent"PetitionforProtest."Thever
ificationandcertificationagainstforumshoppingattachedtot
hepetitioncontainedhandwrittensuperimpositionsbyAtty.
Gonzales-
Alzate,butsuchsuperimpositionswereapparentlymadeonly
toreflectthecorrectionsofthedatesofsubscriptionandtheno
tarialdocumentnumberanddocketnumberfortheverificatio
nandcertification.Ifthatwasalltherewastothesuperimpositi
ons,thentherewasnothingtosupportthetrialjudge’sobserva
tionthatthe"cutandpaste"methodinpreparingtheverificatio
nandcertificationfornon-
forumshoppingconstituted"professionalnegligence"thatp
rovedfataltoherclient’sprotest.Asamatterofpolicy,acourt-
bounddocumentorpaperpreparedinaslipshodmanneraffec
tsonlytheformbutnotthesubstanceofthesubmission.Suchs
lipshodpreparation,evenassumingittobetrue,wouldnotdes
erveadministrativecensure.Notlettingformprevailoversubs
tancestillremainsto bethe judicial ideal.

TOPIC:NEGLIGENCEANDSOLITICATIONOFMONEY

CASE TITLE: ACTSCO LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION

AmparoBuenovs.Atty.Ram MPLAINED
on A.Raneses. Canon18, CPR. TheCourtapprovestheIBP’sfindingsbutresolvestodisbarA RespondentAtty.Ramon
Incompetence tty.RañesesfromthepracticeoflawinaccordancewithComm A.RañesesisherebyDISBARREDfrom
CASE NO.: and issionerLimpingco’srecommendationandbasedonourown the practice of law
A.C. No. 8383 Negligenceandsoliciting observationsandfindingsinthe case.
money.
DATE AccordingtoCanon18oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsib
OFPROMULGATI ility,lawyersshouldservetheirclientswithcompetenceanddil
ON: igence.Specifically,Rule18.02providesthat"[a]lawyershalln
December11, 2012 othandleanylegalmatterwithoutadequatepreparation."Rule
18.03,on
PONENTE:
PERCURIAM

269
 2012CASES
theotherhand,statesthat"[a]lawyershallnotneglectalegalma
tterentrustedtohim,andhisnegligenceinconnection[therew
ith]shallrenderhimliable."

"Oncelawyersagreetotakeupthecauseofaclient,theyowefid
elitytothecauseandmustalwaysbemindful of
thetrustandconfidencereposedinthem."Aclientisentitledto
thebenefitofallremediesanddefensesauthorized by law
andisexpected to rely on hislawyer to avail of these
remediesordefenses.

Atty.Rañeseswrongedhisclient,thejudgeallegedlyonthe"ta
ke,"theJudiciaryasaninstitution,andtheIBPofwhichheisam
ember.TheCourtcannotandshouldnotallowoffensessucha
sthesetopassunredressed.Letthisbeasignaltooneandall–
toalllawyers,theirclientsandthegeneralpublic–
thattheCourtwillnothesitatetoactdecisivelyandwithnoquar
tersgiventodefendtheinterestofthepublic,ofourjudicialsyst
emandtheinstitutionscomposingit,andtoensurethatthesear
enotcompromisedbyunscrupulousormisguidedmemberso
ftheBar.

TOPIC:IBPBY-LAWS

CASE TITLE: ACTSCO LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION

Inthematterofthebrewingco MPLAINED
ntroversiesintheelectionsoft Section47andSection49of WhateverthedecisionoftheCourtmaybe,topreventfuturew AMENDSection47andSection49,Artic
heIntergratedBarofthePhili Section47oftheIBPBy- theIBPBy-law. ranglingandguidetheIBPintheirfuturecourseofaction,Secti leVIIoftheIBPBy-
ppines/Atty.Marcial Lawsshouldbefurtherame on47andSection49oftheIBPBy- Lawstoreadasrecommendedinthebody
M. Magsino, etal. vs. nded. lawsshouldagainbeamended.Stressshouldbeplacedonthea ofthisdisposition.
Attys.RogelioA. Vinluan, utomaticsuccessionoftheEVPtothepositionofthepresiden
etal. t.Surprisingly,theautomaticsuccessiondoesnotappearinpre
sentSection47,asorderedamendedbytheCourtintheDecem
CASE NO.: ber14,2010 Resolution.Itshouldbe restored.
A.M.No.09-5-2-
SC/A.C.No. 8292

270
 2012CASES

DATE
OFPROMULGATI
ON:
December4, 2012

PONENTE:
MENDOZA,J.

271
 2013CASES
TOPIC:GROSSIGNORANCEOFTHELAW,MANIFESTPARTIALITY,ANDNEGLECTOFDUTY

CASE TITLE: ACTSCO LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION

GeoffreyBeckettvs.JudgeOl MPLAINED
egarioR.Samiento,Jr.,RTC,
Branch24,CebuCity. RulesofJudicial Conduct. Complainanthaschargedrespondentjudgewithgrossignora The complaint is
Grossignoranceofthelaw, nceofthelaw.Hestatesinthisregardthatrespondentjudge,ina herebyDISMISSED.
manifestpartialityanddere rbitrarydefianceofhisownDecisionofSeptember25,2006w
CASE NO.: lictionandneglectofdutyal hichconstitutesresjudicataorabartohimtopassupontheissu
A.M. No.RTJ-12-2326 legedlycommittedinrelati eofGeoffrey,Jr’s.custody,granted,viahisMarch15,2011Ord
ontoSp.Proc.No. 18182- er,provisionalcustodyoverGeoffrey,Jr.toEltesa.TheDecisi
CEB,entitledGeoffreyBe onadvertedtoreferstothejudgmentoncompromise
DATE ckettv.EltesaDensingBec agreement.
OFPROMULGATI kett,whilependingbeforet
ON: hatcourt.
January 30, 2013 TheCourtcannotgoalongwithcomplainantsaboveposture.
Respondentjudge,ingrantingprovisionalcustody
overGeoffrey, Jr. infavor of hismother,
PONENTE: Eltesa,didnotdisregardtheresjudicatarule.Themoreapprop
VELASCO, JR., J. riatedescriptionofthelegalsituationengenderedbytheMarch
15,2011Orderissuedamidstthepersistentpleaofthechildnot
tobereturnedtohisfather,isthatrespondentjudgeexhibitedfi
delitytojurisprudentialcommandtoaccordprimacytothewel
fareandinterestofaminorchild.Asitwere,thematterofcustod
y,toborrowfromEspirituv.CourtofAppeals,"isnotpermane
ntandunalterableandcanalwaysbere-
examinedandadjusted."Andasaptlyobservedinaseparateop
inioninDacasinv.Dacasin,acustodyagreementcanneverber
egardedas"permanentandunbending,"thesimplereasonbei
ngthatthesituationofthe parentsandevenof the childcan

272
 2013CASES

change,suchthatstickingtotheagreedarrangementwouldno
longerbetothelatter’sbestinterest.Inaveryrealsense,then,aj
udgmentinvolvingthecustodyofaminorchildcannotbeacco
rdedtheforceandeffectofresjudicata.

NOreasontosustainthechargeagainstrespondentjudgeforg
rossignoranceofthelaw.Forclearly,absentanyevidencetoth
econtrary,Geoffrey,Jr.chosetolivewithhismotherforareaso
n,whichrespondentjudge,consistentwiththepromotionoft
hebestinterestofthechild,provisionallygrantedthroughthei
ssuanceofthedisputedMarch15,2011Order.Infact,inissuin
gthedisputedOrder,respondentjudgerectifiedanerrorprevi
ouslymadewhenhehandedouttheJudgmentonCompromis
e Agreementin2006.

TOPIC:DUE PROCESANDTHE CODE OFPROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

CASE TITLE: ACTSCO LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION

FeA.Ylayavs.Atty.GlennCar MPLAINED
losGacott.
Canon1,Rule1.01andCanon ThecourtsetsasidethefindingsandrecommendationsoftheI ThecourtsetsasideResolutionNo.XVIII
IBPviolatedtheresponden 16oftheCodeofProfessional BPCommissionerandthoseoftheIBPBoardofGovernorsfi -.2007-
CASE NO.: t’srighttodueprocess. Responsibility,andSection3( ndingtherespondentliableforviolatingCanon1,Rules1.01a 302datedDecember14,2007andResolut
A.C. No. 6475 c),RuleIVof A.M.No.02-8- ndSection3(c),RuleIVofA.M.No.02-8-13-SC. ionNo.XIX-2010-
13-SC. 545datedOctober8,2010oftheIBPBoar
Respondent dofGovernorsandfindrespondentAtty.
DATE is ThecourthoweverholdstherespondentliableforviolatingCa GlennCarlosGacottGUILTYofviolatin
OFPROMULGATI administrativelyliableforv non16oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibilityforbeingre gRule15.03ofCanon15,Canon16,andR
ON: iolatingCanon1,Rule1.01a missinhisobligationtohold ule18.03ofCanon18oftheCodeofProfes
ndCanon16 sionalResponsibility.Asa

273
 2013CASES

January 30, 2013 of the Code intrusthisclient’sproperties.itlikewisefindshimliableforviol penalty,heisSUSPENDEDfromthepra

ofProfessionalRes ationof(1)Canon15,Rule15.03forrepresentingconflictingin cticeoflawforone(1)year,withaWARNI
ponsibility, terestswithoutthewrittenconsentoftherepresentedparties,t NGthatarepetitionofthesameorsimilara
PONENTE: andSection3(c),Rul hus,violatingtheruleonconflictofinterests;and(2)Canon18, ctwillbedealtwithmore severely.
BRION, J. eIVof Rule
A.M. No.02-8-13-SC. 18.03 forneglecting a legal matterentrusted tohim.

LiabilityunderCanons15,16and18Wefindtherespondentlia
bleunderCanon15,Rule15.03forrepresentingconflictingint
erestswithoutthewrittenconsentofallconcerned,particularl
ythecomplainant;underCanon16forbeingremissinhisoblig
ationtoholdintrusthisclient’sproperties;andunderCanon18
,Rule18.03forneglectingalegalmatterentrustedtohim.Cano
n15,Rule15.03states:Alawyershallnotrepresentconflictingi
nterestsexceptbywrittenconsentof
allconcernedgivenaftera fulldisclosure of thefacts.

TOPIC:FORUMSHOPPING

CASE TITLE: ACTSCO LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION

AnastacioN.TeodoroIIIvs. MPLAINED
Atty.RomeoS.Gonzales.
Code of Judicial Conduct. Thecourtagreeswiththefindingsofthecommissionerandac Thecourtfindsthebasisforthecomplaint
Forumshopping. cordinglyreversetheresolutionoftheIBPBoard of meritoriousandaccordinglyCENSURE
CASE NO.: Governors,butitmodifiesthecommissionersrecommende SAtty.Romeo
A.C. No. 6760 dpenaltytocensureandawarningthatanotherviolationwoul S.Gonzalesforresortingtoforumshoppi
dmerit amoresevere penalty. ng.HeisWARNEDthatanyfutureviolati
onofhisdutiesasalawyerwillbedealtwith
DATE OF moreseverely.Acopyofthisreprimandsh
Forumshoppingexistswhen,asaresultofanadversedecisioni ouldbeattachedtoAtty.RomeoS.
noneforum,orinanticipationthereof,aparty

274
 2013CASES

PROMULGATION: seeksafavorableopinioninanotherforumthroughmeansoth Gonzalespersonalfile in the Office

January 30, 2013 erthanappeal orcertiorari. oftheBar Confidant.

PONENTE: Thereisforumshoppingwhentheelementsoflitispendenciaa
BRION,J. representorwhereafinaljudgmentinonecasewillamounttor
esjudicatainanother.Theyareasfollows:(a)identityofparties,
oratleastsuchpartiesthatrepresentthesameinterestsinbotha
ctions,(b)identityofrightsorcausesofaction,and(c)identityo
freliefsought.
Underthistest,wefindthatAtty.Gonzalescommittedforums
hoppingwhenhefiledCivilCaseNo.00-99207while Special
Proceeding No. 99-95587 waspending.

TOPIC:INCOMPETENCE

CASE TITLE: ACTSCO LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION

Sps.ArcingandCresingBauti MPLAINED
sta,etal.vs.Atty.ArturoCefra.
Canon18oftheCodeofProfe TheCodeofProfessionalResponsibilitymandatesthat"alaw Atty.ArturoCefraguiltyofnegligence,inv
Violation of Canon18 ssionalResponsibilityandRul yershallservehisclientwithcompetenceanddiligence."Itfurt iolationofRules18.03and18.04oftheCo
CASE NO.: oftheCodeofProfessional es138and139ofthe Rulesof herstatesthat"alawyershallnotneglectalegalmatterentrusted deofProfessionalResponsibility.Heishe
A.C. No. 5530 ResponsibilityandRules1 Court tohim,andhisnegligenceinconnectiontherewithshallrender rebySUSPENDEDfromthepracticeofl
38and139oftheRulesof himliable." Inaddition,alawyerhasthecorrespondingdutyto awforone(1)yearandSTERNLYWARN
Court. "keep the clientinformedof thestatusofhiscase." EDthatarepetitionofthesameorsimilaro
DATE ffensewillbedealtwith moreseverely.
OFPROMULGATI
ON: In
Jardinv.Villar,Jr.,theCourtheld:Everycasealawyeracceptsd
eserveshisfullattention,diligence,skillandcompetence,regar
dlessof itsimportanceand

275
 2013CASES

January 28, 2013 whetherheacceptsitforafeeorfree.Certainly,amemberofthe

Barwhoisworthhistitlecannotaffordtopracticetheprofessio
ninalackadaisicalfashion.Alawyer’slethargyfromtheperspe
PONENTE: ctiveoftheCanonsisbothunprofessionalandunethical.Atty.
BRION,J. Cefrafailedtoliveuptothesestandards.Interestingly,hedidn
otdenythecomplainants’allegationsandimpliedlyadmittedh
isactionsinthe proceedingsinCivil Case No. U-6504.

Therecordsfurthersubstantiateclearactsofnegligenceon
Atty. Cefra’spartinhandling the complainants’ case.

First,Atty.Cefrafailedtosubmitaformalofferofdocumentar
yevidencewithintheperiodgivenbytheRTC.

Second,Atty.Cefrafailedtocomplywiththetwo(2)ordersoft
heRTCdirectinghimtosubmitaformalofferof
documentary evidence.

Third,Atty.Cefrafailedtofileanappropriatemotionorappeal
,oravailofanyremedialmeasuretocontesttheRTC’sdecision.
Hisclaimthatthecomplainantshadnotbeenprejudiced
bytheRTC’sdecisionisincorrect.

Fourth,Atty.Cefra’sallegationsinhisCommentshowhisfailu
retoeffectivelycommunicatewiththecomplainants.AsAtty.
Cefraputsit,theadministrative

276
 2013CASES

complaintwastheresultofthecomplainants’failuretofullyun
derstandtheRTC’sdecision.Inotherwords,headmitsthatthe
presentcasewouldhavebeenavertedhadheexertedreasonabl
eeffortstoinformthecomplainantsofthelegalimplicationsof
theRTC’sdecisionandtoexplaintothemthematerialdevelop
mentsin the case.

TOPIC:REINSTATEMENT INTHE ROLLOFATTORNEYS

CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLA LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION

Florence INED
Teves PetitionisGRANTED.RespondentEd
Macarubbo,Complainant;vs InRe:LetterofJudgeAugustu Respondenthassufficientlyshownhisremorseandacknowle mundoL.MacarubboisherebyorderedR
.Atty.Edmundo Motion for sC.Diaz,MetropolitanTrialC dgedhisindiscretioninthelegalprofessionandinhispersonall EINSTATEDintheRollofAttorneys.
L.Macarubbo,Respondent; Reconsideration/ ourtof QuezonCity, ife.Hehasaskedforgivenessfromhischildrenbycomplainant
Re:Petition(forExtraordinar AppealforCompassionan Branch37,Appealing for Tevesandmaintained
yMercy)ofEdmundoL. dMercy– Clemency. acordialrelationshipwiththemasshownbythehereinattache
Macarubbo. Disbarmentorder. dpictures.Recordsalsoshowthatafterhisdisbarment,respon
dentreturnedtohishometowninEnrile,Cagayananddevote
dhistimetendinganorchardandtakingcareofhisailingmothe
CASE NO.: runtilherdeathin2008.In2009,hewasappointedasPrivateSe
A.C. No. 6148 cretarytotheMayorofEnrile,Cagayanandthereafter,assume
dthepositionofLocalAssessmentOperationsOfficerII/Of
fice-In-
DATE ChargeintheAssessor’sOffice,whichofficehecontinuestose
OFPROMULGATI rvetodate.Moreover,heisapart-
ON: timeinstructorattheUniversityofCagayanValleyandF.L.Var
January 22, 2013 gasCollegeduringtheSchoolYear2011-2012.
Respondentlikewisetookanactivepartinsocio-
civicactivitiesbyhelpinghisneighborsandfriendswhoare
indire need.
PONENTE:

277
 2013CASES
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Accordingly,respondentisherebyordered.reinstatedtothep
racticeoflaw.Heis,however,remindedthatsuchprivilegeisb
urdenedwithconditionswherebyadherencetotherigidstand
ardsofintellect,moraluprightness,andstrictcompliancewith
therulesandthelaw are continuing requirements.

TOPIC:OPPRESSION,CONDUCT UNBECOMING OFA JUDGE,ANDABUSE OFAUTHORITY

CASE TITLE: ACTSCO LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION

KareenP.Magtagñobvs.Judg MPLAINED
eGenieG.Gapas-Agbada. ComplainantwasappointedCourtStenographerIIIatRTC,
Code of Judicial Conduct. Branch42,Virac,Catanduaneson16October2008.Herappoi Theinstantadministrativecomplaintfile
Oppression,conductunbe ntmentwasundertemporarystatusinviewofherlackoftwoye dbyMs.KareenP.MagtagfiobagainstJud
CASE NO.: comingofajudgeandabuse arsrelevantexperiencewhichwasrequired geGenieG.Gapas-
OCA IPINo. 11-3631-RTJ of authority. fortheposition.Hertemporaryappointmentwasrenewedfor Agbada,RegionalTrialComi,Branch42,
oneyearon16October2009uponrecommendationofJudge Virac,CatanduanesisDISMISSEDforla
Agbada,thepresiding judge ofhercourt. ck of merit.
DATE
Afteranotheryear,however,complainantwasnolongerreco
OFPROMULGATI
mmendedbyherjudgeforpermanentposition(changeofstat
ON:
usfromtemporarytopermanent).Thus,hertemporaryappoi
January 16, 2013
ntmentexpiredon16October2010.

Inherresolvetodiscreditherjudge,complainantmadeashotg
PONENTE: unimputationofoffensesallegedlycommittedbytheformer.
PEREZ, J. She,however,failedtoshowanyproofthatshewasentitledtob
egivenapermanentposition.Otherthanherallegationthatsh
ewasgiventwo"verysatisfactory"andone"satisfactory"ratin
g,therewasno

278
 2013CASES

evidencepresentedthatshehasmettheprescribedqualificatio
nstandardfortheposition."Suchstandardisamixoftheforma
leducation,experience,training,civilserviceeligibility,physic
alhealthandattitudethatthejobrequires."

Respondentjudge,whoistheimmediatesupervisorofcompla
inant,isinthebestpositiontoobservethefitness,proprietyand
efficiencyoftheemployeefortheposition.Itshouldbeimpres
seduponcomplainantthatherappointmentintheJudiciaryis
notavestedright.Itisnotanentitlementthatshecanclaimsimp
lyforthereasonthatshehadbeenintheserviceforalmosttwoy
ears.

Thechangesincomplainant’srating,ifatall,manifestedthatre
spondentjudgehadnotbeencomplacentintheratingofhere
mployees.Asclaimedinhercomment,respondentjudgedoes
notrateheremployeesmechanically.Theywereratedbasedo
ntheevaluationoftheirperformanceduringtheperiodconcer
ned.RecordsfromtheOfficeofAdministrativeServices,OC
Arevealthatduringthesameperiod,almostalltheemployeeso
fRTC,Branch42,Viracreceivedvariedperformance ratings.

Therebeingnoproofthatrespondentjudgeabusedherpositio
n,thecaseagainsthershouldbedismissed.Respondentjudges
hould,however,beremindedtobecircumspectinheractuatio
nssoasnottogivetheimpressionthatshe isguiltyof
favoritism.

TOPIC:GRAVE MISCONDUCTANDVIOLATION OFTHE CODE OFJUDICIALCONDUCT

279
 2013CASES

CASE TITLE: ACTSCO LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION

Re: Complaint of Leonardo MPLAINED
A.VelascoagainstAssociate
Justices Code of Judicial Conduct. TheCourtfindsnogravemisconductorviolationofaspecific HonorableAssociateJusticesFrancisco
FranciscoH.Villaruz,Jr.,etal. Gravemisconductandviol provisionoftheCodeofJudicialConducttohave H.Villaruz,Jr.,AlexL.Quiroz,andSamuel
ationoftheCodeofJudicial beencommittedbytheSandiganbayanJustices. R.MartiresoftheThirdDivisionoftheSa
Conduct. "Misconductmeansintentionalwrongdoingordeliberatevio ndiganbayanareherebyADMONISHE
CASE NO.: lationofaruleoflaworastandardofbehavior. Dto be
A.M.No. OCAIPINo.10- Toconstituteanadministrativeoffense,misconductshouldr ·morecircumspectandprudentinobservi
25-SB-J elatetoorbeconnectedwiththeperformanceoftheofficialfu ngtheproperrulesandproceduresforthe
nctionsofapublicofficer.Ingravemisconduct,asdistinguish executionofjudgmentsofconvictionin
edfromsimplemisconduct,theelementsofcorruption,cleari theabsenceofrestrainingordersorinjunc
DATE ntenttoviolatethelaworflagrantdisregardofanestablishedru tivewritsfromtheCourt.TheyareSTER
OFPROMULGATI le must be established." NLYWARNEDthatrepetitionofthesa
ON: Inthiscase,theactionsoftheSandiganbayanJusticesrespecti meorsimilaractswill be dealtwithmore
January 15, 2013 ngtheexecutionofthefinaljudgmentagainstaccusedVelasco severely.
wereshown to
beinrespectfuldeferencetotheCourt’sactiononthevariousp
etitionsfiledbytheformer,whoapparentlyexhaustedwhathe
PONENTE: perceivedwerevalidavailableremediesunderthelaw.Record
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. sarebereftofevidenceshowinganytraceofcorruption,clearin
tenttoviolatethelaworflagrantdisregardoftherulesastoholdt
hemadministrativelyliable for grave misconduct.

However,thebecomingmodestythattheSandiganbayanJust
iceshaveexhibitedinthiscasecannotdetractfromthefactthatt
hejudgmentofconvictionof
accusedVelascoshouldhavebeen

280
 2013CASES
immediatelyexecuted,absentanyrestrainingorderfromtheC
ourt,inviolationoftheCourt'sdirectiveinA.M.CircularNo.0
7-7-12-
SC,adoptingamendmentstoRule65oftheRulesofCourt,inte
ralia.Thus,Section7ofRule 65.

TOPIC:DISHONESTY

CASE TITLE: ACTSCO LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION

Re:VerifiedcomplaintofAm MPLAINED
aLand,Inc.againstHon.Dant
onQ.Bueser,etal. Section8,Rule140oftheRule The Courtfindsnomeritinthe complaint. TheCourtDISMISSEStheadministrativ
Violations:(a)Section8,Ru sofCourt; ecomplaintagainsttheHonorableCourt
le140oftheRulesofCourt, ofAppealsAssociateJusticesDANTON
CASE NO.: specificallyfordishonestya
Aperusaloftherecordsofthecaseaswellastheparties’respecti Q.BUESER,SESINANDOE.VILLO
A.M.No. OCAIPINo.12- ndviolationoftheAnti- Anti- veallegationsdisclosedthattheactscomplainedofrelatetothe NANDRICARDO-R.
202-CA-J GraftandCorruptPractice GraftandCorruptPracticesL validityoftheproceedingsbeforetherespondentCAJustices ROSARIOforutterlackof
sLaw(RepublicActNo.30 aw(RepublicAct No. 3019); merit;andCAUTIONScomplainantAM
andtheproprietyoftheirordersinCA-G.R.SPNo.
19),gross
118994whichweredoneintheexerciseoftheirjudicialfunctio ALand,Inc.againstthefilingofsimilarunf
misconduct
DATE ns.Jurisprudenceisrepletewithcasesholdingthaterrors,ifany oundedandbaselessactionsinthefuture,
constitutingviolationsoft
OFPROMULGATI Code of Judicial Conduct; ,committedbyajudgeintheexerciseofhisadjudicativefunctio WITHSTERN
heCodeofJudicialConduc
ON: nscannotbecorrectedthroughadministrativeproceedings,b WARNINGthatarepetitionthereofshall
t,andknowinglyrendering
January 15, 2013 utshouldinsteadbeassailedthroughavailablejudicialremedie be dealtwithmoreseverely.
anunjustjudgmentor
s.Disciplinaryproceedingsagainstjudgesdonotcomplement
order;and CanonsofJudicial Ethics. ,supplementorsubstitutejudicialremediesand,thus,cannotb
(b)pertinentprovisionsoft
PONENTE: epursuedsimultaneouslywiththejudicialremediesaccordedt
heCodeofJudicialConduc
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. opartiesaggrievedbytheirerroneousordersor judgments.
t1andCanonsofJudicialEt
Thepresumptionthattherespondentjudgehasregularlyperf
hics,forissuingthe
ormedhisdutiesshallprevail.Moreover,
Decision.

281
 2013CASES
the mattersraisedare bestaddressed tothe
evaluationoftheCourtintheresolution
ofAMALI'spetitionforreview on certiorari.

Finally,resorttoadministrativedisciplinaryactionpriortothe
finalresolutionofthejudicialissuesinvolvedconstitutesanab
useofcourtprocessesthatservestodisruptratherthanpromot
etheorderlyadministrationofjusticeandfurtherclogthecour
ts'dockets.Thosewhoseekrelieffromthecourtsmustnotbeal
lowedtoignorebasiclegalrulesandabusecourtprocessesinth
eireffortstovindicate theirrights.

TOPIC:GROSS UNETHICAL CONDUCT

CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLA LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION

Tan Jr. vs.Haide Gumba. INED

Canon1, Respondent’sactionsclearlyshowthatshedeceivedcomplai Atty.HaideB.Vista-

CASE NO.: Grossunethicalconduct Rule1.01andCanon7ofthe nantintolendingmoneytoherthroughtheuseofdocumentsa Gumbaisfoundadministrativelyliablefo
A.C. No. 9000 CodeofProfessionalRespon ndfalserepresentationsandtakingadvantageofhereducation rgravemisconduct.SheisSUSPENDED
sibility andcomplainant’signoranceinlegalmatters.Asmanifestedb fromthepracticeoflawforSIX(6)MONT
ycomplainant,hewouldhavenevergrantedtheloantorespon HS,effectiveimmediately,withawarning
DATE dentwereitnotforrespondent’smisrepresentationthatshew thatarepetitionofthesameorasimilaract
OFPROMULGATI asauthorizedtosellthepropertyandifrespondenthadnotledh willbedealtwithmore severely.
ON: imtobelievethathecouldregisterthe"open"deedofsaleifshef
January 10, 2018 ailstopaytheloan.Byhermisdeed,respondenthaserodednot
onlycomplainant’sperceptionofthelegalprofessionbutthep
ublic’sperceptionaswell.Heractionsconstitutegrossmiscon
ductforwhichshemaybedisciplined,following
PONENTE:

282
 2013CASES

VILLARAMA, JR.,J. Section27,Rule138oftheRevisedRulesofCourt,asamended

Complainantnowasksthatrespondentbedisbarred.Thecou
rtfinds,however,thatsuspensionfromthepracticeoflawissuf
ficienttodiscipline respondent.
Itisworthstressingthatthepowertodisbarmustbeexercised
withgreatcaution.Disbarmentwillbeimposedasapenaltyonl
yinaclearcaseofmisconductthatseriouslyaffectsthestanding
andthecharacterofthelawyerasanofficerofthecourtandame
mberofthebar.Whereanylesserpenaltycanaccomplishtheen
ddesired,disbarmentshouldnotbedecreed.Inthiscase,theC
ourtfindsthepenaltyofsuspensionmoreappropriatebutfind
stherecommendedpenaltyofsuspensionforoneyeartoosev
ere.Consideringthecircumstancesofthiscase,
theCourtbelievesthat asuspension ofsix
monthsissufficient.Afterall,suspensionisnotprimarilyinten
dedasapunishment,butasameanstoprotectthepublicandthe
legalprofession.

Genove’sDigest309-336

283
 2013CASES

TOPIC:Conflict ofInterest

CaseTitle: ActsComplainedof: Legalbasis/BasesofCharge/s: Supreme Court’sRuling: Case Disposition:

DR.TERESITA
V
ATTY. AMADOR That the RespondentLawyerisguilty ViolationoftheCodeofJudicial “Clearly,itisimproperforrespondenttoappea “WHEREFORE,
L.SIMANDO of ConflictingInterest EthicsofLawyers rascounselforoneparty(Complainantascredi Premises
tor)againsttheadverse party considered,Atty.AmadarSimandow
(MejoradoasDebtor)whoisalsoaclient,sincea asSUSPENDEDforsix(6)monthsf
CaseNo.: Rule21.01oftheCodeofthe lawyerisprohibitedfromrepresentingconflict romthepracticeoflaw,withwarningt
A.C. No. 9537 Professional inginterests.Hemaynot,withoutbeingguiltyo hatarepetitionofthesameorsimilaro
Responsibility fprofessionalmisconduct,actascounselforap ffensewillwarrantamoreseverpenalt
ersonwhoseinterestconflictwiththat y.”
DateofPromulgation: ofhispresent orformerclient.”
JUNE 10, 2013

“We,likewisefindrespondentguiltyofviolatin
gRule21.01oftheCodeoftheProfessionalRes
Ponente: ponsibility.Inhislast-
Peralta, J. ditchefforttoimpeachthecredibilityofcompl
ainant,dedivulgedinformationswhichheacq
uiredinconfidenceduringtheexistenceofthei
rlawyer-clientrelationship.”

284
 2013CASES

TOPIC:DeceitfulandDishonestActs

CaseTitle: ANIT ActsComplainedOf: LegalBasis/Basesofthecharge( Supreme Court’sRuling: Case Disposition:

A C.PENAV. s)
ATTY. CHRISTINA
C.PATERNO ThattheRespondentLawyerofDeceit “Inthesaidcase,theInvestigatingCommissio “RespondentLawyerAtty.Christina
fulactswhenshepromisedtoassistthe Code of nergavecredencetothecomplainant’stestimo C.PaternoisDISBARREDfromthe
ComplainantinherBankLoan.Howe ProfessionalRespo nythatshegaveherheownerscopyoftheCertif practiceoflaw,pursuanttoSection27,
CaseNo.: ver,shedidsellthesaidcollateralprope nsibility icatetoherpropertyasrespondentwouldapply Rule138oftheRulesofCourt,aswella
A.C. No. 4191 rtytoanothercompanyresultingtoda forabankloanincomplainant’sbehalf,usingth sfortheviolationoftheCodeofthePr
magesto the latter. e subjectproperty ascollateral. ofessionalResponsibility;and
NotarialLaw thenotarialcommissionofAtty.Chris
tinaC.Paterno,ifstillexisting,isperpet
DateofPromulgation:
Complainant’s testimony ually REVOKED.”
JUNE 10, 2013
Section27,Rule138oftheRules wascorroboratedby
ofCourt MauraOrosco,formerrecordsprocessorinco
mplainant’sofficeattheGSISandalsoacliento
frespondent,whostatedthatshesawcomplain
antgiverhertitletorespondent.”

TOPIC: Undue Delay inthe DispositionsofCases

CaseTitle: ActsComplainedOf: LegalBasis/Basesofthecharge( Supreme Court’sRuling: Case Disposition:

MARICORL.GARADO s):
V.
JUDGE ThattheRespondentJudgeisguiltyofu PromptDispositionofcasesisattainedbasicall WHEREFORE,Respondentisfoun
LIZABETH nduedelayinherfailuretodecideacivil Rule3.05,Canon3oftheCode ythroughtheefficiencyanddedicationtoduty dLIABLEofthelessseriouschargeso
GUITERREZ – TORRES casethatispending inhersala. ofthe JudicialConduct. ofjudges.Judgesareoft- funduedelayinresolvingthecivilcasel
remindedoftheirdutytoactpromptly odgedin

285
 2013CASES
CaseNo.: Canons6 and7 of
A.M. No.MTJ – 11-1778 theCanonsofJudicial Ethics.
DateofPromulgation: Sec15(1),ArticleVIIIofthe198
June 5, 2013 7 Philippine Constitution.
uponcasesandmatterspendingbeforetheirco
urts.
AstothemeritsoftheAdministrativeComplai
nt,thepleadingsandevidenceonrecordclearly
establishrespondent’sliabilityforunduedelay
inresolvingCivilCase No. 20129.
hersala.SheisFINEDtheamountP2
0,000.00forthefirstoffenseandanot
herP10,000.00forthesecondoffense
,bothamountstobedeductedfromhe
raccruedleave credits.

Ponente:
Villarama, Jr.,J.

TOPIC:Public Accountability

CaseTitle: ActsComplainedOf: LegalBasis/Basesofthecharge Supreme Court’sRuling: Case Disposition:

RE: DROPPING (s):
FROMTHE
ROLLSOF JOYLYN Thatthefrequentabsencesandpoorpe PublicAccountabilityessentiallyincludesdisc TheSupremeCourtresolvedtheissue
R.DUPAYA,CourtStenograph rformanceofMs.JoylynR.Dupayares CivilServiceCommissionRule hargingone’sdutiesasapublicofficerwithutm byDROPPINGthenameofMs.Joyl
erIII,RegionalTrial Court, ultedto herfailuretotranscribe the sandRegulations. ostresponsibility,integrity,competence,loyalt ynR.Dupayafromtherolls for
Branch10, Aparri,Cagayan. stenographic yandefficiency.Incompetenceandinefficienc obtaining“Unsatisfact
notesinCriminalCasewithinthepresc yhavenoplaceinpublicservice,especiallyinthe ory”performanceratingsfortheperi
ribedperiod. Section2,RuleXIIoftheOmni dispensationofjustice. odsfromJanuarytoJune2011andfro
CaseNo: busRulesonAppointmentsan mJuly to December2011.
A.M. No. P-13-3115 dotherPersonnelActions.
Indeed,sheisguiltyofcausingdelayinthedispe
nsationofjusticebecauseofheractsofabsences DECLARE herpositionvacant.
DateofPromulgation: anddespitewrittenandverbalwarningsshefail
June 04, 2013 edtotranscribethestenographicnoteswithint
heprescribed

286
 2013CASES
period.

TOPIC:GrossNegligence
CaseTitle: ActsComplainedOf: LegalBasis/Basesofthecharge Supreme Court’sRuling: Case Disposition:
REX (s):
POLINAR
DAGOHOY ThattherespondentisguiltyofGross Itisafundamentalruleofethicsthatanattorney TheSupremeCourtSUSPENDSAt
V. Negligence when hefailed Canon18,Rule18.03andRule1 whoundertakestoconductanactionimpliedly ty.ArtemioV.SanJuanfromthepracti
ATTY. toinformtheComplainantofthestatu 8.04oftheCodeofthe stipulatestocarryittoitsconclusion.Itwasther ceoflawforaperiodofone(1)yearwith
ARTEMIOV.SANJUAN softhecaseandforfailuretopreparean Professional espondent’sboundendutytoseehiscasesthro aWARNINGthatthecommissionof
CaseNo.: dfileanappellant’sbriefin the Responsibility. ughuntilpropercompletion;hecouldnotaban thesameorsimilaractshallbedealtwit
A.C. No. 7944 abovementionedcase. donorneglecttheminmidstream,inthe way hmore severely.
he didwithcomplainant’scase.

DateofPromulgation:
June 03, 2013

Ponente:
Brion,J.

TOPIC:Conceptof Deceit,Malpractice, GrossMisconductandfalsificationofpublic documents.

CaseTitle: ActsComplainedOf: LegalBasis/Basesof Supreme Court’sRuling: Case Disposition:

JAIME JOVEN thecharge(s):
andREYNALD
OC. RASING Thattherespondentswereguiltyoffals TheBurdenofproofindisbarmentandsuspensi TheinstantAdministrativeCompl
V. ificationofpublicdocumentsforallege Code of onproceedingsalwaysrestsontheshouldersofth aintagainsttherespondentsAttys.P
ATTY(s)PABLOR. CRUZ dalterationofthedateof ProfessionalRespo ecomplainant.Asarule,an abloR.
nsibility.

287
 2013CASES
and FRANKIE thereceiptortruedateofthedecisionof attorney enjoysthe legalpresumptionthat CruzandFrankieO.
O.MAGSALINIII NLRC.Forthemtoextendtheperiod heisinnocentofthechargesmadeagainsthimunti MagsalinIIIisDISMISSEDforlac
withinwhichtofile a l the contrary isproved. kofmerit.
motionforreconsideration.
CaseNo.:
A.C. No. 7686 Inthiscase,complainantsfailedtodischargetheir
burdenofprovingrespondents’administrativeli
ability.GrantingthatthecertificationoftheQCC
DateofPromulgation: POofthe
actualdateofreceiptofthesubjectNLRCdecisio
July 31, 2013
nhasprimafacieevidence,thiscourtfindsitisnots
ufficienttoholdrespondentsadministrativelylia
bleascontendedbycomplainants.
Ponente:
Villarama, Jr.,J.

TOPIC:SeriousorGrave Misconduct

CaseTitle: ActsComplainedOf: LegalBasis/Basesof Supreme Court’sRuling: Case Disposition:

KONRADA.RUBINandCON thecharge(s):
RADOC. RUBIN
V. That theRespondentJudge Therecordsarebereftofanyevidencetoprovec TheSupremeCourtruledthatthecom
JUDGEEVELYNCORPUS- isguiltyofseriousorgravemisconduct Sec.1,Rule137oftheRulesof omplainant’scontentionthatJudgeCabochan plaintofseriousorgracemisconduct,
CABOCHAN onherallegedactsforfalselyaccusingc Court. isguiltyofseriousorgravemisconduct. grossignoranceofthelawandrenderi
omplainantConradoofpointinghisfin nganunjustjudgementagainstRespo
geratherinthepresenceofthe ndentbeDISMISSEDforlack
CaseNo.: court’sstaffandotherlitigants Code of the Wehaveobservedthatcomplainantsfocused ofmerit.
OCA I.P.I. No.11-3589-RTJ JudicialConduct. mainlyonthefingerpointingincident.Aperusa
loftheorderofinhibition,however,wouldreve
althattheincidentisnottheprimaryreasonforr ForherdelaytoresolvetheCivilCase,J
espondentJudgeCabochan’srecusalfrom udgeCabochanisADMONISHED
tobemorecircumspectintheexercise
ofher

288
 2013CASES
the case. judicial functions.
DateofPromulgation:
July 29, 2013

Ponente:
PEREZ, J.

TOPIC: Conflict ofInterest

CaseTitle: ActsComplainedOf: LegalBasis/Basesofthecharge Supreme Court’sRuling: Case Disposition:

ATTY.LESTERR.NIQUEV (s):
.
ATTY That Basedontheestablishedfactsofthecase,theCo TheSupremeCourtfindsAtty.Eduar
EDUARDO theRespondentisguiltyofConflicting Rule15.03,Canon15oftheCod urtfindssubstantialevidencetoconcludethatt doSedilloGUILTYofmisconductfo
SEDILLO Interest. eoftheProfessionalResponsib herespondentviolatedtheprohibitiononrepr rrepresentingconflictinginterestsinv
ility. esentationofconflictinginterests.Itisuncontr iolationoftheCodeofProfessionalR
overtedthattherespondentwasstillthecounse esponsibility and
CaseNo.: lonrecordofKiyoshiandEstrelietainthecasea isSUSPEN
A.C. No. 9906 Sec.27,Rule138oftheRulesof gainsttheAmasulaatthetimewhenherepresen DEDfromthepracticeoflawforaper
Court. tedEstrelietaandManuelinthecomplaintforfa iodofsix(6)months.
lsificationfiledbyKiyoshi.Further,therespon
DateofPromulgation: dentlikewiseappearedascounselforEstrelieta
andManuelinthecaseforaccounting,sumofm
July 29, 2013
oneyandattachmentthatwasfiledbyKimura.

Ponente:
Reyes, J.

289
 2013CASES
TOPIC:Conflict ofInterest

CaseTitle: ActsComplainedOf: LegalBasis/Basesofthecharge Supreme Court’sRuling: Case Disposition:

FERDINANDA. (s):
SAMSONV.
ATTY. EDGARDO O.ERA That AttyEra’scontentionthatthelawyer- TheCourtfindsthattheRespondent
theRespondentisguiltyofConflicting Rule15.03ofCanon15,andCan clientrelationshipendedwhenSamsonandhis LawyerEdgardoO.Eraisguiltyofviol
Interest. on17oftheCodeofProfessiona groupenteredintothecompromisesettlement atingtheCodeofProfessionalRespo
CaseNo.: lResponsibility. withSisononApril23,2002wasunwarranted. nsibilityandSUSPENDShimfromt
A.C. No. 6664 Thelawyer- hepractice of law.
clientrelationshipdidterminateasofthen,fort
hefactremainedthathestillneededtooverseet
heimplementationofthesettlementaswellast
DateofPromulgation: oproceedwiththecriminalcasesuntiltheywere
July 16, 2013
dismissedorotherwise concluded
bythetrialcourt.

Ponente:
Bersamin, J. Thereisconflictofinterestwhenalawyerrepres
entsinconsistentinterestsoftwoormore
opposing parties.

TOPIC:GrossMisconduct,DeceitandGrossDishonesty.

CaseTitle: ActsComplainedOf: LegalBasis/Basesof Supreme Court’sRuling: Case Disposition:

LILIA TABANG thecharge(s):
andCONCEPCIO
NTABANG ThattheRespondentisguiltyofDeceit TheSupremeCourtruledthattherewasafailure TheinstantadministrativecasewasR
V. andGrossDishonestywhenhesoldth Sec.27,Rule138of onthepartoftheInvestigatingCommissionert EMANDEDtotheIntegratedBarof
ATTY. GLENN esevenparcelsoflandwheresuchisow theRulesofCourt. osubpoenathepersonswhosubmittedtheirevi thePhilippinesforfurtherproceedin
C.GACCOT nedbytheComplainantsinthehereinc dencesincourtinorderforthelattertoidentifyt gs.
asewithoutthelatter’sknowledgeand heiraffidavitsandgivetheadversepartiesoppo
Rule1.01ofCanon1oftheCode rtunitiestoconfrontthewitnessesin
of Professional

290

CaseNo.:
Admin. Case. No. 6490
DateofPromulgation:
September29, 2004
Ponente:
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,J.:
TOPIC: Delay in theDispositionof Cases.
CaseTitle:
RE:FailureofformerJudgeAnto
nioA.Carbonelltodecidecasessu
bmittedfordecisionandto
resolvependingmotionsintheRe
gionalTrialCourt,Branch27,
SanFernando, LaUnion.
CaseNo.:
A.M. No. 08-5-305-RTC
DateofPromulgation:
July 09, 2013
2013CASES
consent. Responsibility. a formalhearing.
ActsComplainedOf: LegalBasis/Basesofthecharge( Supreme Court’sRuling: Case Disposition:
s):
That Judge AntonioA. AsafrontlineofficialoftheJudiciary,atrialjudg TheSupremeCourtorderedRetired
Carbonellisincompetentashefailedto Code of Judicial Conduct eshouldatalltimesactwithefficiencyandprobi RespondentJudge topay
disposecasesthatare ty.Heisduty- aFINEofP20,000.00tobedeductedf
lodgedinhiscourt. boundnotonlytobefaithfultothelaw,butalsot rom
omaintainprofessionalcompetence.Thepurs theP200,000.00thatwaswithheldfro
uitofexcellenceoughtalwaystobehisguidingp mhisretirementbenefits.
rinciple.Suchdedicationistheleastthathecand
otosustainthetrustandconfidencethatthepu
blichavereposedinhimandtheinstitutionhere
presents.
JudgeCarbonellfailedtodecideatotalof
63casesandtoresolve16pendingmotionsorin
cidentswithinthe 90-day
291
 2013CASES
reglementaryperiod.Heintimatedthathispoo
Ponente: rhealthaffectedhispaceindecidingthecases.H
Bersamin, J. adsuchbeenthecase,thenheshouldhaveexpla
inedhispredicamenttotheCourtandaskedfor
anextensionoftimetodecidethecases.Unfort
unately,hefailed to doso.

TOPIC:GrossNegligence

CaseTitle: ActsComplainedOf: LegalBasis/Basesofthecharge( Supreme Court’sRuling: Case Disposition:

JOSEFINA s):
CARANZA
VDA. DE SALDIVAR Thattherespondentlawyerisguiltyof Therelationshipbetweenanattorneyandisclie RespondentAtty.RamosSGCabane
V. GrossNegligencewhenhefailedtosh Canons17oftheCodeofthe ntisimbuedwithutmosttrustandconfidence.I s,Jr.isfoundguiltyofgrossnegligencei
ATTY RAMOS owupinthescheduledpreliminarycon Professional nthislight,clientsareledtoexpectthatlawyers nviolationoftheCodeoftheProfessi
SGCABANES, ferencesetforthbythecourtinoneofhi Responsibility. wouldbeever- onalResponsibility.HeisherebySUS
JR. scases. mindfuloftheircauseandaccordinglyexercise PENDEDfromthepracticeoflawfo
therequireddegreeofdiligenceinhandlingthei raperiodofsix(6)months,andissternl
Rules18.03and18.04ofCanon raffairs. yWARNEDthatarepetitionofthesa
CaseNo.: 18oftheCodeoftheProfession meorsimilaractswillbedealtwithmor
A.C. No. 7749 alResponsibility. eseverely.
Applyingtheprinciplessetforthbylawtothepr
esentcase,theCourtfindsthatrespondentisfai
DateofPromulgation: ledtoexercisetherequireddiligenceinhandlin
July 08, 2013 gcomplainantscause.

Ponente: Recordsshowthathefailedtojustifyhisabsenc
Perlas-Bernabe, J, eduringthescheduledpreliminaryconference
hearing.

TOPIC:GrossMiscondut

292

CaseTitle:
RE:LetterComplaintofMerlitaF
abianaagainstPresidingJudgeAn
dresB.Reyes,Jr.,AssociateJustic
esIsaiasP.DicdicanandStephen
C.Cruz;CaragJamoraSomeraan
dVillarealLawOfficesanditsLaw
yersAttys.ElpidioC.Jamora,Jr.a
ndBeatrizO.Geronilla-
Villegas,LawyersforMagsaysay
Maritime
CorporationandVisayanSuretya
ndInsuranceCorporation.
CaseNo.:
A.M. No. CA-13-51-J
DateofPromulgation:
July 02, 2013
Ponente:
Bersamin, J.
TOPIC: ConflictofInterest
2013CASES
ActsComplainedOf: LegalBasis/Basesofthecharge( Supreme Court’sRuling: Case Disposition:
s):
ThattherespondentJusticesandJudge The Complaintlacksmerit. TheSupremeCourtDISMISSESth
sareguiltyofGrossMisconductforfail Code of Judicial Conduct. eadministrativecomplaintagainstPr
uretocorrectlyinterpretthe lawsin a esiding
givencase.
GiventhenatureoftheJudicialFunction,thep JusticeAndresB.Reyes,Jr.,Associate
owervested bythe Constituionin JusticeIsaias
theSupremeCourtandthelowercourtsestabli P.DicdicanandAssociateJusticeStep
shedbylaw,thequestionssubmitstoonlyonea henC.CruzoftheCourtofAppealsfor
nswer;theadministrativeorcriminalremedies itslack of merit.
areneitheralternativenorcumulativetojudicia
lreviewwheresuchreviewisavailable,andmus
twaitonthe resultthereof.
Inthisregard,wereiteratethatajudge’sfailuret
ocorrectlyinterpretthelawortoproperlyappr
eciatetheevidencepresenteddiesnotnecessar
ilyincuradministrativeliability,fortoholdhim
administrativelyaccountableforeveryerrone
ousrulingordecisionherenders,assumingheh
aserred,willbenothingshortofharassmentan
dwillmakehispositiondoublyunbearable.
293
 2013CASES
CaseTitle: ActsComplainedOf: LegalBasis/Basesofthecharge( Supreme Court’sRuling: Case Disposition:
JOSEPHINEL.OROLA,MYR s):
NA
L.OROLA,MANUELL.ORO ThattherespondentisguiltyofConflic Thereisconflictofinterestwhenalawyerrepre RespondentAtty.JosephAdorRamo
LA,MARYANGELYNOROL tingofInterestasmentionedintheCod Rule15.03andRule15.04ofCan sentsinconsistentinterestsoftwoormore sisherebyheldGUILTYofrepresent
A- eofProfessionalResponsibility. on15oftheCodeoftheProfessi opposing parties. ingconflictinginterestinviolationoft
BELARGA,MARJORIEMEL onalResponsibility. heCodeofProfessional
BA OROLA-CALIP, Responsibility.
andKARENOROLA Accordingly,heisherebySUSPEN
V. Recordsrevealthatrespondentwasthecollabo
ATTY. JOSEPH ratingcounselnotonlybyMaricarbutforallthe DEDfromthepracticeoflawforaper
ADORRAMOS HeirsofAntonio.Inthecourse,thereof,theHe iodofthree(3)months,withWARNI
irsofTrinidadandAntoniosucceededinremo NGthatarepetitionofthesameorsim
vingEmilioasadministratorforhavingcommi ilaractsinthefuturewillbedealtwithm
ttedactsprejudicialtotheirinterests.Hence,w ore severely.
CaseNo.: henrespondentproceededtorepresentEmili
A.C. No. 9860 oheclearlyworkedagainsttheveryinterestof
the Heirsof Antonio.

DateofPromulgation:
September11, 2013

Ponente:
Perlas-Bernabe, J.

TOPIC:Negligence andGrossMisconduct

CaseTitle: JULIAN ActsComplainedOf: LegalBasis/Basesofthecharge( Supreme Court’sRuling: Case Disposition:

PENILLAV. s):

That The Supreme Court found The

theRespondentisguiltyofNegligence Rule15.06ofCanon15of thatrespondentLawyerisguiltyof CourtherebyimposesthepenaltyofS
andGrossMisconduct Gross USPENSIONfrom

294

ATTY.QUINTINP.ALCID,JR
. nsteadofaCivilCaseofBreachofCont
CaseNo.:
A.C. No. 9149
DateofPromulgation:
September04, 2013
Ponente:
Villarama, Jr.,J.
TOPIC:GrossMisconduct
CaseTitle:
Re:Reporton
theJudicialAuditandInvestigatio
nconductedintheRegionalTrial That
Court,Cabarroguis,Quirino
CaseNo.:
A.M. No. 05-10-661-RTC
whenhefiledaCriminalCaseofEstafai
ractonlyandnotapprisingthecomplai
nantofthestatusofthecasedespiterep
eatedfollow ups.
ActsComplainedOf:
JudgeMoisesPardo,retiredPresidingJ
udgeofRegionalTrialCourt,Cabarrog
uis,QuirinoisguiltyofGrossMiscond
uctforfailuretodisposeordecideonth
ecasesthatarependinginhissala/court
. Court.
2013CASES
theCodeofProfessionalRespo
nsibility.
Rule16.01ofCanon16oftheCo
deofProfessionalResponsibilit
y.
Canon17oftheCodeofProfessi
onalResponsibility.
Rule18.03andRule18.04ofthe
Canon18ofProfessionalRespo
nsibility.
LegalBasis/Basesofthecharge( Supreme Court’sRuling:
s):
New Code of
JudicialConduct.
Sec.8,Rule140oftheRulesof
295
Misconduct. thepracticeoflawforaperiodofsix(6)
months,andSTERNLYWARNE
Dthatacommissionofthesameorsim
Areviewoftheproceedingsandevidenceinthe ilaractsinthefutureshallbedealtwith
caseatbarshowsthatrespondentviolatedtheC moreseverely.
odeofProfessionalResponsibilitywhenrespo
ndentfiledacriminalcaseofEstafawhenthefa
ctsofthecasewouldhavewarrantedthefilingo
f a civilcase of aBreach ofContract.
Thatisnotall.AftertheCriminalandCivilcases
weredismissed,respondentwasplainlyneglig
entanddidnotapprisecomplainantofthestatu
sandprogressofboth caseshe filedforthe
complainant.
Case Disposition:
Whilethelawdoesnottoleratemisconductbyac TheSupremeCourtfindsresponden
ivilservant,suspension,replacementordismiss tJudgeMoisesPardo,retiredPresidi
almustnotberesortedunlessthereissubstantial ngJudge,RegionalTrialCourt,Cabar
evidencetomeritsuchpenalties. roguis,Quirino,Branch31GUILTY
ofGrossMisconductandFINEhim
P140,000.00tobedeductedfromhis
TheCourtnotesthatthisisnotthefirstoffenseo retirementbenefits.
f JudgePardo.He wasalready
 2013CASES
chargedwithgravemisconductandgrossignor
DateofPromulgation: anceofthelawinfailingtoacttothedispositiono
October17, 2013 f caseswithinthe giventime.

Ponente:
Carpio,J.

TOPIC: GrossIgnoranceoftheLaw
CaseTitle: ActsComplainedOf: LegalBasis/Basesofthecharge( Supreme Court’sRuling: Case Disposition:
ATTY.JEROMENORMAN s):
L.
TACORDAfor:ODELLGED ThattheRespondentisadministrative TheSupremeCourtsustainsthefindingofthe The Supreme
RAGA lyliableforgrossignoranceofthelawfo Rulesof OCAthattheactsofJudgeClemenswerefarfro CourtDISMISSEDth
V. rsupposedlyviolatingtheChildWitne Evidence(ChildWitnessExam mbeingill- ecomplaintagainstRespondentJudg
JUDGE REYNALDO ssExaminationRule. inationRule) motivatedandinbadfaithastojustifyanyadmi eHon.JudgeReynaldoB.Clemensfor
B.CLEMENS nistrativeliabilityonhispart.Hewasvigilantin lack of merit.
hisconduct ofthe proceedings.
New Code of
CaseNo.: JudicialConduct.
A.M. No.RTJ-13-2359 ItisdoubtfulthatJudgeClemensfailedtoimple
mentthedirectiveshehadissuedduringthecon
ductofthetrial.TSNshowedthatrespondent
DateofPromulgation: wasverymuchconcernedwithfollowingthepr
October23, 2013 operconductoftrialandensuringthatOne-
DayExaminationofWitnessRulewasfollowe
d.

296
 2013CASES
Ponente:
Sereno,CJ.

TOPIC:Grave Misconduct

CaseTitle: ActsComplainedOf: LegalBasis/Basesofthecharge( Supreme Court’sRuling: Case Disposition:

ATTY.OSCARL.EMBIDO,
RegionalDirector,NationalBure
auofInvestigation,WesternVisa
yas,RegionalOfficeNBI-
WEVRO,ForSanPedro,IloiloCi
ty
V.
ATTY. SALVADORN. PE,
JR., Assistant
ProvincialProsecutor,
SanJose, Antique
ThattheRespondentisguiltyofGrave
Misconductwhenhealteredorfalsifie
dacourtdecisioninconsideration
ofasumof money.
s):
Rule1.01ofCanon1oftheCode
ofProfessionalResponsibility
Rule7.03ofCanon7oftheCode
ofProfessionalResponsibility.
Inlightoftheestablishedcircumstances,there TheSupremeCourtdirectstheBarCo
spondentwasguiltyofgravemisconductforha nfidanttoREMOVEthenameofAs
vingauthoredthefalsificationofthedecisionin sistantProvincialProsecutorSalvado
anon-existentcourtproceeding. rN.Pe,Jr.fromtheRoll ofAttorneys.
Specifically,thedeliberatefalsificationofthec
ourtdecisionbytherespondentwasanactthatr
eflected a highdegree of moralturpitude on
hispart.

CaseNo.:
A.C. No. 6732

DateofPromulgation:
October22, 2013

Ponente:
Bersamin, J.

TOPIC:GrossImmoralConduct.

297
 2013CASES
CaseTitle: ActsComplainedOf: LegalBasis/Basesofthecharge( Supreme Court’sRuling: Case Disposition:
JOCELYN DELEON s):
V. ATTY.
TYRONEPEDRENA ThattherespondentisguiltyofGrossI TherecordsshowthatAtty.Pedrenarubbed The Supreme
mmoralConductforhisundesirableac Code of the complainant’srightleg withhishand;tried CourtSUSPENDEDA
tshehaddoneagainst the ProfessionalRespo toinserthisfingerintoherfirmlyclosedhand;gr ttyTyronePedrenafromthepractice
CaseNo.: Complainant. nsibility. abbedherhandandforciblyplaceditonhiscrot oflawfor
A.C. No. 9401 charea;andpressedhisfingeragainstherprivat twoyears,withasternwarningthatare
epart.Giventhecircumstancesinwhichheco petitionofthesameorsimilaractswill
mmittedthem,hisactswerenotmerelyoffensi bedealtwithmoreseverely.
DateofPromulgation: veandundesirablebutrepulsive,disgraceful
andgrossly immoral.
October22, 2013

Thepossessionofgoodmoralcharacterisboth
Ponente: aconditionprecedentand
Bersamin, J. acontinuingrequirementtowarrantadmissio
ntotheBarandtoretainmembershipinthe
LegalProfession.

TOPIC: GrossMisconduct

CaseTitle: ActsComplainedOf: LegalBasis/Basesofthecharge( Supreme Court’sRuling: Case Disposition:

MA. JENNIFER TRIA- s):
SAMONTE
V. ThattherespondentisguiltyofGross Itisacoreethicalprinciplethatlawyerowefideli TheSupremeCourtfoundthattheRe
EPIFANIA Misconductwhensheparticipatedint Canons17and18oftheCodeof tytotheirclientscauseandmustalwaysbemind spondentisguiltyofGrossMiscondu
“FANNY” hesecondsaleofthesubjectpropertyd ProfessionalResponsibility. fulofthetrustandconfidence reposedinthem. ctandisaccordinglyDISBARRED.
OBIAS espitethelackofanylawfultermination
ofthe priorsale of thesame.
Inthepresentcase,respondentclearlytransgre
CaseNo.: ssedtherulesunderCanon17and

298
 2013CASES
A.C. No. 4945 Canon18asheractionswereevidentlyprejudic
ial to herclients’ interests.

DateofPromulgation:
October8, 2013 Recordsdisclosethatinsteadofdeliveringthe
DeedofSalecoveringthesubjectpropertytohe
rclients,shewilfullynotarizedadeedofsaleove
rthesameproperty infavour
ofanotherperson.

TOPIC:GrossIgnorance of the Law andUnethicalPractice of Law

CaseTitle: ActsComplainedOf: LegalBasis/Basesofthecharge( Supreme Court’sRuling: Case Disposition:

MARIA s):
CHRISTINA
ZABALJAUREGUIPITCHE ThatRespondentLawyerisguiltyofGr TheCourthasrepeatedlyemphasizedthatther RespondentAtty.RusticoB.Gagatei
R ossignoranceoflawandUnethicalPra Canon17oftheCodeofProfessi elationshipbetweenalawyerandhisclientison sfoundguiltyofviolatingtheCodeofP
V. cticeoflawwhenheisadvisingorpromi onalResponsibility. eimbuedwithutmosttrustandconfidence. rofessionalResponsibility
ATTY. RUSTICO singaclientthatarenotgivenbythepro and
B.GAGATE perrulesoflawandbyabandoningaclie isSUSPEN
nt’scause. Rule18.03ofCanon18oftheCo Inthesaidcase,hefailedtorepresentthecompl DEDfromthepracticeoflawforaper
deofProfessionalResponsibilit ainantscompetentlyanddiligentlybyactingan iodofThree(3)years.
CaseNo.: y. dprofferingprofessionaladvicebeyondthepr
A.C. No. 9532 operboundsoflaw;andheabandonedhisclien
t’scausewhilethegravecoercioncaseagainstth
Rule19.01ofCanon19oftheCo emwaspending.
DateofPromulgation: deofProfessionalResponsibilit
October08, 2013 y.

Ponente:

299
 2013CASES
Perlas –Bernabe, J.

TOPIC:GrossIgnorance of the Law

CaseTitle: ActsComplainedOf: LegalBasis/Basesofthecharge( Supreme Court’sRuling: Case Disposition:

JESUS D. s):
CARBAJOSAV.
JUDGE HANNIBAL ThattheRespondentJudgeisguiltyof Anydelayinthefullexecutionofafinalandexec RespondentJudgeisFINEDinthea
R.PATRICIO GrossIgnoranceoftheLawwhenhefai Canon4 of the utorydecisionisrepugnanttotheidealadminis mountofP21,000.00withasternWA
ledtodulyexecuteadecisionalreadyfin CodeofJudicial Ethics. trationofjustice.Hence,therulethatonceajud RNINGthatarepetitionofthesame
alandexecutory. gmentattainsfinality,ittherebybecomesimm orsimilaractwill be dealt
CaseNo.: utableandunalterable.Theenforcementofsu moreseverely.
A.M. No.MTJ-13-1834 Canon18of theCodeofJudicial chjudgmentisamajorcomponentoftheideal
Ethics. administrationofjustice.

DateofPromulgation:
October02, 2013 RespondentJudgedemonstratedignoranceof
therulesbyrepeatedlyrefusingtoexecutethefi
nalandexecutorjudgementofconvictionagai
nstacertainperson.
Ponente:
Reyes, J.

ThejustificationprofferedbyJudgePatriciois
notwelltakenandisoffthemerit.

TOPIC: Negligence

CaseTitle: ActsComplainedOf: LegalBasis/Basesofthecharge( Supreme Court’sRuling: Case Disposition:

MARYANN s):
T.MATTUSV.
That the Westressattheoutsetthatalawyer“isexpected The Respondent Lawyer is
RespondentLawyerisguiltyofNeglige Rule12.03of the Codeof to exerthisbesteffortsand SUSPENDEDfromthepractice
ncewhenhefailed

300
 2013CASES
ATTY. ALBERT tofiletheappropriatepleadingsorpres ProfessionalResponsibility. abilitytopreservehisclients’cause,fortheunw of lawforfive(5)yearsandis
T.VILLASECA entnecessaryevidenceforthecause of averingloyaltydisplayedtohisclientlikewise STERNLYWARNEDthata
hisclient. servesthe endsof justice.” repetitionofthesameorsimilaractwil
lbedealtwithmoreseverely.
CaseNo.:
A.C. No. 7922 Inthesaidcase,AttyVillaseca’sactionoffailure
to submit a demurrerof evidence
inhishandlingofCriminalCaseconstitutesIne
DateofPromulgation: xcusableNegligenceonhispartasalawyer;itsh
owedhislackofdevotionandzealinpreserving
October1, 2013
hisclients’cause.

Weemphasizethatwhilealawyerhascomplete
discretiononwhatlegalstrategytoemployinac
aseentrustedtohim,hemustpresenteveryrem
edyordefensewithintheauthorityofthelawto
supporthisclients’ cause.

TOPIC: Dishonesty

CaseTitle: ActsComplainedOf: LegalBasis/Basesofthecharge( Supreme Court’sRuling: Case Disposition:

SPOUSES DAVID s):
andMARISA
WILLIAMS ThatRespondentAtty.RudyT.Enriq Inadministrativecases,theonlyissuewithinth TheSupremeCourtDISMISSESthe
V. uezisguiltyofDishonestywhenheinad IBPRulesandRegulations eambitoftheCourt’sdisciplinary authority Case withoutprejudice.
ATTY. RUDY vertentlyput“OCT”insteadof“TCT” iswhether a lawyerisfit toremain a member
T.ENRIQUEZ and“VERAN”insteadof“VERAN”i ofthe Bar.
ncertaindocumentsthatwerereferred
tohim.
CaseNo.: Onitsface,the12September2006complaintfi
ledbytheSpousesWilliamsagainstAtty.Enriq
uezdoesnotmeritan

301
 2013CASES
A.C. No. 7329 administrative case.

DateofPromulgation: TheallegationsthatAtty.Enriquezwrote"OC
November27, 2013 T"insteadof"TCT"butwiththesamenumber
T-
19723,and"Veran"insteadof"Verar,"aretoot
rivialtogiverisetoadministrativesanction.Bes
Ponente:
ides,thesemistakescouldhavebeenmadeinad
Carpio,J.
vertently.

TOPIC: Dishonesty andGrossIgnorance ofLaw

CaseTitle: ActsComplainedOf: LegalBasis/Basesofthecharge( Supreme Court’sRuling: Case Disposition:

MAMASAW s):
SULTANALIV.
HON. BAGUINDA-ALI ThattheapplicationofHon.Baguinda Inthepresentcase,theCourtheldthatrespond Inthehereincase,thePetitionforJudi
PACALNA,PresidingJudgeHo - Code of Judicial Conduct. entexhibitedgrossignoranceofprocedureint cialClemencyfiledbyHon.Baguinda
n.PUNDAYAA.BERUA, AliPacalnaforClemencyshouldbede heconductofelectioncasesinconnectionwith -AliPacalnaisDENIEDfor lack
ActingPresidingJudgeHADJU niedforthereasonthatitisnotsupporte petitionsforinclusionofvotersinthebarangay ofmerit.
IBRA dwithproofandthathisappealisancho elections,resultingindelayssuchthatcomplai
DARIMBANG,ClerkofCourta redonlytohisbeliefthathecanbeaneff nant’snamewasnottimelyincludedinthemast
ndMANDAGU.BATUA-AN, ectiveinstrumentinthedeliveryofjusti erlistandconsequentlyhewasnotconsidereda
Court ceinLanaoDelSurbecauseof candidateforbarangaychairman.Suchfailuret
Stenographer,alloftheMunicipal hisrenownedexperience. oobservefundamentalrulesrelativetothepetit
CircuitTrialCourt,Municipality ionsforinclusioncannotbeexcused.Further,r
ofBalindong, espondentwasfoundto have

302
 2013CASES
Province ofLanaoDel Sur. intentionallyfabricatedanorderwhichsuppos
edlygrantedamotionforinterventionbytheco
unselfortheincumbentmayorwhosere-
CaseNo.: electioncomplainantandhisco-
petitionerswereallegedlynotwillingtosuppor
A.M. No.MTJ-03-1505.
t.Respondent’sactoffabricatinganordertoco
veruphisofficialshortcomingsconstitutesdis
honesty,areprehensibleactthatwill notbe
DateofPromulgation: sanctionedby thisCourt.
November27, 2013

Clemency,asanactofmercyremovinganydisq
Ponente: ualification,shouldbebalancedwiththepreser
Villarama, Jr.,J. vationofpublicconfidenceinthecourts.TheC
ourtwillgrantitonlyifthereisashowingthatitis
merited.Proofofreformationandashowingof
potentialandpromise are indispensable

Thereisnoindependentevidenceorrelevantci
rcumstancestojustify clemency.

TOPIC:

CaseTitle: ActsComplainedOf: LegalBasis/Basesofthecharge( Supreme Court’sRuling: Case Disposition:

AURORA H. s):
CABAUTANV.
ATTY. FREDDIE ThatrespondentisguiltyofNegligenc Indeed,whenalawyertakesaclient'scause,hec Respondent Lawyer
A.VENIDA ewhenheignoredhisclient,whentheca Canon17of ovenantsthathewillexerciseduediligenceinpr isSUSPENDE
useofthedismissalofanappealattheC theCodeofProfessionalRespo otectingthelatter'srights.Failuretoexerciseth Dfromthepracticeoflawforone(1)ye
ourtofappealswasduetohislackof nsibility atdegreeofvigilanceandattentionexpectedof ar,withWARNINGthatasimilarviol
agood ationwillbedealtwithmore

303
 2013CASES
CaseNo.: duediligenceinthesaidcase.Inadditio Rule18.03andRule18.03ofCan fatherofafamilymakesthelawyerunworthyof severely.
A.C. No. 10043 n,alsobyignoringthemandateordirect on18oftheCodeofProfessiona thetrustreposedonhimbyhisclientandmakes
ivesoftheIntegratedBar of lResponsibility. himanswerablenotjusttohisclientbutalsotot
thePhilippines. helegalprofession, the courtsandsociety.
DateofPromulgation:
November20, 2013 RulesandRegulationsSetforth
bytheIntegratedBarof In the presentcase, therespondentmade
thePhilippines. abigmistakewhendespitethefollowupsofthe
complainantheignoredherandmade to
Ponente: believe that the casewasdiligentlybeing
Del Castillo, J. handledwithutmostcare.

Moreover,hedisregardedthedirectivesoftheI
ntegratedBarofthePhilippineswhenhefailedt
oshowhimselfduringthemandatory
conference.

TOPIC:

CaseTitle: ActsComplainedOf: LegalBasis/Basesofthecharge( Supreme Court’sRuling: Case Disposition:

SPOUSES GEORGE s):
A.WARRINERa
ndAURORA ThattherespondentisguiltyofNeglige Inthehereincase,therespondentisindeedguilt Respondent Lawyer
R. ncewhendeliberatelyfailedtofileafor Rule18.03ofCanon18oftheCo yofmishandlingthecivilcaseofthecomplaina isSUSPENDE
WARRINERV. malofferofevidencethatisneededfort deofProfessionalResponsibilit ntwhenhefailedtofileaformalofferofdocume Dfromthepracticeoflawforsix(6)m
ATTYRENIM.DUBLIN hecauseofhisclientandbynotrespond y. ntaryevidenceasneededintheabovemention onthswithaWARNINGthatasimila
ingtocourtdirectiveswhenmandatedt edcaseofthecomplainant. rviolationwillbedealtwithmoresever
ocomply. ely.
CaseNo.:
Culledfrom the pleadingsrespondent

304
 2013CASES

A.C. No. 5239 submittedbeforethisCourtandtheIBP,respo

ndentadmittedthathedeliberatelyfailedtotim
elyfileaformalofferofexhibitsbecausehebelie
DateofPromulgation: vesthattheexhibitswerefabricatedandwasho
pingthatthesamewouldberefusedadmission
November18, 2013
bytheRTC.Thisisimproper.Ifrespondenttru
lybelievesthattheexhibitstobepresentedinevi
dencebyhisclientswerefabricated,thenhehas
Ponente: theoptiontowithdraw fromthe case.
Del Castillo, J.

Moreover,therespondenthasapropensitytod
isobeyanddisrespectcourtordersandprocess
eswhenhewasdirectedbythecourttocommen
tagainsttheadministrativecomplaintagainsth
imbutittook 8 yearsforhimtoreply.

TOPIC:Grossly ImmoralConduct
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASEDISPOSI
RolandoCawaling ComplainantswereemployeesofBacmanGeotherm TheCPRrulesandcanonvi Complaintagainstrespondentisdismissed.Disbarmen TION
v.NapoleonMenese et. al,Inc.(Bacman),whoweredismissedfromtheirempl olated the following: tisthemostsevereformofdisciplinarysanctionand,assu The
al. oyment.Theyfiledacomplaintforillegaldismissalagai Canon 1 ch,thepowertodisbarmustalwaysbeexercisedwithgrea complaintagainstNa
nstBacmanGeothermal,Inc. tcaution,onlyforthemostimperativereasonsandinclea poleonM.Menese,Ra
CASE NO.: LaborArbiterrendereda decisioninfavor rcasesofmisconductaffectingthestandingandmoralch ul
A.C. 9698 ofthecomplainantsanddeclaredthem Rule 1.01 aracterofthelawyerasanofficerofthecourtandmember T.AquinoandTeresit
tobeillegallydismissed.Bacmanappealedandfiledan of the bar. a
DATE Appeal. Therebeingamonetaryawardin ThisCourthasconsistentlyheldthatonlyaclearprepond D. Castillon-Lora
OFPROMULGATI thedecision,Bacmanpostedasupersedeasbondissue erantevidencewouldwarranttheimpositionofsuchaha isDISMISSED.
ON: dby IntraStrataAssuranceCorporation rshpenalty.It
November13, 2013

PONENTE:

305
 2013CASES
Justice Diosdado (IntraStrata).IntraStratafiledaManifestation.Itstate
M.Peralta dthereinthattheircertificationofaccreditationandaut
horityfromtheSupremeCourthadexpiredbuttheirap
plicationforrenewalispendingbeforetheSupremeC
ourt.Complainants,intheirReply/OppositiontoRes
pondent'sAppeal,assailed
theregularityofthesuretybond.Complainantsfurthe
rassertedthatunderSection6,paragraph6ofRuleVIo
fthe2011NLRCRulesofProcedure,respondentswer
eunderobligationtoverifyifthebondisregularandgen
uine,andshallcausethedismissalof the
appealshouldthe bond be irregular.
meansthattherecordmustdiscloseasfreefromdoubtac
asethatcompelstheexercisebythecourtofitsdisciplinar
ypowers.Thedubiouscharacteroftheactdone,aswellas
themotivationthereof,mustbeclearlydemonstrated.In
disbarmentproceedings,theburdenofproofisuponthe
complainantandthisCourtwillexerciseitsdisciplinaryp
oweronlyifthecomplainantestablisheshiscasebyclear,
convincingandsatisfactoryevidence.Thiscomplainant
failedtodo.

TOPIC:Misconduct
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASEDISPOSI
Hon. RespondentwascounselforthedefendantinCivilCas TheCPRrulesandcanonvi Respondentemployedintemperatelanguageinhisplea TION
MaribethRodriguez eNo.1863asuitfordamagesfiledbeforetheMunicipal olated the following: dings.Asanofficerofthecourt,Atty.Floresisexpectedto Atty.RodolfoFloresis
Manahanv.Atty. TrialCourtofSanMateo,RizalandpresidedbyCompl becircumspectinhislanguage.Rule11.03,Canon11oft FINEDintheamounto
RodolfoFlores ainant.ComplainantissuedanOrderwhereby she heCodeofProfessionalResponsibilityenjoinsallattorn f₱5,000.00with
voluntarily Canon11 eystoabstainfromscandalous,offensiveormenacingla STERN
CASE NO.: inhibitedfromhearingonthesaidCivilCasebecauseof nguageorbehaviorbeforetheCourts.Respondentfaile WARNINGthatthere
A.C. 8954 unethicalactuations,histraitsofdishonestyanddisco dinthisrespect.Respectmustbehadnotbecauseofthein petitionofasimilaroffe
urtesynotonlytohisownbrethreninthelegalprofessio cumbentstothepositions,butbecauseoftheauthorityth nseshallbedealtwith
DATE n,butalsotothebenchandjudges, wouldamount Rule 11.03 atvestsinthem.Disrespecttojudicialincumbentsisdisre moreseverely.
OFPROMULGATI tograve misconduct, specttothatbranchtheGovernment to
ON: ifnotamalpracticeoflaw,aseriousgroundfordisciplin whichtheybelong, aswellasto theState
November13, 2013 aryactionofamemberofthebar.Duringtheprelimina whichhasinstitutedthe judicial system.
ryconference,respondentfailedtoappearandtosubm
PONENTE: ittheproofofMCLEcompliance.TheInvestigatingJu
Associate dgerecommendedthatAtty.Floresbesuspendedfro
JusticeMarianoC. Del mthe practice of law forone year.
Castillo

306
 2013CASES
TOPIC:Misappropriation of ClientFunds

CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASEDISPOSI

Azucena Segovia- Partiesenteredintoaretainershipagreementwhereby TheCPRrulesandcanonvi Courtobservesthatrespondentdidnotonlyaccomplish TION
Ribaya,vs. respondentundertookto,interaliaprocesstheregistra olated the following: hisundertakingunder theretainer, butlikewise failed Atty. Bartolome
Atty.Bartolome tionandeventuallydeliver,withinaperiodof6months, to give anadequate explanationforsuchnon- C.LawsinisfoundG
C.Lawsin thecertificateoftitleoveracertainsubjectlandinfavor performance despite the protractedlength oftime UILTY of
ofcomplainantactingastherepresentativeoftheHeir Canon16 givenforhimto doso. Assuchomissionsequally violating Rules16.01
CASE NO.: softhelateIsabelSegovia.Respondentreceivedfrom Rule 16.01 showcase respondent’snon-compliance with and16.03,
A.C. NO. 1965 complainantthe amountsof Rule 16.03 thestandard of proficiencyrequiredof a Canon16,andRules18
₱15,000.00and₱39,000.004tocoverforthelitigation lawyerasembodiedin the above-citedrules, the .03 and18.04,
DATE andlandregistrationexpenses,respectively.Theexpe Courtdeemsitapt to extendthe periodof Canon18 ofthe Code
OFPROMULGATI nditureofthe₱39,000.00givenforregistrationexpens hissuspensionfrom the practice of law from six ofProfessionalRespo
ON:NOV. 13, 2013 esandthelapseofmore thanthree (3)yearsfrom the Canon18 (6)monthsto one (1)year. nsibility.
retainer’sdate,respondent,withoutproperexplanati Rule 18.03 Accordingly, he
PONENTE: on,failedtofulfillhisundertakingtoregisterthesubject Rule 18.04 isherebySUSPEND
Associate Justice landanddelivertocomplainantthecertificateoftitleo EDfromthe practice
EstelaPerlas-Bernabe verthesame.Ascomplainantwastiredofrespondent’s of lawfor a periodof
excuses,shefinallydecidedtojustwithdrawthesubject one
amountfromrespondent.Complainantwasprompte (1)yeareffectiveuponh
dtofiletheinstantadministrativecomplaintandthecas isreceiptofthisResoluti
ewasreferredtoIBPforinvestigationandfoundoutth onwith astem warning
atrespondenthaveviolatedRules16.01and16.03,Can that arepetitionof the
on16oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibilityforhis sameor
failuretoproperlyaccountforthemoneyentrustedto similaractswillbedealt
himwithoutanyadequate explanationwhy he could withmoreseverely.
not return thesame.

TOPIC:UnauthorizedTravelAbroad

307
 2013CASES
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASEDIS
RE: Judge Villacorta wasgrantedauthority totravel OCA CircularNo. 49- Unauthorizedabsencesofthoseresponsible POSITION
UnauthorizedTravelAb toCanadafortheperiodcovering20December2010t 2003 (Guidelines fortheadministrationofjustice,especiallyonthepartofa SUPREMECOURT
road ofJudgeCleto R. o3February2011.1Hewasexpectedtoreportforwork onRequests magistrate,areinimicaltopublicservice.JudgeVillacort ISSUEDASTERN
VillacortaIIIRegional on4February2011but,ascertifiedbyClerkofCourt,R forTravelAbroadandExt aisremindedthatreasonableruleswerelaiddowninorde WARNING to
Trial egionalTrialCourt,Branch6BaguioCity,JudgeVillac ensionsforTravel/Stay rtofacilitatetheefficientfunctioningofthecourts.Obse JudgeCletoR.Villacort
CourtBranch6,Baguioci ortareportedbackforworkonlyon16February2011. Abroad). rvancethereofcannotbeexpectedofothercourtperson a
ty Villacortaexplainedthathewasunabletoreturntothec nelifjudgesthemselvescannotbereliedontotakethelea III,
ountryattheexpirationofhistravelauthoritybecauseh d. RegionalTrialCourt,Br
CASE NO.: ehadtoattendfewfamily- Section50 of anch6,BaguioCity,that
A.M. No. 11-9-167-RTC relatedmatters.JudgeVillacortawasgrantedanothera CivilService furtherfailuretoobserv
uthoritytotraveltoCanadafortheperiodcovering1M CommissionMemoran ereasonablerulesandg
DATE ayto2June2011toattendthewakeandfuneralofhissist dumCircularNo. uidelines
OFPROMULGATI er.Memorandumdated12May2011,DeputyCourtA 41,series of 1998, for
ON: dministrator(DCA)andtheOCAOfficeofAdministr applyingfora
November11, 2013 ativeServices(OCA- leaveofabsenceshallbe
OAS)recommendedthatthejudge’sabsenceduringhi dealtwithmoreseverel
PONENTE: sextendedtravelfrom4- y.
ChiefJustice 15February2011beconsideredunauthorized,whichr
MARIA LOURDES P. ecommendationwasapprovedbythethenOCAOffic
A. SERENO er-in-Charge.Also,hisletter-
explanationdated31March2011wasreferredtotheO
CALegalOfficeforappropriateaction.JudgeVillacor
tafailedtoreportforworkon3June2011followinghiss
econdtraveltoCanada.JudgeVillacortasentanotherl
etterrequestingfortheconsolidationofthetwoincide
ntsfortheCourt’saction.Healsostatedthathemeantt
oresigneffective31October2011tosettleabroadand
wishedtobeadvisedontheimplicationsofhisextende
dtravelsonhisintendedresignation.

TOPIC:NotarialLaw

308
 2013CASES

CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASEDISPOSI

MarianoAgadanetal. ComplainantsfiledbeforetheIBPBaguioBenguetCh NotarialLaw Respondent’sfailuretomaketheproperentryorentriesi TION
V.Atty. apteraComplaintagainstrespondentforfalsification andthe2004 Rules nhisNotarialRegisterofhisnotarialacts,hisfailuretoreq Notarialcommissiono
RichardBaltazarKilaan ofdocuments,dishonestyanddeceit.Theyallegedthat onNotarialPractice uirethepresenceofaprincipalatthetimeofthenotarialac fAtty.RichardBaltazar
respondentintercalatedcertainentriesintheapplicati ts,andhisfailuretoidentifyaprincipalonthebasisofpers Kilaan,
CASE NO.: onforissuanceofCertificateofPublicConvenience(C onalknowledgebycompetentevidencearegroundsfort ifstillexisting,ishereby
A.C. No. 9385, PC)tooperatepublicutilityjeepneyfiledbeforetheLT Rule 10.0 andRule he revocation of a lawyer scommissionasa REVOKED,andheis
FRB- 1.01of the Code notarypublic. DISQUALIFIED
DATE CARbysubstitutingthenameoftheapplicantfromAd ofProfessionalResponsi from being
OFPROMULGATI asingtothatofBatingwed.IBP-Baguio- bility commissionedasnotar
ON: BenguetChapterformallyendorsedtheComplaintto ypublicforaperiodofo
November11, 2013 theIBPCommissiononBarDiscipline(CBD)forapp ne(1)year.HeisalsoSU
ropriateaction.Respondentdeniedtheallegations.Th SPENDEDfromthe
PONENTE: eInvestigating Commissioner9 practiceoflawforthree(
Associate foundcomplainantstohavemis 3)monthseffectiveim
JusticeMarianoC. Del erablyfailedtoprovethatrespondentintercalatedthee mediately,withaWAR
Castillo ntriesintheapplicationforCPCofBatingwed.Theirall NINGthattherepetiti
egationwasbasedonmeresuspicion.However,theIn onofasimilarviolation
vestigatingCommissionerdidnottotallyabsolveresp willbedealtwithmores
ondentashefoundhimliableforviolatingtheNotarial everely.
LawconsideringthattheVerificationofBatingwed'sa
pplicationwhichhenotarizedwasactuallyrecordedas
aDeedofSaleinhisNotarialRegisteandliedunderoath
when
heallegedthatAdasingwasabroadasthiswassquarely
beliedbyAdasinginhisAffidavit.IBPBoardofGover
norsadoptedandapprovedtheReportandRecomme
ndationoftheInvestigatingCommissionerwithmodi
ficationthatrespondentNotarialCommissionberev
okedandthathebedisqualifiedfrombeingappointeda
sNotary

309
 2013CASES
Public fortwoyears.

TOPIC:Champertous Agreement
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASEDIS
Conchita A. Complainantsengagedtheprofessionalservicesofres Code Anagreementwherebyanattorneyundertakestopaytheexpe POSITION
Baltazaret.Al v. Atty. pondentforthepurposeofassistingthemintheprepar ofProfessional nsesoftheproceedingstoenforcetheclient’srightsinexchang Attorney
JuanB.Bañez, Jr. ationofasettlementagreement.Insteadofdraftingaw Responsibility eforsomebargaintohaveapartofthethingindispute.Suchco JuanB.Bañez,
rittensettlement,respondentencouragedthemtoinst Rule 16.04 ntractsarecontrarytopublic policy andare thusvoid or Jr.isherebyADMO
CASE NO.: ituteactionsagainstFevidalinordertorecovertheirpr inexistent. NISHED
A.C. 9091 operties.Itwasagreedthatcomplainantswouldpayres for advancing
pondent50%ofwhateverwouldberecoveredofthepr thelitigationexpensesi
DATE operties.RespondentpreparedandnotarizedanAffid na
OFPROMULGATI avitofAdverseClaim,seekingtoannotatetheclaimofc legalmatterherhandled
ON:DEC. 11, 2013 omplainantstoatleast195titlesinthepossessionofFe fora
vidal.CertainAndradewastaskedtosubmittheAffida clientwithoutprovidin
PONENTE: vitofAdverseClaimtotheRegisterofDeedsofBataan. gfortermsofreimburse
ChiefJustice Thecostsfortheannotationoftheadverseclaimwerep mentandlending
MARIALOURDES aidbyrespondent.But,Fevidalgotwindofitandconvi money tohisclient, in
P.A.SERENO ncedcomplainantstoagreetoanothersettlement.Res violation
pondentfiledacomplaintforannulment,cancellation ofCanon16.04 of
andrevalidationoftitles,anddamagesagainstFevidal theCode
beforetheRTCofBataan.Complainantsterminatedt ofProfessionalResp
heservicesofrespondentwithdrewtheircomplaintag onsibility.Heussternl
ainstFevidal,andfinalizedtheiramicablesettlement. y warnedthata
RespondentfiledaManifestationandOppositionbef repetitionof
oretheRTC,allegingthattheterminationofhisservice thesameorsimilaractw
sandwithdrawalofthecomplainthadbeendonewitht ould be
heintentofdefraudingcounsel.On the same date,he dealtwithmore
fileda Motion for severely.

310
 2013CASES
RecordingofAttorney’sChargingLienintheRecords
oftheAbove-
CaptionedCases.RTCgrantedthewithdrawalofthec
omplaint.Complainantssoughtthesuspension/disb
armentofrespondentthroughaComplaintfiledbefor
eIBP.Itsuspendedrespondentfromthepracticeofla
wforaperiodofoneyearforenteringintoachamperto
usagreement.

TOPIC:Misconduct
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASEDIS
PheschemIndustrialCo ComplainantsoughtthehelpofAtty.Surigao,thenVic Section15 of Thelegislature,hasdelegatedtheexerciseofpolicepowerto POSITION
rporation, vs. e- R.A.No. 7160 localgovernmentunits,asagenciesof The
Attys.Lloyd p. MayorofPalompon,butinsteadofhelpingtheformer, theState,inordertoeffectivelyaccomplishandcarryoutthede disbarmentcomplain
SurigaoandJesusA. Atty.Surigaojoinedtheblockade.Notonlythat,inadia claredobjectsoftheircreation.Thisdelegationisembodiedint tfiledbyPheschemIn
VillardoIII loguehecalledbetweenPheschemandthebarangayof Section447 hegeneralwelfareclause,ofR.A.No.7160.Policepowerisesse dustrialCorporationa
ficials,Atty.SurigaoharanguedPheschemwithalitany oftheRA7160 ntiallyregulatoryinnature,andthepowertoissuelicensesorgr gainstlawyersLloydP
CASE NO.: ofcomplaintsfromthebarangayresidents,whileignor antbusinesspermits,ifexercisedforaregulatoryandnotreven .SurigaoandJesusA.
A.C. No. 8269 ingtheDENR’scertificationsthatPheschemcommit ue-raisingpurpose, iswithin the ambitof thispower. VillardoIIIisDISMI
tedno Thereisampleshowingthattheirconductwaspursuanttothe SSED.
DATE violations,aswellasDENR’sexplanationthatPhesch diligentperformanceoftheirsworndutiesandresponsibilitie
OFPROMULGATI emcouldnot sasdulyelectedofficialsoftheMunicipalityof
ON: bedeniedanEnvironmentalComplianceCertificate( Palompon,Leyte.Theythereforedeservecommendation,ins
December11, 2013 ECC)aslongasitsubstantiallycompliedwiththerequi teadofcondemnation,andnotjustcommendationbutevene
rementstherefor.ItappearsthatAtty.Surigaowasalso ncouragement,fortheirvigilanceandpromptanddecisiveact
PONENTE: theprivatecounseloftherespondentinPheschemInd ionsinhelpingtoprotectandpreservetheenvironmentandna
Associate ustrialCorporation turalresourcesoftheirMunicipality.
JusticeBienvenidoL. v.PablitoMoldez.PheschemnowinsiststhatAtty.Sur
Reyes igaoshouldhaveinhibitedhimselffromtheSanggunia
ngBayan’sdeliberationsonResolutionduetoconflict
ofinterest.PheschemopenedanewquarryinBaranga
yCantandoy,butagainAtty.Surigaoandothertownof
ficialsblockedandstoppeditsoperations.Atty.

311
 2013CASES

Surigao,accompaniedbyheadofPalompon’sMENR
O,andseveralpolicemen,enteredPheschem’squarry
siteandseizedthree(3)ofitsdumptrucks.MayorTupa,
Atty.Surigao,andPajaronexecutedaJointComplaint
AffidavitseekingtocancelPheschem’sprovincialqua
rrypermit.But in
aResolutiontheOfficeoftheProvincialGovernorof
Leytedismissedthecomplaint.Pheschemfiledtheinst
antdisbarmentcomplaintagainsthereinrespondents,
"forgross,maliciousandoppressiveviolationoftheir
dutiesundertheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility.I
BPInvestigatingCommissionerissuedherReportan
dRecommendationinA.C.No.8269,21whereinsher
ecommendedthatthedisbarmentcomplaintagainstt
herespondentsbedismissedforlackofmerit.IBPissu
edResolutionadoptingIBPGovernorrulingtosuspe
nd therespondentsforone month.

TOPIC:Misconduct
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASEDISPOSI
RE: TheHeirsofRallos,oneofwhomisco Rule V Aparty- TION
LETTERSOFLUCENAB.RALLOS,F mplainantLucenaB.Rallos(Rallos),a INHIBITIONOF litigantwhodesirestobeinformedoftheinhibitionofaJusticea CourtDISMISSES
ORALLEGEDACTS/INCIDENTS/ ndotherpartiescollectivelyreferredt JUSTICES ndof the
OCCURENCESRELATIVETOTHER oasVicenteRallos,etal.soughtjustco SEC.3. thereasonfortheinhibitionmustfileamotionforinhibitionint administrativecomplai
ESOLUTION(S)ISSUEDIN CA- mpensationfromthecitygovernmen hemannerprovidedunderSection3,RuleVoftheInternalRule ntsagainstCourtofAp
G.R.SP No. t softheCourtofAppeals,supra.Uponthefilingofthemotion,th pealsAssociate
06676BYCOUIRTOFAPPEALSEXE ofCebuCity(CebuCity)fortwoparcel eparty- JusticePampioA.
CUTIVE soflandpertainingtotheestatethatCe litigantbecomesentitledtobenotifiedoftheCA’sactiononthe Abarintos,Associate
JUSTICEPAMPIOABARINTOSandA buCityhadbeenmaintainingaspublic motionforinhibitionand JusticeRamonPaul
SSOCIATEJUSTICES roadswithouttheirconsent. ofthereasonsfortheaction.Likewise,theparty- L.Hernando,
RAMONPAULHERNANDOandVIC litigantmayseekthereconsiderationormayappealtotheCourt AssociateJustice
TORIAISABELPAREDES. anyactionon thepartof theCA onthe motion Victoria Isabel
/RE:COMPLAINTFILEDBY forinhibitionor
LUCENA motionforreconsideration.Alas,Rallosdidnot
B. RALLOSAGAINSTJUSTICE

312
 2013CASES
GABRIELT.INGLES, TheRTCrendereditsdecisionholdin
PAMELAANNMAXIMO, gCebuCityliabletopayjustcompensa
andCARMELITA S.MANAHAN, tiontotheHeirsofRallos.TheBoardo
fCommissionersofitsreportontheju
CASE NO.: stcompensation,RTCrenderedanot
IPINo. 12-203-CA-J/A.M.No. 12-8- herdecisionorderingCebuCitytoco
06-CA mpensatetheadditionalinterestof12
%perannumcomputedfromthe
DATE OFPROMULGATION: dateofthedecisionuntilfullypaidincl
December10, 2013 udingattorney’sfeesandexpensesofli
tigation.CebuCitychallengedthedeci
PONENTE: sionsandappealedbeforeCA,andpro
Associate mulgateditsdecisiondismissingthea
JusticeLUCAS P. ppealofCebuCity.TheHeirsofVicen
BERSAMIN teRallos,etal.thereaftermovedinthe
RTCfortheexecutionofthedecisiona
ndconsolidatedorder.TheRTCgrant
edthemotion.Subsequently,howeve
r,uponfindingthattheRTChaderredi
nexecutingthedecisionandtheconso
lidatedorder,theHeirsofVicenteRall
os,etal.lodgedanappealwiththeCA,t
ocompeltheRTCtocomplystrictlywi
ththetenorofthedecisionandthecon
solidatedorder.CAdecidedrequiring
theRTCtoexecutetheRTCdecisiona
nditsconsolidatedorderstrictlyinacc
ordancewiththeirtenor.On
313
submitamotionfortheinhibitionofanyoftherespondentJusti A. Paredes,
ces. AssociateJustice
Gabriel T.Ingles,
AssociateJusticePamel
TheCourtdonotsubscribe a
toRallos’suggestionthattheseriesofinhibitionsinconstituted AnnMaxinoandAssoc
aschemeto iate JusticeCarmelita
favorCebuCity.Shepresentednoprooftovalidatehersuggesti S. Manahanfor
on.Infact,sheherselfconcededthatshewastherebyonlyvoicin theirlack
gouthersuspicionofanirregularity.Tostress,theirgoodfaithan ofmeritandsubstance.
dregularityintheperformanceofofficialduties,whicharestron
gpresumptionsunderourlaws,shouldprevailunlessovercom
ebycontraryproof.Worthnotinginthatregardisthattherewase
vennovalidreasonthatcouldhaveprohibitedtheJusticescharg
edinA.M.No.12-9-08-CAfromparticipatinginCA-
G.R.SPNo.06676.Itserveswelltoconsider,too,thatnoneofth
erespondentJusticeschargedinIPINo.12-203-CA-
JisanymoreparticipatinginCA-
G.R.SPNo.06676;andthattherespondentJusticeschargedin
A.M.No.12-9-08-
CAwerechosenbyraffleasrequiredunderpre-
existingrulesandregulationstoreplacetheJusticeswhohadme
anwhilevoluntarilyinhibitedthemselvesfromfurtherparticip
ationfor validreasons.
 2013CASES
motionforexecutionbytheHeirsofV
icenteRallos,etal.,theRTCdirectedth
eissuanceofawritofexecutioninacco
rdancewiththeruling.CebuCityprese
ntedanomnibusmotiontoquashthe
writofexecutionandtoliftthenoticeo
fgarnishment,buttheRTCdeniedthe
omnibusmotion.CebuCitysoughtth
enullificationoftheRTCdecisionsan
dconsolidatedorder;andtheissuance
ofatemporary
restraining
order(TRO)and/orwritofprelimina
ryinjunction"topreventthehasty,ifn
otunlawfulreleaseofgovernmentfun
ds.CA,VisayasStation,whosememb
ersthenwererespondentspromulgat
edaresolutiondirectingCebuCitytor
ectifycertaindefectsinitspetition.Ral
losaverredthattheissuance of the
resolutiondirectingtherectificationo
fthe"fatal"defectsofthepetitionfort
heissuanceoftheTROhadbeenerron
eousissuanceconstitutedseriousmis
conduct.

TOPIC:Gross Ignoranceof theLaw

CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASEDIS
NarcisoG. Dulalia ComplaintstemmedfromSpecialProceedings.Com Asa matterof TheCourtfindthechargesofignoranceofthelawbereftofmer POSITION
vs.Judge Afable E. plainantisone of thepetitionersinthe publicpolicy, a judge it.Itisclearthattherespondentjudge’s The complaint of
Cajigal cannot

314
 2013CASES
CASE NO.: specialproceedingcasespertainingtothejointsettlem be subjected toliability orderwasissuedintheproperexerciseofhisjudicialfunctions, grossignorance ofthe
A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 10- entofthetestateandintestateestatesofhisparentswhe for any ofhisofficial andassuch,isnotsubjecttoadministrativedisciplinaryaction; law
3492-RTJ rein acts, nomatterhow especiallyconsideringthatthecomplainantfailedtoestablish againstJudgeAfable
heandhissisterviedforappointmentasspecialandreg erroneous, aslong badfaithonthepartofrespondentjudge.Wellentrenchedisth E. Cajigal,Regional
DATE ularadministrator.Complainantclaimedthatsinceres ashe erulethat Trial
OFPROMULGATI pondentjudge’sappointmentaspresidingjudgeofRT actsingoodfaith.Tohol ajudgemaynotbeadministrativelysanctionedformereerrors Court,Branch96,Que
ON: C,Branch96,QuezonCity,thelatterhasdisplayedgros dotherwise would ofjudgmentintheabsenceofshowingofanybadfaith,fraud, zonCity
December4, 2013 sinefficiencybyfailingtoresolvewithintheprescribed betorenderjudicial malice,grossignorance,corruptpurpose,oradeliberateinten isDISMISSEDfor
period.Respondentjudgevehementlydeniedthealleg officeuntenable, for ttodoaninjusticeonhisor herpart. lack
PONENTE: ationsinthecomplaint.Heaverredthatthecomplaint, no onecalledupon to ofmerit.Forhisdelay
Associate whichwasfiledbyadisgruntledpartywhodid try inresolvingthe
JusticeJosePortugal notgetafavorableactioninhiscourt,ispurelypersonal thefactsorinterpretthel pending
Perez andmeantonlytoharasshim.Ithasnobasisinlawandin aw in the motionsinhiscourt,
fact,heclaims.OCAconcludedthatthechargeofgross processofadministerin JudgeCajigal
ignoranceofthelawshouldbegivenscantconsideratio g justicecan be isADMONISHEDt
nconsideringthatascomplainanthimselfhasadmitte infallible o
d,theproprietyofrespondentjudge’sdecisionwasalre inhisjudgment. bemore
adyraisedinthemotionforreconsideration.TheOCA circumspectin the
,however,foundrespondentjudgeliableforunduedel exercise ofhisjudicial
ayinresolvingthemotionforreconsiderationfiledbyc functions.
omplainantandrecommendedthathebefinedinthea
mountof
₱10,000.00

TOPIC:Gross Misconductandviolationof Lawyer’sOath

CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASEDIS
Victoria c. Heenan, Respondentwasinneedofmoneyandwantedtoborro Code Theissuanceofcheckswhichwerelaterdishonoredforhaving POSITION
v.Atty. Erlina Espejo wP250,000fromComplainant.Shortlythereafter,Co ofProfessional beendrawnagainstaclosedaccountindicatesalawyer’sunfitn Atty.ErlindaB.Espejo
mplainantwenttothehouseofCorazonforameeting Responsibility: essforthetrustandconfidencereposedonher.Itshowsalacko GUILTYofgrossmisc
CASE NO.: withrespondentwheretheydiscussedthe termsof CANON1 fpersonalhonestyandgoodmoralcharacterastorenderherun onductandviolatingCa
A.C. NO. 10050 the loan. worthyofpublic nons1,7

DATE OF

315
 2013CASES

PROMULGATION: Complainanthandedtotherespondenttheamountof Rule 1.01. confidence.Theissuanceofaseriesofworthlesschecksalsosh and11ofthe Codeof

December3, 2013 PhP250,000.Tosecurethepaymentoftheloan,respo CANON7 owstheremorselessattitudeofrespondent,unmindfultothe Professional
ndentsimultaneouslyissuedandturnedovertocompl Rule 7.03 deleteriouseffectsofsuchacttothepublicinterestandpublico Responsibility.WeSU
PONENTE: ainantacheckforP275,0)coveringtheloanamountan CANON11 rder.Italsomanifestsalawyer’slowregardtohercommitment SPEND
Associate dagreedinterest.Onduedate,respondentrequestedc totheoathshehastakenwhenshejoinedherpeers,seriouslyan respondentfromthepr
JusticePREBITE omplainanttodelaythedepositofthecheckforthereas dirreparablytarnishingtheimageoftheprofessionsheshould acticeoflawfortwo(2)y
RIOJ.VELASC onthatshewasstillwaitingfortherelease of the holdinhighesteem.Also,alawyermustmaintainrespectnoto earseffectiveimmediat
O, JR. proceedsof a bank loan to fund nlyforthecourts,butalsoforjudicialofficersandotherdulyco ely.
thecheck.However,afteracoupleofmonthsofwaitin nstitutedauthorities,including theIBP.
g,complainantreceivednowordfromrespondentast
owhetherornotthecheckwasalreadyfundedenough.
Complainantdepositedthechecksbut,toherdismay,t
hecheckbouncedduetoinsufficiencyoffunds.Respo
ndentfailedtopaydespitecomplainant’srepeatedde
mands.Complainantfiled
acriminalcomplaintagainstrespondentforviolationo
fBatasPambansaBlg.22andEstafaunderArticle315o
ftheRevisedPenalCode,beforetheQuezonCityPros
ecutor’sOffice.Respondentdisregardedthenoticesa
ndsubpoenasissuedbytheQuezonCityProsecutor’s
Officewhichshe
personallyreceivedandcontinuedtoignoreVictoria’s
demands.Sheattendedonly1scheduledpreliminaryi
nvestigationwhereshepromisedtopayherloanobliga
tion.However,thepromisedpaymentforherobligati
ondishonoredagainforinsufficientfunds.Complain
antfiledtheinstantadministrativecaseagainstrespon
dentbeforetheCBD.CBDrecommendedthesuspen
sionofAtty.Espejofromthepracticeoflawandasame
mberof theBar for a period offive (5)years.

316
 2013CASES
TOPIC:Violation of Lawyer’s Oath

CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASEDIS

NestorFelipe et. al. Petitionfordisbarmentwasfiledagainstrespondent. Lawyersareparticularl Respondent'sunjustifieddisregardofthelawfulordersofthi POSITION
V.Atty. RespondentreceivedacopyoftheResolution.respon y calledupon toobey sCourtandtheIBPisnotonlyirresponsible,butalsoconstitut Atty.
CiriacoA.Macapagal dentfiledanUrgentEx- courtordersandproces esutterdisrespectfor CiriacoA.Macapagal
ParteMotionForExtensionOfTmeToFileCommen sesandare expected thejudiciaryandhisfellowlawyers.Hisconductisunbecomi isREPRIMANDE
CASE NO.: t.Herequestedforadditionalperiodof30dayswithinw tostand ngofalawyer,forlawyersareparticularlycalledupontoobeyc D
A.C. No. 4549 hichtofilehiscommentcitingnumerousprofessional foremostincomplying ourtordersandprocessesandareexpectedtostandforemost forfailing to give
commitments.CourtgrantedsaidrequestintheResol withcourtdirectivesbei incomplyingwithcourtdirectivesbeingthemselvesofficers duerespectto the
DATE ution.Theextendeddeadlinepassedsansrespondent’ ngthemselvesofficers ofthecourt.Asanofficerofthecourt,respondentisexpectedt Courtand the
OFPROMULGATI scomment.ComplainantsfileanUrgentMotionToSu ofthe court. oknowthataresolutionofthisCourtisnotamererequestbuta IntegratedBar of
ON: bmitTheAdministrativeCaseForResolutionWithou norderwhichshouldbecompliedwithpromptlyandcomple thePhilippines.
December2, 2013 tCommentOfRespondent6claimingtherespondent tely.ThisisalsotrueoftheordersoftheIBPastheinvestigatin HeisWARNEDthatc
isdeemedtohavewaivedhisrighttofilecomment.The garmoftheCourtinadministrativecasesagainstlawyers. ommissionof
PONENTE: casereferredtoIBPforinvestigation.InvestigatingCo asimilarinfractionwill
Associate mmissionersubmittedareportandrecommendationt be
JusticeMARIAN hatthere’snodiscussionwasmaderegardingthemerit dealtwithmoreseverel
OD.CASTILLO softhecomplaint.However,itwasrecommendedthat y.
respondentbe suspendedfrom the practice of law
for one (1)month.

TOPIC:Gross Negligence
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASEDISPOSI
Felipe C. Dagala, ComplainantassistedbyAtty.Quesadafiledbeforeth Code TheCourthasemphasizedthattherelationshipbetweenala TION
vs.Atty. Jose C. eNLRC- ofProfessionalRespo wyerandhisclientisoneimbuedwithutmosttrustandconfid Atty. Jose
Quesada,Jr. RAB,SanFernandoCity,LaUnionComplaintforilleg nsibility: ence.Inthisregard,clientsareledtoexpectthatlawyerswould C.Quesada,
aldismissal,overtimepay,separationpay,damagesan CANON1. beever- Jr.isfoundGUILTY
CASE NO.: dattorney’sfeesagainstCapitol.The mindfuloftheircauseandaccordinglyexercisetherequiredd of
A.C. No. 5044 saidcasewas,however, egree violating Rule 1.01of

317
 2013CASES

dismissedwithoutprejudice,throughanOrderforfail ofdiligenceinhandlingtheiraffairs.Forhispart,thelawyerisr Canon1, Rule 10.01of

DATE ureofcomplainantandAtty.Quesadatoappearduring Rule 1.01 equiredtomaintainatalltimesahighstandardoflegalproficie Canon10, Canon17,
OFPROMULGATI the2scheduledmandatoryconferencehearingsdespi ncy,and andRule 18.03
ON: teduenotice.Thereafter,complainantengagedtheser todevotehisfullattention,skill,andcompetencetothecase,r ofCanon18 of
December2, 2013 vicesofAtty.Adquilen,aformerLaborArbiteroftheN egardlessofitsimportanceandwhetherheacceptsitforafeeo theCode of
CANON10
LRC-RAB,whore- rforfree. ProfessionalResponsi
PONENTE: filedhislaborcase.Similarly,thecasewasdismissedwit bility,
Associate houtprejudice.ComplainantandAtty.Adquilenre- andisaccordinglySUS
JusticeESTELLAM. filedthecaseforathirdtime.Therepresentativeof Rule 10.01 PENDEDfromthe
PERLAS-BERNABE Capitolpurportedlyofferedthe amountof practice of law forone
₱74,000.00assettlementofcomplainant'sclaim,cond (1)year,effective
itionedonthesubmissionofthelatter’spositionpaper. CANON17. uponhisreceipt of
Complainantfiledanadmincaseagainstrespondentw thisDecision, with
iththeassistanceofnewcounsel.InvestigatingIBPCo asternwarning that
mmissionerissuedaReportandRecommendation,fi arepetitionof the
ndingthatrespondentsweregrosslynegligentinhandl CANON18. sameor
ingcomplainant'scaseinviolationofRule18.03,Cano similaractswillbedealt
n18 oftheCode withmoreseverely.
ofProfessionalResponsibility.Assuch,herecommen Rule 18.03
dedthateachofthembesuspendedfromthepracticeo
flaw for a period of 1 year. On the otherhand,the
administrativecomplai
ntrespondentAtty.
AmadoAdquilenisher
ebyDIMISSEDinvie
wof
hissuperveningdeath.

318
 2014CASES
TOPIC:Deceit

CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION

Natividad P. Atty.SolidumsignedaretaineragreementwithPresbiteroina Code RespondentfailedtofulfillhisdutyandviolatingCanon1 Atty. IvanM.
NavarroandHilda ssistingandrepresentinghertoaseveralsuits.Likewise,Ma.T ofProfessional 6andRule16.01.TheFiduciarynatureoftherelationship Solidum,Jr.GUILTY
S.Presbitero, v. Atty. heresaP.Yulo,daughterofPresbitero,alsoengangedrespon Responsibility: betweenthecounselandhisclientimposesonthelawyert ofviolatingRule 1.01,
Ivan M. Solidum,Jr. dent’sservicesinhandlingthelotfortheregistrationher18.8 Rule 1.01 hedutytoaccountforthemoneyorpropertycollectedor Canon16,Rule
5- receivedfromhisclient.Therespondentreceivedvariou 16.01, andRule 16.04
CASE NO.: hectarelotinwhichNavarrofinanced.OnMay25,2006andJ samountsfromcomplainantsbuthecouldnotaccountf ofthe Code
A.C. No. 9872 une2006respondentsuccessivelyobtainedaloanfrom CANON16 orallofthem.Respondenthasbeenlessthandiligentinac ofProfessionalResponsib
NavarroamountingtoP1,000,000eachtimewithMemoran countingfromthefundshereceivedfromNavarrofrom ility.
DATE dumofAgreementagreeingthattheloanshallearninterestatt the registration of Yulo’sProperty. Accordingly, the
OFPROMULGATI herateof10%andshallbesecured bya realestate covered CourtDISBARShimfro
ON: by TCT304688. At Rule 16.01 mthepractice of law
January 28, 2014 thesametimehethenobtainedaloanofP1,000,000coveredb effectiveimmediately
yathirdMOAexceptthattherealestatemortgagewasovera2 uponhisreceipt of
PONENTE: 63squaremeterproperty.However,Presbiterowasnotsatisf Rule 16.04 thisDecision.
PERCURIAM iedwiththepropertysotherespondentpromisedtoexecutea
realestatemortgageovera1000squaremeterpropertyadjace
nttothe4,000squaremeterhemortgagedtoNavarrobut he
laterdid notexecute the deed.

TOPIC:Serious Misconduct

CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION

Aida R. Aida andrespondentweremarriedin1981. Code Whatrespondentdidwastoengageinabrawlwithnoless RespondentEliseo
Campos,AlistairR. Alistairwasbornin1982,andCharmaine,in1986.Responde ofProfessional thanhisownchildreninsidethe M.CamposviolatedRule7.0
CamposandCharm ntappliedfortheissuanceofatitleinAlistair’snameandfiled Responsibility: chamberofajudge.ThisCourtshallnotcountenancecru 3, Canon 7of the Codeof
aine R.Campos, with theRTCofAgusandel Sur, a Petitionfor CANON7 desocialbehavior.Besides,thecourtroomislookedupo ProfessionalResponsibility
vs. Atty.Eliseo M. theDeclarationofNullityofMarriage.After,Respondentex nbypeoplewithhighrespectandisregardedasasacredpl . A FINEof
Campos ecutedanAffidavitofLosswhereinherepresentedhimselfas acewherelitigantsareheard,rightsandconflictssettled,a FiveThousandPesos(Php5,
theowneroftheproperty.IntheAffidavit ndjusticesolemnly 000.00)ishereby
CASE NO.:
A.C. No. 8644

319
 2014CASES

ofNoLossexecutedlikewiseinscribedinthecertificateoftitl Rule 7.03 dispensed.Misbehaviorwithinoraroundthevicinitydi imposeduponhim, with a

DATE e,Alistairrefutedrespondent’srepresentations,andfiledco minishesitssanctityanddignity.AlthoughAlistairandC STERNWARNING
OFPROMULGATI mplaintforperjury.Alistairstatedthattheowner’scopyofthe harmainewerenotentirelyfaultless,ahigherlevelofdeco that a repetition
ON: propertywasinhispossession.Respondentwasawareofsuc rumandrestraintwasthenexpectedfromEliseo,whosec ofsimilaractsshall be
January 22, 2014 hfact,buthestilldeliberatelyandmaliciouslyassertedafalseh onductfailedtoshowduerespectforthecourtandlendcr dealtwithmore severely.
ood.OfficeoftheProvincialProsecutorofAgusandelSurdis edittothenobilityofthepractitionersofthelegalprofessi
PONENTE: missedthecomplaint.AidathereafterfiledaComplaintforL on.
Associate egalSeparation,SupportandSeparationofConjugalPropert
JusticeBIENVENI iesagainstrespondent.Aidaallegedthatrespondentconfess
DO L.REYES edunderoaththatheisahomosexual.AlistairandCharmaine
filedbeforetheOfficeoftheCourtAdministrator(OCA)ana
dministrativecomplaintforseriousmisconduct,immorality
anddishonestyagainstEliseo.Aftertheconclusionofaheari
ngonEliseo’sPetitionforDeclarationofNullityofMarriage,
Aida,AlistairandCharmainefiledtheinstantcomplaintfordi
sbarmentagainstEliseo.Afteradjournmentofthehearing,t
hejudgecalledthefamilytothechamberforconferenceinwh
ichitturnedoutthattherewasyellingandphysicalinflictionb
etweentheparties.ItwassodisrespectfulthatIBPBoardofG
overnors,issuedaresolutionsuspendedEliseofromtheprac
ticeoflawfor twoyears.

TOPIC:Dishonesty andGrave Misconduct

CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION

Atty. AcomplaintforgravemisconductwasfiledagainstMyleneH Republic TheSupremeCourtheldthatDelaCruzfailedtoliveupto Courtfindsrespondent
RheaR.Alcantara- .DelaCruz,ClerkIIIoftheRegionalTrialCourt.TheCodeof Act6713 theseexactingstandards.Theinculpatoryactscommitte MYLENE H.DELA
Aquinovs.Mylene H. ConductandEthicalStandardsforPublicOfficialsandEmp dbyDelaCruzaresograveastocallforthemostseveread CRUZ,
Dela Cruz,Clerk III, loyees,RepublicAct6713,enunciatesthe State’spolicyof ministrativepenalty.Dishonestyandgravemisconduct, thenClerkIII,Office of
Office ofthe Clerk of promotinga high bothbeingin the Clerk
Court,Regional Trial ofCourt,Regional Trial
Court,

320
 2014CASES

Santa Cruz, Laguna standardofethicsandutmostresponsibilityinthepublicserv thenatureofagraveoffense,carrytheextremepenaltyof CourtofSanta

ice.Andnootherofficeinthegovernmentserviceexactsagre dismissalfromservicewithforfeitureofretirementbene Cruz,Laguna, GUILTY
CASE NO.: aterdemandformoralrighteousnessanduprightnessfroma fits,exceptaccruedleavecredits,andperpetualdisqualifi ofGROSSMISCOND
A.M. No. P-13-3141 nemployeethanin the judiciary. cationforre- UCT
employmentinthegovernmentservice.Thispenaltyisin andDISHONESTY.Si
DATE accordancewithSections52and58oftheRevisedUnifor nce
OFPROMULGATI m she
ON: hadresignedfromtheservic
January 21, 2014 e, sheisinsteadFINEDin
the
PONENTE: amountofFortyThousand(
ChiefJustice ₱40,000.00)Pesos,
MARIALOURDES withforfeiture
P.A.SERENO ofallretirementbenefitsand
privileges,exceptaccruedle
avecredits, ifany,
andwithprejudice to re-
employmentinanybranch
or instrumentalityof the
government,including
government-owned or
controlledcorporations.

TOPIC:Grave Misconduct

CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION

Atty. Virgilio AComplaintforGraveMisconductandMakingUntruthful SanCarlos City v. TheSupremeCourtruledthatPallanandid RespondentAlfredoT.P
P.Alconera v. StatementswasfiledagainstAlfredoPallanan,SheriffIV,assi Llamas notcommitgravemisconduct.Inejectmentcases,therul allananisADMONISH
AlfredoT. Pallanan gnedattheRegionalTrialCourt.ComplainantallegedthatPa ingsofthecourtsareimmediatelyexecutoryandcanonly EDand
llananshouldnothave implemented bestayedviacompliancewithSection19,Rule70oftheR WARNEDtobe
CASE NO.: thewritofexecutioninthe ulesofCourt.Suchprovisionwasnot compliedhere. alwayscourteousindealing
A.M. No. P-12-3069 unlawfuldetainercasesincetherewasapendingmotionforre Thesheriff’sdutyintheexecutionofawritispurelyminist withthe public
considerationwiththecourt.Misconducthasbeendefineda erial;heistoexecutetheorderofthe intheperformance of
DATE s“atransgressionofsomeestablishedanddefiniteruleofacti officialduties. A
OFPROMULGATI on,moreparticularly,unlawful repetitionof
ON: thesameorsimilaractswill
January 20, 2014

321
 2014CASES

behaviororgrossnegligencebyapublicofficer.”Themiscon courtstrictlytotheletter.Hehasnodiscretionwhetherto be
PONENTE: ductisgraveifitinvolvesanyoftheadditionalelementsofcorr executethejudgmentornot.Whenthewritisplacedinhis dealtwithmoreseve
Associate uption,willfulintenttoviolatethelaw,ortodisregardestablis hands,itishisduty,intheabsenceofanyinstructionstoth rely.
JusticePRESBIT hedrules,allofwhichmustbeestablishedbysubstantialevide econtrary,toproceedwithreasonablecelerityandprom
ERO nce,andmustnecessarilybemanifestinachargeofgravemisc ptnesstoimplementitinaccordancewithitsmandate.Iti
J.VELASCO, JR. onduct. sonlybydoingsocouldheensurethattheorderisexecute
dwithoutunduedelay.Thisholdsespeciallytruehereinw
herethenatureofthecaserequiresimmediateexecution.
AbsentaTRO,anorderofquashal,orcompliancewithSe
c.19,Rule70oftheRulesofCourt,respondentsheriffhas
noalternative buttoenforce the writ.

TOPIC:WillfulDisobedience

CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION

RoseBunagan- APetitionforDisbarmentwasfiledagainstAtty.Celeraforco Section7of SupremeCourtheldthatAtty.Celera’sactsweredelibera ATTY.ROGELIOJUAN
Bansigv. ntractingasecondmarriagewhenhisfirstmarriagewithCom Rule130 of the te,maneuveringtheliberalityoftheCourtinordertodela A. CELERA, guilty
Atty. plainantwasstillsubsisting.Atty.CelarafailedtofileaComm Rulesof Court, ythedispositionofthecaseandtoevadetheconsequence ofgrossly
RogelioJuanA.Celera entdespitenumerousNoticesfromtheCourt,statingthathe sofhisactions.Ultimately,whatisapparentisrespondent immoralconductandwillful
neverreceivedsuchNotices.Whensaidexcuseseemednolo ’sdeplorabledisregardofthejudicialprocesswhichthisC disobedienceof lawful
CASE NO.: ngerfeasible, Atty. Celera justdisappeared. Rule 1.01 ourtcannotcountenance.Atty.Celera’sactsconstitutew ordersrenderinghimunwor
A.C. No. 5581 illfuldisobedienceofthelawfulordersofthisCourt,whic thy ofcontinuing
hunderSection27,Rule138oftheRulesofCourtisinitsel membershipinthe
DATE faloneasufficientcauseforsuspensionordisbarment.R legalprofession.
OFPROMULGATI Canon 7 espondent’scavalierattitudeinrepeatedlyignoring HeisthusorderedDISBAR
ON: theordersoftheSupremeCourtconstitutesutterdisresp REDfromthepractice of
January 14, 2014 ecttothejudicialinstitution.Atty.Celera’sconductindic law andhisname strickenof
Rule 7.03 atesa highdegree ofirresponsibility. the Rollof Attorneys,
PONENTE: ACourt’sResolutionis“nottobeconstruedasamerereq effectiveimmediately.
PERCURIAM uest,norshoulditbecompliedwithpartially,

322
 2014CASES

inadequately, or selectively.

TOPIC:NotarialPractice

CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION

RexM.Tupal v.Judge AnadministrativecomplaintwasfiledagainstJudgeRojofor Rule JudgeRojonotarizedaffidavitsofcohabitation,whichw Judge
RemegioV.Rojo,Bran notarizingaffidavitsofcohabitationofpartieswhosemarria IV,Section2,par eredocumentsnotconnectedwiththeexerciseofhisoffi RemegioV.Rojo,Presiding
ch5,Municipal Trial gehesolemnized,inviolationofCircularNo.1– agraph(b) cialfunctionsanddutiesassolemnizingofficer.Healson Judge of theMunicipal
CourtinCities, 90datedFebruary26,1990.CircularNo.1– otarizedaffidavitsofcohabitationwithoutcertifyingtha Trial CourtinCities,
BacolodCity, 90allowsmunicipaltrialcourtjudgestoactasnotariespublice tlawyersornotariespublicwerelackinginhiscourt’sterri Branch5, BacolodCity,
Negrosoccidental xofficioandnotarizedocumentsonlyifconnectedwiththeir torialjurisdiction.Asasolemnizingofficer,thejudge’so NegrosOccidentalisSUSP
officialfunctionsandduties. nlydutyinvolvingtheaffidavitofcohabitationistoexami ENDEDFROM
CASE NO.: newhetherthepartieshaveindeedlivedtogetherforatlea OFFICE
A.M. No.MTJ-14- stfiveyearswithoutlegalimpedimenttomarry.TheGuid withoutsalaryandotherben
1842 elinesdoesnotstatethatthejudgecannotarizetheparties efitsforSIX
’affidavitofcohabitation.Notarizingaffidavitsofcohab (6)MONTHS.
DATE itationisinconsistentwith Hissuspensioniseffective
OFPROMULGATI thedutytoexaminetheparties’requirementsformarriag uponservice on himof
ON: e.Ifthesolemnizingofficernotarizedtheaffidavitofcoh acopy of thisresolution.
February 24, 2014 abitation,hecannotobjectivelyexamineandreviewthea
ffidavit’sstatementsbeforeperformingthe marriage
PONENTE: ceremony.
Associate
JusticeMARVIC
MARIOVICTOR
F.LEONEN

TOPIC:Notarization

CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION

WilbertoC. Talisic AnadministrativecasewasfiledagainstAtty.Rinenforfalsifi Faithfulobservanc Notarizationisnotanempty,meaningless,routinaryact. CourtREVOKESthenota
V. Atty. Primo cationofanExtraJudicialPartitionwithSalewhichallowedt e Itisinvestedwithsubstantivepublicinterest,suchthaton rialcommissionwhichAtty.
R.Rinen hetransfertoSpousesDuranteofaparcelofland.InBautista andutmostrespect lythosewhoarequalifiedorauthorizedmayactasnotarie PrimoR.Rinenmay
v.Atty.Bernabe,theCourtheldthat“anotarypublicshouldn ofthe spublic.Itconvertsaprivatedocumentintoa presentlyhave,andDISQU
CASE NO.: otnotarizea legalsolemnityof publicone,makingit ALIFIES
A.C. No. 8761 the oathinan

323
 2014CASES

documentunlessthepersonswhosignedthesamearethever acknowledgment admissibleincourtwithoutfurtherproofofitsauthentici himfrombeingcommissio

DATE ysamepersonswhoexecutedandpersonallyappearedbefor or ty.Thus,notariespublicmustobservewithutmostcaret nedasa notarypublic for
OFPROMULGATI ehimtoattesttothecontentsandtruthofwhatarestatedthere juratissacrosanct. hebasicrequirementsintheperformanceoftheirduties. one year,effective
ON: in.Thepresenceofthepartiestothedeedwillenablethenotar " Otherwise,theconfidenceofthepublicintheintegrityof immediately.
February 12,2014 ypublictoverifythegenuinenessof the signatureof the "Thenotarization publicinstrumentswouldbe undermined.
affiant.” of
PONENTE: adocumentcarries
Associate considerable
JusticeBIENVENI legaleffect.
DO L.REYES Notarizationof
aprivate
documentconverts
suchdocumentinto
apublic one,
andrendersitadmis
sible
incourtwithoutfurt
herproof of
itsauthenticity.
Thus,notarizationi
snotanempty
routine;to the
contrary,
itengagespublicinte
restin
asubstantialdegree.
TOPIC:Misconduct

CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION

AngelitoMarquez SheriffColladowaschargedwithfailingtodiscloseinherSA Section8of The Supreme Courtheldthatbased on Section RespondentLourdesE.
et.al. v. Judge LNfortheyears2004and2005certaintimedeposits,amongo RA6713 8ofRA6713,“allotherassetssuchasinvestments,casho ColladoisfoundGUILT
Venancio thers.TheSupremeCourtcitedSection8ofRA6713whichre nhandorinbanks,stocks,bonds,andthelike”,shouldbe Y ofviolatingSection 8
m. Ovejera quiresallpublicofficialsandemployeestoaccomplishandsu declaredbythepublicofficialinhisorherSALN.In inrelation toSection11
inhiscapacity bmitdeclarationsunderoathoftheirassetsandliabilities.Th Section11 of thiscase,however,itwasestablishedthatsheonlydeclare ofRepublicAct No.
aspresidingjudge of erequirementofSALNsubmissionisaimedatcurtailing RA6713 dtheoriginalamountofhertimedepositsinherSALNfo 6713 forherfailure to
MunicipalTrial Court rthe duly comply
ofPaniqui,Tarlac,
andSheriffIVLourdes
E.

324
 2014CASES

Collado, andminimizingtheopportunitiesforofficialcorruption,as years2004and2005,anddidnotdisclosetheinterestswhi with the

RegionalTrial wellasatmaintainingastandardofhonestyinthepublicservic chhadeventuallyaccruedon the legalrequirementspertainin
Court, Branch67, e.Withsuchdisclosure,thepublicwould,toareasonableexte same.Accordingly,Colladofellshortofthelegalrequire g tothe
Paniqui,Tarlac, nt,beabletomonitortheaffluenceofpublicofficials,and,ins mentstatedunderSection8of RA6713 submissionofherStatement
uchmanner,providesacheckandbalancemechanismtoveri andthusshouldbeheldadministrativelyliableforsaidinf ofAssets,LiabilitiesandNet
CASE NO.: fytheirundisclosedpropertiesand/orsourcesofincome. raction. Worth(SALN)andisthusFI
A.M. No. P-11-2903 NEDthe amountof
₱5,000.00 to be
DATE deductedfromherretireme
OFPROMULGATI ntbenefitsinview
ON: ofhercompulsory
February 5, 2014 retirementonJune 11,
2011.
PONENTE:
Associate
JusticeESTELA
On the
M.PERLAS-
otherhand,theadministrati
BERNABE
ve complaintagainstJudge
VenancioM.Ovejera
isDISMISSED.
TOPIC:NotarialLaw

CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION

CarlitoAng ComplainantchargedAtty.Gupanaofforgeriesandfalsifica Section1ofPubl Underthelaw,thepartyacknowledgingmustappearbef
vs.Atty. tionsinthenotarizationofcertaindocuments.TheSupreme ic ActNo. orethenotarypublicoranyotherpersonauthorizedtota
JamesJosephGupa CourtfoundAtty.GupanaadministrativelyliableunderSect 2103 keacknowledgmentsofinstrumentsordocuments.Inth
na ion1ofPublicActNo.2103,otherwiseknownastheNotarial . iscase,thejuratoftheAffidavitofLossstatedthatCandel
Law,forviolation of hisnotarial dutieswhen he failed to ariasubscribedtotheaffidavitbeforeAtty.GupanaonA
CASE NO.: requirethepersonalpresenceofCandelariaMagpayowhenh pril29,1994,atMandaueCity.Candelaria,however,was
A.C. No. 4545 enotarizedtheAffidavitofLosswhichCandelariaallegedly alreadydeadsinceMarch26,1991.Hence,itisclearthatth
executed on April 29, 1994. ejuratwasmadeinviolationofthenotariallaw.Thenotari
DATE zationofadocumentisnotanemptyactorroutine.Anota
OFPROMULGATI rypublic’sfunctionshouldnotbetrivializedanda
ON:
February 5, 2014

PONENTE:
Associate Justice

325
 2014CASES

MARTINS.VILL notarypublicmustdischargehispowersanddutieswhic
ARAMA, JR. hareimpressedwithpublicinterest,withaccuracyandfid
elity.Asalawyercommissionedasnotarypublic,Atty.G
upanaismandatedtosubscribetothesacreddutiesapper
tainingtohisoffice,suchdutiesbeingdictatedbypublicp
olicyimpressedwithpublic interest.

TOPIC:Violation of Lawyer’s Oath

CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION

Benjamin Q.Ong ComplainantwasintroducedtorespondentbyaMTCSherif Code Theeffectsoftheissuanceofaworthlesschecktranscen RespondentATTY.WI
v.Atty. William F. fofManila.Afterseveralcallsandpersonalinteractionsbetw ofProfessional dstheprivateinterestsofthepartiesdirectlyinvolvedinth LLIAMF.
DelosSantos, eenthem,partiesbecamefriends.Intime,accordingtoCom Responsibility: etransactionandtouchestheinterestsofthecommunity DELOSSANTOSGUI
plainant,respondentaskedhimtoencashhispostdatedchec CANON1 atlarge.Themischiefitcreatesisnotonlyawrongtothepa LTY of
CASE NO.: kinasmuchashewasindireneedofcash.Respondentbragge yeeorholder,butalsoaninjurytothepublic.Theharmful violating the
A.C. No. 10179 dabouthislucrativepracticeandhisgoodpayingclients.Con practiceofputtingvaluelesscommercialpapersincircul Lawyer’sOath,
vincedofrespondent’sfinancialstability,complainanthand Rule 1.01 ation,multipliedathousandfold,canverywellpollutethe andCanon1,Rule
DATE edtorespondenttheamountinexchangedofpostdatedchec channelsoftradeandcommerce,injurethebankingsyste 1.01 andCanon7, Rule
OFPROMULGATI k.However,thecheckwasdishonoreduponpresentmentfo mandeventuallyhurtthewelfareof society and the 7.03 of the Code
ON: rthereasonthattheaccountwasclosed.Complainantrelayed public interest. ofProfessionalResponsibili
March4, 2014 thematterofthedishonor,anddemandedimmediatepayme CANON7 ty, and,accordingly,
nt,butthelatterjustignoredhim.Wheneffortstocollectrema SUSPENDSHIMFROMT
PONENTE: inedfutile,complainantbroughtacriminalcomplaintforest HEPRACTICE
Associate afaandforviolationofBP22againstrespondent.Complaina Rule 7. OFLAWFORA
JusticeLUCAS ntalsobroughtthedisbarmentbeforeIBP.Itrecommended PERIODOF
P.BERSAMIN thatrespondentheldliableforviolatingCanon1,Rule1.01an SIXMONTHSEFFECTI
dCanon7,Rule7.03oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibili VEFROMNOTICE, with
ty;andthatthepenaltyofsuspensionfromthepracticeoflawf astern warning
ortwoyears,plusthereturnofthe thatanysimilarinfractionin
thefuture will
bedealtwithmore severely.

326
 2014CASES

amountof the amount.

TOPIC:Impartiality andGross Ignoranceof Law

CASE ACTSCOMPLAINED LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION

TITLE:MA. LIZA AnadministrativecomplaintwasfiledagainstJudgeBitasfor Section1,Canon4 TheSupremeCourtheldthatnotonlydidJudgeBitasdev RespondentJUDGEC
M.JORDA, fixingtheaccused’sbailandreducingthesamemotuproprio. of theNewCode iatefromtherequirementofahearingwherethereisanap RISOLOGOBITAS,
CityProsecutor'sOff Inthiscase,MiralleswaschargedwithQualifiedTrafficking, ofJudicialCondu plicationforbail,healsograntedbailtoMiralleswithoutn Presiding Judge of
ice,TaclobanCity, whichunderSection10(C)ofR.A.No.9208ispunishablebyli ct eitherconductingahearingnoramotionforapplicationf theRegional Trial
vs.JUDGECRISOL feimprisonmentandafineofnotlessthanP2,000,000butnot orbail.JudgeBitas’actsarenotmeredeficiencyinpruden Court,Branch7,Tacloban
OGOS. morethanP5,000,000.Thus,byreasonofthepenaltyprescri ce,discretionandjudgmentonhispart,butapatentdisreg City,ishereby
BITAS,Regional bedbylaw,thegrantofbailisamatterofdiscretionwhichcanb ardofwell- SUSPENDEDfromthe
TrialCourt, eexercisedonlybyJudgeBitasaftertheevidenceissubmittedi knownrules.Whenanerrorissogrossandpatent,sucher service
Branch7,TaclobanCity nahearing.Thehearingoftheapplicationforbailincapitaloff rorproducesaninferenceofbadfaith,makingthejudgeli foraperiodofTHREE
, ensesisabsolutelyindispensablebeforeajudgecanproperly ableforgrossignorance of the law. (3)MONTHSand
determinewhethertheprosecution’sevidenceisweakor Also,courtofficialsandemployeesareplacedwithaheav ONE(1)
CASE NO.: strong. yburdenandresponsibilityofkeepingthefaithofthepub DAY withoutpay,
A.M. No.RTJ-14- lic.Anyimpressionofimpropriety,misdeedornegligenc andWARNEDthat
2376 eintheperformanceofofficialfunctionsmustbeavoide arepetitionof the
d.ThisCourtshallnotcountenanceanyconduct,actoro sameorsimilaroffense
DATE missiononthepartofallthoseinvolvedintheadministrat willwarrant the
OFPROMULGATI ionofjusticewhichwouldviolatethenormofpublicacco impositionofamore
ON: untabilityanddiminishthefaithofthepeoplein the severe penalty.
March5, 2014 Judiciary.

PONENTE:
Associate
JusticeDIOSDA
DOM.PERALT
A
TOPIC:Fidelity toClient

CASE ACTSCOMPLAINED LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION

TITLE:STEPHANB Atty.GuarenwaschargedwithviolatingtheCanonofProfes Code TheSupremeCourtreiteratedthatthepracticeoflawisn Atty. RonaldL.
RUNETandVIRGINI sionalResponsibilitywhenhe acceptedthe ofProfessio otabusiness.Itisaprofessioninwhich GuarenisfoundGUILTY
AROMANILLOS nal ofhaving

327
 2014CASES

BRUNET, titlingofcomplainants’lotanddespitetheacceptanceof Responsibility: dutytopublicservice,notmoney,istheprimaryconsider violatedCanons17 and18of

vs.ATTY.RONALD P7,000, failed to CANON17 ation.Lawyeringisnotprimarilymeanttobeamoney- the Code
L.GUAREN performhisobligationandallowing5yearstoelapsewithout makingventure,andlawadvocacyisnotacapitalthatnec ofProfessionalResponsibili
anyprogressinthetitlingofcomplainants’lot.IBPGovernor CANON18 essarilyyieldsprofits.Thegainingofalivelihoodshouldb ty andishereby
CASE NO.: ’srecommendedthesuspension ofrespondentfor 3 easecondaryconsideration.Thedutytopublicservicean SUSPENDEDfromthe
A.C. No. 10164 months. dtotheadministrationofjusticeshouldbetheprimaryco practice of lawfor a
nsiderationoflawyers,whomustsubordinatetheirpers periodof
DATE onalinterestsorwhattheyowetothemselves.Inthiscase, SIX(6)MONTHSeffective
OFPROMULGATI Atty. fromreceipt of
ON: GuarenadmittedthatheacceptedtheamountofP7,000a thisResolution,with a
March10, 2014 spartialpaymentofhisacceptancefee.He,however,faile warning
dtoperformhisobligationtofilethecaseforthetitlingofc thatasimilarinfractionin
PONENTE: omplainants’lotdespitethelapseof5years.Atty.Guaren thefutureshall be
Associate breachedhisdutytoservehisclientwithcompetenceand dealtwithmore severely.
JusticeJOSE diligencewhenheneglected a
CATRALMEN legalmatterentrustedtohim.
DOZA

TOPIC:Neglect ofDuty

CASE ACTSCOMPLAINED LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION

TITLE:ERMELIN ComplainantwasthewidowofthelateDomiguezwhodiedi Code TheSupremeCourtheldthatoncealawyertakesuptheca ATTY.
DA LADVOA. navehicularaccidentinCaraga,DavaoOriental,involvingad ofProfessional useofhisclient,heisdutyboundtoservehisclientwithco ARNULFOM.AGLER
DEDOMINGUEZ, umptruckownedbytheMunicipalityofCaraga.Aggrieved,c Responsibility: mpetence,andtoattendtohisclient’scausewithdiligenc ON, SR. is
vs.ATTY. omplainantdecidedtofilechargesagainsttheMunicipalityo Rule 18.03 e,careanddevotionregardlessofwhetherheacceptsitfo hereby
ARNULFO fCaragaandengagedtheservicesofrespondent.However,re rafeeorforfree.Heowesfidelitytosuchcauseandmustal SUSPENDEDfromth
M. AGLERON, SR spondentwaschargedwithviolatingRule18.03oftheCodeo waysbemindfulofthetrustandconfidencereposedon e practice of lawfor a
fProfessionalResponsibilitywhenheneglectedalegalmatte him. periodofTHREE
CASE NO.: rentrustedtohim. Inthiscase,Atty.Agleronadmittedhisfailuretofiletheco (3)MONTHS, withastern
A.C. No. 5359 IBPrecommendedtosuspendrespondentfor 1month. mplaintdespitethefactthatitwasalreadypreparedandsi warning thatarepetitionof
gned.Heattributedhisnon- the
DATE filingoftheappropriatechargesonthefailureof sameorsimilarwrongdoing
OFPROMULGATI will bedealtwithmore
ON: severely.
March10, 2014

PONENTE:
Associate Justice

328
 2014CASES

JOSE complainanttoremitthefullpaymentofthefilingfeeand
CATRALMEN paythe30%oftheattorney’sfee.Suchjustification,howe
DOZA ver,isnot
avalidexcusethatwouldexoneratehimfromliability.As
stated,everycasethatisentrustedtoalawyerdeserveshisf
ullattentionwhetherheacceptsthisforafeeorfree.Even
assumingthatcomplainanthadnotremittedthefullpay
mentofthefilingfee,heshouldhavefoundawaytospeakt
ohisclientandinformhimabouttheinsufficiencyofthefi
lingfeesohecouldfilethecomplaint.Atty.Agleronobvio
uslylackedprofessionalismindealingwithcomplainant
andshowedincompetencewhenhefailedtofiletheappr
opriatecharges.Alawyershouldneverneglectalegalmat
terentrustedtohim,otherwisehisnegligencerendershi
mliablefordisciplinaryactionsuchassuspensionrangin
gfromthreemonthstotwoyears.

TOPIC:UnprofessionalConduct

CASE ACTSCOMPLAINED LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION

TITLE:OFFICE Onesunday,afireoccurredattherecordsroomofBranch18 Code TheSupremeCourtheldthatJudgeLarida,Jr.committe The
OFTHECOURTAD RTCinTagaytayCity.Thefire,althoughdeclaredundercont ofJudicialCond dseverallapses,specificallythenon- CourIMPOSESONJudge
MINISTRATOR,vs. rolby8:10a.mwasextinguishedonlytenminuteslater.Recov uctRule3.10 submissiontotheCourtoftherequiredinventoryoflocal Edwin G.Larida, Jr.the
JUDGE EDWIN eredfromtherecordsroomwerea1.5literplasticbottleconta ly- penalty
C. LARIDA, ininggasoline,acontainerofglue,andacandle.Atty.Stanlee fundedemployees,andhisallowingMarticiotodraftcou ofSUSPENSIONFROM
JR.,RTC,Branch D.C.Calma,theBranchClerkofCourtofBranch18,immedi Section10,Rule1 rtorders.Suchlapsesmanifestedawrongattitudetoward OFFICE
18,Tagaytay City, atelyreportedthefireasaclearcaseofarsontotheOCA.TheC 40 of the sadministrativerulesandregulationsissuedforthegover WITHOUTPAY FOR A
ourtAdministratornowaMemberofthe Court, Rulesof Court nanceandadministrationofthelowercourts,totheexten PERIODOFTWOMON
CASE NO.: formedanddispatchedaninvestigative tofdisregardingthem,aswellasalaxityinthecontrolofhis THS, to
A.M. No.RTJ-08- teamconsistingoflawyersfromtheOCAtoconductaninves Branchandinthesupervisionofitsfunctioningstaff.The be effective
2151 tigationuponthe instructionsof ChiefJustice omissiontosubmittheinventoryshouldnotbeblamedo immediatelyuponnotice,
nAtty.Calmaas with awarning
DATE thatsternersanctionswill
OFPROMULGATI be metedout to
ON: himuponhis

329
 2014CASES

March11, 2014 ReynatoS.Puno.Inthecourseofitsinvestigation,theinvesti theBranchClerkofCourt.Althoughitwasverylikelythat commissionofsimilaractsor

gativeteamuncoveredanomaliessupposedlycommittedby
PONENTE: PresidingJudgeLarida,Jr.andchargedforcommittingvario
Associate usanomaliesandirregularities.ThecasereferredtoCourtof
JusticeLUCAS AppealsandtheInvestigatingJusticerecommendedthatJud
P.BERSAMIN geLaridabe reprimandedandsternlywarned.
JudgeLarida,Jr.hadtaskedAtty.Calmatodoandsubmitt omissions.
heinventoryinhisbehalf,JudgeLarida,Jr.asthePresidin
gJudgehimselfremainedtobetheofficerdirectlyburden
edwiththeresponsibilityfordoingso.Further,forknowi
nglyallowingdetailedemployeestosolicitcommissions
frombondingcompanies,JudgeLarida,Jr.contravened
theCodeofJudicialConduct,whichimposedonhimthe
dutytotakeorinitiateappropriatedisciplinarymeasures
againstcourtpersonnelforunprofessionalconductofw
hichhewouldhave become aware.

TOPIC:Unjust Judgment

CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION

Re: AMALIistheowneranddeveloperofthe37- Code Nojudicialofficershouldhavetofearorapprehendbein The
VERIFIEDCOMPL storeycondominiumprojectlocatedalongEpifanioDelosS ofProfessional gheldtoaccountortoanswerforperforming hisjudicial CourtDISMISSESthe
AINTFORDISBAR antosAvenuecornerFordhamStreetinWackWack,Mandal Responsibility: functionsandoffice administrativecomplainta
MENTOFAMA uyongCity.AMALIbroughtthisadministrativecomplainta CANON1 becausesuchperformanceisamatterofpublicdutyandr gainstAssociate Justice
LAND, gainstAssociateJusticeDantonQ.Bueser,AssociateJustice esponsibility.Theofficeanddutytorenderandadminist Danton
INC.(REPRESENT SesinandoE.VillonandAssociateJustice Ricardo erjusticeareafunctionofsovereignty,andshouldnotbes Q. Bueser,
EDBY R.Rosario, all membersof the Rule 1.01 implytakenforgranted.Asarecognizedcommentatoro AssociateJustice
JOSEPHB.USITA)A CourtofAppeals(CA),chargingthemwithknowinglyrende npublicofficesandpublic officershaswritten. SesinandoE.VillonandAss
GAINSTCOURTOF ringanunjustjudgment,grossmisconduct,andviolationoft ociateJusticeRicardoR.Ros
APPEALSASSOCIA heiroathsonaccountoftheirpromulgationofthedecisionin ariofor itsutterlack
TEJUSTICES entitledWackWackResidentsAssociation,Inc.v.TheHono CANON10 ofmerit.
HON.DANTON rableRegionalTrialCourtofPasigCity,Branch264,Assigne Rule 10.01
Q.BUESER, dinSanJuan,andAMALand, Inc.
HON.SESINANDO
E.VILLONANDHO
N.RICARDOR.ROS
ARIO

CASE NO.:

330
 2014CASES

OCA IPINo. 12-204-

CA-J

DATE
OFPROMULGATI
ON:
March11, 2014

PONENTE:
Associate
JusticeLUCAS
P.BERSAMIN
TOPIC:UndueDelay

CASE ACTSCOMPLAINED LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION

TITLE:SPOUSES Thepresentcasestemmedfromanunlawfuldetainercasefile Section15,Arti The Constitutionrequiresourcourtsto observe Judge Ramsey Domingo
RICARDOandEVE dbycomplainantsSpousesMarceloagainstSpousesMagop cle VIIIofthe thetimeperiodsindecidingcasesandresolvingmattersb G. Pichay
LYNMARCELO oywhichwaspendingbeforeJudgePichayofMeTC,Paraña 1987Philippin roughttotheiradjudication,incaseoflowercourts,3mos isfoundGUILTY of
vs.JUDGERAMSE queCity.AJointDecisionwasreleasedbyJudgePichayorderi eConstitution. . violatingSection9, Rule
YDOMINGO ngSpousesMagopoytovacateandsurrenderthepossession fromthedatetheyaredeemedsubmittedfordecisionorr 140of
G.PICHAY,METR ofthepropertytoSpousesMarcelo.Awritofexecutionwasis esolution.Inconsonance withthat, Sec 5,Canon 6of theRulesofCourtforundue
OPOLITANTRIA suedandlaterimplementedbySheriffEspres,thus,Spouses New delay
LCOURT,BRANC Marceloobtainedthepossessionoftheproperty.However, CodeofJudicialConductforthePhilippineJudiciarypro inresolvingthepending
H78,PARANAQU 6:00pmonthesameday,SpousesMagopoyreenteredthepro Section5,Canon6 videsthatJudgesshallperformalljudicialduties,includin incidentsrelativeto Civil
ECITY, pertyandregaineditspossession.Assuch,SpousesMarcelo of theNewCode gthedeliveryofreserveddecisions,efficientlyfairlyand Case No. 2004-286
movedtociteSpousesMagopoyincontemptfordisobedien ofJudicialCondu withreasonablepromptness.Noncompliancewiththep andisthusFINEDinthe
CASE NO.: cetolawfulcourtprocesses.SpousesMarcelofiledanExPart ct eriodsprescribedconstitutesgrossinefficiencyandwarr amountof₱12,000.00.He
A.M. No.MTJ-13- eConstanciabecauseofthecontinuedrefusalofdefendantst antstheimpositionofadministrativesanctionsagainstt isSTERNLYWARNEDth
1838 osurrendertheproperty,whichpromptedJudge Pichay to hedefaultingjudge.Whiletrialcourtjudgesareoftenbur at arepetitionof the
issue andOrderdirecting the Sheriff denedwithheavycaseloads,theyaregiventheoption sameorsimilaroffense will
Sec 9,Rule 140
DATE toexecutetheevictionwithin3days.JudgePichaydirectedSp to,forgoodreasons, bedealtwithmore severely.
ofROC,
OFPROMULGATI ousesMarceloto filetheircomment askforanextensionoftheperiodwithinwhichtoresolve
ON: aparticularcaseor any pending incidenttherein.
March12, 2014

PONENTE:

331
 2014CASES

Associate regardingthemotionwithin5daysandafterwhichthecourtw
JusticeESTELA illresolvethependingincidents.SpousesMarcelofailedtofil
M.PERLAS- etheircomment,nonetheless,JudgePichaysetthemotionfo
BERNABE rhearing.DisappointedwithJudgePichay’scontinuousinac
tion,SpousesMarcelofiledanadministrativecomplaintbefo
retheOfficeoftheCourtAdministratorcharginghimandSh
eriffEpresswithinordinatedelayinthedispositionofthepen
dingincidentsinrelationtotheimplementationofthewritof
executionofthedecision.

TOPIC:Violation ofNotarialLaw

CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME CASE DISPOSITION

DIZON COURT’SRULI
vs. NG
ATTY. CABUCANA,JR. Asa notary public, Atty.
CASE NO.: Cabucanashouldnot notarize a
A.C. No. 10185 Falsificationofpublic document Section1, Public documentunlessthe
DATE OFPROMULGATION: ActNo.2103(NotarialLaw) personwhosignsitisthesame
March12, 2014 personexecuting itandpersonally
PONENTE: appearing beforehim toattestto the
Associate JusticeJose truthof itscontentsasprovidedinSec.
CatralMendoza 1, of theNotarialLaw
wasfurtheremphasizedinSec. 2(b)
ofRuleIVoftheRuleson Notarial
Practice of 2004. Thisisto enable
him to verify thegenuinenessof the
signatureof theacknowledging
party and toascertainthatthe
documentistheparty'sfree
andvoluntary actand
The
CourtfindsrespondentAtty.Cabuca
na, Jr. guilty of violatingRule 1.01,
Canon lofCPR.Hence,he
issuspendedfrom thepracticeof law
3
monthsandhisincumbentnotarialco
mmissionisrevokedfor 2 years, with
a sternWARNINGthat a repetition
ofthesameorsimilaroffenseshall
bedealtwithmore severely.

332
 2014CASES

deed.

TOPIC:Negligence in HandlingClient’s Case

CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME CASE DISPOSITION

VICTORIA,JR. COURT’SRULI
vs. NG
ATTY. JIMENEZ Negligence inhandling Rule 12.03, Canon12; A lawyerengaged to represent Atty. Diosdado B.Jimenez
theappeal of hisclient’scase Canon17; and aclientin a case isfoundadministratively
andwillful violationof Rule 18.03, Canon18 of bearstheresponsibility of liableforviolation ofRule 12.04,
hisdutiesasanofficerof the theCodeof Professional protectingthelatter’sinterestwithut Canon12andRule 18.03,
court Responsibility mostdiligence. In failing tofile Canon18oftheCode of
CASE NO.: theappellant’sbrief onbehalfof ProfessionalResponsibility. He
A.C. No. 9116 hisclient, issuspendedfromthe practice of
respondenthadfallenfarshort law forone1month
ofhisdutiesascounselassetforthinRu withwarningthat arepetitionof the
le 12.04, Canon12ofthe Code sameorsimilarviolationshall be
ofProfessionalResponsibility dealtwithmoreseverely.
DATE OFPROMULGATION: whichexhortseverymemberof
theBar not toundulydelay a case
and to
exerteveryeffortandconsiderithisdu
March12, 2014 ty toassistinthe speedy
andefficientadministrationof
justice; asalsoprovidedinRule 18.03,
PONENTE: Canon18of thesame Code.

Associate JusticeMartinS.

333
 2014CASES

Villarama, Jr.

TOPIC:ObstructionofJustice

CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME CASE DISPOSITION

COURT’SRULI
NG
HECK Faulty, highly No legal basis. The evidence adduced by The Courtdismissed
vs. improper,suspiciousanomalousandunlawful thecomplainantinsufficient to thecomplaintfordisbarmentagain
CITY practice andobstructionofjustice by delaying warrant the strespondentAtty.
PROSECUTORGAM casesanddisregardingpropercourtprocedures. disbarmentoftherespondent.Disbar CasianoGamotin,Jr.
OTINJR. mentisthemostsevere formof andconsidered theadministrative
disciplinarysanctionagainst a matterclosedandterminated.
misbehavingmemberof
theIntegratedBar. Assuch, the
CASE NO.: power
A.C. No. 5329 todisbarisalwaysexercisedwithgreat
DATE OFPROMULGATION: cautiononlyfor the mostimperative
reasonsandincasesofclearmiscondu
ctaffecting thestanding
March18, 2014 andmoralcharacter of the
PONENTE: lawyerasanofficerof the
Associate courtandmemberofthe bar.
JusticeLucasP.Bersamin It isthe burdenof the
complainantto properly show
thatthe assailedconduct or
actuationconstituted abreach of the
normsofprofessionalconductandleg
alethics. Otherwise, the
lawyermeritsexoneration

334
 2014CASES

TOPIC:IllicitRelationship

CASE ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME CASE DISPOSITION

TITLE:NARA COURT’SRULI
G NG
Illicitrelationshipwith a 17- Rule 1.01 inrelation The moraldelinquency The Courtisnot convincedthatthe
vs. yearoldfirstyearcollege toCanons1and 6of the Code thataffectsthe fitnessof a respondenthadshownremorse
studentandabandonmentof ofProfessionalResponsibility memberofthe barto continue a overhistransgressionsandthat he
ATTY. conductthatoutragesthe generally
hisfamily. hadalready
NARAGCASE acceptedmoralstandardsofthe changedhiswaysaswouldmerithisrei
NO.: communitymakesa mockery of the nstatement tothe legal,profession.
inviolablesocial institution Time
A.C. No. 3405 ofmarriage. andagaintheCourthasstressedthatth
Thus, respondentviolatedRule e practiceof law isnot a rightbut
DATEOFPROMULGATION: 1.01 of Canon 1 andRule aprivilege.It isenjoyedonly by those
7.03,ofCanon 7 andwasdisbarred. whocontinue todisplay
March18,
unassailablecharacter. Hence, the
2014PONENT
Petition forReinstatementto theBar
E:PERCURIA
is denied.
M

335
 2014CASES

TOPIC:Misrepresentation

CASE ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION

TITLE:NEBR
EJA,
vs.
Failure tofile the Rule 18.03, Canon18 of ThisCourthasconsistentlyheld, Atty.
contractedpetitionfor annulmentof theCodeof Professional inconstruingRule 18.03, Canon18 of Reonalissuspendedfromthe
ATTY.REONAL
marriageinhisclient’sbehalf;forhism Responsibility theCode of Professional practice of law forone1
isrepresentation onitsstatus;and Responsibility,that the mere failure of year.
forhisuse ofa thelawyer toperform
CASE NO.:
fictitiousofficeaddress. theobligationsdueto the
A.C. No. 9896
clientisconsideredper seaviolation.Thus,
a lawyerwasheld tobe negligentwhen he
DATEOFPROMULGATION:
March19, 2014 failed to doanything to
protecthisclient'sinterestafterreceiving
hisacceptance fee. In anothercase,
PONENTE: thisCourthaspenalized a lawyer
Associate JusticeJose forfailingto informthe clientof
CatralMendoza thestatusofthecase, among
othermatters.Inanotherinstance,
forfailure to take theappropriate
actionsinconnectionwithhisclient'scase,
the lawyerwassuspendedfromthe
practiceof law fora period ofsix
monthsandwasrequiredto
renderaccounting ofallthe
sumshereceived fromhisclient.

TOPIC:UnethicalBehavior

336
 2014CASES

CASE ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION

TITLE:DE
JESUS
Grossmisconduct, dishonesty Rule 138, Section27of theRulesof Asa rule, anattorney enjoysthe De Jesusfailedtodischargethe
vs.
andgrossunethical behavior. Court. legalpresumptionthat heisinnocent of burdenof proof to justifythe
ATTY.
thechargesagainsthimuntil thecontrary impositionofadministrative
VIDALCASE
isproved.The burden of penalty againstRisos-
NO.:
proofindisbarmentandsuspensionprocee Vidal.Thus,
A.C. No. 7961
dingsalwaysrestson the complainant. thecomplaintagainstresponde
Consideringthe seriousconsequence ntAtty. Alicia A. Risos-Vidal
ofdisbarmentorsuspensionof a isdismissedfor lack ofmerit.
memberof theBar,
DATEOFPROMULGATION:
thisCourthasconsistentlyheldthatclearpre
March19, 2014
ponderantevidence isnecessary to justify
the impositionofadministrative
PONENTE: penalty.Thus,not onlydoesthe burdenof
proofthat therespondentcommittedthe
Associate Justice actcomplained
AntonioT.Carpio ofrestsoncomplainant,but the
burdenisnotsatisfiedwhencomplainantrel
ieson mere
assumptionsandsuspicionsasevidence.
Itisaxiomatic that he
whoallegesanacthasthe onusofproving it.
If theburdenofproofisnotovercome,
therespondentisunderno obligation
toprove herdefense.

TOPIC:Grave Misconduct

CASE TITLE:

337
 2014CASES

ROSQUETA ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION

vs.
JUDGE
ASUNCION Grave misconduct. Canon2, Rule 2.01 of The admonitionthatjudgesmust Judge
theNewCode of Judicial avoidnot only impropriety butalso Asuncionisfoundadministrativ
CASE NO.:
Conduct theappearance of impropriety ely liable
ismoresternly appliedto forgrossmisconductforviolati
A.M. No.MTJ-13-1823
lowercourtjudges. ng Sections1 and 2ofCanon2,
Indeed, judgesare andSec. 1of Canon4, of the
remindedthatafterhaving New CodeofJudicial Conduct;
DATEOFPROMULGATION:
acceptedtheirexaltedpositioninthe heisorderedtopay a fine
March19, 2014
Judiciary, they owe tothe public intheamountofP21, 000.00to
toupholdthe exacting bepaidwithin15 daysfrom
standardsofconductdemandedofthem.T thefinality hereof, with a
hecircumstancesobtaining here sternwarning that a
seriouslytainted the goodimage repetitionofthesameorsimilara
PONENTE:
andreputationof theJudiciary, ctwillbedealtwithmore
evenasitreflectedbadly on Judge severely.
Associate
Asuncion’spersonalandofficial
JusticeLucasP.Bersamin
reputation.
Sec. 8, Rule 140 oftheRulesof
Courtclassifiesviolationsof the Code
ofJudicialConductunder the category
ofgrossmisconduct. We
havedefinedgrossmisconductasa
"transgression ofsome
establishedanddefinite rule ofaction,
more particularly, unlawfulbehavior
orgrossnegligence bythepublic officer."

TOPIC:Violation ofthe Reglementary period

CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION

OFFICE OFTHECOURT

338
 2014CASES

ADMINISTRATOR,
Failure to decide the Rule 1.02, Canon1;and Rule 1.02, Canon 1of the Code The
vs. saidcaseswithin Rule 3.05 ofCanon 3of theCodeof ofJudicial CourtfindsretiredJudgeBorro
thereglementary period. Judicial Conduct Conductstatesthatjudgesshouldadminist meoR.Bustamante,formerPre
JUDGEBUSTAMANTE erjustice withoutdelay.Rule 3.05 sidingJudge oftheMunicipal
ofCanon 3 statesthatjudgesshall dispose Trial CourtinCities,
of thecourt'sbusinesspromptly AlaminosCity,Pangasinan,
anddecide caseswithin guilty ofunduedelay
CASE NO.: therequiredperiods.The Codeof inrendering
JudicialConduct, specifically Canon3, decisionsandorders,
A.M. No.MTJ-12-1806 Rule andimposesuponhim afine of
3.05 mandatesjudgesto attendpromptly ₱20,000.00, to be
to the businessofthe courtanddecide deductedfromhisretirementb
caseswithintheperiodsprescribed by law enefits.
DATEOFPROMULGATION: and theRules. Underthe 1987
Constitution, lowercourtjudgesare
April 7, 2014 alsomandated
todecidecaseswithin90daysfromsubmiss
ion.

PONENTE:

Associate JusticeTeresita A memberof the benchcannotpaymere

J.Leonardo-De Castro lipservice to the90-
dayrequirement;he/sheshouldinsteadper
severe initsimplementation or askfor
extension.For goodreasons, he
canaskforanextensionandsuchrequestisg
enerally granted. ButJudgeBustamante
didnot askforanextensioninany of these
cases.

TOPIC:Ignorance ofthelaw

CASE TITLE:

339

LORENZANA ACTSCOMPLAINED:
vs.
GrossIgnorance of theLaw,Grave
JUDGE AUSTRIA
Abuse
ofAuthority,GrossMisconduct,
Grave Incompetence,Irregularity
CASE NO.:
in thePerformance ofDuty,
A.M. No.RTJ-09-2200
GraveBiasandPartiality,Lack of
Circumspection,ConductUnbecom
ing of a Judge, Failure
toObservethe Reglementary
PeriodandViolationof the Code
DATEOFPROMULGATION:
ofProfessionalResponsibility.
April 2, 2014
PONENTE:
Associate Justice ArturoD.Brion
TOPIC:Suspension
2014CASES
LEGAL BASIS
Rule 3.05, Canon 3of the Code
ofJudicial Conduct; and
Rules2.01, 2.02 and2.03, Canon
2of the Code ofJudicialConduct
340
SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION
Judgesarerequiredtoalwaysbetemperate, The
patientandcourteous, CourtfindsJudgeAustria
bothinconductandinlanguage. guiltyof grossignorance
Sec.1, Canon 2of theNew Code ofthe law forwhich
ofJudicial Conductstatesthat sheisfined
“Judgesshallensure thatnotonly ₱21,000,00. Judge Austria
istheirconductabove reproach, islikewise hereby
butthatitisperceived to be sointhe view of admonishedto
areasonable observer.” refrainfromfurtheractsof
Sec. 6, Canon 4of theNew Code ofJudicial impropriety and
Conduct, however, torefrainfromconductunbec
alsoimposesacorrelative restriction on oming of a judge,with the
judges: in theexercise of theirfreedomof sternwarning thata
expression,they repetitionof
shouldalwaysconductthemselvesina thesameorsimilaractsshallbe
mannerthatpreservesthe dignity dealtwith moreseverely.
ofthejudicial office and the impartiality
andindependence of the Judiciary.
Thisrule reflectsthe generalprinciple
ofpropriety expected of judges inall of
theiractivities, whetherit be inthe course
oftheirjudicialoffice or
intheirpersonallives.
 2014CASES

CASE ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION

TITLE:LING The
AN CourtfurthersuspendsAt
vs. For holding a Rule 1.01, Canon 1of the Code The exercise of the powersandfunctionsofa ty. Jimmy P.Baliga from
positioningovernmentrequiring the ofProfessionalResponsibility; CommissiononHumanRights the practiceof law for 6
ATTYS. CALUBAQUIB months.
authorityto practice law while andthe Lawyer'sOath. RegionalDirectorconstitutespracticeof law.
andBALIGA suspended. Whenthe Atty. Baliga shallserve
RegionalDirectorlosesthisauthority,suchaswh atotal of 1
enheorsheisdisbarredorsuspendedfromthe yearand6monthsofsuspe
practiceof law, he/shelosesa necessary nsionfromthe practice
CASE NO.: of law.
qualification to thepositionheor she
A.C. No. 5377
isholding.The
disbarredorsuspendedlawyermustdesistfromh
oldingsuchposition. AsforAtty.
Calubaquib,the
DATEOFPROMULGATION:J courtliftedthe orderof
une 30, 2014 hissuspensiononFeb. 17,
The Courthasthe exclusivejurisdiction
toregulate the practice oflaw. The 2010. He wasallowed to
Commissionon HumanRightscannot, by resume hispractice of
PONENTE:
mereresolutionsandotherissuances, modify law
Associate JusticeMarivic
ordefy thiscourt'sordersofsuspensionfromthe andperformnotarialactss
MarioVictor F.Leonen ubject to
practice of law. Hence, practice of law isa
privilege burdenedwithconditions. Toenjoy compliancewith the
the privilegesof practicing law, lawyersmust requirementsfor
adhere to the rigidstandardsofmentalfitness, issuance of a
maintainthe highestdegree ofmorality, notarialcommission.
andfaithfully comply with the rulesof the
legalprofession.

TOPIC:Ignorance oftheLaw

341
 2014CASES

CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION

The
UY ETAL. CourtsuspendsJudgeFlores
vs. Grossignorance ofthe Code of Judicial Conduct When a law or a rule isbasic, judgesowe fromofficewithoutsalary
law,manifestpartiality, denial of itto theiroffice tosimply apply the law. andotherbenefitsforthree
JUDGE FLORES monthsand one day,
dueprocessandconductprejudicial Anything lessisgrossignoranceof the
tothebest interest oftheservice. law.Thereisgrossignorance ofthe law withwarningthatsimilaracts
whenanerrorcommitted bythe judge in thefuture will
wasgrossor patent,deliberate ormalicious. bedealtwithmore severely.
Itmayalso be committedwhen a judge
CASE NO.:
ignores,contradictsorfailstoapply settledlaw
andjurisprudence because ofbadfaith,
A.M. No.RTJ-12-2332
fraud,dishonesty orcorruption.
Grossignoranceof the law orincompetence
cannot beexcused bya claim of goodfaith.
Whenanerroris so
DATEOFPROMULGATION:J
grossandpatent,sucherrorproducesaninfere
une 25, 2014
nce ofbadfaith, makingthe judge liable
forgrossignorance of thelaw.
PONENTE:
Associate
JusticeMartinS.Villarama,
Jr.

TOPIC:Misappropriationof Client’s Fund

CASE
TITLE:FORO ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION
NDA
vs.
Deceit, dishonesty, fraud, Rules15.06, 16.01, 16.03,and “The severity of Atty. Alvarez,
ATTY. ALVAREZ, JR.
andmisrepresentation. 18.04 of the Codeof disbarmentorsuspensionproceedingsasthe Jr.issuspendedfor
ProfessionalResponsibilities penalty 6monthsfromthe practice
foranattorney’smisconducthasalwaysmove of lawwith a
CASE NO.:
d the Court totreatthe complaint sternwarningthat a

342
 2014CASES

A.C. No. 9976 withutmostcautionanddeliberatecircumsp repetitionof any of

ection.” While theCourthastheplenary theoffensesinvolvedinthi
powertodiscipline erring scase or a
DATEOFPROMULGATION:J lawyersthroughthiskindofproceedings, commissionofsimilaracts
une 25, 2014 itdoesso inthe mostvigilantmanner so willmerit amore severe
asnotto frustrate itspreservative principle.
TheCourt, inthe exercise
PONENTE: ofitssoundjudicialdiscretion, isinclinedto
impose a lesssevere
Associate punishmentifthroughit the
JusticeBienvenidoL.Reyes enddesiredofreforming the
errantlawyerispossible.
In Solidonv.Macalalad, the
Courtimposedon Atty.Macalalad the
penaltyof 6 monthssuspensionfrom the
practiceof law forviolationsofRule 16.01
andRule 18.03 ofthe Code
ofProfessionalResponsibility.
Insaidcase,Atty.
Macalaladfailed to file
therequiredpetitionanddid
notaccountforthemoney he received,
asattorney’sfee,fromthe
complainant.

TOPIC:Falsification ofdocuments

CASE ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION

TITLE:SAM
ONTE
vs.
Falsificationof The Lawyer’sOath In hisdealingswithhisclientandwiththe Atty. Abellana
documents,derelictionofdu courts, every lawyerisexpected to issuspendedfor
ATTY. ABELLANA
ty, gross 6monthsfrom the

343
 2014CASES

negligence andtardiness, behonest, imbuedwithintegrity, practice of law.

anddishonesty andtrustworthy. These expectations,
CASE NO.: fornotissuingofficialreceiptsforev thoughhighanddemanding,
A.C. No. 3452 ery cashpaymentsmade by aretheprofessionalandethicalburdensofe
hisclient. very memberof thePhilippine Bar,
forthey have beengivenfull
DATEOFPROMULGATION:J expressioninthe Lawyer’sOaththatevery
une 23, 2014 lawyer ofthiscountry
hastakenuponadmissionasabona
fidememberofthe
PONENTE: LawProfession.Thus,honesty, integrity
Associate andtrustworthinessare
JusticeLucasP.Bersamin emphaticallyreiterated
bytheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility
underRule 10.01, 11.02,
and18.04.

TOPIC:False Declarations as a NotaryPublic

CASE
TITLE:CRISOS ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASEDIS
TOMO POSITION
vs. The
ATTY. NAZARENO False Rule 7, Sec. 5ofthe Separate from the CourtsuspendedAtty.
declarationsinthecertificationsaga RulesofCourt; and proscriptionagainstforumshopping isthe Nazarenofromthe
instforumshopping subject Code of violation ofthe practice of law fora
CASE NO.: period of1 year.
ofthiscase andmalpractice asa ProfessionalRespons certificationrequirementagainstforumshopping
A.C. No. 6677 Further, he
notarypublic ibility . UnderSec. 5, Rule 7ofthe
RulesofCourt,thesubmissionoffalse entriesin a ispermanentlydisqualifi
certificationagainstforumshopping edfrombeingcommissi
constitutesindirect ordirectcontempt onedasanotary public
DATEOFPROMULGATION: and,his
ofcourt.The submission of afalse certification
ornon-compliance withany

344
 2014CASES

of the notarialcommission,
June 10, undertakingsthereinshallconstituteindirectcon ifcurrently existing,
2014PONE temptofcourt,withoutprejudiceto the ishereby revoked.
NTE: corresponding administrative andcriminal
Associate JusticeEstela M.Perlas- actions. n therealmof
Bernabe legalethics,saidinfractionmay be
consideredasaviolation ofRule 1.01, Canon 1
andRule10.01, Canon10 of the Codeof
ProfessionalResponsibility
WhenAtty. Nazarenonotarized
thecertificationsagainstforumshopping
attachedto all the
aforementionedcomplaints,fullyaware thatthey
identically asserted a materialfalsehood.Hence,
he alsoviolatedRule 1.01 ofthe Code
whichproscribeslawyersfromengaging
inunlawful, dishonest, immoral,
ordeceitfulconduct.

TOPIC:ExorbitantAttorney’s Fees

CASE ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION

TITLE:DIZO
N
vs.
For demanding Code of Sec. 27, Rule 138 Atty. Norlita De Taza
exorbitantsumsofmoney ProfessionalRespons oftheRevisedRulesofCourtprovidesforthe ishereby suspendedfrom
ATTY.DETAZA
fromherclientpurportedlyto ibility disbarmentorsuspension of a thepractice of law for 2
expedite the lawyerforanyof thefollowing: (1)deceit; years.
proceedingsoftheircase (2)malpractice;
CASE NO.:
whichwaspendingbefore the Court. (3)grossmisconductinoffice;
A.C. No. 7676
(4)grosslyimmoral conduct; (5)conviction
ofacrime involvingmoral turpitude; (6)

345
 2014CASES

DATEOFPROMULGATION:J violation ofthe lawyer’soath;

une 10, 2014 (7)willfuldisobedience ofany
lawfulorderof asuperiorcourt;
and(8)willfully appearingasanattorney
PONENTE: fora party withoutauthority to doso.
Associate Whenalawyerreceivesmoneyfromtheclient
JusticeBienvenidoL.Reyes foraparticularpurpose,thelawyerisboundto
renderanaccountingtotheclientshowingtha
tthemoneywasspentforthatparticularpurpo
se.Andifhedoesnotusethemoneyfortheinte
ndedpurpose,thelawyermustimmediatelyre
turnthemoneytohisclient.Inthiscase,thepur
poseforwhichAtty.DeTazademandedmon
eyisbaselessandnon-
existent.Thus,herdemandshouldnothaveev
enbeenmadeinthefirstplace.

TOPIC:Impartiality

CASE ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASEDIS

TITLE:SISON- POSITION
BARIAS Judge
vs. MarinoRubiaisdismis
Partiality for thedelay in New Code of It isimproperandhighly unethical for a judge tosuggestto
thepublicationof the notice JudicialConductand the Code a litigantwhatto doto resolve hiscase sedfromtheservice,
JUDGERUBIA withcorrespondingfo
inthepetitionfor issuance of of ConductforCourtPersonnel forsuchwouldgenerate the suspicionthatthe judge
lettersofadministration. isincollusionwithone party. A litigantin a case isentitledto rfeiture
no lessthanthe coldneutrality of animpartial judge. ofallretirementbenefi
Judgesarenotonly requiredto be impartial, butalsoto ts,exceptaccruedleave
CASE NO.: credits, and
appearto be so,for appearance
isanessentialmanifestationofreality.

346
 2014CASES

A.M. No.RTJ-14-2388 Hence, not only musta judge render a justdecision, he disqualifiedfromrei
isalsoduty boundtorenderitin a mannercompletely nstatementorappoi
freefromsuspicionasto itsfairnessanditsintegrity. ntmentinanypublic
Respondent'sconductin theinstantcase office,includinggov
DATEOFPROMUL inevitablyinvitesdoubtsaboutrespondent'sprobity ernmentownedor -
GATION: andintegrity.It givesgroundfor a validreproach. Inthe controlledcorporati
judiciary,moral integrity is more thana cardinal virtue, ons.
June 10, 2014 itisanecessity.Moreover,a judge'slack of impartiality or
themere appearance of biaswouldcause resentmentif
theparty whorefusedthejudge'sproposal subsequently
losthiscase. Itwouldgiverise tosuspicionthat the
PONENTE:P judgmentwas"fixed" beforehand. Suchcircumstance
ERCURIAM tarnishestheimage of the judiciary andbringsto itpublic
contempt,disrepute, andridicule.Thus, we are
constrainedto rulethatrespondentviolatedRule 2.01 of the
Code ofJudicialConduct.

TOPIC:Negligence in HandlingClient’s case

CASE
TITLE:BAEN ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION
S
vs.
Failure tofile a petition, Canons15, 17, 18 andRule In thiscase, therespondent’srecklessandinexcusable The
ATTY. SEMPIO
latefiling ofthe answer,failure 18.03 of the negligence CourtherebysuspendedAtty.
tofile anobjectionandto CodeofProfessionalRespo deprivedhisclientofdueprocessandhisactionswereevi Sempiofromthe practice of
attendthe hearings. nsibility dently prejudicial tohisclients’ interests. A law forthe periodof 6
CASE NO.:
lawyer’sduty of competenceanddiligence months.
A.C. No. 10378
includesnotmerely reviewing thecasesentrustedto
hiscare orgiving soundlegaladvice,
butalsoconsistsofproperly representingthe
DATEOFPROMUL
clientbefore any court ortribunal,
GATION:June 9,
attendingscheduledhearingsorconferences,
2014
preparing andfiling
therequiredpleadings,prosecuting the

347
 2014CASES

handledcaseswithreasonable dispatch,
andurgingtheirterminationevenwithoutprodding
PONENTE: fromtheclient or the court.
Clearly, itcannot bedoubtedthat
Associate JusticeBienvenido therespondentviolatedCanon17, andRule18.03 of
L. Reyes Canon18ofthe Code whichstatesthat"a
lawyerowesfidelity tothe cause of hisclientandhe
shall be mindful of thetrustandconfidence
reposedinhim." Itfurthermandatesthat"a
lawyershallserve hisclientwithcompetence
anddiligence," andthat"a lawyershallnot neglect a
legalmatterentrustedto him, andhisnegligence
inconnectiontherewithshallrenderhimliable.”

TOPIC:Dishonesty in Enforcing a Contract

CASE ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION

TITLE:PAGU
IA
vs.
Dishonesty inenforcing a Code of In the presentcase, we findthat the The complaintisdismissed.
contracton the ProfessionalRespons Complaintiswithoutfactual basis.
ATTY.MOLINA
complainant'sclientwhohadneverb ibility ComplainantAtty. PaguiachargesAtty.Molina
een a party totheagreement. withproviding legal adviceto the
latter’sclientstothe effectthatthe TimesSquare
CASE NO.:
Preamble isbindingon complainant’sclient, Mr.
A.C. No. 9881
Abreu, whowasnot a signatory totheagreement.
DATEOFPROMULGATION:J The allegationofgiving legal advice,however,
une 4, 2014 wasnotsubstantiatedinthiscase, eitherin the
complaint or in the
correspondinghearings.Nowhere dothe
recordsstate thatAtty. Paguiasaw respondentgiving
thelegaladvice to theclientsofthe latter.Bare
allegationsare notproof.

348
 2014CASES

PONENTE: The defaultrule ispresumption of goodfaith.

Onthe otherhand,
ChiefJustice MariaLourdes badfaithisneverpresumed.1âwphi1 Itisa
P.A. Sereno conclusionto be
drawnfromfacts.Itsdeterminationisthusa
questionoffactandisevidentiary. There isno
evidence,though, toshow thatthe legaladvice,
assuming itwasindeedgiven,
wascoupledwithbadfaith,malice, or ill-will. The
presumptionof goodfaith,therefore,
standsinthiscase.

TOPIC:Gross negligence

CASE ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION

TITLE:QUIA
CHON
vs.
Grossnegligence anddeceit CanonRules18.03 and Not filing anappellant'sbriefisprejudicial Atty.
18.04 of the because,ashappenedinthiscase, suchfailure Ramosissuspendedfromthe
ATTY.RAMOS
CodeofProfessional couldresultinthe dismissal of the appeal. The practice of law for6months.
Responsibility conductofrespondentshowsthat hefailed to exercise
duediligence, andthat he had acavalierattitude
CASE NO.:
towardsthe cause of hisclient.The
A.C. No. 9317 abandonmentbytheformer ofthe latter'scausemade
himunworthy ofthe
trustthathisclientreposedinhim.Therespondenthadno
DATEOFPROMULGATION:J right towaive the appealwithoutthe latter'sknowledge
une 4, 2014 andconsent.Ifindeedrespondentfeltunable or
unwilling tocontinue hisretainership,he shouldhave
PONENTE: properlywithdrawnhisappearance andallowed the
clienttoappointanotherlawyer. Thus, he
ChiefJustice MariaLourdes violatedRules
18.03 and18.04 of the Codeof
ProfessionalResponsibility.

349
 2014CASES

P.A. Sereno

TOPIC:Violation ofthe Reglementary Period

CASE
TITLE:DULA ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION
NG
vs.
Grossinefficiency, Code of Judicial Conduct Promptdispositionof casesisattainedbasically Atty. Regenecia
JUDGEREGENCIA
grossignoranceof the law, throughthe efficiency anddedicationto duty wasfoundofundue delay
grossincompetence,seriousmiscond ofjudges.If judgesdo not possessthose inrendering adecision.
uct, andseriousderelictionofduty traits,delay in the disposition of Accordingly,she
CASE NO.:
casesisinevitable to the prejudice ofthe isorderedtopay a fine of
litigants. ₱40,000.00
A.M. No.MTJ-14-1841
Accordingly, judgesshouldbe imbuedwith andissternlywarnedthat a
ahighsense of duty andresponsibility repetitionofthesameorsimilara
DATEOFPROMULGATION:J
inthedischarge oftheirobligationto ctsinthefutureshall be
une 2, 2014
administerjustice dealtwithmore severely.
promptly.ThisisembodiedinRule3.05, Canon
3of the Code ofJudicial
PONENTE:
Conductwhichstatesthat"[a]judgeshalldispose
ofthecourt’sbusinesspromptly anddecide
Associate JusticeEstela M.Perlas-
caseswithin
Bernabe
therequiredperiods"andechoedinSection5,
Canon 6of theNew Code ofJudicial
Conductforthe Philippine
Judiciarywhichprovidesthat"[j]udgesshallperfor
malljudicial duties, includingthedelivery
ofreserveddecisions, efficiently, fairly,
andwithreasonable promptness."

350
 2014CASES

TOPIC:Violation oftheNotarialLaw

CASE ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION

TITLE:MAHI
LUM
vs.
Violation ofthe Public Act No. Anactwhichcontravenesthe foregoing Atty. Lezama isguilty
NotarialLawfornotarizing a 'Deed 2103(NotarialLaw) guidelinesisinviolation ofRule 1.01,Canon 1of the ofviolating the Notarial
ATTY.LEZAMA
ofDonation' inthe absence Codeof ProfessionalResponsibility and the Lawand the Code
oforLeoftheaffiants. NotarialLaw, which the respondentculpably ofProfessionalResponsibility.
committedwhen he notarizedthe ‘Deed of Accordingly,hisincumbentno
CASE NO.:
Donation’ intheabsence of oneof the affiants. tarialcommissionisrevokedan
A.C. No. 10450 dhe
isdisqualifiedfrombeingcom
It must be emphasizedthatthe public and missionedasa notarypublic
thecourtsaccordconclusivenessofdue for 1 year.
DATEOFPROMULGATION:J executioninnotarizeddocuments.By affixing
uly 30, 2014 hissignature andnotarialseal onthe instrument, the
respondentmisled thepublic thatJenniferpersonally
appearedbefore himandattested tothe
PONENTE: truthandveracityof the contentsofthe
deedwheninfactshe didnot.
Associate Suchmisconductcanalsousherinprecariouslegalcons
JusticeBienvenidoL.Reyes equencesshouldthe deed of donationlater on
spawncourtintervention.

351
 2014CASES

TOPIC:Violation ofthe Lawyer’s Oath

CASE ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION

TITLE:FRAN
CIA
vs.
Violation ofthe The Lawyer’sOath; and Canon 7of the Code Atty. ReynaldoV.
ATTY.ABDON
lawyer'soathandthe Code Code of ofProfessionalResponsibility mandatesthata Abdonissuspendedfromthe
ofProfessionalResponsibility. ProfessionalRespons "lawyershallatalltimesuphold the practiceof law for a periodof
ibility. integrityanddignity ofthelegalprofession."For, 1month.
the strengthof the legalprofessionliesinthe
CASE NO.:
dignity andintegrity ofitsmembers.It isevery
lawyer’sduty to maintainthe highregardto the
A.C. No. 10031
profession bystayingtrue
tohisoathandkeepinghisactionsbeyondreproach.
DATEOFPROMULGATION:J Also, therespondent,asa member ofthe
uly 23, 2014 legalprofession, hasafurtherresponsibility
tosafeguardthe dignity of thecourtswhich
PONENTE: thepublic perceivesasthe bastion of justice.
Hemust
Associate atalltimeskeepitsgoodnameuntarnishedandnot
JusticeBienvenidoL.Reyes be instrumental to itsdisrepute. InBerbanov.
Atty. Barcelona, theCourtreiterated
theboundenduty of lawyersto keep the
reputationof the courtsunscathed

352
 2014CASES
TOPIC:UnethicalBehavior

CASE
TITLE:VIZC ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION
ONDE
vs.
For draftingthe release Canon 1of the Code The primary duty oflawyersisnotto Atty. Verano, Jr.
ATTY. VERANO,JR.
orderandtheusetheDOJletterhead ofProfessional theirclientsbutto the administration of isfoundguilty of
withoutauthority. justice.Tothatend, violatingRules1.02and15.07,
Disrespectforthe law theirclients’successiswhollysubordinate. The inrelationtoCanon13 of the
CASE NO.:
andlegalprocessesindrafting conductofa memberof thebaroughtto Code
thesaidorderandsending it to a andmustalwaysbe scrupulouslyobservant ofthe ofProfessionalResponsibility,f
Adm. Case No. 8108
high-rankingpublic official. law andethics. Any means, or whichhe
nothonorable,fairandhonestwhichisresorted issuspendedfromthe practice
DATEOFPROMULGATION:J tobythe lawyer, evenin the pursuitof of law
uly 15, 2014 hisdevotionto hisclient’scause, iscondemnable for6monthseffectiveimmediat
andunethical. ely.
PONENTE:

ChiefJustice MariaLourdes Rule 1.02 states: "A lawyershall not counsel

P.A. Sereno orabetactivitiesaimedatdefiance of the law
oratlessening confidence inthe
legalsystem."Further, according toRule 15.06, "a
lawyershallnot state or imply thathe isable to
influence anypublic official, tribunal orlegislative
body." Thesucceeding rule, Rule
15.07,mandatesa
lawyer"toimpressuponhisclientcompliance with
thelawsand the principlesof fairness."

TOPIC:Violation oftheNotarialLaw

353
 2014CASES

CASE ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION

TITLE:DE
JESUS
vs.
Grave misconduct, Code of Where the notary public admittedly Atty. Sanchez-
dishonesty,malpractices, ProfessionalRespons haspersonalknowledge of a false statement or Malitisfoundguilty of
ATTY. SANCHEZ-MALIT
andunworthinesstobecome ibility informationcontainedin the instrumentto be violatingCanon
anofficerofthe Court. andNotarialLaw notarized, yetproceedstoaffixthe notarialseal on 1andRules1.01, 1.02, and
it, theCourtmustnothesitate todiscipline the 10.01 of the
CASE NO.:
notarypublic accordingly asthe circumstancesof CodeofProfessionalResponsi
thecase may dictate. Otherwise,the integrity bility
A.C. No. 6470
andsanctity ofthe notarizationprocessmay aswellasheroathasnotarypublic
beundermined, andpublic confidence . Hence,
DATEOFPROMULGATION:J innotarialdocumentsdiminished.In thiscase, sheissuspendedfromthe
uly 8, 2014 respondentfully knew thatcomplainantwasnot practiceof law for 1
the ownerof the mortgagedmarketstall. That yeareffectiveimmediately.
PONENTE: complainantcomprehendedthe provisionsof the Hernotarialcommission,
realestatemortgage contractdoesnotmake ifstillexisting,isimmediately
ChiefJustice MariaLourdes respondentany lessguilty.If atall, itonly revokedandsheishereby
P.A. Sereno heightensthelatter’sliabilityfortoleratinga perpetuallydisqualifiedfrombe
wrongful act. ingcommissionedasa
Clearly, respondent’sconductamountedto notarypublic.
abreach of Canon 1andRules1.01 and1.02
ofthe Code ofProfessionalResponsibility.

354
 2014CASES
TOPIC:ConductUnbecoming a Judge

CASE
TITLE:TAN ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION
vs.

JUDGE USMAN
Bribery andcorruption; No legal The RulesofCourtrequiresthatif a The
GrossMisconduct, basismention judgeshouldbedisciplinedforgrave misconduct or any administrativecomplaint
Knowinglyrendering ed. graveroffense, asinthiscase, the evidence againsthimshould againstJudgeUsmanisdis
CASE NO.:
anUnjustOrder,Abuse be competentandderivedfromdirectknowledge. The missed.
ofPowerandDishonesty; Judiciary towhichrespondentbelongsdemandsno less.Before
A.M. No.RTJ-14-2390
ignorance ofthe law any of itsmemberscould be faulted,
competentevidenceshouldbepresented,since the charge
ispenalincharacter.Thus, thegroundforthe removal of
ajudicial officershouldbeestablishedbeyondreasonable
doubt.Suchistherulewhere the charge on
DATEOFPROMULGATION:
whichremovalissoughtismisconductinoffice, willfulneglect,
August13, 2014 corruption, orincompetence. The generalrulesinregardto
admissibilityof evidence incriminal trialsapply.
Respondentjudge cannot
beblamedforassertingthatcomplainantmerelyfabricated the
PONENTE: allegation ofbribery andcorruptiondue to the latter'sfailure
to presentevidence insupportthereof.Thisislikewise not the
Associate Justice firsttime thatcomplainantraisedanunsubstantiatedaccusation
DiosdadoM.Peralta ofbribery againstrespondent.However,
asinthisCourt'spreviousrulings, inthe absence of evidence to
thecontrary, respondentenjoysthe
presumptionofregularityin the performance of
hisdutiesaswellasthe presumptionof innocence.

355
 2014CASES
TOPIC:Negligence in HandlingClient’s Case

CASE ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION

TITLE:TAN
vs.
Fabricating andusing Code of Asanofficer ofthe court, itisthe duty of anattorney Diamante
aspuriouscourtorder, ProfessionalResponsibilit toinformhisclient ofwhateverimportantinformationhemay disbarredforGrossMiscond
DIAMANTE
andforfailing y (CPR)andthe have acquiredaffectinghisclient’scase asprovidedunderRule uctandviolationsofRule
CASE NO.:
tokeephisclientinformed lawyer’soath. 18.04, Canon18of the CPR. Heshouldnotifyhisclientofany 1.01,Canon1, andRule
A.C. No. 7766
ofthestatusofthe case. adversedecisiontoenable hisclient todecide whether toseek 18.04,Canon18 of the Code
anappellate review thereof. ofProfessionalResponsibilit
DATEOFPROMUL Keeping the clientinformedof the developmentsofthecase y,andhisname
GATION: willminimize misunderstanding isorderedstrickenofffrom
andlossoftrustandconfidence in the attorney.The theroll ofattorneys.
August5, 2014 lawyershouldnotleavethe clientin thedark onhow the
lawyerisdefending theclient’sinterests.
In the case atbar, respondentattempted to conceal
PONENTE:P thedismissalofcomplainant’sappeal by fabricating the
ERCURIAM Nov.9, 2007 Orderwhichpurportedly required a DNA
testingto make
itappearthatcomplainant’sappealhadbeengivendue course,
whenintruth, thesame hadlongbeendenied. Inso doing,
respondentengagedinanunlawful,dishonest,
anddeceitfulconductthatcausedundueprejudice
andunnecessary expenseson the
partofcomplainant.Accordingly,respondentclearly
violatedRule1.01, Canon 1of the CPR.

419.

356
 2014CASES
TOPIC:Misappropriationof Client’s Money

CASE ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION

TITLE:AGO
T
vs.
Misrepresentation, deceit, Code of Asofficersof the court, lawyersare bound tomaintainnot Atty. Rivera
andfailure to ProfessionalRespons only a highstandardoflegalproficiency, butalso isfoundguiltyofviolating Rule
ATTY.RIVERA
accountforandreturnhermone ibility (CPR)and the ofmorality, honesty, integrity, andfairdealing. Inthe case 1.01of Canon1, Rules16.01
y despiteseveraldemands. lawyer'soath atbar, respondentfailed to and16.03 of
performhisobligationsunderthe Contract, Canon16, andRule
CASE NO.:
whichistofacilitateandsecure the issuance of aUS visa 18.03ofCanon18 of the
A.C. No. 8000 infavorofcomplainantwhichconstitutesdeception.Moreo Code
ver, hefailed to refundthe amountof ₱350,000.00 ofProfessionalResponsibility
thatcomplainantpaidhim. Thus,he violatedRule .Accordingly, he
DATEOFPROMULGATION: 1.01,Canon1; Rules16.01 and16.03, Canon16; isherebysuspendedfromthe
and18.03,Canon18 of the CPR. practiceof law for a periodof
August5, 2014 two 2years.

Furthermore,
PONENTE: respondentisorderedtoretur
ntocomplainantAgotthe
Associate JusticeEstela M.Perlas- legalfeeshe
Bernabe receivedfromthelatterin the
amountof
₱350,000.00 within90
daysfromthe finality of
thisDecision. Failure to
complywith the foregoing
directivewillwarrant the
impositionofamore severe
penalty.

420.

357
 2014CASES
TOPIC:Misappropriation of Client’s Money

CASE ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION

TITLE:VIRA
Y
vs.
GrossImmoralConduct Sec. 127, RULE 138 of "The Code Atty. Sanicasisguilty of
theRulesofCourt ofProfessionalResponsibilitydemandsthe grossmisconduct. Thus, the
ATTY.SANICAS
utmostdegree of fidelity Courtsuspendedhimfrom
andgoodfaithindealing withthe thepractice of law for 1
moneysentrusted to lawyersbecauseof yearuponthe finality of
theirfiduciary relationship." Specifically, theResolution.Further, he
CASE NO.:
Rule isordered toreturnto
16.01 of the Code imposesupon the lawyerthe complainant,within90
A.C. No. 7337
duty to "accountforallmoney orproperty daysfromfinality of
collected orreceived fororfrom theclient." theResolution,the netamount
DATEOFPROMULGATION: Rule 16.03 thereof, on the of₱85,500.00withinterestatthe
otherhand,mandatesthat"[a]lawyershalldeliver rate of
September29, 2014 the fundsxx xofhisclientwhendue or 6%perannumfromfinalityof
upondemand." thisResolutionuntil
thefullamountisreturned.
PONENTE:

Associate
JusticeMarianoC.DelCastillo

358
 2014CASES
TOPIC:IllicitRelationship

CASE ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION

TITLE:TUM
BAGA,
vs.
Grossimmorality, Code of We have Atty.
deceitfulandfraudulentconduct, ProfessionalRespons consideredsuchillicitrelationasadisgraceful Teoxonisguiltyofgrossimmora
ATTY.TEOXON
andgrossmisconduct. ibility andimmoral conductsubjecttodisciplinary lity andishereby
action.The penalty suspendedfrom thepractice of
forsuchimmoralconductisdisbarment, law for a periodof3 years.
orindefinite ordefinitesuspension, depending
CASE NO.:
onthe circumstancesofthe case. Recently,
inFerancullov. Ferancullo,Jr., we
A.C. No. 5573
ruledthatsuspensionfromthe practice oflaw for
twoyearswasanadequate penaltyimposedon the
DATEOFPROMULGATION: lawyerwhowasfoundguilty ofgrossimmorality.In
saidcase, we considered theabsence of
November21, aggravating
2017PONENTE: circumstancessuchasanadulterousrelationshipcou
Associate JusticeTeresita pledwithrefusal tosupporthisfamily;or
J.Leonardo-De Castro maintaining illicitrelationshipswithatleast
twowomenduring thesubsistence ofhismarriage;
or abandoning hislegalwife andcohabiting
withotherwomen.

However, considering
respondent'sblatantattemptsto deceive the
courtsandthe IBPregarding
histruerelationshipwithcomplainant,we agree
with the IBPBoard of Governorsthatthe
properpenalty inthisinstance isa three-
yearsuspensionfromthe practice of law.

359

(Topic)Impropriety
(CaseTitle) Act/scomplained of
Lopez vsLucmayon ThattherespondentJudge
- - Rule5.06 oftheCodeof
(CaseNo.) allegedlydeceivedthecomplainant
A.MNo.MTJ-13-1837 intosigning aSPA
toprocessthesaleof
(Dateofpromulgation) hislottoaprospectivebuyer.
Sep 24, 2014
- Unknown
tothecomplainant,thesaid
(Ponente) SPAcontained
BRION, J atthebottomportion,a so-
called"Waiverof
Rights"thattherespondenthad
deceptivelyinserted inorderto
strip himofhisownership
ofthelot.Aftersigning
thedocumentandwaslatternota
rizedwithouthisparticipation.
(Topic)violating theCodeofProfessionalResponsibility
(CaseTitle) Act/scomplained of
CF SharpCrewManagementInc. respondenthad indeed
2014CASES
Legal basis/basesof SupremeCourt’sRuling Case Disposition
thecharge/s - (1)a
fineofTwentyThousand
JudicialConductandImp - As a generalrule, ajudgeisprohibited Pesos(₱20,000.00)forviolati
ropriety fromserving onofRule5.06 oftheCode;
asexecutor,administrator,trustee,guardian or
- Canon IIof otherfiduciary.Theintentof - (2)a fineofTen
theCodeofJudicialCo theruleistolimitajudge'sinvolvementintheaffai ThousandPesos(₱10,000.00
nduct rsand interestsof )forimpropriety.
privateindividualstominimizetheriskof
conflictwith hisjudicialdutiesand toallowhimto
devotehisundivided attentionto
theperformanceofhisofficialfunctions.When
amemberofthebench
servesasadministratorofthepropertiesof
privateindividuals,herunstheriskoflosing
hisneutrality and impartiality,especially
whentheinterests
ofhisprincipalconflictswiththoseof
thelitigantwhocomesbeforehiscourt.
- Furthermore,by serving asattorney-in-
fact,therespondentnotonly allowed
himselftobedistracted
fromtheperformanceofhisjudicialduties;he
alsoundertooktoperformallactsnecessarytopro
tectthecomplainant’sinterest.Ineffect,therespo
ndentacted
asthecomplainant’sfiduciary,indirectand
patentviolationoftheprohibitionagainstjudges.
Legal basis/basesof SupremeCourt’sRuling Case Disposition
thecharge/s In thiscase,theIBP Investigating RespondentNicolas C.
360

vsTorres( requestedand wasissued
CaseNo.) checksassettlementofclaimsofon
A.C. No. 10438 thepretensethattherequestedam
(Dateofpromulgation) ountsrepresented
Sep 23,2014 whatwaslawfullyduethem.
(Ponente) However,instead ofgivingthesaid
PER CURIAM: checkstothenamedseafarers,hed
eposited
thesameattheInternationalExcha
ngeBank.
(Topic)Violationof Canon 18 and Rule18.03 oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility
(CaseTitle) Act/scomplained of
Cristobalvs Atty.Renta Respondentreceived
(CaseNo.) fromcomplainantthe"fullandpa
ckageprice"ofP160,000for
2014CASES
Rules16.01and16.03,Can Commissionercorrectlyfound Torresishereby
on 16 of theCPR thatcomplainanthad dulyproven DISBARREDfrom
Rule1.01,Canon1of itschargesagainstrespondent.Itiswell-settled thepracticeof law
theCPR that"when a lawyerreceivesmoney from andhisnameordered
theclientfor a STRICKENOFF fromtheroll
particularpurpose,thelawyerisbound to ofattorneys.
renderanaccounting to theclientshowing
thatthemoneywasspentfor
aparticularpurpose.And
ifhedoesnotusethemoneyfortheintended
purpose,thelawyermustimmediately
returnthemoneytohisclient."This,respondentf
ailed todo.
Clearly,respondent’sactsofmisappropriationco
nstitutedishonesty,abuseoftrustandconfidenc
ereposed in him bythecomplainant,and
betrayalof hisclient’sinterestswhich heisduty-
bound toprotect.
Theyarecontraryto
themandateofRule1.01,Canon
1oftheCPRwhich
providesthat"[a]lawyershallnotengagein
unlawful,dishonest,immoral, or
deceitfulconduct."Such
malfeasanceisnotonlyunacceptable,disgracef
ul,and dishonorableto
thelegalprofession;italsoreveals
abasicmoralflawthatmakeshim
unfittopracticelaw.
Legal basis/basesof SupremeCourt’sRuling Case Disposition
thecharge/s Wehaveheld thatoncea HeisherebyREPRIMANDEDw
Canon 18and lawyeragreestohandlea ith a sternwarning
Rule18.03of case,itisthatlawyer'sdutytoservetheclientwith thatarepetitionof
theCodeof competenceand diligence. thesameor
361

A.C.No 9925 thefiling ofthepetition
(Dateofpromulgation) forrecognition.No such
Sep 17,2014 petition,however,wasfiled.
(Ponente) Respondentfailedtorefund
VILLARAMA,JR., J themoney on
time.Eventually,hewasableto
saveenough andrefunded
themoney tocomplainant.
(Topic)Malpracticeand grossnegligenceintheperformanceof hisdutyasa notarypublicand/orlawyer
(CaseTitle)Almaz Act/scomplained of
an Respondentdespitenothavingb
vsFelipe(CaseNo.) een registered as a
A.C.No 7184 notarypublic for theCity of
(Dateofpromulgation) Marikina,notarized
Sep 17,2014 theacknowledgmentof
(Ponente) thedocument
PERLAS-BERNABE, J
2014CASES
Professional Here,itisbeyond similaractwould
Responsibility doubtthatrespondentbreached hisdutytoserve bedealtwithmoresever
complainantwithdiligenceand neglected ely.
alegalmatterentrustedto him.ThatAnneth Tan
supposedlylostthepetition forrecognition and
failedtoinform
respondentcannotabsolvehimofliabilityforitwa
shisdutynottoneglectcomplainant'scaseand
handleitwithdiligence.
Wenotethatwhilerespondentfailed torefund
immediately theamountpaid
bycomplainant,heneverthelessexerted
earnesteffortsthatheeventuallywasableto
fullyrepaycomplainantand begged
complainant'sforgiveness.
Legal basis/basesof SupremeCourt’sRuling Case Disposition
thecharge/s AstheInvestigating HeisSUSPENDEDfromthepra
Rule1.01,Canon1of Commissionercorrectlyobserved,respondent, cticeof lawfor a periodof
theCodeofProfessionalRe whohimselfadmittedthathewascommissioned 6months,effectiveuponhisr
sponsibility asnotarypubliconlyintheCity ofPasig eceiptofthisResolution,with
andtheMunicipalitiesof Taguig,Pateros,San aSTERNWARNINGthatarepe
Juan,andMandaluyong fortheyears1998- titionof
1999,couldnotnotarizethesubjectdocument’sa thesameorsimilaractswillbe
cknowledgmentintheCityofMarikina,assaid dealtwithmoreseverely.
notarialactisbeyond HeislikewiseDISQUALIFIEDfr
thejurisdictionofthecommissioning om being commissionedas a
court,i.e.,theRTCofPasig.Theterritoriallimitatio notary public fora
n ofa notarypublic’sjurisdiction
iscrystalclearfrom
362

(CaseTitle) Act/scomplained of
Nakpil vs respondentlacked
Uy(CaseNo. thegoodmoralcharacterrequire
) d frommembersoftheBarwhen
A.C. No. 9115 thelatterfailed tocomply
(Dateofpromulgation) withthedemandsof
Sep 17,2017 Rebeccaunderthesubjecttrustag
(Ponente) reement,nottomention
PERLAS-BERNABE, J hisunworthyanddeceitfulactsof
mortgaging
thesubjectpropertywithoutthef
ormer’sconsent
2014CASES
Section11,RuleIII ofthe2004Ruleson periodof 1
NotarialPractice. yearandhisnotarialcommiss
Formisrepresenting in the ion,ifcurrently
saidacknowledgmentthathewas a notary existing,isherebyREVOKED.
publicfor and in theCity ofMarikina,when
itisapparentand,in fact,uncontroverted
thathewasnot,respondentfurthercommitted
aform offalsehoodwhich
isundoubtedlyanathematothelawyer’soath.Per
ceptibly,said transgression alsorunsafoulof
Rule1.01,Canon
1oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibilitywhich
providesthat“[a]lawyershall notengagein
unlawful,dishonest,immoralor
deceitfulconduct.”
(Topic)seriousmisconduct
Legal basis/basesof Supreme Court’sRuling Case Disposition
thecharge/s Bethatasitmay,theCourt,nonetheless,findsthatr Atty.Roberto L.
Rule1.01,Canon1of espondentcommitted UyisfoundGUILTYofviolating
theCodeofProfessionalRe someformofmisconductby,asadmitted,mortgag Rule1.01,Canon
sponsibility ing thesubjectproperty,notwithstanding 1oftheCodeofProfessionalRe
theapparentdisputeoverthe sponsibility.
same.Regardlessofthemeritsofhisown Accordingly,heisorderedtop
claim,respondentshouldhaveexhibited aya
prudentrestraintbecoming ofa FINEof₱15,000.00within
legalexemplar.Heshould nothaveexposed ten(10)daysfromreceiptoft
himselfevento theslightestriskof committing a hisResolution.
property violation noranyactionwhich would Further,heisSTERNLYWAR
endangertheBar'sreputation.Verily,members NED thatarepetitionof
oftheBarareexpected atalltimestouphold thesameorsimilaractswillb
theintegrity edealtwithmoreseverely
363
 2014CASES

and dignityofthelegalprofessionand
refrainfrom any actoromission which
mightlessenthetrustand confidencereposed by
thepublicin thefidelity,honesty,and integrity
ofthelegalprofession.Byno
insignificantmeasure,respondentblemished
notonly hisintegrityas amemberof
theBar,butalso thatof
thelegalprofession.Inotherwords,hisconductfe
llshortof theexacting standardsexpectedof him
as aguardian of lawandjustice.Although toa
lesserextentascompared to whathasbeen
ascribed by
theIBP,theCourtstillholdsrespondentguiltyofvi
olatingRule1. 01,Canon1oftheCode.
Considering
thatthisishisfirstoffenseaswellasthepeculiarcir
cumstances of
thiscase,theCourtbelievesthatafineof
₱15,000.00 wouldsuffice

(Topic)Violation ofthe2004 Ruleson NotarialPractice

(CaseTitle)Gaddi Act/scomplained of Legal basis/basesof SupremeCourt’sRuling Case Disposition

vs Respondentnotarized thecharge/s The2004Ruleson TheCourtSUSPENDShimfro
Velasco(CaseNo. adocumentwithoutsaid 2004 RulesonNotarial NotarialPracticeprovidesthata m thepracticeof
) partynotappearing Practice notarypublicshouldnotnotarizeadocumentunl lawfor1year.
A.C No. 8637 beforethenotarypublic. essthesignatory tothedocumentisin REVOKEShisincumbentnota
(Dateofpromulgation) thenotary'spresencepersonallyatthetimeof rialcommission,ifany,and
Sep 15,2014 thenotarization,andpersonallyknown to PROHIBITShimfrombeing
(Ponente) thenotarypublicorotherwiseidentified through commissioned as anotary
competentevidenceof public for2
identity.Atthetimeofnotarization,thesignatory years,effectiveimmediately,
shallsign or affix with

364
 2014CASES

CARPIO,ACTINGC.J. with a thumbormarkthenotary a sternwarning

public'snotarialregister.Thepurposeofthesereq thatarepetitionof
uirementsistoenablethenotarypublictoverifyth thesameorsimilaroffense
egenuinenessofthesignatureandtoascertaintha shallbedealtwith
tthedocumentisthesignatory'sfreeactand moreseverely.
deed.Ifthesignatory isnotactingof hisor
herown freewill,a notarypublicismandatedto
refusetoperform a notarialact.A
notarypublicisalsoprohibited fromaffixingan
officialsignatureor sealona
notarialcertificatethatisincomplete.
Velasco
failedtodischargehisdutiesasnotarypublicand
breached Canon 1and Rule1.01
oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility.

(Topic)Malpractice

(CaseTitle) Act/scomplained of Legal basis/basesof SupremeCourt’sRuling Case Disposition

Nery vs Sampana Failing tofilethepetition thecharge/s Verily,Sampananeglectedthelegalmatterentr SUSPEND
(CaseNo.) foradoption CodeofProfessionalR ustedto him.Heevenkeptthe moneygiven Atty.GlicerioA.Sampanafro
A.C.No10196 despitereceivinghislegalfeesan esponsibility him,inviolationof m thepracticeof lawfor3
(Dateofpromulgation) d formaking CANON 15 theCode’smandatetodelivertheclient’sfundsu YEARSwith astern warning
Sep 9,2014 Nerybelievethatthepetition CANON 16 pon demand. Alawyer’sfailuretoreturn upon thatarepetitionof a
(Ponente) wasalreadyfiled. Rule16.03 demand thefundsheld byhim similaractshallbedealtwith
CARPIO,Acting C.J. CANON 17 givesrisetothepresumption moreseverely
CANON 18 thathehasappropriated thesameforhisown ORDERAtty.Glicerio
Rule18.03 use,inviolation ofthetrustreposedin A.SampanatoRETURNtocom
himbyhisclientand ofthepublicconfidencein plainantMelodyR.
thelegalprofession. NerytheamountofOneHundr
edThousand
Pesos(₱100,000.00),with12
%

365
 2014CASES

interestperannumfromthe
timeof
hisreceiptofthefullamounto
fmoneyon
17November2008until
30June2013,then
6%interestperannumfrom
1July2013 untilfullypaid.
(Topic)Grossmisconductand grossviolationoftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility

(CaseTitle)Madri Act/scomplained of Legal basis/basesof SupremeCourt’sRuling Case Disposition

d - violating theLawyer’sOath thecharge/s TheLawyer’sOath isa sourceofobligationsand TheCourtSUSPENDS
vsDealca(CaseNo andtheCodeofProfessionalRespo Lawyer’sOath duties foreverylawyer,and any himfrom thepracticeof
.) nsibilityby filing Rule1.03,Canon1of violationthereofby an attorneyconstitutesa lawfor1year
A.C.No7474 frivolousadministrativeand theCodeofProfessionalRe groundfor disbarment,suspension, with a STERN WARNING
(Dateofpromulgation) criminalcomplaints sponsibility orotherdisciplinaryaction.Theoath thatany similarinfraction
Sep 9,2014 Canon 11and exhortsuponthemembersoftheBarnotto inthefuturewillbedealtwith
(Ponente) Rule11.04of "wittingly moreseverely
BERSAMIN, J theCodeofProfessionalR orwillinglypromoteorsueanygroundless,falseor
esponsibility unlawfulsuit."Thesearenotmerefacilewords,dri
ftand hollow,buta sacred
trustthatmustbeupheld and keep inviolable.
As a lawyer,therefore,Atty.Dealcawasawareof
hisdutyunderhisLawyer’sOath
nottoinitiategroundless,false
orunlawfulsuits.Thedutyhasalsobeen
expresslyembodied in Rule1.03,Canon
1oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility
Hisbeing an officerof thecourtshould
haveimpelled himtoseetoit
thattheorderlyadministrationof
justicemustnotbeundulyimpeded.Indeed,ashe
mustresistthewhims

366
 2014CASES

and capricesof hisclients and

temperhisclients’propensitiestolitigate,so
mustheequallyguard
himselfagainsthisownimpulsesof initiating
unfounded suits.
WhileitistheCourt’sduty
toinvestigateanduncoverthetruth behind
chargesagainstjudgesand lawyers,itis
equallyitsdutytoshield themfrom unfounded
suitsthatareintended tovexand
harassthem,amongotherthings.
In lightof theforegoing
canons,alllawyersarebound touphold
thedignityand authority ofthecourts,andto
promoteconfidencein thefairadministrationof
justice.Itistherespectfor
thecourtsthatguaranteesthestability
ofthejudicialinstitution;elsewise,theinstitution
would berestingonaveryshakyfoundation.

(Topic)manifestpartiality,grossmisconduct,and grossignoranceofthelaw

(CaseTitle) Act/scomplained of Legal basis/basesof SupremeCourt’sRuling Case Disposition

Chua vsMadrona (1) denying thecharge/s ThisadministrativecomplaintagainstJudgeMadr TheCourtDISMISSES
(CaseNo.) MBDC’smotiontodismis manifestpartiality,gross onaisdisallowed andshould theadministrativecomplaint
A.M. No. RTJ-14- s; misconduct,and besummarilydismissed.Tostartwith,noadminist againstrespondentJudgeFor
2394(Dateofpromulgat (2) denying MBDC’s grossignoranceof thelaw rativerecoursecould supplantor pre- tunito
ion)Sep 1,2014 motionfor empttheproperexercisebytheCAof itscertiorari A.Madronaforitslackofmerit
reconsideration; jurisdiction. .
(3) granting Furthermore,noteveryerrorormistakebyajudg
Uniwide’smotionto ein theperformanceofhisofficialduties
declaredefendantin
default

367
 2014CASES

as a
(Ponente) judgerendershimadministrativelyliable.Indeed
BERSAMIN,J.: ,nojudgecan beheld administrativelyliablefor
grossmisconduct,ignoranceofthelaw,or
incompetencein theadjudication
ofcasesunlesshisactsconstituted
fraud,dishonesty or corruption;
orwereimbuedwithmaliceor ill-will,bad faith,
ordeliberateintenttodoan
injustice.Theseexceptionsdidnotobtain
here,for,asJusticeTijamrightlyobserved,MBDC
did notadduceconvincingevidenceshowing
thatJudgeMadrona’sactswereso
grossorpatent,deliberateandmalicious; or
imbuedwithevidentbad faith;or tainted with
biasor partiality.
(Topic)illegalacts

(CaseTitle) Act/scomplained of Legal basis/basesof SupremeCourt’sRuling Case Disposition

Re:Anonymouslettervs JudgeSoluren had
JudgeSoluren beeninstructing theparty-
(CaseNo.) litigantstodepositwith
A.M. No.P-14-3217 hercourtsettlementmoneyforva
(Dateofpromulgation) riouscasesin hersala.
Oct8,2014 ItwaselaboratedthatTuzonwould
(Ponente) merelyacknowledgereceiptofthe
PERLAS-BERNABE, J settlementmoneyfor
thedifferentcasesthroughhandw
ritten noteswithoutissuing
anyofficialreceiptstherefor;after
which,JudgeSoluren
wouldorderthe
thecharge/s JudgeSoluren wasno theCourtruledthatt
N/A longerinvestigatedduetohercompulsory headministrativecomplainta
retirementonJanuary 29,2012 gainstrespondentJudgeCora
zon
D.
Solurenofthesamecourtisher
ebyconsideredCLOSEDand
TERMINATEDinviewofherco
mpulsoryretirementonJanua
ry29,2012.

368
 2014CASES

dismissalofthecorrespondingcas
es.However,when
thepartiesrequested
forthereleaseof
thesaidmoney,Tuzonwouldfail to
timely complywith thesame.

(Topic)notarized afalsified affidavit

(CaseTitle) Act/scomplained of Legal basis/basesof SupremeCourt’sRuling Case Disposition

Sultan vsMacbanding respondent'sirregularnotarizati thecharge/s Thecomplainantadducedpreponderantevidenc WHEREFORE,Atty.CasanMac
(CaseNo.) on and submission CodeofProfessionalR ethathissignaturewasindeed forgedin an abanding isSUSPENDEDfrom
A.C. No. 7919 ofcomplainant'sAffidavitofWit esponsibility affidavitwhich therespondentnotarizedand thepracticeof
(Dateofpromulgation) hdrawalof submitted lawforone(1)year.
Oct. 8,2014 CertificateofCandidacytotheCO totheCOMELEC.Consequently,therespondents Further,hisnotarialco
(Ponente) MELECwithoutcomplainant'skn hould mmission,ifany,isREV
REYES,J. owledgeand authorization beheldadministrativelyliableforhisaction."Whe OKEDand
rethenotarypublicis a lawyer, a heisDISQUALIFIEDfro
graverresponsibilityisplaced upon m
hisshoulderbyreasonof hissolemn oath to reappointmentasNotaryP
obey thelawsand todonofalsehood ublic fora periodof two
orconsentto thedoing of (2)years,with a
any.TheCodeofProfessionalResponsibilityalsoc sternwarning
ommandshimnottoengagein thatrepetitionofthesameors
unlawful,dishonest,immoral imilarconductin
ordeceitfulconductandto uphold thefuturewillbedealt
atalltimestheintegrityand dignity withmoreseverely.
ofthelegalprofession.""Itshould
benotedthatanotarypublic'sfunction should
notbetrivialized anda
notarypublicmustdischargehispowersanddutie
swhich areimpressedwith
publicinterest,withaccuracyandfidelity.
Anotarypublicexercisesdutiescalling for
carefulnessand
faithfulness.Notariesmustinform

369

(Topic)GraveAbuseofAuthority,GraveMisconduct,and ActsInimicaltoJudicialService.
(CaseTitle) Act/scomplained of
Officeof First,respondentimpounded
theCourtAdministratorvs Amor thetricycleof attheHallof
(CaseNo.) Justicewhen thedriverbumped
A.M. No. RTJ-08-2140 hisvehicleand wasunableto
(Dateofpromulgation) paytheamountdemanded
Oct7,2014 fortheincurred damages.
(Ponente) Respondenthad berated
PERLAS-BERNABE,J.: theguards of theHallof Justice.
During thelatterpartof
October1999,ActingPresiding
JudgeLalwaniof the
MTCofMercedes,CamarinesNort
ecalledrespondentto
seekreconsideration ofherdetail
toanotherstation.Respondentthe
n berated
JudgeLalwaniandaccused
herofbeing
lazyandabusiveliketheotherjudge
s ofCamarinesSurwhowerealso
2014CASES
themselvesof thefactstheycertify to;
mostimportantly,theyshould
nottakepartorallowthemselvestobepartofille
galtransactions."In
fact,therespondentadmitted
thattheaffidavitwasnotarized
inhisofficewithoutthepresenceofthecomplai
nant.
Legal basis/basesof SupremeCourt’sRuling Case Disposition
thecharge/s In Respondentwould
GraveAbuseofAuthorit theinstantcase,theOCAcorrectlyfoundrespond havebeen DISMISSED
y,GraveMisconduct,Gr entguilty of fromservice,had
ossInsubordination,an thechargesagainsthim.Asaptlypointedout,resp henotbeendeemed
dActsInimicaltoJudicial ondent’sfailuretofilea automaticallyresigned
Service. commentdespitealltheopportunitiesafforded effectiveJune7,2002
himconstituted awaiver ofhisrighttodefend Accordingly,hiscivilserviceel
himself.In thenaturalorder ofthings, a man igibilityisCANCELLED,hisretir
would resistan unfounded claimor imputation ementand
againsthim.Itisgenerallycontrarytohuman otherbenefits,exceptaccrue
naturetoremain silentandsaynothing in dleavecreditswhich
thefaceof hehadalreadyclaimed,arehe
falseaccusations.Assuch,respondent’ssilencem rebyFORFEITED
ay thusbeconstruedasan implied admission Further,heisPERPETUALLYDI
andacknowledgementoftheveracityoftheallega SQUALIFIEDfromre-
tionsagainsthim.Hence,theCourtupholdstheOC employmentin
A’sfindingsthatrespondent: anygovernmentagency
(a)abused hisauthorityin impounding orinstrumentality,includinga
thetricycleand exerted nygovernment-owned
undueinfluenceonthesecurity guards andcontrolled corporation
oftheHallof Justicein hisattemptto or
obstructtheinvestigation ofJudgeContreras;
(b)wasdiscourteousin dealingwith a
fellowjudgewhen thelatterwas
370
 2014CASES
detailed atCamarinesNorte
Further,respondentinstructedJu
dgeLalwanitogoslowwiththetrial
of a BP224 caseastheaccused
thereinwashisfriend.
October27,1999and
underthepretextofa
judicialvisit,respondentvisited
JudgeContrerasatthelatter’scham
bersand personallyintervened
foroneAtty.Venida,who
waspreviouslyarrested
andcharged with
indirectcontemptfor
hisfailuretoappearin3criminalcas
esforwhich hestoodasan
accused.Respondentthentold
JudgeContrerasthathedoes
notmind
Atty.Verida’sabusivepracticeashe
giveshimgold
JudgeContrerasrejectedresponde
nt’sindecentovertures,resulting
in thelatterpubliclyannouncing in
opencourtthatheisan
abusivejudgeforpersecuting
Atty.Venida.
Lawyers,prosecutors,andlitiga
ntscomplainedaboutthehabitu
alabsenteeism of
371
merelyasking forreconsiderationof governmentfinanciali
herdetailtoanotherstation; nstitution.
(c)usedhisofficeandposition tointervenein
behalf of Atty.Venidaand
toleratedthelatter’sabusivepracticeas
alawyerin
exchangeforgold;(d)washabituallyabsent;and(
e)
gaveorderstoAtty.Loriatosubmitallpetitionsfor
extra-judicialforeclosurestohimwhichresulted
in delaysintheproceedingsand
askedthelattertodemand "greasemoney"from
newspaperpublishersin
ordernottobeblacklisted.
Further,theOCAproperly found
respondentguiltyofGrossMisconductandInsub
ordination forrefusing to comply
withthenumerousdirectivesoftheCourttofileac
ommentontheadministrativecomplaintagainst
him.Verily,a judgewhodeliberatelyand
continuouslyfailsand refusesto complywith
theresolution oftheCourtisguilty of
thesame.26Such
willfuldisobedienceanddisregard
ofthedirectivesof theCourtconstitutegraveand
seriousmisconductaffecting
hisfitnessandworthinessof thehonor and
integrity attached
tohisoffice.Inthiscase,itisnoteworthythatrespo
ndentwasafforded
severalopportunities,nottomention a
generousamountoftimetocomply with
theCourt’slawfulorders,buthehasfailed and
continuously refused
toheedthesame.Thiscontinued
refusaltoabidebythelawfuldirectivesissuedbyth
eCourtis
 2014CASES
respondent,especiallyduringMon
daysand Fridays,resultingin
delaysinthedispositionofcasesinv
iolation ofexisting lawsand
circularson speedytrial.
Lastly,upon assumption
asExecutiveJudge,respondentord
eredClerkofCourtAtty.Loriatosub
mitallpetitionsforextra-
judicialforeclosurestohimforscrut
iny,especiallythoserequiring
publication uponfiling,resulting in
thedelayintheproceedings.
Respondent alsoordered
Atty.Loriato
askfor"greasemoney"from
thenewspaperpublishersunderth
epainof
beingblacklisted.Atty.Loria,howe
ver,neverobeyed
respondentregarding thismatter.
372
glaring
proofthathehasbecomedisinterested
toremainwith thejudicialsystem to
which hepurportstobelong.
Finally,theOCAcorrectly
notedthatrespondent’sautomaticresignation
duetohisfiling of a COCforthe2002
BarangayElectionsdid notdivesttheCourtof
itsjurisdiction indetermining
hisadministrativeliability.Itiswellsettled
thatresignation should notbeused
eitherasanescapeoran easyway outtoevadean
administrativeliabilityoradministrativesanction
.Inthislight,respondent’sadministrativeliabilityf
orhisactsstands.Thetotality
ofrespondent’sactswarrantstheimpositionofth
epenalty ofdismissalfromservice.Corollary
thereto,suchpenaltycarrieswith
itthefollowingadministrativedisabilities:
(a)cancellationofcivilserviceeligibility;
(b)forfeitureofretirementand
otherbenefits,exceptaccruedleavecredits,ifany;
(c) perpetualdisqualification from
reemploymentin anygovernmentagency or
instrumentality,including
anygovernmentownedandcontrolled
corporation
orgovernmentfinancialinstitution;and
(d)barfrom
takingthecivilserviceexaminations.BarangayEle
ctionsdid notdivesttheCourtof itsjurisdiction in
determininghisadministrativeliability.Itiswellse
ttled thatresignationshould notbeusedeither
asan escapeor an
 2014CASES
easy way outtoevadean
administrativeliabilityoradministrativesanctio
n.In
thislight,respondent’sadministrativeliability
forhisactsstands.

(Topic)suspensionor disbarment

(CaseTitle)P Act/scomplained of Legal basis/basesof SupremeCourt’sRuling Case Disposition

ACEvsDiaz(C Atty.Diaz’liquidationofPACEfunds thecharge/s Everyoneshould keep inmind WHEREFORE,Atty.EdnaM.
aseNo.) herrunning for reelectionwhen Chapter1,Canon 1,Rule thatthepracticeof lawisonly a Alibutdan-Diaz
A.C. No. 10134 shewasnolongerwith 1.01 privilege.Itisdefinitelynota isSUSPENDEDfromthepract
(Dateofpromulgation) theJudiciary; oftheCodeofPro right.Inordertoenjoy iceof lawfor a periodof
Nov 26,2014 herentitlementto theterm- fessionalRespon thisprivilege,onemustshowthathepossesses, 3months.
(Ponente) endbonuswhenshewasno sibility and continuesto
MENDOZA,J. longerworking intheJudiciary possess,thequalificationsrequired
bylawfortheconferment of suchprivilege.
Oneofthoserequirementsistheobservanceof
honestyand candor.Candorin
alltheirdealingsisthevery essenceofa
practitioner'shonorablemembership in
thelegalprofession.Lawyersarerequired
toactwiththehigheststandard
oftruthfulness,fairplayand
nobilityintheconductof litigation and
intheirrelationswiththeirclients,the
opposingparties,the othercounselsand
thecourts.
Theyarebound bytheiroathto speakthetruth
and toconductthemselvesaccording
tothebestoftheirknowledgeand discretion,and
with fidelityto thecourtsand theirclients
(Topic)willfuldishonestyand unethicalconduct

373
 2014CASES
(CaseTitle)Sanche Act/scomplained of Legal basis/basesof SupremeCourt’sRuling Case Disposition
z failuretopay justdebtand thecharge/s In RespondentAtty.NicolasC.T
vsTorres(CaseNo. forissuing Canon 1 and Rule1.01 theinstantcase,theexistenceoftheloanobligat orresisherebySUSPENDEDfo
) checkswithoutsufficientfunds ion isundisputed. r aperiod
A.C.No.10240 In Barrientos v.Atty.Libiran-Meteoro,13 of2yearsfromthepracticeofl
(Dateofpromulgation) weheld that: aw.
Nov 25,2014 xxx[the]deliberatefailuretopayjustdebtsand However,considering
(Ponente) theissuanceof thatrespondenthasalready
PER CURIAM worthlesschecksconstitutegrossmisconduct, been
forwhich alawyermaybesanctionedwith previouslydisbarred,thispe
suspensionfrom thepracticeof nalty can
law.Lawyersareinstrumentsfortheadministratio nolongerbeimposed.
nofjusticeand vanguards ofour
legalsystem.They areexpected to maintain
notonlylegal proficiencybutalsoahigh standard
ofmorality,honesty,integrity and fairdealing
sothatthepeople’sfaith andconfidencein
thejudicialsystem isensured.They
mustatalltimesfaithfully perform theirdutiesto
society,to thebar,thecourtsand
totheirclients,which
includepromptpaymentoffinancialobligations.T
hey mustconductthemselvesina
mannerthatreflectthevaluesand
normsofthelegalprofession asembodied in
theCodeofProfessionalResponsibility

(Topic)Failureto liveby thestandardsof thelegalprofessionand to dischargetheburden oftheprivilegeconferredononeas a member ofthebar

(CaseTitle) Act/scomplained of Legal basis/basesof SupremeCourt’sRuling Case Disposition

Saladaga vs Atty.Astroga Respondentwasin bad
(CaseNo.) faithwhen hedealt with
complainantand executed
the"DeedofSalewith Rightto
Repurchase"but
thecharge/s Respondent,asownerof RespondentisSUSPENDEDfr
Article19oftheCivilCod theproperty,hadtherightto mortgageitto om thepracticeof lawfora
eCanon1and Rule complainantbut,asa lawyer,heshould have periodof2 years,reckoned
1.01 oftheCodeof seen toitthathisagreementwith from receiptof
complainantisembodied in

374

A.C. No. 4697/ A.C. No. 4728
(Dateofpromulgation)(
Ponente)
LEONARDO-DECASTRO, J
lateron
claimedthattheagreementwason
eofequitablemortgage.Responde
ntwasalsoguiltyofdeceitor
fraudwhen herepresented in
the"DeedofSalewith Rightto
Repurchase"datedDecember2,19
81 thatthepropertywascovered
byTCTNo.T-662,even giving
complainanttheowner’scopy of
thesaidcertificateof
title,whenthesaidTCThad
alreadybeen cancelledon
November17,1972by
TCTNo.T3211inthenameofPNB.
Respondentmademattersevenw
orse,when hehadTCTNo. T-3211
cancelled withtheissuanceof
TCTNo.T-
7235underhisandhiswife’snameo
n January4,1982
withoutinformingcomplainant.Th
iswascompounded by
respondent’ssubsequentmortgag
e of thepropertytoRBAI,which
ledtotheacquisitionof
thepropertybyRBAIand
thedispossessionthereofof
complainant.
2014CASES
ProfessionalR an instrumentthatclearly expressestheintentof thisDecision,
esponsibility thecontracting parties.A lawyerwhodraftsa withWARNINGthatasimil
Section63 of contractmustseetoit armisconductinthefuture
theLandRegistration thattheagreementfaithfullyand shallbedealt
Act clearlyreflectstheintentionofthecontracting withmoreseverely.
CodeofProfessionalRe parties.Otherwise,therespectiverightsandoblig
sponsibilityCANON11, ationsofthecontracting
CANON12,Rule partieswillbeuncertain,whichopensthedoorto
12.03,Rule12.04 legaldisputesbetween thesaid
parties.Indeed,theuncertaintycaused
byrespondent’spoorformulationof the"Deedof
SalewithRighttoRepurchase"was
asignificantfactorin
thelegalcontroversybetween
respondentandcomplainant.Suchpoor
formulation reflects attheveryleastnegatively
on thelegalcompetenceofrespondent.
[Having]theproclivityforfraudulentanddeceptiv
emisrepresentation,artificeor devicethatisused
upon
anotherwhoisignorantofthetruefacts,totheprej
udiceand damageofthepartyimposed
upon.Inorderto
bedeceitful,thepersonmusteitherhaveknowled
geof thefalsity oracted in recklessand
consciousignorancethereof,especially
ifthepartiesarenotonequalterms,andwasdone
with theintentthattheaggrieved
partyactthereon,and thelatterindeed acted
inrelianceof thefalsestatementordeed
inthemannercontemplated
tohisinjury.Theactionsof respondentin
connectionwith theexecutionof the"Deed
ofSalewithRightto
375

(CaseTitle)Bando Act/scomplained of
y vs JudgeJacinto,Jr.issued
Jacinto(CaseNo.) anorderfor
A.M. No. RTJ-14- hisarrestwithoutawarrant
2399(Dateofpromulgat thattheCourt’sauditteam
ion)Nov.19,2014(Ponen wasconveniently housed in
te) AromaFamilyHotelof
MENDOZA, J theVillarosas
JudgeJacinto,Jr.neverrefutedthe
allegationsof
leniencyovertheseveralresetting
softhearraignmentofDeJesus,Jr.a
ndthatthearraignmentwasheld
inhischambers
2014CASES
Repurchase"clearlyfallwithin
theconceptofunlawful,dishonest,and
deceitfulconduct.They violateArticle19 of
theCivilCode.Theyshowadisregard
forSection63oftheLandRegistration
Act.Theyalso reflectbad faith,dishonesty,and
deceiton
respondent’spart.Thus,respondentdeservesto
besanctioned.
Respondent’sinfractionsareaggravated
bythefactthathehasalready been imposed
adisciplinarysanction before.
(Topic)GraveAbuseof Authority
Legal basis/basesof SupremeCourt’sRuling Case Disposition
thecharge/s In RespondentJudgeisFINEDin
Rule3.01,Canon3of thiscase,JudgeJacinto,Jr.wasdirectlyconfronted theamountof
theCodeof with an allegation thathearraigned ₱40,000.00 with
JudicialConduct DeJesus,Jr.insidehischambers.Hewasgiven aSTERNWARNINGthatarep
Rule116 theopportunitytoanswer,buthechosenottodelv etitionof
oftheRevisedRulesofCo eintoit.Ultimately,JudgeJacinto,Jr.did thesameorsimilaractshallb
urt,specifically notsquarely facetheissuesbeing imputed edealtwithmoreseverely
Section1(a) againsthim,which
Canon wasquiteirregularsinceitwashisnameand
2,47Rule2.0148and hiscapacityas
Canon 349 oftheCodeof amemberofthebench,thatwasbeingchallenged.
JudicialConduct Asaptlyobserved bytheOCA,"thenaturalinstinct
ofman impelshimtoresistan unfounded claim
or imputation anddefend
himself.Itisagainsthuman naturetojustremain
reticentand saynothing in thefaceof
falseaccusations."Hissilenceintroducesdoubtint
heminds of thepublic,which isnotacceptable.
376
2014CASES

Theproceduralstepslaid down in Section 1(a)of

Rule116 arenotempty ritualsthatajudgecan
takenonchalantly.
Each stepconstitutesan
integralpartofthatcrucialstagein
criminallitigation "wheretheissuesarejoined
xxx
andwithoutwhichtheproceedingscannotadva
ncefurther."
Thus,anything lessthan isrequired
bySection1(a)of
Rule116constitutesgrossignoranceofthelaw.Th
ereisgrossignoranceof thelawwhen
theerrorcommittedbythejudgewas"grossor
patent,deliberateormalicious."Itmay also
becommitted when a
judgeignores,contradictsor failsto apply
settled lawandjurisprudencebecauseof bad
faith,fraud,dishonesty or
corruption.Grossignoranceofthelaworincompe
tencecannotbeexcusedbya claim of goodfaith.
Canon 2,47Rule2.0148and Canon
349oftheCodeof
JudicialConductlikewiseemphasizethatjudges,
asofficersofthecourt,havethedutytoseetoittha
tjusticeisdispensed withevenlyand fairly.
Notonly mustthey
behonestandimpartial,butthey
mustalsoappear to behonestand
impartialinthedispensationof
justice.Judgesshouldmakesurethattheiractsar
ecircumspectand donotarousesuspicion
inthemindsof thepublic.When
theyfailtodoso,suchactsmaycastdoubtupon
theirintegrityand ultimately

377

(Topic)Immoralityand violation ofSCAdministrativeCircularNo.3-92 in relation toA.M.No.01-9-09-SC
(CaseTitle)Arevalo Act/scomplained of
vsMantua(CaseNo (a) usedtheHallof
.) Justice,particularlyhischamber,
A.M. No. RTJ-13- ashisresidence;
2360(Dateofpromulgat (b) openlybroughthismistressinco
ion)Nov.19,2014(Ponen urtasobserved by allofhisstaff;
te) (c) used
PERLAS-BERNABE, J thecourtprocessserver,ashisp
ersonaldriver;
(d) delegated hisworkload
tohislegalresearcher;
(e) committedgrossignoranceoft
helawwhen heproceededtotrial
and
allowedtheprivatecomplainantto
testifyinopencourteven
iftheaccused wasnotassisted
bycounsel,andfurthermore,extort
edmoneyfrom theaccused;
(f) asked
forgasoline,personalallowance,
andotherbenefitsfrom
thelocalgovernment; and
(g) failed todecidecaseswithin
2014CASES
thejudiciary in general. Asheld in
JoselitoRallos,etal.,vs.JudgeIreneo
LeeGakoJr.,Branch 5RTC,Cebu City.
Legal basis/basesof SupremeCourt’sRuling Case Disposition
thecharge/s Alljudgesand WHEREFORE,respondentJ
Canon 2 and courtpersonnelareherebyremindedthattheHa udgeCelso
Rule2.0110of theCodeof llsofJusticemay beused only L.Mantuaishereby
JudicialConduct forpurposesdirectlyrelatedto thefunctioning metedthepenaltyof a
SCAdministrativeCirc and operationof FINEintheamountof
ular No.3-9212and thecourtsofjustice,andmaynotbedevotedtoan ₱40,000.00,which
A.M. No.01-9-09-SC yotheruse,leastof amountshallbededucted
allasresidentialquartersofthejudges from
orcourtpersonnel,or forcarrying ontherein theretirementbenefitsdue
any tradeorprofession. him.
In
thiscase,complainant’sevidencehadsufficientl
y
establishedthatrespondentusedhischambersi
n theHallofJusticeashisresidentialand
dwelling place.Ascorrectlypointedoutby both
theInvestigating Justiceand
theOCA,respondent’sdefensethatherented a
housedid notnegatethepossibilitythatheused
theHall
ofJusticeashisresidence,sinceitispossiblethata
personcould berenting
oneplacewhileactuallyandphysicallyresiding
in another.
Further,theInvestigating Justiceand
theOCAcorrectly found respondentguilty
ofImmorality.Immoralityhasbeen
defined"toincludenotonly
sexualmattersbutalso‘conductinconsistentwit
hrectitude,or
378
 2014CASES

theprescribed 90- indicativeofcorruption,indecency,depravity,an

dayperiodbecausehewaswaitin d dissoluteness; or iswillful,flagrant,
g forlitigantsto offerhim orshamelessconductshowing
monetaryconsideration. moralindifferenceto
opinionsofrespectablemembersofthecommun
ity,and
aninconsiderateattitudetowardgoodorderand
publicwelfare.’”
In thecaseatbar,itwasadequately
proventhatrespondentengaged in an
extramaritalaffairwith
hismistress.Therespectivetestimoniesof
complainantand Nuñez clearlydemonstrated
howrespondentparaded hismistressin
fullviewof hiscolleagues,courtpersonnel,and
even thegeneralpublicbybringingher
tofiestasandother
publicplaces,withoutanyregard
toconsequencesthatmayariseas
aresultthereof.Worse,respondenteven
hadtheaudacity to usehischambersasa haven
fortheirmorallydepravedacts.Indoing
so,respondentfailed to adhereto theexacting
standards ofmoralityand decencywhich every
memberofthejudiciaryisexpected to
observe.Thereisnodoubtthatengaging in an
extramaritalaffairisnotonlyaviolationofthemor
alstandardsexpectedofthemembersandemploy
ees ofthejudiciarybutisalso a
desecrationofthesanctity
oftheinstitutionofmarriagewhichtheCourtabho
rsand is,thus,punishable.
(Topic)Bribery,GrossMisconduct,Immorality and violation oftheAnti-Graftand CorruptPracticesAct[RepublicAct(R.A.)No.3019].

379

(CaseTitle) Act/scomplained of
RiveravsBlancaflor JudgeBlancaflorcommittedg
(CaseNo.) rossmisconductin
A.M.No RTJ-11- (1) fraternizing with litigants;
2290(Dateofpromulgat (2)maintaining an illicitaffair
ion)Nov.18,2014(Ponen with awoman nothiswife; and
te) (3)exhibiting
PER CURIAM personalbiasandprejudiceaga
instherin her
effortsto obtain bailbonds
forCatudayand
Namplatachargeofbribery,gross
misconduct
2014CASES
Legal basis/basesof SupremeCourt’sRuling Case Disposition
thecharge/s WhileJudgeBlancaflorhasthediscretiontoappro JudgeBlancaflorisDISMISSED
NewCodeof veordisapproveamotion from theservice,with
JudicialConductforth toreducebail,itappearsfrom forfeitureofhisretirementan
ePhilippineJudiciary therecordsthatheabused d
thisprerogativeinthecasesofCatudayand othermonetarybenefits,exce
Namplata.Through ptaccrued leavecredits.
JudgeBlancaflor’sinaccessibility HeisDISQUALIFIEDfromrei
(hewasusuallynotin nstatementorappointmen
thecourtintheafternoon)and ttoanypublicoffice,includin
refusaltotakeaction ggovernment-
ontheirpleasforprovisionalliberty,Catuday and ownedorcontrolled
Namplataand thepeopleworking corporations.
fortheapprovaloftheirmotions(Riveraand
DeMata)suffered inordinatedelayand
frustrationsin securing
themotions’approval.Inmorewaysthan one,
JudgeBlancaflorgaveDeMataand Riveraarun-
around in Catuday’sand
Namplata’scasesfornoplausiblereasonothertha
n thejudge’sstrong antipathytowardsRivera.
Thisisseriousmisconductand a violation
oftheNewCodeof
JudicialConductforthePhilippineJudiciarywhic
hmandatesthat"judgesshallperformtheirjudici
aldutieswithoutfavor,biasorprejudice,"and
thatthey "shallensurethathisor
herconduct,both in andoutof
court,maintainsandenhancestheconfidenceof
thepublic,thelegalprofessionand litigantsin
theimpartiality of thejudgeandof
thejudiciary."
Riveraand Byron
reportedthebriberyincidenttothepolic
e.Thefollowing
380
2014CASES

exchangesonwhattranspired in
thepolicestationsignificantly shed lighton
thisincidentand bolstered
Rivera’sclaimthatJudgeBlancaflorcommitted a
seriousmisconductinrelationwiththeLeron
case.
NotonlydoesitappearthatJudgeBlancaflorinte
rvened in theassignmentoftheLeroncase,he
alsohad a hand inensuring whowould
representthedisputants,bysuggesting,in
thepresenceof
andwiththeactiveparticipationof
Villamar,thatthelawyersfortheparties would
beAtty.Pilaresfor theplaintiffsand
Atty.David)forthedefendants.Heeven wentto
theextentofvoicingouthowthecaseshould
turn out.
JudgeBlancaflor’sinterferencein
thecaseinthewayjustdescribed
isnotonlygrossmisconduct; italsoconstitutes
aviolation of
R.A. No. 3019,theAnti-Graftand
CorruptPracticesAct,particularlySection
3(e)whichprovides:"Inaddition to acts
oromissionsofpublicofficers alreadypenalized
byexistinglaw,thefollowingshallconstitutecorr
uptpracticesofanypublicofficerand
areherebydeclared tobeunlawful:
xxxCausinganyundueinjuryto
anyparty,including theGovernment,or giving
any privateparty anyunwarranted
benefits,advantageorpreferencein
thedischargeof
hisofficialadministrativeorjudicialfunctionsthr
ough

381
 2014CASES
manifestpartiality,evidentbad faith
orgrossinexcusablenegligencexxx."
JusticeFernando
stressedthatJudgeBlancaflordid
notcategoricallydenytheallegationsofan
illicitrelationship
withVillamar.Thus,hewasstilla marriedman
atthetimeof hisliaisonwithVillamar.
Formaintaining a relationship with
Villamar,JudgeBlancaflorcrossed thelineof a
properand acceptableconductasa
magistrateand aprivateperson.In
Re:ComplaintofMrs.
RotillaA.Marcosand herchildren
againstJudgeFerdinand J.Marcos,56 wesaid:
"xxxTheCodeof
JudicialEthicsmandatesthattheconductof
ajudgemustbefreeof awhiffofimpropriety
notonlywith
respecttohisperformanceofhisofficialduties,but
alsotohisbehavioroutsidehissalaand as a
privateindividual. Thereisnodichotomy
ofmorality:a publicofficialisalsojudged
byhisprivatemorals.Thecodedictatesthata
judge,inordertopromotepublicconfidenceinthe
integrityand impartiality
ofthejudiciary,mustbehavewith proprietyat
alltimes. xxx."

(Topic)violating Rule15.03,Canon 15 of theCodeofProfessionalResponsibility

(CaseTitle) Act/scomplained of Legal basis/basesof SupremeCourt’sRuling Case Disposition

betrayalof hisclient'strustand thecharge/s "A lawyermaynot,withoutbeing guilty of Atty.RizTingalonL. Davisis

382
 2014CASES
Daging vsDavis formisuseof Rule15.03 of Canon professionalmisconduct,actascounselforapers SUSPENDEDfromthepractic
(CaseNo.) informationobtained 15of onwhoseinterestconflictswith eof lawfor a periodof
A.C. No. 9395 fromhisclientto theCodeofProfessional thatofhispresentor 6monthseffectiveuponrece
(Dateofpromulgation) thedisadvantageofthelatterand Responsibility formerclient."Theprohibitionagainstrepresenti iptofthisResolution.
Nov.12.2014 totheadvantageof ng conflicting interestsisabsoluteand Heiswarned
(Ponente) anotherperson theruleapplieseven ifthelawyerhasacted in thatacommissionofthesame
DEL CASTILLO, J goodfaith and with nointentionto orsimilaroffenseinthefuture
representconflicting willresultin theimpositionof
interests.InQuiambaov.Atty.Bamba,thisCourte a stifferpenalty.
mphasizedthatlawyersareexpectednotonly to
keepinviolatetheclient'sconfidence,butalso to
avoid theappearanceof treacheryand double-
dealing foronlythencan litigantsbeencouraged
to entrusttheirsecretsto
theirlawyers,whichisof
paramountimportanceintheadministration
ofjustice.
(Topic)GrossMisconduct,GrossPartiality,ActsUnbecoming aMemberoftheJudiciciary,Violationof theCodeof JudicialConduct,and ConductUnbecoming a CourtPersonnel

(CaseTitle) Act/scomplained of Legal basis/basesof SupremeCourt’sRuling Case Disposition

MagleovsPresiding Failureto inhibitfrom thecharge/s Generally,anyfurtherprosecutionoftheaccused Respondentsand
JudgeDeJuan-Quinagoran thecase,instead Violation afteran theircourtpersonnelarehere
(CaseNo.) ofmotupropriodismissing oftheCodeofJudicial acquittalwouldviolatetheconstitutionalproscri byADMONISHEDtobealways
A.M.NORTJ-12-2336 thecaseonground Conduct ptionon courteousin dealing
(Dateofpromulgation) ofdoublejeopardy, doublejeopardy.Tothisgeneralrule,however,th withlitigantsand
Nov 12,2104 RespondentjudgethroughherOrd eCourthaspreviouslymadesomeexceptions.Th thepublicintheperformance
(Ponente) er,dated erecordsdemonstratethattheprosecution,with ofofficialduties.
MENDOZA, J November4,2010,overturned the respondentOilinkInternationalCorporation
orderof acquittaland set asprivatecomplainant,had notyetrested
thecaseforreception itscasewhentheDemurrerto
ofdefenseevidenceonFebruary23 Evidencewasfiledandeventuallygranted
,2011shedid Between thebareallegations of complainant
notreceiveanoticeofhearing.Desp
itesuchomission,respondentjudg
estill

383
 2014CASES
issued a warrantof arrest.
According
tocomplainant,sheexamined
theorderof
arrestanditappearedthattheamo
untofbailrecommendedwaserase
d tobarherfrom
postingthebondfor
hertemporaryliberty.
RespondentCoCand
thestaff,however,treatedthebon
dsmanwith hostility,annoyance
andindifference.
Complainantaversthattheseactss
howhowcruel,ignorantand
unorganized respondentjudgeisin
running heroffice.Itwould
alsoshowthatrespondentclerkof
courtand thecourtstaffexhibited
hostility,partialityandwanton
disregardof respect.
384
thatshedid notreceive
theConstanciaandthesubstantiated claim
oftherespondentsthatthenoticeswereserved,th
eCourttendstobelievethelatter.Thus,complaina
nthasnoacceptableexcusetobeabsenton
theJune8,2011hearing.Herfailuretoattend
nowseemstobea
deliberateattempttoignoresuchimportanttriald
ateand
theconsequencesofherabsenceareattributable
toheralone.
In theabsenceof a showing
thattheactscomplained
ofweredonewithmaliceorintentionto
violatethelawor disregard
theRulesofCourtor
forsomecorruptmotive,they
would,atbest,constituteerrorsofjudgmentw
hich do notamounttoseriousmisconduct.
Whiletheallegationsof
complainantwerenotfullysubstantiated,theCou
rtdisagreeswiththerespondentsthatdisrespectf
ulremarksmadebycourtpersonnelshould
betoleratedand evenconsidered "justified
remarks."Therespondents,and
allcourtpersonnelforthatmatter,should
bereminded
thattheimageoftheJudiciaryismirrored
inthekindofconduct,officialorotherwise,whicht
hepersonnelwithin itsemploydisplay,from
thejudgeto
thelowliestclerk.Impolitelanguageand
impropertoneshouldbeavoided.
Professionalism,respectfortherightsofothers,go
odmannersandrightconductareexpectedof
alljudicialofficersand employees.

(Topic)reinstated as amemberofthePhilippineBar
(CaseTitle)Qu Act/scomplained of
evsRevilla(Ca ThisCourtdisbarred
seNo.) therespondentfrom thepractice
A.C.No7054 oflawonthefollowing
(Dateofpromulgation) grounds:abuseofcourtprocedures
Nov,11,2014 andprocesses; filing
(Ponente) ofmultipleactionsand forum-
PER CURIAM shopping;willful,intentionaland
deliberateresorttofalsehood
anddeception
beforethecourts;maligning
thenameof hisfellowlawyer;and
fraudulentandunauthorized
appearancesincourt.
2014CASES
Thus,allemployeesarerequired to
preservetheJudiciary'sgood name and
standing as atruetempleofjustice. Forsuch
improperremarks,therespondentsand
theircourtpersonnelareadmonished.
Legal basis/basesof SupremeCourt’sRuling Case Disposition
thecharge/s In allthesecases,theCourtconsidered Profound
Profound theconductof thedisbarred AppealforJudicialClemencyfi
AppealforJudicialCl attorneybeforeandafterhisdisbarment,thetim ledby Atty.
emency ethathadelapsed from thedisbarmentand Anastacio E.
theapplication forreinstatement,and Revilla,Jr.ishereby
moreimportantly,thedisbarredattorneys’since DENIED
rerealization and acknowledgementof guilt.
Wearenotfully
convincedthatthepassageofmorethan
four(4)yearsissufficientto
enabletherespondentto
reflectandtorealizehisprofessionaltransgressio
ns.
Furthermore,wearenotpersuaded by
therespondent'ssincerityinacknowledging
hisguilt.Whileheexpressly stated in
hisappealthathehadtakenfullresponsibility of
hismisdemeanor,hispreviousinclination
topasstheblameto
otherindividuals,toinvokeself-denial,and to
makealibisforhiswrongdoings,contradicted
hisassertion.
Therespondentalsofailedtosubmitproofsatis
factorilyshowing hiscontrition.Hefailed
385

(CaseTitle) Act/scomplained of
FostervsAtty.Agtang Respondentaskfora loan
(CaseNo.) fromhisclient,received
A.C. No. 10579 fromcomplainanttheamountofP
(Dateofpromulgation) 150,000.00,asfiling
Dec10,2014 fee.Whenasked
(Ponente) abouttheexorbitantamount,resp
PER CURIAM ondentcitedthehigh valueof
theland and thesheriffs'
travelexpensesandaccommodati
onsinManila, fortheserviceofthe
summons
tothedefendantcorporation
Respondentwastheonewhonot
arized
thedocumentbeingquestioned
inthecivilcaseshefiled
Respondentcametocomplaina
nt'shouseanddemandedthesu
mofP50,000.00,purportedly to
begiven
tothejudgeinexchangefor a
favorableruling.
2014CASES
to establish by clearandconvincing
evidencethatheisagain worthyofmembership
inthelegalprofession.Wethusentertain
seriousdoubtsthattherespondenthad
completelyreformed.
(Topic)ethicalimpropriety
Legal basis/basesof SupremeCourt’sRuling Case Disposition
thecharge/s Itisclearthatrespondentfailed to TheCourthereby
Rules 1 and 16 of fulfillthisduty.Aspointedout, hereceived DISBARShimfrom
theCPR variousamountsfrom complainantbuthecould thepracticeof lawand
Rule15.03,Canon 15 notaccountforall ofthem.Worse,hecould ORDERS him topay
oftheCPR notdenytheauthenticity of thecomplainant,ErlindaFost
thereceiptspresented bycomplainant.Upon er,theamountsofP127,590.0
demand,hefailed to 0,P50,000.00and P2,500.00
returntheexcessmoneyfromthealleged filing
feesandotherexpenses.Hispossession
givesriseto thepresumption
thathehasmisappropriated
itforhisownusetotheprejudiceof,and in
violationof thetrustreposedin himby,
theclient.When a lawyerreceivesmoneyfrom
theclientfora
particularpurpose,thelawyerisbound
torenderanaccounting to theclientshowing
thatthemoney wasspentfortheintended
purpose.
Consequently,ifthelawyerdoesnotusethemo
neyfortheintended
purpose,thelawyermustimmediately
returnthemoneytotheclient.
Verily,when theCodeor
theRulesspeaksof"conduct"or"misconduct,"t
hereferenceis
386

Complainant'scasewasdism
issed.Nothaving
beennotified
byrespondent.
On February
2,2011,complainantdecidedtoter
minatetheservicesofrespondenta
shercounselandwrotehima
letterof termination
Subsequently,complainantwrote
torespondent,requestinghimtop
ay hertheamountshereceived
fromherlessthecontractfeeand
theactualcostof thefiling
fees.Respondentneverreplied.
(Topic)violationsoftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility(CPR)
(CaseTitle) Act/scomplained of
Jimenezvs Francisco Jimenez’scomplaintforestafaw
(CaseNo.) asbasedoncomplainant’sallege
A.C. No. 10548 d participation in
(Dateofpromulgation) thefraudulentmeansin selling
Dec10,2014 theForbesproperty which
wasacquired
byClarionwithJimenez’smoney.
2014CASES
notconfined to
one'sbehaviorexhibitedinconnectionwith
theperformanceofthelawyer'sprofessionalduti
es,butalsocoversanymisconductwhich,albeitu
nrelated totheactualpracticeof
hisprofession,would
showhimtobeunfitfortheofficeand unworthy
oftheprivilegeswhich hislicenseand
thelawvesthim
with.Unfortunately,respondentmustbefound
guilty ofmisconducton bothscores.
Therepresentationof conflicting
interestsisprohibited
"notonlybecausetherelationofattorneyandclie
ntisoneoftrustandconfidenceofthehighestdegr
ee,but alsobecauseof
theprinciplesofpublicpolicy andgoodtaste.An
attorneyhasthedutytodeservethefullestconfide
nceofhisclientandrepresenthim with undivided
loyalty.Oncethisconfidenceisabusedorviolatedt
heentireprofession suffers."
Legal basis/basesof SupremeCourt’sRuling Case Disposition
thecharge/s In thefactsobtaining in thiscase,Atty.Francisco RespondentisSUSPENDEDfr
Violations clearlyviolated thecanonsand hissworn om thepracticeof lawfora
ofCanons1and duty.Heisguilty ofengaging indishonestand periodof6
10oftheCPRandtheLa deceitfulconductwhen headmitted tohaving months,effectiveupon
wyer’sOath allowedhiscorporateclient,Clarion,toactivelym receiptofthisDecision,
Rule15.03,Canon 15 isrepresentto with a STERN WARNING
oftheCPR theSEC,thesignificantmattersregarding its thata commissionofthe
387
 2014CASES

(Ponente) corporatepurposeand sameorsimilaroffenseinthef

MENDOZA, J subsequently,itscorporateshareholdings.Inthe uturewillresultin
documentssubmitted theimpositionof
totheSEC,suchasthedeedsofassignmentand amoreseverepenalty.
theGIS,Atty.Francisco,in
hisprofessionalcapacity,feigned thevalidity
ofthesetransfersofshares,making
itappearthattheseweredoneforconsideration
when,in
fact,thesaidtransactionswerefictitious,albeitup
onthealleged ordersof
Jimenez.TheInvestigating
Commissionerwascorrectinpointing
outthatthisran counterto thedeedsof
assignmentwhich heexecuted
ascorporatecounsel.In hislong
practiceascorporatecounsel,itisindeed safeto
assumethatAtty.Franciscoisknowledgeablein
thelawoncontracts,corporation lawand
therulesenforced by
theSEC.Ascorporatesecretary
ofClarion,itwashisduty
andobligationtoregistervalid transfersof
stocks.Nonetheless,hechosetoadvancetheinter
estsof hisclientelewithpatentdisregard of
hisdutiesasa lawyer.Worse,Atty.Francisco
admittedtohavesimulated theloanentered
intobyClarion and tohaveundervalued
theconsiderationof theeffected
saleoftheForbesproperty.Hepermitted
thisfraudulentrusetocheatthegovernmentoftax
es.
Unquestionably,therefore,Atty.Franciscopar
ticipated in aseriesof
gravelegalinfractionsandwascontenttohaveg
rantedtherequestsof thepersonsinvolved.

388
2014CASES

TheCourtholdsthattheevidenceon recordfails
to demonstratethe
claimsofcomplainant.Asdiscussed,thecomplai
nantfailed to establish
theprofessionalrelationship between her and
Atty.Francisco.
Therecordsarefurtherbereftof anyindication
thatthe"advice"regarding thesaleof
theForbespropertywasgiven toAtty.
Franciscoinconfidence.Neitherwasthereademo
nstrationof whatshehadcommunicated
toAtty.Francisconor arecitalof
circumstancesunderwhich
theconfidentialcommunicationwasrelayed.Allt
hatcomplaintalleged in
hercomplainantwasthat"shesoughtlegaladvice
from
respondentinvariousoccasions."Considering
thatcomplainantfailedto attend
thehearingsattheIBP,therewasnotestimonyast
o thespecificconfidentialinformation
allegedlydivulged
byAtty.Franciscowithoutherconsent.Itis,theref
ore,difficult,ifnotimpossible,todetermineifther
ewasanyviolationoftheruleon
privilegedcommunication.Asheld
inMercado,suchconfidentialinformation isa
cruciallinkinestablishing a breach of theruleon
privilegedcommunication between
attorneyandclient.
Itisnotenough to merely asserttheattorney-
clientprivilege.30Itcannotbegainsaid
thenthatcomplainant, whohastheburden
ofproving thattheprivilegeapplies,failed in this

389
 2014CASES
regard.

(Topic)Refusaltoreturnmoney ofclient

(CaseTitle) Act/scomplained of Legal basis/basesof SupremeCourt’sRuling Case Disposition

San Pedro vsMendoza Respondentfailedtofacilitateth thecharge/s Thefiduciary natureoftherelationshipbetween Atty.IsaganiA.MendozaisS
(CaseNo.) etransferof Canon counseland clientimposesonalawyertheduty USPENDEDfromthepractice
A.C.No5440 titletopropertytohisclients. 16,Rules16.0122and to accountfor the money of lawfor3months.
(Dateofpromulgation) Respondentfailedto return 16.0323 orpropertycollectedor received foror Heisalso
Dec10,2014 themoneygiven oftheCodeofProfessional fromtheclient[,][thus] . .. [w]hena orderedtoRETURNto
(Ponente) fortransfertaxesdespitenumero Responsibility lawyercollectsorreceivesmoneyfrom complainantstheamountof
LEONEN, J usdemand. Rule138,Section 25 of hisclientfor a ₱68,250.00with
theRulesofCourt particularpurpose(suchasforfiling 6%legalinterestfromthedat
fees,registrationfees,transportation and eoffinality
officeexpenses), ofthisjudgmentuntilfullpay
heshould ment.Respondentisfurther
promptlyaccounttotheclienthowthemoney DIRECTED to submitto
wasspent.Ifhedoesnotusethemoneyforitsinte thiscourtproofofpaymentof
nded purpose,he mustimmediatelyreturn theamountwithin
ittotheclient.Hisfailureeithertorenderan 10daysfrompayment.
accounting or
toreturnthemoney(iftheintendedpurposeof
themoneydoesnotmaterialize)constitutes
ablatantdisregardof Rule16.01
oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility.
[Thelawyer’s]failuretoreturn
theclient’smoneyupon demand givesriseto
thepresumption thathehasmisappropriated
itfor hisownuseto theprejudiceofand
inviolationofthetrustreposed in
himbytheclient.
Theruleisthatwhenthereis
"adisagreement,orwhen the clientdisputesthe

390

(Topic)alleged fraud,deceit,malpractice,and grossmisconduct
(CaseTitle) Act/scomplained of
Rasing vsMagsalin According to Lanuzareceived
(CaseNo.) theNoticeofJudgmentand
A.C.No7687/7688 theircopyoftheCADecision
(Dateofpromulgation) latedueto theactionsof
Dec.3,2014 Attys.Magsalin,Goand Cruz
(Ponente) Theyinferred
MENDOZA, J thatCalucagconcealed whatcould
probablybethetruedateof
receipt,andthattherespondents
musthaveinduced Calucag
toalterthetruedateof
receiptbecausetheystood
tobenefitfromtheadditionalthirte
en (13)days
topreparetheirmotion
forreconsideration.
2014CASES
amountclaimed bythelawyer . .
.thelawyershould notarbitrarilyapply
thefundsin hispossession to thepaymentof
hisfees.... "
Legal basis/basesof SupremeCourt’sRuling Case Disposition
thecharge/s In WHEREFORE,the
Section27,Rule138 thecasesatbench,theCourtfindstheevidentiar administrativecomplaints
oftheRulesofCourtandth yrecordstobeinconclusive,thus,insufficienttoh arehereby DISMISSED
eCodeofProfessionalRes oldtherespondentsliablefortheactsallegedin
ponsibility thecomplaint.
Though thereis avariancebetween
theQCCPOCertificationsand
theRegistryReturnReceiptsasto
thedatesoftheCAreceiptofthenotices,decision
and resolution by
therespondents,thereisnoclearand
convincingevidencetoprovethattherespondent
sintentionallyandmaliciously
madeitappearthattheyreceived
theCAnotices,decisionand resolution
laterthanthedatesstated
intheQCCPOCertifications.Thecomplainantswo
uld
liketoimpressupontheCourtthattheonlylogicale
xplanation asto thediscrepancyon
thedatesbetweentheQCCPOCertificationsandt
heRegistryReturn
Receiptswasthattherespondentsmusthaveindu
cedCalucag to alterthetruedateof
receiptbytheCA forthepurposeof extending
theperiodtofile,theotherwisetimebarred,motio
n forreconsideration.Verily,thisleapof
inferenceprofferedbythecomplainantsismerely
391
 2014CASES
anchoredon
speculationandconjectureandnotin
anywaysupported
byclearsubstantialevidencerequiredto justify
theimpositionofan administrativepenalty on a
memberof theBar.
(Topic)negligencein theperformanceofhisnotarialduty

(CaseTitle)Angel Act/scomplained of Legal basis/basesof SupremeCourt’sRuling Case Disposition

esvsBagay(Case hisalleged notarization thecharge/s Becauseofthenegligenceof TheCourtREVOKEShisnotari
No.) of18documentsatthetimehe CodeofProfessionalR respondent,theCourtalsoholdshimliableforviol alcommissionandDISQUALIF
A.CNO8103 wasoutof thecountry esponsibility ationoftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility(CP IEShimfrombeing
(Dateofpromulgation) Canon 7oftheCPR R).Hisfailuretosolemnlyperform commissioned asnotary
Dec3,2014 hisdutyasanotary public notonlydamaged public fora periodof2years.
(Ponente) thosedirectlyaffectedbythenotarized TheCourtalsoSUSPENDShimf
MENDOZA, J documentsbut alsoundermined theintegrity of rom thepracticeof
a notarypublicand degraded thefunctionof lawfor3monthseffectiveimm
notarization.Heshould,thus,beheld liablefor ediately,with
such negligencenotonlyas a aWARNINGthattherepetitio
notarypublicbutalsoas alawyer. nof a
Wherethenotarypublicisa lawyer, similarviolationwillbedealt
agraverresponsibilityisplaced upon withevenmoreseverely.
hisshoulderbyreasonof hissolemn oath to
obey thelawsand todonofalsehood
orconsentto thedoing of
any.RespondentviolatedCanon9oftheCPRwhic
h requireslawyersnotto directlyor
indirectlyassistintheunauthorizedpracticeof
law.Duetohisnegligencethatallowed
hissecretary to sign on hisbehalfasnotary
public,heallowed an unauthorizedperson
topracticelaw.

392

(Topic)violating theCodeofProfessionalResponsibility(CPR)and thelawyer'soath for neglectingtheinterestsof hisclient
(CaseTitle) Act/scomplained of
Layosvs Villanueva respondentfailed in
(CaseNo.) hisdutyascounselto
ACNo 8085 servecomplainant’sinterestswit
(Dateofpromulgation) hcompetenceanddiligencebyne
Dec.1,2014 glecting
thelatter’scriminalcasewhichwa
spending beforetheRTC.
2014CASES
Byleaving hisofficeopen despitehisabsencein
thecountry and with
hissecretaryincharge,hevirtuallyallowed
hissecretary tonotarizedocuments
withoutanyrestraint.
Respondent alsoviolated hisobligation
underCanon
7oftheCPR,whichdirectseverylawyertouphold
atalltimestheintegrityanddignityofthelegalpro
fession.Thepeoplewhocameintohisofficewhile
hewasaway,werecluelessasto theillegalityof
theactivitybeing
conductedtherein.Theyexpected
thattheirdocumentswould
beconvertedintopublicdocuments.Instead,the
y
laterfoundoutthatthenotarizationoftheirdocu
mentswas amereshamandwithoutany
forceandeffect.Byprejudicing
thepersonswhosedocumentswerenotarizedby
anunauthorized person,theirfaith in
theintegrityand dignity of
thelegalprofessionwaseroded.
Legal basis/basesof SupremeCourt’sRuling Case Disposition
thecharge/s Asan officerof thecourt,it istheduty of RespondentisSUSPENDEDfr
Canon 17and Canon18, anattorney to om thepracticeof
Rules18.03and18.04 informhisclientofwhateverimportantinformati lawfor3monthseffectivefro
oftheCPR on he may haveacquiredaffecting mthefinality of
hisclient’scase.Heshould notify hisclientof any thisResolution,and is
adversedecision STERNLYWARNED thata
toenablehisclienttodecidewhetherto seekan repetitionof thesameor
appellatereviewthereof.Keeping
theclientinformedof
393
 2014CASES

(Ponente) thedevelopmentsof similaractin thefuture

PERLAS-BERNABE, J thecasewillminimizemisunderstanding and shallbedealtwithmoresevere
lossof trustandconfidencein ly
theattorney.Thelawyershouldnotleavetheclien
tinthedarkon howthelawyerisdefending
theclient’sinterests.Inthisconnection,thelawye
rmustconstantlykeep inmind
thathisactions,omissions,ornonfeasancewould
bebinding upon hisclient.
Assuch,thelawyerisexpected tobeacquainted
withtherudimentsof
lawandlegalprocedure,and aclientwho
dealswithhimhastherightto expectnotjusta
goodamountofprofessionallearning
andcompetencebutalso a whole-hearted
fealtyto theclient’scause

394
 2015CASES
449.Topic: Administrativecomplaintfordisbarmentandgrossnegligence.

CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION

Tejano Vs.
Atty.Baterina Joselito F.TejanofiledanAffidavit-Complaintbefore
the Office of the CourtAdministratorof theSupreme
CASE NO.: Courtagainsthiscounsel, Atty.Baterina“miserably
AC No. 8235 failedtoadvance hiscause”,
andJudgeDominadorArquelada ofacting
DATE inconspiracytotake possessionofhisproperty,
OFPROMULGATI whichwasthesubjectmatter oflitigationin the
ON:Jan. 27, 2015 judge’scourt.
The CourtrequiredAtty.Baterinatofile aComment
PONENTE: onthe complaintto which he explainedthat he
Justice hadbeenrecuperating from a kidneytransplantwhen
AntonioT.Carpio hereceived a copy of thecomplaint.
The Court,
foundAtty.Baterina’sexplanation“notsatisfactory”
andadmonishedhim“tobe moreheedful ofthe
Court’sdirectives” andreferredthecase to
theIBPforinvestigation, reportandrecommendation,
whichfoundsufficientgroundfor disciplinary
actionagainstAtty. Baterina.
TheCPRrulesandla Lawyershave a “fourfoldduty to society, Thesetwodisciplinary
wyer’soathviolated thelegal profession,the casesagainstAtty.Baterina
thefollowing: courtsandtheirclients,”and showapatternofneglecting
mustact“inaccordancewith the hisduty tohisclients, aswell
Canon18 valuesandnormsof the asapropensity
legalprofessionasembodiedin the Code fordisrespectingtheauthority of
RULE 18.03 ofProfessionalResponsibility.”When a the courts. Suchincorrigible
lawyeragreesto take up a client’scause, he behaviorisunacceptable andwill
RULE 18.04 makesa commitment to exercise duediligence not betoleratedamongthe
inprotectingthe latter’srights. Oncea membersoftheBar.
lawyer’sservicesare engaged, “he For thisreason,the
isdutyboundtoservehisclientwithcompetence,an Courtdeemsitproperto
d to attendto hisclient’scause withdiligence, imposeonAtty. Baterina a
care anddevotionregardlessofwhether he longersuspensionperiodoffive
acceptsitfor a fee or forfree. Heowesfidelity (5)years. Atty. Benjamin
tosuchcause andmustalwaysbemindfulof the F.Baterina isfoundguiltyof
trustandconfidence reposedon him.” A grossnegligence. He
lawyer’sacceptance to take up acase “impliedly issuspendedfrom the
stipulates[that he will]carry itto itstermination, practiceof law forfive (5)years.
that is,untilthe casebecomesfinalandexecutor.” Heisalsosternly warnedthat
Atty. Baterina’sduty to arepetitionof the sameor
hisclientsdidnotautomatically asimilaroffense will be
ceasewithhissuspension. Atthevery least, dealtwithmore severely.
suchsuspensiongave him a
concomitantresponsibility to
informhisclientsthat hewould be unable to
attend totheircase andadvise
themtoretainanothercounsel.

450.Topic:Notarizingdocumentswithout a commission.

CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION

Re: Violationof Rules

395

on NotarialPractice Three
separatecomplaintswerefiledagainstthefollowing:
CASE NO.: 1. Atty.JuanC.Siapno,Jr.(Atty.Siapno)fornot
AM No 09-6-1-SC arizingdocumentswithoutacommission.
HenevercommissionedasNotaryPublicf
DATE orandwithinthejurisdictionofLingayen,
OFPROMULGATI NatividadandDagupanCity.Instead,RTC
ON:Jan., 21,2015 SanCarlosCity,PangasinanfromMarch22
,2007toDecember31,2008.Hisnotarialco
PONENTE: mmission,however,wasneverrenewedup
Associate JusticeJose onexpiration.Also,hehaddelegatedhisnot
C. Mendoza arialauthoritytohissecretaries,MinaBautis
ta(Bautista)andMaryAnnArenas(Arenas),
whowrotelegalinstrumentsandsignedthe
documentson hisbehalf.
2. Atty.PedroL.Santos-
Complainantexecutedanaffidavitoflossw
hichwasnotarizedbyAtty.Santos.Thesaid
affidavit,however,wasdeniedforauthenti
cationwhenpresentedbeforetheNotarial
SectioninManilabecauseAtty.Santoswas
notcommissionedtoperformnotarialcom
missionwithinthe City ofManila.
3. Thethirdletter-
complaint8camefromaconcernedcitizenr
eportingthatacertainAtty.Evelynwhowas
holdingofficeatRoom402LeybaBldg.,38
1DasmariñasStreet,Sta.Cruz,Manila,had
beennotarizingandsigningdocumentsfor
andonbehalfofseveral
2015CASES
Violation The Judgehandling the caseof Atty.
ofthe2004 SantosandAtty. Evelynwasno longer the
Rules ExecutiveJudge ofRTC-Manila atthetime the
onNotarialCo ordersofthe Courtwerehandeddown to
mmission him.Todate,no formalinvestigationhas
beenconductedon the allegedviolationof Atty.
Santosandthe reportedillegalactivitiesof a
certainAtty.
Evelyn. Therefore, theCourtstatedthat
theincumbentExecutive Judge of theRTC-
Manila, whetherpermanentor inactingcapacity,
isorderedto conduct a formalinvestigationon
thematterand
tosubmithisReportandRecommendationwithin
sixty (60)daysfromreceiptof copy of
thisdecision.
396
RuleIIIofthe2004RulesonNotari
al Practice providesthat:
JurisdictionandTerm–
Apersoncommissionedasnotary
publicmayperformnotarialactsin
anyplacewithintheterritorialjuris
dictionofthecommissioningcour
tforaperiodoftwo(2)yearscomme
ncingthefirstdayofJanuaryofthey
earinwhichthecommissioningis
made,unlessearlierrevokedorthe
notarypublichasresignedunderth
eseRulesandtheRulesofCourt.
In the case atbar,
itisclearthatAtty
Siapnoviolatedthe2004ruleson
NotarialCommission.The
Courtruled,Atty. Siapnomustbe
barredfrombeingcommissioned
asnotary publicpermanently
andsuspendedfromthe practice
of law foraperiodoftwo(2)years.
Withrespectto the
complaintsagainstAtty.
PedroL. Santosand a
certainAtty. Evelyn, theClerk
of Courtisordered
to RE-DOCKET themas
 2015CASES

lawyers. separate administrative cases.

451.Topic: Deceitandgrossmisconduct.
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION
Dr. Villahermosa,
Sr.Vs. Atty. Caracol OCTNo.433 wasa Violation Lawyersmust bemindfulthatanattorney hasno The RulesofCourtunderRule
homesteadpatentgrantedtoMicaelBabela ofoathunderRule powertoactascounselfor a 138, Section21providesfor a
CASE NO.: whohadtwosons, FernandoandEfren. When the sofCourt: personwithoutbeingretainednormay he presumptionof
AC No 7325 agrarianreformlaw appearincourtwithoutbeing employedunlessby alawyer’sappearance on
wasenacted,emancipationpatentsandtitleswere issued leaveof court. Ifanattorney appearson a behalfof hisclient.
DATE toHermogena Section27,Rule client’sbehalfwithout a retaineror the Atty. Caracolknew
OFPROMULGATI andDaniloNipotnipot,beneficiariesofthe program, 138 requisiteauthority neitherthe litigantwhom he thatEfrenhadalready passed
ON:Jan. 21, 2015 whointurnsold the parcelsof purportsto representnorthe adverseparty may away atthetime he filedthe
landtocomplainant’sspouse,Raymunda Villahermosa. beboundoraffectedby hisappearance MotionforIssuance of
PONENTE: TheDepartmentof unlessthepurportedclientratifiesor is estoppedto SecondAliasWritof
JusticeMartin AgrarianReformAdjudicationBoard(DARAB)issued a denyhisassumedauthority.Ifa lawyercorruptly ExecutionandDemolition.Asa
Villarama Jr. decisionorderingthe cancellationof the orwillfully appearsasanattorney for a partyto nhonest,
emancipationpatentsandTCTsderivedfromOCTNo.4 acase withoutauthority, hemaybe disciplinedor prudentandconscientiouslawye
33 stating thatit wasnot punishedfor contemptasanofficerof r, heshouldhave informed
coveredbytheagrarianreformlaw.Thisdecisionwasappe thecourtwhohasmisbehavedinhisofficialtransact theCourtofhisclient’spassingan
aled toandaffirmed bytheDARABCentralBoard and ion. dpresentedauthority thathe
theCourtofAppeals. Atty. Caracol, as“Add’l wasretained by the
Counselfor the Plaintiffs-Movant,” filed a client’ssuccessors-in-
motionforexecutionwith theDARAB,Malaybalay, interestandthusthe partiesmay
Bukidnonpraying for the fullimplementationof the have beensubstituted.
decision. Atty. Caracolwasfoundguiltyof
Atty. Caracolfiled a MotionforIssuance of deceit,
SecondAliasWritofExecutionandDemolitionwhich grossmisconductandviolationo
hesignedas“Counsel forthe foathunderSection27, Rule
PlaintiffEfrenBabela.”Villahermosafiledthiscomplain 138of theRulesofCourt.
talleging thatAtty.Caracolhad no authority tofile the Consequently,he
motionssince heobtained no authority fromthe wassuspendedfrom
plaintiffsandthecounsel ofrecord. Villahermosa thepractice of law for one
positedthatEfrencould not have authorizedAtty. year.
Caracol to file thesecondmotionbecause
Efrenhadalready beendeadfor more than a year. He
claimedthatAtty.

397
 2015CASES
Caracol’sreal clientwasa certainErnestoI.
Aguirre,whohadallegedly boughtthesame parcel of
land.
Atty.
CaracolinsiststhatEfrenandErnestoauthorizedhimto
appearas “additional counsel”.He saidthathe
hadconsultedAtty.
Aquinowhoadvisedhimtogoaheadwith the
filing.Moreover,he statedthat he wasnotaware
thatthere wasawaiver of
rightsexecutedinErnestoAguirre’sfavor.
In itsReportandRecommendation, theIntegratedBar
of the PhilippinesCommission
onBarDiscipline(IBPCBD)foundthatAtty.Caracolcom
mitteddeceitfulactsandmisconduct.
452.Topic: Deceitfulandfalseconduct.

CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION

Guarin Vs.
Atty.Limpin Guarinwashired byMr. Celso G.de
losAngelesasChiefOperatingOfficerandthereafteras
CASE NO.: Presidentof OneCardCompany, Inc.,a member
AC No 10576 oftheLegacy GroupofCompanies. He
resignedfromhispost. Atty. Limpin, the Corporate
DATE Secretary ofLegacy Card, Inc. (LCI),
OFPROMULGATI anothercorporationunderthe Legacy
ON:Jan. 14, 2015 Group,filedwiththe SEC aGISforLCIfor“updating
purposes”. The GISidentifiedGuarinasChairmanof
PONENTE: theBoardof
JusticeMartin Directors(BOD)andPresident.Miredwithallegations
Villarama Jr. ofanomalousbusinesstransactionsandpractices,LCIa
pplied for voluntarydissolutionwiththe
SEC.Guarinfiledthiscomplaintwith the
IntegratedBarof thePhilippinesCommission onBar
Discipline(IBPCBD)claimingthatAtty.
LimpinviolatedCanon 1 andRule 1.01of the CPRby
knowingly
Code of Atty.LimpinhasviolatedCanon1,Rule1.01andRu
ProfessionalRespons le 1.02 of the CPR. Membersof the
ibility barareremindedthattheirfirstdutyistocomplywit
(CPR)andCanonviola htherulesofprocedure,ratherthanseekexceptions
tedthe following: asloopholes.19Alawyerwhoassistsaclientinadish
onestschemeorwhoconnivesinviolatingthelawc
ommitsanactwhichjustifiesdisciplinaryactionaga
Canon 1 instthelawyer.Disbarmentproceedingsaresuigen
andRule1.01 erisandcanproceedindependentlyofcivilandcrim
inalcases.AsJusticeMalcolmstatedtheseriouscon
sequencesofdisbarmentorsuspensionshouldfoll
owonlywherethereisaclearpreponderanceofevid
enceagainsttherespondent.Thepresumptionisth
at theattorneyisinnocentofthechargesproffered
Atty. Christine A.C.
LimpinwasdeclaredGUILTY
ofviolationof Canon1,Rule 1.01
andRule
1.02 of the Code
ofProfessionalResponsibility
andwassuspendedfromthepracti
ce of law for
six(6)monthseffective
uponfinalityof thisDecision,
with awarningthat a repetition
ofthesameorsimilaractinthe
future willbedealtwithmore
severely.

398
 2015CASES
listing himasastockholder,Chairman ofthe
BoardandPresidentofLCIwhenshe knew that he
hasalready resignedandhadneverheldany
sharenorwashe electedaschairperson of the BOD
orbeenPresident ofLCI.Atty. Limpinadmitsthatshe
filedtheGIS with the SEC
listingGuarinasastockholder, the Chairmanof
theBOD andPresident ofLCI. She averredthat
theGIS wasmade
andsubmittedingoodfaithandthathercertificationserv
edtoattestto the information fromthe
lastBODmeeting.
andhasperformedhisdutyasanofficerofthecourti
naccordancewithhisoath.”Groundsforsuchadm
inistrativeactionagainstalawyermaybefoundinSe
ction27,22Rule138oftheRulesofCourt.Amongt
heseare(1)theuseofanydeceit,malpractice,orothe
rgrossmisconductinsuchofficeand
(2)anyviolationoftheoathwhichheisrequiredtota
kebeforetheadmissiontopractice.Wethusfindtha
tinfilingaGISthatcontainedfalseinformation,Att
y.Limpincommittedaninfractionwhichdidnotco
nformtoheroathasa lawyerinaccordwithCanon
1 andRule 1.01of the CPR.

453.Topic: GrossNegligenceandirresponsibility.
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION
Soliman Vs.
Atty.Lerios- Complainantclaimedthatshe engaged the servicesof
Amboy Atty. Amboy onMay 27, 2007 inconnectionwith a
partitioncase. Inaccordance with
CASE NO.: theRetainerAgreementbetween the parties,
AC No 10568 Solimanagreed to pay Atty. AmboyP50,000.00
asacceptance fee. Upon the
DATE latter’sengagement,SolimanpaidherP25,000.00.
OFPROMULGATI Later on, Atty.
ON:Jan. 13, 2015 Amboy advisedSoliman tono longerinstitute
apartitioncase since the otherco-
PONENTE: ownersoftheproperty were amenable to the
Justice partitionthereof.Instead, Atty. Amboy justfacilitated
AndresB.Reyes, the issuance ofthe titlesto the saidproperty fromthe
Jr. co-ownerstothe individual owners; the P25,000.00
already paidto
herwasthentreatedaspaymentforherprofessional
services. Later,Solimangave Atty.

399
 2015CASES
Amboy P16,700.00 aspayment forthe transfertax.In
thesecondquarterof2009, Atty. Amboy
toldSolimanthatthere wasa delay in the issuance of
thetitlesto the property because of the failure
oftheotherco-ownerstosubmitcertaindocuments.
Atty.Amboy thentoldSolimanthat someonefrom
theRegister ofDeeds(RD)canhelpexpedite
theissuance of the titlesfor afeeof
P80,000.00.OnJune 17, 2009, Atty.
AmboytoldSolimanthathercontactin theRD
agreedtoreduce the amount toP50,000.00. Further,
Solimandeposited the amountof P8,900.00to Atty.
Amboy’sbank accountaspaymentfor the realproperty
tax for the year2009.Thereafter, Solimandeposited
the amount ofP50,000.00 to Atty. Amboy’sbank
accountaspaymentfor the latter’scontactin the RD.
Later,Atty. Amboy informedSolimanthat the
certificatesof title to the property werethenonly
awaiting thesignature of the authorizedofficer.
However, Atty.Amboy failed todeliver therespective
certificatesoftitle of Solimanandherco-ownersto
thesubjectproperty. However, Atty.
Amboy’ssecretaryinformedSolimanthattheircontacti
n theRD wasasking foranadditionalP10,000.00 to
facilitate therelease of the saidcertificatesoftitle.
Solimanthenrefusedto furtherpay.
Solimanthenaskedtheupdatesonthe release of
thesaidtitle butrespondentdidnot answer.

454.Topic: Grossmisconduct.
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION
Chu Vs. Atty.
GuicoJr. ChuretainedAtty. Guicoascounsel tohandle Violation oftheCode In disbarmentproceedings, the Atty.
CASE NO.: thelabordisputesinvolvinghiscompany, CVC San of Professional burdenofproofrestson the complainant to Guico'sactsconstitutedgrossdish
establish onesty anddeceit,and

400

AC No 10573 LorenzoRuiz Corporation(CVC).For
severalinstances, Atty. GuicoaskedChu to prepare
DATE asubstantialamount ofmoney to be given
OFPROMULGATI totheNLRC Commissionerhandling the case to
ON:Jan. 13, 2015 insure afavorable decision. He wasableto collect a
sum ofPhp 580,000.00 butwhenNLRC
PONENTE: promulgated adecision, CVC lostitscase.
PERCURIAM
2015CASES
Responsibility: respondentattorney’sliabilityby were a
Rule 1.01 clear,convincing andsatisfactoryevidence. flagrantbreachofhisethicalcomm
Indeed,thisCourthasconsistently itmentsundertheLawyer’sOathn
requiredclearlypreponderantevidence to justify otto delay anyman formoney
theimpositionofeitherdisbarment ormalice; andunderRule 1.01
orsuspensionaspenalty.Chusubmittedthe ofthe
affidavitsof hiswitnesses, CodeofProfessionalResponsibili
andpresentedthedraftdecisionthatAtty. ty thatforbade
Guicohadrepresented to himashaving come himfromengaging inunlawful,
from theNLRC. Chucrediblyinsistedthatthe dishonest,
draftdecisionwasprinted onthe immoralordeceitfulconduct.
dorsalportionof usedpaperemanatingfrom
Atty. Guico’soffice,inferringthatAtty.
Guicocommonly
printeddocumentsonusedpaperinhislaw office.
Despite denying beingthe source of the
draftdecisionpresented byChu, Atty.
Guico’sparticipationin thegeneration ofthe
draftdecisionwasundeniable. Forone,
Atty.GuicoimpliedlyadmittedChu’sinsistence
byconceding thatthe
usedpaperhadoriginatedfromhisoffice,claimin
g only
thatusedpaperwasjust"scatteredaroundhisoffic
e."In thatcontext,Atty. Guico’sattemptto
downplay thesourcingof
usedpaperfromhisoffice wasfutile because he
didnot expressly
belietheforthrightstatementofChu.AllthatAtty.
Guicostatedby way of deflecting
theimputationwasthatthe
usedpapercontainingthe
draftdecisioncouldhave beeneasily
takenfromhisoffice byChu’switnessesin
acriminalcase thathe hadhandledfor
Chu,pointingoutthateverything inhisoffice,
401
 2015CASES
except the filing cabinetsandhisdesk,
was"open to thepublic andjustanybody
hasaccessto everything foundtherein." In
ourview, therefore, Atty. Guicomade the
impliedadmissionbecause he wasfully aware
that theusedpaperhadunquestionably come
fromhisoffice.

455.Topic: Anti-GraftandCorruptPractices.
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION

Samabahu Vs. Respondentvehemently denied the charge Violation ofRe:Rule The CourtfindsthatRipdosandHerradurafailed Judge Cesar O.
JudgeUntalan ofsexualharassment.OnRipdos' claim, he presented onAdministrativePr to substantiate theirchargesagainstrespondent Untalanishereby
thefollowing documentary evidence to prove that on ocedure by the requiredquantumofproof.While itistrue EXONERATEDofthe
CASE NO.: allFridaysofApril 2011, exceptApril 22, he inSexualHarassmen thattheiraffidavitswere chargesagainsthim.Theprese
AM No.RTJ-13-2363 conductedhearingsonhisowncourt(Branch149): tCasesandGuideline repletewithdetailsdescribingtheallegedsexualadv ntadministrativecomplaintisa
sonProperWorkDe ances, suchdetailednarration by itselfwillnot ccordinglyDISMISSEDforla
DATE In thiscase, while corumintheJudiciar suffice andwillnotautomatically resultin a guilty ck ofsufficientfactual basis.
OFPROMULGATI respondentexercisedmoralascendancy y: verdict. Ripdosneverreported
ON:Feb. 25, 2015 overRipdosandHerradura, Section3of theallegedlasciviousactsbyrespondentto
hissubordinatesatBranch145where he A.M.No. 03-03- theproperauthoritiesuntiltwoyearslaterwhenthe
PONENTE: hadtemporarilypresidedasPairing Judge at thetime, 13-SC OCA teamwenttotheirbranch.
JusticeMartin theallegedsexualadvancesby respondentwere
Villarama Jr. notprovenwithmoralcertainty.We findthatthe
totalityof evidence failed to convince
thatrespondentcommittedthe actsimputedagainsthim.

For one, SAMABAHU appearstobea non-

existentgroupasRipdosandHerradura, and the
otherfemale
courtemployeeswhotestifiedforrespondent,alldeclare
dtheyhad not
knownnorheardaboutsuchorganization.
ThisCourthasstressedthatananonymouscomplaintisal
waysreceivedwithgreatcaution,originating
asitdoesfrom anunknownauthor. Butsuchnature of
thecomplaintdoesnotalwaysjustify itsoutright

402
 2015CASES
dismissalforbeingbaselessor unfounded, asitmayeasily
be verifiedandmay, withoutmuchdifficulty,be
substantiated byothercompetentevidence. Whilethe
hereinletter-complaintmay be
treatedasananonymouscomplaint,theCourtmuststillpr
udentlyexamine itin thelight of allevidence presented.

456.Topic: Sexualharassment.
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION
AM No.RTJ-13-
2363,Feb. 25, 2015 Respondentvehemently denied the charge Violation The CourtfindsthatRipdosandHerradurafailed Judge Cesar O.
Samabahu Vs. ofsexualharassment.OnRipdos' claim, he presented Re:Ruleon to substantiate theirchargesagainstrespondent Untalanishereby
JudgeUntalan thefollowing documentary evidence to prove that on AdministrativeProc by the requiredquantumofproof.While itistrue EXONERATEDofthe
CASE allFridaysofApril 2011, exceptApril 22, he edure thattheiraffidavitswere chargesagainsthim.Theprese
NO.:DATE conductedhearingsonhisowncourt(Branch149): inSexualHarassmen repletewithdetailsdescribingtheallegedsexualadv ntadministrativecomplaintisa
OF tCasesandGuideline ances, suchdetailednarration by itselfwillnot ccordinglyDISMISSEDforla
PROMULGATION: In thiscase, while sonProperWorkDe suffice andwillnotautomatically resultin a guilty ck ofsufficientfactual basis.
respondentexercisedmoralascendancy corumintheJudiciar verdict.Ripdosneverreported
PONENTE: overRipdosandHerradura, y: theallegedlasciviousactsbyrespondentto
Associate hissubordinatesatBranch145where he Section3of theproperauthoritiesuntiltwoyearslaterwhenthe
JusticeMartinVillara hadtemporarilypresidedasPairing Judge at thetime, A.M.No. 03-03- OCA teamwenttotheirbranch.
ma Jr. theallegedsexualadvancesby respondentwere 13-SC
notprovenwithmoralcertainty.We findthatthe
totalityof evidence failed to convince
thatrespondentcommittedthe actsimputedagainsthim.

For one, SAMABAHU appearstobea non-

existentgroupasRipdosandHerradura, and the
otherfemale
courtemployeeswhotestifiedforrespondent,alldeclare
dtheyhad not
knownnorheardaboutsuchorganization.
ThisCourthasstressedthatananonymouscomplaintisal
waysreceivedwithgreatcaution,originating
asitdoesfrom anunknownauthor. Butsuchnature of
thecomplaintdoesnotalwaysjustify
itsoutrightdismissalforbeingbaselessor unfounded,
asitmayeasily be verifiedandmay,
withoutmuchdifficulty,

403
 2015CASES
be substantiated byothercompetent
evidence. While the hereinletter-complaintmay
betreatedasananonymouscomplaint, the
Courtmuststillprudently examine itinthe light of all
evidencepresented.

457.Topic: Conflictofinterest
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION
Anglo Vs.
Atty.Valencia Inhiscomplaint- Violation The RespondentsAttys. Jose Ma.
affidavit,complainantallegedthatheavailedtheserviceso oftheCPRandca Courtclarifiesthatrespondents'pronouncedliabil V. Valencia, Jose Ma.
CASE NO.: fthelawfirmValenciaCioconDabaoValenciaDeLaPazD non: ity isnot altered bythefactthat the J.Ciocon, Lily Uy-Valencia,
AM NoRTJ-13-2363 ionelaPandanRubicaLawOffice(lawfirm),ofwhichAtty laborcasesagainstcomplainanthadlong Joey
s.Valencia,Ciocon,Dabao,Uy- beenterminated. Verily,the terminationof P.DeLa Paz,
DATE Valencia,DeLaPaz,Dionela,Pandan,Jr.,andRubicawere Canon15 and attorney- CrisG.Dionela,RaymundoT.
OFPROMULGATI partners,fortwo(2)consolidatedlaborcaseswherehewasi Canon21 Rule clientrelationprovidesnojustificationfor a Pandan, Jr.,Rodney K.Rubica,
ON:Feb. 25, 2015 mpleadedasrespondent.Atty.Dionela,apartnerofthelaw 15.03 lawyer torepresentaninterestadverse to or andWilfredRamonM.
firm,wasassignedtorepresentcomplainant.Thelaborcas inconflictwiththatofthe formerclient.The Penalosaare foundGUILTY
PONENTE: eswereterminatedonJune5,2008upon the agreement client'sconfidence oncereposedshould notbe ofrepresenting
Associate ofbothparties divested by conflictinginterestsinviolationo
JusticeEstela Perlas- OnSeptember18,2009,acriminalcaseorqualifiedtheftwa mereexpirationofprofessionalemployment. f Rule15.03, Canon15
Bernabe sfiledagainstcomplainantandhiswifebyFEVEFarmsAg andCanon21 of the Codeof
riculturalCorporation(FEVEFarms)actingthroughacer ProfessionalResponsibility
tainMichaelVillacorta(Villacorta).Villacorta,however,w andaretherefore
asrepresentedbythelawfirm,thesamelawofficewhichha REPRIMANDEDforsaidviola
ndledcomplainant’slaborcases.Aggrieved,complainant tions,
filedthisdisbarmentcaseagainstrespondents,allegingtha withaSTERNWARNINGthat
ttheyviolatedRule15.03,Canon15andCanon21 of the arepetitionof the
CPR. sameorsimilarinfractionwould
bedealtwithmore
severely.Meanwhile, the case
againstAtty.
PhilipDabaoisDISMISSEDinv
iew ofhisdeath.

404
 2015CASES
458.Topic: Petitionforcertiorari.

CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION

DENRVs. UPCI
On July 26, 1993,petitioner,through the Violation of CPR: It RulesofCourtcannotbeapplie
CASE NO.: LandManagementBureau(LMB),enteredintoanAgre foundnomeritinpetitioner’scontentionthatitwasd dsuppletorily to theADR
AC No. 10558 ementforConsultancyServices(ConsultancyAgreem enieddue process, ruling thatitsMay19, 2010 RulesExecutionisfittingly
ent)withrespondentUnitedPlannersConsultants, Rule 19.28 MotionforReconsiderationwasaprohibitedpleadi called thefruitandend
DATE Inc. (respondent)inconnectionwiththe inrelationtoRul ng underSection17.2, Rule 17of the ofsuitandthe life ofthelaw. A
OFPROMULGATI LMB’sLandResourceManagementMasterPlanProje e19.8 CIACRules.It explainedthat theavailable remedy judgment, ifleftunexecuted,
ON:Feb. 23,2015 ct(LRMMP). to assailanarbitralawardwasto file a motionfor would benothingbutanempty
Petitionerwasable topay only 47% ofthe correction of finalawardpursuant to victoryfor the prevailing
PONENTE: totalcontractprice. Forfailure topay Section17.1of the CIAC Rules,and not a party.
Associate itsobligationunderthe Consultancy Agreementdespite motionforreconsiderationof While itappearsthat
JusticeEstela Perlas- repeateddemands, respondentinstituted a thesaidawarditself.On theotherhand, theRTC theSpecial ADR
Bernabe ComplaintagainstpetitionerbeforetheRegionalTrialCo foundpetitioner’sJune 1, 2010 Rulesremainsilent onthe
urt ofQuezonCity. Uponmotionofrespondent, the ManifestationandMotionseeking the resolution procedure forthe execution
case wassubsequently referredtoarbitrationpursuantto of itsMay 19,2010 MotionforReconsideration to of aconfirmedarbitralaward,
thearbitrationclause ofthe Consultancy bedefective forpetitioner’sfailure to observe itistheCourt’sconsideredview
Agreement,whichpetitionerdidnotoppose. thethree day notice rule.Having thenfailed to thatthe Rules’
Duringthepreliminaryconference,thepartiesagreedtoa availof theremediesattendant proceduralmechanismscover
doptthe toanorderofconfirmation, the notonlyaspectsofconfirmatio
CIACRevisedRulesGoverningConstructionArbitratio ArbitralAwardhadbecomefinalandexecutor. nbutnecessarily extendto
n(CIAC Rules) to aconfirmedaward’sexecutioni
governthearbitrationproceedings.They furtheragreed nlight ofthe doctrine
tosubmittheirrespective draftdecisionsinlieu ofnecessary
ofmemoranda ofarguments on or before April implicationwhichstatesthatev
21,2010, among others.On thedue date erystatutorygrant ofpower,
forsubmissionof the draftdecisions, however, only rightorprivilege
respondentcompliedwiththe givendeadline. The isdeemedtoinclude all
ArbitralTribunal rendereditsAwarddatedMay 7, incidental
2010(Arbitral Award)infavorof respondent, power,rightorprivilege.
directingpetitionerto pay. Unconvinced,
petitionerfiled amotionforreconsideration,which the
ArbitralTribunalmerely notedwithoutany action,
claimingthatithadalready lostjurisdictionoverthe case
after

405
 2015CASES
ithadsubmittedto the RTCitsReporttogetherwitha
copy of the ArbitralAward. In
anOrderdatedMarch30, 2011, the RTC merely
notedpetitioner’saforesaidmotionsTheRTCconfirme
dthe ArbitralAward. Fromthisorder,
petitionerdidnotfile amotionforreconsideration.Thus,
onJune 15, 2011,respondentmovedfor the issuance
of a writ ofexecution, to
whichnocomment/oppositionwasfiled by
petitionerdespite the RTC’sdirectivetherefor.
InanOrderdatedSeptember12, 2011,theRTC
grantedrespondent’smotion.
459.Topic: Gravemisconduct.
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION
Nate Vs.
JudgeContrera RespondentContrerasallegedly Violation The Court has, inthe past, sanctioned WHEREFORE,
s notarizedanadministrative complaintthatwasprepared ofAdministrative judgesandclerksof courtfornotarizing– respondentJudge Lelu
by herownfatherandfiledwiththisCourtsometime Code of 1987 asexofficionotariespublic – P.ContrerasisfoundLIABLE
CASE NO.: inJune inrelationto documentsthatwerelaterfoundto be fortheunauthorizednotarizati
AM No.RTJ-15-2406 2003.5 ComplainantNatestressesthatrespondentcould the2002 unconnectedwith the exerciseof theirofficial onofdocumentsunrelatedto
not have legally notarized a document. RevisedManualfo functionsandduties.In Astorga heroffice dutieswhile she
DATE HepointsoutthatSection3,Rule 4of the rClerksof Court. v. Salas, the Courtfined a clerk of wasserving asClerkof
OFPROMULGATI 2004RulesofNotarial Practice courtintheamountof₱5,000fornotarizing CourtVIof theRegionalTrial
ON:Feb. 18, 2015 disqualifiesnotariesfromperforming a notarialactifthey severaldocumentsandadministering CourtinIriga City. She
are related to theprincipal withinthe fourthcivil degree oathsinvolvingmattersunrelatedtoherofficial isherebyREPRIMANDED,
PONENTE: ofconsanguinity oraffinity. Furthermore, duties. In Cruz with a
ChiefJustice hearguesthatrespondentactedbeyondherauthority v. Centron,we imposed a fine on the clerk WARNINGthat a
Ma.LourdesSere whenshenotarizedinIriga City a ofcourtwhonotarizedone document – a deed repetitionof thesameor
no documentthatwassignedinthe MunicipalityofBuhi, ofsale – butthe fine wasin theloweramountof asimilaractinthe future will be
whichwasoutside thatcity.We note ₱2,000, since the actwasherfirstoffense. All of dealtwithmore severely.
thatcomplainantwasthe subject oftheadministrative themwere given a sternwarning that
complaintfiled by respondent’sfather. arepetitionof the sameor a similaroffensewould
be dealtwith bythe
Courtmoreseverely.Considering,however,
ComplainantNate claimsthatrespondentcertified thatthe documentsnotarized by
adocumentasatrue copy ofthe original, andthather respondentContrerasdo notinvolve a private
orcommercial undertaking,

406
 2015CASES
sister-in-law later on usedthe certifieddocumentin andthatthisisthe firsttimethat
alaborcase thenpending withthe shehasbeencharged, we agree with the
NationalLaborRelationsCommissioninNaga City.6 recommendationofthe OCA thatthe penalty
He points outthatrespondent, asanex officionotary ofreprimand, insteadof a fine, ismore
public, wasempowered to authenticateonly those appropriate under thecircumstances.
documentsthatwere inhercustody. Sincethe document
– anamendedlaborcomplaint –wasnot a
documentpending before theRTC–Iriga City,
respondentallegedly wentbeyondherauthority when
sheauthenticatedit.

Purportedly
withoutthisCourt’spriorwrittenauthority,respondentCo
ntrerasappearedasherfather’scounselbeforethe
CommissiononBarDiscipline of theIBP.7
ComplainantNate
allegesthatrespondentherselfadmittedduring
theproceedingsbefore the IBPthatshe hadnot
yetobtained a writtenauthority.

460.Topic: Disciplinaryaction.
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION
Bernardino Vs.
Atty.Santos ComplainantRobertoC. Bernardinofiled a Letter- Violation The Courtemphasizesthatthe practice of Atty. VictorRey
ComplaintagainstAtty. Victor Rey oftheCode lawisimbuedwithpublic interestandthat"a Santosfoundguilty of
CASE NO.: SantosbeforetheIntegratedBar of thePhilippines, ofProfessionalRes lawyerowessubstantial dutiesnotonly to violatingCanon15, Rule
AC No. 10583 praying thatAtty.Santosbe investigatedandsubjected to ponsibility hisclient,butalsoto hisbrethreninthe profession, 15.03 and
disciplinaryaction. Bernardinoallegedthat the andCanon: to thecourts, and tothe nation, andtakespartin Canon10, Rule 10.01 of
DATE deathcertificate ofhisaunt,Rufina de CastroTurla, oneof the mostimportantfunctionsof the theCode of
OFPROMULGATI wasfalsified by Atty.Santos. Atty. Santosmade State—the administration of justice— ProfessionalResponsibility.Th
ON:Feb. 18, 2015 itappearthatRufinaTurladiedin1992, wheninfact, she Canon10,Rule asanofficerofthe court." Accordingly, e findingsof
diedin1990. 10.01 "lawyersare bound tomaintain factandrecommendationsof
PONENTE: Canon15,Rul theBoardof Governorsof
Associate Justice He allegedthatAtty. Santosused e 15 .03 theIntegratedBarof
thefalsifieddeathcertificate tosupportthe Affidavit of thePhilippinesdatedMay
Self-Adjudicationexecuted by MarianoTurla, husband 10,2013 andMarch22, 2014
of are ACCEPTEDand

407
 2015CASES
Marvic Leonen RufinaTurla, whichstates:Being hersurvivingspouse, ADOPTEDwiththeMODI
Iamthesole legalheirentitledtosucceed toandinheritthe FICATIONthatthepenalty
estate of saiddeceasedwhodidnotleave any descendant of suspensionfromthe
or anyotherheirentitledto herestate. practice of law forone
(1)yearisimposeduponAtty.
Asregardsthe issueon conflict of interest, VictorRey Santos.
Atty.Santosarguedthat he Heiswarnedthat a repetition
didnotrepresentandwasnotrepresenting conflicting ofthesameorsimilaractshallbe
interestssince MarianoTurlawasalready dead. Further, dealtwithmore severely.
“he [was]representingMariluTurla againstthose
whoha[d]aninterestinherfather’sestate.”MarianoTurla’s
Affidavitof Self-adjudicationneverstatedthatthere
wasno otherlegalheirbutonly “thatMarianoTurla
wasthe sole heirofRufinaTurla.” Atty.
Santosinsistedthathe
didnotcommitforumshoppingbecause the
variouscasesfiledhaddifferentissues. Asto the
conversion offunds, Atty. Santosexplainedthat
thefundsusedwere being held by hisclientasthe
specialadministratrix of the estate ofMarianoTurla.
According to Atty. Santos, payment of
attorney’sfeesout ofthe estate’sfundscould be
consideredas“expensesofadministration.”

461.Topic: Grossignoranceofthelawandgrossinefficiency.
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION
Sin Vs.
JudgeMange On April 9, 2013, complainantChua Keng Section18 ofthe1991 The Courtwiththe Office of the Judge
nte Sinexecuted a Complaint- RevisedRuleson CourtAdministrator’sfindingthatthe JobM.Mangente,Presiding
AffidavitstatingthatrespondentJudge SummaryProcedure, Complaintagainstrespondentismeritorious. Judge of Branch54of
CASE NO.: JobM.Mangente’sviolationof andRule37, Section Uponthoroughevaluationof the parties’ theMetropolitanTrialCourt,
AM No.MTJ-15-1851 theLocalGovernmentCode’sprovisionson 4oftheRevisedRules respectivearguments,the Office NavotasCity, isguiltyof
KatarungangPambarangay, Section18of the 1991 ofCourt oftheCourtAdministratorfoundthatrespondents grossignorance of
DATE RevisedRulesonSummary Procedure, andRule 37, hould beheldadministratively liable thelawandishereby
OFPROMULGATI Section 4oftheRevisedRulesof Courtdeniedhim forgrossignorance SUSPENDEDFROMSERVI
ON:Feb. 11, 2015 ofhisrightto thespeedy CE FOR SIX
dispositionofhiscase.Complainantasserts (6)MONTHS,
withawarning that a
repetitionof

408
 2015CASES
that the lawsandrulesthatrespondentfailed to applyare of the law anddelay. thesameorsimilaractshallbe
PONENTE: so basic Due to theproceduralcarelessnessexhibited dealtwithmore severely.
Associate andelementary,theirviolationconstitutedgrossignoranc byrespondentinCriminalCaseNo. 10-
JusticeMarvic eof the law andgrossinefficiency. 13570,thepenalty imposedshould be increased
Leonen tosuspension ofsix (6)months.

462.Topic: GrossNegligenceandbreachofduty.
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION
Anudon Vs.
Atty.Cefra Complainants Jimmy AnudonandJuanita Anudonare Violation The thusfindthatthe penalty Atty. Arturo B.
brother-andsister-in-law. Complainants, oftheRulesofCourt: recommendedagainstAtty. Cefrashouldbe CefraGUILTY ofnotarizing
CASE NO.: alongwithJimmy’sbrothersandsister, co-own a Rule 138,Section modifiedtotakeintoaccountallhisactsofmiscon theDeed of Absolute Sale
AC No. 5482 4,446square meterparcel of 27,paragraph 1 duct. datedAugust12, 1998
landlocatedinSison,Pangasinan. Atty. Cefra notarized a intheabsence of the affiants,
DATE Deed of AbsoluteSale over a landowned by the aswell asfailure to comply
OFPROMULGATI complainants.Thenamesofpetitionersappearedasvendo withanorderfromthiscourt.
ON:Feb. 10, 2015 rs, while thename of CelinoParan, Jr. appearedasthe Accordingly,
vendee.Thecomplainantsclaimedthatthe Deed of thiscourtSUSPENDShimf
PONENTE: Absolute Salewasfalsified.They allegedthatthey did romthepractice of law
Associate notsignitbefore Atty. Cefra. fortwo(2)years,
JusticeMarvic TheNationalBureauofInvestigation’sQuestionedDocu REVOKEShisincumbentn
Leonen mentsDivisioncertifiedthatJimmy otarialcommission, ifany,
andJuanita’ssignatureswereforged.Thiswascontrary andPERPETUALLY
toAtty. Cefra’sacknowledgmentoverthe DISQUALIFIEShimfrombe
document.Moreover, itwasphysically impossible ing commissionedasanotary
forJimmy’sbrothersandsister tohave signedthe public.RespondentisalsoSTE
documentbecause they weresomewhere else RNLY WARNED
atthattime.Due to theforgery oftheDeed of Absolute thatmore severe penaltieswill
Sale, theAssistantProsecutor, withJimmy andJuanita be
aswitness, filed a case offalsificationof public imposedforanyfurtherbreach
documentagainstAtty. CefraandParan. of the Canonsin the Code
ofProfessionalResponsibility.

409
 2015CASES

463.Topic: Gravemisconduct.
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION
TormisVs.
JudgeParedes JillchargedJudgeParedeswithgrave misconduct.Jillwasa Section4, Canon Yes. The Courtadoptsthe
student ofJudge ParedesinPoliticalLawReview. She 3of the New findingsandrecommendationsofJusticeDiy
CASE NO.: averredthatinhisclassdiscussions,Judge CodeofJudicial exceptastothe penalty.
AM No,RTJ-13-2366 Paredesnamedhermother, Judge ConductandSection
RosabellaTormis(JudgeTormis),thenPresiding Judge s1and2, Canon 2of
DATE ofBranch4,MunicipalTrial theCode mandates.
OFPROMULGATI CourtinCities(MTCC),CebuCity, asoneof the
ON:Feb. 4, 2015 judgesinvolvedinthe marriagescamsinCebuCity. Judge
ParedesalsomentionedinhisclassthatJudge
PONENTE: Tormiswasabusiveof herpositionasa judge,
Associate JusticeJose corrupt,andignorantof thelaw Judge
C. Mendoza ParedesfurtherstatedthatwhenJillwasstillhisstudent,she
didnotcomplainaboutor
disputehisdiscussionsinclassregarding
theadministrative liabilitiesof hermotherReplyof
theComplainantInherVerified-Reply,8
datedNovember23, 2011,
Jillcounteredthathermotherhadnothingto do withthe
filing ofthe complaint;that shewasforced toleave
herfamily inCebuCity to continueherlaw
studieselsewherebecause she couldnolongerbear the
discriminating
andjudgmentaleyesofherclassmatesbroughtabout
byJudge Paredes’
frequentdiscussionsinclassofhermother’sadministrative
casesJillclaimedthat the intention tohumiliate herfamily
wasevidentwhenJudge Paredesbrandedherbrother,
Francis, asa "drugaddict." RejoinderofJudge
ParedesInhisRejoinder, datedDecember2,2011, Judge
Paredesassertedthatitwasnot prematureto discussthe
marriage scamsinclassbecause the scandalwasalready
disclosed by Atty.

410
 2015CASES
RullynGarcia andwasalsowritteninmany
legalpublications, andthatthe drug addiction
ofFranciswasknowninthe Palace ofJustice of
CebuCity.InitsReport,1 datedSeptember12, 2012,
theOffice ofthe CourtAdministrator(OCA)statedthat
theconflicting
allegationsbythepartiespresentedfactualissuesthatcoul
d notberesolvedbased ontheevidence on recordthen.
Consideringthe gravity andthe sensitive nature of the
charges, a full-blowninvestigationshould be
conducted bythe CA.

464.Topic: Betrayaloftrust,incompetence,andgrossmisconduct.
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION
Sps. Umaguing
Vs.Atty. De Vera MariecrisUmaguingthedaughterofhereinpetitionerran Violation The Court, in the caseofSamontev. Atty.Abellana TheSupremeCourtfoundAtty.
for SKChairmanlast2007 election. oftheCode (Samonte), suspended the lawyerthereinfromthe DeVeraguiltyforviolatingCan
CASE NO.: Unfortunatelysheloseby one (1)vote. The ofProfessionalRes practice of law forsix (6)monthsforfiling a on10ofCodeof Professional
AM No.RTJ-12-2366 hereinpetitionerenlistedAtty.DeVeratofacilitatetheelecti ponsibility spuriousdocumentincourt.In view ofthe Responsibilityaswellasthelawy
onprotest.HoweverAtty.DeVerafiledthecasewhenthede andCanon: antecedentsinthiscase,the er’soath.Heissuspendedtopra
DATE adlinewaslooming.Failureto Rule 10.01 Courtfindsitappropriate to imposethe same cticelawforsix (6)months.
OFPROMULGATI findLachicaandAlmira,whowastheprospectwitness.Atty Canon10 here. AccordingtotheSupremeCour
ON:Feb. 4, 2015 .DeVeralettheirrelativesignedtheiraffidavit.Hetheninclu t,alawyershallnotdofalsehood
dedtheaffidavittothecomplaintandlendingsuchdocume norconsenttothedoing of any
PONENTE: ntwastrue. incourt.
PERCURIAM

465.Topic: Homicideinvolvingmoralturpitude.
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION
Garcia Vs. Sesbreño

411
 2015CASES

Garcia filed a Violation The CourtfoundSesbreñoguilty of homicide. Raul H.

CASE NO.: complaintfordisbarmentagainstSesbreñobefore oftheRulesofCourt SesbrefioisDISBARREDeffe
AC No. 7973 the Officeof theBar Confidant. : ctiveimmediately
andACNo. 10456 uponhisreceiptof
thisDecision.
DATE Garcia allegedthatin2005while he Section27,Rule
OFPROMULGATI wasinJapan,Sesbreño,representingMaria Margarita 138
ON:Feb. 3, 2015 andAngieRuth,filedanactionforsupportagainsthimandh
issisterMilagrosGarcia Soliman. At the time of
PONENTE: thefiling ofthe case, Maria Margarita wasalready 39
PERCURIAM yearsoldwhile Angie Ruthwas35yearsold.The case
wasdismissed.In 2007,Garcia returnedfromJapan.
WhenSesbreñoandGarcia’schildrenlearnedabouthisr
eturn, Sesbreñofiled a
SecondAmendedComplaintagainsthim.

Garcia allegedthat he
learnedthatSesbreñowasconvicted bytheRegional Trial
CourtofCebuCity,Branch18,forHomicide
inCriminalCase No. CBU-31733. Garcia
allegedthatSesbreñoisonlyon parole.Garcia
allegedthathomicideisa crime againstmoralturpitude;
andthus, Sesbreñoshould notbe allowedto
continuehispractice of law.

In hisanswerto the
complaint,Sesbreñoallegedthathissentence
wascommutedand the phrase
“withtheinherentaccessory penaltiesprovided by law”
wasdeleted. Sesbreñoarguedthatevenif the
accessorypenalty wasnot
deleted,thedisqualificationappliesonly duringthe term
ofthe sentence. Sesbreñofurtherallegedthathomicide
doesnotinvolve moralturpitude.
SesbreñoclaimedthatGarcia’scomplaintwasmotivated
by extreme malice, badfaith, and

412
 2015CASES
desire toretaliate againsthim
forrepresentingGarcia’sdaughtersincourt.

466.Topic: Grossmisconduct.
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION
Sps.
ConcepcionVs.Atty. Thisisanadministrative case thatstemmedfrom Violation The Atty. ElmerA. dela Rosa
Dela Rosa aVerifiedComplaintfiled bycomplainants oftheCode CourtconcurswiththeIBP’sfindingsexceptasto isfoundguilty of
SpousesHenry A. Concepcion(Henry)andBlesilda ofProfessionalR itsrecommendedpenalty anditsdirective to violatingCanon 7 andRule
CASE NO.: S.Concepcion(Blesilda; collectively esponsibility: returnthe amount ofP2,500,000.00, withlegal 16.04,Canon16 of the Code
AC No. 10681 complainants)againstrespondentAtty. ElmerA. dela interest, tocomplainants. ofProfessionalResponsibilit
Rosa(respondent), charging y.Accordingly, he
DATE himwithgrossmisconductforviolating, among others, Rule 16.04 isherebySUSPENDEDfro
OFPROMULGATI Rule 16.04 of the Code ofProfessionalResponsibility m thepractice of law for a
ON:Feb. 3, 2015 (CPR). Complainantsallegedthatfrom1997 periodof three
untilAugust2008,respondentservedastheirretainedlawye (3)yearseffectiveuponfinalit
PONENTE: randcounsel.In thiscapacity, respondenthandledmany y of thisDecision, with
Associate of theircasesandwasconsulted on variouslegalmatters, asternwarning that a
JusticeEstela Perlas- among others,the prospectofopeninga commissionof
Bernabe pawnshopbusinesstowardsthe end of 2005. thesameorsimilaractswill be
Saidbusiness, however, failed tomaterialize. Aware of dealtwithmoreseverely.
thefactthatcomplainants hadmoney
intactfromtheirfailedbusinessventure,respondent,
onMarch23,2006, calledHenry toborrow money.The
checkswere personally encashedby
respondent.Demandedthe returnof paymentbutfailed
to doso.RespondentdeniedborrowingP2,500,000.00
fromcomplainants, insisting thatNaultwasthe
realdebtor.18 He alsoclaimedthatcomplainants
hadbeenattempting tocollectfromNaultandthathe
wasengaged for thatspecificpurpose.
In fine,the Investigating Commissionerofthe
IBPconcludedthatrespondent’sactionsdegradedthei
ntegrity of the legalprofessionandclearly violated

413
 2015CASES
Rule 16.04 andCanons7and16 of the
CPR.Respondent’sfailure to appearduring the
mandatoryconferencesfurthershowedhisdisrespect to
the IBP-CBD. Accordingly, the Investigating
Commissionerrecommendedthatrespondent be
disbarredandthathebe orderedto
returntheP2,500,000.00 tocomplainants,
withstipulatedinterest.

467.Topic: GrossNegligence.
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION
Ramirez Vs.
Atty.Buhayang- ComplainantReynaldoRamirez (Ramirez)engagedAtty. Violation The courtisnot withoutjurisdictionto Yes, Atty.
Margallo Margallo’sservicesaslegal counsel in a civil casefor oftheCode increasethe penaltiesimposedinorder to MercedesBuhayang-
Quieting ofTitle entitled“SpousesRoque v. ofProfessionalRes addressacurrentneedin the legalprofession.The Margallo’s(Atty.Margallo)inac
CASE NO.: Ramirez.”According toRamirez, Atty. ponsibility desireof theIntegratedBarof the tionresultedinalost appeal,
AC No. 10537 Margallocontactedhimasper a referral from andcanon: Philippinestoensure a higherethical standard terminating thecase of
afriendofRamirez’ssister. He allegedthatAtty. Canon17 and foritsmembers’conductislaudable.The herclientnoton
DATE Margallohadofferedherlegalservicesonthe Canon18,Rules negligenceof themeritsbutdueto
OFPROMULGATI conditionthatshebegiven30% ofthe landsubject of the 18.03 and18.04 respondentAtty.Margallocoupledwithherlack of hernegligence. She made
ON:Feb. 3, 2015 controversyinsteadofattorney’sfees. candorisreprehensible. itappearthat the case
ItwasalsoagreeduponthatRamirez wouldpay Atty. wasdismissedon
PONENTE: MargalloP1,000.00 percourtappearance. themeritswhen, intruth, she
Associate On October19, 2006, the Regional Trial failed tofile the
JusticeMarvic Courtpromulgated aDecisionadverse toRamirez. Appellant’sBriefontime. She
Leonen Atty.Margalloadvisedhimtoappeal the judgment. didnotdischargeherdutiesof
Shecommittedto file the Appealbefore the candor toherclient.
CourtofAppeals. The Appealwasperfectedandthe RespondentAtty.
recordswere sent to the Court ofAppealssometime Margallowasunjustifiably
in2008.On December5, remissinherdutiesaslegal
2008,theCourtofAppealsdirectedRamirez tofile counsel toRamirez.The lack
hisAppellant’sBrief.Ramirez notifiedAtty. Margallo, ofcommunicationandcoordi
whorepliedthat she wouldhave oneprepared. nationbetweenrespondentAt
On January 8, 2009,Ramirez contactedAtty. ty. Margallo
Margalloto followup onthe Appellant’sBrief. Atty.
Margallo

414
 2015CASES
informedhimthat he needed to meether andherclientwaspalpablebut
tosignthedocumentsnecessary for thebrief. wasnotdue tothe lackof
Onseveraloccasions,Ramirezfollowedup on the diligence
statusof thebrief, but he wastoldthatthere wasstillno ofherclient.Thiscost
wordfromthe Court of Appeals. complainantRamirez
On August26, 2009, Atty.MargalloinformedRamirez hisentire case andlefthimwith
thathisAppealhadbeendenied. She toldhimthatthe no
Courtof Appeals’ denialwasdue toRamirez’sfailure appellateremedies.Hislegalca
toestablishhisfiliationwithhisallegedfather, usewasorphanednot because
whichwasthe basisofhisclaim. acourtoflaw ruled
Shealsoinformedhimthattheycould no longerappeal onthemeritsof hiscase,
tothiscourtsince the Decisionof the butbecause
CourtofAppealshadbeenpromulgatedandthe apersonprivilegedto
reglementary periodforfiling anAppealhadalready actascounselfailed
lapsed. Ramirez wentto the Court ofAppeals.There, he todischarge herdutieswith
discoveredthat theAppellant’sBriefwasfiledonApril 13, therequisite
2009 with diligence.Herassumptionthat
aMotionforReconsiderationandApologiesforfilingbeyo complainantRamirez
nd the reglementary period. wasnolongerinterested.
468.Topic: GrossNegligence.
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION
AndresVs.
Atty.Nambi The respondentsin the laborcase, namely Violation The The PetitionforReview
theSpousesMercado,doing businessunderthe name oftheCode CourtreprimandsrespondentAtty.SalimatharV. isDENIED.The
CASE NO.: andstyle ofM.A. MercadoConstruction, ofProfessionalRes Nambiforobstinately andunjustifiably refusing RecommendationsandResol
AC No. 7158 interposedanappeal whichwasdismissedforfailure ponsibility toobey lawful ordersofthe Courtandthe utionof theBoard
topostanappeal bond. Thus, anAlias Writ of andcanon: IntegratedBar of thePhilippines, with a warning ofGovernorsof the
DATE Executionwasissuedto implement theDecision. Canon17 and that a repetitionofthesameorsimilaract IntegratedBar of the
OFPROMULGATI Thereafter, the complainants in the laborcase Canon18,Rules oroffense shall be dealtwith moreseverely. PhilippinesdatedMarch21,
ON: filedanEx Parte Motionfor Amendment of 18.03 and18.04 2014
March9, 2015 anAliasWritofExecution. They claimedthatthey isACCEPTED,
couldhardlycollect the judgmentawardfromM.A. ADOPTEDANDAFFIRME
PONENTE: MercadoConstructionbecause itallegedly D.Atty.
Associate transferreditsassetsto M.A.BlocksWork,Inc. They MercedesBuhayang-
JusticeMarianoC. del thusprayedthatthe Margallois
Castillo hereby
SUSPENDEDfromthe
practice of law fortwo
(2)years, witha stern

415
 2015CASES
AliasWritofExecution be amended to warning that a
includeM.A.BlocksWork, Inc. andall repetitionofthesameorsimila
itsincorporators/stockholdersasadditionalentity/pers ractshallbe dealtwithmore
onalitiesagainstwhich the writofexecutionshall be severely.Thisdecisionisimme
enforced. diatelyexecuted.
In anOrderdatedFebruary10, 2006,
respondentgranted the motionto amend the
aliaswritofexecution. Accordingly, onFebruary 17,
2006 anAmendedAliasWritof
Executionwasissuedtoenforce themonetary
judgmentamounting toP19,527,623.55
againstM.A.BlocksWork,Inc. andallitsincorporators.
By way of specialappearance, M.A. BlocksWork,Inc.,
togetherwiththree ofitsstockholderswhoarethe
complainantsinthisadministrative case, namelyYolanda
A. Andres,MinetteA.
MercadoandElitoP.Andres,filedanUrgentMotion to
Quash8 theAmendedAliasWritof Execution,
contending thatthey are not bound bythe
judgmentasthey were notpartiesto the laborcase.
InanOrderdatedMarch13,2006, however,
respondentdenied the UrgentMotionto Quash.
Aggrieved, hereincomplainantsfiled the
instantComplaintforDisbarment,whichwe referredto
theIBP onMarch4,
2007forinvestigation,reportandrecommendation.

469.Topic: Grossimmorality.

CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION

Perez Vs.
Atty.Catindig Atty. TristanA. Catindig admitted toDr.ElmarPerezthat Violation The Courtlikewise agreeswith The
he wasalready wed toLily CorazonGomez. Atty. oftheCode of theInvestigatingCommissionerthatthere CourtresolvestoA
isadearth ofevidence DOPTthe

416
 2015CASES

CASE NO.: Catindig toldDr. Perez thathe wasin the ProfessionalRespo to provethe recommendationsof
AC No. 5816 processofobtaining a divorce in a foreigncountryto nsibility claimedamorousrelationshipbetween the theCommissionon
dissolvehismarriage to Gomez, andthat he andcanon: respondents. Asitis, the BarDiscipline of
DATE wouldeventuallymarry heronce the Rule 1.01,Canon7 evidencethatwaspresentedbyDr.Perez to theIntegratedBar of the
OFPROMULGATI divorcehadbeendecreed. Rule 7.03 proveherclaimwasmere allegation, Philippines. Atty.TristanA.
ON: Consequently,sometime in1984, Atty. Catindig ananonymousletterinforming herthatthe Catindig isfoundGUILTY
March10, 2015 andGomez obtained a divorce decree respondentswere indeedhaving anaffairandthe of grossimmorality andof
fromtheDominicanRepublic. purportedlove lettertoAtty. violatingthe
PONENTE: Sometime in2001,Dr.Perez allegedthat she Baydothatwassignedby Atty. Catindig. Lawyer’sOathandRule
PERCURIAM receivedananonymousletterin themailinforming her 1.01, Canon 7 andRule
ofAtty. The Courthasconsistently heldthatinsuspension 7.03of the Code
Catindig’sscandalousaffairwithAtty.Baydo,andthatsom or disbarmentproceedingsagainstlawyers, the ofProfessionalResponsibility
etime later, shecame upon a love lawyerenjoysthe presumptionofinnocence, and andis
letterwrittenandsigned by Atty. Catindig for Atty. the burdenofproofrestsuponthe complainantto hereby
BaydodatedApril 25, 2001.In thesaidletter, Atty. prove the allegationsinhiscomplaint.The DISBARREDfromthe
Catindigprofessedhisloveto Atty.Baydo, promising evidence requiredinsuspensionor practice of law.
tomarryheronce his“impedimentisremoved.” disbarmentproceedingsispreponderance
On October31, 2001, Atty. Catindig ofevidence.
abandonedDr.Perez andtheirson;he moved to
anupscalecondominiuminSalcedoVillage, MakatiCity
whereAtty. Baydowasfrequentlyseen.
Atty. Catindig, inhisComment,admittedthat
hemarriedGomez onMay 18, 1968. He
claimed,however, thatimmediately afterthe wedding,
Gomezshowedsignsthatshe wasincapable of
complyingwithhermarital obligations.Eventually,
theirirreconcilable differencesledto theirde
factoseparationin1984.
Atty. Catindig claimedthatDr. Perez knew of
theforegoing, including thefactthat the divorce
decreedbythe DominicanRepublic courtdoesnothave
anyeffectin thePhilippines.
Atty. Catindig claimedthathisrelationshipwithDr.

417
 2015CASES
Perez turnedsour. Eventually, he lefttheirhome
inOctober2001to preventany acrimony
fromdeveloping.

470.Topic: Attemptedmurder.
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION
Caspe Vs. Atty.Mejica
A complaintfordisbarmentwasfiled by PO1 Violation The CourtholdthatAtty.Mejica Atty. Mejica
CASE NO.: JoseB.Caspe againstAtty. AquilinoA. Mejica for oftheCode furtherviolatedCanon11 oftheCPRwhichcallsfor furtherviolatedCanon1145 of
AC No. 10679 allegedviolation ofCode ofProfessionalR alawyer to observe andgive due the CPRwhichcallsfor a
ofProfessionalResponsibility(CPR)specificallyRules1. esponsibility: respecttocourtsandjudicial officers. lawyer toobserve andgive
DATE 03, 1.04, and10.01. due respectto
OFPROMULGATI Petitioner’sContention: Caspe alleged the controversy courtsandjudicialofficers.
ON: startedwhenAtty. Mejica disregardedconflict Rules 1.03,1.04, The Supreme Courtadopts
March10, 2015 ofinterestrules. Caspe saidthatwhenhe fileda and10.01 the findingsof
complaintforattemptedmurderagainstAntonioRodrigue theIBPbutmodify the
PONENTE: z, Jr., Atty. Mejica penaltyimposed.TheIBPCB
Associate servedasCaspe’scounsel.WhenRodriguez, Dconcludedthatthere
JusticeMartrinS. Jr.filedhiscounter-affidavit, itwasAtty. Mejica couldbeno
Villarama whocounseledandrepresentedhim. otherreasonforAtty.Mejica to
Caspe broughtseparate suitsfor file the casesagainst
damagesanddisbarment: onefor conflictof PO1Caspe otherthan to
interestandthepresentcomplaint. Atty. Mejica tried getback
to negotiate asettlement athim.TheHighCourtagreest
butCaspe refused. Atty. Mejica allegedly hattheconfluence of
thenthreatenedCaspe that“he willhelpfile circumstancespointsto Atty.
casesaftercasesagainstthe complainantuntil he Mejica’scorruptmotive
kneelsbeforehim. PO1OnofreLopeña inhelpingGaduena infiling
responded. They recovereda caliber0.357 casesagainstCaspe,
revolverwhichwasturnedovertothe Can-avidPolice inviolationofRules1.03, 1.04
station.The incidentwasrecordedin the police blotter. and10.01 ofthe CPR.
Gaduena evadedarrestwiththe help Withrespect toAtty.
ofbarangaycaptainPrudencioAgda andotherbarangay Mejica’sclaimthathewasnot
tanodswhoallegedly clobberedCaspe and took affordeddueprocess, i.e., he
hisgun.Inthe interestofpeace andharmony, the Chiefof wasnotableto receive a copy
PolicecalledandrequestedthatCaspe desistfromfiling of
acomplaintwhichinturnwas

418
 2015CASES
chargesagainstthe the reasonforhimnottohave
barangaycaptainandtanods,specifically attended the
Gaduena.Caspe acceded. However,Gaduena, mandatoryconference,
withAtty.Mejica ascounsel,filed Thiscontentionisuntenable.
acomplaintforseriousslander by
deedagainstCaspe,whichwassupported bya
jointaffidavitof
twobarangay tanods. ItwasallegedthatCaspe
kicked,collaredandslappedGaduena’sface.

471.Topic: Willfuldisobedience.
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION
Feliciano Vs.
Atty.Bautista- AlvinFelicianofiledaninjunctionandTROagainstAtty.Ca Violation The Courtenbanc promulgated a Resolutionin Atty. Carmencita
Lozada rmencitaBautista– oftheRulesofCourt: A.C. No. 6656 entitled“BobieRoseV. Frias BautistaLozada
LozadainrepresentinghishusbandEdilbertoLozadainthe Rule 1.01,1.02 and vs.Atty.Carmencita Bautista Lozada” isherebyfoundguilty of
CASE NO.: latter’scaseagainstthecomplainantonJune5,2007.Felicia Rule 18.01 suspendingAtty. Lozada forviolation violatingRules
AC No. 7593 noallegedthatAtty.Bautista– Section27,Rule ofRules15.03 and 15.03 and16.04 of the
Lozadaappearedasacounselforhishusbandandactivelypa 138 16.04 of the Codeof Codeof
DATE rticipatedinthecourtproceedingswhilesheisstillsuspende ProfessionalResponsibility. ProfessionalResponsibility
OFPROMULGATI dfromthepracticeoflawinreferencetoacourtjudgmenton andofwillfully disobeying a
ON: December15,2005.Felicianoarguedthattheactoftheresp finalandexecutory decisionof
March11, 2015 ondentconstituteswillfuldisobediencetoacourtorder.Inh theCourtofAppeals. She
erreply,AttyBautista– ishereby
PONENTE: Lozadaclaimsthatshewasonlyforcedbythesituationthats SUSPENDEDfromthe
Justice heneededtodefendtherightofhishusbandwhoisembroile practice of law for
DiosdadoPeralta dinalegaldispute.Shebelievesthatsinceshe isrepresenting aperiodoftwo(2)years
hishusbandandnotaclient,itisnotwithintheprohibitionof fromnotice, with a
thelaw.Thecasewasreferred to the IBP STERNWARNINGthat a
forinvestigationandtheIBPInvestigatingOfficerrecomm repetitionof
endeddisbarmentforAtty.Bautista– thesameorsimilaractswill be
LozadainviolationofRule1.01,1.02andRule18.01oftheC dealtwithmoreseverely.
PR.TheIBP-BOG adopted the
recommendationwithmodification

419
 2015CASES
to suspensionofonly 3months.

472.Topic: Deceitfulanddishonestconduct.

CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION

Sps.
AmatorioVs.Atty. The complainantssaidthatthey are Violation The Courtnotesthaton September16, 2011,the The answerisinthenegative.
Dy Yap clientsofAtty.Parasincaseswhichwerefiledagainstthemb oftheCode complainantsfiled aMotion to AdmitJudicial The Supreme
ytherespondentsto compelthemto pay ofProfessionalR AffidavitwithMotion to Dismissand/or CourtruledthatAtty.
CASE NO.: theirindebtedness. Atthe time of the filing of the esponsibility: Withdraw Complaint,21reiteratingtheirclaimthat FranciscoDyYapisSUSPEN
AC No. 5914 answer,Atty. Paraswassuspendedfrom the practice of Rules 1.01,7.03, the filing ofthe disbarmentwasaproductof DEDfromthe practice of law
law.Complainants decided toseek anout-of- 10.01,10.02 and Atty.Paras’maneuveringsandthatthe for aperiodofthree
DATE courtsettlementandaskedthatthey be allowed to pay 10.03 allegationsagainst (3)monthsfor deliberately
OFPROMULGATI theirobligationsby way of installment.The therespondentsstatedthereinwere false. misleadingthe Court.
ON: partiesagreedon the terms. WhenAida asked the After a carefulexaminationof thefactsofthiscase, It
March11, 2015 respondentsifthey shouldstillattendthe pre- the Courtfindsno compelling reason todeviate bearsstressingthatmembershi
trialconferencescheduled, the lattertoldthemthey need fromthe resolutionof pinthe barisaprivilege
PONENTE: notattendanymore asthey will be moving forthe theIBPBoardofGovernors. burdenedwithconditions.
Associate dismissal ofthe cases. Subsequently, they were Notably, the respondentsseek a Itisbestoweduponindividuals
JusticeBienvenido surprisedtoreceivecopiesofthe decisionsof the trial reconsiderationof theresolutionsofthe whoare notonly learnedinlaw,
Reyes courtdeclaringthemindefaultfornon-appearance. The IBPBoardofGovernorsprimarily on thebasisof butalsoknown to
decisionhoweverdidnotmentionthe out-of- theJudicialAffidavitdatedAugust9, 2007, wherein possessgoodmoralcharacter.L
courtsettlementbetween the parties. thecomplainantsclearedthemof the awyersshouldactandcomportt
chargesofmisconductandturned theblame on hemselveswithhonesty
theirowncounsel, Atty.Paras, forallegedly having andintegrity in a
madeup the allegationsin the mannerbeyondreproach,
disbarmentcomplaint.When the IBPBoard inordertopromote the
ofGovernorssustainedthe public’sfaithinthe legal
impositionofsuspension to Francisco, profession.
thecomplainants themselvessubmitted a It isfor
motiontoadmit thesaidjudicial affidavit to theforegoingreasonthat the
thisCourt,togetherwith a motion Courtcannotsimplyyield to
todismissandwithdrawcomplaint. complainants’ changeof
heartby refuting
theirownstatementsagainstthe
respondentsandprayingthatth
e
complaintfordisbarmentthey
filed be dismissed.It

420
 2015CASES
bearsemphasizing
thatanymisconduct on the
partofthe lawyer not
onlyhurtstheclient’scause
butisevenmore disparaging
ontheintegrity of the legal.

473.Topic: Falsifyingacourtorder.
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION
TorresVs.
Atty.Tolentino In theirsworncomplaintfordisbarmentdatedApril23, Violation The CourtDISMISSES Wellentrenchedinthisjurisdicti
CASE NO. 2009 (laterdocketedas A.C. No. 8261), oftheRulesofCourt thebaselessdisbarmentcomplaintsagainstAtty. onistherulethatalawyermaybe
AC Nos. 8261/8725 thecomplainants narratedthatasthesurviving children andcanon: FedericoS. Tolentino,Jr., Atty.RenatoG. disciplinedformisconductcom
DATE ofthe late SpousesAntonioandNemesiaTorres, Canon 7 Cunanan, Atty. Daniel F.Victoria, Jr., Atty. mittedeitherinhisprofessional
OFPROMULGATI theyinheritedupon the deathsof Section27,Rule ElbertT.Quilala andAtty. orprivatecapacity.Thetestiswh
ON: theirparentsaresidentiallotlocatedat No.251 138 ConstanteP. Caluya, Jr. etherhisconductshowshimtob
March11, 2015 BoniSerranoStreet, Murphy,Cubao, QuezonCity ewantinginmoralcharacter,ho
registeredunderTransferCertificate ofTitle (TCT)No. nesty,probity,andgooddemea
RT-64333(35652) of nor,orwhetherhisconductrend
theRegisterofDeedsofQuezonCity; that on August24, ershimunworthytocontinueas
PONENTE:
2006, they discoveredthatTCTNo.RT- anofficeroftheCourt.Verily,Ca
Associate JusticeLucas
64333(35652)hadbeenunlawfully cancelledandreplaced non7oftheCodeofProfessiona
P. Bersamin
by TCTNo.N-290546of lResponsibilitymandatesalllaw
theRegisterofDeedsofQuezonCity under the yerstoupholdatalltimesthedig
namesofRamonandJosefina Ricafort; andthat, nityandintegrityoftheLegalPro
accordingly, theyimmediately caused the fession.Lawyersaresimilarlyre
annotationoftheiraffidavitofadverse claim quiredunderRule1.01,Canon1
onTCTNo.N-290546. Itappearsthatthe ofthesameCodenottoengagei
partiesenteredintoanamicable settlementduringthe nanyunlawful,dishonestandim
pendency of CivilCaseNo. Q-07-59598 inorderto moralor deceitful
endtheirdispute, whereby the complainantsagreedto
sellthe property andtheproceedsthereofwould
beequally dividedbetweenthe parties, andthe
complaintandcounterclaimwould be
withdrawnrespectively bythe
complainants(astheplaintiffs)and the
defendants.Pursuant to thetermsofthe

421
 2015CASES
amicable settlement, Atty. Victorio, Jr. filed conduct.Failuretoobservethes
aMotionto Withdraw ComplaintdatedFebruary 26, etenetsoftheCodeofProfessio
2008,which the RTC grantedinitsorderdatedMay nalResponsibilityexposesthela
16,2008 uponnoting the defendants’ lack wyertodisciplinarysanctionsas
ofobjectiontheretoandthe defendants’willingnessto providedinSection27,Rule138
similarlywithdraw theircounterclaim. oftheRulesofCourtasamende
d.

474.Topic: Seriousmisconduct.
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION
Enriquez Vs.
Atty.DeVera TeresitaEnriquezfiledacomplaintforthedisbarmentorsu Violation The Decisionwhereinthe Atty. Trina De Vera
spensionofAtty.TrinaDeVerainrelationtothelatter’sissu oftheCode trialcourtfoundTeresita civilly liable to isSUSPENDEDfrom
CASE NO.: anceofworthlesschecksandnon- ofProfessionalRes MaryJane for540,000.00, and on whichAtty. De thepractice of law for one
AC No. 8330 paymentofaloan.AccordingtoEnriquez,sheisabusiness ponsibility Vera reliesupon, isnotsufficientevidence to (1)year. Let a copy
womaninvolvedinbuildingcellsitetowers.Sheisacquainte andcanon: holdthatthere wasnoseparate ofthisResolution be
DATE dwithAtty.DeVerathroughthebusinessbysubcontractin Canon1,Rule transactionbetweenTeresita andAtty. De enteredinAtty. De
OFPROMULGATI gthecellsiteacquisitionto Atty. De Vera. 1.01,Canon 7 and Vera.The Decisioninvolved the post- Vera'spersonalrecordwiththe
ON: SometimeinApril2006,Atty.DeVeraborrowedPhp500,0 Rule 7.03 datedchecksissued byTeresita toMary Jane Office oftheBar
March16, 2015 00fromEnriquezwithinterestofPhp20,000permonthunt only.Mary Jane merelyclaimedthat she hadno Confidant,and a copy
ilfullypaid.SinceEnriquezdidnothavethefullamount,she personalknowledge ofany beserved tothe
PONENTE: waspersuadedbyAtty.DeVeratoborrowfrom transactionbetweenTeresita andAtty. DeVera. IntegratedBarof
Associate acommonfriend,MaryJaneD.Luzon,bymortgagingherpr The Investigating thePhilippinesandtheOffice
JusticeMarvic opertyinLucenaCity.Atty.DeVeraissuedapost- CommissionercorrectlypointedoutthatAtty. of the
Leonen datedcheckfor 500,000 andtwo morechecksto cover DeVera'sallegation of"lending" CourtAdministratorforcircula
the hercheckstoTeresita iscontrarytoordinary tionto all the courtsin the
interestagreedupon.InJune2006,Atty.DeVeraobtaineda humanexperience.Asa lawyer, Atty.De Vera land.
notherloanfromEnriquez’ssisterfor100,000,towhich,En ispresumedto know
riquezwastheguarantor.Anotherpost- theconsequencesofheracts. She
datedcheckwasissuedbyAtty.DeVeratoEnriquez issuedseveralpost-datedchecksfor
valuethatweredishonoreduponpresentationfor
payment.

422
 2015CASES
for the saidamount.
Uponmaturityofthechecks,Enriquezpresentedthemfor
paymentbutthechecksbouncedforbeingdrawnagainstins
ufficientfunds.Whenattemptedtobeencashedasecondti
me,thechecksweredishonouredbecausetheaccountwasc
losed.Thus,EnriquezdemandedpaymentfromAtty.DeV
erabutthelatterfailedtosettleherobligations.Thisprompt
edEnriqueztofileacomplaintagainstAtty.DeVeraforviol
ationofB.P.22andestafaunderArt.315, par. 2(d)of the
RevisedPenalCode.
On the otherhand,Atty. DeVera claimsthatshe
onlyissuedsaidcheckstoguaranty
Enriquez’sloanandthey were not meantto be
deposited.

475.Topic: Unduedelayinrenderingadecision.
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION
Re:
ComplaintdatedJan. OnDecember16,2005,acomplaint3forAnnulmentandQ Violation The CourtDISMISSES forlackof IntheassailedDecision,dated
28, 2014 uietingofTitlewasfiledbeforetheRTC- ofthe1987 merittheadministrative complaintagainstJustice March13,2012,theCAdismisse
ofWenefredoParreno, Branch59bythepetitioners,namely,LeticiaNaguitAquin Constitution: Celia C.Librea-Leagogo, Justice ElihuA. Ybañez dpetitioners'appeal.Itexplaine
etal. Against o,MelvinNaguit,RommelNaguit,ElmaNaguitTayag,Yss andJustice Amy C.Lazaro-Javier dthatunderSection6,Rule16of
Hon.CeliaLibrea- elL.Naguit,RosalinaNaguitAumentado,RizelNaguitCun theRulesofCourt,acourtisallo
Leagogo, etal. anan,CaridadNaguitParajas,MillieNaguitFlorendo,Mar Section15 wedtoconductapreliminaryhe
nelNaguit,EduardoNaguit,JoseNaguit,ZoiloNaguit,and ofArticle aring,motuproprio,onthedefend
CASE NO.: AmeliaNaguitDizon,representedbyYsselL.Naguit(petitio VIII ant'saffirmative
OCA IPINo. 14-220- ners).TheyallegedthattheyweretheheirsofthelateEpifanio defenses,
CA-J MakamandSeverinaBautista,whoacquiredahouseandlot includingthegroundof"lackof
situatedinMagalang,Pampanga,consistingof557squarem causeofactionorfailuretostate
DATE eters,byvirtueofaDeedofSale,datedApril20,1894;thatsin a
OFPROMULGATI cethen,theyandtheirpredecessors-in-interesthadbeen causeofaction."10Itgavetherea
ON: sonthatbecausetherulespoke
March17, 2015

PONENTE:
Associate Justice

423
 2015CASES
LucasP.Bersamin inopen,continuous,adverse,andnotoriouspossessionfor ingeneralterms,itsmanifestinte
morethanahundredyears,constructinghousesandpaying ntionwastoapplyittoallground
realestatetaxesontheproperty;thatsometimeinJune2005, sforamotiontodismissunderth
theyreceivedvariousdemandlettersfromtherespondents, eruleswhichwerepleadedasaffi
namely,CesarB.Quiazon,AmandaQuiazon,JoseB.Quiaz rmativedefensesintheresponsi
on,andReynaldoB.Quiazon,representedbyJaimeB.Quia vepleading.Thus,itheldthat
zon(respondents),claimingownershipoverthesubjectprope the trial
rtyanddemandingthattheyvacatethesame;thatuponinqui courtmightconsiderotherevid
rywiththeRegisterofDeedsofSanFernando,Pampanga,t enceasidefromtheavermentsi
heyconfirmedthattheproperty nthecomplaintindeterminingt
hadbeentitledinthenameofrespondentsunderTransferC hesufficiencyofthecauseofacti
ertificateofTitle(TCT)No.213777- on.
R;thatthesaidtitlewasinvalid,ineffective,voidableorunen
forceable;andthattheywerethetrueownersofthe
property.

476.Topic: GrossNegligence.
CASE ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION
TITLE:EDUA
RDOA.MAGL EduardoMaglente,presidentoftheSamahanngmgaMaral Violation The Thecourtaffirmedtherecomme
ENTE itangTagaMa.CorazonIII,IncengagedtheservicesofAtty. oftheCode Courtsustainsthedirectiveforrespondenttoacco ndationoftheIBPwithmodificat
vs. DelfinAgcaoilitodeterminethetrueownerofthelandoccu ofProfessionalR untfororreturn theamountofP48,000.00to iononthepenaltyimposed.Thela
ATTY. piedbytheSamahan.MaglentegaveAtty.Agcaoilitheamou esponsibility: complainant.Itiswell to note that“while wprovidesundertheCanon18an
DELFINR.AGCA ndofPhp48, theCourthaspreviouslyheldthatdisciplinary dRule18.03thatalawyershallser
OILI 000.00tocoverthefilingfees.However,Atty.Agcaoilifaile proceedingsshouldonly revolve aroundthe vehisclientwithcompetenceand
dtofileanactionincourtandclaimsthattheamountgiven Rule 16.01 determinationof therespondent- diligenceandshallnotneglectthe
CASE NO.: byMaglentewasnotenoughtofullypaythefilingfees.Magle lawyer’sadministrative andnot hiscivil liability, alegalmatterentrustedtohimand
A.C No. 10672 ntethenaskedfortherefundofthemoneybut,AttyAgcaoili itmustbe clarifiedthatthisrule hisnegligenceinconnectionther
claimedthathealreadyspentthemoneyandevendemande remainsapplicableonly to ewithshallrenderhim
DATE dmoremoney. WhenMaglente furtherinsistfor the claimedliabilitieswhichare purely civil innature
OFPROMULGATI returnof –forinstance, when the claiminvolvesmoneys
ON:
March18, 2015

PONENTE:

424
 2015CASES

Associate theamount,AttyAgcaoilitoldhimtoshutupasitwasnotMa received bythe lawyerfromhisclientin liable.Moreover,undertheCano

JusticeEstela Perlas- glente’smoneyinthefirstplace.Maglentewascompelledto atransactionseparate anddistinct[from]andnot n16,Rule16.01and16.03,itispro
Bernabe filethisadministrativecomplainttorecovertheamounthep intrinsically linked to videdthatalawyershallholdintru
aidtotherespondent.Inhisreply,Atty.Agcoiliexplainedth hisprofessionalengagement.”Since the stofallthemoneyandpropertiest
athealreadypreparedthepleadinghowever,itwasonlylater aforesaidamountwasintended to hatmaycomeintohispossession,
whenhediscoveredthatthefilingfeewasquitecostlywhich answerforfilingfeeswhichisintimately related accountandshallbedeliveredwh
promptedhimtodemandadditionalamount.TheIBPInve tothe lawyer- endue or upondemand.
stigatingOfficerrecommendedthatAtty.Agcaoilibemete clientrelationshipbetweencomplainantandresp Inthecaseatbar,Maglenteengag
dwiththepenaltyofCensureanddirectstherespondenttor ondent, the Courtfindsthe returnthereofto be edtheservicesofAgcoiliforthep
eturntheamountofPhp48,000.00toMaglente.TheIBP- inorder. urposeoffilingacaseincourtand
BOGadoptedtherecommendationwithmodificationont gavetheamountofPhp48,000fo
hepenaltyofCensuretosuspensionfrompracticeoflawfor rthecorrespondingfilingfees.At
3months. ty.Agcoili,the
momentthatheacceptedtheam
ountofmoneyisdutyboundtose
rvehisclientcauseandproperlya
ppropriatethemoneytoitsinten
dedpurpose.However,hefailed.
Hedidnotfilethecaseandworstis
hespentthemoneyanditdidnots
erveitspurpose.Thereby,senten
cinghimapenaltyof1yearsuspen
sion.

Notarization
CRESCENCIANOM. Failure to properly recordentriesin Rule VIthe Notarial Notarizationconvertsa private documentinto a SUSPENDED
PITOGO, Complainant, publicdocument,makingthatdocumentadmissible in fromthe practice of
law for

425
 2015CASES
vs. the notarialregister Rules, Sec. 1 and 2 evidence withoutfurtherproof of three
ATTY. JOSELITOTROY itsauthenticity.Forthisreason, notariesmustobserve (3)monthsandisSTE
SUELLO,Respondent withutmostcare thebasic requirementsin the RNLY
A.C. No. performance of theirduties.Otherwise, the confidence WARNEDthatanysimil
10695March18, . of the public in the integrityof thisformof arviolationwill
2015LEONEN conveyancewould be undermined. bedealtwithmoresevere
,J.: Failure to properly recordentriesin the notarialregisterisa ly.
groundforrevocation ofnotarialcommission. Hisnotarialcommission
isimmediately
revokedifpresentlycom
WhenAtty. Suelonegligently failed to missioned.He
enterthedetailsofthe documentsonhisnotarialregister, he isDISQUALIFIEDfr
castdoubton the authenticity ofthe saiddocuments and om
onthe credibility of the notarialregisterand the beingcommissioneda
notarialprocess. He violatedthe law snotary publicforone
whichrequireslawyerstopromote respectforlaw (1)year.
andlegalprocesses. Suelloalsoappeared to have
committeda falsehoodin thepleadingshe
submitted.Initially, Suelloclaimedthat hecertified the
documentsastrue copies. Later,he passedthe blame to
hissecretary. Thisviolatesthe Code
ofProfessionalResponsibility,
whichprohibitslawyersfrom engaging
indishonestandunlawfulconduct.
The secretary cannot
beheldresponsiblefortheerroneousentriesinthe
notarialregister.The notarialcommissionisa license
heldpersonally bythe notarypublic. It cannot
Non-payment ofdebt befurtherdelegated.

ANTONINAS. Atty. Mendoza failedto Rule 1.01 ofthe Code Atty. Mendoza engagedinimproper or wrong ATTY.MANUELV.
SOSA, complywithhisobligationon due ofProfessionalResponsib conduct,asfoundunderRule 1.01, as the failure topay the MENDOZA is
Complainant,vs. datewhich he signedin ility loanwaswillful incharacterandimplied a wrongful SUSPENDEDfromthe
ATTY.MANUELV. apromissorynote having a value intentand not a mere errorinjudgment. practice of law for
MENDOZA,Respondent. ofP500,000.00. It couldhave beenvery easy for him todeliver aperiodof one
theP600,000.00 toMs. Sosa ifhe had the real intention (1)yearfor
to violationofRule
1.01 of the Code of

426
 2015CASES
A.C. No. pay. In fact,Ms. Sosa wrote, throughhercounsel, ProfessionalResponsi
8776March25, Atty.Mendoza askinghim tosettle hisobligationbecause bility with
2015BRION, ofhismanifestationthathe already had the money. aSTERNWARNIN
J.: It isunclear to uswhy Atty. Mendoza G
ignoredMs.Sosa’srequestforsettlementafterclaiming that thatcommissionof
healready had the neededfunds. He waseitherlying he thesameorsimilaroffens
hadthe money, orhad nointentionofpaying inthe ein the future
firstplace. willresultin the
To reiterate, hisfailure imposition ofamore
tohonorhisjustdebtconstitutesdishonestanddeceitfulcond severe penalty.
uct. Thisdishonestconductwascompounded by
Atty.Mendoza’sactofinterjectingflimsy excusesthatonly
strengthened the conclusionthat he refusedtopay a
validandjustdebt

Misconductandmalpractice forfalsifyingdocumentsandpresenting these asevidence incourt

HEIRSOFPEDROALILANO Notarized the Canons1, 10 and At the time ofnotarization, the prevailing law SUSPENDEDfromth
represented by absolutedeedsofwherein oneofthe 19, andRules governingnotarizationwasSections231-259, Chapter11 of e practice of law
DAVIDALILANO, partiesis arelative by consanguinity 1.01, 1.02,10.01, and theRevisedAdministrative Code andthere forTWO(2)YEARS.
Complainants,vs. within thefourthcivil degree 19.01 of the wasnoprohibitionon a notarypublic fromnotarizing
ATTY.ROBERTOE. oraffinity withinthe CodeofProfessionalR adocumentwhenone ofthe interestedpartiesisrelatedto
EXAMEN,Respondent . secondcivildegree. It is esponsibility (CPR). the notary public withinthe fourthcivil degree
alsoallegedthatAtty. ofconsanguinity or seconddegree of affinity
A.C. No. Examennotarizedthe
10132March24, documentsknowing thatthecedula
2015VILLARAMA, or residence certificatenumberused
JR.,J.: byRamon Examenwasnot actually
hisbuttheresidence certificate
numberofFlorentina. Atty.
Examenalsofalsely
acknowledgedthatthe
twowitnessespersonally
appearedbefore himwhenthey
didnot.
Lastly,
itisallegedthatdespiteknowing the
infirmitiesofthesedocuments,
Atty. Examenintroducedthese
documentsinto

427
 2015CASES
evidence violating
hisoathasalawyerand the CPR.

Lawyer’sneglect totheirclient’saffairsand, at thesame time, failed to returnthe latter’smoney and/orproperty despite demand.
SHIRLEY OLAYTA- Complainantengagedrespondent’sse Rule 16.01 A lawyer’sneglect of a legalmatterentrusted tohim SUSPENDEDfromthe
CAMBA, rvicesforthe andRule16.03, byhisclientconstitutesinexcusable negligence for practice of law for
Complainant,vs. purposeofreconstitutingfour(4)titles Canon16 of theCode whichhemustbe heldadministratively liable for aperiodof one
ATTY. OTILIOSY aswellaspreparing the Deed, andthat of violatingRule18.03, Canon18 of the CPR (1)month, effective
BONGON,Respondent. thelatterreceivedlegalfeesinconnecti ProfessionalResponsib uponhisreceiptof
ontherewith. Despite ility (CPR) thisResolution, with
A.C. No. this,respondentdidnot aSTERNWARNING
8826March25, performhisundertaking Furthermore, respondentalsoviolatedRules16.01 that a repetition
2015 inaccordance with and16.03, Canon16 of the CPR when he failed ofthesameorsimilaracts
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.: theengagementandlikewise failed torefundthe amountof 55,000.00that he personally willbe
toreturncomplainant’smoney receivedfrom complainantdespiterepeateddemands. dealtwithmoreseverely
despitedemands.
Verily, when a lawyerreceivesmoney fromthe clientfora
particularpurpose,the lawyerisbound
torenderanaccounting to the clientshowing that the
money wasspentforthe intendedpurpose. Consequently,
ifnotusedaccordingly, themoneymustbe
returnedimmediatelyto the client.16Assuch,
alawyer’sfailure toreturnthe money to hisclientdespite
numerousdemandsisa violationof the
trustreposedonhimandisindicative ofhislack
ofintegrity,17asinthiscase.

Clearly, respondentfailed toexercise suchskill, care,

anddiligence asmen ofthe
legalprofessioncommonlypossessandexercise
insuchmattersof professionalemployment18and, hence,
must be disciplinedaccordingly.

Irregularitiesinthe managementandoperationofCorporation.
RE: Irregularitiesinthe Section 3(d),Rule 71 of Lokinisobviously lying throughhisteethwhen Suspendedfrom
LETTEROFERLINDAILUSO managementandoperationofPhil hedeniedhaving any knowledge asregardsthe recipient of thepractice of law
RIO-BILDNER,POTC, comsat for

428

PHILCOMSAT,REQUES HoldingsCorporation(PHC).
TINGINVESTIGATION Withregardto
OFCERTAINMEMBERS theP2,000,000.00check, there isa
OFTHE JUDICIARY strong
probabilitythatLokinisitsrecipient.
A.M. No. 07-11-14- Despitehisclaimthathe
SCApril 14, 2015 neitherreceivedthe check nor knew
PERCURIAM any VeronicaNepomuceno, the
testimonyofCasas, Tan
andBrodettallsupportthe
conclusionthatLokinreceived,or at
thevery least, knew whoreceived
the proceedsofthecheck
Finding
thatLokinwas"lyingthroughhistee
th" indenyingknowledge asto the
recipient ofCheck No. 309381
andthatsuchblatantlying
was"contumaciousattitude.
Grossignorance ofthe law
OFFICE OFTHECOURT Both lettersaccusedJudge
ADMINISTRATOR, Floresofrenderingfavorable
Complainant, judgmentsinexchange for
vs. monetaryconsideration; oftaking
JUDGE ALAN cognizanceof, anddeciding caseson
L.FLORES,PRESIDINGJUDG annulmentof marriage
E,REGIONALTRIALCOURT, evenifsaidcaseswerebeyond the
BRANCH7, TUBOD, territorialjurisdiction ofthe courtshe
LANAODELNORTE presided; and,thatevery time
ANDFORMERACTINGPRESI anauditteamoftheOCA
DINGJUDGE,REGIONALTR visitsIligan,LanaodelNorteandMara
IALCOURT, wi City,
BRANCH21,KAPATAGAN, JudgeFloreswouldmeetthemat the
LANAODEL airport, actastheirdriver,
NORTE,Respondent. entertainthemandevengive
presentsfortheirreturn
2015CASES
the Rulesof Court the P2,000,000.00 check andwhen he three
testifiedthatAndalsigned the check (3)monthsforviolating
whenAndalwasinfactalreadybasedinBicol. Theirobstinate Rule 15.03ofthe Code
refusalto disclose thetruthisa contumaciousattitude, a ofProfessionalResponsi
flouting orarrogantbelligerence indefiance of the bility andrepresenting
Court'sauthority anddignity. Withholding the truthin the conflictinginterests.In
course ofjudicialproceedingsevidently tends"toimpede, thesameDecision, he
obstruct, ordegrade the administrationofjustice." wassternly warnedthat
Willfully doing soisanaffrontto a court'sauthority arepetitionof the
anddignity; itiscontumacious. sameor similaroffense
shallbe
dealtwithmoreseverely.
It
appearsthatLokinhasno
tmendedhisways.
GUILTY
ofindirectcontempt
A.M. No. 02-11-10- The undisputedOCA InvestigationReportin Judge
SCor theRule thepresentconsolidatedcasesshowedanalarming FloresisORDEREDto
onDeclaration of numberof pending anddecidedcaseswhere the CEASE ANDDESIST
AbsoluteNullity of actualresidenceof the partiesareobviouslynot withinthe fromdischarging
VoidMarriagesandAnnu territorialjurisdictionof the courtspresided by Judge thefunctionsofhisOffic
lmentofVoidableMarria Floresbuthe neverthelesstook cognizance of these e
ges caseswithoutevenmaking aninquiry astotheirveracity.
Judge Flores'incompetence became even more
manifestwhenhecurtailed the effortsof the public
SEC. 4. Code of prosecutorsinensuringthatthe rule onpropervenue will
JudicialConduct notbecircumvented.
Thereisgrossignorance ofthe law
whenanerrorcommittedbythe judge
wasgrossorpatent,deliberate
429
 2015CASES
A.M. No.RTJ-12-2325 to Manila or malicious, or whena judge ignores, contradictsor
April 14, 2015 failsto apply settledlaw andjurisprudence because of
badfaith, fraud, dishonestyor corruption.
PerCuriam

The utterdisregardshownby Judge

Floresdisplaysnotonly a lack of familiarity with the law
but a grossignorance thereof

The OCA
teamuncoveredseveralcriminalcaseswhereJudge
Floresfailed to resolve pending incidentswithinthe
prescribedperiod.

Delay incase dispositionisamajorculpritinthe erosionof

publicfaithandconfidence in the judiciary and
thelowering of itsstandards.Failure to decide
caseswithinthe reglementary period, withoutstrong
andjustifiablereasons, constitutesgrossinefficiency
warrantingtheimpositionofadministrative sanctionon the
defaultingjudge

ProfessionalmisconductandviolationofCanon12 ofthe Code of ProfessionalResponsibility (CPR).

DAVAOIMPORT Respondentdeliberately didnot Canon12, Rule 12.03CPR Respondentneedslecturingthatsympathyto SUSPENDEDfrom
DISTRIBUTORS, appearatthe scheduledpre-trial conference wardsa clientdoesnot justify hisactofstating thepractice of law for
INC.,Complainant, inCivilCase No. 3854 despite notice inhismotionforextensionthat hereceived six(6)monthseffectiveim
vs. andthat hedid notfile a petitionforreview the RTC Decisionat a laterdateto make mediately.
ATTY. JOHNNY afterreceiving fromhisclient itappearthat thefiling of
LANDERO,Respondent. thepaymentfordocketfeesandafterbeing thesaidmotioniswell-within the
granted bytheCA anextensionoftimeto file periodforfilinganappeal.
A.C. No. 5116 thesame Givenhisyearsofexperience inthe
legalprofession, respondentshould
bewellaware that"[a]lawyerisfirstand

430
 2015CASES
April 13, 2015 foremostanofficer ofthe court.Thus,while
he oweshisentire devotionto
DELCASTILLO,J.: theinterestandcausesof hisclient, he
mustensure that he actswithinthe
boundsofreasonandcommonsense,
alwaysawarethat he isaninstrument
oftruthandjustice. More importantly, as
anofficerofthe courtanditsindispensable
partnerinthe sacredtask of administering
justice,graver_responsibility
isimposedupon alawyerthanany otherto
uphold theintegrity of the courtsand
toshow respectto itsprocesses. Thus, any
act on hispartwhichtendsvisibly toobstruct,
pervertorimpede anddegrade the
administrationofjustice
constitutesprofessional misconductcalling
for the exercise
ofdisciplinaryactionagainsthim

Failure to pay debt toJMOTC.

JOSEFINAM.ON Judge Pinlac used the Sections8 and13,Canon 4of The CourtfindsthatJMOTC failed GUILTY of
GCUANGCOTR prestige ofhisoffice to obtain the New Codeof toadduce substantial IMPROPRIETY
ADINGCORPOR theloanfromJMOTC JudicialConductfor evidencethatwouldestablishthatJudge andishereby
ATION, isunsubstantiated. thePhilippineJudiciary Pinlac used theprestige ofhisoffice FINEDintheamountof
represented by innegotiating thepurchase TenThousandPesos(₱10,00
JOSEFINAM. Borrowing money orproperty oncreditofanimalfeedsfromJMOTC 0.00)andWARNEDthat a
ONGCUANGCO,Complain fromlawyersandlitigantsin a case orthatthe repetitionof
ant, pendingbefore the courtisconsidered a loanaccommodationwasextended toJudge thesameorsimilaractshall be
vs. seriouscharge for which aJudge Pinlac inexchangefor anything dealtwithmoreseverely.
JUDGERENATO D. maybeadministratively sanctioned. tobedoneoromitted tobedoneby
PINLAC, himinconnectionwithhisjudicial functions.
RegionalTrialCourt, Failure to pay
Branch57, SanCarlosCity, hisdebt
Pangasinan,Respondent. toJMOTC. thatJudgePinlac cannot
beheldadministratively liable
A.M. No.RTJ-14-2402 forviolation ofSection8(7)of Rule 140
ofthe Rulesof

431
 2015CASES
April 15, Courtforobtaining a
2015REYES,J.: loanfromJMOTC.UnderSection8(7)ofRul
e 140 of theRulesofCourt,
borrowingmoney orproperty
fromlawyersandlitigantsin acase pending
before the courtisconsidered
aseriouschargefor which aJudge may be
administratively sanctioned

Judge Pinlac’sfailure topay hisdebtto

JMOTC cannot be
characterizedaswillful.

The merefailure ofa Judge topay a loanhe

obtained onthe due
datedespitewrittendemandscannot be
instantlycharacterizedaswillful.Theterm"wi
llful"meansvoluntary andintentional.Thus,
aJudge’sfailure to pay a justdebt,
aswouldconstitute a seriouscharge
underSection8(6) ofRule 140of the
Rulesof Court,mustnot only be
voluntary,butalsointentional, i.e., thatthe
Judge no longerhasany intention tosatisfy
hisobligation.

Useof intemperate, offensive andabusive language

JOY A. GimenocontendedthatAtty. Zaide Canon8, Rule 8.01, Canon Thisclearly confirmsAtty.Zaide'slack DISQUALIFIEDfrom
GIMENO, calledher a "notoriousextortionist" in 11, Rule 11.03. ofrestraintinthe use andchoice of hiswords being
Complainant,vs. thesameadministrative - a conductunbecoming commissionedasanotary
ATTY.PAULCENTILLAS complaintthatSomontanfiledagainsther. In ofanofficerofthe court. publicfor a
ZAIDE, Respondent. anothercivilcasewhere she wasnot a party, periodoftwo(2)years. He
GimenoobservedthatAtty. Zaide While a lawyerisentitled isalsoSUSPENDEDforone
referredtohisopposing counselassomeone topresenthiscase (1)year fromthe practice
suffering withvigorandcourage,such oflaw.

432
 2015CASES
A.C. No. from "seriousmentalincompetence" enthusiasmdoesnotjustify the
10303April 22, inoneof hispleadings. According useofoffensive andabusive language.
2015BRION, toGimeno, these Languageaboundswithcountlesspossibiliti
J.: statementsconstituteintemperate, esforoneto be emphatic
offensive andabusivelanguage, which a butrespectful,convincing butnot
lawyerisproscribedfromusing derogatory, andilluminating but
inhisdealings. notoffensive

Misrepresent the contentsofa paper

ATTY. Omissionof the specification of Rule 1.01, Canon10,Rules It isnot asufficientgroundfordisbarment. Dismissed
ALFREDOL.VILLA theamountofdamagesinthe prayer of 10.01, 10.02 and10.03 CPR Asdiscussedabove, there isno clearshowing
MOR, thecomplaint thatthe respondentsdefraudedormisled
JR., theRTC Pasig Clerkof Court.
Complainant,vs. Neitherwasthere any proofthatthe
ATTYS. E. HANS respondentshave maliciously
A.SANTOSandAGNESH disguisedtheircomplaintasanactionforspecif
. icperformance andinjunctionso asto
MARANAN, Respondents. evadethe paymentof the properdocketfees.
Clearly, the complainant'sallegationismerely
A.C. No. anchored onspeculationandconjecture,
9868April 22, andhence insufficient to justifythe
2015BRION, impositionofthe administrativepenalty of
J.: disbarment.

Grossnegligence andinefficiency in the performance of hisdutiesasa lawyer.

TEODULOF. Lavadia’spropensity forfiling Rule 12.03,Rule 18.03, CPR While thisCourtisnotunsympathetic tothe DISBARRED
ENRIQUEZ,Complainant, motionsforextensionoftime to plightofAtty.Lavadia, we
vs. filepleadingsbutfailing to filethesame cannotcountenance hisactofrepeatedly
ATTY. EDILBERTOB. pleadingfor extensionsoftime andyet
LAVADIA, JR.,Respondent. notsubmitting anything to the
Court.Thisreflectshiswillful
A.C. No. 5686 disregardforCourtordersputting
inquestionhissuitability todischarge
hisdutiesandfunctionsasalawyer

433
 2015CASES
June 16,
2015PERCUR
IAM

Negligence in the handling of the complainant'scase

ALFREDOC. intentionalnegligence due Canon 17of the Code We cannot,andshouldnot,tolerate SUSPENDEDfrom
OLVIDA, torespondent'sfailure tosubmit the ofProfessionalResponsibili therespondent'slack ofcommitment to thepractice of law forthree
Complainant,vs. complainant'spositionpaperinhiscase ty andgenuine concernfor the (3)years
ATTY. ARNELC. before theDepartmentof complainant'scause, for itputsthe practice
GONZALES,Respondent. AgrarianReformAdjudicationBoard(DAR .Canon18 of the Code of law in avery badlight. Heshouldbe
AB)inDavaoCity. ofProfessionalResponsibili made toanswer, notonly forhisnegligence
A.C. No. ty in thehandling ofthe complainant'scase
5732June 16, beforethe DARAB,
2015PERCURI Rule 18. butalsoforhisdishonestandunethical
AM: dealingsinthiscase.

Neglect a legalmatterentrusted to him

ADELITA B. Respondentdid notexertdue diligence Rule 18.03 ofthe The respondentclearly dilly-dallied on DISBARMENT
LLUNAR, inhandling the complainant'scase. He (CPR),Canon15 of the thecomplainant'scase
Complainant,vs. failedto actpromptly inredeeming CPR andwastedprecioustime andopportunity
ATTY.ROMULO thecomplainant'sproperty within the thatwere thenreadily available to
RICAFORT,Respondent. periodof redemption. Whatisworse isthe recoverthecomplainant'sproperty. Under
delayof three yearsbefore a complaint thesefacts,the respondentviolatedRule
A.C. No. torecover the property wasactually 18.03 of theCode of
6484June 16, filedincourt. ProfessionalResponsibility (CPR)
2015
The respondentfailedtoreturn, the respondentcommitteddishonesty
upondemand, the amountsgivento him bynot beingforthrightwiththe
bythe complainantthat he
wasunderindefinitesuspensionfromthe
practice of law. The respondent

434
 2015CASES
PERCURIAM: complainantforhandling the latter'scase shouldhave disclosedthisfactat the timehe
wasapproached bythe
Not beingforthrightwiththe complainantforhisservices
complainantthat he
wasunderindefinitesuspensionfromthe
practice
Grossdishonesty/Misrepresentationto of law.
client’scause
DOMINIC PAULD. Misrepresentationcommitted CANON1,CANON7, The IBPBoard suspendedfromthe
LAZARETO, byrespondentinrelationto Rule 18.03,Rule 18.04. ofGovernorsmisappreciated the gravity practiceof law forthree
Complainant,vs. theamicablesettlementproposedby oftheCPR and the scopeof (3)yearsfrom andafternotice
ATTY. DENNIS N. respondent’slawyer, Atty. Policarpio, therespondent’sbreachofhiscontractualobli ofthisDecision
ACORDA,Respondent. where gationwithLazaretoandhisfamily.He
Atty.Policarpioassuredhimthatrespondenth hadbeennegligentincarrying outthe task
A.C. No. adalready filed the entrusted to him byLazaretoandhisfamily
9603June 16, extrajudicialsettlementpaperswiththe asfound byComm.Inocencio, a
2015PERCURI Manila Registerof Deeds. clearviolationoftheCodeof
AM: ProfessionalResponsibility.35Hehadbeengr
After thefamily gave ossly dishonestwithrespect
himhisacceptancefee tocertainactionshe claimed he
andprovidedhimwiththe hadtakeninrelation tohistask.
necessaryfundsfor the
undertaking,respondentbecame
inaccessible andunheard of
withrespecttohistask (exceptwhen he
wasasking forfunding), until
Misappropriating court-funds theagreeddeadline for the filing of
OFFICE theextrajudicialsettlementpapersexpired.
Borrowing money fromthe Rule 5.04 ofCanon 5of Courtstressesthatjudgesmustadheretothe DISMISSALfromthes
OFTHECOURTADMINIST variousfundsof the courtcollections. theCode of Judicial highesttenetsof judicial ervice
RATION,Comp Conductstates conduct.11Because ofthe sensitivityof
lainant, Undue delay indeciding hisposition, a judge isrequiredto exhibit,
vs. 33casessubmittedfordecisionandforfailin atalltimes, the highestdegree of honesty
JUDGE ALEXANDER g toresolve 101 motionswithinthe 90- andintegrity andtoobserve exacting
BALUT, Respondent. dayreglementary period. standardsof morality, decency and
competence.12Heshouldadhere tothe
A.M. No.RTJ-15- higheststandardsofpublic accountability
2426June 16, 2015 lesthisactionerodethe public faithin
PerCuriam: theJudiciary

435
 2015CASES
The act ofmisappropriatingcourt-
fundsconstitutesdishonesty
andgravemisconduct, punishable by
dismissalfromtheservice even onthe
firstoffense.15Forsaidreason, the
respondentdeservesapenalty no
Neglect a legalmatterentrusted to him lighterthandismissal.
FRANCISCO A considerable length oftime Rule 18.03 ofthe Code Suffice ittostate that a DISMISSED
CAOILE, hadelapsedfromthe time Atty. Macaraeg ofProfessionalResponsibili motionforextensiontofile
Complainant,vs. filed thenotice of appeal onAugust30, 1962 ty anappellant’sbriefcarrieswithit the
ATTY.MARCELINO up tothe time he filedthe presumptionthatthe applicant-
MACARAEG,Respondent. thirdmotionforextensionoftime to filebrief lawyerwillfile the pleadingwithin
on October5, 1963. Despitethe passage of therequestedextendedperiod.Failure to
A.C. No. suchtime,however, Atty. Macaraeg doso withoutany reasonable excuse
720June 17, stillfailed to filethe brief, violatesthe Code
2015 whichresultedinthe dismissal ofhisclients’ ofProfessionalResponsibility.
DELCASTILLO,J.: appeal

Unduly delay a case

VICTORD.DE LOS The respondentsentlettersto the Officeof Rule 1.01 ofCanon1,Rule A lawyer is, firstandforemost, anofficerof SUSPENDEDforone
SANTOSII, the CivilRegistrarofQuezonCity, 12.04 of Canon12 of the court. A lawyer’sfirstduty isnot (1)year fromthe practice
Complainant,vs. theNationalCensusandStatisticsOffice, theCode of tohisclientbut tothe oflaw
ATTY. NESTORC. andSt. Luke’sHospital toprevent ProfessionalResponsibilit administrationofjustice
BARBOSA,Respondent. theprosecutionfromobtaininga y
certifiedtruecopy of thebirthcertificateof In thiscase,
A.C. No. VictorCanacoDelosSantos. therespondentdeliberatelymisled theMeTC,
6681June 17, the CommissionandthisCourtintobelieving
2015BRION, The respondentdeliberatelymisled thatVictorCanaco
J.: theMeTC, the DeLosSantos(Canaco’ssonwhose
CommissionandthisCourtintobelieving birthcertificate isatissue
thatVictorCanaco De inthecriminalcase)andVictor
LosSantos(Canaco’ssonwhose P.DeLosSantos(namedin
birthcertificate isatissue in the criminal theInformation)are differentpersons.The
case)andVictor P.De Courtagreeswith thefindingsofthe
LosSantos(namedintheInformation)are IBPCommissionerthat thedifference inthe
differentpersons. middle initialisa meretypographicalerroron
the part ofthe CityProsecutor.The criminal
case involved

436
 2015CASES
one and thesame VictorCanaco de
losSantoswhose birthcertificate
hasbeenatissue.Membersof theBar are
expectedatall timestoupholdthe integrity
anddignityof the
legalprofessionandrefrainfromany act or
omission, thatmightlessen
thetrustandconfidence reposed bythe
publicin the fidelity, honesty, andintegrity
Neglected of dutiesascounselandfailed to attendany ofthe hearings of thelegalprofession.
CORAZONM. The complainantallegedthat Sec 27, Rule 138, Otherthanherbare allegations, DISMISSED
DALUPAN, therespondentneglectedhisdutiesascounsela RulesofCourt thecomplainantfailedtopresentany
Complainant,vs. ndfailed to attendany ofthe hearingsbefore evidenceto supportherclaimthat
ATTY. GLENNC. the MTC. In view of therespondentcommittedabandonment
GACOTT1,Respondent. therespondent’srepeatedabsencesbeforethe orneglect ofduty. Thus, we are constrained
MTC, Judge JocelynS. to affirmthe factual findingsof
A.C. No. DiligissuedanOrderwhichappointeda theInvestigatingCommissionerthatthe
5067June 29, counsel de oficioto representthe presumptionofregularity shouldprevail
2015 complainant. infavor oftherespondent. Absentany fault
VILLARAMA, JR.,J.: or negligenceon the part ofthe respondent,
we seenolegalbasisfor theorderof
theInvestigating Commissionerto return
theattorney’sfee (acceptance fee) of
₱5,000.

Use language whichisabusive, offensive or otherwise improper.

MAXIMINONOBLE MaximinolearnedfromMarcelothat
III, thelatterhadfiled aseparate case for
Complainant,vs. gravethreatsandestafa againstOrlando .
ATTY.ORLANDO O. WhenMaximinowasfurnished a copy of
AILES,Respondent. thecomplaint, he discoveredthat,
throughtextmessages,Orlandohadbeenmali
A.C. No. gninghimanddissuadingMarcelofromretaini
10628July 1, nghisservicesascounsel, claiming that
2015 hewasincompetentandthathe
chargedexorbitantfees, saying, among
others: "
Rule 7.03 Though a lawyer'slanguagemay beforceful ADMONISHED tobe
ofCanon7,Canon8of andemphatic, more
theCPR itshouldalwaysbedignifiedandrespectful, circumspectindealingwithhisp
befitting thedignity ofthe legalprofession. rofessionalcolleaguesandSTE
The use ofintemperate language RNLYWARNEDthat
andunkindascriptionshasnoplace inthe acommissionof the
dignity ofthe judicial forum. sameorsimilaractsin thefuture
shallbe dealtwithmore
Indulging inoffensive severely.
personalitiesinthecourse ofjudicial
proceedings, asinthiscase,
constitutesunprofessionalconduct

437

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
Attorney’sliens
JUNB.
LUNA,
Complainant,vs.
ATTY. DWIGHTM.
GALARRITA,Respondent.
A.C. No. 10662
December14,
1956LEONEN,J.:
Unauthorizedpractice of law
PILARIBANA-
ANDRADEandCLARE
SINFOROSAANDRADE-
CASILIHAN, Complainants,
vs.
ATTY. EVA PAITA-
MOYA, Respondent.
A.C. No. 8313
Betterdismissyourhi-track
lawyerwhowillimpoverishyouwithhisuncons
cionableprofessionalfee. MaxNoble,
asshown incourtrecords,
neverappearedevenonce, that'swhy you
lostinthe pre-trial stage. getridof Noble
asyourlawyer. He isoutto squeeze a lot of
moneyfrom you.xxx daig monga
mismongabogado mong polpol."
Entering into a Compromise
AgreementwithouthisclientcomplainantL
una’sconsent,thenrefusingto turnover
thesettlementproceedsreceived.
Respondentengagedintheunauthorizedpra
ctice of law,
respondentfiledpapersandpleadingsascoun
sel inCivil Case No.7617, despite the
clearlanguage of
thisCourt’ssuspensionorder.
2015CASES
Article 1878
oftheCivilCode,
Rule 1.01 ofthe Code
ofProfessionalResponsibility,
Rule 16.03 underCanon
6ofthe Code
ofProfessionalResponsibility,
Section27, Rule 138of
theRulesofCourt,
438
whichsubjectsa lawyer to
disciplinaryaction.While a lawyerisentitled
topresenthiscase
withvigorandcourage,suchenthusiasmdoesn
ot justify the useofoffensive andabusive
language
lawyer[s][are]notentitledtounilaterallyappro SUSPENDEDfrom
priate [their]clients[’]money thepractice of law
for[themselves] bythemere factthat fortwo(2)years.
theclient[s][owe][them]attorney’sfees."They
must give promptnotice to theirclients
ofany receipt of fundsfor or onbehalf
oftheirclients.
Thiscase isnotwithout SUSPENDEDfrom
precedent. Previously, we hadalreadystated thepractice of law
thestandardfordiscipline uponerring foranadditional period
lawyerswhocontinuepracticingdespite ofsix (6)monthsfromher
beingsuspended by the Court, one(1)monthsuspension,
viz:UnderSection27,Rule 138of totalingseven(7)months
theRulesofCourt, willfuldisobedience toany
lawfulorderof a
superiorcourtisagroundfordisbarmentorsus
pensionfrom thepractice of law:
 2015CASES
July 14,
2015SEREN
O,CJ:

False decision
RE:COMPLAINTDATEDJ JusticeMarilynLagura- Section6, Rule 120of In thiscase, otherthan the DISMISSED
ANUARY 28, Yap(respondentAssociate Justice of the theRulesofCourt. complainant'sbare allegation offraud, there
2015OFCATHERINE Court ofAppeals-Visayas, CebuCity wasnoshowing
DAMAYO,REPRESENTE allegedly renderingfalsedecisionandjudicial thatrespondentwasmotivated
D BYHERMOTHER, fraud, inrelationtoCriminal Case No.DU- bybadfaithorillmotivesinthe
VENIRANDADAMAYO, 14740. allegederroneousjudgment.
AGAINSTHON.MARILYN
LAGURA- Complainantpointedoutthat the From aperusalof the
YAP,ASSOCIATEJUSTICE openingstatementof the disputedJudgmentdatedNovember3,
,COURTOFAPPEALS- JudgmentinCriminalCase No. DU- 2011,
VISAYAS, CEBU 14740statedthat shepleaded"guilty" itappearsthatindeeditiserroneouslystatedi
CITY,CEBU. wheninfact she pleaded"notguilty." n the firstpage
thataccusedpleaded"guilty" of thecharge
A.M. No. CA-15-53-J of estafa againsther.However,
inthebodyof thesaidjudgment,itcan
beinferredfrom the discussionof
July 14, thedefense'sargumentsandstipulationthatc
2015PERALT omplainantwasactually pleading notguilty
A, J.: to the charge againsther

Moral turpitude
RE: The Sandiganbayan, in a Section27, Rule 138of Petitionerineffectadmittedall DISBARRED
DECISIONDATED17MAR DecisiondatedMarch17, theRulesofCourt theelementsof the crime of
CH2011INCRIMINALCAS 2011,foundrespondentguiltybeyondreason directbribery:
E NO.SB-28361 able doubtofdirectbribery
ENTITLED"PEOPLEOFT 1. The offenderisa publicofficer;
HEPHILIPPINES VS.
2. The offenderacceptsanofferor
promiseorreceivesa giftor

439
 2015CASES

JOSELITOC. BARROZO" presentby

himselforthroughanother;
FORMERASSISTANTPRO
SECUTORJOSELITO 3. Suchoffer orpromise
C. BARROZO,Respondent. beaccepted or giftorpresent
bereceived bythe public
A.C. No. officerwitha view to committing
10207July 21, somecrime,or inconsideration
2015PERCURI oftheexecution of
AM: anactwhichdoesnot constitute a
crime butthe actmust unjust, orto
refrainfromdoing something
whichitis hisofficial duty to do;
and

4. The actwhichthe
offenderagreesto
performorwhichheexecutesisconn
ectedwiththeperformance of
hisofficialduties.

Moralturpitude can be inferredfrom

Conflict ofinterests
thethirdelement.Thefactthatthe
offenderagreesto accept a
promiseorgiftanddeliberately
commitsanunjustactorrefrainsfromperform
ing anofficialdutyinexchange
forsomefavors, denotesamaliciousintent
onthe partof theoffendertorenege on the
dutieswhich
heoweshisfellowmenandsociety
ingeneral.Also thefactthatthe
offendertakesadvantage of hisoffice
andpositionisabetrayal of
thetrustreposedon him bythepublic. It isa
conductclearly contrary othe acceptedrule
ofrightandduty, justice,honesty,
andgoodmorals.Inallrespects,directbribery
isa crime involving moralturpitude

440
 2015CASES
MABINICOLLEGES, INC. Complainantwasrespondent’sformercli Canon15, Rule 15.03 of The principle Suspensionfromthe
represented by ent.Andrespondentappearedascounsel theCode of whichforbidsanattorneywhohasbeenengage practiceof law for one year
MARCELN.LUKBAN, ofRBPin a case filed by ProfessionalResponsibility d torepresent a
ALBERTOI.GARCIA,JR., hisformerclientagainstRBP clientfromthereafterappearing onbehalf
andMA.PAMELAROSSAN oftheclient’sopponentappliesequally
A A. eventhoughduring the continuance of
APUYA, theemploymentnothingof a
Complainant,vs. confidentialnature wasrevealed tothe
ATTY. JOSE D. attorney bytheclient
PAJARILLO,Respondent.
We also note that the
A.C. No. respondentactedforthe
10687July 22, complainant’sinterest on the
2015 loantransactionbetweenRBPand
VILLARAMA, JR.,J.: thecomplainantwhen hesent
aletterdatedMay 14, 1999 toRBP toassure
the latterof thefinancialcapacity of
thecomplainant topay the loan.But
ascounselforRBPinthe casefor
annulmentof mortgage, he clearly
Grave abuse ofauthority, grave misconduct actedagainst theinterestof the
ATTY.LUCITA E. Respondentjudge Section4(a), (b), complainant,hisformerclient.
While respondentjudge has REPRIMAND
MARCELA, directedcomplainanttoshow cause whyshe and(c)ofRepublic ActNo. inherentcontemptpowers,thesameshouldbe
Complainant,vs. shouldnot be citedincontemptfornot 6713 (RA6713) exercisedjudiciously,sparingly,
JUDGE PELAGIA appearingduring thehearing of 21January andwithutmostrestraint.
J.DALMACIO- 2011 inCriminalCase No. 10-0090.In Respondentjudgemiserably failedto
JOAQUIN, herCompliance andManifestation, exerciserestraint.
PresidentJudge, complainantexplainedthatshe wasunable Shecitedcomplainantincontempt on the
MunicipalTrial toattendthescheduledhearing because solegroundthatcomplainantfailed to file
CourtinCities, Branch1, San shewasunwell, whichconditionwasrelayed asatisfactory explanationforhernon-
Jose to herclientand theoffice ofthe appearance before the court.Yet,
delMonte,Bulacan,Responde prosecutorfortheinformationof therecordsclearly
nt. thetrialcourt. Complainantattached a showthatcomplainantfileda satisfactory
medicalcertificate to explanation, albeitlacking
A.M. No.MTJ-14-1839 supportherexplanation. therequiredMCLE information.

However, complainant’sCompliance
July 22, 2015 andManifestationlacked thenumberdate
of

441
 2015CASES
CARPIO, J.: issueofherMCLE Certificate ofCompliance
or Exemption.For thisreasonalone,
respondentjudge admitsexpungingthe
Compliance
andManifestationandeventually citing
complainantincontemptforfailure tofile a
satisfactory explanationfor hernon-
appearance. Respondentjudgedid
notreview or
considercomplainant’sexplanationforherabs
enceduring thehearing of 21January 2011.
Neglect of legalmatterentrusted tohim
CELINA F. It isapparentthat Rule 1.01 ofCanon 1of Respondentfailed to live upto hisdutiesasa SUSPENDEDfrom
ANDRADA, therespondentdidnotexertany effort theCPR, lawyerwhen he unlawfully withheldthe thepractice of law forONE
Complainant,vs. onhisclient'scase andcompletely reneged complainant'smoney.The moneygiven to (1)YEAR.
ATTY.RODRIGO onthe obligationsduehisclient.The Rule 18.03 ofCanon18 therespondentwasneverusedfor
CERA, Respondent. respondentlied to thecomplainantthathe ofthesame Code itsintendedpurposes, ascould begleaned
hadmade thenecessary fromthe NSO'snon-issuance ofbirth
A.C. No. 10187 applicationandpaymentwiththeNSOforthe certificates8of the complainant'schildren,
issuance of the birthcertificatesof the and by the non-
July 22, complainant'schildren. administrationofpsychologicaltestson the
2015BRION Despite the complainantandherchildren.These
, J.: complainant'srepeatedrequests, omissionsconfirmthepresumptionthatthe
therespondentfailed to respondentmisappropriatedthe funds
complywiththeiragreement toprovide ofhisclient, inviolation ofCanon16 of
apsychologist toadministerthe theCPRthatholdsa
necessarypsychologicaltests,thuscausing lawyerintrustofallmoneysandpropertiesofhi
furtherdelay in the sclientthatmay come intohispossession.
Immoralconduct proceedingsofthecomplainant'sannulmen
ELADIOD. tcase.
PerfectofurtherallegedthatJudgeDesales- Article 349 ofthe Thus, SUSPENDEDfromjudicials
PERFECTO, Esidera falsifiedher RevisedPenalCode, forpurposesofdeterminingadministrative ervice for one (1)month
Complainant,vs. daughter’sbirthcertificate tomake liability oflawyersandjudges, "immoral
JUDGE itappearthatsheandRenatoVeranoEsidera Article 350 ofthe conduct"shouldrelate
ALMACONSU were marriedon March18,1990 RevisedPenalCode totheirconductasofficersofthe court.Tobe
ELOD. andthattheirdaughterwasa legitimate child. provides guilty of "immorality" under the Codeof
ESIDERA,Respondent. Nomarriage tookplace on thatdate Professional Responsibility, a
basedona certificationof nomarriage issued lawyer’sconductmust beso
A.M. No.RTJ-15-2417 by theOffice of theCity Civil Registrar depravedastoreducethe public’sconfidence
ofParanaque City. inthe Rule ofLaw.Religiousmorality
isnotbinding whenever

442

Judge Desales-Esidera didnottake
anystep torectify the error
July 22, onherdaughter’sbirthcertificate.
2015LEONE
N,J.:
Giving Advise toclient
GABRIELA Complainantinitiatedthisdisbarmentcaseaga
CORONEL, Petitioner, instAtty. NelsonA. Cunanan, allegingthat
v.ATTY.NELSONA. he hadadvisedandconvincedher toengage
CUNANAN, Respondent. him forthe transferof OriginalCertificate
ofTitle No. 9616andTransferCertificate
A.C. No. ofTitle No. T-72074, whichwere both
6738,August12, registeredin the name of
2015BERSAMI theirdeceasedgrandparents, tohername and
N, J.: tothe namesofherco-
heirsbydirectregistrationwiththe Officeof
theRegisterof Deedsinviolation
oftheproperlegalprocedure; thatfollowing
the engagement,he hadreceivedfromherthe
amountofP70,000.00 for the paymentof
the transferandotherfees,
andhadmisappropriatedthe same; andthat
he hadnotreturned themoney and the
owner'sduplicate copy
ofTransferCertificate ofTitleNo. T-72074
2015CASES
thiscourtdecidesthe administrativeliability
of
lawyersandpersonsunderthiscourt’ssuperv
ision. Atbest,religiousmorality weighsonly
persuasively on us.
Therefore, we cannotproperly
concludethatrespondentjudge’sactsof
contractinga secondmarriage duringthe
subsistenceof herallegedfirstmarriage
andhaving analleged"illicit" affairare
"immoral" basedon
herCatholicfaith.Thiscourtisnotajudge of
Canon, Rule 1.01 religiousmorality.
Althoughthe respondentoutlined to Suspendedfrom the
and1.02,CPR thecomplainant the "ordinary procedure" practiceof law for one year
ofanextrajudicialsettlement ofestate
asameansoftransferring title, he
alsoproposed theoption of
"directregistration" despite being fully
aware thatsuchoptionwasactually a
shortcutintended to circumventthelaw,
andthuspatently contrary to law. The
transferunder the
latteroptionwouldbypasstheimmediate
heirsoftheirgrandparents(i.e.,the
complainant'sparentandherco-
heirsparents), andconsequently deprive
theGovernment ofthe corresponding
estatetaxesandtransferfeesasidefromrequiri
ngthe falsificationof the
transferdocuments.He assuredthathe
couldenable the directtransferwiththe
helpofhiscontactsintheOffice of
theRegister
ofDeedsandotherrelevantagenciesof the
Government,whichmeantthathe wouldbe
bribingsome
officialsandemployeesofthoseoffices.The
proposal of "directregistration"
wasunquestionably unlawful,
443

MISAPPROPRIATIONOFCLIENTSFUNDS
SpousesByronandMaria
LuisaSaundersvsAtty.GracePag
ano-Calde
A.C. no. 8708
ChiefJustice Ma.
LourdesA.Sereno
2015CASES
immoral anddeceitful all atonce
Act/scomplainedof: Canon16 and17 Lawyershave the duty to apprise Wherefore, respondentAtty. Lyssa
1. Atty. Pagano- oftheCode of theirclient of GracePagano-Calde isgiventhe penalty
Calde,despite ProfessionalResposibilit thestatusanddevelopmentsofthe ofreprimandwith a sternwarning
demandbythecomplain y accountthey are handling. Theymustbe toobserve a higherdegree offidelity in
antfailedtoreturnthe consistentlymindful of theirobligation thepractice of herprofession.
money givento torespondpromptly, shouldthere
heraspaymentofthe bequeriesorrequestsforinformationfrom
purchase price ofthe the client.The
subjectproperty ina Codeexactsfromlawyersnotonlya
civil action firmrespectforlaw, legalprocessesand
sheretainedascounsel. thecourts,butalsomandatesthe
2. She likewise failed utmostdegree of fidelity
tomeetherclientstodis andgoodfaithindealing with the
cussmatterson moneysentrustedtothempursuantto
thepending civil theirfiduciaryrelationship.
caserelated to the
caseshehandle.
Layersare
boundtoprotecttheirclient’sinterestto the
bestof theirability
andwithutmostdiligence. Every case
alawyeracceptsdeservestheirfullattention,
diligence,skillandcompetenceregardlessof
itsimportance. It istheirswornduty
toprotect the interestoftheirclientandto
defenditwithin theauthority of the law.
444

GROSSIGNORANCE OF THE LAW/CONDUCT UNBECOMINGOF A JUDGE
Dr. CorazonD. Paderanga,et. al.,
vs.hon. RusticoD. Paderanga
A.M. no.RTJ-14-
2383JusticeLucasP.Bersa
min
Act/scomplainedof:
1. RespondentJudge failedtoexertany
effortto mediatethe
differencesandmisunderstandingsbet
weenhissiblings;
2.Respondentcompoundedthetrouble
betweenhissiblingswhen heinstigated,
encourage andadvised theothertofile
chargesagainstthe other;
3. Respondentabusedhispowerasajudg
e by continuously tryingto
harassandoppresshisfemale
siblingsbythreatening tofile a civil
andcriminalcasesagainstthemfornotgiv
ing himhisshare ofthe
fruitsofthelandheldincommonby
them.
4.Respondentfailed to
inhibithimselfin a case filedwithhissala
despite thefactthat theparty
involvedisarelated to herandissued a
warrantofarrestagainstsuchrelative.
2015CASES
Canon 2 and 3 (section5)0f the
NewCode of Judicial Conduct
Section1, Rule 137of
theRulesofCourt
445
While itismorally rightforsiblingsto Consideringtheforegoi
settle thingsamongthemselves,there ng,respondentshouldbe
isnothinginlaw thatcompelsor metedwith
obligesa Judge tosettle atwomonthsuspension,
disputesbetweenhisfamily memebers. however,
AJudge isstillbut a manandnot suspensionisnot
Godwhocandictate the actionsof feasible since
peoplearoundhim. Further, therespondentisnoware
inadministrative proceedings, tiredjudgefrom
thecomplainanthasthe theJudiciary. In
burdenofproving bysubstantial lieuofsuspension, the
evidence Courtimposesonhim a
theallegationsinhiscomplaint.Charges fineof P40,000.00to
based bedeductedfromwhatev
onsuspicionorspeculationcannot be erretirementbenefitsare
givencredence. stillduehim.
The Courthasbeenclearabout
thecompulsory disqualificationof
Judgesrelated by consanguinity or
affinitytoa party being a duty designed
to freethe
adjudicationofcasesfromsuspicionasto
itsfairnessandintegrity. InGarcia v.
Dela Pena, thecourtemphatically
remindedthe ruleon compulsory
disqualification of ajudge to hear a
case where, asin thecase, the
respondentJudge isarelated to
eitherparty withinthe sixthdegree of
consanguinity oraffinityrestsonthe
salutary principle that
nojudgesshouldpreside in a case
inwhich he isnotwholly
free,disinterested, impartial and
 2015CASES
independent. A judge hasboth
theduty ofrendering a
justdecisionandthe duty ofdoing itin
a mannercompletely free
fromsuspicionastoitsfairnessandasto
itsintegrity. Thelaw conclusively
presumesthat ajudge
cannotobjectively orimpartially
sitinsuch a caseand, forthatreason,
prohibitshimandstrikesathisauthority
tohearanddecide it,in the absence
ofwrittenconsentofallpartiesconcerne
d. Thepurpose isto preserve the
people’sfaithandconfidence in the
courtsofjustice.

ABUSE OFAUTHORITY
Patrocinia H. Salabaovs. Act/scomplainedof: Rules10.03 and12.04 Respondenthasmade a mockery In lightof the
Atty.AndresC. Villaruel, Jr. 1. Respondentrelentlessly oftheodeofProfessionalResponsibili ofthe judicialprocessby abusing followingaggravatingcir
A.C. no. filedpetitionsandappealsinorder ty. Courtprocess, employing dilatory cumstances:multiplicity
8084AUGUST24, toexhaustall Rule 138, section20 (c)and(g). tacticstofrustrate the executionof a ofmotionsandcasesfiles
2015Del possibleremediestoobtainreliefforhis finaljudgment,andfeigning ignorance byrespondent;
Castillo.,J.: client. Such ofhisdutiesasanofficerofthe court.He themaliceevinced by
as,severalinhibitions,motions,andad hasbreachedhisswornduty hisfiling
ministrative toassistinthe speedy ofvariousmotionstoprev
complaintagainstthepresiding judge. andefficientadministrationof justice ent the
andviolatedthe Code judgesandsherifffromful
ofProfessionalResponsibility fillingtheirlegal
andRulesof Court. Indoing so,he duties;feignedignorance
isadministratively liablefor hisactions. ofhisdutiesasanofficer
ofthe court;
andhislackof
remorseforhisactions,
the courtfindsthat a
penalty
ofsuspensionfor18

446

GRAVE MISCONDUCTANDGROSSIGNORANCEOF THE LAW
Mary AnnT. Floresvs. Act/scomplainedof:
Atty.Jovencio L.Mayor 1.failure ofthe
A.C. NO. respondenttoimmediately act on
7314AUGUST25, theMotionforExecution;
2015PerCuriam: 2. Refusal to amendthe
WritofExecutiondespitehaving
beeninformed ofthe amendmentof
thename of the
corporationagainstwhich the
writwasissued.
3. Respondentallowed aperiod
ofmore than 2yearstolapse
beforeacting on the motion.
JUDICIALCLEMENCY
RE:INTHEMATTEROF Act/scomplainedof:
THEPETITIONFORREINSTA
TEMENTOFROLANDOS.
TORRES ASA
2015CASES
Rule 1.01 (16)ofthe Code
ofProfessionalResponsibility.
447
monthswouldbecom
mensurate
tothedamage
andprejudicethatresp
ondenthasinflicted
onthecomplainantfor
hisactions.
Asa LaborArbiter, Ilightofrespondent’spre
respondentisapublic vioussuspensionfromth
officerwhomustatall timesbe e practice of
accountable to thepeople, lawinanearlieradministra
whomhemustserve tive case forthesame
withutmostresponsibility, integrity, violations,respondentiso
loyalty andefficiency. The rdereddisbarredfromthe
unjustifieddelay practice of law
inhisactionsandhisfailure to andhisname be
actaccording to law constituteda strickenofftheRollof
breachof hisaccountability notonly Attorneys.He
tocomplainant,butalsoto thepublic
ingeneral.
Respondentviolatedhisoathasalawyer
to delay no manformoney ormalice,
andabandonedhisprofessional
responsibility toexertevery
effortandconsideredithisduty to
assistinthe speedy
andefficientadministrationofjustice.
The basic inquiry in a petition While the
forreinstatement tothe practice of law Courtsympathizeswith
iswhether the thepredicaments
lawyerhassufficientlyrehabilitatedhims ofdisbarredlawyers,
elforherselfin may
 2015CASES
MEMBEROFTHE conductandcharacter. Whether
PHILIPPINEBAR. theapplicantshall bereinstatedin
August25, theRoll ofAttorneysreststo
2015PerCuriam agreatextent on thesounddiscretion
oftheCourt. The
lawyerhastodemonstrateandprove by
clearandconvincingevidence that
heorshe isagainworthy ofmembership
ofthe Bar.
The Courtwilltake
intoconsiderationhisorhercharacter
ofthe charge/sfor which heorshe
wasdisbarred, hisor
herconductsubsequent tothe
disbarment, andthe time
thathaselapsedinbetweenthe
disbarmentandthe
applicationforreinstatement.
it be financial
orreputational incause-
itstandsfirminitscommit
ment tothepublic to
preservetheintegrity
andesteem
oftheBar.Asheldinprevi
ouscases, inconsideringa
lawyer’sapplicationforre
instatement
tothepractice of law, the
dutyof the
Courtistodetermine
whether
hehasestablishedmoralr
eformationandrehabilita
tion,disregarding
itsfeelingof sympathy
orpity.
Ultimately, with
theguidelinesnotcompli
edwith, the
Courthastobe objective
and,therefore,
deniesthepetition.

FAILURETO COMPLYWITHTHEMCLEREQUIREMENTSANDDISREGARDOFTHE DIRECTIVES OF THE MCLE OFFICE

Samuel B. Arnado vs. Act/scomplainedof:
Atty.HomobonoA. Adaza 1. Hisapplicationforexemptionforco
A.C. NO. mpliance
9834Carpio,J.: wasfiledafterthecompliance
periodshasended;
2. He purportedly wrote
theMCLEoffice tofollow up
thestatusof his
Section12 (5)of the BarMatterno. 850 Respondentisdeclaredd
MCLEImplementingRegula requiresmemebersof the elinquentmember
tions. IBPtoundergocontinuing legal ofthe
educationtoensurethatthroughoutthe IBPandissuspendedfro
ircareer,theykeepabreastwithlaw mthepractice of law for
andjurisprudence, sixmonthsoruntilhe
maintaintheethicsofthe hasfully
professionandenhance the compliedwiththe

448

applicationbutclaimedthathid]sse
cretary failedto send it;
3. After thedenial of
hismotionforreconsideration,
respondentstilltookandisstill, taking,
histime tosatisfythe requirementsof
the MCLE;
4. Whwnrespondentindicated “MCLE
ApplicationforExemptionforReconsid
eration” in a pleading, hehad not
filedany
motionforreconsiderationbefore the
MCLEOffice.
MALPRACTICE / GROSSMISCONDUCT
Noel S. Sorreda vs. Atty. David Act/scomplainedof:
L.Kho 1. he filedanarbitrationcase
A.C. NO. againsthisformerclients;
10635August26, 2. He
2015Carpio,J.: notarizedhisformerclient’saffidavitint
he saidarbitrationcasedespite being
disqualifiedunder thenotarial law of
2004since they are hissisterinlaw
andniece;
3. did notfurnishedthe partiesof
hiscommentontheirmotion;
4. did not countervail
themanifestationalleging the
mendacityof hisclientandhim;
5. intentionally delayed the
receiptmotionfortime extension;
2015CASES
standardsof the practice of law. requirementsof
theMCLE
andhasfullypaid the
requirednon-
compliance
andreinstatementfees.
2004 Ruleson Notarial Practice The legalpresumptionisthatanattorney Dismissed.
isinnocentof the
chargesagainsthimuntil the contrary
isproved.The burden of
proofindisbarmentandsuspensionproc
eedingsalwaysrestsonthecomplainant,a
ndthe
burdenisnotsatisfiedwhencomplainant
reliesonmere
assumptionsandsuspicionsasevidence.
Considering the
seriousconsequencesofdisbarmentand
suspension, thisCourthasconsistently
heldthatclearpreponderantevidence
isnecessary tojustifythe imposition
ofadministrative penalty.
449
 2015CASES
6. Notarized the SPA executed by
hisownlaw firm.

GROSSIGNORANCE OF THE LAW

Ariel “aga” Muhlach
vs.executiveJudge Ma. Angela
Acompanado-Arroyo
AUGUST26, 2015
Associate JusticeJosePortugalPerez
Act/scomplainedof:
1.Respondentfailed to
inhibithimself;
2. Respondenthad no authority
toreverse a
judge’sorderinhibitinghimselfassuchp
owerisvestedsolelyin the Supreme
Court.
Section1, Rule 137of the
RulesofCourt
To be heldliablefor grossignoranceof Dismissedforlack
the law, the judgemustbeshownto ofmerit.
have
committedanderrorthatwasgrossorpat
ent,deliberate ormalicious.
While itwaspronouncedinrelationto
the performance
byjudgesoftheirjudicial functions,
inthe matter oftheiradministrative
duties,itcan besaidthatasa matterof
public policy,a judge cannot be
subjectedtoliability for any
ofhisofficial acts, nomatter how
erroneous, aslong
asheactsingoodfaith.To
holdotherwisewould
betorenderjudicial officeuntenable,
for no one calledupon totrythe
factsorinterpretthelaw inthe
processofadministeringjusticecan be
infallible inhisjudgment.

UNLAWFUL, DISHONEST, IMMORALORDECEITFULCONDUCT/VIOLATIONOFTHE 2004 NOTARIALLAW

FO1. DarwinS. Sappayani vs. Act/c complained of:
Atty.Renato G.Gasmen 1. RespondentNotarized aforgedSPA
A.C. NO. anduntruthfully certifiedthatthe
7073SEPTEMBER1, affiantwasthe verysame
2015 personwhopersonally
appearedbefore him.
Canon 1 Rule 1.01 of
theCodeofProfessionalResponsibi
lity.
Section
2ofRuleIVoftheRulesonNotarial
Practice of 2004.
Notarizationisnotanempty,meanin Wherefore, the
gless, orroutinary act. It Courthereby
isimpressedwithsubstantialpublici suspendsAtty.RenatoG
nterest, andonly those asmenfrompractice of
whoarequalified or law for oneyear;
authorizedmayactassuch. Itisnot a revokeshisincumbentco
purposelessministerial act of mmissionasa notary
acknowledging public; and

450
 2015CASES
PERLAS-BERNABE,J.: documentsexecuted by partieswhoare prohibitshimfrombeing
willing to pay commissionedasa
feesfornotarization.Moreover, notary
notarizationof a private publicfortwoyears. He
document,suchasSPA,convertsthe iswarnedthata
document to apubliconeon which, repeyiyion of thesame
onitsface, offense orsimilaractsin
isgivenfullfaithandcredit.Thus, the thefuture shallbe
failure toobserve the utmostcare dealtwithmoreseverely.
intheperformance of hisduties,
byalawyer, caused not only damaged
tothose directly affected
bythenotarizeddocument,
butalsounderminedthe integrity ofa
notarypublic andtaintedthe function
ofnotarization.

UNLAWFUL, DISHONESTANDDECEITFULCONDUCT
INTESTATE ESTAE OFJOSE UY 1. Using false Canon8, 17,10,1 of the In appropriating WHEREFORE, Atty.
vsAtty Pacifico informationtakenfromanotherinhisple CodeofProfessionalResponsibili informationpertaining tohisopposing PacificoMaghariissusp
M.MaghariA.C.NO. 10525 adingsseveraltimes; ty. counsel,respondentdidnot only endedfrompractice of
SEPTEMBER1, 2015 failtoobserve commoncourtesy. law fortwoyears.
Leonen,J.: Heencroacheduponmattersthat,ultim
ately, are personal to
another.Thisencroachment,notonly
anactof trickery, itisalsoactoflarceny.
Inso doing,he violatedhisduty to
thelegalprofession.
By
hisact,respondentridiculedandtoyedwi
th therequirementsimposedby statute
andthe Court.
Hetrampleduponprofessionalstandard
sestablishednotonlu by the Court,
initscapacity asoverseerofthe legal

451

GROSSIMMORALITY
Atty. BoyBEcraela vs. Act/scomplainedof:
AttyIanRaymondA.Pngalangan 1. Complainantaversthatwhilelegally
A.C. No. married, respondenthadseriesof
10676September8, adulterousandillicitrelationswithmarri
2015PerCuriam: edandunmarriedwomen.
2. Abusedhisauthority
aseducatorwhen he inducedhismale
students toengage
innocturnalpreoccupationsandentertai
nedthe romantic gesturesof hisfemale
studentsinexchangefor passinggrades.
GROSSNEGLIGENCE
Felicisima Mendoza vda. Act/scomplainedof:
DeRobosavs. Atty. JuanMendoza 1.RespondentNavarrofailed
andAtty. tosubmitthe appealbriefwithin
Eusebio P.Navarro,Jr. thereglementary period;
A.C. No. 6056
2015CASES
Canon 1 and7 ofthe
CodeofProfessionalResponsib
ility.
Rule 18.03 and18.04 of theCode
ofProfessionalResponsibility
452
profession, butbytheRepublic
itself,througha duly enactedstatute.
Insodoing, he
violatedhisdutytosocietyand to the
courts.
In therecentcase ofPerez vs.Catindig WHEREBY, in
the courtpronouncedthat,the consideration
moraldelinquency oftheforegoing,the
thataffectsthefitnessof a memberof Courtresolvesandishere
the Bar tocontinue bydisbarredAtty.
assuchincludesconductthatoutragesth IanRaymondPangalanga
e generally nandorderthathisnameb
acceptedmoralstandardsofthe e strickenofffrom
community,conductforinstance, theRoll ofAttorneys.
whichmakesamockery ofthe
inviolablesocialinstitutionofmarriage.
Under the Code
ofprofessionalresponsibility, the
practice oflaw isaprivilege given to
those whopossessandcontinue
topossessthelegalqualificationsforthe
profession.
Good
moralcharacterisnotonlyrequiredforad
mission tothe bar, butmust also
beretainedinorder
tomaintainone’sgoodstanding
inthisexclusive andhonoredfraternity.
The lawyer’sduty to WHEREBY, the
keephisclientconstantly updated courtsuspendsAtty.
onthedevelopmentsof hiscase is Eusebio
crucialinmaintaining the P. Navarro,Jrfrom
client’scase.Indeed,the thepractice of law for
relationshipoflawyer-clientbeing sixmonthswithwarning

September9,
2015PresbiteroJ.
Velasco, Jr.
SIMPLEMISCONDUCT
JosephM. Cabuhatvs.
JudgeReynaldo G.Ros, et. al.,
A.M. No.RTJ-14-
2386September16,
2015JosePortugalPerez
Act/scomplainedof:
1. Salonga failed to explainwhy
therecordof the case endedupin
thebodega despite the factthatthere
wasanincidentstill to beresolved
bythecourt;
2. Salonga failed to
performhisdutiesandresponsibilitiesast
he clerk whowasincharge
ofmaintainingorkeeping the recordsof
the casesthatwere assignedtohisCourt.
3. It lastedfortenyearsfora case
ofsimple collectionofsumofmoney
tobe discoveredthatsome pages
2015CASES
oneof confidence, there that a repetition
iseverpresentthe needforthe lawyer ofthesameorsimilarviola
toinformtimely andadequately tionshall be dealtwith
theclient of moreseverely.
importantdevelopmentsaffecting the ThechargesagainstAtty.
client’scase.The lawyershouldnot Juan B.Mendoza
leave the clientinthe darkon howthe aredismissed.
lawyerisdefending theclient’sinterests.
Failure of
counseltosubmittheappealbriefforhis
clientwithin thereglementary
periodconstitutesinexcusable
negligence, an
offensethatentailsdisciplinary action.
Thefiling of a briefwithin
theperiodsetby law isa duty notonly
tothe clientbutalsoto the court.
Section35, RuleIVof the Simple neglect of duty isdefinedasthe Wherefore, the
UniformRulesonAdminitrative failure ofanemployee courthereby
cases. togiveproperattention to arequired suspendsJulius
taskorto discharge a duty due B. Salonga
tocarelessnessorindifference.On asClerkofCourtfor 1
theotherhand, grossneglectof duty monthwitha warning
ischaracterized by want of even thatrepetitionof the
theslightestcare, orby sameor similaroffense n
consciousindifference to the thefutureshall be
consequences, orby dealtwith moreseverely.
flagrantandpalpablebreach ofduty. The
administrativecomplaint
againstJudgeReynaldoR
osisherebydismissedfor
lack ofmerit.
453
 2015CASES
thereofweremissing andtobe
finallyresolve.

FORUMSHOPPING
DavidWilliamsvs. Atty.Rudy
T.Enriquez
A.C. No. 8319/8329/8366
September16,2015Jo
se CatralMendoza
Act/scomplainedof:
1. Purposely filingof
groundless,false andunlawfulsuit;
2. Violation oftheRule
onForumshopping.
Canon12 of the Code In the caseof Wherefore, Atty.
ofProfessional Floresvs.Chua,theCourtheld: a RudyEnriquez
Resposibility. lawyershall atall timesupholdthe issuspendedfromthe
integrity anddignity ofthe practice of lawfor a
legalprofession. The periodof sixmonths.
Barshouldmaintain a
highstandardoflegalproficiency
aswellashonesty andfairdealing. A
lawyerbringshonor tothelegal
professionby faithfullyperforming
hisdutiestosociety, totheBar,to the
courtsand tohisclients. Tothisend
amember of thelegal
fraternityshouldrefrainfromdoing any
actwhichmightlesseninany degree the
confidence andtrustreposedbythe
public in thefidelity,honesty
andintegrityof the legalprofession.

VIOLATIONOFTHE NOTARIALLAW
Atty. BenignoT.Bartolomevs.
Atty.ChristopherA.Basilio
A.C. no.
10783October14,
2015Perlas-
Bernabe,J.:
Act/scomplainedof:
Respondentnotarized a
documentpurportedly
subscribedandsworntobefore himbya
personwhowasalready dead,
andsupposedlyrecordeditinhisnotarial
register.
Section 5(b)of the Notarial Rules
Rule 1.01, Canon 1of the Code
ofProfessionalResponsibility.
A notary public Wherefore, the
exercisesdutiescalling for Courthereby
carefulnessandfaithfulness.Notariesm suspendsAtty.Christoph
ustinformthemselvesthe factsthey erBasiliofromthe
mustcertifyto,mostimportantly, they practice of lawfor one
should nottake part or yearandrevokeshisincu
allowthemselvesto bepart of illegal mbentcommissionasa
transactions.inline withthismandate, a notarypublic
notary public shouldnot notarize a andprohibitshimfrombe
documentunlessthepersonwhosigned ingcommissionedasanot
thesameisthevery ary publicfortwo
personwhoexecutedand

454

GROSSIGNORANCE OF THE LAW
Sugni Realty Act/scomplainedof:
HoldingsandDevelopmentCorporati 1. Respondentissuedordertoenableth
onvs. JudgeBernadettes. Paredes- e posting ofsupersedeasbondduring
Encinareal thependency of
A.M. No.RTJ-08- anappealinhercourtinorder
2102OCTOBER14,20 topreventtheimmediate executionof
15Bersamin,J.: theadversedecisionof theMTCC.
2. Respondentissuedanorderdespit
e thefactthatsheknew thatshe
hasno authority to doso.
2015CASES
personally appearedbefore him years.
toattestto the contentsandthe
truthofwhatare statedtherein.By
failing inthisregard, the notary
permitsafalsehoodwhichdoesnotonlyt
ransgressthe NotarialRulesbutalsothe
Code ofProfessionalResposibility.
Section19, Rule 70of the The provision ofsection19of Rule70 Wherefore, the
RulesofCourt of theRulesof courtwhichallowsthe courtfinesherin the
filing of thesupersedeasbondonly amountof P21,000.00
with theMTCC wasdisregardedbythe with awarning
respondent.Judgesofthe thatrepetitionof
firstlevelcourtsshould be reminded thesameorsimilaractwo
toadhere to themandate uld be dealtwithmore
ofsection19by issuing severely.
writsofexecutionuponmotionof the
plaintiffsinactionsforejectmentwhene
ver the defendantshave failed to stay
execution. Theyshouldnot leave tothe
appellatecourt the actionson
themotionsforexecutionbecause
thatactionwouldbetoo late. The trial
andappellatejudgesshouldconstantlyb
e mindfulof thesummary nature
oftheejectmentactions, andofthe
purposeunderlying themandate
forimmediate execution,
whichistoprevent
theplaintiffsfrombeingfurtherdeprive
dof theirrightfulpossession.
Otherwise, theystandliable for
grossignorance ofthe law
455
 2015CASES
or procedure.

GROSSIMMORALITY
NelsonP. Valdez vs. Atty. 1. maintaining Rule 1.01, canon7,Rule 7.03of Morality inourliberal society today Wherefore,
AntolinAllysonDabon, Jr. anillicitrelationshipwithotherwoma theCode of isprobably a farcry fromwhatitusedto Atty.AntolinAllysonDa
A.C.No. 7353 notherthanhiswife. ProfessionalResponsibility. be. Notwithstanding, lawyers, bon,Jr ishereby
November16, askeepersofpublic faith, are disbarredfromthe
2015PerCuriam burdenedwith a highdegree practice oflaw.
ofsocialresponsibility and, hence,
musthandle
theirpersonalaffairswithgreatercaution
.Indeed, those whohave taken the
oathtoassistin
thedispensationofjustice should
bemore possessedof the
consciousnessand the will to
overcome theweaknessofthe flesh.
A grossimmoralactisone
thatthatissocorruptasto
constituteacriminalact, orso
unprincipledastobe reprehensible to a
highdegree
orcommittedundersuchscandalousorr
evolting circumstancesasto shockthe
commonsense ofdecency. It iswillful,
flagrant,orshamelessastoshow
indifference to the opinion
ofgoodandrespectable membersof
thecommunity.

456
 2016CASES
GROSSIGNORANCE OF THE LAW/GROSSMISCONDUCT

ArmandoBalanay vs. 1. Allowing the accused Section 9 Rule 114ofthe In Atty, White vs. Judge Wherefore, the
JudgeJulianaAdalim-White sixfurloughsdespite being RulesofCourt Bugtasitwaselucidatedthat a judge courtherby
A.M. No.RTJ-16- chargedwithmurder, anon-bailable iscalleduponto exhibitmore thanjust a suspendsAtty.Juliana
2443January 11, 2016 offense. cursoryacquaintance White fromheroffice for
Del Castillo,J: 2. Grantingthe withstatutesandprocedural rules.It 1 yearwithoutsalary
motiontobailwithoutconducting isimperative thathebe andotherbenefits.
hearingforthe purpose. conversantwithbasiclegalprinciplesand
3. Altering the contentsofthe TSN be aware of well-settledauthoritative
doctrine. Heshouldstrive
forexcellence exceededonly by
hispassionoftruth,to theendthat hebe
the personification ofjustice and
therule of law.When thelaw
issufficiently basic, ajudge owesit to
hisoffice tosimply apply it.
Anything lessthanthatwould
begrossignorance of the law.

GROSSIMMORALCONDUCT
AnteroM. Sison, Jr. vs. Atty, Manuel 1. entering into a Rule1.01, RULE 16.01 ofthe CPR The fiduciaryrelationshipbetwee Wherefore, the
N. Camacho compromisedagreementwithouta thecounselandhisclientimposeson courthreby
A.C No. uthorization thelawyer the duty to accountfor disbarsAtty.ManuelCa
10910January 2. Failure torenderanaccounting themoney or property machofromthe practice
12,2016PerCuri offundswhichwere supposedto be collectedorreceived for of law.
am: paidasadditionaldocketfees. orfromhisclient. Moneyentrusted to a
lawyerfor aspecificpurpose butnot
usedforthe purposeshouldbe
immediatey returned. Alawyer’sfailure
toreturnupondemand, the fundsheld
byhim onbehalf of hisclientgivesriseto
thepresumptionthat
hehasappropriatedthesame
forhisownuse inviolationof the
trustreposedinhimby his

457
 2016CASES

client. Suchactisa grossviolation

GRAVE MISCONDUCT
Paulina Yu vs. Atty.Berlindela Cruz 1. While the lawyer-
A.C. No. clientrelationshipwassubsisting,
10912January respondentlawyerborrowedpiecesofje
19, welry fromcomplainantandpledgedthe
2016PerCuriam: samefor a
considerationandappropriatedthe
proceedsto herpersonaluse.
2. Complainantdemandedfor
therefundof the acceptance
feesreceivedby respondentpriorto
theabandonmentof the casesand
thepayment ofthe value of the
jewelry,but to noavail.
3. Respondentissued a
postdatedcheck infavorof the
complainantbutwasdishonoruponpres
entmentforaccountclosed.
Canon1, 16, 17 andRules1.01, 16.04of
the Code
ofProfessionalResponsibility.
ofgeneralmorality
aswellasofprofessionalethics.It
impairspublicconfidence in the
legalprofessionanddeserve
punishment.
The unfulfilledpromised tofacilitatethe The
redemptionof the jewelry andhisact of courtherebysuspendsAt
issuing a worthlesscheckconstitute ty. BrlinDela Cruz from
grave violationsof theCPRand the thepractice of law
lawyer’soath.Theseshortcomingshave forthreeyearswith a
seriously breachedthe highly sternwarning.
fiduciaryrelationshipbetweenlawyer’sa
ndclients.Thisindicatesa
lawyer’sunfitnessforthetrustandconfid
ence reposed on him,showssuchlack
ofpersonalhonestyandgoodmoralchara
cterasto renderhimunworthy ofpublic
confidence,andconstitutesa
groundfordisciplinary action.,
andthusseriouslyandirreparably
tarnishesthe image ofthe profession.
Suchconduct, whilealready off-putting
whenattributed toanordinary person,
ismuchmoreabhorrentwhenexhibitedb
yamemberof
theBar.Respondentlawyerturned hi
backfromthepromise that heonce
madeuponadmission totheBar.
Asvanguardsofthe law and the
legalsystem,lawyersmust
atalltimesconductthemselves,especially
intheirdealingswiththeir

458

Cheryle. Vasco-Tamaray 1. Respondentfiled onbehalf of
vs.Atty.DeborahZ. Daquis thecomplainant,withoutherconsent,
A.C. no. aPetitionforDeclarationof Nullity
10868January ofMarriage andforgedhersignature
26, onthe petition.
2016PerCuriam 2. Respondentsignedthe
petitionascounselfor thepetitioner,
thecomplainantwhennocounsel-
clientrelationexistbetweenthembuinfac
tthe counselofthe husband.
MALPRACTICE
Gregory Fabay vs. 1. Rasuena notarized a
Atty.RexA.Resuena SPAnotwithstandingthe factthattwo
A.C. No. ofthe principalthereinwere already
8723January deadlong before the executionof the
26,2016PerCuri SPA.
am:
2016CASES
Canon1, Rule 1.01, canon 7Rule
7.03, canon10 Rule 10.01,
Canon17of theCPR
Section2, RuleIVofthe2004 Ruleson
NotarialPractice
Rule 1.01, Canon 1of theCPR
459
clientsandthe public atlarge,
withhonesty andintegrity in a
mannerbeyondreproach.
Allowing theuseof a The Penalty
forgedsignatureon a ofDisbarmentisimposed
petitionfiledbefore a uponrespondentAtty.D
courtistantamountto eborahDaquiz.
consentingtothecommissionof a
falsehoodbeforecourts.
Every lawyerisa servantofthe
law,andhastoobserve andmaintain
therule of law aswellasbe
anexemplarworthy ofemulationby
others.itisbyno meansa coincidence,
therefore,that the core
valuesofhonesty,integrity,
andtrustworthinessareemphatically
reiterated bythe Code ofProfessional
Resposibilities.
A notary publicshould notnotarize ACCORDINGLY,
adocumentunlessthe personwhosigned respondentisdisbarredfr
thesame isthe omthe practice of
verysamepersonwhoexecutedandperso lawandlikewise
nallyappearedbefore him to attest to perpetuallydisqualifiedfr
thecontents and the truthof ombeingcommissioneda
whatarestatedtherein. Without sanotary public.
theappearance of the
personwhoactuallyexecuted the
document,thenotarypublic would be
unableto verify thegenuinenessof the
signatureof theacknowledging party
and toascertain

NEGLIGENCE
Atty. PabloB. 1. respondentfailed to
Franciscovs.Atty.RomeoM. actuponhisclient’scause resulting in
Flores theprescriptionof available
A.C. no. remedies.
10753January 2. he failed to notify the
26, courtthatheiswithdrawing
2016Leonen,J.: hisappearance ascounsel
3. made
untruthfulstatementsinthepleadingsfi
ledbeforethe court tomake
itappearthatthe pleadingsarefiled on
time.
VIOLATIONOFTHE NOTARIALLAW
Maria Japitana vs. Atty. Performingnotarial
SylvesterC.Parado actswithoutauthority to
A.C. no. doso,knowinglynotarizing
10859January forgeddocuments, andnotarizing
26, documentswithoutrequiringsufficienti
2016PerCuriam dentificationfromthe signatories.
MISREPRESENTATION/ACTSUNBECOMING ALAWYER
ENGELPaul Aca vs. Atty.Ronaldo RespondentAtty. Salvadointroduced
2016CASES
Canon10, Rule 10.01 andRule 10.03
andcanon18, Rule 18.03
Section 2 RuleIVof
theRulesonNotarialPractice
Canon 1 and 7oftheCPR
Canon1, Rule 1.01 andcanon7, Rule
460
that the documentisthe
party’sfreeactanddeed.
Fundamentalistherule Suspensionfrompracti
thatinhisdealingswithhisclientsandwit ce of law
h thecourts, every lawyerisexpected to fortwoyearswithsternw
behonest, imbuedwithintegrity, arning.
andtrustworthy. These
expectations,thoughhighanddemandin
g,are
theprofessionalandethicalburdensofev
ery memberof thePhilippine Bar,for
they have
beengivenfullexpressioninthe
lawyer’soaththatevery lawyer of
thiscountryhastakenuponadmissionas
a bona fidememberof the law
profession
Without a commission, WHEREFORE,
alawyerisunauthorizedto respondentissuspendedf
performanyof thenotarialacts. A romthepractice of law
lawyerwhoactsasanotary public fortwoyearsandpermane
withoutthe ntlydisqualifiedfrombein
necessarynotarialcommissionisremiss gcommissionedasnotary
inhisprofessional public.
dutiesandresponsibilities. Under
theRule, onlypersonswhoare
commissionedasnotary publicmay
performnotarialactswithinthe
territorial jurisdictionof the
courtwhichgrantedthecommission.
Asa man oflaw, a lawyeris Wherefire, the courts

P. Salvado himselfasa lawyerand a
A.C. no. businessmanengagedinseveralbusiness
10952January esincluding butnotlimited
26, tothelending business.
2016PerCuriam: Enticed,complainantinvestedhismone
y andguaranteed bythe respondentthat
hewould be given a
hjghinterestrateevery
month.Asconsiderationforhisinvestme
nts,respondentissuedseveralpostdated
checkswhich,however,
wasdishonoreduponpresentmentforlac
k ofsufficientfundorclosedaccount.
VIOLATIONOFTHERULE ONNOTARIALPRACTICE
Erlinda Sistual et. al., vs. Atty. Respondentlawyeraslegalcounsel,wil
EliordoOgena lfully, unlawfully
A/C. no. 9807 andfeloniouslyfalsifiedseveralDocu
February 2, mentsbymaking itappearthatall
2016PerCuriam: theaffiantexecuted the
documentswhichresultedto
thesubdivisionof thesubjectpropery
andeventualsell tointerestedbuyers.
MORALTURPITUDE
OOFICE OFTHECOURT Respondentwasfoundguilty
ADMINISTRATORvs.Presiding bytheSandiganbayan for violationof
section3€ ofRepublic Act no.3019and
2016CASES
7.03 of the CPR.
Section 2(b), RuleIVofthe
2004RulesonNotarial Practice
Section27 Rule 138ofthe
RulesofCourt
461
necessarily a leader ofthe suspendsAtty.
community,lookedup toasa model Salvadofromthe
citizen. Amanlearnedin the law practice of lawfor a
isexpected tomake periodoftwoyears.
truthfulrepresentationswhendealing
withpersons, clientsorotherwise.
By notarizing the WHERFORE, Atty.
documents,respondetengagedinunlawf EliordoOgena
ul,dishonest, immoral issuspendedfromthepra
ordeceitfulconduct. ctice of law for
Hisconductisfraughtwithdangerouspos aperiodoftwoyearsandis
sibilitiesconsidering barredpermanentlyfrom
theconclusivenessonthe due beingcommissionedasn
executionof a otarypublic.
documentthatourcourtsandthepublic
accord tonotarizeddocuments.Failure
to performhisdutiesasanotary
publicresultednotonly indamaging
complainant’srightsbutalsoinundermini
ngthe integrity of anotary public
andindegrading thefunctionof
notarization.
It isimmaterialthat Wherefore,
therespondentwasnot yet a memberof premisesconsidered,J
theJudiciarywhen he allegedly UDGEjosephCedrick
committed the acts Ruiz is
 2016CASES

Judge JosephCedrickRuiz malversationof public funds. imputed tohim; hereby

A.M. No.RTJ-13- judgesmaybedisciplinedforactscommitt dismissedfromthe
2361FEBRUARY 2, edpriorto theirappointmentto the service withforfeiture
2016PerCuriam: Judiciary.It neednot be ofall
shownthattherespondentcontinued benefits,exceptaccruedle
todothe act oractscomplainedof, avecredits,
itissufficientthatthe evidence on andwithprejudice
recordsupportsthecharge/sagainstthe toreemploymentin
respondentthroughproofthat theGovernment or
therespondentcommittedthe anyofitssubdivisions,inst
imputedact/sviolativeof the Code rumentalitiesoragenciesi
ofProfessionalResponsibility and the ncludingGovernment-
applicableprovisionsofthe ownedandcontrolledcor
RulesofCourt. porations.
Asaconsequence
ofthisruling, JudgeRuiz
islikewise
declareddisbarredandstri
ckenfromtheRoll
ofAttorneys.

EXERCISE OFDUE CARE

INOCENCIOBalistoy Atty. Bronwasaccusedof 2004 Ruleson Notarial Practice It isnecessary to Premisesconsidered,t
vs.AttyFlorencioA.Bron preparing,notarizing, andfiling impresstoAtty.Bronthatasamemberof he
A.C. no. motiontodismissandananswerknowin theBar anda notary public, he petitionisdeniedfor
8667February 3, g thatthe CTC’sofhisclients showed couldhaveexercisedcautionandresourc lavk ofmerit.
2016Brion,J.: tohimwere fraudulent,. efulnessinnotarizingthe juratin However, Atty.Bron
thepleadingshe filed by seeing isreprimandedforhislack
toitthatthe CTC’spresentedto of due care
himwere inorderinallrespects. Thathe innotarizingthe motion
failed todo to dismissand the
sobetrayscarelessnessinhisperformanc answerin theCivil case.
e ofthe notarialactandhisduty asa
lawyer.

462
 2016CASES
(Topic): GrossMisconduct
SPOUSESJONATHANAND Act/s complained of Legalbasis/basesofthec
ESTER harge/s
LOPEZ,Complainants,vs. Neglect of Duty asa counsel Code
ATTY.SINAMAR E.LIMOS, ofProfessionalRe
Respondent. sponsibility
Rule1.01-
A.C. No. Alawyershallnotengageinunlawful,
dishonest,immoralordeceitfulcon
7618February 2,
duct.
2016
Rule12.04-
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.: Alawyershallnotundulydelayacase,i
mpedetheexecutionofajudgmento
rmisuseCourtprocesses.
ule16.03-
Alawyershalldeliverthefundsandpr
opertyofhisclient when
dueorupon
demand.However,heshallhavealie
noverthefundsandmayapplysomu
chthereofasmaybenecessarytosatis
fyhislawful
feesanddisbursements,givingnotic
epromptlythereaftertohisclient.He
shallalsohavealientothesameextent
onalljudgmentsandexecutionsheha
ssecuredforhisclientas
providedforintheRulesofCourt.
Rule18.03-
Alawyershallnotneglectalegalm
atterentrustedtohim,andhisnegl
igenceinconnectiontherewithsh
allrenderhim
463
SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition
AscorrectlypointedoutbytheIB
PInvestigatingCommissioner,r Atty.SinamarE.Limosisfoundguiltyofviolat
espondent'sactsconstituteaflagr ing Rule 1.01 ofCanon1, Canon11,
antviolationoftheCodeofProfes Rule12.04ofCanon12,Rules16.01and
sionalResponsibility.
16.03ofCanon16,andRule18.03
ofCanon18oftheCodeofProfessionalResp
onsibility.Accordingly,sheisherebysuspend
Undertheforegoingpr edfromthepracticeoflawforaperiodofthree
ovisions, (3)years.
oncealawyertakesupthecauseof
hisclient,heisduty-
boundtoservethelatterwithcom
petence,andtoattendtosuchclie
nt'scausewithdiligence,care,and
devotionwhetherheacceptsitfor
afeeorforfree.Heowesfidelityto
suchcauseandmustalwaysbemi
ndfulofthetrustandconfidencer
eposeduponhim.Therefore,ala
wyer'sneglectofalegalmatterent
rustedtohimbyhisclientconstitu
tes
inexcusable
negligenceforwhichhemustbe
heldadministratively liable.
 2016CASES
liable.
(Topic) :Deceit/GraveMisconduct
Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/basesofthec
ADELPHA E.MALABED, Dishonestyandgravemiscond harge/s
Complainant, uct(deliberatelyandrepeatedly Code
vs. making falsehood) ofProfessionalRe
ATTY.MELJOHNB.DE LA sponsibility
PEÑA,Respondent. Rule10.01-
Alawyershallnotdoanyfalsehood
A.C. No. ,norconsenttothedoingofanyinC
7594February 9, ourt;norshallhemislead,orallowt
2016 heCourttobemisledbyanyartifice
CARPIO, J.: . (3)defyingwillfullytheCourt'sp
Rule10.02-
Alawyershallnotknowinglymisq
uoteormisrepresentthecontents
ofapaper,thelanguageortheargu
mentofopposingcounsel,orthete
xtofadecisionorauthority,orkno
winglyciteaslawaprovisionalread
yrenderedinoperativebyrepealor
amendment,orassertasafactthat
whichhasnotbeenproved.
464
SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition
Respondentcommittedgrossm Atty. MeljohnB.De la peñaguilty
isconductfor(1)misrepresentin ofgrossmisconductandaccordinglysuspen
gthathesubmittedacertificateto dhimfrom thepracticeof law
fileactionissuedbytheLuponTa fortwo(2)yearswith a warningthat
gapamayapawheninfacttherew thecommissionof the sameorsimilaract
asnonepriortotheinstitutionoft oractsshall be dealtwithmoreseverely.
hecivilactionofhisclient,Fortu
natoJadulco;(2)usingimproperl
anguageinhispleadings;and
rohibitiononreemploymentina
nygovernmentofficeasaccesso
rypenaltyofhisdismissalasajudg
e.Grossmisconductisdefinedas
"improperorwrongconduct,th
etransgressionofsomeestablish
edanddefiniteruleofaction,afor
biddenact,aderelictionofduty,
willfulincharacter,andimpliesa
wrongfulintentandnotamereer
rorinjudgment.
 2016CASES

(Topic) :GrossMisconduct
NEMESIOFLORANand Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/basesofthec SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition
CARIDADFLORAN, Committinggravemisco harge/s Thepracticeoflawisnotavestedrightbutaprivilege,a
Complainants, nductandwillfulinsubor privilegeclothedwithpublicinterestbecausealawyer Atty.RoyPruleEdiza,havingvio
vs. dination Code owessubstantialdutiesnotonlytohisclient,butalsot latedtheCodeofProfessionalRe
ATTY.ROY PRULE EDIZA, ofProfessionalRespo ohisbrethrenintheprofession,tothecourts,andtoth sponsibilitybycommittinggrave
Respondent nsibility enation,andtakespartinoneofthemost misconductandwillfulinsubord
A.C. No. importantfunctionsoftheState- ination,isdisbarredandhisname
5325February 9, CANON12.Alawyershallexertev theadministrationofjustice- orderedstrickenofftheRollofAt
2016 eryeffortandconsiderithisduty to asanofficerofthecourt.Toenjoytheprivilegesofpra torneyseffectiveimmediately.
PERCURIAM: assistinthe cticinglaw,lawyersmustadheretotherigidstandards
speedyandefficientadministratio ofmentalfitness,maintainthehighestdegreeofmora
nofjustice. lity,andfaithfullycomplywiththerulesofthelegalpro
fession.Clearly,Atty.Ediza'sconducthasmadehimu
Rule12.04- nfittoremainin the legalprofession.
Alawyershallnotundulydelayacas
e,impedetheexecution
ofajudgmentormisuse
Courtprocesses.

Rules of Court

Section27.Disbarmentorsuspensionof
attorneysbySupremeCourt;groundsther
efor.-Amemberofthebar–
maybedisbarredorsuspendedfro
mhisofficeasattorneybytheSupre
meCourtforanydeceit,malpractic
e,orothergrossmisconductinsuch
office,grosslyimmoralconduct,or
byreasonofhisconvictionofacrim
einvolvingmoralturpitude,orfora
nyviolationoftheoathwhichheisr
equired

465
 2016CASES

totakebeforeadmissiontopractice
,orforawillfuldisobedienceofanyl
awfulorderofasuperiorcourt,orfo
rcorruptlyorwillfullyappearingas
anattorneyforapartytoacase
withoutauthorityso todo.

(Topic): GrossMisconduct
ANGELITORAMISCAL Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/basesofthec SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition
andMERCEDESORZAME, Grossmisconduct(forfa harge/s AsamemberoftheLawProfessioninthePhilippines,
Complainants, ilureandneglectofduty therespondenthadtheforegoingprofessionalandet Atty.EdgarS.Orroisguiltyofviol
vs. asa counsel) Code hicalburdens.Butheobviouslyfailedtodischargehis atingcanon17,andrules18.03an
ATTY.EDGAR S. ORRO, ofProfessionalRe burdenstothebest of hisknowledge d18.04ofthecodeofprofessiona
Respondent. sponsibility anddiscretionandwithallgoodfidelitytohisclients.B lresponsibility;andsuspendshi
yvoluntarilytakinguptheircause,hegavehisunqualif mfromthepracticeoflawforape
A.C. No. CANON17- iedcommitmenttoadvanceanddefendtheirinterestt riodfortwoyearseffectiveupon
10945(Formerly CBD09- Alawyerowesfidelitytothecauseo herein.Evenifhecouldnottherebyguaranteetothem notice,withthesternwarningtha
2507) fhisclientandheshallbemindfulof thefavorableoutcomeofthelitigation,herenegedon tanysimilarinfractioninthefutur
thetrustandconfidencereposedin hiscommitmentnonethelessbecausehedidnotfileth ewillbedealtwithmoreseverely.
February 23, him. emotionforreconsiderationintheirbehalfdespitere
2016BERSAMIN ceivingfromthemtheP7,000.00hehadrequestedfor
, J.: CANON18 – thatpurpose.Hefurtherneglectedtoregularlyupdate
Alawyershallservehisclientwithc themonthestatusofthecase,particularlyontheadver
ompetence anddiligence. seresult,therebyleavingtheminthedarkon
theproceedingsthatwere gradually turning
againsttheirinterest.
Rule18.03– Basedonallthecircumstancesinthiscase,weapprove
Alawyershallnotneglectalegalmat therecommendationoftheIBPfortherespondent'ss
terentrustedtohim,andhisneglige uspensionfromthepracticeoflawfor a
nceinconnectiontherewithshallre
periodoftwoyears.Althoughthe
nderhimliable.

Rule18.04–
Alawyershallkeeptheclientinfor
medofthestatusofhiscaseandshal
lrespondwithina reasonable

466
 2016CASES

timetotheclient'srequestforinfor Courtimposed asix-monthsuspensionfrom

mation. thepracticeoflawonlawyersviolatingCanons17and
18oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility,therec
ommendedpenaltyiscondignandproportionatetot
heoffensechargedandestablishedbecausehisdispla
yofdisrespectfuldefianceoftheordersoftheIBPaggr
avatedhismisconduct.

(Topic): GrossMisconduct
RE:VERIFIEDCOMPLAINT Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/basesofthec SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition
DATEDJULY 13,2015 Forgravemisconductan harge/s AdministrativecomplaintagainstSan
OFALFONSOV.UMALI,JR., dgrossignoranceofthe Rules of Court Atanyrate,wefindthatthechargeofgrossignoranceo diganbayanAssociateJusticeJoseR.
Complainant, law Rule140Section1.Complaint.- fthelawbasedonwhatUmaliperceivedtobeanerron Hernandezisdismissedfor
vs. Allchargesagainstjudgesoffirstinstan eousconclusionoflawhasnolegalbasis.Toconstitut lackof merit.
HON.JOSER.HERNANDEZ,A ceshallbeinwritingandshallsetoutdist egrossignoranceofthelaw,itisnot
SSOCIATE JUSTICE, inctly,clearly,andconciselythefactsco
enoughthatthesubjectdecision,order,oractuationo
SANDIGANBAYAN, Respondent. mplainedofasconstitutingthealleged
seriousmisconductorinefficiencyoft fajudgeintheperformanceofhisofficialdutiesiscont
herespondent,andshallbesworntoan rarytoexistinglawandjurisprudencebut,mostimpor
IPINo. 15-35-SB-J dsupportedbyaffidavitsofpersonsw tantly,hemustbemovedbybadfaith,fraud,dishonest
hohavepersonalknowledgeofthefact y,orcorruption.Asearlierdiscussed,Umaliutterlyfail
February 23, sthereinalleged,andshallbeaccompa edtosubstantiatehisclaimthatJusticeHernandeztrie
2016BRION, J.: niedwithcopiesofdocumentswhich dtoextortP15millionfromhiminexchange for
maysubstantiatesaidfacts. hisacquittal.

Inaddition,theSandiganbayanrulingwasacollegiald
ecision,withJusticeHernandezastheponente,andAss
ociateJusticesQuirozandCornejoastheconcurring
magistrates.Itbearsstressingthatinacollegialcourt,t
hemembersactonthebasisofconsensusormajorityr
ule.Umalicannotimpute whatheperceivedto
beanerroneousconclusionoflawtoonespecificJusti
ce only.

467
 2016CASES

(Topic): Deceit/GrossMisconduct
SPOUSESEDUARDOG.G Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/basesofthec SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition
ACUYA Unauthorizednotarizati harge/s Itmustbeemphasizedanewthat"wherethenotarizat ThenotarialcommissionofAtty.Rey
ANDCARIDADROSARIO on Code ionof a documentisdonebya manA.Solbita,isherebyrevoked,and
GACUYA, andviolati ofProfessionalRe memberofthePhilippineBaratatimewhenhehasno heispermanentlybarredfrombeingc
Complainants, on of Lawyer’sOath sponsibility authorizationorcommissiontodoso,theoffenderm ommissionedasnotarypublic,effecti
vs. (unlawful, Rule1.01.Alawyershallnotengage aybesubjectedtodisciplinaryaction.Forone,perfor veuponreceiptofthecopyofthisdecis
ATTY.REYMANA.SOLBITA, dishonest,immoralorde inunlawful,dishonest,immoral minganotarialactwithoutsuchcommissionisaviolat ion.Heisalsosuspendedfromthepra
Respondent. ceitfulconduct) ordeceitful conduct. ionofthelawyer'soathtoobeythelaws,morespecific cticeoflawforaperiodoftwo(2)years
CANON7- ally,theNotarialLaw.Then,too,bymakingitappeart effectiveimmediately,withawarning
A.C. No. 8840 [Formerly alawyershallatalltimesupholdtheinte hatheisdulycommissionedwhenheisnot,heis,forall thatarepetitionofasimilarviolationw
CBDCaseNo. 11-3121] grityanddignityofthelegalprofession legalintentsandpurposes,indulgingindeliberatefals illbedealtwithevenmoreseverely.He
andsupportthe ehood,whichthelawyer'soathsimilarlyproscribes.T isdirectedtoreportthedateofhisrecei
activitiesoftheintegratedbar. heseviolationsfallsquarelywithintheprohibitionof ptofthisDecisiontoenablethisCourt
March8, 2016
Rule1.01ofCanon1oftheCodeofProfessionalResp todeterminewhenhissuspensionsha
onsibility,whichprovides:'Alawyershallnotengageinunl lltake effect.
PERCURIAM:
awful,dishonest,immoralordeceitfulconduct.'"Byactingasa
notarypublicwithoutthepropercommissiontodoso
,thelawyerlikewiseviolatesCanon7ofthesameCode
,whichdirectseverylawyertoupholdatalltimestheint
egrityanddignityof the legalprofession.

Alltold,Atty.Solbitacannotescapefromdisciplinary
actioninhiscapacityasanotarypublicandasamembe
rofthePhilippineBar.Byhisunauthorizednotarizati
on,heclearlyfellmiserablyshortofhisobligationund
erCanon7oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility
,whichdirectseverylawyertoupholdatalltimesthe
integrity anddignity ofthe legalprofession.

468
 2016CASES

(Topic): Malpracticeorothergrossmisconductinoffice
SPOUSESCESAR Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/basesofthec SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition
ANDTHELMA Undue delay harge/s Ajudgeismandatedtoresolvewithdispatchthecases JudgeFriscoT.Lilagan,PresidingJud
SUSTENTO, inrendering Rules of Court andmattersinhiscourt,mindfulthatanydelayintheir geoftheRegionalTrialCourt,Branch
Complainants, anorder. dispositionerodesthefaithofthepeople in the 34,inTaclobanCityguiltyofgrossinef
vs. Grossinefficiencyandn Section9,Rule140,unduedelayinr judicialsystem. ficiencyforhisunduedelayinresolvin
JUDGE FRISCOT.LILAGAN, eglect of duty enderingadecisionororderfallswit Therespondentjudgesoughttojustifyhisdelay gthependingmotionforreconsiderat
Respondent. hinthecategoryofalessseriouscha bycitingthevoluminouscaseloadhehadasthep ion;and,accordingly,fineshiminthea
rge,andispenalizedasfollows: residingjudge.Thejustificationdoesnotpersua mountofP45,000.00,withawarningt
A.M. No.RTJ-11- de.Nojudgeshouldarrogateuntohimselfthepr hatasimilarinfractioninthefuturewill
2275March8, SEC.11.Sanctions.- x xx erogativetoextendtheperiodfordecidingcases bemoreseverelysanctioned.
2016BERSAMIN, beyondthe mandatory 90-day period.
J.: B.Iftherespondentisguiltyofaless Therespondentcannotbesparedfromtheconseque
seriouscharge,anyofthefollowing ncesofhisunduedelaysinthecaseofthecomplainant
sanctionsshallbeimposed: s.HedidnotshowthatheeverrequestedtheCourtfor
theadditionaltimewithinwhichtodisposeofthematt
1.Suspensionfromofficewithouts erstherein.Itthenbecomesinescapableforhimtofac
alaryandotherbenefitsfornotlesst etheconsequencesofhisinexplicableinaction.Hewa
hanone sguiltyofgrossinefficiencyandneglectofduty.Failur
(1)normorethanthree(3)months; etorenderadecisionwithinthe90-
or dayperiodfromthesubmissionofacasefordecisionis
detrimentaltothe honor
2.AfineofmorethanP10,000.00b andintegrityofthejudicialoffice,andconstitutesader
utnotexceedingP20,000.00. ogationofthespeedyadministrationofjustice.

(Topic): Malpracticeorothergrossmisconductinoffice
INTHE Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/basesofthec SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition
MATTEROF:ANONYMOUS harge/s Time andtime again, thisCourthasstressedthat Judge Jaime E. Contrerasishereby
COMPLAINTFORDISHONE
STY,GRAVE

469
 2016CASES

MISCONDUCT For grossdishonesty. Philippine Constitution "thebehaviorofallemployeesandofficialsinvolvedi foundguiltyofdishonestyandissuspe

ANDPERJURY ntheadministrationofjustice,fromjudgestothemos ndedfromtheserviceforone(1)yearw
COMMITTEDBYJUDGE tjuniorclerks,iscircumscribedwithaheavyresponsib ithoutpay,totakeeffectuponthefinali
JAIME Section12,ArticleXI.Thepowero ility.""Asvisiblerepresentationofthelaw,responden tyhereof,withawarningthatarepetiti
E.CONTRERAS(INHISCAPAC ftheOmbudsmantoinvestigatean tjudgeshouldhaveconductedhimselfinamannerwh onofthesameorsimilaractwillbedeal
ITYAS THE dprosecuteanyillegalactoromissi ichwouldmerittherespectofthepeopletohiminparti twithmore severely.
THEN4thPROVINCIAL onofanypublicofficials,itstates: cularandtotheJudiciaryin general."
PROSECUTOROFLIBMANAN
,CAMARINESSUR) Sec.12.TheOmbudsmanandhis Dishonestyisconsideredagraveoffense.Itcarriesthe
Deputies,asprotectorsofthepeop maximumpenaltyofdismissalfromtheservicewithf
A.M. No.RTJ-16- le,shallactpromptlyoncomplaints orfeitureofretirementbenefits,exceptaccruedleave
2452March9, filedinanyformormanneragainst credits,andperpetualdisqualificationfromreemplo
2016REYES, J.: publicofficialsoremployeesofthe ymentinthegovernmentservice.
Government,or
anysubdivision,agency,orinstrum
entality
thereof,
includinggovernment-
ownedorcontrolledcorporations,
andshall,inappropriatecases,notif
ythecomplainantsoftheactiontak
enandtheresultthereof.

(Topic): GrossIgnoranceoftheLaw

470
 2016CASES

MARY ROSE A.BOTO, Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/basesofthec SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition

Complainant, Grossignoranceofthela harge/s Asaresponsiblepublicservant,aprosecutor'sprimar SeniorAssistantCityProsecutorVinc
vs. w. RevisedPenalCode ydutyisnottosimplyconvictbuttoseethatjusticeisdo entL.VillenaisfoundliableforIgnora
SENIOR ASSISTANT Article360.Jurisdictionoverlibelc ne.Heisobligedtoperformhisdutiesfairly,consisten nceoftheLawandisherebyfinedinth
CITYPROSECUTOR asesarelodgedwiththeRTC. tlyandexpeditiously,andrespectandprotecthuman eamountofTen
VINCENT dignityandupholdhumanrightsincontributingto Thousand(P10,000.00)Pesos,payabl
L.VILLENA,CITYPROSECUT ensuringdueprocessandthesmoothfunctioningoft ewithin30daysfromreceiptofthisres
OR ARCHIMEDES hecriminaljusticesystem.Assuch,heshouldnotinitia olutionwithawarningthatarepetition
V.MANABAT teorcontinueprosecution,orshallmakeeveryeffortt ofthesameorsimilaroffenseshallbe
ANDASSISTANT ostaytheproceedingswhenitisapparentthatthecour dealtwithmoreseverely.
CITY thasnojurisdictionoverthe case.This
PROSECUTORPATRICK iswhereVillenafailed. AssistantCityProsecutorPatrickNo
NOELP. DEDIOS,Respondents. elP.DeDios,forhisnegligence,isrepri
Aslawyers,therespondentsareofficersofthecourtwi mandedwithawarningthatarepetitio
A.C. No. ththedutytoupholditsdignityandauthorityand nofthesameorsimilaroffenseshallbe
9684September18, notpromotedistrustintheadministrationofjustice. dealtwithmore severely.
2013 NolessthantheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility
MENDOZA,J.: mandatesalllawyerstoexerteveryefforttoassistinthe CityProsecutorArchimedesV.Mana
speedy andefficientadministrationofjustice. batisadmonishedto
bemorecarefulandcircumspectinthe
reviewoftheactionsofhisassistants.

(Topic): Grossimmoralconduct/ViolationofOathofOffice
THECHRISTIANSPIRITISTSI Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/basesofthec SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition
NTHEPHILIPPINES,INC.,PI Grossmisconduct,viola harge/s Thepartiesputanendtotheirdisputebythedefendan Thecomplaintfordisbarmentagainst
COLOCAL tionof Rules of Court ts,includingthecomplainantandPante,optingtowit Atty.DanielDazonMangallayisdism
CENTER,REPRESENTEDBY thelawyer'soath,anddis Rule139- hdrawtheirnoticeofappealandundertakingtovolun issedforitsutterlack of
THEIRATTORNEY-IN-FACT, obediencetoalawfulord B,Section1.HowInstituted. — tarilyvacateandtopeacefullyturnoverthepremisest merit.
EDWINA.PANTE,Complainant,vs. erof the Proceedingsforthedisbarment,su otherespondentbyAugust31,2013inexchangefor
spension,or

471
 2016CASES

ATTY.DANIEL D. court. disciplineofattorneysmaybetaken thelatter'sfinancialassistanceoftheP300,000.00.Th

MANGALLAY, Respondent. bytheSupremeCourtmotuproprio,o
rbytheIntegratedBarofthePhilip
A.C. No. pines(IBP)upontheverifiedcomp
10483March18, laintofanyperson.Thecomplaints
2016BERSAMI hallstateclearlyandconciselythefa
N, J.: ctscomplainedofandshall
besupportedbyaffidavitsofperso
nshavingpersonalknowledgeofth
efactsthereinallegedand/orbysuc
hdocumentsasmaysubstantiatesa
idfacts.
erespondentpaidtheamountonMarch20,2013and
wasreceivedbyMariaOmiles,FelicianoOmiles,Jr.,a
ndNoralynT.AbadastherepresentativesoftheCSP-
PLConthesameday.Butthelatterrenegedontheirpa
rtoftheagreementwithoutreturningtheP300,000.0
0totherespondent,whowaslefttoexhausthislegalre
mediestoenforcethejudgmentagainstthem. It
isnotablethatthejudgmentexpresslydirectedhim"to
exercisehisoptionpursuanttotheprovisionsofArticle448ofthe
NewCivilCodeofthePhilippineswithin30daysfromthefinalit
yofthisjudgmentinsofarastheimprovementsintroducedbythede
fendantsonthesubjectproperty."Article448oftheCivilCo
degrantedtohimastheownerofthepremises,among
others,"therighttoappropriateashisowntheworks,sowingor
planting,afterpaymentoftheindemnityprovidedforinarticles5
46 and 548."

(Topic): Grossmisconduct
NENITA D.SANCHEZ, Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/basesofthec SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition
Petitioner, Misconductforrefusalt harge/s Everyattorneyisentitledtohaveandreceiveajustand Atty.RomeoG.Aguilosisherebyfine
vs. oreturnasumofmoney. A.M.02-11-11-SC reasonablecompensationforservicesperformedatt d P10,000.00
ATTY.ROMEOG.AGUILOS, The grounds for hespecialinstanceandrequestofhisclient.Aslong formisrepresentinghis
Respondent. legalseparation asthe attorney professionalcompetencetotheclient
isingoodfaithandhonestlytryingtorepresentandser ,andreprimandshimforhisuseofoffe
A.C. No. vetheinterestsoftheclient,heshouldhaveareasonabl nsiveandimproperlanguagetowards
10543March16, Code ecompensationforsuchservices.Everyattorneyisen hisfellowattorney,withthesternwar
2016BERSAMI ofProfessionalRespo titledtohaveandreceiveajustandreasonablecompen ningthatarepetitionoftheoffensesha
N, J.: nsibility sationforservicesperformedatthespecialinstancea llbeseverelypunished.
Rules18.01-Alawyershallnot ndrequestof

472
 2016CASES

undertakealegalservicewhichhek hisclient.Aslong asthe attorney

nowsorshouldknowthatheisnotq
ualifiedtorender.However,hema
yrendersuchserviceif,withthecon
sentofhisclient,hecanobtainascol
laboratingcounselalawyerwhoisc
ompetentonthematter.
isingoodfaithandhonestlytryingtorepresentandser TheCourtordersAtty.RomeoG.Agu
vetheinterestsoftheclient,heshouldhaveareasonabl ilostoreturntothecomplainantwithi
e compensationforsuchservices. nthirty(30)daysfromnoticethesumo
fP70,000.00,pluslegalinterestof6%p
erannumreckonedfromthedateofthis
decisionuntilfullpayment.

Rule18.02-
Alawyershallnothandleanylegalm
atterwithoutadequate
preparation.

Rule18.03-
Alawyershallnotneglectalegalmat
terentrustedtohim,andhisneglige
nceinconnectiontherewithshallre
nderhimliable.
Rules of Court
Section24.Compensationofattorneys;
agreementastofees-
Anattorneyshallbeentitledtohave
andrecoverfromhisclientnomore
thanareasonablecompensationfo
rhisservices.

(Topic): Grossmisconduct
PEDRORAMOS,Complainant,v Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/basesofthec SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition
s. GrossMisconductinviol harge/s Alawyerhasthedutytodeliverhisclient'sfundsorpro
ATTY.MARIA NYMPHA C. ationoftheCodeof pertiesastheyfalldueorupondemand.Hisfailuretore Atty.MariaNymphaC.Mandagangui
Professional Code ofProfessional turntheclient'smoney ltyofviolatingCanon16,Rule

473
 2016CASES

MANDAGAN,Respondent. Ethhics. Responsibility upondemandgivesrisetothepresumptionthathehas 16.01andRule16.03oftheCodeofPr

misappropriateditforhisownusetotheprejudiceofa ofessionalResponsibility,andsuspen
A.C. No. CANON16- ndinviolation dsherfromthepracticeoflawforaperi
11128April 6, alawyershallholdintrustallmoney ofthetrustreposedinhimbytheclient.Itisagrossviola odofone(1)yeareffectiveuponreceip
2016REYES, sandpropertiesofhisclientthatma tionofgeneralmoralityaswellasofprofessionalethics tofthisResolution,withWARNING
J.: ycomeintohisprofession. ;itimpairspublicconfidenceinthelegalprofessionan thatasimilaroffensewillbedealtwith
ddeservespunishment.Indeed,itmayborderonthec more severely.
Rule16.01- riminalasitmayconstituteaprima faciecase
Alawyershallaccountforallmoney ofswindling or estafa.
orpropertycollectedorreceivedfo Atty.Mandagan'sfailuretomakeanaccountingortor
r orfromthe client. eturnthemoneytoRamosisaviolationofthetrustrep
osedonher.Asalawyer,Atty.Mandaganshouldbescr
Rule16.03-Alawyershalldeliverthe upulouslycarefulinhandlingmoneyentrustedtoheri
fundsandproperty nherprofessionalcapacitybecausetheCPRexactsahi
ofhisclientwhendueorupondemand. ghdegreeoffidelityandtrustfrommembersof the
However,heshallhavealienoverthefu bar.
ndsandmayapplysomuchthereofas
maybenecessarytosatisfyhislawfulfe
esanddisbursements,givingnoticepr
omptlythereaftertohisclient.Heshall
alsohavealientothesameextentonallj
udgmentsandexecutionshehassecur
edforhisclientasprovidedforintheRu
lesofCourt.

(Topic): ChangeofAttorneywithoutnotice
HELENCHANG, Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/basesofthec SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition
Complainant,vs. Withdrawfromacasewit harge/s Atty.JoseR.Hidalgoisfoundguiltyof
ATTY. JOSE R.HIDALGO, houtnoticetotheclienta Rules of Court violatingCanon17andCanon18,Rul
Respondent. ndcomplyingwith the Rule138,Sec.26.Changeofattorneys.- e18.03oftheCodeofProfessionalRe
Respondentadmittedlywithdrewfromthecasesbut
requirement. Anattorneymayretireat
hefailedtoprovideanyevidencetoshowthatcomplai sponsibility.Heissuspendedfromthe
A.C. No. 6934 anytimefromanyactionor practiceoflawforaperiodofone(1)ye
nant,hisclient,agreedtothewithdrawalor,attheveryl
east,knewaboutit. ar,

474
 2016CASES

April6, specialproceeding,bythewrittencons Theoffensiveattitudeofaclientisnotanexcusetojust withwarningthatrepetitionofthesam

2016LEONE entofhisclientfiledincourt.Hemayals
N,J.: oretireatanytimefromanactionorspe
cialproceeding,withouttheconsento
fhisclient,shouldthecourt,onnoticet
otheclientandattorney,andonhearin
g,determinethatheoughtto
beallowed to retire.
… wise,thelawyerwillbeheldliableforviolatingCanons
CodeofProfessional
Responsibility
disappearandwithdrawfromacasewithoutnoticetot
hecourtandtotheclient,especiallywhenattorney'sfe
eshavealready beenpaid.
Alawyercannotsimplywithdrawfromacasewithout
noticetotheclientandcomplyingwiththerequireme
ntsinRule138,Section26oftheRulesofCourt.Other
17and18oftheCode of
ProfessionalResponsibility.
eorsimilaractswillmeritamoresevere
penalty.Respondentisalsoorderedto
returntocomplainantHelenChangth
eamountofP61,500.00,withinterest
at6%perannumfrom
thedateofpromulgationofthisResol
utionuntil fullypaid.

CANON17-
Alawyerowesfidelitytothecauseo
fhisclientandheshallbemindfulof
thetrustandconfidencereposedin
him.

CANON18 –
Alawyershallservehisclientwithc
ompetence anddiligence.

(Topic): Convictionofcrimeinvolvingmoralturpitude
ALEX NULADA, Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/basesofthec SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition
Complainant,vs. Dishonesty harge/s Alawyerisrequiredtoobservethelawandbemindful Atty.OrlandoS.Paulmaisherebysus
ATTY.ORLANDOS. andconvictionof a Rules of Court ofhisorheractionswhetheractinginapublicorprivat pendedfromthepracticeoflawforap
PAULMA, Respondent. crimeinvolving Rule138,Section27.Disbarmentors ecapacity.Anytransgressionofthisdutyon eriodoftwo(2)years,effectiveuponhi
moralturpitude. uspensionofattorneysbySupremeCourt; hispartwould notonly sreceiptofthisResolution.Heiswarn
A.C. No. groundstherefor.- diminishhisreputationasalawyerbutwouldalsoerod edthatarepetitionofthesameorsimil
8172April 12, Amemberofthebarmaybedisbarr ethepublic'sfaithinthelegalprofessionasawhole.Int aractwillbedealtwithmoreseverely.
2016 edorsuspendedfromhisofficeasat hiscase,respondent'sconductfellshortoftheexactin
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.: torneybytheSupremeCourtforan gstandardsexpectedofhimasamemberofthebar,
ydeceit, forwhichhemust sufferthe

475
 2016CASES

malpractice,orothergrossmiscon necessary consequences

ductinsuchoffice,grosslyimmoral
conduct,orbyreasonofhisconvict
ionofacrimeinvolvingmoralturpi
tude,orforanyviolationoftheoath
whichheisrequiredtotakebeforea
dmissiontopractice,orforawillful
disobedienceofanylawfulorderof
asuperiorcourt,Orforcorruptlyor
willfullyappearingasanattorneyfo
rapartytoacasewithoutauthority
to doso.
Code
ofProfessionalRe
sponsibility

Rule1.01-
Alawyershallnotengageinunlawf
ul,dishonest,immoral ordeceitful
conduct.

(Topic): ViolationofLawyer’sOath
ARTHUR S. TULIO, Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/basesofthec SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition
Complainant, Dishonesty harge/s Atty.Buhangin’sfailuretosubmithispositionpaper
vs. and withoutanyvalidexplanationisenoughreasontomak Atty.GregoryF.Buhanginisherebyh
ATTY.GREGORY F. violationoftheLawyer’s Code ehimadministrativelyliablesinceheisduty- eldguiltyofrepresentingconflictingi
BUHANGIN,Respondent. OathandtheCodeofPro ofProfessionalRe boundtocomplywithallthelawfuldirectivesoftheIB nterestsinviolationofRule15.03,Can
fessionalResponsibility. sponsibility P,notonlybecauseheisamemberthereof,butmores on15oftheCodeofProfessionalResp
A.C. No. 7110 obecauseIBPistheCourt- onsibility.Accordingly,heisherebysu
CANON15- designatedinvestigatorofthiscase.Asanofficerofth spendedfromthe practiceof
Alawyershallobservecandor,fairn eCourt,respondentisexpectedto
essandloyaltyinallhisdealingsand

476
 2016CASES

April 20, transactionswithhisclients. knowthataresolutionofthisCourtisnotamerereque lawforaperiodofsix(6)months,witha

2016PERALT stbutanorderwhichshouldbecompliedwithprompt warningthatarepetitionofthesameor
A, J.: Rule15.03- lyandcompletely.Thisisalsotrueof the ordersof similaractsinthefuturewillbedealtwi
Alawyershallnotrepresentconflic theIBP. thmoreseverely.
tinginterestsexceptbywrittencon
sentofallconcernedgivenafteraful
ldisclosure ofthe facts.

(Topic): GrossMisconduct
OFFICE OFTHECOURT Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/basesofthec SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition
ADMINISTRATOR,Petitioner, Disrespectnotonlytoits harge/s Concededly,thehonorandintegrityofthejudicialsys
vs. authorityoverlowercou CodeofJudicialConduct temismeasurednotonlybythefairnessandcorrectne JudgeRomeoB.CasalanoftheRegion
CASALAN,[FORMERLY rtjudgesandpersonnel. ssofdecisionsrendered,butalsobytheefficiencywith alTrialCourtofCulasi,Antique,Bran
A.M.N0.14-4-115-RTC(REPORT CANON1.A whichdisputesareresolved."Thus,judgesmustperf ch13,guiltyofthelessseriouscharges
ONTHE FINANCIAL judgeshoulduphold the ormtheirofficialdutieswithutmostdiligenceifpublic ofunduedelayinrenderingdecisiono
AUDITCONDUCTEDINTHE integrityand confidenceinthejudiciaryistobepreserved.Thereis rorderandofviolationofSupremeCo
REGIONAL TRIAL independence of noexcuseformediocrityintheperformanceofjudicia urtrulesanddirectives,underSection
COURT[RTC],BRANCHES13 thejudiciary lfunctions.Thepositionofjudgeexactsnothinglesst 9,Rule140oftheRulesofCourt.Pursu
AND65,CULASI hanfaithfulobservanceofthelawandtheConstitutio anttoSection11ofthesameRule,heis
ANDBUGASONG, Rule1.02- ninthe discharge ofofficial duties." orderedtopayafineintheamountequi
ANTIQUE)].Respondent. Ajudgeshouldadministerjusticeim Itbearsemphasisthatjudgesshouldtreatdirectivesfr valenttoThree(3)months'salaryatth
partiallyandwithoutdelay. omtheOCAasifissueddirectlybytheCourtandcom etimeofhisretirementforunduedelay
A.M. No.RTJ-14- plypromptlyandconscientiouslywiththemsinceitist in thedisposition
2385[FORMERLY A.M. N0.14- CANON3.A hroughtheOCAthatthe ofcasesandforinsubordination,tobe
4-115- judgeshouldperform official Courtexercisesitsconstitutionally-mandated deducted from
RTC} duties honestly, and administrativesupervisionover hisretirement/gr
withimpartiality allcourtsandthepersonnelthereof.Unjustifiedfailur atuity benefits.
April 20, anddiligence etocomplywithsuchdirectivesconstitutesmiscond
2016PERALT uctandexacerbates administrative liability.
A, J.: Rule3.05-
Ajudgeshalldisposeofthecourt'sbusi
nesspromptlyanddecidecaseswithin
therequiredperiods.
1987PhilippineConstitution
ArticleIII, SECTION16.All

477
 2016CASES

personsshallhavetherighttoaspee
dy
dispositionoftheircasesbeforeallj
udicial,quasi-
judicial,oradministrativebodies.S
ECTION16.Allpersonsshallhav
etherighttoaspeedydispositionof
theircasesbeforealljudicial,quasi-
judicial,oradministrative bodies.
Failuretoresolvecasessubmittedfordecisionwithint
heperiodfixedbylawconstitutesaseriousviolationof
Section16,ArticleIIIoftheConstitution.Failuretore
nderdecisionsandorderswithinthereglementaryper
iodisalsoabreachofRule3.05Canon3oftheCodeofJ
udicialConductandSection5,Canon6oftheNewCo
deofJudicialConduct.Classifiedaslessseriouscharg
esunderSection9,Rule140oftheRulesofCourt,und
uedelayinrenderingdecisionororder,andviolationo
fSupremeCourtrules,directivesandcirculars,arepe
nalizedwitheithersuspensionwithoutpayforaperio
dofnotlessthanOne(1)month,butnotmorethanTh
ree(3)months,orafineofmorethanP10,000.00,
butnotmore thanP20,000.00

(Topic): Grossmisconduct
DATUISMAEL MALANGAS, Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/basesofthec SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition
Complainant, Dishonesty, breach harge/s "TheCodeofProfessionalResponsibilitydemandst
vs. oftrust, andviolation Code heutmostdegreeoffidelityandgoodfaithindealingw Atty.PaulC.Zaideisherebysuspende
ATTY. PAUL C.ZAIDE, ofthe ofProfessionalRe iththemoneysentrustedtolawyersbecauseoftheirfi dfromthepracticeoflawfortwo(2)ye
Respondent. CanonsofJudicialEthi sponsibility duciaryrelationship."Anylawyerwhodoesnotliveu arseffectiveimmediately.Atty.PaulC
cs ptothisdutymustbepreparedtotaketheconsequenc .Zaideisalsoorderedtopromptlyretu
A.C. No. Rule16.01- esofhiswaywardness. rntocomplainantthesumsgiventohi
10675May 31, Alawyershallaccountforallmoney masacceptancefeeanddocketfeesint
2016 orpropertycollectedorreceivedfo heamountofP70,000.00,fromwhich
DELCASTILLO, J.: r orfromthe client. shouldbedeductedtheamountofP2,
623.60paidasdocketing fees.
Rule16.03-
Alawyershalldeliverthefundsand
propertyofhisclientwhendueoru
pondemand.However,heshallha
vealienoverthefundsand

478
 2016CASES

mayapplysomuchthereofasmayb
enecessarytosatisfyhislawfulfeesa
nddisbursements,givingnoticepr
omptlythereaftertohisclient.Hes
hallalsohavealientothesameexten
tonalljudgmentsandexecutionsh
ehassecuredforhisclientasprovid
edforintheRulesofCourt.

(Topic): Grossmisconduct
DIONNIE RICAFORT, Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/basesofthec SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition
Complainant, Grossmisconduct harge/s Theactofhumiliatinganotherinpublicbyslappinghi
vs. Code morheronthefacehintsofacharacterthatdisregardst Atty.ReneO.Medinaisfoundtohave
ATTY.RENE O. MEDINA, ofProfessionalRe hehumandignityofanother.Respondent'squestiont violatedCanon7,Rule7.03oftheCod
Respondent. sponsibility ocomplainant,"Wakamakailasaako?"("Doyounotk eofProfessionalResponsibility,andi
Rule7.03- nowme?")Confirmssuchcharacterandhispotentialt ssuspendedfromthepracticeoflawfo
A.C. No. Alawyershallnotengageinconduc oabusetheprofessionasatoolforbullying,harassme rthree
5179May 31, tthatadverselyreflectsonhisfitnes nt,anddiscrimination. (3)months.
2016LEONE stopracticelaw,norshallhewhethe Goodcharacterisacontinuingqualificationforlawye
N,J.: rinpublicorprivate rs.ThisCourthasthepowertoimposedisciplinarysan
life,behaveinascandalousmanner ctionstolawyerswhocommitactsofmisconductineit
tothediscreditofthelegalprofessio herapublicorprivatecapacityiftheactsshowthemun
n. worthytoremainofficersofthecourt.Asofficersofth
ecourtandofthelaw,lawyersaregrantedtheprivileget
oservethepublic,nottobullythemto submission.

(Topic): ViolationofNotarialLaws
FLORA C.MARIANO, Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/basesofthe SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition

479
 2016CASES

Petitioner, Unauthorizednotarial charge/s Atty.Echanez,formisrepresentinginthesaiddocum Atty.AnselmoS.Echanezisherebysu

vs. acts. CANON1- entsthathewasanotarypublicforandinCordon,Isab spendedfromthepracticeoflawfort
ATTY.ANSELMOECHANEZ, Alawyershallupholdtheconstituti ela,whenitisapparentand,infact,uncontrovertedtha wo(2)yearsandbarredpermanentlyfr
Respondent. on,obeythelawsofthelandandpro thewasnot,hefurthercommittedaformoffalsehood ombeingcommissionedasNotaryPu
moterespectforlawofandlegalpro whichisundoubtedlyanathematothelawyer'soath.T blic,effectiveuponhisreceiptofacop
A.C. No. 10373[Formerly cesses. histransgressionalsorunsafoulofRule1.01,Canon1 yofthisdecisionwithastemwarningt
CBDCase No. 08-2280] oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibilitywhichpro hatarepetitionofthesameshallbedeal
videsthat"[a]lawyershallnotengageinunlawful,dish twithseverely.
May 31, Rule1.01- onest,immoralor deceitfulconduct."
2016PERALT Alawyershallnotengageinunlawf Itmustbeemphasizedthattheactofnotarizationbya
A, J.: ul,dishonest,immoral ordeceitful notarypublicconvertsaprivatedocumentintoapubli
conduct. cdocumentmakingthatdocumentadmissibleinevid
encewithoutfurtherproofofauthenticity.Anotarial
documentisbylawentitledto
fullfaithandcredituponitsface,andforthisreason,no
tariespublicmustobservewithutmostcarethebasicr
equirementsinthe performance of theirduties.

(Topic): Grossmisconduct
RONALDOC.FACTURAN, Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/basesofthec SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition
Complainant, Grossmisconductorseri harge/s Generally,alawyerwhoholdsagovernmentoffice ProsecutorAlfredoL.Barcelona,Jr.is
vs. ous Code may not be disciplinedasa member of foundguiltyofviolatingRule6.02,Ca
PROSECUTOR ALFREDOL. gross ofProfessionalRespo theBarformisconductin thedischargeof non6oftheCodeofProfessionalResp
BARCELONA, JR.,Respondent. misconductinoffice,dis nsibility hisdutiesasagovernmentofficial.Hemaybedisciplin onsibility.Heisherebysuspendedfro
honesty, CANON 6- These edbythisCourtasamemberoftheBaronlywhenhism mthepracticeoflawforaperiodofone
A.C. No. andc canonsshallapplytolawyersingov isconductalsoconstitutesaviolationofhisoathasa (1)year,effectiveuponhisreceiptofth
11069June 8, onductunbecomingofal ernmentserviceinthedischargeoft lawyer. isDecision,andissternlywarnedthata
2016 awyerorprosecutor heirofficial tasks. Respondent'sactionsandomissionsinthiscase, repetitionofthesameorsimilaractswi
i.e.,hisfailuretoresolveI.S.No.04-211andto llbedealt
Rule6.02- A lawyerinthe

480
 2016CASES
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.: governmentserviceshallnotusehi
spublicpositiontopromoteoradv
ancehisprivateinterests,norallow
thelattertointerfere
withhispublic duties.
(Topic): Unlawfuldisobedienceoflawfulorder
SPOUSESLAMBERTOV.EUS Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/basesofthec
TAQUIOANDGLORIAJ. Unlawfuldisobedience harge/s
EUSTAQUIO,Complainants,v of lawful Republic
s. order(misconduct) ActNo.(RA)10071(Prosecutio
ATTY.EDGAR R.NAVALES, nService Actof2010)
Respondent. Section9.PowersandFunctionsofthePro
vincialProsecutororCityProsecutor.
A.C. No. Rules of Court
10465June 8, Rule138,Section27.
2016
481
turnoverthecaserecordsthereofdespiteorderstodo with more severely.
so,appeartohavebeencommittedforthebenefitofa
ndtosafeguardprivateinterests.Asalawyerwhoisals
oapublicofficer,respondentmiserablyfailedtocope
withthestrictdemandsandhighstandardsofthelegal
profession.Itbearsstressingthatalawyerinpublicoff
iceisexpectednotonlytorefrainfromanyactoromissi
onwhichmighttendtolessenthetrustandconfidence
ofthecitizenryingovernment,hemustalsoupholdth
edignityofthelegalprofessionatalltimesandobserve
ahighstandardofhonestyandfairdealing.Otherwise
said,alawyeringovernmentserviceisakeeperofthep
ublicfaithandisburdenedwithhighdegreeofsocialre
sponsibility,perhapshigherthanherbrethreninpriva
tepractice.Accordingly,theCourtfindsthatsuspensi
onforaperiodofone(1)year,asrecommendedbytheI
BP, should be meteduponrespondent.
SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition
TheCourthastheexclusivejurisdictiontoregulateth Atty.EdgarR.Navalesisfoundguilty
epracticeoflaw.Assuch,whentheCourtordersalawy ofviolatingSection27,Rule
ersuspendedfromthepracticeoflaw,hemustdesistfr 138oftheRulesofCourt.Accordingly
omperformingallfunctionsrequiringtheapplication ,heissuspendedfromthe practice
oflegalknowledgewithin theperiod of suspension. oflawforanadditionalperiod of six
Thisincludesdesistingfromholdingapositioningov (6)monthsfromhisoriginalsix(6)-
ernmentrequiringtheauthoritytopracticelaw. The monthsuspension,totallingone(1)ye
practice of law embracesany activity, arfrom
inoroutofcourt,whichrequirestheapplication serviceofthisDecision,withasternwa
rningthatarepetitionof
 2016CASES

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.: Disbarmentorsuspensionofattor oflaw,legalprocedure,knowledge,training,andexpe the same or similaractswillbedealt

neysbySupremeCourt;groundsth rience.Itincludesperformingactswhicharecharacte with more severely.
erefor.- risticofthelegalprofession,orrenderinganykindofse
Amemberofthebarmaybedisbarr rvicewhichrequirestheuse inany degree oflegal
edorsuspendedfromhisofficeasat knowledge or skill.
torneybytheSupremeCourtforan
ydeceit,malpractice,
orothergrossmisconductinsucho
ffice,grosslyimmoralconduct,orb
yreasonofhisconvictionofacrimei
nvolvingmoralturpitude,orforan
yviolationoftheoathwhichheisre
quiredtotakebeforeadmissiontop
ractice,orforawillfuldisobedience
ofanylawfulorderofasuperiorcou
rt,orforcorruptlyorwillfullyappea
ringasanattorneyforapartytoacas
ewithoutauthoritysotodo…

(Topic): Grossignoranceoflaw
MOAMAR PANGANDAG, Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/basesofthec SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition
Complainant, Grossignoranceofthela harge/s Byissuingawarrantofarrest,JudgeAbinalisassumed JudgeOttowaB.
vs. w,abuseand RulesofCourt tohaveappliedSection6(b),Rule112oftheRulesofC Abinal,MunicipalCircuitTrialCourt,
PRESIDINGJUDGEOTTOWA usurpation ourt,whichrequiredtheexaminationofhisownniece Mulondo,Maguing,Lumba-
B. ABINAL, 8THMUNICIPAL Sec. 6.
of todeterminetheexistenceofprobablecause.Further Bayabao,andTaraka,LanaodelSur,is
Whenwarrantofarrestmayissue.
CIRCUIT TRIALCOURT jurisdiction,conductpre (b)BytheMunicipalTrialCourt.- ,heisalsodeemedtohavereliedonhertestimonytodet foundguiltyofgrossignoranceofthel
INMULONDO,MAGUING,LU judicialtotheinterestofp Ifthemunicipaltrialjudgeconducting erminewhethertheendsofjusticenecessitatedthatP aworprocedureforfailingtoimmedia
MBA- ublicservice, andbias. thepreliminaryinvestigationissatisfie angandagbeplacedincustody,insteadofmerelyissui telyinhibithimselfinPeoplev.Gamama,
BAYABAO,ANDTARAKA, dafteranexaminationinwritingandun ngsummonsto CriminalCaseNo. 13-694-MG.
LANAODEL SUR,Respondent. der

482
 2016CASES

A.M. No.MTJ-16-1877 oathofthecomplainantandhiswitnes compelhimtoappearbeforethecourt.Clearly,Judge Accordingly,theCourtimposesthep

(FormerlyOCA IPINo.13-2635- sesintheformofsearchingquestionsa
MTJ), ndanswers,thataprobablecauseexists
andthatthereisanecessityofplacingth
erespondentunderimmediatecustod
June 13,
yinordernottofrustratetheendsofjus
2016SERENO, tice.Heshallissueawarrantofarrest.
C.J.:
Abinalshouldnothaveparticipatedinanyoftheseco enaltyoffineintheamountofP25,000
ursesofaction,ashemighthaveappearedbiasediniss withasternwarningthatarepetitionof
uingthewarrantofarrestthatwouldensurethattheac thesameorasimilarinfractionshallbe
cusedinthecasefiledbythejudge'sownniecewouldst penalizedmore severely.
andtrial.JudgeAbinalshouldhavedisqualifiedhimse
lfthemomenthereadthecriminalcomplaintcontaini
ngthenameofhisrelative.Hecommittedanadminist
rativeoffenseoncehetook cognizance of the
caseandissued a warrantof arrest.

(Topic): Grossimmoralconduct
MA.CECILIA CLARISSA C, Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/basesofthec SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition
ADVINCULA, Unlawfulandimmoralac harge/s Itisexpectedthateverylawyer,beinganofficerofthe Atty.LeonardoC.Advinculaguiltyofi
Complainant,vs. ts(extra-maritalsexual Code Court,mustnotonlybeinfactofgoodmoralcharacter mmorality;andsuspendshimfromth
ATTY.LEONARDOC. relations) ofProfessionalRe ,butmustalsobeseentobeofgoodmoralcharacteran epracticeoflawforaperiodofthreem
ADVINCULA, Respondent. sponsibility dleadinglivesinaccordancewiththehighestmoralsta onthseffectiveuponnoticehereof,wi
Rule1.01— ndardsofthecommunity.Morespecifically,amembe thasternwarningthatamoreseverepe
A.C. No. 9226 (Formerly CBD06- Alawyershallnotengageinunlawf roftheBarandofficeroftheCourtisrequirednotonly naltyshallbeimposedshouldhecom
1749) ul,dishonest,immoralor torefrainfromadulterousrelationshipsorkeepingmi mitthesameoffenseorasimilaroffens
deceitfulconduct. stressesbutalsotoconducthimselfastoavoidscandal e;directsAtty.Advinculatoreportthe
June 14, izingthepublicbycreatingthebeliefthatheisfloutingt dateofhisreceiptofthedecisiontothis
2016BERSAMI CANON7— hosemoralstandards.Ifthepracticeoflawistoremain court;andordersthechiefoftheperso
N, J.: Alawyershallatalltimesupholdthe anhonorableprofessionandattainitsbasicideals,wh nneldivisionofthenationalbureauofi
integrityanddignityofthelegalprof oeverisenrolledinitsranksshouldnotonlymasteritst nvestigationtoimplementthesuspen
ession,andsupporttheactivitiesof enetsandprinciplesbutshouldalso,intheirlives,acco sionfromofficeofAtty.Advinculaan
theIntegratedBar. rdcontinuingfidelitytothem.Therequirementofgo dtoreportonhiscomplianceinordert
odmoralcharacterisofmuchgreaterimport,asfarast o determinethe dateof
Rule7.03— hegeneralpublic
Alawyershallnotengageinconduc
tthatadverselyreflectsonhisfitnes
stopracticelaw,norshouldhe,whe
therinpublicorprivate life,

483
 2016CASES

behaveinascandalousmannertot isconcerned,thanthepossessionoflegallearning. commencementofhissuspensionfro

hediscreditofthelegalprofession.
Immoral m the practice of law.
conducthasbeendescribedasconductthatissowillfu
l,flagrant,orshamelessastoshowindifferencetotheo
pinionofgoodandrespectablemembersofthecom
munity.Tobethebasisofdisciplinaryaction,suchcon
ductmustnotonlybeimmoral,butgrosslyimmoral,t
hatis,itmustbesocorruptastovirtuallyconstituteacri
minalactorsounprincipledastobereprehensibletoa
highdegreeorcommittedundersuchscandalousorre
voltingcircumstancesastoshockthecommonsense
ofdecency.

(Topic) :Gravemisconductandwillfulinsubordination
ARNOLDPACAO,Complainant,v Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/basesofthec SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition
s. For harge/s "[T]hepracticeoflawisnotarightbutaprivilegebesto Atty.SinamarLimos,havingviolatedt
ATTY.SINAMAR LIMOS, conduct RevisedRules ofCourt wedbytheStateuponthosewhoshowthattheyposse heCodeofProfessionalResponsibilit
Respondent. unbecomingofamembe ss,andcontinuetopossess,thequalificationsrequire yby
rof theBar Rule138,Sec.27.Offerofcompromisen dbylawfortheconfermentofsuchprivilege.Member committinggravemisconductandwil
A.C. No. otadmissible.— shipinthebarisaprivilegeburdenedwithconditions. lfulinsubordination,isdisbarredand
11246June 14, Incivilcases,anofferofcompromi ""Ofallclassesandprofessions,thelawyerismostsac hernameorderedstrickenofftheRoll
2016PERCURI seisnotanadmissionofanyliability, redlyboundtoupholdthelaws.Heistheirswornserva ofAttorneyseffectiveimmediately.
AM: andisnotadmissibleinevidenceag nt;andforhim,ofallmenintheworld,torepudiateand
ainst the offeror. overridethelaws,totramplethemunderfootandtoig
noretheverybondsofsociety,arguesrecreancyto
Incriminalcases,exceptthoseinvo hispositionandoffice,andsetsaperniciousexamplet
lving quasi- otheinsubordinateanddangerouselementsof the
offenses(criminalnegligence)orth body politic."
oseallowedbylawtobecompromi
sed,anofferofcompromisedby
the accused

484
 2016CASES

maybereceivedinevidenceasanim
pliedadmission of guilt.

Apleaofguiltylaterwithdrawn,ora
nunacceptedofferofapleaofguilty
tolesseroffense,isnotadmissiblei
nevidenceagainsttheaccusedwho
madethepleaor offer.

Anoffertopayorthepaymentofm
edical,hospitalorotherexpenseso
ccasionedbyaninjuryisnotadmissi
bleinevidenceasproofofcivilorcri
minalliabilityfortheinjury.(24a)

(Topic): GrossNeglectofDuty
MARITA CABAS, Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/basesofthec SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition
Petitioner,vs. Grossderelictionofduty harge/s Grossneglectofdutyorgrossnegligencereferstonegl ChargesagainstAtty.RiaNinaL.Susu
ATTY.RIA NINA andviolationofRepublic R.A. No. igencecharacterizedbythewantofevenslightcare,or scoisdismissedforlack
L.SUSUSCOANDCHIEFCITYP Act(R.A.)No. 6033. 6033(anactrequiringcou byactingoromittingtoactinasituationwherethereisa ofmerit.TheResolutionoftheBoard
ROSECUTOR EMELIEFE rtsto give dutytoact,notinadvertentlybutwillfullyandintentio ofGovernorsoftheIntegratedBaroft
DELOSSANTOS,Respondents. preferenceto nally,withaconsciousindifferencetotheconsequenc hePhilippinesagainstProsecutorEm
criminalcaseswhere the es,insofarasotherpersonsmaybeaffected.Itistheom ilieFeDelosSantosisreversed.Howe
A.C. No. partyorpartiesinvolve are issionofthatcarethateveninattentiveandthoughtles ver,ProsecutorEmilieFeDelosSanto
8677June 15, indigents.) smenneverfailtogivetotheirownproperty.Itdenote sisherebysternlywarnedtobecircum
2016PERALT Section4.Anywillfulormalicious saflagrantandculpablerefusalorunwillingnessof spectintheperformanceofherduties,
A, J.: refusalonthepartofanyfiscalorjud apersonto perform andthatarepetitionofthesameorsimi
getocarryouttheprovisionsofthis aduty.Incasesinvolvingpublicofficials,grossneglige laractsinthefutureshallbedealtwith
Actshallconstitutesufficientgrou nceoccurswhena breachof dutyis more severely.
ndfordisciplinaryactionwhichma
yinclude suspension orremoval.

485
 2016CASES

flagrantandpalpable.
Inadministrativeproceedings,thequantumofproof
necessaryforafindingofguiltissubstantialevidence,i
.e.,thatamountofrelevantevidencethatareasonable
mindmightacceptasadequatetosupportaconclusio
n.Further,thecomplainanthastheburdenofproving
bysubstantialevidencetheallegationsinhiscomplain
t.Thebasicruleisthatmereallegationisnotevidencea
ndisnotequivalenttoproof.Chargesbasedonmeres
uspicionandspeculationlikewisecannotbegivencre
dence.Inthepresentcase,thereisnosufficient,cleara
ndconvincingevidencetoholdbothAtty.Sususcoan
dPros.EmilieFeDelosSantosadministrativelyliable
forGrossNeglectofDuty.

(Topic): Grossmisconduct
MYRNA M.DEVEZA, Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/basesofthec SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition
Complainant, Fordishonestyandforac harge/s Thepracticeoflawisaprivilegebestowedonlytothos Atty.AlexanderDelPradoguiltyofvi
vs. tsunbecomingalawyer. Code ewhoshowthattheypossessandcontinuetopossesst olatingRule1.01ofCanon1andCano
ATTY.ALEXANDER M.DEL ofProfessionalRe helegalqualificationsforit.Asvanguardsofourlegals n7oftheCodeofProfessionalRespo
PRADO,Respondent. sponsibility ystem,theyareexpectedtomaintainnotonlylegalpro nsibility,theCourtherebySuspends
Rule1.01- ficiencybutalsoahighstandardofmorality,honesty,i himfromthepracticeoflawforFive(5
A.C. No. Alawyershallnotengageinunlawful,d ntegrityandfairdealing.7Becauseoftheirimportantr )yearseffectiveuponreceiptofthisde
9574June 21, ishonest,immoralordeceitfulconduc oleinthesociety,theCourtshallnothesitatetodiscipli cisionwithawarningthatarepetition
t. nealawyerforanyconductthatiswantinginmorality, ofthesameorasimilaractwillbedealt
2016PERCURI CANON7-
AM: honesty,probityandgooddemeanor,whethersuchc withmoreseverely.
Alawyershallatalltimesupholdtheint
egrityanddignityofthelegalprofessio
onductwascommittedintheirprofessionalor
nandsupportthe inprivate
activitiesoftheintegratedbar.

486
 2016CASES

capacity.
Inthepresentcase,Atty.DelPradocommittedanact
whichfellshortofthestandardofthenormofconduct
requiredofeverylawyer.Hedeceivedthecomplainan
tbymakinghersignthedeedofsaleandmakingherbeli
evethathewouldpayinfullthebalanceofthepurchase
priceafterhehadthedocumentnotarized.Complain
antwaitedforAtty.DelPradotomakegoodhispromi
setopaybutdespiteseveraldemands,hecontinuedre
negingonhisobligationwhichpromptedhertofileac
aseagainsthim.

(Topic): ViolationofLawyer’sOath
PLUTARCOE.VAZQUEZ, Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/basesofthec SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition
Complainants Violationof harge/s
vs. Lawyer’sOathandCode Code ThisdisbarmentcasecentersonwhetherAtty.Khovi TheinstantAdministrativeComplai
ATTY.DAVIDLIM QUECO ofProfessionalRespons ofProfessionalRespo olatedhislawyer'soaththatheshalldonofalsehoodan ntforviolationofthelawyer'soathand
KHO,Respondent ibility. nsibility dthatheshallnotengageinunlawful,dishonest,immo theCodeofProfessionalResponsibili
CANON1- ral,ordeceitfulconduct.Accordingtocomplainant,a tyfiledagainstAtty.DavidLimQueco
A.C. No. Alawyershallupholdtheconstituti violationoccurredwhenrespondentdeclaredinhisv Khoishereby dismissed.
9492July 11, on,obeythelawsofthelandandpro erifiedCertificateofAcceptanceofNominationthat
2016SERENO moterespectforlawofandlegalpro hewasanatural-
,CJ.: cesses. bornFilipinocitizen.Althoughthequestionofone'sc
itizenshipisnotopentocollateralattack,theCourtack
nowledgestheIBP-
Rule1.01- CBD'spronouncementthatithadtomakealimitedfi
Alawyershallnotengageinunlawf ndingthereon,sincetheallegeddishonestyhinged
ul,dishonest,immoral ordeceitful on thisissue.
conduct.
Lawyer's Oath Wehaveconstantlyruledthatanattackonaperson'sci
tizenshipmayonlybedonethroughadirectactionfori
tsnullity.Adisbarmentcaseis

487
 2016CASES

definitelynotthepropervenuetoattacksomeone'scit
izenship.Forthelackofanyrulingfromacompetentc
ourtonrespondent'scitizenship,thisdisbarmentcas
elosesitsonlyleg to standon and, hence,mustbe
dismissed.
(Topic): Malpracticeorothergrossmisconduct
NORMA M.GUTIERREZ, Act/scomplainedof Legalbasis/basesofthec SupremeCourt’sRuling CaseDisposition
Complainant Gravemisconduct,gros harge/s Rule16.03oftheCodeobligatesalawyertodeliverthe
vs. snegligence,andincomp Code client'sfundsandpropertywhendueor Atty.EleonorA.Maravilla-
ATTY.ELEANOR A. etence ofProfessionalRe upondemand. onaissuspendedfromthepracticeofl
MARAVILLA-ONA, Respondent sponsibility Alawyerisobligedtoholdintrustmoneyofhisclientth awforthree(3)years.SheisWARNE
Rule1.01- atmaycometohispossession.Astrusteeofsuchfunds Dthatarepetitionofthesameorsimila
A.C. No. Alawyershallnotengageinunlawful,d ,heisboundtokeepthemseparateandapartfromhiso roffenseshallbedealtwithmore
10944July 12, ishonest,immoralordeceitfulconduc wn,Moneyentrustedtoalawyerforaspecificpurpose
severely.
t. suchasforthefilingandprocessingofacaseifnotutiliz
2016 CANON16-
PERCURIAM: ed,mustbereturnedimmediatelyupondemand.Fail Atty.Maravilla-
Alawyershallholdintrustallmoneysa
ndpropertiesof his clientthatmay
uretoreturngivesriseto Onaisalsoorderedtoreturntocompla
come intohisprofession. apresumptionthathehasmisappropriateditinviolati inantNormaGutierrezthefullamou
onofthetrustreposedonhim.Andtheconversion of ntofP65,000.00withinninety(90)day
fundsentrusted to sfromthefinalityofthisResolution.F
himconstitutesgrossviolationofprofessionalethics ailuretocomplywiththisdirectivewill
andbetrayalofpublicconfidenceinthelegalprofessi merittheimpositionofthemoresever
on. epenaltyofdisbarqientfromthepract
In the presentcase, Atty. Maravilla-Ona iceoflaw,whichthisCourtshallimpos
receivedmoneyfromherclientforthefilingofacasein ebasedonthecomplainant'smotion
court,Notonlydidshefailtofilethecasebutshealsofai withnoticedulyfurnishedtoAtty.Ma
ledtoreturnherclient'smoney.Theseactsconstitute ravilla-
violationsofAtty.Maravilla- Ona.Thispenaltyshallbeinlieuofthe
Ona'sprofessionalobligationsunderCanon16. penaltyofsuspensionhereinabove
imposed.

488
 2016CASES

TOPIC: GoodMoralCharacter

PatrickA.Caronanv Falsely assuming UnderSection6,Rule 138 of In the case athand, WHEREFORE,

s. thename, identity, theRulesofCourt, no respondentnevercompletedhiscollege degree. While respondentRichardA.
RichardA.Caronan andacademic applicantforadmission totheBar he enrolledat the PLMin1991, he left a Caronana.k.a. "Atty.Patrick A.
AKA recordsofcomplainantP Examinationshall be yearlaterandentered the PMA wherehe Caronan"(respondent)isfoundG
“Atty.PatrickCaron atrick A.Caronan to admittedunlesshehadpursuedands wasdischargedin1993 withoutgraduating.56Clearly, UILTYof falsely assuming the
an” obtain a lawdegree atisfactorilycompleted a pre-law respondenthasnotcompleted therequisitepre-law name,identity, andacademic
A.C. No. andtake course. degree. recordsof complainantPatrick
11316Jul 12, theBarExaminations. A.Caronan(complainant)
2016PERCURI The Courtdoesnot discount the possibility toobtain a law degree
AM thatrespondentmay lateron complete andtaketheBar Examinations.
hiscollegeeducationandearn a law degree Accordingly,withoutprejudice to
underhisrealname.However, hisfalse assumption of the filing ofappropriate civil
hisbrother'sname,identity, and/orcriminalcases, the
andeducationalrecordsrendershimunfitfor Courtherebyresolvesthat:
admissionto theBar.The practice of law, afterall, isnot
a natural, absoluteor constitutional right tobe granted (1) the name "Patrick
to everyone whodemandsit.Rather, itisa privilege A.Caronan" withRoll
limited to citizensof goodmoralcharacter. ofAttorneysNo. 49069
isorderedDROPPEDandSTRIC
KENOFFthe Roll of Attorneys;
(2)respondentisPROHIBITEDf
rom engaging in the practice
oflaw or making
anyrepresentationsasa lawyer;
(3)respondentisBARREDfromb
eing admittedasa memberofthe
Philippine Barin thefuture;
TOPIC: GrossMisconduct

JuttaKrursel Forgery,swindling, She violated the Lawyer’soath to"do Respondentcommittedseriousactsof WHEREFORE,

vs. andfalsificationof a no falsehood" deceitin:(1)withdrawing the complaintwithprejudice, thisCourtfindsrespondentAtty.
Atty.Lorenzana publicdocument. andto"conductherselfasa lawyer .. withoutthe knowledge andconsentof complainant; Lorenza
A.Abion .withall goodfidelity aswell tothe and(2)forging complainant'ssignature or causing A. AbionGUILTY of
A.C. No. courtsastoherclients. “She hersignature to be forgedintheApril 15, 2002 grossmisconductinviolation
5951July 12, alsoviolated thefollowing letter,thusmaking oftheLawyer'sOathandthe
2016 provisionsoftheCode of itappearthatcomplainantconformed CodeofProfessionalResponsibili
ty. She

489
 2016CASES
PERCURIAM Professional Responsibility:
Rule1.01, Rule 7,Rule 7.03,
Rule15,
Rule 17, Rule 18 andRule 18.04
TOPIC: GrossMisconduct
AuroraAguilar- Incompetence, RespondentviolatedCanon18 ofthe
Dyquianco obtainingloansfrom a CPRwhen shefailed tofile
vs. client,commingling thecollectioncase incourt. Also,
Atty.DianaLynnM.A personalmoney with a sheviolatedRule 16.01 of the Code
rellano clientandfiling ofProfessionalResponsibility
A.C. No. baselesscriminalcomplaints whichprovidesthat a
10541July 12, against a client. lawyershallaccountfor allmoney or
2016CAGUIO property collectedfor orfromthe
A, J. client.Whenrespondentcausedthe
filingofbaselesscriminal
complaintsagainstcomplainant, he
violatedtheLawyer'sOaththat a
lawyershall"notwittingly orwillingly
promoteor sue any
groundless,falseorunlawful suit,
norgive aid orconsentto thesame."
Lastly,respondentviolatedCanon16
when she obtainedloans from
aclient.
490
to the withdrawal of the complaint. ishereby
Respondent'sdeceptionconstitutesagrossviolationof DISBARREDfromthe
professionalethicsand abreach of herfiduciaryduty to practice of law.TheOfficeof
herclient, subjectingher to disciplinaryaction. theBar
Respondent'sactsamountto deceit,malpractice, or ConfidantisDIRECTEDtorem
grossmisconductinoffice asanattorney. ovethename of Lorenza A.
Respondent'sunethical AbionfromtheRoll
andunscrupulousconductprovesherunworthy of ofAttorneys.
thepublic'strustandconfidence. She
shamelesslytransgressedall thethingssheswore
touphold,whichmakesherunfittocontinue asa
memberof thebar. Hence, we
findnohesitationinremoving respondentfromthe Roll
ofAttorneys.
RespondentviolatedCanon16 when she WHEREFORE, we
obtainedloansfrom a client.Thereis no dispute findRespondentAtty. Diana
thatRespondentobtainedseveralloansfromComplaina Lynn
ntbeginning in2008or two(2)yearsafterthey M. ArellanoGUILTY
established a lawyer- ofViolation ofRules16.02,
clientrelationshipin2006,andbeforethey terminatedthe 16.04,and18.03 of the Code
same in2009, inviolation ofRule 16.04of the CPR. ofProfessionalResponsibility,
We have previously emphasizedthatitisunethicalfor andthe Lawyer'sOath.
a lawyer toobtainloansfromComplainantduring the WeSUSPENDRespondent
existence of a lawyer- fromthe practice of law for
clientrelationshipbetweenthem. aperiodof THREE (3)YEARS.
Aswe conclude, we WealsoORDERRespondentto
remindlawyersthatitisnotonlyimportant toserve returnto Aurora Aguilar-
theirclientswithutmostzeal andcompetence. It Dyquiangcothe
isalsoanequally importantresponsibility forthemto fullamountofTWELVETHOUS
properly separate andaccount for anymoney given to ANDPESOS(₱12,000.00)within
them by theirclients,and to resistthe temptationto 30 daysfromnotice
borrow money fromtheirclients, inordertopreserve hereofandDIRECThertosubmit
the trustandconfidence reposeduponlawyersby every to
personrequiring theirlegal advice andservices. thisCourtproofofsuchpayment.
We STERNLY
WARNRespondentthat a
repetitionofthesameorsimilaract
willbe
 2016CASES

dealtwithmore severely.

TOPIC: GrossMisconduct

VerlitaV.MerculloandR Deceiving Respondentcertainly The Lawyer'sOathisa source of the WHEREFORE, the

aymondVedano thecomplainantsinorder transgressedthe Lawyer'sOath by obligationsanddutiesofevery lawyer. Anyviolation CourtFINDSandHOLDSAT
vs. toobtain a receivingmoney from the ofthe oathmaybe punishedwitheitherdisbarment, TY.MARIE FRANCESE.
Atty.Marie substantialamount. complainantsafterhaving made orsuspensionfromthe practice of law, RAMONguilty
FraceseRamon thembelieve that orothercommensuratedisciplinary action.16 ofviolatingCanon1, Rule 1.01 of
A.C. No. shecouldassisttheminensuringthere Everylawyer must atnotimebe wanting inprobity the Codeof Professional
11078July 19, demptionintheirmother'sbehalf. andmoralfiberwhichare notonly conditionsprecedent Responsibilityand the
2016BERSAMI Also,she breachedRule1.01, Canon tohisadmission totheBar, butare alsoessential Lawyer'sOath;SUSPENDSHER
N, J. 1of the Code forhiscontinuedmembershipinthe Law Profession. FROMTHEPRACTICE
ofProfessionalResponsibility. Any conductunbecoming of a lawyerconstitutesa OFLAW FOR
violation ofhisoath. APERIODOFFIVE
The respondentcertainly transgressedthe YEARSEFFECTIVEFROM
Lawyer'sOath by receiving money from the NOTICE, withthe
complainantsafterhaving made thembelieve that she STERNWARNINGthatany
couldassisttheminensuringthe similarinfractionin thefuture
redemptionintheirmother'sbehalf. She willbedealtwithmore
wasconvincing aboutherability to workon the severely;ORDERSher toreturn
redemptionbecause she hadworkedintheNHFMC. to thecomplainants the
The respondent'sconductpatently breachedRule1.01, sumofP350,000.00
Canon 1of the Code ofProfessionalResponsibility. within30daysfromnotice,
The Code exacted fromhernotonly pluslegal interestof
afirmrespectforthe law andlegalprocessesbutalsothe 6%perannumreckonedfromthe
utmostdegree of fidelityandgoodfaithindealing finality of thisdecisionuntil
withclientsandthemoneysentrusted bythempursuantto fullpayment; andDIRECTSherto
theirfiduciary relationship. promptlysubmitto
Anotherderelictionof thisCourtwrittenproof
therespondentwasherwantondisregardof ofhercompliance withinthesame
theseveralnoticessentto herbythe IBPinthiscase. periodof30 daysfromnotice of
Suchdisregardcouldonly bewrong because thisdecision.
itreflectedherundisguisedcontemptof the
proceedingsof the IBP, abody thatthe
Courthasinvestedwiththe authority to investigate
thedisbarmentcomplaintagainsther.She
thusexhibitedherirresponsibilityaswellasherutter

491
 2016CASES
TOPIC: GrossMisconduct
GabinoV.Tolentinoa Seriousmisconductforrepe The Commissionon
ndFlordelizaC. atedfailure BarDisciplinerecommendedthatAtt
Tolentino tocomplywithseveralof the y. Sobeabsolved ofthe charge
vs. Court'sResolutionsanddec againsthimfor insufficiency of
Atty.HenryB. So eit onhisclient. evidence. AstoAtty. Ancheta, the
andAtty.FerdinandL. Commissionfoundhimguilty
Ancheta ofseriousmisconductanddeceit.
A.C. No. Hebreached the following
6387July 19, dutiesembodiedinthe Code
2016PERCUR ofProfessionalResponsibility:
IAM Canon7, 15-15.05-15.06-15.07, 16-
16.01-
16.03, 17 and18-18.03 ofthe CPR
and the Lawyer’sOath.
Also,tojustify
histransgressionfordisbarmentRule
138, Section27 ofthe Rulesof
Court.
492
disrespectfor the Courtandtherestofthe Judiciary.
Asa servantofthe law, Atty. Ancheta'sprimary WHEREFORE,
dutywasto obey the lawsandpromote respectforthe thecomplaintagainstrespondent
lawandlegalprocesses. Corollary to thisduty Atty. Henry
ishisobligation B.
toabstainfromdishonestordeceitfulconduct, SoisDISMISSEDforinsufficienc
aswellasfrom"activitiesaimedatdefianceof the law y of evidence. Onthe
oratlessening confidence in the legalsystem." Atty. otherhand,
Ancheta'sadvice involving corruptionof judicial thisCourtfindsrespondentAtty.
officerstrampsthe integrity anddignity ofthe legal FerdinandL.Ancheta GUILTY
professionandthe judicial system andadversely ofgrossmisconductinviolation
reflectson hisfitnesstopractice law. oftheLawyer'sOathandthe
Atty. Ancheta'scavalierattitude inrepeatedlyignoring CodeofProfessionalResponsibili
the ordersofthisCourtconstitutesutterdisrespect ty andhereby
ofthe judicial institution. Hisconductshowsa DISBARShimfromthepractice
highdegree ofirresponsibility of law. TheOffice oftheBar
andbetraysarecalcitrantflaw inhischaracter. Indeed, ConfidantisDIRECTEDtorem
hiscontinuedindifference ovethename of FerdinandL.
tothisCourt'sordersconstituteswillful disobedience of AnchetafromtheRoll
the lawfulordersof thisCourt, which, underRule 138, ofAttorneys.
Section27ofthe Rulesof Court, isinitself a
sufficientcauseforsuspension or disbarment. RespondentAncheta
The maintenance of a highstandard isORDEREDtoreturntocompla
oflegalproficiency, honesty, andfairdealing69 inants
isaprerequisite tomaking GabinoV.TolentinoandFlordeli
thebaraneffectiveinstrumentin the za C.Tolentino,
properadministrationof justice.70Any member, within30daysfromreceipt of
therefore, whofailstolive upto theexacting thisResolution,thetotalamount
standardsofintegrity andmorality exposeshimselfor of ₱230,000.00,withlegal
herselfto administrative liability. interestat12%perannumfromthe
date ofdemand on
September10, 2003
to June 30,2013, andat6%per
annumfromJuly 1, 2013
untilfullpayment.RespondentAn
cheta isfurtherDIRECTEDto
submittothisCourtproof
ofpayment ofthe amountwithin
 2016CASES
10 daysfrompayment.

TOPIC: NotarialLaw
Virgilio D. Failure to ascertain By hisneglect, the Asa lawyercommissionedto bea notary public, WHEREFORE, the
MagawayandCesario theidentity ofthe respondentunderminedthe therespondentwasmandated todischarge CourtREVOKESthe
M. personexecuting confidence of thepublic on the hissacreddutieswithfaithful observance notarialcommissionof
Magaway thesameconstitutedgrossn worthof notarizeddocuments. He andutmostrespectfor the legalsolemnity of respondentATTY.MARIA
vs. egligence in thusbreachedCanon Iof the Code anoathinanacknowledgment or jurat. Indeed, NOA.
Atty.MarianoA. theperformance of ofProfessionalResponsibility, suchresponsibilitywasincumbentuponhim byvirtue AVECILLA
Avecilla hisdutiesasa notary bywhich he ofhissolemnLawyer'sOathto dono falsehood or effectiveimmediately;
A.C. No. public. asanattorneycommissionedto consent tothedoing of any, andby DISQUALIFIEShimfromreapp
7072July 27, serve asanotarypublic wasrequired virtueofhisundertaking,pursuant tothe Code ointmentasNotary Public for a
2016BERSAM to uphold theConstitution, obey ofProfessional Responsibility,not to engage periodoftwoyearseffective
IN, J. the lawsof theland, andpromote inunlawful, dishonest, immoralordeceitful immediately;SUSPENDShimfro
respectfor thelaw conductandto upholdatall timestheintegrity mthepractice of law for a
andlegalprocesses. anddignity ofthelegalprofession.Hisfailure to periodofone yeareffective
ascertain the identity of thepersonexecuting thesame immediatelywith the
constitutedgrossnegligence inthe performance WARNINGthattherepetitionof
ofhisdutiesasa notary public. Assuch, itisnow the sameorsimilaractsshall be
unavoidable forhimto accept thecommensurate dealtwithmoreseverely;
consequencesofhisindiscretion. andDIRECTShimtoreportthe
By hisneglect, the respondentundermined date ofreceiptof
theconfidence ofthe public on the worthof thisdecisioninorderto
notarizeddocuments. He thusbreachedCanon Iof the determinewhenhissuspensionsh
Codeof ProfessionalResponsibility, by which he alltakeeffect.
asanattorney commissionedto serve asa notary
publicwasrequiredto uphold theConstitution, obey
thelawsof the land, andpromote respectforthe law
andlegalprocesses.
Time andagain, the Courthasremindednotariespublic
of the importance attached to the act ofnotarization.
We
muststressyetagainthatnotarizationisnotanempty,or
perfunctory, ormeaninglessact,for
itisinvestedwithsubstantialpublic interest.
Courtsandotherpublicoffices, andthe public atlarge
couldrely upon therecitalsof
theacknowledgmentexecutedbythe notary public.
Forthisreason, notariespublicmustobserve with

493
 2016CASES
utmostcare the basic requirementsin theperformance
oftheirduties.Otherwise, theconfidence ofthe public
inthe integrity ofthisformof conveyance would be
undermined.
TOPIC: GrossMisconduct
ErnestoB.Balburiasv Threatandarrogance. Violation ofthe Code The CourtnotesthatAtty. Franciscodidnotpersonally WHEREFORE, we DENYthe
s. ofProfessionalResponsibility appearduringthemandatoryconference/hearing petition. We DISMISS
Atty.AmorMiaJ.F bythreatandarrogance andwas only represented byAtty. Naval. The thecomplaintfiledby
rancisco againstthepetitioner. reportdidnot state the reasonforAtty. ErnestoB.BalburiasagainstAtt
A.C. No. Francisco’sabsence. A reading ofthe y. AmorMia J. Francisco.
10631July 27, transcriptshowedthat she hadto undergo a procedure WeADMONISHAtty.
2016CARPIO, butnomedicalcertificate wassubmitted. In any case, Franciscoto be more
J. Atty.NavalstatedthatAtty. Franciscowouldonly circumspectinheractionsandto
confirmwhatwastakenupduring the be morecourteousindealing
mandatoryconference/hearing.TheCourtcanrule withlitigantsinthe future.
based onthepleadingsfiled,the transcript of the case,
and theReportandRecommendation of the
InvestigatingCommissioner.
Atty. Franciscocouldhave avoided the incidentifshe
atleasttriedtotalk toBalburias'scounsel on
thematterofamicable settlement ofthe
criminalcaseinsteadoftalking
toBalburiashimself.Balburiasmisinterpretedthe
approachasanattemptto "buyheropponents." We rule
thatBalburiasfailedtosatisfactorilyshow
thatAtty.Franciscoactedinbadfaith.
DelosSantos'saffidavitshowedthatAtty.
Franciscoimmediately
correctedherselfwhensherealizedthat
shemighthaveoffendedBalburiasbysaying thatshe
wasreferringto the amountof thecomplaint.We
gatheredthesame impressionfromthe
affidavitsofAquinoandAtty. Villanueva.
Nevertheless, we deemitproper to
admonishAtty.Franciscoto be more carefulindealing
withotherlitigantstoavoid a repetitionof a
similarincidentinthe future.

494
 2016CASES
TOPIC: GrossMisconduct

SpousesNuniloand Fraudulentanddeceitfulco RespondentviolatedRule Time andagain, thisCourthasrepeatedly heldthatthe WHEREFORE, Atty.JoseB.

Nemia Anaya nductsinissuing 16.04ofthe Code act of a lawyerinissuinga check Alvarez, Jr ishereby foundguilty
vs. checkswithoutsufficientfu ofProfessionalResponsibility. withoutsufficientfundsto coverthem or, of
Atty.Jose B.Alvarez,Jr. nds. worst,drawnagainst a closedaccount, grossmisconductandSUSPEND
A.C. No. constituteswillfuldishonesty EDfrom thepractice of law for
9436August1, andunethicalconductthatunderminesthe public one (1)year,effective
2016MENDO confidence in thelaw and the membersofthe bar. uponhisreceipt ofthisdecision,
ZA,J. Itshowsa lawyer'slow regard tohiscommitment tothe withthe WARNINGthat a
Oath, which he swore to upholdandrespectwhenhe repetition ofthesameorany
joinedthe legalprofession. othermisconductwillbedealtwith
Without a quibble, Atty. Alvarez'sfailure topay more severely.
hisdebtsdespiteseveral demands, andhisact
ofissuingnumerouscheckswhichwere
dishonoredforhavingbeendrawnagainst a
closedaccount,putshismoralcharacterinseriousdoubt.
Itdemonstrateshislackof reverence tothe
lawyer'soath, andseriously andirreparably
tarnishedtheimageof the profession hepromised
toholdinhighesteem.

Atty. Alvarez'scontentionthat he offered to pay

hisdebtson a monthly basisbutwasrefused
bySpousesAnaya failsto persuade. Heshouldhave
knownthata mere offer to pay a
debtisinsufficientunlessaccompanied by
anactualtender ofpayment.
Moreover, the Courtnotesthat the loanwasobtainedby
Atty. Alvarez in2011 butupto date, no
paymenthasbeenmade. Likewise, hisdefense that
hemerely issued the checksascollateral to the
loanisuntenable. They couldnot have beenused
tosecure aloanasitwasnotonly unfunded, butthe
account towhichthese
checksweredrawnwasalsoalreadyclosed.
TOPIC: GrossMisconduct Indeed, the deliberate failureto pay debtsand
theissuance of a worthlesschecksconstitute
grossmisconduct.

495
 2016CASES
BudencioDumanlag Grossmisconductinrejecti Violation ofthe Code The Complaintmust be dismissedforutterlack WHEREFORE, the
vs. ng complainant'sclaimover ofProfessionalResponsibility ofmerit. CourtRESOLVES to:
Atty.Jaime a parcel of landbased on a thatlawyersshallperformtheirduty A lawyerischargedwiththe duty to defend"thecause (a)DISMISS
M.Blanco,Jr. SpanishTitle. tothe clientwithinthe boundsof law. of hisclientwithwholeheartedfidelity, the administrative
A.C. No. 8825 care,anddevotion." Nevertheless, the Code complaintfordisbarmentagainst
August03,2016 ofProfessionalResponsibility Atty. Jaime
SERENO, C.J. circumscribesthisdutywith the M. Blancoforutterlack ofmerit;
limitationthatlawyersshallperformtheirduty to the (b)IMPOSE a FINEofP5,000
clientwithintheboundsof law.In thiscase, Atty. on
Blancoperformedthisduty complainantBudencioDumanlag
tohisclientwithoutexceeding thescopeof forfiling amaliciouscomplaint;
hisauthority. and(c)DIRECTcomplainant
Hence, complainanthad a baselessclaim, toSHOW CAUSE why
whichAtty.Blancocorrectly resisted.Inwriting heshouldnot be citedfor
thetwolettersrejecting complainant'sclaim, he merely indirectcontemptforfailing to
actedindefense of the rights of hisclient. In doing so, complywithourfinalandexecutor
heperformedhisdutyto EMIDCIwithinthe yDecisiondated18December199
boundsoflaw. 6, insofarasitenjoinsagentsof the
Consequently, there wasnomisconduct tospeak ofon Estate
the part of Atty. Blanco.In fact, heshouldevenbe ofMarianoSanPedrofromexercisi
commendedashe remainedsteadfast, inmaintaining ng
the causeof hisclientevenashe wassubjected actsofpossessionorownershiport
toharassment. As will be ootherwise dispose ofany
TOPIC: GrossMisconduct discussedbelow,complainant,inhisseconddemandlette landcovered byT.P. 4136.
r, threatenedAtty. Blancowiththe filingof a
WilliamG.Campos,Jr.,R Grossmisconductinr Respondentclearly Respondentclearly
disbarmentcase. violatedCanons15, 16 and20ofthe ACCORDINGLY,
epresented byRosario eceiving a total violatedCanons15, 16 and20 ofthe Code ofProfessionalResponsibility. respondentAtty. AlexanderC.
B.Campos,RitaC.Ba ofP345,000.00 from Code ofProfessionalResponsibility. Estebalishereby
tac andDorinaD. complainants;thatnotwiths CANON15 - foundGUILTY ofviolating the
Carpio tandingreceiptthereof, ALAWYERSHALLOBSERVECANDOR,FAIRN Code
vs. Atty. Estebaldidnot make ESSANDLOYALTYIN ALLHIS ofProfessionalResponsibility
Atty.AlexanderC. any attempt DEALINGSANDTRANSACTIONSWITHHIS andishereby
Estebal toprocessorsubmittheirvisa CLIENTS. SUSPENDEDfromthe
A.C. No. applications; thatevenif the practice of law for aperiodof
10443August08, amountcollectedisconsider CANON16 - one (1)year, effective
2016DELCASTILL edasattorney'sfees, ALAWYERSHALLHOLDINTRUSTALL uponreceipt of
O,J. thesame isexcessive; MONEYSANDPROPERTIESOFHIS thisDecision.HeisalsoORDER
CLIENTTHATMAYCOME ED
INTOHISPOSSESSION. toreturntheamountsofP135,000
.00 toWilliam G. Campos,Jr.,

496
 2016CASES
andthatevenifAtty.Est
ebal isentitled
toattorney'sfees,
theamountofP5,000.0
0would be
consideredappropriat
e ABLE FEES.
underthecircumstanc
es.
497
P60,000.00 toRita C.
Rule 16.01 - A lawyershallaccountforallmoney Batac;andP105,000.00
orproperty collected orreceived fororfrom the client, toDorinaD.Carpio. Atty.
AlexanderC.EstebalisWARNE
CANON20 - ALAWYER Dthat arepetitionof the
SHALLCHARGEONLYFAIRANDREASON sameorsimilaractwill be
dealtwithmoreseverely.
Rule 20-01- A lawyershallbe guided
bythefollowing factorsindetermining hisfees.
RespondentviolatedCanon15 forthe
reasonthathewasnot candidenough totell the
complainantstheirchancesof getting a USvisa.Instead,
the respondentmade the complainantsbelieve
thatthey willhave agoodchance of getting theUSvisa
ifthey will bejoinedwithothergroups. Itturnedout tobe
false.
Complainantswaitedforso long before
therespondentcouldfindothermembersofthe
group.In the end,nothing happened.
He alsoviolatedCanon16,Rule 16.01 because hedid
not accountfor themoneyhe received
fromthecomplainants.It isnotclearto the
complainants howmuchistripamountdueto the
respondent.
Lastly, itappearsthat the attorney'sfeesthat
hecollected fromthe complainantsare excessive
andunreasonable. Considering the degree of
workandnumberofhoursspent, The amount he
collectedfromthe complainantsisnotcommensurate
to thedegree of servicesrendered.Obviously,
respondenttook advantage ofthe weaknessof the
complainantsintheirdesire togo theUnitedStates.
Afterevaluating the evidence presentedbybothparties,
the undersignedbelievesthat thecomplainantshave
satisfactorily shownthe degree ofthe
requiredevidence toconvince thisCommission
 2016CASES
thatindeed, Atty. Estebal, Sr. shouldbe
heldadministratively liable.
TOPIC: GrossMisconduct

Spouses Grossmisconduct Violation ofRule 8.01 of The Courthasexaminedtherecordsofthiscase WHEREFORE,

Manolo&MiliniaN onsendingsps.Nuezca theCodeof Professional andpartially concurswiththe respondentArty. ErnestoV.
uezca ademandlettercopyfurnish Responsibility(CPR). findingsandrecommendationsof theIBPBoard Villagarcia isfoundGUILTY
vs. edtovariousofficesandpers Also,resistance to ofGovernors.The practice oflaw isaprivilege given to ofviolationofRule 8.01, Canon
Atty.ErnestoV. ons, whichcontained lawfulordersofthe lawyerswhomeet the highstandardsof legalproficiency 8of the Codeof Professional
Villagarcia notonlythreatening courtillustrateshisdisrespectforhiso andmorality. Any violation ofthese Responsibility.He ishereby
AC. No. 8210 butalsolibelousutterances. athof officeaviolation standardsexposesthe lawyer to administrative liability. SUSPENDEDfromthe practice
Aug 08, 2016 Likewise, ofSection3,Rule138,rulesofCourt. Rule 8.01,Canon 8of the CPR provides: of law foraperiodof one
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. fordefyingthelawfulorder Rule 8.01. - A (1)month,effective
of the IBP. lawyershallnot,inhisprofessionaldealings, use uponhisreceipt ofthisResolution,
language whichisabusive, offensive orotherwise andisSTERNLYWARNEDthat
improper. a
In thiscase, thedemandletterthatrespondentsentto repetitionofthesameorsimilaracts
complainantscontainednotmerely a demandforthem willbedealtwithmore severely.
tosettle theirmonetary
obligationstorespondent'sclient,butalsousedwordsth
atmalignedtheircharacter.
It bearsnoting thatrespondentfailed to answer
theverifiedcomplaintandattend the
mandatoryhearingsset bytheIBP. Hence, the
claimsandallegationsofthe complainants
remainuncontroverted.In Ngayanv. Tugade, the
Courtruledthat"a lawyer'sfailureto answerthe
complaintagainsthimandhisfailure toappearat
theinvestigationare evidence
ofhisfloutingresistanceto lawfulordersofthe
courtandillustrate hisdespiciency forhisoathofoffice
TOPIC: GrossMisconduct inviolation ofSection3, Rule 138,rulesofCourt.

CleoB.Dongga- Grossmisconductforrefu Violation ofRule 1.01, Canon1, A judiciousperusalof therecordsrevealsthatsometime WHEREFORE,

asvs. sing toreturnthemoney Canon7, Canon11, Rule 18.03, inMay 2004, complainantsecuredtheservicesofAttys. respondentsAtty. Rose Beatrix
Atty.Rose BetrixCruz- given Canon18, andRules16.01 Cruz-AngelesandPalerforthepurpose of annulling Cruz-AngelesandAtty. Wylie M.
Angeles,Atty.Wylie M. bycomplainantinexchang and16.03, Canon16 of the hismarriage withMutya, andin PalerarefoundGUILTY
e Codeof ofviolating

498
 2016CASES
Paler,andAtty.AngelesG for ProfessionalResponsibility. connectiontherewith, paidAttys. Cruz- Rule 1.01, Canon1,Canon7,
randea, legalserviceswhichresp AngelesandPaler the aggregate sum ofP350,000 Canon11, Rule 18.03, Canon
oftheAngeles,Grandea& ondentsfailed representinglegalfees. However, despitethe passage 18, andRules16.01
PalerLawOffice toperform. of morethanfive (5)monthsfromthe and16.03,Canon16 of the
A.C. No. engagement,Attys.Cruz-AngelesandPalerfailed to file Code
11113August09, the appropriatepleading to initiatethe casebefore the ofProfessionalResponsibility.
2016 propercourt;andworse, couldnot evenshow a Accordingly, each of
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. finisheddraftofsuchpleading. Suchneglect of the legal themishereby
matterentrusted tothem by SUSPENDEDfromthepractice
theirclientconstitutesaflagrantviolation ofRule 18.03, of law for a periodofthree
Canon18 of theCPR. Inthisrelation, Attys.Cruz- (3)years, effective uponthe
AngelesandPaleralsoviolatedRules16.01 and16.03, finality ofthisDecision,with a
Canon16 oftheCPRwhenthey failed toreturn to STERNWARNINGthata
complainanttheamountofP350,000representing repetitionof
theirlegal fees. thesameorsimilaractswill be
Furthermore, Attys. Cruz- dealtwithmore severely.
AngelesandPalermisrepresentedto complainantthat
thedelay in thefiling Likewise,
ofhispetitionforannulmentwasdueto thefactthatthey respondentsAtty.RoseBeatrix
werestilllookingfor a "friendly" court,judge, andpublic Cruz-AngelesandAtty. Wylie M.
prosecutorwhowill notbetoomuch of a hindrance PalerareORDEREDtoreturntoc
inachieving successin theannulmentcase.In fact, inthe omplainantCleo B.Dongga-
two(2)billingstatementsdatedOctober5, asthe legalfeesthey
200427andOctober10,2004,28 Attys. Cruz- receivedfromthe latterinthe
AngelesandPalermade itappearthatthey wentto aggregateamountofP350,000.00
variouslocationstolookfora suitable venue infiling withinninety (90)daysfrom
thesaidpetition, thefinality
andevenpaidvariousamountstoprosecutorsandmembe ofthisDecision.Failureto comply
rs ofthe NationalBureau withthe foregoingdirective
ofInvestigationtoactastheir"consultants." willwarranttheimpositionof a
Suchmisrepresentationsanddeceitson the more severepenalty.
partofAttys.Cruz-AngelesandPalerare
violationsofRule 1.01,Canon 1of the CPR.Moreover, Meanwhile, the
Canon 7of theCPRcommandseverylawyer to complaintasagainstAtty.
"atalltimesuphold the integrity anddignityofthe AngelesGrandea
TOPIC: MisappropriationofClient’sFund legalprofession" for the strengthof the legal isDISMISSEDforlack of merit.
professionliesinthe dignity andintegrity of
itsmembers.

499
 2016CASES
Adegoke Absconding Respondentviolated the Respondentfailed toserve WHEREFORE,
R.Plumptrevs. withmoneyentrusted followingCanonsofthe Code hisclientwithfidelity,competence, anddiligence. Henot respondentArty.
Atty.Socrates R.Rivera tohimandsoliciting money ofProfessionalResponsibility: onlyneglected theattorney- SocratesR.Rivera
A.C. No. 11350 to bribe ajudge. clientrelationshipestablishedbetweenthem;he isSUSPENDEDfrom
(FormerlyCBDCase No. CANON 1 alsoactedin a reprehensible thepractice of law forthree
14-4211)August09, CANON 7 mannertowardscomplainant, i.e., cussing (3)years. He
2016PERCURIAM CANON16 andthreateningcomplainantandhisfamily withbodily isORDEREDtoreturnto
-Rule harm, hidingfrom complainant,andrefusing complainantAdegoke
16.01CAN withoutreasontoreturnthe money R. Plumptre the amount
ON17CAN entrustedtohimforthe processingof the work ofP28,000.00
ON18 permit.Respondent'sbehaviordemonstrateshislack withinterestat6%perannumfrom
-Rule 18.03. ofintegrity andmoralsoundness. the date ofpromulgation
-Rule 18.04. ofthisResolutionuntil fully
By implying that he cannegotiate a favorable paid.He
rulingfor the sum ofP8,000.00, islikewiseDIRECTEDtosubmitt
respondenttrampleduponthe integrityof the othisCourtproofof payment
judicialsystemanderodedconfidence on the oftheamountwithin10
judiciary.Thisgrossdisrespectofthe daysfrompayment.
judicialsystemshowsthat he iswanting
inmoralfiberandbetraysthe lack ofintegrity
TOPIC: NotarialLaw inhischaracter.The practice oflaw isaprivilege,
andrespondenthasrepeatedly shownthat heis
OscarM.Baysacv Notarizing a Violation of Canon 1oftheCodeof We findSectionit.1ofPublicAct No.
unfittoexercise WHEREFORE,
s. fictitiousorspuriousdocu Professional 2103,29otherwise knownasthe NotarialLaw, to thisCourthereby findsAtty.
Atty.EloisaM.Aceron- ment. Responsibility,particularly betheapplicable law at the time the Eloisa M.Aceron-Papa
Papa Canon1.01. Also,Section complainedactstookplace. GUILTY ofviolating the
A.C. No. 1ofPublic Nonetheless,bothlawsprovide for a Notarial Law andthe Code
10231August10, ActNo.2103(NotarialLaw) similarprovision onacknowledgment. ofProfessionalResponsibility.
2016JARDELE The affidavit ofMs. Angeles, and the findingsof Accordingly,thisCourtREVOK
ZA, J. theNBIprovethatrespondentviolated the ES herincumbentcommission,
NotarialLawwhen she notarized theDeed of Absolute ifanyPROHIBITSherfrombeing
Salewithoutthe personalappearance of commissionedasa notarypublic
complainant.Itwasrespondent'sduty asnotary public fortwo(2)years;
torequire thepersonalappearance of andSUSPENDSherfromtheprac
thepersonexecuting thedocumenttoenable the former tice of law for one
to verify thegenuinenessof hissignature.Doing away (1)year,effective immediately.
with theessentialrequirementof physicalpresence of She isfurtherWARNEDthat a
theaffiantdoesnottake intoaccount the likelihoodthat

500
 2016CASES
the documentsmay bespuriousorthatthe repetitionof the
affiantsmay not be whothey purport to be. sameorsimilaroffense shall be
Respondentisremindedthatasa dealtwithmoreseverely.
lawyercommissionedasnotary public, she
isrequiredtoupholdhersacreddutiesappertaining
toheroffice,suchdutiesbeing dictatedbypublic policy
andimpressedwithpublic interest.
More, asa lawyer,respondentbreachedCanon 1ofthe
Code ofProfessionalResponsibility,
particularlyCanon1.01 by notarizingthe Deed of
Absolute Sale,she engagedinunlawful, dishonest,
immoral ordeceitfulconduct.
TOPIC: GrossMisconduct
ArnoldG.Tengson Grossneglectofduty Violation ofSection8,Rule122 Respondentwasonly able totransmitthe WHEREFORE, the
vs. infailing to transmit ofthe Rulesof Court. completerecordsof CriminalCase No. TMCR-038- CourtfindsrespondentAtty.
Atty.MaricelLilledAsun totheCA the recordsof 08 totheCA on February 23, 201525- morethan a MaricelLilledAsuncion-Roxas,
cion-Roxas,Clerkof acriminalcase yearafterthe complainantfiledhisnotice of appeal Clerk ofCourtVIassigned
CourtVI,Branch23,Reg formorethan a year. onNovember4, 2013.Thus, itcannot be toBranch23oftheRegional Trial
ionalTrialCourt,Trece gainsaidthatthe CourtofTreceMartiresCity,
Martires City,Cavite respondentwasindeedremissinherduty asaclerk of Cavite, GUILTYof grossneglect
A.M. No. P-16- court. The respondent'sfailure to transmitthe of duty forthedelay
3515August10, recordsofCriminalCaseNo. TMCR-038-08tothe CA intransmittingto
2016REYES, J. forone yearandthree monthsisunreasonably long; theCourtofAppealsthe
itunquestionably amountstogrossneglect ofduty recordofCriminal Case
considering thatthe caseinvolvestherightof No.TMCR-038-08
anaccused to appealhisconviction tothe CA. entitledPeople of
The respondent'sexcuseofheavy thePhilippinesv. Arnold
workloaddeservesscantconsideration.TheCourtnotest G.Tecson.The
hattrialcourtsare indeedheavily Courtherebyimposesonher a
ladenwithworkloaddue to FINE
thenumberofcasesfiledandpending before ofFifteenThousandPesos(₱15,00
them.Itdoesnot, however,serve asa convenientexcuse 0.00) tobe paidwithin
toevade administrative liability; otherwise, aperiodoften(10)daysuponreceip
everygovernmentemployee facedwithnegligence thereof, with a warningthat a
andderelictionofduty repetition
wouldresorttothatexcusetoevade ·punishment,to the ofthesameorsimilaractshall be
detrimentof thepublicservice. dealtwithmore severely.

501
 2016CASES

Time andagain, the

Courthasremindedcourtpersonnel to
performtheirassignedtaskspromptlyandwithgreatcare
anddiligence consideringtheimportantrolethey play
inthe administrationofjustice. Any delay in the
administrationofjustice, nomatter howbrief,
depriveslitigantsoftheirright to aspeedy
dispositionoftheircase. It
TOPIC: GrossMisconduct underminesthepublic’sfaithinthe judiciary.

Jen Sherry Wee-Cruz Issuance of Violation ofRule 1.01, Canon Respondentmust be suspendedfrom the practice WHEREFORE, Atty.
vs. worthlesschecksto 1ofthe Code oflaw for violation ofRule 1.01, Canon 1of the ChichinaFaye
Atty.ChichinaFaye complainant'sbrother. ofProfessionalResponsibility. Codeof Professional Responsibility. LimisSUSPENDEDfromthe
Lim practice of law fortwoyears. Let
A.C. No. Respondentcannotevade disciplinary a copy ofthisDecision be
11380August16, sanctionsbyimplying thatthere wasnoattorney- enteredinherpersonalrecordatthe
2016SERENO, clientrelationshipbetweenher andcomplainant. OfficeoftheBar Confidant,and a
C.J. copybe served onthe
In thiscase, complainantandherbrothercategorically IntegratedBarof
statedthattheyhadagreed to thePhilippinesandtheOffice of
lendsubstantialamountsof moneyto the
respondent,because "she'sa lawyer." Indeed, CourtAdministratorforcirculatio
lawyersare held bythe community invery highesteem; n toall the courtsinthe land.
yetrespondenterodedthisgoodwill whenshe
repeatedly broke herpromisestopay andmake good
on herchecks.

On severaloccasions,thisCourthashad
todisciplinemembersofthe
legalprofessionfortheirissuance ofworthlesschecks.

ThisCourt,however,
agreeswithrespondentthatthepenalty of
disbarmentwouldbetoo harsh.
Recognizing the consequence of disbarmenton
theeconomic life andhonorofanerring lawyer,
thisCourtheldinAnacta v.
Resurrectionthatdisbarmentshouldnot be
decreedwhere any punishmentless

502
 2016CASES
severe wouldaccomplishthe enddesired.

TOPIC: GossMisconduct
Nilo Ethical Violation of Canon15 ofthe Canon15 of the Code CCORDINGLY, the
B.Diongz MisconductinRepresenti Codeof Professional ofProfessionalResponsibilityenjoinslawyersto observe CourtAFFIRMS
onvs. ng conflictinginterest. Responsibility. candor, fairnessandloyalty inall theirdealings theResolutionadopted
Atty.WilliamMirano -Canon15.03 andtransactionswiththeirclients. Specifically, onFebruary 13, 2013bythe
A.C. No. 2404 Canon15.03 demandsthat: "Alawyershall Board ofGovernorsofthe
August17,2016 notrepresentconflicting interestsexceptby IntegratedBar
BERSAMIN, J. writtenconsentof allconcernedgivenafter a ofthePhilippines;
fulldisclosure ofthe facts." A FINDSandDECLARES Atty.
conflictofinterestexistswhere a William N.Miranoguilty of
lawyerrepresentsinconsistentinterestsoftwoopposing ethicalmisconductdue to
parties, like when the conflictofinterest,
lawyerperformsanactthatwillinjuriously and,ACCORDINGLY,
affecthisfirstclientinanymatterinwhichhe SUSPENDShimfromtheprac
representedhim, or when thelawyerusesany tice of law forONEYEAR,
knowledge he previously effective
acquiredfromhisfirstclientagainstthe latter. immediatelyuponreceiptof
thisdecision.
The prohibitionagainstconflict of
interestisfoundedonprinciplesofpublic policy
andgoodtaste, inasmuchasthe lawyer-
clientrelationshipisbased on trustandconfidence. A
lawyerhasa dutyto preserve hisclient'sconfidence
inhim, eveniftheirrelationship ends.Thepurpose isto
assurefreedomofcommunicationbetween the
lawyerandthe clientinordertoenablethe
formertoproperlyrepresentandserve the
latter'sinterests. To useagainst the latterany
information the formergainsduring
therelationshipisdeplorable andunethical.

When he appearedincourtfor the benefitof

theGonzalesesto trythe case against the
complainant,the respondentunquestionably incurred a
conflictofinterest.Having become privyto the termsof
thesale subjectof the civilcase,the
conflictofinterestbecame unmitigatedbecausethe
complainanthadnot expressly consentedinwriting
tohisappearing inbehalf ofthe Gonzaleses.
503 Itwouldhave beenmore
 2016CASES
prudentforhimtohave
excusedhimselffromrepresenting eitherparty
TOPIC: GrossMisconduct inthe civilcase.

AVIDA ProfessionalMisconduct Violation ofRules10.3 and12.04of Respondentisguilty ofprofessionalmisconduct.Asa WHEREFORE, inview

LandCorp.(Formerly on Delaying the Code lawyer, respondentindeedowesfidelityto thecause of oftheforegoing, Atty. Al C.
LagunaProperties theenforcementof a writ ofProfessionalResponsibility hisclientandisexpected to servethe latter ArgosinoisfoundGUILTY
Holdings,Inc.) ofexecution. andThe Lawyer’sOath. withcompetence anddiligence. Assuch, ofviolatingRules10.03 and12.04
vs. respondentisentitledto employ everyhonorable oftheCode of
Atty.AlC.Argosino meanstodefend the cause ofhisclientandsecure ProfessionalResponsibility and
A.C. No. whatisduethe latter. theLawyer'sOath, forwhich
7437August17, heisSUSPENDEDfrom
2016SERENO, Professionalrules, however,impose limitson thepractice of law for one
C.J. alawyer'szealandhedge (1)yeareffective uponthe
itwithnecessaryrestrictionsandqualifications.Underth finalityofthisResolution.He
e Code of ProfessionalResponsibility, isSTERNLY WARNEDthata
lawyersarerequired to repetitionof a
exerteveryeffortandconsiderittheirduty to assistin similaroffenseshall be
thespeedy andefficientadministrationofjustice. dealtwithmoreseverely.
TheCode alsoobligeslawyerstoemploy only
fairandhonestmeanstoattainthe lawful objectivesof
theirclient.

Whatispatentfrom the actsof respondent —

ashereinnarratedandevidentfromthe records- isthathe
hasmade a mockery
ofjudicialprocesses,disobeyedjudicial orders,
andultimately causedunjustdelaysin the
administrationofjustice. Theseactsare
indirectcontravention ofRules10.3 and
12.04 of the Codeof ProfessionalResponsibility.

Further, respondentviolatedthe Lawyer'sOath68

bydisobeying the legalordersof a duly
TOPIC: GrossMisconduct constitutedauthority, anddisregarding hisswornduty
to "delayno manformoney ormalice."
EthlenW.SanJuan Misappropriating thetotal Violation of Canons16, 17,and18, Lawyersare duty-bound to exhibitfidelityto their WHEREFORE, respondent

504
 2016CASES

vs. amountof₱29,000 andRules1.01, 16.01, 18.03and client'scause and tobe mindful of.the Atty. Freddie A. Venida
Atty.Freddie A.Venida thatcomplaintantentruste 18.04 of the Codeof trustandconfidence reposedinthemto diligently isfoundGUILTY
A.C. No. d tohimandnegligence. ProfessionalResponsibility. prosecutetheirclients' casesthemomentthey agreed ofviolatingCanons16, 17,
11317August23, tohandlethem, asismandatedofthemunderCanon17 and18, and
2016PERCURI oftheCode. They owe entire devotion tothe interestof Rules1.01, 16.01, 18.03and
AM theclient, warmzealin the maintenance and the 18.04 of the
defenseof the client'srights, CodeofProfessionalResponsibili
andtheexertionoftheirutmostlearning andabilitiesto ty.Accordingly, he
the endthatnothingbe takenor withheldfrom the isherebyDISBARREDfrom the
client,save bytherulesof lawlegally applied. Atty. practiceof law andhisname
Venida grossly failed tofulfil thismandate. isORDEREDstrickenoff
fromtheRollof Attorneys,
The recordsdefinitivelyshow thatAtty. Venida effectiveimmediately.
wascompletely
remissandnegligentinhandlingEthelene'scase, Atty. Venida
notwithstanding hisreceipt ofthesum ofTwenty- isorderedtorefundthe amount of
NineThousandPesos(₱29,000)fromher by way ₱29,000to complainantEthelene
ofhisacceptance andfilingfees.Instead offiling the W. SanJuanwithinthirty
petition,Atty. Venida gave hisclient a (30)daysfromnotice.
runaroundandledher to believe Otherwise,he maybe
thatthepetitionhadalready beenfiled. heldincontemptofcourt.
Whenpressedforupdates, Atty. Venida
evadedEthelene andrefusedto returnhercalls. Worse,
the feesremainunaccountedfor, whichwere entrusted
to himforthe filing of the petition.
When a lawyerreceivesmoney from the clientfor
aparticularpurpose, the
lawyerisboundtorenderanaccounting to the
clientshowing that the money
wasspentforthatparticularpurpose. Andif heor
shedoesnot use the moneyforthe
intendedpurpose,the lawyer
mustimmediatelyreturnthe money to theclient.
Consequently, Atty. Venida isduty-
boundtoreturnthe₱29,000 giventohim by Ethelene.
Failureto doso isa breach ofRule16.01 of the Code,
whichprovides:
Rule 16.0 I- A lawyershallaccountforallmoney
orproperty collected orreceived fororfrom the client.

505
 2016CASES
Atty. Venida' sagreementtohandle Ethelene'
scase,cemented by hisreceipt of hislegalfees,
isanassurance andrepresentation to hisclientthat
hewould be diligentandcompetentinhandlinghercase.
Thisincludesconstantly updating her, onhisvolition,
of thestatusofhercase. Thus, hisactuationsare
contrary toCanon18, anditsRules
18.03 and18.04, whichstate:

Canon18 - A lawyershallserve
hisclientwithcompetence anddiligence;
Rule 18.03 - A lawyershallnotneglect a
legalmatterentrusted tohimandhisnegligence
inconnectiontherewithshall renderhimliable.1âwphi1

Rule 18.04 - A lawyershallkeephisclientinformedof

thestatusofhiscase andshallrespondwithin
areasonable timeto the
client'srequestforinformation.

Moreover, Rule 1.01of theCode

statesthat"alawyershall not engage inunlawful,
dishonest,immoral ordeceitful conduct." Deceitful
conductinvolvesmoral turpitude andincludesanything
donecontrary tojustice, modestyor goodmorals.
TOPIC: GrossMisconduct

Vicente Grossnegligence Violation ofRule 18.03 andRule Canon18 of the Code WHEREFORE,
M.Gimenavs. inhandling RABCase 18.04 of the Codeof ofProfessionalResponsibility(the forviolatingRules18.03 and18.04
Atty.SalvadorT.Sabio No.06-11-10970-99 ProfessionalResponsibility. "Code")mandatesthata lawyershallserve of Canon18 of the Codeof
A.C. No. hisclientwithcompetence anddiligence. ProfessionalResponsibility,
7178August23, Corollarily,Rule 18.03 directsthat a lawyershall respondentAtty.Salvador T.
2016Jardeleza, J. notneglect alegalmatterentrustedto him. He SabioisherebySUSPENDEDfro
mustexercise thediligence of a goodfatherof a family m thepractice of law
withrespect tothe case that heishandling.Thisistrue forTHREE(3)YEARS. He
whether heaccepted the case forfree or islikewiseSTERNLY
inconsiderationof afee. WARNEDthata
repetitionof the sameorsimilar

506
 2016CASES
Respondent'sinattentionisfurtherhighlightedby offense will be
hisdisobedience tothe laborarbiter'sdirective that dealtwithmoreseverely.
hesign the positionpaper.Hisconductevincesa
willfuldisregardto hisduty asofficer of the
court.Thisalone warrants the imposition of
administrativeliability.

Respondent'sirresponsibility wentbeyond
theunsignedpleading andrefusal to obey
courtorders;he alsoadmittedly failed to apprisethe
company andthe complainantof the adverse
decisionagainstthem. He evenhadthe audacity to place
the blameon hisclientfor notcommunicating to
himasregardsthe statusof the case. He
furthermorejustifiedhisomissionby saying that he
wasnot awareof the addressofthe company.

Respondent'sconductisinconsistentwithRule 18.04of
the Code, whichrequiresthat"[a]lawyershallkeep the
clientinformedofthe statusofhiscase
andshallrespondwithin a reasonable time to the
client'srequestfor information."
TOPIC: GrossMisconduct
Officeof the Grossinefficiency Violation of While respondentblatantly WHEREFORE,
CourtAdministrato orneglect of duty CanonsofJudicialEthicswithherparti violatedparticularCanonsofJudicialEthicswithherparti respondentformerJudgeRosabe
r andofgrossignorance of cipationin theallegedmarriage scam, cipationinthe allegedmarriage scam,she similarly lla
vs. the law. shesimilarlybreached the following breached thefollowing CanonsontheCodeof M.TormisisDISBARREDfrom
FormerJudge Rosabella Canonsonthe Code ProfessionalResponsibility: the practice of law
M.Tormis ofProfessionalResponsibility: CANON 1- A lawyershallupholdthe andhername strickenfrom
A.C. No. CANON 1 constitution,obey the lawsof the landandpromote theRollofAttorneys.
9920August30, -Rule 1.01 respectforlaw and for legalprocesses.
2016PERCURI CANON 7 Rule 1.01. - A lawyershall notengage
AM -Rule 7.03. inunlawful,dishonest, immoral ordeceitful
conduct.
CANON 7- A lawyershallatall
timesupholdtheintegrity anddignity
ofthelegalprofession.
Rule 7.03. - A lawyershallnotengage inconductthat

507
 2016CASES
adversely reflectson hisfitnesstopractice law.

Membershipin the barisanessentialrequirementfor

membershipinthe bench. "The moralfitnessofa
judge alsoreflectshisor hermoralfitnessasalawyer.".
Consequently, a judge whoviolatesthecode of
judicial conductsimilarly
violateshisorherlawyer'soath.

Respondent'sact ofheedlessly solemnizing

marriagesinutterdisregard ofthe lawandjurisprudence
clearlyconstitutesgrossmisconduct. The
repetitivenessofheractshowsherclearintent to violate
the law. Shedisregardedthe lawyer'soath,
whichmandateslawyerstosupportthe
Constitutionandobey thelaws.

Respondent'sconducthasfallenshortof
thestrictstandardsrequired by the legalprofession.
Hence,herrepeatedfailure to live up to
thevaluesexpectedof herasanofficerof the
courtrendersherunfittobea memberof the bar.
TOPIC: NotarialLaw
ManuelB.Bernaldezv Grossmisconduct, Violation ofRuleIV, Section2(b)of "In administrative casesagainstlawyers,the quantumof WHEREFORE;
s. deceit,violation the 2004Ruleson NotarialPractice. proofrequiredisclearly preponderantevidenceand the premisesconsidered,the
Atty.WilmaDonnaC.A ofLawyer'sOath, burden ofproofrestsuponthecomplainant."19 Here, CourtRESOLVES to:
nquilo-Garcia andabuse ofauthority the complainantfailed toshowby clearpreponderance (i)NOTE theNotice
A.C. No. asnotary public. of evidence thatAtty.Anquilo-Garcia ofResolutionNo. XXI-2015-
8698August31, coercedanyregisteredvotersintheMunicipality ofBiri, 547datedJune 20, 2015 of
2016REYES, J. NorthernSamartosigntheallegedblank andready-made theIntegratedBar of
affidavits. Apparently,the affidavitspresented bythe thePhilippinesBoardofGovernor
complainantpointtootherpersonsresponsible inthe sadopting
employment offorce, intimidationor threatupon the andapprovingtheReportandReco
votersin theMunicipality. mmendation ofthe Investigating
Commissioner,anddismissing
thecomplaintagainstAtty. Wilma
DonnaC.

508
2016CASES

Withregard, however,to the charge of abuse Anquilo-Garcia

ofauthority asnotary public, the Courtfindsthat withoutprejudice;
theaffidavitspreparedby Atty.Anquilo-Garcia (ii) OTE theLetterdatedApril14,
werenotarizedwithout thepersonalpresence 2016 of theIntegrated Barof the
oftheaffiants, inviolationofthe notarial law which PhilippinesCommissionon
theCourtcannotcountenance. BarDisciplinetransmittingthe
The complaintclearly establishedthatAtty. Anquilo- documentspertaining
Garcia notarized thesubjectaffidavitswithouthaving tothiscase;
the affiantspersonally appearbefore herasrequired by (iii) REVOKE the
law. The Court, likewise, findsno notarialcommissionof
meritwithherdefense thatthe headingsofthe respondentAtty.Wilma Donna
affidavitswhichindicatedMunicipality of Biri, C. Anquilo-Garcia forbreach
andinsomeCatarman, NorthernSamar asthe place of ofthe2004RulesonNotarialPracti
executionwere justsimple andharmlessclerical ce; andDISQUALIFY
andtypographicalerrors. herfromreappointmentasnotary
publicfor a periodof
Time andagain, the ONE(1)YEAR;and
Courthasremindedlawyerscommissionedasnotaries (iv) SUSPENDAtty.
public that the affiantsmustpersonally appearbefore WilmaDonna C. Anquilo-
them.Rule IV,Section2(b)of the 2004 Ruleson Garcia fromthe practice of law
Notarial Practicereads: for aperiodof
Section2. Prohibitions- SIX(6)MONTHSeffectiveimme
(b) A personshallnotperform a diately forviolationoftheCode
notarialactifthepersoninvolvedassignatoryto the of ProfessionalResponsibility.
instrumentordocument - She isfurtherWARNEDthat a
(1) isnot inthe notary'spresence personally repetitionofthesameor
atthetime of the notarization; and ofsimilaractsshallbe
(2) isnot personally knownto the notary public dealtwithmore severely.
orotherwise identifiedbythe notary public
throughcompetentevidence ofidentity asdefined
bytheseRules.

Lawyerscommissionedasnotariespublic
areremindedthattheirfunctionsshouldnot
betrivializedandthey mustdischarge
theirpowersanddutieswhichare impressedwithpublic
interest, withaccuracy andfidelity. Theymust
informthemselves

509
 2016CASES
of thefactsthey certify to;most importantly,
theyshouldnot take partorallow themselvesto be
partof illegal transactions.

Atty. Anquilo-Garcia'sfailure to performherduty asa

notary public underminesthe integrity of a
notarypublic anddegradesthe function
ofnotarization.
Thus, sheshould be liable forsuchnegligence,
TOPIC: GrossMisconduct notonly asa notarypublic butalsoasa lawyer.

TeodoroB.Cruz,Jr. Intentionalmisrepresentati Volation ofRule 15.03of Canon15of Rule 15.03 ofCanon15 ofthe Code of N VIEW OFTHE
vs. on,knowingly handling a the Code ProfessionalResponsibility FOREGOING,respondent'sMo
Attys.JohnG.Reyes,R caseinvolving conflict ofProfessionalResponsibility. providesthat"[a]lawyershall notrepresentconflicting tionforReconsiderationisPARTI
oque ofinterest,falsification,kno interestsexcept by ALLY GRANTED.The
BelloandCarmentcita wingly writtenconsentofallconcernedgivenafter a Resolutionof the Courtdated22
A.Tous-Gonzaga alleginguntruthsinpleading fulldisclosureof thefacts." August2012
A.C. No. sandunethicalconduct. isherebymodifiedinthatresponde
9090August31, Clearly, respondentcannotbe heldliable because ntAtty.
2016PEREZ, J. hewasnever a counselforeitherparty intheCOMELEC JohnG.ReyesisREPRIMANDE
case priortothe filing ofthe saidaction. Dforhisfailure to exercise the
necessaryprudence requiredin
Withrespectto the charge thepractice of the
ofintentionalmisrepresentation, complainantfailed legalprofession.He
tospecifywhichact of respondentconstituted the isfurtherWARNEDthat
allegedoffense. Ifthe arepetitionof the
allegedmisrepresentationpertainstothe act of sameorsimilaractsshall be
respondentofsigning the pleadingprepared by Atty. dealtwithmoreseverely.
Bello, wedo not agree withcomplainantandthe same
cannot be consideredasmisrepresentationsince
respondentspecifiedinhisCommentthat he readthe
pleading before he affixedhissignature thereto.

The foregoing notwithstanding, itcannot

besaidthatrespondenthasno liability atallunder
thecircumstances. Hisfolly, though,
consistsinhisnegligence inaccepting the
subjectcaseswithoutfirstbeing fully
apprisedofandevaluating the

510
 2016CASES
circumstancessurrounding them. We,
nevertheless,agree withrespondentthatsuchnegligence
isnotofcontumaciousproportionsasto
warranttheimpositionof the penalty ofsuspension.
ThisCourtfindsthe penalty ofsuspensionfor one
(1)yearearlierimposed onrespondent
tooharshandnotproportionate to
theoffensecommitted. "The powerto disbar
orsuspendmustbe exercisedwithgreatcaution. Only in
a clearcaseof misconductthatseriously
affectsthestandingandcharacter
ofthelawyerasanofficerof the Courtandmemberof
thebarwilldisbarmentorsuspensionbe
imposedasapenalty."The penalty tobe
metedoutonanerrantlawyerdependsonthe exercise
ofsoundjudicialdiscretiontaking intoconsideration
TOPIC: GrossMisconduct thefactssurrounding eachcase.

The Law Falsely Violation of Canons8and10of After a thoroughevaluationof the WHEREFORE,

FirmofChavez,Miran andmaliciouslyaccusedco theCode of pleadingsfiledbythe partiesand premisesconsidered,the
daandAseoche mplainantanditslawyersof ProfessionalResponsibility. theReportandRecommendationofCommissionerLim Resolutiondated22 March2014
vs. antedating pingco, the Courtfindsrespondentsguilty ofviolating issuedbythe IBPBoardof
Attys.RestitutoS.Laz aPetitionforReview. Canons8 and10ofthe Code Governorsishereby
aroandRodelR.Mort ofProfessionalResponsibility. SETASIDE. Attys.
a RestitutoLazaroandRodelMorta
A.C. No. ThisCourthasrepeatedly urgedlawyersto utilizeonly are herebyADMONISHED to
7045September5, respectfulandtemperate language in thepreparationof use
2016SERENOC. pleadings, inkeeping with the dignityof the onlyrespectfulandtemperatelang
J. legalprofession.Theirarguments, uage in the
whetherwrittenororal,shouldbe graciousto boththe preparationofpleadingsandto be
courtand the opposing counselandshouldconsistonly morecircumspectindealing
ofsuchwordsasmay be properly addressed withtheirprofessional
byonehonorablememberof thebar to another.In colleagues.They are likewise
thiscase, respondentstwice STERNLYWARNEDthat a
accusedcomplainantofantedating a commissionof
petitionithadfiledwith the DOJwithoutany thesameorsimilaractsinthefuture
proofwhatsoever. Thisallegationofimpropriety shall be dealtwithmoreseverely.
undoubtedly
broughtcomplainantanditslawyersintodisrepute. The
accusationalsotended

511
 2016CASES
to misleadthe courts, asitwasmade
withouthesitationnotwithstanding the absence of
anyevidentiary
support.TheCourtcannotcondonethisirresponsible
andunprofessionalbehavior.

We believe, though, thattheuseof intemperate

andabusive language doesnotmerit the ultimate
penaltyof
disbarment.Nonetheless,respondentsshould
bedisciplinedforviolating theCode of
ProfessionalResponsibility andsternly warnedthatthe
Courtwilldealwithfuture similarconduct
moreseverely.

A finalnote. We finditnecessary toremind theIBPof

TOPIC: GrossMisconduct itsduty tojudiciously investigate andevaluate
eachandevery disciplinary actionreferredto itby
ProsecutorRhodaA. Failure to abide Violation of Canon 8oftheCodeof Membershipin
thisCourt. the ACCORDINGLY, we
Bacatan bytheboundsof Professional Responsibility. barimposesuponlawyerscertainobligationsto one findrespondentAtty.
vs. courtesy,fairnessandca another, including the observanceof honourable, MerariD.Dadula GUILTY
Atty.MerariD. Dadula ndor. candidandcourteousdealingswithotherlawyers,28 ofviolation ofCanon 8of the
A.C. No. aswell asmaintaining fidelity Code
10565September07, toknownandrecognizedcustomsandpracticesof ofProfessionalResponsibility.
2016JARDELEZA, thebarthatmake the practice oflaw a profession Sheisimposed a FINE
J ofP2,000.00withSTERNWARN
The attack onthe characterof the INGthat arepetitionof the
complainantiscompletely unnecessary inthe sameorsimilaractin the future
motionfordetermination ofprobable cause on the will be dealtwith moreseverely.
libelcase.Contrary
torespondent'scontention,hermisconductisnot
curednorjustified bythe eventual acquittal ofherclient.

We notethe IBP'sobservationthatduring the

timesmaterial to the case,
respondentwasconsiderablynew to the profession,
andmusthave beenoverzealousinprotectingthe cause
of herclient,evenakin to overenthusiasm.
Membersof theBar

512
 2016CASES
mustbe remindedthat"enthusiasm,or evenexcessof it,
isnotreally bad. Infact, theoneor the otherisno lessa
virtue, ifchanneledin the rightdirection.However,
itmust be circumscribedwithin theboundsofpropriety
andwithdue regardfortheproperplace of
courtsinoursystemof government."

We findthatrespondentviolatedCanon 8of theCode

of Professional Responsibility. While zeal
orenthusiasminchampioninga client'scause
isdesirable,
unprofessionalconductstemmingfromsuchzeal or
enthusiasmisdisfavoured.
Whenwithoutproofnorenoughbasisonrecord,respon
dentswiftly concluded, basedonly ongutfeeling, that
the complainanthasbeenbribed orhadacted for a
valuable consideration, herconducthasoverstepped
theboundsof courtesy,fairnessandcandor.
TOPIC: GrossMisconduct/MisappropriationofClient’sFund

PatrickR.Fabiev (1)Breachedhisdutiestohisc Violation ofRule 18.03, Canon18of It bearstostressatthispointthat"every WHEREFORE, the

s. lientwhenhe failed
Atty.LeonardoM.Real toexercise due diligence
A.C. No. inhisundertaking
10574September20, tocausethe transferof
2016DELCASTILL ownershipof
O,J. propertyfromcomplainant
toJaynie
Mayandinsteadabandoned
hisclient'scause;
(2)convertedhisclient'sfund
of P40,000.00to
hispersonaluse when
hefailed to returnthe
sameto complainant;and,
(3)committeddishonesty.
the Code
ofProfessionalResponsibility
demandsuponlawyerstoserve
theirclientswithcompetence
anddiligence and
TheLawyer’sOath.
attorneyowesfidelity to the CourtFINDSrespondentAtty.Le
causesandconcernsofhis[client]. He must be onardoM.Real guilty ofviolating
evermindful of the trustandconfidence Canon18,Rule 18.03of the Code
reposedinhimbythe client. Hisduty tosafeguardthe ofProfessionalResponsibility
client'sinterestscommencesfromhisengagementassuc and
h, andlastsuntilhiseffectiverelease bythe client.In theLawyer'sOathandthusSUSPE
thattime, he isexpectedtotake every reasonable NDShimfromthe practice of law
stepandexercise ordinary foraperiodof
careashisclient'sinterestsmay require." sixmonthseffectivefromnotice,
ORDERShimtoreturnto
Rule 18.03, Canon18 of theCode of complainantPatrickR.Fabie
ProfessionalResponsibility within10 daysfromnotice the
demandsuponlawyerstoserve sumofP40,000.00withlegal
theirclientswithcompetence anddiligence, to interest of
wit:CANON18 - ALAWYERSHALLSERVE 12%perannumreckonedfrom
HISCLIENTWITHCOMPETENCE the timehe received the
ANDDILIGENCE. amountonAugust24,2009 until
Rule 18.03 - A lawyershallnotneglect a legalmatter June

513
 2016CASES
entrusted tohim, andhisnegligence 30,2013, and6%perannum
inconnectiontherewithshallrenderhimliable. fromJuly 1, 2013 until
fullpaymentthereof,
The Lawyer'sOathsimilarlymandatesa lawyer andSTERNLY
toconducthimselfaccording to the best WARNShimthatcommissiono
ofhisknowledge anddiscretion, withall goodfidelity f anysimilarinfractionin
tothe courtsandtohisclients. thefuture willbedealtwithmore
severely.
Clearly here, respondentfailed to competently Finally, he
anddiligently discharge hisduty when he wasunable mustSUBMITtothisCourtwritte
tocause the transferof ownership of property nproof ofhiscompliance
fromcomplainant toJaynie May.Despite doing within30 daysfromnotice of
nothing,he evenobstinately refusedtoreturn the thisResolution.
P40,000.00he receivedasattorney'sfees. No doubt,
respondent"fellshortof the demandsrequired
of[him]asamemberof the bar. Hisinability to
properlydischarge hisduty
tohisclientmakeshimanswerablenot just tohim,
butalsoto thisCourt, tothe legalprofession, and tothe
TOPIC: GrossMisconduct generalpublic.

Spouses Unjustanddishonesttrea ViolatedhisLawyer'sOathandCode We findandholdthatthe WHEREFORE,

EmilioandAliciaJaci tmentofhisclients. of Professonal Resposibility,to wit: respondentgrosslyviolatedhisLawyer'sOathandhiset thisCourtFINDSandHOL
nto Rule 1.01 hical dutiesasanattorney because he didnotobserve DS
vs. Canon15 candorandfairnessinhisdealingswithhisclients. respondentATTY.
Atty.EmelieP. Canon17 EMELIEP.BANGOT,JR. guilty
Bangot,Jr. Canon18.03 We have saidtime andagain, andthiswe ofviolation ofthe
A.C. No. Canon20 cannotoveremphasize, that theLaw isneither a trade Lawyer'sOathand of the
8494October05, nor acraftbut aprofessionwhosebasic CodeofProfessionalResponsibilit
2016BERSAMI idealistorenderpublic service andto secure justice y; SUSPENDShimfromthe
N, J. forthose whoseek itsaid.Ifthe Law practice of law forfive
hastoremainanhonorableprofessionandhasto (5)yearseffective uponnoticeof
attainitsbasic ideal, thoseenrolledinitsranksshouldnot thisdecision,
only masteritstenetsandprinciplesbutshouldalso, by withwarningthatsternersanction
theirlives, accordcontinuingfidelity swill bemeted on himfor a
tosuchtenetsandprinciples.Therespondent'sbehaviora similaroffense;
nddeceitdemonstrated apreference forself- andDECLARESthathe
gainthattransgressedhissworn isnotentitledto
recoveranyattorney'sfeesfromth
ecomplainants.

514
 2016CASES

duty offidelity, loyalty anddevotion

tohisclients'cause. Hisbetrayal of hisclients'
trustbesmirchedthe honorable name ofthe Law
Profession. Theseconsiderationsjustify suspending
himfromthepractice of law.

Evenifthischarge washisfirstinfraction,
thegrossnessofhisviolationsof the
Lawyer'sOathandthe variousrelevantcanonsof the
Code ofProfessional Responsibility
quotedearlierabsolutelywarrantedhissuspensionfrom
the practice oflaw forfive yearseffective
uponhisreceiptof thisdecision,withwarning
ofsternersanctionsshould he hereaftercommit
asimilaroffense.Thisdurationofsuspensionwasthepena
lty we prescribedin therecentcase
ofMercullov.Ramon24 where
therespondentlawyerhaddeceived the
complainantsintoparting withthe substantial sum
ofP350,000.00asherattorney'sfeesbutdidnot
subsequentlyperformherprofessionalundertaking.

ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME CASE DISPOSITION

COURT’SRULI
NG

TheCPRrulesandcanonviolatedthe
FortheCourt'sconsiderationisAtty. following: TheCourtfindsAtty.RobertoP.Tole
CASE TITLE: RobertoP.Tolentino's(Atty.Tolenti ntinoGUILTYofviolatingtheLawye
Dolores Natanauan v. no)motiontohavehisdisbarmentcas Canon1- Atty.Tolentinowasnotdeniedduepr r'sOath,andCanons1,7,and10ofthe
Atty.RobertoTolentin ere- AlawyershallupholdtheConstitution ocessordeprivedofanopportunityto CodeofProfessional
o openedandreheardonthegroundthat ,obeythelawsofthelandandpromoter beheard.Therecordsshowthathisthe Responsibility.
hewasdeniedhisconstitutionalrightt espectforlaw andlegalprocesses. ncounselAtty.FuentesfiledaComme Accordinglyheissuspendedfromthe
CASE NO.: odue process. ntonhisbehalf.HealsofiledaMotionf practiceoflawforTHREE(3)YEAR
Canon7-
AC. No. 4269 or Reconsiderationofthe May13, SEFFECTIVEFROM
Alawyershallatalltimesupholdthe
integrityand
DATE OFPROMULGATION:
Oct11, 2016

515
 2016CASES

dignityofthelegalprofessionandsupp 2011ResolutionoftheIBPBoard,and NOTICE,witha STERN

PONENTE: orttheactivitiesoftheIntegratedBar. aSupplementalMotionforReconside WARNINGthatanysimilarinfractio
Carpio Thecaseoriginatedfromadisbarment ration.Hisparticipationthroughplea ninthefuturewillbedealtwithmore
complaintfiledbyDoloresNatanaua Canon10 - dingsandmotionscuredwhateverdef severely.
n(Dolores)accusingAtty.Tolentinoo Alawyerowescandor,fairness,andgo ectthatmayhaveattendedtheissuance
fdeceit,malpractice,andgrossmiscon odfaithtothecourt. ofnoticesregardingtheproceedingsh
ductinviolationoftheLawyer'sOatha eldbeforethe IBP.
ndtheCodeofProfessionalResponsi
bilityduetofalsificationof
documents Thetotalityofevidenceconsist
ingofthefalsifieddocuments,Dolore
s’testimonydetailingthetransactions
surroundingtheland,andtheinvestig
ationconductedbythisCourtleavesn
odoubtastoAtty.Tolentino’sinvolve
mentin,oratthe very least,
benefitfromthe
actsoffalsificationimputedagainsthi
m.

516
 2016CASES

TOPIC : Theissuesthatthecomplainantraised
DisbarmentandSuspension Section27,Rule138oftheRulesof againstsuchfilingandanyothermatter TheCourtABSOLVESrespondents
Court, whichprovides: sincidentaltosuchfilingshouldhaveb Atty.PalMarinRubioandAtty.Nicasi
Underconsiderationisthecomplaintf eenraisedonlyinthetrialcourt,orinthe oT.Rubioofthechargesofgrossmisc
ordisbarmentbroughtonApril11,20 properoffice.Wecannotallowthetriv onduct;andDISMISSESthecompla
08againstrespondentAtty.Palmarin Section27.Disbarmentorsuspension ializationofthesanctionofdisbarmen intfordisbarmentforutterlackofmeri
CASE TITLE: E.Rubio,inhiscapacityastheCityPros ofattorneysbySupremeCourt;groun tbythecomplainant.Heshouldberem tandsubstance.
SANDYV.DOMINGO,VS.ATTY. ecutorofLegazpiCity,forallegedlyref dstherefore indedthatdisbarmentisthemostsever
PALMARINE.RUBIOANDATT usingtoactontheorderoftheSecretar : eformofdisciplinarysanctionagainst
Y.NICASIOT.RUBIO amisbehavingmemberoftheIntegrat
yofJusticeandforallegedlyfraudulent
edBar;assuch,thepowertodisbarisal
lyanddeceitfullywithholdingtheprep
ared motion waysexercisedwithgreatcautiononly
Amemberofthebarmaybedisbarred forthemostimperativereasonsandin
forreconsideration orsuspendedfromhisofficeasattorne
frombeingfiledintheDepartmentofJ ybytheSupremeCourtforanydeceit, casesofclearmisconductaffectingthe
CASE NO.: ustice(DOJ),therebycausingdamage malpractice,orothergrossmisconduc standingandmoralcharacterofthela
AC. No. 7927 andprejudicetothecomplainant- wyerasanofficerofthecourtandmem
tinsuchoffice,grosslyimmoralcondu berof the bar.
anaccusedinparricide- ct,orbyreasonofhisconvictionofacri
therebyviolatingtheLawyer'sOathan meinvolvingmoralturpitude,orforan
dtheCodeofProfessionalResponsibi yviolationoftheoathwhichheisrequir
lity. edtotakebeforeadmissiontopractice, Basedonalltheestablishedattendantc
DATE OFPROMULGATION:
orforawillfuldisobedienceofanylawf ircumstances,thecomplainanthadno
Oct19, 2016 ulorderofasuperiorcourt,orforcorru legal
SandyDomingo,complainant,latero ptlyorwilfullyappearingasanattorney orfactualbasisforhisdisbarmentcom
nchargedrespondentAtty.NicasioT. forapartytoacasewithoutauthorityso plaintagainsttherespondents.Thecas
RubioinhiscapacityasAssistantCityP todo.Thepracticeofsolicitingcasesat einvolvedtheirofficialactsaspublicpr
osecutors,focusingonhowtheyhadp
rosecutorforhisdirectparticipationin lawforthepurposeofgain,eitherpers
PONENTE: theallegedirregularitiesimputedtohis onallyorthroughpaidagentsor roceededinapendingmatterthatwase
BERSAMIN, J co-respondent. brokers, constitutesmalpractice. ntirelywithintheirofficialcompetenc
eandresponsibility.Howtheycouldb
eheldanswerableoraccountable

517
 2016CASES
aslawyersfortheirofficialactsescapes
us,,butatleasttheCourtnowgivesthe
msomeconsolationbydismissingthe
disbarmentproceedingsasunworthy
anddevoid ofsubstance.

TOPIC :
Representingadverseinterest,illegalp Thisadministrativecaseconcernsthe Rule6.03ofCanon6oftheCodeof
TheCourtadoptsandaffirmthefindin TheCourtFINDSandPRONOUN
racticeoflaw,conductandconductun respondent,aretiredjudgewhotooko Professional Responsibility
gsandrecommendationoftheIBPBo CESATTY.FELIPE
becominginviolationofthecanonsof nthecasethathehadintervenedinduri ardofGovernorsthatdeterminesthat G.ZAPATOSguiltyofviolatingRule
legalethicswithprayerfordisbarment. nghisincumbencyontheBench.Thec therespondentshouldbesuspendedf 6.03ofCanon6oftheCodeofProfessi
omplainantwasthecounselofrecord
Canon36oftheCanonsofProfession romthepractice or law or onalResponsibility,andSUSPENDS
of the plaintiffin thecase.
al Ethics,viz.: disbarred,itshallissuearesolutionsett himfrom the
ingforthitsfindingsandrecommenda practiceoflawforaperiodofONE(1)
tionswhich,togetherwiththewholere MONTHeffectiveimmediatelyupon
CASE TITLE: Thechargespecifiedthattherespond cordofthecase,shallforthwithbetran receiptofthisdecision,withwarningt
ATTY.RUTILLOB.PASOKv.ATT entwasguiltyof"representingadverse 36.Retirementfromjudicialposition smittedtotheSupremeCourtforfinal hatasimilaroffensebyhimwillbedealt
Y.FELIPE G.ZAPATOS orpublic employment action. withmoreseverely
interest,illegalpracticeoflaw,conduct
andbecomingasaformermemberoft Alawyershouldnotacceptemployme
hebenchandconductunbecomingin ntasanadvocateinanymatteruponthe
violationofthecanonsoflegalethicsw Alawyershouldnotacceptemployme meritsofwhichhe haspreviously
ithprayerfor disbarment. ntasanadvocateinanymatteruponthe actedin a judicialcapacity.
CASE meritsofwhichhe haspreviously
NO.:AC. No. actedin a judicialcapacity.
7388

518
 2016CASES

DATE OFPROMULGATION: Alawyer,havingonceheldpublicoffic

Oct19, 2016 eorhavingbeeninthepublicemploysh
ouldnot,afterhisretirement,accepte
mploymentinconnectionwithanyma
tterhehasinvestigatedorpassedupon
whileinsuchoffice oremploy.
PONENTE:
BERSAMIN, J
Therespondentcouldnotacceptwor
koremploymentfromanyonethatwo
uldinvolveorrelatetoanymatterinwhi
chhehadintervenedasajudgeexcepto
nbehalfofthebodyorauthoritythathe
servedduring hispublic
employment

TOPIC : TheCourtsustainsthefindingsoftheI
MisconductandNegligence. Section27,Rule138oftheRulesof BPBoardofGovernors,exceptasto TheCourtREPRIMANDSresponde
Court. thepenalty. ntAtty.WinstonB.Intong(responde
nt)for
refusingtoobeylawfulordersoftheCo
BeforetheCourtisacomplaintdated Section27.Disbarmentorsuspension Ithasbeenstressedthatthedeterminat urtandtheIntegratedBarofthePhilip
CASE TITLE: March19,2010filedbycomplainantD ofattorneysbySupreme Court ionofwhetheranattorneyshouldbedi pines,withawarningthatarepetitiono
DATUBUDENCIOE.DUMANL atuBudencioE.Dumanlag(complain sbarredormerelysuspendedforaperi fthesameorsimilaractoroffenseshall
AGv.ATTY.WINSTONB. ant)againstrespondentAtty.Winston odinvolvestheexerciseofsoundjudic bedealtwithmore severely
INTONG B.Intong(respondent)forgrossmisc
onductandnegligence. Amemberofthebarmaybedisbarred ialdiscretion.Thepenaltiesforalawye
orsuspendedfromhisofficeasattorne r'sfailuretofileabrieforotherpleading
ybytheSupremeCourtforanydeceit, rangefromreprimand,warningwithfi
malpractice,orothergrossmiscondu ne,suspension,and,ingravecases,dis
ctinsuch barment.36Inthepresentcase,
CASE NO.

519
 2016CASES
AC. No. 8638 office,grosslyimmoralconduct,orby
reasonofhisconvictionofacrimeinvo
lvingmoralturpitude,orforanyviolati
DATE OFPROMULGATION: onoftheoathwhichheisrequiredtota
Oct10, 2016 kebeforeadmissiontopractice,orfora
willfuldisobedienceofanylawfulorde
rofasuperiorcourt,orforcorruptlyor
willfullyappearingasanattorneyforap
PONENTE: artytoacasewithoutauthoritytodoso.
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. Thepracticeofsolicitingcasesatlawfo
rthepurposeofgain,eitherpersonally
orthroughpaidagentsor brokers,
constitutesmalpractice.
theCourtfindstooharshtherecomme
ndationoftheIBPBoardofGovernor
sthatrespondentbesuspendedfromt
hepracticeoflaw for a period ofsix
months.
Afterall,respondentdidfilehismanda
toryconferencebriefbeforetheIBPw
herehecitedtheResolutiondatedJuly
19,2010oftheCourt,requiringhimtof
ilehiscommenttothecomplaint.Heal
soattendedthemandatoryconferenc
e/hearingscheduledbytheIBP,altho
ughhefailedtofilehispositionpaperd
espitethedirectivetodoso.Underthe
circumstances,andconsideringthatt
hisappearstoberespondent'sfirstinfr
action,theCourtfindsitpropertorepri
mandhimwithwarningthatcommissi
onofthesameorsimilarinfractionwill
be dealtwithmore severely.

TOPIC :
Grave Misconduct Thisresolvestheadministrativecomp
laintfiledbyJoseAntonioF.Balingitag
ainstArty.RenatoM.CervantesandA
tty.TeodoroB.Delarmente
forGrave Misconduct
CASE TITLE:
JOSE ANTONIOF.BALINGIT
CANON15-
Alawyershallobservecandor,fairness
andloyaltyinallhisdealingsand
CommissionerCorverafoundrespon
dentsguiltyofgravemisconductandvi
olationofRule1.03,Canon15,Canon
20,andRule20.04oftheCodeofProfe
ssionalResponsibility(CPR)andreco
mmendedthattheybesuspendedfro Atty.TeodoroB.DelarmenteandAtt
mthe practiceof y.RenatoM.CervantesareherebySUS
PENDEDfromthepracticeoflawfor
six(6)months.

520
 2016CASES

VS. transactionswithhisclients. law for six(6)months. BothareSTERNLYWARNEDthata

ATTY.RENATOM.CERVANT repetitionofthesameorsimilaractssh
ESANDATTY.TEODORO allbedealtwithmoreseverely.Theyar
B.DELARMENTE CANON16- IBPBoardofGovernorspassedReso ealsoDIRECTEDtoreturntocompl
Alawyershallholdintrustallmoneysa lution ainanttheamountofP45,000.00.
ndpropertiesofhisclientthatmaycom adoptingandapp
eintohisprofession. rovingtheReportandRecommendati
onoftheInvestigatingCommissioner
CASE NO.: butreducingthepenaltytosuspension
A.C. No. 11059 Finally,respondentsareDIRECTE
Rule 16.01 - A fromthepracticeoflawforthree DtoreporttothisCourtthedateofthei
lawyershallaccountforallmoneyorpr (3)months. rreceiptofthisDecisiontoenablethis
opertycollectedor TheCourtaffirmstheReportandRec
ommendationoftheIBP- Courttodeterminewhentheirsuspen
receivedfororfromthe client. sionshalltake effect
CANON17- CBDfindingrespondentsguiltyofbei
DATE OF
Alawyerowesfidelitytothecauseofhi ngremissintheirdutiesascounselsfor
sclientandheshallbemindfulofthetru complainant
standconfidencereposedinhim. Itisacoreethicalprinciplethatlawyers
November09,2016 owefidelitytotheirclients'causeandm
ustalwaysbemindfulofthetrustandc
onfidencereposedinthem.Theyared
CANON18- utyboundtoobservecandor,fairness,
PONENTE: Alawyershallservehisclientwithcom andloyaltyinalltheirdealingsandtrans
JARDELEZA, J petenceanddiligence. actionswiththeirclients.[36]Everyca
selawyershandledeservestheirfullan
dundividedattention,diligence,skilla
ndcompetence,regardlessofitsimpo
rtanceandwhethertheyacceptitforaf
eeorforfree,andtoconstantlykeepin
mindthatnotonlythe
propertybutalsothe lifeof
theirclients

521
 2016CASES
may be atstake.

Code of Relying on RespondentAtty.DiosdadoB.Jimen

ProfessionalResponsi theexhaustivefactfindingdeliberatio ezisfoundGUILTYofviolationofthe
bility, Canon15,states: nsoftheIBP,thecourtfindthecompla CodeofProfessionalResponsibilitya
inant'sallegationstobebelievableand ndtheLawyer'sOathandisherebySU
TOPIC : ThiscasewasfiledwiththeIBPComm supported by evidence. SPENDEDfromthe
Misconduct, Malpractice issiononBarDisciplineonWilsonCh Alawyershallobservecandor,fairness practiceoflawforsix(6)monthsandO
andDishonesty uaagainsteAtty.DiosdadoB.Jimenez andloyaltyinallhisdealingsandtransa RDEREDtoreturntocomplainantw
forgravemisconduct, ctionswithhisclients. Becausehehaddoubtedthatresponde ithinten(10)daysfromnoticeallthepe
malpractice, nteverfiledanycaseasagreeduponwit rtinentrecordsanddocuments,andth
dishonesty,andconductunbecoming hcomplainant,thelatterstarteddema eamountsofP100,000.00;P23,000.0
a member ofthe Bar.
Rules18.03 ndingfromtheformerthereturnofallt 0;P13,653.50;anotherP13,653.50;an
CASE TITLE: dP15,000.00,ora
Alawyershallnotneglectalegalmatter hedocumentsandfileshehadgivento totalofP165,127.00,withinterestof1
WILSON CHUA VS.
entrustedtohim,andhisnegligencein himatthestartoftheirretainershipagr 2%perannumreckonedfromtheresp
ATTY.DIOSDADOB eementaswellastheamountsentruste
connectiontherewithshall
. JIMENEZ
renderhimliable dtohimasfilingfees. Inaspanof ectivedateofreceiptuntilJune30,201
roughlytwoandahalfmonths,compla 3,and6%perannum
inantwroterespondentnolessthansix fromJuly1,2013untilfullpayment.
CASE NO.: times.Ontheotherhand,thereisnorec
Rule 18.04 ordtoshowthatrespondenteverexec
Alawyershallkeeptheclientinformed utedawrittenreplytoanyofthesixlette ATTY. DIOSDADOB.
ofthestatusofhiscaseandshallrespon rs. JIMENEZisWARNEDthatcommi
A.C. No. 9880 dwithinareasonabletimetotheclient' ssionofthesameorsimilarinfractioni
srequestfor information. nthefuturewillmeritamoreseverepen
Wegivecredencetotheallegationthat alty.Respondentisalsodirectedtosub
DATE OF complainantgaverespondentsomea mitproofofhiscompliancewithin30d
November28, 2016 Rule 16.03 mountspecificallyforfilingfees,relati aysfromreceiptofthisDecision.
"lawyershalldeliverthefundsandpro vetothecasesbothpartieshadearliera
pertyofhisclientwhendueor greedto.

PONENTE:

522
 2016CASES
DELCASTILLO,J. upondemand." However,ascorrectlynoted
bytheInvestigatingCommissioner,o
nlytheamountofP165,127.00outoft
Rule 16.01, heallegedP235,127.00wasdulyprove
"lawyershallaccountforallmoneyan dbycomplainanttohavebeenreceive
dpropertycollectedorreceived for dbyrespondentspecificallytodefrayt
orfromthe client." heexpensesforfiling fees.

TOPIC : Rule7.03- Thedefenseisuntenable.Before,canh AttyGuevarraisapublicfigureand/or

DisrespectfulLanguage
Thisinstantadministativecasearose
fromaverifiedcomplaintfordisbarm
CASE TITLE: entfiledbycomplainantcomplainant
Belo-Henares vs.Atty.Guevarra MariaVictoriaG.Belo-Henares
(complainant)
againstrespondentAtty.Roberto"Ar
gee"C.Guevarra(respondent)foralle
gedviolationsoftheCodeofProfessio
CASE NO.: nalResponsibilityforusing
A.C. No. 11394 disrespectful language.
DATE OF
December1,2016
Alawyershallnotengageinconductth
atadverselyreflectsonhisfitnesstopra
cticelaw,norshallhe,whetherinpubli
corprivatelife,behaveinascandalous
mannertothediscreditof the
legalprofession.
Rule8.01-
Alawyershallnot,inhisprofessionald
ealings,uselanguagewhichisabusive,
offensive orotherwise improper.
Rule19.01-
Alawyershallemployonlyfairandhon
estmeanstoattainthelawfulobjective
sofhisclientandshallnotpresent,parti
cipateinpresentingorthreatentopres
entunfoundedcriminalchargestoobt
ainanimproperadvantageinanycaseo
r ar,
aveanexpectationofprivacyinhisorh
eronlinesocialnetworkingactivity-
inthiscase,Facebook-
itisfirstnecessarythatsaidusermanife
ststheintentiontokeepcertainpostsp
rivate,throughtheemploymentofme
asurestopreventaccesstheretoortoli
mititsvisibility.
Thisintentioncanmaterializeincyber
spacethroughtheutilizationofFaceb
ook'sprivacytools.Inotherwords,util
izationoftheseprivacytoolsistheman
ifestation,inthecyberworld,oftheuse
r'sinvocationofhisorherrighttoinfor
mational privacy.
Thebasesoftheinstantcomplaintaret
heFacebookpostsmaligningandinsu
ltingcomplainant,which
acelebrityandtherefore,apublicperso
nagewhoisexposedtocriticismdoesn
otjustifyrespondent's
disrespectful
language.Itisthecardinalconditionof
allcriticismthatitshallbebonafide,an
dshallnotspilloverthewallsofdecenc
yandpropriety.Inthiscase,responden
t'sremarksagainstcomplainantbreac
hedthesaidwalls,forwhichreasonthe
formermustbeadministrativelysanct
ioned.
Atty.Roberto"Argee"C.Guevarrais
foundguiltyofviolationofRules7.03,
8.01,and
19.01oftheCodeofProfessionalResp
onsibility.HeisherebySUSPENDE
Dfromthe
practiceoflawforaperiodofone(1)ye

523
 2016CASES

proceeding postsrespondentinsistsweresettopri effectiveuponhisreceiptofthisDecisi

PONENTE: vateview.However,thelatterhasfaile on,andisSTERNLYWARNEDthat
dtoofferevidencethatheutilizedanyo arepetitionofthesameorsimilaractsw
ftheprivacytoolsorfeaturesofFacebo illbedealtwith moreseverely
okavailabletohimtoprotecthisposts,
orthatherestricteditsprivacytoaselec
tfew.Therefore,withoutanypositivee
videncetocorroboratehisstatementt
hatthesubjectposts,aswellasthecom
mentsthereto,werevisibleonlytohim
andhiscircleoffriends,respondent'ss
tatementis,atbest,self-
serving,thusdeservingscantconsider
ation.

524
 2017and2018CASES

ACTSCOMPLAINED LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION

TOPIC : Thecaseisaboutanadministrative Sections2and5ofCanon6ofth Incomplaintsforforcibleentryandunlawfuldetainerasinthis JudgePerezasthePresidingJudgeis
GrossEfficiency complaintfiledbyTrinidadGamb eNewCodeofJudicialConduc case,Section10oftheRulesonSummaryProcedurespecifical guiltyofunduedelayofrenderingad
oa- tenjointhe lyrequiresthatthecomplaintberesolvedwithinthirty(30)days ecisionwithinthereglementaryperi
Roces(complainant)chargingJud judgestodevotetheirprofessio fromreceiptofthelastaffidavitsandpositionpapers.Without odasprescribedbylaw..TheSupre
CASE geRanhelA.Perez(JudgePerez),Pr nalactivitytojudicialdutiesand anyorderofextensiongrantedbythisCourt,failuretodecidee meCourtcitedSection15,ArticleVI
TITLE:TRINIDADG esidingJudge,MunicipalCircuitTr toperformthem,includingthe venasinglecasewithintherequiredperiodconstitutesgrossin IIofthe1987Constitutionwhichre
AMBOA-ROCES,vs. ialCourt,E.B.MagalonaManapla, deliveryofreserveddecisions, efficiency.Thisobligationtorenderdecisionpromptlyisfurth quiresthelowercourtstodecideorr
JUDGERANHELA.PE NegrosOccidental,withgrossigno efficiently,fairly,andwithreas eremphasizedinAdministrativeCircularNo.3- esolvecasesormattersfordecision
REZ ranceofthelawforhisfailuretorend onablepromptness. 99whichremindsalljudgestometiculouslyobservetheperiod orfinalresolutionwithinthree(3)m
erjudgmentontheconsolidatedeje sprescribedbytheConstitutionfordecidingcasesbecausefail onthsfromdate ofsubmission
ctmentcases,docketedasCivilCas uretocomplywiththeprescribedperiodtransgressestheparti
CASE NO.: eNos.451-Mand452- es'constitutionalrighttospeedy dispositionoftheircases.
A.M. No.MTJ-16-1887 M,withinthereglementaryperioda
sprescribed by law TheCourthasalwaysremindedthejudgestoattendpromptlyt
. othebusinessofthecourtandtodecidecaseswithin
DATE OF therequiredperiodsforthehonorandintegrityoftheJudiciary
January 9, 2017 ismeasurednotonlybythefairnessandcorrectnessofthedecis
ionsrendered,butalsobytheefficiencywithwhichdisputesar
eresolved.Anydelayinthedispositionofcaseserodesthepubl
PONENTE: ic'sfaithandconfidence in theJudiciary.
MENDOZA,J

525
 2017and2018CASES

TOPIC : Thisisadisbarmentcomplaintfiled Republic ActNo. TheCourtdisagreeswiththeReportandRecommendationof Thecourtruledthattheadministrati

byEduardoR.Alicias,Jr.,againstAt
Grossneglectofduty,and ty.MyrnaV.Macatangay(Macatan
Grossignoranceofthe gay),Atty.KarinLitzP.Zerna(,Atty
law. .ArielG.Ronquillo(Ronquillo),an
dAtty.CesarD.Buenaflor(Buenafl
CASE TITLE: or)forviolationoftheLawyer'sOat
EduardoR.Alicias,Jr.Vs. horCodeofProfessionalResponsi
Atty.MyrnaV.Macatanga bilitygrossneglectofduty,andgros
y signorance ofthe law.
6770"TheOmbudsmanActof
1989," prescribes
thejurisdictionoft
heOfficeofthe Ombudsman.
Section15,paragraph1of
R.A. No. 6770
theIBPBoardofGovernorsthatthereisviolationoftheLawy vecomplaintagainstAtty.MyrnaV.
er'sOathorCodeofProfessionalResponsibilitygrossneglect
Macatangay,Atty.KarinLitzP.Zer
ofduty,andgrossignorance of the law . na,Atty.ArielG.Ronquillo,andAtt
y.CesarD.BuenaflorisDISMISSE
TheIBPhasnojurisdictionoverthedisbarmentcomplaint.T Dforlackofjurisdictiononthepart
headministrativecomplaintmustbefiledwith the Office oftheIntegratedBar of
ofthe Ombudsman. thePhilippines

CASE NO.:
A.C. No. 7478

DATE OF
January 11,2017

PONENTE:
CARPIO, J

526
 2017and2018CASES

TOPIC : Thisisanadministrativecaseforgr Section18ofBatasPambansa InthecasefordamagesfiledbySFCandcomplainantinthetrial

Grossignoranceofthelaw ossignoranceofthelawandgrossin Blg.129(BP129), court,theyprayedfortheissuanceofawritofpreliminaryman TheCourtDISMISStheadministra
andgrossinexcusable excusablenegligencefiledbySantia datoryinjunctiontocompelthedefendantstorenewtheCom tivecomplaintagainstJudgeRogeli
negligence goD.Ortega,Jr.(complainant)agai mercialFishingVessel/GearLicenseoftheplaintiffsfishingv oLl.Dacaraforlack of merit.
nstJudgeRogelioLl.Dacara(respo esselF/V"MercyCecilia-
ndentjudge),PresidingJudgeofthe I."Respondentjudgedeniedtheprayerfortheissuanceofawri
CASE RegionalTrialCourt,Branch37,Iri tofpreliminarymandatoryinjunction,whichledtothefilingof
TITLE:SANTIAGO gaCity,CamarinesSur. theadministrativecomplaintagainstrespondentjudge.
D.
ORTEGAv.JUDGERO ComplainantassertsthattheprohibitionunderA.M.No.09-
GELIO 6-8-
LL. SCandPO605appliesonlytotheissuanceofawritofprelimina
DACARA ryinjunctionbutnottoawritofpreliminary mandatory
injunction.

CASE NO.: Contrarytocomplainant'sallegation,respondentjudgeiscorr

AM No.RTJ-15-2423 ectinstatingthatheisprohibitedfromissuingawritofprelimin
arymandatoryNoteveryerrorormistakecommittedbyajudg
eintheexerciseofhisadjudicativefunctionsrendershimliable
DATE ,unlesshisactwastaintedwithbadfaithoradeliberateintentto
OFJan doaninjustice.Toholdajudgeadministrativelyliableforgross
11,2017 ignoranceofthelaw,theassaileddecision,orderoractoftheju
dgeintheperformanceofhisofficialdutiesmustnotonlybeco
ntrarytoexistinglaworjurisprudence,butmustalsobemotiva
PONENTE: tedbybadfaith,fraud, dishonesty hispart
Carpio, J

A.OntheimmediatearchivingofCriminalCaseNo.

527
 2017and2018CASES

TOPIC : BeforetheCourtisanadministrativ Section2,21ArticleIIIoftheP 11862

Ignoranceofthelaw,misco e hilippineConstitutionandSec ThecourtfindsrespondentJudgeP
nduct,violationofthe complaint1agai tion6,22Rule112oftheRuleso JudgeCabrera-FallerviolatedAdministrativeCircularNo.7- erlaV.Cabrera-
anti- nstJudgePerlaV.Cabrera- fCriminalProcedure. A- Faller,PresidingJudgeofRegional
graftandcorruptpractices FalleroftheRTC,Branch90,Dasm 92whensheissuedtheJune3,2013Orderdirectingtheimmedi TrialCourt,Branch90,Dasmarinas
act,andforknowinglyrend arinasCity,Cavite(RTC),filedbyM Rule1.01andRule3.01,Canon atearchivingofCriminalCaseNo.11862- City,Cavite,GUILTY of
eringanunjustjudgment/ artoninoR.Marcos,aretiredjudge( 3oftheCodeofJudicial 13,afterorderingtheissuanceofthewarrantsofarrestagainst grossignorance
order complainant),forignoranceofthel Conduct the accusedinthesame order. ofthelawandforviolatingRule1.01
aw,misconduct,violationoftheant andRule3.01,Canon3oftheCodeo
i- B. Ontherecallofthewarrantsofarrestthatwereallegedly fJudicialConduct,theCourtimpos
CASE TITLE: graftandcorruptpracticesact,andf issuedinadvertently esthepenaltyofDISMISSALfromt
JUDGEMARTONINO or knowinglyrendering an heservice,withFORFEITUREofr
R. JudgeCabrera- etirementbenefits,exceptleavecre
MARCOSvs unjustjudgment Fallershowedmanifestbiasandpartiality,ifnotgrossignoranc dits,andwithprejudicetoreemploy
PERLA V. /order. eofthelaw,whensheissuedtheJune13,2013Orderrecallingt mentinanybranchorinstrumentali
CABRERAFALLER hewarrantsofarrestagainstaccusedAlim,AmanteandRosale tyofthegovernment,
sclaiming thatthey were issuedinadvertently. includinggover
nment-owned
CASE NO.: C. OnthehastydismissalofCriminalCaseNo.11862-13 andcontrolledc
A.M. No. RTJ-16-2472 orporations
Inthesamevein,JudgeCabrera-
Fallershouldbeheldadministrativelyaccountableforhastily
DATE OF dismissingtheCriminalCaseNo.11862-
January 24, 2017 13.TheCourtcannotignoreherlackofprudenceforitistheCo
urt’sdutytoprotectandpreserve public confidence
inourjudicialsystem
PONENTE:
C.J; CARPIO

Courtappearancesarenecessarilymadewithinregular Atty.LeviP. Muñozisfound

528
 2017and2018CASES

TOPIC : Rules1.01,6.02,15.01and governmentworking hours,from 8:00 in the GUILTYofgrossmisconductand

GrossMisconduct Thiscaseisaboutacomplaintspray 15.03oftheCodeofProfession morningto12:00noon,and1:00to5:00inthe violationofRules1.01,6.02,
edthatMuñozbedisbarredforunla alResponsibility(CPR). afternoon.Additionaltimeislikewiserequiredtostudyeachca 15.01and15.03oftheCodeofProfe
CASE TITLE: wfullyengaginginprivatepractice. se,draftpleadingsandprepare fortrial. ssionalResponsibility.Heishereby
ARTHURMONARES Inaddition,OlaybalsoughtMuñoz Thesheervolumeofcaseshand SUSPENDEDfromthepracticeof
vs. ATTY ’sdisbarmentforactsofdisloyalty,p
ledbyMuñozclearlyindicatest Thereisconflictofinterestwhenalawyerrepresentsinconsist lawforaperiodofthree(3)yearseffe
LeviMUÑOZ articularly,forviolatingtheruleagai
hatgovernmenttimewasneces entinterestsoftwoormoreopposingparties.Thetestis“whet ctiveuponreceiptofthisDecision,
nstconflict ofinterest. sarilyutilizedinpursuitofhispri herornotinbehalfofoneclient,itisthelawyer’sdutytofightfor withaSTERNWARNINGthatare
CASE NO.: vatepractice,inclearviolationo anissueorclaim,butitishisdutytoopposeitfortheotherclient. petitionofanyviolationhereunders
A.C. No. 5582 Muñozwasallegedlyhadbeenand ftheDILGauthorizationandR Inbrief,ifhearguesforoneclient,thisargumentwillbeoppose hallbedealtwithmore severely.
wasconvicted(MTCC)intwocrimi ule 6.02 oftheCPR dbyhimwhen
DATE OF nalcasesforviolationof(CodeofC hearguesfortheotherclient.”Thisrulecoversnotonlycasesin
JAN24, 2017 onductandEthicalStandardsforP Section12,RuleXVIIIoftheR whichconfidentialcommunicationshavebeenconfided,but
ublicOfficialsandEmployees). evisedCivilServiceRules alsothoseinwhichnoconfidencehasbeenbestowedorwillbe
used.Also,thereisconflictofinterestiftheacceptanceofthene
PONENTE: wretainerwillrequiretheattorneytoperformanactwhichwilli
Caguioa, J Rules15.01and15.03oftheCP njuriouslyaffecthisfirstclientinanymatterinwhichhereprese
R. ntshimandalsowhetherhewillbecalleduponinhisnewrelatio
ntouseagainsthisfirstclientany knowledge
acquiredthroughtheirconnection.

529
 2017and2018CASES

TOPIC :
Perjury,FalsificationofPu
Thiscasestemmedfromaverifiedc
blicdocumentsandtheuse RuleIV,Section2(b)ofthe200 Withoutaquibble,Atty.Baylosiswasnegligentintheperform TheCourtAtty.RamoncitoB.Bayl
omplaint[1]fordisbarmentfiledby
ofFalsifieddocuments 4RulesonNotarialPractice anceofhisdutyasanotarypublicwhenhenotarizedthepetitio osisGUILTYofviolatingtheRuleo
complainantSusan specifically nfordeclarationofthenullityofmarriage without the
nNotarialPracticeandRule1.01an
Loberes- provides: presence of Roldan dCanon1oftheCodeofProfession
Pintal(complainant)beforetheInt alResponsibility,theCourtherebyi
CASE TITLE: egratedBarofthePhilippines(IBP) Section2.Prohibitions.a)xxx In notarizing a documentinthe absence of a party, mposesthepenaltyofbeingPERM
SUSANLOBERES- againstrespondentAtty.Ramoncit Atty.Baylosisviolatednotonlytheruleonnotarialpracticebut ANENTLYBARRED
PINTALVs.ATTY.RAM oB.Baylosis(Atty.Baylosis)forgro (b)Apersonshallnotperforma alsotheCodeofProfessionalResponsibilitywhichproscribes frombeingcommissionedasaNota
ONCITO ssviolationofthe notarialactifthepersoninvolv alawyerfromengaginginanyunlawful,dishonest,immoral,or ryPublicwithaSTERNWARNIN
B. 2004RulesonNotarial Practice. edassignatorytotheinstrumen deceitfulconduct.[10]Byaffixinghissignatureandnotarialse Gthatrepetitionofthesameorsimil
BAYLOSIS tordocument - alonthedocument,heattestedthatRoldanpersonallyappeare arconductinthefuturewillbedealt
dbeforehimonthedayitwasnotarizedandverifiedtheconten withmore severely.
(1) isnotinthenotary'spresen tsthereof.Hisconductisfraughtwithdangerouspossibilitiesc
cepersonallyatthetime of the onsideringtheconclusivenessonthedueexecutionofadocu ThisorderisIMMEDIATELYEX
CASE NO.: notarization; and mentthatourcourtsandthepublicaccord to ECUTORY
A.C.No.11545(Formerly notarizeddocuments
CBDcaseNo. 12-3439 (2) isnotpersonallyknowntot
henotarypublicorotherwiseid
entifiedbythenotarypublicthr
oughcompetentevidenceofid
DATE OF entityasdefinedbytheseRules.
January 24, 2017

PONENTE:

530

TOPIC : SherillIVOliverN.Landinginofth
Dishonesty and eRTC,Br.7inBaguiocomplainedo
Falsification fbiasandpartialityagainstJudgeM
of onaLisaT.Taboraofthesameoffic
Documents eforaffixinghersignatureontheD
TRBundyCardsofhisotherco-
CASE TITLE: employees.
OfficeoftheCourtAdmini
strator TheOfficeoftheCourtAdministra
Vs.E tordirectedtheconduct of
xecutive discreetinvestigat
Judge ionandfoundthatinsteadofusingt
Illuminada P. Cabato, hebundyclocks,thecourtpersonn
elweremanuallyenteringtheirarriv
CASE NO.: altimesintheirbundyclockcardsan
A.M. No.RTJ-14-2401 doffice logbooks.
DATE OF TheinvestigatingteamissuedaMe
January 25, 2017 morandumrecommendingthatse
veralemployeesbemadetofiletheir
commentsonchargesofDishones
PONENTE: tywithin10daysthatincludesclerk
VELASCOJR., J. ofcourtsandjudges.
2017and2018CASES
1. DominadorB.Remiendo,Cler
Rule10,Article46oftheRevise The Courtclassified the failure of the courtpersonnel kIII,Branch7,RegionalTrialCourt,
dRulesonAdministrativeCase toentertheirtime-inandtime-outintheofficelogbookasa BaguioCity,isherebyfoundLIABL
intheCivil Service lightoffense, to wit: “Heract of not logging EforFalsificationofOfficialDocu
inandoutoftheattendancelogbookwas,withoutdoubt,herse mentandSeriousDishonesty,andis
Section46(A)(6)oftheRRAC condviolationofcivilservicerules.Alightoffensesuchasviola herebymetedthepenaltyofSUSPE
CS tionofreasonableoffensesuchasaviolationofreasonableoffi NSIONforaperiodofsix(6)month
cerulesandregulations,ifviolatedforthesecondtime,ispunis swithoutpayandotherbenefitsduri
hablebysuspensionfor 1to 30days.” ngthesaidperiod,withastemwarni
ngthatarepetitionofthesameoffen
InOfficeoftheCourtAdministratorvsKasilag“Falsification sewillbedealtwith moreseverely;
ofaDTRbyacourtpersonnelisagraveoffense.Thenatureoft
hisinfractionispreciselywhattheOCAstates: 2. ManoloV. Mariano III,
theactoffalsifyinganofficialdocumentisinitselfgravebecaus UtilityWorker,Branch6,Regional
eofitspossibledeleteriouseffectsonthegovernmentservice. TrialCourt,BaguioCity,isfoundLI
Atthesametime,itisalsoanactofdishonesty,whichinvolvesf ABLEforFalsificationofOfficial
undamentalprinciplesofpublicaccountabilityandintegrity. DocumentandSeriousDishonesty
UnderCivilServiceregulations,falsificationofanofficialdoc andisherebymetedthepenaltyofS
umentanddishonestyaredistinctoffenses,butbothmaybeco USPENSIONforaperiodofthree(
mmittedinoneact,asinthiscase. 3)monthswithoutpayandotherbe
nefitsduringthesaidperiod,withast
emwarningthatarepetitionofthesa
meoffensewillbedealtwithmorese
verely
3. JericoG.Gay-
ya,ClerkofCourt,Branch61,Regio
nalTrialCourt,BaguioCity,isfound
LIABLEforFalsificationofOfficia
lDocumentandSimpleNegligence
andisherebymetedthe
penaltyofFINEinthe
531
2017and2018CASES

amountofFiveThousandPesos(P
5,000.00),withastern
warningthatarepetitionofthesame
offenseshallbedealtwithmoreseve
rely;

4. Thefollowingemployeesarefou
ndLIABLEforFalsificationofOffi
cialDocumentandareherebymete
dthepenaltyofFINEintheamount
ofFiveThousandPesos(P5,000.00
)each,withastemwarningthatarepe
titionofthesamewillbedealtwithm
ore severely
5. RuthB.Bawayan,ClerkofCourt
,Branch4,RegionalTrialCourt,Bag
uioCity,isfoundLIABLEforViolat
ionofReasonableOfficeRulesand
RegulationsandSimpleNegligence
andisherebymetedthepenaltyofR
EPRIMAND,withastemwarningt
hatarepetitionofthesameoffenses
hall be dealtwithmoreseverely;
6. Thefollowingemployeesarefou
ndLIABLEforViolationofReason
ableOfficeRulesandRegulationsa
ndareherebymetedthepenaltyofR
EPRIMAND,withasternwarningt
hatarepetitionofthesameshallbed
ealtwithmoreseverely
Finally, the
chargesagainstJudgeAntonioM.E
steves,Branch5,

532
2017and2018CASES
RTC,BaguioCity;JudgeIlluminada
P.Cabato,Branch59,RTC,Baguio
City;JoanG.Castillo,formerLegal
Researcher,Branch61,
RTC,BaguioCity;andRuthC.Laga
n,formerCourtStenographerIII,B
ranch60,RTC,BaguioCity,arehere
byDISMISSEDforbeing moot
andacademic.

533
 2017and2018CASES

TOPIC :
Contempt CourtfindsrespondentAtty.Rufin
AcasefiledagainstAtty.RufinoC.L CANON16- TheCourtheldthattheseactionsdemonstratehishighdegree oC.LizardoGUILTYofviolatingC
CASE TITLE: izardoforofviolatingCanons16an Alawyershallholdintrustallm ofirresponsibilityandlackofrespectfortheIBPanditsprocee anons16and17,and
SILVESTRAMEDINA d17,and oneysandpropertiesofhisclie dings.[26]WefindthattheconductofAtty.Lizardo,whilerepr Rules15.03and16.03oftheCodeof
v. ATTY. Rules15.03and16.03oftheCodeof ntthatmaycomeintohisposses ehensibleandunworthyofamemberoftheBar,isnotquiteatp ProfessionalResponsibility.Accor
RUFINOLIZARD ProfessionalResponsibility sion. arwiththatinVillanueva.Moreover,consideringthatwefindi dingly,
O nsufficientbasistoholdAtty.LizardoliableforviolationofCa theCourtSUSPENDShimfromth
CANON17-A non1,Rule1.01andCanon7,Rule7.03atthispointintime,alig epracticeoflawforoneyeareffectiv
CASE lawyerowesfidelitytothecause hterpenaltyisinorder.Suspensionfromthepracticeoflawfor euponfinalityofthisDecision,OR
NO.:AC. No. ofhisclientandheshallbemind oneyearissufficientinthe case atbar. DERShim,underpainofcontempt
10533DATE fulofthetrustandconfidence ,toreturnTCTsNo.3900and13866
OFJan31, 2017 reposedinhim ThecourtagreeswiththeIBP’srecommendationforthesuspe tocomplainantSilvestraMedinawit
nsionofAtty.Lizardofromthepracticeoflawforaperiodoftw hin15daysfromnoticeofthisDecisi
oyears.ThisisthesamepenaltyinVillanuevav.Atty.Gonzales on,andWARNShimthatarepetitio
PONENTE:LE ,[25]oneofthecasescitedintheCommissioner'sReport.Weo nofthesameorsimilaroffenseshall
ONARDO- bserve,however,thatinVillanueva, the lawyer not only bedealtwith moreseverely
DECASTRO,J withheld the
TCTentrustedtohimbyhisclient,butlikewiseavoidedherfor
threeyears,anddidnotgiveheranyinformationaboutthestatu
sofhercaseorrespondtoherrequestforinformation.Helikew
iserepeatedlyfailedtofileananswertothecomplaintandtoap
pearatthemandatoryconference asrequired bythe IBP.

534
 2017and2018CASES

TOPIC :
Deceit,Malpractice,Dish Wherefore,ResolutionNo.XX1-2014- Thecourtrulingwasinfavorofthec
onestandDeceitfulcondu Disbarmentcomplaintwasfiledag Rule1.0of the 938datedDecember14,2014oftheIBPBoardofGovernors omplainant,the
ct ainstrespondentAtty.RyanReyL. CodeofProfessionalresponsi whichfoundrespondentAtty.RyanReyIPasaganGUILTYo Courtfoundthattherespondentwa
PasaganibeforetheIntegratedBar bility fviolationforRule1.0iftheCodeofProfessionalresponsibilit sguiltyofdeceit,malpracticeandgro
CASE ofthePhilippines-commission on yaffirmedwithModificationasto thepenalty. ssmisconductinconvertingthemo
TITLE:EUFEMIA barDiscipline(IBP- neyofhisclienttohisownusewitho
CBD),thattherespondentviolated RespondentisinsteadmetedthepenaltyofDisbarment,Resp utherconsent,hisfailureto
A.CAMIN theiragreementforthelattertofacil ondentisfurtherorderedtoReturntheloadproceedsamounti usetheproceedsforthetransferoft
O v. itateandsecurealoantofinancethe ngto1,000.000.00andtopaylegalinterestattherateoftwelvep hetitleincomplainant’sname.Hedi
ATTY.RYA paymentofnecessaryexpensestotr ercentperannumcomputedfromthereleaseoftheloanonFe dnotonlybetraythetrustandconfid
N REY ansferthetitleofacertainpropertyu bruary15,2011uptoJune30,2013andsixpercentperannumfr enceofhisclient,heislikewiseguilty
L.PASAGU nderhername,sheclaimedthatres omJuly1,2013untilfullypaidaswellasthe120,000.00received ofengagingindishonestanddeceitf
I pondentobtainedaloanusingtheir forthepurposeortransferringofthetitleinthenameoftheco ulconduct
propertyasacollateral,butatty.Pas mplainanttopaylegalinterestattherateoftwelvepercentpera
CASE NO.: agniarrogatedtheproceeds.Comp nnumcomputedfromreceiptoftheamountonFebruary3,20 ResolutionNo.XXI-2014-
A. CNo. 11095 lainantclaimsthattheseactsconstit 11uptoJune30,2013andsixpercentperannumfromJuly1,20 938datedDecember14,2014ofthe
utedeceit,Malpractice,dishonesta 13untilfullypaid.Heislikewiseorderedtoreturnallotherdocu IBP-
DATE OF nddeceitfulconduct mentspertinenttotheloadobtainedfromPHCCIandthosere BoardofGovernorswhichfoundre
January 31, 2017 ceivedfromcomplaint. spondentAtty.RyanReyL.Pasagui
GUILTYofviolationofRule1.01o
ftheCodeofProfessionalResponsi
PONENTE: bilityisAFFIRMEDwithMODIFI
CATIONastothepenalty.Respon
dentAtty.RyanReyL.Pasaguiisinst
eadmetedthepenaltyofDISBARM
ENT.RespondentisfurtherORD
EREDtoimmediatelyRETURNt
heloanproceedsamountingto
₱1,000,000.00andtopaylegalintere
stattherateoftwelvepercent(12%)
perannumcomputedfromtherelea
seoftheloanonFebruary15,2011

535
2017and2018CASES
uptoJune30,2013,andsixpercent(
6%)perannumfromJuly 1, 2013
untilfully paid,

536
 2017and2018CASES

TOPIC :
GreaterCareandDueDilig Rule18.03,Canon18oftheCo TheCourtmustclarifythattheresolutionofthiscaseshouldno
ence BeforethisCourtisanadministrati deofProfessionalResponsibili tincludeadirectiveforthereturnoftheP35,278astheInvestig Atty.NestorB.BeltranisSUSPEN
vecomplaintagainstrespondent,A ty,"alawyershallnotneglectale atingCommissionerrecommended. DEDFORTWO
CASE TITLE: tty.NestorB.Beltran.Hisderelictio galmatterentrustedtohimand MONTHSfromthepracticeoflaw
HEIRSOFSIXTOL.TA nsallegedlyconsistedofhisbelated hisnegligenceinconnectionth TheInvestigatingCommissionerdidnotexplaintherecomm withawarningthatarepetitionofthe
N, SR. vs. filingofanappealinacriminalcasea erewithshallrenderhimliable endationfortherestitutionofthatsum.Moreover,complaina sameorsimilaractsshallbedealtwit
ATTY.BELTRAN ndfailuretorelayacourtdirectivefo ntsdonotcontestthatrespondentreceivedthissumforfeesan hmoreseverely.HeisADMONIS
rthepaymentofdocketfeesina dothersundryexpenses.Neitherdotherecordsshowthatthey HEDtoexercisegreatercareanddili
CASE NO.: civilcasetohisclients- demandedthereturnofthisamountfromrespondent.Incons genceintheperformanceofhisduti
A.C. No. 5819 complainantsHeirsofSixtoL.Tan, iderationof these facts,thepropercorrective actionisto es.HeisalsoORDEREDTOACC
Sr.representedby Recto orderthe accounting of the fullsum ofP35,278. OUNT
DATE OF A.Tan.Thelatteralsoaccusedhimo fortheP35,278he
PROMULGATION f undulyreceiving receivedfromhisclients,withtheob
February 1, 2017 ₱200,000aspaymentforlegalservi ligationtoreturntheentireamount,
ces. orsomuchthereofremaining, to
complainants.
PONENTE:
SERENO, C.J.

537
 2017and2018CASES

TOPIC :
Gravemisconduct,grossv
Thisadministrativecasestemmedf
iolationof oathasapublic TheCourtheldRespondentisadministrativelyliableforwillfu RespondentLouiseMarieTherese
romaletter-
official, ExecutiveOrderNo.(EO)292 lfailuretopayjustdebtsandconductprejudicialto the B.
complaintfiledbySpousesRodela
andviolationof ,otherwiseknownastheAdmi bestinterestof the service. Escobido,ClerkofCourtV,Branch
ndEleanorCanos(Sps.Canos),aga
theCodeofProfessionalR nistrativeCodeof1987,provid 19,RegionalTrialCourt,DigosCityi
esponsibility. instrespondentLouiseMarieTher esthatapublicemployee'sfailu ThecourtagreeswiththeOCAthatEscobido'srepeatedactso sadjudgedGUILTYofwillfulfailur
eseB.Escobido(Escobido),Clerk reto fcontractingloansandpayingthemwithworthlesschecksrefl etopayjustdebtsandconductpreju
CASE ofCourt,Branch19,RegionalTrial payjustdebtsisagroundfordis ectbadfaithonherpart.ItmustbenotedthatEscobido,asclerk dicialtothebestinterestoftheservic
TITLE:SPOUSESROD Court(RTC),DigosCity,beforeth ciplinary action. ofcourt,isnotamerepublicemployee.Sheisbothanemployee e,forwhichsheisherebySUSPEN
ELandELEANORCAN eOfficeofCourtAdministrator(O oftheCourtandamemberoftheBar.Thus,sheisexpectedtom DEDfora period ofONE
OSvsATTY. CA)forgravemisconduct,grossvi Section22,RuleXIVoftheRul eetahighstandardofuprightnessandpropriety.Bydeliberatel (1)YEAR.
LOUISE olationofoathasapublicofficial,an esImplementingBookVofE yfailingtomeethercontractualobligations,shefellshortofsuc
MARIETHERESEB.ES dviolationoftheCodeofProfessio O292,asmodifiedbySection4 hstandard.ThecourtlikewiseagreethatEscobidoholdsaposi Further,sheisSTERNLYWARN
COBIDO, nalResponsibility. 6,Rule10oftheRevisedRuleso tionoftrust:andconfidencewithconcomitantdutiesandresp EDthatcommissionofthesameors
nAdministrativeCasesintheCi onsibilitiesthatrequirefromitsholdercompetence,honesty, imilaractsinthefutureshallbedealt
CASE NO.: vilService(RRACCS),defines andintegritysoessentialfortheproperandeffectiveadministr withmoreseverely.
A.M. No. P-15-3315 "justdebts"asthose:(a)claimsa ationofjustice.Heractuation,althougharisingfromaprivatet
djudicatedbyacourtoflaw;or( ransaction, tarnishedthe imageof the Judiciary
DATE OF b)claimstheexistenceandjust
PROMULGATION nessofwhichareadmitted
February 6, 2017 bythedebtor.

PONENTE:
JARDELEZA, J.

538
 2017and2018CASES

TOPIC :
Grossnegligenceintheper
formance of OrlandoCastello,etalreceive Rule1.0of the Asafinalnote,thiscaseshouldserveasareminderfornotariesp Atty.RonaldSegundinoC.Chingisf
hisduties dsummonsfromMetropolitanTri CodeofProfessionalresponsi ublic,aswellasforlawyerswhoareapplyingforacommission,t oundGUILTYofgrossnegligencei
asnotary publicCASE alCourt,Branch22foranejectment bility hatthedutytopublicserviceandtotheadministrationofpubli ntheperformanceofhisdutiesasno
TITLE: casefiledagainstthembyLeonida cjusticeistheprimaryconsiderationinthepracticeoflaw.[37] tarypublic.Hisexistingnotarialco
OrlandoS.Castelo,etal.Vs DelenandSpousesNestorandJesi Thisdutytopublicserviceismademoreimportantwhenalawy mmission,ifany,isherebyREVOK
.Atty.RonaldSegundinoC ebelDelenallegedownerofthe eriscommissionedasanotarypublic.Likethedutytodefendac ED,andheisalso
. Ching residence of the Castellos. lient'scausewithintheboundsoflaw,anotarypublichasthead PERPETUALLY
ditionaldutytopreservepublictrustandconfidenceinhisoffic DISQUALIFIEDfrombeingcom
CASE NO.: Whereinirregularitieswerepresent e[38]byobservingextracareanddiligenceinensuringtheinteg missionedasanotarypublic.Moreo
A.C. No. 11165 intheexecutionandauthorization rityofeverydocumentthatcomesunderhisnotarialseal,andse ver,
oftheDeedofAbsoluteSale.Witht eingtoitthatonlydocumentsthathepersonallyinspectedand heisherebySUSPENDEDFROM
DATE OF heirdiscovery,theCastelloheirsfile whosesignatorieshepersonallyidentifiedarerecordedinhisn THEPRACTICEOFLAWFORS
PROMULGATION dwithIBPanadministrativecaseag otarialbooks.Inaddition,notariespublicshouldproperlysec IX
February 6, 2017 ainstAtty.Chingonthelawyer’sgro uretheequipmenttheyuseinperformingnotarialacts,inorder (6)MONTHS.HeisSTERNLYW
ssnegligenceinnotarizingtheDeed forthemnottofallintothewronghands,andbeusedinactsthat ARNEDthatarepetitionofthesam
.Afterdueproceedings,Commissi wouldunderminethepublic'strustandconfidenceintheoffic eorsimilaractwillbedealtwithmore
PONENTE: onerEduardoRoblesrenderedare e ofthe notary public. severely.
CAGUIOA,J portandrecommendationfinding
Atty.CHingguiltyofgrossnegligen Atty.ChingisalsoDIRECTEDtoi
ceinnotarizingthe Deed. nformtheCourtofthedateofhisrec
eiptofthisDecisiontodetermineth
ereckoningpointoftheeffectivityo
fhissuspension

539
 2017and2018CASES

TOPIC : MurayfiledaComplaintchargingA Canon18oftheCodeofProfes TheCourtruledthatrespondentacknowledgedhisdutytoco WHEREFORE,respondentAtty.

HighStandardofMorality, ttyCervantesviolatingCanon188o sionalResponsibility mpensatecomplainantfortheamountofP80,000.00andmad FelicitoJ.
honestyandintegrity f ehisowncommitmentto CervantesisSUSPENDEDfromt
theCodeofProfessionalResponsi makethiscompensation.Hemaynothavebeenboundbyajuri hepracticeoflawforone(1)yearand
CASE TITLE: bilityfortheissuesofmorality, dicalinstruction,buthewascertainlyboundbyhisownhonor. six(6)months.HeisORDEREDto
ANITA honesty andintegrity restitutecomplainantAnitaSantos
SANTOS Thathehasfailedtoadheretohisownfreelyexecutedcommit MurraythesumofP80,000.00.Fore
MURRAYv.ATTY.FELI mentaftermorethanadecadespeaksvolumesofhowhehasmi verymonth(orfraction)thehefailst
CITO serablyfailedtoliveuptothe"highstandardof...morality,hon ofullyrestitutecomplainantthesu
J.CERVA esty,integrityandfairdealing"thatisapropostomembersofth mofP80,000.00,respondentshalls
NTES, elegalprofession.Forthisreason,Courtexactuponresponde ufferanadditionalsuspensionof
ntapenaltymoreseverethanthatinitiallycontemplatedbythe one (1)month.
CASE NO.: IntegratedBarofthePhilippinesBoardof Governors.
A.C. No. 5408
Moreover,toimpressuponrespondenttheurgencyoffinally
DATE OF returningtocomplainanttheamounthereceived,theCourti
PROMULGATION mposeonhimanadditionalpenaltycorrespondingtothedura
February 07, 2017 tionforwhichhefailstomake restitution.

PONENTE:

540
 2017and2018CASES

Intheinstantcase,wefindthatCoquiafailedtopresentclearan
TOPIC : PetitionforDisbarmentdatedFeb The2004RulesonNotarialPra dpreponderantevidencetoshowthatAtty.Lafortezahaddire Atty.EmmanuelE.Laforteza'snot
ConductUnbecoming ruary6,2012filedbyFlordelizaE.C cticestressesthenecessityofth ctandinstrumentalparticipation,orwasinconnivancewithth arialcommission,ifthereisany,isR
oquia(Coquia)againstrespondent eaffiant'spersonalappearance eSolis'inthepreparationofthesubjectdocuments.TheCourt EVOKED,andheisDISQUALIF
CASE TITLE: Atty.EmmanuelE.Laforteza(Atty beforethenotarypublicRuleII doesnotthusgivecredencetochargesbasedonmeresuspicio IEDfrombeingcommissionedasa
.Laforteza),docketedasA.C.No.9 ,Section 1 nandspeculation. notarypublicforaperiodofone(1)y
FlordelizaE.CoquiaVs.At 364,forConductUnbecomingofa ear.HeislikewiseSTERNLYWAR
ty. Lawyerduetothe Consequently,theempowermentofexofficionotariespublic NEDthatarepetitionofthesameor
Emmanuel unauthorizednotarization toperformactswithinthecompetencyofregularnotariespubl similaractswillbedealtwithmore
Laforteza ofdocuments icunderthe2004RulesonNotarialPracticeisnowmoreofane severely
xceptionratherthan ageneralrule.
CASE NO.:
A.C. No. 9364 WhileAtty.Lafortezawasmerelyanex-
officionotarypublicbyvirtueofhispositionasclerkofcourtth
DATE OF en,itdidnotrelievehimofcompliancewiththesamestandards
February 8, 2017 andobligationsimposeduponothercommissionednotaries
public.However,thisCourtcannolongeracquireadministrat
ivejurisdictionoverAtty.Lafortezaforthepurposeofimposi
PONENTE: ngdisciplinarysanctionsovererringcourtemployeessinceth
PERALTA, J einstantcomplaintagainsthimwasfiledafter he hasceasedto
bea courtemployee.

541
 2017and2018CASES

ThefindingsandrecommendationoftheIBParewell-taken.
TOPIC :
ThepetitionersclarifythattheinstantadministrativecaseisdirTheCourtcommiserateswiththesa
Code of Canon1,Rules1.01and ectedagainstthefitnessoftherespondentsasmembersofthel dplightofthepetitionerswhoaream
ProfessionalResp AdisbarmentcaseagainstAttyBau 1.02oftheCPR,itsCanon5, egalprofessionandnotagainstthevalidity- ongminimum-income
onsibility (CPR)and tistawhowereChiefLegalCounsel ofBoardResolutionNo.48.Theyasseveratethattheissuance earnershighly
the oftheGSISLegalServicesGroupa Attorney'sOath. ofthememorandumbyAtty.Bautistawhichpavedthewayfor dependingontheirwagesfortheird
Attorney'sOath.CASE ndGSISGeneralManager,respect thepassageofBoardResolutionNo.48anditsimplementatio ailyneeds.Nonetheless,theystillre
TITLE:NATIVIDAD ively,forviolationsofRules1.01an nthroughthemanagementofAtty.Garciawereinblatantdisre mainliabletopaythearrearsindicate
R.MUNAR v. d1.02,[5]Canons1[6]and5[7]ofthe gardandflagrantviolationofCanon1,Rules1.01and1.02,Can dintheirGSISrecordsnotonlyforfa
ATTY.ELMER CodeofProfessionalResponsibilit on 5of the CPRand theAttorney'sOath.T ilingtodischargetheburdenofprov
T.BAUTISTA y(CPR)andtheAttorney'sOath. ingtheirallegationsinthecomplaint
Theyfurtherarguethatthecollectionofarrearsonthesuppose butalsoforresortingtoawrongrem
CASE NO.: dhousingloanswasadisguisedpaymentofthepurchaseprice edy.Despitethereof,thenewGSIS
AC. No. 7424 oftherealtiesinvolvedand,thatthepolicyauthorizingitscolle BoardResolution
ctionwasaschemetowindow-dressthe huge financial No.125whichreplacedtheassailed
DATE OF lossessuffered byGSISdue to mismanagement. BoardResolutionNo.48isdeemedt
Feb08, 2017 ohavegiventhemsufficientleewayf
Thedisbarmentsuitisanunwarrantedandimpropercollateral rompaymentbecauseinterestsand
attackagainstthevalidityofaBoardResolutiondulyadoptedb surchargeswillnolongeraccumulat
PONENTE: ytheGSIS[-BOT]inaccordance withitsmandate eandputtoahalt,asexplainedbyAtt
Reyes, J y.Garcia.Therefore,theirchanceso
fpayingthebalanceofthehousinglo
answouldbecomelighterandnolon
gerthatburdensome.

WHEREFORE,thepetitionisDE
NIED

542
 2017and2018CASES

TOPIC :
GrossMIsconduct YesSection 9ofRuleof Courtisviolated
Thisisanadministrativecasefiledb Section9ofRule30oftheRules WHEREFORE,JudgeVictoriaVil
CASE TITLE: ytheconcernedlawyersofBulacan ofCourt. Respectingrespondent’sdesignationofOIC- lalon-
ConcernedLawyersVs.Ju againstJudgePornillos. BCCVenusAwinwhoisanon-lawyerto receiveevidenceex- Pornillos,PresidingJudgeofBranc
dge Pornillos Code of Judicial Conduct parte,theCourtfindsthesamecontrarytotheexpressmandat h10oftheRegionalTrialCourtofM
Accordingtothelawyers,JudgePor eofSection9,Rule30oftheRulesofCourtwhichrequiresthat alolosCity,isfoundguiltyofviolati
CASE NO.: nilloscommittedseveralviolations paragraph7,Section8,Rule14 onlyclerksofcourtwhoaremembersof thebarcan be ngparagraph7,Section8,Rule140o
A.M. No.RTJ-09-2183 amongwhichisnon- 0 of theRulesof Court delegated to receive evidenceex-parte. ftheRulesofCourt(borrowingmon
compliancewithSection9ofRule3 eyfromalawyerinacasependingbef
DATE OF 0oftheRulesofCourtandunduedel TheordersofJudgePornillosfortheOIC-BCCtoconductex- orehercourt)whichisalsoagrossmi
PTOMULGATION ayinrenderingdecisionsororders,a partehearingsandtosubmitreportsthereon,asconfirmedbyt sconduct
February 14, 2017 ndviolationofSupremeCourtrule heauditteamfromthewrittenordersintherecords,clearlycon constituting
s, directivesandcirculars tradictandoutweighitsdenialandavowedposturethatsheper violationoftheCodeofJudicialCon
sonallyheardallcases.Aviolationofthebasicruleonreception duct,aggravatedby,interalia,undue
PONENTE: ofevidenceex- delayinrenderingdecisionsororder
parteoranyofitsrelatedcircularsmeritstheimpositionofanad s,andviolationofSupremeCourtru
, ministrativesanction. les, directivesandcirculars

UnderSection9inrelationtoSection11(b)ofRule140oftheR SheisDISMISSEDfromtheservic
ulesofCourt,violationofSupremeCourtrules,directivesand e,withforfeitureofallretirementbe
circularsisalessseriousoffensepunishable nefits,exceptaccruedleavecredits,
bysuspensionfromofficewithoutsalaryandotherbenefitsra withprejudicetore-
ngingfromonetothreemonths,orafine ofmore employmentinanygovernmentage
thanP10,000but not exceeding P20,000. ncyorinstrumentality.Immediatel
yuponserviceonherofthisdecision
,sheisdeemedtohavevacatedherof
ficeandherauthoritytoactasjudgeis
considered
automatically
terminated.

543
 2017and2018CASES

TOPIC : Complainants'assertionofrespondentjudge'smanifestparti
Grossignoranceof thelaw alityagainstthemcannotprosper.Manifestpartialitypertainst
Section8of Rule140 on o"aclear,notoriousorplaininclinationorpredilectiontofavor Theadministrativecomplaintagain
CASE Anadministrativecomplaintisnott theDisciplineofJudgesandJus onesideratherthantheother."Thus,amereimputationofbias stJudgeMariettaS.Brawner-
TITLE:DOMINADOR heproperremedyforeveryactiono tices,asamendedby andpartialityagainstajudgeisinsufficientbecause"biasandpa Cualing
BIADOv.MARIETTA fajudgeconsidered"aberrantorirr A.M.No.01-8-10- rtiality cannever be presumed." is
S. BRAWNER- egular"especiallywhen a SC,classifiesgrossignoranceo DISMISSEDforlack of merit
CUALING judicialremedy exists. fthelawandgrossmisconductc Since"badfaithormalicecannotbeinferredsimplybecauseth
onstitutingviolationsoftheCo ejudgmentisadversetoaparty,"itisincumbentuponthecomp
CASE NO.: Thisisanadministrativecomplaint deofJudicial Conduct lainantstoprovethatrespondentjudgewasmanifestlypartiala
AM No.MTJ-17-1891 forgrossignoranceofthelawandm gainstthem.Theirfailuretoprovethisisfataltotheircause.Apa
anifestpartialityrelativeto rtfromtheirbareallegations,complainantsofferednootherin
DATE OF anejectmentcaseanddamagesdoc dependentproof tovalidate thisallegation.[66]
Promulgation ketedasCivilCaseNo.
Feb15, 2017 302againstJudgeMariettaS.Brawn Complainants'failuretosubstantiatetheirclaimsinanadmini
er- strativeproceedingcancausethedismissalofthecaseforlacko
Cualing(respondentjudge)ofthe fmerit.[67]"Intheabsenceofevidencetothecontrary,thepres
PONENTE: MunicipalCircuitTrialCourtofTu umptionthatajudgehasregularly
ba- performedhisdutieswillprevail
Leonen,J Sablan,Benguet.Complainantsins
istthatrespondentjudgeshouldbef
aultedforhercognizance:ofthecivi
lcaseandhersubsequentissuanceo
ftheassaileddecisionandwritofexe
cutiondespitelackofjurisdiction.

544
 2017and2018CASES

TOPIC :
gravemisconduct,grossdi Section27ofRule138ofthe Consideringthattheresponsibilityattachedtoanotarypublici RecommendationoftheIntegrated
shonesty,andconductunb Rulesof Court ssensitiverespondentshouldhavebeenmorediscreetandcau BarofthePhilippinesis
ecoming of a lawyer ElizabethRecio,thebondsmanage tiousintheexecutionofhisdutiesassuchandshouldnothavew ADOPTED
rofOrientalAssuranceCorporatio hollyentrustedeverythingtothesecretaries;otherwisehesho withMODIFICATION.
n(ORASCO),seeksthedisbarmen 004RulesonNotarialPractice uldnothavebeencommissionedasnotary public. RespondentAtty.JoselitoI.Fandiñ
CASE TITLE: tofAtty.Joselito 24 oisGUILTYofnegligenceinperfor
ELIZABETHRECIO, I.Fandiñoduetogravemisconduct particularly Forhavingwhollyentrustedthepreparationandothermecha minghisdutiesasanotarypublicand
Complainant,v.ATTY.JO ,grossdishonesty,andconductunb Section2(a)and(c),RuleVII, nicsofthedocumentfornotarizationtothesecretarytherecan ofbreachofthe2004RulesonNotar
SELITO ecomingofalawyer towit: beapossibilitythateventherespondent'ssignaturewhichisth ialPractice.Accordingly, he
I. eonly isSUSPENDEDfromth
FANDIÑO, Sec. 2. Official Seal.- oneleftforhimtodocanbedonebythesecretaryoranybodyfo epracticeoflawforsix(6)months;hi
rthatmatterashadbeen the caseherein. sincumbentcommissionifanyisR
(a)Everypersoncommissione EVOKED;andheisPROHIBITE
CASE NO.: dasnotarypublicshallhavease Asitisrespondenthadbeennegligentnotonlyinthesupposed Dfrombeingcommissionedasanot
A.C. No. 6767 al notarizationbutforemostinhavingallowedtheoffice arypublicfortwo(2)years,effectivei
ofoffice,tobeprocuredathiso secretariestomakethenecessaryentriesinhisnotarialregistry mmediately.HeisWARNEDthata
wnexpense,whichshallnotbe whichwassupposedtobedoneandkeptbyhimalone;andsho repetitionofthesameorsimilaractsi
DATE OF possessedorownedby any uldnothavereliedonsomebody ells nthefutureshallbedealtwithmore
Promulgation otherperson. x severely
October05, 2016
(c)Whennotinuse,theofficials
ealshallbekeptsafeandsecurea
PONENTE: ndshallbeaccessibleonlytothe
JARDELEZA, J.: notarypublicorthepersonduly
authorized by him.

New Code of Respondentjudge'snonchalantattitudeastotheimplicationo Onthechargeofgrossignorance

TOPIC : AnAdministrativeComplaintfiled JudicialConduct ftheappellatecourt'sfindingofgraveabuseofdiscretion.Thet ofthe law - Guilty
Undue delay byDr.Raul M.Sunico erm"graveabuseofdiscretion"hasaspecificmeaning.Anacto
inrendering (Dr.Sunico)againstrespondentJu facourtortribunalcanonlybeconsideredaswithgraveabuseo Respondentjudge'sissuanceofthe
a dgePedroDL.Gutierrez(respond fdiscretionwhensuchactisdoneina"capriciousorwhimsicale writofpreliminaryinjunctionshow
decisionGrossignoranceo entJudge),PresidingJudge,Region xerciseofjudgmentasisequivalenttolackof jurisdiction." smanifestgrossignorance ofthe
f thelaw alTrialCourt,Branch119,PasayCit law.
Grave abuse ofauthority y,forgrossignoranceofthelaw,

CASE TITLE:

545
 2017and2018CASES
DR. RAUL graveabuseofauthority,grossnegl Theabuseofdiscretionmustbesopatentandgrossastoamou Respondentjudge
M.SUNICO ectofduty,andviolationoftheNew nttoan"evasionofapositivedutyortoavirtualrefusaltoperfor cannotfeignignorance astothe
v. CodeofJudicialConduct,inconne madutyenjoinedbylaw,ortoactatallincontemplationoflaw,a effect ofthegrant ofthe
JUDGEPEDR ctiontoCivilCaseNo.R-PSY-12- swherethepowerisexercisedinanarbitraryanddespoticman petitionforcertiorarisince the
O 10726-CV, nerbyreasonofpassionandhostility."Furthermore,theuseof dispositiveportion of appellate
DL.GUTIERR entitled"FelixEspirituv.RaulSuni apetitionforcertiorariisrestrictedonlyto"trulyextraordinary court'sdecisionleavesnoroomfor
EZPRESIDINGJUDG co,inhiscapacityasPresidentofthe caseswherein the act of the lowercourtorquasi- anyinterpretation, towit:
E CulturalCenterof judicialbodyiswhollyvoid."Fromtheforegoingdefinition,iti
thePhilippines." sclearthatthespecialcivilactionofcertiorariunderRule65will PetitionisGRANTED.TheOrd
strikeanactdownforhavingbeendonewithgraveabuseofdisc ersdated25 September2012
CASE NO.: retionifthepetitionercouldmanifestlyshowthatsuchactwas and01 April 2013of
AM No.RTJ-16-2457 patentandgross,[49]aswhathappenedinthiscase. theRegional Trial
Court,NationalCapital Judicial
Region,Branch119, Pasay City,
DATE OF inCivil CaseNo. R-PSY-12-
Promulgation 10726-CV areNULLIFIED.
Feb 21,2017
Accordingly, the
writofpreliminary
PONENTE mandatoryinjunctionissuedinfavo
r ofprivate respondentFelix
Espiritudoing businessunder the
nameandstyle
"YakitoriDoriBarandGrillRestaur
ant" isLIFTEDandany bond
postedbythelatterisCANCELLE
GRAVE MISCONDUCT D.
617.MADRIA Atty.RiverasimulatedCourtdecisi Rules1. 01 and1.02, Canon Falsifying or simulatingthe DISBARMENT
v.ATTY.CARLOS onandcertificateoffinalityofsuch 1, andRule 15.07, Canon courtpapersamountedtodeceit, malpractice or
P.RIVERA decisionwhichhegavetohisclientt 15,Rule 18.04Canon18 misconductinoffice, any ofwhichwasalready a
hecomplainantherein.Asaresult,t oftheCode groundsufficientfordisbarmentunderSection27,Rule
A.C. No. hecomplainantfacedcriminalchar ofProfessionalResponsibility 38oftheRules ofCourt.Themoralstandardsofthe
11256PER gesforviolationofthePhilippineP LegalProfessionexpectedtherespondenttoactwiththe
CURIAM assportActintheRTC. highestdegree ofprofessionalism,decency, andnobility
inthe course oftheirpractice oflaw. He turnedhisback
onsuchstandardsexhibitedhisbaseness, lack
ofmoralcharacter, dishonesty, lack ofprobity
andgeneral

546
 2017and2018CASES
unworthinessto continue asanofficerof the Court.

The respondentwaspreviously
sanctionedforunprofessionalconduct.InCruz-Villanuevav.
Rivera, hewassuspendedfromthe practice of law because
he hadnotarizeddocumentswithout a
notarialcommission.Heshouldbe quickly
removedthroughdisbarment.

NOTARIZATION
618. Atty.BalerosnotarizedanApplicat Section12ofRuleIIoftheNota Theactscommittedbytherespondentgobeyondbeingmerel SUSPENDEDfrom the
DR.BASILIO ionforCertificationofAlienablean rialRules;Section2(b)ofRuleI apsesinthefulfilmentofherdutiesundertheNotarialRules, practiceof lawfor six(6)
MALVAR dDisposableLandsanspresenceof VoftheNotarialRulesbyaffixi they comprehend a parallelbreach of theCPRparticularly monthseffectiveimmediately.He
oneoftheparties. ngherofficialsignatureandseal Canon9, Rule 9.01, Canon1, Rule
v. rnotarialcommission,ifstillexistin
onthenotarialcertificateofthe 1.01whichprovidesthat"alawyershallnotengageinunlawful,
ATTY.CORAJANEP.B affidavitcontainedintheAppli dishonest,immoralordeceitfulconduct"andtheLawyer'sOa g,is
ALEROS cationforCertificationofAlie thwhichamplifiestheundertakingtodono.falsehoodandadh herebyREVOKED,andshe
nableandDisposableLandint eretolawsandthelegalsystembeingoneoftheirprimordialtas isherebyDISQUALIFIEDfromre
A.C.No.11346MA heabsenceofthecomplainanta ksasofficersofthecourt.Giventheevidentiaryvalueaccorded appointment as
RCH 08, ndforfailingto tonotarizeddocuments,thefailureofthenotarypublictoreco NotaryPublicforaperiod of
2017REYES, ascertaintheidentityofthe rd the two(2) years.
affiant documentinhernotarialregistercorrespondstofalselymakin
gitappearthatthedocumentwasnotarizedwhen,infact,itwas
not.
Itcannotbeoveremphasizedthatnotariespublicareurged
toobservewithutmostcareandutmostfidelitythebasicrequir
ementsintheperformanceoftheirduties;otherwise,theconfi
denceofthepublicintheintegrityof notarizeddeedswill be
undermined
SIMPLE NEGLECTOFDUTY
619.LIANGFUJI SpecialProsecutorDelaCruzbrou Rule 18.03 ofthe Code ofthe Generally, a lawyerwhoholdsa governmentoffice SUSPENDEDfrom the
v. ghttheformalchargeagainstFujian ProfessionalResponsibility, maynot be disciplinedasamember practiceof lawfor three(3)
ATTY.GEMMAARMI danotherpersonuponherfindingt whichmandatesthat"a oftheBarformisconductin the dischargeof months
hatFuji'sworkvisahadexpiredont lawyershall notneglect a herdutiesasagovernmentofficial. However,
M.DELACRUZ
hebasisoftheMemorandumofthe legalmatterentrusted tohim, ifsaidmisconductasagovernmentofficialalsoconstitutesa
BI-MIS.However,nowhere and violation ofheroathasa lawyerand theCodeof
A.C.No.11043 ProfessionalResponsibility,thenshe maybe
subjecttodisciplinary

547

intheMemorandumwasitstatedth
MARCH 08, atFuji"overstayed"orthat"Liang's
2017LEONEN, workingvisaexpiredandhisTVVe
xpiredasAtty de la Cruz claims.
2017and2018CASES
hisnegligence sanction bythe Court.
inconnectiontherewithshall
renderhimliable Lawyersingovernmentservice should
bemoreconscientiouswiththeirprofessionalobligationsco
nsistentwiththe time-honoredprinciple of publicoffice
being a publictrust.The ethical standardsunderthe Code
ofProfessionalResponsibility arerenderedeven more
exacting astogovernmentlawyersbecausethey have the
addedduty toabide bythe policy oftheState to promote a
highstandard of ethics,
competence,andprofessionalisminpublic service.
Inthiscase,respondent'snegligence evincesa failure to
cope withthe
strictdemandsandhighstandardsofpublicserviceand the
legalprofession.

MISCONDUCT
620.ORTIGASPLAZA Atty.Tumulak,accompaniedbyun Canon1,Rules1.01and The swornobligationofevery lawyerunder the SUSPENDEDfrom the
DEVELOPMENTCOR iformed guards of 1.02 of theCode of Lawyer'sOathandtheCodeof Professional Responsibilityto practiceof lawfor aperiod of
PORATION, theNationwide ProfessionalResponsibility;LAW respectthe law and the legalprocessesisa TWO(2)YEARSwiththe
Security YER’SOATH continuingconditionforretaining membershipin
representedbyJAN STERNWARNINGthat
Agency,Inc.,unlaw theLegalProfession.The
ICEMONTERO fullyenteredandtook controlof lawyermustactandcomporthimselforherselfinsuch anysimilarinfractioninthefuturew
v. the entranceandexitof a parcelof amannerthatwouldpromote publicconfidence in the illbedealtwithmoreseverely
ATTY.EUGENIOS.T landownedby integrity of the Legal
UMULAK ORTIGASPLAZADEVELOP Profession.MembersoftheBar are reminded,therefore,
MENTCORPORATION. thattheirFIRSTDuty isto comply with
A.C.No.11385MA therulesofprocedure, ratherthan to seek
RCH 14, exceptionsasloopholes. A lawyerwhoassistsa clientin a
2017PER dishonestscheme or whoconnivesinviolating the law
commitsanactthatwarrantsdisciplinary
CURIAM
actionagainsthim orher.

IMMORAL RELATIONSHIP
621.IN RE: Thereisno evidence onrecordthatwouldshow CASEDISMISSED.
ALLEGEDIMMORALI thatJusticeJuradoandAtty. Buencaminohadanimmoral
TYAND

548
 2017and2018CASES
UNEXPLAINEDWEALT relationship. Otherthantheirco-ownership oftheproperty
H covered byTCTNo. T-23271,no otherevidence
OFSANDIGANBAYAN waspresentedtoshow any immoralconduct.
Asto the charge of unexplainedwealth, there
ASSOCIATEJUSTICE
isnoprimafacieshowingthateitherJustice Juradoor.Atty.
ROLANDB.JURADOan Buencaminohasunlawfullyaccumulatedwealth.
dCLERK OFCOURT Bothhadsufficiently explainedhow they
IVMONALISA gotintothebusinessofrealestate whichwasfully supported
A.BUENCAMINO, by theevidence on record.
METROPOLITAN
TRIALCOURT,CA
LOOCANCITY

A.M.No.OCA.IPINo.1
0-21-SB-J

April
4,2017MEN
DOZA

NEGLECT OFDUTY
622.RAPSING Rota failedto refer the
v. casetoJudge Walse-
JUDGECARIDADM.WA Luteroforresolutionof the
pendingincidents"even with
LSE-LUTERO
theintermittentfollow-upsof the ...
A.M.No.MTJ-17- parties." Shelikewise failed to
1894April reporttoJudgeWalse-Lutero the
04,2017LEONEN damage intherecords,thus,
preventing
thereconstitutionofthe
recordsatthe earliesttime
possible. As theadministrative
assistant ofthepresiding judge,
itwasRota'sduty to
diligentlysupervise andmanage
courtdocketsand
Code of Clerksof Courtare atthe DISMISSED FROM SERVICE.
ConductforCourtPersonnel forefrontofjudicialadministrationbecause of All her
theirindispensable role incase benefits,exceptaccruedleavecre
adjudicationandcourtmanagement. They are
dits,ifany,aredeclared
themodelsforthe courtemployees"toactspeedily
andwithdispatch on theirassignedtask[s] to FORFEITED,withprejudice tore-
avoidtheclogging of casesincourtandthereby employmentinany branch or
assistintheadministrationof justice withoutundue instrumentality ofthe
delay."96Moreover, government,includinggovernme
aspublicofficers,theyshoulddischarge nt-owned andcontrolled
theirtaskswithutmostresponsibility,integrity, loyalty, corporationsandfinancialinstituti
andefficiency guided bythe principlethat"public office ons
Section9ofRule140ofthe isa public trust."

549
 2017and2018CASES
records, and to RevisedRulesof Court, Judgeshavethedutytoadministerjusticewithoutdelay.Judge
ensurethattherecordswere Walse- Admonishedforherfailuretoactpr
complete andintact. Luteroshouldbearinmindthatthosechargedwiththetaskofd omptlyonthecomplainant'smotio
ispensingjusticecarryaheavyburdenofresponsibility.65Asaf ns.
rontlineofficialoftheJudiciary,atrialjudgeshouldatalltimes
JudgeWalse- maintainprofessionalcompetenceandobservethe
Luterofailedtoresolve highstandardsofpublicserviceandfidelity.Herdedicationto
twomotionson time. dutyistheleastshecoulddotosustainthepublic'strustandcon
fidencenotonlyinherbutmoreimportantly in the
institutionshe represents
NOTARIZATION
623.FERGUSONv.AT Atty.Ramosnotarizedadeedofsale RuleonNotarialPracticeandR Asa lawyercommissionedasnotary public, SUSPENDEDfromthepracticeof
TY.SALVADOR ofaparceloflandwithoutthe ule1.01andCanon1oftheCod Atty.Ramoswasmandatedto exercise thefunctionof lawfor
P.RAMOS presence of theparties. eofProfessionalResponsibilit hisoffice andmustobserve withutmostcare the six(6)months;REVOKEShisnota
y basicformalitiesofhisoffice
rialcommission;
andrequisitesintheperformance of hisduties.WhenAtty.
A.C.No. 920 Ramosaffixedhissignature andnotarialseal on the andPERMANENTLYBARShim
deedofsale, he ledustobelieve that the partiespersonally frombeingcommissionedasnotar
April appearedbeforehimandattested tothe truthandveracity of y public,
18,2017PER thecontentsthereof. withaSTERNWAR
CURIAM Hisconductwasfraughtwithdangerouspossibilitiesconside NINGthatarepetitionofthesameor
ring the conclusivenesson the due executionof a similarconductwillbedealtwithmo
documentthatourcourtsandthe public reseverely
accordonnotarizeddocuments.Atty.Ramosfailed to
exercise the functionsof the office and tocomply with
themandates of the law

SERIOUSMISCONDUCT
624.THEOFFICEOFT JudgeAventuradofailedtoresolvet Canon 2of the In taking hisoath ofoffice asa judicial officer, heprecisely FINEDintheamountof
HECOURTADMINIST he12casesforwhichhehadrequest CodeofJudicial Conduct; swore to performhisdutiesefficiently inordernot ₱100,000.00for
RATOR edextensionsofhisperiod toprejudice the litigants.Efficiency thusbecame GROSSIRREGULARITYANDS
todecide them. hisprofessionalcommitmentforaslong ashe wason
v. ERIOUSMISCONDUCT; and
Rule 3.05, Canon 3of theBench. He alsowellknew thatSection15(1),
JUDGEJUSTINOG. theCode ofJudicial Conduct; ArticleVIIIofthe 1987
AVENTURADO Constitutionmandatedthatcasesormattersfiledinthe Another P100,000.00
Section9,Rule140of lowercourtsmust be decidedorresolvedwithinthree forGROSS
monthsfromthe time they are VIOLATION OF

550
 2017and2018CASES
A.M.No.RTJ-09- theRulesofCourt, submittedfordecisionorresolution. He wasfurtheraware ADMINISTRATIVECIRCULAR
2212April 18,2017 of Rule 3.05, Canon3of theCodeofJudicialConductby NO.43-2004
PER CURIAM whichhe wasexpresslyrequiredasa judge topromptly
dispose ofcourtbusiness, andtodecide caseswithin the
prescribedperiods. He wasexpectedtohavebecome
apprisedthatany delaysin the
dispositionofcaseswouldsurely undermine the
people'sfaithandconfidence in theJudiciary.Accordingly,
he shouldhavebeenimbuedwiththathighsenseofduty
andresponsibility in the discharge of
hisdutiesandobligationsto promptly administerjustice
while hesat asjudge.Hisfailure topromptly disposeof
courtbusiness, andto decide caseswithin the
prescribedperiodsefficiently constitutedgrossinefficiency
andwarranted the impositionofthe
condignadministrativesanctiononhim.

625.ARSENIOv. Lawyer'sOathandRule The Complaint-Affidavitof Arseniofailed to CASEDISMISSED

ATTY.JOHANA.T 8.01 of the Code dischargethe necessaryburdenof proof.
ABUZO ofProfessionalRes InhisSwornAffidavit,Arseniomerely narratedthatAtty.
ponsibility Tabuzoutteredoffensive statementsand
nootherevidence waspresentedtosubstantiate hisclaim.
A.C.No.8658 Emphatically, suchComplaint-Affidavitisself-serving.
April
24,2017TIJA TheCourtisnotpersuadedtoexerciseitsdisciplinaryauthorit
M y overAtty.Tabuzo

GROSSMISCONDUCT
626.RE:ANONYMOUSL Atty. Rule 140of The Suspendedfor six(6)
ETTERCOMPLAINT RoquefalsifiedhisPersonalData theRulesofCourt, falsificationinrespondentRoque'sPersonalDataSheetisa monthswithoutpay,withastemw
v. SheetwhenheappliedasUtility dishonestactrelated to hisemployment. arningthatthe
WorkerintheSala of Judge Dishonesty isthe concealment or distortion
JUDGEDIVINAT.SA commissionofasimilar
Samson. oftruth,whichshowslack of integrity or a
MSON dispositiontodefraud, cheat, deceive or betray offenseshall be
andanintentiontoviolate the truth. dealtwithmoreseverely.
A.M.No.mtj-16-1870 JudgeSamsonknewthathewasnot
yetdischargedfromprobationand Rule 2.01, RULE 2.03 JudgeSamsonshouldhavebeencircumspectandwaitedforth
yetshe efinaldischargeofrespondentRoquebeforeshe

551
 2017and2018CASES

June6,2017 recommended Canon2 of the entertainedhisapplicationandgavehimherfavorablerecom

PERALTA respondent JudicialConduct mendation Fined in the amount
Roque forthe position. ofTwentyfive
Thousand Pesos
₱25,000.00.
627.MAPALAD Despitenon- Lawyer'sOathinRule Consideringrespondent'sact of using a false DISBARMENT
v.ATTY.ANSELMO compliancewiththeMCLErequir 138,Section 3ofthe MCLEcompliance numberinhispleadings,
S.ECHANEZ ement,Atty.Echanezrepeatedlyin RulesofCourt; hisrepeatedfailure to obey legalOrders,and the factthat
dicatedafalseMCLEcompliancen he hadalready beensanctionedtwicebythe
umberinhispleadingsbeforethetri Canon1,Rule1.01,Canon CourtOnseparatecases. It cannot be
A.C.No.10911J alcourts. 10,Rule10.01,Canon17and18 overstressedthatlawyersareinstrumentsinthe
une6,2017TIJA Inindicatingpatentlyfalseinforma oftheCodeofProfessionalRes administration of justice.Asvanguardsofourlegalsystem,
M. tioninpleadingsfiledbeforethecou ponsibility(CPR) they are expected tomaintainlegalproficiency and a
rtsoflaw,notonlyoncebutfourtim highstandardofhonesty, integrity, andfairdealing.Also, of
es,asperrecords,therespondentac all classesandprofessions,the lawyerismostsacredly
tedinmanifestbadfaith, boundtoupholdthe laws. He istheirswornservant;
dishonesty, anddeceit andforhim,of allmeninthe world,to repudiate
andoverride thelaws, to trample
themunderfootandignore the verybondsofsociety,
isunfaithful to hispositionandofficeand setsa
GROSSNEGLECT OFDUTY detrimentalexample to thesociety.
628.CHUA v. consideringthatSpousesChua failed to presentsubstantial prooftoshow CASEDISMISSED,CLOSEDA
SACPTERESABELIN theprosecutors' culpability, theCourtcannotrule out the possibility thatthe NDTERMINATED.
DA G.TAN-SOLLANO instantadministrative case wasillmotivatedbeing retaliatory innature
andaimedatstriking back atthemforhaving participatedinthe dismissalofXV-07-
INV-15J-05513, eitherasinvestigatingprosecutororapproving officer. In the
A.C.No.11533J absence ofcontrary evidence, whatwillprevailisthepresumptionthat the
une6,2017REY prosecutorsinvolvedhereinhaveregularly performedtheirofficial duties
ES,
the complainantsnotonly failed to comply with the
formalrequirementsprovidedintheRulesofCourt, butalsodidnotpresentevidence
to lendanyostensible merit totheirletter-complaintsthataccuse
hereinrespondentsofseriousethical violations(i.e.,bidding
outcourtdecisionsinfavorofmoneyedclients), the Courtfindsno
properconclusionotherthanto dismissoutrightthepresentcases.

552
 2017and2018CASES

NOTARIZATION
629.RE: LETTER NotarialPracti Asa magistrate, JudgeBarcillano, Jr.isexpected tobe COMPLAINTS
OFLUCENAOFENDOR ce anembodimentofprofessionalism,butthe exactopposite ARE
EYESALLEGINGILLICI and wasshowntowardsPOI DISMISSED.
Rule1.01and Marcelo.1âwphi1Ratherthangiving respectto a police officerwhowason-duty atthe
TACTIVITIESOF
Canon 1 time, Judge Barcillano,Jr. expressedmockery and a condescending attitude,
ACERTAINATTY.CAJA ofthe orwithconceitedshowofsuperiority
YONINVOLVINGCASE CodeofProfess
SIN THECOURTOF ionalResponsi
APPEALS,CAGAYAND bility
EOROCITY

A.M.No.16-12-03-
CAJune6,2017PERL
AS-BERNABE

CONDUCT UNBECOMING OFA JUDGE

630.MARCELO JudgeBarcillanodema Sections10(1)a Judge Barcillano'sdissatisfactionwithExecutive Judge Rosero'sdecisionto FINEDtheamountofTenThousan
v.JUDGEIGNACIOC.B ndedforPO1MyraMa nd1l(C)ofRule postpolice officersinthe Hall ofJustice doesnotjustify hisactsof dPesos(₱l0,000.00)withastemw
ARCILLANO,BRANC rcelo’s 140oftheRules accostingcomplainant.1âwphi1While he may be security conscious, checking the arningthatarepetitionofthesameo
firearmsinanaggressi ofCourt booking offirearmsisnotpart ofhisjob. Further, hisactofdemanding
H ranysimilaractwillbedealtwithmor
vemannerwhicheffec forcomplainant'sfirearmsandare inanaggressive mannereffectively harassed the
13,REGIONALTRIALC tivelyharassedthealre already nervouspolice officer.If,asJudgeBarcillanoclaims, he strongly believedthat eseverely.
OURT(RTC),LIGAOCI adynervous the presenceofthe police officersviolatesexisting rules, theappropriate course of
TY,ALBAY police actionwouldhave been totake up the issue withExecutive Judge
officer. Rosero,notthepolice officerswhoare merely obeying orders.
A.M.No.RTJ-16-
2450JARDELEZA,

553
 2017and2018CASES

UNDUE DELAY
631.FESTINv.ATTY.R Atty. Zubiri Section12 By labeling themasmanifestations,respondentcraftily sidesteppedtherequirementof SUSPENDEDfrom the
OLANDO V. ZUBIRI filedfive (b)and(c) a notice of hearing anddeprivedthe otherparty ofanopportunityto oppose practiceof lawfor three(3)
(5) ofRule 139- hisarguments.Moreover, thefactthathe submittedthesemanifestationsdirectly monthseffectivefrom thefinality
manifestationsbefore Bofthe toCOC, insteadofproperly filing thembefore theRTC,highlights hisfailure ofthisDecision,andisSTERNLY
A.C.No.11600June
the RulesofCourt, toexhibitfairnesstowardstheotherparty by keepingthelattercompletely unaware of
19,2017PERLAS- COCprayin asamended hismanifestations. Undoubtedly, WARNEDthat arepetition
BERNABE g for byBarMatter respondentviolatedhisprofessionalobligationsunder the CPR. ofthesameor similar act
affirmativereliefs No. 1645 shallbedealtwithmoreseverely.
datedOctober
13, 2015;

Canon8 and
Rule 10.03,
Canon10ofthe
CPR
CONTEMPT OFCOURT
632.RIZALADO Rizalado Asa judge, he must beallowedreasonable latitude forthe ComplaintsareDISMISSEDforl
v.PRESIDINGJUDG hasin operationofhisownindividual view of the case, hisappreciation ofthe ack of merit
EGIL G. discriminatelyandrep facts,andhisunderstanding ofthe applicable law on the matter. "Tohold a judge
etitivelyfiledseveralco administratively accountablefor every erroneousruling ordecisionhe renders,
BOLLOZOS,REGIO Complainant Oscar
mplaintsagainst assuming he haserred, wouldbenothingshortofharassmentandwouldmake
NALTRIALCOURT, Judge hispositiondoubly unbearable.To holdotherwise wouldbeto renderjudicialoffice C.RizaladoisfoundGUILTYof
BR. Bollozos,allinconnect untenable, for noone calledupon totry factsorinterpretthe law in the processof contempt
21,CAGAYANDEOR ionwiththelatter'sdisp administering justice canbe infallible inhisjudgment.It isonly wherethe erroris so ofCourtandORDEREDtopaythe
OCITY,MISAMISOR ositionofcivil case gross, deliberate andmalicious, orincurredwithevidentbadfaiththatadministrative FINEinthe amount of
IENTAL sanctionsmay beimposedagainstthe erring judge. ₱20,000.00,with aSTERN
Thefilingofmultiplecomplaintsagainstrespondenthasthereforeresultedinconfusiond WARNINGthat arepetition
OCA IPI No.11-3800- uetothenumberofactionsdocketedbeforetheOCA.Inthisrespect,theCourtconcurswi ofthesameshall be
RTJ ththeOCArecommendationthatRizaladobefoundguilty of contemptofcourt dealtwithmoreseverely.

June19,2017

NOTARIZATION
PERLAS-BERNABE
633.VILLAFLORES- Atty. Arellano NotarialLaw Notarizationisnotanempty,meaninglessandroutineact.Itisinvestedwith SUSPENDEDfromthepractice

554

PUZA,Complainant notarized
vs. the
ATTY.ROLANDOB. affidavitsheofferedin
evidencewithoutnota
ARELLANO
ry commission
A.C.No.11480[Forme
rlyCBDCaseNo.05-
1558]
June20,2017
PER CURIAM
GROSSNEGLECT OFDUTY
634.OFFICEOF Atty.
THECOURTADMINIS Bantiyanfailedto
TRATOR performwithutmost
v.ATTY.JEROMEB.B diligence
hisfinancialandadmi
ANTIYAN nistrativeresponsibili
ties.
A.M.No.P-15- Recordsshow thathe
3335JUNE28,2007 wasremissinhisdutie
MENDOZA, sofdepositingthe
courtcollectionson
time, updatingthe
entriesin theofficial
cashbooks,andregul
arlysubmitting
hismonthlyreports.
Camilofailedtomonit
ortheentriesintheoffi
cialcashbooksbecaus
e
2017and2018CASES
substantive public interestthatonly those whoare qualified or authorizedmay of lawfor
actasnotariespublic.Itmustbeemphasizedthattheactofnotarizationbyanotarypublicco three(3)yearsandPERMANENT
nvertsaprivatedocumentintoapublicdocumentmakingthatdocumentadmissibleinevi LY
dencewithoutfurtherproof
DISQUALIFIEDfrombeingcomm
ofauthenticity.Anotarialdocumentisbylawentitledtofullfaithandcredituponitsface,an
dforthisreason,notariespublicmustobservewithutmostcarethebasicrequirementsinth issioned asa NotaryPublic.
e performance oftheirduties
UniformRules Atty. Bantiyanfailed to performhisdutieswiththe degree of diligence FINEDintheamountof
on andcompetence expected of him. Hisapparentgoodfaith,hisadmission TwentyThousand
Administrative oftheinfractionsandimmediate restitutionof the cashshortages, Pesos(P20,000,00),withaWAR
CasesintheCivi thoughmitigating,cannotexculpate himfromliability. The Courthasto enforce NINGthat arepetitionofthesame
l Service whatismandatedbythe law and to impose areasonable
punishmentforviolationsthereof. or similaroffenseshall be
dealtwith moreseverely.
Delayintheremittancesofcollectionsconstitutesneglectofdutyonthegroundthatfailure
toremitthecourtcollectionsontimedeprivesthecourtofinterestthatmaybeearnedifthea
mountsaredepositedinabank. FINEDintheamountofTenThousa
Shortagesintheamountstoberemittedandtheyearsofdelayintheactualremittanceconst ndPesos(₱l0,000.00)andWARN
ituteneglect of dutyfor whichthe respondentshall be administratively liable EDthatarepetitionofthesameorsi
milaroffenseshallbedealtwithmor
eseverely.
555
 2017and2018CASES
shereliedheavilyonN
adosmanwhowasassi
gnedbythePresidingJ
udgetoperformsuchd
utysincethetenureoft
heformerClerkofCou
rt.

SIMPLE NEGLECTOFDUTY
635.OCHEA, Atty. Maratas Section Theimage of FINEinthe amountof
representedbyMIGU submitted 1, thecourtsastheadministratorsanddispensersofjusticeisnotonlyreflectedintheirdecisio ₱5,000.00,withaSTERNWARNI
ELKILANTANG severaldocumen CanonIV ns,resolutions,ororders,butalsomirroredintheconductoftheircourtstaff,itisincumben NGthatarepetitionofthesameora
tsreflectingCivilCase ofthe tuponeverycourtpersonneltoobservethehighestdegreeofefficiencyandcompetencyin
v. ATTY.ANDREA nysimilarinfractionshallbedealtwi
No.2936- CodeofCondu hisorherassignedtasks.Failuretomeetthesestandardswarrantstheimpositionofadmini
P.MARATAS Lintheallegedlistof ct strativesanctions thmoreseverely
casessubmittedto for
A.M.No.P-16-3604 then CourtPersonn
AssistingJudgeT el
JUNE28,2017 rinidadfordecision,
PERALTA none
ofwhichwouldp
rovethat she
indeedproperly
indorsedsaidcas
esso
theassistingjudgecoul
dtaketheappropriatea
ction.Neitherwasther
eanyevidenceshowin
gthatAtty.Maratas
actuallymade
a
properturnover
of thosecases
which
hadbeensubmitt
NEGLECT OFDUTY edfordecision
beforeJudge

Cobarde'scomp
ulsoryretirement.
556
 2017and2018CASES
636.SALONOYv.AT Atty.Gatchalianfailed Canon 18, Alawyerneednotwaitfortheirclientstoaskforinformationbutmustadvisethemwithout SUSPENDEDfrom the
TY.EDUARDOZ.GA tofilethenecessarymo Rules 18.03 delayaboutmattersessentialforthemtoavailoflegalremedies.Inthepresentcase,respon practiceof lawfor six(6)
TCHALIAN, tiontopostpone and18.04ofthe dentfailedtoimmediatelynotifycomplainantsabouttheadversedecisionofthetrialcourt monthsand
theh CodeofProfess .Hadthecomplainantsnotinquiredwiththetrialcourt,they wouldhave
A.C.No.8371J isSTERNLYWARNEDthatarep
earingduetoaconflicti ionalResponsi losttheiropportunity toappeal.
UNE28,2017 nhisschedule,andasar bility. etitionofthesame or similaract
PERALTA-BERNABE esult,complainantslos shall be dealtwithmoreseverely.
t their
opportunity
topr
esent
their
evidenceintheejectme
CONLICT OFINTEREST ntcase.
637..CAPINPIN,JR.v.A FLC Canon 15, The Courtcannotoverstressthe duty of a lawyer to uphold, atalltimes,theintegrity SUSPENDEDfromthepracticeof
TTY.ESTANISLAOL.CE engagedAtty.Cesa’sle Rule 15.03 anddignity ofthelegal profession.The ethicsof the legalprofessionrightly lawfor one(1) year
SA,JR., galservicesto andCanon16, enjoinlawyersto actwith the higheststandardsoftruthfulness,fairplay,andnobility
representitinopposin Rule16.01ofth inthe course oftheirpractice oflaw. Clearly, inthiscase, respondentfailed to
gcomplainant'saction e CPR upholdsuchethicalstandardinhispractice oflaw.
A.C.No.6933 sto forestallthe
foreclosureproc
JULY5,2017T eedings.Ascanbe
IJAM, gleaned
fromresponden
t'sposition
paper,
however, it is
admitted
that
respondentextended
helpto the
complainant in
negotiating with
FLC for
thereductio
noftheloanpayment

andcessatio
n of
theforeclos
ureproceedings.
557
 2017and2018CASES
CONFLICT OFINTEREST
638.CELEDONIOv.A Atty.Estrabilloinstruc Rule 15.03; Therelationshipbetweenalawyerandhis/herclientshouldideallybeimbuedwiththehig SUSPENDEDfromthepracticeofl
TTY.JAIMEF.ESTRA ted Rule 15.03; hestleveloftrustandconfidence. awforsix(6)monthswithaWARNI
BILLO, his CANON17 Thelegalprofessiondictatesthatitisnotamereduty,butanobligation,ofa.lawyerto'accor NGthatarepetitionofthesameorsi
secretaryto dthehighestdegreeoffidelity,zealandfervorintheprotectionoftheclient'sinterest.Thus,
milaroffensewillwarrant
draftandfilemotionsf partorthelawyer'sdutyinthisregardisto avoidrepresenting,conflictinginterests.
A.C.No.10553 orthecomplainantint Jurisprudenceistotheeffectthatalawyer'sactwhichinvitessuspicionof amoreseverepenalty.
hecivilcasefiledbyhisc unfaithfulnessordouble-dealing in the performance ofhisduty already
JULY05,2017 lientagainstthelatter. evincesinconsistencyofinterests.Inbroadterms,lawyersaredeemedtorepresentconflic
TIJAM, tinginterestswhen,inbehalfofoneclient,itistheirdutytocontendforthatwhichdutyto
anotherclientrequiresthemto oppose.
GROSSIGNORANCE OFTHELAW
639.ALFELOR v. JudgeDiazcarelesslyr Section8, Hon.DiazwascarelessindisposingtheMotionsfiledbycomplainant,inacriminalcasenol FINED in the amount
HON.AUGUSTUSC.DIA endered Rule140ofthe ess.TheOfficeoftheCourtAdministratorcorrectlyunderscoresthathisexperienceasap ofTHIRTYTHOUSAND
Z the RulesofCourt ublicattorneyandprosecutorshouldhaveingrainedinhimwell- PESOS
questionedDecisionc settleddoctrinesandbasictenetsoflaw.Hecannotberelievedfromtheconsequencesofhi
(₱30,000.00) tobe
onvictingAlfelorinthe sactionssimplybecausehewasnewlyappointedandhiscaseloadwasheavy.Thesecircum
A.M.No.MTJ-16- deductedfrom
saidnine(9)checkssub stancesarenotuniquetohim.Hiscarelessdisposition
1883JULY11,2017CAG jectoftheBPBig.22cas ofthemotionsisareflectionofhiscompetencyasajudge indischarging hisofficial duties. hisretirementbenefits.
UIOA es.Butthesubjectcrim
inalcaseinJudgeDiaz's
salapertainedtoonlyo
ne (1)check
.

REINSTATEMENT
640.RE: IN The SC Theprinciplewhichshouldholdtrueforlawyers,beingofficersofthecourt,isthatjudicial PETITIONDENIED
THEMATTER OF Atty.RolandoS.Torre clemency, asanact of mercy removing any disqualification,should
THEPETITIONFORREI sguilty of bebalancedwiththepreservationofpublicconfidenceinthecourts.Thus,theCourtwillgr
grossmisconductand antitonlyifthereisashowingthatitismerited.Proofofreformationand ashowingof
NSTATEMENT
violation potentialandpromise are indispensable.
OFROLANDO S. ofthelawyer'soath,
TORRESASA aswellasCanons1
MEMBER and10of the Code
OFTHEPHILIPPINEBA ofProfessionalRespo
R. nsibility,thereby
rendering
A.C.No.5161

558
 2017and2018CASES

JULY11,2017 himunworthy
PER CURIAM ofcontinuingmembe
rshipinthelegalprofe
ssion.Heisthusorder
edDISBARREDfro
mthe practice of
law,andhisname
isorderedstrickenoff
theRollof
Attorneys,
effectiveimmediatel
y.

HepetitionedtheCour
tforhisreinstatement.

641.RE: LETTER Itmustbestressedthatanyadministrativecomplaintleveledagainstajudgemustalwaysbe ComplaintsareDISMISSED.

OFRAFAELDIMAANO examinedwithadiscriminatingeye,foritsconsequentialeffectsarebytheirnaturehighlyp
REQUESTINGINVESTI enal,suchthattherespondentstandstofacethesanctionofdismissaland/ordisbarment.
Thus,theCourtcannotgivecredencetochargesbasedonmeresuspicionandspeculation.
GATION
Aschampion-atothertimestormentor-
OFTHEALLEGEDILLE oftrialandappellatejudges,thisCourtmustbeunrelentinginweedingthejudiciaryofunsc
GALACTIVITIESPURP rupulousjudges,butitmustalsobequickindismissing administrative
ORTEDLYPERPETRA complaintswhichserve no otherpurpose than to
TEDBYASSOCIATEJU harassthem.Whileitisourdutytoinvestigateanddeterminethetruthbehindeverymatteri
STICEJANEAURORA ncomplaintsagainstjudgesandothercourtpersonnel,itisalsoourdutytoseetoitthattheya
C.LANTION OF reprotectedandexoneratedfrombaselessadministrativecharges.TheCourtwillnotshir
THECOURT OF kfromitsresponsibilityofimposingdisciplineuponitsmagistrates,butneitherwillithesita
APPEALS,CAGAYAN tetoshieldthemfromunfoundedsuitsthatservetodisruptratherthanpromotetheorderly
administrationofjustice.Whenthecomplainant,asinthecaseatbar,reliesonmereconject
DEOROCITY,and a
uresandsuppositionsandfailstosubstantiateherclaim,theadministrativecomplaintmus
CERTAINATTY.DORO tbe dismissedforlack ofmerit.
THYS.CAJAYON
OFZAMBOANGACITY

559
 2017and2018CASES
A.M.No.17-03-03-CA

JULY11,2017
MENDOZA,

642. Atty. Canon1,Rule Asalawyer,Atty.Mercadoisexpectedtoactwiththehighestdegreeofintegrityandfairdeal SUSPENDEDtopracticeoflawfor

VICTORYv. Mercadohasanoutsta 1.01, and ing.Sheisexpectedtomaintainnotonlylegalproficiency,butalsoahighstandardofmoralit one(1)yearwithaWARNINGthat
ATTY.MARIAN ndingobligationwith Canon 7 y,honesty,integrityandfairdealingsothatthepeople'sfaithandconfidenceinthejudicials arepetitionofthesameorsimilaroff
SpousesVictory, ystemisensured.Shemust,atalltimes,faithfullyperformherdutiestosociety,tothebar,tot
JOS.MERCADO ensewillwarrant
asthe hecourtsandtoherclients, whichinclude promptpaymentoffinancialobligations
latter'sinvestmentsw amoreseverepenalty.
A.C.No.10580J hichthey
ULY12,2017TI coursedthroughther
JAM, espondentfellthroug
h.Tomakemattersw
orse,respondentissu
edseveralcheckstose
ttle
herobligation;unfort
unately,
saidchecksbounced.

643.IGNACIOv.A Atty.Alviarfailedtoatt Canon18and Acceptanceofmoneyfromaclientestablishesanattorney- REPRIMANDEDwithastemwarningt

TTY.DANIELT.AL endthescheduledarrai Rule18.03ofth clientrelationshipandgivesrisetothedutyoffidelitytotheclient'scause.Canon18oftheC hatarepetitionofthesameorsimilarac
VIAR gnmentdespitethehis e PRmandatesthatoncealawyeragreestohandleacase,itisthelawyer'sdutytoserve the twouldbedealtwithmoreseverely.Att
commitmenttoeither CodeofProfess clientwithcompetence anddiligence. y.DanielT.Alviarisorderedto
findawaytoattend,ors ionalResponsi RESTITUTEtocomplainanttheamou
A.C.No.11482 endacollaboratingcou bility ntofPhP97,000outofthePhpl00,000
nsel todo so. acceptancefee.
JULY12,2017T
IJAM,
NOTARIZATION
644.SAMONTEv. Atty.Jumamilfailed Rule 10.01, The Lawyer'sOathenjoinsevery lawyer not only toobeythe lawsofthe landbut Hisnotarialcommission,if still

560
 2017and2018CASES

ATTY.VIVENCIOV.J tofilethenecessarypos Canon10 and also torefrainfromdoing any falsehoodinoroutof courtorfromconsentingtothe existing,is
UMAMIL ition Rule 18.03, doing ofany incourt, and to conducthimselfaccording to the bestofhisknowledge herebyREVOKED,andhe
paper Canon18 anddiscretionwithall goodfidelity tothe courtsaswell astohisclients. Every isDISQUALIFIEDfrom
beforetheNLRC,whi ofthe Code lawyerisaservant of the law, andhastoobserve andmaintain therule of law
A.C.No.11668 beingcommissionedasa
chhadresultedintoana ofProfessional aswellasbe anexemplarworthy of emulation by others.It isbynomeansa
dverserulingagainsthi Responsibility; coincidence, therefore, thatthe core valuesofhonesty, integrity, notarypublicfor aperiod of two
sclient. andtrustworthinessare emphatically reiterated bythe Codeof (2)years.Finally,heisSTERNLY
JULY17,2017PERL 2004RulesonN ProfessionalResponsibility. WARNEDthat arepetition
AS-BERNABE otarialPractice ofthesameor similar
AttyJumamilowesentiredevotiontotheinterestoftheclient,warmzealinthemaintenanc offenseshall be
eanddefenseofhisclient'srights,andtheexertionofhisutmostlearningandabilitytotheen dealtwithmoreseverely.
dthatnothingbetakenorwithheldfromhisclient,savebytherulesoflaw,legallyapplied.T
hissimplymeansthathisclientisentitledtothebenefitofanyandeveryremedyanddefense
thatisauthorizedbythelawofthelandandhemayexpecthislawyertoasserteverysuchrem
edyordefense.Ifmuchisdemandedfromanattorney,itisbecausetheentrustedprivileget
opracticelawcarrieswithitthecorrelativedutiesnotonlytotheclientbutalsotothecourt,t
othebar,andtothepublic.Alawyerwhoperformshisdutywithdiligenceandcandornoton
lyprotectstheinterestofhisclient;healsoservestheendsofjustice,doeshonortothebar,an
dhelpsmaintaintherespectof the communityto thelegalprofession

Topic: Notarial Law

CastroandCasafrancisco ActsComplainedOf: LegalBasisofthe Charge: SC Ruling: Case Disposition:

vs. Attys.Bigay, Jr.
andSiapno, Jr. *Forgery *2004 Ruleson *Section3(a),Rule131oftheRulesofCourt(Rules)providesthateverypersonispres Dismissedasto
andSimulationofCont NotarialPractice umedinnocentofacrimeorwrongdoing.Thus,thisCourthasconsistentlyheldthat Atty.Bigay;
A.C. No. ractsof Sale;and anattorneyenjoysthelegalpresumptionthatheorsheisinnocentofthechargesagai
7824July 19, nsthimorheruntilthecontraryisproved,andthatasanofficerofthecourt,heispresu Atty.
2017 **Dereliction medtohaveperformedhisdutiesinaccordance withhisoath. Siapnorepri
ofDutybya notary manded.
Caguioa, J. public. **AstoAtty.Siapno'sliability,fromhisownadmissions,itcannot
bedoubtedthatheisguiltyofderelictionofdutyasanotarypublic.Itwasadmittedtha
t thequestioneddeedsof saleboretheimpressionof his

561
 2017and2018CASES
notarialseal.He,however,maintainsthat
hedidnotnotarizethesaiddocumentsandthathissignaturesthereinwereforged,w
hich,however,werenotproveninthiscase.Headmittedthathehasnosoleaccessan
dcontrolofhisnotarialsealasotherpersonscouldmakeuseofthesamewithouthisc
onsentorknowledge

Topic:Misuse of CourtProcesses

Dr. Aliciasvs. ActsComplainedOf: LegalBasisofthe Charge: SC Ruling: Case

Atty.Baclig Disposition:Cens
A.C. No. *ForumShopping * Canon 1 andRule *Inthisregard,Weemphasizethatthefilingofanotheractionconcerningthesames ure.
9919July 19, 12.04of the CPR. ubjectmatterrunscontrarytoCanon1andRule12.04ofCanon12oftheCPR.Cano
2017 n1oftheCPRrequiresalawyertoexerteveryeffortandconsiderithisdutytoassistint
hespeedyandefficientadministrationof justice andRule 12.04 ofCanon12
prohibitstheundue delay of a case
Tijam, J. bymisusingcourtprocesses.Wereiteratethatalawyerowesfidelitytothecauseofhis
client,butnotattheexpenseoftruthandtheadministrationofjustice.Thefilingofm
ultiplepetitionsconstitutesabuseofthecourt'sprocessesandimproperconducttha
ttendstoimpede,obstructanddegradethe administration of justiceandwill be
punishedascontempt of court.

Topic:Misconduct

HeirsofCarlosvs. ActsComplainedOf: LegalBasisofthe Charge: SC Ruling: Case Disposition:

Atty.Linsangan
A.C. No. *Acquisitionofprop *Sec. 3, Rule 13.08 *Anoathisrequiredoflawyerstoobeythelawsaswellastheordersofdulyconstitute Suspendedfrom
11494July 24, erty by dauthorities.ThelawtransgressedbyrespondentisArt.1491oftheCivilCodeforbi thepractice of law
2017 lawyerthatisthe ddinglawyersfromacquiring,bypurchaseorassignment,thepropertythathasbeen for 6months.
subject oflitigation. thesubjectoflitigationinwhichthey have takenpart byvirtueof theirprofession.

Tijam, J.
Topic: Conflict ofInterest

PacesIndustrial ActsComplainedOf: LegalBasisofthe Charge SC Ruling: Case Disposition:

Corp.vs. Atty.
Salandanan *Respondentasfor *Rule 15.03 of *Alawyerisprohibitedfromrepresentingnewclientswhoseinterestsopposethose Suspendedfrom
A.C. No. mercounseland Canon15,andCanon21 ofaformerclientinanymanner,whethertheyarepartiesto thePractice of law
1346July 25, ofthe CPR. for 3
2017

562
 2017and2018CASES
officerofPacesCorp.no thesameactionorontotally years.
w seeksto unrelatedcases.Theprohibitionisfoundedontheprinciplesofpublicpolicyandgo
Peralta, J. representanotherclient odtaste.IntheabsenceoftheexpressconsentofPacesafterfulldisclosuretoitofthec
againstsaidcorp. onflictofinterest,thelawyershouldhaveoutrightlydeclinedrepresentingandenteri
nghisappearance ascounselof theotherparty.
Topic: GrossMisconduct; Immorality

AnonymousComplaint ActsComplainedOf: LegalBasisofthe Charge: SC Ruling: Case Disposition:

vs. Judge Dagala
A.M. No.MTJ-16- *Brandishing *R.A. No. 10591; and Dismissedfromservicea
1886July 25, 2017 ofrifleinfrontof the *JudgeDagalaisnotalicensed/registeredfirearmholderofanykindandcaliber.Eve ndallhisbenefitsforfeite
public. **The New Code nassumingthatheislicensedtoown,possess,orcarryfirearms,hecanonlycarrythos d.
ofJudicial Conduct eclassifiedbylawassmallarmspursuanttoRA10591whichprovidesthatonlysmalla
PerCuriam **Sired a rmsmayberegisteredbylicensedcitizensorjuridicalentitiesforownership,possessi Perpetually
childoutsidemarriage. on,andconcealedcarry.ItbafflesushowJudgeDagalacametopossesssuchahigh- disqualifiedfromre-
poweredweapon.Worse,hehadtheaudacitytobrandishitinfrontofthepoliceando employmentinany
thercivilians.Misconducthasbeendefinedasanintentionalwrongdoingoradeliber governmentagencyor
ateviolationofaruleoflaworstandardofbehavior,especiallybyagovernmentoffici instrumentality.
al.Misconductisconsideredgravewheretheelementsofcorruption,clearintenttov
iolatethelaw,orflagrantdisregardof establishedrulesarepresent.

**Itismorallyreprehensibleforamarriedmanorwomantomaintainintimaterelati
onswithapersonotherthanhisorherspouse.Moreover,immoralityisnotbasedalo
neonillicitsexualintercourse.Itisnotconfinedtosexualmatters,butincludescondu
ctsinconsistentwithrectitude,orindicativeofcorruption,indecency,depravity,an
ddissoluteness;oriswillful,flagrantorshamelessconductshowingmoralindifferen
cetoopinionsofrespectablemembersofthecommunity,andaninconsiderateattit
udetowardgoodorderandpublicwelfare.Immoralityisarecognizedgroundforthe
disciplineofjudgesandjusticesundertheRulesofCourt.TheNewCanonofJudicial
ConductforthePhilippineJudiciaryrequiresjudgestoavoid"improprietyandthea
ppearanceofimproprietyinall theiractivities.

Topic: GrossNegligence

563
 2017and2018CASES
Sps. Navarrovs. ActsComplainedof: LegalBasisofthe Charge: SC Ruling: Case Disposition:
Atty.Ygona
A.C. No. *Forgery *The 2004 Notarizationisnotmerelyanemptyormeaninglessexercise.Itisinvestedwithpubli Disqualifiedfrombeingc
8450July 26, ofsignaturesin a Deed RulesonNotarial Practice, c interest,suchthatonly those qualifiedandauthorizedmay ommissionedasnotary
2017 of AbsoluteSale; and Rule II,Section1; and actasnotariespublic.Notarizationconvertsaprivatedocumentintoapublicone,m publicfor 2years.
aking itadmissible inevidence withoutfurtherproofofitsauthenticity.
Caguioa, J. **Failure to **The 2004 ThefailureonthepartofAtty.Ygonatorecordthetransactioninhisnotarialregister
recordtransactioni RulesonNotarial Practice, warrants a corresponding sanction.
n Section,Rule VI, Sec. 1.
theNotarialRegiste
Topic:Misappropriationof Client’sFunds
r.
SisonvsAtty. Valdez ActsComplainedof: LegalBasisofthe Charge: SC Ruling: Case Disposition:
A.C. No.
11663July 31, *Failure to *Rule 18.04, Canon18 *Whileitwasacknowledgedthatrespondentdidrendersomelegalservicestocompl Suspendedfrom
2017 renderlegal ofthe CPR; and ainantalbeitonlyintheinitiatorystage,itwasalsoestablishedthatrespondentfailedt thepractice of law
services; and odulyupdatehisclientonthedevelopmentsofthecase.Respondentcannotjustifyh for 3months.
Perlas-Bernabe,J. **Rule 16.01, Canon16 isnon-
**Failure to ofthe CPR. compliancebyshiftingtheblametocomplainantforfailingtomeethim,especiallys
accountcomplainant’s othathefailedtoinformhisclientof the pleadingsheneeded to sign.
money.
**Whencomplainantterminatedhisservices,thefactthatnocasehasbeenfiledsho
uldhavepromptedhimtoimmediatelyreturntocomplainanttheamountsintended
asbondandfilingfees.Hisfailuretoreturngivesrisetoapresumptionthathehasappr
opriateditforhisownuse,andtheconversionoffundsentrustedtohimconstitutesa
grossviolationofhisprofessionalobligationunderCanon16 of the CPR.

Topic:Notarial Law

Boersvs. ActsComplainedOf: LegalBasisofthe Charge: SC Ruling: Case Disposition:

Atty.Calubaqu
ib *Notarizationof *RulesonNotarialPracti *The appearance of the partiesto the deedhelpsthe notary public to Suspensionfor 2
A.C. No.10562, Aug. aDeed of Sale ce, RuleII, Sec. 1;and ensurethatthesignaturesappearingonthedocumentisgenuineandthatthedocum yearsfromthe practice
1,2017 withoutthe entitselfisnotspurious.Theirpresencealsoenablesthenotarypublic to ensure oflaw,
appearance of **Rule VI, Sec. that the documentwassignedfreely andvoluntarily. notarialcommissionisre
theproperparty 1ofthesame rules. vokedandperpetuallydi
inthepresence ofthe **Ifthedocumentdoesnotappearinthenotarialrecordsandthereisnocopyofitthe squalifiedfrombeingco
PerCuriam notarypublic;and rein,doubtisengenderedthatthedocumentwasnotreally mmissionedas

564
 2017and2018CASES
**Failure to notarized,sothatitisnotapublicdocumentandcannotbolsteranyclaimmade notary public.
enterinthe based on thisdocument. The failure of the notary public to
notarialregisterthe recordthedocumentinthenotarialregistryistantamounttofalselymakingitappeart
notarizeddeed. hat the documentwasnotarizedwheninfactitwasnot.
Topic: Conflict ofInterest

AFP-RSBS vs. ActsComplainedOf: LegalBasisofthe Charge: SC Ruling: Case Disposition:

Atty.Amora, Jr.
A.C. No. *Respondentrepresent *Rules15.01, 15.03, 21.01, *Alawyermustsecurethewrittenconsentofallconcernedpartiesafterafulldisclosu Suspendedfrom
11504Aug. 1, edconflictofinterest; 21.02 of reofthefacts.Heshouldhaveobservedtherequirementslaiddownbytherulesbyco thepractice of law
2017 and theCPRandtheLawyer’sO nferringwiththeprospectiveclienttoascertainassoonaspossiblewhetherthematt for 2years.
ath; and erwouldinvolveaconflictwithanotherclientthenseekthewrittenconsentofallthec
**Respondentused oncernedafterafulldisclosureofthefacts.Thus,itisthedutyofthelawyertodeclinee
PerCuriam confidentialinform mploymentinthiscircumstanceinviewoftheruleprohibitingrepresentationofcon
ationagainsthisfor flict ofinterests.
merclient.
**Inthecourseofalawyer-
clientrelationship,thelawyerlearnsallthefactsconnectedwithhisclient’scase,inclu
dingitsweakandstrongpoints.Suchknowledgemustbeconsideredsacredandguar
dedwithcare.Itbehooveslawyersnotonlytokeepinviolatetheclient’sconfidence,
butalsotoavoidtheappearanceoftreacheryanddouble-
dealingforonlythencanlitigantsbeencouragedtoentrusttheirsecretstotheirlawye
rs,whichisparamountin the administrationofjustice.

Topic: NeglectofClient’sInterest,MisappropriationofClient’sFund

Punla ActsComplainedOf: LegalBasisofthe Charge: SC Ruling: Case Disposition:

andSantosvs.Atty.
Villa-Ona *Failure of *Lawyer’sOath; and *Once a lawyertakesup thecause of the client, thatlawyerisduty-bound Disbarment:butsinces
A.C. No. 11149 torenderlegalservice toserve the latterwithcompetence andzeal, especially when he acceptsitfor he wasalready
fortheclients; and **Canon16, andRule afee.Thelawyerowesfidelitytosuchcauseandmustalwaysbemindfulofthetrustan beendisbarred,
16.03 of the CPR. dconfidencereposeduponhim.Moreover,alawyer’sfailuretoreturnupondemand sheisfinedbythe
**Failure to themoniesheholdsforhisclientgivesrisetothepresumptionthathehasappropriate courtforP40,000.00.
PerCuriam returntoclientuponthe dthesaidmoniesforhisownuse,tothe prejudice andinviolation of the
latter’sdemandsum trustreposeduponhim by hisclient.
ofmoney
intendedaspaymentfor
lawyer’s

565
 2017and2018CASES
fees.

Topic: NeglectofClient’sCase, Non-compliance withthe MCLE requirement

Cabilesvs. Atty. Cedo ActsComplainedOf: LegalBasisofthe Charge: SC Ruling: Case Disposition:

A.C. No.
10245Aug. 16, *Failure to *Canon17 and18, rule *Alawyer’sduty ofcompetenceanddiligenceincludesnotmerely Suspendedfrom
2017 filereplyandpost the 18.03 of the CPR; and reviewingthecasesentrustedtothecounsel’scareorgivingsoundlegaladvice,butal thepractice of law
requiredcash orsurety soconsistsof properly representing theclientbeforeanycourt for 1year.
bond; ***BM850 andCanon5of ortribunal,attendingscheduledhearings,preparingandfilingtherequiredpleading
the CPR. s,prosecutingthehandledcaseswithreasonabledispatch,andurgingtheirterminati
Del Castillo, J. **Failure to onwithoutwaiting for theclient orthe court to prod him to do
exertanyeffort so.However,inthe2caseswhichhewasdulycompensated,respondentwasgrosslyr
tofileComplaintdespit emissinhisdutiesascounsel.Heexhibitedlackofprofessionalism,andevenindiffer
ebeing paid; and ence,inthedefenseandprotectionofthecomplainant’srights
whichresultedinherlosing the 2 cases.
***Failure to
indicateinhisposition **ContinuinglegaleducationfortheIBPmembersisanadditionalrequirementtoe
paperhisMCLEcomp nablethemtopracticelaw.Non-compliancewiththeMCLE subjectsthe lawyerto
liance. be listedasa delinquentIBPmember.
Topic: Notarial Law

Iringanvs. ActsComplainedOf: LegalBasisofthe Charge: SC Ruling: Case Disposition:

Atty,Gumangan
A.C. No. *Failure to require *Rule IV, Sec. 2of *Apersonshallnotperformanotarialactifthepersoninvolvedassignatoryisnotper Prohibitedfrombeingc
8574Aug. 16, thepartiesto the the2004 Ruleson sonallyknowntothenotarypublicorotherwiseidentifiedbythelatterthroughcom ommissionedasnotary
2017 deedtopresentcompet NotarialPractice; and petentevidenceofidentity.Respondentviolatedtheseruleswhenhenotarizedthec publicfor 2years.
entevidence of ontractofleasewithoutcompetentevidenceofidentityofRenatoandCarmelo,the
identity;and **Rule VI, Sec. partiestothelease contract.
2ofthesame Rules.
Leonardo- De Castro, J. **Failure to include **Doubtswerecastastotheexistenceanddueexecutionofthelease,thusundermini
acopy of the ngtheintegrityandthesanctityofthenotarizationprocessanddiminishingpublicco
deedofsale in the nfidenceinnotarialdocuments.Notariespublicmustinformthemselvesofthefact
notarialreport. swhichtheyintendtocertifyandtotakenopartinillegaltransactions.Theymustguar
dagainstillegalorimmoralarrangements.

566
 2017and2018CASES
Topic:Misappropriationof Client’sFunds

Padilla vs. Atty. Samson ActsComplainedOf: LegalBasisofthe Charge: SC Ruling: Case Disposition:
A.C. No.
10253Aug. 22, *Failure *Canon15, 17, 18 and19, *Clientsareledtoexpectthatlawyerswouldalwaysbemindfuloftheircauseand,acc Suspendedfrom
2017 tocommunicate Rule 18.03 and19.01. ordingly,exercisetherequireddegreeofdiligenceinhandlingtheiraffairs.Ontheot thepractice of law
withtheclient; and herhand,alawyerisexpectedatalltimesahighstandardoflegalproficiency,andtode for 2years.
votehisfullattention,skillandcompetence to the case, regardlessof
Peralta, J. **Failure to itsimportance andwhether he
returntoclientoverpay acceptsitforafee.ThepersistentrefusaltoreturnPadilla’smoneyandcasefilesdespi
mentsevenafterdema tefrequentdemandsclearlyreflectshislackofintegrityandmoralsoundness;heiscli
n. ngingtosomethingthatdoesnotbelongtohim,andthatheabsolutelyhasnorightto
keeporuse,withoutPadilla’spermission.Lawyersaredeemedtoholdintrusttheircli
ent’smoneyandpropertythatmay come intotheirpossession.

Topic: Grave Misconduct,Dishonesty andFalsificationof Public Documents

Atty. Nava vs. ActsComplainedOf: LegalBasisofthe Charge: SC Ruling: Case Disposition:

JudgeArtuz
A.C. No. *FalsificationinhisPers *Rule 10.01 oftheCPR *Membershipinthebarisanintegralqualificationformembershipinthebench;his Dismissedasjudge
7253Aug. 29, onalData moralfitnessasajudgealsoreflectshismoralfitnessasalawyer.Thus,ajudgewhodis andrequired toshow
2017 Sheetforfailure to obeysthebasicrulesofjudicialconductalsoviolatesheroathasalawyer.Respondent causewhy she
disclose amaterialfact. deliberatelyandcalculatedlyliedinheranswerstothesubjectquestionstoconcealth shouldnot bedisbarred.
etruthandmakeitappearthatsheisqualifiedforthejudgeshippositionwhichsheno
wholds.AnemployeewholiesinhisPDSbecomesliableforfalsificationbecauseitis
PerCuriam anofficial document.

Topic: Notarial Law

Sta. Ana, etal. vs. ActsComplainedOf: LegalBasisofthe Charge: SC Ruling: Case Disposition:
Atty.Cortes
A.C. No. *Notarizationof12fals *Notarial Law andSec. *Respondent’sact ofnotarizingaforgeddeed Suspendedforthepra
6980Aug. 30, ifiedDeedsofDonatio 240of ofdonationoutsidehisterritorialjurisdictionisaviolationofhisdutiesasanotarypu ctice of law for
2017 nsoutside theRevisedAdministrative blic,aswellasablatantfalsificationofpublicdocuments.Thesignaturesonthedeeds 1year,
hisnotarialcommissio Code ofdonationweremere photocopiesattachedto thesaiddeeds. notarialcommissionr
Del Castillo, J. n’sjurisdictionandtheu Lawyersareinstrumentsintheadministrationofjustice.Asvanguardsofthe legal evokedanddisqualifie
seof aspuriousSPA system, they are expected to maintain not onlylegalproficiency but dasnotary publicfor
2

567
 2017and2018CASES
so that asale may also a highstandardof morality, honesty, integrity andfairdealing. years.
beeffectedthrough a
co-owner.
Topic: GrossMisconduct

Palma ActsComplainedOf: LegalBasisofthe Charge: SC Ruling: Case Disposition:

andMercadovs.Judge
Omelio *Perpetration *A.O. 125-2007, *Ajudgeshouldknow,oroughttoknow,hisorherroleasasolemnizingofficer.Resp FinedforP40,000.00sin
A.M. No.RTJ-10- ofmarriage Guidelineson ondentusedherauthorityasjudgetomakeamockeryofmarriage.Asajudicialofficer ce he
2223Aug. 30, 2017 scamincourt. theSolemnizationofMarri ,sheisexpectedtoknowthelawonsolemnizationofmarriages.Ajudgeisnotonlybo wasalreadybeenmetedo
agesby Membersofthe undbyoathtoapplythelaw; hemust also be conscientiousindoing so. utthepenalty of
Del Castillo, J. Judiciary Certainly,judges, bythe dismissalfora
verydelicatenatureoftheiroffice,shouldbemorecircumspectintheperformance previousinfraction.
oftheirduties.

Topic: Notarial Law

Sps. Chambon vs. ActsComplainedOf: LegalBasisofthe Charge: SC Ruling: Case Disposition:

Atty.Ruiz
A.C. No. *Notarizationofspuri *Sec. 2, Rule IV, Sec. *Respondentwasdoubtlynegligentintheperformanceofhisdutiesasanotarypubli Suspendedfrom
11478Sept. 5, ousAffidavitofLossa 2,Rule VIandSec. 5, c.Notonlydidhenotarizeanincompletenotarialdocument,buthealsoadmittedlyd thepractice of law
2017 ndRelease RuleIVofthe elegatedtohissecretaryhisdutyofenteringdetailsinhisNotarialRegister. for 1year.
ofMortgage 2004RulesonNotarialPra
Tijam, J. ctice Perpetually
disqualifiedbeing a
notary public.
Topic: UnlawfulRetentionofClient’sFund

Ojalesvs. ActsComplainedof: LegalBasisofthe Charge: SC Ruling: Case Disposition:

Atty.Villahermo
saIII *Failure to *Canon18, Rule *Moneyentrustedtoalawyerforaspecificpurposesuchasfortheregistrationofade Suspendedfrom
A.C. No. returnmoney 18.03,andCanon16 ofthe edandforexpensesandfeesforthetransferoftitleunder the name of the clientif thepractice of law
10243Oct. 2, intendedaspaymentfor CPR. not utilized, must be returnedimmediately for 6months.
2017 processing fee andtax. tohisclientupondemandtherefor.The lawyer’sfailure toreturnthe money
tohisclientupondemandgaverisetothepresumptionthathehasmisappropriateds
Peralta, J. aidmoney inviolationof thetrustreposedinhim.

568
 2017and2018CASES
Topic: Acting beyond thescope of authority

Cerilla vs. Atty. Lezama ActsComplainedOf: LegalBasisofthe Charge: SC Ruling: Case Disposition:
A.C. No.
11483Oct. 3, *Respondentactedbey *Canons5, 15, and17 *Theprimarydutyoflawyersistoobeythelawsofthelandandpromoterespectforla Suspendedfrom
2017 ond the ofthe CPR. wandlegalprocesses.Theyareexpectedtobeintheforefrontintheobservanceand thepractice of law
authorityconferredup maintenanceoftheruleoflaw.Thisdutycarrieswithit the obligation to be well- for 2years.
Peralta, J. onhimwhen he made informed of the existing lawsand to
theSPA given to keepabreastwithlegaldevelopments,recentenactmentsandjurisprudence.Unless
himasauthority theyfaithfullycomplywithsuchduty,theymaynotbeabletodischargecompetently
tosellthesubjectparcel anddiligently theirobligationsasmembersof the bar.
ofland.
Topic: Unauthorizedpractice of law

Bonifacio vs. Attys. ActsComplainedOf: LegalBasisofthe Charge: SC Ruling: Case Disposition:

EraandBragas
A.C. No. *Atty. Era isalleged *Sec. 27, Rule 138, *WhileAtty.Erawasservingsuspensionpreviouslyimposeduponhim,heappeare Atty. Era
11754Oct. 3, tobe engagedin ROC;and donbehalfofhiswinningclientsinthepublicauctionofthecondemnedproperties,a wassuspendedfromt
2017 theunauthorizedpracti ndnegotiatedwithBonifacio’schildrenasregardsthepaymentofjudgmentawards. hepractice of law
ceof law by **Canon9, CPR. TheseactsconstitutepracticeoflawbywhichAtty. Era wastemporarily for 3years.
Tijam, J. activeparticipationin restrainedfromdoing so.
thepublic auctionof Atty.
thepropertiesofcompla **Atty.Bragasoughtto Bragaswassuspende
inant. knowthatAtty.Era’sactsconstitutiveoflawpracticecouldonlybeperformedbyam dfromthepractice of
emberofthebaringoodstanding,whichthelatterwasnotatthattime.Hence,shesho law for 1month.
**Atty. uldnothaveparticipated tosuchtransgression.
Bragasiscomplained
to haveassistedAtty.
Era inthe above
Topic: GrossMisconduct citedacts.

AnonymousComplaint ActsComplainedOf: LegalBasisofthe Charge: SC Ruling: Case

againstJudgeBandong Disposition:Fine
A.M. RTJ-17- *Spending *Secs. 1 and2, Canon *Forajudgetoallowanactivity,andanunofficialoneatthat,totakeprecedenceovert dP40,000.00
2507Oct. 9, mostofhertime 6ofthe New Code heconductofhearingsistotallyunacceptable.Itisablatantdisregardoftheprofessio
2017 watchingtelevisioninhe ofJudicialConductfor nalyardstickthatalljudicialofficialsandemployeesmustdevote theirofficialtimeto
rchambers; thePhilippineJudiciary governmentservice.
Del Castillo, J.

569
 2017and2018CASES

**Delegation **Respondentcommittedapatentdeviationfromtheruleswhenshewrongfully
ofMediationcasest referred a non-mediatable case to her
ocourtpersonnel. staff,acourtstenographer,whowasnotanaccreditedmediator.Thiswasdespitethe
expectationthatasamemberof thebench, shenot onlyknowsthe
rulespromulgated
bytheCourtbutalsofaithfullycomplieswithit.Indeed,respondentisguiltyofgrave
misconduct.
Topic: GrossIgnorance ofthe Law/GrossIncompetence; GrossNeglectofDuty

Atty. Tamondong ActsComplainedOf: LegalBasisofthe Charge: SC Ruling: Case Disposition:

vs.Judge Pasal
A.M. No.RTJ-16- *Decisionofjudgeassail *Canon6, Sec. 5of *Disciplinaryproceedingsandcriminalactionsagainstjudgesarenotcomplementa *Complaintdismissed.
2467Oct. 18, 2017 ed onthe theNew Code of ryorsuppletoryof,norsubstitutefor,judicialremedies,whetherordinaryorextraor
groundthatitisnot JudicialConduct; and dinary.Ajudgecannotbecivilly,criminallyoradministrativelyliableforhisofficialac **FinedP2,000.00
LeonardoDe-Castro, J. inconformity ts,nomatterhowerroneous,provided he actson goodfaith.
withthelaw, **Rule 37, Sec. 4, ROC.
rulesorjurisprudence. **Everyjudgeshoulddecidecasespromptlyandexpeditiously,andshouldbecaref
ul,punctualandobservantintheperformanceofhisfunctionsfordelayinthedisposi
**Respondent’sfailuret tionofthecaseserodesthefaithandtheconfidenceofthe people inthe Judiciary,
o seasonably act onan lowersitsstandards, andbringsitintodisrepute.
MRby more than
6months.

Topic:Biased/Partiality of Prosecutors

Yagong vs. ActsComplainedOf: LegalBasisofthe Charge: SC Ruling: Case

Pros.MagnoandAsst. Disposition:Dism
Pros.Garcia *Respondentsindictedc *Lawyer’soathandtheC *Aprosecutormerelydeterminestheexistenceofprobablecause,andtofilethecorr issed.
A.C. No. omplainantforcriminal PR. espondinginformationifhefindsittobeso.Intheexerciseoftheirpowersandinthed
10333Nov. 6, caseswhen ischargeoftheirfunctionsandresponsibilities,prosecutorsenjoythepresumption
2017 hefiledhiscounter- ofregularity.Protectionisaffordedtothe membersof the barwhoare
affidavit. attimesmaliciously charged.
Complainantclaimedth
Peralta, J. atitisamoney making
schemeof
therespondents.

570
 2017and2018CASES
Topic: GrossIgnorance ofthe Law

Rectovs. JudgeTrocino ActsComplainedOf: LegalBasisofthe Charge: SC Ruling: Case Disposition:

A.M. No.RTJ-17-
2508Nov. 7, 2017 *Issuance of *Sec. 15, A.M. No. 04-10- *Wherethelawinvolvedissimpleandelementary,lackofconversancetherewithco In
aTPOagainstestablishe 11-SC; and nstitutesgrossignoranceofthelaw.Judgesareexpectedtoexhibitmorethanjustcur lieuofdismissalfromser
PerCuriam dlawandrules. soryacquaintancewithstatutesandprocedurallaws.Themistakecommittedbyther vice, ashe hasalready
Sec. 11, R.A. No. 9262. espondentisnotamereerrorofjudgmentthatcanbebrushedasideforbeingminor. retired, all
Thedisregardoftheestablishedruleoflawwhichamountstogrossignoranceofthel hisretirementbenefitsa
awmakesajudgesubjecttodisciplinaryaction.Apatentdisregardofthebasiclegalco reforfeited,
mmandsembodiedin the lawandtherulesconstitutesgrossignoranceofthe law excepthisaccruedleave
fromwhich noonemay be excused, not even a judge. credits.

Topic: GrossNeglectofDuty

Cabuello vs. ActsComplainedOf: LegalBasisofthe Charge: SC Ruling: Case Disposition:

Atty.Talaboc
A.C. No. *Failure to *Canon17 and18 *Amemberofthelegalprofessionoweshiscliententiredevotiontothelatter’sgenui Suspendedfrom
10532Nov. 7, providelegal oftheCPR. neinterest,andwarmzealinthemaintenanceanddefenseofhisrights.Anattorneyis thepractice of law
2017 services; and expectedtoexerthisbesteffortsandabilitytopreservehisclient’scause,fortheunwa for 1year.
veringloyaltydisplayedtohisclientlikewiseservestheendsofjustice.Verily,theentr
**Failure to ustedprivilegetopracticelawcarrieswithitthecorrespondingduties,notonlytothe
Peralta, J. returnupondemandt client,butalsoto the court, tothe bar, andto the public.
hemoney due to
Topic: GrossMisconduct client.

ValinandValin vs. ActsComplainedOf: LegalBasisofthe Charge: SC Ruling: Case Disposition:

Atty.Ruiz
A.C. No. *Forgery *Rule 1.01 and10.01 ofthe *A lawyermaybe disciplined for actscommittedeveninhisprivate Suspensionfromthep
10564Nov. 7, andFalsificationof a CPR, andthe capacityforactswhichtendtobringreproachonthelegalprofessionortoinjureitint ractice of law for
2017 Deedof Absolute Sale Lawyer’sOath. hefavorableopinionofthepublic.Thereisnodistinctionastowhetherthetransgres 2years.
sioniscommittedinalawyer’sprivatelifeorinhisprofessionalcapacity,foralawyer
maynotdividehispersonalityasanattorney at onetime and a mere
Gesmundo, J. citizenatanother.

**Further,thelawyer’soathenjoinseverylawyernotonlytoobeythelaws

571
 2017and2018CASES
ofthelandbutalsorefrainfromdoinganyfalsehoodinoroutofcourtorfromconsen
tingtothedoingofanyincourt.Everylawyerisaservantoflaw,andhastoobserveand
maintaintheruleofthelawaswellasbeanexemplarworthyof emulation by others.

Topic:Malpractice;GrossIgnorance ofthe Law; GrossMisconduct

Verano vs. Atty. Diores ActsComplainedOf: LegalBasisofthe Charge: SC Ruling: Case

A.C. No. Disposition:Disb
8887Nov. 7, *Excessof *Canon1, Rule 1.01 of *Indealingwithclientsorotherpeople,lawyersareexpectedtoobservethehighestd arred.
2017 authorityby theCPR egreeofgoodfaith,fairnessandcandorbothintheirprofessionalandprivatecapaciti
respondentwhenhe es.Thusanyformofdeceptionorfraudulentactcommittedbylawyerineithercapaci
misused the tyisnotonlydisgracefulanddishonorable,butalsoseverelyunderminesthetrustan
PerCuriam SPAgranted tohim. dconfidenceofpeopleinthelegalprofession.Itisalsowellsettledthatestafa,whichis
anactofdefraudinganotherperson,whethercommittedthroughabuseofconfiden
ce,falsepretensesorotherfraudulentacts,isacrimeinvolvingmoralturpitude,anda
groundtodisbarorsuspendalawyerasagrossmisconductunderSec. 27,Rule 138
of theROC.

673.TOPIC:Deceitful anddishonestact

CASE ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION

TITLE:GUILLE BASIS
NVS.ATTY.ARN ComplainantFreddie Guillenistheregisteredownerof the City GrillRestaurant. The Courthasrepeatedly emphasizedthat . WHEREFORE,
ADO He theninvitedrespondentAtty. Audie Arnadoand a certainCedric Ebo to TheCPRrules thepractice of law isimbuedwithpublic INVIEW OFTHE
jointhe restaurantbusiness. Each ofthemhad toshelloutP200,000.00 tomake violatedthe interestandthat a lawyerowessubstantialduties, FOREGOING,the
up a total capital of P600,000.00. following: notonly tohisclient,butalsoto CourtSUSPENDS Atty.
CASE NO.: AMemorandumofAgreement(MOA)wastherefore executedand the hisbrethrenintheprofession, tothe courts, and to AudieArnadofromthe
AC NO. 10547 businesswasformallylaunchedinMay 2003. Atfirst, everything wentsmoothly, Rule 1.01 the public, andtakespartin the administration of practiceof law for a
until Arnado'ssister-in-law andEbo'ssonparticipatedinthe justice, oneofthe mostimportantfunctionsofthe periodof one
DATE management,causingcomplicationsin thebusinessoperations, State, asanofficerof the court. Accordingly, (1)yearandWARNShimthat
OFPROMULGATI whichlaterforcedGuillenandhiswife to lawyersareboundtomaintain, notonlya a repetition ofthesameor
ON:NOV. 8, 2017 stepdownasgeneralmanagerandoperationsmanager, respectively. highstandard oflegal proficiency, butalso similaroffense shall be
Because ofthe disagreementsamong the parties, Guillenofferedthat ofmorality, honesty,integrity, andfairdealing. dealtwithmore severely.
PONENTE: hewouldwaive hisclaimsforprofits,providedthatArnadowouldreturn
Justice Diosdado theP200,000.00 that hepaidascapital. Arnadoallegedly
M.Peralta claimedthatsaidrefundwouldstillbe subjectto the billingsof the
ArnadoandAssociateLaw Firm.

572
 2017and2018CASES
674.Topic:Malpractice oflaw.

CASE ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION

TITLE:ROBI
ÑOLVS.ATTY. Sometime inJuly 2011, when C Five wasexploring Code Asthe Courthasdisciplinary RespondentAtty. Ana
BASSIG investmentoptions,respondentrecommendedthe purchase of a resortinLaguna, ofProfessionalRes authorityovermembersof the bar, We LuzB.Cristal isfoundguilty
with theassurancesthatthe title covering the property was"clean" and the ponsibility aretasked toresolvethe ofviolation ofRules16.01
CASE NO.: taxeswerefully paid. Relying onrespondent'srecommendation,C Five agreed to andLawyer'sOath instantcaseagainstAtty.Bassig. and16.03, Canon16 of the
AC NO. 11836 acquirethe property andcompletedthe paymentof the purchaseprice. violated CodeofProfessionalResponsibili
thefollowing:Secti In disbarmentproceedings, the ty.
Respondentvolunteeredandwasentrustedtofacilitate the on5,Rule burdenof proofrestsupon the Accordingly,
DATE transferandregistrationof the title ofthe property in C Five'sname. On 130 complainant16and sheisSUSPENDEDfrom
OFPROMULGATI September5,2011, complainantpersonally handed the sum ofP1, theproperevidentiary thresholdis thepracticeof law for a periodof
ON:NOV. 21, 2017 200,000.00torespondentatheroffice inMakatiCity, asevidenced substantialevidence. one (1)year,
byOfficialReceipt No. andisSTERNLYWARNEDthat
PONENTE: 10384 of evendate.The saidamountwasintendedtocover the expensesforthe Here, Robiñolfailedto discharge a
Justice Noel G.Tijam documentation, preparation, andnotarizationof theFinalDeed theburdenofproof.Forone, the repetitionofthesameorsimilaracts
ofSale,aswellaspaymentofcapitalgainstax, documentary stamptax, evidencesubmittedwasinadmissible.It willbedealtwithmore severely.
andotherfeesrelative to thesale andtransfer of the property. must benotedthatthe
receiptsshowingpayment of Atty. The suspensionin
More than a yearthereafter,however, no title wastransferredin CFive'sname. It Bassig toRobiñoland the promissory thepracticeoflaw shalltake
wasthendiscoveredthat thetitle coveringtheproperty isa FreePatent6 noteexecutedandsigned by Atty.Bassig effectimmediatelyuponreceiptby
issuedonAugust13, 2009, rendering anysale, assignment,or werephotocopiesof the original. respondent.
transferthereofwithin a period offive (5)yearsfromissuance ofthe title RespondentisDIRECTEDtoim
nullandvoid. Thus, formaldemand7wasmade uponrespondentto mediately file a Manifestationto
returntheP1,200,000.00 entrustedto her forthe the
expenseswhichremainedunheeded,prompting C Five tofile a Courtthathersuspensionhasstarte
criminalcomplaintfor Estafabefore the MakatiCity Prosecutor'sOffice, i.e., d,
NPS No. XV-05-INV-13D-1253,8 aswell asthepresentcase copyfurnishedallcourtsandquasi-
fordisbarmentbefore the IntegratedBar ofthe Philippines, i.e.,CBDCase No. judicial bodieswhere she
14-4321 hasenteredherappearance
ascounsel.

675.Topic:Grossimmorality, deceitful and fraudulentconduct, and grossmisconduct.

573
 2017and2018CASES
CASE ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION
TITLE:TUMBA
GA In a verifiedcomplaint1datedOctober9, 2001 fileddirectly with the Code The Courtagreeswiththe conclusionof WHEREFORE, the
VS.ATTY.TEOX Court,complainantnarratedthatshe ofProfessionalRes theIBPthatthe CourtfindsrespondentAtty.
ON metrespondentsometimeinSeptember1999.He wasthenthe City LegalOfficerof ponsibility actuationsofrespondentinthiscase Manuel P.TeoxonGUILTY
Naga City fromwhomcomplainantsoughtlegal advice. andLawyer'sOath showedhisfailure to live upto the ofgrossimmorality
CASE NO.: Aftercomplainantconsultedwithhim a few violated goodmoralconductrequired ofthe andisherebySUSPENDEDfrom
AC NO. 5573 times,hevisitedheroftenatherresidence andbroughtgiftsforher son, thefollowing: membersofthe legalprofession. thepracticeof law for a periodof
AlGregTumbaga. Respondentevenvolunteered tobethe godfather of AlGreg. three (3)yearseffective
DATE Inoneof hisvisits,respondentassuredcomplainant'smotherthatalthough CanonI,Rule1 uponnoticehereof, with a
OFPROMULGATI hewasalready marriedtoLuzviminda Balang, hismarriage wasasham .01 STERNWARNINGthat a
ON:NOV. 21, 2017 becausetheirmarriage contractwasnot registered.In view repetition
ofrespondent'spersistenceandgenerosity to herson, ofthesameorsimilaroffenseshallb
PONENTE: complainantbelievedhisrepresentationthat he waseligible to marry her. e punishedwith a more
JusticeTeresita Complainantaverredthat onDecember19, 1999,she severepenalty.
J.Leonardo-De movedinwithrespondentatthe Puncia ApartmentinNaga City. In April 2000,
Castro shebecamepregnant.Respondentallegedly wanted to have the
babyabortedbutcomplainantrefused. Afterthe birthof theirson,Billy John,
respondentspentmore time withthem.He usedtheirapartmentasatemporary law
office andhe livedthere fortwoto three daysat a time.
AfterBilly Johnwasbaptized, complainantsecured a Certificate
ofLiveBirthfromthe Office ofthe CivilRegistrarofNaga City andgave it to
respondentto sign.He hesitantly signeditandvolunteered tofacilitate itsfiling.
Afterrespondentfailedto file thesame,
complainantsecuredanotherformandaskedrespondenttosignittwice. On
February 15, 2001,the Certificate ofLive Birthwasregistered.

676.Topic:Dishonestconduct.
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION
Vicka marie isalosv.

574
 2017and2018CASES
Atty. Ana luz cristal ComplainantistheDirectorandTreasurerofCFiveHoldings,Management TheCPRrulesandca Aspractice oflaw consideredprivilege Atty. Ana Luz
&ConsultancyInc.RespondentwasCFive’sCorporateSec.andLegalCounselwhoh nonviolatedthe Cristalisbestowed by the State, lawyersare GUILTY of
CASE NO.: andleditsincorporationandregistrationwithSEC.CFivepurchasearesortinLagunaf following:
A.C. NO. 1182 romtherecommendationofRespondentthatithascleantitleandthetaxeswerefullyp violationofRules
aid.CfivehandedP1.2MtoRespondentfor the transferandregistration of the title Canon16 expected to maintainatalltimesa high 16.01 and16.03 Canon16
DATE property ofstandardof legal proficiency, morality, Code of
OFPROMULGATI evidencedbythereceipt.Afterayear,therewasnotitlethatwastransferredinCFive’sn Rule 16.01
Professionalhonesty, integrity andfairdealing and Responsibility.
ON:NOV. 22, 2017 ame.ItdiscoveredthatthetitlecoveringthepropertyisaFreePatentrenderinganysale,
assignmentortransferwithinaperiodof5yearsisnullandvoid.Thus,aformaldemand Rule 16 Accordingly,shemust conformtheirFour-foldduty in
PONENTE: wassenttorespondenttoreturntheP1.2Mbutrespondentunabletoproduce.Respon isSUSPENDEDfrompracticeacc
Associate dentallegedthatshepaidtheBIRRegistrationandotherexpensesasitemizedinaState of law for1 YEAR
JusticeEstela Perlas- mentofExpensesandshewasreadytoreturnthebalancebutCfiverefusedtoreceivet ordance with the valuesandnorms
Bernabe heamountandinsistingtheentire1.2M.Cfivefiledacriminalcomplaintanddisbarme andissternlyembodiedinthe code. Thus,Lawyers warnedthat a
ntcasebeforetheIBP.IBPheldthattherespondentwasadministrativelyliableandrec repetitionofthemay be disciplinedfor any conductthat same actswill be
ommending thesuspensionfromlegalprofessionfor 3 years. dealtwithmore
iswanting of the abovestandards severely
whetherintheirprofessional or
intheirprivate capacity. Also, Money
entrustedto a lawyer for aspecific
purposeshouldimmediately returned.
Failure
toreturnupondemandgivesapresumptio
nthat hehasappropriatedthesame
677.Topic:Grossmisconduct. forhisownuse inviolationof the
trustreposedtohimby hisclient.
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’S CASE
Suchactisa grossviolation ofgeneral
Atty. Torreset. al DISPOSITIONRULING
Vs.Atty. Dalanginet. CBDCase No. 11-3215 isa complaint1 forgrossimmorality, malpractice Code morality, aswell asprofessionalethics.
WHEREFORE,inlightof the
al andgrossmisconductfiledagainstAtty.Dalangin bythe following complainants: ofProfessionalRes Itimpairspublic confidence inthe
foregoing,The Courtfindsit the Courtrulesasfollows:
(1)Atty.Torres; (2)Felicidad O. Samatra (Samatra); (3)Alvaro; (4)Mary ponsibility legalprofessionanddeservespunishment.
appropriate to first
CASE NO.: DF.Noveras(Noveras); and(5)Generosa S. Camacho(Camacho). andcanonviolated addressthe matterof (1) InA.C.No.10758,respondentAtty.
AC. NO. 10758-60 thefollowing: Atty. Dalangin’s Bayani P.
The complaintimputeduponAtty. Dalanginseveralbreachesof hisdutiesasa DalanginisADMONISHEDtoimmediate recourse tothe bemore
DATE lawyer. First,itwasallegedthatAtty. Dalanginfiledagainstemployeesofthe Rule 18.03 prudentandcautiousinhandling his
OFPROMULGATI Judiciary and a fellow lawyergroundlesssuits, whichwere merelyprompted by Courtvia a petitionforpersonalaffairsanddealingswithcourtsandreview
ON:Dec. 5, 2017 hislossin a case andintendedto coveruphisnegligence ascounsel. Byhisacts, Canon18 thatquestionedthethe public, with aSTERNWARNING
Atty. Dalangincommittedgrossmisconduct, and Rules 1.02 and thatIBPBoardofGovernors'any repetitionof thesameorsimilaractsin
PONENTE: resolve toaffirm the the future shall bedealtwithmoreseverely;(2)

575
 2017and2018CASES
Justice breachedRule 18.03, Canon18, Rules1.02 and1.03, Canon1, andCanon11of 1.03 Investigating In A.C.No. 10759,Atty. Bayani P.
ANDRESREYE the CPR. DalanginCommissioner's isFINEDFive
S, JR, It appearedthatpriorto theinstitutionofCBDCase No.11-3215, Canon 1& ThousandPesos(₱5,000.00)
acomplaintfordisbannentwasfiledagainstAtty.Torresby Apolonia Canon11 recommendation on his for hisbreach ofRule 7.03,Canon 7of
Marzan(Marzan)and1V1elody Valdez (Valdez), whowere clientsofAtty. theadministrative liability, Code of Professional Responsibility,
Dalanginand the losing partiesinanunlawfuldetainercase decided by Presiding withnotwithstandingthe fact aSTERNWARNINGthat
JudgeEfren B.Mallare (Judge Mallare) of the MunicipalTrial Court(MTC)
amoreseverethat the Courthadnotyet sanctionwill be
ofSto.Domingo,Nueva Ecija. MarzanandValdez laterdisclosed to
Atty.Torresthat the filing ofthe disbarmentcase wasorchestrated byAtty. imposeduponhimfor anytaken a finalaction onthe repetitionof the
Dalangin, whoprepared the affidavitandinstructedthemto sameorsimilaroffense in
signitevenwithoutexplainingthe contentsandtenorofthe document. complaints the future; and(3)In A.C.No.
10760 andA.C. No. 10761,Atty. Bayani P.
Dalangin’spetitionforreview
isDENIED.The
CourtAFFIRMStheIntegratedBar of
thePhilippines(IBP)Boardof
Governors'ResolutionNo. XX-2013-
768datedJune 21, 2013
andResolutiondatedAugust8, 2014,
insofarasthe IBPBoardofGovernorsdismissed
the followingcomplaints:(1)CBDCase No. 12-
3369againstAtty.Rosita L. DelaFuente-
678.Topic:Damagesand injunction.
TorresandAtty. AvelinoAndres;
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING and(2)CBDCaseNo. 12-3458
CASE DISPOSITION
Fajardo againstAtty.Rosita L.DelaFuente-Torres.
Vs.JudgeNatino FajardochargedJudge Natinowith the violationof the Constitutionand CanonandCodeof The Courtagreeswiththe findingsand The
theRulesofCourtrelative tothe latter'sdispositionsinCivilCase No. the Courtagreeswiththerecommendationsof theInvestigating
CASE NO.: 202252entitledLetecia Jaroda Vda. De Lacson, etal. v.LeonardoE. Jiz, etal., a judicialconductvi findingsandrecommendationsJ
AMRTJ-16-2479 casefor annulmentoftitle anddeclaration of nullity ofdocuments ofsale uolatedthe ustice, asadopted bytheOCA except of theInvestigating Justice,as
withdamages, andinCivil CaseNo. 07-29 2 983 entitledPanay News, Inc. v. following: for the penalty charged. adopted bytheOCA except for
DATE RenatoMagbutay andRosendoMejica, anactionfordamagesandinjunction. the penalty charged.
OFPROMULGATI Specifically, assummarizedby Investigating Justice Pamela Canon 3 Indeed, asidefromFajardo’s
ON:Dec. 13, 2017 AnnAbellaMaxino(Justice Maxino)inherReportandRecommendation4 Rule 3.05 uncorroboratedallegations, the records Indeed, asidefromFajardo’sare
datedJune 4,2015, Judge Natinowascharged of thefollowing, towit: bereftofany proofto supportthe uncorroboratedallegations,
PONENTE: 1. Violation ofthe 90-day periodwithinwhich a case isto be theallegation on the intentionaldelay on recordsare bereft of any
Justice Noel G.Tijam resolved,countedfromthe date itissubmittedfordecision, inrelation to Civil proofthe release ofthe Civil CaseNo. 20225, to support the allegationonthe
Case
muchlessthe charge ofcorruption intentional delay onthe release
of the Civil Case No. 20225,

576
 2017and2018CASES

No. 20225. Fajardosaidthatthe case wassubmittedfordecision onJanuary23, againstJudge Natino.
2007, but a decisionthereonwasonly issuedon April21, 2010. In effect,the
decisionwasonly rendered more thanthree yearsafter the case Likewise, the allegedfalsification
wassubmittedfordecision. ofcertificatesofservice
2. Delay in the release oftheDecision.The decisioninCivil Case No. wasneverproven.Thereisno
20225wasdatedApril 21, 2010butaccording toFajardo, the clearevidence thatJudge
decisionwasreleased Natinointentionally,
only fourmonthsafter, oronAugust17, 2010. ifatall,falsifiedhismonthly certificate
3. Falsification of Certificateof Service, inthat, notwithstanding the ofservice. Admittedly,there may
factthatJudge Natinofailed toresolve the aforementionedcase within90 havebeen a delay in the renditionof
days,he adecisioninthiscasebut,
continued toreceive hissalary. asitappears,thisisanisolatedcase,
4. Failure toresolvethe matterscoveredintheMotion toShow whichcannotbethe basistosweepingly
Cause(Contempt), inrelation to CivilCase No. 07-29298. concludethatJudge
Natinohasbeenfalsifyinghiscertificateso
fservice tocontinuously receive
hissalary
muchlessthe charge
ofcorruptionagainstJudgeNatino.
Likewise, the
allegedfalsificationof
certificatesofservice
wasneverproven.Thereisnocleare
vidence thatJudge
Natinointentionally, ifatall,
falsifiedhismonthly certificate
ofservice.
Admittedly, there may have
beena delay in the rendition of
adecisioninthiscasebut,
asitappears,
thisisanisolatedcase,whichcannot
bethebasistosweepingly conclude
thatJudgeNatinohasbeenfalsifyin
g hiscertificatesofservice
tocontinuously receive hissalary.

2018CASES
679.Topic:FalsificationandGrossMisconductof the law.
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION
Romeo A.
AlmarioVs. Atty. On July 5, 2006, aComplaint forJudicial Code The Courtoptstosuspendrespondentlawyerasa notarypublic Atty. DominicaL.
DominicaLlera- PartitionwithDelivery of Certificate ofTitle, ofProfessionalR fortwomonths, instead of AgnoisherebySUSPENDEDasNotary
Agno docketedasCivil CaseNo. 061154162 (civil esponsibility,Can sixmonthsastheIBPhadrecommended. We are impelled bythe Public forthe
case),wasinstitutedbefore onandand2004 following reasonsfortaking thiscourse of action:first, the aforesaidinfractionfortwomonthsand
CASE NO.: theRegionalTrialCourt(RTC)of Manila bythe RulesonNotarial apparentabsence ofbadfaithinhernotarizing theSPA WARNEDthatthecommissionof a
AC No. 10689 hereincomplainantagainstthereindefendantsAngelita Practiceviolated inquestion; second,thecivilcase wherein the similarinfractionwillbe dealtwithmore
A.Barrameda andseveralotherpersons.It thefollowing: flawedSPAwasusedendedupin a judicialCompromise severely.
DATE wasthereinallegedthatcomplainantisthe sole Agreement; andfinally, thisisherfirstadministrative case since
OFPROMULGATI survivingregisteredowner of a parcel of landsituatedat shewascommissionedasa NotaryPublic in1973.In addition,
ON:Jan. 8, 2018 No. 973 DelPanStreet, SanAntonio,Tondo,Manila, respondentlawyerinvitesour
covered by

577
 2017and2018CASES
TransferCertificate ofTitle(TCT) No. 244909, andthatthe Canons 1 and attentionto thefactthatsheisalready in
PONENTE: defendantsthereinare co-ownersofthatparcel ofland by 10Section12 thetwilightyearsofherlife.
ChiefJustice virtue ofintestate succession.
MariaLourdesP. A.
Sereno

680.Topic:Ignorance ofthe law and/orissuance ofundue order.

CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION

Ret. Judge
AlpajoraVs. Atty Prior to thiscase, anintra-corporate case docketedasCivil Code Indubitably, the actsofrespondentwere inviolationof hisduty The
Calayan Case No. 2007-10 andentitled“Calayan ofProfessiona to observe andmaintain the respectdue tothe courtsofjustice CourtADOPTSandAPPROVEStheRe
EducationalFoundation Inc. (CEFI), Dr. Arminda Calayan, lResponsibilit andjudicial officersandhisduty toneverseek tomislead the solutionof theIntegratedBar of
Dr. yandCanonvi judge orany judicial officer. thePhilippines-Boardof
CASE NO.: Bernardita Calayan-Brion andDr. Manuel Calayanvs. olated In hislastditchattempttoescape liability, respondentapologized GovernorsdatedSeptember28, 2013.
AC No. 8208 Atty.RonaldoA.V.Calayan, Susan S. Calayan and thefollowing: fornot being more circumspectwithhisremediesandchoice of Accordingly, Atty.
DeannaRachelle S.Calayan,” wasfiledbefore the words.He admittedlosing objectivity andbecoming RonaldoAntonioV.
DATE RegionalTrialCourt(RTC)of Lucena Rule 11.04 emotionalwhile pursuingthe casesinvolvinghimand the CalayanisfoundGUILTY of
OFPROMULGATI Citydesignatedascommercialcourtandpresidedby Canon11 CEFI.The Court, however, reiteratesthat a lawyer’sduty isnot violatingThe Lawyer’sOathandThe
ON:Jan. 10, 2018 JudgeAdolfoEncomienda. tohisclientbutprimarily tothe administration ofjustice. Codeof ProfessionalResponsibility
RespondentwasPresidentandChairmanof theBoardof Tothatend,hisclient’ssuccessiswhollysubordinate. and he
PONENTE: TrusteesofCEFI.He signedandfiledpleadingsas“Special Hisconductoughtto, andmust always, isherebyorderedSUSPENDEDfrom
Justice Counselprose” forhimself. bescrupulouslyobservant ofthe law andethics. Any means, thepractice of law fortwo(2)years,with
AlexanderG.Gesmu Courtproceedingsensueddespite severalinhibitionsby nothonorable,fairandhonestwhichisresorted tobythe lawyer, aSTERNWARNINGthat
ndo judgestowhomthe case wasre-raffleduntil itwasfinally re- evenin thepursuit ofhisdevotionto hisclient’scause, arepetitionof the sameor a similar
raffled iscondemnableandunethical. offense willwarrantthe imposition
tocomplainant.Thereafter,complainantissuedanOmnibu ofamore severe penalty.
sOrder, datedJuly11, 2008 forthe creationofa
managementcommittee and the appointmentof
itsmembers.ThatOrderprompted the filing
oftheadministrative case againstthe Judge
Alpajora.Theadministrative case
againstcomplainantwasdismissed.
The Court, however, referred the
comment/oppositionwithcounter-complaintfiledby
complainantintheadministrative case against him to
theOffice of the BarConfidant(OBC)for appropriate
action.
After a mandatory conference before theIBP,
bothpartieswere directed tosubmittheirrespective
verifiedpositionpapers.
578

681.Topic:Grossunethical conduct.
CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED:
Tan Jr. Vs.
Atty.Haide Complainant, a self-made businessmanwith a
Gumba tailoringshop inNaga City, filed a
verifiedComplaintagainstrespondent, also a
CASE NO.: residentofNaga City, beforetheIntegratedBar of
AC no.9000 thePhilippines(IBP)-CamarinesSurChapter. Pursuantto
Section1, Paragraph3,Rule 139-Bof theRevisedRulesof
DATE Court, asamended,the saidChapterforwarded
OFPROMULGATI thecomplaint to the
ON:Jan. 10, 2018 IBPBoardofGovernorsforproperdisposition.
PONENTE: Complainantnarratedthatsometime
JusticeMarianoC. inAugust2000,respondentaskedto be lent₱350,000.00.
Del Castillo Respondentassuredhimthatshe wouldpay the
principalplus12%interestperannumafteroneyear. She
likewise offeredby way of security a 105-square-
meterparcel of landlocatedinNaga City, covered by
TransferCertificate ofTitle (TCT)No.
2055[3]andregisteredinherfathersname.
Respondentshowedcomplainant a SpecialPowerof
Attorney (SPA)executedby respondentsparents,
andverbally assuredcomplainantthatshe wasauthorized
tosell or encumberthe entire property.
Complainantconsultedone Atty.RaquelPayte
andwasassuredthatthe documentsprovided
byrespondentwere valid.
Thus, complainantagreed tolendmoney
torespondent.With the helpofAtty.Payte,
respondentexecutedincomplainants favoranopenDeed
of Absolute Sale overthe saidparcelofland, attaching
thereto the SPA.Complainantwasmadeto believe
thatifrespondentfailstopay the fullamount of the
loanwithinterestondue date, the deed ofsale maybe
registered.
Accordingly, he gave the amountof₱350,000.00
torespondent.
2017and2018CASES
LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION
Code We furthernote thatafterfiling a RespondentAtty. Haide B.Vista-
ofProfessionalR MotionforExtensionofTimetoFile a Responsive Pleading, Gumba isfoundadministratively
esponsibilityand respondentwantonlydisregardedthe lawfulordersofthe IBP- liablefor grave misconduct. She
Canonviolated CBDtofile heranswerand toappearforthe mandatory isSUSPENDEDfrom thepracticeoflaw
thefollowing: conferencesdespitedue notice. for SIX
Respondentshouldbearinmindthatshe mustacknowledge the (6)MONTHS,effectiveimmediately,
Canon1,Rule ordersofthe IBP-CBDindeference toitsauthority overherasa with a warningthat arepetitionof the
1.01 member ofthe IBP. sameor a similaractwill be
Complainant now asksthatrespondent be disbarred. dealtwithmore severely.
Canon 7 Wefind,however, thatsuspensionfrom the practice of law
issufficientto discipline respondent.It isworthstressingthat
thepower todisbarmustbe exercisedwithgreatcaution.
Disbarmentwillbe imposedasa penalty onlyin a clearcase of
misconductthatseriously affectsthestandingand the characterof
thelawyerasanofficerof the courtanda memberof the bar.
Where anylesserpenalty canaccomplish the enddesired,
disbarmentshouldnot be decreed. In thiscase, the Courtfindsthe
penaltyof suspensionmore appropriate butfindsthe
recommendedpenalty of suspensionforone year too severe.
Considering thecircumstancesofthiscase, the Courtbelievesthat
a suspension ofsix monthsissufficient. Afterall, suspensionisnot
primarily intendedasa punishment, butasa meanstoprotectthe
public andthe legalprofession.
579
 2017and2018CASES

682.Topic:Disbarrable actor actuation.

CASE TITLE: ACTSCOMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’SRULING CASE DISPOSITION

DomingoVs.
Atty.Revilla Jr. The complainantisanAmericancitizen of Filipinodescent. Code The Courthasconsistently held, inrespectof thisRule, thatthe WHEREFORE, the
During a visit to the Philippinesin2000, hesoughtthe ofProfessiona mere failure of the lawyer to performthe obligationsduetothe CourtFINDSANDDECLARESA
CASE NO.: servicesof a lawyer to handle the casesto lResponsibilit clientisconsideredper sea violation.31 TTY.ANASTACIOREVILLA, JR.
AC No. 5473 befiledagainsthiscousinMelchorArruiza and to work yandCanonvi GUILTY ofviolatingRule
onthe settlementof the estateof hislate olated Despite the factthatthe complainantengagedhis 1.01ofCanon1, Rules15.06
DATE motherJudithArruiza. In April 2000, thefollowing: servicesandadvanced sumsof money tocover the and15.07of
OFPROMULGATI petitionermetrespondent, alawyerrecommended bya courtfeesandrelatedexpensesto be incurredalong the way, the Canon15, andRule 18.03ofCanon18of
ON:Jan. 23, 2018 friend. Petitionerinformedrespondentabouthisneedfor Rule 1.01 respondentdid notfile the the Code ofProfessionalResponsibility,
theservicesof a lawyerfor the rescission Canon 1 petitionforannulment.Hisconductwasreprehensiblebecause but, inview of hiscontinuing
PONENTE: ofMelchorArruiza'sadoptionandforthe settlementof itamountedto dishonesty andplaindeceit. Hisfilingof the disbarment,herebyMETESthe penalty
PERCURIAM hismother’sestate. Rules 15.06 and petitionfor annulmentlater on did notmitigate hissinbecause he of FINEofP100,000.00.
15.07 Canon15 didsoonly because he hadmeanwhile received
The complainantallegedthat the respondentrepresented thecomplainant’sdemandletterthatcontainedthe threat Thisdecisionis
to himthathewouldtake on the casesinbehalf ofthe law Rule 18.03 of offilingadministrative chargesagainsthim.Moreover, IMMEDIATELYEXECUTORY.
firm of AgabinVerzola HermosoLayaoen& De Castro, Canon18 herepeatedlydid not inform the complainant on the
where he workedasanassociate.He actualstatusofthepetitionalthough the latterregularly soughtto
assuredpetitionerthatthe law firmwasable andwilling to be updated.
actashislegalcounselinthe casesheintended to institute Instead, the respondentkepton making
againsthisadoptedbrother, andtoundertake the upexcusesandconjureduppretensestomake itappearthatthe
transferofhismother’spropertiestohisandhischildren’sna case wasmoving along.
mes.Trusting the representationsof respondent, the
complainantagreed to engagerespondentandhislaw
firm,andpaid the initialamountof P80,000.00.

580