22. JUNIELITO R. ESPANTO vs. ATTY.

ERWIN Junielito lamented that when he got hold of the Deed of

BELLEZA (AC No. 10756, 21 February 2018) Absolute Sale8 executed by Nelia and Irene, which was
prepared and notarized by Atty. Belleza, he then realized that
Before us is the verified Complaint1 of Junielito R. Espanto the latter defrauded him as shown by the fact that he
(Junielito) against Atty. Erwin V. Belleza (Atty. Belleza) for .facilitated the sale without his knowledge. Junielito felt
grave misconduct, malpractice, deliberate falsehood, violation aggrieved as they agreed that Atty. Belleza and Nelia will
of oath of office and violation of the Co~e of Professional inform him should there be a buyer of the property so he can
Responsibility in connection with the demolition of participate in the sale transaction, considering that his house
complainant's 2-storey residential house situated at Barangay sits on a portion of Nelia's property. However, not only did
Maya, MacArthur, Leyte, without his knowledgehis Atty. Belleza fail to inform him of the sale of the property, but
andwill.against they also had his house demolished without his knowledge and
consent, and without permit from the municipal government.
Complainant alleged that he is the owner of a 2-storey concrete
residential house situated on a lot covered by Original Likewise, Junielito pointed out that in his Counter-Affidavit9
Certificate of Title No. P-43641,2 which was sold by his father dated April 30, 2011 Atty ..Belleza lied when he stated therein
to him on January 12, 2001. Junielito alleged that sometime in that Civil Case No. 75 has been decided with finality, when in
2006 while working abroad, he was informed that Nelia truth and in fact,case said has yet to be decided with finality as
Alibangbang-Miller (Nelia), their neighbor, was claiming that shown by the Certification10 dated May 19, 2011 issued by
his house was encroaching on a portion of the adjoining lot she Melba Lagunzad, Clerk of CourtMacArthurII,13thMCTC,-
bought. Thereafter, Nelia filed a case for Recovery of Mayorga, MacArthur, Leyte. Junielito also alleged that in the
Possession with Damages before the Municipal Circuit Trial Counter-Affidavit11 dated April 30, 2011 of the Spouses
Court (MCTC) of MacArthur-Mayorga, MacArthur, Leyte, Miller, they lied when they made it appear that the PS0,000.00
docketed as Civil Case No. 75 against the Espantos.4 However, was given to him out of pity when in fact it was a partial
Junielito asserted that he was not included as party to said payment and guarantee that he will be informed of the sale
complaint despite Nelia's allegation that his house was should there be anyone interested to buy his property.
encroaching on the latter's lot.
Junielito expressed his frustration as he believed that Atty.
In January 2009, after Junielito went back to the Philippines, Belleza, a lawyer, was supposed to be an instrument in the
he averred that Nelia would always harass him to pay the administration of justice. However, given his above-mentioned
portion of the land allegedly being encroached upon by his actuations and behavior, Atty. Belleza not only failed to
house. He complained that Nelia threatened him and his family observe his duty and obligations as a lawyer but he likewise
that she would demolish their houses as she already won in the showed his unfitness to be retained as member of the bar. He,
case she filed against his brother, sister and mother. thus, pray that Atty. Belleza be suspended or disbarred from
the practice of law.
On November 22, 2010, through a letter,5 Atty. Belleza
notified Junielito that he is given seven (7) days to vacate the On October 7, 2011, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-
subject property of his client, Nelia. After seven days, Nelia Commission on Bar Discipline (JBP-CBD), ordered Atty.
posted a notice on the door of his house stating "To: Lita, your Belleza to submit his Answer on the complaint against him. 12
7 days is up! Nelia Miller," and padlocked the gate of
Junielito's house. 6 In his Answer 13 dated November 10, 2011, Atty. Belleza
countered that there was already a Compromise Agreement
On December 1, 2010, Junielito alleged that Atty. Belleza between the parties in Civil Case No. 75, which was approved
went to his house and threatened him that they will file a writ by the court on December 27, 2006. 14 He, likewise, claimed
of execution to demolish his house if he will not agree to sell that he merely typed and printed the acknowledgment receipt
and vacate his house. Junielito lamented that while he initially and served as witness to the issuance of the same. He further
refused, he eventually gave in as he was already tired of his denied that he had any participation in the demolition of
situation. complainant's house.
On the same day, because Junielito was initially reluctant, In its Report and Recommendation 15 dated July 19, 2012, the
Nelia and Atty. Belleza assured him that he will be informed IBP-CBD recommended that Atty. Belleza be suspended from
of the final details of the sale should there be a buyer of the the practice of law for six ( 6) months for his deliberate
property. Junielito alleged that Atty. Belleza drafted an disregard of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
acknowledgment receipt7 where it was indicated therein he Responsibility.
that received the amount of PS0,000.00 as a partial
payment, heand that will receive the final percentage of the However, the IBP-Board of Governors, in Notice of
sale price when the property of Nelia is sold .. Thereafter, Atty. Resolution No. XX-2013-761, 16 dated June 21, 2013, resolved
Belleza and the Spouses Miller told him to vacate the house to to adopt and approve with modification the Report and
facilitate its sale and to be able to make the necessary repairs Recommendation of the IBP-CBD, and instead suspended
to which he complied as he believed their sincerity and Atty. Belleza from the practice of law for three (3) months.
honesty.
We concur with the findings and recommendation of the IBP-
Thus, in the morning of February 14, 2011, Junielito was CBD.
surprised to receive a text message from his niece, Elenita
Pille, informing him that his46 house was being demolished Well established is the rule that administrative cases against
with the participation of Nelia and a certain Irene Tano (Irene), lawyers belong to a class of their own. These cases are distinct
allegedly the buyer of the property. from and proceed independently of civil and criminal cases. 17
Public interest is its primary objective, and the real question information if they knew that he has no right whatsoever with
for determination is whether or not the attorney is still a fit the property being sold.
person to be allowed the privileges as such. Hence, in the
exercise of its disciplinary powers, the Court merely calls upon It should also be pointed out that Atty. Belleza neither denied
a member of the Bar to account for his actuations as an officer the existence of the acknowledgment receipt nor the fact that
21
of the Court with the end in view of preserving the purity of he signed the same. Thus, given the foregoing
the legal profession and the proper and honest administration circumstances, it can be presumed that Atty. Belleza knew that
of justice by purging the profession of members who by their the sale of the property will necessarily affect Junielito.
misconduct have proven themselves no longer worthy to be Consequently, when they sold the property of Nelia without
entrusted with the duties and responsibilities pertaining to the informing Junielito despite their agreement to such effect,
office of an atfotney. 18 Corollarily, We will limit the issue on Atty. Belleza not only breached their agreement and betrayed
whether Atty. Belleza committed transgressions that would Junielito's trust; he also instigated a malicious and unlawful
question his fitness to practice law, and thus, refrain from transaction to the prejudice of Junielito.
discussing issues that are judicial in nature.
Furthermore, .even assuming there was already a compromise
Canon 1 clearly mandates the obedience of every lawyer to agreement, it was malicious to sell Nelia's property without
laws and legal processes. To the best of his ability, a lawyer is complying with the conditions and agreements set forth
expected to respect and abide by the law and, thus, avoid any therein. Atty. Belleza knew that one of the issues sought to be
act or omission that is contrary thereto. A lawyer's personal resolved in said case was the issue on whether Junielito's house
deference to the law not only speaks of his character but it also was encroaching on Nelia's property. However, said issue
inspires respect and obedience to the law, on the part of the could not be resolved without settling the boundaries of the
public. 19
· lots, which explains why the compromise agreement contained
provisions for a relocation survey. For clarification, We quote
Given the facts of the case, we find that Atty. Belleza failed to the pertinent portion of the compromise agreement as thus:
exercise the good faith required of a lawyer in handling the
legal affairs of his client. Even without touching the issue of Parties agreed to relocate the subject properties designated as
the subject properties' ownership, Atty. Belleza cannot deny Cadastral Lot Nos. 127, and 159;
that the subject property sold by Nelia to Irene was still
Parties agreed that a commissioner be appointed by the Court
pending litigation due to the alleged encroachment of
to conduct the relocation survey which be (sic) composed of a
Junielito's house on the property of Nelia. It was precisely the
qualified and licensed geodetic engineer from the office of the
reason why they filed a complaint for recovery of possession
Land and Surveys Division of the Department.Environment
against Junielito's relatives. Moreover, when Atty. Belleza sent
and Natural Resources, Sto. Niiio, Extension, Tacloban City;
a notice to vacate Nelia's property to Junielito on November
22, 2010, the civil case was still pending litigation. Parties likewise agreed that if ever it will be found out by the
result of the survey that indeed defendants encroached a
As noted by the IBP-CBD, the acknowledgment receipt of
portion of the land of the plaintiff designated as Cadastral Lot
PS0,000.00 issued by Nelia as witnessed and signed by Atty.
No. 159, parties have the following options:
Belleza is an evidence by itself that he had knowledge of
Junielito's interest on the property even if he disputes the Defendants will buy from the plaintiff the whole area
latter's ownership of the subject property. We quote the encroached at a reasonable price; or
acknowledgment receipt for clarification, to wit:
If defendants cannot afford, defendants shall buy only the area
I, LITO ESP ANTO acknowledge receipt of the sum of Fifty encroached which the house of the defendant is located with
Thousand (50,000.00) pesos, Philippine Currency from Nelia reasonable yard at reasonable price and defendant shall vacate
Miller as partial payment towards sale of "house". I the remaining area to and transfer the unoccupied portion of lot
acknowledged I will receive a final percentage of sale price 127 vacated by the heirs of Onofre Lagarto provided further
when house and lot by Nelia Miller is ultimately sold. Final that plaintiff will be responsible to the heirs of Onofre Lagarto
sales details will be disclosed immediately to me when all for them to remove their house; or c. Plaintiff shall buy the
property is sold and final payment will be made at that time. I value of the house at a reasonable price;
acknowledge sale price cannot be "predetermined" due to
economic conditions. 5. That if ever if (sic) it's found outrelocationbythe survey that
the defendants have not encroached the land of the plaintiff
Upon review of the foregoing acknowledgment receipt, it can designated as Cadastral Lot No. 159, then, plaintiff will not
be inferred that Junielito acknowledged that he received disturb the peaceful possession of the defendants and would
PS0,000.00 as partial payment and that he will receive the final voluntarily dismiss the above-entitled complaint;22
percentage of sale price when house and lot by Nelia is sold. It
likewise stated. therein that Junielito has the right to be However, when Junielito's house was demolished on February
informed of the final sale price and other details related to the 14, 2011, it appears that no relocation survey was conducted
sale. Considering that Junielito was in fact paid albeit partial on the subject properties. In fact, in Order23 dated April 4,
and was given the right to be informed of the final sale details, 2011, the court ordered the appearance of the parties in Civil
it clearly shows that Nelia and Atty. Belleza recognized Case No. 75 since while there was already a compromise
Junielito's interest as an owner although it pertains only to a agreement entered into by them, the court wantedverifyto if a
portion of Nelia's property where his house sits. Why else relocation survey has been conducted on the lots subject of the
would they agree on informing Junielito of such material case as the records were bereft of any showing that a
commissioner's report has been submitted to the court.
Atty. Belleza should know that a compromise agreement once evidenced by a certification issued by Clerk of Court Melba E.
approved by final order of the court has the force of res Lagunzad of the 13th MCTC of MacArthur-Mayorga,
judicata between the parties and should not be disturbed MacArthur, Leyte on May 19, 2011.31
except for vices of consent or forgery. 24 Hence, when a
decision on a compromise agreement is final and executory; it In his last ditch effort to exonerate himself, Atty. Belleza
has the force of law and is conclusive between the parties. denied that he or his client consented or had knowledge or
Compromise agreements are contracts, 25 and contractual participated on the demolition and pointed instead on the
obligations between parties have the force of law between buyer, Irene, as the sole perpetrator of the illegal demolition.
them and absent any allegation that the same are contrary to We are, however, unconvinced since the demolition
law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy, they
would not have happened if Atty. Belleza andclienthis did not
must be complied with in good faith. 26 Thus, when Atty.
sell the subject property to Irene in violation of the
Belleza ignored the provisions of the compromise agreement
compromise agreement and while Civil Case No. 75 is still
and proceeded with the sale of the property even without the
pending litigation. Thus, Atty. Belleza cannot wash his hands
relocation survey, there is no question that he wantonly
from liability as to the illegal demolition of complainant's
violated Canon 1 of the CPR.
house since in the first place, he facilitated the sale of the
Moreover, as found during the mandatory conference before subject property.
the IBP, Atty. Belleza knew that complainant was not a party
Clearly, Atty. Belleza's actuations which resulted in the
in Civil Case No. 75, albeit, his 2-storey concrete residential
demolition of Junielito's house violates Canon 1 of the Code of
house appeared to be encroaching on Nelia's property. Thus,
Professional Responsibility which mandates that a lawyer must
even assuming that there was a valid compromise agreement in
uphold the Constitution and promote respect for the legal
Civil Case No. 75, said judgment based on compromise
processes. Infact, contrary to this edict, Atty. Belleza's acts of
agreement will not bind complainant. Consequently, even· if
demanding Junielito to vacate his house, and the selling of the
there was already a writ of execution, the same will not
property while Civil Case No. 75 was still pending, he violated
likewise bind complainant. Moreso, while Atty. Belleza claims
the basic constitutional right of Junielito not to be deprived of
that there was a valid compromise agreement, he, however,
a right or property without due process of law.
failed to show that there was a demolition order issued 'by the
court. There was likewise no demolition permit issued by the Despite his assertions of good faith, the Court cannot turn a
local government. 27 blind eye on Atty. Belleza's acts of: (1) issuing the notice to
vacate to Junielito while the case was still pending litigation;
It is basic that there could be no demolition of building or
(2) failing to inform Junielito of the sale of Nelia's property in
structures without a writ of exe~ution and demolition issued by
contravention to the stipulation in the acknowledgment receipt;
the court. This Court in a number of decisions held that even if
and (3) facilitating, drafting and notarizing of the deed of sale
there is already a writ of execution, there must still be a need
between Nelia and Irene in violation of the compromise
for a special order for the purpose of demolition issued by the
agreement due to the absence of relocation survey. If the Court
court before the officer in charge can destroy, demolish or
allows these irregular practice for the reason that lawyers are
remove improvements over the contested property. 28 . The
constrained to suit their client's interests, the Court would, in
pertinent provisions are the following:
effect, sanction impropriety and wrongdoing.
Before the removal of an improvement must take place, there
We note that while lawyers owe entire devotion to the interest
must be a special order, hearing and reasonable notice to
of their clients and zeal in the defense of their client's right,
remove. Section 10( d ), Rule of the Rules of Court provides:
they should not forget that they are officers of the court, bound
Removal of improvements on property subject of execution. to exert every effort to assist in the speedy and efficient
When the property subject of execution contains improvementsadministration of justice. Canon 19 of the Code of Professional
constructed or planted by the judgment obligor or his agent, Responsibility mandates lawyers to represent their clients with
the officer shall not destroy, demolish or remove said zeal but within the bounds of the law. They should not,
improvements except upon special order of the court, issued therefore, misuse the rules of procedure to defeat the ends of
motionupon of the judgment obligee after due hearing and justice or unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a
after the former has failed to remove the same within a judgment or misuse court processes.32
reasonable time fixed by the court.
Time and again, the Court has reminded lawyers that their
The above-stated rule is clear and needs no interpretation. If support for the cause of their clients should never be attained at
demolition is necessary, there must be a hearing on the motion the expense of truth and justice. While a lawyer owes absolute
filed and with due notices to the parties for the issuance of a fidelity to the cause of his client, full devotion to his genuine
special order of demolition.29 interest, and warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his
rights, as well as the exertion of his utmost learning and
The requirement of a special order of demolition is based on ability, he must do so only within the bounds of the law. It
the rudiments of justice and fair play. It frowns upon needs to be emphasized that the lawyer's fidelity to his client
arbitrariness and oppressive conduct in the execution of an must not be pursued at the expense of truth and justice, and
otherwise legitimate act. It is an amplification of the provision must be held within the bounds of reason and common sense.
of the Civil Code that every person must, in the exercise of his His responsibility to protect and advance the interests of his
rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, client does not warrant a course of action propelled by ill
give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith. 30 motives and malicious intentions.33
Furthermore, it appeared that when the demolition was made
on February 14, 2011, the case has not yet attained finality as PENALTY
Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court, a
member of the Bar may be disbarred or suspended on any of
the following grounds:
deceit; (2) malpractice or other gross misconduct in office; (3)
grossly immoral conduct; (4) conviction of a crime involving
moral turpitude; (5)
violation of the lawyer's oath; ( 6) willful disobedience of any
lawful order of a superior court; and (7) willful appearance as
an attorney for a party without authority. A lawyer may be
disbarred or suspended for misconduct, whether in his
professional or private capacity, which shows him to be
wanting in moral character, honesty, probity and good
demeanor, or unworthy to continue as an officer of the court.
Respondent failed to pay her loan when it fell due. And despite
repeated demands, she failed to settle her obligation.
Complainant attempted to register the Deed of Absolute Sale
with the RD of Naga City but to no avail because the aforesaid
SPA only covered the authority of respondent to mortgage the
property to a bank, and not to sell it.6
Complainant argued that if not for respondent's
misrepresentation, he would not have approved her loan. He
added that respondent committed dishonesty, and used her skill
as a lawyer and her moral ascendancy over him in securing the
loan. Thus, he prayed that respondent be sanctioned for her
infraction.7

In his Commissioner's Report8 dated February 9, 2009;

Here, the acts of Atty. Belleza in: (1) issuing the notice to
Commissioner Jose I. de la Rama, Jr. (Commissioner de la
vacate to Junielito while the case was still pending
Rama) faulted respondent for failing to file an answer, and
litigation; (2) failing to inform Junielito of the sale of Nelia's
participate in the mandatory conference, He further declared
property in contravention to the stipulation in the
that the SPA specifically authorized respondent to mortgage
acknowledgment receipt; and (3) facilitating, drafting and
the property with a bank. He stressed that for selling t.lie
notarizing the deed of sale between Nelia and Irene in
property, and not just mortgaging it to complainant, who was
violation of the compromise agreement due to the absence of
not even a bank, respondent acted beyond her authority.
relocation survey, clearly constitute malpractice and gross
Having done so, she committed gross violation of the Lawyer's
misconduct in his office as attorney, for which a from
Oath as well as Canon 1,9 Rule 1.01,10and Canon 711 of the
suspension the practice of law for six ( 6) months is
Code of Professional Responsibility. As such, he
warrant.
recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice
WHEREFORE, the Court finds Atty. Erwin V. Belleza of law for one year.
GUILTY of violations of Canons 1 and 19 of the Code of
In the Resolution No. XIX-2010-44612 dated August 28, 2010,
Professional Responsibility for which he is SUSPENDED
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines - Board of Governors
from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months, upon
(IBP-BOG) resolved to adopt and approve the Report and
effective immediately receipt of this Decision, with a STERN
Recommendation of Commissioner de la Rama.
WARNING that a commission of the same or similar offense
in the future will result in the imposition of a more severe Action of the Supreme Court
penalty.
Thereafter, the Court issued a Resolution13 dated October 5,
23. A.C. No. 9000 2011, which sustained the findings and conclusion of the IBP.
The Court nonetheless found the reduction of the penalty
TOMAS P. TAN, JR., Complainant vs.
proper, pursuant to its sound judicial discretion and on the
ATTY. HAIDE V. GUMBA, Respondent
facts of the case. Accordingly, it suspended respondent from
This case is an offshoot of the administrative Complaint filed the practice of law for six months, effective immediately, with
1

by Tomas P. Tan, Jr. (complainant) against Atty. Haide V. a warning that a repetition of same or similar act will be dealt
Gumba (respondent), and for which respondent was suspended with more severely.
from the practice of law for six months. The issues now ripe
On March 14, 2012, the Court resolved to serve anew the
for resolution arc: a) whether respondent disobeyed a lawful
October 5, 2011 Resolution upon respondent because its
order of the Court: by not abiding by the order of her
previous copy sent to her was returned unserved.14 In its
suspension; and b) whether respondent deserves a stiffer
August 13, 2012 Resolution,15 the Court considered .the
penalty for such violation.
October 5, 2011 Resolution to have been served upon
Factual Antecedents respondent after the March 14, 2012 Resolution was also
returned unserved. In the same resolution, the Court also
According to complainant, in August 1999, respondent denied with finality respondent's motion for reconsideration on
obtained from him a ₱350,000.00 loan with 12% interest per the October 5, 2011 Resolution.
annum. Incidental thereto, respondent executed in favor of
complainant an undated Deed of Absolute Sale2 over a 105- Subsequently, Judge Margaret N. Armea (Judge Armea) of the
square meter lot located in Naga City, and covered by Transfor Municipal Trial Court in Cities of Naga City, Branch 2 wrote1
16
Certificate of Title No. 20553 under the name of respondent's a letter inquiring from the Office of the Court Administrator
father, Nicasio Vista. Attached to said Deed was a Special (OCA) whether respondent could continue representing her
Power of Attorney4 (SPA) executed by respondent's parents clients and appear in courts. She also asked the OCA if the
authorizing her to apply for a loan with a bank to be secured bydecision relating to respondent's suspension, which was
the subject property. Complainant and respondent purportedly downloaded from the inten1et, constitutes sufficient notice to
agreed that if the latter failed to pay the loan in or before disqualify her to appear in courts for the period of her
August 2000, complainant may register the Deed of Absolute suspension.
Sale with the Register of Deeds (RD).5
According to Judge Armea, her inquiry arose because
respondent represented a party in a case pending in her court;
and, the counsel of the opposing party called Judge Arrr1ea's 12 May 2013, immediately: and 2. The IBP be REQUIRED to
attention regarding the legal standing of respondent to appear EXPLAIN within 72 hours why they should not be sanctioned
as counsel. Judge Armea added that respondent denied that she for disciplinary action for issuing said Notice of Resolution
was suspended to practice law since she (respondent) had not No. XX-2013-359, dated 21 March 2013, purportedly
yet received a copy of the Court's resolution on the matter. dismissing this case for lack of merit.25

In her Answer/Comment17 to the query of Judge Armea, On February 19, 2014, the Court noted26 the OBC Report, and
respondent countered that by reason of such downloaded directed respondent to comply with the guidelines relating to
decision, Judge Armea and Executive Judge Pablo Cabillan the lifting of the order of her suspension as enunciated
Formaran III (Judge Formaran III) of the Regional Trial Court in Maniago v.Atty. De Dios.27
(RTC) of Naga City disallowed her appearance in their courts.
She insisted that service of any pleading or judgment cannot be Upon the request of respondent, on December 2, 2014, the
28
made through the inte1net. She further claimed that she had OBC issued a Certification, which stated that respondent had
not received an authentic copy of the Court's. October 5, 2011 been ordered suspended from the practice of law for six
Resolution. months, and as of the issuance of said certification, the order of
her suspension had not yet been lifted.
On January 22, 2013, the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC)
referred the October 5, 2011 Resolution to the OCA for Complaint against the OCA, the OBC and Atty. Paraiso
circulation to all courts.18 In response, on January 30, 2013, the
On February 6, 2015, respondent filed with the RTC a verified
OCA issued OCA Circular No. 14-201319 addressed to the
Complaint29 for nullity of clearance, damages, and preliminary
courts.20 the Office of the Chief State Prosecutor (CSP), Public
injunction with urgent prayer for a temporary restraining order
Attorney’s Office (PAO), and the IBP informing them of the
against the OCA, the OBC, and Atty. Nelson P. Paraiso (Atty.
October 5, 2011 and August 13, 2012 Resolutions of the Court.
Paraiso). The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 2015-0007.
IBP’s Report and Recommendation
Essentially, respondent accused the OCA and the OBC of
Meanwhile, in its Notice of Resolution No XX-2013- suspending her from the practice of law even if the
35921 dated March 21, 2013, the IBP-BOG resolved to adopt administrative case against her was still pending with the IBP.
and approve the Report and Recommendation22 of She likewise faulted the OBC for requiring her to submit a
Commissioner Oliver A. Cachapero (Comrnissioner clearance from its office before she resumes her practice of
Cachapero) to dismiss the complaint against respondent. law after the suspension. In turn, she argued that Atty. Paraiso
According to Commissioner Cachapero. there is no rule benefited from this supposed "bogus suspension" by publicly
allowing the service of judgements through the internet; and. announcing the disqualification of respondent to practice law.
Judge Armea and Judge Formaran III acted ahead of time
In its Answer,30 the OCA argued that the RTC had no
when they implemented the suspension of respondent even
jurisdiction over the action, which seeks reversal, modification
before the actual service upon her of the resolution concerning
or enjoinment of a directive of the Court. The OCA also
her suspension.
stressed that respondent should raise such matter by filing a
Statement and Report of the OBC motion for reconsideration in the administrative case, instead
of filing a complaint with the RIC. It also stated that the
In its November 22, 2013 .Statement.23 the OBC stressed that instance of OCA Circular No. 14-2013 was in compliance with
respondent received the August 13, 2012 Resolution (denying the Court's directive to inform all courts, the CSP, the PAO,
her motion, for reconsideration on the October 5, 2011 and the IBP of the suspension of respondent.
Resolution) on November 12, 2012 per Registry Return
Receipt No. 53365. Thus, the effectivity of respondent's For its pmt, the OBC declared in a Report31 dated March 24,
suspension was from November 12, 2012 until May 12, 2013. 2015 that during and after the period of her suspension,
The OBC also pointed out that suspension is not automatically without the same having been lifted, respondent filed pleadings
lifted by mere lapse of the period of suspension. It is necessary and appeared in courts in the following cases:
that an order be issued by the Court lifting the suspension to
x x x (l) Civil Case No. 2013-0106 (Romy Fay Gumba v. The
enable the concerned lawyer to resume practice of law.
City Assessor of Naga City, et. al.), (2) Civil Case No. RTC
The OBC further maintained in its November 27, 2013 2006-0063 (Sps. Jaime M. Kalaw et. al. v. Fausto David, et
Report that respondent has no authority to practice law and al.), (3) Other Spec. Proc. No. RTC 2012-0019 (Petition for
24

appear in court as counsel during her suspension, and until
such time that the Court has lifted the order of her suspension. Registry of Deeds of Naga City v. Danilo O. Laborado).
Thus, the OBC made these recommendations:
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing premises, it is
respectfully recommended that:
1. Respondent be REQUIRED to file a sworn statement with
motion to lift order of her suspension, attaching therewith
certifications from the Office of the Executive Judge of the
court where she practices [h]er profession and IBP Local
Chapter of which she is affiliated, that she has ceased and
desisted from the practice of law from 12 November 2012 to
Reconstitution of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 21128 of the
32
The OBC likewise confirmed that as of the time it issued the
March 24, 2015 Report, the Court had not yet lifted the order
of suspension against respondent. The OBC opined that for
failing to comply with the order of her suspension, respondent
deliberately refi1sed to obey a lawful order of the Court. Thus,
it recommended that a stiffer penalty be imposed against
respondent.
On June 4, 2015, the OBC reported that the RTC dismissed
Civil Case No. 2015-0007 for lack of jurisdiction, and pending
resolution was respondent's motion for reconsideration.33
Issue In lbana-Andrade v. Atty. Paita-Moya,40 despite having
received the Resolution anent her suspension, Atty. Paita-
Is respondent administratively liable for engaging in the Moya continued to practice law. She filed pleadings and she
practice of law during the period of her suspension and prior to appeared as counsel in courts. For which reason, the Court
an order of the Court lifting such suspension? suspended her from the practice of law for six months in
addition to her initial one month suspension, or a total of seven
Our Ruling
months.
Time and again, the Court reminds the bench and bar "that the
Too, in Feliciano v. Atty. Bautista-Lozada,41 respondent
practice of law is not a right but a mere privilege [subject] to
therein, Atty. Lozada, appeared and signed as counsel, for and
the inherent regulatory power of the [Court],"34 It is a
in behalf of her husband, during the period of her suspension
"privilege burdened with conditions."35 As such, lawyers must
from the practice of law. For having done so, the Court ruled
comply with its 1igid standards, which include mental fitness,
that she engaged in unauthorized practice of law. The Court
maintenance of highest level of morality, and full compliance
did not give weight to Atty. Lozada's defense of good faith as
with the rules of the legal profession.36
she was very well aware that when she represented her
With regard to suspension to practice law, in Maniago v. Atty. husband, she was still serving her suspension order. The Court
De Dios,37 The Court laid down the guidelines for the lifting of also noted that Atty. Lozada did not seek any clearance or
an order of suspension, to wit: clarification from the Court if she can represent her husband in
court. In this regard, the Court suspended Atty. Lozada for six
l) After a finding that respondent lawyer must be suspended months for her willful disobedience to a lawful order of the
from the practice of law, the Court shall render a decision Court.
imposing the penalty;
Similarly, in this case, the Court notified respondent of her
2) Unless the Court explicitly states that the decision is suspension. However, she continued to engage in the practice
immediately executory upon receipt thereof, respondent has 15 law by filing pleadings and appearing as counsel in courts
days within which to file a motion for reconsideration thereof. during the period of her suspension.
The denial of said motion shall render the decision final and
executory; It is common sense that when the Court orders the suspension
of a lawyer from the practice of law, the lawyer must desist
3) Upon the expiration of the period of suspension, respondent from performing all functions which require the application of
shall file a Sworn Statement with the Court, through the Office legal knowledge witl1in the period of his or her
of the Bar Confidant, stating therein that he or she has desisted suspension.42 To stress, by practice of law, we refer to "any
from the practice of law and has not appeared in any court activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of
during the period of his or her suspension; law, legal procedure, knowledge, training, and experience. It
includes performing acts which are characteristic of the legal
4) Copies of the Sworn Statement shall be furnished to the
profession, or rendering any kind of service which requires the
Local Chapter of the IBP and to the Executive Judge of the
use in any degree of legal knowledge or skill.''43 In fine, it will
courts where respondent has pending cases handled by him or
amount to unauthorized practice, and a violation of a lawful
her, and/or where he or she has appeared as counsel;
order of the Court if a suspended lawyer engages in the
5) The Sworn Statement shall be considered as proof of practice of law during the pendency of his or her suspension.44
respondent's compliance with the order of suspension;
As also stressed by the OBC in its March 24, 2015 Report,
6) Any finding or report contrary to the statements made by theduring and even after the period of her suspension and without
lawyer tmder oath shall be a ground for the imposition of a filing a sworn statement for the lifting of her suspension,
more severe punishment, or disbarment, as may be respondent signed pleadings and appeared in courts as counsel.
warranted.38 Clearly, such acts of respondent are in violation of the order of
her suspension to practice law.
Pursuant to these guidelines, in this case, the Court issued a
Resolution dated October 5, 2011 suspending respondent from Moreover, the lifting of a suspension order is not automatic. It
the practice of law for six months effective immediately. is necessary that there is an order from the Court lifting the
Respondent filed her motion for reconsideration. And, on suspension of a lawyer to practice law.1âwphi1 To note,
November 12, 2012, she received the notice of the denial of in Maniago, the Court explicitly stated that a suspended lawyer
such motion per Registry Return Receipt No. 53365. shall, upon the expiration of one’s suspension, file a sworn
statement with the Court, and that such statement shall be
While, indeed, service of a judgment or resolution must be considered proof of the lawyer's compliance 1Nith the order of
39 suspension.
done only personally or by registered mail, and that mere
showing of a downloaded copy of the October 5, 2011
Resolution to respondent is not a valid service, the fact, In this case, on February 19, 2014, the Court directed
however, that respondent was duly informed of her suspension respondent to comply with the guidelines for the lifting of the
remains unrebutted. Again, as stated above, she filed a motion suspension order against her by filing a sworn statement on the
for reconsideration on the October 5, 2011 Resolution, and the matter. However, respondent did not comply. Instead, she filed
Court duly notified her of the denial of said motion. It thus a complaint (Civil Case No. 2015-0007) against the OCA, the
follows that respondent's six months suspension commenced OBC and a certain Atty. Paraiso with the RTC. For having
from the notice of the denial of her motion for reconsideration done so, respondent violated a lawful order of the Court, that
on November 12, 2012 until May 12, 2013. is, to comply with the guidelines for the lifting of the order of
suspension against her.
To recapitulate, respondent's violation of the lawful order of Community Tax Certificate (CTC) No. 2259388, which was
the Court is two-fold: 1) she filed pleadings and appeared in used to identify Pedro in the deed, was also falsified as it was
court as counsel during the period of her suspension, and prior issued only on January 2, 1996 long after Pedro's death. The
complainants pointed to respondent as the author of the
to t1e lifting of such order of her suspension: and 2) she did
falsifications and forgeries because the latter caused the
not comply with the Court's directive for her to file a sworn registration of the subject land unto his name and because he
statement in compliance with the guidelines for the lifting of was the one who benefited from the same.
the suspension order.
In his Answer,6 respondent claimed that Rogelio L.
Under Section 27,45 Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, a member Valin (Rogelio), one of the children of Pedro and Cecilia, sold
of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from practice of law the subject land to him sometime in 1989 allegedly in
for willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court,representation of Pedro. He recalled that Rogelio approached
among other grounds. Here, respondent willfully disobeyed the him for financial assistance to defray the expenses of the
Court's lawful orders by failing to comply with the order of her surgical operation of his son. Rogelio offered to sell the subject
land and claimed that it was his share in their family's
suspension, and to the Court's directive to observe the
properties. Respondent agreed to buy the subject land out of
guidelines for the lifting thereof. Pursuant to prevailing compassion. He asked Rogelio for his authority to sell the
Jurisprudence, the suspension for six (6) months from the subject land but the latter claimed that he could not locate his
practice of law against respondent is in order.46 authority from his parents in their house.7 Respondent claimed
that he knew that it was hard to transfer the title because the
WIIEREFORE, Atty. Haide V. Gumba is hereby title owner, Pedro, was out of the country at the time of the
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for an additional period sale and without a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) for the
8
of six (6) months (from her original six (6) months suspension) purpose; thus, Rogelio undertook to transfer the title.
and WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar offense
will be dealt with more severely. Respondent also denied having knowledge regarding the
execution of the subject deed in 1996. He insisted that he
Atty. Haide V. Gumba is DIRECTED to infom1 the Court of neither falsified the said deed and Pedro's CTC No. 2259388
nor forged the signatures of Pedro and Cecilia as it was
the date of her receipt of this Decision, to determine the
Rogelio who processed the transfer of the title of the subject
reckoning point when her suspension shall take effect.. land in his name. He explained that when the subject land was
sold in 1989, Rogelio, as the vendor, undertook to process the
24. A.C. No. 10564 transfer of the title of the subject land. Respondent further
clarified that in 1996, he instructed his house helper, Judelyn
MANUEL L. VALIN AND HONORIO L. Baligad (Baligad), to sign the release of the title in his name
VALIN, Complainants because at that time he was busy to go to the RD to sign the
vs. release for himself as per instruction of Rogelio's messenger.9
ATTY. ROLANDO T. RUIZ, Respondent
In their Reply,10 the complainants stressed that the document,
Before the Court is an Administrative Complaint1 filed by which was a falsified deed, was executed in 1996. They also
complainants Manuel L. Valin (Manuel) and Honorio L. pointed out that records from the RD revealed that on August
Valin (Honoria) with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines- 19, 1996, the owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. T-11655(s)
Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) committing forgery was released to Baligad, the housemaid of respondent. In fact,
and falsification of a deed of absolute sale, in breach of his respondent admitted in his answer that he instructed Baligad to
lawyer's oath and in violation of the laws. pick up the said copy from the RD as he was busy at that time.
Thus, respondent's sweeping denial of any knowledge with
The complainants averred that they are two of the surviving respect to the subject deed is unmeritorious and his claim of
children of their deceased parents, spouses Pedro F. good faith must be denied.
Valin (Pedro) and Cecilia Lagadon (Cecilia). Pedro was the
original registered owner of a parcel of land (subject In his Rejoinder,11 respondent imputed the falsification of the
land) located in San Andres, Sanchez Mira, Cagayan, with an deed to Rogelio arguing that he must have forged the
area of 833 square meters and covered by Original Certificate signatures of his parents in his attempt to have the title of the
of Title (OCT) No. P- 3275(S ).2 subject land transferred to respondent.

Pedro died on December 7, 1992 while he was in Oahu, After the parties submitted their respective position papers, the
Honolulu, Hawaii.3 case was submitted for the IBP-CBD's resolution.

Several years later, Honorio discovered that the subject land Report and Recommendation
has been transferred to respondent, the godson of Pedro,
resulting in the cancellation of OCT No. P-3275(S), and the In its Report and Recommendation,12 dated April 26, 2011, the
issuance of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T- IBP-CBD found respondent to be unfit to be entrusted with the
11655(s)4 in the name of respondent. He learned from the powers of an attorney. It reasoned that as the beneficiary of the
Register of Deeds of Sanchez Mira, Cagayan (RD) that the falsified deed, respondent was presumed to be the author
subject land was conveyed to respondent in consideration of thereof. The IBP-CBD opined that he failed to overcome this
₱10,000.00 by virtue of a Deed of Absolute Sale (subject presumption despite his attempt to deflect the blame to Rogelio
deed),5 dated July 15, 1996, and executed in Tuguegarao City, for his failure to adduce evidence in support of his claim.
Cagayan purportedly by Pedro with the alleged consent of his
spouse, Cecilia. The IBP-CBD also dismissed respondent's claim that the
transaction was a private one and not in connection with his
The complainants alleged that the subject deed was obviously profession. It emphasized that good moral character and moral
falsified and the signatures therein of Pedro and Cecilia were fitness transcends the professional personality of a lawyer.
forgeries because Pedro was already dead and Cecilia was in Thus, the IBP-CBD recommended the suspension of
Hawaii at that time. They also asserted that Pedro's
respondent from the practice of law for a period of two (2) justifies the imposition of the appropriate penalty, including
years. suspension and disbarment.19

In its Resolution No. XX-2013-207,13 dated March 20, 2013, Further, the lawyer's oath enjoins every lawyer not only to
the IBP Board of Governors (IBP Board) resolved to adopt and obey the laws of the land but also to refrain from doing any
approve the report and recommendation of the IBP-CBD for falsehood in or out of court or from consenting to the doing of
the suspension of respondent from the practice of law for a any in court, and to conduct himself according to the best of
period of two (2) years. his knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity to the
courts as well as to his clients. Every lawyer is a servant of the
Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration but the IBP law, and has to observe and maintain the rule of law as well as
Board denied it in the assailed Resolution No. XXI-2014- be an exemplar worthy of emulation by others. It is by no
98,14 dated March 21, 2014. means a coincidence, therefore, that the core values of honesty,
integrity, and trustworthiness are emphatically reiterated by the
Dissatisfied, respondent filed a petition before the Court CPR. In this light, Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the CPR provides
arguing that: that "[a] lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the
doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court
to be misled by any artifice."20
I.
It bears stressing that membership in the bar is a privilege
THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES - BOARD
burdened with conditions. A lawyer has the privilege and right
OF GOVERNORS COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR
to practice law during good behavior and can only be deprived
TANTAMOUNT TO GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION ON
of it for misconduct ascertained and declared by judgment of
A QUESTION OF LAW IN ISSUING THE RESOLUTIONS
the court after opportunity to be heard has afforded him.
DATED MARCH 20, 2013 AND MARCH 21, 2014 BY
Without invading any constitutional privilege or right, and
CONCLUDING [RESPONDENT] HAS COMMITTED A
attorney's right to practice law may be resolved by a
MISCONDUCT IN HIS PRACTICE OF LAW AND AS A
proceeding to suspend or disbar him, based on conduct
CONSEQUENCE RECOMMENDED HIS SUSPENSION
rendering him unfit to hold a license or to exercise the duties
FROM THE PRACTICE OF LAW;
and responsibilities of an attorney.21 In disbarment
proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant,
II. and for the court to exercise its disciplinary powers, the case
against the respondent must be established by clear,
THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT INTEGRATED BAR OF THE convincing and satisfactory proof.22
PHILIPPINES - BOARD OF GOVERNORS HAS
COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR TANTAMOUNT TO In this case, the complainants allege that respondent breached
GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION BECAUSE THERE his lawyer's oath and violated the law because he falsified the
WAS NO FACTUAL AND LEGAL BASIS IN THE subject deed of sale in 1996 to acquire the land of Pedro even
CHARGES AGAINST THE [RESPONDENT] FOR though the latter died in 1992. On the other hand, respondent
SERIOUS MISCONDUCT, MUCH MORE AS A BASIS claims that he had nothing to do with the sale in 1996; rather,
FOR HIS SUSPENSION FROM THE PRACTICE OF LAW he imputes the execution of the subject deed and its
AS THE EXTANT OF THE RECORDS IS DEVOID OF registration to Rogelio, brother of the complainants.
ANY SUPPORT AND FOR BEING GLARINGLY
ERRONEOUS.15
The Court finds that respondent violated the lawyer's oath,
Rule 1.01 and 10.01 of the CPR.
Respondent avers that in 1989, he initially declined to buy the
subject property from Rogelio because he could not produce
Respondent's disclaimer as to his
his authority to sell the land; that he sympathized with Rogelio,
participation in the forged deed of
thus, he was convinced to buy the subject property with the
absolute sale is incredible as he
understanding that the latter would take the necessary steps to
benefited from it
transfer the title in respondent's name; that he acted in good
faith in dealing with Rogelio in his private capacity and he
paid ₱26,000.00 for the consideration of the sale; that the As pointed out in the IBP-CBD Report and Recommendation:
subject deed executed in 1996 does not show any participation
on the part of respondent; and that the written authority to sell The respondent would like the Commission to believe that
of Rogelio actually existed and is attached in his petition, but it Rogelio Valin authored the falsification of the Deed of
was not presented before the IBP. Absolute Sale dated July 15, 1996, present the same to the
Register of Deeds so that a new title can be issued in his name.
In a Resolution, dated October 14, 2014, the Court required Such allegations are specious at best. No evidence had been
16

the complainants to file their comment within ten (10) days adduced by the respondent to substantiate such allegation.
from notice thereof. The complainants, however, failed to file "Bare allegations, unsubstantiated by evidence are not
the required comment within the stated period.17On March 1, equivalent to proof' (Real vs. Belo, 513 [SCRA] 111).
2016, the case was submitted for resolution.18 Moreover the Commission finds it unbelievable that after
seven (7) years, Rogelio Valin will be bothered by his
conscience for not fulfilling his commitment to transfer OCT
The Court's Ruling
No. P-3275(s) in the name of his father, Pedro Valin, to the
name of the respondent by falsifying a Deed of Absolute Sale
The Court accepts and adopts the findings of fact of the IBP- dated July 15, 1996 and making it appear that his deceased
CBD and the recommendation of the IBP Board. father, Pedro Valin, sold OCT No. P-3275 to herein respondent
and in the process risk being sued for falsification of public
Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional documents. Moreover, records will show that Rogelio Valin
Responsibility (CPR) states that "[a] lawyer shall not engage in was one of the complainants who filed cases against the
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct." Lawyers respondent in connection with the subject property. Such
must conduct themselves beyond reproach at all times, whetherposturing runs counter to respondent's insinuation that Rogelio
they are dealing with their clients or the public at large, and a
violation of the high moral standards of the legal profession
Valin was the culprit in the falsification of the Deed of 0,000.00, did not reflect the alleged purchase price of
Absolute Sale dated July 15, 1996.23 ₱26,000.00 given by respondent in 1989.

From the time that the sale of the subject land was negotiated Further, the subject deed was executed in Tugegarao, Cagayan
in 1989 until it was executed and registered through the subjectwhen respondent knows fully well that Pedro and Cecilia are
deed in 1996, there were patent irregularities, which residing in Hawaii as early as 1989.1âwphi1 In the same light,
respondent cannot ignore. it would be impossible to notarize the subject deed in 1996
before a notary public considering that Pedro was already
First, in 1989, respondent admitted that he entered into with dead. Also, the subject deed mentioned CTC No. 2259388,
Rogelio a contract of deed of sale over the subject property dated January 2, 1996, issued to Pedro, which is patently
owned and registered to Pedro without any SPA. As a lawyer, falsified because Pedro has passed away at that time. Again,
he knows that "[w]hen a sale of a piece of land or any interest respondent did not bother to even read the subject deed of sale
therein is through an agent, the authority of the latter shall be which contains obvious and palpable irregularities; rather, he
in writing; otherwise, the sale shall be void."24 Respondent continued to disregard them for his own convenience.
even admitted that it would be difficult to transfer the title of
the subject land because the title owner Pedro is out of the Sixth, as a lawyer, respondent is fully aware of the requisites
country at the time of the sale and without a SPA for that for the legality of deed of sale and its registration. He knows
purpose.25 As early as 1989, respondent was aware that the how important it is to ensure that the registered instrument is
sale of the subject land without proper authorization was null complete and regular on its face. He is also duty-bound to
and void. denounce illegally acquired deeds of sale, which deceive and
betray the general public. Instead of assailing its validity,
Second, in spite of the deficient SPA from Rogelio's father, respondent continuously and completely utilized to his benefits
respondent allowed many years to pass without probing him the subject land obtained through the falsified deed. As
regarding the sale of the land. He did not exert any effort to reflected in TCT No. T-11655(s), he even mortgaged the
communicate with Rogelio. In all those times, respondent did subject land to Philippine National Bank, Sanchez Mira
not demand from Rogelio his written authority to sell the Branch as a security for a loan.29
subject land to ensure that the sale would have a mark of
regularity considering that he had paid the purchase price. He In fine, the Court is convinced that respondent is the author or,
continued to ignore the reality that Rogelio was precluded to at the very least, has connived with the author of the subject
sell the subject land without the SPA of his parents. This is deed and Pedro's CTC for his personal benefits. Respondent
obviously contrary to human experience. incessantly closed his eyes until he became blind to the
anomalies surrounding the sale of the subject land. Whether
Third, it is a difficult pill to swallow that respondent was through deliberate intent or gross negligence, he participated in
oblivious of Pedro's death in 1992. He admitted in his petition the successful registration and release of the title that
that he is a close family friend and godson of originated from an absolutely falsified deed of sale. As
Pedro. Certainly, he could not claim such strong ties to the discussed above, there have been numerous occasions that
26

family of Pedro if he never heard about the latter's demise. respondent could have stopped and noted the red flags
Even after the lapse of four (4) years or in 1996, it would be apparent throughout the transaction. Disappointingly, he chose
arduous to believe that respondent was still ignorant of the to profit from the falsified deed, devoid of any empathy that
demise of his close family friend and godfather. his actions would damage innocent third persons. Respondent's
acts are inconsistent with the sacred oath to do no falsehood
Fourth, in 1996, respondent directed his house helper Baligad nor consent to the doing of any.
to sign the release of the title in his name. He admitted in his
answer that he instructed Baligad to go to the RD and sign for Respondent cannot finger
him the release of the title because he was busy at that point culpability to Rogelio
27
time. Conchita P. Baustita, a former employee of the RD,
also attested that Baligad indeed came to the RD to sign the Respondent attempts to impute the falsification of the subject
release of the title in behalf of respondent on August 19, deed and Pedro's CTC to Rogelio because it was the latter who
1996.28 Evidently, respondent was knowledgeable that the title allegedly promised to transfer the title of the subject land.
was issued in his name because he instructed his house helper
to finalize the release of the title. The Court is not convinced.

Respondent was neither surprised nor doubtful of the title's It is highly unbelievable that, after seven (7) years and without
release in his name in 1996. He never attempted to contact any communication or notice whatsoever,30 Rogelio will
Rogelio to verify if he was the one who transferred the suddenly process the transfer of Pedro's property to respondent
property to his name. He also did not immediately request the out of sheer goodwill and that he was willing to move to great
production of his authority to sell the subject land. Respondent lengths to fulfill his promise by falsifying the signature of his
had the opportunity and resources to verify the veracity of the dead father in disposing his parents' land. Curiously,
subject deed in 1996, which caused the transfer of Pedro's land respondent failed to show proof that he demanded from
to him. Regrettably, he continued to feign ignorance of the Rogelio to effect the transfer the subject land; respondent did
irregularities that attended the transaction. not even see him anymore after 1989.31 Rogelio has left for
Hawaii and have been residing there up to the present.32
Fifth, the subject deed executed in 1996 was readily available
at the RD. Respondent could have effortlessly and briefly Further, the subject deed of sale does not even reflect the name
verified the said deed, which was the basis of the transfer of of Rogelio, but it was signed by Pedro and Cecilia. The sale
the title to him. It is to be noted that the subject deed was not manifested by the said deed was not anymore a sale through an
signed by Rogelio on behalf of Pedro; rather, it was agent, which was the agreement between respondent and
purportedly signed by Pedro personally and confirmed by Rogelio back in 1989. Rogelio does not have any more
Cecilia. Evidently, the sale contemplated by the said deed was participation in the subject deed. Indubitably, since respondent
not anymore a sale through an agent, which was the original is the ultimate beneficiary of the falsified deed of sale, he is
agreement of respondent and Rogelio back in 1989. The presumed to be the author of the subject deed.
consideration stated in the subject deed, in the amount of ₱l
The purported written authority deed of extrajudicial settlement to deprive her of her share.
of Pedro is immaterial One of the lawyers was suspended indefinitely; while the other
was disbarred for absconding the criminal case against him.
In his last ditch attempt to evade responsibility, respondent
presented for the first time on appeal a purported written In this case, respondent participated in the registration and
authority, dated September 13, 1989, signed by Pedro release of subject title in his favor with the use of the falsified
permitting Rogelio to sell the subject land.33 The said authority deed of sale. Pedro has long been dead when the subject deed
is originally captioned as a special power of attorney; however, was executed. Respondent did not do anything to verify the
it bore an erasure and it reads as an authorization of attorney. validity of the subject deed and its registration in spite of the
numerous badges of fraud. He is presumed the author as he
The written authority, however, is irrelevant and incredible in was the only beneficiary thereof. Because of his actions, the
light of the circumstances in the present case. complainants were deprived with their share as compulsory
heirs. Accordingly, the Court agrees with the recommendation
Respondent plainly admitted that the title owner Pedro is out of the IBP-CBD and the resolution of the IBP Board that
of the country at the time of the sale and Rogelio was without arespondent should be meted with the penalty of suspension
SPA for that purpose.34 Thus, the Court wonders how the said from the practice of law for two years.
written authority suspiciously conjured itself out of thin air
when respondent had confessed that it was not existing at the WHEREFORE, Atty. Rolando T. Ruiz is found guilty of
time of the alleged sale in 1989. violating the Lawyer's Oath, Rule 1.01 and Rule 10.01 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court
Further, the purported written authority deserves scant hereby SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for two (2)
consideration. The said authority was allegedly executed by years effective immediately, with a STERN WARNING that
Pedro at Sanchez Mira, Cagayan on September 13, 1989. the repetition of a similar violation will be dealt with even
However, respondent earlier admitted that in 1989, Pedro was more severely. He is DIRECTED to report the date of his
out of the country,35 thus, he could not have signed the same. receipt of this Decision to enable this Court to determine when
his suspension shall take effect.
The written authority is immaterial because Pedro died in 1992
and it had lost its force and effect then. It cannot be used for 25. MICHELLE YAP vs ATTY. GRACE BURI AC No.
any purpose whatsoever. Moreover, the subject deed in 1996 11156, 19 March 2018
was not anymore a sale through an agent as it was purportedly
signed by Pedro and Cecilia personally. Thus, the written The instant case stemmed from the complaint of
authority is irrelevant in the subject deed. Michelle Yap against respondent Atty. Grace C. Buri for
refusing to pay her monetary obligation and for filing a
In any case, respondent must face the music in view of his criminal case of Estafa against her based on false accusations.
questionable actions regarding the registration and release of The factual backdrop of the case is as follows:
the subject title through the falsified deed.
Complainant Michelle Yap was the vendor
That the transaction is private in in a contract of sale of a condominium unit, while
nature, not in relation to the Atty. Grace C. Buri, Yap's close friend and her
practice of law, is not an excuse; daughter's godmother, was the vendee. Buri made an
proper penalties offer to purchase the property but asked for the
reduction of the price from Pl ,500,000.00 to
Respondent violated the lawyer's oath and Rule 1.01 and 10.01 Pl,200,000.00. After consulting with her husband,
of the CPR when he participated and benefited from the Yap agreed. Of the total amount of purchase price of
falsified deed. Even though he acted in his personal capacity in Pl ,200,000.00, P200,000.00 remains unpaid. Buri
the improper sale and registration of the subject, he is not insisted t~at she would just pay the balance on
excused from liability. installment starting in but without specifying the
amount to be paid on each installment. Because she
trusted the respondent, Yap gave Buri the full and
A lawyer may be disciplined for acts committed even in his
immediate possession of the condominium unit upon
private capacity for acts which tend to bring reproach on the
completion of the P,1,000,000.00 despite the
legal profession or to injure it in the favorable opinion of the
outstanding balance and even without the necessary
public. There is no distinction as to whether the transgression
Deed of Absolute Sale. Howex~r, when Yap finally
is committed in a lawyer's private life or in his professional
asked for the balance in January 2011, Buri said she
capacity, for a lawyer may not divide his personality as an
would pay it on a monthly installment of P,5,000.00
attorney at one time and a mere citizen at another.36 until fully paid. When Yap disagreed, Buri said she
would just cancel the sale. Thereafter, Buri also
Jurisprudence provides different ranges of penalties in cases started threatening her through text messages, and
where the lawyer participates in the execution of a falsified then later on filed a case for estafa against her.
deed involving a dead party. In Magaway v. Avecilla,37 the
erring lawyer notarized a deed of sale even though the party Buri alleged in the criminal case that when
was already dead for 27 years and he was suspended from the she found out that the sale of the condominium unit
practice of law for one year. In Serzo v. Flores,38 the erring was made without the consent of Yap's husband, Yap
lawyer notarized a deed of absolute sale when one of the cancelled the sale and promised to return the amount
parties had long been dead and he was suspended from the of P,1,000,000.00 initially paid. Despite several
practice of law for two years. demands, however, she failed and refused to return
the money. Thus, Buri was constrained to file a case
On the other hand, in Sicat v. Ariola, Jr.,39 the Court imposed for estafa against Yap. Said case was later dismissed.
the ultimate penalty of disbarment against a lawyer who
falsified a special power of attorney, which led to the wrongful Yap then filed an administrative complaint
encashment of a check worth ₱3,700,000.00 to the prejudice of against Buri for the alleged false accusations against her.
the government. In Velasco v. Doroin,40 two erring lawyers
forged a deed of sale and they forced complainant to sign the
 When ordered to submit her answer, Buri failed to
comply. She did not even appear during the mandatory
conference. Thus, the mandatory conference was
terminated and the parties were simply required to submit
their respective position papers. However, only Yap
complied with said order.
On July 2, 2014, the Commission on Bar
Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
recommended Buri's suspension to wit:
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing,
undersigned Commissioner recommends to
impose the penalty of suspension from the
practice of law for a period of three (3) months
upon the respondent, Atty. Grace C. Buri, and for
her to pay the complainant the amount of
PhP200,000.00 upon execution by complainant
and spouse of the Deed of Absolute Sale of the
condominium unit subject of the sale between the
parties.
On January 31, 2015, the IBP Board of Governors
issued Resolution No. XXI-2015-062,2 which adopted the
foregoing recommendation but with modification, thus:
RESOLVED to ADOPT and
APPROVE, as it is hereby
ADOPTED and APPROVED,
witlt modification, the Report
and Recommendation of the
Investigating Commissioner in
the above-entitled case, herein
made part of this
ResolutionAnnexas "A,
"finding Respondent's violation
of Canon
1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
Hence, Atty. Grace C. Buri
is hereby SUSPENDED from
tlze practice of law for one (1)
year. The order to pay
P200,000.00 is deleted without
prejudice to the filing of proper
action by Complainant in Court.
The Court's Ruling
The Court finds no sufficient reason to overturn
the findings and recommendation of the IBP that Buri
must be disciplined accordingly.
Here, instead of paying Yap the remaining
balance of the purchase price of the condominium unit,
Buri opted to simply threaten her and file a criminal case
against her. Obviously, this strategy was to intimidate Yap
and prevent her from collecting the remaining
;i;!200,000.00. When given a chance to defend herself,
Buri chose to stay silent and even refused to file an answer,
attend the hearing, or to submit her position paper, despite
due notice. Hence, Yap' s version of the facts stands and
remains uncontroverted.
Buri' s unwarranted tenacity simply shows, not
only her lack of responsibility, but also her lack of interest
in clearing her name, which, as pronounced in case law, is
indicative of an implied admission of the charges leveled
against her.
Buri's persistent refusal to pay her obligation
despite frequent demands clearly reflects her lack of
integrity and moral soundness; she took advantage of her
knowledge of the law and clearly resorted to threats and
intimidation in order to get away with what she wanted,
constituting a gross violation of professional ethics and a
betrayal of public confidence in the legal profession.
Buri indubitably swept aside the Lawyer's Oath
that enjoins her to support the Constitution and obey the
laws. She forgot that she must not wittingly or willingly
promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit nor
give aid nor consent to the same. She also took for granted
the express commands of the Code of Professional
Responsibility (CPR), specifically Rule 1.01 of Canon 1
and Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 of the CPR.
Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the CPR provide:
CANON 1 - A LA WYER SHALL
UPHOLD THE
CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE
LAWS OF THE LAND AND
PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW
AND LEGAL PROCESSES.
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not
engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct.
While Canon 7 and Rule 7.03 of the CPR state:
CANON 7 - A LAWYER SHALL
AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE
INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF
THE LEGAL PROFESSION
AND SUPPORT THE
ACTIVITIES OF THE
INTEGRATED BAR.
Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not
engage in conduct that adversely
reflects on his fitness to practice
law, nor shall he, whether in public
or private life, behave in a
scandalous manner to the discredit
of the legal profession.
The foregoing canons require of Buri, as a lawyer,
an enduring high sense of responsibility and good fidelity
in all her dealings and emphasize the high standard of
honesty and fairness expected of her, not only in the
practice of the legal profession, but in her personal dealings
as well. A lawyer must conduct himself with great
propriety, and his behavior should be beyond reproach
anywhere and at all times. For, as officers of the courts and
keepers of the public's faith, they are burdened with the
highest degree of social responsibility and are thus
mandated to behave at all times in a manner consistent with
truth and honor. Likewise, the oath that lawyers swear to
impresses upon them the duty of exhibiting the highest
degree of good faith, fairness and candor in their
relationships with others. Thus, lawyers may be disciplined
for any conduct, whether professional in their private
capacity, if such renders them unfit to continue to be
officers of the court.
That Buri’s act involved a private dealing with Yap is
immaterial. Her being a lawyer calls for – whether she was
acting as such or in a non-professional capacity – the
obligation to exhibit good faith, fairness and candor in her
relationship with others. There is no question that a lawyer
could be disciplined not only for a malpracticehisin profession,
but also for any misconduct committed outside of his
professional capacity. Buri's being a lawyer demands that she
conduct herself as a person of the highest moral and
professional integrity and probityherin dealings with others.
 The Court has repeatedly emphasized that the practice Respondent called and asked Geraldy Victory (Geraldy)
of law is imbued with public interest and that a lawyer owes whether he wanted to invest his money. The respondent
substantial duties, not only to his client, but also to his brethren promised that for an investment of PhP 400,000, she will give
in the profession, to the courts, and to the public, and takes partGeraldy PhP 600,000 in 30 days; and for PhP 500,000, she will
in the administration of justice, one of the most important give Geraldy PhP 625,000.2
functions ?f the State, as an officer of the court. Accordingly,
lawyers are bound to maintain, not only a high standard of The investment transactions went well for the first 10 months.
legal proficiency, but also of morality, honesty, integrity, and Spouses Victory received the agreed return of profit. Some of
fair dealing. such financial transactions were covered by Memoranda of
Agreement.3
Time and again, the Court has stressed the settled
principle that the practice of law is not a right but a privilege
Later on, respondent became evasive in returning to Spouses
bestowedthe by State on those who show that they possess, and
Victory the money that the latter were supposed to receive as
continue to possess, the qualifications required by law for the
part of the agreement. Respondent failed to settle and account
conferment of such privilege. Membership in the bar is a
the money entrusted to her by Spouses Victory.4
privilege burdened with conditions. A high sense of morality,
honesty, and fair dealing is expected and required of a member
of the bar. The nature of the office of a lawyer requires that he Spouses Victory alleged that the outstanding obligation of
shall be of good moral character. This qualification is not only respondent 5
is PhP 5 Million plus interest or a total of PhP 8.3
a condition precedent to the admission to the legal profession, Million.
but its continued possession is essential to maintain one's good
standing in the profession. Consequently, a lawyer can be Spouses Victory filed a criminal complaint for estafa and
deprived of his license for misconduct ascertained and violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 with the Office of the
declared by judgment of the Court after giving him the City Prosecutor of Sta. Rosa, Laguna.6
opportunity to be heard.
After the filing of said criminal case, respondent met with
Verily, has Buri fallen short of the high standard of Spouses Victory. Respondent proposed to reduce her
morality, honesty, integrity, and fair dealing expected of her. obligation from PhP 8.3 Million to PhP 7.5 Million in
On the contrary, she employed her knowledge and skill of the staggered payments, to which Spouses Victory agreed.
law in order to avoid fulfillment of her obligation, thereby Respondent then issued three postdated checks in the amount
unjustly enriching herself and inflicting· serious damage on of PhP 300,000 each. However, said checks bounced.7
Yap. Her repeated failure to file her answer and position paper
and to appear at the mandatory conference aggravate her Report and Recommendation
misconduct. These demonstrate high degree of irresponsibility of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
and lack of respect for the IBP and its proceedings. Her Commission on Bar Discipline
attitude severely stains the nobility of the legal profession.

The Court sustains the modified recommendation of The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)-Commission on
the IBP Board of Governors. The Court has held that the Bar Discipline (CBD) found that respondent indeed lured
Spouses Victory in entering into a series of financial
deliberate failure to pay just debts constitutes gross
transactions with a promise of return of profit. Respondent,
misconduct, for which a lawyer may be sanctioned with one
however, failed to deliver such promise. On such premise, the
(1) year-suspension from the practice of law. 10 The Court
IBP-CBD recommended respondent's suspension, to wit:
likewise upholds the deletion of the payment of the
P200,000.00 since the same is not intrinsically linked to Buri's
On the basis of the foregoing, it is respectfully recommended
professional engagement. Disciplinary proceedings should
that respondent Atty. Marian Jo S. Mercado be SUSPENDED
only revolve around the determination of the respondent
for SIX (6) MONTHS from the practice of law.8
lawyer's administrative and not his civil liability. Thus, when
the claimed liabilities are purely civil in nature, as when the
claim involves money owed by the lawyer to his client in view Resolutions of the IBP Board of Governors
of a separate and distinct transaction and by not
relationship, virtue of a lawyer-client the same should be On March 20, 2013, the IBP Board of Governors issued
threshed out in a separate civil action. Resolution No. XX-2013-199, which reads:

WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby

FOREGOING, the Court SUSPENDS Atty. Grace C. Buri
from the practice of law for a period of one ( 1) year and
WARNS her that a repetition of the same or similar offense
shall be dealt with more severely.
26. A.C. No. 10580
SPOUSES GERALDY AND LILIBETH VICTORY, vs
ATTY. MARIAN JOS. MERCADO, Respondent
Sometime in 2009, Spouses Geraldy and Lilibeth Victory
(Spouses Victory) were enticed by respondent to enter into a
financial transaction with her with a promise of good monetary
returns. As respondent is a lawyer and a person of reputation,
Spouses Victory entrusted their money to respondent to invest,
manage, and administer into some financial transactions that RESOLVED to DENY Respondent's Motion for
would earn good profit for the parties.1
unanimously ADOPTED and APPROVED, with modification,
the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating
Commissioner in the above-entitled case, herein made part of
this Resolution as Annex "A ", and finding the recommendation
fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable
laws and rules and considering Respondent's violation of
Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for evading
the settlement of her financial obligations to the complainants
and for not bothering to appear in the investigation of this
case, Atty. Marian Jo S. Mercado is hereby
DISBARRED.9 (Emphasis supplied)
Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration,10 which was
denied in Resolution No. XXI-2014-158, to wit:
Reconsideration, there being no cogent reason to reverse the
findings of the Commission and it being a mere reiteration of
the matters which had already been threshed out and taken
into consideration. However, considering that Respondent is investment deals. Respondent even admitted that she continued
currently settling her financial obligations to Complainants to do business despite such financial hardships; as such, her
and very apologetic and granting her good faith in her monetary obligations with different investors accumulated at
investment transaction with Complainants, Resolution No. XX- an alarming rate. In an attempt to settle her obligations,
2013-199 dated March 20, 2013 is hereby AFFIRMED, with respondent issued checks, which all bounced.
modification, and accordingly the penalty earlier imposed on
Atty. Marian Jo S. Mercado is hereby reduced to To Our mind, the actuations of respondent fell short of the
SUSPENSION from the practice of law for one (1) exacting standards expected of every member of the bar.
year. 11 (Emphasis supplied)
In this case, while respondent admitted her responsibility and
Issue signified her intention of complying with the same, We cannot
close our eyes to the fact that respondent committed
Should the respondent be held administratively liable based on infractions. To uphold the integrity of the legal profession, We
the allegations in the pleadings of all parties on record? deem it proper to uphold the findings as well as the sanction
imposed by the IBP Board of Governors.
Our Ruling
WHEREFORE, premises considered, We resolve
Emphatically, a lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity to SUSPEND Atty. Marian Jo S. Mercado from the practice of
and dignity of the legal profession. The bar should maintain a law for one (1) year to commence immediately from the
high standard of legal proficiency as well as honesty and fair receipt of this Decision, with a WARNING that a repetition of
dealing. A lawyer brings honor to the legal profession by the same or similar offense will warrant a more severe penalty.
faithfully performing his duties to society, to the bar, to the
courts and to his clients.12 Canon 1, Rule 1.01, and Canon 7 27. A.C. No. 5473
provides:
GENE M. DOMINGO, vs.
CANON 1 - A LA WYER SHALL UPHOLD THE ATTY. ANASTACIO E. REVILLA, JR., Respondent
CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND
PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND FOR LEGAL A disbarred lawyer who is found to have committed an offense
PROCESSES. that constitutes another ground prior to his eventual disbarment
may be heavily fined therefor. The Court does not lose its
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, exclusive jurisdiction over his other disbarrable act or
immoral or deceitful conduct. actuation committed while he was still a member of the Law
Profession.
CANON 7 - A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD
THE INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL The Case
PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE
INTEGRATED BAR. Before this Court is the complaint for disbarment instituted by
Gene Domingo (complainant) against Atty. Anastacio E.
Exercising its disciplinary authority over the members of the Revilla, Jr. (respondent),1 alleging that the latter deliberately
bar, this Court has imposed the penalty of suspension or and feloniously induced and persuaded the former into
disbarment for any gross misconduct that a lawyer committed, releasing almost half a million pesos on the false pretense of
whether it is in his professional or in his private capacity. having performed and accomplished legal services for him.
Good character is an essential qualification for the admission
to and continued practice of law. Thus, any wrongdoing, Antecedents
whether professional or non-professional, indicating unfitness
for the profession justifies disciplinary action.13 The complainant is an American citizen of Filipino descent.
During a visit to the Philippines in 2000, he sought the services
In this case, it is without dispute that respondent has an of a lawyer to handle the cases to be filed against his cousin
outstanding obligation with Spouses Victory, as the latter's Melchor Arruiza and to work on the settlement of the estate of
investments which they coursed through the respondent fell his late mother Judith Arruiza.2 In April 2000, petitioner met
through. To make matters worse, respondent issued several respondent, a lawyer recommended by a friend. Petitioner
checks to settle her obligation; unfortunately, said checks informed respondent about his need for the services of a
bounced. lawyer for the rescission of Melchor Arruiza's adoption and for
the settlement of his mother's estate.3
As a lawyer, respondent is expected to act with the highest
degree of integrity and fair dealing. She is expected to The complainant alleged that the respondent represented to
maintain not only legal proficiency, but also a high standard of him that he would take on the cases in behalf of the law firm of
morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing so that the people's Agabin Verzola Hermoso Layaoen & De Castro, where he
faith and confidence in the judicial system is ensured. She worked as an associate. He assured petitioner that the law firm
must, at all times, faithfully perform her duties to society, to was able and willing to act as his legal counsel in the cases he
the bar, to the courts and to her clients, which include prompt intended to institute against his adopted brother, and to
payment of financial obligations.14 undertake the transfer of his mother's properties to his and his
children's names.4 Trusting the representations of respondent,
It must be considered that the deliberate failure to pay just the complainant agreed to engage respondent and his law firm,
debts and the issuance of worthless checks constitute gross and paid the initial amount of ₱80,000.00.
misconduct, for which a lawyer may be sanctioned with
suspension from the practice of law. Lawyers are instruments Being based in the United States of America, the complainant
for the administration of justice and vanguards of our legal maintained constant communication with respondent often
system.15 through electronic mail (e-mail) and sometimes by telephone
to get updates on the cases. The complainant alleged that based
We cannot exempt respondent from liability just because she on his correspondences with respondent, the latter made
encountered financial difficulties in the course of her several misrepresentations, as follows:
[a)] He [had] filed the annulment of adoption of Melchor documents to the latter. Even worse, the respondent ultimately
Arruiza in Abra, stating that the hearing would commence by tried to avoid the complainant by cutting off communications
the end of May 2000; and that the trial had been brought to between them.
completion;
Given the respondent's evasion, the complainant decided to
[b)] He was processing the transfer of the titles of the write the law firm of Agabin Verzola Hermoso Layaoen & De
properties [in the names of petitioner and his children;] Castro to inform them of the fraudulent actions of the
respondent.7 The complainant was surprised to be informed by
[c)] He processed the cancellation of the adverse claim of the law firm that he had never been its client.8 The law firm
Melchor Arruiza annotated on the two titles of the properties, also told him that the respondent had been forced to resign
claiming that he was there at the Land Registration Authority from the law office because of numerous complaints about his
in Quezon City for the final approval of the cancellation; performance as a lawyer.9

[d)] He was processing the payment of taxes and other fees on Hence, the complainant terminated the services of the
the properties to be transferred, including capital gains tax, respondent for refusal to respond and to surrender the alleged
transfer tax, registration fees and documentary stamp tax; documents in his possession. He engaged the services of
another law firm to verify the status of the cases allegedly
[e)] That he was negotiating with the Bureau of Internal brought by respondent in petitioner's behalf. The new law firm
Revenue to reduce the tax from ₱80,000.00 to ₱10,000.00; secured a certification from the RTC of Abra to the effect that
no case against Melchor Arruiza had been filed. The
complainant also discovered that none of the representations of
[f)] That the new titles in the names of petitioner's children
the respondent, as enumerated above, had come to pass
would be ready by July 20, 2000;
because all of such representations were sham and intended to
induce him to remit almost half a million pesos to the
[g)] That the new titles in the children's names were issued; respondent.10

[h)] That Melchor Arruiza opposed the cancellation of the On July 24, 2001, the complainant filed his complaint for
adoption, and boasted that he knew many big time politicians disbarment in this the Court accusing the respondent of
in Abra who would help him; committing acts in violation of Canons 1, 2, 13, 15 & 16 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility.11
[i)] That the Judge x x x handling the case for the cancellation
of the adoption [would] rule in petitioner's favor only if he On August 22, 2001, the Court required the respondent to
would give to the Judge 10% of the value of the property in comment.12
Better Living Subdivision, Parafiaque City;
In his comment dated October 21, 2001,13 the respondent
[j)] That the Judge agreed on x x x ₱200,000.00 but he denied the accusations, and countered as follows:
(respondent) needed an additional ₱50,000.00 "for the boys" in
the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court;
a) Petitioner wanted to have the adoption of Melchor D.
Arruiza by his late mother Judith D. Arruiza granted by the
[k)] That the Judge [already wrote] a decision in petitioner's Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Dolores-San Juan in
favor, but [for his protection insisted upon a kaliwaan of the the Province of Abra annulled because he had not been
copy of the decision and the payment;] informed about the adoption which affected his inheritance,
particularly with respect to the two parcels of land located in
[l)] That the Judge received the money and [already Parañaque City. Petitioner related to respondent why he
promulgated the] decision in petitioner's favor; (petitioner) filed the action for annulment of adoption in the
RTC in Parañaque City, but Branch 258 of the RTC dismissed
[m)] That said decision was appealed to the Court of Appeals the petition on January 19, 2000 for lack of jurisdiction over
and eventually to the Supreme Court where respondent was the case;
working doubly hard to influence [a favourable] outcome;
b) Following the dismissal of the case, petitioner desperately
[n)] That the Supreme Court had to meet en bane on the wanted to revive it in the RTC in Abra. Petitioner also wanted
decision of the Abra Regional Trial Court (RTC) Judge in the annotation of rights, title and interest of Melchor Arruiza as
petitioner's favor; and a legally adopted son of his late mother on the two titles
cancelled, and to have the properties transferred in the names
[o)] That in consideration of all the above transactions, he of petitioner's children;
(respondent) needed money [totalling] ₱433,002.61 [as
payment to the Judge, BIR and related agencies, actual c) Respondent explained to petitioner that it would be very
expenses and legal fees], [but requested] the payment in hard to revive the case because the order of adoption issued on
staggered amounts and on different dates.5 May 25, 1979 had long become final and executory;

Based on the respondent's representation as to how justice was d) It would also be inconvenient for petitioner to pursue the
achieved in the Philippines, the complainant was constrained cancellation case considering that he was a permanent resident
to give to the respondent the requested amounts in the belief of the United States of America and the need for his personal
that he had no choice.6 The complainant would repeatedly presence at the RTC in Abra to testify against his adopted
request the original or at the very least copies of the decisions brother;
and the titles by e-mail, facsimile (fax) or courier service, but
respondent repeatedly failed to comply with the requests, e) Respondent further told petitioner that his law firm at the
giving various reasons or excuses. The respondent even time did not allow its members to handle personal cases,
volunteered to meet with the complainant in the United States especially if the cases were filed in far flung provinces; and
of America to personally deliver the promised documents. The that the particular case of annulment of the judgment of
respondent never went to the United States of America to meet adoption, being a special proceeding, would take years to
with the complainant. He also did not turn over the requested finish inasmuch as the losing party would likely elevate the
matter up to the Supreme Court and would be very costly in Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation
terms of expenses and attorney's fees; or decision.15

f) Respondent claimed that petitioner still profusely pleaded The Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the IBP
with him to pursue the case no matter how much it would cost conducted hearings. The case was then submitted for
him, as long as his adopted brother was prevented from resolution after the complainant and the respondent submitted
inheriting from the estate of his mother; their manifestation and reply/counter manifestation,
respectively.
g) Respondent tried to talk some sense into petitioner,
particularly that it was only just and fair that his adopted The IBP's Report and Recommendation
brother would inherit from their mother, but petitioner could
not be swayed; In a Report and Recommendation dated September 6,
2002,16 the IBPCBD found the respondent guilty of violating
h) Even though respondent sensed the greediness, wickedness the Code of Professional Responsibility with respect to
and scheming design of petitioner, he still accepted the negligence in the performance of his duties towards his client,
engagement to handle the case of annulment of the judgment and recommended the penalty of reprimand with a stem
of adoption, as well as to have the annotations at the back of warning that a repetition of the offense would warrant a more
the titles cancelled and eventually have the properties severe penalty. It ruled that the proceeding before it was
transferred in the names of petitioner's children; basically a disciplinary proceeding; that it could only decide on
the fitness of respondent to continue in the practice of
17
i) Respondent proposed that petitioner pay ₱500,000.00, more law; that it could not go beyond the sanctions that could be
or less, as the total package of expenses and attorney's fees; imposed under the Rules of Court; that it had the power to
petitioner agreed to the proposal and promised to remit the require the restitution of the client's money as part of the
amount by installment upon his return to the United States of penalty; that it could only order the restitution of whatever
America, and to send the special power of attorney authorizing amount that was given by petitioner to respondent but not
respondent to bring the case against Melchor Arruiza; other monetary claims of petitioner like travel and plane fare
and litigation expenses, which were properly within the
j) As a means of protecting the interest of petitioner, jurisdiction of other authorities;18 and that, accordingly, it
respondent offered to issue a check for ₱500,000.00 as a ordered respondent to immediately deliver to petitioner the
security for the amount to be remitted by petitioner from his amount of ₱513,000.00, plus interest computed at the legal
United States of America account; his offer of the check was torate.
give a sign of his good faith, because his primary aim was to
provide the best and effective legal services petitioner needed In Resolution No. XV-2002-597 passed on October 19,
under the circumstances; 2002,19 the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the
Report and Recommendation dated September 6, 2002 of the
k) Respondent then prepared an affidavit of self-adjudication Investigating Commissioner.
for petitioner respecting the two properties registered in the
name of petitioner's late mother; he caused the publication of On January 14, 2003, the complainant filed a Motion for
the affidavit in a tabloid; Reconsideration,20 praying that Resolution No. XV-2002-597
be reconsidered and set aside, and that the appropriate penalty
l) Respondent informed petitioner that there was no way for of disbarment, or, at the very least, suspension be imposed on
him to win the annulment case unless he personally appeared the respondent.
and testified against his adopted brother, but petitioner said
that he could not personally testify because he feared for his On January 25, 2003, the IBP Board of Governors passed and
life due to Abra being an NPA- infested area; adopted Resolution No. XV-2003-4921 denying the
complainant's Motion for Reconsideration on the ground that
m) On August 27, 2001, respondent went on and filed the the Board had no jurisdiction to consider and resolve the
complaint for annulment of the adoption in the RTC in Abra, matter by virtue of its having already been endorsed to the
docketed as Civil Case No. 1989, even without any firm Court.
assurance from petitioner that he would personally appear in
court; Meanwhile, on January 29, 2003, the Court issued a resolution:
(1) noting the resolution of the IBP-CBD reprimanding the
n) After the filing of the case, petitioner started making respondent; and (2) directing him to inform the IBP of his
unreasonable demands, like having an immediate decision compliance with the resolution.22
from the RTC in Abra in his favor, the cancellation of the
adverse claim of his adopted brother on the titles of the After the IBP denied petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration,
properties, and transferring the titles in the names of the complainant filed his petition dated March 6, 2003.23
petitioner's three children;
On April 3, 2003, the respondent filed his Manifestation and
o) Respondent tried to explain to petitioner that his demands Motion praying that the resolution of the IBP Board of
were impossible to meet because civil and special proceedings Governors be reconsidered and set aside.24
cases take years to finish inasmuch as the aggrieved parties
would elevate the cases up to the Supreme Court; and that the On April 30, 2003, the Court noted the IBP's denial of the
cancellation of the adverse claim would depend on the complainant's Motion for Reconsideration for lack of
outcome of the case they filed, but his refusal to appear and jurisdiction, and the respondent's Manifestation and Motion;
testify was still a problem; and took cognizance of the March 6, 2003 petition of the
complainant, and required the respondent to file his
p) Petitioner still adamantly insisted that respondent comply Comment.25
with his demands, or else he would sue him if he did not.14
On October 20, 2003, the Court took note of the respondent's
On November 26, 2001, the Court referred the complaint for Comment with Motion for Reconsideration, and required the
disbarment and the comment to the Integrated Bar of the complainant to file his Reply.26 After requesting an extension
of time to file his Reply, the complainant filed his Reply on Instead, the respondent kept on making up excuses and
December 8, 2003.27 conjured up pretenses to make it appear that the case was
moving along. His conduct of accepting money for his legal
Ruling of the Court services in handling the annulment of the adoption decree, and
of failing to render the contracted legal services violated
In its findings, the IBP concluded that the respondent was Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.32 Also,
guilty ofnegligence in the performance of his duties to his the highly fiduciary and confidential relation of attorney and
client, and recommended that: (a) he be reprimanded with a client required that he as the lawyer should promptly account
stem warning that any repetition of his conduct would be dealt for all the funds received 33 from, or held by him for, the
with more severely; and (b) he be ordered to return the sums of complainant as the client.
money totalling ₱513,000.00 he had received from the
complainant. Furthermore, the respondent did not abide by the mandate of
Canon 15 that required members of the Legal Profession to
After reviewing the established circumstances of the case, the observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all their dealings and
Court accepts the findings against the respondent but modifies transactions with their clients.
the recommended penalty considering that his violation of
the Code of Professional Responsibilityconstituted deliberate In their conversations, the respondent told the complainant that
defraudation of the client instead of mere negligence. the judge handling the case would rule in their favor only if he
would be given 10% of the value of the property at Better
Firstly, the respondent misled the complainant into thinking Living Subdivision, Parañaque, and that the handling judge
that it would be his law firm that was to take on the case. consequently agreed on the fee of ₱200,000.00 but needed an
Secondly, despite the fact that he had intimated to the additional ₱50,000.00 "for the boys" in the Court of Appeals
complainant that it would be highly unlikely to still have the and the Supreme Court. In doing so, the respondent committed
adoption decree nullified due to the decree having long calumny, and thereby violated Rules 15.06 and 15.07 of Canon
become final and executory, he nonetheless accepted the case. 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, to wit:
Thirdly, he told the complainant that he had already instituted
the action for the annulment of the adoption despite not having Rule 15.06 - A lawyer shall not state or imply that he is able to
yet done so. Fourthly, he kept on demanding more money from influence any public official, tribunal or legislative body.
the complainant although the case was not actually even
moving forward. Fifthly, he continued to make up excuses in Rule 15.07 - A lawyer shall impress upon his client
order to avoid having to furnish to the complainant the compliance with the laws and principles of fairness.
requested copies of court documents that, in the first place, he
could not produce. And, lastly, he claimed that he intended to Members of the Bench are tasked with ensuring that the ends
return the money to the complainant but instead sent the latter of justice are served.1âwphi1 Such negative imputations
a stale check. against them and the collegial bodies of the Judiciary on the
part of the respondent tended to erode the trust and confidence
All these acts, whether taken singly or together, manifested the of the people in our judicial system. The Court should not take
respondent's dishonesty and deceit towards the complainant, such conduct of the respondent lightly considering that the
his client, in patent violation of Rule 1.0128 of the Code of image of the Judiciary was thereby diminished in the eyes of
Professional Responsibility. the public; hence, the Court must severely reprove the
respondent.
We note that the respondent filed the case for the annulment of
the adoption decree only on August 27, 200129 after the The respondent's commission of various offenses constituting
complainant had sent him the demand letter dated April 10, professional misconduct only demonstrated his unworthiness
2001.30 Such filing was already during the pendency of the to remain as a member of the Legal Profession. He ought to be
administrative investigation of the complaint against him in the disbarred for such offenses upon this complaint alone. A
IBP. Had the complainant not threatened to charge him review of his record as an admitted member of the Bar shows,
administratively, he would not have filed the petition for however, that in Que v. Revilla, Jr.,34 the Court had disbarred
annulment of the adoption at all. him from the Legal Profession upon finding him guilty of
violations of the Lawyers Oath; Canon 8; Rules 10.01 and
Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional 10.03, Canon 10; Rules 12.02 and 12.04, Canon 12; Rule
Responsibility states: 19.01, Canon 19 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility; and Sections 20(d), 21 and 27 of Rule 138 of
Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted the Rules of Court. In view of his prior disbarment, we can no
to him and his negligence in connection therewith shall render longer impose the appropriate penalty of disbarment as
him liable. deserved because we do not have double or multiple
disbarments in this jurisdiction.35
The Court has consistently held, in respect of this Rule, that
the mere failure of the lawyer to perform the obligations due to In the meanwhile, on February 15, 2016, the 36respondent filed a
the client is considered per se a violation.31 so-called Most Respectful Motion to Dismiss in which he
adverted to the earlier submission through
his Manifestation filed on April 24, 201537 of the copy of the
Despite the fact that the complainant engaged his services and
amicable settlement he had concluded with the complainant to
advanced sums of money to cover the court fees and related
the effect that, among others, he had already paid back to the
expenses to be incurred along the way, the respondent did not
latter, through his lawyer (Atty. Hope Ruiz Valenzuela), the
file the petition for annulment. His conduct was reprehensible
amount of ₱650,000.00 "as full and complete settlement of the
because it amounted to dishonesty and plain deceit. His filing
Complainant's claims against the Respondent." He thereby
of the petition for annulment later on did not mitigate his sin
sought the dismissal of the complaint out of "justice and
because he did so only because he had meanwhile received the
fairness."
complainant's demand letter that contained the threat of filing
administrative charges against him. Moreover, he repeatedly
did not inform the complainant on the actual status of the
petition although the latter regularly sought to be updated.
In the resolution promulgated on September 22, 2015, the imposed.47 For sure, the voluntary restitution by the respondent
Court merely noted without action the Manifestationdated herein of the amount received in the course of the professional
April 21, 2015.38 engagement, even if it would not lift the sanction meted on
him, manifested remorse of a degree on his part for his
The Most Respectful Motion to Dismiss on the ground of the wrongdoing, and was mitigating in his favor.
amicable settlement between the parties cannot be granted.
Although the amicable settlement obliterated the legal And, thirdly, the Court cannot but note the respondent's several
obligation to return to the complainant the amounts obtained pleas for judicial clemency to seek his reinstatement in the
by deceit, the respondent was not entitled to demand the ranks of the Philippine Bar.48 He has backed up his pleas by
dismissal of the charges against him for that reason. He ought adverting to his personal travails since his disbarment. He
to have known that his professional responsibilities as an claims, too, that his health has been failing of late considering
attorney were distinct from his other responsibilities. To be that he had been diagnosed to be suffering from chronic kidney
clear, the primary objective of administrative cases against disease, stage five, and has been undergoing dialysis three
lawyers is not only to punish and discipline the erring times a week.49 His advancing age and the fragile state of his
individual lawyers but also to safeguard the administration of health may also be considered as a mitigating factor.50 In
justice by protecting the courts and the public from the addition, it is noteworthy that he has been devoting some time
misconduct of lawyers, and to remove from the legal to Christian and charity pursuits, like serving with humility as
profession persons whose utter disregard of their Lawyer's a Lay Minister at St. Peter Church in Quezon City and as a
Oath has proven them unfit to continue discharging the trust regular lecturer on the Legal Aspects of Marriage.51
reposed in them as members of the Bar.39
Pleas for judicial clemency reflected further remorse and
Moreover, the practice of law is a privilege heavily burdened repentance on the part of the respondent.52 His pleas appear to
with conditions.40 Every attorney is a vanguard of our legal be sincere and heartfelt. In human experience, remorse and
system, and, as such, is expected to maintain not only legal repentance, if coupled with sincerity, have always been
proficiency but also a very high standard of morality, honesty, regarded as the auspicious start of forgiving on the part of the
integrity, and fair dealing in order that the people's faith and offended, and may eventually win even an absolution for the
confidence in the legal system are ensured.41 He must then remorseful. The Court will not be the last to forgive though it
conduct himself, whether in dealing with his clients or with the may not forget.
public at large, as to be beyond reproach at all times.42 Any
violation of the high moral standards of the Legal Profession In view of the foregoing circumstances, perpetual
justifies the imposition on the attorney of the appropriate disqualification from being reinstated will be too grave a
penalty, including suspension and disbarment.43 Verily, the penalty in light of the objective of imposing heavy penalties
respondent's deceitful conduct as an attorney rendered him like disbarment to correct the offenders.53 The penalty ought to
directly answerable to the Court on ethical, professional and be tempered to enable his eventual reinstatement at some point
legal grounds despite the fact that he and the complainant had in the future. Verily, permanently barring the respondent from
amicably settled any differences they had that might have reinstatement in the Roll of Attorneys by virtue of this
compelled the complainant to bring the complaint against him. disbarrable offense will deprive him the chance to return to his
former life as an attorney.
In fine, the gravity of the respondent's professional misconduct
and deceit should fully warrant his being permanently barred To start the respondent on the long road to reinstatement, we
from reinstatement to the ranks of the Philippine Bar and from fine him in the amount of ₱100,000.00, a figure believed to be
having his name restored in the Roll of Attorneys. a fair index of the gravity of his misdeeds. Less than such
amount might undeservedly diminish the gravity of his
However, circumstances attendant in his case should be misdeeds. At this juncture, it is relevant to note that he
considered and appreciated in mitigating the penalty to be committed the offense complained of herein before the Court
imposed.44 disbarred him in A.C. 7054. Meting the stiff fine despite his
disbarment is a way for the Court to assert its authority and
The first of such circumstances related to the context of the competence to discipline all acts and actuations committed by
engagement between the parties. Upon reflecting on the the members of the Legal Profession. The Court will not waver
adverse effects on his inheritance from his late mother of his in doing so.
cousin's adoption by her, the complainant had engaged the
respondent's legal services and representation for the purpose But the fine comes with the stem warning to the respondent
of nullifying or undoing the adoption. At the outset, the that he must hereafter genuinely affirm his remorse and start to
respondent was candid in explaining to the complainant that demonstrate his readiness and capacity to live up once again to
the prosecution of the case would be complicated mainly the exacting standards of conduct demanded of every member
because the adoption had been decreed in 1979 yet, and also of the Bar in good standing and of every officer of the
because the complainant, as a permanent resident of the United Court;55 otherwise, he would be be sanctioned with greater
States of America, would be thereby encountering difficulties severity.
and high costs, aside from untold inconvenience due to his
physical presence in the country being needed every now and WHEREFORE, the Court FINDS AND DECLARES
then.45 The respondent's candid explanations notwithstanding, ATTY. ANASTACIO REVILLA, JR. GUILTY of violating
the complainant persisted in pursuing the case, impelling the Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, Rules 15.06 and 15.07 of Canon 15, and
respondent to take on the engagement. Rule 18.03 of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, but, in view of his continuing disbarment,
Another circumstance is that the respondent had already hereby METES the penalty of FINE of ₱l00,000.00.
returned to the complainant the amount of ₱650,000.00 the
former had received from the latter on account of the This decision is IMMEDIATELY EXECUTORY
professional engagement. The returned amount was in full and
complete settlement of the latter's claims.46 Judicial precedents
exist in which the Court treated the return in full of the money
the respondent attorneys had received from their complaining
clients as mitigating circumstances that lowered the penalties
28. A.C. No. 5573 SWAT members and his wife. Visibly drunk, respondent
threatened to hurt complainant with the bolo and the lead pipe
GIZALE O. TUMBAGA, vs. that he was carrying if she will not return the personal
ATTY. MANUEL P. TEOXON, Respondent belongings that he left in their previous apartment unit. As
respondent barged into the apartment, complainant sought help
Before the Court is an administrative complaint filed by from the SWAT members and one of them was able to pacify
complainant Gizale O. Tumbaga against respondent Atty. respondent. Respondent's wife also tried to attack complainant,
Manuel P. Teox.on, charging him with gross immorality, but she too was prevailed upon by the SWAT members. The
deceitful and fraudulent conduct, and gross misconduct. The incident was recorded in the police blotter.
parties hereto paint contrastive pictures not only of their
respective versions of the events but also of their negative To corroborate her allegations, complainant attached the
portrayals of each other's character. They are, thus, separately following documents to her complaint, among others: (a)
outlined below. pictures showing respondent lying in a bed holding Billy
John,3 respondent holding Billy John in a beach
The Complaint setting,4complainant holding Billy John in a beach
setting,5 respondent holding Billy John in a house setting,6 and
respondent and complainant seated beside each other in a
In a verified complaint1 dated October 9, 2001 filed directly
restaurant7 ; (b) the Certificate of Live Birth of Billy John with
with the Court, complainant narrated that she met respondent
an Affidavit of Acknowledgment/Admission of Paternity
sometime in September 1999. He was then the City Legal
showing respondent's signature8 ; (c) the affidavit of
Officer of Naga City from whom complainant sought legal
support9 executed by respondent; (d) the promissory
advice. After complainant consulted with him a few times, he
note10 executed by respondent; (e) the police blotter
visited her often at her residence and brought gifts for her son,
entry11dated September 9, 2001; and (f) copies of
Al Greg Tumbaga. Respondent even volunteered to be the
pleadings12 showing the signature of respondent.
godfather of Al Greg. In one of his visits, respondent assured
complainant's mother that although he was already married to
Luzviminda Balang,2his marriage was a sham because their Respondent's Answer
marriage contract was not registered. In view of respondent's
13
persistence and generosity to her son, complainant believed his In his answer, respondent denied the allegations in the
representation that he was eligible to marry her. complaint. He asserted that complainant merely wanted to
exact money from him.
Complainant averred that on December 19, 1999, she moved in
with respondent at the Puncia Apartment in Naga City. In Respondent alleged that he became the godfather of
April 2000, she became pregnant. Respondent allegedly complainant's son, Al Greg, but he was only one of four
wanted to have the baby aborted but complainant refused. sponsors. He began to visit complainant's residence to visit his
After the birth of their son, Billy John, respondent spent more godson. He also denied being the father of Billy John since
time with them. He used their apartment as a temporary law complainant supposedly had several live-in partners. He cited
office and he lived there for two to three days at a time. the affidavit of Antonio Orogo, complainant's uncle, to attest to
his allegations. According to the affidavit, Al Greg is the son
After Billy John was baptized, complainant secured a of the complainant's live-in partner named Orac Barrameda.
Certificate of Live Birth from the Office of the Civil Registrar Cpmplainant allegedly used Al Greg to extort money from
of Naga City and gave it to respondent to sign. He hesitantly Alfrancis Bichara, the former governor of Albay, with whom
signed it and volunteered to facilitate its filing. After complainant also had a sexual relationship.
respondent failed to file the same, complainant secured another
form and asked respondent to sign it twice. On February 15, Respondent denied that he lived together with complainant at
2001, the Certificate of Live Birth was registered. the Puncia Apartment since he was already married. As
complainant was his kumadre, he would pass by her house
Thereafter, complainant related that respondent rarely visited whenever he visited the house of Representative Sulpicio S.
them. To make ends meet, she decided to work in a law office Roco, Jr. Respondent was then a member of Representative
in Naga City. However, respondent compelled her to resign, Roco's legislative staff. Sometimes, respondent would leave a
assuring her that he would take care of her financial needs. As bag of clothing in complainant's house to save money for his
respondent failed to fulfill his promise, complainant sought fare in going to the office of Representative Roco in the House
assistance from the Office of the City Fiscal in Naga City on of Representatives in Quezon City. In one instance,
the second week of March 2001. In the early morning of the complainant and her mother refused to return one of his bags
conference set by said office, respondent gave complainant an such that he was forced to file a replevin case. The Municipal
affidavit of support and told her there was no need for him to Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Naga City decided the case in
appear in the conference. Complainant showed the affidavit to his favor.
Fiscal Elsa Mampo, but the latter advised her to have the
respondent sign the affidavit again. Fiscal Mampo was unsure Respondent also claimed that complainant falsified his
of the signature in the affidavit as she was familiar with signature in the Certificate of Live Birth of Billy John so he
respondent's signature. Complainant confronted respondent filed a complaint for the cancellation of his acknowledgment
about the affidavit and he half-heartedly affixed his true therein. Complainant allegedly made it look like he appeared
signature therein. before Notary Public Vicente Estela on February 15, 2001, but
he argued that it was physically impossible for him to have
In May 2001, complainant went to respondent's office as he done so as he attended a hearing in the Regional Trial Court
again reneged on his promise of support. To appease her anger, (RTC) of Libmanan, Camarines Sur that day. He also
respondent executed a promissory note. However, he also contended that complainant forged his signature in the
failed to honor the same. Affidavit of Support.

In June· 2001, complainant moved out of the Puncia As to the pictures of respondent with Billy John, he argued that
Apartment as respondent did not pay the rentals therefor the same cannot prove paternity. He explained that in one of
anymore. In the evening of September 9, 2001, respondent his visits to Al Greg, complainant left Billy John in his care to
raided complainant's new residence, accompanied by three keep the child from falling off the bed. However, complainant
secretly took his picture as he was lying in the bed holding The IBP Board of Governors denied the motion for
Billy John. As to his picture with Billy John taken at the beach, reconsideration in its Resolution No. XX-2012-53931 dated
respondent alleged that at that time complainant gave Billy December 14, 2012.
John to respondent as she wanted to go swimming. While he
was holding the child, complainant secretly took their picture. The IBP thereafter transmitted the record of the case to the
Respondent accused complainant of taking the pictures in Court for final action.
order to use the same to extort money from him. This is the
same scheme allegedly used by complainant against her The Ruling of the Court
previous victims, who paid money to buy peace with her.
The Court agrees with the conclusion of the IBP that the
Respondent further alleged that politics was also involved in actuations of respondent in this case showed his failure to live
the filing of the complaint as complainant was working in the up to the good moral conduct required of the members of the
office of then Representative Luis Villafuerte, the political legal profession.
opponent of Representative Roco.
We held in Advincula v. Advincula32 that:
Respondent attached to his answer the following documents,
among others: (a) the affidavit of Antonio Orogo14 ; (b) the
The good moral conduct or character must be possessed by
Decision15 dated May 8, 2006 of the MTCC of Naga City in
lawyers at the time of their application for admission to the
Civil Case No. 11546, which is the replevin case; (c) copies of
Bar, and must be maintained until retirement from the practice
the Minutes of Proceedings16 and the Order17 of the RTC of
of law. In this regard, the Code of Professional Responsibility
Libmanan, Camarines Sur, both dated January 15, 2001,
states:
showing that respondent attended a hearing therein on said
date; and (d) a photocopy18 of respondent's credit card and
automated teller machine (ATM) card showing his signature. Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct.
The Proceedings before the IBP
Commission on Bar Discipline xxxx

The parties appeared before the IBP Commission on Bar CANON 7 - A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity
Discipline for a few hearings and the marking of their and dignity of the legal profession, and support the activities of
respective. evidence. Complainant marked the following the Integrated Bar.
documents, among others, in addition to those already attached
to the complaint: (a) a picture19 showing respondent seated in a x x x x
restaurant with complainant hugging him; (b) a receipt20 issued
by the Clerk of Court of the MTCC of Naga City, enumerating Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that
the objects (consisting mostly of items of clothing) returned by adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor should he,
complainant to respondent in the replevin case; and (c) whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous
receipts21 purportedly showing respondent's payment of the manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
rentals for complainant's apartment unit.
Accordingly, it is expected that every lawyer, being an officer
On motion of complainant, the IBP issued an order22 directing of the Court, must not only be in fact of good moral character,
respondent, complainant, and Billy John to undergo DNA but must also be seen to be of good moral character and
testing in the DNA laboratory of the National Bureau of leading lives in accordance with the highest moral standards of
Investigation (NBI) to determine the child's paternity. Upon the community. More specifically, a member of the Bar and
motion23 from respondent, however, the IBP annulled its prior officer of the Court is required not only to refrain from
order in the interest of the speedy disposition of the case.24 adulterous relationships or keeping mistresses but also to
conduct himself as to avoid scandalizing the public by creating
On November 14, 2008, the IBP Commission on Bar the belief that he is flouting those moral standards. If the
Discipline issued its Report and Recommendation, finding practice of law is to remain an honorable profession and attain
25

that respondent maintained an illicit affair with complainant its basic ideals, whoever is enrolled in its ranks should not only
and that he should be meted the penalty of suspension for a master its tenets and principles but should also, in their lives,
period of two (2) years. accord continuing fidelity to them. The requirement of good
moral character is of much greater import, as far as the general
In the Resolution No. XVIII-2009-15 dated February 19, public is concerned, than the possession of legal learning.
26

2009, the IBP Board of Governors approved the above

recommendation and increased the recommended period of Immoral conduct has been described as conduct that is so
suspension to three (3) years. willful, flagrant, or shameless as to show indifference to the
opinion of good and respectable members of the community.
Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration of the above To be the basis of disciplinary action, such conduct must not
27

resolution. Attached thereto were: (a) the affidavits28 of only be immoral, but grossly immoral, that is, it must be so
Representative Roco and respondent's wife, Minda B. Teoxon, corrupt as to virtually constitute a criminal act or so
which allegedly refuted complainant's contention that unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree or
respondent lived with complainant at the Puncia Apartment in committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances
Naga City; (b) the transcript of stenographic notes (TSN) dated as to shock the common sense of decency. (Citations omitted;
May 10, 200529 in Civil Case No. 11546 for replevin, wherein emphasis supplied.)
complainant supposedly admitted to her past relationships; and
(c) a letter30 from the University of Nueva Caceres that Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides for the
informed respondent that he was chosen to be the recipient of imposition of the penalty of disbarment or suspension if a
its Diamond Achiever Award. member of the Bar is found guilty of committing grossly
immoral conduct, to wit:
SEC. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme
Court, grounds therefor. - A member of the bar may be
disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the
Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross
misconduct in such office, grossly immoral .conduct, or by
reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude,
or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take
before the admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience
of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or
willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without
authority to do so. x x x.
pants unless she is a bareface extortionist. But to the [MTCC],
she did not appear to be so. In fact, the [MTCC] had the
occasion to observe [complainant] with two little handsome
boys who appeared to be her sons. Hence, this lends credence
to the fact that she might have really demanded money in
exchange for the shirts and pants to support her children.
Be that as it may, the [MTCC] is duty bound to apply the law.
There is no issue on the ownership of the personal belongings
contained in a bag allegedly left by the [respondent] in the
house of [complainant].

In order to justify the imposition of the above administrative xxxx

penalties on a member of the Bar, his/her guilt must first be
established by substantial evidence.33 As explained in Re: However, as far as the [furniture] is concerned, like the brass
Rafael Dimaano,34 substantial evidence or that amount of bed, sala set, dining table and plastic drawer, the [MTCC] is
relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as not persuaded by [respondent's] claim that he meant to be paid
adequate to support a conclusion. by [complainant] for it. [Respondent] is a lawyer and although
he is not engage[d] in the buying and selling of [furniture] he
After a thorough review of the records of the case, the Court should have known that if he really intended to be paid back
upholds the findings of the IBP as there is indeed substantial for it, he should have asked [complainant] to [sign] a
evidence that respondent committed gross immorality by promissory note or even a memorandum. As it is, he failed to
maintaining an extramarital affair with complainant. show any evidence of such an undertaking. That it was a gift of
love is more like it.35
One of the key pieces of evidence that the IBP considered in
ruling against respondent is the Decision dated May 8, 2006 of The IBP posited that the above ruling was more than sufficient
the MTCC of Naga City in Civil Case No. 11546 for replevin. to prove that respondent tried to distort the truth that he and
complainant did live together as husband and wife in one
In said case, respondent made it appear that he was merely apartment unit. The Court agrees with the IBP on this matter.
seeking to recover personal belongings that he left behind at
one time in complainant's house. The items included a The MTCC plainly disbelieved respondent's claim that he
traveling bag with various articles of clothing and file folders merely left his bag of clothing in complainant's house before
of cases that he was handling. He also tried to recover the he left for his place of work in Metro Manila - a claim which
pieces of furniture that he allegedly bought for the he likewise made in the present case. The trial court further
complainant, which the latter failed to reimburse as promised. posited that the pieces of furniture sought to be recovered by
These include a brass bed with foam mattress, a plastic dining respondent were indeed bought by him but the same were
table with six plastic chairs, a brass sala set with a center table, intentionally given to complainant out of love. Clearly, the
and a plastic drawer. For her defense, complainant argued that MTCC was convinced that respondent and complainant were
the respondent gradually left the items of clothing in their involved in an illicit relationship that eventually turned sour
apartment unit during the period that they cohabited therein and led to the filing of the replevin case.
from time to time. She also said that the furniture were gifts to
her and Billy John. A perusal of the above decision reveals that the findings and
conclusions therein were arrived at by the MTCC after a trial
In its decision, the MTCC did rule in favor of on the merits of the case. In other words, the trial court first
respondent.1âwphi1 However, the following elucidation by the heard the parties and received their respective evidence before
MTCC is quite telling: it rendered a decision. As such, the trial court cannot be
accused of arriving at the aforementioned findings lightly.
To the Court, this is one case that should not have been
brought to court because [respondent] could have resorted to a Accordingly, the Court finds no reason to mistrust the
more diplomatic or tactful way of retrieving his personal observations and findings of the MTCC. Respondent did not
belongings rather than going on record with a lot of pretext andeven point out any reason for us to do so. While the issues in
evasion as if the presiding judge is too naive to appreciate the replevin case and the instant administrative case are indeed
human nature and the truth. [Respondent] would have done different, they share a common factual backdrop, i.e., the
well if he was gentleman, candid and responsible enough to parties' contrasting account of the true nature of their
admit his misadventure and accept responsibility for his relationship. From the evidence of both parties, the MTCC
misdeeds rather than try to distort facts and avoid facing the chose the complainant's version of the events. Incidentally, it
truth. It is not manly. was respondent himself who brought to light the existence of
the MTCC decision in the replevin case when he attached the
Of course, the [MTCC] is fully convinced that the personal same to his answer in the present case to substantiate his
belongings listed in the complaint [are] owned by him and the narration of facts. Thus, he cannot belatedly plead that the
[furniture] that were eventually sold by [complainant] was decision be disregarded after the statements and findings
bought by him, even without showing any receipts for it. therein were used against him .
However, the [MTCC] is not persuaded by his allegation that
he left his bag with [complainant] because he was in a hurry in Complainant further attached pictures of respondent with her
going to Manila. He boldly declared in [the trial court] that he and Billy John as proof of their romantic relations. A perusal
has three residences in Naga City and of all places he had to of these pictures convinces this Court that while the same
leave his shirt and underwear with a lady whom he had visited cannot indeed prove Billy John's paternity, they are
"only twice". nevertheless indicative of a relationship between complainant
~d respondent that is more than merely platonic.
[Respondent] could deny all the way up to high heaven that he
has no child with [complainant] but the [MTCC] will forever One of the annexed pictures shows the couple in a restaurant
wonder why the latter would refuse to part with the shirts and setting, smiling at the camera while seated beside each other
very closely that their arms are visibly touching. Another said certificate of birth as the issue should be threshed out in
picture shows the couple in the same setting, this time with the proper proceeding.
complainant smiling as she embraced respondent from behind
and they were both looking at the camera. From the facial In his answer to the complaint, respondent attached the
expressions and the body language of respondent and affidavit of Antonio Orogo in order to belie complainant's
complainant in these pictures, the same unfailingly allegations and that she merely wanted to exact money from
demonstrate their unmistakable closeness and their lack of respondent. In the affidavit, Orogo claimed that respondent did
qualms over publicly displaying their affection towards one not live with complainant in the Puncia Apartment in Naga
another. Thus, the attempts of respondent to downplay his City. Orogo further accused complainant and her mother of
relationship with complainant flop miserably. Curiously, engaging in the practice of extorting money from various men
respondent did not bother to explain the aforesaid pictures. since she was just 11 years old. The alleged instances of
extortion involved the complainant falsely accusing one man
In his answer to the complaint, respondent only managed to of rape and falsely claiming to another man that he was the
comment on the pictures of himself with Billy John. Even father of her first child.
then, respondent's accounts as to these pictures are too flimsy
and incredible to be accepted by the Court. Respondent The Court can hardly ascribe any credibility to the above
previously admitted to the genuineness of the pictures but not affidavit. Given the materiality of Orogo's statements therein,
to the alleged circumstances of the taking thereof.36 However, not to mention the gravity of his accusations against
respondent's allegation that the pictures were surreptitiously complainant and her mother, he should have been presented as
taken by complainant falls flat on its face. The pictures clearly a witness before the IBP investigating commissioner in order
show that he and Billy John were looking directly at the to confirm his affidavit and give complainant the opportunity
camera when the pictures were taken. Moreover, the angles to cross-examine him. For whatever reason, this was not done.
from which the pictures were taken suggest that the person As it is, Orogo's affidavit lacks evidentiary value.
taking the same was directly in front of respondent and Billy In Boyboy v. Yabut,40 we cautioned that:
John.
It is not difficult to manufacture charges in the affidavits,
In his motion for reconsideration of the IBP Board of hence, it is imperative that their truthfulness and veracity be
Governors Resolution No. XVIII-2009-15, respondent further tested in the crucible of thorough examination. The hornbook
argued that the pictures were not conclusive and the admission doctrine is that unless the affiants themselves take the witness
of the same was not in accordance with the Rules of Court as stand to affirm the averments in their affidavits, those
nobody testified on the circumstances of the taking of the affidavits must be excluded from the proceedings for being
pictures and the accuracy thereof.37 The IBP correctly inadmissible and hearsay x x x. (Citation omitted.)
disregarded this argument given that technical rules of
procedure and evidence are not strictly applied in In like manner, the Court cannot give much weight to the
administrative proceedings. Administrative due process cannot affidavits of Representative Roco and Minda B. Teoxon, both
be fully equated to due process in its strict judicial sense.38 of whom attested to the statements of respondent regarding his
places of residence during the time material to this case. It
With respect to the affidavit of support, the promissory note, should be stressed that said affidavits were executed only on
and the Certificate of Live Birth of Billy John that contained June 15, 2009 or about four months after the IBP Board of
an Affidavit of Acknowledgment/ Admission of Paternity, Governors issued its Resolution No. XVIII-2009-15 on
respondent likewise failed to provide sufficient controverting February 19, 2009, which affirmed respondent's culpability for
evidence therefor. grossly immoral conduct. This attenuates the credibility of the
statements as the same were only given as corroborative
In the affidavit of support and the promissory note, respondent statements at so late a time given the relevancy thereof.
supposedly promised to provide monetary support to Billy
John, whom he acknowledged as his illegitimate son. In the face of the accusations and the evidence offered against
Respondent verbally repudiated said documents, pointing out him, respondent was duty-bound to meet the same decisively
that the same were typewritten while he used a computer in his head-on. As the Court declared in Narag v. Narag41 :
office, not a typewriter.39 Respondent further accused
complainant of falsifying his signatures therein and, to prove While the burden of proof is upon the complainant, respondent
his charge, he submitted photocopies of his credit card and A has the duty not only to himself but also to the court to show
TM card that allegedly showed his customary signatures. that he is morally fit to remain a member of the bar. Mere
denial does not suffice. Thus, when his moral character is
The Court, still, finds this refutation wanting. To the naked assailed, such that his right to continue practicing his cherished
eye, the sample signatures in the credit card and A TM card do profession is imperiled, he must meet the charges squarely and
appear to be different from the ones in the affidavit of support, present evidence, to the satisfaction of the investigating body
the promissory note, and the Certificate of Live Birth. and this Court, that he is morally fit to have his name in the
However, we likewise compared the sample signatures to Roll of Attorneys. x x x. (Citation omitted.)
respondent's signatures in his pleadings before the IBP and
other documents submitted in evidence and we find that the Unfortunately, respondent failed to prove his defense when the
signatures in the two sets appear to be likewise dissimilar, burden of evidence shifted to him. He could neither provide
which suggests respondent uses several different signatures. any concrete corroboration of his denials in this case nor
Thus, respondent's claim of forgery is unconvincing. satisfactorily prove his claim that complainant was merely
Moreover, as the IBP noted, the records of the case do not extorting money from him.
indicate if he filed criminal charges against complainant for
her alleged acts of falsification.
In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that respondent
should be held liable for having illicit relations with
As to the Certificate of Live Birth of Billy John, respondent complainant. As to whether respondent also sired
did file a complaint for the cancellation of his acknowledgmentcomplainant's second child, Billy John, the Court finds that the
therein. Thus, the Court will no longer discuss the parties' same was not sufficiently established by the evidence
arguments regarding the validity of respondent's signature in presented in this case. The paternity and/or acknowledgement
of Billy John, if indeed he is respondent's illegitimate child,
must be alleged and proved in separate proceedings before the (3) CBD Case No. 12-3369 for gross misconduct, violation of
proper tribunal having jurisdiction to hear the same. the lawyer’s oath and violation of Canon 1 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility (CPR) filed by Atty. Dalangin
As to the penalty that should be imposed against respondent in against Atty. Torres and Atty. Avelino Andres (Atty. Andres),
this case, the Court had occasion to rule docketed in this Court as A.C. No. 10760 ; and
42
in Samaniego v. Ferrer, that:
(4) CBD Case No. 12-3458 for grave misconduct, dishonesty
We have considered such illicit relation as a disgraceful and and violation of Canon 1 of the CPR filed by Atty. Dalangin
immoral conduct subject to disciplinary action. The penalty for against Atty. Torres and docketed in this Court as A.C. No.
such immoral conduct is disbarment, or indefinite or definite 10761.
suspension, depending on the circumstances of the case.
Recently, in Ferancullo v. Ferancullo, Jr., we ruled that The Antecedents
suspension from the practice of law for two years was an
adequate penalty imposed on the lawyer who was found guilty A.C. No. 10758
of gross immorality. In said case, we considered the absence of
aggravating circumstances such as an adulterous relationship CBD Case No. 11-3215 is a complaint1 for gross immorality,
coupled with refusal to support his family; or maintaining malpractice and gross misconduct filed against Atty. Dalangin
illicit relationships with at least two women during the by the following complainants: (1) Atty. Torres; (2) Felicidad
subsistence of his marriage; or abandoning his legal wife and O. Samatra (Samatra); (3) Alvaro; (4) Mary DF. Noveras
cohabiting with other women. (Citations omitted.) (Noveras); and (5) Generosa S. Camacho (Camacho).2

However, considering respondent's blatant attempts to deceive The complaint imputed upon Atty. Dalangin several breaches
the courts and the IBP regarding his true relationship with of his duties as a lawyer. First, it was alleged that Atty.
complainant, we agree with the IBP Board of Governors that Dalangin filed against employees of the Judiciary and a fellow
the proper penalty in this instance is a three-year suspensionlawyer groundless suits, which were merely prompted by his
from the practice of law. loss in a case and intended to cover up his negligence as
counsel. By his acts, Atty. Dalangin committed gross
WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Atty. Manuel P. misconduct, and breached Rule 18.03, Canon 18, Rules 1.02
Teoxon GUILTY of gross immorality and is and 1.03, Canon 1, and Canon 11 of the CPR.3
hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period
of three (3) years effective upon notice hereof, with a STERN It appeared that prior to the institution of CBD Case No. 11-
WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar offense 3215, a complaint for disbannent was filed against Atty. Torres
shall be punished with a more severe penalty. by Apolonia Marzan (Marzan) and 1V1elody Valdez (Valdez),
who were clients of Atty. Dalangin and the losing parties in an
29. A.C. No. 10758 unlawful detainer case decided by Presiding Judge Efren B.
Mallare (Judge Mallare) of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC)
ATTY. ROSITA L. DELA FUENTE TORRES, ET AL, vs. of Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija. Marzan and Valdez later
ATTY. BAYANI P. DALANGIN, Respondent disclosed to Atty. Torres that the filing of the disbarment case
was orchestrated by Atty. Dalangin, who prepared the affidavit
x-----------------------x and instructed them to sign it even without explaining the
contents and tenor of the document.
GLENDA ALVARO, Petitioner vs.
ATTY. BAYANI P. DALANGIN, Respondent When Marzan and Valdez eventually realized that their
affidavit was used to file a disbarment complaint with the IBP
x-----------------------x against Atty. Torres, they decided to terminate the services of
Atty. Dalangin. By their new counsel's advice, Marzan and
Valdez stopped attending the disbarment hearings, and the case
ATTY. BAYANI P. DALANGIN, Petitioner vs.
was eventually dismissed by the IBP. Atty. Dalangin also
ATTY. ROSITA L. DELA FUENTE TORRES AND
caused Marzan and Valdez's filing of administrative cases
ATTY. AVE.LINO ANDRES, Respondent
against Judge Mallare and Noveras, as the Clerk of Court of
the MTC, which complaints were nonetheless likewise
x-----------------------x dismissed by the Supreme Court upon the IBP’s
recommendation.4
ATTY. BAYANI P. DALANGIN, Petitioner vs.
ATTY. ROSITA L. DELA FUENTE TORRES, Respondent Second, Atty. Dalangin was accused of maintaining an illicit
and immoral affair with one Julita Pascual (Pascual), a clerk at
These are four administrative complaints that were separately the Public Attorney's Office (PAO) in Talavera, Nueva Ecija,
filed with the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated where Atty. Dalangin previously worked as district public
Bar of the Philippines (IBP) by and against substantially the attorney. After Atty. Dalangin had left PAO, he retained
same parties, particularly: Pascual as his private secretary, who still remained to be
employed with PAO. Atty. Dalangin and Pascual had a
(l) CBD Case No. 11-3215 for gross immorality, malpractice daughter whom they named Julienne, even when each of them
and gross misconduct filed by Atty. Rosita L. Dela Fuente- had existing marriages with some other persons.5 The affair
Torres (Atty. Torres). et al., against Atty. Bayani P. Dalangin between Atty. Dalangin and Pascual, and the paternity of
(Atty. Dalangin) and docketed before the Court as A.C. No. l Julienne, were known to the community, especially the
0758: courts.6 Julienne was nonetheless entered in the civil registry
as Pascual and her legal husband's own child so as to conceal
(2) CBD Case No. 12-3292 for gross misconduct filed by the fact that Atty. Dalangin was the real father.7 The foregoing
Glenda Alvaro (Alvaro) against Atty. Dalangin and docketed acts allegedly breached Rule 1.01, Canon 1, and Rule 7.03,
before the Court as A.C. No. 10759; Canon 7 of the CPR.
Third, Atty. Dalangin was accused of malpractice for acts that knowledge that Alvaro was a fixer, who used the name of the
dated back to his prior employment with PAO. He allegedly office and demanded money from indigent clients. For Atty.
collected attorney’s fees from indigent litigants who sought his Dalangin, Alvaro filed this complaint to get back at Atty.
assistance, like complainant Camacho from whom he Dalangin for banning her at the PAO and depriving her of
demanded an acceptance fee of ₱8,000.00. When Camacho earning from her illegal activities.20
explained that he could only produce ₱3,000.00, Atty.
Dalangin threw the case records on a table and A.C. No. 10760
retorted, "Mabubuhay ba naman ang abogado
[ditto]."8 Without prior authority from his superiors, Atty. The two other complaints, CBD Case No. 12-3369 and CBD
Dalangin also willfully appeared in areas outside his Case No. 12-3458, were instituted by Atty. Dalangin.
jurisdiction as a district public attorney.9
In CBD Case No. 12-3369,21 Atty. Dalangin sought the
Fourth, the complaint included charges that pertained to Atty. disbarment of Atty. Torres and Atty. Andres for gross
Dalangin's handling of his court cases. It was claimed that misconduct, violation of the lawyer's oath, and breach of Rules
Atty. Dalangin misquoted jurisprudence in a pleading he filed 1.01 and 1.02, Canon 1 of the CPR. He claimed that both
in court, which act constituted a breach of Rule 10.02, Canon lawyers conspired with their clients in filing CBD Case No.
10 of the CPR.10 In a case for robbery filed by Samatra against 11-3215, even as they violated Republic Act (R.A.) No. 4200,
Pascual, Atty. Dalangin also wielded his influence and otherwise known as the Anti-Wiretapp zsing Act.
prepared perjured statements from supposed witnesses, a clear
violation of Rule 10.02, Canon 10 of the CPR.11 Finally, Atty.
Submitted to support CBD Case No. 11-3215 was Nonilo
Dalangin violated Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the CPR when he
Alejo’s (Alejo) affidavit, which contained a transcript of a
submitted in a civil case fraudulent and misleading evidence,
recorded telephone conversation between Alejo and one
particularly a certificate of title without the page reflecting the
12 Wilma Pineda (Pineda).22 The recording was without the prior
annotations pertinent to the case.
knowledge and consent of Pineda.23
Atty. Dalangin filed his Answer and refuted all charges.13 He
As a backgrounder, Atty. Dalangin was accused in CBD Case
denied having a hand in the preparation of the disbarment
No. 11- 3215 of fabricating testimonies against Noveras, who
complaint against Atty. Torres, as he argued that neither his
was claimed to be a vital witness in a criminal case against
name nor his signature appeared in the records thereof. His
Pascual. In an affidavit drafted by Atty. Dalangin for Pineda,
relationship with Pascual, on the other hand, was only
the latter complained of Noveras and Alejo’s failure to return
maliciously misinterpreted. He was only a close friend of the
in full the cash bond that she posted in a case for violation of
Pascuals, and some of Pascual’s children, including Julienne,
the Bouncing Checks Law, even after the case had been
were his godchildren.14
dismissed by the trial court. This allegation was negated in the
disputed transcript, as Pineda allegedly confirmed receiving
Atty. Dalangin likewise denied the claim that he collected the full ₱8,000.00, but decided to give half thereof to Alejo for
attorney's fees while he worked as a PAO lawyer. Although he a "blow-out" after her case’s dismissal.24
admitted appearing as a public attorney in an area that was
beyond his jurisdiction, the appearance 1 was with the
Both Atty. Andres and Atty. Torres disputed the complaint.
Regional Public Attorney's verbal authority, claimed by Atty.
Atty. Andres asserted that CBD Case No. 12-3369 was filed
Dalangin to be sufficient under office practice.15Finally, the
only to harass and intimidate him, being the counsel of the
alleged mistakes that he committed as counsel in specific
complainants in CBD Case No. 11- 3215.25 By way of defense,
cases' presentation of evidence had been rectified in court.16
he adopted a counter-affidavit26 which he submitted in a
separate complaint for violation of R.A. No. 4200 that was
A.C. No. 10759 filed by Atty. Dalangin with the City Prosecutor of Pasig City.
Atty. Andres therein argued that on the basis of Atty.
CBD Case No. 12-3292, a complaint17 for gross misconduct, Dalangin’s allegations, the case should have been filed by
was filed by Alvaro against Atty. Dalangin for an incident that Pineda against Alejo, being the purported victim and the one
happened on the morning of November 14, 2011, while Alvaro who recorded the conversation, respectively.
was waiting for the start of a hearing at the lobby of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 37, Sto. Domingo, Nueva Atty. Torres, on the other hand, pointed out that Atty.
Ecija. Upon seeing Alvaro, Atty. Dalangin allegedly hurled Dalangin’s reference to R.A. No. 4200 was tantamount to an
slanderous and defamatory remarks against her, as he spoke at admission that the conversation actually transpired. This only
the top of his voice and referred to her as a "certified confirmed a fault committed by Atty. Dalangin for the
swindler." He also confronted and threatened Alvaro for her fabrications in Pineda's earlier affidavit, which was executed
participation in the filing of CBD Case No. 11-3215, and then purposely to destroy the credibility of Noveras. The
precluded her from visiting the PAO in Talavera, Nueva Ecija. submission of the transcript was necessary because Atty.
Atty. Dalangin’s tirade was heard and witnessed by several Dalangin’s malpractice was one of the main causes of action in
persons, and some of them executed their respective CBD Case No. 11-3215.27 Moreover, the record of the
affidavits18 to narrate the incident. The foregoing impelled conversation between Alejo and Pineda could not be
Alvaro to seek Atty. Dalangin’s disbarment for a violation of considered a violation of R.A. No. 4200 because no wire or
Rules 1.01 and 1.02, Canon 1, Rule 7.03, Canon 7, and Rule cable was used to tap their cellular phones. Neither party in the
8.02, Canon 8 of the CPR. conversation also complained of a supposed wiretapping.28

While Atty. Dalangin admitted in his Answer19 the alleged A.C. No. 10761
confrontation, he denied shouting invectives at Alvaro. When
he talked to Alvaro, he merely confronted her for what he
The complaint29 docketed as CBD Case No. 12-3458 was filed
claimed were lies declared in her affidavit in CBD Case No.
solely against Atty. Torres for grave misconduct, dishonesty
11-3215. Atty. Dalangin also warned to seek legal remedies
for violation of Article 18330 of the Revised Penal Code, and
should Alvaro fail to substantiate the truth of her testimonies.
breach of Canon 1 of the CPR.
Atty. Dalangin also admitted that he precluded Alvaro from
Atty. Dalangin faulted Atty. Torres for submitting in CBD
visiting PAO, but explained that this was prompted by his
Case No. 11-3215 Marzan and Valdez’s affidavit,31 which
allegedly contained untruthful statements. Marzan and Valdez
knew from the beginning that they were complainants in a
disbarment case against Atty. Torres. Atty. Torres, however,
later made them issue the perjured statements by using as a
leverage her own complaint32 for perjury against Marzan and
Valdez, who were then pressured to sign the affidavits in
exchange for the perjury case’s dismissal.33
RESOLVED to DENY Respondent/Complainant Dalangin’s
Motion for Reconsideration there being no cogent reason to
reverse the findings of the Commission and the Resolution
subject of the motion, it being a mere reiteration of the matters
which had already been threshed out and taken into
consideration. Thus, Resolution No. XX-2013-768 dated June
1, 2013 is hereby AFFIRMED.40

In her Answer34 to the complaint, Atty. Torres insisted on the On February 26, 2015, Atty. Dominic C. M. Solis, Director for
truth of the statements made by Marzan and Valdez in their Bar Discipline, IBP Commission on Bar Discipline,
affidavit in CBD Case No. 11-3215. transmitted the case records to the Court pursuant to Rule 139-
B of the Rules of Court.41
Report and Recommendation of the Investigating
Commissioner On even date and before the Court could have rendered its
final action on the disbarment complaints against Atty.
The four administrative complaints were eventually Dalangin vis-a-vis the records forwarded by the IBP, Atty.
consolidated and jointly resolved by the IBP. Dalangin forthwith filed with the Court a Petition for
Review,42 which questioned the IBP resolutions
After the parties ’ filing of their respective position papers and that, first, declared him administratively liable in CBD Case
the conduct of a series of hearings, Investigating Nos. 11-3215 and 12- 3292, and second, dismissed his
Commissioner Honesto A. Villamor (Investigating complaints against Atty. Torres and Atty. Andres in CBD Case
Commissioner) issued a Consolidated Report and Nos. 12-3369 and 12-3458.
Recommendation35 dated February 11, 2013, which found
sufficient bases for Atty. Dalangin’s suspension from the In a Resolution43 dated June 16, 2015, the Court consolidated
practice of law for three years. Atty. Dalangin’s charges these cases and, without giving due course to the petition for
against Atty. Dela Torres and Atty. Andres, on the other hand, review, required the filing of Comments on the petition.
were recommended for dismissal. Accordingly, a Consolidated Comment on the Petition44 dated
August 5, 2015 was filed by Andres & Associates Law Office,
Thus, the Investigating Commissioner’s Consolidated Report as counsel for Atty. Torres, et al., being the complainants in
and Recommendation ended as follows: CBD Case Nos. 11-3215 and 12-3292, and respondents in
CBD Case Nos. 12-3369 and 12-3458. Thereafter, Atty.
Dalangin filed his Reply45 to the consolidated comment.
WHEREFORE, under the foregoing, finding that Respondent
Bayani P. Dalangin violated the provisions of the [CPR] and
his Lawyer's Oath specifically on Gross Immorality, and Gross The Court’s Ruling
Misconduct in CBD Case No. 11-3215 and CBD Case No. 12-
3292, it is recommended that said Respondent be suspended Procedure from Resolutions
from the practice of law for the period of three (3) years from of the IBP Board of Governors
receipt of the order with a warning that similar offense in the
future will be dealt with more severely. The Court finds it appropriate to first address the matter of
Atty. Dalangin’s immediate recourse to the Court via a petition
It is further recommended that the charges against Respondent for review that questioned the IBP Board of Governors' resolve
Rosita L. dela Fuente Torres and Respondent Avelino Andres to affirm the Investigating Commissioner's recommendation on
in CBD Case No. 12-3369 and CBD Case No. 12-3458, for his administrative liability, notwithstanding the fact that the
lack of merit be ordered dismissed. Court had not yet taken a final action on the complaints.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.36 When the administrative complaints were resolved by the IBP
and the instant petition for review was filed in Court, the
Recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors procedure from resolutions of the IBP Board of Governors in
administrative cases was as provided in the former Section 12
of Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, prior to the amendments
On June 21, 2013, the IBP Board of Governors issued
37 introduced by Bar Matter No. 1645 dated October 13, 2015.
Resolution No. XX-2013-768, which adopted and approved
The old rule read:
the Investigating Commissioner’s Consolidated Report and
Recommendation. The resolution reads:
Section 12. Review and decision by the Board of' Governors.
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby
unanimously ADOPTED and APPROVED, the Report and a) Every case heard by an investigator shall be reviewed by the
Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in the IBP Board of Governors upon the record and evidence
above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as transmitted to it by the Investigator with his report. The
Annex "A", and finding the recommendation fully supprted by decision of the Board upon such review shall be in writing and
the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules and shall clearly and distinctly state the facts and the reasons on
considering that Respondent Dalangin is guilty of gross which it is based. It shall be promulgated within a period not
immorality and gross misconduct, Atty. Bayani P. Dalangin is exceeding thirty (30) days from the next meeting of the Board
hereby SUSPENDEDfrom the practice of law for three (3) following the submittal of the Investigator's report.
years with Warning that repetition of the same or similar act
shall be dealt with more severely. The case against Atty. b) If the Board, by the vote of a majority of its total
Rosita L. dela [Fuente] Torres and Atty. Manuel Andres is membership, determines that the respondent should be
hereby DISMISSED.38 suspended from the practice of law or disbarred, it shall
issue a resolution setting forth its findings and
Atty. Dalangin filed a motion for reconsideration, but this was recommendations which, together with the whole record of
denied by the IBP Board of Governors in a Resolution39 dated the case, shall forthwith be transmitted to the Supreme
August 8, 2014, which reads: Court for final action.
c) If the respondent is exonerated by the Board or the
disciplinary sanction imposed by it is less than suspension
or disbarment (such as admonition, reprimand, or fine) it
shall issue a decision exonerating respondent or imposing
such sanction. The case shall be deemed terminated unless
upon petition of the complainant or other interested party
filed with the Supreme Court within fifteen (15) days from
notice of the Board’s resolution, the Supreme Co mi orders
otherwise.
recommended penalties are also, by their nature,
recommendatory.48 In light of these precepts, the Court will
then not refuse a review of the IBP's recommendation for Atty.
Dalangin’s suspension notwithstanding the premature filing of
the petition. In fact, an examination of the IBP resolutions for
his suspension is warranted as a matter of course, even in the
absence of a petition, because it is the Court that has the duty
to take a final action on any determination of the IBP for a
lawyer's suspension from the practice of law or disbarment.

d) Notice of the resolution or decision of the Board shall be Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court had in fact been later
given to all parties through their counsel. A copy of the same amended by B.M. No. 1645 dated October 13, 2015. Section
shall be transmitted to the Supreme Court. (Emphases 12 thereof now reads:
supplied)
Sec. 12. Review and recommendation by the Board of
In B.M. No. 1755 captioned Re: Clarification of Rules of Governors.
Procedure of the Commission on Bar Discipline, the Court
applied this provision to address the issue therein involved, a) Every case heard by an investigator shall be reviewed by the
and explained its proper application in a Resolution dated June IBP Board of Governors upon the record and evidence
17, 2008. The Court set the following guidelines: transmitted to it by the Investigator with his report.

In case a decision is rendered by the [Board of Governors b) After its review, the Board, by the vote of a majority of its
(BOG)] that exonerates the respondent or imposes a total membership, shall recommend to the Supreme Court the
sanction less than suspension or disbarment, the aggrieved dismissal of the complaint or the imposition of disciplinary
party can file a motion for reconsideration within the 15- action against the respondent. The Board shall issue a
day period from notice. If the motion is denied, said party resolution setting forth its findings and recommendations,
can file a petition for a review under Rule 45 of the Rules of clearly and distinctly stating the facts and the reasons on which
Court with this Court within fifteen (15) days from notice of it is based. The resolution shall be issued within a period not
the resolution resolving the motion. If no motion for exceeding thirty (30) days from the next meeting of the Board
reconsideration is filed, the decision shall become final and following the submission of the Investigator's report.
executory and a copy of said decision shall be furnished this
Court. c) The Board’s resolution, together with the entire records and
all evidence presented and submitted, shall be transmitted to
If the imposable penalty is suspension from the practice of the Supreme Court for final action within ten (10) days from
law or disbarment, the BOG shall issue a resolution setting issuance of the resolution.
forth its findings and recommendations. The aggrieved party
can file a motion for reconsideration of said resolution with d) Notice of the resolution shall be given to all parties through
the BOG within fifteen (15) days from notice. The BOG their counsel, if any.
shall first resolve the incident and shall thereafter elevate
the assailed resolution with the entire case records to this
In Vasco-Tamaray v. Daquis,49 the Court emphasized that the
Court for final action. If the 15-day period lapses without any
amendments reiterated the principle that only the Court has the
motion for reconsideration having been filed, then the BOG
power to impose disciplinary action on members of the bar.
shall likewise transmit to this Court the resolution with the
Factual findings and recommendations of the Commission on
entire case records for appropriate action. (Emphases supplied)
Bar Discipline and the Board of Governors of the IBP are
recommendatory, subject to review by the Court.50
Nowhere in his petition did Atty. Dalangin attempt to justify
his immediate filing of the petition for review questioning the
As the Court now reviews the IBP’s resolve to dismiss the
IBP resolutions that recommended his suspension. It could
complaints against Atty. Torres and Atty. Andres, it then also
nonetheless be inferred from the circumstances that Atty.
enters its final action on the IBP Board of Governors’
Dalangin's chosen course of action was to preclude the
recommendation to suspend Atty. Dalangin from the practice
forfeiture of his right to question the dismissal of the
of law for three years, as the IBP cited gross misconduct,
administrative cases where he served as complainant, given
violations of the CPR and breach of the lawyer's oath as
that Section 12(c) provides that where the respondent is
grounds.
exonerated, (t)he case shall be deemed terminated unless upon
a petition of the complainant or other interested party filed
with Supreme Court within fifteen (15) days from notice of the A.C. No. 10758
Board's resolution, the Supreme Court orders otherwise. For
this reason, the Court refused to make an outright denial of Gross Immorality
Atty. Dalangin’s petition for review notwithstanding the fact
that it questioned the resolve to suspend him from the practice Among several cited grounds, the IBP’s recommendation to
of law. Considering that the petition likewise covered the IBP's suspend Atty. Dalangin from the practice of law for three years
dismissal of the disbarment cases against Atty. Torres and was on the pretext that he publicly and openly maintained a
Atty. Andres, the Court, in a Resolution dated June 16, 2015, romantic relationship with Pascual even when their marriages
directed the filing of comments on the petition. with their respective spouses subsisted.

In any case, it must still be stressed that the filing of the Allegedly, the affair further resulted in the birth of the child
petition for review on the issue of Atty. Dalangin’s suspension Julienne, who was believed to be Atty. Dalangin’s daughter
from the practice of law was as yet not among his remedies, even when he turned down a challenge for a DNA test that
considering that the Court still had to release its final action on could prove the child's true filiation.51
the matter.46 It is the Supreme Court, not the IBP, which has
the constitutionally mandated duty to discipline lawyers.47 The
factual findings of the IBP can only be recommendatory. Its
In his report, the Investigative Commissioner specifically Based on a survey of cases, the recent ruling on the matter
referred to the following evidence to support his finding of an is Cabas v. Sususco, which was promulgated just this June 15,
immoral relationship between Atty. Dalangin and Pascual: 2016. In the said case, it was pronounced that:

2. That Complainant Alvaro who executed an affidavit In administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof necessary
regarding the illicit and immoral relation of [Atty. Dalangin] for a finding of guilt is substantial evidence, i.e., that 'amount
with [Pascual] for the reason that she was formerly [close] to of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as
[Pascual] and the latter confided to her that she (Pascual) [did] adequate to support a conclusion. x x x.
not love her husband anymore and the child called [Atty.
Dalangin] "Papa attorney" (Affidavit of Alvaro as Exh. "F"). Accordingly, this more recent pronouncement ought to control
and therefore, quell any further confusion on the proper
3. That Ligaya Agrave[,] a neighbor of [Pascual,] likewise evidentiary threshold to be applied in administrative cases
executed an affidavit that the child ["Julienne"] is the daughter against lawyers.
of [Atty. Dalangin and Pascual], that she used to see [Atty.
Dalangin] taking care of [Julienne] when she was still a baby The rule is taken in light of other settled principles that apply
and when she grew up already, [Atty. Dalangin] used to for a proper disposition of administrative cases. In Advincula v.
accompany the child in their school tour and also her Macabata,57 the Court emphasized:
graduation. That the child as she grew older is a look[-]alike of
[Atty. Dalangin]. (Affidavit of Ligaya Agrave marked as Exh. The burden of proof rests on the complainant, and she must
"G"). establish the case against the respondent by clear, convincing
and satisfactory proof, disclosing a case that is free from doubt
4. That the illicit affair of [Atty. Dalangin] with his former as to compel the exercise by the Court of its disciplinary
Clerk in the PAO, Talavera, Nueva Ecija was well known in power. Thus, the adage that he who asserts not he who denies,
Talavera, in the entire judiciary in Talavera, Nueva Ecija and must prove. xxx.58
even in the community of Sto. Domingo, Nueva [E]cija[.]
[(L]etter to the Ombudsman dated Aug. 18, 2011 of FelicidadFurther, the Court emphasized in Cabas v. Sususco59 the oft-
Sumatra is marked as Exh. "H"). repeated rule that "mere allegation is not evidence and is not
equivalent to proof. Charges based on mere suspicion and
5. That [Atty. Dalangin] refused when challenged for a DNA speculation likewise cannot be given credence."60
test.
With careful consideration of the foregoing tenets, the Court's
6. Complainants submitted xxx pictures of [Atty. Dalangin and perusal of the records reveals an insufficiency of evidence that
Pascual] together with their daughter [Julienne] taken in far could warrant the recommended suspension from the practice
away Puerto Prinsesa marked as Exh. I and I-1. of law.

7. That [Atty. Dalangin] continued to publicly and openly To begin with, the two affidavits considered by the IBP as
cohabit with a woman who is not his legal wife shows his lack bases for its finding of Atty. Dalangin’s gross immorality
of good moral character.52 harped only on general statements of a supposed personal and
public knowledge on the wrongful relationship between Atty.
Time and again, the Court has indeed regarded extramarital Dalangin and Pascual. The circumstances that could have led
affairs of lawyers to offend the sanctity of marriage, the them to their conclusion were scant and unsubstantiated. The
family, and the community. Illicit relationships likewise most concrete proof that they could offer was the birth of
constitute a violation of Article XV, Section 2 of the 1987 Julienne, yet even the child's birth certificate, a public
Constitution which states that, "[m]arriage, as an inviolable document, expressly indicated the girl’s father to be Pascual's
social institution, is the foundation of the family and shall be husband, and not Atty. Dalangin.61 Julienne’s baptismal
protected by the State."53 When lawyers are engaged in certificate62 also provided such fact, along with a confirmation
wrongful relationships that blemish their ethics and morality, of Atty. Dalangin’s defense on his closeness to Julienne for
the usual recourse is for the erring attorney's suspension from being her godfather.
the practice of law, if not disbarment.
It would be unfair to Atty. Dalangin, more so for the child
Upon the Court’s review, however, it finds no sufficient basis whose filiation is in a way needlessly dragged into this case,
to suspend Atty. Dalangin for a supposed illicit affair with for the Court to affirm the assertions in the complaint and the
Pascual. That an amorous relationship actually existed between IBP's findings and conclusions on the basis of the available
them was not adequately proved. evidence. The alleged similarities in the physical appearances
of Atty. Dalangin and Julienne were but lame and dismal
The quantum of proof in administrative cases is substantial validations of the complainants’ vehement claim of paternity.
evidence. The Court explained in Saladaga v. Astorga: 54 Even the photographs63 of Atty. Dalangin, Pascual and
Julienne in what appeared to be a trip to Pue1io Princesa,
Section 5, in relation to Sections 1 and 2, Rule 133 of the Palawan were insufficient to support a conclusion on the
Rules of Court states that in administrative cases, such as the unlawful relations. The lone photo where Atty. Dalangin
ones at bar, only substantial evidence is required, not proof appeared with Pascual and Julienne, who were apparently
beyond reasonable doubt as in criminal cases, or merely waiting for boarding in an airport terminal, utterly
preponderance of evidence as in civil cases. Substantial failed to manifest any romantic or filial bond among them. It
evidence is that amount of relevant evidence which a was also explained through an affidavit64 executed by spouses
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a Dante Capindian and Timotea Jamito that Atty. Dalangin was
conclusion. 55 a principal sponsor, while Pascual’s family were guests, in
their wedding which was held on August 6, 2011 in Puerto
Princesa, Palawan. Apparently, the photos were taken during
In Reyes v. Nieva, 56 the Court reiterated this rule on the
the said trip. Pascual’s husband, Edgardo, was also present for
quantum of proof in administrative proceedings, as it held:
the occasion.
The Court, nonetheless, does not find Atty. Dalangin totally The charge of malpractice for Atty. Dalangin's supposed
absolved of fault. While he vehemently denied any romantic demand for attorney's fees while he still worked as a PAO
relationship with Pascual, he admitted demonstrating closeness lawyer also remained unsubstantiated by
with the latter's family, including her children. It was such evidence.1âwphi1 Such serious imputation could not have
display of affection that could have sparked in the minds of been adequately established by an affidavit that was executed
observers the idea of a wrongful relationship and belief that in 2010 by a lone person, Camacho, from whom the demand
Julienne was a product of the illicit affair. Atty. Dalangin for ₱8,000.00 was allegedly made in 2001.70 Similarly, while
should have been more prudent and mindful of his actions and Atty. Dalangin admitted to have appeared in courts beyond his
the perception that his acts built upon the public, particularly area of jurisdiction as public attorney, he claimed to have
because he and Pascual were both married. "As officers of the obtained permission therefor from the Regional Public
court, lawyers must not only in fact be of good moral character Attorney, a defense which the complainants failed to refute. In
but must also be seen to be of good moral character and the absence of contrary evidence, the presumption that the
leading lives in accordance with the highest moral standards of respondent regularly performed his duty in accordance with his
the community."65 As keepers of public faith, lawyers are oath shall prevail,71 especially as the Court considers it highly
burdened with a high degree of social responsibility and, improbable for the courts where appearances were made to fail
hence, must handle their personal affairs with great caution."66 to notice such patent irregularity, if Atty. Dalangin was indeed
not authorized to perform his acts before their courts as a
The fault, nonetheless, does not warrant Atty. Dalangin’s public attorney.
suspension, much less disbarment. An admonition should
suffice under the circumstances. The following pronouncement Anent the failure of Atty. Dalangin to submit all pages of a
in Advincula v. Macabata67 is pertinent: certificate of title in Civil Case No. 336-SD(04)AF pending
with the RTC, Branch 88, Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija and
While it is discretionary upon the Court to impose a particular entitled Tamayo v. Philippine National Bank, it has been
sanction that it may deem proper against an erring lawyer, it explained that the error had been corrected at once during the
should neither be arbitrary and despotic nor motivated by pre-trial conference.72
personal animosity or prejudice, but should ever be controlled
by the imperative need to scrupulously guard the purity and Among the other charges imputed against Atty. Dalangin in
independence of the bar and to exact from the lawyer strict A.C. No. 10758, the Court only finds fault for his misquote of
compliance with his duties to the court, to his client, to his jurisprudence cited in a pleading filed with the RTC, Branch
brethren in the profession and to the public. 35, Gapan City for Cad. Case No. 1564-05 entitled Bangko
Luzon v. Diaz. It was narrated in the complaint in CBD Case
x x x Only those acts which cause loss of moral character No. 11-3215 that:
should merit disbarment or suspension, while those acts which
neither affect nor erode the moral character of the lawyer 14. x x x [T]he cited jurisprudence is hereto quoted:
should only justify a lesser sanction unless they are of such
nature and to such extent as to clearly show the lawyer's "If a court of competent jurisdiction annulled the foreclosure
unfitness to continue in the practice of law. x x x68 sale of the property in question, the issuance of a writ of
possession ceases to be ministerial."
Gross Misconduct and
Malpractice 15. In the said case of BPI vs. Tampipi, there is nothing
mentioned about the cessation of the ministerial function of the
Atty. Dalangin was also charged, and recommended for court but instead what is clearly stated in the decision are the
suspension from the practice of law, for several other acts following:
involving use of misleading evidence in court and preparation
of affidavits with pe1jured statements to support cases and "Until the foreclosure sale of the property in question is
complaints for disbarment. When he still served as a public annulled by a court of competent jurisdiction, the issuance of a
attorney, he likewise allegedly demanded acceptance fees from writ of possession remains the ministerial duty of the trial
indigent clients, and appeared in courts beyond his area of court."73
jurisdiction. Even these charges, however, were not supported
by evidence that could warrant Atty. Dalangin’s suspension. Atty. Dalangin invoked adherence to the substance and spirit
And while there were several other charges included in the of the cited ruling.74 As counsel and officer of the court,
complaint against Atty. Dalangin, the accusations were however, with the corresponding duty to aid the courts in the
actually for actions that should be attributed not to him, but to task of ascertaining the truth, Atty. Dalangin was remiss in the
other individuals like Pascual. discharge of his duties under the CPR. Canon 10, Rule 10.02
thereof provides:
Specifically on the claim that Atty. Dalangin failed to fully
explain to Marzan and Valdez the contents of the affidavit that "[a] lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the
supported a disbarment case against Atty. Torres, the Court contents of paper, the language or the argument of the
takes note of the fact that the alleged failure to explain did not opposing counsel, or the text of a decision or authority, or
necessarily equate to the falsity of the claims therein made. It knowingly cite as a law a provision already rendered
refers to the joint affidavit executed by Marzan and Valdez, inoperative by repeal or amendment, or assert as a fact that
and which was attached to the complaint in CBD Case No. 11- which has not been proved."
3215, whereby affiants merely alleged that they signed the
affidavit even when they were not fully apprised of its
The Court, nonetheless, still does not find suspension to be an
contents.69 It was not alleged that they were fraudulently lured
appropriate penalty for the act. While the Court detests Atty.
or tricked by Atty. Dalangin into signing the complaint, and
Dalangin’s failure to properly indicate that the statement was
that the charges therein hurled against Atty. Torres were
not a verbatim reproduction of the cited jurisprudence and,
absolutely false. Thus, the claim that Atty. Dalangin
accordingly, calls his attention on the matter, it finds the
knowingly brought a groundless suit against a fellow lawyer
admonition to be adequate.
had no leg to stand on.
A suspension for the lone incident would be too harsh a
penalty. It appeared that the supposed quotation was Atty.
Dalangin’s own conclusion from the cited jurisprudence. Thereresolved jointly with A.C. No. 10758, is a distinct
was no clear indication that the statement was intended to administrative case that covers a separate complaint that was
mislead the court or commit a falsehood; there was no brazen instituted solely by Alvaro. The severity of this offense
deviation from the principle or doctrine that was embodied in likewise varies from the other breaches for which the Court
the jurisprudence's original text. has determined the admonition to be appropriate.

A.C. No. 10759 A.C. No. 10760 and A.C. No. 10761

In relation to A.C. No. 10759 on Atty. Dalangin’s altercation The Court affirms the decision of the IBP to dismiss the
on November 14, 2011 with Alvaro as the latter was waiting administrative complaints filed by Atty. Dalangin against Atty.
for the start of a court hearing in the RTC of Sto. Domingo, Torres and Atty. Andres.
Nueva Ecija, the records include affidavits executed by
witnesses who did not appear to have any reason to falsely In A.C. No. 10760, Atty. Dalangin sought to support his
testify against Atty. Dalangin on the incident. complaint by referring to the supposed participation of Atty.
Torres and Atty. Andres in a violation of the Anti-Wiretapping
Affiant Josephine Rivera, in particular, who claimed to be also Act. He asserted that the act also violated the lawyer's oath,
then waiting for a scheduled hearing, allegedly saw Atty. and breached Canon 1, Rules 1.01 and 1.02 of the CPR which
Dalangin shout and point at Alvaro, as he threatened to file a reads:
case against the latter.75 Two security guards stationed at the
trial court, evidently disinterested persons who would not have CANON 1 - A LA WYER SHALL UPHOLD THE
wrongly testified against Atty. Dalangin, likewise confirmed CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND
that such heated confrontation actually transpired. Pertinent PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL
portions of the guards’ affidavit76 read: PROCESSES.

1. Na noong ika-14 ng Nobyembre, 2011, ganap na ika-8:45 ngRule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
umaga humigit kumulang, ha bang nakaupo si [Alvaro] sa immoral or deceitful conduct.
"bench", upuang mahaba malapit sa aming kinauupuan dito sa
pintuan ng Hall of Justice, Regional Trial Court, Baloc, Sto. Rule 1.02 - A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed
Domingo, Nueva Ecija at kausap niya ang isa niyang kasama, at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal
dumating si Atty. Bayani Dalangin at pagkakita kay [Alvaro] system.
ay pinagsisigawan ito at maraming sinabi laban kay [Alvaro];
The alleged violation of the statute is a serious charge that the
2. Na maraming nakarinig, nakakita at nagulat sa pangyayaring Court cannot take lightly, in view of the breach of the basic
ito; and constitutional right to privacy of communication that
inevitably results from the act. In brief, the law prohibits any
x x x x77 person "to tap any wire or cable, or by using any other device
or arrangement, to secretly overhear, intercept or record such
For the Court, Atty. Dalangin erred in his conduct subject of communication or spoken word by using a device commonly
the complaint, especially since his outburst was carried out known as a dictaphone or dictagraph or detectaphone or
within the court premises and in the presence of several walkie-talkie or tape recorder x x x."79 It likewise forbids any
persons who readily witnessed his fit of anger. Part of Atty. person from possessing, replaying or furnishing transcriptions
Dalangin’s duties as a lawyer is to maintain the honor that is of communications that are obtained in violation of the law.
due the profession. Members of the legal profession should
commit to the mandates of Canon 7, particularly Rule 7 .03 In this case, Atty. Dalangin claimed that Atty. Torres and Atty.
thereof, to wit: Andres conspired with Alejo on the wrongful recording of a
private communication with Pineda, along with the use of the
CANON 7 - A LA WYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES transcript thereof to support Alejo’s affidavit in CBD Case No.
UPHOLD TI-IE INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF THE 11-3215. However, Pineda's own denial of the truth of the
LEGAL PROFESSION XX X. statements in the transcription lends doubt as to the allegation
of a purported secret recording of an actual conversation.
Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that While Pineda denied knowledge that her telephone
adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he, conversation with Alejo was recorded by the latter, she still
whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous refused to acknowledge the veracity of the assertions that she
manner to the discredit of the legal profession. allegedly made as contained in the transcript,80 which then
appears to be a rejection of the supposed conversation. Given
Although Atty. Dalangin, at that instant, could have been the circumstances, the IBP correctly ruled that Atty. Dalangin
stirred by his frustration or resentment for the disbarment case failed to substantiate the charges in his complaint against Atty.
filed against him by Alvaro, such circumstance could not have Torres and Atty. Andres.
absolved him from any responsibility for his conduct. At most,
this only serves to mitigate the penalty that the Court deems The same conclusion equally applies in A.C. No. 10761. The
appropriate to impose, as it likewise considers its finding that commission of perjury was imputed upon Atty. Torres, as the
Alvaro’s allegations in CBD Case No. 11-3215 on the person who prepared the affidavits of Marzan and Valdez. As
supposed extra-marital affair of Atty. Dalangin with Pascual witnesses in CBD Case No. 11-3215, Marzan and Valdez
were indeed not backed by sufficient evidence. The Court claimed that Atty. Dalangin prepared an affidavit for Atty.
finds it appropriate to impose upon Atty. Dalangin a fine of Torres' disbarment without fully explaining to them the
₱5,000.00, with a stem warning that a more severe sanction contents thereof. The fact that Atty. Torres induced the affiants
will be imposed on him for any repetition of the same or to make perjured statements, however, was not established by
similar offense in the future. clear and convincing proof. Even granting that statements of
affiants were eventually determined to be inaccurate and
Although the Court has admonished Atty. Dalangin in A.C. untruthful, it would be wrong to at once ascribe error or fault
No. 10758, it finds the imposition of this fine still suitable upon the lawyers who drafted the affidavits, in the absence of
under the circumstances, given that A.C. No. 10759, although clear and sufficient proof that they actively participated in the
intentional commission of a fraud or declaration of fabricated 48996 and CBU-49706 together with Criminal Case Nos.
statements. CBU-50599, CBU-50279, CBU-50335 and CBU-51277,
finding Atty. Diores guilty beyond reasonable doubt of six (6)
WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, the Court rules as counts of Estafa through false pretenses and fraudulent means
follows: under Article 315 (2) (a) of the Revised Penal Code by
engaging in a Ponzi scheme,7 as follows:
(1) In A.C. No. 10758, respondent Atty. Bayani P. Dalangin
is ADMONISHED to be more prudent and cautious in WHEREFORE, the court hereby finds the accused Luis F.
handling his personal affairs and dealings with courts and the Diores, Jr. guilty beyond reasonable doubt of six (6) counts of
public, with a STERN WARNING that any repetition of the the crime of Estafa and sentences him as follows:
same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more
severely; (1) In Criminal Case No. CBU-50599, to suffer the penalty of
imprisonment of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision
(2) In A.C. No. 10759, Atty. Bayani P. Dalangin correccional as minimum, to twenty (20) years of reclusion
is FINED Five Thousand Pesos (₱5,000.00) for his breach of temporal as maximum, and to pay the off ended party Irene
Rule 7.03, Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, Lumapas the sum of [₱]3,050,000.00 plus legal interest to be
with a STERN WARNING that a more severe sanction will computed from June 2, 1999 until such time that the amount is
be imposed upon him for any repetition of the same or similar paid in full;
offense in the future; and
(2) In Criminal Case No. CBU-48996, to suffer the penalty of
(3) In A.C. No. 10760 and A.C. No. 10761, Atty. Bayani P. imprisonment of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision
Dalangin’s petition for review is DENIED. The correccional as minimum, to twenty (20) years of reclusion
Court AFFIRMS the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) temporal as maximum, and to pay the offended party Calixto
Board of Governors' Resolution No. XX-2013-768 dated June Ventic the sum of [₱]500,000.00 plus legal interest to be
21, 2013 and Resolution dated August 8, 2014, insofar as the computed from December 7, 1998 until such time that the
IBP Board of Governors dismissed the following complaints: amount is paid in full;
(1) CBD Case No. 12-3369 against Atty. Rosita L. Dela
Fuente-Torres and Atty. Avelino Andres; and (2) CBD Case (3) In Criminal Case No. CBU-49706, to suffer the penalty of
No. 12-3458 against Atty. Rosita L. Dela Fuente-Torres. imprisonment of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision
correccional as minimum, to twenty (20) years of reclusion
30. A.C. No. 8887 temporal as maximum, and to pay the offended party Lilia
Amy Ursal the sum of [₱]416,000.00 plus legal interest to be
ROMAN DELA ROSA VERANO , vs. * computed from March 2, 1999 until such time that the amount
ATTY. LUIS FERNAN DIORES, JR., Respondent is paid in full;

This administrative case stemmed from a letter- (4) In Criminal Case No. CBU-50279, to suffer the penalty of
1
complaint filed with the Court on February 2, 2011 by imprisonment of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision
complainant Roman Dela Rosa Verano (Verano) against correccional as minimum, to twenty (20) years of reclusion
respondent Atty. Luis Fernan Diores, Jr. (Atty. Diores) for temporal as maximum, and to pay the offended party Rolando
deceit, malpractice, gross ignorance of the law and violation of Chiu the sum of [₱]660,000.00 plus legal interest to be
the Lawyer's Oath for surreptitiously using Verano's parcel of computed from May 4, 1999 until such time that the amount is
land to secure bail bonds in connection with at least 61 cases paid in full;
of Estafa and Violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (B.P. Blg.
22) that had been filed against Atty. Diores.2 (5) In Criminal [Case] No. CBU-50335, to suffer the penalty
of imprisonment of four (4) years and two (2) months
The salient facts, as borne by the records, are the following: of prision correccional as minimum, to twenty (20) years
of reclusion temporal as maximum, and to pay the offended
party Philholina Villamor the sum of [₱]200,000.00 plus legal
On April 11, 2006, Verano executed a Special Power of
interest to be computed from May 8, 1999 until such time that
Attomey3 (SP A) in favor of Atty. Diores authorizing the latter
the amount is paid in full; and
to use Verano's parcel of land covered by TCT No. T-77901
(subject property) as guaranty to obtain a bail bond for
particular criminal cases4 that had been filed against Atty. (6) In Criminal Case No. CBU-51277, to suffer the penalty of
Diores. imprisonment of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision
correccional as minimum, to twenty (20) years of reclusion
temporal as maximum, and to pay the offended party John
Verano was surprised when he subsequently discovered that
5 Michael Velez the sum of [₱]2,100,000.00 plus legal interest
Atty. Diores executed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
to be computed from August 2, 1999 until such time that the
dated August 31, 2006 with Visayan Surety and Insurance
amount is paid in full.
Corporation (Visayan Surety) in order to use the subject
property as guarantee to obtain bail bonds for at least 61 cases
of Estafa and Violation of B.P. Blg. 22 that had been filed SO ORDERED.8
against him, which included, among others, Criminal Case
Nos. CBU-48996 and CBU-49706, which were filed with the Thus, Verano filed this letter-complaint against Atty. Diores.
Regional Trial Court, Branch 6, Cebu City (RTC). Verano In its Resolutions dated March 9, 20119 and November 28,
10
alleged that he did not authorize Atty. Diores to enter into such 2011, the Court directed Atty. Diores to file his comment on
MOA, much less to use the subject property as collateral for the letter-complaint. However, Atty. Diores failed to file any
bail bonds of the more than 61 Estafa cases filed against the comment despite notice. Consequently, in its
latter which were other than those he authorized under the Resolution11 dated July 25, 2012, the Court considered as
SPA, causing great loss and damage to Verano. waived the filing of Atty. Diores' comment, and referred the
case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for
Thereafter, the aforementioned RTC branch, through Presiding investigation, report and recommendation.
Judge Ester M. Veloso, promulgated a Joint Judgment6 dated
November 16, 2009 in the said Criminal Case Nos. CBU-
At the scheduled mandatory conference before the IBP on for the latter to use Verano's land as guarantee for the bail
April 1, 2013,12 only Verano appeared together with his bonds, it only authorized Atty. Diores to use the same for
counsel, Atty. Manuel F. Ong. Atty. Diores, on the other hand, specific criminal cases, and not for the other criminal cases
failed to appear despite notice.13 Thereafter, Verano filed his filed against him. In addition, Atty. Diores failed to file his
position paper,14 adding that subsequent to the filing of the comment to Verano's letter-complaint filed against him despite
letter-complaint before the Court, Atty. Diores had jumped bail two (2) notices from the Court ordering him to do so, failed to
in some of his criminal cases and had failed to serve his attend the mandatory conference and file his position paper
sentence on some of the decided cases against him which had despite orders from the IBP, and jumped bail in the criminal
already become final and executory.15 Atty. Diores, on the cases filed against him.
other hand, failed to file his position paper.
The Court agrees with Commissioner Antiquiera's observation.
After due proceedings, Commissioner Eldrid C. Antiquiera While the SPA executed by Verano empowered Atty. Diores,
(Commissioner Antiquiera) rendered a Report and in his private capacity, to use the subject property as guaranty
Recommendation16 on June 18, 2013, finding Atty. Diores for his bail bond in some of his criminal cases, this did not
guilty of deceit in violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.0117 of the grant him carte blanche to use the said property to secure bail
Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), holding that Atty. bonds in his other criminal cases which were not included in
Diores: (1) took undue advantage of the trust reposed on him the SP A, much less enter into a MOA with Visayan Surety for
by Verano by secretly entering into the subject MOA; (2) the said purpose. Such act not only violates the trust granted to
jumped bail on some of the criminal cases and failed to serve him by Verano, but also shows doubt as to his moral character.
sentence in those where he was duly convicted by final
judgment; and (3) refused to comply with the orders of the Moreover, the fact that Atty. Diores jumped bail in the
Court and the IBP to submit his comment and position paper, criminal cases filed against him, failed to file a comment in the
and to attend the mandatory conference. The dispositive instant case despite notice from the Court, and also failed to
portion reads: attend the mandatory conference and file his position paper
when he was directed to do so by the IBP, shows his
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is propensity to willfully disobey the orders - of the Court, no
recommended that respondent be SUSPENDED from the less - and other judicial authorities, including the IBP, which is
practice of law for a period of TWO (2) YEARS with a stem a grave affront to the legal profession, and which should be
warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be penalized to the greatest extent.
dealt with more severely.18
As for the recommended penalty, the Court agrees with, and
In its Resolution19 dated October 10, 2014, the IBP Board of hereby adopts, the IBP's recommendation that Atty. Diores
Governors resolved to adopt and approve the said Report and should be disbarred, in view of the totality of infractions he
Recommendation, but recommended that Atty. Diores be had committed, compounded by his conviction for six (6)
disbarred, thus: counts of Estafa by the RTC.

RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby It is also well-settled that Estafa, which is an act of defrauding
ADOPTED and APPROVED, with modification, the Report another person, whether committed through abuse of
and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in the confidence, false pretenses or other fraudulent acts,24 is a crime
above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as involving moral turpitude25 which is also a violation of Canon
Annex "A ", and considering that Respondent is liable for 1, Rule 1.01 of the CPR, and a ground to disbar or suspend a
deceit in violation of Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional lawyer as gross misconduct under Section 27, Rule 138 of the
Responsibility aggravated by his recalcitrance to legal orders Rules of Court.
in his refusal to comply with the resolution of the Supreme
Court for him to file Comment and his deliberate failure to file Here, Atty. Diores was convicted of not only one, but six (6)
his Position Paper with the IBP and attend the Mandatory counts of Estafa through false pretenses and fraudulent means
Conference before the Investigating Commissioner, Atty. Luis under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code. Such
Fernan Diores[, Jr.] is hereby DISBARRED from the practice conviction simply shows his criminal tendency to defraud and
of law and his name stricken off the Roll of Attorneys.20 deceive other people into remitting to him their hard-earned
money, which the legal profession condemns in the strongest
After a judicious examination of the records and submissions terms. This, together with his willful disobedience of court
of the parties, the Court has no compelling reason to diverge orders and his act of using Verano's subject property as
from the factual findings of Commissioner Antiquiera and the guaranty for his bail bond outside the criminal cases wherein
recommended penalty of the IBP Board of Governors. he was authorized, cements his utter unfitness to continue
exercising his duties as a lawyer. Thus, the Court will not
In dealing with clients or other people, lawyers are expected to hesitate to adopt the penalty of the IBP and hereby disbar Atty.
observe the highest degree of good faith, fairness and candor, Diores to protect the trust and confidence of the people in this
both in their private and professional capacities. Thus, any noble profession.
form of deception or fraudulent act committed by a lawyer in
either capacity is not only disgraceful and dishonorable, but WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Luis Fernan Diores, Jr. is
also severely undermines the trust and confidence of people in found GUILTY of Deceit in violation of Rule 1.01 of the
the legal profession, violates Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the CPR, Code of Professional Responsibility, and Willful Disobedience
and puts the lawyer's moral character into serious doubt as a to a Lawful Order of the Court and Conviction for Estafa, both
member of the Bar, rendering him unfit to continue his practicein violation of Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of
of law.21Moreover, a lawyer has the duty to obey lawful orders Court.1âwphi1 He is hereby DISBARRED, and his name is
of a superior court and the IBP. Willful disobedience to such ordered STRICKEN FROM the Roll of Attorneys effective
orders, especially to those issued by this Court, is a sufficient immediately upon the date of his receipt of this Decision.
ground to disbar a lawyer or suspend him from the practice of
law under Section 27,22 Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.23 Atty. Diores is hereby DIRECTED to immediately file a
Manifestation to the Court that his disbarment has commenced,
In this case, Commissioner Antiquiera observed that while copy furnished to all courts and quasi-judicial bodies where he
there was an SPA executed by Verano in favor of Atty. Di ores has entered his appearance as counsel.
THE LAWYER AND THE LEGAL PROFESSION
1. A.C. No. 6732 October 22, 2013
ATTY. OSCAR L. EMBIDO, REGIONAL DIRECTOR,
NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,
WESTERN VISA YAS, REGIONAL OFFICE NBI-
WEVRO), FOR SAN PEDRO, ILOILO CITY, vs.
ATTY. SALVADOR N. PE, JR., ASSISTANT
PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR, SAN JOSE, ANTIQUE,
A lawyer who forges a court decision and represents it as that
of a court of law is guilty of the gravest misconduct and
deserves the supreme penalty of disbarment.
The Case
Before this Court is the complaint for disbarment against
Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Atty. Salvador N Pe, Jr.
respondent) of San Jose, Antique for his having allegedly
falsified an in existent decision of Branch 64 of the Regional
Trial Court stationed in Bugasong, Antique (RTC) instituted
by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), Western
Visayas Regional Office, represented by Regional Director
Atty. Oscar L. Embido.
Antecedent
On July 7, 2004, Atty. Ronel F. Sustituya, Clerk of Court of
the RTC, received a written communication from Mr. Ballam
Delaney Hunt, a Solicitor in the United Kingdom (UK). The
letter requested a copy of the decision dated February 12, 1997
rendered by Judge Rafael O. Penuela in Special Proceedings
Case No. 084 entitled In the Matter of the Declaration of
Presumptive Death of Rey Laserna, whose petitioner was one
Shirley Quioyo.1
On September 9, 2004, the RTC received another letter from
Mr. Hunt, reiterating the request for a copy of the decision in
Special Proceedings Case No. 084 entitled In the Matter of the
Declaration of Presumptive Death of Rey Laserna.2
Judge Penuela instructed the civil docket clerk to retrieve the
records of Special Proceedings Case No. 084 entitled In the
Matter of the Declaration of Presumptive Death of Rey
Laserna. It was then discovered that the RTC had no record of
Special Proceedings No. 084 wherein Shirley Quioyo was the
petitioner. Instead, the court files revealed that Judge Penuela
had decided Special Proceedings No. 084 entitled In the Matter
of the Declaration of Presumptive Death of Rolando Austria,
whose petitioner was one Serena Catin Austria.
Informed that the requested decision and case records did not
exist,3 Mr. Hunt sent a letter dated October 12, 2004 attaching
a machine copy of the purported decision in Special
Proceedings No. 084 entitled In the Matter of the Declaration
of Presumptive Death of Rey Laserna that had been presented
by Shirley Quioyo in court proceedings in the UK.4
After comparing the two documents and ascertaining that the
document attached to the October 12, 2004 letter was a
falsified court document, Judge Penuela wrote Mr. Hunt to
apprise him of the situation.5
The discovery of the falsified decision prompted the Clerk of
Court to communicate on the situation in writing to the NBI,
triggering the investigation of the falsification.6
In the meanwhile, Dy Quioyo, a brother of Shirley Quioyo,
executed an affidavit on March 4, 2005,7 wherein he stated that
it was the respondent who had facilitated the issuance of the
falsified decision in Special Proceedings No. 084 entitled In
the Matter of the Declaration of Presumptive Death of Rey
Laserna for a fee of ₱60,000.00. The allegations against the
respondent were substantially corroborated by Mary Rose
Quioyo, a sister of Shirley Quioyo, in an affidavit dated March
20, 2005.8
The NBI invited the respondent to explain his side,9 but he
invoked his constitutional right to remain silent. The NBI also
issued subpoenas to Shirley Quioyo and Dy Quioyo but only
the latter appeared and gave his sworn statement.
After conducting its investigation, the NBI forwarded to the
Office of the Ombudsman for Visayas the records of the
investigation, with a recommendation that the respondent be
prosecuted for falsification of public document under Article
171, 1 and 2, of the Revised Penal Code, and for violation of
Section 3(a) of Republic Act 3019 (The Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act).10 The NBI likewise recommended to
the Office of the Court Administrator that disbarment
proceedings be commenced against the respondent.11 Then
Court Administrator Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. (now a Member
of the Court) officially endorsed the recommendation to the
Office of the Bar Confidant.12
Upon being required by the Court, the respondent submitted
his counter-affidavit,13 whereby he denied any participation in
the falsification. He insisted that Dy Quioyo had sought his
opinion on Shirley’s petition for the annulment of her
marriage; that he had given advice on the pertinent laws
involved and the different grounds for the annulment of
marriage; that in June 2004, Dy Quioyo had gone back to him
to present a copy of what appeared to be a court
decision;14 that Dy Quioyo had then admitted to him that he
had caused the falsification of the decision; that he had advised
Dy Quioyo that the falsified decision would not hold up in an
investigation; that Dy Quioyo, an overseas Filipino worker
(OFW), had previously resorted to people on Recto Avenue in
Manila to solve his documentation problems as an OFW; and
that he had also learned from Atty. Angeles Orquia, Jr. that one
Mrs. Florencia Jalipa, a resident of Igbalangao, Bugasong,
Antique, had executed a sworn statement before Police
Investigator Herminio Dayrit with the assistance of Atty.
Orquia, Jr. to the effect that her late husband, Manuel Jalipa,
had been responsible for making the falsified document at the
instance of Dy Quioyo.15
Thereafter, the Court issued its resolution16 treating the
respondent’s counter-affidavit as his comment, and referred the
case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for
investigation, report and recommendation.
The IBP’s Report and Recommendation
In a report and recommendation dated June 14, 2006,17 Atty.
Lolita A. Quisumbing, the IBP Investigating Commissioner,
found the respondent guilty of serious misconduct and
violations of the Attorney’s Oath and Code of Professional
Responsibility , and recommended his suspension from the
practice of law for one year. She concluded that the respondent
had forged the purported decision of Judge Penuela by making
it appear that Special Proceedings No. 084 concerned a petition
for declaration of presumptive death of Rey Laserna, with
Shirley Quioyo as the petitioner, when in truth and in fact the
proceedings related to the petition for declaration of
presumptive death of Rolando Austria, with Serena Catin
Austria as the petitioner;18 and that the respondent had
received ₱60,000.00 from Dy Quioyo for the falsified decision.
She rationalized her conclusions thusly:
Respondent’s denials are not worthy of merit. Respondent
contends that it was one Manuel Jalipa (deceased) who
facilitated the issuance and as proof thereof, he presented the
sworn statement of the widow of Florencia Jalipa (sic). Such a
contention is hard to believe. In the first place, if the decision
was obtained in Recto, Manila, why was it an almost verbatim
reproduction of the authentic decision on file in Judge
Penuela’s branch except for the names and dates? Respondent
failed to explain this. Secondly, respondent did not attend the
NBI investigation and merely invoked his right to remain
silent. If his side of the story were true, he should have made
this known in the investigation. His story therefore appears to
have been a mere afterthought. Finally, there is no plausible
reason why Dy Quioyo and his sister, Mary Rose Quioyo
would falsely implicate him in this incident.19
In its Resolution No. XVII-2007-063 dated February 1,
200,20 the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved, with
modification, the report and recommendation of the
Investigating Commissioner by suspending the respondent
from the practice of law for six years.
On December 11, 2008, the IBP Board of Governors passed
Resolution No. XVIII-2008-70921 denying the respondent’s
motion for reconsideration and affirming Resolution No. XVII-
2007-063. The IBP Board of Governors then forwarded the
case to the Court in accordance with Section 12(b), Rule 139-
B22 of the Rules of Court.
On January 11, 2011, the Court resolved: (1) to treat the
respondent’s comment/opposition as his appeal by petition for
review; (2) to consider the complainant’s reply as his comment
on the petition for review; (3) to require the respondent to file a
reply to the complainant’s comment within 10 days from
notice; and (4) to direct the IBP to transmit the original records
of the case within 15 days from notice.
Ruling
We affirm the findings of the IBP Board of Governors. Indeed,
the respondent was guilty of grave misconduct for falsifying a
court decision in consideration of a sum of money.
The respondent’s main defense consisted in blanket denial of
the imputation. He insisted that he had had no hand in the
falsification, and claimed that the falsification had been the
handiwork of Dy Quioyo. He implied that Dy Quioyo had
resorted to the shady characters in Recto Avenue in Manila to
resolve the problems he had encountered as an OFW, hinting
that Dy Quioyo had a history of employing unscrupulous
means to achieve his ends.
However, the respondent’s denial and his implication against
Dy Quioyo in the illicit generation of the falsified decision are
not persuasive. Dy Quioyo’s categorical declaration on the
respondent’s personal responsibility for the falsified decision,
which by nature was positive evidence, was not overcome by
the respondent’s blanket denial, which by nature was negative
evidence.23
Also, the imputation of wrongdoing against Dy Quioyo lacked
credible specifics and did not command credence.1âwphi1 It is
worthy to note, too, that the respondent filed his counter-
affidavit only after the Court, through the en banc resolution of
May 10, 2005, had required him to comment.24 The
belatedness of his response exposed his blanket denial as
nothing more than an after thought.
The respondent relied on the sworn statement supposedly
executed by Mrs. Jalipa that declared that her deceased
husband had been instrumental in the falsification of the forged
decision. But such reliance was outrightly worthless, for the
sworn statement of the wife was rendered unreliable due to its
patently hearsay character. In addition, the unworthiness of the
sworn statement as proof of authorship of the falsification by
the husband is immediately exposed and betrayed by the
falsified decision being an almost verbatim reproduction of the
authentic decision penned by Judge Penuela in the real Special
Proceedings Case No. 084.
In light of the established circumstances, the respondent was
guilty of grave misconduct for having authored the falsification
of the decision in a non-existent court proceeding. Canon 7 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility demands that all
lawyers should uphold at all times the dignity and integrity of
the Legal Profession. Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility states that "a lawyer shall not engage in conduct
that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall
he whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous
manner to the discredit of the legal profession." Lawyers are
further required by Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility not to engage in any unlawful, dishonest and
immoral or deceitful conduct.
Gross immorality, conviction of a crime involving moral
turpitude, or fraudulent transactions can justify a lawyer’s
disbarment or suspension from the practice of
law.25 Specifically, the deliberate falsification of the court
decision by the respondent was an act that reflected a high
degree of moral turpitude on his part. Worse, the act made a
mockery of the administration of justice in this country, given
the purpose of the falsification, which was to mislead a foreign
tribunal on the personal status of a person. He thereby became
unworthy of continuing as a member of the Bar.
It then becomes timely to remind all members of the Philippine
Bar that they should do nothing that may in any way or degree
lessen the confidence of the public in their professional fidelity
and integrity.26 The Court will not hesitate to wield its heavy
hand of discipline on those among them who wittingly and
willingly fail to meet the enduring demands of their Attorney’s
Oath for them to:
x x x support the Constitution and obey the laws as well as the
legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein; xxx do
no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; x x x
not wittingly or willingly promote or sue on groundless, false
or unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent to the same; x x x
delay no man for money or malice, and x x x conduct
themselves as lawyers according to the best of their knowledge
and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to
their clients x x x.
No lawyer should ever lose sight of the verity that the practice
of the legal profession is always a privilege that the Court
extends only to the deserving, and that the Court may
withdraw or deny the privilege to him who fails to observe and
respect the Lawyer’s Oath and the canons of ethical conduct in
his professional and private capacities. He may be disbarred or
suspended from the practice of law not only for acts and
omissions of malpractice and for dishonesty in his professional
dealings, but also for gross misconduct not directly connected
with his professional duties that reveal his unfitness for the
office and his unworthiness of the principles that the privilege
to practice law confers upon him.27 Verily, no lawyer is
immune from the disciplinary authority of the Court whose
duty and obligation are to investigate and punish lawyer
misconduct committed either in a professional or private
capacity.28The test is whether the conduct shows the lawyer to
be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity, and good
demeanor, and whether the conduct renders the lawyer
unworthy to continue as an officer of the
Court.29WHEREFORE, the Court FINDS AND
PRONOUNCES ASST. PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR
SALVADOR N. PE, JR. guilty of violating Rule 1.01 of
Canon 1, and Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, and DISBARS him effective upon receipt of
this decision.
The Court DIRECTS the Bar Confidant to remove the name of
ASST. PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR SALVADOR N. PE,
JR. from the Roll of Attorneys.
This decision is without prejudice to any pending or
contemplated proceedings to be initiated against ASST.
PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR SALVADOR N. PE, JR.
9. A.C. No. 8330
TERESITA B. ENRIQUEZ, Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. TRINA DE VERA, Respondent.
For resolution is an administrative complaint for disbarment or
suspension filed by complainant Teresita B. Enriquez against
Atty. Trina De Vera. We resolve whether Atty. Trina De Vera
committed serious misconduct and should be held
administratively liable for the issuance and dishonor of several
post-dated checks.
Teresita B. Enriquez (Teresita) filed her Complaint-
Affidavit1 on June 26, 2009 before this court. The Complaint
prayed for Atty. Trina De Vera's (Atty. De Vera) disbarment or
suspension in relation to the latter's issuance of worthless
checks and non-payment of a loan.2
According to Teresita, she is a businesswoman involved in
building cell site towers. She is acquainted with Atty. De Vera
through the business by subcontracting the cell site acquisition
to Atty. De Vera.3
Sometime in April 2006, Atty. De Vera borrowed 500,000.00
from Teresita with interest of 20,000.00 per month until fully
paid.4 However, Teresita did not have the full amount. Atty.
De Vera persuaded her to borrow the amount from a common
friend, Mary Jane D. Luzon (Mary Jane), by mortgaging her
property located in Lucena City.5 Atty. De Vera issued
IBank6 Check No. 310571 post-dated July 31, 2006 for
500,000.00. Atty. De Vera also issued at least two more checks
to cover the interest agreed upon.7
Teresita alleges that in June 2006, Atty. De Vera obtained
another loan from Teresita’s sister in the amount of
100,000.00. Teresita guaranteed the loan. Atty. De Vera issued
IBank Check No. 317689 post-dated July 14, 2006 for
100,000.00 to Teresita. Teresita claimed that she paid her sister
the amount borrowed by Atty. De Vera.8
Upon maturity of the checks, Teresita presented the checks for
payment. However, the checks "bounced" for being drawn
against insufficient funds. Teresita attempted to encash the
checks for a second time. However, the checks were
dishonored because the account was closed.9
Teresita demanded payment from Atty. De Vera. However, she
failed to settle her obligations, prompting Teresita to file
complaints against Atty. De Vera for violation of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 22 and estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d)
of the Revised Penal Code.10
The Quezon City Prosecutor’s Office issued the Resolution
dated March 4, 2008 finding probable cause for violation of
Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 and Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the
Revised Penal Code. On the same day, an Information for
estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal
Code was filed before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon
City. Subsequently, a warrant of arrest was issued by the trial
court.11
In her administrative complaint, Teresita prays that Atty. De
Vera be disbarred or suspended for violation of her oath under
Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court.12
On July 29, 2009, this court required Atty. De Vera to
comment on the Complaint.13
Atty. De Vera filed her Answer14 dated June 24, 2010. She
presented her version of the facts.
According to Atty. De Vera, in February 2006, Teresita
awarded a Site Acquisition and Permitting Project to Atty. De
Vera’s group. The project involved twenty-nine (29) Globe
Telecom sites across Northern and Southern Luzon.15
Atty. De Vera alleges that Teresita could not pay the required
15% downpayment per site. Thus, they agreed that Atty. De
Vera would advance the costs for mobilization and survey,
while Teresita would cover the costs for application of
building permits. Teresita, thus, owed her 195,000.00 per
site.16
Teresita had not paid Atty. De Vera the downpayment by
March 2006.17 At that time, Teresita had to deliver at least five
(5) cell sites to Globe Telecom.18 However, Teresita did not
have the funds required for the application of building permits
that costs around 100,000.00 for each cell site.19
Teresita was constrained to borrow 500,000.00 from Mary
Jane. Subsequently, Teresita approached Atty. De Vera and
asked that the latter lend Teresita checks to guaranty the loan.
The main reason Teresita gave was that she had been
frequently arguing with her husband regarding the loan.20
Atty. De Vera denies the 100,000.00 loan from Teresita’s
sister.21 She only lent Teresita another check as "additional
guaranty for the five sites[.]"22
Atty. De Vera argues that the checks were not drawn, issued,
and delivered to Teresita for value. The checks were not meant
to be deposited.23
Furthermore, Atty. De Vera claims that the present
administrative case is baseless. She points out that the
proceedings before the Quezon City Prosecutor’s Office were
under reinvestigation since she did not have the opportunity to
answer the criminal complaint.24
Moreover, "nowhere in both the affidavit-complaint for
Estafa/BP 22 and the administrative complaint was there any
proof that . . . [Atty. De Vera] had in any manner breached her
oath as a lawyer [or] abused her position against the interests
of the complainant."25
Atty. De Vera alleges that she was the one who was
abused.26 In addition, "[a]ll the bare allegations that [Atty. De
Vera] was the one who enticed [Teresita] to mortgage her
property and that the checks issued by [Atty. De Vera] will be
honored upon maturity do not constitute deceitful conduct on
the part of [Atty. De Vera]."27
On August 25, 2010, this court noted Atty. De Vera’s Answer
and referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
for "investigation, report and recommendation or decision
within ninety (90) days from receipt of [the] records[.]"28
The Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines scheduled mandatory conferences where the parties
defined the issues, stipulated on facts, and marked
exhibits.29 Upon the termination of the mandatory conferences,
the parties were "directed to submit their respective verified
position papers within a period of thirty (30) days from receipt
of the Order."30
Both parties failed to file their position papers.31
The Investigating Commissioner of the Commission on Bar
Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines found Atty.
De Vera administratively liable for serious misconduct and
recommended the penalty of suspension for one (1) year from
the practice of law.32 The Investigating Commissioner ruled:
Respondent’s assertion that the checks she issued to
complainant were not security for the loans she obtained but
mere guaranty checks and not for deposit deserves no
credence; it is contrary to the ordinary experience.
....
. . . [T]he pieces of evidenc[e] on reco[r]d substantially shows
[sic] that indeed respondent incurred monetary obligations
from complainant, and she issued postdated checks to the latter
as security for the payment of the loans.
Assuming . . . that respondent’s version of facts were [sic] true,
she is still guilty of serious misconduct.
The gravamen of the offense punished by B.P. Blg. 22 is the
act of making and issuing . . . worthless check[s]; that is, a
check that is dishonored upon its presentation for payment.
The law is not intended or designed to coerce a debtor to pay
his debt. The thrust of the law is to prohibit, under pain of
penal sanctions, the making and circulation of worthless
checks. . . . A check issued as an evidence of debt — though
not intended to be presented for payment — has the same
effect as an ordinary check and would fall within the ambit of
B.P. Blg. 22.
....
As a lawyer, respondent is deemed to know the law, especially
B.P. Blg. 22. By issuing checks in violation of the provisions
of the law, respondent is guilty of serious misconduct.
. . . [A] lawyer may be disciplined not only for malpractice in
connection with his profession, but also for gross misconduct
outside of his professional capacity[.]33 (Citation omitted)
In issuing the worthless checks, Atty. De Vera did not only
violate the law, but she also broke her oath as a lawyer and
transgressed the Canons in the Code of Professional
Responsibility.34 The Investigating Commissioner found that
Atty. De Vera violated the following provisions:
Cannon [sic] 1 – A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey
the laws of the land and promote respect for the law and legal
processes.
Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct.
Canon 7 – A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and
dignity of the legal profession and support the activities of the
Integrated Bar.
Rule 7.03 – A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that
adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he,
whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous
manner to the discredit of the legal profession.35
The dispositive portion of the Investigating Commissioner’s
Report and Recommendation36 reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent is guilty of
serious misconduct and it is recommended that she be
suspended for a period of one (1) year from the practice of
law.37
In the Notice of Resolution No. XX-2013-61238 dated May 11,
2013, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors
resolved to adopt the Investigating Commissioner’s
recommendation:
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby
unanimously ADOPTED and APPROVED, the Report and
Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in the
above- entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as
Annex "A", and finding the recommendation fully supported
by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules
and considering that Respondent violated the B.P. 22 by
issuing a worthless check, the Attorney’s Oath and Canon 1,
Rule 1.01, Canon 7 and Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, Atty. Trina De Vera is hereby SUSPENDED
from the practice of law for one (1) year.39
(Emphasis in the original)
Teresita filed the Partial Motion for Reconsideration40 dated
September 17, 2013 of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
Board of Governors’ Resolution. Atty. De Vera filed the
Motion for Reconsideration41 dated September 21, 2013.
In the Notice of Resolution No. XXI-2014-24142 dated May 3,
2014, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors
denied the parties’ respective motions:
RESOLVED to DENY respective Motions for Reconsideration
of Complainant and Respondent, there being no cogent reason
to reverse the findings of the Commission and the resolution
subject of the motion, they being a mere reiteration of the
matters which had already been threshed out and taken into
consideration. Moreover, respondent’s Motion for
Reconsideration was filed out of time pursuant to his Motion
for Extension of Time which is a prohibited pleading under
Rule 139-B of the Rules and resorted to by lawyers at times to
delay proceeding. Thus, Resolution No. XX- 2013-612 dated
May 11, 2013 is hereby AFFIRMED.43
(Emphasis in the original)
The main issue is whether Atty. De Vera committed serious
misconduct and should be held administratively liable for the
issuance and dishonor of worthless checks in violation of the
Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
After considering the parties’ arguments and the records of this
case, we resolve to adopt and approve the recommendations of
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors.
Atty. De Vera tries to free herself from liability by arguing that
she did not incur the loans alleged by Teresita, and the checks
were issued merely as a guaranty and not as payment for the
loan. She also raises the prematurity of the administrative
complaint in view of the pendency of the criminal proceedings
considering that "the allegations of deceitful conduct [are]
intimately intertwined with the criminal acts complained of."44
This is not a case of first impression. This court has ruled that
the lawyer’s act of issuing worthless checks, punishable under
Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, constitutes serious misconduct.
In De Jesus v. Collado,45 this court found respondent lawyer
guilty of serious misconduct for issuing post-dated checks that
were dishonored upon presentment for payment:
In the case at bar, no conviction for violation of B.P. Blg. 22
has as yet been obtained against respondent Collado. We do
not, however, believe that conviction of the criminal charges
raised against her is essential, so far as either the
administrative or civil service case or the disbarment charge
against her is concerned. Since she had admitted issuing the
checks when she did not have enough money in her bank
account to cover the total amount thereof, it cannot be gainsaid
that the acts with which she was charged would constitute a
crime penalized by B.P. Blg. 22. We consider that issuance of
checks in violation of the provisions of B.P. Blg. 22 constitutes
serious misconduct on the part of a member of the
Bar.46 (Emphasis supplied, citation omitted)
Misconduct involves "wrongful intention and not a mere error
of judgment";47 it is serious or gross when it is flagrant.48
We recently reiterated the purpose and nature of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 22 in relation to an administrative case against
a member of the bar:
Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 has been enacted in order to safeguard
the interest of the banking system and the legitimate public
checking account users. The gravamen of the offense defined
and punished by Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 . . . is the act of
making and issuing a worthless check, or any check that is
dishonored upon its presentment for payment and putting it in
circulation; the law is designed to prohibit and altogether
eliminate the deleterious and pernicious practice of issuing
checks with insufficient funds, or with no credit, because the
practice is deemed a public nuisance, a crime against public
order to be abated.
....
Being a lawyer, [respondent] was well aware of the objectives
and coverage of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. If he did not, he was
nonetheless presumed to know them, for the law was penal in
character and application. His issuance of the unfunded check
involved herein knowingly violated Batas Pambansa Blg. 22,
and exhibited his indifference towards the pernicious effect of
his illegal act to public interest and public order. He thereby
swept aside his Lawyer’s Oath that enjoined him to support the
Constitution and obey the laws.49 (Citations omitted)
A lawyer is required to observe the law and be mindful of his
or her actions whether acting in a public or private
capacity.50 The Code of Professional Responsibility provides:
CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE
CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND
PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL
PROCESSES.
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct.
....
CANON 7 - A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD
THE INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF THE
LEGAL PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE
ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR.
....
Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that
adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he,
whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous
manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
The Investigating Commissioner found that Atty. De Vera
incurred monetary obligations from Teresita. Atty. De Vera
admitted issuing the checks to Teresita. She refused to answer
for her liabilities by denying the existence of the loan and
claiming that the checks were mere "show checks."51 However,
she failed to present evidence to prove those allegations.
The Decision52 wherein the trial court found Teresita civilly
liable to Mary Jane for 540,000.00,53 and on which Atty. De
Vera relies upon, is not sufficient evidence to hold that there
was no separate transaction between Teresita and Atty. De
Vera. The Decision involved the post-dated checks issued by
Teresita to Mary Jane only.54 Mary Jane merely claimed that
she had no personal knowledge of any transaction between
Teresita and Atty. De Vera.55
The Investigating Commissioner correctly pointed out that
Atty. De Vera's allegation of "lending" her checks to Teresita
is contrary to ordinary human experience. As a lawyer, Atty.
De Vera is presumed to know the consequences of her acts.
She issued several post-dated checks for value that were
dishonored upon presentation for payment.
Membership in the bar requires a high degree of fidelity to the
laws whether in a private or professional capacity. "Any
transgression of this duty on his part would not only diminish
his reputation as a lawyer but would also erode the public's
faith in the Legal Profession as a whole."56 A lawyer "may be
removed or otherwise disciplined 'not only for malpractice and
dishonesty in his profession, but also for gross misconduct not
connected with his professional duties, which showed him to
be unfit for the
office and unworthy of the privileges which his license and the
law confer to him."'571âwphi1
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Trina De Vera is
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year. Let a
copy of this Resolution be entered in Atty. De Vera's personal
record with the Office of the Bar Confidant, and a copy be
served to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Office
of the Court Administrator for circulation to all the courts in
the land.
13. SECOND DIVISION
[ A.C. No. 11616 [Formerly CBD Case No. 08-2141],
August 23, 2017 ]
LITO V. BUENVIAJE, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY.
MELCHOR G. MAGDAMO, RESPONDENT.
Before us is an Administrative Complaint dated December 28,
2007 filed by Lito Buenviaje[1] (Buenviaje) against respondent
Atty. Melchor G. Magdamo (Atty. Magdamo), docketed as
A.C. No. 11616 for violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
The antecedent facts are as follows:
In the instant Complaint dated December 28, 2007, Buenviaje
alleged that he was married to the late Fe Gonzalo-Buenviaje
as evidenced by NSO issued Marriage Contract Register No.
87-13503-A.[2] Fe died on September 17, 2007.
Meanwhile, Atty. Magdamo was the counsel of Fe's sisters,
Lydia and Florenia Gonzalo, who filed a criminal case for
bigamy against Buenviaje. They claimed that Buenviaje was
married to a certain Amalia Ventura in 1978, thus, making him
guilty of bigamy.
In an attempt to protect the rights and interests of his clients in
securing the monies of their sibling, deceased Fe Gonzalo,
Atty. Magdamo sent a Notice of Death of Depositor[3] dated
October 11, 2007 to the Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI)-
Dagupan Branch where Buenviaje and Fe appeared to have a
joint account. The pertinent portion of said Notice reads as
follows:
"x x x x
FE SOLIS GONZALO was formerly an Overseas Filipina
Worker (OFW) Nurse in Switzerland whose lifetime savings is
now in an account in BPI-Dagupan. She came back to the
Philippines to spend the last days of her life with her family in
San Fabian, Pangasinan. Unfortunately, while she was
terminally ill and while residing in Manila so as to be near
Saint Luke's Hospital, a clever swindler by the name of LITO
BUENVIAJE made it appear on spurious documents that he
is the husband of Fe Gonzalo when in truth and in fact LITO
BUENVIAJE is married to AMALIA VALERA.
xxxx
Moreover, ever since 24 August 2007, LITO V. BUENVIAJE
has been a fugitive from justice as he has been hiding from
the criminal charge in People of the Philippines versus Lito
Buenviaje y Visayana, case number 7H-103365, pending in
the City of Manila.
xxxx
Fe never had a husband or child in her entire life. x x x"
(Emphasis ours)
Aggrieved, Buenviaje filed the instant administrative
complaint against Atty. Magdamo for violation of Rule 1.01,
Canon 7 , Rule 7.03 and Rule 19.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Buenviaje averred that in Atty.
Magdamo's Notice of Death of Depositor dated October 11,
2007 sent to the BPI-Dagupan Branch, he untruthfully and
maliciously quoted the following statements: (1) "a clever
swindler by the name of Lito Buenviaje made it appear on
spurious document that he is the husband of Fe Gonzalo when
in truth and in fact Lito Buenviaje is married to Amalia
Valero", (2) "since August 24, 2007, Lito V. Buenviaje has
been a fugitive from justice as he has been hiding from the
criminal charge in People of the Philippines versus Lito
Buenviaje y Visayana, case number 7H-103365 pending in the
City of Manila", and (3) "Fe never had a husband or child in
her entire life" to his prejudice.
Buenviaje alleged that he discovered the Notice's existence
sometime in December 2007 when he inquired about the
remaining balance of his joint account with Fe. He lamented
that he was shocked upon reading the letter and felt humiliated
at the words written against him as the bank manager and the
other bank personnel might have really thought that he was a
swindler and a fugitive from justice.[4]
Buenviaje denied Atty. Magdamo's allegation that Fe was
never married as they were in fact married in a public civil
rites in the presence of many relatives of Fe. As to his alleged
marriage with a certain Amalia Valera, Buenviaje admitted
that he had extramarital relationship with her and that they had
two (2) sons. When they separated and he subsequently
worked overseas, it did not stop him from fulfilling his
responsibilities as a father to his sons. He was then advised to
remit money to Amalia but he was told that he needed a
marriage contract to be able to do so, thus, he asked someone
to make a marriage contract for remittance purposes and that
he was told that there would be no record of it. Buenviaje
claimed that at that time, he really believed that no valid
marriage took place between him and Amalia and that he was
single up to the time he married Fe.
Buenviaje lamented that Atty. Magdamo employed dirty and
dishonest means and tactics to ensure that BPI will prevent him
from withdrawing money from the joint account that he has
with his late wife. He averred that in referring to him as a
"swindler", Atty. Magdamo succeeded in intimidating BPI-
Dagupan into extrajudicially "freezing" the joint account and
in not transacting with him.
Buenviaje also pointed out that Atty. Magdamo, in referring to
him as a fugitive from justice, in effect, made BPI-Dagupan
believe that a criminal complaint was already pending against
him when in truth and in fact, the August 24, 2007 complaint
for bigamy filed by Lydia and Florenia was still pending
before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila at the time
that they wrote and served the Notice to BPI-Dagupan.
Buenviaje further added that Atty. Magdamo even made
threats to him as evidenced by his text messages to him, to wit:
"Sometime in the morning of 1 October 2007, I sent text
messages to Lito's last known Subscriber Identity Module
(SIM) number (+639062097612) requesting him to stop his
merciless plunder and to voluntarily surrender to the rule of
law."
Finally, Buenviaje questioned Atty. Magdamo's fitness to
continue in the practice of law as he has displayed lack of
ability to distinguish a fugitive from justice and a respondent in
a criminal investigation; employed of dirty and unprofessional
tactics of calling him a "swindler"; and by referring to his
marriage contract with his wife as "spurious document". He,
thus, prayed that considering Atty. Magdamo's actuations, he
should be disbarred or suspended from the practice of law.
On January 9, 2008, the IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline
(IBP-CBD) directed Atty. Magdamo to submit his answer on
the complaint against him.[5]
In its Report and Recommendation[6] dated October 23, 2013,
the IBP-CBD recommended that Atty. Magdamo be
reprimanded for his unethical actuations.
However, the IBP-Board of Governors, in a Notice of
Resolution No. XXI-2014-717 dated October 10, 2014,
resolved to adopt and approve with modification the Report
and Recommendation of the IBP-CBD, and instead suspend
Atty. Magdamo from the practice of law for three (3)
months.[7]
Aggrieved, Atty. Magdamo moved for reconsideration.
However, in Resolution No. XXII-2016-326[8] dated May 28,
2016, the IBP-Board of Governors resolved to deny Atty.
Magdamo's motion for reconsideration and affirm the latter's
suspension.
We concur with the findings and recommendation of the IBP-
Board of Governors.
The practice of law is a privilege given to lawyers who meet
the high standards of legal proficiency and morality. Any
violation of these standards exposes the lawyer to
administrative liability. Canon 8 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility provides:
CANON 8 — A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy,
fairness and candor towards his professional colleagues, and
shall avoid harassing tactics against the opposing counsel.
Rule 8.01. — A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings,
use language which is abusive, offensive or otherwise
improper.
In the instant case, Atty. Magdamo's actuations do not measure
up to this Canon. The records show that he referred to
Buenviaje as a "swindler". He made this imputation with pure
malice for he had no evidence that Buenviaje is committing
swindling activities. Even if he was suspicious of Buenviaje,
he should have refrained from making such malicious
reference or name-calling for he should know as a lawyer that
the mere filing of a complaint against a person does not
guarantee a finding of guilt, and that an accused is presumed
innocent until proven guilty. Here, other than the criminal
complaint for bigamy which Fe's siblings filed before the
prosecutor's office, there were no other cases decided against
Buenviaje.
Atty. Magdamo's malicious imputation against Buenviaje is
further aggravated by the fact that said imputation was made in
a forum which is not a party to the legal dispute between Fe's
siblings and Buenviaje. He could have just informed BPI-
Dagupan of the death of its client and that there is a pending
litigation regarding their client's estate, and he did not have to
resort to name-calling and make unnecessary commentaries in
order to support his cause. Undoubtedly, his malicious
imputation against Buenviaje is unfair as the latter was
unnecessarily exposed to humiliation and shame even as there
was no actual case yet to be filed in the courts.
Moreover, Atty. Magdamo is likewise out of line when he
made inference to the marriage documents of Buenviaje and Fe
as "spurious" as well as his conclusion that "Fe never had a
husband or child in her entire life". He should know better that
without the courts' pronouncement to this effect, he is in no
position to draw conclusions and pass judgment as to the
existence, and validity or nullity of the marriage of Buenviaje
and Fe. That is not his job to do. While his statements in the
Notice given to BPI-Dagupan might be prompted by a good
cause, it were nevertheless careless, premature and without
basis. At the very least, Atty. Magdamo's actuations are blatant
violation of Rule 10.02 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which provides:
Rule 10.02 - A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or
misrepresent the contents of a paper, the language or the
argument of opposing counsel, or the text of a decision or
authority, or knowingly cite as law a provision already
rendered inoperative by repeal or amendment, or assert as a
fact that which has not been proved. (Emphasis ours)
Equally incredulous is Atty. Magdamo's statement in the
Notice that "Lito V. Buenviaje has been a fugitive from justice
as he has been hiding from the criminal charge in People vs.
Lito Buenviaje y Visayana, case number 7H-103365, pending
in the City of Manila". Upon review, it appears that case
number 7H-103365 is the same bigamy case which Fe's
siblings filed against Buenviaje before the Prosecutor's Office
of Manila. At the time Atty. Magdamo made the subjects
statement in the Notice to BPI-Dagupan, he knew that there
was no final resolution yet from the prosecutor's office, no case
has yet to be filed in the courts, there was no warrant of arrest
against Buenviaje, and more importantly, there was no
evidence that Buenviaje had any intent to flee prosecution as
he even filed the instant case and participated in the
proceedings hereto. A mere charge or allegation of
wrongdoing does not suffice. Accusation is not synonymous
with guilt. There must always be sufficient evidence to support
the charge.[9] As to why Atty. Magdamo made such malicious
statements is beyond this Court's comprehension.
We had an occasion to say that the use of disrespectful,
intemperate, manifestly baseless, and malicious statements by
an attorney in his pleadings or motions is a violation of the
lawyer's oath and a transgression of the canons of professional
ethics.[10] The Court has constantly reminded lawyers to use
dignified language in their pleadings despite the adversarial
nature of our legal system.[11] Though a lawyer's language may
be forceful and emphatic, it should always be dignified and
respectful, befitting the dignity of the legal profession. The use
of intemperate language and unkind ascriptions has no place in
the dignity of judicial forum. Atty. Magdamo ought to have
realized that this sort of public behavior can only bring down
the legal profession in the public estimation and erode public
respect for it.[12]
In this case, Atty. Magdamo's statements against Buenviaje
were not only improper but it also undoubtedly tended to
mislead BPI-Dagupan into thinking that the latter is a swindler
and a fugitive as it was made without hesitation
notwithstanding the absence of any evidentiary support. The
Court cannot condone this irresponsible and unprofessional
behavior.
As this Court emphasized in Re: Supreme Court Resolution
dated 28 April 2003 in G.R. Nos. 145817 & 145822:[13]
The Court cannot countenance the ease with which lawyers, in
the hopes of strengthening their cause in a motion for
inhibition, make grave and unfounded accusations of unethical
conduct or even wrongdoing against other members of the
legal profession. It is the duty of members of the Bar to
abstain from all offensive personality and to advance no fact
prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness,
unless required by the justness of the cause with which they
are charged. (emphasis ours)
Finally, it must be emphasized anew that, in support of the
cause of their clients, lawyers have the duty to present every
remedy or defense within the authority of the law. However, a
client's cause does not permit an attorney to cross the line
between liberty and license.[14] The lawyer's duty to its clients
must never be at the expense of truth and justice. As explained
in Choa v. Chiongson:[15]

While a lawyer owes absolute fidelity to the cause of his client,

full devotion to his genuine interest, and warm zeal in the
maintenance and defense of his rights, as well as the exertion
of his utmost learning and ability, he must do so only within
the bounds of the law. He must give a candid and honest
opinion on the merits and probable results of his client's case
with the end in view of promoting respect for the law and legal
processes, and counsel or maintain such actions or proceedings
only as it appears to him to be just, and such defenses only as
he believes to be honestly debatable under the law. He must
always remind himself of the oath he took upon admission to
the Bar that he will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue
any groundless, false or unlawful suit nor give aid nor consent
to the same; and that he will conduct [himself] as a lawyer
according to the best of [his] knowledge and discretion with all
good fidelity as well to the courts as to [his] clients. Needless
to state, the lawyers fidelity to his client must not be pursued at
the expense of truth and the administration of justice, and it
must be done within the bounds of reason and common sense.
A lawyers responsibility to protect and advance the interests of
his client does not warrant a course of action propelled by ill
motives and malicious intentions against the other party.

Based on the foregoing, We cannot countenance Atty.

Magdamo's use of offensive and disrespectful language in his
Notice addressed to BPI-Dagupan. He clearly violated Canons
8 and 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, for his
actions erode the public's perception of the legal profession.
We, thus, sustain the findings and recommendation of the IBP-
Board of Governors.

ACCORDINGLY, the Court AFFIRMS the October 10, 2014

and May 28, 2016 Resolutions of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines Board of Governors in CBD Case No. 08-2141
and ORDERS the suspension of Atty. Melchor G. Magdamo
from the practice of law for three (3) months effective upon his
receipt of this Decision.

Let a copy of this Decision be entered in Atty. Magdamo's

personal record as an attorney with the Office of the Bar
Confidant and a copy of the same be served to the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines and to the Office of the Court
Administrator for circulation to all the courts in the land.

SO ORDERED.