A.M. No. RTJ-13-2350 (Formerly OCA IPI No.

10-3507-RTJ), July 23, 2018

SPS. ALBERTO AND LILIAN PACHO, Complainants, v. JUDGE AGAPITO S. LU,
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 88, CAVITE CITY, Respondent.

FACTS:

Petitioner filed a case in the MTCC for an ejectment case. The MTCC dismissed the said
case for lack of jurisdiction. The case was then appealed to the RTC where the
respondent judge presides. The respondent set aside the decision of the lower court and
remanded the same to the MTCC. The MTCC once again decided to dismiss the case for
want of jurisdiction thereafter it was again raffled to the sala of the respondent. The
respondent did not act upon the appealed case believing that in case he (the respondent)
once again would remand it would result to a case Ping-Pong, and that the petitioner
might lose their right to judicial relief hence the respondent decided only to draft a decision
and advised the petitioner to file a case against the MTCC judge. Successively for two
months. The petitioner sought for the decision of the respondent but of no avail. The
petitioner filed a case against the respondent in the OFFICE OF THE COURT
ADMINISTRATOR (OCA). The OCA found the respondent guilty of delay.

ISSUE:

Is the respondent judge guilty of delay?

HELD:

Yes the respondent judge is guilty of delay. The court is required by the constitution to
decide a case within three (3) months. Though the court grants judicial officers to ask for
an extension, this grant is not to be taken loosely, and should follow the requirements
thereof to make it in writing. This was not done by the respondent. The fear and the
concern of the respondent to the petitioner that they might lose their right to judicial relief
upon ruling on the second appeal is commendable but speculative. The respondent
should have acted upon the appeal and left it to the parties if they are unsatisfied. Therefor
the respondent caused delay.
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR VS JULLIANA ADALIM-WHITE
(AM RTJ -15 - 2440)

FACTS:

Administrative complaint was filed against the respondent for actively participating in a
case representing his brother, who was then the Mayor of Taft Eastern Samar, while the
respondent was still in active service as a lawyer in the Public Attorney’s Office. The case
was in relation to the operation of a Reliance CATV without any license. Respondent was
imposed of a penalty, thereafter the respondent judge was assigned as Judge. The Office
of the Administrator sought for the execution of judgement against the respondent
however respondent Judge contended that the execution of judgement upon Him should
be considered moot and academic since it was imposed upon the latter when she was
still a PAO lawyer. The Office of the court administrator found out that there was another
violation committed by the respondent, specifically the falsification of her PDS. The PDS
according to the petitioner was fraudulently made since the PDS seeks to know whether
any of the applicant has already been guilty of any administrative offenses of which the
respondent replied on the negative on her PDS. As her argument the respondent stated
that she never intended to deceive anyone and that she filled out her PDS with good faith
and that the reason for her answers was due to her honest belief that she was not yet
guilty since the dispositive portion of the decision never stated that she was guilty but only
imposed penalty.

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent Judge is guilty of deceiving his position, due to gross
Ignorance of the Law

HELD:

Yes the respondent Judge is guilty. It is incumbent upon the judge to know that the PDS
is to be filled out with integrity. Being administrator of justice a judge cannot let down the
confidence of the public to the Justice system of the Philippines the acts of the Judge is
dishonesty due to Gross Ignorance of the Law.
THE OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR … Complainant

Versus

HON. SELMA P. ALARAS, PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 62, REGIONAL TRIAL

COURT, MAKATI CITY … Respondent

PRESENT: VELASCO, JR, J, CHAIRPERSON; BERSAMIN; LEONEN; MARTIRES AND

GESMUNDO, JJ

Promulgated: July 23, 2018

FACTS:

Spouses Pitogo filed a case against the Sherriff of Makati City for noncompliance of the
Temporary restraining order issued to foreclose land property own by the said spouses
in favour of PDB. The herein case was set for hearing in the sala of the respondent judge
which the latter recused herself. The respondent judge prior to the re-raffle of the said
case issued the TRO with the provision specifically stating the terms “until further notice
of this court. The case was submitted to the OFFICE of the COURT ADMINISTRATOR
since the case was not yet acted upon. Of which the OCA filed a case against the
respondent judge alleging that the respondent had cause the delay due to her gross
ignorance of the law. The allegation was based on the premise that the judge stated the
terms until further notice of the court which is an indefinite provision of when the TRO will
be lifted

ISSUE:

Is the respondent judge guilty of GROSS IGNORACE OF THE LAW?

HELD:

NO the respondent judge is not guilty, notwithstanding the terms set in the decision “until
further notice of the court still it cannot be considered as gross ignorance of the law . the
facts shows that the respondent judge pronounce in the decision a 20 day period of which
is to be construed as the termination of the TRO. The statement until further notice should
only be considered as an oversight .
A.M. No. MTJ-16-1879 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 14-2719-MTJ), July 24, 2018

ANONYMOUS, Complainant, v. JUDGE BILL D. BUYUCAN, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT

TRIAL COURT, BAGABAG-DIADI, NUEVA VIZCAYA, Respondent.

FACTS:

Lots where granted to DAR for research purposes. Upon the same grant the Department
of Agrarian Reform filed cases for civil and criminal against the illegal occupants of the
said portions of land. The Cases were presided by the respondent Judge who dismissed
the same. An anonymous text was sent to the Office of the Court Administrator. Accusing
the herein respondent Judge of illegally settling on the same lands that he decided to
dismiss, and that he is using it for his cock farm. As response to the allegation. The Judge
answered that the properties tat he is occupying is not part of the ownership of the DAR
but is own by the DPWH. The OCA filed against the respondent judge for gross
misconduct

ISSUE:

Is the Judge liable for misconduct ?

HELD:

Yes the respondent Judge is guilty of gross misconduct. In administrative cases the
quantum of proof is substantial evidence. The facts shows that the sworn affidavits of the
witnesses corroborated with each other. The facts also shoes that one of the respondent
of the case the respondent judge dismissed was given favor before the sale of the land
to the latter. A judge must be so careful of deciding cases that it must not raise the
presumption of impartiality . therefore the judge is guilty
 A.C. No. 5580, July 31, 2018

SAN JOSE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. AS REPRESENTED BY

REBECCA V. LABRADOR, Complainant, v. ATTY. ROBERTO B.
ROMANILLOS, Respondent.

FACTS:

This is a petition for the reinstatement to the roll of attorney’s of the respondent. The fact
shows that the respondent has been disbarred due to his actions in handling cases with
conflicting interest .The respondent handled a case whereby he was the counsel of a
petitioner in a case violating condominium act of the Philippines., hereafter he also
handled a case that is adverse to the claim of the other , and worse is that he used the
title “judge” in his dealings thereof. After the lapse of 10 years this petition was
commenced

ISSUE:

Whether or not the respondent judge should be reinstated

HELD:

No the respondent judge should not be reinstated, in a former case decided by the
Supreme court the court laid grounds for Judicial Clemency they are as follows : a. There
must be a proof of remorse or reformation b. Sufficient lapse of time must have lapse. c.
the age of the person must show that he can still have relevant years that may still be put
into good use . d a showing of promise or public use , e. relevant factors that may justify
his clemency. There is no clear showing that the respondent has done any of the grounds,
hence petition denied.
 A.C. No. 9850, August 06, 2018

ATTY. MA. ROWENA AMELIA V. GUANZON, Complainant, v. ATTY. JOEL

G. DOJILLO, Respondent.

FACTS :

Petitioner was a former counsel of ROSELIE the wife of GARCIA, whereby the
petitioner filed a case against Garcia in violation of the VIOLENCE AGAINTS
WOMEN and CHILDREN ACT.Garcia alleged that Petitioner Guanzon is
interested and is with a romantic affair with ROSELIE. Thereafter GARCIA filed
a disbarment case against the herein petitioner with Respondent Dojillo as his
counsel. Garcia alleged that Petitioner Guanzon is interested and is with a
romantic affair with ROSELIE. Petitioner Guanzon filed criminal cases against
GARCIA. In his defense of his client Dojillo attached the allegations of GARCIA
in relation to the disbarment case filed against the herein petitioner. Petitioner
filed a case against Respondent Dojillo for attaching and disclosing confidential
matters of other cases hence violating the canons of professional ethics.

ISSUE :

Whether or not Dojillo violated the canons of professional ethics

HELD :

No Dojillo is not guilty. The petitioner failed to establish substantial evidence

to prove her allegation. The acts of Dojillo of attaching the documents was
used to defend his client and by establishing the motive of the petitioner in
making filing such charges against his client.

BUENAVISTA PROPERTIES (BPI)VS AMADO DELORIA

FACTS :

Petitioner contracted a joint venture with LSDC represented by the

respondent as counsel. The joint venture was for the development of a parcel
of land making it a mixed used commercial property. LSCD assuming that the
the latter was the owner thereof sold the properties to private individuals.
Petitioner filed for injunction but was not followed by LSDC. Upon selling the
said properties the buyers thereof demanded the titles from LSDC and the
latter demanded it from the petitioner. Because of the delay one Corazon
Flores and Spouse filed an estafa against the president of LSDC. Petitioner
filed a case against respondent alleging that the latter was the one who
motivated Corazon and spouses to file charges against LSDC and other
irregularities since respondent was also the former commissioner of HLURB.
The IBP investigation committee found respondent guilty of conflict of interest
and forum shopping.

ISSUE : whether or not respondent is guilty of of forum shopping conflict of

interest.

HELD : Yes the respondent is guilty of the charges including the violation of
the code regarding zeal to his client . respondent is guilty of conflict of interest
since he represented LSDC as defense against petitioner, he was guilty of
forum shopping. When his petitioner was filed in the RTC and he filed again in
the HLURB. The code of profession requires zeal on the part of the lawyer in
behalf of his client, this made the respondent guilty of such.

PABLITO MIRANDA VS JOSE ALVAREZ.

FACTS :

Petitioner filed a case against respondent for violation of Notarial Practice. It

has been alleged by the petitioner that the respondent was exercising notarial
practices even outside court the courts territorial jurisdiction , as well as
exercising notarial practices with an expired certification . as his defense the
respondent only stated that he is a lawyer and that the charges was done only
to extort money from him.

ISSUE : whether or not the respondent is guilty of such charges

HELD :

Yes the respondent is guilty. The facts clearly shows that the respondent
practices notarial services even outside territorial jurisdiction of the court, also
when his certification was expired . and worse he has notarized documents for
application of business permits even without the person being in his presence.
A notarial act is not a routinary and simple act , but it is an act imbued with
pubic interest.

DANDIBERTH CANILLO VS ATTY SERGIO ANGELES

FACTS :

Petitioner was an appellant from a case that was handled by the respondent
.however the Court of appeals dismissed the case due to non filling of the
appealant’s brief by the respondent. The dismissal became final and executory
due to the time lapsed. The petitioner wanting to have a communication
between him and the respondent scheduled a meeting with him , but upon
seeing each other the respondent never did explain and worse he left the
petitioner angrily.

ISSUE :

Is the respondent guilty of violation of the code of professional practice

HELD :

Yes the respondent is guilty. The code of professional ethics provides that a
lawyer shall not neglect the legal matters entrusted upon him by his client. In
the case , the facts shows that deliberately the respondent neglected the legal
matter by not filling the required appealant’s brief on time.

DR PROTENCIANO MALVAR VS ATTY SERGIO ANGELES

FACTS :

The petitioner and the respondent were close friends. The respondent had
been handling cases for the petitioner for 24 civil and criminal cases.
Marcelino Lopez had a joint venture with the petitioner, associated with
properties that the petitioner is personally interested to purchase. However
the subject properties were under dispute and litigation. Lopez gave the
petitioner exclusive authority to sell the property of which the petitioner used
for his favor to buy the same. The court ruled unfavorably against the Lopez
and was denied of the property. The petitioner wanted to be a party and wants
to intervene but was opposed by the respondent. Also respondent facilitated
a purchase contract between petitioner and Marcelino which made the
petitioner pay for a considerable amount of money. The petitioner demanded
for an accounting but of not avail

ISSUE :

Did the respondent violated the canon of professional ethics

HELD :

Yes the respondent violated the canon of professional ethics: 1. conflict of

interest between the Lopezes and Malvar, and 2. failure to account for the
money of his client.

LEONORA L HIZON VS ATTY SERGIO ANGELES

FACTS :

Petitioner was the grandchild of ANGELINA client of the respondent. Angelina

then secured the services of the respondent for transfer of title . one of the
consideration was the payment of shares in property in favor of the
respondent

ISSUE :

Did the respondent violated the canon of professional ethics

HELD :

Yes the respondent of guilty by engaging in a champertous contract

SHERYL HIZON CUSTUDIO, VENUS HIZON TUMBAGA , MARY JANE
HIZON GLADYS HUZON AND ADONIS HIZON VS ATTY SERGIO
ANGELES

FACTS :

Petitioner was the grandchild of ANGELINA client of the respondent. Angelina

then secured the services of the respondent for transfer of title . one of the
consideration was the payment of shares in property in favor of the
respondent

ISSUE :

Did the respondent violated the canon of professional ethics

HELD :

Yes the respondent os guilty by engaging in a champertous contract.

FLORENTINO DUMLAO VS ATTY CAMACHO

FACTS :

Petitioner was the judge of a case handled by the respondent. the case was
favorably decided for the respondent. The adverse party on that case filed a
petition for appeal. Thereon the respondent Atty Camacho tried to bribe the
petitioner judge and threaten the same through alleged connections with the
supreme court. The threatening did not stop since the threatening extended
to the sheriff on one time

ISSUE :

Did the respondent violated the canons of professional ethics

HELD :

Yes the respondent violated the cannons perticulary the provision of the
cannon not to influence judges. Also he is guilty in threatening officers of the
court
AAA VS ANTONIO DELOS REYES

FACTS :

Petitioner was the secretary of the respondent. The petitioner has been
coerced by the defendant through the threat that the respondent would fire
the petitioner ir she would not comply to the demands of the respondent. Not
only that the defendantt also threten the petiioner that he would fire the friend
of the petitioner. The petitioner being the bread winner of her family with a
sick mother had no choice but to comply . charges was filed againts the
defendant and he denied all allegation.

ISSUE :

Is the defendant guilty of violating the cannons of professional ethics

HELD :

Yes the defendant is guilty. The facts shows that the petitioner cannot lie
under the circumstances at hand . the defendant s guilty of gross misconduct.

KENNETH MARIANO vs ATTY LAKI

FACTS :

Petitioner secured the services of the defendant for an annulment case. An

amout of 160,000 was charged against the petitioner of which 50,000 thereof
should be paid as down payment. After several months the case is not
prospering , and the defendant said that he personally withdraw the petition
because the judge that he was expecting to handle the case was no longer
available. Petitioner sought for the return of his money. The defendant
promised but of no avail. The petitioner filed a case against the defendant.
Hearings had been scheduled but most of the times there was an absentee.
Hence this petition

ISSUE :

Is the defendant guilty of violating the cannons of professional ethics

HELD :

Yes the defendant is guilty. The facts shows that the petitioner violated the
cannons of professional ethics regarding the keeping of the money of his client
and that the defendant eroded the public’s confidence to the judicial system.

CABALIDA VS SOLOMONS LOBRIDO

FACTS :

Petitioner is the owner of a parcel of land left by a person whom he had special
relations to . The petitioner alleges that the respondents colluded among
themselves to deny him of his property

ISSUE :

Did the respondents violated the cannons of professional ethics

HELD :

Yes the defendant did violate. Solomons violated cannon 8 that provides tat a
lawyer cannot directly nor indirectly encroach upon the professional
employment of another

EDGAR A. ABIOG, COURT STENOGRAPHER I, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT

TRIAL COURT, BROOKE'S POINT-ESPAÑOLA, BATARAZA,
PALAWAN, Complainant, v. HON. EVELYN C. CAÑETE, PRESIDING
JUDGE, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, BROOKE'S POINT-
ESPAÑOLA, BATARAZA, PALAWAN,

FACTS :

Respondent judge was charge of misconduct of being unbecoming of a judge

when she used the facilities of the court as her house. The respondent denied
the allegation and said that it was a grant of the municipal government for
her contribution to the community

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge is guilty of misconduct

HELD

Yes the respondent is guilty. Being a judge the respondent should have
avoided any thing that would cause suspicion that she is abusing her authority.
The investigation commission found substantial grounds that she is guilty.

REPORT ON JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN RTC CEBU CITY

FACTS :
The judge in the herein case was on leave during the audit . It was found out
by the investigating team that a case load amounting to 519 was pending in
the court 308 are criminal case and 211 are civil case. It was also found out
that a lot of them are already subject to decision since it has already lapse the
90 day reglementary period. Moreover it wa also found out that the judge
never did seek nor ask for an extension to decide the casae

ISSUE :

Whether or not the judge is guilty of delay

HELD :

Yes the judge is guilty of delay . clear is the provision in the constitution that
cases are supposed to be decided within 3 months . much clogging of cases
amounts to gross inefficiency.

A.C. No. 11486 (Formerly CBD No. 13-3899), October 17, 2018
FERNANDO A. FLORA III, Complainant, v. ATTY. GIOVANNI A.
LUNA, Respondent.

FACTS :

Respondent was hired by the petitioner to represent him as a complainant in

a criminal case against an Indian national. The respondent received 40,000
for acceptance and 4300 as appearance fee. However the case did not prosper
for the issue was settled amicably in the baranggay level. Thereat the
petitioner demanded the return of the money but the defendant refused and
even shouted at him saying the payment was not even enough.

ISSUE

Whether the allegations in the complaint-affidavit established enough ground

to hold respondent administratively liable.

HELD

Yes the respondent was guilty of misconduct .The respondent is not entitled
to payment for services not rendered.