HUMBERTO C. LIM, JR.,A.C. No.

5303
in behalf of PENTA RESORTS
CORPORATION/Attorney-in- cralawIn a resolution dated February 24, 2003, this Court considered Administrative Case No. 5463
Fact of LUMOT A. JALANDONI,
Complainant,Present:
closed and terminated.[3]On February 4, 2004, considering the pleadings filed in Administrative Case
PUNO, J., Chairperson,
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
-v e r s u s- CORONA, No. 5502, the Court resolved:
AZCUNA and
GARCIA, JJ. (a) to NOTE the notice of the resolution dated September 27, 2003 of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines dismissing the case against respondent for
ATTY. NICANOR V. VILLAROSA, lack of merit; and
Respondent.Promulgated:
(b) to DENY, for lack of merit, the petition filed by complainant praying that
June 15, 2006 the resolution of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines dismissing the instant
case be reviewed and that proper sanctions be imposed upon respondent.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x [4]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

RESOLUTION

CORONA, J. No motion for reconsideration of the aforesaid denial in Administrative Case No. 5502 appears in the

records.The Court is now called upon to determine the merits of this remaining case (A.C. No. 5303)

cralawHumberto C. Lim Jr.[1] filed a verified complaint for disbarment against respondent Atty. Nicanor
against respondent.

V. Villarosa on July 7, 2000.[2]On February 19, 2002, respondent moved for the consolidation of the
cralawThe complaint read:

said complaint with the following substantially interrelated cases earlier filed with the First Division of AS FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

this Court: xxx xxxxxx

- II -

1. Administrative Case No. 5463: Sandra F. Vaflor v. Atty. Adoniram P.

cralawThat respondent is a practicing lawyer and a member of the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines, Bacolod City, Negros Occidental Chapter. That sometime on
Pamplona and Atty. Nicanor V. Villarosa; September 19, 1997, Lumot A. Jalandoni, Chairman/President of PRC was sued
before RTC, Branch 52 in Civil Case No. 97-9865, RE: Cabiles et al. vs. Lumot
Jalandoni, et al.The latter engaged the legal services of herein respondent who
2. Administrative Case No. 5502: Daniel A. Jalandoni v. Atty. Nicanor V. formally entered his appearance on October 2, 1997 as counsel for the defendants
Lumot A. Jalandoni/Totti Anlap Gargoles' . Respondent as a consequence of said
Attorney-Client relationship represented Lumot A. Jalandoni et al in the entire
Villarosa. proceedings of said case.Utmost trust and confidence was reposed on said counsel,
hence delicate and confidential matters involving all the personal circumstances of his
client were entrusted to the respondent.The latter was provided with all the necessary
information relative to the property in question and likewise on legal matters affecting
the corporation (PRC) particularly [involving] problems [which affect] Hotel
Alhambra.Said counsel was privy to all transactions and affairs of the
corporation/hotel.
- III -
cralawThat it was respondent who exclusively handled the entire proceedings of
afore-cited Civil Case No. 97-9865 [and] presented Lumot A. Jalandoni as his witness
prior to formally resting his case.However, on April 27, 1999 respondent, without due
notice prior to a scheduled hearing, surprisingly filed a Motion to withdraw as counsel,
one day before its scheduled hearing on April 28, 1999. A careful perusal of said
Motion to Withdraw as Counsel will conclusively show that no copy thereof was
furnished to Lumot A. Jalandoni, neither does it bear her conformity.No doubt, such
notorious act of respondent resulted to (sic) irreparable damage and injury to Lumot
A. Jalandoni, et al since the decision of the court RTC, Branch 52 proved adverse to
Lumot A. Jalandoni, et al. The far reaching effects of the untimely and unauthorized
withdrawal by respondent caused irreparable damage and injury to Lumot A.
Jalandoni, et al; a highly meritorious case in favor of his client suddenly [suffered]
unexpected defeat.
- IV -
cralaw
cralawThat the grounds alleged by respondent for his withdrawal as counsel of Lumot
A. Jalandoni, et al. was that he is [a] retained counsel of Dennis G. Jalbuena and the
Fernando F. Gonzaga, Inc. It was Dennis G. Jalbuena who recommended him to be
the counsel of Lumot A. Jalandoni, et al.It is worthy to note that from the outset,
respondent already knew that Dennis G. Jalbuena is the son-in-law of Lumot A.
Jalandoni being married to her eldest daughter, Carmen J. Jalbuena.The other
directors/officers of PRC were comprised of the eldest sibling of the remaining
children of Lumot A. Jalandoni made in accordance with her wishes, with the
exception of Carmen J. Jalbuena, the only daughter registered as one of the
incorporators of PRC, obviously, being the author of the registration itself [sic].
Respondent further stated that he cannot refuse to represent Dennis G. Jalbuena in
the case filed against the latter before the City Prosecutors Office by PRC/Lumot A.
Jalandoni due to an alleged retainership agreement with said Dennis G. Jalbuena.
[He] likewise represented Carmen J. Jalbuena and one Vicente Delfin when PRC filed
the criminal complaint against them. On April 06, 1999, twenty-one (21) days prior to
respondent's filing of his Motion to Withdraw as Counsel of Lumot A. Jalandoni, et al.,
respondent entered his appearance with Bacolod City Prosecutor OIC-Vicente C.
Acupan, through a letterexpressly stating that effective said date he was appearing
as counsel for both Dennis G. Jalbuena and Carmen J. Jalbuena and Vicente Delfin
in the 'Estafa case filed by the corporation (PRC) against them. Simply stated, as
early as April 6, 1999respondent already appeared for and in behalf of the Sps.
Carmen and Dennis Jalbuena/Vicente Delfin while concurrently representing Lumot
A. Jalandoni, et al. in Civil Case No. 97-9865. However, despite being fully aware that
the interest of his client Lumot A. Jalandoni [holding an equivalent of Eighty-two
(82%) percent of PRC's shares of stocks] and the interest of PRC are one and the
same, notwithstanding the fact that Lumot A. Jalandoni was still his client in Civil
Case No. 97-9862, respondent opted to represent opposing clients at the same
time. The corporation's complaint for estafa (P3,183,5525.00) was filed against the
Sps. Dennis and Carmen J. Jalbuena together with UCPB bank manager Vicente
Delfin.Succeeding events will show that respondent instead of desisting from further
violation of his [lawyer's ] oath regarding fidelity to his client, with extreme arrogance,
blatantly ignored our laws on Legal Ethics, by palpably and despicably defending the
Sps. Dennis and Carmen J. Jalbuena in all the cases filed against them by PRC
through its duly authorized representatives, before the Public Prosecutors Office,
Bacolod City (PP vs. Sps. Dennis and Carmen J. Jalbuena for False
Testimony/Perjury, viol. of Art. 183 RPC under BC I.S. No. 2000-2304; viol. of Art.
363, 364, 181 and 183 RPC under BC I.S. 2000-2343, PP vs. Carmen J. Jalbuena for
viol. of Art. 315 ' under BC I.S. 2000-2125 and various other related criminal cases
against the Sps. Dennis and Carmen Jalbuena).
AS SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
xxxcralaw cralawxxxxxx
-I-
xxx xxx xxx
cralawThere is no dispute that respondent was able to acquire vast resources of
confidential and delicate information on the facts and circumstances of [Civil Case
No. 97-9865] when Lumot A. Jalandoni was his client ' which knowledge and
information was acquired by virtue of lawyer-client relationship between respondent
and his clients.Using the said classified information which should have been closely
guarded ' respondent did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, feloniously conspired
and confabulated with the Sps. Dennis and Carmen J. Jalbuena in concocting the
despicable and fabricated charges against his former clients denominated as PP vs.
Lumot A. Jalandoni, Pamela J. Yulo, Cristina J. Lim and Leica J. Lim for viol. of Art.
172 of Revised Penal Code due to a board resolution executed by the corporation
which the Sps. Jalbuena, with the assistance of herein respondent, claimed to have
been made without an actual board meeting due to an alleged lack of quorum,
[among other things].Were it not for said fiduciary relation between client and lawyer,
respondent will not be in a position to furnish his conspirator spouses with confidential
information on Lumot A. Jalandoni/PRC, operator of Alhambra Hotel.
- II -
cralawAdding insult to injury, respondent opted to deliberately withhold the entire
case file including the marked exhibits of the Cabiles case for more than three (3)
months after his untimely unilateral withdrawal therefrom, despite repeated demands
from [his] client.On July 26, 1999, capitalizing on his knowledge of the indispensability
of said documents particularly the marked exhibits, which deadline to file the formal
offer of exhibits was continually impressed upon the new counsel by the court,
respondent suddenly interposed an amount of five thousand (P5,000.00) pesos as
consideration prior to or simultaneous to the turnover of said documents' . [On] July
29, 1999, left with no other alternative owing to the urgency of the situation, PRC
 issued Check No. 2077686 for P5,000.00 in payment thereof.This was duly received
by respondent's office on the same date. Such dilatory tactics employed by
respondent immensely weakened the case of Lumot A. Jalandoni eventually resulting
to (sic) an adverse decision against [her].

cralawFurther demonstrating before this Honorable Court the notoriety of respondent cralawSection 4, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court explicitly provides that:
in representing conflicting interest which extended even beyond the family
controversy was his improper appearance in court in Civil Case No. 99-10660, RE: cralawSEC. 4. Verification. ' Except when otherwise specifically required by law or
Amy Albert Que vs. Penta Resorts Corp., this time favoring the party opponent of rule, pleadings need not be under oath, verified or accompanied by affidavit. (5a)
defendant who is even outside the family circle.During the pre-trial hearing conducted
on May 5, 1999, while still [holding] exclusive possession of the entire case file of his cralawA pleading is verified by an affidavit that the affiant has read the pleading and
client in Civil Case No. 97-9865, respondent brazenly positioned himself beside Atty. that the allegations therein are true and correct of his personal knowledge or based
Adoniram P. Pamplona, counsel of plaintiff [in] a suit against his client Lumot A. on authentic records.
Jalandoni/PRC, coaching said counsel on matters [he was privy to] as counsel of said
client.Facts mentioned by said counsel of the plaintiff starting from the last par. of cralawA pleading required to be verified which contains verification based on
page 25 until and including the entire first par. of page 26 were the exact words information and belief or upon 'knowledge, information and belief, or lacks a
dictated by respondent. The entire incident was personally witnessed by herein proper verification, shall be treated as an unsigned pleading. (As amended, A.M.
complainant [who was] only an arms length away from them during the hearing. 00-2-10, May 1, 2000.) (emphasis ours)
However, the particular portion showing the said irregular acts of respondent was
deliberately excluded by the court stenographer from the transcript, despite her
detailed recollection and affirmation thereof to herein complainant. This prompted the
new counsel of Lumot A. Jalandoni/PRC to complain to the court why Atty. Nicanor
Villarosa was coaching Atty. Pamplona in such proceedings' . Said corrections were
only effected after repeated demands to reflect the actual events which [transpired] While the Rules provide that an unsigned pleading produces no legal effect,[8] the court may, in its
on said pre-trial.[5] (emphasis ours)
discretion, allow such deficiency to be remedied if it appears that the same was due to mere

cralawIn an addendum to the July 4, 2000 complaint, Lim also pointed to certain acts of respondent inadvertence and not intended for delay.[9]We find that Lim was not shown to have deliberately filed the

which allegedly violated the Rules of Court ― perpetration of falsehood and abuse of his influence as pleading in violation of the Rules.

former public prosecutor. These supposedly affected the status of the cases that Lim filed against the
cralawIn his comment dated December 1, 2000, respondent, reiterating his ground for the dismissal of

clients of respondent.[6]
cralaw the complaint, added:

cralawIn a motion to dismiss dated October 30, 2000, respondent claimed that the complainant violated
Circular No. 48-2000 because, in his verification, Lim stated:
3. That [he] prepared this instant complaint for disbarment against Atty. Nicanor V.
Villarosa, read its contents, the same are all true and correct to [his] own personal
knowledge and belief.[7] (emphasis ours)
[that] complainant Humberto C. Lim, Jr. has not only violated the Rule on Civil
Procedure but he was/is NOT duly authorize[d] by the Penta Resorts Corp. (PRC) nor
[by] Lumot A. Jalandoni to file this complaint against [him].Neither [was Lim] a proper
party to file this complaint.This fact is an additional ground to have his case dismissed
because Humberto C. Lim Jr. exceeded whatever authority was granted to him as
embodied in a resolution and the Special Power of Attorney allegedly granted to him
by the complainants.[10]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
 cralawThere was nothing personal [about the] circumstances of the sisters nor
cralawTo bolster his assertion that the complaint against him was unfounded, respondent presented the transactions of the corporation [which were] discussed. The documents being offered
as evidence, [he] reiterate[s] for emphasis, are public; the presumption is that the
whole world knows about them.
following version in his defense:
cralawThat [he] [also] vehemently den[ies] another distorted allegation of Mr. Lim that
FACTS OF THE CASE [he] represented Mrs. Jalandoni [in] the entire proceedings of [the] case.[Lim] himself
attested that [he] [filed] [his] Motion to Withdraw As Counsel, dated April 26, 1999 ',
before the trial court, sometime on April 27, 1999. How then could [he] have
xxxcralawcralawxxx xxx represented Mrs. Jalandoni for [the] entire proceedings of the case?

Further, Mr. Lim intentionally hid from this Honorable Court the important fact that
cralawThat Mrs. Jalandoni has two sons-in-law, namely Dennis G. Jalbuena married [his] Motion to Withdraw was APPROVED by the trial court because of
to her daughter, Carmen J. Jalbuena, and Humberto C. Lim Jr., the herein thepossibility of a conflict of interest.xxx xxx xxx. [11]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
complainant married to her daughter, Cristina J. Lim.
cralaw
cralawThat Mrs. Lumot Jalandoni organized a corporation namely the Penta Resorts
Corporation (PRC) where she owned almost ninety seven percent (97%). In other
words, in reality, Penta Resorts Corporation is a single proprietorship belonging to Respondent discredited Lim's claim that he deliberately withheld the records of the cited civil case.He
Mrs. Jalandoni.That the only property of the corporation is as above-stated, the
Alhambra Hotel, constructed solely through the effort of the spouses Jalbuena on that
parcel of land now claimed by the Cabiles family. insisted that it took him just a few days, not three months, to turn over the records of the case to Lim.

cralawThat sometime on the year 1997 the case above-cited (Civil Case No. 97-
9865) was filed before the court against the sisters. [12]While he admitted an oversight in addressing the notice of the motion to withdraw as counsel to
That [he], being RETAINED counsel of the spouses Dennis and Carmen J. Jalbuena
was RECOMMENDED by the spouses to the sisters to answer the complaint filed
against them. Mrs. Totti Anlap Gargoles instead of Mrs. Jalandoni at Hotel Alhambra, he maintained that it was the

II. height of hypocrisy to allege that Mrs. Jalandoni was not aware of his motion to withdraw[13] since Mrs.

cralawThat as counsel to the sisters, [he] filed a Motion for Extension Of Time To File Gargoles is Mrs. Jalandoni's sister and Hotel Alhambra is owned by PRC which, in turn, actually
Answer ' and ultimately, [he] filed an Answer With Counter-Claim And Prayer For
Issuance Of Writ Of Preliminary Injunction.
belongs to Mrs. Jalandoni. Respondent also argued that no prejudice was suffered by Mrs. Jalandoni
cralawThat reading the Answer ' it is clear that the defense of the sisters totally rest
onpublic documents (the various titles issued to the land in question because of the because she was already represented by Atty. Lorenzo S. Alminaza from the first hearing date.[14]In
series [of changes] in ownership) and the sisters' and their parents' actual occupation
and possession thereof.xxx xxx xxx
fact, respondent contended, it was he who was not notified of the substitution of counsels.[15]
cralawMr. Lim['s ] accusation against [him] in the light of the above-facts is the best
evidence of Humberto C. Lim, Jr.'s penchant for exaggeration and distortion of the
truth.Since the defense of the sisters to retain ownership of the land in question is
based on PUBLIC documents, what delicate and confidential matters involving cralawAs to the bill of P 5,000, respondent stated:
personal circumstances of the sisters allegedly entrusted to [him], is Mr. Humberto C.
Lim, Jr. talking about in paragraphs I and II of his Complaint? What [privity] to all That Mr. Lim begrudge[s] [him] for billing Mrs. Jalandoni Five Thousand
transactions and affairs of the corporation/hotel is he referring to? Whatever (Php5,000.00) Pesos. Mr. Humberto C. Lim Jr. conveniently forgets that the net
transactions the corporation may have been involved in or [may be getting involved worth of the property together with its improvements, under litigation in that Cabiles,
into], is totally immaterial and irrelevant to the defense of the sisters. et al. vs. Gargoles et al. case, is a minimum of THIRTY MILLION (Php30,000,000.00)
 PESOS then, and more so now.[He] cannot find any law which prohibits a counsel cralawAs such therefore, the Undersigned has no alternative but to respectfully
from billing a client for services in proportion to the services he rendered.[16] recommend the suspension of the respondent from the practice of law for a period of
six (6) months from receipt hereof.

cralawRESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

cralawIn view of these developments, respondent was adamant that: cralawPasig City, June 20, 2002.[18]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

the only real question to be answered in this complaint is why Mr. Lim so consistently
[determined] to immerse the Jalandoni family [in] a series of criminal and civil suits
and to block all attempts to reconcile the family by prolonging litigations, complaints
and filing of new ones in spite of the RESOLUTION of the corporation and the cralawThe IBP Board of Governors (Board), however, reversed the recommendation of the investigating
UNDERTAKING of the members' .[17]

cralaw commissioner and resolved to dismiss the case on August 3, 2002.[19] Lumot A. Jalandoni filed a

On June 18, 2001, the Court resolved to refer the complaint to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines motion for reconsideration (MR) on October 18, 2002 but the Board denied the MR since it no longer

(IBP) for investigation.Commissioner Lydia A. Navarro made the following report and recommendation: had jurisdiction to consider and resolve a matter already endorsed

xxx xxx xxx

cralawAfter going over the [pieces of evidence] submitted by the parties[,] the
undersigned noted that from the onset, PRC had a case wherein respondent was its to this Court.[20]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
counsel.Later on, complainant had a case against spouses Jalbuena where the
parties were related to each other and the latter spouses were represented by the
respondent as their retained counsel; after respondent had allegedly withdrawn as
counsel for the complainant in Civil Case No. 97-9865. cralawBefore delving into the core issues of this case, we need to address some preliminary matters.

cralawBeing the husband of one of the complainants which respondent himself

cralawRespondent argues that the alleged resolution of PRC and the special power of attorney given by
averred in his answer, it is incumbent upon Humberto Lim Jr. to represent his wife as
one of the representatives of PRC and Alhambra Hotel in the administrative complaint
to protect not only her interest but that of the [family's ]. Lumot A. Jalandoni to Humberto did not contemplate the filing of an administrative complaint.[21]Citing
cralawFrom the facts obtaining, it is evident that complainant had a lawyer-client
relationship with the respondent before the latter [was] retained as counsel by the the Rules of Court, respondent said that:
Spouses Jalbuena when the latter were sued by complainant's representative.
[s]uch complaints are personal in nature and therefore, the filing of the same, cannot
cralawWe cannot disregard the fact that on this situation for some reason or another be delegated by the alleged aggrieved party to any third person unless expressly
there existed some confidentiality and trust between complainants and respondent to authorized by law.
ensure the successful defense of their cases.

cralawRespondent for having appeared as counsel for the Spouses Jalbuena when
charged by respondent's former client Jalandoni of PRC and Alhambra Hotel,
represented conflicting interests ' in violation of the Canon of Professional We must note, however, the following:
Responsibility.
cralaw SECTION 1. How instituted. ' Proceedings for disbarment, suspension or discipline of
attorneys may be taken by the Supreme Court motu propio, or by the Integrated Bar
 of the Philippines (IBP) upon the verified complaint of any person. The complaint
shall state clearly and concisely the facts complained of and shall be supported by
affidavits or persons having personal knowledge of the facts therein alleged and/or 1. whether there existed a conflict of interest in the cases represented and
by such documents a may substantiate said facts.

cralawThe IBP Board of Governors may, motu propio or upon referral by the Supreme handled by respondent, and
Court or by a Chapter Board of Officers, or at the instance of any person, initiate
and prosecute proper charges against any erring attorneys' .[22] (emphasis ours)
2. whether respondent properly withdrew his services as counsel of record in

Civil Case No. 97-9865.

Complaints against members of the Bar are pursued to preserve the integrity of the legal profession, not

for private vendetta.Thus, whoever has such personal knowledge of facts constituting a cause of action CONFLICT OF INTEREST

against erring lawyers may file a verified complaint with the Court or the IBP.[23] Corollary to the public
cralawPetitioners alleged that as an offshoot of representing conflicting interests, breach of attorney-

interest in these proceedings is the following rule:

client confidentiality and deliberate withholding of records were committed by respondent. To effectively
SEC. 11. Defects. ' No defect in a complaint, notice, answer, or in the proceeding
or the Investigator's Report shall be considered as substantial unless the Board
of Governors, upon considering the whole record, finds that such defect has unravel the alleged conflict of interest, we must look into the cases involved.
resulted or may result in a miscarriage of justice, in which event the Board shall
take such remedial action as the circumstances may warrant, including invalidation of
the entire proceedings.[24] (emphasis ours)
cralawIn Civil Case No. 97-9865, respondent represented Lumot A. Jalandoni and Totti Anlap

Gargoles.This was a case for the recovery of possession of property involving Hotel Alhambra, a hotel
Respondent failed to substantiate his allegation that Lim's complaint was defective in form and
owned by PRC.
substance, and that entertaining it would result in a miscarriage of justice.For the same reason, we will

In BC I.S. No. 99-2192, Lim v. Vicente Delfin, Spouses Dennis and Carmen Jalbuena, respondent was
no longer put in issue the filing at the onset of a motion to dismiss by respondent instead of an answer

counsel for Delfin and the spouses Jalbuena. In this case, plaintiff Cristina Lim sued the spouses
or comment.[25]

Jalbuena and Delfin on the basis of two checks issued by PRC for the construction of Hotel Alhambra.
cralaw
[26]The corporate records allegedly reflected that the contractor, AAQ Sales and Construction
The core issues before us now are:
(AAQSC), was already paid in full yet Amy Albert Que of AAQSC still filed a collection case against
PRC for an unpaid balance.[27] In her complaint-affidavit, Cristina averred:
11. That it was respondent Carmen J. Jalbuena, who took advantage of [her]
signatures in blank in DBP Check Nos. 0865590 and 0865591, and who filled up the
spaces of the payee, date and amount without the knowledge and consent of any
officer of the corporation and [herself], after which she caused the delivery of the
same checks to her husband Dennis Jalbuena, who encashed without [their]
knowledge and consent, and received the proceeds of the same checks' (as
evidenced by his signature in receipt of payment on the dorsal side of the said
checks) with the indispensable participation and cooperation of respondent Vicente B.
Delfin, the Asst. Vice President and Branch Head of UCPB.
[28]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Notably, in his comment, respondent stated:
There was a possibility of conflict of interest because by this time, or one
monthbefore [he] filed [his] Motion to Withdraw, Mrs. Jalandoni /Penta Resorts
Corporation, Mr. Lim, through his wife, Cristina J. Lim, by another counsel, Atty.
Lorenzo S. Alminaza, filed a criminal complaint against the spouses Dennis and
Carmen J. Jalbuena on March 26, 1999 under BC-I.S. Case No. 99-2192.
[29]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Similarly, in BC I.S. Nos. 00-1370, 2000-2304, 2000-2343, 00-2125, 00-2230, 00-880, respondent
positioned himself against PRC's interests.
And, in Civil Case No. 99-10660, a collection case against PRC, Atty. Alminaza of PRC was alarmed by
the appearance of respondent at the table in court for AAQSC's counsel.[30]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
cralawCanon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) highlights the need for candor,
fairness and loyalty in all the dealings of lawyers with their clients. Rule 15.03 of the CPR aptly
provides:
cralawRule 15.03 ' A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written
consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.
It is only upon strict compliance with the condition of full disclosure of facts that a lawyer may appear
against his client; otherwise, his representation of conflicting interests is reprehensible.[31]Conflict of
interest may be determined in this manner:
There is representation of conflicting interests if the acceptance of the new retainer
will require the attorney to do anything which will injuriously affect his first
client in any matter in which he represents him and also whether he will be called
upon in his new relation, to use against his first client any knowledge acquired
through their connection.[32] (emphasis ours)
cralawThe rule on conflict of interests covers not only cases in which confidential communications have
been confided but also those in which no confidence has been bestowed or will be used.
[33]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Another test of the inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance of a new
relation will prevent an attorney from the full discharge of his duty of undivided fidelity
and loyalty to his client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the
performance thereof, and also whether he will be called upon in his new relation to
use against his first client any knowledge acquire in the previous employment.The
first part of the rule refers to cases in which the opposing parties are present clients
eitherin the same action or in a totally unrelated case; the second part pertains to
those in which the adverse party against whom the attorney appears is his former
client in a matter which is related, directly or indirectly, to the present controversy.
[34](emphasis ours)
cralawThe rule prohibits a lawyer from representing new clients whose interests oppose those of a The next bone of contention was the propriety of respondent's withdrawal as counsel for Lumot A.

former client in any manner, whether or not they are parties in the same action or in totally unrelated Jalandoni in Civil Case No. 97-9865 to fulfill an alleged retainership agreement with the spouses

cases.The cases here directly or indirectly involved the parties' connection to PRC, even if neither PRC Jalbuena in a suit by PRC, through Cristina Lim, against the Jalbuenas and Delfin (BC I.S. No. 99-

nor Lumot A. Jalandoni was specifically named as party-litigant in some of the cases mentioned. 2192).In his December 1, 2000 comment, respondent stated that it was he who was not notified of the

An attorney owes to his client undivided allegiance.After being retained and receiving
the confidences of the client, he cannot, without the free and intelligent consent of his hiring of Atty. Alminaza as the new counsel in that case and that he withdrew from the case with the
client, act both for his client and for one whose interest is adverse to, or conflicting with
that of his client in the same general matter. The prohibition stands even if the
adverse interest is very slight; neither is it material that the intention and motive knowledge of Lumot A. Jalandoni and with leave of court.
of the attorney may have been honest.[35] (emphasis ours)

cralawThe rule on termination of attorney-client relations may be summarized as follows:

cralawThe representation by a lawyer of conflicting interests, in the absence of the written consent of all The relation of attorney and client may be terminated by the client, by the lawyer or by
the court, or by reason of circumstances beyond the control of the client or the
lawyer.The termination of the attorney-client relationship entails certain duties on the
parties concerned after a full disclosure of the facts, constitutes professional misconduct which subjects part of the client and his lawyer.[40]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

the lawyer to disciplinary action.[36]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Accordingly, it has been held that the right of an attorney to withdraw or terminate the relation other than

cralawEven respondent's alleged effort to settle the existing controversy among the family
for sufficient cause is considerably restricted.Canon 22 of the CPR reads:

members[37]was improper because the written consent of all concerned was still required.[38] A lawyer Canon 22 ' A lawyer shall withdraw his services only for good cause and upon notice
appropriate in the circumstances.

who acts as such in settling a dispute cannot represent any of the parties to it.

[39]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary cralawAn attorney may only retire from a case either by written consent of his client or by permission of

the court after due notice and hearing, in which event the attorney should see to it that the name of the
WITHDRAWAL AS COUNSEL IN CIVIL CASE NO. 97-9865

new lawyer is recorded in the case.[41] A lawyer who desires to retire from an action without the written

consent of his client must file a petition for withdrawal in court.[42] He must serve a copy of his petition
 When this case was called for hearing Atty. Lorenzo Alminaza appeared for the
defendants considering that Atty. Nicanor Villarosa has already withdrawn his
upon his client and the adverse party at least three days before the date set for hearing, otherwise the appearance in this case which the Court considered it to be approved as it bears
the conformity of the defendants.[47] (emphasis ours)

court may treat the application as a 'mere scrap of paper.[43]Respondent made no such move. He

admitted that he withdrew as counsel on April 26, 1999, which withdrawal was supposedly approved by cralawThat Mrs. Jalandoni continued with Atty. Alminaza's professional engagement on her behalf

the court on April 28, 1999. The conformity of Mrs. Jalandoni was only presumed by Atty. Villarosa despite respondent's withdrawal did not absolve the latter of the consequences of his unprofessional

because of the appearance of Atty. Alminaza in court, supposedly in his place. conduct, specially in view of the conflicting interests already discussed. Respondent himself stated that

[A client] may discharge his attorney at any time with or without cause and thereafter
employ another lawyer who may then enter his appearance.Thus, it has been held his withdrawal from Civil Case No. 97-9865 was due to the 'possibility of a conflict of interest.
that a client is free to change his counsel in a pending case and thereafter retain
another lawyer to represent him.That manner of changing a lawyer does not need the
consent of the lawyer to be dismissed. Nor does it require approval of the court.[44] [48]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

cralaw

cralawBe that as it may, the records do not support the claim that respondent improperly
The appearance of Atty. Alminaza in fact was not even to substitute for respondent but to act as

collectedP5,000 from petitioner.Undoubtedly, respondent provided professional services to Lumot A.

additional counsel.[45] Mrs. Jalandoni's conformity to having an additional lawyer did not necessarily

Jalandoni.Furthermore, there is no evidence that the documents belonging to Mrs. Jalandoni were
mean conformity to respondent's desire to withdraw as counsel. Respondent's speculations on the

deliberately withheld. The right of an attorney to retain possession of a client's documents, money or
professional relationship of Atty. Alminaza and Mrs. Jalandoni find no support in the records of this

other property which may have lawfully come into his possession in his professional capacity, until his
case.
cralaw
lawful fees and disbursements have been fully paid, is well-established.[49]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
cralaw
Respondent should not have presumed that his motion to withdraw as counsel[46] would be granted by

Finally, we express our utter dismay with Lim's apparent use of his wife's community tax certificate
the court. Yet, he stopped appearing as Mrs. Jalandoni's counsel beginning April 28, 1999, the first

number in his complaint for disbarment against respondent.[50] This is not, however, the forum to
hearing date.No order from the court was shown to have actually granted his motion for withdrawal.

discuss this lapse.

Only an order dated June 4, 1999 had a semblance of granting his motion:
 DECISION

cralawWHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, respondent Atty. Nicanor V. Villarosa is hereby

PUNO, J.:
foundGUILTY of violating Canon 15 and Canon 22 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and

isSUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year, effective upon receipt of this decision, with
Complainants seek the disbarment or suspension of respondent from the practice of law for unlawful,

a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely. dishonest, immoral and deceitful conduct.They allege that respondent sold them a piece of property

over which he has no right nor interest, and that he refuses to return to them the amount they have paid

cralawLet a copy of this resolution be entered into the records of respondent and furnished to the Office him for it.

of the Clerk of Court, the Office of the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and all courts
Complainant Marili C. Ronquillo is a Filipino citizen currently residing in Cannes, France, together with
in the Philippines, for their information and guidance. her minor children, Alexander and Jon Alexander.
cralaw

SO ORDERED. In May 1999, complainants and respondent entered into a Deed of Assignment.[1] For the price

ofP1.5M, respondent transferred, in favor of the complainants, his rights and interests over a townhouse
MARILI C. RONQUILLO, A.C. No. 6288
ALEXANDER RONQUILLO and
Present: unit and lot, located at 75 Granwood Villas Subd., BF Homes, Quezon City.Respondent also obligated
JON ALEXANDER RONQUILLO,
represented by their Attorney-in-Fact
SERVILLANO A. CABUNGCAL, PANGANIBAN, C.J., himself to deliver to complainants a copy of the Contract to Sell he executed with Crown Asia, the
Complainants, PUNO,
QUISUMBING, townhouse developer, dated April 19, 1996.Upon full payment of the purchase price, respondent further
*YNARES-SANTIAGO,
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, undertook to have Crown Asia execute a Deed of Absolute Sale over the property in favor of the
CARPIO,
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, complainants.
-versus- CORONA,
CARPIO MORALES,
CALLEJO, SR.,
AZCUNA, Respondent received from complainants P750,000.00 upon execution of the Deed of Assignment.The
TINGA,
CHICO-NAZARIO, balance was to be paid by complainants in four equal quarterly installments ofP187,500.00 each.Thus,
ATTY. HOMOBONO T. CEZAR, GARCIA, and
Respondent. VELASCO, JR., JJ. complainants issued in favor of respondent four postdated checks in the amount of P187,500.00

Promulgated: each.Respondent was able to encash the first check dated August 17, 1999.
June 16, 2006
[2]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
x-----------------------------------------------------------x
Complainants subsequently received information from Crown Asia that respondent has not paid in full Hence, this administrative complaint[6] that respondent engaged in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or

the price of the townhouse at the time he executed the Deed of Assignment.Respondent also failed to deceitful conduct.Allegedly, respondent violated his oath under Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of

deliver to complainants a copy of the Contract to Sell he allegedly executed with Crown Asia.For these Professional Responsibility and he ought to be disbarred or suspended from the practice of law.

reasons, complainant Marili Ronquillo ordered the bank to stop payment on the second check she

issued to respondent in the amount of P187,500.00. Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Investigating Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan, to whom the

instant disciplinary case was assigned for investigation, report and recommendation, found respondent

On March 6, 2000, complainants, through their counsel, wrote respondent, informing him that they were guilty of dishonest and deceitful conduct proscribed under Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of

still willing to pay the balance of the purchase price of the townhouse on the condition that respondent Professional Responsibility. In her Report dated October 9, 2003, she recommended that respondent

work on Crown Asia's execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale in their favor.In the alternative, be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three (3) years.The IBP Board of Governors,

complainants demanded the return of the amount of P937,500.00, plus legal interest, within ten days. through Resolution No. XVI-2003-226, dated October 25, 2003, approved the recommendation of

[3]The amount of P937,500.00 represents the P750,000.00 down payment and the first quarterly Commissioner San Juan.

installment of P187,500.00 which complainants paid respondent.

We agree.

In a letter dated May 2, 2000, addressed to complainants,[4] respondent claimed that he was 'working
Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court, a member of the Bar may be disbarred or
now on a private project which hopefully will be realized not long from now, and requested for 'a period
suspended on any of the following grounds:(1) deceit; (2) malpractice or other gross misconduct in
of twenty days from May 15, 2000 within which to either completely pay Crown Asia or return the money
office; (3) grossly immoral conduct; (4) conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude; (5) violation of
at your (complainants') option.The period lapsed but respondent did not make good his promise to pay
the lawyer's oath; (6) willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court; and (7) willfully
Crown Asia in full, or return the amount paid by complainants.
appearing as an attorney for a party without authority.Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional

Responsibility provides that 'A lawyer shall not engage inunlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
On February 21, 2002, complainants' counsel sent respondent a second letter[5] demanding the return
conduct.Conduct, as used in this rule, does not refer exclusively to the performance of a lawyer's
of the amount of P937,500.00, including legal interest, for failing to comply with his promise.The
professional duties.This Court has made clear in a long line of cases[7] that a lawyer may be disbarred
demand was unheeded.
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.
 I am working now on a private project which hopefully will be realized not long from
now but I need a little time to fix some things over.May I please request for a period of
20 days from May 15, 2000 within which to either completely pay Crown Asia or
In the instant case, respondent may have acted in his private capacity when he entered into a contract return the money at your option. (Emphasis supplied)

with complainant Marili representing to have the rights to transfer title over the townhouse unit and lot in

question.When he failed in his undertaking, respondent fell short of his duty under Rule 1.01, Canon 1 In no uncertain terms, respondent admitted not having full ownership over the subject townhouse unit

of the Code of Professional Responsibility.It cannot be gainsaid that it was unlawful for respondent to and lot, as he has yet to completely pay Crown Asia.Respondent even failed to produce the Contract

transfer property over which one has no legal right of ownership.Respondent was likewise guilty of to Sell he allegedly executed with Crown Asia over the subject unit, which would show the extent of his

dishonest and deceitful conduct when he concealed this lack of right from complainants.He did not right of ownership, if any, over the townhouse unit and lot in question.

inform the complainants that he has not yet paid in full the price of the subject townhouse unit and lot,

and, therefore, he had no right to sell, transfer or assign said property at the time of the execution of the To be sure, complainants gave respondent sufficient time to fulfill his obligation.It was only after almost

Deed of Assignment.His acceptance of the bulk of the purchase price amounting to Nine Hundred two years had passed, after respondent promised to pay Crown Asia or return to complainants the

Thirty-Seven Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (P937,500.00), despite knowing he was not entitled to it, amount they paid him, that complainants sent respondent a second letter[8]demanding solely the return

made matters worse for him. of the amount of P937,500.00, including legal interest.By this time, it was indubitable that respondent

would not be able to perform his end of their agreement.

Respondent's adamant refusal to return to complainant Marili Ronquillo the money she paid him, which

was the fruit of her labor as an Overseas Filipino Worker for ten (10) years, is morally reprehensible.By The practice of law is not a right but a privilege.It is granted only to those of good moral character.

his actuations, respondent failed to live up to the strict standard of morality required by the Code of [9] The Bar must maintain a high standard of honesty and fair dealing.[10]Lawyers must conduct

Professional Responsibility and violated the trust and respect reposed in him as a member of the Bar, themselves beyond reproach at all times, whether they are dealing with their clients or the public at

and an officer of the court. large,[11] and a violation of the high moral standards of the legal profession justifies the imposition of

the appropriate penalty, including suspension and disbarment.[12]

Respondent's culpability is therefore clear.He received a letter from complainants' counsel demanding

the execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of the complainants, or, in the alternative, the return Be that as it may, we cannot grant complainants' prayer that respondent be directed to return the

of the money paid by complainants. In reply to said letter, respondentacknowledged his obligation, and money he received from them in the amount of P937,500.00.Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers

promised to settle the same if given sufficient time, thus: do not involve a trial of an action, but rather investigations by the court into the conduct of one of its

xxx officers.The only question for determination in these proceedings is whether or not the attorney is still fit
 x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
to be allowed to continue as a member of the Bar. [13]Thus, this Court cannot rule on the issue of the

amount of money that should be returned to the complainants. DECISION

QUISUMBING, J.:

IN VIEW WHEREOF, respondent Atty. Homobono T. Cezar is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for

a period of THREE (3) YEARS, effective immediately.Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Office
of the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and all courts for their information and
guidance.
Before us is a petition for review on certiorari which seeks to reverse the Decision[1] dated September
10, 2001 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 56873, and its Resolution[2] dated February 17,
2003.The Court of Appeals affirmed the Order[3] dated July 29, 1998, of the Regional Trial Court of

Manila, Branch 31, which dismissed petitioner Antonio P. Tan's complaint for cancellation/annulment of

Transfer Certificate of Title No. 169146 in the name of private respondent DPG Development &
SO ORDERED.
Management Corporation.

ANTONIO P. TAN, G.R. No. 157194

Petitioner,
cralawThe facts are as follows:
cralawPresent:

cralawQUISUMBING, J., Chairperson,

cralawPetitioner Antonio P. Tan is the lessee of a parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title
- versus - cralawCARPIO,
(TCT) No. 165501 located at No. 3658 Ramon Magsaysay Boulevard, Sta. Mesa, Manila.Private
cralawCARPIO MORALES, respondent, DPG Development & Management Corporation bought the land and was issued TCT No.

cralawTINGA, and 169146 on April 22, 1986.[4]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

cralawVELASCO, JR., JJ.

On January 24, 1990, the petitioner filed a Complaint[5] for the cancellation/annulment of TCT No.
HON. COURT OF APPEALS (Special Former
Fourth Division), THE HONORABLE WILFREDO D. 169146 before the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 31.Petitioner claimed that TCT No. 169146,
REYES,Acting Presiding Judge, Regional Trial cralawPromulgated:
originally TCT No. 165501, covered an area outside of Sampaloc, Manila, where the subject property
Court, Branch 31, Manila, THE REGISTER OF
DEEDS OF MANILA and DPG DEVELOPMENT & was located.
MANAGEMENT CORPORATION,
cralawJune 20, 2006
Respondents. cralaw
cralawFor failing to file a responsive pleading, the trial court declared the private respondent in

default.The petitioner was allowed to present evidence ex parte.

On January 26, 2000, the petitioner filed a petition for annulment of judgment before the Court of

Appeals, praying to annul and set aside the Orders dated July 29, 1998, October 13, 1998,

andJanuary 6, 1999 of the Regional Trial Court.On September 10, 2001, the appellate court affirmed
On October 5, 1990, the trial court ordered the cancellation of TCT No. 169146. The property reverted
the assailed orders of the trial court.
to the government for distribution to qualified applicants. On November 3, 1990, the private respondent

filed a motion for new trial and a motion to admit its answer, which were both denied by the trial court.

The Court of Appeals ruled that for a petition for annulment of judgment to prosper, it is required

that: (1) the judgment is void for want of jurisdiction or for lack of due process of law; or (2) the
Elevated to the Court of Appeals, the trial court's decision was reversed and it was directed to conduct a
judgment has been obtained by fraud.It explained that the fraud referred to must either be extrinsic
new trial and to admit the answer of the private respondent.Likewise, the appellate court ordered the
or collateral fraud to set aside a judgment.Such fraud should have been neither revealed nor
use of the evidence recorded during the first trial insofar as they were material in the resolution of the
deliberately suppressed from the opposing party and the court.Absent these requisites, relief could be
issues in the case.
available only subject to certain conditions.

The Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court's decision.

According to the appellate court, the petitioner failed to meet these requisites.It also added that the

petitioner's innuendos that the legal infirmity emanated from his former counsel's negligence cannot be

given weight since it is a well-settled rule that the negligence of counsel binds the client just as the latter
During the trial in the lower court, the private respondent filed on November 6, 1992, a motion to
is bound by the mistakes of his lawyer.The appellate court also said that the petitioner failed to avail of
dismiss the complaint, which the petitioner opposed.On July 29, 1998, the trial court dismissed the
the remedies provided for in Rule 47,[10] Section 2 of the Revised Rules of Court without any
complaint.Citing Bishop v. Court of Appeals,[6] that likewise cited Legarda and Prieto v. Saleeby,[7]it
justification.Hence, he must suffer the consequences of his own inaction or negligence.The dispositive
ruled that upon the expiration of one year from and after the date of entry of the registration, the
portion of the appellate court decision reads:
certificate of title becomes indefeasible and collateral attack is not allowed.[8]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DISMISSED, hereby AFFIRMING
the assailed orders of the Regional Trial Court (Branch 31) in Manila in Civil Case No.
90-51767.Let the records of said case be remanded to the court a quo immediately
upon the finality hereof.
Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied in the Order dated October 13, 1998.Petitioner's
SO ORDERED.[11]
notice of appeal was likewise denied on January 6, 1999 for having been filed late.

[9]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was also denied.
In the instant petition for review, the petitioner now submits the following issues for our consideration:
1. WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO DUE PROCESS FOR
THE SINGLE NEGLIGENCE COMMITTED BY HIS PREVIOUS COUNSEL FOR
FAILURE TO APPEAL ON TIME.
2. WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONER CAN AVAIL [OF] THE PREFERENTIAL
RIGHT TO FIRST REFUSAL UNDER [ARTICLES] 1279, 1380, 1381, 1403,
SUB-PARAGRAPH 2, 1479, AND 1544 OF THE [NEW] CIVIL CODE OF
THE PHILIPPINES.[12]
While the petitioner admits that he failed to file the notice of appeal seasonably, he contends that it was
due to the patent negligence of his previous counsel who failed to inform him of the denial of the notice
of appeal and the motion for reconsideration filed thereafter.According to the petitioner, his counsel's
negligence amounted to betrayal of confidence and a serious violation of a lawyer's oath, which should
have prompted the appellate court to take cognizance of the notice of appeal and the petition for
annulment of judgment.
The private respondent, on the other hand, maintains that no extrinsic fraud existed in the case to
warrant the relief under Rule 47.The petitioner had the chance to ventilate his case before the lower
court but the case was dismissed with finality due to his failure to perfect his appeal to the Court of
Appeals.
After considering the circumstances in this case, and the submission of the parties, we agree that the
petition should be denied for lack of merit.
Jurisprudence teems with pronouncements that the perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the
period permitted by law is not only mandatory, but also jurisdictional.Failure to perfect the appeal
renders the judgment of the court final and executory.[13]Just as a losing party has the privilege to file
an appeal within the prescribed period, so does the winner also have the correlative right to enjoy the
finality of the decision.[14]Furthermore, a denial of a petition for being time-barred is a decision on the
merits.[15]
Although the Court may extend the time or allow the perfection of the appeal beyond the prescribed
period if it is satisfactorily shown that there is justifiable reason, such as fraud, accident, mistake or
excusable negligence, or similar supervening cause, without fault of the appellant, and the appeal is
deemed taken and perfected on time, and the appellate court acquires appellate jurisdiction,[16] the
circumstances here do not convince us to take exception.While the petitioner made a painstaking effort
to attribute the loss of the remedy of appeal to the fault entirely of his former counsel, this Court cannot
turn a blind eye to his own negligence and apathy.
The findings of the appellate court, as fully substantiated by the records, showed that the petitioner was
equally guilty of negligence, thus,[17]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
In the first place, the remedy of appeal was lost through the fault of petitioner,
particularly of his counsel.Thus, the first requisite [abovecited] is clearly not satisfied
here.Besides, it is incredible that petitioner did not bother to check the status of his
case with his lawyer in spite that he stood to lose his alleged property on which he
was operating his business. He therefore could not complain of the negligence of his
counsel in not informing him of the outcome of the case when he himself did not
bother to check with his counsel or to find out the status of his case.It is the duty of a
party-litigant to be in contact with this counsel from time to time in order to be
informed of the progress of his case. (Underscoring ours.)
Both the petitioner and his former counsel offered no justification why the notice of appeal was filed eleven

days beyond the reglementary period.Likewise, the petitioner failed to explain why he only learned of the
Moreover, annulment of judgment may either be based on the ground that the judgment is void for want
dismissal of his case five months later.Involving as it did the loss of the property where both his residence
of jurisdiction or that the judgment was obtained by extrinsic fraud.[21]By no stretch of the imagination
and business establishment are built, no less than staunch vigilance in safeguarding his rights was
can we equate the negligence of the petitioner and his former counsel to extrinsic fraud as
expected from the petitioner.
contemplated in the cited rules.Extrinsic fraud refers to any fraudulent act of the prevailing party in the

litigation which is committed outside of the trial of the case, whereby the unsuccessful party has been
The petitioner manifestly failed to display in the proceedings below the expected degree of concern or
prevented from exhibiting fully his case, by fraud or deception practiced on him by hisopponent.[22]The
attention to his case.In Leonardo v. S.T. Best, Inc.,[18] we reiterated that:
fraud or deceit cannot be of the losing party's own doing, nor must it contribute to it.The extrinsic fraud
As clients, petitioners should have maintained contact with their counsel from time to
time, and informed themselves of the progress of their case, thereby exercising that must be employed against it by the adverse party, who, because of some trick, artifice, or device,
standard of care 'which an ordinarily prudent man bestows upon his business.
naturally prevails in the suit.[23]This Court notes that no such fraud or deceit was properly proved

against the private respondent.Indeed, the petitioner has no reason to protest his own negligence.

Even in the absence of the petitioner's negligence, the rule in this jurisdiction is that a party is bound by

the mistakes of his counsel.In the earlier case of Tesoro v. Court of Appeals,[19] we emphasized '

It has been repeatedly enunciated that 'a client is bound by the action of his counsel
in the conduct of a case and cannot be heard to complain that the result might have
been different had he proceeded differently. A client is bound by the mistakes of his
lawyer. If such grounds were to be admitted as reasons for reopening cases, there
would never be an end to a suit so long as new counsel could be employed who
could allege and show that prior counsel had not been sufficiently diligent or
experienced or learned.
Anent the second issue, records show that the same had been resolved with finality by theRegional
Trial Court of Manila, Branch 40 in Civil Case No. 86-37402 in an Order[24] dated June 5, 1987. We do
not see any compelling reason to allow the same issue to be opened anew either before the appellate
court or in the instant petition. A decision that has become final and executory can no longer be
disturbed.[25]

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit.

Thus, with the ordinary remedy of appeal lost through the petitioner's own fault, we affirm that no
cralaw
reversible error was committed in the dismissal of the petition by the appellate court.

cralawCosts against petitioner.

cralaw
The remedy of annulment of judgment can be resorted to only where the ordinary remedies of new trial,

appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer available throughno fault of the
cralawSO ORDERED.
petitioner.[20]In the case at bar, the loss of the remedy of appeal is attributable to the petitioner's and

his former counsel's fault.

A.C. No. 5321 September 27, 2006
RAMON C. GONZALEZ, complainant,
vs.
ATTY. ARNEL C. ALCARAZ, respondent.
PANGANIBAN, C.J.:
Disbarment cases are sui generis. Being neither criminal nor civil in nature, these are not intended to
inflict penal or civil sanctions. The main question to be determined is whether respondent is still fit to
continue to be an officer of the court in the dispensation of justice.
The Case and the Facts
This case arose from a Complaint-Affidavit1 filed by Ramon C. Gonzalez with the Office of the Bar
Confidant of the Supreme Court. The Complaint was subsequently referred to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation.2Complainant charged Atty. Arnel C.
Alcaraz with grave misconduct, abuse of authority, and acts unbecoming a lawyer. The antecedents
were summarized by the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) as follows:
"x x x [C]omplainant alleges that on 11 August 2000, while he was driving along the South
Superhighway upon entering the Sucat Toll Gate heading towards Makati, respondent, who
was driving a Nissan Infiniti suddenly cut across his path while overtaking him and almost hit
his car had he not been able to evade it. According to complainant, he chased respondent's
car and when he was side by side with respondent's car, he angrily confronted respondent and
then drove on. Complainant claims that respondent then chased him and shot him twice but
fortunately missed him by a few inches[,] but broken glass coming from the shattered window
allegedly hit him and slightly wounded his right arm and stomach. Complainant adds that
respondent allegedly tried to escape but he was able to chase him and block his way at the
Nichols Toll Gate where the PNCC guards responded to his call for assistance. According to
complainant, respondent attempted to escape and avoid the PNCC guards by 'proclaiming
boisterously that he is a lawyer and a customs official' but complainant was able to block his
way again and their vehicles collided in the process. Complainant claims that he requested the
PNCC guards to confiscate respondent's firearm and accompany them to the nearest police
station. At the time of the 'arrest,' respondent allegedly opened the back door of his car and
pretended to have accidentally dropped so much money which distracted the policemen from
further searching the car.
"At the police station, respondent allegedly identified himself and his lady companion, a certain
Ferlita Semeniano, and [said] that he was the Deputy Customs Collector assigned at Batangas
City. Complainant claims that respondent yielded 'one (1) Super .38 cal. Springfield Automatic
Pistol, SN NMII 3138, one (1) magazine with seven (7) live ammos and three (3) spent (empty)
shells.' Complainant adds that respondent presented only an unsigned Memorandum Receipt
(MR) of the firearm without any Mission Order or Permit to Carry. Complainant claims that
respondent allegedly kept calling persons to help him and a 'fabricated Mission Order was
brought and presented by another person more than eight hours after the shooting incident
and apprehension.'
"Complainant alleges that the Nissan Infiniti used by respondent is allegedly a luxury vehicle
which was not covered by any document whatsoever and 'it was not verified whether stolen or
smuggled.'
"Complainant finally alleges that the PNP Crime Laboratory examined his car and 'they
recovered one slug in between the wall of the left rear door while the other bullet went through
the right front seat and exited at the left rear door of complainant's car and that cases of
Frustrated Homicide and Illegal Possession of Firearms were already filed at the Parañaque
City Prosecutor's Office.
xxx xxx xxx
"In his Comment dated 04 January 2001, respondent claims that the present administrative
case is unfounded and unwarranted and was allegedly filed in bad faith, with malice and ill
motive and allegedly has no other purpose but to harass, vex, humiliate and dishonor him. In
support thereof, respondent points to the fact that complainant filed 'substantially identical
complaint affidavits with the same identical alleged cause of action as that of the present
administrative case at [various] judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative tribunals and accused
him of forum-shopping.
"Respondent denied the narration of facts stated in complainant's Complaint-Affidavit as 'self-
serving, a misrepresentation of facts and obviously tainted.' Respondent claims that he was
not the aggressor during the incident and that he did not provoke complainant. Respondent
claims that he 'justly acted in self-defense and defense of a stranger under the true actuality of
facts and circumstances the[n] prevailing.'
"Respondent also claims that the acts complained of in the present case were not connected
with the practice of the legal profession and the fact that he was a lawyer is merely
coincidental, immaterial and irrelevant.
xxx xxx xxx
"In connection with the cases filed by the parties against each other, respondent submitted the
xxx Resolutions/Decisions issued in said cases to show that the charges filed against him by
the complainant were dismissed while the criminal cases he filed against the latter [were] filed
in court.
xxx xxx xxx
"Finally, it is the submission of the respondent that since the alleged acts complained of are
not within the sphere of his professional duties as a lawyer, but rather are acts done in his non-
professional or private capacity, the same, cannot allegedly be the subject of an administrative
complaint for disbarment."3
Report and Recommendation
of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
In his Report,4 IBP Investigating Commissioner Rafael Antonio M. Santos said that the dismissal of the
criminal and other administrative charges filed by complainant indicated that respondent's version of the
incident was given credence by the investigating officials and agencies of the various other tribunals in
which these charges were filed. Consequently, since no sufficient evidence warranted the imposition of
further disciplinary sanctions on respondent, the investigating commissioner recommended the
dismissal of the administrative case.
In Resolution No. XVI-2005-29 dated March 12, 2005, the board of governors of the IBP adopted the
Report and Recommendation of Commissioner Santos.
On July 8, 2005, the Resolution, together with the records of the case, was transmitted to this Court for
final action, pursuant to Section 12(b) of Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court. On August 4, 2005,
complainant asked this Court to set aside Resolution No. XVI-2005-29 of the IBP board of governors.
Upon orders of this Court,5 respondent filed on August 22, 2005, his Comment on complainant's plea.
The Court's Ruling
The Court disagrees with the findings and recommendation of the IBP.
Administrative Liability of Respondent
At the outset, we stress that the dismissal of the criminal cases against respondent did not erase the
occurrence of the shooting incident, which he himself does not deny. Moreover, this incident has been
established by clear and convincing evidence. Thus, he must face the consequences of his actions.
The first Canon of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides as follows:
"CANON 1. - A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote
respect for law and legal processes."6
Furthermore, respondent bound himself to "obey the laws" in his attorney's oath,7 which underscores
the role of lawyers as officers of our legal system. A lawyer's brash transgression of any, especially a
penal, law is repulsive and reprehensible and cannot be countenanced by this Court.8
Admitting that he fired shots in the direction of complainant while they were speeding along South
Luzon Expressway,9 respondent justifies his actions by claiming self-defense and defense of a stranger.
During the traffic altercation, complainant allegedly exchanged angry words with respondent and, from
an open car window, even threw a handful of coins at the latter.10 Respondent further avers that, from
his higher vantage point, he saw complainant draw a pistol.11 The former contends that when he fired
the shots, he had no intention of hitting complainant but merely wanted to scare him away.
Reviewing the factual circumstances, we are convinced that the defenses proffered are mere
afterthoughts. Based on the physical and documentary evidence, complainant's version of the incident
is more credible.
First, the allegation of respondent that complainant hit him with coins is highly improbable. At that time,
both vehicles were speeding along the highway. Since the PNP Crime Laboratory Report12 showed that
the bullets fired by respondent had come from the right side, his vehicle must have been to the right of
complainant's. If we were to accept this version, the coins hurled by complainant had to pass through
his car's right window and then through the left window of respondent's admittedly taller sports utility
vehicle (SUV). Given their relative positions, it is highly incredible that the coins could have hit
respondent and his companion.
Second, assuming that respondent and his companion were indeed hit by coins, this alleged fact was
not a sufficient unlawful aggression that would justify shooting at complainant.
As a lawyer, respondent should know that the following three requisites must concur to justify self-
defense: (1) unlawful aggression; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel
it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person claiming self-defense.13 On the other
hand, in defense of a stranger, the first two requisites must also be present together with the element
that the person defending was not induced by revenge, resentment or other evil motive.14
Of these requisites, unlawful aggression is a conditio sine qua non for upholding both self-defense and
defense of a stranger; the fundamental raison d'etre of these defenses is the necessity to prevent or
repel an aggression.15 The alleged throwing of coins by complainant cannot be considered a sufficient
unlawful aggression. Unlawful aggression presupposes actual, sudden, unexpected or imminent threat
to life and limb.16 There was no aggression to prevent or repel. Absent this imminent threat, respondent
had no legal reason to shoot "in the direction of complainant."
Third, for lack of supporting evidence, neither can merit be accorded to respondent's claim of imminent
threat after allegedly seeing complainant draw a pistol. The Joint Affidavit17 of PNCC Officers Florencio
Celada y Seso, Jr. and Mario Puso y Visaya mentioned no firearm found in the possession of
complainant. Except for the bare and belated allegations of respondent, there was no showing that
complainant's alleged possession of the pistol had been reported to the PNCC officers or later to the
police headquarters. Thus, without proof of the existence of the firearm, respondent has not
convincingly shown any legal justification for his act of firing at complainant.18
Fourth, right after the shooting incident, respondent fled the scene. He stopped only when PNCC
officers blocked his vehicle in response to complainant's call for assistance. If respondent was only
protecting himself and his companion, then his righteous indignation should have propelled him to
report immediately his version of the incident to the PNCC officers.
Disbarment Proceedings
Sui Generis
Respondent maintains that the dismissal of the cases filed by complainant against him in the various
tribunals and agencies proves that the present case for disbarment is unfounded.
We do not agree.
Well-established is the rule that administrative cases against lawyers belong to a class of their own.
These cases are distinct from and proceed independently of civil and criminal cases.19 In Re
Almacen,20 the Court discoursed on this point thus:
 "x x x [D]isciplinary proceedings [against lawyers] are sui generis. Neither purely civil nor highway and exposing complainant and the general public to danger, he showed his utter lack of a
purely criminal, x x x [they do] not involve x x x a trial of an action or a suit, but [are] rather sense of responsibility, as well as of respect for law and order.
investigation[s] by the Court into the conduct of its officers. Not being intended to inflict
punishment, [they are] in no sense a criminal prosecution. Accordingly, there is neither a Accordingly, administrative sanction is warranted by respondent's gross misconduct. In line with Lao v.
plaintiff nor a prosecutor therein. [They] may be initiated by the Court motu proprio. Public Medel,27 Co v. Bernardino,28 andSaburnido v. Madroño,29 suspension from the practice of law for one
interest is [their] primary objective, and the real question for determination is whether or not the year is appropriate in this case.
attorney is still a fit person to be allowed the privileges as such. Hence, in the exercise of its
disciplinary powers, the Court merely calls upon a member of the Bar to account for his
actuations as an officer of the Court with the end in view of preserving the purity of the legal WHEREFORE, Atty. Arnel C. Alcaraz is found GUILTY of gross misconduct and is
profession and the proper and honest administration of justice by purging the profession of hereby SUSPENDED for one year from the practice of law, effective upon his receipt of this Decision.
members who by their misconduct have prove[n] themselves no longer worthy to be entrusted He is warned that a repetition of the same or a similar act will be dealt with more severely.
with the duties and responsibilities pertaining to the office of an attorney. x x x."21
SO ORDERED.
Respondent's administrative liability stands on grounds different from those in the other cases
previously filed against him; thus, the dismissal of these latter cases does not necessarily result in
administrative exculpation. Settled is the rule that, being based on a different quantum of proof, the
dismissal of a criminal case on the ground of insufficiency of evidence does not necessarily foreclose
the finding of guilt in an administrative proceeding.22

Misconduct Committed
in a Private Capacity

Untenable is respondent's argument that the acts complained of cannot be the subject of a complaint
for disbarment, because they were done in his private capacity.

Whether in their professional or in their private capacity, lawyers may be disbarred or suspended for
misconduct. This penalty is a consequence of acts showing their unworthiness as officers of the courts;
as well as their lack of moral character, honesty, probity, and good demeanor.23 When the misconduct
committed outside of their professional dealings is so gross as to show them to be morally unfit for the
office and the privileges conferred upon them by their license and the law, they may be suspended or
disbarred.24

In Cordon v. Balicanta,25 this Court explained the rationale for this holding as follows:

"x x x. If the practice of law is to remain an honorable profession and attain its basic ideal,
those enrolled in its ranks should not only master its tenets and principles but should also, in
their lives, accord continuing fidelity to them. Thus, the requirement of good moral character is
of much greater import, as far as the general public is concerned, than the possession of legal
learning. Lawyers are expected to abide by the tenets of morality, not only upon admission to
the Bar but also throughout their legal career, in order to maintain one's good standing in that
exclusive and honored fraternity. Good moral character is more than just the absence of bad
character. Such character expresses itself in the will to do the unpleasant thing if it is right and
the resolve not to do the pleasant thing if it is wrong. This must be so because 'vast interests
are committed to his care; he is the recipient of unbounded trust and confidence; he deals with
his client's property, reputation, his life, his all.'"26

The vengeful and violent behavior exhibited by respondent in what should have been a simple traffic
altercation reveals his conceit and delusions of self-importance. By firing his gun openly in a congested