NICANOR B. GATMAYTAN, JR., complainant, vs. ATTY. ISIDRO C.

ILAO, respondent Complainant was the counsel of Teofista Payuran in a civil case for cancellation of title. Respondent was the counsel for the adverse party on the same case. The trial court ruled in favor of the respondent ordering the petioner and his client to pa damages.A motion for reconsideration was denied by the lower court as well as the petition for review filed befor CA.During the pendency of petition for certiorari complainant filed a petition for disbarment against complainant before RTC of Nasugbu Batangas for violation of canon 10, 12, 15, and 19. Gatmaytan filed a petition for disbarment against respondent before the CBD contending that by filing the complaint for damages before the RTC of Nasugbu, respondent is guilty of making false representations and advice to his clients, as well as committing falsehood, misleading the court and misusing the Rules of Procedure. GAtmaytans complaint was dismissed for lack of merit. Gatmaytan filed a motion for reconsideration before the IBP Board of Governors assailing that the dismissal without investigation of the Board is not proper. The board denied the motion contending that they can no longer exercise jurisdiction over the case because they already endorsed the matter before the Supreme WON the IBP has no jurisdiction over the case in accordance with Section 12(c) of Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court Ruling: To properly address the issue raised by complainant, we must analyze Section 8 of Rule 139-B in relation to the pertinent section contained in said Rule -- Section 5 of Rule 139-B. They provide, thus: SEC. 5. Service or dismissal. ' If the complaint appears to be meritorious, the Investigator shall direct that a copy thereof be served upon the respondent, requiring him to answer the same within fifteen (15) days from the date of service. If the complaint does not merit action, or if the answer shows to the satisfaction of the Investigator that the complaint is not meritorious, the same may be dismissed by the Board of Governors upon his recommendation. . . . [Emphasis ours] SEC. 8. Investigation. ' Upon joinder of issues or upon failure of the respondent to answer, the Investigator shall, with deliberate speed, proceed with the investigation of the case. He shall have the power to issue subpoenas and administer oaths. The respondent shall be given full opportunity to defend himself, to present witnesses on behalf, and be heard by himself and counsel. However, if upon reasonable notice, the respondent fails to appear, the investigation shall proceed ex parte. . . . Verily, it is within the sound discretion of the Investigator to determine whether or not the complaint is meritorious and if an investigation must indeed ensue. In the case at bar, Commissioner San Juan did not see the need to conduct an investigation because, to her mind, the instances when an investigation shall push through did not arise. Respondent Atty. Ilao did submit his answer to the complaint and after the exchange of pleadings between the parties, the Commissioner made the determination that the complaint does not merit action and must therefore be dismissed. For failure to establish that respondent Atty. Ilao made false representations and advice to his clients, committed falsehood, misled the court, and misused the Rules of Procedure in violation of the Canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Resolution of the IBP dismissing the complaint must be upheld. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is hereby DENIED. The Resolution of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines dated 26 April 2003 is hereby AFFIRMED G.R. No. L-68635 May 14, 1987 IN THE MATTER OF PROCEEDINGS FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST ATTY. WENCESLAO LAURETA, AND OF CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST EVA MARAVILLA-ILUSTRE in G.R. No. 68635, entitled "EVA MARAVILLA-ILUSTRE, vs. HON. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL." Atty Laureta was suspended by the due to his misconduct when he circulated a complaint against Tanodbayan by his client Eva Maravilla-Ilustre who charged contemptuous and malicious statement agains Tanodbayan which became a headline in a daily newspaper. He contends that there was no proof that he circulated the complaint and that Ilustre was not his client anymore when charged the alleged malicious statement. According to him his suspension without further investigation violates his right to life and due process of law. Issue: WON the IBP Board of Governors can suspend Laureta without investigation Ruling: Atty. Laureta's protestations that he has done his best to protect and uphold the dignity of this Court are belied by environmental facts and circumstances. His apologetic stance for the "adverse publicity" generated by the filing of the charges against the Justices concerned before the Tanodbayan rings with insincerity. The complaint was calculated precisely to serve that very purpose. The threat to bring the case to "another forum of justice" was implemented to the fun. Besides, he misses the heart of the matter. Exposure to the glare of publicity is an occupational hazard. If he has been visited with disciplinary sanctions it is because by his conduct, acts and statements, he has, overall, deliberately sought to destroy the "authenticity, integrity, and conclusiveness of collegiate acts," to

"undermine the role of the Supreme Court as the final arbiter of all justifiable disputes," and to subvert public confidence in the integrity of the Courts and the Justices concerned, and in the orderly administration of justice. In fine, we discern nothing in Atty. Laureta's Motion for Reconsideration that would call for a modification, much less a reversal, of our finding that he is guilty of grave professional misconduct that renders him unfit to continue to be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities pertaining to an attorney and officer of the Court. ACCORDINGLY, the respective Motions for reconsideration of Atty. Wenceslao G. Laureta for the setting aside of the order suspending him from the practice of law, and of Eva Maravilla Ilustre for the lifting of the penalty for contempt are DENIED, and this denial is FINAL. Eva Maravilla Ilustre shall pay the fine of P1,000.00 imposed on her within ten (10) days from notice, or, suffer imprisonment for ten (10) days upon failure to pay said fine within the stipulated period. JESUSIMO O. BALDOMAR, complainant, vs. ATTY. JUSTO PARAS, Respondent. Jesusimo O. Baldomar has charged Atty. Justo De Jesus Paras with deceit, malpractice, grave misconduct, grossly immoral conduct, and violation of his lawyer's oath, said to be all in contravention of the Code of Professional Responsibility. chanrobles virtual law library Complainant claimed as having been a political supporter of respondent lawyer when the latter was still the municipal mayor of Bindoy, Negros. He became respondent's typist, interpreter and "all-around" assistant. At one time, he was appointed Municipal Planning and Development Officer of the municipality. It was respondent who, even then, would give him advise on various legal matters. Complainant averred that he was twice dismissed from employment by Mayor Jeceju Manaay, the first, when the latter was appointed OIC Mayor shortly after the 1986 EDSA Revolution, and the second, when Manaay was elected to office in 1995. The first time complainant was dismissed, respondent advised him to file a case before the Civil Service Commission and to hire the services of the late Atty. Ramon Barremeda. Respondent refused to handle the case himself for being supposedly identified with the Marcos administration. The second time complainant was dismissed from employment, respondent allegedly gave him legal advice that criminal, as well as administrative, cases could be filed against Mayor Manaay but respondent again begged off from himself handling such cases, constraining complainant to hire Atty. Francisco D. Yap. To his surprise, respondent lawyer, on 15 September 1998, entered his appearance as counsel for Manaay, thus breaching what complainant termed to be their lawyer-client relationship. Respondent, however, later withdrew his appearance on the ground that the presiding judge was his former law partner. IBP dismiss the case because there is no sufficient reason to proceed with the case. Issue: WON the case will pursue even without investigation Ruling: "Complaints against lawyers for misconduct are normally addressed to the Court. If, at the outset, the Court finds a complaint to be clearly wanting in merit, it outrightly dismisses the case. If, however, the Court deems it necessary that further inquiry should be made, such as when the matter could not be resolved by merely evaluating the pleadings submitted, a referral is made to the IBP for a formal investigation of the case during which the parties are accorded an opportunity to be heard. An ex parte investigation may only be conducted when respondent fails to appear despite reasonable notice. Hereunder are some of the pertinent provisions of Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court on this matter; viz: chanrobles virtual law library "'SEC. 3. Duties of the National Grievance Investigator. - The National Grievance Investigators shall investigate all complaints against members of the Integrated Bar referred to them by the IBP Board of Governors. 'SEC. 5. Service or dismissal. - If the complaint appears to be meritorious, the Investigator shall direct that a copy thereof be served upon the respondent, requiring him to answer the same within fifteen (15) days from the date of service. If the complaint does not merit action, or if the answer shows to the satisfaction of the Investigator that the complaint is not meritorious, the same may be dismissed by the Board of Governors upon his recommendation. A copy of the resolution of dismissal shall be furnished the complainant and the Supreme Court which may review the case motu proprio or upon timely appeal of the complainant filed within 15 days from notice of the dismissal of the complaint. "The procedures outlined by the Rules are meant to ensure that the innocents are spared from wrongful condemnation and that only the guilty are meted their just due. Obviously, these requirements cannot be taken lightly." The Court reiterates the foregoing disquisition. A formal investigation is a mandatory requirement which may not be done away with except for valid and cogent reasons. These reasons do not appear to be here extant. WHEREFORE, the instant administrative case is REMANDED to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for further proceedings. The IBP is likewise directed to act on this referral with dispatch. Yap-Paras vs Paras Facts: By reason of a verified Petition (alleging acts of deceit, malpractice, grave misconduct, grossly immoral conduct and violation of oath as a lawyer) by his estranged wife, Atty. Justo J. Paras was suspended from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year, with a warning that commission of the same or similar offense in the future will result in the imposition of a more severe penalty. During the pendency of Atty. Paras motion for reconsideration, complainant-movant filed with the SC a Motion for Contempt and/or Disbarment, alleging thereunder, inter alia, that Atty. Paras violated the suspension order earlier issued by the Court with his continued practice of law. In a resolution, the SC denied Atty. Paras motion for reconsideration of his suspension, and, at the same time, directed him to file his comment on the motion for contempt and/or disbarment. He failed to file a comment. Issue: Whether or not Atty. Paras should be disbarred for violating the one-year suspension order? Ruling: There is no sufficient basis to support petitioner-movants allegation that Atty. Paras violated the Courts suspension order, what with the fact that Atty. Paras himself took the initiative to inform the lower courts of his one-year suspension from law practice. The

purpose of disbarment is not meant as a punishment to deprive an attorney of a means of livelihood but is rather intended to protect the courts and the public from members of the bar who have become unfit and unworthy to be part of the esteemed and noble profession. Likewise, the purpose of the exercise of the power to cite for contempt is to safeguard the functions of the court to assure respect for court orders by attorneys who, as much as judges, are responsible for the orderly administration of justice. However, for his failure to comply with the specific Order of the SC (for him to file his comment), Atty. Paras was reprimanded, with a warning that a more drastic punishment will be imposed upon him for a repetition of the same act. All lawyers are expected to recognize the authority of the Supreme Court and obey its lawful processes and orders. Despite errors which one may impute on the orders of the Court, these must be respected, especially by the bar or the lawyers who are themselves officers of the courts. It is well to emphasize again that a resolution of the Supreme Court is not be construed as a mere request, nor should it be complied with partially, inadequately or selectively. Court orders are to be respected not because the justices or judges who issue them should be respected, but because of the respect and consideration that should be extended to the judicial branch of the government. This is absolutely essential if our government is to be a government of laws and not of men. The imposition of this sanction in the present case would be more consistent with the avowed purpose of a disciplinary case, which is not so much to punish the individual attorney as to protect the dispensation of justice by sheltering the judiciary and the public from the misconduct or inefficiency of officers of the court. Cadalin vs. POEA G.R. No. L-104776, Dec. 5, 1994

GENERAL RULE: A foreign procedural law will not be applied in the forum. EXCEPTION: When the country of the forum has a "borrowing statute," the country of the forum will apply the foreign statute of limitations. EXCEPTION TO THE EXCEPTION: The court of the forum will not enforce any foreign claim obnoxious to the forum's public policy.

FACTS: Cadalin et al. are overseas contract workers recruited by respondent-appellant AIBC for its accredited foreign principal, Brown & Root, on various dates from 1975 to 1983. As such, they were all deployed at various projects in several countries in the Middle East as well as in Southeast Asia, in Indonesia and Malaysia. The case arose when their overseas employment contracts were terminated even before their expiration. Under Bahrain law, where some of the complainants were deployed, the prescriptive period for claims arising out of a contract of employment is one year. ISSUE: Whether it is the Bahrain law on prescription of action based on the Amiri Decree No. 23 of 1976 or a Philippine law on prescription that shall be the governing law

HELD: As a general rule, a foreign procedural law will not be applied in the forum. Procedural matters, such as service of process, joinder of actions, period and requisites for appeal, and so forth, are governed by teh laws of the forum. This is true even if the action is based upon a foreign substantive law. A law on prescription of actions is sui generis in Conflict of Laws in the sense that it may be viewed either as procedural or substantive, depending on the characterization given such a law. However, the characterization of a statute into a procedural or substantive law becomes irrelevant when the country of the forum has a borrowing statute. Said statute has the practical effect of treating the foreign statute of limitation as one of substance. A borrowing statute directs the state of the forum to apply the foreign statute of limitations to the pending claims based on a foreign law. While there are several kinds of borrowing statutes, one form provides that an action barred by the laws of the place where it accrued, will not be enforced in the forum even though the local statute has not run against it. Section 48 of our Code of Civil Procedure is of this kind. Said Section provides: If by the laws of the state or country where the cause of action arose, the action is barred, it is also barred in the Philippine Islands. In the light of the 1987 Constitution, however, Section 48 cannot be enforced ex propio vigore insofar as it ordains the application in this jurisdiction of Section 156 of the Amiri Decree No. 23 of 1976. The courts of the forum will not enforce any foreign claims obnoxious to the forums public policy. To enforce the one-year prescriptive period of the Amiri Decree No. 23 of 1976 as regards the claims in question would contravene the public policy on the protection to labor.