2nd Assignment of Cases

1.
n Re Cunanan

N RE CUNANAN [94 Phil 534; Resolution; 18 Mar 1954]
n the Matter of the Petitions for Admission to the Bar of Unsuccessful Candidates of
1946 to 1953;
ALBNO CUNANAN, ET AL., petitioners.
Resoluti, 1954on
March 18

Facts:

Congress passed Republic Act Number 972, commonly known as the "Bar Flunkers' Act
of 1953. n accordance with the said law, the Supreme Court then passed and admitted
to the bar those candidates who had obtained an average of 72 per cent by raising it to
75 percent.
After its approval, many of the unsuccessful postwar candidates filed petitions for
admission to the bar invoking its provisions, while other motions for the revision of their
examination papers were still pending also invoked the aforesaid law as an additional
ground for admission. There are also others who have sought simply the
reconsideration of their grades without, however, invoking the law in question. To avoid
injustice to individual petitioners, the court first reviewed the motions for reconsideration,
irrespective of whether or not they had invoked Republic Act No. 972.

ssue: Whether or Not RA No. 972 is constitutional and valid.

Held:

RA No. 972 has for its object, according to its author, to admit to the Bar, those
candidates who suffered from insufficiency of reading materials and inadequate
preparation.
n the judicial system from which ours has been evolved, the admission, suspension,
disbarment and reinstatement of attorneys at law in the practice of the profession and
their supervision have been indisputably a judicial function and responsibility. We have
said that in the judicial system from which ours has been derived, the admission,
suspension, disbarment or reinstatement of attorneys at law in the practice of the
profession is concededly judicial.
On this matter, there is certainly a clear distinction between the functions of the judicial
and legislative departments of the government.
t is obvious, therefore, that the ultimate power to grant license for the practice of law
belongs exclusively to this Court, and the law passed by Congress on the matter is of
permissive character, or as other authorities may say, merely to fix the minimum
conditions for the license.
Republic Act Number 972 is held to be unconstitutional.

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
FRST DVSON
A.C. No. 6678 October 9, 2006
JOCELYN A. SAQUING, complainant,
vs.
ATTY. NOEL A. MORA, respondent.

D E C S O N

YNARES-SANTIAGO, .:
Complainant Jocelyn A. Saquing seeks the disbarment of respondent Atty.
Noel A. Mora for grave misconduct for allegedly conspiring with spouses
Paulino and Manuela Mora in inducing her to buy an unregistered parcel of
land, and for performing a notarial act without a commission, he being a
lawyer of the Public Attorney's Office (PAO).
Complainant alleged that in June 2004, she bought from the spouses Mora
7,828 square meter parcel of allegedly registered land located at Sitio Paquiel,
Camasi, Peablanca, Cagayan, for P782,800.00.
1
On July 8, 2004, she paid
the amount of P550,000.00 to the spouses Mora at the house of the
respondent, who prepared a handwritten acknowledgment receipt, which
reads:
2

ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEPT
This is to acknowledge receipt the amount of FVE HUNDRED FFTY
THOUSAND PESOS (P550,000.00) from MS. JOCELYN [A.] SAQUNG
as partial payment of the Lot 108-3, PSU-(2f) 02-165983 Amd
3
with an
area of Seven Thousand Eight Hundred Twenty Eight (7,828) square
meters located at Camasi, Peablanca, Cagayan.
The balance in the amount of TWO HUNDRED THRTY TWO
THOUSAND EGHT HUNDRED PESOS (P232,800.00) shall be paid
within the period of three (3) months.
Executed this 8
th
day of July, 2004 at Tuguegarao City.
(Sgd.) JOCELYN [A.]
SAQUNG
(Sgd.) PAULNO MORA
(Sgd.) MANUELA ASPA
MORA
SGNED N THE PRESENCE OF:
____________________________
SUBSCRBED AND SWORN to before me this 8
th
day of July, 2004 at
Tuguegarao.
(Sgd.) ATTY. NOEL A.
MORA
3

After payment of the remaining balance, respondent prepared the Deed of
Absolute Sale of a Portion of Unregistered Land,
4
but complainant refused to
affix her signature on the deed because it was stated therein that the land was
unregistered, contrary to the representations of the spouses and the
respondent.
5

When the spouses Mora refused to return the contract price, complainant filed
a complaint for estafa against them at the City Prosecutor's Office,
Tuguegarao City, and an administrative case for disbarment against the
respondent at the Office of the Bar Confidant.
6

Respondent denied conspiring with spouses Mora regarding the sale of the
land. He alleged that before he prepared the acknowledgment receipt, the
parties had already agreed on the terms of the contract; thus, there was no
need for him to convince complainant to buy the land. He admitted that he
asked the parties to subscribe the acknowledgment receipt and swear before
him but claimed that he did it only for complainant's protection in case any
problem would arise. He denied giving any assurance that the land was
registered. n fact, he explained to her the status of the case with the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and that the
spouses were facilitating the titling of the property in their names.
7

Complainant filed a Reply
8
to respondent's comment, after which the case
was referred to the ntegrated Bar of the Philippines (BP) for investigation,
report and recommendation.
9
n its Resolution No. XV-2006-238, dated April
27, 2006, the BP Board of Governors approved the report and
recommendation of the nvestigating Commissioner, Lolita A. Quisumbing,
finding respondent guilty of violating Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility for notarizing the Acknowledgment Receipt
without notarial commission and recommending that he be reprimanded with
warning that repetition of the same act will be dealt with more severely.
10

This resolution is now before us for review.
n disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof is upon the complainant and
this Court will exercise its disciplinary power only if the former establishes its
case by clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence.
11
Considering the
serious consequence of the disbarment or suspension of a member of the
Bar, this Court has consistently held that clear preponderant evidence is
necessary to justify the imposition of the administrative penalty.
12

Complainant's evidence consists mainly of her Affidavit-Complaint,
Acknowledgment Receipt, Deed of Absolute Sale of a Portion of Unregistered
Land and her testimony before the Commission attesting to the truth of the
allegations in her affidavit.
We agree with the nvestigating Commissioner that while the evidence of
complainant is sufficient to support the charge that respondent notarized the
Acknowledgment Receipt without a notarial commission, the same however is
insufficient to prove that respondent conspired with spouses Mora in inducing
her to purchase the land. Thus,
Other than complainant's bare allegation, there is no extant proof
adequately showing that respondent told her that the property was
registered land. nstead, we find sufficient evidence to support the
finding that there was no connivance and that complainant was aware
that the property was still to be titled:
1. The Acknowledgment Receipt describes the property as "Lot 108-3,
PSU (2f) 02-165983 xxx" and not by TCT or OCT Number.
2. The Acknowledgment Receipt provides that the balance shall be paid
within a period of three (3) months. Thus, complainant had sufficient
time to demand or verify if the property was registered with the Registry
of Deeds. But instead of doing so, she made further payments on 16
August 2004 and 8 September 2004.
3. Complainant was present when the property was being surveyed for
the purpose of segregating the lot to be adjudicated to her. The status of
the property was further explained to her by Engr. Camb[r]i during the
segregation survey of the property she bought.
4. The Lot Descriptions attached to the Survey Plan prepared by Engr.
Cambri specifically states that Lot No. 15 was complainant's.
5. The property was adjudicated to the spouses Mora by the DENR in
the Order dated 5 October 2001 which already became final and
executory. n a way, the title of spouses of the lot was confirmed and in
the process of making it perfect through the approval of the subdivision
plan and the appropriate public land application. This was explained by
respondent to complainant since he is the lawyer of the spouses in the
DENR case.
13

Anent the charge of notarizing a document without a notarial commission, we
agree that such an act violates Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, which reads:
Rule 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct.
n Nunga v. Viray,
14
the Court held that:
Where the notarization of a document is done by a member of the
Philippine Bar at a time when he has no authorization or commission to
do so, the offender may be subjected to disciplinary action. For one,
performing a notarial without such commission is a violation of the
lawyer's oath to obey the laws, more specifically, the Notarial Law.
Then, too, by making it appear that he is duly commissioned when he is
not, he is, for all legal intents and purposes, indulging in deliberate
falsehood, which the lawyer's oath similarly proscribes. These violations
fall squarely within the prohibition of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility, which provides: "A lawyer shall not
engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct."
For such misconduct, the Court has sanctioned erring lawyers with
suspension from the practice of law, revocation of the notarial commission
and disqualification from acting as such, and even disbarment.
15

Disbarment is the most severe form of disciplinary sanction, and, as such, the
power to disbar must always be exercised with great caution for only the most
imperative reasons and in clear cases of misconduct affecting the standing
and moral character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and a member of
the bar. Accordingly, disbarment should not be decreed where any
punishment less severe such as a reprimand, suspension, or fine would
accomplish the end desired.
16

n 484n v. Baltazar,
17
the Court suspended a lawyer for three months for
unauthorized notarization of a deed of sale. Considering, however, that in the
instant case, it was only an Acknowledgment Receipt that was notarized; that
it was done to protect the complainant; that it was the first offense of the
respondent; and the heavy workload of the respondent as Public Attorney, we
find the recommended penalty of reprimand sufficient under the present
circumstances.
EREFORE, in view of the foregoing, Resolution No. XV-2006-238, dated
April 27, 2006, of the BP Board of Governors which adopted and approved
the report and recommendation of nvestigating Commissioner Lolita A.
Quisumbing, finding respondent Atty. Noel A. Mora GUILTY of violating Rule
1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for notarizing an
acknowledgment receipt without a notarial commission and recommending
that he be REPRIMANDED with warning that repetition of the same act will be
dealt with more severely, is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
!anganiban, C.., Chairper84n, Au8tria-Martinez, Callej4, Sr., and Chic4-
Nazari4, ., concur.
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
B.M. No. 1678 December 17, 2007
PETITION FOR LEAVE TO RESUME PRACTICE OF LA,
BENJAMIN M. DACANAY, petitioner.
R E S O L U T I O N
CORONA, :
This bar matter concerns the petition of petitioner Benjamin M. Dacanay for
leave to resume the practice of law.
Petitioner was admitted to the Philippine bar in March 1960. He practiced law
until he migrated to Canada in December 1998 to seek medical attention for
his ailments. He subsequently applied for Canadian citizenship to avail of
Canada's free medical aid program. His application was approved and he
became a Canadian citizen in May 2004.
On July 14, 2006, pursuant to Republic Act (RA) 9225 (Citizenship Retention
and Re-Acquisition Act of 2003), petitioner reacquired his Philippine
citizenship.
1
On that day, he took his oath of allegiance as a Filipino citizen
before the Philippine Consulate General in Toronto, Canada. Thereafter, he
returned to the Philippines and now intends to resume his law practice. There
is a question, however, whether petitioner Benjamin M. Dacanay lost his
membership in the Philippine bar when he gave up his Philippine citizenship in
May 2004. Thus, this petition.
n a report dated October 16, 2007, the Office of the Bar Confidant cites
Section 2, Rule 138 (Attorneys and Admission to Bar) of the Rules of Court:
SECTON 2. #equirement8 f4r all applicant8 f4r admi88i4n t4 the bar.
Every applicant for admission as a member of the bar must be a
citizen of the PhiIippines, at least twenty-one years of age, of good
moral character, and a resident of the Philippines; and must produce
before the Supreme Court satisfactory evidence of good moral
character, and that no charges against him, involving moral turpitude,
have been filed or are pending in any court in the Philippines.
Applying the provision, the Office of the Bar Confidant opines that, by virtue of
his reacquisition of Philippine citizenship, in 2006, petitioner has again met all
the qualifications and has none of the disqualifications for membership in the
bar. t recommends that he be allowed to resume the practice of law in the
Philippines, conditioned on his retaking the lawyer's oath to remind him of his
duties and responsibilities as a member of the Philippine bar.
We approve the recommendation of the Office of the Bar Confidant with
certain modifications.
The practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions.
2
t is so delicately
affected with public interest that it is both a power and a duty of the State
(through this Court) to control and regulate it in order to protect and promote
the public welfare.
3

Adherence to rigid standards of mental fitness, maintenance of the highest
degree of morality, faithful observance of the rules of the legal profession,
compliance with the mandatory continuing legal education requirement and
payment of membership fees to the ntegrated Bar of the Philippines (BP) are
the conditions required for membership in good standing in the bar and for
enjoying the privilege to practice law. Any breach by a lawyer of any of these
conditions makes him unworthy of the trust and confidence which the courts
and clients repose in him for the continued exercise of his professional
privilege.
4

Section 1, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides:
SECTON 1. h4 may practice law. Any person heretofore duly
admitted as a member of the bar, or thereafter admitted as such in
accordance with the provisions of this Rule, and who is in good and
regular standing, is entitled to practice law.
Pursuant thereto, any person admitted as a member of the Philippine bar in
accordance with the statutory requirements and who is in good and regular
standing is entitled to practice law.
Admission to the bar requires certain qualifications. The Rules of Court
mandates that an applicant for admission to the bar be a citizen of the
Philippines, at least twenty-one years of age, of good moral character and a
resident of the Philippines.
5
He must also produce before this Court
satisfactory evidence of good moral character and that no charges against
him, involving moral turpitude, have been filed or are pending in any court in
the Philippines.
6

Moreover, admission to the bar involves various phases such as furnishing
satisfactory proof of educational, moral and other qualifications;
7
passing the
bar examinations;
8
taking the lawyer's oath
9
and signing the roll of attorneys
and receiving from the clerk of court of this Court a certificate of the license to
practice.
10

The second requisite for the practice of law membership in good standing
is a continuing requirement. This means continued membership and,
concomitantly, payment of annual membership dues in the BP;
11
payment of
the annual professional tax;
12
compliance with the mandatory continuing legal
education requirement;
13
faithful observance of the rules and ethics of the
legal profession and being continually subject to judicial disciplinary control.
14

Given the foregoing, may a lawyer who has lost his Filipino citizenship still
practice law in the Philippines? No.
The Constitution provides that the practice of all professions in the Philippines
shall be limited to Filipino citizens save in cases prescribed by law.
15
Since
Filipino citizenship is a requirement for admission to the bar, loss thereof
terminates membership in the Philippine bar and, consequently, the privilege
to engage in the practice of law. n other words, the loss of Filipino
citizenship ip84 jure terminates the privilege to practice law in the Philippines.
The practice of law is a privilege denied to foreigners.
16

The exception is when Filipino citizenship is lost by reason of naturalization as
a citizen of another country but subsequently reacquired pursuant to RA 9225.
This is because "all Philippine citizens who become citizens of another
country shall be deemed n4t t4 have l48t their !hilippine citizen8hip under the
conditions of [RA 9225]."
17
Therefore, a Filipino lawyer who becomes a citizen
of another country is deemed never to have lost his Philippine citizenship if he
reacquires it in accordance with RA 9225. Although he is also deemed
never to have terminated his membership in the Philippine bar, no automatic
right to resume law practice accrues.
Under RA 9225, if a person intends to practice the legal profession in the
Philippines and he reacquires his Filipino citizenship pursuant to its provisions
"(he) shall apply with the proper authority for a license or permit to engage in
such practice."
18
Stated otherwise, before a lawyer who reacquires Filipino
citizenship pursuant to RA 9225 can resume his law practice, he must first
secure from this Court the authority to do so, conditioned on:
(a) the updating and payment in full of the annual membership dues in
the BP;
(b) the payment of professional tax;
(c) the completion of at least 36 credit hours of mandatory continuing
legal education; this is specially significant to refresh the
applicant/petitioner's knowledge of Philippine laws and update him of
legal developments and
(d) the retaking of the Iawyer's oath which will not only remind him of
his duties and responsibilities as a lawyer and as an officer of the Court,
but also renew his pledge to maintain allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines.
Compliance with these conditions will restore his good standing as a member
of the Philippine bar.
EREFORE, the petition of Attorney Benjamin M. Dacanay is
hereby GRANTED, subject to compliance with the conditions stated above
and submission of proof of such compliance to the Bar Confidant, after which
he may retake his oath as a member of the Philippine bar.
SO ORDERED.
!un4, C.., Ynare8-Santiag4, Sand4val-Gutierrez, Carpi4, Au8tria-Martinez,
Carpi4-M4rale8, Azcuna, Tinga, Chic4-Nazari4, Vela8c4, r., Nachura, #eye8,
Le4nard4-de Ca8tr4, ., concur.
Qui8umbing, ., on leave.

Footnotes
1
As evidence thereof, he submitted a copy of his dentification
Certificate No. 07-16912 duly signed by mmigration Commissioner
Marcelino C. Libanan.
2
n the Matter of the BP Membership Dues Deliquency of Atty. Marcial
A. Edillon, A.C. No. 1928, 19 December 1980, 101 SCRA 612.
3
eck v. Sant48, A.M. No. RTJ-01-1657, 23 February 2004, 423 SCRA
329.
4
n re Atty. Marcial Edill4n, A.C. No. 1928, 03 August 1978, 84 SCRA
554.
5
Section 2, Rule 138, Rules of Court.
6
d.
7
Sections 2, 5 and 6, id.
8
Sections 8 to 11 and 14, id.
9
Section 17, id.
10
Sections 18 and 19, id.
11
n re ntegration of the Bar of the Philippines, 09 January 1973, 49
SCRA 22; n re Atty. Marcial Edill4n, supra note 3.
12
Section 139, RA 7160.
13
Resolution dated August 8, 2000 in Bar Matter No. 850 (Rules on
Mandatory Continuing Legal Education for Members of the BP).
14
Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions v. Binalbagan sabela
Sugar Co., G.R. No. L-23959, 29 November 1971, 42 SCRA 302.
15
See last paragraph of Section 14, Article X.
16
n re Bosque, 1 Phil. 88 (1902).
17
Section 2, RA 9225. Emphasis supplied.
18
Section 5(4), id.

Cuse igest: Qoirino Tomlin II vs. Atty. Sulvudor N. Moyu II
zj 1ebruorg zooo

!43e39e: Y3ores-So39og4 J.

ACTS:

ALLy. SuIvudor Moyu uIIegedIy Issued seven posLduLed cIecks Lo QuIrIno TomIIn
us purLIuI puymenL Ior LIe P6oo,ooo.oo LIuL LIe Iormer borrowed Irom LIe
IuLLer. WIen TomIIn reuIIzed LIuL uII LIe suId cIecks were dIsIonoured by LIe bunk,
Ie mude severuI demunds Lo Moyu buL LIe IuLLer sLIII reIused Lo puy IIs
debL. TIereuILer, LIe compIuInunL IIIed seven counLs oI vIoIuLIon oI BuLus Pumbunsu
BIIung zz Lo LIe MunIcIpuI TrIuI CourL oI SLu. MurIu, BuIucun us weII us un InsLunL
cuse Ior dIsburmenL uguInsL Moyu.

ISSLIS:

1. WIeLIer or noL LIe udmInIsLruLIve cuse Ior LIe respondenL`s dIsburmenL
sIouId be dIsmIssed Ior vIoIuLIon oI LIe ruIe on non-Iorum sIoppIng; und
z. WIeLIer or noL ALLy. Moyu Is guIILy oI Gross MIsconducL und vIoIuLIon
or LIe Code oI ProIessIonuI ResponsIbIIILy.
IL:

1. o. TIe InsLunL peLILIon Ior dIsburmenL wus noL u vIoIuLIon oI LIe ruIe
uguInsL Iorum sIoppIng. orum sIoppIng Is onIy uppIIcubIe Lo judIcIuI cuses
or proceedIngs, noL Lo dIsburmenL proceedIngs. urLIermore, LIe muIn objecL
oI LIe seven crImInuI cuses oI LIe respondenL`s vIoIuLIon oI BP BIg. zz Is
dIIIerenL Irom LIe udmInIsLruLIve cuse uL Iund. TIe Iormer reIers Lo LIe
Issuunce oI bouncIng cIecks, wIIIe LIe IuLLer reIers Lo LIe dIsIonesLy oI LIe
respondenL In LIe puymenL oI IIs debLs.
z. Yes. ALLy. Moyu Is guIILy oI Gross MIsconducL und vIoIuLIon oI LIe Code
oI ProIessIonuI ResponsIbIIILy. HIs reIusuI Lo puy IIs moneLury obIIguLIons HIs
reIusuI Lo puy IIs moneLury obIIguLIons wILIouL jusLIIIubIe cuuse, despILe
ucknowIedgIng suId obIIguLIons und doIng so wILIouL remorse, IuIIs Lo compIy
wILI LIe expecLuLIon oI Iuwyers Lo be IonesL In LIeIr deuIIngs - be IL In LIeIr
proIessIonuI or prIvuLe uIIuIrs. WIuL Is more, IIs IuIIure Lo IIIe IIs unswer und
verIIIed posILIon puper despILe exLensIons oI LIme Is u munIIesLuLIon oI IIs
dIsrespecL Ior judIcIuI uuLIorILIes. or IIs ucLs, Ie wus LIen senLenced Lo be
suspended Irom prucLIce Ior Lwo yeurs.

EN BANC

MARIA DIVINA CRUZ-VILLANUEVA,
Complainant,
AC No 7123

resenL

AnCAnl8An
unC
CulSuM8lnC
?nA8LSSAn1lACC
SAnuCvALCu1lL88LZ
CA8lC
AuS18lAMA81lnLZ
versus CC8CnA
CA8lC MC8ALLS
CALLL!C S8
AZCunA
1lnCA
CPlCCnAZA8lC
CA8ClA and
vLLASCC !8

ATTY. CARLOS P. RIVERA and Promulgated:
A11 ALLkANDLk SIMLCN Ik
8espondenLs november 20 2006

x x

D E C I S I U N
CAkIC l

1he Case

1hls ls a complalnL for dlsbarmenL flled by Marla ulvlna Cruzvlllanueva
(complalnanL") agalnsL ALLy Carlos 8lvera (respondenL 8lvera") and ALLy
Alexander Slmeon !r (respondenL Slmeon !r") for grave mlsconducL and
vlolaLlon of Lhe Code of rofesslonal 8esponslblllLy (Code")

1he Iacts

SomeLlme ln !anuary 2004 complalnanL engaged Lhe servlces of respondenL
8lvera Lo prepare Lhe documenLs and Lo pay all Lhe necessary expenses relaLlng
Lo Lhe sale of complalnanL's properLy Lo Samson 8 8auLlsLa (8auLlsLa") As
shown by an acknowledgmenL recelpL
1
respondenL 8lvera
recelved 80000 from complalnanL Lo cover expenses payable Lo Lhe 8ureau of
lnLernal 8evenue (8l8) Lhe 8eglsLer of ueeds Lhe ClLy 1reasurer's Cfflce and
oLhers

Cn 8auLlsLa's deaLh ln lebruary 2004 complalnanL learned LhaL Lhe properLy
had been Lransferred ln 8auLlsLa's name based on a ueed
of 8econveyance
2
execuLed by complalnanL 8auLlsLa's wldow also lnformed
complalnanL LhaL flnal paymenL for Lhe properLy would be wlLhheld pendlng
paymenL of all Lhe necessary Laxes
3
1he 8l8 also dlrecLed complalnanL Lo
explaln why no Lax evaslon charges should be flled agalnsL her for nonpaymenL of
Laxes on Lhe Lransfer
4

8espondenL 8lvera Lhen convlnced complalnanL Lo flle an adverse clalm on
Lhe properLy and Lo flle cases for esLafa and vlolaLlon of 8aLas ambansa no 22
agalnsL 8auLlsLa's wldow 8espondenL 8lvera requesLed and recelved 13000 as
accepLance fee and represenLaLlon expenses
3

AfLer repeaLed verbal requesLs complalnanL wroLe a leLLer
6
Lo respondenL
8lvera Lo clarlfy Lhe lssue on Lhe nonpaymenL of Laxes and Lhe alleged ueed
of8econveyance whlch complalnanL clalmed she dld noL execuLe ComplalnanL
llkewlse lnqulred abouL Lhe adverse clalm supposedly flled by respondenL 8lvera
on her behalf ComplalnanL also dlrecLed respondenL 8lvera Lo pay lmmedlaLely
Lhe necessary Laxes Lo Lhe 8l8

ComplalnanL laLer learned LhaL respondenL 8lvera had
no noLarlal commlsslon for Lhe years 2003 and 2004
7

ComplalnanL also charged respondenL Slmeon !r 8eglonal ulrecLor 8eglsLry
of ueeds 1uguegarao ClLy Cagayan of consplracy wlLh respondenL 8lvera ln
reglsLerlng Lhe properLy under 8auLlsLa's name based on Lhe ueed
of 8econveyance wlLhouL paymenL of Lhe proper Laxes ComplalnanL alleged LhaL
respondenL Slmeon !r allowed Lhe reglsLraLlon desplLe knowledge LhaL Lhere was
a prlor ueed of Sale
8
and LhaL respondenL Slmeon !r recelved parL of
Lhe 80000 Lo faclllLaLe Lhe Lransfer

ln an Crder daLed 18 CcLober 2004 Lhe lnLegraLed 8ar of Lhe hlllpplnes
(l8) Commlsslon on 8ar ulsclpllne dlrecLed respondenLs Lo answer Lhe
complalnL 8espondenL 8lvera asked for an exLenslon of Len days Lo flle hls
answer
9
Powever respondenL 8lvera dld noL flle any answer

ln hls Answer
10
daLed 22 november 2004 respondenL Slmeon !r denled
complalnanL's allegaLlons and prayed for Lhe dlsmlssal of Lhe complalnL agalnsL
hlm Cn Lhe reglsLraLlon ln 8auLlsLa's name wlLhouL paymenL of Lhe requlred
Laxes respondenL Slmeon !r clalmed LhaL he relled on Lhe genulneness and
auLhenLlclLy of Lhe documenLs" presenLed by respondenL 8lvera 8espondenL
Slmeon !r denled LhaL he recelved money from respondenL 8lvera Lo faclllLaLe
Lhe Lransfer 8espondenL Slmeon !r also dlsavowed any knowledge of a prlor
ueed of Sale

l8 Commlssloner Acerey C acheco (Commlssloner acheco") seL Lhe case
for mandaLory conference on 11 March 2003 Cnly complalnanL and respondenL
Slmeon !r appeared ln Lhe 11 March 2003 hearlng 1he hearlng was canceled
and reseL for 13 Aprll 2003 Cnly complalnanL appeared ln Lhe 13 Aprll 2003
hearlng uesplLe recelpL of noLlces of hearlng respondenL 8lvera dld noL aLLend
any of Lhe hearlngs

Commlssloner acheco requlred all Lhe parLles Lo submlL Lhelr poslLlon
papers and documenLary evldence ComplalnanL and respondenL Slmeon !r
boLh flled poslLlon papers 8espondenL Slmeon !r submlLLed a reply Lo
complalnanL's poslLlon paper 8espondenL 8lvera dld noL submlL any poslLlon
paper Lhus walvlng hls rlghL Lo commenL and parLlclpaLe ln Lhe lnvesLlgaLlon

1he I8's keport and kecommendat|on

1he l8 8oard of Covernors lssued 8esoluLlon no xvll200607 daLed 28
!anuary 2006 adopLlng wlLh modlflcaLlon
11
Commlssloner acheco's 8eporL and
8ecommendaLlon flndlng respondenL 8lvera gullLy of grave mlsconducL and
serlous vlolaLlon of Lhe Code 1he l8 8oard of Covernors recommended Lhe
lmposlLlon on respondenL 8lvera of a penalLy of suspenslon from Lhe pracLlce of
law for Lwo years

1he l8 8oard of Covernors recommended Lhe dlsmlssal of Lhe complalnL
agalnsL respondenL Slmeon !r for lack of merlL

1he l8 8oard of Covernors forwarded Lhe lnsLanL case Lo Lhe CourL as
provlded under SecLlon 12(b) 8ule 1398
12
of Lhe 8ules of CourL

1he ku||ng of the Court

1he CourL flnds respondenL 8lvera llable for vlolaLlon of Lhe lawyer's oaLh
and Lhe Code

1he CourL agrees wlLh Lhe l8 LhaL Lhe complalnL agalnsL respondenL
Slmeon !r should be dlsmlssed

comp/oint Must be 5upported by 5ubstontio/ vidence

ln admlnlsLraLlve proceedlngs Lhe complalnanL has Lhe burden of provlng
wlLh subsLanLlal evldence Lhe allegaLlons ln Lhe complalnL
13
Mere allegaLlon ls
noL evldence and ls noL equlvalenL Lo proof
14

Aslde from complalnanL's bare allegaLlons complalnanL dld noL presenL any
evldence Lo prove LhaL respondenL Slmeon !r consplred wlLh respondenL 8lvera
ln reglsLerlng Lhe properLy ln 8auLlsLa's name based on Lhe ueed
of 8econveyance wlLhouL paymenL of Laxes Llkewlse complalnanL dld noL
presenL any evldence Lo prove LhaL respondenL Slmeon !r recelved parL of
Lhe 80000 from respondenL 8lvera for Lhe reglsLraLlon Pence Lhe complalnL
agalnsL respondenL Slmeon !r should be dlsmlssed

kespondent kivero Not commissioned os Notory Pub/ic

A member of Lhe 8ar who noLarlzes a documenL when he has no
auLhorlzaLlon or commlsslon Lo do so may be sub[ecLed Lo dlsclpllnary
acLlon noLarlzaLlon ls noL an empLy acL lL ls lnvesLed wlLh subsLanLlve publlc
lnLeresL such LhaL only Lhose who are auLhorlzed may acL as noLarles
publlc noLarlzaLlon by a noLary publlc converLs a prlvaLe documenL lnLo a publlc
documenL maklng lL admlsslble ln evldence wlLhouL furLher proof of lLs
auLhenLlclLy and due execuLlon
13

8espondenL 8lvera noLarlzed Lhe ueed of Sale and Lhe ueed
of 8econveyance someLlme ln !anuary 2004 Powever Lhe Cfflce of Lhe Clerk of
CourL 8eglonal 1rlal CourL 1uguegarao ClLy Cagayan lssued a cerLlflcaLlon LhaL
respondenL 8lvera had no noLarlal commlsslon for Lhe years 2003 and
2004
16
8espondenL 8lvera dld noL presenL any evldence Lo Lhe
conLrary 1herefore when respondenL 8lvera noLarlzed Lhe Lwo deeds he had no
auLhorlLy Lo do so

ln performlng noLarlal work wlLhouL a commlsslon respondenL 8lvera
vlolaLed Lhe lawyer's oaLh Lo obey Lhe law speclflcally Lhe noLarlal Law and Lo do
no falsehood 8espondenL 8lvera also vlolaLed 8ule 101
17
of Lhe Code because
he decelved complalnanL lnLo bellevlng LhaL he was auLhorlzed Lo acL as noLary
publlc when he was noL 8espondenL 8lvera's conducL consLlLuLes malpracLlce
and falslflcaLlon of a publlc documenL
18

kespondent kivero loi/ed to 4ccount for the Money
ne keceived from comp/oinont

1he Code mandaLes LhaL every lawyer shall hold ln LrusL all funds of hls
cllenL LhaL may come lnLo hls possesslon
19
1he Code furLher sLaLes LhaL a lawyer
shall accounL for all money recelved from Lhe cllenL
20

When a lawyer recelves money from Lhe cllenL for a parLlcular purpose Lhe
lawyer musL render an accounLlng Lo Lhe cllenL showlng LhaL Lhe money was
spenL for Lhe lnLended purpose
21
ConsequenLly lf Lhe lawyer does noL use Lhe
money for Lhe lnLended purpose Lhe lawyer musL lmmedlaLely reLurn Lhe money
Lo Lhe cllenL
22

8espondenL 8lvera speclflcally recelved 80000 from complalnanL for
expenses Lo Lhe 8l8 Lhe 8eglsLer of ueeds Lhe ClLy 1reasurer's Cfflce and oLher
relaLed purposes 8espondenL 8lvera also recelved 13000 from complalnanL as
accepLance fee and represenLaLlon expenses for Lhe flllng of Lhe adverse clalm
and crlmlnal charges agalnsL 8auLlsLa's wldow Powever respondenL 8lvera dld
noL pay Lhe Laxes Lo Lhe 8l8 and dld noL flle an adverse clalm Pence respondenL
8lvera should have prompLly accounLed for and reLurned Lhe money Lo
complalnanL

8espondenL 8lvera's fallure Lo make an accounLlng or Lo reLurn Lhe money Lo
complalnanL ls a vlolaLlon of Lhe LrusL reposed on hlm As a lawyer respondenL
8lvera should be scrupulously careful ln handllng money enLrusLed Lo hlm ln hls
professlonal capaclLy because Lhe Code exacLs a hlgh degree of fldellLy and LrusL
from members of Lhe bar
23

1he CourL also noLes respondenL 8lvera's lack of respecL for Lhe l8 and lLs
proceedlngs AfLer flllng Lhe MoLlon for LxLenslon of 1lme Lo llle an
Answer
24
and desplLe recelpL of Lhe l8's orders and noLlces respondenL 8lvera
dld noL parLlclpaLe ln Lhe lnvesLlgaLlon 8espondenL 8lvera's acLuaLlon shows a
hlgh degree of lrresponslblllLy whlch sLalns Lhe noblllLy of Lhe legal professlon
23

On the 4ppropriote Peno/ty 4qoinst kespondent kivero

noLarles publlc who noLarlze documenLs wlLhouL Lhe requlslLe commlsslon
are penallzed wlLh revocaLlon of Lhelr noLarlal commlsslon and are barred from
belng commlssloned as noLary publlc
26
1hus respondenL 8lvera should be
barred from belng commlssloned as noLary publlc for one year and
hls noLarlal commlsslon lf any revoked

Cn Lhe oLher hand lawyers gullLy of vlolaLlon of Canon 16 and 8ule 1601 of
Lhe Code are suspended from Lhe pracLlce of law for slx monLhs Lo one
year
27
Conslderlng respondenL 8lvera's lack of prlor admlnlsLraLlve record
suspenslon from Lhe pracLlce of law for one year and noL dlsbarmenL as prayed
for by complalnanL serves Lhe purpose of proLecLlng Lhe lnLeresL of Lhe publlc
and Lhe legal professlon

JLkLICkL we flnd respondenL ALLy Carlos 8lvera GUIL1 of vlolaLlon
of Lhe lawyer's oaLh 8ule 101 Canon 16 and 8ule 1601 of Lhe Code of
rofesslonal 8esponslblllLy Accordlngly we SUSLND respondenL ALLy Carlos
8lvera from Lhe pracLlce of law for one year effecLlve upon flnallLy of Lhls
declslon lurLher respondenL ALLy Carlos 8lvera ls 8AkkLD from belng
commlssloned as noLary publlc for one year and hls presenL commlsslon lf any
lskLVCkLD lurLhermore respondenL ALLy Carlos 8lvera ls CkDLkLD 1C
ACCCUN1 Lo complalnanL wlLhln 20 days from noLlce of Lhls declslon for
Lhe80000 and Lhe 13000

We DISMISS Lhe complalnL agalnsL respondenL ALLy Alexander Slmeon !r

LeL coples of Lhls declslon be furnlshed Lhe Cfflce of Lhe 8ar ConfldanL Lo be
appended Lo respondenLs' personal record as aLLorneys Llkewlse coples shall be
furnlshed Lo Lhe lnLegraLed 8ar of Lhe hlllpplnes and all courLs ln Lhe counLry for
Lhelr lnformaLlon and guldance

SC CkDLkLD

AN1CNIC 1 CAkIC
AssoclaLe !usLlce

JL CCNCUk

Ak1LMIC V ANGANI8AN
Chlef !usLlce

REYNATO S. PUNO
AssoclaLe !usLlce

LLCNAkDC A UISUM8ING
AssoclaLe !usLlce

CCNSULLC NAkLSSAN1IAGC
AssoclaLe !usLlce

ANGLLINA SANDCVALGU1ILkkL2
__ociate }u_tice

MA ALICIA AUS1kIAMAk1INL2
AssoclaLe !usLlce

RENATO C. CORONA
__ociate }u_tice

CCNCI1A CAkIC MCkALLS
88ociate Ju8tice

ROMEO 1. CALLE1O, SR.
AssoclaLe !usLlce

ADOLFO S. AZCUNA
88ociate Ju8tice

DANTE O. TINGA
88ociate Ju8tice

MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
88ociate Ju8tice
CANCIO C. GARCIA
88ociate Ju8tice

PRESBITERO 1. VELASCO, 1R.
88ociate Ju8tice

|1|
Rollo p. 10.
|2|
Id. at 8.
|3|
Id. at 13.
|4|
Id. at 12.
|5|
Id. at 17.
|6|
Id. at 14-15.
|7|
Id. at 16.
|8|
Id. at 32.
|9|
Id. at 21.
|10|
Id. at 25-28.
|11|
Commi88ioner Pacheco recommended the di8-arment oI re8pondent Rivera.
|12|
Section 12(- Rule 139-B oI the Rule8 oI Court provide8:

SEC. 12. Review and Decision by the Board of Governors.
x x x
(- II the Board - the vote oI a majorit oI it8 total mem-er8hip determine8 that
the re8pondent 8hould -e 8u8pended Irom the practice oI law or di8-arred it 8hall i88ue a
re8olution 8etting Iorth it8 Iinding8 and recommendation8 which together with the whole
record oI the ca8e 8hall Iorthwith -e tran8mitted to the Supreme Court Ior Iinal action.
|13|
Adarne v. Aldaba .C. No. 801 27 June 1978 83 SCR 734.
|14|
Navarro v. Cere:o .M. No. P-05-1962 17 Fe-ruar 2005 451 SCR 626.
|15|
Nunga v. Jiray 366 Phil. 155 (1999.
|16|
Rollo p. 16.
|17|
Rule 1.01-- lawer 8hall not engage in unlawIul di8hone8t immoral or deceitIul conduct.
|18|
Joson v. Balta:ar .C. No. 575 14 Fe-ruar 1991 194 SCR 114.
|19|
Code oI ProIe88ional Re8pon8i-ilit Canon 16.
|20|
Code oI ProIe88ional Re8pon8i-ilit Rule 16.01.
|21|
Garcia v. Manuel 443 Phil. 479 (2003.
|22|
Barnachea v. Quiocho 447 Phil. 67 (2003.
|23|
Medina v. Bautista 120 Phil. 787 (1964.
|24|
Rollo pp. 21-22.
|25|
Sencio v. Calvadores 443 Phil. 490 (2003.
|26|
Zoreta v. Simpliciano .C. No. 6492 18 Novem-er 2004 443 SCR 1; Nunga v. Jiray 8upra note
15.
|27|
Meneses v. Macalino .C. No. 6651 27 Fe-ruar 2006 483 SCR 212; Jillanueva v. Ishiwata .C.
No. 5041 23 Novem-er 2004 443 SCR 401; Emiliano Court Townhouses v. Dioneda 447 Phil. 408
(2003.

EN BANC

MAkILI C kCNUILLC
ALLkANDLk kCNUILLC and
ICN ALLkANDLk kCNUILLC
represented by the|r Attorney|nIact
SLkVILLANC A CA8UNGCAL
ComplalnanLs

-ver8u8-

A11 CMC8CNC 1 CL2Ak
8espondenL
AC No 6288
resenL
AnCAnl8An
unC
CulSuM8lnC
*?nA8LSSAn1lACC
SAnuCvALCu1lL88LZ
CA8lC
AuS18lAMA81lnLZ
CC8CnA
CA8lC MC8ALLS
CALLL!C S8
AZCunA
1lnCA
CPlCCnAZA8lC
CA8ClA and
vLLASCC !8
romulgaLed

!une 16 2006

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I U N
UNC l

ComplalnanLs seek Lhe dlsbarmenL or suspenslon of respondenL from Lhe
pracLlce of law for unlawful dlshonesL lmmoral and decelLful conducL 1hey
allege LhaL respondenL sold Lhem a plece of properLy over whlch he has no rlghL
nor lnLeresL and LhaL he refuses Lo reLurn Lo Lhem Lhe amounL Lhey have pald
hlm for lL
ComplalnanL Marlll C 8onqulllo ls a llllplno clLlzen currenLly resldlng
ln Cannes lrance LogeLher wlLh her mlnor chlldren Alexander and !on
Alexander
ln May 1999 complalnanLs and respondenL enLered lnLo a ueed of
AsslgnmenL
1
lor Lhe prlce of 13M respondenL Lransferred ln favor of Lhe
complalnanLs hls rlghLs and lnLeresLs over a Lownhouse unlL and loL locaLed aL 73
Cranwood vlllas Subd 8l Pomes Cuezon ClLy 8espondenL also obllgaLed
hlmself Lo dellver Lo complalnanLs a copy of Lhe ConLracL Lo Sell he execuLed wlLh
Crown Asla Lhe Lownhouse developer daLed Aprll 19 1996 upon full paymenL
of Lhe purchase prlce respondenL furLher underLook Lo have Crown Asla execuLe
a ueed of AbsoluLe Sale over Lhe properLy ln favor of Lhe complalnanLs
8espondenL recelved from complalnanLs 73000000 upon execuLlon of
Lhe ueed of AsslgnmenL 1he balance was Lo be pald by complalnanLs ln four
equal quarLerly lnsLallmenLs of 18730000 each 1hus complalnanLs lssued ln
favor of respondenL four posLdaLed checks ln Lhe amounL of 18730000
each 8espondenL was able Lo encash Lhe flrsL check daLed AugusL 17 1999
2

ComplalnanLs subsequenLly recelved lnformaLlon from Crown Asla LhaL
respondenL has noL pald ln full Lhe prlce of Lhe Lownhouse aL Lhe Llme he
execuLed Lhe ueed of AsslgnmenL 8espondenL also falled Lo dellver Lo
complalnanLs a copy of Lhe ConLracL Lo Sell he allegedly execuLed wlLh Crown
Asla lor Lhese reasons complalnanL Marlll 8onqulllo ordered Lhe bank Lo sLop
paymenL on Lhe second check she lssued Lo respondenL ln Lhe amounL
of 18730000
Cn March 6 2000 complalnanLs Lhrough Lhelr counsel wroLe respondenL
lnformlng hlm LhaL Lhey were sLlll wllllng Lo pay Lhe balance of Lhe purchase prlce
of Lhe Lownhouse on Lhe condlLlon LhaL respondenL work on Crown Asla's
execuLlon of Lhe ueed of AbsoluLe Sale ln Lhelr favor ln Lhe alLernaLlve
complalnanLs demanded Lhe reLurn of Lhe amounL of 93730000 plus legal
lnLeresL wlLhln Len days
3
1he amounL of 93730000 represenLs
Lhe 73000000 down paymenL and Lhe flrsL quarLerly lnsLallmenL of 18730000
whlch complalnanLs pald respondenL
ln a leLLer daLed May 2 2000 addressed Lo complalnanLs
respondenL
clalmed LhaL he was worklng now on a prlvaLe pro[ecL whlch hopefully wlll be
reallzed noL long from now" and requesLed for a perlod of LwenLy days from
May 13 2000 wlLhln whlch Lo elLher compleLely pay Crown Asla or reLurn Lhe
money aL your (complalnanLs') opLlon" 1he perlod lapsed buL respondenL dld noL
make good hls promlse Lo pay Crown Asla ln full or reLurn Lhe amounL pald by
complalnanLs
Cn lebruary 21 2002 complalnanLs' counsel senL respondenL a second
leLLer
demandlng Lhe reLurn of Lhe amounL of 93730000 lncludlng legal

lnLeresL for falllng Lo comply wlLh hls promlse 1he demand was unheeded
Pence Lhls admlnlsLraLlve complalnL
6
LhaL respondenL engaged ln
unlawful dlshonesL lmmoral or decelLful conducL Allegedly respondenL vlolaLed
hls oaLh under 8ule 101 Canon 1 of Lhe Code of rofesslonal 8esponslblllLy and
he oughL Lo be dlsbarred or suspended from Lhe pracLlce of law
lnLegraLed 8ar of Lhe hlllpplnes (l8) lnvesLlgaLlng Commlssloner Mllagros
v San !uan Lo whom Lhe lnsLanL dlsclpllnary case was asslgned for lnvesLlgaLlon
reporL and recommendaLlon found respondenL gullLy of dlshonesL and decelLful
conducL proscrlbed under 8ule 101 Canon 1 of Lhe Code of rofesslonal
8esponslblllLy ln her 8eporL daLed CcLober 9 2003 she recommended LhaL
respondenL be suspended from Lhe pracLlce of law for a perlod of Lhree (3)
years 1he l8 8oard of Covernors Lhrough 8esoluLlon no xvl2003226
daLed CcLober 23 2003 approved Lhe recommendaLlon of Commlssloner San
!uan
We agree
under SecLlon 27 8ule 138 of Lhe 8evlsed 8ules of CourL a member of Lhe
8ar may be dlsbarred or suspended on any of Lhe followlng grounds (1) dece|t
(2) malpracLlce or oLher gross mlsconducL ln offlce (3) gross|y |mmora| conduct
(4) convlcLlon of a crlme lnvolvlng moral LurplLude (3) vlolaLlon of Lhe lawyer's
oaLh (6) wlllful dlsobedlence of any lawful order of a superlor courL and (7)
wlllfully appearlng as an aLLorney for a parLy wlLhouL auLhorlLy 8ule 101 Canon
1 of Lhe Code of rofesslonal 8esponslblllLy provldes LhaL A lawyer shall noL
engage ln un|awfu| d|shonest |mmora| or dece|tfu| conduct" ConducL" as
used ln Lhls rule does noL refer excluslvely Lo Lhe performance of a lawyer's
professlonal duLles 1hls CourL has made clear ln a long llne of cases
7
LhaL a
lawyer may be dlsbarred or suspended for mlsconducL wheLher ln hls
professlonal or prlvaLe capaclLy whlch shows hlm Lo be wanLlng ln moral
characLer honesLy problLy and good demeanor or unworLhy Lo conLlnue as an
offlcer of Lhe courL
ln Lhe lnsLanL case respondenL may have acLed ln hls prlvaLe capaclLy when
he enLered lnLo a conLracL wlLh complalnanL Marlll represenLlng Lo have Lhe rlghLs
Lo Lransfer LlLle over Lhe Lownhouse unlL and loL ln quesLlon When he falled ln
hls underLaklng respondenL fell shorL of hls duLy under 8ule 101 Canon 1 of Lhe
Code of rofesslonal 8esponslblllLy lL cannoL be galnsald LhaL lL was unlawful for
respondenL Lo Lransfer properLy over whlch one has no legal rlghL of
ownershlp 8espondenL was llkewlse gullLy of dlshonesL and decelLful conducL
when he concealed Lhls lack of rlghL from complalnanLs Pe dld noL lnform Lhe
complalnanLs LhaL he has noL yeL pald ln full Lhe prlce of Lhe sub[ecL Lownhouse
unlL and loL and Lherefore he had no rlghL Lo sell Lransfer or asslgn sald
properLy aL Lhe Llme of Lhe execuLlon of Lhe ueed of AsslgnmenL Pls accepLance
of Lhe bulk of Lhe purchase prlce amounLlng Lo nlne Pundred 1hlrLySeven
1housand llve Pundred esos (93730000) desplLe knowlng he was noL enLlLled
Lo lL made maLLers worse for hlm
8espondenL's adamanL refusal Lo reLurn Lo complalnanL Marlll 8onqulllo
Lhe money she pald hlm whlch was Lhe frulL of her labor as an Cverseas llllplno
Worker for Len (10) years ls morally reprehenslble 8y hls acLuaLlons respondenL
falled Lo llve up Lo Lhe sLrlcL sLandard of morallLy requlred by Lhe Code of
rofesslonal 8esponslblllLy and vlolaLed Lhe LrusL and respecL reposed ln hlm as a
member of Lhe 8ar and an offlcer of Lhe courL
8espondenL's culpablllLy ls Lherefore clear Pe recelved a leLLer from
complalnanLs' counsel demandlng Lhe execuLlon of Lhe ueed of AbsoluLe Sale ln
favor of Lhe complalnanLs or ln Lhe alLernaLlve Lhe reLurn of Lhe money pald by
complalnanLs ln reply Lo sald leLLer respondenL acknowledged hls obllgaLlon
and promlsed Lo seLLle Lhe same lf glven sufflclenL Llme Lhus
x x x
l am worklng now on a prlvaLe pro[ecL whlch hopefully wlll be reallzed noL long
from now buL l need a llLLle Llme Lo flx some Lhlngs over May l please requesL for a
perlod of 20 days from May 13 2000 wlLhln whlch Lo elLher comp|ete|y pay
Crown As|a or reLurn Lhe money aL your opLlon (Lmphasls supplled)

ln no uncerLaln Lerms respondenL admlLLed noL havlng full ownershlp over Lhe
sub[ecL Lownhouse unlL and loL as he has yeL Lo comp|ete|y pay
Crown As|a 8espondenL even falled Lo produce Lhe ConLracL Lo Sell he allegedly
execuLed wlLh Crown Asla over Lhe sub[ecL unlL whlch would show Lhe exLenL of
hls rlghL of ownershlp lf any over Lhe Lownhouse unlL and loL ln quesLlon
1o be sure complalnanLs gave respondenL sufflclenL Llme Lo fulflll hls
obllgaLlon lL was only afLer almosL Lwo years had passed afLer respondenL
promlsed Lo pay Crown Asla or reLurn Lo complalnanLs Lhe amounL Lhey pald hlm
LhaL complalnanLs senL respondenL a second leLLer
8
demandlng solely Lhe reLurn
of Lhe amounL of93730000 lncludlng legal lnLeresL 8y Lhls Llme lL was
lndublLable LhaL respondenL would noL be able Lo perform hls end of Lhelr
agreemenL
1he pracLlce of law ls noL a rlghL buL a prlvllege lL ls granLed only Lo Lhose
of good moral characLer
1he 8ar musL malnLaln a hlgh sLandard of honesLy and

falr deallng
10
Lawyers musL conducL Lhemselves beyond reproach aL all Llmes
wheLher Lhey are deallng wlLh Lhelr cllenLs or Lhe publlc aL large
11
and a vlolaLlon
of Lhe hlgh moral sLandards of Lhe legal professlon [usLlfles Lhe lmposlLlon of Lhe
approprlaLe penalLy lncludlng suspenslon and dlsbarmenL
12

8e LhaL as lL may we cannoL granL complalnanLs' prayer LhaL respondenL be
dlrecLed Lo reLurn Lhe money he recelved from Lhem ln Lhe amounL
of 93730000 ulsclpllnary proceedlngs agalnsL lawyers do noL lnvolve a Lrlal of
an acLlon buL raLher lnvesLlgaLlons by Lhe courL lnLo Lhe conducL of one of lLs
offlcers 1he only quesLlon for deLermlnaLlon ln Lhese proceedlngs ls wheLher or
noL Lhe aLLorney ls sLlll flL Lo be allowed Lo conLlnue as a member of Lhe
8ar

13
1hus Lhls CourL cannoL rule on Lhe lssue of Lhe amounL of money LhaL
should be reLurned Lo Lhe complalnanLs
IN VILJ JLkLCI respondenL ALLy Pomobono 1
Cezar ls SUSLNDLD from Lhe pracLlce of law for a perlod of 1kLL (3) LAkS
effecLlve lmmedlaLely LeL a copy of Lhls ueclslon be furnlshed Lhe Cfflce of Lhe
8ar ConfldanL Lhe lnLegraLed 8ar of Lhe hlllpplnes and all courLs for Lhelr
lnformaLlon and guldance
SC CkDLkLD

kLNA1C S UNC
AssoclaLe !usLlce

WL CCnCu8

Ak1LMIC V ANGANI8AN
Chlef !usLlce

(on leave)
LLCNAkDC A UISUM8ING CCNSULLC NAkLSSAN1IAGC
AssoclaLe !usLlce AssoclaLe !usLlce

ANGLLINA SANDCVALGU1ILkkL2 AN1CNIC 1 CAkIC

MA ALICIA AUS1kIAMAk1INL2 kLNA1C C CCkCNA

CCNCI1A CAkIC MCkALLS kCMLC I CALLLIC Sk

ADCLIC S A2CUNA DAN1L C 1INGA

MINI1A V CICCNA2AkIC CANCIC C GAkCIA

kLS8I1LkC I VLLASCC Ik
AssoclaLe !usLlce

On leave.
|1|
nnexe8 'C to 'C-1; rollo pp. 13-14.

|2|
nnex 'D; id at 15.

|3|
nnexe8 'E to 'E-1; id at 16-17.

|4|
nnex 'F; id at 18.

|5|
nnexe8 'G to 'G-1; id at 19-20.

|6|
Id at 1-20.
|7|
Lao v. Medel .C. No. 5916 Jul 1 2003 405 SCR 227 232; Ong v. Unto .C. No.
2417 Fe-ruar 5 2002 376 SCR 152 160; Calub v. Suller .C. No. 1474 Januar 28
2000 323 SCR 556; Narag v. Narag .C. No. 3405 June 29 1998 291 SCR
451; Nakpil v. Jaldes .C. No. 2040 March 4 1998 286 SCR 758.

|8|
nnexe8 'G to 'G-1; rollo pp. 19-20.

|9|
People v. Santodides G.R. No. 109149 Decem-er 21 1999 321 SCR 310.

|10|
Maligsa v. Cabanting .C. No. 4539 Ma 14 1997 272 SCR 408 413.

|11|
Gatchalian Promotions Talents Pool, Inc. v. Naldo:a .C. No. 4017 Septem-er 29
1999 315 SCR 406.

|12|
Ere v. Rubi .C. No. 5176 Decem-er 14 1999 320 SCR 617.

|13|
Su:uki v. Tiamson .C. No. 6542 Septem-er 30 2005 471 SCR 129 citing In re
Almacen G.R. No. 27654 Fe-ruar 18 1970 31 SCR 562.

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
A.C. No. 6705 March 31, 2006
RUTIE LIM-SANTIAGO, Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. CARLOS B. SAGUCIO, Respondent.
D E C S O N
CARPIO,
The Case
This is a disbarment complaint against Atty. Carlos B. Sagucio for violating
Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and for defying the
prohibition against private practice of law while working as government
prosecutor.
The Facts
Ruthie Lim-Santiago ("complainant") is the daughter of Alfonso Lim and
Special Administratrix of his estate.
1
Alfonso Lim is a stockholder and the
former President of Taggat ndustries, nc.
2

Atty. Carlos B. Sagucio ("respondent") was the former Personnel Manager
and Retained Counsel of Taggat ndustries, nc.
3
until his appointment as
Assistant Provincial Prosecutor of Tuguegarao, Cagayan in 1992.
4

Taggat ndustries, nc. ("Taggat") is a domestic corporation engaged in the
operation of timber concessions from the government. The Presidential
Commission on Good Government sequestered it sometime in 1986,
5
and its
operations ceased in 1997.
6

Sometime in July 1997, 21 employees of Taggat ("Taggat employees") filed a
criminal complaint entitled "Jesus Tagorda, Jr. et al. v. Ruthie Lim-Santiago,"
docketed as .S. No. 97-240 ("criminal complaint").
7
Taggat employees
alleged that complainant, who took over the management and control of
Taggat after the death of her father, withheld payment of their salaries and
wages without valid cause from 1 April 1996 to 15 July 1997.
8

Respondent, as Assistant Provincial Prosecutor, was assigned to conduct the
preliminary investigation.
9
He resolved the criminal complaint by
recommending the filing of 651 nformations
10
for violation of Article 288
11
in
relation to Article 116
12
of the Labor Code of the Philippines.
13

Complainant now charges respondent with the following violations:
1. Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
Complainant contends that respondent is guilty of representing conflicting
interests. Respondent, being the former Personnel Manager and Retained
Counsel of Taggat, knew the operations of Taggat very well. Respondent
should have inhibited himself from hearing, investigating and deciding the
case filed by Taggat employees.
14
Furthermore, complainant claims that
respondent instigated the filing of the cases and even harassed and
threatened Taggat employees to accede and sign an affidavit to support the
complaint.
15

2. Engaging in the private practice of law while working as a government
prosecutor
Complainant also contends that respondent is guilty of engaging in the private
practice of law while working as a government prosecutor. Complainant
presented evidence to prove that respondent received P10,000 as retainer's
fee for the months of January and February 1995,
16
another P10,000 for the
months of April and May 1995,
17
and P5,000 for the month of April 1996.
18

Complainant seeks the disbarment of respondent for violating Rule 15.03 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility and for defying the prohibition against
private practice of law while working as government prosecutor.
Respondent refutes complainant's allegations and counters that complainant
was merely aggrieved by the resolution of the criminal complaint which was
adverse and contrary to her expectation.
19

Respondent claims that when the criminal complaint was filed, respondent
had resigned from Taggat for more than five years.
20
Respondent asserts that
he no longer owed his undivided loyalty to Taggat.
21
Respondent argues that
it was his sworn duty to conduct the necessary preliminary
investigation.
22
Respondent contends that complainant failed to establish lack
of impartiality when he performed his duty.
23
Respondent points out that
complainant did not file a motion to inhibit respondent from hearing the
criminal complaint
24
but instead complainant voluntarily executed and filed her
counter-affidavit without mental reservation.
25

Respondent states that complainant's reason in not filing a motion to inhibit
was her impression that respondent would exonerate her from the charges
filed as gleaned from complainant's statement during the hearing conducted
on 12 February 1999:
x x x
Q. (Atty. Dabu). What do you mean you didn't think he would do it, Madam
Witness?
A. Because he is supposed to be my father's friend and he was working with
my Dad and he was supposed to be trusted by my father. And he came to me
and told me he gonna help me. x x x.
26

Respondent also asserts that no conflicting interests exist because he was not
representing Taggat employees or complainant. Respondent claims he was
merely performing his official duty as Assistant Provincial
Prosecutor.
27
Respondent argues that complainant failed to establish that
respondent's act was tainted with personal interest, malice and bad faith.
28

Respondent denies complainant's allegations that he instigated the filing of
the cases, threatened and harassed Taggat employees. Respondent claims
that this accusation is bereft of proof because complainant failed to mention
the names of the employees or present them for cross-examination.
29

Respondent does not dispute his receipt, after his appointment as government
prosecutor, of retainer fees from complainant but claims that it
was only on a case-to-case basis and it ceased in 1996.
30
Respondent
contends that the fees were paid for his consultancy services and not for
representation. Respondent submits that consultation is not the same as
representation and that rendering consultancy services is not
prohibited.
31
Respondent, in his Reply-Memorandum, states:
x x x []f ever Taggat paid him certain amounts, these were paid voluntarily by
Taggat without the respondent's asking, intended as token consultancy fees
on a case-to-case basis and not as or for retainer fees. These payments do
not at all show or translate as a specie of 'conflict of interest'. Moreover, these
consultations had no relation to, or connection with, the above-mentioned
labor complaints filed by former Taggat employees.
32

Respondent insists that complainant's evidence failed to prove that when the
criminal complaint was filed with the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of
Cagayan, respondent was still the retained counsel or legal consultant.
33

While this disbarment case was pending, the Resolution and Order issued by
respondent to file 651 nformations against complainant was reversed and set
aside by Regional State Prosecutor of Cagayan Rodolfo B. Cadelina last 4
January 1999.
34
Hence, the criminal complaint was dismissed.
35

The BP's Report and Recommendation
The ntegrated Bar of the Philippines' nvestigating Commissioner Ma.
Carmina M. Alejandro-Abbas ("BP Commissioner Abbas") heard the
case
36
and allowed the parties to submit their respective memoranda.
37
Due
to BP Commissioner Abbas' resignation, the case was reassigned to
Commissioner Dennis A.B. Funa ("BP Commissioner Funa").
38

After the parties filed their memoranda and motion to resolve the case, the
BP Board of Governors issued Resolution No. XV-2004-479 ("BP
Resolution") dated 4 November 2004 adopting with modification
39
BP
Commissioner Funa's Report and Recommendation ("Report") finding
respondent guilty of conflict of interests, failure to safeguard a former client's
interest, and violating the prohibition against the private practice of law while
being a government prosecutor. The BP Board of Governors recommended
the imposition of a penalty of three years suspension from the practice of law.
The Report reads:
Now the issue here is whether being a former Iawyer of Taggat conflicts with
his role as Assistant Provincial Prosecutor in deciding .S. No. 97-240. A
determination of this issue will require the test of whether the matter in .S. No.
97-240 will conflict with his former position of Personnel Manager and Legal
Counsel of Taggat.
.S. No. 97-240 was filed for "Vi4lati4n 4f Lab4r C4de" (see #e84luti4n 4f the
!r4vincial !r48ecut4r8 Office, Annex "B" 4f C4mplaint). Herein Complainant,
Ruthie Lim-Santiago, was being accused as having the "management and
c4ntr4l" of Taggat (p. 2, #e84luti4n 4f the !r4v. !r48. Office, supra).
Clearly, as a former Personnel Manager and Legal Counsel of Taggat, herein
Respondent undoubtedly handled the per84nnel and lab4r c4ncern8 4f
Taggat. Respondent, undoubtedly dealt with and related with the employees
of Taggat. Therefore, Respondent undoubtedly dealt with and related with
c4mplainant8 in .S. N4. 97-240. The issues, therefore, in .S. No. 97-240, are
very much familiar with Respondent. While the issues of unpaid salaries
pertain to the periods 1996-1997, the mechanics and personalities in that
case are very much familiar with Respondent.
A Iawyer owes something to a former cIient. Herein Respondent owes to
Taggat, a former client, the duty to "maintain invi4late the client'8 c4nfidence
4r t4 refrain fr4m d4ing anything which will injuri4u8ly affect him in any matter
in which he previ4u8ly repre8ented him" (Natam v. Capule, 91 Phil. 640; p.
231, Agpalo, Legal Ethics, 4th ed.)
Respondent argues that as Assistant Provincial Prosecutor, he does not
represent any client or any interest except justice. t should not be forgotten,
however, that a lawyer has an immutabIe duty to a former cIient with
respect to matters that he previously handled for that former client. n this
case, matters relating to per84nnel, lab4r p4licie8, and lab4r relati4n8 that he
previously handled as Personnel Manager and Legal Counsel of Taggat. .S.
No. 97-240 was for "Vi4lati4n 4f the Lab4r C4de." ere Iies the confIict.
Perhaps it would have been different had .S. No. 97-240 not been labor-
related, or if Respondent had not been a Personnel Manager concurrently as
Legal Counsel. But as it is, .S. No. 97-240 is labor-related and Respondent
was a former Personnel Manager of Taggat.
x x x x
While Respondent ceased his relations with Taggat in 1992 and the unpaid
salaries being sought in .S. No. 97-240 were of the years 1996 and 1997, the
employees and management involved are the very personaIities he deaIt
with as PersonneI Manager and LegaI CounseI of Taggat. Respondent
dealt with these persons in his fiduciary relations with Taggat. Moreover, he
was an employee of the corporation and part of its management.
x x x x
As to the propriety of receiving "Retainer Fees" or "consultancy fees" from
herein Complainant while being an Assistant Provincial Prosecutor, and for
rendering legal consultancy work while being an Assistant Provincial
Prosecutor, this matter had long been settled. Government prosecutors are
prohibited to engage in the private practice of Iaw (see Legal and Judicial
Ethics, Ernesto Pineda, 1994 ed., p. 20; !e4ple v. Villanueva, 14 SCRA
109; Aquin4 v. Blanc4 70 Phil. 647). The act of being a legal consultant is a
practice of law. To engage in the practice of law is to do any of those acts that
are characteristic of the legal profession (n re: David, 93 Phil. 461). t covers
any activity, in or out of court, which required the application of law, legal
principles, practice or procedures and calls for legal knowledge, training and
experience (!LA v. Agrava, 105 Phil. 173; !e4ple v. Villanueva, 14 SCRA
111; Cayetan4 v. M4n84d, 201 SCRA 210).
Respondent clearly violated this prohibition.
As for the secondary accusations of harassing certain employees of Taggat
and instigating the filing of criminal complaints, we find the evidence
insufficient.
Accordingly, Respondent should be found guilty of conflict of interest, failure
to safeguard a former client's interest, and violating the prohibition against the
private practice of law while being a government prosecutor.
40

The BP Board of Governors forwarded the Report to the Court as provided
under Section 12(b), Rule 139-B
41
of the Rules of Court.
The Ruling of the Court
The Court exonerates respondent from the charge of violation of Rule 15.03 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility ("Code"). However, the Court finds
respondent liable for violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility against unlawful conduct.
42
Respondent
committed unlawful conduct when he violated Section 7(b)(2) of the Code of
Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees or Republic
Act No. 6713 ("RA 6713").
Canon 6 provides that the Code "shall apply to lawyers in government service
in the discharge of their official duties."
43
A government lawyer is thus bound
by the prohibition "not [to] represent conflicting interests."
44
However, this rule
is subject to certain limitations. The prohibition to represent conflicting
interests does not apply when no conflict of interest exists, when a written
consent of all concerned is given after a full disclosure of the facts or when no
true attorney-client relationship exists.
45
Moreover, considering the serious
consequence of the disbarment or suspension of a member of the Bar, clear
preponderant evidence is necessary to justify the imposition of the
administrative penalty.
46

Respondent is also mandated under Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 not to engage in
"unlawful x x x conduct." Unlawful conduct includes violation of the statutory
prohibition on a government employee to "engage in the private practice of
[his] profession unless authorized by the Constitution or law, provided, that
such practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with [his] official functions."
47

Complainant's evidence failed to substantiate the claim that respondent
represented conflicting interests
n Quiambao v. Bamba,
48
the Court enumerated various tests to determine
conflict of interests. One test of inconsistency of interests is whether the
lawyer will be asked to use against his former client any confidential
information acquired through their connection or previous employment.
49
n
essence, what a lawyer owes his former client is to maintain inviolate the
client's confidence or to refrain from doing anything which will injuriously affect
him in any matter in which he previously represented him.
50

n the present case, we find no conflict of interests when respondent handled
the preliminary investigation of the criminal complaint filed by Taggat
employees in 1997. The issue in the criminal complaint pertains to non-
payment of wages that occurred from 1 April 1996 to 15 July 1997. Clearly,
respondent was no longer connected with Taggat during that period since he
resigned sometime in 1992.
n order to charge respondent for representing conflicting interests, evidence
must be presented to prove that respondent used against Taggat, his former
client, any confidential information acquired through his previous employment.
The only established participation respondent had with respect to the criminal
complaint is that he was the one who conducted the preliminary investigation.
On that basis alone, it does not necessarily follow that respondent used any
confidential information from his previous employment with complainant or
Taggat in resolving the criminal complaint.
The fact alone that respondent was the former Personnel Manager and
Retained Counsel of Taggat and the case he resolved as government
prosecutor was labor-related is not a sufficient basis to charge respondent for
representing conflicting interests. A lawyer's immutable duty to a former client
does not cover transactions that occurred beyond the lawyer's employment
with the client. The intent of the law is to impose upon the lawyer the duty to
protect the client's interests only on matters that he previously handled for the
former client and not for matters that arose after the lawyer-client relationship
has terminated.
Further, complainant failed to present a single iota of evidence to prove her
allegations. Thus, respondent is not guilty of violating Rule 15.03 of the Code.
Respondent engaged in the private practice of law while working as a
government prosecutor
The Court has defined the practice of law broadly as
x x x any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of law, legal
procedure, knowledge, training and experience. "To engage in the practice of
law is to perform those acts which are characteristics of the profession.
Generally, to practice law is to give notice or render any kind of service, which
device or service requires the use in any degree of legal knowledge or skill."
51

"Private practice of law" contemplates a succession of acts of the same nature
habitually or customarily holding one's self to the public as a lawyer.
52

Respondent argues that he only rendered consultancy services to Taggat
intermittently and he was not a retained counsel of Taggat from 1995 to 1996
as alleged. This argument is without merit because the law does not
distinguish between consultancy services and retainer agreement. For as long
as respondent performed acts that are usually rendered by lawyers with the
use of their legal knowledge, the same falls within the ambit of the term
"practice of law."
Nonetheless, respondent admitted that he rendered his legal services to
complainant while working as a government prosecutor. Even the receipts he
signed stated that the payments by Taggat were for "Retainer's fee."
53
Thus,
as correctly pointed out by complainant, respondent clearly violated the
prohibition in RA 6713.
However, violations of RA 6713 are not subject to disciplinary action under the
Code of Professional Responsibility unless the violations also constitute
infractions of specific provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Certainly, the BP has no jurisdiction to investigate violations of RA 6713 the
Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees
unless the acts involved also transgress provisions of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
Here, respondent's violation of RA 6713 also constitutes a violation of Rule
1.01 of Canon 1, which mandates that "[a] lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct." Respondent's admission that he
received from Taggat fees for legal services while serving as a government
prosecutor is an unlawful conduct, which constitutes a violation of Rule 1.01.
Respondent admitted that complainant also charged him with unlawful
conduct when respondent stated in his Demurrer to Evidence:
n this instant case, the complainant prays that the respondent be
permanently and indefinitely suspended or disbarred from the practice of the
law profession and his name removed from the Roll of Attorneys on the
following grounds:
x x x x
d) that respondent manifested gross misconduct and gross violation of his
oath of office and in his dealings with the public.
54

On the Appropriate Penalty on Respondent
The appropriate penalty on an errant lawyer depends on the exercise of
sound judicial discretion based on the surrounding facts.
55

Under Civil Service Law and rules, the penalty for government employees
engaging in unauthorized private practice of profession is suspension for six
months and one day to one year.
56
We find this penalty appropriate for
respondent's violation in this case of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
EREFORE, we find respondent Atty. Carlos B. Sagucio GUILTY of
violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Accordingly, we SUSPEND respondent Atty. Carlos B. Sagucio from the
practice of law for SIX MONTS effective upon finality of this Decision.
Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant to be
appended to respondent's personal record as an attorney, the ntegrated Bar
of the Philippines, the Department of Justice, and all courts in the country for
their information and guidance.
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
Chief Justice
REYNATO S. PUNO
Associate Justice
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Asscociate Justice
CONSUELO YNARES-
SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-
GUTIERREZ
Asscociate Justice
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-
MARTINEZ
Associate Justice
RENATO C. CORONA
Asscociate Justice
CONCITA CARPIO
MORALES
Associate Justice
ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR.
Asscociate Justice
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA
Associate Justice
DANTE O. TINGA
Asscociate Justice
MINITA V. CICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice
CANCIO C. GARCIA
Asscociate Justice

Footnotes
1
#4ll4, p. 153.
2
d. at 128-129.
3
d. at 10.
4
d. at 1, 240.
5
d. at 240.
6
d.
7
d. at 21.
8
d. at 22.
9
d. at 75.
10
21 Taggat employees filed their Affidavits alleging that complainant
failed to pay them 31 quincena8 of their salaries and wages, thus 651
nformations were recommended for filing.
11
Article 288 of the Labor Code of the Philippines provides: "!enaltie8.
Except as otherwise provided in this Code, or unless the acts
complained of hinges on a question of interpretation or implementation
of ambiguous provisions of an existing collective bargaining agreement,
any violation of the provisions of this Code declared to be unlawful or
penal in nature shall be punished with a fine of not less than One
Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) nor more than Ten Thousand Pesos
(P10,000.00), or imprisonment of not less than three months nor more
than three years, or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of
the court. x x x."
12
Article 116 of the Labor Code of the Philippines provides: "ithh4lding
4f wage8 and kickback8 pr4hibited. t shall be unlawful for any person
directly or indirectly, to withhold any amount from the wages of a worker
or induce him to give up any part of his wages by force, stealth,
intimidation, threat or by any other means whatsoever without the
worker's consent."
13
#4ll4, p. 82.
14
d. at 2.
15
d. at 3.
16
d. at 110-111.
17
d. at 112-113.
18
d. at 114.
19
d. at 243.
20
d. at 242.
21
d. at 244.
22
d.
23
d. at 243.
24
d. at 245.
25
d. at 244.
26
d. at 246, 483.
27
d. at 247.
28
d.
29
d. at 249.
30
d. at 247-248.
31
d. at 350.
32
d.
33
d. at 248.
34
d. at 155-157.
35
d.
36
d. at 84-89, 99-103, 232, 237-239, 268, 273, 276-279, 282-284, 294-
296, 299-300.
37
d. at 330-331.
38
d. at 362.
39
The BP Commissioner imposed a penalty of three months
suspension from the practice of law.
40
Rollo, pp. 549-554.
41
Section 12(b), Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court provides:
SEC. 12. #eview and deci8i4n by the B4ard 4f G4vern4r8.
x x x x
(b) f the Board, by the vote of a majority of its total membership,
determines that the respondent should be suspended from the
practice of law or disbarred, it shall issue a resolution setting forth
its findings and recommendations which, together with the whole
record of the case, shall forthwith be transmitted to the Supreme
Court for final action.
42
Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
provides:
Rule 1.01. A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct.
43
Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 6.
44
Code of Professional Responsibility, Rule 15.03.
45
R. Agpalo, Comments On The Code Of Professional Responsibility
And The Code Of Judicial Conduct 165 (2001 ed.)
46
Berban4 v. Barcel4na, A.C. No. 6084, 3 September 2003, 410 SCRA
258.
47
RA 6713, Section 7(b)(2).
48
A.C. No. 6708, 25 August 2005, 468 SCRA 1.
49
d. at 10-11.
50
!4rment4, Sr. v. !4ntevedra, A.C. No. 5128, 31 March 2005, 454
SCRA 167, 178.
51
Cayetan4 v. M4n84d, G.R. No. 100113, 3 September 1991, 201
SCRA 210, 214.
52
B4rja, Sr. v. Sulyap, nc., 447 Phil. 750, 759 (2003).
53
Exhs. "B," "B-2," "B-3," r4ll4, pp. 110-114.
54
d. at 241-242.
55
Endaya v. Oca, A.C. No. 3967, 3 September 2003, 410 SCRA 244,
255.
56
Omnibus Rules mplementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 and
Other Pertinent Civil Service Laws as mandated by Section 12 of RA
6713.

1he Lawphll ro[ecL Arellano Law loundaLlon

SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DVSON
A.C. No. 5417
1
March 31, 2006
AMADOR Z. MALABOUR, Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. ALBERTI R. SARMIENTO, Respondent
D E C S O N
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
Before us is a complaint for disbarment filed by Amador Z. Malhabour against
Atty. Alberti R. Sarmiento.
Complainant was private respondent in CA-G.R. SP No. 50835, "HY2LB
Shipping & Management Services, nc. and New Ocean Ltd. v. The National
Labor Relations Commission and Amador Malhabour."
Respondent, then a lawyer of the Public Attorneys Office (PAO), was
complainant's counsel in National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) Case
No. 009719-95. After the respondent retired from the PAO in March 1997,
complainant asked him to continue assisting him in said labor case.
The facts are:
On May 29, 1993, HY2LB Shipping and Management Services, nc., (HY2LB
Shipping), a local manning agency, hired complainant as electrician for M/V
Gold Faith, a vessel owned by New Ocean Ltd., a foreign principal based in
Hongkong. The employment contract was for a period of 12 months and that
complainant's monthly salary would be six hundred US dollars ($600.00). He
had to work 48 hours a week with 30% overtime pay.
Complainant rendered service on board the vessel for four months and nine
days only. On August 5, 1993, HY2LB Shipping asked him to disembark on
the ground that the foreign principal was reducing its personnel. Thus,
complainant filed with the Philippine Overseas Employment and
Administration Office (POEA), a Complaint for llegal Dismissal against
HY2LB Shipping, New Ocean Ltd., and Premier nsurance and Surety
Corporation.
On June 14, 1995, the POEA Adjudication Office rendered judgment in favor
of complainant, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondents HY2LB Shipping and
Management Services, nc., New Ocean Ltd. and Premier nsurance are
hereby ordered jointly and severally to pay complainant or in Philippine Peso
at the exchange rate prevailing during actual payment, the following:
1. The sum of US$4,680.00 representing the unexpired portion of the
contract;
2. The sum of US$220.00 representing the unpaid salary of
complainant; and
3. The sum of US$774.00 representing the fixed overtime pay of
complainant.
No other pronouncement.
SO ORDERED.
On appeal by HY2LB Shipping, New Ocean Ltd., and Premier nsurance and
Surety Corporation, the NLRC rendered its Decision affirming the POEA
judgment. Their motions for reconsideration were denied.
HY2LB Shipping then filed with the Court of Appeals a Petition for Certiorari
against NLRC and complainant.
n its Decision dated June 17, 1999, the Court of Appeals dismissed HY2LB
Shipping's petition, holding that in affirming the POEA judgment, the NLRC
did not gravely abuse its discretion. HY2LB Shipping filed a Motion for
Reconsideration, invoking Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042.
2
The Court of
Appeals, in its Resolution of February 15, 2000, modified the NLRC Decision,
in the sense that complainant is entitled to only three (3) months' salary
"considering that this is the lesser amount of his one year employment
contract;"
3
and overtime pay since this was provided in the parties' contract of
employment.
mmediately upon receipt of the Court of Appeals' Resolution, complainant
requested respondent to file a motion for reconsideration. But the latter merely
filed a "Notice to File Motion for Reconsideration with Manifestation to File an
Appeal in case Same is Denied."
4
Respondent advised complainant " to
accept" the Decision of the Court of Appeals and that filing a motion for
reconsideration will just prolong the litigation. Complainant did not heed
respondent's advice and filed the motion for reconsideration himself. But it
was denied by the Appellate Court for being late by 43 days.
5
At this point,
complainant urged respondent to file with this Court a Petition for Review on
Certiorari. Respondent agreed but delayed its filing. On July 24, 2000, this
Court issued a Resolution
6
denying complainant's petition for being late.
Meantime, unknown to complainant, respondent sent a letter dated April 7,
2000 to the NLRC stating that complainant gave him a Special Power of
Attorney authorizing him to receive the "judgment award." Respondent then
filed a Motion for Execution alleging that complainant decided to terminate the
case and will no longer file a motion for reconsideration of the February 15,
2000 Resolution of the Court of Appeals.
7

On June 16, 2000, respondent received from the NLRC a check
8
dated June
14, 2000 in the amount ofP99,490.00 which he deposited with the Ecology
Bank, Banawe Branch, under his personal account.
Subsequently, complainant came to know of the NLRC Order dated June 6,
2000 directing the NLRC cashier to release to respondent the sum
of P99,490.00 representing the money judgment.
Thereupon, complainant sought the assistance of the Presidential Anti-
Organized Crime Task Force.
9
Then he filed with the National Bureau of
nvestigation (NB) a complaint for estafa thru falsification of a public
document. The NB referred the matter to the Office of the City Prosecutor of
Quezon City.
During their confrontation at the NB, respondent paid
complainant P40,000.00 as partial payment of theP60,000.00 awarded to the
latter.
Later, or on January 30, 2001,
10
respondent paid complainant
only P10,000.00, leaving a balance of P10,000.00. This prompted
complainant to file with this Court the instant complaint for disbarment.
n his Comment dated June 1, 2001, respondent alleged inter alia that this
case arose from "a quarrel between a client and his counsel;" that after the
promulgation of the Court of Appeals' Decision and Resolution in CA-G.R. SP
No. 50835, HY2LB Shipping filed with this Court a Petition for Review of
Certiorari; that at this time, he (respondent) filed with the NLRC a Motion for
Execution; that the NLRC partially granted his motion by issuing a check in
the amount of P100,000.00 "by virtue of a Special Power of Attorney signed
by complainant;" that pursuant to their agreement that their shares in the
award is on a "40-60 ratio," he (respondent) kept complainant's share
of P60,000.00; and that he was ready to give complainant his share but he did
not make any demand and refused to receive the balance on June 30, 2001.
On August 27, 2001, this Court referred the instant case to the ntegrated Bar
of the Philippines (BP) for investigation, report and recommendation. n its
Report and Recommendation
11
dated April 15, 2002, the BP through
nvestigating Commissioner Rebecca Villanueva-Maala, made the following
findings:
t was apparent that the complainant did not agree with the modified decision
of the Court of Appeals and instructed respondent to file a Petition for
Certiorari with the Supreme Court. All the while and without his knowledge
and consent, respondent filed a Motion for Execution with the NLRC who
awarded complainant the amount of One Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P100,000.00). Respondent admitted that he was able to encash the check
awarded to complainant by virtue of a Special Power of Attorney which
complainant denies having executed. x x x.
x x x. When respondent received the amount of money awarded to
complainant by the NLRC, he took it upon himself to divide the money into 60-
40 ratio because complainant owed him his attorney's fees; however, he failed
to inform complainant beforehand of his plan, and only when complainant filed
a criminal complaint against him that respondent paid complainant and on
installment basis at that. Respondent in fact still has a balance of Ten
Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00). Respondent claims that complainant
exceeded and abused his goodness and kindness but it is the other way
around.
and recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law
and as a member of the Bar for one year.
On August 3, 2002, the BP Board of Governors passed Resolution No. XV-
2002-397 adopting and approving the Report and Recommendation of
nvestigating Commissioner Maala.
We sustain the Resolution of the BP Board of Governors.
Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:
CANON 1 A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land
and promote respect for law and legal processes.
Rule 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct.
Respondent failed to comply with the above provisions. Records show and as
found by nvestigating Commissioner, respondent committed deceit by making
it appear that complainant executed a Special Power of Attorney authorizing
him (respondent) to file with the NLRC a Motion for Execution and to collect
the money judgment awarded to the former. Worse, after receiving from the
NLRC cashier the check amounting toP99,490.00, he retained the amount. t
was only when complainant reported the matter to the NB that respondent
paid him P40,000.00 as partial payment of the "award." n fact, there still
remains an outstanding balance ofP10,000.00. Moreover, as correctly found
by BP Commissioner Maala, respondent has no right to retain or appropriate
unilaterally his lawyer's lien
12
by dividing the money into 60-40 ratio.
Obviously, such conduct is indicative of lack of integrity and propriety.
13
He
was clinging to something not his and to which he had no right.awph!l.ne t
t bears stressing that as a lawyer, respondent is the servant of the law and
belongs to a profession to which society has entrusted the administration of
law and the dispensation of justice.
14
As such, he should make himself more
an exemplar for others to emulate and should not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
15
This Court has been exacting in its
demand for integrity and good moral character of members of the Bar. They
are expected at all times to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession
16
and refrain from any act or omission which might lessen the trust
and confidence reposed by the public in the fidelity, honesty, and integrity of
the legal profession.
17
Membership in the legal profession is a privilege.
18
And
whenever it is made to appear that an attorney is no longer worthy of the trust
and confidence of the public, it becomes not only the right but also the duty of
this Court, which made him one of its officers and gave him the privilege of
ministering within its Bar, to withdraw the privilege.
19
Respondent's conduct
blemished not only his integrity as a member of the Bar, but also that of the
legal profession. His conduct fell short of the exacting standards expected of
him as a guardian of law and justice.
Accordingly, administrative sanction against respondent is warranted. n Lao
v. Medel,
20
we considered a lawyer's violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, as in this case, as an act constituting
gross misconduct. n line with Lao, citing Co v. Bernardino,
21
Ducat, Jr. v.
Villalon, Jr.,
22
and Saburnido v. Madroo
23
which also involved gross
misconduct of lawyers we find the penalty of suspension from the practice of
law for one year sufficient.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Alberti R. Sarmiento is hereby declared guilty
of violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
and is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year
effective immediately.
Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Court Administrator for his
distribution to all courts of the land, the BP, the Office of the Bar Confidant,
and entered into respondent's personal records as a member of the Philippine
Bar.
SO ORDERED.
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
RENATO C. CORONA
Associate Justice
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA
Asscociate Justice
CANCIO C. GARCIA
Associate Justice

Footnotes
1
A.C. No. 5335 was filed by same complainant against same
respondent but on different cause of action.
2
Entitled "The Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995."
3
Rollo, p. 25.
4
d., p. 26.
5
d., p. 28.
6
d., p. 31.
7
d., pp. 73-74.
8
d., pp. 46, 59.
9
d., pp. 61-62.
10
d., p. 86.
11
d., p. 72.
12
Aldovino v. Pujalte, Jr. A.C. No. 5082, February 17, 2004, 423 SCRA
132, citing Sipin-Nabor v. Baterina, 360 SCRA 6 (2001); Eustaquio, et
al. v. Rimorin, A.C. No. 5081, March 24, 2003, 399 SCRA 422, citing
Cabigao v. Rodrigo, 57 Phil. 20 (1932).
13
d.
14
Ting-Dumali v. Torres, A.C. No. 5161, April 14, 2004, 427 SCRA 108.
15
d.
16
Aldovino v. Pujalte, Jr. supra, citing Sipin-Nabor v. Baterina, supra;
Eustaquio, et al. v. Rimorin, supra.
17
d., citing Manalang, et al. v. Atty. Francisco F. Angeles, 398 SCRA
687 (2003); Maligsa v. Cabanting, 272 SCRA 408, 413 (1997).
18
d., citing Lao v. Medel, 405 SCRA 227 (2003); Dumadag v. Lumaya,
334 SCRA 513 (2000); Arrieta v. Llosa, 346 Phil. 832 (1997); NB v.
Reyes, 326 SCRA 109 (2000); Eustaquio, et al. v. Rimorin, supra.
19
d., citing Eustaquio, et al. v. Rimorin, supra, citing n Re: Almacen, 31
SCRA 562, 601-602 (1970); n Re: Paraiso, 40 Phil. 24 (1920); n Re:
Sotto, 38 Phil. 532, 549 (1918).
20
A.C. No. 5916, July 1, 2003, 405 SCRA 227.
21
285 SCRA 102 (1998).
22
337 SCRA 622 (2000).
23
366 SCRA 1 (2001).

1he Lawphll ro[ecL Arellano Law loundaLlon

EN BANC

[A.M. No. 07-3-13-SC, February 27, 2008]

IN RE: COMPLIANCE OF IBP CHAPTERS WITH ADM. ORDER NO. 16-
2007, LETTER-COMPLIANCE OF ATTY. RAMON EDISON C. BATACAN

R E S O L U T I O N

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:

Before the Court is the Letter of Atty. Ramon Edison C. Batacan, (Atty. Batacan),
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Governor for Eastern Mindanao Region, dated
April 27, 2007, claiming that the election of Atty. Rogelio Vinluan (Atty. Vinluan), IBP
Governor for Southern Luzon, as Executive Vice-President (EVP) for the term 2007 to
2009, is null and void on the ground that it violated the Crotation rule.Cl
[1]

Atty. Batacan asserts that under the Crotation rule,Cl embodied in Section 47,
Article VII of the IBP By-Laws, all IBP regions must take turns in having a
representative as EVP, who shall automatically succeed to the IBP Presidency. He posits
that since Atty. Pura Angelica Y. Santiago (Atty. Santiago) of IBP Southern Luzon was
validly elected as EVP on June 13, 2005, said region is disqualified from fielding another
candidate for EVP until all the regions have taken turns in holding the position.
Considering that Atty. Vinluan comes from IBP Southern Luzon and the other regions
have not yet taken their turn in fielding an EVP, Atty. Vinluan's election as EVP on April
25, 2007 is null and void as it contravened the rotation rule.
[2]

Atty. Batacan further argues: The fact that Atty. Santiago was never able to assume
the presidency of the IBP is immaterial in the application of the rotation rule following
the Court's pronouncement in Velez v. De Vera
[3]
that Cthe rotation rule had been
completed despite the non-assumption of Atty. De Vera to the IBP Presidency.Cl
Voluntary renunciation of the office will not change the fact that Atty. Santiago was
validly elected to the position which commenced the new rotation representing the
Southern Luzon Region. To hold otherwise would defeat the very purpose of the
rotation rule as any duly elected EVP would just conveniently resign before his term
ends thus qualifying his region again in the same round of rotation. Since he (Atty.
Batacan), as Governor of the Eastern Mindanao Region, was the remaining candidate
who was qualified and was voted upon to the position, he is rightfully entitled to
assume the EVP position. In any event, equity dictates that he, the Governor of the
Eastern Mindanao Region, be allowed to effectively act as EVP since the said region was
denied meaningful participation in the rotation rule when Atty. De Vera of Eastern
Mindanao was removed as EVP in 2005.
[4]

In its Comment, the IBP National Office through its Deputy General Counsel Atty.
Rodolfo G. Urbiztondo, stated that the election of Atty. Vinluan representing Southern
Luzon is a violation of the rotation rule since the election of Atty. Santiago of Southern
Luzon began a new cycle of rotation and it is only after the rotation is completed that a
Governor from the Southern Luzon Region can be elected again.
[5]

In his Comment, Atty. Vinluan avers that his election as EVP on April 25, 2007 is valid
for the following reasons: Atty. Santiago never took her oath of office; she never
assumed the position of EVP; she did not function as EVP at any time; neither did she
have the chance to serve out her term as evidenced by the fact that 12 days after her
election, Atty. Jose Vicente B. Salazar of the IBP Bicol Region was elected EVP and
eventually assumed the IBP Presidency beginning 2005. As stated in Atty. Batacan's
letter, Atty. Santiago voluntarily relinquished the EVP Position through a letter
addressed to the IBP Board. Then IBP President Atty. Jose Anselmo I. Cadiz stated in
the June 25, 2005 IBP Board of Governors Meeting that Atty. Santiago's letter is clear
that she is foregoing her assumption of the EVP position. Atty. Santiago herself made
clear that Cconsidering that she has not taken her oath, she thinks that the more
appropriate term to use is to forego her assumption of the position.Cl Thus, the
election of Atty. Santiago cannot be considered as one turn within the meaning of the
Crotation rule.Cl

Atty. Vinluan further maintains that the election of Atty. Santiago did not trigger the
beginning of a new rotation cycle and that it was only with the term of Atty. Salazar of
IBP Bicol Region, who was elected after Atty. Santiago, and who eventually served out
his term for 2005 to 2007, as EVP that the new cycle began. Atty. Vinluan argues that
Atty. Batacan's invocation of the Court's statement in Velez Cthat the rotation rule
had been completed despite the non-assumption by Atty. De Vera to the IBP
PresidencyCl is misplaced since Atty. De Vera had in fact served as EVP for the term
2003 to 2005, while the same cannot be said in the case of Atty. Santiago. IBP
Southern Luzon has not been represented yet in the new rotation cycle for EVPs.

Atty. Vinluan further asserts that he was elected pursuant to Section 47 of the IBP By-
Laws where he obtained the majority of votes cast thereat. He also cites the Court's
pronouncement in Velez that Section 47 of the IBP Rules uses the phrase Cas much
as practicableCl to indicate that the rotation rule is not a rigid and inflexible rule as to
bar exceptions in compelling and exceptional circumstances, such as this case. Finally,
Atty. Vinluan claims that Atty. Batacan contradicted himself when he said that equity
dictates that the Governor of the Eastern Mindanao Region be allowed to act as EVP
since the region was denied meaningful participation in the rotation rule when Atty. De
Vera was removed as EVP; while in the instant case, Atty. Batacan seeks to deny IBP
Southern Luzon of meaningful participation.

Section 47, Article VII of the By-Laws of the IBP, as amended, provides:
Sec. 47. National Officers. - The Integrated Bar of the Philippines shall have a
President and Executive Vice President to be chosen by the Board of Governors
from among nine (9) regional governors, as much as practicable, on a rotation
basis. The governors shall be ex officio Vice President for their respective regions.
There shall also be a Secretary and Treasurer of the Board of Governors to be
appointed by the President with the consent of the Board. (As amended pursuant to Bar
Matter 491).

The Executive Vice President shall automatically become President for the next
succeeding term. The Presidency shall rotate among the nine Regions. [Emphasis and
underscoring supplied]
It is a product of Bar Matter No. 491
[6]
dated October 6, 1989, In the Matter of the
Inquiry into the 1989 Elections of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, where the
Court, seeing the need to protect the non-political character of the IBP and to reduce, if
not completely eliminate, the expensive electioneering practices of those who vie for
the top IBP posts, ordered the repeal of Bar Matter No. 287, dated July 8, 1985, which
provided for the direct election by the House of Delegates of the IBP President, EVP, as
well as officers of the said House.

Bar Matter No. 491 restored the former system of having the IBP President and
Executive Vice-President elected by the Board of Governors from among themselves as
well as the right of automatic succession by the Executive Vice-President to the
presidency upon the expiration of their two-year term. It amended Sections 37
(Composition of the Board)
[7]
and 39 (Nomination and Election of the Governors), both
of Article VI of the IBP By-Laws.
[8]

As the Court explained in Garcia v. De Vera:
[9]

The changes adopted by the Court simplified the election process and thus made it less
controversial. The grounds for disqualification were reduced, if not totally eradicated,
for the pool from which the Delegates may choose their nominees is diminished as the
rotation process operates.

The simplification of the process was in line with this Court's vision of an Integrated Bar
which is non-political and effective in the discharge of its role in elevating the standards
of the legal profession, improving the administration of justice and contributing to the
growth and progress of the Philippine society.
[10]

Based on the foregoing, one can see that the Court introduced the rotation rule in order
to give all the regions and chapters their respective turns, each for a term of two years,
in having a representative in the top positions, with the aim of restoring the non-
political character of the IBP and reducing the temptation of electioneering for the said
posts.

The principal question is whether the election on June 13, 2005 of Atty. Santiago of IBP
Southern Luzon for the term 2005 to 2007 as EVP constitutes one turn under the
rotation rule; corollarily, whether Atty. Vinluan who comes from the same IBP region is
barred from being elected as EVP for the term 2007 to 2009.

The CourtCs answer is in the negative.

On June 13, 2005, Atty. Santiago of Southern Luzon was elected as EVP.
[11]
On June
20, 2005, seven days after her election, she tendered her resignation, which
resignation was approved by the IBP in a Resolution dated June 25, 2005.
[12]
On the
same day, Atty. Salazar of the IBP Bicol Region was elected as EVP, replacing Atty.
Santiago.
[13]

Based on these circumstances, one can readily see that the election of Atty. Santiago
as EVP did not result in any meaningful representation of the Southern Luzon Region
which would satisfy the spirit of the rotation rule. The proximity of the dates, from the
time that she was elected to the time she tendered her resignation (seven days) and
the time the same was accepted by the IBP (five days) shows that there was no
sufficient opportunity for her to discharge the duties of an EVP. Significantly, records do
not show that Atty. Santiago took her oath of office.

There is no merit to Atty. BatacanCs claim that in view of the removal of Atty.
Leonardo de Vera, IBP Eastern Mindanao Region was denied meaningful participation.

In Velez, the Court held that Cthe rotation rule had been completed despite the non-
assumption by Atty. De Vera to the IBP Presidency.Cl
[14]
Atty. De Vera's removal
from the position of EVP took place on the twenty-third month of his term for 2003 to
2005.
[15]
Only a month short of completing his term, it is clear that he had effectively
exercised the functions of an EVP as representative of the IBP Eastern Mindanao
Region.

Moreover, the Court held in Velez that Section 47 of the IBP Rules uses the phrase
Cas much as practicableCl to clearly indicate that the rotation rule is not a rigid
and inflexible rule as to bar exceptions in compelling and exceptional circumstances.
[16]

The Court agrees with Atty. Vinluan that the instant case is an exception to the rotation
rule.

Atty. Batacan himself narrated that in the election on April 25, 2007, which was the
first meeting of the IBP Board of Governors for 2007 to 2009, he objected to the
nomination of Atty. Vinluan as EVP citing the rotation rule. Despite his objections, the
Board of Governors proceeded with the election of its EVP, pursuant to Section 47,
Article VII of the IBP By-Laws and Atty. Vinluan emerged as the winner.

The Board acted correctly in not upholding the objections of Atty. Batacan. It applied
the rotation rule with flexibility, an act that is valid, concommitant with the tenor of
Section 47 which qualifies the application of the rotation rule with the phrase Cas
much as practicable.Cl

There being no grave abuse of discretion or gross error in the conduct of said election,
the Court must uphold the election of Atty. Vinluan as EVP for the term 2007 to 2009.

As the Court held in Velez:
While it is true that the Supreme Court has been granted an extensive power of
supervision over the IBP, it is axiomatic that such power should be exercised
prudently. The power of supervision of the Supreme Court over the IBP should
not preclude the IBP from exercising its reasonable discretion especially in the
administration of its internal affairs governed by the provisions of its By-Laws.
The IBP By-Laws were precisely drafted and promulgated so as to define the
powers and functions of the IBP and its officers, establish its organizational
structure, and govern relations and transactions among its officers and
members. With these By-Laws in place, the Supreme Court could be assured
that the IBP shall be able to carry on its day-to-day affairs, without the
CourtC"s interference.

It should be noted that the general charge of the affairs and activities of the
IBP has been vested in the Board of Governors. The members of the Board are
elective and representative of each of the nine regions of the IBP as
delineated in its By-Laws. The Board acts as a collegiate body and decides in
accordance with the will of the majority. The foregoing rules serve to negate the
possibility of the IBP Board acting on the basis of personal interest or malice of its
individual members. Hence, the actions and resolutions of the IBP Board deserve
to be accorded the disputable presumption of validity, which shall continue,
until and unless it is overcome by substantial evidence and actually declared
invalid by the Supreme Court. In the absence of any allegation and substantial proof
that the IBP Board has acted without or in excess of its authority or with grave abuse of
discretion, we shall not be persuaded to overturn and set aside the BoardCs action
or resolution.
[17]
[Emphasis supplied]
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby RESOLVES to AFFIRM the election of Atty. Rogelio A.
Vinluan on April 25, 2007, by the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines, as its Executive Vice-President for the term 2007-2009.

SO ORDERED.

Puno, C.J., Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Azcuna, Tinga, Chico-
Nazario, Velasco, Jr., Nachura, Reyes, and Leonardo-De Castro, JJ., concur.
Quisumbing, J., on official leave.
Ynares-Santiago, J., on leave.

[1]
Rollo, p. 135.

[2]
Id. at 139-140.

[3]
A.C. No. 6697, Bar Matter No. 1227, A.M. No. 05-5-15-SC, July 25, 2006, 496 SCRA
345.

[4]
Rollo, pp. 140-141.

[5]
Id. at 226-227.

[6]
In the Matter of the Inquiry into the 1989 Elections of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines, Bar Matter No. 491, October 6, 1989, 178 SCRA 398, 419.

[7]
Sec. 37. Composition of the Board. -- The Integrated Bar of the Philippines shall be
governed by a Board of Governors consisting of nine (9) Governors from the (9) regions
as delineated in Section 3 of the Integration Rule, on the representation basis of one
(1) Governor for each region to be elected by the members of the House of Delegates
from the region only. The position of Governor shall be rotated among the different
Chapters in the Region.

[8]
Sec. 39. Nomination and election of the Governors. At least one (1) month before
the national convention the delegates from each region shall elect the governor for their
region, the choice of which shall as much as possible be rotated among the chapters in
the region.

[9]
In Re: Petition to Disqualify Atty. Leonard De Vera, on Legal and Moral Grounds,
From being Elected IBP Governor for Eastern Mindanao in the May 31, IBP Elections,
A.C. No. 6052, December 11, 2003, 418 SCRA 27.

[10]
Id. at 44-45.

[11]
Rollo, pp. 136, 223.

[12]
Rollo, p. 224.

[13]
Id. at 224.

[14]
Velez v. De Vera, supra note 3 at 398.

[15]
Id. at 399.

[16]
Id.

[17]
Velez v. De Vera, supra note 3, at 392-393.

2nd Assignment of Cases

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2nd Assignment of Cases

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1.

demandlng Lhe reLurn of Lhe amounL of 93730000 lncludlng legal

1he 8ar musL malnLaln a hlgh sLandard of honesLy and

You might also like