Case Digest Legal Ethics

JOSELITO F. TEJANO vs. ATTY. BENJAMIN F. BATERINA, A.C. No. 8235, January 27, 2015 Facts Joselito F. Tejano filed an Affidavit-Complaint before the Office of the Court Administrator of the Supreme Court against his counsel, Atty. Baterina “miserably failed to advance [his] cause”, and Judge Dominador Arquelada of acting in conspiracy to take possession of his property, which was the subject matter of litigation in the judge’s court. The Court required Atty. Baterina to file a Comment on the complaint to which he explained that he had been recuperating from a kidney transplant when he received a copy of the complaint. The Court, found Atty. Baterina’s explanation “not satisfactory” and admonished him “to be more heedful of the Court’s directives” and referred the case to the IBP for investigation, report and recommendation, which found sufficient ground for disciplinary action against Atty. Baterina. Issue: w/n Atty Baterina liable for gross negligence in his duty as counsel to his client RULING: The Court adopts the IBP’s report and recommendation, with modification as to the penalty. The Code of Professional Responsibility governing the conduct of lawyers states:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary CANON 18 – A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE. RULE 18.03 – A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. RULE 18.04 – A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client’s request for information. When a lawyer agrees to take up a client’s cause, he makes a commitment to exercise due diligence in protecting the latter’s rights. Once a lawyer’s services are engaged, “he is duty bound to serve his client with competence, and to attend to his client’s cause with diligence, care and devotion regardless of whether he accepts it for a fee or for free. He owes fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed on him.” 25 A lawyer’s acceptance to take up a case “impliedly stipulates [that he will] carry it to its termination, that is, until the case becomes final and executory.” MARILEN G. SOLIMAN v. ATTY. DITAS LERIOS-AMBOY A.C. No. 10568 [FORMERLY CBD CASE No. 10-2753], January 13, 2015 Facts:

Marilen (Soliman) engaged the services of Atty. Ditas (Lerios-Amboy) in connection with a partition case. They both agreed that Ditas’ retainer fee will be P50,000.00, one half of which was paid to Ditas upon engagement. Later, Ditas told her not to proceed anymore with the partition since the other co-owners were amenable to a partition, hence Ditas facilitated the issuance of the titles to the co-owners. In November, 2008, Marilen gave Ditas P16,700.00 as payment for the transfer tax of the property. Ditas later told her that there were some delays in the issuance of the titles and she knows someone from the Registry of Deeds who can facilitate the issuance of the titles, in return for a payment of P80,000.00. After some haggling, Ditas told Marilen that contact at the RD agreed to accept P50,000.00, which Marilen deposited in Ditas’ account. She also deposited P8,900.00 as payment for the 2009 realty tax. Ditas informed her that the certificates of title were just awaiting signatures of the authorised officer. After some delay, Ditas’ secretary again asked for P10,000.00, allegedly demanded by her contact at the RD. Marilen refused. Marilen kept asking about the updates to the titling, but Ditas did not respond to her queries. She then went to the office of Atty. Marasigan, the Deputy RD of Manila, to ask him if he received the P50,000.00, but the latter denied receiving any money from Ditas, and told her the reason the issuance of the certificates of title were delayed was the failure of Ditas to submit certain documents. Marilen thus demanded the return of the documents she entrusted to Ditas, as well as the P50,000.00 but the latter refused. In her defense, Ditas admitted the existence of the retainer agreement, but denied receiving any amount from the agreement, as the partition never materialized. She denied failing to submit certain documents to the RD causing the delay in the issuance of the titles; as well as denied receipt of the P50,000.00. The Investigating Commissioner recommended that Ditas be suspended from the practice of law for six months, for failing to observe due diligence in her dealings with Marilen and failing to update her on the status of the titling. The IBP Board modified the penalty recommended to two years suspension. ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Lerios-Amboy is guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility by being negligent and incompetent in dealing with a client. RULING: After a thorough perusal of the respective allegations of the parties and the circumstances of this case, the Court affirms the penalty imposed by the IBP Board of Governors. The Code of Professional Responsibility clearly states that a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and that he should be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. A lawyer is mandated to serve his client with competence and diligence; to never neglect a legal matter entrusted to him; and to keep his client informed of the status of his case and respond within a reasonable time to the client’s request for information. The circumstances of this case clearly show that Atty. Amboy, after receiving P25,000.00 as

payment for her professional services, failed to submit material documents relative to the issuance of separate certificates of title to the individual owners of the property. It was her negligence which caused the delay in the issuance of the certificates of title. To make matters worse, Atty. Amboy abetted the commission of an illegal act when she asked from Soliman the amount of P50,000.00 to be paid to her “contact” inside the office of the RD in order to facilitate the release of the said certificates of title. Further, notwithstanding the payment of P50,000.00, Atty. Amboy still failed to obtain issuance of the said certificates of title. Instead of procuring the release of the certificates of title as she promised, Atty. Amboy asked for an additional P10,000.00 from Soliman. Clearly, this is not a simple case of negligence and incompetence by a counsel in dealing with a client. Atty. Amboy’s acts undermined the legal processes, which she swore to uphold and defend. In swearing to the oath, Atty. Amboy bound herself to respect the law and legal processes. The Court further finds improper the refusal of Atty. Amboy to return the amount of P50,000.00 which she paid in order to facilitate the release of the certificates of title. To reiterate, upon inquiry, Atty. Marasigan, the Deputy RD of Manila, denied having received any amount from Atty. Amboy. In not returning the money to Soliman after a demand therefor was made following her failure to procure the issuance of the certificates of title, Atty. Amboy violated Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly Rule 16.03 thereof, which requires that a lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client upon demand. It is settled that the unjustified withholding of money belonging to a client warrants the imposition of disciplinary action. “A lawyer’s failure to return upon demand the funds held by him on behalf of his client gives rise to the presumption that he has appropriated the same for his own use in violation of the trust reposed in him by his client. Such act is a gross violation of general morality as well as of professional ethics. It impairs public confidence in the legal profession and deserves punishment.” The respondent lawyer, Atty. Ditas Lerios-Amboy is found GUILTY of violating Rule 16.03, Canons 17 and 18, and Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years. She is also ordered to return to Marilen G. Soliman the entire amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) she received from the latter, plus legal interest thereon, reckoned from finality of this Resolution until fully paid. The respondent is also further DIRECTED to promptly submit to this Court written proof of her compliance within thirty (30) days from notice of the decision. ARCATOMY S. GUARIN vs. ATTY. CHRISTINE A.C. LIMPIN, A.C. No. 10576, January 1, 2015

A.C. No. 10573, January 13, FERNANDO W. CHU, Complainant, v. ATTY. JOSE C. GUICO, JR., Respondents.

2015

FACTS: Chu retained Atty. Guico as counsel to handle the labor disputes involving his company, CVC San Lorenzo Ruiz Corporation (CVC). For several instances, Atty. Guico asked Chu to prepare a substantial amount of money to be given to the NLRC Commissioner handling the case to insure a favorable decision. He was able to collect a sum of Php 580,000.00 but when NLRC promulgated a decision, CVC lost its case. ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Guico violated the lawyer's oath and Rule 1.01 of the CPR for demanding and receiving Php580,000 from Chu to guarantee a favorable decision from NLRC? HELD: Yes. Atty. Guico's acts constituted gross dishonesty and deceit, and were a flagrant breach of his ethical commitments under the Lawyer’s Oath not to delay any man for money or malice; and under Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility that forbade him from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. DR. DOMICIANO F. VILLAHERMOSA, SR. vs. ATTY. ISIDRO L. CARACOL, A.C. No. 7325, January 21, 2015

RE: VIOLATION OF RULES ON NOTARIAL PRACTICE A.M. No. 09-6-1-SC, January 21, 2015 Facts: Three separate complaints were filed against the following: 1.

Atty. Juan C. Siapno, Jr. (Atty. Siapno) for notarizing documents without a commission. He never commissioned as Notary Public for and within the jurisdiction of Lingayen, Natividad and Dagupan City. Instead, RTC San Carlos City, Pangasinan from March 22, 2007 to December 31, 2008. His notarial

commission, however, was never renewed upon expiration. Also, he had delegated his notarial authority to his secretaries, Mina Bautista (Bautista) and Mary Ann Arenas (Arenas), who wrote legal instruments and signed the documents on his behalf. 2.

Atty. Pedro L. Santos - Complainant executed an affidavit of loss which was notarized by Atty. Santos. The said affidavit, however, was denied for authentication when presented before the Notarial Section in Manila because Atty. Santos was not commissioned to perform notarial commission within the City of Manila.

3. The third letter-complaint8 came from a concerned citizen reporting that a certain Atty. Evelyn who was holding office at Room 402 Leyba Bldg., 381 Dasmariñas Street, Sta. Cruz, Manila, had been notarizing and signing documents for and on behalf of several lawyers. Issue: Whether or not the lawyers violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Commission Ruling: Rule III of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice provides that:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Jurisdiction and Term – A person commissioned as notary public may perform notarial acts in any place within the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court for a period of two (2) years commencing the first day of January of the year in which the commissioning is made, unless earlier revoked or the notary public has resigned under these Rules and the Rules of Court. In the case at bar, it is clear that Atty Siapno violated the 2004 rules on Notarial Commission. The Court ruled, Atty. Siapno must be barred from being commissioned as notary public permanently and suspended from the practice of law for a period of two ( 2) years. With respect to the complaints against Atty. Pedro L. Santos and a certain Atty. Evelyn, the Clerk of Court is ordered to RE-DOCKET them as separate administrative cases. MELVYN G. GARCIA, v. ATTY. RAUL H. SESBREÑO A.C. No. 7973 and A.C. No. 10457, February 03, 2015 Facts: Garcia alleged that he married Virginia Alcantara and they had two children but was separated in 1971. Garcia alleged while he was in Japan, Sesbreño, representing complainant’s children, filed an action for support against him and his sister. At the time of the filing of the case, Maria Margarita was already 39 years old while Angie Ruth was 35 years old. The case was dismissed. Garcia filed a complaint for disbarment against Sesbreño, alleging that he is practicing law despite his previous conviction for homicide, and that he is only on parole and he has not fully served his sentence. Garcia alleged that Sesbreño violated Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court by continuing to engage in the practice of law despite his conviction

of a crime involving moral turpitude. Sesbreño alleged that, Garcia filed a similar complaint against him before the IBP and Garcia’s complaint was motivated by resentment and desire for revenge because he acted as pro bono counsel for Maria Margarita and Angie Ruth. Sesbreño alleged that his sentence was commuted and the phrase “with the inherent accessory penalties provided by law” was deleted. Sesbreño argued that even if the accessory penalty was not deleted, the disqualification applies only during the term of the sentence. Sesbreño further alleged that homicide does not involve moral turpitude. ISSUE: WON MORAL TURPITUDE IS INVOLVED IN A CONVICTION FOR HOMICIDE. HELD: YES, the IBP-CBD recommended that Sesbreño be disbarred and his name stricken from the Roll of Attorneys. Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court states that a member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended as attorney by this Court by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. This Court has ruled that disbarment is the appropriate penalty for conviction by final judgment for a crime involving moral turpitude. Moral turpitude is somewhat a vague and indefinite term, the meaning of which must be left to the process of judicial inclusion or exclusion as the cases are reached. There was no mention that the executive clemency granted to Sesbreño’s was absolute and unconditional and restored his full civil and political rights. In this case, the executive clemency merely “commuted to an indeterminate prison term of 7 years and 6 months to 10 years imprisonment” the penalty imposed on Sesbreño. Hence, the Parcasio case has no application here. Even if Sesbreño has been granted pardon, there is nothing in the records that shows that it was a full and unconditional pardon. In addition, the practice of law is not a right but a privilege. It is granted only to those possessing good moral character. A violation of the high moral standards of the legal profession justifies the imposition of the appropriate penalty against a lawyer, including the penalty of disbarment. JIMMY ANUDON AND JUANITA ANUDON v. ATTY. ARTURO B. CEFRA. A.C. No. 5482. February 10, 2015 FACTS: On august 12, 1998, Atty. Cefra notarized a deed of absolute sale over a land covered by TCT No. 69244. The names of the complainants together with Johnny Anudon, Alfunso Anudon and Benita Esguerra appeared as vendors, while the name of Celino Paran appeared as the vendee. Jimmy and Juanita claimed that the deed of absolute sale is falsified. They

alleged that they did not sign the deed of sale. In addition to the forgery of their signatures, complainant stated that it was physically impossible for Johnny and Benita to sign the deed of sale since both of them are in the United States when the Deed of Absolute sale was executed.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Cefran’s conduct violated the Rules of Notarial Practice? RULING: Yes, the Investigating Commissioner found that Atty Cefran’s conduct in notarizing the Deed of Absolute Sale violated the Notarial Law. Hence the court finds respondent Atty. Cefran guilty of notarizing the deed of sale in the absence of affiant. Accordingly this court suspends him from the practice of law for 2 years, revoked his incumbent notarial commission. ANTONIO S. ASCAÑO, JR., CONSOLACION D. DANTES, BASILISA A. OBALO, JULIETA D. TOLEDO, JOSEPH Z. MAAC, EMILIANO E. LUMBOY, TITA F. BERNARDO, IGMEDIO L. NOGUERA, FIDEL S. SARMIENTO, SR., DAN T. TAUNAN, AMALIA G. SANTOS, AVELINA M. COLONIA, ERIC S. PASTRANA, AND MARIVEL B. ISON vs. PRESIDING JUDGE JOSE S. JACINTO, JR., A.M. No. RTJ-15-2405, January 12, 2015 Facts: Complainants, section leaders of the lessees of market stalls in the public market of Occidental Mindoro, filed a case against Mayor Jose T. Villarosa, of San Jose, Occidental Mindoro who allegedly wanted to demolish the public market so that the place can be used to erect a new “San Jose Commercial Complex. The said case was raffled to Judge Jose S. Jacinto, Jr’s sala. During hearings, the respondent judge did unbecoming conducts against the complainants, thus referred and raffled the complaint to Justice of the Court of Appeals, Manila. The judge allegedly: 1. Berated, scolded, confused, admonished and made insulting needlessly lengthy statements to the complainants’ witnesses without basis or justification. Also, asked complainants confusing and misleading questions all geared and intended to elicit answers damaging to the cause of petitioners and favorable to the cause of their adversary. 2. Explained that the Mayor had to excuse himself for an important appointment when Mayor Villarosa stepped out the courtroom to take a call and exited through the door used by the judge and the employees of the court. According to the complainants, the Mayor did not speak to anyone, not even his lawyer, before leaving the courtroom. Issue: Whether or not the respondent judge is guilty of his unbecoming conduct during the hearing. Ruling: The court ruled that Judge Jacinto is guilty of his unbecoming conduct due to the violation in accordance with the following mandates of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the

Philippine Judiciary: 1. Section 6, Canon 6, which reads: Judges shall maintain order and decorum in all proceedings before the court and be patient, dignified and courteous in relation to litigants, witnesses, lawyers and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity. Judges shall require similar conduct of legal representatives, court staff and others subject to their influence, direction or control. 2. Section 1, Canon 2 (Integrity), which reads: Judges shall ensure that not only is their conduct above reproach, but that it is perceived to be so in the view of a reasonable observer. 3. Section 1, Canon 4 (Propriety), which reads: Judges shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of their activities. A.M. No. RTJ-13-2366 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 11-3740-RTJ], February 04, 2015 JILL M. TORMIS, Complainant, v. JUDGE MEINRADO P. PAREDES, Respondent. Facts: Complainant was as a student of the respondent Judge Meinrado P. Paredes Presiding Judge, Branch 13,RTC,Cebu City, in Soutwestern University. Complainant averred that sometime in August 2010, in his class discussions, Judge Paredes named her mother, Judge Rosabella Tormis as one of the judges involved in the marriage scams in Cebu City. Judge Paredes also mentioned in his class that Judge Tormis was abusive of her position as a judge, corrupt and ignorant of the law. And while Jill was absent Judge Paredes mentioned to his class that Jill's brother Francis was a “court-noted addict”, says her classmate. Complainant added that Judge Paredes included Judge Tormis in his class discussions not only once but several times, she then everred that on March 2011, Judge Paredes accepted a cash bail bound in the amount of P 6,000.00 for the temporary release of Lita Guioguio's case pending in court. Issue: Whether or not Judge Paredes committed grave misconduct and violates the Code of Judicial Conduct. Ruling: To constitute misconduct, the act or acts must have a direct relation to and be connected with the performance of his official duties. The acts made by Judge Paredes in mentioning Judge Tormis and Francis in his class discussions does not considered as misconduct nor grave misconduct. Thus, respondent cannot be held liable for it. CANON IMPARTIALITY

3

SEC. 4. Judges shall not knowingly, while a proceeding is before or could come before them, make any comment that might reasonably be expected to affect the outcome of such proceeding or impair the manifest fairness of the process. Nor shall judges make any comment in public or otherwise that might affect the fair trial of any person or issue. Judge Paredes in using intemperate language and unnecessary comments tending to project Judge Tormis as a corrupt and ignorant judge in his class discussions, was correctly found guilty of conduct unbecoming of a judge by Justice Dy. CANON PROPRIETY

4

SEC. 1. Judges shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of their activities. SEC. 2. As a subject of constant public scrutiny, judges must accept personal restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen and should do so freely and willingly. In particular, judges shall conduct themselves in a way that is consistent with the dignity of the judicial office. CANON INTEGRITY

2

Integrity is essential not only to the proper discharge of the judicial office but also to the personal demeanor of judges. SECTION 1. Judges shall ensure that not only is their conduct above reproach, but that it is perceived to be so in the view of a reasonable observer. SECTION 2. The behavior and conduct of judges must reaffirm the people’s faith in the integrity of the judiciary. Justice must not merely be done but must also be seen to be done. The Court finds Judge Meinrado P. Paredes, Presiding Judge of Branch 13 of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, administratively liable for conduct unbecoming of a judge and ADMONISHES him. A.C. No. 10681, February 03, 2015 SPOUSES HENRY A. CONCEPCION AND BLESILDA CONCEPCION, Complainants, v. ATTY. ELMER A. DELA ROSA, Respondent.

S.

Complainants alleged that from 1997 until August 2008,3 respondent served as their retained lawyer and counsel. Aware of the fact that complainants had money intact from their failed

business venture, respondent, on March 23, 2006, called Henry to borrow the amount of P2,500,000.00, which he promised to return, with interest, five (5) days thereafter. On March 28, 2006, or the day respondent promised to return the money, he failed to pay complainants. Thus, in April 2006, complainants began demanding payment but respondent merely made repeated promises to pay soon. On July 7, 2008, Blesilda sent a demand letter to respondent, which the latter did not heed. Ruling Under Rule 16.04, Canon 16 of the CPR, a lawyer is prohibited from borrowing money from his client unless the client’s interests are fully protected: CANON 16 – A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his clients that may come into his possession. Rule 16.04 – A lawyer shall not borrow money from his client unless the client’s interests are fully protected by the nature of the case or by independent advice. Neither shall a lawyer lend money to a client except, when in the interest of justice, he has to advance necessary expenses in a legal matter he is handling for the client.”

The Court has repeatedly emphasized that the relationship between a lawyer and his client is one imbued with trust and confidence. And as true as any natural tendency goes, this “trust and confidence” is prone to abuse. The rule against borrowing of money by a lawyer from his client is intended to prevent the lawyer from taking advantage of his influence over his client. The rule presumes that the client is disadvantaged by the lawyer’s ability to use all the legal maneuverings to renege on his obligation.

In the same vein, the Court finds that respondent also violated Canon 7 of the CPR which reads: CANON 7 - A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR.

In unduly borrowing money from the complainants and by blatantly refusing to pay the same, respondent abused the trust and confidence reposed in him by his clients, and, in so doing, failed to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. Thus, he should be equally held administratively liable on this score.

Atty. Elmer A. dela Rosa is found guilty of violating Canon 7 and Rule 16.04, Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, he is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of three (3) years. SPOUSES WILLIE AND AMELIA UMAGUING vs. ATTY. WALLEN R. DE VERA, A.C. No. 10451, February 4, 2015 Facts: Mariecris Umaguing the daughter of herein petitioner ran for SK Chairman last 2007 election. Unfortunately she lose by one (1) vote. The herein petitioner enlisted Atty. De Vera to facilitate the election protest. However Atty. De Vera filed the case when the deadline was looming. Failure to find Lachica and Almira, who was the prospect witness. Atty. De Vera let their relative signed their affidavit. He then included the affidavit to the complaint and lending such document was true. Whether or not Atty. De Vera has violated the CPR? Held: The Supreme Court found Atty. De Vera guilty for violating Canon 10 of Code of Professional Responsibility as well as the lawyer’s oath. He is suspended to practice law for six (6) months. According to the Supreme Court, a lawyer shall not do falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in court. MICHAEL RUBY vs. ATTY. ERLINDA B. ESPEJO and ATTY. RUDOLPH DILLA BAYOT, A.C. No. 10558, February 23, 2015 Facts Respondent is counsel of complainant for cancellation and nullification of deeds of donation. They agreed the amount of P100,000.00 as acceptance fee and P4,000.00 as appearance fee. Complainant paid P50,000.00 for filing fee. However, the actual filing fee paid by respondent was only P7,561.00; which she failed to account for the excess despite demand. Later, the respondent again demanded for another fees, but failed to perform the duty. She allegedly imputed the accusations to Atty. Bayot but denied the same as he is not the counsel of record of the complainant. Issue

Whether or not Atty. Bayot violated the Code of Professional Responsibility, which would warrant the imposition of disciplinary sanction Ruling

Yes, because lawyer-client relationship existed. To establish the relation, it is sufficient that the advice and assistance of an attorney is sought and received in any matter pertinent to his profession. Further, acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney-client relationship. Clearly, he violated Canon 16, Rule 16.01 and Rule 16.02; and Canon 18, Rule 18.03 and Rule 18.04. He is admonished and required to return the money received by him. ROBERTO BERNARDINO vs. ATTY. VICTOR REY SANTOS, A.C. No. 10583, February 18, 2015 Facts: Complainant Roberto C. Bernardino filed a Letter-Complaint against Atty. Victor Rey Santos before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, praying that Atty. Santos be investigated and subjected to disciplinary action. Bernardino alleged that the death certificate of his aunt, Rufina de Castro Turla, was falsified by Atty. Santos. Atty. Santos made it appear that Rufina Turla died in 1992, when in fact, she died in 1990. He alleged that Atty. Santos used the falsified death certificate to support the Affidavit of SelfAdjudication executed by Mariano Turla, husband of Rufina Turla, which states: Being her surviving spouse, I am the sole legal heir entitled to succeed to and inherit the estate of said deceased who did not leave any descendant or any other heir entitled to her estate. Another Complaint was filed against Atty. Santos by Atty. Jose Mangaser Caringal. Similar to Bernardino’s Complaint, Atty. Caringal alleged that Atty. Santos represented clients with conflicting interests. He also alleged that in representing Marilu Turla, Atty. Santos would necessarily go against the claims of Mariano Turla. In his Answer, Atty. Santos denied having falsified the death certificate. He explained that the death certificate and the Affidavit of Self-Adjudication were given to him by Mariano Turla and that he was not aware that there was a falsified entry in the death certificate. As regards the issue on conflict of interest, Atty. Santos argued that he did not represent and was not representing conflicting interests since Mariano Turla was already dead. Further, “he [was] representing Marilu Turla against those who ha[d] an interest in her father’s estate.” Mariano Turla’s Affidavit of Self- adjudication never stated that there was no other legal heir but only “that Mariano Turla was the sole heir of Rufina Turla.” Atty. Santos insisted that he did not commit forum shopping because the various cases filed had different issues. As to the conversion of funds, Atty. Santos explained that the funds used were being held by his client as the special administratrix of the estate of Mariano Turla. According to Atty. Santos, payment of attorney’s fees out of the estate’s funds could be considered as “expenses of administration.”

The Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines recommended that Atty. Santos be suspended for three (3) months. It found that Bernardino failed to prove his allegation that Atty. Santos knew that the death certificate was falsified and used it to support Mariano Turla’s Affidavit of SelfAdjudication. Likewise, Atty. Caringal failed to prove that Atty. Santos converted funds from Mariano Turla’s estate. Further, Atty. Santos did not engage in forum shopping. The various cases filed involved different parties and prayed for different reliefs. However, the Commission on Bar Discipline agreed with Bernardino and Atty. Caringal that Atty. Santos represented clients with conflicting interests. Issue: Whether respondent Atty. Santos violated the Code of Professional Responsibility? RULING: Yes, he violated Canon 15 and Canon 10. Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states: CANON 15 — A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with his client. Rule 15.03 — A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. The rule on conflict of interest is based on the fiduciary obligation in a lawyer-client relationship. Lawyers must treat all information received from their clients with utmost confidentiality in order to encourage clients to fully inform their counsels of the facts of their case. There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents inconsistent interests of two or more opposing parties. The test is “whether or not in behalf of one client, it is the lawyer’s duty to fight for an issue or claim, but it is his duty to oppose it for the other client. In brief, if he argues for one client, this argument will be opposed by him when he argues for the other client.” This rule covers not only cases in which confidential communications have been confided, but also those in which no confidence has been bestowed or will be used. Also, there is conflict of interests if the acceptance of the new retainer will require the attorney to perform an act which will injuriously affect his first client in any matter in which he represents him and also whether he will be called upon in his new relation to use against his first client any knowledge acquired through their connection. Another test of the inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance of a new relation will prevent an attorney from the full discharge of his duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to his client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double dealing in the performance thereof.

Applying the test to determine whether conflict of interest exists, respondent would necessarily refute Mariano Turla’s claim that he is Rufina Turla’s sole heir when he agreed to represent Marilu Turla. Worse, he knew that Mariano Turla was not the only heir. However, Rule 15.03 provides for an exception, specifically, “by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.” Respondent had the duty to inform Mariano Turla and Marilu Turla that there is a conflict of interest and to obtain their written consent. Mariano Turla died on February 5, 2009, while respondent represented Marilu Turla in March 2009. It is understandable why respondent was unable to obtain Mariano Turla’s consent. Still, respondent did not present evidence showing that he disclosed to Marilu Turla that he previously represented Mariano Turla and assisted him in executing the Affidavit of Self-Adjudication. Respondent also violated Canon 10, Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which states: CANON 10 — A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court. Rule 10.01 — A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor shall he mislead or allow the court to be mislead by any artifice. REYNALDO RAMIREZ vs. A.C. No. 10537 February 3, 2015

ATTY.

WILFREDO ANGLO v. ATTY. A.C. No. 10567, February 25, 2015

MERCEDES

JOSE

MA.

BUHAYANG-MARGALLO

V.

VALENCIA,

et.al

FACTS: In his complaint-affidavit, complainant alleged that he availed the services of the law firm Valencia Ciocon Dabao Valencia De La Paz Dionela Pandan Rubica Law Office(law firm),

of which Attys. Valencia, Ciocon, Dabao, Uy-Valencia, De La Paz, Dionela, Pandan, Jr., and Rubica were partners, for two (2) consolidated labor cases where he was impleaded as respondent. Atty. Dionela, a partner of the law firm, was assigned to represent complainant. The labor cases were terminated on June 5, 2008 upon the agreement of both parties On September 18, 2009, a criminal case or qualified theft was filed against complainant and his wife by FEVE Farms Agricultural Corporation (FEVE Farms) acting through a certain Michael Villacorta (Villacorta). Villacorta, however, was represented by the law firm, the same law office which handled complainant’s labor cases. Aggrieved, complainant filed this disbarment case against respondents, alleging that they violated Rule 15.03, Canon 15 and Canon 21 of the CPR.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondents are guilty of representing conflicting interests in violation of the pertinent provisions of the CPR.

RULING: Respondents Attys. Jose Ma. V. Valencia, Jose Ma. J. Ciocon, Lily Uy-Valencia, Joey P. De La Paz, Cris G. Dionela, Raymundo T. Pandan, Jr., Rodney K. Rubica, and Wilfred Ramon M. Penalosa are found GUILTY of representing conflicting interests in violation of Rule 15.03, Canon 15 and Canon 21 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and are therefore REPRIMANDED for said violations, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar infraction would be dealt with more severely. Meanwhile, the case against Atty. Philip Dabao is DISMISSED in view of his death. DR. ELMAR O. PEREZ v. ATTY. TRISTAN A. CATINDIG AND ATTY. KAREN E. BAYDO. A.C. No. 5816, March 10, 2015 DR. ELMAR O. PEREZ V. ATTY. TRISTAN A. CATINDIG AND ATTY. KAREN E. BAYDO AC NO. 5816, MARCH 10, 2015

FACTS: On May, 16 1968, private respondent twice married Lily Gomez with 4 children. A year later, the couple encountered marital problems. Thus, they executed a special power of attorney, addressed to the Judge of Dominican Republic, to institute a divorce under its law.

On July 14, 1984, Catindig married the petitioner, Elmar Perez with one son. During their cohabitation, she learned that the divorce decree was not recognized in the Philippines and

their marriage is void.

In 2001, Dr. Perez received an anonymous letter informing her that Catindig has a scandalous affair, that Atty. Catindig professed his love to Atty. Badayo with a promise to marry her once impediment is removed. In the same year, Atty. Catindig abandoned Dr. Perez and lives together with Atty. Baydo.

Issue: W/o should be disbarred

Only Atty. Catindig is found guilty of gross immorality and of violating the lawyer oath and rule 1.01 Canon 7 and Rule 7.03 – Contracting a marriage during the subsistence of a previous one. He is disbarred from practice of law. Meanwhile, charge against Atty. Baydo is dismissed for the lack of evidence. ALVIN S. FELICIANO vs. ATTY. CARMELITA BAUTISTA-LOZADA, A.C. No. 7593, March 11, 2015 FACTS Arty Carmelita Lozada was found guilty of violating Canon 15.03 and 16.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and was suspended from practice of law for a period of 2 years, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely. Her suspension was finalized on May 4 2006. On June 5, 2007, a complaint was filed by Alvin Feliciano against Atty Lozada for appearing as counsel for Edilberto Lozada, her husband and actively participated in the proceedings while still suspended from the practice of law. She commented on the complaint against her that she believed in good faith that her appearance as a wife of Edilberto Lozada was not a prohibition of practice of law, considering she was defending her husband and not a client. ISSUE Whether or not Atty Carmelita Lozada is guilty of violating Rule 138 of the Rules of Court?

RULING: YES. Atty Carmelita Lozada was found guilty of violation Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court: Section 27. Attorneys removed or suspended by Supreme Court on what grounds. — A member of the bar may be removed or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral

conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before the admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willful appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice. She willfully disobeyed lawful order of the superior court by appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority to do so. She was suspended for a period of 6 months from practice of law, with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar offense will warrant a more severe penalty. SPOUSES AMATORIO AND ATTY. A.C. No. 5914, March 11, 2015

v.

ATTY. WHELMA

FRANCISCO F.

DY YAP SITON-YAP

A.C. No. 5116, April 13, 2015 DAVAO IMPORT DISTRIBUTORS, INC., Complainant, v. ATTY. JOHNNY LANDERO, Respondent.

A.C. No. 720, June 17, 2015 FRANCISCO CAOILE, Complainant, v. ATTY. MARCELINO MACARAEG, Respondent. FACTS:

Alleging that his lawyer's neglect and dereliction of duty caused the dismissal of his appeal, complainant Francisco Caoile filed on August 16, 1966 a Complaint for disbarment against Atty. Marcelino Macaraeg. Atty. Macaraeg thrice moved for extension of time to file an appeal but still failed to file, causing the CA to dismiss the appeal and declared the decision final and executory.

ISSUE: Whether or not failure to file an appeal is a ground for disbarment?

HELD: A motion for extension to file an appellant's brief carries with it the presumption that the lawyer will file the pleading within the requested extended period. Failure to do so without any reasonable excuse violates the Code of Professional Responsibility. A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. (Rule 18.03) Nevertheless, while the actuation of Atty. Macaraeg warrants the imposition of a penalty, supervening circumstances (death of the respondent) call for the dismissal of the administrative case. A.C. No. 6681 June 17, 2015 VICTOR D. DE LOS SANTOS II, Complainant, vs. ATTY. NESTOR C. BARBOSA, Respondent. Facts Respondent lawyer represented Canaco who is theaccused in a criminal case for making false statements in the certificate of livebirth of Victor Canaco delos Santos. Respondent sent letters to Office of Civil registrar of Qeuzon City, National Census and Statistics office and St.Luke Hospital which states that the certificate of live birth should not be released by such offices, otherwise they will be held liable umder the law for violation of confidentiality of records. This move was made to prevent the prosecutor from obtaining a certified true copy of the birth certificate of Victor delos Santos

Issue: WON respondent has violated the Code of Professional Responsibility

Held:

Rule 12.04 of Canon 12 states that "A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment or misuse court process.

As an officer of the court, a lawyer is part of the machinery in the administration of justice. A lawyer should likewise avoid any unethical or improper practices that may impede, obstruct or prevent the realization of a speedy and efficient administratiom of justice. A.C. No. 5686, June 16, 2015 TEODULO F. ENRIQUEZ, Complaint, v. ATTY. EDILBERTO B. LAVADIA, JR., Respondent. FACTS: On January 7, 1997, Mr. Ernesto Ouano, Sr. filed a complaint for forcible entry against complainant Teodulo Enriquez before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Talibon, Bohol. To defend his interests, Enriquez engagedthe services of the law office of Attys. Joselito M. Alo, R. L. C. Agapay, and Edilberto B. Lavadia, Jr. with Atty. Lavadia as the assigned attorney.On March 18, 2000, in open court, Atty. Lavadia agreed to submit their position papers and affidavits within 30 days from the receipt of the pre-trial order after which, the case would be submitted for decision. However, Atty. Lavadia failed to file the position paper resulting in default. The MCTC rendered a decision in favor of the plaintiffs. Atty. Lavadia filed a notice of appeal with sufficient bond. In its April 26, 2001 Order, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Talibon, Bohol dismissed the appeal based on Section 7(b), Rule 40 of the Rules of Court. The RTC stated that Atty. Lavadia failed to file the appeal memorandum after more than 71 days. Atty. Lavadia moved for reconsideration but the same was denied by the RTC in its June 26, 2001 Order pointing out that it had granted four motions for extension and still no appeal memorandum was filed. Disbarment complaint was received on January 16, 2002 by the OBC. Enriquez alleged that in failing to file the necessary pleadings before the court, Atty. Lavadia caused them great damage and prejudice. This constituted gross negligence and inefficiency in the performance of his professional duties as a lawyer. Enriquez thus prayed that Atty. Lavadia be disbarred.The Court required Atty. Lavadia to submit his comment but failed to do so and presenting insufficient reasons without attending the pleadings. ISSUE: Whether or not be disbarred RULING: In the present case, we note that this is Atty. Lavadia's first infraction. However, given his proven propensity for filing motions for extension of time and not filing the required pleading, this Court finds that it should impose the severe sanction lest some other unknowing clients engage his services only to lose their case due to Atty. Lavadia's nonchalant attitude. Considering the gravity of Atty. Lavadia's cavalier actions both to his client and his impertinent attitude towards the Court, we find the penalty of DISBARMENT as recommended by the IBP appropriate.WHEREFORE,respondent Atty. Edilberto B. Lavadia, Jr. is hereby DISBARREDfor violating Canons 11 and 18 and Rules 10.03, 12.03 and 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and his name is ORDERED STRICKEN OFF from the Roll of

Attorneys.

A.C. No. 8313, July PILAR IBANA-ANDRADE AND CLARE SINFOROSA Complainants, v. ATTY. EVA PAITA-MOYA, Respondent.

14, 2015 ANDRADE-CASILIHAN,

Facts: Complainants, Clare Sinforosa I. Andrade-Casilihan and Alven Bernardo I. Andrade filed a separate illegal dismissal case against respondent,, Mabini College Inc., Atty. Eva PaitaMoya appeared as counsel for respondents. After the aforementioned cases were filed, complainants had found out that the Honorable Supreme Court promulgated a resolution in the case entitled Wilson Cham versus Atty. Eva Paita-Moya suspending respondent from the practice of law for one month and such has not yet been lifted. Issue: whether or not the Respondent engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, that is, the practice of law despite the clear language of this Court’s suspension order. Held: Yes, Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, willful disobedience to any lawful order of a superior court is a ground for disbarment or suspension from the practice of law:

ATTY. EVA PAITA-MOYA is found GUILTY of violating Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, and is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for an additional period of six (6) months from her one (1) month suspension, totaling seven (7) months from service of this resolution, with a WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar offense will warrant a more severe penalty.

A.C. No. 10207, July 21, 2015 RE: DECISION DATED 17 MARCH 2011 IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. SB-28361 ENTITLED "PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. JOSELITO C. BARROZO" FORMER ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR JOSELITO C. BARROZO, Respondent.

A.C. No. 8708 (CBD Case No. 08-2192), August 12, 2015 SPOUSES BYRON AND MARIA LUISA SAUNDERS, Complainants, v. ATTY. LYSSA GRACE S. PAGANO-CALDE, Respondent.

FACTS: The complainants engaged the service of Atty. Lyssa Grace Pagano-Calde (respondent) for the sale of a property. Because of this, they were able to give her a sum of Php 590,000 for various expenses which the the respondent failed to return when the sale did not push through. This prompted the complainants to file an estafa case against her. After due hearing by the IBP-CBD, the Commissioner recommended that the administrative case to be dismissed because of pendency of a criminal case. ISSUE: Whether or not the case should be dismissed without prejudice of the pendency of the criminal case. HELD: No. Disbarment proceeding is separate and distinct from a criminal action filed against a lawyer even if they involve the same set of facts.A finding of guilt in the criminal case will not necessarily result in a finding of liability in the administrative case. Conversely, the acquittal does not necessarily exculpate one administratively. A.C. No. 8084, August 24, 2015 PATROCINIA H. SALABAO, Complainant, v. ATTY. ANDRES C. VILLARUEL, JR., Respondent. Facts: In 1995 Salabao filed a case against Elmer Lumberio for his deceitful or fraudulent conduct of taking her precious real property situated in Taguig City in which respondent is the counsel. After hearing, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 162, Pasig City issued its resolution in her favor in 2002. From then on, complainant alleged that the respondent had

made her suffer because of his abuse of processes and disregard for her rights as a litigant. In 2002, the Regional Trial Court Branch 162 of Pasig City which tried Civil Case No. 65147 issued it resolution in favor of the complainant. In order to delay the case, respondent brought the case on appeal on Court of Appeals but once again decided on favor of the complainant on January 13 2004 but then again respondent filed an appeal before the Supreme Court were Lumberio lost and the case became final and executory. Undeterred, respondent once again tried to defer the execution of the decision of the RTC, Branch 162 by bringing to the court of appeals a petition for annulment of judgement, appealed to supreme court presenting new arguments than what was presented before CA. Still, respondent filed a petition for certiorari seeking annul the 29 November 2007 order of the RTC before the court of appeals, which was still resulted to dismissal. From hereon, there was no stopping the respondent. Complainant then filed a complained that respondent had done more than enough to suppress her rights as winning litigants and filed a case for abuse of process pursuant to Rule 10.03 and Rule 10.02 of Canon 10 and Rule 12.04 of Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). In which denied by the respondent and clarified that the several pleadings he had filed had centered on the legality of the court's decision ordering the cancellation of the title of Lumberio in such ordinary proceeding for cancellation of the title. To his mind, the said ordinary proceeding for cancellation of title before the RTC Branch 153, Taguig City was void because the law vests upon the government through the Solicitor General the power to initiate a reversion case if there is such a ground to cancel the title issued by the Land Management Bureau in favor of Lumberio. Issue: WON Respondent’s actions violates Rule 10.03 and Rule 10.02 of Canon 10 and Rule 12.04 of Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) Ruling: Yes, While it is true that lawyers owe "entire devotion" to the cause of their clients, it cannot be emphasized enough that their first and primary duty is "not to the client but to the administration of justice." Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that "A lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice." Thus, in the use of Court processes, the lawyer's zeal to win must be tempered by the paramount consideration that justice be done to all parties involved, and the la|wyer for the losing party should not stand in the way of the execution of a valid judgment. This is a fundamental principle in legal ethics and professional responsibility that has iterations in various forms such as : Lawyers Oath, Rule 138 Sec. 20 of Rules of Court and Code of Professional Responsibility. Because a lawyer is an officer of the court called upon to assist in the administration of justice, any act of a lawyer that obstructs, perverts, or impedes the administration of justice constitutes misconduct and justifies disciplinary action against him. WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent Atty. Andres C. Villaruel, Jr. is hereby found GUILTY of violation of the Lawyer's Oath and Rules 10.03 and 12.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is hereby suspended from the practice of law for a period of eighteen (18) months.

A.C. No. 7314, August 25, 2015 MARY ANN T. FLORES, Complainant, v. ATTY. JOVENCIO LL. MAYOR, JR., Respondent. FACTS: Complainant filed an administrative case against respondent Atty. Mayor, citing that the latter’s act of archiving the record of the labor case and refusal to amend the writ of execution constituted a violation of the lawyer’s oath, the Code of Professional Responsibility, and other ethical standard.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent is guilty of violation of the Lawyer’s oath, Code of Professional Responsibility and other ethical standard.

RULLING: There is a clear neglect of duty and ignorance of the law on the part of the respondent on account of his failure to immediately act on the motion of execution, as well as his refusal to amend the writ of execution despite having been inform of the amendment of the name of the corporation against which the writ is issued. Respondent was disbarred from the practice of law and his name was stricken off the Roll of Attorneys. A.C. No. 5161, August 25, 2015 RE: IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT OF ROLANDO S. TORRES AS A MEMBER OF THE PHILIPPINE BAR. FACTS: Isidra Ting-Dumali charges respondent Atty. Rolando S. Torres with presentation of false testimony; participation in, consent to, and failure to advise against, the forgery of complainant’s signature in a purported Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement; and gross misrepresentation in court for the purpose of profiting from such forgery, thereby violating his oath as a lawyer and the canons of legal and judicial ethics. According to the complainant, the respondent took advantage of his relationship with her and her brothers and used his profession to deprive them of what was lawfully due them even if it involved the commission of an illegal, unlawful, or immoral act. the respondent denies the allegations of the complaint and asserts that he did not take advantage of his profession to deprive any of the co-heirs of his wife of the estate left by his parents-in-law. ISSUE: Whether or not the act of the respondent is a violation of the lawyer’s oath.

HELD: The Supreme Court finds respondent Atty. Rolando S. Torres guilty of gross misconduct and violation of the lawyer’s oath, as well as Canons 1 and 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, thereby rendering him unworthy of continuing membership in the legal profession. He is thus ordered DISBARRED from the practice of law, and his name is ordered stricken off the Roll of Attorneys, effective immediately. A.C. No. 10676, September 08, 2015 ATTY. ROY B. ECRAELA, Complainant, v. ATTY. IAN RAYMOND A. PANGALANGAN, Respondent. Facts: This is a case for disbarment against Atty. Pangalangan for his illicit relations, chronic womanizing, abuse of authority as an educator, and "other unscrupulous activities" which cause "undue embarrassment to the legal profession." Complainant and respondent were best friends and both graduated from the University of the Philippines (UP) College of Law in 1990, where they were part of a peer group or barkada with several of their classmates. After passing the bar examinations and being admitted as members of the Bar in 1991, they were both registered with the IBP Quezon City. Respondent was formerly married to Sheila P. Jardiolin (Jardiolin) with whom he has three (3) children. Complainant avers that while married to Jardiolin, respondent had a series of adulterous and illicit relations with married and unmarried women between the years 1990 to 2007. These alleged illicit relations involved: 1. AAA, who is the spouse of a colleague in the UP College of Law, from 1990 to 1992, which complainant had personal knowledge of such illicit relations; 2. BBB, sometime during the period from 1992 to 1994 or from 1994 to 1996, despite being already married to Jardiolin; 3. CCC, despite being married to Jardiolin and while also being romantically involved with DDD; 4. DDD, sometime during the period from 2000 to 2002, despite still being married to Jardiolin and while still being romantically involved with CCC; 5. EEE, who is related to complainant, sometime during the period from May 2004 until the filing of the Petition, while still being romantically involved with CCC. Issue: Should

Atty.

Pangalangan

be

disbarred?

Ruling: Atty. Pangalangan was disbarred by the SC for grossly immoral conduct. CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES. Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. CANON 7 - A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR. Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life. behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession. The practice of law is a privilege given to those who possess and continue to possess the legal qualifications for the profession. Good moral character is not only required for admission to the Bar, but must also be retained in order to maintain one's good standing in this exclusive and honored fraternity. In the case at bar, complainant alleged that respondent carried on several adulterous and illicit relations with both married and unmarried women between the years 1990 to 2007, including complainant's own wife. Through documentary evidences in the form of email messages, as well as the corroborating testimonies of the witnesses presented, complainant was able to establish respondent's illicit relations with DOD and CCC by preponderant evidence. In sum, Atty. Pangalangan displayed deplorable arrogance by making a mockery out of the institution of marriage, and taking advantage of his legal skills by attacking the Petition through technicalities and refusing to participate in the proceedings. His actions showed that he lacked the degree of morality required of him as a member of the bar, thus warranting the penalty of disbarment. A.C. No. 10671, November 25, 2015 JOSEPH C. CHUA, Complainant, v. ATTY. ARTURO M. DE CASTRO, Respondent.

A.C. No. 10737, November 09, 2015 ROLANDO TOLENTINO, Complainant, v. ATTY. RODIL L. MILLADO AND ATTY.

FRANCISCO B. SIBAYAN, Respondents. Facts: Rolando Tolentino lose in October 28, 2013 Punong Barangay election by one (1) vote. Immediately after election he filed an election protest before MTCC Tarlac City. Fortunately, MTCC Judge Ryan Scott Roloinos declared Tolentino as winner on the aforementioned election due to some altered ballots which favor to his opponent. He then filed motion for execution which was granted by the MTCC through S.O. On the other hand, Manalo who was the opponent of Tolentino filed an appeal and certiorari before COMELEC. He was represented by Atty. Millado and later Atty. Sibayan collaborated. COMELEC enjoined the following S.O issued by MTTC. In the appeal, it was alleged that Atty. Millado misquoted the ruling in Fermo Vs. COMELEC while Atty. Sibayan wrote a misleading statement. Also both respondents alleged that the decision of MTCC was bareless. Issue: WON Atty. Millado and Atty. Sibayan have violated the CPR. Held: The Supreme Court found that the respondents have violated Canon II Rule 11.03 and 11.04 of Code of profession responsibility. AC. No. 10912, January 19, 2016 PAULINA T. YU, Complainant, v. ATTY. BERLIN R. DELA CRUZ, Respondent. FACTS: It appears from the records that respondent lawyer agreed to represent Paulina T. Yu (complainant) in several cases after having received various amounts as acceptance fees. On November 29, 2011, while the lawyer-client relationship was subsisting, respondent lawyer borrowed pieces of jewelry from complainant and pledged the same with the Citystate Savings Bank, Inc. for the amount of P29, 945.50. Respondent lawyer appropriated the proceeds of the pledge to his personal use. In order to facilitate the redemption of the said jewelry, respondent lawyer issued to complainant, Citystate Savings Bank Check No. 0088551, dated August 31, 2011, in the amount of P34, 500.00. Upon presentment, however, complainant was shocked to learn that the check was dishonored for the reason, "Account Closed." Complainant immediately notified respondent lawyer of the dishonor of the check. On March 23, 2012, a letter given by the complainant where she demanded for the refund of the acceptance fees received by respondent lawyer prior to the "abandonment" of the cases and the payment of the value of the jewelry, but to no avail. In another letter, dated April 18, 2012, represented by another lawyer, Atty. Francisco C. Miralles, complainant again demanded the redemption of the check in cash within five days from notice; the refund of the paid acceptance fees, in exchange for which no service was rendered; the payment of the value of the pledged jewelry in the amount of PI00, 000.00 in order to avoid the interests due and the possible foreclosure of the pledge; and moral damages of P 300,000.00.

And for his failure to heed the repeated demands, a criminal case for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 was filed with the Office of the City Prosecutor, Las Pinas City, against him. 7 On June 7, 2013, the Investigating Commissioner recommended the disbarment of respondent lawyer from the practice of law. Based on the evidence on record, respondent lawyer was found to have violated Rule 16.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), which proscribed the borrowing of money from a client, unless the latter's interests were fully protected by the nature of the case or by independent advice. Worse, respondent lawyer had clearly issued a worthless check in violation of law which was against Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the CPR stating that, "lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest and immoral or deceitful conduct." ISSUE: Whether or not respondent lawyer may disbarred in violation of Canons 1, 16, 17, and Rules 1.01, 16.04 of the CPR. RULING: In the case at bench, the complaint stemmed from the use by respondent lawyer of his client's property. He had, indeed, come into possession of valuable pieces of jewelry which he presented as security in a contract of pledge. Complainant voluntarily and willingly delivered her jewelry worth P135, 000.00 to respondent lawyer who meant to borrow it and pawn it thereafter. This act alone shows respondent lawyer's blatant disregard of Rule 16.04. Obviously, his unfulfilled promise to facilitate the redemption of the jewelry and his act of issuing a worthless check constitute grave violations of the CPR and the lawyer's oath. These shortcomings on his part have seriously breached the highly fiduciary relationship between lawyers and clients. Specifically, his act of issuing worthless checks patently violated Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the CPR which requires that “lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct." This indicates a lawyer's unfitness for the trust and confidence reposed on him, shows such lack of personal honesty and good moral character as to render him unworthy of public confidence, and constitutes a ground for disciplinary action, and thus seriously and irreparably tarnishes the image of the profession. Such conduct, while already off-putting when attributed to an ordinary person, is much more abhorrent when exhibited by a member of the Bar. In this case, respondent lawyer turned his back from the promise that he once made upon admission to the Bar. As "vanguards of the law and the legal system, lawyers must at all times conduct themselves, especially in their dealings with their clients and the public at large, with honesty and integrity in a manner beyond reproach."As to the penalty commensurate to respondent lawyer's actions, the Court takes heed of the guidepost provided by jurisprudence, viz.: "Disbarment should not be decreed where any punishment less severe, such as reprimand, suspension, or fine, would accomplish the end desired. This is as it should be considering the consequence of disbarment on the economic life and honor of the erring person." Hence, caution is called for amidst the Court's plenary power to discipline erring lawyers. WHEREFORE, finding respondent Atty. Berlin R. Dela Cruz GUILTY of violating Canons 1, 16, 17, and Rules 1.01 and 16.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Court

hereby SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for THREE YEARS with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act would be dealt with more severely .

A.C. No. 8723 [Formerly CBD Case No. 11-2974], January 26, 2016 GREGORY FABAY, Complainant, v. ATTY. REX A. RESUENA, Respondent. FACTS: Fabay filed a complaint for disbarment for violation of the notarial law and for Atty. Resuena’s miscounduct as a lawyer. Fabay alleged that Atty. Resuena violated the provisions of the Notarial law by notarizing an SPA notwithstanding that Amador Perez and Valentino Perez were already dead long before the execution of the SPA. The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). In its report and recommendation, the IBP-CBD found Atty. Resuena to have violated the provisions of the notarial law. Despite this fact, respondent allowed them to be represented by Remedios Perez in the signing of the SPA without the proper authority provided for by law. ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Resuena violated the provisions of the Notarial Law, his Lawyer’s oath and in Code of Professional Responsibility? HELD: Yes. Section 2(b) of Rule IV of the Notarial Law provides: “(b) A person shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as signatory to the instrument or document - (1) is not in the notary's presence personally at the time of the notarization; and (2) is not personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules.” In the instant case, it is undisputed that Atty. Resuena violated not only the notarial law but also his oath as a lawyer when he notarized the subject SPA without all the affiant's personal appearance. Atty. Resuena's failure to perform his duty as a notary public resulted not

only damage to those directly affected by the notarized document but also made a mockery of the integrity of a notary public and degraded the function of notarization. A graver responsibility is placed upon Atty. Resuena by reason of his solemn oath to obey the laws and to do no falsehood or consent to the doing of any. WHEREFORE, Atty. Rex A. Resuena is found GUILTY of malpractice as a notary public, and of violating the lawyer's oath as well as Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, he is DISBARRED from the practice of law and likewise PERPETUALLY DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as a notary public. A.C. No. 10868 [Formerly CBD Case No. 07-2041], January 26, 2016 CHERYL E. VASCO-TAMARAY, Complainant, v. ATTY. DEBORAH Respondent.

Z.

DAQUIS,

FACTS Cheryl Vasco Tamaray, filed a complaint before the IBP on July 30 2007 alleging that respondent Atty Deborah Daquis filed on her behalf a petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage without her consent and forged her signature on the petition. She also alleged that Atty Daquis signed the petition for declaration of Nullity of Marriage as” counsel for petitioner” referring to the complainant. The Commission on Bar Discipline required the parties to submit position papers but only the complainant complied. ISSUE: Whether or not Atty Daquis violates canons from Code of Professional Responsibility? Ruling: Respondent is found guilty of Violating :

1. Canon 1 Rule 1.01 2. Canon 7, Rule 7.03

A comparison of the signatures appearing on The Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage on complainant’s identification cards show difference in the stroke. While there is no evidence to prove that the respondent forged complainant’s signature, the fact remains that respondent allowed a forged signature to be used on a petition she prepared and notarized. 3. Canon 10, Rule 10.01

4. Canon 17

The penalty of DISBARMENT is imposed upon respondent Atty Daquis. The Office of the Bar confidant is directed to remove the name of DEBorah Z. Daquis from the Roll of Attorneys. A.C. No. 10910 [Formerly CBD Case No. 12-3594], January 19, 2016 ANTERO M. SISON, JR., Complainant, v. ATTY. MANUEL N. CAMACHO, Respondent.

A.C. No. 10753 (Formerly CBD Case No. 10-2703), January 26, 2016 ATTY. PABLO B. FRANCISCO, Complainant, v. ATTY. ROMEO M. FLORES, Respondent.

FACTS: Atty. Francisco prays that Atty. Flores "be found guilty of violation of Canons 10 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The facts shows that Atty. Francisco filed a Complaint for forcible entry against Rainier Fineza and his mother, Teodora Fineza, (Finezas who were represented by Atty. Flores. ISSUE: The issue in this case is whether respondent Atty. Romeo M. Flores violated Canons 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Regarding the Finezas' Petition for Relief from Judgment, Atty. Flores alleges that he only assisted in the filing of the Petition. 40 He could not act as counsel because he had "no personal knowledge as to when the [Finezas] learned . . . of the denial of the Motion for Reconsideration." Atty. Flores also argues that he did not violate Canon 18 because in another case, 42 which also involved Atty. Francisco and the Finezas, he was able to prevent the demolition of the Finezas' family home.43 The Commission on Bar Discipline recommended that Atty. Flores be found guilty of violating Rules 10.01 and 10.03 of Canon 10. The Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines adopted and approved the said Report and Recommendation. However, the Board of Governors Resolution is also silent on the issue of whether Atty. Flores violated Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING: Respondent is guilty of violating Canon 10, Rule 10.01 when Respondent did not state the exact date when he received a copy of the Motion for Issuance of a Writ of Execution. The record shows that he received it on June 3, 2009. 74 Respondent then alleges that he immediately informed the Finezas about the matter, but later on contradicted himself when he stated "that he has no personal knowledge as to when the Fineza[s] learned or had knowledge of the denial of the Motion for Reconsideration." 75

Respondent's statement that he had no knowledge when the Finezas learned about the denial of their Motion for Reconsideration is also contradicted by the Finezas' allegations in their Petition for Relief. A.C. No. 7618, February 02, 2016 SPOUSES JONATHAN AND ESTER LOPEZ, Complainants, v. ATTY. SINAMAR E. LIMOS, Respondent. FACTS: Complainants filed a disbarment case on Atty. Limos for violation of 18.03 of the CPR, as she neglected the legal matter entrusted to her by not filing the adoption case - for almost a year until complainants finally withdrew their documents from respondent and opted to have the filing of the case handled by another lawyer. Worse, respondent refused to return the amount of P75,000.00 representing legal fees paid by complainants to her. ISSUE: Whether or not respondent should be held administratively liable for violating the Rule 18.03 of the CPR, HELD: Respondent's acts constitute a flagrant violation of Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the CPR, to wit: Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. Once a lawyer takes up the cause of his client, he is duty-bound to serve the latter with competence, and to attend to such client's cause with diligence, care, and devotion whether he accepts it for a fee or for free. He owes fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed upon him. Therefore, a lawyer's neglect of a legal matter entrusted to him by his client constitutes inexcusable negligence for which he must be held administratively liable, as in this case. A.C. No. 5325, February 09, 2016 NEMESIO FLORAN AND CARIDAD FLORAN, Complainants, v. ATTY. ROY PRULE EDIZA, Respondent. FACTS Atty. Ediza's liability stemmed from a Complaint/Affidavit 1 dated 8 September 2000 filed by the spouses Nemesio and Caridad Floran (complainants). The subject of the complaint was a 3.5525 hectare parcel of unregistered land located in San Martin, Villanueva, Misamis Oriental, which was covered by a tax declaration in the name of Sartiga Epal, a relative, who gave the property to complainants. From the records, the Court found that Atty. Ediza deceived

complainants when he asked them to unknowingly sign a deed of sale transferring a portion of their land to him. When the sale of complainants' land pushed through, Atty. Ediza received half of the amount of the proceeds given by the buyer and falsely misled complainants into thinking that he would register, using the same proceeds, the remaining portion of their land. These actions, which deprived complainants of their property, showed Atty. Ediza's behavior as unbecoming a member of the legal profession. ISSUE: WON Atty. is guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility especially Canon 12 Rule 12.04? In the present case, Atty. Ediza had previously been found guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility and was suspended from the practice of law for six months. Despite the suspension, Atty. Ediza is once again demonstrating to this Court that not only is he unfit to stay in the legal profession for failing to protect the interests of his clients but is also remiss in following the dictates of the Court, which has administrative supervision over him. In Martinez v. Zoleta,12 we held that the Court should not and will not tolerate future indifference to administrative complaints and to resolutions requiring comment on such administrative complaints. It bears stressing that a disregard of Court directives constitutes grave or serious misconduct13 and gross or willful insubordination 14which warrant disciplinary sanction by this Court.15 The practice of law is not a vested right but a privilege, a privilege clothed with public interest because a lawyer owes substantial duties not only to his client, but also to his brethren in the profession, to the courts, and to the nation, and takes part in one of the most important functions of the State - the administration of justice - as an officer of the court. 17 To enjoy the privileges of practicing law, lawyers must adhere to the rigid standards of mental fitness, maintain the highest degree of morality, and faithfully comply with the rules of the legal profession.18 Clearly, Atty. Ediza's conduct has made him unfit to remain in the legal profession.chanrobleslaw WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Roy Prule Ediza, having violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by committing grave misconduct and willful insubordination, is DISBARRED and his name ordered STRICKEN OFF the Roll of Attorneys effective immediately.This Decision is immediately executory. A.C. No. 10605, February 17, 2016 BIENVENIDO T. CANLAPAN, Complainant, v. ATTY. WILLIAM B. BALAYO, Respondent. A.C. No. 10945 (Formerly CBD 09-2507), February 23, 2016 ANGELITO RAMISCAL AND MERCEDES ORZAME, Complainants, v. ATTY. EDGAR S. ORRO, Respondent. Facts: The respondent did not inform the Ramiscals of the adverse decision of the CA which they only learned about from their neighbors.. They endeavored to communicate with the respondent but

their efforts were initially in vain. When they finally reached him, he asked an additional P7,000.00 from them as his fee in filing a motion for reconsideration in their behalf, albeit telling them that such motion would already be belated. . To their dismay, they later discovered that he did not file the motion for reconsideration; hence, the decision attained finality, eventually resulting in the loss of their property measuring 8.479 hectares with a probable worth of P3,391,600.00

Issue: WON the respondent did not competently and diligently discharge his duties as the lawyer of the Ramiscal

Held

Every lawyer, upon becoming a member of the Philippine Bar, solemnly takes the Lawyer’s Oath, by which he vows, among others, that: “I will delay no man for money or malice, and will conduct myself as a lawyer according to the best of my knowledge and discretion, with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to my clients.” If he should violate the vow, he contravenes the Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly its Canon 17, and Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of Canon 18, viz.: CANON 17 - A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. CANON 18 – A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.Rule 18.03 – A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. Rule 18.04 – A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client's request for information. A.C. No. 8037, February 17, 2016 RE: DECISION DATED AUGUST 19, 2008, 3RD DIVISION, COURT OF APPEALS IN CAG.R. SP NO. 79904 [HON. DIONISIO DONATO T. GARCIANO, ET AL. V. HON. PATERNO G. TIAMSON, ETC., ET AL.], Petitioner, v. ATTY. JOSE DE G. FERRER, Respondent. Facts: The Court of Appeals found that Garciano, et al., through Atty. Ferrer, filed two Petitions for Certiorari successively. It also held that the withdrawal of the First Petition was "intended to camouflage the glaring and blatant irregularity committed" by Garciano, et al. through their counsel. If the withdrawal was, indeed, impelled by the lack of verification of the other petitioners in the First Petition, then Garciano, et al. should have called the attention of the Eleventh Division instead of filing the Second Petition. 39 The Court of Appeals held that when the Second Petition was filed (and the existence of the First Petition concealed), forum shopping had already been committed.

Ruling: There is forum shopping "when a party repetitively avails of several judicial remedies in different courts, simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded on the same transactions and the same essential facts and circumstances, and all raising substantially the same issues either pending in or already resolved adversely by some other court." Forum shopping can be committed in three ways: (1) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and with the same prayer, the previous case not having been resolved yet (where the ground for dismissal is litis pendentia); (2) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and the same prayer, the previous case having been finally resolved (where the ground for dismissal is res judicata); and (3) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action, but with different prayers (splitting causes of action, where the ground for dismissal is also either litis pendentia or res judicata). A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client, but not at the expense of truth and the administration of justice. The filing of multiple petitions constitutes abuse of the court's processes and improper conduct that tends to impede, obstruct and degrade the administration of justice and will be punished as contempt of court. Needless to state, the lawyer who files such multiple or repetitious petitions (which obviously delays the execution of a final and executory judgment) subjects himself to disciplinary action for incompetence (for not knowing any better) or for willful violation of his duties as an attorney to act with all good fidelity to the courts, and to maintain only such actions as appear to him to be just and are consistent with truth and honor. Atty. Jose De G. Ferrer is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months for engaging in forum shopping. A.C. No. 7594, February 09, 2016 ADELPHA E. MALABED, Complainant, v. ATTY. MELJOHN B. DE LA PEÑA, Respondent. This case is an administrative complaint filed by Adelpha E. Malabed (complainant) against Atty. Meljohn B. De la Peña (respondent) for dishonesty and grave misconduct. The complainant claimed that the Certificate to File Action in the complaint filed by respondent refers to a different complaint that is the complaint filed by complainant's brother against Fortunato Jadulco. In effect, there was no Certificate to File Action, which is required for the filing of a civil action, in the complaint filed by respondent on behalf of his client Fortunato Jadulco. Morever, the complainant also alleged that respondent did not furnish her counsel with a copy of the free patent covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 1730, but respondent forwarded a copy to the Court of Appeals. Complainant claimed that she could not properly defend herself without a copy of the title. She further claimed that the title presented by respondent was fabricated.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent is guilty of dishonesty and grave misconduct RULING: The court finds the respondent has committed gross misconduct for (1) misrepresenting that he submitted a certificate to file action issued by the Lupon Tagapamayapa when in fact there was none prior to the institution of the civil action of his client, Fortunato Jadulco, in Civil Case No. B-1118; (2) using improper language in his pleadings; and (3) defying willfully the Court's prohibition on reemployment in any government office as accessory penalty of his dismissal as a judge. Gross misconduct is defined as "improper or wrong conduct, the transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and implies a wrongful intent and not a mere error in judgment."chanIn view of respondent's repeated gross misconduct, the court increased the IBP's recommended penalty to suspension from the practice of law for two (2) years. A.C. No. 9807, February 02, 2016 ERLINDA SISTUAL, FLORDELISA S. LEYSA, LEONISA S. ESPABO AND ARLAN C. SISTUAL, Complainants, v. ATTY. ELIORDO OGENA, Respondent. Facts Complainant alleged that Respondent unlawfully and feloniously falsified several documents which resulted to cancellation of complainant’s late father TCT and made it appear that these lots were sold to interested buyers. Issue Whether or not Atty. Ogena violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice Ruling Yes, he violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice specifically Rule IV, Section 2(b), which provides that a person shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as signatory to the instrument or document – (1) is not in the notary's presence personally at the time of the notarization; and (2) is not personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules. Doubtless, Atty. Ogena was negligent in the performance of his duty as a notary public. He failed to require the personal presence of the signatories of the documents and proceeded to notarize the aforementioned documents without the signatures of all the parties. Likewise, Atty. Ogena failed to comply with the most basic function that a notary public must do - to require the parties to present their residence certificates or any other document to prove their identities. He should be suspended for two (2) years from the practice of law and forever barred from becoming a notary public. A.C. No. 10483, March 18, 2016 THE CHRISTIAN SPIRITISTS IN THE PHILIPPINES, INC., PICO LOCAL CENTER, REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, EDWIN A. PANTE, Complainant, v. ATTY.

DANIEL D. MANGALLAY, Respondent. This administrative case against the respondent attorney did not arise from any attorney-client relationship gone wrong between the parties but from the ejectment action in which the respondent attorney, as the plaintiff, successfully defeated the local congregation of the Christian Spiritists in the Philippines, Inc., Pico Local Center (CSP-PLC), whose church building and other structures were the objects of the action. After the defendants filed their notice of appeal, the parties agreed to settle among themselves, with the defendants withdrawing the notice of appeal and agreeing to voluntarily vacate and remove their structures by August 31, 2013 in consideration of the respondent's financial assistance of P300,000.00. But, despite receiving the respondent's financial assistance, the defendants reneged on their end of the agreement; hence, at the respondent's instance, the trial court issued the writ of execution and the writ of demolition, by virtue of which the structures of the defendants were ultimately demolished. The demolition impelled the CSP-PLC, represented by its local Minister, Edwin A. Pante (Pante), to bring the disbarment complaint against the respondent based on his allegedly gross misconduct and deceit in causing the demolition of the structures without the demolition order from the court, violation of the Lawyer's Oath, and disobedience to a lawful order of the court, positing that he thereby abused his legal knowledge. Issue: Whether or not atty mangallay committed gross misconduct and deceit in causing the demolition of the structures with the demolition order from the court, violation of the Lawyer's Oath, and disobedience to a lawful order of the court, positing that he thereby abused his legal knowledge. Held: No, demolition was authorized by the order issued by the MTC on December 19, 2013. 18 In the execution of the final and executory decision in Civil Case No. R-1256, the sheriffs dutifully discharged their functions. The complainant was then represented by Pante and some other members of the congregation, who did not manifest any resistance' or objection to any irregularity in the conduct of the execution. After all, elements of the Philippine National Police were also present to ensure the peaceful implementation of the writ of execution. The Court DISMISSES the complaint for disbarment against Atty. Daniel Dazon Mangallay for its utter lack of merit. A.C. No. 10543, March 16, 2016 NENITA D. SANCHEZ, Petitioner, v. ATTY. ROMEO G. AGUILOS, Respondent.

A.C. No. 7110, April 20, 2016 ARTHUR S. TULIO, Complainant, v. ATTY. GREGORY F. BUHANGIN, Respondent. Facts: Petitioner sought his legal advice concerning a property owned by his mother who was then transferred in the names of third parties. Respondent prepared and notarized a Deed of Waiver of Rights signed by all of his siblings in his favor. Thereafter, petitioner engaged the services of respondent to represent him in filing a case for specific performance and damages. To petitioner’s surprise, respondent was the counsel of his siblings concerning the same subject property, filed a rescission of the waiver of rights that the Respondent himself prepared and notarized. Petitioner filed a motion to disqualify him. Subsequently, respondent filed a petition as counsel for the siblings of the petitioner for conflict of interest. Issue: Whether or not the respondent violated the Lawyer’s Oath and Code of Professional Responsibility Ruling: The court ruled, respondent Atty. Gregory F. Buhangin is hereby held GUILTY of representing conflicting interests in violation of Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, he is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months, with a WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future will be dealt with more severely. A.C. No. 8172, April 12, 2016 ALEX NULADA, Complainant, v. ATTY. ORLANDO S. PAULMA, Respondent. Facts: On September 30, 2005 complainant alleged that, respondent issued in his favor a check in the amount of P650,000.00 as payment for the latter's debt. Because of respondent's standing as a respected member of the community of the Municipality of Miagao, Province of Iloilo, complainant accepted the check without question. Unfortunately, when he presented the check for payment, it was dishonored due to insufficient fluids. Respondent failed to make good the amount of the check despite notice of dishonor and repeated demands, prompting complainant to file a criminal complaint for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang (BP) 22 against him, before the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor, Province of Iloilo, docketed as I.S. No. 2006-637, which issued a Resolution dated May 26, 2006 recommending the filing of the appropriate information against respondent before the Municipal Trial Court of Miagao, Province of Iloilo (MTC). Subsequently, said information was docketed as Criminal Case No. 2604. After due proceedings, the MTC rendered a Decision dated October 30, 2008 finding respondent guilty of violation of BP 22 and ordering him to pay the amount of P150,000.00 as fine, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of failure to pay. Respondent was also ordered to

pay the amount representing the checks, appearance and attorney’s fees. In his defense, respondent denied that he committed dishonesty against complainant, as prior to September 30, 2005, he informed the latter that there were insufficient funds to cover the amount of the check. Respondent claimed that he merely issued the check in order to accommodate a friend in whose favor he obtained the loan, stressing that he did not personally benefit from the proceeds thereof. Respondent appealed his conviction to the Regional Trial Court of Guimbal Iloilo Branch 67 if which it affirmed in toto the MTC ruling and which became final and executory on April 16 2009. Thereafter, the Court, in its Resolution dated November 14, 2011, referred this administrative case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for its investigation, report, and recommendation, which subsequently suspend respondent from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years for having violated the lawyer's oath and the CPR, as well as for having been found guilty of a crime involving moral turpitude. Issue: WON respondent should be administratively disciplined for having been found guilty of a crime involving moral turpitude. Ruling: Yes, The Court sustains the findings and conclusions of the CBD of the IBP, as approved, adopted, and modified by the IBP Board of Governors. Clearly, the issuance of worthless checks in violation of BP Blg. 22 indicates a lawyer's unfitness for the trust and confidence reposed on him, shows such lack of personal honesty and good moral character as to render him unworthy of public confidence, and constitutes a ground for disciplinary action. In this case, respondent's conviction for violation of BP 22, a crime involving moral turpitude, had been indubitably established. Such conviction has, in fact, already become final. Consequently, respondent violated the lawyer's oath, as well as Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the CPR, as aptly found by the IBP and, thus, must be subjected to disciplinary action. In Heenan v. Espejo, the Court suspended therein respondent from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years when the latter issued checks which were dishonored due to insufficiency of funds. As a final word, it should be emphasized that membership in the legal profession is a privilege burdened with conditions. A lawyer is required to observe the law and be mindful of his or her actions whether acting in a public or private capacity. WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Orlando S. Paulma is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years, effective upon his receipt of this Resolution. He is warned that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely. A.C. No. 10677, April 18, 2016 RUDENIA L. TIBURDO, Complainant, v. ATTY. BENIGNO M. PUNO, Respondent.

FACTS: On June 04, 2010, Tiburdo filed her complaint-affidavit for the disbarment of Atty. Puno alleging that Atty. Puno intentionally and deliberately failed to submit the affidavit of publication to cause great damage and prejudiced Marquard his previous client. Furthermore Atty. Puno failed to inform her and Marqauard of the dismissal of the Civil Case despite receipt of the order containing the such dismissal.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent’s negligence tantamount to grave misconduct?

RULLING: The pieces of evidence presented by the complainant clearly and convincingly proved that the respondent act of continuously ignoring the direct orders of the trial court despite repeated demands is evocative of gross misconduct. Furthermore the Code of Professional responsibility clearly mandates for every lawyer to “serve their client with competence and diligence.”Respondent was suspended from the practice of law for one (1) year. A.C. No. 10781 [Formerly CBD Case No. 10-2764], April 12, 2016 COBALT RESOURCES, INC., Complainant, v. ATTY. RONALD AGUADO, Respondent. FACTS: This is an administrative complaint for disbarment filed by Cobalt Resources, Inc. against respondent Atty. Ronald C. Aguado before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for violation of Rules 1.01 and 1.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the lawyer's oath. CRI alleged that a group of armed men, clad in vests bearing the mark “PASG” and pretending to be agents of the Presidential Anti-Smuggling Group (PASG), hijacked its delivery van which was then loaded with cellular phones worth P1.3 million. The PNP- CIDU tracked down the location of the cellular phones and in the said location they found 3 cars parked one of which is owned by Atty Aguado. It was found that it was Atty. Aguado who prepared the fake mission order and masterminded the crime as he was the one who conceived it and laid down the nitty-gritty details of its execution and that it was he who recruited the armed men who actually executed the hijacking. Eventually, two separate Informations for Robbery and Carnapping were filed against Atty. Aguado and several others. The IBP directed Atty. Aguado to submit his answer but, despite several extensions, he failed to do so. The IBP then set the case for mandatory conference. In his Conference Brief, Atty. Aguado denied the allegations. CRI filed a motion for reconsideration praying that a new resolution ordering the disbarment of Atty. Aguado be issued. CRI claimed that Atty. Aguado deserved the ultimate penalty of disbarment as the falsification of public documents was sufficiently established and, as the CBD knew, he masterminded the hijacking using his profession to

commit the crime. Atty. Aguado asserted that this case should, at the very least, be suspended pending the resolution of the robbery and carnapping charges against him. ISSUE: Whether or not disbarment case can be suspended due to a pending criminal cases filed against the respondent. HELD: The Court finds merit in the petition of CRI. It must be emphasized that a disbarment proceeding, being administrative in nature, is separate and distinct from a criminal action filed against a lawyer and they may proceed independently of each other. A finding of guilt in the criminal case does not necessarily mean a finding of liability in the administrative case. In the same way, the dismissal of a criminal case on the ground of insufficiency of evidence against an accused, who is also a respondent in an administrative case, does not necessarily exculpate him administratively because the quantum of evidence required is different. In criminal cases, proof beyond reasonable doubt is required. In administrative cases for disbarment or suspension against lawyers, the quantum of proof required is clearly preponderant evidence and the burden of proof rests upon the complainant. WHEREFORE, Atty. Ronald C. Aguado is DISBARRED for gross misconduct and violation of Rules 1.01 and 1.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and his name is ordered STRICKEN OFF the roll of attorneys. A.C. No. 11128, April 06, 2016 PEDRO RAMOS, Complainant, v. ATTY. MARIA NYMPHA C. MANDAGAN, Respondent. Ramos alleged that Atty. Mandagan demanded from him the amount of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00) in connection with the criminal case filed against him for murder before the Sandiganbayan. According to Ramos, the P300,000.00 shall be used as bail bond in the event that his petition for bail in the said criminal case is granted. Also, Atty. Mandagan collected an additional amount of Ten Thousand Pesos ( ₱10,000.00) for operating expenses. In both instances, an Acknowledgment Receipt was issued in his favor as proof of payment. Contrary to the assurance, however, of Atty. Mandagan, Ramos’ petition for bail was denied by the Sandiganbayan. Moreover, Atty. Mandagan withdrew as his counsel without returning the amount of ₱300,000.00 despite the demand sent by Ramos’ counsel Ruling: Clearly, Atty. Mandagan failed to act in accordance with the rule stated in Canon 16 of the CPR, to wit: Canon 16. A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his possession.

Rule 16.01 A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from the client. Rule 16.03 A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon demand. Atty. Mandagan’s failure to make an accounting or to return the money to Ramos is a violation of the trust reposed on her. As a lawyer, Atty. Mandagan should be scrupulously careful in handling money entrusted to her in her professional capacity because the CPR exacts a high degree of fidelity and trust from members of the bar. Atty. Maria Nympha C. Mandagan is GUILTY of violating Canon 16, Rule 16.01 and Rule 16.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and SUSPENDS her from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year effective. A.C. No. 11139, April 19, 2016 PHILCOMSAT* HOLDINGS CORPORATION, DULY REPRESENTED BY ERLINDA I. BILDNER, Complainant, v. ATTY. LUIS K. LOKIN, JR. AND ATTY. SIKINI C. LABASTILLA, Respondents. Facts: The Complaint alleged that sometime in June 2007, the Senate, through its Committee on Government Corporations and Public Enterprises, conducted an investigation concerning the anomalies that plagued the PHILCOMSAT group of companies, which includes complainant, particularly in its huge disbursements of monies and/or assets. In the course of the said investigation, the Senate examined various financial records and documents of the company, which at that time, were under the control and management of Atty. Lokin, Jr. and his codirectors. Among the records examined by the Senate was an entry in complainant's checkbook stub which reads "Cash for Sandiganbayan, tro, potc-philcomsat case P2,000,000"3 (subject checkbook entry). It was then discovered that the check was issued in connection with complainant's injunction case against Philippine Overseas Telecommunications Corporation (POTC) before the Sandiganbayan, which was filed by Atty. Lokin, Jr.'s group, as its representatives, with Atty. Labastilla as its external counsel (POTC case). In his defense, Atty. Lokin, Jr. maintained that he did not perform acts violative of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), insisting that the Sandiganbayan's findings in the indirect contempt case were erroneous and contrary to the pertinent evidence and records. He likewise pointed out that the Sandiganbayan ruling was appealed - albeit not by him but by Atty. Labastilla - to the Court, i.e., G.R. No. 187699,11 which appeal remains unresolved.

Issue:

Whether or not respondents should be held administratively liable. Ruling: Yes, the respondents were liable for performing acts that undermined the integrity of the courts, such as the subject checkbook entry which contumaciously imputed corruption against the Sandiganbayan. It is their sworn duty as lawyers and officers of the court to uphold the dignity and authority of the courts. Respect for the courts guarantees the stability of the judicial institution; without this guarantee, the institution would be resting on very shaky foundations. 39 This is the very thrust of Canon 11 of the CPR, which provides that "[a] lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct by others." Furthermore, Canon 7 of the CPR commands every lawyer to "at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession" for the strength of the legal profession lies in the dignity and integrity of its members. It is every lawyer's duty to maintain the high regard to the profession by staying true to his oath and keeping his actions beyond reproach. WHEREFORE, respondents Atty. Luis K. Lokin, Jr. and Atty. Sikini C. Labastilla are found GUILTY of violating Canons 7 and 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, Atty. Luis K. Lokin, Jr. is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of three (3) years, while Atty. Sikini C. Labastilla is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year, effective upon the receipt of this Decision, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely. A.C. No. 9018, April 20, 2016 TERESITA P. FAJARDO, Complainant, v. ATTY. NICANOR C. ALVAREZ, Respondent. FACTS: Complainant Teresita P. Fajardo (Teresita) was the Municipal Treasurer of San Leonardo, Nueva Ecija. She hired respondent Atty. Nicanor C. Alvarez (Atty. Alvarez) to defend her in criminal and administrative cases before the Office of the Ombudsman. Atty. Alvarez was then working in the Legal Section of the National Center for Mental Health. Teresita hired Atty. Alvarez to handle several cases filed against her before the Office of the Ombudsman. He asked for P1,400,000.00 as acceptance fee. However, Atty. Alvarez did not enter his appearance before the Office of the Ombudsman nor sign any pleadings. Atty. Alvarez assured Teresita that he had friends connected with the Office of the Ombudsman who could help with dismissing her case for a certain fee. Atty. Alvarez said that he needed to pay the amount of P500,000.00 to his friends and acquaintances working at the Office of the Ombudsman to have the cases against Teresita dismissed. However, the Office of the Ombudsman issued a resolution and decision recommending the filing of a criminal complaint against Teresita, and her dismissal from service, respectively. Teresita then demanded that Atty. Alvarez return at least a portion of the amount she gave. Atty. Alvarez promised to return the amount to Teresita; however, he failed . ISSUES: 1)

Whether or not a lawyer working in the Legal Section of the National Center for Mental

Health under the Department of Health is authorized to privately practice law,

2) Whether the amount charged by respondent for attorney's fee is reasonable under the principle of quantum meruit RULING: By assisting and representing complainant in a suit against the Ombudsman and against government in general, respondent put himself in a situation of conflict of interest. While this Court is not a collection agency for faltering debtors, this Court has ordered restitution of amounts to complainants due to the erroneous actions of lawyers. Respondent is obliged to return back the 500,000php ,Respondent Atty. Nicanor C. Alvarez is guilty of violating the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, the Lawyer's Oath, and the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year with a WARNING .Respondent is ORDERED to return the amount of P500,000.00 with legal interest to complainant Teresita P. Fajardo. A.C. No. 10675, May 31, 2016 DATU ISMAEL MALANGAS, Complainant, v. ATTY. PAUL C. ZAIDE, Respondent. Facts: Complainant accused respondent lawyer of committing acts of dishonesty, breach of trust and violation of the canons of Judicial Ethics in relation to the complaint for damages against Paul Alfeche and NEMA for accident which he incurred expenses of 1.5 million in hospital bills and major operation but the latter remained crippled and bed ridden. Complainant sought the service of respondent to prosecute his complaint for damages and give him 20,000 as acceptance fee and 50,000 as filing fee in order to commence a 5 million damage suit caused by the accident but respondent failed to prosecute the complaint due to his failure to attend 2 hearings and submit a motion for reconsideration which resulted to dismissal of the case. And that only 250,000 was the amount filed by respondent and not 5 million as agreed. Issue: Whether or not respondent is guilty of violating the code? Held: Yes. Respondent is GUILTY of violating Rule 16.01 and 16.03 of the code of Professional Responsibility. Respondent is suspended from practice of law for 2 years and ordered to return the amount accepted. That the code demands the utmost degree of fidelity and good faith in dealing with money entrusted to a lawyer because of fiduciary relation. A.C. No. 10373 [Formerly CBD Case No. 08-2280], May 31, 2016 FLORA C. MARIANO, Petitioner, v. ATTY. ANSELMO ECHANEZ, Respondent. Facts: On August 25, 2008, Flora Mariano filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Anselmo Echanez for violation of the Notarial Law by performing notarial acts on documents without a notarial commission. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) ordered Atty. Echanez to submit his

answer to the complaint against him. But Atty. Anselmo Echanez failed to submit his answer. Issue: Is Atty. Alselmo Echanez liable for malpractice for notarizing documents without a notarial commission? Ruling: Yes. The Court has stressed that notarization is not an empty, meaningless and routine act. It is invested with substantive public interest that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. It must be emphasized that the act of notarization by a notary public converts a private document into a public document making that document admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity. A notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face, and for this reason, notaries public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of their duties. hanRoblesVirtualawrary

In the instant case, it is undisputable that Atty. Echanez performed notarial acts on several documents without a valid notarial commission. The fact of his lack of notarial commission at the time of the unauthorized notarizations was likewise sufficiently established by the certifications issued by the Executive Judges in the territory where Atty. Echanez performed the unauthorized notarial acts. Chab

Atty. Echanez's failure to attend the mandatory conference and to submit his Answer and Position paper without any valid explanation is enough reason to make him administratively liable since he is duty-bound to comply with all the lawful directives of the IBP, not only because he is a member thereof but more so because IBP is the Courtdesignated investigator of this case. As an officer of the Court, Atty. Echanez is expected to know that a resolution of this Court is not a mere request but an order which should be complied with promptly and completely. This is also true of the orders of the IBP. Roble sVirtualawlibrary

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Anselmo S. Echanez is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for two (2) years and BARRED PERMANENTLY from being commissioned as Notary Public, effective upon his receipt of a copy of this decision with a stern warning that a repetition of the same shall be dealt with severely. le sVirtuala wlibrary

A.C. No. 11069, June 08, 2016 RONALDO C. FACTURAN, Complainant, v. PROSECUTOR ALFREDO L. BARCELONA, JR., Respondent. Facts: The complainant alleged that on June 4, 2004 he filed a complaint for qualified thief against Pilar Mendoza and four (4) others. The complaint was docketed as I.S No. 04-211. It was then forwarded to the herein respondent A prosecutor Barcelona for approval. However, the failed to take necessary action for the complaint. Worst, he removed the record and brought to his home. Later it was found out that one of the accused was his relative. Issue: WON prosecutor Barcelona has violated the CPR? Held: The Supreme Court found Prosecutor Barcelona for violating Rule 6.02 Canon 6 of Code of Professional Responsibility. Therefore, he was suspended from the practice of law for one (1) year. He was also sternly warned to a more severe penalty for repeating the said act. Supreme Court said, the respondent obstinately and deliberately refuse to perform his duties which made the it advantage for the accused in I.S No. 4211. A.C. No. 11246, June 14, 2016

ARNOLD PACAO, Complainant, v. ATTY. SINAMAR LIMOS, Respondent. Facts

Complainant's wife Mariadel Pacao, former vault custodian of BHF Pawnshop (BHF) branch was charged with qualified theft by BHF. Atty. Limos, counsel for BHF and the complainant entered into a negotiation wherein Pacao should pay Php 530,000.00. Initial amount of P200,000.00 was actually paid. However, Limos failed to meet her undertakings. BHF's representative, Camille Bonifacio, informed him that Atty. Limos was no longer BHF's counsel and was not authorized to negotiate any settlement nor receive any money in behalf of BHF. The complainant also learned that BHF did not receive the P200,000.00 initial payment that he gave to Atty. Limos. Issue

Whether or not the instant disbarment complaint constitutes a sufficient basis to disbar Atty. Limos from the practice of law Ruling Yes, this is the third time the lawyer is facing administrative case. Doubtless, there is deceit and misrepresentation. It is not too farfetched for this Court to conclude that from the very beginning, Atty. Limos had planned to employ deceit on the complainant to get hold of a sum of money. Such a conduct is unbecoming and does not speak well of a member of the Bar. She violated Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court. Respondent Atty. Sinamar Limos is disbarred.

A.C. No. 9574, June 21, 2016 MYRNA M. DEVEZA, Complainant, v. ATTY. ALEXANDER M. DEL PRADO, Respondent. FACTS: Before the Court . Myrna M, Deveza (complainant) filed a disbarment case against respondent Atty. Alexander M. Del Prado (Atty. Del Prado) for dishonesty and for acts unbecoming a lawyer. Respondent, Alexander del Prado bought a land from the complainant which is located at Malvar St. Brgy. Camarin, Caloocan City with an area of 633.80 sq. m. covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 178828 for P1,500 per square meters on installment basis. To document the sale both parties executed a Contract to Sell wherein Atty. Del Prado took all the copies on the pretext that he will have the document notarized but he never gave a copy of the

said document to the complainant. Eventually, Atty. Del Prado defaulted in his obligation by leaving a balance of P 565,950. Consequently, complainant sent a demand letter to the respondent for the payment of the unpaid obligation and/or rescission of the sale. Upon receipt of the demand letter, respondent called respondent and told her to meet at Jollibee, Munoz Branch for him to pay the unpaid balance. Respondent likewise asked complainant to bring the title of the property. In the meeting, respondent brought a completely filled up Deed of Sale where he asked the complainant to sign it before he will give the full payment. Afterwich, Atty. Del Prado gave the complainant only P 5,000 and told her that the complete payment will be given once the document has been notarized. However, Atty. Del Prado never paid the balance of the purchase price for the lot he bought from the complainant. Worst, Atty. Del Prado used the Deed of Sale he made the complainant sign by means of fraud as evidence in the civil case filed by the complainant against him for the rescission of the contract that misled the court. In a Resolution dated September 3, 2012 the Court required Atty. Del Prado to comment on the complaint but he failed to do so. Thus, the Court issued a Resolution on November 18, 2013 to refer the complaint to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation, report and recommendation. When the mandatory conference was set only the counsel of the complainant appeared despite due notice was given to the respondent. Atty. Del Prado did not heed to the order of the IBP. The IBP issued its Report and Recommendation on September 2, 2014 stating that Atty. Del Prado’s failure to answer complaint despite notices and his continuous absence on the scheduled hearings shows his flouting resistance to the lawful orders of the court and illustrates his despciency for his oath of office as a lawyer. The IBP-CBD recommended that Atty. Del Prado be meter the penalty of suspension from practice of law and as member of the bar for a period of 2 years. In its Notice of Resolution No. XXI-2015-014, dated January 30, 2015, the IBP-Board of Governors adopted and approved with modification the report and recommendation of the CBD and suspended Atty. Del Prado from the practice of law for a period of five (5) years. The Court agrees with the findings and recommendation of the IBP. ISSUE: Whether or not respondent Atty. Alexander Del Prado is guilty of violating Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 and Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. HELD: Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility specifically mandates all lawyers to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the same code prescribes a lawyer from engaging in any unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. They should refrain from doing any act which might lessen in any degree the confidence and

trust reposed by the public profession.chanrobleslaw

in

the

fidelity, honesty and

integrity of

the

legal

In the present case, Atty. Del Prado committed an act which fell short of the standard of the norm of conduct required of every lawyer. He deceived the complainant by making her sign the deed of sale and making her believe that he would pay in full the balance of the purchase price after he had the document notarized. Complainant waited for Atty. Del Prado to make good his promise to pay but despite several demands, he continued reneging on his obligation which prompted her to file a case against him. Moreover, Atty. Del Prado wantonly disregarded the lawful orders of the Court and IBP-CBD to file his comment and position paper and to appear in the mandatory conference despite due notice. His continued defiance of the orders of the Court and the IBP-CBD is a deliberate and contemptuous affront on the court's authority which cannot be tolerated. Atty. Del Prado should bear in mind that he is a lawyer and an officer of the court who is duty bound to obey and respect the court processes. He must acknowledge, at all times, the orders of the Court and the IBP-CBD in deference to their authority over him as a member of the bar. Respondent Atty. Alexander Del Prado was found GUILTY of violating Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 and Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, hereby was suspended by the court from practice of law for Five (5) years effective upon receipt of the decision with a warning that a repetition of the same or a similar act will be dealt with more severely. A.C. No. 10465, June 08, 2016 SPOUSES LAMBERTO V. EUSTAQUIO AND GLORIA J. EUSTAQUIO, Complainants, v. ATTY. EDGAR R. NAVALES, Respondent. FACTS: Complainants alleged that they are the owners of an apartment located at 4-D Cavite St., Barangay Paltok, SFDM, Quezon City, which they leased to respondent under a Contract of Lease dated April 16, 2005. However, respondent violated the terms and conditions of the aforesaid contract when he failed to pay monthly rentals in the aggregate amount of P139,000.00 and to vacate the leased premises despite repeated oral and written demands. This prompted complainants to refer the matter to barangay conciliation, where the parties agreed on an amicable settlement, whereby respondent promised to pay complainants the amount of P131,000.00 on July 16, 2009 and to vacate the leased premises on July 31, 2009. Respondent eventually reneged on his obligations under the settlement agreement, constraining complainants to file an ejectment case against him before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Quezon City, Branch 40 (MeTC-Br. 40), docketed as Civil Case No. 09-39689. Further, complainants filed the instant case before the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), contending that respondent miserably failed to exemplify honesty, integrity, and respect for the laws when he failed and refused to fulfil his obligations to complainants. Despite notices, respondent failed to file his Answer, to appear in the mandatory conference, and to file his position paper. Meanwhile, the MeTC-Br. 40 promulgated a Decision dated December 8, 2009 in the ejectment case in favor of the complainants and, accordingly, ordered respondent to vacate the leased premises and to pay complainants the following amounts: (a) P139,000.00 representing unpaid rentals as of

July 2009; (b) further rental payments of P8,000.00 per month starting August 17, 2009 until the actual surrender of said premises to complainants; (c) attorney's fees in the amount of P20,000.00; and (d) cost of suit. During the pendency of the case, respondent was appointed as an Assistant City Public Prosecutor of Quezon City. ISSUE: Whether or not respondent should be held administratively liable. RULING: In the instant case, the OBC correctly pointed out that the Court's Resolution dated September 15, 2014 suspending respondent from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months became final and executory fifteen (15) days after respondent received a copy of the same on October 16, 2014. Thus, respondent should have already commenced serving his six (6)-month suspension. However, respondent never heeded the suspension order against him as he continued discharging his functions as an Assistant City Prosecutor for Quezon City, as evidenced by the Certification issued by MeTC-Br. 38 stating that respondent has been appearing before it as an Assistant City Prosecutor since September 2014 up to the present. Verily, a plain reading of the foregoing provision evidently shows that the government office of Assistant City Prosecutor requires its holder to be authorized to practice law. Hence, respondent's continuous discharge of his functions as such constitutes practice of law and, thus, a clear defiance of the Court's order of suspension against him. As a final note, it must be stressed that "[d]isbarment of lawyers is a proceeding that aims to purge the law profession of unworthy members of the bar. It is intended to preserve the nobility and honor of the legal profession. While the Supreme Court has the plenary power to discipline erring lawyers through this kind of proceedings, it does so in the most vigilant manner so as not to frustrate its preservative principle. The Court, in the exercise of its sound judicial discretion, is inclined to impose a less severe punishment if, through it, the end desire of reforming the errant lawyer is possible."[32] WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Edgar R. Navales is found GUILTY of violating Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. Accordingly, he is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for an additional period of six (6) months from his original six (6)-month suspension, totalling one (1) year from service of this Decision, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.

A.C. No. 9871, June 29, 2016 IN RE: A.M. NO. 04-7-373-RTC [REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 60, BARILI, CEBU] AND A.M. NO. 04-7-374-RTC [VIOLATION OF JUDGE ILDEFONSO SUERTE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 60, BARILI, CEBU OF ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 36-2004 DATED MARCH 3, 2004],

PROSECUTOR MARY ANN T. CASTRO-ROA, Respondent. FACTS: Castro-Roa filed a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage (First Petition) on the ground of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code. RTC Branch 56 granted the First Petition, and declared the marriage between Castro-Roa and her husband null and void by reason of psychological incapacity. The RTC Decision was, however, appealed by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) to the Court of Appeals (CA). However, despite the pendency of Castro-Roa's Motion to Dismiss (First) Petition, she filed a Petition for Annulment of Marriage (Second Petition). The Second Petition was grounded on fraud through the concealment of drug addiction and habitual alcoholism under Article 45 (3) in relation to Article 46 of the Family Code. In this Second Petition, Castro-Roa failed to mention the pendency of the First Petition in the Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping. Alter due proceedings, the Board of Governors of the IBP (IBP Board) finding Castro-Roa guilty of violating Canon 1, Canon 10, Rule 1.02, Rule 7.03, Rule 10.01, Rule 10.03 and Rule 12.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The IBP Board recommended her suspension from the practice of law for a period of one year. The IBP Board also ruled that there was forum shopping because the elements of litis pendentia are present.

ISSUES: (1)Whether Castro-Roa committed forum shopping; (2) Whether such act deserves the penalty of suspension from the practice of law.

and

HELD: Forum shopping can be committed in three ways, namely: (1) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and with the same prayer, the previous case not having been resolved yet (litis pendentia); (2) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and the same prayer, the previous case having been finally resolved (res judicata); or (3) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action but with different prayers (splitting of causes of action, where the ground for dismissal is also either litis pendentia or res judicata). We find that Castro-Roa committed forum shopping of the third kind. Forum shopping can occur although the actions seem to be different, when it can be seen that there is a splitting of a cause of action. Section 47 (b) of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court embodies the concept of res judicata as "bar by prior judgment" or "estoppel by verdict," which is the effect of a judgment as a bar to the prosecution of a second action upon the same claim, demand or cause of action. There is no distinction as to whether the transgression is committed in a lawyer's private life or in his professional capacity, for a lawyer may not divide his personality as an attorney at one time and a mere citizen at another. Also, Castro-Roa violated Rule 12.02 of the Code of

Professional Responsibility. Filing multiple actions contravenes such duty because it does not only clog the court dockets, but also takes the courts' time and resources from other cases. WHEREFORE, Prosecutor Mary Ann T. Castro-Roa is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months, effective upon the receipt of this Decision. She is warned that a repetition of a similar act will be dealt with more severely. A.C. No. 7330, June 14, 2016 JUDGE GREGORIO D. PANTANOSAS, JR., Complainant, v. ATTY. ELLY L. PAMATONG, Respondent. FACTS Atty Pamatong was appearing as counselin a civil case heard in the court of petitioner, Judge Gregorio Panatanosas. During one hearing, petitioner Judge had supposedly asked respondent to remove his copia (headwear worn by Muslims) while inside the courtroom, to which respondent demurred citing religious grounds and embarrassment because of his 'bald pate.' Petitioner Judge obliged but with the warning that he would no longer allow it the next time. Pamatong then filed a motion for inhibition where he "excoriated" the judge for supposedly being corrupt. "In my 30 years of law practice, I never encountered a judge who appears to be as corrupt as you are, thereby giving me the impression that you are a disgrace to the judicial system of the land who does not deserve to be a member of the Philippine Bar at all," a part of the lawyer's motion read. Pantanosas refuted all of Pamatong's allegations and denied his motion for inhibition. He also filed a disbarment complaint against the lawyer before the SC, citing the language he used in his motion. ISSUE Whether or not Atty Pamatong violated the lawyers oath and Code of Professional Responsibility on his statement towards Judge Pantanosas? RULING It was recommended that respondent violated the lawyer's oath and breach of ethics of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility. It cannot be overemphasized that it is the sworn duty of a lawyer to maintain towards the Courts a respectful attitude, "not for the sake of the temporary incumbent of the judicial office, but for the maintenance of its supreme importance."43 It is precisely for this reason that the Lawyer's Oath enjoins all members of the bar to conduct themselves with good fidelity towards the courts 44 in

order not to erode the faith and trust of the public in the judiciary. They find it befitting to reiterate that lawyers have the right, both as an officer of the court and as a citizen, to criticize in properly respectful terms and through legitimate channels the acts of courts and judges. However, closely linked to such rule is the cardinal condition that criticisms, no matter how truthful, shall not spill over the walls of decency and propriety. To that end, the duty of a lawyer to his client's success is wholly subordinate to the administration of justice.anRoblesVirtualawlibrary Atty. Elly L. Pamatong was SUSPEND from the practice of law for two (2) years effective upon finality of this Decision and was STERNLY WARN that a repetition of the same or similar infraction shall merit a more severe sanction.

A.C. No. 11316, July 12, 2016 PATRICK A. CARONAN, Complainant, v. RICHARD A. CARONAN A.K.A. "ATTY. PATRICK A. CARONAN," Respondent. FACTS: A disbarment case was filed by complainant Patrick A. Caronan against his brother and respondent "Atty. Patrick A. Caronan," whose real name is allegedly Richard A. Caronan, for purportedly assuming complainant's identity and falsely representing that the former has the required educational qualifications to take the Bar Examinations and be admitted to the practice of law. ISSUE: Whether or not the (a) the name "Patrick A. Caronan" be stricken off the Roll of Attorneys; and (b) the name "Richard A. Caronan" be barred from being admitted to the Bar. HELD: The court found the respondent Richard A. Caronan a.k.a. "Atty. Patrick A. Caronan" GUILTY of falsely assuming the name, identity, and academic records of complainant Patrick A. Caronan to obtain a law degree and take the Bar Examinations. The court ordered that respondent be barred from admission to the Bar. Under Section 6, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, no applicant for admission to the Bar Examination shall be admitted unless he had pursued and satisfactorily completed a pre-law course. A.C. No. 5951, July 12, 2016 JUTTA KRURSEL, Complainant, v. ATTY. LORENZA A. ABION, Respondent.

FACTS: In a verified Complaint,1 filed on January 23, 2003, complainant Jutta Krursel, a German national, charges respondent Atty. Lorenza A. Abion with forgery, swindling, and falsification of a public document. She asks that respondent be disbarred. Complainant alleges that she engaged the services of respondent to assist her in filing a case against Robinsons Savings Bank - Ermita Branch land its officers, in relation to the bank's illegal withholding/blocking of her account. 3chanrobleslaw In March 2002, respondent filed, on complainant's behalf, a complaint against Robinsons Savings Bank and its officers before the Monetary Board I of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas for "Conducting Business in an Unsafe and Unsound Manner in violation of Republic Act No. 8791[.]"4chanrobleslawWithout complainant's knowledge, respondent withdrew the complaint with prejudice through a letter5dated April 15, 2002 addressed to I the Monetary Board. Complainant claims that respondent forged her signature and that of a certain William Randeli Coleman (Coleman) in the letter.6 She adds that she never authorized nor acceded to respondent's withdrawal of the complaint. 7chanroble Again, complainant claims that the signatures were forged.11 She denies ever having executed a special power of attorney for respondent.12chanrobleslaw slaw ISSUE: Whether or not respondent should be disbarred for committing forgery, falsification, and swindling. Whethe or not respondent's acts amount to deceit, malpractice, or gross misconduct in office as an attorney RULING: Respondent committed serious acts of deceit in: (1) withdrawing the complaint with prejudice, without the knowledge and consent of complainant; and (2) forging complainant's signature or causing her signature to be forged in the April 15, 2002 letter, thus making it appear that complainant conformed to the withdrawal of the complaint. Respondent's acts amount to deceit, malpractice, or gross misconduct in office as an attorney.60 She violated her oath to "do no falsehood" 61 and to "conduct [her] self as a lawyer . . . with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to; [her] clients." 62 She also violated the following provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. CANON 7. A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR.

Rule 7.03 — A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession. CANON 15. A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND LOYALTY IN ALL HIS DEALINGS AND TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS CLIENT. CANON 17. A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE OF HIS CLIENT AND HE SHALL BE MINDFUL OF THE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM. CANON 18. A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE. Aside from defrauding her client, respondent recklessly put Arty. Soriano's career in jeopardy by fabricating an order, thus making a mockery of the judicial system. That a lawyer is not merely a professional but also an officer of the court cannot be overemphasized. She owes the courts of justice and its judicial officers utmost respect. 63 Her conduct degrades the administration of justice and weakens the people faith in the judicial system. She inexorably besmirched the entire legal profession. This Court finds respondent Arty. Lorenza A. Abion GUILTY of gross misconduct in violation of the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. She is hereby DISBARRED from the practice of law. The Office of the Bar Confidant is DIRECTED to remove the name of Lorenza A. Abion from the Roll of Attorneys. A.C. No. 10117, July 25, 2016 IN RE: RESOLUTION DATED AUGUST 14, 2013 OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IN CAPRESENT: GR.CV NO. 94656, v. ATTY. GIDEON D.V. MORTEL, Respondent. Facts: On July 20, 2010, the C.A. Issued a Notice for Atty. Mortel to file an appellant’s brief on behalf of his client, Angelita De Jesus, within the regulatory period of 45 days from notice. Now it just so happened that Atty. Mortel recently moved out of his office at Herrera Tower, Makati City due to high cost of maintenance. While looking for a new office, he requested to use the address of his friend's law firm as his address on record for the Bank of the Philippine Islands, which was also granted by his friend, Atty. Marcelino Ferdinand V. Jose, on August 2010. And so Atty. Mortel's address was listed as Unit 2106, Phil AXA Life Center, 1286 Sen. Gil Puyat Ave; Makati City, the same address as MFV Jose Law Office (his friend's law office). Any communication, court address to MFV Jose Law Office were received by the law firm's staff, then passed to the desk of Atty. Jose for monitoring and checking. Atty. Jose would forward these to the handling lawyer in the office. The law firm's messenger, Randy G. Lucero was tasked with informing Atty. Mortel whenever there was a resolution or order pertinent to Bank of Philippine Islands. Initially, Randy de Leon, Atty. Mortel's messenger went to MFV Law office to inquire if it had received notices for Atty. Mortel. Since none came at that time, de Leon left his number with Lucero. The two agreed that Lucero would text de Leon, should any court notice or order for Atty. Mortel arrive.

On August 16, 2010; instead of heeding the Court of Appeal's Notice to file the appellant’s brief, Atty. Mortel moved to withdraw Angelita de Jesus' appeal. After which, he stopped communicating with MFV Law Office and instructed de Leon to do the same. On September 20, 2010; the C.A. Directed respondent to secure and submit Angelita de Jesus' (his client) written conformity to the Motion to Withdraw Appeal within five days from notice, which respondent failed to comply. On November 11, 2010, C.A. Again directed Atty. Mortel to comply with the September 20, 2010 Resolution, warning him of disciplinary action if he fails to secure and submit Angelita de Jesus' written conformity to the motion within the regalement period, but Atty. Mortel didn't comply. Thus, on February 23, 2011, C.A. Resolved to deny the motion to withdraw appeal, reiterating the notice dated July 20, 2010, directing respondent's client to file appellant’s brief within 45 days from notice and directing respondent to show cause why he should not be cited in contempt for non-compliance with the court's order, but he did not comply. By February 23, 2011, Resolution was sent to Angelita de Jesus' recorded address; but it was returned with the notion “move out” on the envelope. So on March 28, 2011, the C.A. Resolved to direct Atty. Mortel to furnish it with his client's complete present address, within 10 days from notice, but Mortel again, did not comply. And despite C.A's effort of sending the same order to Atty. Mortel on July 5, 2011 and October 13, 2013, no response from him was sent to the C.A, nor was there any action taken by the respondent. On August 13, 2012, C.A. Resolved to order respondent to pay within 10 days from notice, the fine of ten thousand pesos imposed upon him under the May 16, 2012 Resolution, but still no response from him was ever received by the C.A. On April 26, 2013, C.A. Directed respondent to show cause on why he should not be suspended from the legal practice, for ignoring the May 16, 2012 Resolution, which fined him ten thousand pesos; but the same thing happened. And so the C.A sent a notice to MFV Jose Law Office, stating that he has been suspended from the legal service for 6 months, with a stern warning against repeating such actions. He was also directed to comply with the previous Resolutions of the C.A. On October 23, 2013; office of the bar confidant issued a report stating that it docketed the C.A's August 14, 2013 resolution as a regular administrative case against Atty. Mortel. In the resolution dated January 20, 2014 that Atty. Jose read the January 20, 2014 resolution which was meant for the respondent, and saw that respondent had been suspended by the C.A. So he immediately tried looking for the respondent's new contact number from a mutual friend, until he was able to get in touched with him. He then asked his messenger, Mr. Lucero as to why the resolutions were not forwarded to Atty. Mortel. Lucero answered that he would usually text de Leon, Atty. Mortel's messenger whenever there was an order or resolution pertinent to the case; but de Leon would no longer text back, So he just simply kept his copies in the office racks, hoping that either de Leon or the respondent himself would pick them up one day. On March 5, 2014, Atty. Mortel filed before the C.A an omnibus motion and manifestation with profuse appologies, and informing the court of his present address which is No. 2806 Tower 2, Pioneer Highlands, Mandaluyong city. He also prayed for the reinstatement of the motion to withdraw Appeal. The acceptance of his compliance with the September 20, 2010 and November 11, 2010 resolutions of the court of appeals, the grant for his motion and the recall of all previous orders or resolutions of the court of appeals.

On his March 7, 2014 comment, respondent argues that he honestly believed that the case was already closed in light of his motion to withdraw appeal, and that he did not expect that a requirement of conformity of the client would be needed in as much as the act of counsel binds the client. According to him, the filing of which is a matter of right, not needing client's conformity. So he did not bother to visit MFV Jose Law office again, or send his messenger to check the law firm if there were resolutions or orders for him. In the resolution of February 9, 2015, C.A. Noted Mortel's comment, and required the sixth division of the C.A. Manila to file a reply within 10 days from notice. In the resolution of May 30, 2016, C.A dispensed with the filing of the reply. Issue: Whether there are grounds for this court to probe into Atty. Marcelino Ferdinand V. Jose's possible administrative liability. Whether respondent should be imposed a disciplinary sanction. Held: Atty. Jose failed to measure up to his part of the deal. He delegated everything to his messenger without adequately supervising him. As Managing Partner of his firm, Atty. Jose can be expected to have supervisory duties over his firm's associates and support staff, among others. Him not knowing respondent's new number does not suffice because in the first place, Atty. Jose showed that he could easily get respondent's new number through a mutual friend. Yet, he only did so four years later. The court stressed that in this age of social media, it is fairly easy to get connected with someone without even leaving one's location. In addition, Atty. Jose's reading of the court's January 20, 2014 resolution is also highly questionable. While the resolution was sent to his law firm, it was addressed to respondent, a lawyer not under his employ. Canon 21, Rule 21.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility generally allows disclosure of a client's affairs only to partners or associates of the law firm, unless the client prohibits it. Respondent is not a partner or associate of MFV Jose Law Office. Atty. Jose stated under oath that respondent requested to use MFV Jose Law Office's address s his mailing address only in August 2010, after respondent had already filed his appeal (specific date not mentioned). Assuming that respondent's request was granted as early as August 1, 2010, this does not help him in any way. The Court of Appeals Notice for respondent to file an appellant's brief was issued one month earlier, on July 20, 2010, when respondent still used his old address on record at Herrera Tower, Rufino St., corner Valero St., Makati City. Thus, respondent's sending De Leon, his messenger, to the new forwarding address at MFV Jose Law Office to get updates anytime between August 1, 2010 and August 16, 2010 would certainly have yielded no result. In this hypothetical scenario, the Court of Appeals would have sent the Notice to his old address on record. That he allegedly did not receive the July 20, 2010 Notice from the Court of Appeals was, therefore, his own lookout. Respondent's gross negligence and lack of foresight is apparent. He did not make it easy for MFV Law office to reach him. Respondent therefore failed to adopt an efficient and orderly system of receiving and attending promptly to all judicial notices; so the fault was his to bear. Wherefore, Atty. Marcelino Ferdinand V. Jose is directed to show cause within ten days from receipt of a copy of his resolution as to why he sjould not be disciplined by the court; and respondent Atty. Gideon D. Mortel is suspended from the practice of law for one year, for violating Canons 7,10,11, 12 and 18, Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the code of professional responsibility

and warned that the repetition of the same act shall be dealt with more severely. A.C. No. 7072, July 27, 2016 VIRGILIO D. MAGAWAY AND CESARIO M. MAGAWAY, Complainants, v. ATTY. MARIANO A. AVECILLA, Respondent. FACTS: The respondent affixed his notarial seal on the documents and his signature on the notarial acknowledgments whereby trransformed the deeds of sale from private into public documents, without further proof of their authenticity. The respondent contended that his notarization of the documents had not prejudiced anyone including complainants.

ISSUE WON respondent's acts constituted gross negligence in the performance of his duties as notary public.

HELD His failure to ascertain the identity of the person executing the same constituted gross negligence in the ·performance of his duties as a notary public. As such, it is now unavoidable for him to accept the commensurate consequences of his indiscretion. The respondent's rather convenient assertion that an impostor had appeared before him and affixed her thumbprint on the ready-made deed of sale and affidavit of non-tenancy does not sway the Court. He should have demanded that such person first prove her identity before acting on the documents she had brought for his notarization. A.C. No. 6387 [Formerly CBD Case No. 11-3001], July 19, 2016 GABINO V. TOLENTINO AND FLORDELIZA C. TOLENTINO, Complainants, v. ATTY. HENRY B. SO AND ATTY. FERDINAND L. ANCHETA, Respondents.

A.C. No. 9492, July 11, 2016 PLUTARCO E. VAZQUEZ, Complainants, v. ATTY. DAVID LIM QUECO KHO, Respondent.

A.C. No. 11380, August 16, 2016 JEN SHERRY WEE-CRUZ, Complainant, v. ATTY. CHICHINA FAYE LIM, Respondent. In February 2010, respondent issued postdated checks payable to "Cash" as partial payment of the outstanding loan accommodation for more than 3 million, which had been extended to her by complainant. These checks were later dishonored and returned by the bank for the reason that the account had been closed. Complainant and her brother repeatedly called and sent text messages to petitioner to inform her that her checks had been dishonored and to demand that she make good on her checks. On 7 October 2010, complainant personally handed a demand letter to respondent. As the latter still failed to honor her promises to pay, complainant instituted a criminal complaint.

THE RULING OF THE COURT Respondent must be suspended from the practice of law for violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Respondent cannot evade disciplinary sanctions by implying that there was no attorney-client

relationship between her and complainant. This Court reiterated that by taking the Lawyer's Oath, lawyers become guardians of the law and indispensable instruments for the orderly administration of justice. As such, they can be disciplined for any misconduct, be it in their professional or in their private capacity, and thereby be rendered unfit to continue to be officers of the court. In this case, complainant and her brother categorically stated that they had agreed to lend substantial amounts of money to respondent, because "she's a lawyer." 31 Indeed, lawyers are held by the community in very high esteem; yet respondent eroded this goodwill when she repeatedly broke her promises to pay and make good on her checks. On several occasions, this Court has had to discipline members of the legal profession for their issuance of worthless checks. Atty. Chichina Faye Lim is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for two years A.C. No. 10443, August 08, 2016 WILLIAM G. CAMPOS, JR., REPRESENTED BY ROSARIO B. CAMPOS, RITA C. BATAC AND DORINA D. CARPIO, Complainants, v. ATTY. ALEXANDER C. ESTEBAL, Respondent.

A.C. No. 8210, August 08, 2016 SPOUSES MANOLO AND MILINIA NUEZCA, Complainants, v. ATTY. ERNESTO V. VILLAGARCIA, Respondent. Facts In their verified complaint, complainants averred that respondent sent them a demand letter2 dated February 15, 2009, copy furnished to various offices and persons, which contained not only threatening but also libelous utterances. Allegedly, the demand letter seriously maligned and ridiculed complainants to its recipients. Complainants likewise posited that several news clippings3 that were attached to the demand letter were intended to sow tear in them, and claimed that the circulation thereof caused them sleepless nights, wounded

feelings, and besmirched reputation. Thus, they maintained that respondent should be held administratively liable therefor. Issue: Whether or not atty. Villagarcia should be held administratively liable based on the demand letter using words that maligned their character. The

Court's

Ruling

The practice of law is a privilege given to lawyers who meet the high standards of legal proficiency and morality. Any violation of these standards exposes the lawyer to administrative liability.15 Rule 8.01, Canon 8 of the CPR provides:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary Rule 8.01. - A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper. In this case, the demand letter that respondent sent to complainants contained not merely a demand for them to settle their monetary obligations to respondent's client, but also used words that maligned their character. It also imputed crimes against them, i.e., that they were criminally liable for worthless or bum checks and estafa. WHEREFORE, respondent Arty. Ernesto V. Villagarcia is found GUILTY of violation of Rule 8.01, Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one (1) month, effective upon his receipt of this Resolution, and is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely. A.C. No. 9090, August 31, 2016 TEODORO B. CRUZ, JR., Complainant, v. ATTYS. JOHN G. REYES, ROQUE BELLO AND CARMENCITA A. ROUS-GONZAGA, Respondents.

A.C. No. 11113, August 09, 2016 - CLEO B. DONGGA-AS, Complainant, v. ATTY. ROSE BEATRIX CRUZ-ANGELES, ATTY. WYLIE M. PALER, AND ATTY. ANGELES GRANDEA, OF THE ANGELES, GRANDEA & PALER LAW OFFICE, Respondent.

FACTS: In May 2004, complainant engaged the law firm of respondents to handle the annulment of his marriage. From then on, he constantly followed-up its progress but respondents were unable to produce a petition , with various excuses including that there was no record of marriage. Utterly frustrated with the delay, complainant decided to terminate their engagement and demanded for a refund of the amount he paid. To the complainant's surprise, they responded by sending two (2) billing statements in the amounts of P258,000.00 and P324,000.00. Thus, he filed a complaint. ISSUE: Whether or not the respondents should be held administratively liable for violating the CPR. HELD. Yes. Despite the passage of more than five (5) months from the engagement, respondents failed to file the appropriate pleading to initiate the case before the proper court. Such neglect of the legal matter entrusted to them by their client constitutes a flagrant violation of Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the CPR, to wit: CANON 18-A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE. Rule 18.03 -A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. A.C. No. 2404, August 17, 2016 - NILO B. DIONGZON, Petitioner, v. ATTY. WILLIAM MIRANO, Respondent. Facts: Atty. Mirano was alleged of conflict of interest. He was the retained counsel by the petitioner for legal services that covered legal representation in cases and transactions involving, the fishing business of the latter. Atty. Romeo Flora, the associate of the respondent in his law office was the legal counsel of Gonzales. It appears that the bond they filed to justify the manual delivery of the boats subject of the suit had been notarially acknowledged before the respondent without the knowledge and prior consent of the complainant; 5 and that the respondent eventually entered his appearance as the counsel for the Gonzaleses against the respondent. Issue: Whether or not the lawyer has violated his oath or the Code of Professional Responsibility Ruling: The lawyer-client relationship between the parties was duly established beginning in 1979 and lasted until 1982. The respondent's claim that he returned the retainer fee did not alter the juridical existence of their lawyer-client relationship. There was a violation of Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility enjoins lawyers to observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all their dealings and transactions with their clients. The Court ruled for the suspension of Atty Mirano for One Year. A.C. No. 9464, August 24, 2016 - INTERADENT ZAHNTECHNIK, PHIL., INC.,

REPRESENTED BY LUIS MARCO I. AVANCEÑA, Complainant, v. ATTY. REBECCA S. FRANCISCO-SIMBILLO, Respondent. Facts: On March 12, 2012, the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) received a letter from the attorney for complainant Intradent Zahnetchnik Philippines, Inc. informing about several criminal cases filed and pending against respondent Rebecca Francisco-Simbillo. The criminal cases had been filed by the complainant to charge the respondent with estafa and qualified theft in the Office of the City Prosecutor of Parañaque City (docketed as I.S. No. XV-12-INV-11J-03189), and with violation of Article 291 of the Revised Penal Code in the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City (docketed as I.S. No. XV-03-INV-11-J-08553). The complainant pointed out that the charges for estafa and qualified theft involved moral turpitude. At the time, the results of the 2011 Bar Examinations had just been released, and the respondent was among those who had passed. She was in due course formally notified by the OBC of the letter of the complainant, and thereby required to file her comment within 15 days from notice. The OBC also informed her that she could join the mass oath taking for the new lawyers, but she would not be allowed to enroll her name in the Roll of Attorneys until the charges against her had been cleared. Upon the advice of the OBC, she had the other option to sign the Roll of Attorneys subject to the condition that the letter of the complainant would be automatically converted to a disbarment complaint against her. Choosing the latter, she signed the Roll of Attorneys on May 3, 2012. The respondent stated that she had been employed by the complainant for four years; that her employment had lasted until she was illegally dismissed; that she instituted a labor case against the complainant; that the criminal charges filed against her were intended to malign, inconvenience, and harass her, and to force her to desist from pursuing the labor case; and that at the time of the filing of her comment, the criminal complaints brought against her had already dismissed the criminal charge docketed as XV-12-INV-11-J-03189. On February 18, 2015, the respondent filed a motion seeking the resolution of this disbarment case, alleging that the DOJ had denied the complainant's appeal in respect of XV-12-INV-11-J03189; and that as to the criminal charge docketed as XV-03-INV-11-J-08553, the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City had filed an information against her in the Metropolitan Trial Court in Quezon City, but Branch 33 of that court had eventually dismissed the information upon the Prosecution's motion for the withdrawal of the information with leave of court. Issue: May the disbarment complaint against the respondent prosper? Ruling: No, We observe that this administrative case started as a complaint to prevent the respondent from being admitted to the Philippine Bar on the ground of the existence of criminal charges brought against her for crimes involving moral turpitude. Indeed, Section 2, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court requires that any applicant for admission to the Bar must show that no charges against

him or her for crimes involving moral turpitude have been filed or are pending in any court in the Philippines. However, this administrative case has since been converted to one for disbarment but without the complainant, which has all the while continued to actively participate herein, alleging any ground for finding the respondent administratively liable except those already averred in its letter to the OBC. The complainant has not also shown that there were other criminal cases involving moral turpitude filed against the respondent. The complainant did not allege, much less prove, that the respondent had been convicted by final judgment of any criminal offense involving moral turpitude. On the contrary, the criminal cases that were the sole bases for the complaint for disbarment had already been dismissed after due proceedings. WHEREFORE, the Court DISMISSES this disbarment case against respondent Arty. Rebecca S. Francisco-Simbillo. A.C. No. 11317, August 23, 2016 - ETHELENE W. SAN JUAN, Complainant, v. ATTY. FREDDIE A. VENIDA, Respondent. FACTS: Respondent filed a petition for disbarment against Atty. Venida on the ground that the respondent acted in bad faith, with a clear intent to deceive the respondent when he furnished her a draft copy of the petition rather that a receiving copy to show that the petition had, indeed, been filed, after giving Php25,00 as way of acceptance, filing and docket fees. ISSUE: Whether or not there was a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility by the respondent? RULING: Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that a “lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from the client.” Respondent agreement to handle Ethelene’s case cemented by his receipt of his legal fees, is an assurance that he would be diligent and competent in handling her case. This includes constantly updating her, on his volition, of the status of her case. Respondent is disbarred from the practice of law and his name is stricken off from the Roll of Attorneys. A.C. No. 11350 [Formerly CBD Case No. 14-4211], August 09, 2016 ADEGOKE R. PLUMPTRE, Complainant, v. ATTY. SOCRATES R. RIVERA, Respondent. ADEGOKE R. PLUMPTRE v. ATTY. SOCRATES R. RIVERA FACTS: This resolves a disbarment case against respondent Atty. Socrates R. Rivera for absconding with money entrusted to him and soliciting money to bribe a judge. Complainant alleges that he called respondent and asked for help in his application for a work permit from the Bureau of

Immigration.They met a few days later, and complainant paid respondent P10,000.00 as professional fee.They met again, and complainant gave respondent another P10,000.00, together with his passport. This was allegedly for the processing of his work permit. They met for a third time since respondent asked complainant to submit ID photos. Respondent asked complainant for another P10,000.00, but complainant refused as they only agreed on the amount of P20,000.00. Respondent also asked complainant for P8,000.00, allegedly for complainant's other case, which respondent was also working on. He explained that P5,000.00 would be given to a Las Piñas judge to reverse the motion for reconsideration against complainant, while P3,000.00 would be used to process the motion for reconsideration. Complainant gave him the P8,000.00. Complainant claims that after respondent received the money, he never received any updates on the status of his work permit and pending court case. Further, whenever he called respondent to follow up on his work permit, respondent hurled invectives at him and threatened him and his wife. Complainant would retort by saying that he would file complaints against respondent if he did not give back the money and passport. The respondent returned passport but still refused to return the P28,000.00 earlier endorsed to him. ISSUE: Whether or not Atty Rivera violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. HELD: Respondent: Violation of Canon 1, Canon 7, Canon 16, Rule 16.01, Canon 17 and Rule 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, aggravated by his failure to file Answer and to appear in the Mandatory Conference. Thus, Atty. Socrates R. Rivera is hereby DISBARRED from the practice of law and his name stricken off from the Roll of Attorneys and Ordered to Return the Twenty Eight Thousand (P28,000.00) Pesos to Complainant.

A.C. No. 9920 [Formerly A.M. No. MTJ-07-1691], August 30, 2016 OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. FORMER ROSABELLA M. TORMIS, Respondent.

JUDGE

Facts: Complainants, section leaders of the lessees of market stalls in the public market of Occidental Mindoro, filed a case against Mayor Jose T. Villarosa, of San Jose, Occidental Mindoro who allegedly wanted to demolish the public market so that the place can be used to erect a new “San Jose Commercial Complex. The said case was raffled to Judge Jose S. Jacinto, Jr’s sala. During hearings, the respondent judge did unbecoming conducts against the complainants, thus referred and raffled the complaint to Justice of the Court of Appeals, Manila. The judge allegedly: 3. Berated, scolded, confused, admonished and made insulting needlessly lengthy

statements to the complainants’ witnesses without basis or justification. Also, asked complainants confusing and misleading questions all geared and intended to elicit answers damaging to the cause of petitioners and favorable to the cause of their adversary. 4. Explained that the Mayor had to excuse himself for an important appointment when Mayor Villarosa stepped out the courtroom to take a call and exited through the door used by the judge and the employees of the court. According to the complainants, the Mayor did not speak to anyone, not even his lawyer, before leaving the courtroom. Issue: Whether or not the respondent judge is guilty of his unbecoming conduct during the hearing. Ruling: The court ruled that Judge Jacinto is guilty of his unbecoming conduct due to the violation in accordance with the following mandates of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary: 4. Section 6, Canon 6, which reads: Judges shall maintain order and decorum in all proceedings before the court and be patient, dignified and courteous in relation to litigants, witnesses, lawyers and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity. Judges shall require similar conduct of legal representatives, court staff and others subject to their influence, direction or control. 5. Section 1, Canon 2 (Integrity), which reads: Judges shall ensure that not only is their conduct above reproach, but that it is perceived to be so in the view of a reasonable observer. 6. Section 1, Canon 4 (Propriety), which reads: Judges shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of their activities.

A.C. No. 7178, August 23, 2016 VICENTE M. GIMENA, Complainant, v. ATTY. SALVADOR T. SABIO, Respondent.

Before us is a Complaint for Disbarment filed by Vicente M. Gimena (complainant) against Atty. Salvador T. Sabio (respondent) for gross negligence in handling RAB Case No. 06-11-1097099 (case). Complainant laments that his company, Simon Peter Equipment and Construction Systems, Inc. (company) lost in the case because respondent filed an unsigned position paper and ignored the order of the labor arbiter directing him to sign the pleading. Aware of the unfavorable decision, respondent did not even bother to inform complainant of the same. The adverse decision became fmal and executory, robbing complainant of a chance to file a timely appeal.

Ruling Respondent violated Rule 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility The contention of respondent that there was no attorney-client relationship between him and the company is, at best, flimsy. It is improper for him to capitalize on the fact that no formal contract for legal retainer was signed by the parties, for formality is not an essential element in the employment of an attorney. The contract may be express or implied and it is sufficient that the advice and assistance of the attorney is sought and received, in matters pertinent to his profession. An attorney impliedly accepts the relation when he acts on behalf of his client in pursuance of the request made by the latter.

Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (the "Code") mandates that a lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence. Corollarily, Rule 18.03 directs that a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him. 47 He must exercise the diligence of a good father of a family with respect to the case that he is handling. This is true whether he accepted the case for free or in consideration of a fee. Respondent's inattention is further highlighted by his disobedience to the labor arbiter's directive that he sign the position paper. His conduct evinces a willful disregard to his duty as officer of the court. This alone warrants the imposition of administrative liability. Respondent's conduct is inconsistent with Rule 18.04 of the Code, which requires lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status ofhis case and shall respond reasonable time to the client's request for information." for violating Rules 18.03 and Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, respondent Atty. Salvador T. hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for THREE (3) YEARS

that "[a] within a 18.04 of Sabio is

A.C. No. 8698, August 31, 2016 MANUEL B. BERNALDEZ, Complainant, v. ATTY. WILMA DONNA C. ANQUILO-GARCIA, Respondent. Facts:

Bernaldez alleges that during the 2010 National and Local Elections, Atty. Anquilo-Garcia coerced and threatened registered voters in the Municipality of Biri, Northern Samar to sign blank and ready-made affidavits stating that they were illiterate/disabled voters when in fact, they were not and that they needed assistors in voting. According to the complainant, the scheme was employed by Atty. Anquilo-Garcia to ensure the victory of her husband, Jaime Garcia, Jr. who was running for Mayor in Biri, Northern Samar and added that the affiants never appeared before Atty. Garcia. The court issued a resolution directing Atty. Garcia to submit her comment and after which, she responded in denial with the allegations filed against

her. Moreover, she asserted that the affiants personally appeared before her and voluntarily executed the affidavits without being threatened and paid. She alleged that the affidavits attached to the complaint were falsified in order to suit the allegations of the complainant, her husband Garcia Jr.'s opposing candidate. Same affidavits were also used as exhibits in the election protest filed by the complainant against Garcia Jr. before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Catarman, Northern Samar. The case was referred to the IBP and ordered the party to appear for a mandatory conference but was terminated, thus, both parties were required to file verified position papers. Before the case was resolved, the complainant filed an affidavit of withdrawal of the complaint and stated that the filing of the case was due to misunderstanding of the incidents. Issue: Whether or not Atty. Garcia is liable for violating the Rules of Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility. Whether or not the case will prosper even when the complainant did already file an affidavit for withdrawal.

Ruling:

No, the case can still prosper. It must be stressed that administrative proceedings against lawyers are sui generis and they belong to a class of their own. They are neither civil nor criminal actions but rather investigations by the Court into the conduct of its officers.

Atty. Garcia is liable for violating the provisions under the Notarial Law of 2004. With regard to the charge of abuse of authority as notary public, Atty. Anquilo-Garcia notarized the subject affidavits without having the affiants personally appear before her as required by law. Atty. Anquilo-Garcia's failure to perform her duty as a notary public undermines the integrity of a notary public and degrades the function of notarization. Lawyers commissioned as notaries public are reminded that their functions should not be trivialized and they must discharge their powers and duties which are impressed with public interest, with accuracy and fidelity. Thus, she should be liable for such negligence, not only as a notary public but also as a lawyer.

Considering, however, the absence of bad faith on the part of Atty. Anquilo-Garcia and that this is her first infraction after her long years of membership in the Bar, the Court finds that the less severe penalties of suspension for six (6) months in the practice of law and disqualification from reappointment as notary public for a period of one (1) year are proper under the circumstances. A.C. No. 10565, September 07, 2016

PROSECUTOR RHODNA A. BACATAN, Complainant, v. ATTY. MERARI D. DADULA, Respondent. FACTS: Between September and October 2007, the following cases were raffled to complainant for preliminary investigation: (1) a complaint for libel (I.S. No. 4760) filed by Rev. Jose Bailey Bernaldez against Dr. Carlito Impas, Sr.; and (2) a complaint for falsification (I.S. No. 4999-J) filed by Dr. Carlito Impas, Jr. against Rev. Jose Bailey Bernaldez. Respondent was the counsel of Carlito Impas, Jr. Complainant found probable cause for libel and recommended its filing in court, while the complaint for falsification was recommended for dismissal for lack of probable cause. Both recommendations were approved by the City Prosecutor. Respondent filed a Motion to Determine Probable Cause With Motion to Hold in Abeyance Trial With Motion to Defer Issuance of Warrant and Motion to Defer Posting of Reduced Bail Bond in the libel case. In her pleadings, respondent accused complainant of manifest partiality and bias against her client when complainant: 1) summarily ruled that the publication of the letter was libelous but miserably failed to point out, in her Resolution, which portion constituted libel; 2) denied the motion for reconsideration with dispatch in an undated Order; 3) "sat" on the falsification case for she did not resolve it with dispatch unlike what she did in this libel case; 4) did not send a copy of the resolution in the libel case to the accused; 5) dismissed the falsification case even if mere was clear admission from the accused in the case that it was his signature; and 6) lodged the information in the libel case within the period to appeal the undated Order. ISSUE: Whether or not Guilty RULING: Supreme Court finds that respondent violated Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. While zeal or enthusiasm in championing a client's cause is desirable, unprofessional conduct stemming from such zeal or enthusiasm is disfavoured. When without proof nor enough basis on record, respondent swiftly concluded, based only on gut feeling, that the complainant has been bribed or had acted for a valuable consideration, her conduct has overstepped the bounds of courtesy, fairness and candor. Respondent Atty. Merari D. Dadula GUILTY of violation of Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. She is imposed a FINE of P2,000.00 with STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act in the future will be dealt with more severely. A.C. No. 7045, September 05, 2016 - THE LAW FIRM OF CHAVEZ MIRANDA ASEOCHE REPRESENTED BY ITS FOUNDING PARTNER, ATTY. FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ, Complainant, v. ATTYS. RESTITUTO S. LAZARO AND RODEL R. MORTA, Respondents. FACTS: The Filing of administrative complaint in connection with the pending libel case against Eliseo F. Soriano before the RTC of Quezon City wherein the complainant as a counsel of Soriano, while the respondent represents the private complainant Michael M. Sandoval. On 11 October 2005, Atty. Chavez sought for cancellation of Soriano’s schedule of arraignment because of the Petition for review which he presented before the court, and the same

questioned the resolution of City Prosecutor finding probable cause to indict Soriano for libel. However, the motion was denied and proceeds with the arraignment. In that event, the complainant conclude that the judge was biased and filed for motion to inhibit himself from the case and that on 11 November 2005, respondent filed a vehement opposition to the motion for inhibition to contradict complainant’s motion which he falsely and maliciously accused with its lawyer of antedating a petition for review filed before the Department of Justice on October 10, 2005.

ISSUE

Whether or not respondent violated the code of Professional Responsibility?

HELD Yes. Respondent is guilty of violating the canon 8 and 10 of the code of Professional Responsibility. The court urged lawyers to utilize only respectful and temperate language in the preparation of pleadings, with the dignity of the legal profession. Wherefore, Attys. Restituto Lazaro and Rodel Morta are Admonished and likewise sternly warned for the commission for the same act in the future shall be dealt with more severely. A.C. No. 10574 (Formerly CBD Case No. 11-3047), September 20, 2016 - PATRICK R. FABIE, Complainant, v. ATTY. LEONARDO M. REAL, Respondents. Facts: In 2010, Patrick Fabie, the owner of a donated lot by his sister for the purpose of application as an immigrant to US or Canada filed a disbarment case against Atty. Leonardo Real on the grounds of failure to perform the transfer of title of the lot which was donated by his sister Jayne May Fabie for the purpose of application as an immigrant to US or Canada but since his plan was not push through he engaged Atty. Leonardo Real to return the lot title back to his sister and turn over document together with the (P40,000.00) cash for the expenses and attorney’s fees which was acknowledged by him of which contains a mistake done by Atty. Real’s secretary for TCT No. R-1971 as TCT No. N 129303 that later confuses the latter. A year has passed, the said title was not transferred to his sister and that Patrick Fabie demanded Atty. Real for the return of the documents and the money but Atty. Real return only the document and not the money. Atty. Real claim that the title which is part of the estate of Esteban his late father for the settlement proceedings between heirs but there was a misunderstanding among the heirs, the settlement did not push through. To prove the unpleasant relationship of the heirs, respondent attached to his Answer a letter dated April 23, 2004 of complainant's mother Elsie Fabie indicating her intention to repudiate an amicable settlement that she earlier entered into with her children because the latter committed criminal acts against her. Respondent claimed that he got caught in the middle of this bitter spat of the heirs such that complainant filed this disbarment case against him. At any rate, respondent pointed out that complainant could not have delivered to him TCT No. N-129303 on August 24,

2009 since the same was recorded lost on April 26, 2004 and was only recovered on July 27, 2010 per entries at the dorsal side of the said title. Upon investigation done by the Investigating Commissioner, the respondent found guilty of (1) breached his duties to his client when he failed to exercise due diligence in his undertaking to cause the transfer of ownership of property from complainant to Jaynie May and instead abandoned his client's cause; (2) converted his client's fund of P40,000.00 to his personal use when he failed to return the same to complainant; and, (3) committed dishonesty when he claimed that he had been engaged to settle the estate of Esteban when in truth he was not. And since the above transgressions did not only show bad faith on the part of respondent but also caused material damage to complainant, the Commissioner recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for two years. Issue: Whether or not Atty. Leonardo Real is guilty of violating the code of Professional Responsibility. Ruling: Yes. Atty. Real violated Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility demands upon lawyers to serve their clients with competence and diligence, to wit: CANON 18 - A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE. Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. The Lawyer's Oath similarly mandates a lawyer to conduct himself according to the best of his knowledge and discretion, with all good fidelity to the courts and to his clients. WHEREFORE, the Court FINDS respondent Atty. Leonardo M. Real guilty of violating Canon 18, Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer's Oath and thus SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for a period of six months effective from notice, ORDERS him to return to complainant Patrick R. Fabie within 10 days from notice the sum of P40,000.00 with legal interest of 12% per annum reckoned from the time he received the amount on August 24,2009 until June 30,2013, and 6% per annum from July 1, 2013 until full payment thereof, and STERNLY WARNS him that commission of any similar infraction in the future will be dealt with more severely. Finally, he must SUBMIT to this Court written proof of his compliance within 30 days from notice of this Resolution.

A.C. No. 11095 [Formerly CBD Case No. 11-3140], September 20, 2016 - EUFEMIA A. CAMINO, Complainant, v. ATTY. RYAN REY L. PASAGUI, Respondent. Facts: Complainant is a vendor of a lot registered under the name of her father. Atty. Pasagui

was allegedly a lawyer of Congresswoman Tan who in charge in handling payment of properties. When Camino refuse to accept partial payment, the respondent advise her to sell the property to other buyer. Also, he offer his service for the transfer of the property registration. In order to raised enough funds for the transfer of registration, the spouse Camino executed and SPA to the respondent to transact a loan to PHCCI. Eventually, the loan was released to Atty. Pasagui. However, he did not facilitate the transfer of registration and intently refused to present himself to Camino. Issue: WON Atty. Pasagui has violated the CPR Held: The Supreme Court found the respondent guilty in violation of Rule 1.01 of CPR and disbarred. A.C. No. 11238, September 21, 2016 ATTY. MYLENE S. YUMUL-ESPINA, Complainant, v. ATTY. BENEDICTO D. TABAQUERO, Respondent. Facts Shirley Atkinson, married to Derek Atkinson (Derek), a British Citizen purchased two properties. Derek allegedly executed an Affidavit of Waiver of Rights which made Shirley to mortgage one parcel of lot. Derek, however, claims that he could not have executed the Affidavit of Waiver of Rights because he was out of the country on October 25, 1999, and therefore, could not have personally appeared before complainant on that date. 7 Thus, he filed falsification cases against complainant and Shirley, respectively. However, complainant countered and claimed that respondent prosecuted the criminal complaints against her and Shirley in order to assert his client's non-existent rights and interest as owner of the property, blatantly disregarding the constitutional prohibition on foreigners from acquiring private lands in the Philippines. IBP dismissed the complaint and counter-complaint against the parties on basis of affidavit of desistance. Issue Whether or not dismissal of complaint on basis of affidavit of desistance correct Ruling No, administrative proceedings are imbued with public interest. Disbarment proceedings are sui generis. Respondent is not guilty of violations of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The constitutional prohibition is therefore irrelevant in these criminal complaints. However, the counter-complaint against complainant, for violation of the Notarial Law, is meritorious. A.C. No. 10150, September 21, 2016 GINA E. ENDAYA, Complainant, v. ATTY. EDGARDO O. PALAY, Respondent.

FACTS:

Atty. Palay notarized a Deed of Sale covering eight (8) parcels of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. 8940, 8941, 8942, 8943, 8944, 10774, 17938, and 19319, allegedly executed and thumb marked by Engr. Atilano AB. Villaos (Villaos), father of the complainant on July 27, 2004. Endaya refuted this by claiming that Villaos was already confined at the Philippine Heart Center in Quezon City from May 27 to August 17, 2004, and it was therefore impossible that he appeared before Atty. Palay in Puerto Princesa, Palawan, to affix his thumbmark in the Deed of Sale. During that period, Villaos was no longer of sound mind and incapable of discerning and knowing the consequences of the Deed of Sale as shown in the affidavit executed by Dr. Bella L. Fernandez. Villaos eventually passed away on August 28, 2004. robleslaw IBP Investigating Commissioner Jordan M. Pizarras found that Atty. Palay failed to faithfully discharge his duties as a notary public and recommended that he be suspended from the practice of law for three (3) months and be permanently disqualified from being a notary public. The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner, but increased the suspension to a period of one (1) year. Atty. Palay moved for reconsideration but the IBP denied the same.obleslaw

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent Atty, Edgardo O. Palay is guilty of violating Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. RULING: Contrary to Atty. Palay's argument, we find that the duties 0f a notary public are intricately related with the practice of law. Under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, only members of the Philippine Bar in good standing are eligible to be commissioned as notaries public. Thus, performing the functions of a notary public constitutes the practice of law. When Atty. Palay no longer disputed the findings of the IBP, it is tantamount to an admission that he notarized a document without the presence of the person who allegedly placed his thumbmark therein. This constitutes a direct violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, specifically Rule IV, Section 2(b). By acknowledging the Deed of Sale, he made it appear that Villaos personally appeared before him when this was not in fact the case. Worse, in his answer to the complaint, he lied about being called into a car by Villaos' driver. These actions evince dishonesty on the part of Atty. Palay—in direct violation of Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. These adversely reflect on his fitness to be a member of the legal profession. This warrants a suspension from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months in

addition to his disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for two (2) years.law The Court finds respondent Atty, Edgardo O. Palay guilty of violating Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Accordingly, the Court suspends him from the practice of law for six (6) months, revokes his incumbent notarial commission, if any, and disqualifies him from being commissioned as a notary public for two (2) years. Respondent is also sternly warned that more severe penalties will be imposed for any further breach of the Canons in the Code of Professional Responsibility. A.C. No. 11099, September 27, 2016 LILY FLORES-SALADO, MINDA FLORES LURA, AND FE V. FLORES, Complainants, v. ATTY. ROMAN A. VILLANUEVA, JR. Respondent.

FACTS: Lily Flores-Salado, Minda Flores-Lura, Anacorito Flores, Angel Flores, Jr., and Fe Flores presented their adverse claim on the parcel of land situated in Nasipit, Agusan del Norte and registered under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) under the names of Spouses Roman Villanueva, Jr. and Rosario L. Alipao. The Register of Deeds annotated the adverse claim on January 23, 2007. On December 27, 2007, an affidavit of waiver/withdrawal, which appeared to have been signed by them. On March 26, 2008, the Register of Deeds canceled and issued two new TCTs in the name of the respondent. On October 29, 2009, complainants Lily Flores-Salado, Minda Flores Lura, and Fe Flores lodged their complaint with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) charging the respondent with gross dishonesty on the basis of their assertion therein that they had not signed the affidavit of waiver/withdrawal. They thereby further charged him with dishonesty for concealing his true age in order to secure his appointment in 2006 as a state prosecutor. They avered that he was disqualified for the position because he had already been 70 years old at the time of his appointment, having been born on June 26, 1936; that they submitted as proof: (1) the residence certificate issued in the name of "Isabelo Villanueva, Jr.," whom they claimed was the respondent himself, stating June 26, 1936 as his birthdate; (2) the deed of extrajudicial partition of the estate of Roman Villanueva, Sr. showing that the respondent was 14 years old when he signed the document as "Isabelo Villanueva"; (3) the certification issued by the Municipal Civil Registrar of Tupi, South Cotabato12showing that he was 26 years old when he got married on December 24, 1961; and (4) the affidavits respectively executed by his siblings, Francisca V. Flores and Tarcela V. Sajulan. The respondent denied the charges, and imputed ill-motives to the complainants in filing the disbarment complaint against him. He contended that the complainants did not present sufficient proof showing that he had falsified the affidavit of waiver/withdrawal; and asserted that the basis for the partition of the contested property had been the compromise agreement entered into by him and his siblings, including Francisca, the complainants' mother; and that he had been born on November 29, 1943, as indicated in his birth certificate. ISSUE:

Should the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for gross misconduct and gross dishonesty? RULING: We reverse the findings and recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors considering that the charges were not competently substantiated. The complainants support their allegations of falsification by presenting the affidavit of waiver/withdrawal itself and its annotation on TCT No. 7919; and by denying their having signed the same. However, such proof was inadequate to establish that the respondent had been the author of the alleged falsification of the affidavit of waiver/withdrawal. The complainants have also charged the respondent with dishonesty for having concealed his true age in order to secure his appointment as a state prosecutor. In contrast, the respondent submitted his certificate of birth that indicated his birthdate as "November 29, 1943." Still, the complainants doubted the veracity of the respondent's bit1h certificate on the ground of its having been belatedly registered at his own instance. The Court nonetheless finds for the respondent. To accord with such policy of the State, the fact of late registration of the respondent's birth should not adversely affect the validity of the entries made in his birth certificate. It is fitting to state that the complainants bore the burden of proof in this disbarment proceeding against the respondent. They must establish their charges of falsification and dishonesty by convincing and satisfactory proof. Surmises, suspicion and conjectures are not bases of finding his culpability. The foregoing disquisitions on the falsification show that the complainants did not discharge their burden of proof thereon. They also did not convincingly establish that the respondent had willfully adjusted his true age to secure his appointment as a state prosecutor. Indeed, the appointment happened on February 22, 2006 but his late registration of his birth occurred on July 3, 2006. Under the circumstances, that he had intentionally adjusted his birthdate to enable himself to meet the age requirement for the position of state prosecutor three years later became plainly improbable. The Court finds the need to clarify that although it may entertain a disbarment or suspension complaint brought against a lawyer employed in the government service whether or not the complaint pertained to an act or conduct unrelated to the discharge of his official functions, the investigation should be carried out by the agency or office having administrative supervision over him or her when the allegations of the complaint relate to the qualifications of the respondent to be appointed to the public office. Accordingly, any questions pertaining to the qualifications of the respondent to be appointed as a state prosecutor should be directed to the Secretary of Justice who had administrative supervision over him under the law, and not to this Court in the guise of the disbarment complaint. The complaint for disbarment is sui generis, and the proceeding thereon should focus only on the qualification and fitness of the respondent lawyer to continue membership in the Bar. WHEREFORE, the Court DISMISSES the disbarment complaint against Atty. Roman A. Villanueva, Jr. for lack of factual and legal merit. A.C. No. 7348, September 27, 2016

ROUEL YAP PARAS, Complainant, v. ATTY. JUSTO P. PARAS, Respondent. FACTS: Atty. JUSTO P. PARAS was charged by her wife Rosa Yap Paras and initiated a case for disbarment, falsification of public documents and fraud for counterfeiting using his wife’s name and signature to obtain loans from certain banks. That respondent, had violated the LAWYER'S OATH and the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), thus: a) Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, b) CPR Canon 1, 3, 7, 8, and Canon 10 Respondent was also charged with grossly immoral conduct and concubinage for siring a child with another woman; obstruction of justice by using his legal skills to derail all the proceedings in the criminal actions initiated against him; and unethical and unprofessional conduct by using his legal skills to frighten, harass and intimidate. ISSUE: Whether or not respondent can be disbarred on the grounds of committing a falsehood in violation of It's lawyer's oath and of the Code of Professional Responsibility? HELD: Good moral character is not only a condition precedent to admission to the practice of law; continued possession is also essential for remaining in the practice of law. Respondent was found guilty of violating his lawyer's oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility when he applied for the issuance of a free patent over the properties in issue despite his knowledge that the same had already been sold by his mother to complainant's sister. WHEREFORE, finding respondent Atty. Justo J. Paras guilty of committing a falsehood in violation of It's lawyer's oath and of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Court Resolved to SUSPEND respondent from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year, with a WARNING that commission of the same or similar offense in the future will result in the imposition of a more severe penalty. A.C. No. 11323, September 14, 2016 NICOLAS ROBERT MARTIN EGGER, Complainant, v. ATTY. FRANCISCO P. DURAN, Respondent. The Facts Complainant alleged that on January 22, 2014, he engaged respondent's services to file on his behalf a petition for the annulment of his marriage. As consideration therefor, complainant deposited the total amount of P100,000.00 to respondent's bank account, spread over two (2) tranches of P50,000.00 each. Despite such payment, respondent never prepared, much less filed, said petition. This prompted complainant to terminate respondent's services due to loss of trust and confidence. Further, complainant, through his

wife,2 Dioly Rose Reposo (Reposo), wrote a letter 3 demanding for the return of the P100,000.00 he gave to respondent as lawyer's fees. In reply, respondent wrote complainant a letter4promising the return of the aforesaid amount before the end of May 2014. However, respondent did not fulfill his promise, prompting complainant to hire a new counsel, who in turn, wrote another letter5demanding for the return of the said lawyer's fees. As the second demand letter went unheeded, complainant filed the instant case against respondent.6 In various issuances, the IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP CBD) required respondent to file his Answer,7 as well as to appear in the mandatory conference, 8 but the latter failed to do so. Resultantly, the IBP issued an Order 9 dated March 18, 2015 submitting the case for report and recommendation. On March 26, 2015, however, respondent belatedly filed his Answer 10 praying for the dismissal of the instant complaint. Respondent averred that he had no lawyer-client relationship with complainant as his client was the latter's wife, Reposo. Further, while respondent admitted the receipt of P100,000.00 and that no petition for annulment was filed, he denied being remiss in his duties as a lawyer, explaining that such non-filing was due to, inter alia, Reposo's failure to pay the full acceptance fee amounting to P150,000.00, as well as to produce her psychiatric evaluation report. Finally, respondent claimed that his failure to return the P100,000.00 fee he collected was due to the fact that he lost most of his assets due to Typhoon Yolanda. Nevertheless, he signified his intention to return said fee as soon as he recovers from his dire financial condition.11 Issue: whether or not respondent should be held administratively liable for violating the CPR. RULING Once a lawyer takes up the cause of his client, he is duty-bound to serve the latter with competence, and to attend to such client's cause with diligence, care, and devotion whether he accepts it for a fee or for free. He owes fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed upon him. 18 This is commanded by Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the CPR, which reads. CANON 18 - A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE. x x x x Rule 18.03- A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. However, respondent admittedly breached this duty when he failed to prepare, much less file,

the appropriate pleading to initiate complainant and Reposo's case. before the proper court. Respondent's additional contention that his failure to file the petition was due to complainant and Reposo's failure to remit the full acceptance fee of P150,000.00 is not an excuse to abandon his client's cause considering that his duty to safeguard his client's interests commences from his retainer until his effective discharge from the case or the final disposition of the entire subject matter of litigation. To reiterate, respondent's act of agreeing to handle complainant's case, coupled with his acceptance of the partial payment of P100,000.00, already established an attorney-client relationship that gave rise to his duty of fidelity to the client's cause. 19 Indubitably, respondent's neglect of a legal matter entrusted him by complainant and Reposo constitutes inexcusable negligence for which he must be held administratively liable. Further, respondent also violated Rules 16.01 and 16.03, Canon 16 of the CPR when he failed to return the amount of P100,000.00 representing the legal fees that complainant paid him, viz.: CANON 16 - A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS AND PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT THAT MAY COME INTO HIS POSSESSION. Rule 16.01 - A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from the client. x

x

x

x

Rule 16.03 -A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon demand. x x x. "The relationship between a lawyer and his client is highly fiduciary and prescribes on a lawyer a great fidelity and good faith. The highly fiduciary nature of this relationship imposes upon the lawyer the duty to account for the money or property collected or received for or from his client. Thus, a lawyer's failure to return upon demand the funds held by him on behalf of his client, as in this case, gives rise to the presumption that he has appropriated the same for his own use in violation of the trust reposed in him by his client. Such act is a gross violation of general morality, as well as of professional ethics."20chanrobleslaw Respondent Atty. Francisco P. Duran is found guilty of violating Rules 16.01 and 16.03, Canon 16 and Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, he is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months, effective upon the finality of this Decision, and STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with. A.C. No. 9912, September 21, 2016 DATU REMIGIO M. DUQUE JR., Complainant, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS CHAIRMAN SIXTO S. BRILLANTES, JR., COMMISSIONERS LUCENITO N. TAGLE, ELIAS R. YUSOPH, AND CHRISTIAN ROBERT S. LIM; ATTYS. MA. JOSEFINA E. DELA CRUZ,

ESMERALDA A. AMORA-LADRA, MA. JUANA S. VALLEZA, SHEMIDAH G. CADIZ, AND FERNANDO F. COT-OM; AND PROSECUTOR NOEL S. ADION, Respondent.

A.C. No. 10782, September 14, 2016 ATTY. DELIO M. ASERON, Complainant, v. ATTY. JOSE A. DIÑO, JR., Respondent. Facts: Atty. Delio M. Aseron (complainant) sought the disbarment of Atty. Jose A. Diño, Jr. (respondent) for his alleged violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). The facts showed that On January 25, 2009, the complainant figured in a vehicular accident which prompted him to file a case to claim for damages and send a letter pertaining thereto. The respondent’s letter reply to this letter was couched in abusive, disrespectful language, malicious and unfounded accusations and besmirched his reputation. Hence, this case. Issue Whether or not there is sufficient evidence on record to hold the respondent liable for violation of the CPR. HELD: Yes. The respondent violated the CPR when he used intemperate language in his letter to the complainant. Canon 8 of the CPR directs all members of the bar to conduct themselves with courtesy, fairness, and candor towards their fellow lawyers and avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel. Specifically, in Rule 8.01, the CPR provides: Rule 8.01. A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper. In the present case, the respondent's actions failed to measure up to this Canon. Records show that he imputed to the complainant the use of his influence as a former public prosecutor to harass his clients during the inquest proceedings without sufficient proof or evidence to

support the same. As an officer of the court, the respondent could have aired his charge against the complainant in a proper forum and without using offensive and abusive language. He should refrain from being tempted by the adversarial nature of our legal system to use strong language in pursuit of his duty to advance the interest of his client. A.C. No. 8494, October 05, 2016 SPOUSES EMILIO AND ALICIA JACINTO, Complainants, v. ATTY. EMELIE P. BANGOT, JR., Respondent. FACTS: Complainants Emilio and Alicia Jacinto filed an administrative case against Atty. Emelie P. Bangot, Jr. for the latter's unjust and dishonest treatment of them as his clients. Atty. Bangot executed a MOA between him and the Complainant to impress that his supposed attorney's fees would be paid on contingent basis, however, the MOA indicates that the payment thru real property is being made immediately effective upon execution of the agreement. There is also apparent disproportion between the amount of attorney's fees and the effort or service already performed by him. ISSUE: Did the respondent violate his ethical duties as a member of the Bar in his dealings with the complainants?

HELD: The court held that the respondent grossly violated his Lawyer's Oath and his ethical duties as an attorney because he did not observe candor and fairness in his dealings with his clients. A lawyer shall observe candor, honesty and fairness in dealing with his clients, and shall only charge fair and reasonable fees for his legal services. He should not excessively estimate the value of his professional services. In drawing up the terms of his professional engagement, he should not practice deceit. The clients are entitled to rescind the written agreement on his professional fees if the terms thereof contravened the true agreement of the parties. A.C. No. 4269, October 11, 2016 DOLORES NATANAUAN, Complainant, v. ATTY. ROBERTO P. TOLENTINO, Respondent. FACTS: For the Court's consideration is Atty. Roberto P. Tolentino's (Atty. Tolentino) motion to have his disbarment case re-opened and reheard on the ground that he was denied his constitutional

right to due process.The case originated from a disbarment complaint 1 filed by Dolores Natanauan (Dolores) accusing Atty. Tolentino of deceit, malpractice, and gross misconduct in violation of the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. Complainant Dolores alleged that she is a co-owner (with her siblings Rafaela, Ernestina, and Romulo [Dolores, et al.]) of a parcel of land with an area of about 50,000 square meters located in Tagaytay City.2 On January 3, 1978, they sold this land to Alejo Tolentino (Alejo) for P500,000.00. At the time, the title to the property had not yet been issued by the Land Registration Commission.3 The parties thus agreed that payment for the same shall be made in installments, as follows: P80,000.00 upon the execution of the contract and the remaining balance in two (2) installments, payable one (1) year after the issuance of the title and then one (1) year thereafter.4chanrobleslaw On August 9, 1979, and after the execution of the contract of sale between the parties, the Register of Deeds of Cavite issued Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-107593 5 in Alejo's favor. Despite several requests from Dolores, et al., Alejo, however, failed to settle the remaining obligation. Thus, on May 14, 1991, Dolores, et al. filed a case against Alejo and his wife Filomena, docketed as Civil Case No. TG-1188, for the recovery of possession of immovable property, declaration of nullity of the deed of sale, and damages. 6chanrobleslaw Issues The issues to be resolved in this case are as follows: (1) whether there was a violation of Atty. Tolentino's constitutional right to due process; and (2) whether Atty. Tolentino committed deceit, malpractice and gross misconduct through the aforementioned falsifications in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer's Oath which would merit his disbarment and removal from the legal profession.

RULING The Court resolves to deny Atty. Tolentino's motion and affirm the IBP Resolution with modification. There

was

no

denial

of

due

process

and

opportunity

to

be

heard.

Atty. Tolentino, like any respondent in a disbarment or administrative proceeding, is entitled to due process. The most basic tenet of due process is the right to be heard, hence, denial of due process means the total lack of opportunity to be heard or to have one's day in court. 48 As a rule, no denial of due process takes place where a party has been given an opportunity to be heard and to present his case. 49chanrobleslaw In this case, respondent Atty. Tolentino is charged with violating the Lawyer's Oath and Canons

1,

7,

and

10

of

the

Code

of

Professional

Responsibility.

The Lawyer's Oath is a covenant every lawyer undertakes to become and remain part of the legal profession.63 It is not mere facile words, drift and hollow, but a sacred trust that must be upheld and keep inviolable.64 It is a source of obligation and duty for every lawyer, 65 which includes an undertaking to obey the laws and legal orders of duly constituted authorities therein, and not to do falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court. All lawyers are obligated to uphold their Oaths lest they be subjected to administrative cases and sanctions.66chanrobleslaw Canons 1, 7, and 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, on the other hand, read as follows:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary Canon 1 - A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes. Canon 7 - A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and support the activities of the Integrated Bar. Canon 10 - A lawyer owes candor, fairness, and good faith to the court. Complainant sufficiently proved the charges of falsification against Atty. Tolentino. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds respondent Atty. Roberto P. Tolentino GUILTY of violating the Lawyer's Oath, and Canons 1, 7, and 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, he is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for THREE (3) YEARS EFFECTIVE FROM NOTICE, with a STERN WARNING that any similar infraction in the future will be dealt with more severely. Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant to be appended to respondent Roberto P. Tolentino's personal record as an attorney, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and all courts in the country for their information and guidance.

A.C. No. 8168, October 12, 2016 SPOUSES EDWIN B. BUFFE AND KAREN M. SILVERIO-BUFFE, Complainants, v. SEC. RAUL M. GONZALEZ, USEC. FIDEL J. EXCONDE, JR., AND CONGRESSMAN ELEANDRO JESUS F. MADRONA, Respondent. Facts

Karen M. Silverio-Buffe was appointed as Prosecutor I/Assistant Provincial Prosecutor of Romblon province. She took her oath of office and informed the Office of the Provincial

Prosecutor of Romblon that she was officially reporting for work beginning that day. Arsenio R.M. Almadin asked former Secretary of Justice Raul M. Gonzalez (Gonzalez) to confirm the appointment of Silverio-Buffe but the same denied. Thus, complainant filed complaint alleging that former Congressman Eleandro Jesus F. Madrona (Madrona), acting out of spite or revenge, persuaded and influenced Gonzalez and Undersecretary Fidel J. Exconde, Jr. (Exconde) into refusing to administer Silverio-Buffe's oath of office. Issue Whether or not Gonzalez, Exconde, and Madrona should be administratively disciplined based on the allegations in the complaint. Ruling No, the administrative case against Exconde and Madrona is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. It should be resolved by the Office of the Ombudsman, considering that complainants have filed a complaint before it on 12 February 2009. In the case of Gonzalez, his death on 7 September 2014 forecloses any administrative case against him.

A.C. No. 7388, October 19, 2016 ATTY. RUTILLO B. PASOK, Complainant, v. ATTY. FELIPE G. ZAPATOS, Respondent. Facts This administrative case concerns the respondent, a retired judge who took on the case that he had intervened in during his incumbency on the Bench. The complainant was the counsel of record of the plaintiff in the case. The charge specified that the respondent was guilty of "representing adverse interest, illegal practice of law, conduct and becoming as a former member of the bench and conduct unbecoming in violation of the canons of legal ethics with prayer for disbarment" Issue Won the respondent is guilty of violating Rule 6.03 of Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility Held Rule

6.03

of

the

Code

of

Professional

Responsibility

provides:

Rule 6.03 - A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service, accept engagement or employment in connection with any matter in which he had intervened while in said service. To come within the ambit of Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the respondent must be shown to have accepted the engagement or employment in relation to a

matter that, by virtue of his judicial office, he had previously exercised power to influence the outcome of the proceedings. A.C. No. 6767, October 05, 2016 ELIZABETH RECIO, Complainant, v. ATTY. JOSELITO I. FANDIÑO, Respondent.

A.C. No. 7927, October 19, 2016 SANDY V. DOMINGO, Complainant, v. ATTY. PALMARIN E. RUBIO AND ATTY. NICASIO T. RUBIO, Respondents. Facts: The Philippine National Police (PNP) of Legazpi City filed a case for murder in the Office of the City Prosecutor of Legazpi City arising from the killing of one Juan Edgardo Yap Bongalon on August 22, 2005. After due proceedings, the Office of the City Prosecutor filed an infonnation in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Legazpi City charging Ariel Dayap and four other persons who were then not identified with particularity as having acted in conspiracy with Dayap to commit the murder.

Subsequently, Dayap executed an extrajudicial confession to the effect that he had conspired with four other persons, namely: the complainant, Mike Arena, Noli Marquez and Lorna Bongalon (the widow of the victim), with the last as the mastermind. Upon request of assigned investigating prosecutor for her inhibition from conducting further preliminary investigation, because Lorna Bongalon had branded her as biased, the case was re-assigned to ACP Rubio (Atty. Nicasio T, Rubio), who ultimately rendered a resolution recommending the dismissal of the charge as to the four alleged co-conspirators upon finding that the extrajudicial confession of Dayap had been uncounselled. Approving the resolution, CP Rubio (Atty. Palmarin E. Rubio) moved for the withdrawal of the information, but the RTC denied the motion to withdraw because the confession of Dayap already established probable cause. The respondents moved to reconsider the denial, but the RTC persisted on its resolution. On February 6, 2006, the Legazpi PNP presented additional evidence. Thus, a new complaint was filed and was assigned for preliminary investigation to ACP Rubio, who, after conducting the preliminary investigation, issued his resolution on February 27, 2006 finding probable cause for parricide against the complainant. The RTC then issued the warrants for the arrest of the newly-charged accused. Lorna Bongalon sought a reinvestigation, but the RTC did not give due course to her motion. Accordingly, she moved for the deferment of her arraignment to enable her to appeal to the DOJ by petition for review. Acting favorably on Lorna Bongalon's petition for review, the Secretary of Justice directed CP Rubio on August 11, 2006 to cause with leave of court the withdrawal of the information for parricide against her, the complainant and their three co-accused, and to file in lieu thereof another information for murder only against Dayap. It appears that the respondents failed to actually send a copy of their motion for reconsideration to the Secretary of Justice despite furnishing all the parties copies of the motion; and that the motion for reconsideration was received by the DOJ only on April 12, 2007.1 According to the complainant, CP Rubio and ACP Rubio, by intentionally not sending to him a copy of their motion for reconsideration to the DOJ despite furnishing their motion for reconsideration to the other parties, and by belatedly submitting their motion for reconsideration to the DOJ, which eventually got a copy of it, acted fraudulently. CP Rubio and ACP Rubio countered that their failure to send a copy to the complainant and to the DOJ was due to sheer oversight, explaining that the releasing clerk of the Office of the City

Prosecutor of Legazpi City had not sent the motion for reconsideration despite furnishing copies thereof to all the other parties. Based on the foregoing, the complainant initiated the complaint for disbarment against CP Rubio and ACP Rubio. The IBP-CBD and the IBP Board of Governors recommended that the complaint for disbarment be dismissed for lack of merit because the complaint for disbarment had no application because the Secretary of Justice was not a superior court. Issue: Whether or not respondents CP Rubio and ACP Rubio are guilty of willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court. Held: Affirming the findings of the IBP Board of Governors, the Court ruled citing Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, which provides: Section 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court; grounds therefor. - A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or wilfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice. (As amended by Resolution of the Supreme Court, Feb. 13, 1992). chanrobleslaw The complainant's reliance on Section 27 was obviously misplaced. The observation of the Investigating Commissioner that the Secretary of Justice was not the same as the superior court referred to by the rule was correct. As such, the filing by the respondents of the motion for reconsideration was not a defiance or wilful disobedience to the lawful order of the superior court. WHEREFORE, the Court ABSOLVES respondents Atty. Palmarin Rubio and Atty. Nicasio T. Rubio of the charges of gross misconduct; and DISMISSES the complaint for disbarment for utter lack of merit and substance. A.C. No. 7387, November 07, 2016 MANUEL ENRIQUE L. ZALAMEA, AND MANUEL JOSE L. ZALAMEA, Petitioners, v. ATTY. RODOLFO P. DE GUZMAN, JR. AND PERLAS DE GUZMAN, ANTONIO, VENTURANZA,

QUIZON-VENTURANZA, AND HERROSA LAW FIRM, Respondents. Facts: Petitioners Zalamea brothers sought respondent Atty. de Guzman’s advice on the properties of their ailing mother. Later, Enrique convinced De Guzman to help in the reacquisition of another property. Due to Enrique’s lack of funds, De Guzman’s wife advanced the necessary amounts under the condition that the property will be transferred to the name of the corporation they agreed to form. Eventually, the relationship of Zalamea brothers and the spouses turned sour. Hence, the brothers filed a disbarment case against De Guzman for allegedly buying a client’s property which was subject of litigation. Issue: Whether or not the acquisition of a client’s property by the lawyer constitutes a violation of the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. Held: The case was dismissed for lack of merit. The prohibition under Article 1491 of the Civil Code which the Zalamea’s invoke does not apply where the property purchased was not involved in litigation. True, they had previously sought legal advice from De Guzman but only on how to handle their mother’s estate which does not involve the contested property. Clearly, the acquisition of the disputed property is a valid consequence of their business deal, not by lawyer-client relationship. A.C. No. 11059, November 09, 2016 JOSE ANTONIO F. BALINGIT, Complainant, v. ATTY. RENATO M. CERVANTES AND ATTY. TEODORO B. DELARMENTE, Respondent. Facts: Complainant is a former Filipino citizen who subsequently became a naturalized British citizen. On July 9, 2011, complainant's 2 sons, Jose Antonio Balingit, Jr. and Carlo Balingit, who were on board their respective motorcycles, figured in a head-on collision with the car driven by David A. Alizadeh . As a result, a case was filed against David. Complainant engaged the legal services of respondents in the filing of the separate civil suit for damages and an administrative case against David. Atty. Cervantes prepared and signed an Agreement embodying the terms of respondents' engagement. Addressed to Kristopher, Carlo, and the heirs of Jose Antonio, Jr., but the same did not sign the said agreement. Complainant paid the sum of P45,000.00 as partial acceptance fee receipt issued by Atty. Delarmente, Atty. Cervantes allegedly received P10,000.00 from Imelda Balingit (Imelda), complainant's daughter-in-law, without issuing any receipt.

Complainant and the representatives of David agreed to settle and David greed to pay P1,000,000.00 for the dismissal of the case. Atty. Cervantes, upon discovering that complainant entered into a Compromise Agreement, attended the November 9, 2011 hearing and demanded 10% of the amount of the compromise as attorney's fees and P5,000.00 as appearance fee from complainant. Complainant refused on the ground that the compromise was entered Atty. Cervantes sent a demand lette1 to complainant seeking payment of P100,000.00 as attorney's fees, representing 10% of the amount of the compromise, and appearance fee of P5,000.00 for his attendance in the November 9, 2011 hearing. As complainant still refused to pay, Atty. Cervantes filed a criminal complaint for estafa against complainant, his wife, and his sons, as well as a complaint for deportation with the Bureau of Immigration, on the ground that complainant and his family are undesirable British aliens.

Issue: Wether or not respondents violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Ruling: t is a core ethical principle that lawyers owe fidelity to their clients' cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in them. CANON 15 - A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with his clients. CANON 16 - A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his profession. Rule 16.01 - A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from the client. CANON 17 - A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. CANON 18 - A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence. n the present case, respondents received P45,000.00 to file a separate civil action for damages against David. Atty. Cervantes also allegedly received P10,000.00 from complainant's daughter-in-law but no evidence was adduced to support this claim. Thus, respondents should be ordered to return the amount of P45,000.00 to complainant. Atty. Teodoro B. Delarmente and Atty. Renato M. Cervantes are hereby SUSPENDEDfrom the practice of law for six (6) months. Both are STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely. They are also DIRECTED to return to complainant the amount of P45,000.00. Finally, respondents are DIRECTED to report to this Court the date of their receipt of this Decision to enable this Court to determine when their

suspension shall take effect. Maria Victoria G. Belo-Henares vs. Atty. Roberto "Argee" C. Guevarra A.C. No. 11394. December 1, 2016 Facts This instant administrative case arose from a verified complaint for disbarment filed by complainant complainant Maria Victoria G. Belo-Henares (complainant) against respondent Atty. Roberto “Argee” C. Guevarra (respondent) for alleged violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Complainant is the Medical Director and principal stockholder of the Belo Medical Group, Inc. (BMGI), a corporation duly organized and existing under Philippine laws 2 and engaged in the specialized field of cosmetic surgery.3 On the other hand, respondent is the lawyer of a certain Ms. Josefina “Josie” Norcio (Norcio ), who filed criminal cases against complainant for an allegedly botched surgical procedure on her buttocks in 2002 and 2005, purportedly causing infection and making her ill in 2009. In 2009, respondent wrote a series of posts on his Facebook account insulting and verbally abusing complainant. The complaint further alleged that respondent posted remarks on his Facebook account that were intended to destroy and ruin BMGI’s medical personnel, as well as the entire medical practice of around 300 employees for no fair or justifiable cause. Issue: Ruling: The court find the respondent’s inappropriate and obscene language, and his act of publicly insulting and undermining the reputation of complainant through the subject Facebook posts are in complete and utter violation of the provisions in the Code of Professional Responsibility. A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession. Moreover, a lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper. In addition, the respondent is expected to employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client and shall not present, participate in presenting or threaten to present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage in any case or proceeding. By posting the subject remarks on Facebook directed at complainant and BMGI, the respondent disregarded the fact that, as a lawyer, he is bound to observe proper decorum at all times, be it in his public or private life. He overlooked the fact that he must behave in a manner befitting of an officer of the court, that is, respectful, firm, and decent. Instead, he acted inappropriately and rudely; he used words unbecoming of an officer of the law, and conducted himself in an aggressive way by hurling insults and maligning complainant’s and BMGI’ s

reputation. That complainant is a public figure and/or a celebrity and therefore, a public personage who is exposed to criticism does not justify respondent’s disrespectful language. It is the cardinal condition of all criticism that it shall be bona fide, and shall not spill over the walls of decency and propriety. In this case, respondent’s remarks against complainant breached the said walls, for which reason the former must be administratively sanctioned. The respondent, Atty. Roberto “Argee” C. Guevarra, is found guilty of violation of Rules 7.03, 8.01, and 19.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He was SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year and is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.