Malabed v. de La Pena

Adelpha E. Malabed vs. Atty Meljohn B. De la Pena A.C. No. 7594 (Febrary 9! "#$%& Fa'ts In her Complaint1 dated 7 August August 2007, complainant charged respondent with dishonesty for “deliberately and repeatedly making falsehood fal sehood that “misled the Court! "irst, complainant claimed that the Certificate to "ile Action in the complaint filed by respondent refers to a different complaint, that is the complaint filed by complainant#s brother against "ortunato $adulco! In effect, there was no Certificate to "ile Action, Action, which is re%uired for the filing of a ci&il action, in the complaint filed by respondent on behalf of his client "ortunato $adulco!

'econd, complainant alleged that respondent did not furnish her counsel with a copy of the free patent co&ered by (riginal Certificate of )itle *(C)+ o! 17-0,  but respondent forwarded a copy to the Court of Appeals! Appeals! Complainant claimed that she could not properly defend herself without a copy of the title! 'he further claimed that the title presented by respondent was fabricated! )o support such claim, complainant presented Certifications from the .epartment of /n&ironment and atural esources *./+ and the egistry of .eeds in a&al, iliran, allegedly confirming that there is no file in their offices o ffices of (C) o! 17-0! Complainant also alleged that respondent was guilty of conflict of interest when he represented the occupants of the lot owned by complainant#s complainant#s family, who who  pre&iously donated a parcel of land to the oman oman Catholic Church, which which deed of donation respondent notaried! Complainant further accused respondent of conni&ing with egional )rial )rial Court *)C+, *)C+, a&al, iliran, ranch 13 $udge /nri%ue C! Asis, who was his former client in an administrati&e case, to rule in his clients# fa&or! fa&or! Complainant narrated the outcomes in the “cases of /strellers which were filed in the 45unicipal Circuit )rial Court *5C)C+6 and re&ersed by the )C, in the eercise of its appellate  8urisdiction to fa&or fa&or respondent and his client9s! client9s! Complainant charged respondent with gra&e misconduct when he defied the accessory penalty of his dismissal as a 8udge! espondent worked as Associate .ean and :rofessor of the a&al Institute of )echnology )echnology *I)+ ;