Legal Ethics Green Notes

Green Notes 2014
Legal Ethics
Prepared by: Atty. Erickson H. Balmes
A SURVEY OF THE 2010 - 2013 CASES IN 2. Whether the evidence presented supports
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS a finding that the respondent is
administratively liable for violating Canon
FE A. YLAYA vs. 1, Rule l. and Canon 16 of the Code of
ATTY. GLENN CARLOS GACOTT Professional Responsibility, and Section
3(c), Rule IV of A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC.
Adm. Case No. 6475/ January 30, 2013
HELD:
FACTS: The respondent briefly represented the 1. The respondent claims that the IBP violated
two in the expropriation case as intervenors for his right.to due process because he was not
being the new registered owners of the given the "amplest opportunity to defend
property. The complainant alleged that the himself, to cross examine the witness
respondent convinced them to sign a complainant, to object to the admissibility of
"preparatory deed of sale" for the {sale of the documents or present controverting
property, but he left blank the space for the evidence" when the IBP rendered its
name of the buyer and for the amount of conclusion without requiring the
consideration. The respondent further alleged complainant to adduce evidence in a formal
that the deed would be used in the sale to the hearing and despite the absence of
City Government when the RTC issues the order corroborative proof. He insists that these
to transfer the titles. The respondent then defects rendered the complainant’s
fraudulently - without their knowledge and allegations as hearsay, and the IBP’s report,
consent, and contrary to their understanding - recommendation or resolution null and void.
converted the "preparatory deed of sale" into a Although the respondent failed to have a
Deed of Absolute Sale, selling the subject face-to-face confrontation with the
property to Reynold So and Sylvia Carlos So for Complainant when she failed to appear at
P200, 000.00. the required mandatory conference, the
records reveal that the respondent fully
The complainant denied that she and participated during the entire proceedings
Laurentino were paid the P200,000.00 purchase and submitted numerous pleadings,
price or that they would sell the property "for including evidence, before the IBP. He was
such a measly sum" when they stood to get at even - allowed to file a motion for
least P6,000,000.00 as just compensation. The reconsideration supported by his submitted
respondent denied the allegations and filed a evidence. ,
motion to resolve or decide the case. The
complainant filed an ex parte motion to 2. Canon 15, Rule 15.03 states: A lawyer shall
withdraw the verified complaint and to dismiss not represent conflicting interests except by
the case. The complainant also claimed that the written consent of all concerned given after
respondent notarized the Deed of Absolute Sale a full disclosure of the facts. Respondent is
even though Reynold and Sylvia (his mother’s liable under Canon 15, Rule 15.03 for
sister) are his uncle and his aunt, respectively. representing conflicting interests without
the written consent of all concerned,
According to THE IBP, the respondent is particularly the complainant; under Canon
administratively liable for violating Canon I, Rule 16 for being remiss in his obligation to hold
1.01 Canon and Section 3(c), Rule IV of A.M. No. in trust his client’s properties; and under
02-8-13-SC (2004 Rules on Notarial Practice) Canon 18, Rule 18.03 for neglecting a legal
and recommended his suspension from the matter entrusted to him.
practice of law for a period of six (6) months.
The respondent filed a motion for According to IBP, respondent violated
reconsideration. Canon 16. The respondent admits to losing
certificates of land titles that were entrusted to
ISSUE: his care by Reynold. According to the
1. Whether the IBP violated the respondent’s respondent, the complainant "maliciously
right to due process; and retained" the TCTs over the properties sold by
Laurentino to Reynold after she borrowed them
Page 1 of 43
BAR OPERATIONS 2014
Green Notes 2014
Legal Ethics
from his office. Reynold confirms that the TCTs January 14, 2012, in Resolution No. XX-2012-24,
were taken by the complainant from the the IBP Board of Governors partially granted
respondent’s law office. The respondent is Atty. Cefra’s motion considering that the failure
reminded that his duty under Canon 16 is to was not material to the case arid that
"hold in trust all moneys and properties of his complainants were not prejudice.
client that may come into his possession."
ISSUE: Whether Atty. Cefra has been guilty of
Also, likewise, respondent is liable for negligence in handling the complainants’ case
violating Canon 18, Rule 18.03 for neglecting a Ruling
legal matter entrusted to him.
HELD: The Code of Professional Responsibility
Despite the respondent’s admission mandates that "a lawyer shall serve his client
that he represented the complainant and her with competence and diligence." It further
(ate husband and that he purportedly filed a states that "a lawyer shall not neglect a legal
Motion for Leave to Intervene in their behalf, matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in
the records show that he never filed such a connection therewith shall render him liable."
motion for the spouses Ylaya. The complainant In addition, a lawyer has the corresponding
herself states that she and her late husband duty to "keep the client informed of the status
were forced to file the Motion for Leave to of his case.
Intervene on their own behalf. The records of
the case, which include the Motion for Leave to Under the circumstances, the IBP Board
Intervene filed by the spouses Ylaya, support of Governors’ recommended penalty of simple
this conclusion. reprimand is not commensurate with the
gravity of Atty. Cefra’s infractions. As the
complainants incurred pecuniary damage by
SPOUSES ARCING AND CRESING BAUTISTA, reason of Atty. Cefra’s negligence, a suspension
EDAY jRAGADIO and FRANCING GALGALAN vs. of one (1) year from the practice of law is in
ATTY. ARTURO CEFRA order Except for the recommended penalty, the
Supreme Court agreed with the IBP Board of
Adm. Case No. 5530/ January 28, 4OI3 Governors that Atty. Cefra has been guilty of
negligence in handling the complainants ‘case.
FACTS: The complainants engaged the services His actuations in the present administrative
of Atty. Cefra to represent them in |i| case also reveal his' lack of diligence in
proceedings. According to the complainants, performing his duties as an officer of the Court.
they lost in Civil Case No. U-6504 because of
Atty. Cefra’s negligence in performing his duties Every case a lawyer accepts deserves
as their dounsel. First, Atty. Cefra’s only his full attention, diligence, skill and
presented testimonial evidence and competence, regardless of its importance and
disregarded two (2) orders of the RTC directing whether he accepts it for a fee or free.
him to submit a formal offer of documentary Certainly, a member of the Bar who is worth his
exhibits. Second, Atty. Cefra belatedly title cannot afford to practice the profession in
submitted the formal offer of documentary a lackadaisical fashion. A lawyer’s lethargy from
exhibits after the complainants had been the perspective of the Canons is both
declared to have waived their right to make a unprofessional and unethical. Atty. Cefra failed
submission. Third, Atty. Cefra did not fil6 a to live up to these standards. Interestingly, he
motion or appeal and neither did he file any did not deny the complainants’ allegations and
other remedial pleading to contest the RTC’s impliedly admitted his actions in the
decision rendered against them. proceedings in Civil Case No. U-6504.
The IBP Board of Governors found Atty. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
Cefra negligent in handling the complainants’ Supreme Court find Atty. Arturo Cefra guilty of
case and unanimously approved his suspension negligence, in violation of Rules 18.03 and 18.04
from the practice of law for six (6) months. Atty. of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is
Cefra filed a motion for reconsideration. On hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for
Page 2 of 43
BAR OPERATIONS 2014
Green Notes 2014
Legal Ethics
one (1) year and STERNLY WARNED that a certified true copy of the Amended Writ of
repetition of the same or similar offense will be Execution to complainant and to Sheriff Rivera.
dealt with more severely. But up to the filing of the instant administrative
complaint] no action has been taken by
respondent.
MARIANO T. ONG vs. EVA G. BASIYA-SARATAN,
CLERK OF COURT, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, ISSUE: 1) Whether respondent should be
ILOILO CITY, BRANCH 32 imposed the penalty as recommended by the
OCA for her repeated failure to issue the
A.M. No. P-12-3090/January 7, 2013 PERLA corresponding alias writs of execution despite
directives from the RTC.
FACTS: Complainant is one of the
defendants/judgment obligee in the Decision HELD: Section 1, Canon IV of the Code of
dated June 21, 1999 rendered in the Conduct for Court Personnel enjoins court
aforementioned case, in the amount of personnel to perform their official duties
P800,000.00 representing damages and properly and with diligence at all times. As an
attorney’s fees. To implement the judgment, officer of the court, respondent was duty-
the RTC issued the Order: dated April 24,2006 bound to use reasonable skill and diligence in
granting the issuance of the writ of execution. the performance of her officially designated
Since the judgment has remained unsatisfied, duties as clerk of court, failing which, warrants
complainant moved for the issuance of an Alias the imposition of administrative sanctions. In
|Writ of Execution, which was granted by the this case, respondent unjustifiably failed to
RTC in its Order dated September 26, 2008, issue the alias writs of execution to implement
with a further directive to the Sheriff of the RTC the judgment in Civil Case No. 18978 despite
of Valenzuela City, Branch 72 to proceed against orders from the RTC. Moreover, she failed to
plaintiffs attachment bond issued by Prudential file the required comment in disregard of the
Guarantee and Assurance, Inc. duty of every employee in the judiciary to obey
the orders and processes of the Court without
On November 26, 2010 or after the delay. Such act evinces lack of interest in
lapse of more than two (2) years with no action clearing her name, constituting an implied
on the part of respondent, the RTC again admission of the charges.
directed the issuance of in Alias Writ of
Execution and its implementation by Sheriff Consequently, the Court finds her guilty
Romero L. Rivera (Sheriff Rivera). of refusal to perform official duty classified as a
Notwithstanding, respondent did not issue any, grave offense under Section 52(A) (18) of the
prompting complainant to file a "Very Urgent Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases
Motion to Be Furnished Certified True Copy of in the Civil Service, punishable with suspension
Alias Writ of Execution," which the RTC granted of six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year
in its Order dated January 14,2011. for the first offense and by dismissal for the
second offense. Thus, she was found guilty of
On February 7, 2011, complainant filed refusal to perform official duty and accordingly,
a Manifestation and Motion, followed by a suspends her from office for six (6) months and
subsequent urgent motion dated April 27, 2011, one (1) day without pay effective immediately
seeking to compel respondent to comply with upon receipt of this resolution. She is sternly
the court's directive. He also averred that on warned once again that a commission of the
February 1, 20 Hi, he received an unsigned and same or similar offense in the future shall be
uncertified copy of the Alias Amended Writ of dealt with more severely.
Execution dated June 7, 2007, addressed to
"The Provincial Sheriff of Iloilo or any of his
Lawful Deputies1' and not to Sheriff Rivera, the
deputized sheriff.
On August 15, 2011, the RTC issued an

Amended Order enjoining respondent to issue a
Page 3 of 43
BAR OPERATIONS 2014
Green Notes 2014
Legal Ethics
RE: VERIFIED COMPLAINT OF AMA LAND, INC. On June 10, 2011, the CA granted
AGAINST HON. DANTON Q. BUESER, HON. WWRAI's application for TRO and subsequently,
SESINANDO E. VILLON and HON. RICARDO R. its application for writ of preliminary injunction
ROSARIO, ASSOCIATE JUSTICES OF THE COURT pending resolution of the petition. Op the other
OF APPEALS. hand, AMALI, in its Comment, prayed for the
dismissal of the complaint for laps, of merit and
A.M. OCA 1PI No. 12-202-CA-J/ January 15, on the ground of forum shopping. On June 14,
2013 PERLA-BERNABE 2012, the CA rendered a Decision granting
WWRAI’s petition and directing the RTC-Pasig
FACTS: The controversy started in the mid- to issue the injunctive writ in favor of WWRAI
1990s when AMA LAND commenced the pending determination of the petition for the
construction of a 37-floor declaration of permanent easement of right of
commercial/residential building located at way filed by AMALI.
Epifanio Delos Santos Avenue (EDSA) corner
Fordham Street, Wack Wack Village, ISSUE: Whether or not there is jurisdiction on
Mandaluyong City. After securing the required the part of the respondent CA Justices to act on
licenses and permits, AMAL1 notified WWRAI, WWRAI's petition assailing the denial of its
the owner of Fordham Street, of its intention to application for injunctive relief to stop AMALI
use the said street as an access road and staging from proceeding with its project construction,
area of the project. Not having received any claiming this issue as irrelevant to the principal
response, AMALI proceeded to temporarily action to enforce an easement of right of way
enclose the job site and set up a field office pending before the RTC Pasig.
along Fordham Street. However, WWRAI fenced
off the said street, which prompted AMALI to HELD: A perusal of the records of the case as
file before the RTC-Pasig a petition to enforce well as the parties’ respective allegations
an easement of right of way pursuant to Article disclosed that the acts complained of relate to
649 in relation to Article 656 of the Civil Code. the validity of the proceedings before the
AMALI also prayed for a temporary restraining respondent CA Justices and the propriety of
order (TRO) and a writ of preliminary their orders in GA-G.R. SP No. 118994: which
mandatory injunction to enjoin WWRAI from were done in the exercise of their judicial
demolishing and removing its temporary field functions. Jurisprudence is replete with cases
office, fencing off Fordham Street, and holding that errors, if any, committed by a
preventing its access to the construction site. judge in the exercise of his adjudicative
functions cannot be corrected through
In its Answer, WWRAI averred that administrative proceedings, but should instead
AMALI's project violated applicable zoning be assailed through available judicial remedies.
ordinances; the licenses and permits secured Disciplinary proceedings against judges do not
therefor were irregular and unlawful; the complement, supplement or substitute judicial
project is a nuisance; and EDSA should instead remedies and, thus, cannot tie pursued
be utilized as the staging area of the project. simultaneously with the judicial remedies
Apart from praying for the dismissal of the accorded to parties aggrieved by their
complaint, WWRAI interposed a counterclaim erroneous orders or judgments.
for actual and exemplary damages, attorney's
fees and costs of suit, and prayed for a TRO and In this case, AMALI had already filed a
writ of preliminary mandatory injunction for petition for review on certiorari challenging the
AMALI to immediately cease and desist with its questioned order of the respondent CA Justices,
project construction. After hearing AMALI’s which is still pending final action by the Court.
application for injunctive relief, the RTC-Pasig, Consequently, a decision on the validity of the
in its Order dated July 24, 1997, granted proceedings and propriety of the orders of the
AMALI's prayer and directed WWRAI to allow respondent CA Justices in this administrative
the use of Fordham Street as a temporary proceeding would be premature. Besides, even
easement of right of way. Apparently, WWRAI's if the subject decision or portions thereof turn
application for TRO and/or writ of preliminary out to be erroneous, administrative liability will
injunction in its counterclaim was not heard. only attach upon proof that the actions of the
Page 4 of 43
BAR OPERATIONS 2014
Green Notes 2014
Legal Ethics
respondent Justices were motivated by bad cases ended in the sala of Judge Olegario
faith, dishonesty or hatred, or attended by Sarmiento, Jr. (respondent or Judge Sarmiento).
fraud or corruption, which were not sufficiently For his part, Beckett commenced criminal
shown to exist in this case. Neither was bias as charges against Eltesa, one of which was for
well as partiality established. Acts or conduct of adultery.
the judge clearly indicative of arbitrariness or
prejudice must be clearly shown before he can The couple’s initial legal battle ended
be branded the stigma of being biased and when Judge Sarmiento, on September 25, 2006
partial. In the same vein, bad faith or malice in Civil Case No. CEB-32254, rendered judgment
cannot be inferred simply because the based on a compromise agreement in which
judgment or order is adverse to a party. Here, Eltesa and Beckett agreed and undertook,
other than AMALI's bare and self-serving claim among others, to cause the dismissal of all
that respondent CA Justices "conspired with pending civil and criminal cases each may have
WWRAl's counsel in knowingly and in bad faith filed against the other. They categorically
rendering an unjust judgment and in agreed too that Beckett shall have full and
committing x x x other misconduct," no act permanent custody over Geoffrey, Jr., then five
clearly indicative of bias and partiality was (5) years old, subject to the visitorial rights of
alleged except for the claim that respondent CA Eltesa. In the 2010 visit, Beckett consented to
Justices misapplied the law and jurisprudence. have Geoffrey, Jr. stay with Eltesa even after
Thus, the presumption that the respondent the holidays, provided she return the child on
judge has regularly performed his duties shall January 9. 2011. January 9 came and went but
prevail. Geoffrey, Jr. remained with Eltfesa, prompting
Beckett to file a petition against Eltesa for
Finally, resort to administrative violation of RA 7610.
disciplinary action prior to the final resolution of
the judicial issues involved constitutes an abuse Beckett further relates that, [during the
of court processes that serves to disrupt rather March 1, 2011 conference on the application
than promote the orderly administration of for habeas corpus, Geoffrey, Jr., then nine (9)
justice and further clog the courts' dockets, years old, displayed inside the courtroom
Those who seek relief from the courts must not hysterical conduct, shouting and crying, not
be allowed to ignore basic legal rules and abuse wanting to let go of Eltesa and acting as though,
court processes in their efforts to vindicate their he, the father, was a total stranger. Despite
rights. Thus the court dismisses the Geoffrey Jr.’s outburst, Judge Sarmiento issued
administrative complaint. an Order, dated March 1, 2011, directing inter
alia the following: (1) Eltesa to return Geoffrey,
Jr. to Beckett; and (2) Beckett to bring the child
GEOFFREY BECKETT vs. JUDGE OLEGARIO R. in the pre-trial conference set for March 15,
SARMIENTO, JR., Regional Trial Court, Branch 2001. For some reason, the turnover of
24, Cebu City Geoffrey, Jr. to Beckett did not materialize.
A.M. No. RTJ-12-2326/ January 30, 2013 Beckett also alleged that while waiting
VELASCO for the March |15, 2011 pre-trial conference to
start, he saw one Helen Sy, purportedly a close
FACTS: Geoffrey Beckett (Beckett or friend of Eltesa, enter Judge Sarmiento’s
Complainant), an Australian national, was chambers. Then, during the conference itself,
previously married to Eltesa Densing Beckett Eltesa moved f6r reconsideration of the court’s
(Eltesa), a Filipina. Out on the marriage was March 1,2011 Order, praying that it be set aside
born on June 29, 2001, Geoffrey Beckett, Jr. insofar as it directed her to return the custody
(Geoffrey, Jr.).In 2006, Eltesa filed a case against of Geoffrey, Jr. to Beckett. To this partial
Beckett for violation of Republic Act No. (RA) motion, Beckett requested, and was granted, a
7610, otherwise known ^s the Violence against period of five (5) days to file his
Women and Children Act, followed by a suit for comment/opposition. Additionally, Beckett
the declaration of nullity of their marriage, sought the immediate implementation of the
docketed as Civil Case No. CEB -32254. Both said March 1, 2011 Order. But instead of
Page 5 of 43
BAR OPERATIONS 2014
Green Notes 2014
Legal Ethics
enforcing said order and/or waiting for RE: COMPLAINT OF LEONARDO A. VELASCO
Beckett’s comment, Judge Sarmiento, in open AGAINST ASSOCIATE JUSTICES FRANCISCO H.
court, issued another order giving Eltesa VILLARUZ, JR., ALEX L. QUIROZ, AND SAMUEL
provisional custody over Geoffrey, Jr. and at the R. MARTIRES OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN
same time directing the Department of Social
Welfare and Development (DSWD) to] conduct A.M. OCA IPI No. 10-25-SB-J/ January 15, 2013
a social case study on the child. PERLAS-BERNABE
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent Judge FACTS: On December 10, 2008, the Third
Sarmiento is guilty of gross ignorance of the Division of the Sandiganbayan, rendered a
law. Decision convicting accused Pacifico C. Velasco.
Accused Velasco sought its reconsideration,
HELD: Gross ignorance of the law on the part of which the Sandiganbayan denied in its March
a judge presupposes an appalling lack of 13, 2009 Resolution. He, then, elevated the case
familiarity with simple rules of law or before the Court via a petition for review on
procedures and well-established jurisprudence certiorari, docketed as G.R. No. 187277, which
which tends to erode the public trust in the was denied in a minute resolution.
competence and fairness of the court which’ he Subsequently, accused Velasco filed a motion
personifies. Not to know the law as basic, for leave to file and to admit a second motion
almost elementary, as the Rules of Court, or for reconsideration of the Court’s June 3, 2009
acting in disregard of established rule of law as Resolution, which the Court merely noted
if he were not aware of the same constitutes without action in its January 1, 2010 Resolution.
gross ignorance whence no one is excused, The Court’s Resolution became final and
especially an RTC judge. Respondent judge, in executory.
granting provisional custody over Geoffrey, Jr.
in favor of his mother, Eltesa, did not disregard In the hearing for the execution of
the res judicata rule. The more appropriate accused Velasco’s sentence before the
description of the legal situation engendered by Sandiganbayan, his counsel manifested that he
the March 15, 2011 Order issued amidst the was confined at the San Juan De Dios Hospital in
persistent plea of the child not to be returned Pasay City and was due for surgery.
to his father, is that respondent judge exhibited Nonetheless, a warrant of arrest was issued, but
fidelity to jurisprudential command to accord as agreed by the parties, accused Velasco shall
primacy to the welfare and interest of a minor remain in the hospital until further order by the
child. Sandiganbayan. Accused Velasco filed an Urgent
Motion to Recall Warrant of Arrest, invoking
Now to another point. In disputes humanitarian consideration, having allegedly
concerning post-separation custody over a just undergone a rigid and serious surgical
minor, the well-settled rule is that no child operation. However, the Sandiganbayan
under seven (7) years of age shall be separated Justices, on instead issued an Order of Arrest.
from the mother, unless the court finds The Sandiganbayan Justices set aside their
compelling reasons to order otherwise. And if earlier order recalling the warrant of arrest and
already over 7 years of age, the child’s choice as issued anew an Order of Arrest for failure of
to which of his parents he prefers to be under accused Velasco to attend the heading of even
custody shall be respected, unless the parent date. Subsequently, or on November 15, 2010,
chosen proves to be unfit. ln the light of the accused Velasco filed a Motion to Defer
foregoing, respondent judge cannot be held Promulgation of Sentence, to Suspend
guilty of the charges hurled by the complainant Proceedings and/or Recall Warrant' of Arrest
against him for the reason that absent a finding claiming, once again, that , he had just
of strong reasons to rule otherwise, the undergone a major operation necessitating
preference of a child over 7 years of age as to hospitalization and post-operation treatment.
whom he desired to live with shall be Hence, the instant administrative complaint for
respected. grave misconduct and violation of the Code of
Judicial Conduct f asserts that, the conviction of
accused Velasco having attained finality on
Page 6 of 43
BAR OPERATIONS 2014
Green Notes 2014
Legal Ethics
September 25, 2009, the Sandiganbayan The Court finds no grave misconduct or
Justices should have merely performed the violation of a specific provision of the Code of
ministerial duty of executing his final sentence Judicial Conduct to have been committed by the
of conviction and not entertained his potions or Sandiganbayan Justices. However the Supreme
pleadings that forestalled its execution. In doing Court STERNLY WARNED the Sandiganbayan
so, they have shown evident partiality, bias and that repetition of the same or similar acts will
impropriety in favor of accused Velasco. be dealt with more severely.
However, the Sandiganbayan Justices

claimed that the repeated resetting of the KAREEN P. MAGTAGNOB vs. JUDGE GENIE D.
hearings for the execution of judgment against GAPAS-AGBADA
accused Velasco was mainly due to medical
reasons and the pendency of incidents before OCA I.P.I. No. 11-3631-RTJ January 16, 2013
the Court. Vehemently denying that their PEREZ
questioned orders were issued to unduly favor
accused Velascp, they insisted that these were FACTS: Complainant contends that her
prompted by circumstances which were not at appointment was not renewed because
their instance land that the instant complaint respondent judge refused to sign the
consists of unfounded allegations and requirements for the change of her
suspicions of partiality They also argued that employment status from temporary to
since accused Velasco had already been permanent despite her two-year service. Thus,
committed to the national penitentiary on May her temporally appointment ended last 16
10, 2012, this case is now moot and academic October 2010.
and therefore; should be dismissed.
Complainant states that many of her
ISSUE: Whether the respondent Sandiganbayan officemates have) questioned the "satisfactory"
Justices may be held administratively; liable for rating given to her by respondent judge
their actions which unduly delayed the considering that Isidro Guerrero (Mr. Guerrero),
execution of the final sentence of conviction of their non-performing utility clerk, received a
accused Velasco. higher rating despite respondent judge’s
knowledge of his misdeeds. Complainant
HELD: Misconduct means intentional alleges that respondent judge has retained her
wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule of position as executive judge of RTC, Virac,
law or a standard of behavior. To constitute an Catanduanes because she has successfully
administrative offense, misconduct should maligned the character of the other judge in the
relate to or be connected with the performance station, Judge Lelu P. Contreras (Judge
of the official functions of a public officer. In Contreras).
this case, the actions of the Sandiganbayan
Justices respecting the execution of the final Finally, complainant prays that she be
judgment against accused Velasco were shown reinstated to her former position because she
to be in respectful deference to the Court’s believes that her separation from employment
action on the various petitions filed by the was unjust and without valid grounds. She
former, who apparently exhausted what further prays that respondent judge be relieved
he]perceived were valid available remedies as executive judge of RTC, Virac, Catanduanes
under the law. to put an end to her abusive acts towards lowly
employees.
However, the becoming modesty that
the Sandiganbayan Justices have exhibited in ISSUE: Whether or not Executive Judge Genie G.
this case cannot detract from the fact that the Gapas-Agnada (respondent) is guilty
judgment of conviction of accused Velasco ofoppression, conduct unbecoming of a judge
should have been immediately executed, and abuse of authority.
absent any restraining order from the Court, in
violation of the Court’s directive. HELD: Complainant was appointed; Court
Stenographer III Sat RTC, Branch 42, Virac,
Page 7 of 43
BAR OPERATIONS 2014
Green Notes 2014
Legal Ethics
Catanduanes on 16 October 2008. Her EMILIA O. DHALIWAL vs.

appointment was under temporary status in ATTY. ABELARDO B. DUMAGUING
view of her lack of two years relevant
experience which was required for the position. A.C. No. 9390/ August 1, 2012
Her temporary appointment was renewed for PERLAS-BERNABE
one year on 16 October 2009 upon
recommendation of Judge Agbada, the FACTS: In her sworn statement, complainant
presiding judge of her court. alleged that she engaged the services of
respondent in connection with the purchase of
After another year, however, a parcel of land from Fil-Estate Development,
complainant was no longer recommended by Inc. (Fil-Estate). On June 13, 2000, upon the
her judge for permanent position (change of instruction of respondent, complainant's
status from temporary to permanent). Thus, her daughter and son-in-law withdrewP342,000.00
temporary appointment expired on 16 October from the Philippine National Bank (PNB) and
2010. handed the cash over to respondent. They then
proceeded to BPI Family Bank Malcolm Square
In her resolve to discredit her judge, Branch where respondent purchased two
complainant made a shotgun imputation of manager's checks both payable to the order of
offenses allegedly committed by the former. Fil-Estate Inc. When asked why the manager's
She, however, failed to show any proof that she checks were not [purchased at PNB, respondent
was entitled to be given a permanent position. explained that he has friends at the BPI Family
Other than her allegation that she was given Bank and that is where he maintains an
two "very satisfactory" and one "satisfactory" account. These manager's checks were
rating, there was no evidence presented that subsequently consigned with the Housing and
she has met the prescribed qualification Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) after
standard for the position. "Such standard is a complainant’s request to suspend payments to
mix of the formal education, experience, Fil-Estate had been granted. On September 22,
training, civil service eligibility, physical health 2000, respondent, on behalf of complainant,
and attitude that the job requires." Respondent filed with the HLURB a complaint for delivery of
judge, who is the immediate supervisor of title and damages against Fil-Estate. A week
complainant, is in the best position to observe after or on September 29, 2000, he withdrew
the fitness, propriety and efficiency off the the two manager's checks that were previously
employee for the position. It should be consigned. On March 3, 2003, complainant
impressed upon complainant that her informed the HLURB through a letter that
appointment in the Judiciary is not a Vested respondent was no longer representing her. On
right. It is not an entitlement that she can claim March 11, 2003, the HLURB promulgated its
simply for the (reason that she had been |n the Decision, adverse to complainant, finding the
service for almost two years. case for delivery of title and damages
premature as there was no evidence of full
The subsequent filing of complaint payment of the purchase price}. Thereafter,
against Atty. Borja manifests complainant’s complainant made demands upon respondent
propensity to file complaints whenever she to return and account to her the amounts
does not get what she wants. Such attitude previously consigned with the HLURB.
should not be tolerated. Otherwise, judges will Respondent did not comply. Thus, complainant
be placed in hostage situations by employees prays that respondent be disbarred.
who will threaten to file complaints whenever
they do not get their way with their judges. In his answer, respondent admitted
substantially all of the allegations in the
There being no proof that respondent complaint. In defense, he claims that the
judge abused her position, the case against her amount of P311,819.94 was consigned to the
should be dismissed. Respondent judge should, HLURB to cover the full payment of the balance
however, be reminded to be circumspect in her of the purchase price of the lot with Fil-Estate.
actuations so as not to give the impression that Fil-Estate, however, did not accept the same as
she is guilty of favoritism. it wanted complainant to also pay interests and
Page 8 of 43
BAR OPERATIONS 2014
Green Notes 2014
Legal Ethics
surcharges totalling more than & 800,000.00. condition to the return of the sum of P311
Because the amount was formally consigned ,891.94 to complainant compounds his liability
with the HLURB, he allegedly filed a motion to and even bolstered his attitude to use dishonest
verify if the judgment iii the case was already means if only to evade his obligation. It
satisfied. underlines his failure to meet the high moral
standards required of members of the legal
He claimed that his motion has not yet profession.
been acted upon; hence, he did not deem it
proper as yet to return the consigned amount.
GRACE M. ANACTA vs.
Following the submission by ATTY. EDUARDO D. RESURRECCION
complainant of her verified position paper and
the failure of respondent to submit his, despite A.C. No. 9074/August 14, 2012 DEL CASTILLO
having been given ample opportunity to do so,
the Commission on Bar Discipline, submitted its FACTS: Complainant engaged the services of
Report and Recommendation finding respondent to file on her behalf a petition for
complainant to have sufficiently established annulment of marriage before the Regional Trial
that respondent violated Canon 16 of the Code Court (RTC) of Quezon City, for which she paid
of Professional Responsibility. It also found respondent P 42,000.00. In December 2004,
respondent to have submitted a false and respondent presented to the complainant a
fabricated piece of documentary evidence, as supposed copy of a Petition for Annulment of
the January 2004 Motion attached to his Marriage. From then on, complainant did not
answer as Annex A did not bear any proof of hear from respondent or receive any notice
service upon the opposing party and proof of from the trial court relative to the said petition.
filing with the HLURB. The Commission To her surprise and dismay, she discovered that
recommended that respondent be suspended no petition for annulment docketed as Civil
from the practice of law for a period of one (1) Case No. 04-25141 was ever filed before the
year. On September 19, 2007, the Board of said court. Thus, complainant terminated the
Governors passed Resolution No. XVIII-2007-93, services of respondent "for loss of trust and
adopting with modification the Commission's confidence" and requested the OCC-RTC to
Report and Recommendation. refuse tiny belated attempt on the part of
respondent to file a petition for annulment of
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Abelardo B. marriage on her behalf.
Dumaguing is guilty of violating Canon 16 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility and be On July 30, 2007, complainant, through
hereby suspended from the practice of law. her new counsel, wrote a letter to the
respondent demanding for an explanation as to
HELD: Money entrusted to a lawyer for a how respondent intended to indemnify the
specific purpose, such as payment for the complainant for damages she had suffered due
balance of the purchase price of a parcel of land to respondent’s deceitful acts. Respondent has
as in the present case, but not used for the not replied thereto. Hence, complainant filed
purpose, should be immediately returned. "A before the IBP a verified complaint praying that
lawyer's failure to return upon demand the respondent be disbarred.
funds held by him on behalf of his client gives
rise to the presumption that he has ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Eduardo D.
appropriated the same for his own use in Resurreccion (respondent) is guilty of gross
violation of the trust reposed in him by his misconduct, deceit and malpractice.
client! Such act is a gross violation of general
morality as well as of professional ethics. It HELD: One of the qualifications required of a
impairs public confidence in the legal profession candidate for admission to the bar is the
and deserves punishment. Respondent's possession of good moral character, and, when
proffered excuse of having to await the HLURB one who has already been admitted to the bar
action on his alleged motion— the filing of clearly shows, by a series of acts, that he does
which he miserably failed to prove-- as a not follow such moral principles as should
Page 9 of 43
BAR OPERATIONS 2014
Green Notes 2014
Legal Ethics
govern the conduct of an upright person, and In this case, it is also clear that
that, in his dealings with his clients and with the respondent violated his lawyer’s oath and code
courts. The disregards the rule of professional of conduct when he withheld the amount of P
ethics required to be observed by every 42,000.00 despite his failure to render the
attorney, it is the duty of the court, as guardian necessary legal services and after complainant
of the interests of society, as well as of the demanded its] return. He must therefore be
preservation of the ideal standard of directed to return the same.
professional conduct, to make use of its powers
to deprive him of his professional attributes Finally, we emphasize that "the object
which he so unworthily abused. of a disbarment proceeding is not so much to
punish the individual attorney himself, as to
Pursuant to Section 27, Rule 138 of the safeguard the administration of justice' by
Rules of Court, respondent may either be proceeding the court and the public from the
disbarred or suspended for committing misconduct on officers of the court, and to
deceitful and dishonest acts. Thus: remove from the profession of law persons
“SEC. 27. Disbarment or suspension of whose disregard for their oath of office has
attorneys by Supreme Court; grounds proved them unfit to continue discharging the
therefor. - A member of the bar may be trust respect in them as members of the bar."
disbarred or suspended from his office as
attorney by the Supreme Court for any
deceit, malpractice, or other gross ENGR. GILBERT TUMBOKON vs.
misconduct in such office, grossly immoral ATTY. MARIANO R. PEFIANCO
conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a
crime involving moral turpitude, or for any A.C. No. 6116/ August 1, 2012 |
violation of the oath which he is required to PERLAS-BERNABE
take before admission to practice, or for a
willful disobedience of any lawful order of a FACTS: Complainant narrated that respondent
superior court, or for corruptly or willfully undertook to give him 20% commission* later
appearing as an attorney for a party to a reduced to 10%, of the attorney's fees the latter
case without authority to do so. The would receive in representing Spouses Amble
practice of soliciting cases at law for the and Rosalinda Yap (Sps. Yap), whom he
purpose of gain, either personally or referred, in an action for partition of the estate
through paid agents or brokers, constitutes of the late Benjamin Yap (Civil Case No. 4986
malpractice.” before the Regional Trial Court of Aklan).
However, respondent failed to pay him the
Complainant asks that respondent be agreed commission notwithstanding receipt of
disbarred. However, the Supreme Court find attorney's fees amounting to 17% of the total
that suspension from the practice of law is estate or about P 40 million. Instead, he was
sufficient to discipline respondent. The supreme informed through a letter dated July 16, 1997
penalty of disbarment is meted out only in clear that Sps. Yap assumed to pay the same after
cases of misconduct that seriously affect the respondent had agreed to reduce his attorney's
standing and character of the lawyer as an fees from 25% to 17%. He then demanded the
officer of the court and member of the bar. payment of1 his commission which respondent
While we will not hesitate to remove an erring ignored.
attorney from the esteemed brotherhood of
lawyers, where the evidence calls for it, we will Complainant further alleged that
also not disbar him where a lesser penalty will respondent has not lived up to the high moral
suffice to accomplish the desired end. In this standards required of his profession for having
case, we find suspension to be sufficient abandoned his legal wife, Milagros Hilado, with
sanction against respondent. Suspension, we whom he has two children, and cohabited with
may add, is not primarily intended; as Mae Flor Galido, with whom he has four
punishment, but as a means to protect the children. He also accused respondent of
public and the legal profession. engaging in money-lending business without
Page 10 of 43
BAR OPERATIONS 2014
Green Notes 2014
Legal Ethics
the required authorization from the Bangko Furthermore, respondent did not deny
Sentral ng Pilipinas. the accusation that he abandoned his legal
family to cohabit with his mistress with whom
In his defense, respondent explained he begot four children notwithstanding that his
that he accepted Sps. Yap's case on a 25% moral character as well as his moral fitness to
contingent fee basis, and advanced all the be retained in the Roll of Attorneys has been
expenses. He disputed the August 11,1995 assailed. The settled rule is that betrayal of the
letter for being a forgery and claimed that Sps. marital vow of fidelity or sexual relations
Yap assumed to pay complainant's commission outside marriage is considered disgraceful and
which he clarified in his July 16, 1997 letter. He, immoral as it manifests deliberate disregard of
thus, prayed for the dismissal of the complaint the sanctity of marriage and the marital vows
and for the corresponding sanction against protected by the Constitution and affirmed by
complainant's counsel, Atty. Florencio B. our laws.
Gonzales, for filing a baseless complaint.
However, the Supreme Court finds the
The Court resolved to refer this charge of engaging in illegal money lending pot
administrative case to the Integrated Bar of the to have been sufficiently established. A
Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and "business" requires some form of investment a
recommendation. In his Report and sufficient number of customers to whom its
Recommendation dated October 10, 2008, the output can be sold at profit on a consistent
Investigating IBP Commissioner recommended basis. The lending of money to a single person
that respondent be suspended for one (1) year without showing that such service is made
from the active practice of law, for violation of available to other persons on a consistent basis
the Lawyer's Oath. cannot be construed as in the case that
respondent is engaged in the business of
ISSUE: Whether ATTY. MARIANO R. PEFIANCO is lending.
GUILTY of violation of the Lawyer’s Oath, Rule
1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Nonetheless, while the Supreme Court
Responsibility and Rule 9.02, Canon 9 of the rule that respondent should be sanctioned for
same Code and be SUSPENDED from the active his actions, It is minded that the power to
practice of law. disbar should be exercised with great caution
and only in clear cases of misconduct that
HELD: The practice of law is considered a seriously affect the standing and character of
privilege bestowed by the State on those who the lawyer as an officer of the court and as
show that they possess and continue to possess member of the bar, or the misconduct borders
the legal qualifications for the profession. As on the criminal, or committed under scandalous
such, lawyers are expected to maintain at all circumstance which do not obtain here.
times a high standard of legal proficiency, Considering the circumstances of the case, the
morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing, and Supreme Court deems it appropriate that
must perform their four-fold duty to society, respondent be suspended from the practice of
the legal profession, the courts and their clients, law for a period of one (1) year as
in accordance with the values and norms recommended.
embodied in the Code. Lawyers may, thus, be
disciplined for any conduct that is wanting of
the above standards whether in their SANTOS VENTURA HOCORMA FOUNDATION,
professional or in their private capacity. INC., represented by GABRIEL H. ABAD vs.
ATTY. RICHARD V. FUNK
In this case, clearly, respondent has
violated Rule 9.02, Canon 9 of the Code which FACTS: Complainant Santos Ventura Hocorma
prohibits a lawyer from dividing or stipulating to Foundation (Hocorma Foundation) filed a
divide a fee for legal services with persons not complaint for disbarment against respondent
licensed to practice law, except in certain cases Atty. Richard Funk. It alleged that Atty. Funk
which do not obtain in the case at bar. used to work as a corporate secretary, counsel,
chief executive officer, and trustee of the
Page 11 of 43
BAR OPERATIONS 2014
Green Notes 2014
Legal Ethics
foundation form 1983 to 1985. He also served also authorized Atty. Funk to register the 5-
as its counsel in several criminal and civil cases. hectare land in the name of Mabalacat institute
so a new title could be issued to it, separate
Hocorma Foundation further alleged from the properties of Hocorma Foundation.
that on November 26, 2006 Atty. Funk filed an
action for quieting of tile and damages against Atty. Funk claims that in 1985 when
Hocorma Foundation on behalf of Mabalacat Hocorma Foundation refused to pay his
Institute (Mabalacat Institute). Atty. Funk did attorney's fees, he severed his professional
so, according to the foundation, using the relationship with it. On November 9, 1989, four
information that he acquired while serving as its years later, he filed a complaint against the
counsel in violation of the Code of Professional foundation for collection of his attorney's fees.
Responsibility (CPR) and in breach of attomey- The trial court, the Court of Appeals (CA), and
client relationship. the Supreme Court decided the claim in his
favor.
In his answer, Atty. Funk averred that
Don Teodoro |V. Santos (Santos) organized After hearing, the Committee on Bar
Mabalacat Institute in 1950 and Hocorma Discipline (CBD) found Atty. Funk to have
Foundation in 1979] Santos hired him in January violated Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the Code of
1982 to assist Santos and the organizations he Professional Responsibility (CPR) with the
established, including the Mabalacat Institute, aggravating circumstance of a pattern of
in its legal problems. Subsequently, according to misconduct consisting of four court
Atty. Funk, J when Santos got involve4 in appearances against his former client, the
various litigations, he sold or donated Hocorma Foundation. The CBD recommended
substantial portions of his real and personal Atty. Funk's suspension from the practice of law
properties to the Hocorma Foundation. Santos for one year and the IBP Board of Governors
hired Atty. Funk for this purpose. The latter adopted and approved the CBD's report and
emphasized that, in all these, the attorney- recommendation. Atty. Funk moved for
client relationship was always between I Santos reconsideration but the IBP Board of Governors
and him. He was more of Santos’ personal denied it.
lawyer than the lawyer of Hocorma Foundation.
ISSUE: Whether Atty. Funk betrayed the trust
Atty. Funk claimed that before Santos and confidence of a former client in violation of
left for America in August 1983 for prejudicial the CPR when he filed several actions against
treatment, he entered into a retainer such client on behalf of a new one.
agreement with him. They agreed that Atty.
Funk would be paid for his legal services out of HELD: An attorney owes his client undivided
the properties that he donated or sold to the allegiance. Because of the highly fiduciary
Hocorma Foundation. The foundation approved nature of their relationship, sound public policy
that compensation agreement on December 13, dictates that he be prohibited from
1983. But it reneged and would not pay Atty. representing conflicting interests or discharging
Funk's legal fees. inconsistent duties. An attorney may not,
without being guilty of professional misconduct,
Atty. Funk also claimed that Santos act as counsel for a person whose interest
executed a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) in conflicts with that of his present or former
his favor on August 13, 1983. The SPA client. This rule is so absolute that good faith
authorized him to advise Hocorma Foundation and honest intention on the erring lawyer's part
and follow up with it Santos' sale or donation of does not make it inoperative.
a 5-hectare land in Pampanga to Mabalacat
Institute, covered by TCT 19989-R. Atty. Funk The reason for this is that a lawyer
was to collect all expenses for the property acquires knowledge of his former client's
transfer from Hocorma Foundation out of funds doings, whether documented or not, that he
that Santos provided. It was Santos' intention would ordinarily not have acquired were it not
since 1950 to give the land to Mabalacat for the trust and confidence that his client
Institute free of rent and expenses. The SPA placed on him in the light of their relationship.
Page 12 of 43
BAR OPERATIONS 2014
Green Notes 2014
Legal Ethics
It would simply be impossible for the lawyer to judge noted that respondent was apologetic
identify and erase such entrusted knowledge and acknowledged her mistake.
with faultless precision or lock the same into an
iron box when suing the former client on behalf Complainant averred that while he
of | new one. understands the present condition of
respondent, he, however felt duty-bound to
Here, the evidence shows that Hocorma report the matter to the court. Being pregnant
Foundation availed itself of the legal services of outside of marriage, respondent had breached
Atty. Funk in connection with, among others, the ethical standards in the Judiciary, thus, is
the transfer off one of the properties subject of administratively liable.
the several suits that the lawyer subsequently
filed against the foundation. Indeed, Atty. punk The Court referred this case to
collected attorney's fees from the foundation Executive Judge Elenija M. Arabejo, Regional
for such services] Thus, he had an obligation pot Trial Court, Tangub City, for investigation,
to use any knowledge he acquired during that report and recommendation. During the
relationship, including the fact that the property investigation, respondent refused to further
under litigation existed at all, when he sued the explain and give more information regarding
foundation. her circumstances. She, however, admitted and
confirmed anew the truth of the statements
Thus the Supreme Court finds it fitting which complainant made regarding her
to adopt the CBD's recommendation as well as condition. With respondent's admission of the
the IBP Board of Governor's resolution fact that she was impregnated by a man
respecting the case. married to another woman, the Investigating
Judge concluded that respondent indeed
engaged in extra-marital affairs and committed
JUDGE ARMANDO S. ADLAWAN, Presiding immoral conduct that is unbecoming of a court
Judge, 6th Municipal Circuit Trial Court, employee. Thus, the Investigating Judge
Bonifacio-Don Mariano Marcos, Misamis recommended that the penalty of suspension
Occidental vs. ESTRELLA P. CAPILITAN, Court for a period of six (6) months and one (1) day be
Stenographer, 6th Municipal Circuit]' Trial imposed upon respondent.
Court, Bonifacio-Don Mariano Marcos,
Misamis Occidental ISSUE: Whether the respondent being a court
employee, is guilty of disgraceful and immoral
A.M. No. P-12-3080/August 29, 2012 PERALTA conduct.
FACTS: Judge Adlawan stated that respondent HELD: Immorality has been defined to include
Estrella Capilitan was appointed Court not only sexual matters but also "conduct
Stenographer on February -4, 2008 on account inconsistent with rectitude, or indicative of
of his recommendation. Respondent was corruption, indecency, depravity, and
previously married to a Muslim under Muslim dissoluteness; or is willful, flagrant or shameless
laws and the relationship bore two (2) children. conduct showing moral indifferent to opinions
She is now single-handedly raising her kids after of respectable members of the community, and
being separated from her husband. an inconsiderate attitude toward good order
and public welfare.
Hence, he and the rest of his staff were
surprised when respondent announced to them In the instant case, respondent has
that she was four (4) months pregnant by a been informed or the charge against her and
married man. As respondent narrated, in afforded the opportunity to respond thereto. In
February 2010, she met her former high school all instances, respondent admitted the
classmate who represented himself as allegation that she is pregnant by a man
separated from his wife. She claimed to have married to another woman. Indeed, while she
given in to temptation. Later on, respondent initially claimed that the man who impregnated
alleged that the man became elusive when she her represented to be separated from his wife,
told him about her pregnancy. Complainant the fact remains that the man is still married.
Page 13 of 43
BAR OPERATIONS 2014
Green Notes 2014
Legal Ethics
Thus, there is no doubt that respondent government service. As to the information she
engaged in sexual relations with a married man omitted from her PDS, respondent admitted
which not only violate the moral standards having left but the names of her three children.
expected of employees of the Judiciary but is She argued, however, that she did so because
also a desecration of the sanctity of the they were never her dependents and were in
institution of marriage. the custody of her parents. She also claimed
that she has never claimed tax exemptions for
Under the Revised Uniform Rules on her children. Respondent also denied that she
Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, falsified her civil status, as she is in fact single.
disgraceful and immoral conduct is punishable She claimed that the omission of her children’s
by suspension of six ( 6) months and one (1) day names did not: mean that she was not
to one ( 1) year for the first offense. Considering acknowledging them or that she was concealing
that this is respondent's first offense, we deem their existence from family and friends, and
it proper to impose the penalty of suspension in neither did it jeopardize the interest or violate
its minimum period to respondent. any right of complainant.
Respondent pointed out that she has

MANOLITO C. VILLORDON vs. MARILYN C. complied with the requirements of her
AVILA, Court Interpreter I, Municipal Trial employment, she possesses all the necessary
Court in Cities, Branch 3, Cebu City qualifications, and she has performed her duties
in accordance with the mandate of her position.
A.M. P-10-2809/ August 10, 2012 PER CURIAM She prayed that the charges against her be
dismissed. In a manifestation received by the
FACTS: Complainant met respondent. Soon Court on 14 March 2011, respondent further
after, they started living together as husband argued that, when she filled out her PDS, the
and wife. Respondent was later appointed as birth certificates of her children were not
Court Interpreter, the position vacated by available so she needed a co-worker’s advice to
complainant’s father. Complainant and leave the items blank. She reiterated that when
respondent parted ways in 2008, and both she applied as court interpreter, she was
subsequently found other partners. After their qualified for the position. She insisted that all
break-up, respondent filed an administrative the information in her PDS are true and only the
case against complainant before the BJMP. names of her three children were omitted.
On 29 January 2009, at about 6 o’clock ISSUE: Whether respondent is guilty of

in the evening, complainant and his partner, dishonesty and falsification of official
Maribel Caballero (Caballero), met Respondent documents.
at the parking area of the Minganilla Sports
Complex. The three had an altercation. As a HELD: Dishonesty has been defined as
result, respondent filed a case against "intentionally making a false statement on any
complainant for violation of Republic Act No. material fact." Dishonesty evinces "a disposition
9262 (RA 9262), or the Anti-Violence Against to lie, cheat, deceive or defraud;
Women and Children Act. Meanwhile, Caballero untrustworthiness; lack of integrity, lack of
filed a complaint for physical injuries against honesty, probity or integrity in principle; lack of
respondent before the Office of the Provincial fairness and straightforwardness; disposition to
Prosecutor. defraud, deceive or betray.
Judge Andrino examined respondent’s The Court has already ruled in the past
PDS. He found that respondent did not indicate that willful concealment of facts in the PDS
that she has three daughters and failed to constitutes mental dishonesty amounting to
disclose that there was a physical injuries misconduct. Likewise, making a false statement
complaint filed against her. In her comment, in one’s PDS amounts to dishonesty and
respondent said that complainant has an axe to falsification of an official document. The
grind against her because they had an illicit omission of the names of her children in her
affair, which she broke off when she entered PDS is an act of dishonesty, which merits the
Page 14 of 43
BAR OPERATIONS 2014
Green Notes 2014
Legal Ethics
imposition of penalties provided for under the FACTS: The OCA required Judge Yu to submit
law. Further, even as respondent knowingly certified photocopies of the documents
provided incomplete information in her PDS, pertinent to her complaints against
she signed the undertaking attesting that the respondents Lagman and Bassig in order for the
same was true, correct and complete. Civil OCA to take appropriate action on the matter.
service rules mandate the accomplishment of
the PDS as a requirement for employment in In response, Judge Yu submitted the
the government. Hence, making false required documents and in a letter dated
statements in one’s PDS is ultimately connected October 26, 2010, charged respondent Lagman
with one’s employment in the government. The with grave misconduct, falsification, usurpation
employee making false statements in his or her of judicial functions, and dishonesty. Judge Yu
PDS becomes liable for falsification. likewise charged respondent Bassig with
misconduct, falsification, usurpation of judicial
Moreover, for respondent to be meted functions, and gross insubordination.
the penalty of dismissal, her dishonesty need
not be committed in the performance of official With regard to the mistakes made in
duty. The rationale for the rule is that if a the preparation of the Minutes of the Hearing
government officer or employee is dishonest or for Civil Case No. SCC-10-55, respondent
is guilty of oppression or grave misconduct, Lagman denied having submitted the case for
even if said defects of character are not decision. She maintained that, as reflected in
connected with his office, they affect his right the Minutes, she had merely stated that the
to continue in office. The Government cannot complainant appeared while the defendant
tolerate in its service a dishonest official, even if neither appeared nor filed his answer.
he performs his duties correctly and well, Respondent Lagman also contended that she
because by reason of his government position, should not be Warned if complainant, who
he is given more and ample opportunity to arrived on time, signed the Minutes without
commit acts of dishonesty against his fellow waiting for the arrival of Judge Yu. She further
men, even against offices and entities of the explained that she simply allowed the
government other than the office where he is complainant to sign the Minutes of the Hearing
employed; and by reason of his office, he enjoys after the latter requested and manifested that
and possesses a certain influence and power she would come back after her other
which renders the victims of his grave appointments. Unfortunately, the complainant
misconduct; oppression and dishonesty less did not come back. Respondent Lagman
disposed and prepared to resist and to asserted that all her acts were within the
counteract his evil acts and actuations. bounds of the law, and that she neither
committed any corrupt acts nor intended to
By her acts of dishonesty and defy any rules.
falsification of an official document, respondent
has failed to measure up to the high and Respondent Lagman, in a letter-
exacting standards set for judicial employees explanation dated June 24, 2010, clarified that
and must, therefore, be dismissed from the there was actually no discrepancy in the total
service. number of pending criminal and civil cases since
the results of the physical inventory conducted
on February 8, 2010of which were for the year-
MEMORANDA OF JUDGE ELIZA B. YU ISSUED end December 31, 2009, were the same results
TO LEGAL RESEARCHER MARIEJOY P. LAGMAN that were submitted to the Supreme Court on
AND TO COURT STENOGRAPHER SOLEDAD J, February 16, 2010. She further explained that
BASSIG, ALL OF METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, the inventory did not include the newly-raffled
BRANCH 47, PASAY CITY cases as they were supposed to be included in
the report for the month of January 2010,
A.M. No. P-12-3033/ August 15, 2012 which at that time, had not yet been
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO completed. Respondent Lagman stated that all
the statistics indicated in the reports were
actual and legitimate numbers, and that if ever
Page 15 of 43
BAR OPERATIONS 2014
Green Notes 2014
Legal Ethics
there was indeed a discrepancy, the Court served. On the contrary, the summons was
Management Office would have called) her actually duly served.
attention regarding the errors.
In the instant case, respondent Bassig
ISSUE: Whether the respondents Lagman and could have rectified the inadvertent mistakes in
Bassig are liable for simple neglect of duty. the drafting of the subpoena, order,: and
Minutes of the Hearing had she given more
HELD: Simple neglect of duty is defined as the effort and attention in reviewing the drafts and
failure to give attention to a task or the not putting the blame Ion other court
disregard of a duty due to carelessness or personnel. She should have gone over the
indifference. Here, respondent Lagman showed drafts and made sure that the papers were
carelessness or indifference in the performance correct and in order. Thus, it is clear that
of her duties. As Officer-in-Charge, she was respondent Bassig was remiss in her duties as
remiss in her duties to give due care and the Officer-in-Charge. She failed to supervise
attention/to established procedure in the her subordinates well and to efficiently conduct
calendar of cases. Respondent Lagman should the proper administration of justice.
have properly informed Judge Yu of the
inadvertent omission in the list of calendared | From the foregoing, we hold that the
cases for hearing. She should have sought the mistakes or errors in the contents of the orders,
necessary permission from Judge Yu before subpoena, and Minutes of the Hearing
calling the case as she was still under her direct committed by respondents Lagman and Bassig
supervision. could be attributed to their lack of attention or
focus on the task at hand. These could have
Respondent Lagman also did not follow easily been avoided had they exercised greater
established procedure when she allowed one of care and diligence in the performance of their
the parties to sign the Minutes of the Hearing duties. We find respondents Lagman and Bassig
without waiting for the arrival of Judge Yu. It liable for simple neglect OT duty.
must be remembered that the Minutes of the
Hearing is a very important document which
gives a brief summary of the events that took ASTORGA AND REPOL LAW OFFICES
place at the session or hearing of a case. With represented ATTTY. ARNOLD B. LUGARES vs.
regard to the alleged discrepancies in the LEODEL N. ROXAS, SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL
number of pending cases in the inventory and COURT, BRANCH 66, MAKATI CITY
monthly reports, the Supreme Court agree with
the OCA that respondent Lagman had clearly A.M. No. P-12-3029/August 15, 2012
explained and clarified the reports and
inventory that she had submitted to the Court FACTS: Respondent served a copy of the Writ of
Management Office of the Supreme Court. Execution upon NEC at Block 15, Lot 9, Tulip
Street, Camella Homes I, Putatan, Muntinlupa
With regard to respondent Bassig, we City, which was received by Mr. Narciso E.
also find her Iiable for simple neglect of duty for Catalon (Catalon). On even date, respondent
her failure to follow the established procedure levied upon the personal properties, consisting
in the conduct of hearings. As alleged by Judge of office equipment, found inside the NEC
Yu, respondent Bassig made it appear that a office. An auction sale was set on July 19, 2006
hearing was conducted for Civil Case No. B-03- at 10:30 a.m. at the Main Entrance of the Hall of
08 on July 16, 2010 when in fact, no hearing Justice of Makati City. However, Catalon filed on
was actually conducted on the said date. July 17, 2006 an Affidavit of Third Party Claim,
Moreover, respondent Bassig also committed asserting ownership over the levied
mistakes in the pates specified in the subpoena properties.Respondent personally furnished
issued by the court in Criminal Case Nos. 04-178 complainant, through Atty. Lugares, on July; 18,
& 179 CFM. She also failed to pay particular 2006 a copy of the Notice of Third Party Claim,
attention to the details of a draft Order dated together with a copy of Catalon’s Affidavit of
August 13, 2010 that she prepared, stating that Third Party Claim. Since FGU failed to post an
the summons in the Sheriff’s Return was not indemnity bond in favor of third party claimant
Page 16 of 43
BAR OPERATIONS 2014
Green Notes 2014
Legal Ethics
Catalon, respondent did not proceed with the 2006 and he filed a Sheriff’s Report on August 7,
scheduled auction sale on July 19, 2006. 2006. According to his Report, respondent had
to lift and cancel the levy on the office
The Sheriff’s Report dated August 7, equipment found inside the NEC office given
2006, prepared by respondent, declared the Catalon’s third party claim over said properties
levy upon the personal properties in the NEC and the failure of FGU to post an indemnity
office lifted, cancelled] and without effect; and bond in Catalon’s favor, thus, the Writ of
stated that the same personal properties were Execution dated July 10, 2006 was returned to
released to Catalon and the original copy of the the RTC unsatisfied. The Sheriff’s Report dated
Writ of Execution and all pertinent papers were August 7, 2006 was the first and last filed by
temporarily returned to the RTC unsatisfied. respondent in connection with the Writ of
Since then, there appears to have been no Execution dated July 10, 2006, until the instant
further development in the execution of the administrative complaint dated April 29, 2008
RTC Decision dated January 16, 2006 in Civil was filed against him. For almost two years,
Case No. 01- 1002. Thus, complainant filed the respondent was completely remiss in filing the
instant Complaint-Affidavit dated April 29, 2008 mandated periodic reports on the Writ of
against respondent,] alleging, among other Execution dated July 10, 2006.; Consequently,
things, that the Sheriff is remiss in the for the same period of time, FG, the prevailing
performance of his duties arid does not have party in Civil Case No. 01-1002, was left
the slightest intention to neglect his duty as unaware of any steps taken by respondent to
executing sheriff in the implementation of the satisfy the Decision dated January 16, 2006.
Writ. Ultimately, it is apparent that respondent did
not file any periodic report because he had
ISSUE: Whether Leodel N. Roxas, Sheriff IV of nothing to state therein as he failed to take any
the Regional Trial Court, is guilty of simple further action to satisfy the Decision dated
neglect of duty. January 16, 2006 and implement the Writ of
Execution dated July 10, 2006.
HELD: Rule 39, Section 14 of the Rules of Court
provides: It is almost trite to say that execution is
“Sec. 14. Return of writ of execution. — the fruit and end of the suit and is the life of
The writ of execution shall be returnable law. A judgment, if left unexecuted, would be
to the court issuing it immediately after nothing but an empty victory for the prevailing
the judgment has been satisfied in part or party. Therefore, sheriffs ought to know that
in full. If the judgment cannot be satisfied they have a sworn responsibility to serve writ of
in full within thirty (30) days after his execution with utmost dispatch. When writs are
receipt of the writ, the officer shall report placed in their hands, it is their ministerial duty
to the court and state the reason to proceed with reasonable celerity and
therefor. Such writ shall continue in effect promptness to execute them in accordance
during the period within which the with their mandate. Unless restrained by a
judgment may be enforced by motion. court order, they should see to it that the
The officer shall make a report to the execution of judgments is not unduly delayed.
court every (30) days on the proceedings Accordingly, they must comply with their
taken thereon until the judgment is mandated ministerial duty as speedily as
satisfied in full, or its effectivity expires. possible. As agents of the law, high standards
The returns or periodic reports shall set are expected of sheriffs.
forth the whole of the proceedings taken,
and shall be filed with the court and Evidently, respondent displayed
copies thereof promptly furnished the conduct short of the stringent standards
parties.” required of court employees. Respondent’s long
delay in the execution of the final judgment in
Herein respondent had undeniably favor of FGU and failure to submit the required
failed to file periodic reports on the Writ of periodic reports constitute simple neglect of
Execution dated July 10, 2006. Respondent duty, defined as the failure of an employee to
received a copy of said Writ also on July 10, give one’s attention to a task expected of him
Page 17 of 43
BAR OPERATIONS 2014
Green Notes 2014
Legal Ethics
and signifies a disregard of a duty resulting from Strong then pleaded with Atty. Manuel to
carelessness or indifference. Civil Service expedite his deportation to any country except
Commission Memorandum Circular No. 19 Brazil and reiterated his willingness to pay the
classifies simple neglect of duty as a less grave success fee of US$100,000.00.
offense, punishable by suspension without pay
for one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) On May 25, 2011, the Bureau of
months, for the first offense. This being Immigration, rendered its Judgment granting
respondent’s first offense, the penalty the motion of Strong to voluntarily leave the
recommended by the OCA of one (1) month and country. On May 31, 2011, Strong left the
one (1) day is appropriate. Philippines. Subsequently, or on June 6, 2011,
Rodica filed with the RTC a motion effectively
withdrawing her complaint.
JASPER JUNNO F. RODICA vs. ATTY. MANUEL
"LOLONG" M. LAZARO, ATTY.EDWIN M. Rodica alleged that after the
ESPEJO, ATTY. ABEL M. ALMARIO, ATTY. deportation of Strong and the withdrawal of the
MICHELLE B. LAZARO, ATTY. JOSEPH C. TAN, RTC case, she heard nothing from the Lazaro
and JOHN DOES Law Office. She also claimed that contrary to
her expectations, there was no "simultaneous
A.C. No. 9259/ August 23, 2012 DEL CASTILLO over-all settlement of per grievances x x [with]
the defendants [in the RTC] case. Thinking that
FACTS: On May 5, 2011, William Strong she was deceived, Rodica filed the instant
(Strong), an American, was arrested and administrative case. Otherwise stated, Rodica
detained by the operatives of the Bureau of claimed that she is a client of the Lazaro Law
Immigration. Strong sought the assistance of Office and that she was deceived into causing
Philip G. Apostol (Apostol), a friend and the withdrawal of the RTC case. Further* she
neighbor, to secure the Services of a lawyer. claimed that the Lazaro Law Office collected
Atty. Manuel initially declined because his law exorbitant fees from her.
office only handles cases of its retained clients
and those known to him or any of the associate ISSUE: Whether the allegations in Rodica’s
lawyers. However, he was eventually prevailed Complaint merit the disbarment or suspension
upon by Apostol who would consider it as a of respondents.
special favor if Atty. Manuel would handle
Strong’s case. HELD: Preponderance of evidence means that
the evidence adduced by one side is, as a
During the course of their meeting, whole, superior to or has greater weight than
Strong casually mentioned that he has a that of the other. It means evidence which is
property in Boracay and that he suspected his more convincing to the court as worthy of belief
neighbors as the persons who caused his arrest. than that which is offered in opposition thereto.
According to Strong, his live-in partner Rodica In the absence of preponderant evidence, the
filed a Complaint before the Regional Trial presumption of innocence of the lawyer
Court (RTC) of Kalibo, Aklan, for recovery of continues and the complaint against him must
possession and damages. be dismissed.
Upon inquiry with the Bureau of Rodica’s assertions that Atty. Tan
Immigration, it was discovered that Strong’s orchestrated Strong’s arrest and that Atty.
arrest was made pursuant to an Interpol Red Manuel proposed the withdrawal of the RTC
Notice; and that Strong is wanted in Brazil for case to facilitate the deportation of Strong, are
Conspiracy to Commit Fraud, Setting Up a Gang mere allegations without proof and belied by
and Other Related Crimes. Specifically, Strong is the records of the case!. "The basic rule is that
being indicted for his alleged involvement in "an mere allegation is not evidence, and is not
international gang involved in shares fraud equivalent to proof." Aside from her bare
which led to the creation of hundreds of assertions, Rodica failed to present even an iota
millions of dollars in illegal securities." Strong of evidence to prove her allegations. In fact, the
denied any participation in the alleged crime. records belie her claims. The documents issued
Page 18 of 43
BAR OPERATIONS 2014
Green Notes 2014
Legal Ethics
by the Bureau of Immigration showed that MIGUEL G. VILLATUYA vs. ATTY. BEDE S.
Strong was the subject of the Interpol Red TABALINGCOS
Notice for being a fugitive from justice wanted
for crimes allegedly committed in Brazil. His A.C. No. 6622/July 10, 2012 PER CURIAM
Warrant of arrest was issued sometime in
February 2008. Significantly, even before Strong FACTS: Complainant averred that on February
was arrested and eventually deported, Atty. Tan 2002, he was employed by respondent as a
had already obtained a favorable judgment for financial consultant to assist the latter on
his clients. technical and financial matters in the latter’s
numerous petitions for corporate rehabilitation
The Supreme Court cannot lend filed with different courts. Complainant claimed
credence to Rodica’s allegation that she was that they had a verbal agreement whereby he
deceived by Atty. Manuel, Atty. Espejo, Atty. would be entitled to P 50,000 for every Stay
Almario and Atty. Michelle, another senior Order issued by the court in the cases they
associate at the Lazaro Law Office, into would handle, in addition to ten percent (10%)
believing that the withdrawal of the RTC case of the fees paid by their clients. He alleged that,
was part of a settlement package to settle her from February to December 2002, respondent
differences with her legal adversaries. We was able to rake in millions of pesos from the
accord more credence to the explanation of the corporate rehabilitation cases they were
respondents, particularly Atty. Espejo, that in working on together. Complainant also claimed
the course of rendering legal services to Strong, that he was entitled to the amount of P 900,000
he had become close to Rodica so much so that for the 18 Stay Orders issued by the courts as a
he accommodated Rodica’s request to cause result of his work with respondent, and a total
the withdrawal of the RTC case to facilitate the of P 4,539,000 from the fees paid by their
sale of the Boracay property to Apostoi It is well clients. Complainant appended to his Complaint
to remind Atty. Espejo that before being a several annexes supporting the computation of
friend to Rodica, he is first and foremost an the fees he believes are due him.
officer of the court. Hence, he is expected to
maintain a high standard of honesty and fair Complainant alleged that respondent
dealings and must conduct himself beyond engaged in unlawful solicitation of cases in
reproach at all times. He must likewise ensure violation of Section 27 of the Code of
that he acts within the bounds of reason and Professional Responsibility. Allegedly
common sense, always aware that he is an respondent set up two financial consultancy
instrument of truth and justice. As shown by his firms, Jesi and Jane Management, Inc. and
actuations. Atty. Espejo fell short of what is Christmel Business Link, Inc., and used them as
expected of him. Under the circumstances, Atty. fronts to advertise his legal services and solicit
Espejo should have exercised prudence by first cases. Complainant supported his allegations by
diligently studying the soundness of Rodica’s attaching to his Position Paper the Articles of •
pleas and the repercussions of his acts. Incorporation of Jesi and Jane, letter-proposals
to clients signed by respondent on various dates
Thus, premises considered the instant and proofs of payment made to the latter by
Complaint for disbarment against respondents their clients.
Atty. Manuel "Lolong" M. Lazaro, Atty. Edwin
M. Espejo, Atty. Abel M. Almario, Atty. On the third charge of gross immorality,
Michelle B. Lazaro and Atty. Joseph C. Tan is complainant accused respondent of committing
dismissed. Atty) Edwin M. Espejo is warned to two counts of bigamy: for having married two
be more circumspect and prudent in’ his other women while his first marriage was
actuations. subsisting. He submitted a Certification dated
13 July 2005 issued by the Office of the Civil
Registrar General-National Statistics Office
(NSO) certifying that Bede S. Tabalingcos,
herein respondent, contracted marriage thrice:
first, on 15 July 1980 with Pilar M. Lozano,
which took place in Dasmarinas, Cavite; the
Page 19 of 43
BAR OPERATIONS 2014
Green Notes 2014
Legal Ethics
second time on 28 September 1987 with Ma. case, prescription of offenses or the filing of
Rowena Garcia in the City of Manila; and the affidavits of desistance by the complainant —
third on 07 September 1989 with Mary Jane do not apply in the determination of a lawyer's
Elgincolin Paraiso in Ermita, Manila. qualifications and fitness for membership in the
Bar. In disbarment proceedings, the burden of
ISSUE: Whether Atty. Bede S. Tabalingcos proof rests upon the complainant. For the court
(respondent) is guilty of unlawful solicitation of to exercise its disciplinary powers, the case
cases, violation of the Code or Professional against the respondent must be established by
Responsibility for non-payment of fees to convincing and satisfactory proof.
complainant, and gross immorality for marrying
two other women while respondent’s first According to the respondent, after the
marriage was subsisting. discovery of the second and the third
marriages, he filed civil actions to annul the
HELD: The first charge of complainant against Marriage Contracts. The Supreme Court
respondent for the non-payment of the perused the attached Petitions for Annulment
former’s share in the fees, if proven to be true and found that his allegations therein treated
is based on an agreement that is violation of the second and the third marriage contracts as
Rule 9,02 of the Code of Professional ordinary agreements, rather than as special
Responsibility. A lawyer is proscribed by the contracts contemplated under the then Civil
Code to divide or agree to divide the fees for Code provisions on marriage. He did not invoke
legal services rendered with a person not any grounds in the Civil Code provisions on
licensed to practice law. Based on the marriage, prior to its amendment by the Family
allegations, respondent had agreed to share Code. Respondent’s regard for marriage
with complainant the legal fees paid by clients contracts as ordinary agreements indicates
that complainant solicited for the respondent. either his wanton disregard of the sanctity of
Complainant, however, failed to proffer marriage or his gross ignorance of the law on
convincing evidence to prove the existence of what course of action to take to annul a
that agreement. marriage under the old Civil Code provision.
What has been clearly established here is the
A lawyer is not prohibited from fact that respondent entered into marriage
engaging in business or other lawful occupation. twice while his first marriage was still
Impropriety arises, though, when the business subsisting.
is of such a nature or is conducted in such a
manner as to be inconsistent with the lawyer’s Respondent exhibited a deplorable lack
duties as a member of the bar. This of that degree of morality required of him as a
inconsistency arises when the business is one member of the bar. He made a mockery of
that can readily lend itself to the procurement marriage, a sacred institution demanding
of professional employment for the lawyer; or respect and dignity. His acts of committing
that can be used as a cloak for indirect bigamy twice constituted grossly immoral
solicitation on the lawyer’s behalf; or is of a conduct and are grounds for disbarment under
nature that, if handled by a lawyer, would be Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of
regarded as the practice of law. Court. Thus, the Supreme court adopt the
recommendation of the IBP to disbar
It is clear from the documentary respondent and order that his name be stricken
evidence submitted by complainant that Jesi & from the Roll of Attorneys.
Jane Management, Inc., which purports to be a
financial and legal consultant, was indeed a
vehicle used by respondent as a means to ATTY. POLICARIO I. CATALAN, JR. vs.
procure professional employment; specifically ATTY. JOSELITO M. SILVOSA
for corporate rehabilitation cases.
A.C. No. 7360/ July 24, 2012 PER CURIAM
Laws dealing with double jeopardy or
with procedure such as the verification of FACTS: Atty. Catalan accused Atty. Silvosa of
pleadings and prejudicial questions, or in this appearing as private counsel in a case where he
Page 20 of 43
BAR OPERATIONS 2014
Green Notes 2014
Legal Ethics
previously appeared as public prosecutor, In his defense, on the first cause of

hence violating Rule 6.03 of the Code of action, Atty. Silvosa states that he resigned as
Professional Responsibility. Atty. Catalan also prosecutor from the Esperon case on 18
Alleged that, apart from the fact that Atty. October 2002. The trial court released its
Silvosa and the accused are relatives and have decision in the Esperon case on 16 November
the same middle name, Atty. Silvosa displayed 2005 and cancelled the accused’s bail. Atty.
manifest bias in the accused’s favor, Atty. Silvosa claims that his appearance was only for
Silvosa caused numerous delays in the trial of the purpose of the reinstatement of bail. Atty.
the Esperon case by arguing against the position Silvosa also denies any relationship between
of the private prosecutor. In 2000, Provincial himself and the accused.
Prosecutor Guillermo Ching granted Atty.
Catalan’s request to relieve Atty. Silvosa from On the second cause of action, Atty.
handling the Esperon case. The RTC rendered Silvosa dismisses Pros. Toribio’s allegations as
judgment convicting the accused on .16 "self-serving" and "purposely dug by [Atty.
November 2005. On 23 November 2005, Atty. Catalan] and his puppeteer to pursue
Silvosa, as private lawyer and as counsel for the persecution."
accused, filed a motion to reinstate bail pending
finality of judgment of the Esperon case. On the third cause of action, while Atty.
Silvosa admits his conviction by the
In his second cause of action; Atty. Sandiganbayan and is under probation^ he
Catalan presented the affidavit of Pros. Toribio. asserts that "conviction under the 2nd
In a case for frustrated murder where Atty. paragraph of Article 210 of the Revised Penal
Catalan’s brother was a respondent, Pros. Code, do [sic] not involve moral turpitude since
Toribio reviewed the findings of the the act involved ‘do [sic] not amount to aj
investigating judge and downgraded the offense crime.’" He further claims that "it is not the
from frustrated murder to less serious physical lawyer in respondent that was convicted, but
injuries. During the hearing before Comm. Funa, his capacity as a public officer, the charge
Pros. Toribio testified that, while still a public against respondent for which he was convicted
prosecutor at the time, Atty. Silvosa offered her falling under the category of crimes against
P30.000 to reconsider her findings and uphold public officers.
the charge of frustrated murder.
ISSUE: Whether Atty. Silvosa is guilty of
Finally, in the third cause of action, violating the Code of Professional Responsibility
Atty. Catalan presented the Sandiganbayan’s under Rule 6.03.
decision in Criminal Case No. 27776, convicting
Atty. Silvosa of direct bribery on 18 May 2006. HELD: Atty. Catalan relies on Rule; 6.03 which
Nilo Lanticse (Lanticse) filed a complaint against states that "A Sawyer shall not, after leaving
Atty. Silvosa before the National Bureau of government service, accept engagement or
Investigation (NBI). Despite the execution of an employment in connection with any matter, in
affidavit of desistance by the complainant in a which he had intervened while in said service."
homicide case in favor of Lanticse’s fatner-in- Atty. Silvosa, on the hand, relies on Rule 2,01
law, Arsenio Cadinas (Cadinas), Cadinas still which provides that "A lawyer shall not reject,
remained in detention for more than two years. except for valid reasons the cause of the
Atty. Silvosa demanded PI 5,000 from Lanticse defenseless or the oppressed" and on Canon 14
for the dismissal of the case and for the release which provides that "A lawyer shall not refuse
of Cadinas. The NBI set up an entrapment his services to the needy."
operation for Atty. Silvosa. GMA 7’s television
program Imbestigador videotaped and aired the We agree with Comm. Funal’s finding
actual entrapment operation. The footage was that Atty. Silvosa violated Rule 6.03. When he
offered and admitted as evidence, and viewed entered his appearance on the Motion to Post
by the Sandiganbayan. Despite Atty. Silvosa’s Bail Bond Pending Appeal, Atty. Silvosa
defense of instigation, the Sandiganbayan conveniently forgot Rule 15.03 which provides
convicted Atty. Silvosa. that "A lawyer shall not represent conflicting
Page 21 of 43
BAR OPERATIONS 2014
Green Notes 2014
Legal Ethics
interests except by written consent of all that he failed to prosecute the cases before
concerned given after full disclosure of facts." MTC Bambang, resulting in their dismissal.
However, Atty. Castro clarified that he was
Atty. Silvosa’s attempts to minimize his preceded two other lawyers, who acted as
involvement in the same case on two occasions petitioners’ counsel in all three civil cases. Upon
can only be described as desperate. He claims entering his appearance in these cases, he
his participation, as public prosecutor was only exerted all efforts to protect the interests of his
to appear in the arraignment and in the pre-trial clients. Further, he asserted that petitioners
conference. He likewise claims his subsequent ordered him to abandon the appeal he filed on
participation, as collaborating counsel was their behalf before RTC Br. 30 on the ground
limited only to the reinstatement of the original that they were unable to file the supersedes
bail. bond required of them by MTC Bambang to
Stay the execution of its 10 February 2005
The Supreme Court on the other hand, Decision. He maintained that in lieu of pursuing
disagrees with Comm. Funa’s ruling that the the appeal, they had ordered him to
findings in a criminal proceeding are not binding concentrate on Civil Case No. 883, in which he
in a disbarment proceeding.Atty. Silvosa’s supposedly performed all his duties as their
representation of conflicting interests and his counsel. Moreover, he pointed out the
failed attempt at bribing Pros. Toribio merit at correction that petitioners were defendants -
least the penalty of suspension. Atty. Silvosa’s and not plaintiffs - in Civil Case Nos. 1427 and
final conviction of the crime of direct bribery 1428, and that he did not repeatedly postpone
clearly falls under one of the grounds for the hearings in the' three cases, contrary to
disbarment under Section 27 of Rule 138. what they alleged. Finally, he maintained that
Disbarment follows as a consequence of Atty. he used the money he received from them to
Silvosa’s conviction of the crime. We are pay for his legal fees and for the filing fees for
constrained to impose a penalty more severe the appeal.
than suspension because we find that Atty.
Silvosa is predisposed to flout the exacting The Court referred the case to the
standards of moral and decency required of a Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for
member of the Bar. His excuse that his investigation, report and recommendation. In
conviction was not in his capacity as a lawyer, the proceedings before the Investigating
but as a public officer, is unacceptable and Commissioner, no actual hearing took place,
betrays the unmistakable lack of integrity in his since Atty. Castro was absent for the first
character. The practice of law is a privilege, and setting due to a serious ailment, the
Atty. Silvosa has proved himself unfit to Investigating Commissioner was unavailable
exercise this privilege. during the second, and petitioners were unable
to attend the third. Instead, the parties were
only able to file their Pre-trial Briefs.
ISAAC C. BASILIO, PERALTA PEDROZO and JUN
BASILIO vs. ATTY. VIRGIL R.CASTRO Upon the termination of the mandatory
conference, the IBP Commissioner directed the
A.C. No. 6910/July 11, 2012 SERENO parties to submit their respective position
papers. However, neither complainants nor
FACTS: Complainants filed before the Court is a respondent complied. The Investigating
Petition praying for the suspension or Commissioner recommended that Atty. Castro
cancellation of the license of Atty. Castro. They be suspended for six months. The former ruled
allege that they were plaintiffs in Civil Case Nos. that there was insufficient evidence to show
1427 and 1428 before MTC Bambang, as well as that the latter reneged on his obligation to
in Civil Case No. 883 before RTC Br. 37. They serve his clients in Civil Case No. 883.
likewise averred that they; paid Atty. Casiro the Nonetheless, he should be held administratively
amounts of P40.000 as acceptance fee and liable! for failing to file the requisite appellants’
P20,000 as filing fee, which he supposedly memorandum before RTC Br. 30. The
charged them despite the actual filing fee Investigating Commissioner dismissed Atty.
totaling only PI ,000. Finally, they contended Castro’s defense that the failure of petitioners
Page 22 of 43
BAR OPERATIONS 2014
Green Notes 2014
Legal Ethics
to file the supersedes bond and their instruction FILOMENA B. CONSOLACION vs. LYDIA S.
to abandon the appeal were the reasons why GAMBITO, Court Stenographer, Municipal
he did not file the memorandum. Circuit Trial Court, Binalonan, Pangasinan
JUDGE EMMA S. INES- PARAJAS vs.
ISSUE: Whether Atty. Castro should be held LYDIA S. GAMBITO, Court Stenographer,
administratively liable for his failure to file the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Binalonan,
mandatory appellants’ memorandum before Pangasinan
RTC Br. 30.
A.M. No. P-06-2186 & A.M. No. P-12-3026/July
HELD: An attorney is bound to protect his 3, 2012 PER CURIAM
client’s interest to the best of his ability and
with utmost diligence. A failure to file brief for FACTS: Complainant Filomena B. Cofisolacion
his client certainly constitutes inexcusable charged respondent Ms. Lydia S. Gambito, a
negligence on his part. The respondent has court stenographer at the Municipal Circuit Trial
indeed committed a serious lapse in the duty Court, Binalonan-Laoac, Pangasinan, with
owed by him to his client as well as to the Court "misrepresentation and unlawful acts."
not to delay litigation and to aid in the speedy Complainant alleged that sometime in
administration of justice. November 2002, respondent came to her house
and convinced her to buy her (respondent’s)
All told, the Supreme Court rule and so "claimed tricycle. As she wanted to help
hold that on account of respondent’s failure to respondent and the latter’s son, she agreed-to
protect the interest of complainant, respondent buy the said tricycle after respondent promised
indeed violated Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the her that she [respondent] would present to her
Code of Professional Responsibility. Respondent [complainant] the documents evidencing her
is reminded that the practice of law is a special ownership of the tricycle. Respondent allegedly
privilege bestowed only upon those who are assured her that the said tricycle was not
competent intellectually, academically and encumbered. She handed to respondent the
morally. The Supreme Court has been exacting amount of 65,000.00 after they executed a
in its expectations for the members of the Bar "Deed of Sale of a Motorized Tricycle," and
to always uphold the integrity and dignity of the respondent thereafter delivered and
legal profession and refrain from any act or transferred "her possession of the tricycle."
omission which might lessen the trust and Allegedly, respondent also promised her to
confidence of the public. deliver the "Original Certificate of Registration"
of the tricycle" on or before January 31, 2003."
If it were true in this case that Respondent, however, failed to make good her
petitioners directed Atty. Castro to abandon promise and, despite demands, she failed to
their appeal, the prudent action should have deliver the said document. Complainant further
been for him to file a motion to withdraw claimed that her repeated efforts to meet with
appeal before RTC Br. 30. In this regard, his respondent at the latter’s place of work was in
failure to file the appellants' brief' could indeed vain, as respondent was always not around
be construed as negligence on his part. every time she would go there.
However, it appears that the conduct of Complainant claimed that on July 14,
Atty. Castro was; not so grave as to warrant the 2005, "a Branch Manager of the PR Bank" in
recommended three-month suspension. In fact, Urdaneta City, together with "a couple of
he still fulfilled his duty as counsel of petitioners policemen," came to her house and "took
by attending the pre-trial conference held on 6 possession and control of the tricycle [she]
February 2006 in Civil Case No 883, even after bought1 from [respondent] "on the claimed
they had already filed the: instant Petition ground that the said bank already owned it via
against him. Thus, the Court bowers the period foreclosure of the "Chattel Mortgage"
of suspension to two months. supposedly executed by [respondent] over the
tricycle." She insisted that respondent never
informed her "about her [respondent’s]
mortgage transaction with said PR Bank." In
Page 23 of 43
BAR OPERATIONS 2014
Green Notes 2014
Legal Ethics
fact, she claimed that the respondent told her Filomena B. Consolacion (Consolacion) for
at the beginning that the tricycle had been P65,000.00 unquestionably undermined the
mortgaged, she would not have bought it people’s faith in the Judiciary. Gambito, a long
despite respondent’s "financial plea." time court stenographer, took advantage of her
being a court employee and her friendship with
Respondent alleged that when her son Consolacion when she induced the latter to buy
applied for work abroad, she borrowed money the tricycle and promised her that she would
for her son’s placement fee from relatives and give her the documents proving ownership of
friends, include complainant to whom she the tricycle with the assurance that it was not
[would] gave the tricycle as a "security," encumbered.
assuring her "that her money be returned after
two months" following the arrival of her son Another point against Gambito was her
abroad, "or deliver to her the certificate of transaction with Billamanca She admitted in her
registration also within that period." However, letter-comment, dated June 14, 2005, that she
the recruitment agency failed to send her son facilitated two (12) cases (ejectment case and
abroad, and they were unable to get back the petition for the issuance of lost title) for the
money they paid to the said agency, as its amount of P 15,000.00, which was supposed to
manager could no longer be found and the be used for publication, filing fee and sheriff’s
person who recruited her son had already died. fee. She explained that the cases were not filed
She also informed the Court that there was "an in court because Billamanca failed to give her
on-going conciliation with [complainant]," and if the full amount of P15,000.00. The amount
the latter would be amenable, she would pay given was only P 7,000.00, delivered in
her "installment term until [her] obligation will installments. Gambito’s unauthorized
be fully paid. 1: She likewise admitted the transactions with Villamanca and Erum
existence of a civil case for sum of money constitute conduct grossly prejudicial to the
against her. She explained that the money she interest of the service. Under the Civil Service
borrowed from the plaintiff was used by her Law and its implementing rules, dishonesty,
son who applied for work abroad, but he was a grave misconduct and conduct grossly
victim of illegal recruitment. She claimed that prejudicial to the best interest of the service are
they could no longer get back the money from grave offenses punishable by dismissal from the
the recruiter because the latter is already dead. service.
ISSUE: Whether respondent Gambito is Thus, the Supreme Court decided that
administratively liable for conduct prejudicial to Lydia S. Gambito, Court Stenographers hereby
the best interest of the service and if so, found guilty of three (3) counts of conduct
whether or not her offense warrants the prejudicial to the best interest of the service,
penalty of dismissal from the service. and is hereby dismissed from the service with
forfeiture of all retirement benefits, except
HELD: The Court stresses that the conduct of accrued leave credits, with prejudice to re-
every court personnel must be beyond reproach employment in any government office,
and free from suspicion that may cause to sully including government-owned and controlled
the image of the Judiciary. They must totally corporations.
avoid any impression of impropriety, misdeed
or misdemeanour not only in the performance
of their official duties but also in conducting OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR vs.
themselves outside or beyond the duties and MA. IRISSA G. MUSNGI, Court Legal researcher
functions of their office. Court personnel are II, Regional Trial Court, Judicial Region III,
enjoined to [conduct themselves toward Branch 36, Gapan City,Nueva Ecija
maintaining the prestige and integrity of the
Judiciary for the very image of the latter is A.M. No. P-l 1-3024/July 17, 2012 PER CURIAM
necessarily mirrored in their conduct, both
official and otherwise. Gambito’s FACTS: Judge Cielitolindo A. Luyun (Judge
misrepresentation regarding the ownership and Luyun) assumed office as Presiding Judge of tHe
actual status of the tricycle which she sold to Regional Trial Court (RTC), Judicial Region III,
Page 24 of 43
BAR OPERATIONS 2014
Green Notes 2014
Legal Ethics
Branch 36, Gapan City, Nueva Ecija. Upoh misconduct.

assumption of office, he conducted an
inventory of pending cases and evidence HELD: Dishonesty is the "disposition to lie,
submitted to the trial court. During the cheat, deceive, defraud or betray;
inventory, he found a handwritten receipt for untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of
P45,000. The amount, which was missing, was honesty, probity, or integrity in principle; and
part of the evidence in Criminal Case Nos. 8674, lack of fairness and straightforwardness."
9096, 9151 and 9152. The recipient of the
amount was Ma. Irissa G. Musngi (Musngi), Misconduct, on the other hand, is a
Court Legal Researcher II of the RTC. transgression of some established and definite
rule of action, more particularly, unlawful
The evidence shows the amount of Php behavior or gross negligence by the public
45,000.00 was part of the evidence seized by officer. To warrant dismissal from the service,
the enforcers in Criminal Cases [sic] Nos 8674, the misconduct must be grave, serious,
9151, 9096, and 9152 which are [sic] part of the important, weighty, momentous, and not
accountabilities of Ms. Gutierrez as the then trifling. The misconduct must imply wrongful
evidence custodian of this court and which she intention and not a mere error of judgment.
turned over to Ms. Musngi on July 19, 2005, in The misconduct must also have a direct relation
view of the former’s transfer to another court. to and be connected with the performance of
The same amount was in turn turned over by the public officer’s official duties amounting
Ms. Musngi to Ms. Pangilinan for safekeeping either to administration or willful, intentional
only in the Office of the Clerk of Court upon neglect, or failure to discharge the duties of the
verbal instruction of the then office.
Executive/Presding [sic] Judge Arturo m. [sic]
Bernardo. Since there is no account with which; The Court finds no reason to disturb the
to credit the amount of Php 45,000.00, Ms. factual finding of Judge Luyun and the OCA that
Pangilinan issued an acknowledgment receipt Musngi stole the P45,000. Musngi failed to
instead of the customary official receipt. Later present any evidence to prove that, indeed, she
or on February 6, 2006, Ms. Musngi withdrew spent the P45,000 for the repair of the ceiling
the said amount from Ms. Pangilinan. By her and toilet of the trial court. She did not present
own admission, Ms. Musngi spent the money any receipt for the materials used or for the
for; the alleged repair of the previous court’s services engaged for the alleged repairs. She
courtroom, chamber room, an [sic] restroom.; also did not present any affidavit from Judge
However, Ms. Musngi failed to submit receipts Bernardo or from other court employees to
in support thereof. Inquiries made with court vouch for the truthfulness of the alleged
employees disclosed that the sala of Branch 36, repairs. Even assuming that Musngi indeed
RTC was housed at the old City Hall and all I spent the P45.000 for court repairs, she would
repairs made therein were shouldered by the still be liable because she is not authorized to
city government. The old City Hall had; appropriate or spend monetary evidence for
undergone renovation to be used as a hospital whatever purpose.
and we cannot confirm as to whether or not the
previous sala had actually undertaken any Musngi’s excuse that she spent the
repairs. P45,000 for the repair of the ceiling and toilet of
the trial court is unconvincing. In Office of the
In a report dated 28 November 2011, Court Administrator v. Pacheco, the Court
the OCA found Musngi liable for grave found unconvincing the unsubstantiated
misconduct and serious dishonesty, and explanation that money was spent for alleged
recommended that Judge Luyun’s 8 August court renovations. Musngi’s acts of stealing the
2011 report be re-docketed as a regular P45.000 and saying that she used the amount
administrative matter and that Musngi be for the alleged repair of the ceiling and toilet of
dismissed from the service. the trial court constitute grave misconduct and
dishonesty.
ISSUE: Whether respondent Ma. Irissa G.
Musngi is guilty of dishonesty and grave
Page 25 of 43
BAR OPERATIONS 2014
Green Notes 2014
Legal Ethics
Thus, the Court finds respondent Ma. the shortages she incurred. Peradilla-also
Irissa G. Musngi, guilty of dishonesty and grave admitted misappropriating the court funds.
misconduct. Respondent Ma. Irissa G. Musngi is Peradilla alleged that she only intended to
dismissed from the service, with forfeiture of all "borrow" the funds but unfortunately, she
retirement benefits, except accrued leave failed to replace the "borrowed" funds.
credits, and with prejudice to re-employment in
any branch or instrumentality of the ISSUE: Whether Peradilla is guilty of dishonesty,
government, including government-owned or gross neglect of duty, and grave misconduct by
controlled corporations. misappropriating the court funds.
HELD: Section 1, Article XI of the Constitution

OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR vs. declares that a public office is a public trust, and
LUNALINDA M. PERADILLA, Clerk of Court II, all public officers and employees must at all
Municipal Circuit Trial Court, El Nido- times be accountable to the people, serve them
Linapacan, Palawan with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty,
and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice,
A.M. No. P-09-2647/ July 17, 2012 PER CURIAM and lead modest lives. The demand for moral
uprightness is more pronounced for the
FACTS: Presiding Judge Ma. Theresa P. members and personnel of the judiciary who
Mangcucang-Navarro of the MCTC of El Nido- are involved in the dispensation of justice. The
Linapacan, Palawan, requested then Court conduct of court members and personnel must
Administrator Jose P. Perez (now Supreme not only be characterized with propriety and
Court Justice) that a financial audit be decorum but must also be above suspicion, for
conducted on the books of account of the said any act of impropriety can seriously erode or
court. The request was made after Judge diminish the people’s confidence in the
Mangcucang-Navarro discovered that Clerk of judiciary. As front liners in the administration of
Court Lunalinda M. Peradilla (Peradiila) had justice, they should live up to the strictest
been remiss in remitting the Judiciary standards of honesty and integrity in the public
Development Funds and the Fiduciary Funds. service.
The Financial Audit Team found that the bulk of
Peradilla’s accountability was due to her non- Clerks of Court act as custodians of the
remittance of the judiciary funds, especially the court’s funds, revenues, records, property and
collections for Fiduciary Fund. The Financial premises and are thus, liable for any loss,
Audit Team also uncovered a total of P235,000 shortage, destruction or impairment of such
representing un-receipted and unreported funds and property.
collections. It was also found that Peradilla
intentionally made erroneous reports regarding As custodian of court funds and
some of the collections. Further, the team revenues, Peradilla is mandated to immediately
uncovered her Peradilla practice of erroneously deposit the court funds or collections in the
reporting her collections. This practice enriched Land Bank of the Philippines; she is not
her in the amount of P20,187.50. supposed to keep the funds in her custody.
Peradilla admitted that she failed to remit court
The Court Administrator adopted the funds which she used for her family’s expenses.
findings of the Financial Audit Team in its In her letter dated 19 April 2010, Peradilla
Memorandum dated 14 May 2009. In a requested that the monetary value of her
Resolution dated 1 July 2009, the Court earned leave credits be used to restitute the
docketed the report by the Financial Audit shortage of P62,847.55 for Judiciary Fund;
Team as an administrative complaint against P213,263.00 for Special Allowance for Judiciary;
Peradilla. In her one-page letter dated 19 April P13.20 for General Fund; and PI 8,500.00 for
2010, Peradilla did not refute the findings of the Mediation Fund.
Financial Audit Team. In fact, Peradilla
requested that the monetary equivalent of her Although Peradilla inadvertently
earned vacation and sick leave for her 16 years omitted the shortage of P309,000.00 for
of service in the Judiciary be used to restitute Fiduciary Fund, she never denied or refuted
Page 26 of 43
BAR OPERATIONS 2014
Green Notes 2014
Legal Ethics
such finding by the Financial Audit Team. their offices or in their respective houses every
Peradilla also failed to issue official receipts and time he attempted to serve them the notices.
did not report some of the collections in the
Monthly Reports of Collections and Deposits. Sheriff Diaz further alleged that when
Furthermore, the Financial Audit Team found the judgment debtors failed to comply with the
that Peradilla made erroneous entries in her notice, he served the Notice of Garnishment
collections by reporting lesser amounts than regarding the salaries of the judgment debtors
the actual amounts collected as indicated in the and their co-makers on their employer, the
official receipts. Department of Education (DepEd); that DepEd,
however, did not withhold their salaries but
In this case, Peradilla is guilty of only furnished him with machine copies of their
dishonesty, gross neglect of duty, and grave pay checks for the month of May 2004; that he
misconduct for her: (1) non-remittance of went to the complainant and told him about
collections of judiciary funds; (2) non-issuance DepEd’s refusal to withhold the salaries of the
of official receipts and non-reporting in the judgment debtors and their co-makers; and that
Monthly Reports and Collections and Deposit^ the complainant advised him to collect only
of some of the collections; and (3) erroneous from the judgment debtors and exempt the co-
reporting in the Monthly Reports and makers from liability.
Collections and Deposits of some of the
collections. Sheriff Diaz also denied that he
appropriated the cash and checks he garnished.
Regarding Tacot, he claimed that he turned
LAMBAYONG TEACHERS AND EMPLOYEES over to complainant the following: LBP Check in
COOPERATIVE, represented in this act by its the amount of PI 4,016.50, DBP Check in the
Manager, GUDELIO S. V ALEROSO vs. amount of. P4.847.06 and cash amounting to
CARLOS P. DIAZ, in his capacity as Sheriff IV, PI36.96 or a total amount of PI9,000.56. Then,
Regional Trial Court, Branch 20, Tacurong City he remitted the whole amount to the
Cooperative through its treasurer, Melinda
A.M. No. P-06-2246/ July 11, 2012 MENDOZA Agcambot (Agcambot), but the latter handed
back to him the PI36.96 cash for merienda and
FACTS: Complainant alleged that Sheriff Diaz tricycle fare. Thus, only PI 8,863.56 was credited
committed irregularities in the implementation to the account of Tacot. Sheriff Diaz further
of the writs of execution. Sheriff Diaz was said claimed that by January 26, 2007, he then
to have delayed the execution of the writs and remitted the total amount of P58,276.45 to the
it was only after they had inquired from the Cooperative and submitted the Sheriffs Final
court that he actually executed them by Report and the Notice of Lifting of
garnishing the salary checks of Lucito and Levy/Attachment to the MTCC stating therein
Constantinopla. Complainant further alleged that the judgment against Tacot had been fully
that Sheriff Diaz failed to render an accounting satisfied.
on the garnished amounts and that out of the PI
6,695.17 worth of cash and checks, only On March 18, 2011, the Investigating
P8,347.93 was remitted to the Cooperative. Judge found the charges for dereliction of duty,
inefficiency and dishonesty unsubstantiated.
In response, Sheriff Diaz denied the He, however, found Diaz liable for grave abuse
allegations and stated that when he received of discretion and recommended that the
the three writs on February 19, 2004, he appropriate penalty be meted against him for
immediately prepared the Sheriff’s Notice and accepting the amount of PI,500.00 for his
instructed Atty. Marilou S. Timbol (Atty. expenses in the execution of the writs in
Timbol), the Cooperative’s counsel, to pay the violation of Section 10, Rule 141 of the Rules of
amount of PI,500.00 to defray the necessary Court.
expenses in the implementation of the writs. He
explained that it was only on March 19, 2004, On March 14, 2012, the OCA, in its
when all the writs were personally served on Memorandum, adopted the recommendation
the judgment debtors because they were not in of the Investigating Judge, dismissing the
Page 27 of 43
BAR OPERATIONS 2014
Green Notes 2014
Legal Ethics
charges for dereliction of duty, inefficiency and RHEA AIRENE P. KATAGUE, RODOLFO E.
dishonesty. It, however, found Sheriff Diaz KATAGUE, RONA SALVACION K. DELA vs. JERRY
guilty of simple misconduct and recommended A. LEDESMA, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court,
that he be fined an amount equivalent to his Branch 48, Bacolod City
three (3) months salary.
A.M. No. P-12-3067/ July 4, 2012 SERENO
ISSUE: Whether Sheriff Diaz is guilty of
dereliction of duty, inefficiency and dishonesty FACTS: Complainants alleged that on 17
and grave abuse of discretion December 2009, Presiding Judge Gorgonio J.
Ybanez of RTC Branch 48 issued a Writ of
HELD: Sheriffs are reminded that they are not Execution directed to the Provincial Sheriff of
allowed to receive any voluntary payment from Negros Occidental ordering the latter to cause
parties in the course of the performance of plaintiff therein, Eustaquio dela Torre (Dela
their duties. Corollary, a sheriff cannot just Torre), to vacate the subject premises in
unilaterally demand sums of money from a connection with the Civil Case. Subsequently,
party-litigant without observing the proper respondent, employed as Sheriff IV of the said
procedural steps. Even assuming that such court, personally served a Notice to Vacate
payments were indeed given and received in upon Dela Torre on 22 December 2009. The
good faith, such fact alone would not dispel the Writ of Execution was implemented after the
suspicion that such payments were made for five (5)-day grace period, and Dela Torre
fees than noble purposes. peacefully vacated the premises. However,
pieces of equipment and other lumber products
Sheriff Diaz’s act of receiving P 1,500.00 were left behind, as their removal would take
from Atty. Timbol, and P136.96 Agcambot, for approximately two (2) days to accomplish.
the expenses to be incurred in the execution of Complainants claimed that contrary to the
the writs, without first making an estimate and assurance of respondent that he would return
securing prior approval from the MTCC, as well the following day to remove the said effects, he
as his failure to reader accounting after its failed to do so.
execution, are clear violations of the rule. Even
if conceding that the sum demanded by Sheriff Complainants further alleged that
Diaz is reasonable, this does not justify his respondent again committed himself to the
deviation from the procedure laid down by the accomplishment of the task on 09 January 2010;
rule. Neither the acquiescence nor consent of again, he failed to do so. On 08 January 2016, a
the complainant, before or after the Third-Party Intervention (Intervention) in the
implementation of the writ will absolve him Civil Case was filed by Riza L. Schlosser
from liability. The mere act of receiving the (Schlosser), who asserted a purported fifty-one
money without the prior approval of the court percent (51%) share in the properties left
and without him issuing a receipt therefor has behind by Dela Torre. Schlosser was the
been considered as a misconduct in office. petitioner in a related liquidation proceeding
entitled "Riza L. Schlosser v. Eustaquio Dela
Thus, the respondent Sheriff Carlos P. Torre," pending before the Regional Trial Court.
Diaz had only been charge of simple misconduct
considering that the sheriff has been previously On 29 January 2010, a Motion was filed
suspended for one (1) month and one (1) day by complainants to enforce the Writ of
for Simple Neglect with the penalty of fine Execution in the Civil Case. Consequently, the
equivalent to three (3) months salary is in trial court issued an Order directing the
order. Sheriff Diaz, in fact, also has been enforcement of the writ, but still to no avail.
dismissed from the service for grave Complainants alleged that respondent’s
misconduct. explanation, that police assistance was needed
to facilitate the enforcement, was baseless.
Subsequently, complainants yet again moved to
have the writ implemented. Despite repeated
requests, however, respondent allegedly still
did not act upon the motion. Eventually, as
Page 28 of 43
BAR OPERATIONS 2014
Green Notes 2014
Legal Ethics
stated earlier, the aggrieved complainants filed In fine, respondent is guilty of simple
their respective Verified Complaints. neglect of duty, defined as "the failure of an;
employee to give one’s attention to a task
Accordingly, the trial court directed expected of him, and signifies a disregard of a
respondent to seek assistance from the Bacolod duty resulting from carelessness or
City Police Office to maintain the peace during indifference." As officers of the court, sheriffs
the implementation of the writ. On 11 March are charged with the knowledge of what proper
2010, respondent wrote a letter to Police action to take in case there are questions on the
Superintendent Celestino Guara (Guara) and writ needing to be clarified; they are charged as
sought Guara’s assistance as instructed. Instead well with the knowledge of what they are
of acting upon it, Guara coursed it through bound to comply with. Sheriffs are expected to
Police Chief Inspector Noel E. Polines, who in know the rules of procedure pertaining to their
turn indorsed it to the Legal Department of the functions as officers of the court, relative to the
PNP Regional Office at Iloilo City for review and implementation of writs of execution, and
to the Regional Director for final approval. The should at all times show a high degree of
letter was not acted upon by the regional office professionalism in the performance of their
despite respondent’s follow-ups. duties. Any act deviating from the procedure
laid down by the Rules of Court is misconduct
The OCA found respondent liable for that warrants disciplinary action. Thus, the
simple neglect of duty. It ruled that he had Supreme Court affirms the OCA’s findings on
failed to submit periodic reports as required by the respondent.
the Rules of Court, which prompted several
follow- ups by complainants
JUDGE PELAGIA DALMACIO-JOAQUIN vs.
ISSUE: Whether the respondent is guilty of NICOMEDES DELA CRUZ, Process Server,
simple neglect of duty. Municipal Trial Court in Cities, San Jose Del
Monte, Bulacan
HELD: In the instant case, respondent was able
to sufficiently explain the circumstances A.M. No. P-06-2241/ July 10, 2012
surrounding the delay in the implementation of DEL CASTILLO
the writ. He was justified in not pushing through
with his plan of removing the subject effects, FACTS: In her Complaint, Judge Dalmacio-
considering that the latter were in custodia Joaquin alleged that Dela Cruz submitted
legis, and that the Intervention of Schlosser was belated and false returns of service of notice. In
yet to be heard at that time. He complied with particular, she claimed that Dela Cruz received
the instruction to seek police assistance and the Order dated November 25, 2005 relative to
was not remiss in his responsibility to follow up Criminal Case No. 5744-96 on December 9,
his request. Indeed, the delay in the 2005 but served the same to the parties only on
implementation of the writ was caused by March 23, 2006. She also alleged that Dela Cruz
circumstances beyond his control. However, the submitted false returns relative to Criminal Case
Court faults respondent for not submitting his Nos. 04-0488 and 04-0489, No. 04-0483 and No.
periodic reports on the progress of his 05-0213. According to Judge Dalmacio-Joaquin,
implementation of the writ. Obviously, such Dela Cruz stated in his return of seryice in
reports could have properly apprised Criminal Case Nos. 04-0488 and 04-0489 that
complainants of the reasons behind the the accused therein was no longer residing at
seeming delay in the execution of the writ and her given address. However, during pre-trial,
prevented them from speculating too much. this was denied by the accused herself who
These could have also appeased complainants declared in open court that she has not
and shown the efforts that respondent had transferred residence. Anent Criminal Case No.
undertaken in order to subvert any delay. 04- 0483, Dela Cruz likewise indicated in his
Although he submitted his Sheriffs Return upon return of service that therein accused is no
completion, it was clearly not the periodic longer residing at his given address and that the
report required of him as outlined in the Rules. houses thereat have already been demolished.
However, during the scheduled pre-trial, the
Page 29 of 43
BAR OPERATIONS 2014
Green Notes 2014
Legal Ethics
complainant manifested that the accused who that the trial court acquires jurisdiction over the
is her neighbor still resides at his given address defendant.
and that his house is still standing thereon. It is therefore important that
Finally, as regards Criminal Case No. 05-0213, summonses, other writs and court processes be
two of the accused therein manifested during served expeditiously." In this instance, the
their scheduled arraignment that they are still Supreme Court finds Dela Cruz guilty of simple
residing at their given address contrary to the neglect of duty for the delay in the service of
report of Dela Cruz. Hence, the trial court motu the subject Order.
propio lifted their warrants of arrest.
However, the court does not agree with
Dela Cruz denied the allegation and the OCA that the above infractions amount to
claimed that the same was served to the parties dishonesty. Dishonesty has been defined as the
concerned three days before the scheduled 'disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud;
hearing. Anent the returns relative to Criminal untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of
Case Nos. 04-0488 and 04-0489, No. 04-0483 honesty, probity or integrity in principle; lack of
and No. 05-0213, Dela Cruz vehemently denied fairness and straightforwardness; disposition to
submitting false returns. He averred that it was defraud, deceive or betray. Thus, the Supreme
not his intention to submit incorrect or Court agrees with the observation of the
misleading returns. He also claimed that Judge Investigating Judge that Dela Cruz did not
Dalmacio-Joaquin only wanted to harass him as deliberately or intentionally make such
this is not the first administrative complaint she erroneous entries. As Dela Cruz explained, he
filed against him. merely relied on the persons whom he
interviewed when he went to the given
The OCA, on the other hand, agreed addresses. It was never alleged, much less
with the Investigating Judge that Dela Cruz established, that Dela Cruz was impelled by
indeed submitted false returns which amounts some evil design or corrupt motives to commit
to dishonesty, a grave offense punishable with said errors or to favor any party or litigant.
the extreme penalty of dismissal from service Hence, the court finds him guilty only of
with forfeiture of retirement benefits, except negligence in the performance of his tasks, and
accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to re- not of dishonesty. Much as we empathize with
employment in any branch or instrumentality of Dela Cruz considering his heavy workload, the
the government. Considering however that on same however is an unacceptable excuse for
June 10, 2008, Dela Cruz had already resigned him not to exercise prudence and care in
from the service "which the Court accepted verifying the information relayed to him.
without prejudice to the continuation of his
administrative cases," the OCA recommended In sum, the Supreme Court finds Dela
that Dela Cruz’s benefits, except accrued leave Cruz guilty not of dishonesty but only of simple
credits, be forfeited, with prejudice to re- neglect of duty which is defined as "the failure
employment in any government of an employee to give proper attention to a
instrumentality. required task or to discharge a duty due to
carelessness or indifference." Considering his 24
ISSUE: Whether Dela Cruz is guilty of dishonesty years of service in the judiciary and his health
amounting to grave offense. condition, as well as the fact that no prejudice
was caused to the party-1 litigants in the above-
HELD: "All employees in the judiciary should be mentioned cases as they were all able to attend
examples of responsibility, competence and the scheduled hearings, the court deem it
efficiency." As Process Server, Dela Cruz ought proper to impose upon Dela Cruz the penalty of
to be aware of the importance to serve the suspension of three months. However, in view
court processes with dispatch. "It is through the of Dela Cruz's resignation on June 10, 2008,
process server that defendants learn of the forfeiture of his salaries for three months
action brought against them by the should instead be imposed in lieu of
complainant. More important, it is also through suspension, to be deducted from whatever
the service of summons by the process server benefits he may be entitled to under existing
laws.
Page 30 of 43
BAR OPERATIONS 2014
Green Notes 2014
Legal Ethics
CRISELDA C. GACAD vs. JUDGE HELARION P. To bolster her case of corruption

CLAPIS, JR., Regional Trial Court, Branch 3, against Judge Clapis, Gacad recounted her
Nabunturan, Compostela Valley previous encounter with Judge Clapis and Arafol
in Criminal Case No. 6251 against her brother.
A.M. No. RTJ-10-2257/July 17, 2012 According to Gacad, Arafol suggested that they
PER CURIAM give Judge Clapis the P80,000 cash bond posted
in the case so that her brother’s case could be
FACTS: According to Gacad, on 3 November dismissed. After conceding to Arafol’s proposal,
2009, she went, together with her father Judge Clapis indeed dismissed the case despite
Jovenciano Cardenas and sister-in-law Agriculita the strong evidence against her brother.
Vda. De Cardenas, to the Office of the Provincial
Prosecutor in Nabunturan, Compostela Valley, ISSUE: Whether Judge Hilarion P. Clapis, Jr. is
to file criminal charges against the suspect who guilty of Gross Misconduct and Gross
gunned down her brother Gregorio Cardenas. Ignorance of the Law.
They met provincial prosecutor Graciano Arafol,
Jr. (Arafol), who advised them not to hire a HELD: The Supreme Court ruled that in
private counsel. The following day, Arafol administrative proceedings, the complainant
informed Gacad that he filed a complaint for has the burden to prove his accusations against
murder against the suspect but H§ Provincial respondent with substantial evidence or such
Governor kept on pressuring him about her amount of evidence which a reasonable mind
brother’s case. Arafol suggested that they see might accept as adequate to support a
Judge Clapis so he would deny the Motion for conclusion. The Court has consistently ruled
Reinvestigation to be filed by the accused that charges based on mere suspicion and
Rodolfo Comania (accused). Arafol, further, told speculation cannot be given credence.
Gacad to prepare an amount of P50.000 for
Judge Clapis. In the present case, there is indeed no
substantial evidence that Judge Clapis received
On 23 November 2009, Arafol told the P50,000 given by Gacad to Arafol, and that
Gacad that they would meet Judge Clapis at the Judge Clapis tried to borrow another P50,000
Golden Palace Hotel in Tagum City. Thus, from Gacad secured by a check allegedly signed
Gacad, together with her husband Rene Gacad by Judge Clapis himself. The testimony of
and their family driver Jojo Baylosis (Baylosis), Gacad, stating that Judge Clapis received
proceeded to the Golden Palace Hotel. Inside P50,000 and tried to borrow another P50,000
the hotel, Gacad joined Arafol and his wife at from her, both through Arafol, cannot be given
their table. After a while, Judge Clapis joined due weight for being hearsay evidence. On the
them. Arafol told Judge Clapis, "Judge sya yong other hand, although Baylosis testified based on
sinasabi kong kapitbahay ko may problema." his personal knowledge, he did not categorically
Judge Clapis replied, "So, what do you want me state that he saw Arafol give the money to
to do?" Afarol answered, "Kailangang madeny Judge Clapis. In addition, the check allegedly
ang reinvestigation ni Atty. Gonzaga and we issued by Judge Clapis was in the account name
proceed to trial kasi palaging tumatawag si of Arafol as attested by the BPI Business
Governor." Arafol paused, and continued, "Wag Manager’s Certification. Hence, Gacad fell short
kang mag-alala judge, mayron syang inihapda of the required degree of proof needed in an
para sa iyo." Gacad felt terrified because she administrative charge of corruption.
had not yet agreed to Arafol’s demands. Hence,
when Arafol asked her, "Day, kanus a nirno However, Supreme Court finds Judge
mahatag ang kwarta?" (When can you give the Clapis liable for gross misconduct. In the
money?), Gacad could only mumble, present case, the Investigating Justice found
"Paningkamutan na ko makakita ko ug kwarta... Gacad’s narration, that she met and talked with
basin makakita ko sir." (I will try to look for Judge Clapis in the Golden Palace Hotel, as
money, maybe I can find, sir.) Judge Clapis credible. Gacad categorically and unwaveringly
excitedly nodded and said, "Sige, kay ako na narrated her conversation with Judge Clapis and
bahala, gamuson nato ni sila." (Okay, leave it all Arafol. On the other hand, Judge Clapis merely
to me, we shall crush them.) denied Gacad’s allegation during the hearing
Page 31 of 43
BAR OPERATIONS 2014
Green Notes 2014
Legal Ethics
conducted by the Investigating Justice, but not MURPHY CHULATGAS TRADERS and
ip his Comment, and without presenting any MARINELLE P. CHU vs. HON. MARIO
evidence to support his denial. It is a settled B.CAPELLAN, Assisting Judge, Metropolitan
rule that the findings of investigating Trial Court (MeTC), Branch 40, QuezonCity
magistrates are generally given great weight by
the Court by reason of their unmatched A.M. No. MTJ-1111779/ July 16, 2012 BRJON
opportunity to see the deportment of the
witnesses as they testified. The rule which FACTS: On March 22, 2007, spouses Ofelia and
concedes due respect, and even finality, to the Rafael Angangco filed before the MeTC, Branch
assessment of credibility of witnesses by trial 40, Quezon City, an unlawful detainer
judges in civil and criminal cases applies a complaint, with application for the issuance of a
fortiori to administrative cases. Thus, the acts of writ of preliminary mandatory injunction (PMI)
Judge Clapis in meeting Gacad, a litigant in a against the complainants. The complainants
case pending before his sala, and telling her, filed their answer with compulsory
"Sige, kay ako na bahala gamuson nato ni sila" counterclaim on March 30, 2007. In an order
(Okay, leave it all to me, we shall crush them.), dated October 7, 2008, the respondent denied
both favoring Gacad, constitute gross the application for a writ of PMI and set the
misconduct. case for preliminary conference on November
25, 2008. On this date, the respondent referred
The Supreme Court also find Judge the case for mediation, so the preliminary
Clapis liable for gross ignorance of the law for conference was again reset to December 9,
conducting bail hearings without a petition for 2008. On November 21, 2008, the spouses
bail being filed by the accused and without Angangco filed their pre-trial brief. The
affording the prosecution an opportunity to complainants, on the other hand, did not file
prove that the guilt of the accused is strong. their pre-trial brief.
Here, the act of Judge Clapis is not a mere
deficiency in prudence, discretion and judgment During the December 9, 2008
but a patent disregard of well-known rules. preliminary conference, the complainants
When an error is so gross and patent, such error moved for the consignation of several checks as
produces an inference of bad faith, making the payment for the amounts they owed to the
judge liable for gross ignorance of the law., If spouses Angangco, for which the respondent
judges are allowed to wantonly misuse the set clarificatory hearings on January 23 and 30,
powers vested in them by the law, there will 2009. The preliminary conference finally took
riot only be confusion in the administration of place on February 3, 2009. During the February
justice but also oppressive disregard of the 3, 2009 preliminary conference, the
basic requirements of due process. complainants moved to dismiss the unlawful
detainer complaint on the grounds that: (1) the
Judge Clapis had already been spouses Angangco failed to comply with the
administratively sanctioned in Humol v. Clapis required barangay conciliation and to implead
Jr., where he was fined P30,000 for gross the other co-owners of the property subject of
ignorance of the law. His order relied solely on the unlawful detainer case; and (2) the MeTC
the arguments of counsel for the accused. In had no jurisdiction to issue a writ of PMI. On the
Humol, the Court reminded Judge Clapis of the other hand, the spouses Angangco orally moved
duties of a trial judge when an application for to declare the complainants in default for their
bail is filed, but in the present case, he ignored failure to file a pre-trial brief.
the same. Therefore, we now impose upon him
the extreme administrative penalty of dismissal On February 26, 2009, the respondent
from the service. issued the assailed joint order which submitted
the unlawful detainer case for decision based
on the facts alleged in the unlawful detainer
complaint. The complainants moved for
reconsideration, but the respondent denied
their motion. The complainants thereupon filed
the present administrative complaint against
Page 32 of 43
BAR OPERATIONS 2014
Green Notes 2014
Legal Ethics
the respondent. They also filed a motion asking his authority in expediting the proceedings of
for the respondent’s inhibition from the the unlawful detainer case. Sound practice
unlawful detainer case. The respondent requires a judge to remain, at all times, in full
eventually inhibited himself from the case in an control of the proceedings in his court and to
order dated September 8, 2009. adopt a firm policy against unnecessary
postponements.
ISSUE: Whether Judge Mario B. Capellan, is
guilty of delay in rendering a decision or order. Sections 9 and II, Rule 140 of the Rules
of Court, as amended by A.M. No. 01-8-10- SC,
HELD: In numerous occasions, the Supreme classifies undue delay in rendering a decision or
Court admonished judges to be prompt in the order as a less serious charge sanctioned by
performance of their solemn duty as dispensers either (a) suspension from office without salary
of justice because undue delay in the and other benefits for not less than one'(I) or
administration of justice erodes the people’s more than three (3) months, or (b) a fine of
faith in the judicial system. Delay not only more than Ten Thousand Pesos (PI0,000.00) but
reinforces the belief of the people that the not to exceed Twenty Thousand Pesos
wheels of justice in this country grind slowly; it (P20,000.00).
also invites suspicion, however unfair, of
ulterior motives on the part of the judge. Judges Considering that the respondent had
should always be mindful of their duty to been previously adjudged guilty of the same
render justice within the periods prescribed by offense, we impose upon him a maximum fine
law. of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00). Again,
we remind him that a repetition of the same or
The Revised Rules on Summary similar offense will warrant the imposition of a
Procedure was promulgated to achieve an more severe penalty.
expeditious and inexpensive determination of
the cases that it covers. In the present case, the
respondent failed to abide by this purpose in RE: COMPLAINT AGAINST THE HON. CHIEF
the way that he handled and acted on the JUSTICE RENATO C. CORONA DATED
subject unlawful detainer case. SEPTEMBER 14, 2011 FILED BY INTER-PETAL
RECREATIONAL CORPORATION
A review of the relevant background
facts shows that the unlawful detainer case A.M. No. 12-6- 10-SC/ June 13, 2012 PER
against the complainants was filed on March CURIAM
22, 2007 and the complainants filed their
answer thereto on March 30, 2007. Under HELD: Considering the Judgment dated May 29,
Section 7 of the 1991 Revised Rules on 2012 of the Senate sitting as an Impeachment
Summary Procedure of preliminary conference Court, which found Chief Justice Renato C.
should be held not later than thirty (30) days Corona guilty of the charge under Article II of
after the last answer is filed. the Articles of Impeachment, with the penalty
of removal from office and disqualification to
The respondent set the case for hold any office under the Republic of the
preliminary conference only on June 24, 2008, Philippines as provided in Section 3(7), Article XI
i.e., at a time way beyond the required thirty of (he Constitution, the complaint against the
(30)-day period. Another of the respondent’s Honorable Chief Justice Renato C. Corona dated
procedural lapses relates to the frequent September 14, 2011 filed by Inter-Petal
resetting of the date of the preliminary Recreational Corporation is hereby DISMISSED
conference. The preliminary conference for having become MOOT AND
scheduled for June 24, 2008 was reset, for
various reasons, to August 26, 2008, November
25, 2008 and December 9, 2008, and was finally
conducted on February 3, 2009, or almost two
(2) years after the complainants filed their
answer. Clearly, the respondent failed to exert
Page 33 of 43
BAR OPERATIONS 2014
Green Notes 2014
Legal Ethics
ACADEMIC."FIDELA BENGCO AND TERESITA ISSUE: Whether Atty. Pablo S. Bernardo is guilty
BENGCO vs. ATTY. PABLO S. BERNARDO of violating the Code of Professional
Responsibility
A.C. No. 6368/June 13, 2012 REYES
HELD: It is first worth mentioning that the
FACTS: That sometime on or about the period respondent’s defense of prescription is
from April 15, 1997 to July 22, 1997, Atty.; untenable. The Court has held that
Pablo Bernardo with the help and in connivance administrative cases against lawyers do not
and collusion with a certain Andres Magat prescribe. The lapse bf considerable time from
[willfully] and illegally committed fraudulent act the commission of the offending act to the
with intent to defraud herein complainants! institution of the administrative complaint will
Fidela G. Bengco and Teresita N. Bengco by not erase the administrative culpability of a
using false pretenses, deceitful words to the lawyer. Otherwise, members of the bar would
effect that he would expedite the titling of the only be emboldened to disregard the very oath
land belonging to the Miranda family of. they took as lawyers, rescinding from the fact
Tagaytay City who are the acquaintance of that as long as no private complainant would
complainants herein and they convinced herein immediately come forward, they stand a chance
complainant[s] that if they will finance and of being completely exonerated from whatever
deliver to him the amount of [P]495,000.00 as administrative liability they ought to answer for.
advance money he would expedite the titling of
the subject land and further by means of other There is no question that the
similar deceit like misrepresenting himself as respondent committed the acts complained of.
lawyer of William Gatchalian, the prospective He himself admitted in his answer that his legal
buyer of the subject land, who is the owner of services were hired by the complainants
Plastic City at Canomay Street, Valenzuela, through Magat regarding the purported titling
Metro Manila and he is the one handling of land supposedly purchased. While he begs
William Gatchalian’s business transaction and for the Court’s indulgence, his contrition is
that he has contracts at NAMREA, DENR, CENRO shallow considering the fact that he used his
and REGISTER OF DEEDS which representation position as a lawyer in order to deceive the
he well knew were false, fraudulent and were complainants into believing that he can
only made to induce the complainants] to give expedite the titling of the subject properties. He
and deliver the said amount ([P]495,000.00) never denied that he did not benefit from the
and once in possession of said amount, far from money given by the complainants in the
complying with his obligation to expedite and amount of P495,000.00.
cause the titling of the subject land, [wilfully],
unlawfully and illegally misappropriated, It is likewise settled that a disbarment
misapplied and convened the said amount to proceeding is separate and distinct from a
his personal use and benefit and despite criminal action filed against a lawyer despite
demand upon him to return the said amount, having involved the same set of facts.
he failed and refused to do so, which acts Jurisprudence has it "that a finding of guilt in
constitute deceit, malpractice, conduct the criminal case will not necessarily result in a
unbecoming a member of the Bar and Violation finding of liability in the administrative case.
of Duties and Oath as a lawyer. Conversely, the respondent’s acquittal does not
necessarily exculpate him administratively.
The case was referred to the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, In view of the foregoing, the Supreme
report and recommendation. The Investigating Court has no option but to accord him the
Commissioner recommended that Atty. Pablo A. punishment commensurate to all his acts and to
Bernardo be suspended for a period of two accord the complainants, especially the 88- year
years from receipt hereof from the practice of old Fidela, with the justice they utmost deserve.
his profession as a lawyer and as a member of Thus, respondent Atty. Pablo S. Bernardo is
the Bar. found guilty of violating the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, he is
suspended from the practice of law for ONE (1)
Page 34 of 43
BAR OPERATIONS 2014
Green Notes 2014
Legal Ethics
YEAR effective upon notice hereof. Further, the ISSUE: Whether the respondent committed
Court ORDERS Atty. Pablo S. Bernardo (1) to gross unethical conduct.
RETTJRN the amount of P200,000.00 to Fidela
Bengco and Teresita Bengco within TEN (10) HELD: Yes, the Court agreed with the findings
DAYS from receipt of this Decision and (2) to and conclusions of the IBP but the modified the
SUBMIT his proof of compliance thereof to the recommended penalty. The Court held that a
Court, through the Office of the Bar Confidant lawyer may be disciplined for misconduct
within TEN (10) DAYS therefrom; with a STERN committed either in his professional or private
WARNING that failure to do so shall merit him capacity. The test is whether his conduct shows
the additional penalty of suspension from the him to be wanting in moral character, honesty,
practice of law for one (1) year. probity, and good demeanor, or whether it
renders him unworthy to continue as an officer
of the court. Verily, Canon 7 of the Code of
Tomas Tan, Jr. vs. Atty. Haide Gumba Professional Responsibility mandates all lawyers
to uphold at all times the dignity and integrity
A.C. No. 9000, October 5, 2011 of the legal profession. Lawyers are similarly
required, under Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the same
FACTS: Sometime in August 2000, respondent Code, not to engage in any unlawful, dishonest
asked complainant to be lent 0350,000.00. She and immoral or deceitful conduct.
offered by way of security a parcel of land
located in Naga City registered in her father’s Here, respondent’s actions clearly show
name. Respondent showed complainant a that she deceived complainant into lending
Special Power of Attorney (SPA) executed by money to her through the use of documents
respondent’s parents, and verbally assured and false representations and taking advantage
complainant that she was authorized to: sell or of her education and complainant’s ignorance
encumber the entire property. Complainant in legal matters. As manifested by complainant,
then agreed to lend money to respondent. With he would have never granted the loan to
the help of Atty. Payte, respondent executed in respondent were it not for respondent’s
complainant’s favor an “open” Deed of misrepresentation that she was authorized to
Absolute Sale over the said parcel of land, sell the property and if respondent had not led
attaching thereto the SPA. Complainant was him to believe that he could register the “open”
made to believe that if respondent fails to pay deed of sale if she fails to pay the loan. By her
the full amount of the loan with interest on due misdeed, respondent has eroded not only
date, the deed of sale may be registered. complainant’s perception of the legal
profession but the public’s perception as well.
Respondent, however, defaulted on her Her actions constitute gross misconduct for
loan obligation and failed to pay the same which she may be disciplined, following Section
despite complainant’s repeated demands. Left 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court.
with no recourse, complainant went to the
Register of Deeds to register the sale, only to
find out that respondent deceived him since the Rey Panes and Eduardo Panes, Jr. vs.
SPA did not give respondent the power to sell Atty. Michael Ignes, Leonard Buentipo Mann,
the property but only empowered respondent Rodolfo Viajar, Jr., John Nadua
to1 mortgage the property solely to banks.
A.C. No. 8096, July 5, 2010.
Complainant filed this disbarment case
against respondent where no answer or FACTS: Koronadal Water District (KWD), a
comment was ever filed by the latter. government-owned and controlled corporation
Consequently, the IBP Commissioner then in- (GOCC), hired respondent Atty. Michael A. Ignes
charge found respondent guilty of violating as private legal counsel for one year effective
Canon Rule 101and Canon 7 of the Code of April 17, 2006. The Office of the Government
Professional Responsibility and recommending Corporate Counsel (OGCC) and the Commission
that she be suspended from the practice of law on Audit (COA) gave their consent to the
for one year. employment of Atty. Ignes. However,
Page 35 of 43
BAR OPERATIONS 2014
Green Notes 2014
Legal Ethics
controversy subject of this case later arouse HELD: Yes, the Court found respondents
when two different groups, herein referred to administratively liable. Section 3 of
as the Dela Pena board and Yaphockun board, Memorandum Circular No. 9 enjoins GOCCs to
laid claim as the legitimate Board of Directors of refrain from hiring private lawyers or law firms
KWD. Cases against each other’s group and to handle their cases and legal matters. But the
their respective corporate acts were then filed. same Section 3 provides that in exceptional
cases, the written conformity and acquiescence
On January 18, 2007, the Dela Pena of the Solicitor General or the Government
board also adopted a resolution appointing Corporate Counsel, as the case may be, and the
respondents Atty. Rodolfo U. Viajar, Jr. and written concurrence of the COA shall first be
Atty. Leonard Buentipo Mann as private secured before the hiring or employment of a
collaborating counsels for all cases of KWD and private lawyer or law firm. In Phividec Industrial
its Board of Directors, under the direct Authority v. Capitol Steel Corporation, three (3)
supervision and control of Atty. Ignes. indispensable conditions were laid down before
a GOCC can hire a private lawyer: (1) private
Meanwhile, the OGCC had approved counsel can only be hired in exceptional cases;
the retainership contract of Atty. Benjamin B. (2) the GOCC must first secure the written
Cuanan as new legal counsel of KWD and stated conformity and acquiescence of the Solicitor
that the retainership contract of Atty. Ignes had General or the Government Corporate Counsel,
expired on January 14, 2007. In spite of a as the case may be; and (3) the written
resolution issued to terminate respondents’ concurrence of the COA must also be secured.
authority to represent KWD, the latter still
continued to represent KWD in cases it is Hence, respondents herein, had no
involved. valid authority to represent KWD as the legal
requisites thereto were not complied with. Even
Alleging that respondents acted as the fact that Atty. Ignes was not notified of the
counsel for KWD without legal authority, pre-termination of his own retainership
complainants filed a disbarment complaint contract cannot validate an inexistent authority
against the respondents before the IBP of Attys. Nadua, Viajar, Jr. and Mann as
Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD). collaborating counsels.
Complainants alleged that respondents filed
cases as counsels of KWD without legal Moreover, respondents in this case,
authority. have admitted the existence of Memorandum
Circular No. 9 and professed that they are
In his defense, Atty. Mann stated that aware of our ruling in Phividec but still,
he and his fellow respondents can validly respondents acted as counsels of KWD without
represent KWD until April 17, 2007 since Atty. complying with what the rule requires.
Ignes was not notified of his contract’s pre- Consequently, for respondents’ willful
termination. Atty. Mann also stated that he appearance as counsels of KWD without
stopped representing KWD after April 17, 2QQ7 authority to do so, there is a valid ground to
in deference to the OGCC’s stand. impose disciplinary action against them. Under
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, a
The Investigating Commissioner member of the bar may be disbarred or
recommended a dismissal of the charge against suspended from his office as attorney by the
Atty. Ignes for lack of merit. It held that Atty. Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or
Ignes had valid authority as counsel of KWD for other gross misconduct in such office, grossly
one year, and he was unaware of the pre- immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction
termination of his contract when he filed of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any
pleadings in the cases KWD was involved. violation of the oath which he is required to
take before admission to practice, or for a
ISSUE: Whether or not respondents are guilty of willful disobedience of any lawful order of a
misconduct? superior court, or for corruptly or willfully
appearing as an attorney for a party to a case
without authority to do so.
Page 36 of 43
BAR OPERATIONS 2014
Green Notes 2014
Legal Ethics
Pacita Caalim-Verzonilla v. case pending before the RTC in Sanchez Mira,

Victoriano Pascua Cagayan, for the annulment of the subject
deeds, and nothing in the complaint states that
A. C. No. 6655, October 11, 2011. she is mentally or physically incapacitated.
Otherwise, her co-plaintiffs would have asked
FACTS: Complainant Caalim-Verzonilla the appointment of a guardian for her.
Verzonilla seeks the disbarment of respondent
Atty. Victoriano G. Pascua for allegedly falsifying ISSUE: Whether the respondent committed acts
a public document and evading the payment of meriting suspension or disbarment for
correct taxes through the use of falsified misconduct?
documents.
HELD: The Court suspended respondent for
Complainant alleges that on September misconduct showing deficiency in his moral
15, 2001, respondent prepared and notarized character, honesty, probity or good demeanor.
two Deeds of Extra-Judicial Settlement of the Respondent did not deny preparing and
Estate of Deceased Lope Caalim with Sale. notarizing the subject deeds. He then claimed
Complainant avers that both deeds are spurious to have been “moved by his humane and
because all the heirs’ signatures were falsified. compassionate disposition” when he acceded to
She contends that her sister, Marivinia, does the parties’ plea that he prepare and notarize
not know how to sign her name and was the second deed with a lower consideration to
confined at the Cagayan Valley Medical Center reduce the corresponding tax liability. However,
at the time the deeds were allegedly signed by the two deeds were used by respondent and his
her, as shown by a certification from said client as evidence in a judicial proceeding which
hospital. only meant that both documents still subsist
and hence contrary to respondent’s contention
Complainant further alleges that the that the second deed reflecting a lower
two deeds were not presented to any of them consideration was intended to supersede the
and they came to know of their existence only first deed.
recently.
As to the charge of falsification, the
Lastly, complainant alleges that the two Court finds that the documents annexed to the
deeds we’re used by respondent to annul a present complaint are insufficient for us to
previously simulated deed of sale. conclude that the subject deeds were indeed
falsified and absolutely simulated. We have
Respondent, on the other hand, admits previously ruled that a deed of sale that
having prepared and notarized the two allegedly states a price lower than the true
disputed Deeds of Extra-Judicial Settlement of consideration is nonetheless binding between
the Estate with Sale (subject deeds), but denies the parties and their successors in interest.
any irregularity in their execution. He claims Complainant, however, firmly maintains that
that it was the parties themselves who pleaded she and her co-heirs had no participation
with him to prepare the second deed with the whatsoever in the execution of the subject
reduced selling price. Moved by his humane deeds. In any event, the issues of forgery,
and compassionate disposition, respondent simulation and fraud raised by the complainant
gave in to the parties’ plea. in this proceeding apparently are still to be
resolved in the pending suit filed by the
Respondent denies complainant’s complainant and her co-heirs for annulment of
assertions that the two deeds are simulated and the said documents (Civil Case No. 2836-S).
falsified averring that all the parties
acknowledged the same before him. With his admission that he drafted and
notarized another instrument that did not state
As to the allegation that Marivinia did the true consideration of the sale so as to
not appear before him as she was allegedly reduce taxes due on the transaction,
under confinement, he points out that respondent cannot escape liability for making
Marivinia is one of the plaintiffs in another civil an untruthful statement in a public document
Page 37 of 43
BAR OPERATIONS 2014
Green Notes 2014
Legal Ethics
for an unlawful purpose. Respondent abetted in charge should be filed against him for the delay
depriving the Government of the right to collect in remitting the collections, but he did not
the correct taxes due. His act clearly violated comply. A previous audit of MTC-Sasmuan,
Rule 1.02, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Pampanga also revealed that Saddi had
Responsibility which states that, A LAWYER previously incurred a shortage although he later
SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION^ OBEY THE restituted the amount in full.
LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT
FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES. The audit team further reported that
Saddi did not prepare and submit monthly
Not only did respondent assist the financial reports of his collections to the Court
contracting parties in: an activity aimed at in violation of OCA Circular No. 113-2004. Thus,
defiance of the law, he likewise displayed lack the audit team recommended that Saddi be
of respect for and made a mockery of the held liable for gross neglect of duties,
solemnity of the oath in an Acknowledgment By dishonesty as an accountable officer in charge
notarizing such illegal and fraudulent of collecting money belonging to the court, and
document, he is entitling it full faith and credit for violations of various administrative circulars
upon its face, which it obviously does not relative to custody of Court funds.
deserve considering its nature and purpose.
The audit team also disclosed that Saddi
In this case, respondent proceeded to had issued: a handwritten receipt for ain
notarize the second deed despite knowledge of amount of £500.00 which he received as
its1 illegal purpose. His purported desire to execution fee from the plaintiff in a civil case.
accommodate the request of his client will not He failed to issue the necessary writ of
absolve respondent who, as a member of the execution pending appeal and was ordered by
legal profession, should have stood his ground Judge Yulo- Antero to explain in writing why he
and not; yielded to the importuning of his only issued a handwritten receipt. Saddi,
clients. Respondent should have been more however, submitted no explanation.
prudent and remained steadfast in his solemn
oath not to commit falsehood nor consent to ISSUE: Whether the respondent should be
the doing of any. As a lawyer, respondent is considered remiss in' his various duties as clerk
expected at all times to uphold the integrity and of court?
dignity of the legal profession and refrain from
any act or omission which might lessen the trust HELD: The court sustained the findings of the
and, confidence reposed by the public in the OCA. Clerks of court, as the chief administrative
integrity of the legal profession. officers of their respective courts, must act with
competence, honesty and probity in accordance
with their duty of safeguarding the integrity of
Office of the Court Administrator v. Gregorio the court and its proceedings. They are judicial
Saddi officers entrusted to perform delicate functions
with regard to the collection of legal fees, and
A. M. No. P-10-2818, November 15, 2010 as such, are expected to implement regulations
correctly and effectively. As custodians of court
FACTS: This administrative matter stemmed funds, they are constantly reminded to deposit
from a financial audit conducted by the Court immediately the funds, which they receive in
Management Office on the cash and accounts their official capacity to the authorized
of the Clerk of Court and OlC/Clerks of Court of government depositories for they are not
the Municipal Trial Court (MTC), Sasmuan, supposed to keep such funds in their custody.
Pampanga.
The Court enjoins clerks of court to
The cash count conducted revealed strictly observe the rules and regulations
shortages for the periods of accountability of relative to the management of court funds
Clerk of Court Gregorio B. Saddi. Saddi received received by them. Saddi’s failure to turn over
a copy of the Memorandum which required him the full amount of his and to adequately explain
to explain in writing why no administrative and present evidence thereon constitute gross
Page 38 of 43
BAR OPERATIONS 2014
Green Notes 2014
Legal Ethics
dishonesty, grave misconduct, and even primary sources of the quoted portions and yet
malversation of public funds. On the other arrived at a contrary conclusion to those of the
hand, the delayed remittance of his previous authors of the articles supposedly plagiarized.
cash collections and failure to submit monthly The statement bore certain remarks which raise
reports of court funds he received constitute concern for the Court. Hence, this case.
gross neglect of duty.
ISSUE: Whether or not the publication of a
By these deplorable acts of gross statement by the faculty of the UP College of
dishonesty, grave misconduct and gross neglect Law regarding the allegations of plagiarism and
of duty, Saddi has, no doubt, undermined the misrepresentation in the Supreme Court was a
people’s faith in the courts and, ultimately, in reasonable exercise of the right to criticize the
the administration of justice. Dishonesty alone, judiciary?
being in the nature of a grave offense, carries
the extreme penalty of dismissal from the HELD: The Court ruled in the negative. It held
service with forfeiture of retirement benefits, that the publication of a statement by the
except accrued leave credits, and perpetual faculty of the UP College of Law regarding the
disqualification for reemployment in the allegations of plagiarism and I
government service. Dishonesty has no place in misrepresentation in the Supreme Court was
the Judiciary. Gross neglect of duty and grave totally unnecessary, uncalled for and a rash act
misconduct, likewise, carry the same penalty. of misplaced vigilance.
The first paragraph of the letter subject

Re: Letter of the UP Law Faculty entitled of this case concludes with a reference to the1
“Restoring Integrity: A Statement by the decision in Vinuya v. Executive Secretary as a
Faculty of the University of the Philippines reprehensible act of dishonesty and
College of Law on the Allegations of Plagiarism misrepresentation by the Highest Court of the
and Misrepresentation in the Supreme Court.” land. The authors also not only assumed that
Justice Del Castillo committed plagiarism, they
A.M. No. 10-10-4-SC, October 19, 2010. went further by directly accusing the Court of
perpetrating extraordinary injustice by
FACTS: This case deals with Allegations of an dismissing the petition of the comfort women in
intellectual offense that were hurled by Atty. Vinuya v. Executive Secretary. They further
Harry L. Roque, Jr. and Atty. Romel R. Bagares attempt to educate this Court on how to go
against Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo for about the review of the case.
hisponencia in the case of Vinuya v. Executive
Secretary, G.R. No. 162230, April 28,2010. The insult to the members of the Court
was aggravated by imputations of deliberately
On August 9, 2010, a number of lawyers delaying the resolution of the said case, its
published a statement on the allegations of dismissal on the basis of “polluted sources,” the
plagiarism and misrepresentation relative to the Court’s alleged indifference to the cause of
Court’s decision in Vinuya v. Executive petitioners, as well as the supposed alarming
Secretary. Essentially, the faculty of the UP lack of concern of the members of the Court for
College of Law, headed by its dean, Atty. Marvic even the most basic values of decency and
M.V.F. Leonen, calls for the resignation of respect.
Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo in the face of
allegations of plagiarism in his work. The Court could hardly perceive any
reasonable purpose for the faculty’s less than
Notably, while the statement was objective comments except to discredit the
meant to reflect the educators’ opinion on the April 28, 2010 Decision in the case and
allegations of plagiarism against Justice Del undermine the Court’s honesty, integrity and
Castillo, they treated such allegation not only as competence in addressing the motion for its
an established fact, but a truth. In particular, reconsideration. This runs contrary to their
they expressed dissatisfaction over Justice Del; obligation as law professors and officers of the
Castillo’s explanation on how he cited the Court to be the first to uphold the dignity and
Page 39 of 43
BAR OPERATIONS 2014
Green Notes 2014
Legal Ethics
authority of this Court, to which they owe Second Division of the SB in another criminal
fidelity according to the oath they have taken as case involving the same accused.
attorneys, and not to promote distrust in the
administration of justice. Their actions likewise After due course, the Court held Attys.
constitute violations of Canons 10, 11, and 13 De la Cruz and Habacon-Garayblas liable for
and Rules 1.02 and 11.05 of the Code of their absence or non-appearance which caused
Professional Responsibility. the cancellation of the scheduled pre-trial
conference and thus wasted the time of the
Court. Then, pursuant to Sec. 3 of Rule 118 of
Atty. Emelita Garayblas and Atty. Renato Dela the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, the
Cruz v.Hon. Gregory Ong, Hon. Jose Hernandez, Court ordered them to pay the amount of ten
and Hon. Rodolfo Ponferrada thousand pesos (PI 0,000) each as sanction or
penalty and to partially answer the traveling
G. R. No. 174507-30, August 3, 2011 and other expenses of the Court in holding the
subject pre-trial conference in Davao City,
FACTS:Petitioner Atty. Emeiita H. Garayblas within ten (10) days from receipt of this order.
(Atty. Garayblas) is the principal legal counsel, Petitioners moved for reconsideration but the;
with petitioner Atty. Renato G. De la Cruz (Atty. same was denied stating that even if the Court
De la Cruz) as collaborating counsel, for Gen. is inclined to believe Atty. Garayblas' illness, the
Jose S. Ramiscal who is facing charges for Court still expected her to make the necessary
falsification of public documents and violation arrangement for co-counsel or any other
of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act No. 3019 before colleague to attend the pre-trial. It was also
several divisions of the Sandiganbayan. reiterated in said Resolution that Atty. De la
Cruz should have given priority to the pre-trial
Accused Gen. Jose S. Ramiscal was hearing in Davao City.
arraigned on February 20, 2006, and the SB 4th
Division set the pre-trial for April 6, 2006 in ISSUE: Whether or not the assailed order is
Davao City On February 28, 2006, the Office of warranted?
the Clerk of Court of the SB 4th Division sent a
Notice of Hearing to all the parties, informing HELD: The Court ruled in the negative.
them of the cancellation of the April 6, 2006
pre-trial hearing and the resetting to April 27, The Court held that the SB 4lh Division
2006 in Davao City. Petitioner Atty. Garayblas, already said it believed Atty. Garayblas' claim
opposing the resetting to April 27, 2006, filed a that a day before the scheduled pre-trial
Motion to Reset. On March 23, 2006, the SB 4th conference in Davao City, she started suffering
Division issued an Order denying said motion to from hyperglycemia (high blood sugar) and
reset, stating that “Atty. Garayblas and hypertension, and she felt the symptoms
Associates must adjust their schedule to suit all thereof until the day of the pre-trial itself. This
the other accused and their counsels, Who are incapacitated her from traveling to Davao City
available for the pre-trial hearing in Davao City to appear at the proceedings. Note that
on April 27,2006.” symptoms of hypertension include confusion,
ear noise or buzzing, fatigue, headache,
Petitioners failed to appear for pre-trial irregular heartbeat, and vision changes. As for
on April 27, 2006 in Davao City; hence, public hyperglycemia, a person suffering therefrom
respondents ordered petitioners to explain why experiences headaches, increased thirst,
they should not be held in contempt; Atty. difficulty concentrating, blurred vision, frequent
Garayblas, for her part, explained her absence urinating, and fatigue, among others. It is
as due to an illness; as she suffered from 'a high understandable then that a person suffering
blood sugar level and a high blood pressure, from confusion, difficulty in concentrating,
thereby preventing her to attend the subject blurred vision, fatigue/and others, would be
pre-trial. Atty. Dela Cruz, on the other hand, hard put to attend a hearing, much less have
explained that his absence was due to the fact the clarity of mind to think or worry about
that he was also required to attend before the finding another lawyer to substitute for her.
Indeed, it would not be reasonable to expect
Page 40 of 43
BAR OPERATIONS 2014
Green Notes 2014
Legal Ethics
her to have been able to make the necessary special civil action for mandamus in the
arrangements for another lawyer to attend in Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Mandaluyong City.
her stead. The RTC dismissed the petition oh the ground
that the period to file the claim had already
It is considered further that the prescribed and that Surfield had failed to
importance of having counsel who is the most exhaust administrative remedies.
well- versed on the facts of the case, to be the
one attending a pre-trial conference. This being Surfield, represented by the petitioners,
so, it is not quite prudent to send in a new elevated the dismissal to the CTA via petition
lawyer, who has not had ample time to fully for review. The CTA First Division denied the
familiarize himself or herself with the facts and petition for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to
issues involved in the case, to attend a pre-trial exhaust the remedies.
conference. Sending to the pre-trial conference
a new lawyer who is not very knowledgeable Undeterred, the petitioners sought
about the case would most probably lead to reconsideration in behalf of Surfield, insisting
such careless preparation which the Court that the CTA had jurisdiction, and arguing that
abhors. the CTA First Division manifested its “gross
With regard to Atty. De la Cruz, his non- ignorance of the law” and “lack of
appearance at the pre-trial conference was also understanding or respect” for the doctrine of
excusable. There were hearings for their client's stare decisis in not applying the ruling in Ty v.
case in two separate divisions of the Trampe. The CTA First Division denied Surfield’s
Sandiganbayan on the very same date in two motion for reconsideration.In addition, the CTA
distant locations. To ensure representation for First Division, taking notice of the language the
their client at the hearings in both divisions of petitioners employed in the motion for
the Sandiganbayan, petitioners agreed that reconsideration, the CTA First Division adjudged
Atty. De la Cruz would attend the one before both of the petitioners guilty of direct contempt
the Second division, while Atty. Garayblas of court for failing to uphold their duty of
would attend the one before the SB 4thDivision preserving the integrity and respect due to the
in Davao City. It appears that Atty. De la Cruz courts.
was not fully apprised of the fact that his co-
counsel would not be able to attend the pre- ISSUE: Whether the petitioners’ language in the
trial conference. It is understandable why Atty. subject motion was contumacious?
De la Cruz could not have abandoned the
hearing before the Second Division so he could HELD: The Court ruled in the affirmative. Canon
attend the pre-trial in Davao City. It was already 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
too late in the day for Atty. De la Cruz to change mandates all attorneys to observe and maintain
plans and to notify the Second Division that he the respect due to the court and to judicial
would be absent so he could attend the pre-trial officers and to insist on similar conduct by
in Davao City instead of the hearing at the others. Rule 11.03 of the Code of Professional
Second Division. Responsibility specifically enjoins all attorneys
thus:
Dennis Habawel and Alexis Medina v. Rule 11.03. - A lawyer shall abstain from
The Court of Tax Appeals scandalous, offensive or menacing language or
behavior before the Courts.
G. R. No. 174759, September 7, 2011
It is conceded that an attorney or any
FACTS: The petitioners were the counsel of other person may be critical of the courts and
Surfield Development Corporation (Surfield), their judges provided the criticism is made in
which sought from the Office of the City respectful terms and through legitimate
Treasurer of Mandaluyong City the refund of channels.
excess realty taxes paid from 1995 until 2000.
After the City Government of Mandaluyong City The test for criticizing a judge’s decision
denied its claim for refund, Surfield initiated a is, therefore,; whether or not the criticism; is
Page 41 of 43
BAR OPERATIONS 2014
Green Notes 2014
Legal Ethics
bona fide or done in good faith, and does not considering that unfavorable decision usually
spill over the walls of decency and propriety. incite bitter feelings.” By branding the CTA and
the members of its First Division as “totally
Here, the petitioners’ motion for unaware or ignorant” of Section 7(a)(3) of
reconsideration contained the following Republic Act No. 9282, and making the other
statements, to wit: (a) “it is gross ignorance of equally harsh statements, the petitioners
the law for the Honorable" Court to have held plainly assailed the legal learning of the
that it has no jurisdiction over the instant members of the CTA First Division. To hold such
petition;”(6) “the grossness of the Honorable language as reflective of a very deliberate move
Court’s ignorance of the law is matched only by on the part of the petitioners to denigrate the
the unequivocal expression of this Honorable CTA and the members of its First Division is not
Court’s jurisdiction;” and (c) the “Honorable altogether unwarranted.
Court’s lack of understanding or respect for the
doctrine of stare decisis." The power to punish contempt of court
is exercised on the preservative and not on the
By such statements, the petitioners vindictive principle, and only occasionally
clearly and definitely overstepped the bounds should a court invoke its inherent power to
of] propriety as attorneys, and disregarded their punish contempt of court in order to retain that
sworn duty to respect the courts. An imputation respect without which the administration of
in a pleading of gross ignorance against a court justice must falter or fail. The sanction the CTA
or its judge, especially in the absence of any1 First Division has visited upon the petitioners
evidence, is a serious allegation and constitutes was preservative, for the sanction maintained
direct contempt of court. It is settled that and promoted the proper respect that
derogatory, offensive or malicious statements attorneys and their clients should bear towards
contained in pleadings or written submissions the courts of justice.
presented to the same court or judge in which
the proceedings are pending are treated as
direct contempt because they are equivalent to HEAVENLY FATHER,
a misbehavior committed in the presence of or PLEASE FILL IN THE GAPS, PLEASE FILL IN THE
so near a court or judge as to interrupt the BLANKS!
administration of justice. This is true, even if the THY WILL, THY TIME, THY PLAN ALWAYS BE
derogatory, offensive or malicious statements DONE!
are not read in open court. Indeed, in Dantes v.
Judge Ramon S. Caguioa, where the petitioner’s To LANI AND EULO For Providing the Inspiration
motion for clarification stated that the to see this compilation to its fruition!
respondent judge’s decision constituted gross GOOD LUCK! GOD BLESS©
negligence and ignorance of the rules, and was
pure chicanery and sophistry, the Court held ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Batangas City and
that “a pleading containing derogatory, Manila,
offensive or malicious statements when Basta Ikaw Lord!
submitted before a court or judge in which the
proceedings are pending is direct contempt
because it is equivalent to a misbehavior
committed in the presence of or so near a court
or judge as to interrupt the administration of
justice.”
The statements manifested disrespect

towards the CTA and the members of its First
Division approaching disdain. Nor was the
offensiveness of their “strong, tactless and
hurtful” language minimized on the basis that
“snide remarks or sarcastic innuendos made by
counsels are not considered contemptuous
Page 42 of 43
BAR OPERATIONS 2014
Green Notes 2014
Legal Ethics
THE BARRISTERS’ CLUB OFFICERS
Chancellor: LESLIE D. RAGUINDIN
Vice Chancellor: MILDRED P. AMBROS
Secretary: SHEENA MARIE S. YSIT
Treasurer: ANNE LUCILLE B. RUIZ
PRO: SHEENA LIZ A. BALITTE
PRO: JUAN MA. AMBROSIO M. DAGUIO
Business Manager: MARK T. MANGLIWAN
Business Manager: MARJO MARIE B. SISON
SSG Representative: ROLEX JURISTER G. DAWATON
Ex-Officio: ABBYGAILE T. GONZALES
Adviser: ATTY. ISAGANI G. CALDERON
Dean, College of Law: ATTY. REYNALDO U. AGRANZAMENDEZ
Page 43 of 43
BAR OPERATIONS 2014

Legal Ethics Green Notes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Legal Ethics Green Notes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Legal Ethics Green Notes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Green Notes 2014

On August 15, 2011, the RTC issued an

However, the Sandiganbayan Justices

Catanduanes on 16 October 2008. Her EMILIA O. DHALIWAL vs.

Respondent pointed out that she has

On 29 January 2009, at about 6 o’clock ISSUE: Whether respondent is guilty of

previously appeared as public prosecutor, In his defense, on the first cause of

Branch 36, Gapan City, Nueva Ecija. Upoh misconduct.

HELD: Section 1, Article XI of the Constitution

CRISELDA C. GACAD vs. JUDGE HELARION P. To bolster her case of corruption

Pacita Caalim-Verzonilla v. case pending before the RTC in Sanchez Mira,

The first paragraph of the letter subject

The statements manifested disrespect

THE BARRISTERS’ CLUB OFFICERS

Chancellor: LESLIE D. RAGUINDIN

Vice Chancellor: MILDRED P. AMBROS

Secretary: SHEENA MARIE S. YSIT

Treasurer: ANNE LUCILLE B. RUIZ

PRO: SHEENA LIZ A. BALITTE

PRO: JUAN MA. AMBROSIO M. DAGUIO

Business Manager: MARK T. MANGLIWAN

Business Manager: MARJO MARIE B. SISON

SSG Representative: ROLEX JURISTER G. DAWATON

Ex-Officio: ABBYGAILE T. GONZALES

Adviser: ATTY. ISAGANI G. CALDERON

Dean, College of Law: ATTY. REYNALDO U. AGRANZAMENDEZ

You might also like