Guevarra vs.

Eala dissolve his marriage to Gomez, and that he would eventually marry
her once the divorce had been decreed. Consequently, sometime in
Facts: On March 4, 2002 a complaint of disbarment was filed before 1984, Atty. Catindig and Gomez obtained a divorce decree from the
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Committee on Bar Discipline Dominican Republic.
against Atty. Jose Emmanuel M. Eala a.k.a. Noli Eala for grossly
immoral conduct and unmitigated violation of the lawyer’s oath. In On July 14, 1984, Atty. Catindig married Dr. Perez in the State of
the Complaint, Guevarra first met the respondent in January 2000 Virginia in the United States of America (USA).
when his then fiancée Irene Moje introduced respondent to him as Years later, Dr. Perez came to know that her marriage to Atty.
her friend who was married to Marianne Tantoco with whom he had Catindig is a nullity since the divorce decree that was obtained from
three children. the Dominican Republic by the latter and Gomez is not recognized
by Philippine laws. Sometime in 1997, Dr. Perez reminded Atty.
After his marriage to Irene on October 7, 2000, Complainant noticed Catindig of his promise to legalize their union by filing a petition to
that from January to March 2001, Irene had been receiving from nullify his marriage to Gomez.
respondent Cellphone calls, as well as messages some which read “I Sometime in 2001, Dr. Perez alleged that she received an
love you,” “I miss you,” or “Meet you at Megamall.” He also noticed anonymous letter in the mail informing her of Atty. Catindig’s
that Irene habitually went home very late at night or early in the scandalous affair with Atty. Baydo, and that sometime later, she
morning of the following day, and sometimes did not go home from came upon a love letter written and signed by Atty. Catindig for
work. When he asked her whereabouts, she replied that she slept at Atty. Baydo dated April 25, 2001. In the said letter, Atty. Catindig
her parent’s house in Binangonan, Rizal or she was busy with her professed his love to Atty. Baydo, promising to marry her once his
work. “impediment is removed.”
On October 31, 2001, Atty. Catindig abandoned Dr. Perez and their
In February or March 2001, complainant saw Irene and Respondent son; he moved to an upscale condominium in Salcedo Village,
together on two occasions. On the second occasion, he confronted Makati City where Atty. Baydo was frequently seen.
them following which Irene abandoned the conjugal house. On April
22, 2001 complainant went uninvited to Irene’s birthday celebration Atty. Catindig, in his Comment, admitted that he married Gomez on
at which he saw her and the respondent celebrating with her family May 18, 1968. He claimed, however, that immediately after the
and friends. Out of embarrassment, anger and humiliation, he left wedding, Gomez showed signs that she was incapable of complying
the venue immediately. Following that incident, Irene went to the with her marital obligations. Eventually, their irreconcilable
conjugal house and hauled off all her personal belongings. differences led to their de facto separation in 1984.
Complainant later found a handwritten letter dated October 7, 2007, Atty. Catindig claimed that Dr. Perez knew of the foregoing,
the day of his wedding to Irene, Complainant soon saw respondent’s including the fact that the divorce decreed by the Dominican
car and that of Irene constantly parked at No. 71-B11 Street, New Republic court does not have any effect in the Philippines.
Manila where as he was later learn sometime in April 2001, Irene
was already residing. He also learned still later that when his friends Atty. Catindig claimed that his relationship with Dr. Perez turned
saw Irene on about January 18, 2002 together with respondent sour. Eventually, he left their home in October 2001 to prevent any
during a concert, she was pregnant. acrimony from developing.anroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Issue: Whether Concubinage or Adulterous relationship, be the He denied that Atty. Baydo was the reason that he left Dr. Perez.
reason for the disbarment of Atty. Jose Emmanuel Eala. For her part, Atty. Baydo denied that she had an affair with Atty.
Catindig.
Held: Lawyer’s oath stated that a lawyer should support the
Constitution and obey the laws, Meaning he shall not make use of IBP – recommended the disbarment of Atty. Catindig for gross
deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct, grossly immoral immorality, violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 7 and Rule 7.03 of the
conduct, or be convicted in any crime involving moral turpitude. In Code of Professional Responsibility. Complaint against Atty. Baydo –
the case at bar Atty. Eala was accused of Concubinage, under ART. dismissed for dearth of evidence.
334 of the Revised Penal Code, “ Any husband who shall keep a
mistress in a conjugal dwelling, or, shall have sexual intercourse, ISSUE:
under scandalous circumstances, with a woman who is not his wife, WON the respondents committed gross immorality, which would
or shall cohabit with her in any other place, shall be punished by warrant their disbarment.
prision correccional in its minimum and medium period. Section 2 of
ART. XV states that “Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is HELD:
the foundation of the family and shall be protected by the state. YES.
Respondent’s grossly immoral conduct runs afoul of the constitution
and the laws, that he as a lawyer has sworn to uphold. Hence the RATIO:
court declared Atty. Jose Emmanul M. Eala DISBARRED for grossly
immoral conduct, violation of his oath of office, and violation of The Code of Professional Responsibility provides:
canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct.
PEREZ VS. CATINDIG
Canon 7 – A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity
FACTS: of the legal profession and support the activities of the Integrated
Atty. Tristan A. Catindig admitted to Dr. Elmar Perez that he was Bar.
already wed to Lily Corazon Gomez. Atty. Catindig told Dr. Perez that
he was in the process of obtaining a divorce in a foreign country to
Rule 7.03 – A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely As it is, the evidence that was presented by Dr. Perez to prove her
reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor should he, whether in claim was mere allegation, an anonymous letter informing her that
public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit the respondents were indeed having an affair and the purported
of the legal profession. love letter to Atty. Baydo that was signed by Atty. Catindig.

In this regard, Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides The Court has consistently held that in suspension or disbarment
that a lawyer may be removed or suspended from the practice of proceedings against lawyers, the lawyer enjoys the presumption of
law, inter alia, for grossly immoral conduct. innocence, and the burden of proof rests upon the complainant to
prove the allegations in his complaint. The evidence required in
“A lawyer may be suspended or disbarred for any misconduct suspension or disbarment proceedings is preponderance of
showing any fault or deficiency in his moral character, honesty, evidence.
probity or good demeanor.” Immoral conduct involves acts that are
willful, flagrant, or shameless, and that show a moral indifference to Arrieta v. Llosa
the opinion of the upright and respectable members of the FACTS: A disbarment case was filed against Atty. Llosa by Pike P.
community. Immoral conduct is gross when it is so corrupt as to Arrieta for allegedly notarizing a Deed of Absolute sale, wherein,
constitute a criminal act, or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to vendors noted were already dead prior to its execution. In answer,
a high degree, or when committed under such scandalous or respondent admitted having notarized the Deed of Absolute Sale.
revolting circumstances as to shock the community’s sense of But before affixing his notarial seal, he first ascertained the
decency. The Court makes these distinctions, as the supreme authenticity of the signatures, verified the identities of the
penalty of disbarment arising from conduct requires grossly signatories, and determined the voluntariness of its execution.
immoral, not simply immoral, conduct.
However, in a later date, the respondent sought to dismiss the
Contracting a marriage during the subsistence of a previous one disbarment case admitting to the fact the instant case is only a
amounts to a grossly immoral conduct. product of misunderstanding and misinterpretation of some facts
and is now convinced that everything is in order. The designated
The facts gathered from the evidence adduced by the parties and, Investigating Commissioner of the IBP recommended the dismissal
ironically, from Atty. Catindig’s own admission, indeed establish a of the instant case. The Board of Governors of the IBP adopted the
pattern of conduct that is grossly immoral; it is not only corrupt and above recommendation and resolved to dismiss the instant case
unprincipled, but reprehensible to a high degree. after finding no compelling reason to continue with the disbarment
proceedings.
Moreover, assuming arguendo that Atty. Catindig’s claim is true, it
matters not that Dr. Perez knew that their marriage is a nullity. The ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Joel A. Llosa be disbarred or suspended
fact still remains that he resorted to various legal strategies in order from practice of law.
to render a façade of validity to his otherwise invalid marriage to Dr.
Perez. Such act is, at the very least, so unprincipled that it is HELD: YES. Respondent ordered SUSPENDED for six months from
reprehensible to the highest degree. practice of law with a warning that another infraction will be dealt
with more severely. Citing Section 1 of Public Act No. 2103 also
Further, after 17 years of cohabiting with Dr. Perez, and despite the known as the Notarial law, the Supreme Court explained the
various legal actions he resorted to in order to give their union a importance of adherence to said law as part of the responsibility of a
semblance of validity, Atty. Catindig left her and their son. It was duly deputized authority to conduct such notarial process. Due
only at that time that he finally decided to properly seek the nullity diligence is to be observed, this being part of a lawyers professional
of his first marriage to Gomez. Apparently, he was then already responsibility and procedural lapse is not an excuse to cater to the
entranced with the much younger Atty. Baydo, an associate lawyer convenience of clients. Any violation is tantamount to misconduct.
employed by his firm. Such misconduct is a ground for disbarment as stated by the Section
27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. Furthermore, the Supreme
While the fact that Atty. Catindig decided to separate from Dr. Perez Court stressed the primary responsibility of lawyers as stated in
to pursue Atty. Baydo, in itself, cannot be considered a grossly Canon I of the Code of Professional Responsibility that a lawyer shall
immoral conduct, such fact forms part of the pattern showing his uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote
propensity towards immoral conduct. Lest it be misunderstood, the respect for law and legal processes. A lawyer must also refrain from
Court’s finding of gross immoral conduct is hinged not on Atty. engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. Any
Catindig’s desertion of Dr. Perez, but on his contracting of a violation of his oath or of his duties as an attorney and counsellor,
subsequent marriage during the subsistence of his previous which include statutory grounds enumerated in Section 27, Rule 138
marriage to Gomez. of the Rules of Court, all of these being broad enough to cover
Atty. Catindig’s subsequent marriage during the subsistence of his practically any misconduct of a lawyer in his professional or private
previous one definitely manifests a deliberate disregard of the capacity may be disbarred or suspended.
sanctity of marriage and the marital vows protected by the
Constitution and affirmed by our laws. By his own admission, Atty. Carrie-Anne Shaleen Caryle Reyes Vs. Atty. Ramon F. Nieva; A.C.
Catindig made a mockery out of the institution of marriage, taking No. 8560; September 6, 2016
advantage of his legal skills in the process. He exhibited a deplorable
lack of that degree of morality required of him as a member of the PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
bar, which thus warrant the penalty of disbarment.
For the Court’s resolution is the Complaint1 dated March 3, 2010
There is insufficient evidence to prove the affair between the filed by complainant Carrie-Anne Shaleen Carlyle S. Reyes
respondents. (complainant) against respondent Atty. Ramon F. Nieva
(respondent), praying that the latter be disbarred for sexually
harassing her. the acts imputed against him, especially in a very small office space
allotted for him and his staff. In this regard, he referred to his
Counter-Affidavit 8 submitted before the CODI, wherein he
The Facts explained, inter alia, that: (a) while he indeed watches “interesting
shows” in his office laptop, he never invited anyone, including
Complainant alleged that she has been working at the Civil Aviation complainant, to watch with him and that he would even close his
Authority of the Philippines (CAAP) as an Administrative Aide on a laptop whenever someone comes near him; 9 ( b) he never held and
Job Order basis since October 2004. Sometime in January 2009, she kissed complainant’s hand because if he had done so, he would have
was reassigned at the CAAP Office of the Board Secretary under the been easily noticed by complainant’s co-staffers; 10 (c) he did offer
supervision of respondent, who was then acting as CAAP Acting her a cellular phone, but this was supposed to be an office phone
Board Secretary. During complainant’s stint under respondent, she which should not be used for personal purposes, and thus, could not
would notice that during office hours, respondent would often be given any sexual meaning; 11 (d) he did tell complainant to wait
watch ”pampagana” videos saved in his office laptop, all of which for him in the afternoon of April 1, 2009, but only for the purpose of
turned out to be pornographic films. Complainant also averred that having an available encoder should he need one for any urgent
whenever respondent got close to her, he would hold her hand and matter that would arise; 12 and ( e) he would not do the acts he
would sometimes give it a kiss. During these instances, complainant allegedly committed on April 2, 2009 as there were other people in
would remove her hands and tell him to desist. According to the
complainant, respondent even offered her a cellular phone together office and that those people can attest in his favor. 13 Respondent
with the necessary load to serve as means for their private then pointed out that the administrative case filed against him
communication, but she refused the said offer, insisting that she before the CODI was already dismissed for lack of basis and that
already has her own cellular phone and does not need another one. complainant was only being used by other CAAP employees who
2 were agitated by the reforms he helped implement upon his
assumption as CAAP consultant and eventually as Acting Corporate
Complainant also narrated that at about 5 o’clock in the afternoon Board Secretary. 14
of April 1, 2009, respondent texted her to wait for him at the office.
Fearing that respondent might take advantage of her, complainant The IBP’s Report and Recommendation
convinced two (2) of her officemates to accompany her until
respondent arrived. Upon respondent’s arrival and seeing that In a Report and Recommendation 15 dated August 14, 2012, the
complainant had companions, he just told complainant and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Investigating Commissioner
other two (2) office staff to lock the door when they leave. 3 recommended the dismissal of the instant administrative complaint
against respondent. 16 He found that complainant failed to
Complainant further recounted that on the following day, April 2, substantiate her allegations against respondent, as opposed to
2009, respondent called her on her cellular phone, asked if she respondent’s defenses which are ably supported by evidence. Citing
received his text message, and told her he would tell her something respondent’s evidence, the Investigating Commissioner opined that
upon his arrival at the office. At about 9:30 in the morning of even since the CAAP Office of the Board Secretary was very small, it is
date, respondent asked complainant to encode a memorandum he implausible that a startling occurrence such as an attempted sexual
was about to dictate. Suddenly, respondent placed his hand on molestation would not be noticed by not only the other occupants
complainant’s waist area near her breast and started caressing the of said office area, but also by those occupying the office adjacent to
latter’s torso. Complainant immediately moved away from it, i.e., the CAAP Operations Center, which is separated only by glass
respondent and told him “sumosobra na ho kayo sir.” Instead of panels. Further, the Investigating Commissioner drew attention to
asking for an apology, respondent told complainant he was willing to the investigation conducted by the CODI showing that the collective
give her P2,000.00 a month from his own pocket and even gave her sworn statements of the witnesses point to the eventual conclusion
a note stating “just bet (between) you and me, x x x kahit na si that none of the alleged acts of misconduct attributed to respondent
mommy,” referring to complainant’s mother who was also working really occurred. 17
at CAAP. At around past 11 o’clock in the morning of the same day,
while complainant and respondent were left alone in the office, In a Resolution 18 dated May 10, 2013, the IBP Board of Governors
respondent suddenly closed the door, grabbed complainant’s arm, (IBP Board) unanimously reversed the aforesaid Report and
and uttered “let’s seal it with a kiss,” then attempted to kiss Recommendation. As such, respondent was found guilty of
complainant. This prompted complainant to thwart respondent’s committing sexual advances, and accordingly, recommended that he
advances with her left arm, raised her voice in order to invite help, be suspended from the practice of law for three (3) months.
and exclaimed “wag naman kayo ganyan sir, yung asawa nyo
magagalit, sir may asawa ako.” After respondent let her go, In view of respondent’s Motion for Reconsideration, 19 the IBP
complainant immediately left the office to ask assistance from her Board
former supervisor who advised her to file an administrative case 4 referred the case to the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD)
against respondent before the CAAP Committee on Decorum and for
Investigation (CODI).5 study, evaluation, and submission of an Executive Summary to the
IBP
Finally, complainant alleged that after her ordeal with respondent, Board.20
she was traumatized and was even diagnosed by a psychiatrist to be
suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder with recurrent major In the Director’s Report21 dated July 8, 2014, the IBP-CBD National
depression. 6 Eventually, complainant filed the instant complaint. Director recommended that the current IBP Board adhere to the
report and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner as it
In his defense,7 respondent denied all of complainant’s allegations. is supported by the evidence on record; on the other hand, the
He maintained that as a 79-year old retiree who only took a position reversal made by the previous IBP Board is bereft of any factual and
at the CAAP on a consultancy basis, it was very unlikely for him to do legal bases, and should therefore, be set aside. In this light, the
current IBP Board issued a Resolution22 dated August 10, 2014 only required to refrain from adulterous relationships or keeping a
setting aside the previous IBP Board’s Resolution, and accordingly, mistress but must also behave himself so as to avoid scandalizing the
dismissed the administrative complaint against respondent. public by creating the impression that he is flouting those moral
standards.” Consequently, any errant behavior of the lawyer, be it in
The Issue Before the Court his public or private activities, which tends to show deficiency in
moral character, honesty, probity or good demeanor, is sufficient to
The essential issue in this case is whether or not respondent should warrant suspension or disbarment. 27 (Emphasis and underscoring
be held administratively liable for violating the Code of Professional supplied)
Responsibility (CPR).
Verily, lawyers are expected to abide by the tenets of morality, not
The Court’s Ruling only upon admission to the Bar but also throughout their legal
career, in order to maintain their good standing in this exclusive and
Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the CPR provides: honored fraternity. They may be suspended from the practice of law
or disbarred for any misconduct, even if it pertains to his private
CANON 1 – A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of activities, as long as it shows him to be wanting in moral character,
the land and promote respect for law and legal processes. honesty, probity or good demeanor. 28

Rule 1.01 -A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral After due consideration, the Court reverses the findings and
or deceitful conduct. recommendations of the IBP, and finds respondent administratively
liable for violations of the CPR, as will be explained hereunder.
The provision instructs that “[a]s officers of the court, lawyers are
bound to maintain not only a high standard of legal proficiency, but To recapitulate, the IBP found that as compared to complainant’s
also of morality, honesty, integrity, and fair dealing.”23 purposedly bare and uncorroborated allegations, respondent’s
evidence point to the conclusion that none of the alleged sexual
In similar light, Rule 7.03, Canon 7 of the CPR states: advances made by respondent against complainant actually
occurred. As such, it absolved respondent from any administrative
CANON 7 – A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and liability. In support of such finding, the IBP largely relied on the
dignity of the legal profession and support the activities of the following: (a) the five (5) photographs 29 respondent submitted to
Integrated Bar. the CODI to show that respondent’s office space was so small that
xx xx any commotion caused by a sexual harassment attempt would have
been easily noticed by the other occupants thereof; 30 and (b) the
Rule 7.03 -A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely investigation conducted by the CODI per the Transcript31 submitted
reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public by respondent where the witnesses said that they did not notice
or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the anything out of the ordinary on April 2, 2009, the date when
legal profession. Good moral character is a trait that every practicing respondent’s alleged sexual advances against complainant were
lawyer is required to possess. It may be defined as “what a person committed. 32 However, the foregoing evidence, taken as a whole,
really is, as distinguished from good reputation, or from the opinion did not actually refute complainant’s allegation that at around past
generally entertained of him, or the estimate in which he is held by 11 o’clock in the morning of April 2, 2009, respondent closed the
the public in the place where he is known. Moral character is not a door, grabbed complainant’s right arm, uttered the words “let’s seal
subjective term but one which corresponds to objective reality.” 24 it with a kiss” and attempted to kiss complainant despite the latter’s
Such requirement has four (4) ostensible purposes, namely: (a) to resistance.
protect the public; ( b) to protect the public image of lawyers; ( c) to
protect prospective clients; and ( d) to protect errant lawyers from A careful perusal of the aforesaid Transcript shows that at around
themselves. 25 past 11 o’clock in the morning of April 2, 2009, there was a time that
complainant and respondent were indeed left alone in the office:
In Valdez v. Dabon,26 the Court emphasized that a lawyer’s
continued possession of good moral character is a requisite Mr. Mendoza: Ngayon, puwede mo bang idescribe sa amin nung
condition to remain a member of the Bar, viz.: 9:30 to 11 :00 sinu-sino kayo doon?

Lawyers have been repeatedly reminded by the Court that Witness 1: Tatlo (3) lang kami sir po dun. Si Ma’am Carrie Anne
possession of good moral character is both a condition precedent [complainant], si sir Nieva [respondent] tsaka aka po.
and a continuing requirement to warrant admission to the Bar and
to retain membership in the legal profession. This proceeds from the Mr. Mendoza: So ikaw lang ang witness, ang taong naroon 9:30 to
lawyer’s bounden duty to observe the highest degree of morality in 11?
order to safeguard the Bar’s integrity, and the legal profession
exacts from its members nothing less. Lawyers are called upon to Witness 1: Yes sir.
safeguard the integrity of the Bar, free from misdeeds and acts
constitutive of malpractice. Their exalted positions as officers of the xx xx
court demand no less than the highest degree of morality.
Mr. Mendoza: Saan kayo kumakain ng lunch?
The Court explained in Arnobit v. Atty. Arnobit that “as officers of
the court, lawyers must not only in fact be of good moral character Witness 1: Sa loob po kami naglulunch.
but must also be seen to be of good moral character and leading
lives in accordance with the highest moral standards of the Mr. Mendoza: Pag nag-order ng pagkain minsan may natitira pa
community. A member of the bar and an officer of the court is not bang iba?
 764 so nag-cocoordinate kami …
Witness 1: Itong po yung dalawa yung natira nung umalis po ako.
Um … pagbalik ko po wala na po si Ma’am Caan [complainant] si Mr. Borja: Ano yung 764?
Ma’am Amy nalang po ang nandoon.
Witness 4: Yung sa Tuguegarao yung nawawala siya so may alerfa
Mr. Mendoza: So siya [complainant] nalang at tsaka si Atty. Nieva tapos
[respondent] ang naiwan doon sa room? Eh nasaan na yung ibang ditressfa so intransi po kami … opo …
OJT pa?
Mr. Borja: So busing-busy ka sa telepono?
Witness 1: Tatlo lang po kasi kami nun sir, nasa Land Bank po yung
dalawa. Witness 4: Opo lahat kami.

Mr. Mendoza: So nasa Land Bank sila. So totoong may nangyari na Mr. Borja: Pati ikaw?
dalawa lang ang naiwan sa kuwarto?
Witness 5: Opo.
Witness 1: Opo nung mga quarter to 12 siguro po nun.
Mr. Borja: Sinong walang ginagawa nun?
Mr. Mendoza: Ilang beses na may nangyayaring ganun na silang
naiiwan doon sa kuwarto? Witness 4: Wala kasi kanya-kanya kami ng coordination lahat kami
nasa telepono.
Witness 1: Yun lang po kasi yung natatandaan ko po sir na time na
naiwan sila eh. Mr. Borja: Kaya kapag kumakalampag yung pader [sa] kabila hindi
niyo maririnig?
xx xx
Witness 4: Hindi siguro sir kasi kung nakasara din sila ng pinto tapos
Mr. Abesamis: Umalis ka sa room para bumili ng pagkain nandoon si kanya-kanya kaming may kausap sa telepono eh.
Atty. Nieva [respondent]?
Mr. Borja: Kung hindi kayo nakikipag-usap ngayon wala kayong
Witness 1: Andoon pa po silang dalawa [complainant and ginagawa, narinig niyo ang usapan doon sa kabila.
respondent]. Pero tapos na po silang magtype nun tas nag decide na
maglunch na eh. Witness 5: Yes sir.

Mr. Abesamis: Saan? Sino ang naiwan? Atty. Gloria: Lalo na pag malakas.

Witness 1: Dalawa pa lang sila sir pagbalik ko tatlo na sila pero wala Mr. Borja: Pag malakas pero therein normal voice fang level.
naman po si Ma’am Caan [complainant]. Nung umalis po aka si sir
Nieva [respondent] tsaka si Ma’am Caan yung nandoon then Witness 4: Kasi minsan malakas din yung radio nila eh. Kung minsan
pagbalik ko po wala na si Ma’am Caan, si sir Nieva tsaka silang kasi sir may mga music sila. Eto sir yung time na kinuha … Dami nila
dalawa na po yung nandoon. eh … Lumabas nakita naming mga ano mga 10:45 na yan nabasa sir.

Mr. Abesamis: Ok. So wala na silang kasamang iba? Mr. Borja: Pero ang pinag-uusapan natin lagpas ng alas onse (11) ha
bago mag-alas dose (12) ang pinaka latest message mo dito
Witness 1: Opo. 33 02103106, 11 :06. So between 11:06 to 12 wala kayong …

The same Transcript also reveals that the CODI interviewed the Witness 4: Kasi nakikipag-coordination talaga kami kahit … kami lang
occupants of the adjacent office, i.e., the CAAP Operations Center, nandoon sa telepono.
which, according to the IBP Investigating Commissioner, was only
separated from complainant and respondent’s office, i.e. the CAAP Mr. Borja: Written pero voice coordination niyo sa telepono kayo?
Office of the Board Secretary, by glass panels. Pertinent parts of the
interview read: Witness 4: Tsaka naka log-in sa log book.

Mr. Borja: Nung oras ng mga alas onse (11) pagitan ng alas onse (11) xx xx
hanggang alas dose (12), nasaan ka joy [Witness 4]?
Mr. Abesamis: Ma’am Joy [Witness 4] sabi niyo kanina naririnig niyo
Witness 4: Andun po sa ORCC [CAAP Operations Center]. si sir [respondent] sa kabila kung wala kayong kausap lalong-lalo na
kapag malakas yung salita?
Mr. Borja: Si ano naman Donna [Witness 5] ganun din? Kasi sinasabi
dito noong bandang ganung oras past eleven (11) parang nag- Witness 4: Opo.
advance yata si Atty. Nieva [respondent] kay Ms. Reyes (Caan)
[complainant] ngayon nung chinachansingan siya parang ganun ang Mr. Abesamis: So ibig sabihin kahit hindi malakas may possibility na
dating eh “I raised up my voice also, so that the OPCEN personnel maririnig niyo yung usapan kung walang radio? Siguro if intelligible
will hear of the alann” may narinig ba kayo na sumigaw siya? or knowledgeable pero maririnig mo sa kabila?

Witness 4: Eh kasi sir wala pong braket yun yung time na ano yung Witness 4: Kung mahina o normal yung usapan?
RPCC
Mr. Abesamis: Normal na usapan, conversation. The above-cited excerpts of the Transcript show that at around past
11 o’clock in the morning of April 2, 2009, complainant and
Witness 4: Hindi siguro pag sarado sila. respondent were left alone in the CAAP Office of the Board
Secretary as complainant’s officemates were all out on errands. In
Mr. Abesamis: Pero kung halimbawa sisigaw? this regard, it was error on the part of the IBP to hastily conclude
from the testimonies of complainant’s officemates who were
Witness 4: Maririnig siguro kasi kapag nagdidictate si Attorney interviewed by the CODI that nothing out of the ordinary happened.
[respondent] minsan naririnig namin. Surely, they were not in a position to confirm or refute
complainant’s allegations as they were not physically in the office so
Mr. Mendoza: Maski sarado yung pinto? as to make a credible testimony as to the events that transpired
therein during that time.
Witness 4: Ah opo.
Neither can the testimonies of those in the CAAP Operations Center
Mr. Mendoza: Naririnig? be used to conclude that respondent did not do anything to
complainant, considering that they themselves admitted that they
Witness 4: Kung malakas. were all on the telephone, busy with their coordinating duties. They
likewise clarified that while their office is indeed separated from the
Mr. Mendoza: Ah kung malakas? CAAP Office of the Board Secretary only by glass panels, they could
not see what was happening there as they covered the glass panels
Witness 4: Opo. with white cartolina. In light of their preoccupation from their
official duties as well as the fact that the glass panels were covered,
Mr. Abesamis: So wala kayong naririnig man Zang kahit isang word it is very unlikely for them to have noticed any commotion
na malakas doon sa kanila during the time na nangyari ito? happening in the adjacent CAAP Office of the Board Secretary.

Witness 4: Nung time na iyan wala kasi kaming maalala … Furthermore, the IBP should have taken the testimonies of the
witnesses in the CODI proceedings with a grain of salt. It bears
Mr. Abesamis: Walang possibility na narinig niyo pero mas busy kayo noting that all those interviewed in the CODI proceedings were job
sa telephone operation. order and regular employees of the CAAP. Naturally, they would be
cautious in giving any unfavorable statements against a high-ranking
Witness 4: Busy kami. official of the CAAP – such as respondent who was the Acting Board
Secretary at that time – lest they earn the ire of such official and put
Mr. Abesamis: Hindi makikilatis yung ano … their career in jeopardy.

Witness 4: Kasi may time na sumigaw na babae nga pero kala lang Thus, the IBP erred in concluding that such Transcript shows that
namin ah … respondent did not perform the acts complained of. On the
contrary, said Transcript proves that there was indeed a period of
Mr. Abesamis: Nung date na iyon o hindi? time where complainant and respondent were left alone in the CAAP
Office of the Board Secretary which gave respondent a window of
Witness 4: Hindi, hindi pa sigurado eh kasi … opportunity to carry out his acts constituting sexual harassment
against complainant.
Mr. Abesamis: Hindi yung date bang iyon ang sinasabi mo?
More importantly, records reveal that complainant’s allegations are
Witness 4: Hindi kasi busy talaga kami sa coordination nung ano eh adequately supported by a Certificate of Psychiatric Evaluation35
nung time na iyon. Nasabay kasi eh nung time na iyon hinahanap pa dated April 13, 2009 stating that the onset of her psychiatric
namin yung requirement. problems – diagnosed as post-traumatic stress disorder with
recurrent major depression – started after suffering the alleged
Mr. Mendoza: Pero bago yung bago mag April 2, meron ba kayo na sexual molestation at the hands of respondent. Moreover,
tuligan na nag-aanuhan ng ganun, nagrereklamo tungkol kay Atty. complainant’s plight was ably supported by other CAAP
Nieva [respondent], wala? May narinig kayong movie na parang employees36 as well as a retired Brigadier General of the Armed
sounding na porno ganun? Forces of the Philippines 37 through various letters to authorities
seeking justice for complainant. Perceptibly, complainant would not
Witness 4: Wala music lang talaga sir. seek help from such supporters, and risk their integrity in the
process, if none of her allegations were true. Besides, there is no
Mr. Mendoza: So music. evidence to establish that complainant was impelled by any
improper motive against respondent or that she had reasons to
Witness 4: Kung minsan kasi binubuksan nila yung door pag mainit fabricate her allegations against him. Therefore, absent any
yung kuwarto nila. competent proof to the contrary, the Court finds that complainant’s
story of the April 2, 2009 incident was not moved by any ill-will and
Mr. Borja: At that time hindi bukas iyon? was untainted by bias; and hence, worthy of belief and credence. 38
In this regard, it should be mentioned that respondent’s averment
Witness 4: Kami ano eh may cover ng ano cartolina na white. that complainant was only being used by other CAAP employees to
get back at him for implementing reforms within the CAAP was
Mr. Borja: Makakatestify lang kayo sa audio eh, kasi wala kayong plainly unsubstantiated, and thus, a mere self-serving
nakikita. 34 assertion that deserves no weight in law.39
In addition, the Court notes that respondent never refuted Nonetheless, in non-civil cases such as De Zuzuarregui, Jr. v. Soguilon
complainant’s allegation that he would regularly watch 45 cited by the IBP Investigating Commissioner, the Court had
“pampagana” movies in his office-issued laptop. In fact, respondent pronounced that the burden of proof by preponderance of evidence
readily admitted that he indeed watches “interesting shows” while in disbarment proceedings is upon the complainant. 46 These rulings
in the office, albeit insisting that he only does so by himself, and that appear to conflict with other jurisprudence on the matter which
he would immediately close his laptop whenever anyone would pass contrarily hold that substantial evidence is the quantum of proof to
by or go near his table. As confirmed in the Transcript 40 of the be applied in administrative cases against lawyers. 47 The latter
investigation conducted by the CODI, these “pampagana” movies standard was applied in administrative cases such as Foster v.
and “interesting shows” turned out to be pornographic materials, Agtang,48 wherein the Court had, in fact, illumined that:
which respondent even asks his male staff to regularly play for him
as he is not well-versed in using computers.41 [T]he quantum of evidence required in civil cases is different from
the quantum of evidence required in administrative cases. In civil
Without a doubt, it has been established that respondent habitually cases, preponderance of evidence is required. Preponderance of
watches pornographic materials in his office-issued laptop while evidence is “a phrase which, in the last analysis, means probability of
inside the office premises, during office hours, and with the the truth. It is evidence which is more convincing to the court as
knowledge and full view of his staff. Obviously, the Court cannot worthier of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto.”
countenance such audacious display of depravity on respondent’s In administrative cases, only substantial evidence is needed.
part not only because his obscene habit tarnishes the reputation of Substantial evidence, which is more than a mere scintilla but is such
the government agency he works for – the CAAP where he was relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
engaged at that time as Acting Corporate Secretary – but also support a conclusion, would suffice to hold one administratively
because it shrouds the legal profession in a negative light. As a liable.49 (Emphasis supplied; citations omitted)
lawyer in the government service, respondent is expected to
perform and discharge his duties with the highest degree of Similarly, in Pena v. Paterno,50 it was held:
excellence, professionalism, intelligence, and skill, and with utmost
devotion and dedication to duty.42 However, his aforesaid habit Section 5, in [comparison with] Sections 1 [(Preponderance of
miserably fails to showcase these standards, and instead, displays evidence, how proved)] and 2 [(Proof beyond reasonable doubt)],
sheer unprofessionalism and utter lack of respect to the government Rule 133, Rules of Court states that in administrative cases, only
position he was entrusted to hold. His flimsy excuse that he only substantial evidence is required, not proof beyond reasonable doubt
does so by himself and that he would immediately close his laptop as in criminal cases, or preponderance of evidence as in civil cases.
whenever anyone would pass by or come near his table is of no Substantial evidence is that amount of relevant evidence which a
moment, because the lewdness of his actions, within the setting of reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.51
this case, remains. The legal profession – much more an (Emphasis supplied; citations omitted)
engagement in the public service – should always be held in high
esteem, and those who belong within its ranks should be Based on a survey of cases, the recent ruling on the matter is Cabas
unwavering exemplars of integrity and professionalism. As keepers v. Sususco,52 which was promulgated just this June 15, 2016. In the
of the public faith, lawyers, such as respondent, are burdened with a said case, it was pronounced that:
high degree of social responsibility and, hence, must handle their
personal affairs with greater caution. Indeed, those who have taken In administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof necessary for a
the oath to assist in the dispensation of justice should be more finding of guilt is substantial evidence, i.e., that amount of relevant
possessed of the consciousness and the will to overcome the evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
weakness of the flesh, as respondent in this case. 43 support a conclusion. Further, the complainant has the burden of
proving by substantial evidence the allegations in his complaint. The
In the Investigating Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation basic rule is that mere allegation is not evidence and is not
adopted by the IBP Board of Governors, the quantum of proof by equivalent to proof. Charges based on mere suspicion and
which the charges against respondent were assessed was speculation likewise cannot be given credence. “53 (Emphasis
preponderance of evidence. Preponderance of evidence “means supplied)
evidence which is of greater weight, or more convincing than that
which is offered in opposition to it.”44 Generally, under Rule 133 of Accordingly, this more recent pronouncement ought to control and
the Revised Rules on Evidence, this evidentiary threshold applies to therefore, quell any further confusion on the proper evidentiary
civil cases: threshold to be applied in administrative cases against lawyers.

SECTION 1. Preponderance of evidence, how determined. – In civil Besides, the evidentiary threshold of substantial evidence – as
cases, the party having the burden of proof must establish his case opposed to preponderance of evidence – is more in keeping with the
by a preponderance of evidence. In determining where the primordial purpose of and essential considerations attending this
preponderance or superior weight of evidence on the issues type of cases. As case law elucidates, “[ d]isciplinary proceedings
involved lies, the court may consider all the facts and circumstances against lawyers are sui generis. Neither purely civil nor purely
of the case, the witnesses’ manner of testifying, their intelligence, criminal, they do not involve a trial of an action or a suit, but is
their means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which they are rather an investigation by the Court into the conduct of one of its
testifying, the nature of the facts to which they testify, the officers. Not being intended to inflict punishment, it is in no sense a
probability or improbability of their testimony, their interest or want criminal prosecution. Accordingly, there is neither a plaintiff nor a
of interest, and also their personal credibility so far as the same may prosecutor therein. It may be initiated by the Court motu proprio.
legitimately appear upon the trial. The court may also consider the Public interest is its primary objective, and the real question for
number of witnesses, though the preponderance is not necessarily determination is whether or not the attorney is still a fit person to
with the greater number. (Emphasis supplied) be allowed the privileges as such. Hence, in the exercise of its
disciplinary powers, the Court merely calls upon a member of the
Bar to account for his actuations as an officer of the Court with the follow-ups in the lawyer’s office but to no avail. The lawyer, to prove
end in view of preserving the purity of the legal profession and the that the case has already been filed even invited petitioner to come
proper and honest administration of justice by purging the with him to the Justice Hall to verify the status of the case.
profession of members who by their misconduct have proved Petitioner was made to wait for hours in the prosecutor’s office
themselves no longer worthy to be entrusted with the duties and while the lawyer allegedly went to the Clerk of Court to inquire
responsibilities pertaining to the office of an attorney. In such about the case. The lawyer went back to the petitioner with the
posture, there can thus be no occasion to speak of a complainant or news that the Clerk of Court was absent that day.
a prosecutor.”54
Suspicious of the acts of the lawyer, petitioner personally went to
With the proper application of the substantial evidence threshold the office of the clerk of court to see for himself the status of his
having been clarified, the Court finds that the present charges case. Petitioner found out that no such case has been filed.
against respondent have been adequately proven by this standard.
Complainant has established her claims through relevant evidence Petitioner confronted Atty. Magulta where he continued to lie to
as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a with the excuse that the delay was being caused by the court
conclusion – that is, that respondent had harassed her and personnel, and only when shown the certification did he admit that
committed despicable acts which are clear ethical violations of the he has not at all filed the complaint because he had spent the
CPR. In fine, respondent should be held administratively liable and money for the filing fee for his own purpose; and to appease
therefore, penalized. petitioner’s feelings, he offered to reimburse him by issuing two (2)
checks, postdated June 1 and June 5, 1999, in the amounts of
Jurisprudence provides that in similar administrative cases where P12,000.00 and P8,000.00, respectively.
the lawyer exhibited immoral conduct, the Court meted penalties
ranging from reprimand to disbarment. In Advincula v. Macabata, 55 Issue: Whether or not the lawyer should be disbarred.
the lawyer was reprimanded for his distasteful act of suddenly
turning the head of his female client towards him and kissing her on Held: Yes. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the
the lips. In De Leon v. Pedrena, 56 the lawyer was suspended from Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP as follows: “It is evident that
the practice of law for a period of two (2) years for rubbing the the P25,000 deposited by complainant with the Respicio Law Office
female complainant’s right leg with his hand, trying to insert his was for the filing fees of the Regwill complaint. With complainant’s
finger into her firmly closed hand, grabbing her hand and forcibly deposit of the filing fees for the Regwill complaint, a corresponding
placed it on his crotch area, and pressing his finger against her obligation on the part of respondent was created and that was to file
private part. While in Guevarra v. Eala57 and Valdez v. Dahan, 58 the the Regwill complaint within the time frame contemplated by his
Court meted the extreme penalty of disbarment on the erring client. The failure of respondent to fulfill this obligation due to his
lawyers who engaged in extramarital affairs. Here, respondent misuse of the filing fees deposited by complainant, and his attempts
exhibited his immoral behavior through his habitual watching of to cover up this misuse of funds of the client, which caused
pornographic materials while in the office and his acts of sexual complainant additional damage and prejudice, constitutes highly
harassment against complainant. Considering the circumstances of dishonest conduct on his part, unbecoming a member of the law
this case, the Court deems it proper to impose upon respondent the profession. The subsequent reimbursement by the respondent of
penalty of suspension from the practice of law for a period of two part of the money deposited by complainant for filing fees, does not
(2) years. exculpate the respondent for his misappropriation of said funds.”

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Ramon F. Nieva is found GUILTY of

violating Rule 1.01, Canon 1, and Rule 7.03, Canon 7 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, he is hereby SUSPENDED
from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years, effective upon
the finality of this Decision, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition
of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.

Let copies of this Decision be served on the Office of the Bar

Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and all courts in the
country for their information and guidance and be attached to
respondent’s personal record as attorney.

SO ORDERED.

DOMINADOR P. BURBE VS. ATTY. ALBERTO C. MAGULTA AC NO.

99-634. JUNE 10, 2002

Facts: Petitioner engaged the services of the respondent to help him

recover a claim of money against a creditor. Respondent prepared
demand letters for the petitioner, which were not successful and so
the former intimated that a case should already be filed. As a result,
petitioner paid the lawyer his fees and included also amounts for the
filing of the case.

A couple of months passed but the petitioner has not yet received
any feedback as to the status of his case. Petitioner made several