respondent for investigation and report.

In his Answer,[18] respondent denied the allegations and

ACHERNAR B. TABUZO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. JOSE
On August 15, 2014, the respondent issued a Report and contended that they were not only false and an unfortunate
ALFONSO M. GOMOS, RESPONDENT.
Recommendation[4] recommending that complainant be misappreciation of the laws, facts and circumstances but also an
reprimanded for the impropriety of talking to Sillo, without her act of harassment. He countered that it was complainant who
RESOLUTION
counsel, prior to the calling of their case for mediation caused the delay of the resolution of the case because of the
conference, and for the abusive, offensive or improper language numerous motions and pleadings she filed. Also, the report and
GESMUNDO, J.: used in the pleadings she filed in the said case. recommendation was based on facts, law and jurisprudence
which was adopted and approved by the IBP Board. If
The filing of an administrative complaint against an adjudicator
The report and recommendation was adopted and approved by complainant felt aggrieved by the report and recommendation,
is not the proper remedy for assailing the legal propriety of an
the IBP Board of Governors (Board) in its Resolution No. she could have filed a motion for reconsideration of the Board's
adverse decision, order, resolution or recommendation, in the
XXI-2015-074, dated January 31, 2015.[5] January 31, 2015 Resolution.
case of administrative complaints against lawyers. More
importantly, the reckless practice of filing baseless administrative
Hence, this administrative complaint. In Reply,[19] complainant claimed that the only proof that the
complaints against fellow lawyers undeniably degrades rather
report and recommendation was adopted and approved by the
than cleanses the ranks of the legal profession.
Complainant alleged that respondent violated the Constitution, Board was the Notice of Resolution; and when she asked for a
the Rules of Procedure of the IBP-Commission on Bar copy of the transcript and resolution of the case, she was
The Antecedents:
Discipline (Commission), Rule 139-B of the Rules Court and informed by the head of the records section that it was
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6713[6] when he failed to act on her confidential and that she should file a manifestation to secure a
Before the Court is a Verified Complaint[1] filed by Atty.
pleadings with dispatch and for issuing his report and copy. Furthermore, complainant argued that it was respondent
Achernar B. Tabuzo (complainant) against Atty. Jose Alfonso M.
recommendation on August 15, 2014 or 174 days from the who was guilty of singling her out when he reprimanded her for
Gomos (respondent)[2] who was then a Commissioner of the
submission of the last pleading.[7] alleged belligerence in her pleadings and papers, and maintained
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), for allegedly committing
that respondent was grossly ignorant, inefficient and had no
the following acts:
Complainant averred that respondent was very cruel and regard for due process of law.
heartless to an inexperienced lawyer when he mutilated
Violation of the Constitution of the Republic of statements
the made in her pleadings in CBD Case No. 12-3457; and The Report and Recommendation of the IBP
Philippines, the Rules of Procedure of the Commission onthat
Bar he maliciously cropped and pasted portions of
2.1 Discipline, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court and Republiccomplainant's
Act statement in her position paper to give the wrong
6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public impression before the IBP-Board of Governors (Board) that the In its Report and Recommendation,[20] the Commission
[O]fficials and Employees; introductory heading was an act of name calling against recommended the dismissal of the complaint for lack of merit. It
respondent, thereby violating Rules 1.01[8] and 1.02[9] of Canon ratiocinated that complainant's allegations while seemingly
Violation of Canon[s] 1 and 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct
1 and Rules 3.01,[10] 3.02,[11] and 3.04[12] of Canon 3 of the couched as acts of misconduct, actually assails the report and
2.2 and the Guidelines for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions of Code the of Judicial Conduct.[13] recommendation of respondent as investigating commissioner in
Commission on Bar Discipline; CBD Case No. 12-3457. The Commission stated that it would be
Complainant asserted that respondent committed nonfeasance irregular and improper to review such findings because it would
Nonfeasance in deliberately refusing to institute disciplinary
for deliberately refusing to institute disciplinary action against a be tantamount to reopening matters and issues that have been
action for serious violations of duties owed to the Courtslawyer
and for serious violation of duties owed to the Court and the passed upon and approved by the IBP Board. The Commission
2.3 the Legal Profession committed by a lawyer, despite repeated
legal profession despite several notices. She alleged that as early agreed with the respondent that if complainant felt aggrieved by
notice, and contrary to the mandate of his office andasthe December 2013, respondent was aware that Atty. Alan R. such findings, her option would have been to file a motion for
Integrated Bar of the Philippines; Bulawan committed forum shopping and other grave reconsideration or some other appropriate remedy, but not an
malpractices but respondent refused to institute disciplinary administrative case against the investigating commissioner.
2.4Gross Ignorance of the Law; action reasoning that there should first be a verified complaint
before he could act on it. Complainant claimed that respondent's On August 27, 2016, the Board, in its Resolution No.
All the foregoing were aggravated by: a) patterninaction of was a violation of Section 1,[14] Rule 139-B of the Rules XXII-2016-468, adopted the Commission's report and
misconduct; b) multiple offenses; [c)] substantial experience
of Court and Sec. 13[15] of the IBP's By-Laws.[16] recommendation dismissing the complaint.
2.5 in the practice of law; and [d)] betrayal of the trust of his
office as Commissioner of the Honorable Commission onLastly,
Bar complainant posited that respondent was grossly ignorant Undeterred, complainant filed a Motion for
Discipline.[3] of the rules on privileged communication, on evidence, on the Reconsideration[21] insisting that respondent, as an
crime of perjury, and on forum shopping when he failed to investigating commissioner, has an accountability to the legal
dismiss the present administrative case outright because it had profession separate and distinct from that of the IBP Board and
The controversy stemmed from an administrative complaint filed no merit and when he ignored the perjury and forum shopping such accountability is not a mere administrative matter inside
by Lucille G. Sillo (Sillo) against complainant before the IBP, committed by Sillo.[17] the IBP-Commission. Complainant insisted that respondent could
docketed as CBD Case No. 12-3457. The case was assigned to
be held accountable independently of the Board or the staff Liability in the Same Manner as appropriated, to carry out the purposes of
assigned to him when he issued a late report and Judges or Other Government this Act. Thereafter, such sums as may be
recommendation and issued it without the mandatory Officials Due to His Position as necessary for the same purpose shall be
conference being held, and with no actual admissions or Commissioner on Bar Discipline: included in the annual appropriations for the
stipulations of facts and no definition of issues. Complainant Supreme Court.
averred that respondent cannot choose his deadline for In order to have a meaningful understanding of the nature of the
submitting a report and recommendation, and his failure to functions and accountabilities of an IBP Commissioner, it is Section 3. This Act shall take effect upon its
decide a case within the required period constitutes gross necessary to first identify the character of the IBP as an approval. (emphasis supplied)
inefficiency.[22] organization. To do this, the Court deems it imperative to dig
deep and trace its legislative and jurisprudential background.
Complainant posited that respondent could be held
administratively liable because he was a quasi-judicial officer The IBP's existence traces its roots to Sec. 13, Article VIII of the
Meanwhile, the 1973 Constitution was ratified wherein Sec. 5(5)
performing functions delegated by the Court, hence, a public 1935 Constitution which stated that:
of Art. X enumerated the powers of this Court, thus:
officer.[23]
Section 13. The Supreme Court shall have
Promulgate rules concerning pleading,
On February 23, 2017, respondent filed his Comment[24] stating the power to promulgate rules concerning
practice, and procedure in all courts, the
that the complainant's motion for reconsideration was a mere pleading, practice, and procedure in all
admission to the practice of law, and the
rehash of the arguments raised in her complaint and position courts, and the admission to the practice of
integration of the bar, which, however, may
paper. Respondent reiterated that he immediately acted on the law. Said rules shall be uniform for all courts
be repealed, altered or supplemented by
administrative case filed against complainant as soon as he of the same grade and shall not diminish,
the Batasang Pambansa. Such rules shall
received the records of the case; and that the cause of delay was increase, or modify substantive rights. The
provide a simplified and inexpensive
due to the several motions filed by complainant instead of just existing laws on pleading, practice, and
procedure for the speedy disposition of cases,
filing the required position paper. The respondent emphasized procedure are hereby repealed as statutes,
shall be uniform for all courts of the same
that the report and recommendation was a product of a and are declared Rules of Courts, subject to
grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or
conscientious study of all the pleadings submitted by the parties the power of the Supreme Court to alter and
modify substantive rights. (emphasis
and application of the law and jurisprudence. modify the same. The Congress shall have
supplied)
the power to repeal, alter or supplement
Respondent added that complainant's inordinate liberty in the rules concerning pleading, practice, and
calling him "grossly ignorant" and "grossly inefficient" at procedure, and the admission to the
practically every tum or page of her pleadings notably practice of law in the Philippines. (emphases
characterizes her penchant for name-calling her adversaries. He supplied) Finally, the legal quandary pertaining to the integration of the
believed that he was clearly being harassed and singled out Philippine Bar culminated in the promulgation of In the Matter
considering that his report and recommendation was approved of the Integration of the Bar of the Philippines[28] where the
by the majority members of the Board. Court upheld the integration of the Philippine Bar on the ground
that it was sanctioned by Sec. 13, Art. VIII of the 1935
In view of this provision, Congress enacted R.A. No.
In its Resolution No. XXII-2017-1120[25] dated May 27, 2017, the Constitution.
6397[27] which gave this Court the facility to initiate the
Board denied the motion for reconsideration.
integration process of the Philippine Bar; the provisions of which
Following this judicial pronouncement, Presidential
read:
On February 5, 2018, the IBP transmitted before the Court the Decree (P.D.) No. 181[29] was enacted formally creating the IBP
records of the case for final disposition.[26] and vesting it with corporate personality. Sec. 2 of the law states:
Section 1. Within two years from the
The issues to be resolved are: (1) whether respondent may be approval of this Act, the Supreme Court may
Section 2. The Integrated Bar shall have
held administratively liable in the same manner as judges and adopt rules of court to effect the integration
perpetual succession and shall have all legal
other government officials; and (2) whether respondent may be of the Philippine Bar under such conditions
powers appertaining to a juridical
held administratively liable for rendering an alleged adverse as it shall see fit in order to raise the
person, particularly the power to sue and be
judgment in his capacity as an investigating commissioner of the standards of the legal profession, improve
sued; to contract and be contracted with; to
IBP. the administration of justice, and enable the
hold real and personal property as may be
bar to discharge its public responsibility more
necessary for corporate purposes; to
effectively.
The Court's Ruling mortgage, lease, sell, transfer, convey and
otherwise dispose of the same; to solicit and
Section 2. The sum of five hundred thousand
receive public and private donations and
pesos is hereby appropriated, out of any
On the Respondent's Ascription of contributions; to accept and receive real and
funds in the National Treasury not otherwise
 personal property by gift, devise or bequest; law. In other words, the overlapping and coequal powers of both promulgate minimum fees schedules; t) create law centers and
to levy and collect membership dues and branches of government to regulate the practice of law became establish law libraries for legal research; u) conduct campaigns to
special assessments from its members; to the initial bases for the IBP's establishment. educate the people on their legal rights and obligations, on the
adopt a seal and to alter the same at importance of preventive legal advice, and on the functions and
pleasure; to have offices and conduct its Secondly, Sec. 1 of R.A. No. 6397 used the phraseology "to effect duties of the Filipino lawyer; and v) generate and maintain
affairs in the Greater Manila Area and the integration" which means that Congress, though it also had pervasive and meaningful country-wide involvement of the
elsewhere; to make and adopt by-laws, rules the power to enact laws affecting the practice of law under the lawyer population in the solution of the multifarious problems
and regulations not inconsistent with the 1935 Constitution, had acknowledged the Court's rightful (and that afflict the nation.[32]
laws of the Philippines or the Rules of Court, primary) prerogative to adopt measures to raise the standard of
particularly Rule 139-A thereof; and generally the legal profession.[31] At that time, only this Court had the Fourthly, P.D. No. 181 endowed the IBP with the attributes of
to do all such acts and things as may be power to "promulgate" rules concerning the practice of law perpetual succession and, more importantly, "all legal powers
necessary or proper to carry into effect and while Congress may only "repeal, alter or supplement" these appertaining to a juridical person." It means that the IBP had
promote the purposes for which it was promulgated rules. That may be the apparent reason why corporate attributes which gave it the ability to pursue desired
organized. (emphasis supplied) Congress only appropriated (and allowed for subsequent activities on its own, subject only to the Court's administrative
appropriations of) the necessary funds to assist this Court in supervision.
attaining the objective of initiating the integration of the
Philippine Bar. Lastly, the present Constitution's acknowledgment of the
"integrated bar" as one of the subjects of this Court's power to
Significantly, Section 6[30] of P.D. No. 181 still recognized this
Thirdly, the Court had ordained the integration of the Philippine promulgate rules relative to the practice of law cements the IBP's
Court's constitutional power to promulgate rules concerning the
Bar to: a) assist in the administration of justice; b) foster and existence as a juridical person.
IBP, and such power of the Court was also institutionalized and
maintain on the part of its members high ideals of integrity,
carried into the present Constitution in which Sec. 5(5), Art. VIII
learning, professional competence, public service and conduct; c) The aforementioned observations indubitably establish that the
now reads:
safeguard the professional interests of its members; d) cultivate collaborative enactments of the Court, the Congress (and the
among its members a spirit of cordiality and brotherhood; e) President exercising legislative powers in the case of P.D. No.
Promulgate rules concerning the protection
provide a forum for the discussion of law, jurisprudence, law 181), and the present Constitution all contributed to the
and enforcement of constitutional rights,
reform, pleading, practice and procedure, and the relations of emergence of the IBP's juridical personality. Due to this peculiar
pleading, practice, and procedure in all
the Bar to the Bench and to the public, and publish information manner of creation, it now becomes reasonable for the Court to
courts, the admission to the practice of
relating thereto; f) encourage and foster legal education; g) conclude that the IBP is a sui
law, the integrated bar, and legal assistance
promote a continuing program of legal research in substantive generis public[33] institution deliberately organized, by both the
to the under-privileged. Such rules shall
and adjective law, and make reports and recommendations legislative and judicial branches of government and recognized
provide a simplified and inexpensive
thereon; h) enable the Bar to discharge its public responsibility by the present and past Constitutions, for the advancement of
procedure for the speedy disposition of cases,
effectively; i) render more effective assistance in maintaining the the legal profession. At this juncture, the Court needs to
shall be uniform for all courts of the same
Rule of Law; j) protect lawyers and litigants against the abuse of determine whether the IBP's officers, especially the IBP
grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or
tyrannical judges and prosecuting officers; k) discharge, fully and Commissioners, are considered as public officers under the
modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure
properly, its responsibility in the disciplining and/or removal of purview of the law.
of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies
incompetent and unworthy judges and prosecuting officers; l)
shall remain effective unless disapproved by
shield the judiciary, which traditionally cannot defend itself Presently, the IBP as an organization has as its members all
the Supreme Court. (emphasis supplied)
except within its own forum, from the assaults that politics and lawyers coming from both the public and private sectors who are
self-interest may level at it, and assist it to maintain its integrity, authorized to practice law in the Philippines. However, Section
impartiality and independence; m) have an effective voice in the 4[34] of the IBP's By-Laws allows only private practitioners to
selection of judges and prosecuting officers; n) prevent the occupy any position in its organization. This means that only
Now, given the IBP's statutory and jurisprudential background, unauthorized practice of law, and break up any monopoly of individuals engaged in the private practice are authorized to be
the Court proceeds to answer the question: What branch of local practice maintained through influence or position; o) officers or employees and to perform acts for and in behalf of
government created the IBP? More importantly: Is the IBP establish welfare funds for families of disabled and deceased the IBP. Hence, the IBP Commissioners, being officers of the
strictly a public office or a private institution? lawyers; p) provide placement services, and establish legal aid IBP, are private practitioners performing public
offices and set up lawyer reference services throughout the functions delegated to them by this Court in the exercise of its
To answer both questions, the Court highlights its observations country so that the poor may not lack competent legal service; q) constitutional power to regulate the practice of law. This was
regarding the important segments of the legal history which led distribute educational and informational materials that are aptly described in Frias v. Atty. Bautista-Lozada[35] where the
to the grant of the IBP's juridical personality, viz: difficult to obtain in many of our provinces; r) devise and Court declared that:
maintain a program of continuing legal education for practicing
Firstly, both the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions gave the Court and attorneys in order to elevate the standards of the profession The [IBP CBD] derives its authority to take
the Legislature the concurrent power to regulate the practice of throughout the country; s) enforce rigid ethical standards, and cognizance of administrative complaints
 against lawyers from this Court which has On the Alleged Delay of interrogatories to previous Commissi
the inherent power to regulate, supervise the Resolution of CBD Complanant Lucille denied by curren
and control the practice of law in the Case No. 12-3457: Sillo Commissioner
Philippines. Hence, in the exercise of its Ignored by previo
delegated power to entertain administrative Sec. 1, Rule III of the Rules of Procedure of the IBP-CBD provides Commissioner an
complaints against lawyers, the [IBP-CBD] that "[t]he only pleadings allowed are verified complaint, granted by curre
should be guided by the doctrines and verified answer and verified position papers and motion for Commissioner on
principles laid down by this Court. (emphasis reconsideration of a ground that "compl
supplied) resolution."[46] Such restrictive enumeration is consistent with for disbarment
Motion to Sever 349 days
the summary nature of disciplinary proceedings as well as the suspension or fo
basic tenets of practical expediency encouraged by Sec. 5(5), Art. discipline of attorn
VIII of the Constitution which mandates this Court to adopt such are to be institute
rules for a "simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy before this Commis
Even if the afore-cited case did not expound in what way the
disposition of cases." Relatedly, this is also the reason why a by filing six (6) copie
IBP-Commission is to be "guided by the doctrines and principles
party has to first ask for a leave of court before filing any a verified Complai
laid down by this Court," it can be reasonably inferred that the
pleading which is not expressly sanctioned by applicable rules of Ignored by previo
IBP-CBD's delegated function of entertaining complaints
procedure. Such practice is intended to alert litigants that the Commissioner an
against lawyers is public in nature; but the responsible officer
resolution of unsanctioned motions and other pleadings seeking deemed by curre
performing such function is a private individual—not a public
for affirmative reliefs is discretionary on the part of the courts Commissioner as fo
officer.Consequently, it also follows that IBP Commissioners
(including quasi-judicial bodies or investigatory administrative "Let it be placed o
are not "public officers" in context of Sec. 3(b)[36] of R.A. No. Motion to Inhibit 384 days
agencies). This is because these unsanctioned pleadings clutter record that
6713, Art. 203 the Revised Penal Code,[37] Sec. 4(e)[38] R.A. No.
up court (or any administrative quasi-adjudicative or Commissioner Irving
9485,[39] or even Sec. 2(b)[40] of R.A. No. 3019.[41] Especially in
investigative body) records and tend to impede the speedy Corvera may now
the context of R.A. No. 6713, they are not "public officials" as
disposition of cases. be deemed to ha
they are not elective or appointive officials of the "government"
inhibited himself x
as defined by Sec. 3(a)[42] of the same law. Moreover, it is also
Concomitantly, it is settled that considering the serious
obvious that IBP Commissioners cannot be held liable for
consequences of the disbarment or suspension of a member of
violation of Sec. 15(1),[43] Art. VIII of the Constitution because
the Bar, the Court has consistently held that preponderant These charted allegations show that the complainant had filed
they are neither members of the Judiciary in the context of the
evidence is necessary to justify the imposition of administrative several pleadings which are not among those that are explicitly
Constitution or statutory provisions organizing lower collegiate
penalty on a member of the Bar.[47] Here, preponderance of enumerated in Sec. 1, Rule III of the Rules of Procedure of the
and trial courts nor quasi-judicial officers in the context of
evidence means that the evidence adduced by one side is, as a IBP-CBD. The rule uses the term "only" which is patently
applicable laws creating quasi-judicial agencies. Finally, IBP
whole, superior to or has greater weight than that of the other indicative that the enumeration is tightly restrictive. Clearly, the
Commissioners cannot be held administratively liable for
or that which is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief respondent had no positive duty at all to act on these
malfeasance, misfeasance and non-feasance in the framework of
than that which is offered in opposition thereto.[48]Conversely, unsanctioned pleadings, especially in a manner favorable to the
administrative law because they cannot strictly be considered as
bare allegations, unsubstantiated by evidence, are not complainant. The complainant cannot blame respondent for not
being "employed" with the government or of any subdivision,
equivalent to proof.[49] acting on prohibited or unsanctioned pleadings. Her insistence in
agency or instrumentality including government-owned or
having the aforementioned motions resolved despite not being
controlled corporations.[44]
In this case, the source of the complainant's main gripe against mentioned as among the pleadings allowed by Sec. 1, Rule III of
the respondent is the supposed delay in the resolution of the the Rules of Procedure of the IBP-CBD actually contributed to the
Nonetheless, IBP Commissioners and other IBP officers may be
following motions as alleged[50] in the complaint, to wit: delay of the whole proceedings in CBD Case No. 12-3457.
held administratively liable for violation of the rules promulgated
by this Court relative to the integrated bar and to the practice of
Even if the Court were to consider the aforementioned pleadings
law. Even if they are not "public officers" in the context of their
as not prohibited for the sake of argument, the complainant
employment relationship with the government, they are still
never attached in her complaint or adduced during the hearings
"officers of the court" and "servants of the law" who are Motion/Pleading Approximate Days
Remarks before the IBP-Commission certified true copies of the same
expected to observe and maintain the rule of law and to make Filed Unresolved
documents to show the dates of actual filing so the periods to
themselves exemplars worthy of emulation by others.[45] Most Motion for the
act on them may be fairly reckoned. She also failed to submit
importantly, no less than Sec. 5(5) of the Constitution placed Issuance of a Ignored by
copies of respondent's supposed resolutions denying or granting
them under the Court's administrative supervision. Therefore, Subpoena Duces previous Commissioner,
529 days these motions to show the date on when they were actually
IBP Commissioners may be held administratively liable only in Tecum and denied by current
rendered or issued. These material omissions leave this Court
relation to their functions as IBP officers—not as government Subpoena Ad Commissioner
unable to verify with certainty or to determine with practical
officials. Testificandum
accuracy the existence of delay. The only basis of the
Respondent's 529 days Ignored by
complainant in imputing delay on the part of the respondent was academic slur implicating incompetence on a person's administrative sanctions.
her Position Paper[51] which merely alleged the existence of her intellectual capabilities due to his or her scholastic background
motions in CBD Case No. 12-3457 and their supposedly tarried simply amounts to an intemperate language on the Final Note
resolution. Undeniably, the complainant failed to offer any complainant's part. It finds no place in decent legal
preponderant proof of respondent's supposed delay in the argumentation and debate. Besides, lawyers should not be too Lawyers are reminded to treat their fellow members of the legal
resolutions of her motions in CBD Case No. 12-3457 and merely onion-skinned and should be tolerant of criticisms (especially profession and even their non-lawyer adversaries with utmost
relied on bare allegations and factual conclusions to support her those which are fair or mild) against them as litigation is candor, respect and dignity. More importantly, the primary
administrative complaint. Clearly, the quantum of proof required inherently a hostile endeavor between adverse or contending purpose of administrative disciplinary proceedings against
in disbarment or administrative disciplinary cases was not parties. Hence, it was proper on the part of Commissioner delinquent lawyers is to uphold the law and to prevent the ranks
satisfied by the complainant. Therefore, contrary to the Limpingco to recommend for the dismissal of the complainant's of the legal profession from being corrupted by unscrupulous
complainant's hasty imputation of delay, it only appears that charges of impropriety for the respondent merely made a fair practices—not to shelter or nurse a wounded ego. Such is the
respondent merely disregarded the unsanctioned pleadings filed comment. reason why lawyers should always set a good example in not
pursuant to Sec. 1, Rule III of the Rules of Procedure of the using the law and the rules as weapons or tools of malicious
IBP-CBD and prudently proceeded to render the report and Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states: vindication during petty squabbles as it degrades the credibility
recommendation thereby belying the allegations of nonfeasance. of the legal profession and tarnishes its integrity.
CANON 8 – A lawyer shall conduct himself
At any rate, the Court evinces its observation that the with courtesy, fairness and candor toward WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, the
complainant's charge of delay in the resolution of the subject his professional colleagues, and shall avoid Court AGREES with the Report and Recommendation of the
unsanctioned pleadings of the complainant appears to be a mere harassing tactics against opposing counsel. Integrated Bar of the Philippines – Committee on Bar Discipline
retaliation on the adverse Resolution No. XXI-205-074 dated (emphasis supplied) adopted by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines – Board of
January 31, 2015 in CBD Case No. 12-3457. The Court had Governors, and DISMISSESthe administrative complaint filed
already declared that an administrative complaint is not the against Atty. Jose Alfonso M. Gomos.
appropriate remedy for every act of a judge deemed aberrant or
irregular where a judicial remedy exists and is Furthermore, the Court STERNLY WARNS Atty. Achernar B.
Obviously, the filing of baseless and unfounded administrative
available.[52] Similarly, an administrative complaint is not the Tabuzo and her collaborating counsel Atty. Gaudencio A. Barboza,
complaints against fellow lawyers is antithetical to conducting
proper remedy for an adverse decision, order or resolution of an Jr. to REFRAIN from abusing the disciplinary proceedings thru
oneself with courtesy, fairness and candor. It reduces the Bar's
administrative adjudicator deemed by a complaining party as filing and maintaining frivolous administrative complaints against
disciplinary process into an avenue for childish bickering and
erroneous; especially when there are other remedies under the fellow members of the Bar. A repetition of the same or
trivial catfights. Realistically, filing harassment administrative
ordinary course of law such as a motion for reconsideration. commission of similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
complaints definitely causes undue anxiety and considerable
Thus, a party who has lost his or right to appeal a decision,
psychological stress on wrongly charged respondents. Thus, it
resolution or order of a court or quasi-judicial body (including SO ORDERED.
should be understood that the aforementioned Canon proscribes
administrative offices or agencies empowered to conduct
the filing of frivolous administrative complaints against fellow
investigations) cannot re-litigate the same matters in another
members of the legal profession to prevent exploitative lawyers IN RE: SUSPENSION FROM THE PRACTICE OF LAW IN THE
administrative case filed against the adjudicator.
from abusing the disciplinary process. Besides, an important TERRITORY OF GUAM OF ATTY. LEON G. MAQUERA
portion of the Lawyer's Oath which should be the guiding beacon
On the Respondent's Comments
of every member of the legal profession states: "I will not
Against the Complainant in the RESOLUTION
wittingly nor willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or
Report and Recommendation
unlawful suit, or give aid nor consent to the same." TINGA, J.:
for Her Behavior:
Here, the Court cannot help but notice that even a cursory
The Court has, in some instances, even conceded that "a lawyer May a member of the Philippine Bar who was disbarred or
reading of the complainant's pleadings exhibits her propensity
may think highly of his [or her] intellectual suspended from the practice of law in a foreign jurisdiction
for filing baseless complaints and penchant for hurling
endowment."[53] Such observation is but a moderate and fair where he has also been admitted as an attorney be meted the
denigrating allegations against her adversaries. Moreover, the
commentary to remind members of the legal profession to same sanction as a member of the Philippine Bar for the same
instant affidavit complaint contains a smorgasbord of violations
espouse humility in all their dealings not only with their clients infraction committed in the foreign jurisdiction? There is a Rule
ascribed to the respondent which the complainant had
and with their fellow lawyers but also against their adversaries. of Court provision covering this cases central issue. Up to this
inaccurately and miserably failed to substantiate. Worse, the
juncture, its reach and breadth have not undergone the test of
complaint's pointless perplexity was compounded by convoluted
The respondent's comment, that the complainant "must have an unsettled case.
allegations which made it laborious for the Court to make
thought so highly of herself that...she finds it necessary to
coherent sense. Accordingly, the Court deems it proper to In a Letter dated August 20, 1996,[1] the District Court of
declare that [Sillo's words] are not words a graduate of the only
sternly warn the complainant and her collaborating counsel, Atty. Guam informed this Court of the suspension of Atty. Leon G.
Pontifical University in Asia and a law school ran by monks would
Barboza, to refrain from filing and maintaining baseless Maquera (Maquera) from the practice of law in Guam for two (2)
use," is merely a fair and realistic observation. Clearly, an
administrative suits against fellow lawyers under pain of years pursuant to the Decision rendered by the Superior Court of
Guam on May 7, 1996 in Special Proceedings Case No. was suspended from the practice of law in Guam for misconduct, [2] years, however, with all but thirty (30) days of the period of
SP0075-94,[2] a disciplinary case filed by the Guam Bar Ethics as he acquired his clients property as payment for his legal suspension deferred; (2) ordered to return to Castro the
Committee against Maquera. services, then sold it and as a consequence obtained an difference between the sale price of the property to the Changs
unreasonably high fee for handling his clients case.[12] and the amount due him for legal services rendered to Castro; (3)
The Court referred the matter of Maqueras suspension in required to pay the costs of the disciplinary proceedings; and (4)
Guam to the Bar Confidant for comment in its Resolution dated In its Decision, the Superior Court of Guam stated that on publicly reprimanded. It also recommended that other
November 19, 1996.[3] Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised August 6, 1987, Edward Benavente, the creditor of a certain jurisdictions be informed that Maquera has been subject to
Rules of Court, the disbarment or suspension of a member of the Castro, obtained a judgment against Castro in a civil disciplinary action by the Superior Court of Guam.[22]
Philippine Bar in a foreign jurisdiction, where he has also been case. Maquera served as Castros counsel in said case. Castros
admitted as an attorney, is also a ground for his disbarment or property subject of the case, a parcel of land, was to be sold at a Maquera did not deny that Castro executed a quitclaim
suspension in this realm, provided the foreign courts action is by public auction in satisfaction of his obligation to deed to the property in his favor as compensation for past legal
reason of an act or omission constituting deceit, malpractice or Benavente. Castro, however, retained the right of redemption services and that the transaction, except for the deed itself, was
other gross misconduct, grossly immoral conduct, or a violation over the property for one year. The right of redemption could be oral and was not made pursuant to a prior written
of the lawyers oath. exercised by paying the amount of the judgment debt within the agreement. However, he contended that the transaction was
aforesaid period.[13] made three days following the alleged termination of the
In a Memorandum dated February 20, 1997, then Bar attorney-client relationship between them, and that the
Confidant Atty. Erlinda C. Verzosa recommended that the Court At the auction sale, Benavente purchased Castros property property did not constitute an exorbitant fee for his legal
obtain copies of the record of Maqueras case since the for Five Hundred U.S. Dollars (US$500.00), the amount which services to Castro.[23]
documents transmitted by the Guam District Court do not Castro was adjudged to pay him.[14]
contain the factual and legal bases for Maqueras suspension and On May 7, 1996, the Superior Court of Guam rendered
are thus insufficient to enable her to determine whether On December 21, 1987, Castro, in consideration of its Decision[24] suspending Maquera from the practice of law in
Maqueras acts or omissions which resulted in his suspension in Maqueras legal services in the civil case involving Benavente, Guam for a period of two (2) years and ordering him to take the
Guam are likewise violative of his oath as a member of the entered into an oral agreement with Maquera and assigned his Multi-State Professional Responsibility Examination (MPRE)
Philippine Bar.[4] right of redemption in favor of the latter.[15] within that period. The court found that the attorney-client
On January 8, 1988, Maquera exercised Castros right of relationship between Maquera and Castro was not yet
Pursuant to this Courts directive in its Resolution dated completely terminated when they entered into the oral
March 18, 1997,[5] the Bar Confidant sent a letter dated redemption by paying Benavente US$525.00 in satisfaction of
the judgment debt. Thereafter, Maquera had the title to the agreement to transfer Castros right of redemption to Maquera
November 13, 1997 to the District Court of Guam requesting for on December 21, 1987. It also held that Maquera profited too
certified copies of the record of the disciplinary case against property transferred in his name.[16]
much from the eventual transfer of Castros property to him since
Maquera and of the rules violated by him.[6] On December 31, 1988, Maquera sold the property to C.S. he was able to sell the same to the Changs with more than
The Court received certified copies of the record of Chang and C.C. Chang for Three Hundred Twenty Thousand U.S. US$200,000.00 in profit, whereas his legal fees for services
Maqueras case from the District Court of Guam on December 8, Dollars (US$320,000.00).[17] rendered to Castro amounted only to US$45,000.00. The court
1997.[7] also ordered him to take the MPRE upon his admission during
On January 15, 1994, the Guam Bar Ethics Committee the hearings of his case that he was aware of the requirements
Thereafter, Maqueras case was referred by the Court to (Committee) conducted hearings regarding Maqueras alleged of the Model Rules regarding business transactions between an
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation report misconduct.[18] attorney and his client in a very general sort of way.[25]
and recommendation within sixty (60) days from the IBPs receipt Subsequently, the Committee filed a Petition in the
of the case records.[8] On the basis of the Decision of the Superior Court of Guam,
Superior Court of Guam praying that Maquera be sanctioned for the IBP concluded that although the said court found Maquera
The IBP sent Maquera a Notice of Hearing requiring him to violations of Rules 1.5[19] and 1.8(a)[20] of the Model Rules of liable for misconduct, there is no evidence to establish that
appear before the IBPs Commission on Bar Discipline on July 28, Professional Conduct (Model Rules) in force in Guam. In its [Maquera] committed a breach of ethics in the
1998.[9] However, the notice was returned unserved because Petition, the Committee claimed that Maquera obtained an Philippines.[26] However, the IBP still resolved to suspend him
Maquera had already moved from his last known address in unreasonably high fee for his services. The Committee further indefinitely for his failure to pay his annual dues as a member of
Agana, Guam and did not leave any forwarding address.[10] alleged that Maquera himself admitted his failure to comply with the IBP since 1977, which failure is, in turn, a ground for removal
the requirement in Rule 1.8 (a) of the Model Rules that a lawyer of the name of the delinquent member from the Roll of
On October 9, 2003, the IBP submitted to the Court shall not enter into a business transaction with a client or Attorneys under Section 10, Rule 139-A of the Revised Rules of
its Report and Recommendation and its Resolution No. knowingly acquire a pecuniary interest adverse to a client unless Court.[27]
XVI-2003-110, indefinitely suspending Maquera from the the transaction and the terms governing the lawyers acquisition
practice of law within the Philippines until and unless he updates of such interest are fair and reasonable to the client, and are The power of the Court to disbar or suspend a lawyer for
and pays his IBP membership dues in full.[11] fully disclosed to, and understood by the client and reduced in acts or omissions committed in a foreign jurisdiction is found in
writing.[21] Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court, as amended
The IBP found that Maquera was admitted to the by Supreme Court Resolution dated February 13, 1992, which
Philippine Bar on February 28, 1958. On October 18, 1974, he The Committee recommended that Maquera be: (1) states:
was admitted to the practice of law in the territory of Guam. He suspended from the practice of law in Guam for a period of two
Section 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme favor. He contended that the sale was made at the instance of jurisdiction.[35] Likewise, the judgment of the Superior Court of
Court, grounds therefor.A member of the bar may be disbarred his clients because they had no money to pay him for his Guam only constitutes prima facie evidence of Maqueras
or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court services. The Court ruled that the lawyers acquisition of the unethical acts as a lawyer.[36] More fundamentally, due process
for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such property of his clients under the circumstances obtaining therein demands that he be given the opportunity to defend himself and
office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of rendered him liable for malpractice. The Court held: to present testimonial and documentary evidence on the matter
a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the in an investigation to be conducted in accordance with Rule
oath which he is required to take before admission to practice, Whether the deed of sale in question was executed at the 139-B of the Revised Rules of Court. Said rule mandates that a
or for a willful disobedience appearing as attorney for a party to instance of the spouses driven by financial necessity, as respondent lawyer must in all cases be notified of the charges
a case without authority to do so. The practice of soliciting cases contended by the respondent, or at the latters behest, as against him. It is only after reasonable notice and failure on the
at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid contended by the complainant, is of no moment. In either case part of the respondent lawyer to appear during the scheduled
agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice. an attorney occupies a vantage position to press upon or dictate investigation that an investigation may be conducted ex parte.[37]
his terms to a harassed client, in breach of the rule so amply The Court notes that Maquera has not yet been able to
The disbarment or suspension of a member of the Philippine protective of the confidential relations, which must necessarily adduce evidence on his behalf regarding the charges of unethical
Bar by a competent court or other disciplinatory agency in a exist between attorney and client, and of the rights of both.[32] behavior in Guam against him, as it is not certain that he did
foreign jurisdiction where he has also been admitted as an receive the Notice of Hearing earlier sent by the IBPs
attorney is a ground for his disbarment or suspension if the The Superior Court of Guam also hinted that Maqueras Commission on Bar Discipline. Thus, there is a need to ascertain
basis of such action includes any of the acts hereinabove acquisition of Castros right of redemption, his subsequent Maqueras current and correct address in Guam in order that
enumerated. exercise of said right, and his act of selling the redeemed another notice, this time specifically informing him of the
property for huge profits were tainted with deceit and bad faith charges against him and requiring him to explain why he should
The judgment, resolution or order of the foreign court or when it concluded that Maquera charged Castro an exorbitant not be suspended or disbarred on those grounds (through
disciplinary agency shall be prima facie evidence of the ground fee for his legal services. The court held that since the this Resolution), may be sent to him.
for disbarment or suspension (Emphasis supplied). assignment of the right of redemption to Maquera was in
payment for his legal services, and since the property redeemed Nevertheless, the Court agrees with the IBP that Maquera
by him had a market value of US$248,220.00 as of December 21, should be suspended from the practice of law for non-payment
The Court must therefore determine whether Maqueras
1987 (the date when the right of redemption was assigned to of his IBP membership dues from 1977 up to the
acts, namely: acquiring by assignment Castros right of
him), he is liable for misconduct for accepting payment for his present.[38]Under Section 10, Rule 139-A of the Revised Rules of
redemption over the property subject of the civil case where
legal services way beyond his actual fees which amounted only Court, non-payment of membership dues for six (6) months shall
Maquera appeared as counsel for him; exercising the right of
to US$45,000.00. warrant suspension of membership in the IBP, and default in
redemption; and, subsequently selling the property for a huge
such payment for one year shall be ground for removal of the
profit, violate Philippine law or the standards of ethical behavior Maqueras acts in Guam which resulted in his two (2)-year name of the delinquent member from the Roll of Attorneys.[39]
for members of the Philippine Bar and thus constitute grounds suspension from the practice of law in that jurisdiction are also
for his suspension or disbarment in this jurisdiction. valid grounds for his suspension from the practice of law in the WHEREFORE, Atty. Leon G. Maquera is required to SHOW
Philippines. Such acts are violative of a lawyers sworn duty to act CAUSE, within fifteen (15) days from receipt of this Resolution,
The Superior Court of Guam found that Maquera acquired
with fidelity toward his clients. They are also violative of the why he should not be suspended or disbarred for his acts which
his clients property by exercising the right of redemption
Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically, Canon 17 which gave rise to the disciplinary proceedings against him in the
previously assigned to him by the client in payment of his legal
states that [a] lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and Superior Court of Guam and his subsequent suspension in said
services. Such transaction falls squarely under Article 1492 in
shall be mindful the trust and confidence reposed in him; and jurisdiction.
relation to Article 1491, paragraph 5 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines. Paragraph 5 of Article 1491[28] prohibits the lawyers Rule 1.01 which prohibits lawyers from engaging in unlawful,
The Bar Confidant is directed to locate the current and
acquisition by assignment of the clients property which is the dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. The requirement of
correct address of Atty. Maquera in Guam and to serve upon him
subject of the litigation handled by the lawyer. Under Article good moral character is not only a condition precedent to
a copy of this Resolution.
1492,[29] the prohibition extends to sales in legal redemption. admission to the Philippine Bar but is also a continuing
requirement to maintain ones goods standing in the legal In the meantime, Atty. Maquera is SUSPENDED from the
The prohibition ordained in paragraph 5 of Article 1491 profession.[33] practice of law for ONE (1) YEAR or until he shall have paid his
and Article 1492 is founded on public policy because, by virtue of membership dues, whichever comes later.
his office, an attorney may easily take advantage of the credulity It bears stressing that the Guam Superior Courts judgment
and ignorance of his client[30] and unduly enrich himself at the ordering Maqueras suspension from the practice of law in Guam Let a copy of this Resolution be attached to Atty. Maqueras
expense of his client. does not automatically result in his suspension or disbarment in personal record in the Office of the Bar Confidant and copies be
the Philippines. Under Section 27,[34] Rule 138 of the Revised furnished to all chapters of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
The case of In re: Ruste[31] illustrates the significance of the Rules of Court, the acts which led to his suspension in Guam are and to all courts in the land.
aforementioned prohibition. In that case, the attorney acquired mere grounds for disbarment or suspension in this jurisdiction,
his clients property subject of a case where he was acting as at that only if the basis of the foreign courts action includes any SO ORDERED.
counsel pursuant to a deed of sale executed by his clients in his of the grounds for disbarment or suspension in this
Dela Fuente Torres v. Dalangin A.C. No. 10758, 5 ARTURO M. DE CASTRO vs. JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL (JBC) VIII ample restrictions or limitations on the President’s power to
December 2017 and PRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGAL – ARROYO appoint members of the Supreme Court to ensure its
G.R. No. 191002, March 17, 2010 independence from “political vicissitudes” and its “insulation
Facts: Atty. Dalangin was accused of maintaining an illicit and
immoral affair with one Julita Pascual, a clerk at the Public from political pressures,” such as stringent qualifications for the
FACTS: The compulsory retirement of Chief Justice Reynato S. positions, the establishment of the JBC, the specified period
Attorney’s Office (PAO) in Talavera, Nueva Ecija. Upon review,
Puno by May 17, 2010 occurs just days after the coming within which the President shall appoint a Supreme Court
however, the alleged amorous relationship was not adequately presidential elections on May 10, 2010. Justice.
proved (The quantum of proof in administrative cases is
substantial evidence). Also, Atty. Dalangin was said to be
misquoting jurisprudence in a pleading he filed in court. In These cases trace their genesis to the controversy that has arisen A part of the question to be reviewed by the Court is whether
addition, he took an immediate recourse to the Court via a from the forthcoming compulsory retirement of Chief Justice the JBC properly initiated the process, there being an insistence
petition for review that questioned the IBP Board of Governors’ Puno on May 17, 2010, or seven days after the presidential from some of the oppositors-intervenors that the JBC could only
election. Under Section 4(1), in relation to Section 9, Article VIII, do so once the vacancy has occurred (that is, after May 17, 2010).
resolve to affirm the Investigating Commissioner’s
that “vacancy shall be filled within ninety days from the Another part is, of course, whether the JBC may resume its
recommendation on his administrative liability, notwithstanding process until the short list is prepared, in view of the provision of
the fact that the Court had not yet taken a final action on the occurrence thereof” from a “list of at least three nominees Section 4(1), Article VIII, which unqualifiedly requires the
complaints. President to appoint one from the short list to fill the vacancy in
prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council for every vacancy.” Also
considering that Section 15, Article VII (Executive Department) of the Supreme Court (be it the Chief Justice or an Associate Justice)
Issue: Whether or not Atty. Dalangin should be held the Constitution prohibits the President or Acting President from within 90 days from the occurrence of the vacancy.
administratively liable. making appointments within two months immediately before ISSUE: Whether the incumbent President can appoint the
the next presidential elections and up to the end of his term, successor of Chief Justice Puno upon his retirement.
except temporary appointments to executive positions when
Held: Yes. While he vehemently denied any romantic continued vacancies therein will prejudice public service or
relationship with Pascual, he admitted demonstrating closeness HELD:
endanger public safety.
with the latter’s family, including her children. It was such display
of affection that could have sparked in the minds of observers Prohibition under Section 15, Article VII does not apply to
the idea of a wrongful relationship and belief that Julienne was a The JBC, in its en banc meeting of January 18, 2010, unanimously
appointments to fill a vacancy in the Supreme Court or to other
product of the illicit affair. Atty. Dalangin should have been more agreed to start the process of filling up the position of Chief
appointments to the Judiciary.
prudent and mindful of his actions and the perception that his Justice.
acts built upon the public, particularly because he and Pascual
were both married. The fault, nonetheless, does not warrant Two constitutional provisions are seemingly in conflict.
Conformably with its existing practice, the JBC “automatically
Atty. Dalangin’s suspension, much less disbarment. An
admonition should suffice under the circumstances. Also, while considered” for the position of Chief Justice the five most senior
The first, Section 15, Article VII (Executive Department), provides:
the Court detests Atty. Dalangin’s failure to properly indicate of the Associate Justices of the Court, namely: Associate Justice
Section 15. Two months immediately before the next
Antonio T. Carpio; Associate Justice Renato C. Corona; Associate
that the statement was not a verbatim reproduction of the cited presidential elections and up to the end of his term, a President
Justice Conchita Carpio Morales; Associate Justice Presbitero J.
jurisprudence and, accordingly, calls his attention on the matter, or Acting President shall not make appointments, except
Velasco, Jr.; and Associate Justice Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura.
it finds the admonition to be adequate. A suspension for the lone temporary appointments to executive positions when continued
However, the last two declined their nomination through letters
incident would be too harsh a penalty. Lastly, the filing of the vacancies therein will prejudice public service or endanger public
dated January 18, 2010 and January 25, 2010, respectively.
petition for review on the issue of Atty. Dalangin’s suspension safety.
The OSG contends that the incumbent President may appoint
from the practice of law was as yet not among his remedies, the next Chief Justice, because the prohibition under Section 15,
considering that the Court still had to release its final action on Article VII of the Constitution does not apply to appointments in The other, Section 4 (1), Article VIII (Judicial Department), states:
the matter. the Supreme Court. It argues that any vacancy in the Supreme Section 4. (1). The Supreme Court shall be composed of a Chief
Court must be filled within 90 days from its occurrence, pursuant Justice and fourteen Associate Justices. It may sit en banc or in
to Section 4(1), Article VIII of the Constitution; that had the its discretion, in division of three, five, or seven Members. Any
Atty. Bayani P. Dalangin is ADMONISHED to be more prudent and
framers intended the prohibition to apply to Supreme Court vacancy shall be filled within ninety days from the occurrence
cautious in handling his personal affairs and dealings with courts
appointments, they could have easily expressly stated so in the thereof.
and the public, with a STERN WARNING that any repetition of the
Constitution, which explains why the prohibition found in Article
same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more
VII (Executive Department) was not written in Article VIII (Judicial
severely.
Department); and that the framers also incorporated in Article
Had the framers intended to extend the prohibition contained in Complainant then filed the present case, accusing the
Section 15, Article VII to the appointment of Members of the RESOLUTION respondents of making deceitful statements in said Resolution,
Supreme Court, they could have explicitly done so. They could committing gross misconduct and violating their Attorney's Oath
not have ignored the meticulous ordering of the provisions. They LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,[*] J.: for recommending her dismissal without just cause or due
would have easily and surely written the prohibition made process. Quoted hereunder is the aforesaid resolution with
explicit in Section 15, Article VII as being equally applicable to the We resolve the administrative case for disbarment[1] filed by emphasis on the allegedly false statements:
appointment of Members of the Supreme Court in Article VIII complainant Judge Delfina Hernandez Santiago against
itself, most likely in Section 4 (1), Article VIII. That such respondents Atty. Zosimo Santiago and Atty. Nicomedes RESOLUTION
specification was not done only reveals that the prohibition Tolentino, charging them with deceit, gross misconduct and
This is a case involving Atty. Delfina H.
against the President or Acting President making appointments violating their oaths as members of the Bar.
Santiago, Asst. City Administrator, indorsed
within two months before the next presidential elections and up During the time when the material events transpired in this case,
to this office by the Hon. Mayor, Macario A.
to the end of the President’s or Acting President’s term does not complainant was the City Personnel Officer of Caloocan City
Asistio, Jr. for appropriate action.
while respondents Santiago and Tolentino respectively held the
refer to the Members of the Supreme Court.
positions of City Legal Officer and Legal Officer II in the City The facts of the case are as follows:
Government of Caloocan.
1. In 1972, Atty. Delfina H.
Had the framers intended to extend the prohibition contained in
In 1988, complainant applied for, and was granted, a sick leave Santiago was, per court
Section 15, Article VII to the appointment of Members of the
of absence with commuted pay covering 240 days from January decision, dismissed
Supreme Court, they could have explicitly done so. They could
25 to December 31, 1988.[2] Sometime in February 1988, illegally as Asst. City
not have ignored the meticulous ordering of the provisions. They
complainant received a Memorandum[3] from then Mayor Administrator on
would have easily and surely written the prohibition made
Macario A. Asistio, Jr., which cancelled all leaves of absence of Personal Matters.
explicit in Section 15, Article VII as being equally applicable to the
city officials and employees. She also received a
appointment of Members of the Supreme Court in Article VIII 2. In 1976, Atty. Santiago,
memorandum,[4] detailing her to the Office of the Secretary to
itself, most likely in Section 4 (1), Article VIII. That such was appointed Chief,
the Mayor. Complainant apparently paid no heed to said
specification was not done only reveals that the prohibition Administrative Office, a
memoranda. She was later directed to return to work in a
against the President or Acting President making appointments position of lower rank.
letter[5]dated April 21, 1988 signed by respondent Tolentino,
within two months before the next presidential elections and up
which pertinently state:
to the end of the President’s or Acting President’s term does not 3.In 1983, Atty. Santiago
On February 5, 1988 you were served with a was charged
refer to the Members of the Supreme Court.
[Memorandum] from the Office of the Mayor administratively for
that all [leaves] of absence of city officials UNAUTHORIZED
Section 14, Section 15, and Section 16 are obviously of the same and employees were cancelled in the interest ABSENCES, in violation of
character, in that they affect the power of the President to of public service. [In spite] of the aforesaid Civil Service laws. Upon
appoint. The fact that Section 14 and Section 16 refer only to memo you did not return to work thereby, recommendation of the
appointments within the Executive Department renders ignoring the memo of the Hon. Mayor Office of the City Legal
conclusive that Section 15 also applies only to the Executive Macario A. Asistio, Jr. Office, Atty. Santiago was
Department. This conclusion is consistent with the rule that validly and lawfully
In this [regard], we are giving you another ordered to be dropped
every part of the statute must be interpreted with reference to
five (5) days from receipt hereof to report for from the rolls which was
the context, i.e. that every part must be considered together
work, otherwise, the undersigned may be subsequently approved
with the other parts, and kept subservient to the general intent
constrained to take drastic action against and affirmed by the Civil
of the whole enactment. It is absurd to assume that the framers
you. Service Commission in
deliberately situated Section 15 between Section 14 and Section
Complainant replied with a handwritten note,[6] asking for ten the latter's order dated
16, if they intended Section 15 to cover all kinds of presidential
days within which to answer and/or act on the letter. She, October 1983 x x x.
appointments. If that was their intention in respect of
however, did not return to work. At the end of her leave, she
appointments to the Judiciary, the framers, if only to be clear,
tendered her resignation.[7] She subsequently received a xxxx
would have easily and surely inserted a similar prohibition in
memorandum[8] dated May 18, 1989 from Mayor Asistio
Article VIII, most likely within Section 4 (1) thereof. 4. In 1985, the Supreme
terminating her employment. Enclosed therewith was
a Resolution[9] dated December 19, 1988 signed by Court, in affirming an RTC
respondents Santiago and Tolentino, which recommended her decision, ordered the
DELFINA HERNANDEZ SANTIAGO, COMPLAINANT, V. ATTY. reinstatement of
ZOSIMO SANTIAGO AND ATTY. NICOMEDES TOLENTINO, dismissal from service.
Santiago as Asst. City
RESPONDENTS. Administrator on
Personal Matters and
 declaring the 1972 employees of the City Government cancelled official order. Her act is inimical to the public
dismissal as illegal. all leave of absences in the interest of service service. To tolerate Santiago to get away with
effective 5 February 1988. There is no doubt it would be tantamount to allowing her to act
5. In 1986, Atty. Santiago a so that Atty. Santiago was duly served with as she suits and satisfies her personal
was appointed by Mayor the said memo as appearing on the said convenience in violation of her superior's
Martinez as Asst. City memo is her signature, an evidence of order. An act which would be certainly
Administrator, her former receipt thereof. Having received the said demoralizing to the public service. As may be
position, pursuant to the memo Atty. Santiago was fully aware of the gleaned from the foregoing discussions Atty.
Supreme Court decision. cancellation of her leave of absence and Santiago had [willfully] ignored her
therefore as a prudent employee she should superior's order without any attempt to
6. In January 1988 Atty.
have obeyed the memorandum of the City comply with it and
Santiago filed a leave of
Mayor by way of reporting for work as called therefore insubordination is clearly present
absence (Sick Leave &
for. What happened instead was that Atty. aside from neglect of duty.
Vacation Leave) on
Santiago never showed-up, thereby,
advice of her Doctor, a RECOMMENDATION
neglecting her duty as Asst. City
Med. Cert. was attached
Administrator and committed, in effect,
thereto and the duration WHEREFORE, the instant case being the
insubordination.
of the leave was 240 days second [infraction] of the Civil Service law by
starting January 25 up to What is nagging and aggravates the Atty. Santiago, it is respectfully.
December 31, 1988. predicament of Atty. Santiago is that the recommended that the latter be dismissed
The said leave of absence was initially instant case is already her second violation from service.[10] (Emphases and
approved but later disapproved by the Hon. which places her in the category of underscoring supplied.)
Macario A. Asistio, Jr. when the latter issued incorrigible employees. The first is when she Complainant contended that she was not administratively
a Memorandum dated February 5, 1988 was charged of UNAUTHORIZED ABSENCES, charged for any offense in 1983 or in 1988. Thus, she was not an
cancelling all leave of absence of which punished for said act and made to suffer the incorrigible employee. Instead of being sent a notice or
Memo Atty. Santiago was duly served with. corresponding penalty thereof. summons, she received respondent Tolentino's letter dated April
However despite service of the said Memo to 21, 1988, but the same neither stated that an administrative case
Atty. Delfina H. Santiago she failed and Under the Civil Service Law, Art. 9, Section 36 had been filed against her nor did it require her to appear in any
refused to report for work [continuously] up Par. 3, "No office or employee in the Civil investigation. Since she was on a sick leave of absence, not a
to the present. There was not even a Service shall be suspended except for the vacation leave, she could not be guilty of neglect of duty as she
semblance of showing that she would comply cause as provided by law and after due had no duties to perform. She was also not in a position to defy
with the memorandum. process". any lawful order, which would have amounted to
insubordination. Annexed to the complaint were copies of: (a)
At this juncture the office of the City Mayor The following shall be grounds for the Resolution December 19, 1988; (b) Mayor Asistio's dismissal
indorsed this case against Atty. Delfina H. disciplinary action: order dated May 18, 1989; (c) complainant's resignation letter;
Santiago for appropriate action. This office (d) her approved sick leave of absence application; and (e) the
conducted an investigation and summoned x x x x 3. Neglect of Duty x x x
commutation voucher showing the payment of her salaries.
Atty. Delfina H. Santiago for several times to
27. Insubordination
appear before the undersigned; present her In respondent Santiago's comment[11] to the complaint, he
evidence and explain her side in consonance The actuations of the respondent Atty. argued that the allegedly deceitful statements in the above
with the due process mandated by the Santiago squarely falls on the aforequoted Resolution were not malicious imputations of falsehoods. If the
constitution. Despite several notice sent to grounds for dismissal as her failure to report statements were inaccurate, the same may have been caused by
Delfina Santiago the latter did not heed the for work amounts to [willful] disobedience to a misappreciation of facts or evidence. As to whether
said notices, thereby, leaving the her superior officer. Nothing can be more complainant was formally charged for unauthorized absences in
undersigned without any alternative but to important to the upholding and maintenance 1983, the material point considered was that she was dismissed
decide the case on the basis of the evidence of the public service in its integrity and good because of unauthorized absences. It also did not matter that
available and the records pertaining to Atty. name than the enforcement of the she filed a sick leave of absence, not a. vacation and sick leave,
Delfina Santiago. reasonable discipline of laws. In the as the issue of the investigation was whether she was liable for
discharge of an official duty and obligation disobeying Mayor Asistio's directives.
FINDINGS
Atty. Santiago as a government employee is
Respondent Santiago further alleged that Mayor Asistio
The records disclosed that the memorandum expected to obey the order and instruction of
indorsed[12] to the City Legal Office the matter of complainant's
dated February 5, 1988 issued by the Hon. the duly constituted authorities and she
noncompliance with the Mayor's return to work order and this
City Mayor, Macario A. Asistio, Jr. to all should not ignore or disregard a legitimate
referral was equivalent to an administrative complaint. case was filed against her in 1988, there could not have been a In Resolution No. XVIII-2008-225[27] passed on May 22, 2008,
Complainant was sent a notice regarding her failure to report for valid investigation under Presidential Decree No. 807.[22] Yet, the IBP Board of Governors approved Commissioner Andres's
work, thereby informing her that she could be subjected to respondents made up fictitious statements of facts and recommendation.
disciplinary action. Her failure to answer indicated her intent to conclusions of law in recommending her dismissal.
disregard Mayor Asistio's order and her option not to participate Complainant filed a Motion for Reconsideration with Motion to
in the investigation. Respondents' investigation proceeded ex The Court referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Vacate Resolution of the IBP,[28] which the Office of the Bar
parte and the assailed Resolution was issued on the basis of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report, and Confidant (OBC) of the Supreme Court referred to the IBP for
evaluation of the evidence at hand. Without proof of bad faith or recommendation.[23] appropriate action.[29]
adverse personal motives, respondents cannot be held
The IBP Report and Recommendation In an Order[30] dated September 30, 2008, the IBP required the
administratively liable for issuing the Resolution in the discharge
respondents to comment on the above motion. Only respondent
of their official duties even if the same turned out to be IBP Investigating Commissioner Mario V. Andres issued a Report Tolentino commented[31] thereon, praying that it be denied for
erroneous. and Recommendation[24] dated April 4, 2008, which being a mere rehash of complainant's previous pleadings and
recommended the dismissal of the complaint for lack of merit. issues that had already been passed upon.
In respondent Tolentino's comment,[13] he likewise argued that
Commissioner Andres found that complainant failed to present
Mayor Asistio's referral of the case to the City Legal Office was
convincing evidence that respondents acted in bad faith in Complainant filed before this Court an Ex Parte Motion to Vacate
treated as a complaint. Complainant was apprised of the nature
rendering the Resolution dated December 19, 1988. Thus, they IBP Order dated September 30, 2008/to Declare this Case
thereof and she even requested ten days within which to answer
were held to be entitled to the legal presumption of innocence. Submitted for Decision,[32] arguing that the Court's referral of
the same. After the City Legal Office conducted an investigation
her complaint to the IBP did not include the latter's authority to
wherein complainant failed to participate, respondents decided According to Commissioner Andres, respondents concluded that decide it. She averred that the IBP was also not in a position to
the case on the basis of records and evidence available. Anent complainant was previously charged for unauthorized absences take cognizance of her motion for reconsideration since the
the charge that she was not administratively charged in 1983, by relying on existing records that showed that she was dropped pleading was not addressed to the latter. Moreover, since
what was considered was that she did incur unauthorized from the rolls in 1983. Complainant's letter asking for a period of respondents failed to present their case before the IBP, they
absences that led to her dropping from the rolls. That she filed a ten days to reply to respondents' April 21, 1988 letter also meant were allegedly precluded from presenting any evidence in their
sick leave of absence, not sick leave and vacation leave, was that she understood that an investigation was underway. When behalf and any comment to complainant's motion for
immaterial as Mayor Asistio's memorandum did not qualify the she failed to respond, respondents assumed that she waived her reconsideration will not serve any purpose.
nature of the leaves of absence being cancelled. right to present evidence. Respondents may have only been
careless in their choice of words when they wrongly assumed In a Resolution[33] dated March 11, 2009, the Court referred to
Among the documents attached to respondent Tolentino's
that complainant was administratively charged in 1983 and they the IBP complainant's Motion for Reconsideration with Motion
comment were copies of: (a) Mayor Asistio's letter [14] to
used the term summons in referring to the letter dated April 21, to Vacate Resolution of the IBP and her Ex Parte Motion to
complainant dated August 4, 1982 about her sick leave of
1988. Still, respondents cannot be held liable for deceit without Vacate IBP Order dated September 30, 2008/to Declare this Case
absence; (b) Mayor Asistio's letter[15] to complainant dated July
proof that they deliberately worded their Resolution to mislead Submitted for Decision.
5, 1983 about her unauthorized absences; (c) letter[16] dated
Mayor Asistio into dismissing complainant.
August 4, 1982 of Administrative Officer Soriano to Mayor Asistio, In Resolution No. XIX-2011-413[34] passed on June 26, 2011, the
seeking advice on the action to be taken on complainant's Respondents were also not found guilty of misconduct as their IBP Board of Governors denied complainant's motion for
situation; (d) Mayor Asistio's indorsement[17] dated October 5, actions neither indicated moral depravity, nor did it affect their reconsideration as it found no cogent reason to reverse its
1983 to the City Legal Office of complainant's case; (e) the qualifications as lawyers. Respondents may have erred in failing previous ruling.
indorsement[18] from the City Legal Office dated October 6, to follow the procedure under Section 38[25] of Presidential
1983, recommending that complainant be dropped from the roll Decree No. 807 and they may be investigated for such lapses as The IBP then transmitted the record of the case to the Court for
of employees; (f) the order[19] of Mayor Asistio dated October government officials before some other venue. However, absent final action.
19, 1983 regarding complainant's separation from service; and (g) evidence showing respondents' moral depravity in issuing the
the Orders[20] dated October 27, 1983 and November 3, 1983 Undaunted, complainant filed with this Court a Motion to
said Resolution, they cannot be penalized therefor as members
from the office of the Regional Director of the Civil Service Disregard IBP Resolution No. XIX-2011-413 dated June 26,
of the Bar.
2011,[35] arguing that the IBP had no jurisdiction to dismiss her
Commission (CSC)-National Capital Region (NCR), approving the
complainant's dismissal. Lastly, Commissioner Andres ruled that respondents did not complaint or to rule on her motion for reconsideration. She
violate their oath as members of the Bar, particularly the oath to insisted that the Resolution Nos. XVIII-2008-225 and
Complainant insisted in her Consolidated Reply[21] that the "do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in XIX-2011-413 of the IBP Board of Governors should have only
indorsement of Mayor Asistio was not at all signed by the Mayor court."[26] The falsehood contemplated in the Attorney's Oath is been recommendatory in nature and the IBP should not have
and it was merely an indorsement of documents for study and one that is intentional or committed with malice. Although the arrogated unto itself the power of the Court to decide on her
recommendation. She was also not informed of said document. allegedly deceitful statements in respondents' Resolution may complaint.
She asked for a period of ten days within which to answer and/or not be wholly accurate, the same were found to be based on
act on respondent Tolentino's letter dated April 21, 1988 and she The Ruling of the Court
documents and made in the discharge of respondents' official
did report to Atty. Enrique Cube, the Mayor's secretary to functions as City Legal Officers. The Court finds no merit in the complaint.
explain why she cannot go back to work yet. As no administrative
At the outset, we reject complainant's contention that the IBP being informed of the charges or given the opportunity to buttress her arguments nor presented any witness to
infringed on this Court's jurisdiction in dismissing her complaint present evidence. corroborate her claims.
and denying her motion for reconsideration thereon.
As Commissioner Andres correctly ruled, deceit covers Quite the contrary, complainant herself revealed her lack of
The case was initiated upon the filing of the complaint for intentional falsehoods or false statements and representations certainty as to the malicious intent or other ill motives of
disbarment with this Court and the same was subsequently that are made with malice or with the intent to do wrong. Gross respondents when she made the following statements on her
referred to the IBP for investigation, report, and misconduct, on the other hand, is "any inexcusable, shameful or Motion for Reconsideration with Motion to Vacate Resolution of
recommendation in accordance with Section 1, Rule 139-B[36] of flagrant unlawful conduct on the part of a person concerned the IBP before the Court:
the Rules of Court. The Resolution Nos. XVIII-2008-225 and with the administration of justice; i.e., conduct prejudicial to the
XIX-2011-413 of the IBP Board of Governors embody their rights of the parties or to the right determination of the cause. [Respondents] knew that there was never a
recommendation to this Court. As succinctly stated in Cojuangco, The motive behind this conduct is generally a premeditated, first nor a second administrative case against
Jr. v. Palma[37] : obstinate or intentional purpose."[38] Similarly, on the charge of her. Yet they twisted their facts and language
the alleged violation of the Attorney's Oath, the settled rule is to suit their purpose. Whether they misled
Clearly, the resolution of the IBP Board of that: the Hon. Mayor Asistio to dismiss her from
Governors is merely recommendatory. The the service, or they conspired to engineer
"power to recommend" includes the power The Code of Professional Responsibility does her removal from the service, or followed a
to give "advice, exhortation or indorsement, not cease to apply to a lawyer simply directive from Mayor Asistio to justify her
which is essentially persuasive in character, because he has joined the government dismissal, she does not specifically know.
not binding upon the party to whom it is service. In fact, by the express provision of But certainly, their Resolution is not an
made." Necessarily, the "final action" on the Canon 6 thereof, the rules governing the honest mistake of judgment, as shown by
resolution of the IBP Board of Governors still conduct of lawyers '"shall apply to lawyers in the malicious warp and woof of the
lies with this Court. x x x (Citation omitted.) government service in the discharge of their Resolution itself.[41] (Emphasis supplied.)
Verily, there is nothing in the IBP resolutions that would suggest official tasks." Thus, where a lawyer's We find such line of argumentation distinctly wanting.
that the same already constituted the final determination of the misconduct as a government official is of Complainant cannot simply rely on speculations and suspicions,
case and were beyond the power of the Court to review. such nature as to affect his qualification as a no matter how deep-seated, without evidence to support the
lawyer or to show moral delinquency, then same. We held in Osop v. Fontanilla[42] that charges meriting
After thoroughly reviewing the record of this case, the Court he may be disciplined as a member of the disciplinary action against a lawyer generally involve the motives
affirms the recommendation of Commissioner Andres and the bar on such grounds. Although the general that induced him to commit the act charged and that, to justifY
IBP Board of Governors that the instant complaint should be rule is that a lawyer who holds a government disbarment or suspension, the case against the lawyer must be
dismissed. office may not be disciplined as a member of clear and free from doubt, not only as to the act charged but as
the bar for infractions he committed as a to his motive. Furthermore, in Cabas v. Sususco,[43] we ruled
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides for the
government official, he may, however, be that "mere allegation is not evidence and is not equivalent to
grounds for the imposition of the penalty of disbarment, to wit:
disciplined as a lawyer if his misconduct proof. Charges based on mere suspicion and speculation likewise
SEC. 27. Disbarment or suspension of constitutes a violation of his oath [as] a cannot be given credence."
attorneys by Supreme Court; grounds member of the legal
profession.[39] (Citations omitted; emphasis As a final point, the Court deliberately dispensed with any
therefor. — A member of the bar may be
supplied.) discussion regarding the validity of the Resolution dated
disbarred or suspended from his office as
Before the Court may impose against respondents the severe December 19, 1988. Commissioner Andres aptly pointed out that
attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit,
disciplinary sanction of disbarment, complainant must be able to complainant may file in the proper tribunal a separate case
malpractice, or other gross misconduct in
establish by substantial evidence the malicious and intentional against respondents, as City Legal Officers, for possible lapses in
such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by
character of the misconduct complained of that evince the moral the procedure undertaken by them in the administrative
reason of his conviction of a crime involving
delinquency of respondents. Substantial evidence is the amount investigation of the charge against her and/or the propriety of
moral turpitude, or for any violation of the
of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as her dismissal. On this matter, complainant admitted in her
oath which he is required to take before
adequate to support a conclusion.[40] complaint and consolidated reply that she had indeed filed
admission to practice, or for a wilful
administrative cases against respondents before the CSC, as well
disobedience of any lawful order of a
Except for complainant's allegations, however, she failed to as a separate administrative case against Mayor Asistio, in order
superior court, or for corruptly or wilfully
present sufficient evidence to substantiate her complaint. The to impugn the validity of her dismissal from service. However,
appearing as an attorney for a party to a case
Court agrees with the findings of Commissioner Andres that the specific details, stages and/or outcome of said cases were
without authority so to do. x x x
complainant has not proffered any evidence that tended to show not properly manifested before this Court. Complainant merely
In this case, complainant accused the respondents of deceit,
that respondents intentionally and deliberately made false stated that she was not satisfied with these other proceedings so
gross misconduct and of violating their Attorney's Oath in issuing
statements in the Resolution dated December 19, 1988 in order she opted to file the instant case for disbarment.[44]
the Resolution dated December 19, 1988 that allegedly
to deceive and induce Mayor Asistio to dismiss complainant from
contained false statements and which was arrived at without her The Court cannot allow this to be done.
service. She neither offered any documentary evidence to
What is at once clear is that this case for disbarment cannot be of the entire records of the case from Atty. Villanueva. Appellant's Brief also
resorted to as another remedy in order to attack the legality of within the same period.
said Resolution or to nullify its consequences. The only issue that Thereafter, respondent Atty. Claro Jordan M. Santamaria
should be determined in this case is whether respondents (respondent) submitted an Appellant's Brief[8] dated July 4, 2011.
Atty. Villanueva then filed a Manifestation with
committed misconduct that put into question their moral
Motion[10] dated August 31, 2011 explaining that he
character and moral fitness to continue in the practice of law. As In a Resolution[9] dated August 4, 2011, the CA directed Atty.
communicated with Ronnie and with appellants as well, but was
previously discussed, this issue had been answered in the Villanueva to submit proof of authority of Honnic to represent
informed that appellants were residing abroad (in Germany at
negative. appellants as their attorney-in-fact and the latter's conformity to
the time). He then requested for a period of 15 days, or until
Atty. Villanueva's Withdrawal of Appearance; in the san1e
Considering that complainant failed to discharge the burden of September 15, 2011, to comply with the CA's Resolution.
resolution, the CA also required respondent to submit his formal
proof to warrant the imposition of administrative penalty against Entry of Appearance, viz. :
respondents Santiago and Tolentino, we dismiss the complaint. On March 20, 2012, the CA issued a Resolution granting the
CA G.R. CV Sps. BAYANI P. PARTOZA and MYRNA M. PARTOZA
Manifestation and Motion filed by Atty. Villanueva, and ordered
No. 96282 vs. LILIA B. MONTANO and AMELIA T. SOLOMON
WHEREFORE, the complaint for disbarment against respondents the latter to show cause, within 10 days from notice, why he
Atty. Zosimo Santiago and Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino is should not be cited in contempt for his failure to comply with the
Before acting on the
hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. CA's Resolution of August 4, 2011; and why the Appellant's Brief
counsel for appellant's
filed by respondent should not be expunged from the rollo of the
SO ORDERED. Withdrawal of
case and the appeal dismissed for his failure to comply with the
Appearance, [Atty.
August 4, 2011 Resolution.
Villanueva] is directed to
submit within five (5)
On September 5, 2012 the CA, in another
DEL CASTILLO, J.: days from notice the
Resolution,[11] declared that: 1) as shown by the Registry Return
proof of authority of
A recalcitrant lawyer who defies the directives of the court "must Receipt dated April 4, 2012, respondent received the copy of its
Honnie M. Partoza to
deservedly end in tribulation for the lawyer and in victory for the March 20, 2012 Resolution; 2) on June 19, 2012, the Judicial
represent the appellants
higher ends of justice."[1] Records Division reported that no compliance with the March 20,
and to signify his
2012 Resolution had been filed by respondent; and 3)
conformity to the
The administrative liability of a lawyer who repeatedly ignores respondent was, for the last time, directed to comply with the
Withdrawal of
the directives of the Court of Appeals (CA) is properly resolved in March 20, 2012 Resolution within five days from notice and to
Appearance. In the
this case. show cause why he should not be cited for contempt for his
meantime, the Motion
failure to comply with the CA's Resolutions, dated August 4, 2011
for Extension of Time to
Factual Antecedents and March 20, 2012; and why the Appellant's Brief filed by him
File Appellants' Brief is
should not be expunged from the rollo of the case and the
granted in the interest of
A civil action for Declaration of Nullity of Deed of Real Estate appeal be dismissed.
justice.
Mortgage, Reconveyance of Transfer Certificate of Title No.
T-710729 and Damages[2] was filed by the spouses Bayani and All these directives by the CA were ignored by the respondent.
[Respondent] is directed
Myrna M. Partoza (spouses Partoza) against Lilia B. Montano and to submit within five (5)
Amelia T. Solomon. Thus, in a Resolution[12] dated October 25, 2012, the CA cited
days from notice his
respondent in contempt of court and imposed on him a fine of
formal Entry of
The case was dismissed[3] by the Regional Trial Court. P5,000.00. In the same Resolution, the CA once again directed
Appearance as counsel
respondent: (1) to comply with requirements of a valid
for appellants and to
On November 25, 2010, a Notice of Appeal[4] was filed by the substitution of counsel and to file his formal Entry of Appearance
secure and submit to this
counsel on record, Atty. Samson D. Villanueva (Atty. Villanueva). within five days from notice; and (2) to show cause, within the
Court also within the
The appeal was docketed as CA G.R. CV No. 96282 and in a same period, why the Appellant's Brief filed should not be
same period the written
Notice[5] dated March 25, 2011, the CA required the submission expunged from the rollo of the case and the appeal be dismissed
conformity of his clients
of the Appellant's Brief pursuant to Rule 44, Section 7 of the for his failure to comply with the Rules of Court.
to his appearance as their
Rules of Civil Procedure. counsel. Likewise, said
Ultimately, in a Resolution dated April 11, 2013, the CA ordered
counsel is also directed to
On April 27, 2011, however, Atty. Villanueva filed his Withdrawal the Appellant's Brief filed by respondent expunged from
furnish this Court the
of Appearance;[6] subsequently, a Motion for Extension of Time the rollo and dismissed the appeal. More than that, the CA
assailed RTC Decision
to File Appellant's Brief[7] dated May 19, 2011, was also filed. directed respondent to explain why he should not be suspended
that should have been
Atty. Villanueva's Withdrawal of Appearance carried the from the practice of law for willful disobedience to the orders of
appended to the
conformity of the appellant's attorney-in-fact, Honnie M. Partoza the court.
(Honnie) who, on the same occasion, also acknowledged receipt
Respondent paid no heed to this Resolution. There is no dispute that respondent did not comply with five
The nonchalant attitude of the respondent Resolutions of the CA. His actions were definitely contumacious.
So it was that the CA, in a Resolution[13] dated September 17, cannot be left unsanctioned. Clearly, his acts By his repeated failure, refusal or inability to comply with the CA
2013, referred the unlawyerly acts of respondent to the constitute willful disobedience of the lawful resolutions, respondent displayed not only reprehensible
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report orders of the [CA], which under Section 27. conduct but showed an utter lack of respect for the CA and its
and recommendation. Rule 138 of the Rules of Court is a sufficient orders. Respondent ought to know that a resolution issued by
case for suspension. x x x the CA, or any court for that matter, is not mere request that
Report and Recommendation the Investigating Commissioner may be complied with partially or selectively.
Resolution of the IBP Board of Governors
In his Answer[14] of November 13, 2013, respondent contended: Lawyers are duty bound to uphold the dignity and authority of
(1) that the spouses Partoza sought his opinion regarding their the court. In particular, Section 20(b), Rule 138 of the Rules of
The IBP Board of Governors resolved[16] to adopt and approve
case and later on requested that he handle their appeal before Court states that it "is the duty of an attorney [t]o observe and
the recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner.
the CA; (2) that he advised the spouses Partoza to inform Atty. maintain the respect due to courts of justice and judicial
Villanueva of their decision to engage the services of a new officers." In addition, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
In its Report[17] dated March 18, 2016, the Office of the Bar
counsel; (3) that he relied on the Withdrawal of Appearance filed Responsibility mandates that "[a] lawyer shall uphold the
Confidant informed this Court that no petition for review or
by Atty. Villanueva and then prepared the Appellant's Brief; (4) Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for
motion for reconsideration has been filed by either party. Thus,
that he was not aware of the authority of Honnie to represent law and legal processes." Also, Canon 11 provides that a "lawyer
pursuant to Section 12(c) of Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, this
spouses Panoza as well as of Honnie's conformity to the shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to
case is now before us for final action.
Withdrawal of Appearance by Atty. Villanueva; (5) that he judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct by others."
believed that he had no personality to represent the spouses
Issue
Partoza in the case, and to address the problems/compliances Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides:
pertaining to appellant's appeal; and (6) that it was still Atty. SECTION 27. Disbarment or suspension of
Whether or not respondent is administratively liable.
Villanueva who should have continued to represent the spouses attorneys by Supreme Court; grounds
Partoza. therefor. - A member of the bar may be
Our Ruling disbarred or suspended from his office as
The Investigating Commissioner Michael G. Fabunan attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit,
(Investigating Commissioner) found respondent liable for willful This Court adopts the findings of fact of, and the penalty malpractice, or other gross misconduct in
disobedience to the lawful orders of the CA and recommended recommended by, the IBP Board of Governors. such office, grossly immoral conduct or by
that he be suspended from the practice of law for six months. reason of his conviction of a crime involving
The Investigating, Commissioner gave the reasons for the said This Coutt explained the crucial role played by lawyers in the moral turpitude, or for any violation of the
recommendation in his Report and Recommendation,[15] viz.: administration of justice in Salabao v. Villaruel, Jr.,[18] viz.: oath which he is required to take before
The act of respondent in not filing any of the While it is true that lawyers owe 'entire admission to practice, or for a wilful
compliances required of him in the 4 August devotion' to the cause of their clients, it disobedience of any lawful order of a
2011, 20 March 2012, 5 September 2012, cannot he emphasized enough that their first superior court, or for corruptly or wilfully
and 25 October 2012 Resolutions of the [CA] and primary duty is not to the client but to appealing as an attorney for a party to a case
despite due notice, emphasized his contempt the administration or justice. Canon 12 of the without authority [to do so]. The practice of
and total disregard of the legal proceedings, Code of Professional Responsibility slates soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain,
for which he should be held liable. that 'A lawyer shall exert every effort and either personally or through paid agents or
consider it his duty to assist in the speedy brokers, constitutes malpractice. (Emphasis
xxxx and efficient administration of justice.' x x x supplied)
This is a fundamental principle in legal ethics
Granting that he [was] not aware of the and professional responsibility that has
iterations in various forms: This Court, in Anudon v. Cefra[19] citing Sebastian v. Atty.
problem between Atty. Villanueva and
Bajar,[20] held that a lawyer's obstinate refusal to comply with
[Honnie], he could have explained this fact by
xxxx the Court's orders not only betrayed a recalcitrant flaw in his
complying with the court resolutions and not
character; it also underscored his disrespect towards the Court's
just ignored them on the premise that he has
Because a lawyer is an officer of the court lawful orders which was only too deserving of reproof
no personality to represent the [spouses
Partoza]. The compliances required of the called upon to assist in the administration of
justice, any act of a lawyer that obstructs, "Lawyers are particularly called upon to obey court orders and
respondent by the [CA] are provided under
perverts, or impedes the administration of processes, and this deference is underscored by the fact that
the rules for a valid substitution of counsel
justice constitutes misconduct and justifies willful disregard thereof may subject the lawyer not only to
and validity of the appeal and may not be
disciplinary action against him. (citations punishment for contempt but to disciplinary sanctions as
disregarded.
omitted) well."[21] In this case, respondent deliberately ignored five CA
Resolutions, thereby violating his duty to observe and maintain before the Court accusing Macatangay, Zerna,
the respect due the courts.
Ronquillo and Buenaflor of violation of Lawyer’s Oath
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
In one case,[22] the Court suspended a lawyer from the practice or Code of Professional Responsibility, gross neglect
of law for one year for having ignored twelve (12) CA Resolutions. of duty, and gross ignorance of the law. The court This administrative case stemmed from an
The Court found that the said lawyer's conduct gave the affidavit-complaint[1] filed by complainant Romulo De Mesa
referred the case to the IBP for investigation, report Festin (complainant) against respondent Atty. Rolando V. Zubiri
impression that he was above the duly constituted judicial
authorities of the land, and looked down on them with a and recommendation. (respondent) before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
patronizing and supercilious attitude. In this case, we find the for gross violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility
penalty of suspension for six (6) months, as recommended by the (CPR).
IBP, commensurate under the circumstances. The Facts
Commissioner found that the complaint was baseless
Complainant alleged that he was elected as Mayor of the
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Claro Jordan M. Santamaria and Alicias failed to show sufficient proof in support Municipality of San Jose, Occidental Mindoro in the May 2013
is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months
effective upon his receipt of this Resolution. He is STERNLY
of his claims, thus dismissing the complaint for lack elections. His opponent, Jose Tapales Villarosa (Villarosa), filed
of merit. an election protest against him before the Regional Trial Court of
WARNED that repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt
San Jose, Occidental Mindoro, Branch 46 (RTC).[2] After deciding
with more severely.
in favor of Villarosa, the RTC issued an Order[3] dated January 15,
2014 (January 15, 2014 Order), granting his motion for execution
Let a copy of this Resolution be attached to respondent's
ISSUE: pending appeal, viz.:
personal records as attorney, and be furnished to the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines and all courts in the country through the WHEREFORE, the Motion for Execution
Office of the Court Administrator. Whether or not the IBP can exercise jurisdiction on Pending Appeal is GRANTED.
the administrative complaint?
SO ORDERED. The OIC-Branch Clerk of Court [(COC)] is
hereby directed to issue a Writ of Execution
Pending Appeal after the lapse of twenty (20)
ALICIAS, JR. v. ATTY. MACATANGAY RULING: working days to be counted from the time
[complainant's] counsel receives a copy of
Eduardo R. Alicias, Jr. Vs. Atty. Myrna V. Macatangay, NO. this Special Order, if no restraining order or
et al. status quo order is issued pursuant to
Section 11 (b),[4] Rule 14 of A.M. No.
07-4-15-SC.[5] (Emphasis supplied)
A.C. No. 7478
Distressed, complainant filed a petition for certiorari[6] before
January 11, 2017 The IBP has no jurisdiction over the disbarment the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), seeking a Temporary
complaint. The administrative complaint must be file Restraining Order (TRO) against the issuance of the writ of
with the Office of the Ombudsman. The 1987 execution pending appeal.[7] In an Order[8] dated February 13,
2014, the COMELEC issued a TRO, directing Hon. Gay Marie F.
FACTS: Constitution clothes the Office of the Ombudsman Lubigan-Rafael (RTC Judge), in her official capacity as Presiding
with the administrative disciplinary authority to Judge of the RTC, to cease and desist from enforcing the January
investigate and prosecute and act or omission of any 15, 2014 Order, effective immediately.[9] Accordingly, the RTC
issued another Order[10]dated February 25, 2014 (February 25,
A complaint was filed by Alicias, an Associate government official when such act or omission
2014 Order), pertinent portion of which reads:
Professor in the College of Education of the appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient.
The Office of the Ombudsman is the government In view thereof, the OIC-Branch [COC] is
University of the Philippines against Dean Leticia P. directed NOT TO ISSUE a Writ of Execution in
Ho for violation of Republic Act No. 6713. CSC found agency responsible for enforcing administrative, civil, accordance with the [January 15, 2014]
that the complaint was insufficient to support a and criminal liability of government officials. “in Order until further notice.[11]
every case where the evidence warrants in order to Despite the TRO and the RTC's February 25, 2014 Order,
prima facie case against Ho and was dismissed. Alicia respondent, as counsel of Villarosa, filed five (5)
did not receive a copy of the resolution. The records promote efficient service by the government to the manifestations[12] addressed to the COC insisting on the writ's
show that it was mistakenly sent to his old people.” issuance. Notably, he did not serve copies of these
manifestations to the other party.[13]
address. Alicias filed the administrative complaint
In these manifestations, respondent claimed that his client held that respondent acted in bad faith when he convinced the c) The Board's resolution, together with the
received the RTC's January 15, 2014 Order on January 18, 2014, COC to disregard the COMELEC's TRO. He pointed out that when entire records and all evidence presented
and counting from said date, the twenty-day period ended on the TRO enjoins the court, it includes the judge and all officers and submitted, shall be transmitted to the
February 12, 2014.[14] Since the COMELEC only issued the TRO and employees of the court, including the clerk of court. Hence, Supreme Court for final action within ten (10)
on February 13, 2014, the TRO no longer had any effect. respondent was unfair to the other party and employed deceit days from issuance of the resolution.
Respondent further asserted that the TRO was addressed only to when he filed the manifestations. As a result, the other party
the RTC Judge, and not to the COC; therefore, the COC is not was not afforded due process by being deprived of an x x x x (Emphases supplied)
bound by the TRO. For these reasons, respondent insisted that opportunity to oppose the manifestations.[26] Under the old rule, the IBP Board had the power to "issue a
the COC could legally issue the writ of execution pending decision" if the lawyer complained of was either exonerated or
appeal.[15] In a Resolution[27] dated December 14, 2014, the IBP Board of meted a penalty of "less than suspension of disbarment." In this
Governors (IBP Board) adopted and approved the Report and situation, the case would be deemed terminated unless an
The COC eventually issued a Writ of Execution Pending Appeal Recommendation of the Investigation Commissioner. interested party files a petition before the Court.[33] The case
addressed to the sheriff. However, complainant only found out of Ramientas,[34] which was cited as respondent's basis for filing
about respondent's manifestations when the sheriff attempted Respondent moved for reconsideration,[28] which was, however, the present petition for review, was pronounced based on the
to serve the writ on him.[16] Soon thereafter, complainant filed denied in a Resolution[29] dated May 28, 2016. old rule.[35]
the disbarment complaint.
On October 10, 2016, respondent filed a petition for In contrast, under the amended provisions cited above, the IBP
In his complaint, complainant argued that respondent violated review[30] before the Court purportedly pursuant to the Board's resolution is merely recommendatory regardless of the
his ethical duties when he misled and induced the COC to defy procedure laid out in Ramientas v. Reyala (Ramientas).[31] penalty imposed on the lawyer. The amendment stresses the
lawful orders - particularly, the COMELEC's TRO and the RTC's Court's authority to discipline a lawyer who transgresses his
The Issue Before the Court
February 25, 2014 Order.[17] As a result, respondent allegedly ethical duties under the CPR. Hence, any final action on a
violated Canons 1, 10, 15, and 19 of the CPR.[18] The core issue in this case is whether or not respondent should lawyer's administrative liability shall be done by the Court based
be held administratively liable for the acts complained of. on the entire records of the case, including the IBP Board's
In his answer,[19] respondent claimed that, first, since the case recommendation, without need for the lawyer-respondent to file
records had been transmitted to the COMELEC on January 31, The Court's Ruling any additional pleading.
2014, the RTC was divested of jurisdiction over the case;
therefore, it had no more power to issue the February 25, 2014 I. On this score, respondent's filing of the present petition for
Order.[20] Respondent put forward the same reason for filing review is unnecessary. Pursuant to the current rule, the IBP
the five manifestations with the COC instead of the RTC At the outset, the Court deems it proper to clarify that Board's resolution and the case records were forwarded to the
Judge.[21] Second, the manifestations contained no misleading respondent's filing of the instant petition for review does not Court. The latter is then bound to fully consider all documents
statements or factual deviations. He merely stated in his conform with the standing procedure for the investigation of contained therein, regardless of any further pleading filed by any
manifestations his honest belief that the twenty-day period had administrative complaints against lawyers. party - including respondent's petition for review, which the
already lapsed when the COMELEC issued its TRO; hence, it no Section 12 (b) and (c) of Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, as Court shall nonetheless consider if only to completely resolve the
longer had any binding effect. He explained that the filing of amended by Bar Matter No. 1645 dated October 13, merits of this case and determine respondent's actual
manifestations to highlight his position did not violate any 2015,[32] states: administrative liability.
rule.[22] Third, he allegedly filed those manifestations pursuant
to his duty under Canon 18 of the CPR to represent his client Section 12. Review and Recommendation by II.
with competence and diligence.[23] the Board of Governors. - After a judicious review of the case records, the Court agrees
The IBP's Report and Recommendation xxxx with the IBP that respondent should be held administratively
liable for his violations of the CPR. However, the Court finds it
In a Report and Recommendation[24] dated September 1, 2014, b) After its review, the Board, by the vote of proper to impose a lower penalty.
the Investigating Commissioner recommended that respondent a majority of its total membership,
be suspended from the practice of law for six (6) months.[25] He shall recommend to the Supreme Court the Canon 1 of the CPR mandates lawyers to uphold the Constitution
observed that by filing manifestations instead of motions, dismissal of the complaint or the imposition and promote respect for the legal processes.[36] Additionally,
respondent was able to disregard the rule that motions shall be of disciplinary action against the respondent. Canon 8 and Rule 10.03, Canon 10 of the CPR require lawyers to
served on the other party and shall contain a notice of hearing. The Board shall issue a resolution setting conduct themselves with fairness towards their professional
In this regard, the Investigating Commissioner noted that a forth its findings and recommendations, colleagues, to observe procedural rules, and not to misuse them
manifestation merely informs the court about a certain matter clearly and distinctly stating the facts and the to defeat the ends of justice. These provisions read thus:
involving the case, and does not require affirmative action by the reasons on which it is based. The resolution CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE
court. In the present case, however, the manifestations filed by shall be issued within a period not exceeding CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAW OF THE LAND
respondent were actually motions as these contained arguments thirty (30) days from the next meeting of the AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND
to support his prayer for the issuance of a writ of execution Board following the submission of the LEGAL PROCESSES.
pending appeal. Moreover, the Investigating Commissioner also Investigator's report.
 xxxx completely unaware of his manifestations. Undoubtedly, Let a copy of this Decision be furnished to the Office of the Bar
respondent violated his professional obligations under the CPR. Confidant, to be attached to respondent's personal record as a
CANON 8 - A LAWYER SHALL CONDUCT member of the Bar. Furthermore, let copies of the same be
HIMSELF WITH COURTESY, FAIRNESS AND He attempts to justify his acts by arguing that he merely served on the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Office of
CANDOR TOWARDS HIS PROFESSIONAL represented his client with competence and diligence. However, the Court Administrator, which is directed to circulate them to all
COLLEAGUES, AND SHALL AVOID HARASSING respondent should be reminded that a lawyer is ethically bound courts in the country for their information and guidance.
TACTICS AGAINST OPPOSING COUNSEL not only to serve his client but also the court, his colleagues, and
society. His obligation to represent his client is not without limits, SO ORDERED.
xxxx but must be "within the bounds of the law" pursuant to Canon
19 of the CPR. Accordingly, he is ethically bound to employ only
CANON 10 - A LAWYER OWES CANDOR,
fair and honest means to attain their clients' objectives.
FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT. ROBERT BERNARDIO v. ATTY. VICTOR REY SANTOS
Respondent further argues that his filing of the manifestations A.C. NO. 10583, 18 February 2015, SECOND DIVISION (Leonon,
xxxx J.)
with the COC is justified considering that the RTC had already
Rule 10.03 - A lawyer shall observe the rules lost jurisdiction over the case and the COC had the ministerial
of procedure and shall not misuse them to duty to issue the writ of execution. His argument fails to ATTY. JOSE MANGASER CARINGAL v. ATTY. VICTOR REY SANTOS
defeat the ends of justice. persuade. The Court has ruled that a COC has a ministerial duty A.C. NO. 10584, 18 February 2015, SECOND DIVISION (Leonon,
Contrary to these edicts, respondent improperly filed the five (5) to issue a writ of execution when the judge directs its J.)
motions as "manifestations" to sidestep the requirement of issuance.[41] In this case, however, the RTC Judge had issued the
notice of hearing for motions. In effect, he violated his second Order (dated February 25, 2014) explicitly directing the
professional obligations to respect and observe procedural rules, COC "NOT TO ISSUE a Writ of Execution." Therefore, the COC in DOCTRINE OF THE CASE
not to misuse the rules to cause injustice, and to exhibit fairness this case did not have a ministerial duty to issue the writ of
towards his professional colleagues. execution. If respondent honestly believed that his client was A lawyer owes candor, fairness, and good faith to the court
entitled to the writ, then he should not have clandestinely (Canon 10). A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to
The difference between a manifestation and a motion is submitted ex parte manifestations directly to the COC to coerce the doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court
essential in determining respondent's administrative liability. the latter to grant his intended relief. Instead, respondent should to be misled by any artifice (Rule 10.01). A lawyer shall observe
have filed the proper motions before the court, which alone has candor, fairness, and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions
A manifestation is usually made merely for the information of the inherent power to grant his prayer pursuant to Section 5 (c), with his clients (Canon 15). A lawyer shall not represent
the court, unless otherwise indicated. In a manifestation, the (d), and (g), Rule 135 of the Rules of Court.[42] conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned
manifesting party makes a statement to inform the court, rather given after a full disclosure of the facts (Canon 15.03).
than to contest or argue.[37] In contrast, a motion is an The Court has the plenary power to discipline erring lawyers. In
application for relief from the court other than by a the exercise of its sound judicial discretion, it may to impose a FACTS
pleading[38] and must be accompanied by a notice of hearing less severe punishment if such penalty would achieve the desired
and proof of service to the other party, unless the motion is not end of reforming the errant lawyer.[43] In light of the foregoing In the first administrative case, complainant Roberto C.
prejudicial to the rights of the adverse party.[39] Settled is the discussion, the Court deems that a penalty of suspension from Bernardino (Bernardino) filed a complaint against Atty. Victor
rule that a motion without notice of hearing is pro forma or a the practice of law for three (3) months is sufficient and Rey Santos (Atty. Santos) before the Integrated Bar of the
mere scrap of paper; thus, the court has no reason to consider it commensurate with respondent's infractions.[44] Philippines (IBP) praying for the latter’s investigation and
and the clerk has no right to receive it. The reason for the rule is subjection to disciplinary action. It was alleged by Bernardino
simple: to afford an opportunity for the other party to agree or As a final note, the Court stresses that a lawyer's primary duty is that Atty. Santos falsified the death certificate of his Aunt
object to the motion before the court resolves it. This is in to assist the courts in the administration of justice. Any conduct Rufina—making it appear that Rufina died in 1992 when it fact
keeping with the principle of due process.[40] that tends to delay, impede, or obstruct the administration of she died in 1990. Atty. Santos apparently used such falsified
justice contravenes this obligation.[45] Indeed, a lawyer must document to support the Affidavit of Self-Adjudication executed
In the present case, respondent filed five (5) manifestations champion his client's cause with competence and diligence, but by the husband of Rufina (Mariano). Years later, Atty. Santos, on
before the COC praying for affirmative reliefs. The Court agrees he cannot invoke this as an excuse for his failure to exhibit behalf the daughter of Rufina and Mariano (Marilu), filed a
with the IBP that these "manifestations" were in fact motions, courtesy and fairness to his fellow lawyers and to respect legal Complaint for sum of money with prayer for a Writ of
since reliefs were prayed for from the court - particularly, the processes designed to afford due process to all stakeholders. Preliminary Injunction and TRO against Bernardino, alleging that
issuance of the writ of execution pending appeal. By labelling
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Rolando V. Zubiri (respondent) is Marilu is an heir of Mariano, which allegedly contradicts the
them as manifestations, respondent craftily sidestepped the
found GUILTY of violating Canon 1, Canon 8, and Rule 10.03, Affidavit of Self-Adjudication that Atty. Santos drafted. Thus, Atty.
requirement of a notice of hearing and deprived the other party
Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, Santos represented clients with conflicting interests.
of an opportunity to oppose his arguments. Moreover, the fact
that he submitted these manifestations directly to COC, instead he is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3) months
effective from the finality of this Decision, and is STERNLY Another complaint was filed against Atty. Santos by Atty.
of properly filing them before the RTC, highlights his failure to
WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be Jose Mangaser Caringal (Atty. Caringal). Similar to the earlier
exhibit fairness towards the other party by keeping the latter
dealt with more severely. complaint, the latter alleged that the former represented clients
with conflicting interests. The same alleged that in representing Worse, the respondent himself on the witness stand disputes in society. This was restated in Sec. 27 of Rule
Marilu, Atty. Santos would necessarily go against the claims of during his April 14, 2009 testimony in the Civil Case for 138—Attorneys and Admission to the Bar.
Mariano. Because of this, Atty. Santos was allegedly violating the Sum of Money with Prayer of Writ of Preliminary
so-called “Dead Man’s Statute” because he would be utilizing Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order docketed The Resolutions of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines are,
information or matters of fact occurring before the death of his as Civil Case No. 09-269 filed with the RTC of Makati at best, recommendatory, and its findings and recommendations
deceased client. Similarly, he would be unscrupulously utilizing City admitted as follows: “I called the attention of Mr. should not be equated with Decisions and Resolutions rendered
information acquired during his professional relation with his Mariano Turla. I . . . asked him what about Lulu she is by this court.
said client that would constitute a breach of trust or of privileged entitled to a share of properties and he told me, ‘Ako
communication. It was also alleged that he engaged in na ang bahala kay Lulu, hindi ko pababayaan yan.’ So
forum-shopping; that he violated Canon 10 and Rule 10.01 of the he asked me to proceed with the Affidavit of
Code of Professional Responsibility (Code) because he drafted an Adjudication wherein he claimed the whole properties
affidavit which states that Mariano is the sole heir of Rufina for himself.”
when he knew this to be false. Moreover, Atty. Santos allegedly
converted funds belonging to the heirs of Mariano for his own This very admission proves that the respondent was
benefit. The funds involved were rental income from Mariano’s privy to Marilu’s standing as a legal and rightful heir to Rufina
properties that were supposed to be distributed to the heirs. Turla’s estate.
Instead, Atty. Santos received the rental income.
However, Rule 15.03 provides for an exception,
ISSUE: specifically, “by written consent of all concerned given after a full
disclosure of the facts.” Respondent had the duty to inform
1. Did Atty. Santos violate the above-cited canons Mariano and Marilu that there is a conflict of interest and to
and rules from the Code? obtain their written consent. Mariano died on February 5, 2009,
2. Does the IBP have the authority to impose while respondent represented Marilu in March 2009. It is
sanctions on lawyers? understandable why respondent was unable to obtain Mariano’s
consent. Still, respondent did not present evidence showing that
RULING: he disclosed to Marilu that he previously represented Mariano
and assisted him in executing the Affidavit of Self-Adjudication.
1. YES. He violated Canon 10, Rule 10.01, Canon 15, and Rule Thus, the allegation of conflict of interest against respondent
15.03. was sufficiently proven.

The Commission, by virtue of the doctrine res ipsa loquitor, 2. NO. The authority to discipline members of the Bar is vested
finds that the respondent’s act of failing to thwart his client in the Supreme Court under the 1987 Constitution.
Mariano from filing the Affidavit of Adjudication despite his
knowledge of the existence of Marilu as a possible heir to the Art. 8, Sec. 5 of the 1987 Constitution states that the
estate of Rufina, the respondent failed to uphold his obligation Supreme Court has the power to promulgate rules concerning
as a member of the bar to be the stewards of justice and the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading,
protectors of what is just, legal and proper. Thus in failing to do practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the
his duty and acting dishonestly, not only was he in contravention practice of law, the integrated bar, and legal assistance to the
of the Lawyer’s Oath but was also in violation of Canon 10, Rule underprivileged.
10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. As officers of
the court, lawyers have the duty to uphold the rule of law. In The authority to discipline lawyers stems from the Court’s
doing so, lawyers are expected to be honest in all their dealings. constitutional mandate to regulate admission to the practice of
Unfortunately, respondent was far from being honest. With full law, which includes as well authority to regulate the practice
knowledge that Rufina had another heir, he acceded to itself of law. Quite apart from this constitutional mandate, the
Mariano’s request to prepare the Affidavit of Self-Adjudication. disciplinary authority of the Supreme Court over members of the
Bar is an inherent power incidental to the proper administration
Applying the test to determine whether conflict of interest of justice and essential to an orderly discharge of judicial
exists, respondent would necessarily refute Mariano’s claim that functions. The disciplinary authority of the Court over members
he is Rufina’s sole heir when he agreed to represent Marilu. of the Bar is but corollary to the Court’s exclusive power of
Worse, he knew that Mariano was not the only heir. As stated in admission to the Bar. A lawyer is not merely a professional but
the Report of the Commission on Bar Discipline: also an officer of the court and as such, he is called upon to share
in the task and responsibility of dispensing justice and resolving