BLE (J DIAZ) NO 1

7/24/2019 BLE (J DIAZ) NO 1

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ble-j-diaz-no-1 1/41

A.C. No. 10134 November 26, 2014

PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF COURT EMPLOYEES PACE!, re"re#e$%e& b' (%# Pre#(&e$%, ATTY.

)IR*INIA C. RAFAEL, Complainant,

vs.

ATTY. E+NA M. ALIUT+AN-+IA, Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

MEN+OA, J.:

This resolves the complaint for suspension or disbarment filed by the hilippine !ssociation of Court

Employees "!CE# throu$h its president, !tty. %ir$inia C. Rafael "!tty. Rafael#, on &uly '(, )**+ a$ainst

!tty. Edna . !libutdan-Dia "!tty. Dia#, former National Treasurer of !CE, before the Inte$rated /ar of

the hilippines "I/#.'

!CE, the umbrella association of 'st and )nd level court employees in the &udiciary held its ''th

National Convention0Seminar in Davao City from October 1 to +, )**2. !s then National Treasurer of !CE, !tty. Dia 3as entrusted 3ith all the money matters of !CE.

The complainant alle$ed that the li4uidation for the ''th !CE national convention 3as submitted by !tty.

Dia only on arch )5, )**(, durin$ the ')th !CE national convention in Iloilo City)6 that durin$ the ')th

convention, an election of officers 3as conducted and !tty. Dia ran for the position of National Treasurer,

but she 3as not elected6 that on the last day of the convention or on arch 7', )**(,the out$oin$ /oard

of Directors, includin$ !tty. Dia, passed and approved Resolution No. '-)**( appropriatin$ the amount

of 7*,***.**as term-end bonus for each !CE official 4ualified thereto6 that !tty. Dia did not submit a

li4uidation report for the ')th convention6 that there 3as no turn over of monies belon$in$ to the

association as a matter of procedure despite a letter of demand, dated &une )*, )**( sent to !tty.

Dia67 and that the ne3 set of !CE officers issued /oard Resolution No. **-*( directin$ past president,

Rosita D. !miola6 and past treasurer, !tty. Dia, to e8plain 3hy they failed to li4uidate the finances of

!CE for the Davao and Iloilo conventions.9

In her defense, !tty. Dia countered that she had filed the Statement of :i4uidation for the ''th national

convention in Davao in less than a 3ee; after the said convention6 that it 3as duly audited by the national

auditor, :etecia !$bayani6 that the net proceeds of that convention 3as <fully accounted, li4uidated and

entirely deposited to !CE accounts6<2 that she also filed the Statement of :i4uidation for the ')th

national convention on ay )), )**(6 that the report, to$ether 3ith the cash, chec;s and ori$inal receipts,

3ere received by Rosita !misola and 3itnessed by former !CE officers61 that she denied runnin$ for re-

election as !CE national treasurer durin$ the Iloilo convention as she had already filed her certificate of

candidacy for /oard ember of the =irst District of Ipil, >amboan$a Sibu$ay6( that the approval of

the 7*,***.** term-end bonus did not rest 3ith her solely, rather, it 3as approved by the previous boardof directors6 and that she never sponsored the bonus, as it 3as initiated by !liven aderaa and

seconded by !tty. :ourdes ?arcia and Sarah !mpon$.

On her part, !tty. ?arcia averred that she 3as not privy to the disbursement of the said term-end bonus.+

Initially, the case 3as assi$ned to I/ Commissioner Elpidio ?. Soriano. !fter an e8chan$e of pleadin$s,

the mandatory conference 3as held. !fter3ards, the prota$onists 3ere directed to submit their respective

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/ac_10134_2014.html#fnt1

















7/24/2019 BLE (J DIAZ) NO 1


position papers. Thereafter, the case 3as re-assi$ned to I/ Commissioner %ictor C. =ernande

"Commissioner =ernande#.5

The lone issue here is 3hether or not !tty. Dia violated Chapter ', Canon ', Rule '.*' of the Code of

rofessional Responsibility "CR#, 3hich reads@

<! la3yer should not en$a$e in an unla3ful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.<

In his Report and Recommendation, dated &une )+, )*'*, Commissioner =ernande recommended the

dismissal of the case a$ainst !tty. Dia for lac; of merit. !tty. Dia offered documentary evidence to sho3

that she 3as able to submit the li4uidation reports for the t3o aforementioned conventions of !CE. Ae

also too; note that !tty. Rafael herself ac;no3led$ed the li4uidation report made by !tty. Dia 3ith

respect to the Davao City convention.'* !s to the sufficiency and completeness of these reports, this 3ould

be better resolvedthrou$h an audit rather than in disbarment proceedin$s.1âwphi1 /esides,

Commissioner =ernande did not consider the position of !tty. Dia as national treasurer of !CE to have

any connection 3ith her bein$ as a la3yer. Thus, accordin$ to him, she should be sanctioned in

accordance 3ith the by-la3s of !CE instead of a disbarment case.''

!s re$ards the accusation that !tty. Dia ran for re-election in the !CE elections even thou$h she 3as

no lon$er connected 3ith the &udiciary and therefore dis4ualified, Commissioner =ernande opined that

the best evidence, 3hich 3as the <certificate of candidacy,< 3as never offered,') and that !tty. Dia, bein$

a la3yer, ;ne3 that her bid for re-election 3ould be a useless e8ercise since she 3ould not beable to

assume office if she 3on.'7

=inally, Commissioner =ernande believed !tty. DiaBs assertion that she never sponsored the

appropriation of the 7*,***.** term-end bonus and that the approval of Resolution No. '-)**( 3as a

colle$ial action amon$ the /oard of Directors. !$ain, Commissioner =ernande 3as of the vie3 that her

participation in the passa$e of the 4uestioned board resolution 3as not connected to her bein$ a la3yer.'9

On November '5, )*'', the I/ /oard of ?overnors "I/-/O?# passed a resolution adoptin$ and

approvin$ the report and recommendation of Commissioner =ernande, and dismissed the complaint

a$ainst !tty. Dia.'2

On reconsideration, the I/-/O? issued the E8tended Resolution,'1 dated &une )', )*'7, $rantin$ the

complainantBs motion for reconsideration. It reversedand set asideits earlier resolution and suspended

!tty. Dia from the practice of la3 for one "'# year .'(

The I/-/O? e8plained that the 4uestions re$ardin$ "i# !tty. DiaB li4uidation of !CE funds6"ii# her

runnin$ for re-election 3hen she 3as no lon$er 3ith the &udiciary6 and "iii# her entitlement to the term-end

bonus 3hen she 3as no lon$er 3or;in$ in the &udiciary, constituted a <triple -3hammy< of 4uestionable

actions'+ committed by !tty. Dia in contravention of Rule '.*' of the CR.

The CourtBs Rulin$

This Court a$rees 3ith the I/-/O? and adopts its &une )', )*'7 E8tended Resolution. Everyone should

;eep in mind that the practice of la3 is only a privile$e. It is definitely not a ri$ht. Inorder to enoy this

privile$e, one must sho3 that he possesses, and continues to possess, the 4ualifications re4uired by la3

for the conferment of such privile$e.




















7/24/2019 BLE (J DIAZ) NO 1


One of those re4uirements is the observance of honesty and candor. Candor in all their dealin$s is the

very essence of a practitioners honorable membership in the le$al profession. :a3yers are re4uired to

act 3ith the hi$hest standard of truthfulness, fair play and nobility in the conduct of liti$ation and in their

relations 3ith their clients, the opposin$ parties, the other counsels and the courts. They are bound by

their oath to spea; the truth and to conduct themselves accordin$ to the best of their ;no3led$e and

discretion, and 3ith fidelity to the courts and their clients. '5 Time and a$ain, the Court has held that the

practice of la3 is $ranted only to those of $ood moral character. The /ar maintains a hi$h standard of

honesty and fair dealin$. Thus, la3yers must conduct themselves beyond reproach at all times, 3hether

they are dealin$ 3ith their clients or the public at lar$e, and a violation of the hi$h moral standards of the

le$al profession ustifies the imposition of the appropriate penalty, includin$ suspension and disbarment.)*

It bears stressin$ that !tty. Dia is a servant of the la3 and belon$s to that profession 3hich society

entrusts 3ith the administration of la3 and the dispensation of ustice. =or this, he or she is an e8emplar

for others to emulate and should not en$a$e in unla3ful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

Necessarily, this Court has been e8actin$ in its demand for inte$rity and $ood moral character from

members of the /ar. They are al3ays e8pected to uphold the inte$rity and di$nity of the le$al profession

and to refrain from any act or omission 3hich mi$ht lessen the trust and confidence reposed by the public

in the fidelity, honesty, and inte$rity of this noble profession.)'

!tty. Dia delay in the li4uidation of the finances of !CE6 her runnin$ for re-election, includin$ her non-

admission that she ran for said election as sho3n not by her certificate of candidacy but by the affidavits

of former !CE officers6 and her involvement in the approval or passa$e of the 4uestioned term-end

bonus of !CE officers, includin$ herself even thou$h she 3as no lon$er 3or;in$ in the &udiciary, 3ere

definitely not the candor the Court spea;s of. There 3as much to be desired in !tty. Dia actions0

inactions.

AERE=ORE, !tty. Edna . !libutdan-Dia is found ?FI:TG of violatin$ Chapter ', Canon ', Rule '.*'

of the Code of rofessional Responsibility, and is hereby SFSENDED from the practice of la3 for a

period of three "7# months.

This decision shall be immediately e8ecutory.

:et copies of this Decision be furnished the Court !dministrator for its distribution to all courts of the land6

the I/6 and the Office of the /ar Confidant to be entered into respondents personal records as a

member of the hilippine /ar.

SO ORDERED.








7/24/2019 BLE (J DIAZ) NO 1


A.C. No. /1 O%ober , 2014

+OMA+O +ISOMIMA SULTAN, Complainant,

vs.

ATTY. CASAN MACAAN+IN*, Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

REYES, J.:

This is an administrative complaint' filed on ay '9, )**+ before the Office of the /ar Confidant by

Domado Disomimba Sultan "complainant# a$ainst !tty. Casan acabandin$ "respondent# for alle$edly

havin$ notaried a falsified affidavit.

The =acts

!ccordin$ to the complainant, he ran for the position of ayor for the unicipality of /uadipuso /unton$,

:anao del Sur in )**(. Ae filed his Certificate of Candidacy "COC# dated arch )5, )**( 3ith theCommission on Elections "COE:EC# for the ay '9, )**( elections.) Thereafter, an !ffidavit of

ithdra3al of Certificate of Candidacy for unicipal ayor 7 "!ffidavit of ithdra3al# dated !pril '*, )**(

3as notaried and submitted by the respondent to the COE:EC, 3ithdra3in$ the complainantBs

candidacy 3ithout the latterBs ;no3led$e or authoriation.

hen the complainant learned of this, he 3rote a letter 9 dated !pril '+, )**( and submitted an

!ffidavit2 to aman$coday Colan$ca$ "Colan$ca$#, !ctin$ Election Officer of the COE:EC in

/uadipuso /unton$, :anao del Sur. The complainant alle$ed that he neither e8ecuted the !ffidavit of

ithdra3al nor authoried anybody to prepare a document to 3ithdra3 his COC. Ae as;ed that the

3ithdra3al be i$nored and that his name be retained on the list of candidates.

On ay '1, )**(, the complainant filed a petition 3ith the COE:EC to count the votes cast in his favor.

The complainant also filed a criminal complaint on ay '(, )**( 3iththe rosecutorBs Office of ara3i

City a$ainst !bdulmoib oti ariano "ariano# 3ho 3as another candidate for the mayoralty position,the

respondent, and Colan$ca$ for =alsification of ublic Documents. 1 Information( 3as thereby filed a$ainst

the respondent and Colan$ca$ 3hich 3as doc;eted as Criminal Case No. 2+9)-*+ in the Re$ional Trial

Court of :anao Del Sur, ara3i City.

ean3hile, the COE:EC Second Division found merit in the complainantBs petition and ordered the

reinstatement of his name in the list of candidates for the position of mayor in its Resolution + dated &une

'), )**(. !ll votes cast in favor of the complainant 3ere also counted. Thus, ariano elevated the matter

to the COE:EC en banc, 3hich issued a subpoenare4uirin$ the National /ureau of Investi$ation "N/I#

to study the si$nature appearin$ on the !ffidavit ofithdra3al. Subse4uently, the N/I transmitted itsHuestioned Documents Report No. 9)+-5*(5 to the COE:EC en banc, statin$ that the si$nature in the

!ffidavit of

ithdra3al and the specimen si$natures of the complainant 3ere not 3ritten by one and the same

person.'*

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/ac_7919_2014.html#fnt1


























7/24/2019 BLE (J DIAZ) NO 1


On ay '9, )**+, the complainant filed the present administrative complaint a$ainst the respondent 3ith

prayer for his disbarment. !fter the respondent filed his comment '' on the complaint, the case 3as

referred to the Inte$rated /ar of the hilippines "I/# Commission on /ar Discipline for investi$ation,

report and recommendation.')

The respondent countered that the instant administrative case 3as filed a$ainst him as political

harassment because his family supported the complainantBs opponent, ariano. '7 Ae admitted that he

notaried the affidavit after it 3as si$ned by the complainant voluntarily and in the presence of 3itnesses

and thereafter, submitted the same to the COE:EC. Ao3ever, the complainant chan$ed his mind 3hen

ariano, 3ho 3as the only remainin$ mayoralty candidate, refused to pay millions of pesos to the

complainant.'9 The respondent 3ithheld the identity of the 3itnesses alle$edly to avoid problems 3ithin

their family.

On &uly ', )**5, the Investi$atin$ Commissioner issued a Report and Recommendation,'2 recommendin$

<that the respondent be suspended from the active practice of la3 for si8 "1# months and t3o ")# years as

notary public.<'1

On ay '2, )*'', the I/ /oard of ?overnors passed Resolution No. I-)*''-)5('(

adoptin$ therecommendation of the Investi$atin$ Commissioner@

RESO:%ED to !DOT and !RO%E,as it is hereby unanimously !DOTED and !RO%ED the

Report and Recommendation of the Investi$atin$ Commissioner in the above-entitled case, herein made

part of this Resolution as !nne8 <!< and findin$ the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on

record and the applicable la3sand rules, and considerin$ respondentBs irre$ular notariation and

submission of complainantBs !ffidavit of ithdra3al of Certificate of Candidacy to the COE:EC 3ithout

complainantBs ;no3led$e and authoriation, !tty. Casan acabandin$ is hereby SFSENDEDfrom the

practice of la3 for si8 "1# months and SFSENDEDfrom bein$ commissioned as Notary ublic for t3o ")#

years.'+

The respondent filed a otion for Reconsideration,'5 3hich the I/ /oard of ?overnors denied inits

Resolution No. -)*'9-(1)* dated arch +, )*'9 for bein$ a mere reiteration of matters already

threshed out and ta;en into consideration.)'

Issue

AETAER TAE RESONDENT SAOF:D /E AE:D !DINISTR!TI%E:G :I!/:E /!SED ON TAE

!::E?!TIONS IN TAE CO:!INT.

Rulin$ of the Court

The Court a$rees 3ith the findin$s of the I/ but modify the penalty imposed.

The complainant presented the findin$s of the N/I 3hich are hereunder reproduced@

=INDIN?S@

:aboratory and scientific comparative e8amination of the specimens submitted, under stereoscopic

microscope and ma$nifyin$ lenses, 3ith the aid of photo$raphic enlar$ements "Comparison charts#,


























7/24/2019 BLE (J DIAZ) NO 1


reveal that there e8ist fundamental, si$nificant differences in 3ritin$ characteristics0habits bet3een the

4uestioned si$nature <DO!DO DISOI/!< "3ritten in !rabic characters0alphabet#, on one hand, and

the sample specimen si$natures <DO!DO DISOI/!< "3ritten in !rabic characters0alphabet#, on the

other hand, such as in@

- Structural pattern of characters0elements

- Direction of stro;es

- roportion characteristics

- Other minute identifyin$ details

CONC:FSION@

/ased on the above =INDIN?S, the 4uestioned si$nature <DO!DO DISOI/!< "3ritten in !rabic

characters0alphabet#, on one hand, and the sample specimen si$natures <DO!DO DISOI/!<

"3ritten in !rabic characters0alphabet#, on the other hand, ERE NOT RITTEN by one and the sameperson.))"Fnderscorin$ and emphasis in the ori$inal#

The respondent maintained that the N/I officer 3ho e8amined the complainantBs si$nature is not an

e8pert in !rabic lan$ua$e and thus, could not $ive an e8pert opinion re$ardin$ a si$nature 3ritten in

!rabic lan$ua$e.)7

On this score, the Court refers to ayor !bdulmoib oti ariano v. Commission on Elections and

Domado Disomimba Sultan,)9 3herein the Court resolved 3ith finality the dismissal of arianoBs petition

before the Court alle$in$ that the COE:EC committed $rave abuse of discretion amountin$ to lac; of

urisdiction in orderin$ the complainantBs reinstatement in the list of mayoralty candidates.

arianoBs petition challen$ed the issuances of the COE:EC 3hich 3ere anchored on its findin$ that the

affidavit of 3ithdra3al of candidacy imputed to the complainant 3as for$ed. It 3as dismissed by the Court

in the Resolution dated !u$ust '5, )**+. OnOctober 5, )**+, the complainant 3as then proclaimed as

the duly-elected mayor of /uadiposo /unton$, :anao del Sur, havin$ obtained the hi$hest number of

votes "9,*(+#. ariano filed a motion for reconsideration claimin$ that the COE:ECBs failure to avail of

the services of an!rabic e8pert 3as tantamount to $rave abuse of discretion. )2 The Court denied the

motion and addressed the issue raised in this 3ise@

Contrary to petitionerBs basic stance, a hand3ritin$ e8pert does not have to be a lin$uist at the same

time.To be credible, a hand3ritin$ e8pert need not be familiar 3ith the lan$ua$e used in the document

subect of his e8amination. The nature of his e8amination involves the study and comparison of stro;es,

the depth and pressure points of the alle$ed for$ery, as compared to the specimen or ori$inal hand3ritin$

or si$natures.)1 "Emphasis and underscorin$ ours#

In administrative cases a$ainst la3yers, the 4uantum of proof re4uired is preponderance of evidence. In

Rodica v. :aaro,)( the Court e8pounded@

In Siao v. !tty. De ?uman, &r., this Court reiterated its oftJ-K repeated rulin$ that in suspension or

disbarment proceedin$s, la3yers enoy the presumption of innocence, and the burden of proof rests upon
















7/24/2019 BLE (J DIAZ) NO 1


the complainant to clearly prove her alle$ations by preponderant evidence. Elaboratin$ on the re4uired

4uantum ofproof, this Court declared thus@

reponderance of evidence means that the evidence adduced by one side is, as a 3hole, superior to or

has $reater 3ei$ht than that of the other. It means evidence 3hich is more convincin$ to the court as

3orthy of belief than that 3hich is offered in opposition thereto. Fnder Section ' of Rule '77, in

determinin$ 3hether or not there is preponderance of evidence, the court may consider the follo3in$@ "a#

all the facts and circumstances of the case6 "b# the 3itnessesB manner of testifyin$, their intelli$ence, their

means and opportunity of;no3in$ the facts to 3hich they are testifyin$, the nature of the facts to 3hich

they testify, the probability or improbability of their testimony6 "c# the 3itnessesB interest or 3ant of interest,

and also their personal credibility so far as the same may ultimately appear in the trial6 and "d# the number

of 3itnesses, althou$h it does not mean that preponderance is necessarily 3ith the $reater number.

8 8 8 8)+ "Citation omitted#

The complainant adduced preponderantevidence that his si$nature 3as indeed for$ed in an affidavit

3hich the respondent notaried and submitted to the COE:EC. Conse4uently, the respondent should

be held administratively liable for his action. <here the notary public is a la3yer, a $raver responsibility isplaced upon his shoulder by reason of his solemn oath to obey the la3s and to do no falsehood or

consent to the doin$ of any.1âwphi1The Code of rofessional Responsibility also commands him not to

en$a$e in unla3ful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct and to uphold at all times the inte$rity and

di$nity of the le$al profession.<)5 <It should be noted that a notary publicBs function should not be trivialied

and a notary public must dischar$e his po3ers and duties 3hich are impressed 3ith public interest, 3ith

accuracy and fidelity. ! notary public e8ercises duties callin$ for carefulness and faithfulness. Notaries

must inform themselves of the facts they certify to6 most importantly, they should not ta;e part or allo3

themselves tobe part of ille$al transactions.<7* In fact, the respondent admitted that the affidavit 3as

notaried in his office 3ithout the presence of the complainant.7'

In Carlito !n$ v. !tty. &ames &oseph ?upana,7) the respondent therein 3as suspended from the practice

of la3 for one year6 his notarial commission 3as revo;ed and he 3as also dis4ualified from reappointment

as notary public for a period of t3o years for notariin$ an affidavit of loss 3ithout the presence of the

party ac;no3led$in$ the document.

The same sanctions 3ere imposed a$ainst the errin$ la3yer in !$bulos v. %iray, 77 3here the respondent

therein admitted <that not only did he prepare and notarie the subect affidavit but he li;e3ise notaried

the same 3ithout the affiantBs personal appearance. Ae e8plained that he did so merely upon the

assurance of his client Dollente that the document 3as e8ecuted by complainant.<79

In Isenhardt v. Real,72 the respondent therein 3as subected to similar penalties 3hen he notaried a

Special o3er of !ttorney "S!# supposedly e8ecuted by the complainant. It 3as proven by documentary

evidence that the complainant 3as in ?ermany at that time and therefore could not have appeared beforethe respondentto have the S! notaried.

The complainant in :inco v. :acebal71 filed an administrative case a$ainst the respondent notary public for

notariin$ a deed of donation despite the latterBs ;no3led$e that the purported donor had already passed

a3ay on an earlier date. =or this reason, the respondentBs notarial commission 3as revo;ed and he 3as

dis4ualified from bein$ commissioned as a notary public for a period of t3o years. =urthermore,he 3as

suspended from the practice of la3 for one year. Thus, based on prevailin$ urisprudence, the penalties




















7/24/2019 BLE (J DIAZ) NO 1


meted out a$ainst a la3yer commissioned as a notary public 3ho fails to dischar$e his duties as such

are@ the revocation of notarial commission, dis4ualification from bein$ commissioned as a notary public

for a period of t3o years, and suspension from the practice of la3 for one year.

AERE=ORE, !tty. Casan acabandin$ is found administratively liable for misconduct and is

SFSENDED from the practice of la3 for one "'# year. =urther, his notarial commission, if any, is

RE%OLED and he is DISHF!:I=IED from reappointment as Notary ublic for a period of t3o ")# years,

3ith a stem 3arnin$ that repetition of the same or similar conduct in the future 3ill be dealt 3ith more

severely. Ae is DIRECTED to report to this Court the date of his receipt of this Decision to enable it to

determine 3hen the revocation of his notarial commission and his dis4ualification from bein$

commissioned as notary public shall ta;e effect.

:et copies of this Decision be furnished to the Office of the /ar Confidant, the Inte$rated /ar of the

hilippines, and all courts all over the country. :et a copy of this Decision li;e3ise be attached to the

personal records of !tty. Casan acabandin$.

SO ORDERED.

7/24/2019 BLE (J DIAZ) NO 1


A.C. No. 1043, Se"%ember 23, 2014

CF SHARP CRE MANA*EMENT INCORPORATE+, Complainant , v. NICOLAS C.TORRES,Respondent .

+ E C I S I O N

PER CURIAM

=or the CourtBs resolution is the Complaint' dated October 7*, )**+ filed by complainant C= Sharp Cre3ana$ement Incorporated "complainant# a$ainst respondent Nicolas C. Torres "respondent#, char$in$him 3ith violatin$ the Code of rofessional Responsibility "CR#.

T5e F%#

Complainant is a corporation duly or$anied and e8istin$ under hilippine la3s en$a$ed in overseasmaritime employment.) It hired respondent, a medical doctor and a la3yer by profession, as its :e$al andClaims ana$er 3ho 3as tas;ed, inter alia, to serve as its le$al counsel and to oversee theadministration and mana$ement of le$al cases and medical-related claims instituted by seafarers a$ainstcomplainantBs various principals. !mon$ the cases respondent handled in his capacity as :e$al andClaims ana$er 3ere the claims of seafarers /ernardo R. an$i "an$i#, Rodelio &. Sampani "Sampani#,&oseph C. Del$ado "Del$ado#, and Edmundo . Chua "Chua#.7crala3la3library

In its administrative complaint, it 3as alle$ed that per respondentBs re4uest, complainant issued chec;s inthe amounts of 2)9,***.**, 12),*'7.)*, '92,12*.**, 5(,'**.**, and )51,+*+.9* as settlement of the respective claims of an$i, Sampani, Del$ado, and Chua.9 Ao3ever, complainant later discoveredthat, save for the chec; in the amount of '92,12*.** issued to Del$ado, respondent never $ave thechec;s to the seafarers and instead, had them deposited at International E8chan$e /an;, /ana3e,Hueon City /ranch, under !ccount No. **7-'*-*15*)-'. 2 ith respect to Sampani, complainant alsodiscovered that he only received the amounts of )'1,571.** and +,7*7.** or a total of ))2,)75.**out of the re4uested amount of 12),*'7.)*, throu$h chec;s not issued by complainant.1crala3la3library

On October 7*, )**+, the Inte$rated /ar of the hilippines "I/# Commission on /ar Discipline directlyreceived the instant complaint and on even date, issued an Order ( re4uirin$ respondent to file an ans3er,but the latter failed to do so. Neither did respondent appear in the mandatory conference scheduled onarch )*, )**5 nor did he file his position paper.+crala3la3library

T5e IP7# Re"or% $& Reomme$&%(o$

In a Report and Recommendation5 dated !u$ust ', )**5, the I/ Investi$atin$ Commissioner foundrespondent administratively liable for violatin$ the CR, and accordin$ly recommended that he be metedthe penalty of suspension from the practice of la3 for one "'# year.'*crala3la3library

The Investi$atin$ Commissioner found that respondent had indeed re4uested and 3as issued chec;s as

settlement of the respective claims of an$i, Sampani, Del$ado, and Chua on the pretense that there4uested amounts represented 3hat 3as la3fully due them.'' Ao3ever, instead of $ivin$ the said chec;sto the named seafarers, he deposited the same at the International E8chan$e /an;, /ana3e, HueonCity /ranch, under !ccount No. **7-'*-*15*)-',') e8cept for the chec; in the amount of '92,12*.**issued to Del$ado.'7crala3la3library

ean3hile, respondent belatedly filed his %erified !ns3er "ith otion to Re-Open Investi$ation# '9onarch )9, )*'*. Ae e8plained that he 3as not able to timely file an ans3er because complainant supplieda 3ron$ address to the I/ and filed non-bailable criminal cases a$ainst him 3hich caused his detentionin a re$ular prison cell and, thus, his inability to comply 3ith the I/Bs directives.'2crala3la3library

7/24/2019 BLE (J DIAZ) NO 1


On the merits of the complaint, respondent maintained that the seafarersB claims had lon$ been settledand that the release documents si$ned by the named seafarers 3ere already in actual custody andpossession of the complainant.'1 Ae further contended that he only si$ned the dorsal portions of thechec;s as a form of $uaranty of their $enuineness'( and that he could not have encashed them as they3ere all payable to a particular payee.'+ :astly, respondent claimed that 3hen he resi$ned in !u$ust)**+, complainant forced him to si$n promissory notes to reimburse certain amounts 3hich had not beenaccounted for by the latter in e8chan$e for his clearance documents.'5 /ut before he 3as able to settlethe promissory notes, he 3as already arrested in connection 3ith the criminal cases filed by complainanta$ainst him.)*crala3la3library

In a Resolution)' dated December )5, )*'), the I/ /oard of ?overnors unanimously adopted andapproved the aforesaid report and recommendation 3ith modification, increasin$ the recommendedperiod of suspension from the practice of la3 to t3o ")# years, and orderin$ respondent to return the fullamount of money he received from complainant 3hich is le$ally due to the seafarers, 3ith le$al interest,3ithin thirty "7*# days from receipt of notice.

!$$rieved, respondent filed a otion for Reconsideration)) on !pril )), )*'7 3hich 3as, ho3ever, deniedin a Resolution)7 dated arch +, )*'9.

T5e I##8e e9ore %5e Co8r%

The essential issue in this case is 3hether or not respondent should be held administratively liable for violatin$ the CR.

T5e Co8r%7# R8:($;

!fter a udicious perusal of the records, the Court concurs 3ith the findin$s of the I/ in its report andrecommendation, e8cept as to@ "a# the recommended penalty to be imposed upon respondent6 and "b# themonetary a3ard in favor of the complainant.

It is fundamental that the relationship bet3een a la3yer and his client is hi$hly fiduciary and ascribes to ala3yer a $reat de$ree of fidelity and $ood faith. )9 The hi$hly fiduciary nature of this relationship imposes

upon the la3yer the duty to account for the money or property collected or received for or from hisclient.)2 This is the standard laid do3n by Rules '1.*' and '1.*7, Canon '1 of the CR, 3hichread@chanRoblesvirtual:a3library

C!NON '1 M ! :!GER SA!:: AO:D IN TRFST !:: ONEGS !ND ROERTIES O= AIS C:IENTTA!T !G COE INTO AIS OSSESSION.

Rule '1.*' M ! la3yer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from the client.

Rule '1.*7 M ! la3yer shall deliver the funds and property of his client 3hen due or upon demand. 8 8 8.

In the fore$oin$ li$ht, it has been held that a la3yerBs failure to return upon demand the funds held by himon behalf of his client $ives rise to the presumption that he has appropriated the same for his o3n use in

violation of the trust reposed in him by his client. Such act is a $ross violation of $eneral morality as 3ellas of professional ethics.)1crala3la3library

In this case, the I/ Investi$atin$ Commissioner correctly found that complainant had duly proven itschar$es a$ainst respondent. In particular, complainant had e8posed respondentBs modus operandi of repeatedly re4uestin$ the issuance of chec;s purportedly for the purpose of settlin$ seafarersB claimsa$ainst the complainantBs various principals, only to have such chec;s "e8cept for the chec; in theamount of '92,12*.** issued to Del$ado# deposited to an unauthoried ban; account, particularlyInternational E8chan$e /an;, /ana3e, Hueon City /ranch, under !ccount No. **7-'*-*15*)-'. It is3ell-settled that 3hen a la3yer receives money from the client for a particular purpose, the la3yer is

7/24/2019 BLE (J DIAZ) NO 1


bound to render an accountin$ to the client sho3in$ that the money 3as spent for a particular purpose. !nd if he does not use the money for the intended purpose, the la3yer must immediately return themoney to his client.)( This, respondent failed to do.

Clearly, respondentBs acts of misappropriation constitute dishonesty, abuse of trust and confidencereposed in him by the complainant, and betrayal of his clientBs interests 3hich he is duty-bound toprotect.)+ They are contrary to the mandate of Rule '.*', Canon ' of the CR 3hich provides that JaKla3yer shall not en$a$e in unla3ful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. Such malfeasance is notonly unacceptable, dis$raceful, and dishonorable to the le$al profession6 it also reveals a basic moral fla3that ma;es him unfit to practice la3.)5crala3la3library

!nent the proper penalty for respondentBs acts, the Court deems it proper to modify the penaltyrecommended by the I/. &urisprudence provides that in similar cases 3here la3yers misappropriatedtheir clientsB money, the Court imposed upon them the ultimate penalty of disbarment from the practice of la3. In Arellano University, Inc. v. Mijares III,7* the Court disbarred the la3yer for misappropriatin$ hisclientBs money intended for securin$ a certificate of title on the latterBs behalf. Similarly, in Freeman v.Reyes,7' the same penalty 3as imposed upon the la3yer 3ho misappropriated the insurance proceeds of her clientBs deceased husband.

!s already discussed, respondentBs conduct of misappropriatin$ complainantBs money has made him unfit

to remain in the le$al profession. Ae has definitely fallen belo3 the moral bar 3hen he en$a$ed indeceitful, dishonest, unla3ful, and $rossly immoral acts. 7) !s a member of the /ar, he is e8pected at alltimes to uphold the inte$rity and di$nity of the le$al profession and refrain from any act or omission 3hichmi$ht lessen the trust and confidence reposed in him by the public in the fidelity, honesty, and inte$rity of the le$al profession.77 embership in the le$al profession is a privile$e, and 3henever it is made toappear that an attorney is no lon$er 3orthy of the trust and confidence of his clients and the public, itbecomes not only the ri$ht but also the duty of the Court to 3ithdra3 the same, 79 as in this case. In vie3of the fore$oin$, respondent deserves the ultimate penalty of disbarment from the practice of la3.

:i;e3ise, the Court cannot concur 3ith the I/Bs recommendation re$ardin$ the return of the settlementmoney respondent received from complainant, considerin$, amon$ others, that it 3as not specificallyprayed for in the latterBs administrative complaint and that the civil liability of respondent therefor mayalready be the subect of e8istin$ cases involvin$ the same parties.

HEREFORE, respondent Nicolas C. Torres is found $uilty of violatin$ Rule '.*', Canon ' and Rules'1.*' and '1.*7, Canon '1 of the Code of rofessional Responsibility. !ccordin$ly, he ishereby+ISARRE+ from the practice of la3 and his name ordered STRIC<EN OFF from the roll of attorneys.

:et a copy of this Decision be attached to respondentBs record in this Court as attorney. =urther, let copiesof this Decision be furnished the Inte$rated /ar of the hilippines and the Office of the Court

!dministrator, 3hich is directed to circulate them to all the courts in the country for their information and$uidance.

SO OR+ERE+.

7/24/2019 BLE (J DIAZ) NO 1


A.C. No. /33/, Se"%ember 2, 2014

ROLAN+O )IRAY, Complainant , v. ATTY. EU*ENIO T. SANICAS, Respondent .

R E S O L U T I O N

+EL CASTILLO, J.

This is a verified Complaint for Disbarment0?ross Immoral Conduct' filed 3ith this Court on September '+, )**1 by complainant Rolando %iray "complainant# a$ainst respondent !tty. Eu$enio T. Sanicas"respondent#.

Factual Antecedents

Complainant alle$es that he en$a$ed the services of respondent relative to a labor case ) he filed a$ainstEster :ope and Teodoro :ope III "spouses :ope#. On =ebruary )1, )**', the :abor !rbiter ruled infavor of complainant and disposed of the case as follo3s@ChanRobles%irtuala3library

AERE=ORE, premises considered, ud$ment is hereby rendered orderin$ respondents Ester :ope

and Teodoro :ope III to pay complainant Rolando %iray of the follo3in$, to 3it@'. /ac;3a$esPPPPPP.PP..'91,()1.1(). Separation ayPPPPPPP.P)9,***.**7. Service Incentive :eave ayPPP.',27+.919. !ttorneyBs =eesPPPPPP...P.'(,))1.2'or a total amount of One Aundred Ei$hty Nine Thousand =our Aundred Ninety One esos Q 190'**"'+5,95'.1*# JsicK to be deposited 3ith the Cashier of this Office, 3ithin ten "'*# days from receipthereof.

!ll other claims are hereby denied for lac; of merit.

SO ORDERED.7

Subse4uently, an !lias rit of E8ecution9 3as issued relative to aforesaid decision. Durin$ theimplementation of said 3rit, ho3ever, complainant discovered that respondent had already collected thetotal amount of 52,***.** from spouses :ope. Respondent received said amount in the follo3in$manner@ChanRobles%irtuala3library

+%e )o85er No. Amo8$% P8r"o#e*)0*20)**9 (+*) )*,***.** !ttorneyBs fees*)0'70)**9 (+77 '*,***.** artial payment for ud$ment*)0)10)**9 (+9+ '*,***.** artial payment for ud$ment*70')0)**9 (+59 )*,***.** artial payment for ud$ment*90*)0)**9 (57) 2,***.** artial payment for ud$ment*90*10)**9 (59' 2,***.** artial payment for ud$ment*90'70)**9 (599 2,***.** artial payment for ud$ment

*90'10)**9 (529 '*,***.** artial payment for ud$ment*907*0)**9 (5(( '*,***.** artial payment for ud$mentTo%: Amo8$% P =,000.00

Complainant also discovered that respondent misrepresented to spouses :ope that he is authoried toreceive payments on his behalf, 3hen in truth and in fact he is not. Conse4uently, complainant madeseveral verbal demands to the respondent to remit to him the amount of 52,***.**, less his attorneyBsfees of )*,***.**. /ut respondent did not bud$e. Thus, complainant lod$ed a complaint before theOffice of the unon! "aran!ay of /r$y. =elisa, /acolod City. Respondent, ho3ever, i$nored thesummons to attend a conference before the baran$ay to resolve the issues.

7/24/2019 BLE (J DIAZ) NO 1


In his Comment,2 respondent admits that he received 52,***.** from spouses :ope on installments,but denies that he 3as not authoried to accept it. Ae e8plains that complainant a$reed to pay himadditional attorneyBs fees e4uivalent to )2 of the total monetary a3ard, on top of the attorneyBs fees thatmay be a3arded by the labor tribunal, and to refund all e8penses respondent incurred relative to thecase. Thus, from the total a3ard of '+5,95'.1*, the sum of '(,))1.2( representin$ respondentBsprofessional fees has to be deducted, leavin$ a balance of '(),)(2.'7. 1 Then from said amount,complainant proposed that he 3ill $et '**,***.** and the balance of (),)(2.'7 shall belon$ torespondent as and for his additional )2 attorneyBs fees and reimbursement for all e8penses he incurred3hile handlin$ the case. Ao3ever, after receivin$ the amount of 52,***.** and deductin$ therefrom theamounts of )*,***.**( attorneyBs fees, '(,***.** earlier $iven to complainant, and ),***.** paid tothe sheriff, 3hat 3as left to respondent 3as only 21,***.**. Respondent 3hines that this amount is 3aybelo3 the promised )2 attorneyBs fees and refund of e8penses in the total amount of (),)(2.'7.

Respondent asserts that, in any event, complainant 3ill still be receivin$ a sum $reater than 3hat hee8pects to receive. Ae avers that complainant is still entitled to receive from spouses :ope the sum of 57,95'.1*. !ddin$ the '(,***.** respondent previously remitted to complainant, the latter 3ill $et atotal amount of ''*,95'.1*. This amount, accordin$ to respondent, e8ceeds the amount of '**,***.**complainant a$reed to and e8pected to receive.

IBP’s Report and Recommendation

On =ebruary )1, )**(,+ 3e referred this case to the Inte$rated /ar of the hilippines "I/# for investi$ation, report and recommendation. On &anuary 7', )*'', the Investi$atin$ Commissioner issuedhis Report and Recommendation5 3ith the follo3in$ recommendation@

In vie3 of the fore$oin$, it is respectfully recommended that the respondent be meted the penalty of t3o")# years suspension. Respondent is also ordered to return, in restitution all the amounts in hispossession 3hich are due to complainant, less his ri$htful attorneyBs fees.'*

On October )+, )*'', the I/ /oard of ?overnors adopted Resolution No. -)*''-'75,'' 3hichapproved the Report and Recommendation of the Investi$atin$ Commissioner suspendin$ respondentfrom the practice of la3 for t3o years, but 3ith the modification that respondent should restitute the sum

of +2,2**.**')

to the complainant.

I##8e

The essential issue in this case is 3hether the respondent is $uilty of $ross misconduct for his failure topromptly account to his client the funds received in the course of his professional en$a$ement and returnthe same upon demand.

T5e Co8r%7# R8:($;

The Code of rofessional Responsibility demands the utmost de$ree of fidelity and $ood faith in dealin$3ith the moneys entrusted to la3yers because of their f iduciary relationship.'7 Specifically, Rule '1.*' of the Code imposes upon the la3yer the duty to account for all money or property collected or received for

or from the client. Rule '1.*7 thereof, on the other hand, mandates that JaK la3yer shall deliver thefunds 8 8 8 of his client 3hen due or upon demand.

In this case, respondent on nine separate occasions from =ebruary 2, )**9 to !pril 7*, )**9 receivedpayments for attorneyBs fees and partial payments for monetary a3ards on behalf of complainant fromspouses :ope. /ut despite the number of times over close to three months he had been receivin$payment, respondent neither informed the complainant of such fact nor rendered an accountin$ thereon.It 3as only 3hen an !lias rit of E8ecution 3as issued and bein$ implemented 3hen complainantdiscovered that spouses :ope had already $iven respondent the total amount of 52,***.** as partialpayment for the monetary a3ards $ranted to him by the labor tribunal.

7/24/2019 BLE (J DIAZ) NO 1


To ma;e matters 3orse, respondent 3ithheld and refused to deliver to the complainant said amount,3hich he merely received on behalf of his client, even after demand. Complainant brou$ht the matter before the #aran!ay, but respondent simply i$nored the same. Such failure and inordinate refusal on thepart of the respondent to render an accountin$ and return the money after demand raises thepresumption that he converted it to his o3n use.'9 Ais unustified 3ithholdin$ of the funds also 3arrantsthe imposition of disciplinary action a$ainst him.'2crala3red

Respondent ustifies his action by assertin$ that complainant authoried him to receive payment. Aeimplies that he is also authoried to apply the sum of money he received from spouses :ope to hisadditional )2 attorneyBs fees and reimbursement for all e8penses he incurred for the case, in the totalamount of (),)(2.'7. Ao3ever, after deductin$ from the amount of 52,***.** the amounts of )*,***.**, '(,***.**, and ),***.**, 3hat 3as left to respondent, to his dismay 3as only 21,***.**.

The Court is not impressed. !s aptly observed by the Investi$atin$ Commissioner, other than his self-servin$ statements, there is nothin$ in the records 3hich 3ould support respondentBs claim that he 3asauthoried to receive the payments. Neither is there proof that complainant a$reed to pay him additional)2 attorneyBs fees and reimburse him for all e8penses he alle$edly incurred in connection 3ith thecase. Respondent did not present any document, retainerBs a$reement, or itemied brea;do3n of theamount to be reimbursed to support his claim. In any event, even assumin$ that respondent 3as

authoried to receive payments, the same does not e8empt him from his duty of promptly informin$ hisclient of the amounts he received in the course of his professional employment. The fiduciary nature of the relationship bet3een counsel and client imposes on a la3yer the duty to account for the money or property collected or received for or from the client. Ae is obli$ed to render a prompt accountin$ of all theproperty and money he has collected for his client. '1 The fact that a la3yer has a lien for his attorneyBsfees on the money in his hands collected for his client does not relieve him from the obli$ation to ma;e aprompt accountin$.'( oreover, a la3yer has no ri$ht to unilaterally appropriate his clientBs money for himself by the mere fact alone that the client o3es him attorneyBs fees.'+crala3red

In sum, JrKespondentBs failure to immediately account for and return the money 3hen due and upondemand violated the trust reposed in him, demonstrated his lac; of inte$rity and moral soundness, and3arrants the imposition of disciplinary action.'5crala3red

The Penalty

The penalty for $ross misconduct consistin$ in the failure or refusal despite demand of a la3yer toaccount for and to return money or property belon$in$ to a client has been suspension from the practiceof la3 for t3o years.)* Thus, the I/ /oard of ?overnors did not err in recommendin$ the imposablepenalty. Considerin$, ho3ever, that this is respondentBs first offense and he is already anona$enarian,)' the Court, in the e8ercise of its compassionate udicial discretion, finds that a penalty of one year suspension is sufficient.

HEREFORE, the Court finds respondent !tty. Eu$enio T. Sanicas *UILTY of $ross misconduct andaccordin$ly SUSPEN+S him from the practice of la3 for one "'# year upon the finality of this Resolution,3ith a 3arnin$ that a repetition of the same or similar act or offense shall be dealt 3ith more severely.

!tty. Sanicas is ordered to return to complainant, 3ithin 5* days from finality of this Resolution, the netamount of +2,2**.** 3ith interest at the rate of 1 per annum from finality of this Resolution until the fullamount is returned. =ailure to comply 3ith the fore$oin$ directive 3ill 3arrant the imposition of a moresevere penalty.

:et copies of this Resolution be furnished the Office of the /ar Confidant and noted in !tty. SanicasBrecord as a member of the /ar.

SO OR+ERE+.crala3la3 library

7/24/2019 BLE (J DIAZ) NO 1


Carpio, $Actin! Chie% &ustice',( "rion, Mendo)a, and *eonen, &&., concur.

A.C. No. 11= Se"%ember 1/, 2014

REECCA MARIE UY YUPAN*CO-NA<PIL, Complainant,

vs.ATTY. ROERTO L. UY, Respondent.

R E S O : F T I O N

PERLAS-ERNAE, J.:

This is an administrative case a$ainst respondent !tty. Roberto :. Fy "respondent# for unprofessional and

unethical conduct, stemmin$ from a complaint filed by private complainant Rebecca arie Fy Gupan$co-

Na;pil "Rebecca#, represented by her attorney-in-fact, /ella !suncion ollo "/ella#.

The =acts

Rebecca is the natural niece and adopted dau$hter of the late Dra. acita Fy y :im "acita#.' She 3as

adud$ed as the sole and e8clusive le$al heir of aci ta by virtue of an Order ) dated !u$ust '*, '555

issued by the Re$ional Trial Court of anila, /ranch 79 in SEC. ROC. No. 52-(2)* l "S 52-(2)*'#. !t

the time of her death, acita 3as a stoc;holder in several corporations primarily en$a$ed in ac4uirin$,

developin$, and leasin$ real properties, namely, Fy Realty Company, Inc. "FRCI#, &espao Realty

Corporation, Roberto :. Fy Realty and Development Corporation, &esus Fy Realty Corporation,

Distelleria :a &arolina, Inc., and acita :im Fy Realty, Inc.7

In her Complaint9 filed on ay 5, )**2,2 Rebecca, throu$h her attorney-in fact, /ella, averred that

respondent, her alle$ed ille$itimate halfcousin,1 continuously failed and refused to comply 3ith the court

order in S 52-(2)*' declarin$ her as the successor-in-interest to all of acitaBs properties, as 3ell as her

re4uests for the accountin$ and delivery of the dividends and other proceeds or benefits comin$ from

acitaBs stoc;holdin$s in the aforementioned corporations.( She added that respondent mort$a$ed a

commercial property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-'771*1 "subect property# in favor of

hilippine Savin$s /an; in the total amount of 29,***,***.**,+ despite an e8istin$ Trust

!$reement5 e8ecuted on October '2, '557 "subect Trust !$reement# 3herein respondent, in his capacity

as resident of FRCI, already reco$nied her to be the true and beneficial o3ner of the

same.'* !ccordin$ly, she demanded that respondent return the said property by e8ecutin$ the

correspondin$ deed of conveyance in her favor to$ether 3ith an inventory and accountin$ of all the

proceeds therefrom, but to no avail. '' In this relation, Rebecca claimed that it 3as only on September ),

)**2 or after she had already instituted various le$al actions and remedies that respondent and

FRCIa$reed to transfer the subect property to her pursuant to a compromise a$reement.

')

In his !ns3er ith Compulsory Counterclaim,'7 respondent denied RebeccaBs alle$ations and raised the

affirmative defenses of forum shoppin$ and prescription. Ae pointed out that Rebecca had filed several

cases raisin$ the sin$le issue on the correct interpretation of the subect trust a$reement. Ae also

contended that the partiesB transactions in this case 3ere made 3ay bac; in '557 and '552 3ithout a

complaint havin$ been filed until /ella came into the picture and instituted various suits coverin$ the same

issue.'9 !s such, he sou$ht the dismissal of the complaint, and further prayed for the payment of moral

dama$es and attorneyBs fees by 3ay of counterclaim.'2

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/ac_9115_2014.html#fnt1


































7/24/2019 BLE (J DIAZ) NO 1


On September +, )**2, Rebecca filed a otion to ithdra3 Complaint'1 in C/D Case No. *2-'9+9 for the

reason that <the facts surroundin$ the same arose out of a misunderstandin$ and misapprehension of the

real facts surroundin$ their dispute.<'(

Ao3ever, on October 1, )**2, /ella filed a anifestation 3ith :eave of Court to =ile otion for

Intervention,'+prayin$ that the investi$ation of the char$es a$ainst respondent continue in order to 3eed

out errin$ members of the le$al profession.'5

The Report and Recommendation of the I/

On October +, )**(, the Inte$rated /ar of the hilippines "I/# Investi$atin$ Commissioner issuedhis

Report and Recommendation,)* findin$ respondent $uilty of serious misconduct in violation of Rule '.*',

Canon ' of the Code of rofessional Responsibility "Code#, and, thus, recommended the penalty of

suspension for a period of si8 "1# months.)'

On matters of procedure, the Investi$atin$ Commissioner opined that RebeccaBs motion to 3ithdra3 did

notserve as a bar for the further consideration and investi$ation ofthe administrative case a$ainst

respondent. !s basis, he cites Section 2, Rule '75-/ of the Rules of Court 3hich provides that <JnKoinvesti$ation shall be interrupted or terminated by reason of the desistance, settlement, compromise,

restitution, 3ithdra3al of the char$es, or failure of the complainant to prosecute the same.< Separately,

the Investi$atin$ Commissioner denied the claim of forum shoppin$, notin$ that disciplinary cases are sui

$eneris and may, therefore, proceed independently.))

On the merits of the char$e, the Investi$atin$ Commissioner observed that respondent lac;ed the $ood

moral character re4uired from members of the /ar 3hen the latter failed to comply 3ith the demands of

Rebecca under the subect trust a$reement, not to mention his un3orthy and deceitful acts of mort$a$in$

the subect property 3ithout the formerBs consent. In fine, respondent 3as found $uilty of serious

misconduct in violation of Rule '.*', Canon ' of the Code, for 3hich the above-stated penalty 3as

recommended.)7

In a Resolution)9 dated November '*, )**(, the I/ /oard of ?overnors adopted and approved the

Investi$atin$ CommissionerBs Report and Recommendation.

The Issue /efore the Court

The basic issue in this case is 3hether or not respondent should be held administratively liable.

The CourtBs Rulin$

Rule '.*', Canon ' of the Code, as itis applied to the members of the le$al profession, en$raves an

overridin$ prohibition a$ainst any form of misconduct, vi.@

C!NON ' - ! :!GER SA!:: FAO:D TAE CONSTITFTION, O/EG TAE :!S O= TAE :!ND !ND

ROOTE RESECT =OR :! !ND :E?!: ROCESSES.

Rule '.*' - ! la3yer shall not en$a$e in unla3ful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.























7/24/2019 BLE (J DIAZ) NO 1


The $ravity of the misconduct M determinative as it is of the errant la3yerBs penalty M depends on the

factual circumstances of each case.

Aere, the Court observes that the s4uabble 3hich $ave rise to the present administrative case lar$ely

constitutes an internal affair, 3hich had already been laid to rest by the parties. This is clearly e8hibited by

RebeccaBs motion to 3ithdra3 filed in this case as 3ell as the compromise a$reement for$ed in Civil Case

No. *9-'*+++( 3hich involves the subect propertyBs alle$ed disposition in violation of the subect trust

a$reement. !s the Court sees it, his failure to comply3ith the demands of Rebecca M 3hich she ta;es as

an invocation of her ri$hts under the subect trust a$reement M as 3ell as respondentBs acts of mort$a$in$

the subect property 3ithout the formerBs consent, sprun$ from his o3n assertion of the ri$hts he believed

he had over the subect property. The propriety of said courses of action eludes the CourtBs

determination,for that matter had never been resolved on its merits in vie3 of the aforementioned

settlement. Rebecca even states in her motion to 3ithdra3 that the alle$ations she had previously made

arose out of a <misapprehension of the real facts surroundin$ their dispute< and even adds that

respondent <had fully e8plained to JherK the real nature and e8tent of her inheritance 8 8 8 toher entire

satisfaction,< leadin$ her to state that she is <no3 fully convinced that JherK complaint has no basis in fact

and in la3.<)2 !ccordin$ly, 3ith the admitted misstatement of facts, the observations of the Investi$atin$

Commissioner, as adopted by the I/, hardly hold 3ater so as to support the findin$ of <seriousmisconduct< 3hich 3ould 3arrant its recommended penalty.1âwphi1

/e that as it may, the Court, nonetheless, finds that respondent committed some form of misconduct by,

as admitted, mort$a$in$ the subect property, not3ithstandin$ the apparent dispute over the same.

Re$ardless of the merits of his o3n claim, respondent should have e8hibited prudent restraint becomin$

of a le$al e8emplar. Ae should not have e8posed himself even to the sli$htest ris; of committin$ a

property violation nor any action 3hich 3ould endan$er the /ars reputation. %erily, members of the /ar

are e8pected at all times to uphold the inte$rity and di$nity of the le$al profession and refrain from any act

or omission 3hich mi$ht lessen the trust and confidence reposed by the public in the fidelity, honesty, and

inte$rity of the le$al profession.)1 /y no insi$nificant measure, respondent blemished not only his inte$rity

as a member of the /ar, but also that of the le$al profession. In other 3ords, his conduct fell short of the

e8actin$ standards e8pected of him as a $uardian of la3 and ustice. !lthou$h to a lesser e8tent as

compared to 3hat has been ascribed by the I/, the Court still holds respondent $uilty of violatin$ Rule '.

*', Canon ' of the Code. Considerin$ that this is his first offense as 3ell as the peculiar circumstances of

this case, the Court believes that a fine of '2,***.** 3ould suffice.

AERE=ORE, respondent !tty. Roberto :. Fy is found ?FI:TG of violatin$ Rule '.*', Canon ' of the

Code of rofessional Responsibility. !ccordin$ly, he is ordered to pay a =INE of '2,***.** 3ithin ten

"'*# days from receipt of this Resolution. =urther, he is STERN:G !RNED that a repetition of the same

or similar acts 3ill be dealt 3ith more severely.

:et a copy of this Resolution be attached to respondents record in this Court as attorney. =urther, let

copies of this Resolution be furnished the Inte$rated /ar of the hilippines and the Office of the Court !dministrator, 3hich is directed to circulate them to all the courts in the country for their information and

$uidance.

SO ORDERED.





7/24/2019 BLE (J DIAZ) NO 1


>OSE ALLAN TAN, Complainant , v. PE+RO S. +IAMANTE, Respondent .

+ E C I S I O N

PER CURIAM

=or the CourtBs resolution is an administrative Complaint' for disbarment dated =ebruary ', )**+ filed bycomplainant &ose !llan Tan "complainant# a$ainst respondent edro S. Diamante "respondent#, char$in$him of violatin$ the Code of rofessional Responsibility "CR# and the la3yerBs oath for fabricatin$ andusin$ a spurious court order, and for failin$ to ;eep his client informed of the status of the case.

T5e F%#

On !pril ), )**7, complainant, claimin$ to be a reco$nied ille$itimate son of the late :uis Tan, securedthe services of respondent in order to pursue a case for partition of property a$ainst the heirs of the latespouses :uis and Natividad %alencia-Tan.) !fter acceptin$ the en$a$ement, respondent filed thecorrespondin$ complaint7 before the Re$ional Trial Court of /acolod City, /ranch 91 "RTC#, doc;eted asCivil Case No. *7-''59(. The complaint 3as eventually dismissed by the RTC in an Order 9 dated &uly )2,

)**( for lac; of cause of action and insufficiency of evidence. 2 hile respondent 3as notified of suchdismissal as early as !u$ust '9, )**(, 1 complainant learned of the same only on !u$ust )9, )**( 3henhe visited the formerBs office.( On such occasion, respondent alle$edly as;ed for the amount of '*,***.** for the payment of appeal fees and other costs, but since complainant could not produce thesaid amount at that time, respondent, instead, as;ed and 3as $iven the amount of 2**.** purportedlyas payment of the reservation fee for the filin$ of a notice of appeal before the RTC. + On September '),)**(, Tan handed the amount of '*,***.** to respondent, 3ho on even date, filed a notice of appeal5 before the RTC.'*crala3red

In an Order '' dated September '+, )**(, the RTC dismissed complainantBs appeal for havin$ been filedbeyond the re$lementary period provided for by la3. Respondent, ho3ever, did not disclose such factand, instead, sho3ed complainant an Order ') dated November 5, )**( purportedly issued by the RTC"November 5, )**( Order# directin$ the submission of the results of a DN! testin$ to prove his filiation to

the late :uis Tan, 3ithin '2 days from receipt of the notice. Considerin$ the technical re4uirements for such ;ind of testin$, complainant proceeded to the RTC and re4uested for an e8tension of the deadlinefor its submission. It 3as then that he discovered that the November 5, )**( Order 3as spurious, ascertified by the RTCBs Cler; of Court.'7 Complainant also found out that, contrary to the representations of respondent, his appeal had lon$ been dismissed.'9 !$$rieved, he filed the instant administrativecomplaint for disbarment a$ainst respondent.

In his Comments0Compliance'2 dated September 9, )**5, respondent alle$ed that it 3as complainantBsfailure to timely produce the amount of ',9**.** to pay for the appeal fees that resulted in the late filin$of his appeal. !ccordin$ to him, he informed complainant of the lapse of the re$lementary period toappeal, but the latter insisted in pursuin$ the same. Ae also claimed to have assisted complainant not for money or malice but bein$ a desperate liti$ant, he 3as blamed for the courtBs unfavorabledecision.'1crala3red


In a Report and Recommendation'( dated September )', )*'*, the Inte$rated /ar of the hilippines "I/#Investi$atin$ Commissioner found respondent administratively liable, and accordin$ly recommended thatthe penalty of suspension for a period of one "'# year be meted out a$ainst him.'+crala3red

The Investi$atin$ Commissioner found complainantBs imputations a$ainst respondent to be 3ell-founded,observin$ that instead of meetin$ complainantBs alle$ations s4uarely, particularly, the issue of the non-disclosure of the dismissal of the partition case, respondent sidestepped and delved on ar$uments that

7/24/2019 BLE (J DIAZ) NO 1


hardly had an effect on the issues at hand.'5crala3red

oreover, the Investi$atin$ Commissioner did not find credence in respondentBs accusation that thespurious November 5, )**( Order ori$inated from complainant, ratiocinatin$ that it 3as respondent 3ho3as motivated to fabricate the same to cover up his lapses that brou$ht about the dismissal of complainantBs appeal and ma;e it appear that there is still an available relief left for Tan. )*crala3red

In a Resolution dated !pril '1, )*'7, the I/ /oard of ?overnors unanimously adopted and approved theaforesaid report and recommendation.)'crala3red

T5e I##8e e9ore %5e Co8r%

The essential issue in this case is 3hether or not respondent should be held administratively liable for violatin$ the CR.

T5e Co8r%7# R8:($;

!fter a udicious perusal of the records, the Court concurs 3ith the I/Bs findin$s, subect to themodification of the recommended penalty to be imposed upon respondent.

Fnder Rule '+.*9, Canon '+ of the CR, it is the la3yerBs duty to ;eep his client constantly updated onthe developments of his case as it is crucial in maintainin$ the latterBs confidence, to3it@chanRoblesvirtual:a3library

C!NON '+ M ! :!GER SA!:: SER%E AIS C:IENT ITA COETENCE !ND DI:I?ENCE.

Rule '+.*9 M ! la3yer shall ;eep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond 3ithin areasonable time to clientBs re4uest for information.

!s an officer of the court, it is the duty of an attorney to inform his client of 3hatever important informationhe may have ac4uired affectin$ his clientBs case. Ae should notify his client of any adverse decision toenable his client to decide 3hether to see; an appellate revie3 thereof. Leepin$ the client informed of thedevelopments of the case 3ill minimie misunderstandin$ and loss of trust and confidence in the attorney.

The la3yer should not leave the client in the dar; on ho3 the la3yer is defendin$ the clientBs interests.)) Inthis connection, the la3yer must constantly ;eep in mind that his actions, omissions, or nonfeasance3ould be bindin$ upon his client. Concomitantly, the la3yer is e8pected to be ac4uainted 3ith therudiments of la3 and le$al procedure, and a client 3ho deals 3ith him has the ri$ht to e8pect not ust a$ood amount of professional learnin$ and competence but also a 3hole-hearted fealty to the clientBscause.)7crala3red

In the case at bar, records reveal that as of !u$ust '9, )**(, respondent already ;ne3 of the dismissal of complainantBs partition case before the RTC. Despite this fact, he never bothered to inform complainant of such dismissal as the latter only ;ne3 of the same on !u$ust )9, )**( 3hen he visited the formerBs office.To add insult to inury, respondent 3as ine8cusably ne$li$ent in filin$ complainantBs appeal only onSeptember '), )**(, or 3ay beyond the re$lementary period therefor, thus resultin$ in its outri$htdismissal. Clearly, respondent failed to e8ercise such s;ill, care, and dili$ence as men of the le$al

profession commonly possess and e8ercise in such matters of professional employment.)9

crala3red

orse, respondent attempted to conceal the dismissal of complainantBs appeal by fabricatin$ theNovember 5, )**( Order 3hich purportedly re4uired a DN! testin$ to ma;e it appear that complainantBsappeal had been $iven due course, 3hen in truth, the same had lon$ been denied. In so doin$,respondent en$a$ed in an unla3ful, dishonest, and deceitful conduct that caused undue preudice andunnecessary e8penses on the part of complainant. !ccordin$ly, respondent clearly violated Rule '.*',Canon ' of the CR, 3hich provides@chanRoblesvirtual:a3library

7/24/2019 BLE (J DIAZ) NO 1


C!NON ' M ! la3yer shall uphold the constitution, obey the la3s of the land and promote respect for la3and le$al processes.

Rule '.*' M ! la3yer shall not en$a$e in unla3ful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

!s officers of the court, la3yers are bound to maintain not only a hi$h standard of le$al proficiency, butalso of morality, honesty, inte$rity, and fair dealin$,)2 failin$ in 3hich 3hether in his personal or privatecapacity, he becomes un3orthy to continue his practice of la3. )1 ! la3yerBs ine8cusable ne$lect to servehis clientBs interests 3ith utmost dili$ence and competence as 3ell as his en$a$in$ in unla3ful, dishonest,and deceitful conduct in order to conceal such ne$lect should never be countenanced, and thus,administratively sanctioned.

In vie3 of the fore$oin$, respondentBs conduct of employin$ a croo;ed and deceitful scheme to ;eepcomplainant in the dar; and conceal his caseBs true status throu$h the use of a falsified court order evidently constitutes ?ross isconduct.)( Ais acts should not ust be deemed as unacceptable practicesthat are dis$raceful and dishonorable6 they reveal a basic moral fla3 that ma;es him unfit to practicela3.)+ In this re$ard, the CourtBs pronouncement in +e#astian v. Calis)5 isinstructive,vi).@chanRoblesvirtual:a3library

+ee"%(o$ $& o%5er 9r8&8:e$% %# b' :?'er re &(#;re98: $& &(#5o$orb:e. T5e' reve:

mor: 9:?# ($ :?'er . They are unacceptable practices. ! la3yerBs relationship 3ith others should becharacteried by the hi$hest de$ree of $ood faith, fairness and candor. This is the essence of the la3yerBsoath. The la3yerBs oath is not mere facile 3ords, drift and hollo3, but a sacred trust that must be upheldand ;eep inviolable. The nature of the office of an attorney re4uires that he should be a person of $oodmoral character. This re4uisite is not only a condition precedent to the admission to the practice of la3, itscontinued possession is also essential for remainin$ in the practice of la3. e have sternly 3arnedthat $' ;ro## m(#o$&8% o9 :?'er, ?5e%5er ($ 5(# "ro9e##(o$: or "r(v%e "(%', "8%# 5(#mor: 5r%er ($ #er(o8# &o8b% # member o9 %5e r, $& re$&er# 5(m 8$9(% %o o$%($8e ($ %5e"r%(e o9 :?.7* "mphases and underscorin! supplied #

&urisprudence reveals that in analo$ous cases 3here la3yers failed to inform their clients of the status of their respective cases, the Court suspended them for a period of si8 "1# months. In Mejares v.Romana,7' the Court suspended the la3yer for the same period for his failure to timely and ade4uately

inform his clients of the dismissal of their petition. In the same vein, in enilla v. Alcid, &r.,7) the samepenalty 3as imposed on the la3yer 3ho consistently failed to update his client of the status of his cases,not3ithstandin$ several follo3-ups.

Ao3ever, in cases 3here la3yers en$a$ed in unla3ful, dishonest, and deceitful conduct by falsifyin$documents, the Court found them $uilty of ?ross isconduct and disbarred them. In "rennisen v.Contawi ,77 the Court disbarred the la3yer 3ho falsified a special po3er of attorney in order to mort$a$eand sell his clientBs property. !lso, in m#ido v. e,79 the penalty of disbarment 3as meted out a$ainst thela3yer 3ho falsified an ine8istent court decision for a fee.

!s already discussed, respondent committed acts of falsification in order to misrepresent to his client, i.e.,complainant, that he still had an available remedy in his case, 3hen in reality, his case had lon$ beendismissed for failure to timely file an appeal, thus, causin$ undue preudice to the latter. To the Court,

respondentBs acts are so reprehensible, and his violations of the CR are so fla$rant, e8hibitin$ his moralunfitness and inability to dischar$e his duties as a member of the bar. Ais actions erode rather thanenhance the public perception of the le$al profession. Therefore, in vie3 of the totality of his violations, as3ell as the dama$e and preudice caused to his client, respondent deserves the ultimate punishment of disbarment.

HEREFORE, respondent edro S. Diamante is hereby +ISARRE+ for ?ross isconduct andviolations of Rule '.*', Canon ', and Rule '+.*9, Canon '+ of the Code of rofessional Responsibility,and his name is ordered STRIC<EN OFF from the roll of attorneys.

7/24/2019 BLE (J DIAZ) NO 1


:et a copy of this Decision be attached to respondent edro S. DiamanteBs record in this Court. =urther,let copies of this Decision be furnished to the Inte$rated /ar of the hilippines and the Office of the Court

!dministrator, 3hich is directed to circulate them to all the courts in the country for their information and$uidance.

SO OR+ERE+.

Carpio,(( $Actin! Chie% &ustice', -elasco, &r., e Castro, "rion, eralta, "ersamin, el Castillo, -illarama,&r., ere), Mendo)a, Reyes, erlas/"erna#e, and *eonen, &&., concur.+ereno, C.&., on :eave.

7/24/2019 BLE (J DIAZ) NO 1


MELO+Y R. NERY, Complainant , v. ATTY. *LICERIO A. SAMPANA, Respondent .

R E S O L U T I O N

CARPIO, ACTIN* C.J.

T5e C#e

This is a disbarment complaint filed by elody R. Nery "Nery# a$ainst !tty. ?licerio !. Sampana"Sampana# for failin$ to file the petition for adoption despite receivin$ his le$al fees and for ma;in$ Nerybelieve that the petition 3as already filed.

T5e F%#

In her verified complaint filed on '+ &une )*'*,' Nery alle$ed that in &une )**+, she en$a$ed theservices of Sampana for the annulment of her marria$e and for her adoption by an alien adopter. Thepetition for annulment 3as eventually $ranted, and Nery paid )**,***.** to Sampana. !s for theadoption, Sampana as;ed Nery if she had an aunt, 3hom they could represent as the 3ife of her alien

adopter. Sampana then $ave Nery a blurred copy of a marria$e contract, 3hich they 3ould use for her adoption. Thereafter, Nery paid Sampana '**,***.**, in installment@ "a# '*,***.** on '* September )**+6 "b# 2*,***.** on ) October )**+6 and "c# 9*,***.** on '( November )**+. Nery no lon$er as;ed for receipts since she trusted Sampana.

On '9 =ebruary )**5, Sampana sent a te8t messa$e informin$ Nery that he already filed the petition for adoption and it 3as already published. Sampana further informed Nery that they needed to rehearsebefore the hearin$. Subse4uently, Sampana told Nery that the hearin$ 3as set on 2 arch )*'* in/ranch '' of alolos, /ulacan. hen Nery as;ed 3hy she did not receive notices from the court,Sampana claimed that her presence 3as no lon$er necessary because the hearin$ 3as only

urisdictional. Sampana told Nery that the hearin$ 3as reset to ') arch )*'*.

On '' arch )*'*, Nery in4uired from /ranch '' of alolos, /ulacan about the status of the petition for

adoption and discovered that there 3as no such petition filed in the court.)

Thus, in the afternoon of thesame day, Nery met Sampana and sou$ht the reimbursement of the '**,***.** she paid him. Sampanaa$reed, but said that he 3ould deduct the filin$ fee 3orth '),***.**. Nery insisted that the filin$ feeshould not be deducted, since the petition for adoption 3as never filed. Thereafter, Nery repeatedlydemanded for the reimbursement of the '**,***.** from Sampana, but the demands 3ere leftunheeded.

In an Order dated )2 =ebruary )*'',7 the Inte$rated /ar of the hilippines Commission on /ar Discipline"I/-C/D#, throu$h Commissioner !tty. Eldrid C. !nti4uiera "Commissioner !nti4uiera#, stated thatSampana failed to file his ans3er to the complaint and to appear durin$ the mandatory conference. Thus,both parties 3ere directed to submit their position papers.

In her position paper,9 Nery reiterated her alle$ations in the complaint.

On the other hand, in his position paper dated )2 arch )*'', 2 Sampana ar$ued that NeryBs alle$ations3ere self-servin$ and unsubstantiated. Ao3ever, Sampana admitted receivin$ one pac;a$e fee fromNery for both cases of annulment of marria$e and adoption. Sampana alle$ed that he initially fro3nedupon the proposed adoption because of the old a$e, civil status and nationality of the alien adopter, butNery insisted on bein$ adopted. Thus, Sampana su$$ested that if the JalienK adopter 3ould be married toa close relative of JNeryK, the intended Jadoption by an alienK could be possible. Sampana, then, re4uiredNery to submit the documents, includin$ the marria$e contracts and the certification of the alienBs4ualification to adopt from the &apanese Embassy "certification#. Nery furnished the blurred marria$econtract, but not the certification. Sampana alle$ed that he prepared the petition for adoption but did not

7/24/2019 BLE (J DIAZ) NO 1


file it because he 3as still 3aitin$ for the certification.

Sampana denied that he misled Nery as to the filin$ of the petition for adoption. Sampana claimed thatNery could have mista;en the proceedin$ for the annulment case 3ith the petition for adoption, and thatthe annulment case could have overshado3ed the adoption case. In any case, Sampana committed torefund the amount Nery paid him, after deductin$ his le$al services and actual e8penses.


In his Report and Recommendation,1 Commissioner !nti4uiera found Sampana $uilty of malpractice for ma;in$ Nery believe that he already filed the petition for adoption and for failin$ to file the petition despitereceivin$ his le$al fees. Thus, Commissioner !nti4uiera recommended a penalty of three "7# monthssuspension from the practice of la3.

In Resolution No. -)*'7-)'( passed on )* arch )*'7, the I/ /oard of ?overnors adopted andapproved Commissioner !nti4uieraBs report and recommendation, as follo3s@ChanRobles%irtuala3library

RESO:%ED to !DOT and !RO%E, as it is hereby unanimously !DOTED and !RO%ED, 3ithmodification, JtKhe Report and Recommendation of the Investi$atin$ Commissioner in the above-entitledcase, herein made part of this Resolution as !nne8 !, and findin$ the recommendation fully supported

by the evidence on record and the applicable la3s and rules and considerin$ that Respondent is $uilty of malpractice by his failure to file a petition for adoption and made complainant believe that he filed thepetition in Court, !tty. ?licerio Sampana is hereby SFSENDED from the practice of la3 for three "7#months and ORDERED to RETFRN to complainant the amount of One Aundred Thousand"'**,***.**# esos 3ith le$al interest 3ithin thirty days from receipt of notice.(

T5e R8:($; o9 %5e Co8r%

The recommendation of the I/ /oard of ?overnors is 3ell-ta;en, e8cept as to the penalty.

!cceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney-client relationship and $ives rise to the duty of fidelity to the clientBs cause.+ Every case accepted by a la3yer deserves full attention, dili$ence, s;ill andcompetence, re$ardless of importance.5 ! la3yer also o3es it to the court, their clients, and other la3yers

to be candid and fair.'* Thus, the Code of rofessional Responsibility clearlystates@ChanRobles%irtuala3library

C!NON '2 - ! la3yer shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealin$s and transactions 3ithhis client.

C!NON '1 - ! la3yer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into hispossession.

Rule '1.*7 - ! la3yer shall deliver the funds and property of his client 3hen due or upon demand. 8 8 8.

C!NON '( - ! la3yer o3es fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust andconfidence reposed in him.

C!NON '+ - ! la3yer shall serve his client 3ith competence and dili$ence.

Rule '+.*7 - ! la3yer shall not ne$lect a le$al matter entrusted to him and his ne$li$ence in connectionthere3ith shall render him liable.

In the present case, Sampana admitted that he received one pac;a$e fee for both cases of annulmentand adoption. Despite receivin$ this fee, he unustifiably failed to file the petition for adoption and fell shortof his duty of due dili$ence and candor to his client. SampanaBs proffered e8cuse of 3aitin$ for thecertification before filin$ the petition for adoption is disin$enuous and flimsy. In his position paper, he

7/24/2019 BLE (J DIAZ) NO 1


su$$ested to Nery that if the alien adopter 3ould be married to her close relative, the intended adoptioncould be possible. Fnder the Domestic !doption !ct provision, 3hich Sampana su$$ested, the alienadopter can ointly adopt a relative 3ithin the fourth de$ree of consan$uinity or affinity of his0her =ilipinospouse, and the certification of the alienBs 4ualification to adopt is 3aived.''crala3red

Aavin$ no valid reason not to file the petition for adoption, Sampana misinformed Nery of the status of thepetition. Ae then conceded that the annulment case overshado3ed the petition for adoption. %erily,Sampana ne$lected the le$al matter entrusted to him. Ae even ;ept the money $iven him, in violation of the CodeBs mandate to deliver the clientBs funds upon demand. ! la3yerBs failure to return upon demandthe funds held by him $ives rise to the presumption that he has appropriated the same for his o3n use, inviolation of the trust reposed in him by his client and of the public confidence in the le$alprofession.')crala3red

This is not the first administrative case filed a$ainst Sampana. In :isin$ v. Sampana, '7 3e already foundSampana $uilty of violatin$ Canon ' of the Code of rofessional Responsibility for his unethical andille$al act relative to his double sale of a parcel of land. e imposed upon him the penalty of suspensionfrom the practice of la3 for one "'# year and 3arned him that a repetition o% a similar act shall #e dealt with more severely.

In Rollon v. 0araval,'9 3e imposed upon the respondent therein the penalty of suspension from the

practice of la3 for t3o ")# years for failin$ to render any le$al service after receivin$ the filin$ and partialservice fee. Considerin$ the serious conse4uence of disbarment and the previous rulin$s of this Court,3e deem it proper to increase the penalty for SampanaBs malpractice and violation of the Code of rofessional Responsibility to suspension from the practice of la3 for three "7# years.

HEREFORE, 3e SUSPEN+ !tty. ?licerio !. Sampana from the practice of la3 for THREE 3! YEARS 3ith a stern 3arnin$ that a repetition of a similar act shall be dealt 3ith more severely. ealso OR+ER !tty. ?licerio !. Sampana to RETURN to complainant elody R. Nery the amount of OneAundred Thousand esos "'**,***.**#, 3ith ') interest per annum from the time of his receipt of thefull amount of money on '( November )**+ until 7* &une )*'7, then 1 interest per annum from ' &uly)*'7 until fully paid.

:et a copy of this resolution be furnished the /ar Confidant to be included in the records of the

respondent6 the Inte$rated /ar of the hilippines for distribution to all its chapters6 and the Office of theCourt !dministrator for dissemination to all courts throu$hout the country.


7/24/2019 BLE (J DIAZ) NO 1


A.C. No. /4/4 Se"%ember , 2014

PRESI+IN* >U+*E >OSE L. MA+RI+, RE*IONAL TRIAL COURT, RANCH =1, SORSO*ON

CITY,Complainant,

vs.

ATTY. >UAN S. +EALCA, Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

ERSAMIN, J.:

Complainant residin$ &ud$e of the Re$ional Trial Court has had enou$h of the respondent, a la3

practitioner, 3ho had en$a$ed in the unethical practice of filin$ frivolous administrative cases a$ainst

ud$es and personnel of the courts because the latter filed a motion to inhibit the complainant from

hearin$ a pendin$ case. Aence, the complainant has initiated this complaint for the disbarment of

respondent on the $round of $ross misconduct and $ross violation of the Code of rofessional

Responsibility.

!ntecedents

On =ebruary (, )**(, !tty. &uan S.Dealca entered his appearance in Criminal Case No. )**1-1(52,

entitled <eople of the hilippines v. hilip illiam !rsenault< then pendin$ in /ranch 2' of the Re$ional

Trial Court "RTC# in Sorso$on City, presided by complainant &ud$e &ose :. adrid. ' !tty. Dealca sou$ht

to replace !tty. %icente &udar 3ho had filed a motion to 3ithdra3 as counsel for the accused. /ut aside

from enterin$ his appearance as counsel for the accused, !tty. Dealca also moved that Criminal Case No.

)**1-1(52 be re-raffled to another /ranch of the RTC <JcKonsiderin$ the adverse incidents bet3een the

incumbent residin$ &ud$e and the undersi$ned,< 3here< he does not appear before the incumbent

residin$ &ud$e, and the latter does not also hear cases handled by the undersi$ned.<)

&ud$e adrid denied !tty. DealcaBs motion to re-raffle throu$h an order issued on =ebruary '9, )**(,7 vi@

8 8 8 8

This Court 3ill not allo3 that a case be removed from it ust because of the personal sentiments of

counsel 3ho 3as not even the ori$inal counsel of the liti$ant.

oreover, the motion of !tty. Dealca is an affront to the inte$rity of this Court and the other Courts in this

province as he3ould li;e it to appear that urisdiction over a =amily Court case is based on his 3himsical

dictates.

This 3as so because !tty. Dealca had filed !dministrative as 3ell as criminal cases a$ainst this residin$

&ud$e 3hich 3ere all dismissed by the Aon. Supreme Court for utter lac; ofmerit. This is 3hy he should

not have accepted this particular case so as not to derail the smooth proceedin$s in this Court 3ith his

baseless motions for inhibition. It is the la3yerBs duty to appear on behalf of a client in a case but not to

appear for a client to remove a case from the Court. This is unethical practice in the first order.

AERE=ORE, fore$oin$ considered, the otion of !tty. &uan S. Dealca is hereby DENIED. Relative to

the otion to ithdra3 as Counsel for the !ccused filed by !tty. %icente C. &udar dated &anuary )5,








7/24/2019 BLE (J DIAZ) NO 1


)**(, the same is hereby DENIED for bein$ violative of the provisions of Section )1 of Rule '7+ of the

Rules of Court.

So also, the !ppearance of !tty. &uan S. Dealca as ne3 counsel for accused hilip illiam !rsenault is

li;e3ise DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Conse4uently, &ud$e adrid filed a letter complaint9 in the Office of the /ar Confidant citin$ !tty.

DealcaBsunethical practice of enterin$ his appearance and then movin$ for the inhibition of the presidin$

ud$e on the prete8t of previous adverse incidents bet3een them.

On !pril '*, )**(, 3e treated the complaint as a re$ular administrative complaint, and re4uired !tty.

Dealca to submit his comment.2

In his comment-complaint,1 !tty. Dealca asserted that &ud$e adridBs issuance of the =ebruary '9, )**(

order unconstitutionally and unla3fully deprived the accused of the ri$ht to counsel, to due process, and

to a fair and impartial trial6 that &ud$e adrid e8hibited bias in failin$ to act on the motion to lift and setaside the 3arrant ofarrest issued a$ainst the accused6 and that it should be &ud$e adrid himself 3ho

should be disbarred and accordin$ly dismissed from the &udiciary for $ross i$norance of the la3.

On &uly '(, )**(, the Court referred the matter to the I/ for appropriate investi$ation,report and

recommendation.( Several months thereafter, the Court also indorsed pertinent documents in connection

3ith !.. OC! II No. *2-)7+2-RT&, entitled <&oseph Gap III v. &ud$e &ose :. adrid and Court

Steno$rapher erlynD. Domin$ue, both of the Re$ional Trial Court "RTC# /ranch 2', Sorso$on City<

"Gap v. &ud$e adrid#.+

On &une 1, )**(, the Court in Gap v. &ud$e adriddismissed for its lac; of merit the administrative

complaint a$ainst &ud$e adrid for alle$edly falsifyin$ the transcript of steno$raphic notes of the hearin$on arch 9, )**2 in Civil Case No. )**'-1+9) entitled &oseph D. Gap %, et al. v. &oseph A. Gap III, but

referred to the Inte$rated /ar of the hilippines "I/# for investi$ation, report and recommendation the

propensity of !tty. Dealca to file administrative or criminal complaints a$ainst ud$es and court personnel

3henever decisions, orders or processes 3ere issued adversely to him and his clients.5

In compliance 3ith the referral,the I/-Sorso$on Chapter submitted its report 3ith the follo3in$ findin$s

and recommendation@'*

8 8 8 8

The documentary evidence offered by complainants sho3 that respondent !tty. &uan S. Dealca filed by

himself "'# /ar atter No. ''5( and actin$ as counsel for the complainants ")# !dm. atter OC! II No.

*9-)''7-RT&6 "7# O/-:-C-*2-*9(+-E6"9# !dm. atter OC! II No. *2-)7+2-RT& and "2# !dm. atter

OC! II No. *2-)'5'-RT&. These five "2# cases are factual evidence of the cases that respondent had

filed by himself and as counsel for the complainants a$ainst court officers, ud$es and personnel as a

conse4uence of the I/ Election and incidents in cases that respondent had handled as counselfor the

parties in the said cases.

















7/24/2019 BLE (J DIAZ) NO 1


It 3ill be noted that in /ar atter No. ''5(, the respondents 3ere ud$es "&ud$e &ose :. adrid Q &ud$e

Aonesto !. %illamor# and la3yers in I/ Sorso$on Chapters, 3ho are no doubt officers of the court, and

the case aroused "sic# out ofthe unfavorable consensus of the I/ chapter members that 3as adverse to

the position of the respondent. The other four "9# cases aroused JsicK out of the cases handled by

respondent for the complainants 3ho failed to secure a favorable action from the court.

Specifically, !dm. atter OC! II No. *9-)''7-RT& 3as a result of the case before the sala of &ud$e &ose

:. adrid "RTC 2'# entitled <!lita . ?ome vs. Rodri$o &arabo, et al.,< for@ !ccion ubliciana and

Dama$es, that 3as handled by respondent for the complainant !lita ?ome. O/-:-C-*9(+-E 3as an off

shoot of Civil Case No. )**'-1+9) entitled <arilyn D. Gap, &oseph D. Gap %, et al., vs. &oseph A. Gap III<

for@ Support pendin$ before the sala ofcomplainant &ud$e &ose :. adrid "RTC 2'#. Respondent, after an

unfavorable decision a$ainst defendant &oseph A. Gap III, entered his appearance and pleaded for the

latter. !s a result of an adverse order, this ombudsman case arose.

!dministrative atter OC! II No. *2-)'5'-RT& 3as also a result of the Civil Case No. 29*7 entitled

<Salve Dealca :atosa vs. !tty. Aenry !mado Ro8as, 3ith Our :adyBs %illa$e =oundation and ost

Reverend !rnulfo !rcilla, DD as third party defendant that 3as heard, tried, decided and pendin$

e8ecution before the sala of &ud$e Aonesto !. %illamor "RTC 2)#.

!dministrative atter OC! II No. *2-)7+2-RT& 3as also a conse4uence of Civil Case No. )**'-1+9)

entitled <arilyn D. Gap, &oseph D. Gap %, et al., vs. &oseph A. Gap III< for Support pendin$ before the

sala of complainant &ud$e&ose :. adrid "RTC 2'#.

!ll these four "9# cases are precipitated by the adverse rulin$ rendered by the court a$ainst the clients of

the respondent that instead of resortin$ to the remedies available under the Rules of rocedure,

respondent assisted his clients in filin$ administrative and criminal case a$ainst the ud$es and personnel

of the court.

The other documentary evidence of the complainants such as the "a# %ERI=IED CO:!INT dated

arch (, )**7 in Civil Service Case entitled <EDN! ?OROSE-DE!:C! vs. &F:I!N!

ENCIN!SC!RINO, et al.6 "b# NOTICE O= RESO:FTION on October )), )**2 in !dm. Case No. 1779

entitled <SO=I!&!O vs. !TTG. EI=!NI! RF/G %E:!CRF>-OID!< passed by the /oard of?overnors of

the Inte$rated /ar of the hilippines 3hich Resolution No. %II-)**2-5) provides@ <RESO:%ED to

!DOT and !RO%E the Report and Recommendation of the Investi$atin$ Commissioner dismissin$

the case for lac;s "sic# merit6 "c# RESO:FTION of the Third Division of the Supreme Court dated

=ebruary ', )**1 in !dministrative Case No. 1779 "Sofia &ao vs. Epifania Ruby %elacru-Oida# M The

notice of resolution dated October )), )**2 ofthe Inte$rated /ar ofthe hilippines "I/# dismissin$ the

case for lac; of merit6 "d# %ERI=IED CO:!INT in !dm. Case No. 1779 dated =ebruary '(, )**9

entitled <Sofia &ao vs. !tty. Epifania Ruby %elacru-Oida< for@ alpractice "=orum Shoppin$#, and "e#

ORDER dated &anuary '+, )**( by !ctin$ residin$ &ud$e R!F: E. DE :EON in Criminal Cases Nos.

)92' to )929 entitled <eople of the hilippines vs. Cynthia arcial, et al. =or@ =alsification of edicalRecords< 3hich provides for the dismissal of the cases a$ainst all the accused, do not sho3 participation

on the part of the respondent that he si$ned the pleadin$s, althou$h the verified complaint is one

e8ecuted by the 3ife of the respondent. oreover, these cases are pertainin$ to persons other than

ud$es and personnel of the court that are not s4uarely covered by the present investi$ation a$ainst

respondent, althou$h, it is an undeniable fact that respondent had appeared for and in behalf of his 3ife,

the rest of the complainants in the Civil Service Case and Sofia &ao a$ainst :and /an; of the hilippines,

the latter case resulted in the administrative case of !tty. Epifania Ruby %elacru-Oida, respondentBs

7/24/2019 BLE (J DIAZ) NO 1


sister member of the /ar. !ll these documentary evidence from "a# to "e# are helpful in determinin$ the

<ROENSITG< of the respondent as a member of the bar in resortin$ to harassment cases instead of

$oin$ throu$h the procedures provided for by the Rules of Court in the event of adverse rulin$, order or

decision of the court.

8 8 8 8

AERE=ORE, it is most respectfully recommended that in vie3 of the above-fore$oin$s JsicK, a penalty

of SFSENSION in the practice of la3 for a period of si8 "1# monthsfrom finality of the decision be

ordered a$ainst respondent !tty. &uan S. Dealca.

=indin$s and Recommendation of the I/

I/ Commissioner Salvador /. Aababa$ ultimately submitted his Report and Recommendation '' findin$

!tty. Dealca $uilty of violatin$ the :a3yerBs Oath and the Code of rofessional Responsibility by filin$

frivolous administrative and criminalcomplaints6 and recommendin$ that !tty. Dealca be suspended from

the practice of la3 for one year because his motion to inhibit &ud$e adrid 3as devoid of factual or le$al

basis, and 3as $rounded on purely personal 3hims.

In Resolution No. %III-)**+-9',') the I/ /oard of ?overnors modified the recommendation and

dismissed the administrative complaint for its lac; of merit, thus@

RESO:%ED to !END, as it is hereby !ENDED, the Recommendation of the Investi$atin$

Commissioner, and !RO%E the DISISS!: of the above-entitled case for lac; of merit. &ud$e adrid

filed a petition,'7 3hich the I/ /oard of ?overnors treated as a motion for reconsideration, and soon

denied throu$h its Resolution No. -)*')-292.'9

Issues

"'# Did !tty. Dealca file frivolousadministrative and criminal complaints a$ainst ud$es and court

personnel in violation of the :a3yerBs Oath and the Code of rofessional Responsibility

")# as !tty. Dealca $uilty of unethical practice in see;in$ the inhibition of &ud$e adrid in

Criminal Case No. )**1-1(52

Rulin$ of the Court

e RE%ERSE Resolution No. -)*')-292.

I

!tty. Dealca must $uard a$ainst his o3n impulse of initiatin$ unfounded suits

!tty. Dealca insists on the propriety of the administrative and criminal cases he filed a$ainst ud$es and

court personnel, includin$ &ud$e adrid. Ae ar$ues that as a vi$ilant la3yer, he 3as duty bound to brin$

and prosecute cases a$ainst unscrupulous and corrupt ud$es and court personnel.'2

e see no merit in !tty. DealcaBs ar$uments.












7/24/2019 BLE (J DIAZ) NO 1


!lthou$h the Court al3ays admires members of the /ar 3ho are imbued 3ith a hi$h sense of vi$ilance to

3eed out from the &udiciary the undesirable ud$es and inefficient or undeservin$ court personnel, any

acts ta;en in that direction should be unsullied by any taint of insincerity or self interest. The noble cause

of cleansin$ the ran;s of the &udiciary is not advanced other3ise. It is for that reason that !tty. DealcaBs

complaint a$ainst &ud$e adrid has failed our udicious scrutiny, for the Court cannot find any trace of

idealism or altruismin the motivations for initiatin$ it. Instead, !tty. Dealca e8hibited his proclivity for

vindictiveness and penchant for harassment, considerin$ that, as I/ Commissioner Aababa$ pointed

out,'1 his brin$in$ of char$es a$ainst ud$es, court personnel and even his collea$ues in the :a3

rofession had all stemmed from decisions or rulin$s bein$ adverse to his clients or his side. Ae 3ell

;ne3, therefore, that he 3as thereby crossin$ the line of propriety, because neither vindictiveness nor

harassment could be a substitute for resortin$ tothe appropriate le$al remedies. Ae should no3 be

reminded that the aim of every la3suit should be to render ustice to the parties accordin$ to la3, not to

harass them.'(

The :a3yerBs Oath is a source ofobli$ations and duties for every la3yer, and any violation thereof by an

attorney constitutes a $round for disbarment, suspension, or other disciplinary action. '+ The oath e8horts

upon the members of the /ar not to <3ittin$ly or 3illin$ly promote or sue any $roundless, false or unla3ful

suit.< These are not mere facile 3ords, drift and hollo3, but a sacred trust that must be upheld and ;eepinviolable.'5

!s a la3yer, therefore, !tty. Dealca 3as a3are of his duty under his :a3yerBs Oath not to initiate

$roundless, false or unla3ful suits. The duty has also been e8pressly embodied inRule '.*7, Canon ' of

the Code of rofessional Responsibility thus3ise@

Rule '.*7 M ! la3yer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encoura$e any suit or proceedin$ or

delay any manBs cause.

Ais bein$ an officer of the court should have impelled him to see to it that the orderly administration of

ustice must not be unduly impeded. Indeed, as he must resist the 3hims and caprices ofhis clients and

temper his clientsB propensities to liti$ate,)* so must he e4ually $uard himself a$ainst his o3n impulses of

initiatin$ unfounded suits. hile it is the CourtBs duty to investi$ate and uncover the truth behindchar$es

a$ainst ud$es and la3yers, it is e4ually its duty to shield them from unfounded suits that are intended to

ve8 and harass them, amon$ other thin$s.)'

oreover, !tty. Dealca must be mindful of his mission to assist the courts in the proper administration of

ustice. Ae disre$arded his mission because his filin$ of the unfounded complaints, includin$ this one

a$ainst &ud$e adrid, increased the 3or;load of the &udiciary. !lthou$h no person should be penalied

for the e8ercise ofthe ri$ht to liti$ate, the ri$ht must nonetheless be e8ercised in $ood faith. )) !tty.

DealcaBs brin$in$ of the numerous administrative and criminal complaints a$ainst ud$es, court personnel

and his fello3 la3yers did not evince any $ood faith on his part, considerin$ that he made alle$ations

a$ainst them therein that he could not substantially prove, and are ri$htfully deemed frivolous andun3orthy of the CourtBs precious time and serious consideration.

Repeatedly denyin$ any 3ron$doin$ in filin$ the various complaints, !tty. Dealca had the temerity to

confront even the Court 3ith the follo3in$ arro$ant tirade, to 3it@

ith due respect, 3hat could be RON? 3as the summary dismissal of cases filed a$ainst errin$ ud$es

and court personnel for lac; of meritB, i.e. 3ithout even discussin$ the facts and the la3 of the case.)7



















7/24/2019 BLE (J DIAZ) NO 1


!tty. Dealca 3as apparently referrin$ to the minute resolutions the Court could have promul$ated in

fre4uently dismissin$ his unmeritorious petitions. Ais arro$ant posturin$ 3ould not advance his cause

no3. Ae thereby demonstrated his plain i$norance of the rules of procedure applicable to the Court.The

minute resolutions have been issued for the prompt dispatch of the actions by the Court. )9 henever the

Court then dismisses a petition for revie3 for its lac; of merit throu$h a minute resolution, it is understood

that the challen$ed decision or order, to$ether 3ith all its findin$s of fact and la3, is deemed sustained or

upheld,)2 and the minute resolution then constitutes the actual adudication on the merits of the case. The

dismissal of the petition, or itsdenial of due course indicates the CourtBs a$reement 3ith and its adoption

of the findin$s and conclusions of the court a 4uo.)1

The re4uirement for statin$ the facts and the la3 does not apply to the minute resolutions that the Court

issuesin disposin$ of a case. The Court e8plained 3hy in /orromeo v. Court of !ppeals@)(

The JSupremeK Court 8 8 8 disposes of the bul; of its cases by minute resolutions and decrees them as

final and e8ecutory, as 3here a case is patently 3ithout merit, 3here the issues raised are factual in

nature, 3here the decision appealed from is supported by substantial evidence and is in accord 3ith the

facts of the case and the applicable la3s, 3here it is clear from the records that the petition is filed merely

to forestall the early e8ecution of ud$ment and for non-compliance 3ith the rules. The resolution denyin$due course or dismissin$ the petition al3ays $ives the le$al basis.

8 8 8 8

The Court is not duty boundB to render si$ned Decisions all the time. It has ample discretion to formulate

Decisions and0or inute Resolutions, provided a le$al basis is $iven, dependin$ on its evaluation of a

case.

The constitutionality of the minute resolutions 3as the issue raised in Lomatsu Industries "hils.#, Inc. v.

Court of !ppeals.)+ The petitioner contended that the minute resolutions violated Section '9,)5 !rticle %III

of the Constitution. The Court, throu$h&ustice Re$alado, declared that resolutions 3ere not decisions

3ithinthe constitutional contemplation, for the former <merely hold that the petition for revie3 should not

be entertained and even ordinary la3yers have all this time so understood it6 and the petition to revie3 the

decisionof the Court of !ppeals is not a matter of ri$ht but of sound udicial discretion, hence there is no

need to fully e8plain the CourtBs denial since, for one thin$, the facts and the la3 are already mentioned in

the Court of !ppealBs decision.< It pointed out that the constitutional mandate 3as applicable only in cases

submitted for decision, i.e., $iven due course to and after the filin$ of briefs or memoranda and0or other

pleadin$s, but not 3here the petition 3as bein$ refused due course, 3ith the resolutions for that purpose

statin$ the le$al basis of the refusal. Thus, 3hen the Court, after deliberatin$ on the petition and the

subse4uent pleadin$s, decided to deny due course to the petition and stated that the 4uestions raised

3ere factual, or there 3as no reversible error in the lo3er courtBs decision, there 3as a sufficient

compliance 3ith the constitutional re4uirement.7*

II

!tty. Dealca violated Canon '' and Rule ''.*9 of the Code of rofessional Responsibility

!tty. Dealca maintains that &ud$e adrid should have <in $ood $race inhibited himself< upon his motion

toinhibit in order to preserve <confidence in the impartiality of the udiciary.< 7' Ao3ever, I/ Commissioner



















7/24/2019 BLE (J DIAZ) NO 1


Aababa$ has recommended that !tty. Dealca be sanctioned for filin$ the motion to inhibit considerin$ that

the motion, bein$ purely based on his personal 3hims, 3as bereft of factual and le$al bases.7)

The recommendation of I/ Commissioner Aababa$ is 3arranted.

:a3yers are licensed officers of the courts empo3ered to appear, prosecute and defend the le$al causes

for their clients. !s a conse4uence, peculiar duties, responsibilities and liabilities are devolved upon them

by la3. %erily, their membership in the /ar imposes certain obli$ations upon them.77

In this re$ard, Canon '' and Rule ''.*9 of the Code of rofessional Responsibility pertinently state@

Canon '' U ! la3yer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to the udicial officers

and should insist on similar conduct by others.

8 8 8 8

Rule ''.*9 U ! la3yer shall not attribute to a &ud$e motives not supported by the record or haveno

materiality to the case.1âwphi1

In li$ht of the fore$oin$ canons, all la3yers are bound to uphold the di$nity and authority of the courts,

and to promote confidence in the fair administration of ustice. It is the respect for the courts that

$uarantees the stability of the udicial institution6 else3ise, the institution 3ould be restin$ on a very sha;y

foundation.79

The motion to inhibit filed by !tty. Dealca contained the follo3in$ averment, to 3it@

Considerin$ the adverse incidents bet3een the incumbent residin$ &ud$e and the undersi$ned, he does

not appear before the incumbent residin$ &ud$e, andthe latter does not also hear cases handled by the

undersi$ned8 8 8.72

"/old emphasis supplied#

!tty. DealcaBs averment that &ud$e adrid did not hear cases bein$ handled by him directly insinuated

that ud$es could choose the cases they heard, and could refuse to hear the cases in 3hich hostility

e8isted bet3een the ud$es and the liti$ants or their counsel. Such averment, if true at all, should have

been assiduously substantiated by him because it put in bad li$ht not only &ud$e adrid but all ud$es in

$eneral. Get, he did not even include any particulars that could have validated the averment. Nor did he

attach any document to support it.

orth stressin$, too, is that the ri$ht of a party to see; the inhibition or dis4ualification of a ud$e 3ho

does not appear to be 3holly free, disinterested, impartial and independent in handlin$ the case must be

balanced 3ith the latterBs sacred duty to decide cases 3ithout fear of repression. Thus, it 3as incumbent

upon !tty. Dealca to establish by clear and convincin$ evidence the $round of bias and preudice in order

to dis4ualify &ud$e adrid from participatin$ in a particular trial in 3hich !tty. Dealca 3as participatin$ as

a counsel.71 The latterBs bare alle$ations of &ud$e adridBs partiality or hostility did not suffice,7( because

the presumption that &ud$e adrid 3ould underta;e his noble role to dispense ustice accordin$ to la3

and the evidence and 3ithout fear or favor should only be overcome by clear and convincin$ evidence to

the contrary.7+ !s such, !tty. Dealca clearly contravened his duties as a la3yer as e8pressly stated in

Canon '' and Rule ''.*9, supra.



















7/24/2019 BLE (J DIAZ) NO 1


On a final note, it cannot escape our attention that this is not the first administrative complaint to be ever

brou$ht a$ainst !tty. Dealca.1avvphi1 In ontano v. Inte$rated /ar of the hilippines, 75 3e reprimanded

him for violatin$ Canon )) and Rule )*.9, Canon )* of the Code of rofessional Responsibility, and

3arned him that a repetition of the same offense 3ould be dealt 3ith more severely. !ccordin$ly, based

on the penalties the Court imposed on errin$ la3yers found violatin$ Canon ', Rule '.*7, 9* and Canon '',

Rule ''.*99' of the Code, 3e deem appropriate to suspend !tty. Dealca from the practice of la3 for a

period one year. !CCORDIN?:G, the Court =INDS and DEC:!RES respondent !TTG. &F!N S. DE!:C!

?FI:TG of violatin$ Canon ', Rule '.*7 and Canon '', Rule ''. *9 of the Code of rofessional

Responsibility6 and SFSENDS him from the practice of la3 for one year effective from notice of this

decision, 3ith a STERN !RNIN? that any similar infraction in the future 3ill be dealt 3ith more severely.

:et copies of this decision be furnished to the Office of the /ar Confidant to be appended to !tty. Dealcas

personal record as an attorney6 to the Inte$rated /ar of the hilippines6 and to all courts in the country for

their information and $uidance.

SO ORDERED.









7/24/2019 BLE (J DIAZ) NO 1


A.M. No. P-13-3102 Se"%ember , 2014

@Former:' OCA I.P.I. No. 0/-2=62-P

>OSE S. )ILLANUE)A, Complainant,

vs.

ATTY. PAULINO I. SA*UYO+, C:erB o9 Co8r% )I, Re;(o$: Tr(: Co8r%, r$5 6, P$(8(,

Tr:, Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

PERALTA, J.:

This resolves the Complaint' dated arch )7, )**( filed by &ose S. %illanueva a$ainst !tty. aulino I.

Sa$uyod, Cler; of Court %I, /ranch 1(, Re$ional Trial Court "RTC#, ani4ui, Tarlac char$in$ the latter 3ith

violations of the Code of Conduct for Court ersonnel and of Section 9 "e#, Republic !ct "R!# No. 1('7,

other3ise ;no3n as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for ublic Officials and Employees.

The facts, as found by the Office of the Court !dministrator "OC!#, follo3.

Complainant alle$ed as follo3s@

8 8 8 on =ebruary )*, )**(, he received a te8t messa$e from !tty. :aveares :eomo, his employer,

instructin$ him to $et a certified photocopy of a etition relative to:and Case No. *2'-*1 entitled <etition

for the Issuance of a Second O3nerBs Duplicate Copy of Transfer Certificate of Title "TCT# of !rnel D.

orales.< On or about +@92 in the mornin$ of that same day, s.Rosalie D. Sarsa$at, the assi$ned

steno$rapher of the same court, advised him to return after thirty minutes because the custodian of the

records is not yet around. Immediately follo3in$ the lapse of that period, complainant 3as informed that

the records bein$ re4uested 3ere in the custody of respondent but must tal; to his 3ife, rs. &udith

Sa$uyod, in order to secure the re4uested pleadin$. Complainant found out that respondentBs 3ifeli;e3ise holds office in the room of respondent althou$h she is not an employee of the said court.

Complainant alle$es that 3hen he respectfully as;ed for a photocopy of the pleadin$, respondent in4uired

3hether he has a Special o3er of !ttorney authoriin$ him to $et such photocopy. Complainant sho3ed

him the te8t messa$e he received from !tty. :eomo. Ao3ever, respondentBs 3ife interrupted them and

called a certain person at the Re$ister of Deeds of Tarlac 3hom she as;ed 3hether complainant is

allo3ed to be $iven a copy of the etition bein$ re4uested. !t the end of their conversation, the 3ife said,

<Au3a$ ;a ra3 namin$ bibi$yan n$ ;opya n$ etition ni !rnel D. orales.<

In the course of their dialo$ue, respondent told complainant@ <inalusot ;o na n$a yun$ pinitisyon mon$

apat "9# na loss "sic# title, $aniyan ;a pa ma;ipa$-usap sa amin.< Complainant ans3ered bac; and said,

<!non$ ;inalaman, Sir, noon$ pinitisyon ;on$ loss "sic# title, eh iniutos sa a;in n$ boss ;o na i;uha ;osiya n$ ;opya n$ certified photocopy, at 3ala naman po a;on$ ile$al na transaction na $ina3a.< Fpon

hearin$ this reply, respondent stood up in his chair and challen$ed complainant to a fistfi$ht 3hile

shoutin$ this "sic# 3ords@ <unyeta ;aV ayaban$ ;a. !no lalaban ;a.< Complainant calmly said, <Di a;o

lalaban, !ttorney, ;un$ aya3 mon$ ma$bi$ay n$ ;opya. Gon na lan$ sasabihin ;o ;ay !tty. :eomo.<

Respondent an$rily told complainant, <Tarantado ;a. ayaban$ ;a. Di moa;o ;ilala ;un$ sino a;o dito.<

Complainant politely replied, <!lam ;o po na i;a3 an$ Cler; of Court dito.<

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/am_p-13-3102_2014.html#fnt1



7/24/2019 BLE (J DIAZ) NO 1


In order to avoid further ar$uments, complainant 3ent out of the room and proceeded to the par;in$ area.

Respondent bloc;ed his 3ay and shouted, <Ta$a ani4ui ;a, ta$a %ictoria a;o. Suntu;an na lan$ tayo.<

Complainant replied, <Aindi a;o lalaban saByo, !ttorney.< Respondent retorted, <Sino an$ pina$mamala;i

mo, si !tty. :eomo, shit sino ba siya dito< Complainant ans3ered him, <ala a;on$ ipina$mamala;i,

!ttorney. Siya lan$ an$ na$-utos sa a;in para ;umuha n$ ;opya n$ petition ni r. !rnel orales.<

Complainant realied that thisboorish attitude displayed by respondent 3as an act of ven$eance because

he failed to $ive the balance of One Thousand =ive Aundred esos "',2**.**# as payment for the

Certificate of =inality he issued relative to :and Case Nos. *)'-*1 and *)*-*1. !pparently, the four "9#

lost titles 3hich respondent is referrin$ 3hen he said, <pinalusot lan$ niya ito< pertains to the land case he

initiated by virtue of the Special o3er of !ttorney $iven to him by rs. Charlotte !ntaran. The said

etitionhad not been acted upon for nine months from the time it 3as filed on ay )1, )**1 even thou$h

there is a residin$ &ud$e 3ho 3ill si$n the Order commandin$ the Re$ister of Deeds of Tarlac to issue

the o3nerBs duplicate certificate of title. hen complainant follo3ed up the issuance of such Order 3ith

rs. Rosalie Sarsa$at, the latter ans3ered, <Aindi pipirmahan ni !tty. Sa$uyod an$ Certificate of =inality

;apa$ hindi;a na$bayad n$ tatlon$ libon$ piso "7,***.**#.< To prevent further delay of the release of the

Order, complainant $ave an advance payment One Thousand =ive Aundred esos and promised to pay

the remainin$ balance later. Respondent Cler; of Court replied an$rily, <arami na a;on$ narini$ napan$a;on$ $anyan pero di na bumabali; para ma$bayad.< Complainant ans3ered him <lease, lan$

!ttorney, $ive me a chance.< Respondent Cler; of Court stood up and said, <Si$uruhin mo lan$. Si$e,

$a$a3in ;o na. !ntayin mo na lan$.< !fter thirty minutes, s. Rosalie D. Sarsa$at handed the Certificate

of =inality and Order dated &anuary 2, )**(, duly si$ned by &ud$e !rsenio . !driano. !utomatically,

complainant paid One Thousand =ive Aundred esos to rs. Rosalie D. Sarsa$at and demanded for a

receipt but the latter replied that a receipt is not bein$ issued in this ;ind of transaction. She further

retorted, <?usto mo ban$ ba3iin pa ni !tty. Sa$uyod an$ m$a do;umenton$ yan<

Such acts of respondent contravened Section 9"e# of R.!. 1('7 and Section ), Canon I% of the Ne3

Codeof Conduct for Court ersonnel. Complainant also claims that respondent violated Section 9, Canon

I of the Code of Conduct for Court ersonnel 3hen he allo3ed his 3ife to use the Office of the Cler; of

Court as the office of her real estate transaction. Complainant posits that in this scenario a conflict mi$ht

arise bet3een respondentBs official duty and his 3ifeBs business dealin$s.

JIn his Comment dated !pril )(, )**(, respondent denied the char$es a$ainst him and claimed that@K

8 8 8 he did not $ive a copy of the etition bein$ re4uested because complainant did not present a

Special o3er of !ttorney sho3in$ his purpose and authority to $et such photocopy. Ae could not rely on

the te8t messa$e received by complainant because he doesnBt ;no3 the phone number of !tty. :eomo. In

fact, it is the policy of the court to re4uire a 3ritten authority 3henever a similar re4uest is made. To his

dismay, ho3ever, complainant ans3ered bac;, <E, di sasabihin ;o ;ay !tty. :eomo na aya3 mo. Eto n$a

yun$ te8t niya.< Fpon seein$ respondentBs 3ife 3ho happened to drop by his office to remind him to pic;

up their dau$hter from school, complainant rudely said, <or;e ba ha3a; n$ asa3a mo yan ;aya aya3mon$ ma$bi$ay.< Seein$ that his 3ife 3as offended, he patted and pushed complainant and emphatically

said, <ati babae pinapatulan mo.<

!ccordin$ to the $uard on duty, complainant continued to hurl threatenin$ 3ords a$ainst him even 3hen

he 3as already outside the buildin$. The $uard reported the matter to him, hence, he 3ent outside to

confront JtheK complainant. !t that moment, complainant said to him, <Dayo ;a lan$ dito sa ani4ui< to

7/24/2019 BLE (J DIAZ) NO 1


3hich respondent Cler; of Court replied, <E ano n$ayon ;un$ ta$a-ani4ui ;a at ta$a-%ictoria a;o<

Nonetheless, to avoid any unto3ard incident, he returned to his office.

Respondent denies that his 3ife holds office in the Office of the Cler; of Court. Ae points out that

complainant has no evidence to prove such char$e. Ae e8plains that on thatday, his 3ife had ust passed

by his office to tell him to fetch their seven-year old dau$hter from school. !lthou$h he admits that once in

a 3hile, his 3ife 3ould drop by his office to see and tal; to him M an act that is not prohibited by any la3,

rules or re$ulations. Respondent alsoclarifies that his 3ifeis not a real estate a$ent but only a person 3ho

facilitates the processin$ and transfer of certificates of title of subdivision lots. Aence, his 3ifehas nothin$

to do 3ith his refusal to $ive complainant a copy of the petition.

Respondent e8plains that :and Case No. *)'-*1 and *))-*1 3ere approved only after nine months from

the time they 3ere filed because then &ud$e Cesar . Sotero retired on "sic# =ebruary )**1, 3hile &ud$e

!rsenio . !driano 3ho succeeded him assumed his office as residin$ &ud$e of Re$ional Trial Court

"RTC#, /ranch 17, Tarlac City only on "sic# September )**1. oreover, complainant 3as also re4uired by

the court to present other supportin$ documents li;e the ori$inal copy of the Deed of !bsolute Sale in his

etition.

Respondent admits that he instructed Rosalie Sarsa$at to tell complainant that he has to pay the proper

fees for reception of evidence as re4uired under Section )'"e#, Rule '9' of the Rules of Court and the

Department of &ustice "DO&#. Ae did not personally as; complainant to pay those fees because the latter

mi$ht misconstrue it and use it a$ainst him.)

In a Resolution7 dated October ', )**(, the Court referred the instant administrative complaint to the

E8ecutive &ud$e of the RTC of ani4ui, Tarlac for investi$ation,report and recommendation. =orth3ith, the

records of the case 3ere transmitted to E8ecutive &ud$e :iberty O. CastaWeda in a letter 9 dated

November 5, )**(.

In her Reports and =indin$s2 dated arch )1, )*'', &ud$e CastaWeda recommended that the complaint

a$ainst respondent be dismissed for lac; of merit.

Ao3ever, in a Resolution1 dated September '), )*'', the Court nullified &ud$e CastaWedaBs Reports and

=indin$s, considerin$ that she made the same 3hile she 3as under preventive suspension from office.

Thus, the Court referred the administrative complaint to !ctin$ residin$ &ud$e !lipio C. Gumul, /ranch

1(, ani4ui, Tarlac for investi$ation, report and recommendation.(

In his Report+ dated =ebruary (, )*'), &ud$e Gumul recommended that the case be dismissed.

In a Resolution5 dated &une '+, )*'), the Court referred said Report to the OC! for evaluation, report and

recommendation.

In its emorandum'* dated October 2, )*'), the OC! recommended as follo3s@

IN %IE O= TAE =ORE?OIN?, it is respectfully recommended to the Aonorable Court that@

'. the present administrative case a$ainst respondent !tty. aulino I. Sa$uyod, Cler; of Court %I,

/ranch 1(, Re$ional Trial Court, ani4ui, Tarlac be RE-DOCLETED as a re$ular administrative

matter@ and,





















7/24/2019 BLE (J DIAZ) NO 1


). respondent be@ "a# !DONISAED for %iolation of the Code of Conduct for Court ersonnel

and of Section 9"e# of Republic !ct No. 1('7, other3ise ;no3n as the Code of Ethics for ublic

Officials and Employees, and !RNED that a repetition of JtheK same or similar act 3ill be dealt

3ith severely in the future6 and, "b# SFSENDED from the service for one "'# month and one "'#

day for simple misconduct for demandin$ from complainant the amount of 7,***.** as

commissionerBs fee and appearance fee in :and Case Nos. *)'-*1 and *)*-*1.''

The issues for our resolution are@

a. 3hether or not respondent indirectly demanded and received from complainant an amount of

Three Thousand esos "7,***.**# for the issuance of the Certificate of =inality6

b. 3hether or not respondentBs receipt of commissionerBs fee for reception of evidence is le$al

and proper6

c. 3hether or not respondent e8tended prompt and courteous service to complainant 3hen the

latter re4uested for a photocopy of a certain pleadin$6 and

d. 3hether or not the 3ife of respondent holds officein the Office of the Cler; of Court.')

:et us discuss the issues in seriatim.

The first and second issues shall bediscussed ointly as they are interrelated.

In his Comment, respondent claimed that he should be e8onerated from the char$es a$ainst him since

the amount he demanded from complainant for the release of the Certificate of =inality relative to :and

Case Nos. *)'-*1 and *)*-*1 covers the appearance fee re4uired under pertinent circulars of the

Department of &ustice "DO&# and the commissionerBs fee under Section )'"e#, Rule '9' of the Rules of

Court.

e do not a$ree.

To be$in 3ith, cler;s of court are important officers in the udicial system. Their administrative functionsare

vital to the prompt and sound administration of ustice. They cannot be allo3ed to overstep their po3ers

and responsibilities. Their office is the hub of adudicative and administrative orders, processes and

udicial concerns. They perform a very delicate function as custodian of the courtBs funds, revenues,

records, property and premises. They are specifically imbued 3ith the mandate to safe$uard the inte$rity

of the court as 3ell as the efficiency of its proceedin$s, and to uphold the confidence of the public in the

administration of ustice. !s such, this Court cannotcountenance any act or omission of any court

personnel that 3ould violate the norm of public accountability and diminish the faith of the people in the

&udiciary.'7

Aere, it appears that respondent 3ent beyond his responsibilities 3hen he demanded the payment

of 7,***.** from complainant. Such act violates Chapter %I, Section D, par. '.).') of the )**) Revised

anual for Cler;s of Court 3hich states that branch cler;s of court 3ho are directed by the ud$e to

receive evidence e8 parteshall not demand and0orreceive commissionerBs fees. In fact, only the amount

of 2**.** may be collected pursuant to Section )'"e#, Rule '9' of the Rules of Court.








7/24/2019 BLE (J DIAZ) NO 1


Time and a$ain, 3e have held that cler;s of court are not authoried to demand and0or receive

commissionerBs fees for reception of evidence e8 parte.'9 To be entitled to reasonable compensation, a

commissioner must not be an employee of the court. Section D "(#, Chapter I% of the anual for Cler;s of

Court provides that <The Court shall allo3 the commissioner, other than an employee of the court, such

reasonable compensation as the circumstances of the case 3arrant to beta8ed as costs a$ainst the

defeated party, or apportioned, as ustice re4uires.<'2

!ccordin$ly, respondent, as a court employee, has no authority to demand or receive any commissionerBs

fee.

Thus, the OC! aptly held that, assuch, respondent should be held liable for simple misconduct 3hich is

punishable under Section 2)"/#, Rule I% of the Revised Fniform Rules on !dministrative Cases in the

Civil Service, 3ith a penalty of suspension from one "'# month and one "'# day to si8 "1# months for a first

offense of misconduct. Considerin$ that this is respondentBs first infraction, the penaltyof three "7# months

3ould suffice.

!nent the third issue, the OC! properly observed@

Records sho3ed that complainant 3ent to /ranch 1(, RTC, Jani4uiK, Tarlac on =ebruary )*, )**(, 3ith

only a te8t messa$e from !tty. :aveares :eomo, to secure a certified photocopy of a petition relative to

:and Case No. *2'-*1. Respondent advised complainant to secure a letter re4uest from !tty. :eomo

because it 3as the policy of the court to provide court documents only to parties to the case and their

counsel or duly authoried representatives. The te8t messa$e from !tty. :eomo 3as not the official

re4uest re4uired by the court and respondentBs refusal to provide complainant the re4uested documents

3as proper to protect the inte$rity of court records. Court records are public documents and access to

these documents shall be afforded the citiens, subect to certain limitations provided by la3.

It must be emphasied that !tty. :eomo 3as provided 3ith the re4uested documents 3hen he personally

3ent to the court and e8plained that he needed a copy of the etition in :and Case No. *2'-*1, includin$

its anne8es, particularly the !ffidavit of :oss and the =inality of the Decision because his client, Nelita S.

Navarro, intended to file an opposition to the petition. This only sho3ed that upon formal re4uest,

respondent 3ill not hesitate toprovide court documents. Respondent, ho3ever, may be heldliable for

conduct unbecomin$ a court employee for his attitude to3ards complainant. It appears from a readin$ of

the transcript of steno$raphic notes that complainant became rude 3hen respondent turned do3n his

re4uest to $et a photocopy of the petition and other court documents. Ronaldo . David and Ruben

?i$anti, court employees, both testified that complainant shouted and pointed a fin$er at respondent

3hen he re4uested for the documents. To avoid confrontation, respondent called for themto escort

complainant out of the office. Complainant continued shoutin$ invectives, hence, respondent upon bein$

informed of complainantBs behavior, 3ent outand confronted complainant. It 3as at this moment 3hen

Danilo Dacoma, a friend of complainant, sa3 a person 3earin$ baron$ "referrin$ to respondent#

reprimandin$ complainant and sayin$ <I am from %ictoria, you youBre here in ani4ui, if you li;e 3e ustbo8 each other.<'1

=rom the fore$oin$, it is obvious that complainant and respondent had a heated ar$ument on =ebruary

)*, )**(.1âwphi1Thus, althou$h complainantBs actions are reprehensible, it 3as e4ually inappropriate for

respondent to have handled the situation that 3ay considerin$ that he is a court officer.








7/24/2019 BLE (J DIAZ) NO 1


The Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for ublic Officers and Employees "Republic !ct No. 1('7#

sets out a policy to3ards promotin$ a hi$h standard of ethical responsibility inthe public service. It enoins

those in the $overnment service to e8tend prompt, courteous and ade4uate service to the public, and, at

all times, to respect the ri$hts of others and refrain from doin$ acts contrary to la3, $ood morals and $ood

customs, amon$ other ideals.'( !s a public officer, respondent is bound, in the performance of his official

duties, to observe courtesy, civility and self-restraint in his dealin$s 3ith the public.'+

Re$rettably, althou$h respondentBsreaction 3as understandable $iven the circumstances, he should have

still conducted himself in a manner befittin$ an officer of the court. =or this, respondent is admonished

and 3arned to be more courteous inhis dealin$s 3ith the public.

!s to the fourth issue, no evidence 3as presented to prove that respondentBs 3ife holds office at the

Office of the Cler; of Court. er &ud$e GumulBs findin$s, respondentBs claim that his 3ife only dropped by

his office to remind him to fetch their dau$hter from school 3as not even repudiated by complainant.

In vie3 of the fore$oin$, 3e a$ree 3ith the OC!Bs findin$s and recommendations. AERE=ORE,

premises considered, respondent is hereby SFSENDED from the service for a period of three "7#

months for SI:E ISCONDFCT, for demandin$ from complainant the amount of 7,***.** ascommissionerBs fee and appearance fee, in :and Case Nos. *)'-*1 and *)*-*1. Respondent, is

li;e3ise, !DONISAED for %iolatin$ the Code of Conduct for Court ersonnel and of Section 9"e#,

Republic !ct No. 1('7, and STERN:G !RNED that a repetition of the same or similar act 3ill be dealt

3ith more severely in the future.

SO ORDERED.






7/24/2019 BLE (J DIAZ) NO 1


IMEL+A CATO *A++I, Complainant , v. ATTY. LOPE M. )ELASCO, Respondent .

R E S O L U T I O N

CARPIO, ACTIN* C.J.

T5e C#e

/efore us is an administrative complaint filed by Imelda Cato ?addi "?addi# a$ainst !tty. :ope . %elasco"%elasco# for violation of the )**9 Rules on Notarial ractice.

T5e F%#

!ccordin$ to ?addi, she 3as the Operations and !ccountin$ ana$er of the /ert :oada S3immin$School "/:SS# 3hen she broached the idea of openin$ a branch of /:SS in Solano, Nueva %icaya"/:SS in Solano# to !n$elo :oada "!n$elo#, the Chief Operations Officer of /:SS. /elievin$ that !n$eloa$reed, ?addi opened a /:SS in Solano. Ao3ever, in !pril )*'*, !n$elo informed the mana$ement thathe did not authorie a /:SS in Solano. Fpon !n$eloBs complaint, the police officers apprehended the

s3immin$ instructors of /:SS in Solano, namely@ &onathan :a$amon :oare, Latherine !$atha ?addi !ncheta, 3ho is ?addiBs niece, and :oren Ocampo ?addi, 3ho is ?addiBs $randson.

!t past '*@** a.m. of )) !pril )*'*, 3hile inside the /:SS main office in Sta. !na, anila, ?addi 3asinformed of the apprehension of the s3immin$ instructors. orried, ?addi pleaded 3ith !n$eloBs 3ife,Lristina arie, and the /:SS ro$rams ana$er !lea ?arcia for permission to leave the office andproceed to Nueva %icaya. Instead of accedin$ to her plea, they commanded ?addi to ma;e ahand3ritten admission' that the /:SS in Solano 3as unauthoried. They 3arned ?addi that she cannotleave the office 3ithout the hand3ritten admission. Thus, ?addi conceded in doin$ the hand3rittenadmission and left the office before '@** p.m. of the same day. Subse4uently, ?addi found out that !n$elofiled a complaint a$ainst her re$ardin$ the /:SS in Solano usin$ her hand3ritten admission, 3hich 3asalready notaried by %elasco.

Thus, ?addi filed the present complaint a$ainst %elasco for violation of the )**9 Rules on Notarialractice, specifically Rule I%, Section ) "b# and Rule %I, Section 7. ?addi denied that she personallyappeared before %elasco to have her hand3ritten admission notaried. She alle$ed that she did notconsent to its notariation nor did she personally ;no3 him, $ive any competent evidence of identity or si$n the notarial re$ister.

In his comment dated '( September )*'*,) %elasco alle$ed that he 3as commissioned notary public for a;ati City from 9 &anuary )*'* to 7' December )*''. Ae alle$ed that ?addi appeared before him in hisnotarial office in a;ati City on )) !pril )*'* and re4uested for the notariation of a four-pa$ehand3ritten document. Ae ascertained ?addiBs identity, throu$h t3o identification cards M her /:SS IDand Ta8 Identification Number "TIN# ID, and that the document 3as her o3n. Thereafter, he notaried thedocument and recorded it in his notarial re$ister as Doc. No. '7*, a$e No. )(, /oo; No. '5), Series of )*'*. %elasco insisted that he duly complied 3ith the )**9 Rules on Notarial ractice and it 3as ?addiBs

complaint, 3hich 3as notaried by a fa;e notary public. %elasco claimed that ?addi only denied havin$the document notaried 3hen she found out that !n$elo used the document a$ainst her.

In a Resolution dated '+ October )*'*,7 the Court referred the case to the Inte$rated /ar of thehilippines "I/# for investi$ation, report and recommendation.


In a Report and Recommendation dated )7 &une )*'',9 Investi$atin$ Commissioner ablo S. Castillo"Investi$atin$ Commissioner# found the complaint impressed 3ith merit, and recommended a penalty of

7/24/2019 BLE (J DIAZ) NO 1


fine of 2,***.** on %elasco for violation of Rule I%, Section )"b# and Rule %I, Section 7 of the )**9Rules on Notarial ractice.

The Investi$atin$ Commissioner $ave more credence to ?addiBs statement that she did not personallyappear before %elasco to have her hand3ritten admission notaried. The Investi$atin$ Commissioner found it contradictory to lo$ic and human e8perience that ?addi 3ent first to a;ati City to have her self-incriminatin$ hand3ritten admission notaried before proceedin$ to Nueva %icaya. The Investi$atin$Commissioner also believed ?addiBs statement that the identification cards presented by %elasco 3erecomputer-$enerated from the /:SS office, since the portion of the notarial certificate listin$ the evidenceof identity 3as left blan;. !s to %elascoBs claim that ?addiBs complaint had a fa;e notary public, theInvesti$atin$ Commissioner found it unsubstantiated.

In Resolution No. -)*'7-')(2 passed on '7 =ebruary )*'7, the I/ /oard of ?overnors adopted andapproved the Investi$atin$ CommissionerBs report and recommendation, to3it@ChanRobles%irtuala3library

RESO:%ED to !DOT and !RO%E, as it is hereby unanimously !DOTED and !RO%ED, 3ithmodification, the Report and Recommendation of the Investi$atin$ Commissioner in the above-entitledcase, herein made part of this Resolution as !nne8 !, and findin$ the recommendation fully supportedby the evidence on record and the applicable la3s and rules, and for violation of Rule I%, Sec. J)"b# and

Rule %I, Sec.K 7 of the )**9 Rules on Notarial ractice, !tty. :ope . %elascoBs Notarial Commission ishereby RE%OLED and DISHF!:I=IED for bein$ Commissioned as Notary ublic for t3o ")# years 3ithstern J3Karnin$ to be more circumspect in his dealin$ and that repetition of the same act shall be dealt3ith more severely.

There 3as no motion for reconsideration filed.

T5e R8:($; o9 %5e Co8r%

e sustain the findin$s of the I/ and adopt its recommendations 3ith modification.

Time and a$ain, 3e have reminded la3yers commissioned as notaries public that notariation is not anempty, meanin$less, and routinary act.1 Notariation converts a private document to a public document,

ma;in$ it admissible in evidence 3ithout further proof of its authenticity.( ! notarial document is, by la3,entitled to full faith and credit upon its face6 for this reason, notaries public must observe 3ith utmost carethe basic re4uirements in the performance of their duties.+crala3red

The )**9 Rules on Notarial ractice provides that a notary public should not notarie a document unlessthe si$natory to the document is in the notaryBs presence personally at the time of the notariation, andpersonally ;no3n to the notary public or other3ise identified throu$h competent evidence of identity. 5 !tthe time of notariation, the si$natory shall si$n or affi8 3ith a thumb or mar; the notary publicBs notarialre$ister.'* The purpose of these re4uirements is to enable the notary public to verify the $enuineness of the si$nature and to ascertain that the document is the si$natoryBs free act and deed. '' If the si$natory isnot actin$ of his or her o3n free 3ill, a notary public is mandated to refuse to perform a notarial act. ') !notary public is also prohibited from affi8in$ an official si$nature or seal on a notarial certificate that isincomplete.'7crala3red

In the present case, contrary to %elascoBs claim that ?addi appeared before him and presented t3oidentification cards as proof of her identity, the notarial certificate, in rubber stamp, itself indicates@SF/SCRI/E !ND SORN TO /E=ORE E TAIS !R )), )*'* 8 8 8 !T !L!TI CITG. !==I!NTEAI/ITIN? TO E AIS0AER C.T.C. NO.XXXXXXXXXXISSFED !T0ONXXXXXXXXXXX.'9 The unfilledspaces clearly establish that %elasco had been remiss in his duty of ascertainin$ the identity of thesi$natory to the document. %elasco did not comply 3ith the most basic function that a notary public mustdo, that is, to re4uire the presence of ?addi6 other3ise, he could have ascertained that the hand3rittenadmission 3as e8ecuted involuntarily and refused to notarie the document. =urthermore, %elasco affi8edhis si$nature in an incomplete notarial certificate. %elasco did not even present his notarial re$ister to

7/24/2019 BLE (J DIAZ) NO 1


rebut ?addiBs alle$ations. It is presumed that evidence 3illfully suppressed 3ould be adverse if produced.'2crala3red

In Isenhardt v. Real ,'1 a notary public 3ho failed to dischar$e his duties 3as meted out the penalty of revocation of his notarial commission, dis4ualification from bein$ commissioned as a notary public for aperiod of t3o years, and suspension from the practice of la3 for one year. =or notariin$ a document3ithout ascertainin$ the identity and voluntariness of the si$natory to the document, for affi8in$ hissi$nature in an incomplete notarial certificate, and for dishonesty in his pleadin$s, %elasco failed todischar$e his duties as notary public and breached Canon ' '( and Rule '.*''+ of the Code of rofessionalResponsibility. Considerin$ these findin$s and our previous rulin$s,'5 %elasco should not only bedis4ualified for t3o years as a notary public, he must also be suspended from the practice of la3 for oneyear.

HEREFORE, the Court finds respondent !tty. :ope . %elasco *UILTY of violatin$ the )**9 Rules onNotarial ractice and the Code of rofessional Responsibility. !ccordin$ly, the Court SUSPEN+Shimfrom the practice of la3 for one year, RE%OLES his incumbent notarial commission, if any,andPROHIITS him from bein$ commissioned as a notary public for t3o years, effective immediately,3ith a stern 3arnin$ that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt 3ith more severely.

:et copies of this Resolution be furnished the Office of the /ar Confidant, to be appended to respondentBs

personal record as attorney. :i;e3ise, copies shall be furnished to the Inte$rated /ar of the hilippinesand all courts in the country for their information and $uidance.
