CANON 9 - 12 pale cases

8/9/2019 CANON 9 - 12 pale cases

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/canon-9-12-pale-cases 1/104

CANON 9

Adm. Case No. 6290 July 14, 2004

ANA MARIE CAMBALIZA, complainant,vs.ATT. ANA L!Z B. CRI"TAL#TENORIO, respondent.

R E S O L U T I O N

$A%I$E, JR., C.J.:

In a verified complaint for disbarment filed with the ommittee on !ar "iscipline of the Inte#rated !ar of the $hilippines %I!$& on '( )a* +(((, complainant na )arie ambali-a, a former emplo*ee ofrespondent tt*. na L- !. ristal/Tenorio in her law office, char#ed the latter with deceit, #rossl*immoral condct, and malpractice or other #ross miscondct in office.

On deceit, the complainant alle#ed that the respondent has been falsel* representin# herself to bemarried to 0elicisimo R. Tenorio, 1r., who has a prior and sbsistin# marria#e with another woman.2owever, thro#h sprios means, the respondent and 0elicisimo R. Tenorio, 1r., were able to obtaina false marria#e contract,3which states that the* were married on 3( 0ebrar* 345( in )anila.ertifications from the ivil Re#istr* of )anila+and the National Statistics Office %NSO&' prove that norecord of marria#e e6ists between them. The false date and place of marria#e between the two arestated in the birth certificates of their two children, "onnabel Tenorio7and 0elicisimo Tenorio III.8 !t

in the birth certificates of their two other children, Oliver Tenorio9 and 1ohn edric Tenorio, anotherdate and place of marria#e are indicated, namel*, 3+ 0ebrar* 345( in )ala*bala*, !;idnon.

s to #rossl* immoral condct, the complainant alle#ed that the respondent cased thedissemination to the pblic of a libelos affidavit dero#ator* to )a;ati it* oncilor "ivina lora1acome. The respondent wold often openl* and sarcasticall* declare to the complainant and herco/emplo*ees the alle#ed immoralit* of oncilor 1acome.

On malpractice or other #ross miscondct in office, the complainant alle#ed that the respondent %3&cooperated in the ille#al practice of law b* her hsband, who is not a member of the $hilippine !ar<%+& converted her client=s mone* to her own se and benefit, which led to the filin# of an estafa casea#ainst her< and %'& threatened the complainant and her famil* on +7 1anar* +((( with the

statement >Isang bala ka lang > to deter them from divl#in# respondent=s ille#al activities andtransactions.

In her answer, the respondent denied all the alle#ations a#ainst her. s to the char#e of deceit, shedeclared that she is le#all* married to 0elicisimo R. Tenorio, 1r. The* were married on 3+ 0ebrar*345( as shown b* their ertificate of )arria#e, Re#istr* No. +(((/43(5 of the ivil Re#istr* of?e-on it*.5 2er hsband has no prior and sbsistin# marria#e with another woman.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/jul2004/ac_6290_2004.html#fnt1





















s to the char#e of #rossl* immoral condct, the respondent denied that she cased thedissemination of a libelos and defamator* affidavit a#ainst oncilor 1acome. On the contrar*, itwas oncilor 1acome who cased the e6ection of said docment. dditionall*, the complainantand her cohorts are the rmormon#ers who went arond the cit* of )a;ati on the prete6t ofcondctin# a srve* bt did so to besmirch respondent=s #ood name and reptation.

The char#e of malpractice or other #ross miscondct in office was li;ewise denied b* therespondent. She claimed that her Cristal-Tenorio Law Office is re#istered with the "epartment ofTrade and Indstr* as a sin#le proprietorship, as shown b* its ertificate of Re#istration of !sinessName.4 2ence, she has no partners in her law office. s to the estafa case, the same had alread*been dropped prsant to the Order of 37 1ne 3449 issed b* !ranch 3(' of the Re#ional Trialort of ?e-on it*.3( The respondent li;ewise denied that she threatened the complainant with thewords >Isan# bala ;a lan#> on +7 1anar* +(((.

0rther, the respondent averred that this disbarment complaint was filed b* the complainant to #eteven with her. She terminated complainant=s emplo*ment after receivin# nmeros complaints thatthe complainant e6torted mone* from different people with the promise of processin# their passportsand marria#es to forei#ners, bt she rene#ed on her promise. Li;ewise, this disbarment complaint is

politicall* motivated: some politicians offered to re/hire the complainant and her cohorts shold the*initiate this complaint, which the* did and for which the* were re/hired. The respondent also flantedthe fact that she had received nmeros awards and citations for civic wor;s and e6emplar* serviceto the commnit*. She then pra*ed for the dismissal of the disbarment case for bein# baseless.

The I!$ referred this case to Investi#atin# ommissioner tt*. @enn* 2. Tantico.

"rin# the hearin# on '( #st +(((, the parties a#reed that the complainant wold sbmit a Repl*to respondent=s nswer, while the respondent wold sbmit a ReAoinder to the Repl*. The partiesalso a#reed that the omplaint, nswer, and the attached affidavits wold constitte as therespective direct testimonies of the parties and the affiants.33

In her Repl*, the complainant bolstered her claim that the respondent cooperated in the ille#alpractice of law b* her hsband b* sbmittin# %3& the letterhead of Cristal-Tenorio Law Office3+ wherethe name of 0elicisimo R. Tenorio, 1r., is listed as a senior partner< and %+& a Sa#ip ommnicationRadio Brop identification card3' si#ned b* the respondent as hairperson where her hsband isidentified as >tt*. 0elicisimo R. Tenorio, 1r.> She added that respondent=s hsband even appeared incort hearin#s.

In her ReAoinder, respondent averred that she neither formed a law partnership with her hsband nor allowed her hsband to appear in cort on her behalf. If there was an instance that her hsbandappeared in cort, he did so as a representative of her law firm. The letterhead sbmitted b* thecomplainant was a false reprodction to show that her hsband is one of her law partners. !t poncross/e6amination, when confronted with the letterhead of Cristal-Tenorio Law Office bearin# hersi#natre, she admitted that 0elicisimo R. Tenorio, 1r., is not a law*er, bt he and a certain Berardo

. $an#hlan, who is also not a law*er, are named as senior partners becase the* haveinvestments in her law office.37

The respondent frther declared that she married 0elicisimo R. Tenorio, 1r., on 3+ 0ebrar* 345( in?e-on it*, bt when she later discovered that their marria#e contract was not re#istered sheapplied for late re#istration on 8 pril +(((. She then presented as evidence a certified cop* of themarria#e contract issed b* the Office of the ivil Re#istrar Beneral and athenticated b* the NSO.The erroneos entries in the birth certificates of her children as to the place and date of her marria#ewere merel* an oversi#ht.38


















Sometime after the parties sbmitted their respective Offer of Evidence and )emoranda, thecomplainant filed a )otion to Cithdraw omplaint on 3' November +((+ after alle#edl* reali-in#that this disbarment complaint arose ot of a misnderstandin# and misappreciation of facts. Ths,she is no lon#er interested in prsin# the case. This motion was not acted pon b* the I!$.

In her Report and Recommendation dated '( September +((', I!$ ommissioner on !ar "iscipline

)ila#ros D. San 1an fond that the complainant failed to sbstantiate the char#es of deceit and#rossl* immoral condct. 2owever, she fond the respondent #ilt* of the char#e of cooperatin# inthe ille#al practice of law b* 0elicisimo R. Tenorio, 1r., in violation of anon 4 and Rle 4.(3 of theode of $rofessional Responsibilit* based on the followin# evidence: %3& the letterhead of Cristal-Tenorio Law Office, which lists 0elicisimo R. Tenorio, 1r., as a senior partner< %+& the Sa#ipommnication Radio Brop identification card of >tt*. 0elicisimo R. Tenorio, 1r.,> si#ned b*respondent as hairperson< %'& and the Order dated 35 1ne 344 issed b* the )etropolitan Trialort in riminal ases Nos. +(+4 +('7, wherein 0elicisimo R. Tenorio, 1r., entered hisappearance as consel and even moved for the provisional dismissal of the cases for failre of theprivate complainants to appear and for lac; of interest to prosecte the said cases. Ths,ommissioner San 1an recommended that the respondent be reprimanded.

In its Resoltion No. FDI/+(('/++5 dated +8 October +((', the I!$ !oard of Bovernors adoptedand approved with modification the Report and Recommendation of ommissioner San 1an. Themodification consisted in increasin# the penalt* from reprimand to sspension from the practice oflaw for si6 months with a warnin# that a similar offense in the ftre wold be dealt with moreseverel*.

Ce a#ree with the findin#s and conclsion of ommissioner San 1an as approved and adoptedwith modification b* the !oard of Bovernors of the I!$.

t the otset, we find that the I!$ was correct in not actin# on the )otion to Cithdraw omplaintfiled b* complainant ambali-a. In Ra*os/Ombac vs. Ra*os,39 we declared:

The affidavit of withdrawal of the disbarment case alle#edl* e6ected b* complainant doesnot, in an* wa*, e6onerate the respondent. case of sspension or disbarment ma* proceedre#ardless of interest or lac; of interest of the complainant. Chat matters is whether, on thebasis of the facts borne ot b* the record, the char#e of deceit and #rossl* immoral condcthas been dl* proven. This rle is premised on the natre of disciplinar* proceedin#s. proceedin# for sspension or disbarment is not in an* sense a civil action where thecomplainant is a plaintiff and the respondent law*er is a defendant. "isciplinar* proceedin#sinvolve no private interest and afford no redress for private #rievance. The* are nderta;enand prosected solel* for the pblic welfare. The* are nderta;en for the prpose ofpreservin# corts of Astice from the official ministration of persons nfit to practice in them.The attorne* is called to answer to the cort for his condct as an officer of the cort. Thecomplainant or the person who called the attention of the cort to the attorne*=s alle#edmiscondct is in no sense a part*, and has #enerall* no interest in the otcome e6cept as all

#ood citi-ens ma* have in the proper administration of Astice. 2ence, if the evidence onrecord warrants, the respondent ma* be sspended or disbarred despite the desistance ofcomplainant or his withdrawal of the char#es.

2ence, notwithstandin# the )otion to Cithdraw omplaint, this disbarment case shold proceedaccordin#l*.

The I!$ correctl* fond that the char#es of deceit and #rossl* immoral condct were notsbstantiated. In disbarment proceedin#s, the complainant has the brden of provin# his case b*





convincin# evidence.3 Cith respect to the estafa case which is the basis for the char#e ofmalpractice or other #ross miscondct in office, the respondent is not *et convicted thereof.In Gerona vs. Datingaling ,35 we held that when the criminal prosection based on the same actchar#ed is still pendin# in cort, an* administrative disciplinar* proceedin#s for the same act mstawait the otcome of the criminal case to avoid contradictor* findin#s.

Ce, however, affirm the I!$=s findin# that the respondent is #ilt* of assistin# in the nathori-edpractice of law. law*er who allows a non/member of the !ar to misrepresent himself as a law*erand to practice law is #ilt* of violatin# anon 4 and Rle 4.(3 of the ode of $rofessionalResponsibilit*, which read as follows:

anon 4 law*er shall not directl* or indirectl* assist in the nathori-ed practice of law.

Rle 4.(3 law*er shall not dele#ate to an* nGalified person the performance of an*tas; which b* law ma* onl* be performed b* a member of the !ar in #ood standin#.

The term >practice of law> implies cstomaril* or habitall* holdin# oneself ot to the pblic as alaw*er for compensation as a sorce of livelihood or in consideration of his services. 2oldin# one=s

self ot as a law*er ma* be shown b* acts indicative of that prpose li;e identif*in# oneself asattorne*, appearin# in cort in representation of a client, or associatin# oneself as a partner of a lawoffice for the #eneral practice of law.34 Sch acts constitte nathori-ed practice of law.

In this case, 0elicisimo R. Tenorio, 1r., is not a law*er, bt he holds himself ot as one. 2is wife, therespondent herein, abetted and aided him in the nathori-ed practice of the le#al profession.

t the hearin#, the respondent admitted that the letterhead of Cristal-Tenorio Law Office listed0elicisimo R. Tenorio, 1r., Berardo . $an#hlan, and )aricris ". !attn# as senior partners. Sheadmitted that the first two are not law*ers bt parale#als. The* are listed in the letterhead of her lawoffice as senior partners becase the* have investments in her law office.+( That is a blatantmisrepresentation.

The Sa#ip ommnication Radio Brop identification card is another proof that the respondentassisted 0elicisimo R. Tenorio, 1r., in misrepresentin# to the pblic that he is a law*er. Notabl*, theidentification card statin# that he is >tt*. 0elicisimo Tenorio, 1r.,> bears the si#natre of therespondent as hairperson of the Brop.

The law*er=s dt* to prevent, or at the ver* least not to assist in, the nathori-ed practice of law isfonded on pblic interest and polic*. $blic polic* reGires that the practice of law be limited tothose individals fond dl* Galified in edcation and character. The permissive ri#ht conferred onthe law*er is an individal and limited privile#e sbAect to withdrawal if he fails to maintain properstandards of moral and professional condct. The prpose is to protect the pblic, the cort, theclient, and the bar from the incompetence or dishonest* of those nlicensed to practice law and notsbAect to the disciplinar* control of the ort. It devolves pon a law*er to see that this prpose is

attained. Ths, the canons and ethics of the profession enAoin him not to permit his professionalservices or his name to be sed in aid of, or to ma;e possible the nathori-ed practice of law b*,an* a#enc*, personal or corporate. nd, the law ma;es it a misbehavior on his part, sbAect todisciplinar* action, to aid a la*man in the nathori-ed practice of law.+3

&'ERE(ORE, for clpable violation of anon 4 and Rle 4.(3 of the ode of $rofessionalResponsibilit*, respondent tt*. na L- !. ristal/Tenorio is hereb* "!")EN$E$ from the practiceof law for a period of si6 %9& months effective immediatel*, with a warnin# that a repetition of thesame or similar act in the ftre will be dealt with more severel*.



















Let copies of this Resoltion be attached to respondent ristal/Tenorio=s record as attorne* in thisort and frnished to the I!$ and the Office of the ort dministrator for circlation to all corts.

"O OR$ERE$.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Panganiban, Santiago, Cario, and !"c#na, JJ., concr.

A.C. No. 6622 July 10, 2012

MI*!EL *. %ILLAT!A, omplainant,

vs.

ATT. BE$E ". TABALIN*CO", Respondent.

" E I S I O N

PER CURIAM:

In this omplaint for disbarment filed on (9 "ecember +((7 with the Office or the !ar onfidant,

complainant )anel B. Dillat*a %complainant& char#es tt*. !cde S. =L3halin#cos %resrondent& with

nlawfl solicitation of cases, violation of the %=ode or $rofessional Responsibilit* for nonpa*ment of

fees to complainant, and #ross immoralit* for marr*in# two other women while respondentHs first

marria#e was sbsistin#.3

In a Resoltion+ dated +9 1anar* +((8, the Second "ivision of this ort reGired respondent to file

a omment, which he did on +3 )arch +((8.' The omplaint was referred to the Inte#rated !ar of

the $hilippines %I!$& for investi#ation, report and recommendation within si6t* %9(& da*s from receipt

of the record.7

On +' 1ne +((8, the ommission on !ar "iscipline of the I!$ %ommission& issed a

Notice8 settin# the mandator* conference of the administrative case on (8 1l* +((8. "rin# the

conference, complainant appeared, accompanied b* his consel and respondent. The* sbmitted

for resoltion three isses to be resolved b* the ommission as follows:

3. Chether respondent violated the ode of $rofessional Responsibilit* b* nonpa*ment of

fees to complainant

+. Chether respondent violated the rle a#ainst nlawfl solicitation, and

'. Chether respondent is #ilt* of #ross immoral condct for havin# married thrice.9

The ommission ordered the parties to sbmit their respective verified $osition $apers. Respondent

filed his verified $osition $aper, on 38 1l* +((8 while complainant sbmitted his on (3 #st

+((8.5

omplainantHs ccsations




















omplainant averred that on 0ebrar* +((+, he was emplo*ed b* respondent as a financial

consltant to assist the latter on technical and financial matters in the latterHs nmeros petitions for

corporate rehabilitation filed with different corts. omplainant claimed that the* had a verbal

a#reement whereb* he wold be entitled to $ 8(,((( for ever* Sta* Order issed b* the cort in the

cases the* wold handle, in addition to ten percent %3(& of the fees paid b* their clients. 2e alle#ed

that, from 0ebrar* to "ecember +((+, respondent was able to ra;e in millions of pesos from thecorporate rehabilitation cases the* were wor;in# on to#ether. omplainant also claimed that he was

entitled to the amont of $ 4((,((( for the 35 Sta* Orders issed b* the corts as a reslt of his

wor; with respondent, and a total of $ 7,8'4,((( from the fees paid b* their clients.4 omplainant

appended to his omplaint several anne6es spportin# the comptation of the fees he believes are

de him.

omplainant alle#ed that respondent en#a#ed in nlawfl solicitation of cases in violation of Section

+ of the ode of $rofessional Responsibilit*. lle#edl* respondent set p two financial consltanc*

firms, 1esi and 1ane )ana#ement, Inc. and hristmel !siness Lin;, Inc., and sed them as fronts

to advertise his le#al services and solicit cases. omplainant spported his alle#ations b* attachin#

to his $osition $aper the rticles of Incorporation of 1esi and 1ane,

3(

letter/proposals to clientssi#ned b* respondent on varios dates33 and proofs of pa*ment made to the latter b* their clients.3+

On the third char#e of #ross immoralit*, complainant accsed respondent of committin# two conts

of bi#am* for havin# married two other women while his first marria#e was sbsistin#. 2e sbmitted

a ertification dated 3' 1l* +((8 issed b* the Office of the ivil Re#istrar Beneral/National

Statistics Office %NSO& certif*in# that !ede S. Tabalin#cos, herein respondent, contracted marria#e

thrice: first, on 38 1l* 345( with $ilar ). Lo-ano, which too; place in "asmarinas, avite< the

second time on +5 September 345 with )a. Rowena Barcia $iJon in the it* of )anila< and the

third on ( September 3454 with )ar* 1ane El#incolin $araiso in Ermita, )anila. 3'

RespondentHs "efense

In his defense, respondent denied the char#es a#ainst him. 2e asserted that complainant was not

an emplo*ee of his law firm Tabalin#cos and ssociates Law Office37 bt of 1esi and 1ane

)ana#ement, Inc., where the former is a maAor stoc;holder.38 Respondent alle#ed that complainant

was nprofessional and incompetent in performin# his Aob as a financial consltant, resltin# in the

latterHs dismissal of man* rehabilitation plans the* presented in their cort cases.39 Respondent also

alle#ed that there was no verbal a#reement between them re#ardin# the pa*ment of fees and the

sharin# of professional fees paid b* his clients. 2e proffered docments showin# that the salar* of

complainant had been paid.3

s to the char#e of nlawfl solicitation, respondent denied committin# an*. 2e contended that hislaw firm had an a#reement with 1esi and 1ane )ana#ement, Inc., whereb* the firm wold handle the

le#al aspect of the corporate rehabilitation case< and that the latter wold attend to the financial

aspect of the caseH sch as the preparation of the rehabilitation plans to be presented in cort. To

spport this contention, respondent attached to his $osition $aper a 1oint Dentre #reement dated

3( "ecember +((8 entered into b* Tabalin#cos and ssociates Law Offices and 1esi and 1ane

)ana#ement, Inc.<35 and an ffidavit e6ected b* Leoncio !alena, Dice/$resident for Operations of

the said compan*.34




























On the char#e of #ross immoralit*, respondent assailed the ffidavit sbmitted b* Cilliam Benesis, a

dismissed messen#er of 1esi and 1ane )ana#ement, Inc., as havin# no probative vale, since it had

been retracted b* the affiant himself.+( Respondent did not specificall* address the alle#ations

re#ardin# his alle#ed bi#amos marria#es with two other women.

On (4 1anar* +((9, complainant filed a )otion to dmit opies of ' )arria#e ontracts.

+3

To thesaid )otion, he attached the certified tre copies of the )arria#e ontracts referred to in the

ertification issed b* the NSO.++The appended )arria#e ontracts matched the dates, places and

names of the contractin# parties indicated in the earlier sbmitted NSO ertification of the three

marria#es entered into b* respondent. The first marria#e contract sbmitted was a marria#e that

too; place between respondent and $ilar ). Lo-ano in "asmarinas, avite, on 38 1l* 345(.+' The

second marria#e contract was between respondent and )a. Rowena B. $iJon, and it too; place at

the )etropolitan Trial ort ompond of )anila on +5 September 345. +7 The third )arria#e

ontract referred to a marria#e between respondent and )ar* 1ane E. $araiso, and it too; place on

September 3454 in Ermita, )anila. In the second and third )arria#e ontracts, respondent was

described as sin#le nder the entr* for civil stats.

On 39 1anar* +((9, respondent sbmitted his Opposition to the )otion to dmit filed b*

complainant, claimin# that the docment was not mar;ed drin# the mandator* conference or

sbmitted drin# the hearin# of the case.+8 Ths, respondent was spposedl* deprived of the

opportnit* to controvert those docments.+9 2e disclosed that criminal cases for bi#am* were filed

a#ainst him b* the complainant before the Office of the it* $rosector of )anila. Respondent

frther informed the ommission that he had filed a $etition to "eclare Nll and Doid the )arria#e

ontract with Rowena $iJon at the Re#ional Trial ort %RT& of !iJan, La#na, where it was

doc;eted as ivil ase No. !/'+(.+ 2e also filed another $etition for "eclaration of Nllit* of

)arria#e ontract with $ilar Lo-ano at the RT/alamba, where it was doc;eted as ivil ase No.

!/'+3.+5 In both petitions, he claimed that he had recentl* discovered that there were )arria#e

ontracts in the records of the NSO bearin# his name and alle#edl* e6ected with Rowena $iJonand $ilar Lo-ano on different occasions. 2e pra*ed for their annlment, becase the* were

prportedl* nll and void.

On 3 September +((, in view of its reor#ani-ation, the ommission schedled a clarificator*

hearin# on +( November +((.+4 Chile complainant manifested to the ommission that he wold not

attend the hearin#,'(respondent manifested his willin#ness to attend and moved for the sspension

of the resoltion of the administrative case a#ainst the latter. Respondent cited two $etitions he had

filed with the RT, La#na, see;in# the nllification of the )arria#e ontracts he discovered to be

bearin# his name.'3

On 3( November +((, complainant sbmitted to the ommission dplicate ori#inal copies of two%+& Informations filed with the RT of )anila a#ainst respondent, entitled >$eople of the $hilippines

vs. tt*. !ede S. Tabalin#cos.>'+ The first criminal case, doc;eted as riminal ase No. (/+83+8,

was for bi#am* for the marria#e contracted b* respondent with )a. Rowena Barcia $iJon while his

marria#e with $ilar Lo-ano was still valid.'' The other one, doc;eted as riminal ase No. (/

+83+9, char#ed respondent with havin# committed bi#am* for contractin# marria#e with )ar* 1ane

El#incolin $araiso while his marria#e with $ilar Lo-ano was still sbsistin#. '7 Each of the





































Informations recommended bail in the amont of $+7,((( for his provisional libert* as accsed in the

criminal cases.'8

On +( November +((, onl* respondent attended the clarificator* hearin#. In the same proceedin#,

the ommission denied his )otion to sspend the proceedin#s pendin# the otcome of the petitions

for nllification he had filed with the RTLa#na. Ths, the ommission resolved that theadministrative case a#ainst him be sbmitted for resoltion.'9

I!$Hs Report and Recommendation

On + 0ebrar* +((5, the ommission proml#ated its Report and

Recommendation addressin# the specific char#es a#ainst respondent.' The first char#e, for

dishonest* for the nonpa*ment of certain shares in the fees, was dismissed for lac; of merit. The

ommission rled that the char#e shold have been filed with the proper corts since it was onl*

empowered to determine respondentHs administrative liabilit*. On this matter, complainant failed to

prove dishonest* on the part of respondent.'5

On the second char#e, the ommission fondrespondent to have violated the rle on the solicitation of client for havin# advertised his le#al

services and nlawfll* solicited cases. It recommended that he be reprimanded for the violation. It

failed, tho#h, to point ot e6actl* the specific provision he violated.'4

s for the third char#e, the ommission fond respondent to be #ilt* of #ross immoralit* for

violatin# Rles 3.(3 and .(' of the ode of $rofessional Responsibilit* and Section + of Rle 3'5

of the Rles of ort. It fond that complainant was able to prove thro#h docmentar* evidence

that respondent committed bi#am* twice b* marr*in# two other women while the latterHs first

marria#e was sbsistin#.7( "e to the #ravit* of the acts of respondent, the ommission

recommended that he be disbarred, and that his name be stric;en off the roll of attorne*s.73

On 38 pril +((5, the I!$ !oard of Bovernors, thro#h its Resoltion No. FDIII/+((5/387, adopted

and approved the Report and Recommendation of the Investi#atin# ommissioner.7+ On (3 #st

+((5, respondent filed a )otion for Reconsideration, ar#in# that the recommendation to disbar him

was prematre. 2e contends that the ommission shold have sspended the disbarment

proceedin#s pendin# the resoltion of the separate cases he had filed for the annlment of the

marria#e contracts bearin# his name as havin# entered into those contracts with other women. 2e

frther contends that the evidence proffered b* complainant to establish that the latter committed

bi#am* was not sbstantial to merit the pnishment of disbarment. Ths, respondent moved for the

reconsideration of the resoltion to disbar him and li;ewise moved to archive the administrative

proceedin#s pendin# the otcome of the $etitions he separatel* filed with the RT of La#na for the

annlment of )arria#e ontracts.7'

On +9 1ne +(33, the I!$ !oard of Bovernors denied the )otions for Reconsideration and affirmed

their Resoltion dated 38 pril +((5 recommendin# respondentHs disbarment.77

The ortHs Rlin#

The ort affirms the recommendations of the I!$.






























0irst har#e:

"ishonest* for nonpa*ment of share in the fees

Chile we affirm the I!$Hs dismissal of the first char#e a#ainst respondent, we do not concr with the

rationale behind it.

The first char#e of complainant a#ainst respondent for the nonpa*ment of the formerHs share in the

fees, if proven to be tre is based on an a#reement that is violative of Rle 4.(+78 of the ode of

$rofessional Responsibilit*. law*er is proscribed b* the ode to divide or a#ree to divide the fees

for le#al services rendered with a person not licensed to practice law. !ased on the alle#ations,

respondent had a#reed to share with complainant the le#al fees paid b* clients that complainant

solicited for the respondent. omplainant, however, failed to proffer convincin# evidence to prove the

e6istence of that a#reement.

Ce rled in Tan Tek $eng v. David 79 that an a#reement between a law*er and a la*person to share

the fees collected from clients secred b* the la*person is nll and void, and that the law*er involvedma* be disciplined for nethical condct. onsiderin# that complainantHs alle#ations in this case had

not been proven, the I!$ correctl* dismissed the char#e a#ainst respondent on this matter.

Second C%arge&

Unlawfl solicitation of clients

omplainant char#ed respondent with nlawfll* solicitin# clients and advertisin# le#al services

thro#h varios bsiness entities. omplainant sbmitted docmentar* evidence to prove that 1esi K

1ane )ana#ement Inc. and hristmel !siness Lin;, Inc. were owned and sed as fronts b*

respondent to advertise the latterHs le#al services and to solicit clients. In its Report, the I!$established the trth of these alle#ations and rled that respondent had violated the rle on the

solicitation of clients, bt it failed to point ot the specific provision that was breached.

review of the records reveals that respondent indeed sed the bsiness entities mentioned in the

report to solicit clients and to advertise his le#al services, prportin# to be speciali-ed in corporate

rehabilitation cases. !ased on the facts of the case, he violated Rle +.('7 of the ode, which

prohibits law*ers from solicitin# cases for the prpose of profit.

law*er is not prohibited from en#a#in# in bsiness or other lawfl occpation. Impropriet* arises,

tho#h, when the bsiness is of sch a natre or is condcted in sch a manner as to be

inconsistent with the law*erHs dties as a member of the bar. This inconsistenc* arises when thebsiness is one that can readil* lend itself to the procrement of professional emplo*ment for the

law*er< or that can be sed as a cloa; for indirect solicitation on the law*erHs behalf< or is of a natre

that, if handled b* a law*er, wold be re#arded as the practice of law.75

It is clear from the docmentar* evidence sbmitted b* complainant that 1esi K 1ane )ana#ement,

Inc., which prports to be a financial and le#al consltant, was indeed a vehicle sed b* respondent












as a means to procre professional emplo*ment< specificall* for corporate rehabilitation cases.

nne6 >>74 of the omplaint is a letterhead of 1esi K 1ane

)ana#ement, Inc., which proposed an a#reement for the en#a#ement of le#al services. The letter

clearl* states that, shold the prospective client a#ree to the proposed fees, respondent wold

render le#al services related to the formerHs loan obli#ation with a ban;. This circmvention isconsidered obAectionable and violates the ode, becase the letter is si#ned b* respondent as

$resident of 1esi K 1ane )ana#ement, Inc., and not as partner or associate of a law firm.

Rle 38.(58( of the ode mandates that the law*er is mandated to inform the client whether the

former is actin# as a law*er or in another capacit*. This dt* is a mst in those occpations related

to the practice of law. The reason is that certain ethical considerations #overnin# the attorne*/client

relationship ma* be operative in one and not in the other .83 In this case, it is confsin# for the client if

it is not clear whether respondent is offerin# consltanc* or le#al services.

onsiderin#, however, that complainant has not proven the de#ree of prevalence of this practice b*

respondent, we affirm the recommendation to reprimand the latter for violatin# Rles +.(' and 38.(5of the ode.

Third har#e:

!i#am*

The third char#e that respondent committed bi#am* twice is a serios accsation. To sbstantiate

this alle#ation, complainant sbmitted NSO/certified copies of the )arria#e ontracts entered into

b* respondent with three %'& different women. The latter obAected to the introdction of these

docments, claimin# that the* were sbmitted after the administrative case had been sbmitted for

resoltion, ths #ivin# him no opportnit* to controvert them.8+

Ce are not persaded b* hisar#ment.

Ce have consistentl* held that a disbarment case is si #eneris. Its focs is on the Galification and

fitness of a law*er to contine membership in the bar and not the procedral technicalities in filin#

the case. Ths, we e6plained in Garrido v. Garrido:8'

Laws dealin# with doble Aeopard* or with procedre sch as the verification of pleadin#s and

preAdicial Gestions, or in this case, prescription of offenses or the filin# of affidavits of desistance

b* the complainant do not appl* in the determination of a law*er=s Galifications and fitness for

membership in the !ar. Ce have so rled in the past and we see no reason to depart from this

rlin#. 0irst, admission to the practice of law is a component of the administration of Astice and is amatter of pblic interest becase it involves service to the pblic. The admission Galifications are

also Galifications for the contined enAo*ment of the privile#e to practice law. Second, lac; of

Galifications or the violation of the standards for the practice of law, li;e criminal cases, is a matter

of pblic concern that the State ma* inGire into thro#h this ort.

In disbarment proceedin#s, the brden of proof rests pon the complainant. '(w%i' 0or the cort to

e6ercise its disciplinar* powers, the case a#ainst the respondent mst be established b* convincin#
















and satisfactor* proof.87In this case, complainant sbmitted NSO/certified tre copies to prove that

respondent entered into two marria#es while the latterHs first marria#e was still sbsistin#. Chile

respondent denied enterin# into the second and the third marria#es, he resorted to va#e assertions

tantamont to a ne#ative pre#nant. 2e did not dispte the athenticit* of the NSO docments, bt

denied that he contracted those two other marria#es. 2e sbmitted copies of the two $etitions he

had filed separatel* with the RT of La#na one in !iJan and the other in alamba to declarethe second and the third )arria#e ontracts nll and void.88

Ce find him #ilt* of #ross immoralit* nder the ode.

Ce cannot #ive credence to the defense proffered b* respondent. 2e has not dispted the

athenticit* or imp#ned the #enineness of the NSO/certified copies of the )arria#e ontracts

presented b* complainant to prove the formerHs marria#es to two other women aside from his wife.

0or prposes of this disbarment proceedin#, these )arria#e ontracts bearin# the name of

respondent are competent and convincin# evidence provin# that he committed bi#am*, which

renders him nfit to contine as a member of the bar. The docments were certified b* the NSO,

which is the official repositor* of civil re#istr* records pertainin# to the birth, marria#e and death of aperson. 2avin# been issed b* a #overnment a#enc*, the NSO certification is accorded mch

evidentiar* wei#ht and carries with it a presmption of re#larit*. In this case, respondent has not

presented an* competent evidence to rebt those docments.

ccordin# to the respondent, after the discover* of the second and the third marria#es, he filed civil

actions to annl the )arria#e ontracts. Ce persed the attached $etitions for nnlment and fond

that his alle#ations therein treated the second and the third marria#e contracts as ordinar*

a#reements, rather than as special contracts contemplated nder the then ivil ode provisions on

marria#e. 2e did not invo;e an* #ronds in the ivil ode provisions on marria#e, prior to its

amendment b* the 0amil* ode. RespondentHs re#ard for marria#e contracts as ordinar*

a#reements indicates either his wanton disre#ard of the sanctit* of marria#e or his #ross i#noranceof the law on what corse of action to ta;e to annl a marria#e nder the old ivil ode provisions.

Chat has been clearl* established here is the fact that respondent entered into marria#e twice while

his first marria#e was still sbsistin#. In !stamante/leAandro v. leAandro,89 we held ths:

Ce have in a nmber of cases disciplined members of the !ar whom we fond #ilt* of miscondct

which demonstrated a lac; of that #ood moral character reGired of them not onl* as a condition

precedent for their admission to the !ar bt, li;ewise, for their contined membership therein. No

distinction has been made as to whether the miscondct was committed in the law*erHs professional

capacit* or in his private life. This is becase a law*er ma* not divide his personalit* so as to be an

attorne* at one time and a mere citi-en at another. 2e is e6pected to be competent, honorable andreliable at all times since he who cannot appl* and abide b* the laws in his private affairs, can hardl*

be e6pected to do so in his professional dealin#s nor lead others in doin# so. $rofessional honest*

and honor are not to be e6pected as the accompaniment of dishonest* and dishonor in other

relations. The administration of Astice, in which the law*er pla*s an important role bein# an officer of

the cort, demands a hi#h de#ree of intellectal and moral competenc* on his part so that the corts

and clients ma* ri#htl* repose confidence in him.










Respondent e6hibited a deplorable lac; of that de#ree of moralit* reGired of him as a member of

the bar. 2e made a moc;er* of marria#e, a sacred instittion demandin# respect and di#nit*.8 2is

acts of committin# bi#am* twice constitted #rossl* immoral condct and are #ronds for disbarment

nder Section +, Rle 3'5 of the Revised Rles of ort.85

Ths, we adopt the recommendation of the I!$ to disbar respondent and order that his name bestric;en from the Roll of ttorne*s.

C2ERE0ORE, this ort resolves the followin# char#es a#ainst tt*. !ede S. Tabalin#cos as

follows:

3. The char#e of dishonest* is "IS)ISSE" for lac; of merit.

+. Respondent is RE$RI)N"E" for acts of ille#al advertisement and solicitation.

'. tt*. !ede S. Tabalin#cos is "IS!RRE" for en#a#in# in bi#am*, a #rossl* immoral

condct.

Let a cop* of this "ecision be attached to the personal records of tt*. !ede S. Tabalin#cos in the

Office of the !ar onfidant, and another cop* frnished to the Inte#rated !ar of the $hilippines.

The ler; of ort is directed to stri;e ot the name of !ede S. Tabalin#cos from the Roll of

ttorne*s.

SO OR"ERE".

A.C. No. 6116 Au+us 1, 2012

EN*R. *ILBERT T!MBO-ON, omplainant,

vs.

ATT. MARIANO R. )E(IANCO, Respondent.

R E S O L U T I O N

)ERLA"#BERNABE, J.:

!efore the ort is an administrative complaint for disbarment filed b* complainant En#r. Bilbert

Tmbo;on a#ainst respondent tt*. )ariano R. $efianco for #rave dishonest*, #ross miscondct

constittin# deceit and #rossl* immoral condct.

In his omplaint,3 complainant narrated that respondent ndertoo; to #ive him +( commission,

later redced to 3(, of the attorne*=s fees the latter wold receive in representin# Sposes mable

and Rosalinda Map %Sps. Map&, whom he referred, in an action for partition of the estate of the late

!enAamin Map %ivil ase No. 7459 before the Re#ional Trial ort of ;lan&. Their a#reement was

reflected in a letter + dated #st 33, 3448. 2owever, respondent failed to pa* him the a#reed

commission notwithstandin# receipt of attorne*=s fees amontin# to 3 of the total estate or





http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/aug2012/ac_6116_2012.html#fnt1










abot $ 7( million. Instead, he was informed thro#h a letter ' dated 1l* 39, 344 that Sps. Map

assmed to pa* the same after respondent had a#reed to redce his attorne*=s fees from +8 to

3. 2e then demanded the pa*ment of his commission7 which respondent i#nored.

omplainant frther alle#ed that respondent has not lived p to the hi#h moral standards reGired of

his profession for havin# abandoned his le#al wife, )ila#ros 2ilado, with whom he has two children,and cohabited with )ae 0lorBalido, with whom he has for children. 2e also accsed respondent of

en#a#in# in mone*/lendin# bsiness8 withot the reGired athori-ation from the

!an#;oSentraln#$ilipinas.

In his defense, respondent e6plained that he accepted Sps. Map=s case on a +8 contin#ent fee

basis, and advanced all the e6penses. 2e dispted the #st 33, 3448 letter for bein# a for#er* and

claimed that Sps. Map assmed to pa* complainant=s commission which he clarified in his 1l* 39,

344 letter. 2e, ths, pra*ed for the dismissal of the complaint and for the correspondin# sanction

a#ainst complainant=s consel, tt*. 0lorencio !. Bon-ales, for filin# a baseless complaint.9

In the Resoltion

dated 0ebrar* 39, +((7, the ort resolved to refer this administrative case tothe Inte#rated !ar of the $hilippines %I!$& for investi#ation, report and recommendation. In his

Report and Recommendation5dated October 3(, +((5, the Investi#atin# I!$ ommissioner

recommended that respondent be sspended for one %3& *ear from the active practice of law, for

violation of the Law*er=s Oath, Rle 3.(3, anon 3< Rle .(', anon and Rle 4.(+, anon 4 of

the ode of $rofessional Responsibilit* %ode&. The I!$ !oard of Bovernors adopted and approved

the same in its Resoltion No. FIF/+(3(/78'4 dated #st

+5, +(3(. Respondent moved for reconsideration3( which was denied in Resoltion No. FIF/+(33/

373 dated October +5, +(33.

fter de consideration, Ce adopt the findin#s and recommendation of the I!$ !oard of Bovernors.

The practice of law is considered a privile#e bestowed b* the State on those who show that the*

possess and contine to possess the le#al Galifications for the profession. s sch, law*ers are

e6pected to maintain at all times a hi#h standard of le#al proficienc*, moralit*, honest*, inte#rit* and

fair dealin#, and mst perform their for/fold dt* to societ*, the le#al profession, the corts and their

clients, in accordance with the vales and norms embodied in the ode.33 Law*ers ma*, ths, be

disciplined for an* condct that is wantin# of the above standards whether in their professional or in

their private capacit*.

In the present case, respondent=s defense that for#er* had attended the e6ection of the #st 33,

3448 letter was belied b* his 1l* 39, 344 letter admittin# to have nderta;en the pa*ment ofcomplainant=s commission bt passin# on the responsibilit* to Sps. Map. learl*, respondent has

violated Rle 4.(+,3+ anon 4 of the ode which prohibits a law*er from dividin# or stiplatin# to

divide a fee for le#al services with persons not licensed to practice law, e6cept in certain cases

which do not obtain in the case at bar.

0rthermore, respondent did not den* the accsation that he abandoned his le#al famil* to cohabit

with his mistress with whom he be#ot for children notwithstandin# that his moral character as well



























as his moral fitness to be retained in the Roll of ttorne*s has been assailed. The settled rle is that

betra*al of the marital vow of fidelit* or se6al relations otside marria#e is considered dis#racefl

and immoral as it manifests deliberate disre#ard of the sanctit* of marria#e and the marital vows

protected b* the onstittion and affirmed b* or laws.3'onseGentl*, Ce find no reason to distrb

the I!$=s findin# that respondent violated the Law*er=s Oath 37 and Rle 3.(3, anon 3 of the ode

which proscribes a law*er from en#a#in# in >nlawfl, dishonest, immoral or deceitfl condct.>

2owever, Ce find the char#e of en#a#in# in ille#al mone* lendin# not to have been sfficientl*

established.'(w%i' >bsiness> reGires some form of investment and a sfficient nmber of cstomers to

whom its otpt can be sold at profit on a consistent basis.38 The lendin# of mone* to a sin#le person

withot showin# that sch service is made available to other persons on a consistent basis cannot

be constred asindicia that respondent is en#a#ed in the bsiness of lendin#.

Nonetheless, while Ce rle that respondent shold be sanctioned for his actions, Ce are minded

that the power to disbar shold be e6ercised with #reat cation and onl* in clear cases of

miscondct that seriosl* affect the standin# and character of the law*er as an officer of the cort

and as member of the bar ,

39

or the miscondct borders on the criminal, or committed nderscandalos circmstance,3 which do not obtain here. onsiderin# the circmstances of the case,

Ce deem it appropriate that respondent be sspended from the practice of law for a period of one

%3& *ear as recommended.

&'ERE(ORE, respondent ATT. MARIANO R. )E(IANCO is fond *!ILT of violation of the

Law*erHs Oath, Rle 3.(3, anon 3 of the ode of $rofessional Responsibilit* and Rle 4.(+, anon

4 of the same ode and"!")EN$E$ from the active practice of law ONE 1/ EAR effective pon

notice hereof.

Let copies of this Resoltion be entered in the personal record of respondent as a member of the

$hilippine !ar and frnished the Office of the !ar onfidant, the Inte#rated !ar of the $hilippinesand the Office of the ort dministrator for circlation to all corts in the contr*.

SO OR"ERE".

B.M. No. 240 "eeme3 24, 201

IN RE5 )ETITION TO "I*N IN T'E ROLL O( ATTORNE"

MIC'AEL A. ME$A$O, $etitioner.

R E S O L U T I O N

"ERENO, CJ.:

Ce resolve the instant $etition to Si#n in the Roll of ttorne*s filed b* petitioner )ichael . )edado

%)edado&.















)edado #radated from the Universit* of the $hilippines with the de#ree of !achelor of Laws in

3443 and passed the same *ear=s bar e6aminations with a #eneral wei#hted avera#e of 5+..+

On )a* 345(, he too; the ttorne*Hs Oath at the $hilippine International onvention enter

%$I& to#ether with the sccessfl bar e6aminees.' 2e was schedled to si#n in the Roll of

ttorne*s on 3' )a* 345(,

7

bt he failed to do so on his schedled date, alle#edl* becase he hadmisplaced the Notice to Si#n the Roll of ttorne*s8#iven b* the !ar Office when he went home to his

province for a vacation.9

Several *ears later, while rmma#in# thro#h his old colle#e files, )edado fond the Notice to Si#n

the Roll of ttorne*s. It was then that he reali-ed that he had not si#ned in the roll, and that what he

had si#ned at the entrance of the $I was probabl* Ast an attendance record.

!* the time )edado fond the notice, he was alread* wor;in#. 2e stated that he was mainl* doin#

corporate and ta6ation wor;, and that he was not activel* involved in liti#ation practice. Ths, he

operated >nder the mista;en belief that since he had alread* ta;en the oath, the si#nin# of the Roll

of ttorne*s was not as r#ent, nor as crcial to his stats as a law*er><5

and >the matter of si#nin# inthe Roll of ttorne*s lost its r#enc* and complsion, and was sbseGentl* for#otten.>4

In +((8, when )edado attended )andator* ontinin# Le#al Edcation %)LE& seminars, he was

reGired to provide his roll nmber in order for his )LE compliances to be credited.3(

Not havin# si#ned in the Roll of ttorne*s, he was nable to provide his roll nmber.

bot seven *ears later, or on 9 0ebrar* +(3+, )edado filed the instant $etition, pra*in# that he be

allowed to si#n in the Roll of ttorne*s.33

The Office of the !ar onfidant %O!& condcted a clarificator* conference on the matter on +3September +(3+3+ and sbmitted a Report and Recommendation to this ort on 7 0ebrar*

+(3'.3' The O! recommended that the instant petition be denied for petitionerHs #ross ne#li#ence,

#ross miscondct and tter lac; of merit.37 It e6plained that, based on his answers drin# the

clarificator* conference, petitioner cold offer no valid Astification for his ne#li#ence in si#nin# in the

Roll of ttorne*s.38

fter a Adicios review of the records, we #rant )edadoHs pra*er in the instant petition, sbAect to

the pa*ment of a fine and the imposition of a penalt* eGivalent to sspension from the practice of

law.

t the otset, we note that not allowin# )edado to si#n in the Roll of ttorne*s wold be a;in toimposin# pon him the ltimate penalt* of disbarment, a penalt* that we have reserved for the most

serios ethical trans#ressions of members of the !ar.

In this case, the records do not show that this action is warranted.

0or one, petitioner demonstrated #ood faith and #ood moral character when he finall* filed the

instant $etition to Si#n in the Roll of ttorne*s. Ce note that it was not a third part* who called this

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/sep2013/bm_2540_2013.html#fnt1






































ortHs attention to petitionerHs omission< rather, it was )edado himself who ac;nowled#ed his own

lapse, albeit after the passa#e of more than '( *ears. Chen as;ed b* the !ar onfidant wh* it too;

him this lon# to file the instant petition, )edado ver* candidl* replied:

)ahirap hon# i/e6plain *an pero, *n ban# at the time, what can *o sa* Ta;ot ;a ;n# anon#

man#*a*ari sa *o, *o donHt ;now whatHs #onna happen. t the same time, itHs a combination ofapprehension and an6iet* of whatHs #onna happen. nd, finall* itHs the ri#ht thin# to do. I have to

come here P si#n the roll and ta;e the oath as necessar*.39

0or another, petitioner has not been sbAect to an* action for disGalification from the practice of

law,3 which is more than what we can sa* of other individals who were sccessfll* admitted as

members of the $hilippine !ar. 0or this ort, this fact demonstrates that petitioner strove to adhere

to the strict reGirements of the ethics of the profession, and that he has prima facie shown that he

possesses the character reGired to be a member of the $hilippine !ar.

0inall*, )edado appears to have been a competent and able le#al practitioner, havin# held varios

positions at the Larel Law Office,35

$etron, $etrophil orporation, the $hilippine National Oilompan*, and the Ener#* "evelopment orporation.34

ll these demonstrate )edadoHs worth to become a fll/fled#ed member of the $hilippine !ar.'(w%i' Chile

the practice of law is not a ri#ht bt a privile#e,+( this ort will not nwarrantedl* withhold this

privile#e from individals who have shown mental fitness and moral fiber to withstand the ri#ors of

the profession.

That said, however, we cannot fll* e6clpate petitioner )edado from all liabilit* for his *ears of

inaction.

$etitioner has been en#a#ed in the practice of law since 345(, a period spannin# more than '(*ears, withot havin# si#ned in the Roll of ttorne*s.+3 2e Astifies this behavior b* characteri-in# his

acts as >neither willfl nor intentional bt based on a mista;en belief and an honest error of

Ad#ment.>++

Ce disa#ree.

Chile an honest mista;e of fact cold be sed to e6cse a person from the le#al conseGences of

his acts+' as it ne#ates malice or evil motive,+7 a mista;e of law cannot be tili-ed as a lawfl

Astification, becase ever*one is presmed to ;now the law and its conseGences.+8 I#norantia

factie6csat< i#norantia le#is neminem e6csat.

ppl*in# these principles to the case at bar, )edado ma* have at first operated nder an honest

mista;e of fact when he tho#ht that what he had si#ned at the $I entrance before the oath/

ta;in# was alread* the Roll of ttorne*s. 2owever, the moment he reali-ed that what he had si#ned

was merel* an attendance record, he cold no lon#er claim an honest mista;e of fact as a valid

Astification. t that point, )edado shold have ;nown that he was not a fll/fled#ed member of the

$hilippine !ar becase of his failre to si#n in the Roll of ttorne*s, as it was the act of si#nin#

therein that wold have made him so.+9 Chen, in spite of this ;nowled#e, he chose to contine































practicin# law withot ta;in# the necessar* steps to complete all the reGirements for admission to

the !ar, he willfll* en#a#ed in the nathori-ed practice of law.

Under the Rles of ort, the nathori-ed practice of law b* oneHs assmin# to be an attorne* or

officer of the cort, and actin# as sch withot athorit*, ma* constitte indirect contempt of

cort,

+

which is pnishable b* fine or imprisonment or both.

+5

Sch a findin#, however, is in thenatre of criminal contempt+4 and mst be reached after the filin# of char#es and the condct of

hearin#s.'( In this case, while it appears Gite clearl* that petitioner committed indirect contempt of

cort b* ;nowin#l* en#a#in# in nathori-ed practice of law, we refrain from ma;in# an* findin# of

liabilit* for indirect contempt, as no formal char#e pertainin# thereto has been filed a#ainst him.

@nowin#l* en#a#in# in nathori-ed practice of law li;ewise trans#resses anon 4 of =the ode of

$rofessional Responsibilit*, which provides:

NON 4 / law*er shall not, directl* or indirectl*, assist in the nathori-ed practice of law.

Chile a readin# of anon 4 appears to merel* prohibit law*ers from assistin# in the nathori-edpractice of law, the nathori-ed practice of law b* the law*er himself is sbsmed nder this

provision, becase at the heart of anon 4 is the law*er=s dt* to prevent the nathori-ed practice

of law. This dt* li;ewise applies to law stdents and !ar candidates. s aspirin# members of the

!ar, the* are bond to comport themselves in accordance with the ethical standards of the le#al

profession.

Trnin# now to the applicable penalt*, previos violations of anon 4have warranted the penalt* of

sspension from the practice of law.'3 s )edado is not *et a fll/fled#ed law*er, we cannot sspend

him from the practice of law. 2owever, we see it fit to impose pon him a penalt* a;in to sspension

b* allowin# him to si#n in the Roll of ttorne*s one %3& *ear after receipt of this Resoltion. 0or his

trans#ression of the prohibition a#ainst the nathori-ed practice of law, we li;ewise see it fit to finehim in the amont of $'+,(((. "rin# the one *ear period, petitioner is warned that he is not allowed

to en#a#e in the practice of law, and is sternl* warned that doin# an* act that constittes practice of

law before he has si#ned in the Roll of ttorne*s will be dealt with severel* b* this ort.

C2ERE0ORE, the instant $etition to Si#n in the Roll of ttorne*s is hereb* BRNTE". $etitioner

)ichael . )edado is LLOCE" to si#n in the Roll of ttorne*s ONE %3& MER after receipt of this

Resoltion. $etitioner is li;ewise OR"ERE" to pa* a 0INE of $'+,((( for his nathori-ed practice

of law. "rin# the one *ear period, petitioner is NOT LLOCE" to practice law, and is STERNLM

CRNE" that doin# an* act that constittes practice of law before he has si#ned in the Roll of

ttorne*s will be dealt will be severel* b* this ort.

Let a cop* of this Resoltion be frnished the Office of the !ar onfidant, the Inte#rated !ar

of the $hilippines, and the Office of the ort dministrator for circlation to all corts in the contr*.

SO OR"ERE".













CANON 10

A.C. No. 624 Jaua3y 20, 2004

NATA"'A '!E"!&AN#(LORI$O, omplainant,vs.

ATT. JAME" BENE$ICT C. (LORI$O, Respondent.

" E I S I O N

NARE"#"ANTIA*O, J.:

This is an administrative complaint for the disbarment of respondent tt*. 1ames !enedict . 0lorido

and his evental removal from the Roll of ttorne*s for alle#edl* violatin# his oath as a law*er >b*

manfactrin#, flantin# and sin# a sprios and bo#s ort of ppeals ResoltionQOrder.>3

In her omplaint/ffidavit, Natasha D. 2e*swan/0lorido averred that she is the le#itimate spose of

respondent tt*. 1ames !enedict . 0lorido, bt that the* are estran#ed and livin# separatel* from

each other. The* have two children namel*, @amille Nicole 2. 0lorido, five *ears old, and 1ames

!enedict 2. 0lorido, 1r., three *ears old both of whom are in complainantHs cstod*. omplainant

filed a case for the annlment of her marria#e with respondent, doc;eted as ivil ase No. +'3++,

before the Re#ional Trial ort of eb it*, !ranch +7. )eanwhile, there is another case related to

the complaint for annlment of marria#e which is pendin# before the ort of ppeals and doc;eted

as /B.R. S$ No. 87+'8 entitled, >1ames !enedict . 0lorido v. 2on. $ampio barientos, et al.>

Sometime in the middle of "ecember +((3, respondent went to complainantHs residence in TanAa*

it*, Ne#ros Oriental and demanded that the cstod* of their two minor children be srrendered tohim. 2e showed complainant a photocop* of an alle#ed Resoltion issed b* the ort of ppeals

which spposedl* #ranted his motion for temporar* child cstod*.+ omplainant called p her law*er

bt the latter informed her that he had not received an* motion for temporar* child cstod* filed b*

respondent.

omplainant as;ed respondent for the ori#inal cop* of the alle#ed resoltion of the ort of ppeals,

bt respondent failed to #ive it to her. omplainant then e6amined the resoltion closel* and noted

that it bore two dates: November 3+, +((3 and November +4, +((3. Sensin# somethin# amiss, she

refsed to #ive cstod* of their children to respondent.

In the mid/mornin# of 1anar* 38, +((+, while complainant was with her children in the !Learnin# enter in TanAa* it*, respondent, accompanied b* armed men, sddenl* arrived and

demanded that she srrender to him the cstod* of their children. 2e threatened to forcefll* ta;e

them awa* with the help of his companions, whom he claimed to be a#ents of the National !rea of

Investi#ation.

larmed, complainant immediatel* so#ht the assistance of the TanAa* it* $olice. The respondin#

policemen sbseGentl* escorted her to the police station where the matter cold be clarified and

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/jan2004/ac_5624_2004.html#fnt1








settled peacefll*. t the police station, respondent cased to be entered in the $olice !lotter a

statement that he, assisted b* a#ents of the N!I, formall* served on complainant the appellate

cortHs resoltionQorder.' In order to diffse the tension, complainant a#reed to allow the children to

sleep with respondent for one ni#ht on condition that he wold not ta;e them awa* from TanAa* it*.

This a#reement was entered into in the presence of TanAa* it* hief of $olice 1anito ondes and

N!I Investi#ator Ro#er Sssco, amon# others.

In the earl* mornin# of 1anar* 39, +((+, complainant received information that a van arrived at the

hotel where respondent and the children were sta*in# to ta;e them to !acolod it*. omplainant

rshed to the hotel and too; the children to another room, where the* sta*ed ntil later in the

mornin#.

On the same da*, respondent filed with the Re#ional Trial ort of "ma#ete it*, !ranch '3, a

verified petition7for the issance of a writ of habeas corps assertin# his ri#ht to cstod* of the

children on the basis of the alle#ed ort of ppealsH resoltion. In the meantime, complainant

verified the athenticit* of the Resoltion and obtained a certification dated 1anar* 35, +((+ 8 from

the ort of ppeals statin# that no sch resoltion orderin# complainant to srrender cstod* oftheir children to respondent had been issed.

t the hearin# of the petition for habeas corps on 1anar* +', +((+, respondent did not appear.

onseGentl*, the petition was dismissed.

2ence, complainant filed the instant complaint alle#in# that respondent violated his attorne*Hs oath

b* manfactrin#, flantin# and sin# a sprios ort of ppealsH Resoltion in and otside a cort

of law. 0rthermore, respondent absed and missed the privile#ed #ranted to him b* the Spreme

ort to practice law in the contr*.

fter respondent answered the complaint, the matter was referred to the I!$/ommission on !ar"iscipline for investi#ation, report and recommendation. The I!$/!" recommended that

respondent be sspended from the practice of law for a period of three *ears with a warnin# that

another offense of this natre will reslt in his disbarment.9 On 1ne +', +((', the I!$ !oard of

Bovernors adopted and approved the Report and recommendation of the ommission with the

modification that the penalt* of sspension be increased to si6 *ears.

The isse to be resolved is whether or not the respondent can be held administrativel* liable for his

reliance on and attempt to enforce a sprios Resoltion of the ort of ppeals.

In his answer to the complaint, respondent claims that he acted in #ood faith in invo;in# the ort of

ppeals Resoltion which he honestl* believed to be athentic. This, however, is belied b* the factthat he sed and presented the sprios resoltion several times. s pointed ot b* the Investi#atin#

ommissioner, the assailed Resoltion was presented b* respondent on at least two occasions: first,

in his $etition for Issance of Crit of 2abeas orps doc;eted as Special $roc. ase No.

'545, which he filed with the Re#ional Trial ort of "ma#ete it*< and second, when he so#ht

the assistance of the $hilippine National $olice %$N$& of TanAa* it* to recover cstod* of his minor

children from complainant. Since it was respondent who sed the sprios Resoltion, he is

presmed to have participated in its fabrication.














andor and fairness are demanded of ever* law*er.'(w%i' The brden cast on the Adiciar* wold be

intolerable if it cold not ta;e at face vale what is asserted b* consel. The time that will have to be

devoted Ast to the tas; of verification of alle#ations sbmitted cold easil* be ima#ined. Even with

de reco#nition then that consel is e6pected to displa* the tmost -eal in the defense of a clientHs

case, it mst never be at the e6pense of the trth.5 Ths, the ode of professional Responsibilit*

states:

NON 3(. LCMER OCES N"OR, 0IRNESS N" BOO" 0IT2 TO T2E OURT.

Rle 3(.(3 / law*er shall not do an* falsehood< nor consent to the doin# of an* in cort< nor shall

he mislead, or allow the ort to be misled b* an* artifice.

Rle 3(.(+ / law*er shall not ;nowin#l* misGote or misrepresent the contents of a paper, the

lan#a#e or the ar#ment of an opposin# consel, or the te6t of a decision or athorit*, or ;nowin#l*

cite as a law a provision alread* rendered inoperative b* repeal or amendment, or assert as a fact

that which has not been proved.

)oreover, the records show that respondent sed offensive lan#a#e in his pleadin#s in describin#

complainant and her relatives. law*erHs lan#a#e shold be forcefl bt di#nified, emphatic bt

respectfl as befittin# an advocate and in ;eepin# with the di#nit* of the le#al profession.4 The

law*erHs ar#ments whether written or oral shold be #racios to both cort and opposin# consel

and shold be of sch words as ma* be properl* addressed b* one #entlemen to another.3( !*

callin# complainant, a >sl* maniplator of trth> as well as a >vindictive con#enital prevaricator>,

hardl* measres to the sobriet* of speech demanded of a law*er.

RespondentHs actions erode the pblic perception of the le#al profession. The* constitte #ross

miscondct and the sanctions for sch malfeasance is prescribed b* Section +, Rle 3'5 of the

Rles of ort which states:

SE. +. "isbarment and sspension of attorne*s b* Spreme ort, #ronds therefore./ member

of the bar ma* be disbarred or sspended from his office as attorne* b* the Spreme ort for an*

deceit, malpractice or other #ross miscondct in sch office, #rossl* immoral condct or b* reason of

his conviction of a crime involvin# moral trpitde, or for an* violation of the oath which he is

reGired to ta;e before the admission to practice, or for a willfl disobedience appearin# as attorne*

for a part* withot athorit* to do so.

onsiderin# the attendant circmstances, we a#ree with the recommendation of the I!$ !oard of

Bovernors that respondent shold be sspended from the practice of law. 2owever, we find that the

period of si6 *ears is too harsh a penalt*. Instead, sspension for the lesser period of two *ears,which we deem commensrate to the offense committed, is hereb* imposed on respondent.

C2ERE0ORE, in view of all the fore#oin#, tt*. 1ames !enedict . 0lorido is SUS$EN"E" from the

practice of law for a period of two %+& *ears.










Let copies of this resoltion be entered in the personal record of respondent as a member of the !ar

and frnished the !ar onfidant, the Inte#rated !ar of the $hilippines %I!$& and the ort

dministrator for circlation to all corts of the contr*.

SO OR"ERE".

A$M. CA"E No. 449 O7oe3 8, 2008

ANTONIO $E Z!Z!ARRE*!I, JR., complainant,

vs.

ATT. A)OLONIA A. C. "O*!ILON, Respondent.

R E S O L U T I O N

TIN*A, J.5

!efore s is an administrative case for disbarment filed b* complainant ntonio de -arre#i, 1r.

a#ainst respondent tt*. polonia .. So#ilon. omplainant accses respondent of miscondct,

concealment of the trth and misleadin# the cort.

Respondent acted as consel for the petitioner in LR No. ?/348 %48& before the Re#ional Trial

ort %RT& of ?e-on it*, !ranch 4'. In his letter 3 dated 38 September 3448, complainant

narrated that in the corse of the presentation of evidence in spport of the petition for reconstittion,

respondent introdced as evidence the certified cop* of the technical description and the s;etch plan

of the land both issed b* the Land )ana#ement Services. The docments were sbseGentl*

mar;ed as E6hibits >0> and >B,> respectivel*.

closer std* of the docments however revealed that the* contained the followin# notations:

a& In re E6hibit >0>

Note: This is not an pdated srve* data. This mi#ht have been alread* sperseded b* sbseGent

sbd.Qcons. srve*s, mendment, correction or cancellation b* the order of the cort or b* the

Re#ional E6ectiveQTechnical "irector, "ENR. This is not valid for land titlin#QRe#istration and for

preparation of deed of sale andQor transfer of ri#ht.

b& In re E6hibit >B>

Note: This plan is sed for reference prposes onl*.+

The above/Goted notations notwithstandin#, the trial cort allowed reconstittion of the title. s

sch, complainant sbmitted that respondent was remiss in not callin# the attention of the trial cort

to the notations indicated in the docments, emphasi-in# her dt* to avoid concealment of the trth

from the cort.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/ac_4495_2008.html#fnt1








In his Spplemental Letter ' dated +8 October 3448, complainant additionall* char#ed respondent of

committin# frad. 0or one, complainant alle#ed that the reGirements of Section 3+ in relation to

Section '%f& of Repblic ct %R..& No. +9 were not observed as the petition failed to state the

>names and addresses of the occpants or persons in possession of the propert* or the owners of

the adAoinin# properties and of all persons who ma* have an* interest in the propert*.> Secondl*,

respondent alle#edl* manifested ntrthfll* to the trial cort that her client had complied with thereGirements of the Land Re#istration thorit* %LR& when in fact there had been no compliance.

nd finall*, complainant contended that per the certification issed b* the "ept* Re#ister of "eeds

of Ri-al $rovince, TT No. 3'(, the title so#ht to be reconstitted, was missin# as of the

inventor* condcted in September 3453. s sch, complainant asserted, there was no basis for the

claim that the said title belon#ed to one Bre#orio #abao.

In answer to these alle#ations, respondent sbmitted to this ort her omment7 dated 9 pril 3449

wherein she refted all the char#es a#ainst her. nent the annotations on the docments,

respondent stated that she cold not be char#ed of concealin# facts from the cort as she had

sbmitted the docments withot alteration for the evalation of the trial cort. Cith re#ard to the

alle#ed non/observance of the reGirements of R.. No. +9, respondent contered that she had tomerel* rel*, as she did, on the docments and information spplied to her b* her client. s to the

char#e of havin# fradlentl* claimed compliance with the LR reGirements, respondent averred

that she sbmitted the docmentar* reGirements to the LR thro#h certified copies thereof which

were all received b* the records cler; of said office. Lastl*, concernin# the contention that the

certification issed b* the "ept* Re#ister of "eeds of Ri-al $rovince did not contain the name of

the real owner, the location and the metes and bonds of the propert* referred in the certification, as

well as the name and prpose of the person who reGested for it, respondent asserted that she had

nothin# to do with the preparation of said certification and therefore cannot be blamed for an* of the

lapses committed b* the one who issed it.

The ort referred the matter to the Inte#rated !ar of the $hilippines %I!$& for investi#ation. !othparties presented their respective evidence before the ommission on !ar "iscipline of the I!$.

fter investi#ation, the ommissioner made the followin# findin#s and recommendation:

s to the char#e of misleadin# the cort b* not pointin# ot the notations in the technical description

and s;etch plan, there appears to be no malice or intentional machination to mislead the cort.

Indeed, the said notations were not :dde o3 ma:ulaed b* Respondent. 6 6 6 I :s 7lea3 a

Resode ad e 3:al 7ou3 7omm:ed e33o3 that shold be characteri-ed as >reversible error>

in the absence of proof of intentional machination or collsion.

The same findin#s are tre for the char#e of deliberate omission of persons entitled to notice nder

R.. No. +9. The said omission shold have been fatal omissions that shold have Aeopardi-ed thepetition for reconstittion of title. Nevertheless, it was allowed b* the trial cort to prosper.

0rthermore, there appears to be no reason for Respondent to disbelieve or not to rel* on the

representation made to her b* her client.

s to the alle#ed fradlent claim of compliance with LR reGirements, it is noted that the trial

Ad#e of RT, ?e-on it*, !ranch 4' 6 6 6 did not cite Respondent in contempt of cort.







6 6 6 6

learl*, what shold have been ;aal om:ss:os on the part of Respondent, as consel of the

petitioner in the $etition for Reconstittion %LR ase No. ?/348 48& were allowed to pass withot

challen#e. simple persal of the "ecision dated 1ne 8, 3448 %In Re: $etition for Reconstittion of

TT No. 3'(, LR ase No. ?/348 48& 6 6 6 shows that there was 3e<e3s:le e33o3 on the partof the presidin# Ad#e of RT, !ranch 4' of ?e-on it*.

6 6 6 6

6 6 6 2owever, the disciplinar* process does not pnish errors, mista;es or incompetence. Errors

and mista;es are corrected b* le#al remedies sch as motions for reconsideration, appeals, and

petitions for relief. The reversal of the 1ne 8, 3448 "ecision of the trial cort has remedied the error

committed.

)REMI"E" CON"I$ERE$, it is sbmitted that respondent did not commit an* act for which she

shold be disciplined or administrativel* sanctioned.

It is therefore recommended that this CA"E BE $I"MI""E$ ;o3 lac; of merit. 8

On +8 1ne +((8, the I!$ !oard of Bovernors passed a Resoltion9 dismissin# the complaint based

on the Report and Recommendation of ommissioner 0na. The parties were frnished with copies

of the I!$ Resoltion. On 9 September +((8, the ort received a $etition from complainant

pra*in# that his administrative complaint be reinstated on the basis of the appellate cortHs

prononcements in its: %3& "ecision dated '( 1anar* 3445 in .. B.R. S$ No. 7(54

entitled )dit% *. !gabao v. +on. Deetrio $. acaagal as *TC J#dge, $r. /, 0#e"on Cit1, !D)2

*)!LT3, I4C.., !G5)DO )5G)4IO and *)P5$LIC O6 T+) P+ILIPPI4)S, and %+& "ecision dated

+4 )arch +((74

in .. B.R. D No. 84'9' entitled In t%e atter of t%e Petition for t%e*econstit#tion of TCT 4o. '77/8 of t%e *egister of Deeds for t%e Province of *i"al #nder *.!. 4o.

9: )dit% *. !gabao v. !de" *ealt1, Inc. and t%e *e#blic of t%e P%iliines, affirmin# the Order

dated ++ 0ebrar* +((93( of the RT of ?e-on it*, !ranch 4' which set aside the reconstittion

previosl* ordered.

The cr6 of the controvers* is whether respondent maliciosl* misled the cort b* failin# to point ot

material notations in the docments she had sbmitted< whether she deliberatel* omitted mention of

certain persons entitled to notice nder the law< and whether she fradlentl* claimed that she had

complied with the LR reGirements or whether all these omissions cold be considered honest

mista;es or errors.

The ort finds no reason to distrb the findin#s of the ommissioner.

The ort a#rees with the ommissionerHs evalation that respondent did not emplo* deceit or

misrepresentation in actin# as consel for the petitioner in the petition for reconstittion of title. nent

respondentHs failre to point ot the notations in the docments she had sbmitted, in the ortHs

opinion, the ommissioner correctl* observed that there was absence of proof that respondent had

















intended to mislead or deceive the trial cort. In fact, the said notations were laid bare for the trial

cortHs evalation. There were no attempts on respondentHs part to maniplate or hide them.

s re#ards respondentHs failre to state in the petition certain persons entitled to notice nder the

law, specificall* the parties alle#edl* in possession of the properties, respondent nflinchin#l*

contered that she had dl* as;ed of her client the names of the persons havin# interest in thepropert* sbAect of the title so#ht to be reconstitted.33 In fact, the petition for reconstittion filed

before the cort contained the names and addresses of the adAoinin# land owners.3+ nd even in

retrospect, it appears that there was no reason for respondent to disbelieve the representations

made b* her client on the matter.

Re#ardin# respondentHs claim that she had complied with the LR reGirements when in trth she

had not, the ort concrs with the ommissionerHs findin# that respondent was not sfficientl*

informed that compliance was insfficient and improper.

In administrative cases for disbarment or sspension a#ainst law*ers, the Gantm of proof reGired

is clearl* preponderant evidence and the brden of proof rests pon the complainant.3'

In thepresent case, the ort finds that complainant, who notabl* owns one of the properties sbAect of

the title so#ht to be reconstitted,37 and is conseGentl* an adverse part*, failed to present clear

and preponderant evidence to show respondentHs #ilt of the char#es he had leveled a#ainst her. In

an* event, it is worth mentionin# that the preAdice, if an*, cased b* respondentHs oversi#ht a#ainst

complainant and other interested parties had been rectified later on b* a different Ad#e who set

aside the order of reconstittion.38

ll told, the lapses of respondent were committed withot malice and devoid of an* desire to dpe or

defrad the opposin# part*. The* are innocos blnders that were made withot intent to harm. s

plain acts of inadvertence, the* do not reach the level of professional incompetence. Chile

professional incompetence is not amon# the #ronds of disbarment enmerated in Section +, Rle3'5 of the Revised Rles of ort *et there are instances where a law*er ma* be disciplined for

ine6csable i#norance as the list is not e6clsive. Indeed, the ort is convinced that respondent

shold not be sanctioned.

$ertinentl*, the ort e6pressed in endo"a v. ercado,39 to wit:

n attorne*/at/law is not e6pected to ;now all the law. 0or an honest mista;e or error, an attorne* is

not liable. hief 1stice bbott said that, >no attorne* is bond to ;now all the law< Bod forbid that it

shold be ima#ined that an attorne* or a consel, or even a Ad#e, is bond to ;now all the law.>

%ontorio#s v. Jeffer1s, + ar. K $. 33', cited in In *e 0ilart, 7( $hil. +(8, +(5&.3

C2ERE0ORE, the petition for review is "ENIE". The Resoltion of the !oard of Bovernors of the

Inte#rated !ar of the $hilippines dated +8 1ne +((8 in dm. ase No. 7748 is 00IR)E". The

administrative complaint for disbarment of respondent tt*. polonia .. So#ilon is "IS)ISSE"

for lac; of merit.

SO OR"ERE".






















A.C. No. 294 (e3ua3y 1=, 199

MARIO ". MARI%ELE", complainant,

vs.

ATT. O$ILON C. MALLARI, respondent.

*odolfo $. Ta-asan for colainant.

)ER C!RIAM5

On 1anar* 33, 3454, )ario S. )ariveles of "avao it* filed an administrative complaint a#ainst his

former consel, ttorne* Odilon . )allari, whose le#al services he had en#a#ed in 3457 to handle

his defense in riminal ase No. 99(5 of the Re#ional Trial ort of "avao it* where he was

char#ed with violation of !.$. !l#. ++, otherwise ;nown as the !oncin# hec;s Law.

fter an adverse decision was rendered on "ecember +9, 3459, )ariveles instrcted ttorne*

)allari to appeal the trial cort=s decision to the ort of ppeals, which the respondent did.

2owever, in the ort of ppeals, despite nmeros e6tensions of time, totallin# +78 da*s, which he

obtained from the ort, ttorne* )allari failed to file the appellant=s brief, resltin# in the dismissal

of the appeal.

omplainant discovered his law*er=s desertion onl* when he was sbpoenaed b* the trial cort to

appear before it for the e6ection of the decision which had become final.

Thro#h new consel, complainant filed a $etition for Reinstatement of ppeal, ancellation of Entr*

of 1d#ment and dmission of ppellant=s !rief in /B.R. R No. (775+, bt it was denied b* the

appellate cort.

2e so#ht relief in this cort %B.R. No. 58497, >)ario S. )ariveles vs. ort of ppeal, et al.>& which,

on )arch 3', 3454, #ranted his petition, ordered the ort of ppeals to cancel the entr* of

Ad#ment in /B.R. R No. (775+, reinstate the appeal, and admit the appellant=s brief filed b* his

new consel. The ort said:

It is tre that the failre of consel to file brief for the appellant which

led to the dismissal of the appeal does not necessaril* warrant the

reinstatement thereof. 2owever, where the ne#li#ence of consel is

so #reat that the ri#hts of accsed are preAdiced and he is prevented

from presentin# his defense, especiall* where the appellant raises

isses which place in serios dobt the correctness of the trial cort=s

Ad#ment of conviction, the aforesaid rle mst not be ri#idl* applied



to avoid a miscarria#e of Astice. These teachin#s of Arisprdence

are present in the case at bar.

On the first aspect, the failre of petitioner=s former consel to file the

brief, for reasons n;nown and withot an* case imptable to

petitioner, amonted to deliberate abandonment of his client=s interestand Astifies reinstatement with conseGent de consideration of

petitioner=s appeal thro#h a new consel. %pp. 3(9/3(, *ollo&.

On 0ebrar* 38, 3454, the administrative complaint was referred to the Inte#rated !ar of the

$hilippines %I!$& for investi#ation, report and recommendation.

The I!$=s ommittee on !ar "iscipline investi#ated the complaint and held hearin#s. On )arch ',

344+, it sbmitted to this ort a reportQresoltion findin#:

In sm, what was committed b* the respondent is a blatant violation of or ode of

$rofessional Responsibilit*.

666 666 666

Rle 3+.(' law*er shall not, after obtainin# e6tensions of time to

file pleadin#s, memoranda or briefs, let the period lapse withot

sbmittin# the same or offerin# an e6planation for his failre to do so.

Rle 35.(' law*er shall not ne#lect a le#al matter entrsted to

him and his ne#li#ence in connection therewith shall render him

liable.

Sffice it to state that a law*er has no bsiness practicin# his profession if in the

corse of that practice, he will eventall* wrec; and destro* the ftre and reptation

of his client and ths dis#race the law profession. The last thin# that his peers in the

law profession and the Inte#rated !ar of the $hilippines wold do is to disrobe a

member of the profession, for he has wor;ed for the attainment of his career brnin#

the midni#ht oil thro#hot school and passin# the bar. The ndersi#ned, however,

cold not find an* miti#atin# circmstances to recommend a li#hter penalt*.

"isbarment is the onl* recorse to remove a rotten apple if onl* to instill and maintain

the respect and confidence of all and sndr* to the noble profession. %pp. +74/

+8(, *ollo&

The ort concrs with the above observations. The respondent demonstrated not onl* appallin#

indifference and lac; of responsibilit* to the corts and his client bt also a shameless disre#ard for

his dties as a law*er. 2e is nfit for membership in this noble profession.

C2ERE0ORE, the ort finds respondent ttorne* Odilon . )allari #ilt* of abandonment and

dereliction of dt* toward his client and hereb* orders him "IS!RRE" from the le#al profession

and to immediatel* cease and desist from the practice of law. Let the Office of the ort



dministrator and the E6ective 1d#es of the Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh and Twelfth 1dicial Re#ions,

be frnished with copies of this resoltion for dissemination to all the corts in those re#ions.

SO OR"ERE".

A.C. No. 6442 O7oe3 21, 2004

'ON. MARIANO ". MACIA", complainant,

vs.

ATT. ALANI>ON A. "EL$A, respondent.

" E I S I O N

)!NO, J.:

0or violation of the law*erHs oath, 1d#e )ariano S. )acias, $residin# 1d#e of Re#ional Trial ort,

!ranch +5, Lilo*, amboan#a del Norte, filed before the Inte#rated !ar of the $hilippines %I!$& a

$etition for dministrative "iscipline a#ainst tt*. lani6on . Selda.3

The facts are ndispted. On 1anar* +7, +(((, respondent Selda withdrew as consel for one

Norma T. Lim, private protestee in Election ase No. SE/(3 entitled Rth )araon v. The )nicipal

!oard of anvassers, Sald, amboan#a del Norte, and Norma T. Lim for nnlment of Election,

etc.+ 2e basicall* sbmitted as #rond for his withdrawal that he cold not cope p with the pace of

the proceedin#s in view of his wor;load. 2e claimed that the hearin#s of the election protest case

wold rn from +:(( p.m. to 8:(( p.m. and he still had to attend to his other cases incldin# classes

at $hilippine dvent olle#e, which start at 8:'( p.m. on )onda*s and Cednesda*s.

In li#ht of these representations, complainant #ranted the )otion and ordered respondent relieved of

all his responsibilities as consel for private protestee. 2owever, on )a* ++, +(((, respondent

e6ected an affidavit disavowin# his #ronds for withdrawin# as consel for private protestee. 2e

swore that he onl* filed the )otion on accont of the pre/Ad#ment of the case b* complainant, who,

on several occasions insinated to him that his client wold lose in the protest. 2e stated that he

was convinced that chaos wold reslt if his client were nseated, and withdrawal from the case was

his best recorse.

On the basis of respondentHs affidavit, his former client and private protestee in sbAect election

protest case, moved for the inhibition of complainant. On 1ne +, +(((, complainant #ranted the

motion for his inhibition if onl* to disabse an* dobt on his impartialit*. !t on #st +', +(((, this

ort set aside complainantHs inhibition after findin# no stron# and valid reason therefor, and

directed him to contine hearin# the case and to resolve it with reasonable dispatch.

"eplorin# the act of respondent as >serios deceit, malpractice, #ross miscondct as a law*er and in

tter violation of the law*erHs oath,> complainant reGested the I!$ to investi#ate the matter and



recommend to the ort an appropriate penalt* a#ainst respondent. On 1anar* '(, +((+, the I!$

ommission on !ar "iscipline'reGired respondent to answer. 2e failed.

On November +3, +((', after several postponements filed b* the parties, their failre to personall*

appear before the I!$ investi#atin# commission, and the reGest of complainant to resolve the case

on the basis of the pleadin#s, ommissioner Rebecca Dillaneva/)aala, sbmitted her report andrecommended to the I!$ !oard of Bovernors that respondent be sspended from the practice of law

for two %+& *ears.

The !oard, in its Resoltion No. FDI/+((7/3++ dated 0ebrar* +, +((7, adopted and approved with

modification the Report and Recommendation of ommissioner )aala. It redced the sspension of

respondent to si6 %9& months< hence, the transmittal of the case and its records to this ort for final

resoltion7 prsant to Rle 3'4/!, Section 3+%b& of the Rles of ort, vi-:

Review and "ecision b* the !oard of Bovernors. 6 6 6 6 %b& If the !oard, b* the vote of a

maAorit* of its total membership, determines that the respondent shold be sspended from

the practice of law or disbarred, it shall isse a resoltion settin# forth its findin#s andrecommendations which, to#ether with the whole record of the case, shall forthwith be

transmitted to the Spreme ort for final action.

Ce affirm the findin#s of the I!$ on the clpabilit* of respondent.

ll members of the le#al profession made a solemn oath to, inter alia, >do no falsehood> and

>condct themselves as law*ers accordin# to the best of their ;nowled#e and discretion with all

#ood fidelit* as well to the corts as to their clients.> These particlar fndamental principles are

reflected in the ode of $rofessional Responsibilit*, specificall*:

anon 3( law*er owes candor, fairness and #ood faith to the cort.

Rle 3(.(3 law*er shall not do an* falsehood, nor consent to the doin# of an* in ort,

nor shall he mislead, or allow the ort to be misled b* an artifice.

Chen respondent e6ected his affidavit of )a* ++, +((( retractin# his reason for

withdrawin# as consel for Norma T. Lim, he ac;nowled#ed, ude3 oa, his

misrepresentation. 2e misled the cort in clear violation of his oath as law*er and failed to

abide b* the ode of $rofessional Responsibilit*.

andor towards the corts is a cardinal reGirement of the practicin# law*er.8 In fact, this obli#ation

to the bench for candor and honest* ta;es precedence.9

Ths, sa*in# one thin# in his )otion toCithdraw as onsel for $rivate $rotestee and another in his sbseGent affidavit is a trans#ression

of this imperative which necessitates appropriate pnishment.

The appropriate penalt* to be imposed on an errant attorne* involves the e6ercise of sond Adicial

discretion based on the facts of the case. Section +, Rle 3'5 of the Rles of ort provides, vi-:



Sec. +. "isbarment or sspension of attorne*s b* Spreme ort, #ronds therefor.

member of the bar ma* be disbarred or sspended from his office as attorne* b* the

Spreme ort for an* deceit, malpractice, or other #ross miscondct in sch office, #rossl*

immoral condct, or b* reason of his conviction of a crime involvin# moral trpitde or for

an* violation of the oath which he is reGired to ta;e before admission to practice, or for a

willfl disobedience of an* lawfl order of a sperior cort, or for corrptl* or willfll*appearin# as an attorne* for a part* to a case withot athorit* to do so. The practice of

solicitin# cases for the prpose of #ain, either personall* or thro#h paid a#ents or bro;ers,

constittes malpractice.

The circmstances in this case demand that respondent be imposed sspension from the

practice of law for one %3& *ear. This serves the prpose of protectin# the interest of the

cort, the le#al profession and the pblic. 0or indeed, >if respect for the corts and for Adicial

process is #one or steadil* wea;ened, no law can save s as a societ*.>

IN %IE& &'EREO(, the 0ebrar* +, +((7 Resoltion of the I!$ !oard of Bovernors in !" ase

No. (+/4+3 isA((IRME$ with the MO$I(ICATION that respondent tt*. lani6on . Seldais "!")EN$E$ from the practice of law for one %3& *ear, to commence pon receipt of this

"ecision. 2e is frther sternl* warned that a repetition of a similar offense will call for a more severe

conseGence.

Let a cop* of this "ecision be attached to the personal record of respondent with the Office of the

!ar onfidant. Li;ewise, let copies of this "ecision be frnished the Inte#rated !ar of the $hilippines

and all its chapters, and to all the corts in the land.

!#stria-artine", Calle;o, Sr., Tinga, and C%ico-4a"ario, JJ., concr.

A.C. No. 8481 Au+us , 2010

?(o3me3ly B.M. No. 124@

ATT. JO"ABET' %. ALON"O ad "'ALIMAR ). LAZATIN, omplainants,

vs.

ATT. IBARO B. RELAMI$A, JR., Respondent.

" E I S I O N

)ERALTA, J.:

!efore s is a omplaint3 dated October 3', +((8 for disciplinar* action a#ainst respondent tt*.

Ibaro !. Relamida, 1r. filed b* tt*s. 1osabeth D. lonso and Shalimar $. La-atin, consel of Servier

$hilippines, Incorporated for violatin# the rles on form shoppin# and res ;#dicata.

The antecedent facts of the case are as follows:






In )arch +((3, 1ennifer Ebanen filed a omplaint for ille#al dismissal a#ainst Servier $hilippines,

Incorporated %Servier& doc;eted as NLR/NR/ase No. '(/('/(385'/(3, alle#in# constrctive

dismissal with pra*er for reinstatement or pa*ment of separation pa*, bac;wa#es, moral and

e6emplar* dama#es.

On 1l* 8, +((+, the Labor rbiter rled in favor of Servier.

+

It held that Ebanen volntaril* resi#nedfrom Servier and was, therefore, not ille#all* dismissed.

Ebanen appealed at the National Labor Relations ommission %NLR&. On )arch '3, +((', the

NLR/Third "ivision affirmed the "ecision of the Labor rbiter.'

Ths, Ebanen moved for reconsideration. 2owever, the NLR denied the same in a

Resoltion7 dated )a* 8, +(('.

Unsatisfied, Ebanen filed a $etition for Certiorari before the ort of ppeals which was doc;eted as

/B.R. S$ No. 495. In a "ecision8 dated 1anar* 39, +((7, the ort of ppeals %& affirmed

the findin#s of the NLR that Ebanen volntaril* resi#ned and that there was no constrctivedismissal. Ebanen moved anew for reconsideration, bt was denied in a Resoltion9 dated pril '(,

+((7.

Unrelentin#, Ebanen filed a $etition for Review before the Spreme ort. 2owever, in a

Resoltion dated #st 7, +((7, the ort fond no reversible error on the part of the , ths,

denied said petition. Ebanen filed a motion for reconsideration, bt was denied with finalit* in a

Resoltion5 dated October 33, +((7.

Ebanen filed a )otion for Leave to dmit Second )otion for Reconsideration of the Resoltions

dated #st 7, +((7 and October 33, +((7, respectivel*. On 1anar* 34, +((8, the ort denied

her motion.4

$ersistent, Ebanen filed a )otion to dmit a Third )otion for Reconsideration of the Resoltion

dated 1anar* 34, +((8. On pril +(, +((8, the ort denied her motion for bein# a prohibited

pleadin# and noted withot action EbanenHs third motion for reconsideration.3(

On 1l* +, +((8, the Second "ivision of the Spreme ort noted withot action EbanenHs )otion

for Leave to dmit Spplemental Third )otion for Reconsideration dated 1ne 3, +((8, in view of the

entr* of Ad#ment on 0ebrar* 3, +((8.33

On 0ebrar* 3, +((8, the ortHs Resoltion dated #st 7, +((7 has alread* become final and

e6ector*< ths, a correspondin# Entr* of 1d#ment3+

has been issed.

2owever, despite said entr* of Ad#ment, Ebanen, thr her consel, tt*. Relamida, filed a second

complaint on #st 8, +((8 for ille#al dismissal based on the same case of action of constrctive

dismissal a#ainst Servier, now doc;eted as NLR/NR ase No. ((/(5/(+++/(8.





























Ths, on October 3', +((8, Servier, thr consel, filed a letter/complaint addressed to the then hief

1stice 2ilario "avide, 1r., pra*in# that respondents be disciplinar* sanctioned for violation of the

rles on form shoppin# and res ;#dicata.

SbseGentl*, in a Resoltion3' dated November 38, +((8, the ort reGired both Ebanen and tt*.

Relamida to comment on the letter/complaint a#ainst them.

On 1anar* 39, +((9, respondents filed their omments.37 !oth respondents admitted the filin# of

the second complaint a#ainst Servier. The* claimed that the Ad#ment rendered b* the Labor rbiter

was nll and void for want of de process, since the motion for the issance of sbpoena d#ces

tec# for the prodction of vital docments filed b* the complainant was i#nored b* the Labor

rbiter. The* opined that the dismissal did not amont to res ;#dicata, since the decision was nll

and void for lac; of de process. s a reslt, the* claimed that there was also no violation of the rle

on form shoppin#.38

On 0ebrar* , +((9, the ort referred the instant bar matter to the Inte#rated !ar of the

$hilippines %I!$& for investi#ation, report and recommendation.39

On 1anar* ++, +((, the Labor rbiter dismissed the second complaint on the #ronds of res

;#dicata and form shoppin#. It frther reiterated that Ebanen volntaril* resi#ned from emplo*ment

and was not constrctivel* dismissed.

On )arch 37, +((5, drin# the mandator* conference before the I!$, complainants failed to appear.

Ebanen manifested that she is not a law*er.

!oth parties were reGired to sbmit their respective position papers.

tt*. Relamida reiterated that Ebanen is not a law*er and that she is the da#hter of tt*. Leonardo relio %tt*. relio&, the senior partner of .). Sison 1r. and $artners Law Offices where he is

emplo*ed as associate law*er.

2e narrated that on )arch +5, +((3, Ebanen filed a omplaint for il le#al dismissal a#ainst Servier.

2e claimed that in the be#innin#, tt*. relio was the one who prepared and reviewed all the

pleadin#s and it was tt*. Laplap Osoteo who stood as consel for Ebanen in the said labor case.

tt*. Relamida admitted, however, that drin# the filin# of the second complaint he too; over as

consel of Ebanen, as reGested b* tt*. relio.3 2e also admitted that drin# the pendenc* of the

first complaint, he occasionall* e6amined pleadin#s and si#ned as consel for Ebanen. 35

tt*. Relamida reasoned ot that as a cortes* to tt*. relio and Ebanen, he had no choice bt torepresent the latter. )oreover, he stressed that his client was denied of her ri#ht to de process de

to the denial of her motion for the issance of a sbpoena d#ces tec#. 2e then ar#ed that the

decision of the Labor rbiter was nll and void< ths, there was no res ;#dicata.34 2e maintained that

he did not violate the law*erHs oath b* servin# the interest of his client.

Servier, on the other hand, ar#ed that the filin# of the second complaint is a violation of the ri#hts of

Servier, since the isse has alread* attained finalit*. It contended that tt*. Relamida violated the



















rles on form shoppin# for the same act of filin# a second complaint. s a conseGence, the* are

bein# made to defend themselves in a case that has been settled before the labor tribnals and

corts. Li;ewise, Servier insisted that the filin# of the second complaint was also a blatant violation

of the rle on res ;#dicata. 2ence, Servier pra*ed that tt*. Relamida be disciplinar* dealt with de to

his abse of the processes of the corts.

On pril 34, +((5, the I!$/ommission on !ar "iscipline %I!$/!"& recommended that respondent

tt*. Relamida be sspended from the practice of law for si6 %9& months. It imposed no sanction on

Ebanen for bein# a non/law*er.

In its Report, the I!$ fond that b* filin# the second complaint, tt*. Relamida was #ilt* of violatin#

the rles onres ;#dicata and form shoppin#. It conclded that tt*. Relamida absed his ri#ht of

recorse to the corts b* filin# a complaint for a case that had been previosl* reAected b* the

corts.

On 1ne 8, +((5, the I!$ !oard of Bovernors resolved to adopt and approve with modification as to

penalt* the report of the I!$/!". Instead, it recommended that tt*. Relamida be sspended fromthe practice of law for one %3& month for his violation of the rles on res Adicata and form shoppin#.

On "ecember , +((4, the Office of the !ar onfidant recommended that the instant complaint be

re/doc;eted as a re#lar administrative case a#ainst tt*. Relamida.

Ce sstain the findin#s of the I!$/!".

ll law*ers mst bear in mind that their oaths are neither mere words nor an empt* formalit*. Chen

the* ta;e their oath as law*ers, the* dedicate their lives to the prsit of Astice. The* accept the

sacred trst to phold the laws of the land. s the first anon of the ode of $rofessional

Responsibilit* states, >a law*er shall phold the onstittion, obe* the laws of the land andpromote respect for law and le#al processes.> )oreover, accordin# to the law*erHs oath the* too;,

law*ers shold >not wittin#l* or willin#l* promote or se an* #rondless, false or nlawfl sit, nor

#ive aid or consent to the same.>+(

In the instant case, it is clear that tt*. Relamida is #ilt* of form shoppin# and violation of the rle

on res ;#dicata. tt*. Relamida shold have refrained from filin# the second complaint a#ainst

Servier. 2e o#ht to have ;nown that the previos dismissal was with preAdice, since it had the

effect of an adAdication on the merits. 2e was aware of all the proceedin#s which the first complaint

went thro#h as b* his own admission, he participated in the preparation of the pleadin#s and even

si#ned as consel of Ebanen occasionall*.+3 2e ;new that the decision in the sbAect case had

alread* attained finalit*. tt*. Relamida was well aware that when he filed the second complaint, itinvolved the same parties and same case of action, albeit, he Astified the same on the #rond of

nllit* of the previos dismissal.

2is alle#ation that he was not the ori#inal consel of Ebanen and that his intention was onl* to

protect the ri#hts of his clients whom he believed were not properl* addressed in the prior complaint

deserves scant consideration. 2e shold ;now that once a case is decided with finalit*, the







controvers* is settled and the matter is laid to rest. The prevailin# part* is entitled to enAo* the frits

of his victor*, while the other part* is obli#ed to respect the cortHs verdict and to compl* with it.++

The essence of form shoppin# is the filin# of mltiple sits involvin# the same parties for the same

case of action, either simltaneosl* or sccessivel*, for the prpose of obtainin# a favorable

Ad#ment. It e6ists when, as a reslt of an adverse opinion in one form, a part* see;s a favorableopinion in another, or when he instittes two or more actions or proceedin#s #ronded on the same

case to increase the chances of obtainin# a favorable decision. n important factor in determinin#

its e6istence is the ve6ation cased to the corts and the parties/liti#ants b* the filin# of similar

cases to claim sbstantiall* the same reliefs. 0orm shoppin# e6ists where the elements of litis

endentia are present or e3e a ;:al ud+me : oe 7ase :ll amou o res judicata :

aoe3. Ths, the followin# reGisites shold concr:+'

6 6 6 %a& identit* of parties, or at least sch parties as represent the same interests in both actions,

%b& identit* of ri#hts asserted and relief pra*ed for, the relief bein# fonded on the same facts, and

%c& the identit* of the two precedin# particlars is sch that an* Ad#ment rendered in the other

action will, re#ardless of which part* is sccessfl, amont to res ;#dicata in the action nderconsideration.

law*er owes fidelit* to the case of his client, bt not at the e6pense of trth and the administration

of Astice. The filin# of mltiple petitions constittes abse of the cortHs processes and improper

condct that tends to impede, obstrct and de#rade the administration of Astice and will be

pnished as contempt of cort. Needless to state, the law*er who files sch mltiple or repetitios

petitions %which obviosl* dela*s the e6ection of a final and e6ector* Ad#ment& sbAects himself

to disciplinar* action for incompetence %for not ;nowin# an* better& or for willfl violation of his dties

as an attorne* to act with all #ood fidelit* to the corts, and to maintain onl* sch actions as appear

to him to be Ast and are consistent with trth and honor.+7

The filin# of another action concernin# the same sbAect matter, in violation of the doctrine of res

;#dicata, rns contrar* to anon 3+ of the ode of $rofessional Responsibilit*, which reGires a

law*er to e6ert ever* effort and consider it his dt* to assist in the speed* and efficient

administration of Astice. !* his actations, respondent also violated Rle 3+.(+ and Rle 3+.(7 of

the ode, as well as a law*erHs mandate >to dela* no man for mone* or malice.>+8

The ort has, time and a#ain, warned law*ers not to resort to form shoppin# for this practice clo#s

the cort doc;ets. Their primar* dt* is to assist the corts in the administration of Astice. n*

condct which tends to dela*, impede or obstrct the administration of Astice contravenes sch

law*erHs dt*.+9 This we will not tolerate.'avv%i'

In cases of similar natre,+ the penalt* imposed b* this ort was si6 %9& months sspension from

the practice of law. Ths, consistent with the e6istin# Arisprdence, we find that, in this case, the

sspension of si6 %9& months from practice of law is proper.

&'ERE(ORE, Resoltion No. FDIII/+((5/+59, dated 1ne 8, +((5, of the I!$, which fond

respondent tt*. Ibaro !. Relamida, 1r. #ilt* of violatin# the Rles on Res 1dicata and 0orm

Shoppin#, is A((IRME$. tt*. Relaminda is hereb* "!")EN$E$ for si6 %9& months from the















practice of law, effective pon the receipt of this "ecision. 2e is warned that a repetition of the same

or a similar act will be dealt with more severel*.

Let a cop* of this "ecision be frnished to the Office of the !ar onfidant, to be appended to the

personal record of tt*. Relamida as a member of the !ar< the Inte#rated !ar of the $hilippines< and

the Office of the ort dministrator, for circlation to all corts in the contr* for their informationand #idance.

This "ecision shall be immediatel* e6ector*.

SO OR"ERE".

A.C. No. 6198 "eeme3 1, 2006

RENATO M. MALI*AA, complainant,

vs.

ATT. ANTONIO *. $ORONILLA, JR., respondent.

R E S O L U T I O N

CORONA, J .5

tt*. ntonio B. "oronilla, 1r. of the 1d#e dvocate Beneral=s Service is before s on a char#e of

nethical condct for havin# ttered a falsehood in open cort drin# a hearin# of ivil ase No. ?/

44/'55.3

ivil ase No. ?/44/'55 was an action for dama#es filed b* complainant Renato ). )ali#a*a, a

doctor and retired colonel of the rmed 0orces of the $hilippines, a#ainst several militar* officers for

whom tt*. "oronilla stood as consel. t one point drin# the 0ebrar* 34, +((+ hearin# of the

case, tt*. "oronilla said:

nd another matter, Mor 2onor. I was appearin# in other cases he complainant )ali#a*a

filed before a#ainst the same defendants. &e ad a a+3eeme a :; e :d3a e

7ase a+a:s :m, e :ll also :d3a all e 7ases. "o, : a ude3sad:+, e

e<e 3e:3ed ad e :s o 3e7e:<:+ es:o.+ %emphasis spplied&

onsiderin# this to be of some conseGence, presidin# 1d#e Re*naldo !. "awa* as;ed a nmber

of clarificator* Gestions and thereafter ordered tt*. "oronilla to pt his statements in writin# and

>file the appropriate pleadin#.>' Cee;s passed bt tt*. "oronilla sbmitted no sch pleadin# or

an*thin# else to sbstantiate his averments.

On pril +4, +((+, )ali#a*a filed a complaint a#ainst tt*. "oronilla in the Inte#rated !ar of the

$hilippines %I!$& ommission on !ar "iscipline.7 The complaint, which char#ed tt*. "oronilla with

>misleadin# the cort thro#h misrepresentation of facts resltin# in obstrction of Astice,> 8 was

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/ac_6198_2006.html#fnt1













referred to a commissioner 9 for investi#ation. omplainant swore before the investi#atin#

commissioner that he had never entered into an* a#reement to withdraw his lawsits. tt*.

"oronilla, who too; p the lar#er part of two hearin#s to present evidence and e6plain his side,

admitted several times that there was, in fact, no sch a#reement.5 Later he e6plained in his

memorandm that his main concern was >to settle the case amicabl* amon# comrades in arms

withot #oin# to trial>

4

and insisted that there was no proof of his havin# violated the ode of$rofessional Responsibilit* or the law*er=s oath.3( 2e pointed ot, in addition, that his false statement

%or, as he pt it, his >alle#ed acts of falsit*>& had no effect on the continance of the case and

therefore cased no actal preAdice to complainant. 33

In de time, investi#atin# commissioner L*dia . Navarro sbmitted a report and recommendation

findin# tt*. "oronilla #ilt* of prposel* statin# a falsehood in violation of anon 3(, Rle 3(.(3 of

the ode of $rofessional Responsibilit*3+ and recommendin# that he be >sspended from the

#overnment militar* service as le#al officer for a period of three months.>3' This was adopted and

approved in toto b* the I!$ !oard of Bovernors on #st '(, +(('.37

There is a stron# pblic interest involved in reGirin# law*ers who, as officers of the cort, participatein the dispensation of Astice, to behave at all times in a manner consistent with trth and

honor .38 The common caricatre that law*ers b* and lar#e do not feel compelled to spea; the trth

and to act honestl* shold not become a common realit*.39 To this end, anon 3( and Rle 3(.(3 of

the ode of $rofessional Responsibilit* state:

NON 3( LCMER OCES N"OR, 0IRNESS, N" BOO" 0IT2 TO T2E

OURT.

Rle 3(.(3 law*er shall not do an* falsehood, nor consent to the doin# of an* in cort<

nor shall he mislead, or allow the ort to be misled b* an* artifice.

!* statin# ntrthfll* in open cort that complainant had a#reed to withdraw his lawsits, tt*.

"oronilla breached these peremptor* tenets of ethical condct. Not onl* that, he violated the

law*er=s oath to >do no falsehood, nor consent to the doin# of an* in cort,> of which anon 3( and

Rle 3(.(3 are bt restatements. 2is act infrin#ed on ever* law*er=s dt* to >never see; to mislead

the Ad#e or an* Adicial officer b* an artifice or false statement of fact or law.>3

tt*. "oronilla=s nethical condct was componded, moreover, b* his obstinate refsal to

ac;nowled#e the impropriet* of what he had done. 0rom the ver* be#innin# of this administrative

case, tt*. "oronilla maintained the ntenable position that he had done nothin# wron# in the

hearin# of ivil ase No. ?/44/'55. 2e persisted in doin# so even after havin# admitted that he

had, in that hearin#, spo;en of an a#reement that did not in trth e6ist. Rather than e6press remorsefor that re#rettable incident, tt*. "oronilla resorted to an ill/conceived attempt to evade

responsibilit*, professin# that the falsehood had not been meant for the information of 1d#e "awa*

bt onl* as >a sort of Gestion> to complainant re#ardin# a >pendin# proposal> to settle the case.35

The e6planation sbmitted b* tt*. "oronilla, remar;able onl* for its speciosness,34 cannot absolve

him. If an*thin#, it leads s to sspect an nseeml* readiness on his part to obfscate plain facts for

the nworth* prpose of escapin# his Ast deserts. There is in his favor, tho#h, a presmption of


































#ood faith+( which ;eeps s from treatin# the incon#rit* of his proffered e6cse as an indication of

mendacit*. !esides, in the li#ht of his avowal that his onl* aim was >to settle the case amicabl*

amon# comrades in arms withot #oin# to trial,>+3perhaps it is not nreasonable to assme that what

he reall* meant to sa* was that he had intended the misrepresentation as a #ambit to #et the

proposed a#reement on the table, as it were. !t even if that had been so, it wold have been no

Astification for spea;in# falsel* in cort. There is nothin# in the dt* of a law*er to foster peaceamon# disptants that, in an* wa*, ma;es it necessar* nder an* circmstances for consel to state

as a fact that which is not tre. law*er=s dt* to the cort to emplo* onl* sch means as are

consistent with trth and honor ++ forbids recorse to sch a tactic. Ths, even as we #ive tt*.

"oronilla the benefit of the dobt and accept as tre his avowed obAective of #ettin# the parties to

settle the case amicabl*, we mst call him to accont for resortin# to falsehood as a means to that

end.

tt*. "oronilla=s offense is within the ambit of Section +, Rle 3'5 of the Rles of ort, which in

part declares:

member of the bar ma* be disbarred or sspended from his office as attorne* b* theSpreme ort for an* deceit 6 6 6 or for an* violation of the oath which he is reGired to

ta;e before admission to practice 6 6 6.

The sspension referred to in the fore#oin# provision means onl* sspension from the practice of

law. 0or this reason, we disa#ree with the I!$=s recommendation for tt*. "oronilla=s sspension

from the #overnment militar* service. fter all, the onl* prpose of this administrative case is to

determine tt*. "oronilla=s liabilit* as a member of the le#al profession, not his liabilit* as a le#al

officer in the militar* service. Ths, it wold be improper for s to order, as a penalt* for his breach of

le#al ethics and the law*er=s oath, his sspension from emplo*ment in the 1d#e dvocate Beneral=s

Service. Of corse, sspension from emplo*ment as a militar* le#al officer ma* well follow as a

7oseue7e of his sspension from the practice of law bt that shold not be reason for s toimpose it as a ealy for his professional miscondct. Ce wold be #oin# be*ond the prpose of

this proceedin# were we to do so. Therefore, we shall treat the I!$=s recommendation as one for

sspension from the practice of law.

t an* rate, we are not inclined to adopt the I!$=s recommendation on the dration of tt*.

"oronilla=s sspension. Ce need to consider a few circmstances that miti#ate his liabilit*

somewhat. 0irst, we #ive him credit for e6hibitin# eno#h candor to admit, drin# the investi#ation,

the falsit* of the statement he had made in 1d#e "awa*=s cortroom. Second, the absence of

material dama#e to complainant ma* also be considered as a miti#atin# circmstance.+' nd finall*,

since this is tt*. "oronilla=s first offense, he is entitled to some measre of forbearance. +7

Nonetheless, his nrepentant attitde thro#hot the condct of this administrative case tells s that

a mere slap on the wrist is definitel* not eno#h. tt*. "oronilla, it seems, needs time awa* from the

practice of law to reco#ni-e his error and to pr#e himself of the misbe#otten notion that an effort to

compromise Astifies the sacrifice of trthflness in cort.













&'ERE(ORE, tt*. ntonio B. "oronilla, 1r. is hereb* "!")EN$E$ from the practice of law

for T&O MONT'".2e is &ARNE$ that a repetition of the same or similar miscondct shall be dealt

with more severel*.

Let a cop* of this Resoltion be attached to his personal record and copies frnished the Inte#rated

!ar of the $hilippines, the Office of the ort dministrator, the hief/of/Staff of the rmed 0orces of the $hilippines and the ommandin# Beneral of the 0$ 1d#e dvocate Beneral=s Service.

"O OR$ERE$.

A.C. No. 1900 Jue 1, 2012

RO$RI*O A. MOLINA, omplainant,

vs.

ATT. CE(ERINO R. MA*AT, Respondent.

" E I S I O N

MEN$OZA, J.:

!efore the ort is the ndated Resoltion3 of the !oard of Bovernors of the Inte#rated !ar of the

$hilippines<I$P= findin# tt*. eferino R. )a#at <!tt1. agat= liable for nethical condct and

recommendin# that he be reprimanded.

The 0acts&

The case stemmed from a complaint for disbarment+ filed b* Rodri#o .

)olina <colainant= a#ainst tt*. )a#at before the ort on )a* 8, 345. The complaint alle#ed,

amon# others, that complainant filed cases of ssalt Upon an #ent of a $erson in thorit* and

!reach of the $eace and Resistin# rrest a#ainst one $ascal de Leon <de Leon= before the ort

of 0irst Instance <C6I= of )anila< that the consel of record for accsed de Leon in both cases was

tt*. )a#at< that a case for sli#ht ph*sical inAries was filed a#ainst him %)olina& b* de Leon as a

conter/char#e and tt*. )a#at was also the private prosector< that tt*. )a#at sbseGentl* filed a

motion to Gash the information on ssalt pon an #ent of a $erson in thorit* on the sole

#rond of doble Aeopard* claimin# that a similar case for sli#ht ph*sical inAries was filed in cort b*

a certain $at. )olina <olina=< that based on the record, no case of sli#ht ph*sical inAries was filed

b* )olina a#ainst de Leon< that tt*. )a#at was ver* mch aware of sch fact as he was the

consel and private prosector on record of de Leon from the ver* start of the case wa* bac; on

)a* +7, 347< that tt*. )a#atHs act of filin# the )otion to ?ash was a malicios act done in bad

faith to mislead the cort, ths, a betra*al of the confidence of the cort of which he is an officer< and

that tt*. )a#at li;ewise committed willfl disobedience of the cort order when he appeared as

consel for de Leon on two %+& occasions despite the fact that he was sspended from the practice

of law.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/jun2012/ac_1900_2012.html#fnt1







In his nswer,' tt*. )a#at averred that in so far as the filin# of the motion to Gash was concerned,

he was reall* nder the impression that a criminal case in lie of the two %+& char#es was indeed

filed and that the said motion was opposed b* the other part* and was denied b* the cort. 2e

admitted his appearances in cort while nder sspension. 2e e6plained that his appearance in the

"ecember +3, 34 hearin# was to inform the cort that the accsed was sic; and to prevent the

issance of a warrant of arrest a#ainst the accsed. In the 1anar* 4, 345 hearin#, he appearedbecase the accsed had no mone* and pleaded that his testimon* be finished. tt*. )a#at be##ed

for the indl#ence of the cort and conve*ed his repentance and apolo#* and promised that the

same wold not happen a#ain.

The complaint was endorsed to the Office of the Solicitor Beneral <OSG= for investi#ation, report and

recommendation.7 Thereafter, the OSB transmitted the records of the case to the I!$ for proper

disposition.

In his Report and Recommendation8 dated )arch +(, +((4, the I!$ ommission on !ar "iscipline

fond merit in the complaint and recommended that tt*. )a#at be reprimanded and

fined $8(,(((.((. It stated that:

This ommission finds it hard to believe that respondent wold have mista;enl* been nder the

impression that a case for ph*sical inAries was filed a#ainst his client when there was no sch case

filed. Respondent was either ne#li#entl* rec;less or he had mischievos intentions to deceive the

trial cort. In an* case, he committed a trans#ression for which he shold be pnished.

2owever, the #raver sin of respondent is, and this he admits, that he appeared as consel before a

trial cort on at least two %+& occasions notwithstandin# the fact that he had been sspended b* the

Spreme ort from the practice of law. "espite professin# his contrition in his nswer, this

ommission is not convinced. Otherwise, respondent shold have had, at the onset of the

proceedin#s, admitted to his misdeeds and pt his fate sGarel* with the disciplinar* bod*. Met, heproceeded to fi#ht the char#es a#ainst him.

)oreover, if respondent was indeed moved b* altristic intentions when he made those

appearances before the trial cort despite havin# been sspended, he cold have so informed the

$residin# 1d#e of his pli#ht and e6plained wh* the part* he was representin# cold not attend. Met,

what he proceeded to do was to enter his appearance as consel. Indeed, it is be*ond dobt he

trifled with the sspension order handed b* the Spreme ort.

If there is one thin# #oin# for respondent, it is that the passa#e of time with which this case remains

pendin# ma;es it difficlt to impose a penalt* of sspension on him. Under normal circmstances,

this ommission wold not have tho#ht twice of sspendin# respondent. 2owever, the actscommitted b* respondent occrred over TCENTM %+(& MERS a#o. It wold not be fair to now

impose a sspension on respondent, more so considerin# that he is, in all li;elihood, in the twili#ht of

his career.

On the other hand, there is still a need to discipline respondent if onl* to set an e6ample to other

law*ers that sspension orders of the Spreme ort cannot simpl* be i#nored. Ths, it is the

recommendation of the ndersi#ned that respondent be meted a fine of 0I0TM T2OUSN" $ESOS










%$ 8(,(((.((& and that he be heavil* reprimanded for his actions, the passa#e of time

notwithstandin#.9

On )a* 37, +(33, the I!$ !oard of Bovernors passed its Resoltion adoptin# the findin#s of the

Investi#atin# ommissioner. It, however, deleted the imposition of fine.

The ort a#rees with the findin#s of the I!$ bt not with respect to the penalt*.

The practice of law is a privile#e bestowed on those who show that the* possess and contine to

possess the le#al Galifications for it. Indeed, law*ers are e6pected to maintain at all times a hi#h

standard of le#al proficienc* and moralit*, incldin# honest*, inte#rit* and fair dealin#. The* mst

perform their for/fold dt* to societ*, the le#al profession, the corts and their clients, in accordance

with the vales and norms of the le#al profession as embodied in the ode of $rofessional

Responsibilit*.5

tt*. )a#atHs act clearl* falls short of the standards set b* the ode of $rofessional Responsibilit*,

particlarl* Rle 3(.(3, which provides:

Rle 3(.(3 law*er shall not do an* falsehood, nor consent to the doin# of an* in ort< nor shall

he mislead, or allow the ort to be misled b* an* artifice.

In this case, the ort a#rees with the observation of the I!$ that there was a deliberate intent on

the part of tt*. )a#at to mislead the cort when he filed the motion to dismiss the criminal char#es

on the basis of doble Aeopard*. tt*. )a#at shold not ma;e an* false and ntrthfl statements in

his pleadin#s. If it were tre that there was a similar case for sli#ht ph*sical inAries that was reall*

filed in cort, all he had to do was to secre a certification from that cort that, indeed, a case was

filed.

0rthermore, tt*. )a#at e6pressl* admitted appearin# in cort on two occasions despite havin#

been sspended from the practice of law b* the ort. Under Section +, Rle 3'5 of the Rles of

ort, a member of the bar ma* be disbarred or sspended from office as an attorne* for a willfl

disobedience of an* lawfl order of a sperior cort andQor for corrptl* or wilfll* appearin# as an

attorne* withot athorit* to do so. '(w%i' It provides:

SE. +. Disbarent or s#sension of attorne1s b1 S#ree Co#rt> gro#nds t%erefor . member

of the bar ma* be disbarred or sspended from his office as attorne* b* the Spreme ort for an*

deceit, malpractice, or other #ross miscondct in sch office, #rossl* immoral condct, or b* reason

of his conviction of a crime involvin# moral trpitde, or for an* violation of the oath which he is

reGired to ta;e before admission to practice, or for a willfl disobedience of an* lawfl order of asperior cort, or for corrptl* or willfll* appearin# as an attorne* for a part* to a case withot

athorit* so to do. The practice of solicitin# cases at law for the prpose of #ain, either personall* or

thro#h paid a#ents or bro;ers, constittes malpractice. Underlinin# spplied

s stated, if tt*. )a#at was trl* moved b* altristic intentions when he appeared before the trial

cort despite havin# been sspended, he cold have informed the $residin# 1d#e of his pli#ht and









e6plained wh* the part* he was representin# cold not attend. On the contrar*, tt*. )a#at ;ept his

silence and proceeded to represent his client as consel.

&'ERE(ORE, respondent tt*. eferino R. )a#at is hereb* ordered SUS$EN"E" from the

practice of law for si6 %9& months with a CRNINB that the commission of the same or similar

offense in the ftre wold be dealt with more severel*.

SO OR"ERE".

Adm::s3a:<e Case No. 1=1 "eeme3 2, 1999

)ARAL!MAN B. A(!RON*, complainant,

vs.

ATT. AN*EL *. AD!INO, respondent.

R E S O L U T I O N

)AR$O, J.:

The case before the ort is a verified letter/complaint for disbarment, filed on "ecember ++, 348,

b* $aralman !. fron# a#ainst tt*. n#el B. Gino, for filin# frivolos harassment cases to dela*

the e6ection of a final decision, committin# falsehood in an Ur#ent )otion for $ostponement, and

misrepresentin# himself as an attorne* for the iti-ens Le#al ssistance Office.'(w%i'.n?t

The antecedent facts show that on pril +, 347, $aralman fron# filed a complaint for eAectment

with the it* ort of )anila for non/pa*ment of rentals a#ainst Dictorino 0lores. 1 The cort rendered

Ad#ment on )a* +, 347 in favor of petitioner $aralman fron#. The cort then issed a writ of

e6ection on 0ebrar* 3, 348, which was served on Dictorino 0lores in )arch 348.

0acin# eviction from the land he was occp*in#, Dictorino 0lores so#ht the assistance of the

iti-ens Le#al ssistance Office. 2is case was assi#ned to tt*. n#el B. Gino, an emplo*ee of

said office at the time.

On pril ', 348, tt*. n#el B. Gino filed with the it* ort of )anila a $etition for Relief from

1d#ment with pra*er for the issance of a restrainin# order. 2 On )a* 4, 348, the petition, after de

hearin#, was dismissed for havin# been filed ot of time.

tt*. Gino sbseGentl* filed on )a* +4, 348, with the ort of 0irst Instance of )anila a $etition

for Certiorari and $rohibition. The cort set the pre/trial conference on "ecember 3+, 348.

Notwithstandin# the fact that he was separated from the iti-ens Le#al ssistance Office on October

3, 348, tt*. n#el B. Gino filed on "ecember 33, 348, an Ur#ent )otion for $ostponement,



si#nin# his name as consel for Dictorino 0lores and indicatin# the address of the iti-ens Le#al

ssistance Office at 38 Bastambide, Sampaloc, )anila as his office address.

In the aforesaid Ur#ent )otion for $ostponement, tt*. Gino stated that he wold be nable to

attend the pre/trial conference schedled on "ecember 3+, 348, at 4:(( a.m., of ivil ase No.

449 becase he needed to attend the hearin# of a +abeas Cor#s ase

4

before the 1venile and"omestic Relations ort that same da* and hor.

2owever, a certification from the ler; of ort of the 1venile and "omestic Relations ort stated

that a decision had been rendered on the aforementioned special proceedin#s case, and that there

was no hearin# in connection with the case on "ecember 3+, 348, for there was nothin# more to be

done in the proceedin#s and the same was declared closed and terminated.

Ths, on "ecember ++, 348, $aralman fron# filed a complaint 6 with this ort for disbarment

a#ainst tt*. n#el B. Gino.

ccordin# to complainant, appropriate pnitive sanction shold be meted to tt*. n#el B. Gino for

filin# frivolos harassment cases in the form of ivil ase Nos. 4+98 and 449, and for #ivin#

false alle#ations in his Ur#ent )otion for $ostponement.

omplainant emphasi-ed that when ivil ase No. 449 was set for pre/trial on "ecember 3+,

348, at 4:(( a.m., respondent falsel* represented that on the same date and hor, he wold attend

the hearin# also on said date and time of Special $roceedin#s No. "/(('+9, entitled >In the )atter of

the $etition for the Issance of a Crit of +abeas Cor#s of Lordeli-a D. Sohnre*>.

omplainant frther contended that tt*. n#el B. Gino misrepresented himself as an attorne* of

the iti-ens Le#al ssistance Office, sin# the name and address of said Office to postpone the pre/

trial hearin# of ivil ase No. 449, on "ecember 3+, 348, despite the fact that he had been

separated from office at the time.

On 0ebrar* 3', 349, respondent filed with this ort his nswer = to the complaint den*in# the

char#es a#ainst him, contendin# that sch acts had been done withot malice.

2e admitted, however, that at the time of the pre/trial of ivil ase No. 449 set on "ecember 3+,

348, he was no lon#er connected with the iti-ens Le#al ssistance Office, for he was >inclded as

one of the emplo*ees pr#ed b* the $resident in a list pblished in the newspapers last October 3,

348.> 8 Met, he reasoned, >Not wantin# to remove the case from the iti-ens Le#al ssistance Office b*

appearin# as private consel for the petitioner and still nable to wait for m* reinstatement which I was

informed was forthcomin#, I decided to file a motion to postpone the pre/trial conference of the case.>

2e also conceded that, >In order to #ive more >force> to m* motion for postponement, I indicated

therein that I had to attend the hearin# of another case before the 1venile and "omestic Relations

ort.> 9

2e frther admitted that the filin# of the motion with the facts so stated >mi#ht have cased some

dela*>, bt Astifies sch act b* statin# that >sch filin# was prompted b* some circmstances which



we can consider as inevitable and navoidable at the moment.> 2e adds, >If I shall be #iven another

chance to contine handlin# the case, I promise that this mista;e shall never be

repeated.> 10

In a Repl* filed on pril 9, 349, 11 complainant asserted that tt*. n#el B. Gino was declared #ilt*

of contempt of cort and correspondin#l* fined b* this ort in a "ecision

12

dated 0ebrar* +9, 349, forma;in# false alle#ations in his Ur#ent )otion for $ostponement.

On )a* ', 349, this ort referred the case to the Solicitor Beneral for investi#ation, report and

recommendation. The parties a#reed, however, to hold the case in abe*ance ntil the termination of

ivil ase No. 449. 1

Effective 1ne 3, 3455, all cases pendin# investi#ation b* the Office of the Solicitor Beneral were

transferred to the Inte#rated !ar of the $hilippines !oard of Bovernors for investi#ation and

disposition as provided in the Revised Rles of ort. 14

On )a* ++, 344, the I!$ ommission on !ar "iscipline sbmitted a Report, 1 findin# that

respondent tt*. n#el B. Gino failed to perform his dties e6pected of an attorne* as provided nder

the e6istin# anons of $rofessional Ethics and Section +( of Rle 3'5 of the Rles of ort in force at the

time of the commission of the acts in Gestion. Investi#atin# ommissioner $laridel . 1ose

recommended that respondent be penali-ed with si6 %9& months sspension.

On 1l* +9, 344, the !oard of Bovernors of the I!$ resolved to adopt and approve the report and

recommendation of the Investi#atin#

ommissioner. 16

Ce a#ree.

The Revised Rles of ort provides that it is the dt* of an attorne* to consel or maintain sch

actions or proceedin#s onl* as appear to him to be Ast, and sch defenses onl* as he believes to be

honestl* debatable nder the law. 1= The decision in ivil ase No. +'388+ had reached finalit* and

e6ection of sch decision was bein# effected. Respondent tt*. Gino shold not have filed a petition

for certiorari considerin# that there was no apparent prpose for it than to dela* the e6ection of a valid

Ad#ment.

0rthermore, respondent committed falsehood when he stated in his Ur#ent )otion for

$ostponement that he had to attend the hearin# of a special proceedin#s case the same da* as the

pre/trial of ivil ase No. 449. Respondent himself admitted that he onl* inclded sch statement

>in order to #ive more =force=> to the Ur#ent )otion for $ostponement. Sch act violates the anons

of $rofessional Ethics which obli#es an attorne* to avoid the concealment of the trth from the cort.

law*er is mandated not to mislead the cort in an* manner.

In this case, tt*. Gino stated false alle#ations in his motion for postponement which dela*ed the

e6ection of a valid decision. It is worth* to note that the lower cort correctl* declared respondent in

contempt of cort for condct tendin#, directl* or indirectl*, to impede, obstrct, or de#rade the

administration of Astice, in violation of Section ' %d&, Rle 3 of the Revised Rles of ort. 18



)oreover, tt*. Gino prposel* allowed the cort to believe that he was still emplo*ed with the

iti-ens Le#al ssistance Office when in fact he had been pr#ed from said office. That he was

awaitin# reinstatement to the same position at the time does not remove the fact that he was

misrepresentin# himself to the cort. !* doin# so, he has violated his dt* to emplo*, for the prpose

of maintainin# the cases confided to him, sch means onl* as are consistent with trth and honor,

and never see; to mislead the Ad#e or an* Adicial officer b* an artifice or false statement of fact orlaw. 19 2e cold have dele#ated the case to another law*er in the same office.

C2ERE0ORE, the ort hereb* finds respondent tt*. n#el B. Gino #ilt* of malpractice and

SUS$EN"S him from the practice of law for si6 %9& months commencin# pon receipt of notice

hereof.

Let this decision be spread in the personal record of respondent in this ort and copies thereof

frnished the Inte#rated !ar of the $hilippines which shall provide all its chapters with copies

thereof, and the Office of the ort dministrator which shall forthwith provide with copies thereof all

other corts thro#h the respective presidin# 1stices and E6ective 1d#es. '(w%i'.n?t

SO OR"ERE".

A.C. No. =828 Au+us 11, 2008

J!$*E AL$EN %. CER%ANTE", complainant,

vs.

ATT. J!$E JO"!E L. "ABIO, respondent.

$ E C I " I O N

CAR)IO MORALE", J.5

1d#e lden D. ervantes %complainant& was the presidin# Ad#e of the

)nicipal Trial ort %)T& of ab*ao, La#na ntil his optional retirement

on November +', +((8. Some of the cases lod#ed in his sala were eAectment

cases filed b* E6tra/Ordinar* "evelopment orporation %E"& a#ainst the

clients of tt*. 1de 1ose L. Sabio %respondent&. It appears that respondent

had filed motions for inhibition of complainant >on the basis of the fact that

E" #ave him a hose and lot pttin# into serios dobt his impartialit*,

independence and inte#rit*.> The motions were denied.

fter the retirement of complainant, respondent, b* ffidavit/omplaint dated

pril 9, +((9,3 so#ht the investi#ation of complainant for briber*.





In spport of the char#e, respondent sbmitted a Sin#aang Sala1sa1 dated

)arch 9, +((9 of Edwin $. ardeJo,+ a tilit* wor;er in the )T of ab*ao,

statin# that, inter alia, orders and decisions of complainant were not

#enerated from the t*pewriter of the cort bt from a compter which the cort

did not have, it havin# acGired one onl* on )a* +, +((8< that there had beenman* times that a certain le6 of E" wold #o to the cort bearin# certain

papers for the si#natre of complainant< that he came to learn that a

consideration of $8((.(( wold be #iven for ever* order or decision released

b* complainant in favor of E"< and that he also came to ;now that attempts

at postponin# the hearin#s of the complaints filed b* E" were thwarted b*

complainant as he wanted to e6pedite the disposition thereof.

!* Resoltion of #st '(, +((9,' this ort, after notin# the 1l* +(, +((9

)emorandm of the Office of the ort dministrator %O& relative torespondentHs complaint a#ainst complainant, approved the recommendation

of the O to dismiss the complaint for lac; of merit, >the complaint bein#

nsbstantiated and motivated b* plain nfonded sspicion, and for havin#

been filed after the effectivit* of his optional retirement> %nderscorin#

spplied&.

Ths, spawned the present verified "ecember 35, 3449 letter/complaint7 of

complainant a#ainst respondent, for disbarment.

The complaint was referred to the Inte#rated !ar of the $hilippines %I!$& for

investi#ation, report and recommendation.

0rom the Report and Recommendation8 of the I!$ Investi#atin#

ommissioner, Randall . Taba*o*on#, it is #athered that despite the 1anar*

3+, +(( Order for respondent to file an answer to the complaint, he failed to

do so, promptin# the ommissioner to declare him in defalt.

It is frther #athered that after the condct b* the Investi#atin# ommissionerof a mandator* conference on )a* +8, +((, the parties were ordered to file

their respective position papers. In compliance with the Order, complainant

sbmitted his verified position paper.9 Respondent did not.

"efined as isses before the I!$ were:













%3& Chether . . . the complaint filed b* respondent a#ainst the

complainant before the Office of the ort dministrator in dmin )atter

O I$I No. (9/357+/)T1 was malicios, false and ntrthfl.

%+& If in the affirmative, whether . . . respondent is #ilt* nder the odeof $rofessional Responsibilit*.

On the first isse, the I!$ ommissioner did not find respondentHs complaint

a#ainst herein complainant false and ntrthfl, it notin# that respondentHs

complaint was dismissed b* this ort de to insfficienc* of evidence which,

to the I!$, merel* shows a >failre on the part of respondent to prove his

alle#ations> a#ainst complainant.

Notin#, however, this ortHs #st '(, +((9 Resoltion findin# respondentHscomplaint >nsbstantiated and motivated b* plain, nfonded> sspicion, the

Investi#atin# ommissioner conclded that respondent >;nowin#l* institted

not onl* a #rondless sit a#ainst herein complainant, bt also a sit based

simpl* on his bare sspicion and speclation.> %nderscorin# spplied&

On the second isse, the I!$ fond that b* filin# the #rondless briber*

char#e a#ainst complainant, respondent violated the proscription of the ode

of $rofessional Responsibilit* a#ainst >wittin#l* or willin#l* promotin# or

sin# an* #rondless sit> incldin# baseless administrative complaintsa#ainst Ad#es and other cort officers and emplo*ees.

The Investi#atin# ommissioner ths conclded that

while the evidence on record is sfficient to show that the alle#ations in

respondentHs affidavit/complaint a#ainst herein complainant were false,

the evidence nonetheless shows that respondent had ;nowin#l* and

maliciosl* institted a #rondless sit, based simpl* on his nfonded

sspicions a#ainst complainant<

%Underscorin# spplied&

and that he violated anons 3(,5 33,4 K 3+3( and Rle 33.(733 of the ode of

$rofessional Responsibilit* nder his oath of office.













2e accordin#l* recommended that respondent be fined in the amont of

$8,(((, with a stern warnin# that a repetition of the same or similar act will be

dealt with more severel*.

The !oard of Bovernors of the I!$, b* Notice of Resoltion,3+

informs that onNovember ++, +((, it adopted the followin# Resoltion adoptin# and

approvin# with modification the Report and Recommendation of the

Investi#atin# ommissioner, vi" :

RESOLDE" to "O$T and $$RODE, as it is hereb* nanimosl*

"O$TE" and $$RODE",: mod:;:7a:o, the Report and

Recommendation of the Investi#atin# ommissioner of the above/

entitled case, herein made part of this Resoltion as nne6 >>< and,

findin# the recommendation fll* spported b* the evidence on recordand the applicable laws and rles, and considerin# RespondentHs

violation of anons 3(, 33 and 3+ and Rle 33.(7 of the ode of

$rofessional responsibilit* for filin# a #rondless sit a#ainst

complainant, tt*. 1de Sabio is hereb* RE)RIMAN$E$ with "e3

&a3:+ that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with

more severel*. %Emphasis in the ori#inal&

The ort finds the action ta;en b* the I!$ !oard of Bovernors well ta;en.

Respondent o#ht to be aware that if a cort official or emplo*ee or a law*er

is to be disciplined, the evidence a#ainst him shold be sbstantial,

competent and derived from direct ;nowled#e, not on mere alle#ations,

conAectres, sppositions, or on the basis of hearsa*.3'

No dobt, it is this ortHs dt* to investi#ate the trth behind char#es a#ainst

Ad#es and law*ers. !t it is also its dt* to shield them from nfonded sits

which are intended to, amon# other thin#s, harass them.

&'ERE(ORE, respondent, tt*. 1de 1ose L. Sabio, is (INE$ in the

amont of 0ive Thosand %$8,(((& $esos, with a warnin# that a repetition of

the same or similar Gestioned act will be dealt with more severel*.

"O OR$ERE$.







CANON 11

A.C. No. 2 July 29, 200

JO'NN -.'. !, omplainant,

vs.

ATT". RENAL$O C. $E)A"!CAT, &ILLIAM O. "!, ad CEL"O $E LA" ALA", Respondents.

" E I S I O N

A!"TRIA#MARTINEZ, J.:

!efore s is a verified complaint filed b* 1ohnn* @.2. U* a#ainst respondents law*ers, Re*naldo .

"epascat, Cilliam O. S and elso delas las, for #ross miscondct.

omplainant U* to#ether with U!S )ar;etin# orporation %U!S& filed with the Re#ional Trial ort

of !acolod it* %!ranch 7'& an action for reconve*ance of real propert*, cancellation of titles and

recover* of ownership and possession, with dama#es a#ainst S@ Realt*, Inc. and U*Hs sisters, !an

2a U. 0lores and !an 2a U. ha, to#ether with their children, namel*: Leonardo U. 0lores, Bloria

U. han, Lil* U*, Lilian U*, Lilen U*, Stephanie ha, )elod* ha, Cee @iat M. Tan, Theresa

Re#alado and Molanda @ila*;o, all clients of herein respondents. Upon filin# of the said case,

doc;eted as ivil ase No. 48/4(83, complainant U* and U!S cased the annotation of the notice

of lis pendens at the bac; of the certificates of title of defendant S@ Realt* with the Re#ister of

"eeds of !acolod it*. SbseGentl*, in a resoltion dated November 4, 3448, the trial cort

dismissed the case on the #rond of form shoppin#. "efendants moved for the cancellation of the

notice of lis pendens which the trial cort #ranted in a resoltion dated "ecember 5, 3448. 3

omplainants U* and U!S filed their appeal before the ort of ppeals which was doc;eted as /

B.R. No. 833. fter the parties had filed their respective briefs with the ort of ppeals and

before the latterHs resoltion sbmittin# the case for decision was released on )arch 3(, 3444,

respondents filed a pleadin# dated )arch 3, 3444, entitled, >)anifestation of Usrpation of thorit*

of the 2on. ort of ppeals from a Self/onfessed !riber of 1d#es> which contains the followin#

statement:

3(. That, $laintiff/ppellant 1ohnn* @2 U* had, in fact, confessed to >!riber* and Tellin# On> of

Ad#es, after the Ad#es alle#edl* refsed to #ive in to their >demands>, b* sin# ille#all* taped

conversations both actal and b* telephone, copies of the decision of the cort /

a. in case no. .). No. RT1/4+/59', a#ainst the 2on. 1d#e Renato bastillas, hereto

attached as nne6 >>, and also

b. in case no. .). RT1/4+/55(, a#ainst the 2on. 1d#e !ethel @. )oscardon, hereto

attached as nne6 >">.+







In the instant administrative complaint, U* alle#es: Respondents, as members of the !ar are sworn

not to do falsehood or consent to the doin# of an* in cort, nor shold the* mislead the appellate

cort b* their false, malicios and libelos imptations a#ainst him. RespondentsH filin# of the sbAect

)anifestation was for the prpose of pttin# him in a bad li#ht so as to obtain a favorable Ad#ment

for their clients. Respondents withot an* provocation, reason and Astification and completel*

nmindfl of his honor and feelin#s sbmitted sch )anifestation and frnished copies of the sameto persons not even parties to the case. The sbAect )anifestation contains #rondless and false

imptations which are totall* immaterial, irrelevant and impertinent to the appealed case.

In their Aoint spplemental verified comment with conter motion to cite petitioner for contempt of

cort, respondents S and "epascat contend: U*Hs admission that he ne#otiated for a favorable

otcome of a criminal case formed part of the decision in Lee vs. bastillas, doc;eted as dm. ase

No. RT1/4+/59' which led to the dismissal of 1d#e bastillas from the service. The briber*

imptation is tre. The >bribe and tell scenario> covered b* the said )anifestation was alread* of

pblic ;nowled#e as it alread* formed part of the said administrative decision. There was no

indiscriminate distribtion of sch )anifestation to stran#ers Ast to mali#n the complainant.

ssmin# that the alle#ations in the )anifestation had painted complainant in a bad li#ht, the sameis considered as an absolte privile#ed commnication. The )anifestation is relevant as it was filed

primaril* in response to the e6tra/Adicial, ille#al and improper attempt of U* to reinstate a lis

pendens. U* had tried so man* times to annotate a lis pendens on the sbAect properties and filed

so man* cases involvin# the same properties and therefore, all his mischiefs are relevant and

material to the appealed case.

In his omment, respondent delas las contends: 2e appeared as consel of U*Hs siblin#s in other

cases. 2e si#ned the )anifestation as a collaboratin# consel after he had read the transcript of the

proceedin# where U* admitted havin# bribed 1d#e bastillas. 2e is convinced that U* does not

hesitate to corrpt or destro* the character of persons to sit his needs, ths he mst be e6posed.

U* has predilections to file cases a#ainst opposin# law*ers and to see; inhibition of Ad#es and Astices whenever adverse rlin#s were rendered a#ainst him, ths, his active participation in bribin#

a Ad#e is not totall* immaterial and irrelevant to the appealed case.

ctin# on the pleadin#s of the parties, we referred the case to the Inte#rated !ar of the $hilippines

%I!$& for investi#ation, report and recommendation.'

On pril 9, +((+, the I!$ ommission on !ar "iscipline thro#h Investi#atin# ommissioner 1lio .

Elamparo, sbmitted its report, to wit:

ccordin#l*, the isse ma* be simpl* stated as follows: Shold the respondents be disciplined for

havin# athored and filed the said manifestation.

. . . .

The ndersi#ned commissioner fll* a#rees with the respondents that the alle#ations in their

manifestation with respect to the fact that the complainant is a briber of Ad#es are tre and correct.

In fact, records show that complainantHs former consel has been disbarred b* the Spreme ort





becase of the bribin# incident referred to in the said manifestation. It cannot therefore be said that

the respondents did falsehood or misled the ort of ppeals when the* filed their manifestation.

"oes the privile#e of filin# of a pleadin# with correct and trthfl alle#ations carries with it the license

to se absive, offensive, menacin# or otherwise improper lan#a#e

In this Arisdiction, it cannot be dobted that commnications either written or oral made in the

corse of Adicial proceedin# are classified as absoltel* privile#e commnications. 2owever, this

doctrine applies onl* in sch cases where the statement is relevant or pertinent or material to the

case. In this respect, respondents failed to convincin#l* demonstrate the materialit* or relevance of

sch statement li;e >P 1ohnn* @h U* has a trac; record of ma;in# a moc;er* of or Adicial s*stem

Phad, in fact confessed to >!riber* and Tellin# On> of Ad#es, after the Ad#es alle#edl* refsed to

#ive in to their >demands>, b* sin# ille#all* taped conversation both actal andQor b* telephoneP>

in the appealed case involvin# recover* of propert* and cancellation of title. 0rthermore, if sch fact

is relevant, wh* did the respondents ma;e sch fact ;nown to the ort of ppeals onl* when the

appealed case has alread* been sbmitted for decision. RespondentsH timin# ma;es their claim of

#ood intention a dobtfl claim. It seems that the real intention is to inflence the ort of ppeals inan improper wa*.

It cannot be dobted that as an advocate, a law*er has the ri#ht to be -ealos in the prosection or

defense of his clientHs case. In fact, it is incmbent pon him to point ot errors, arbitrariness or

inAstices. 2e is allowed sfficient latitde of remar; in frtherance of the cases he advocates for

his client. !t in the e6ercise of this ri#ht, it is incmbent pon him to act with Astice and to #ive

ever*one his de.

It is settled that a law*er who ses absive or abrasive lan#a#e shows disrespect to the cort and

dis#races the !ar. 2e then invites the e6ercise b* the cort of its disciplinar* power as respect for

the Adicial office shold alwa*s be observed and enforced.

ccordin#l*, it is respectfll* recommended that the respondents, for havin# sed offensive and

absive lan#a#e in their >)NI0ESTTION O0 USUR$TION O0 UT2ORITM O0 T2E 2ON.

OURT O0 $$ELS 0RO) SEL0/ON0ESSE" !RI!ER O0 1U"BES> which has no relevance

in the factal and le#al isses then pendin# resoltion before the ort of ppeals be warned that a

repetition of the same shall be dealt with more severel*.7

On 1ne +4, +((', the !oard of Bovernors of the I!$ resolved to adopt and approve the report and

recommendation of the Investi#atin# ommissioner.8

Ce a#ree with the findin#s of the I!$ that respondents have sed offensive and absive lan#a#ebt instead of mere admonition respondents shold be reprimanded.

The statement made b* respondents that complainant U* had bribed a Ad#e in .). No. RT1 4+/

59' was dl* proven. U* who appeared as witness in the said administrative case filed a#ainst

1d#e Renato bastillas of the Re#ional Trial ort of !acolod it* %!ranch 8(&,9 testified that he

#ave mone* to the 1d#e in consideration of the dismissal of a case in which he had an interest.










This admission was lifted from the transcript of the steno#raphic notes of the proceedin#s therein

sbmitted b* the respondents and Goted in the bastillas decision which was proml#ated in 3447.

2owever, we find nothin# on record that spports the statement of the respondents that U* had also

bribed a Ad#e in entrm #ri/!siness Realt* orporation vs. @atalbas/)oscardon, doc;eted as

) RT1 4+/55( which we have decided in 3448.

Notabl*, in their Aoint affidavit filed before theommission, respondents "epascat and S stated that >the pattern of corrption and ille#al wire

tappin# was repeated b* the complainantHs disbarred law*er EnriGe S. ha, in .). RT1/4+/55(,

in re 2on. 1d#e !ethel @. )oscardon, ths instittionali-in# the malevolent practice>. 2owever,

there was nothin# that showed U*Hs participation therein. In fact, a readin# of the cortHs decision in

the )oscardon case revealed that it was tt*. EnriGe ha, the law*er of U*, who was involved in

the said case as a witness in the corrption of 1d#e )oscardon and the name of U* was never

mentioned at all. )oreover, drin# the hearin#, the investi#atin# commissioner too; note that there

was no cop* of the transcript of the steno#raphic notes of .). RT1 4+/55( presented. Respondents

were not able to sbstantiate their statement that U* was involved in two bribin# incidents to be

branded as >briber of Ad#es>. Respondents have partl* made a false imptation a#ainst U*. 2alf/

trths are eGall* if not more pernicios than otri#ht lies.

U* claims that assmin# ar#endo that he had bribed a Ad#e, the same is irrelevant and impertinent

to the appealed case where the sbAect )anifestation was filed. On the other hand, respondents

contend that the filin# of the sbAect )anifestation was not attended b* malice< that it falls nder the

protective mantle of an absolte privile#ed commnication.

The doctrine of privile#ed commnication that tterances made in the corse of Adicial proceedin#s,

incldin# all ;inds of pleadin#s, petitions and motions, belon# to the class of commnications that

are absoltel* privile#ed has been ennciated in a lon# line of cases.5 Said doctrine rests pon

pblic polic* which loo;s to the free and nfettered administration of Astice, tho#h, as an incidental

reslt, it ma* in some instances afford an immnit* to the evil/disposed and mali#nantslanderer .4 The privile#e is not intended so mch for the protection of those en#a#ed in the pblic

service and in the enactment and administration of law, as for the promotion of the pblic welfare,

the prpose bein# that members of the le#islatre, Ad#es of corts, Arors, law*ers and witnesses

ma* spea; their minds freel* and e6ercise their respective fnctions withot incrrin# the ris; of a

criminal prosection or an action for the recover* of dama#es.3( Law*ers, most especiall*, shold be

allowed a #reat latitde of pertinent remar; or comment in the frtherance of the cases the*

phold,33 and for the felicit* of their clients, the* ma* be pardoned some infelicities of

phrase.3+ 2owever, sch remar;s or comments shold not trench be*ond the bonds of relevanc*

and propriet*.3'

Ce have stated the test of relevanc*, ths:

666. s to the de#ree of relevanc* or pertinenc* necessar* to ma;e alle#ed defamator* matters

privile#ed the corts favor a liberal rle. The matter to which the privile#ed does not e6tend mst be

so palpabl* wantin# in relation to the sbAect matter of the controvers* that no reasonable man can

dobt its relevanc* and impropriet*. In order that matter alle#ed in a pleadin# ma* be privile#ed, it

need not be in ever* case material to the isses presented b* the pleadin#s. It mst, however, be




















le#itimatel* related thereto, or so pertinent to the sbAect of the controvers* that it ma* become the

sbAect of inGir* in the corse of the trial 66637

ppl*in# the above rle to the sbAect )anifestation, we find that the statement that U* is a briber of

Ad#es is not relevant to the isses presented before the appellate cort. ltho#h U* was shown to

have admitted bribin# a Ad#e, the incident did not happen in the case appealed to the ort of ppeals where the assailed )anifestation was filed. It was not at all pertinent to U*Hs action for

reconve*ance of real propert*, cancellation of titles and recover* of ownership and possession, with

dama#es. )oreover, if respondents trl* believe in the relevanc* of the bribin# incident to the

appealed case, the* cold have stated the same in their pleadin# filed in the trial cort in 3448 or in

their appelleesH brief filed before the appellate cort considerin# that the bastillas case had alread*

been decided in 3447.

Respondents claim that the sbAect )anifestation was filed primaril* in response to the e6tra/Adicial,

ille#al and improper attempt of the complainant to reinstate a cancelled lis pendens which is sbAect

of the appealed case. Chile the notice to annotate a cancelled lis pendens was filed b* U*Hs consel

with the Re#ister of "eeds of !acolod it* on October +9, 3445, the same was denied b* theRe#ister of "eeds on 1anar* +8, 3444 for the reason that the cancelled notice of lis pendens can

onl* be re/annotated b* a cort order. Undobtedl*, the action ta;en b* U* was improper since the

propriet* of the cancellation of the notice was one of the isses raised b* U* before the appellate

cort. Ths, respondents who had ;nowled#e of the same have the dt* to inform the appellate

cort, which respondents have done b* filin# the sbAect )anifestation. 2owever, respondents went

overboard b* frther statin# in the )anifestation that complainant >had in fact confessed to !riber*

and Tellin# On of Ad#es, after the Ad#es alle#edl* refsed to #ive in to their demands, b* sin#

ille#all* taped conversations/both actal andQor b* telephone>. It belied their #ood intention and

e6ceeded the bonds of propriet*, hence not ar#abl* protected< it is the srfacin# of a feelin# of

contempt towards a liti#ant< it offends the cort before which it is made.38 law*er shall abstain from

scandalos, offensive or menacin# lan#a#e or behavior before the orts.39

It mst be rememberedthat the lan#a#e vehicle does not rn short of e6pressions which are emphatic bt respectfl,

convincin# bt not dero#ator*, illminatin# bt not offensive.3 It has been said that a law*erHs

lan#a#e shold be di#nified in ;eepin# with the di#nit* of the le#al profession.35

It is the dt* of the respondents as members of the !ar to abstain from all offensive personalit* and

to advance no fact preAdicial to the honor or reptation of a part* or witness, nless reGired b* the

Astice of the case with which he is char#ed.34

The I!$ aptl* observed that the )anifestation was filed onl* after the appealed case had alread*

been sbmitted for decision which made respondentsH claim of #ood intention in filin# the same a

dobtfl claim. Chile the records show that the sbAect )anifestation was filed with the ort of ppeals on )arch 3, 3444 and the appellate cortHs resoltion sbmittin# the case for decision was

dated )arch 3(, 3444, we a#ree with the I!$Hs conclsion that the filin# of the )anifestation was a

clear attempt on the part of the respondents to inflence the mind of the cort a#ainst complainant

U* and to decide the appeal in favor of their clients.

Ce find respondents to be at falt and therefore the* shold be reprimanded for havin# done so. '(w%i'

hi#her penalt* is not called for considerin# that it is clear that respondents were merel* over/-ealos















in ensrin# the victor* of their clients and, that the* honestl* tho#ht, altho#h erroneosl*, that b*

brandin# complainant as a >briber of Ad#es>, the* were Astif*in# their alle#ation in the )anifestation

that complainant >has a trac; record of ma;in# a moc;er* of or Adicial s*stem>.

In their omment, respondents S and "epascat pra* that complainant be cited for contempt of

cort for den*in# nder oath that he is a confessed briber of Ad#es and of accsin# respondents ofindiscriminatel* frnishin# copies of the sbAect )anifestation to stran#ers in the appealed case.

Ce find nothin# contemptos on U*Hs desire to protect his honor from what he perceived to be

defamator* imptation a#ainst him since it is within his ri#ht to do so. Chile he ma* have denied the

established fact that he bribed 1d#e bastillas, however, his denial as to the other bribin# incident

was proven to be tre since respondents failed to sbstantiate the same. 0rthermore, altho#h U*

failed to prove his alle#ation that respondents indiscriminatel* frnished copies of the sbAect

)anifestation to stran#ers to the appealed case, the same is not #rave eno#h so as to warrant the

e6ercise of contempt powers of the ort. There was no sfficient showin# of bad faith in U*Hs filin#

of the present administrative complaint a#ainst respondents.

&'ERE(ORE, in view of the fore#oin#, the respondents are hereb* RE$RI)N"E" for

)ISON"UT in sin# offensive and absive lan#a#e in their )anifestation and CRNE" that a

repetition of the same in the ftre will be dealt with more severel*.

The motion of respondents to cite complainant in contempt is hereb* "ENIE".

SO OR"ERE".

A.M. No. MTJ#08#1698 Ma37 , 2008

(o3me3ly OCA I.).I. No. 04#12#MTJ/

JAIME RACINE", omplainant,

vs.

J!$*E JO"E ). MORALLO" ad "'ERI(( III BENJAMIN CAB!"AO, JR., Respondents.

R E S O L U T I O N

A!"TRIA#MARTINEZ, J.:

omplainant 1aime Racines %Racines& was reGired b* the ort in its Resoltion dated November

++, +(( to show case wh* he shold not be held in contempt of cort for filin# a baseless and

nfonded administrative case.

Racines filed on "ecember 3, +((', a omplaint a#ainst 1d#e 1ose $. )orallos %1d#e )orallos&

and Sheriff !enAamin absao, 1r. %Sheriff absao& of the )etropolitan Trial ort %)T&, !ranch

95 of $asi# it*, for ;nowin#l* renderin# an nAst Ad#ment,3 other deceits,+ violation of the nti/

Braft and orrpt $ractices ct,'violation of rticle '+ of the New ivil ode, Section 3, rticle III of

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/am_mtj-08-1698_2008.html#fnt1








the 345 onstittion, and the ode of 1dicial ondct.7 The ort, findin# the evalation of the

Office of the ort dministrator %O& to be in accord with law and the facts on record, affirmed its

recommendation and dismissed RacinesHs complaint in the Resoltion dated November ++, +((7.

The ort held that there was nothin# in the records to show that 1d#e )orallos was moved b*

improper motive when he rendered the decision in ivil ase No. 4953<8 neither was there an*thin#

to show that Sheriff absao sed his position to inflence the otcome of the decision< and in an*event, the proper recorse was to elevate the case to a hi#her cort for review, and not thro#h an

administrative case. The ort, in the said resoltion also directed Racines to show case within 3(

da*s from receipt thereof, wh* he shold not be held in contempt of cort for filin# an tterl*

baseless and nfonded administrative case.9

Racines thro#h consel, tt*. Onofre ". )analad, filed a )otion for Reconsideration, which the

ort denied with finalit* in the Resoltion dated )arch +, +((8 for lac; of sbstantial ar#ment. The

Resoltion li;ewise admonished Racines and his consel to desist from initiatin# baseless

complaints.5

On )arch +4, +((8, the O received an Earnest )otion for larification

4

filed b* Racines thro#h tt*. )analad which the ort treated as a second motion for reconsideration in the Resoltion

dated )a* +8, +((8. The ort denied the motion for bein# a prohibited pleadin# and directed that

no frther pleadin#s or motions shall be entertained in the case.3(

On 1ne 34, +((, Racines b* himself, filed a Pagaaliwanag claimin#: 2e received the ortHs

Resoltion dated November ++, +((7 onl* on )arch '(, +(( and he was able to file his e6planation

onl* at this time since he had to loo; for a law*er who wold e6plain it to him. The complaint and the

other docments which tt*. )analad prepared were all written in En#lish and becase he fll*

trsted tt*. )analad, he immediatel* si#ned the same even tho#h tt*. )analad did not e6plain it

to him. 2ad tt*. )analad fll* e6plained the docments to him, he wold not have si#ned the same,

as he had no intention of filin# a baseless administrative case a#ainst respondents. If there wasan*one who shold be pnished, it was tt*. )analad becase he deceived him into filin# a

baseless administrative case.33

The ort reGired tt*. )analad to comment on RacinesHs Pagaaliwanag .3+

In his omment, tt*. )analad avers that Racines is bein# sed b* Berr* ha, lessor of the

DiaAeros )ar;et and haHs law*er tt*. Ed#ardo Balve- a#ainst him %tt*. )analad&, since he is

assistin# the officers of the $asi# 0rits K De#etables Dendors ssociation %$0DD& in their cases

a#ainst ha. Racines, who was for several *ears a ser#eant/at/arms of the $0DD, was pirated b*

ha to lead a #rop of #oons to harass his co/vendors into #ivin# p their stalls. tt*. )analad

claims that he wold not have initiated an action a#ainst an incmbent trial cort Ad#e had no#rievos correctible error been committed in bad faith at the e6pense of trth and Astice. 2e also

asserts that the alle#ations in the complaint a#ainst 1d#e )orallos are sbstantiated b* the

admission of the parties in their pleadin#s, and that he filed the char#es a#ainst respondents at the

instance of Racines who was even cr*in# when he was pleadin# before tt*. )analad for le#al

assistance.3'

The ort finds both Racines and tt*. )analad #ilt* of indirect contempt.
























$ersons #ilt* of an* improper condct tendin#, directl* or indirectl*, to impede, obstrct, or de#rade

the administration of Astice ma* be pnished for indirect contempt.37 The ort, in the e6ercise of its

inherent power to control, in frtherance of Astice, the condct of its ministerial officers and of all

other persons in an* manner connected with a case before it, ma* ot# rorio initiate proceedin#s

therefor .38

The ort has held that nsbstantiated char#es serve no prpose other than to harass Ad#es and

cast dobt on the inte#rit* of the entire Adiciar*.39 The filin# of clearl* nfonded or malicios

complaints seriosl* affects the efficienc* of the members of the Adiciar* in administerin# fair,

speed* and impartial Astice.3 The ort, mindfl of the proliferation of nfonded or malicios

administrative or criminal cases filed b* losin# liti#ants and dis#rntled law*ers a#ainst members of

the Adiciar*, therefore issed .). No. ('/3(/(3/S35 which too; effect on November 7, +((' with

the aim of preventin# or at least discora#in# the filin# of sch cases to protect the orderl*

administration of Astice.34 It provides in para#raph 3 thereof that if pon informal preliminar* inGir* it

is fond that the complaint is nfonded, baseless and merel* intended to harass respondent,

complainant ma* be reGired to show case wh* he shold not be held in contempt of cort. nd if

the complainant is a law*er, he ma* be frther reGired to show case wh* he or she shold not beadministrativel* sanctioned as a member of the !ar and as an officer of the cort. 'avv%i'

In the present case, Racines, thro#h his law*er tt*. )analad filed a case a#ainst 1d#e )orallos

and Sheriff absao, imptin# to them corrpt and criminal acts on the mere basis of 1d#e

)orallosHs decision. The complaint stated that 1d#e )orallos >distorted the facts> in his >anomalos

decision> and committed the crimes of ;nowin#l* renderin# an nAst Ad#ment, casin# nde inAr*

to Racines, violation of the nti/Braft and orrpt $ractices ct, and estafa b* means of other

deceits.+( The complaint also Gestioned 1d#e )orallosHs inte#rit*, impartialit* and professional

competence, all on the basis of his decision on the eAectment favorin# the plaintiff therein, 1ellicom

)anpower and Transport Services owned b* Sheriff absao, with Racines as defendant. The

complaint also claims that Sheriff absao, 1d#e )orallos and Berr* ha, lessor of the propert*,conspired with one another in commitin# the wron#fl acts for which the* are liable to pa*

dama#es.+3

Unfa-ed b* the order of the ort directin# Racines to show case wh* he shold not be held in

contempt for filin# a baseless complaint, Racines, thro#h tt*. )analad even filed two motions for

reconsideration, reiteratin# their baseless claims.

Racines tries to escape liabilit* b* sa*in# that tt*. )anald did not e6plain the contents of the

pleadin#s to him, becase if tt*. )analad did, he wold not have si#ned the same.

The ort is not convinced. It is presmed that a person intends the ordinar* conseGences of hisvolntar* act++and nless the reGirements for proper sbstittion were made, a law*er enAo*s the

presmption of athorit* #iven him b* his client.+' Racines does not den* that the si#natres in the

pleadin#s were his. 2e also does not claim that he was prevented b* tt*. )analad from readin# the

contents thereof. 2e onl* said that since he fll* trsted tt*. )analad he immediatel* si#ned the

docments. 0rom the fore#oin#, it is clear that Racines acGiesced and #ave his stamp of approval

to the pleadin#s filed in cort. onsiderin# however that he is not learned in the intricacies of law, the

ort finds the penalt* of reprimand with warnin# to be sfficient in his case. +7






























s to tt*. )analad, the ort finds that a #reater penalt* is in order. s a member of the bar, he

shold ;now better than to file an nfonded administrative complaint.+8 2e is bond b* the ode of

$rofessional Responsibilit*, and Rle 33.(7 thereof states that a law*er shall not attribte to a Ad#e

motives not spported b* the records. anon 33 also enAoins law*ers to observe and maintain the

respect de to corts and to Adicial officers and shold insist on similar condct b* others.+9 2is

claim that he filed the char#es a#ainst respondent at the instance of Racines cannot free him fromliabilit*. s the ort has prononced, a clientHs case does not permit an attorne* to cross the line

between libert* and license. Law*ers mst alwa*s ;eep in perspective that since the* are

administrators of Astice, oath/bond servants of societ*, their first dt* is not to their clients, as

man* sppose, bt to the administration of Astice.+ s a law*er, he is an officer of the cort with the

dt* to phold its di#nit* and athorit* and not promote distrst in the administration of Astice. 0or

violatin# Section ', Rle 3 of the 344 Rles of ivil $rocedre, the ort finds that a fine of five

thosand pesos is proper in his case.+5

C2ERE0ORE, the ort finds 1aime Racines and tt*. Onofre ". )analad #ilt* of Indirect

ontempt nder Section ', Rle 3 of the 344 Rles of ivil $rocedre. tt*. Onofre ". )analad is

ordered to pa* a (INE of 0IDE T2OUSN" $ESOS within ten %3(& da*s from finalit* of hereinResoltion, while 1aime Racines is RE)RIMAN$E$. !oth are "TERNL &ARNE$ that a repetition

of a similar act ma* warrant a more severe action b* this ort.

SO OR"ERE".

A.C. No. 8920 "eeme3 28, 2011

J!$*E RENE B. BAC!LI, omplainant,

vs.

ATT. MELC'OR A. BATT!N*, Respondent.

" E I S I O N

BRION, J.:

!efore s is the resoltion3 of the !oard of Bovernors of the Inte#rated !ar of the $hilippines %I!$&

findin# tt*. )elchor !attn# liable for violatin# Rle 33.(', anon 33 of the ode of $rofessional

Responsibilit* and recommendin# that he be reprimanded. The complainant is 1d#e Rene !.

!acli, $residin# 1d#e of the )nicipal Trial ort in ities, !ranch +, T#e#arao it*. The

respondent, tt*. !attn#, is a member of the !ar with postal address on #inaldo St., T#e#arao

it*.

!ac;#rond

1d#e !acli filed a complaint for disbarment+ with the ommission on "iscipline of the I!$ a#ainst

the respondent, alle#in# that the latter violated anons 33' and 3+7 of the ode of $rofessional

Responsibilit*.
























Diolation of anon 33 of the ode of $rofessional Responsibilit*

1d#e !acli claimed that on 1l* +7, +((5, drin# the hearin# on the motion for reconsideration of

ivil ase No. +8(+, the respondent was shotin# while ar#in# his motion. 1d#e !acli advised

him to tone down his voice bt instead, the respondent shoted at the top of his voice. Chen warned

that he wold be cited for direct contempt, the respondent shoted, >Then cite me>

8

1d#e !aclicited him for direct contempt and imposed a fine of $3((.((. The respondent then left.

Chile other cases were bein# heard, the respondent re/entered the cortroom and shoted, >1d#e,

I will file #ross i#norance a#ainst *o I am not afraid of *o>9 1d#e !acli ordered the sheriff to

escort the respondent ot of the cortroom and cited him for direct contempt of cort for the second

time.

fter his hearin#s, 1d#e !acli went ot and saw the respondent at the hall of the corthose,

apparentl* waitin# for him. The respondent a#ain shoted in a threatenin# tone, >1d#e, I will file

#ross i#norance a#ainst *o I am not afraid of *o> 2e ;ept on shotin#, >I am not afraid of *o>

and challen#ed the Ad#e to a fi#ht. Staff and law*ers escorted him ot of the bildin#.

1d#e !acli also learned that after the respondent left the cortroom, he contined shotin# and

pnched a table at the Office of the ler; of ort.5

Diolation of anon 3+ of the ode of $rofessional Responsibilit*

ccordin# to 1d#e !acli, the respondent filed dilator* pleadin#s in ivil ase No. +97(, an

eAectment case.

1d#e !acli rendered on October 7, +(( a decision in ivil ase No. +97(, which he modified on

"ecember 37, +((. fter the modified decision became final and e6ector*, the branch cler; ofcort issed a certificate of finalit*. The respondent filed a motion to Gash the previosl* issed writ

of e6ection, raisin# as a #rond the motion to dismiss filed b* the defendant for lac; of Arisdiction.

1d#e !acli asserted that the respondent ;new as a law*er that eAectment cases are within the

Arisdiction of 0irst Level orts and the latter was merel* dela*in# the speed* and efficient

administration of Astice.

The respondent filed his nswer,4 essentiall* sa*in# that it was 1d#e !acli who disrespected

him.3( Ce Gote from his nswer:

+'. I onl* told 1d#e Rene !acli I will file Bross i#norance of the Law a#ainst him once

inside the cort room when he was lambastin# me.

+7. It was 1U"BE !ULI C2O "ISRES$ETE" )E. 2e did not li;e that I Ast sbmit the

)otion for Reconsideration withot oral ar#ment becase he wanted to have an occasion to

Ast 2U)ILITE )E and to ma;e appear to the pblic that I am NEBLIBENT LCMER,

when he said >MOU 1USTI0M MOUR NEBLIBENE !E0ORE T2IS OURT> ma;in# it an

impression to the liti#ants and the pblic that as if I am a NEBLIBENT, INO)$ETENT,

)U)!LINB, and IRRES$ONSI!LE LCMER.















+8. These words of 1d#e Rene !acli made me react.

6 6 6 6

+5. Since I manifested that I was not #oin# to orall* ar#e the )otion, 1d#e Rene !acli

cold have Ast made an order that the )otion for Reconsideration is sbmitted forresoltion, bt what he did was that he forced me to ar#e so that he will have the room to

hmiliate me as he sed to do not onl* to me bt almost of the law*ers here %sic&.

tt*. !attn# as;ed that the case a#ainst him be dismissed.

The I!$ condcted its investi#ation of the matter thro#h ommissioner 1ose de la Rama, 1r. In his

ommissionerHs Report,33 ommissioner "e la Rama stated that drin# the mandator* conference

on 1anar* 39, +((4, both parties merel* reiterated what the* alle#ed in their sbmitted pleadin#s.

!oth parties a#reed that the ori#inal cop* of the 1l* +7, +((5 tape of the incident at the cortroom

wold be sbmitted for the ommissionerHs review. 1d#e !acli sbmitted the tape and the

transcript of steno#raphic notes on 1anar* +', +((4.

ommissioner "e la Rama narrated his findin#s, as follows:3+

t the first part of the hearin# as reflected in the TSN, it was observed that the respondent was calm.

2e politel* ar#ed his case bt the voice of the complainant appears to be in hi#h pitch. "rin# the

mandator* conference, it was also observed that indeed, the complainant maintains a hi#h pitch

whenever he spea;s. In fact, in the TSN, where there was alread* an ar#ment, the complainant

stated the followin#:

ort: "o not shot.

tt*. !attn#: !ecase the cort is shotin#.

ort: This cort has been constantl* nder this ;ind of voice tt*. !attn#, we are ver* sorr* if *o

do not want to appear before m* cort, then *o better attend to *or cases and do not appear

before m* cort if *o do not want to be corrected %TSN, 1l* +7, +((5, pa#e '&

%NOTE: The nderlined words >we are ver* sorr*> were actall* ttered b* tt*. !attn# while

the Ad#e was sa*in# the Goted portion of the TSN&

That it was drin# the time when the complainant as;ed the followin# Gestions when the

ndersi#ned noticed that tt*. !attn# shoted at the presidin# Ad#e.

ort: "id *o proceed nder the Revised Rles on Smmar* $rocedre

V







tt*. !attn#: It is not or falt Mor 2onor to proceed becase we were as;ed to present or

evidence e6 parte. Mor 2onor, so, if shold we were ordered %sic& b* the cort to follow the rles on

smmar* procedre. %TSN pa#e ', 1l* +7, +((5&

It was observed that the Ad#e ttered the followin#:

ort: "o not shot.

tt*. !attn#: !ecase the cort is shotin#.

%$a#e ', TSN 1l* +7, +((5&

Note: V it was at this point when the respondent shoted at the complainant.

Thereafter, it was observed that both were alread* shotin# at each other.

Respondent claims that he was provo;ed b* the presidin# Ad#e that is wh* he shoted bac; at him.!t after hearin# the tape, the ndersi#ned in convinced that it was tt*. !attn# who shoted first at

the complainant.

$resmabl*, there were other law*ers and liti#ants present waitin# for their cases to be called. The*

mst have observed the incident. In fact, in the Aoint/affidavit sbmitted b* Elenita $acGin# et al.,

the* stood as one in sa*in# that it was reall* tt*. !attn# who shoted at the Ad#e that is wh* the

latter cationed him >not to shot.>

The last part of the incident as contained in pa#e 7 of the TSN reads as follows:

ort: Mo are now ordered to pa* a fine of $3((.((.

tt*. !attn#: Ce will file the necessar* action a#ainst this cort for #ross i#norance of the law.

ort: Mes, proceed.

%NOTE: tt*. !attn# went ot the cortroom&

ort: Ne6t case.

Interpreter: ivil ase No. +79.

%Note: tt*. !attn# entered a#ain the cortroom&

tt*. !attn#: !t what we do not li;e P %not finished&

ort: The ne6t timeP

tt*. !attn#: Ce wold li;e to clear P



ort: Sheriff, throw ot the consel, pt that ever*thin# in record. If *o want to see me, see me

after the cort.

Ne6t case.

ivil ase No. +79 for $artition and "ama#es, Roberto abal-a vs. Teresita Nara#, et al.

%nothin# follows&

ommissioner "e la Rama fond that the respondent failed to observe anon 33 of the ode of

$rofessional Responsibilit* that reGires a law*er to observe and maintain respect de the corts

and Adicial officers. The respondent also violated Rle 33.(' of anon 33 that provides that a law*er

shall abstain from scandalos, offensive or menacin# lan#a#e or behavior before the corts. The

respondentHs ar#ment that 1d#e !acli provo;ed him to shot shold not be #iven de

consideration since the respondent shold not have shoted at the presidin# Ad#e< b* doin# so, he

created the impression that disrespect of a Ad#e cold be tolerated. Chat the respondent shold

have done was to file an action before the Office of the ort dministrator if he believed that 1d#e!acli did not act accordin# to the norms of Adicial condct.

Cith respect to the char#e of violation of anon 3+ of the ode of $rofessional Responsibilit*,

ommissioner "e la Rama fond that the evidence sbmitted is insfficient to spport a rlin# that

the respondent had missed the Adicial processes to frstrate the ends of Astice.

ommissioner "e la Rama recommended that the respondent be sspended from the practice of

law for si6 %9& months.

On October 4, +(3(, the I!$ !oard of Bovernors passed a Resoltion adoptin# and approvin# the

Report and Recommendation of the Investi#atin# ommissioner, with the modification that therespondent be reprimanded.

The ortHs Rlin#

Ce a#ree with the I!$Hs findin# that the respondent violated Rle 33.(', anon 33 of the ode of

$rofessional Responsibilit*. tt*. !attn# disrespected 1d#e !acli b* shotin# at him inside the

cortroom drin# cort proceedin#s in the presence of liti#ants and their consels, and cort

personnel. The respondent even came bac; to harass 1d#e !acli. This behavior, in front of man*

witnesses, cannot be allowed. Ce note that the respondent contined to threaten 1d#e !acli and

acted in a manner that clearl* showed disrespect for his position even after the latter had cited him

for contempt. In fact, after initiall* leavin# the cort, the respondent retrned to the cortroom anddisrpted the on#oin# proceedin#s. These actions were not onl* a#ainst the person, the position and

the statre of 1d#e !acli, bt a#ainst the cort as well whose proceedin#s were openl* and

fla#rantl* disrpted, and bro#ht to disrepte b* the respondent.

Liti#ants and consels, particlarl* the latter becase of their position and avowed dt* to the corts,

cannot be allowed to pblicl* ridicle, demean and disrespect a Ad#e, and the cort that he

represents. The ode of $rofessional Responsibilit* provides:



anon 33 / law*er shall observe and maintain the respect de the corts and to Adicial officers

and shold insist on similar condct b* others.

Rle 33.(' / law*er shall abstain from scandalos, offensive or menacin# lan#a#e or behavior

before the orts.

Ce rled in Ro6as v. "e -arre#i, 1r.3' that it is the dt* of a law*er, as an officer of the cort, to

phold the di#nit* and athorit* of the corts. Respect for the corts #arantees the stabilit* of the

Adicial instittion< withot this #arantee, the instittion wold be restin# on ver* sha;* fondations.

law*er who inslts a Ad#e inside a cortroom completel* disre#ards the latterHs role, statre and

position in or Astice s*stem. Chen the respondent pblicl* berated and bra-enl* threatened 1d#e

!acli that he wold file a case for #ross i#norance of the law a#ainst the latter, the respondent

effectivel* acted in a manner tendin# to erode the pblic confidence in 1d#e !acliHs competence

and in his abilit* to decide cases. Incompetence is a matter that, even if tre, mst be handled with

sensitivit* in the manner provided nder the Rles of ort< an obAectin# or complainin# law*er

cannot act in a manner that pts the corts in a bad li#ht and brin# the Astice s*stem into disrepte.

The I!$ !oard of Bovernors recommended that tt*. !attn# be reprimanded, while the

Investi#atin# ommissioner recommended a penalt* of si6 %9& months sspension.

Ce believe that these recommended penalties are too li#ht for the offense.

In Re: Sspension of tt*. Ro#elio . !a#ab*o, 0ormer Senior State $rosector ,37 we sspended

tt*. !a#ab*o for one *ear for violatin# Rle 33.(8, anon 33, and Rle 3'.(+, anon 3' of the

ode of $rofessional Responsibilit*, and for violatin# the Law*erHs Oath for airin# his #rievances

a#ainst a Ad#e in newspapers and radio pro#rams. In this case, tt*. !attn#Hs violations are no less

serios as the* were committed in the cortroom in the corse of Adicial proceedin#s where therespondent was actin# as an officer of the cort, and before the liti#atin# pblic. 2is actions were

plainl* disrespectfl to 1d#e !acli and to the cort, to the point of bein# scandalos and offensive

to the inte#rit* of the Adicial s*stem itself.

C2ERE0ORE, in view of the fore#oin#, tt*. )elchor . !attn# is fond BUILTM of violatin# Rle

33.(', anon 33 of the ode of $rofessional Responsibilit*, for which he is SUS$EN"E" from the

practice of law for one %3& *ear effective pon the finalit* of this "ecision. 2e is STERNLM CRNE"

that a repetition of a similar offense shall be dealt with more severel*.

Let copies of this "ecision be frnished the Office of the !ar onfidant, to be appended to the

respondentHs personal record as an attorne*< the Inte#rated !ar of the $hilippines< the "epartmentof 1stice< and all corts in the contr*, for their information and #idance.

SO OR"ERE".

A.C. No. 921 Ma37 10, 2006









J!$*E !BAL$INO A. LAC!ROM, )3es:d:+ Jud+e, Re+:oal T3:al Cou3, Caaaua C:y,

B3a7 29 ad )a:3:+ Jud+e, B3a7 0, omplainant,

vs.

ATT. ELLI" (. JACOBA ad ATT. OLI%IA %ELA"CO#JACOBA, Respondents.

" E I S I O N

CAR)IO, J.:

Te Case

This administrative case arose from a complaint filed on ++ October +((3 b* 1d#e Ubaldino .

Lacrom %>1d#e Lacrom>&, $airin# 1d#e, Re#ional Trial ort of abanatan it*, !ranch '(,

a#ainst respondent/sposes tt*. Ellis 0. 1acoba and tt*. Olivia Delasco/1acoba %>respondents>&.

omplainant char#ed respondents with violation of Rles 33.(',3 33.(7,+ and 34.(3' of the ode of

$rofessional Responsibilit*.

Te (a7s

The 1acoba/Delasco/1acoba Law 0irm is consel for plaintiff leAandro R. Deneracion %>Deneracion>&

in a civil case for nlawfl detainer a#ainst defendant 0ederico !arrientos %>!arrientos>&.7 The

)nicipal Trial ort of abanatan it* rendered Ad#ment in favor of Deneracion bt !arrientos

appealed to the Re#ional Trial ort. The case was raffled to !ranch '( where 1d#e Lacrom was

sittin# as pairin# Ad#e.

On +4 1ne +((3, 1d#e Lacrom issed a Resoltion %>Resoltion>& reversin# the earlier Ad#ments

rendered in favor of Deneracion.8 The dispositive portion reads:

C2ERE0ORE, this ort hereb* REDERSES its "ecision dated "ecember ++, +(((, as well as

REDERSES the "ecision of the cort a Go dated 1l* ++, 344.

0rthermore, the plaintiff/appellee leAandro Deneracion is ordered to ESE and "ESIST from

eAectin# the defendant/appellant 0ederico !arrientos from the 3,((( sGare meter homelot covered

b* TT No. T/8+7, and the smaller area of one hndred fort*/seven sGare meters, within the

3,((( sG.m. covered b* TT No. T/593', and the hose thereon standin# covered b* Ta6

"eclaration No. (+((9/(33', issed b* the it* ssessor of abanatan it*< and !arrientos is

ordered to pa* Deneracion $3(,(((.(( for the hose covered b* Ta6 "eclaration No. (+((9/(33'.

SO OR"ERE".9

DeneracionHs consel filed a )otion for Reconsideration %with ReGest for Inhibition& dated '( 1l*

+((3 %>'( 1l* +((3 motion>&, pertinent portions of which read:

II. $RE0TORM STTE)ENT

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_5921_2006.html#fnt1





















This RESOLUTION of REDERSL is an !2ORRENT NULLITM as it is entirel* "EDOI" of factal

and le#al basis. It is a Le#al )ONSTROSITM in the sense that the 2onorable REBIONL TRIL

OURT acted as if it were the "R! %"ept. of #rarian Reform "1U"ITION !OR"& 6 6

6 2OC 2ORRI!LE and TERRI!LE The mista;es are ver* patent and #larin# 6 6 6

6 6 6 6

III. BROUN"S 0OR REONSI"ERTION

3. The 2onorable $airin# ort $residin# 1d#e ERRE" in $eremptoril* and Sddenl* Reversin#

the 0indin#s of the Lower ort 1d#e and the Re#lar RT $residin# 1d#e: 'aw%@l.net

6 6 6 The defendant filed a )otion for Reconsideration, and after a ver* Gestionable S2ORT period

of time, came this STUNNINB and SU""EN REDERSL. Cithot an* le#al or factal basis, the

2on. $airin# 1d#e simpl* and peremptoril* REDERSE" two %+& decisions in favor of the plaintiff.

This is hi#hl* Gestionable, if not sspicios, hence, this )otion for Reconsideration.

6 6 6 6

The Resoltion assmes 0TS that have not been established and presmes 0TS not part of

the records of the case, all >loaded> in favor of the alle#ed >TENNT.> learl*, the RESOLUTION is

an INSULT to the 1diciar* and an N2RONIS) in the 1dicial $rocess. Need we sa* more

6 6 6 6

7. The 2onorable $airin# ort $residin# 1d#e ERRE" in 2oldin# That the "efendant is Entitled to

a 2omelot, and That the Residential LOT in ?estion is That 2omelot:

T2IS ERROR IS STU$EN"OUS and a real !ONER. Chere did the 2onorable $IRINB 1U"BE

base this conclsion 6 6 6 This 2ORREN"OUS )IST@E mst be corrected here and now

6 6 6 6

9. The 2onorable $airin# ort $residin# 1d#e ERRE" Brievosl* in 2oldin# and "eclarin# that

The cort ?UO Erroneosl* Too; o#ni-ance of the ase and That It 2ad No 1risdiction over

the SbAect/)atter:

nother 2ORRI!LE ERROR Even an avera#e Law Stdent ;nows that 1URIS"ITION is

determined b* the averments of the O)$LINT and not b* the averments in the answer This isbac;ed p b* a Litan* of ases

6 6 6 6

. 0INLLM, the 2onorable $airin# ort $residin# 1d#e Ridiclosl* ERRE" in Orderin# the

"efendant To $a* $3(,(((.(( to the $laintiff s $a*ment for $laintiffHs 2OUSE:



T2IS IS the Last STRC, bt it is also the !est ILLUSTRTION of the )anifold BLRINB ERRORS

committed b* the 2on. $airin# ort 1d#e.

6 6 6 6

This Order of the ort for the plaintiff to sell his RESI"ENTIL 2OUSE to the defendant for theridiclosl* LOC price of $3(,(((.(( best illstrates the Lon# Line of 0alt* reasonin#s and

ERRONEOUS conclsions of the 2on. $airin# ort $residin# 1d#e. Li;e the proverbial

)ONSTER, the )onstros Resoltion shold be slain on si#ht5

The '( 1l* +((3 motion pra*ed that %3& 1d#e Lacrom inhibit himself >in order to #ive plaintiff a

fi#htin# chance> and %+& the Resoltion be reconsidered and set aside.4 tt*. Olivia Delasco/1acoba

%>Delasco/1acoba>& si#ned the motion on behalf of the 1acoba/Delasco/1acoba Law 0irm.

On 9 #st +((3, 1d#e Lacrom ordered Delasco/1acoba to appear before his sala and e6plain

wh* she shold not be held in contempt of cort for the >ver* disrespectfl, insltin# and hmiliatin#>

contents of the '( 1l* +((3 motion.3(

In her E6planation, omments and nswer,33

Delasco/1acobaclaimed that >2is 2onor ;nows beforehand who actall* prepared the sbAect )otion< records will

show that the ndersi#ned consel did not actall* or activel* participate in this case.>3+ Delasco/

1acoba disavowed an* >conscios or deliberate intent to de#rade the honor and inte#rit* of the

2onorable ort or to detract in an* form from the respect that is ri#htfll* de all corts of

Astice.>3' She rationali-ed as follows:

6 6 6 at first blsh, the motion reall* appears to contain some sardonic, strident and hard/stri;in#

adAectives. nd, if we are to pic; sch strin#ent words at random and bnch them to#ether, side/b*/

side 6 6 6 then collectivel* and certainl* the* present a cacophonic pictre of total and tter

disrespect. 6 6 6

6 6 6 6

Ce most respectfll* sbmit that plaintiff K consel did not Ast fire a staccato of incisive and hard/

hittin# remar;s, machine/#n st*le as to be called contmacios and contemptos. The* were Ast

articlatin# their feelin#s of shoc;, bewilderment and disbelief at the sdden reversal of their #ood

fortne, not driven b* an* desire to Ast cast aspersions at the 2onorable $airin# Ad#e. The* mst

believe that bi# monmental errors deserve eGall* bi# adAectives, no more no less. 6 6 6 The

matters involved were neither peripheral nor mar#inali-ed, and the* had to call a spade a spade. 6

6 637

Nevertheless, Delasco/1acoba e6pressed willin#ness to apolo#i-e >for whatever mista;e the* ma*have committed in a moment of n#arded discretion when the* ma* have stepped on the line and

#one ot of bondsH.> She also a#reed to have the alle#edl* contemptos phrases stric;en off the

record.38

On 3' September +((3, 1d#e Lacrom fond Delasco/1acoba #ilt* of contempt and penali-ed her

with imprisonment for five da*s and a fine of $3,(((.39























Delasco/1acoba moved for reconsideration of the 3' September +((3 order. She reconted that on

her wa* ot of the hose for an afternoon hearin#, tt*. Ellis 1acoba %>1acoba>& stopped her and said

>O, ira%an o na ito kasi last da1 na, baka a%#li .> %Si#n this as it is de toda*, or it mi#ht not be

filed on time.& She si#ned the pleadin# handed to her withot readin# it, in >trstin# blind faith> on

her hsband of '8 *ears with whom she >entrsted her whole life and ftre.>3 This pleadin# trned

ot to be the '( 1l* +((3 motion which 1acoba drafted bt cold not si#n becase of his thensspension from the practice of law.35

Delasco/1acoba lamented that 1d#e Lacrom had fond her #ilt* of contempt withot condctin#

an* hearin#. She accsed 1d#e Lacrom of harborin# >a personal vendetta,> orderin# her

imprisonment despite her stats as >senior lad* law*er of the I!$ Neva EciAa hapter, alread* a

senior citi-en, and a #randmother man* times over.>34 t an* rate, she ar#ed, 1d#e Lacrom

shold have inhibited himself from the case ot of delicade"abecase >Deneracion had alread*

filed a#ainst him criminal cases before the Office of the it* $rosector of abanatan it* and

before the Ombdsman.>+(

The records show that with the assistance of consel 1acoba and the 1acoba/Delasco/1acoba Law0irm, Deneracion had e6ected an affidavit on +' #st +((3 accsin# 1d#e Lacrom of

;nowin#l* renderin# nAst Ad#ment thro#h ine6csable ne#li#ence and i#norance+3 and violatin#

Section '%e& of Repblic ct No. '(34 %>R '(34>&.++ The first char#e became the sbAect of a

preliminar* investi#ation+' b* the it* $rosector of abanatan it*. On the second char#e,

Deneracion set forth his alle#ations in a omplaint/ffidavit+7 filed on +5 #st +((3 with the Office

of the "ept* Ombdsman for L-on.

1d#e Lacrom issed another order on +3 September +((3, this time directin# 1acoba to e6plain

wh* he shold not be held in contempt.+8 1acoba complied b* filin# an nswer with Second )otion

for Inhibition, wherein he denied that he t*ped or prepared the '( 1l* +((3 motion. #ainst Delasco/1acobaHs statements implicatin# him, 1acoba invo;ed the marital privile#e rle in evidence.+9 1d#e

Lacrom later rendered a decision+ findin# 1acoba #ilt* of contempt of cort and sentencin# him to

pa* a fine of $8((.

On ++ October +((3, 1d#e Lacrom filed the present complaint a#ainst respondents before the

Inte#rated !ar of the $hilippines %I!$&.

Reo3 ad Re7ommeda:o o; e IB)

Respondents did not file an answer and neither did the* appear at the hearin# set b* I!$

ommissioner tt*. L*dia . Navarro %>I!$ ommissioner Navarro>& despite sfficient notice.+5

I!$ ommissioner Navarro, in her Report and Recommendation of 3( October +((+, recommended

the sspension of respondents from the practice of law for si6 months.+4 I!$ ommissioner Navarro

fond that >respondents were prone to sin# offensive and dero#ator* remar;s and phrases which

amonted to discortes* and disrespect for athorit*.>'( ltho#h the remar;s were not directed at

1d#e Lacrom personall*, the* were aimed at >his position as a Ad#e, which is a smac; on the

Adiciar* s*stem as a whole.>'3



































The I!$ !oard of Bovernors %>I!$ !oard>& adopted I!$ ommissioner NavarroHs Report and

Recommendation, e6cept for the len#th of sspension which the I!$ !oard redced to three

months.'+ On 3( "ecember +((+, the I!$ !oard transmitted its recommendation to this ort,

to#ether with the docments pertainin# to the case.

Several da*s later, Delasco/1acoba so#ht reconsideration of the I!$ !oard decision, ths:

''

6 6 6 6

'. 0or the information of the 2onorable ommission, e 3ese 7omla: o; Jud+e

La7u3om :s sub judice e same :ssues :<ol<ed : :s 7ase a3e 3a:sed e;o3e e

'oo3ale Cou3 o; Aeals 3esely ed:+ : CA#*.R. ") No. 669= ;o3 Ce3:o3a3:

ad Madao3y I:::o : TRO ad )3el:m:a3y Iu7:o 6 6 6<

7. Ce filed an dministrative ase a#ainst 1d#e Lacrom before the Spreme ort

involvin# the same isses we raised in the aforementioned ertiorari case, which was

dismissed b* the Spreme ort for bein# prematre, in view of the pendin# ertiorari casebefore the ort of ppeals<

8. In li;e manner, ot of respect and deference to the ort of ppeals, the present

complaint shold li;ewise be dismissed andQor sspended pendin# resoltion of the certiorari

case b* the ort of ppeals.'7%Emphasis spplied&

Te Cou3Fs Rul:+

On a preliminar* note, we reAect Delasco/1acobaHs contention that the present complaint shold be

considered s#b ;#dice in view of the petition for certiorari and mandator* inhibition with preliminar*

inAnction %>petition for certiorari>&'8

filed before the ort of ppeals.

The petition for certiorari, institted b* Deneracion and Delasco/1acoba on 7 October +((3, see;s to

nllif* the followin# orders issed b* 1d#e Lacrom in ivil ase No. +5'9: %3& the Orders dated +9

September +((3 and 4 November +((3 den*in# respondentsH respective motions for inhibition< and

%+& the 3' September +((3 Order which fond Delasco/1acoba #ilt* of contempt. The petitioners

alle#e that 1d#e Lacrom acted >with #rave abse of discretion amontin# to lac; of Arisdiction, in

violation of e6press provisions of the law and applicable decisions of the Spreme ort.>'9

$lainl*, the isse before s is respondentsH liabilit* nder the ode of $rofessional Responsibilit*.

The otcome of this case has no bearin# on the resoltion of the petition for certiorari, as there is

neither identit* of isses nor cases of action.

Neither shold the ortHs dismissal of the administrative complaint a#ainst 1d#e Lacrom for

bein# prematre impel s to dismiss this complaint. 1d#e LacromHs orders in ivil ase No. +5'9

cold not be the sbAect of an administrative complaint a#ainst him while a petition for certiorari

assailin# the same orders is pendin# with an appellate cort. dministrative remedies are neither

alternative nor cmlative to Adicial review where sch review is available to the a##rieved parties

and the same has not been resolved with finalit*. Until there is a final declaration that the challen#ed
















order or Ad#ment is manifestl* erroneos, there will be no basis to conclde whether the Ad#e is

administrativel* liable.'

The respondents are sitated differentl* within the factal settin# of this case. The correspondin#

implications of their actions also #ive rise to different liabilities. Ce first e6amine the char#e a#ainst

Delasco/1acoba.

There is no dispte that the #enine si#natre of Delasco/1acoba appears on the '( 1l* +((3

motion. Delasco/1acobaHs responsibilit* as consel is #overned b* Section ', Rle of the Rles of

ort:

SE. '.Signat#re and address.Ever* pleadin# mst be si#ned b* the part* or consel

representin# him 6 6 6.

Te s:+au3e o; 7ousel 7os:ues a 7e3:;:7ae y :m a e as 3ead e lead:+, a o

e es o; :s Goled+e, :;o3ma:o, ad el:e; e3e :s +ood +3oud o suo3 : , and that

it is not interposed for dela*.

6 6 6 Cousel o 6 6 6 s:+s a lead:+ : <:ola:o o; :s Rule, o3 alle+es s7adalous o3

:de7e mae3 e3e: 6 6 6 sall e sue7 o a3o3:ae d:s7:l:a3y a7:o. %Emphasis

spplied&

!* si#nin# the '( 1l* +((3 motion, Delasco/1acoba in effect certified that she had read it, she ;new

it to be meritorios, and it was not for the prpose of dela*in# the case. 2er si#natre spplied the

motion with le#al effect and elevated its stats from a mere scrap of paper to that of a cort

docment.

Delasco/1acoba insists, however, that she si#ned the '( 1l* +((3 motion onl* becase of herhsbandHs reGest bt she did not ;now its contents beforehand. pparentl*, this practice of si#nin#

each otherHs pleadin#s is a lon#/standin# arran#ement between the sposes. ccordin# to Delasco/

1acoba, >so implicit is their trst for each other that this happens all the time. Thro#h the *ears,

she alread* lost cont of the nmber of pleadin#s prepared b* one that is si#ned b* the other.>'5 !*

Delasco/1acobaHs own admission, therefore, she violated Section ' of Rle . This violation is an act

of falsehood before the corts, which in itself is a #rond

for sbAectin# her to disciplinar* action, independent of an* other #rond arisin# from the contents of

the '( 1l* +((3 motion.'4

Ce now consider the evidence as re#ards 1acoba. 2is name does not appear in the '( 1l* +((3motion. 2e asserts the inadmissibilit* of Delasco/1acobaHs statement pointin# to him as the athor of

the motion.

The ort cannot easil* let 1acoba off the hoo;. 0irstl*, his nswer with Second )otion for Inhibition

did not contain a denial of his wifeHs accont. Instead, 1acoba impliedl* admitted athorship of the

motion b* statin# that he >trained his #ns and fired at the errors which he perceived and believed to

be #i#antic and monmental.>7(











Secondl*, we find Delasco/1acobaHs version of the facts more plasible, for two reasons: %3& her

reaction to the events was immediate and spontaneos, nli;e 1acobaHs defense which was raised

onl* after a considerable time had elapsed from the erption of the controvers*< and %+& 1acoba had

been consel of record for Deneracion in ivil ase No. +5'9, spportin# Delasco/1acobaHs

assertion that she had not >actall* participated> in the prosection of the case.

)oreover, 1acoba filed a )anifestation in ivil ase No. +5'9, pra*in# that 1d#e Lacrom await the

otcome of the petition for certiorari before decidin# the contempt char#e a#ainst him.73 This petition

for certiorari anchors some of its ar#ments on the premise that the motion was, in fact, 1acobaHs

handiwor;.7+

The marital privile#e rle, bein# a rle of evidence, ma* be waived b* failre of the claimant to obAect

timel* to its presentation or b* an* condct that ma* be constred as implied consent.7' This waiver

applies to 1acoba who impliedl* admitted athorship of the '( 1l* +((3 motion.

The ode of $rofessional Responsibilit* provides:

Rle 33.('. law*er shall abstain from scandalos, offensive or menacin# lan#a#e or behavior

before the orts.

Rle 33.(7. law*er shall not attribte to a 1d#e motives not spported b* the record or have no

materialit* to the case.

No dobt, the lan#a#e contained in the '( 1l* +((3 motion #reatl* e6ceeded the vi#or reGired of

1acoba to defend abl* his clientHs case. Ce recall his se of the followin# words and

phrases: ab%orrent n#llit1 , legal onstrosit1 , %orrendo#s istake, %orrible error , boner , and an ins#lt

to t%e ;#diciar1 and an anac%ronis in t%e ;#dicial rocess. Even Delasco/1acoba ac;nowled#ed that

the words created >a cacophonic pictre of total and tter disrespect.>77

Respondents nonetheless tr* to e6clpate themselves b* sa*in# that ever* remar; in the '( 1l*

+((3 motion was warranted. Ce disa#ree.

Cell/reco#ni-ed is the ri#ht of a law*er, both as an officer of the cort and as a citi-en, to critici-e in

properl* respectfl terms and thro#h le#itimate channels the acts of corts and Ad#es.78 2owever,

even the most hardened Ad#e wold be scarred b* the scrrilos attac; made b* the '( 1l* +((3

motion on 1d#e LacromHs Resoltion. On its face, the Resoltion presented the facts correctl* and

decided the case accordin# to spportin# law and Arisprdence. Tho#h a law*erHs lan#a#e ma*

be forcefl and emphatic, it shold alwa*s be di#nified and respectfl, befittin# the di#nit* of the

le#al profession.79

The se of nnecessar* lan#a#e is proscribed if we are to promote hi#h esteemin the corts and trst in Adicial administration.7

In maintainin# the respect de to the corts, a law*er is not merel* enAoined to se di#nified

lan#a#e bt also to prse the clientHs case thro#h fair and honest means, ths:




















Rle 34.(3. law*er shall emplo* onl* fair and honest means to attain the lawfl obAectives of his

client and shall not present, participate in presentin# or threaten to present nfonded criminal

char#es to obtain an improper advanta#e in an* case or proceedin#.

Shortl* after the filin# of the '( 1l* +((3 motion bt before its resoltion, 1acoba assisted his client

in instittin# two administrative cases a#ainst 1d#e Lacrom. s we have earlier noted, ivil aseNo. +5'9 was then pendin# before 1d#e LacromHs sala. The ortHs attention is drawn to the fact

that the timin# of the filin# of these administrative cases cold ver* well raise the sspicion that the

cases were intended as levera#e a#ainst 1d#e Lacrom.

Respondent sposes have both been the sbAect of administrative cases before this ort. In

dministrative ase No. +847, we sspended 1acoba from the practice of law for a period of si6

months becase of >his failre to file an action for the recover* of possession of propert* despite the

lapse of two and a half *ears from receipt b* him of$88( which his client #ave him as filin# and

sheriffHs fees.>75 In dministrative ase No. 88(8, 1acoba was once a#ain fond remiss in his dties

when he failed to file the appellantHs brief, resltin# in the dismissal of his clientHs appeal. Ce

imposed the penalt* of one *ear sspension.

74

s for Delasco/1acoba, onl* recentl* this ort fined her $8,((( for appearin# in baran#a*

conciliation proceedin#s on behalf of a part*, ;nowin# fll* well the prohibition contained in Section

738 of the Local Bovernment ode.8(

In these cases, the ort sternl* warned respondents that a repetition of similar acts wold merit a

stiffer penalt*. Met, here a#ain we are faced with the Gestion of whether respondents have

condcted themselves with the cortes* and candor reGired of them as members of the bar and

officers of the cort. Ce find respondents to have fallen short of the mar;.

&'ERE(ORE, we "!")EN$ tt*. Ellis 0. 1acoba from the practice of law for two %+& *ears effectivepon finalit* of this "ecision. Ce also "!")EN$ tt*. Olivia Delasco/1acoba from the practice of

law for two %+& months effective pon finalit* of this "ecision. Ce "TERNL &ARN respondentsthat

a repetition of the same or similar infraction shall merit a more severe sanction.

Let copies of this "ecision be frnished the Office of the !ar onfidant, to be appended to

respondentsH personal records as attorne*s< the Inte#rated !ar of the $hilippines< and all corts in

the contr* for their information and #idance.

"O OR$ERE$.

PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR A.M. No. MTJ-02-1432

ROBERT M. VISBAL,

Complainant, Present:

Davide, Jr., C.J . C!airman",










- vers#s - $#is#m%in&,

'nares-(antia&o,

Carpio, and

A)*#na, JJ.

JUDGE MARINO S. BUBAN,

Municipal Trial Court in Citi!, Prom#l&ated:

Branc" #, Taclo$an Cit%,

+espondent. (eptem%er 3, 2004

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DECISION

&NARES'SANTIAGO, J .:

n a sorn *omplaint,/1 Assistant Provin*ial Prose*#tor +o%ert M. is%al

*!ar&ed J#d&e Marino (. #%an, MTCC, ran*! 1, Ta*lo%an Cit it! iolation

o +#le 3.05,/2 Canon 3 o t!e Code o J#di*ial Cond#*t and6or 7ail#re to De*ide a

Case 8it!in t!e +e&lementar Period, 9ross nei*ien*, Mis*ond#*t, ias and

Partialit relative to Criminal Cases Nos. ;-0<-1 and ;-0<-20./3

Complainant avers t!at respondent J#d&e ailed to de*ide Criminal Cases

Nos. ;-0<-1 and ;-0<-20 it!in t!e 0-da period rom s#%mission o t!e

parties=s memoranda. >en*e, *omplainant pras t!at respondent J#d&e %e !eld

administrativel lia%le as ell as *riminall lia%le or iolation o Arti*le 1<4 /4 o

t!e +evised Penal Code or !is ail#re to dis*lose in !is Certii*ates o (ervi*e

rom J#ne 1 t!at t!e s#%?e*t *ases ere pendin& de*ision.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/am_mtj_02_1432.htm#_ftn1










Complainant #rt!er alle&es t!at respondent J#d&e displaed %ias in avor o

t!e a**#sed in t!e a%ove-mentioned *riminal *ases % !is toleran*e o t!e deense=s

late ilin& o pleadin&s and ail#re to appear in *o#rt despite d#e noti*e. >e *laims

t!at respondent J#d&e !ar%ored a &r#d&e a&ainst !im %e*a#se !is ie iled an

administrative *omplaint a&ainst t!e latter.

n !is Comment,/5

respondent J#d&e denied t!e alle&ations in t!e

*omplaint. >e alle&ed t!at t!e s#%?e*t *ases ere ori&inall pendin& %eore t!e

sala o J#d&e Pa#lino A. Ca%ello %#t ere s#%se@#entl transerred to !im ater

J#d&e Ca%ello in!i%ited !imsel rom !earin& t!e *ases. >e eplains t!at !is

ina%ilit to dispose o t!e *ases it!in t!e pres*ri%ed period as d#e to t!e ail#re

o !is sta to %rin& t!e *ases to !im or proper a*tion. t as onl on De*em%er 1,

1 t!at !is attention as *alled re&ardin& t!ese to *ases !i*! !ad %een

s#%mitted or de*ision. >oever, ater &oin& over t!e memoranda o t!e parties

and ot!er pleadin&s, !e o#nd t!at t!e onl a to determine t!e &#ilt or inno*en*e

o t!e a**#sed is t!ro#&! a #ll-%lon trial. T!#s, !e s*!ed#led t!e *ases or

trial. >e admits t!at !e as #na%le to report t!e penden* o t!ese to *ases in !is

Certii*ate o (ervi*e %e*a#se !e as #naare t!at t!e period to de*ide t!em !ad

alread lapsed.





+espondent #rt!er averred t!at t!e administrative *ase/ iled %

*omplainant=s ie a&ainst !im as alread dismissed % t!is Co#rt in a

+esol#tion dated A#&#st 11, 1<./< >e notes t!at *omplainant !as t!e propensit

o ilin& administrative *ases a&ainst ?#d&es and ello prose*#tors, and !e even

iled an administrative *omplaint a&ainst J#d&e Ca%ello or in!i%itin& !imsel rom

!earin& Criminal Cases Nos. ;-0<-1 and ;-0<-20.

Bn Ma ;, 2002, t!e *omplaint as do*eted as a re&#lar administrative

matter and reerred to t!e e*#tive J#d&e o t!e +e&ional Trial Co#rt o Ta*lo%an

Cit or investi&ation, report and re*ommendation.

e*#tive J#d&e Eeonardo . Apita in!i%ited !imsel in a letter dated J#ne

13, 2002/; statin& t!at !e as related to respondent J#d&e it!in t!e t! de&ree o

ainit. T!#s, t!e *ase as reerred to i*e e*#tive J#d&e (alvador '. Ap#rillo.

n !is +eport dated Mar*! 24, 2003,/ J#d&e Ap#rillo *on*l#ded t!at

respondent J#d&e indeed ailed to resolve t!e *ases it!in t!e re&lementar period,

%#t o#nd t!at part o t!e %lame as attri%#ta%le to !is sta. (in*e respondent !as

a *aseload o more t!an 1,000 *ases, it *o#ld reall !appen t!at some important

matters ma %e overlooed. 8!ile man laers tr to !elp o#t ?#d&es % ilin&

motions or earl resol#tion, t!is did not !appen in t!e s#%?e*t *ases. respondent











J#d&e as to %e a#lted at all, it o#ld %e or !is ail#re to devise a sstem to eep

tra* o t!e *ases pendin& %eore !im and to ei*ientl mana&e !is personnel. 7or

!is trans&ression, J#d&e Ap#rillo re*ommended t!at respondent J#d&e %e Fsternl

reprimanded.G

T!e Bi*e o t!e Co#rt Administrator BCA" a&reed it! t!e a*t#al

indin&s o J#d&e Ap#rillo %#t re*ommended t!at respondent J#d&e %e ined in t!e

amo#nt o T!ree T!o#sand Pesos P3,000.00".

As per +esol#tion o t!e Co#rt dated 7e%r#ar 11, 2004,/10 %ot!

*omplainant/11 and respondent/12 maniested t!eir illin&ness to s#%mit t!e *ase

or resol#tion on t!e %asis o t!e pleadin&s iled.

T!e reasons add#*ed % respondent or !is dela in renderin& ?#d&ment in

Criminal Cases Nos. ;-0<-1 and ;-0<-20 are not novel. A ?#d&e *annot tae

re#&e %e!ind t!e mistaes and inei*ien* o !is *o#rt personnel. /13 >e is

*!ar&ed it! t!e administrative responsi%ilit o or&ani)in& and s#pervisin& t!em

to se*#re t!e prompt and ei*ient dispat*! o %#siness, re@#irin& at all times t!e

o%servan*e o !i&! standards o p#%li* servi*e and idelit./14 ndeed, !e is

#ltimatel responsi%le or ens#rin& t!at *o#rt personnel perorm t!eir tass and t!at

t!e parties are promptl notiied o !is orders and de*isions. /15 t is !is d#t to















devise an ei*ient re*ordin& and ilin& sstem in !is *o#rt to ena%le !im to monitor

t!e lo o *ases and to mana&e t!eir speed and timel disposition./1

respondent J#d&e *o#ld not de*ide t!e *ase it!in t!e re&lementar

period, all !e !ad to do as to as rom t!is Co#rt a reasona%le etension o time

to dispose o t!e *ase, !i*! ma !ave %een &ranted./1<

+#les 1.02 o Canon 1 and 3.05 o Canon 3 o t!e Code o J#di*ial Cond#*t

state:

+#le 1.02. H A ?#d&e s!o#ld administer ?#sti*e impartiall and without

delay.

+#le 3.05. H A ?#d&e s!all dispose o t!e *o#rt=s %#siness promptly andde*ide *ases within the required periods. mp!asis and itali*s s#pplied"

n t!is *onne*tion, (C Administrative Cir*#lar No. 13-;< states, inter

alia, t!at:

3. Judges shall observe scrupulously the periods prescribed

by Article III! Section "# o$ the Constitution $or the ad%udication

and resolution o$ all cases or matters submitted in their courts . T!#s, all *ases or

matters m#st %e de*ided or resolved it!in telve mont!s rom date o

s#%mission % all loer *olle&iate *o#rts !ile all ot!er loer *o#rts are &iven a period o t!ree mont!s to do so. . . mp!asis and itali*s s#pplied"

8e ind t!e penalt re*ommended % t!e BCA not *ommens#rate to t!e

mis*ond#*t *ommitted % respondent./1;

(e*tion <, +#le 140 o t!e +evised +#les o Co#rt, as amended, /1 *lassiies

administrative *!ar&es as serio#s, less serio#s or li&!t. Ind#e dela in renderin& a

de*ision or order is s#%s#med #nder less serio#s *!ar&es #nder (e*tion . P#rs#ant

to (e*tion 11 " o t!e same +#le, s#*! oense is p#nis!a%le % s#spension rom











oi*e it!o#t salar and ot!er %eneits or not less t!an one 1" mont! nor more

t!an t!ree 3" mont!s or a ine o more t!an P10,000.00 %#t not e*eedin&

P20,000.00. T!ereore, t!e imposa%le penalt arranted in t!is *ase is a ine o

P11,000.00.

T!e resol#tion o t!is *ase ill not, !oever, %e *omplete it!o#t passin&

#pon *omplainant=s #n#s#al pro*livit o ilin& several administrative *ases a&ainst

respondent. A verii*ation it! t!e Do*et and Clearan*e Division o t!e BCA

dis*loses t!at *omplainant prose*#tor !ad so ar iled t!e olloin& administrative

*omplaints a&ainst respondent J#d&e:

1" A.M. BCA-P No. 00-44-MTJ or Nepotism. Complaint dismissed on1; 7e%r#ar 2002

2" A.M. BCA-P No. 02-122-MTJ or Dis!onest and 9ross

Mis*ond#*t. Complaint dismissed on J#l 2003

3" A.M. BCA-P No. 02-12-MTJ or 9rave Mis*ond#*t, Maleasan*e and

Cond#*t Pre?#di*ial to t!e (ervi*e. Complaint dismissed on 2 Mar*!

2003

4" A.M. BCA-P No. <-30-MTJ or 9rave A%#se o J#di*ial A#t!orit,

9ross &noran*e o t!e Ea and (erio#s Mis*ond#*t iled % As#n*ionaldona)a, ie o *omplainant. Complaint dismissed on 11 A#&#st 1<

5" A.M. No. MTJ-03-14<1 or 9ross nei*ien*. +espondent as ined

leven T!o#sand Pesos P11,000.00" on 22 Jan#ar 2003

" A.M. No. 02-1432 or alle&ed 7ail#re to De*ide Cases 8it!in t!e

+e&lementar Period, Mis*ond#*t, ias and Partialit. T!is is t!e *ase#nder eval#ation.

Complainant=s o%sessive prose*#torial )eal in ilin& administrative *!ar&es is

not limited to respondent J#d&e %e*a#se a verii*ation it! t!e Do*et and

Clearan*e Division o t!e BCA reveals t!at said *omplainant !as, to date, iled no

less t!an 31 administrative *ases, in*l#sive o t!e ore&oin& *omplaints a&ainst



respondent, a&ainst MTC ?#d&es, +TC ma&istrates and ot!er *o#rt personnel o

Eete, to it:

A. A(ain!t RTC Ju)(! o* L%t+

1" BCA-P No. 02-115-+TJ or 9rave Mis*ond#*t v. J#d&e

Eeonilo C. Apita, ran*! <, Ta*lo%an Cit. Complaint

Dismissed on 03 (eptem%er 2003

2" BCA-P No. -;<3-+TJ or 9ross &noran*e o t!e Ea,

9rave A%#se o A#t!orit and A*ts Pre?#di*ial to t!e (ervi*e

v. J#d&e Eeonilo C. Apita, ran*! <, Ta*lo%anCit. Complaint Dismissed on 01 Jan#ar 2000

3" BCA-P No. 03-1<<0-+TJ or Knoin&l +enderin& In?#stJ#d&ment v. J#d&e (alvador '. Ap#rillo, ran*! ;, Ta*lo%an

Cit. Pendin&

4" BCA-P No. 03-15-+TJ or Knoin&l +enderin& In?#st

J#d&ment v. J#d&e (alvador '. Ap#rillo, ran*! ;, Ta*lo%an

Cit. Complaint Dismissed on 0 A#&#st 2003

5" BCA-P No. 00-<-+TJ or 7ail#re to De*ide Case it!in

0-da period v. J#d&e Pepe P. Domael, ran*! 3<, Naval-

iliran. Complaint Dismissed on 24 J#l 2000

" A.M. No. +TJ-3-10 or rre&#larit in 9rantin& ail v.

J#d&e 9et#lio 7ran*is*o, ran*! , Ta*lo%an Cit. Complaint

Dismissed on 11 Jan#ar 15

<" A.M. No. +TJ--140 or 7alsii*ation o Certii*ate o

(ervi*e v. J#d&e 7ris*o T. Eila&an, ran*! 34, Ta*lo%an

Cit. 7ined P1,000.00 2< J#l 1

;" BCA-P No. <-35-+TJ or 9rave Mis*ond#*t, a%#se o J#di*ial A#t!orit and Bppression v. J#d&e +o%erto A.

Navidad, ran*! , Ta*lo%an Cit. Complaint Dismissed 11

Mar*! 2002

" A.M. No. +TJ-03-1<44 or iolation o Canon 3.05, Code o

J#di*ial Cond#*t and 7ail#re to De*ide Case it!in t!e



+e&lementar Period v. J#d&e +o&elio C. (es*on, ran*! ,

Ta*lo%an Cit. 7ined P11,000.00 1 A#&#st 2003

10" BCA-P No. 03-1;<-+TJ or Ind#e Dela in +esolvin&

Civil Case No. 2002-1123 v. J#d&e +o%erto C. (es*on,

ran*! , Ta*lo%an Cit. Pendin&

B. A(ain!t ot"r MTC Ju)(! o* L%t+

11" BCA-P No. ;-31-MTJ or 9ross n*ompeten*e,

Ne&li&en*e and 9rave Mis*ond#*t in Bi*e v. J#d&e Pa#lino

A. Ca%ello, MTCC, ran*! 2, Ta*lo%an Cit. Complaint

Dismissed 23 A#&#st 2000.

12" A.M. No. MTJ-00-130 or 9ross &noran*e o t!e Ea,

9rave A%#se o J#di*ial A#t!orit and Ne&li&en*e v. J#d&e+odolo C. +amos, MTC, Jaro, Eete. 7ined P3,000.00 20

Mar*! 2001

13" BCA-P No. 04-15<-MTJ or 9rave Mis*ond#*t and 9ross

&noran*e o t!e Ea v. J#d&e 8en*eslao C. anilla. Pendin&

C. A(ain!t Court Pr!onnl+

14" BCA-P No. 03-15;5-P or iolation o pars. 1 L 2 o

Administrative Cir*#lar No. 24-0 and ot!er 9#idelines on(teno&rap!ers and nei*ien* v. 9emma Almadden, Co#rt

(teno&rap!er , +TC, ran*! , Ta*lo%an Cit. Pendin&

15" BCA-P No. 02-122-MTJ or Dis!onest and 9ross

Mis*ond#*t v. 7eli*isimo Anota, Cler o Co#rt, MTCC,Ta*lo%an Cit. +eprimanded 0 J#l 2003

1" BCA-P No. 00-5<-P or iolation o (e*tion 5 a", +.A.

No. <13 v. 7eli*isimo Anota, Cler o Co#rt, ran*! 1,

MTCC, Ta*lo%an Cit. Admonis!ed 15 April 2002

1<" BCA-P No. 03-15;-P or iolation o (C Cir*#lar No. 24-

0 dated 12 J#l 10 L ot!er related *ir*#lars, Ne&le*t o

D#t v. Teresita Calle?a, Cler o Co#rt , +TC, ran*! <,

Ta*lo%an Cit. Complaint Dismissed 1; 7e%r#ar 2004



1;" BCA-P No. 02-12-MTJ or Cond#*t Pre?#di*ial to t!e

est nterest o t!e (ervi*e v. Josep! Daa, nterpreter,

MTCC, ran*! 1, Ta*lo%an Cit. Complaint Dismissed 2

Mar*! 2003

1" BCA-P No. 02-141-P or iolation o t!e Man#al or Clers o Co#rt v. Anne et! Polo-&ano, Cler o Co#rt ,

MTC, Pastrana, Eete. Complaint Dismissed 24 Mar*! 2003

20" BCA-P No. 03-15;-P or iolation o (C Cir*#lar No. 24-

0 dated 12 J#l 10 and ot!er related *ir*#lars, Ne&le*t o

D#t v. (alome Monte)on, (teno&rap!er, ran*! <, Ta*lo%an

Cit. Complaint Dismissed 1; 7e%r#ar 2004

21" A.M. No. +TJ-3-10 or rre&#larit in 9rantin& ail v.

lan*!e A. (alino, Cler o Co#rt, +TC, ran*! , Ta*lo%anCit. Complaint Dismissed 11 Jan#ar 15

22" BCA-P No. <-235-P or iolation o +.A. No. <13,(e*tion 5 a" v. d&ardo M. T#taan, Cler o Co#rt, MTC,

Palo, Eete. Admonis!ed 1; J#ne 1<

23" A.M. No. P-00-140; or iolation o +.A. No. <13 v.

9on)alo elarde, Cler o Co#rt, MTC, Alan&alan&, Eete.

Complaint Dismissed 25 April 2001

24" BCA-P No. 00-;-P or 7ail#re to +espond to a Eetter v.

7lordeli)a illan#eva, Cas!ier, MTCC, BCC, Ta*lo%an

Cit. Complaint Dismissed 21 Jan#ar 2002

25" BCA-P No. 02-122-MTJ or Dis!onest and 9rossMis*ond#*t v. 7lordeli)a illan#eva, Cas!ier, MTCC,

Ta*lo%an Cit. +eprimanded 0 J#l 2003.

n a +esol#tion dated J#l <, 2004, t!e Co#rt dire*ted *omplainant to s!o

*a#se ! !e s!o#ld not %e !eld administrativel lia%le or !is propensit or ilin&

alse *!ar&es a&ainst oi*ials and emploees o t!e *o#rt it!in a non-etendi%le

period o ten 10" das rom noti*e. Complainant t!ereater iled !is Complian*e

statin& t!at alt!o#&! some o t!ose administrative *omplaints ma not !ave

merited t!e ?#di*io#s eval#ation o t!is Co#rt, it is !is !onest %elie t!at t!e



administrative *omplaints !e iled ere ell-o#nded. 7#rt!ermore, !e !ad no%le

intentions o parti*#larl %rin&in& to t!e attention o t!is Co#rt t!e a%#ses and

irre&#larities in t!e loer *o#rt or appropriate a*tion.

8e ind *omplainant=s eplanation #nsatisa*tor. >is propensit to liti&ate

raises do#%ts as to !o !e *o#ld ind t!e time to perorm !is d#ties at all. (#*! an

e*essive tenden* to *omplain even t!e sli&!test o administrative inra*tions in

some o t!e *ases *onstit#tes an oppressive and &ross a%#se o le&al

pro*esses. T!is imposes on t!e pre*io#s time o t!e Co#rt and impedes t!e speed

and ei*ient dispensation o ?#sti*e. Complainant s!o#ld %e reminded t!at it is t!e

d#t o a laer as an oi*er o t!e *o#rt not to oment s#its amon& individ#als.

A laer oes to so*iet and to t!e *o#rt t!e d#t not to stir #p

liti&ation. T!e Code o Proessional +esponsi%ilit states t!at Fa laer s!all not,

or an *orr#pt motive or interest en*o#ra&e an s#it or pro*eedin&.G /20 T!#s, a

laer is ordered Fnot to %e*ome an insti&ator o *ontrovers and a predator o

*onli*t instead o a mediator o *on*ord and a *on*iliator or *ompromise, a

virt#oso o te*!ni*alit in t!e *ond#*t o liti&ation instead o a tr#e eponent o t!e

prima* o tr#t! and ?#sti*e.G/21

n a*t, laers are *alled #pon to resist t!e!ims and *apri*es o t!eir *lients and to temper t!e latter=s propensit to liti&ate

%e*a#se t!e Eaer=s Bat! to #p!old t!e *a#se o ?#sti*e is s#perior to !is d#t to

!is *lients./22

T!e ore&oin& di*t#m !i*! is em%odied in t!e Canons o Proessional

+esponsi%ilit applies it! e@#al vi&or to laers in t!e &overnment servi*e lie

*omplainant./23 ndeed, +#le <.03 o t!e Code o Proessional +esponsi%ilit

epli*itl states t!at H

+#le <.03. H A laer s!all not en&a&e in *ond#*t t!at adversel rele*ts

on !is itness to pra*ti*e la, nor s!all !e, whether in public or private life,

%e!ave in a s*andalo#s manner to t!e dis*redit o t!e le&al proession./24














9overnment laers !o are p#%li* servants oe #tmost idelit to t!e

p#%li* servi*e %e*a#se p#%li* servi*e is a p#%li* tr#st./25 A laer does not s!ed

!is proessional o%li&ations #pon ass#min& p#%li* oi*e./2 n a*t, !is

proessional o%li&ations s!o#ld mae !im more sensitive to !is oi*ial o%li&ations %e*a#se a laer=s disrep#ta%le *ond#*t is more liel to %e ma&niied in t!e

p#%li* ee./2<

t is ort! to note t!at *omplainant !as alread %een *ited % t!is Co#rt

in Visbal v. Ramos/2; or antonl main& %aseless *!ar&es or maleasan*e t!#s:

8e m#st stress t!at &ross i&noran*e o t!e la is a serio#s a**#sation. It

there$ore behooves complainant to be more circumspect in hurling this charge&

Indeed! a person who accuses a %udge o$ this very serious o$$ense must be sureo$ the grounds $or the accusation! or else be $ound ignorant o$ the law! as in

this case& J#d&es, !ile epe*ted to %e a *#t a%ove t!e rest in t!e le&al proession,

are not in#red to t!e strain *on*omitant it! %aseless and #nair aspersions on

t!eir *ompeten*e. T!e *ertainl deserve a %etter treatment, espe*iall rom a prose*#tor !o s!o#ld no, at t!e ver least, t!e %asi* provisions o t!e +#les o

Criminal Pro*ed#re. mp!asis and itali*s s#pplied".

Complainant is t!ereore &#ilt o mis*ond#*t, deined as t!e trans&ression

o some esta%lis!ed and deinite r#le o a*tion, a or%idden a*t, a dereli*tion o

d#t, ill#l in *!ara*ter and implies ron&#l intent and not mere error in

?#d&ment./2

9iven t!e prevailin& a*ts o t!is *ase, a ine o Ten T!o#sand Pesos

P10,000.00" s!o#ld s#i*e.

-EREORE, in vie o all t!e ore&oin&, ?#d&ment is !ere% rendered:

1" Brderin& respondent J#d&e Marino (. #%an

to PA& a INE o El/n T"ou!an) P!o! P11,000.00" and













2" Brderin& Prose*#tor +o%ert M. is%al

to PA& a INE o Tn T"ou!an) P!o! P10,000.00".

ot! *omplainant and respondent are lieise STERNL& ARNED t!at a

repetition o t!e same or similar a*ts s!all %e dealt it! more severel.

SO ORDERED.

A.C. No. 894 No<eme3 1, 201

'ON. MARIBET' RO$RI*!EZ#MANA'AN, )3es:d:+ Jud+e, Mu:7:al T3:al Cou3, "a Maeo,

R:Hal,omplainant,

vs.

ATT. RO$OL(O (LORE", Respondent.

R E S O L U T I O N

$EL CA"TILLO, J.:

Respondent tt*. Rodolto 0lores %tt*. 0lores& was consel for the defendant in ivil ase No. 359'

captioned as )arsha ranas plaintiff verss rnold !almores defendant a sit for dama#es filed

before the )nicipal Trial ort of San )ateo, Ri-al and presided b* herein complainant 1d#e

)aribeth Rodri#e-/)anahan %1d#e )anahan&. "rin# the proceedin#s in ivil ase No. 359',

1d#e )anahan issed an Order 3 dated 1anar* 3+, +(33, whereb* she volntaril* inhibited from

hearin# ivil ase No. 359'. The said Order reads in part, vi-:

)ore than mere contempt do his %tt*. 0lores& nethical actations, his traits of dishonest* and

discortes* not onl* to his own brethren in the le#al profession, bt also to the bench and Ad#es,

wold amont to #rave miscondct, if not a malpractice of law, a serios #rond for disciplinar*

action of a member of the bar prsant to Rles 3'4 a K b.

IN DIEC C2EREO0, frnish a cop* of this Order to the !ar "iscipline ommittee, Inte#rated !ar of

the $hilippines, to the Spreme ort en banc, for appropriate investi#ation and sanction. +

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/nov2013/ac_8954_2013.html#fnt1






Upon receipt of the cop* of the above Order, the Office of the !ar onfidant %O!& deemed the

prononcements of 1d#e )anahan as a formal administrative omplaint a#ainst tt*. 0lores.

"oc;eted as .. No. 5487, the case was referred to the E6ective 1d#e of the Re#ional Trial ort

of Ri-al for investi#ation, report and recommendation.'

In her Investi#ation, Report and Recommendation,7

Investi#atin# 1d#e 1osephine arate 0ernande-%Investi#atin# 1d#e& narrated the antecedents of the case as follows:

complaint for "ama#es was filed before the )nicipal Trial ort %)T& of San )ateo, Ri-al

doc;eted as ivil ase No. 359', entitled )arsha ranas vs. rnold !almores. The $blic ttorne*Hs

Office %$O& thr tt*. 0erdinand $. enson represented the complainant while tt*. Rodolfo 0lores

appeared as consel for the defendant.

6 6 6 "rin# the $reliminar* onference 6 6 6, respondent tt*. 0lores entered his appearance and

was #iven time to file a $re/Trial !rief. 6 6 6 On )a* +7, +(3(, respondent tt*. 0lores filed his $re/

Trial !rief bt withot proof of )LE compliance hence it was e6pn#ed from the records withot

preAdice to the filin# of another $re/Trial !rief containin# the reGired )LE compliance. 6 6 6 tt*.0lores as;ed for ten %3(& da*s to sbmit proof.

The preliminar* conference was reset several times %#st 33, September 5& for failre of

respondent tt*. 0lores to appear and sbmit his $re/Trial !rief indicatin# thereon his )LE

compliance. The cort a Go li;ewise issed Orders dated September 38 and October +(, +(3(

#ivin# respondent tt*. 0lores a last chance to sbmit his $re/Trial !rief with stern warnin# that

failre to do so shall be considered a waiver on his part.

)eanwhile, respondent tt*. 0lores filed a )anifestation in ort dated September 37, +(3( statin#

amon# others, the followin# alle#ations:

6 6 6 6

7. Chen *o too; *or oath as member of the !ar, *o promised to serve trth, Astice and

fair pla*. "o *o thin; *o are bein# trthfl, Ast and fair b* servin# a cheater

8. I#norance of the law e6cses no one for which reason even Erap was convicted b* the

Sandi#anba*an.'(w%i'!t even worse is a law*er who violates the law.

9. Last bt not the least, Bod said Tho shall not lie. #ain the $hilippine onstittion

commands: Bive ever* 0ilipino his de. The act of refsal b* the plaintiff is violative of the

fore#oin# divine and hman laws.

6 6 6 6

Respondent tt*. 0lores later filed his $re/Trial !rief bearin# an )LE nmber which was merel*

sperimposed withot indicatin# the date and place of compliance. "rin# the preliminar*

conference on November +7, +(3(, respondent tt*. 0lores manifested that he will sbmit proof of

compliance of his )LE on the followin# da*. On "ecember 3, +(3(, respondent tt*. 0lores a#ain







failed to appear and to sbmit the said promised proof of )LE compliance. In its stead, respondent

tt*. 0lores filed a Letter of even date statin# as follows:

If onl* to #ive *or 2onor another chance to prove *or pro plaintiff sentiment, I am hereb* filin# the

attached )otion which *o ma* once more assi#n to the waste bas;et of nonchalance.

Cith the small respect that still remains, I have as;ed the defendant to loo; for another law*er to

represent him for I am no lon#er interested in this case becase I feel I cannot do an*thin# ri#ht in

*or sala.8

The Investi#atin# 1d#e fond tt*. 0lores to have failed to #ive de respect to the cort b* failin# to

obe* cort orders, b* failin# to sbmit proof of his compliance with the )andator* ontinin# Le#al

Edcation %)LE& reGirement, and for sin# intemperate lan#a#e in his pleadin#s. The

Investi#atin# 1d#e recommended that tt*. 0lores be sspended from the practice of law for one

*ear.9

The O! adopted the findin#s and recommendation of the Investi#atin# 1d#e.

Or Rlin#

There is no dobt that tt*. 0lores failed to obe* the trial cortHs order to sbmit proof of his )LE

compliance notwithstandin# the several opportnities #iven him. >ort orders are to be respected

not becase the Ad#es who isse them shold be respected, bt becase of the respect and

consideration that shold be e6tended to the Adicial branch of the Bovernment. This is absoltel*

essential if or Bovernment is to be a #overnment of laws and not of men. Respect mst be had not

becase of the incmbents to the positions, bt becase of the athorit* that vests in them.

"isrespect to Adicial incmbents is disrespect to that branc the Bovernment to which the* belon#,

as well as to the State which has institted the Adicial s*stem.>5

tt*. 0lores also emplo*ed intemperate lan#a#e in his pleadin#s. s an officer of the cort, tt*.

0lores is e6pected to be circmspect in his lan#a#e. Rle 33.(', anon 33 of the ode of

$rofessional Responsibilit* enAoins all attorne*s to abstain from scandalos, offensive or menacin#

lan#a#e or behavior before the orts. tt*. 0lores failed in this respect.

t this Anctre, it is well to remind respondent that:

Chile a law*er owes absolte fidelit* to the case of his client fll devotion to his client=s #enine

interest and warm -eal in the maintenance and defense of his client=s ri#hts, as well as the e6ertion

of his tmost learnin# and abilit*, he mst do so onl* within the bonds of law. law*er is entitled tovoice his c3iticism within the conte6t of the constittional #arantee of freedom of speech which

mst be e6ercised responsibl*. fter all, ever* ri#ht carries with it the correspondin# obli#ation.

0reedom is not freedom from responsibilit*, bt freedom with responsibilit*. The law*er=s fidelit* to

his client mst not be prsed at the e6pense of trth and orderl* administration of Astice. It mst be

done within the confines of reason and common sense.4














2owever, we find the recommended penalt* too harsh and not commensrate with the infractions

committed b* the respondent. It appears that this is the first infraction committed b* respondent.

lso, we are not prepared to impose on the respondent the penalt* of one/*ear sspension for

hmanitarian reasons. Respondent manifested before this ort that he has been in the practice of

law for half a centr*.3( Ths, he is alread* in his twili#ht *ears. onsiderin# the fore#oin#, we deem

it proper to fine respondent in the amont of $8,(((.(( and to remind him to be more circmspect inhis acts and to obe* and respect cort processes.

OR"INBLM, respondent tt*. Rodolfo 0lores is 0INE" in the amont of $8,(((.(( with STERN

CRNINB that the repetition of a similar offense shall be dealt with more severel*.

SO OR"ERE".

CANON 12

A.C. No. 62= Ma37 1, 2010

ATT. IL!MINA$A M. %A(LOR#(ABROA, omplainant,

vs.

ATT. O"CAR )A*!INTO, Respondent.

" E I S I O N

CAR)IO MORALE", J.:

n Information for Estafa3 was filed on 1ne +3, +((3 a#ainst tt*. Ilminada ). Daflor/0abroa

%complainant& alon# with others based on a Aoint affidavit/complaint which tt*. Oscar $a#into

%respondent& prepared and notari-ed. s the Aoint affidavit/complaint did not indicate the involvement

of complainant, complainant filed a )otion to ?ash the Information which the trial cort

#ranted.+ RespondentHs )otion for Reconsideration of the Gashal of the Information was denied'

Respondent also filed si6 other criminal complaints a#ainst complainant for violation of rticle '3 of

Repblic ct No. 94'5 %ooperative ode of the $hilippines& before the Office of the $rovincial

$rosector, bt he eventall* filed a )otion to Cithdraw them.7

On October 3(, +((3, complainant, who was hairperson of the Beneral )ariano lvare- Service

ooperative, Inc. %BE)SO&, received a Notice of Special Beneral ssembl* of BE)SO on

October 37, +((3 to consider the removal of for members of the !oard of "irectors %the !oard&,

incldin# her and the Beneral )ana#er .8 The notice was si#ned b* respondent.

t the October 37, +((3 Special Beneral ssembl* presided b* respondent and $N$ Sr. Spt.

n#elito L. Beran#co %Beran#co&, who were not members of the then crrent !oard,9 Beran#o,

complainantHs predecessor, as hair of the BE)SO board, declared himself hair, appointed

others to replace the removed directors, and appointed respondent as !oard Secretar*.





















On October 38, +((3, respondent and his #rop too; over the BE)SO office and its premises,

the pmphoses, water facilities, and operations. On even date, respondent sent letter/notices to

complainant and the for removed directors informin# them of their removal from the !oard and as

members of BE)SO, and advisin# them to cease and desist from frther dischar#in# the dties

of their positions.

omplainant ths filed on October 39, +((3 with the ooperative "evelopment thorit* %"&/

alamba a complaint for annlment of the proceedin#s ta;en drin# the October 37, +((3 Special

Beneral ssembl*.

The " ctin# Re#ional "irector %R"&, b* Resoltion of 0ebrar* +3, +((+, declared the

Gestioned #eneral assembl* nll and void for havin# been condcted in violation of BE)SOHs

!*/Laws and the ooperative ode of the $hilippines.5 The R"Hs Resoltion of 0ebrar* +3, +((+

was later vacated for lac; of Arisdiction4 of ".

In her present complainant3( a#ainst respondent for disbarment, complainant alle#ed that

respondent:

F F F $RO)OTE" OR SUE" BROUN"LESS, 0LSE OR UNLC0UL SUIT, N" BDE I"

N" ONSENT TO T2E S)E33

F F F "ISO!EME" LCS O0 T2E LN", $RO)OTE" "ISRES$ET 0OR LC N" T2E

LEBL $RO0ESSION3+

F F F "I" NOT ON"UT 2I)SEL0 CIT2 OURTESM, 0IRNESS N" N"OR TOCR" 2IS

$RO0ESSIONL OLLEBUE N" ENBBE" IN 2RSSINB TTIS BINST O$$OSINB

OUNSEL3'

F F F DIOLTE" NON 34 LCMER S2LL RE$RESENT 2IS LIENT CIT2 EL CIT2IN

T2E !OUN"S O0 T2E LC37

F F F RUINE" N" ")BE" NOT ONLM T2E BEN. )RINO LDRE SERDIES

OO$ERTIDE, IN. %BE)SO, IN.& !UT T2E ENTIRE CTER/ONSU)INB O))UNITM

S CELL38

"espite the ortHs #rant,39 on respondentHs motion,3 of e6tension of time to file omment,

respondent never filed an* comment. The ort ths reGired him to show case wh* he shold not

be disciplinaril* dealt with,35 bt Ast the same he failed to compl*.34

The ort ths referred the complaint to the Inte#rated !ar of the $hilippines %I!$& for investi#ation,

report, and recommendation.+(

It appears that drin# the mandator* conference before the I!$, complainant proposed the followin#

isses:



































3. Chether or not the acts of respondent constitte violations of the ode of $rofessional

Responsibilit*, particlarl* the followin#:

3.3 anon 3 law*er shall phold the onstittion, obe* the laws of the land and

promote respect for law and le#al processes.

3.+ anon 5 law*er shall condct himself with cortes*, fairness, and candor

toward his professional collea#es, and shall avoid harassin# tactics a#ainst

opposin# consel.

3.' anon 3( law*er owes candor, fairness and #ood faith to the cort.

3.7 anon 34 law*er shall represent his client with -eal within the bonds of the

law.

3.8 Rle 3+.(' law*er shall not, after obtainin# e6tensions of time to file

pleadin#s, memoranda or briefs, let the period lapse withot sbmittin# the same orofferin# an e6planation for his failre to do so.

+. Chether or not the above acts of respondent constitte violations of his law*erHs oath,

particlarl* the followin#:

+.3 spport the onstittion and obe* the laws as well as the le#al orders of the dl*

constitted athorities therein

+.+ will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doin# of an* in cort

+.' will not wittin#l* or willin#l* promote or se an* #rondless, false or nlawfl sit,nor #ive aid nor consent to the same

+.7 will dela* no man for mone* or malice

'. Chether or not the above acts of respondent complained of are #ronds for disbarment

or sspension of attorne*s b* the Spreme ort as provided for in Section +, Rle 3'5 of

the Revised Rles of ort.+3

RespondentHs consel who represented him drin# the conference proposed the isse of whether,

on the basis of the alle#ations of the complaint, miscondct was committed b* respondent.++

fter the conclsion of the conference, both parties were ordered to sbmit position

papers.+' omplainant filed hers,+7 bt respondent, despite #rant, on his motion, of e6tension of time,

did not file an* position paper.

In her Report and Recommendation,+8 Investi#atin# ommissioner Lolita . ?ismbin# fond

respondent #ilt* of violatin# the Law*erHs Oath as well as anons 3, 5, 3(, and Rle 3+.(' of the













ode of $rofessional Responsibilit*. Notin# that respondent had alread* been previosl* sspended

for si6 months, the ommissioner recommended that respondent be sspended for two *ears.

The I!$ ommission on !ar "iscipline %!"& !oard of Bovernors opted for the dismissal of the

complaint, however, for lac; of merit.+9'av v%i'

On )otion for Reconsideration,+ the I!$/!" !oard of Bovernors recommended that respondent

be sspended from the practice of law for si6 months.

The ort finds that b* connivin# with Beran#co in ta;in# over the !oard of "irectors and the

BE)SO facilities, respondent violated the provisions of the ooperative ode of the $hilippines

and the BE)SO !*/Laws. 2e also violated the Law*erHs Oath, which provides that a law*er shall

spport the onstittion and obe* the laws.

Chen respondent cased the filin# of baseless criminal complaints a#ainst complainant, he violated

the Law*erHs Oath that a law*er shall >not wittin#l* or willin#l* promote or se an* #rondless, false

or nlawfl sit, nor #ive aid or consent to the same.>

Chen, after obtainin# an e6tension of time to file comment on the complaint, respondent failed to file

an* and i#nored this ortHs sbseGent show case order, he violated Rle 3+.(' of the ode of

$rofessional Responsibilit*, which states that > law*er shall not, after obtainin# e6tensions of time

to file pleadin#s, memoranda or briefs, let the period lapse withot sbmittin# the same or offerin#

an e6planation for his failre to do so.> Sebastian v. !aAar +5 teaches:

6 6 6 RespondentHs cavalier attitde in repeatedl* i#norin# the orders of the Spreme ort

constittes tter disrespect to the Adicial instittion. RespondentHs condct indicates a hi#h de#ree

of irresponsibilit*. ortHs Resoltion is >not to be constred as a mere reGest, nor shold it be

complied with partiall*, inadeGatel*, or selectivel*>. RespondentHs obstinate refsal to compl* withthe ortHs orders >not onl* betra*s a recalcitrant flaw in her character< it also nderscores her

disrespect of the ortHs lawfl orders which is onl* too deservin# of reproof.

Law*ers are called pon to obe* cort orders and processes and respondentHs deference is

nderscored b* the fact that willfl disre#ard thereof will sbAect the law*er not onl* to pnishment

for contempt bt to disciplinar* sanctions as well. In fact, #raver responsibilit* is imposed pon a

law*er than an* other to phold the inte#rit* of the corts and to show respect to their

processes.+4 %itations omitted&.

The ort notes that respondent had previosl* been sspended from the practice of law for si6

months for violation of the ode of $rofessional Responsibilit*,'(

he havin# been fond to havereceived an acceptance fee and misled the client into believin# that he had filed a case for her when

he had not.'3 It appears, however, that respondent has not reformed his wa*s. more severe penalt*

this time is ths called for.

C2ERE0ORE, respondent, tt*. Oscar $. $a#into, is SUS$EN"E" for two *ears from the practice

of law for violation of anons 3, 5, 3(, and Rle 3+.(' of the ode of $rofessional Responsibilit* and

the Law*erHs Oath, effective immediatel*.





















Let copies of this "ecision be frnished the Office of the !ar onfidant, to be appended to

respondentHs personal record as an attorne*< the Inte#rated !ar of the $hilippines< and all corts in

the contr* for their information and #idance.

SO OR"ERE".

A.C. No. 469 Au+us 10, 2004

RICAR$O A. (ORON$A, complainant,vs.ATT. ARNOL$ %. *!ERRERO, respondent.

" E I S I O N

CALLEJO, "R., J .5

The instant disbarment case arose when Ricardo . 0oronda, actin# as attorne*/in/fact for Ramona$atricia lcara- and oncepcion ". lcara-, filed a verified Letter/omplaint3 dated 1ne +4, +((3with the Office of the !ar onfidant char#in# tt*. rnold D. Berrero with absin# >procedral rlesto defeat the ends of sbstantial Astice b* filin# appeals, complaints and petitions to frstrate anddela* the e6ection of a Ad#ment.>

Te Ae7edes

The complainant alle#ed that his principals, Ramona and oncepcion lcara-, filed ivil ase No.?/773'7 entitled >Concecion !lcara", et al. v. *oeo Coronel, et al .> for specific performance anddama#es before the Re#ional Trial ort of ?e-on it*, !ranch 5'. The case involved a parcel ofland which the defendants therein sold to the lcara-es, and, thereafter, while the case was pendin#,to atalina !alais/)abana#. ssisted b* her hsband Eleterio )abana#, and with the respondentas their law*er, atalina intervened in the case.

On )arch 3, 3454, the RT rendered a "ecision+ in favor of the plaintiffs, the dispositive portion ofwhich reads:

C2ERE0ORE, Ad#ment for specific performance is hereb* rendered orderin# defendant to

e6ecte in favor of plaintiffs a deed of absolte sale coverin# that parcel of land embraced inand covered b* Transfer ertificate of Title No. '+7(' %now TT No. ''385+& of theRe#istr* of "eeds of ?e-on it*, to#ether with all the improvements e6istin# thereon, freefrom all liens and encmbrances and once accomplished, to immediatel* deliver saiddocment of sale to plaintiffs, and pon receipt thereof, the plaintiffs are ordered to pa*defendants the whole balance of the prchase price amontin# to $3,34(,(((.(( in cash.Transfer ertificate of Title No. ''385+ of the Re#istr* of "eeds of ?e-on it* in the nameof intervenor is hereb* cancelled and declared to be withot an* force and effect. "efendantsand intervenor, and all other persons claimin# nder them, are hereb* ordered to vacate the







sbAect propert* and deliver possession thereof to plaintiffs. $laintiffsH claim for dama#es andattorne*Hs fees, as well as the conterclaims of defendants and intervenors, are hereb*dismissed.

No prononcement as to costs.

So ordered.'

The )abana# Sposes, thro#h the respondent as their consel, appealed the decision to the ortof ppeals, doc;eted as /B.R. D No. +'(((. In its "ecision7 proml#ated on "ecember 39,3443, the ort of ppeals affirmed the decision of the RT in toto. Unsatisfied with the Ad#ment ofthe appellate cort, the respondent elevated the matter to this ort, doc;eted as B.R. No. 3('8.The petition for review was dismissed, and the Ad#ment appealed from was, li;ewise, affirmed intoto in the ortHs "ecision8 dated October , 3449.9 The ort fond that the Gestioned sale of theparcel of land between therein petitioners and )abana# on 0ebrar* 35, 3458 was correctl* pheldb* both corts below.

Thereafter, accordin# to the complainant, the respondent, actin# for and in behalf of his clients, the

)abana# Sposes, filed several cases

Gestionin# the rlin# of the ort in B.R. No. 3('8. Thecomplainant contended that the mltiple pleadin#s and actions prsed b* the respondent indicatethat he violated his oath as an officer of the cort and breached the ode of $rofessionalResponsibilit* for Law*ers. The complainant thereafter pra*ed that the instant complaint be referredto the Inte#rated !ar of the $hilippines for proper investi#ation and action.5

Te ResodeFs $e;ese

The respondent, for his part, filed a )otion to ite omplainant and onsel in ontempt Cithot$reAdice to "isciplinar* ction #ainst onsel,4 alle#in# that in an attempt to case disrepte,dishonor and to cast aspersion on him, the complainantHs consel virtall* >pblished and made;nown pblicl*> the instant administrative case a#ainst him b* filin# a )anifestation in ivil ase No.

?/(3/7''49 before the Re#ional Trial ort of ?e-on it*, !ranch 5(. ccordin# to the respondent,this #rossl* violated the confidentialit* in administrative proceedin#s.3(

In his omment,33 the respondent did not den* that the decision in ivil ase No. ?/773'7 wasalread* final and e6ector*, as it had alread* been affirmed b* the ort of ppeals and theSpreme ort in their respective decisions. The respondent pt forth the followin# ar#ments to

Astif* the dismissal of the instant complaint:

. T2E SU!SE?UENT SES 0ILE" INDOLDE" LEBITI)TE N" DLI" RESORT TO1U"IIL $ROESSES N" RE)E"IES< 2ENE, T2ERE IS NO !SIS 0OR T2E2RBE T2T T2E RES$ON"ENT OUNSEL 2S !USE" $ROE"URL$ROESSES TO "E0ET T2E EN"S O0 SU!STNTIL 1USTIE.

!. T2E O)$LINT )UST N" S2OUL" !E "IS)ISSE" ON T2E BROUN" O0 0ORU)S2O$$INB N" DIOLTION O0 SETION 8, RULE O0 T2E 344 RULES O0 IDIL$ROE"URE.

. T2IS ")INISTRTIDE SE IS $RE)TURE ONSI"ERINB T2T T2E )TTERSRISE" T2EREIN RE STILL ISSUES TO !E RESOLDE" IN $EN"INB SES< 2ENE,ITS OUTRIB2T "IS)ISSL IS $$RO$RITELM LLE" 0OR N" CRRNTE".3+




























The respondent was vehement in den*in# that he absed le#al processes and remedies, as theisses raised in the sbseGent actions he filed were valid and meritorios, the resoltion of whichwere indispensable for the orderl* administration of Astice. Ths:

It is basic that a consel ma* resort to all le#al reliefs and remedies available and to invo;eall pertinent provisions of the law and rles, to protect the interest of a client in order that

Astice ma* be done and dl* administered. In fact, it is not onl* the ri#ht of a consel to doso bt rather, it is his bonden and sacred obli#ation as an officer of the cort and as anadvocate who is tas;ed to protect the interest of a client within the bonds of law.

P

Ths, in C:<:l Case No. D#91#1268, with the Re+:oal T3:al Cou3 o; DueHo C:y, whichis the first complaint, what was challen#ed therein is the eli#ibilit* of Ramona $atricia

lcara-, to own rban commercial lands, within the ambit of !atas $ambansa !l#. 358,considerin# that she is not a 0ilipino citi-en or at least, she does not appear nor was shealle#ed to be so. Evidentl*, therefore, this is not intended to forestall the e6ection of the

Ad#ment which mst be e6ected, prsant to the rles that is, in accordance with the

dispositive portion thereof. Otherwise stated, the e6ection, if it mst be nderta;en, mst bemade in accordance with and consistentl* %sic& the dispositive portion thereof. I :s ellseled a ee7u:o mus 7o;o3m o a o3da:ed o3 de73eed : e d:sos::<eo3:o o; e de7:s:o.

s shown in the earlier narrations, the fore#oin# case is presentl* on appeal with the2onorable ort of ppeals and is still pendin# thereat, p to the present.

Cith re#ards to the petition for certiorari filed with the 2onorable ort of ppeals, doc;etedthereat as /B.R. S$ No. 7( %sic&, whereb* a decision was alread* rendered and schdecision is alread* final and e6ector*, the isses therein disposed as raised, pertinentl*pertained to the Gestioned and assailed Orders of the trial cort which #ranted the writ ofe6ection, pon motion of parties who are prportedl* the principals of the complainant andhis consel. fter the denial of the said petition and the finalit* of the Ad#ment of schdenial, partial e6ection ensed and was not of corse, even attempted to be forestalled b*the herein respondent consel and his clients.

2owever, the e6ection bein# nderta;en later on was shown to have been e6ceeded when,despite the fact that there is no showin# that the parties who were spposed to e6ecte adeed of absolte sale prsant to the dispositive portion of the sbAect decision bein# so#htto be implemented, had refsed or at least failed, after demand, to so e6ecte and performthe fore#oin# acts, the trial cort ordered its branch cler; of cort to perform the said acts. Infact, it was pointed ot that it does not even appear that the other parties whose acts areso#ht, were alread* served with the writ of e6ection< hence, the trial cortHs act waswithot basis andQor prematre. Nevertheless, the trial cortHs branch cler; of cort

notwithstandin#, proceeded as in fact, e6ected the deed of absolte sale in favor of the lcara-es. This act of the trial cort, with de respect, ndl* created chaos and confsion,which are antithetical to its fnction for an orderl* administration of Astice and the fairappro6imation thereof.

The matter was, thereafter, complicated frther, when despite the fact that the citi-enships ofthe lcara-es were not indicated in the deed of absolte sale which appears to have beenpresented with the Re#ister of "eeds of ?e-on it*, the said Re#ister of "eeds cancelledthe title of the client of the herein respondent consel and issed a new title over the sbAect



propert* in favor of the lcara-es and in order to validate and to #ive a semblance of le#alit*or color to the validit* of the issance of the said title, b* ma;in# it appear that the lcara-esare 0ilipino citi-ens, LT2OUB2 T2ERE IS NO IN"ITION O0 T2EIR ITIENS2I$ INT2E SU!1ET "EE" O0 !SOLUTE SLE, nevertheless, indicated in the new title that the

lcara-es are 0ilipinos.

Ths, the herein respondent consel, in behalf of his client and to protect their interest, thistime, was constrained to institte a petition with the 2onorable ort of ppeals, doc;etedas CA#*.R. ") No. =6,whereb* the* assailed the Arisdiction of the trial Ad#e indecreein# the fore#oin# e6ection of acts not inclded in the disposition portion of thedecision bein# so#ht to be e6ected and to perform acts within the e6clsive competenceand direction of the Re#ister of "eeds prsant to $rovidential "ecree No. 38+4, otherwise;nown as the !oard Re#istration "ecree. This case is still pendin# with the 2onorable ortof ppeals p to the present< hence, it is misleadin# for the complainant to even insinatethat a decision thereon is alread* final, which, of corse, as shown in the earlier discssions,are farthest from the trth.

Chile all of the fore#oin# isses were still pendin# as the* are still pendin# p to the present,

the complainant and consel, prportedl* sold and transferred the sbAect propert*, sin# thetitle bein# assailed and Gestioned in /B.R. S$ No. 8889, to a third person, one Emelita)ariano, with the prported deed of absolte sale bein# notari-ed b* the same consel ofthe herein complainant, tt*. Oscar R. 0errer, who is representin# the lcara-es in theabovesaid cases< hence, he cannot fei#n i#norance of the pendenc* of the said cases andthe isses involved therein which cast Gestions on the said title and, ths, rendered theprported transfer or sale fatall* defective.

Tre to his dt* to his client and as an officer of the cort and in order to maintain theinte#rit*, di#nit* and orderliness in the administration of Astice, herein respondent consel,filed in behalf of his client, the omplaint in C:<:l Case No. D#01#496, on (e3ua3y 1,2001, with the Re+:oal T3:al Cou3 o; DueHo C:y, for the annlment of the title issed infavor of the third person, Emelita L. )ariano, for the annlment of the "eed of bsolte Sale

to her and "ama#es with pra*er for a temporar* restrainin# order andQor writ of preliminar*inAnction.

Chen no temporar* restrainin# order andQor writ of preliminar* inAnction were issed b* thetrial cort, herein respondent consel, in behalf of his client, availed of the le#all* availableremed* of a special civil action of certiorari, assailin# on ArisdictionalQ#rave abse ofdiscretion #ronds, the refsal andQor failre of the trial cort to isse the pra*ed forpreliminar* inAnctive reliefs, amon# others. Ths, respondent, as consel for his client, filedwith the 2onorable ort of ppeals, on July 24, 2001, a petition for certiorari andprohibition with pra*er for a temporar* restrainin# order andQor writ of preliminar* inAnction,doc;eted as CA#*.R. ") No. 6=8, which is still pendin# resoltion of the said 2onorableort p to the present.3'

The respondent also alle#ed that the complainantHs failre to disclose the pendenc* of ivil aseNo. ?/(3/7''49 in the certification a#ainst non/form shoppin# in the case at bar was in #rossviolation of Section 8, Rle of the 344 Rles of ivil $rocedre. !ecase of this, the respondentreasoned, the complaint shold be dismissed.

0inall*, the respondent averred that the instant administrative case is prematre, considerin# thatthere are still isses to be resolved in the pendin# cases. s sch, no case of action cold accre





a#ainst him. The respondent pra*ed that the complaint be dismissed for >tter and palpable lac; ofmerit.>

In his ompliance and omment,37 the complainant asserted that there was no malice norinaccrac* resorted to in the filin# of the complaint a#ainst the respondent. The complainant averredthat he was constrained to file the instant complaint ot of e6asperation, if not desperation, pon the

instrction of his principals, so as to stop the respondent from continin# with his >dilator* andobstrctionist strate#ies> to deprive them of their ri#hts alread* confirmed b* the corts, from theRT to the Spreme ort. Ths:

P In order to stall the e6ection of the favorable decision obtained b* m* principalsoncepcion lcara- and her da#hter Ramona $atricia lcara- as earl* as )arch 3, 3454, inivil ase No. ?/773'7, respondent actin# in behalf of his clients, went to this ort three%'& times in said case and several times also to the ort of ppeals on appeals, petitions for certiorari, etc.

P ltho#h respondent admits the fact that the sbAect decision of the cort a Go is alread*final and e6ector*, he insists that >the isses in the other cases are indeed different.> 2e

ar#es in his comment that the isse in his petition %nne6 >+> to omment& pertained to theissance of a writ of e6ection to implement the abovesaid final and e6ector* decision.>This is plain hair/splittin# aimed to mddle the isses and ltimatel* mislead the 2onorableort.38

Te Re7ommeda:o o; e Ie+3aed Ba3 O; Te ):l::es IB)/Comm:ss:o O Ba3 $:s7:l:e

On October +8, +((', the I!$ !oard of Bovernors passed Resoltion No. FDI/+(('/+', findin# thatthe fore#oin# recommendation of the ommissioner was fll* spported b* the records, as well asthe applicable laws. The !oard fond that the respondent violated Rle 3+.(+ of the ode of$rofessional Responsibilit*, and recommended his sspension for one %3& *ear.

Te Cou3Fs Rul:+

t the otset, the ort wold li;e to stress that administrative cases a#ainst law*ers belon# to aclass of their own.39 s we held in the leadin# case of In re !lacen:3

P Neither prel* civil not prel* criminal, the* do not involve a trial of an action or a sit, btare rather investi#ations b* the ort into the condct of one of its officers. Not bein#intended to inflict pnishment, the* are in no sense a criminal prosection. ccordin#l*,there is neither a plaintiff nor a prosector therein. The* ma* be initiated b* the ort ot#

rorio. $blic interest is their primar* obAective, and the real Gestion for determination iswhether or not the attorne* is still a fit person to be allowed the privile#es as sch. 2ence, inthe e6ercise of its disciplinar* powers, the ort merel* calls pon a member of the !ar to

accont for his actations as an officer of the ort with the end in view of preservin# theprit* of the le#al profession and the proper and honest administration of Astice b* pr#in#the profession of members who b* their miscondct have proven themselves no lon#erworth* to be entrsted with the dties and responsibilities pertainin# to the office of anattorne*. P.35

s sch, the instant complaint cannot be dismissed as pra*ed for b* the respondent.
















Ce a#ree that the respondent is administrativel* liable.

The respondent, b* his own admission, filed mltifarios petitions, motions and actions concernin#the sale of the propert* in Gestion, after the ort alread* rled in B.R. No. 3('8 that the saidsale was correctl* pheld b* both the trial and appellate corts. 2e, thereafter, filed two otherinitiator* pleadin#s before the RT of ?e-on it*, namel*, ivil ase No. ?/4/'3+95 and ivil

ase No. ?/(3/7''49. The same matter sbAect of the ori#inal complaint was elevated to the ortof ppeals no less than for %7& times: /B.R. D No. 983+7, /B.R. S$ No. 985', /B.R. DNo. 8433, and /B.R. S$ No. 8889. nd from there, the matter was a#ain bro#ht before thisort twice: B.R. No. 3'85+( and B.R. No. 38'37+.34

Ce concr with the followin# observations made b* I!$ ommissioner Rebecca Dillaneva/)aala inher Report and Recommendation dated October ', +((':

The isse bein# raised b* the respondent on behalf of his clients in all the complaints,appeals, petitions and motions he has filed is the Gestion of non/eli#ibilit* of Ramona

lcara- to acGire propert* in the $hilippines and the nllit* of the sale between lcara- andthe oronels. These isses have alread* been passed pon and pheld b* both the ort of

ppeals and the Spreme ort. In the case doc;eted as /B.R. S$ No. 985', the 0irst"ivision of the ort of ppeals >observed that )abana#Hs consel, %respondent herein& hasGestioned the non/eli#ibilit* of Ramona lcara- to acGire propert* in the $hilippines forthe time altho#h as earl* as '( 1l* 3445, the ort of ppeals in /B.R. S$ No.73( had alread* affirmed the lower cortHs rlin# that the petitioner is not the proper part*to Gestion the eli#ibilit* of lcara- to own propert* in the $hilippines. The petition for reviewon certiorari before the Spreme ort in B.R. No. 3'85+( pheld the ri#ht of Ramona

lcara- as one of the vendees in the deed of sale. The Spreme ort passed Ad#ment onher capacit* to b* the propert*. The isse was rec*cled in /B.R. S$ No. 8889, Entr* of1d#ment was alread* issed b* the Spreme ort on + 1anar* 344.2owever, e::oe3 as su77eeded ;o3 mo3e a ;:<e / yea3s o o old a ay e;ull :mlemea:o o; e ud+me : o:.K Li;ewise, in dismissin# the complaint filedb* respondent on behalf of his client before RT ? !ranch 5' doc;eted as ase No. ?/4/

'3+95 entitled )abana# vs. $atricia Ramona lcara-, et. al. to declare $atricia lcara-ineli#ible to acGire real propert*, e 7ou3 ose3<ed a ;o3 ;a:lu3e o; e la::;;s o+e a ;a<o3ale de7:s:o o; e ea3l:e3 7ase, ey 3:ed o 3e<e e ee7u:o yd:sual:;y:+ e3e: de;eda. %Emphasis ors&.

In the case doc;eted as /B.R. S$ No. 985', a pertinent portion of the ort of ppealsdecision reads >Chile law*ers owe %sic& entire devotion to the interest of their clientHs ri#ht,the* shold not for#et that the* are officers of the cort bond to e6ert ever* effort to assistin the speed* and efficient administration of Astice the* shold not, therefore, misse therles of procedre to defeat the ends of Astice or ndl* dela* a case, impede the e6ectionof a Ad#ment or misse the cort processes %Eternal Bardens )emorial $ar; orporationvs. ort of ppeals, +4' SR 9++&.>+(

It has, ths, been clearl* established that in filin# sch nmeros petitions in behalf of his client, therespondent thereb* en#a#ed in form shoppin#. The essence of form shoppin# is the filin# ofmltiple sits involvin# the same parties for the same case of action, either simltaneosl* orsccessivel*, for the prpose of obtainin# a favorable Ad#ment. It e6ists when, as a reslt of anadverse opinion in one form, a part* see;s a favorable opinion in another, or when he instittes twoor more actions or proceedin#s #ronded on the same case to increase the chances of obtainin# afavorable decision. n important factor in determinin# the e6istence of form shoppin# is the







ve6ation cased to the corts and the parties/liti#ants b* the filin# of similar cases to claimsbstantiall* the same reliefs.+3

Indeed, while a law*er owes fidelit* to the case of his client, it shold not be at the e6pense of trthand the administration of Astice. Under the ode of $rofessional Responsibilit*, a law*er has thedt* to assist in the speed* and efficient administration of Astice, and is enAoined from ndl*

dela*in# a case b* impedin# e6ection of a Ad#ment or b* missin# cort processes.++ Sch filin# of mltiple petitions constittes abse of the ortHs processes and improper condct that tends toimpede, obstrct and de#rade the administration of Astice and will be pnished as contempt ofcort. Needless to add, the law*er who files sch mltiple or repetitios petitions %which obviosl*dela*s the e6ection of a final and e6ector* Ad#ment& sbAects himself to disciplinar* action forincompetence %for not ;nowin# an* better& or for willfl violation of his dties as an attorne* to actwith all #ood fidelit* to the corts, and to maintain onl* sch actions as appear to him to be Ast andare consistent with trth and honor .+'

Ce note that while law*ers owe their entire devotion to the interest of their clients and -eal in thedefense of their clientHs ri#ht, the* shold not for#et that the* are, first and foremost, officers of thecort, bond to e6ert ever* effort to assist in the speed* and efficient administration of Astice.+7

In filin# mltiple petitions before varios corts concernin# the same sbAect matter, the respondentviolated anon 3+ of the ode of $rofessional Responsibilit*, which provides that a law*er shalle6ert ever* effort and consider it his dt* to assist in the speed* and efficient administration of

Astice. 2e also violated Rle 3+.(++8 and Rle 3+.(7+9 of the ode, as well as a law*erHs mandate >todela* no man for mone* or malice.>

Ce find that the I!$Hs recommended penalt* of one *earHs sspension from the practice of law is notcommensrate to the respondentHs trans#ression. 2e shall ths be meted a two/*ear sspensionfrom the practice of law, effective immediatel*.

&'ERE(ORE, for triflin# with Adicial processes b* resortin# to form shoppin#, respondent tt*. rnold D. Berrero is hereb* SUS$EN"E" from the practice of law for a period of Two %+& Mears.The respondent is "IRETE" to inform the ort of the date of his receipt of this "ecision. Let acop* of this "ecision be inclded in the respondentHs files which are with the Office of the !aronfidant, and circlari-ed to all corts and to the Inte#rated !ar of the $hilippines.

"O OR$ERE$.

A.C. No. =04 $e7eme3 4, 2009

CONRA$O D!E, omplainant,

vs.

ATT. ANA"TACIO RE%ILLA, JR. Respondent.

" E I S I O N

PER CURIAM:

















In a complaint for disbarment,3 onrado ?e %complainant& accsed tt*. nastacio Revilla, 1r.

%respondent& before the Inte#rated !ar of the $hilippines ommittee on !ar "iscipline %I!$

ommittee on !ar "iscipline or !"& of committin# the followin# violations of the provisions of the

ode of $rofessional Responsibilit* and Rle 3'5 of the Rles of ort:

%3& The respondentHs abse of cort remedies and processes b* filin# a petition for certioraribefore the ort of ppeals %&, two petitions for annlment of title before the Re#ional Trial

ort %RT&, a petition for annlment of Ad#ment before the RT and lastl*, a petition for

declarator* relief before the RT %collectivel*, sbAect cases& to assail and overtrn the final

Ad#ments of the )etropolitan Trial ort+%)eT& and RT' in the nlawfl detainer case

rendered a#ainst the respondentHs clients. The respondent in this re#ard, repeatedl* raised

the isse of lac; of Arisdiction b* the )eT and RT ;nowin# fll*/well that these corts

have Arisdiction over the nlawfl detainer case. The respondent also repeatedl* attac;ed

the complainantHs and his siblin#sH titles over the propert* sbAect of the nlawfl detainer

case<

%+& The respondentHs commission of form/shoppin# b* filin# the sbAect cases in order toimpede, obstrct, and frstrate the efficient administration of Astice for his own personal #ain

and to defeat the ri#ht of the complainant and his siblin#s to e6ecte the )eT and RT

Ad#ments in the nlawfl detainer case<

%'& The respondentHs lac; of candor and respect towards his adversar* and the corts b*

resortin# to falsehood and deception to mis#ide, obstrct and impede the de

administration of Astice. The respondent asserted falsehood in the motion for

reconsideration of the dismissal of the petition for annlment of Ad#ment b* fabricatin# an

ima#inar* order issed b* the presidin# Ad#e in open cort which alle#edl* denied the

motion to dismiss filed b* the respondents in the said case. The complainant alle#ed that the

respondent did this to cover p his lac; of preparation< the respondent also deceived hisclients %who were all sGatters& in spportin# the above falsehood.7

%7& The respondentHs willfl and revoltin# falsehood that nAstl* mali#ned and defamed the

#ood name and reptation of the late tt*. lfredo atolico %tt*. atolico&, the previos

consel of the respondentHs clients.

%8& The respondentHs deliberate, fradlent and nathori-ed appearances in cort in the

petition for annlment of Ad#ment for 38 liti#ants, three of whom are alread* deceased<

%9& The respondentHs willfl and fradlent appearance in the second petition for annlment

of title as consel for the Repblic of the $hilippines withot bein# athori-ed to do so.

dditionall*, the complaint accsed the respondent of representin# fift*/two %8+& liti#ants in ivil

ase No. ?/('/759+ when no sch athorit* was ever #iven to him.

The !" reGired the respondent to answer the complaint.

http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/dec2009/ac_7054_2009.html#fnt1











In his nswer,8 the respondent declared that he is a member of the @ala*aan "evelopment

ooperative %@"& that handles pro bono cases for the nderprivile#ed, the less fortnate, the

homeless and those in the mar#inali-ed sector in )etro )anila. 2e a#reed to ta;e over the cases

formerl* handled b* other @" members. One of these cases was the nlawfl detainer case

handled b* the late tt*. atolico where the complainant and his siblin#s were the plaintiffs and the

respondentHs present clients were the defendants.

Cith respect to para#raph 3 of the disbarment complaint, the respondent professed his sincerit*,

honest* and #ood faith in filin# the petitions complained of< he filed these petitions to protect the

interests of his clients in their propert*. The respondent asserted that these petitions were all based

on valid #ronds the lac; of Arisdiction of the )eT and the RT over the nderl*in# nlawfl

detainer case, the e6trinsic frad committed b* the late tt*. atolico, and the e6trinsic frad

committed b* the complainant and his famil* a#ainst his clients< he discovered that the alle#edl*

detained propert* did not reall* belon# to the complainant and his famil* bt is a forest land. The

respondent also asserted that his resort to a petition for annlment of Ad#ment and a petition for

declarator* relief to contest the final Ad#ments of the )eT and RT were all parts of his le#al

strate#* to protect the interests of his clients.

On the alle#ations of falsehood in the motion for reconsideration of the order of dismissal of the

petition for annlment of Ad#ment %covered b* para#raph ' of the disbarment complaint&, the

respondent maintained that his alle#ations were based on his observations and the notes he had

ta;en drin# the proceedin#s on what the presidin# Ad#e dictated in open cort.

The respondent denied that he had made an* nathori-ed appearance in cort %with respect to

para#raphs 8 and 9 of the disbarment complaint&. 2e claimed that the 8+ liti#ants in ivil ase No.

?/('/759+ were impleaded b* inadvertence< he immediatel* rectified his error b* droppin# them

from the case. On the petition for annlment of Ad#ment, the respondent claimed that a maAorit* %'3

ot of 74& of the liti#ants who si#ned the certification constitted sfficient compliance with the rleson form/shoppin#. The respondent li;ewise denied havin# represented the Repblic of the

$hilippines in the second petition for annlment of title. The respondent pointed ot that there was

no alle#ation whatsoever that he was the sole representative of both the complainants %his clients&

and the Repblic of the $hilippines. The respondent pointed ot that the petition embodied a reGest

to the Office of the Solicitor Beneral to represent his clients in the case. 9

The respondent sbmitted that he did not commit an* ille#al, nlawfl, nAst, wron#fl or immoral

acts towards the complainant and his siblin#s. 2e stressed that he acted in #ood faith in his dealin#s

with them and his condct was consistent with his sworn dt* as a law*er to phold Astice and the

law and to defend the interests of his clients. The respondent additionall* claimed that the

disbarment case was filed becase the complainantHs consel, tt*. esar $. U* %tt*. U*&, had ana6e to #rind a#ainst him.

Lastl*, the respondent posited in his pleadin#s before the I!$ that the present complaint violated the

rle on form shoppin# considerin# that the sbAect cases were also the ones on which a complaint

was filed a#ainst him in !" ase No. ('/3(44 filed b* tt*. U* before the I!$ ommittee on !ar

"iscipline. The respondent also posited that the present complaint was filed to harass, ridicle and









defame his #ood name and reptation and, indirectl*, to harass his clients who are mar#inali-ed

members of the @".

The 0indin#s of the Investi#atin# ommissioner

E6cept for the last char#e of nathori-ed appearance on behalf of 8+ liti#ants in ivil ase No. ?/('/759+, Investi#atin# ommissioner Renato B. nanan5 %Investi#atin# ommissioner nanan&

fond all the char#es a#ainst the respondent meritorios. In his Report and Recommendation, he

stated:

Chile an attorne* admittedl* has the solemn dt* to defend and protect the case and ri#hts of his

client with all the fervor and ener#* within his command, *et, it is eGall* tre that it is the primar*

dt* of the law*er to defend the di#nit*, athorit* and maAest* of the law and the corts which

enforce it. law*er is not at libert* to maintain and defend the case of his clients thr means,

inconsistent with trth and honor. 2e ma* not and mst not encora#e mltiplicit* of sits or

bra-enl* en#a#e in form/shoppin#.4

On the first char#e on abse of cort processes, Investi#atin# ommissioner nanan noted the

nnecessar* se b* the respondent of le#al remedies to forestall the e6ection of the final decisions

of the )T and the RT in the nlawfl detainer case a#ainst his clients.3(

On the second char#e, the Investi#atin# ommissioner rled that the act of the respondent in filin#

two petitions for annlment of title, a petition for annlment of Ad#ment and later on a petition for

declarator* relief were all done to prevent the e6ection of the final Ad#ment in the nlawfl detainer

case and constitted prohibited form/shoppin#.33

On the third and forth char#es, Investi#atin# ommissioner nanan fond ample evidence

showin# that the respondent was dishonest in dealin# with the cort as shown in his petition forannlment of Ad#ment< he resorted to falsities and attribted acts to tt*. atolico and to the

presidin# Ad#e, all of which were ntre. 3+

On the fifth and si6th char#es, the Investi#atin# ommissioner disre#arded the respondentHs

e6planation that he had no intention to represent withot athorit* 38 of the liti#ants %three of whom

were alread* deceased& in the petition for annlment of Ad#ment %ivil ase No. ?/(3/78889&. To

the Investi#atin# ommissioner, the respondent merel* #lossed over the representation isse b*

claimin# that the athorit* #iven b* a maAorit* of the liti#ants complied with the certification of non/

form shoppin# reGirement. The Investi#atin# ommissioner li;ewise brshed aside the

respondentHs ar#ment re#ardin# his misrepresentation in the second complaint for annlment of

title since he ;new ver* well that onl* the Solicitor Beneral can institte an action for reversion onbehalf of the Repblic of the $hilippines. "espite this ;nowled#e, the respondent solel* si#ned the

amended complaint for and on behalf of his clients and of the Repblic.

The !oard of Bovernors of the I!$ ommittee on !ar "iscipline, thro#h its Resoltion No. FDII/

+((8/397 on !" ase No. ('/33((, adopted and approved the Report and Recommendation of

Investi#atin# ommissioner nanan and recommended that the respondent be sspended from














the practice of law for two %+& *ears.3' On reconsideration, the !oard of Bovernors redced the

respondentHs sspension from the practice of law to one %3& *ear.37

Te Issue

The case poses to s the core isses of whether the respondent can be held liable for the imptednethical infractions and professional miscondct, and the penalt* these trans#ressions shold

carr*.

Te Cou3Fs Rul:+

E6cept for the penalt*, we a#ree with the Report and Recommendation of Investi#atin#

ommissioner nanan and the !oard of Bovernors of the I!$ ommittee on !ar "iscipline.

Ce ta;e Adicial notice that this disbarment complaint is not the onl* one so far filed involvin# the

respondent< another complaint invo;in# similar #ronds has previosl* been filed. In $ls !ilders,

Inc. and Ed#ardo . Barcia v. tt*. nastacio E. Revilla, 1r.,38

we sspended the respondent from thepractice of law for his willfl and intentional falsehood before the cort< for misse of cort

procedres and processes to dela* the e6ection of a Ad#ment< and for collaboratin# with non/

law*ers in the ille#al practice of law. Ce initiall* imposed a sspension of two %+& *ears, bt in an act

of lenienc* sbseGentl* redced the sspension to si6 %9& months.39

bse of cort procedres and processes

The followin# ndispted facts fll* spport the conclsion that the respondent is #ilt* of serios

miscondct for absin# cort procedres and processes to shield his clients from the e6ection of

the final Ad#ments of the )eT and RT in the nlawfl detainer case a#ainst these clients:

0irst, the respondent filed a petition for certiorari %doc;eted as /B.R. S$ No. 8'54+& with pra*er

for the issance of preliminar* inAnction and temporar* restrainin# order to Gestion the final

Ad#ments of the )eT and RT for lac; of Arisdiction. In dismissin# the respondentHs petition, the

held:

Even for the sa;e of ar#ment considerin# that the petition case be the proper remed*, still it mst

be reAected for failre of petitioners to satisfactoril* demonstrate lac; of Arisdiction on the part of the

)etropolitan Trial ort of ?e-on it* over the eAectment case.3

Second, notwithstandin# the Hs dismissal of the petition for certiorari, the respondent a#ain

Gestioned the )eTHs and the RTHs lac; of Arisdiction over the nlawfl detainer case in apetition for annlment of Ad#ment %doc;eted as ivil ase No. ?/(3/78889& before the RT with an

ancillar* pra*er for the #rant of a temporar* restrainin# order and preliminar* inAnction. The RT

dismissed this petition on the basis of the motion to dismiss filed.35

Third, the respondent sccessivel* filed two petitions %doc;eted as ivil ase No. ?/44/'55( and

ivil ase No. ?/(+/79558& for annlment of the complainantHs title to the propert* involved in the
















nlawfl detainer case. The records show that these petitions were both dismissed >for lack of legal

ersonalit1 on t%e art of t%e laintiffs> to file the petition.34

0orth, after the dismissals of the petition for annlment of Ad#ment and the petitions for annlment

of title, the respondent this time filed a petition for declarator* relief with pra*er for a writ of

preliminar* inAnction to enAoin the complainant and his siblin#s from e6ercisin# their ri#hts over thesame propert* sbAect of the nlawfl detainer case. The respondent based the petition on the

alle#ed nllit* of the complainantHs title becase the propert* is a part of forest land.

0ifth, the persistent applications b* the respondent for inAnctive relief in the for petitions he had

filed in several corts the petition for certiorari, the petition for annlment of Ad#ment, the second

petition for annlment of complainantHs title and the petition for declarator* relief reveal the

respondentHs persistence in preventin# and avoidin# the e6ection of the final decisions of the )eT

and RT a#ainst his clients in the nlawfl detainer case.

Under the circmstances, the respondentHs repeated attempts #o be*ond the le#itimate means

allowed b* professional ethical rles in defendin# the interests of his client. These are alread*ncalled for measres to avoid the enforcement of final Ad#ments of the )eT and RT. In these

attempts, the respondent violated Rle 3(.(', anon 3( of the ode of $rofessional Responsibilit*

which ma;es it obli#ator* for a law*er to >observe the rles of procedre and. . . not to misse them

to defeat the ends of Astice.> !* his actions, the respondent sed procedral rles to thwart and

obstrct the speed* and efficient administration of Astice, resltin# in preAdice to the winnin#

parties in that case.+(

0ilin# of mltiple actions and form shoppin#

The respondent li;ewise violated Rle 3+.(+ and Rle 3+.(7, anon 3+ of the ode of $rofessional

Responsibilit*,+3

as well as the rle a#ainst form shoppin#, both of which are directed a#ainst thefilin# of mltiple actions to attain the same obAective. !oth violations constitte abse of cort

processes< the* tend to de#rade the administration of Astice< wrea; havoc on orderl* Adicial

procedre<++ and add to the con#estion of the heavil* brdened doc;ets of the corts.+'

Chile the filin# of a petition for certiorari to Gestion the lower cortsH Arisdiction ma* be a

procedrall* le#itimate %bt sbstantivel* erroneos& move, the respondentHs sbseGent petitions

involvin# the same propert* and the same parties not onl* demonstrate his attempts to secre

favorable rlin# sin# different fora, bt his obvios obAective as well of preventin# the e6ection of

the )eT and RT decisions in the nlawfl detainer case a#ainst his clients. This intent is most

obvios with respect to the petitions for annlment of Ad#ment and declarator* relief, both #eared

towards preventin# the e6ection of the nlawfl detainer decision, lon# after this decision hadbecome final.

Cillfl, intentional and deliberate

falsehood before the corts

The records also reveal that the respondent committed willfl, intentional and deliberate falsehood in

the pleadin#s he filed with the lower corts.














6irst , in the petition for annlment of Ad#ment filed before the RT, !ranch 3(3, ?e-on it*, the

respondent cited e6trinsic frad as one of the #ronds for the annlment so#ht. The e6trinsic frad

was alle#ed in the last para#raph of the petition, as follows:

In here, consel for the petitioners %defendants therein&, deliberatel* ne#lected to file the proper

remed* then available after receipt of the denial of their )otion for Reconsideration P ths corrptl*sold ot the interest of the petitioners %defendants therein& b* ;eepin# them awa* to the ort and in

complete i#norance of the sit b* a false pretense of compromise and fradlent acts of alle#in#

representin# them when in trth and in fact, have connived with the attorne* of the prevailin# part* at

his defeat to the preAdice of the petitioner %defendants therein& P+7

Met, in para#raph '8 of the same petition, the respondent alle#ed that no second motion for

reconsideration or for new trial, or no other petition with the had been filed, as he believed >that

the decisions rendered both b* the )eT and the RT are nll and void.>+8 These conflictin# claims,

no dobt, involve a fabrication made for the prpose of spportin# the petition for annlment. Corse,

it involved a direct and nsbstantiated attac; on the reptation of a law office collea#e, another

violation we shall separatel* discss below.

Second, the respondent emplo*ed another obvios sbterf#e when he filed his second petition for

annlment of title, which was an nsccessfl attempt to circmvent the rle that onl* the Solicitor

Beneral ma* commence reversion proceedin#s of pblic lands+9 on behalf of the Repblic of the

$hilippines. This second petition, filed b* a private part* and not b* the Repblic, showed that: %a&

the respondent and his clients reGested that the* be represented b* the Solicitor Beneral in the

proceedin#s< %b& the Repblic of the $hilippines was simpl* impleaded in the amended petition

withot its consent as a plaintiff< and %c& the respondent si#ned the amended petition where he alone

stood as consel for the >plaintiffs.> In this nderhanded manner, the respondent so#ht to compel

the Repblic to liti#ate and waste its resorces on an nathori-ed and nwanted sit.

Third, the respondent also committed falsehood in his motion for reconsideration of the order

dismissin# his petition for annlment of Ad#ment where he misrepresented to the cort and his

clients what actall* transpired in the hearin# of 1ne +5, +((+ in this wise:

Li;ewise, the proceedin#s on said date of hearin# %1ne +5, +((+& show, that after both consel

have ar#ed on the aforesaid pendin# incident, the 2onorable $residin# 1d#e, in open cort, and in

the presence and within the hearin# distance of all the plaintiffs and their consel as well as the

consel of the defendants resolved: TO "ENM T2E )OTION TO "IS)ISS 0ILE" N" "IRETE"

"E0EN"NTS OUNSEL TO 0ILE N NSCER TO T2E O)$LINT CIT2IN T2E RE)ININB

$ERIO".+Underscorin# and emphasis theirs

The records, however, disclose that the schedled hearin# for 1ne +5, +((+ was actall* for the

respondentHs application for temporar* restrainin# order and was not a hearin# on the adverse

part*Hs motion to dismiss.+5 The records also show that RT/!ranch 3(3 held in abe*ance the

respondentHs application for inAnctive relief pendin# the resoltion of the motion to dismiss filed b*

the adverse part*.+4 s stated in the order of the $residin# 1d#e of RT/!ranch 3(3:

















!rowsin# over the records of this case specificall* the transcripts of steno#raphic notes as

transcribed b* the Steno#rapher, the same will indicate that the alle#ations in the )otion for

Reconsideration are not tre.

P how can this ort ma;e a rlin# on the matter even withot statin# the factal and le#al bases

as reGiredQmandated b* the Rles. )oreover, there are no indications or iota of irre#larit* in thepreparation b* Steno#rapher of the transcripts, and b* the ort interpreter of the )intes of the

open ort session.Underscorin# theirs

The records frther disclose that despite ;nowled#e of the falsit* of his alle#ations, the respondent

too; advanta#e of his position and the trst reposed in him b* his clients %who are all sGatters& to

convince them to spport, thro#h their affidavits, his false claims on what alle#edl* transpired in the

1ne +5, +((+ hearin#. '(

0or these acts, we find the respondent liable nder Rle 3(.(3 of anon 3( the ode of $rofessional

Responsibilit* for violatin# the law*erHs dt* to observe candor and fairness in his dealin#s with the

cort. This provision states:

NON 3( LCMER OCES N"OR, 0IRNESS N" BOO" 0IT2 TO T2E OURT

Rle 3(.(3 law*er shall not do an* falsehood, nor consent to the doin# of an* in ort, nor shall

he mislead or allow the ort to be mislead b* an artifice.

Li;ewise, the respondent violated his dt* as an attorne* and his oath as a law*er >never to islead

t%e ;#dge or an1 ;#dicial officer b1 an artifice or false stateent of fact or law .>'3 The respondent

failed to remember that his dt* as an officer of the cort ma;es him an indispensable participant in

the administration of Astice,'+ and that he is e6pected to act candidl*, fairl* and trthfll* in his

wor;.''

2is dt* as a law*er obli#ates him not to conceal the trth from the cort, or to mislead thecort in an* manner, no matter how demandin# his dties to his clients ma* be.'7 In case of conflict,

his dties to his client *ield to his dt* to deal candidl* with the cort.'8

In defendin# his clientsH interest, the respondent also failed to observe Rle 34.(3, anon 34 of the

ode of $rofessional Responsibilit*, which reads:

NON 34 LCMER S2LL RE$RESENT 2IS LIENT CIT2 EL CIT2IN T2E !OUN"S O0

LC

Rle 34.(3 law*er shall emplo* onl* fair and honest means to attain the lawfl obAectives of his

clients 6 6 6

This anon obli#ates a law*er, in defendin# his client, to emplo* onl* sch means as are consistent

with trth and honor.'9 2e shold not prosecte patentl* frivolos and meritless appeals or institte

clearl* #rondless actions.' The recital of what the respondent did to prevent the e6ection of the

Ad#ment a#ainst his clients shows that he actall* committed what the above rle e6pressl*

prohibits.




















)ali#nin# the name of his fellow law*ers

To spport the char#e of e6trinsic frad in his petition for annlment of Ad#ment, the respondent

attac;ed %as Goted above& the name and reptation of the late tt*. atolico and accsed him of

deliberate ne#lect, corrpt motives and connivance with the consel for the adverse part*.

Ce find it si#nificant that the respondent failed to demonstrate how he came pon his accsation

a#ainst tt*. atolico. The respondent, b* his own admission, onl* participated in the cases

previosl* assi#ned to tt*. atolico after the latter died. t the same time, the respondentHs petition

for annlment of Ad#ment also represented that no second motion for reconsideration or appeal was

filed to contest the )eT and RT decisions in the nlawfl detainer case for the reason that the

respondent believed the said decisions were nll and void ab initio.

Under these circmstances, we believe that the respondent has been less than fair in his

professional relationship with tt*. atolico and is ths liable for violatin# anon 5 of the ode of

$rofessional Responsibilit*, which obli#ates a law*er to >cond#ct %iself wit% co#rtes1, fairness, and

candor toward %is rofessional colleag#es.> 2e was nfair becase he impted wron#doin# to tt*.atolico withot showin# an* factal basis therefor< he effectivel* mali#ned tt*. atolico, who is

now dead and nable to defend himself.

Unathori-ed appearances

Ce spport Investi#atin# ommissioner nananHs findin# that the respondent twice represented

parties withot proper athori-ation: first, in the petition for annlment of Ad#ment< and second, in

the second petition for annlment of title.'5

In the first instance, the records show that the respondent filed the petition for annlment of

Ad#ment on behalf of 74 individals, '3 of whom #ave their consent while the other 38 individalsdid not. Ce cannot a#ree with the respondentHs off/hand e6planation that he trl* believed that a

maAorit* of the liti#ants who si#ned the certification of non/form shoppin# in the petition alread*

#ave him the necessar* athorit* to si#n for the others. Ce find it hi#hl* improbable that this ;ind of

lapse cold have been committed b* a seasoned law*er li;e the respondent, who has been en#a#ed

in the practice of law for more than '( *ears and who received ri#id and strict trainin# as he so

prodl* declares, from the Universit* of the $hilippines olle#e of Law and in the two law firms with

which he was previosl* associated.'4 s Investi#atin# ommissioner nanan fond, the

respondentHs e6planation of compliance with the rle on the certification of non/form shoppin#

#lossed over the real char#e of appearin# in cort withot the proper athori-ation of the parties he

alle#edl* represented.

In the second instance, which occrred in the second complaint for annlment of title, the

respondent ;new that onl* the Solicitor Beneral can le#all* represent the Repblic of the $hilippines

in actions for reversion of land. Nevertheless, he filed an amended petition where he impleaded the

Repblic of the $hilippines as plaintiff withot its athorit* and consent, as a srreptitios wa* of

forcin# the Repblic to liti#ate. Notabl*, he si#ned the amended complaint on behalf of all the

plaintiffs his clients and the Repblic.







In both instances, the respondent violated Sections +3 and +, Rle 3'5 of the Rles of ort when

he ndertoo; the nathori-ed appearances. The settled rle is that a law*er ma* not represent a

liti#ant withot athorit* from the latter or from the latterHs representative or, in the absence thereof,

withot leave of cort.7( The willfl nathori-ed appearance b* a law*er for a part* in a #iven case

constittes contmacios condct and also warrants disciplinar* measres a#ainst the errin# law*er

for professional miscondct.

73

The RespondentHs "efenses

Ce find no merit in the respondentHs defenses.

>Bood faith connotes an honest intention to abstain from ta;in# nconscientios advanta#e of

another. ccordin#l*, in 5niversit1 of t%e )ast v. Jader we said that >#ood faith connotes an honest

intention to abstain from ta;in# nde advanta#e of another, even tho#h the forms and

technicalities of law, to#ether with the absence of all information or belief of facts, wold render the

transaction nconscientios.>7+ !ad faith, on the other hand, is a state of mind affirmativel* operatin#

with frtive desi#n or with some motive of self/interest, ill will or for an lterior prpose.7'

s bothconcepts are states of mind, the* ma* be dedced from the attendant circmstances and, more

particlarl*, from the acts and statements of the person whose state of mind is the sbAect of inGir*.

In this case, we find that the respondent acted in bad faith in defendin# the interests of his clients.

Ce draw this conclsion from the misrepresentations and the dbios recorses he made, all

obviosl* #eared towards forestallin# the e6ection of the final Ad#ments of the )eT and RT.

That he too; advanta#e of his le#al ;nowled#e and e6perience and misread the Rles immeasrabl*

stren#then the presence of bad faith.

Ce find neither sincerit* nor honest belief on the part of the respondent in pleadin# the sondness

and merit of the cases that he filed in cort to prevent the e6ection of the )eT and RT decisions,considerin# his own condct of presentin# conflictin# theories in his petitions. The sccession of

cases he filed shows a desperation that ne#ates the sincere and honest belief he claims< these are

simpl* scattershot means to achieve his obAective of avoidin# the e6ection of the nlawfl detainer

Ad#ment a#ainst his clients.

On the respondentHs alle#ations re#ardin# his discretion to determine le#al strate#*, it is not amiss to

note that this was the same defense he raised in the first disbarment case.77 s we e6plained in $ls

!ilders, the e6ercise of a law*erHs discretion in actin# for his client can never be at the e6pense of

trth and Astice. In the words of this cited case:

Chile a law*er owes absolte fidelit* to the case of his client, fll devotion to his #enine interest,and warm -eal in the maintenance and defense of his ri#hts, as well as the e6ertion of his tmost

learnin# and abilit*, he mst do so onl* within the bonds of the law. 2e mst #ive a candid and

honest opinion on the merits and probable reslts of his clientHs case with the end in view of

promotin# respect for the law and le#al processes, and consel or maintain sch actions or

proceedin#s onl* as appear to him to be Ast, and sch defenses onl* as he believes to be honestl*

debatable nder the law. 2e mst alwa*s remind himself of the oath he too; pon admission to the

!ar that he will not wittin#l* or willin#l* promote or se an* #rondless, false or nlawfl sit nor















#ive aid nor consent to the sameH< and that he will condct himself as a law*er accordin# to the

best of his ;nowled#e and discretion with all #ood fidelit* as well to the corts as to his clients.H

Needless to state, the law*erHs fidelit* to his client mst not be prsed at the e6pense of trth and

the administration of Astice, and it mst be done within the bonds of reason and common sense.

law*erHs responsibilit* to protect and advance the interests of his client does not warrant a corse of

action propelled b* ill motives and malicios intentions a#ainst the other part*.

78

Ce cannot #ive credence to the respondentHs claim that the disbarment case was filed becase the

consel of the complainant, tt*. U*, had an a6e to #rind a#ainst him. Ce reAect this ar#ment,

considerin# that it was not tt*. U* who filed the present disbarment case a#ainst him< tt*. U* is

onl* the consel in this case. In fact, tt*. U* has filed his own separate disbarment case a#ainst the

respondent.

The si #eneris natre of a disbarment case renders the nderl*in# motives of the complainants

nimportant and with ver* little relevance. The prpose of a disbarment proceedin# is mainl* to

determine the fitness of a law*er to contine actin# as an officer of the cort and a participant in the

dispensation of Astice an isse where the complainantHs personal motives have little relevance.0or this reason, disbarment proceedin#s ma* be initiated b* the ort mot proprio pon information

of an alle#ed wron#doin#. s we also e6plained in the case In re: lmacen:

. . .disciplinar* proceedin#s li;e the present are si #eneris. Neither prel* civil nor prel* criminal,

this proceedin# is not / and does not involve / a trial of an action or a sit, bt is rather an

investi#ation b* the ort into the condct of one of its officers. Not bein# intended to inflict

pnishment, it is in no sense a criminal prosection.

6 6 6

It ma* be initiated b* the ort ot# rorio. $blic interest is its primar* obAective, and the realGestion for determination is whether or not the attorne* is still a fit person to be allowed the

privile#es as sch. 2ence, in the e6ercise of its disciplinar* powers, the ort merel* calls pon a

member of the !ar to accont for his actations as an officer of/the ort with the end in view of

preservin# the prit* of the le#al profession and the proper and honest administration of Astice b*

pr#in# the profession of members who b* their miscondct have proved themselves no lon#er

worth* to be entrsted with the dties and responsibilities pertainin# to the office of an attorne*. In

sch postre, there can ths be no occasion to spea; of a complainant or a prosector .79'av v%i'

2ence, we #ive little or no wei#ht to the alle#ed personal motivation that drove the complainant ?e

and his consel to file the present disbarment case.

Co7lus:o

!ased on the fore#oin#, we conclde that the respondent committed varios acts of professional

miscondct and thereb* failed to live p to the e6actin# ethical standards imposed on members of

the !ar. Ce cannot a#ree, however, that onl* a penalt* of one/*ear sspension from the practice of

law shold be imposed. Neither shold we limit orselves to the ori#inall* recommended penalt* of

sspension for two %+& *ears.









Biven the respondentHs mltiple violations, his past record as previosl* discssed, and the natre of

these violations which shows the readiness to disre#ard cort rles and to #loss over concerns for

the orderl* administration of Astice, we believe and so hold that the appropriate action of this ort

is to disbar the respondent to ;eep him awa* from the law profession and from an* si#nificant role in

the administration of Astice which he has dis#raced. 2e is a continin# ris;, too, to the pblic that

the le#al profession serves. Not even his ardor and over-ealosness in defendin# the interests of hisclient can save him. Sch traits at the e6pense of ever*thin# else, particlarl* the inte#rit* of the

profession and the orderl* administration of Astice, this ort cannot accept nor tolerate.

dditionall*, disbarment is merited becase this is not the respondentHs first ethical infraction of the

same natre. Ce penali-ed him in Pl#s $#ilders, Inc. and )dgardo Garcia vers#s !tt1. !nastacio ).

*evilla for his willfl and intentional falsehood before the cort< for misse of cort procedres and

processes to dela* the e6ection of a Ad#ment< and for collaboratin# with non/law*ers in the ille#al

practice of law. Ce showed lenienc* then b* redcin# his penalt* to sspension for si6 %9& months.

Ce cannot similarl* treat the respondent this time< it is clear that he did not learn an* lesson from his

past e6perience and since then has e6hibited traits of incorri#ibilit*. It is time to pt a finis to the

respondentHs professional le#al career for the sa;e of the pblic, the profession and the interest of Astice.

C2ERE0ORE, premises considered, we hereb* 00IR) Resoltion No. FDII/+((8/397 dated

"ecember 3, +((8 and Resoltion No. FDII/+((5/98 dated "ecember 33, +((5 of the !oard of

Bovernors of the I!$ ommittee on !ar "iscipline insofar as respondent tt*. nastacio Revilla, 1r.

is ;oud liable for rofessional iscond#ct for violations of the Law*erHs Oath< anon 5< Rles 3(.(3

and 3(.(', anon 3(< Rles 3+.(+ and 3+.(7, anon 3+< Rle 34.(3, anon 34 of the ode of

$rofessional Responsibilit*< and Sections +(%d&, +3 and + of Rle 3'5 of the Rles of ort.

2owever, we modif* the penalt* the I!$ imposed, and hold that the respondent shold

be$I"BARRE$ from the practice of law.

SO OR"ERE".

CANON 13

Documents

CANON 9 - 12 pale cases