SUBMITTED CASES:

AC NARIDO

DOMINIQUE PAYUMO

MARC KEVIN CONSTANTINO

JANN DANAE ANINAG GAIL PANAGA

JOHN MARK BAUTISTA

KARREN ANDAYA GLYZA KAYE ZORILLA

ALDRIAN GOCE

GENISKA YBANEZ

JANINE CARANTO

PAULO ANTONIO REYES

ZAZ QIAMCO

IRIS VALERIANO

A.C. No. 4191

ANITA C. PENA, Complainant,

-versus-

ATTY. CHRISTINA C. PATERNO, Respondent

FACTS:

This is an administrative case filed against respondent Atty. Christina C. Paterno for acts violative of the Code of Professional Responsibility

and the Notarial Law.

Complainant , the owner of a parcel of land known as Lot 7-C, Psd-74200, located in Bayanbayanan, Parang, Marikina, Metro Manila,

covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. N-61244, Register of Deeds of Marikina, with an eight-door apartment constructed thereon.

The complainant alleged that she gave respondent her owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. 61244 to enable respondent to use the same as

collateral in constructing a townhouse, and that the title was in the safekeeping of respondent for seven years. Despite repeated demands

by complainant, respondent refused to return it. Yet, respondent assured complainant that she was still the owner.

Later, complainant discovered that a new building was erected on her property in January 1994, eight years after she gave the title to

respondent. Respondent argued that it was unfathomable that after eight years, complainant never took any step to verify the status of

her loan application nor visited her property, if it is untrue that she sold the said property. Complainant explained that respondent kept on

assuring her that the bank required the submission of her title in order to process her loan application.

In the course of investigation of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Commissioner Sordan stated that respondent enabled Estrella B. Kraus

to sell complainant's land to Krisbuilt Traders Company, Ltd.17 This was evidenced by Entry No. 150322 in TCT No. 61244 with respect to the

sale of the property described therein to Krisbuilt Traders Company, Ltd. for P200,000.00. Respondent alleged that complainant signed the

Deed of Sale in her presence inside her office. However, respondent would neither directly confirm nor deny if, indeed, she notarized the

instrument in her direct examination, but on cross-examination, she stated that she was not denying that she was the one who notarized

the Deed of Sale. Estrella Kraus' affidavit supported respondent's defense.

Commissioner Sordan declared that respondent failed to exercise the required diligence and fealty to her office by attesting that the

alleged party, Anita Peña, appeared before her and signed the deed when in truth and in fact the said person did not participate in the

execution thereof. Moreover, respondent should be faulted for having failed to make the necessary entries pertaining to the deed of sale

in her notarial register. Recommended that respondent be disbarred from the practice of law and her name stricken-off the Roll of

Attorneys, effective immediately, and recommended that the notarial commission of respondent, if still existing, be revoked, and that

respondent be perpetually disqualified from reappointment as a notary public.

ISSUE:

Whether or not there was clear and preponderant evidence showing that respondent violated the Canons of Professional Responsibility by

(a) deceiving complainant Anita C. Peña; (b) conspiring with Estrella Kraus and Engr. Ernesto Lampa to enable the latter to register the

subject property in his name; and (c) knowingly notarizing a falsified contract of sale.

HELD:

As a member of the bar, respondent failed to live up to the standards embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly the

following:

Canons: CANON 1 - A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and for legal processes.

Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

Rule 1.02 - A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal

system. CANON 7 - A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession, and support the activities of

the Integrated Bar.

Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor should he, whether in

public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.

Respondent Atty. Christina C. Paterno is DISBARRED from the practice of law, pursuant to Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, as well

as for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility; and the notarial commission of Atty. Christina C. Paterno, if still existing, is

perpetually REVOKED. i

A.C. No. 7944

(Promulgated June 03, 2013)

REX POLINAR DAGOHOY, Complainant,

-versus -

ATTY. ARTEMIO V. SAN JUAN, Respondents,

FACTS:

Atty. San Juan was administratively charged for gross negligence, in connection with the dismissal of his client's appeal filed before the

Court of Appeals (CA). Tomas Dagohoy (Tomas), his client and the father of complainant Rex Polinar Dagohoy, was charged with and

convicted of theft by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 34, of Panabo City, Davao del Norte. According to the complainant, the CA

dismissed the appeal for Atty. San Juan’s failure to file the appellant’s brief.5 He further alleged that Atty. San Juan did not file a motion for

reconsideration against the CA’s order of dismissal.6

The complainant also accused Atty. San Juan of being untruthful in dealing with him and Tomas. The complainant, in this regard, alleged

that Atty. San Juan failed to inform him and Tomas of the real status of Tomas’ appeal and did not disclose to them the real reason for its

dismissal.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the respondent is liable for committing gross negligence, in connection with the dismissal of his client's appeal filed before

the Court of Appeals (CA)

HELD:

Atty. San Juan’s negligence undoubtedly violates the Lawyer’s Oath that requires him to “conduct [himself] as a lawyer accord ing to the

best of (his) knowledge and discretion, with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to (his) clients[.]” He also violated Rule 18.03 and Rule

18.04, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,

We deny Atty. San Juan's motion to lift the order of suspension. Atty. San Juan's self-imposed compliance with the IBP's recommended

penalty of three (3) months suspension was premature. The wordings of the Resolution dated April 16, 2012 show that the Court merely

noted: (1) the IBP's findings and the recommended penalty against Atty. San Juan; and (2) the IBP referral of the case back to the Court for

its proper disposition. The IBP findings and the stated penalty thereon are merely recommendatory; only the Supreme Court has the power

to discipline erring lawyers and to impose against them penalties for unethical conduct. 23 Until finally acted upon by the Supreme Court,

the IBP findings and the recommended penalty imposed cannot attain finality until adopted by the Court as its own. Thus, the IBP findings,

by themselves, cannot be a proper subject of implementation or compliance.24

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court resolves to:

1. NOTE the Report and Recommendation dated January 14, 2013 of the Office of the Bar Confidant;

2. SUSPEND from the practice of law for a period of one ( 1) year Atty. Artemio V. San Juan for v iolating his Lawyer's Oath and Rules 18.03

and Rule 18.04, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, with a WARNING that the commission of the same or simila r act or acts

shall be dealt with more severely; and

3. DENY the motion filed by Atty. Artemio V. San Juan in the letter dated August 28, 2012 that he be allowed to return to the practice oflaw.

iiAC NARIDO CASE DIGEST

EMILIA O. DHALIWAL, Complainant,

vs.

ATTY. ABELARDO B. DUMAGUING, Respondent.

A.C. No. 9390 August 1, 2012

FACTS:

Emilia O. Dhaliwal (complainant) she engaged the services of Atty. Aberlardo B. Dumaguing (respondent) connection with the

purchase of a parcel of land from Fil-Estate Development, Inc. (Fil-Estate). Atty. Dumaguing was then given P342,000.00 for him to consign

with the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB). On September 22, 2000, respondent, on behalf of complainant, filed with the

HLURB a complaint for delivery of title and damages against Fil-Estate. A week after, or on September 29, 2000, Atty. Dumaguing withdrew

from the HLURB the checks previously consigned. On March 3, 2003, complainant informed the HLURB that respondent is no longer

representing her. On March 11, 2003, the HLURB promulgated its Decision, finding the case for delivery of title and damages premature as

there was no evidence of full payment. Complainant then demanded Atty. Dumaguing to return her the amount he earlier withdrew but

responded did not comply. Dhaliwal filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Dumaguing. Responded admitted all the allegations in

the complaint. In his defense, he claims that the amount of P311,819.94 was consigned to the HLURB to cover the full payment of the

balance of the purchase price of the lot. Respondent allegedly filed a motion for reconsideration but HLURB has not yet acted upon it. He

attached a copy of the said motion in his answer.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. Dumaguing should be disbarred.

RULING:

Yes. It was established that Atty. Dimaguing submitted a false and fabricated piece of evidence because it did not contain proof

that the same was filed with the HLURB nor was there proof that the other party was notified. He violated Canon 16 of the Code of

Professional Responsibility which states that:

Canon 16-A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his possession.

Rule 16.01-A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from the client.

Rule 16.02-A lawyer shall keep the funds of each client separate and apart from his own and those of others kept by him.

Rule 16.03-A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon demand.

A lawyer's failure to return upon demand the funds held by him on behalf of his client gives rise to the presumption that he has

appropriated the same for his own use in violation of the trust reposed in him by his client. Such act is a gross violation of general morality as

well as of professional ethics. It impairs public confidence in the legal profession and deserves punishment. He is suspended from the

practice of law for six (6) months and ordered to return to complainant said amount of P311,819.94 with legal interest.

ENGR. GILBERT TUMBOKON, Complainant,

vs.

ATTY. MARIANO R. PEFIANCO, Respondent.

A.C. No. 6116 August 1, 2012

FACTS:

Atty. Mariano Pefianco (respondent) undertook to give Engr. Gilbert Tumbokon (complainant) 20% commission which the

respondent would receive in representing Spouses Amable and Rosalinda Yap, whom the complainant referred. They had a written

agreement dated August 11, 1995. However, respondent failed to pay complainant the agreed commission. Instead respondent was

informed that Sps. Yap assumed to pay the same after he agreed to reduce his attorney’s fee from 25% to 17%. Complainant demanded

the payment of his commission but the respondent ignored. Complainant also alleged that Atty. Pefianco has not lived up to the high

moral standards required of his profession. And he also accused respondent of engaging in a money-lending business without required

authorization. In respondent’s defense, he claimed that the written agreement dated August 11, 1995 was forged and that Sps. Yap

assumed to pay complainant’s commission. Respondent filed Motion to Dismiss. The case was referred tp Intergrated Bar of the Philippines

(IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation. Respondent was recommended for one (1) year suspension from the practice of law

for violation of Lawyer’s Oath Rule 1.01, Canon1; Rule 7.01, Canon 7 and Rule 9.02, Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Respondent filed Motion for Reconsideration which was denied.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. Mariano Pefianco be suspended from the practice of law.

RULING:

The practice of law is considered a privilege bestowed by the State on those who show that they possess and continue to possess

the legal qualifications for the profession. As such, lawyers are expected to maintain at all times a high standard of legal proficiency,

morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing, and must perform their four-fold duty to society, the legal profession, the courts and their clients,

in accordance with the values and norms embodied in the Code.11 Lawyers may, thus, be disciplined for any conduct that is wanting of

the above standards whether in their professional or in their private capacity.

In the present case, respondent's defense that forgery had attended the execution of the August 11, 1995 letter was belied by his

July 16, 1997 letter admitting to have undertaken the payment of complainant's commission but passing on the responsibility to Sps. Yap.

Clearly, respondent has violated Rule 9.02,12 Canon 9 of the Code which prohibits a lawyer from dividing or stipulating to divide a fee for

legal services with persons not licensed to practice law, except in certain cases which do not obtain in the case at bar.

Respondent did not deny abandoning his legal family to cohabit with his mistress whom he begot four (4) children. The settled

rule is that betrayal of the marital vow of fidelity or sexual relations outside marriage is considered disgraceful and immoral as it manifests

deliberate disregard of the sanctity of marriage and the marital vows protected by the Constitution and affirmed by our

laws.13Consequently, We find no reason to disturb the IBP's finding that respondent violated the Lawyer's Oath14 and Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of

the Code which proscribes a lawyer from engaging in "unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct."

However, the court finds the charge of engaging in illegal money lending not to have been sufficiently established.

Respondent Atty. Mariano R. Pefianco is found guilty of violation of the Lawyer’s Oath, Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of

Professional Responsibility and Rule 9.02, Canon 9 of the same Code and suspended from the active practice of law one (1) year

_______________________

DOMINIQUE PAYUMO CASE DIGEST

Digested Cases

Cabuatan v. Atty. Venida, A.C. No. 10043,

November 20, 2013, J. Del Castillo

Facts: The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) thru its Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) received a Complaint filed by Aurora H.

Cabauatan (complainant) against respondent Atty. Freddie A. Venida for serious misconduct and gross neglect of duty. x x x Complainant

alleged that she was the appellant in CA-G.R. [No.] 85024 entitled Aurora Cabauatan, Plaintiff-Appellant vs. Philippine National Bank,

Defendant-Appellee. The case was originally handled by a different lawyer but she decided to change her counsel and engaged the

services of the Respondent x x x. Complainant was then furnished by the Respondent of the pleadings he prepared, such as "App earance

as Counsel/Dismissal of the Previous Counsel and a Motion for Extension of time to File a Memorandum."

Complainant made several follow-ups on her case until she lost contact with the Respondent. Complainant alleged the gross,

reckless and inexcusable negligence of the Respondent that led to the case is “x x x deemed ABANDONED and DISMISSED on authority of

Sec. 1(e), Rule 50 of the 1996 Rules of Civil Procedure. x x x” Certified on March 31, 2006.

Respondent did not submit any pleading with the Court of Appeals. It is likewise very noticeable that the Respondent was not

among those furnished with a copy of the Entry of Judgment hence it is crystal clear that he never submitted his Entry of App earance with

the Court of Appeals [insofar] as the case of the Complainant is concerned. Respondent assured the Complainant that he was doing his

best in dealing with the case, nevertheless, later on Complainant lost contact with him. x x x including the fact that he was not one of the

parties furnished with a copy of the Entry of Judgment proved the inaction and negligence of the Respondent. x x x

Issue: Is respondent can be held liable for his gross negligence and inaction against his clients’ case?

Ruling: Yes, It is beyond dispute that complainant engaged the services of respondent to handle her case which was then on appeal

before the Court of Appeals.

Indeed, when a lawyer takes a client's cause, he covenants that he will exercise due diligence in protecting the latter's rights.

Complainant also established that she made several follow-ups with the respondent but the latter merely ignored her or made her

believe that he was diligently handling her case. Thus, complainant was surprised when she received a notice from the Court of Appeals

informing her that her appeal had been abandoned and her case dismissed. The dismissal had become final and executory. This is a clear

violation of Rule 18.04, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which enjoins lawyers to keep their clients informed of the status

of their case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the clients' request for information.

The Code of Professional Responsibility pertinently provides:

Canon 17 – A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed on him.

Canon 18 – A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.

x x x x

Rule 18.03 – A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.

Rule 18.04 – A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client's

request for information.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Freddie A. Venida is SUSPENDED from the practice o law for one year effective immediately, with

WARNING that a similar violation will be dealt with more severely. He is DIRECTED to report to this Court the date of his receipt of this

Resolution to enable this Court to determine when his suspension shall take effect.

Let a copy of this Resolution be entered in the personal records of respondent as a member of the Bar, and copies furnished the

Office of the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts in the

country.

SO ORDERED.

Judge Manahan v. Atty. Flores, A.C. No. 8954, November 13, 2013,

J. Del Castillo

Facts: Respondent Atty. Rodolto Flores (Atty. Flores) was counsel for the defendant in Civil Case No. 1863 captioned as Marsha Aranas

plaintiff versus Arnold Balmores defendant a suit for damages filed before the Municipal Trial Court of San Mateo, Rizal and presided by

herein complainant Judge Maribeth Rodriguez-Manahan (Judge Manahan). xxx During the proceedings in Civil Case No. 1863, Judge

Manahan issued an Order dated January 12, 2011, whereby she voluntarily inhibited from hearing Civil Case No. 1863. The said Order reads

in part, viz: “More than mere contempt do his (Atty. Flores) unethical actuations, his traits of dishonesty and discourtesy not only to his own

brethren in the legal profession, but also to the bench and judges, would amount to grave misconduct, if not a malpractice of law, a

serious ground for disciplinary action of a member of the bar pursuant to Rules 139 a & b.”

During the Preliminary Conference, respondent Atty. Flores entered his appearance and was given time to file a Pre-Trial Brief. On May 24,

2010, respondent Atty. Flores filed his Pre-Trial Brief but without proof of MCLE compliance.

The preliminary conference was reset several times (August 11, September 8) for failure of respondent Atty. Flores to appear and submit his

Pre-Trial Brief indicating thereon his MCLE compliance. The court a quo likewise issued Orders dated September 15 and October 20, 2010

giving respondent Atty. Flores a last chance to submit his Pre-Trial Brief with stern warning that failure to do so shall be considered a waiver

on his part.

Respondent Atty. Flores later filed his Pre-Trial Brief bearing an MCLE number which was merely superimposed without indicating the date

and place of compliance. During the preliminary conference on November 24, 2010, respondent Atty. Flores manifested that he will submit

proof of compliance of his MCLE on the following day. On December 1, 2010, respondent Atty. Flores again failed to appear and to submit

the said promised proof of MCLE compliance. Instead, sending the courts a manifestation for refusing in proceeding to serve his client

dated September 14, 2010.

Issue: Whether or not Atty. Flores is held liable for his unethical and contemptuous actuations against the legal profession, client and

judges?

Ruling: Yes. There is no doubt that Atty. Flores failed to obey the trial court’s order to submit proof of his MCLE compliance notwithstanding

the several opportunities given him. "Court orders are to be respected not because the judges who issue them should be respected, but

because of the respect and consideration that should be extended to the judicial branch of the Government. xxx Disrespect to judicial

incumbents is disrespect to that branch the Government to which they belong, as well as to the State which has instituted the judicial

system."

xxx

Atty. Flores also employed intemperate language in his pleadings. As an officer of the court, Atty. Flores is expected to be circumspect in

his language. Rule 11.03, Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility enjoins all attorneys to abstain from scandalous, offensive or

menacing language or behavior before the Courts. Atty. Flores failed in this respect.

xxx

However, we find the recommended penalty too harsh and not commensurate with the infractions committed by the respondent. It

appears that this is the first infraction committed by respondent. Also, we are not prepared to impose on the respondent the penalty of

one-year suspension for humanitarian reasons. Respondent manifested before this Court that he has been in the practice of law for half a

century. Thus, he is already in his twilight years. Considering the foregoing, we deem it proper to fine respondent in the amount of P5,000.00

and to remind him to be more circumspect in his acts and to obey and respect court processes.

ACCORDINGLY, respondent Atty. Rodolfo Flores is FINED in the amount of P5,000.00 with STERN WARNING that the repetition of a similar

offense shall be dealt with more severely.

SO ORDERED.

____________________

MARC KEVIN CONSTANTINO DIGEST

CASE DIGEST

1. Atty. Carmen Leonor Alcantara et,al vs. Atty. Eduardo C. De Vera

Facts:

Atty. Eduardo C. De Vera, the respondent is a member of the Bar and was the former counsel of Rosario P. Mercado in a civil

case filed in 1984 with the Regional Trial Court of Davao City and an administrative case filed before the Securities and Exchange

Commission, Davao City Extension Office. Herein respondent, as her legal counsel, garnished the bank deposits of the defendant, but did

not turn over the proceeds to Rosario. Rosario demanded that the respondent turn over the proceeds of the garnishment, but the latter

refused claiming that he had paid part of the money to the judge while the balance was his, as attorney’s fees. Such refusal

prompted Rosario to file an administrative case for disbarment against the respondent. On March 23, 1993, the IBP Board of Governors

promulgated a Resolution holding the respondent guilty of infidelity in the custody and handling of client’s funds and recommending to the

Court his one-year suspension from the practice of law.

Following the release of the aforesaid IBP Resolution, the respondent filed a series of lawsuits against the Mercado family except

George Mercado. The respondent also instituted cases against the family corporation, the corporation’s accountant and the judge who

ruled against the reopening of the case where respondent tried to collect the balance of his alleged fee from Rosario. Later on, the

respondent also filed cases against the chairman and members of the IBP Board of Governors who voted to recommend his suspens ion

from the practice of law for one year. Complainants also alleged that the respondent committed barratry, forum shopping, exploitation of

family problems, and use of intemperate language when he filed several frivolous and unwarranted lawsuits against the complainants and

their family members, their lawyers, and the family corporation.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. Eduardo C. De Vera liable for professional malpractice and gross misconduct.

RULING:

The Supreme Court ruled in agreement with the findings and recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors.

The practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the State upon those who show that they possess, and continue to possess,

the qualifications required by law for the conferment of such privilege. Membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions. A

lawyer has the privilege and right to practice law only during good behavior and can only be deprived of it for misconduct ascertained

and declared by judgment of the court after opportunity to be heard has been afforded him. Without invading any constitutional privilege

or right, an attorney’s right to practice law may be resolved by a proceeding to suspend or disbar him, based on conduct rendering him

unfit to hold a license or to exercise the duties and responsibilities of an attorney. It must be understood that the purpose of suspending or

disbarring an attorney is to remove from the profession a person whose misconduct has proved him unfit to be entrusted with the duties

and responsibilities belonging to an office of an attorney, and thus to protect the public and those charged with the administration of

justice, rather than to punish the attorney. Now, there is nothing ethically remiss in a lawyer who files numerous cases in different fora, as

long as he does so in good faith, in accordance with the Rules, and without any ill-motive or purpose other than to achieve justice and

fairness. The respondent Atty. Eduardo C. De Vera is hereby DISBARRED from the practice of law effective immediately upon his receipt of this

Resolution.

2. Manuel C. Yuhico vs. Atty. Fred Gutierrez

Facts:

Yuhico alleged that he met Gutierrez at the Office of the City Prosecutor in Pasig City on May 4, 2005. Yuhico was there to testify

at the preliminary investigation of a Complaint for Estafa against one Jose S. Chicharro, who was then being represented by Gutierrez. He

claimed that they eventually became acquainted as they frequently saw each other during the hearings of the case. Yuhico averred that

Gutierrez phoned him and asked for a cash loan of P90,000.00 for his mother who was seriously ill and for his wife who was hospitalized.

Yuhico immediately handed the money. In turn, Gutierrez promised to pay the loan very soon, since he was expecting to collect his

attorney's fees from a client. However, after the repeated demands of Yuhico, Gutierrez failed to pay his loans. Yuhico filed the instant

complaint against Gutierrez before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD).

ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. Fred L. Gutierrez violated Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING:

The court held that deliberate failure to pay just debts constitutes gross misconduct, for which a lawyer may be sanctioned with

suspension from the practice of law. Lawyers are instruments for the administration of justice and vanguards of our legal sys tem. They are

expected to maintain not only legal proficiency, but also a high standard of morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing so that the

people’s faith and confidence in the judicial system is ensured. They must, at all times, faithfully perform their duti es to society, to the bar,

the courts and to their clients, which include prompt payment of financial obligations. They must conduct themselves in a manner that

reflects the values and norms of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility. Wherefore, resolution no.

xviii-2008-649 dated december 11, 2008, of the ibp, which found fred l. gutierrez guilty of gross misconduct, is affirmed. he is

ordered to pay the amount of ninety thousand pesos (p90,000.00) to the complainant immediately from receipt of this decision with

interest.

____________________

JANN DANAE ANINAG CASE DIGEST

A.C. No. 9310 February 27, 2013

VERLEEN TRINIDAD, FLORENTINA LANDER, WALLY CASUBUAN, MINERVA MENDOZA, CELEDONIO ALOJADO, ROSENDO VILLAMIN and AUREA

TOLENTINO, Complainants,

vs.

ATTY. ANGELITO VILLARIN, Respondent.

Facts :

The instant case stemmed from a Complaint for specific performance filed with the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board

(HLURB) by the buyers of the lots in Don Jose Zavalla Subdivision against the subdivision's owner and developer- Purence Realty Corporation

and Roberto Bassig.The HLURB ordered the owner and the developer to deliver the Deeds of Sale and the Transfer Certificates of Title to the

winning litigants. The Decision did not evince any directive for the buyers to vacate the property. Purence Realty and Roberto Bassig did not

appeal the Decision, thus making it final and executory. Thereafter, the HLURB issued a Writ of Execution. It was at this point that respondent

Villarin entered his special appearance to represent Purence Realty. Specifically, he filed an Omnibus Motion to set aside the Decision and

to quash the Writ of Execution for being null and void on the ground of lack of jurisdiction due to the improper service of summons on his

client. This motion was not acted upon by the HLURB. Respondent sent demand letters to herein complainants. In all of these letters, he

demanded that they immediately vacate the property and surrender it to Purence Realty within five days from receipt. Otherwise, he

would file the necessary action against them. True enough, Purence Realty, as represented by respondent, filed a Complaint for forcible

entry before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) against Trinidad, Lander, Casubuan and Mendoza. Aggrieved, the four complainants filed an

administrative case against respondent. A month after, Alojado, Villamin and Tolentino filed a disbarment case against respondent. As

found by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) and affirmed by its Board of Governors, complainants asserted in their respective

verified Complaints that the demand letters sent by Villarin had been issued with malice and intent to harass them. They insisted that the

letters also contravened the HLURB Decision ordering his client to permit the buyers to pay the balance of the purchase price of the

subdivision lots.

Issue :

Whether or not the respondent should be administratively sanctioned for sending the demand letters?

Ruling:

The respondent Atty. Angelito Villarin is clearly proscribed by Rule 19.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Which requires that a

lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain lawful objectives. Lawyers must not present and offer in evidence any document

that they know is false.

Respondent is REPRIMANDED with a warning that a repetition of the same or a similar act shall be dealt with more severely.

A.C. No. 7350 February 18, 2013

PATROCINIO V. AGBULOS, Complainant,

vs.

ATTY. ROSELLER A. VIRAY, Respondent.

Facts :

The case stemmed from a Complaint filed before the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) by complainant Mrs. Patrocinio V. Agbulos against

respondent Atty. Roseller A. Viray of Asingan, Pangasinan, for allegedly notarizing a document denominated as Affidavit of Non-Tenancy in

violation of the Notarial Law. The said affidavit was supposedly executed by complainant, but the latter denies said execution and claims

that the signature and the community tax certificate (CTC) she allegedly presented are not hers. She further claims that the CTC belongs to

a certain Christian Anton. Complainant added that she did not personally appear before respondent for the notarization of the document.

She, likewise, states that respondent's client, Rolando Dollente (Dollente), benefited from the said falsified affidavit as it contributed to the

illegal transfer of a property registered in her name to that of Dollente.

Issue :

Is the respondent guilty of his indiscretion in admitted having prepared and notarized the document in question at the request of his client?

Ruling :

The Court is aware of the practice of not a few lawyers commissioned as notary public to authenticate documents without requiring the

physical presence of affiants. However, the adverse consequences of this practice far outweigh whatever convenience is afforded to the

absent affiants. Doing away with the essential requirement of physical presence of the affiant does not take into account the likelihood

that the documents may be spurious or that the affiants may not be who they purport to be. A notary public should not notarize a

document unless the persons who signed the same are the very same persons who executed and personally appeared before him to

attest to the contents and truth of what are stated therein. The purpose of this requirement is to enable the notary public to verify the

genuineness of the signature of the acknowledging party and to ascertain that the document is the party’s free act and deed.

The Court has repeatedly emphasized in a number of cases the important role a notary public performs, to wit:

x x x [N]otarization is not an empty, meaningless routinary act but one invested with substantive public interest. The notarization by a notary

public converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. A

notarized document is, by law, entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. It is for this reason that a notary public must observe with utmost

care the basic requirements in the performance of his duties; otherwise, the public’s confidence in the integrity of a notarized document

would be undermined.

Respondent’s failure to perform his duty as a notary public resulted not only damage to those directly affected by the notar ized document

but also in undermining the integrity of a notary public and in degrading the function of notarization. He should, thus, be held liable for such

negligence not only as a notary public but also as a lawyer.23 The responsibility to faithfully observe and respect the legal solemnity of the

oath in an acknowledgment or jurat is more pronounced when the notary public is a lawyer because of his solemn oath under the Code of

Professional Responsibility to obey the laws and to do no falsehood or consent to the doing of any. Lawyers commissioned as notaries

public are mandated to discharge with fidelity the duties of their offices, such duties being dictated by public policy and impressed with

public interest.

As to the proper penalty, the Court finds the need to increase that recommended by the IBP which is one month suspension as a lawyer

and six months suspension as notary public, considering that respondent himself prepared the document, and he performed the notarial

act without the personal appearance of the affiant and without identifying her with competent evidence of her identity. With his

indiscretion, he allowed the use of a CTC by someone who did not own it. Worse, he allowed himself to be an instrument of fraud. Based on

existing jurisprudence, when a lawyer commissioned as a notary public fails to discharge his duties as such, he is meted the penalties of

revocation of his notarial commission, disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for a period of two years, and

suspension from the practice of law for one year.26

WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Atty. Roseller A. Viray GUILTY of breach of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of

Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, the Court SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for one (1) year; REVOKES his incumbent

commission, if any; and PROHIBITS him from being commissioned as a notary public for two (2) years, effective immediately. He

is WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely.

_________________

GAIL PANAGA CASE DIGEST

A.C. No. 9615 March 5, 2013

GLORIA P. JINON, Complainant,

vs.

ATTY. LEONARDO E. JIZ, Respondent.

Facts:

Gloria P. Jinon (Gloria) engaged the services of Atty.Leonardo E. Jiz (Atty. Jiz) on April 29, 2003 to recover a land title which was a

subject of dispute with her sister in law Viola J. Jinon (Viola), for which she immediately paid an acceptance fee of P17,000.00. In their

subsequent meeting, Atty. Jiz assured the transfer of the title in Gloria's name.

Gloria, upon Atty. Jiz's instructions, remitted the amount of P45,000.00 to answer for the expenses of the transfer. However, when

she later inquired about the status of her case, she was surprised to learn from Atty. Jiz that a certain Atty. Caras was handling the same.

Moreover, when she visited the property, which has been leased out to one Rose Morado (Rose), she discovered that Atty. Jiz has been

collecting the rentals for the period June 2003 up to October 2004, which amounted to P12,000.00. When she demanded for the rentals,

Atty. Jiz gave her only P7,000.00, explaining that the balance of P5,000.00 would be added to the expenses needed for the transfer of the

title of the property to her name.

The foregoing incidents prompted Gloria to terminate the legal services of Atty. Jiz and demand the return of the amounts of

P45,000.00 and P5,000.00 through a letter dated September 22, 2004, which has remained unheeded.

Atty. Jiz has not complied with his undertaking to recover the land title from V iola and effect its transfer in Gloria’s name, and has

failed to return her money despite due demands. Hence, the administrative complaint praying that Atty. Jiz: (1) be ordered to reimburse

the total amount of P67,000.00 (P17,000.00 acceptance fee, P45,000.00 for the transfer of title, and P5,000.00 as unremitted rentals for the

property); and (2) be meted disciplinary action that the Court may deem fit under the circumstances.

In his Answer, Atty. Jiz asseverated that he was not remiss in his legal duties to Gloria. Denying liability to reimburse Gloria for any

amount, much less for P45,000.00,he claimed that he had rendered the corresponding legal services to her with fidelity and candor. Hence,

he prayed that the complaint against him be dismissed.

After the investigation, Commissioner Cecilio A.C. Villanueva (Commissioner Villanueva) of the Committee on Bar Discipline (CBD)

of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) found Atty. Jiz to have been remiss in his duty in violation of the Code of Professional

Responsibility. The Board of Governors of the IBP passed a resolution stating that Atty. Jiz be suspended from the practice of law for two (2)

years and Ordered to Restitute complainant the amount of P45,000.00 and 12% interest from the time he received the amount until fully

paid within sixty (60) days from notice.

Issue:

Whether or not Atty. Jiz should be held administratively liable for having been remiss in his duties as a lawyer with respect to the

legal services he had undertaken to perform for his client, Gloria.

Held:

YES. Atty. Jiz was remiss in his duties as a lawyer in neglecting his client’s case and misappropriating her funds . He is found having

clearly violated Rules 16.01 and 16.03, Canon 16 and Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides:

CANON 16 – A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS AND PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT THAT COME INTO HIS POSSESSION.

RULE 16.01 – A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from the client.

xxx xxx xxx

RULE 16.03 – A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon demand.

xxx xxx xxx

CANON 18. – A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.

xxx xxx xxx

RULE 18.03 – A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render

him liable.

xxx xxx xxx

Atty. Jiz is suspended from the practice of law for two (2) years, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts

shall be dealt with more severely and is ordered to return to complainant Gloria P. Jinon the full amount of P45,000.00 with legal interest of

6% per annum from date of demand on September 22, 2004 up to the finality of the decision and 12% per annum from its finality until paid.

A.C. No. 9604 March 20, 2013

RODRIGO E. TAPAY and ANTHONY J. RUSTIA, Complainants,

vs.

ATTY. CHARLIE L. BANCOLO and ATTY. JANUS T. JARDER, Respondents.

Facts:

Sometime in October 2004, Rodrigo E. Tapay (Tapay) and Anthony J. Rustia (Rustia), both employees of the Sugar Regulatory

Administration, received an Order from the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas requiring them to file a counter-affidavit to a complaint for

usurpation of authority, falsification of public document, and graft and corrupt practices filed against them by Nehimias Divinagracia, Jr.

(Divinagracia), a co-employee in the Sugar Regulatory Administration. The Complaint was allegedly signed on behalf of Divinagracia by

one Atty. Charlie L. Bancolo of the Jarder Bancolo Law Office based in Bacolod City, Negros Occidental.

When Atty. Bancolo and Rustia accidentally chanced upon each other, the latter informed Atty. Bancolo of the case filed

against them before the Office of the Ombudsman. Atty. Bancolo denied that he represented Divinagracia since he had yet to meet

Divinagracia in person. When Rustia showed him the Complaint, Atty. Bancolo declared that the signature appearing above his name as

counsel for Divinagracia was not his. Thus, Rustia convinced Atty. Bancolo to sign an affidavit to attest to such fact. Using the affidavit from

Atty. Bancolo, Tapay and Rustia filed a counter-affidavit accusing Divinagracia of falsifying the signature of his alleged counsel, Atty.

Bancolo. Divinagracia, denying the same, presented as evidence an affidavit by Richard A. Cordero, the legal assistant of Atty. Bancolo,

that the Jarder Bancolo Law Office accepted Divinagracia's case and that the Complaint filed with the Office of the Ombudsman was

signed by the office secretary per Atty. Bancolo's instructions.

Tapay and Rustia later on filed with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) a complaint to disbar Atty. Bancolo and Atty. Jarder,

Atty. Bancolo's law partner. The complainants alleged that they were subjected to a harassment Complaint filed before the Office of the

Ombudsman with the forged signature of Atty. Bancolo. The complainants also maintained that not only were respondents engaging in

unprofessional and unethical practices, they were also involved in falsification of documents used to harass and persecute innocent

people.

In their answer, respondents admitted that the criminal and administrative cases filed by Divinagracia against complainants

before the Office of the Ombudsman were accepted by the Jarder Bancolo Law Office. The cases were assigned to Atty. Bancolo. Atty.

Bancolo alleged that after being informed of the assignment of the cases, he ordered his staff to prepare and draft all the necessary

pleadings and documents. However, due to some minor lapses, Atty. Bancolo permitted that the pleadings and communications be

signed in his name by the secretary of the law office.

After investigation, Atty. Lolita A. Quisumbing, the Investigating Commissioner of the Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP,

submitted her Report. Atty. Quisumbing found that Atty. Bancolo violated Rule 9.01 of Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility

while Atty. Jarder violated Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the same Code and recommended that Atty. Bancolo be suspended for two years from

the practice of law and Atty. Jarder be admonished for his failure to exercise certain responsibilities in their law firm.

Issue:

Whether or not Atty. Bancolo is guilty of violating Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Held:

YES. Atty. Bancolo admitted that the Complaint he filed for a former client before the Office of the Ombudsman was signed in his

name by a secretary of his law office. He likewise categorically stated that because of some minor lapses, the communications and

pleadings filed against Tapay and Rustia were signed by his secretary, notwithstanding his tolerance. Clearly, this is a violation of Rule 9.01

of Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides:

CANON 9

A LAWYER SHALL NOT, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, ASSIST IN THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW.

Rule 9.01 - A lawyer shall not delegate to any unqualified person the performance of any task which by law may only be performed by a

member of the Bar in good standing.

Atty. Bancolo is suspended from the practice of law for one year effective upon finality of this Decision. He is warned that a

repetition of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely. The complaint against Atty. Jarder is dismissed for lack

of merit.

___________________________

JOHN MARK BAUTISTA CASE DIGEST

Edgardo Areola Vs. Atty. Maria Vilma Mendoza

A.C. No. 10135.

January 15, 2014

Facts:

Edgardo D. Areola (Areola) filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Maria Vilma Mendoza (Atty. Mendoza), from the Public

Attorney’s Office (PAO) for violation of her attorney’s oath of office, deceit, malpractice or other gross misconduct in office under Section

27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court, and for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He said that he’s filing the said

complaint in behalf of his co-detainees Allan Seronda, Aaron Arca, Joselito Mirador, Spouses Danilo Perez and Elizabeth Perez.

Areola claimed that when Atty. Mendoza visited the Antipolo City Jail and called all detainees with pending cases before the RTC,

Atty. Mendoza stated the following in her speech: “O kayong may mga kasong drugs na may pangpiyansa o pang-areglo ay maging

praktikal sana kayo kung gusto ninyong makalaya agad. Upang makatiyak kayo na hindi masasayang ang pera ninyo ay sa akin ninyo

ibigay o ng kamag-anak ninyo ang pera at ako na ang bahalang maglagay kay Judge Martin at Fiscal banqui; at kayong mga

detenidong mga babae na no bail ang kaso sa drugs, iyak-iyakan lang ninyo si Judge Martin at palalayain na kayo. Malambot ang puso

noon.”

In her unverified Answer, Atty. Mendoza asseverated that the filing of the administrative complaint against her is a harassment tactic

by Areola as the latter had also filed several administrative cases against judges in the courts including the jail warden where Areola was

previously detained. Nonetheless, Atty. Mendoza admitted in her Answer that she advised her clients and their relatives to approach the

judge and the fiscal “to beg and cry” so that their motions would be granted and their cases against them would be dismissed. To the

Investigating Commissioner, this is highly unethical and improper as the act of Atty. Mendoza degrades the image of and lessens the

confidence of the public in the judiciary. The Investigating Commissioner recommended that Atty. Mendoza be suspended from the

practice of law for a period of two (2) months.

Issue:

1. Atty. Mendoza is guilty of her attorney’s oath of office, deceit, malpractice or other gross misconduct in office under Section 27,

Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court—No for lack of evidence

2. Atty. Mendoza is guilty of violating Rule 1.02 and Rule 15.07 of the Code of Professional Responsibility—Yes.

Held:

1st Issue

No. The Court finds that the instant Complaint against Atty. Mendoza profoundly lacks evidence to support the allegations contained

therein. All Areola has are empty assertions against Atty. Mendoza that she demanded money from his co-detainees.The Court agrees with

the IBP that Areola is not the proper party to file the Complaint against Atty. Mendoza. He is not even a client of Atty. Mendoza. He claims

that he filed the Complaint on behalf of his co-detainees, but it is apparent that no document was submitted which would show that they

authorized Areola to file a Complaint. Consequently, the Court rejects Areola’s statements, especially as regards Atty. Mendoza’s alleged

demands of money.

2nd issue

Yes. Atty. Maria Vilma Mendoza GUILTY of giving improper advice to her clients in violation of Rule 1.02 and Rule 15.07 of the Code of

Professional Responsibility. Atty. Mendoza admitted that she advised her clients to approach the judge and plead for compassion so that

their motions would be granted. Atty. Mendoza made it appear that the judge is easily moved if a party resorts to dramatic antics such as

begging and crying in order for their cases to be dismissed.

It is the mandate of Rule 1.02 that “a lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in

the legal system.” Rule 15.07 states that “a lawyer shall impress upon his client compliance with the laws and the principles of fairness.”

Atty. Mendoza’s improper advice only lessens the confidence of the public in our legal system. Judges must be free to judge, without

pressure or influence from external forces or factors according to the merits of a case. Atty. Mendoza’s careless remark is uncalled for.

It must be remembered that a lawyer’s duty is not to his client but to the administration of justice. To that end, his client’s success is wholly

subordinate. His conduct ought to and must always be scrupulously observant of the law and ethics. Any means, not honorable, fair and

honest which is resorted to by the lawyer, even in the pursuit of his devotion to his client’s cause, is condemnable and unethical.

Penalty: penalty of REPRIMAND, with the STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely

Basis of the Penalty: In several administrative cases, the Court has refrained from imposing the actual penalties in the presence of mitigating

factors. Factors such as the respondent’s length of service, the respondent’s acknowledgement of his or her infractions and feeling of

remorse, family circumstances, humanitarian and equitable considerations, respondent’s advanced age, among other things, have had

varying significance in the Court’s determination of the imposable penalty. The Court takes note of Atty. Mendoza’s lack of ill-motive in the

present case and her being a PAO lawyer as her main source of livelihood. Furthermore, the complaint filed by Areola is clearly baseless

and the only reason why this was ever given consideration was due to Atty. Mendoza’s own admission. For these reasons, the Court deems

it just to modify and reduce the penalty recommended by the IBP Board of Governors.

Rose Bunagan-Bansig vs. Atty. Rogelio Juan A. Celera

A.C. No. 5581

January 14, 2014

Facts:

In complaint of Banasig, she narrated that, on May 8, 1997, respondent and Gracemarie R. Bunagan, entered into a contract of

marriage, as evidenced by a certified xerox copy of the certificate of marriage issued by the City Civil Registry of Manila. Bansig is the sister

of Gracemarie R. Bunagan, legal wife of respondent. However, notwithstanding respondent's marriage with Bunagan, respondent

contracted another marriage on January 8, 1998 with a certain Ma. Cielo Paz Torres Alba, as evidenced by a certified xerox copy of the

certificate of marriage issued by the City Registration Officer of San Juan, Manila.

Bansig stressed that the marriage between respondent and Bunagan was still valid and in full legal existence when he contracted

his second marriage with Alba, and that the first marriage had never been annulled or rendered void by any lawful authority. Bansig

alleged that respondent’s act of contracting marriage with Alba, while his marriage is still subsisting, constitutes grossly immoral and

conduct unbecoming of a member of the Bar, which renders him unfit to continue his membership in the Bar. In a Resolution dated

February 18, 2002, the Court resolved to require respondent to file a comment on the instant complaint.

Respondent failed to appear before the mandatory conference and hearings set by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines,

Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD), despite several notices

Issue:

1. Whether the respondent is still fit to continue to be an officer of the court due to the act of committing bigamy. Violating the

code of Professional Responsibility Rule 1.01, Canon 7, and Rule 7.03 His act of contracting a second marriage while his first

marriage is subsisting constituted grossly immoral conduct and are grounds for disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138 of the

Revised Rules of Court.

2. The failure of respondent to answer the charges against him despite numerous notices. Clearly, respondent's acts constitute willful

disobedience of the lawful orders of the Court, which is under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.

Held:

The certified xerox copies of the marriage certificates, other than being admissible in evidence, clearly indicate that respondent

contracted the second marriage while the first marriage is subsisting. By itself, the certified xerox copies of the marriage certificates would

already have been sufficient to establish the existence of two marriages entered into by respondent. The certified xerox copies should be

accorded the full faith and credence given to public documents. For purposes of this disbarment proceeding, these Marriage Certificates

bearing the name of respondent are competent and convincing evidence to prove that he committed bigamy, which renders him unfit to

continue as a member of the Bar.

And respondent’s cavalier attitude in repeatedly ignoring the orders of the Supreme Court constitutes utter disrespect to the

judicial institution. Respondent’s conduct indicates a high degree of irresponsibility. We have repeatedly held that a Court’s Resolution is

"not to be construed as a mere request, nor should it be complied with partially, inadequately, or selectively." Respondent’s obstinate

refusal to comply with the Court’s orders "not only betrays a recalcitrant flaw in his character; it also underscores his dis respect of the Court's

lawful orders which is only too deserving of reproof."

In View of all foregoing , the judge finds respondent Atty. Rogelio Juan A. Celera, guilty of grossly immoral conduct and wil lful

disobedience of lawful orders rendering him unworthy of continuing membership in the legal profession. He is thus ordered DISBARRED from

the practice of law and his name stricken of the Roll of Attorneys, effective immediately.

________________________________

KARREN ANDAYA CASE DIGEST

Office of the Court Administrator vs. Judge Anatalio S. Necessario, et al

A.M No. MTJ-07-1691, April 2, 2013

Facts:

The judicial audit team created by the Office of the Court Administrator (or OCA) reported alleged irregularities in the

solemnization of marriages in several branches of the MTCC and RTC in Cebu City. Also, certain package fees were offered to

interested parties by "fixers" or "facilitators" for instant marriages.

A female and a male lawyer of the audit team went undercover as a couple looking to get married. The female lawyer

went inside the branch to inquire about the marriage application process. A woman named, Helen, approached and assisted

the female lawyer. When the female lawyer asked if the marriage process could be rushed, Helen assured the lawyer that the

marriage could be solemnized the next day, but the marriage certificate would only be dated the day the marriage license

becomes available. Helen also guaranteed the regularity of the process for a fee of three thousand pesos only.

Judge Necessario, Judge Acosta, Judge Tormis and Judge Rosales were asked by the OCA to submit their comments

against the formal administrative complaint by the judicial audit team. OCA also suspended the judges pending resolution for the

cases against them.

In its memorandum and supplemental report, 643 marriage certificates were examined by the judicial audit team and

that 280 out of 643 were reported to have been solemnized under Article 34 of the Family Code. There is also an unusual number

of marriage licenses obtained from the local civil registrars of the towns of. Barili and Liloan, Cebu. Also, There were even

marriages solemnized at 9AM with marriage licenses obtained on the same day.

OCA recommended the dismissal of the respondent judges and some court employees , and the suspension or

adominition of others for being guilty of gross inefficiency or neglect of duty for solemnizing marriages with questionable

documents; for failure to make sure that the solemnization fee has been paid; for gross ignorance of law for solemnizing marriages

under Article 34 of the Family Code wherein one or both parties were minors during cohabitation and; for solemnizing a marriage

without the requisite marriage license.

Issue:

Whether or not the judges and personnel of the MTCC and RTC in Cebu City are guilty of gross ignorance of the law,

gross neglect of duty or gross inefficiency and gross misconduct, and in turn, warrant the most severe penalty of dismissal from

service.

Ruling:

The Court held that the judges were guilty of gross inefficiency or neglect of duty and gross ignorance of the law and be

dismissed from the service.

The Court listed the following liabilities of the judges:

First, Judges Necessario, Tormis and Rosales solemnized marriages even if the requirements submitted by the

couples were incomplete and of questionable character. The actions of the respondent judges constitute gross

inefficiency. In Vega v. Asdala, the Court held that inefficiency implies negligence, incompetence, ignorance, and

carelessness.

Second, The judges were also found guilty of neglect of duty regarding the payment of solemnization fees. The

Court, in Rodrigo-Ebron v. Adolfo, defined neglect of duty as the failure to give one’s attention to a task expected of him

and it is gross when, from the gravity of the offense or the frequency of instances, the offense is so serious in its character

as to endanger or threaten public welfare. The marriage documents examined by the audit team show that

corresponding official receipts for the solemnization fee were missing or payment by batches was made for marriages

performed on different dates.

Third, Judges Necessario, Tormis, and Rosales also solemnized marriages where a contracting party is a

foreigner who did not submit a certificate of legal capacity to marry from his or her embassy. The irregularity in the

certificates of legal capacity that are required under Article 21 of the Family Code displayed the gross neglect of duty of

the judges. They should have been diligent in scrutinizing the documents required for the marriage license issuance. Any

irregularities would have been prevented in the qualifications of parties to contract marriage.

Lastly, Judges Necessario, Acosta, and Tormis are likewise guilty of gross ignorance of the law under Article 34

of the Family Code with respect to the marriages they solemnized where legal impediments existed during cohabitation

such as the minority status of one party.

Moreover, the Court held that the respondent judges violated Canons 2138 and 6139 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics

which exact competence, integrity and probity in the performance of their duties.

The Court previously said that “Ignorance of the law is a mark of incompetence, and where the law involved is

elementary, ignorance thereof is considered as an indication of lack of integrity.” In connection with this, the administration of

justice is considered a sacred task and upon assumption to office, a judge ceases to be an ordinary mortal. He or she becomes

the visible representation of the law and more importantly of justice. The Court further said that the actuations of these judges are

not only condemnable, it is outright shameful.

CASE DIGEST:

Sonia C. Decena and Rey C. Decena vs. Judge Nilo A. Malanyaon

A.M No. RTJ-10-2217, April 8, 2013

Facts:

Sonia and Rey Decena have lodged an administrative complaint for conduct unbecoming a judge against Hon. Nilo A.

Malanyaon, the Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 32, in Pili, Camarines Sur.

The complainants had brought an administrative case in Legaspi City, Albay against Judge Malanyanon's wife, Dr. Amelita C.

Malanyaon.

The complainants averred that the actuations of Judge Malanyaon during the hearing of his wife’s administrative case in the Civil

Service Commission constituted violations of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippines Judiciary.

During the hearing of the administrative case, Judge Malanyaon sat beside his daughter, Atty. Kristina Malanyaon, the

counsel of Dr. Amelita in the administrative case filed against her.

Judge Malanyaon coached her daughter in making manifestations/motions before the hearing officer, by scribbling on

some piece of paper and giving the same to the former, thus prompting her daughter to rise from her seat and/or ask permission

from the officer to speak, and then make some manifestations while reading or glancing on the paper given by Judge

Malanyaon.

When the principal counsel of the complainants, Atty. Zamora, arrived, she inquired regarding the personality of Judge

Malanyaon, being seated at the lawyer’s bench beside Atty. Malanyaon, Judge Malanyaon then proudly introduced himself and

manifested that he was the “counsel of the respondent’s counsel”. Atty. Zamora proceeded to raise the propriety of Judge

Malanyaon’s sitting with and assisting his daughter in that hearing, being a member of the judiciary, to which Judge Malanyaon

loudly retorted that he be shown any particular rule that prohibits him from sitting with his daughter at the lawyers’ bench. He

insisted that he was merely “assisting” her daughter, who “just passed the bar”, defend the respondent, and was likewise helping

the latter defend herself.

The Court administrator reiterated a recommendation by recommending that: (a) the administrative case be re-docketed as a regular

administrative matter; and (b) Judge Malanyaon be found guilty of gross misconduct and fined P 50,000.00.

Issues:

Whether or not the actuations of Judge Malanyaon complained of constituted conduct unbecoming of a judge

Ruling:

The Court finds and pronounces JUDGE NILO A. MALANYAON, Presiding Judge of Branch 32 of the Regional Trial Court in Pili,

Camarines Sur, administratively liable for conduct unbecoming of a Judge, and penalizes him with a fine ofP40,000.00

The Court held, that the actuations of Judge Malanyaon constituted conduct unbecoming of a judge upon the following reasons

set below:

First was Judge Malanyaon’s occupying a seat beside his daughter that was reserved for the lawyers during the hearing.

Such act displayed his presumptuousness, and probably even his clear intention to thereby exert his influence as a judge of the

Regional Trial Court on the hearing officer in order for the latter to favor his wife’s cause. That impression was definitely adverse

against the Judiciary, whose every judicial officer was presumed to be a subject of strict scrutiny by the public. Being an

incumbent RTC Judge, he always represented the Judiciary, and should have acted with greater circumspection and self-

restraint, simply because the administrative hearing was unavoidably one in which he could not but be partisan. Simple prudence

should have counselled him to avoid any form of suspicion of his motives, or to suppress any impression of impropriety on his part

as an RTC judge by not going to the hearing himself.

Second was Judge Malanyaon’s admission that his presence in that hearing was to advise his daughter on what to do

and say during the hearing, to the point of coaching his daughter. In the process, he unabashedly introduced himself as the

“counsel of the respondent’s counsel” upon his presence being challenged by the adverse counsel, stating that his daughter was

still inexperienced for having just passed her Bar Examinations. Such excuse, seemingly grounded on a “filial” duty towards h is wife

and his daughter, did not furnish enough reason for him to forsake the ethical conduct expected of him as a sitting judge. He

ought to have restrained himself from sitting at that hearing, being all too aware that his sitting would have him cross the line

beyond which was the private practice of law.

Section 35 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court expressly prohibits sitting judges like Judge Malanyaon from engaging in the

private practice of law or giving professional advice to clients. Section 11, Canon 4 (Propriety), of the New Code of Judicia l

Conduct and Rule 5.0730 of the Code of Judicial Conduct reiterate the prohibition from engaging in the private practice of law

or giving professional advice to clients. The prohibition is based on sound reasons of public policy, considering that the rights,

duties, privileges and functions of the office of an attorney are inherently incompatible with the high official functions, duties,

powers, discretion and privileges of a sitting judge. It also aims to ensure that judges give their full time and attention to their

judicial duties, prevent them from extending favors to their own private interests, and assure the public of their impartiality in the

performance of their functions. These objectives are dictated by a sense of moral decency and desire to promote the public

interest.

Thus, an attorney who accepts an appointment to the Bench must accept that his right to practice law as a member of

the Philippine Bar is thereby suspended, and it shall continue to be so suspended for the entire period of his incumbency as a

judge.

To the Court, then, Judge Malanyaon engaged in the private practice of law by assisting his daughter at his wife’s

administrative case, coaching his daughter in making manifestations or posing motions to the hearing officer, and preparing the

questions that he prompted to his daughter in order to demand that Atty. Eduardo Loria, collaborating counsel of the

complainants’ principal counsel, should produce his privilege tax receipt. Judge Malanyaon did so voluntarily and knowingly, in

light of his unhesitating announcement during the hearing that he was the counsel for Atty. Katrina Malanyaon, the counsel of the

respondent, as his response to the query by the opposing counsel why he was seated next to Atty. Malanyaon thereat.

Third was Judge Malanyaon’s admission that he had already engaged in the private practice of law even before the

incident now the subject of this case by his statement in his comment that “it is strange for complainants to take offense at my

presence and accuse me of practicing law during my stint as a judge when before the bad blood between my wife and her

sibling and nephew erupted, I helped them out with their legal problems gratis et amore and they did not complain of my

practicing law on their behalf.” He thereby manifested his tendencies to disregard the prohibition against the private practice of

law during his incumbency on the Bench.

Any propensity on the part of a magistrate to ignore the ethical injunction to conduct himself in a manner that would

give no ground for reproach is always worthy of condemnation. We should abhor any impropriety on the part of judges, whether

committed in or out of their courthouses, for they are not judges only occasionally.

Fourth was Judge Malanyaon’s display of arrogance during the hearing, as reflected by his reaction to the opposing

counsel’s query on his personality to sit at the counsel table at the hearing, to wit:

I am the counsel of the complainant, ah, of the respondent’s counsel, I am Judge Malanyaon. I am assisting

her. And so what?!!

Judge Malanyaon’s uttering “And so what?” towards the opposing counsel evinced his instant resentment towards the

adverse parties’ counsel for rightly challenging his right to be sitting on a place reserved for counsel of the parties. The utterance,

for being made in an arrogant tone just after he had introduced himself as a judge, was unbecoming of the judge that he was,

and tainted the good image of the Judiciary that he should uphold at all times. It is true that the challenge of the opposing

counsel might have slighted him, but that was not enough to cause him to forget that he was still a judge expected to act with

utmost sobriety and to speak with self-restraint. He thereby ignored the presence of the hearing officer, appearing to project that

he could forsake the decorum that the time and the occasion rightly called for from him and the others just because he was a

judge and the other side was not. He should not forget that a judge like himself should be the last person to be perceived by

others as a petty and sharp-tongued tyrant.

Judge Malanyaon has insisted that his actuations were excused by his filial obligation to assist his daughter, then only a

neophyte in the Legal Profession. We would easily understand his insistence in the light of our culture to be always solicitous of the

wellbeing of our family members and other close kin, even risking our own safety and lives in their defense. But the situation of

Judge Malanyaon was different, for he was a judicial officer who came under the stricture that uniformly applied to all judges of

all levels of the judicial hierarchy, forbidding him from engaging in the private practice of law during his incumbency, regardless

of whether the beneficiary was his wife or daughter or other members of his own family.

_________________________

GLYZA KAYE ZORILLA CASE DIGEST

ANASTACIO N. TEODORO III vs. ATTY. ROMEO S. GONZALES

A.C. No. 6760, January 30, 2013

BRION, J.:

Facts:

In his complaint, Anastacio N. Teodoro Ill related that Atty. Gonzales acted as counsel of Araceli Teodoro-Marcial in two civil

cases that the latter filed against him. The first ccise, Special Proceeding No. 99-95587, involved the settlement of the intestate estate of

Manuela Teodoro. While the settlement proceeding was pending, Atty. Gonzales assisted

Teodord-Marcial in filing Civil Case No. 00-99207, for Annulment of Document, Reconveyance and Damages, without indicating the special

proceeding earlier tiled. The tiling of the civil cases, according to Anastacio, was a deliberate act of forum shopping that warrants the

disbarment of Atty. Gonzales.

Atty. Gonzales admitted that he assisted Teodoro-Marcial in tiling the two cases. He asserted, however,, that he did not violate the forum

shopping rule as the cases were not identical in terms of parties, subject matter and remedies. Atty. Gonzales also opined that the

complainant only filed the disbarment case to harass him.

The Investigating Commissioner’s Findings

In our Resolution dated March 13, 2006, we referred the disbarment complaint to the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of

the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation. In his Report and Recommendation dated July 5, 2010, Commissioner

Caesar R. Dulay found Atty. Gonzales administratively liable for forum shopping.

According to Commissioner Dulay, both Special Proceeding No. 99-95587 and Civil Case No. 00-99207 hinged on the same substantial

issue, i.e., on whether Manuela held the Malate property in trust for Carmen Teodoro-Reyes, Donato T. Teodoro, Jorge I. Teodoro and

Teodoro-Marcial.

In Special Proceeding No. 99-95587, Carmen, Donato, Jorge I. Teodoro, Jorge T. Teodoro and Teodoro-Marcial claimed that they are the

heirs of Manuela. During her lifetime, Manuela was the registered owner of a parcel of land located in Malate, Manila. According to the

heirs, Manuela held the lot in trust for them, but she sold it to Anastacio and Rogelio Ng. Thus, the heirs prayed for the issuance of letters of

administration so that Manuela’s properties could be inventoried and settled in accordance with law.

In Civil Case No. 00-99207, the heirs of Manuela claimed to be the beneficiaries of a trust held by Manuela over the same parcel of land

contested in Special Proceeding No. 99-95587. They alleged that during her lifetime, Manuela sold a portion of this land to Anastacio. They

asked the trial court to annul the Deed of Absolute Sale executed by Manuela; to cancel the resulting Transfer Certificate of Title in the

name of Anastacio; and to issue a new one in their names.

The commissioner found that a ruling in either case would result in res judicata over the other. Thus, Atty. Gonzales committed forum

shopping when he instituted Civil Case No. 00-99207 without indicating that Special Proceeding No. 99-95587 was still pending. In

committing forum shopping, Atty. Gonzales disregarded the Supreme Court Circular prohibiting forum shopping and thus violated Canon 1

of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Commissioner Dulay recommended that Atty. Gonzales be suspended for one month from the practice of law, with a warning that a

repetition of a similar offense would merit a more severe penalty.

The Board of Governors of the IBP reversed the commissioner’s recommendation. In a resolution dated December 10, 2011, the Board of

Governors dismissed the case against Atty. Gonzales for lack of merit.

Issue:

Whether or not Atty.Gonzales committed forum shopping and thereby violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Held:

YES, Forum shopping exists when, as a result of an adverse decision in one forum, or in anticipation thereof, a party seeks a

favorable opinion in another forum through means other than appeal or certiorari.

There is forum shopping when the elements of litis pendencia are present or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata

in another. They are as follows: (a) identity of parties, or at least such parties that represent the same interests in both actions, (b) identity of

rights or causes of action, and (c) identity of relief sought.

Under this test, we find that Atty. Gonzales committed forum shopping when he filed Civil Case No. 00-99207 while Special Proceeding No.

99-95587 was pending.

Respondent was fully aware, since he was the counsel for both cases, that he raised the issue of trust with respect to the Malate property in

the 1999 Letters of Administration case and that he was raising the same similar issue of trust in the 2000 annulment case xxx

To advise his client therefore to execute the affidavit of non-forum shopping for the second case (annulment case) and state that there is

no pending case involving the same or similar issue would constitute misconduct which should be subject to disciplinary action. It was his

duty to advise his client properly, and his failure to do so, in fact his deliberate assertion that there was no falsity in the affidavit is indicative

of a predisposition to take lightly his duty as a lawyer to promote respect and obedience to the law.

The Court has repeatedly warned lawyers against resorting to forum shopping since the practice clogs the Court dockets and can lead to

conflicting rulings. Willful and deliberate forum shopping has been made punishable either as direct or indirect contempt of court in SC

Administrative Circular No. 04-94 dated April 1, 1994.

In engaging in forum shopping, Atty. Gonzales violated Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which directs lawyers to obey

the laws of the land and promote respect for the law and legal processes. He also disregarded his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient

administration of justice, and the prohibition against unduly delaying a case by misusing court processes.

To our mind, however, the supreme penalty of disbarment would be very harsh in light of all the circumstances of this case

Lawyers are also censured for minor infractions against the lawyer’s duty to the Court or the client. As earlier stated, Atty. Gonzales’ act of

forum shopping disregarded his duty to obey and promote respect for the law and legal processes, as well as the prohibition against

unduly delaying a case by misusing court processes. It also violated his duty as an officer of the court to assist in the speedy and efficient

administration of justice.

WHEREFORE, we find the basis for the complaint meritorious and accordingly CENSURE Atty. Romeo S. Gonzales for resorting to forum

shopping. He is WARNED that any future violation of his duties as a lawyer will be dealt with more severely. A copy of this reprimand should

be attached to Atty. Romeo S. Gonzales’ personal file in the Office of the Bar Confidant

TRINIDAD IRORITA vs. ATTY. JIMMY LUCZON

A.C. No. 3872, October 4, 2010

PERALTA, J.:

Facts:

Before this Court is the Manifestation with Motion dated April 26, 2010 and Motion to Resolve dated August 2, 2010, filed by Judge

Jimmy F. Luczon Jr., which seeks the dismissal of the administrative complaint against his father, Atty. Jimmy C. Luczon, and thereafter

correct the discrepancy in the docketing of the case and clear his name.

In his Manifestation/Motion, Judge Luczon averred that on July 20, 1992, a certain Trinidad Irorita filed a disbarment case against his father,

Atty. Jimmy Luczon. He claimed that the said disbarment case was docketed as Trinidad Irorita v. Atty. Jimmy Luczon. Judge Luczon

maintained, however, that he is not the Atty. Jimmy Luczonreferred to as respondent in the instant case but his father.

For clarification, Judge Luczon stressed that he could not be the Atty. Luczon named as respondent in the instant case because at the time

of the referral of the case to Atty. Luczon, he was already the presiding judge of the Municipal Trial Court of Lal-lo, Cagayan, Branch 1,

pursuant to his appointment in 1985.1 He also explained that his father's middle name is "Cortez," while his is "Furagganan," and that his

name has the letters "Jr" suffixed to his name.

Judge Luczon, likewise, manifested that his father died on August 4, 1994 as evidenced by the Certificate of Death issued by the National

Statistics Office.

He presumed that the docketing of the case with only Atty. Jimmy Luczon stated in the case title probably caused confusion, since he and

his father are namesakes. Hence, Judge Luczon prays that the instant case be resolved in order to clear his name and absolve him from

administrative liability.1avvphi1

Issue:

Whether or not Judge Luczon is also Atty. Jimmy Luczon.

Held:

NO, We find Judge Luczon's motion to be meritorious. The documents submitted sufficiently established the identities of both Atty.

Jimmy C. Luczon and Judge Jimmy Henry F. Luczon, Jr., and that they are two different individuals. It is likewise established that Judge

Luczon could not have been the respondent in the instant case. Furthermore, in view of the death of Atty. Jimmy Luczon during the

pendency of the case, we deem it proper to dismiss the instant case for being moot and academic.

ACCORDINGLY, the Manifestation and Motion dated April 26, 2010 and Motion to Resolve dated August 2, 2010 are GRANTED.

Administrative Case No. 3872, against Atty. Jimmy Luczon is DISMISSED for being moot and academic. The Court further ORDERS the Office

of the Bar Confidant to make the necessary correction in the records of both Atty. Jimmy C. Luczon and Judge Jimmy Henry F. Luczon, Jr.,

in order to facilitate the release of the retirement benefits of Judge Luczon in the event that there is no other pending administrative

complaint against him.

__________________________

ALDRIAN GOCE CASE DIGEST

CASE DIGEST

Josefina Caranza Vda. De Saldivar vs. Atty. Ramon SG Cabanes, Jr.

Facts:

Complainant Josefina Caranza vda. de Saldivar was the defendant in an unlawful detainer case, filed by the heirs of one

Benjamin Don before the Municipal Trial Court of Pili, Camarines Sur (MTC) and she was represented by respondent Atty. Ramon SG

Cabanes, Jr. The respondent failed to submit a pre-trial brief and attend the scheduled preliminary conference. Consequently, the MTC

moved to a decision against the complainant. On appeal, RTC reversed the MTC Decision. CA reversed the RTC’s ruling and reinstated the

MTC Decision. On 2006, respondent received a copy of the CA’s ruling but failed to inform complainant about the said ruling. Complainant

sought for the services of another counsel but due to respondent’s failure to timely turn-over of papers and documents in the case,

remedies were obstructed.

Based on the foregoing, complainant filed the instant administrative complaint against the respondent’s acts amounted to gross

negligence which resulted in her loss. On 2008, the Court resolved to refer the administrative case to the IBP. IBP’s investigating

Commissioner ruled that respondent failed to exercise ordinary diligence in handling his client's cause, warranting his suspension from the

practice of law for a period of six months. The Court resolves to adopt the IBP's findings and recommendation.

Issue:

Whether the respondent committs gross negligence in violation of Canon 17 and Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of Canon 18 of the Code

of Professional Responsibility?

Ruling:

A relationship of trust and confidence must permeate the relationship between attorney and his client. Lawyers are expected by

their clients as to be aware of their cause and to exercise the required degree of diligence in handling their affairs.Moreover, a lawyer

must a high standard of legal proficiency and to devote his full attention, skill, and competence to the case, regardless of its importance

and whether he accepts it for a fee or for free.

Since the respondent failed to justify his absence during the scheduled preliminary conference hearing which led the same to be

immediately submitted for decision and even failed to exercise ordinary diligence by inquiring from the court as to whether the said

hearing would push through. And the fact that he did not send a substitute counsel to appear on his behalf to ensure that the aforesaid

hearing would not have been left unattended in view that the defendant’s failure to appear at the preliminary conference already entitles

the plaintiff to a judgment. Furthermore, respondent deliberate failure to assail the heirs’ appeal before the CA and for neglecting his duty

to inform her about the CA ruling which he had duly received, preventing her from availing of any further remedies.

Hence, Court resolves to adopt the IBP's findings and recommendation and held that respondent was guilty of gross negligence in

violation of Canon 17, and Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

CASE DIGEST

Ferdinand A. Samson vs. Atty. Edgardo O. Era

Facts:

Complainant Ferdinand A. Samson engaged respondent Atty. Edgardo O. Era to represent and assist him and his relatives in the

criminal prosecution of Emilia Sison and her group for the pyramiding scam they perpetrated through their corporation ICS. Pursuant to the

engagement, respondent prepared the demand letter demanding the return or refund of the money subject of their complaints and

prepared the complaint-affidavit charging corporate officials of ICS with several counts of estafa presented to the OCPQC. OCPQC

formally charged Sison and the others with several counts of estafa in the RTC in Quezon City. In November 2003, the respondent told the

complainant and his relatives that he had already accomplished his professional responsibility towards them upon the amicable settlement

of the cases between them and ICS. In September 2004, due to the silence of respondent, complainant and his relatives wrote to him and

remind him about his guarantee and the promise to settle the issues with Sison and her cohorts. During the hearings in the RTC, respondent

did not anymore appear for the complainant and his group. This forced them to engage another lawyer.

However, they found out that the respondent had already been appearing as the counsel for Sison in the other branches of the

RTC. In this regard, they submit several certified copies of the minutes of the proceedings in the criminal cases involving Sison and her group

issued by the RTC establishing the respondent’s legal representation of Sison, followed by another certification indicating that the

respondent had visited Sison, an inmate in the Female Dormitory in Camp Karingal.

In January 20, 2005, the complainant executed an affidavit and prayed for the respondent’s disbarment on the ground of his

violation of the trust, confidence and respect reposed in him as their counsel. The Court referred the case to the IBP for investigation, report

and recommendation. The Investigating Commissioner found the respondent guilty of misconduct for representing conflicting interests.

In October 19, 2007, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the report and recommendation of the Investigating

Commissioner of the IBP-CBD, with the modification that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for two years. The case

then was forwarded to the Court. The respondent filed a Manifestation and Motion (With Leave of Court). The Court merely noted the

manifestation, and denied the motion for its lack of merit.

Issue:

Is the respondent guilty of violating Rule 15.03 of Canon 15, and Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility?

Ruling:

The respondent owed to the complainant and his group entire devotion to their genuine interest, and warm zeal in the

maintenance and defense of their rights. He was expected to exert his best efforts and ability to preserve the clients’ cause, for the

unwavering loyalty displayed to his clients likewise served the ends of justice. The client’s confidence once given should no t be stripped by

the mere expiration of the professional employment. Nor should the lawyer disclose or use any of the client’s confidences acquired in the

previous relation.

However, the respondent represented conflicting interests by accepting the responsibility of representing Sison, considering that

Sison was the very same person whom the complainant and his group had accused with his legal assistance. The respondent had drafted

the demand letters and the complaint-affidavit that became the bases for the filing of the estafa charges against Sison and the others in

the RTC in Quezon City. Furthermore, His contention that the lawyer-client relationship ended when the complainant and his group entered

into the compromise settlement with Sison was unwarranted. The lawyer-client relationship did not terminate as of then, for the fact

remained that he still needed to oversee the implementation of the settlement as well as to proceed with the criminal cases until they were

dismissed or otherwise concluded by the trial court.

Hence, the Court affirm the findings of the IBP and held that the respondent is guilty of violating Rule 15.03 of Canon 15, and

Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and suspends him from the practice of law for two years.

____________________________

GENISKA YBANEZ CASE DIGEST

SUZETTE DEL MUNDO, Complainant, vs. ATTY. ARNEL C. CAPISTRANO,

Respondent

April 16, 2012

Facts:

On January 8, 2005, Suzette and her friend Ricky S. Tuparan (Tuparan) engaged the legal services of Atty. Capistrano to handle the judicial

declaration of nullity of their respective marriages allegedly for a fee of PhP140,000.00 each. On the same date, a Special Retainer

Agreement was entered into by and between Suzette and Atty. Capistrano which required an acceptance fee of PhP30,000.00,

appearance fee of PhP2,500.00 per hearing and another PhP2,500.00 per pleading. Moreover for every payment that Suzette made, she

would inquire from Atty. Capistrano on the status of her case. In response, the latter made her believe that the two cases were already filed

before the Regional Trial Court of Malabon City and waiting notice of hearing. Sometime in July 2005, when she could hardly reach Atty.

Capistrano, she verified her case from the Clerk of Court of Malabon and discovered that while the case of Tuparan had been f iled on

January 27, 2005, no petition has yet been filed for her.

The Issue:

Whether or not Atty. Arnel C. Capistrano violated the Code of Professional Responsibility

Ruling:

This court finds that Atty. Capistrano committed acts in violation of his sworn duty as a member of the bar. In his Manifestation and

Petition for Review, he himself admitted liability for his failure to act on Suzette’s case as well as to account and return the funds she

entrusted to him. He only pleaded for the mitigation of his penalty citing the lack of intention to breach his lawyer’s oath; that this is his first

offense; and that his profession is the only means of his and his family’s livelihood. He also prayed that the adjudged amount of

PhP140,000.00 be reduced to PhP73,500.00 representing the amount of PhP78,500.00 he received less his payment of the sum of

PhP5,000.00. Consequently, Commissioner Quisumbing and the IBP-CBD Board of Governors correctly recommended the appropriate

penalty of one year suspension from the practice of law for violating the pertinent provisions of the Canons of Professional Responsibility.

As stated under Canon Law, CANON 16 – A lawyer shall not hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client

that may come into his possession.

RULE 16.01 – A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from the client.

RULE 16.02 – A lawyer shall keep the funds of each client separate and apart from his own and those of others kept by

him.

Canon 18- A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.

RULE 18.03 – A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall

render him liable.

RULE 18.04 – A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time

to the client’s request for information.

Furthermore, a lawyer is obliged to hold in trust money of his client that may come to his possession. As trustee of such funds, he is

bound to keep them separate and apart from his own. Money entrusted to a lawyer for a specific purpose such as for the filing and

processing of a case if not utilized, must be returned immediately upon demand. Failure to return gives rise to a presumption that he has

misappropriated it in violation of the trust reposed on him. And the conversion of funds entrusted to him constitutes gross v iolation of

professional ethics and betrayal of public confidence in the legal profession

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Arnel C. Capistrano, having clearly violated Canons 16 and 18 of the Code of Professional

Responsibility, is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one year with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be

dealt with more severely. He is ORDERED to return to Suzette Del Mundo the full amount of PhP73,500.00 within 30 days from notice hereof

and DIRECTED to submit to the Court proof of such payment.

Case Digest

JOSEFINA M. ANIÑON, Complainant, vs. ATTY. CLEMENCIO SABITSANA, JR.,

Respondent.

FACTS:Josefina M. Aniñon (complainant) related that she previously engaged the legal services of Atty. Sabitsana in the preparation and

execution in her favor of a Deed of Sale over a parcel of land owned by her late common-law husband, BrigidoCaneja, Jr. Atty. Sabitsana

allegedly violated her confidence when he subsequently filed a civil case against her for the annulment of the Deed of Sale in behalf of

Zenaida L. Cañete, the legal wife of BrigidoCaneja, Jr. The complainant accused Atty. Sabitsana of using the confidential information he

obtained from her in filing the civil case.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Sabitsana is guilty of misconduct for representing conflicting interests.

RULING: Atty. Sabitsana is guilty of misconduct for representing conflicting interests. As stated under Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the

Code of Professional Responsibility Rule 15.03. “A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all

concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.”

“The proscription against representation of conflicting interests applies to a situation where the opposing parties are present clients in the

same action or in an unrelated action.

The prohibition also applies even if the “lawyer would not be called upon to contend for one client that which the lawyer has to

oppose for the other client, or that there would be no occasion to use the confidential information acquired from one to the disadvantage

of the other as the two actions are wholly unrelated.”To be held accountable under this rule, it is “enough that the opposing parties in one

case, one of whom would lose the suit, are present clients and the nature or conditions of the lawyer’s respective retainers with each of

them would affect the performance of the duty of undivided fidelity to both clients.”

Based on the associated facts the courts find evidence to support Atty. Sabitsana’s violation of the above rule that his lega l

services were initially engaged by the complainant to protect her interest over a certain property. The records show that upon the legal

advice of Atty. Sabitsana, the Deed of Sale over the property was prepared and executed in the complainant’s favor. Furthermo re, Atty.

Sabitsana met with ZenaidaCañete to discuss the latter’s legal interest over the property subject of the Deed of Sale. At that point, Atty.

Sabitsana already had knowledge that ZenaidaCañete’s interest clashed with the complainant’s interests. And despite the knowledge of

the clashing interests between his two clients, Atty. Sabitsana accepted the engagement from ZenaidaCañete. Lastly his actual

knowledge of the conflicting interests between his two clients was demonstrated by his own actions: first, he filed a case against the

complainant in behalf of ZenaidaCañete; second, he impleaded the complainant as the defendant in the case; and third, the case he

filed was for the annulment of the Deed of Sale that he had previously prepared and executed for the complainant.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court resolves to ADOPT the findings and recommendations of the Commission on Bar

Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. Atty. Clemencio C. Sabitsana, Jr. is found GUILTY of misconduct for representing

conflicting interests in violation of Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is hereby SUSPENDED for one (1) year

from the practice of law.

______________________

JANINE CARANTO CASE DIGEST

A.C. No. 4191

ANITA C. PENA, Complainant,

-versus-

ATTY. CHRISTINA C. PATERNO, Respondent

FACTS:

This is an administrative case filed against respondent Atty. Christina C. Paterno for acts violative of the Code of Professional Responsibility

and the Notarial Law.

Complainant , the owner of a parcel of land known as Lot 7-C, Psd-74200, located in Bayanbayanan, Parang, Marikina, Metro Manila,

covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. N-61244, Register of Deeds of Marikina, with an eight-door apartment constructed thereon.

The complainant alleged that she gave respondent her owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. 61244 to enable respondent to use the same as

collateral in constructing a townhouse, and that the title was in the safekeeping of respondent for seven years. Despite repeated demands

by complainant, respondent refused to return it. Yet, respondent assured complainant that she was still the owner.

Later, complainant discovered that a new building was erected on her property in January 1994, eight years after she gave the title to

respondent. Respondent argued that it was unfathomable that after eight years, complainant never took any step to verify the status of

her loan application nor visited her property, if it is untrue that she sold the said property. Complainant explained that respondent kept on

assuring her that the bank required the submission of her title in order to process her loan application.

In the course of investigation of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Commissioner Sordan stated that respondent enabled Estrella B. Kraus

to sell complainant's land to Krisbuilt Traders Company, Ltd.17 This was evidenced by Entry No. 150322 in TCT No. 61244 with respect to the

sale of the property described therein to Krisbuilt Traders Company, Ltd. for P200,000.00. Respondent alleged that complainant signed the

Deed of Sale in her presence inside her office. However, respondent would neither directly confirm nor deny if, indeed, she notarized the

instrument in her direct examination, but on cross-examination, she stated that she was not denying that she was the one who notarized

the Deed of Sale. Estrella Kraus' affidavit supported respondent's defense.

Commissioner Sordan declared that respondent failed to exercise the required diligence and fealty to her office by attesting that the

alleged party, Anita Peña, appeared before her and signed the deed when in truth and in fact the said person did not participate in the

execution thereof. Moreover, respondent should be faulted for having failed to make the necessary entries pertaining to the deed of sale

in her notarial register. Recommended that respondent be disbarred from the practice of law and her name stricken-off the Roll of

Attorneys, effective immediately, and recommended that the notarial commission of respondent, if still existing, be revoked, and that

respondent be perpetually disqualified from reappointment as a notary public.

ISSUE:

Whether or not there was clear and preponderant evidence showing that respondent violated the Canons of Professional Responsibility by

(a) deceiving complainant Anita C. Peña; (b) conspiring with Estrella Kraus and Engr. Ernesto Lampa to enable the latter to register the

subject property in his name; and (c) knowingly notarizing a falsified contract of sale.

HELD:

As a member of the bar, respondent failed to live up to the standards embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibil ity, particularly the

following:

Canons: CANON 1 - A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and for legal processes.

Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

Rule 1.02 - A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal

system. CANON 7 - A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession, and support the activities of

the Integrated Bar.

Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor should he, whether in

public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.

Respondent Atty. Christina C. Paterno is DISBARRED from the practice of law, pursuant to Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, as well

as for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility; and the notarial commission of Atty. Christina C. Paterno, if still existing, is

perpetually REVOKED.

A.C. No. 7944

(Promulgated June 03, 2013)

REX POLINAR DAGOHOY, Complainant,

-versus -

ATTY. ARTEMIO V. SAN JUAN, Respondents,

FACTS:

Atty. San Juan was administratively charged for gross negligence, in connection with the dismissal of his client's appeal filed before the

Court of Appeals (CA). Tomas Dagohoy (Tomas), his client and the father of complainant Rex Polinar Dagohoy, was charged with and

convicted of theft by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 34, of Panabo City, Davao del Norte. According to the complainant, the CA

dismissed the appeal for Atty. San Juan’s failure to file the appellant’s brief.5 He further alleged that Atty. San Juan did not file a motion for

reconsideration against the CA’s order of dismissal.6

The complainant also accused Atty. San Juan of being untruthful in dealing with him and Tomas. The complainant, in this regard, alleged

that Atty. San Juan failed to inform him and Tomas of the real status of Tomas’ appeal and did not disclose to them the real reason for its

dismissal.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the respondent is liable for committing gross negligence, in connection with the dismissal of his client's appeal filed before

the Court of Appeals (CA)

HELD:

Atty. San Juan’s negligence undoubtedly violates the Lawyer’s Oath that requires him to “conduct [himself] as a lawyer accord ing to the

best of (his) knowledge and discretion, with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to (his) clients[.]” He also violated Rule 18.03 and Rule

18.04, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,

We deny Atty. San Juan's motion to lift the order of suspension. Atty. San Juan's self-imposed compliance with the IBP's recommended

penalty of three (3) months suspension was premature. The wordings of the Resolution dated April 16, 2012 show that the Court merely

noted: (1) the IBP's findings and the recommended penalty against Atty. San Juan; and (2) the IBP referral of the case back to the Court for

its proper disposition. The IBP findings and the stated penalty thereon are merely recommendatory; only the Supreme Court has the power

to discipline erring lawyers and to impose against them penalties for unethical conduct. 23 Until finally acted upon by the Supreme Court,

the IBP findings and the recommended penalty imposed cannot attain finality until adopted by the Court as its own. Thus, the IBP findings,

by themselves, cannot be a proper subject of implementation or compliance.24

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court resolves to:

1. NOTE the Report and Recommendation dated January 14, 2013 of the Office of the Bar Confidant;

2. SUSPEND from the practice of law for a period of one ( 1) year Atty. Artemio V. San Juan for violating his Lawyer's Oath and Rules 18.03

and Rule 18.04, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, with a WARNING that the commission of the same or simila r act or acts

shall be dealt with more severely; and

3. DENY the motion filed by Atty. Artemio V. San Juan in the letter dated August 28, 2012 that he be allowed to return to the practice of

law.

_________________________

PAULO ANTONIO REYES DIGEST

A.C. No. 3405, March 18, 2014

JULIETA B. NARAG, Complainant, v. ATTY. DOMINADOR M. NARAG, Respondent. R E S O L U T I O N

PER CURIAM:

Before this Court is a “Petition for Readmission” to the practice of law filed by Dominador M. Narag (Respondent).

Facts: On November 13, 1989, Julieta B. Narag (Julieta) filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against her husband, herein

respondent, whom she accused of having violated Rule 1.011 in relation to Canons 12 and 63 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. She

claimed that the respondent, who was then a college instructor in St. Louis College of Tuguegarao and a member of theSangguniang

Panlalawigan of Cagayan, maintained an amorous relationship with a certain Gina Espita (Gina) – a 17–year old first year college student.

Julieta further claimed that the respondent had already abandoned her and their children to live with Gina. The respondent denied the

charge against him, claiming that the allegations set forth by Julieta were mere fabrications; that Julieta was just extremely jealous, which

made her concoct stories against him. On June 29, 1998, the Court rendered a Decision, which directed the disbarment of the respondent.

The Court opined that the respondent committed an act of gross immorality when he abandoned his family in order to live with Gina. The

Court pointed out that the respondent had breached the high and exacting moral standards set for members of the legal profession. A

Motion for the Re–opening of the Administrative Investigation, or in the Alternative, Reconsideration of the Decision was filed by the

respondent on August 25, 1998. He averred that he was denied due process of law during the administrative investigation as he was

allegedly unjustly disallowed to testify in his behalf and adduce additional

vital documentary evidence. Finding no substantial arguments to warrant the reversal of the questioned decision, the Court denied the

motion with finality in the Resolution dated September 22, 1998. On November 29, 2013, the respondent filed the instant petition for

reinstatement to the Bar. The respondent alleged that he has expressed extreme repentance and remorse to his wife and their children for

his misgivings. He claimed that his wife Julieta and their children had already forgiven him on June 10, 2010 at their residence in

Tuguegarao City. The respondent presented an undated affidavit prepared by his son, Dominador, Jr., purportedly attesting to the truth of

the respondent’s claim. The respondent averred that he has been disbarred for 15 years already and that he has been punished enough.

He alleged that he is already 80 years old, weak and wracked with debilitating osteo–arthritic pains. That he has very limited mobility due to

his arthritis and his right knee injury. He further claimed that he enlisted in the Philippine Air Force Reserve Command where he now holds

the rank of Lieutenant Colonel; that as member of the Reserve Command, he enlisted in various rescue, relief and recovery missions. The

respondent likewise submitted the various recommendations, testimonials and affidavits in support of his petition for readmission.4

Issue: “Whether the applicant shall be reinstated in the Roll of Attorneys rests to a great extent on the sound discretion of the Court. The

action will depend on whether or not the Court decides that the public interest in the orderly and impartial administration of justice will

continue to be preserved even with the applicant’s reentry as a counselor at law. The applicant must, like a candidate for admission to the

bar, satisfy the Court that he is a person of good moral character, a fit and proper person to practice law. The Court will take into

consideration the applicant’s character and standing prior to the disbarment, the nature and character of the charge/s for wh ich he was

disbarred, his conduct subsequent to the disbarment, and the time that has elapsed between the disbarment and the application for

reinstatement.”5 The extreme penalty of disbarment was meted on the respondent on account of his having committed a grossly immoral

conduct, i.e., abandoning his wife and children to live with his much younger paramour. Indeed, nothing could be more reprehensible

than betraying one’s own family in order to satisfy an irrational and insatiable desire to be with another woman. The respondent’s act was

plainly selfish and clearly evinces his inappropriateness to be part of the noble legal profession. More than 15 years after being disbarred,

the respondent now professes that he had already repented and expressed remorse over the perfidy that he had brought upon his wife

and their children. That such repentance and remorse, the respondent asserts, together with the long years that he had endured his

penalty, is now sufficient to enable

him to be readmitted to the practice of law.

Ruling:

The Court, in deciding whether the respondent should indeed be readmitted to the practice of law, must be convinced that he had

indeed been reformed; that he had already rid himself of any grossly immoral act which would make him inept for the practice of law.

However, it appears that the respondent, while still legally married to Julieta, is still living with his paramour – the woman for whose sake he

abandoned his family. This only proves to show that the respondent has not yet learned from his prior misgivings. That he was supposedly

forgiven by his wife and their children would likewise not be sufficient ground to grant respondent’s plea. It is noted that only his son,

Dominador, Jr., signed the affidavit which was supposed to evidence the forgiveness bestowed upon the respondent. Thus, with regard to

Julieta and the six other children of the respondent, the claim that they had likewise forgiven the respondent is hearsay. In any case, that

the family of the respondent had forgiven him does not discount the fact that he is still committing a grossly immoral conduct; he is still living

with a woman other than his wife. Likewise, that the respondent executed a holographic will wherein he bequeaths all his properties to his

wife and their children is quite immaterial and would not be demonstrative that he had indeed changed his ways. Verily, nothing would

stop the respondent from later on executing another last will and testament of a different tenor once he had been readmitted to the legal

profession. In fine, the Court is not convinced that the respondent had shown remorse over his transgressions and that he had already

changed his ways as would merit his reinstatement to the legal profession. Time and again the Court has stressed that the practice of law is

not a right but a privilege. It is enjoyed only by those who continue to display unassailable character. WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing

premises, the Petition for Reinstatement to the Bar filed by Dominador M. Narag is hereby DENIED. SO ORDERED.

___________________

ZAZ QUIAMCO CASE DIGEST

A.C. No. 9860, September 11, 2013

JOSEPHINE L. OROLA, MYRNA L. OROLA, MANUEL L. OROLA, MARY ANGELYN OROLA-BELARGA, MARJORIE MELBA OROLA-CALIP, AND KAREN

OROLA, (Heirs of Antonio) Complainants, v. ATTY. JOSEPH ADOR RAMOS, Respondent.

R E S O L U T I O N

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

The Facts

Atty Joseph Ador Ramos was charged for his violation of (a) Rule 15.03 of the Code, as he undertook to represent conflicting

interests in the subject case; and (b) Section 20(e), Rule 138 of the Rules, as he breached the trust and confidence reposed upon him by his

clients, the Heirs of Antonio. The Antonio heirs first filed a hearing with the IBP. IBP found the respondent guilty though there was no violation

of Section 20, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. The IBP imposed against respondent the penalty of six (6) months suspension from the practice

of law.

The Issue Before the Court

Is the respondent guilty of representing conflicting interests in violation of Rule 15.03 of the Rules of Court?

The Court’s Ruling

1. The Court concurs with the IBP’s finding that respondent violated Rule 15.03 of the Code, but

reduced the recommended period of suspension to three (3) months to be more appropriate

taking into consideration the following factors:

a. Respondent is a first time offender;

b. It is undisputed that respondent merely accommodated Maricar’s request out of gratis to temporarily represent her only during

the June 16 and July 14, 2006 hearings due to her lawyer’s unavailability;

c. It is likewise undisputed that respondent had no knowledge that the late Antonio had any other heirs aside from Maricar whose

consent he actually acquired (albeit shortly after his first appearance as counsel for and in behalf of Emilio), hence, it can be said

that he acted in good faith; and,

d. Complainants admit that respondent did not acquire confidential information from the Heirs of Antonio nor did he use against

them any knowledge obtained in the course of his previous employment, hence, the said heirs were not in any manner

prejudiced by his subsequent engagement with Emilio.

2. The Court also served the ruling as a warning to the respondent and that the next case would

be dealt more severely

FIRST DIVISION

A.C. No. 9149, September 04, 2013

JULIAN PENILLA, Complainant, v. ATTY. QUINTIN P. ALCID, JR., Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

FACTS:

The respondent was complainant’s counsel for the case of breach of contract with the Garin spouses. He filed a criminal case,

overcharged him with attorney’s fees and filing fee, and imposed that the Asst. City Prosecutor Jose C. Fortuno would be more in favor of

the complainant’s case if they would give liquor to the said judge. The case was rendered unsuccessful. After the hearing, the respondent

asked for more fees, and reasoned him with more filing of litigations. He suggested that they should file a civil case and to have the

complainant follow up about it in his office. Complainant asserts having made numerous and unsuccessful attempts to follow-up the status

of the case and meet with respondent at his office. The complainant went to the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Caloocan City

Metropolitan Trial Court and Regional Trial Court (RTC) and learned that the respondent has been lying to him about the legal fees. The

complainant filed before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) the instant administrative case

praying that respondent be found guilty of gross misconduct for violating the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility,

and for appropriate administrative sanctions to be imposed. IBP-CBD recommended the suspension of respondent from the practice of

law for six months “for negligence within the meaning of Canon 18 and transgression of Rule 18.04 of the Code of Professional

Responsibility,” The IBP-CBD decided that the respondent’s violation of Canon 18 and Rule 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility

for his negligence, Atty. Quintin P. Alcid, Jr. is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months. On April 24, 2009, respondent

sought reconsideration and asked that the penalty of suspension be reduced to warning or reprimand. After three days, or on April 27,

2009, respondent filed a “Motion to Admit Amended ‘Motion for Reconsideration’ Upon Leave of Office.” The IBP Board of Governors

denied respondent’s Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit. Respondent filed a second Motion for Reconsideration which was no

longer acted upon. .According to the IBP, the respondent committed professional negligence under Canon 18 and Rule 18.04 of the Code

of Professional Responsibility, with a modification that we also find respondent guilty of violating Canon 17 and Rule 18.03 of the Code and

the Lawyer’s Oath.

ISSUE:

Is Atty Quintin P. Alcid Jr. Guilty of gross misconduct?

RULING:

1. The respondent, Atty. Quintin P. Alcid, Jr. was found GUILTY of gross misconduct for violating Canons 17 and 18, and Rules 18.03

and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, as well as the Lawyer’s Oath.

2. The Court hereby imposed upon respondent the penalty of SUSPENSION from the practice of law for a period of SIX (6) MONTHS

to commence immediately upon receipt of this Decision.

3. Respondent is further ADMONISHED to be more circumspect and diligent in handling the cases of his clients, and

4. STERNLY WARNED that a commission of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely.

_________________________

IRIS VALERIANO