Lee vs Tambago, 544 SCRA 393, February 12, 2008

digested by Ms. Charo L. Bayani

Facts: Complainant, Manuel L. Lee, charged respondent, Atty. Regino B. Tambago, with violation of Notarial Law and the Ethics of the legal profession for notarizing a will that is alleged to be spurious in nature in containing forged signatures of his father, the decedent, Vicente Lee Sr. and two other witnesses, which were also questioned for the unnotated Residence Certificates that are known to be a copy of their respective voter's affidavit. In addition to such, the contested will was executed and acknowledged before respondent on June 30, 1965 but bears a Residence Certificate by the Testator dated January 5, 1962, which was never submitted for filing to the Archives Division of the Records Management and Archives Office of the National Commission for Culture and Arts (NCAA). Respondent, on the other hand, claimed that all allegations are falsely given because he allegedly exercised his duties as Notary Public with due care and with due regards to the provision of existing law and had complied with elementary formalities in the performance of his duties and that the complaint was filed simply to harass him based on the result of a criminal case against him in the Ombudsman that did not prosper. However, he did not deny the contention of non-filing a copy to the Archives Division of NCAA. In resolution, the court referred the case to the IBP and the decision of which was affirmed with modification against the respondent and in favor of the complainant.

Issue: Did Atty. Regino B. Tambago committed a violation in Notarial Law and the Ethics of Legal Profession for notarizing a spurious last will and testament?

Held: Yes. As per Supreme Court, Atty. Regino B. Tambago is guilty of professional misconduct as he violated the Lawyer's Oath, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, Article 806 of the Civil Code and provision of the Notarial Law. Thus, Atty. Tambago is suspended from the practice of law for one year and his Notarial commission revoked. In addition, because he has not lived up to the trustworthiness expected of him as a notary public and as an officer of the court, he is perpetually disqualified from reappointments as a Notary Public.

Felicidad L. Oronce, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et. al. (298 SCRA 133) Gross Misconduct

Facts: During a dispute over land, Flaminiano illegally took possession of the property in litigation using abusive methods. She was aided by her husband, a lawyer. The illegal entry took place while the case was pending in the CA & while a writ of preliminary injunction was in force.

Held: Atty. Flaminiano’s acts of entering the property without the consent of its occupants & in contravention of the existing writ or preliminary injunction & making utterances showing disrespect for the law & this Court, are unbecoming of a member of the Bar. Although he says that they “peacefully” took over the property, such “peaceful” take-over cannot justify defiance of the writ of preliminary injunction that he knew was still in force. Through his acts, he has flouted his duties as a member of the legal profession. Under the Code of Professional Responsibility, he is prohibited from counseling or abetting “activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system.”

DE YSASI III v NLRCFACTS

This is a case filed by a son against his father ‘Father’ employed ‘Son’ as farm administrator of Hacienda Manucao ‘Son’ suffered various ailments and was hospitalized on 2 separate occasions, June and August 1982 ‘Father’ took care of medical expenses while son continued to receive compensation However, in April 1984, ‘Father’ ceased to pay ‘Son’s’ salary

‘Son’ filed an action in NLRC for illegal dismissal with prayer for reinstatement without loss of seniority rights andpayment of full back wages NLRC dismissed case stating that ‘Son’ has abandoned his work and termination is for a valid cause though ordered ‘Father’ to pay P5,000 as penalty for failure to serve notice of said termination to son

ISSUE W/N SON WAS ILLEGALLY DISMISSED

HELD YES

RATIO

Article 282 of Labor Code enumerates causes for which an employer may valid terminate an employment ‘Father’ banks on the fact that ‘Son’ has abandoned his work However, to constitute abandonment there must be a clear, deliberate and justified refusal to resume employmentand not mere absence In the case at bar, the reason for the ‘Son’s’ absence was due to his illness of which Father was aware of since hepaid hospital and medical bills ‘Father’ is ordered to pay ‘Son’ backwages in lieu of reinstatement and separation pay equivalent to 1 month forevery year of service

ISSUE W/N COUNSELS OF EACH PARTY ACTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CODE OF PROFESSIONALRESPONSIBILITY

HELD NO

RATIO Rule 1.04 of the Code of Responsibility explicitly provides “a lawyer shall encourage his client to avoid, end or settlethe controversy if it will admit of a fair settlement” In the case at bar, records do not show that counsel of both parties took pains to initiate steps geared toward arapprochment between their clients In the same manner, the labor arbiter has been less than faithful to the spirit of the Labor Code as he did not exertall efforts towards the amicable settlement of the labor dispute

Gloria Pajares vs. Judge Estrella Abad Santos, Municipal Court of Manila and Udharam Bazar Co. (30 SCRA 748, 1969)

Appellant Pajares was engaged in the business of buying and selling merchandise at her stall and appelle Udharam Bazar & Co. was one of her creditors from whom she used to buy on credit ready-made goods for resale.

Consequently, the company sued Pajares for the recovery of a certain sum of money for the goods delivered to her in good condition (the same having been sold), but did not make the full payment. Pajares, however, moved for a bill of particulars, alleging that without which she would not be able to meet the issues raised in the complaint. Such having been denied, appellant moved for a motion for reconsideration. The same was also denied and clogged the court for seven years.

Issue:

Whether or not there has been a faithful adherence (on the part of Pajares’ lawyer) to Rule 7, section 5 of the Rules of Court.

Held:

No, there was no faithful adhererence.

Clearly, there must be faithful adherence to Rule 7, section 5 of the Rules of Court which provides that “the signature of an attorney constitutes a certificate by him that he has read the pleading and that to the best of his knowledge, information and belief, there is good ground to support it”; and that it is not interposed for delay and expressly admonishes that “for a willful violation of this rule an attorney may be subjected to disciplinary action.”

Had appellant been but prudently advised by her counsel to confess judgment and ask from her creditor the reasonable time she needed to discharge her lawful indebtedness, the expenses of litigation that she has incurred would have been more than sufficient to pay off her just debt to appelle.