legal ethics for feb 15 2015

7/26/2019 Legal Ethics for Feb 15 2015

1/28


2/28

2

0. In -ecember, 0/13, respondent %tt. %(nar

staed at %mbassador 7otel "ith his "ife and

children; respondent never came to 8anila

e>cept in -ecember, 0/13; #pp. CA/,. tsn, Nov.

32, 0/11$;

3. 7e usuall slept "ith respondent evertime thelatter comes to 8anila #p. 0hs. ?%?, ?@?, ?@A0?

to ?@A:? pp. 90, 93, 99A9/, tsn, &une :,

0/19$;

>>> >>> >>>

On the other hand, respondent did not

bother to appear during the hearing. It is truethat he presented Edilberto !aban and

Oscar Salangsang "ho testified that

respondent usuall slept "ith them ever

time the latter came to 8anila, but their

testimon #sic$ is not much of help. None of

them mentioned during the hearing that the

staed and slept "ith respondent on

6ebruar 03 to 6ebruar 02, 0/1< at

%mbassador 7otel. ... ... ... 'esides,

Edilberto !aban testified that respondent

staed at %mbassador 7otel "ith his "ife

and children in -ecember, 0/13. The dates

in Duestion, ho"ever, are 6ebruar 03 to 02,

0/1


3/28

3

It is the dut of a la"er, "henever his moral character is put in

issue, to satisf this !ourt that he is a fit and proper person to

en+o continued membership in the 'ar. 7e cannot dispense

"ith nor do"ngrade the high and e>acting moral standards of

the la" profession #o v. !ando, 30 S!R% 2pected of him. ... In

the case of United States v. Tria,01 *hil.

pect

the State to perform it for him. If he fails to

meet the obligation "hich he o"es to

himself, "hen to meet it is the easiest of

eas things, he is hard indeed if he demand

and e>pect that same full and "ide

consideration "hich the State voluntaril

gives to those "ho b reasonable effort see)

to help themselves. This is particularl so

"hen he not onl declines to help himself but

activel conceals from the State the ver

means b "hich it ma assist him #Huing"a

S!R% 2acts from its members

the highest standard of moralit #Huing"a v. *uno, supra$.

Under Section 31, Rule 0

an infle>ible standard as to "hat is grosslimmoral conduct or to specif the moral

delinDuenc and obliDuit "hich render a

la"er un"orth of continuing as a member

of the bar. The rule implies that "hat appears

to be unconventional behavior to the

straightAlaced ma not be the immoral

conduct that "arrants disbarment.

Immoral conduct has been defined as that

"hich is "illful, flagrant, or shameless, and

"hich sho"s a moral indifference to the

opinion of the good and respectable

members of the communit #1 !.&.S. /9/$.

here an unmarried female d"arf

possessing the intellect of a child became

pregnant b reason of intimac "ith a

married la"er "ho "as the father of si>

children, disbarment of the attorne on the

ground of immoral conduct "as +ustified #In

re 7ic)s 3= *ac. 3nd C/:$.

In the present case, it "as highl immoral of respondent, a

married man "ith children, to have ta)en advantage of his

position as chairman of the college of medicine in as)ing

complainant, a student in said college, to go "ith him to 8anila

"here he had carnal )no"ledge of her under the threat that

she "ould flun) in all her sub+ects in case she refused.

7ERE6ORE, respondent &ose '. %(nar is hereb

-IS'%RRE- and his name is ordered stric)en off from the Roll

of %ttornes.


4/28

4

SO OR-ERE-.

SEOND DI#ISION

ROS%LIE -%LLONA%LI!IN%O v. %TT. 5IRIL R.

!%STRO, %.!. No. :planation that he "ill enter his appearance inthe case "hen its records "ere alread transmitted to the
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/ac_6396.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/ac_6396.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/ac_6396.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/ac_6396.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/ac_6396.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/ac_6396.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/ac_6396.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/ac_6396.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/ac_6396.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/ac_6396.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/ac_6396.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/ac_6396.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/ac_6396.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/ac_6396.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/ac_6396.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/ac_6396.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/ac_6396.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/ac_6396.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/ac_6396.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/ac_6396.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/ac_6396.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/ac_6396.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/ac_6396.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/ac_6396.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/ac_6396.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/ac_6396.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/ac_6396.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/ac_6396.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/ac_6396.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/ac_6396.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/ac_6396.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/ac_6396.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/ac_6396.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/ac_6396.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/ac_6396.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/ac_6396.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/ac_6396.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/ac_6396.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/ac_6396.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/ac_6396.htm#_ftn1


5/28

5

8!T! is unacceptable. Not being the counsel of record andthere being no authori(ation from either the parties torepresent them, respondent had no right to impose his "ill onthe cler) of court.

Rule C.=3 of the !ode of *rofessional Responsibilit

states4

Rule C.=3% la"er shall not, directl

or indirectl, encroach upon the professionalemploment of another la"er; ho"ever, it isthe right of an la"er, "ithout fear or favor,to give proper advice and assistance tothose see)ing relief against unfaithful orneglectful counsel.

Through his acts of constantl chec)ing thetransmittal of the records of !ivil !ase No. 1C2, respondentdeliberatel encroached upon the legal functions of the counselof record of that case. It does not matter "hether he did so ingood faith.

8oreover, in the course of his Duestionable activities

relating to !ivil !ase No. 1C2, respondent acted rudelto"ards an officer of the court. 7e raised his voice at the cler)of court and uttered at her the most vulgar of invectives. Notonl "as it illAmannered but also unbecoming considering thathe did all these to a "oman and in front of her subordinates.

%s held inAlcantara v. Att!. *efianco,F0:Grespondent

ought to have reali(ed that this sort of public behavior can onlbring do"n the legal profession in the public estimation anderode public respect for it.F01GThese acts violate Rule 1.=pelled students from

the %8% !omputer !ollege #?%8%!!?$, in an action for the

Issuance of a rit of *reliminar 8andator In+unction and for

-amages, doc)eted !ivil !ase No. HA/1A


6/28

6

compromise agreements #?ReA%dmission %greements?$ "ith

four of his clients in the aforementioned civil case "hich, in

effect, reDuired them to "aive all )inds of claims the might

have had against %8%!!, the principal defendant, and to

terminate all civil, criminal and administrative proceedings filed

against it. !omplainant averred that such an act of

respondents "as unbecoming of an member of the legalprofession "arranting either disbarment or suspension from

the practice of la".

In his comment, %ttorne *angulaan ac)no"ledged that not

one of his coArespondents had ta)en part in the negotiation,

discussion, formulation, or e>ecution of the various ReA

%dmission %greements complained of and "ere, in fact, no

longer connected at the time "ith the *angulaan and

%ssociates La" Offices. The ReA%dmission %greements, he

claimed, had nothing to do "ith the dismissal of !ivil !ase HA

/1Aecuted b

andor in behalf of some of the e>pelled students, to "it4 Letter

of %polog, dated 31 8a 0//1, of Neil &ason Salcedo,

assisted b his mother, and ReA%dmission %greement of 33

&une 0//1 "ith the %8%!! *resident; letter of apolog, dated

plicitl contained the follo"ing stipulation; vi(4

?0.......%mong the nine #/$ signatories to the

complaint, four #2$ of "hom assisted b their

parentsguardian alread e>ecuted a ReA

%dmission %greement "ith %8%!!

*resident, %8%'LE R. %UILU 5ac)no"ledging guilt for violating the %8%

!O8*UTER !OLLEE 8%NU%L 6OR

-IS!I*LIN%R %!TIONS and agreed

among others to terminate all civil, criminal

and administrative proceedings "hich the

ma have against the %8%!! arising from

their previous dismissal. Esm

?> > >......> > >......> > >

?


7/28

7

+EREORE, respondent %tt. Luis 8einrado !. *angulaan

is ordered SUS*EN-E- from the practice of la" for a period

of T7REE # #01:$facult members of the Universit of the East complainantsagainst herein complainant %tt. Ireneo L. Torres, et al.,F


8/28

8

ith respect to the attornes fees case, respondentclaims that %tt. Torres did not in his %ns"er confront the issuesthereof but instead moc)FedG his "ife and fabricatFedG anddistortFedG realitiesF0:Gb including malicious, libelous andimpertinent statements and accusations against his "ife "hiche>asperated him.F01G% portion of %tt. Torres %ns"er in theattornes fees case reads4

> > > in her incumbenc as *resident of theUE6% for 03 ears #0/C1A0///$ she got onlabout *3.==hr !'% increase "hich too)effect onl FinG 0//2, "ith no other substantialimprovements of the teachers benefits, andet she spent for more than half a millionnegotiation e>penses from the UE6%s funds.7er 0//2A0/// !'% "as onl a carbon copof her old 0/C/A0//2 !'% "ith no substantialimprovements, "ith uncertain amount of here>penses, because she removedconcealedall the financial records of the UE6% during

her term. . . I and the other la"ersteachersdenounced her unla"ful deduction of 0=attornes fees from the small bac)"agesreceived b the teachers on %pril 3C, 0//pensesshe obtained onl *3Aincrease inunion members salar, etc. because of the

pendenc of the damage suit against him onthis score. 7e easil forgets the sad chapterof his life as a practitioner "hen he lost out to*rof. &avier in the petition for audit #!ase No.N!RAO-A8A/2=0A==2$ "hich he filed to gainpogi points prior to the UE6% election in 0//2.F3=G

> > >

To repeat, if respondent %tt. Torres has ancommon sense at all, he should stop ma)ingirrelevant, libelous and impertinent allegationsin his pleadings. This means changing hisstandard tactic of s)irting the main issues b

in+ecting a "eb or a ma(e of sham,immaterial, impertinent or scandalousmatters.F30G#Underscoring supplied$

Respondent adds that he merel "anted to bring to the'LRs attention that %tt. Torres had the habit of hurling baselessaccusations against his "ife to embarrass her, including one forun+ust ve>ation and another for collection and damages both of"hich "ere dismissed after trial on the merits, thus prompting

him to state that these dismissed cases indubitabl indicate %tt.Torres pattern of mental dishonest.F33G

Respondent further claims that in his %ns"er in the

same attornes fees case, %tt. Torres accused his client, *rof.8aguigad, of forging the signature of a notar public and ofdeliberatel usFingG a falsifiede>pired !ommunit Ta> !ertificate

in order to +ustif the dismissal of the case against him #%tt.Torres$;F3


9/28

9

falsification of public document reasoning outthat the made untruthful statements in thenarration of facts in the basic petition.

Respondent Torres is a member of

the *hilippine 'ar. 'ut "hat la" boo)s is hereadingJ

7e should )no" or ought to )no"

that the allegations in petitioners pleading areabsolutel privileged because the saidallegations or statements are relevant to theissues.F3:G#Underscoring supplied$

The Investigating !ommissioner of the Integrated 'ar of the*hilippines #I'*$ found respondent guilt of violating the !odeof *rofessional Responsibilit for using inappropriate andoffensive remar)s in his pleadings.The pertinent portions of the Investigating !ommissionersReport and Recommendation read4

Respondent admits that he "as

angr "hen he "rote the 8anifestationandalleges that !omplainant implicated his "ifein a burglar. 8oreover, Respondent allegesthat !omplainant has been engaged inintimidating and harassing his "ife.

It appears that herein !omplainant and hereinRespondents "ife have had a series ofcharges and counterAcharges filed againsteach other. 'oth parties being protagonists inthe intramurals "ithin the Universit of theEast 6acult %ssociation #UE6%$. 7erein!omplainant is the *resident of the UE6%"hereas Respondents "ife "as the former*resident of UE6%. Nevertheless, "e shalltreat this matter of charges and counterAcharges filed, "hich involved the UE6%, ase>traneous, peripheral, if not outrightirrelevant to the issue at hand.

> > >!learl, FrGespondents primordial

reason for the offensive remar) stated in hispleadings "as his emotional reaction in vie"of the fact that herein !omplainant "as in alegal dispute "ith his "ife. This e>cusecannot be sustained. Indeed, the remar)s

Duoted above are offensive and inappropriate.That the Respondent is representing his "ifeis not at all an e>cuse.F31G#Underscoringsupplied$

%ccordingl, the Investigating !ommissioner recommended thatrespondent be reprimanded.

The 'oard of overnors of the Integrated 'ar of the*hilippines #I'*$, b ResolutionF3CGof October 1, 3==2, adoptedand approved the Report and Recommendation of theInvestigating !ommissioner.

The Report of the I'* faulting respondent is "ellA

ta)en but not its recommendation to reprimand him.It is "ell entrenched in *hilippine +urisprudence that forreasons of public polic, utterances made in the course of

+udicial proceedings, including all )inds of pleadings, petitionsand motions, are absolutel privileged so long as theare pertinent and relevant to the sub+ect inDuir, ho"ever falseor malicious the ma be.F3/G

The reDuirements of materialit and relevanc are imposed sothat the protection given to individuals in the interest of anefficient administration of +ustice ma not be abused as a cloa)from beneath "hich private malice ma be gratified. F


10/28

10

point out that %tt. Torres erred in advancing such anargument, but personall attac)ed %tt. Torres mental fitnessb stating that the undersigned thin)s that even a dimA"ittedfirstAear la" student "ould not oblige "ith such a ver seriouscharge, and FrGespondent Torres is a member of the bar FbGut"hat la" boo)s is he reading.

In )eeping "ith the dignit of the legal profession, ala"ers language must be dignified and choice of language isimportant in the preparation of pleadings.Fpressions "hich are emphatic but respectful, convincing butnot derogator, illuminating but not offensive.F20G

%s to the reference b respondent to the unfortunate andcontemptible practice of notaries public basis of the last causeof action, "hile it ma detract from the dignit that should

characteri(e the legal profession and the solemnit of anotarial document, respondent, "ho +ustifies the same aslegitimate defense of his client "ho "as being accused b %tt.Torres of forger, ma, given the relevance of the statement tothe sub+ect matter of the pleading, be given the benefit of thedoubt.

Respecting the verified complaint %nne> E&A%F23Gto the!omment of respondent filed b his "ife, *rof. Eleonor R.&avier, against complainant %tt. Torres, the same cannot beconsolidated "ith the present administrative case since theparties and causes of action of such complaint are completeldifferent from those of the present complaint.+EREORE, for emploing offensive and improper languagein his pleadings, respondent %tt. &ose !. &avier ishereb S!SPENDED from the practice of la" for One #0$

8onth, effective upon receipt of this -ecision, and isSTERNLYARNED that an future infraction of a similar nature shall bedealt "ith more severel.Let copies of this -ecision be furnished the Office of the 'ar!onfidant, the Integrated 'ar of the *hilippines, and all courtsin the countr for their information and guidance. SOOR-ERE-.

IRST DI#ISION

PEDRO L. LINSANAN,%.!. No. ::13om75'-'-6,

*resent4

ATTY. NIOMEDES TOLENTINO,Re7o-e-6.*romulgated4

September2,3==/

R E S O L ! T I O NORONA, J."This is a complaint for disbarmentF0Gfiled b *edro Linsanganof the Linsangan Linsangan B Linsangan La" Office against

%tt. Nicomedes Tolentino for solicitation of clients andencroachment of professional services.!omplainant allegedthat respondent, "ith the help of paralegal 6e 8arie Labiano,convinced his clientsF3Gto transfer legal representation.Respondent promised them financial assistanceFpeditious collection on their claims. F2GTo induce them to hirehis services, he persistentl called them and sent them te>tmessages.To support his allegations, complainant presented the s"ornaffidavitF9Gof &ames regorio attesting that Labiano tried toprevail upon him to sever his la"erAclient relations "ithcomplainant and utili(e respondents services instead, ine>change for a loan of *9=,===. !omplainant also attachedrespondents calling card4F:G

6ront

NI!O8E-ES TOLENTINO

L% O666I!E!ONSULT%N! B 8%RITI8E SER5I!ES

W/ FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE

6e 8arie L. Labiano*aralegal

0st 8I&I 8ansion, 3nd 6lr. Rm. 8A=0 Tel4 4 #:


11/28

11

respondent be reprimanded "ith a stern "arning that anrepetition "ould merit a heavier penalt.e adopt the findings of the I'* on the unethical conduct ofrespondent but "e modif the recommended penalt.The complaint before us is rooted on the alleged intrusion brespondent into complainants professional practice in violationof Rule C.=3 of the !*R. %nd the means emploed b

respondent in furtherance of the said misconduct themselvesconstituted distinct violations of ethical rules.!anons of the !*R are rules of conduct all la"ers mustadhere to, including the manner b "hich a la"ers servicesare to be made )no"n. Thus, !anon < of the !*R provides4

!%NON < A % L%ER IN 8%@IN @NON7IS LE%L SER5I!ES S7%LL USE ONLTRUE, 7ONEST, 6%IR, -INI6IE- %N-O'&E!TI5E IN6OR8%TION ORST%TE8ENT O6 6%!TS.

Time and time again, la"ers are reminded that the practice ofla" is a profession and not a business; la"ers should notadvertise their talents as merchants advertise their "ares. F0ed bLabiano and referred to respondents office$ to prove thatrespondent indeed solicited legal business as "ell as profitedfrom referrals suits.

%lthough respondent initiall denied )no"ing Labianoin his ans"er, he later admitted it during the mandatorhearing.

Through Labianos actions, respondents la" practice

"as benefited. 7apless seamen "ere enticed to transferrepresentation on the strength of Labianos "ord that

respondent could produce a more favorable result.'ased on the foregoing, respondent clearl solicitedemploment violating Rule 3.=penses in a legal matter he ishandling for the client.The rule is that a la"er shall not lend mone to his

client. The onl e>ception is, "hen in the interest of +ustice, hehas to advance necessar e>penses #such as filing fees,stenographers fees for transcript of stenographic notes, cashbond or premium for suret bond, etc.$ for a matter that he ishandling for the client.

The rule is intended to safeguard the la"ersindependence of mind so that the free e>ercise of his +udgmentma not be adversel affected.F33GIt see)s to ensure hisundivided attention to the case he is handling as "ell as hisentire devotion and fidelit to the clients cause. If the la"erlends mone to the client in connection "ith the clients case,the la"er in effect acDuires an interest in the sub+ect matter ofthe case or an additional sta)e in its outcome.F3ercise of the !ourtsdisciplinar po"ers. 5iolation of antiAsolicitation statutes"arrants serious sanctions for initiating contact "ith aprospective client for the purpose of obtaining emploment.F3:GThus, in this +urisdiction, "e adhere to the rule to protect thepublic from the 8achiavellian machinations of unscrupulousla"ers and to uphold the nobilit of the legal profession.

!onsidering the mriad infractions of respondent#including violation of the prohibition on lending mone toclients$, the sanction recommended b the I'*, a merereprimand, is a "imp slap on the "rist. The proposed penaltis grossl incommensurate to its findings.

% final "ord regarding the calling card presented in evidence

b petitioner. % la"ers best advertisement is a "ellAmeritedreputation for professional capacit and fidelit to trust basedon his character and conduct.F31G6or this reason, la"ers areonl allo"ed to announce their services b publication inreputable la" lists or use of simple professional cards.*rofessional calling cards ma onl contain the follo"ingdetails4

#a$ la"ers name;#b$ name of the la" firm "ith "hich he isconnected;#c$ address;#d$ telephone number and#e$ special branch of la" practiced.F3CG

Labianos calling card contained the phrase 6)0-'-('5 '6'-(e. The phrase "as clearl used to enticeclients #"ho alread had representation$ to change counsels"ith a promise of loans to finance their legal actions. 8one"as dangled to lure clients a"a from their original la"ers,thereb ta)ing advantage of their financial distress andemotional vulnerabilit. This crass commercialism degradedthe integrit of the bar and deserved no place in the legalprofession. 7o"ever, in the absence of substantial evidence to
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/6672.htm#_ftn28


12/28

12

prove his culpabilit, the !ourt is not prepared to rule thatrespondent "as personall and directl responsible for theprinting and distribution of Labianos calling cards.

+EREORE, respondent %tt. Nicomedes Tolentino forviolating Rules 0.=


13/28

13

2. %tt. 'arandon presented noevidence in support of his allegations that

%tt. 6errer "as drun) on -ecember 0/,3=== and that he degraded the la"profession. The latter had received various

citations that spea) "ell of his character.

9. The cases of libel and gravethreats that %tt. 'arandon filed against

%tt. 6errer "ere still pending. Their merefiling did not ma)e the latter guilt of thecharges. %tt. 'arandon "as forum shopping"hen he filed this disbarment case since itreferred to the same libel and grave threatssub+ect of the criminal cases.

In his repl affidavit,F3G

%tt. 'arandon brought up a si>th groundfor disbarment. 7e alleged that on -ecember 3/, 3=== atabout 04i,it figured in a collision "ith a triccle, resulting in seriousin+uries to the triccles passengers.F


14/28

14

8oreover, %tt. 6errer could have aired his charge offalsification in a proper forum and "ithout using offensive andabusive language against a fello" la"er. To Duote portions of"hat he said in his repl "ith motion to dismiss4

1. T)'6 6)e '-er 0r'press his indignation.

!ontrar to %tt. 6errers allegation, the !ourt finds that he hasbeen accorded due process. The essence of due process is tobe found in the reasonable opportunit to be heard and submitan evidence one ma have in support of ones defense. F0CGSolong as the parties are given the opportunit to e>plain theirside, the reDuirements of due process are satisfactoril

complied "ith.F0/G7ere, the I'* Investigating !ommissionergave %tt. 6errer all the opportunities to file countlesspleadings and refute all the allegations of %tt. 'arandon.

%ll la"ers should ta)e heed that the are licensed officers ofthe courts "ho are mandated to maintain the dignit of thelegal profession, hence the must conduct themselveshonorabl and fairl.F3=G%tt. 6errers displa of improperattitude, arrogance, misbehavior, and misconduct in theperformance of his duties both as a la"er and officer of thecourt, before the public and the court, "as a patenttransgression of the ver ethics that la"ers are s"orn touphold.

AORDINLY, the !ourt AIRMSthe 8a 33, 3==CResolution of the I'* 'oard of overnors in !'- !ase =0AC=/and ORDERSthe suspension of %tt. Ed"in . 6errer, Sr. fromthe practice of la" for one ear effective upon his receipt of this-ecision.

Let a cop of this -ecision be entered in%tt. 6errers personal record as an attorne "ith the Office ofthe 'ar !onfidant and a cop of the same be served to the I'*and to the Office of the !ourt %dministrator for circulation to all

the courts in the land.

SO ORDERED.

ANA MARIE AMBALIZA,

Am. 'e No. ;29%

5ersus ATTY. ANA L!Z B. RISTALTENORIO,Respondent. &ul 02, 3==2

RESOL!TION

DA#IDE, JR., C.J.4

In a verified complaint for disbarment filed "ith the!ommittee on 'ar -iscipline of the Integrated 'ar of the*hilippines #I'*$ on


15/28

15

On deceit, the complainant alleged that therespondent has been falsel representing herself to be marriedto 6elicisimo R. Tenorio, &r., "ho has a prior and subsistingmarriage "ith another "oman. 7o"ever, through spuriousmeans, the respondent and 6elicisimo R. Tenorio, &r., "ere

able to obtain a false marriage contract,F0G

"hich states thatthe "ere married on 0= 6ebruar 0/C= in8anila. !ertifications from the !ivil Registr of 8anila F3Gand theNational Statistics Office #NSO$Fists bet"een them. The false date and place ofmarriage bet"een the t"o are stated in the birth certificates oftheir t"o children, -onnabel Tenorio F2Gand 6elicisimo TenorioIII.F9G'ut in the birth certificates of their t"o other children,Oliver TenorioF:Gand &ohn !edric Tenorio, F1Ganother date andplace of marriage are indicated, namel, 03 6ebruar 0/C= in8alabala, 'u)idnon.

%s to grossl immoral conduct, the complainant

alleged that the respondent caused the dissemination to thepublic of a libelous affidavit derogator to 8a)ati !it !ouncilor-ivina %lora &acome. The respondent "ould often openl andsarcasticall declare to the complainant and her coAemploeesthe alleged immoralit of !ouncilor &acome.

On malpractice or other gross misconduct in office,the complainant alleged that the respondent #0$ cooperated inthe illegal practice of la" b her husband, "ho is not a memberof the *hilippine 'ar; #3$ converted her clients mone to hero"n use and benefit, "hich led to the filing of an estafa caseagainst her; and #


16/28

16

misunderstanding and misappreciation of facts. Thus, she is nolonger interested in pursuing the case. This motion "as notacted upon b the I'*.

In her Report and Recommendation dated


17/28

17

%t the hearing, the respondent admitted that theletterhead of Cristal-Tenorio aw )fficelisted 6elicisimo R.Tenorio, &r., erardo %. *anghulan, and 8aricris -. 'attung assenior partners. She admitted that the first t"o are not la"ersbut paralegals. The are listed in the letterhead of her la"office as senior partners because the have investments in herla" office.F3=GThat is a blatant misrepresentation.

The Sagip !ommunication Radio roup identificationcard is another proof that the respondent assisted 6elicisimoR. Tenorio, &r., in misrepresenting to the public that he is ala"er. Notabl, the identification card stating that he is %tt.6elicisimo Tenorio, &r., bears the signature of the respondentas !hairperson of the roup.

The la"ers dut to prevent, or at the ver least not toassist in, the unauthori(ed practice of la" is founded on publicinterest and polic. *ublic polic reDuires that the practice of

la" be limited to those individuals found dul Dualified ineducation and character. The permissive right conferred on thela"er is an individual and limited privilege sub+ect to"ithdra"al if he fails to maintain proper standards of moral andprofessional conduct. The purpose is to protect the public, thecourt, the client, and the bar from the incompetence ordishonest of those unlicensed to practice la" and not sub+ectto the disciplinar control of the !ourt. It devolves upon ala"er to see that this purpose is attained. Thus, the canonsand ethics of the profession en+oin him not to permit hisprofessional services or his name to be used in aid of, or toma)e possible the unauthori(ed practice of la" b, an agenc,personal or corporate. %nd, the la" ma)es it a misbehavior onhis part, sub+ect to disciplinar action, to aid a laman in theunauthori(ed practice of la".F30G

+EREORE, for culpable violation of !anon / andRule /.=0 of the !ode of *rofessional Responsibilit,respondent %tt. %na Lu( '. !ristalATenorio ishereb S!SPENDED from the practice of la" for a period ofsi> #:$ months effective immediatel, "ith a "arning that arepetition of the same or similar act in the future "ill be dealt"ith more severel.

Let copies of this Resolution be attached torespondent !ristalATenorios record as attorne in this !ourt

and furnished to the I'* and the Office of the !ourt%dministrator for circulation to all courts.

SO ORDERED.

EN '%N!$B. M. No. 1%3;. J


18/28

18

ob+ected to the inclusion of certain votes in the canvassing. 7e

e>plains, ho"ever, that he did not sign the pleading as a

la"er or represented himself as an attorne in the pleading.

On his emploment as secretar of the Sangguniang

'aan, respondent claims that he submitted his resignation on

00 8a 3==0 "hich "as allegedl accepted on the same date.7e submitted a cop of the !ertification of Receipt of

Revocable Resignation dated 3C 8a 3==0 signed b 5iceA

8aor Napoleon Relo>. Respondent further claims that the

complaint is politicall motivated considering that complainant

is the daughter of Silvestre %guirre, the losing candidate for

maor of 8andaon, 8asbate. Respondent pras that the

complaint be dismissed for lac) of merit and that he be allo"ed

to sign the Roll of %ttornes.

On 33 &une 3==0, complainant filed her Repl to

respondents !omment and refuted the claim of respondent

that his appearance before the 8'E! "as onl to e>tend

specific assistance to 'unan. !omplainant alleges that on 0/

8a 3==0 Emil EstiponaA7ao #EstiponaA7ao$ filed a petition

for proclamation as the "inning candidate for maor.

Respondent signed as counsel for EstiponaA7ao in this

petition. hen respondent appeared as counsel before the

8'E!, complainant Duestioned his appearance on t"o

grounds4 #0$ respondent had not ta)en his oath as a la"er;

and #3$ he "as an emploee of the government.

Respondent filed a +epl! 4+e5 +epl! to +espondents

Comment6reiterating his claim that the instant administrative

case is motivated mainl b political vendetta.

On 01 &ul 3==0, the !ourt referred the case to the Office

of the 'ar !onfidant #O'!$ for evaluation, report and

recommendation.

O"Cs #eport and #ecommendation

The O'! found that respondent indeed appeared before

the 8'E! as counsel for 'unan in the 8a 3==0 elections.

The minutes of the 8'E! proceedings sho" that respondent

activel participated in the proceedings. The O'! li)e"ise

found that respondent appeared in the 8'E! proceedings

even before he too) the la"ers oath on 33 8a 3==0. The

O'! believes that respondents misconduct casts a serious

doubt on his moral fitness to be a member of the 'ar. The O'!

also believes that respondents unauthori(ed practice of la" is

a ground to den his admission to the practice of la". The O'!

therefore recommends that respondent be denied admission to

the *hilippine 'ar.

On the other charges, O'! stated that complainant failed

to cite a la" "hich respondent allegedl violated "hen he

appeared as counsel for 'unan "hile he "as a government

emploee. Respondent resigned as secretar and hisresignation "as accepted. Li)e"ise, respondent "as

authori(ed b 'unan to represent him before the 8'E!.

T!e Co$rts #$lin%

e agree "ith the findings and conclusions of the O'!

that respondent engaged in the unauthori(ed practice of la"

and thus does not deserve admission to the *hilippine 'ar.

Respondent too) his oath as la"er on 33 8a 3==0.

7o"ever, the records sho" that respondent appeared as

counsel for 'unan prior to 33 8a 3==0, before respondenttoo) the la"ers oath. In the pleading entitled Formal

)b2ection to t$e /nclusion in t$e Canvassing of 3otes in Some

*recincts for t$e )ffice of 3ice-Ma!ordated 0/ 8a 3==0,

respondent signed as co$nsel &or 'eor%e "$nan.In the first

paragraph of the same pleading respondent stated that he "as

the ()*ndersi%ned Co$nsel &or, and in +e!al& o& ice

a-oralt- Candidate, 'EO#'E T. ")NAN. 'unan himself

"rote the 8'E! on 02 8a 3==0 that he had authori(ed %tt.

Ed"in L. Rana as his counsel to represent him before the

8'E! and similar bodies.

On 02 8a 3==0, maoralt candidate Emil EstiponaA

7ao also retained respondent as her counsel. On the same

date, 02 8a 3==0, Erl -. 7ao informed the 8'E! that %tt.

Ed"in L. Rana has been authori(ed b RE6OR8% L8A**! as

the legal counsel of the part and the candidate of the said

part. Respondent himself "rote the 8'E! on 02 8a 3==0

that he "as entering his appearance as co$nsel &or

a-oralt- Candidate Emil- Estiponaao and &or t!e

#EFO#A L00C. On 0/ 8a 3==0, respondent signed as

counsel for EstiponaA7ao in the petition filed before the 8'E!

praing for the proclamation of EstiponaA7ao as the "inning

candidate for maor of 8andaon, 8asbate.

%ll these happened even before respondent too) thela"ers oath. !learl, respondent engaged in the practice of

la" "ithout being a member of the *hilippine 'ar.

In *hilippine La"ers %ssociation v. %grava, F0Gthe !ourt

elucidated that4

Thepractice of lawis not limited to the conduct of cases

or litigationin court; it embraces the preparation of pleadings

and other papers incident to actions and special proceedings,

the management of such actions and proceedings on behalf of

clients before +udges and courts, and in addition,

conveancing. In general, all advice to clients, and all action

ta)en for them in matters connected wit$ t$e law,incorporationservices, assessment and condemnation services

contemplating an appearance before a +udicial bod, the

foreclosure of a mortgage, enforcement of a creditors claim in

ban)ruptc and insolvenc proceedings, and conducting

proceedings in attachment, and in matters of estate and

guardianship have been held to constitute la" practice, as do

the preparation and drafting of legal instruments, w$ere t$e

wor" done involves t$e determination b! t$e trained legal mind

of t$e legal effect of facts and conditions. #9 %m. &ur. p. 3:3,

3: > >

In Ca-etano v. onsod,F3Gthe !ourt held that practice of

la" means an activit, in or out of court, "hich reDuires the

application of la", legal procedure, )no"ledge, training and

e>perience. To engage in the practice of la" is to perform acts

"hich are usuall performed b members of the legal

profession. enerall, to practice la" is to render an )ind of

service "hich reDuires the use of legal )no"ledge or s)ill.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/bm_1036.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/bm_1036.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/bm_1036.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/bm_1036.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/bm_1036.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/bm_1036.htm#_ftn2


19/28

19

5eril, respondent "as engaged in the practice of la"

"hen he appeared in the proceedings before the 8'E! and

filed various pleadings, "ithout license to do so. Evidence

clearl supports the charge of unauthori(ed practice of la".

Respondent called himself counsel )no"ing full "ell that he

"as not a member of the 'ar. 7aving held himself out as

counsel )no"ing that he had no authorit to practice la",respondent has sho"n moral unfitness to be a member of the

*hilippine 'ar.Fercise of this privilege presupposes

possession of integrit, legal )no"ledge, educational

attainment, and even public trustF2Gsince a la"er is an officer

of the court. % bar candidate does not acDuire the right to

practice la" simpl b passing the bar e>aminations. The

practice of la" is a privilege that can be "ithheld even from

one "ho has passed the bar e>aminations, if the personsee)ing admission had practiced la" "ithout a license. F9G

The regulation of the practice of la" is unDuestionabl

strict. In "eltran, Jr. v. A+ad,F:Ga candidate passed the bar

e>aminations but had not ta)en his oath and signed the Roll of

%ttornes. 7e "as held in contempt of court for practicing la"

even before his admission to the 'ar. Under Section < #e$ of

Rule 10 of the Rules of !ourt, a person "ho engages in the

unauthori(ed practice of la" is liable for indirect contempt of

court.F1G

True, respondent here passed the 3=== 'arE>aminations and too) the la"ers oath. 7o"ever, it is the

signing in the Roll of %ttornes that finall ma)es one a fullA

fledged la"er. The fact that respondent passed the bar

e>aminations is immaterial. *assing the bar is not the onl

Dualification to become an attorneAatAla".FCGRespondent

should )no" that t"o essential reDuisites for becoming a

la"er still had to be performed, namel4 his la"ers oath to be

administered b this !ourt and his signature in the Roll of

%ttornes.F/G

On the charge of violation of la", complainant contends

that the la" does not allo" respondent to act as counsel for a

private client in an court or administrative bod sincerespondent is the secretar of the Sangguniang 'aan.

Respondent tendered his resignation as secretar of the

Sangguniang 'aan prior to the acts complained of as

constituting unauthori(ed practice of la". In his letter dated 00

8a 3==0 addressed to Napoleon Relo>, viceA maor and

presiding officer of the Sangguniang 'aan, respondent stated

that he "as resigning effective upon our acceptance.F0=G5iceA

8aor Relo> accepted respondents resignation effective 00

8a 3==0.F00GThus, the evidence does not support the charge

that respondent acted as counsel for a client "hile serving as

secretar of the Sangguniang 'aan.

On the charge of grave misconduct and

misrepresentation, evidence sho"s that 'unan indeed

authori(ed respondent to represent him as his counsel before

the 8'E! and similar bodies. hile there "as no

misrepresentation, respondent nonetheless had no authorit to

practice la".

+EREORE, respondent Ed"in L. Rana is -ENIE-

admission to the *hilippine 'ar.

SO ORDERED.

.R. No. L234;& M'r() 2&, 19;8

AMALAMATED LABORERSC ASSOIATION '-or

ELISBERTO M. JA#IER 0or )me50 '- ' e-er'5

Pree-6,

ATTY. JOSE!R. ARBONELL, ET AL.,petitioners,

vs.

+ON. O!RT O IND!STRIAL RELATIONS AND ATTY.

LEONARDO . ERNANDEZ,respondents.

Jose Ur. Carbonell for and in $is own be$alf as petitioner.

eonardo C. Fernande7 for and in $is own be$alf as

respondent.

SAN+EZ, J.1

!ontrovers over attornes fees for legal services

rendered in !IR !ase No. 1=AUL*A!ebu.

The bac)ground facts are as follo"s4

On 8a


20/28

20

reinstatements, minus "hat the have earned else"here in the

meantime? and that the eight seasonal "or)ers ?be readmitted

to their positions as seasonal "or)ers of respondent compan

#'iscom$, "ith bac) "ages as seasonal "or)ers from the time

the "ere not rehired at the start of the 0/99A0/9: milling

season on October 0, 0/99 up to the time the are actuall

reinstated, less the amount earned else"here during theperiod of their laAoff.?

Respondents 'iscom, &alandoni and uillen appealed

direct to this !ourt.< On 8arch 3C, 0/:cessive, unfair and illegal. This motion "as denied on %pril

3C, 0/:2 b !IR en banc.

On &une /, 0/:2, a motion for reconsideration of the

%pril 3C, 0/:2 resolution "as filed b %tt. !arbonell. This "as

amplified b a similar motion filed on &une 00, 0/:2.

On &une 39, 0/:2, t"o things happened4 6irst. !IR en

bancdenied the motion of &une 00, 0/:2. Second. On %tt.

6ernande( motion, &udge 8artine( authori(ed the !ashier of

the court to disburse to 6ernande( the amount of *0/,/


21/28

21

*etitioners herein, %tt. !arbonell, %malgamated

Laborers %ssociation, and the ten emploees, appealed from

the &une 39, 0/:2 resolution of !IR, direct to this !ourt.

0. *etitioners press upon this !ourt the vie" that !IR is

bereft of authorit to ad+udicate contractual disputes over

attornes fees. Their reasons4 #0$ a dispute arising fromcontracts for attornes fees is not a labor dispute and is not

one among the cases ruled to be "ithin !IRs authorit; and #3$

to consider such a dispute to be a mere incident to a case over

"hich !IR ma validl assume +urisdiction is to disregard the

special and limited nature of said courts +urisdiction.

These arguments are devoid of merit.

The present controvers over attornes fees is but an

epilogue or a tailAend feature of the main case, !IR No. 1=A

UL*A!ebu, "hich undoubtedl is "ithin !IRs +urisdiction. %nd,

it has been held that ?once the !ourt of Industrial Relations has

acDuired +urisdiction over a case under the la" of its creation, it

retains that +urisdiction until the case is completel

decided, including all t$e incidents related

t$ereto.?9 E>pressive of the rule on this point is this P

2. It is "ell settled that4

% grant of +urisdiction implies the

necessar and usual incidental po"ers

essential to effectuate it, and ever regularl

constituted court has po"er to do all things

reasonabl necessar for the administration

of +ustice "ithin the scope of its +urisdiction,and for the enforcement of its +udgments and

mandates, even t$oug$ t$e court ma! t$us

be called upon to decide matters w$ic$

would not be wit$in its cogni7ance as

original causes of action.

hile a court ma be e>pressl

granted the incidental po"ers necessar to

effectuate its +urisdiction, a grant of

+urisdiction, in the absence of prohibitive

legislation, implies the necessar and usual

incidental po"ers essential to effectuate it #In

re Stingers Estate, 3=0 *. :/isting la"s and constitutional provisions,

ever regularl constituted court has po"er

to do all things that are reasonabl

necessar for the administration of +ustice

"ithin the scope of its +urisdiction, and for the

enforcement of its +udgments and

mandates. So demands, matters, or

8uestions ancillar! or incidental to, or

growing out of, t$e main action, and coming

wit$in t$e above principles, ma! be ta"en

cogni7ance of b! t$e court and determined,

since suc$ 2urisdiction is in aid of its aut$orit!

over t$e principal matter, even t$oug$ t$e

Court ma! t$us be, called on to consider and

decide matters, w$ic$ as original causes of

action, would not be wit$in its

cogni7ance#'artholome" vs. Shipe, 390

S.. 0= the attornes fees is made before the

court "hich renders the +udgment. C%nd, it has been observed

that ?FaGn approved procedure, "here a charging lien has

attached to a +udgment or "here mone has been paid into

court, is for the attorne to file an intervening petition and have

the amount and e>tent of his lien +udiciall

determined.? /%ppropriatel to be recalled at this point, is the

recent ruling in Martine7 vs. Union de Ma8uinistas, 0/:1%

*hild. 023, 022, &anuar


22/28

22

noted, too, that petitioner %tt. !arbonell did not file an notice

of %ttornes Lien.

> > > > > > > >

Since then this !ourt has invariabl fi>edcounsel fees on a 8uantum meruit basis "henever the

fees stipulated appear e>cessive, unconscionable, or

unreasonable, because a la"er is primaril a court

officer charged "ith the dut of assisting the court in

administering impartial +ustice bet"een the parties,

and hence, the fees should be sub+ect to +udicial

control. Nor should it be ignored that sound public

polic demands that courts disregard stipulations for

counsel fees, "henever the appear to be a source of

speculative profit at the e>pense of the debtor or

mortgagor. See, 0orospe, et al. v. 0oc$angco, LA

031istence of an association bet"een

said attornes. The pleadings "ere filed under the name of

?6ernande( B !arbonell.? This imports a common effort of the

t"o. It cannot be denied though that most of those pleadings

up to +udgment "ere signed for 6ernande( B !arbonell b

respondent 6ernande(.

e note that a brea)Aup in the professional tieAup

bet"een %ttornes 6ernande( and !arbonell began "hen

petitioner %tt. !arbonell, on November 3:, 0/:3, complained

to !IR that respondent %tt. 6ernande( ?failed to communicate

"ith him nor to inform him about the incidents of this case.? 7e

there reDuested that he be furnished ?separatel copies of the

decision of the court and other pleadings and subseDuent

orders as "ell as motions in connection "ith the case.?

SubseDuent pleadings filed in the case unmista)abl

sho" the "idening rift in their professional relationship. Thus,

on 8a 3


23/28

23

the t"entAfive per cent #39$ attornes fees a"arded herein.

%s to ho" much, this is a function pertaining to !IR.

:. e note that !IRs cashier "as authori(ed on &une

39, 0/:2 to disburse to %tt. Leonardo !. 6ernande( the sum

of *0/,/it gate, assignment of

par)ing areas, and securit. 8r. %breu, the client of

complainant, %tt. *aguia, "as not a part to the contract since

the former did not agree "ith the terms concerning the par)ing

arrangements.

On 2 6ebruar 3=0=, %tt. *aguia filed a !omplaint for

-ishonest0"ith the I'* !ommission on 'ar -iscipline against

%tt. 8olina3for allegedl giving legal advice to the latterQs

clients to the effect that the Times SDuare *reamble "as

binding on 8r. %breu, "ho "as never a part to the contract.

In his %ns"er,onerating respondent or imposing such

sanction. The case shall be deemed terminated unless upon

petition of the complainant or other interested part filed "ith

the Supreme !ourt "ithin fifteen #09$ das from notice of the
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/ac_9881_2014.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/ac_9881_2014.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/ac_9881_2014.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/ac_9881_2014.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/ac_9881_2014.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/ac_9881_2014.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/ac_9881_2014.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/ac_9881_2014.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/ac_9881_2014.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/ac_9881_2014.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/ac_9881_2014.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/ac_9881_2014.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/ac_9881_2014.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/ac_9881_2014.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/ac_9881_2014.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/ac_9881_2014.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/ac_9881_2014.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/ac_9881_2014.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/ac_9881_2014.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/ac_9881_2014.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/ac_9881_2014.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/ac_9881_2014.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/ac_9881_2014.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/ac_9881_2014.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/ac_9881_2014.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/ac_9881_2014.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/ac_9881_2014.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/ac_9881_2014.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/ac_9881_2014.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/ac_9881_2014.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/ac_9881_2014.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/ac_9881_2014.html#fnt11


24/28

24

'oardQs resolution, the Supreme !ourt orders other"ise.

#Underscoring supplied$

In this case, %tt. *aguia received notice of the 'oardQs

resolution on 30 8arch 3=0imino Noble III #8a>imino$ against respondent

%tt. Orlando O. %iles #Orlando$ before the Integrated 'ar ofthe *hilippines #I'*$.

T)e '(6

8a>imino alleged that on %ugust 0C, 3=0=, Orlando, a la"er,filed a complaint3for damages against his o"n brother,8arcelo O. %iles, &r. #8arcelo$, "hom 8a>imino represented,together "ith other defendants, therein. In the said complaint,Orlando stated the follo"ing data4 ?I'*A112=9CA12%&%9AH! >> > 8!LE !ompliance No. IIA===C:C/imino claimed that at the time of the filing of thesaid complaint, Orlandos I'* O.R. number should havealread reflected pament of his I'* annual dues for the ear3=0=, not 3==/, and that he should have finished his third8andator !ontinuing Legal Education #8!LE$ !ompliance,not +ust the second.

Sometime in -ecember 3=00, 8a>imino learned from 8arcelothat the latter had filed a separate case for grave threatsand estafa9against Orlando. hen 8a>imino "as furnished acop of the complaint, he discovered that, through te>tmessages, Orlando had been maligning him and dissuading8arcelo from retaining his services as counsel, claiming thathe "as incompetent and that he charged e>orbitant fees,

saing, among others4 ?> > > 'etter dismiss FourG hiAtrac)la"er "ho "ill impoverish FouG "ith his unconscionableFprofessionalG fee. 8a> Noble, as sho"n in court records, neverappeared even once, thats "h ou lost in the preAtrial stage, >> > get rid of FNobleG as FourG la"er. 7e is out to sDuee(e a lotof mone from FouG, > > > daig mo nga mismong abogadomong polpol.?:Records sho" that Orlando even prepared aNotice to Terminate Services of !ounsel1in the complaint fordamages, "hich stated that 8a>imino ?> > > has never doneanthing to protect the interests of the defendants in a mannernot befitting his representation as a seasoned la" practitionerand, aside from charging enormous amount of professionalfees and Duestionable e>penses, said counsels contractedservices reached as far onl in preparing and filing uncalled formotions to dismiss > > >? as "ell as a !ompromise

%greement,C

both of "hich he sent to 8arcelo for his signature.%ffronted, 8a>imino filed the instant complaint chargingOrlando "ith violation of Rule 1.=< of !anon 1, the entire!anon C of the !ode of *rofessional Responsibilit #!*R$, 'ar8atter #'8$ Nos. C9=/and 0/330=, and praed for thedisbarment of respondent as "ell as the a"ard of damages.

In his defense,00Orlando denied the charges against him andclaimed that his late submission of the third 8!LE complianceis not a ground for disbarment and that the Notice to TerminateServices of !ounsel and !ompromise %greement "ere allmade upon the reDuest of 8arcelo "hen the latter "asdeclared in default in the aforementioned civil case. 8oreover,he insisted that the allegedl offensive language in his te>tmessages sent to 8arcelo "as used in a ?brotherAtoAbrother

communication? and "ere uttered in goodfaith.03!hanRobles5irtuala"librar

8ean"hile, the criminal case for grave threats and estafa filedb 8arcelo against Orlando "as do"ngraded to un+ustve>ation0


25/28

25

IBP Re7or6 '- Re(omme-'6o-

In a Report and Recommendation09dated %pril imino nor intended to be published and )no"n b thirdpersons.

In a Resolution0:dated 8a 00, 3=0imino, as evident from the use of the "ord ?polpol?#stupid$. Li)e"ise, Orlandos insistence that 8arceloimmediatel terminate the services of 8a>imino indicatesOrlandos offensive conduct against his colleague, in violationof the aboveADuoted rules. 8oreover, Orlandos voluntar pleaof guilt to the crime of un+ust ve>ation in the criminal case filedagainst him b 8arcelo "as, for all intents and purposes, anadmission that he spo)e ill, insulted, and disrespected8a>imino A a departure from the +udicial decorum "hiche>poses the la"er to administrative liabilit.

On this score, it must be emphasi(ed that membership in the

bar is a privilege burdened "ith conditions such that a la"ers"ords and actions directl affect the publics opinion of thelegal profession. La"ers are e>pected to observe suchconduct of nobilit and uprightness "hich should remain "iththem, "hether in their public or private lives, and ma bedisciplined in the event their conduct falls short of thestandards imposed upon them.3:Thus, in this case, it isinconseDuential that the statements "ere merel relaed toOrlandos brother in private. %s a member of the bar, Orlandoshould have been more circumspect in his "ords, being fulla"are that the pertain to another la"er to "hom fairness as"ell as candor is o"ed. It "as highl improper for Orlando tointerfere and insult 8a>imino to his client.

Indulging in offensive personalities in the course of +udicialproceedings, as in this case, constitutes unprofessionalconduct "hich sub+ects a la"er to disciplinar action.31hilea la"er is entitled to present his case "ith vigor and courage,such enthusiasm does not +ustif the use of offensive andabusive language.3CThe !ourt has consistentl reminded themembers of the bar to abstain from all offensive personalitand to advance no fact pre+udicial to the honor and reputationof a part. !onsidering the circumstances, it is glaringl clearho" Orlando transgressed the !*R "hen he maligned8a>imino to his client.3/!hanRobles5irtuala"librar

ith regard to Orlandos alleged violation of '8 No. 0/33, the!ourt agrees "ith the I'* that his failure to disclose thereDuired information for 8!LE compliance in the complaint for

damages he had filed against his brother 8arcelo is not aground for disbarment. %t most, his violation shall onl because for the dismissal of the complaint as "ell as thee>punction thereof from therecords.


26/28

26

ARPIO, J."

T)e 'e

This administrative case arose from a !omplaint tiled b

Rodrigo E. Tapa #Tapa$ and %nthon &. Rustia #Rustia$, both

emploees of the Sugar Regulator %dministration, against%tt. !harlie L. 'ancolo #%tt. 'ancolo$ and %tt. &anus T.

larder #%tt. &arder$ for violation of the !anons of Ethics and

*rofessionalism, 6alsification of *ublic -ocument, ross

-ishonest, and 7arassment.

T)e '(6

Sometime in October 3==2, Tapa and Rustia received an

Order dated 02 October 3==2 from the Office of the

OmbudsmanA5isaas reDuiring them to file a counterAaffidavit

to a complaint for usurpation of authorit, falsification of public

document, and graft and corrupt practices filed against them bNehimias -ivinagracia, &r. #-ivinagracia$, a coAemploee in the

Sugar Regulator %dministration. The !omplaint0dated


27/28

27

manifested that the "ere submitting their disbarment

complaint based on the documents submitted to the I'*.

Respondents "ere also deemed to have "aived their right to

participate in the mandator conference. 6urther, both parties

"ere directed to submit their respective position papers. On 31

October 3==:, the I'* received complainants position paper

dated 0C October 3==: and respondents position paper dated3< October 3==:.

The I'*s Report and Recommendation

On 00 %pril 3==1, %tt. Lolita %. Huisumbing, the Investigating

!ommissioner of the !ommission on 'ar -iscipline of the I'*,

submitted her Report. %tt. Huisumbing found that %tt.

'ancolo violated Rule /.=0 of !anon / of the !ode of

*rofessional Responsibilit "hile %tt. &arder violated Rule

0.=0 of !anon 0 of the same !ode. The Investigating

!ommissioner recommended that %tt. 'ancolo be suspended

for t"o ears from the practice of la" and %tt. &arder be

admonished for his failure to e>ercise certain responsibilities in

their la" firm.

In her Report and Recommendation, the Investigating

!ommissioner opined4chanroblesvirtuala"librar

> > >. In his ans"er, respondent %tt. !harlie L. 'ancolo

admitted that his signature appearing in the complaint filed

against complainants Rodrigo E. Tapa and %nthon &. Rustia

"ith the Ombudsman "ere signed b the secretar. 7e did not

refute the findings that his signatures appearing in the various

documents released from his office "ere found not to be his.Such pattern of malpratice b respondent clearl breached his

obligation under Rule /.=0 of !anon /, for a la"er "ho allo"s

a nonAmember to represent him is guilt of violating the

aforementioned !anon. The fact that respondent "as bus

cannot serve as an e>cuse for him from signing personall.

%fter all respondent is a member of a la" firm composed of not

+ust one #0$ la"er. The Supreme !ourt has ruled that this

practice constitute negligence and undersigned finds the act a

sign of indolence and ineptitude. 8oreover, respondents

ignored the notices sent b undersigned. That sho"ed patent

lac) of respect to the Integrated 'ar of the *hilippines

!ommission on 'ar -iscipline and its proceedings. It betras

lac) of courtes and irresponsibilit as la"ers.

On the other hand, %tt. &anus T. &arder, a senior partner of the

la" firm &arder 'ancolo and %ssociates La" Office, failed to

e>ercise certain responsibilities over matters under the charge

of his la" firm. %s a senior partnerF,G he failed to abide to the

principle of ?command responsibilit?. > > >.

> > >

Respondent %tt. &anus &arder after all is a seasoned

practitioner, having passed the bar in 0//9 and practicing la"

up to the present. 7e holds himself out to the public as a la"firm designated as &arder 'ancolo and %ssociates La" Office.

It behooves %tt. &anus T. &arder to e>ert ordinar diligence to

find out "hat is going on in his la" firm, to ensure that all

la"ers in his firm act in conformit to the !ode of *rofessional

Responsibilit. %s a partner, it is his responsibilit to provide

efficacious control of court pleadings and other documents that

carr the name of the la" firm. 7ad he done that, he could

have )no"n the unethical practice of his la" partner %tt.

!harlie L. 'ancolo. Respondent %tt. &anus T. &arder failed to

perform this tas) and is administrativel liable under !anon 0,

Rule 0.=0 of the !ode of *rofessional

Responsibilit.1chanroblesvirtuala"librar

On 0/ September 3==1, in Resolution No. M5IIIA3==1A/1, the

'oard of overnors of the I'* approved "ith modification theReport and Recommendation of the Investigating

!ommissioner. The Resolution

states4chanroblesvirtuala"librar

RESOL5E- to %-O*T and %**RO5E, as it is hereb

%-O*TE- and %**RO5E-, "ith modification, the Report and

Recommendation of the Investigating !ommissioner of the

aboveAentitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as

%nne> ?%?; and, finding the recommendation full supported b

the evidence on record and the applicable la"s and rules, and

considering Respondent %tt. 'ancolos violation of Rule /.=0,

!anon / of the !ode of *rofessional Responsibilit, %tt.

!harlie L. 'ancolo is hereb SUS*EN-E- from the practice of

la" for one #0$ ear.

7o"ever, "ith regard to the charge against %tt. &anus T.

&arder, the 'oard of overnors RESOL5E- as it is hereb

RESOL5E- to %8EN-, as it is hereb %8EN-E- the

Recommendation of the Investigating !ommissioner, and

%**RO5E the -IS8ISS%L of the case for lac) of

merit.Cchanroblesvirtuala"librar

Tapa and Rustia filed a 8otion for Reconsideration. Li)e"ise,

%tt. 'ancolo filed his 8otion for Reconsideration dated 33

-ecember 3==1. Thereafter, %tt. &arder filed his separate!onsolidated !ommentRepl to !omplainants 8otion for

Reconsideration and !omment 6iled b !omplainants dated

3/ &anuar 3==C.

In Resolution No. MMA3=03A019 dated / &une 3=03, the I'*

'oard of overnors denied both complainants and %tt.

'ancolos motions for reconsideration. The I'* 'oard found no

cogent reason to reverse the findings of the Investigating

!ommissioner and affirmed Resolution No. M5IIIA3==1A/1

dated 0/ September 3==1.

T)e o


28/28

28

This rule "as clearl e>plained in the case of !ambali(a v.

!ristalATenorio,/"here "e held4chanroblesvirtuala"librar

The la"ers dut to prevent, or at the ver least not to assist

in, the unauthori(ed practice of la" is founded on public

interest and polic. *ublic polic reDuires that the practice of

la" be limited to those individuals found dul Dualified ineducation and character. The permissive right conferred on the

la"er is an individual and limited privilege sub+ect to

"ithdra"al if he fails to maintain proper standards of moral and

professional conduct. The purpose is to protect the public, the

court, the client, and the bar from the incompetence or

dishonest of those unlicensed to practice la" and not sub+ect

to the disciplinar control of the !ourt. It devolves upon a

la"er to see that this purpose is attained. Thus, the canons

and ethics of the profession en+oin him not to permit his

professional services or his name to be used in aid of, or to

ma)e possible the unauthori(ed practice of la" b, an agenc,

personal or corporate. %nd, the la" ma)es it a misbehavior on

his part, sub+ect to disciplinar action, to aid a laman in theunauthori(ed practice of la".

In Republic v. @enric) -evelopment !orporation,0="e held that

the preparation and signing of a pleading constitute legal "or)

involving the practice of la" "hich is reserved e>clusivel for

members of the legal profession. %tt. 'ancolos authorit and

dut to sign a pleading are personal to him. %lthough he ma

delegate the signing of a pleading to another la"er, he ma

not delegate it to a nonAla"er. 6urther, under the Rules of

!ourt, counsels signature serves as a certification that #0$ he

has read the pleading; #3$ to the best of his )no"ledge,

information and belief there is good ground to support it; and

#ing ones

signature to a pleading, it is counsel alone "ho has the

responsibilit to certif to these matters and give legal effect to

the document.

In his 8otion for Reconsideration dated 33 -ecember 3==1,

%tt. 'ancolo "ants us to believe that he "as a victim of

circumstances or of manipulated events because of his

unconditional trust and confidence in his former la" partner,

%tt. &arder. 7o"ever, %tt. 'ancolo did not ta)e an steps to

rectif the situation, save for the affidavit he gave to Rustia

dening his signature to the !omplaint filed before the Office of

the Ombudsman. %tt. 'ancolo had an opportunit to maintainhis innocence "hen he filed "ith the I'* his &oint %ns"er #"ith

%tt. &arder$ dated 3: &anuar 3==:. %tt. 'ancolo, ho"ever,

admitted that prior to the preparation of the &oint %ns"er, %tt.

&arder threatened to file a disbarment case against him if he

did not cooperate. Thus, he "as constrained to allo" %tt.

&arder to prepare the &oint %ns"er. %tt. 'ancolo simpl signed

the verification "ithout seeing the contents of the &oint %ns"er.

In the %ns"er, %tt. 'ancolo categoricall stated that becauseof some minor lapses, the communications and pleadings filed

against Tapa and Rustia "ere signed b his secretar, albeit

"ith his tolerance. Undoubtedl, %tt. 'ancolo violated the

!ode of *rofessional Responsibilit b allo"ing a nonAla"er

to affi> his signature to a pleading. This violation Is an act of

falsehood "hich IS a ground for disciplinar action.

The complainants did not present an evidence that %tt.

&arder "as directl involved, had )no"ledge of, or even

participated in the "rongful practice of %tt. 'ancolo in allo"ing

or tolerating his secretar to sign pleadings for him. Thus, "e

agree "ith the finding of the I'* 'oard that %tt. &arder is not

administrativel liable.

In sum, "e find that the suspension of %tt. 'ancolo from the

practice of la" for one ear is "arranted. e also find proper

the dismissal of the case against %tt. larder.

7ERE6ORE, "e -IS8ISS the complaint against %tt. &anus

T. larder for lac) of merit.

e find respondent %tt. !harlie L. 'ancolo administrativel

liable for violating Rule /.=0 of !anon / of the !ode of

*rofessional Responsibilit. 7e is hereb SUS*EN-E- from

the practice of la" for one ear effective upon finalit of this-ecision. 7e is "arned that a repetition of the same or similar

acts in the future shall be dealt "ith more severel.

Let a cop of this -ecision be attached to respondent %tt.

!harlie L. 'ancolos record in this !ourt as attorne. 6urther,

let copies of this -ecision be furnished to the Integrated 'ar of

the *hilippines and the Office of the !ourt %dministrator, "hich

is directed to circulate them to all the courts in the countr for

their information and guidance.

SO ORDERED
http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013marchdecisions.php?id=228#fnt9http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013marchdecisions.php?id=228#fnt9http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013marchdecisions.php?id=228#fnt9http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013marchdecisions.php?id=228#fnt10http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013marchdecisions.php?id=228#fnt11http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013marchdecisions.php?id=228#fnt11http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013marchdecisions.php?id=228#fnt9http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013marchdecisions.php?id=228#fnt10http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013marchdecisions.php?id=228#fnt11

legal ethics for feb 15 2015

Documents