EN BANC In an Order dated November 12, 2002, Judge Tan Bagabuyo said he would contest Tan's decision before

favorably resolved the Motion to Fix the Amount of Bail the Court of Appeals and would file criminal and
Bond, and fixed the amount of the bond at P40,000. administrative charges of certiorari against the judge.
[ADM. CASE No. 7006 : October 9, 2007]

Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration of the Bagabuyuo said he was not afraid of being cited in
RE : SUSPENSION OF ATTY. ROGELIO Z.
Order dated November 12, 2002, which motion was contempt by Judge Tan.
BAGABUYO, FORMER SENIOR STATE
denied for lack of merit in an Order dated February 10,
PROSECUTOR.
2003. In October, 2003, respondent appealed from the
"This is the only way that the public would know that
Orders dated November 12, 2002 and February 10,
there are judges there who are displaying judicial
DECISION 2003, to the Court of Appeals (CA).
arrogance." he said.3

AZCUNA, J.: Instead of availing himself only of judicial remedies,

In an Order dated August 21, 2003, the RTC of
respondent caused the publication of an article
Surigao City, Branch 29, directed respondent and the
regarding the Order granting bail to the accused in the
This administrative case stemmed from the events of writer of the article, Mark Francisco of the Mindanao
August 18, 2003 issue of the Mindanao Gold Star
the proceedings in Crim. Case No. 5144, Gold Star Daily, to appear in court on September 20,
Daily. The article, entitled "Senior prosecutor lambasts
entitled People v. Luis Bucalon Plaza, heard before the 2003 to explain why they should not be cited for
Surigao judge for allowing murder suspect to bail out,"
sala of Presiding Judge Jose Manuel P. Tan, Regional indirect contempt of court for the publication of the
reads:
Trial Court (RTC) of Surigao City, Branch 29. article which degraded the court and its presiding
judge with its lies and misrepresentation.
SENIOR state prosecutor has lashed at a judge in
Crim. Case No. 5144 was originally raffled to the sala
Surigao City for allowing a murder suspect to go out on
of Judge Floripinas C. Buyser, RTC of Surigao City, The said Order stated that contrary to the statements
bail.
Branch 30. In an Order dated March 14, 2002, Judge in the article, Judge Buyser described the evidence for
Buyser denied the Demurrer to the Evidence of the the prosecution as not strong, but sufficient to prove
accused, declaring that the evidence thus presented Senior state prosecutor Rogelio Bagabuyo lambasted the guilt of the accused only for homicide. Moreover, it
by the prosecution was sufficient to prove the crime of Judge Manuel Tan of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) was not true that Judge Buyser inhibited himself from
homicide and not the charge of murder. Consequently, Branch 29 based in Surigao City for ruling on a motion the case for an unclear reason. Judge Buyser, in an
the counsel for the defense filed a Motion to Fix the that sought a bailbond for Luis Plaza who stands Order dated August 30, 2002, declared in open court in
Amount of Bail Bond. Respondent Atty. Rogelio Z. charged with murdering a policeman . . . . the presence of respondent that he was inhibiting
Bagabuyo, then Senior State Prosecutor and the himself from the case due to the harsh insinuation of
deputized prosecutor of the case, objected thereto respondent that he lacked the cold neutrality of an
Plaza reportedly posted a P40-thousand bail bond.
mainly on the ground that the original charge of impartial judge.
murder, punishable with reclusion perpetua, was not
subject to bail under Sec. 4, Rule 114 of the Rules of Bagabuyo argued that the crime of murder is a non-
On the scheduled hearing of the contempt charge,
Court.1 bailable offense. But Bagabuyo admitted that a judge
Mark Francisco admitted that the Mindanao Gold Star
could still opt to allow a murder suspect to bail out in
Daily caused the publication of the article. He
cases when the evidence of the prosecution is weak.
In an Order dated August 30, 2002,2 Judge Buyser disclosed that respondent, in a press conference,
inhibited himself from further trying the case because stated that the crime of murder is non-bailable. When
of the "harsh insinuation" of Senior Prosecutor Rogelio But in this murder case, Bagabuyo said the judge who asked by the trial court why he printed such lies, Mr.
Z. Bagabuyo that he "lacks the cold neutrality of an previously handled it, Judge F[lori]pinas B[uy]ser, Francisco answered that his only source was
impartial magistrate," by allegedly suggesting the filing described the evidence to be strong. B[uy]ser inhibited respondent.4 Mr. Francisco clarified that in the
of the motion to fix the amount of bail bond by counsel from the case for an unclear reason. statement alleging that Judge Buyser inhibited himself
for the accused. from the case for an unclear reason, the phrase "for an
unclear reason," was added by the newspaper's
xxx Executive Editor Herby S. Gomez.5
The case was transferred to Branch 29 of the RTC of
Surigao City, presided by Judge Jose Manuel P. Tan.
Respondent admitted that he caused the holding of the from the practice of law for violating the Code of Respondent denied the charge that he sought to be
press conference, but refused to answer whether he Professional Responsibility, specifically Rule 11.05 of interviewed by radio station DXKS. He, however,
made the statements in the article until after he shall Canon 118 and Rule 13.02 of Canon 13.9 stated that right after the hearing of September 30,
have filed a motion to dismiss. For his refusal to 2003, he was approached by someone who asked him
answer, the trial court declared him in contempt of to comment on the Order issued in open court, and
In the Order, the trial court stated that respondent was
court pursuant to Sec. 3, Rule 71 of the Rules of that his comment does not fall within the concept of
interviewed by Jun Clergio, and that the interview was
Court.6 The Court's Order dated September 30, 2003 indirect contempt of court. He also admitted that he
repeatedly aired on September 30, 2003 and in his
reads: was interviewed by his friend, Tony Consing, at the
news program between 6:00 and 8:00 a.m. on October
latter's instance. He justified his response during the
1, 2003. He was also interviewed by Tony Consing on
interview as a simple exercise of his constitutional right
ORDER October 1 and 2, 2003, between 8:00 and 9:00 a.m. in
of freedom of speech and that it was not meant to
his radio program. In those radio interviews,
offend or malign, and was without malice.
respondent allegedly called Judge Tan a judge who
Mr. Mark Francisco for publishing this article which is a
does not know the law, a liar, and a dictator who does
lie clothed in half truth to give it a semblance of truth is
not accord due process to the people. On February 8, 2004, the trial court issued an Order,
hereby ordered to pay a fine of P10,000. Prosecutor
the dispositive portion of which reads:
Bagabuyo, for obstinately refusing to explain why he
should not be cited for contempt and admitting that the The hearing for the second contempt charge was set
article published in the Mindanao Gold Star Daily on on December 4, 2003. WHEREFORE, finding preponderant evidence that
August 18, 2003 and quoted in the Order of this Court Prosecutor Bagabuyo has grossly violated the Canons
dated August 21, 2003 which is contemptuous was of the legal profession and [is] guilty of grave
On November, 20, 2003, respondent filed an Urgent
caused by him to be published, is hereby adjudged to professional misconduct, rendering him unfit to
Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer to
have committed indirect contempt of Court pursuant to continue to be entrusted with the duties and
Contempt alleging that he was saddled with work of
Section 3 of Rule 71 of the Rules of Court and he is responsibilities belonging to the office of an attorney,
equal importance and needed ample time to answer
hereby ordered to suffer the penalty of 30 days in jail. he is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law.
the same. He also prayed for a bill of particulars in
The BJMP is hereby ordered to arrest Prosecutor
order to properly prepare for his defense.
Rogelio Z. Bagabuyo if he does not put up a bond
Likewise, he is also found guilty of indirect contempt of
of P100,000.00.
court, for which he is hereby ordered to suffer the
In an Order dated November 20, 2003, the trial court
penalty of IMPRISONMENT for ninety (90) days to be
denied the motion. It stated that a bill of particulars is
SO ORDERD.7 served at the Surigao City Jail and to pay the
not applicable in contempt proceedings, and that
maximum fine of THIRTY THOUSAND PESOS
respondent's actions and statements are detailed in
(P30,000.00). Future acts of contempt will be dealt with
Respondent posted the required bond and was the Order of October 20, 2003.
more severely.
released from the custody of the law. He appealed the
indirect contempt order to the CA.
On the scheduled hearing of December 4, 2003
Let copies of the relevant records be immediately
respondent neither appeared in court nor informed the
forwarded to the Supreme Court for automatic review
Despite the citation of indirect contempt, respondent court of his absence. The trial court issued an Order
and for further determination of grounds for [the]
presented himself to the media for interviews in Radio dated December 4, 2003 cancelling the hearing "to
disbarment of Prosecutor Rogelio Z. Bagabuyo.10
Station DXKS, and again attacked the integrity of give Prosecutor Bagabuyo all the chances he asks
Judge Tan and the trial court's disposition in the for," and ordered him to appear on January 12, 2004 to
proceedings of Crim. Case No. 5144. explain in writing or orally why he should not be cited in The trial court found respondent's denials to be lame
contempt of court pursuant to the facts stated in the as the tape of his interview on October 2, 2003, duly
Order dated October 20, 2003. However, respondent transcribed, showed disrespect of the court and its
In an Order dated October 20, 2003, the RTC of
did not appear in the scheduled hearing of January 12, officers, thus:
Surigao City, Branch 29, required respondent to
2004.
explain and to show cause within five days from receipt
thereof why he should not be held in contempt for his TONY CONSING: Fiscal, nanglabay ang mga oras,
media interviews that degraded the court and the On January 15, 2004, the trial court received nanglabay ang gamay'ng panahon ang samad sa
presiding judge, and why he should not be suspended respondent's Answer dated January 8, 2004.
imong kasingkasing nagpabilin pa ba ni. O ingnon nato BAGABUYO : Yes, nag-ingon ang iyang Order. . . BAGABUYO : Sumala sa akong gui-ingon moundang
duna na bay pagbag-o sa imong huna-huna karon? . Ngano nga nakaingon ako nga bakakon kini, nag- lang ako kon matangtang na siya sa pagka abogado. .
ingon nga kini konong order given in open court, ang ..
kalooy sa dios, ang iyang order sa Korte wala siya
(Fiscal, after the lapse of time, are you still hurt? Or
mag-ingon ug kantidad nga P100,000.00 nga bail
have you not changed your mind yet?) (As I have said, I will only stop if he is already
bond. . . .
disbarred. . . .)
BAGABUYO : Ang akong huna-huna kon aduna man
(Yes, his Order said that . . . . Why did I say that he is
ugaling pagbag-o ang pagsiguro, ang mga Huwes nga xxx
a liar? It states that this Order was "given in open
dili mahibalo sa balaod tangtangon pagka abogado,
court," and in God's mercy, he did not state the amount
mao kana.
of P100,000.00 as bail bond. . . .) BAGABUYO : Nasuko siya niini kay hambugero kuno,
pero angayan niyang hibaw-an nga ang trabajo sa
(If my mind has changed at all, it is that I ensure that Huwes dili ang pagtan-aw kon ang tawo hambugero . .
BAGABUYO : Kay dili man lagi mahibalo sa balaod,
all judges who are ignorant of the law should be . . Ug ang akong gisulti mao lamang ang balaod nga
ako
disbarred. That's it.) siya in fact at that time I said he is not conversant of
the law, with regards to the case of murder. . . .
siyang gui-ingnan, Your Honor, I have the right to
xxx
appeal. Mibalik dayon, ug miingon siya, BJMP arrest
(He got angry because I was allegedly bragging but he
Bagabuyo.
should know that it is not for a judge to determine if a
BAGABUYO : Mao kana ang tinuod, Ton, ug kining
person is a braggart. . . .And what I said was based on
akong guibatonan karon nga hunahuna mahitungod
(Because he does not know the law, I said, "Your the law. In fact, at that time, I said he is not conversant
nianang mga Huwes nga dili kahibalo sa balaod,
Honor, I have the right to appeal." Then he came back of the law, with regards to the case of murder . . . .)
magkadugay magkalami. Kada adlao nagatoon ako.
and said, "BJMP, arrest Bagabuyo.")
Nagabasa ako sa mga bag-ong jurisprudence ug sa
atong balaod aron sa pagsiguro gayod nga inigsang-at xxx
unya nako sa kaso nga disbarment niining di mahibalo xxx
nga Huwes, sigurado gayod ako nga katangtangan
BAGABUYO : Ah, mi sit down sab ako, contempt ra ba
siya sa lisensiya . . . . Ang kini nga Huwes nga dili
BAGABUYO : . . . P100,000.00 ang iyang kadto . . . . Mao kana, pero unsa may iyang katuyoan -
mahibalo sa balaod, pagatangtangon na, dili lamang
guipapiyansa. ang iyang katuyoan nga ipa-adto ako didto kay didto,
sa pagka-Huwes kon dili sa pagka-abogado. Tan-awa
iya akong pakauwawan kay iya kong sikopon, iya kong
ra gyod kining iyang gibuhat nga Order, Ton, ang iyang
ipa-priso, pero kay di man lagi mahibalo sa balaod,
pagkabakakon . . . . Naunsa na? Dinhi makita nimo ang iyang pagka gross
ang iyang gui orderan BJMP, intawon por dios por
ignorance of the law. . . .
Santo, Mr. Tan, pagbasa intawon ug balaod, naunsa
(That's true, Ton, and this conviction I have now about ka ba Mr. Tan? Unsa may imong hunahuna nga kon
judges who are ignorant of the law is made firmer by (He imposed a bail of P100,000.00. How come? This is ikaw Huwes, ikaw na ang diktador, no way, no sir, ours
time. I study everyday. I read new jurisprudence and where you will see his gross ignorance of the law. . . . ) is a democratic country where all and everyone is
the law to insure that when I file the disbarment case entitled to due process of law - you did not accord me
against this Judge who does not know his law, I am due process of law . . . .
certain that he loses his license. . . . This judge who is xxx
ignorant of the law should not only be removed as a
(I sat down. . . . That's it. But what was his
judge but should also be disbarred. Just take a look at TONY CONSING : So karon, unsay plano nimo karon? purpose? He made me come in order to humiliate me
his Order, Ton, and see what a liar he is . . . .)
because he wanted me arrested, he wanted me
(So what is your plan now?) imprisoned, but because he is ignorant of the law, he
xxx ordered the BMJP. For God's sake, Mr. Tan, what's
wrong with you, Mr. Tan? Please read the law. What is
your thinking? That when you are a judge, you are also
a dictator? No way, no sir, ours is a democratic country Office of the Bar Confidant the Statement of Facts of impropriety that a lawyer does or commits in
where all and everyone is entitled to due process of respondent's suspension from the practice of law, his professional career or in his private life. A
law - you did not accord me due process of law. . . .) dated July 14, 2005, together with the order of lawyer must at no time be wanting in probity
suspension and other relevant documents. and moral fiber which are not only conditions
precedent to his entrance to the Bar, but are
TONY CONSING: So mopasaka
likewise essential demands for his continued
kang disbarment, malaumon kita nga maaksiyonan In its Report dated January 4, 2006, the Office of the
membership therein.
kini, with all this problem sa Korte Suprema. Bar Confidant found that the article in the August 18,
• Lawyers are licensed officers of the courts
2003 issue of the Mindanao Gold Star Daily, which
who are empowered to appear, prosecute
maligned the integrity and independence of the court
(So you are filing a disbarment case? We hope that and defend; and upon whom peculiar duties,
and its officers, and respondent's criticism of the trial
this be given action with all the problems in the responsibilities and liabilities are devolved by
court's Order dated November 12, 2002, which was
Supreme Court.) law as a consequence.17 Membership in the
aired in radio station DXKS, both in connection with
bar imposes upon them certain
Crim. Case No. 5144, constitute grave violation of oath
obligations.18 Canon 11 of the Code of
BAGABUYO : Dili ako mabalaka niana kay usa of office by respondent. It stated that the requirement
Professional Responsibility mandates a
ka truck ang akong jurisprudence, nga ang mga of due process was complied with when respondent
lawyer to "observe and maintain the respect
Huwes nga di mahibalo sa balaod pagatangtangon was given an opportunity to be heard, but respondent
due to the courts and to judicial officers and
gayod sa ilang pagka Huwes. . . . Apan unsa man chose to remain silent.
[he] should insist on similar conduct by
intawon ang balaod ang iyang gibasa niini nadunggan
others." Rule 11.05 of Canon 11 states that
ko nga kini kuno siya madjongero, mao bitaw na,
The Office of the Bar Confidant recommended the a lawyer "shall submit grievances against a
madjong ang iyang guitunan?
implementation of the trial court's order of suspension judge to the proper authorities only."
dated February 8, 2004, and that respondent be
(I am not worried because I have a truckload of suspended from the practice of law for one year, with a
Respondent violated Rule 11.05 of Canon 11 when he
jurisprudence that judges who are ignorant of the law stern warning that the repetition of a similar offense will
admittedly caused the holding of a press conference
must be removed from the Bench. But what law has he be dealt with more severely.
where he made statements against the Order dated
been reading? I heard that he is a
November 12, 2002 allowing the accused in Crim.
mahjong aficionado (mahjongero) and that is why he is
The Court approves the recommendation of the Office Case No. 5144 to be released on bail.
studying mahjong.11
of the Bar Confidant. It has been reiterated
in Gonzaga v. Villanueva, Jr.16 that:
Respondent also violated Canon 11 when he indirectly
The trial court concluded that respondent, as a
stated that Judge Tan was displaying judicial
member of the bar and an officer of the court, is duty
• A lawyer may be disbarred or suspended for arrogance in the article entitled, Senior prosecutor
bound to uphold the dignity and authority of the court,
any violation of his oath, a patent disregard lambasts Surigao judge for allowing murder suspect to
and should not promote distrust in the administration of
of his duties, or an odious deportment bail out, which appeared in the August 18, 2003 issue
justice.
unbecoming an attorney. Among the of the Mindanao Gold Star Daily. Respondent's
grounds enumerated in Section 27, Rule 138 statements in the article, which were made while Crim.
The trial court stated that it is empowered to suspend of the Rules of Court are deceit; malpractice; Case No. 5144 was still pending in court, also violated
respondent from the practice of law under Sec. 28, gross misconduct in office; grossly immoral Rule 13.02 of Canon 13, which states that "a lawyer
Rule 138 of the Rules of Court12 for any of the causes conduct; conviction of a crime involving shall not make public statements in the media
mentioned in Sec. 2713 of the same Rule. Respondent moral turpitude; any violation of the oath regarding a pending case tending to arouse public
was given the opportunity to be heard, but he opted to which he is required to take before opinion for or against a party."
be silent. Thus, it held that the requirement of due admission to the practice of law; willful
process has been duly satisfied. disobedience of any lawful order of a
In regard to the radio interview given to Tony Consing,
superior court; corrupt or willful appearance
respondent violated Rule 11.05 of Canon 11 of the
as an attorney for a party to a case without
In accordance with the provisions of Sec. 29,14 Rule Code of Professional Responsibility for not resorting to
authority to do so. The grounds are not
138 and Sec. 9,15 Rule 139 of the Rules of Court, the the proper authorities only for redress of his grievances
preclusive in nature even as they are broad
RTC of Surigao City, Branch 29, transmitted to the against Judge Tan. Respondent also violated Canon
enough as to cover practically any kind of
11 for his disrespect of the court and its officer when courts in the country for their information and (d) Any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly,
he stated that Judge Tan was ignorant of the law, that guidance. to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of
as a mahjong aficionado, he was studying mahjong justice.
instead of studying the law, and that he was a liar.
No costs.
7
Rollo, p. 126.
Respondent also violated the Lawyer's Oath, as he has
SO ORDERED.
sworn to "conduct [himself] as a lawyer according to 8
CANON 11 - A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE AND
the best of [his] knowledge and discretion with all good
MAINTAIN THE RESPECT DUE TO THE COURTS
fidelity as well to the courts as to [his] clients." Puno, C.J., Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago,
AND TO JUDICIAL OFFICERS AND SHOULD INSIST
Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez,
ON SIMILAR CONDUCT BY OTHERS
Corona, Carpio-Morales, Tinga, Chico-Nazario,
As a senior state prosecutor and officer of the court,
Garcia, Velasco, Jr., Nachura, Reyes, JJ., concur.
respondent should have set the example of observing
xxx
and maintaining the respect due to the courts and to
judicial officers. Montecillo v. Gica19 held: Endnotes:
Rule 11.05. - A lawyer shall submit grievances against
a Judge to the proper authorities only.
It is the duty of the lawyer to maintain towards the
courts a respectful attitude. As an officer of the court, it
9
is his duty to uphold the dignity and authority of the 1 CANON 13 - A LAWYER SHALL RELY UPON THE
court to which he owes fidelity, according to the oath Sec. 4. Bail, a matter of right; exception. - - All
MERITS OF HIS CAUSE AND REFRAIN FROM ANY
he has taken. Respect for the courts guarantees the persons in custody shall be admitted to bail as a matter
IMPROPRIETY WHICH TENDS TO INFLUENCE OR
of right x x x (b) before conviction by the Regional Trial
stability of our democratic institutions which, without GIVES THE APPEARANCE OF INFLUENCING THE
such respect, would be resting on a very shaky Court of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion
COURT
foundation. perpetua, or life imprisonment.

2 xxx
The Court is not against lawyers raising grievances Rollo, p. 45.
against erring judges but the rules clearly provide for
Rule 13.02. - A lawyer shall not make public
the proper venue and procedure for doing so, precisely 3
Id. at 101.
because respect for the institution must always be statements in the media regarding a pending case
maintained. tending to arouse public opinion for or against a party.
4
Id. at 115.
10
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, Atty. Rogelio Rollo, pp. 153-154.
5
Z. Bagabuyo is found guilty of violating Rule 11.05, Id. at 114-115.
Canon 11 and Rule 13.02, Canon 13 of the Code of 11
RTC Order, February 8, 2004, Rollo, pp. 144-
Professional Responsibility, and of violating the 6
Sec. 3. Indirect contempt to be punished after charge 147. Emphasis supplied.
Lawyer's Oath, for which he is SUSPENDED from the and hearing. - After a charge in writing has been filed,
practice of law for one (1) year effective upon finality of and an opportunity given to the respondent to 12
this Decision, with a STERN WARNING that the Sec. 28. Suspension of attorney by the Court of
comment thereon within such period as may be fixed
repetition of a similar offense shall be dealt with more Appeals or a Regional Trial Court. - - The Court of
by the court and to be heard by himself or counsel, a
severely. Appeals or a Regional Trial Court may suspend an
person guilty of any of the following acts may be
attorney from practice for any of the causes named in
punished for indirect contempt:
the last preceding section, and after such suspension
Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Office of such attorney shall not practice his profession until
the Bar Confidant to be appended to respondent's xxx further action of the Supreme Court in the premises.
personal record as an attorney, the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines, the Department of Justice, and all
13
Sec. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by 17
Reyes v. Chiong, Jr., A.C. No. 5148, July 1, 2003, De Leon, having joined Civil Case No. 4674MN as a
Supreme Court, grounds therefor. - - A member of the 405 SCRA 212, 217. voluntary intervenor two years later (April 21, 2008), now
Bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as accuses the respondent, the counsel of record of the
attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, defendants in Civil Case No. 4674MN, with the serious
18
Ibid. administrative offenses of dishonesty and falsification
malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office,
grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction warranting his disbarment or suspension as an attorney.
of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation 19
No. L-36800, October 21, 1974, 60 SCRA 234, 245. The respondent's sin was allegedly committed by his filing
of the oath which he is required to take before for defendants Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu of various
admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience of pleadings (that is, answer with counterclaim and cross-
any lawful order of a superior court; corrupt or willful claim in relation to the main complaint; and answer to the
THIRD DIVISION
appearance as an attorney for a party to a case complaint in intervention with counterclaim and cross-claim)
without authority so to do. The practice of soliciting despite said spouses being already deceased at the time of
cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally A.C. No. 8620 : January 12, 2011 filing.2cralawredlaw
or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes
malpractice. JESSIE R. DE LEON, Complainant, v. ATTY. EDUARDO De Leon avers that the respondent committed dishonesty
G. CASTELO, Respondent. and falsification as follows: chanrob1esvirtwallawlibrary
14
Sec. 29. Upon suspension by Court of Appeals or
Regional Trial Court, further proceedings in Supreme DECISION xxx in causing it (to) appear that persons (spouses Lim Hio
Court. - Upon such suspension, the Court of Appeals and Dolores Chu) have participated in an act or proceeding
or the Regional Trial Court shall forthwith transmit to (the making and filing of the Answers) when they did not in
the Supreme Court a certified copy of the order of BERSAMIN, J.: fact so participate; in fact, they could not have so
suspension and a full statement of the facts upon participated because they were already dead as of that time,
which the same was based. Upon the receipt of such This administrative case, which Jessie R. De Leon initiated which is punishable under Article 172, in relation to Article
certified copy and statement, the Supreme Court shall on April 29, 2010, concerns respondent attorney's alleged 171, paragraph 2, of the Revised Penal Code.
make full investigation of the facts involved and make dishonesty and falsification committed in the pleadings he
such order revoking or extending the suspension, or filed in behalf of the defendants in the civil action in which
removing the attorney from his office as such, as the Respondent also committed the crime of Use of Falsified
De Leon intervened. Documents, by submitting the said falsified Answers in the
facts warrant.
judicial proceedings, Civil Case No.
15
Antecedents 4674MN; chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Sec. 9. Procedure in Court of Appeals or Regional
Trial Court. As far as may be applicable, the procedure
above outlined shall likewise govern the filing and On January 2, 2006, the Government brought suit for the Respondent also made a mockery of the aforesaid judicial
investigation of complaints against attorneys in the purpose of correcting the transfer certificates of title (TCTs) proceedings by representing dead persons therein who, he
Court of Appeals or in Regional Trial Court. In case of covering two parcels of land located in Malabon City then falsely made to appear, as contesting the complaints,
suspension of the respondent, the judge of [the] registered in the names of defendants Spouses Lim Hio and counter-suing and cross-suing the adverse parties.
Regional Trial Court or Justice of the Court of Appeals Dolores Chu due to their encroaching on a
shall forthwith transmit to the Supreme Court a certified public callejon and on a portion of the Malabon-Navotas 12. That, as a consequence of the above criminal acts,
copy of the order of suspension and a full statement of River shoreline to the extent, respectively, of an area of 45 complainant respectfully submits that respondent likewise
the facts upon which [the] same is based. square meters and of about 600 square meters. The suit, violated: chanrob1esvirtwallawlibrary
entitled Republic of the Philippines, represented by the
16
Regional Executive Director, Department of Environment
Adm. Case No. 1954, July 23, 2004, 435 SCRA 1, 9- and Natural Resources v. Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores (a) His Lawyer's Oath: chanrob1esvirtwallawlibrary
10. Chu, Gorgonia Flores, and the Registrar of Deeds of
Malabon City , was docketed as Civil Case No. 4674MN of
xxx
the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 74, in Malabon
City.1cralawredlaw
(b) The Code of Professional Responsibility:3cralawredlaw a licensed geodetic surveyor and We find that the respondent, as attorney, did not commit any
engineer; chanroblesvirtualawlibrary falsehood or falsification in his pleadings in Civil Case No.
4674MN. Accordingly, we dismiss the patently frivolous
xxx
complaint.
4. He (Atty. Castelo) prepared the initial pleadings based on
his honest belief that Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu
On June 23, 2010, the Court directed the respondent to
were then still living. Had he known that they were already I
comment on De Leon's administrative
deceased, he would have most welcomed the information
complaint.4cralawredlaw
and would have moved to substitute Leonardo and William
Attorney's Obligation to tell the truth
Lim as defendants for that
In due course, or on August 2, 2010,5cralaw the respondent reason; chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
rendered the following explanations in his comment, to All attorneys in the Philippines, including the respondent,
wit: chanrob1esvirtwallawlibrary have sworn to the vows embodied in following Lawyer's
5. He (Atty. Castelo) had no intention to commit either a
Oath,7cralaw viz: chanrob1esvirtwallawlibrary
falsehood or a falsification, for he in fact submitted the death
1. The persons who had engaged him as attorney to certificates of Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu in order to
represent the Lim family in Civil Case No. 4674MN were apprise the trial court of that fact; and I, ___________________, do solemnly swear that I will
William and Leonardo Lim, the children of Spouses Lim Hio maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines; I will
and Dolores Chu; chanroblesvirtualawlibrary support its Constitution and obey the laws as well as the
6. The Office of the Prosecutor for Malabon City even
legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein; I will
dismissed the criminal complaint for falsification brought
do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; I
2. Upon his (Atty. Castelo) initial queries relevant to the against him (Atty. Castelo) through the resolution dated
will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless,
material allegations of the Government's complaint in Civil February 11, 2010. The same office denied the
false or unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent to the same. I
Case No. 4674MN, William Lim, the representative of the complainant's motion for reconsideration on May 17, 2010.
will delay no man for money or malice, and will conduct
Lim Family, informed him: chanrob1esvirtwallawlibrary
myself as a lawyer according to the best of my knowledge
On September 3, 2010, the complainant submitted and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to
a. That the Lim family had acquired the properties from a reply,6cralaw whereby he asserted that the respondent's my clients; and I impose upon myself this voluntary
Georgina Flores; chanroblesvirtualawlibrary claim in his comment that he had represented the Lim family obligation without any mental reservation or purpose of
was a deception, because the subject of evasion. So help me God.
the complaint against the respondent was his filing of
b. That William and Leonardo Lim were already actively
the answers in behalf of Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu
managing the family business, and now co-owned the The Code of Professional Responsibility echoes
despite their being already deceased at the time of the filing.
properties by virtue of the deed of absolute sale their the Lawyer's Oath, providing:8cralawredlaw
The complainant regarded as baseless the justifications of
parents, Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu, had executed the Office of the City Prosecutor for Malabon City in
in their favor; and dismissing the criminal complaint against the respondent CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE
and in denying his motion for reconsideration. CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND
c. That because of the execution of the deed of absolute PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL
sale, William and Leonardo Lim had since honestly PROCESSES.
The Court usually first refers administrative complaints
assumed that their parents had already caused the transfer
against members of the Philippine Bar to the Integrated Bar
of the TCTs to their names. of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation and appropriate Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
recommendations. For the present case, however, we immoral or deceitful conduct.
3. Considering that William and Leonardo Lim themselves forego the prior referral of the complaint to the IBP, in view
were the ones who had engaged his services, he (Atty. of the facts being uncomplicated and based on the
pleadings in Civil Case No. 4674MN. Thus, we decide the CANON 10 - A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS
Castelo) consequently truthfully stated in the motion seeking
complaint on its merits. AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT.
an extension to file responsive pleading dated February 3,
2006 the fact that it was "the family of the defendants" that
had engaged him, and that he had then advised "the Ruling
children of the defendants" to seek the assistance as well of
Rule 10.01 - A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor they make in behalf of their clients that are relevant, Lim Hio and Dolores Chu as substitute/representative
consent to the doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or pertinent, or material to the subject of inquiry are absolutely parties in this action. In this manner, a complete and
allow the Court to be misled by any artifice. privileged regardless of their defamatory tenor. Such cloak expeditious resolution of the issues raised in this case
of privilege is necessary and essential in ensuring the can be reached without undue delay. A photo copy of the
unhindered service to their clients' causes and in protecting Deed of Absolute Sale over the subject property, executed
The foregoing ordain ethical norms that bind all attorneys,
the clients' confidences. With the cloak of privilege, they can by herein defendants-spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu in
as officers of the Court, to act with the highest standards of
freely and courageously speak for their clients, verbally or in favor of said Leonardo C. Lim and William C. Lim, is hereto
honesty, integrity, and trustworthiness. All attorneys are
writing, in the course of judicial and quasi-judicial attached as Annex "1" hereof.
thereby enjoined to obey the laws of the land, to refrain from
proceedings, without running the risk of incurring criminal
doing any falsehood in or out of court or from consenting to
prosecution or actions for damages.12cralawredlaw
the doing of any in court, and to conduct themselves xxx
according to the best of their knowledge and discretion with
all good fidelity as well to the courts as to their clients. Being Nonetheless, even if they enjoy a number of privileges by
21. There is improper joinder of parties in the complaint.
also servants of the Law, attorneys are expected to observe reason of their office and in recognition of the vital role they
Consequently, answering defendants are thus unduly
and maintain the rule of law and to make themselves play in the administration of justice, attorneys hold the
compelled to litigate in a suit regarding matters and facts as
exemplars worthy of emulation by others.9cralaw The least privilege and right to practice law before judicial, quasi-
to which they have no knowledge of nor any involvement or
they can do in that regard is to refrain from engaging in any judicial, or administrative tribunals or offices only during
participation in.
form or manner of unlawful conduct (which broadly includes good behavior.13cralawredlaw
any act or omission contrary to law, but does not necessarily
imply the element of criminality even if it is broad enough to 22. Plaintiff is barred by the principle of estoppel in bringing
II
include such element).10cralawredlaw this suit, as it was the one who, by its governmental
authority, issued the titles to the subject property.
Respondent did not violate the Lawyer's Oath
To all attorneys, truthfulness and honesty have the highest
and the Code of Professional Responsibility
value, for, as the Court has said in Young v. This action is barred by the principles of prescription and
Batuegas:11cralawredlaw laches for plaintiff's unreasonable delay in brining this suit,
On April 17, 2006, the respondent filed an answer with particularly against defendant Flores, from whom herein
counterclaim and cross-claim in behalf of Spouses Lim Hio answering defendants acquired the subject property in good
A lawyer must be a disciple of truth. He swore upon his
and Dolores Chu, the persons whom the Government as faith and for value. If truly plaintiff has a clear and valid
admission to the Bar that he will "do no falsehood nor
plaintiff named as defendants in Civil Case No. cause of action on the subject property, it should not have
consent to the doing of any in court" and he shall "conduct
4674MN.14cralaw He alleged therein waited thirty (30) years to bring suit.
himself as a lawyer according to the best of his knowledge
that: chanrob1esvirtwallawlibrary
and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to
his clients." He should bear in mind that as an officer of the Two years later, or on April 21, 2008, De Leon filed
court his high vocation is to correctly inform the court upon 2. The allegations in paragraph 2 of the complaint are his complaint in intervention in Civil Case No.
the law and the facts of the case and to aid it in doing justice ADMITTED. Moreover, it is hereby made known that 4674MN.15cralaw He expressly named therein as
and arriving at correct conclusion. The courts, on the other defendants spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu had defendants vis-à-vis his intervention not only the Spouses
hand, are entitled to expect only complete honesty from already sold the two (2) parcels of land, together with Lim Hio and Dolores Chu, the original defendants, but also
lawyers appearing and pleading before them. While a lawyer the building and improvements thereon, covered by their sons Leonardo Lim, married to Sally Khoo, and William
has the solemn duty to defend his client's rights and is Transfer Certificate of Title No. (148805) 139876 issued Lim, married to Sally Lee, the same persons whom the
expected to display the utmost zeal in defense of his client's by the Register of Deeds of Rizal, to Leonardo C. Lim respondent had already alleged in the answer, supra, to be
cause, his conduct must never be at the expense of truth. and William C. Lim, of Rms. 501 - 502 Dolores Bldg., the transferees and current owners of the parcels of
Plaza del Conde, Binondo, Manila. Hence, Leonardo Lim land.16cralawredlaw
and William Lim are their successors-in-interest and are
Their being officers of the Court extends to attorneys not
the present lawful owners thereof.
only the presumption of regularity in the discharge of their The following portions of De Leon's complaint in
duties, but also the immunity from liability to others for as intervention in Civil Case No. 4674MN are
long as the performance of their obligations to their clients In order to properly and fully protect their rights, relevant, viz: chanrob1esvirtwallawlibrary
does not depart from their character as servants of the Law ownership and interests, Leonardo C. Lim and William
and as officers of the Court. In particular, the statements C. Lim shall hereby represent the defendants-spouses
2. Defendant spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu, are which is now part of defendant spouses Lim Hio and 13. That defendant spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu
Filipino citizens with addresses at 504 Plaza del Conde, Dolores Chu's and defendant spouses Leonardo Lim and and defendant spouses Leonardo Lim and Sally Khoo
Manila and at 46 C. Arellano St., San Agustin, Malabon Sally Khoo's and defendant spouses William Lim and Sally and defendant spouses William Lim and Sally Lee were
City, where they may be served with summons and Lee's property and this illegally allowed his employees as confederating, working and helping one another in their
other court processes ; chanroblesvirtualawlibrary well as their relatives and friends thereof to illegally enter actions to inhibit intervenor Jessie de Leon to gain
intervenor's property through the ladders defendant spouses access and beneficial benefit from his
Lim Hio and Dolores Chu installed in their wall and also property ; chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
3. Defendant spouses Leonardo Lim and Sally Khoo and
allowed said employees and relatives as well as friends to
defendant spouses William Lim and Sally Lee are all of
build houses and shacks without the benefit of any building
legal age and with postal address at Rms. 501-502 On July 10, 2008, the respondent, representing all the
permit as well as permit to occupy said illegal
Dolores Bldg., Plaza del Conde, Binondo, Manila, defendants named in De Leon's complaint in intervention,
buildings; chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
alleged purchasers of the property in question from responded in an answer to the complaint in intervention with
defendant spouses Lim Hio and Dolores counterclaim and cross-claim,17cralaw stating that "spouses
Chu ; chanroblesvirtualawlibrary 9. That the enlargement of the properties of spouses Lim Lim Hio and Dolores Chu xxx are now both deceased," to
Hio and Dolores Chu had resulted in the closure of street lot wit: chanrob1esvirtwallawlibrary
no. 3 as described in TCT no. 143828, spouses Lim Hio and
4. Defendants Registrar of Deeds of Malabon City holds
Dolores Chu having titled the street lot no. 3 and placed a
office in Malabon City, where he may be served with xxx
wall at its opening on C. Arellano street, thus closing any
summons and other court processes. He is charged with the
exit or egress or entrance to intervenor's property as could
duty, among others, of registering decrees of Land
be seen from Annex "H" hereof and thus preventing 2. The allegations in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Complaint
Registration in Malabon City under the Land Registration
intervenor from entering into his property resulted in are ADMITTED, with the qualification that defendants-
Act; chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
preventing intervenor from fully enjoying all the beneficial spouses Leonardo Lim and Sally Khoo Lim, William Lim
benefits from his property; chanroblesvirtualawlibrary and Sally Lee Lim are the registered and lawful owners
xxx of the subject property covered by Transfer Certificate
of Title No. M-35929, issued by the Register of Deeds for
10. That defendant spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu
Malabon City, having long ago acquired the same from
7. That intervenor Jessie de Leon, is the owner of a parcel and later on defendant spouses Leonardo Lim and Sally
the defendants-spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu, who
of land located in Malabon City described in TCT no. M- Khoo and defendant spouses William Lim and Sally Lee
are now both deceased . Copy of the TCT No. M-35929 is
15183 of the Register of Deeds of Malabon City, photocopy are the only people who could give permission to allow
attached hereto as Annexes "1" and "1-A". The same title
of which is attached to this Complaint as Annex "G", and third parties to enter intervenor's property and their
has already been previously submitted to this Honorable
copy of the location plan of the aforementioned property is control over intervenor's property is enforced through
Court on December 13, 2006.
attached to this complaint as Annex "H" and is made an his armed guard thus exercising illegal beneficial rights
integral part hereof; chanroblesvirtualawlibrary over intervenor's property at intervenor's loss and
expense, thus depriving intervenor of legitimate income xxx
from rents as well as legitimate access to intervenor's
8. That there are now more or less at least 40 squatters on property and the worst is preventing the Filipino people
intervenor's property, most of them employees of defendant from enjoying the Malabon Navotas River and enjoying The respondent subsequently submitted to the RTC a so-
spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu and defendant spouses called clarification and submission,18cralaw in which he
the right of access to the natural fruits and products of
Leonardo Lim and Sally Khoo and defendant spouses the Malabon Navotas River and instead it is defendant again adverted to the deaths of Spouses Lim Hio and
William Lim and Sally Lee who had gained access to spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu and defendant Dolores Chu, as follows: chanrob1esvirtwallawlibrary
intervenor's property and built their houses without benefit of
spouses Leonardo Lim and Sally Khoo and defendant
any building permits from the government who had made spouses William Lim and Sally Lee using the public 1. On March 19, 2009, herein movants-defendants Lim filed
their access to intervenor's property thru a two panel metal property exclusively to enrich their before this Honorable Court a Motion for Substitution of
gate more or less 10 meters wide and with an armed guard
pockets ; chanroblesvirtualawlibrary Defendants in the Principal Complaint of the plaintiff
by the gate and with permission from defendant spouses
Republic of the Philippines, represented by the
Lim Hio and Dolores Chu and/or and defendant spouses
xxx DENR; chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Leonardo Lim and Sally Khoo and defendant spouses
William Lim and Sally Lee illegally entered intervenor's
property thru a wooden ladder to go over a 12 foot wall now 2. The Motion for Substitution is grounded on the fact
separating intervenor's property from the former esquinita that the two (2) parcels of land, with the improvements
thereon, which are the subject matter of the instant defendants in the principal complaint as contained in their own complaint in intervention, supra, bear out in its specific
case, had long been sold and transferred by the Manifestation dated June 3, 2009, which has been filed in allegations against Leonardo Lim and William Lim, and their
principal defendants-spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu this case. respective spouses. Thus, he could not validly insist that the
to herein complaint-in-intervention defendants respondent committed any dishonesty or falsification in
Leonardo C. Lim and William C. Lim, by way of a Deed relation to him or to any other party.
WHEREFORE, herein movants-defendants Lim most
of Absolute Sale , a copy of which is attached to said
respectfully submit their Motion for substitution of
Motion as Annex "1" thereof.
Defendants in the Principal Complaint and pray that the III
same be granted.
3. Quite plainly, the original principal defendants Lim
Good faith must always motivate any complaint
Hio and Dolores Chu, having sold and conveyed the
xxx against a Member of the Bar
subject property, have totally lost any title, claim or
legal interest on the property. It is on this factual ground
that this Motion for Substitution is based and certainly Did the respondent violate the letter and spirit of According to Justice Cardozo,19cralaw "xxx the fair fame of a
not on the wrong position of Intervenor de Leon that the the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional lawyer, however innocent of wrong, is at the mercy of the
same is based on the death of defendants Lim Hio and Responsibility in making the averments in the aforequoted tongue of ignorance or malice. Reputation in such a calling
Dolores Chu . pleadings of the defendants? is a plant of tender growth, and its bloom, once lost, is not
easily restored." chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
4. Under the foregoing circumstances and facts, the A plain reading indicates that the respondent did not
demise of defendants Lim Hio and Dolores Chu no misrepresent that Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu were A lawyer's reputation is, indeed, a very fragile object. The
longer has any significant relevance to the instant still living. On the contrary, the respondent directly stated in Court, whose officer every lawyer is, must shield such
Motion . To, however, show the fact of their death, photo the answer to the complaint in intervention with counterclaim fragility from mindless assault by the unscrupulous and the
copy of their respective death certificates are attached and cross-claim, supra, and in the clarification and malicious. It can do so, firstly, by quickly cutting down any
hereto as Annexes "1" and "2" hereof. submission, supra, that the Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores patently frivolous complaint against a lawyer; and, secondly,
Chu were already deceased. by demanding good faith from whoever brings any
accusation of unethical conduct. A Bar that is insulated from
5. The Motion for substitution of Defendants in the Principal
intimidation and harassment is encouraged to be
Complaint dated March 18, 2009 shows in detail why there Even granting, for the sake of argument, that any of the
courageous and fearless, which can then best contribute to
is the clear, legal and imperative need to now substitute respondent's pleadings might have created any impression
the efficient delivery and proper administration of justice.
herein movants-defendants Lim for defendants Lim Hio and that the Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu were still living,
Dolores Chu in the said principal complaint. we still cannot hold the respondent guilty of any dishonesty
or falsification. For one, the respondent was acting in the The complainant initiated his complaint possibly for the sake
interest of the actual owners of the properties when he filed of harassing the respondent, either to vex him for taking the
6. Simply put, movants-defendants Lim have become the
the answer with counterclaim and cross-claim on April 17, cudgels for his clients in connection with Civil Case No.
indispensable defendants in the principal complaint of
2006. As such, his pleadings were privileged and would not 4674MN, or to get even for an imagined wrong in relation to
plaintiff DENR, being now the registered and lawful owners
occasion any action against him as an attorney. Secondly, the subject matter of the pending action, or to accomplish
of the subject property and the real parties-in-interest in this
having made clear at the start that the Spouses Lim Hio and some other dark purpose. The worthlessness of the
case. Without them, no final determination can be had in the
Dolores Chu were no longer the actual owners of the accusation - apparent from the beginning - has impelled us
Principal complaint.
affected properties due to the transfer of ownership even into resolving the complaint sooner than later.
prior to the institution of the action, and that the actual
7. Significantly, the property of intervenor Jessie de Leon, owners (i.e., Leonardo and William Lim) needed to be
WHEREFORE, we dismiss the complaint for disbarment or
which is the subject of his complaint-in-intervention, is substituted in lieu of said spouses, whether the Spouses Lim
suspension filed against Atty. Eduardo G. Castelo for utter
identically, if not similarly, situated as that of herein Hio and Dolores Chu were still living or already deceased as
lack of merit.
movants-defendants Lim, and likewise, may as well be a of the filing of the pleadings became immaterial. And, lastly,
proper subject of the Principal Complaint of plaintiff DENR. De Leon could not disclaim knowledge that the Spouses Lim
Hio and Dolores Chu were no longer living. His joining in the SO ORDERED.
action as a voluntary intervenor charged him with notice
8. Even the plaintiff DENR, itself, concedes the fact that
of all the other persons interested in the litigation. He also
herein movants-defendants Lim should be substituted as
had an actual awareness of such other persons, as his
 11
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN cralaw A.C. No. 5379, May 9, 2003, 403 SCRA 123. RESOLUTION
Associate Justice
12
cralaw Agpalo, Legal and Judicial Ethics, Eighth Edition DECISION : December 14, 2010
WE CONCUR: (2009), pp.8-9.
ABAD, J.:
13
CARPIO MORALES, Chairperson, BRION, VILLARAMA, cralaw Id. , p. 8.
JR., and SERENO, JJ.
SERENO, J. - Concurring Opinion
14
cralaw Rollo, pp. 22-33 (Note that the cross-claim was
against Georgina Flores, the transferor/predecessor-in-
On December 14, 2010 the Court reversed the judgment
interest of Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu).
of the Court of Appeals (CA) and acquitted the accused in
this case, Hubert Jeffrey P. Webb, Antonio Lejano,
15
cralaw Endnotes: cralaw Id. , pp. 34-42. Michael A. Gatchalian, Hospicio Fernandez, Miguel
Rodriguez, Peter Estrada, and Gerardo Biong of the
1 16 charges against them on the ground of lack of proof of
cralaw Rollo, pp. 8-21. cralaw The Registrar of Deeds of Malabon City was also
their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
named by the complainant as a defendant to his complaint
2 in intervention.
cralaw Id., pp. 1-7.
On December 28, 2010 complainant Lauro G. Vizconde,
17 an immediate relative of the victims, asked the Court to
3 cralaw Rollo, pp. 43-54.
cralaw Id. , pp. 4-5. reconsider its decision, claiming that it "denied the
prosecution due process of law; seriously misappreciated
18 the facts; unreasonably regarded Alfaro as lacking
4 cralaw Id. , pp. 56-61.
cralaw Id. , p. 62. credibility; issued a tainted and erroneous decision;
19 decided the case in a manner that resulted in the
5 cralaw People of the State of New York ex rel. Alexander miscarriage of justice; or committed grave abuse in its
cralaw Id., pp. 63-76.
Karlin v. Charles W. Culkin, as Sheriff of the County of New
treatment of the evidence and prosecution
York, 248 N.Y. 465, 162 N.E. 487, 60 A.L.R. 851.
6
witnesses."1cralawredlaw
cralaw Id., pp. 137-153.

7
But, as a rule, a judgment of acquittal cannot be
cralaw Form No. 28, attached to the Rules of Court. reconsidered because it places the accused under double
EN BANC jeopardy. The Constitution provides in Section 21, Article
8
cralaw Macias v. Selda, A.C. No. 6442, October 21, 2004, III, that: chanrob1esvirtwallawlibrary
441 SCRA 65.
G.R. No. 176389 : January 18, 2011
Section 21. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of
9
cralaw Agpalo, Comments on the Code of Professional punishment for the same offense. x x x
Responsibility and the Code of Judicial Conduct, 2001 ANTONIO LEJANO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE
Edition. PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
To reconsider a judgment of acquittal places the accused
twice in jeopardy of being punished for the crime of which
10
cralaw In Re:Report on the Financial Audit Conducted on G.R. No. 176864 : January 18, 2011 he has already been absolved. There is reason for this
the Books of Accounts of Atty. Raquel G. Kho, Clerk of provision of the Constitution. In criminal cases, the full
Court IV, Regional Trial Court, Oras, Eastern Samar , A. M. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. HUBERT power of the State is ranged against the accused. If there
No. P-06-2177, April 13, 2007, 521 SCRA 25. JEFFREY P. WEBB, ANTONIO LEJANO, MICHAEL A. is no limit to attempts to prosecute the accused for the
GATCHALIAN, HOSPICIO FERNANDEZ, MIGUEL same offense after he has been acquitted, the infinite
RODRIGUEZ, PETER ESTRADA and GERARDO power and capacity of the State for a sustained and
BIONG, Appellants. repeated litigation would eventually overwhelm the
accused in terms of resources, stamina, and the will to Complainant Vizconde cites the decision in Galman v. WE CONCUR:
fight. Sandiganbayan7cralaw as authority that the Court can set
aside the acquittal of the accused in the present case. But
CORONA, C.J. - I vote to grant the M.R.
the government proved in Galman that the prosecution
As the Court said in People of the Philippines v.
was deprived of due process since the judgment of
Sandiganbayan:2cralawredlaw
acquittal in that case was "dictated, coerced and CARPIO, J. - No part, prior inhibition
scripted."8cralaw It was a sham trial. Here, however,
[A]t the heart of this policy is the concern that permitting Vizconde does not allege that the Court held a sham
review of the decision of the CA. He has made out no case VELASCO, JR., J.- No part due to relastionship to a
the sovereign freely to subject the citizen to a second
that the Court held a phony deliberation in this case such party
judgment for the same offense would arm the government
with a potent instrument of oppression. The provision that the seven Justices who voted to acquit the accused,
therefore guarantees that the State shall not be permitted the four who dissented, and the four who inhibited NACHURA, J. - No part; filed pleading as Sol Gen
to make repeated attempts to convict an individual for an themselves did not really go through the process.
alleged offense, thereby subjecting him to embarrassment,
expense, and ordeal and compelling him to live in a LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. - I vote to grant the
Ultimately, what the complainant actually questions is the motion for reconsideration
continuing state of anxiety and insecurity, as well as
Court's appreciation of the evidence and assessment of
enhancing the possibility that even though innocent he
the prosecution witnesses' credibility. He ascribes grave
may be found guilty. Society's awareness of the heavy VILLARAMA, JR., J. - I vote to grant the motion for
error on the Court's finding that Alfaro was not a credible
personal strain which a criminal trial represents for the reconsideration
witness and assails the value assigned by the Court to the
individual defendant is manifested in the willingness to limit
evidence of the defense. In other words, private
the government to a single criminal proceeding to vindicate
complainant wants the Court to review the evidence anew BRION, J. - Same vote as J. Villarama
its very vital interest in the enforcement of criminal
and render another judgment based on such a re-
laws. 3cralawredlaw
evaluation. This is not constitutionally allowed as it is
merely a repeated attempt to secure Webb, et al's DEL CASTILLO, J. - No part
Of course, on occasions, a motion for reconsideration after conviction. The judgment acquitting Webb, et al is final and
an acquittal is possible. But the grounds are exceptional can no longer be disturbed. CARPIO MORALES, PERALTA, BERSAMIN, ABAD,
and narrow as when the court that absolved the accused PEREZ, MENDOZA, and
gravely abused its discretion, resulting in loss of
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES for lack of merit
jurisdiction, or when a mistrial has occurred. In any of such
complainant Lauro G. Vizconde's motion for SERENO, JJ. - See concurring Opinion
cases, the State may assail the decision by special civil
reconsideration dated December 28, 2010.
action of certiorari under Rule 65.4cralawredlaw

For essentially the same reason, the Court DENIES the

Here, although complainant Vizconde invoked the
motions for leave to intervene of Fr. Robert P. Reyes,
exceptions, he has been unable to bring his pleas for
Sister Mary John R. Mananzan, Bishop Evangelio L.
reconsideration under such exceptions. For instance, he
Mercado, and Dante L.A. Jimenez, representing the
avers that the Court "must ensure that due process is
Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption and of former cralaw Endnotes:
afforded to all parties and there is no grave abuse of
Vice President Teofisto Guingona, Jr.
discretion in the treatment of witnesses and the
evidence."5cralaw But he has not specified the violations of
due process or acts constituting grave abuse of discretion No further pleadings shall be entertained in this case.
that the Court supposedly committed. His claim that "the 1
highly questionable and suspicious evidence for the cralaw Private Complainant's Motion for Reconsideration,
SO ORDERED. p. 8.
defense taints with serious doubts the validity of the
decision"6cralaw is, without more, a mere conclusion
drawn from personal perception. ROBERTO A. ABAD 2
cralaw G.R. Nos. 168188-89, June 16, 2006, 491 SCRA
Associate Justice 185.
3
cralaw Id. at 207. sanctions be meted on respondent Atty. Luna B. Avance Subsequently, respondent made representations with
for mishandling Civil Case No. 97-275. complainant that she was going to file a petition for
4 certiorari with the Court of Appeals, assailing the dismissal
cralaw Castro v. People, G.R. No. 180832, July 23, 2008,
of Civil Case No. 97-275. For the proposed service,
559 SCRA 676, 683-684. Complainant averred that she was the defendant in an
respondent charged complainant the total sum of
action for ejectment docketed as Civil Case No. 50988
P3,900.00, which the latter paid.9 After waiting for some
5 filed with Branch 62 of the Makati City Metropolitan Trial
cralaw Supra note 1, at 7. time without any word from respondent, complainant
Court (MTC). On March 3, 1997, the trial court rendered
personally verified with the docket section of the Court of
judgment against her. Thereafter, she filed a supersedeas
6 Appeals whether or not a petition for certiorari was filed.
cralaw Id. at 12. bond with the Clerk of Court of the Makati MTC.
She was dismayed to discover that no such petition had
been filed.
7
cralaw 228 Phil. 42 (1986). Sometime in February 1997, during the pendency of the
ejectment case, complainant filed an action to Declare
Complainant also alleged that respondent took from her
8 Deed of Absolute Sale Null and Void and for
cralaw Id. at 89. the official receipt and pictures of the torn-down structures
Reconveyance with Damages with Branch 147 of the
which were the subject of Civil Case No. 50988, issued by
Makati City Regional Trial Court. The case was
the Clerk of Court of Branch 62 of the Makati City MTC,
EN BANC entitled, Feliciana David Santeco, et al. v. Ramon
evidencing her deposit of the supersedeas bond.
Gutierrez, et al., and docketed as Civil Case No. 97-275.
Respondent obtained the same under the pretext that she
A.C. No. 5834 : December 11, 2003 needed them in the motion for the withdrawal of
On or before March 1998, complainant terminated the complainants deposit.
services of her then counsel and engaged the services of
TERESITA D. SANTECO, complainant, vs. ATTY. LUNA respondent Atty. Luna B. Avance as her counsel de
B. AVANCE, Respondent. Complainant further averred that respondent told her to go
parte in both cases. Complainant agreed to and did pay
to the court to claim the check for the supersedeas bond
respondent P12,000.00 as acceptance fee for her
and have the same encashed with the Landbank.
DECISION services.3cräläwvirtualibräry
However, upon verification with the MTC, she discovered
that there was no such check and that she needs to
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: In June 1997 and August 2000, complainant paid present the official receipt to withdraw said deposit. She
respondent the sums of P1,500.00 and P500.00 tried to recover the official receipt from respondent but the
respectively in full satisfaction of their acceptance fee. latter kept avoiding her.
The relationship between a lawyer and a client is highly However, respondent refused to issue to complainant the
fiduciary; it requires a high degree of fidelity and good corresponding receipts therefor, despite demands to do
faith.1 The Code of Professional Responsibility states: Thus, complainant filed an action against respondent
so.
before the Barangay Office of Barangay Nangka, Marikina
City. Respondent, however, repeatedly failed to appear at
CANON 17. A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO CAUSE OF In an Order dated July 6, 1998 in Civil Case No. 97-275, the conciliation proceedings, despite notice of the
HIS CLIENT AND HE SHALL BE MINDFUL OF THE the Presiding Judge of Branch 147 of the Makati City RTC hearings, prompting the Lupong Tagapayapa, to issue a
TRUST AND CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM. expunged from the record the testimony of a witness for certification to file action.10 Since then, respondent
complainant, who was one of the plaintiffs persistently avoided complainant and failed to represent
CANON 18. A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT therein.4 Respondent, as her counsel, filed a Motion to her in Civil Cases Nos. 50988 and 97-275. According to
WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE. Reconsider and/or Set Aside Order of July 6, 1998.5 The complainant, respondent just stopped appearing as her
motion was denied by the trial court in an Order counsel of record without any justifiable reason. Hence,
dated June 30, 1999.6 Thereafter, on August 27, she prayed that appropriate sanctions be meted on
We are once again called upon to reiterate these dicta in 1999,7 Civil Case No. 97-275 was dismissed for failure to respondent.
the instant administrative matter before us. prosecute. Respondent filed a Motion to Reconsider
and/or Set Aside Order of August 27,
After the filing of the administrative complaint, docketed as
On July 31, 2001, Teresita D. Santeco filed a Verified 1999.8cräläwvirtualibräry
CBD Case No. 01-861, an Order dated August 1,
Complaint2 with the Committee on Bar Discipline of the 200111 was issued by the Commission on Bar Discipline
Integrated Bar of the Philippines praying that appropriate
requiring respondent to submit her Answer within fifteen as she promised the complainant and even got litigation Reconsider and/or Set Aside Order of August 27, 1999
(15) days from receipt thereof. A copy of said Order was expenses relative to the same. on February 8, 200021 way beyond the reglementary
received by respondent on August 8, 2001. Respondent period for the filing thereof. She proffered the lame excuse
failed to file her Answer, which compelled complainant to that notices sent to her were returned to the trial court with
Likewise, respondent violated Canon 20 when she
file a Motion To Declare Respondent In Default And To Set the notation: Moved.22 However, it was her duty to notify
discontinued her legal services for complainant without
Case For Hearing Ex Parte.12 She furnished respondent the court of the change in her address, if she had indeed
any notice of withdrawal and even ignored the issuances
copy of the motion by personal service. The copy was moved.
of the Commission for her to answer the complaint filed
received by one Kins Avance on October 3,
against her.
2001.13cräläwvirtualibräry
Even as the aforesaid motion for reconsideration was
pending, she made representations with complainant that
On August 3, 2002, the Board of Governors of the
Respondent still failed to file her Answer. Thus, the she would file a petition for certiorari with the Court of
Integrated Bar of the Philippines issued Resolution No.
Commission on Bar Discipline issued an Order Appeals assailing the trial courts dismissal of Civil Case
XV-02-408, adopting and approving the report and
dated October 30, 2001 setting the case for hearing No. 97-275. For the filing and preparation thereof, she
recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner.
on November 20, 2001. This Order was received by charged and was paid the sum of P3,900.00 by
respondent on November 8, 2001, as reflected in the complainant.23 Respondent, however, did not file the
Registry Return Receipt thereof. While we agree that indeed respondent is liable, we find petition without notifying the complainant.
the recommended penalty not commensurate to the
degree of her malfeasance.
On the scheduled hearing on November 20, 2001, only the Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
complainant appeared.14 In order to abbreviate mandates that a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter
proceedings, the Commission on Bar Discipline issued an There can be no question that respondent was grossly entrusted to him. Her negligence in connection therewith
Order15 requiring both parties to submit their respective remiss in the performance of her duties as counsel for shall render her liable. Verily
memoranda within twenty (20) days from receipt, after complainant. The records show that in engaging the
which the case shall be deemed submitted for decision services of respondent, complainant agreed to and did pay
Once he agrees to take up the cause of a client, a lawyer
with or without memoranda. Respondent received a copy respondent P12,000.00 as acceptance fee.17 It also
owes fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of
of the Order on November 27, 2001, per the Registry appears that on April 20, 1998, a witness for complainant
the trust and confidence reposed in him. He must serve
Return Receipt. in Civil Case No. 97-275 testified before the court on direct
the client with competence and diligence and champion
examination. For lack of material time, the cross-
the latters cause with wholehearted fidelity, care and
examination was reset to June 1, 1998. However, the
Pursuant to the foregoing Order, complainant filed her devotion. Elsewise stated, he owes entire devotion to the
witness failed to attend the hearing on the said date.
Position Paper on December 13, 2001.16 Again, interest of the client, warm zeal in the maintenance and
Respondent, on the other hand, arrived late. Over the
respondent did not file her memorandum. defense of his clients rights, and the exertion of his utmost
vehement objections of defense counsel, the trial court
learning and ability to the end that nothing be taken or
reset the hearing to July 6, 1998, with the warning that in
withheld from his client, save by the rules of law, legally
On March 14, 2002, Investigating Commissioner Lydia A. the event the witness fails to appear on said date, her
applied. This simply means that his client is entitled to the
Navarro submitted a Report finding respondent culpable direct examination shall be expunged. The witness again
benefit of any and every remedy and defense that is
as charged and recommended that she be suspended failed to appear at the next hearing because she went to
authorized by the law of the land and he may expect his
from the practice of law for two (2) years. She found that: Baguio. Respondent was likewise not around when the
lawyer to assert every such remedy or defense. If much is
case was called. Thus, on motion of adverse counsel, the
demanded from an attorney, it is because the entrusted
trial court ordered that the testimony of the witness be
As it is, respondent violated Canon 16 of the Code of privilege to practice law carries with it the correlative duties
stricken off the record.18cräläwvirtualibräry
Professional Responsibility for having failed to account to not only to the client but also to the court, to the bar and to
the complainant the official receipt of the supersedeas the public. A lawyer who performs his duty with diligence
bond she got from complainant to withdrew (sic) the same These incidents show respondents lackadaisical manner in and candor not only protects the interest of his client; he
from the court relative to the ejectment case. handling her clients cause. Again, for respondents failure also serves the ends of justice, does honor to the bar and
to appear during the hearings scheduled on August 23 and helps maintain the respect of the community to the legal
27, 1999, Civil Case No. 97-275 was dismissed for failure profession.24cräläwvirtualibräry
Respondent also violated Canon 18.03 for having failed to
to prosecute.19 Her failure to appear during those hearings
file the [petition for] certiorari before the Court of Appeals
constitutes inexcusable negligence as it proved fatal to the
cause of complainant.20 She thereafter filed a Motion to
Aggravating her gross negligence in the performance of CANON 1. A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, respondent
her duties, respondent abruptly stopped appearing as CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND ATTY. LUNA B. AVANCE is hereby SUSPENDED from
complainants counsel even as proceedings were still PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LEGAL PROCESSES. the practice of law for a period of five (5) years. She is
pending with neither a withdrawal nor an explanation for directed to return to complainant the amount of P3,900.00
doing so. This was in gross violation of the following: within ten (10) days from notice.
The inevitable conclusion is that respondent gravely
abused the confidence that complainant reposed in her
CANON 22. A LAWYER SHALL WITHDRAW HIS and with palpable bad faith. Her persistent refusal to This decision shall take effect immediately. Copies thereof
SERVICES ONLY FOR GOOD CAUSE AND UPON comply with lawful orders directed at her without any shall be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, to be
NOTICE APPROPRIATE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES. explanation for doing so, is contumacious conduct which appended to respondents personal record. The Court
(Italics supplied) merits no compassion. Administrator shall also furnish all lower courts with copies
of this Decision.
It must be remembered that while the right of the client to A lawyer has the duty to uphold the integrity and dignity of
terminate the relation is absolute, i.e., with or without the legal profession at all times and to faithfully perform SO ORDERED.
cause,25 the right of the attorney to withdraw or terminate her duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and to her
the relation other than for sufficient cause is considerably clients.32 We can not tolerate any misconduct that tends to
Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno, Vitug, Panganiban,
restricted.26 Among the fundamental rules of ethics is the besmirch the fair name of an honorable profession.
Quisumbing, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-
principle that an attorney who undertakes to conduct an
Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna,
action impliedly stipulates to carry it to its termination.27 He
All told, respondent has dismally failed to do her duty to and Tinga, JJ., concur.
is not at liberty to abandon it without reasonable
her client and has clearly violated the Code of Professional
cause.28cräläwvirtualibräry
Responsibility. Respondents actions erode the public
perception of the legal profession. They constitute gross
The grounds wherein a lawyer may withdraw his services misconduct, and the sanctions for such malfeasance is
are well-defined,29 and the abruptness of respondents provided by Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court
Endnotes:
withdrawal hardly fits into any of them. Be that as it may, which states:
whether or not a lawyer has a valid cause for withdrawing
1
from a case, he can not just do so and leave the client out Espiritu v. Atty. Juan Cabredo IV, A.C. No. 5831, 13
SEC. 27. Disbarment and suspension of attorneys by
in the cold unprotected.30 An attorney may only retire from January 2003, citing Angeles v. Uy, 386 Phil. 6 [2000].
Supreme Court, grounds therefore. A member of the bar
a case either by written consent of his client or by
may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney
permission of the court after due notice and hearing, in 2
by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice or other Rollo, p. 1.
which event the lawyer should see to it that the name of
gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct
the new counsel is recorded in the
or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral
case.31cräläwvirtualibräry 3
Id., p. 19.
turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is
required to take before the admission to practice, or for a
Respondents consistent refusal to comply with lawful willful disobedience appearing as attorney for a party 4
Id., p. 20.
orders in the proceedings before the Commission on Bar without authority to do so.
Discipline, with no explanation offered to justify them, not 5
only underscores her utter lack of respect for authority, but Id., p. 22.
The penalty of suspension for a period of two (2) years
also a defiance for law and order which is at the very core
recommended by the Board of Governors of the IBP is too
of her profession. Such defiance is anathema to those who 6
Id., p. 25.
light and inadequate given the prevailing facts of this case.
seek a career in the administration of justice
For the deliberate violation and defiance of not merely one
because obedience to the dictates of the law and justice is
but several Canons of the Code of Professional 7
Id., p. 27.
demanded of every lawyer. How else would respondent
Responsibility, coupled with palpable bad faith and
even endeavor to serve justice and uphold the law when
dishonesty in her dealings with complainant, respondent
she disdains to follow even simple directives? The first and 8
Id., pp. 28-32.
deserves a graver penalty that of suspension for a period
foremost command of the Code of Professional
of five (5) years from the practice of
Responsibility could not be any clearer:
law.33cräläwvirtualibräry 9
Id., p. 4.
10 28
Id., p. 6. Id., citing Stork v. Mishel, 6 ALR 174. vs.
The Hon. BIENVENIDO BLANCAFLOR, in his capacity
11 29 as the Acting Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial
Id., p. 7. Rule 22.01. A lawyer may withdraw his services in any
Court of Palawan, Branch 52, and PEOPLE OF THE
of the following cases:
PHILIPPINES, Respondents.
12
Id., p. 8.
a) When the client pursues an illegal or immoral course of
DECISION
13 conduct in connection with the matter he is handling;
Id.
MENDOZA, J.:
14 b) When the client insists that the lawyer pursue conduct
Id., p. 11.
violative of these canons and rules;
This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule
15 65 of the Revised Rules of Court filed by Alen Ross
Id., p. 12.
c) When his inability to work with co-counsel will not
Rodriguez (Rodriguez), the Provincial Prosecutor of
promote the best interest of his client;
16 Palawan; and Regidor Tulali (Tulali), Prosecutor I of the
Id., pp. 13-18. Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Palawan, seeking to
d) When the mental and physical condition of the lawyer annul and set aside the October 13, 2009 Decision1 of
17 respondent Judge Bienvenido Blancaflor (Judge
Id., p. 19. renders it difficult for him to carry out the employment
effectively; Blancaflor), Acting Presiding Judge of Branch 52, Regional
18
Trial Court, Palawan (RTC). The petition likewise seeks to
Id., p. 25. prohibit Judge Blancaflor from implementing the said
e) When the client deliberately fails to pay the fees for the decision.
19 services or fails to comply with the retainer agreement;
Id., p. 27.
In his October 13, 2009 Decision, Judge Blancaflor found
20 f) When the lawyer is elected or appointed to public office; petitioners Rodriguez and Tulali guilty of direct contempt
See Rizalino Fernandez v. Atty. Reynaldo Novero, Jr.,
and and ordered them to issue a public apology to the court. In
A.C. No. 5394, 2 December 2002.
the same decision, Judge Blancaflor suspended them
21 g) Other similar cases. indefinitely from the practice of law. The dispositive portion
Rollo, pp. 28-36. of the decision reads:
30
22 Pineda, Legal and Judicial Ethics, supra, p. 300.
Id., pp. 29-30. WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby
31
rendered finding respondents PROVINCIAL
23 Guanzon v. Aragon, 107 Phil. 315 [1960]; see also PROSECUTORS OF PALAWAN ALEN ROSS B.
Id., p. 19. Section 26, Rule 138 Rules of Court. RODRIGUEZ and PROSECUTOR REGIDOR TULALI as
24
both guilty of direct contempt and for violation of their oath
Ramos v. Jacoba, A.C. No. 5505, 27 September 2001. 32
Teodolfo Reyes v. Atty. Rolando Javier, A.C. No. of office as member of the bar and as officer of the Court,
5574, 2 February 2002. and hereby sentence them to suffer the penalty of
25
Rincomada Telephone Co., Inc. v. Buenviaje, 263 Phil. INDEFINITE SUSPENSION from practice of law and for
162 [1990], citing Aro v. Naawa, 137 Phil. 745 [1969]. 33
each to pay a fine of ₱100,000.00.
Soledad Nuez v. Atty. Romulo Ricafort, A.C. No.
5054, 29 May 2002. SECOND DIVISION
26
Pineda, E. L. Legal and Judicial Ethics, 1999 ed., p. 300, Respondents are further directed to issue a public apology
citing 7. C.J.S. 940. to the Court for the above grave offenses and should they
G.R. No. 190171 March 14, 2011 fail to do so after the finality of this Sentence, a warrant for
27
their arrest will be issued, and they will not be released
Id. ALEN ROSS RODRIGUEZ and REGIDOR unless they comply with the order of this Court.
TULALI, Petitioners,
Let a copy of this Order be furnished the Secretary of continued inquiries considering that the decision in the SINCE THE ASSAILED DECISION AND
Justice for appropriate action. arson case had already been promulgated. ORDER ARE VOID, A WRIT OF PROHIBITION
MUST BE ISSUED AGAINST RESPONDENT.4
IT IS SO ORDERED.2 In an order dated August 13, 2009, Judge Blancaflor
informed the petitioners that he was proceeding against Petitioners argue that the contempt proceedings are null
them for direct contempt and violation of their oath of office and void for contravening their rights to due process of
The Facts
on the basis of Tulali’s Ex-Parte Manifestation. law. They claim that they were denied their rights to be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against
Previously pending before Judge Blancaflor was Criminal them, to confront the witnesses and present their own
As earlier recited, after the submission of petitioners’
Case No. 22240 for arson (arson case), entitled People of evidence. According to petitioners, Judge Blancaflor’s
respective position papers, Judge Blancaflor issued the
the Philippines v. Teksan Ami, in which Tulali was the trial disregard of due process constituted grave abuse of
assailed October 13, 2009 Decision finding petitioners
prosecutor. discretion which was further aggravated by the unlawful
guilty of direct contempt. The penalty of indefinite
manner of simultaneously conducting suspension and
suspension from the practice of law and a fine of
contempt proceedings against them.
During the pendency of the case, Tulali was implicated in a ₱100,000.00 each were imposed upon them.
controversy involving an alleged bribery initiated by Randy
Awayan (Awayan), the driver assigned to Judge Blancaflor Petitioners further argue that the penalty imposed upon
The petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration of the
under the payroll of the Office of the Governor of Palawan, them in the "direct contempt" proceeding is clearly
decision but it was denied in the assailed November 6,
and one Ernesto Fernandez (Fernandez), to assure the oppressive and without basis.
2009 Order.3
acquittal of the accused, Rolly Ami (Ami), and the
dismissal of the arson case.
In its Manifestation in Lieu of Comment,5 the Office of the
Hence, the petitioners interpose the present special civil
Solicitor General (OSG) stated that Judge Blancaflor
action before this Court anchored on the following
On June 29, 2009, a day before the scheduled committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
promulgation of the decision in the arson case, Tulali filed excess of jurisdiction in holding petitioners guilty of direct
an Ex-Parte Manifestation withdrawing his appearance in GROUNDS contempt as the judgment was not based on law and
the said case to prevent any suspicion of misdemeanor evidence.
and collusion. He attached to the said manifestation a
(A)
copy of the administrative complaint against Awayan filed
The petition is impressed with merit.
(but eventually withdrawn) by his superior, Rodriguez,
before the Office of the Governor of Palawan. RESPONDENT COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE
OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR The power to punish a person in contempt of court is
EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN ISSUING THE inherent in all courts to preserve order in judicial
On June 30, 2009, Judge Blancaflor rendered his decision
ASSAILED DECISION AND ORDER proceedings and to uphold the orderly administration of
acquitting Ami of the crime of arson.
CONSIDERING THAT PETITIONERS WERE justice. However, judges are enjoined to exercise the
DENIED THEIR RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS. power judiciously and sparingly, with utmost restraint, and
Purportedly on the basis of the administrative complaint with the end in view of utilizing the same for correction and
filed against Awayan and Rodriguez, Judge Blancaflor preservation of the dignity of the court, and not for
(B) retaliation or vindictiveness. It bears stressing that the
summoned several witnesses including Tulali and heard
their testimonies. On July 30, 2009, he issued an order power to declare a person in contempt of court must be
summoning Rodriguez to appear before him for the RESPONDENT COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE exercised on the preservative, not the vindictive principle;
purpose of holding an inquiry on matters pertaining to his OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR and on the corrective, not the retaliatory, idea of
possible involvement in Tulali’s filing of the ex- EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN ISSUING THE punishment.6 Such power, being drastic and extraordinary
parte manifestation and the administrative complaint ASSAILED DECISION AND ORDER in its nature, should not be resorted to unless necessary in
against Awayan, among others. CONSIDERING THAT HE GROSSLY the interest of justice.7
VIOLATED THE RULES ON CONTEMPT.
On August 7, 2009, Rodriguez filed his Motion for
Clarification as to the purpose of Judge Blancaflor’s (C)
In this case, the Court cannot sustain Judge Blancaflor’s The penalty of indefinite suspension from the practice of particulars and certified true copies of documents or
order penalizing petitioners for direct contempt on the law and to pay a fine of ₱100,000.00 each with the papers involved therein, and upon full compliance with the
basis of Tulali’s Ex-Parte Manifestation. additional order to issue a public apology to the Court requirements for filing initiatory pleadings for civil actions in
under pain of arrest, is evidently unreasonable, excessive the court concerned. If the contempt charges arose out of
and outside the bounds of the law. or are related to a principal action pending in the court, the
Direct contempt is any misbehavior in the presence of or
petition for contempt shall allege that fact but said petition
so near a court as to obstruct or interrupt the proceedings
shall be docketed, heard and decided separately, unless
before the same, including disrespect toward the court, Petitioners also fault Judge Blancaflor for non-observance
the court in its discretion orders the consolidation of the
offensive personalities toward others, or refusal to be of due process in conducting the contempt proceedings. It
contempt charge and the principal action for joint hearing
sworn or to answer as a witness, or to subscribe an must be emphasized that direct contempt is adjudged and
and decision.
affidavit or deposition when lawfully required to do so.8 punished summarily pursuant to Section 1, Rule 71 of the
Rules. Hence, hearings and opportunity to confront
witnesses are absolutely unnecessary. In the present case, Judge Blancaflor failed to observe the
Based on the foregoing definition, the act of Tulali in filing
elementary procedure which requires written charge and
the Ex-Parte Manifestation cannot be construed as
due hearing. There was no order issued to petitioners.
contumacious within the purview of direct contempt. It In the same vein, the petitioners’ alleged "vilification
Neither was there any written or formal charge filed
must be recalled that the subject manifestation bore campaign" against Judge Blancaflor cannot be regarded
against them. In fact, Rodriguez only learned of the
Tulali’s voluntary withdrawal from the arson case to dispel as direct contempt. At most, it may constitute indirect
contempt proceedings upon his receipt of the July 30,
any suspicion of collusion between him and the accused. contempt, as correctly concluded by the OSG. For indirect
2009 Order, requiring him to appear before the Court in
Its filing on the day before the promulgation of the decision contempt citation to prosper, however, the requirements
order to clarify certain matters contained in the said order.
in the pending criminal case, did not in any way disrupt the under Sections 3 and 4, Rule 71 of the Rules must be
Tulali, on the other hand, only learned of the proceedings
proceedings before the court. Accordingly, he should not satisfied, to wit:
when he was ordered to submit his compliance to explain
be held accountable for his act which was done in good
how he came in possession of the administrative complaint
faith and without malice.
Sec. 3. Indirect contempt to be punished after charge and against Awayan.
hearing. – After a charge in writing has been filed, and an
Neither should Rodriguez be liable for direct contempt as opportunity given to the respondent to comment thereon
The fact that petitioners were afforded the opportunity to
he had no knowledge of, or participation in, the preparation within such period as may be fixed by the court and to be
file their appropriate pleadings is not sufficient as the
and filing of the subject manifestation. It was signed and heard by himself or counsel, a person guilty of any of the
proceedings ex-parte to hear the witnesses’ testimonies
filed by Tulali alone in his capacity as the trial prosecutor in following acts may be punished for indirect contempt:
had already been completed.
the arson case. The attached complaint against Awayan
was filed with the Office of the Palawan Governor, and not
xxx
with the RTC. In the course of his investigation, Judge Blancaflor showed
that he no longer had the cold impartiality expected of a
(d) any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to magistrate. He had clearly prejudged petitioners as
Apparently, Judge Blancaflor’s conclusion, that the subject
impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice; manifested in the questions propounded in his July 30,
manifestation containing derogatory matters was
2009 Order, as follows:
purposely filed to discredit the administration of justice in
court, is unfounded and without basis. There being no x x x.
factual or legal basis for the charge of direct contempt, it is a. Your [petitioner Rodriguez’s] participation, if
clear that Judge Blancaflor gravely abused his discretion in any, in the filing of the ex-parte manifestation by
finding petitioners guilty as charged. Sec. 4. How proceedings commenced. — Proceedings for Prosecutor Tulali together with the attachment of
indirect contempt may be initiated motu proprio by the
your letter to Gov. Joel T. Reyes dated May 8,
court against which the contempt was committed by an 2009 filed on June 29, 2009 with the Clerk of
Such grave abuse of authority is likewise manifested from order or any other formal charge requiring the respondent Court, Branch 52, Regional Trial Court,
the penalty imposed on the petitioners. Under Section 1, to show cause why he should not be punished for
Palawan;
Rule 71 of the Revised Rules of Court, direct contempt contempt.
before the RTC or a court of equivalent or higher rank is
punishable by a fine not exceeding ₱2,000.00 or b. Whether or not the letter was received and
In all other cases, charges for indirect contempt shall be
imprisonment not exceeding ten (10) days, or both. read by Gov. Joel T. Reyes, if you know, and if
commenced by a verified petition with supporting
so what was the official action thereon;
 c. Before Randy Awayan was terminated on pettiness in the performance of his duties. He should Granting that the simultaneous conduct of contempt and
June 30, 2009 was he allowed to answer the always bear in mind that the power of the court to punish suspension proceedings is permitted, the suspension of
charges against him, i.e., calling him bag man for contempt should be exercised for purposes that are petitioners must still fail.
and facilitator and Ernesto Fernandez, calling impersonal, because that power is intended as a
him "extortionist." safeguard not for the judges as persons but for the
This Court is not unmindful of a judge’s power to suspend
functions that they exercise.10
an attorney from practice for just cause pursuant to
Aside from the allegations of Salam Ami, any Section 28, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court. Judge
other evidentiary basis for your conclusion that Contempt and suspension proceedings are supposed to Blancaflor, however, must be reminded that the
Ernesto Fernandez was an extortionist and that be separate and distinct. They have different objects and requirements of due process must be complied with, as
Awayan was a bag man and facilitator; purposes for which different procedures have been mandated under Section 30, Rule 138 of the same Rules
established. Judge Blancaflor should have conducted which specifically provides, viz:
separate proceedings. As held in the case of People v.
What was your role in obtaining the release of
Godoy,11 thus:
accused Rolly Ami from the City Jail without Sec. 30. Attorney to be heard before removal or
permission from the Court on June 29, 2009 at suspension. – No attorney shall be removed or suspended
2:00 0’clock in the afternoon and having been A contempt proceeding for misbehavior in court is from the practice of his profession, until he has had full
interviewed in the Office of the Provincial designed to vindicate the authority of the court; on the opportunity upon reasonable notice to answer the charges
Prosecutor (c/o Prosecutor Tulali) and how long other hand, the object of a disciplinary proceeding is to against him, to produce witnesses in his own behalf, and
was Rolly Ami interviewed? deal with the fitness of the court's officer to continue in that to be heard by himself or counsel. But if upon reasonable
office, to preserve and protect the court and the public notice he fails to appear and answer the accusation, the
from the official ministrations of persons unfit or unworthy court may proceed to determine the matter ex parte.
d. Rolly Ami is publicly known as illiterate
to hold such office. The principal purpose of the exercise
(cannot read or write) but he was made to sign
of the power to cite for contempt is to safeguard the
affidavits in the absence of his lawyer on June Indeed, a lawyer may be disbarred or suspended for any
functions of the court and should thus be used sparingly
29, 2009 at 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon, why? misconduct showing any fault or deficiency in his moral
on a preservative and not, on the vindictive principle. The
character, honesty, probity or good demeanor. His guilt,
principal purpose of the exercise of disciplinary authority
however, cannot be presumed. It must indicate the
e. Rolly Ami was fetched upon his release by by the Supreme Court is to assure respect for orders of
dubious character of the acts done, as well as the
SPO4 Efren Guinto, a close associate of yours, such court by attorneys who, as much as judges, are
motivation thereof. Furthermore, a disbarred lawyer must
and directly went to the Palawan Pawnshop to responsible for the orderly administration of justice.
have been given full opportunity upon reasonable notice to
pawn expensive jewelry (watch and ring), why?
answer the charges against him, produce witnesses in his
x x x. It has likewise been the rule that a notice to a lawyer own behalf, and to be heard by himself and counsel.12
What is your participation in the media coverage Re: to show cause why he should not be punished for
VILIFICATION CAMPAIGN of the Judge of Branch 52 contempt cannot be considered as a notice to show cause
In the case at bench, there was no prior and separate
RTC-Palawan from July 1 to 10, 2009. Do you recognize why he should not be suspended from the practice of law,
notice issued to petitioners setting forth the facts
that as a member of the Bar and as an officer of the Court, considering that they have distinct objects and for each of
constituting the misconduct and requiring them, within a
pursuant to the rules of judicial ethics and your oath of them a different procedure is established. Contempt of
specified period from receipt thereof, to show cause why
office as a lawyer, your loyalty and fidelity is primarily to court is governed by the procedures laid down under Rule
they should not be suspended from the practice of their
the Court? Do you still recognize this duty and obligation?9 71 of the Rules of Court, whereas disciplinary actions in
profession. Neither were they given full opportunity to
the practice of law are governed by file 138 and 139
defend themselves, to produce evidence on their behalf
thereof.
Indeed, Judge Blancaflor failed to conform to the standard and to be heard by themselves and counsel. Undoubtedly,
of honesty and impartiality required of judges as mandated the suspension proceedings against petitioners are null
under Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Thus, it was grossly improper for Judge Blancaflor to and void, having violated their right to due process.
consider his July 30, 2009 Order on the contempt charge
as the notice required in the disciplinary proceedings
As a public servant, a judge should perform his duties in Likewise, Judge Blancaflor’s suspension order is also void
suspending petitioners from the practice of law.1avvphi1
accordance with the dictates of his conscience and the as the basis for suspension is not one of the causes that
light that God has given him. A judge should never allow will warrant disciplinary action. Section 27, Rule 138 of the
himself to be moved by pride, prejudice, passion, or Rules enumerates the grounds for disbarment or
suspension of a member of the Bar from his office as JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA * Designated as additional member in lieu of
attorney, to wit: (1) deceit, (2) malpractice, (3) gross Associate Justice Associate Justice Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura,
misconduct in office, (4) grossly immoral conduct, (5) per Special Order No. 933 dated January 24,
conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, (6) violation 2011.
WE CONCUR:
of the lawyer's oath, (7) willful disobedience of any lawful
order of a superior court, and for (8) willfully appearing as 1
Annex "A" of Petition, rollo, pp. 41-46.
an attorney for a party without authority to do so. Judge ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Blancaflor failed to show that the suspension was for any Associate Justice
of the foregoing grounds. 2
Chairperson Id. at 46.

3
In fine, having established that Judge Blancaflor PRESBITERO J. DIOSDADO M. Id. at 47.
committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or VELASCO, JR.* PERALTA
excess of jurisdiction, petitioners are entitled to the remedy Associate Justice Associate Justice 4
of prohibition under Section 2, Rule 71 of the Rules on Id. at 11.
Contempt which provides:
ROBERTO A. ABAD 5
Id. at 67.
Associate Justice
SEC. 2. Remedy therefrom. - The person adjudged in
direct contempt by any court may not appeal therefrom, 6
Baculi v. Belen, A.M. No. RTJ-09-2176, April
but may avail himself of the remedies of certiorari or ATTESTATION 20, 2009, 586 SCRA 69, 80.
prohibition. The execution of the judgment shall be
suspended pending resolution of such petition, provided 7
such person files a bond fixed by the court which rendered I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had Bank of Philippine Island v. Labor Arbiter
the judgment and conditioned that he will abide by and been reached in consultation before the case was Roderick Joseph Calanza, et al., G.R. No.
perform the judgment should the petition be decided assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division. 180699, October 13, 2010, citing Lu Ym v.
against him. Mahinay, G.R. No. 169476, June 16, 2006, 491
SCRA 253.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Accordingly, an order of direct contempt is not immediately Associate Justice
8
executory or enforceable. The contemnor must be afforded Chairperson, Second Division Section 1, Rule 71 of the Revised Rules of
a reasonable remedy to extricate or purge himself of the Court.
contempt. Where the person adjudged in direct contempt CERTIFICATION
by any court avails of the remedy of certiorari or 9
Rollo, pp. 8-9.
prohibition, the execution of the judgment shall be
suspended pending resolution of such petition provided Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and
the contemnor files a bond fixed by the court which the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that the 10
Baculi v. Belen, A.M. No. RTJ-09-2176, April
rendered the judgment and conditioned that he will abide conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in 20, 2009, 586 SCRA 69, 80, citing Nazareno v.
by and perform the judgment should the petition be consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of Barnes, 220 Phil. 451, 463 (1985), citing Austria
decided against him.13 the opinion of the Court’s Division. v. Masaquel, 127 Phil. 677, 690 (1967).

11
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The October 13, RENATO C. CORONA 312 Phil. 977, 1032, 1033 (1995).
2009 Decision and November 6, 2009 Order are hereby Chief Justice
annulled and set aside. Judge Bienvenido Blancaflor is 12
Re: Administrative Case No. 44 of the
hereby permanently enjoined from implementing the said Regional Trial Court, Branch IV, Tagbilaran City,
decision and order. This injunctive order is immediately Against Atty. Samuel C. Occena, 433 Phil. 138,
executory. 154 (2002).
Footnotes
SO ORDERED.
 13
Tiongco v. Salao, A.M. No. RTJ-06-2009, July the respondent shouted, "Then cite me!"5 Judge Baculi 23. I only told Judge Rene Baculi I will file Gross
27, 2006, 496 SCRA 575, 583, citing Oclarit v. cited him for direct contempt and imposed a fine of ignorance of the Law against him once inside
Paderanga, 403 Phil 146, 152 (2001). P100.00. The respondent then left. the court room when he was lambasting me[.]

While other cases were being heard, the respondent re- 24. It was JUDGE BACULI WHO
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation entered the courtroom and shouted, "Judge, I will file gross DISRESPECTED ME. He did not like that I just
ignorance against you! I am not afraid of you!"6 Judge submit the Motion for Reconsideration without
Baculi ordered the sheriff to escort the respondent out of oral argument because he wanted to have an
A.C. No. 8920 September 28, 2011 the courtroom and cited him for direct contempt of court for occasion to just HUMILIATE ME and to make
the second time. appear to the public that I am A NEGLIGENT
JUDGE RENE B. BACULI, Complainant, LAWYER, when he said "YOU JUSTIFY YOUR
vs. NEGLIGENCE BEFORE THIS COURT" making
After his hearings, Judge Baculi went out and saw the
ATTY. MELCHOR A. BATTUNG, Respondent. it an impression to the litigants and the public
respondent at the hall of the courthouse, apparently
that as if I am a NEGLIGENT, INCOMPETENT,
waiting for him. The respondent again shouted in a
MUMBLING, and IRRESPONSIBLE LAWYER.
DECISION threatening tone, "Judge, I will file gross ignorance against
you! I am not afraid of you!" He kept on shouting, "I am not
afraid of you!" and challenged the judge to a fight. Staff 25. These words of Judge Rene Baculi made
BRION, J.: and lawyers escorted him out of the building.7 me react[.]

Before us is the resolution1 of the Board of Governors of Judge Baculi also learned that after the respondent left the xxxx
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) finding Atty. courtroom, he continued shouting and punched a table at
Melchor Battung liable for violating Rule 11.03, Canon 11 the Office of the Clerk of Court.8
of the Code of Professional Responsibility and 28. Since I manifested that I was not going to
recommending that he be reprimanded. The complainant orally argue the Motion, Judge Rene Baculi
is Judge Rene B. Baculi, Presiding Judge of the Municipal Violation of Canon 12 of the Code of Professional could have just made an order that the Motion
Trial Court in Cities, Branch 2, Tuguegarao City. The Responsibility for Reconsideration is submitted for resolution,
respondent, Atty. Battung, is a member of the Bar with but what he did was that he forced me to argue
postal address on Aguinaldo St., Tuguegarao City. so that he will have the room to humiliate me as
According to Judge Baculi, the respondent filed dilatory
he used to do not only to me but almost of the
pleadings in Civil Case No. 2640, an ejectment case.
lawyers here (sic).
Background
Judge Baculi rendered on October 4, 2007 a decision in
Atty. Battung asked that the case against him be
Judge Baculi filed a complaint for disbarment2 with the Civil Case No. 2640, which he modified on December 14,
dismissed.
Commission on Discipline of the IBP against the 2007. After the modified decision became final and
respondent, alleging that the latter violated Canons executory, the branch clerk of court issued a certificate of
113 and 124 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. finality. The respondent filed a motion to quash the The IBP conducted its investigation of the matter through
previously issued writ of execution, raising as a ground the Commissioner Jose de la Rama, Jr. In his Commissioner’s
motion to dismiss filed by the defendant for lack of Report,11 Commissioner De la Rama stated that during the
Violation of Canon 11 of the Code of Professional jurisdiction. Judge Baculi asserted that the respondent mandatory conference on January 16, 2009, both parties
Responsibility knew as a lawyer that ejectment cases are within the merely reiterated what they alleged in their submitted
jurisdiction of First Level Courts and the latter was merely pleadings. Both parties agreed that the original copy of the
Judge Baculi claimed that on July 24, 2008, during the delaying the speedy and efficient administration of justice. July 24, 2008 tape of the incident at the courtroom would
hearing on the motion for reconsideration of Civil Case No. be submitted for the Commissioner’s review. Judge Baculi
2502, the respondent was shouting while arguing his submitted the tape and the transcript of stenographic notes
The respondent filed his Answer,9 essentially saying that it
motion. Judge Baculi advised him to tone down his voice on January 23, 2009.
was Judge Baculi who disrespected him.10 We quote from
but instead, the respondent shouted at the top of his voice. his Answer:
When warned that he would be cited for direct contempt,
Commissioner De la Rama narrated his findings, as Court: Do not shout. Atty. Battung: But what we do not like … (not finished)
follows:12
Atty. Battung: Because the court is shouting. Court: The next time…
At the first part of the hearing as reflected in the TSN, it
was observed that the respondent was calm. He politely
(Page 3, TSN July 24, 2008) Atty. Battung: We would like to clear …
argued his case but the voice of the complainant appears
to be in high pitch. During the mandatory conference, it
was also observed that indeed, the complainant maintains Note: * it was at this point when the respondent shouted at Court: Sheriff, throw out the counsel, put that everything in
a high pitch whenever he speaks. In fact, in the TSN, the complainant. record. If you want to see me, see me after the court.
where there was already an argument, the complainant
stated the following:
Thereafter, it was observed that both were already Next case.
shouting at each other.
Court: Do not shout.
Civil Case No. 2746 for Partition and Damages, Roberto
Respondent claims that he was provoked by the presiding Cabalza vs. Teresita Narag, et al.
Atty. Battung: Because the court is shouting. judge that is why he shouted back at him. But after hearing
the tape, the undersigned in convinced that it was Atty.
(nothing follows)
Battung who shouted first at the complainant.
Court: This court has been constantly under this kind of
voice Atty. Battung, we are very sorry if you do not want to
Commissioner De la Rama found that the respondent
appear before my court, then you better attend to your Presumably, there were other lawyers and litigants present
cases and do not appear before my court if you do not failed to observe Canon 11 of the Code of Professional
waiting for their cases to be called. They must have
want to be corrected! (TSN, July 24, 2008, page 3) Responsibility that requires a lawyer to observe and
observed the incident. In fact, in the joint-affidavit
maintain respect due the courts and judicial officers. The
submitted by Elenita Pacquing et al., they stood as one in
respondent also violated Rule 11.03 of Canon 11 that
saying that it was really Atty. Battung who shouted at the
(NOTE: The underlined words – "we are very sorry" [– provides that a lawyer shall abstain from scandalous,
judge that is why the latter cautioned him "not to shout."
were] actually uttered by Atty. Battung while the judge was offensive or menacing language or behavior before the
saying the quoted portion of the TSN) courts. The respondent’s argument that Judge Baculi
The last part of the incident as contained in page 4 of the provoked him to shout should not be given due
TSN reads as follows: consideration since the respondent should not have
That it was during the time when the complainant asked
shouted at the presiding judge; by doing so, he created the
the following questions when the undersigned noticed that
impression that disrespect of a judge could be tolerated.
Atty. Battung shouted at the presiding judge. Court: You are now ordered to pay a fine of ₱100.00.
What the respondent should have done was to file an
action before the Office of the Court Administrator if he
Court: Did you proceed under the Revised Rules on Atty. Battung: We will file the necessary action against this believed that Judge Baculi did not act according to the
Summary Procedure? court for gross ignorance of the law. norms of judicial conduct.

* Court: Yes, proceed. With respect to the charge of violation of Canon 12 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, Commissioner De la
Rama found that the evidence submitted is insufficient to
Atty. Battung: It is not our fault Your Honor to proceed (NOTE: Atty. Battung went out the courtroom) support a ruling that the respondent had misused the
because we were asked to present our evidence ex parte.
judicial processes to frustrate the ends of justice.
Your Honor, so, if should we were ordered (sic) by the
court to follow the rules on summary procedure. (TSN Court: Next case.
page 3, July 24, 2008) Commissioner De la Rama recommended that the
Interpreter: Civil Case No. 2746. respondent be suspended from the practice of law for six
(6) months.
It was observed that the judge uttered the following:
(Note: Atty. Battung entered again the courtroom)
On October 9, 2010, the IBP Board of Governors passed a this guarantee, the institution would be resting on very WARNED that a repetition of a similar offense shall be
Resolution adopting and approving the Report and shaky foundations. dealt with more severely.
Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner, with
the modification that the respondent be reprimanded.
A lawyer who insults a judge inside a courtroom Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Office of the
completely disregards the latter’s role, stature and position Bar Confidant, to be appended to the respondent’s
The Court’s Ruling in our justice system. When the respondent publicly personal record as an attorney; the Integrated Bar of the
berated and brazenly threatened Judge Baculi that he Philippines; the Department of Justice; and all courts in the
would file a case for gross ignorance of the law against the country, for their information and guidance.
We agree with the IBP’s finding that the respondent
latter, the respondent effectively acted in a manner tending
violated Rule 11.03, Canon 11 of the Code of Professional
to erode the public confidence in Judge Baculi’s
Responsibility. Atty. Battung disrespected Judge Baculi by SO ORDERED.
competence and in his ability to decide cases.
shouting at him inside the courtroom during court
Incompetence is a matter that, even if true, must be
proceedings in the presence of litigants and their counsels,
handled with sensitivity in the manner provided under the ARTURO D. BRION*
and court personnel. The respondent even came back to
Rules of Court; an objecting or complaining lawyer cannot Associate Justice
harass Judge Baculi. This behavior, in front of many
act in a manner that puts the courts in a bad light and bring
witnesses, cannot be allowed. We note that the
the justice system into disrepute.
respondent continued to threaten Judge Baculi and acted WE CONCUR:
in a manner that clearly showed disrespect for his position
even after the latter had cited him for contempt. In fact, The IBP Board of Governors recommended that Atty.
MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO**
after initially leaving the court, the respondent returned to Battung be reprimanded, while the Investigating
the courtroom and disrupted the ongoing proceedings. Commissioner recommended a penalty of six (6) months Associate Justice
These actions were not only against the person, the suspension.
position and the stature of Judge Baculi, but against the JOSE PORTUGAL JOSE CATRAL
court as well whose proceedings were openly and PEREZ MENDOZA***
We believe that these recommended penalties are too light
flagrantly disrupted, and brought to disrepute by the Associate Justice Associate Justice
for the offense.
respondent.

In Re: Suspension of Atty. Rogelio Z. Bagabuyo, Former MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO

Litigants and counsels, particularly the latter because of
Senior State Prosecutor,14 we suspended Atty. Bagabuyo Associate Justice
their position and avowed duty to the courts, cannot be
for one year for violating Rule 11.05, Canon 11, and Rule
allowed to publicly ridicule, demean and disrespect a
13.02, Canon 13 of the Code of Professional
judge, and the court that he represents. The Code of
Responsibility, and for violating the Lawyer’s Oath for
Professional Responsibility provides:
airing his grievances against a judge in newspapers and
radio programs. In this case, Atty. Battung’s violations are
Canon 11 - A lawyer shall observe and maintain the no less serious as they were committed in the courtroom in Footnotes
respect due the courts and to judicial officers and should the course of judicial proceedings where the respondent
insist on similar conduct by others. was acting as an officer of the court, and before the
litigating public. His actions were plainly disrespectful to * Designated as Acting Chairperson in lieu of
Judge Baculi and to the court, to the point of being Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio, per Special
Rule 11.03 - A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, Order No. 1083 dated September 13, 2011.
scandalous and offensive to the integrity of the judicial
offensive or menacing language or behavior before the
system itself.
Courts.
** Designated as Additional Member in lieu of
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, Atty. Melchor A. Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio, per Special
We ruled in Roxas v. De Zuzuarregui, Jr.13 that it is the Order No. 1084 dated September 13, 2011.
Battung is found GUILTY of violating Rule 11.03, Canon
duty of a lawyer, as an officer of the court, to uphold the
11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, for which he
dignity and authority of the courts. Respect for the courts
is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year *** Designated as Additional Member in lieu of
guarantees the stability of the judicial institution; without
effective upon the finality of this Decision. He is STERNLY Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes, per
 Special Order No. 1107 dated September 27, PRESIDING JUDGE JOSE L. MADRID, REGIONAL This Court will not allow that a case be removed from it
2011. TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 51, SORSOGON just because of the personal sentiments of counsel who
CITY, Complainant, was not even the original counsel of the litigant.
1 vs.
Rollo, p. 161.
ATTY. JUAN S. DEALCA, Respondent.
Moreover, the motion of Atty. Dealca is an affront to the
2 integrity of this Court and the other Courts in this province
Id. at 1-5.
DECISION as hewould like it to appear that jurisdiction over a Family
Court case is based on his whimsical dictates.
3
Canon 11 – A lawyer shall observe and
BERSAMIN, J.:
maintain the respect due the courts and to
This was so because Atty. Dealca had filed Administrative
judicial officers and should insist on similar
as well as criminal cases against this Presiding Judge
conduct by others. Complainant Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court
which were all dismissed by the Hon. Supreme Court for
has had enough of the respondent, a law practitioner, who
utter lack ofmerit. This is why he should not have accepted
had engaged in the unethical practice of filing frivolous
4
Canon 12 – A lawyer shall exert every effort this particular case so as not to derail the smooth
administrative cases against judges and personnel of the
and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy proceedings in this Court with his baseless motions for
courts because the latter filed a motion to inhibit the
and efficient administration of justice. inhibition. It is the lawyer’s duty to appear on behalf of a
complainant from hearing a pending case. Hence, the
client in a case but not to appear for a client to remove a
complainant has initiated this complaint for the disbarment
5 case from the Court. This is unethical practice in the first
Rollo, p. 2. of respondent on the ground of gross misconduct and
order.
gross violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
6
Ibid. WHEREFORE, foregoing considered, the Motion of Atty.
Antecedents
Juan S. Dealca is hereby DENIED. Relative to the Motion
7 to Withdraw as Counsel for the Accused filed by Atty.
Id. at 8-12.
On February 7, 2007, Atty. Juan S.Dealca entered his Vicente C. Judar dated January 29, 2007, the same is
8 appearance in Criminal Case No. 2006-6795, entitled hereby DENIED for being violative of the provisions of
Id. at 13. "People of the Philippines v. Philip William Arsenault" then Section 26 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
pending in Branch 51 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in
9 Sorsogon City, presided by complainant Judge Jose L.
Id. at 20-28. So also, the Appearance of Atty. Juan S. Dealca as new
Madrid.1 Atty. Dealca sought to replace Atty. Vicente Judar
counsel for accused Philip William Arsenault is likewise
who had filed a motion to withdraw as counsel for the
10
Id. at 24. DENIED.
accused. But aside from entering his appearance as
counsel for the accused, Atty. Dealca also moved that
11
Id. at 162-175. Criminal Case No. 2006-6795 be re-raffled to another SO ORDERED.
Branch of the RTC "[c]onsidering the adverse incidents
between the incumbent Presiding Judge and the
12
Id. at 169-171. Consequently, Judge Madrid filed a letter complaint4 in the
undersigned," where" he does not appear before the
Office of the Bar Confidant citing Atty. Dealca’sunethical
incumbent Presiding Judge, and the latter does not also
practice of entering his appearance and then moving for
13
G.R. Nos. 152072 & 152104, July 12, 2007, hear cases handled by the undersigned."2
the inhibition of the presiding judge on the pretext of
527 SCRA 446. previous adverse incidents between them.
Judge Madrid denied Atty. Dealca’s motion to re-raffle
14
A.C. No. 7006, October 9, 2007, 535 SCRA through an order issued on February 14, 2007,3 viz:
On April 10, 2007, we treated the complaint as a regular
200. administrative complaint, and required Atty. Dealca to
xxxx submit his comment.5
A.C. No. 7474 September 9, 2014
In his comment-complaint,6 Atty. Dealca asserted that complainants against court officers, judges and personnel available under the Rules of Procedure, respondent
Judge Madrid’s issuance of the February 14, 2007 order as a consequence of the IBP Election and incidents in assisted his clients in filing administrative and criminal
unconstitutionally and unlawfully deprived the accused of cases that respondent had handled as counselfor the case against the judges and personnel of the court.
the right to counsel, to due process, and to a fair and parties in the said cases.
impartial trial; that Judge Madrid exhibited bias in failing to
The other documentary evidence of the complainants such
act on the motion to lift and set aside the warrant ofarrest
It will be noted that in Bar Matter No. 1197, the as the (a) VERIFIED COMPLAINT dated March 7, 2003 in
issued against the accused; and that it should be Judge
respondents were judges (Judge Jose L. Madrid & Judge Civil Service Case entitled "EDNA GOROSPE-DEALCA
Madrid himself who should be disbarred and accordingly
Honesto A. Villamor) and lawyers in IBP Sorsogon vs. JULIANA ENCINASCARINO, et al.; (b) NOTICE OF
dismissed from the Judiciary for gross ignorance of the
Chapters, who are no doubt officers of the court, and the RESOLUTION on October 22, 2005 in Adm. Case No.
law.
case aroused (sic) out ofthe unfavorable consensus of the 6334 entitled "SOFIAJAO vs. ATTY. EPIFANIA RUBY
IBP chapter members that was adverse to the position of VELACRUZ-OIDA" passed by the Board ofGovernors of
On July 17, 2007, the Court referred the matter to the IBP the respondent. The other four (4) cases aroused [sic] out the Integrated Bar of the Philippines which Resolution No.
for appropriate investigation,report and of the cases handled by respondent for the complainants XVII-2005-92 provides: "RESOLVED to ADOPT and
recommendation.7 Several months thereafter, the Court who failed to secure a favorable action from the court. APPROVE the Report and Recommendation of the
also indorsed pertinent documents in connection with A.M. Investigating Commissioner dismissing the case for lacks
OCA IPI No. 05-2385-RTJ, entitled "Joseph Yap III v. (sic) merit; (c) RESOLUTION of the Third Division of the
Specifically, Adm. Matter OCA IPI No. 04-2113-RTJ was a
Judge Jose L. Madrid and Court Stenographer MerlynD. Supreme Court dated February 1, 2006 in Administrative
result of the case before the sala of Judge Jose L. Madrid
Dominguez, both of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch Case No. 6334 (Sofia Jao vs. Epifania Ruby Velacruz-
(RTC 51) entitled "Alita P. Gomez vs. Rodrigo Jarabo, et
51, Sorsogon City" (Yap v. Judge Madrid).8 Oida) – The notice of resolution dated October 22, 2005
al.," for: Accion Publiciana and Damages, that was
ofthe Integrated Bar ofthe Philippines (IBP) dismissing the
handled by respondent for the complainant Alita Gomez.
case for lack of merit; (d) VERIFIED COMPLAINT in Adm.
On June 6, 2007, the Court in Yap v. Judge OMB-L-C-0478-E was an off shoot of Civil Case No. 2001-
Case No. 6334 dated February 17, 2004 entitled "Sofia
Madriddismissed for its lack of merit the administrative 6842 entitled "Marilyn D. Yap, Joseph D. Yap V, et al., vs.
Jao vs. Atty. Epifania Ruby Velacruz-Oida" for: Malpractice
complaint against Judge Madrid for allegedly falsifying the Joseph H. Yap III" for: Support pending before the sala
(Forum Shopping), and (e) ORDER dated January 18,
transcript of stenographic notes of the hearing on March 4, ofcomplainant Judge Jose L. Madrid (RTC 51).
2007 by Acting Presiding Judge RAUL E. DE LEON in
2005 in Civil Case No. 2001-6842 entitled Joseph D. Yap Respondent, after an unfavorable decision against
Criminal Cases Nos. 2451 to 2454 entitled "People of the
V, et al. v. Joseph H. Yap III, but referred to the Integrated defendant Joseph H. Yap III, entered his appearance and
Philippines vs. Cynthia Marcial, et al. For: Falsification of
Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and pleaded for the latter. As a result of an adverse order, this
Medical Records" which provides for the dismissal of the
recommendation the propensity of Atty. Dealca to file ombudsman case arose.
cases against all the accused, do not show participation on
administrative or criminal complaints against judges and
the part of the respondent that he signed the pleadings,
court personnel whenever decisions, orders or processes
Administrative Matter OCA IPI No. 05-2191-RTJ was also although the verified complaint is one executed by the wife
were issued adversely to him and his clients.9
a result of the Civil Case No. 5403 entitled "Salve Dealca of the respondent. Moreover, these cases are pertaining to
Latosa vs. Atty. Henry Amado Roxas, with Our Lady’s persons other than judges and personnel of the court that
In compliance with the referral,the IBP-Sorsogon Chapter Village Foundation and Most Reverend Arnulfo Arcilla, DD are not squarely covered by the present investigation
submitted its report with the following findings and as third party defendant that was heard, tried, decided and against respondent, although, it is an undeniable fact that
recommendation:10 pending execution before the sala of Judge Honesto A. respondent had appeared for and in behalf of his wife, the
Villamor (RTC 52). rest of the complainants in the Civil Service Case and
Sofia Jao against Land Bank of the Philippines, the latter
xxxx case resulted in the administrative case of Atty. Epifania
Administrative Matter OCA IPI No. 05-2385-RTJ was also Ruby Velacruz-Oida, respondent’s sister member of the
a consequence of Civil Case No. 2001-6842 entitled Bar. All these documentary evidence from (a) to (e) are
The documentary evidence offered by complainants show
"Marilyn D. Yap, Joseph D. Yap V, et al., vs. Joseph H.
that respondent Atty. Juan S. Dealca filed by himself (1) helpful in determining the "PROPENSITY" of the
Yap III" for Support pending before the sala of complainant respondent as a member of the bar in resorting to
Bar Matter No. 1197 and acting as counsel for the
JudgeJose L. Madrid (RTC 51). harassment cases instead of going through the procedures
complainants (2) Adm. Matter OCA IPI No. 04-2113-RTJ;
(3) OMB-L-C-05-0478-E;(4) Adm. Matter OCA IPI No. 05- provided for by the Rules of Court in the event of adverse
2385-RTJ and (5) Adm. Matter OCA IPI No. 05-2191-RTJ. All these four (4) cases are precipitated by the adverse ruling, order or decision of the court.
These five (5) cases are factual evidence of the cases that ruling rendered by the court against the clients of the
respondent had filed by himself and as counsel for the respondent that instead of resorting to the remedies
xxxx
WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully recommended that in I As a lawyer, therefore, Atty. Dealca was aware of his duty
view of the above-foregoings [sic], a penalty of under his Lawyer’s Oath not to initiate groundless, false or
SUSPENSION in the practice of law for a period of six (6) unlawful suits. The duty has also been expressly
Atty. Dealca must guard against his own impulse of
monthsfrom finality of the decision be ordered against embodied inRule 1.03, Canon 1 of the Code of
initiating unfounded suits
respondent Atty. Juan S. Dealca. Professional Responsibility thuswise:

Atty. Dealca insists on the propriety of the administrative

Findings and Recommendation of the IBP Rule 1.03 – A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or
and criminal cases he filed against judges and court
interest, encourage any suit or proceeding or delay any
personnel, including Judge Madrid. He argues that as a
man’s cause.
IBP Commissioner Salvador B. Hababag ultimately vigilant lawyer, he was duty bound to bring and prosecute
submitted his Report and Recommendation11 finding Atty. cases against unscrupulous and corrupt judges and court
Dealca guilty of violating the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code personnel.15 His being an officer of the court should have impelled him
of Professional Responsibility by filing frivolous to see to it that the orderly administration of justice must
administrative and criminalcomplaints; and recommending not be unduly impeded. Indeed, as he must resist the
We see no merit in Atty. Dealca’s arguments.
that Atty. Dealca be suspended from the practice of law for whims and caprices ofhis clients and temper his clients’
one year because his motion to inhibit Judge Madrid was propensities to litigate,20 so must he equally guard himself
devoid of factual or legal basis, and was grounded on Although the Court always admires members of the Bar against his own impulses of initiating unfounded suits.
purely personal whims. who are imbued with a high sense of vigilance to weed out While it is the Court’s duty to investigate and uncover the
from the Judiciary the undesirable judges and inefficient or truth behindcharges against judges and lawyers, it is
undeserving court personnel, any acts taken in that equally its duty to shield them from unfounded suits that
In Resolution No. XVIII-2008-41,12 the IBP Board of
direction should be unsullied by any taint of insincerity or are intended to vex and harass them, among other
Governors modified the recommendation and dismissed
self interest. The noble cause of cleansing the ranks of the things.21
the administrative complaint for its lack of merit, thus:
Judiciary is not advanced otherwise. It is for that reason
that Atty. Dealca’s complaint against Judge Madrid has
Moreover, Atty. Dealca must be mindful of his mission to
RESOLVED to AMEND, as it is hereby AMENDED, the failed our judicious scrutiny, for the Court cannot find any
assist the courts in the proper administration of justice. He
Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner, and trace of idealism or altruismin the motivations for initiating
disregarded his mission because his filing of the
APPROVE the DISMISSAL of the above-entitled case for it. Instead, Atty. Dealca exhibited his proclivity for
unfounded complaints, including this one against Judge
lack of merit. Judge Madrid filed a petition,13 which the IBP vindictiveness and penchant for harassment, considering
Madrid, increased the workload of the Judiciary. Although
Board of Governors treated as a motion for that, as IBP Commissioner Hababag pointed out,16 his
no person should be penalized for the exercise ofthe right
reconsideration, and soon denied through its Resolution bringing of charges against judges, court personnel and
to litigate, the right must nonetheless be exercised in good
No. XX-2012-545.14 even his colleagues in the Law Profession had all
faith.22 Atty. Dealca’s bringing of the numerous
stemmed from decisions or rulings being adverse to his
administrative and criminal complaints against judges,
clients or his side. He well knew, therefore, that he was
Issues court personnel and his fellow lawyers did not evince any
thereby crossing the line of propriety, because neither
good faith on his part, considering that he made
vindictiveness nor harassment could be a substitute for
allegations against them therein that he could not
(1) Did Atty. Dealca file frivolousadministrative resorting tothe appropriate legal remedies. He should now
substantially prove, and are rightfully deemed frivolous and
and criminal complaints against judges and be reminded that the aim of every lawsuit should be to
unworthy of the Court’s precious time and serious
court personnel in violation of the Lawyer’s Oath render justice to the parties according to law, not to harass
consideration.
and the Code of Professional Responsibility? them.17

Repeatedly denying any wrongdoing in filing the various

(2) Was Atty. Dealca guilty of unethical practice The Lawyer’s Oath is a source ofobligations and duties for
complaints, Atty. Dealca had the temerity to confront even
in seeking the inhibition of Judge Madrid in every lawyer, and any violation thereof by an attorney
the Court with the following arrogant tirade, to wit:
Criminal Case No. 2006-6795? constitutes a ground for disbarment, suspension, or other
disciplinary action.18 The oath exhorts upon the members
of the Bar not to "wittingly or willingly promote or sue any With due respect, what could be WRONG was the
Ruling of the Court groundless, false or unlawful suit." These are not mere summary dismissal of cases filed against erring judges
facile words, drift and hollow, but a sacred trust that must and court personnel ‘for lack of merit’, i.e. without even
We REVERSE Resolution No. XX-2012-545. be upheld and keep inviolable.19 discussing the facts and the law of the case.23
Atty. Dealca was apparently referring to the minute declared that resolutions were not decisions withinthe In this regard, Canon 11 and Rule 11.04 of the Code of
resolutions the Court could have promulgated in frequently constitutional contemplation, for the former "merely hold Professional Responsibility pertinently state:
dismissing his unmeritorious petitions. His arrogant that the petition for review should not be entertained and
posturing would not advance his cause now. He thereby even ordinary lawyers have all this time so understood it;
Canon 11 — A lawyer shall observe and maintain the
demonstrated his plain ignorance of the rules of procedure and the petition to review the decisionof the Court of
respect due to the courts and to the judicial officers and
applicable to the Court.The minute resolutions have been Appeals is not a matter of right but of sound judicial
should insist on similar conduct by others.
issued for the prompt dispatch of the actions by the discretion, hence there is no need to fully explain the
Court.24 Whenever the Court then dismisses a petition for Court’s denial since, for one thing, the facts and the law
review for its lack of merit through a minute resolution, it is are already mentioned in the Court of Appeal’s decision." It xxxx
understood that the challenged decision or order, together pointed out that the constitutional mandate was applicable
with all its findings of fact and law, is deemed sustained or only in cases submitted for decision, i.e., given due course
upheld,25 and the minute resolution then constitutes the to and after the filing of briefs or memoranda and/or other Rule 11.04 — A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge
motives not supported by the record or haveno materiality
actual adjudication on the merits of the case. The pleadings, but not where the petition was being refused
dismissal of the petition, or itsdenial of due course due course, with the resolutions for that purpose stating to the case.1âwphi1
indicates the Court’s agreement with and its adoption of the legal basis of the refusal. Thus, when the Court, after
the findings and conclusions of the court a quo.26 deliberating on the petition and the subsequent pleadings, In light of the foregoing canons, all lawyers are bound to
decided to deny due course to the petition and stated that uphold the dignity and authority of the courts, and to
the questions raised were factual, or there was no promote confidence in the fair administration of justice. It is
The requirement for stating the facts and the law does not
reversible error in the lower court’s decision, there was a the respect for the courts that guarantees the stability of
apply to the minute resolutions that the Court issuesin
sufficient compliance with the constitutional requirement.30 the judicial institution; elsewise, the institution would be
disposing of a case. The Court explained why in Borromeo
v. Court of Appeals:27 resting on a very shaky foundation.34
II
The [Supreme] Court x x x disposes of the bulk of its cases The motion to inhibit filed by Atty. Dealca contained the
by minute resolutions and decrees them as final and Atty. Dealca violated Canon 11 and Rule 11.04 of the following averment, to wit:
executory, as where a case is patently without merit, Code of Professional Responsibility
where the issues raised are factual in nature, where the Considering the adverse incidents between the incumbent
decision appealed from is supported by substantial Presiding Judge and the undersigned, he does not appear
Atty. Dealca maintains that Judge Madrid should have "in
evidence and is in accord with the facts of the case and before the incumbent Presiding Judge, andthe latter does
good grace inhibited himself" upon his motion toinhibit in
the applicable laws, where it is clear from the records that not also hear cases handled by the undersignedx x
order to preserve "confidence in the impartiality of the
the petition is filed merely to forestall the early execution of x.35 (Bold emphasis supplied)
judiciary."31 However, IBP Commissioner Hababag has
judgment and for non-compliance with the rules. The
recommended that Atty. Dealca be sanctioned for filing the
resolution denying due course or dismissing the petition
always gives the legal basis.
motion to inhibit considering that the motion, being purely Atty. Dealca’s averment that Judge Madrid did not hear
based on his personal whims, was bereft of factual and cases being handled by him directly insinuated that judges
legal bases.32 could choose the cases they heard, and could refuse to
xxxx hear the cases in which hostility existed between the
judges and the litigants or their counsel. Such averment, if
The recommendation of IBP Commissioner Hababag is
The Court is not ‘duty bound’ to render signed Decisions true at all, should have been assiduously substantiated by
warranted.
all the time. It has ample discretion to formulate Decisions him because it put in bad light not only Judge Madrid but
all judges in general. Yet, he did not even include any
and/or Minute Resolutions, provided a legal basis is given,
Lawyers are licensed officers of the courts empowered to particulars that could have validated the averment. Nor did
depending on its evaluation of a case.
appear, prosecute and defend the legal causes for their he attach any document to support it.
clients. As a consequence, peculiar duties, responsibilities
The constitutionality of the minute resolutions was the and liabilities are devolved upon them by law. Verily, their
issue raised in Komatsu Industries (Phils.), Inc. v. Court of membership in the Bar imposes certain obligations upon Worth stressing, too, is that the right of a party to seek the
Appeals.28 The petitioner contended that the minute them.33 inhibition or disqualification of a judge who does not
appear to be wholly free, disinterested, impartial and
resolutions violated Section 14,29 Article VIII of the
Constitution. The Court, throughJustice Regalado, independent in handling the case must be balanced with
the latter’s sacred duty to decide cases without fear of WE CONCUR: ** Acting Chief Justice in lieu of Chief Justice
repression. Thus, it was incumbent upon Atty. Dealca to Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno, who is on Wellness
establish by clear and convincing evidence the ground of Leave, per Special Order No. 1770.
(On Leave)
bias and prejudice in order to disqualify Judge Madrid from
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO*
participating in a particular trial in which Atty. Dealca was 1
Chief Justice Rollo,p. 26.
participating as a counsel.36 The latter’s bare allegations of
Judge Madrid’s partiality or hostility did not
suffice,37 because the presumption that Judge Madrid 2
Id. at 26.
would undertake his noble role to dispense justice ANTONIO T.
PRESBITERO J.
according to law and the evidence and without fear or CARPIO** 3
VELASCO, JR. Id. at 4-5.
favor should only be overcome by clear and convincing Associate Justice
Associate Justice
evidence to the contrary.38 As such, Atty. Dealca clearly Acting Chief Justice
contravened his duties as a lawyer as expressly stated in 4
Id. at 2.
Canon 11 and Rule 11.04, supra.
TERESITA J.
5
LEONARDO-DE ARTURO D. BRION Id. at 7.
On a final note, it cannot escape our attention that this is CASTRO Associate Justice
not the first administrative complaint to be ever brought Associate Justice 6
against Atty. Dealca.1avvphi1 In Montano v. Integrated Id. at 10-17.
Bar of the Philippines,39 we reprimanded him for violating
Canon 22 and Rule 20.4, Canon 20 of the Code of DIOSDADO M. MARIANO C. DEL 7
Id. at 92.
Professional Responsibility, and warned him that a PERALTA CASTILLO
repetition of the same offense would be dealt with more Associate Justice Associate Justice 8
severely. Accordingly, based on the penalties the Court Id. at 95, 99-120. The following were endorsed:
imposed on erring lawyers found violating Canon 1, Rule (a) Motion for Reconsideration and Request for
1.03,40 and Canon 11, Rule 11.0441 of the Code, we deem MARTIN S. JOSE PORTUGAL Inhibition dated February 22, 2007 of Atty.
appropriate to suspend Atty. Dealca from the practice of VILLARAMA, JR. PEREZ Dealca; (b) Comment of Judge Madrid; and (c)
law for a period one year. ACCORDINGLY, the Court Associate Justice Associate Justice Rejoinder of Atty. Dealca.
FINDS and DECLARES respondent ATTY. JUAN S.
DEALCA GUILTY of violating Canon 1, Rule 1.03 and 9
Id. at 144.
Canon 11, Rule 11. 04 of the Code of Professional ESTELA M. MARIO VICTOR F.
Responsibility; and SUSPENDS him from the practice of PERLAS-BERNABE LEONEN
10
law for one year effective from notice of this decision, with Associate Justice Associate Justice Id. at 146-155.
a STERN WARNING that any similar infraction in the
future will be dealt with more severely. 11
Id. at 287-292.
FRANCIS H. JARDELEZA
Let copies of this decision be furnished to the Office of the Associate Justice 12
Id. at 286.
Bar Confidant to be appended to Atty. Dealca's personal
record as an attorney; to the Integrated Bar of the 13
Philippines; and to all courts in the country for their Id. at 295-298.
information and guidance.
14
Footnotes Id. at 408.
SO ORDERED.
15
* On Wellness Leave. Id. at 384.
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice 16
Id. at 291, where IBP Commissioner Hababag
observed in his report that:
 There were other Justices Puno, Kapunan, Pardo, Ynares- Reyes v. Chiong, Jr., A.C. No. 5148, July 1,
administrative/criminal cases lodged Santiago, et al., A.M. No. 03-11-30-SC, June 9, 2003, 405 SCRA 212, 217.
by the respondent against fellow 2005, 460 SCRA 1, 14;Tan v. Judge Nitafan,
lawyer[s], court personnel, G.R. No. 76965, March 11, 1994, 231 SCRA 34
Roxas v. De Zuzuarregui, Jr.,G.R. No.
government employees. Most of all 129, 136.
152072, July 12, 2007, 527 SCRA 446, 463-464
cases were dismissed for utter lack of
.
merit. All acts intensifies [sic] the 26
Agoy v. Araneta Center, Inc., G.R. No.
conclusion that respondent instead of
196358, March 21, 2012, 668 SCRA 883, 35
going through the procedures Rollo, p. 26.
889;Smith Bell and Company (Phils.), Inc. v.
provided for by the Rules in the event
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 56294, May 20,
of adverse ruling, order or decision of 36
1991, 197 SCRA 201, 207-208. People v. Ong, G.R. Nos. 162130-39, May 5,
the court, have resorted to
2006, 489 SCRA 679, 688; Webb v. People,
harassment cases.
27 G.R. No. 127262, July 24, 1997, 276 SCRA 243,
G.R. No. 82273, June 1, 1990, 186 SCRA 1,
253.
17 5.
Reyes v. Chiong, Jr., A.C. No. 5148, July 1,
2003, 405 SCRA 212, 218. 37
28 Deutsche Bank Manila v. Sps. Chua Yok See,
G. R. No. 127682, April 24, 1998, 289 SCRA
G.R. No. 165606, February 6, 2006, 481 SCRA
18 604, 608; citing Novino v. Court of Appeals, No.
Vitriolo v. Dasig, A.C. No. 4984, April 1, 2003, 672, 695.
L-21098, May 31, 1963, 8 SCRA 279, 280
400 SCRA 172, 179.
38
29 Duma v. Espinas, G.R. No. 141962, January
19 Section 14. No decision shall be rendered by
Sebastian v. Calis, A.C. No. 5118, September 25, 2006, 480 SCRA 53, 67.
any court without expressing therein clearly and
9, 1999, 314 SCRA 1, 7.
distinctly the facts and the law on which it is
based. No petition for review or motion for 39
A.C. No. 4215, May21, 2001, 358 SCRA I.
20
Aguilar v. Manila Banking Corporation, G.R. reconsideration of a decision of the court shall
No. 157911, September 19, 2006, 502 SCRA be refused due course or denied without stating 40
Saa v. Integrated Bar of the Philippines, G.R.
354, 381. the legal basis therefor.
No. 132826, September 3, 2009, 598 SCRA 6.
21 30
Cervantes v. Sabio, A.C. No. 7828, August Komatsu Industries (Phils.), Inc. v. Court of 41
11, 2008, 561 SCRA 497, 501; Dayag v. Appeals, supra note 28, citing Que v. People, Baculi v. Battung, A.C. No. 8920, September
Gonzales, A.M. No. RTJ-05-1903, June 27, Nos. L-75217-18, September 21, 1987, 154 28, 2011, 658 SCRA 209.
2006, 493 SCRA 51, 61-62. SCRA 160, 165; Nunal v. Commission on Audit,
G. R. No. 78648, January 24, 1989, 169 SCRA A.C. No. 10451, February 04, 2015
22 356, 362-363; and Cadiente v. Narisma, A.M.
Arnado v. Suarin, A.M. No. P-05-2059, August
No. MTJ-91-576, En Banc Resolution, March 11,
19, 2005, 467 SCRA 402, 408. SPOUSES WILLIE AND AMELIA
1993.
UMAGUING, Complainants, v. ATTY. WALLEN R. DE
23
Rollo, p. 384. VERA, Respondents.
31
Rollo, p. 368.
24
Separate Opinion of J. Melo inYale Land DECISION
32
Id. at 292.
DevelopmentCorporation v. Caragao, G.R. No.
135244. April 15, 1999, 306 SCRA 1, 12. PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
33
Re: Suspension of Atty. Rogelio Z. Bagabuyo,
25 Former Senior State Prosecutor, Adm. Case.
PEPSICO, Inc. v. Lacanilao, G.R. No. 146007.
No. 7006, October 9, 2007, 535 SCRA 200, 214; This administrative case stemmed from a Complaint1 for
June 15, 2006, 490 SCRA 615, 623; Complaint the alleged betrayal of trust, incompetence, and gross
of Mr. Aurelio Indencia Arrienda Against SC misconduct of respondent Atty. Wallen R. De Vera (Atty.
De Vera) in his handling of the election protest case Atty. De Vera filed a pleading to rectify this error (i.e., an sought to rectify his mistakes by filing the aforementioned
involving the candidacy of MariecrisUmaguing Answer to Counterclaim with Omnibus Motion,10 seeking, Answer to Counterclaim with Omnibus Motion in order to
(Umaguing), daughter of Sps. Willie and Amelia Umaguing among others, the withdrawal of Lachica’s and Almera’s withdraw the affidavits of Lachica and Almera. As he
(complainants), for the SangguniangKabataan (SK) affidavits), it was observed that such was a mere flimsy supposedly felt that he could no longer serve complainants
Elections, instituted before the Metropolitan Trial Court of excuse since Atty. De Vera had ample amount of time to with his loyalty and devotion in view of the aforementioned
Quezon City, Branch 36 (MeTC), docketed as ELEC. have the affidavits personally signed by the affiants but still signing incident, Atty. De Vera then withdrew from the
CASE No. 07-1279.2chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary hastily filed the election protest with full knowledge that the case.18 To add, he pointed out that along with his Formal
affidavits at hand were Notice of Withdrawal of Counsel, complainants executed a
The Facts falsified.11chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary document entitled “Release Waiver & Discharge,”19 which,
to him, discharges him and his law firm from all causes of
As alleged in the Complaint, Umaguing ran for the position In further breach of his oath as a lawyer, the complainants action that complainants may have against him, including
of SK Chairman in the SK Elections for the year 2007 but pointed out that Atty. De Vera did not appear before the the instant administrative case.
lost to her rival Jose Gabriel Bungag by one (1) MeTC, although promptly notified, for a certain December
vote.3 Because of this, complainants lodged an election 11, 2007 hearing; and did not offer any explanation as to After the conduct of the mandatory conference/hearing
protest and enlisted the services of Atty. De Vera. On why he was not able to attend.12chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
November 7, 2007, complainants were asked by Atty. De Commission on Bar Discipline, the matter was submitted
Vera to pay his acceptance fee of P30,000.00, plus The complainants then confronted Atty. De Vera and for report and recommendation.
various court appearance fees and miscellaneous asked for an explanation regarding his non-appearance in
expenses in the amount of P30,000.00.4 According to the the court. Atty. De Vera explained that he was hesitant in The Report and Recommendation of the IBP
complainants, Atty. De Vera had more than enough time to handling the particular case because of the alleged
prepare and file the case but the former moved at a glacial favoritism of Judge Belosillo. According to Atty. De Vera, In a Report and Recommendation20 dated December 5,
pace and only took action when the November 8, 2008 Judge Belosillo received P60,000.00 from the defense 2009, the IBP Commissioner found the administrative
deadline was looming.5 Atty. De Vera then rushed the counsel, Atty. Carmelo Culvera, in order to acquire a action to be impressed with merit, and thus recommended
preparation of the necessary documents and attachments favorable decision for his client. Atty. De Vera averred that that Atty. De Vera be suspended from the practice of law
for the election protest. Two (2) of these attachments are he would only appear for the case if the complainants for a period of two (2) months.21chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
the Affidavits6 of material witnesses Mark Anthony Lachica would give him P80,000.00, which he would in turn, give to
(Lachica) and Angela Almera (Almera), which was Judge Belosillo to secure a favorable decision for While no sufficient evidence was found to support the
personally prepared by Atty. De Vera. At the time that the Umaguing.13chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary allegation that Atty. De Vera participated in the falsification
aforesaid affidavits were needed to be signed by Lachica of Lachica’s affidavit, the IBP Commissioner ruled
and Almera, they were unfortunately unavailable. To On December 12, 2007, for lack of trust and confidence in oppositely with respect to the falsification of Almera’s
remedy this, Atty. De Vera allegedly instructed the integrity and competency of Atty. De Vera, as well as affidavit, to which issue Atty. De Vera deliberately omitted
AbethLalong-Isip (Lalong-Isip) and Hendricson Fielding his breach of fiduciary relations, the complainants asked to comment on. The Investigating Commissioner pointed
(Fielding) to look for the nearest kin or relatives of Lachica the former to withdraw as their counsel and to reimburse out that the testimony of Elsa Almera-Almacen, Almera’s
and Almera and ask them to sign over the names.7 The them the P60,000.00 in excessive fees he collected from sister – attesting that Lalong-Isip approached her and
signing over of Lachica’s and Almera’s names were done them, considering that he only appeared twice for the asked if she could sign the affidavit, and her vivid
by Christina Papin (Papin) and Elsa Almera-Almacen, case.14chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary recollection that Atty. De Vera was present during its
respectively. Atty. De Vera then had all the documents signing, and that Lalong-Isip declared to Atty. De Vera that
notarized before one Atty. DonatoManguiat (Atty. In view of the foregoing, complainants sought Atty. De she was not Almera – was found to be credible as it was
Manguiat).8chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Vera’s disbarment.15chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary too straightforward and hard to ignore.22 It was also
observed that the backdrop in which the allegations were
Later, however, Lachica discovered the falsification and In his Counter-Affidavit,16 Atty. De Vera vehemently denied made, i.e., that the signing of the affidavits was done on
immediately disowned the signature affixed in the affidavit all the accusations lodged against him by complainants. November 7, 2007, or one day before the deadline for the
and submitted his own Affidavit,9 declaring that he did not He averred that he merely prepared the essential filing of the election protest, showed that Atty. De Vera
authorize Papin to sign the document on his behalf. documents for election protest based on the statements of was really pressed for time and, hence, his resort to the
Lachica’s affidavit was presented to the MeTC and drew his clients.17 Atty. De Vera then explained that the signing odious act of advising his client’s campaigners Lalong-Isip
the ire of Presiding Judge Edgardo Belosillo (Judge of Lachica’s falsified Affidavit was done without his and Fielding to look for kin and relatives of the affiants for
Belosillo), who ruled that the affidavits filed by Atty. De knowledge and likewise stated that it was Christina Papin and in their behalf in his earnest desire to beat the
Vera were falsified. Judge Belosillo pointed out that while who should be indicted and charged with the deadline set for the filing of the election protest.23 To this,
corresponding criminal offense. He added that he actually
the IBP Investigating Commissioner remarked that the the courts as to my clients; and I impose upon myself this same.32 Unfortunately for Atty. De Vera, the Court views
lawyer’s first duty is not to his client but to the voluntary obligation without any mental reservation or the same to be a mere general denial which cannot
administration of justice, and therefore, his conduct ought purpose of evasion. So help me God.29 (Emphasis and overcome Elsa Almera-Almacen’s positive testimony that
to and must always be scrupulously observant of the law underscoring supplied) he indeed participated in the procurement of her signature
and ethics of the profession.24chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary and the signing of the affidavit, all in support of the claim of
The Lawyer’s Oath enjoins every lawyer not only to obey
falsification.
the laws of the land but also to refrain from doing any
In a Resolution25 dated December 14, 2012, the Board of
falsehood in or out of court or from consenting to the doing
Governors of the IBP resolved to adopt the findings of the The final lining to it all – for which the IBP Board of
of any in court, and to conduct himself according to the
IBP Commissioner. Hence, for knowingly submitting a Governors rendered its recommendation – is that Almera’s
best of his knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity
falsified document in court, a two (2) month suspension affidavit was submitted to the MeTC in the election protest
to the courts as well as to his clients. Every lawyer is a
was imposed against Atty. De Vera. case. The belated retraction of the questioned affidavits,
servant of the law, and has to observe and maintain the
through the Answer to Counterclaim with Omnibus Motion,
rule of law as well as be an exemplar worthy of emulation
On reconsideration,26 however, the IBP Board of does not, for this Court, merit significant consideration as
by others. It is by no means a coincidence, therefore, that
Governors issued a Resolution27 dated February 11, 2014, its submission appears to be a mere afterthought,
the core values of honesty, integrity, and trustworthiness
affirming with modification their December 14, 2012 prompted only by the discovery of the falsification. Truth
are emphatically reiterated by the Code of Professional
Resolution, decreasing the period of suspension from two be told, it is highly improbable for Atty. De Vera to have
Responsibility.30 In this light, Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the
(2) months to one (1) month. remained in the dark about the authenticity of the
Code of Professional Responsibility provides that “[a]
documents he himself submitted to the court when his
lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing
The Issue Before the Court professional duty requires him to represent his client with
of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to
zeal and within the bounds of the law.33 Likewise, he is
be misled by any artifice.”
The sole issue in this case is whether or not Atty. De Vera prohibited from handling any legal matter without adequate
should be held administratively liable. preparation34 or allow his client to dictate the procedure in
After an assiduous examination of the records, the Court
handling the case.35chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
finds itself in complete agreement with the IBP
The Court’s Ruling Investigating Commissioner, who was affirmed by the IBP
On a related point, the Court deems it apt to clarify that the
Board of Governors, in holding that Atty. De Vera
document captioned “Release Waiver & Discharge” which
The Court adopts and approves the findings of the IBP, as sanctioned the submission of a falsified
Atty. De Vera, in his Counter-Affidavit, claimed to have
the same were duly substantiated by the records. affidavit, i.e.,Almera’s affidavit, before the court in his
discharged him from all causes of action that complainants
However, the Court finds it apt to increase the period of desire to beat the November 8, 2008 deadline for filing the
may have against him, such as the present case, would
suspension to six (6) months. election protest of Umaguing. To this, the Court is wont to
not deny the Court its power to sanction him
sustain the IBP Investigating Commissioner’s appreciation
administratively. It was held in Ylaya v.
Fundamental is the rule that in his dealings with his client of Elsa Almera-Almacen’s credibility as a witness given
Gacott36 that:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
and with the courts, every lawyer is expected to be honest, that nothing appears on record to seriously belie the same,
A case of suspension or disbarment may proceed
imbued with integrity, and trustworthy. These expectations, and in recognition too of the fact that the IBP and its
regardless of interest or lack of interest of the complainant.
though high and demanding, are the professional and officers are in the best position to assess the witness’s
What matters is whether, on the basis of the facts borne
ethical burdens of every member of the Philippine Bar, for credibility during disciplinary proceedings, as they – similar
out by the record, the charge of deceit and grossly immoral
they have been given full expression in the Lawyer’s Oath to trial courts – are given the opportunity to first-hand
conduct has been proven. This rule is premised on the
that every lawyer of this country has taken upon admission observe their demeanor and comportment. The assertion
nature of disciplinary proceedings. A proceeding for
as a bona fide member of the Law Profession, thus:28 that Atty. De Vera authorized the falsification of Almera’s
suspension or disbarment is not a civil action where the
I, ___________________, do solemnly swear that I will affidavit is rendered more believable by the absence of
complainant is a plaintiff and the respondent lawyer is a
maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines; I will Atty. De Vera’s comment on the same. In fact, in his
defendant. Disciplinary proceedings involve no private
support its Constitution and obey the laws as well as the Motion for Reconsideration of the IBP Board of Governors’
interest and afford no redress for private grievance. They
legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein; I Resolution dated December 14, 2012, no specific denial
are undertaken and prosecuted solely for the public
will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any was proffered by Atty. De Vera on this score. Instead, he
welfare. They are undertaken for the purpose of preserving
in court; I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any only asserted that he was not the one who notarized the
courts of justice from the official administration of persons
groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent subject affidavits but another notary public, who he does
unfit to practice in them. The attorney is called to answer
to the same. I will delay no man for money or malice, and not even know or has seen in his entire life,31 and that he
to the court for his conduct as an officer of the court. The
will conduct myself as a lawyer according to the best of my had no knowledge of the falsification of the impugned
complainant or the person who called the attention of the
knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to documents, much less of the participation in using the
court to the attorney’s alleged misconduct is in no sense a
party, and has generally no interest in the outcome except complainants Spouses Willie and Amelia Umaguing the
14
as all good citizens may have in the proper administration amount of P60,000.00 which he admittedly received from Id. at 5.
of justice.37 the latter as fees intrinsically linked to his professional
15
engagement within ninety (90) days from the finality of this Id. at 7.
All told, Atty. De Vera is found guilty of violating the
Decision. Failure to comply with the foregoing directive will
Lawyer’s Oath and Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the Code of 16
warrant the imposition of further administrative penalties. Dated May 6, 2008. Id. at 9-13.
Professional Responsibility by submitting a falsified
document before a court. 17
Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Id. at 9.
Bar Confidant, to be appended to respondent’s personal
As for the penalty, the Court, in the case of Samonte v. 18
record as attorney. Further, let copies of this Decision be See id. at 10-11.
Atty. Abellana38 (Samonte), suspended the lawyer therein
furnished the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the
from the practice of law for six (6) months for filing a 19
Office of the Court Administrator, which is directed to Id. at 16.
spurious document in court. In view of the antecedents in
circulate them to all courts in the country for their
this case, the Court finds it appropriate to impose the 20
information and guidance. Id. at 601-605. Signed by Commissioner Oliver A.
same here.
Cachapero.
SO ORDERED.
Likewise, the Court grants the prayer for 21
Id. at 605.
reimbursement39 for the return of the amount of
Sereno, C. J., (Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro,
P60,000.00,40 comprised of Atty. De Vera’s acceptance 22
Bersamin, and Perez, JJ., concur.cralawlawlibrary Id. at 603-604.
fee and other legal expenses intrinsically related to his
professional engagement,41 for he had actually admitted 23
Id. at 604.
his receipt thereof in his Answer before the Endnotes:
IBP.42chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary 24
Id. at 603-604.
As a final word, the Court echoes its unwavering 1 25
Rollo, pp. 2-8. Id. at 600.Signed by National Secretary Nasser A.
exhortation in Samonte:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Marohomsalic.
Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are designed to 2
See Order dated December 6, 2007; id. at 200.
ensure that whoever is granted the privilege to practice law
See Atty. De Vera’s Motion for Reconsideration dated
26
in this country should remain faithful to the Lawyer’s Oath. 3
Id. at 2. March 20, 2013; id. at 606-614.
Only thereby can lawyers preserve their fitness to remain
as members of the Law Profession. Any resort to 4 27
Id. Id. at 637.
falsehood or deception, including adopting artifices to
cover up one’s misdeeds committed against clients and 5 28
Id. at 3. See Samonte v. Atty. Abellana, A.C. No. 3452, June 23,
the rest of the trusting public, evinces an unworthiness to
2014.
continue enjoying the privilege to practice law and 6
Id. at 241-242.
highlights the unfitness to remain a member of the Law 29
Id.
Profession. It deserves for the guilty lawyer stern 7
Id. at 3.
disciplinary sanctions.43 30
Id.
8
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Wallen R. De Vera Id.
31
(respondent) is found GUILTY of violating the Lawyer’s Rollo, p.610.
9
Oath and Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the Code of Id. at 244.
32
Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, he Id. at 611.
10
is SUSPENDED for six (6) months from the practice of Id. at 171-185.
33
law, effective upon receipt of this Decision, with a stern CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, Canon
11
warning that any repetition of the same or similar acts will See id. at 3-4. 19.
be punished more severely.
12 34
Id. at 4. CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, Canon
Moreover, respondent is ORDERED to return to 18, Rule 18.02.
13
Id. at 4-5.
35
CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, Canon On December 16, 2005, the complainant, Torben B. The complainant had no knowledge of the developments
19, Rule 19.03. Overgaard, a Dutch national, through his business partner of the cases that the respondent was handling for him.
John Bradley, entered into a Retainer Agreement1 with the Upon his own inquiry, he was dismayed to find out that the
36
A.C. No. 6475, January 30, 2013, 689 SCRA 452. respondent, Atty. Godwin R. Valdez. For the amount of respondent did not file his entry of appearance in the
PhP900,000.00, the complainant engaged the services of cases for Other Light Threats and Violation of Section 5(a)
37
Id. at 481, citing Bautista v. Atty. Bernabe, 517 Phil. 236, the respondent to represent him as his legal counsel in two of the Anti-Violence Against Women and Children
241 (2006). cases filed by him and two cases filed against him, all Act.11 The respondent also did not inform him that he was
pending in Antipolo City; including a dismissed complaint entitled to prepare a Counter-Affidavit to answer the
38
Supra note 28. which was appealed before the Department of Justice. The complaint for Other Light Threats. The complainant had no
Agreement stipulated that fees would cover acceptance knowledge that there had already been arraignments for
See Opposition/Comment (to Respondent’s Motion for
39
and attorney's fees, expenses of litigation, other legal the criminal cases against him, and that there were
Reconsideration) dated April 15, 2013; rollo, p. 621. incidental expenses, and appearance fees.2 already warrants of arrest12 issued for his failure to attend
the arraignments. He was constrained to engage the
40
See Complaint where only the amount of P60,000.00 services of another lawyer in order to file a Motion to Lift
The cases filed by the complainant included a complaint
was definitively stated; id. at 2. the Warrant of Arrest in the case for Other Light
for Estafa, Grave Threats, Coercion, Unjust Vexation and
Threats,13 and an Omnibus Motion to Revive the Case and
41 Oral Defamation3 pending before the Office of the City
See Pitcher v. Gagate, A.C. No. 9532, October 8, 2013, Lift the Warrant of Arrest in the case for Violation of
Prosecutor of Antipolo and a civil case for Mandamus,
707 SCRA 13, 25-26. Section 5(a) of the Anti-Violence Against Women and
Injunction with prayer for Temporary Restraining Order
Their Children Act.14
42 and Damages4 which is on trial at Branch 71, Regional
Rollo, p. 31.
Trial Court of Antipolo City. On the other hand, the cases
43 filed against the complainant included a criminal case for The complainant alleges that the respondent did not do a
See Samonte v. Atty. Abellana, supra note 28.
Other Light Threats at Branch 2 of the Municipal Trial single thing with respect to the cases covered under the
Court of Antipolo,5 and violation of Section 5(a) of Republic Retainer Agreement. Not only did the respondent fail to
EN BANC Act No. 9262, the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their enter his appearance in the criminal cases filed against the
Children Act of 20046 before the Family Court of Antipolo complainant, he also neglected to file an entry of
City. A complaint for Illegal Possession of Firearms was appearance in the civil case for Mandamus, Injunction and
[A.C. NO. 7902 : September 30, 2008]
also filed against Torben Overgaard which was dismissed Damages that the complainant filed. The respondent also
by the City Prosecutor of Antipolo City. This was appealed did not file a Comment on the complaint for Illegal
TORBEN B. OVERGAARD, Complainant, v. ATTY. to the Department of Justice by way of Petition for Possession of Firearms which was dismissed and under
GODWIN R. VALDEZ, Respondent. Review.7 review at the Department of Justice.15

DECISION Upon the execution of the Retainer Agreement, the Due to the above lapses of the respondent, on November
complainant paid the respondent USD16,854.00 through 27, 2006, the complainant wrote the respondent and
telegraphic bank transfer,8 as full payment for the services demanded the return of the documents which were turned
PER CURIAM: to be rendered under the Agreement. The respondent then over to him, as well as the PhP900,000.00 that was paid in
assured the complainant that he would take good care of consideration of the cases he was supposed to handle for
Complainant seeks the disbarment of Atty. Godwin R. the cases he was handling for the complainant.9 the complainant.16 However, complainant was unable to
Valdez from the practice of law for gross malpractice, get any word from the respondent despite repeated and
immoral character, dishonesty and deceitful conduct. The continuous efforts to get in touch with him.
On April 11, 2006, four months after the execution of the
complainant alleges that despite receipt of legal fees in Retainer Agreement, the complainant, through his
compliance with a Retainer Agreement, the respondent business partner John Bradley, demanded from the Hence, on December 28, 2006, Torben Overgaard was
refused to perform any of his obligations under their
respondent a report of the action he had taken with constrained to file an administrative complaint against Atty.
contract for legal services, ignored the complainant's respect to the cases entrusted to him. However, despite Godwin R. Valdez before the Integrated Bar of the
requests for a report of the status of the cases entrusted to his continued efforts to contact the respondent to inquire Philippines, alleging that the respondent engaged in
his care, and rejected demands for return of the money
on the status of the cases, he was unable to reach him; his unlawful, dishonest, immoral and deceitful
paid to him. phone calls were not answered and his electronic mails conduct.17 Despite the order to submit an Answer to the
were ignored.10 complaint against him,18 the respondent failed to comply. A
Mandatory Conference was set on September 21, by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other duty. To hide from the complainant, avoid his calls, ignore
2007,19 but the respondent failed to attend despite being gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, his letters, and leave him helpless is unforgivable; and to
duly notified.20 This prompted the Commission on Bar or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral commit all these acts and omissions after receiving the full
Discipline to issue an Order declaring the respondent in turpitude or for any violation of the oath which he is amount of legal fees and after assuring the client of his
default for failure to submit an Answer and failure to attend required to take before admission to practice, or for a commitment and responsibility violates the Code of
the Mandatory Conference.21 The investigation proceeded willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, Professional Responsibility.
ex parte. or for corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a
party to a case without authority to do so. The practice of
Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
soliciting cases for the purpose of gain, either personally or
The complainant submitted his position paper on October Responsibility states that "a lawyer shall not engage in
through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.
5, 2007,22 with a prayer that the respondent be disbarred unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct."
from the practice of law, and to be ordered to return the Deceitful conduct involves moral turpitude and includes
amount of PhP900,000.00. A Clarificatory Hearing was Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court, anything done contrary to justice, modesty or good
scheduled on December 11, 2007,23 and again, it was only a member of the Bar may be disbarred or suspended on morals.25 It is an act of baseness, vileness or depravity in
the complainant who was in attendance; the respondent any of the following grounds: (1) deceit; (2) malpractice or the private and social duties which a man owes to his
failed to attend the hearing despite notice. The case was other gross misconduct in office; (3) grossly immoral fellowmen or to society in general, contrary to justice,
then submitted for resolution based on the pleadings conduct; (4) conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude; honesty, modesty, or good morals.26 Representing to the
submitted by the complainant and the hearings (5) violation of the lawyer's oath; (6) willful disobedience of complainant that he would take care of the cases filed
conducted.24 any lawful order of a superior court; and (7) willful against him,27 assuring the complainant that his property
appearance as an attorney for a party without authority. A involved in a civil case would be safeguarded,28 and then
lawyer may be disbarred or suspended for misconduct, collecting the full amount of legal fees of PhP900,000.00,
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Investigating
whether in his professional or private capacity, which only to desert the complainant after receipt of the fees,
Commissioner Antonio S. Tria, to whom the instant
shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty, were manifestly deceitful and dishonest.
disciplinary case was assigned for investigation, report and
probity and good demeanor, or unworthy to continue as an
recommendation, found the respondent guilty of violating
officer of the court.
Canon 15, Canon 16, Rule 16.01, Canon 17, Canon 18, The relationship of an attorney to his client is highly
and Rule 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. fiduciary. Canon 15 of the Code of Professional
In his Report dated January 29, 2008, he recommended The respondent has indubitably fallen below the exacting Responsibility provides that "a lawyer shall observe
that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for standards demanded of members of the bar. He did not candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and
a period of three (3) years. The IBP Board of Governors, merely neglect his client's cause, he abandoned his client transactions with his client." Necessity and public interest
through Resolution No. XVIII-2008-126, dated March 6, and left him without any recourse but to hire another enjoin lawyers to be honest and truthful when dealing with
2008, approved the recommendation of Commissioner lawyer. He not only failed to properly handle the cases his client. A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client
Tria, and further ordered the complainant to return the which were entrusted to his care, he refused to do a single and shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in
PhP900,000.00 to the complainant within 60 days from thing in connection with these cases. He did not file any him.29 However, instead of devoting himself to the client's
receipt of the notice. pleading to defend his client; he did not even enter his cause, the respondent avoided the complainant, forgot
appearance in these cases. Moreover, he disregarded the about the cases he was handling for him and ostensibly
complainant's letters and electronic mails and rejected the abandoned him. The client reposed his trust in his lawyer
We agree. We find the respondent Atty. Godwin R. Valdez
complainant's phone calls. All the complainant was asking with full faith that the lawyer would not betray him or
to have committed multiple violations of the canons of the
for was a report of the status of the cases but the abscond from his responsibilities. By assuring the
Code of Professional Responsibility.
respondent could not be reached no matter what the complainant that he would take care of the cases included
complainant did to get in touch with him. After receipt of in the Retainer Agreement, and even accepting fees, the
The appropriate penalty to be imposed on an errant the full amount of fees under the Retainer Agreement, he respondent defrauded the complainant when he did not do
attorney involves the exercise of sound judicial discretion simply disappeared, leaving the client defenseless and a single thing he was expected to do.
based on the facts of the case. Section 27, Rule 138 of the plainly prejudiced in the cases against him. Warrants of
Rules of Court provides, viz: arrest were even issued against the complainant due to
A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and
the respondent's gross and inexcusable negligence in
diligence.30 A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter
failing to ascertain the status of the case and to inform his
Sec. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection
client of the arraignment. It was not a mere failure on the
Supreme Court, grounds therefor. - A member of the bar therewith shall render him liable.31 Respondent should
respondent's part to inform the complainant of matters
may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney indeed be held liable, for he was not just incompetent, he
concerning the cases, it was an unmistakable evasion of
was practically useless; he was not just negligent, he was Acceptance of money from a client establishes an the unacceptable acts and omissions of respondent. The
indolent; and rather than being of help to the complainant, attorney-client relationship and gives rise to the duty of acts of the respondent constitute malpractice and gross
he prejudiced the client. Respondent's inaction with fidelity to the client's cause. Money entrusted to a lawyer misconduct in his office as attorney. His incompetence and
respect to the matters entrusted to his care is obvious; and for a specific purpose - such as for filing fees - but not appalling indifference to his duty to his client, the courts
his failure to file an answer to the complaint for disbarment used for failure to file the case, must immediately be and society render him unfit to continue discharging the
against him and to attend the hearings in connection returned to the client on demand.33 trust reposed in him as a member of the bar. We could not
therewith, without any explanation or request for resetting, find any mitigating circumstances to recommend a lighter
despite proper notice from the IBP, is clear evidence of penalty. For violating elementary principles of professional
In Sencio v. Calvadores,34 the respondent lawyer Sencio
negligence on his part. ethics and failing to observe the fundamental duties of
was engaged to file a case, which he failed to do. His
honesty and good faith, the respondent has proven himself
client demanded that he return the money which was paid
unworthy of membership in this noble profession.
The Code of Professional Responsibility further provides to him but he refused. Sencio similarly failed to answer the
that a lawyer is required to keep the client informed of the complaint and disregarded the orders and notices of the
status of his case and to respond within a reasonable time IBP on many occasions.35 The respondent lawyer was IN VIEW WHEREOF, respondent Atty. Godwin R. Valdez
to the client's request for information.32 The respondent did ordered to return the money that he received from the is hereby DISBARRED and his name is ordered
the opposite. Despite the complainant's efforts to consult complainant with interest at 12% per annum from the date STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys. He is ORDERED to
him and notwithstanding numerous attempts to contact of the promulgation of the resolution until the return of the immediately return to Torben B. Overgaard the amount of
him, simply to ask for an update of the status of the cases, amount.36 $16,854.00 or its equivalent in Philippine Currency at the
the respondent was able to avoid the complainant and time of actual payment, with legal interest of six percent
never bothered to reply. (6%) per annum from November 27, 2006, the date of
The practice of law is not a right, but a privilege. It is
extra-judicial demand. A twelve percent (12%) interest per
granted only to those of good moral character.37 The Bar
annum, in lieu of six percent (6%), shall be imposed on
After months of waiting for a reply from the respondent, must maintain a high standard of honesty and fair
such amount from the date of promulgation of this decision
and discovering that the respondent had been remiss in dealing.38 Lawyers must conduct themselves beyond
until the payment thereof. He is further ORDERED to
his duties, the complainant demanded the return of the reproach at all times, whether they are dealing with their
immediately return all papers and documents received
documents he had turned over to the respondent. He also clients or the public at large,39 and a violation of the high
from the complainant.
demanded the return of the money he had paid for the moral standards of the legal profession justifies the
legal services that were not rendered and expenses of imposition of the appropriate penalty, including suspension
litigation which were not incurred. However, the and disbarment.40 Copies of this Decision shall be served on the Integrated
respondent rejected the complainant's demands. Bar of the Philippines, the Office of the Bar Confidant and
all courts.
The respondent demonstrated not only appalling
Rule 16.01, Canon 16 of the Code of Professional indifference and lack of responsibility to the courts and his
Responsibility, provides that "a lawyer shall account for all client but also a wanton disregard for his duties as a SO ORDERED.
money and property collected or received for and from the lawyer. It is deplorable that members of the bar, such as
client." The complainant paid $16,854.00 to the the respondent, betray not only the trust of their client, but
Puno, CJ., Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Carpio,
respondent via telegraphic bank transfer. This was also public trust. For the practice of law is a profession, a
Austria-Martinez, Corona,* Carpio Morales, Azcuna,
considered as complete payment for the PhP900,000.00 form of public trust, the performance of which is entrusted
Tinga, Chico-Nazario, Velasco, Jr., Nachura, Reyes,
that was stipulated as the consideration for the legal to those who are qualified and who possess good moral
Leonardo-De Castro, Andbrion, JJ., concur.
services to be rendered. However, since the respondent character.41 Those who are unable or unwilling to comply
did not carry out any of the services he was engaged to with the responsibilities and meet the standards of the
perform, nor did he appear in court or make any payment profession are unworthy of the privilege to practice law. Endnotes:
in connection with litigation, or give any explanation as to We must protect the administration of justice by requiring
how such a large sum of money was spent and allocated, those who exercise this function to be competent,
he must immediately return the money he received from honorable and reliable in order that the courts and clients
the client upon demand. However, he refused to return the may rightly repose confidence in them.
money he received from the complainant despite written * On official leave.
demands, and was not even able to give a single report
In this case, we find that suspension for three years
regarding the status of the cases.
recommended by the IBP is not sufficient punishment for 1
Rollo, p. 3.
2 21 37
Id. Id., p. 21. People v. Santodides, G.R. No. 109149, December 21,
1999, 321 SCRA 310.
3 22
Id., p. 5. Id., p. 22.
38
Maligsa v. Cabanting, A.C. No. 4539, May 14, 1997, 272
4 23 SCRA 408, 413.
Id., p. 6. Id., p. 41.
39
5 24 Gatchalian Promotions Talents Pool, Inc. v.
Id., p. 7. Id., p. 43.
Naldoza, A.C. No. 4017, September 29, 1999, 315 SCRA
406.
6 25
Id., p. 8. In re Basa, 41 Phil. 275, 276 (1920), citing Bouvier's
Law Dictionary. 40
Ere v. Rubi, A.C. No. 5176, December 14, 1999, 320
7 SCRA 617.
Id., p.9
26
In re Gutierrez, AC No. L-363, July 31, 1962, 5 SCRA
8 661. 41
Id., pp. 4, 45. Director of Religious Affairs v. Bayot, 74 Phil 477 (1944)
27
9 Rollo at p. 4.
Id., p. 5. EN BANC
28
10 Id., at p. 26.
Id, p. 46. [A.C. NO. 7815 : July 23, 2009]
29
11 CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, Canon
Id., p. 2. DOLORES C. BELLEZA, Complainant, v. ATTY. ALAN S.
17.
MACASA, Respondent.
12
Id., p. 10 and 11. 30
CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, Canon
RESOLUTION
18.
13
Id., p. 72.
31 PER CURIAM:
CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, Canon
14
Id., p. 75. 18, Rule 18.03.
This treats of the complaint for disbarment filed by
15 32 complainant Dolores C. Belleza against respondent Atty.
Id., p. 23-24. CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, Canon
Alan S. Macasa for unprofessional and unethical conduct
18, Rule 18.04.
in connection with the handling of a criminal case involving
16 complainant's son.
Id., p. 12 and 40.
33
Barnachea v. Quiocho, A.C. No. 5925, March 11, 2003,
17 399 SCRA 1.
The administrative complaint was docketed as CBD On November 10, 2004, complainant went to see
Case No. 06-1894. respondent on referral of their mutual friend, Joe Chua.
34 Complainant wanted to avail of respondent's legal services
A.C. No. 5841, January 20, 2003, 395 SCRA 393.
18
in connection with the case of her son, Francis John
Rollo, p. 13. Belleza, who was arrested by policemen of Bacolod City
35
Id. earlier that day for alleged violation of Republic Act (RA)
19
Id., p. 19. 9165.1 Respondent agreed to handle the case
36 for P30,000.
See also Emiliano Court Townhouses Homeowners
20 Association v. Atty. Michael Dioneda, A.C. No. 5162,
Id. March 20, 2003, 399 SCRA 296.
The following day, complainant made a partial payment The CBD found respondent guilty of violation of Rule 1.01
of P15,000 to respondent thru their mutual friend Chua. On Date Amount
of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides:
November 17, 2004, she gave him an additional P10,000.
November 11, 2004 P15,000.00
She paid the P5,000 balance on November 18, 2004. Both
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
payments were also made thru Chua. On all three
A week after 10,000.00 dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.
occasions, respondent did not issue any receipt.
November 18, 2004 5,000.00
It also found him guilty of violation of Rules 16.01 and
On November 21, 2004, respondent received P18,000
16.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility:
from complainant for the purpose of posting a bond to
secure the provisional liberty of her (complainant's) son. 4. That the above-mentioned amounts which I supposed
Again, respondent did not issue any receipt. When as Attorney's Fees were immediately forwarded by me to Rule 16.01 - A lawyer shall account for all money or
complainant went to the court the next day, she found out Atty. [Macasa]; property collected or received for or from the client.
that respondent did not remit the amount to the court.
5. That I am executing this affidavit in order to attest to the Rule 16.02 - A lawyer shall keep the funds of each client
Complainant demanded the return of the P18,000 from truth of all the foregoing statements. separate and apart from his own and those others kept by
respondent on several occasions but respondent ignored him.
her. Moreover, respondent failed to act on the case of
complainant's son and complainant was forced to avail of xxx xxx x x x4
The CBD ruled that respondent lacked good moral
the services of the Public Attorney's Office for her son's
character and that he was unfit and unworthy of the
defense. 5
In a letter dated May 23, 2005, the IBP Negros Occidental
privileges conferred by law on him as a member of the bar.
chapter transmitted the complaint to the IBP's Commission
The CBD recommended a suspension of six months with a
Thereafter, complainant filed a verified complaint2 for on Bar Discipline (CBD).6
stern warning that repetition of similar acts would merit a
disbarment against respondent in the Negros Occidental more severe sanction. It also recommended that
chapter of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). In an order dated July 13, 2005,7 the CBD required respondent be ordered to return to complainant
Attached to the verified complaint was the affidavit3 of respondent to submit his answer within 15 days from the P18,000 intended for the provisional liberty of the
Chua which read: receipt thereof. Respondent, in an urgent motion for complainant's son and the P30,000 attorney's fees.
extension of time to file an answer dated August 10,
I, JOE CHUA, of legal age, Filipino and resident of Purok 2005,8 simply brushed aside the complaint for being
The Board of Governors of the IBP adopted and approved
Sawmill, Brgy. Bata, Bacolod City, after having been sworn "baseless, groundless and malicious" without, however,
the report and recommendation of the CBD with the
to in accordance with law, hereby depose and state: offering any explanation. He also prayed that he be given
modification that respondent be ordered to return to
until September 4, 2005 to submit his answer.
complainant only the amount of P30,000 which he
received as attorney's fees.12
1. That I am the one who introduce[d] Mrs. Dolores C.
Belleza [to] Atty. Alan Macasa when she looked for a Respondent subsequently filed urgent motions9 for second
lawyer to help her son in the case that the latter is facing and third extensions of time praying to be given until
We affirm the CBD's finding of guilt as affirmed by the IBP
sometime [i]n [the] first week of November 2004; November 4, 2005 to submit his answer. He never did. Board of Governors but we modify the IBP's
recommendation as to the liability of respondent.
2. That by reason of my mutual closeness to both of them, When both parties failed to attend the mandatory
I am the one who facilitated the payment of Mrs. conference on April 19, 2006, they were ordered to submit
Respondent Disrespected
DOLORES C. BELLEZA to Atty. Alan Macasa; their respective position papers.10
Legal Processes

3. That as far as I know, I received the following amount In its report and recommendation dated October 2,
Respondent was given more than enough opportunity to
from Mrs. Dolores Belleza as payment for Atty. Alan 2007,11 the CBD ruled that respondent failed to rebut the
answer the charges against him. Yet, he showed
Macasa: charges against him. He never answered the complaint
indifference to the orders of the CBD for him to answer
despite several chances to do so. and refute the accusations of professional misconduct
against him. In doing so, he failed to observe Rule 12.03 of xxx xxx xxx If his client's case is already pending in court, a lawyer
the Code of Professional Responsibility: must actively represent his client by promptly filing the
necessary pleading or motion and assiduously attending
Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter
the scheduled hearings. This is specially significant for a
Rule 12.03 - A lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection
lawyer who represents an accused in a criminal case.
of time to file pleadings, memoranda or briefs, let the therewith shall render him liable.
period lapse without submitting the same or offering an
explanation for his failure to do so. The accused is guaranteed the right to counsel under the
xxx xxx xxx
Constitution.20 However, this right can only be meaningful
if the accused is accorded ample legal assistance by his
Respondent also ignored the CBD's directive for him to file
CANON 19 - A LAWYER SHALL REPRESENT HIS lawyer:
his position paper. His propensity to flout the orders of the
CLIENT WITH ZEAL WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE
CBD showed his lack of concern and disrespect for the
LAW.
proceedings of the CBD. He disregarded the oath he took ... The right to counsel proceeds from the fundamental
when he was accepted to the legal profession "to obey the principle of due process which basically means that a
laws and the legal orders of the duly constituted legal A lawyer who accepts the cause of a client commits to person must be heard before being condemned. The due
authorities." He displayed insolence not only to the CBD devote himself (particularly his time, knowledge, skills and process requirement is a part of a person's basic rights; it
but also to this Court which is the source of the CBD's effort) to such cause. He must be ever mindful of the trust is not a mere formality that may be dispensed with or
authority. and confidence reposed in him, constantly striving to be performed perfunctorily.
worthy thereof. Accordingly, he owes full devotion to the
interest of his client, warm zeal in the maintenance and
Respondent's unjustified disregard of the lawful orders of The right to counsel must be more than just the presence
defense of his client's rights and the exertion of his utmost
the CBD was not only irresponsible but also constituted of a lawyer in the courtroom or the mere propounding of
learning, skill and ability to ensure that nothing shall be
utter disrespect for the judiciary and his fellow standard questions and objections. The right to counsel
taken or withheld from his client, save by the rules of law
lawyers.13 His conduct was unbecoming of a lawyer who is means that the accused is amply accorded legal
legally applied.16
called upon to obey court orders and processes and is assistance extended by a counsel who commits himself to
expected to stand foremost in complying with court the cause for the defense and acts accordingly. The right
directives as an officer of the court.14 Respondent should A lawyer who accepts professional employment from a assumes an active involvement by the lawyer in the
have known that the orders of the CBD (as the client undertakes to serve his client with competence and proceedings, particularly at the trial of the case, his
investigating arm of the Court in administrative cases diligence.17 He must conscientiously perform his duty bearing constantly in mind of the basic rights of the
against lawyers) were not mere requests but directives arising from such relationship. He must bear in mind that accused, his being well-versed on the case, and his
which should have been complied with promptly and by accepting a retainer, he impliedly makes the following knowing the fundamental procedures, essential laws and
completely.15 ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ representations: that he possesses the requisite degree of existing jurisprudence.21
learning, skill and ability other lawyers similarly situated
possess; that he will exert his best judgment in the
Respondent Grossly Neglected ' ∞ - ○ - ∞'
prosecution or defense of the litigation entrusted to him;
The Cause of His Client
that he will exercise reasonable care and diligence in the
use of his skill and in the application of his knowledge to [T]he right of an accused to counsel is beyond question a
Respondent undertook to defend the criminal case against his client's cause; and that he will take all steps necessary fundamental right. Without counsel, the right to a fair trial
complainant's son. Such undertaking imposed upon him to adequately safeguard his client's itself would be of little consequence, for it is through
the following duties: interest.18 ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ counsel that the accused secures his other rights. In other
words, the right to counsel is the right to effective
assistance of counsel.22
CANON 17 - A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE A lawyer's negligence in the discharge of his obligations
CAUSE OF HIS CLIENT AND HE SHALL BE MINDFUL arising from the relationship of counsel and client may
OF THE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM. cause delay in the administration of justice and prejudice The right of an accused to counsel finds substance in the
the rights of a litigant, particularly his client. Thus, from the performance by the lawyer of his sworn duty of fidelity to
perspective of the ethics of the legal profession, a lawyer's his client.23 Tersely put, it means an effective, efficient and
CANON 18 - A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT
lethargy in carrying out his duties to his client is both truly decisive legal assistance, not a simply perfunctory
WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.
unprofessional and unethical.19 representation.24
In this case, after accepting the criminal case against Respondent never denied receiving P18,000 from Respondent was undeserving of the trust reposed in him.
complainant's son and receiving his attorney's fees, complainant for the purpose of posting a bond to secure Instead of using the money for the bond of the
respondent did nothing that could be considered as the provisional liberty of her son. He never used the complainant's son, he pocketed it. He failed to observe
effective and efficient legal assistance. For all intents and money for its intended purpose yet also never returned it candor, fairness and loyalty in his dealings with his
purposes, respondent abandoned the cause of his client. to the client. Worse, he unjustifiably refused to turn over client.34 He failed to live up to his fiduciary duties. By
Indeed, on account of respondent's continued inaction, the amount to complainant despite the latter's repeated keeping the money for himself despite his undertaking that
complainant was compelled to seek the services of the demands. he would facilitate the release of complainant's son,
Public Attorney's Office. Respondent's lackadaisical respondent showed lack of moral principles. His
attitude towards the case of complainant's son was transgression showed him to be a swindler, a deceitful
Moreover, respondent rendered no service that would
reprehensible. Not only did it prejudice complainant's son, person and a shame to the legal profession.
have entitled him to the P30,000 attorney's fees. As a rule,
it also deprived him of his constitutional right to counsel.
the right of a lawyer to a reasonable compensation for his
Furthermore, in failing to use the amount entrusted to him
services is subject to two requisites: (1) the existence of an WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Alan S. Macasa is hereby
for posting a bond to secure the provisional liberty of his
attorney-client relationship and (2) the rendition by the found GUILTY not only of dishonesty but also of
client, respondent unduly impeded the latter's
lawyer of services to the client.31 Thus, a lawyer who does professional misconduct for prejudicing Francis John
constitutional right to bail.
not render legal services is not entitled to attorney's fees. Belleza's right to counsel and to bail under Sections 13
Otherwise, not only would he be unjustly enriched at the and 14(2), Article III of the Constitution, and for violating
Respondent Failed to Return expense of the client, he would also be rewarded for his Canons 1, 7, 17, 18 and 19 and Rules 12.03, 16.01, 16.02,
His Client's Money negligence and irresponsibility. 16.03 and 18.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. He is therefore DISBARRED from the
practice of law effective immediately.
The fiduciary nature of the relationship between counsel Respondent Failed to Uphold the Integrity and Dignity
and client imposes on a lawyer the duty to account for the of the Legal Profession
money or property collected or received for or from the Respondent is hereby ORDERED to return to complainant
client.25 Dolores C. Belleza the amounts of P30,000 and P18,000
For his failure to comply with the exacting ethical
with interest at 12% per annum from the date of
standards of the legal profession, respondent failed to
promulgation of this decision until full payment.
When a lawyer collects or receives money from his client obey Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility:
Respondent is further DIRECTED to submit to the Court
for a particular purpose (such as for filing fees, registration
proof of payment of the amount within ten days from
fees, transportation and office expenses), he should
CANON 7. A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD payment. Failure to do so will subject him to criminal
promptly account to the client how the money was spent. If
THE INTEGRITY AND THE DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL prosecution.
he does not use the money for its intended purpose, he
PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE
must immediately return it to the client.26 His failure either
INTEGRATED BAR. (emphasis supplied)
to render an accounting or to return the money (if the Let copies of this resolution be furnished the Office of the
intended purpose of the money does not materialize) Bar Confidant to be entered into the records of respondent
constitutes a blatant disregard of Rule 16.01 of the Code Indeed, a lawyer who fails to abide by the Canons and Atty. Alan S. Macasa and the Office of the Court
of Professional Responsibility.27 Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility Administrator to be furnished to the courts of the land for
disrespects the said Code and everything that it stands for. their information and guidance.
In so doing, he disregards the ethics and disgraces the
Moreover, a lawyer has the duty to deliver his client's
dignity of the legal profession.
funds or properties as they fall due or upon demand.28 His SO ORDERED.
failure to return the client's money upon demand gives rise
to the presumption that he has misappropriated it for his Lawyers should always live up to the ethical standards of
own use to the prejudice of and in violation of the trust the legal profession as embodied in the Code of
reposed in him by the client.29 It is a gross violation of Professional Responsibility. Public confidence in law and
general morality as well as of professional ethics; it impairs in lawyers may be eroded by the irresponsible and
public confidence in the legal profession and deserves improper conduct of a member of the bar.32 Thus, every Endnotes:
punishment.30 Indeed, it may border on the criminal as it lawyer should act and comport himself in a manner that
may constitute a prima facie case of swindling or estafa. would promote public confidence in the integrity of the
legal profession.33
* 16 30
On official leave. Edquibal v. Ferrer, Jr., A.C. No. 5687, 3 February 2005, Id.
450 SCRA 406.
1 31
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. Arce v. Philippine National Bank, 62 Phil. 570 (1935).
17
See Canon 18 of the Code of Professional
2 Responsibility. 32
Rollo, pp. 2-5. Ducat v. Villalon, 392 Phil. 394 (2000).
18
3 Islas v. Platon, 47 Phil. 162 (1924). 33
Annex "A" of the Complaint. Id., p. 6. Id.
19
4 See Villaflores v. Limos, A.C. No. 7504, 23 November 34
Id. CANON 15 - A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR,
2007, 538 SCRA 140.
FAIRNESS AND LOYALTY IN ALL HIS DEALINGS AND
5 TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS CLIENT.
Id., p. 1. 20
See Section 14(2), Article III, Constitution.
6 THIRD DIVISION
The CBD docketed the complaint as CBD Case No. 05- 21
People v. Molina, 423 Phil. 637 (2001).
1524.
A.C. No. 6281 September 26, 2011
22
7 Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 US 365 (1986) cited
Id., p. 8.
in People v. Liwanag, 415 Phil. 271 (2001).
VALENTIN C. MIRANDA, Complainant,
8 vs.
Id., pp. 9-10. 23
Callangan v. People, G.R. No. 153414, 27 June 2006, ATTY. MACARIO D. CARPIO, Respondent.
493 SCRA 269 citing People v. Ferrer, 454 Phil. 431
9
Dated September 2, 2005 and October 4, 2005, (2003).
DECISION
respectively. Id., pp. 16-17 and 21-22, respectively.
24
Id.
10 PERALTA, J.:
Order dated April 19, 2006. Id., p. 27.
25
See Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional
This is a disbarment case against Atty. Macario D. Carpio
Despite receipt by the parties of the order, no position Responsibility.
filed by Valentin C. Miranda.1
paper was filed. Hence, the investigating commissioner
resolved the case based on the pleadings and papers 26
In re Nueno, 48 Phil. 178 (1948).
available to him. The facts, as culled from the records, are as follows:
27
11 See Atty. Navarro v. Atty. Meneses III, 349 Phil. 520
Prepared and signed by CBD Commissioner Salvador Complainant Valentin C. Miranda is one of the owners of a
(1998).
B. Hababag. Id., pp. 32-36. parcel of land consisting of 1,890 square meters located at
Barangay Lupang Uno, Las Piñas, Metro Manila. In 1994,
28
12 Rule 16.03 - A lawyer shall deliver the funds and complainant initiated Land Registration Commission (LRC)
Resolution No. XVIII-2007-182 dated October 12, 2007.
property of his client when due or upon demand. However, Case No. M-226 for the registration of the aforesaid
he shall have a lien over the funds and may apply so much property. The case was filed before the Regional Trial
13
Sibulo v. Ilagan, A.C. No. 4711, 25 November 2004, 486 thereof as may be necessary to satisfy his lawful fees and Court of Las Piñas City, Branch 275. During the course of
Phil. 197 (2004). disbursements, giving notice promptly thereafter to his the proceedings, complainant engaged the services of
client. He shall also have a lien to the same extent on all respondent Atty. Carpio as counsel in the said case when
14 judgments and executions he has secured for his client as his original counsel, Atty. Samuel Marquez, figured in a
Id. provided for in the Rules of Court. vehicular accident.

15
Id. 29
Pentecostes v. Ibañez, 363 Phil. 624 (1999).
In complainant's Affidavit,2 complainant and respondent In a letter3 dated May 24, 2000, complainant reiterated his Respondent admitted the receipt of the amount of
agreed that complainant was to pay respondent Twenty demand for the return of the owner's duplicate of the OCT. PhP32,000.00, however, he alleged that the amount
Thousand Pesos (PhP20,000.00) as acceptance fee and On June 11, 2000, complainant made the same demand earlier paid to him will be deducted from the 20% of the
Two Thousand Pesos (PhP2,000.00) as appearance fee. on respondent over the telephone. Respondent reiterated current value of the subject lot. He alleged that the
Complainant paid respondent the amounts due him, as his previous demand and angrily told complainant to agreement was not reduced into writing, because the
evidenced by receipts duly signed by the latter. During the comply, and threatened to have the OCT cancelled if the parties believed each other based on their mutual trust. He
last hearing of the case, respondent demanded the latter refused to pay him. denied that he demanded the payment of PhP10,000.00
additional amount of Ten Thousand Pesos (PhP10,000.00) for the preparation of a memorandum, since he considered
for the preparation of a memorandum, which he said would the same unnecessary.
On June 26, 2000, complainant learned that on April 6,
further strengthen complainant's position in the case, plus
2000, respondent registered an adverse claim on the
twenty percent (20%) of the total area of the subject
subject OCT wherein he claimed that the agreement on In addition to the alleged agreement between him and
property as additional fees for his services.
the payment of his legal services was 20% of the property complainant for the payment of the 20% professional fees,
and/or actual market value. To date, respondent has not respondent invoked the principle of "quantum meruit" to
Complainant did not accede to respondent's demand for it returned the owner's duplicate of OCT No. 0-94 to justify the amount being demanded by him.
was contrary to their agreement. Moreover, complainant complainant and his co-heirs despite repeated demands to
co-owned the subject property with his siblings, and he effect the same.
In its Report and Recommendation4 dated June 9, 2005,
could not have agreed to the amount being demanded by
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Commission on Bar
respondent without the knowledge and approval of his co-
In seeking the disbarment or the imposition of the Discipline (IBP-CBD) recommended that respondent be
heirs. As a result of complainant's refusal to satisfy
appropriate penalty upon respondent, complainant invokes suspended from the practice of law for a period of six (6)
respondent's demands, the latter became furious and their
the following provisions of the Code of Professional months for unjustly withholding from complainant the
relationship became sore.
Responsibility: owner's duplicate of OCT No. 0-94 in the exercise of his
so-called attorney's lien. In Resolution No. XVII-2005-
On January 12, 1998, a Decision was rendered in LRC 173,5 dated December 17, 2005, the IBP Board of
Canon 20. A lawyer shall charge only fair and reasonable
Case No. M-226, granting the petition for registration, Governors adopted and approved the Report and
fees.
which Decision was declared final and executory in an Recommendation of the IBP-CBD.
Order dated June 5, 1998. On March 24, 2000, the Land
Registration Authority (LRA) sent complainant a copy of Canon 16. A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and
Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration of the
the letter addressed to the Register of Deeds (RD) of Las properties of his client that may come into his possession.
resolution of the IBP Board of Governors adopting the
Piñas City, which transmitted the decree of registration
report and recommendation of the IBP-CBD. Pending the
and the original and owner's duplicate of the title of the
Canon 16.03. A lawyer shall deliver the funds and resolution of his motion for reconsideration, respondent
property.
properties of his client when due or upon demand. x x x filed a petition for review6 with this Court. The Court, in a
Resolution7 dated August 16, 2006, directed that the case
On April 3, 2000, complainant went to the RD to get the be remanded to the IBP for proper disposition, pursuant to
owner's duplicate of the Original Certificate of Title (OCT) In defense of his actions, respondent relied on his alleged this Court's resolution in Noriel J. Ramientas v. Atty.
bearing No. 0-94. He was surprised to discover that the retaining lien over the owner's duplicate of OCT No. 0-94. Jocelyn P. Reyala.8
Respondent admitted that he did not turn over to
same had already been claimed by and released to
respondent on March 29, 2000. On May 4, 2000, complainant the owner's duplicate of OCT No. 0-94
because of complainant's refusal, notwithstanding In Notice of Resolution No. XVIII-2008-672, dated
complainant talked to respondent on the phone and asked
repeated demands, to complete payment of his agreed December 11, 2008, the IBP Board of Governors affirmed
him to turn over the owner's duplicate of the OCT, which
professional fee consisting of 20% of the total area of the Resolution No. XVII-2005-173, dated December 17, 2005,
he had claimed without complainant's knowledge, consent
property covered by the title, i.e., 378 square meters out of with modification that respondent is ordered to return the
and authority. Respondent insisted that complainant first
1,890 square meters, or its equivalent market value at the complainant's owner's duplicate of OCT No. 0-94 within
pay him the PhP10,000.00 and the 20% share in the
rate of PhP7,000.00 per square meter, thus, yielding a fifteen days from receipt of notice. Hence, the present
property equivalent to 378 square meters, in exchange for
sum of PhP2,646,000.00 for the entire 378-square-meter petition.
which, respondent would deliver the owner's duplicate of
portion and that he was ready and willing to turn over the
the OCT. Once again, complainant refused the demand,
owner's duplicate of OCT No. 0-94, should complainant
for not having been agreed upon. The Court sustains the resolution of the IBP Board of
pay him completely the aforesaid professional fee.
Governors, which affirmed with modification the findings
and recommendations of the IBP-CBD. Respondent's professional fee consisting of 20% of the total area Further, in collecting from complainant exorbitant fees,
claim for his unpaid professional fees that would legally covered by OCT No. 0-94. The agreement between the respondent violated Canon 20 of the Code of Professional
give him the right to retain the property of his client until he parties only shows that respondent will be paid the Responsibility, which mandates that "a lawyer shall charge
receives what is allegedly due him has been paid has no acceptance fee and the appearance fees, which the only fair and reasonable fees." It is highly improper for a
basis and, thus, is invalid. respondent has duly received. Clearly, there is lawyer to impose additional professional fees upon his
no unsatisfied claim for attorney's fees that would entitle client which were never mentioned nor agreed upon at the
respondent to retain his client's property. Hence, time of the engagement of his services. At the outset,
Section 37, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court specifically
respondent could not validly withhold the title of his client respondent should have informed the complainant of all
provides:
absence a clear and justifiable claim. the fees or possible fees that he would charge before
handling the case and not towards the near conclusion of
Section 37. Attorney’s liens. – An attorney shall have a lien the case. This is essential in order for the complainant to
Respondent's unjustified act of holding on to complainant's
upon the funds, documents and papers of his client, which determine if he has the financial capacity to pay
title with the obvious aim of forcing complainant to agree to
have lawfully come into his possession and may retain the respondent before engaging his services.
the amount of attorney's fees sought is an alarming abuse
same until his lawful fees and disbursements have been
by respondent of the exercise of an attorney's retaining
paid, and may apply such funds to the satisfaction thereof.
lien, which by no means is an absolute right, and cannot at Respondent's further submission that he is entitled to the
He shall also have a lien to the same extent upon all
all justify inordinate delay in the delivery of money and payment of additional professional fees on the basis of the
judgments for the payment of money, and executions
property to his client when due or upon demand.11 principle of quantum meruit has no merit. "Quantum
issued in pursuance of such judgments, which he has
meruit, meaning `as much as he deserved' is used as a
secured in a litigation of his client, from and after the time
basis for determining the lawyer's professional fees in the
when he shall have caused a statement of his claim of Atty. Carpio failed to live up to his duties as a lawyer by
absence of a contract but recoverable by him from his
such lien to be entered upon the records of the court unlawfully withholding and failing to deliver the title of the
client."12 The principle of quantum meruit applies if a
rendering such judgment, or issuing such execution, and complainant, despite repeated demands, in the guise of an
lawyer is employed without a price agreed upon for his
shall have caused written notice thereof to be delivered to alleged entitlement to additional professional fees. He has
services. In such a case, he would be entitled to receive
his client and to the adverse party; and he shall have the breached Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 and Rule 16.03 of Canon
what he merits for his services, as much as he has
same right and power over such judgments and 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which read:
earned.13 In the present case, the parties had already
executions as his client would have to enforce his lien and
entered into an agreement as to the attorney's fees of the
secure the payment of his just fees and disbursements.
CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE respondent, and thus, the principle of quantum
CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND meruit does not fully find application because the
An attorney's retaining lien is fully recognized if the PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL respondent is already compensated by such agreement.
presence of the following elements concur: (1) lawyer- PROCESS.
client relationship; (2) lawful possession of the client's
The Court notes that respondent did not inform
funds, documents and papers; and (3) unsatisfied claim for
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, complainant that he will be the one to secure the owner's
attorney's fees.9 Further, the attorney's retaining lien is a
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. duplicate of the OCT from the RD and failed to
general lien for the balance of the account between the
immediately inform complainant that the title was already
attorney and his client, and applies to the documents and
in his possession. Complainant, on April 3, 2000, went to
funds of the client which may come into the attorney's CANON 16 - A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL
the RD of Las Piñas City to get the owner's duplicate of
possession in the course of his employment.10 MONEYS AND PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT THAT OCT No. 0-94, only to be surprised that the said title had
MAY COME INTO HIS POSSESSION. already been claimed by, and released to, respondent on
In the present case, complainant claims that there is no March 29, 2000. A lawyer must conduct himself, especially
such agreement for the payment of professional fee Rule 16.03 - A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property in his dealings with his clients, with integrity in a manner
consisting of 20% of the total area of the subject property of his client when due or upon demand.1âwphi1 However, that is beyond reproach. His relationship with his clients
and submits that their agreement was only for the payment he shall have a lien over the funds and may apply so much should be characterized by the highest degree of good
of the acceptance fee and the appearance fees. thereof as may be necessary to satisfy his lawful fees and faith and fairness.14 By keeping secret with the client his
disbursements, giving notice promptly thereafter to his acquisition of the title, respondent was not fair in his
client. He shall also have a lien to the same extent on all dealing with his client. Respondent could have easily
As correctly found by the IBP-CBD, there was no proof of informed the complainant immediately of his receipt of the
judgments and executions he has secured for his client as
any agreement between the complainant and the owner's duplicate of the OCT on March 29, 2000, in order
provided for in the Rules of Court.
respondent that the latter is entitled to an additional
to save his client the time and effort in going to the RD to JOSE PORTUGAL JOSE CATRAL Villanueva, pertinent provisions of
get the title. PEREZ* MENDOZA Rule III of the Rules of Procedure of
Associate Justice Associate Justice the Commission on Bar Discipline, as
contained in the By-Laws of the IBP,
Respondent's inexcusable act of withholding the property
particularly §1 and §2, are hereby
belonging to his client and imposing unwarranted fees in
ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE deemed amended. Accordingly, §1 of
exchange for the release of said title deserve the
Associate Justice said rules now reads as follows:
imposition of disciplinary sanction. Hence, the ruling of the
IBP Board of Governors, adopting and approving with
modification the report and recommendation of the IBP- SECTION. 1. Pleadings. - The only
CBD that respondent be suspended from the practice of pleadings allowed are verified
law for a period of six (6) months and that respondent be complaint, verified answer, verified
ordered to return the complainant's owner's duplicate of position papers and motion for
Footnotes
OCT No. 0-94 is hereby affirmed. However, the fifteen-day reconsideration of a
period from notice given to respondent within which to resolution. (Emphasis supplied.)
return the title should be modified and, instead, respondent * Designated additional member in lieu of
should return the same immediately upon receipt of the Associate Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., per
And in §2, a motion for
Court's decision. Special Order No. 1102 dated September 21,
reconsideration is, thus, removed from
2011.
the purview of the class of prohibited
WHEREFORE, Atty. Macario D. Carpio is SUSPENDED pleadings. Further, the following
from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months, 1 guidelines shall be observed by the
The case was initially referred by this Court to
effective upon receipt of this Decision. He is ordered to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for IBP in respect of disciplinary cases
RETURN to the complainant the owner's duplicate of OCT investigation, report and recommendation and against lawyers:
No. 0-94 immediately upon receipt of this decision. He is docketed as ADM. Case No. 6281; rollo, p. 36.
WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar act shall
1. The IBP must first afford
be dealt with more severely. 2
Rollo, pp. 7-10. a chance to either party to
file a motion for
Let a copy of this Decision be furnished to the Office of the 3 reconsideration of the IBP
Bar Confidant, to be appended to the personal record of Id. at 24. resolution containing its
Atty. Macario D. Carpio as a member of the Bar; the findings and
Integrated Bar of the Philippines; and the Office of the 4
Id. at 312-323. recommendations within
Court Administrator for circulation to all courts in the fifteen (15) days from notice
country for their information and guidance. 5
of receipt by the parties
Id. at 311. thereon;
SO ORDERED. 6
Id. at 273-281. 2. If a motion for
reconsideration has been
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA 7
Id. at 325. timely filed by an aggrieved
Associate Justice
party, the IBP must first
8
resolve the same prior to
WE CONCUR: A.C. No. 7055, July 31, 2006, 497 SCRA 130, elevating to this Court the
137-138. In that case, the Court held that: subject resolution together
with the whole record of the
ROBERTO A. ABAD
In concurrence with the above, now, case;
Associate Justice
therefore, BE IT RESOLVED, as it is
hereby resolved, that in accordance xxxx
with our ruling in Halimao v.
 5. For records of cases already received from his client;1 and (2) violating the prohibition Cañete in view of the rule prohibiting representation of
transmitted to this Court where there on representing conflicting interests.2 conflicting interests.
exist pending motions for
reconsideration filed in due time
In her complaint, Josefina M. Aniñon (complainant) related In re De la Rosa clearly suggests that a lawyer may not
before the IBP, the latter is directed to
that she previously engaged the legal services of Atty. represent conflicting interests in the absence of the written
withdraw from this Court the subject
Sabitsana in the preparation and execution in her favor of consent of all parties concerned given after a full
resolutions, together with the whole
a Deed of Sale over a parcel of land owned by her late disclosure of the facts. In the present case, no such written
records of the cases, within 30 days
common-law husband, Brigido Caneja, Jr. Atty. Sabitsana consent was secured by respondent before accepting
from notice, and, thereafter, to act on
allegedly violated her confidence when he subsequently employment as Mrs. Cañete’s counsel-of-record. x x x
said motions with reasonable
filed a civil case against her for the annulment of the Deed
dispatch.
of Sale in behalf of Zenaida L. Cañete, the legal wife of
xxx
Brigido Caneja, Jr. The complainant accused Atty.
9
Ampil v. Hon. Agrava, 145 Phil. 297, 303 Sabitsana of using the confidential information he obtained
(1970). (Emphasis supplied) from her in filing the civil case. Complainant and respondent’s present client, being
contending claimants to the same property, the conflict of
10 interest is obviously present. There is said to be
Id. at 305-306. Atty. Sabitsana admitted having advised the complainant
inconsistency of interest when on behalf of one client, it is
in the preparation and execution of the Deed of Sale.
the attorney’s duty to contend for that which his duty to
11 However, he denied having received any confidential
Lemoine v. Atty. Balon, Jr., 460 Phil. 702, 714 another client requires him to oppose. In brief, if he argues
information. Atty. Sabitsana asserted that the present
(2003). for one client this argument will be opposed by him when
disbarment complaint was instigated by one Atty. Gabino
he argues for the other client. Such is the case with which
Velasquez, Jr., the notary of the disbarment complaint who
12 we are now confronted, respondent being asked by one
Rilloroza v. Eastern Telecommunications lost a court case against him (Atty. Sabitsana) and had
client to nullify what he had formerly notarized as a true
Phils., Inc., 369 Phil. 1, 11 (1999). instigated the complaint for this reason.
and valid sale between Bontes and the complainant.
(footnotes omitted)3
13
Lorenzo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 85383, The Findings of the IBP Investigating Commissioner
August 30, 1990, 189 SCRA 260, 264.
The IBP Commissioner recommended that Atty. Sabitsana
In our Resolution dated November 22, 1999, we referred be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one
14
Schulz v. Atty. Flores, 462 Phil. 601, 613 the disbarment complaint to the Commission on Bar (1) year.4
(2003). Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for
investigation, report and recommendation. In his Report
The Findings of the IBP Board of Governors
and Recommendation dated November 28, 2003, IBP
A.C. No. 5098 April 11, 2012 Commissioner Pedro A. Magpayo Jr. found Atty.
Sabitsana administratively liable for representing In a resolution dated February 27, 2004, the IBP Board of
JOSEFINA M. ANIÑON, Complainant, conflicting interests. The IBP Commissioner opined: Governors resolved to adopt and approve the Report and
vs. Recommendation of the IBP Commissioner after finding it
ATTY. CLEMENCIO SABITSANA, JR., Respondent. to be fully supported by the evidence on record, the
In Bautista vs. Barrios, it was held that a lawyer may not
applicable laws and rules.5 The IBP Board of Governors
handle a case to nullify a contract which he prepared and
agreed with the IBP Commissioner’s recommended
DECISION thereby take up inconsistent positions. Granting that
penalty.
Zenaida L. Cañete, respondent’s present client in Civil
Case No. B-1060 did not initially learn about the sale
BRION, J.: executed by Bontes in favor of complainant thru the Atty. Sabitsana moved to reconsider the above resolution,
confidences and information divulged by complainant to but the IBP Board of Governors denied his motion in a
We resolve this disbarment complaint against Atty. respondent in the course of the preparation of the said resolution dated July 30, 2004.
Clemencio Sabitsana, Jr. who is charged of: (1) violating deed of sale, respondent nonetheless has a duty to
the lawyer’s duty to preserve confidential information decline his current employment as counsel of Zenaida
The Issue
The issue in this case is whether Atty. Sabitsana is guilty Jurisprudence has provided three tests in determining Three, despite the knowledge of the clashing
of misconduct for representing conflicting interests. whether a violation of the above rule is present in a given interests between his two clients, Atty.
case. Sabitsana accepted the engagement from
Zenaida Cañete.
The Court’s Ruling
One test is whether a lawyer is duty-bound to fight for an
issue or claim in behalf of one client and, at the same time, Four, Atty. Sabitsana’s actual knowledge of the
After a careful study of the records, we agree with the
to oppose that claim for the other conflicting interests between his two clients was
findings and recommendations of the IBP Commissioner
client.http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/aug200 demonstrated by his own actions: first, he filed a
and the IBP Board of Governors.
5/ac_6708.htm - _ftn Thus, if a lawyer’s argument for one case against the complainant in behalf of
client has to be opposed by that same lawyer in arguing Zenaida Cañete; second, he impleaded the
The relationship between a lawyer and his/her client for the other client, there is a violation of the rule. complainant as the defendant in the case; and
should ideally be imbued with the highest level of trust and third, the case he filed was for the annulment of
confidence. This is the standard of confidentiality that must the Deed of Sale that he had previously
Another test of inconsistency of interests is whether the
prevail to promote a full disclosure of the client’s most prepared and executed for the complainant.
acceptance of a new relation would prevent the full
confidential information to his/her lawyer for an
discharge of the lawyer’s duty of undivided fidelity and
unhampered exchange of information between them.
loyalty to the client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or By his acts, not only did Atty. Sabitsana agree to represent
Needless to state, a client can only entrust confidential
double-dealing in the performance of that one client against another client in the same action; he
information to his/her lawyer based on an expectation from
duty.http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/aug2005 also accepted a new engagement that entailed him to
the lawyer of utmost secrecy and discretion; the lawyer, for
/ac_6708.htm - _ftn Still another test is whether the lawyer contend and oppose the interest of his other client in a
his part, is duty-bound to observe candor, fairness and
would be called upon in the new relation to use against a property in which his legal services had been previously
loyalty in all dealings and transactions with the client.6 Part
former client any confidential information acquired through retained.
of the lawyer’s duty in this regard is to avoid representing
their connection or previous
conflicting interests, a matter covered by Rule 15.03,
employment.10 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/200
Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility To be sure, Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of
5/aug2005/ac_6708.htm - _ftn [emphasis ours]
quoted below: Professional Responsibility provides an exception to the
above prohibition. However, we find no reason to apply the
On the basis of the attendant facts of the case, we find exception due to Atty. Sabitsana’s failure to comply with
Rule 15.03. -A lawyer shall not represent conflicting
substantial evidence to support Atty. Sabitsana’s violation the requirements set forth under the rule. Atty. Sabitsana
interests except by written consent of all concerned given
of the above rule, as established by the following did not make a full disclosure of facts to the complainant
after a full disclosure of the facts.
circumstances on record: and to Zenaida Cañete before he accepted the new
engagement with Zenaida Cañete. The records likewise
"The proscription against representation of conflicting show that although Atty. Sabitsana wrote a letter to the
One, his legal services were initially engaged by
interests applies to a situation where the opposing parties complainant informing her of Zenaida Cañete’s adverse
the complainant to protect her interest over a
are present clients in the same action or in an unrelated claim to the property covered by the Deed of Sale and,
certain property. The records show that upon the
action."7 The prohibition also applies even if the "lawyer urging her to settle the adverse claim; Atty. Sabitsana
legal advice of Atty. Sabitsana, the Deed of Sale
would not be called upon to contend for one client that however did not disclose to the complainant that he was
over the property was prepared and executed in
which the lawyer has to oppose for the other client, or that also being engaged as counsel by Zenaida
the complainant’s favor.
there would be no occasion to use the confidential Cañete.11 Moreover, the records show that Atty. Sabitsana
information acquired from one to the disadvantage of the failed to obtain the written consent of his two clients, as
other as the two actions are wholly unrelated."8 To be held Two, Atty. Sabitsana met with Zenaida Cañete required by Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of
accountable under this rule, it is "enough that the opposing to discuss the latter’s legal interest over the Professional Responsibility.
parties in one case, one of whom would lose the suit, are property subject of the Deed of Sale. At that
present clients and the nature or conditions of the lawyer’s point, Atty. Sabitsana already had knowledge
Accordingly, we find — as the IBP Board of Governors did
respective retainers with each of them would affect the that Zenaida Cañete’s interest clashed with the
— Atty. Sabitsana guilty of misconduct for representing
performance of the duty of undivided fidelity to both complainant’s interests.
conflicting interests. We likewise agree with the penalty of
clients."9
suspension for one (1) year from the practice of law
recommended by the IBP Board of Governors. This
penalty is consistent with existing jurisprudence on the administrative proceedings, the opportunity to explain JOSE PORTUGAL MARIA LOURDES P. A.
administrative offense of representing conflicting one’s side or the opportunity to seek a reconsideration of PEREZ SERENO
interests.12 the action or ruling complained of.15 These opportunities Associate Justice Associate Justice
were all afforded to Atty. Sabitsana, as shown by the
above circumstances.
We note that Atty. Sabitsana takes exception to the IBP
BIENVENIDO L. REYES
recommendation on the ground that the charge in the
Associate Justice
complaint was only for his alleged disclosure of All told, disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui
confidential information, not for representation of generis.16 In the exercise of its disciplinary powers, the
conflicting interests. To Atty. Sabitsana, finding him liable Court merely calls upon a member of the Bar to account
for the latter offense is a violation of his due process rights for his actuations as an officer of the Court with the end in
since he only answered the designated charge. view of preserving the purity of the legal profession. We
likewise aim to ensure the proper and honest
Footnotes
administration of justice by purging the profession of
We find no violation of Atty. Sabitsana’s due process
members who, by their misconduct, have proven
rights. Although there was indeed a specific charge in the
themselves no longer worthy to be entrusted with the * Additional Member vice Justice Antonio T.
complaint, we are not unmindful that the complaint itself
duties and responsibilities of an attorney.17 This is all that Carpio per raffle dated March 19, 2012.
contained allegations of acts sufficient to constitute a
we did in this case. Significantly, we did this to a degree
violation of the rule on the prohibition against representing
very much lesser than what the powers of this Court allows 1
conflicting interests. As stated in paragraph 8 of the Rollo, pp. 5-6. See paragraphs 6, 9 and 10 of
it to do in terms of the imposable penalty. In this sense, we
complaint: the complaint.
have already been lenient towards respondent lawyer.

Atty. Sabitsana, Jr. accepted the commission as a Lawyer 2

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court resolves to Ibid.
of ZENAIDA CANEJA, now Zenaida Cañete, to recover
ADOPT the findings and recommendations of the
lands from Complainant, including this land where lawyer
Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the 3
Pages 7 to 8 of the Report and
Atty. Sabitsana, Jr. has advised his client [complainant] to
Philippines. Atty. Clemencio C. Sabitsana, Jr. is found Recommendation.
execute the second sale[.]
GUILTY of misconduct for representing conflicting
interests in violation of Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code 4
Interestingly, Atty. Sabitsana even admitted these of Professional Responsibility. He is hereby SUSPENDED Id. at 8-9.
allegations in his answer.13 He also averred in his Answer for one (1) year from the practice of law.
that: 5
Resolution No. XVI-2004-124.
Atty. Sabitsana is DIRECTED to inform the Court of the
6b. Because the defendant-to-be in the complaint (Civil date of his receipt of this Decision so that we can 6
CODE OF PROFESSIONAL
Case No. B-1060) that he would file on behalf of Zenaida determine the reckoning point when his suspension shall RESPONSIBILITY, Canon 15.
Caneja-Cañete was his former client (herein complainant), take effect.
respondent asked [the] permission of Mrs. Cañete (which 7
she granted) that he would first write a letter (Annex "4") to Quiambao v. Bamba, Adm. Case No. 6708,
SO ORDERED. August 25, 2005, 468 SCRA 1, 11.
the complainant proposing to settle the case amicably
between them but complainant ignored it. Neither did she
object to respondent’s handling the case in behalf of Mrs. ARTURO D. BRION 8
Ibid.
Cañete on the ground she is now invoking in her instant Associate Justice
complaint. So respondent felt free to file the complaint 9
against her.14 1âwphi1 Ibid.
WE CONCUR:
10
We have consistently held that the essence of due process Id. at 10-11, citing Tiania v. Ocampo, A.C.
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA* Nos. 2285 and 2302, August 12, 1991, 200
is simply the opportunity to be informed of the charge
Chief Justice SCRA 472, 479; Abaqueta v. Florido, A.C. No.
against oneself and to be heard or, as applied to
Associate Justice 5948, January 22, 2003, 395 SCRA 569;
Pormento, Sr. v. Pontevedra, A.C. No. 5128,
March 31, 2005, 454 SCRA 167; and Ruben E.
Agpalo, Legal Ethics 223 (6th ed. 1997), citing
Memphis & Shelby County Bar Ass’n v.
Sanderson, 52 Tenn. App. 684; 378 SW2d 173
(1963); B.A. Op. 132 (15 March 1935).

11
Rollo. p. 82.

12
Quiambao v. Bamba, supra note 7, at 16,
citing Vda. de Alisbo v. Jalandoon, Sr., Adm.
Case No. 1311, July 18, 1991, 199 SCRA 321;
Philippine National Bank v. Cedo, Adm. Case
No. 3701, March 28, 1995, 243 SCRA 1;
Maturan v. Gonzales, A.C. No. 2597, March 12,
1998, 287 SCRA 443; and Northwestern
University, Inc. v. Arquillo, A.C. No. 6632,
August 2, 2005, 465 SCRA 513.

13
Rollo, p. 55.

14
Id. at 55-56.

15
Teresita T. Bayonla v. Atty. Purita A. Reyes,
A.C. No. 4808, November 22, 2011,
citing Samalio v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
140079, March 31, 2005, 454 SCRA 462.

16
Teresita T. Bayola v. Atty. Purita A. Reyes,
supra note 13, citing Suzuki v. Tiamson, Adm.
Case No. 6542, September 30, 2005, 471 SCRA
129.

17
Ibid.