1. ALMACEN VS YAPTINCHAY - GR NO.
L27654
Facts:
In the case "In re: Almacen v. Yaptinchay," Atty. Vicente Raul Almacen faced disciplinary action
for making disrespectful and derogatory remarks towards the Supreme Court of the Philippines.
The incident began with a civil case titled "Virginia Y. Yaptinchay vs. Antonio H. Calero," where
Atty. Almacen represented the defendant.
The trial court ruled against his client, and Atty. Almacen received a copy of the decision on June
15, 1966.
He filed a motion for reconsideration on July 6, 1966, but failed to notify the adverse party of the
time and place of the hearing.
Consequently, the trial court denied both the motion for reconsideration and the plaintiff's
motion for execution due to "lack of proof of service."
Atty. Almacen then filed a second motion for reconsideration, which he later withdrew, and
perfected an appeal on August 22, 1966.
The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, citing that the motion for reconsideration was a
"useless piece of paper" due to the lack of notice.
Atty. Almacen's subsequent petitions to the Supreme Court were denied by minute resolutions.
Frustrated, he filed a "Petition to Surrender Lawyer's Certificate of Title" on September 26, 1967,
accusing the Supreme Court of injustice and making derogatory remarks about its members.
He also publicized his grievances through the media.
The Supreme Court, in response, initiated disciplinary proceedings against him.
Issue:
1. Did Atty. Vicente Raul Almacen commit professional misconduct by making disrespectful and
derogatory remarks towards the Supreme Court?
2. Should Atty. Almacen be subjected to disciplinary action for his statements and actions?
Ruling:
1. Yes, Atty. Vicente Raul Almacen committed professional misconduct.
2. Atty. Almacen was suspended from the practice of law indefinitely until further orders.
Ratio:
The Supreme Court found that Atty. Almacen's remarks and actions constituted gross
misconduct and a violation of his duties as a member of the Bar.
The Court emphasized that while lawyers have the right to criticize judicial decisions, such
criticism must be respectful and within the bounds of decency and propriety.
Atty. Almacen's statements, which included calling the Supreme Court "calloused to our pleas for
justice" and accusing it of "culpable violations of the Constitution," were deemed to be beyond
the permissible limits of fair comment and legitimate criticism.
The Court underscored that such behavior undermines public confidence in the judiciary and the
orderly administration of justice.
The decision to suspend Atty. Almacen indefinitely was made to preserve the integrity of the
legal profession and to ensure that its members uphold the highest standards of respect and
professionalism towards the courts.
The Court also noted that disciplinary proceedings are sui generis, focusing on the fitness of the
attorney to continue practicing law, rather than being punitive in nature.
10. CUI VS. CUI - GR L18727
Facts:
Case: "Cui v. Cui" (G.R. No. L-18727)
Date: Decided on August 31, 1964
Court: Supreme Court of the Philippines
Ponente: Justice Makalintal
Dispute: Administrator position of the Hospicio de San Jose de Barili, a charitable institution.
Founders: Don Pedro Cui and Doña Benigna Cui.
Institution: Endowed with extensive properties and incorporated via Act No. 3239 on November
27, 1925.
Deed of Donation: Specified administration by designated individuals and their legitimate male
descendants with professional qualifications, including a "titulo de abogado" (lawyer's title).
Controversy: Arose over who should be the administrator after the deaths of the founders and
initial administrators.
Parties Involved: Jesus Ma. Cui (plaintiff) and Antonio Ma. Cui (defendant) are brothers and
legitimate descendants of Mariano Cui.
Timeline:
Dr. Teodoro Cui resigned as administrator on February 27, 1960, favoring Antonio Ma.
Cui.
Jesus Ma. Cui filed a complaint on September 13, 1960, claiming the administrator
position despite not being a Bar member.
Romulo Cui intervened, asserting his right as a Bar member.
Lower Court Decision: The Court of First Instance of Cebu favored Jesus Ma. Cui, interpreting
"titulo de abogado" as a law degree.
Appeal: Antonio Ma. Cui and Romulo Cui appealed the decision.
Issue:
1. Does "titulo de abogado" in the deed mean mere possession of a law degree or require Bar
membership?
2. Is Jesus Ma. Cui entitled to the administrator position despite not being a Bar member?
3. Is the action barred by prescription or laches?
4. Does Romulo Cui have a superior claim to the position over Antonio Ma. Cui?
Ruling:
1. "Titulo de abogado" means Bar membership, not just possession of a law degree.
2. Jesus Ma. Cui is not entitled to the administrator position as he is not a Bar member.
3. The action is barred by prescription or laches.
4. Antonio Ma. Cui has a superior claim to the position over Romulo Cui.
Ratio:
Interpretation: "Titulo de abogado" means Bar membership, indicating qualification for the
practice of law.
Spanish Definition: "Titulo" and "abogado" imply a license to practice law, not just an academic
degree.
Founders' Intent: Likely intended for the administrator to have a working knowledge of the law
and a license to practice.
Qualifications: Jesus Ma. Cui, holding a Bachelor of Laws degree but not a Bar member, does not
meet the deed's qualifications.
Antonio Ma. Cui: A Bar member reinstated after previous disbarment, meets the qualifications.
Reinstatement signifies moral rehabilitation and removal of disbarment restrictions.
Prescription or Laches: Under Section 16 of Rule 66, an action in quo warranto must be filed
within one year after the right to hold office arose. Jesus Ma. Cui's delayed filing weakened his
claim.
Succession: Antonio Ma. Cui, being a nearer and older descendant, has a superior claim over
Romulo Cui. The deed does not support Romulo Cui's succession interpretation.
Conclusion: The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's judgment, dismissing both the
complaint and the complaint in intervention, with costs shared equally by the plaintiff-appellee
and the intervenor-appellant.
19.WILLIAM S. UY VS. ATTY. ELERIZZA A. LIBIRAN-METEORO - A.C. No. 13368
May 21, 2024 Case Number: A.C. No. 13368
Facts:
Uy claimed that he was a representative of Maliliw Lending Corporation. In late 2012,
Atty. Libiran-Meteoro visited the corporation's office with her client, Rowena Lopez, to assist in a
transaction. Subsequently, Atty. Libiran-Meteoro returned to apply for a personal loan, assuring
Uy that she would repay it with post-dated checks. Trusting her assurance that the checks would
be valid upon maturity, Uy approved the loan. The checks issued by Atty. Libiran-Meteoro were
dishonored when deposited, with reasons being "ACCOUNT CLOSED" and "DAIF" (drawn against
insufficient funds). Despite Uy's attempts to contact her about the bounced checks, Atty. Libiran-
Meteoro ignored his calls. Uy later learned that in 2014, Atty. Libiran-Meteoro had already been
suspended for six months due to gross misconduct in another case (Barrientos v. Atty. Libiran-
Meteoro). Despite this previous suspension, she continued to engage in unethical behavior,
causing Uy a financial loss of PHP 245,000.00.
Issue:
• Whether Atty. Elerizza A. Libiran-Meteor's actions constituted a breach of the ethical
standards required of attorneys.
• Whether or not Atty. Libiran-Meteor is administratively liable for her failure to file her
answer and mandatory conference brief.
Ruling:
Although Atty. Libiran-Meteoro's actions occurred in 2012, the Court still evaluated her
administrative liability using the provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility and
Accountability (CPRA). The Supreme Court concluded that Atty. Libiran-Meteoro engaged in
behavior that violated the ethical standards required of legal professionals. The Court identified
specific instances of unprofessional conduct that compromised the integrity of her legal practice.
As a result, the Supreme Court imposed disciplinary measures, which could include suspension
or disbarment, depending on the severity of the violation. The decision underscored the critical
need to uphold ethical standards within the legal profession to preserve public trust.
Violations and Basis:
Atty. Elerizza A. Libiran-Meteoro is found GUILTY of gross misconduct for her issuance of
worthless checks, in violation of Canon II, Sections 1 and 2 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and Accountability. She is DISBARRED from the practice of law and her name is
ORDERED stricken off from the Roll of Attorneys, effective immediately.
She is also found GUILTY of violation of the IBP rules and issuances governing membership in the
IBP for her failure to report the change in her residence or office address and is meted a FINE in
the amount of PHP 35,000.00.
Atty. Libiran-Meteoro’s action of issuing worthless checks and deliberately ignoring demands for
payment is clearly illegal, dishonest, and deceitful. Such conduct is a direct violation of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 22, which penalizes the issuance of checks without sufficient funds. This practice
is particularly harmful as it undermines public confidence, contaminates commercial
transactions, disrupts the banking system, and ultimately harms societal welfare and public
interest.
Significance:
This case underscores the importance of ethical behavior in the legal profession and illustrates
the consequences for attorneys who fail to adhere to professional conduct rules.
22. ATTY. JOCELYN TALENS-DABON VS. JUDGE HERMIN E. ARCEO - AM NO. RTJ-
96-1336 (JUL 25, 1996)
Facts:
Hermin E. Arceo served as the Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 43, in San
Fernando, Pampanga.
He was dismissed from service on July 25, 1996, for gross misconduct and immorality due to
inappropriate conduct towards Atty. Jocelyn Talens-Dabon.
The dismissal included the forfeiture of retirement benefits and a prohibition on re-employment
in government positions.
Arceo filed several motions for reconsideration, all of which were denied.
After 16 years in private practice, he submitted a petition for judicial clemency on October 1,
2012.
In his petition, he asserted personal reform and emphasized the stigma resulting from his
dismissal.
He provided evidence of his contributions to the legal profession, including a Certificate of Good
Moral Character and a Certificate of Favorable Endorsement from the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines.
Issue:
Should the court grant Hermin E. Arceo's petition for judicial clemency and remove the ban on
his re-employment in government service?
Is Hermin E. Arceo entitled to receive his accrued leave credits despite his prior dismissal from
service?
Ruling:
The Supreme Court granted Hermin E. Arceo's petition for judicial clemency, lifting the ban on
his re-employment in government service, including positions in government-owned and
controlled corporations.
The Court directed the Fiscal Management and Budget Office to calculate and release his
accrued leave credits.
Ratio:
The Court's decision was guided by criteria for granting judicial clemency, which include
evidence of remorse and reformation, the time elapsed since the penalty, the applicant's age,
and other pertinent factors.
Arceo exhibited remorse and reformation by focusing on assisting underprivileged litigants
during his private practice and received commendations from the legal community.
The considerable time that had passed since his dismissal and his dedication to the legal
profession were taken into account.
Although he had reached retirement age, the Court determined that his contributions and
mental capacity justified a second chance at public service.
The Court clarified that accrued leave credits are not forfeited upon dismissal, according to the
Rules of Court and Civil Service Commission regulations, entitling Arceo to his leave benefits.
23.ATTY. MAZANO VS. ATTY. CRUZ - AC NO. 11375 (MARCH 27, 2023)
FACTS:
Atty. Roderick Manzano, on behalf of a client, filed an unlawful detainer case against the client of
Atty. Rose Breatrix Cruz-Angeles (Atty. Trixie Angeles). Atty. Trixie and a co-counsel drafted an
Answer for their client where they alleged that Atty. Manzano’s client was an “INC patsy,”
“Eduardo Manalo’s pawn,” “incorrigible liar,” and “lying through her teeth.”
As a result, Atty. Manzano filed an administrative case against Atty. Trixie for alleged violations
against the Code of Professional Responsibility.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Trixie Angeles should be disciplined.
HELD:
Yes. Atty. Trixie Angeles is suspended for six months. As a rule, statements made during a judicial
proceeding are privileged. However, if the statements are irrelevant to the issues raised in the
case under litigation, then the defense of privileged communication may not be invoked. Here,
the statements made by Atty. Trixie were made for the purpose of insulting, dishonoring, and
humiliating the client of Atty. Manzano.
41.ELISEO PORMENTO, JR. VS. ATTY. ELIAS PONTEVEDRA - AC 5128
31 March 2005
The Case: Complaint against Atty. Elias A. Pontevedra with malpractice and misconduct with prayer for
disbarment
Facts:
Respondent was the Pormento family’s legal counsel between 1964 and 1994. The family’s relationship
with the respondent extends beyond the mere lawyer-client relations. The rift between complainant and
respondent began when the complainant’s counterclaim in a civil case filed with the RTCof Bacolod City
was dismissed. Respondent failed to inform complainant Pormento of the dismissal of his counterclaim
which resulted to the latter being deprived of his right to appeal. In order to recover his ownership over
a parcel of land, Pormento was forced to hire a new lawyer as Atty. Pontevedra refused to institute an
action to recover the subject property. In a separate incident, In 1967, he bought a parcel of land located
at Negros Occidental. The Deed of Declaration of Heirship and Sale of said land was prepared and
notarized by respondent. Since there was another person who claims ownership of the property,
complainant alleges that he heeded respondent’s advice to build a small house on the property and to
allow his(complainants) nephew and his family to occupy the house in order for complainant to establish
his possession of the said property. Subsequently, complainant’s nephew refused to vacate the property
prompting the former to file an ejectment case with the Municipal Trial Court of Escalante, Negros
Occidental. Respondent acted as the counsel of complainant’s nephew
Held/Ruling:
Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides: A lawyer shall not represent
conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.
Jurisprudence instructs that there is a representation of conflicting interests if the acceptance of the new
retainer will require the attorney to do anything which will injuriously affect his first client in any matter
in which he represents him and also whether hewill be called upon in his new relation, to use against his
first client any knowledge acquired through their connection.
Another test to determine if there is a representation of conflicting interests is whether the
acceptance of a new relation will prevent anattorney from the full discharge of his duty of undivided
fidelity and loyalty to his client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness ordouble dealing in the
performance thereof.
A lawyer is forbidden from representing a subsequent client against a former client when the subject
matter of the present controversy is related, directly or indirectly, to the subject matter of the previous
litigation in which he appeared for the former client. Conversely, he may properly act as counsel for a
new client, with full disclosure to the latter, against a former client in a matter wholly unrelated to that of
the previous employment, there being in that instance no conflict of interests. Where, however, the
subject matter of the present suit between the lawyer’s new client and his former client is in some way
connected with that of the former client’s action, the lawyer may have to contend for his new client that
which he previously opposed as counsel for the former client or to use against the latter information
confided to him as his counsel
