MYRNA ANGAY OBUS

A.C. No. 10196 September 9, 2014

MELODY R. NERY, Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. GLICERIO A. SAMPANA, Respondent.

FACTS:

 Nery alleged that she engaged the services of Sampana for the annulment of her
marriage and for her adoption by an alien adopter. The petition for annulment was
eventually granted. As for the adoption, Sampana asked Nerry if she had an aunt, whom
they could represent as the wife of her alien adopter. Sampana gave a blurred copy of
the marriage contract which they would use for adoption. Nery already paid for
attorney’s fee for the case without asking for a receipts since he trusted Sampana.

 Sampana sent a text messages informing Nery that he had already filed the petition for
adoption and it was already published. Subsequently Sampana told Nery that the
hearing was set. When Nery asked why she did not received notices from the court,
Sampana claimed that her presence was no longer necessary because the hearing was
on jurisdictional. But then again the hearing was reset.

 Nerry inquired about the status of the petition for adoption and discovered that there was
no such petition filed in the court. Nerry sought the reimbursement she paid by
Sampana. Sampana agreed that he would deduct the filing fee but Nerry insisted that
the filing fee should not be deducted sincew the petition for adoption was never filed.
Thereafter, Nerry repeatedly demanded for the reimbursement from Sampana, but the
demands were left unheeded.

Issue :
Whether or not the respondent is administratively liable for malpractice by his failure to
file a petition for adoption and made complainant believe that he filed the petition for adoption
and made complainant believe that he filed the petition in court.

Ruling:
Yes. The respondent is guilty of malpractice by his failure to file a petition for adoption
and made complainant believe that he filed the petition for adoption and made complainant
believe that he filed the petition in court.

Acceptance of money from client established an attorney-client relationship and gives rise to the
duty of fidelity to the clients cause. Every case accepted by a lawyer deserves full attention,
diligence, skill and competence, regardless of importance. A lawyer also owes it to the court,
their clients, and other lawyers to be candid and fair.

In the present case, Sampana admitted that he received “one package fee” for both cases of
annulment and adoption. Despite receiving this fee, he unjustifiably failed to file the petition for
adoption and fell short of his duty of due diligence and candor to his client. Sampana’s proffered
excuse of waiting for the certification before filing the petition for adoption is disingenuous and
flimsy. In his position paper, he suggested to Nery that the alien adopter would be married to
her close relative, the intended adoption could be possible. Having no valid reason not file the
petition for adoption, Sampana misinformed Nery of the status of the petition. Verily, Sampana
neglected the legal matter entrusted to him. He even kept the money given him, in violation of
the Code’s mandate to deliver the client’s funds upon demand. A lawyer’s failure to return upon
demand the funds held by him gives rise to the presumption that he has appropriated the same
for his own use, in violation of the trust reposed in him by his client and of the public confidence
in the legal profession.

Therefore, Atty. Sampana suspended from the practice of law for Three (3) years with stern
warning that a repetition of a similar act shall be dealth with more severely. And ordered Atty.
Sampana to return to the complainant the amount of One Hundred Thousand (P100,000.00)
with 12% interest per annum from the time of his receipt of the full amount of money.

1
A.C. No. 10498, September 04, 2018
JUDGE ARIEL FLORENTINO R. DUMLAO, JR., Complainant, 
vs. 
ATTY. MANUEL N. CAMACHO, Respondent.

Facts:
 Complainant in this case is the Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court,
Dagupan City, Pangasinan, Branch 42, he alleged that while the case was
pending, respondent attempted to fraternize with him. Respondent casually
mentioned his closeness to important personages, which included Justices of the
Supreme Court. He also tried to impress complainant with his influence by
dropping names of notables and his connection with the University of the
Philippines (UP) College of Law, where he served as a professor. Respondent
told him that then Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno and Associate Justice
Marvic Leonen were his colleagues and close friends.

 Thereafter, respondent started to call complainant and even promised to share a

portion of his attorney's fees with complainant in exchange for the denial of the
notice of appeal filed by defendants and the issuance of the writ of execution.
The promise was accompanied by a threat that if the offer is refused, respondent
would file a disbarment case against complainant and he insinuated that through
his connections, complainant would surely be disbarred.

 Complainant was shocked by the bribery offer and threat of respondent. He was
appalled that these statements came from a veteran lawyer and professor.
Complainant, however, initially hesitated in taking immediate and drastic
measures against the inappropriate acts of respondent as he was cowed by the
latter's claim that he had power and influence.

 Thereafter, respondent said the following statements to Sheriff Nabua: "Kapag

hindi mo pipirmahan ito, papatanggal kita", "Alam ng nasa itaas ito.", "Alam ng
dalawang Justices ito." As respondent was making a scene, complainant went
out of his chamber and tried to pacify him. He told respondent to just leave the
document he prepared and let Sheriff Nabua review the same. Respondent
agreed to leave the document and uttered , "Kung hindi niya pipirmahan ito,
tutuluyan ko dismissal nito."

Issue:
Whether or not respondent is guilty of violating the Code and the Lawyer's Oath. 

Ruling:
The Court finds that respondent violated the Code and the Lawyer's Oath for
influence peddling, attempted bribery, threatening court officers and disrespecting court
processes.

Lawyers should always live up to the ethical standards of the legal profession as
embodied in the Code. Public confidence in law and in lawyers may be eroded by the
irresponsible and improper conduct of a member of the bar. Thus, every lawyer should
act and comport himself in a manner that would promote public confidence in the
integrity of the legal profession.12

 Therefore, Atty. Manuel N. Camacho guilty of violating Canons 10, 11, 13, 19 and
Rules 10.01, 11.03,13.01 and 19.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the
Lawyer's Oath and is hereby suspended from the practice of law for two (2) years.

2
A.C. No. 9401, October 22, 2013
JOCELYN DE LEON, Complainant, 
vs. 
ATTY. TYRONE PEDRENA, Respondent

Facts:

Complainant Jocelyn de Leon filed with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) a complaint
for disbarment or suspension from the practice of law against the respondent . She averred in
her complaint affidavit that the respondent had sexually harassed her as follows:

1. I went to the Public Attorney’s Office, in order to inquire from ATTY. TYRONE
PEDRENA about the status of my case for support for my two minor children against my
husband;

2. I waited at his office until he arrived and told me to go ahead to Tita Babes Restaurant
so we could take our lunch together and to talk about my said case;

3. While we were eating at the said restaurant, he asked me many personal matters rather
than to discuss my said case. But still, I answered him with respect, for he was my lawyer;

4. After we took our lunch, he told me to just go back because according to him, my said
case was quite difficult, that he needed more time to study and he told me then to ride
with him and he would just drop me by the jeepney station;

6. Although I refused to ride with him, he persistently convinced me to get in the car, and
so I acceded to his request so as not to offend him;

7. Right after we left the parking lot and not yet too far from the City Hall, respondent
immediately held my left hand with his right hand, insisted me to get closer with him and
laid me on his shoulder;

8. I immediately responded by saying "AYOKO HO!" But he persisted in trying to get hold
of my hand and he also tried very hard to inserting (sic) his finger into my firmly closed
hand. Thus, I became very afraid and at the same time offended for his lack of respect for
me at that moment;

9. Despite my resistance, he continued rubbing my left leg. I was then attempting to

remove his hand on my leg, but he grabbed my hand and forced it to put (sic) on his
penis. Because I was already really afraid at that moment, I continued to wrestle and
struggle, and as I saw that we were already approaching the 7-Eleven Store, the place
where I was supposed to get off, Atty. Pedrena made another move of pressing his finger
against my private part;

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent is administratively liable for gross immoral conduct.

RULING:
Yes. The respondent is administratively liable for gross immoral conduct. The records
show that Atty. Pedrena rubbed the complainant’s right leg with his hand; tried to insert his
finger into her firmly closed hand; grabbed her hand and forcibly placed it on his crotch area;
and pressed his finger against her private part. Given the circumstances in which he
committed them, his acts were not merely offensive and undesirable but repulsive, disgraceful
and grossly immoral. They constituted misconduct on the part of any lawyer. In this regard, it
bears stressing that immoral conduct is gross when it is so corrupt as to constitute a criminal
act, or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree, or when committed under such
scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the community’s sense of decency.16

In view of these considerations, the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for two years
is fitting and just. Therefore, respondent ATTY. TYRONE PEDRENA is SUSPENDS from the
practice of law for two years effective upon receipt of this decision, with a STERN
WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.

3
A.C. No. 5581               January 14, 2014

ROSE BUNAGAN-BANSIG, Complainant, 
vs.
ATTY. ROGELIO JUAN A. CELERA, Respondent.

FACTS:
 This is a Petition for Disbarment filed by complainant Rose Bunagan-Bansig
against respondent Atty. Rogelio Juan A. Celera for Gross Immoral Conduct.
 Bansig narrated that respondent and Gracemarie R. Bunagan entered into a
contract of marriage, as evidenced by a certified xerox copy of the certificate of
marriage, as evidence by a certified xerox copy of the certificate of marriage
issued by the City Civil Registrar of Manila. Bansig is the sister of Gracemarie R.
Bunagan, legal wife of respondent.
 That the marriage between him and the respondent was still valid and in full legal
existence when he contracted his second marriage with Alba, and that the first
marriage had never been annulled or rendered void by any lawful authority.
 Bansig alleged that respondent’s acts of contracting marriage with Alba, while his
marriage is still subsisting, constitutes grossly immoral and conduct unbecoming
of a member of the Bar, which renders him unfit to continue his membership in
the Bar.
 Despite receipt of the copy of the Court’s Resolution, respondent failed to submit
his comment on the complaint.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent be disbarred for grossly immoral and conduct of
unbecoming a member of the Bar.
RULING:
Yes. Respondent should be disbarred for grossly immoral and conduct of
unbecoming a member of the Bar.

In the instant case, there is preponderance of evidence that respondent contracted a

second marriage despite the existence of his first marriage. Bansig submitted
certified xerox copies of the marriage certificates to prove that respondent entered
into a second marriage while the latter’s first marriage was still subsisting. The
seond marriage apparently took place barely a year from his first marriage to
Bunagan which is indicative that indeed the first marriage was still subsisting at the
time respondent contracted the second marriage with Alba. The Court has been
tolerant in dealing with respondent’s nonchalant attitude towards this case,
accommodating respondent’s endless requests, manifestations and prayers to be
given a copy of the complaint. The Court, as well as Bansig, as evidenced by
numerous affidavits of service, have relentlessly tried to reach respondent for more
than a decade.

Clearly, respondent’s acts constitute willful disobedience of the lawful orders of this
Court, which under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court is in itself alone a
sufficient cause for suspension or disbarment. Respondent’s cavalier attitude in
repeatedly ignoring the orders of the Supreme Court constitutes utter disrespect to
the judicial institution. Respondent’s conduct indicates a high degree of
irresponsibility. We have repeatedly held that a Court’s Resolution is not to be
construed as a mere request, nor should it be complied with partially, inadequately,
or selectively. Respondent’s obstinate refusal to comply with the Court’s orders “not
only betrays a recalcitrant flaw in his character, it also underscores his disrespect of
the Court’s lawful orders which is only too deserving of reproof.”

Therefore, the Court find respondent Atty. Rogelio Juan A. Celera, guilty of grossly
immoral conduct and willful disobedience of lawful orders rendering him unworthy of
continuing membership in the legal profession. He is thus ordered DISBARRED
from the practice of law and his name stricken of the Roll of Attorneys, effective
immediately.

4
A.C. No. 5738             February 19, 2008
WILFREDO M. CATU, complainant, 
vs.
ATTY. VICENTE G. RELLOSA, respondent.

FACTS:
 Complainant is the co-owner of a lot and the building erected thereon.
Thus, a complaint was initiated against them in the Lupong
Tagapamayapa where the parties reside. When the parties failed to arrive
at the amicable settlement, respondent issued a certification for the filing
of the appropriate action in court.

 Respondent entered his appearance as counsel for the defendants in an

ejectment case filed by Regina and Antonio Catu, the mother and brother
of herein Wilfredo Catu against Elizabeth and Pastor. Because of this,
complainant filed the instant administrative complaint claiming that
respondent committed an act of impropriety as a lawyer and as a public
officer when he stood as counsel for the defendants despite the fact that
he preside over the conciliation proceedings between the litigants as
punong barangay.
ISSUE:
 Whether or not respondent is administratively liable for an act of
impropriety as a lawyer and as a public officer.

RULING:
Yes. Respondent is administratively liable for an act of impropriety as a
lawyer and as a public officer.

Certain local elective officials like governors, mayors, provincial board

members and councilors are expressly subjected to a total or partial
proscription to practice their profession or engage in any occupation, no
such interdiction is made on the punong barangay and the members of
sangguniang barangay. Expressio unius est exclusion alterius. Since they
are excluded from any prohibition, the presumption is that they are
allowed to practice their profession. And this stands to reason because
they are not mandated to serve full time. In fact, the Sanggniang Barangay
is supposed to hold regular sessions only twice a month.

Respondent was not forbidden to practice his profession. However, he

should have procured prior permission or authorization from the head of
his Department, as required by civil service regulations.

In acting as counsel for a party without first securing the required written
permission, respondent not only engaged in an unauthorized practice of
law but also violated civil service rules which is a breach of Rule 1.01 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility. For not living up to his oath as
well as for not complying with the exacting ethical standards of the legal
profession, respondent failed to comply with Canon 7 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.

Public confidence in the law and in the lawyers may be eroded by the
irresponsible and improper conduct of a member of the bar. Every lawyer
should act and comfort himself in a manner that promotes public
confidence in the integrity of the legal profession.

5
 Therefore, respondent Atty. Vicente G. Rellosa is hereby found Guilty of
professional misconduct for violating his oath as a lawyer and Canons 1
and 7 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is
therefore Suspended from the practice of law for a period of six months
effective from his receipt of this resolution. He is sternly warned that any
repetition of similar act shall be dealt with more severely.

A.C. No. 8210, August 08, 2016

SPOUSES MANOLO AND MILINIA NUEZCA, Complainants,
  vs.
ATTY. ERNESTO V.VILLAGARCIA, Respondent.

FACTS:
 Complainants averred that respondent sent them a demand letter which
contained not only threatening but also libelous utterances. Allegedly, the
demand letter seriously maligned and ridiculed complainants to its
recipients. Complainant likewise posited that several news clippings that
were attached to the demand letter were intended to sow tear in them and
claimed that the circulation thereof caused them sleepless nights wounded
feelings, and besmirched reputation. Thus, they maintained that
respondent should be held administratively liable.

 Respondent failed to rebut complainants allegations in their verified

complaint. Moreover, despite repeated notices and directives from the IBP
to appear for the mandatory hearings, as well as to file his pleadings,
respondent failed to do so, which was tantamount to defiance of the lawful
orders of the IBP amounting to conduct unbecoming of a lawyer. Finding
that respondent did not intend to file any comment and in the process,
purposely delayed the resolution of the instant case, the IBP
recommended that respondent be held in contempt.
ISSUE:
 Whether or not respondent should be held administratively liable based on
the allegations of the verified complaint.
RULING:
 Yes. Respondent should be held administratively liable based on the
allegations of the verified complaint.

 In these case, the demand letter that respondent sent to the complainants
contained not merely a demand for them to settle their monetary
obligations to respondent’s client, but also use words that maligned their
character.

 Respondent failed to answer the verified complaint and attend the

mandatory hearings set by the IBP. Hence, the claims and allegations of
the complainants remain uncontroverted.

 Though a lawyer’s language may be forceful and emphatic, it should

always be dignified and respectful, befitting the dignity of the legal
profession. The use of intemperate language and unkind ascriptions has
no place in the dignity of judicial forum. In this regard, all lawyers should
take heed that they are licensed officers of the courts who are mandated
to maintain the dignity of the legal profession, hence they must conduct
themselves honorably and fairly. Thus, respondent ought to temper his
words in the performance of his duties as a lawyer and an officer of the
court.

 Therefore, respondent Atty. Ernesto V. Villagarcia is found guilty of

violation of Rule 8.01, Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
He is hereby suspended from the practice of law for a period of one (1)
month, and is sternly warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts
will be dealt with more severely.

6
G.R. No. L-27654 February 18, 1970

IN THE MATTER OF PROCEEDINGS FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST ATTY.

VICENTE RAUL ALMACEN In L-27654, ANTONIO H. CALERO, Complainant
vs.
VIRGINIA Y. YAPTINCHAY, respondent

FACTS:
 Complainant Atty. Almacen was the counsel of Virginia Yaptinchay in a
civil case, which unfortunately they lost the in said civil case. However
almacen filed a Motion for Reconsideration. He notified the opposing party
of said motion but he failed to indicate the time and place of hearing of
said motion. Therefore, his motion was denied. Complainant appealed but
the Court of Appeals denied his appeal as it agreed with the trial court with
regard to the motion for reconsideration.

 Atty. Almacen filed before the Supreme Court a petition to surrender his
lawyer’s certificate of title as he claimed that it is useless to continue
practicing his profession when members of the high court are men who
are calloused to pleas for justice, who ignore without reasons their own
applicable decisions and commit culpable violations of the C
onstitutions with impunity. Complainant further alleged that due to the
minute resolution, his client was made to pay P20,000.00 without knowing
the reasons why and that he became “one of the sacrificial victims before
the altar of hypocrisy”. He also stated “that justice as administered by the
present members of the Supreme Court is not only blind, but also deaf
and dumb.”

 Almacen did not surrender his lawyer’s certificate though as he now

argues that he chose not to. Almacen then asked that he may be
permitted “to give reasons and cause why no disciplinary action should be
taken against him. In an open and public hearing. He said he preferred
this considering that the Supreme Court is the complainant, prosecutor
and judge.” Almacen however unapologetic.

ISSUE:
 Whether or not Almacen should be administratively liable for the
misconduct he committed and be disciplined.

RULING:
 Yes. The Supreme Court clarified first that the minute resolutions are
needed because the Supreme Court cannot accept every case or write full
opinion for every petition they reject otherwise the high Court would be
unable to effectively carry out its constitutional duties. The proper rule of
the Supreme Court is to decide only those cases which present questions
whose resolutions will have immediate importance beyond the particular
facts and parties involved. It should be remembered that a petition for
review the decision of the Court of Appeals is not a matter of right, but of
sound discretion and so there is no need to fully explain the court’s denial.
For one thing, the facts and the law are already mentioned in the Court of
Appeals’ opinion. That the misconduct committed by Atty. Almacen is of
considerable gravity cannot be overemphasized. However, heeding the
stern injunction that disbarment should be decreed where a lesser

7
 sanction would accomplish the desired and believing that it may not
perhaps be futile to hope that in the sober light of some future day, Atty.
Almacen will realize that abrasive language never fails to do disservice to
an advocate and that in every effervescence of candor there is ample
room for the added glow of respect, it is our view that suspension will
suffice under the circumstances.

 Therefore, Atty. Almacen be, as he is hereby, suspended from the practice

of law until further orders, the suspension to take effect immediately.

A.C. No. 5179

DIONNIE RICAFORT, Complainant, 
vs.
ATTY. RENE O. MEDINA, Respondent.

FACTS:
 Dionnie Ricafort, the complainant filed for disbarment against respondent
Atty. Rene Medina. Complainant alleged that his tricycle sideswiped
respondent’s car along Sarvida Street in Surigao City. Respondent
alighted from his car and confronted complainant. Respondent allegedly
snapped at complainant saying: “ Wa ka makaila sa ako?” (Do you not
know me?”) Respondent proceeded to slap complainant, and then left.

 A traffic aide, informed complainant of the plate number of respondent’s

car. Complainant later learned that the driver of the car was Atty. Rene O.
Medina, a provincial board member of Surigao del Norte.

 Complainant alleged that he felt “hurt , embarrassed, humiliated.”

Respondent’s act showed arrogance and disrespect for his oath of office
as a lawyer. Complainant alleged that this act constituted gross
misconduct.

ISSUE:
 Whether or not respondent Atty. Rene o. Medina should be held
administratively liable.

RULING:
 Yes. Respondent Atty. Rene O. Medina is administratively liable.

 There is sufficient proof to established that respondent slapped

complainant. Respondent’s defense consists of hi denial that the slapping
incident happened. He stresses complainant’s seeming disinterest in and
lack of participation throughout the case and hints that this administrative
case is politically motivated.

 The slapping incident was not only alleged by complaint in detail in his
signed and notarized Affidavit; complainant’s affidavit was also supported
by the signed and notarized Affidavit of a traffic aide present during the
incident. It was even the traffic aide who informed complainant of
respondent’s plate number.

 By itself, the act of humiliating another by slapping him on her on the face
hints of a character that disregards the human dignity of another.
Respondents question to complainant, “Wa ka makaila sa ako?” (Do you
not know me?”) confirms such character and his potential to abuse the
profession as a tool for bullying, harassment, and discrimination. This
arrogance is intolerable. It discredits the legal profession by perpetuating
a stereotype that is unreflective of the nobility of profession. As officers of

8
 the court and of the law, lawyers are granted the privilege to serve the
public, not to bully them to submission.

 Respondent Atty. Rene O. Medina is found to have violated Canon 7,

Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and is Suspended
from the practice of law for three (3) months

ADM. CASE No. 7006             October 9, 2007

RE : SUSPENSION OF ATTY. ROGELIO Z. BAGABUYO, FORMER SENIOR STATE

PROSECUTOR.

FACTS:
 This administrative case stemmed from the events in a case heard before the
sala of Presiding Judge Jose Manuel P. Tan, who favorably resolved the Motion
to fix the amount of Bail Bond. Instead of availing of judicial remedies, Bagabuyo
caused the publication of an article regarding the order.

 The Regional Trial Court then Directed Bagabuyo and Mark Francisco, writer of
the article, to explain why they should not be cited for indirect contempt of court
for the publication of the article which degraded the court with its presiding judge
with its lies and misrepresentations. Bagabuyo refused to explain and the RTC
held him in contempt of court.

 Bagabuyo, despite of citation of indirect contempt, he still presented himself to

the media for interviews in Radio Station and again, attacked the integrity of
Judge Tan. In the Radio interview, Bagabuyo called Judge Tan a liar, ignorant of
the law and that as a mahjong aficionado, he was studying mahjong instead of
studying the law.

 The Regional Trial Court required Bagabuyo to explain and show cause why he
should not be held in contempt and be suspended from the practice of law for
violating the Code of Professional Responsibility. Bagabuyo denied the charge
that he sought to be interviewed. He said that he was approached by someone
who asked him to comment on the Order. He justified his response to the
interview as a simple exercise of his constitutional right of freedom of speech and
that it was made without malice. However, the Regional Trial Court found his
denials lame, held him in contempt, and suspended him from the practice of law
for one year.

ISSUE:
 Whether or not Atty. Rogelio Z. Bagabuyo violated the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
RULING:
 Yes. Atty. Bagabuyo violated the Code Professional Responsibility. Lawyers are
license officers of the courts who are empowered to appear, prosecute and
defend and upon whom peculiar duties, responsibilities and liabilities are
devolved by law as a consequence. Membership in the bar imposes upon them
certain obligations. Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
mandated a lawyer to observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to
Judicial Officers and should insist on similar conduct by others. Rule 11.05 of
Canon 11 states that a lawyer shall submit grievances against a judge to the
proper authorities only.

 Atty. Bagabuyo violated Rule 11.05 of Canon 11 of the Cide of Professional

Responsibility for not resorting to the proper authorities only for redress of his
grievances against Judge Tan. He also violated Canon 11 for his disrespect of
the court and its officers when he stated that Judge Tan was ignorant of the law,
that as a mahjong aficionado, he was studying mahjong instead of studying law,
and that he was a liar.

9
  It is the duty of the lawyer to maintain towards the courts a respectful attitude.
As an officer of the Court, it is his duty to uphold the dignity and authority of the
court to which he owes fidelity, according to the oath he has taken. The court is
not against lawyers raising grievances against erring judges but the rules clearly
provide for the proper venue and procedure for doing so, precisely because the
respect for the institution must always be maintained.

 Therefore, Atty. Rogelio Z. Bagabuyo is found guilty of Violating Rule 11.05,

Canon 11 and Rule 13.02, Canon 13 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
and of violating the Lawyers Oath, for which he is Suspended from the practice
of law for one year effective upon finality of the decision with a Stern warning
that a repetition of a similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.

AC NO. 10449

FRANCSICO BINAY-AN ET AL., complainant,

vs.
ATTY. ATANACIO D. ADDOG, respondent.

FACTS:
 Complainants, who happened to be the heirs of Barot Binay-an, are the plaintiffs
in a civil case for the Annulment of Documents against defendants Damaso and
the Cordillera Small Business Assistance Center, Inc. before the National
Commission on Indigenous People ( NCIP). Complainants are represented by
Atty. Jerome Selmo while the defendants are represented by respondent Atty.
Atanacio Addog.
 the complainants alleged that, Damaso, who is the constituted representative of
the heirs of Barot Binay-an, called for a meeting in Mandarin Restaurant. This
meeting was attended by the respondent as well as Paul Palos and Bienvenido
Palos, both of which are also heirs of Barot Binay-an. There, Paul and
Bienvenido were convinced by the respondent. This notarized affidavits were
then submitted by respondent to the NCIP, which denied the same. The NICP
Hearing Officer cautioned the respondent on the ethical considerations in having
the affidavits submitted. The respondent later withdrew his representation for the
defendants. Thus, a complaint for misconduct was filed against the respondent
before the IBP.
 Respondent while admitting that he was present in Madarin Restaurant and
notarized the affidavits of Desistance, denied the complainants, charge. He also
denied lawyering for Paul and Bienvenido. According to him, he submitted the
said affidavits in behalf of his clients and not in behalf of the complainants.
 The Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors, adopting with
modifications the findings and recommendation of the investigating
Commissioner, recommends that respondent be suspended for a period of six(6)
months. The respondent filed his Motion for Reconsideration but the same was
denied.

ISSUE:
 Whether or not respondent is guilty of misconduct in violation of Canon 8 Rule
8.02 by encroaching the legal function of Atty. Selmo.

RULING:
 Yes. Respondent is guilty of misconduct in violation of Canon 8, Rule 8.02 by
encroaching the legal function of Atty. Selmo.
 Respondent, despite knowing that the Commissioner Palos were not represented
by a counsel during that meeting they had with defendant Angeline Damaso,
communicated with the Palos and in fact indications are ripe that it was he who
convinced them to execute their affidavits of desistance in exchange for
monetary considerations. This presumption is strongly supported by the fact that
the affidavits were prepared and notarized by him during the said meeting.
Significantly, he did not take it upon himself to inform Atty. Jerome W. Selmo
about the act of his clients. He too failed to advise the Palos to first consult their
counsel about it. In fact he showed that he needed the affidavits badly as in fact
he went on to present the same to the NCIP Hearing Officer to prove that the
Palos had clearly wanted to withdraw their complaints against the defendants.
The affidavits of desistance however, rejected by the NCIP Hearing Officer.

10
 Canon 8, Rule 8.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that “ A
lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, encroached upon the professional
employment of another lawyer, however, it is the right of any lawyer, without fear
or favor, to give proper advice and assistance to those seeking relief against
unfaithful or neglectful counsel.
 In this case, the respondent’s acts are clearly violated the ethical tenets of the
legal profession and must, therefore, be disciplined. Such acts constituting
malpractice and grave misconduct cannot be left unpunished for not only do they
erode confidence and trust in the legal profession, they likewise prevent justice
from being attained.
 Therefore, Atty. Atanacio D. Addog is hereby imposed the penalty of Suspension
from the practice of law for a period of SIX (6) Months, effective immediately
upon his receipt of this resolution, with a warning that commission of the same
or similar acts in the future will be dealt with more severely.

A.C. No. 10605, February 17, 2016

BIENVENIDO T. CANLAPAN, Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. WILLIAM B. BALAYO, Respondent.

FACTS:
 This is a verified complaint filed by the complainant, a retired Scout Executive of
the Boy Scout of the Philippines, against Atty. William B. Balayo for violation of
Canon 1, Rules 1.01 and 1.03, and Canon 12, Rule 12.04 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
 The herein, complainant avers that at the mandatory conference held before
Executive Labor Arbiter Jose C. Del Valle Jr., in connection with a money claim
filed by a complainant against the Boy Scout of the Philippines-Mayon Albay
Council, respondent arrogantly threw his arm toward the complainant while
menacingly saying “ Maski sampulo pang abogado darhon mo, dli mo makua ang
gusto mo!” (Even if you bring ten lawyers here, you will not get what you want!”)
Complainant was allegedly taken back and felt humiliated by respondent’s
actuation, which showed a blatant disrespect for the elderly considering that the
respondent was much younger.
 Respondent contended that complainant allegedly became visibly angry and
raised his voice against the former because of the legal opinion that he wrote.
Respondent had no choice but to defend his legal opinion.

ISSUE:
 Whether or not Atty. Balayo is guilty of conduct unbecoming of a lawyer and
officer of the court when he uttered disrespectful remarks against an elderly
which would warrant a disciplinary action.

RULING:
 Yes. Atty. Balayo is guilty of conduct unbecoming of a lawyer and officer of the
court when he uttered disrespectful remarks against an elderly which would
warrant a disciplinary action.
 Under the 1987 Constitution, it is the duty of the family and state to care for its
elderly members.
 Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility expresses the lawyer’s
fundamental duty to “uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and
promote respect for law and legal processes.
 Respondent also violated Canon 7 of The Code of Professional Responsibility,
which enjoys lawyers to uphold the dignity and integrity of the legal profession at
all times.
 Furthermore, Rule 8.01 of Canon 8 requires a lawyer to employ respectful and
restrained language in keeping with the dignity of the legal profession.
 As officers of the court and members of the Bar, lawyers are expected to be
always above reproach. They cannot indulge in offensive personalities. They
should always be temperate, patient, and courteous both is speech and conduct,
not only towards the court but also towards adverse parties and witnesses.
 Therefore, the court finds Atty. William B. Balayo guilty of conduct unbecoming of
a lawyer and violating Canon 1, Canon 7, Rule 7.03, and Canon 8, Rule 8.01 of

11
 the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is hereby suspended from the
practice of law for one month, and Warned that commission of the same or
similar acts in the future will be dealt with more severely.

G.R. No. 210554, August 05, 2015

DAVID YU KIMTENG, MARY L. YU, WINNIE L. YU, VIVIAN L. YU, ROSA GAN, LILIAN
CHUA WOO YUKIMTENG, SANTOS YU, MARCELO YU, AND SIN CHIAO YU LIM,
Petitioners, v. ATTY. WALTER T. YOUNG, ANASTACIO E. REVILLA, JR., ATTY. JOVITO
GAMBOL, AND ATTY. DAN REYNALD R. MAGAT, PRACTICING LAW UNDER THE FIRM
NAME, YOUNG REVILLA GAMBOL & MAGAT, AND JUDGE OFELIA L. CALO, PRESIDING
JUDGE OF BRANCH 211 OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, MANDALUYONG CITY,
Respondents.

FACTS:

 Anastacio Revilla, Jr. was disbarred. The petitioners are the majority stockholders of
Ruby International Corporation. In their case against Lim, et al., the Supreme Court
ordered the liquidation of the RIC and transferred the case to the appropriate Regional
Trial Court to supervise the liquidation The case was raffled to RTC presided by Judge
Calo.
 Atty. Young, Atty. Gambol and Atty. Magat are lawyers practicing under the firm, Young
Revilla Gambol & Magat. They entered their appearance as the counsels for the
liquidator. An opposition was filed against appearance on the ground that Revilla was
already disbarred.
 Judge Calo overruled the opposition stating that Atty. Young could still appear for the
liquidator as long as his appearance was under the Young Law Firm and not under
Young Revilla Gambol & Magat. The Young Law Firm is non-existent.
The petitioners then filed a petition under rule 71 to cite Atty. Young, Gambol, Magat and
Judge Calo in contempt. They cited US jurisprudence
supporttheir argument that using the name of disbarred lawyer in the firm istantamount
to contempt of court. Respondents Atty. Young and Magat assert that the retention of
Revilla’s name in the firm was for sentimental reasons and that such name does not give
added value to the law firm nor does it enhances the standing of lawyers in the firm.
Respondent Gambol filed a separate comment. He asserts that he is a junior member of
the firm and has no power or authority to decide who should be removed from the firm’s
name. He also asserts that in all cases he handled, omitted Revilla’s name from the firm
in pleading he signed.

ISSUE:

 Whether or not Atty. Young and Magat is liable for contempt of Court whey they
continued to use the name of Atty. Revilla Jr. in the firm name even after the
latter’s disbarment?

RULING: Yes. Atty. Young and Magat is liable for contempt of Court whey they
continued to use the name of Atty. Revilla Jr. in the firm name even after the latter’s
disbarment.

 Contempt of Court is a willful disregard or disobedience of a public authority. In

its broad sense, contempt is a disregard of, or disobedience to, the rules or

12
 orders of a legislative or judicial body or an interruption of its proceedings by a
disorderly behavior or insolent language in its presence or so near thereto as to
disturb its proceedings or to impair the respect due to such a body. In its
restricted and more usual sense, contempt comprehends a despising of the
authority, justice, or dignity of a court.
 In this case. Respondents committed act that are considered indirect contempt
under Section 3, Rule 71. In addition, respondents disregarded the Code of
Professional Responsibility when they retained the name of the respondent
Revilla in their firm name.
 The use of the deceased partner’s name is allowed as long as there is an
indication that the partner is deceased. On the other hand, the retention of a
disbarred lawyer’s name in the firm name may mislead the public into believing
that the lawyer is still authorized to practice law.
 Therefore, Atty. Young and Magat is liable for contempt of Court for using a
disbarred lawyer’s name in their firm name and are meted a fine of P30,000.00
each.

A.C. No. 10558               February 23, 2015

MICHAEL RUBY, Complainant, 
vs.
ATTY. ERLINDA B. ESPEJO and
ATTY. RUDOLPH DILLA BAYOT, Respondents.

FACTS:
 The complainant alleged that he and his mother, Felicitas Ruby Bihla (Felicitas),
engaged the services of the respondents in connection with a case for cancellation
and nullification of deeds of donation. Pursuant to the retainer agreement.
 The complainant and Felicitas would pay Atty. Espejo as acceptance fee . The
complainant and Felicitas likewise agreed to pay the amount as appearance fee for
every hearing. The complainant gave Atty. Espejo the amount as payment for filing
fee. However, the actual filing fee that was paid by her only amounted, she failed to
account for the excess amount given her despite several demand letters therefor. Atty.
Espejo allegedly asked the complainant to give Atty. Bayot the amount paid.
 The remaining balance of the acceptance fee agreed. The complainant asserted that
the same was not yet due, but Atty. Espejo told him that Atty. Bayot was in dire need
of money. The complainant gave Atty. Bayot the amount  which supposedly
as partial payment. Atty. Espejo called the complainant informing him of the need to
file a separate petition for the issuance of a TRO. She allegedly asked for money to
be used as "representation fee. The complainant deposited an amount to the bank
account of Atty. Bayot as appearance fee for the hearing on the motion to serve
summons through publications, however, Atty. Bayot allegedly did not appear in court
and instead met with the complainant at the lobby of the Quezon City Hall of Justice,
telling them that he already talked to the clerk of court who assured him that the court
would grant their motion. 
 Thereafter, the complainant alleged, the respondents failed to update him as to the
status of his complaint. He further claimed that Atty. Bayot had suddenly denied that
he was their counsel.  Atty. Bayot asserted that it was Atty. Espejo alone who
was the counsel of the complainant and that he was merely a collaborating
counsel.

ISSUE:
 Whether or not a lawyer-client relationship exist between Atty. Bayot and
the complainant.
RULING:
 Yes. It is very undisputed that the counsel in this case was Atty. Espejo
that was filed in the Regional Trial Court. Equally undisputed is the fact
that it was only Atty. Espejo who signed the retainer agreement. However,
the evidence on record, including Atty. Bayot’s admission, points to the
conclusion that a lawyer-client relationship exist between him and the
complainant.

13
  Respondent, Atty. Bayot was the one who prepared the complaint that
was filed with the Regional Trial Court. He was likewise the one who
prepared the motion to serve summons through publication. He likewise
appeared as counsel for the complaint in the hearings of the case before
the RTC. He likewise advised the complaint on the status of the case.
 Most importantly, Atty. Bayot admitted that he received such amount
which is part of the acceptance fee indicated in the retainer agreement.
From the complainant. It is true that it was Atty. Espejo who asked the
complainant to give Atty. Bayot the said amount. However, Atty. Bayot
admitted that he accepted from the complaint the said amount without
even explaining what the said amount was for.
 The foregoing circumstances clearly shows that a lawyer-client
relationship existed between Atty. Bayot and the complainant. To
establish the relation, it is sufficient that the advice and assistance of an
attorney is sought and received in any matter pertinent to his possession.
 Therefore, Atty. Rudolph Dilla Bayot is hereby ADMONISHED to exercise more
prudence and judiciousness in dealing with his clients. He is also ordered to
return (15) days from notice the amount he received from the client, representing
his appearance fee received from the latter, with a warning that failure on his part
to do so will result in the imposition of stiffer disciplinary action.

A.C. No. 5329

HEINZ R. HECK, Complainant, 
vs.
CITY PROSECUTOR CASIANO A. GAMOTIN, JR., Respondent.

FACTS:
 Heinz Heck filed a complaint for disbarment against the City
Prosecutor Casiano G a m o t i n o f C a g a y a n d e O r o C i t y
f o r   "faulty, highly improper, suspicious anomalous and unlawful
practice” by the respondent. Respondent obstructed justice by
d e l a y i n g c a s e s a n d disregarding proper court procedures and
displayed favor towards Atty. Adaza, respondent’s  business
partners and friends. Respondent claims that he has no knowledge of the
suspension of Atty. Adaza because such information had not ben
disseminated to the public office. Also, he claimed that there were no
irregularities in the filing and resolution of the motion for
reconsideration of Atty. Adaza, in a different case. Respondent also asserts
that he did not display any act of violence, particularly the kicking of the chairs
and slamming of the door.

ISSUE:
  Whether or not the respondent breached any canon on professional
conduct or legal ethics.

RULING:

  The SC ruled that the complaint should be dismissed for failure to prove the
charges filed. The evidence adduced by the complainant insufficient to
warrant the disbarment of the respondent. The power to disbar, being
the most severe form of disciplinary action, must be exercised with
caution. It must be exercised only for the most imperative reasons and in cases
of clear misconduct affecting the standing and moral character of the
lawyer as an officer of the court and member of the bar. Indeed, every lawyer
who is administratively charged is presumed innocent of wrongdoing. Thus,
the court also believes that the respondent was not yet aware of  the
suspension at that time.

 Therefore,t h e   C o u r t   d i s m i s i s   t h e   c o m p l a i n t   f o r   d i s b a r m e n t   a g a i n s t   r e
s p o n d e n t ATTY. CASIANO A. GAMOTIN, JR. and considers this administrative
matter closed and terminated.

14
A.C. No. 10135               January 15, 2014
EDGARDO AREOLA, Complainant, 
vs.
ATTY. MARIA VILMA MENDOZA, Respondent.

FACTS:
 Complainant Areola alleged that he was filing a complaint in behalf of his co-
detainees Allan Seronda, Aaron Arca, Joselito Mirador, Spouses Danilo Perez
and Elizabeth Perez. He also alleged that on October 23, 2006, during
Prisoners Week, Atty. Mendoza, visited the Antipolo City Jail and called all
detainees with pending cases before the RTC where she was assigned, to
attend her speech/lecture. Areola claimed that Atty. Mendoza stated the
following during her speech:
 "O kayong may mga kasong drugs na may pangpiyansa o pang- areglo ay
maging praktikal sana kayo kung gusto ninyong makalaya agad. Upang
makatiyak kayo na hindi masasayang ang pera ninyo ay sa akin ninyo ibigay o
ng kamag-anak ninyo ang pera at ako na ang bahalang maglagay kay Judge
Martin at Fiscal banqui; at kayong mga detenidong mga babae na no bail ang
kaso sa drugs, iyak-iyakan lang ninyo si Judge Martin at palalayain na kayo.
Malambot ang puso noon."
 Atty. Mendoza allegedly said that as she is handling more than 100 cases, all
detainees should prepare and furnish her with their Sinumpaang Salaysay so
that she may know the facts of their cases and their defenses and also to give
her the necessary payment for their transcript of stenographic notes. Areola
furthermore stated that when he helped his co-inmates in drafting their
pleadings and filing motions before the RTC Atty. Mendoza undermined his
capability, to wit:

(1) Atty. Mendoza purportedly scolded detainee Seronda when she learned that
the latter was assisted by Areola in filing a Motion to Dismiss for Violation of
Speedy Trial Act in the latter’s criminal case for rape. She got angrier when
Seronda retorted that he allowed Areola to file the motion for him since there
was nobody to help him.
(2) Areola assisted Spouses Danilo and Elizabeth Perez in filing their Joint
Motion for Consolidation of Trial of Consolidated Offenses and Joint Motion to
Plead Guilty to a Lesser Offense. The spouses were likewise scolded for relying
on the Complainant and alleged that the respondent asked for ₱2,000.00 to
represent them.
(3) Areola helped another co-detainee, Mirador in filing an "Ex-parte Motion to
Plead Guilty to a Lesser Offense". When Atty. Mendoza learned of it, she
allegedly scolded Mirador and discredited Areola.
  
ISSUES: Whether or not Atty. Mendoza violated Canon 1 and Canon 15 of the CPR.

RULING:

15
  Interestingly, Atty. Mendoza admitted that she advised her clients to approach
the judge and plead for compassion so that their motions would be granted. This
admission corresponds to one of Areola’s charges against Atty. Mendoza—that
she told her clients " Iyak-iyakan lang ninyo si Judge Martin at palalayain na
kayo. Malambot ang puso noon." Atty. Mendoza made it appear that the judge is
easily moved if a party resorts to dramatic antics such as begging and crying in
order for their cases to be dismissed. As such, the Court agrees with the IBP
Board of Governors that Atty. Mendoza made irresponsible advices to her
clients in violation of Rule 1.02 and Rule 15.07 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. It is the mandate of Rule 1.02 that "a lawyer shall not counsel or
abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the
legal system." Rule 15.07 states that "a lawyer shall impress upon his client
compliance with the laws and the principles of fairness."

 Atty. Mendoza’s improper advice only lessens the confidence of the public in our
legal system. Judges must be free to judge, without pressure or influence from
external forces or factors according to the merits of a case. Atty. Mendoza’s
careless remark is uncalled for. It must be remembered that a lawyer’s duty is
not to his client but to the administration of justice. To that end, his client’s
success is wholly subordinate. His conduct ought to and must always be
scrupulously observant of the law and ethics. Hence, she is reprimanded, with
stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more
severely.
A.C. No. 11069, June 08, 2016
RONALDO C. FACTURAN, Complainant,
vs.
PROSECUTOR ALFREDO L. BARCELONA, JR., Respondent.

FACTS:
 Complainant alleged that, he filed a complaint for qualified theft. The case was
docketed as I.S. No. 04-211 and assigned for preliminary investigation to
Prosecutor Faisal D. Amerkhan (Prosecutor Amerkhan).

Thereafter, Prosecutor Amerkhan forwarded the records of the case, together

with his Resolution recommending the prosecution of Mendoza, et al. and the
corresponding Information, to respondent for his approval and signature.
However, respondent neither approved nor signed the resolution. Instead, he
removed the case records from the office of the Provincial Prosecutor and
brought them to his residence, where they were kept in his custody. It appears
that the respondents in I.S. No. 04-211 were personally known to respondent,
as Elezar is his cousin, while Mendoza, Sarcon, Arro, and Montero are his
close friends. Aggrieved, complainant sought the intervention of then
Department of Justices as the case records were still in the possession of
respondent who failed to turn them over despite the directive to do so.

Complainant learned that the case records had been turned over to the
Provincial Prosecution Office but without Prosecutor Amerkhan's Resolution
and Information. Neither did respondent approve nor act upon the same,
prompting complainant to file the present complaint for disbarment against him.

In his defense, respondent claimed that the "alleged malicious 'delaying' or the

perceived concealment of the case record[s] was neither intentional nor due to
favoritism, "as he had inhibited himself from I.S. No. 04-211, which was the
reason why this case was assigned to Prosecutor Amerkhan. Respondent
averred that, complainant already knew that he was predisposed to disapprove
the resolution prepared by Prosecutor Amerkhan, as the controversy merely
involved a boundary dispute. Thus, he advised Prosecutor Amerkhan to
conduct a clarificatory hearing instead of prematurely concluding the
preliminary investigation. However, Prosecutor Amerkhan failed to do so.
Furthermore, respondent asseverated that, except for the fact that a criminal
information had been filed on September 8, 2006, he was no longer aware of
any development in I.S. No. 04-211, having been subsequently detailed to the
DOJ in Manila and recently, to the Office of the City Prosecutor of Marikina
City. He asserted that complainant and Prosecutor Amerkhan manipulated the
filing in court of I.S. No. 04-211 through the original resolution prepared by the
latter.
ISSUE:
 Whether or not grounds exist to hold respondent administratively liable.

16
RULING:
 Respondent administratively liable, but not for violating Rule 18.03, Canon 18
of the CPR, but instead, of Rule 6.02, Canon 6 of the same Code.
 In this case, respondent's accountability regarding I.S. No. 04-211 has been
duly established. When Prosecutor Amerkhan forwarded to respondent the
case records of I.S. No. 04-211, together with the resolution recommending the
filing of the appropriate information in court, respondent failed to take action
thereon, as records are bereft of evidence showing that he either approved or
disapproved it. Absent any intelligent explanation as regards his lapses in the
handling of I.S. No. 04-211 and his failure to timely return the case records
thereof for further action, despite the directive to do so, it can only be inferred
that respondent not merely failed, but obstinately and deliberately refused to
perform his duties as a prosecutor. Indeed, respondent's actions and omissions
in this case, his failure to resolve I.S. No. 04-211 and to turn over the case
records thereof despite orders to do so, appear to have been committed for the
benefit of and to safeguard private interests. As a lawyer who is also a public
officer, respondent miserably failed to cope with the strict demands and high
standards of the legal profession.
 Respondent Prosecutor Alfredo L. Barcelona, Jr. is found GUILTY of violating
Rule 6.02, Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is
hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year,
effective upon his receipt of this Decision, and is STERNLY WARNED that a
repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.

IN RE: ATTY. LEONARD DE VERA AM. 01-12-03-SC. July 29,2002

FACTS:
 This is a case wherein quoted in a newspaper article with contemptuous
statements attributed to Atty. Leonardo De Vera concerning the Plunder
Law case while the same was still pending before the Court.

“ De Vera asked the Supreme Court to dispel rumors that it would in favor
of a petition filed by Estrada’s lawyers to declare the plunder law
unconstitutional for its vagueness.”

 In the Philippine Daily Inquirer, Atty. Leonardo De Vera also argued that
he was merely exercising his constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom
of speech when he said that a decision by the Court declaring the Plunder
Law unconstitutional “would trigger mass actions, probably more massive
than those that led to People Power II. “ While Atty. Leonardo De Vera
admitted to having uttered the a forecited statements, respondents denied
having made the same to degrade the Court, to destroy public confidence
in it and to bring it into dispute.

ISSUE:
 Whether or not Atty. Leonard De Vera is liable for indirect contempt of
court for uttering statements aimed at influencing and threatening the
Court in deciding in favor of the Constitutionality of the Plunder Law.

RULING:
 In Rule 71, section 3 (d) of the Revised Rules of Court authorizes the
courts to hold liable for criminal contempt a person guilty of conduct that is
directed against the dignity or authority of the court, or an act obstructing
the administration of justice which tends to bring the court into disrepute or
disrespect.
 Thus the making of contemptuous statements directed against the court is
not an exercise of free speech, rather, it is an abuse of such right.
Unwarranted attacks on the dignity of the courts cannot be disguised as
free speech, for the exercise of said right cannot be used to impair the
independence and efficiency of courts or public respect therefore and
confidence therein.
 Such statements show disrespect not only for the Court but also for the
judicial system as a whole, tend to promote distrust and undermine public

17
 confidence in the judiciary, by creating the impression that the Court
cannot be trusted to resolve cases impartially and violate the right of the
parties to have their case tried fairly by an independent tribunal,
uninfluenced by public clamor and other extraneous influences.

AC. No. 8335, 2019-04-10

AMALIA R. CENIZA, complainant,

vs.
ATTY. ELISEO B. CENIZA, respondent.
The abandonment by an attorney of his legitimate family in order to cohabit with a
married woman constitutes gross immorality that wan-ants his disbarment

FACTS:
 The complainant stated that she and the respondent were married at the Sacred
Heart Parish in Cebu City, that in time they had two children, Marie Agnes and
Christopher Chuck, that he told her that he would be attending a seminar in Manila,
but because she had some business to attend to in General Santos City, he
seemingly agreed to her request to forego with his trip to Manila, and that upon her
return from General Santos City however, he had already moved out of their home,
taking along with him his car and personal belongings.

 The complainant went to the Mandaue City Hall where the respondent worked as a
legal officer in order to inquire about his situation. She learned from members of his
staff that they had suspected him of carrying on an extra-marital affair with one
Anna Fe Flores Binoya. On the next day, the complainant, accompanied by her
daughter and a nephew, went to the address provided by the staff to verify the
information. They were able to meet Anna's sister who informed them that she had
moved out of their address, that Anna and her second husband, Atty. Eliseo
Ceniza, Jr., the herein respondent, had been living together in Aldea Subdivision;
and that in the evening of said date the complainant and her daughter proceeded to
the new address where they found and confronted the respondent, who simply
denied having committed any wrongdoing. The respondent visited the complainant
at work and requested her to agree to the nullification of their marriage. She
refused and instead pleaded with him to avoid displaying his paramour in public.
Her pleas notwithstanding, he continued with the illicit relationship.
 The respondent filed his comment, wherein he denied having engaged in immoral
conduct and maintained that Anna had only been a business partner. He insisted
that he had moved in with his parents after leaving their family home; and that he
had left the complainant because her behavior had become unbearable.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent is guilty of immorality in his relationship with Anna Fe
Binoya.

RULING: Yes. Respondent is guilty of immorality in his relationship with Anna Fe Binoya.

18
  There is no question that a married person's abandonment of his or her spouse in
order to live and cohabit with another constitutes immorality. The offense may even
be criminal either as concubinage or as adultery Immoral conduct, or immorality, is
that which is so willful, flagrant, or shameless as to show indifference to the opinion
of good and respectable members of the community. As a basis of disciplinary
action, such immoral conduct, or immorality must be so corrupt as to virtually
constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree
or committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the
common sense of decency. That the illicit partner is himself or herself married
compounds the immorality.
 Indeed, any lawyer guilty of gross misconduct should be suspended or disbarred
even if the misconduct relates to his or her personal life for as long as the
misconduct evinces his or her lack of moral character, honesty, probity or good
demeanor.[29] Every lawyer is expected to be honorable and reliable at all times,
for a person who cannot abide by the laws in his private life cannot be expected to
do so in his professional dealings. In view of the foregoing, the respondent's
immoral conduct violated Rule 1.01 and Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. By his scandalous and highly immoral conduct, therefore, the
respondent showed that he did not possess the requisite good moral character
needed for the continued practice of law. He deserves the extreme penalty of
disbarment. Therefore, the Court FINDS and DECLARES respondent ATTY.
ELISEO B. CENIZA, JR. guilty of gross immorality in violation of Rule 1.01 and
Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility; DISBARS him from the
practice of law effective upon receipt of this decision; and ORDERS his name
stricken off the Roll of Attorneys.

A.C. No. 11959, April 28, 2021

EUSEBIO D. SISON, PETITIONER, VS.
ATTY. LOURDES PHILINA B. DUMLAO, RESPONDENT

“For this Court's resolution is a disbarment complaint against Atty. Lourdes Philina B. Dumlao
(Atty. Dumlao) alleging that she committed misconduct when she did not attend to her client
with required competence and diligence.”

Facts:

In this case, Petitioner and Atty. Dumlao are friends. That Petitioner wants to file a case
against his wife, Dr. Cynthia. That petitioner deposited Thirty Five Thousand Pesos
( 35,000.00) in atty. Dumlao’s bank account for the psychiatric evaluation fee. After 9
months, petitioner alleged that atty. Dumlao, failed to give any update on the filing of the
case, because of that, Dr. Sison lost his interest in filing a case against his wife Dr.
Cynthia, he instead wrote a demand letter to Atty. Dumalao for the return of the Thirty
Five Thousand Pesos (35,000.00);
Atty. Dumlao refused to give the 35,000.00 because according to the respondent that she
had referred the wife of the petitioner to a psychologist in which the Thirty Five Thousand
Pesos (35,000.00) was paid. So the Petitioner filed a verified complaint against Atty.
Dumlao, charging the respondent for violation of Canon 7, Canon 5, Canon 17, Canon 6,
Canon 187, Code of professional responsibility and Lawyers oath. The reason why Atty.
Dumlao refused to handle the case is because the wife of the petitioner was her 5th degree
by consanguinity, then the mother of the wife of the petitioner approached and ask Atty.
Dumalao not to handle the case due to conflict of interest.

 Issue:

Whether or not respondent violated the Code of Professional Ethics when she failed to
inform complainant of the status of his case and refused to represent him due to conflict of
interest.

Ruling:

Yes. Respondent violated the Code of Professional Ethics when she failed to inform the
complainant of the status of his case and refused to represent him due to conflict of
interest.

On the contrary, the series of exchanges between the parties show that respondent
voluntarily acquiesced to representing complainant in his prospective annulment case, or
at the very least, render her legal assistance in his suit. She asked complainant to submit

19
 to his documents related to the case and repeatedly assured him that she would be filing
the annulment complaint even after complainant expressed hesitation due to the lack of
action on respondent's part.

When complainant asked respondent for an update on his case on February 26, 2014,
respondent did not inform him that she would no longer be connected with the case due to
conflict of interest, even though she was approached by complainant's mother-in-law. It
was only when she filed her Answer before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines that
complainant learned of the reason why respondent would not be representing him.

The moment he agreed to handle the case, he was bound to give it his utmost attention,
skill and competence. Public interest requires that he exerts his best efforts and all his
learning and ability in defense of his client's cause. Those who perform that duty with
diligence and candor not only safeguard the interests of the client, but also serve the ends
of justice. They do honor to the bar and help maintain the community's respect for the
legal profession.

The Investigating Commissioner was correct in finding that respondent did not profit from
complainant, since Mr. Domenden confirmed his receipt of P35,000.00 for the
psychological evaluation fee. This circumstance, however, will not excuse respondent
from administrative liability for violating Canon 18, Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, as well as her oath to render "all good fidelity" to her client. As
in a similar case, she must be made liable for her inexcusable negligence.

THEREFORE, respondent Atty. Lourdes Philina B. Dumlao is

hereby REPRIMANDED with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar
acts shall be dealt with more severely.

A.C. No. 12883 (Formerly CBD Case No. 16-5016), March 02, 2021 ]
ENRICO R. VELASCO, COMPLAINANT,
VS.
ATTY. BERTENI C. CAUSING, RESPONDENT

FACTS:
 Complainant is the petitioner for the declaration of nullity of his marriage with Nina Ricci
Narvaez Laudato (Laudato) and Atty. Causing is the counsel of Laudato in the nullity
case.
Atty. Causing sent a direct message to complainant's son, Jomel A. Velasco, through
Facebook, a social networking site, stating as follows: "pakitignan mo ang iyong ama, iho
at huwag mo syang gayahin ha." The message was accompanied by a link to a post-
dated published by Atty. Causing on Facebook with the caption "Wise Polygamous
Husband?", to wit: WISE POLYGAMOUS HUSBAND?
"After marrying a girl as his second wife while his first wife was still alive, when there was
no doubt it was bigamous and a crime of bigamy, this man still has the gall to file a petition
to declare his second marriage null and void.In his petition, he asked the RTC of Balanga
to declare his marriage void because of lack of marriage license and not because of
marriage being bigamous. If you want to read his petition, a copy is attached here. His
intention in filing the petition was to prevent the second wife's criminal case of bigamy
from succeeding by reason of prejudicial question. Notably, Atty. Causing also attached
photographs of the complete copy of complainant's petition in the nullity case to the
subject post on Facebook. Thereafter, he "shared" the subject post to his other Facebook
account under the name "Berteni 'Toto' Cataluña Causing" and to a Facebook group
likewise under the same name which is a public group with more or less 3,500 members.
The subject post was also "shared" by the other persons onto their respective Facebook
accounts. Resultantly, the subject post generated negative reactions and comments
against complainant. Atty. Causing admitted that he published the subject post in his
Facebook account and sent the link thereof to complainant's son. However, he denied
harassing complainant and insisted that he was only performing his duties as the
"spokesman-lawyer" of his client.

ISSUE: Whether Atty. Causing should be held administratively liable for publishing the subject
post and photographs of complainant's petition in the nullity case in his Facebook accounts.

RULING:
YES. Atty. Causing should be held administratively liable for publishing the subject
post and photographs of complainant’s petition in the nullity case in his Facebook
accounts.

20
  The records show that Atty. Causing had already admitted that he indeed
published the subject post with photographs of complainant's petition in the nullity
case in Facebook and thereafter sent a link of the post to complainant’s son. In his
defense, Atty. Causing invokes his rights to freedom of expression and of the
press and argues that he was merely acting as a "spokesman-lawyer" and a
"journalist-blogger" when he published the subject post.
 Here, Atty. Causing had clearly violated Section 1221 of Republic Act No. 8369, or
the Family Courts Act of 1997, which prohibits the publication or disclosure, in any
manner, of the records of Family Court cases. This is, in itself, a breach of his
duties under Canon 1 as well as Canon 13 and Rule 13.02 of the CPR as the
subject post not only disclosed confidential information regarding the nullity case,
but also included his own, strongly-worded opinion regarding complainant's
character and the circumstances surrounding the case. Though it is true that Atty.
Causing is, by all means, given the liberty to defend his client's cause with utmost zeal,
this is not without reasonable limitations. In this case, it appears that Atty. Causing's
post in Facebook was so designed to elicit, at the very least, a negative public opinion
against complainant. Such act, however, is proscribed under Rule 19.01 of the CPR
which, among others, mandates lawyers to "employ only fair and honest means to
attain the lawful objectives of his client." And second, it is settled that the freedom of
speech, of expression, and of the press, like all constitutional freedoms,
are not absolute. Hence, the Court finds respondent Atty. Berteni C.
Causing GUILTY of violating Canon 1, Rule 8.01, Canon 13, Rule 13.02, Canon
19, and Rule 19.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is
hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year, effective
upon his receipt of this Decision, and is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of
the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.

A.C. No. 10662

Formerly CBD Case No. 10-2654

JUN B. LUNA, Complainant,

vs.
ATTY. DWIGHT M. GALARRITA, Respondent.

FACTS:
 This is a disbarment Complaint against Atty. Dwight M. Galarrita for his failure to deliver
to his client, complainant Jun B. Luna, the P100,000.00 settlement proceeds he received
after entering into a Compromise Agreement in the foreclosure case without his client’s
consent.

 Jun B. Luna (Luna) filed an Affidavit-Complaint1 against his lawyer, Atty. Dwight M.
Galarrita (Atty. Galarrita), before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. Luna alleged that
he retained Atty. Galarrita’s legal services in filing a foreclosure Complaint before the
Regional Trial Court of Gumaca, Quezon. The Complaint against one Jose Calvario
alleged that Calvario borrowed P100,000.00 from Luna. This loan was secured by a
Deed of Real Estate Mortgage over a parcel of land in Quezon Province.5 Due to non-
payment of the loan, Luna filed the Complaint praying for payment of the obligation with
interest, and issuance of a foreclosure decree upon Calvario’s failure to fully pay within
the period. The parties tried to amicably settle the case during pre-trial, followed by
Luna’s presentation and offer of evidence.

 Atty. Galarrita opted to enter into a settlement with the other party after his formal offer of
evidence.8 They submitted the Kasunduan9 (Compromise Agreement) before the trial
court. It provided that Calvario would pay Luna P105,000.00 as payment for his
mortgaged land and, in turn, Luna would cause the removal of the encumbrance
annotation on the land title. The trial court approved the Compromise Agreement in its
February 20, 2006 Decision. Luna alleged that Atty. Galarrita never informed him of this
Compromise Agreement, and did not deliver to him the P100,000.00 settlement
proceeds Atty. Galarrita had received.

ISSUE: Whether respondent Atty. Galarrita should be held administratively liable for
entering into a Compromise Agreement without his client complainant Luna's
consent, then refusing to turn over the settlement proceeds received.

21
 RULING: Yes. respondent Atty. Galarrita should be held administratively liable for entering
into a Compromise Agreement without his client complainant Luna's consent, then
refusing to turn over the settlement proceeds received.

 There is to the undersigned enough indicia to conclude that Respondent had

committed bad faith in entering into the Compromise Agreement. Respondent
failed to turn-over the P100,000.00 he had collected from Mr. Calvario to
Complainant. Worse, he failed to seasonably inform Complainant about the
same. He kept the money and claimed he had the right to retain the same
invoking the counsel’s right to a retaining line . Thus, it is not amiss to state that
he entered into the said agreement with the odious motivation to hold on to it and
pave the way for the payment of his attorney’s fees. In so doing, he violated the
trust reposed in him by his client and violated Rule 16.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Without the client’s consent, the lawyer has no
authority to apply the client’s money for his fees, but he should instead return the
money to his client, without prejudice to his filing a case to recover his
unsatisfied fees.
 Therefore, respondent Atty. Dwight M. Galarrita is suspended from the practice of
law for two (2) years, with a stem warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts
shall be dealt with more severely. He is ORDERED to return to complainant Jun B.
Luna the amount of Pl00,000.00, with legal interest of 6% per annum until fully paid,
without prejudice to the filing of a collection case for retainer's fee against
complainant Luna.

A.C. No. 11149

LAURENCE D. PUNLA and MARILYN SANTOS, Complainants,
vs.
ATTY. ELEONOR MARA VILLA-ONA, Respondent.

FACTS:
 In a complaint-affidavit filed, complainants alleged that they got to know
respondent lawyer when they requested her to notarize a Deed of Sale, that
subsequently, they broached the idea to respondent that they intend to file two (2)
annulment cases and they wanted respondent to represent them, that respondent
committed to finish the two (2) annulment cases within six (6) months from full
payment; that the agreed lawyer's fee for the two annulment cases, that the
amount was paid in full by complainants, as follows: P100,000.00 as evidenced by
respondent's Official Receipt (O.R.) P150,000.00 as evidenced by respondent's
Official Receipt (O.R.) No. 56509 personally handed to respondent lawyer and
evidenced by respondent's handwritten acknowledgement receipt of same date
deposited to respondent's Metrobank account no. 495-3-49509141-5.

 On the commitment of respondent that she will finish the cases in six (6) months,
complainants followed up their cases or about 6 months from their last payment.
They were ignored by respondent. Complainants sent a letter (Annex "E") to
respondent demanding that the P3 50,000.00 they paid her be refunded in full
within five (5) days from receipt of the letter. In a Certification (Annex "F"), the
Philpost of Dasmariñas, Cavite, attested that complainants' letter was received by
respondent. No refund was made by respondent.
 In an Order, the IBP directed respondent to file her Answer within 15 days. No
answer was filed. A Mandatory Conference/Hearing was set] but respondent did
not appear, so it was reset. However, respondent again failed to attend the
mandatory conference/hearing as scheduled. Hence, in an Order, the mandatory
conference was terminated and both parties were directed to submit their verified
position papers.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent should be disbarred.

22
RULING:
 No. respondent should not be disbarred. Here, there is no question as to
respondent's guilt. It is clear from the records that respondent violated her
lawyer's oath and code of conduct when she withheld from complainants
the amount of P350,000.00 given to her, despite her failure to render the
necessary legal services, and after complainants demanded its return. In
the same case, the Court took note of the past disbarment complaints that
had been filed against Atty. Maravilla-Ona.
 Clearly, Atty. Maravilla-Ona exhibits the habit of violating her oath as a
lawyer and the Code [of Professional Responsibility], as well as defying
the processes of the IBP. The Court cannot allow her blatant disregard of
the Code [of Professional Responsibility] and her sworn duty as a member
of the Bar to continue. She had been warned that a similar violation
[would] merit a more severe penalty, and yet, her reprehensible conduct
has, again, brought embarrassment and dishonor to the legal profession.
While indeed respondent's condemnable acts ought to merit the penalty of
disbarment, we cannot disbar her anew, for in this jurisdiction we do not
impose double disbarment.
 Therefore, the Court hereby ADOPTS the findings of the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines and FINDS respondent ATTY. ELEONOR MARAVILLA-
ONA GUILTY of gross and continuing violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and accordingly FINED P40,000.00. Respondent is also
ordered to pay complainants the amount of P350,000.00, with 12%
interest from the date of demand until June 30, 2013 and 6% per annum
from July 1, 2013 until full payment. This is without prejudice to the
complainants' filing of the appropriate criminal case, if they so desire.

A.C. No. 10662

Formerly CBD Case No. 10-2654

JUN B. LUNA, Complainant, 
vs.
ATTY. DWIGHT M. GALARRITA, Respondent.

FACTS:

 This is a disbarment Complaint against Atty. Dwight M. Galarrita for his failure to deliver
to his client, complainant Jun B. Luna, the P100,000.00 settlement proceeds he received
after entering into a Compromise Agreement in the foreclosure case without his client's
consent. Jun B. Luna (Luna) filed an Affidavit-Complaint against his lawyer, Atty. Dwight
M. Galarrita before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
 Luna alleged that he retained Atty. Galarrita's legal services in filing a foreclosure
Complaint before the Regional Trial Court . The Complaint against one Jose Calvario
alleged... that Calvario borrowed P100,000.00 from Luna. This loan was secured by a
Deed of Real Estate Mortgage over a parcel of land in Quezon Province. Due to non-
payment of the loan, Luna filed the Complaint praying for payment of the obligation with
interest, and issuance of a foreclosure decree upon Calvario's failure to fully pay within
the period. Luna alleged that Atty. Galarrita never informed him of this Compromise
Agreement, and did not deliver to him the P100,000.00 settlement proceeds Atty.
Galarrita had received. Luna's Complaint attached a copy of the Counsel's Report where
Atty. Galarrita proposed and provided justifications for settlement, and waived any
compensation for his services in the case
 Luna received a letter from one of the heirs of Jose Calvario, Emma C. Tayag, seeking
delivery of the land title since they paid the P100,000.00 settlement amount. Luna
alleged in his Affidavit-Complaint that Atty. Galarrita has not remitted the P100,000.00 to
date. He prays for Atty. Galarrita's disbarment.

ISSUE:

Whether or not, Atty. Dwight M. Galarrita should be held administratively liable for
entering into a Compromise Agreement without his client complainant Luna’s consent,
then refusing to turn over the settlement proceeds received.

23
RULING:

 Complainant had not given any authority for the Complainant [sic] to enter into
Compromise Agreement at that precise stage of the trial. Firstly, the Complainant
was not made a party to the Compromise Agreement despite the fact that he was
not abroad when the agreement was executed. Secondly, there was no indication
that he had agreed to the amount of P100,000.00 in exchange for his withdrawal
of the complaint. Thirdly, he was not seasonably informed of the execution of the
Compromise Agreement/payment of the P100,000.00 and came to know of the
same only much later. Worse, respondent Atty. Galarrita not only failed to
promptly inform complainant Luna of the former's receipt of the P100,000.00
settlement proceeds but also refused to turn over the amount to complainant
Luna.
 As to Respondent's invocation of the lawyer's retaining lien and his retention of
the money, the undersigned deems the same unlawful. True, the Code of
Professional Responsibility allows the lawyer to apply so much thereof as may be
necessary to satisfy his lawful fees and disbursements, giving notice prompt
thereafter to his client. "However, this is not the main issue in this disbarment
case against him, and the validity of his retaining lien defense was not
established. Counter evidence even exists such as respondent Atty. Galarrita's
Letter case. Complainant Luna also raises respondent Atty. Galarrita's
negligence in handling the case, and lack of supporting receipts for the incurred
expenses respondent Atty. Galarrita seeks to reimburse.
 Therefore, respondent Atty. Dwight M. Galarrita is SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for two (2) years, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same
or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely. He is ORDERED to return to
complainant Jun B. Luna the amount of P100,000.00, with legal interest of 6%
per annum from until fully paid, without prejudice to the filing of a collection case
for retainer's fee against complainant Luna.

C. No. 8037, February 17, 2016

RE: DECISION DATED AUGUST 19, 2008, 3RD DIVISION, COURT OF APPEALS IN
CA-G.R. SP NO. 79904 [HON. DIONISIO DONATO T. GARCIANO, ET AL. V. HON.
PATERNO G. TIAMSON, ETC., ET AL., Petitioner, v. ATTY. JOSE DE G.
FERRER, Respondent.

FACTS:
 Dionisio Donato T. Garciano (Garciano), then Mayor of Baras, Rizal, sought to appoint
Rolando Pilapil Lacayan (Lacayan) as Sangguniang Bayan Secretary, replacing
Nolasco Vallestero (Vallestero). The appointment was opposed by Wilfredo Robles
(Robles), then Vice Mayor of Baras, Rizal. He said that the position is not vacant and
that it is the vice mayor, not the mayor, who has the authority to appoint the
Sangguniang Bayan Secretary.

 Garciano insisted and removed Vallestero's name from the payroll. Vallestero sued
Garciano before the Sandiganbayan. Vallestero, Robles, and other Sangguniang Bayan
members also filed a "complaint for mandamus and damages with preliminary
mandatory injunction against Garciano and other municipal officials before the Regional
Trial Court. They sought for the payment of their respective salaries. The Regional Trial
Court ordered Garciano. to release the funds and pay Vallestero's salaries and other
benefits. Garciano, et al. did not heed the Regional Trial Court's order, hence, they were
found liable for indirect contempt. Garciano, et al., through Atty. Ferrer, filed another
Petition for Certiorari with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction
and/or temporary restraining order before the Court of Appeals.

 On the same day, Garciano, et al. filed before the Court of Appeals Eleventh Division an
Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to Withdraw Petition Under Rule 17 Section 1 of the Revised
Rules of Court. They allegedly moved to withdraw the First Petition to avail themselves
of other remedies, especially since a comment had not yet been filed.
 Finally, Atty. Ferrer states that there was no violation of the rule against forum shopping
because the First and Second Petitions were not filed before different tribunals,
although the Eleventh and Third Divisions of the Court of Appeals are technically
separate from each other. He states that forum shopping takes place when, as a result

24
 of an adverse opinion in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion (other than
appeal or certiorari) in another. Atty. Ferrer further asserts that the filing of the case took
place before the Court of Appeals and that no forum shopping could be considered to
have taken place.
ISSUE:
 Whether respondent Atty. Jose De G. Ferrer should be held administratively liable for
violating the rule against forum shopping.

RULING:
 Yes. Respondent Atty. Jose De G. Ferrer should be held administratively liable for
violating the rule against forum shopping.
 Respondent filed multiple cases based on the same cause of action and with the
same prayer. All the elements necessary for the commission of forum shopping
are present. The Court of Appeals correctly held that respondent could have
easily filed a manifestation that the other petitioners had yet to verify the First
Petition. Respondent's reason that the failure of other petitioners to verify the
First Petition may imperil the issuance of a temporary restraining order cannot
justify the willful violation of the rule against forum shopping. Respondent must
be reminded that the withdrawal of any case, when it has been duly filed and
docketed with a court, rests upon the discretion of the court, and not at the
behest of litigants. Once a case is filed before a court and the court accepts the
case, the case is considered pending and is subject to that court's jurisdiction.
 THEREFORE, respondent Atty. Jose De G. Ferrer is hereby SUSPENDED from
the practice of law for six (6) months for engaging in forum shopping, effective
upon receipt of this Resolution. He is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of
the same and similar acts will be dealt with more severely.

A.C. No. 6934

HELEN CHANG, Complainant, 
vs.
ATTY. JOSE R. HIDALGO, Respondent.

FACTS:

 Complainant Helen Chang (Chang) filed this administrative Complaint

before the Office of the Bar Confidant of this Court. Chang prayed that this
Court discipline respondent Atty. Jose R. Hidalgo for being remiss in his
duties as her counsel and as an officer of the court.  She claimed that
Atty. Hidalgo failed to "handle her cases to the best of his ability and to
deal with her in all honesty and candor.
 In her Complaint, Chang alleged that she engaged the services of Atty.
Hidalgo as legal counsel to represent her in several collection cases
pending in various courts. Pursuant to the contract they executed, Chang
issued five (5) checks in favor of Atty. Hidalgo. Atty. Hidalgo also
collected ₱9,500.00 as "hearing fee." Chang claimed that despite
receiving a total of ₱61,500.00, Atty. Hidalgo did not attend any of the
hearings in the collection cases and, instead, sent another lawyer without
her consent. The other lawyer failed to attend all hearings, which resulted
in the dismissal of the cases. Chang prayed that Atty. Hidalgo be
administratively disciplined by this Court.

ISSUE:
 Whether or not respondent Atty. Jose R. Hidalgo is guilty of gross
misconduct for failing to render legal services despite receipt of payment
of legal fees.
RULING:
 Yes. respondent Atty. Jose R. Hidalgo is guilty of gross misconduct for
failing to render legal services despite receipt of payment of legal fees.

25
  Here, it is established that respondent was engaged as counsel for
complainant to represent her in various collection cases and that he
received ₱61,500.00 from her as attorney’s fees. Respondent also
admitted withdrawing from the cases allegedly due to complainant’s
uncooperative demeanor. However, there is no showing that complainant
agreed to the withdrawal, or that respondent filed the proper motion before
the courts where the cases were pending.

 Also, respondent Atty. Hidalgo devoted substantial time and energy in

researching and preparing the case for trial, and he even attended
hearings to that effect. He exerted his best efforts in collating their
evidences and their defense. However, the complainant Helen Chang
would not listen to respondent. Complainant has other matters and line of
defense on her mind because she keeps on insisting they do things her
way. Respondent felt that he could no longer work for the complainant .
Left without any recourse, respondent advised the complaint to seek the
services of another lawyer as he could no longer perform adequately and
this was done in good faith. And the actuations of the complainant
apparently precipitated the respondent to file the withdrawal as counsel.
The respondent is entitled to the acceptance fees he collected from the
complainant, or at least a portion of it. We find respondent remiss of his
duties as complainant’s counsel. Respondent’s acts constitute violations
of Canon 17 and Canon 18, Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
 Therefore, respondent Atty. Jose R. Hidalgo is found guilty of violating
Canon 17 and Canon 18, Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of
one (1) year, with warning that repetition of the same or similar acts will
merit a more severe penalty. Respondent is also ORDERED to return to
complainant Helen Chang the amount of P61,500.00, with interest at 6%
per annum from the date of promulgation of this Resolution until fully paid.

A.C. No. 10584

[Formerly CBD 10-2827]
ATTY. JOSE MANGASER CARINGAL, Complainant, 
vs.
ATTY. VICTOR REY SANTOS, Respondent.

FACTS:
 These cases involve administrative Complaints against Atty. Victor Rey
Santos for violation of Canon 10, Rule 10.01 and Canon 15, Rule
15 .03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

 Bernardino alleged that the death certificate of his aunt, Rufina de Castro
Turla, was falsified by Atty. Santos. Atty. Santos made it appear that
Rufina Turla died in 1992, when in fact, she died in 1990. Atty. Santos
used the falsified death certificate to -support the Affidavit of Self-
Adjudication executed by Mariano Turla, husband of Rufina Turla.
Paragraph 6 of the Affidavit of Self-Adjudication prepared by Atty. Santos
states: Being her surviving spouse, I am. the sole legal heir entitled to
succeed to and inherit the estate of said deceased who did not leave any
descendant or any other heir entitled to her estate.
 Years later, Atty. Santos, on behalf of Marilu Turla, daughter of Rufina and
Mariano Turla,  filed a Complaint for sum of money with prayer for Writ of
Preliminary Injunction and temporary restraining order against Bernardino.
 The Complaint which allegedly contradicts the Affidavit of Self-
Adjudication that Atty. Santos drafted. Hence, Atty. Santos represented
clients with conflicting interests.

ISSUE:

26
  Whether or not in behalf of one client, it is the lawyer’s duty to fight for an
issue or claim, but it is his duty to oppose it for the other client.
RULING:
 Yes. it is the lawyer’s duty to fight for an issue or claim, but it is his duty to
oppose it for the other client. Corollary to the foregoing, the Commission
by virtue of the doctrine res ipsa loquitor finds that the respondent’s act of
failing to thwart his client Mariano Turla from filing the Affidavit of
Adjudication despite his knowledge of the existence of Marilu Turla as a
possible heir to the estate of Rufina Turla, the respondent failed to uphold
his obligation as a member of the bar to be the stewards of justice and
protectors of what is just, legal and proper. Thus in failing to do his duty
and acting dishonestly not only was he in contravention of the Lawyer’s
Oath but was also in violation of Canon 10, Rule 10.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.

 As officers of the court, lawyers have the duty to uphold the rule of law. In
doing so, lawyers are expected to be honest in all their dealings.
Unfortunately, respondent was far from being honest. With full knowledge
that Rufina Turla had another heir, he acceded to Mariano Turla’s request
to prepare the Affidavit of Self-Adjudication.
 Therefore, we find respondent Atty. Victor Rey Santos guilty of violating
Canon 15, Rule 15.03 and Canon 10, Rule 10.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. The findings of fact and recommendations of
the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines dated May
10, 2013 and March 22, 2014 are ACCEPTED and ADOPTED with the
MODIFICATION that the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for
one (1) year is imposed upon Atty. Victor Rey Santos. He is warned that a
repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely.

A.C. No. 5440               December 10, 2014

SPOUSES NICASIO DONELITA SAN PEDRO, Complainants, 
vs.
ATTY. ISAGANI A. MENDOZA, Respondent.

FACTS:

 Complainants engaged the services of respondent to facilitate the transfer of title

to property, in the name of Isabel Azcarraga Marcaida, to complainants.
Complainants then gave respondent a check for ₱68,250.00 for the payment of
transfer taxes.They also gave respondent a check for ₱13,800.00 for
respondent’s professional fee. Respondent failed to produce the title despite
complainants’ repeated follow-ups. Several letters were sent by respondent
explaining the delay in the transfer of title. However, respondent still failed to
produce the title. Complainants subsequently referred the case to the barangay.
Respondent refused to return the amount complainants gave for the transfer
taxes. Complainants were then issued a certificate to file action. They also sent a
letter demanding the refund of the money intended for the transfer
taxes. Respondent still did not return the money. Respondent sent another letter
to complainants. He promised to settle the transfer of the land title. However,
respondent reneged on this promise. Complainants were then forced to obtain a
loan from Philippine American Life and General Insurance Company to secure
the transfer of the title to the property in their names.
 . According to him, it was complainants who caused the three-year delay in the
transfer of title to complainants’ names. Complainants were not able to furnish
respondent several important documents. In addition, respondent argued that
complainants paid him the measly sum of ₱13,800.00 despite all the work he did
for them, including facilitating the sale of the property. These involved "being-
pulled from the office four or five times to discuss the details of the transaction

27
 going twice to the Regional Trial Court, to expedite the issuance of a new
owner’s duplicate copy of the title, going twice to the office of the Register of
Deeds for Calamba, Laguna to make verification and submit the court order, and
facilitating the preparation and notarization of the Deed of Absolute Sale.
 Respondent also claimed that retention of the money is justified owing to his
receivables from complainants for the services he rendered in various cases.

ISSUE:
  Whether or not respondent is guilty of violating Canon 16 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility for failing to hold in trust the money of his clients.
RULING:

 It has been said that the practice of law is a privilege bestowed on lawyers who
meet the high standards of legal proficiency and morality. Any conduct that
shows a violation of the norms and values of the legal profession exposes the
lawyer to administrative liability. An examination of the records reveals that
respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.
 The lawyer’s failure to return the client’s money upon demand gives rise to the
presumption that he has misappropriated it for his own use to the prejudice of
and in violation of the trust reposed in him by the client.
 Respondent admitted that there were delays in the transfer of title of property to
complainants’ name. He continuously assured complainants that he would still
fulfill his duty. However, after three (3) years and several demands from
complainants, respondent failed to accomplish the task given to him and even
refused to return the money. Complainants’ alleged failure to provide the
necessary documents to effect the transfer does not justify his violation of his
duty under the Code of Professional Responsibility.
 Therefore, respondent Atty. Isagani A. Mendoza is SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for three (3) months. He is also ordered to RETURN to
complainants the amount of ₱68,250.00 with 6% legal interest from the date of
finality of this judgment until full payment. Respondent is further DIRECTED to
submit to this court proof of payment of the amount within 10 days from payment.

B.M. No. 2540               September 24, 2013

IN RE: PETITION TO SIGN IN THE ROLL OF ATTORNEYS
MICHAEL A. MEDADO, Petitioner.

FACTS:

 Medado graduated from the University of the Philippines with the degree of
Bachelor of Laws in 1979 and passed the same year's bar examinations with a
general weighted average of 82.7.
 On 7 May 1980, he took the Attorney’s Oath at the Philippine International
Convention Center (PICC) together with the successful bar examinees. He was
scheduled to sign in the Roll of Attorneys on 13 May 1980,  but he failed to do so
on his scheduled date, allegedly because he had misplaced the Notice to Sign
the Roll of Attorneys given by the Bar Office when he went home to his province
for a vacation. Several years later, while rummaging through his old college files,
Medado found the Notice to Sign the Roll of Attorneys. It was then that he
realized that he had not signed in the roll, and that what he had signed at the
entrance of the PICC was probably just an attendance record. By the time
Medado found the notice, he was already working. He stated that he was mainly
doing corporate and taxation work, and that he was not actively involved in
litigation practice. Thus, he operated "under the mistaken belief that since he
had already taken the oath, the signing of the Roll of Attorneys was not as
urgent, nor as crucial to his status as a lawyer" and "the matter of signing in the
Roll of Attorneys lost its urgency and compulsion, and was subsequently
forgotten. In 2005, when Medado attended Mandatory Continuing Legal
Education (MCLE) seminars, he was required to provide his roll number in order
for his MCLE compliances to be credited.

28
  Not having signed in the Roll of Attorneys, he was unable to provide his roll
number. About seven years later, or on 6 February 2012, Medado filed the
instant Petition, praying that he be allowed to sign in the Roll of Attorneys.
 Petitioner has been engaged in the practice of law since 1980, a period
spanning more than 30 years, without having signed in the Roll of Attorneys. He
justifies this behavior by characterizing his acts as "neither willful nor intentional
but based on a mistaken belief and an honest error of judgment."

ISSUE: Whether or not Medano’s Petition to sign in the Roll of Attorneys be granted.

RULING: While an honest mistake of fact could be used to excuse a person from the legal
consequences of his acts as it negates malice or evil motive, a mistake of law
cannot be utilized as a lawful justification, because everyone is presumed to know
the law and its consequences. Ignorantia factiexcusat; ignorantia legis neminem
excusat.

 Applying these principles to the case at bar, Medado may have at first operated
under an honest mistake of fact when he thought that what he had signed at the
PICC entrance before the oath-taking was already the Roll of Attorneys.
However, the moment he realized that what he had signed was merely an
attendance record, he could no longer claim an honest mistake of fact as a valid
justification. At that point, Medado should have known that he was not a full-
fledged member of the Philippine Bar because of his failure to sign in the Roll of
Attorneys, as it was the act of signing therein that would have made him so.
When, in spite of this knowledge, he chose to continue practicing law without
taking the necessary steps to complete all the requirements for admission to the
Bar, he willfully engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. As Medado is not
yet a full-fledged lawyer, we cannot suspend him from the practice of law.
However, we see it fit to impose upon him a penalty akin to suspension by
allowing him to sign in the Roll of Attorneys one (1) year after receipt of this
Resolution. For his transgression of the prohibition against the unauthorized
practice of law, we likewise see it fit to fine him in the amount of ₱32,000. During
the one year period, petitioner is warned that he is not allowed to engage in the
practice of law, and is sternly warned that doing any act that constitutes practice
of law before he has signed in the Roll of Attorneys will be dealt with severely by
this Court.
 Therefore, the instant Petition to Sign in the Roll of Attorneys is hereby
GRANTED. Petitioner Michael A. Medado is ALLOWED to sign in the Roll of
Attorneys ONE (1) YEAR after receipt of this Resolution. Petitioner is likewise
ORDERED to pay a FINE of ₱32,000 for his unauthorized practice of law is
STERNLY WARNED that doing any act that constitutes practice of law before he
has signed in the Roll of Attorneys will be dealt will be severely by this Court.


[ A.C. No. 12768, June 23, 2020 ]

FELICITAS H. BONDOC, REPRESENTED BY CONRAD H. BAUTISTA, COMPLAINANT,
VS.
ATTY. MARLOW L. LICUDINE, RESPONDENT.

FACTS:

 Felicitas H. Bondoc a resident of Alberta, Canada, was looking for a lawyer in the
Philippines to handle the civil case for annulment of marriage that she was going' to file
against her husband, Benjamin Bondoc. A common friend then introduced complainant to
respondent, a practicing lawyer in Baguio City.
 Complainant and respondent agreed on their legal engagement wherein respondent
shall file the civil case for annulment on behalf of complainant. The following day,
complainant, through her representative, Maurice G. Deslauriers deposited to
respondent's bank account the amount as initial down payment for the legal fees in the
civil case. Several months passed but complainant did not receive any update regarding
the civil case that respondent was supposed to file, despite the payment of the legal fees.
Moreover, she discovered that respondent divulged her personal information. Due to
respondent's inaction in the civil case and the unwarranted disclosure incident,
complainant decided to terminate respondent's engagement as counsel. Complainant was
briefly in the Philippines. During that time, she talked to respondent. According to
complainant, respondent said that he already spent the money she gave him but they
verbally agreed that he would return half of the amount received within the last week of

29
 March 2016. Respondent, however, did not explain where he used the money.
Complainant sent a Demand Letter to respondent, requesting for an accounting of fees
and the refund of the legal fees she had paid within thirty (30) days from receipt. The said
letter was duly received by respondent.

Almost two (2) months thereafter, complainant did not receive any feedback from
respondent again. Thus, she sent a Second and Final Demand Letter to respondent,
reiterating the request for accounting and the return of the legal fees. Again, the letter was
received by respondent.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility

RULING: Yes. Respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.

 In this case, the Court finds that respondent violated the Lawyer's Oath, Canons 1 and 16,
and Rules 1.01, 16.01, 16.02, and 16.03 of the Code. Respondent failed to institute the
civil
case, failed to return the
client's money. Respondent was engaged by complainant to file a civil case for annulment
of marriage. Complainant paid him the amount of CAD$2,000.00, which he duly
acknowledged. However, respondent never performed his duty; he did not even file a
petition for annulment of marriage in court. Due to respondent's inaction and
complainant's loss of trust and confidence, she terminated his legal services.
 Finally, respondent's flimsy justification that complainant's money was supposed to be
returned to her but was inadvertently left in the case folder is absolutely irresponsible.
Respondent had numerous instances and opportunities to return his client's money –
through complainant while she was in the Philippines, through Conrad, or even during the
Mandatory Conference before the Commission – but he glaringly failed to do so. It shows
that from the very beginning, respondent did not have an ounce of eagerness to return his
client's entrusted money. Indeed, respondent's misdealing towards his client is manifest
and obvious.
 Respondent's acts of failing to comply with his legal duty to file the civil case and failing to
return his client's money violate the Lawyer's Oath, which mandates that no lawyer shall
delay any man for money or malice. These acts also violate Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the
Code because respondent employed devious conduct by manifestly delaying the return of
complainant's money. Finally, respondent's failure to return his client's money violates
Canon 16 and Rule 16.01, 16.02, and 16.03 of the Code, which requires that a lawyer
must account for the client's money and promptly return the same.

Therefore, Atty. Marlow L. Licudine is GUILTY of violating Canons 1 and 16, and Rules 1.01,
16.01, 16.02, and 16.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer's Oath. He is
hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for two (2) years with a STERN WARNING that
the repetition of a similar violation will be dealt with even more severely. He is DIRECTED to
report the date of his receipt of this Decision to enable this Court to determine when his
suspension shall take effect.

 A.C. No. 12071, March 11, 2020 ]

JONATHAN C. PARUNGAO, COMPLAINANT,
V.
ATTY. DEXTER B. LACUANAN, RESPONDENT.

FACTS:
 Complaint, Jonathan alleged that he was introduced by his wife, Mary Grace, to Atty.
Lacuanan . Since then, Atty. Lacuanan had served as Jonathan's counsel in several
transactions which involved either Jonathan alone or both Jonathan and Mary Grace .
Jonathan, who was then still engaged in the buy and sell business, consulted Atty. Lacuanan
regarding the collection of payment from a client. Thereafter, he retained Atty. Lacuanan's
services and paid his professional fees for consultation or conference.
 According to Jonathan, more than just a professional relationship, a friendship also
developed between him and Atty. Lacuanan. Atty. Lacuanan dined several times with him
and his wife in Greenhills, San Juan. Atty. Lacuanan even visited Jonathan's car showroom
in Dampa, Libis. Jonathan had confided with Atty. Lacuanan details regarding his personal
life, family, and even about his marriage.
 Jonathan further narrated that, his marriage with Mary Grace was encountering serious
problems. Jonathan was suddenly served with a subpoena from the Office of the City
1âшphi1

Prosecutor of Quezon City requiring him to attend the preliminary investigation hearings
scheduled of the Criminal Complaint for Concubinage, Physical Injury, and Threat, in relation
to Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9262,1 filed against him by Mary Grace. Jonathan was surprised

30
 that Atty. Lacuanan attended the said hearings before the Assistant City Prosecutor as
counsel for Mary Grace. Subsequently, Jonathan received Summons with the attached
Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage filed by Mary Grace, through her counsel, Atty.
Lacuanan, before the RTC. Atty. Lacuanan never asked for Jonathan's consent to represent
Mary Grace as counsel in the criminal complaint and civil case when they all met at the
Quezon City Prosecutor's Office.
 Atty. Lacuanan, for his part, admitted that he had been friends with Mary Grace since 2006
and that Mary Grace introduced him to Jonathan in 2007. He denied, though, that he and
Jonathan were close friends and that the latter confided or divulged to him anything about his
personal life and marital affairs. Atty. Lacuanan further contended that there was no standing
attorney-client relationship between him and Jonathan. He only rendered intermittent
professional services to the Spouses Parungao from 2008 to 2011, all relating to Jonathan's
businesses. 

ISSUE: Whether or not the disbarment complaint filed by complainant against Atty. Dexter Lacuanan
should be granted.

RULING:

No. The disbarment complaint filed by complainant against Atty. Dexter Lacuanan should not
be granted.

In the case at bar, Jonathan failed to establish that Atty. Lacuanan has confidential
information which the latter acquired through their connection or previous employment and
which can be used against him in the pending civil and criminal proceedings instituted by
Mary Grace. Jonathan generally avers that in the course of their professional and personal
relations, he had shared with Atty. Lacuanan confidential information as regards his marital
and family life as well as his businesses and properties. However, these are merely his bare
allegations, unsubstantiated by any piece of evidence, and disputed by Atty. Lacuanan.

Therefore, the instant Disbarment Complaint of Jonathan C. Parungao against Atty. Dexter
B. Lacuanan is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.

A.C. No. 12701 (C.B.D. 12-3626), February 26, 2020

FRANCISCO PAGDANGANAN, COMPLAINANT,
VS.
ATTY. ROMEO C. PLATA, RESPONDENT.

FACTS:

 The history of the two opposing parties go way back. Atty. Plata is the legal counsel of
Jose F. Eustaquio the legitimate owner of a land with Original Certificate of Title No.
1921.2 Pagdanganan is a member of the Samahang Maralita ng Sitio Bato-Bato
Neighborhood Association, Inc. Other members of the organization include Yolanda
Morales the President; Rodolfo Rigor ,Merly de Loyola, Pagdanganan's common-law
wife; Rufina Francisco (Francisco); Amavilla Baylon (Baylon); and Salome Rotaquio
(Rotaquio). SAMANAI is represented by their legal counsel, Atty. Clifford Equila
(Atty.Equila), and attorney-in-fact, Liza Santiago.
 SAMANAI, through its members and representatives, entered into a contract to sell with
Eustaquio to buy and occupy a portion of said land. When SAMANAI failed to pay the
remaining balance in monthly installments of the agreed contract terms, Eustaquio filed
a complaint for unlawful detainer against Spouses Nestor and Yolanda Morales and all
persons claiming rights under the land, including herein complainant, Pagdanganan.

31
  Thus, Pagdanganan filed this Complaint against Atty. Plata with the Commission on Bar
Discipline (CBD) of the IBP. Pagdanganan alleged, both in his Complaint and Position
Paper, that he was not a signatory to the Sinumpaang Salaysay, hence, his inclusion as
defendant in the perjury case was "not candid nor fair. He also alleged that the
staggering amount of damages being prayed for was "a mockery of the legal system.

ISSUE:

Whether Atty. Plata is guilty of misconduct meriting his suspension from the practice of
law for two years.

RULING:

 In this case, the Court notes that Atty. Plata did not deny that he had filed several civil,
criminal and administrative cases against the opposing parties and their counsels. In his
Answer to the administrative complaint, Atty. Plata justifies the various pending suits
filed by him and his client, Eustaquio, as proof of the truth and veracity of the allegations
against Pagdanganan and his co-respondents.
 However, upon examination of the records, it becomes apparent that these suits are
mere harassing tactics against Pagdanganan, his correspondents and their counsel. The
Court is mindful of Atty. Plata's duty to defend his client's cause with utmost zeal.
However, professional rules, as above-quoted, impose limits on a lawyer's zeal and
hedge it with necessary restrictions and qualifications. [35] Atty. Plata's filing of several
cases against the adverse parties and their counsel lays bare his intent to repress the
opposing counsel from exerting utmost effort in protecting his clients' interests. The filing
of several groundless suits and the reservation of filing another perjury suit in the future
despite the pendency of another perjury case reveal Atty. Plata's gross indiscretion as a
colleague in the legal profession, in blatant violation of his oath and duties as a lawyer.
 Atty. Plata's harassing tactics of filing multiple groundless and baseless suits are
contrary to the following Rules and Canons in the Code of Professional Responsibility.
 Thus, for having violated the Lawyer's Oath, the Duties of Attorneys and the Code of
Professional Responsibility, Atty. Plata's gross misconduct should be meted out with the
commensurate penalty.
 WHEREFORE, the Court ADOPTS and APPROVES the Resolutions of the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines-Board of Governors dated February 22, 2018 and June 17, 2019.
Accordingly, Atty. Romeo C. Plata is found GUILTY of violating the Lawyer's Oath, the
Duties of Attorneys and the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is
hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for two years with a STERN
WARNING that a repetition of the same or a similar offense will warrant the imposition of
a more severe penalty.

A.C. No. 10252, December 11, 2019

IAN B. CARONONGAN, COMPLAINANT,
v.
ATTY. JAIRO M. LADERA, RESPONDENT.

FACTS:

 Complaint Affidavit, complainant averred that he was a bank officer at Peoples

Bank of Caraga, Inc. Respondent notarized an incomplete document, wherein a
Contract of Lease was purportedly executed between the Bank, represented by
its Cabadbaran City, as lessee, and Teresita M. Ladera (Teresita), the mother of
respondent, as lessor. He added that the contract was denominated in
respondent's notarial register as Doc. No. 77; Page No. 16; Book 1 and Series of
2011.

 Complainant contended that respondent notarized the above-cited contract

despite the prohibition under the Rules considering that the one who signed it
was the respondent's mother. He added that the notarized document was also
incomplete because it did not bear the signature of Wilma, the Bank's
representative. In support of his case, complainant attached an Affidavit of

32
 Witness executed by Wilma. She confirmed that she was the Manager of the
Bank's Cabadbaran Branch, and was designated to sign the agreement when the
Bank rented Teresita's lot in 2010 for its satellite office in Brgy. Bad-as, Placer,
Surigao del Norte. She alleged that after the lease expired, Teresita submitted to
the Cabadbaran Branch a new contract. To her surprise, Wilma noticed that this
new contract was already signed by Teresita and was notarized by respondent,
who she later discovered to be the son of Teresita.
 Complainant also averred that as a law degree holder, although not a bar passer,
he was familiar with the obligations of a notary public. He asserted that it was a
basic principle of law that the notary public was prohibited from subscribing
documents involving one's relatives within the fourth degree of affinity and
consanguinity. For having done so, respondent violated his obligation as a notary
public. He, likewise, alleged that by notarizing a deed despite the non-
appearance of one of its signatories, respondent also violated Rule 1.01,Canon 1
of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

ISSUE:

Whether respondent should be held administratively liable for the acts complained of.

RULING:

 No. Respondent should be held administratively liable for the acts complained of, but
rather ADMONISHED with a WARNING that a repetition of a similar act shall be dealt
with more severely.
 In this case, respondent notarized the subject lease contract signed by his mother. By
this fact alone, he violated the disqualification rule under the aforesaid provision of the
Rules. However, the Court notes that other than respondent's mother, no other party
signed the contract. In fact, as embodied in the Acknowledgment itself, respondent did
not declare that any other person appeared before him, aside from his mother.
 By virtue of the foregoing attendant circumstances, the Court deems it proper to instead
admonish respondent considering that: (1) no evidence of bad faith can be imputed
against him; (2) he readily admitted his mistake; (3) no prejudice to any person was
caused by his complained act; and (4) he was a new lawyer and a first time offender
when he committed it. We believe that because of this case, respondent learned his
lesson already as regards notarizing a seemingly harmless instrument. Certainly, this
experience will teach him to be more circumspect in exercising his duties as a notary
public.

A. C. No. 7607
ANGEL A. ARDE, COMPLAINT,
vs.
ATTY. EVANGELINE DE SILVA, RESPONDENT.

FACTS:

 Complainant Emilio Grande was the private offended party in Criminal Cases, filed with
the Regional Trial Court for Estafa and Violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22,
respondent Atty. Evangeline de Silva, counsel for the accused, tendered to complainant
Check as settlement of the civil aspect of the case against her client.
 Thus, respondent was prevailed upon by complainant to accept the check.
Consequently, he desisted from participating as a complaining witness in the criminal
case, which led to the dismissal of the same and the release of the accused, Sergio
Natividad.
 When complainant deposited the check, the same was returned unpaid by the drawee
bank for the reason: "Account Closed. Complainant wrote a letter to respondent
demanding that she pay the face value of the check. However, his demand was ignored
by respondent, hence, he instituted a criminal complaint against her for Estafa and
Violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 with the Office of the City Prosecutor.
 Prosecutor filed the necessary information for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22
against respondent Atty. Evangeline de Silva. Complainant filed the instant

33
 administrative complaint for disbarment of respondent for deceit and violation of the
Lawyer's Oath.

ISSUE:

 Whether or not respondent should be disbar for deceit and violation of the
Lawyer’s Oath.

RULING:
 The record shows that respondent prevailed upon complainant to accept her
personal check by way of settlement for the civil liability of her client, Sergio
Natividad, with the assurance that the check will have sufficient funds when
presented for payment. In doing so, she deceived complainant into withdrawing
his complaint against her client in exchange for a check which she drew against
a closed account.
 It is clear that the breach of trust committed by respondent in issuing a bouncing
check amounted to deceit and constituted a violation of her oath, for which she
should be accordingly penalized. Such an act constitutes gross misconduct and
the penalties... for such malfeasance is prescribed by Rule 138, Section 27of the
Rules of Court.
 Moreover, the attitude of respondent in deliberately refusing to accept the
notices served on her betrays a deplorably willful character or disposition which
stains the nobility of the legal profession. Her conduct not only underscores her
utter lack of respect for authority; it also brings to the fore a darker and more
sinister character flaw in her psyche which renders highly questionable her moral
fitness to continue in the practice of law: a defiance for law and order which is at
the very core of her profession.
 THEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the Resolution of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines. Thus, respondent Atty. Evangeline de Silva is DISBARRED and her
name is ORDERED STRICKEN off the Roll of Attorneys.

A.C. No. 10439

ANNALIZA C. CHAN, COMPLAINANT,
v.
ATTY. REBENE C. CARRERA, RESPONDENT.

FACTS:
 Chan alleged that she met Carrera sometime while she was a trainee at Max's
Restaurant. At that time, he was dining with a woman companion she thought was
Carrera's wife. She was surprised when Carrera later introduced himself as a widower.
After two (2) weeks, Carrera returned and requested for Chan to be his server. While
waiting for his food, he told her that he just settled a case and earned P4 million. He then
proceeded to ask her several questions such as whether she was interested in studying
nursing or caregiving in a school that he owned in Dagupan City. After his meal, he left
his calling card with her, but she threw the same away. From that time onwards, Carrera
frequented the restaurant and requested for Chan to assist him. They had conversations
where Carrera promised Chan a lot of things. He showed interest in pursuing her and
even visited her house to meet her parents. At one point, however, Chan told Carrera
that it was best he pursued somebody else as she was still married albeit separated.
She told him that her husband left her for another woman and that she was raising their
daughter alone. Carrera, however, did not seem to mind. He even represented that he
can annul her marriage for her and support her daughter. Eventually, Chan grew fond of
Carrera. He was able to convince her to join him on a trip to Hong Kong. Upon their
return, he bought a house for them in Quezon City as well as a car for her with a special

34
 plate number "ANA" inspired by her name. They then went to his school in Dagupan City
where he called for a board meeting during which he introduced her as his fiance and a
new member of the board of trustees.
 Chan discovered that Carrera was not in fact a widower and that his wife was still alive.
Even though his wife was confined in an institution, he was still validly married to her.
Chan further discovered that Carrera also had a child with another woman. Because of
this, Chan wanted to leave Carrera. Unfortunately, she found out that she was pregnant
with his child. Nevertheless, while Chan decided to stay with Carrera, their relationship
was no longer harmonious. Throughout her pregnancy, Carrera often scolded her and
treated her badly. He accused her of stealing his credit card and withdrawing from his
account. In one instance, Carrera even denied being the father of the child she was
carrying. Aside from this, Chan often caught Carrera having illicit relationships with other
women. When confronted, he would usually make empty promises to change his ways.
Chan thought about the welfare of their child and felt that she had no choice but to
remain with Carrera.

ISSUE:

 Whether or not respondent Carrera be suspend from the practice of law.

RULING:

 The Court finds that the actuations of Carrera warrant the penalty of disbarment from the
practice of law and not merely suspension therefrom.

 From the foregoing precepts, the Court holds that the Investigating Commissioner
correctly denied Chan's request for the withdrawal of her complaint, proceeding with the
investigation of the allegations against Carrera. It is a fundamental principle that
members of the legal profession must conform to the highest standards of morality and
that the Court is duty bound to ensure compliance therewith. As such, any deviation
initially raised as the private concern of a complainant becomes a matter of judicial
interest. Indeed, Chan may very well be disinterested in pursuing the instant complaint,
but this shall not necessarily set Carrera free from any liability he may have already
incurred.

 The facts of the present case are beyond dispute. Both Chan and Carrera acknowledged
their undeniable love affair, with the latter designating the same as a "chemistry of two
consensual adults." At the same time, both of them did not deny the reality that they
were still legally married to another. In a heartbeat, they left their respective homes and
moved into a house that Carrera had bought and where they willfully resided for a good
three (3) years. It is in said house that they played husband and wife to each other and
father and mother to their child. All of these facts, both parties do not contest.

 We resolved to disbar the respondents therein for abandoning their legitimate spouses
and maintaining illicit affairs with another. By necessary implication, as a consequence
of Carrera's scandalous and highly immoral conduct, the Court similarly finds him to be
deserving of the extreme penalty of disbarment, although three (3) of its members
considered the penalty too harsh. 

A.C. No. 11043

LIANG FUJI, Complainant 
vs
ATTY. GEMMA ARMI M. DELA CRUZ, Respondent

FACTS:
 Failure to exercise utmost prudence in reviewing the immigration records of an alien,
which resulted in the alien's wrongful detention, opens the special prosecutor in the
Bureau of Immigration to administrative liability filed by Liang Fuji and his family,
against Bureau of Immigration Special Prosecutor Gemma Armi M. Dela Cruz for
gross misconduct and gross ignorance of the law in relation to her issuance of a
Charge Sheet against Fuji for overstaying.Deputy Clerk of Court and Bar Confidant
Atty. Ma. Cristina B. Layusa directed the complainants to file a verified complaint
"with supporting documents duly authenticated and/or affidavits of persons having
personal knowledge of the facts alleged facts of this case show that in a Summary
Deportation, Fuji, a Chinese national, was ordered deported for overstaying. From
the Order, it appears that Special Prosecutor Dela Cruz was the special prosecutor

35
 who brought the formal charge against Fuji and another person upon her finding that
Fuji's work visa had expired, with extension. Special Prosecutor Dela Cruz found
that Fuji had overstayed for one (1) year and six (6) months in violation of
Commonwealth Act No. 613, Section 37(a)(7). Her investigation was triggered by a
complaint-affidavit dated April 30, 2015 of a certain Virgilio Manalo alleging that Fuji
and another person had defrauded him. Fuji filed his Motion for Reconsideration.
 ,Fuji alleged that his rights to due process were violated since he was not afforded
any hearing or summary deportation proceedings before the deportation order was
issued against him.
 He further alleged that Special Prosecutor Dela Cruz failed miserably in discharging
her duties because a simple initial review of the Bureau of Immigration records would
have revealed that he was not overstaying because his Section 9(g) work visa was
valid. Respondent Special Prosecutor Dela Cruz denied that she committed any
grave misconduct
 She claimed that Fuji was accorded due process during the summary deportation
proceedings.
 He was directed, through an Order dated May 14, 2015 of the Legal Division, to
submit his Counter-Affidavit/Memorandum, which he failed to do
 Fuji was also able to file his motion for reconsideration and verified petition to reopen
the case. Respondent further claimed that the Memorandum dated June 4, 2015 of
the Bureau of Immigration - Management Information System (BI-MIS) constituted a
substantial evidence of Fuji's overstay in the country, hence, her formal charge had
legal basis.
ISSUE:
 Whether or not respondent be administratively liable for her negligence in her
failure to ascertain the facts before levying the formal charge against Fuji for
overstaying.
RULING:
 Generally, a lawyer who holds a government office may not be disciplined as a
member of the Bar for misconduct in the discharge of her duties as a government
official. However, if said misconduct as a government official also constitutes a
violation of her oath as a lawyer and the Code of Professional Responsibility then
she may be subject to disciplinary sanction by this Court. Atty. Dela Cruz failed to
observe Rule 18.03 of the Code of the Professional Responsibility, which
mandates that "a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his
negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.". Had respondent
carefully reviewed the records of Fuji, she would have found out about the
approval of Fuji's application, which would negate her finding of overstaying.
Because of her negligence, Fuji was deprived of his liberty for almost eight (8)
months, until his release on March 23, 2016.Simple neglect of duty is defined as
a failure to give attention to a task due to carelessness or indifference.
 Lawyers in government service should be more conscientious with their
professional obligations consistent with the time-honored principle of public office
being a public trust. THEREFORE, respondent Atty. Gemma Armi M. Dela Cruz
is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3) months.

A.C. No. 10537

REYNALDO G. RAMIREZ, Complainant, 
vs.
ATTY. MERCEDES BUHAYANG-MARGALLO, Respondent.

FACTS:
 Atty. Mercedes Buhayang-Margallo’s (Atty. Margallo) inaction resulted in a lost
appeal, terminating the case of her client not on the merits but due to her
negligence. She made it appear that the case was dismissed on the merits when,
in truth, she failed to file the Appellant’s Brief on time. She did not discharge her
duties of candor to her client. In its delegated capacity to conduct fact finding for
this court, it found that respondent Atty. Margallo had violated Canon 17 and
Canon 18, Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Consequently, the Board of Governors recommended that Atty. Margallo be
suspended from the practice of law for two (2) years.
 Complainant alleged that Atty. Margallo had offered her legal services on the
condition that she be given 30% of the land subject of the controversy instead of

36
 attorney’s fees. It was also agreed upon that Ramirez would pay Atty. Margallo
₱1,000.00 per court appearance.1
 On several occasions, Ramirez followed up on the status of the brief, but he was
told that there was still no word from the Court of Appeals.
 Ramirez alleged that Atty. Margallo had violated Canon 17 and Canon 18, Rules
18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. By way of defense,
Atty. Margallo argued that she had agreed to take on the case for free, save for
travel expense of ₱1,000.00 per hearing. She also claimed that she had candidly
informed Ramirez and his mother that they only had a 50% chance of winning
the case. She denied ever having entered into an agreement regarding the
contingent fee worth 30% of the value of the land subject of the controversy.
 Atty. Margallo asserted that she would not have taken on the Appeal except that
the mother of Ramirez had begged her to do so. She claimed that when she
instructed Ramirez to see her for document signing on January 8, 2009, he
ignored her. When he finally showed up on March 2009, he merely told her that
he had been busy. Her failure to immediately inform Ramirez of the unfavorable
Decision of the Court of Appeals was due to losing her client’s number.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent be suspended for violating the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
RULING:
 Yes, respondent is suspended for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility. The
relationship between an attorney and his client is one imbued with utmost trust and
confidence. In this light, clients are led to expect that lawyers would be ever-mindful of
their cause and accordingly exercise the required degree of diligence in handling their
affairs. Verily, a lawyer is expected to maintain at all times a high standard of legal
proficiency, and to devote his full attention, skill, and competence to the case, regardless
of its importance and whether he accepts it for a fee or for free.
 The lack of communication and coordination between respondent Atty. Margallo and her
client was palpable but was not due to the lack of diligence of her client. This cost
complainant Ramirez his entire case and left him with no appellate remedies. His legal
cause was orphaned not because a court of law ruled on the merits of his case, but
because a person privileged to act as counsel failed to discharge her duties with the
requisite diligence. Her assumption that complainant Ramirez was no longer interested
to pursue the Appeal is a poor excuse. There was no proof that she exerted efforts to
communicate with her client. This is an admission that she abandoned her obligation as
counsel on the basis of an assumption. Respondent Atty. Margallo failed to exhaust all
possible means to protect complainant Ramirez’s interest, which is contrary to what she
had sworn to do as a member of the legal profession. For these reasons, she clearly
violated Canon 17 and Canon 18, Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

 THEREFORE, Atty. Mercedes Buhayang-Margallo is hereby SUSPENDED from the

practice of law for two (2) years, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or
similar act shall be dealt with more severely.

[ G.R. No. 217910, September 03, 2019 ]

JESUS NICARDO M. FALCIS, III, PETITIONER, V. CIVIL REGISTRAR GENERAL,
RESPONDENT.
LGBTS CHRISTIAN CHURCH, INC., REVEREND CRESENCIO "CEEJAY" AGBAYANI, JR.,
MARLON FELIPE, AND MARIA ARLYN "SUGAR" IBAÑEZ, PETITIONERS-IN-
INTERVENTION.
ATTY. FERNANDO P. PERITO, ATTY. RONALDO T. REYES, ATTY. JEREMY I. GATDULA,
ATTY. CRISTINA A. MONTES, AND ATTY. RUFINO POLICARPIO III, INTERVENORS-
OPPOSITORS.

FACTS:
 During the hearing, Petitioner Jesus Nicardo M. Falcis III, was attired with a
casual jacket, cropped jeans and loafers without socks, Associate Justice Marvic
M.V.F. Leonen directed him to show cause , why he should not be cited in direct
contempt for his failure to observe the required decorum during the preliminary
conference which is a formal session of the Court. Petitioner was likewise

37
 advised to request a briefing from his former professors, or the law firm he is
going to retain, on the proper protocols to be observed inside the Court, to
facilitate an orderly and smooth proceeding during the oral argument.
 Atty. Falcis is not an uninformed layperson. He has been a member of the
Philippine Bar for a number of years. As an officer of the court, he is duty bound
to maintain towards this Court a respectful attitude essential to the proper
administration of justice. He is charged with knowledge of the proper manner by
which lawyers are to conduct themselves during judicial proceedings. His
Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility exhort him to
maintain the requisite decency and to afford dignity to this Court.

 Lawyers must serve their clients with competence and diligence. Under Rule
18.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer shall not handle any
legal matter without adequate preparation." Atty. Falcis' appearance and
behavior during the preliminary conference reveal the inadequacy of his
preparation. Considering that the Advisory for Oral Arguments was served on the
parties three (3) months prior to the preliminary conference, it was inexcusably
careless for any of them to appear before this Court so barely prepared.

ISSUE:
 Whether or not Atty. Francis be liable for direct contempt for his failure to
observe the required decorum during the preliminary conference.
RULING:
 Yes. Atty. Francis be liable for direct contempt for his failure to observe the
required decorum during the preliminary conference. Lawyers who wish to
practice public interest litigation should be ever mindful that their acts and
omissions before the courts do not only affect themselves. In truth, by
thrusting themselves into the limelight to take up the cudgels on behalf of a
minority class, they represent the hopes and aspirations of a greater mass of
people, not always with the consent of all its members. Their errors and
mistakes have a ripple effect even on persons who did not agree with or had
no opportunity to consent to the stratagems and tactics they employed.
However, at every stage of these proceedings, petitioner only exposed his
utter lack of preparation, recklessness, and crudeness. Atty. Francis did not
wear the proper and required attire as a lawyer during the trial which is a
violation on the Code Professional Responsibility. Therefore, Atty. Francis is
held guilty for direct contempt.

ATTY. HERMINIO HARRY L. ROQUE, JR., COMPLAINANT,

VS.
ATTY. RIZAL P. BALBIN, RESPONDENT.

FACTS:
 Complainant alleged that he was the plaintiff's counsel in a case
entitled FELMAILEM, Inc. v. Felma Mailem, docketed as Civil Case No. 2004-
307 before the Metropolitan Trial Court .Shortly after securing a favorable
judgment for his client,[2] herein respondent-as counsel for the defendant, and
on appeal-started intimidating, harassing, blackmailing, and maliciously
threatening complainant into withdrawing the case filed by his client.
According to complainant, respondent would make various telephone calls
and send text messages and e-mails not just to him, but also to his friends
and other clients, threatening to file disbarment and/or criminal suits against
him. Further, and in view of complainant's "high profile" stature, respondent

38
 also threatened to publicize such suits in order to besmirch and/or destroy
complainant's name and reputation.

ISSUE:
 whether or not respondent should be administratively sanctioned for the acts
complained of.
RULING:
 Yes. respondent should be administratively sanctioned for the acts
complained of. In this case, respondent's underhanded tactics against
complainant were in violation of Canon 8 of the CPR. As aptly pointed out by
the Investigating Commissioner, instead of availing of remedies to contest the
ruling adverse to his client, respondent resorted to personal attacks against
the opposing litigant's counsel, herein complainant. Thus, it appears that
respondent's acts of repeatedly intimidating, harassing, and blackmailing
complainant with purported administrative and criminal cases and prejudicial
media exposures were performed as a tool to return the inconvenience
suffered by his client. His actions demonstrated a misuse of the legal
processes available to him and his client, especially considering that the aim
of every lawsuit should be to render justice to the parties according to law, not
to harass them. More significantly, the foregoing showed respondent's lack of
respect and despicable behavior towards a colleague in the legal profession,
and constituted conduct unbecoming of a member thereof.
 Furthermore, respondent's aforesaid acts of threatening complainant with the
filing of baseless administrative and criminal complaints in an effort to strong-
arm the latter and his client into submission not only contravened the
Lawyer's Oath, which exhorts that a lawyer shall "not wittingly or willingly
promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor give aid nor
consent to the same," but also violated Canon 19 and Rule 19.01 of the CPR.

 THEREFORE, respondent Atty. Rizal P. Balbin is found guilty of violating

Canon 8, Canon 11, Canon 12, Rule 12.03, Rule 12.04, Canon 19, and Rule
19.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, he is
hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years,
effective immediately upon his receipt of this  Decision. He is STERNLY
WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more
severely.

[ A.C. No. 12113 (Formerly CBD 08-2193). March 06, 2019 ]

LEO LUMBRE, LEOJOHN L. LUMBRE, AND RUFREX L. LUMBRE, COMPLAINANTS,

VS.
ATTY. ERWIN BELLEZA, RESPONDENT.

FACTS:
 While the undersigned was away from his residence, Atty. Erwin Belleza together with
Barangay Kagawad Teofilo Balosca, civilian Baloy Paña and a number of persons, came
and with the help of his two companions, destroyed the nipa hut in the garden of the
undersigned with the use of bolo. Then, together again with the same companions,
aimed their firearms towards undersigned's children Rufrex Lumbre and Leo John
Lumbre, 16 and 13 years old respectively, chased and attempted to kill them, which
abuse on the minors caused them fear and affected their normal development.

39
ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent is guilty of grave misconduct.

RULING:

 The affidavit executed by the complainants who are minors categorically stated in and
identified respondent as one of the persons who destroyed their nipa hut and who
chased and pointed guns at them. The statement of the minors was also affirmed and
corroborated by Ms. Genevieve Lumbre in her affidavit and by Mr. Danilo Mardoquio in
his affidavit, armed companions running after and pointing their guns at the two
complainants who are minors. Furthermore, the psychiatric evaluation and mental status
examination dated 04 September 2007 of complainant Rufrex conducted by Dr. Lyn Y.
Veron MD shows that Rufrex was complaining of impaired sleep and nervousness.
Clearly, the effect of the incident on the minors was more psychological and mental
rather than physical. Thus, it is neither necessary that shots be fired nor for anybody to
get physically hurt to bleed in the incident. Respondent's act of chasing and threatening
to kill the two complainants who are both minors, therefore, is an act of child abuse,
cruelty or exploitation under RA 7610.
 Hence, respondent is administratively liable. Respondent clearly violated Rule 1.01 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility ("CPR") in relation to the "Special Protection of
Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act" ("RA 7610") when
respondent chased and threatened to kill the two complainants who are both minors, the
absence of fired shots.
 WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Board resolves to reverse and set aside the
Report and Recommendation dated 19 November 2013. Finding respondent guilty of
grave misconduct for chasing and threatening to kill two minor respondents (sic) which
act amounts to child abuse, respondent Atty. Erwin V. Belleza is hereby SUSPENDED
from the practice of law for two (2) months.

[ A.C. No. 9223, June 09, 2020 ]

EVELYN LORENZO-NUCUM, COMPLAINANT,
VS.
ATTY. MARK NOLAN C. CABALAN, RESPONDENT.

FACTS:

 Complainant engaged respondent, a law professor at the University of Baguio, to

represent her and her co-heirs in a case entitled "Alfredo Arquitola v. Pedro
Lorenzo,". Complainant and her co-heirs are the surviving children of Pedro
Lorenzo, the defendant in the said civil case. Complainant paid respondent
P15,000.00 as acceptance fee and P3,000.00 as appearance fee per court
hearing. Complainant always communicated with respondent to get updates on

40
 the case either through cellphone or by personally visiting respondent at his
office, respondent updated complainant that the RTC already rendered its
Decision . Because the Decision was unfavorable to complainants, respondent
informed them that he already filed a Motion for Reconsideration before the RTC
and asked for P5,000.00 as payment for the same. Respondent likewise assured
complainant that he will file a notice of appeal should the motion for
reconsideration be denied.
 Complainant was surprised to learn from the RTC that an Order denied the
Motion for Reconsideration and that the Decision had already attained finality. As
such, a Writ of Execution was already issued through the motion filed by the
intervenors in the case. Furthermore, complainant discovered that the motion for
reconsideration was filed 17 days late, but the RTC still resolved the same on the
merits. Likewise, respondent did not file a notice of appeal, contrary to his
previous assurance.
 Upon learning what happened, complainant called respondent's law office. The
call was answered by respondent's secretary, who asked who was on the line, to
which complainant replied "Evelyn Lorenzo-Nucum." A few minutes after the
secretary talked to somebody in the office, the secretary replied "sorry Atty.
Cabalan is not around." After this, complainant tried communicating with
respondent from time to time, but she could not contact him anymore. Thus, a
complaint was filed for violation of Canon 15 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility (CPR), which requires a lawyer to observe candor, fairness, and
loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with his client.

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent should be liable from the practice of law and
violating the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING:

 In this case, it is clear that respondent filed the motion for reconsideration 17 days late.
Also, when the motion for reconsideration was denied he, likewise, failed to file a notice
of appeal. Because of this, the judgment has attained finality and judgment was
executed against complainant. Without a doubt, this exhibits his inexcusable lack of care
and diligence in managing his client's cause in violation of Canon 18, and Rule 18.03 of
the CPR. As such, he neglected the legal matters entrusted to him for which he must be
clearly held administratively liable.
 Indubitably, respondent has a penchant for violating not only his oath as a lawyer and
the CPR, but orders from the Court as well.1âшphi1 He had been repeatedly warned
that a similar violation will merit a more severe penalty, and yet, his reprehensible
conduct has, time and again, brought embarrassment and dishonor to the legal
profession.
 A lawyer has a duty to serve his client with competence and diligence. A member of the
legal profession owes his client entire devotion to his genuine interest, warm zeal in the
maintenance and defense of his rights, and the exertion of his utmost learning and
ability. Public interest demands that an attorney exerts his best efforts and ability to
preserve his client's cause, for the unwavering loyalty displayed to his client likewise
serves the ends of justice.17
 WHEREFORE, having clearly violated Canon 18, Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, respondent Atty. Mark Nolan C. Cabalan is SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for THREE (3) YEARS, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same
or similar acts shall give a cause for his disbarment.

MYRNA ANGAY OBUS

41
42