2018 JURISPRUDENCE ON LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS out to be fictitious;P4,408,067.

18 representing the unremitted rentals

from Petron, and P1,689,100.00 representing the overpayment in the
1) HDI HOLDINGS PHILIPPINES, INC. v. ATTY. EMMANUEL N. overpriced Q.C. property, these amounts should be returned as it was
CRUZ borne out of their professional relationship.
A.C. No. 11724 (Formerly CBD No. 14-4109), July 31, 2018 IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, we find respondent ATTY.
FACTS: EMMANUEL CRUZ, guilty of gross misconduct by violating the Canon
HDI retained the services of Atty. Cruz as its in-house corporate counsel of Professional Responsibility through his unlawful, dishonest, and
and corporate secretary. deceitful conduct, and willful disobedience of lawful orders rendering him
However, HDI averred that through Atty. Cruz's deception and unworthy of continuing membership in the legal profession. He is thus
machinations, he managed to misappropriate a total of Forty-One Million ordered DISBARRED from the practice of law and his name stricken off
Three Hundred Seventeen Thousand One Hundred Sixty-Seven and of the Roll of Attorneys, effective immediately.
Eighteen Centavos (P41,317,167.18), in the following manner, to wit: Furthermore, Atty. Cruz is ORDERED to RETURN to complainant HDI
(a) Misappropriation of the cash bid in the total amount of P6,000,000.00 the amounts of P6, 000,000.00, P21, 250,000.00, P4, 408,067.18 and
which remains unpaid; P1, 689,100.00, with legal interest, if it is still unpaid, within ninety (90)
(b) Contracting unsecured personal loans with HDI in the total amount days from the finality of this Decision.
of P8,000,000.00 which remains unpaid;
(c) Deceiving HDI as to the true selling price of the Q.C. property which 2) RE: SHOW CAUSE ORDER IN THE DECISION DATED MAY 11,
resulted in overpayment in the amount of P1, 689,100.00 which remains 2018 IN G.R. NO. 237428 (REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,
unpaid; REPRESENTED BY SOLICITOR GENERAL JOSE C. CALIDA v.
(d) Fabricating a fictitious sale by executing a fictitious contract to sell MARIA LOURDES P.A SERENO)
and deed of sale in order to obtain money in the amount of A.M. No. 18-06-01-SC; JULY 17, 2018
P21,250,000.00 from HDI which remains unpaid; FACTS:
(e) Collecting rental payments amounting to P4, 408,067.18, without The instant administrative matter is an offshoot of Republic of the
authority, and thereafter, failed to turn over the same to HDI; and Philippines v. Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno, hereinafter referred to as the
(f) Executing a fake Secretary’s Certificate appointing himself as the quo warranto case or proceedings against Sereno.
authorized person to receive the payments of the lease rentals. The Court in its decision in the quo warranto case, ordered respondent
to show cause why she should not be sanctioned for violating the Code
Upon discovery, HDI confronted Atty. Cruz. The latter went to HDI's of Professional Responsibility (CPR) and the New Code of Judicial
office where he broke down and admitted to everything. However, even Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary (NCJC) for transgressing the sub
after several demand letters, he failed to return the misappropriated judice rule and for casting aspersions and ill motives to the Members of
money. Consequently, HDI filed a disbarment case against Atty. Cruz. this Court.
Atty. Cruz failed to file his Answer on the complaint against him. Also, On August 30, 2017, an impeachment complaint was lodged before the
during the mandatory conference before the IBP-Commission on Bar Committee on Justice of the House of Representatives against
Discipline (IBP-CBD), only the counsel for HDI appeared. Thus, IBP- respondent for culpable violation of the Constitution, corruption, high
CBD recommended that Atty. Cruz be disbarred from the practice of law. crimes, and betrayal of public trust. Having learned of respondent's
Thereafter, IBP Board of Governors resolved to adopt and approve the disqualification as a Chief Justice from the House Committee on
report and recommendation of the IBP-CBD. Justice's hearings, the Republic of the Philippines (Republic), through
ISSUE: the Office of the Solicitor General, filed a petition for quo warranto
Whether or not Atty. Cruz should be disbarred? against respondent, basically questioning her eligibility for the Chief
RULING: Justice position.
YES, he violated the following rules: The Court observed that since the filing of the impeachment complaint,
1. Rule 1.0 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral during the pendency of the quo warranto case, and even after the
or deceitful conduct. conclusion of the quo warranto proceedings, respondent continuously
2. Rule 16.01 - A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected opted to defend herself in public through speaking engagements before
or received for or from the client. students and faculties in different universities, several public forums,
3. Rule 16.02 - A lawyer shall keep the funds of each client separate and interviews on national television, and public rallies. As the Court noted
apart from his own and those others kept by him. in its decision in the quo warranto case, respondent initially refused to
4. Canon. 16.04 – A lawyer shall not borrow money from his client unless participate in the congressional hearings for the impeachment
the client's interests are fully protected by the nature of the case or by complaint. When the petition for quo warranto was filed, respondent
independent advice. Neither shall a lawyer lend money to a client except, likewise continuously refused to recognize this Court's jurisdiction.
when in the interest of justice, he has to advance necessary expenses Instead of participating in the judicial process and answering the charges
in a legal matter he is handling/or the client. against her truthfully to assist in the expeditious resolution of the matter,
5. Canon 7 - A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity respondent opted to proceed to a nationwide campaign, conducting
of the legal profession and support the activities of the Integrated Bar. speeches and accepting interviews, discussing the merits of the case
That being said, the Court has consistently held that deliberate failure to and making comments thereon to vilify the members of the Congress,
pay just debts constitutes gross misconduct, for which a lawyer may be cast aspersions on the impartiality of the Members of the Court, degrade
sanctioned. the faith of the people to the Judiciary, and falsely impute ill motives
Finally, Atty. Cruz's indifference to the IBP's directives to tile his against the government that it is orchestrating the charges against her.
comment on the allegations against him cannot be countenanced. He In short, as the Court stated in the said decision, respondent chose to
disregarded the proceedings before the IBP despite receipt of summons litigate her case before the public and the media instead of the Court.
and notices. Atty. Cruz's act of not filing his answer and ignoring the The Court was disquieted as doubts against the impartiality and dignity
hearings set by the Investigating Commissioner, despite due notice, of the Court and its Members emerged, and the obfuscation of the issues
further aggravated his already disgraceful attitude. in the quo warranto proceedings resulted from such out-of-court
However, insofar as the return of the misappropriated money, the same discussions on the merits of the case. Worse, the Court was perturbed
should be qualified. As to the money which Atty. Cruz borrowed as by the fact that respondent, not only being a member of the Bar but one
personal loan, the Court cannot order him to return the money the who was asserting her eligibility and right to the highest position in the
borrowed from complainant in his private capacity. Judiciary, significantly participated in such detestable and blatant
In Foster v. Atty. Agtang, the Court held that it cannot order the lawyer disregard of the sub judice rule.
to return money to complainant if he or she acted in a private capacity Respondent contends that she should not be judged on the stringent
because its findings in administrative cases have no bearing on liabilities standards set forth in the CPR and NCJC, emphasizing that her
which have no intrinsic link to the lawyer's professional engagement. In participation in the quo warranto case is not as counsel or a judge but
disciplinary proceedings against lawyers, the only issue is whether the as a party-litigant and that the imputed acts against respondent did not
officer of the court is still fit to be allowed to continue as a member of the create any serious and imminent threat to the administration of justice to
Bar. warrant the Court’s exercise of its power of contempt in accordance with
However, insofar as the money received by Atty. Cruz from HDI, in his the “clear and present danger” rule.
professional capacity, to wit: P6,000,000.00, representing the total Respondent also argues that in addressing the matters of impeachment
amount released for bidding; P21,250,000.00, representing the total and quo warranto to the public, she was in fact discharging her duty as
amount released for the purported purchase of a property which turned a Justice and a lawyer to uphold the Constitution and promote respect
for the law and legal processes pursuant to the said Codes and nor during the Oral Argument, as she knows the ethical issues that would
assuming arguendo that respondent violated some provisions of the entail if she did, that the grant of the quo warranto petition would result
CPR and the NCJC in her public statements, the same does not warrant into dictatorship and would destroy the judiciary, but she did during one
the exercise of the Court's power to discipline in view of the attendant of her public speeches as cited above.
circumstances, to wit: (a) no less than the Solicitor General repeatedly The newsman's questioned statements are nothing but a publication of
made personal attacks against her and publicly discussed the merits of reports on the status of the case, whether true or not, which on its face
the case, hence, she had to respond to such accusations against her; notably comes within the purview of the freedom of the press. Besides,
and (b) she was not given her right to due process despite her repeated as We have been emphasizing, an ordinary citizen's action cannot be
demand. judged with the same standard on this matter as that of a member of the
ISSUE: Bar and Bench. Also, whether or not the Solicitor General or any
May respondent be held administratively liable for her actions and public newsman attacked respondent finds no relevance to her liability for her
statements as regards the quo warranto case against her during its violative actions and statements. At the risk of being repetitive, it bears
pendency? stressing that lawyers, as first and foremost officers of the court, must
RULING: never behave in such a way that would diminish the sanctity and dignity
That she should be treated as an ordinary litigant in judging her actions. of the courts even when confronted with rudeness and insolence.
The fact that respondent was not the judge nor the counsel but a litigant The court gives short shrift to respondent's contention that she was
in the subject case does not strip her off her membership in the Bar, as denied due process despite her repeated demands to be heard, hence,
well as her being a Member and the head of the highest court of the land she resorted to bringing her case to the public. Recall that this matter
at that time. Her being a litigant does not mean that she was free to has already been squarely addressed by this Court in its decision in the
conduct herself in less honorable manner than that expected of a lawyer quo warranto case. The essence of due process is to be heard, and, as
or a judge. applied to administrative proceedings, this means a fair and reasonable
Sub Judice Rule opportunity to explain one's side, or an opportunity to seek a
Sub Judice is a Latin term which refers to matters under or before a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.40
judge or court; or matters under judicial consideration. In essence, the
sub judice rule restricts comments and disclosures pertaining to pending Suffice it to say, in this case, respondent has been given several
judicial proceedings. The restriction applies to litigants and witness, the opportunities to explain her side. Records show that the Congress
public in general, and most especially to members of the Bar and the invited her to shed light on the accusations hurled against her but she
Bench. All told, respondent’s reckless behavior of imputing ill motives never heeded the invitation. Likewise, the Court gave her the opportunity
and malice to the Court’s process is plainly evident in the present case. to comment on the petition and file several motions in the quo warranto
Her public statements covered by different media organizations case. A special hearing for her requested oral argument was even
incontrovertibly brings the Court in a position of disrepute and conducted during the Court's Baguio session last April of this year.
disrespect, a patent transgression of the very ethics that members of the During the hearing, she was given the chance to answer several
Bar are sworn to uphold. questions from her colleagues. In fact, she even freely raised questions
Respondent may be correct in arguing that there must exist a "clear and on some of the magistrates present during the hearing. Undeniably, she
present danger" to the administration of justice for statements or was accorded due process not only through her written pleadings, but
utterances covered by the sub judice rule to be considered punishable also during the special hearing wherein she voluntarily participated.
under the rules of contempt. These facts militate against her claim of denial of due process.
Thus, contrary to respondent's argument, the "clear and present danger" Despite the severity of the offenses committed by respondent, The court
rule does not find application in this case. What applies in this id constrained to suspend the application of the full force of the law and
administrative matter is the CPR and NCJC. impose a lighter penalty. Mindful of the fact that respondent was
The case at bar, however, is not a contempt proceeding. The Court, in removed and disqualified as Chief Justice as a result of quo warranto
this case is not geared towards protecting itself from such prejudicial proceedings, suspending her further from law practice would be too
comments outside of court by the exercise of its inherent contempt severe to ruin the career and future of respondent. We are also not
power. Rather, in this administrative matter, the Court is discharging its inclined to merely disregard respondent's length of service in the
Constitutionally-mandated duty to discipline members of the Bar and government, specifically, when she was teaching in the University of the
judicial officers. Philippines, as well as during her incumbency in this Court. Further, the
As We have stated in Our decision in the quo warranto case, actions in fact that, per available record, respondent has not been previously found
violation of the sub judice rule may be dealt with not only through administratively liable is significant in determining the imposable penalty.
contempt proceedings but also through administrative actions. This is These factors have always been considered by the Court in the
because a lawyer speech is subject to greater regulation for two determination of proper sanctions in such administrative cases.51 This
significant reasons: one, because of the lawyer's relationship to the Court is not merciless and opts to dispense judicial clemency even if not
judicial process; and two, the significant dangers that a lawyer's speech sought by respondent.
poses to the trial process.27 Hence, the Court En Banc resolved to treat To be clear, however, this accommodation is not a condonation of
this matter in this separate administrative action.28 Indeed, this Court respondent's wrongdoings but a second chance for respondent to mend
has the plenary power to discipline erring lawyers through this kind of her ways, express remorse for her disgraceful conduct, and be forthright
proceeding, aimed to purge the law profession of unworthy members of to set an example for all law-abiding members of the legal profession.
the Bar and to preserve the nobility and honor of the legal profession.29 The legal profession is a noble profession: as a former Member of this
Her public utterances did not only tend to arouse public opinion on the Court, it is incumbent upon respondent to exemplify respect, obedience,
matter but as can be clearly gleaned from the tenor of the statements, and adherence to this institution. This judicial temperance is not
such comments, speeches, and interviews given by the respondent in unprecedented as this Court has in several cases reduced the
different forums indisputably tend to tarnish the Court's integrity and imposable penalties so that erring lawyers are encouraged to repent,
unfairly attributed false motives against its Members. Particularly, in reform, and be rehabilitated.
several occasions, respondent insinuated the following: (i) that the grant Henceforth, respondent is expected to be more circumspect, discerning,
of the quo warranto petition will result to dictatorship; (ii) in filing the quo and respectful to the Court in all her utterances and actions. Respondent
warranto petition, the livelihood and safety of others are likewise in is reminded that the practice of law is neither a natural right nor a
danger; (iii) that the people could no longer rely on the Court's Constitutional right demandable or enforceable by law. It is a mere
impartiality; and (iv) that she could not expect fairness from the Court in privilege granted by this Court premised on continuing good behavior
resolving the quo warranto petition against her. and ethical conduct, which privilege can be revoked or cancelled by this
In the case at hand, as can be clearly seen from respondent's Court for just cause.
afore-quoted statements, respondent unquestionably directed her The Court after deep reflection and deliberation, in lieu of suspension,
statements to the merits of the quo warranto case, to influence the public respondent is meted the penalty of REPRIMAND with a STERN
and the Members of the Court, and to attack the dignity and authority of WARNING that a repetition of a similar offense or any offense violative
the institution. Perhaps, to an unwilling mind, it may be argued that the of the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility shall
public statements expressed by respondent were without the intention merit a heavier penalty of a fine and/or suspension or disbarment.
of prejudging the matters or issues that are before the Court. However, CANONS VIOLATED:
a scrutiny thereof clearly demonstrates that her statements went beyond Violation of Code of Professional Responsibility
the supposed arguments and contentions contained in her pleadings. To CANON 11 of the CPR, which states that:
cite an example, respondent never alleged or argued in her pleadings
CANON 11- A LAWYER SHALL BE OBSERVE AND MAINTAIN THE Singapore, and agreed to pay attorney's fees of 35% of any recovery or
RESPECT DUE TO THE COURTS AND TO JUDICIAL OFFICERS AND settlement obtained for both.
SHOULD INSIST ON SIMILAR CONDUCT BY OTHERS. After execution of the contract, complainant, through the efforts of
CANON 13 - A LAWYER SHALL RELY UPON THE MERITS OF HIS respondents, was paid by his employer the following amounts:
CAUSE AND REFRAIN FROM ANY IMPROPRIETY WHICH TENDS US$60,000.00 as indemnity and US$20,000.00 under their collective
TO INFLUENCE, OR GIVES THE APPEARANCE OF INFLUENCING bargaining agreement. From these amounts, respondents charged
THE COURT. complainant attorney's fees of 35%.7
Rule 13.02 - A lawyer shall not make public statements in the media Respondents and Gurbani & Co. also filed a tort case against the owners
regarding a pending case tending to arouse public opinion for or against of "Panos G" before the High Court of Singapore (Singapore case). For
a party. this case, respondents engaged the services of Papadopoulos,
Violation of New Code Judicial Conduct Lycourgos & Co., a law firm based in Cyprus, to draft a written opinion
CANON 1 - INDEPENDENCE on the issues involving Cyprus law, among others.
Judicial independence is a pre-requisite to the rule of law and a Thereafter, negotiations led to a settlement award in favor of
fundamental guarantee of a fair trial. A judge shall therefore uphold and complainant in the amount of US$95,000.00. Gurbani & Co. remitted to
exemplify judicial independence in both its individual and institutional respondents the amount of US$59,608.40.
aspects. From this amount, respondents deducted their attorney's fees equivalent
SECTION 3. Judges shall refrain from influencing in any manner the to 35% and other expenses
outcome of litigation or dispute pending before any court or Respondents tendered the amount of US$20,756.05 to complainant,
administrative agency. which the latter refused.
SECTION 7. Judges shall encourage and uphold safeguards for the complainant also filed the subject letter-Complaint with the Integrated
discharge of judicial duties in order to maintain and enhance the Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD).
institutional and operational independence of the judiciary. He requested that an investigation be conducted and the corresponding
SECTION 8. Judges shall exhibit and promote high standards of judicial disciplinary action be imposed upon respondents for committing the
conduct in order to reinforce public confidence in the judiciary, which is following unethical acts: (1) refusing to remit the amount collected in the
fundamental to the maintenance of judicial independence. Singapore case worth US$95,000.00, and in offering only
CANON 2 - INTEGRITY US$20,756.05; (2) depositing complainant's money into their own
Integrity is essentially not only to the proper discharge of the judicial account; and (3) engaging in "ambulance chasing" by deploying their
office but also to the personal demeanor of judges. agents to convince complainant to hire respondents' services while the
SECTION 1. Judges shall ensure that not only is their conduct above former was still bedridden in the hospital.
reproach, but that it is perceived to be so in the view of a reasonable ISSUE:
observer. 1. WON they are guilty of ambulance chasing
SECTION 2. The behavior and conduct of judges must reaffirm the 2. WON there was failure to account the money of their client
people's faith in the integrity of the judiciary. Justice must not merely be RULING
done but must also be seen to be done. 1. YES
CANON 3 - IMPARTIALITY Here, there is sufficient evidence to show that respondents violated
Impartiality is essential to the proper discharge of the judicial office. It these rules. No less than their former paralegal Jesherel admitted that
applies not only to the decision itself but also to the process by which respondent Atty. Pedro Linsangan came with her and another paralegal
the decision is made. named Moises, to Manila Doctors Hospital several times to convince
SECTION 2. Judges shall ensure that his or her conduct, both in and out complainant to hire their services. This is a far cry from respondents'
of court, maintains and enhances the confidence of the public, the legal claim that they were merely providing free legal advice to the public.
profession, and litigants in the impartiality of the judge and of the Moreover, while respondents deny Jesherel 's connection with their law
judiciary. firm, this was sufficiently rebutted by complainant when he presented
SECTION 4. Judges shall not knowingly, while a proceeding is before or Jesherel's resignation letter as received by respondents' firm. In
could come before them, make any comment that might reasonably be employing paralegals to encourage complainant to file a lawsuit against
expected to affect the outcome of such proceeding or impair the manifest his employers, respondents indirectly solicited legal business and
fairness of the process. Nor shall judges make any comment in public or encouraged the filing of suit.
otherwise that might affect the fair trial of any person or issue.
CANON 4 - PROPRIETY These constitute malpractice which calls for the exercise of the court's
SECTION 2. As a subject of constant public scrutiny, judges must accept disciplinary powers and warrants serious sanctions.
personal restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the The practice of law is a profession and not a business. Lawyers are
ordinary citizen and should do so freely and willingly. In particular, judges reminded to avoid at all times any act that would tend to lessen the
shall conduct themselves in a way that is consistent with the dignity of confidence of the public in the legal profession as a noble calling,
the judicial office. including, among others, the manner by which he makes known his legal
SECTION 6. Judges, like any other Citizen, are entitled to freedom of services.
expression, belief, association and assembly, but in exercising such
rights, they shall always conduct themselves in such a manner as to 2. YES
preserve the dignity of the judicial office and the impartiality and Money collected by a lawyer on a judgment rendered in favor of his client
independence of the judiciary. constitutes trust funds and must be immediately paid over to the
client.51 As he holds such funds as agent or trustee, his failure to pay or
3 )A.C. No. 10557 (Formerly CBD Case No. 07-1962), July 10, 2018 deliver the same to the client after demand constitutes
JERRY M. PALENCIA, Complainant, v. ATTY. PEDRO L. conversion.52 Thus, whenever a lawyer collects money as a result of a
LINSANGAN, ATTY. GERARD M. LINSANGAN, AND ATTY. GLENDA favorable judgment, he must promptly report and account the money
M. LINSANGAN-BINOYA, Respondents. collected to his client.53
FACTS: It is the lawyer's duty to give a prompt and accurate account to his client.
Complainant was an overseas Filipino worker seafarer who was Upon the collection or receipt of property or funds for the benefit of the
seriously injured during work when he fell into the elevator shaft of the client, his duty is to notify the client promptly and, absent a contrary
vessel flying a Cyprus flag. After initial treatment in Singapore, understanding, pay or remit the same to the client, less only proper
complainant was discharged and flown to the Philippines to continue his fees and disbursements, as soon as reasonably possible.54 He is under
medical treatment and rehabilitation. absolute duty to give his client a full, detailed, and accurate account of
While confined at the Manila Doctors Hospital, one "Moises," and later all money and property which has been received and handled by him,
Jesherel L. Millena (Jesherel), paralegals in respondents' law office, and must justify all transactions and dealings concerning them.55 And
approached complainant. They convinced him to engage the services of while he is in possession of the client's funds, he should not commingle
respondents' law office in order to file a suit against his employers for it with his private property or use it for his personal purposes without his
indemnity. After several visits from the paralegals and respondent Atty. client's consent.56
Pedro Linsangan, complainant executed (1) an Attorney-Client Contract, Here, respondents claim that they promptly accounted for the total
and (2) a Special Power of Attorney,6 where he engaged the legal award of US$95,000.00, and after deducting their fees, tendered the
services of respondents and Gurbani & Co., a law firm based in amount of US$20,756.05. Complainant, however, refused to accept the
amount because he contested both the expenses and the separate Jaime, as representative of the Heirs of Deceased Augusto
deduction of attorney's fees by respondents and Gurbani & Co. De Borja, engaged the services of R.R. Mendez & Associates Law
Offices where Atty. Mendez is a lawyer, for the reconveyance of a parcel
We find that while respondents gave prompt notice to complainant of of land. Atty. Mendez demanded P300,000.00 for the titling of a property
their receipt of money collected in the latter's favor, they were amiss in situated in Pateros. Jaime submitted a copy of the receipt of said amount
their duties to give accurate accounting of the amounts due to of money which was acknowledged by Atty. Mendez.
complainant, and to return the money due to client upon demand. However, the complaint for reconveyance was dismissed,
The Attorney-Client Contract between the parties states: "We/I hereby thus, Atty. Mendez filed a notice of appeal. The CA ordered the Heirs of
voluntarily agree and bind ourselves, our heirs and assigns to pay Atty. De Borja to file their Appellant's Brief within forty-five (45) days from
Pedro L. Linsangan and his collaborating Singapore counsels, the sum receipt of the notice. When Jaime received the notice, he inquired with
equivalent to thirty-five [35%] percent of any recovery or settlement Atty. Mendez about the letter, to which Atty. Mendez committed that he
obtained."57 Clearly, the stipulated rate referred to the combined will file the Appellant's Brief as soon as he receives a copy of the notice.
professional fees of both respondents and their collaborating Singapore But, Jaime was surprised to receive a Resolution from the CA
counsel, Gurbani & Co.58 Nevertheless, respondents proceeded to dismissing the appealed case for failure to file Appellant's Brief. He
deduct separate fees on top of the amount already deducted by Gurbani asked Atty. Mendez the reason why they weren't able to file the required
& Co. Complainant contested this deduction and refused to accept the pleading, and he was told that the firm did not receive a copy of the
amount being tendered by respondents. Since a claim for attorney's fees notice which ordered them to file the appellant's brief. Unsatisfied, Jaime
may be asserted either in the very action in which the services of a went to the CA and the Postal Office of Caloocan. He discovered that
lawyer had been rendered, or in a separate action,59respondents, the notice to file appellant's brief was in fact received by one Jennifer
instead of forcibly deducting their share, should have moved for the Lastimosa, a secretary of the firm.
judicial determination and collection of their attorney's fees. The fact Citing loss of trust and confidence due to the dismissal of their
alone that a lawyer has a lien for his attorney's fees on money in his appeal, Jaime terminated the services of Atty. Mendez, and demanded
hands collected for his client does not entitle him to unilaterally the return of the Php300,000.00. Thus, the instant administrative
appropriate his client's money for himself.60 complaint against Atty. Mendez for incompetence and malpractice.
Worse, respondents allegedly kept the money inside the firm's vault for The IBP-CBD ordered Atty. Mendez to submit his Answer to
two years until they were made aware of the disciplinary complaint the complaint. In his Answer, Atty. Mendez insisted that his law office
against them before the IBP-CBD. However, as noted by the IBP-CBD did not receive a copy of the court order to file the appellant's brief. He
in its Report and Recommendation: claimed that even their secretary, Jennifer Lastimosa, cannot recall
[T]he defense of respondents that they kept in their office vault the share having received said order or mail. He claimed that when Jaime informed
of complainant as computed by them in the amount of US$18,132.43, him about the dismissal order, he lost no time in preparing the motion
hence, they forgot the same and remembered it only when they received for reconsideration and the appellant's brief. But before it could be filed,
the Order of this Commission for them to file an Answer to complainant's Jaime already terminated his services as counsel. He also claimed that
Complaint [which is more than 2 years] is rather highly incredible it was unfortunate that his secretary's signature was forged to make it
considering that it involves a substantial amount, the series of appear that she has received the mail.
communications between the parties, and the Civil cases subsequently Atty. Mendez, however, acknowledged the receipt of
filed.61 (Italics in the original.) 300,000.00 as retainer's fees from Jaime. He averred that considering
Even if we give credence to this explanation, it is improper for the lawyer that he had actually rendered professional services to Jaime, he may
to put his client's funds in his personal safe deposit vault.62 Funds refund reasonable portion thereof.
belonging to the client should be deposited in a separate trust account After more than one (1) year, or on June 26, 2013, Atty.
in a bank or trust company of good repute for safekeeping.63 Mendez made partial return of Jaime's money in the amount of
It is apparent from the foregoing that respondents failed to handle their P140,000.00 which was received by Atty. Marie Diane Bolong, Jaime's
client's money with great degree of fidelity. Respondents also showed new counsel.
their lack of good faith when they appropriated for themselves more than The IBP-CBD found Atty. Mendez guilty of negligence, thus,
what is allowed under their contract. They have demonstrated that the violating Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which
payment of their attorney's fees is more important than their fiduciary directs lawyers to serve his client with competence and diligence. It
and faithful duty of accounting and returning what is rightfully due to their recommended that Atty. Mendez be suspended from the practice of law
client. More, they also failed to observe proper safekeeping of their for a period of six (6) months with a warning that a repetition of the same
client's money. Respondents violated the trust reposed in them, and infraction will result in the imposition of a more severe penalty.
demonstrated their lack of integrity and moral The IBP-Board of Governors resolved to adopt and approve
soundness.64 Respondents' flagrant and malicious refusal to comply with modification the report and recommendation of the IBP-CBD. It
with the CPR amounts to gross misconduct.65 This warrants the further recommended that Atty. Mendez be ordered to return to Jaime
imposition of disciplinary sanctions.66 the remaining amount of One Hundred Sixty Thousand Pesos
PENALTY: SUSPENSION OF 2 YEARS (P160,000.00).
We emphasize that this penalty of two years of suspension corresponds ISSUE:
to the compounded infractions of the violations of Rule 1.03, Rule 2.03, 1. Whether or not Atty. Mendez is guilty of negligence for
Canon 3, Canon 16, Rule 16.01, and Rule 16.03 of the CPR: (1) the failing to do his duty to his client.
penalty of suspension of one year is imposed for the violation of the RULING:
proscription on ambulance chasing; and (2) the penalty of one year 1. Yes. In the instant case, Atty. Mendez' guilt as to his failure
suspension for gross misconduct consisting in the failure or refusal, to do his duty to his client is undisputed. His conduct relative to the non-
despite demand, of a lawyer to account for and return money or property filing of the appellant's brief falls below the standards exacted upon
belonging to a client. lawyers on dedication and commitment to their client's cause. Failure to
To reiterate, there is no basis, and would even be unjust under the file the brief within the reglementary period despite notice certainly
circumstances, to reduce the penalty imposed on respondents. Quite the constitutes inexcusable negligence, more so if the failure resulted in the
contrary, respondents should find themselves so fortunate that for all dismissal of the appeal, as in this case. As a lawyer, it is expected of him
their exploits, including their ambulance chasing, this Court would only to make certain that the appeal brief was filed on time. Clearly, his failure
impose a two-year suspension. to do so is tantamount to negligence which is contrary to the mandate
Finally, we note that this Court, in G.R. No. 205088, has already affirmed prescribed in Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional
the CA's ruling as to the issue of how much respondents can collect from Responsibility enjoining lawyers not to neglect a legal matter entrusted
complainant as attorney's fees. This judgment has long attained finality to him.
and, in fact, appears to be set for execution. For this reason, we do not The court cannot give credence to Atty. Mendez' lame excuse
adopt the IBP Board of Governors' recommendation for respondents to that they did not receive the notice to file the appellant's brief, or that
return to complainant 5% of the amount assessed. The principle of their secretary cannot recall receiving the notice. Such bare allegation
immutability of judgments behooves us from making any further of non-receipt of notice as against the registry return card, the
statements on this particular issue postmaster's record books and the certification issued by the Caloocan
Central Post Office showing receipt of the notice by Jennifer Lastimosa,
4) DE BORJA v. ATTY. MENDEZ the firm's secretary, the latter deserves more weight.
FACTS: The court alsofound Atty. Mendez guilty of violating Rule
16.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which requires a
lawyer to account for all the money received from the client and . Rule The Commission also found that Atty. Apoya authored a fake decision.
16.03 of the Code which obligates a lawyer to deliver the client's funds It opined that the said decision was fake because it bore the same format
and property when due or upon demand. Moreover, considering it took and grammatical errors as that of the petition prepared by Atty. Apoya.
more than a year before Atty. Mendez' made an initiative to return the The Commission disregarded the defense of Atty. Apoya that it was
money albeit partial only, the same cannot be said to be prompt or Taday's parents who made the fake decision. It stressed that any
immediate return of the money, rather, he was already in delay for a reasonable mind would know that a fake decision would not benefit
considerable period of time in returning his client's money. Notably, it Taday. Moreover, Taday's parents continuously paid the legal fees of
must be pointed out that Atty. Mendez not only failed to return the money Atty. Apoya, which would show their lack of intent to create the fabricated
immediately, but he also failed to return the whole amount of decision.
P300,000.00. He was able to return the amount of P140,000.00 only, The Commission further underscored that when Atty. Apoya was
thus, there is still a remaining balance of P160,000.00. While, Atty. confronted with the fake decision, he filed an urgent motion to withdraw
Mendez insisted that the remaining balance was used for the titling of the petition before RTC Branch 131. It highlighted that when the new
the property and his daily needs, there was still no proper accounting as counsel of Taday questioned Atty. Apoya regarding these irregularities,
to when, where and how the remaining balance was specifically utilized. he did not respond.
Clearly, these acts constitute violations of Atty. Mendez' professional
obligations under Canon 16 of the CPR which mandates lawyers to hold Based on these circumstances, the Commission concluded that the fake
in trust and account all moneys and properties of his client that may decision originated from Atty. Apoya and that he violated Rules 1.01 and
come into his possession. 1.02, Canon I of the Code. It recommended the penalty of suspension
WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent ATTY. of two (2) years from the practice of law.
RAMON R. MENDEZ, JR. is found GUILTY of violating Rules 16.01 and In its Resolution No. XXI-2015-10012 dated January 31, 2015, the IBP
16.03 of Canon 16, and Rule 18.03 of Canon 18 of the Code of Board of Governors (Board) modified the recommended penalty of two
Professional Responsibility. He is SUSPENDED from the practice of (2) years suspension to a penalty of disbarment.
law for a period of one (1) year, effective upon receipt of this Decision, ISSUE:
with a stem warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be Is Atty. Apoya guilty of violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Rule 1.02 of
dealt with more severely. the Code of Professional Responsibility?
Atty. Mendez is, likewise, ORDERED to RETURN to RULING OF THE COURT:
complainant Jaime S. De Borja the remaining balance of P160,000.00 Yes, Atty. Apoya guilty of violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Rule 1.02
with legal interest, if it is still unpaid, within ninety (90) days from the of the Code of Professional Responsibility. In addition, he also violated
finality of this Decision. Failure to comply with this directive will merit the Section 2, Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
imposition of the more severe penalty, which this Court shall impose The Court adopts the findings of the Commission and agrees with the
based on the complainant's motion with notice duly furnished to Atty. recommendation of the IBP Board to disbar Atty. Apoya.
Mendez. It bears stressing that membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with
conditions. A lawyer has the privilege and right to practice law during
5) LEAH B. TADAY V. ATTY. DIONISIO B. APOYA, JR., - A.C. NO. good behavior and can only be deprived of it for misconduct ascertained
11981, JULY 03, 2018 and declared by judgment of the court after opportunity to be heard has
CHARGES: violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Rule 1.02 of the Code afforded him. Without invading any constitutional privilege or right, and
of Professional Responsibility. attorney's right to practice law may be resolved by a proceeding to
FACTS: suspend or disbar him, based on conduct rendering him unfit to hold a
Leah B. Taday, an overseas Filipino worker (OFW) staying in Norway, license or to exercise the duties and responsibilities of an attomey. In
asked her parents in the Philippines, Virgilio and Natividad Taday, to disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the Taday, and
seek legal services for the nullification of her marriage. Taday's parents for the court to exercise its disciplinary powers, the case against the Atty.
found Atty. Apoya and contracted his legal services. On April 17, 2011, Apoya must be established by clear, convincing and satisfactory proof.
a Retainer Agreement was executed between Atty. Apoya and Taday's In this case, the Court finds that Atty. Apoya violated Canon 1, Rules
parents indicating that Atty. Apoya's acceptance fee was P140,000.00, 1.01 and 1.02 of the Code and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
to be paid on a staggered basis. Atty. Apoya notarized the petition even though the affiant was not
According to Taday, Atty. Apoya was informed that she was staying in present.
Norway and Atty. Apoya assured her that this would not be an issue as Notarization is not an empty, meaningless and routinary act. It is imbued
he can find ways to push for the resolution of the case despite her with public interest and only those who are qualified and authorized may
absence. act as notaries public.18 Notarization converts a private document to a
Atty. Apoya drafted a Petition for Annulment of Marriage3 (petition) public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof
dated April 20, 2011, which he allegedly sent to Taday for her signature. of its authenticity. A notarial document is, by law, entitled to full faith and
After notarizing the petition, Atty. Apoya filed it before the Regional Trial credit upon its face. For this reason, notaries public must observe with
Court of Caloocan City (RTC). The case was then raffled to Branch 131, utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of their duties.
docketed as Civil Case No. C-22813. The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice provides that a notary public should
On November 17, 2011, while Taday was on vacation in the Philippines, not notarize a document unless the signatory to the document personally
Atty. Apoya delivered a Decision dated November 16, 2011 which appeared before the notary public at the time of the notarization, and
granted the annulment of Taday's marriage. The said decision was personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified through
promulgated by a certain Judge Ma. Eliza Becamon-Angeles of RTC competent evidence of identity. At the time of notarization, the signatory
Branch 162. Taday became suspicious as the said decision came from shall sign or affix with a thumb or other mark in the notary public's
a different branch presided by a different judge where the case was notarial register. The purpose of these requirements is to enable the
originally filed. Taday's family became skeptical as the said decision notary public to verify the genuineness of the signature and to ascertain
seemed to come too soon and was poorly crafted. that the document is the signatory's free act and deed. If the signatory is
Confused with the turn of events, verifications were made to ascertain not acting on his or her own free will, a notary public is mandated to
the validity of the decision. Taday discovered that both Branch 162 and refuse to perform a notarial act. A notary public is also prohibited from
Judge Ma. Eliza Becamon-Angeles do not exist in the RTC. Frustrated affixing an official signature or seal on a notarial certificate that is
with the incident, Taday, through her parents, sought the withdrawal of incomplete.
Atty. Apoya as her counsel from the case. In this case, on April 20, 2011, Atty. Apoya notarized the verification and
However, instead of withdrawing as counsel, Atty. Apoya filed an urgent certification of non forum shopping in the petition filed before RTC
motion to withdraw the petition. In its Order dated June 25, 2012, the Branch 131 supposedly executed by Taday as the affiant. At that time,
RTC Branch 131 granted the said motion and the case was dropped however, complaint was not in the Philippines because she was still in
from the civil docket of the court. Norway working as an OFW. Undoubtedly, Atty. Apoya violated the
IBP REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION notarial rules when he notarized a document without the personal
In its Report and Recommendation, the IBP Commission on Bar presence of the affiant.
Discipline (Commission) found that Atty. Apoya committed several Atty. Apoya gave a flimsy excuse that he was not informed that Taday
violations of the Code, particularly, Rules 1.01, 1.02 and Canon 1. The was not in the Philippines when he notarized the verification and
Commission held that Atty. Apoya notarized the Verification and certification on non forum shopping. Assuming arguendo that this is true,
Certification of Non Forum Shopping of the petition, even though Taday he should have refrained from notarizing such document until Taday
was not personally present as she was then in Norway. personally appear before him. In addition, Atty. Apoya should have
explained to Taday and her parents that he can only notarize and file the CANON 1 - A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the
petition before the court once Taday returns to the Philippines. land and promote respect for law and for legal processes.
Lamentably, instead of informing his client about the rules of RULE 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
notarization, Atty. Apoya proceeded with the notarization of the deceitful conduct.
document and gave a false assurance that the case of Taday would still RULE 1.02 A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at
continue even in her absence. defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system.
In Gaddi v. Atty. Velasco, the Court held that for notarizing a document Atty. Apoya also violated Section 2, Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on
without ascertaining the identity and voluntariness of the signatory to the Notarial Practice, which states that:
document, for affixing his signature in an incomplete notarial certificate, SECTION 2. Prohibitions. - x x x
and for dishonesty in his pleadings, the lawyer failed to discharge his (b) A person shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as
duties as notary public and breached Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the signatory to the instrument or document –
Code. (1) is not in the notary's presence personally at the time of the
Here, Atty. Apoya notarized the verification and certification of non forum notarization; and
shopping even though Taday did not personally appear before him. Not (2) is not personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified by
only did he violate the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, he also violated the notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by
Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code. these Rules.
Atty. Apoya authored a fake decision and delivered it to his client A member of the Bar may be penalized, even disbarred or suspended
Aside from improperly notarizing a petition, Atty. Apoya committed an from his office as an attorney, for violation of the lawyer's oath and/or for
even graver transgression by drafting a fake decision and delivering it to breach of the ethics of the legal profession as embodied in the Code.
his client in guise of a genuine decision. For the practice of law is a profession, a form of public trust, the
In this case, Atty. Apoya delivered a decision dated November 16, 2011, performance of which is entrusted to those who are qualified and who
to Taday, which purportedly granted the petition for annulment of possess good moral character. The appropriate penalty for an errant
marriage in her favor. This decision is marred by numerous and serious lawyer depends on the exercise of sound judicial discretion based on
irregularities that point to Atty. Apoya as the author thereof. the surrounding facts.
First, the decision came from a certain Judge Ma. Eliza Becamon- In this case, Atty. Apoya committed unlawful, dishonest, immoral and
Angeles of RTC Branch 162. Yet, a verification from the RTC revealed deceitful conduct, and lessened the confidence of the public in the legal
that the said judge and the branch were non-existent. system. Instead of being an advocate of justice, he became a perpetrator
Second, the fake decision is starkly the same as the petition prepared of injustice. His reprehensible acts do not merit him to remain in the rolls
and filed by Atty. Apoya. A reading of the fake decision shows that the of the legal profession. Thus, the ultimate penalty of disbarment must be
statement of facts, issues and the rationale therein are strikingly similar, imposed upon him.
if not exactly alike, with the petition. Even the grammatical errors in both
documents are similar. The fake decision was so poorly crafted because 6) JULIETA DIMAYUGA VS. ATTY. VIVIAN G. RUBIA; A.C. NO. 8854,
it merely copied the petition filed by Atty. Apoya. Moreover, the font and TIJAM
spacing in the caption of the petition and the fake decision are one and CHARGE: DISBARMENT
the same. Glaringly, Atty. Apoya did not give any credible explanation CANONS/ LAWS VIOLATED
regarding the similarity of the fake decision and the petition he drafted. Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court – Willful disobedience
Third, when Atty. Apoya was confronted by Taday and her parents about CANON 1 - a lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws, and
the fake decision, Atty. Apoya immediately filed an urgent motion to promote respect for law and legal processes.
withdraw the petition before RTC Branch 131. Atty. Apoya provided a Rule 15.07 - A lawyer shall impress upon his client compliance with the
poor excuse that he merely prepared the said motion but did not file it. laws and the principles of fairness.
However, it is clear from the order dated June 25, 2012 of RTC Branch STATEMENT OF FACTS
131 that the motion was filed by Atty. Apoya and the case was indeed Julieta Dimayuga averred that she and her family engaged respondent's
withdrawn. legal services to effect the transfer of their deceased father's property to
Lastly, when Taday's case was dropped from the civil docket of RTC them, which services were supposed to include preparation,
Branch 131 at the instance of Atty. Apoya, Taday and her parents sought notarization, and processing of the transfer document and payment of
the assistance of another lawyer. Atty. Verzosa, through a letter dated taxes and other fees for such transfer. Atty. Rubia prepared a document
February 26, 2013, confronted Atty. Apoya regarding the payment of denominated as Amended Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Waiver
attorney's fees and the fake decision which Atty. Apoya gave to Taday. of Rights, which they signed on June 17, 2002. However, the transfer
However, Atty. Apoya neither answered nor denied the allegation of did not happen soon thereafter. Her family learned that respondent paid
Taday's new counsel. the transfer tax only on October 25, 2007; the donor's tax was paid on
In his last ditch attempt to escape liability, Atty. Apoya argued that the April 2, 2007; and Atty. Rubia only entered the Amended Extrajudicial
fake decision was drafted by Taday's parents. The Court finds this Settlement of Estate with Waiver of Rights with the Register of Deeds of
completely absurd. On November 17, 2011, Taday's parents had just Davao del Sur only on November 28, 2007 and re-entered on December
paid Atty. Apoya's staggering acceptance fee as evidenced by a 1, 2008. It is complainant's theory that respondent may have
Receipt.24 On the other hand, the fake decision was dated November misappropriated the money.
16, 2011. Thus, it is illogical for Taday's parents to draft a fake decision Complainant also alleged that in June 2003, she also sought
when they regularly paid for the services of Atty. Apoya to legally and respondent's legal services for the purchase of a real property. However,
rightfully represent their daughter's case. As opined by the Commission, contrary to her representation that the property shall be registered in
any reasonable mind would know that a fake decision would not benefit their names after one month, the title was not transferred to them. The
Taday, thus, Taday's parents have nothing to gain from it. Deed of Absolute Sale dated June 27, 2003 for the purchase of a 600-
Based on the foregoing circumstances, the Court concludes that Atty. square meter parcel of land prepared by respondent, was covered by a
Apoya indeed authored the fake decision in order to deceive Taday that Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) No. 00394433. Being a
he won the legal battle in her favor. Fortunately, Taday was prudent in land covered by CLOA, it shall not be sold, transferred or conveyed
protecting her rights and discovered that the decision given to her by except through hereditary succession, or to the Government, or to the
Atty. Apoya was fake. Surely, Atty. Apoya's acts resulted to Taday's Land Bank of the Philippines, or to other qualified beneficiaries for a
injuries and has tarnished the noble image of legal profession. period often (10) years. Thus, on June 27, 2003, the sale of the property
PROPER PENALTY was still prohibited.
The Court finds that Taday has established by clear, convincing and In a Resolution dated January 31, 2011, the Court required the
satisfactory evidence that: (1) Atty. Apoya notarized the verification and respondent to comment on the complaint within ten days from notice.
certification of non forum shopping of the petition without the personal Atty moved for an extension of time to file her comment, which was
presence of Taday; (2) Atty. Apoya is the author of the fake decision to granted by the Court. The same happened repeatedly until 2016 thus
deceive Taday that her petition for annulment of marriage was granted; the Court also required her to show cause why she should not be
and (3) Atty. Apoya retaliated against Taday for confronting him with the disciplinarily dealt with or held in contempt for such failure and, again
fake decision by withdrawing the petition in the court, resulting into the ordered her to comply with the January 31, 2016 Resolution.
dropping of the case from the civil docket of the court. These acts On December 27, 2016, respondent complied with the show cause
constitute violations of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Rule 1.02 of the Code, order, explaining that she suffered from trauma and stress due to the
to wit: previous cases filed against her and also that she had undergone life-
threatening situations due to some high-profile cases that she handled,
hence, her failure to file her comment. However to this date Atty. Rubia commissioned as a notary public for a period of three (3) years and her
still failed to file her comment to the Complaint. notarial commission, if currently existing, is hereby REVOKED.
ISSUES:
1. Whether Atty. Rubia shall be held administratively liable 7) ATTY. JEROME NORMAN L. TACORDA AND LETICIA RODRIGO-
for repeated failure to file a comment. DUMDUM VERSUS JUDGE PERLA V. CABRERA-FALLER,
EXECUTIVE JUDGE, AND OPHELIA G. SULUEN, OFFICER-IN-
2. Whether Atty. Rubia shall be held administratively liable CHARGE/LEGAL RESEARCHER II, BOTH OF BRANCH 90,
for the delay in executing her services. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, DASMARIÑAS CITY, CAVITE –
TOPIC: Gross Ignorance of the Law, Gross Inefficiency, Delay in the
3. Whether Atty. Rubia shall be held administratively liable Administration of Justice, and Impropriety (Sec. 5, Canon 6 of NCJC)
for notarizing the deed of sale. STATEMENT OF FACTS:
A civil case involving Souses Dumdum was raffled to the sala of Judge
RULING Cabrera-Faller when Judge Felicen inhibited himself from the case
1. Yes, this Court cannot, anymore, accept respondent's which was already set for pre-trial. As the last event in the court of origin
excuses for such defiance, i.e., trauma, stress, and life- was for pre-trial, the case was set for pre-trial on 14 and 29 August 2013.
threatening situations, considering that she was able to file However, it was found out that the case had already been referred for
pleadings stating such explanation but still failed to file the mediation, prompting the trial court to suspend the proceedings until
required comment. Nothing can be concluded therefrom but receipt of the Mediator's Report. The Mediator's Report was received on
18 September 2013. Meanwhile, the plaintiffs in the civil case belatedly
that respondent's acts or inaction for that matter, were
filed their Pre-Trial Brief on 27 August 2013, which prompted the
deliberate and manipulating, which unreasonably delay this
Spouses Dumdum, through their lawyer Atty. Tacorda, to file a Motion
Court's action on the case. These acts constitute willful to Expunge the Pre-Trial Brief Submitted by the Plaintiffs with
disobedience of the lawful orders of this Court, which, not only Manifestation on 3 September 2013.
works against her case as she is now deemed to have waived On 31 July 2015, almost two years after the Motion was filed, Judge
the filing of her comment, but more importantly is in itself a Cabrera-Faller denied the motion and set the case for pre-trial
sufficient cause for suspension or disbarment pursuant to conference on 8 October 2015. This, however, was rescheduled to 18
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. Such attitude November 2015, because Judge Cabrera-Faller was hospitalized on 8
constitutes utter disrespect to the judicial institution. "A Court's October 2015.
Resolution is not to be construed as a mere request, nor The delay attendant in resolving the motion prompted Atty. Tacorda and
should it be complied with partially, inadequately, or Rodrigo-Dumdum to file this complaint against Judge Cabrera-Faller
selectively." and Suluen, the Officer-in-Charge (OIC)/Legal Researcher II, for the
latter's failure to call the attention of Judge Cabrera-Faller on the delay.
2. No, we find that the allegations of delay in the performance of In a Comment filed by Judge Cabrera-Faller and Suluen, they argue that
duty and misappropriation of funds were not sufficiently there was (1) no ignorance of the law as the case was immediately acted
upon after receipt of the records; (2) no gross inefficiency as the
substantiated. In this case, complainant alleged that she and
resetting of the hearings was part of the continuing court events and
her family gave respondent ₱150,000 on June 17, 2002,
incidents; and (3) no delay in the administration of justice, as the case
inclusive of respondent's attorneys fees and the legal fees was merely transferred to them and had gone through mediation for
necessary for the transfer of the property. Despite that, possible settlement, which unfortunately had failed. Judge Cabrera-
respondent did not pay the transfer tax and donor's tax until Faller and Suluen also allege that the complaint is baseless and illusory,
2007. However, there is nothing on the records, except for designed to disqualify Judge Cabrera-Faller from the proceedings and
complainant's bare allegation, which proves that such amount other cases of Atty. Tacorda which are pending before her.
was indeed given to respondent on the claimed date. Hence, STATEMENT OF THE CASE:
We cannot judiciously rule on the alleged delay and Tacorda et al. filed an administrative complaint against Judge Cabrera-
misappropriation without relying upon assumptions, surmises, Faller and Suluen, charging them of Gross Ignorance of the Law, Gross
and conjectures. Inefficiency, Delay in the Administration of Justice, and Impropriety.
The OCA, upon evaluation of the complaint, found that the allegation of
3. Yes, What is apparent in the Complaint, however, is the fact gross ignorance of the law against Judge Cabrera-Faller and Suluen
that respondent prepared and notarized a deed of sale, was bereft of any evidence, since no act or demeanor committed was
covering a parcel of land, which was evidently prohibited to be alleged that would directly constitute impropriety in the performance of
sold, transferred, or conveyed under Republic Act (R.A.) No. their official functions and as private individuals.
However, the OCA found that Judge Cabrera-Faller was guilty of gross
6657.
inefficiency and delay in the administration of justice, because the trial
judge unreasonably and inexcusably failed to act from 22 May 2013,
Time and again, We have held that a lawyer's conduct ought to and must
when the case was set for pre-trial, to 31 July 2015, when the motion to
always be scrupulously observant of the law and ethics. CANON 1 of
expunge was denied, which was in clear violation of the 1987
the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) provides that a lawyer
Constitution and the Code of Judicial Ethics.
shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws, and promote respect for
As against Suluen, the OCA found that there was no evidence on record
law and legal processes. Also, Rule 15.07 thereof mandates a lawyer to
to substantiate the charges against her and cleared her of administrative
impress upon his client compliance with the laws and principles of
liability. The responsibility to resolve the motion was with the judge and
fairness. Indeed, in preparing and notarizing a deed of sale within the
not with the OIC/Legal Researcher.
prohibited period to sell the subject property under the law, respondent
Thus, OCA recommended the imposition of a fine in the amount of
assisted, if not led, the contracting parties, who relied on her knowledge
Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) payable within thirty (30) days
of the law being their lawyer, to an act constitutive of a blatant disregard
from the receipt of notice with a warning that a commission of the same
for or defiance of the law.
or similar offense shall be dealt with more severity, and the dismissal of
Moreover, respondent likewise displayed lack of respect and made a
the charges against Suluen for lack of merit.
mockery of the solemnity of the oath in an Acknowledgment as her act
ISSUE:
of notarizing such illegal document entitled it full faith and credit upon its
1. Whether or not there is Gross Ignorance of the Law.
face, when it obviously does not deserve such entitlement, considering
its illegality due to the prohibition above-cited.
2. Whether or not there is Impropriety.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, Atty. Vivian G. Rubia is
found GUILTY of violating Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court,
3. Whether or not there is Gross Inefficiency and Delay in the
CANON 1 and Rule 15.07 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
Administration of Justice.
and the Rules on Notarial Practice. Accordingly, she
is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3) years effective
4. Whether or not Judge Cabrera-Faller can still be suspended
immediately with a STERN WARNING that future infractions shall be
from office.
dealt with more severely. She is likewise DISQUALIFIED from being
RULING:
1. No. To be held liable for gross ignorance of the law, it must be shown which she was suspended for a period of one month and one day with a
that the error must be so gross and patent as to produce an inference of warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall warrant a more
bad faith. Moreover, the acts complained of must not only be contrary to severe penalty.
existing law and jurisprudence, but should also be motivated by bad In this case, while Suluen cannot be held liable for the charges against
faith, fraud, dishonesty, and corruption. In this case, there was no her, the complaint against Judge Cabrera-Faller for unreasonable delay
allegation or mention of any bad faith, fraud, dishonesty, and corruption is meritorious. In view of the foregoing, the fine of Twenty Thousand
committed by Judge Cabrera-Faller or Suluen. Tacorda et al. also failed Pesos (P20,000.00) shall be deducted from whatever amounts may still
to allege any gross and patent ignorance of the law which would indicate be due Judge Cabrera-Faller.
any bad faith. DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
2. No. There are no allegations as to specific acts which would constitute WHEREFORE, we find Judge Perla V. Cabrera-Faller of Branch 90,
impropriety on the part of Judge Cabrera-Faller or Suluen, either in the Regional Trial Court, Dasmariñas City, Cavite GUILTY of Gross
course of the performance of their official functions or as private Inefficiency and Delay in the Administration of Justice and impose on
individuals. Necessarily, the complaint for gross ignorance of the law her a FINE of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) which shall be
and impropriety must fail. deducted from whatever amounts may still be due her.
3. Yes. There is merit in the complaint for gross inefficiency and delay in The charges against Ophelia G. Suluen, Officer-in-Charge/Legal
the administration of justice against Judge Cabrera-Faller when she Researcher II of Branch 90, Regional Trial Court, Dasmariñas City,
failed to promptly act on the motion filed by the Spouses Dumdum. On Cavite are hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.
the other hand, as against Suluen, the charges must be dismissed. The
responsibility of acting and resolving a pending matter or incident before 8) CELESTINO MALECDAN VS ATTY. SIMPSON T. BALDO; AC NO
a court rests primarily on the judge, and Suluen, who was merely an 12121; JUNE 27, 2018
OIC/Legal Researcher, could not be held responsible for the delay FACTS
incurred by the respondent judge. Based on the facts on record, only Before this Court is an administrative complaint filed with the Office of
Judge Cabrera-Faller may be held liable for the delay in the disposition the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Baguio-Benguet Chapter (IBP
of cases. Baguio-Benguet Chapter) by Complainant Celestino Malecdan
Delay in the disposition of cases amounts to a denial of justice, which (Malecdan) against Respondent Atty. Simpson T. Baldo (Atty. Baldo),
brings the court into disrepute, and ultimately erodes public faith and for the latter's alleged violation of Section 9 of Presidential Decree 1508
confidence in the Judiciary. Judges are therefore called upon to exercise (P.D. 1508), otherwise known as the Katarungang PambarangayLaw,
the utmost diligence and dedication in the performance of their duties. which prohibits the participation of lawyers in the proceedings before
More particularly, trial judges are expected to act with dispatch and the Lupon.
dispose of the court's business promptly and to decide cases within the Malecdan filed a letter of complaint for Estafa, Breach of Contract and
required periods. The main objective of every judge, particularly trial Damages against spouses James and Josephine Baldo, before
judges, should be to avoid delays, or if it cannot be totally avoided, to the Lupon of Barangay Pico in La Trinidad, Benguet.
hold them to the minimum and to repudiate manifestly dilatory tactics. Atty. Baldo appeared as counsel of spouses Baldo during the hearing
The Constitution clearly provides that all lower courts should decide or on the subject complaint before the Punong Barangay. Malecdan filed a
resolve cases or matters within three months from the date of Complaint-Affidavit (Complaint) before the IBP Baguio-Benguet Chapter
submission. Moreover, Section 5, Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial praying that proper sanctions be imposed on Atty. Baldo for violating
Conduct provides: Section 9 of P.D. 1508.
Sec. 5. Judges shall perform all judicial duties, including the delivery of On August 20, 2014, the Committee on Ethics of the IBP Baguio-
reserved decisions, efficiently, fairly and with reasonable promptness. Benguet Chapter furnished Atty. Baldo with a copy of the complaint and
The Court has, time and again, reminded judges to decide cases set the case for a conciliation conference on September 12, 2014. On
promptly and expeditiously under the time-honored principle that justice September 15, 2014, the Complaint was endorsed to the Committee on
delayed is justice denied. More specifically, presiding judges must Bar Discipline-IBP (CBD-IBP) by the Committee on Ethics of IBP
endeavor to act promptly on all motions and interlocutory matters Baguio-Benguet Chapter after the parties failed to agree on a
pending before their courts. To repeat, trial court judges, who serve as settlement.
the frontline officials of the judiciary, are expected to act at all times with On January 14, 2015, the CBD-IBP issued a Notice setting the
efficiency and probity. mandatory conference/hearing of the subject complaint. Malecdan filed
In this case, Judge Cabrera-Faller failed to meet the expectation of his Mandatory Conference Brief. The mandatory conference of the case
promptness and efficiency that is required of a trial court judge. She was rescheduled to March 24, 2015 after Atty. Baldo failed to attend the
failed to act on the Motion to Expunge the Pre-Trial Brief for almost two same.
years, which is a clear delay in the administration of justice. Failure to
decide cases and other matters within the reglementary period In his Answer, Atty. Baldo admitted that he was present during the
constitutes gross inefficiency which warrants the imposition of proceedings before the Punong Barangay. He explained that he was
administrative sanctions. permitted by the parties to participate in the said hearing.
Judge Cabrera-Faller failed to offer any satisfactory reason to explain On March 31, 2015, Malecdan filed his Verified Supplemental Complaint
the reason for this delay. The fact that the case was re-raffled to her sala Affidavit, wherein he insisted that he vehemently objected to the
or that the case was referred to mediation is hardly an excuse for her presence of Atty. Baldo during the proceedings before the Punong
inaction for almost two years. In fact, the Mediator's Report was received Barangay.
on 18 September 2013 but Judge Cabrera-Faller denied the motion of After due proceedings, Investigating Commissioner Robles rendered a
the Spouses Dumdum only on 31 July 2015. This is clearly an Report and Recommendation, recommending that Atty. Baldo be given
unreasonable delay for which Judge Cabrera-Faller should be held a warning. Commissioner Robles found that the language of
administratively liable. the Katarungang Pambarangay Law is not that definite as to
4. No. Undue delay in rendering a decision or order is considered a less unqualifiedly bar lawyers from appearing before the Lupon, nor is the
serious offense which is punishable by: (1) Suspension from office language that clear on the sanction imposable for such an appearance.
without salary and other benefits for not less than one (1) nor more than On June 20, 2015, the IBP Board of Governors passed a
three (3) months; or (2) A fine of more than P10,000.00 but not Resolution reversing and setting aside the Report and Recommendation
exceeding P20,000.00. of the Investigating Commissioner and instead recommended that Atty.
Baldo be reprimanded.
In this case, the delay in resolving the motion was for almost two years. ISSUE
Based on this period of delay, a fine of Twenty Thousand Pesos Whether or not Atty. Baldo should be held administratively liable
(P20,000.00) is appropriate. RULING
However, Judge Cabrera-Faller has already been dismissed from the Yes. Section 9 of P.D. 1508 mandates personal confrontation of the
service in Marcos v. Cabrera-Faller for gross ignorance of the law and parties because: "x x x a personal confrontation between the parties
for violating Rule 1.01 and Rule 3.01, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial without the intervention of a counsel or representative would
Conduct. Subsequently, she was found guilty of gross ignorance of the generate spontaneity and a favorable disposition to amicable
law and gross misconduct constituting violations of the Code of Judicial settlement on the part of the disputants. In other words, the said
Conduct in Office of the Court Administrator v. Cabrera-Faller, where procedure is deemed conducive to the successful resolution of the
she was fined in the amount of P80,000.00. In the same case, Suluen dispute at the barangay level." x x x x
was found by the Court to have committed simple neglect of duty for
"To ensure compliance with the requirement of personal is guilty of violating Section 1 (b) (7), Rule XI of the 2004 Rules on
confrontation between the parties, and thereby, the effectiveness Notarial Practice (2004 Notarial Rules). The Investigating Commissioner
of the barangay conciliation proceedings as a mode of dispute found that respondent was not aware of the execution and notarization
resolution, the above-quoted provision is couched in mandatory of the subject deed, as he was able to establish that the signature affixed
language. Moreover, pursuant to the familiar maxim in statutory on the subject deed was not his by virtue of the specimen signature that
construction dictating that 'expressio unius est exclusio alterius', the he provided in his Answer. However, the IBP Board of Governors
express exceptions made regarding minors and incompetents must be reversed the recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner, and
construed as exclusive of all others not mentioned."24 (Emphasis accordingly, imposed the penalty of suspension from the practice of law
supplied) for a period of two (2) years, as well as disqualification from being
Atty. Baldo's violation of P.D. 1508 thus falls squarely within the commissioned as a notary public for the same period. It likewise directed
prohibition of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional the revocation of his current notarial commission, if any. The IBP Board
Responsibility (CPR), which provides: of Governors observed that while Atty. Agcaoili provided his specimen
CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY signature in his Answer, he failed to substantiate its genuineness and
THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND authenticity, given that he did not submit a copy of his signature
LEGAL PROCESSES. appearing in the records of the Office of the Clerk of Court or any other
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or official document containing the same specimen signature. As such, the
deceitful conduct. probative value of the subject deed containing his notarization, as well
Canon 1 clearly mandates the obedience of every lawyer to laws and as the certifications from the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court
legal processes. A lawyer, to the best of his ability, is expected to respect (RTC) of Quezon City that he was not a commissioned notary public in
and abide by the law: and thus, avoid any act or omission that is contrary 2011 and 2012, stands.
to the same. A lawyer's personal deference to the law not only speaks ISSUE:
of his character but it also inspires the public to likewise respect and Whether or not whether or not Atty. Agcaoili should be held
obey the law. Rule 1.01, on the other hand, states the norm of conduct administratively liable.
to be observed by all lawyers. Any act or omission that is contrary to, or RULING:
prohibited or unauthorized by, or in defiance of, disobedient to, or Yes, it is settled that "notarization is not an empty, meaningless routinary
disregards the law is unlawful7 Unlawful conduct does not necessarily act, but one invested with substantive public interest. Notarization
imply the element of criminality although the concept is broad enough to converts a private document into a public document, making it
include such element. admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. Thus, a
Here, Atty. Baldo admitted that he appeared and participated in the notarized document is, by law, entitled to full faith and credit upon its
proceedings before the Punong Barangay in violation of Section 9 of face. In this light, Section 2 (b), Rule IV of the 2004 Notarial Rules
P.D. 1508. Atty. Baldo therefore violated Rule 1.01 of the CPR in requires a duly-commissioned notary public to perform a notarial act
connection with Section 9 of P.D. 1508 when he appeared as counsel only if the person involved as signatory to the instrument or
for spouses James and Josephine Baldo in a hearing before the Punong document is: (a) in the notary's presence personally at the time of
Barangay. the notarization; and (b) personally known to the notary public or
WHEREFORE, the Court finds Atty. Simpson T. Baldo LIABLE for otherwise identified by the notary public through competent evidence of
violation of Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional identity as defined by these Rules.[ The purpose of this requirement is
Responsibility and he is hereby REPRIMANDED with a stem warning to enable the notary public to verify the genuineness of the signature of
that a repetition of the same or similar act would be dealt with more the acknowledging party and to ascertain that the document is the
severely. party's free act and deed.[
In the realm of legal ethics, a breach of the aforesaid provision of the
9) NICANOR D. TRIOL VERSUS ATTY. DELFIN R. AGCAOILI, JR. 2004 Notarial Rules would also constitute a violation of the Code of
MANUEL L. – A.C. NO. 12011, JUNE 26, 2018, J. PERLAS- Professional Responsibility (CPR), considering that an erring lawyer
BERNABE who is found to be remiss in his functions as a notary public is
TOPIC considered to have violated his oath as a lawyer as well. He does not
Legal Ethics – Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 10, Rule 10.01 only fail to fulfill his solemn oath of upholding and obeying the law and
CANON 1 – A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the its legal processes, but he also commits an act of falsehood and
land and promote respect for law and legal processes. engages in an unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful conduct. Thus, Rule
Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral 1.01, Canon 1 and Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the CPR.
or deceitful conduct. In this case, Atty. Agcaoili indeed violated the 2004 Notarial Rules when
CANON 10 – A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court. he notarized the subject deed without Nicanor Triol and Grace
Rule 10.01 — A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the personally appearing before him, much more without the requisite
doing of any in court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled notarial commission in 2011. Apart from Atty Agcaoili’s bare denials and
by any artifice. unsubstantiated defense of forgery, he failed to rebut complainant's
STATEMENT OF FACTS: allegations and evidence. Although he provided his specimen signature
Nicanor Triol alleged that he and his sister, Grace D. Triol were co- in his Answer to support his defense of forgery, the same nonetheless
owners of a parcel of land with an area of 408.80 square meters situated remained insufficient for he did not even submit a copy of his signature
in Quezon City. Sometime in January 2011, Nicanor Triol decided to sell appearing in the records of the Office of the Clerk of Court or any other
the subject land to a certain Leonardo P. Caparas but was unable to do official document containing the same specimen signature to prove its
so, as he could not obtain the signature of Grace who was already genuineness and authenticity.
residing in the United States at that time. Subsequently, complainant With this, he also violated the provisions of the CPR, particularly Rule
discovered that a Deed of Absolute Sale dated March 11, 2011 was 1.01, Canon 1 and Rule 10.01, Canon 10 thereof. By misrepresenting
executed and notarized by Atty. Agcaoili supposedly conveying the himself as a commissioned notary public at the time of the alleged
subject land to Fajardo without the authority of complainant and Grace; notarization, he did not only cause damage to those directly affected by
neither did they give their consent to the same, as they allegedly did not it, but he likewise undermined the integrity of the office of a notary public
personally appear before respondent when the subject deed was and degraded the function of notarization. In so doing, his conduct falls
notarized. Moreover, complainant found out that their purported miserably short of the high standards of morality, honesty, integrity and
community tax certificates stated in the subject deed were fake. fair dealing required from lawyers, and it is only but proper that he be
Accordingly, he filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Agcaoili. sanctioned.
In his defense, Atty. Agcaoili disavowed knowledge of the execution and WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Atty. Delfin R. Agcaoili, Jr.
notarization of the subject deed, claiming that he did not know (respondent) GUILTY of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice
complainant, Grace, and Caparas. He maintained that his signature on and the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, the Court
the subject deed was forged, since he would never notarize an hereby SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for a period of two (2)
instrument without the signatory parties personally appearing before years; PROHIBITS him from being commissioned as a notary public for
him. He likewise asserted that he could not have notarized it, as he was a period of two (2) years; and REVOKES his incumbent commission as
not a commissioned notary public in Quezon City in 2011. a notary public, if any. He is WARNED that a repetition of the same
STATEMENT OF THE CASE: offense or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
The IBP Investigating Commissioner recommended the dismissal of the The suspension in the practice of law, the prohibition from being
complaint, there being no substantial evidence to show that respondent commissioned as notary public, and the revocation of his notarial
commission, if any, shall take effect immediately upon receipt of this Ultimately, in a Resolution dated April 11, 2013, the CA ordered the
Decision by respondent. He is DIRECTED to immediately file a Appellant's Brief filed by respondent expunged from the rollo and
Manifestation to the Court that his suspension has started, copy dismissed the appeal. More than that, the CA directed respondent to
furnished all courts and quasi-judicial bodies where he has entered his explain why he should not be suspended from the practice of law for
appearance as counsel. willful disobedience to the orders of the court.

10) RE: CA-G.R. CV NO. 96282 (SPOUSES BAYANI AND MYRNA M. Respondent paid no heed to this Resolution.
PARTOZA VS. LILIAN* B. MONTANO AND AMELIA SOLOMON),
COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. CLARO JORDAN M. SANTAMARIA, So it was that the CA, in a Resolution[13] dated September 17, 2013,
RESPONDENT. referred the unlawyerly acts of respondent to the Integrated Bar of the
A recalcitrant lawyer who defies the directives of the court "must Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation.
deservedly end in tribulation for the lawyer and in victory for the higher
ends of justice."[1] REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION THE INVESTIGATING
COMMISSIONER
The administrative liability of a lawyer who repeatedly ignores the
directives of the Court of Appeals (CA) is properly resolved in this case. In his Answer[14] of November 13, 2013, respondent contended: (1) that
the spouses Partoza sought his opinion regarding their case and later
FACTS on requested that he handle their appeal before the CA; (2) that he
advised the spouses Partoza to inform Atty. Villanueva of their decision
A civil action for Declaration of Nullity of Deed of Real Estate Mortgage, to engage the services of a new counsel; (3) that he relied on the
Reconveyance of Transfer Certificate and Damages[2] was filed by the Withdrawal of Appearance filed by Atty. Villanueva and then prepared
spouses Bayani and Myrna M. Partoza (spouses Partoza) against Lilia the Appellant's Brief; (4) that he was not aware of the authority of Honnie
B. Montano and Amelia T. Solomon. to represent spouses Panoza as well as of Honnie's conformity to the
Withdrawal of Appearance by Atty. Villanueva; (5) that he believed that
The case was dismissed[3] by the Regional Trial Court. he had no personality to represent the spouses Partoza in the case, and
to address the problems/compliances pertaining to appellant's appeal;
On November 25, 2010, a Notice of Appeal[4] was filed by the counsel and (6) that it was still Atty. Villanueva who should have continued to
on record, Atty. Samson D. Villanueva (Atty. Villanueva). the CA represent the spouses Partoza.
required the submission of the Appellant's Brief pursuant to Rule 44,
Section 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. The Investigating Commissioner Michael G. Fabunan (Investigating
Commissioner) found respondent liable for willful disobedience to the
On April 27, 2011, however, Atty. Villanueva filed his Withdrawal of lawful orders of the CA and recommended that he be suspended from
Appearance;[6] subsequently, a Motion for Extension of Time to File the practice of law for six months. The Investigating, Commissioner gave
Appellant's Brief[7] dated May 19, 2011, was also filed. Atty. Villanueva's the reasons for the said recommendation in his Report and
Withdrawal of Appearance carried the conformity of the appellant's Recommendation,[15] viz.:
attorney-in-fact, Honnie M. Partoza (Honnie) who, on the same The act of respondent in not filing any of the compliances required of
occasion, also acknowledged receipt of the entire records of the case him in the 4 August 2011, 20 March 2012, 5 September 2012, and 25
from Atty. Villanueva. October 2012 Resolutions of the [CA] despite due notice, emphasized
his contempt and total disregard of the legal proceedings, for which he
Thereafter, respondent Atty. Claro Jordan M. Santamaria (respondent) should be held liable.
submitted an Appellant's Brief[8] dated July 4, 2011. Granting that he [was] not aware of the problem between Atty.
Villanueva and [Honnie], he could have explained this fact by complying
In a Resolution[9] dated August 4, 2011, the CA directed Atty. Villanueva with the court resolutions and not just ignored them on the premise that
to submit proof of authority of Honnic to represent appellants as their he has no personality to represent the [spouses Partoza]. The
attorney-in-fact and the latter's conformity to Atty. Villanueva's compliances required of the respondent by the [CA] are provided under
Withdrawal of Appearance. the rules for a valid substitution of counsel and validity of the appeal and
[Respondent] is directed to submit within five (5) days from notice his may not be disregarded.
formal Entry of Appearance as counsel for appellants and to secure and
submit to this Court also within the same period the written conformity of The nonchalant attitude of the respondent cannot be left unsanctioned.
his clients to his appearance as their counsel. Likewise, said counsel is Clearly, his acts constitute willful disobedience of the lawful orders of the
also directed to furnish this Court the assailed RTC Decision that should [CA], which under Section 27. Rule 138 of the Rules of Court is a
have been appended to the Appellant's Brief also within the same sufficient case for suspension.
period. ISSUE
Atty. Villanueva then filed a Manifestation with Motion[10] dated August Whether or not respondent is administratively liable.
31, 2011 explaining that he communicated with Ronnie and with RULING
appellants as well, but was informed that appellants were residing This Court adopts the findings of fact of, and the penalty recommended
abroad (in Germany at the time). He then requested for a period of 15 by, the IBP Board of Governors.
days, or until September 15, 2011, to comply with the CA's Resolution.
This Court explained the crucial role played by lawyers in the
On March 20, 2012, the CA issued a Resolution granting the administration of justice in Salabao v. Villaruel, Jr.,[18]viz.:
Manifestation and Motion filed by Atty. Villanueva, and ordered the latter While it is true that lawyers owe 'entire devotion' to the cause of their
to show cause, within 10 days from notice, why he should not be cited clients, it cannot he emphasized enough that their first and primary duty
in contempt for his failure to comply with the CA's Resolution of August is not to the client but to the administration or justice. Canon 12 of the
4, 2011; and why the Appellant's Brief filed by respondent should not be Code of Professional Responsibility slates that 'A lawyer shall exert
expunged from the rollo of the case and the appeal dismissed for his every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient
failure to comply with the August 4, 2011 Resolution. administration of justice.' x x x This is a fundamental principle in legal
ethics and professional responsibility that has iterations in various forms:
All these directives by the CA were ignored by the respondent. x x x x

Thus, in a Resolution[12] dated October 25, 2012, the CA cited Because a lawyer is an officer of the court called upon to assist in the
respondent in contempt of court and imposed on him a fine of P5,000.00. administration of justice, any act of a lawyer that obstructs, perverts, or
In the same Resolution, the CA once again directed respondent: (1) to impedes the administration of justice constitutes misconduct and
comply with requirements of a valid substitution of counsel and to file his justifies disciplinary action against him. (citations omitted)
formal Entry of Appearance within five days from notice; and (2) to show There is no dispute that respondent did not comply with five Resolutions
cause, within the same period, why the Appellant's Brief filed should not of the CA. His actions were definitely contumacious. By his repeated
be expunged from the rollo of the case and the appeal be dismissed for failure, refusal or inability to comply with the CA resolutions, respondent
his failure to comply with the Rules of Court. displayed not only reprehensible conduct but showed an utter lack of
respect for the CA and its orders. Respondent ought to know that a
resolution issued by the CA, or any court for that matter, is not mere grandmother sought out his help in this case, he told them that they
request that may be complied with partially or selectively. could hide in his (respondent lawyer's) parents' house.
He claimed that complainant filed the instant complaint simply "to harass
Lawyers are duty bound to uphold the dignity and authority of the court. him from practicing his legitimate profession, and for no other reason."
In particular, Section 20(b), Rule 138 of the Rules of Court states that it Upon recommendation of the IBP-ZAMBASULTA Chapter Board, this
"is the duty of an attorney [t]o observe and maintain the respect due to case was forwarded to the IBP-BOG.
courts of justice and judicial officers." In addition, Canon 1 of the Code IBP-R&R:
of Professional Responsibility mandates that "[a] lawyer shall uphold the Found respondent lawyer guilty of violating Rule 1.01 of the Code of
Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and Professional Responsibility and recommended his suspension from
legal processes." Also, Canon 11 provides that a "lawyer shall observe the practice of law for one (1) month.
and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers and Found respondent lawyer to have acted inappropriately with Annaliza
should insist on similar conduct by others." which created the appearance of immorality, viz.:
As can be gleaned from the records or the hearing, no categorical sexual
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides: activity took place between respondent and complainant's wife. One
SECTION 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme would need to inject a bit of imagination to create an image of something
Court; grounds therefor. - A member of the bar may be disbarred or sexual. But as can be read, no sexual activity took place based on the
suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any witness' account.
deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly However, it would be erroneous to conclude that respondent's behavior
immoral conduct or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral was in total and complete accord with how a lawyer should behave,
turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take particularly in the presence of a minor. Was respondent's behavior
before admission to practice, or for a wilful disobedience of any lawful toward a woman, in the presence of her minor daughter of 11 years,
order of a superior court, or for corruptly or wilfully appealing as an proper and in keeping with the dignity of the legal profession? It is clear
attorney for a party to a case without authority [to do so]. The practice of that there was impropriety on the part of respondent.
soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or In Tolosa v. Cargo, the Court held that creating the appearance that a
through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice. (Emphasis lawyer is flouting with moral standards is sanctionable. Thus, while the
supplied) charge of immorality, viz[.], adulterous relationship, was not factually
This Court, in Anudon v. Cefra[19] citing Sebastian v. Atty. Bajar,[20] held established, certain behavior of the respondent did not escape notice of
that a lawyer's obstinate refusal to comply with the Court's orders not the Court.
only betrayed a recalcitrant flaw in his character; it also underscored his In this case, while sexual immorality was not established, respondent
disrespect towards the Court's lawful orders which was only too should be held to account for his inappropriate behavior which created
deserving of reproof the image or appearance of immorality especially in the presence of a
minor girl. Respondent's act of lying in bed with another married woman,
"Lawyers are particularly called upon to obey court orders and while he himself is a married man, in the presence of the woman's
processes, and this deference is underscored by the fact that willful daughter could raise suspicions, as in fact it did.
disregard thereof may subject the lawyer not only to punishment for Respondent should have been considerate of the feelings and
contempt but to disciplinary sanctions as well."[21] In this case, perceptions of other people, particularly of minor children.
respondent deliberately ignored five CA Resolutions, thereby violating IBP-BOG: adopted and approved the findings and recommendation of
his duty to observe and maintain the respect due the courts. the Investigating Commissioner.
Sometime in 2011, complainant's counsel Atty. Mario Frez (Atty. Frez)
In one case,[22] the Court suspended a lawyer from the practice of law filed a Notice, Manifestation, and Motion for Withdrawal from this case,
for one year for having ignored twelve (12) CA Resolutions. The Court stating that complainant had passed away; and that he was not sure
found that the said lawyer's conduct gave the impression that he was whether complainant's heirs were still willing to pursue the disbarment
above the duly constituted judicial authorities of the land, and looked case against respondent lawyer since he has had no contact with the
down on them with a patronizing and supercilious attitude. In this case, complainant since 2009; and he has had no information as to the
we find the penalty of suspension for six (6) months, as recommended whereabouts of complainant's heirs.
by the IBP, commensurate under the circumstances. Notwithstanding the Motion for Withdrawal filed by Atty. Frez and
considering the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the respondent
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Claro Jordan M. Santamaria lawyer in 2013, the IBP-BOG issued a Resolution denying respondent
is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months effective lawyer's motion for reconsideration.
upon his receipt of this Resolution. He is STERNLY WARNED that Pursuant to Section 12(c) of Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, this
repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely. case is before us for final action.
ISSUE:
11) OLIVER FABUGAIS v. ATTY. BERARDO C. FAUNDO JR. Whether respondent lawyer in fact commit acts that are grossly immoral,
In both their professional and personal lives, lawyers must conduct or acts that amount to serious moral depravity, that would warrant or call
themselves in such a way that does not reflect negatively upon the legal for his disbarment or suspension from the practice of law.
profession. RULING:
FACTS: We find substantial merit in the findings of facts of the IBP. And we reject
This is a Complaint filed by complainant Oliver Fabugais against Atty. respondent lawyer's highly implausible defense that the complainant
Berardo C. Faundo, Jr. for gross misconduct and conduct filed the instant case for no other reason but simply "to harass him from
unbecoming of a lawyer for having allegedly engaged in illicit and practicing his legitimate profession." There is absolutely nothing in the
immoral relations with his wife, Annaliza. record to support it.
Then 10-year old girl Marie Nicole Fabugais, daughter of complainant, It bears stressing that this case can proceed in spite of complainant's
alleged that she, along with her mother, Annaliza. Ate Mimi, and a death and the apparent lack of interest on the part of complainant's heirs.
certain Ate Ada, stayed in a house that belonged to respondent lawyer. Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui generis in nature;
Marie Nicole said that when night-time fell, respondent lawyer slept in they are intended and undertaken primarily to look into the conduct or
the same bed with her and her mother and that she saw respondent behavior of lawyers, to determine whether they are still fit to exercise the
lawyer embracing her mother while they were sleeping. privileges of the legal profession, and to hold them accountable for any
Marie Nicole further recounted that the next morning, while she was misconduct or misbehavior which deviates from the mandated norms
watching television along with her mother, Ate Mimi and Ate Ada, and standards of the Code of Professional Responsibility, all of which
respondent lawyer who just had a shower, and clad only in a towel or are needful and necessary to the preservation of the integrity of the legal
"tapis," suddenly entered the room; that she (Marie Nicole) along with profession. Because not chiefly or primarily intended to administer
her Ate Mimi and her Ate Ada, were told to step outside the room, while punishment, such proceedings do not call for the active service of
her mother and respondent lawyer remained inside the room. prosecutors.
Respondent lawyer denied that he had had any immoral relations with "Immoral conduct" has been defined as that conduct which is so willful,
Annaliza. He claimed that he was merely assisting Annaliza in her flagrant, or shameless as to show indifference to the opinion of good and
tempestuous court battle with complainant for custody of her children. respectable members of the community. This Court has held that for
Respondent lawyer asserted that when Marie Nicole's maternal such conduct to warrant disciplinary action, the same must be "grossly
immoral, that is, it must be so corrupt and false as to constitute a Attorney" to behave more discreetly and more sensitively, as he could
criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree.” not have been unaware that Marie Nicole was observing him closely and
It is not easy to state with accuracy what constitutes "grossly immoral that she could be forming her impressions of lawyers and the legal
conduct," let alone what constitutes the moral delinquency and obliquity profession by the actions and the behavior of this, her "Tito Attorney."
that renders a lawyer unfit or unworthy to continue as a member of the In deciding, upon the appropriate sanction to be imposed upon
bar in good standing. respondent lawyer in this case, this Court is ever mindful that
In the present case, going by the eyewitness testimony of complainant's administrative disciplinary proceedings are essentially designed to
daughter Marie Nicole, raw or explicit sexual immorality between protect the administration of justice and that this lofty ideal can be
respondent lawyer and complainant's wife was not established as a attained by requiring that those who are honored by the title "Attorney"
matter of fact. Indeed, to borrow the Investigating Commissioner's and counsel or at law are men and women of undoubted competence,
remark: "[o]ne would need to inject a bit of imagination to create an unimpeachable integrity and undiminished professionalism, men and
image or something sexual." women in whom courts and clients may repose confidence.This Court
That said, it can in no wise or manner be argued that respondent moreover realizes only too well that the power to disbar or suspend
lawyer's behavior was par for the course for members of the legal members of the bar ought always to be exercised not in a spirit of spite,
profession. Lawyers are mandated to do honor to the bar at all times and hostility or vindictiveness, but on the preservative and corrective
to help maintain the respect of the community for the legal profession principle, with a view to safeguarding the purity of the legal profession.
under all circumstances. Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Hence, that power can be summoned only in the service of the most
Responsibility provides: compelling duty, which must be performed, in light of incontrovertible
A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal evidence of grave misconduct, which seriously taints the reputation and
profession, and support the activities of the Integrated Bar. character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and as member of the
Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility further provides: Bar.31 It goes without saying moreover that it should not be exercised or
A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his asserted when a lesser penalty or sanction would accomplish the end
fitness to practice law, nor should he, whether in public or private life, desired.
behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession. In the context of the circumstances obtaining in this case, and hewing to
"There is perhaps no profession after that of the sacred ministry in which jurisprudential precedence, and considering furthermore that this is
a high-toned morality is more imperative than that of the law." As officers respondent lawyer's first offense, this Court believes that a one-month
of the court, lawyers must in fact and in truth be of good moral character. suspension from the practice of law, as recommended by the IBP,
They must moreover also be seen or appear to be of good moral would suffice.
character; and be seen or appear to – live a life in accordance with the WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent lawyer Atty. Berardo
highest moral standards of the community. Members of the bar can ill- C. Faundo, Jr. is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one
afford to exhibit any conduct which tends to lessen in any degree the (1) month, reckoned from receipt of a copy or this Decision. He is hereby
confidence of the public in the fidelity, the honesty, and the integrity of WARNED to be more careful and more circumspect in all his actions,
the legal profession. The Courts require adherence to these lofty and to be mindful of the kind of example be holds up, especially to
precepts because any thoughtless or ill-considered actions or actuations impressionable young people, lest he brings upon himself a direr fate
by any member of the Bar can irreversibly undermine public confidence the second time around.
in the law and, consequently, those who practice it.
The acts complained of in this case might not be grossly or starkly 12) MICHELLE YAP, COMPLAINANT, V. ATTY. GRACE C. BURI,
immoral in its rawness or coarseness, but they were without doubt RESPONDENT;
condemnable. Respondent lawyer who made avowals to being a A.C. No. 11156, March 19, 2018
respectable father to three children, and also to being a respected leader FACTS:
of his community apparently had no qualms or scruples about being Complainant filed an administrative complaint against respondent, for
seen sleeping in his own bed with another man's wife, his arms entwined refusing to pay her monetary obligation and for filing a criminal case of
in tender embrace with the latter. Respondent lawyer's claim that he was Estafa against her based on false accusations.
inspired by nothing but the best of intentions in inviting another married Complainant was the seller in a contract of sale of a condominium unit,
man's wife and her 10-year old daughter to sleep with him in the same while respondent was the buyer. The total amount of agreed price was
bed so that the three of them could enjoy good night's rest in his P1,200,000.00, however, P200,000 remains unpaid.
airconditioned chamber, reeks with racy, ribald humor. Respondent insisted that she would just pay the balance on instalment,
without specifying the amount. Because complainant trusted the
And in aggravation or the aforementioned unseemly behavior, respondent, Yap gave Buri the possession of the unit upon completion
respondent lawyer apparently experienced neither qualms nor scruples of the P1,000,000.00 despite outstanding balance and even without the
at all about exploding into the room occupied by a married man's wife necessary Deed of Absolute Sale.
and her 10-year old daughter and their two other women companions However, when Yap asked for the balance, Buri said she would pay it
clad with nothing else but a "tapis" or a towel. Of course, respondent on a monthly instalment of P5,000 until fully paid. When Yap disagreed,
lawyer sought to downplay this boorish impropriety by saying in his Buri said she would just cancel the sale. Thereafter, Buri also started
Motion for Reconsideration that he was wearing a malong and not tapis threatening her through text messages, and then later on filed a case for
at that time. And, of course, this plea will not avail because his scanty estafa against her.
trappings gave him no license to intrude into a small room full of women. In the criminal case, Buri alleged that when she found out that the sale
Respondent lawyer could have simply asked everyone in the room to was made without the consent of Yap’s husband, Yap cancelled the sale
step outside for a little while. Or he could have donned his clothing and promised to return the P1,000,000.00. However, she failed and
elsewhere. But these things seemed to have been totally lost to refused to return the money. Nevertheless, this case was dismissed.
respondent lawyer's density. Indeed, respondent lawyer seemed to have When ordered to submit her answer, Buri failed to comply. She did not
forgotten that there are rules other men – decent men, – live by. even appear during the mandatory conference.
Respondent lawyer's defense that he was a "respectable father with The IBP- CBD recommended Buri’s suspension from the practice of law
three children" and that he was a "respected civic leader" to boot, flies for a period of three (3) months, and ordered to pay the balance of
in the face of a young girl's perception of his diminished deportment. It P200,000.00. Respondent was found guilty violating Canon 1 of the
does not escape this Court's attention that the 10-year old Marie Nicole CPR.
called respondent lawyer "Tito Attorney." Indeed, by calling respondent The IBP-BOG modified the recommendation of the IBP- Commissioner,
lawyer as "Tito Attorney" Marie Nicole effectively proclaimed her and increased the suspension period from three (3) months to one (1)
avuncular affection for him, plus her recognition of his being a member year, and the order to pay P200,000.00 is deleted.
of the legal profession. We believe that Marie Nicole must have been a
bit disappointed with what she saw and observed about the manners, ISSUE:
predilections and propensities of her "Tito Attorney." In fact, a close Whether respondent is administratively liable.
examination of Marie Nicole's testimony cannot fail to show that in Marie RULING:
Nicole's young mind, it was clearly not right, appropriate or proper for YES. The Supreme Court affirmed the recommendation of the IBP-
her "Tito Attorney" to be sharing the same bed with her and her mother, BOG, and found respondent guilty of violating the Code of Professional
and for her mother to remain alone in the same room with her "Tito Responsibility (CPR), specifically Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 and Rule 7.03
Attorney," while this "Tito Attorney" was dressing up. In all these of Canon 7 of the CPR.
happenings, a modicum of decency should have impelled this "Tito
The Supreme Court ruled that Buri’s refusal to file an answer, attend the conduct. These accusations, however, with the only exception of
hearing, or to submit her position paper, despite due notice, is indicative gambling in casinos, are not supported by any evidence or by any public
of an implied admission of the charges levelled against her. record of indubitable integrity. Thus, the bare allegations of corruption
The Court has repeatedly emphasized that the practice of law is imbued and immorality do not deserve any consideration. For this reason, the
with public interest. That Buri’s act involved a private dealing with Yap is charges of corruption and immorality against Justice Pizarro must be
immaterial. Her repeated failure to file answer and position paper and to dismissed for lack of merit.
appear at the mandatory conference aggravates her misconduct. Paragraphs 3 and 22 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics provide:
The Court likewise upholds the deletion of the payment of P200,000 3. Avoidance of appearance of impropriety -
because the same is not intrinsically linked to Buri’s professional A judge’s official conduct should be free from the appearance of
engagement. Disciplinary proceedings should only revolve around the impropriety, and his personal behavior, not only upon the bench and in
determination of the respondent lawyer’s administrative and not his civil the performance of judicial duties, but also in his everyday life, should
liability. be beyond reproach.
Thus, the Court ruled that when the claim involves money owed by the xxxx
lawyer to his client in view of a separate and distinct transaction and not 22. Infractions of law -
by virtue of a lawyer-client relationship, the same should be threshed out The judge should be studiously careful himself to avoid even the
in a separate civil action. slightest infraction of the law, lest it be a demoralizing example to others.
The canons and rules of the CPR violated are: Further, Justice Pizarro also violated Canons 2 and 4 of the New Code
CANON 1- A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary which pe1tinently
THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND provides:
LEGAL PROCESSES.
RULE 1.01- A LAWYER SHALL NOT ENGAGE IN UNLAWFUL, CANON2
DISHONEST, IMMORAL OR DECEITFUL CONDUCT. INTEGRITY
CANON 7 – A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE Integrity is essential not only to the proper discharge of the judicial office
INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND but also to the personal demeanor of judges.
SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INTERGRATED BAR. SEC. 1. Judges shall ensure that not only is their conduct above
RULE 7.03- A LAWYER SHALL NOT ENGAGE IN CONDUCT THAT reproach, but that it is perceived to be so in the view of a reasonable
ADVERSELY REFLECTS ON HIS FITNESS TO PRACTICE LAW, NOR observer.
SHALL HE, WHETHER IN PUBLIC OR PRIVATE LIFE, BEHAVE IN A SEC. 2. The behavior and conduct of judges must reaffirm the people’s
SCANDALOUS MANNER TO THE DISCREDIT OF THE LEGAL faith in the integrity of the judiciary.1âwphi1 Justice must not merely be
PROFESSION. done but must also be seen to be done.
xxxx
13) RE: ANONYMOUS LETTERCOMPLAINT (with Attached
Pictures) AGAINST ASSOCIATE JUSTICE NORMANDIE B. CANON4
PIZARRO, COURT OF APPEALS, PROPRIETY
FACTS Propriety and the appearance of propriety are essential to the
This administrative matter arose from an anonymous letter- performance of all the activities of a judge.
complaint charging Associate Justice Normandie B. Pizarro (Justice SEC. 1. Judges shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of
Pizarro) of the Court of Appeals (CA) of habitually gambling in casinos, impropriety in all of their activities.
"selling" decisions, and immorally engaging in an illicit relationship. The SEC. 2. As a subject of constant public scrutiny, judges must accept
subject letter-complaint was initially filed with the Office of the personal restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the
Ombudsman (Ombudsman) on 20 September 2017. The matter was ordinary citizen and should do so freely and willingly. In particular, judges
referred by the Ombudsman to this Court on 24 October 2017. shall conduct themselves in a way that is consistent with the dignity of
The anonymous letter-complaint accused Justice Pizarro of being a the judicial office.
gambling addict who would allegedly lose millions of pesos in the
casinos daily, and insinuated that Justice Pizarro resorted to "selling" his The Court has repeatedly reminded judges to conduct themselves
cases in order to support his gambling addiction. The anonymous irreproachably, not only while in the discharge of official duties but also
complainant further accused Justice Pizarro of having an illicit in their personal behavior every day. No position demands greater moral
relationship, claiming that Justice Pizarro bought his mistress a house righteousness and uprightness from its occupant than does the judicial
and lot in Antipolo City, a condominium unit in Manila, and brand new office. Judges in particular must be individuals of competence, honesty
vehicles such as Toyota Vios and Ford Everest worth millions of pesos. and probity, charged as they are with safeguarding the integrity of the
Lastly, the anonymous complainant alleged that Justice Pizarro, court and its proceedings. Judges should behave at all times so as to
together with his mistress and her whole family, made several travels promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary,
abroad to shop and to gamble in casinos. Attached to the anonymous and avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all their
letter-complaint are four (4) sheets of photographs showing Justice activities. A judge's personal behaviour outside the court, and not only
Pizarro sitting at the casino tables allegedly at the Midori Hotel and while in the performance of his official duties, must be beyond reproach,
Casino in Clark, Pampanga. for he is perceived to be the personification of law and justice. Thus, any
On 8 December 2017, Justice Pizarro filed his comment wherein he demeaning act of a judge degrades the institution he represents.
admitted to his indiscretion. He stated that he was indeed the person Accordingly, the Court finds respondent Justice Pizarro guilty of conduct
appearing on the subject photographs sitting at a casino table. He unbecoming of a member of the judiciary. Considering, however, that
explained that the photographs were taken when he was accompanying this is the respondent justice's first transgression, and further bearing in
a balikbayan friend; and that they only played a little in a parlor game mind his immediate admission of his indiscretion as well as the number
fashion without big stakes and without their identities introduced or made of years he has been in government service, the Court finds the
known. Justice Pizarro averred that the photographs may have been imposition of a fine in the amount of ₱100,000.00 sufficient in this case.
taken by people with ulterior motives considering his plan for early WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Associate Justice
retirement. He further confessed that sometime in 2009 he also played Normandie B. Pizarro GUILTY of conduct unbecoming of a member of
at the casino in what he termed, again, a parlor game concept. He the judiciary, and is hereby ORDERED to pay a fine in the amount of
maintained, however, that such was an indiscretion committed by a ₱100,000,00.
dying man because, prior to this, he had learned that he had terminal SO ORDERED.
cancer.
ISSUE 14) OFFICE OF THE COURT
The sole issue before the Court is whether Justice Pizarro is guilty of the ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. JUDGE WINLOVE M. DUMAYAS,
accusations against him for which he may be held administratively liable. BRANCH 59, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, MAKATI CITY, Respondent.
RULING NATURE OF THE CASE
Yes. In this case, the anonymous complaint accused Justice Pizarro of This case stemmed from the charges against respondent Judge Winlove
selling favorable decisions, having a mistress, and habitually playing in M. Dumayas for allegedly rendering a decision without citing the
casinos; and essentially charging him of dishonesty and violations of the required factual and legal bases and by ignoring the applicable
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Law, immorality, and unbecoming jurisprudence, which constitutes gross misconduct and gross ignorance
of the law.
CANONS INVOLVED eligible for probation. Finally, he granted the separate applications for
CANON 3 probation of Dela Paz and Datu III.
A JUDGE SHOULD PERFORM OFFICIAL DUTIES HONESTLY, AND The prosecution's evidence proves that (1) there was unlawful
WITH IMPARTIALITY AND DILIGENCE aggression on the part of Anikow; and (2) there was no provocation on
STATEMENT OF FACTS the part of any of the accused.
Information was filed charging Juan Alfonso Abastillas, Crispin Dela In so far, however, as the second element of self-defense is
Paz, Osric Cabrera, and Galiciano Datu III with the crime of murder concerned, this Court is convinced that the means employed by
under Article 248 of The Revised Penal Code accused Dela Paz and Datu were unreasonable - there was no
The accused, conspiring and confederating with one another and all of rational equivalence between the means of attack and the means
them mutually helping and aiding, one another, with intent to kill and with of defense. Reasonableness of the means employed depends on the
the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength did then and imminent danger of the injury to the person attacked; he acts under the
there stab one George Anikow with a knife, thereby inflicting upon the impulse of self-preservation. He is not going to stop and pause to find
latter injuries and wounds on the different parts of his body, the fatal one out whether the means he has in his hands is reasonable. (Eslabon vs.
of which is the stab wound on his neck, which directly caused his death. People, 127 SCRA 785) True, Anikow committed unlawful aggression
Respondent Judge Dumayas imposed a light sentence against the against the accused with his fists. However, the means used by the
accused, when he should have found them guilty of committing murder accused were unreasonable.
instead. The OCA found two (2) issues with said judge, particularly in His complete disregard of the settled rules and jurisprudence on self-
the imposition of the penalties. defense and of the events that transpired after the first fight, despite the
FIRST, he appreciated the presence of the privileged mitigating existence of testimonial and physical evidence to the contrary, in the
circumstance of incomplete self-defense by concluding that there appreciation of the privileged mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-
was unlawful aggression on the part of American national George defense casts serious doubt on his impartiality and good faith.
Anikow and that there was no sufficient provocation on the part of 2.) Likewise, his failure to cite in the Decision his factual and legal bases
accused Crispin C. Dela Paz and Galiciano S. Datu III. In doing so, for finding the presence of the ordinary mitigating circumstance of
he totally ignored the positive testimony of security guard Jose Romel voluntary surrender is not a mere matter of judicial ethics. No less than
Saavedra and the physical evidence consisting of closed circuit the Constitution provides that no decision shall be rendered by any
television (CCTV) video footages of the incident clearly showing that court without expressing clearly and distinctly the facts and the law
Anikow had already fled, but was still pursued and viciously attacked on which it is based.
and hit by the accused when they finally caught up with him. The essence of voluntary surrender is spontaneity and the intent of the
It is a well-settled rule that the moment the first aggressor runs away, accused to give himself up and submit himself to the authorities either
unlawful aggression on the part of the first aggressor ceases to exist, because he acknowledges his guilt or he wishes to save the authorities
and when the unlawful aggression ceases, the defender no longer has the trouble and expense that may be incurred for his search and
any right to kill or wound the former aggressor; otherwise, retaliation and capture. On the contrary and far from being spontaneous, security guard
not self-defense is committed. Retaliation is not the same as self- Saavedra even testified that accused warned him not to report the
defense. incident or note their plate number as they were fleeing the scene of the
SECOND, without mentioning any factual or legal basis therefor, incident
Judge Dumayas appreciated in favor of Dela Paz and Datu III the Corollarily, the Court finds Judge Dumayas guilty of gross
ordinary mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, contrary ignorance of the law and gross misconduct.
to Saavedra's positive testimony that the four (4) accused, including Gross ignorance of the law is the disregard of basic rules and settled
Dela Paz and Datu III, warned him not to report the incident or note their jurisprudence. A judge is presumed to have acted with regularity and
plate number as they were leaving the scene of the incident. good faith in the performance of judicial functions. Such, however, is not
Judge Dumayas argued that judges cannot be held civilly, criminally, the case with Judge Dumayas. A blatant disregard of a clear and
and administratively liable for any of their official acts, no matter how unmistakable provision of the Constitution upends this presumption and
erroneous, as long as they act in good faith. He apologized for failing to subjects the magistrate to corresponding administrative sanctions.
quote in his Decision the portions of the testimony of the prosecution Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of
witnesses attesting to the voluntary surrender of the accused. He quoted action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by the
a testimony of a security guards who apprehended the accused when public officer. To warrant dismissal from service, the misconduct must
they were trying to leave Rockwell Center. be grave and serious. In order to differentiate gross misconduct from
RECOMMENDATORY RULING simple misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the
the OCA recommended the imposition of the extreme penalty of law, or flagrant disregard of established rule, must be manifest in the
dismissal: former.
that Judge Winlove M. Dumayas be ADJUDGED GUILTY of gross Interestingly, Judge Dumayas has the several (13) administrative cases
ignorance of the law or procedure and gross misconduct, and filed against him. That a significant number of litigants saw it fit to file
be METED the penalty of DISMISSAL from the service, with administrative charges against Judge Dumayas, with most of these
forfeiture of his retirement benefits, except his accrued leave cases having the same grounds, i.e., gross ignorance of the law or
credits, and with prejudice to reinstatement in any branch of the procedure and knowingly rendering unjust judgment, only shows how
government, including government owned and controlled corporations. poorly he has been performing as a member of the bench.
ISSUES PENALTY
Whether or not Judge Dumayas violated the code of judicial conduct WHEREFORE, the Court finds Judge Winlove M. Dumayas of Branch
RULING 59, Regional Trial Court, Makati City, GUILTY of gross ignorance of the
YES. law or procedure and gross misconduct and hereby DISMISSES him
Under Canon 3 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct, impartiality from the service with FORFEITURE of retirement benefits, except leave
applies not only to the decision itself, but also to the process by credits, and with prejudice to re-employment in any branch or
which the decision is made. When Judge Dumayas chose to simply instrumentality of the government, including government-owned and
ignore all the evidence showing that the accused still pursued Anikow controlled corporations
after the latter had already run away, not even bothering to explain the
irrelevance or lack of weight of the same, such act necessarily put the 15) MARIA ROMERO VS ATTY. GERONIMO R. EVANGELISTA, JR.
integrity of his entire Decision in question. It is clear that Judge Dumayas A.C. NO. 11829; FEBRUARY 26, 2018
failed to hear and decide the subject case with the cold neutrality of an FACTS:
impartial judge. For the Court's resolution is a Complaint for disbarment filed by Maria
Frst, Judge Dumayas downgraded the offense charged from murder to Romero (Maria) with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) against
homicide. Second, he inappropriately appreciated the privileged Atty. Geronimo R. Evangelista, Jr. (Atty. Evangelista), for his alleged
mitigating circumstance of self-defense and the ordinary mitigating violation of several provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility
circumstance of voluntary surrender despite the overwhelming (CPR) and Canon 6 of the Canons of Professional Ethics.
testimonial and physical evidence to the contrary. Third, he sentenced In her Complaint, Maria alleged that in several cases, Atty. Evangelista
Dela Paz and Datu III to suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment represented her and her aunt Adela A. Romero (Adela), in their
of four (4) years, two (2) months, and one (1) day, as minimum, to six individual capacities and as Heirs of the Late Adela Aguinaldo Vda. De
(6) years of prision correccional, as maximum, which made them Romero. However, Atty. Evangelista subsequently represented the
Spouses Joseph and Rosalina Valles in suits against Adela, such as
Forcible Entry with Damages and Recovery of Possession and purchase did not materialize, Iluminada demanded the return of the
Ownership with Damages. aforesaid amounts that she entrusted to Atty. Agleron, which the latter
In his Answer, Atty. Evangelista admitted that he had handled cases failed to return. Iluminada, through her lawyer, through a letter,
involving the properties of the Romero clan, but not a single case for demanded the return of the amount of P750,000.00. Atty. Agleron
Maria. He explained that: a) there was never a lawyer-client relationship replied through a letter and explained that he already returned the
between him and Maria; b) his professional services were never retained amount of P418,000.00, and that the remaining balance is only
by Maria nor did he receive any privileged information regarding Maria's P582,000.00 which shall be paid upon payment of his client who
cases; and c) Maria never paid him any legal fee. borrowed the said amount for his emergency operation after an accident.
Atty. Evangelista also contended that Adela is not a complainant in the Iluminada also alleged that she filed an Estafa case under Article 315,
disbarment case against him nor is there any proof that she authorized paragraph 1(B) of the Revised Penal Code against Atty. Agleron.
Maria to file a complaint on her (Adela's) behalf. Atty. Agleron claims that the balance of P582,000.00 was never
The IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) found Atty. Evangelista to misappropriated and/or converted to the personal use and benefit of
have represented conflicting interests and recommended that he be Atty. Agleron as the said amount was borrowed for the emergency
meted the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for one year. operation of a client who, at that time has nobody to turn to for help.
The IBP-CBD noted that Atty. Evangelista, who once lawyered for Adela, Thus, Atty. Agleron's infraction should not warrant the imposition of the
had accepted and handled legal actions against her. In his defense, Atty. supreme penalty of disbarment. Atty. Agleron prayed that, if he be found
Evangelista argued that Adela herself did not file a complaint against guilty, the lesser penalty of fine should be imposed considering he
him. But, according to the IBP-CBD, Adela's participation in the filing of rendered almost fifty (50) years of service in the government, and he is
the action is not necessary since Atty. Evangelista's culpability had been also an Officer and Member of the IBP, Davao Oriental Chapter.
established by documentary evidence on record. The IBP-Board of Thus, the Investigating Commissioner is convinced that Atty. Agleron is
Governors adopted and approved in toto the Report and guilty of Gross Misconduct under Section 27, Rule 138 for violating his
Recommendation of the IBP-CBD. duty to his client by converting and using his client's money. Accordingly,
ISSUE the penalty of suspension of one (1) year from the practice of law in any
Whether Atty. Evangelista is guilty of representing conflicting interests court was imposed on Atty. Agleron.
RULING Atty. Agleron filed with this Court an Urgent Motion for the Immediate
Yes. The relationship between a lawyer and his client should ideally be Lifting of the Order of Suspension but was denied by the OBC.
imbued with the highest level of trust and confidence. There is conflict of ISSUE:
interest when a lawyer represents inconsistent interests of two or more Whether or not Atty. Algeron is guilty of Gross Misconduct
opposing parties. RULING:
The rule against conflict of interest also "prohibits a lawyer from Yes. Jurisprudence is instructive that a lawyer's failure to return upon
representing new clients whose interests oppose those of a former client demand the monies he/she holds for his/her client gives rise to the
in any manner, whether or not they are parties in the same action or on presumption that he/she has appropriated the said monies for his/her
totally unrelated cases," since the representation of opposing clients, own use, to the prejudice and in violation of the trust reposed in him/her
even in unrelated cases, "is tantamount to representing conflicting by his/her client. Proceeding from the premise that indeed Atty. Agleron
interests or, at the very least, invites suspicion of double-dealing which merely wanted to help another client who is going through financial
the Court cannot allow." The only exception is provided under Canon 15, woes, he, nevertheless, acted in disregard of his duty as a lawyer with
Rule 15.03 of the CPR - if there is a written consent from all the parties respect to Iluminada. Such act is a gross violation of general morality,
after full disclosure. "Such prohibition is founded on principles of public as well as of professional ethics.
policy and good taste as the nature of the lawyer-client relations is one It is of no moment as well that Atty. Agleron's property has been
of trust and confidence of the highest degree." subjected to a levy; thus, his claim in his Urgent Motion for the
With Atty. Evangelista's admission that he retained clients who have Immediate Lifting of the Order of Suspension that with such levy he has
cases against Adela without all the parties' written consent, it is clear even overpaid Iluminada, considering that the total value of his property
that he has violated Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the CPR. Adela's non- is P2,912,000.00 is bereft of merit. Levy is defined as the act or acts by
participation in the filing of the instant complaint is immaterial, since it is which an officer of the law and court sets apart or appropriates a part or
stated under Section 1, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, as amended the whole of the judgment debtor's property for the purpose of eventually
by Bar Matter No. 1645 that, "[proceedings for the disbarment, conducting an execution sale to the end that the writ of execution may
suspension or discipline of attorneys may be taken by the Supreme be satisfied, and the judgment debt, paid. Thus, there must be an
Court motu proprio, or upon the filing of a verified complaint execution sale first before he can claim that he already complied with his
of any person before the Supreme Court or the Integrated Bar of the legal obligation.
Philippines (IBP)." Further, respondent also violated Rules 16.01 and 16.03, Canon 16 of
CANON 15 - A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR, FAIRNESS the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) when he failed to return
AND LOYALTY IN ALL HIS DEALINGS AND TRANSACTIONS WITH upon demand the amount Iluminada entrusted to him, viz.:
HIS CLIENTS. CANON 16 — A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONIES AND
Rule 15.03. - A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT THAT MAY COME INTO HIS
written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. POSSESSION.
Considering that this is Atty. Evangelista's first offense in his more than Rule 16.01 — A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected
30 years of practice, the Court finds a six-month suspension from the or received for or from the client.
practice of law to be an adequate and appropriate sanction against him. xxxx
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court finds Atty. Geronimo Rule 16.03 — A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client
R, Evangelista, Jr. GUILTY of representing conflicting interests in when due or upon demand. x x x15
violation of Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional As to the issue on when is the effectivity of the order of suspension, the
Responsibility and is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period OBC aptly explained in its Report and Recommendation dated February
of six (6) months, effective upon receipt of this Resolution, with 16, 2016, that the Court merely noted the IBP's Notice of Resolution
a STERN WARNING that a commission of the same or similar offense which suspended Atty. Agleron from the practice of law and that such
in the future will result in the imposition of a more severe penalty. act does not imply the approval of the same. Here, this Court is yet to
finally resolve first the merit of this administrative case. Thus, the
16) ILUMINADA D. YUZON v. ATTY. ARNULFO M. AGLERON effectivity of the order of suspension has not actually commenced and it
A.C. No. 10684, January 24, 2018 is erroneous on Atty. Agleron's part to claim in his Motion that he has
FACTS: already served the one (1) year suspension from the date of the
This administrative case arose from a Complaint filed by Iluminada issuance of the IBP Notice of Resolution is bereft of merit.
Yuzon Vda. de Rodriguez (Iluminada) before the Integrated Bar of the Jurisprudence is instructive that as guardian of the legal profession, this
Philippines-Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) seeking to disbar Court has the ultimate disciplinary power over members of the Bar to
Atty. Arnulfo M. Agleron (Atty. Agleron), for misappropriating the amount ensure that the highest standards of competence, honesty and fair
of P582,000.00 which the respondent lawyer received in trust from the dealing are maintained. Verily, this Court has the final say on imposition
complainant. of sanctions to be imposed on errant members of both bench and bar,
Iluminada alleged that she gave Atty. Agleron the amount One Million this Court has the prerogative of making its own findings and rendering
Pesos (P1,000,000.00) meant for the purchase of a house and a lot of judgment on the basis thereof rather than that of the IBP, OSG, or any
one Alexander Tenebroso (Alexander). However, since the intended
lower court to whom an administrative complaint has been referred to wound on the victim, which the prosecution believed to be
for investigation and report. misplaced in information for Attempted Murder.

17) PROSECUTOR LEO T. CAHANAP v. JUDGE LEONOR S. 7. Complainant averred that respondent Judge also mistreated
QUIÑONES, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 6, ILIGAN CITY, her court staff. Respondent Judge allegedly shouted at a court
LANAO DEL NORTE stenographer, and called her "bobo" which meant dumb.
ALLEGATION/S: Gross Ignorance of the Law, Gross Misconduct and Respondent Judge berated another stenographer and
violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct. shouted at the latter ''punyeta ka" and "buwisit ka".
CANONS VIOLATED:
Section 3, Canon 5 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct: Judges shall Comment of the Respondent Judge:
carry out judicial duties with appropriate consideration for all persons, 1. Respondent Judge denied that she maltreated the
such as the parties, witnesses, lawyers, court staff and judicial prosecutors assigned to her sala and she submitted
colleagues, without differentiation on any irrelevant ground, immaterial
documents to prove that the prosecutors requested for
to the proper performance of such duties.
transfer for other valid reasons.
Rule 3.04- A judge should be patient, attentive, and courteous to
lawyers, especially the inexperienced, to litigants, witnesses and others
2. Relative to the Heck Case, respondent Judge denied having
appearing before the court. A judge should avoid unconsciously falling
asked jewelry from Mamad, the private complainant in the
into the attitude of mind that the litigants are made for the courts, instead
of the courts to the litigants. subject case.
Section 6, Canon 6: Judges shall maintain order and decorum in all
proceedings before the court and be patient, dignified and courteous in 3. Respondent Judge reasoned that she immediately acted on
relation to litigants, witnesses, lawyers and others with whom the judge the motion of the defense in the Macapato Case because an
deals in an official capacity. Judges shall require similar conduct of legal urgent motion is exempted from the three-day notice rule. She
representatives, court staff and others subject to their influence, maintained that the motion was granted and was issued in
direction or control. good faith in the performance of judicial functions.24
FACTS:
Complainant Prosecutor Leo T. Cahanap filed the instant administrative 4. Respondent Judge also insisted that her order of dismissal in
complaint for the following alleged acts of respondent Judge: the Tingcang Case was issued in good faith in the
1. Complainant alleged that in his last two (2) years as a performance of her judicial functions.25
prosecutor in Branch 6, he suffered unbearable and
intolerable oppression in the hands of respondent Judge. 5. Respondent Judge admitted her mistake in the Casido Case,
Complainant asserted that the prosecutors, who previously averring that the finding of lack of probable cause on the basis
appeared before respondent Judge, opted to be assigned to of absence of a 'fatal injury' was an error but an error of
other courts as they too experienced humiliation and harsh judgment made in good faith.
treatment from her. Further, respondent Judge's staff
themselves were subjected to respondent Judge's insolent 6. In response to the allegation that she unduly interfered in the
behavior. court proceedings, respondent Judge explained that she
merely reminded lawyers of the purpose of enforcing the rules
2. Complainant further accused respondent Judge of habitual and to elicit evidence with sufficient probative value to help in
tardiness which delayed the start of court sessions, usually at the search for truth.
9:30 or 10:00 in the morning, earning for her sala the moniker
7. On her alleged offensive and disrespectful attitude towards
"Branch 10”.
her staff, respondent Judge denied doing so and claimed that
3. In the proceedings for the case of People v. Heck, respondent she merely rebuked or admonished them in the exercise of
Judge, in open court and heard by the public, asked private her supervisory authority.
complainant, Hanna Mamad, to go to her house because she
was interested in buying jewelry items from her. Complainant 8. Respondent Judge also admitted arriving late to court but
averred that when he called Mamad, Mamad confirmed that denied that her tardiness was often or habitual.
respondent Judge bought jewelry from her. Court personnel
OCA RESOLUTION:
have also testified that respondent Judge showed off the The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended that the
jewelry she bought from Mamad. charges against respondent Judge relative to the issuance of the (1)
Order dated June 18, 2012 in the Macapato Case, (2) Order dated June
4. In proceedings in the case of People v. Macapato, respondent 18, 2012 in the Tingcang Case for the dismissal of the case on the
Judge issued an Order dated June 18, 2012, directing the ground of violation of the accused's right to speedy trial, and (3) Order
release of accused vehicle despite the prosecution's written relative to the Casido Case, dismissing the same for lack of probable
opposition on the ground that the vehicle has yet to be cause, be dismissed for involving issues judicial in nature which are
presented as evidence in court and has yet to be formally beyond the purview of an administrative proceeding. The OCA reasoned
offered before the court could acquire jurisdiction. that a party's remedy, if prejudiced by the orders of a judge given in the
Respondent Judge immediately set accused's subject motion course of a trial, lies with the proper reviewing court, not with OCA by
for the release of accused Dimaampao's vehicle for hearing a means of an administrative complaint.
day after it was filed, in violation of the three-day notice rule. With respect however to the other charges, pertaining largely to the
The Transcript of Stenographic Notes (TSN) of the hearing demeanor of respondent Judge, the OCA found that the same appear to
be serious.34 However, because of the conflicting versions presented
revealed that respondent Judge showed her bias and
by the parties, there exist factual issues that cannot be resolved merely
practically acted as defense counsel, prompting the
on the basis of the records at hand, and can be ventilated only in a formal
prosecution to move for the inhibition of respondent Judge. investigation where the parties can adduce their respective evidence.
The OCA thus recommended that the remaining charges filed against
5. In the case of People v. Tingcang, respondent Judge
respondent Judge be referred to the Executive Justice of the Court of
dismissed the case provisionally without prejudice to its Appeals, Cagayan de Oro City, for raffle among the Justices thereat for
refiling upon the availability of the prosecution's witnesses on investigation, report and recommendation within sixty (60) days from
the ground of speedy trial. The prosecution lamented that the receipt of the records. Third Division of the Court adopted the
delay in the proceedings was due to the absence of the recommendations of the OCA.
accused that has been in hiding since 1996. REPORT OF INVESTIGATING JUSTICE MARIA FILOMENA D.
SINGH:
6. In the case of People v. Casido, respondent Judge dismissed The testimonies of the court staff witnesses and the Branch Clerk of
a complaint for Attempted Murder due to the absence of a fatal Court uniformly pointed to the habitual tardiness of respondent Judge in
coming to work and holding court hearings, which they consistently compassion, patience, courtesy and civility to lawyers who appear
testified to as generally starting between 9:00 and 9:30 in the morning.42 before her in contravention of the mandates of the Code of Judicial
In the judicial affidavit of complainant, he attested that during his time as Ethics, which sets the high standards of demeanor all judges must
the public prosecutor in respondent Judge's sala, respondent Judge observe. The Court is convinced that respondent Judge is guilty of
started court hearings at 9:30 a.m., instead of 8:30 a.m.43 The Oppression as shown in several incidents of misbehavior by respondent
successor of complainant, Assistant City Prosecutor Diaz, also Judge.
confirmed that respondent Judge commenced court sessions between The Court has previously ruled that "[a] display of petulance and
9:30 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. impatience in the conduct of trial is a norm of behavior incompatible with
On the charge of Oppression, the Investigating Justice found that the needful attitude and sobriety of a good judge.''
respondent Judge failed to show compassion, patience, courtesy and Thus, the Court finds the imposition of fines amounting to Forty
civility to lawyers who appear before her in contravention of the Thousand Pesos (P40, 000.00) and Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,
mandates of the New Code of Judicial Conduct which sets the high 000.00), appropriate given the prevailing facts of the present case vis-a-
standards of demeanor before all judges must observe. vis respondent Judge's record for habitual malfeasance in office.
Investigating Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh (Investigating Justice) WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court hereby finds
recommended that respondent Judge be held administratively liable for respondent Presiding Judge Leonor S. Quiñones, Branch 6, Regional
Oppression with a fine of P40,000.00 and Habitual Tardiness with a fine Trial Court, Iligan City GUILTY of (1) Oppression (gross misconduct
of P20,000.00. The Investigating Justice also recommended that constituting violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct) and FINED in the
respondent Judge be transferred to a different court considering the amount of Forty Thousand Pesos (P40,000.00); and (2) Habitual
irremediably strained relations between respondent Judge and the court Tardiness and FINED in the amount of Twenty Thousand Pesos
staff; and that the names of certain witnesses be blocked from the (P20,000.00), with WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar
decision that the Court will render in this case. acts shall be dealt with more severely.
OCA REPORT (2015)
The OCA, in their Report dated October 26, 2015, agree and adopted
the findings of the Investigating Justice. 18) RET. JUDGE VIRGILIO ALPAJORA, Complainant vs. ATTY.
The OCA pointed out that one significant aspect that became apparent RONALDO ANTONIO V. CALAYAN, Respondent, A.C. 8208,
during the investigation is respondent Judge's competence in the GESMUNDO, J.
performance of her duties. True, she was exonerated in the instant
complaint because the issues raised were judicial in nature and in
another case for grave abuse of discretion, dishonesty and partiality for FACTS
lack of merit. But, as testified to by witnesses, respondent Judge did not In his Comment/Opposition with Counter-Complaint to Discipline
personally prepare the court's orders, resolutions and decisions; she did Complainant, complainant charged respondent with (a) filing a malicious
not know the details of some cases before her; and she does not and harassment administrative case, (b) propensity for dishonesty in the
possess proficiency in English. Yet, respondent Judge remained allegations in his pleadings, (c) misquoting provisions of law, and (d)
intractable and would not own up to her mistakes and shortcomings. misrepresentation of facts. Complainant prayed for respondent's
he OCA held that respondent Judge violated the Code of Judicial disbarment and cancellation of his license as a lawyer.
Conduct for her repeated acts of oppression against lawyers and court
staff (gross misconduct) which constitute serious charge pursuant to Position of complainant
Rule 140, Section 8 of the Revised Rules of Court punishable by Complainant alleged that he partially tried and heard Civil Case No.
dismissal, suspension from office for more than three (3) to six (6) 200710, an intra-corporate case filed against respondent, when he later
months or a fine of more than P20, 000.00 to P40, 000.00. The OCA voluntarily inhibited himself from it on account of the latter's filing of the
also held that respondent Judge is also guilty of habitual tardiness which administrative case against him. The intra-corporate case was
is a less serious charge sanctioned by either suspension from office for previously tried by Presiding Judge Adolfo Encomienda until he
not less than one (1) nor more than three (3) months or a fine of more voluntarily inhibited after respondent filed an Urgent Motion to Recuse
than P10, 000.00 but not exceeding P20, 000.00. The OCA noted that and a Supplement to Defendant's Urgent Motion to Recuse on the
the penalties that may be imposed on respondent Judge may be grounds of undue delay in disposing pending incidents, gross ignorance
mitigated by her being a first offender as she has never been previously of the law and gross inefficiency. After Presiding Judge Encomienda
sanctioned. She has also offered her apology. One staff member said inhibited himself, the case was re-raffled to the sala of Executive Judge
that she would sometimes show motherly care and compassion towards Norma Chionglo-Sia, who also inhibited herself because she was about
her staff.81 Further, her "temper explosions" are no longer as frequent to retire. The case was referred to Executive Judge Eloida R. de Leon-
as before. Anent Justice Singh's recommendation that respondent Diaz for proper disposition and re-raffle. The case was finally raffled to
Judge be transferred to a different court considering the strained complainant.
relations between respondent Judge and the court staff, the OCA
recommended that respondent Judge be given a fair chance to change Complainant averred that the administrative case against him by
her unpleasant attitude and behavior. respondent was brought about by his issuance of the omnibus order,
ISSUE: where he ordered the creation of a management committee and
Whether or not the respondent judge should be held administratively appointment of its members. Complainant further claimed that before the
liable? records of Civil Case 2007-10 was transmitted to his sala and after he
RULING: had inhibited from said case, respondent filed thirteen (13) civil and
The Court agrees with the findings of the OCA. special actions before the RTC of Lucena City. Atty. Calayan also filed
The Court has time and again reminded the members of the bench to two (2) related intra-corporate controversy cases - violating the rule on
faithfully observe the prescribed official hours to inspire public respect splitting causes of actions involving the management and operation of
for the justice system. It has issued Supervisory Circular No. 14 dated the foundation. According to complainant, these showed the propensity
October 22, 1985, Circular No. 13 dated July 1, 1987, and Administrative and penchant of respondent in filing cases, whether or not they are
Circular No. 3-99 dated January 15, 1999 to reiterate the trial judges' baseless, frivolous or unfounded, with no other intention but to harass,
mandate to exercise punctuality in the performance of their duties. malign and molest his opposing parties, including the lawyers and the
The aforesaid circulars are restatements of the Canons of Judicial Ethics handling judges. Complainant also disclosed that before his sala,
which enjoin judges to be punctual in the performance of their judicial respondent filed eighteen (18) repetitious and prohibited pleadings. To
duties, recognizing that the time of litigants, witnesses, and attorneys is complainant's mind, the ultimate and ulterior objective of respondent in
of value, and that if the judge is not punctual in his habits, he sets a bad filing the numerous pleadings, motions, manifestation and explanations
example to the bar and tends to create dissatisfaction in the was to prevent the takeover of the management of CEFI and to finally
administration of justice.88 dismiss the case at the pre-trial stage. Complainant further revealed that
The OCA aptly found that the testimonies of the prosecutors and the due to the series of motions for recusation or inhibition of judges, there
court staff unquestionably proved that respondent Judge failed to is no presiding judge in Lucena City available to try and hear the Calayan
observe the prescribed official hours as repeatedly enjoined by the cases. Moreover, respondent filed nine (9) criminal charges against
Court. Respondent Judge's own branch clerk of court even testified that opposing lawyers and their respective clients before the City Prosecutor
court sessions commenced between 9:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. although of Lucena City. In addition, there were four (4) administrative cases filed
the Minutes of the Proceedings reflected the time at 8:30 a.m.89 The against opposing counsels pending before the IBP Commission on Bar
OCA also correctly observed that respondent Judge failed to show Discipline.
 The Court, however, emphasizes that a case for disbarment or
Based on the foregoing, complainant asserted that respondent suspension is not meant to grant relief to a complainant as in a civil case,
committed the following: (1) serious and gross misconduct in his duties but is intended to cleanse the ranks of the legal profession of its
as counsel for himself; (2) violated his oath as lawyer for [a] his failure undesirable members in order to protect the public and the courts.
to observe and maintain respect to the courts (Section 20(b), Rule 138, Proceedings to discipline erring members of the bar are not instituted to
Rules of Court); [b] by his abuse of judicial process thru maintaining protect and promote the public good only, but also to maintain the dignity
actions or proceedings inconsistent with truth and honor and his acts to of the profession by the weeding out of those who have proven
mislead the judge by false statements (Section 20(d), Rule 138); (3) themselves unworthy thereof.
repeatedly violated the rules of procedures governing intra-corporate
cases and maliciously misused the same to defeat the ends of justice; In this case, perusal of the records reveals that Atty. Calayan has
and (4) knowingly violated the rule against the filing of multiple actions displayed conduct unbecoming of a worthy lawyer. Atty. Calayan is guilty
arising from the same cause of action. of harassing opposing counsel, attrributing unsupported ill-motives
against a judge, failed to observe candor, fairness and good faith before
Position of respondent the court; and failed to assist in the speedy and efficient administration
In his Position Paper, respondent countered that the subject case is of justice.
barred by the doctrine of res judicata. He stressed that because no
disciplinary measures were leveled on him by the OCA as an outcome Respondent justifies his filing of administrative cases against certain
of his complaint, charges for malpractice, malice or bad faith were judges, including complainant, by relying on In Re: Almacen (Almacen).
entirely ruled out; more so, his disbarment was decidedly eliminated. He claims that the mandate of the ruling laid down in Almacen was to
Respondent argued that the doctrine of res judicata was embedded in encourage lawyers' criticism of erring magistrates. In Almacen, however,
the OCA's finding that his complaint was judicial in nature. Respondent it did not mandate but merely recognized the right of a lawyer, both as
also claimed that the counter-complaint was unverified and thus, without an officer of the court and as a citizen, to criticize in properly respectful
complainant's own personal knowledge; instead, it is incontrovertible terms and through legitimate channels the acts of courts and judges.
proof of his lack of courtesy and obedience toward proper authorities
and fairness to a fellow lawyer. Indubitably, the acts of respondent were in violation of his duty to
observe and maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial
Further, respondent maintained that complainant committed the officers and his duty to never seek to mislead the judge or any judicial
following: officer. In his last ditch attempt to escape liability, respondent apologized
(1) grossly unethical and immoral conduct by his impleading a non-party; for not being more circumspect with his remedies and choice of words.
(2) betrayal of his lawyer's oath and the Code of Professional He admitted losing objectivity and becoming emotional while pursuing
Responsibility (CPR); the cases involving him and the CEFI. The Court, however, reiterates
(3) malicious and intentional delay in not terminating the pretrial,22 in that a lawyer's duty, is not to his client but primarily to the administration
violation of the Interim Rules because he ignored the special summary of justice.
nature of the case; and
(4) misquoted provisions of law and misrepresented the facts. WHEREFORE, the Court ADOPTS and APPROVES the Resolution of
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines - Board of Governors dated
In any case, based on the parties' position papers, the Investigating September 28, 2013. Accordingly, Atty. Ronaldo Antonio V. Calayan is
Commissioner concluded that respondent violated Section 20, Rule 138 found GUILTY of violating The Lawyer's Oath and The Code of
of the Rules of Court, Rules 8.01, 10.01 to 10.03, 11.03, 11.04, 12.02 Professional Responsibility and he is hereby ordered SUSPENDED
and 12.04 of the CPR and, thus, recommended his suspension from the from the practice of law for two (2) years, with a STERN WARNING that
practice of law for two (2) years, for the following reasons: a repetition of the same or a similar offense will warrant the imposition
of a more severe penalty.
1. Respondent did not deny having filed four (4) cases against the
counsel involved in the intra corporate case from which the subject 19) ANONYMOUS, Complainant, v. JUDGE BILL D. BUYUCAN,
administrative cases stemmed, and nine (9) criminal cases MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, BAGABAG-DIADI, NUEVA
against the opposing parties, their lawyers, and the receiver before the VIZCAYA, Respondent.
Office of the Prosecutor of Lucena City - all of which were subject of FACTS:
judicial notice. On June 26, 1969, Proclamation No. 573 was signed, which set aside
certain lands of the public domain as permanent forest
2. Respondent committed misrepresentation when he cited a quote from reserves. Included in the said reservation was a 193-hectare parcel of
former Chief Justice Hilario Davide, Jr. as a thesis when, land located in Sitio Tapaya, Villaros, Bagabag, Nueva Vizcaya, a
in fact, it was a dissenting opinion. portion of which was granted to the Department of Agriculture (DA) for
research purposes.
3. Respondent grossly abused his right of recourse
to the courts by the filing of multiple actions concerning the As there was a need to clear the Subject Property of informal settlers
same subject matter or seeking substantially identical relief. already residing therein, the DA filed several criminal and civil cases
before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Bagabag-Diadi, Nueva
4. Respondent violated Canon 11 of the CPR by attributing to Vizcaya (MCTC), which is presided over by respondent Judge Buyucan.
complainant ill-motives that were not supported by the record or The said cases were eventually dismissed by respondent Judge
had no materiality to the case. Buyucan

IBP Board of Governors issued a Resolution adopting and approving the A few months later, in August 2008, respondent Judge Buyucan
report and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner. It acquired a parcel of land located within the Subject Property, the same
recommended the suspension of respondent from the practice of law for respondent in the previously dismissed cases.
two (2) years. Aggrieved, respondent moved for reconsideration. In a
Resolution,41 dated May 4, 2014, the IBP Board of Governors denied A Motion for Voluntary Inhibition dated March 9, 2009 was then filed by
respondent's motion for reconsideration as there was no cogent reason the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), seeking the inhibition of
to reverse the findings of the Commission and the motion was a mere respondent Judge Buyucan as he was also residing within the very same
reiteration of the matters which had already been threshed out. property involved in the said criminal cases.
OMB informed the OCA of an anonymous text message received which
ISSUE: resulted to Hon. Fernando F. Flor, Jr. (Judge Flor), for investigation and
Whether or not Atty. Calayan is guilty of violating the lawyer’s oath and report.
the CPR? Judge Flor gathered the following facts:
RULING: Judge Buyucan is occupying an approximate area of one (1) hectare
Yes, The Court adopts the findings of the Investigating Commissioner where he keeps and maintains his fighting cock farm. A year ago, he
and the recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors. started constructing a two-storey house made of strong materials
without securing a building permit.
Judge Buyucan denied knowledge of the DA's ownership of the Subject scrupulously careful to avoid such action as may reasonably tend
Property. Respondent Judge Buyucan also claimed that the alleged two to waken the suspicion that his social or business relations or
(2)-storey house actually belonged to his nephew and that what he friendships constitute an element in determining his judicial
constructed were merely a "temporary Ifugao native house" and an course. He must not only render a just, correct and impartial
adjacent shanty.24 He further stated that he is, in any case, ready to decision but should do so in such a manner as to be free from any
vacate the area if and when the DPWH needs it. suspicion as to his fairness, impartiality and integrity.
Judge Flor recommended the penalty of dismissal from the service Guided by the foregoing standards, the Court hereby finds respondent
against respondent Judge Buyucan as a result of the foregoing acts. Judge Buyucan guilty of gross misconduct for his flagrant violation of the
standard of conduct embodied in the New Judicial Code of Judicial
(OCA): Conduct.
(1) The instant administrative complaint be RE-DOCKETED as a regular To prove that he legally occupies the subject land, Judge Buyucan
administrative matter against Judge Bill D. Buyucan, Municipal Circuit presented the Waiver of Rights executed by Ernesto Bagos in his favor.
Trial Court, Bagabag-Diadi, Nueva Vizcaya; However, the said land transferred to him is within the land owned by
(2)Judge Buyucan be found GUILTY of gross misconduct and violation the DA-CVHILROS which has been the subject of a controversy
of the Code of Judicial Conduct and be SUSPENDED for a period of six between the DA and the occupants of the land which was brought to his
(6) months from office without salary and other benefits; and court for adjudication. Hence, Judge Buyucan's rights over the land are
(3)Judge Buyucan be ordered to IMMEDIATELY VACATE the land still questionable as the DA has yet to take appropriate action against
owned by the Department of Agriculture-Cagayan Valley Hilly Land him and claimants of the land.
Research Outreach Station, REMOVE the structures he introduced The Court takes note of the undisputed fact that respondent Judge
thereon; and SUBMIT a report on his compliance within a period of thirty Buyucan is occupying public land. Thus, while respondent Judge
(30) days from notice. Buyucan denies the DA's ownership, he nevertheless admitted on
ISSUE: record he is encroaching on what he claims to be the RRW of the DPWH
Whether respondent Judge Buyucan is guilty of gross misconduct. beside the Nueva Vizcaya-Isabela National Road.
RULING: PENALTY: DISMISSED from the service, with FORFEITURE OF ALL
YES, Judge Buyucan is liable. BENEFITS,except accrued leave credits. He is
Judge Buyucan's claim that he was not occupying a portion of the likewise DISQUALIFIED from reinstatement or appointment to any
Subject Property is plainly belied by the verification plan prepared by the public office or employment, including to one in any government-owned
DENR, which forms part of the records of this case. Proceeding or government-controlled corporations.
therefrom, the Court so finds that respondent Judge Buyucan was He is likewise ordered to IMMEDIATELY VACATE the land known as
indeed an illegal occupant of the Subject Property. the Department of Agriculture Cagayan Valley Hillyland Research
Outreach Station, REMOVE the structures he introduced thereon,
In any case, even assuming that respondent Judge Buyucan did not and SUBMIT a report on his compliance within a period of thirty (30)
occupy a portion of the Subject Property, he is still liable due to his days from notice.
admission in his Letter that he was then occupying a portion of the RRW
of the DPWH Nueva Vizcaya-Isabela National Road. Further, respondent Bill D. Buyucan is directed to SHOW CAUSE in
By his own admission, respondent Judge Buyucan acquired the writing within ten (10) days from notice why he should not be disbarred
occupied portion of the Subject Property only a few months after for violation of the Lawyer's Oath, the Code of Professional
dismissing Civil Case No. 626.50 As stated earlier, it bears stressing Responsibility, and the Canons of Professional Ethics as outlined herein.
that one of the vendors in the alleged transaction was Eling Valdez, one
of the respondents in Civil Case No. 626 and the accused in Criminal
Case No. 4691.51
Lastly, the Court also notes that despite repeated demands from the DA,
respondent Judge Buyucan refused to cease his illegal occupation of the
Subject Property.52
Persons involved in the administration of justice are expected to uphold
the strictest standards of honesty and integrity in the public service; their
conduct must always be beyond reproach and circumscribed with the
heavy burden of responsibility.

At the outset, respondent Judge Buyucan's continued illegal settlement

erodes the public's confidence in its agents of justice considering that
such act amounts to an arbitrary deprivation of the DA's ownership rights
over the Subject Property. Even worse, his continued refusal to vacate
instigated the continued illegal occupation of other informal settlers
residing therein. Canon 2 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct55 requires
that the conduct of judges must reaffirm the people's faith in the integrity
of the judiciary and that their conduct must, at the least, be perceived to
be above reproach in the view of a reasonable observer. Based on the
foregoing acts alone, it is clear the respondent Judge Buyucan fell short
of the required conduct of all members of the bench.

In the same vein, the Court faults respondent Judge Buyucan for his act
of acquiring a portion of the Subject Property from a respondent in a
case pending before his sala. His act is further aggravated by the fact
that the respondent therein, Eling Valdez, received a favorable judgment
just a few months before the purported sale.

Impartiality is essential to the proper discharge of the judicial office.

Section 2 of Canon 3 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct
mandates that a judge shall ensure that his conduct, both in and
out of court, maintains and enhances the confidence of the public
and litigants in his impartiality and that of the judiciary. In this
respect, respondent Judge Buyucan's conduct incites intrigue and puts
into question his impartiality in deciding the cases then pending before
him. Such conduct unquestionably gives rise to the impression that he
was motivated by extraneous factors in ruling on the said cases.

A judge should, in pending or prospective litigation before him, be