Case TitleDutyDate
1. AVELINO O. ANGELES et. al vs. ATTY. AMADO O. IBAEZDuty to
Court15-Jan-09
2. SPOUSES PADILLA vs. ISAURO A. VELASCO, et.alDuty to
Client19-Jan-09
3. DOMINGA RUIZ, et.al vs. CIRILA DELOS SANTOSDuty to
Client27-Jan-09
4. TANU REDDI vs. ATTY. DIOSDADO C. SEBRIO, JR.,Duty to
Court/Client30-Jan-09
5. OFELIA R. SOMOSOT vs. ATTY. GERARDO F. LARADuty to
Client30-Jan-09
6. OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR vs. MARLON ROQUEDuty to
Court4-Feb-09
7. ANGALAN VS. DELANTEDuty to Client6-Feb-09
8. PLUS BUILDERS, INC. vs. ATTY. ANASTACIO E. REVILLA, JR.Duty
to Court/Legal Profession11-Feb-09
9. EDGARDO D. AREOLA vs. JUDGE BAYANIDuty to
Society18-Feb-09
10. EUGENIA MENDOZA vs. ATTY. VICTOR V. DECIEMBREDuty to
Society/Legal Profession23-Feb-09
11. CONRADO G. FERNANDEZ vs. ATTY. MARIA ANGELICA P. DE
RAMOS-VILLALONDuty to Court/Client/Society27-Feb-09
12. CHRISTOPHER D. MANAOG vs. ARNEL JOSE A. RUBIO Duty to
Court13-Feb-09
13. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY, INC. VS. ATTY. LEOVIGILDO H. MIJARES
IIIDuty to Society/Court/Client20-Nov-09
14. FRANCISCO A. LABAO vs. LOLITA N. FLORES et al.,Duty to
Client15-Nov-10
15. ATTY. LEONOR M. ALCANTARA et.al. v ATTY. EDUARDO C. DE
VERADuty to Client23-Nov-10
16. MANUEL YUHICO v ATTY. FRED L. GUTIERREZDuty to
Society23-Nov-10
17. LORNA M. VILLAUEVA v JUDGE APOLIARIO M. BUAYADuty to
Society
18. SPOUSES VIRGIOLIO AND ANGELINA ARANDA v ATTY. EMMANUEL F.
ELAYDADuty to Client15-Dec-10
19. ATTY. JONNA M. ESCABARTE v MS. LOIDA J. GERNABEDuty to the
Legal Profession
20. JOVITO S. OLAZO v DANTE O. TINGADuty to Society7-Dec-10
21. CARMEN EDAO vs. Judge FATIMA G. ASDALACode of Judicial
Conduct6-Dec-10
22. ATTY. NORLINDA R. AMANTE-DESCALLAR vs.HON. REINERIO
(ABRAHAM) B. Code of Judicial Conduct15-Dec-10
De Guzman, Mageryl Shay B.
De Guzman, Mageryl Shay B.Duty to Court
AVELINO O. ANGELES et. al vs. ATTY. AMADO O. IBAEZA.C. No. 7860,
576 SCRA 90, January 15, 2009CARPIO,J.:
This is a complaint for disbarment for notarizing the
"Extrajudicial Partition with Absolute Sale" without a notarial
commission and in the absence of the affiants.
Facts:Atty. Amado Ibaez allegedly notarized an "Extrajudicial
Partition with Absolute Sale" without having the authority to
notarize such as he did not have a commission as notary public at
that time. The petitioners further denied executing the said
document or, that they ever appeared before respondent Atty. Ibaez
for this purpose. He stated that his failure to require the
presence of the parties to the "Extrajudicial Partition with
Absolute Sale" is wholly justified because of the assurance of
complainant Rosalina Angeles that the signatures appearing in the
said document were indeed those of her co-heirs. The respondent
also alleged that almost all the complainants submitted their
residence certificates, the numbers of which were recorded in the
acknowledgement portion of the document.
Issue:Whether or not respondent violated his oath as a lawyer
and the Code of Professional Responsibility when he notarized the
"Extrajudicial Partition with Absolute Sale" in the absence of the
affiants.
Ruling:The Supreme Court held that respondent violated his oath
as a lawyer and the Code of Professional Responsibility when he
notarized the "Extrajudicial Partition with Absolute Sale" in the
absence of the affiants. Respondent himself admits that he merely
relied on the representation of Rosalina Angeles that the
signatures appearing on the "Extrajudicial Partition with Absolute
Sale" subject of the present complaint are those of her co-heirs.
Respondent claims that he reposed confidence upon Rosalina Angeles
because she is his confidential secretary. Unfortunately for
respondent, he cannot exculpate himself from the consequences of
his recklessness and his failure to comply with the requirements of
the law by relying on his confidential secretary.Time and again,
the Supreme Court have reminded lawyers commissioned as notaries
public that the affiants must personally appear before them. The
physical presence of the affiants enables the notary public to
verify the genuineness of the signatures of the acknowledging
parties and to ascertain that the document is the parties free act
and deed. Under the facts and circumstances of the case,
respondents notarial commission should not only be suspended but
respondent must also be suspended from the practice of law.
Adjudication:The Court finds respondent Atty. Amado O.
Ibaezguiltyandsuspendshim from the practice of law for one
year,revokeshis incumbent notarial commission, if any,
andprohibitshim from being commissioned as a notary public for one
year.De Guzman, Mageryl Shay B.Duty to Client
SPOUSES PADILLAvs. ISAURO A. VELASCO, et.alG.R. No. 169956, 576
SCRA 219, January 19, 2009NACHURA,J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court assailing the Decision of the Court of Appeals.
Facts:Respondents are the heirs of Dr. Artemio A. Velasco who
died single and without any issue on January 22, 1949. During his
lifetime, Artemio acquired a parcel of land. In October 1987, the
Padilla spouses entered the said property as trustees by virtue of
a deed of sale executed by the Rural Bank of Pagsanjan in favor of
spouses Bartolome Solomon, Jr. and Teresita Padilla. Respondents
demanded that petitioners vacate the property, but the latter
refused. Because the parties failed to reach an amicable
settlement, actions were instituted and trial proceedings commenced
accordingly. The Regional Trial Court rendered a decision in favor
of the respondents ordering the petitioners to vacate the land and
restore possession thereof to the respondents, to render an
accounting of the proceeds from the crop harvested therefrom
starting September 1987 up to the time the property is returned to
the respondents, and to remove at their expense all the structures
they constructed thereon. The Padilla Spouses appealed to the CA
but to no avail. Hence, this petition claiming that their counsel,
Atty. Asinas failed to present other witnesses, additional
documents that may be essential to overturn the decision in their
favor.
Issue:Whether or not the serious illness of a counsel
constitutes excusable negligence or incompetency to warrant a new
trial.
Ruling:The Supreme Court ruled that mistakes of counsel as to
the competency of witnesses, the sufficiency and relevancy of
evidence, the proper defense, or the burden of proof, as well as
his failure to introduce certain evidence or to summon witnesses
and to argue the case, are not proper grounds for a new trial,
unless the incompetence of counsel be so great that his client is
prejudiced and prevented from fairly presenting his case. In this
case, the illness of petitioners counsel and his alleged failure to
present additional evidence during the trial of the case do not
constitute sufficient ground for a new trial.
Adjudication:The instant petition isdenied for lack of
merit.
De Guzman, Mageryl Shay B.Duty to Client
DOMINGA RUIZ, et.al vs. CIRILA DELOS SANTOSG.R. No. 166386, 576
SCRA 404, January 27, 2009AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,J.:
This is a petition for review oncertiorariandmandamusseeking
that the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals be reversed and set
aside; and that the CA be directed to give due course to the
petition forcertiorari, prohibition andmandamusfiled before it by
herein petitioners.
Facts:Petitioners in this case, Dominga, Apolonia, Florencio,
Cornelia, Tomasa and Olimpio were the original owners of seven
parcels of land in Cavite. Cirila delos Santos, herein respondent,
is a duly licensed real estate broker. Sometime in 1995, Olimpio,
one of the petitioners herein, gave respondent the plan of the
subject property and verbally authorized her to sell the same.
Thereafter, respondent referred in writing the subject property to
Odessa Antiporda, a realtor and a fellow estate broker. Antiporda
in turn referred the subject property to one Alfred Tantiansu.
Olimpio then gave respondent a written authority to sell the same.
Olimpio and Cirila was not able to agree with the amount of
commission the latter is entitled to get for because it is through
her effort as a real estate broker that she was able to bring about
the consummation of the sale of the subject property. Due to the
failure of the petitioners to pay the said commission, full-blown
trial on the merits ensued. The Regional Trial Court is rendered a
decision in favor of plaintiff [respondent] and against the
defendants [petitioners]. Hence, the petitioners herein appealed
but failed to pay the required appeal fee due to mistake and
excusable negligence of their counsel. Atty. Ang, the petitioners
counsel admitted that it was through his negligence that the appeal
was belatedly filed. He claimed that because some of the
petitioners were abroad, it was difficult to communicate with
them.
Issue:Whether or not the failure of petitioners counsel to
perfect the appeal binds petitioners.
Ruling:Yes. The failure of petitioners counsel to perfect the
appeal binds petitioners. It is settled that clients are bound by
the mistakes, negligence, and omission of their counsel. While,
exceptionally, the client may be excused from the failure of
counsel, the factual circumstances in the present case do not give
us sufficient reason to suspend the rules of the most mandatory
character. Petitioners themselves may not be said to be entirely
faultless. Records show that at that time, while some of the
petitioners were already abroad, Dominga and Tomasa were still
living in Cavite. Cornelia who lives abroad was able to receive a
copy of the decision and was able to make an overseas call to Atty.
Ang to express her desire to appeal the decision. However, neither
Dominga nor Tomasa who only live in Cavite, took steps to call
Atty. Ang at the earliest possible time to protect their interest.
No prudent party would leave the fate of his case completely to his
lawyer. It is the duty of the client to be in touch with his
counsel so as to be constantly posted about the case. Thus, the
Supreme Court find that there was participatory negligence on the
part of petitioners, which would not relieve them of the
consequence of the negligence of their counsel.
Adjudication: The petition was denied.
De Guzman, Mageryl Shay B.Duty to Court/Client
TANU REDDI vs. ATTY. DIOSDADO C. SEBRIO, JR.,A.C. No.
7027January 30, 2009PER CURIAM:
Facts:Complainant Tanu Reddi, an American citizen of Indian
descent and a practicing endodontist [dentist] in New York, seeks
the disbarment of respondent Atty. Diosdado C. Sebrio, Jr. for
allegedly deceiving her into giving him a total of US $ 3,000,000
for the purpose of, among other things, purchasing several real
estate properties for resale. Inspired by the charitable works of
her parents, complainant decided to build a hospital in the
Philippines. However she needed more revenue to finance the said
undertaking. Through the advice of her assistant Immaculada
Luistro, complainant ventured into the real estate in the
Philippines. It through this business hat he came to know and ask
for legal advice from respondent. Respondent advised that
complainant cannot own real estate in the Philippines since she is
an alien, thus the remedy is to put up a corporation, and this
corporation will be the one who will acquire the land. Three
corporations then were created. Through the instance of respondent
and financed by complainants, several lots were purchased. However,
complainant was unaware that the transactions [sale of several
lands] she had entered into were all bogus, since the sellers were
not the real owners of the land. This fact was known to the
respondent since he is the one who arranged the transactions.
Issue:Whether or not respondent is guilty of violating the Code
of Professional Responsibility.
Ruling:Yes, the commissioner who investigated the case of
respondent [result of the investigation was adopted by the Supreme
Court] foundrespondent to have committed fraudulent acts which
constitute violations of the lawyers oath and numerous provisions
of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). He engaged in
unlawful, dishonest and deceitful conduct when he offered
properties for sale to complainant on the misrepresentation that
complainant was dealing with the true owners thereof. Respondent
violated CANON 1 which states: A lawyer shall uphold the
Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for the
law and for legal processes. He likewise violated Rule 1.01 of the
CPR which provides: A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. Respondent violated Canon
16 and Rule 16.01 of the CPR, and Rule 15.06 of the CPR.The court
found that respondents dishonest and deceitful conduct with respect
to the intended transactions, real property acquisitions which
turned out to be bogus, is sufficiently established. Explained the
court,"to reiterate,byhisownadmission, respondent received a total
of US$544,828 from complainant, which he could not properly account
for. The orchestrated manner in which he carried out his fraudulent
scheme, in connivance with other persons, and by taking advantage
of complainants naivete in the workings of the real estate business
in the Philippines, depict a man whose character falls way, way
short of the exacting standards required of him as a member of the
bar and an officer of the court. Thus, respondent is no longer fit
to remain as such.The court in admonition reiterates that if the
practice of law, however, is to remain an honorable profession and
attain its basic ideals, those enrolled in its ranks should not
only master its tenets and principles but should also, in their
lives, accord continuing fidelity to them.The requirement of good
moral character is, in fact, of much greater import, as far as the
general public is concerned, than the possession of legal
learning."
Adjudication:Respondent Diosdado C. Sebrio, Jr. is disbarred. He
is ordered to return to complainant the amount of US$544,828.
De Guzman, Mageryl Shay B.Duty to Client
OFELIA R. SOMOSOT vs. ATTY. GERARDO F. LARAA.C. No.7024, 577
SCRA 93, January 30, 2009BRION,J.:
This is a complaint for disbarment.
Facts:The complainant alleged that she retained the services of
the respondent as her counsel in case filed against her and her
co-defendants for the collection of a sum of money amounting to
P1.3 Million. Her defense was that it was the plaintiff who
actually owed herP800, 000.00. She claimed that she had the
evidence to prove this defense at the trial and that respondent
agreed to handle the case and duly entered his appearance as
counsel after securing his acceptance fee. However, after filing
the Answer to the Complaint, the respondent failed to fully inform
her of further developments in the case. She only heard about the
case when there was already a decision against her and her
co-defendants. She even belatedly learned that the respondent had
sought his discharge as counsel without her knowledge and consent.
After the court denied the respondent's motion to withdraw from the
case, the complainant claimed that the respondent represented her
interests in a half-hearted manner, resulting in the grant of the
plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings. Allegedly, the
respondent failed to properly oppose the motion and she was
thereafter deprived of the chance to present her evidence.
Execution of the court's decision followed, resulting in the sale
of her house and lot at public auction despite her efforts to
reverse the judgment with the help of another lawyer. Thereafter, a
third party to whom her property had been mortgaged sued her.
Issue:Whether or not the respondent violated Canon 18 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility.
Ruling:Yes. The Supreme Court held that respondent violated
Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides
that "a lawyer shall serve his client with competence and
diligence." First, the respondent failed to contact his client
about the developments of the case. Second, assuming the
non-payment of his legal services to be true, such failure should
not be a reason not to inform the client of an important
development, or worse, to withhold vital information from her.
Third, the respondent failed to provide details on the developments
that led to the adverse rulings on the interrogatories/admissions
and the judgment on the pleadings. However, the Supreme Court
cannot also disbar the respondent as the complainant demands in
light of the complainant's own contributory faults. The
complainant's failing in this regard is her failure to inform her
counsel of her change of business address, a serious lapse but one
that a resourceful counsel could have easily handled.
Adjudication:Atty. Gerardo F. Lara issuspended from the practice
of law for a period of three (3) months.De Guzman, Mageryl Shay
B.Duty to Court
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR vs. MARLON RoqueA.M No.
P-06-2200, 580 SCRA 321, February 4, 2009En Banc CARPIO
MORALES,J.:
This is an administrative matter against Clerks of Court Marlon
Roque and Anita Nunag.
Facts:Respondents standcharged for negligencein their duty to
monitor and supervise Cashier Aurelia Lugue in the management of
court funds. Their failure to monitor the financial transactions of
the Court had resulted in the shortage in the Fiduciary Fund (FF)
account in the amount of P605,025.00. Roque, for his part, alleged
that to the best of his knowledge and despite his limited
background in accounting, he did his very best to closely supervise
the financial transactions of the office.In the discharge of this
duty, he never noted any discrepancy reflected in the Monthly
Reports of Collections.Nunag, on the other hand, claimed that when
she assumed as Clerk of Court, she was not thoroughly familiar with
accounting procedures and had no exposure to bookkeeping and
accounting work. She continued the accounting procedures and the
practice of Roque and Aurelia.
Issue:Whether or not respondents are guilty of Simple
Negligence.
Ruling:Yes. The Supreme Court held that as accountable officers
and custodians of the courts funds, respondents wereduty-bound to
use reasonable skill and diligencein the performance of their
duties. It was their responsibility to ensure the correctness and
legitimacy of every financial transaction within their
responsibility. The trust they reposed to Cashier Lugue cannot be a
valid defense. It was their duty to see to it that their
subordinates performed their functions properly. Further.
Respondents lack or limited knowledge of accounting procedures does
not exonerate them.To credit such defense would set similarly
situated employees to lightly discharge their duty of employing
reasonable skill and diligence and thus evade administrative
liability.
Adjudication:Respondents Marlon Roque and Anita G. Nunag guilty
of Simple Neglect of Duty and are each finedthe amount of Five
Thousand (P5,000) Pesos.
De Guzman, Mageryl Shay B.Duty to Client
Angalan vs. Atty. DelanteA.C. No. 7181, 578 SCRA 113, February
6, 2009PER CURIAM:
This is a complaint for gross violation of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
Facts:The complainants are the heirs of Angalan Samal. They
allege that they are illiterate and belong to the Samal Tribe.
Angalan, Sanaan, and complainants owned a 9.102-hectare parcel of
land. On 15 April 1971, Angalan and complainants borrowedP15, 000
from Spouses Eustaquio.To secure the loan, Angalan and complainants
mortgaged their parcel of land. The Spouses Eustaquio prepared a
document and asked Angalan and complainants to sign it.Angalan and
complainants affixed their thumb marks on the document. When
complainants tried to pay the loan and recover the land from the
Spouses Eustaquio, the Spouses Eustaquio refused.Complainants
learned that the document which the Spouses Eustaquio prepared, and
which complainants signed, was a deed of absolute sale and not a
real estate mortgage.They also learned that Navarro R. Eustaquio
had transferred the title over the property to his
name.Complainants engaged the services of Atty. Leonido C. Delante
for the purpose of recovering their property. According to
complainants, they engaged the services of respondent for the
purpose of recovering their property from the Spouses Eustaquio.In
violation of the trust and confidence they reposed in him,
respondent transferred the title over the property to his
name.According to respondent, complainants did not engage his
services.His client from New York was the one who bought the
property from the Spouses Eustaquio.Issue:Whether or not Atty.
Leonido C. Delante isguiltyof violating Canons 16 and 17 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility.
Ruling:Yes. The Supreme Court held that respondent Atty. Delante
is guilty of violating the canons of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Canon 17 states thatlawyers shall be mindful of the
trust and confidence reposed in them.Respondent should have been
mindful of the trust and confidence complainants reposed in
him.Complainants allege that they are illiterate and that the
Spouses Eustaquio took advantage of them.Complainants engaged the
services of respondent in the hope that he would help them recover
their property.Instead of protecting the interests of complainants,
respondent took advantage of complainants and transferred the title
of the property to his name.The Supreme Court further ruled that
respondent violated Canons 16 and 17 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.Canon 16 states thatlawyers shall hold in trust all
properties of their clients that may come into their
possession.Respondent should have held in trust TCT No. T-9926 and
returnedthe property to complainants upon demand.[24]Instead of
holding in trustthe property of complainants, respondent (1)
transferred the title of the property to his name, (2) refused to
return the property to complainants, and (3) referred to
complainants charges as malicious and untruthful.
Adjudication:The Court finds Atty. Leonido C. Delanteguiltyof
violating Canons 16 and 17 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.He is disbarred from the practice of law and his
name stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.
De Guzman, Mageryl Shay B. Duty to Court/Legal Profession
PLUS BUILDERS, INC. vs. ATTY. ANASTACIO E. REVILLA, JR.A.C. No.
7056, 578 SCRA 431, February 11, 2009En Banc NACHURA,J.
This is a motion for reconsideration of the Decision of the
Supreme Court.
Facts:On November 15, 1999, a decision was rendered by the
Provincial Adjudicator of Cavite (PARAD) in favor of herein
complainant, Plus Builders, Inc. and against the tenants/farmers
Leopoldo de Guzman, Heirs of Bienvenido de Guzman, Apolonio Ilas
and Gloria Martirez Siongco, Heirs of Faustino Siongco, Serafin
Santarin, Benigno Alvarez and Maria Esguerra, who were the clients
ofrespondent, Atty. Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr.The PARAD found that
respondents clients were mere tenants and not rightful
possessors/owners of the subject land.The case was elevated all the
way up to the Supreme Court, with this Court sustaining
complainants rights over the land.Continuing to pursue his clients
lost cause, respondent was found to have committed intentional
falsehood; and misused court processes with the intention to delay
the execution of the decision through the filing of several
motions, petitions for temporary restraining orders, and the last,
an action to quiet title despite the finality of the
decision.Furthermore, he allowed non-lawyers to engage in the
unauthorized practice of law, holding themselves out as his
partners/associates in the law firm. The Court then imposed a
two-year suspension against respondent lawyer.Respondent sought
consideration and compassion for the issuance of the clearance
considering present economic financial difficulties and reiterating
the fact that he was the sole breadwinner in the family.
Issue:a) Whether or not respondent lawyer is guilty of violating
the Canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility.b) Whether or
not respondent lawyers suspension of 2-years be modified.
Ruling:a) Yes. Under the circumstances, the respondents repeated
attempts go beyond the legitimate means allowed by professional
ethical rules in defending the interests of his client.These are
already uncalled for measuresto avoid the enforcement of final
judgments of the MeTC and RTC. In these attempts,the respondent
violated Rule 10.03, Canon 10 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which makes it obligatory for a lawyer to observe
the rules of procedure and. . .not [to] misuse them to defeat the
ends of justice.By his actions,the respondent used procedural rules
to thwart and obstructthe speedy and efficient administration of
justice, resulting in prejudiceto the winning parties in that case
2. The Court held that it must show compassion and will not
hesitate to refrain from imposing the appropriate penalties in the
presence of mitigating factors, such as the respondents length of
service, acknowledgment of his or her infractions and feeling of
remorse, family circumstances, humanitarian and equitable
considerations, and respondents advanced age, among other things,
which have varying significance in the Courts determination of the
imposable penalty.Thus, after a careful consideration of herein
respondents motion for reconsideration andhumble acknowledgment of
his misfeasance, the Court is persuaded to extend a degree of
leniency towards him, suspension of six (6) months from the
practice of law is thus imposed.
Adjudication: Respondents Motion for Reconsideration ispartially
granted.The Decision is herebymodified in that respondent
issuspendedfrom the practice of law for a period of six (6)
months.
De Guzman, Mageryl Shay B.Duty to Society
EDGARDO D. AREOLA (a.k.a. MOHAMMAD KAHDAFFY vs. JUDGE BAYANIA.M.
No. RTJ-09-2163, 579 SCRA 549, February 18, 2009NACHURA,J.:
This is an administrative complaint filed by Edgardo D. Areola
(a.k.a. Mohammad Kahdaffy) against Judge Bayani Y. Ilano.
Facts:Edgardo D. Areola, Police Officer Manuel Bayaga and
Antonio Bayaga were charged with Murder. The case was raffled and
re-raflled due to the retirement of the previous judge and
inhibition of another until the case was transferred to Branch 73,
presided over by Judge Francisco Querubin. On March 16, 2004, Judge
Querubin issued an order granting the Motion for Bail of PO3 Manuel
Bayaga and Antonio Bayaga only and fixed the bail atP100, 000.00
each. On May 6, 2004, complainant filed a Manifestation stating
therein that he should likewise be granted bail.Upon motion ofthe
complainant, Judge Querubin recused himself so the case was
assigned to Branch 71, presided over by Judge Bayani Y. Ilano,
herein respondent. Thereafter, Judge Ilano also expressed that he
was inhibiting from the case but pursuant to a Memorandum from the
Office of the Court Administrator, he was compelled to handle the
case because the pairing judge of the heinous crimes court (Branch
74) hadearlier inhibited from the case. On April 11, 2006,
complainant filed an Urgent Motion to Resolve Motion for
Reconsideration which denied the Urgent Motion for Admission to
Bail. The complainant filed a Second Urgent Motion to Resolve and
to Grant Motion for Admission to Bail, and another Manifestation
and Motion reiterating his prayer to be admitted to bail.Meanwhile,
Judge Ilano issued an Order directing the transfer of the
complainant from the Rizal Provincial Jail to the Antipolo City
Jail upon an urgent ex-parte motion filed by the Provincial Warden
on even date. On September 15, 2006, Judge Ilano issued an Order
denying Complainants Motion for Reconsideration.
Issues:a) Whether or not Judge Ilano violated Republic Act No.
3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act).b) Whether or not
respondent judge violated Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of
Judicial Conduct.
Ruling:a) The Supreme Court found complainants chargesagainst
respondent Judge without basis. Theorders which were adverse to the
complainant pertained to the adjudicative function of respondent
Judge.As a matter of policy, the acts of a judge in his judicial
capacity are not subject to disciplinary action,no matter how
erroneous, as long as he acts in good faith. In the instant case,
the administrative complaint was obviously resorted to when
complainant failed to obtainthe favorable action he wanted from the
court. It must be stressed that the filing of an administrative
complaint is not an appropriate remedy where judicial recourse is
still available, such as a motion for reconsideration, an appeal,
or a petition for certiorari, unless issued or rendered with ill
motive.b) However, the Court cannot gloss over the fact that
respondent Judge was remiss in his duty for his failure to resolve
the pending motion for reconsideration with dispatch. Under the
Constitution, trial judges are given only ninety (90) days from the
filing of the last pleading within which to resolve the matter at
hand. Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, likewise,
enunciates that judges should administer justice without delay and
dispose of the courts business promptly within the period
prescribed by law. When respondent Judge took over the case, the
motion for reconsideration had already been long pending and
several motions were filed for its urgent resolution. Respondent
Judge acted on said motion only after five (5) months from the time
the case was assigned to him.Unfortunately, respondent Judges
explanation on this matter is wanting as he failed to file any
comment on the charges hurled against him.
Adjudication:Judge Bayani Y. Ilano is finedofP20, 000.00
chargeable to his retirement benefits.
De Guzman, Mageryl Shay B. Duty to Society/Legal Profession
EUGENIA MENDOZA vs. ATTY. VICTOR V. DECIEMBREA.C. No. 5338, 580
SCRA 26 February 23, 2009Per Curiam:
This is a petition for disbarment.
Facts:Complainant, a mail sorter at the Central Post Office
Manila, averred that: OnOctober 13, 1998, she borrowed from Rodela
Loans, Inc., through respondent, the amount ofP20, 000.00 payable
in six months at 20% interest, secured by 12 blank checks.
Respondent warned complainant that he would deposit Postal Check
No. 47253 filled up by him in the amount ofP16, 000.00 because the
amount remitted were not enough to cover the penalties. Afraid that
respondent might sue her in court, complainant made good said check
and respondent was able to encash the same onMarch 30,
1999.Thereafter, complainant made subsequent payments to the
Metrobank account of respondent paying respondent the total sum
ofP35, 690.00.Complainant further claimed that, later, respondent
filled up two of the postal checks she issued in blank, with the
amount ofP50,000.00 each which respondent claims was in exchange
for theP100,000.00 cash that complainant received on November 15,
1999.Complainant insisted however that she never borrowedP100,
000.00 from and also claimed that respondent victimized other
employees of the Postal Office by filling up, without
authorization, blank checks issued to him as condition for loans.
Respondent averred that his dealings with complainant were done in
his private capacity and not as a lawyer, and that when he filed a
complaint for violation ofBatas Pambansa Blg. (B.P. Blg.) 22
against complainant, he was only vindicating his rights as a
private citizen. It was complainant who deliberately deceived him
by not honoring her commitment to their November 15, 1999
transaction involvingP100, 000.00 and covered by two checks which
bounced for the reason account closed.The IBP imposed indefinite
suspension upon the respondent after an investigation.
Issue:a) Whether or not the respondent be disbarred even if
there is no attorney-client relationship.b) Whether or not the
penalty of indefinite suspension is correct.
Ruling:a) The Supreme Court ruled that the fact that there is no
attorney-client relationship in this case and the transactions
entered into by respondent were done in his private capacity cannot
shield respondent, as a lawyer, from liability. A lawyer may be
disciplined for acts committed even in his private capacity for
acts which tend to bring reproach on the legal profession or to
injure it in the favorable opinion of the public.b) The Court
agrees with the findings of the IBP, but finds that disbarment and
not just indefinite suspension is in order. The Supreme Court held
that the practice of law is not a right but merely a privilege
bestowed by the State upon those who show that they possess, and
continue to possess, the qualifications required by law for the
conferment of such privilege.A high sense of morality, honesty and
fair dealing is expected and required of members of the
bar.[26]They must conduct themselves with great propriety, and
their behavior must be beyond reproach anywhere and at all
times.
Adjudication:Atty. Victor V. Deciembre is found guilty of gross
and violationof Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility.He is DISBARRED from the
practice of law and his name is ordered stricken off the Roll of
Attorneys effective immediately
De Guzman, Mageryl Shay B.Duty to Court/Client/Society
CONRADO G. FERNANDEZ vs. ATTY. MARIA ANGELICA P. DE
RAMOS-VILLALONA.C. No. 7084, 580 SCRA 310, February 27,
2009BRION,J.:
This is an administrative case filed by complainant Conrado G.
Fernandez againstAtty. Maria Angelica P. De Ramos-Villalon.
Facts: It was discovered by Palacios that Fernandez had
falsified a Deed of Donation that he (Palacios) purportedly
executed in Fernandez favor in order acquire the lot that Palacios
inherited the lot from his mother. Palacios then employed the
services of respondent Atty. Villalon to file a Complaint for the
declaration of nullity of the Deed of Donation that became the
basis for the issuance of a title in Conrado G. Fernandez name.
Fernandez claimed that the transfer of title in his name was proper
on account of an existing Deed of Absolute Salebetween him and
Palacios.He also alleged that it was Palacios who falsified a Deed
of Donation by forging their signatures and having it notarized;
Palacios did this in order to cheat the government by paying only
the donors tax, which was lower than the capital gains tax he would
have paid had the transaction been represented as a sale. He
additionally alleged that Palacios intended to falsify the Deed of
Donation in order to have a ground for the annulment of the new TCT
issued in favor of Fernandez and, ultimately, to recover the
property. He also filed a complaint for disbarmentagainst Atty.
Villalon for violation of Rule 1.01, Rule 7.03, Rule 10.01,Rule
10.02, and Rule 10.03 of the Canons of Professional
Responsibility.
Issue:Whether or not Atty. Villalon be disbarred for suppression
of evidence.
Ruling:The Supreme Court held that the charges against the
respondent do not constitute sufficient grounds for disbarment. A
lawyer, as an officer of the court, has a duty to be truthful in
all his dealings. However, this duty does not require that the
lawyer advance matters of defense on behalf of his or her clients
opponent. A lawyer is his or her clients advocate; while duty-bound
to utter no falsehood, an advocate is not obliged to build the case
for his or her clients opponent. The respondents former client,
Palacios, approached her to file a complaint for theannulment of
the Deed of Donation. This was the cause of action chosen by her
client. Assumingarguendothat the respondent knew of the presence of
the Deed of Absolute Sale, its existence, is, indeed, a matter of
defense for Fernandez. The respondent cannot be faulted for
choosing not to pursue the nullification of the Deed of Absolute
Sale. The respondent alleged that her former client, Palacios,
informed her that the Deed of Absolute Sale was void for lack of
consideration. Furthermore, unlike the Deed of Donation, the Deed
of Absolute Sale wasnot registered in the Registry of Deeds and was
not the basis for the transfer of title of Palacios property to
Fernandez. Under the circumstances, it was not unreasonable for a
lawyer to conclude, whether correctly or incorrectly, that the Deed
of Absolute Sale was immaterial in achieving the ultimate goal the
recovery of Palacios property.
Adjudication: The complaint for Disbarment is dismissed.
De Guzman, Mageryl Shay B.Duty to Court
CHRISTOPHER D. MANAOG vs. ARNEL JOSE A. RUBIO A.M. No.
P-08-2521, 579 SCRA 10, February 13, 2009NACHURA,J.:
This is a complaint for misconduct, unethical behavior, verbal
abuse, manhandling, grave threat, grave/serious oral defamation,
harassment, abuse and usurpation of judicial power.
Facts:On October 21, 2005, Christopher D. Manaoag went to the
Office of the Clerk of Court to secure information on ownership of
certain parcels of land, which had been transferred to others
allegedly through fraud. He was inquiring at the information
counter in the lobby of the Hall of Justice, when respondent Rubio
approached him and said, "Digdi" (Its here) after the former saw
the documents he had brought with him. The complainant claims the
respondent told him that the person whose signature appeared on the
said documents was already dead, and whatever records the
complainant was looking for were already gone. A discussion
followed, culminating in a verbal tussle between them. On October
26, 2005, he returned to the Hall of Justice with his brother to
verify the identity of the other employee (respondent Surtida) who
had joined respondent Rubio in verbally abusing him. The
respondents called them Beasts and Nutcase.
Issue:Whether or not respondents are liable for conduct
prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
Ruling:Yes. Time and again, the Court has emphasized the heavy
burden of responsibility which court officials and employees are
mandated to perform. They are constantly reminded that any
impression of impropriety, misdeed or negligence in the performance
of official functions must be avoided. This is so because the image
of the court of justice is necessarily mirrored in the conduct,
official or otherwise, of the men and women who work there. Thus,
court employees have been requested to adhere to the exacting
standards of morality and decency in order to preserve the
judiciarys good name and standing as a true temple of justice.
Respondents Rubio and Surtida should be held liable for conduct
unbecoming court employees. Their acts of provoking the complainant
constitute behavior wholly unexpected from those in the judicial
service. They should be reminded that government service is
people-oriented. Patience is an essential part of dispensing
justice, civility is never a sign of weakness, and courtesy is a
mark of culture and good breeding. Impatience and rudeness have no
place in government service in which personnel are enjoined to act
with self-restraint and civility at all times.
Adjudication:Sheriff Jose Arnel Rubio is guilty of simple
misconduct for which he is suspended from the service for one (1)
month and one (1) day without pay. He is also guilty of conduct
unbecoming a court employee for which he is reprimanded.
De Guzman, Mageryl Shay B. Duty to Society/Court/Client
Arellano University, Inc. v. Atty. Leovigildo H. Mijares IIIA.C.
No. 8380, 605 SCRA 93, November 20, 2009This disbarment case is
about the need for a lawyer to account for funds entrusted to him
by his client.
Facts:Sometime in January 2004, complainant Arellano University,
Inc. (the University) engaged the services of respondent Leovigildo
H. Mijares III, a member of the Bar, for securing a certificate of
title covering a dried up portion of the Estero de San Miguel that
the University had been occupying. The property was the subject of
a Deed of Exchange dated October 1, 1958 between the City of Manila
and the University.The University requested Mijares for copies of
the MMDA approval but he unjustifiably failed to comply despite his
clients repeated demands. Then he made himself scarce, prompting
the University to withdraw all the cases it had entrusted to him
and demand the return of the P500, 000.00 it gave him. On November
23, 2005 the University wrote Mijares by registered letter,
formally terminating his services in the titling matter and
demanding the return of the P500,000.00. The IBP designated Atty.
Dennis B. Funa as Commissioner to conduct a formal investigation of
the complaint.
Issue:Whether or not respondent Mijares violated the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
Ruling:Yes. The Court found Atty. Mijares guilty of violation of
Rules 1.01 and 1.02, Canon 15, Rule 15.05, Canon 16, Rules 16.01
and 16.03, and Canon 18, Rule 18.04 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Every lawyer has the responsibility to protect and
advance the interests of his client such that he must promptly
account for whatever money or property his client may have
entrusted to him. As a mere trustee of said money or property, he
must hold them separate from that of his own and make sure that
they are used for their intended purpose. If not used, he must
return the money or property immediately to his client upon demand,
otherwise the lawyer shall be presumed to have misappropriated the
same in violation of the trust reposed on him. A lawyers conversion
of funds entrusted to him is a gross violation of professional
ethics. Even more unfortunate for Mijares, he admitted under oath
having bribed a government official to act favorably on his clients
application to acquire title to a dried-up creek. That is quite
dishonest. The Court is not, therefore, inclined to let him off
with the penalty of indefinite suspension which is another way of
saying he can resume his practice after a time if he returns the
money and makes a promise to shape up.
Adjudication:Respondent Leovigildo H. Mijares III is imposed the
penalty of disbarment. He is, in addition, directed to return to
complainant Arellano University, Inc. all the documents in his
possession covering the titling matter that it referred to him. De
Guzman, Mageryl Shay B. Duty to Client
FRANCISCO A. LABAO vs. LOLITA N. FLORES et al.,G.R. No. 187894.
November 15, 2010BRION,J.:
This is a petition for review oncertiorari.
Facts:Petitioner is the proprietor and general manager of a
licensed security-service contractor.Respondents were security
guards assigned to the National Power Corporation (NPC-Mindanao).
Petitioner issued a memorandum requiring all security guards to
submit their updated personal data files, security guard
professional license, and other pertinent documents.When
respondents failed to comply with the petitioners directive,
despite several notices to do so, the petitioner relieved them.
Respondents filed individual complaints with Labor Arbiter (LA) for
illegal dismissal and money claims, claiming they were
constructively dismissed when they were not given new assignments
for a period of over 6 months, despite their repeated requests.
Petitioner countered that the respondents relief from duty was a
valid exercise of its management prerogative.Furthermore,
petitioner issued a noticedirecting the respondents to report to
SMPSAs main office for new assignments, but the latter failed or
refused to comply without any valid reasons. The LA ruled in favor
of the petitioner. On appeal, the NLRC affirmed the LA decision.
Counsel for the respondents appealed with the Court of Appeals (CA)
outside the reglementary period, yet the ruling was in favor of
respondents. The petitioner and SMPSA moved for reconsideration,
arguing that the CA should have dismissed the petition outright for
late filing, and that there was no compelling reason for the
reversal of the LA and the NLRCs factual findings. CA considered
the respondents petition as timely filed and also opined that
disregarding any procedural lapses best served substantial
justice.
Issue: Whether or not the negiligence of counsel binds the
respondents.
Ruling:Yes. The general rule is that a client is bound by the
acts, even mistakes, of hiscounsel in the realm of procedural
technique. The exception to this rule is when the negligence
ofcounsel is so gross, reckless and inexcusable that the client is
deprived of his day in court.The failure of a partyscounsel to
notify him on time of the adverse judgment, to enable him to appeal
therefrom, is negligence that is not excusable.The Court have
repeatedly held thatnotice sent tocounsel of record isbinding upon
theclient, and the neglect or failure ofcounsel to inform him of an
adverse judgment resulting in the loss of his right to appeal is
not a ground for setting aside a judgment valid and regular on its
face.The Court cannot sustain the respondents argument that they
cannot be bound by Atty. Plandos negligence since this would set a
dangerous precedent. It would enable every party-litigant to render
inoperative any adverse order or decision of the courts or
tribunals, through the simple expedient of alleging his/her
counsels gross negligence.Adjudication:The present petition
isgranted.
De Guzman, Mageryl Shay B.Duty to Client
ATTY. LEONOR M. ALCANTARA et.al. v ATTY. EDUARDO C. DE VERAA.C.
No. 5859, 634 S 674, November 23, 2010EN BANC, PER CURIAM
This is a petition for review of the Resolution of the Board of
Governors of the IBP finding the respondent liable for professional
malpractice and gross misconduct.
Facts:A writ of execution pending appeal was issued in favor of
Rosario Mercado in relation to her civil case handled by
respondent. Respondent garnished the bank deposits of Mercado but
did not give him his share as part of the proceeds were already
used to pay the judge and what was left constituted his attorneys
fees. An administrative complaint for disbarment was filed by
Mercado and the IBP Board of Governors found him guilty of
infidelity in the custody and handling of the clients funds and
recommended a one-year suspension. Following this resolution, a
series of lawsuits were filed by respondent against the Mercados
and all those responsible for his suspension including members of
the judiciary. His disbarment is also sought for because of
barratry, forum shopping, exploitation of family problems, and use
of intemperate language.Issue:Whether or not respondent is guilty
as charged.
Ruling:Yes. It is worth stressing that the practice of law is
not a right but a privilege and is vested only to those who act in
good behavior. In the present case, the respondent committed
professional malpractice and gross misconduct particularly in his
acts against his former clients and virtually all those connected
to his suspension. The barrage of cases filed by respondent appears
to be an act of revenge and hate driven by frustration and anger.
The respondent not only filed frivolous and unfounded lawsuits that
violated his duties as an officer of the court in the proper
administration of justice but he did so against a former client to
whom he owes loyalty and fidelity. This is in clear violation of
Canon 21 and Rule 21.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
which states that a lawyer shall preserve the confidence and
secrets of his client even if their attorney-client relationship is
terminated.
Adjudication:Respondent is disbarred.
De Guzman, Mageryl Shay B. De Guzman Duty to Society
MANUEL YUHICO v ATTY. FRED L. GUTIERREZA.C. No. 8391, 635 S 684,
November 23, 2010EN BANC, PER CURIAM
This is an administrative complaint for disbarment.
Facts:Petitioner and respondent became good friends. Later on,
respondents asked financial assistance from Yuhico for the
hospitalization of his mother in the amount of P30, 000.00. He
promised to pay it as soon as possible but again after several
months, respondent borrowed from petitioner an amount of P60,000.00
now for the hospitalization of his sick wife. Respondent assured
that he will pay it shortly because he was expecting an amount of
four million pesos from a Japanese client as attorneys fees. After
demand, Yuhico was not paid which prompted him to file the
complaint against respondent before the IBP-Commission on Bar
Discipline. It would appear however that the respondent had been
earlier disbarred for gross misconduct in view of his failure to
pay his debts and issuance of worthless checks. The IBP-CBD found
the respondent guilty of misconduct and ordered him to return the
amount due him to the complainant. It also recommended that the
respondent be disbarred again even if he was actually already
disbarred.
Issue:Whether or not respondent is guilty of violation of Rule
1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Ruling:Yes. Failure to pay debt constitutes gross misconduct for
which a lawyer may be sanctioned with suspension from the practice
of law. Lawyers are instruments for the administration of justice
and vanguards of our legal system. They are expected to maintain
not only legal proficiency, but also a high standard of morality,
honesty, integrity and fair dealing so that the peoples faith and
confidence in the judicial system is ensured. In the case,
respondents guilt is in no question. The Court also cannot overlook
the fact of his employment of deceit and misrepresentation for the
purpose of obtaining debts without the intention of paying
them.
Adjudication:Respondent is guilty of gross misconduct and he is
ordered to pay the amount of P90,000.00 to the complainant with
interest.
De Guzman, Mageryl Shay B. Duty to Society
LORNA M. VILLAUEVA v JUDGE APOLIARIO M. BUAYAA.M. No.
RTJ-08-2131, 635 S 472 (2010)THIRD DIVISION, BRION,J.
This is an administrative complaint filed against respondent for
gross ignorance of the law and abuse of authority.
Facts:Respondent was designated Acting Presiding Judge of the
RTC Branch 17 of Palompon, Leyte which was hearing the qualified
seduction case against Vice-Mayor Constantino S. Tupa. Tupa went
into hiding but later surrendered to the authorities. Respondent
granted his ex-parte motion to grant bail without notice and
hearing. The complainant in the case against Tupa, Villanueva,
asked for the reconsideration of the grant of the ex-parte motion
as there was no notice and hearing which was required in all motion
to grant bail. In his defense, respondent said that Tupas offense
was bailable and he has the right to bail. The Court Administrator
found the act of respondent to be unjust as even if the offense was
bailable, basic considerations of fair play should have compelled
respondent at the minimum, to consult with the prosecution. The OCA
recommended that respondent be filed with an administrative case
for lack of prudence and be reprimanded.
Issue:Whether or not respondent is guilty of gross ignorance of
the law.
Ruling:Yes. In the case of Basco v Rapatalo, the Court laid down
the rules outlining the duties of a judge in case an application
for bail is filed which includes notification of the prosecution of
the hearing and conduct of the hearing. Judges owe it to the public
and the legal profession to know the very law they are supposed to
apply in a given controversy. One who accepts the exalted position
of a judge owes the public and the court the duty to maintain
professional competence at all times. When a judge displays utter
lack of familiarity with the rules, he erodes the confidence of the
public and the courts. A judge owes the public and the Court the
duty to be proficient in the law and is expected keep abreast of
laws and prevailing jurisprudence.
Adjudication:Respondent is fined of P20,000.00 with a warning
that repetition of the same similar acts in the future shall merit
a more serious penalty.
De Guzman, Mageryl Shay B. Duty to Client
SPOUSES VIRGIOLIO AND ANGELINA ARANDA v ATTY. EMMANUEL F.
ELAYDAA.C. No. 7907, 638 S 336, December 15, 2010FIRST DIVISION,
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,J.
This is an administrative case filed against respondent for
gross negligence or gross misconduct.
Facts:Spouses Aranda filed the complaint for the sorely
inadequate manner of respondents handling of their case. Atty.
Elayda did not act upon the order submitting the spouses case for
decision. Thus, a judgment was rendered against them. A notice of
said judgment was received by respondent who did not file any
notice of appeal or motion for reconsideration, thus, the judgment
became final and executory. He did not also inform the respondents
of the outcome of the case. They only knew of the judgment when a
writ of execution was issued and subsequently implemented by the
sheriff. In his defense, respondent said that he was not at fault
as the spouses cannot be reached and they did not exert effort to
inquire into the status of the case. The investigating commissioner
found respondent guilty of gross negligence and recommended his
suspension from the practice of law for six months which was
adopted by the IBP Board of Governors.
Issue:Whether or not respondent was at fault in his failure to
communicate with his clients amounting to gross negligence
Ruling:Yes. Atty. Elayda is duty bound to uphold and safeguard
the interests of his clients. He should give adequate attention,
care and time to all cases he is handling. He is expected to
monitor the progress of the case and is obligated to exert all
efforts to present every remedy or defense authorized by law to
protect the cause of his client. Atty. Elayda failed in all of
these and to pass the blame to his clients for their apparent lack
of effort to communicate with him is untenable. It is elementary
procedure for a lawyer and his clients to exchange contact details
at the initial stages in order to have constant communication with
each other. His conduct showed that he not only failed to exercise
due diligence in handling his clients cause but in fact abandoned
his clients cause.
Adjudication:Respondent is suspended from the practice of law
for six months.
De Guzman, Mageryl Shay B. Duty to the Legal Profession
ATTY. JONNA M. ESCABARTE v MS. LOIDA J. GERNABEA.M. No.
p-09-2602, 636 S 287 (2010)THIRD DIVISION, BRION,J.These are
consolidated administrative complaints involving the presiding
judge and staff of RTC Branch 275 of Las Pinas City.
Facts:Respondent was suspended for thirty days as a result of a
complaint filed by complainants. She allegedly worked despite her
suspension. The suspension was ordered because of Gernabes failure
to finish her task before going to Baguio City to attend a legal
researchers convention. She allegedly caused the disruption of one
of the meetings of the staff after she was reprimanded by the
judge. As a counterclaim, Gernabe alleged that there were several
irregularities in court like the bundy cards of several employees
being punched in and out by one person only. She also alleged that
Judge Maceda was treating her abusively as to compel her to resign
from the Court.
Issue:What are the respective sanctions for the parties?
Ruling:Genabe ought to be disciplined as several employees of
the Court will prove her being short-tempered, hurling invectives
to her superior and co-employees. Every official and employee of an
agency involved in the administration of justice from the Presiding
Justice to the most junior clerk are circumscribed with the heavy
burden of responsibility of observing propriety and decorum. The
allegations against complainants in relation to falsification and
dishonesty are dismissed for being bare and unsubstantiated
allegations.
Adjudication:Genabe is found guilty of conduct prejudicial to
the best interest of service and fined an amount equivalent to her
one month salary.
De Guzman, Mageryl Shay B. Duty to SocietyJOVITO S. OLAZO v
DANTE O. TINGAA.M. No. 10-5-7-SC, 637 S 1, December 7, 2010EN BANC,
BRION,J.This is a disbarment case against respondent charged of
violation of various rules of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
Facts:The first charge against respondent is violation of Rule
6.02 whereby the respondent, in his capacity as a Congressman and
as a member of the Committee on Awards formed for the
implementation of Proclamation No. 172, unduly interfered with the
complainants sales application covering a parcel of land because of
his personal interest over the subject land. The second charge is
violation of Rule 6.03 when respondent manipulated the Olazo
brothers in the transfer of rights of a parcel of land to one
Rolando Olazo, a barangay captain in Taguig. The third charge was a
violation of Rule 1.01 whereby he engaged in unlawful conduct when
he chose a certain Joseph Rodriguez knowing fully well that he was
not a qualified beneficiary of memorandum No. 119. A violation of
Section 7(b)(2) of RA 6713 was also raised when he allegedly
appeared as a lawyer for Ramon Lee and Jeffrey Rodriguez before the
Committee on Awards.
Issue:Whether or not respondents actions constituted a breach of
the standard ethical conduct while he was a public official and
when he was a private lawyer
Ruling:Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
highlights the continuing standard of ethical conduct to be
observed by government lawyers in the discharge of their official
tasks. A government lawyer is also obliged to observe the standard
of conduct under the Code of Professional Responsibility. A lawyer
in the government service shall not use his public position to
promote or advance his private interfere nor allow the latter to
interfere with his public duties. In the case at bar, there is
absence of concrete proof that the respondent abused his position.
As to the allegation of practice of law with the prohibited period,
the available pieces of evidence are insufficient to show that the
legal representation was made before the Committee on Awards, or
that the Assurance was intended to present before it.
Adjudication:The case is dismissed for lack of merit.
De Guzman, Mageryl Shay B.Code of Judicial Ethics
CARMEN EDAO vs. Judge FATIMA G. ASDALAA.M. No. RTJ-06-2007, 636
SCRA 466, December 6, 2010BRION,J.:
This is an administrative complaint for violation of the Code of
Judicial Ethics, misconduct, rendering an erroneous decision, and
rendering a decision beyond the 90-day reglementary period.
Facts:The complainant alleged that she was the plaintiff in a
civil case for Support with prayer for Support Pendente Lite
entitled "Carlo Edao and Jay-ar Edao, represented by Carmen Edano
v. George F. Butler," pending before the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 87, Quezon City, presided over by the respondent judge. The
complainant claimed that the respondent judge made it appear that
Civil Case No. Q-97-30576 was decided on March 22, 2005, although
the records show that she (respondent judge) still ruled on several
motions relating to this case even after that date. The complainant
further alleged that the respondent judge erred in denying her
notice of appeal.The respondent judge maintained that she had
rendered the decision on March 22, 2005, although it was mailed on
a later date. Respondent also claimed that the delay was not
deliberate. She added that the complainant was not prejudiced by
the delay as she continuously received support pendente lite from
the defendant. The respondent judge likewise explained that the
orders she issued after March 22, 2005 did not touch on the merits
of the case; they were orders directing the release of money
deposited by the defendant as support pendente lite. According to
her, she denied the complainants notice of appeal because Section
1, Rule 41 of the Revised Rules of Court provides that no appeal
may be taken from an order dismissing an action without prejudice.
Finally, she explained that her dismissal of the subject civil case
and the denial of the notice of appeal are not the proper subjects
of an administrative case as they are acts pertaining to her
judicial functions. In her reply,complainant maintained that the
respondent judge violated the 90-day reglementary period for
rendering decisions. She also revealed that the respondent judge
made her sign a complaint against a Public Attorneys Office lawyer,
to force the said lawyer to stay in her (respondent judges)
sala.The OCA, in its Reportdated April 18, 2006, recommended that
the respondent judge be fined in the amount ofP10, 000.00 for undue
delay in rendering a decision, with a stern warning that a
commission of similar acts in the future will be dealt with more
severely.
Issue:Whether or not the respondent judge is guilty of undue
delay in rendering a decision.
Ruling:Yes. Section 15, Article VIII of the Constitution
requires judges to decide all cases within three (3) months from
the date of submission. This Constitutional policy is reiterated in
Rule 1.02, Canon 1 of the Code of Judicial Conduct which states
that a judge should administer justice impartially and without
delay; and Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the same Code provides that a
judge shall dispose of the courts businesspromptlyand decide
caseswithin the required periods. In the present case, Civil Case
No. Q-97-30576 had been submitted for decision on December 9, 2004;
the decision was, therefore, due on March 9, 2005. The records do
not show that the respondent judge asked for an extension to decide
this case. Thus, when she decided the case on March 22, 2005, the
90-day reglementary period had already lapsed. The respondent
judges explanation that the complainant was not prejudiced by the
delay is immaterial, as it is her constitutional duty to decide the
case within three months from the date of
submission.Adjudication:Judge Fatima G. Asdala is found guilty of
undue delay in rendering a decision. She is fined Ten Thousand
Pesos (P10,000.00).
De Guzman, Mageryl Shay B.Code of Judicial Conduct
ATTY. NORLINDA R. AMANTE-DESCALLAR vs.HON. REINERIO (ABRAHAM) B.
RAMASA.M. No. RTJ-06-2015, 638 SCRA 358, December 15,
2010LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,J.:
This is an administrative complaint against Judge Reinerio
Ramas.
Facts:Atty. Cerilles claimed to know Judge Ramas very well since
the latter is his godfather and wedding sponsor. Atty. Cerilles
admitted that he had many pending cases before Judge Ramas sala,
including Criminal Case No. 04-7003, entitled People v. Dizon, for
Slight Illegal Detention, which involved his grandnephews. On May
12, 2005, Atty. Cerilles went to the RTC-Branch 18 to find out if
his grandnephews Urgent Motion for Reinvestigation could be heard.
However, upon inquiry, he was told that Judge Ramas was not around
because his estranged wife arrived. When Atty. Cerilles returned to
the RTC-Branch 18 the following day, May 13, 2005, he was informed
that Judge Ramas was still absent. Atty. Descallar testified that
Judge Ramas failed to indicate his absences on May 12, 13, 24, and
27 to 30, 2005, and June 1 to 21, 2005 in his Certificates of
Service for the months of May and June 2005. The absence of Judge
Ramas can be gleaned from the court calendar of hearings and his
failure to attend the raffle of cases done every Thursday of the
week. Also, the Omnibus Orderdated May 23, 2005 issued by Judge
Ramas manifested his momentary desistance from performing judicial
functions from May 24, 2005 onwards.
Issue:Whether or not respondent judge is guilty of making
untruthful statements.
Ruling:Yes. Judge Ramas is presumed to be aware of his duties
and responsibilities under the Code of Judicial Conduct. Canon 3
generally mandates that a judge should perform official duties
honestly, and with impartiality and diligence. Rule 3.01 requires
that a judge be faithful to the law and maintain professional
competence, while Rule 3.09 commands a judge to observe high
standards of public service and fidelity at all times. Judge Ramas
irrefragably failed to observe these standards by making untruthful
statements in his Certificates of Service to cover up his
absences.The Court has previously held that a judges submission of
false certificates of service seriously undermines and reflects on
the honesty and integrity expected of an officer of the court. This
is so because a certificate of service is not merely a means to
one's paycheck but is an instrument by which the Court can fulfill
the constitutional mandate of the people ' s right to a speedy
disposition of cases.Under A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC, amending Rule 140
on the Discipline of Justices and Judges, making untruthful
statements in the certificate of service is categorized as a less
serious offense and punishable by suspension without salary and
other benefits for not less than one month nor more than three
months or a fine of more thanP10,000.00 but not
exceedingP20,000.00. Considering that this is Judge Ramas second
offense in his almost 12 years in the Judiciary, the Court adopts
Justice Lopezs recommendation of imposing on the erring judge a
fine in the amount of Fifteen Thousand Pesos (P15,000.00).
Adjudication:Judge Reinerio (Abraham) B. Ramas is foundGUILTYof
making untruthful statements in his Certificates of Service for the
months of May and June 2005 and is herebyFINEDin the amount of
Fifteen Thousand Pesos (P15,000.00), with aWARNINGthat a repetition
of the same or similar infraction shall be dealt with more
severely.