Canon 15 Full Cases

8/9/2019 Canon 15 Full Cases

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/canon-15-full-cases 1/20

LOLITA ARTEZUELA, complainant, vs. ATTY. RICARTE B. MADERAZO, respondent .

D E C I S I O N

PUNO, J .:

For his failure to meet the exacting standards of professional ethics, the Board of Governors ofthe Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) in its Resolution of May , !!! recommended the

suspension from the practice of la" of respondent #tty$ Ricarte B$ Madera%o for the period of six

(&) months, "ith a stern "arning that repetition of the same act "ill 'e dealt "ith more severely$

Respondent allegedly represented conflicting interests in violation of anon & of the ode of

Professional thics, and anon *+ and Rule *+$! of the ode of Professional Responsi'ility$-*.

By "ay of a Motion for Reconsideration,-. respondent no" comes 'efore this ourt to

challenge the 'asis of the IBP/s resolution, and prays for its reversal$

0he factual antecedents of the case are as follo"s1 2n or a'out 1!! in the early morning of

3ecem'er 4, *55, #llan chavia had a vehicular accident at aduman 6t$, corner 7$ #'ellana 6t$,

Mandaue ity$ #t the time of the accident, chavia "as driving a Ford 0elstar car o"ned 'y a

8apanese national named 7irometsi 9iyami, 'ut "as registered in the name of his 'rother:in:la",

8un #nthony ;illape%$ 0he car rammed into a small carinderia o"ned 'y complainant <olita

#rte%uela$-.

0he destruction of the complainant/s carinderia caused the cessation of the operation of her

small 'usiness, resulting to her financial dislocation$ 6he incurred de'ts from her relatives and dueto financial constraints, stopped sending her t"o children to college$ -4.

omplainant engaged the services of the respondent in filing a damage suit against chavia,

;illape% and one Bernardo 6ia$-+. 3oc=eted as ivil ase >o$ *&&&, the case "as assigned to

Branch *4 of the Regional 0rial ourt of e'u$ #n #mended omplaint "as thereafter filed,

impleading chavia, 9iyami and ;illape%, and dropping 6ia as a party:defendant$-&. For his services

complainant paid the respondent the amount of 0en 0housand Pesos (P*!, !!!$!!) as attorney/s

fees and 0"o 0housand Pesos (P,!!!$!!) as filing fee$-?. 7o"ever, the case "as dismissed on

March , *554, allegedly upon the instance of the complainant and her hus'and$ -@.

Because of the dismissal of ivil ase >o$ *&&&, complainant filed a civil case for damages

against the respondent$ It "as doc=eted as B:*@++ and assigned to Branch +?, Regional 0rial

ourt of e'u ity$ 0he case "as dismissed on 8une *, !!*$ -5.

2n >ovem'er 4, *554, #rte%uela filed 'efore this ourt a verified complaint for dis'arment

against the respondent$ 6he alleged that respondent grossly neglected his duties as a la"yer and

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/ac_4354.htm#_edn1





















failed to represent her interests "ith %eal and enthusiasm$ #ccording to her, "hen ivil ase >o$

*&&& "as scheduled for pre:trial conference on #ugust !, *55, respondent as=ed for its

postponement although all the parties "ere present$ >ot"ithstanding complainant/s persistent and

repeated follo":up, respondent did not do anything to =eep the case moving$ 7e "ithdre" as

counsel "ithout o'taining complainant/s consent$-*!.

omplainant also claimed that respondent engaged in activities inimical to her interests$ Ahileacting as her counsel, respondent prepared chavia/s #ns"er to the #mended omplaint$ 0he said

document "as even printed in respondent/s office$ omplainant further averred that it "as

respondent "ho sought the dismissal of the case, misleading the trial court into thin=ing that the

dismissal "as "ith her consent$-**.

Respondent denied the complainant/s allegations and averred that he conscientiously did his

part as the complainant/s la"yer in ivil ase >o$ *&&&$ 7e "ithdre" as counsel 'ecause the

complainant "as uncooperative and refused to confer "ith him$ 7e also gave several notices to the

complainant and made =no"n his intention 'efore he filed his Manifestation to "ithdra" ascounsel$ Because of the severed relationship, the lo"er court, after holding a conference, decided to

grant respondent/s manifestation and advised the complainant to secure the services of a ne"

la"yer$ omplainant, ho"ever, refused and instead, sought the dismissal of the case$ -*.

Respondent alleged that he sought the postponement of the Pre:0rial onference scheduled on

#ugust !, *55 so that he could file the #mended omplaint$ 7e admitted that chavia/s #ns"er

to the #mended omplaint "as printed in his office 'ut denied having prepared the document and

having acted as counsel of chavia$ 7e claimed that complainant reuested him to prepare

chavia/s #ns"er 'ut he declined$ chavia, ho"ever, "ent 'ac= to his office and as=edrespondent/s secretary to print the document$ Respondent intimated that the complainant and

chavia have fa'ricated the accusations against him to compel him to pay the amount

of P+!!,!!!$!!$-*.

0his ourt referred the complaint to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)$ 0he IBP:

;isayas Regional ommittee on Bar 3iscipline formed an Investigating ommittee to hear the

dis'arment complaint$

2n 2cto'er &, *555, ommissioner Ga'riel 0$ Ingles issued a Report finding the respondentguilty of representing conflicting interests, in violation of anon *+ and Rule *+$! of the ode of

Professional Responsi'ility, as "ell as, of anon & of the ode of Professional thics$ 7e

recommended that the respondent 'e suspended from the practice of la" for a period of one (*)

year$-*4.ommissioner Ingles did not rule on the other issues$

#s aforesaid, the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines upheld the

findings of the ommittee "ith modification only as to the penalty$













6ee=ing reconsideration of the IBP/s resolution, respondent contends that the Investigating

ommittee did not conduct trialC hence, he "as not a'le to confront and examine the "itnesses

against him$ 7e argues that the Investigating ommittee/s finding that he represented chavia is

contrary to court records and the complainant/s o"n testimony in B:*@++$ 7e also casts dou't

on the credi'ility of the Investigating ommittee to render Dust and fair recommendations

considering that the Investigating ommissioner and the respondent are counsel:adversaries in

another case, ivil ase >o$ R:??$ Finally, he uestions the imposition of a six:monthsuspension, "hich he claims to 'e harsh considering that his private practice is his only source of

income$-*+.

#fter carefully examining the records, as "ell as the applica'le la"s and Durisprudence on the

matter, this ourt is inclined to uphold the IBP/s resolution$

In administrative cases, the reuirement of notice and hearing does not connote full adversarial

proceedings, as Eactual adversarial proceedings 'ecome necessary only for clarification or "hen

there is a need to propound searching uestions to "itnesses "ho give vague testimonies$-*&.

3ue process is fulfilled "hen the parties "ere given reasona'le opportunity to 'e heard and to su'mit

evidence in support of their arguments$-*?.

In the case at 'ar, records sho" that respondent repeatedly sought the postponement of the

hearings, prompting the Investigating ommissioner to receive complainant/s evidence ex

parte and to set the case for resolution after the parties have su'mitted their respective

memorandum$ 7ence1

E0he records sho" that this is already the third postponement filed 'y respondent namely3ecem'er *, *55& (sic), 8anuary , *55& and #pril *, *55&$

0he ommission for the last time, "ill cancel today/s hearing and can no longer tolerate any further

postponement$ >otify respondent 'y telegram for the hearing for (sic) #pril , *55& at 1!! P$M$

6aid hearing is intransfera'le in character$

In the meantime, complainant affirmed her complaint and li=e"ise her "itness, #llan chavia, also

affirmed the contents of his affidavit and further stated that he had executed the same and

understood the contents thereof$-*@.

It is 'y his o"n negligence that the respondent "as deemed to have "aived his right to cross:

examine the complainant and her "itness$ 7e cannot 'elatedly as= this ourt to grant ne" trial

after he has suandered his opportunity to exercise his right$

Respondent/s contention that the finding of the Investigating ommittee "as contrary to the

records and the complainant/s o"n admission in B:*@++ is "ithout merit$ It is true that #tty$











#viola "as chavia/s counsel:of:record in ivil ase >o$ *&&& as evidenced 'y the certification

from the cler= of court, -*5. and as admitted 'y the complainant in B:*@++, viz 1

E#00$ M#3R#H21 (0o "itness: 2> R266)

1 Madam "itness, you mentioned that the defendant in this case "as the counsel of #llan chavia as early as

#ugust !, *55, "herein you learned for the first time of this fact "hen you say he is counsel of #llan

chavia$ (sic) ou mean he is the counsel of record of #llan chavia in the ivil ase 'efore 8udge 3acudaoJ Isthat "hat you meanJ

#1 Ahat I learned "as that #tty$ #lviola "as the counsel of #llan chavia in the case 'efore 8udge 3acudao 'ut I

heard #tty$ Madera%o telling #llan chavia not to admit that #tty$ Madera%o is appearing for me 'ecause he "ill

'e the one to coordinate "ith #llan/s case$

1 6o it is clear that the defendant in this case is not the counsel of record of #llan chavia$ It "as #tty$ #lviola

stated 'y you no"J

#1 #tty$ Madera%o "as not #llan chavia/s counsel 'ut it "as #tty$ #lviola "ho "as the counsel of record of #llan

chavia$-!.

>evertheless, the issue in this case is not "hether the respondent also acted as the counsel:of:

record of chavia$ Rather, it is "hether or not he had a direct hand in the preparation of chavia/s

#ns"er to the #mended omplaint$

0o 'e guilty of representing conflicting interests, a counsel:of:record of one party need not also

'e counsel:of:record of the adverse party$ 7e does not have to pu'licly hold himself as the counsel

of the adverse party, nor ma=e his efforts to advance the adverse party/s conflicting interests of

record::: although these circumstances are the most o'vious and satisfactory proof of the charge$ Itis enough that the counsel of one party had a hand in the preparation of the pleading of the other

party, claiming adverse and conflicting interests "ith that of his original client$ 0o reuire that he

also 'e counsel:of:record of the adverse party "ould punish only the most o'vious form of deceit

and re"ard, "ith impunity, the highest form of disloyalty$

anon & of the ode of Professional thics states1

EIt is the duty of a la"yer at the time of the retainer to disclose to the client the circumstances of his

relations to the parties and any interest in or in connection "ith the controversy, "hich mightinfluence the client in the selection of the counsel$

EIt is unprofessional to represent conflicting interests, except 'y express consent of all concerned

given after a full disclosure of the facts$ Aithin the meaning of this anon, a lawyer represents

!n"l#t#n$ #nterests w%en #n &e%al" !" !ne !" t%e l#ents, #t #s %#s '(ty t! !nten' "!r t%at

w%#% '(ty t! an!t%er l#ent re)(#res %#* t! !pp!se.+ (emphasis supplied)








#n attorney o"es his client undivided allegiance$ Because of the highly fiduciary nature of the

attorney:client relationship, sound pu'lic policy dictates that a la"yer 'e prohi'ited from

representing conflicting interests or discharging inconsistent duties$ 7e may not, "ithout 'eing

guilty of professional misconduct, act as counsel for a person "hose interest conflicts "ith that of

his present or former client$ Indeed, good faith and honest intention on the part of the erring la"yer

does not ma=e this rule inoperative$ -*. 0he la"yer is an officer of the court and his actions are

governed 'y the uncompromising rules of professional ethics$ 0hus1

E0he relations of attorney and client is founded on principles of pu'lic policy, on good taste$ 0he

uestion is not necessarily one of the rights of the parties, 'ut as to "hether the attorney has

adhered to proper professional standard$ Aith these thoughts in mind, it 'ehooves attorneys, li=e

easar/s "ife, not only to =eep inviolate the client/s confidence, 'ut also to avoid the appearance of

treachery and dou'le:dealing$ 2nly thus can litigants 'e encouraged to entrust their secrets to their

attorneys "hich is of paramount importance in the administration of Dustice$ -.

0he professional o'ligation of the la"yer to give his undivided attention and %eal for hisclient/s cause is li=e"ise demanded in the ode of Professional Responsi'ility$ Inherently

disadvantageous to his client/s cause, representation 'y the la"yer of conflicting interests reuires

disclosure of all facts and consent of all the parties involved$ 0hus1

E#>2> *+: #ll la"yers shall o'serve candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and

transactions "ith his clients$

xxx

Rule *+$!: # la"yer shall not represent conflicting interests except 'y "ritten consent of all

concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts$

Ahile the Resolution of the IBP is purely recommendatory, "e find no reason to reverse the

same$ In disciplinary proceedings against mem'ers of the 'ar, only clear preponderance of evidence

is reuired to esta'lish lia'ility$ #s long as the evidence presented 'y complainant or that ta=en

Dudicial notice of 'y the ourt is more convincing and "orthy of 'elief than that "hich is offered in

opposition thereto, the imposition of disciplinary sanction is Dustified$-.

# perusal of chavia/s #ns"er to the #mended omplaint sho"s that it indeed conflicts "ith

the complainant/s claims$ It reads1

E*$ 0he allegations (sic) in Paragraph 2ne (*) of the omplaint is admitted in so far as it pertains to

the personal circumstance and residence of the ans"ering defendant$ 0he rest of the allegations in

Paragraph 2ne (*), and all the allegations in Paragraph 0"o () , 07R (), F2KR (4), FI; (+),

6IL (&), <;> (**), 0A<; (*), and F2KR0> (*4), of the omplaint are 3>I3 for

lac= of =no"ledge sufficient to form a 'elief as to the truth of such allegations$-4.











By "ay of prayer, chavia states1

EA7RF2R, it is respectfully prayed that after hearing, Dudgment 'e rendered dismissing

plaintiff/s complaint$-+.

#nent the authorship 'y the respondent of the document uoted a'ove, the Investigating

ommittee found the testimonies of the complainant and chavia credi'le as opposed to

respondent/s 'are denial$ #s pointed out 'y chavia, he "as approached 'y #tty$ Madera%o,

introduced himself as his la"yer and after some sessions in the latter/s office, as=ed him to return

and sign a document "hich he later identified as the #ns"er to the #mended omplaint$

0he Investigating ommittee found respondent/s defense "ea=$ Respondent did not 'other to

present his secretary as "itness, nor o'tain her affidavit to prove his allegations$ Instead, he offered

a convenient excuse::: that he cannot anymore locate his secretary$

Respondent argued that it "as the complainant "ho as=ed him to prepare chavia/s #ns"er to

the #mended omplaint, after reaching an agreement "here'y chavia "ould testify in favor of

the complainant$ #fter he declined the reuest, he claimed that it "as the complainant "ho

prepared the document and as=ed his secretary to print the same$ But as sho"n, chavia/s #ns"er

to the #mended omplaint "as in no "ay favora'le to the complainant$

Aith the dismissal of ivil ase >o$ *&&&, chavia is practically off the hoo=$ Ae cannot find

any reason "hy chavia "ould commit perDury and entangle himself, once again, "ith the la"$ 7e

does not stand to profit at all 'y accusing the respondent falsely$

Furthermore, considering complainant/s stature and lac= of legal education, "e can not see ho"

she could have prepared chavia/s #ns"er to the #mended omplaint and device a legal maneuver

as complicated as the present case$

Respondent/s attac= on the credi'ility of Investigating ommissioner Ingles to render an

impartial decision, having 'een an adversary in ivil ase >o$ R:??, does not convince us to

grant ne" trial$ 0his is the first time that respondent uestions the mem'ership of ommissioner

Ingles in the Investigating ommittee$ If respondent really 'elieved in good faith that

ommissioner Ingles "ould 'e 'iased and preDudiced, he should have as=ed for the latter/sinhi'ition at the first instance$ Moreover, "e could not find any hint of irregularity, 'ias or

preDudice in the conduct of the investigation that "ould lead us to set it aside$

Finally, "e remind the respondent that the practice of la" is not a property right 'ut a mere

privilege, and as such, must 'o" to the inherent regulatory po"er of the ourt to exact compliance

"ith the la"yer/s pu'lic responsi'ilities$-&. 0he suspension of the respondent/s privilege to practice

la" may result to financial "oes$ But as the guardian of the legal profession, "e are constrained to








'alance this concern "ith the inDury he caused to the very same profession he vo"ed to uphold "ith

honesty and fairness$

IN IE- -EREO/, the Resolution of the IBP finding the respondent guilty of violating

anon & of the ode of Professional thics, and anon *+ and Rule *+$! of the ode of

Professional Responsi'ility is affirmed$ Respondent is suspended from the practice of la" for six

(&) months "ith a stern "arning that a similar act in the future shall 'e dealt "ith more severely$

SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 160445 February 16, 2006



JOSE TEOFILO T. MERCADO a! MA. AGNES R. MERCADO, Petitioners,

vs.

SEC"RIT# $AN% COR&ORATION, Respondent.

R E S O L U T I O N

SANDO'AL G"TIERRE(, J.:

The dignity of the Court can never e protected !here infraction of ethics "eets !ith co"p#acency rather thanpunish"ent. The peop#e shou#d not e given cause to rea$ faith that a "agistrate is the epito"e of honor a"ongst

"en. To preserve its dignity, a court of %ustice shou#d not yie#d to the assau#ts of disrespect.&

Incidenta# to the present petition for revie! on certiorari is the conte"pt proceedings against petitioner 'ose Teofi#o

T. (ercado arising fro" his #etter dated Octoer &), *++, insinuating that- &/ the ponente succu"ed to the

0tre"endous pressure0 of Chief 'ustice 1i#ario 2. 3avide, 'r. in denying his petition4 */ the Security 5an$

Corporation, respondent, financed the ponente6s trave# to the United States4 and 7/ the ponente gave respondent a

0go signa#0 to se## his property.

The facts are as fo##o!s-

On 3ece"er &*, *++7, 'ose Teofi#o T. (ercado and (a. 8gnes R. (ercado, petitioners, fi#ed !ith this Court a

Petition for Revie! on Certiorari assai#ing the Court of 8ppea#s a/ 3ecision* dated (ay *9, *++7 in C8:2.R. SP No.

9&;9+ dis"issing their petition for annu#"ent of %udg"ent4 and / its Reso#ution7 dated Octoer *7, *++7 denying

their "otion for reconsideration.

On 'anuary &*, *++, !e denied the petition ecause of petitioners6 fai#ure to sho! that a reversi#e error had een

co""itted y the 8ppe##ate Court.

Petitioners fi#ed a "otion for reconsideration a##eging that the Court of 8ppea#s, in dis"issing their petition for

annu#"ent of %udg"ent, "ere#y re#ied on technica# ru#es of procedure, therey sacrificing the greater interest of

%ustice and e<uity4 and that their for"er counse#6s gross neg#igence constitutes e=trinsic fraud, a ground for annu##ingthe tria# court6s %udg"ent.

On (arch *, *++, !e issued a Reso#ution granting petitioners6 "otion for reconsideration and reinstating their

petition. >e #i$e!ise re<uired Security 5an$ Corporation, respondent, to co""ent on the petition.

In its co""ent, respondent averred that the issues raised in the present petition are "ere rehash of the issues

petitioners raised efore the 8ppe##ate Court. 8s to the a##eged neg#igence of their counse#, respondent pointed out

that the sa"e cannot e considered an e=trinsic fraud since through the sa"e counse#, they active#y pursued and

recovered "ora# da"ages and attorney6s fees. ?urther"ore, assu"ing that petitioners6 counse# refused to fi#e a

"otion for reconsideration !ith the tria# court, sti##, they had the option to ter"inate his services and hire another4

and that they shou#d not have !aited for four / years efore fi#ing the petition for annu#"ent of %udg"ent.

On 'une 9, *++, !e issued a Reso#ution denying the petition on the ground that petitioners indeed fai#ed to sho!

that a reversi#e error had een co""itted y the 8ppe##ate Court.

Petitioners fi#ed a "otion for reconsideration, ut !e dis"issed the sa"e in our Reso#ution dated Septe"er &;,

*++, thus-

>e find no co"pe##ing reason to grant petitioner6s "otion for reconsideration.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_160445_2006.html#fnt1











The Court of 8ppea#s !as correct in ho#ding that efore a petition for annu#"ent of %udg"ent can prosper, petitioners

"ust first fi#e an appea#, a "otion for ne! tria# or a petition for re#ief as re<uired y the Revised Ru#es of Court.

1aving fai#ed to do so, they cannot avai# of an action for annu#"ent of %udg"ent, other!ise, they !ou#d enefit fro"

their inaction or neg#igence.

It ears e"phasis at this point that an action for annu#"ent of %udg"ent cannot and is not a sustitute for the #ost

re"edy of appea#.

Petitioners6 contention that their fai#ure to appea# fro" the tria# court6s 3ecision !as due to the neg#igence of theirfor"er counse# #ac$s "erit. Records sho! that they participated active#y, through their counse#, in the proceedings

efore the tria# court. 8s party #itigants, they !ere e=pected to e vigi#ant of their interests and, therefore, shou#d

"onitor the progress of the case. Thus, they shou#d have constant#y co""unicated !ith their counse# to e advised

of the status of their case. This !ay, they !ou#d not have #ost their opportunity to appea#.

2ranting that petitioners6 petition for annu#"ent of %udg"ent is in order, sti## the sa"e is dis"issi#e. ?or the re"edy

of annu#"ent of %udg"ent to prosper, either one of the fo##o!ing grounds "ust e present- &/ e=trinsic fraud or */

#ac$ of %urisdiction or denia# of due process. Petitioner argues that their counse#6s neg#igence constitutes e=trinsic

fraud. >e are not convinced. E=trinsic fraud can e co""itted y a counse# against his c#ient !hen the #atter is

prevented fro" presenting his case to the court. This situation is not present in this case.

>e reiterate that in 2.R. No. &;&)&@, !e ru#ed that the Court of 8ppea#s did not co""it reversi#e error in

dis"issing petitioners6 petition for certiorari and prohiition assai#ing the tria# court6s order of e=ecution of its 3ecision

in favor of respondent an$.

In fine, this Reso#ution shou#d no! !rite finis to the instant case.;

Petitioners fi#ed a second "otion for reconsideration ut !as denied for eing prohiited.

On Octoer &), *++, petitioner (ercado !rote Chief 'ustice 1i#ario 2. 3avide, 'r. stating that-

On (arch *, *++, the Third 3ivision, in its Reso#ution, granted our (otion for Reconsideration and even gave duecourse and reinstated our petition.

5ut !hen I received the Reso#ution dated 'une 9, *++ denying "y Petition for Revie! on 'u#y &*, *++, I

i""ediate#y ca##ed "y counse#, 8tty. 'ose P. Ai##anueva, on the phone. I as$ed hi" !hy on earth the ponente denied

again "y petition on the sa"e ground Bfor fai#ure of petitioners to sho! that a reversi#e error had een co""itted

y the appe##ate court (y counse# said, the ponente infor"ed hi" that she has to deny our petition on the sa"e

ground ecause of the tre"endous pressure fro" the Chief 'ustice to favor Security 5an$ Corporation S5C/. 5y

the !ay, "y counse# and the ponente are very c#ose and #ong ti"e friends to each other. >hen I heard the ad

ne!s, I !as so shoc$ed in dise#ief. It is true, !hat you did is unthin$a#e, ungod#y, and "a#icious. It is a#so very

suspicious that after a fe! days after "y conversation !ith 8tty. Ai##anueva, he and his fa"i#y #eft for London, #eaving

"y case to the care of one of his 8ssociates. Later on, the ponente herse#f #eft for the U.S.8. to visit her chi#dren. Isthis a coincidence 8s the saying goes, B!hen there is s"o$e, there is fire.6 8nother coincidence, efore the receipt

of the Reso#ution dated 'une 9, *++, denying our petition on the asis of S5C6s unsustantiated BCo""ent,6 S5C

so#d our property to (. (iranda 3eve#op"ent Corporation and succeeded in getting a per"it to de"o#ish the four

/ ui#ding erected in our property fro" the ?ores Par$ 8ssociation, even if the case is sti## pending and !e have

not even fi#ed our (otion for Reconsideration !ith the Supre"e Court, not to "ention the Lis Pendens annotated on

the tit#e of the property in the na"e of S5C. The person !ho ought our property fro" S5C for P&*+,+++,+++.++ is

$no!n to "y nephe! and us. >hi#e the uyer is drin$ing !ith "y nephe! and others, not $no!ing that one of the"

is "y nephe!, he ragged to the" that he %ust ought the property of the (ercados in ?ores Par$. The uyer said

BI paid a#ready the property ecause S5C to#d "e that they a#ready have the go:signa# fro" the ponente to se## the





property.6 ?e! days thereafter, a## the i"prove"ents in our property !ere tota##y de"o#ished y a construction

co"pany o!ned y "y province"ate in Pa"panga y the na"e of (r. 5ana, !ho" I persona##y "et at the site

!hi#e the de"o#ition !as eing carried out.

1ave you no conscience at a## 8re you not othered of the fina# %udg"ent after #ife Is this the #egacy you !ant to

i"part to your chi#dren and a## the ?i#ipino peop#e >hat you did to "y fa"i#y and I is unforgiva#e not on#y to 2od

and to hu"anity. Dou have deprived us of our precious possession !ithout due process. This is a#so the aode of

"y !ife, "y chi#dren, their respective spouses, and "y &+ grandchi#dren, not to "ention the severa# househo#d

"e"ers and their fa"i#ies.

I !ou#d #i$e to e#ieve that the Supre"e Court is the #ast u#!ar$ of true %ustice. If you, the Chief 'ustice, hi"se#f, are

the first person to "a$e a "oc$ery of our #a!s, no !onder !hy foreign investors do not !ant to invest in our country

ecause they said, there is no %ustice in our courts, the Supre"e Court in particu#ar. This is in the highest degree of

in%ustice. Dou have deprived us of our asic funda"enta# rights in the protection of our property !ithout due process.

There is no %ustice in our courts, the Supre"e Court in particu#ar. 3o you thin$ I !i## ring "y case to the Supre"e

Court y "ere <uestion of facts ?ro" our petition for 8nnu#"ent of 'udg"ent fi#ed efore the Court of 8ppea#s and

no! the Petition for Revie! on Certiorari !ith the Supre"e Court, "y !ife and I as petitioners:"ovants have c#ear#y

invo$ed BL8C O? 'URIS3ICTION6 on the part of the tria# court to ad%udicate respondent S5C6s Bcounterc#ai"6 for

the pay"ent of the #oan. 8s I understand, !hen the ground invo$ed as asis for 8nnu#"ent of 'udg"ent is BL8C

O? 'URIS3ICTION6, the Petition "ay e fi#ed at any ti"e efore it is arred y estoppe# or #aches, neither of !hichis otaining in our case. Even in #ay"an6s #ega# point of vie!, this Petition of ours c#ear#y and undouted#y raises a

<uestion of #a!.

P#ease I eg of you, have a #ast hard #oo$ on our Petition and the t!o */ (otions for Reconsideration and #et us

focus and not evade on the rea# issue on BL8C O? 'URIS3ICTION6 on the part of the tria# court and not

concentrate on neg#igence of counse# and other trivia# reasons, etc. Or etter yet, p#ease refrain fro" inf#uencing the

"e"ers of the Third 3ivision. Let the" de#ierate regu#ar#y on our case or inhiit the"se#ves on the case. P#ease

#et the Institution serve %ustice, and not individua# pecuniary interests. S5C6s counse#s are e=perts in farication of

facts and in "is#eading the courts. I have a fee#ing that they "ight as !e## have #ed you to e#ieve so"ething, !hich

is not true. P#ease don6t e an instru"ent of their !ic$ed sche"es, #est the Supre"e Court itse#f eco"es their

"eans to perpetrate in%ustice. This is the on#y 5an$ !hich is not interested in a"ica#e sett#e"ent in spite of "ysevera# sincere offers of a"ica#e sett#e"ent since the case !as fi#ed in &FF; up to *++7, and these are a## in !riting

and du#y received y S5C. Unfortunate#y, a## "y offers !ere re%ected y the".

I !rote you this #etter as a #ast resort ecause "y fa"i#y and I #oo$ed up at you efore as the "ost honest and

upright Chief 'ustice. 8s !e !ou#d #i$e to $no! if you rea##y had intervened and put pressure, as the Ponente said to

8tty. Ai##anueva, "y counse#/ to favor S5C ecause if you did, then !e rest our case. P#ease en#ighten us efore

!e see$ another foru" to see$ redress the in%ustices, s#eep#ess nights, hu"i#iation and e"arrass"ent !e suffered.

If !e are !rong aout you, and I hope !e rea##y are !rong, p#ease accept our appea# for forgiveness and apo#ogies.

2O3 is "y !itness, that !hat I have to#d you is the truth.

(r. Chief 'ustice, the ?i#ipino peop#e $no! ho! re#igious you are. P#ease do !hat a re#igious "an ought to do inserving %ustice. P#ease #ive up to our, as !e## as 1IS e=pectations. E"phasis supp#ied/

On Nove"er *, *++, Chief 'ustice 3avide re<uired (ercado6s #a!yer, 8tty. 'ose P. Ai##anueva, to co""ent on the

#etter and sho! cause !hy he shou#d not e he#d in conte"pt of court.@

On Nove"er &9, *++, the Court6s Third 3ivision ordered (ercado to persona##y appear on Nove"er **, *++

and sho! cause !hy he shou#d not e he#d in conte"pt of court.9







On the schedu#ed date, (ercado, together !ith 8tty. Pa#o 2. (acapaga#, his ne! counse#, appeared efore the

Third 3ivision and s!ore to the truth of the #etter he !rote.) 1e "anifested that he on#y stated therein !hat 8tty.

Ai##anueva to#d hi" G that his petition !as denied for the second ti"e 0ecause of the tre"endous pressure fro" the

Chief 'ustice.0 1e further "anifested that during the !a$e of 8tty. Ai##anueva6s "other, he 8tty. Ai##anueva/ pointed

to 'ustice 8nge#ina Sandova#:2utierreH, ragging that she is 0a very very good, c#ose and #ong ti"e friend of

his.0F 1o!ever, !hi#e stating this, (ercado referred to 'ustice Conchita Carpio (ora#es as 'ustice 2utierreH. &+

?orth!ith, the Third 3ivision issued in open court a Reso#ution&& directing 8tty. (acapaga# to su"it a !ritten

e=p#anation !hy (ercado shou#d not e he#d in conte"pt of Court.

?or his part, 8tty. Ai##anueva su"itted a co""ent,&* strong#y denying (ercado6s a##egations in his #etter. 1e denied

having to#d petitioners that their petition had to e denied again 0ecause there !as a tre"endous pressure fro" the

Chief 'ustice in favor of Security 5an$ Corporation.0 1e a#so stressed that there !as no corre#ation et!een the

ponente6s trip to the United States and his trip to London. 1e e=p#ained that he and his fa"i#y !ent to London to

attend the graduation of his daughter, Cherrie"aya Ae#oso Ai##anueva. To sustantiate this, he su"itted a

photocopy of 0London Schoo# of Econo"ics LSE/ and Po#itica# Science Presentation Cere"onies0 !here the na"e

of his daughter, Cherrie"aya Ae#oso Ai##anueva, is #isted as one of the successfu# graduates. 1e #i$e!ise su"itted

a photocopy of his passport indicating his departure for London on 'u#y &, *++ and his arriva# in the Phi#ippines on

'u#y *9, *++. In addition, he said he never "et anyone fro" respondent an$, inc#uding its #a!yers, and that there

is no truth to (ercado6s state"ent regarding his nephe!6s a##eged encounter !ith the ne! o!ners of the su%ectproperty.

On 3ece"er &7, *++, (ercado su"itted his e=p#anation&7 !hy he shou#d not e punished for conte"pt of court.

1e c#ai"ed that the conte"ptuous state"ents in his #etter "ere#y reiterate the tenor of 8tty. Ai##anueva6s state"ents.

1e offered an apo#ogy, e=p#aining that he !rote the #etter !hi#e he !as 0under the i"pu#se of persona# stress0 as he

!as #osing his residentia# house.

On 'anuary *@, *++;, the Third 3ivision ordered oth (ercado and 8tty. Ai##anueva to appear on ?eruary *&, *++;

to e#ucidate their respective positions.

(ercado testified that it !as 8tty. Ai##anueva !ho infor"ed hi" that the ponente is 'ustice 2utierreH. 8tty. Ai##anuevaeven ragged that she is his 0very, very c#ose friend."

?or his part, 8tty. Ai##anueva testified that it !as (ercado !ho infor"ed hi" that 'ustice 2utierreH is the ponente. 1e

a#so confir"ed that she attended the !a$e of his "other. 5ut he denied (ercado6s c#ai" that he pointed to 'ustice

2utierreH and said that she is his c#ose friend.&

Thereafter, the Third 3ivision designated Court of 8ppea#s 'ustice Renato C. 3acudao as Co""issioner to receive

evidence on the factua# issues invo#ved in the conte"pt incident. &;

On (ay &), *++;, 'ustice 3acudao su"itted his Investigation, Report and Reco""endation. 1e found (ercado

0gui#ty of i"proper conduct tending to ring the authority and the ad"inistration of %ustice y the Court intodisrespect !hen he open#y e#itt#ed, degraded, and e"arrassed the 1ighest Court of the #and, particu#ar#y the Chief

'ustice = = =.0 1o!ever, he he#d that 0there !as no sho!ing that he acted !ith "a#ice andor in ad faith or that he

!as proper#y "otivated.0 Thus, he reco""ended that (ercado e fined in the su" of five thousand pesos

P;,+++.++/.

>e cannot sustain 'ustice 3acudao6s finding that (ercado did not act !ith "a#ice or ad faith in i"puting those

derogatory and disrespectfu# re"ar$s against Chief 'ustice 3avide and the ponente.



















5ad faith i"putes a dishonest purpose or so"e "ora# o#i<uity and conscious doing of a !rong.&@ It conte"p#ates a

state of "ind affir"ative#y operating !ith furtive design or so"e "otive of se#f:interest or i##:!i## for u#terior

purposes.&9 (a#ice is of the sa"e genre. It connotes a sinister "otive.

(ercado6s addressing such #etter to Chief 'ustice 3avide is a perfect i##ustration of ad faith and "a#ice tending

direct#y to degrade the ad"inistration of %ustice. It transgresses the per"issi#e ounds of fair co""ent and

criticis"s ringing into disrepute, not on#y the authority and integrity of Chief 'ustice 3avide and the ponente, ut

a#so of the entire 'udiciary. >hi#e feigning to e searching for truth on !hether Chief 'ustice 3avide indeed e=erted

0tre"endous pressure0 to the ponente, he repeated#y hu"i#iated hi" and the 'udiciary in the "ost #outish andinso#ent "anner. 1e accused hi" of doing an 0unthin$a#e, ungod#y, and "a#icious0 act and of depriving his

(ercado6s/ fa"i#y of their 0asic funda"enta# rights in the protection of their/ property !ithout due process.0 1e

conc#uded that !hat Chief 'ustice 3avide did to his fa"i#y 0is unforgiva#e not on#y to 2od and to hu"anity.0 In an

insu#ting and inso#ent tenor, he stated that 0if the Chief 'ustice, hi"se#f, is the first person to "a$e a "oc$ery of our

#a!s,0 then there is 0no !onder !hy foreign investors do not !ant to invest in our country.0

?urther"ore, he a##eged that an irregu#arity or riery attended the denia# of his petition for revie!. 1e insinuated

that the trave#s of 8tty. Ai##anueva and the ponente aroad !ere financed y respondent an$, stating that 0!hen

there is s"o$e, there is fire.0 1e a#so rec$#ess#y accused the ponente of giving respondent an$ a 0go:signa#0 to se##

his property. In this ac$drop, he as$ed Chief 'ustice 3avide to 0refrain fro" inf#uencing the "e"ers of the Third

3ivision40 0#et the" de#ierate regu#ar#y on the case or inhiit the"se#ves on the case40 and 0#et the Institution serve %ustice, and not individua# pecuniary interests.0

?ina##y, he conde"ned the entire 'udiciary y saying 0there is no %ustice in our courts, the Supre"e Court in

particu#ar.0 8nd !ith i"pudence, he threatened Chief 'ustice 3avide to en#ighten hi" efore he 0see$s another

foru" to see$ redress for the in%ustices, s#eep#ess nights, hu"i#iation and e"arrass"ent0 his fa"i#y suffered.

>ithout dout, (ercado6s #etter is "ar$ed !ith "a#ice, ad faith, and gross disrespect. 1e co""itted a re"ar$a#e

feat of character assassination and honor vi#ification. Contrary to his c#ai" that he is %ust verifying the truth of 8tty.

Ai##anueva6s state"ents, the !ords in his #etter are "ore accusatory than in<uisitoria#. >hat is disconcerting is that

his accusations have no asis in fact and in #a!. Ovious#y, they caused intense pain and hu"i#iation on the part of

Chief 'ustice 3avide and the ponente.

The Reso#ution of the Third 3ivision of this Court dated Septe"er &;, *++ denying (ercado6s "otion for

reconsideration is !e## e=p#ained. 8 princip#e a#"ost repeated to satiety is that 0an action for annu#"ent of %udg"ent

cannot and is not a sustitute for the #ost re"edy of appea#.0 8 party "ust have first avai#ed of appea#, a "otion for

ne! tria# or a petition for re#ief efore an action for annu#"ent can prosper. Its ovious rationa#e is to prevent the

party fro" enefiting fro" his inaction or neg#igence. 8#so, the action for annu#"ent of %udg"ent "ust e ased

either on a/ e=trinsic fraud or / #ac$ of %urisdiction or denia# of due process.&) 1aving fai#ed to avai# of the re"edies

and there eing a c#ear sho!ing that neither of the grounds !as present, the petition "ust e dis"issed. On#y a

disgrunt#ed #itigant !ou#d find such #ega# disposition unaccepta#e.

(ercado e!ai#s the denia# y the Third 3ivision of his petition through a "ere (inute Reso#ution andafter re)*+a+) +-e e+)+)o. 8pparent#y, he finds the Court6s "anner of denia# and change of heart unusua# and

casts sinister undertone to the".

In In Re Laureta,&F !e ru#ed that the Court is not 0duty:ound0 to render signed decisions a## the ti"e. It has a"p#e

discretion to for"u#ate decisions andor "inute reso#utions, provided a #ega# asis is given depending on its

eva#uation of a case. In the sa"e case, !e he#d that 0the reca## of a due course Order after a revie! of the records

of the case is a co""on occurrence in the Court.0 Li$e the respondents in the said case, (ercado shou#d not thin$

that it is on#y his petition !hich has een su%ected to such reca##.











The Third 3ivision initia##y denied (ercado6s petition ecause it is apparent on its face that the Court of 8ppea#s

co""itted no reversi#e error in dis"issing his petition for annu#"ent of %udg"ent. Considering his "otion for

reconsideration a##eging that the 8ppe##ate Court "ere#y re#ied on technica# ru#es of procedure and that his for"er

counse# co""itted gross neg#igence, the Third 3ivision too$ the "ost prudent course y reinstating the petition.

No!, after considering the petition and the co""ent thereon, the Third 3ivision !as convinced that, indeed, the

8ppe##ate Court did not co""it any reversi#e error. Is this irregu#ar The ans!er is a resounding 0no.0 The

reinstate"ent of a petition does not guarantee that it !i## e suse<uent#y granted. Other!ise, the fi#ing of co""ent

and suse<uent p#eadings !ou#d e an e=ercise in futi#ity.

No!, in a id to escape #iai#ity for conte"pt, (ercado invo$es freedo" of speech and privacy of co""unication.

>e are not persuaded.

8 person charged !ith conte"pt of court for his utterances !hich c#ear#y constitute conte"pt "ay not ordinari#y

escape #iai#ity y "ere#y invo$ing the constitutiona# guaranty of freedo" of speech. Lierty of speech "ust not e

confused !ith ause of such #ierty. >hen he attriuted those conte"ptuous re"ar$s to Chief 'ustice 3avide and

the ponente, (ercado aused such #ierty. 1is state"ents cast aspersions to their reputation and integrity and

create a distrust to the 'udiciary.

The fact that (ercado6s #etter !as addressed on#y to the Chief 'ustice does not rinse it of its conte"ptuouscharacter. In In Re Laureta,*+ !e ru#ed that #etters addressed to individua# 'ustices, in connection !ith the

perfor"ance of their %udicia# functions eco"e part of the %udicia# record and are a "atter of concern for the entire

court.

8ccording#y, !e ho#d (ercado gui#ty of indirect conte"pt of court.

Section 7, Ru#e 9& of the &FF9 Ru#es of Civi# Procedure, as a"ended, provides-

Section 7. Indirect conte"pt to e punished after charge and hearing. G 8fter a charge in !riting has een fi#ed, and

an opportunity given to the respondent to co""ent thereon !ithin such period as "ay e fi=ed y the court and to

e heard y hi"se#f or counse#, a person gui#ty of any of the fo##o!ing acts "ay e punished for indirect conte"pt-

= = = = = =

d. 8ny i"proper conduct tending, direct#y or indirect#y, to i"pede, ostruct, or degrade the ad"inistration of %ustice4

= = = = = =

8s for 8tty. Ai##anueva, !hi#e 'ustice 3acudao did not categorica##y state that he 8tty. Ai##anueva/ to#d (ercado that

Chief 'ustice 3avide e=erted 0tre"endous pressure0 on the ponente, the reason !hy the petition !as dis"issed for

the second ti"e, ho!ever, !e are inc#ined to e#ieve that 8tty. Ai##anueva gave such infor"ation to (ercado. Not

on#y that, 8tty. Ai##anueva a#so revea#ed the na"e of the ponente4 that he and the ponente have $no!n each othersince &F@4 and that the ponente !ou#d e at

the !a$e of his "other, thus-

8fter a carefu# and conscientious e=a"ination of the evidence adduced in the instant case, the undersigned

investigator is fu##y convinced that it !as on#y through 8tty. Ai##anueva that petitioner cou#d have #earned or $no!n

the na"e of the ponente in the case.





8s et!een petitioner and 8tty. Ai##anueva, the undersigned investigator in inc#ined to give "ore credence to the

testi"ony of petitioner. Not on#y !as petitioner consistent, fir", and candid and detai#ed in his testi"ony, ut he !as

a#so a#e to corroorate his c#ai"s, y su"itting his diary !hich contained vita# entries and y presenting the

testi"ony of his nephe!. = = =

(oreover, it !as ad"itted y 8tty. Ai##anueva that he and 'ustice 2utierreH have $no!n each other since &F@ and

that 'ustice 2utierreH !as in the !a$e of his "other. These ad"issions tend to strengthen the a##egations of

petitioner that 8tty. Ai##anueva !as the one !ho to#d hi" the na"e of the ponente4 that 8tty. Ai##anueva to#d hi" that

he and the ponente are very c#ose4 and that !hen petitioner attended the !a$e of 8tty. Ai##anueva6s "other, he !asto#d y 8tty. Ai##anueva that 'ustice 2utierreH, the ponente, !as co"ing.

Ru#e &;.+@ of Canon &; of the Code of Professiona# Responsii#ity states that 0a #a!yer sha## not state or i"p#y that

he is a#e to inf#uence any pu#ic officia#, triuna# or #egis#ative ody.0 ?urther, Ru#e &;.+9 provides that 0a #a!yer

"ust i"press upon his c#ient co"p#iance !ith the #a!s and the princip#es of fairness.0 8tty. Ai##anueva too$ the

foridden course. In infor"ing (ercado that he !as 0a very very good, c#ose and #ong ti"e friend0 of the ponente,

8tty. Ai##anueva i"pressed upon the for"er that he can otain a favora#e disposition of his case. 1o!ever, !hen

his petition !as dis"issed t!ice, (ercado6s e=pectation cru"#ed. This pro"pted hi" to hur# unfounded, "a#icious,

and disrespectfu# accusations against Chief 'ustice 3avide and the ponente.

>e have repeated#y ad"onished #a!yers fro" "a$ing o#d assurances to their c#ients. 8 #a!yer !ho guarantees thesuccessfu# outco"e of a #itigation !i## e=ert heavy pressure and e"p#oy any "eans to !in the case at a## costs. 5ut

!hen the case is #ost, he !i## #a"e the courts, p#acing the" under a c#oud of suspicion. 8s !hat happened in this

case, 8tty. Ai##anueva6s state"ents #ed (ercado, not on#y to suspect ut a#so to e#ieve, that the entire Court,

together !ith Chief 'ustice 3avide and the ponente, cou#d e pressured or inf#uenced,

Responsii#ity en%oins #a!yers to oserve and "aintain the respect due to courts and the %udicia# officers.*& 8tty.

Ai##anueva6s conduct, no dout, degraded the integrity and dignity of Chief 'ustice 3avide and the ponente and this

Court as !e##.

Thus, !e find 8tty. Ai##anueva a#so gui#ty of indirect conte"pt of court.

On the appropriate pena#ty, the genera# ru#e is that courts have inherent po!er to i"pose a pena#ty for conte"pt

reasona#y co""ensurate !ith the gravity of the offense. 8nd that the degree of punish"ent for conte"pt is said to

#ie !ithin the sound discretion of the court.** Considering the circu"stances otaining herein, !e e#ieve that

(ercado and 8tty. Ai##anueva shou#d e fined P;+,+++.++ each and !arned that a repetition of si"i#ar acts !i##

!arrant a "ore severe pena#ty.

One #ast !ord. The reason for the inherent po!er of courts to punish for conte"pt is that respect for the courts

guarantees the stai#ity of the %udicia# institution. >ithout such guarantee, the institution !ou#d e resting on a very

sha$y foundation.*7 Thus, !e "ust act to preserve its honor and integrity fro" assau#ts of disrespect. One reason

!hy respect of the pu#ic for the 'udiciary has di"inished is ecause of unscrupu#ous #a!yers !ho i"p#y that %udges

and %ustices can e inf#uenced or ried. Such conduct has no p#ace in the #ega# profession.

>1ERE?ORE, 'ose Teofi#o T. (ercado and 8tty. 'ose P. Ai##anueva are dec#ared G"ILT# of indirect conte"pt of

court. They are FINED P;+,+++.++ each and /ARNED that a repetition of si"i#ar acts !i## !arrant a "ore severe

pena#ty.

Let a copy of this Reso#ution e attached to 8tty. Ai##anueva6s persona# record in the Office of the 5ar Confidant and

copies thereof e furnished the Integrated 5ar of the Phi#ippines.

SO OR3ERE3.












ANGELINA SANDO'ALG"TIERRE(

8ssociate J ustice

>E CONCUR-

A.C. No. 65 February 24, 12

DOMINGO C. GAMALINDA, co"p#ainant,vs.

A#T#S. FERNANDO ALCANTARA a! JOSELITO LIM, respondents.

R E SO L U T I O N

NAR'ASA, C.J.:



In his verified #etter:co"p#aint dated 'une &F, &FF&, 1 co"p#ainant 3o"ingo 2a"a#inda charges retired 'udge ?ernando

8#cantara and 8tty. 'ose#ito Li" !ith grave ause of their profession 0#ais ni#ang pag:auso sa $ani#ang propesyon0/,

deception, threats, dishonoring and in%uring the reputation of said co"p#ainant and ringing aout the #oss of his #and.

The Court finds the charges to e !ithout asis and according#y dis"isses the".

The ad"inistrative co"p#aint against retired 'udge ?ernando 8#cantara is a futi#e atte"pt to resurrect the charges

fi#ed against hi" in 8d". (atter No. (T':F+:F, !hich !ere dis"issed y this Court in its reso#ution of Septe"er

), &F)) for having eco"e "oot and acade"ic. 8d". (atter No. (T':F+:F !as fi#ed on#y on 'u#y **, &F)9, orfive ;/ "onths after the respondent %udgeJs retire"ent fro" the service on ?eruary 7, &F)9. No "otion for

reconsideration having een seasona#y fi#ed y co"p#ainant, that reso#ution has eco"e fina# and e=ecutory. It

serves as a ar to a re#itigation of the sa"e charges against respondent %udge. 2 That those charges are no! eing

rought against respondent %udge in his capacity as an attorney does not he#p the cause of co"p#ainant, for the change in

the for" of action or re"edy pursued does not ar the app#ication of the ru#e of res judicata.

On the other hand, the record esta#ishes that 8tty. Li" !as "ere#y perfor"ing his duty as counse# for the p#aintiffs

in Civi# Case No. 7)*9 !hen he did !hat is no! co"p#ained of. 4

In Civi# Case No. 7)*9 of the Regiona# Tria# Court of Tar#ac, 5ranch LKIII, Sa#ud 5a#ot and ?e#icidad 5a#ot had sued

the heirs of 8po#inario 2a"a#inda5

for reconveyance, !ith da"ages, of the eastern ha#f of Lot No. 7*&9 of the cadastra#survey of Aictoria, Tar#ac, !hich !as a##eged#y inadvertent#y inc#uded in the origina# certificate of tit#e of 8po#inario

2a"a#inda. In the course of the tria#, p#aintiffs !ere a#e to secure a !rit of pre#i"inary in%unction against the 0defendants,

their agents, representatives or other persons acting in their eha#f, ordering the" to desist fro" threshing and carting

a!ay the pa#ay harvest on Lot No. 7*&9 of the Cadastra# Survey of Aictoria, . . . unti# further order of this Court. . . .0 6 This

in%unction !as "ade per"anent in the decision of the #o!er court rendered on 'u#y *@, &F99 in favor of the p#aintiffs.

Pending appea# to the Court of 8ppea#s, co"p#ainant herein entered a portion of the area in dispute, in the e#ief

that the !ho#e of Lot No. 7*&9 e#onged to hi" y virtue of a 3eed of E=tra%udicia# Sett#e"ent !ith

uitc#ai" 3e=ecuted in his favor y the heirs of 8po#inario 2a"a#inda on (ay @, &F);. It "ust e noted that at that ti"e

tit#e to Lot No. 7*&9 !as sti## in the na"e of 8po#inario 2a"a#inda. Thus, !hen (a=i"iano Tiurcio, Protacio Caatino and

(a=i"o (ateo, tenants of Sa#ud 5a#ot, entered the portion eing cu#tivated y co"p#ainant, the #atter reported the incident

to the po#ice.

?ro" Sa#ud 5a#otJs vie!point, it !as co"p#ainant !ho intruded into her #and. Re#ying therefore on the in%unction

issued y the #o!er court, she fi#ed through counse#, 8tty. Li", a "otion to dec#are co"p#ainant 2a"a#inda in

conte"pt of court.

Co"p#ainant interposed the defense that the area in dispute in Civi# Case No. 7)*9 !as different fro" the area

occupied y hi". To reso#ve the issue, the #o!er court !ith his agree"ent, ordered a resurvey of Lot No. 7*&9. The

resu#t of the resurvey sho!ed that contrary to co"p#ainantJs c#ai", the #ot occupied y hi" !as the very sa"e #and

invo#ved in Civi# Case No. 7)*9. 8ccording#y, the #o!er court dec#ared co"p#ainant in conte"pt in an order dated

'u#y *, &F)@ !hich !as affir"ed on appea# y the Court of 8ppea#s in a decision rendered on (arch *&, &FF).

Considering that Tiurcio, Caatino and (ateo are tenants of Sa#ud 5a#ot and co"p#ainant is the successor:in:

interest of the heirs of 8po#inario 2a"a#inda, the defendants in Civi# Case No. 7)*9, it is c#ear#y erroneous for

co"p#ainant to c#ai" that neither he nor Tiurcio, Caatino and (ateo had anything to do !ith said civi# case. 5eing

privies to the parties, they are necessari#y ound y the orders rendered in said case.

On Octoer &*, &F)9, the Court of 8ppea#s rendered a decision, affir"ing in toto the %udg"ent of the #o!er court in

Civi# Case No. 7)*9. 8fter the appe##ate courtJs decision had eco"e fina#, 8tty. Li" "oved for the e=ecution of the

affir"ed %udg"ent, 10 and !hen the !rit of e=ecution !as returned unsatisfied, fi#ed an 0Urgent (otion to Re<uire 3o"ingo

2a"a#inda to Surrender TCT &)@*FF to the C#er$ of Court and to 8uthoriHe the Latter to E=ecute Reconveyance of Lot



7*&9:8 in ?avor of P#aintiffs.0 11 That "otion !as granted y the #o!er court, ut co"p#ainant refused to surrender the

O!nerJs Copy of TCT No. &)@*FF, pro"pting 8tty. Li" to fi#e the <uestioned 0(otion to 3ec#are O!nerJs Copy of TCT

&)@*FF Nu## and Aoid,0 12 !hich the #o!er court granted on 'u#y 7&, &F)F.

It is c#ear fro" the foregoing that the <uestioned acts of 8tty. Li" !ere a## done in #ine !ith his duty to prosecute his

c#ientsJ cause in Civi# Case No. 7)*9. The first "otion !as fi#ed to protect his c#ientsJ possessory rights over the

property in dispute !hi#e the second "otion !as "ade to procure e=ecution of the decision in Civi# Case No. 7)*9.

8 #a!yer o!es fide#ity to the cause of his c#ient and "ust e "indfu# of the trust and confidence reposed in hi".1

1esha## serve his c#ient !ith co"petence and di#igence, 14 and his duty of entire devotion to his c#ientJs cause not on#y

re<uires, ut entit#es hi" to e"p#oy every honora#e "eans to secure for the c#ient !hat is %ust#y due hi" or to present

every defense provided y #a! to ena#e the #atterJs cause to succeed. 15 8n attorneyJs duty to safeguard the c#ientJs

interests co""ences fro" his retainer unti# the effective re#ease fro" the case 16 or the fina# disposition of the !ho#e

su%ect "atter of the #itigation. 13 3uring that period, he is e=pected to ta$e such reasona#e steps and such ordinary care

as his c#ientJs interests "ay re<uire.

This is precise#y !hat 8tty. Li" !as doing !hen he fi#ed the "otions co"p#ained of. 1e shou#d e co""ended, not

conde"ned, for di#igent#y and co"petent#y perfor"ing his duties as an attorney4

>ith respect to the co"p#ainantJs contention that the 3eed of Sa#e of Unregistered Land re#ied upon y the #o!erand appe##ate courts in Civi# Case No. 7)*9 is a forged or fa$e instru"ent, suffice it to say that this is a "atter that

shou#d have een #itigated in said case instead of eing raised for the first ti"e in these proceedings. In any case,

there eing no sho!ing that 8tty. Li" !as a!are of any defect in that deed, the charge of deception against hi" !i##

not #ie. 8sent, too, is any sho!ing that 8tty. Li" had anything to do !ith the preparation of the cri"ina# infor"ation,

and for the sa"e reason he cannot e ca##ed to account for it.

8CCOR3IN2LD, the ad"inistrative charges against retired 'udge ?ernando 8#cantara and 8tty. 'ose#ito Li" are

3IS(ISSE3 for #ac$ of "erit.

SO OR3ERE3.

A.C. No. 40 O+ober 1, 15



NICANOR GON(ALES a! SAL"D $. &ANTANOSAS, co"p#ainants,

vs.

ATT#. MIG"EL SA$ACAJAN, respondent.

REGALADO, J.:

This reso#ves the ad"inistrative case fi#ed y Nicanor 2onHa#es and Sa#ud 5. Pantanosas against 8tty. (igue#Saaca%an on ?eruary &, &FF;, 1 the verified co"p#aint !herefor a##eges-

=== === ===

. That so"eti"e in Octoer, &FF, co"p#ainants !ere infor"ed y the Register of 3eeds of

Cagayan de Oro City that the co"p#ainantsJ o!nerJs dup#icate of tit#e covering their #ands, Transfer

Certificate of Tit#e Nos. T:F&97@ and T:F&97; !ere entrusted to the office secretary of the

respondent !ho in torn entrusted the sa"e to respondent4

;. That respondent ad"itted and confir"ed to the co"p#ainants that their tit#es are in his custody

and has even sho!n the sa"e to/ the co"p#ainant Sa#ud 5. Pantanosas ut !hen de"anded sic /to de#iver the said tit#es to the co"p#ainant in a for"a# de"and #etter, "ar$ed as 8NNEK 08,0

respondent refused and continues to refuse !ithout any %ustification to give their tit#es and/ !hen

confronted, respondent cha##enged the co"p#ainants to fi#e any case in any court even in the

1onora#e Supre"e Court4

@. That respondentJs dare or cha##enge/ is a "anifestation of his arrogance ta$ing undue advantage

of his #ega# profession over the si"p#icity, innocence and ignorance of the co"p#ainants, one of

!ho" is his #ood re#ative, his aunt, for !hich co"p#ainants shudder !ith "enta# anguish4

9. That due to his cha##enge/, the co"p#ainants sent a #etter to the 1onora#e Supre"e Court for

en#ighten"ent, copy of !hich is attached as 8NNEK 050, for !hich the 1onora#e Supre"e Courtre<uired &F #egi#e copies of a verified co"p#aint4

). That in spite of repeated de"ands, re<uests/ and p#eas to!ards sic / respondent, respondent sti#

fai#ed/ and stuorn#y refused !ithout %ustification to surrender the said tit#es to the rightfu# o!ners,

the co"p#ainants herein/, !hich act is tanta"ount to !i##fu# and "a#icious defiance of #ega# and

"ora# o#igations e"anating fro" his professiona# capacity as a #a!yer !ho had s!orn to upho#d #a!

and %ustice, to the pre%udice and da"age of the co"p#ainants4 2

=== === ===

On (arch **, &FF;, the Court re<uired respondent to co""ent on the foregoing co"p#aint. In his unverified08ns!er0 thereto, respondent ad"itted having "et Sa#ud Pantanosas ut c#ai"s that, to his reco##ection, 0Nicanor

2onHa#esSerdan0 has never een to his office. Respondent #i$e!ise denied that he cha##enged anyone to fi#e a

case in any court, "uch #ess the Supre"e Court. 1e a#so c#ai"s that he referred co"p#ainant Pantanosas to his

c#ient, (r. Sa"to (. Uy of Iponan, Cagayan de Oro City, for !ho" he !or$ed out the segregation of the tit#es, t!o of

!hich are the su%ect of the instant case.

Respondent #i$e!ise denies co"p#ainantsJ a##egation that he is arrogant, in contrast to the innocence, si"p#icity and

ignorance of said co"p#ainants. 1e contends that the truth of the "atter is that co"p#ainants have een charged



!ith a nu"er of cri"ina# and civi# co"p#aints efore different courts. 1e a#so asserts that he !as ho#ding the

certificates of tit#e in eha#f of his c#ient, Sa"to (. Uy. 4

8tty. Saaca%an stresses, y !ay of defense, that 0the instant action !as chosen precise#y to ro!eat hi" into

de#ivering the Certificates of Tit#e to the" !ithout said certificates passing the hands of (r. Sa"to Uy !ith !ho" the

co"p#ainants have so"e "onetary o#igations.0 5

In its reso#ution dated 'une *@, &FF;, 6 for interna# ad"inistrative purposes the Court referred this case to the Office of

the 5ar Confidant for the corresponding eva#uation, report and reco""endation.

?ro" the foregoing proceedings ta$en on this "atter, the Court finds that respondent ad"itted having ta$en

possession of the certificates of tit#e of co"p#ainants ut refused to surrender the sa"e despite de"ands "ade y

the #atter. It fo##o!s, therefore, that it !as incu"ent upon hi" to sho! that he !as #ega##y %ustified in doing so.

Instead, a## he did !as to infor" this Court that 0his o#igation to de#iver the certificates to (r. Sa"to Uy e=c#udes

the de#ivery of said certificates to anyone e#se.0 3

Respondent attached so"e certifications to his 08ns!er0 to support his contention that co"p#ainants are notorious

characters. 1o!ever, the certifications indicate that "ost of the cases stated therein, especia##y those invo#ving

fraud, have een dis"issed. >ith respect to those sti## pending, there is no indication as to the identity of the party

!ho instituted the sa"e, aside fro" the consideration that the re"edy thereon is %udicia# in nature. 8t any rate, theseaspersions on the character of co"p#ainants have no earing on the "isconduct of respondent charged in the

present case.

Respondent #i$e!ise su"itted =ero= copies of certain certificates of tit#e in an effort to e=p#ain !hy he $ept the

certificates of tit#e of co"p#ainants, that is, supposed#y for the purpose of sudividing the property. 1o!ever, an

e=a"ination of the sa"e does not sho! any connection thereof to respondentJs c#ai". In fact, the t!o sets of

certificates of tit#e appear to e entire#y different fro" each other.

8s a #a!yer, respondent shou#d $no! that there are #a!fu# re"edies provided y #a! to protect the interests of his

c#ient. The records do not sho! that he or his c#ient have avai#ed of said re"edies, instead of "ere#y resorting to

une=p#ained, if not curt, refusa#s to acco""odate the re<uests of co"p#ainants. 8#so, he cannot e una!are of thei"posa#e sanctions on a counse# !ho resorts to un#a!fu# "eans that !ou#d cause in%ustice to the adversaries of his

c#ient.

The Court according#y finds that respondent has not e=ercised the good faith and di#igence re<uired of #a!yers in

hand#ing the #ega# affairs of their c#ients. If co"p#ainants did have the a##eged "onetary o#igations to his c#ient, that

does not !arrant his su""ari#y confiscating their certificates of tit#e since there is no sho!ing in the records that the

sa"e !ere given as co##atera#s to secure the pay"ent of a det. Neither is there any inti"ation that there is a court

order authoriHing hi" to ta$e and retain custody of said certificates of tit#e.

8pparent#y, respondent has disregarded Canon &;, Ru#e &;.+9 of the Code of Professiona# Responsii#ity !hich

provides that a #a!yer sha## i"press upon his c#ient the need for co"p#iance !ith the #a!s and princip#es of fairness.Instead, he un%ust#y refused to give to co"p#ainants their certificates of tit#es supposed#y to enforce pay"ent of their

a##eged financia# o#igations to his c#ient and presu"a#y to i"press the #atter of his po!er to do so.

Canon &F, Ru#e &F.+& ordains that a #a!yer sha## e"p#oy on#y fair and honest "eans to attain the #a!fu# o%ectives

of his c#ient and sha## not present, participate in presenting, or threaten to present unfounded charges to otain an

i"proper advantage in any case or proceeding. Respondent has c#ose#y s$irted this proscription, if he has not in fact

transgressed the sa"e.



On the foregoing considerations, the Court desires and directs that respondent shou#d forth!ith return the

certificates of tit#e of co"p#ainants. To ensure the sa"e, he shou#d e p#aced under suspension unti# he presents to

the Court proof of receipt y co"p#ainants of their respective copies of Certificates of Tit#e Nos. T:F&97; and T:

F&97@ or a %udicia# order or docu"ent authoriHing or %ustifying the retention of possession thereof y respondent or

his aforena"ed c#ient.

>1ERE?ORE, 8tty. (igue# Saaca%an is herey SUSPEN3E3 fro" the practice of #a! unti# he can du#y sho! to

this Court that the disputed certificates of tit#e have een returned to and the receipt thereof du#y ac$no!#edged y

co"p#ainants, or can present a %udicia# order or appropriate #ega# authority %ustifying the possession y hi" or hisc#ient of said certificates. 1e is further >8RNE3 that a repetition of the sa"e or si"i#ar or any other ad"inistrative

"isconduct !i## e punished "ore severe#y.

Let a copy of this reso#ution e spread on the persona# records of respondent and have copies thereof furnished to

the Integrated 5ar of the Phi#ippines and du#y circu#ariHed to a## courts in the country.

SO OR3ERE3.

Canon 15 Full Cases

Documents

Transcript of Canon 15 Full Cases