ROLLANE G. ARCE

PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICHS

ATTY. ISRAEL CALDERON

ANASTACIO N. TEODORO III

vs.

ATTY. ROMEO S. GONZALES

FACTS:

In his complaint, Anastacio N. Teodoro III related that Atty. Gonzales acted as counsel of Araceli Teodoro – Marcial in two civil cases that the latter filed against him. The first case, involved the settlement of the intestate estate of Manuela Teodoro. While the settlement proceeding was pending, Atty. Gonzales assisted Teodoro – Marcial in filing a civil case for annulment of document, reconveyance and damages, without indicating the special proceeding earlier filed. The filing of the civil cases, according to Anastacio, was a deliberate act of forum shopping that warrants the disbarment of Atty. Gonzales.

Atty. Gonzales admitted that he assisted Teodoro –Marcial in filing the two cases. He asserted, however, that he did not violate the forum shopping rule as the cases were not identical in terms of parties, subject matter and remedies. Atty. Gonzales also opined that the complainant only filed the disbarment case to harass him.

The Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP for investigation, report and recommendation found Atty. Gonzales administratively liable for forum shopping.

The commissioner found that a ruling in either case would result in res judicata over the other. Thus, Atty. Gonzales committed forum shopping when he instituted Civil Case No. 00-99207 without indicating that Special Proceeding No. 99-95587 was still pending. In committing forum shopping, Atty. Gonzales disregarded the Supreme Court Circular prohibiting forum shopping and thus violated Canon 1 of the CPR.

ISSUE:

Whether Atty. Gonzales committed forum shopping and thereby violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING:

The Court agrees with the findings of the commissioner and accordingly reverse the resolution of the IBP Board of Governors, and modify the commisioner’s recommended penalty to censure and a warning that another violation would merit a more severe penalty.

There is forum shopping when the elements of litis pendencia are present or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another. They are as follows: (a) identity of the parties, or at least such parties that represent the same interests in both actions, (b) identity of rights or causes of action, and (c) identity of relief sought.

Under this test, the court find that Atty. Gonzales committed forum shopping when he filed Civil Case No. 00-99207 while Special Proceeding No. 99-95587 was pending.

Lawyers should be reminded that their primary duty if to assist the courts in the administration of justice. Any conduct that tends to delay, impede or obstruct the administration of justice contravenes this obligation.

In engaging in forum shopping, Atty. Gonzales violated Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which directs lawyers to obey the laws of the land and promote respect for the law and legal processes. He also disregarded his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice, and the prohibition against unduly delaying a case by misusing court processes.

The court finds basis for the complaint meritorious and accordingly CENSURE Atty. Romeo S. Gonzales for resorting to forum shopping. He is WARNED that any future violation of his duties as a lawyer will be dealt with more severely.

ATTY. ILUMINADA M. VAFLOR-FABROA

vs.

ATTY. OSCAR PAGUINTO

FACTS:

An information for Estafa was filed on June 21, 2001 against Atty. Iluminada M. Vaflor-Fabroa along with others based on a joint affidavit – complaint which Atty. Oscar Paguinto prepared and notarized. As the joint affidavit – complaint did not indicate the involvement of complainant, complainant filed a Motion to Quash the Information which the trial court granted. Respondent Motion for Reconsideration of the quashal of the Information was denied.

Respondent also filed six other criminal complaints against complainant for violation of Article 31 of R.A. No. 6938 (Cooperative Code of the Philippines) before the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor, but he eventually filed a Motion to Withdraw them.

On October 10, 2001, complainant, who was Chairperson of the General Mariano Alvarez Service Cooperative, Inc. (GEMASCO), received a Notice of Special General Assembly of GEMASCO on October 14, 2001 to consider that removal of four member of the Board of Directors (the Board), including her and the General Manager. The notice was signed by respondent.

At the October 14, 2001 Special General Assembly presided by respondent and PNP Sr. Supt. Angelito L. Gerangco, who were not members of the then current board, Gerangco, complainants predecessor, as Chair of the GEMASCO boad, declared himself Chair, appointed others to replace the removed directors, and appointed respondent as Board Secretary.

On October 15, 2001, respondent and his group took over the GEMASCO office and its premises, the pumphouses, water facilities, and operations. On even date, respondent sent letter – notices to complainant and the four removed directors informing them of their removal from the Board and as members of GEMASCO, and advising them to cease and desist from further discharging the duties of their positions.

Complainant thus filed on October 16, 2001 with the Cooperative Development Authority (Calamba) a complaint for annulment of the proceedings taken during the October 14, 2001 Special General Assembly.

Complainant filed a case for disbarment against the respondent. Subsequently, respondent counsel who represented him during the conference proposed the issue of whether, on the basis of the allegations of the complaint, misconduct was committed by respondent.

After the conclusion of the conference, both parties were ordered to submit position papers. Complainant filed hers, but respondent, despite grant, on his motion, of extension of time, did not file any position paper.

ISSUE:

1. Whether or not the acts of respondent constitute violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly the following:

 1.1 Canon 1 A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey

the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal [processes].

 1.2 Canon 8 A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy,

fairness, and candor toward his professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel.

 1.3 Canon 10 A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good

faith to the court. 1.4 Canon 19 A lawyer shall represent his client with zeal

within the bounds of the law. 

1.5 Rule 12.03 A lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions of time to file pleadings, memoranda or briefs, let the period lapse without submitting the same or offering an explanation for his failure to do so.

 2.      Whether or not the above acts of respondent constitute

violations of his lawyers oath, particularly the following: 

2.1 support the Constitution and obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein

 2.2 will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in

court 2.3 will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any

groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent to the same

 2.4 will delay no man for money or malice

RULING:

In the case of Sebastian vs. Bajar the court opined that:

“Respondent cavalier attitude in repeatedly ignoring the orders of the Supreme Court constitutes utter disrespect to the judicial institution. Respondent conduct indicates a high degree of irresponsibility. A Courts Resolution is not to be construed as a mere request, nor should it be complied with partially, inadequately, or selectively. Respondent obstinate refusal to comply with the Courts orders not only betrays a recalcitrant flaw in her character; it also underscores her disrespect of the Courts lawful orders which is only too deserving of reproof. Lawyers are called upon to obey court orders and processes and respondent deference is underscored by the fact that willful disregard thereof will subject the lawyer not only to punishment for contempt but to disciplinary sanctions as well. In fact, graver responsibility is imposed upon a lawyer than any other to uphold the integrity of the courts and to show respect to their processes.”

Respondent is SUSPENDED for two years from the practice of law for violation of Canons 1, 8, 10, and Rule 12.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyers Oath.

 

DIANA RAMOS

vs.

ATTY. JOSE R. IMBANG

FACTS:

In 1992, the complainant Diana Ramos sought the assistance of respondent Atty. Jose R. Imbang in filing civil and criminal actions against the spouses Roque and Elenita Jovellanos. She gave respondent P8,500 as attorney's fees but the latter issued a receipt for P5,000 only.

 The complainant tried to attend the scheduled hearings of her cases against the Jovellanoses. Oddly, respondent never allowed her to enter the courtroom and always told her to wait outside. He would then come out after several hours to inform her that the hearing had been cancelled and rescheduled. This happened six times and for each appearance in court, respondent charged her P350. After six consecutive postponements, the complainant became suspicious. She personally inquired about the status of her cases in the trial courts of Bian and San Pedro, Laguna. She was shocked to learn that respondent

never filed any case against the Jovellanoses and that he was in fact employed in the Public Attorney's Office (PAO).

According to respondent, the complainant knew that he was in the government service from the very start. In fact, he first met the complainant when he was still a district attorney in the Citizen's Legal Assistance Office (predecessor of PAO) of Bian, Laguna and was assigned as counsel for the complainant's daughter. 

In 1992, the complainant requested him to help her file an action for damages against the Jovellanoses. Because he was with the PAO and aware that the complainant was not an indigent, he declined. Nevertheless, he advised the complainant to consult Atty. Tim Ungson, a relative who was a private practitioner. Atty. Ungson, however, did not accept the complainant's case as she was unable to come up with the acceptance fee agreed upon. Notwithstanding Atty. Ungson's refusal, the complainant allegedly remained adamant. She insisted on suing the Jovellanoses. Afraid that she might spend the cash on hand, the complainant asked respondent to keep the P5,000 while she raised the balance of Atty. Ungson's acceptance fee. A year later, the complainant requested respondent to issue an antedated receipt because one of her daughters asked her to account for the P5,000 she had previously given the respondent for safekeeping. Because the complainant was a friend, he agreed and issued a receipt dated July 15, 1992. 

On April 15, 1994, respondent resigned from the PAO. A few months later or in September 1994, the complainant again asked respondent to assist her in suing the Jovellanoses. Inasmuch as he was now a private practitioner, respondent agreed to prepare the complaint. However, he was unable to finalize it as he lost contact with the complainant.

Acting on the complaint, the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) where the complaint was filed, received evidence from the parties. On November 22, 2004, the CBD submitted its report and recommendation to the IBP Board of Governors.

The CBD noted that the receipt was issued on July 15, 1992 when respondent was still with the PAO. It also noted that respondent described the complainant as a shrewd businesswoman and that respondent was a seasoned trial lawyer. For these reasons, the complainant would not have accepted a spurious receipt nor would respondent have issued one. The CBD rejected respondent's claim that he issued the receipt to accommodate a friend's request. It found respondent guilty of violating the prohibitions on government lawyers from accepting private cases and receiving lawyer's fees other than their salaries. The CBD concluded that respondent violated the following provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility:

 Rule 1.01. A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. Rule 16.01. A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from a client. Rule 18.01. A lawyer should not undertake a legal service which he knows or should know that he is not qualified to render. However, he may render such service if, with the consent of his

client, he can obtain as collaborating counsel a lawyer who is competent on the matter. 

 Thus, it recommended respondent's suspension from the practice of law for three years and ordered him to immediately return to the complainant the amount of P5,000 which was substantiated by the receipt.

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent is guilty of violating rules 1.01, 16.01 and 18.01 of the C.P.R.

RULING:

The Court adopts the findings of the IBP with modifications. 

Lawyers are expected to conduct themselves with honesty and integrity. More specifically, lawyers in government service are expected to be more conscientious of their actuations as they are subject to public scrutiny. They are not only members of the bar but also public servants who owe utmost fidelity to public service.

As a PAO lawyer, respondent should not have accepted attorney's fees from the complainant as this was inconsistent with the office's mission. Respondent violated the prohibition against accepting legal fees other than his salary.Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

 

CANON 1. A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR THE LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES. Every lawyer is obligated to uphold the law. This undertaking includes

the observance of the above-mentioned prohibitions blatantly violated by respondent when he accepted the complainant's cases and received attorney's fees in consideration of his legal services. Consequently, respondent's acceptance of the cases was also a breach of Rule 18.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility because the prohibition on the private practice of profession disqualified him from acting as the complainant's counsel.

Respondent is found GUILTY of violating the lawyers oath, Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 18, Rule 18.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, he is hereby DISBARRED from the practice of law and his name is ORDERED STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys.

DANTE LA JIMENEZ & LAURO G. VIZCONDE

vs.

ATTY. FELISBERTO L. VERANO, JR.,

FACTS:

Brodette and Tecson (identified in media reports attached to the Complaint as the “Alabang Boys”) were the accused in cases filed by the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for the illegal sale and use of dangerous drugs. In a Joint Inquest Resolution issued on 2 December 2008, the charges were dropped for lack of probable cause.

Because of the failure of Prosecutor John R. Resado to ask for clarificatory questions during the evaluation of the case, several media outlests reported on incidents of bribery and “cover – up” allegedly prevalent in investigations of the drug trade. This prompted the House Committee on Illegal Drugs to conduct its own congressional hearings. It was his three clients using the letterhead of the DOJ and the stationery of then Secretary Raul Gonzales.

Jimenez and Vizconde, in their capacity as founders of Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption, sent a letter of complaint to Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno. They stated that respondent had admitted to drafting the release order, and had thereby committed a highly irregular and unethical act. They argued that respondent had no authority to use the DOJ letterhead and should be penalized for acts unbecoming a member of the bar.

For his part, Atty. Lozano anchored his Complaint on respondent’s alleged violation of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which states that a lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote respect for legal processes. Atty. Lozano contented that respondent showed disrespect for the law and legal processes in drafting the said order and sending it to a high – ranking public official, even though the latter was not a government prosecutor.

Officers of the IBP, Cebu City chapter, issued a resolution condemning the unethical conduct of respondent and showing unqualified support for the VACC’s filing of disbarment proceedings. On 27 February 2009, Atty. Lozano withdrew his complaint on the ground that a similar action had been filed by Dante Jimenez. On 2 June 2009, the Court referred both cases to the IBP for consolidation, as well as for investigation, report and recommendation.

In his comment, respondent alludes to the Joint Inquest Resolution dropping the charges against his clients for lack of probable cause, arguing that the resolution also ordered the immediate release of Brodett and Tecson. He reasoned that the high hopes of the accused, together with their families, came crashing down when the PDEA still refused to release his clients. Sheer faith in the innocence of his clients and fidelity to their cause prompted him to prepare and draft the release order. Respondent admits that perhaps he was overzealous yet, “if the SOJ approves it, then everything may be expedited.” In any case, respondent continues, the drafted release order was not signed by the SOJ and therefore remained “a mere scrap of paper with no effect at all.”

The Commissioner noted that both complaints remained unsubstantiated, while the letter – complaint of Jimenez and Vizconde had not been verified. Therefore, no evidence was adduced to prove the charges. However, by the respondent’s own admissions in paragraphs 11 and 12 of his comment, respondent drafted the release order specifically for the signature of the SOJ. This act of “feeding” the draft order to the latter was found to be highly irregular, as it tended to influence a public official. Hence, Commissioner Abelita found respondent guilty of violating Canon 13 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and recommended that he be issued a warning not to repeat the same or any similar action.

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent is guilty of violating Canon 13 of CPR.

RULING:

After a careful review of the records, we agree with the IBP in finding reasonable grounds to hold respondent administratively liable. Canon 13, the provision applied by the Investigating Commissioner, states that “a lawyer shall rely upon the merits of his cause and refrain from any impropriety which tends to influence, or gives the appearance of influencing the court.” We believe that other provisions in the Code of Professional Responsibility likewise prohibit acts of influence – peddling not limited to the regular courts, but even in all other venues in the justice sector, where respect for the rule of law is at all times demanded from a member of the bar.

The way respondent conducted himself manifested a clear intent to gain special treatment and consideration from a government agency. This is precisely the type of improper behavior sought to be regulated by the codified norms for the bar. Respondent is duty – bound to actively avoid any act that tends to influence, or may be seen to influence, the outcome of an ongoing case, lest the people’s faith in the judicial process is diluted.

The primary duty of lawyers is not to their clients but to the administration of justice. To that end, their clients success is wholly subordinate. The conduct of a member of the bar ought to and must always be scrupulously observant of the law and ethics. Any means, not honorable, fair and honest which is resorted to by the lawyer, even in the pursuit of his devotion to his client’s cause, is condemnable and unethical.

Zeal and persistence in advancing a client’s cause must always be within the bounds of the law. A self – respecting independence in the exercise of the profession is expected if an attorney is to remain a member of the bar. In the present case, we find that respondent fell short of these exacting standards. Given the import of the case, a warning is a mere slap on the wrist that would not serve as commensurate penalty for the offense.

Respondent is found GUILTY of violating Rules 1.02. and 15.07, in relation to Canon 13 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, for which he is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six months effective immediately.

LUZVIMINDA C. LIJAUCO

vs.

ATTY. ROGELIO P. TERRADO

FACTS:

Sometime in January 2001, complainant engaged the services of respondent for P70,000.00 to assist her in recovering deposit with Planters Development Bank, Buendia, Makati branch in the amount of P180,000.00 and the release of her foreclosed house and lot located in Calamba, Laguna. The property identified as Lot No. 408-C-2 and registered as TCT No. T-402119 in the name of said bank is the subject of a petition for the issuance of a writ of possession then pending before the R.T.C. of Binan, Laguna.

Complainant alleged that respondent failed to appear before the trial court in the hearing for the issuance of the Writ of Possession and did not protect her interest in the Compromise Agreement which she subsequently entered into to end the Land Registration Case.

Respondent denied the accusations against him. He averred that the P70,000.00 he received from complainant was payment for legal services for the recovery of the deposit with Planters Development Bank and did not include the Land Registration Case pending before the Regional Trial Court of Binan, Laguna.

The complaint was referred to the IBP for investigation, report and recommendation. On September 21, 2005, the Investigating Commissioner submitted his report finding respondent guilty of violating Rules 1.01 and 9.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provide:

Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

Rule 9.02 – A lawyer shall not divide or stipulate to divide a fee for legal services with persons not licensed to practice law, except:

a) Where there is a pre-existing agreement with a partner or associate that, upon the latter’s death, money shall be paid over a reasonable period of time to his estate or to the persons specified in the agreement; or

b) Where a lawyer undertakes to complete unfinished legal business of a deceased lawyer; or

c) Where a lawyer or law firm includes non-lawyer employees in a retirement plan, even if the plan is based in whole or in part, on a profit-sharing arrangement.

In finding the respondent guilty of violating Rules 1.01 and 9.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Investigating Commissioner opined that:

In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant. To be made the suspension or disbarment of a lawyer, the charge against him must be established by convincing proof. The record must disclose as free from doubt a case which compels the exercise by the Supreme Court of its disciplinary powers. The dubious character of the act done as well as of the motivation thereof must be clearly demonstrated.

The Investigating Commissioner thus recommended:

WHEREFORE, finding respondent responsible for aforestated violations to protect the public and the legal profession from his kind, it is recommended that he be suspended for Six (6) months with a stern warning that similar acts in the future will be severely dealt with.

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent is guilty of violating Rules 1.01 and 9.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING:

The Court agrees with the findings of the IBP.

The practice of law is a privilege bestowed on those who show that they possessed and continue to possess the legal qualifications for it. Indeed, lawyers are expected to maintain at all times a high standard of legal proficiency and morality, including honesty, integrity and fair dealing. They must perform their fourfold duty to society, the legal profession, the courts and their clients, in accordance with the values and norms of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Lawyers are prohibited from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct8 and are mandated to serve their clients with competence and diligence.9 They shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to them, and this negligence in connection therewith shall render them liable.

Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, a member of the Bar may be disbarred or suspended on the following grounds: 1) deceit; 2) malpractice, or other gross misconduct in office; 3) grossly immoral conduct; 4) conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude; 5) violation of the lawyer’s oath; 6) willful disobedience to any lawful order of a superior court; and 7) willfully appearing as an attorney for a party without authority.

A lawyer should give adequate attention, care and time to his client’s case. Once he agrees to handle a case, he should undertake the task with dedication and care. If he fails in this duty, he is not true to his oath as a lawyer. Thus, a lawyer should accept only as much cases as he can efficiently handle in order to sufficiently protect his clients’ interests. It is not enough that a lawyer possesses the qualification to handle the legal matter; he must also give adequate attention to his legal work. Utmost fidelity is demanded once counsel agrees to take the cudgels for his client’s cause.

Respondent Atty. Rogelio P. Terrado is found GUILTY of violating Rules 1.01, 9.02, 18.02 and 20.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six months effective from notice, and STERNLY WARNED that any similar infraction will be dealt with more severely. He is further ordered to RETURN, the sum of P70,000.00 to complainant Luzviminda C. Lijauco.

RURAL BANK OF CALAPE, INC. (RBCI) BOHOL

vs.

ATTY. JAMES BENEDICT FLORIDO

FACTS:

On April 18, 2002, RBCI filed a complaint for disbarment against respondent. RBCI alleged that respondent violated his oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.

According to RBCI, on April 1, 2002, respondent and his clients, Dr. Domeciano Nazareno, Dr. Remedios Relampagos, Dr. Manuel Relampagos, and Felix Rengel (Nazareno-Relampagos group), through force and intimidation, with the use of armed men, forcibly took over the management and the premises of RBCI. They also forcibly evicted Cirilo A. Garay, the bank manager, destroyed the bank vaults, and installed their own staff to run the bank.

In his comment, respondent denied RBCIs allegations. Respondent explained that he acted in accordance with the authority granted upon him by the Nazareno-Relampagos group, the lawfully and validly elected Board of Directors of RBCI. Respondent said he was merely effecting a lawful and valid change of management. Respondent alleged that a termination notice was sent to Garay but he refused to comply. On April 1, 2002, to ensure a smooth transition of managerial operations, respondent and the Nazareno-

Relampagos group went to the bank to ask Garay to step down. However, Garay reacted violently and grappled with the security guards long firearm. Respondent then directed the security guards to prevent entry into the bank premises of individuals who had no transaction with the bank. Respondent, through the orders of the Nazareno-Relampagos group, also changed the locks of the banks vault.

Respondent added that the criminal complaint for malicious mischief filed against him by RBCI was already dismissed; while the complaint for grave coercion was ordered suspended because of the existence of a prejudicial question. Respondent said that the disbarment complaint was filed against him in retaliation for the administrative cases he filed against RBCIs counsel and the trial court judges of Bohol.

On September 28, 2005, IBP Commissioner Leland R. Villadolid, Jr. submitted his report and declared that respondent failed to live up to the exacting standards expected of him as vanguard of law and justice.[3] Commissioner Villadolid, Jr. recommended the imposition on respondent of a penalty of suspension from the practice of law for six months to one year with a warning that the repetition of similar conduct in the future will warrant a more severe penalty.

On March 20, 2006, the IBP Board of Governors issued Resolution No. XVII-2006-120 which declared that respondent dismally failed to live up to the exacting standards of the law profession and suspended respondent from the practice of law for one year with a warning that repetition of similar conduct will warrant a more severe penalty.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. James Benedict Florido is guilty of violating Canon 19 and Rules 1.02 and 15.07 of the C.P.R.

RULING:

The Court affirms the IBP Board of Governors resolution.

 The first and foremost duty of a lawyer is to maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, uphold the Constitution and obey the laws of the land. Likewise, it is the lawyers duty to promote respect for the law and legal processes and to abstain from activities aimed at defiance of the law or lessening confidence in the legal system.

A lawyers duty is not to his client but to the administration of justice. To that end, his clients success is wholly subordinate. His conduct ought to and must always be scrupulously observant of the law and ethics. Any means, not honorable, fair and honest which is resorted to by the lawyer, even in the pursuit of his devotion to his clients cause, is condemnable and unethical. 

The Court finds respondent GUILTY of violating Canon 19 and Rules 1.02 and 15.07 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, we SUSPEND respondent from the practice of law for one year effective upon finality of this decision.

SOLEDAD NUEZ

vs.

ATTY. ROMULO RICAFORT

FACTS:

Sometime in October 1982 she authorized respondent to sell her two parcels of land located in Legazpi City for P40,000. She agreed to give respondent 10 percent of the price as commission. Respondent succeeded in selling the lots, but despite complainants repeated demands, he did not turn over to her the proceeds of the sale. This forced complainant to file against respondent and his wife an action for a sum of money before the R.T.C. of Quezon City.

For his failure to file an answer, respondent was declared in default and complainant was required to present ex – parte her evidence. On September 29, 1993, the court rendered its decision ordering the respondent herein to pay complainant the sum of P16,000 as principal obligation, with interest thereon at the legal rate from the date of the commencement of the action.

Respondent and his wife appealed from the decision to the CA. However, the appeal was dismissed for failure to pay the required docket fee within the reglementary period despite notice.

On October 23, 1995 complainant filed a civil case for issuance of an alias writ of execution, which the court granted. The next day, the alias writ of execution was issued. It appears that only a partial satisfaction of the

P16,000 judgment was made, leaving P13,800 thereof unsatisfied. In payment for the latter, respondent issued four postdated checks drawn against his account in China Banking Corporation, Legazpi City.

Upon presentment, however, the checks were dishonored because the account against which they were drawn was closed. Demands for respondent to make good the checks fell on deaf ears, thus forcing complainant to file four criminal complaints for violation of B.P. 22 before the M.T.C. of Quezon City.

In the joint affidavit of respondent and his wife filed with the Office of the Prosecutor, Quezon City, respondent admitted having drawn and issued said four postdated checks in favor of complainant. Allegedly believing in good faith that said checks had already been encashed by complainant, he subsequently closed his checking account in China Banking Corporation, Legazpi City, from which said four checks were drawn. He was not notified that the checks were dishonored. Had he been notified, he would have made the necessary arrangements with the bank.

The Court required respondent to comment on the complaint. But he never did despite our favorable action on his three motions for extension of time to file the comment. His failure to do so compelled complainant to file on March 10, 2000 a motion to cite respondent in contempt on the ground that his strategy to file piecemeal motions for extension of time to submit the comment smacks of a delaying tactic scheme that is unworthy of a member of the bar and a law dean.

In her Report and Recommendation dated September 12, 2000, Investigating Commissioner Atty. Milagros San Juan concluded that respondent had no intention to honor the money judgment against him in the Civil Case filed by the complainant as can be gleaned from his (1) issuance of postdated checks; (2) closing of the account against which said checks were drawn; and (3) continued failure to make good the amounts of the checks. She then recommends that respondent be declared guilty of misconduct in his dealings with complainant and be suspended from the practice of law for at least one year and pay the amount of the checks issued to the complainant.

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent is guilty of grave misconduct and violated Rule 1:01 of Canon 1, Rules 12:03, 12:04 of Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING:

The Court concurs with the findings of the Investigating Commissioner, as adopted by the Board of Governors of the IBP, that respondent Atty. Romulo Ricafort is guilty of misconduct in his dealings with complainant. Indeed, the record shows respondents grave misconduct and notorious dishonesty.

There is no need to stretch ones imagination to arrive at an inevitable conclusion that respondent gravely abused the confidence that complainant reposed in him and committed dishonesty when he did not turn over the proceeds of the sale of her property. Worse, with palpable bad faith, he compelled the complainant to go to court for the recovery of the proceeds of the sale and, in the process, to spend money, time and energy therefor. Then, despite his deliberate failure to answer the complaint resulting in his having been declared in default, he appealed from the judgment to the Court of Appeals. Again, bad faith attended such a step because he did not pay the docket fee despite notice. Needless to state, respondent wanted to prolong the travails and agony of the complainant and to enjoy the fruits of what rightfully belongs to the latter. Unsatisfied with what he had already unjustly and unlawfully done to complainant, respondent issued checks to satisfy the alias writ of execution. But, remaining unrepentant of what he had done and in continued pursuit of a clearly malicious plan not to pay complainant of what had been validly and lawfully adjudged by the court against him, respondent closed the account against which the checks were drawn. There was deceit in this. Respondent never had the intention of paying his obligation as proved by the fact that despite the criminal cases for violation of B.P. Blg. 22, he did not pay the obligation.

Respondent then knowingly and willfully violated Rules 12.04 and 12:03 of Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which respectively provide that lawyers should avoid any action that would unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment or misuse court processes; and that lawyers, after obtaining extensions of time to file pleadings, memoranda or briefs, should not let the period lapse without submitting the same or offering an explanation for their failure to do so.

Respondent Atty. Romulo Ricafort is hereby INDEFINITELY SUSPENDED from the practice of law, and is directed to pay complainant Soledad Nuez the amount of P13,800 within ten days from notice of this resolution.

RE: LETTER OF THE UP LAW FACULTY ENTITLED “RESTORING INTEGRITY: A STATEMENT BY THE FACULTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW ON THE ALLEGATIONS OF PLAGIARISM AND MISREPRESENTATION IN THE SUPREME COURT”

FACTS:

Supreme Court Associate Justice Del Castillo rendered a decision in Vinuya, et. al. vs. Executive Secretary. Counsels Attys. Harry Roque, Jr. and Romel Regalado Bagares for Vinuya, et al., filed a supplemetal Motion for Reconsideration, on the ground that, inter alia, charge of plagiarism as one of the grounds for reconsideration of the Vinuya decision and a twisting of the true intents of the plagiarized sources by the ponencia was made to suit the argumetns of the assailed Judgment for denying the petition. Works allegedly plagiaried in the Vinuya decision were namely: (1) Evan J. Criddle and Evan Fox – Decent’s article “A fiduciary theory of jus cogens;” (2) Christian “J. Tams’ book Enforcing Erga Omnes Obligations in International Law; and (3) Mark Ellis’ article “Breaking the silence: On Rape as an International Crime. Such supplemental motion for reconsideration appeared on internet sites.

Subsequently, a statement entitiled “Restoring Integrity: A Statement by the Faculty of the University of the Philippines College of Law on the Allegations of Plagiarism and Misrepresentation in the Supreme Court” was submitted by Dean Marvic Leonen to the Court through Chief Justice Renato

Corona. The statement basically covers the the plagiarism committed in the case of Vinuya vs. Executive Secretary is unacceptable, unethical and in breach of the high standards of moral conduct and judicial and professional competence expected of the Supreme Court. The Ethics Committee of the S.C. referred this matter to the Court En Banc.

Accordingly, the Court directed the 37 UP Law Faculty signatories to show cause, within ten days from receipt why they should not be disciplined as members of the Bar for violation of Canons 1, 11 and 13 and Rules 1.02 and 11.05 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondents should be disciplined as Members of the Bar under the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING:

Indeed, in a long line of cases, including those cited in respondents submissions, this Court has held that the right to criticize the courts and judicial officers must be balanced against the equally primordial concern that the independence of the Judiciary be protected from due influence or interference. In cases where the critics are not only citizens but members of the Bar, jurisprudence has repeatedly affirmed the authority of this Court to discipline lawyers whose statements regarding the courts and fellow lawyers, whether judicial or extrajudicial, have exceeded the limits of fair comment and common decency.

Membership in the Bar imposes upon a person obligations and duties which are not mere flux and ferment. His investiture into the legal profession places upon his shoulders no burden more basic, more exacting and more imperative than that of respectful behavior toward the courts. He vows solemnly to conduct himself "with all good fidelity to the courts;" and the Rules of Court constantly remind him "to observe and maintain the respect due to courts of justice and judicial officers." The first canon of legal ethics enjoins him "to maintain towards the courts a respectful attitude, not for the sake of the temporary incumbent of the judicial office, but for the maintenance of its supreme importance."

In a democracy, members of the legal community are hardly expected to have monolithic views on any subject, be it a legal, political or social issue. Even as lawyers passionately and vigorously propound their points of view they are bound by certain rules of conduct for the legal profession. This

Court is certainly not claiming that it should be shielded from criticism. All the Court demands is the same respect and courtesy that one lawyer owes to another under established ethical standards. All lawyers, whether they are judges, court employees, professors or private practitioners, are officers of the Court and have voluntarily taken an oath, as an indispensable qualification for admission to the Bar, to conduct themselves with good fidelity towards the courts. There is no exemption from this sworn duty for law professors, regardless of their status in the academic community or the law school to which they belong.

The Court finds that there was indeed a lack of observance of fidelity and due respect to the Court, particularly when respondents knew fully well that the matter of plagiarism in the Vinuya decision and the merits of the Vinuya case itself, at the time of the Statement’s issuance, were still both sub judice or pending final disposition of the Court

PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT

vs.

SANDIGANBAYAN (Fifth Division)

FACTS:

In 1976, General Bank and Trust Company (GENBANK) encountered financial difficulties, GENBANK had extended considerable financial support to Filcapital Development Corporation causing it to incur daily overdrawings on its current account with the Central Bank. It was later found by the Central Bank that GENBANK had approved various loans to directors, officers, stockholders and related interests totaling P172.3 Million. As a bailout, the Central Bank extended emergency loans to GENBANK which reach a total of P310 million. Despite the mega loans, GENBANK failed to recover from its financial woes. On March 25, 1977, the Central Bank issued a resolution declaring GENBANK insolvent and unable to resume business with safety to its depositors, creditors and the general public, and ordering its liquidation.

A public bidding of GENBANK assets was held, wherein the Lucio Tan group submitted the winning bid. Subsequently, former Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza filed a petition with the then CFI praying for the

assistance and supervision of the court in GENBANKs liquidation as mandated by Section 29 of R.A. No. 265.

In February 1986, the EDSA I revolution toppled the Marcos government. One of the first acts of President Aquino was to establish the PCGG to recover the alleged ill – gotten wealth of Former President Ferdinand Marcos, his family and his cronies. Pursuant to this mandate, the PCGG, filed with the Sandiganbayan a complaint for reversion, reconveyance, restitution, accounting and damages against respondents Lucio C. Tan, et. al. PCGG issued several writs of sequestration on properties allegedly acquired by them by taking advantage of their close relationship and influence with former Pres. Marcos. The abovementioned respondents Lucio Tan, et. al are represented as their counsel, former Solicitor General Mendoza. PCGG filed motions to disqualify respondent Mendoza as counsel for respondents Lucio Tan et. al. with Sandiganbayan. It was alleged that Mendoza as then Solicitor General and counsel to Central Bank actively intervened in the liquidation of GENBANK which was subsequently acquired by respondents Lucio Tan et. al., which subsequently became Allied Banking Corporation. The motions to disqualify invoked Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which prohibits former government lawyers from accepting “engagement” or employment in connection with any matter in which he had intervened while in the said service. The Sandiganbayan issued a resolution denying PCGG’s motion to disqualify respondent Mendoza. It failed to prove the existence of an inconsistency between respondent Mendoza’s former function as Solicitor General and his present employment as counsel of the Lucio Tan group. PCGGs recourse to this court assailing the Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan.

ISSUE:

Whether Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility applies to respondent Former Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza.

RULING:

The court opined that the case at bench does not involve the “adverse interest” aspect of Rule 6.03. Respondent Former Solicitor Estelito P. Mendoza, it is conceded, that he has no adverse interest problem when he acted as Solicitor General and later as counsel of respondents Lucio Tan et.

al. before the Sandiganbayan. However there is still the issue of whether there exists a “congruent-interest conflict” sufficient to disqualify respondent Mendoza from representing respondents Lucio Tan et. al.

The key is unlocking the meaning of “matter” and the metes and bounds of “intervention” that he made on the matter. Beyond doubt that the “matter” or the act of respondent Estelito Mendoza as Solicitor General involved in the case at bar is “advising the Central Bank, on how to proceed with the said bank’s liquidation and even filing the petition for its liquidation in CFI of Manila. The Court held that the advice given by respondent Mendoza on the procedure to liquidate GENBANK is not the “matter” contemplated by Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. ABA Formal Opinion No. 342 is clear in stressing that “drafting, enforcing or interpreting government or agency procedures, regulations and laws, or briefing abstract principles of law are acts which do not fall within the scope of the term “matter” and cannot disqualify. Respondent Estelito Mendoza had nothing to do with the decision of the Central Bank to liquidate GENBANK. He also did not participate in the sale of GENBANK to Allied Bank. The legality of the liquidation of GENBANK is not an issue in the sequestration cases. Indeed, the jurisdiction of the PCGG does not include the dissolution and liquidation of banks. Thus, the Code 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility cannot apply to respondent Estelito Mendoza because his alleged intervention while Solicitor General is an intervention on a matter different from the matter involved in the Civil case of sequestration. In the metes and bounds of the “intervention”. The applicable meaning as the term is used in the Code of Professional Ethics is that it is an act of a person who has the power to influence the subject proceedings. The evil sought to be remedied by the Code do not exist where the government lawyer does not act which can be considered as innocuous such as “ drafting, enforcing, or interpreting government or agency procedures, regulations or laws or briefing abstract principles of law.”

The court ruled that the intervention of Estelito Mendoza is not significant and substantial. He merely petitions that the court gives assistance in the liquidation of GENBANK. The role of court is not strictly as a court of justice but as an agent to assist the Central Bank in determining the claims of creditors. In such a proceeding the role of the Solicitor General is not that of the usual court litigator protecting the interest of government.

Petition assailing the Resolution of the Sandiganbayan is denied.

EDUARDO A. ABELLA

vs.

RICARDO G. BARRIOS, JR.,

FACTS:

Complainant filed an illegal dismissal case against Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Corporation (PT&T) before the Cebu City Regional Arbitration Branch (RAB) of the NLRC. Finding merit in the complaint, Labor Arbiter Ernesto F. Carreon, through a decision, ordered PT&T to pay complainant P113,100,00 as separation pay and P73,608.00 as backwages. Dissatisfied, PT&T appealed the Labor Arbirter’s decision to the NLRC. The NLRC set aside Labor Arbiter’s Carreon ruling and instead ordered PT&T to reinstate complainant to his former position and pay him backwages, as well as 13 th

month pay and service incentive leave pay, including moral damages and attorney’s fees. On reconsideration, it modified the amount of the aforesaid monetary awards but still maintained that complainant was illegally dismissed. As a result, PT&T filed a petition for certiorari before the Appellate Court. The CA affirmed the NLRC’s ruling with modification ordering PT&T to pay complainant separation pay in lieu of reinstatement. Complainant moved for partial reconsideration, claiming that all his years of service were not taken into account in the computation of his separation pay and backwages. The CA granted the motion and thus, remanded the case to the LA for the same purpose.

Complainant alleged that he filed a Motion for Issuance of a Writ of Execution before the Cebu City RAB, the case had been assigned to the new Labor Arbiter, herein respondent. Afther the lapse of five months, complainants motion remained unacted, prompting him to file a Second Motion for Execution. Eight months thereafter, still, there was no action on complainant’s motion. Thus, complainant proceeded to respondent’s office to personally follow – up the matter. In the process, complainant and respondent exchanged notes on how much the former’s monetary awards should be; however, their computations differed. To complainant’s surprise, respondent told him that the matter could be “easily fixed” and thereafter, asked “how much is mine?” Despite his shock, complainant offered the amount of P20,000.00, but respondent replied: “make it P30,000.00.” By

force of circumstance, complainant acceded on the condition that respondent would have to wait until he had already collected from PT&T. Before complainant could leave, respondent asked him for some cash, compelling him to give the latter P1,500.00.

Respondent issued a writ of execution, directing the sheriff to proceed to the premises of PT&T and collect the amount of P1,470,082.60, inclusive of execution and deposit fees. PT&T moved to quash the said writ which was, however, denied through an Order. Unfazed, PT&T filed a supplemental Motion to Quash, respondent rendered and Order in open court, recalling the first writ of execution and issued a new writ of execution wherein complainant’s monetary awards were reduced from P1,470,082.60 to P114,585.00, inclusive of execution and deposit fees.

Aggrieved, complainant filed on December 16, 2005 a Petition for Injunction before the NLRC. In a Resolution dated March 14, 2006, the NLRC annulled respondent’s December 9, 2005 Order, stating that respondent had no authority to modify the CA Decision which was already final and executory.

Aside from instituting a criminal case before the Office of the Ombudsman, complainant filed the instant disbarment complaint before the IBP, alleging that respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility in exchange for (a) soliciting money from complainant in exchange for a favorable resolution; and (b) issuing a wrong decision to give benefit and advantage to PT&T.

In his Comment, respondent denied the abovementioned accusations, maintaining that he merely implemented the CA Decision which did not provide for the payment of backwages. He also claimed that he never demanded a single centavo from complainant as it was in fact the latter who offered him the amount of P50,000.00.

ISSUE:

The sole issue in this case is whether or not respondent is guilty of gross immorality for his violation of Rules 1.01 and 1.03, Canon 1, and Rule 6.02, Canon 6 of the Code. 

RULING:

The Court concurs with the findings and recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors.

The pertinent provisions of the Code provide:

CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES.

Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

Rule 1.03 - A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit or proceeding or delay any man’s cause.

CANON 6 - THESE CANONS SHALL APPLY TO LAWYERS IN GOVERNMENT SERVICE IN THE DISCHARGE OF THEIR OFFICIAL TASKS.

Rule 6.02 - A lawyer in the government service shall not use his public position to promote or advance his private interests, nor allow the latter to interfere with his public duties.

The above-cited rules, which are contained under Chapter 1 of the Code, delineate the lawyer’s responsibility to society: Rule 1.01 engraves the overriding prohibition against lawyers from engaging in any unlawful, dishonest, immoral and deceitful conduct; Rule 1.03 proscribes lawyers from encouraging any suit or proceeding or delaying any man’s cause for any corrupt motive or interest; meanwhile, Rule 6.02 is particularly directed to lawyers in government service, enjoining them from using one’s public position to: (1) promote private interests; (2) advance private interests; or (3) allow private interests to interfere with public duties. It is well to note that a lawyer who holds a government office may be disciplined as a member of the Bar only when his misconduct also constitutes a violation of his oath as a lawyer.

The infractions of the respondent constitute gross misconduct. Jurisprudence illumines that immoral conduct involves acts that are willful, flagrant, or shameless, and that show a moral indifference to the opinion of the upright and respectable members of the community. It treads the line of grossness when it is so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act, or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree, or when committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the community’s sense of decency. On the other hand, gross misconduct constitutes "improper or wrong conduct, the transgression of some

established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and implies a wrongful intent and not mere error of judgment."

In this relation, Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court states that when a lawyer is found guilty of gross immoral conduct or gross misconduct, he may be suspended or disbarred.However, the Court takes judicial notice of the fact that he had already been disbarred in a previous administrative case, entitled Sps. Rafols, Jr. v. Ricardo G. Barrios, Jr., which therefore precludes the Court from duplicitously decreeing the same. In view of the foregoing, the Court deems it proper to, instead, impose a fine in the amount of P40,000.00 in order to penalize respondent’s transgressions as discussed herein and to equally deter the commission of the same or similar acts in the future.

LOLITA ARTEZUELA

vs.

ATTY. RICARTE B. MADERAZO

FACTS:

On or about 3:00 in the early morning of December 24, 1992, Allan Echavia had a vehicular accident at Caduman St., corner H. Abellana St., Mandaue City. At the time of the accident, Echavia was driving a Ford Telstar car owned by a Japanese national named Hirometsi Kiyami, but was registered in the name of his brother-in-law, Jun Anthony Villapez. The car rammed into a small carinderia owned by complainant Lolita Artezuela.

The destruction of the complainants carinderia caused the cessation of the operation of her small business, resulting to her financial dislocation. She incurred debts from her relatives and due to financial constraints, stopped sending her two children to college.

Artezuela hired Maderazo in filing a damage suit against Echavia, Villapez and Kiyami. For his services, Artezuela paid Maderazo 10,000 as attorneys fees and 2,000 as filing fee. However, the case was dismissed, allegedly upon the instance of the Artezuela and her husband. Because of the dismissal of the case, Artezuela filed a civil case for damages against the Maderazo. The case was dismissed.

Artezuela filed for disbarment against the Maderazo. Artezuela argues that Maderazo engaged in activities inimical to her interests. While acting as her counsel, Maderazo prepared Echavias Answer to the Amended Complaint. The said document was even printed in Maderazo’s office. Artezuela further averred that it was Maderazo who sought the dismissal of the case, misleading the trial court into thinking that the dismissal was with her consent. Maderazo denied Artezuela’s allegations. However, he admitted that Echavia’s Answer to the Amended Complaint was printed in his office but denied having prepared the document and having acted as counsel of Echavia.

The case was referred to IBP. IBP investigated the case. IBP found Maderazo guilty of representing conflicting interests, in violation of Canon 15

and Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, as well as, of Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Ethics.

ISSUES:

(1) Whether or not Maderazo violated Canon 15 and Rule 15.03 (conflict of interest) of the Code of Professional Responsibility; and

(2) Whether or not Maderazo had a direct hand in the preparation of Echavias Answer to the Amended Complaint.

RULING:

The Court ruled that to be guilty of representing conflicting interests, a counsel of record of one party need not also be counsel-of-record of the adverse party. He does not have to publicly hold himself as the counsel of the adverse party, nor make his efforts to advance the adverse partys conflicting interests of record although these circumstances are the most obvious and satisfactory proof of the charge.

It is 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 with that of his original client. To require that he also be counsel-of-record of the adverse party would punish only the most obvious form of deceit and reward, with impunity, the highest form of disloyalty.

An attorney owes his client undivided allegiance. Because of the highly fiduciary nature of the attorney-client relationship, sound public policy dictates that a lawyer be prohibited from representing conflicting interests or discharging inconsistent duties. He may not, without being guilty of professional misconduct, act as counsel for a person whose interest conflicts with that of his present or former client. Indeed, good faith and honest intention on the part of the erring lawyer does not make this rule inoperative. The lawyer is an officer of the court and his actions are governed by the uncompromising rules of professional ethics.

IN VIEW WHEREOF, the Resolution of the IBP finding the respondent guilty of violating Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Ethics, and Canon 15 and Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility is affirmed. Respondent is suspended from the practice of law for six (6) months with a stern warning that a similar act in the future shall be dealt with more severely.

GREGORY U. CHANvs.NATIONAL LABOR RELATION COMMISSION

FACTS:On July 18, 2003, the labor arbiter ruled in favor of Tiu and ordered her

employers to pay backwages, separation pay, unpaid commissions, and 10% attorneys fees. Pending resolution of their appeal before the NLRC, complainant alleged that respondents Go and Paras attempted to extort money from him in behalf of Tiu. He narrated that respondent Go arranged for meetings at expensive restaurants to wit:

First Meeting on September 16, 2003 at Yuraken Japanese Restaurant, Diamond Hotel, Manila

Complainant alleged that it was during this dinner when respondents were first introduced to him, his wife Jenny, his brother Glenn, and the latters mother-in-law Mrs. Ban Ha; that respondent Go claimed that he is a very powerful high ranking commissioner at the NLRC; that respondents were personally overseeing the developments of the labor case although it was pending before another division; that it was merely respondent Gos secretary or clerk who would be drafting the decision of the said case; and that respondents told him to simply give in to Tius demands.

Second Meeting on September 26, 2003 at Akiga Japanese Restaurant, Mandaluyong

Complainant alleged that respondents brought with them a certain Mr. Alfredo Lim, a former schoolmate of respondent Go and a godfather of Tiu; that Lim demanded the settlement of Tius claims; that he illustrated he is not a bad employer Tiu painted him to be as the latter even invited him to her wedding; that respondent Go offered him the services of respondent Paras as legal counsel; and that respondents asked him to give them pertinent documents relating to the labor case in their next meeting.

Third Meeting on October 20, 2003 at Korean Village Restaurant, Manila

Complainant alleged that his group brought their company accountant Ms. Leah Pascual, while respondents brought Atty. Jessie Andres who was

introduced to be connected with then Senator Noli De Castro; that he showed the group the company documents proving payment to Tiu of her sales commission; that respondents did not bother expressing interest in examining the documents; that respondent Go left the dinner early for another business commitment; and that the remaining people instead discussed his possible support for Sen. De Castros campaign.

Fourth Meeting on December 2, 2003 at Akiga Japanese Restaurant, Mandaluyong

Complainant alleged that he did not personally attend the meeting to avoid a confrontation with Tiu; that Jenny, Glenn, and Pascual met with respondents, Lim, Tiu, and her husband; that respondent Go dismissed the documents presented by Jenny and claimed that it was his tactic for Tiu to submit a sur-rejoinder with photo-attachments showing MCC Industrial Sales, Corp. and Sanyo Seiki Industrial Sales, Corp. conducting business in one office; that respondent Go goaded Jenny to give in to Tius demands as the latter was suffering from cancer; that Jenny refused the demands, prompting her to lose her appetite and walk out to regain her composure; and that respondent and his companions simply enjoyed their free sumptuous meals.

Fifth Meeting on February 24, 2004

at California Pizza Kitchen, Shangri-La Plaza Mall, Mandaluyong

Complainant alleged that his wife Jenny again met with respondent Go, Mr. Lim, Ms. Que Tiu and her husband; that Tiu lowered the settlement amount to P450,000.00; that Jenny insisted that Tius claim should not exceed P198,000.00; and that respondent Go prevented Jenny from walking out of their meeting with assurances that he will further convince Tiu.

Sixth Meeting on March 3, 2004 at Palm Court Caf, Diamond Hotel, Manila

Complainant alleged that he, together with his wife Jenny, and brother Glenn met with respondents Paras and Go and his wife; and that respondent Go assured them that its going to be their last meeting and Tiu will just settle for P300,000.00.

Seventh Meeting on October 4, 2004 at Una Mas, Greenhills

Complainant alleged that respondent Paras asked for another dinner appointment to which he sent his brother Glenn to attend; that respondent

Paras disclosed during the meeting that the matter was no longer in their hands as they decided not to push through with the deal with Tiu; that Glenn was shocked at respondents fraudulent duplicity that he left the restaurant in a huff after paying the bill.

As proof of these meetings, complainant attached receipts for the meals ordered at the above-mentioned establishments and affidavits of Jenny Chan, Leah Pascual, and Glenn Chan, recounting the matters that transpired therein.

On September 10, 2004, the NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiters Decision, but removed the award of separation pay and ordered complainant to reinstate Tiu to her former position without loss of seniority rights and privileges. On July 12, 2005, the NLRC denied the parties Motions for Reconsideration and sustained its earlier Resolution.

On June 5, 2007, or simultaneously with the filing of the present administrative complaint, complainant filed a case for Grave Misconduct against respondents Go and Paras with the Office of the Ombudsman, alleging the same set of facts in the administrative case.

On July 23, 2007, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Resolutions of the NLRC, with modification that the total monetary award should be P737,757.41.Complainant and his companies thus filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with this Court which is still pending resolution.

Respondent Paras alleged that complainants charge of violation of Rule 6.02, Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility is misplaced as he was not a lawyer in the government service at the time material to the acts complained of.

Meanwhile, respondent Go labelled as blatant lies the allegations of Chan in his complaint. He alleged that he met Chan, Jenny, and Glenn, through his mothers close friends Yek Ti L. Chua and Ban Ha; that he came to know of the labor case of Susan Que Tiu during a casual bridge session with the latters godfather Alfredo Lim; that it was complainant who organized the meetings and persisted in asking his help regarding the said labor case; that he refused to help complainant because he would not want to influence his colleagues in the NLRC to reverse their judgments; that he did not impress

upon complainant and his family that he is engaged in influence peddling; that when he relayed to Lim complainants intention to amicably settle the case, Lim agreed to be introduced to complainant; that he never introduced respondent Paras as his associate; that he only assisted the parties during the conciliation meetings but never coerced complainant to give in to the demands of Lim; and that he did not extort money from complainant.

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondents are guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility, Canons of Professional Ethics, and the Rules of Court.

RULING:

We cannot lend credence to complainants allegation that he or his group met with respondents six or seven times. Complainant and his group were allegedly angered, insulted, and offended by respondents yet they still agreed to foot the bills for the meals. Even after the denial by the NLRC of their motion for reconsideration, with nothing more to discuss, complainants still allegedly met with respondents. These actions are not in accord with human behavior, logic, and common sense. At this time, complainant would have known that respondents could not deliver on their alleged promises to influence the outcome of the case in his favor; that they were only trying to extort money from him, and abusing him for free meals. As such, he should have stopped meeting them, or immediately filed criminal and/or administrative charges against them, or at the least, refused to foot the bill for their meals.

This Court agrees with respondent Paras that complainants charge of violation of Rule 6.02, Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility is misplaced because he was not a government lawyer at the time material to the acts complained of. This fact is certified by the Training and Administrative Manager of Lepanto Consolidated Mining Co. where respondent Paras was employed as Assistant Manager, then as Manager for Legal Services and Government Affairs from July 31, 2000 to March 31, 2004.

WHEREFORE, the complaint against respondents Atty. Jose Raulito E. Paras and NLRC Commissioner Romeo Go is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

vs.

ATTY. TELESFORO S. CEDO

FACTS:

Complainant alleges that while respondent was still in its employ, he participated in arranging the sale of steel sheets (denominated as Lots 54-M and 55-M) in favor of Milagros Ong Siy for P200,000. He even "noted" the gate passes issued by his subordinate, Mr. Emmanuel Elefan, in favor of Mrs. Ong Siy authorizing the pull-out of the steel sheets from the DMC Man Division Compound. When a civil action arose out of this transaction between Mrs. Ong Siy and complainant bank before the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 146, respondent who had since left the employ of complainant bank, appeared as one of the counsels of Mrs. Ong Siy.

Correspondingly, when the same transaction became the subject of an administrative case filed by complainant bank against his former subordinate Emmanuel Elefan, for grave misconduct and dishonesty, respondent appeared as counsel for Elefan only to be later disqualified by the Civil Service Commission.

Moreover, while respondent was still the Asst. Vice President of complainant’s Asset Management Group, he intervened in the handling of the loan account of the spouses Ponciano and Eufemia Almeda with complainant bank by writing demand letters to the couple. When a civil action ensued between complainant bank and the Almeda spouses as a result of this loan account, the latter were represented by the law firm "Cedo, Ferrer, Maynigo & Associates" of which respondent is one of the Senior Partners.

During the investigation conducted by the IBP, it was discovered that respondent was previously fined by this Court in the amount of P1,000.00 in connection with G.R. No. 94456 entitled "Milagros Ong Siy vs. Hon. Salvador Tensuan, et al." for forum shopping, where respondent appeared as counsel for petitioner Milagros Ong Siy "through the law firm of Cedo Ferrer Maynigo and Associates.

The IBP further found that the charges herein against respondent were fully substantiated. Respondent's averment that the law firm handling the case of the Almeda spouses is not a partnership deserves scant consideration in the light of the attestation of complainant's counsel, Atty. Pedro Singson, that in one of the hearings of the Almeda spouses' case, respondent attended the same with his partner Atty. Ferrer, and although he did not enter his appearance, he was practically dictating to Atty. Ferrer what to say and argue before the court. Furthermore, during the hearing of the application for a writ of injunction in the same case, respondent impliedly admitted being the partner of Atty. Ferrer, when it was made of record that respondent was working in the same office as Atty. Ferrer.

Moreover, the IBP noted that assuming the alleged set-up of the firm is true, it is in itself a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility (Rule 15.02) since the client’s secrets and confidential records and information are exposed to the other lawyers and staff members at all times.

From the foregoing, the IBP found a deliberate intent on the part of respondent to devise ways and means to attract as clients former borrowers of complainant bank since he was in the best position to see the legal weaknesses of his former employer, a convincing factor for the said clients to seek his professional service. In sum, the IBP saw a deliberate sacrifice by respondent of his ethics in consideration of the money he expected to earn.

The IBP thus recommended the suspension of respondent from the practice of law for 3 years.

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent is guilty of violating Canon 6, Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING:

The Court opined that communications between attorney and client are, in a great number of litigations, a complicated affair, consisting of entangled relevant and irrelevant, secret and well-known facts. In the complexity of what is said in the course of dealings between an attorney and client, inquiry of the nature suggested would lead to the revelation, in advance of the trial, of other matters that might only further prejudice the complainant's cause.

Whatever may be said as to whether or not respondent utilized against his former client information given to him in a professional capacity, the mere fact of their previous relationship should have precluded him from appearing as counsel for the other side in the forcible entry case.

It is unprofessional to represent conflicting interests, except by express conflicting consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. Within the meaning of this canon, a lawyer represents conflicting interest when, in behalf on one client, it is his duty to contend for that which duty to another client requires him to oppose.

ACCORDINGLY, this Court resolves to SUSPEND respondent ATTY. TELESFORO S. CEDO from the practice of law for THREE (3) YEARS, effective immediately.

RE: LETTER-COMPLAINT OF CONCERNED CITIZENS AGAINST SOLICITOR GENERAL AGNES VST. DEVANADERA, ATTY. ROLANDO FALLER, and ATTY. SANTIAGO VARELA.

FACTS:

On August 6, 2007, the Concerned Citizens informed that they filed before the Court through the Office of the Chief Justice, a complaint for disbarment/disciplinary action against former Government Corporate Counsel (GCC), now Solicitor General AGNES VST. DEVANADERA, along with the present GCC ALBERTO C. AGRA and other lawyers of the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC), for engaging directly or indirectly in partisan political activities during the May 14, 2007 national and local elections, and for violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. To the August 26, 2007 letter-complaint was attached a copy of the complaint of the Concerned Citizens filed on August 6, 2007,

By Resolution of November 20, 2007, the Court required Solicitor General Devanadera, GCC Agra and Attys. Faller and Varela to Comment on the August 26, 2007 letter-complaint within ten days from notice.

The Solicitor General et al. filed their separate comments, praying for the outright dismissal of the complaint for being anonymous and contrary to the intent of Section 1, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court.

The Solicitor General et al. just the same moved for the dismissal of the August 26, 2007 letter-complaint for prematurity as the resolution of the complaint filed before the Office of the Ombudsman, if indeed there was, is material in determining whether they committed error in the performance of their duties.

Complainant Concerned Citizens provided no mailing address or contact information in their letter-complaint. And they did not proffer any justification for not coming out in the open other than the self-serving reason of for self-preservation, which is contrary to their claim that they are not afraid to rock the boat so that the proper government authorities will hear the plain and painful truths.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the government lawyers violated the Code of Professional Responsibility namely: Canon 1 and Canon 6 respectively.

RULING:

The Court pointed out the case of Anonymous vs. Geverola to wit:

An anonymous complaint is always received with great caution, originating as it does from an unknown author. However, a complaint of such sort does not always justify its outright dismissal for being baseless or unfounded for such complaint may be easy of verification and may, without much difficulty, be substantiated and established by other competent evidence.

The duty of the Court towards members of the bar is not only limited to the administration of discipline to those found culpable of misconduct but also to the protection of the reputation of those frivolously or maliciously charged. The Court will not thus shirk from its responsibility to mete out proper disciplinary punishment to lawyers who are shown to have failed to live up to their sworn duties; but neither will it hesitate to extend its protective arm to those the accusation against whom is not indubitably proven. For a lawyers good name is, in the ultimate analysis, his most important possession.

Indeed, the success of a lawyer in his profession depends almost entirely on his reputation. Anything which will harm his good name is to be deplored as a lawyers reputation is a plant of tender growth, and its bloom, once lost, is not easily restored. The eventual dismissal however of the administrative case, as in this case, should more than redeem and maintain petitioners good name.

WHEREFORE, the August 26, 2007 complaint against former Government Corporate Counsel, now Solicitor General Agnes Vst. Devanadera, and Attys. Rolando Faller and Santiago Varela of the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel is DISMISSED.

JOVITO S. OLAZO

vs.

JUSTICE DANTE O. TINGA (Ret.)

FACTS:

The complainant filed a sales application covering a parcel of land situated in Barangay Lower Bicutan in the Municipality of Taguig. The land was previously part of Fort Andres Bonifacio that was segregated and declared open for disposition pursuant to Proclamation No. 2476, issued on January 7, 1986, and Proclamation No. 172, issued on October 16, 1987.

To implement Proclamation No. 172, Memorandum No. 119 was issued by then Executive Secretary Catalino Macaraig, creating a Committee on Awards whose duty was to study, evaluate, and make a recommendation on the applications to purchase the lands declared open for disposition. The Committee on Awards was headed by the Director of Lands and the respondent was one of the Committee members, in his official capacity as the Congressman of Taguig and Pateros (from 1987 to 1998); the respondents district includes the areas covered by the proclamations.

In the complaint for violation of Rule 6.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the complainant claimed that the respondent abused his position as Congressman and as a member of the Committee on Awards when he unduly interfered with the complainants sales application because of his personal interest over the subject land. The complainant alleged that the respondent exerted undue pressure and influence over the complainants father, Miguel P. Olazo, for the latter to contest the complainants sales application and claim the subject land for himself. The complainant also alleged that the respondent prevailed upon Miguel Olazo to accept, on various dates, sums of money as payment of the latters alleged rights over the subject land. The complainant further claimed that the respondent brokered the transfer of rights of the subject land between Miguel Olazo and Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez, who is the nephew of the respondents deceased wife.

The second complaint involves the violation of Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility that another parcel of land within the proclaimed areas belonging to Manuel Olazo, the complainants brother. The complainant alleged that the respondent persuaded Miguel Olazo to direct Manuel to convey his rights over the land to Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez. As a result of the respondents promptings, the rights to the land were transferred to Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez.

The third complaint involves the violation of Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, it alleged that the respondent engaged in unlawful conduct considering his knowledge that Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez was not a qualified beneficiary under Memorandum No. 119. The complainant averred that Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez is not a bona fide resident of the proclaimed areas and does not qualify for an award. Thus, the approval of his sales application by the Committee on Awards amounted to a violation of the objectives of Proclamation No. 172 and Memorandum No. 119.

ISSUES:

Whether or not respondent violated Rules 1.01, 6,02 and 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING:

The Court elucidated that generally, a lawyer who holds a government office may not be disciplined as a member of the Bar for misconduct in the discharge of his duties as a government official. He may be disciplined by this Court as a member of the Bar only when his misconduct also constitutes a violation of his oath as a lawyer.

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. In addition to the standard of conduct laid down under R.A. No. 6713 for government employees, a lawyer in the government service is obliged to observe the standard of conduct under the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Since public office is a public trust, the ethical conduct demanded upon lawyers in the government service is more exacting than the standards for those in private practice. Lawyers in the government service are subject to constant public scrutiny under norms of public accountability. They also bear the heavy burden of having to put aside their private interest in favor of the interest of the public; their private activities should not interfere with the discharge of their official functions.

A lawyer in the government service shall not use his public position to promote or advance his private interests, nor allow the latter to interfere with his public duties.

The above provision prohibits a lawyer from using his or her public position to: (1) promote private interests; (2) advance private interests; or (3) allow private interest to interfere with his or her public duties. We previously held that the restriction extends to all government lawyers who use their public offices to promote their private interests.

Applying these legal precepts to the facts of the case, we find the absence of any concrete proof that the respondent abused his position as a Congressman and as a member of the Committee on Awards in the manner defined under Rule 6.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

As a rule, government lawyers are not allowed to engage in the private practice of their profession during their incumbency. By way of exception, a government lawyer can engage in the practice of his or her profession under the following conditions: first, the private practice is authorized by the Constitution or by the law; and second, the practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with his or her official functions. The last paragraph of Section 7 provides an exception to the exception. In case of lawyers separated from the government service who are covered under subparagraph (b) (2) of Section 7 of R.A. No. 6713, a one-year prohibition is imposed to practice law in connection with any matter before the office he used to be with.

The Court finds that a similar treatment should be given to the complainants claim that the respondent violated paragraph 4(1) of Memorandum No. 119 when he encouraged the sales application of Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez despite his knowledge that his nephew was not a qualified applicant. The matter of Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguezs qualifications to apply for a sales application over lots covered by the proclaimed areas has been resolved in the affirmative by the Secretary of the DENR in the decision

dated April 3, 2004, when the DENR gave due course to his sales application over the subject land. The Court at this point is bound by our findings.

With this in mind, we resolve to dismiss the administrative case against the respondent for the complainants failure to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the former committed unethical infractions warranting the exercise of the Courts disciplinary power.

RUTHIE LIM-SANTIAGO

vs.

ATTY. CARLOS B. SAGUCIO

FACTS:

Ruthie Lim-Santiago is the daughter of Alfonso Lim and Special Administratrix of his estate.  Alfonso Lim is a stockholder and the former President of Taggat Industries, Inc. 

Atty. Carlos B. Sagucio was the former Personnel Manager and Retained Counsel of Taggat Industries, Inc.  until his appointment as Assistant Provincial Prosecutor of Tuguegarao, Cagayan in 1992. 

Taggat Industries, Inc. ("Taggat") is a domestic corporation engaged in the operation of timber concessions from the government. The Presidential Commission on Good Government sequestered it sometime in 1986,  and its operations ceased in 1997. 

Sometime in July 1997, 21 employees of Taggat filed a criminal complaint entitled "Jesus Tagorda, Jr. et al. v. Ruthie Lim-Santiago," docketed as I.S. No. 97-240.  Taggat employees alleged that complainant, who took over the management and control of Taggat after the death of her father, withheld payment of their salaries and wages without valid cause from 1 April 1996 to 15 July 1997. 

Respondent, as Assistant Provincial Prosecutor, was assigned to conduct the preliminary investigation.  He resolved the criminal complaint by recommending the filing of 651 Informations  for violation of Article 288  in relation to Article 116  of the Labor Code of the Philippines. 

For violation of Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, complainant contends that respondent is guilty of representing conflicting interests. Respondent, being the former Personnel Manager and Retained Counsel of Taggat, knew the operations of Taggat very well. Respondent should have inhibited himself from hearing, investigating and deciding the case filed by Taggat employees. Furthermore, complainant claims that respondent instigated the filing of the cases and even harassed and

threatened Taggat employees to accede and sign an affidavit to support the complaint. 

Complainant also contends that respondent is guilty of engaging in the private practice of law while working as a government prosecutor. Complainant presented evidence to prove that respondent received P10,000 as retainer’s fee for the months of January and February 1995,  another P10,000 for the months of April and May 1995,  and P5,000 for the month of April 1996. 

The IBP – CBD conducted an investigation and finds the respondent guilty of conflict of interests, failure to safeguard a former client’s interest, and violating the prohibition against the private practice of law while being a government prosecutor. The IBP Board of Governors recommended the imposition of a penalty of three years suspension from the practice of law.

ISSUES:

1.) Whether or not respondent is guilty of violating Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility; and

2.) Whether or not respondent is guilty of engaging in the private practive of law while working as a government prosecutor.

RULING:

The Court exonerates respondent from the charge of violation of Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility ("Code"). However, the Court finds respondent liable for violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility against unlawful conduct.  Respondent committed unlawful conduct when he violated Section 7(b)(2) of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees or Republic Act No. 6713 ("RA 6713").

Canon 6 provides that the Code "shall apply to lawyers in government service in the discharge of their official duties."  A government lawyer is thus bound by the prohibition "not [to] represent conflicting interests."  However, this rule is subject to certain limitations. The prohibition to represent conflicting interests does not apply when no conflict of interest exists, when a written consent of all concerned is given after a full disclosure of the facts or when no true attorney-client relationship exists.  Moreover, considering the serious consequence of the disbarment or suspension of a member of the Bar, clear preponderant evidence is necessary to justify the imposition of the administrative penalty. 

In Quiambao v. Bamba,  the Court enumerated various tests to determine conflict of interests. One test of inconsistency of interests is whether the lawyer will be asked to use against his former client any confidential information acquired through their connection or previous employment. 49 In essence, what a lawyer owes his former client is to maintain inviolate the client’s confidence or to refrain from doing anything which will injuriously affect him in any matter in which he previously represented him. 

The fact alone that respondent was the former Personnel Manager and Retained Counsel of Taggat and the case he resolved as government prosecutor was labor-related is not a sufficient basis to charge respondent for representing conflicting interests. A lawyer’s immutable duty to a former client does not cover transactions that occurred beyond the lawyer’s employment with the client. The intent of the law is to impose upon the lawyer the duty to protect the client’s interests only on matters that he previously handled for the former client and not for matters that arose after the lawyer-client relationship has terminated.

The Court finds respondent Atty. Carlos B. Sagucio GUILTY of violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, we SUSPEND respondent Atty. Carlos B. Sagucio from the practice of law for SIX MONTHS effective upon finality of this Decision.

ATTY. PRUDENCIO S. PENTICOSTES vs. PROSECUTOR DIOSDADO S. IBAEZ

FACTS:

Sometime in 1989, Encarnacion Pascual, the sister-in-law of Atty. Prudencio S. Penticostes was sued for non-remittance of SSS payments. The complaint was docketed as I.S. 89-353 and assigned to Prosecutor Diosdado S. Ibaez for preliminary investigation. In the course of the investigation, Encarnacion Pascual gave P1,804.00 to respondent as payment of her Social Security System (SSS) contribution in arrears.Respondent, however, did not remit the amount to the system. The fact of non-payment was certified to by the SSS on October 2, 1989.

On November 16, 1990 or over a year later, complainant filed with the Regional Trial Court of Tarlac a complaint for professional misconduct against Ibaez due to the latters failure to remit the SSS contributions of his sister-in-law. The complaint alleged that respondents misappropriation of Encarnacion Pascuals SSS contributions amounted to a violation of his oath as a lawyer. Seven days later, or on November 23, 1990, respondent paidP1,804.00 to the SSS on behalf of Encarnacion Pascual.

In the meantime, the case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Tarlac Chapter, the court observing that it had no competence to receive evidence on the matter. Upon receipt of the case, the Tarlac Chapter forwarded the same to IBPs Commission on Bar Discipline.

In his defense, respondent claimed that his act of accommodating Encarnacion Pascuals request to make payment to the SSS did not amount to professional misconduct but was rather an act of Christian charity. Furthermore, he claimed that the action was moot and academic, the amount ofP1,804.00 having already been paid by him to the SSS. Lastly, he disclaimed liability on the ground that the acts complained were not done by him in his capacity as a practicing lawyer but on account of his office as a prosecutor.

The Commission recommended that the respondent be reprimanded, with a warning that the commission of the same or similar offense would be dealt with more severely in the future. On November 5, 1998, the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines adopted and approved its Commissions recommendation.ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent is guilty of violating Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.RULING:

This Court adopts the recommendation of the IBP and finds respondent guilty of professional misconduct. While there is no doubt that payment of the contested amount had been effected to the SSS on November 23, 1990, it is clear however, that the same was made only after a complaint had been filed against respondent. Furthermore, the duties of a provincial prosecutor do not include receiving money from persons with official transactions with his office.

This Court has repeatedly admonished lawyers that a high sense of morality, honesty and fair dealing is expected and required of a member of the bar. Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that [a] lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

ACCORDINGLY, this Court REPRIMANDS respondent with a STERN WARNING that a commission of the similar offense will be dealt with more severely in the future.

AQUILINO Q. PIMENTEL, JR. 

vs.

ATTYS. VITALIANO C. FABROS and PACIFICO S. PAAS

FACTS:

Among the duties of the [PBC-Isabela] was to canvass the results of the elections from the various municipalities and component cities of the Province of Isabela and submit the Provincial Certificate of Canvass to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). This Provincial Certificate of Canvass was to be submitted to the COMELEC together with its supporting Statement of Votes per Municipality for the Province of Isabela, and as required by law, these documents were prepared under the control and supervision of the [PBC-Isabela] of which herein respondents are officials.

In fact, with respect to the Provincial Certificate of Canvass of Isabela, respondents were required to certify under oath that they duly canvassed the votes cast for each candidate for Senator in the election held on May 8, 1995. And with respect to the Statement of Votes per Municipality, they were required to certify that each entry made is true and correct.

It would appear, however, that the Statement of Votes per Municipality (annex "B") prepared and certified to be true and correct by herein respondents was actually a fraudulent statement which had been altered and which contain false and untrue entries. By comparing the said statements with the Municipal/City Certificates of Canvass of some of the municipalities and component cities for the Province of Isabela, it is clearly apparent that in nine (9) municipalities and one (1) city of the said province, the votes of candidates Enrile, Honasan and Mitra were padded and increased by some 27,755, 10,000 and 7,000, respectively.

The anomalous, irregular and illegal padding of the votes in the Provincial Certificate of Canvass for the Province of Isabela cannot be attributed mere computation or recording error, but was ostensibly the

result of a premeditated scheme knowingly implemented by herein respondents.

 The respondents, chairman and vice chairman of the [PBC-Isabela], willfully, feloniously, unethically and in wanton and reckless regard of the duties and responsibilities reposed upon them by virtue of their official positions, signed the Provincial Certificate of Canvass (annex "A") and the Statement of Votes per Municipality (annex "B") for the Province of Isabela, well aware that the same contained false statements which has altered the results of the senatorial elections in said province. Their submission of these falsified documents to the COMELEC is an act constituting a gross violation of the Omnibus Election Code and existing penal laws, and a serious breach of public trust and of their oaths as duly licensed members of the Philippine Bar.

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Investigating Commissioner George Briones heard the case on January 20, 1997. By agreement of the parties, the Investigating Commissioner ordered the parties to submit simultaneous verified position papers with the affidavits of their witnesses. On June 21, 2003, the IBP board of governors issued a resolution adopting the report and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner. Respondents were found guilty of violating Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and were penalized with a fine of P10,000 each, with a warning that a violation on similar grounds will be dealt with more severely.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the respondents are guilty of violating Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING:

The Court finds respondents guilty of misconduct. The records reflect, and respondents admit, the discrepancy between the questioned certificate of canvass and the statement of votes of the Province of Isabela in the 1995 elections. While there was no question that the municipal/city certificates of canvass were not tampered with, the tabulation of the figures on the statement of votes was anomalous. For this, respondents were responsible.

As chairman and vice-chairman of PBC-Isabela, respectively, respondents were mandated to receive the municipal/city certificates of canvass, and to canvass them for the votes of the members of the Senate, among others. They were also required to determine the provisional total votes of each candidate as of each adjournment. On final adjournment, they were tasked to prepare a statement of votes with a certification of the same

as official. In addition, they prepared the provincial certificate of canvass (in which the padded figures were discovered) with the certification under oath as public officers that the entries were true and correct.

The respondents failed to live up to the high degree of excellence, professionalism, intelligence and skill required of them. As lawyers, they were found to have engaged in unlawful, dishonest, immoral and deceitful conduct. They also violated their oath as officers of the court to foist no falsehood on anyone. Furthermore, by express provision of Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the avoidance of such conduct is demanded of them as lawyers in the government service:

CANON 6 – These canons shall apply to lawyers in government service in the discharge of their official tasks.

As lawyers in the government service, respondents were under an even greater obligation to observe the basic tenets of the legal profession because public office is a public trust.

WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondents Atty. Vitaliano C. Fabros and Atty. Pacifico S. Paas GUILTY of misconduct and imposes on them a FINE in the amount of P10,000 each, with a WARNING that the commission in the future of a similar act will be dealt with more severely.

PEDRO B. LINSANGAN

vs.

ATTY. NICODEMES TOLENTINO

FACTS:

Complainant alleged that respondent, with the help of paralegal Fe Marie Labiano, convinced his clients to transfer legal representation. Respondent promised them financial assistance and expeditious collection on their claims. To induce them to hire his services, he persistently called them and sent them text messages. To support his allegations, complainant presented the sworn affidavit of James Gregorio attesting that Labiano tried to prevail upon him to sever his lawyer – client relations with complainant and utilize respondents services instead, in exchange for a loan of P50,000. Complainant also attached respondents calling card.

NICOMEDES TOLENTINOLAW OFFFICE

CONSULTANCY & MARITIME SERVICESW/ FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE

 Fe Marie L. Labiano

Paralegal 1st MIJI Mansion, 2nd Flr. Rm. M-01 Tel: 362-7820

6th Ave., cor M.H. Del Pilar Fax: (632) 362-7821Grace Park, Caloocan City Cel.: (0926) 2701719

   

BackSERVICES OFFERED:

CONSULTATION AND ASSISTANCETO OVERSEAS SEAMEN

REPATRIATED DUE TO ACCIDENT,INJURY, ILLNESS, SICKNESS, DEATHAND INSURANCE BENEFIT CLAIMS

ABROAD.

Hence, this complaint. The complaint was referred to the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation the CBD, in its report and recommendation, found that respondent had encroached on the professional practice of complainant, violating Rule 8.02 and other canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). Moreover, he contravened the rule against soliciting cases for gain, personally or through paid agents or brokers as stated in Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. Hence, the CBD recommended that respondent be reprimanded with a stern warning that any repetition would merit a heavier penalty.

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent is guilty of violating Rule 8.02 and other canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING:

The Court ruled that the complaint is rooted on the alleged intrusion by respondent into complainants professional practice in violation of Rule 8.02 of the CPR. And the means employed by respondent in furtherance of the said misconduct themselves constituted distinct violations of ethical rules.

Canons of the CPR are rules of conduct all lawyers must adhere to, including the manner by which a lawyers services are to be made known. Thus, Canon 3 of the CPR provides:

 CANON 3 - A LAWYER IN MAKING KNOWN HIS LEGAL SERVICES SHALL USE ONLY TRUE, HONEST, FAIR, DIGNIFIED AND OBJECTIVE INFORMATION OR STATEMENT OF FACTS.

Time and time again, lawyers are reminded that the practice of law is a profession and not a business; lawyers should not advertise their talents as merchants advertise their wares. To allow a lawyer to advertise his talent or skill is to commercialize the practice of law, degrade the profession in the public estimation and impair its ability to efficiently render that high character of service to which every member of the bar is called.

Lawyers are prohibited from soliciting cases for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers. Such actuation constitutes malpractice, a ground for disbarment. 

Rule 2.03 should be read in connection with Rule 1.03 of the CPR which provides:

 RULE 1.03. A LAWYER SHALL NOT, FOR ANY CORRUPT MOTIVE OR INTEREST, ENCOURAGE ANY SUIT OR PROCEEDING OR DELAY ANY MANS CAUSE.

  

This rule proscribes ambulance chasing (the solicitation of almost any kind of legal business by an attorney, personally or through an agent in order to gain employment) as a measure to protect the community from barratry and champerty.

Respondent committed an unethical, predatory overstep into anothers legal practice. He cannot escape liability under Rule 8.02 of the CPR.Moreover, by engaging in a money-lending venture with his clients as borrowers, respondent violated Rule 16.04: Rule 16.04 A lawyer shall not borrow money from his client unless the

clients interests are fully protected by the nature of the case or by independent advice. Neither shall a lawyer lend money to a client except, when in the interest of justice, he has to advance necessary expenses in a legal matter he is handling for the client.

The rule is that a lawyer shall not lend money to his client. The only exception is, when in the interest of justice, he has to advance necessary expenses (such as filing fees, stenographers fees for transcript of stenographic notes, cash bond or premium for surety bond, etc.) for a matter that he is handling for the client.

For this reason, lawyers are only allowed to announce their services by publication in reputable law lists or use of simple professional cards.Professional calling cards may only contain the following details: 

(a)         lawyers name;(b)        name of the law firm with which he is connected;(c)         address;(d)        telephone number and(e)         special branch of law practiced.

The Court finds respondent Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino for violating Rules 1.03, 2.03, 8.02 and 16.04 and Canon 3 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one year effective immediately from receipt of this resolution. He is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely.

JUAN DULALIA, JR.

vs.

ATTY. PABLO O. CRUZ

FACTS:

Susan Soriano Dulalia, wife of Juan, applied for a permit in the Municipal Government to build a high rise building in Bulacan. The permit was not released due to the opposition of Atty. Cruz who sent a letter to the Municipal Engineers office, claiming that the building impedes the airspace of their property which is adjacent to the Dulalia’s property. Juan Dulalia filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Pablo Cruz for immoral conduct.

Juan also claimed that Cruz’s illicit relationship with a woman while still married is in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Cruz invokes good faith, claiming to have had the impression that the applicable provision at the time was Article 83 of the Civil Code, for while Article 256 of the Family Code provides that the Code shall have retroactive application, there is a qualification.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Cruz violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING:

The Court ruled that the respondent’s claim that he was not aware that the Family Code already took effect on August 3, 1988 as he was in the United States from 1986 and stayed there until he came back to the Philippines together with his second wife on October 9, 1990 does not lie, as “ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith.”

Immoral conduct which is proscribed under Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, as opposed to grossly immoral conduct, connotes “conduct that shows indifference to the moral norms of society and the opinion of good and respectable members of the community.” Gross immoral conduct on the other hand must be so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree.

It must be emphasized that the primary duty of lawyers is to obey the laws of the land and promote respect for the law and legal processes. This duty carries with it the obligation to be well-informed of the existing laws and to keep abreast with legal developments, recent enactments and

jurisprudence. It is imperative that they be conversant with basic legal principles. Unless they faithfully comply with such duty, they may not be able to discharge competently and diligently their obligations as members of the bar. Worse, they may become susceptible to committing mistakes.

The Court therefore concludes that Atty. Pablo C. Cruz is guilty of violating Rule 1.01 and Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is suspended from the practice of law for one year.

EMILIA R. HERNANDEZ

vs.

ATTY. VENANCIO B. PADILLA

FACTS:

This case arose from a disbarment case filed by Emilia Hernandez against her lawyer, Atty. Venancio B. Padilla of Padilla Padilla Bautista Law Offices, for his alleged negligence in the handling of her case.

The records disclose that complainant and her husband were the respondents in an ejectment case filed against them with the Regional Trial Court of Manila.

In a Decision dated 28 June 2002, penned by Judge Rosmari D. Carandang (Judge Carandang), the RTC ordered that the Deed of Sale executed in favor of complainant be cancelled; and that the latter pay the complainant therein, Elisa Duigan (Duigan), attorneys fees and moral damages.

Complainant and her husband filed their Notice of Appeal with the RTC. Thereafter, the Court of Appeals (CA) ordered them to file their Appellants Brief. They chose respondent to represent them in the case. On their behalf, he filed a Memorandum on Appeal instead of an Appellants Brief. Thus, Duigan filed a Motion to Dismiss the Appeal. The CA granted the Motion in a Resolution dated 16 December 2003.

No Motion for Reconsideration (MR) of the Resolution dismissing the appeal was filed by the couple. Complainant claims that because respondent ignored the Resolution, he acted with deceit, unfaithfulness amounting to malpractice of law. Complainant and her husband failed to file an appeal, because respondent never informed them of the adverse decision. Complainant further claims that she asked respondent several times about the status of the appeal, but despite inquiries he deliberately withheld response [sic], to the damage and prejudice of the spouses.

The Resolution became final and executory on 8 January 2004. Complainant was informed of the Resolution sometime in July 2005, when the Sheriff of the RTC came to her house and informed her of the Resolution.

Subsequently, complainant filed an Affidavit of Complaint with the Committee on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), seeking the disbarment of respondent on the following grounds: deceit, malpractice, and grave misconduct. Complainant prays for moral damages in the amount of ₱350,000.

IBP Investigating Commissioner Leland R. Villadolid, Jr. found that respondent violated Canons 5, 17, and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He recommended that respondent be suspended from practicing law from 3 to 6 months.

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent is guilty of violating Canons 5, 17, and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING:

The Court adopts the factual findings of the board of governors of the IBP. This Court, however, disagrees with its Decision to reduce the penalty to one-month suspension. At the same time affirm the six-month suspension the Board originally imposed in its 28 August 2010 Resolution.

Acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney-client relationship and gives rise to the duty of fidelity to the clients cause. Once a lawyer agrees to handle a case, it is that lawyers duty to serve the client with competence and diligence. Respondent has failed to fulfill this duty.

When the RTC ruled against complainant and her husband, they filed a Notice of Appeal. Consequently, what should apply is the rule on ordinary appealed cases or Rule 44 of the Rules on Civil Procedure. Rule 44 requires that the appellants brief be filed after the records of the case have been elevated to the CA. Respondent, as a litigator, was expected to know this procedure. Canon 5 of the Code reads:

CANON 5 A lawyer shall keep abreast of legal developments, participate in continuing legal education programs, support efforts to achieve high standards in law schools as well as in the practical training of law students and assist in disseminating information regarding the law and jurisprudence.

It must be emphasized that the primary duty of lawyers is to obey the laws of the land and promote respect for the law and legal processes. They are expected to be in the forefront in the observance and maintenance of the rule of law. This duty carries with it the obligation to be well-informed of the existing laws and to keep abreast with legal developments, recent enactments and jurisprudence. It is imperative that they be conversant with basic legal principles. Unless they faithfully comply with such duty, they may not be able to discharge competently and diligently their obligations as members of the bar. Worse, they may become susceptible to committing mistakes.

Rule 18.02 of the Code provides that a lawyer shall not handle any legal matter without adequate preparation. While it is true that respondent was not complainants lawyer from the trial to the appellate court stage, this fact did not excuse him from his duty to diligently study a case he had agreed to handle. If he felt he did not have enough time to study the pertinent matters involved, as he was approached by complainants husband only two days before the expiration of the period for filing the Appellants Brief, respondent should have filed a motion for extension of time to file the proper pleading instead of whatever pleading he could come up with, just to beat the deadline set by the Court of Appeals.

Respondent, as counsel, had the duty to inform his clients of the status of their case. His failure to do so amounted to a violation of Rule 18.04 of the Code, which reads:

18.04 - A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the clients request for information.

Lawyers should not neglect legal matters entrusted to them, otherwise their negligence in fulfilling their duty would render them liable for disciplinary action.

Respondent Atty. Venancio Padilla is found guilty of violating Rules 18.02, 18.03, 18.04, as well as Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Hence, he is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for SIX (6) MONTHS and STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or a similar offense will be dealt with more severely.

LEA P. PAYOD

vs.

ATTY. ROMEO P. METILA

FACTS:

This case arose from the complainant’s contention that respondent Atty. Romeo P. Metila cannot submit very important documents considered regular pieces of information in their practice of law leading to default with serious consequences prejudicial to the client if the said counsel is not ill motivated or not due to gross misconduct and willful negligence inimical to the best interest of the client.

Together with my mother Mrs. Restituta Peliño and my sister Mrs. Portia P. Velasco, I have found difficulty making follow-up with Atty. Romeo P. Metila for him to comply with the submission of required documents to the Supreme Court because of his unreasonable excuses for non-performance despite our persistent follow-ups, payments of expenses and attorney’s fees, and willingness to supply him with materials and needed facts. More often, we got lame excuses and had his no-shows in appointed meetings at the Supreme Court.

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Committee on Bar Discipline conducted an investigation, to which the complaint was referred, found respondent guilty of simple negligence and recommended that he be seriously admonished and required to undergo three units of Mandatory Continuing Legal Education in Remedial law for his failure to update himself with the developments in the legal profession and for the cavalier manner by which he denied the existence of an attorney-client relationship when one in fact existed.

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent is guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING:

The Court upholds the finding and recommendation of the IBP.

In failing to comply with the requirements in initiating complainant’s appeal before this Court in G.R. No. 102764 even after his attention to it was called by this Court, respondent fell short of the standards required in the Canon of Professional Responsibility for a lawyer to "keep abreast of legal developments"6 and "serve his client with competence and diligence."

That Lea’s mother did not have a Special Power of Attorney to hire respondent on Lea’s behalf is immaterial, given that he actually initiated the appeal, albeit unsuccessfully.

It need not be underlined that a lawyer who accepts a case must give it his full attention, diligence, skill, and competence,8 and his negligence in connection therewith renders him liable

Respondent accepted Lea’s case upon her mother’s insistence, with only six days for him to file a petition for review before this Court, and without her furnishing him with complete records, not to mention money, for the reproduction of the needed documents. Despite these constraints, respondent exerted efforts, albeit lacking in care, to defend his client’s cause by filing two motions for extension of time to file petition. And he in fact filed the petition within the time he requested,11 thus complying with the guideline of this Court that lawyers should at least file their pleadings within the extended period requested should their motions for extension of time to file a pleading be unacted upon.

The Court finds respondent, Atty. Romeo Metila, is SERIOUSLY ADMONISHED with WARNING that similar charges will be severely dealt.

FELICITAS S. QUIAMBAO

vs.

ATTY. NESTOR A. BAMBA

FACTS:

The complainant was the president and managing director of Allied Investigation Bureau, Inc. (AIB), a family-owned corporation engaged in providing security and investigation services. She avers that she procured the legal services of the respondent not only for the corporate affairs of AIB but also for her personal case. Particularly, the respondent acted as her counsel of record in an ejectment case against Spouses Santiago and Florita Torroba filed by her on 29 December 2000 before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Paraaque City, which was docketed as Civil Case No. 11928. She paid attorneys fees for respondents legal services in that case. About six months after she resigned as AIB president, or on 14 June 2001, the respondent filed on behalf of AIB a complaint for replevin and damages against her before the MeTC of Quezon City for the purpose of recovering from her the car of AIB assigned to her as a service vehicle. This he did without withdrawing as counsel of record in the ejectment case, which was then still pending.

Apart from the foregoing litigation matter, the complainant, in her Position Paper, charges the respondent with acts of disloyalty and double-dealing. She avers that the respondent proposed to her that she organize her own security agency and that he would assist her in its organization, causing her to resign as president of AIB. The respondent indeed assisted her in December 2000 in the formation of another security agency, Quiambao Risk Management Specialists, Inc., (QRMSI), which was later registered under complainants name, with the respondent as a silent partner represented by his associate Atty. Gerardo P. Hernandez. The respondent was paid attorneys fees for his legal services in organizing and incorporating QRMSI. He also planned to steal or pirate some of the more important clients of AIB. While serving as legal counsel for AIB and a silent partner of QRMSI, he convinced complainants brother Leodegario Quiambao to organize another security agency, San Esteban Security Services, Inc. (SESSI) where he (the respondent) served as its incorporator, director, and president. The respondent and Leodegario then illegally diverted the funds of AIB to fund

the incorporation of SESSI, and likewise planned to eventually close down the operations of AIB and transfer the business to SESSI.

The investigating commissioner of the IBP found the respondent guilty of representing conflicting interests based on the following undisputed facts: first, the respondent was still complainants counsel of record in the ejectment case when he filed, as legal counsel of AIB, the replevin case against her; and second, the respondent was still the legal counsel of AIB when he advised the complainant on the incorporation of another security agency, QRMSI, and recommended his former law partner, Atty. Gerardo Hernandez, to be its corporate secretary and legal counsel and also when he conferred with Leodegario to organize another security agency, SESSI, where the respondent became an incorporator, stockholder, and president. Thus, the investigating commissioner recommended that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one year.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the respondent is guilty of misconduct for representing conflicting interests in contravention of the basic tenets of the legal profession.

RULING:

The Court elucidated that lawyers are deemed to represent conflicting interests when, in behalf of one client, it is their duty to contend for that which duty to another client requires them to oppose. Developments in jurisprudence have particularized various tests to determine whether a lawyers conduct lies within this proscription. One test is whether a lawyer is duty-bound to fight for an issue or claim in behalf of one client and, at the same time, to oppose that claim for the other client. Thus, if a lawyers argument for one client has to be opposed by that same lawyer in arguing for the other client, there is a violation of the rule.

Another test of inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance of a new relation would prevent the full discharge of the lawyers duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to the client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the performance of that duty. Still another test is whether the lawyer would be called upon in the new relation to use against a former client any confidential information acquired through their connection or previous employment.

Neither can we accept respondents plea that he was duty-bound to handle all the cases referred to him by AIB, including the personal cases of its officers which had no connection to its corporate affairs. That the representation of conflicting interest is in good faith and with honest intention on the part of the lawyer does not make the prohibition inoperative. Moreover, lawyers are not obliged to act either as an adviser or advocate for every person who may wish to become their client. They have the right to decline such employment, subject, however, to Canon 14 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Although there are instances where lawyers cannot decline representation, they cannot be made to labor under conflict of interest between a present client and a prospective one.

Respondent Atty. Nestor A. Bamba is hereby held GUILTY of violation of Rule 15.03 of Canon 15 and Rule 1.02 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of ONE (1) YEAR effective from receipt of this Resolution, with a warning that a similar infraction in the future shall be dealt with more severely.