Professional Documents
Culture Documents
HUMBERTO
C.
JR.,
A.C. No. 5303
in behalf of PENTA RESORTS
CORPORATION/Attorney-inFact
of
LUMOT
A.
JALANDONI,
Complainant,
Present:
LIM,
2
0
0
6
x--------------------------------------- x
P
RESOLUTION
UNO
, J., CORONA, J.
Chai
rpers
on,
Humberto
SANDOVALGUTIERREZ,
- v e r s u s CORONA,
for
disbarment
against
2000.[2] On
GARCIA, JJ.
Lim
Villarosa
AZCUNA and
C.
July
7,
February
19,
ATTY.
NICANOR
V.
VILLAROSA,
Respondent.
Promulgated:
u
n
e
1
5
Administrative
Case No. 5463:
Sandra
F.
First
Vaflor v. Atty.
Adoniram
P.
(b)
No
motion
Pamplona and
Atty.
Nicanor
V. Villarosa;
2.
Administrative
Case No. 5502:
Daniel
A.
Jalandoni
v.
Atty.
Nicanor
V. Villarosa.
for
dated
No.
No.
records. The
In
resolution
5463
closed
and
5502
appears
Court
in
the
is
now
terminated.[3] On February 4,
2004,
pleadings
considering
filed
the
in
(A.C.
No.
5303)
against
respondent.
The complaint read:
AS FIRST CAUSE OF
ACTION
xxx
xxx
xxx
- II -
That respondent is
a practicing lawyer and a
member of the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines,
Bacolod
City,
Negros
Occidental
Chapter.
That
sometime
on
September
19,
1997,
Lumot
A.
Jalandoni,
Chairman/President
of
PRC was sued before
RTC, Branch 52 in Civil
Case No. 97-9865, RE:
Cabiles et al. vs. Lumot
Jalandoni, et al. The latter
engaged the legal services
of herein respondent who
formally
entered
his
appearance on October 2,
1997 as counsel for the
defendants
Lumot
A.
Jalandoni/Totti
Anlap
Gargoles. Respondent
as a consequence of said
Attorney-Client
relationship
represented
Lumot A. Jalandoni et al in
the entire proceedings of
said case. Utmost trust
and
confidence
was
reposed on said counsel,
hence
delicate
and
confidential
matters
involving all the personal
circumstances of his client
were entrusted to the
respondent. The
latter
was provided with all the
necessary
information
relative to the property in
question and likewise on
legal matters affecting the
corporation
(PRC)
particularly
[involving]
problems [which affect]
Hotel
Alhambra. Said
- III -
That
it
was
respondent
who
exclusively handled the
entire
proceedings
of
afore-cited Civil Case No.
97-9865 [and] presented
Lumot A. Jalandoni as his
witness prior to formally
resting his case. However,
on
April
27,
1999 respondent, without
due notice prior to a
scheduled
hearing,
surprisingly filed a Motion
to withdraw as counsel,
one
day
before
its
scheduled hearing on April
28, 1999. A careful
perusal of said Motion to
Withdraw as Counsel will
conclusively show that no
copy thereof was furnished
to Lumot A. Jalandoni,
neither does it bear her
conformity. No
doubt,
such notorious act of
respondent resulted to
(sic) irreparable damage
and injury to Lumot A.
Jalandoni, et al since the
decision of the court RTC,
Branch 52 proved adverse
to Lumot A. Jalandoni, et
al. The far reaching
effects of the untimely and
unauthorized withdrawal
by respondent caused
irreparable damage and
injury
to
Lumot
A.
Jalandoni, et al; a highly
meritorious case in favor
of his client suddenly
[suffered]
unexpected
defeat.
- IV -
equivalent of Eighty-two
(82%) percent of PRCs
shares of stocks] and the
interest of PRC are one
and
the
same,
notwithstanding the fact
that Lumot A. Jalandoni
was still his client in Civil
Case
No.
97-9862,
respondent
opted
to
represent opposing clients
at the same time. The
corporations complaint for
estafa
(P3,183,5525.00)
was filed against the Sps.
Dennis and Carmen J.
Jalbuena together with
UCPB
bank
manager
Vicente
Delfin. Succeeding events
will show that respondent
instead of desisting from
further violation of his
[lawyers] oath regarding
fidelity to his client, with
extreme
arrogance,
blatantly ignored our laws
on Legal Ethics, by
palpably and despicably
defending the Sps. Dennis
and Carmen J. Jalbuena in
all the cases filed against
them by PRC through its
duly
authorized
representatives, before the
Public Prosecutors Office,
Bacolod City (PP vs. Sps.
Dennis and Carmen J.
Jalbuena
for
False
Testimony/Perjury, viol. of
Art. 183 RPC under BC
I.S. No. 2000-2304; viol. of
Art. 363, 364, 181 and 183
RPC under BC I.S. 20002343, PP vs. Carmen J.
Jalbuena for viol. of Art.
xxx
xxx
xxx
-I-
xxx
xxx
xxx
There is no dispute
that respondent was able
to acquire vast resources
of confidential and delicate
information on the facts
and circumstances of [Civil
Case No. 97-9865] when
Lumot A. Jalandoni was
his
client
which
knowledge and information
was acquired by virtue of
lawyer-client relationship
between respondent and
his clients. Using the said
classified
information
which should have been
closely
guarded
- II -
continually
impressed
upon the new counsel by
the
court,
respondent
suddenly interposed an
amount of five thousand
(P5,000.00)
pesos
as
consideration prior to or
simultaneous
to
the
turnover
of
said
documents. [On] July
29, 1999, left with no other
alternative owing to the
urgency of the situation,
PRC issued Check No.
2077686 for P5,000.00 in
payment thereof. This was
duly
received
by
respondents office on the
same
date.
Such
dilatory tactics employed
by respondent immensely
weakened the case of
Lumot
A.
Jalandoni
eventually resulting to (sic)
an
adverse
decision
against [her].
Adding insult to
injury, respondent opted to
deliberately withhold the
entire case file including
the marked exhibits of the
Cabiles case for more than
three (3) months after his
untimely
unilateral
withdrawal
therefrom,
despite repeated demands
from [his] client. On July
26, 1999, capitalizing on
his knowledge of the
indispensability of said
documents particularly the
marked exhibits, which
deadline to file the formal
offer of exhibits was
Further
demonstrating before this
Honorable
Court
the
notoriety of respondent in
representing
conflicting
interest which extended
even beyond the family
controversy
was
his
improper appearance in
court in Civil Case No. 9910660, RE: Amy Albert
Que vs. Penta Resorts
Corp., this time favoring
the party opponent of
defendant who is even
outside
the
family
circle. During the pre-trial
hearing conducted on May
5, 1999, while still [holding]
exclusive possession of
the entire case file of his
client in Civil Case No. 979865, respondent brazenly
positioned himself beside
Atty.
Adoniram
P.
Pamplona, counsel of
plaintiff [in] a suit against
his
client
Lumot
A.
Jalandoni/PRC, coaching
said counsel on matters
[he was privy to] as
counsel
of
said
client. Facts mentioned by
said counsel of the plaintiff
starting from the last par.
of page 25 until and
including the entire first
par. of page 26 were the
exact words dictated by
respondent. The entire
incident was personally
witnessed
by
herein
complainant [who was]
only an arms length away
from them during the
hearing. However, the
particular portion showing
the said irregular acts of
respondent
was
deliberately excluded by
the court stenographer
from the transcript, despite
her detailed recollection
and affirmation thereof to
herein complainant. This
prompted the new counsel
of
Lumot
A.
Jalandoni/PRC
to
complain to the court why
Atty. Nicanor Villarosa was
coaching Atty. Pamplona
in such proceedings.
Said corrections were only
effected after repeated
demands to reflect the
actual
events
which
[transpired] on said pretrial.[5] (emphasis ours)
In an addendum to the
July 4, 2000 complaint, Lim
also pointed to certain acts of
respondent
which
allegedly
of
former
his
influence
public
as
prosecutor.
against
the
clients
of
respondent.[6]
In a motion to dismiss
dated
October
30,
2000,
knowledge
and
[7]
belief. (emphasis ours)
of
Court
explicitly
provides that:
SEC.
4. Verification.
Except
when
otherwise
specifically required by law
or rule, pleadings need not
be under oath, verified or
accompanied by affidavit.
(5a)
an
unsigned
pleading
was
due
to
mere
not
shown
to
have
his
comment
dated
of
the
complaint,
added:
[that]
complainant
Humberto C. Lim, Jr. has
not only violated the Rule
on Civil Procedure but he
was/is NOT duly
authorize[d] by the Penta
Resorts Corp. (PRC) nor
[by] Lumot A. Jalandoni to
file this complaint against
[him]. Neither [was Lim] a
proper party to file this
complaint. This fact is an
additional ground to have
his
case
dismissed
unfounded,
respondent
xxx
xxx
xxx
That
Mrs.
Jalandoni has two sons-inlaw, namely Dennis G.
Jalbuena married to her
daughter,
Carmen
J.
Jalbuena, and Humberto
C. Lim Jr., the herein
complainant married to her
daughter, Cristina J. Lim.
That Mrs. Lumot
Jalandoni organized a
corporation namely the
Penta Resorts Corporation
(PRC) where she owned
almost
ninety
seven
percent (97%). In other
words, in reality, Penta
Resorts Corporation is a
single
proprietorship
belonging
to
Mrs.
Jalandoni. That the only
property of the corporation
is as above-stated, the
Alhambra
Hotel,
constructed solely through
the effort of the spouses
Jalbuena on that parcel of
land now claimed by the
Cabiles family.
That sometime on
the year 1997 the case
above-cited (Civil Case
No. 97-9865) was filed
before the court against
the sisters.
That
[he],
being RETAINED counsel
of the spouses Dennis and
Carmen
J.
Jalbuena
was RECOMMENDED by
the spouses to the sisters
to answer the complaint
filed against them.
II.
That as counsel to
the sisters, [he] filed a
Motion for Extension Of
Time To File Answer
and ultimately, [he] filed an
Answer With CounterClaim And Prayer For
Issuance Of Writ Of
Preliminary Injunction.
That reading the
Answer it is clear that
the defense of the sisters
totally
rest
on public documents (the
various titles issued to the
were]
discussed.
The
documents being offered
as
evidence,
[he]
reiterate[s] for emphasis,
are public;
the
presumption is that the
whole world knows about
them.
That [he] [also]
vehemently
den[ies]
another
distorted
allegation of Mr. Lim that
[he]
represented
Mrs.
Jalandoni
[in]
the entire proceedings of
[the] case. [Lim] himself
attested that [he] [filed]
[his] Motion to Withdraw
As Counsel, dated April
26, 1999 , before the
trial court, sometime on
April 27, 1999. How then
could
[he]
have
represented
Mrs.
Jalandoni
for
[the] entire proceedings of
the case?
Further,
Mr.
Lim intentionally hid from
this Honorable Court the
important fact that [his]
Motion
to
Withdraw
was APPROVED by
the
trial court because of
the possibility of a conflict
of interest. xxx xxx xxx.[11]
Respondent
discredited
the
counsels.[15]
substitution
of
to
admitted
Lim.[12] While
he
an
in
oversight
it
was
the
height
of
to
withdraw[13]since
Gargoles
is
Mrs.
in
belongs
to
turn,
Mrs.
actually
Jalandoni.
In
view
of
these
adamant that:
was
already
represented
by
report
recommendation:
xxx
xxx
xxx
and
for
as
As such therefore,
the Undersigned has no
alternative
but
to
respectfully
recommend
the suspension of the
respondent
from
the
practice of law for a period
of six (6) months from
receipt hereof.
address
some
preliminary matters.
Respondent argues that
RESPECTFULLY
SUBMITTED.
Pasig City,
20, 2002.[18]
to
June
the
special
power
of
The
IBP
Governors
Board
(Board),
of
however,
the
investigating
A.
motion
reconsideration
October
18,
Jalandoni
(MR)
2002
but
for
on
the
such
personal
SECTION
1. How
instituted. Proceedings
for
disbarment,
suspension or discipline of
attorneys may be taken by
the Supreme Court motu
propio, or
by
the
Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) upon the
verified complaint of any
person. The
complaint
shall state clearly and
concisely
the
facts
complained of and shall be
supported by affidavits or
persons having personal
knowledge of the facts
therein alleged and/or by
such documents a may
substantiate said facts.
may
file
verified
IBP.[23] Corollary
public
interest
to
in
the
these
Complaints
has
against
members
of
the
Bar
pursued
to
preserve
are
the
Respondent
failed
to
withdrew
services
as
that
counsel
of
entertaining
result
in
it
would
miscarriage
of
his
record in Civil
Case
No.
9865.
97-
to
respondent
dismiss
instead
by
of
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
an
answer or comment.[25]
offshoot
of
representing
attorney-client
were
committed
respondent.
existed
conflict
of
and handled by
respondent,
and
whether
respondent
properly
effectively
cases involved.
cases
represented
To
by
whether there
interest in the
2.
confidentiality
involving
Hotel
In BC
2192, Lim
I.S.
v.
No.
Vicente
99Delfin,
respondent
and
was
the
by
PRC
construction
for
of
Alhambra.[26] The
the
Hotel
corporate
the
knowledge
and
consent of any officer of
the
corporation
and
[herself], after which she
caused the delivery of the
same checks to her
husband Dennis Jalbuena,
who encashed without
[their]
knowledge
and
consent, and received the
proceeds of the same
checks (as evidenced by
his signature in receipt of
payment on the dorsal
side of the said checks)
with the indispensable
participation
and
cooperation of respondent
Vicente B. Delfin, the Asst.
Vice President and Branch
Head of UCPB.[28]
(AAQSC),
was
complaint-affidavit,
Cristina averred:
11. That it was respondent
Carmen J. Jalbuena, who
took advantage of [her]
signatures in blank in DBP
Check Nos. 0865590 and
0865591, and who filled up
the spaces of the payee,
date and amount without
2000-2304,
It
is
only
upon
strict
2000-
880,
respondent
himself
positioned
against
PRCs
interests.
collection
case
was
alarmed
by
reprehensible.[31] Conflict
of
the
There is representation of
conflicting interests if the
acceptance of the new
retainer will require the
attorney to do anything
which will injuriously
affect his first client in
any matter in which he
represents him and also
whether he will be called
upon in his new relation, to
use against his first client
any knowledge acquired
through
their
[32]
connection. (emphasis
ours)
counsel.[30]
Canon 15 of the Code of
Responsibility
highlights
the
conflicting
is
Professional
of
his
interests
appearance of respondent at
(CPR)
otherwise,
representation
client;
need
which
communications
confided
but
confidential
have
been
also those
in
Another
test
of
the
inconsistency of interests
is whether the acceptance
of a new relation will
prevent an attorney from
the full discharge of his
duty of undivided fidelity
and loyalty to his client or
invite
suspicion
of
unfaithfulness or doubledealing in the performance
thereof, and also whether
he will be called upon in
his new relation to use
against his first client any
knowledge acquire in the
previous
employment. The first part
of the rule refers to cases
in which the opposing
parties are present clients
either in the same action
or in a totally unrelated
case; the second part
pertains to those in which
the adverse party against
whom
the
attorney
appears is his former
client in a matter which is
related,
directly
or
indirectly, to the present
controversy.[34] (emphasis
ours)
The
rule
prohibits
or
in
totally
unrelated
indirectly
parties
involved
connection
to
the
PRC,
as
party-litigant
in
The representation by a
consent
parties
full
facts,
professional
of
all
concerned
after
disclosure
of
constitutes
a
the
I.S.
No.
99-2192). In
his
was
improper
concerned
required.[38]
was
still
WITHDRAWAL AS
COUNSEL IN
The
next
bone
of
withdrawal
as
that
attorney
the
to
right
of
withdraw
an
or
scrap
of
he withdrew as counsel on
April
26,
withdrawal
1999,
was
which
supposedly
attorney
may
only
event
the
attorney
serve
copy
of
his
Jalandoni
was
only
Alminaza
in
court,
1999,
the
first
hearing
to
act
as
counsel.[45]
Mrs.
conformity
to
additional
additional
Jalandonis
having
lawyer
did
granted
withdrawal.
withdraw
desire
as
semblance
not
to
counsel.
and
an
order
of
granting
his
an
Only
for
motion:
Respondents speculations on
Atty.
motion
his
Mrs.
should
That
not
withdraw
as
court.
Yet,
he
stopped
Mrs.
continued
Jalandoni
with
Alminazas
Atty.
professional
engagement
despite
on
her
behalf
respondents
unprofessional
specially
in
view
conduct,
of
the
conflicting
interests
already
that
his
fully
paid,
is
established.[49]
withdrawal
Finally, we express our
utter
dismay
apparent
conflict of interest.[48]
use
community
Be that as it may, the
with
of
claim
respondent.[50]This
improperly
collected P5,000
wifes
certificate
respondent
Lims
his
tax
well-
against
is
not,
provided
WHEREFORE, in view of
A.
Jalandoni. Furthermore,
found GUILTY of
Jalandoni
Code
withheld.
were
The
deliberately
right
of
an
of
violating
Professional
Responsibility
and
is SUSPENDED from
lawfully
decision,
come
into
his
with
the
a STERN
Let
copy
of
this
of
respondent
and
ANGELINA
SANDOVALGUTIERREZ
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA
Associate
Justice
Associ
ate Justice
CANCIO C. GARCIA
Associate Justice
information
guidance.
SO ORDERED.
RENATO C. CORONA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
and
[1]
[18]
[38]
CPR.
[39]