REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

Supreme Court
Manila
FIRST DIVISION

IN THE MATTER OF THE DISBARMENT

OF ATTY. MARK PALMER
AC NO.
12345
CYRUS SANTOS
Petitioner,
x--------------------------------------------x

MEMORANDUM
COMES NOW THE PETITIONER, through the
undersigned counsel, and unto this Honorable Court most
respectfully submits and presents this Memorandum in the
above-titled case and aver that:
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a complaint for the disbarment of ATTY. MARK
PALMER. Respondent Attorney, as the Presiding Officer of the
Sangguniang Bayan, issued Office Order No. 6, which
violated Section 7, Article III of the 1987 Constitution. He
betrayed public interest and violated the lawyers oath. He
also violated the Code of Professional Responsibility, Section
5(e) of RA 6713, and Section 52 ( c ) of the Local
Government Code.
II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. PETITIONER, CYRUS SANTOS, is of legal age, married and a
resident of Poblacion, San Jose, Occidental Mindoro.
2. Respondent is a member of Philippine Bar having been
admitted thereto in 1975 with Roll of Attorney No. 15678,
and an incumbent Vice Mayor of the Municipality of San Jose,
Occidental Mindoro.
1

3. On May 26, 2011, respondent as the Presiding Officer of the

Sangguniang Bayan, of the Municipality of San Jose, issued
Office Order No. 6, prohibiting absolutely access of the public
to any records or documents - including ordinances,
resolutions, Committee Hearing Reports, and others kept and
originated from the Office of the Sangguniang Bayan.
Attached hereto is a photocopy of the said Office Order No. 6
as ANNEX "A.
4. The issuance of the respondent of the assailed Office Order
No. 6 actively withheld the undeniable right of the people of
San Jose to be informed and given free access concerning all
records, documents, and transactions which the Municipality
of San Jose passed and entered into.
5. It is an utter betrayal of public trust of the people of San Jose
who reposed trust in him when he was elected to his public
position as Municipal Vice-Mayor of San Jose, more so, as a
lawyer who should have been the protector and upholder of
the rights of his constituents pursuant to his path as a
lawyer.
6. Respondent violated Section 7, Article III of the Constitution,
the Lawyers Oath, The Code of Professional Responsibility,
Section 5(e) of RA 6713, and Section 52 ( c ) of the Local
Government Code.
III. ISSUE
Whether or not the respondent attorney should be disbarred
on the ground that he violated Section 7, Article III of the
Constitution, the Lawyers Oath, The Code of Professional
Responsibility, Section 5(e) of RA 6713, and Section 52 ( c )
of the Local Government Code.

IV. ARGUMENTS
The respondent must be disbarred on the ground
that he violated Section 7, Article III of the
Constitution, the Lawyers Oath, The Code of
Professional Responsibility, Section 5(e) of RA 6713,
and Section 52 ( c ) of the Local Government Code.
Section 7, Article III of the Constitution provides that:
Section 7. The right of the people to information on
matters of public concern shall be recognized. Access to
official records, and to documents and papers pertaining
to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to
2

government research data used as basis for policy

development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such
limitations as may be provided by law.
The Respondent also acted in violation of the Lawyers
Oath, which provides that:
I, do solemnly swear that I will maintain allegiance to the
Republic of the Philippines, I will support the Constitution
and obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly
constituted authorities therein; I will do no falsehood, nor
consent to the doing of any in court; I will not wittingly or
willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful
suit, or give aid nor consent to the same; I will delay no
man for money or malice, and will conduct myself as a
lawyer according to the best of my knowledge and
discretion, with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to
my clients; and I impose upon myself these voluntary
obligations without any mental reservation or purpose of
evasion. So help me God.
The Code of Professional Responsibility provides that:
CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION,
OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT
FOR LAW OF AND LEGAL PROCESSES.
Section 5(e) of RA 6713 provides that public officials
and employees should:
(e) Make documents accessible to the public. All public
documents must be made accessible to, and readily
available for inspection by, the public within reasonable
working hours.
Section 52 ( c ) of the Local Government Code provides
that:
(c) All sanggunian sessions shall be open to the public
unless a closed-door session is ordered by an affirmative
vote of a majority of the members present, there being a
quorum, in the public interest or for reasons of security,
decency, or morality. No two (2) sessions, regular or
special, may be held in a single day.

PRAYER
3

WHEREFORE, premises
considered,
it
is
respectfully prayed that the respondent, ATTY. MARK PALMER
be disbarred.
Petitioner also prays for other reliefs as may be
deemed just and equitable in the premises.
Respectfully submitted.
Metro Manila, April 11, 2016.

ZAPATOS LAW OFFICE

Cherry Building, 5th floor, Rm. 411,
Muntinlupa City

BY:

ZARI CHARISAMOR V. ZAPATOS

Counsel for Petitioner
Cherry Building, 5th floor, Rm. 411,
Muntinlupa City
IBP. NO. 123600
PTR NO. 3498157
ROLL OF ATTORNEYS NO. 1239
MCLE Compliance No. 681876

Copy Furnished:
ATTY. MICHELLE DUGUIL
Counsel for Respondents
Ayala Alabang, Muntinlupa City