CHAPTER 3

1. ALITAGTAG VS GARCIA

Facts:
This is a motion for reconsideration of the Resolution of this Court
finding the respondent guilty of grave misconduct and ordered for
his disbarment.

Respondent claims that he is innocent and did not author or

participate in the falsification of the subject deed of donation.
However he admits his negligence and remorse to perform his
duties as a notary public as to the notarization of the said deed of
donation.

Issue:
Whether or not the respondent should be disbarred

Held:
No. The Court ruled that indeed that the respondent was remiss in
the performance of his duties as a notary public. Respondent was
found guilty of harassing the occupants of the property subject of
the donation by asking Meralco to disconnect its services to the
property and by posting security guards to intimidate the said
occupants. These acts do not speak well of his standing as a
member of the Bar. Rule 7.03, Canon 7 of the CPR provides that a
lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely affects his fitness
to practice law, nor should he, whether in public or private life,
behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal
profession. By engaging in acts which undermine the recognition of
and respect for legal processes, respondent has clearly committed
conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to be a member of the
legal profession.

However, the Court ruled that there is no clear and convincing

evidence to prove that respondent is the author of the forged
signature of the donor nor did he participate in such. The
complainant failed to discharge her burden of proving liability of
respondent with respect to the falsification of the questioned deed
of donation.

SUSPENDED FOR 3 YEARS.

2. TORRES VS JAVIER

Facts:
Atty. Torres and Celestino, the complainants, charge Atty Javier
respondent for malpractice, gross misconduct in office and violation
of the lawyers oath.
The controversy arose form the statements or remarks made by the
respondents in the pleadings filed in a petition for audit of all funds
of the UE Faculty Association as counsel for the Treasurer and his
wife former UEFA President Javier before the Bureau of Labor
Relations

3 causes of action:
1. Urgent Motion to Expedite filed in the audit case of which the
complainants allege contained statements which are absolutely
false, unsubstantiated and with malicious imputation of crimes of
robbery and theft.

appears that they decided to destroy or conceal the documents as

provided by the Incident Report of Robbery

that the alleged robbery was an inside job, no evidence of forced

entry, so as to conceal the audit of the union funds

2. Attorneys fees case in his Reply filed to the Answer filed before
the DOLE used language that was clearly abusive, offensive and
improper, inconsistent with the character of an attorney as a quasi
judicial officer.

3. statement in the reply

not uncommon for us trial lawyers to hear notaries public asking

their sons, wives, girlfriends, nephews etc. These girlfriends,
nephews etc to take affidavits, administer oaths and certify
documents

Respondent stresses that he was angry and that he said it was his
duty to inform the BLR or the loss of the vital documents so that the
resolution of the case would be expedited. That as to attys fees
case, there was mockery of his wif and fabricated and distorted
realities. Also that Atty Torres accused his client of forging signature
of a notary public to justify dismissal of the case against Atty Tottrd.

kind of laywer is Atty Torres, he lies through his teeth, common

sense at all he should stop making irrelevant, libelous and
impertinent allegations

IBP found respondent guilty of violating CPR.

Issue:
Whether or not his remarks in the pleadings constitute a violation of
the CPR

Held:
Yes. As a general rule, utterances made in the course of judicial
proceedings, including all kinds of pleadings etc are absolutely
privileged so long as they are pertinent and relevant to the subject
inquiry, however false of malicious they may be. The matter alleged
in the pleading need not be material to the issues presented but it
must be legitimately related or pertinent to the subject of the
controversy that it may become the subject of the inquiry in the
course of the trial.

As to first cause of action, Motion to Expedite. Imputation may be

false but it could possibly prompt the BLR to speed up the resolution
of the audit case. The first cause of action may not lie.

Second cause of action. Issue in the atty;s fees case was the check
off from initial salaries and backwages of the UEFA is legal. The
statements of Atty Javier is not relevant or pertinent to the issue.

Canon 8 provides that a lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy

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

Rule 8.01 A lawyer shall not in his professional dealings use

language which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper. It
instructs the respondents arguments in his pleadings should be
gracious to both court and opposing counsel and must be emphatic
but respectful, convincing but not derogatory, illuminating but not
offensive.

SUSPENDED FROM PRACTICE OF LAW FOR 1 MONTH

3. LIKONG VS LIM

Facts:
Complainant Likong obtained a loan of 92k from Yap. Complainant
executed a promissory note and deed of assignment, assigning to
Yap pension checks which she regularly received from the US govt
as a widow of US pensioner. SPA was executed to authorize Yap to
get the pension checks from post office in Tagbilaran City. 3 months
after execution of SPA, complainant informed the post office that
she was revoking the SPA. Yap filed a complaint for injunction
against Likong. Respondent Lim appeared as counsel for Yap. Likong
and Yap filed a joint motion to withdraw the pension checks. Only
signatures of parties and assisted by Atty Lim. Complainant and Yap
entered into a compromise agreement without participation of
Likongs counsel. Obligation of 150k and to be paid for 54 months at
40% per annum. Likong filed complaint for disbarment claiming that
she was prevented from seeking assistance and advise from her two
lawyers; it would only jeopardize settlement and respondent was
assisting her anyway.
Respondent filed an answer claiming that the complainant was
abandoned by her counsel bec she could not pay attorneys fees.

Issue:
Whether or not the respondent is liable

Held:
Yes. The compromise agreement is grossly laoaded in