A. The Lawyer and Society 6.

to abstain from all offensive personality and to advance no fact

prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness, unless
Sps. Concepcion vs. Atty. Dela Rosa, AC No. 10681, February 3,
required by the justice of the cause with which he is charged;
2015
7. not to encourage either the commencement or the continuance of an
Philippine Association of Court Employees (Pace), Represented By
action or proceeding, or delay any mans cause for any corrupt motive
Its President, Atty. Virginia C. Rafael vs. Atty. Edna M. Alibutdan-
or interest;
Diaz, A.C. No. 10134, November 26, 2014
Atty. Alonso vs. Atty. Relamida, August 3, 2010 8. never to reject, for any consideration personal to himself, the cause
Overgaard vs. Valdez, Sept 30, 2008 of the defenseless or oppressed;
Guevarra vs. Eala, Aaugust 1, 2007 9. in the defense of a person accused of a crime, by all fair and
Donton vs. Tansingco, June 27, 2008 honorable means, regardless of his personal opinion as to the guilt of
Rodica vs. Lazaro, Aaugust 23, 2012 the accused, to present every defense that the law permits, to the end
Bengco vs. Bernardo, June 13, 2012
that no person may be deprived of life or liberty, but by due process of
Catalan vs. Silvosa, July 24, 2012
law.
Code of Professional Responsibility Rule 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
Chapter 1: immoral or deceitful conduct.
Conviction for crimes involving moral turpitude a number of lawyers
Lawyer and Society
have been suspended or disbarred for conviction of crimes involving
CANON 1 A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the
moral turpitude such as:
land and promote respect for law and for legal processes
1. estafa
Duties of Attorneys:
2. bribery
1. to maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and to
3. murder
support the Constitution and obey the laws of the Philippines;
4. seduction
2. to observe and maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and
5. abduction
judicial officers;
6. smuggling
3. to counsel or maintain such actions or proceedings only as appear to
7. falsification of public documents
him as just, and such defenses only as he believes to be honestly
Morality as understood in law This is a human standard based
debatable under the laws;
on natural moral law which is embodied in mans conscience and
4. to employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to him,
which guides him to do good and avoid evil.
such means only as are consistent with truth and honor, and never
Moral Turpitude: any thing that is done contrary to justice, honesty,
seek to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an artifice or false
modesty or good morals.
statement of fact or law;
Immoral Conduct: that conduct which is willful, flagrant, or
5. to maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to himself, to
shameless and which shows a moral indifference to the opinion of the
preserve the secrets of his client, and to accept no compensation in
good and respectable members of the community (Arciga vs.
connection with his clients business except from him or with his
Maniwag, 106 SCRA 591).
knowledge and approval;
Grossly Immoral Conduct: One that is so corrupt and false as to
constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled or disgraceful as to be
 reprehensible to a high degree; it is a WILLFUL, FLAGRANT or legal services for the filing of a case against the person(s) who caused
SHAMELESS ACT which shows a MORAL INDIFFERENCE to the the accident(s).
opinion of respectable members of the community. (Narag vs. Narag, CANON 2 A lawyer shall make his legal services available
1998) in an efficient and convenient manner compatible with the
Rule 1.02 A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at independence, integrity and effectiveness of the
defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system. profession.
Rule 1.03 A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, Rule 2.01 A lawyer shall not reject, except for valid reasons, the
encourage any suit or proceeding or delay any mans cause. cause of the defenseless or oppressed.
Rule 1.04 A lawyer shall encourage his clients to avoid, end or Rule 2.02 In such a case, even if a lawyer does not accept a case,
settle the controversy if it will admit of a fair settlement. he shall not refuse to render legal advise to the person concerned if
If a lawyer finds that his clients cause is defenseless, it is his
only to the extent necessary to safeguard latters rights.
burden/duty to advise the latter to acquiesce and submit, rather than
Rule 2.03 a lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act
traverse the incontrovertible.
designed primarily to solicit legal business.
It is unprofessional for a lawyer to volunteer advice to bring a lawsuit,
Primary characteristics which distinguish the legal profession from
except in rare cases where the blood, relationship or trust makes it his
business;
duty to do so.
1. duty of service, of which the emolument is a by product, and in which
Temper clients propensity to litigate.
one may attain the highest eminence without making such money;
Should not be an instigator of controversy but a mediator for concord
2. a relation as an officer of court to the administration of justice
and conciliator for compromise.
involving thorough sincerity, integrity and reliability;
The law violated need not be a penal law. Moral Turpitude
3. a relation to clients in the highest degree of fiduciary;
everything which is done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty or good
4. a relation to colleagues at the bar characterized by candor, fairness
morals.
and unwillingness to resort to current business methods of advertising
Give advice tending to impress upon the client and his undertaking
and encroachment on their practice or dealing with their clients.
exact compliance with the strictest principles of moral law.
Defenseless not in the position to defend themselves due to
Until a statute shall have been construed and interpreted by
poverty, weakness, ignorance or other similar reasons.
competent adjudication, he is free and is entitled to advise as to its
Oppressed victims of acts of cruelty, unlawful exaction, domination
validity and as to what he conscientiously believes to be its just
or excessive use of authority.
meaning and extent.
Rule on Advertisements
A lawyer has the obligation not to encourage suits. This is so as to
General Rule: No advertisements allowed. The most worthy and
prevent barratry and ambulance chasing.
effective advertisement possible is the establishment of a well-merited
Barratry offense of frequently exciting and stirring up quarrels and
reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust.
suits, either at law or otherwise; Lawyers act of fomenting suits
among individuals and offering his legal services to one of them.
Lawyers may not advertise their services or expertise nor should not
Ambulance Chasing Act of chasing victims of accidents for the
resort to indirect advertisements for professional employment, such as
purpose of talking to the said victims (or relatives) and offering his
furnishing or inspiring newspaper comments, or procuring his photograph
to be published in connection with causes in which the lawyer has been
engaged or concerning the manner of their conduct, the magnitude of the
interest involved, the importance of the lawyers position, and all other
self-laudation.
Exceptions/ Permissible advertisements:
1. Reputable law lists, in a manner consistent with the standards of
conduct imposed by the canons, of brief biographical and informative
data, are allowed.
2. Ordinary simple professional Card. It may contain only a statement
of his name, the name of the law firm which he is connected with,
address, telephone number and the special branch of law practiced.
3. A simple announcement of the opening of a law firm or of changes in
the partnership, associates, firm name or office address, being for the
convenience of the profession, is not objectionable.
4. Advertisements or simple announcement of the existence of a lawyer
or his law firm posted anywhere it is proper such as his place of
business or residence except courtrooms and government buildings.
5. Advertisements or announcement in any legal publication, including
books, journals, and legal magazines.
Rule 2.04 A lawyer shall not charge rates lower than those
customarily or prescribed, unless circumstances so warrant.
A lawyer cannot delay the approval of a compromise agreement
entered into between parties, just because his attorneys fees were
not provided for in the agreement.
Rule: A lawyer cannot compromise the case without clients consent
(special authority). Exception: Lawyer has exclusive management of
the procedural aspect of the litigation (e.g. Submission for decision on
the evidence so far presented. But in case where lawyer is confronted
with an emergency and prompt/urgent action is necessary to protect
clients interest and theres no opportunity for consultation, the lawyer
may compromise.
Rule: Refrain from charging rates lower than the customary rates.
Valid Justification: relatives, co-lawyers, too poor
CANON 3 A lawyer in making known is legal services
shall use only true, honest, fair dignified and objective
information or statement of facts.
Rule 3.01 A lawyer shall not use or permit the use of any false,
fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, undignified, self-auditory or
unfair statement or claim regarding his qualifications or legal
services.
Violation of Rule 3.01 is unethical, whether done by him personally or
through another with his permission.
Rule 3.02 In the choice of a firm name, no false, misleading, or
assumed name shall be used. The continued use of the name of a
deceased partner is permissible provided that the firm indicates in
all its communication that said partner is deceased.
Rule 3.03 Where a partner accepts public office, he shall withdraw
from the firm and his name shall be dropped from the firm name
unless the law allows him to practice law concurrently.
Rule 3.04 A lawyer shall not pay or give anything of value to
representatives of the mass media in anticipation of, or in return for,
publicity to attract legal business.
It is unethical to use the name of a foreign firm.
Death of a partner does not extinguish attorney-client relationship
with the law firm.
Negligence of a member in the law firm is negligence of the firm.
CANON 4 A lawyer shall participate in the improvement of
the legal system by initiating or supporting efforts in law
reform and in the administration of justice.
Examples: Presenting position papers or resolutions for the
introduction of pertinent bills in congress; Petitions with the Supreme
Court for the amendment of the Rules of Court.
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 students and
assist in disseminating information regarding the law and establishing the innocence of the accused is highly reprehensible
jurisprudence. and is cause of disciplinary action.
Rule 6.02 A lawyer in the government service shall not use his
Objectives of integration of the Bar public position to promote or advance his private interest, nor allow
To elevate the standards of the legal profession the latter to interfere with his public duties.
To improve the administration of justice Rule 6.03 A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service,
To enable the Bar to discharge its responsibility more effectively. accept engagements or employment in connection with any matter
The three-fold obligation of a lawyer in which he had intervened while in said service.
First, he owes it to himself to continue improving his knowledge of Various ways a government lawyer leaves government service:
the laws; 1. retirement
Second, he owes it to his profession to take an active interest in the 2. resignation
maintenance of high standards of legal education; 3. expiration of the term of office
Third, he owes it to the lay public to make the law a part of their 4. dismissal
social consciousness. 5. abandonment
Q: What are the pertinent statutory provisions regarding this
CANON 6 These canons shall apply to lawyers in Rule?
government service in the discharge of their official tasks.
Public Officials include elective and appointive officials and A: Sec. 3 (d) RA 3019 as amended and Sec. 7 (b), RA 6713
employees, permanent or temporary, whether in the career or non-
career service, including military and police personnel, whether or not Sec 3. Corrupt practice of Public Officers. In addition to acts or omission
they receive compensation, regardless of amount. (Sec. 3 (b), RA of public officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall
6713). constitute corrupt practice of any public officer and are hereby declared to
The law requires the observance of the following norms of conduct be unlawful:
by every public official in the discharge and execution of their official
duties: (d) accepting or having any member of his family accept employment in a
1. commitment to public interest private enterprise which has pending official business with him during the
2. professionalism pendency thereof or within one year after termination.
3. justness and sincerity
4. political neutrality Section 7 (b) of RA 6713 prohibits officials from doing any of the following
5. responsiveness to the public acts:
6. nationalism and patriotism
7. commitment to democracy 1. own, control, manage or accept employment as officer, employee,
8. simple living (Sec. 4, RA 6713) consultant, counsel, broker, agent, trustee or nominee in any private
Rule 6.01 The primary duty of a lawyer engaged in public enterprise regulated, supervised or licensed by their office unless
prosecution is not to convict but to see that justice is done. The expressly allowed by law.
suppression of facts or the concealment of witnesses capable of
These prohibitions shall continue to apply for a period of one (1) year
after resignation, retirement, or separation from public office, except in
the case of subparagraph (b) (2) above, but the professional concerned
cannot practice his profession in connection with any matter before the
office he used to be with, in which case the one year prohibition shall
likewise apply.
Lawyers in the government service are prohibited to engage in the
private practice of their profession unless authorized by the
constitution or law, provided that such practice will not conflict or tend
to conflict with their official functions.
Misconduct in office as a public official may be a ground for
disciplinary action (if of such character as to affect his qualification as
lawyer or to show moral delinquency).
Should recommend the acquittal of the accused whose conviction is
on appeal, IF he finds no legal basis to sustain the conviction.
Includes restriction is representing conflicting interest (e.g. Accepting
engagements vs. former employer, PNB)
The OSG is not authorized to represent a public official at any state
of a criminal case.
XIII. Code of Professional Responsibility
B. The Lawyer and Society
Sps. Concepcion vs. Atty. Dela Rosa, AC No. 10681, February
3, 2015
SPOUSES HENRY A. CONCEPCION AND BLESILDA S.
CONCEPCION v. ATTY. ELMER A. DELA ROSA, A.C. No.
10681, February 03, 2015 FACTS: This is an administrative
case that stemmed from a Verified Complaint1 filed by
complainants Spouses Henry A. Concepcion (Henry) and
Blesilda S. Concepcion (Blesilda; collectively complainants)
against respondent Atty. Elmer A. dela Rosa (respondent),
charging him with gross misconduct for violating, among
others, Rule 16.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
(CPR). Complainants alleged that from 1997 until August
2008,3 respondent served as their retained lawyer and
counsel. In this capacity, respondent handled many of their
cases and was consulted on various legal matters, among
others, the prospect of opening a pawnshop business towards
the end of 2005. Said business, however, failed to materialize.
Aware of the fact that complainants had money intact from
their failed business venture, respondent, on March 23, 2006,
called Henry to borrow money. The checks were personally
encashed by respondent. Demanded the return of payment
but failed to do so. Respondent denied borrowing
P2,500,000.00 from complainants, insisting that Nault was the
real debtor.18 He also claimed that complainants had been
attempting to collect from Nault and that he was engaged for
that specific purpose.
The IBP Report and Recommendation
In fine, the Investigating Commissioner concluded that
respondents actions degraded the integrity of the legal
profession and clearly violated Rule 16.04 and Canons 7 and
16 of the CPR. Respondents failure to appear during the
mandatory conferences further showed his disrespect to the
IBP-CBD.
Accordingly, the Investigating Commissioner recommended
that respondent be disbarred and that he be ordered to return
the P2,500,000.00 to complainants, with stipulated interest.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent should be held
administratively liable for
violating the CPR.
HELD: The Court concurs with the IBPs findings except as to
its recommended penalty and its directive to return the amount
of P2,500,000.00, with legal interest, to complainants. the
complainants and incurring the same obligation.
 Under Rule 16.04, Canon 16 of the CPR, a lawyer is
prohibited from borrowing money from his client unless the
clients interests are fully protected:
CANON 16 A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and
properties of his
clients that may come into his possession.
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 Court has repeatedly emphasized that the relationship
between a lawyer and his client is one imbued with trust and
confidence. And as true as any natural tendency goes, this
trust and confidence is prone to abuse. The rule against
borrowing of money by a lawyer from his client is intended to
prevent the lawyer from taking advantage of his influence over
his client.46 The rule presumes that the client is
disadvantaged by the lawyers ability to use all the legal
maneuverings to renege on his obligation.
Philippine Association of Court Employees (Pace),
Represented By Its President, Atty. Virginia C. Rafael vs. Atty.
Edna M. Alibutdan-Diaz, A.C. No. 10134, November 26, 2014
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
A.C. No. 10134 November 26, 2014
PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF COURT EMPLOYEES (PACE),
represented by its President, ATTY. VIRGINIA C.
RAFAEL, Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. EDNA M. ALIBUTDAN-DIAZ, Respondent.
DECISION
MENDOZA, J.:
This resolves the complaint for suspension or disbarment filed by the
Philippine Association of Court Employees (PACE) through its president,
Atty. Virginia C. Rafael (Atty. Rafael), on July 17, 2008 against Atty. Edna
M. Alibutdan-Diaz (Atty. Diaz), former National Treasurer of PACE, before
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). 1
PACE, the umbrella association of 1st and 2nd level court employees in
the Judiciary held its 11th National Convention/Seminar in Davao City
from October 6 to 8, 2005. As then National Treasurer of PACE, Atty. Diaz
was entrusted with all the money matters of PACE.
The complainant alleged that the liquidation for the 11th PACE national
convention was submitted by Atty. Diaz only on March 29, 2007, during
the 12th PACE national convention in Iloilo City ; that during the 12th
2
convention, an election of officers was conducted and Atty. Diaz ran for
the position of National Treasurer, but she was not elected; that on the
last day of the convention or on March 31, 2007,the outgoing Board of
Directors, including Atty. Diaz, passed and approved Resolution No. 1-
2007 appropriating the amount of 30,000.00as term-end bonus for each
PACE official qualified thereto; that Atty. Diaz did not submit a liquidation
report for the 12th convention; that there was no turn over of monies
belonging to the association as a matter of procedure despite a letter of
demand, dated June 20, 2007 sent to Atty. Diaz; and that the new set of
3
PACE officers issued Board Resolution No. 00-07 directing past
president, Rosita D. Amizola; and past treasurer, Atty. Diaz, to explain
why they failed to liquidate the finances of PACE for the Davao and Iloilo
conventions. 4
In her defense, Atty. Diaz countered that she had filed the Statement of
Liquidation for the 11th national convention in Davao in less than a week
after the said convention; that it was duly audited by the national auditor,
Letecia Agbayani; that the net proceeds of that convention was "fully
accounted, liquidated and entirely deposited to PACE accounts;" that she
5
also filed the Statement of Liquidation for the 12th national convention on
May 22, 2007; that the report, together with the cash, checks and original
receipts, were received by Rosita Amisola and witnessed by former
PACE officers; that she denied running for re-election as PACE national
6
treasurer during the Iloilo convention as she had already filed her
certificate of candidacy for Board Member of the First District of Ipil,
Zamboanga Sibugay; that the approval of the P30,000.00 term-end
7
bonus did not rest with her solely, rather, it was approved by the previous
board of directors; and that she never sponsored the bonus, as it was
initiated by Aliven Maderaza and seconded by Atty. Lourdes Garcia and
Sarah Ampong.
On her part, Atty. Garcia averred that she was not privy to the
disbursement of the said term-end bonus. 8
Initially, the case was assigned to IBP Commissioner Elpidio G. Soriano.
After an exchange of pleadings, the mandatory conference was held.
Afterwards, the protagonists were directed to submit their respective
position papers. Thereafter, the case was re-assigned to IBP
Commissioner Victor C. Fernandez (Commissioner Fernandez). 9
The lone issue here is whether or not Atty. Diaz violated Chapter 1,
Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR),
which reads:
"A lawyer should not engage in an unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct."
In his Report and Recommendation, dated June 28, 2010, Commissioner
Fernandez recommended the dismissal of the case against Atty. Diaz for
lack of merit. Atty. Diaz offered documentary evidence to show that she
was able to submit the liquidation reports for the two aforementioned
conventions of PACE. He also took note that Atty. Rafael herself
acknowledged the liquidation report made by Atty. Diaz with respect to
the Davao City convention. As to the sufficiency and completeness of
10
these reports, this would be better resolvedthrough an audit rather than in
disbarment proceedings. Besides, Commissioner Fernandez did not
1wphi1
consider the position of Atty. Diaz as national treasurer of PACE to have
any connection with her being as a lawyer. Thus, according to him, she
should be sanctioned in accordance with the by-laws of PACE instead of
a disbarment case. 11
As regards the accusation that Atty. Diaz ran for re-election in the PACE
elections even though she was no longer connected with the Judiciary
and therefore disqualified, Commissioner Fernandez opined that the best
evidence, which was the "certificate of candidacy," was never
offered, and that Atty. Diaz, being a lawyer, knew that her bid for re-
12
election would be a useless exercise since she would not beable to
assume office if she won. 13
Finally, Commissioner Fernandez believed Atty. Diazs assertion that she
never sponsored the appropriation of the 30,000.00 term-end bonus and
that the approval of Resolution No. 1-2007 was a collegial action among
the Board of Directors. Again, Commissioner Fernandez was of the view
that her participation in the passage of the questioned board resolution
was not connected to her being a lawyer. 14
On November 19, 2011, the IBP Board of Governors (IBP-BOG) passed
a resolution adopting and approving the report and recommendation of
Commissioner Fernandez, and dismissed the complaint against Atty.
Diaz.15
On reconsideration, the IBP-BOG issued the Extended Resolution,16
dated June 21, 2013, granting the complainants motion for
reconsideration. It reversedand set asideits earlier resolution and
suspended Atty. Diaz from the practice of law for one (1) year. 17
The IBP-BOG explained that the questions regarding (i) Atty. Diaz
liquidation of PACE funds;(ii) her running for re-election when she was no
longer with the Judiciary; and (iii) her entitlement to the term-end bonus
when she was no longer working in the Judiciary, constituted a "triple
-whammy" of questionable actions committed by Atty. Diaz in
18
contravention of Rule 1.01 of the CPR.
The Courts Ruling
This Court agrees with the IBP-BOG and adopts its June 21, 2013
Extended Resolution. Everyone should keep in mind that the practice of
law is only a privilege. It is definitely not a right. Inorder to enjoy this
privilege, one must show that he possesses, and continues to possess,
the qualifications required by law for the conferment of such privilege.
One of those requirements is the observance of honesty and candor.
Candor in all their dealings is the very essence of a practitioner's
honorable membership in the legal profession. Lawyers are required to
act with the highest standard of truthfulness, fair play and nobility in the Confidant to be entered into respondent's personal records as a member
conduct of litigation and in their relations with their clients, the opposing of the Philippine Bar.
parties, the other counsels and the courts. They are bound by their oath
to speak the truth and to conduct themselves according to the best of SO ORDERED.
their knowledge and discretion, and with fidelity to the courts and their
clients. Time and again, the Court has held that the practice of law is
19
JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA
granted only to those of good moral character. The Bar maintains a high Associate Justice
standard of honesty and fair dealing. Thus, lawyers must conduct
themselves beyond reproach at all times, whether they are dealing with
WE CONCUR:
their clients or the public at large, and a violation of the high moral
standards of the legal profession justifies the imposition of the
appropriate penalty, including suspension and disbarment. 20 ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
It bears stressing that Atty. Diaz is a servant of the law and belongs to
that profession which society entrusts with the administration of law and
the dispensation of justice. For this, he or she is an exemplar for others to MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO BIENVENIDO L. REYES*
emulate and should not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or Associate Justice Associate Justice
deceitful conduct. Necessarily, this Court has been exacting in its
demand for integrity and good moral character from members of the Bar. MARVIC M.V.F LEONEN
They are always expected to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal Associate Justice
profession and to refrain from any act or omission which might lessen the
trust and confidence reposed by the public in the fidelity, honesty, and Atty. Alonso vs. Atty. Relamida, August 3, 2010
integrity of this noble profession.
21

Republic of the Philippines

Atty. Diaz' delay in the liquidation of the finances of PACE; her running for SUPREME COURT
re-election, including her non-admission that she ran for said election as Manila
shown not by her certificate of candidacy but by the affidavits of former
PACE officers; and her involvement in the approval or passage of the EN BANC
questioned term-end bonus of PACE officers, including herself even
though she was no longer working in the Judiciary, were definitely not the
candor the Court speaks of. There was much to be desired in Atty. Diaz' A.C. No. 8481 August 3, 2010
actions/ inactions. [Formerly B.M. No. 1524]

WHEREFORE, Atty. Edna M. Alibutdan-Diaz is found GUILTY of violating ATTY. JOSABETH V. ALONSO and SHALIMAR P.
Chapter 1, Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, LAZATIN, Complainants,
and is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of three vs.
(3) months. ATTY. IBARO B. RELAMIDA, JR., Respondent.

This decision shall be immediately executory. DECISION

Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Court Administrator for its PERALTA, J.:
distribution to all courts of the land; the IBP; and the Office of the Bar
Before us is a Complaint1 dated October 13, 2005 for disciplinary action
against respondent Atty. Ibaro B. Relamida, Jr. filed by Attys. Josabeth V.
Alonso and Shalimar P. Lazatin, counsel of Servier Philippines,
Incorporated for violating the rules on forum shopping and res judicata.
The antecedent facts of the case are as follows:
In March 2001, Jennifer Ebanen filed a Complaint for illegal dismissal
against Servier Philippines, Incorporated (Servier) docketed as NLRC-
NCR-Case No. 30-03-01583-01, alleging constructive dismissal with
prayer for reinstatement or payment of separation pay, backwages, moral
and exemplary damages.
On July 5, 2002, the Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Servier. 2 It held that
Ebanen voluntarily resigned from Servier and was, therefore, not illegally
dismissed.
Ebanen appealed at the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
On March 31, 2003, the NLRC-Third Division affirmed the Decision of the
Labor Arbiter.3
Thus, Ebanen moved for reconsideration. However, the NLRC denied the
same in a Resolution4 dated May 5, 2003.
Unsatisfied, Ebanen filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of
Appeals which was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 77968. In a
Decision5 dated January 16, 2004, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the
findings of the NLRC that Ebanen voluntarily resigned and that there was
no constructive dismissal. Ebanen moved anew for reconsideration, but
was denied in a Resolution6 dated April 30, 2004.
Unrelenting, Ebanen filed a Petition for Review before the Supreme
Court. However, in a Resolution7 dated August 4, 2004, the Court found
no reversible error on the part of the CA, thus, denied said petition.
Ebanen filed a motion for reconsideration, but was denied with finality in
a Resolution8 dated October 11, 2004.
Ebanen filed a Motion for Leave to Admit Second Motion for
Reconsideration of the Resolutions dated August 4, 2004 and October
11, 2004, respectively. On January 19, 2005, the Court denied her
motion.9
Persistent, Ebanen filed a Motion to Admit a Third Motion for
Reconsideration of the Resolution dated January 19, 2005. On April 20,
2005, the Court denied her motion for being a prohibited pleading and
noted without action Ebanens third motion for reconsideration. 10
On July 27, 2005, the Second Division of the Supreme Court noted
without action Ebanens Motion for Leave to Admit Supplemental Third
Motion for Reconsideration dated June 1, 2005, in view of the entry of
judgment on February 17, 2005.11
On February 17, 2005, the Courts Resolution dated August 4, 2004 has
already become final and executory; thus, a corresponding Entry of
Judgment12 has been issued.
However, despite said entry of judgment, Ebanen, thru her counsel, Atty.
Relamida, filed a second complaint on August 5, 2005 for illegal dismissal
based on the same cause of action of constructive dismissal against
Servier, now docketed as NLRC-NCR Case No. 00-08-07222-05.
Thus, on October 13, 2005, Servier, thru counsel, filed a letter-complaint
addressed to the then Chief Justice Hilario Davide, Jr., praying that
respondents be disciplinary sanctioned for violation of the rules on forum
shopping and res judicata.
Subsequently, in a Resolution13 dated November 15, 2005, the Court
required both Ebanen and Atty. Relamida to comment on the letter-
complaint against them.
On January 16, 2006, respondents filed their Comments.14 Both
respondents admitted the filing of the second complaint against Servier.
They claimed that the judgment rendered by the Labor Arbiter was null
and void for want of due process, since the motion for the issuance of
subpoena duces tecum for the production of vital documents filed by the
complainant was ignored by the Labor Arbiter. They opined that the
dismissal did not amount to res judicata, since the decision was null and
void for lack of due process. As a result, they claimed that there was also
no violation of the rule on forum shopping.15
On February 7, 2006, the Court referred the instant bar matter to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and
recommendation.16
On January 22, 2007, the Labor Arbiter dismissed the second complaint
on the grounds of res judicata and forum shopping. It further reiterated
that Ebanen voluntarily resigned from employment and was not
constructively dismissed.
On March 14, 2008, during the mandatory conference before the IBP,
complainants failed to appear. Ebanen manifested that she is not a
lawyer.
Both parties were required to submit their respective position papers.
Atty. Relamida reiterated that Ebanen is not a lawyer and that she is the
daughter of Atty. Leonardo Aurelio (Atty. Aurelio), the senior partner of
A.M. Sison Jr. and Partners Law Offices where he is employed as
associate lawyer.
He narrated that on March 28, 2001, Ebanen filed a Complaint for illegal
dismissal against Servier. He claimed that in the beginning, Atty. Aurelio
was the one who prepared and reviewed all the pleadings and it was Atty.
Lapulapu Osoteo who stood as counsel for Ebanen in the said labor
case. Atty. Relamida admitted, however, that during the filing of the
second complaint he took over as counsel of Ebanen, as requested by
Atty. Aurelio.17 He also admitted that during the pendency of the first
complaint, he occasionally examined pleadings and signed as counsel for
Ebanen.18
Atty. Relamida reasoned out that as a courtesy to Atty. Aurelio and
Ebanen, he had no choice but to represent the latter. Moreover, he
stressed that his client was denied of her right to due process due to the
denial of her motion for the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum. He
then argued that the decision of the Labor Arbiter was null and void; thus,
there was no res judicata.19 He maintained that he did not violate the
lawyers oath by serving the interest of his client.
Servier, on the other hand, argued that the filing of the second complaint
is a violation of the rights of Servier, since the issue has already attained
finality. It contended that Atty. Relamida violated the rules on forum
shopping for the same act of filing a second complaint. As a
consequence, they are being made to defend themselves in a case that
has been settled before the labor tribunals and courts. Likewise, Servier
insisted that the filing of the second complaint was also a blatant violation
of the rule on res judicata. Hence, Servier prayed that Atty. Relamida be
disciplinary dealt with due to his abuse of the processes of the courts.
On April 19, 2008, the IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD)
recommended that respondent Atty. Relamida be suspended from the
practice of law for six (6) months. It imposed no sanction on Ebanen for
being a non-lawyer.
In its Report, the IBP found that by filing the second complaint, Atty.
Relamida was guilty of violating the rules onres judicata and forum
shopping. It concluded that Atty. Relamida abused his right of recourse to
the courts by filing a complaint for a cause that had been previously
rejected by the courts.
On June 5, 2008, the IBP Board of Governors resolved to adopt and
approve with modification as to penalty the report of the IBP-CBD.
Instead, it recommended that Atty. Relamida be suspended from the
practice of law for one (1) month for his violation of the rules on res
judicata and forum shopping.
On December 7, 2009, the Office of the Bar Confidant recommended that
the instant complaint be re-docketed as a regular administrative case
against Atty. Relamida.
We sustain the findings of the IBP-CBD.
All lawyers must bear in mind that their oaths are neither mere words nor
an empty formality. When they take their oath as lawyers, they dedicate
their lives to the pursuit of justice. They accept the sacred trust to uphold
the laws of the land. As the first Canon of the Code of Professional
Responsibility states, "[a] lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the
laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes."
Moreover, according to the lawyers oath they took, lawyers should "not
wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit,
nor give aid or consent to the same."20
In the instant case, it is clear that Atty. Relamida is guilty of forum
shopping and violation of the rule on res judicata. Atty. Relamida should
have refrained from filing the second complaint against Servier. He ought
to have known that the previous dismissal was with prejudice, since it
had the effect of an adjudication on the merits. He was aware of all the
proceedings which the first complaint went through as by his own
admission, he participated in the preparation of the pleadings and even
signed as counsel of Ebanen occasionally.21 He knew that the decision in
the subject case had already attained finality. Atty. Relamida was well
aware that when he filed the second complaint, it involved the same
parties and same cause of action, albeit, he justified the same on the
ground of nullity of the previous dismissal.
His allegation that he was not the original counsel of Ebanen and that his
intention was only to protect the rights of his clients whom he believed
were not properly addressed in the prior complaint deserves scant
consideration. He should know that once a case is decided with finality,
the controversy is settled and the matter is laid to rest. The prevailing
party is entitled to enjoy the fruits of his victory, while the other party is
obliged to respect the courts verdict and to comply with it.22
The essence of forum shopping is the filing of multiple suits involving the
same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or
successively, for the purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment. It exists
when, as a result of an adverse opinion in one forum, a party seeks a
favorable opinion in another, or when he institutes two or more actions or
proceedings grounded on the same cause to increase the chances of
obtaining a favorable decision. An important factor in determining its
existence is the vexation caused to the courts and the parties-litigants by
the filing of similar cases to claim substantially the same reliefs. Forum
shopping exists where the elements of litis pendentia are present
or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in
another. Thus, the following requisites should concur:23
x x x (a) identity of parties, or at least such parties as represent the same
interests in both actions, (b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed
for, the relief being founded on the same facts, and (c) the identity of the
two preceding particulars is such that any judgment rendered in the other
action will, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res
judicata in the action under consideration.
A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client, but not at the expense of
truth and the administration of justice. The filing of multiple petitions
constitutes abuse of the courts processes and improper conduct that
tends to impede, obstruct and degrade the administration of justice and
will be punished as contempt of court. Needless to state, the lawyer who
files such multiple or repetitious petitions (which obviously delays the
execution of a final and executory judgment) subjects himself to
disciplinary action for incompetence (for not knowing any better) or for
willful violation of his duties as an attorney to act with all good fidelity to
the courts, and to maintain only such actions as appear to him to be just
and are consistent with truth and honor.24
The filing of another action concerning the same subject matter, in
violation of the doctrine of res judicata, runs contrary to Canon 12 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, which requires a lawyer to exert
every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient
administration of justice. By his actuations, respondent also violated Rule
12.02 and Rule 12.04 of the Code, as well as a lawyers mandate "to
delay no man for money or malice."25
The Court has, time and again, warned lawyers not to resort to forum
shopping for this practice clogs the court dockets. Their primary duty is to
assist the courts in the administration of justice. Any conduct which tends
to delay, impede or obstruct the administration of justice contravenes
such lawyers duty.26 This we will not tolerate.
1avvphi1
In cases of similar nature,27 the penalty imposed by this Court was six (6)
months suspension from the practice of law. Thus, consistent with the
existing jurisprudence, we find that, in this case, the suspension of six (6)
months from practice of law is proper.
WHEREFORE, Resolution No. XVIII-2008-286, dated June 5, 2008, of
the IBP, which found respondent Atty. Ibaro B. Relamida, Jr. guilty of
violating the Rules on Res Judicata and Forum Shopping, is AFFIRMED.
Atty. Relaminda is hereby SUSPENDED for six (6) months from the
practice of law, effective upon the receipt of this Decision. He is warned
that a repetition of the same or a similar act will be dealt with more
severely.
Let a copy of this Decision be furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant,
to be appended to the personal record of Atty. Relamida as a member of
the Bar; the Integrated Bar of the Philippines; and the Office of the Court
Administrator, for circulation to all courts in the country for their
information and guidance.
This Decision shall be immediately executory.
SO ORDERED.
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
 RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
Overgaard vs. Valdez, Sept 30, 2008
CASE 116: Torben B. Overgaard vs. Atty. Godwin R. Valdez, A.C. No.
7902, September 30, 2008
FACTS: Torben Overgaard engaged the services of respondent
Valdez as his legal counsel in two cases filed by him and two cases
filed against him. Despite the receipt of the full amount of legal fees of
P900,000.00 as stipulated in a Retainer Agreement, the respondent
refused to perform any of his obligations under their contract for legal
services, ignored the complainants request for a report of the status
of the cases entrusted to his care, and rejected the complainants
demands for the return of the money paid to him. Complainant
Overgaard filed a complaint for disbarment against Valdez before the
IBP. Valdez argues that he did not abandon his client. He claims that
he gave periodic status reports on the result of his work, that he
returned the documents in connection with the case, and that he
rendered an accounting of the money that he actually received.
Overgaard declared that he did not receive the documents being
demanded from the respondent, nor did he receive an accounting of
the money he paid to Atty. Valdez.
ISSUE/S: WON Atty. Valdez violated Canon 16.01 for failing to
account for all money or property collected or received for or from
Overgaard.
HELD: Atty. Valdez violated Canon 16.01 for failing to account for all
money or property collected or received for or from Overgaard. If the
respondent had indeed returned the documents sometime in the
middle of July 2006, he would have presented a receipt to prove such
turnover of documents. And if the respondent had indeed rendered an
accounting of the money that was paid to him, he would have
attached a received copy of the accounting to his Motion for
Reconsideration. But he failed to do both. There was no proof
presented. It is a lawyers duty to properly account for the money he
received from the client.If indeed the respondent told the client that he
would pay P300,000.00 to two intelligence operatives, as he claims in
his Motion for Reconsideration, he should have held this money in
trust, and he was under an obligation to make an accounting. It was
his duty to secure a receipt for the payment of this amount on behalf
of his client. But he failed to present any receipt or certification from
Collado that the payment was received. Since the respondent was not
able either to present an accounting of the P900,000.00 paid to him
upon the complainants demand, or to provide a sufficient and
plausible explanation for where such amount was spent, he must
immediately return the same
Guevarra vs. Eala, Aaugust 1, 2007
Guevarra vs. Eala A.C. No. 7136 August 1, 2007
Joselano Guevarra vs. Atty. Jose Emmanuel Eala
A.C. No. 7136
August 1, 2007
Facts: On March 4, 2002 a complaint of disbarment was filed before the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines Committee on Bar Discipline against Atty.
Jose Emmanuel M. Eala a.k.a. Noli Eala for grossly immoral conduct and
unmitigated violation of the lawyers oath. In the Complaint, Guevarra first
met the respondent in January 2000 when his then fiance Irene Moje
introduced respondent to him as her friend who was married to Marianne
Tantoco with whom he had three children.
After his marriage to Irene on October 7, 2000, Complainant noticed that
from January to March 2001, Irene had been receiving from respondent
Cellphone calls, as well as messages some which read I love you, I miss
you, or Meet you at Megamall. He also noticed that Irene habitually went
home very late at night or early in the morning of the following day, and
sometimes did not go home from work. When he asked her whereabouts,
she replied that she slept at her parents house in Binangonan, Rizal or she
was busy with her work.
In February or March 2001, complainant saw Irene and Respondent together
on two occasions. On the second occasion, he confronted them following
which Irene abandoned the conjugal house. On April 22, 2001 complainant
went uninvited to Irenes birthday celebration at which he saw her and the
respondent celebrating with her family and friends. Out of embarrassment,
anger and humiliation, he left the venue immediately. Following that incident,
Irene went to the conjugal house and hauled off all her personal belongings.
Complainant later found a handwritten letter dated October 7, 2007, the day
of his wedding to Irene, Complainant soon saw respondents car and that of
Irene constantly parked at No. 71-B11 Street, New Manila where as he was
later learn sometime in April 2001, Irene was already residing. He also
learned still later that when his friends saw Irene on about January 18, 2002
together with respondent during a concert, she was pregnant.
Issue: Whether Concubinage or Adulterous relationship, be the reason for
the disbarment of Atty. Jose Emmanuel Eala.
Held: Lawyers oath stated that a lawyer should support the Constitution and
obey the laws, Meaning he shall not make use of deceit, malpractice, or
other gross misconduct, grossly immoral conduct, or be convicted in any
crime involving moral turpitude. In the case at bar Atty. Eala was accused of
Concubinage, under ART. 334 of the Revised Penal Code, Any husband
who shall keep a mistress in a conjugal dwelling, or, shall have sexual
intercourse, under scandalous circumstances, with a woman who is not his
wife, or shall cohabit with her in any other place, shall be punished by prision
correccional in its minimum and medium period. Section 2 of ART. XV states
that Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the
family and shall be protected by the state. Respondents grossly immoral
conduct runs afoul of the constitution and the laws, that he as a lawyer has
sworn to uphold. Hence the court declared Atty. Jose Emmanul M. Eala
DISBARRED for grossly immoral conduct, violation of his oath of office, and
violation of canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
Donton vs. Tansingco, June 27, 2008
Case: Donton vs Tansingco
A.C 6057
June 27, 2006
Facts:
On May 20, 2003, Peter T. Donton (complainant) filed a criminal
complaint for estafa thru falsification of public document against
Duane O. Stier, Emelyn A. Maggay, and respondent Atty. Emmanuel
O. Tansingco, as the notary public who notarized the Occupancy
Agreement.
Subsequently, respondent Tansingco filed a counter-charge for
perjury against complainant. The affidavit-complaint stated that:
The OCCUPANCY AGREEMENT dated September 11, 1995 was
prepared and notarized under the following circumstances:
A. Mr. Duane O. Stier is the owner and long-time resident of a real
property located at No. 33 Don Jose Street, Bgy. San Roque,
Murphy, Cubao, Quezon City.
B. Sometime in September 1995, Mr. Stier a U.S. citizen and
thereby disqualified to own real property in his name agreed that
the property be transferred in the name of Mr. Donton, a Filipino.
C. Mr. Stier, in the presence of Mr. Donton, requested me to prepare
several documents that would guarantee recognition of him being
the actual owner of the property despite the transfer of title in the
name of Mr. Donton.
D. For this purpose, I prepared, among others, the OCCUPANCY
AGREEMENT, recognizing Mr. Stiers free and undisturbed use of the
property for his residence and business operations. The OCCUPANCY
AGREEMENT was tied up with a loan which Mr. Stier had extended
to Mr. Donton.
Thereafter, complainant prayed that respondent be disbarred in
violation of the Code for the act of preparing the Occupancy
Agreement, despite the knowledge that Stier was disqualified to
own a real property for being a foreign national.
On Oct 1, 2003 the Court referred the matter to the IBP for
investigation and on Feb 26, 2004, Commissioner San Juan found
respondent liable for taking part in a scheme to circumvent the
constitutional prohibition against foreign ownership of land in the
Philippines and recommended respondents suspension from the
practice of law for 2 years and cancellation of his commission as
Notary Public.
On April 16, 2004, the IBP Board of Governors adopted the report
with modification and recommended respondents suspension from
the practice of law for 6 months. Then on July 28, 2004, respondent
 filed a motion for reconsideration before the IBP stating that his
practice of law is his only means of supporting his family and 6
minor children.
Issue:
WON respondent is guilty of violation of Canon I and Rule 1.02 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Held:
A lawyer should not render any service or give advice to any client
which will involve defiance of the laws which he is bound to uphold.
Respondents knowledge that Stier, a US citizen, was disqualified
from owning real property and his preparation of Occupancy
Agreement that would guarantee Stiers recognition as the actual
owner of the property, aided in circumventing the constitutional
prohibition against foreign ownership of lands. Thus, he violated his
oath and the Code when he prepared and notarized the Occupancy
Agreement. Respondent used his knowledge of the law to achieve
an unlawful end. Such an act amounts to malpractice in his office,
for which he may be suspended.
Rodica vs. Lazaro, Aaugust 23, 2012
Jasper Rodica vs Atty. Manuel Lazaro et al, AC No. 9259,
August 23, 2012
"The power to disbar or suspend ought always to be exercised
on the preservative and not on the vindicative principle, with
great caution and only for the most weighty reasons."
Facts:
This is a disbarment complaint filed by Rodica against the
respondent Atty. Lazaro on grounds of gross and serious
misconduct, deceit, malpractice, grossly immoral conduct and
violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
On May 5, 2011, William Strong was arrested and detained by
the Bureau of Immigration for allegedly being involved in an
international gang and conspiracy in Brazil on fraud involving
the creation of hundreds of dollars in illegal securities. Strong
requested his friend Philip Apostol to look for a lawyer. Apostol
recommended the Lazaro Law Office represented by Atty.
Manuel Lazaro and his associates who initially declined but
later accepted to handle the deportation case.
Strong initiated giving the information that his deportation case
may be due to the complaint filed by his live-in partner Jasper
Rodica before the RTC against the Hillview Marketing
Corporation for recovery and possession and damages
involving a property they have in Boracay which is represented
by Atty. Tan. Rodica was represented by Atty. Ibutnande in this
case. Apparently, Rodica claimed that Atty. Manuel met with
Atty. Tan to discuss the settlement package on the deportation
case they filed against Strong on the condition that Rodica
withdraws her complaint from the RTC of Cebu.
On May 25, 2011 the Bureau of Immigration rendered a
judgment deporting Strong to leave the country. On June 6,
2011 Rodica filed before the RTC a motion to withdraw her
complaint against Hillview. Rodica now alleges that after
Strong was deported and withdrawing the case before the
RTC, she was deceived by Atty Manuel et al for over
settlement of 7 million which was allegedly extorted from her
after misrepresenting that the withdrawal of the case before
the RTC is only a part of the settlement package.
It appears on the record that Atty. Espejo, an associate of the
Lazaro Law office helped in drafting the Manifestation with
Motion to Withdraw Motion for Reconsideration after Rodica
pleaded him to prepare the motion and was requested further
to indicate the name of the Lazaro Law Office including the
name of Atty. Manuel and Atty. Michelle to give more weight on
the pleading. Rodica promised Atty. Espejo to talk to Atty.
Manuel about it. The case before the RTC was actually
dismissed on March 29, 2011 for failure to show cause of
action but a motion for reconsideration was filed by Rodica.
Issue:
Whether or not the allegations of Rodica merit the disbarment
of the respondents.
Ruling
The court ruled that Rodica failed to overcome the
presumption of innocence of the respondents. As a general
rule, lawyers enjoy the presumption of innocence and the
burden of proof rests upon the complainant to clearly prove the
allegations made against them. The required quantum of proof
is preponderance of evidence which is an evidence which is
more convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that
which is offered in opposition thereto.
On Rodica's claim with regards to the settlement package, the
court find it without merit because she withdrew her complaint
only after the deportation of Strong. It was also evident on
record that the said case was already dismissed even before
the deportation case was filed only she filed a motion for
reconsideration. Therefore, it cannot be said that her
withdrawal of the complaint is a settlement consideration
regarding the deportation case of Strong. Moreover, Strong is
not a party to the case she filed before the RTC therefore
there is no connection between these 2 cases.
There was sufficient preponderance of evidence that was
presented that the cause of her withdrawal of the complaint is
to facilitate the sale of her property in Boracay. According to
Atty. Espejo who helped Rodica draft the motion for withdrawal
of the complaint, the said withdrawal is for the purpose of
selling her property to Apostol. Apostol further corroborated
that he told Rodica he is willing to purchase the property once
it is free from any pending case. Rodica promised him to work
on the termination of the pending case attached to the
property to make the sale.
On her claim to have paid 7 million to Atty. Manuel et al, she
failed to substantiate such claim despite showing off
withdrawals from her bank account certain amount of money
after failing to prove that the said amount was paid to the
respondents. Moreover, the court held that Rodica is not a
client of Lazaro Law Office. They merely handled the
deportation case of Strong.
As for Atty. Espejo, the court found him to have aided Rodica
for misrepresenting before the court that she was aided by the
Lazaro Law Office when in fact she is not. Atty. Espejo
explained that Rodica assured him to talk to Atty. Manuel and
Atty. Michelle about including their name on the pleading but
she did not do so. Atty. Espejo should have known better that
Atty. Ibutnande was the counsel on record on the case before
the RTC and therefore it is not his duty to prepare said
pleading. He also should have known that all pleadings before
the court are acted based on merit or the lack of it and not by
the name of the law firm. However, the court give due
recognition on the fact that Atty. Espejo expressed remorse on
his conduct and made a sincere apology to the RTC for
wrongly employing the name of the Lazaro Law Office and that
he was newly admitted to the Bar in 2010, the court find it
proper to give him a warning to become more prudent on his
actuation in the practice of his profession.
The complaint for disbarment was dismissed.
Bengco vs. Bernardo, June 13, 2012
BENGCO vs. BERNARDO AC No. 6368
FACTS: Fidela Bengco and Teresita Bengco filed a complaint
for disbarment against Atty. Pablo Bernardo for deceit,
malpractice, conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar and
violation of his duties and oath as a lawyer. The disbarment
case was filed because from April 15, 1997 to July 22, 1997,
Atty. Bernardo with the connivance of Andres Magat willfully
and illegally committed fraudulent act with intent to defraud
against complainants Fidela and Teresita Bengco by using
false pretenses, deceitful words to the effect that he would
expedite the titling of land belonging to the Miranda Family of
Tagaytay City who are the acquaintance of complainants. It
started when the respondent convinced the complainants to
finance and deliver to him the amount of P495,000 as advance
money to expedite the titling of the subject land. He further
committed misrepresentation by representing himself as the
lawyer of William Gatchalian, the prospective buyer of the land
and that he is the one handling William Gatchalians business
transaction. He also led complainants to believe that he has
contracts at NAMREA, DENR, CENRO and REGISTER OF
DEEDS which representation he well knew were false,
fraudulent and were only made to induce the complainants to
give and deliver the said amount. And after he has possessed
the money he did not comply with his obligation to expedite
and the titling of the land unlawfully and illegally
misappropriated, misapplied and converted the said amount to
his personal use and benefit despite demand upon him to
return the amount. By reason of his failure and refusal to do
so, this constitute deceit, malpractice and conduct unbecoming
a member of the Bar and violation of duties and oath as a
lawyer. In defense, respondent averred that he had not
deceived both complainants for purposes of getting from them
the amount of [P]495,000.00. It was Andy Magat whom they
contacted and who in turn sought the legal services of the
respondent. It was Andy Magat who received the said money
from them. The arrangement for titling of the land was made
by Teresita N. Bengco and Andy Magat with no participation of
respondent. The case was thus referred to the IBP for
investigation, report and recommendation. The investigating
officer made a finding that respondent committed a crime that
import deceit and violation of his attorneys oath and the Code
of Professional Responsibility. As such he was recommended
by the IBP to be suspended for 2 years from the practice of
law and as a member of the Bar. The IBP governor adopted
and approved the recommendation.
ISSUES: 1) Whether or not the IBP Resolution is in accord
with the rules considering that the complaint was filed for more
than 2 years from the alleged misconduct and thus has
prescribed? 2) Whether or not Atty. Bernardo is liable? HELD:
1.) Yes, the IBP Resolution is valid. The respondents defense
of prescription is untenable. The Court has held that
administrative cases against lawyers do not prescribe. The
lapse of considerable time from the commission of the
offending act to the institution of the administrative complaint
will not erase the administrative culpability of a lawyer.
Otherwise, members of the bar would only be emboldened to
disregard the very oath they took as lawyers, prescinding from
the fact that as long as no private complainant would
immediately come forward, they stand a chance of being
completely exonerated from whatever administrative liability
they ought to answer for. 2) Yes, respondent Atty. Pablo S.
Bernardo is found guilty of violating the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Rules 2.03 and 3.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility read: Rule 2.03. A lawyer shall not
do or permit to be done any act designed primarily to solicit
legal business. Rule 3.01. A lawyer shall not use or permit the
use of any false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive,
undignified, self-laudatory or unfair statement or claim
regarding his qualifications or legal services. The SC held that
there is no question that the respondent committed the acts
complained of. He himself admitted in his answer that his legal
services were hired by the complainants through Magat
regarding the purported titling of land supposedly purchased.
He used his position as a lawyer in order to deceive the
complainants into believing that he can expedite the titling of
the subject properties. He never denied that he did not benefit
from the money given by the complainants in the amount of
P495,000.00. The practice of law is not a business. It is a
profession in which duty to public service, not money, is the
primary consideration. Lawyering is not primarily meant to be a
money-making venture, and law advocacy is not a capital that
necessarily yields profits. The gaining of a livelihood should be
a secondary consideration. The duty to public service and to
the administration of justice should be the primary
consideration of lawyers, who must subordinate their personal
interests or what they owe to themselves. Accordingly,
Respondent was suspended from the practice of law for 1
year. Furthermore, he was ordered to return the amount of
P200,000.00 to Fidela Bengco and Teresita Bengco.
Catalan vs. Silvosa, July 24, 2012
ATTY. POLICARPIO CATALAN JR., vs. ATTY. JOSELITO
SILVOSA A.C. No. 7360 July 24, 2012
FACTS: Petitioner Atty. Catalan filed a case for disbarment
against Respondent Atty. Silvosa on the following grounds: 1)
Atty. Silvosa appeared as counsel for the accused in the same
case for which he previously appeared as prosecutor; 2) Atty.
Silvosa bribed his then colleague Prosecutor Phoebe Toribio
for P30,000 and 3) the Sandiganbayan convicted respondent
in a criminal case for direct bribery. PETITIONERS
CONTENTION: Atty. Catalan accused Atty. Silvosa of
appearing as private counsel in a case where he previously
appeared as public prosecutor hence violating Rule 6.03 of the
Code of Professional responsibility. Atty Catalan alleged that
respondent and the accused are relatives and have the same
middle name.
In a case for frustrated murder where Atty. Catalans brother
was a respondent. Prosec Toribio testified Atty. Silvosa, while
still a public prosecutor, offered her P30,000 to reconsider her
findings and uphold the charge of murder. Atty. Catalan also
presented the Sandiganbayans decision in a criminal case
convicting Atty. Silvosa of direct bribery on May 18, 2006.
RESPONDENTS CONTENTION: Atty. Silvosa claims that his
appearance was only for the purpose of reinstatement of bail
and denies any relationship between and the accused. Atty.
Silvosa dismisses at the same time the allegations of Prosec.
Toribio and such allegations were self-serving and purposely
dug by Atty. Catalan and his puppeteer to pursue persecution.
While admitting of his conviction by the Sandiganbayan,
respondent asserts that conviction under the 2nd paragraph
of Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code do not involve moral
turpitude.
IBP FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION: The IBP ruled that
respondent was guilty only of the first charge by appearing and
filing a motion to post bail bond pending appeal and thus
violating Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
and gave the penalty of reprimand. The IBP Board of
Governors adopted and approved the report and
recommendation however modifying the penalty to suspension
from the practice of law for 6 months.
ISSUES: Whether or not respondent is guilty?
HELD: Yes, respondent is guilty of violating Rule 6.03. Rule
6.03 which states that A lawyer shall not, after leaving
government service, accept engagement or employment in
connection with any matter in which he had intervened while in
said service. When he entered his appearance on the Motion
to Post Bail Bond Pending Appeal, Atty. Silvosa conveniently
forgot Rule 15.03 which provides that A lawyer shall not
represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all
concerned given after a full disclosure of facts. Atty. Silvosas
representation of conflicting interests and his failed attempt at
bribing Pros. Toribio merit at least the penalty of suspension.
 Atty. Silvosas final conviction of the crime of direct bribery
clearly falls under one of the grounds for disbarment under
Section 27 of Rule 138. Disbarment follows as a consequence
of Atty. Silvosas conviction of the crime. We are constrained to
impose a penalty more severe than suspension because we
find that Atty. Silvosa is predisposed to flout the exacting
standards of morality and decency required of a member of
the Bar. His excuse that his conviction was not in his capacity
as a lawyer, but as a public officer, is unacceptable and
betrays the unmistakable lack of integrity in his character. The
practice of law is a privilege, and Atty. Silvosa has proved
himself unfit to exercise this privilege. Respondent was
disbarred.
C. The Lawyer and the Legal Profession
Tiong vs. Florendo, December 12, 2011
Pobre vs. Defensor Santiago, August 25, 2009
Noe-Lacsamana vs. Bustamante, November 23, 2011
Tiong vs. Florendo, December 12, 2011
TIONG v. FLORENDO. 662 SCRA 1. 2011
FACTS: Complainant Elpidio P. Tiong, an American Citizen,
and his wife, Ma. Elena T. Tiong, are real estate lessors in
Baguio City. They are likewise engaged in the assembly and
repair of motor vehicles in Paldit, Sison, Pangasinan. In 1991,
they engaged the services of respondent Atty. George M.
Florendo not only as legal counsel but also as administrator of
their businesses whenever complainant would leave for the
United States of America (USA). Sometime in 1993,
complainant began to suspect that respondent and his wife
were having an illicit affair. His suspicion was confirmed in the
afternoon of May 13, 1995 when, in their residence, he
chanced upon a telephone conversation between the two.
Listening through the extension phone, he heard respondent
utter the words "I love you, I'll call you later". When confronted,
his wife initially denied any amorous involvement with
respondent but eventually broke down and confessed to their
love affair that began in 1993. Respondent likewise admitted
the relationship. Subsequently, at a meeting initiated by
respondent and held at the Salibao Restaurant in Burnham
Park, Baguio City, respondent and complainant's wife, Ma.
Elena, confessed anew to their illicit affair before their
respective spouses. On May 15, 1995, the parties met again at
the Mandarin Restaurant in Baguio City and, in the presence
of a Notary Public, Atty. Liberato Tadeo, respondent and Ma.
Elena executed and signed an affidavit attesting to their illicit
relationship and seeking their respective spouses' forgiveness.
Complainant instituted the present suit for disbarment on May
23, 1995 charging respondent of gross immorality and grave
misconduct. In his Answer, respondent admitted the material
allegations of the complaint but interposed the defense of
pardon. Finding merit in the complaint, the Commission on Bar
Discipline (CBD), through Commissioner Agustinus V.
Gonzaga, submitted its Report and Recommendation dated
September 21, 2007 for the suspension of respondent from
the practice of law for one (1) year, which was adopted and
approved by the IBP Board of Governors in its Resolution
dated October 19, 2007. Respondent's Motion for
Reconsideration there from was denied in the Resolution
dated June 26, 2011.
Respondent, however, maintains that he cannot be sanctioned
for his questioned conduct because he and Ma. Elena had
already been pardoned by their respective spouses in the May
15, 1995 Affidavit.
ISSUE: WHETHER THE PARDON EXTENDED BY
COMPLAINANT IN THE AFFIDAVIT DATED MAY 15, 1995 IS
SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT THE DISMISSAL OF THE
PRESENT DISBARMENT CASE AGAINST RESPONDENT
FOR GROSS IMMORAL CONDUCT.
HELD: NO.
The pertinent provisions in the Code of Professional
Responsibility provide, thus: "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. xxxx
CANON 7 - A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE
INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION
AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED
BAR. xxxx
Rule 7.03. - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that
adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he,
whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous
manner to the discredit of the legal profession."
It has been consistently held by the Court that possession of
good moral character is not only a condition for admission to
the Bar but is a continuing requirement to maintain one's good
standing in the legal profession. It is the bounden duty of law
practitioners to observe the highest degree of morality in order
to safeguard the integrity of the Bar.
Consequently, any errant behaviour on the part of a lawyer, be
it in his public or private activities, which tends to show him
deficient in moral character, honesty, probity or good
demeanor, is sufficient to warrant his suspension or
disbarment.
Respondent's act of having an affair with his client's wife
manifested his disrespect for the laws on the sanctity of
marriage and his own marital vow of fidelity. It showed his
utmost moral depravity and low regard for the ethics of his
profession.
Likewise, he violated the trust and confidence reposed on him
by complainant which in itself is prohibited under Canon 17 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility. Undeniably, therefore,
his illicit relationship with Ma. Elena amounts to a disgraceful
and grossly immoral conduct warranting disciplinary action
from the Court. Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court
provides that an attorney may be disbarred or suspended from
his office by the Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other
gross misconduct in office, grossly immoral conduct, among
others.
It bears to stress that a case of suspension or disbarment is
sui generis and not meant to grant relief to a complainant as in
a civil case but is intended to cleanse the ranks of the legal
profession of its undesirable members in order to protect the
public and the courts. It is not an investigation into the acts of
respondent as a husband but on his conduct as an officer of
the Court and his fitness to continue as a member of the Bar.
Hence, the Affidavit dated March 15, 1995, which is akin to an
affidavit of desistance, cannot have the effect of abating the
instant proceedings.
However, considering the circumstances of this case, the
Court finds that a penalty of suspension from the practice of
law for six (6) months, instead of one (1) year as
recommended by the IBP-CBD, is adequate sanction for the
grossly immoral conduct of respondent. WHEREFORE,
respondent ATTY. GEORGE M. FLORENDO is hereby found
GUILTY of Gross Immorality and is SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for SIX (6) MONTHS effective upon notice
hereof, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same
or similar offense will be dealt with more severely.
Pobre vs. Defensor Santiago, August 25, 2009
ANTERO J. POBRE v. SEN. MIRIAM DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO
A.C. No. 7399, August 25, 2009
FACTS: In his sworn letter/complaint dated December 22, 2006, with
enclosures, Antero J. Pobre invites the Courts attention to the
following excerpts of Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiagos speech
delivered on the Senate floor: x x x I am not angry. I am irate. I am
foaming in the mouth. I am homicidal. I am suicidal. I am humiliated,
debased, degraded. And I am not only that, I feel like throwing up to
be living my middle years in a country of this nature. I am nauseated. I
spit on the face of Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban and his cohorts
in the Supreme Court, I am no longer interested in the position [of
Chief Justice] if I was to be surrounded by idiots. I would rather be in
another environment but not in the Supreme Court of idiots x x x. To
Pobre, the foregoing statements reflected a total disrespect on the
part of the speaker towards then Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban
and the other members of the Court and constituted direct contempt
of court. Accordingly, Pobre asks that disbarment proceedings or
other disciplinary actions be taken against the lady senator.
Defendants Defense: Senator Santiago, through counsel, does not
deny making the aforequoted statements. She, however, explained
that those statements were covered by the constitutional provision on
parliamentary immunity, being part of a speech she delivered in the
discharge of her duty as member of Congress or its committee. The
purpose of her speech, according to her, was to bring out in the open
controversial anomalies in governance with a view to future remedial
legislation. She averred that she wanted to expose what she believed
to be an unjust act of the Judicial Bar Council [JBC], which, after
sending out public invitations for nomination to the soon to-be vacated
position of Chief Justice, would eventually inform applicants that only
incumbent justices of the Supreme Court would qualify for nomination.
She felt that the JBC should have at least given an advanced advisory
that non-sitting members of the Court, like her, would not be
considered for the position of Chief Justice.
ISSUE: WON Sen. Miriam Santiago may be disbarred or be
administratively liable.
HELD: This Court is aware of the need and has in fact been in the
forefront in upholding the institution of parliamentary immunity and
promotion of free speech. Neither has the Court lost sight of the
importance of the legislative and oversight functions of the Congress
that enable this representative body to look diligently into every affair
of government, investigate and denounce anomalies, and talk about
how the country and its citizens are being served. Courts do not
interfere with the legislature or its members in the manner they
perform their functions in the legislative floor or in committee rooms.
Any claim of an unworthy purpose or of the falsity and mala fides of
the statement uttered by the member of the Congress does not
destroy the privilege. The disciplinary authority of the assembly and
the voters, not the courts, can properly discourage or correct such
abuses committed in the name of parliamentary immunity. For the
above reasons, the plea of Senator Santiago for the dismissal of the
complaint for disbarment or disciplinary action is well taken. Indeed,
her privilege speech is not actionable criminally or in a disciplinary
proceeding under the Rules of Court. It is felt, however, that this could
not be the last word on the matter.
No lawyer who has taken an oath to maintain the respect due to the
courts should be allowed to erode the peoples faith in the judiciary. In
this case, the lady senator clearly violated Canon 8, Rule 8.01 and
Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which
respectively provide: Canon 8, Rule 8.01.A lawyer shall not, in his
professional dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive or
otherwise improper.
Canon 11.A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the
courts and to the judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct
by others. Senator/Atty. Santiago is a cut higher than most lawyers.
Her achievements speak for themselves. She was a former Regional
Trial Court judge, a law professor, an oft-cited authority on
constitutional and international law, an author of numerous law
textbooks, and an elected senator of the land. Needless to stress,
Senator Santiago, as a member of the Bar and officer of the court, like
any other, is duty-bound to uphold the dignity and authority of this
Court and to maintain the respect due its members. Lawyers in public
service are keepers of public faith and are burdened with the higher
degree of social responsibility, perhaps higher than their brethren in
private practice.[7] Senator Santiago should have known, as any
perceptive individual, the impact her statements would make on the
peoples faith in the integrity of the courts.
The Rules of the Senate itself contains a provision on
Unparliamentary Acts and Language that enjoins a Senator from
using, under any circumstance, offensive or improper language
against another Senator or against any public institution. But as to
Senator Santiagos unparliamentary remarks, the Senate President
had not apparently called her to order, let alone referred the matter to
the Senate Ethics Committee for appropriate disciplinary action, as
the Rules dictates under such circumstance. The lady senator clearly
violated the rules of her own chamber. It is unfortunate that her peers
bent backwards and avoided imposing their own rules on her.
Noe-Lacsamana vs. Bustamante, November 23, 2011
ATTY. EDITA NOE-LACSAMANA VS. ATTY. YOLANDO F.
BUSMENTE A.C. No. 7269, November 23, 2011
FACTS: Noe-Lacsamana alleged in her complaint that she was the
counsel for Irene Bides, while Busmente was the counsel for the
defendant Imelda B. Ulaso (Ulaso) in an ejectment case. Another
case for falsification was filed against Ulaso where Busmente also
appeared as counsel. Noe-Lacsamana alleged that one Atty.
Elizabeth Dela Rosa or Atty. Liza Dela Rosa (Dela Rosa) would
accompany Ulaso in court, projecting herself as Busmentes
collaborating counsel. Dela Rosa signed the minutes of the court
proceedings. Noe-Lacsamana further alleged that the court orders
and notices specified Dela Rosa as Busmentes collaborating counsel.
Noe-Lacsamana alleged that upon verification with this Court and the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines, she discovered that Dela Rosa was
not a lawyer.
RESPONDENT: Busmente alleged that Dela Rosa was a law
graduate and was his paralegal assistant for a few years. Busmente
alleged that Dela Rosas employment with him ended in 2000 but
Dela Rosa was able to continue misrepresenting herself as a lawyer
with the help of Regine Macasieb (Macasieb), Busmentes former
secretary. Busmente alleged that he did not represent Ulaso and that
his signature in the Answer presented as proof by Noe-Lacsamana
was forged.
IBP: The IBP-CBD recommended Busmentes suspension from the
practice of law for not less than five years. ISSUE: Whether Busmente
is guilty of directly or indirectly assisting Dela Rosa in her illegal
practice of law that warrants his suspension from the practice of law.
HELD: We agree with the IBP. The lawyers duty to prevent, or at the
very least not to assist in, the unauthorized practice of law is founded
on public interest and policy. Public policy requires that the practice of
law be limited to those individuals found duly qualified in education
and character. The permissive right conferred on the lawyer is an
individual and limited privilege subject to withdrawal if he fails to
maintain proper standards of moral and professional conduct.
The purpose is to protect the public, the court, the client, and the bar
from the incompetence or dishonesty of those unlicensed to practice
law and not subject to the disciplinary control of the Court. It devolves
upon a lawyer to see that this purpose is attained.
Thus, the canons and ethics of the profession enjoin him not to permit
his professional services or his name to be used in aid of, or to make
possible the unauthorized practice of law by, any agency, personal or
corporate. And, the law makes it a misbehavior on his part, subject to
disciplinary action, to aid a layman in the unauthorized practice of law.
In this case, it has been established that Dela Rosa, who is not a
member of the Bar, misrepresented herself as Busmentes
collaborating counsel in Civil Case No. 9284. The only question is
whether Busmente indirectly or directly assisted Dela Rosa in her
illegal practice of law. Busmente alleged that Dela Rosas employment
in his office ended in 2000 and that Dela Rosa was able to continue
with her illegal practice of law through connivance with Macasieb,
another member of Busmentes staff. As pointed out by the IBP-CBD,
Busmente claimed that Macasieb resigned from his office in 2003.
Yet, Dela Rosa continued to represent Ulaso until 2005. Pleadings
and court notices were still sent to Busmentes office until 2005. The
IBP-CBD noted that Dela Rosas practice should have ended in 2003
when Macasieb left.
Hence, we agree with the findings of the IBP-CBD that there was
sufficient evidence to prove that Busmente was guilty of violation of
Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. We agree with the
recommendation of the IBP, modifying the recommendation of the
IBP-CBD, that Busmente should be suspended from the practice of
law for six months. We SUSPEND Atty. Yolando F. Busmente from the
practice of law for SIX MONTHS