EMILIA HERNANDEZ vs ATTY. VENANCIO PADILLA 1.

Rtc decision was in favor to Elisa Duigan and Emlia

Hernandez that will pay for attorneys fees and
damages.
2. Emilia Hernandez with her husband filed Notice of
Appeal with the RTC.
3. CA ordered them to file Appellants brief
4. They chose Atty. Padilla to represent them in the
case and filed a memorandum appeal. Instead of
Appellants Brief.
5. Ms. Duigan filed a motion to discuss and C.A
granted a motion to dismiss
6. MS. Emilia Hernandez filed a complaint,
disbarment case against Atty. Padilla
7. Director of the Bar ordered Atty. Padilla to submit
an answer. Atty. Padilla just prayed for the
dismiss of the case.
8. Atty. Padilla explained that he was not the lawyer
of the complainants telling that she never met
them yet
9. It was her husband who transacted with him.
10. Meaning, the husband of Emilia Hernandez
pleaded to prepare a memorandum on Appeal as
the CA order was to lapse two( 2 ) to three( 3 )
days from it.
11. Atty. Padilla filed a memorandum Appeal because
he believed it is the one required on this pleading.
12. But before filing the said memorandum, Atty.
Padilla advised the complainants to settle their
case.
13. And the latter gestured approval of what has
been advised
14. IBP commissioner found that Atty. Padilla violated
canon 5
17
18
And he recommended to suspend for 3-6
months
15. After the husband of Emilia Hernandez placed the
memorandum to be filed, no words and Atty.
Padilla did not saw him again. Atty. Padilla
assumed that he settled the case, the one he
advised.
16. When the respondent Atty. Padilla received the
decision by CA, he instructed his staff in the office
to contact the complainant in all means, but
theyre not available.
17. After husband of the Complainant goes to his
after a sheriff from RTC informed them that the
case dismissed. Atty. Padilla was surprised that
KALA KO BA NAKIPAG-AREGLO NA KAYO?
18. IBP Commissioner found that Atty. Padilla
violated canon 5, 17, 18 of CPR and
recommended to be suspended for 3-6 months.
19. IBP Governor approved and adopted the
resolution and he was suspended for 6 months.
20. Atty. filed a motion for reconsideration and
prayed for relaxation of application of canons 5,
17, 18, then IBP Governors partly granted and
reducing the suspension to 1month.

RULING OF THE COURT

1. Court adopt the factual findings of IBP.

2. Disagree to reduce of 6 months into 1 month.
3. Affirm the 6 month suspension.
4. Atty. Padilla insisted that he never met the
complainant even there is a mandatory
conference that was set.
5. The memorandum filed in appellate court
revealed he had signed as counsel for both
Emilia Hernandez and his husband.
6. Atty. Padilla claimed that theres no attorney-
client relationship even he accepted P7,000
for the acceptance fee in which this is the
time when the attorney-client relationship
was established.
7. Once a lawyer accepted the case, that will be
 the time a lawyer is duty to serve the client
with competence and diligence.
8. WHEREAS, Atty. Padilla failed to fulfill that
duty.

21. Respondent Atty. Padilla admitted that he filed a

memorandum appeal as this is the one asked by
his client and he believed that it was the required
one to be filed. However, regardless of the
clients beliefs, it was his duty to know the proper
pleadings filed to RTC.
22. Rules on civil procedure, Rule 44 requires that
appellants brief be filed after the case be elevated
to CA.
23. Lawyers shall not handle any legal matter without
adequate preparation. Even it is the time that he
is not an Attorney of complainant, it is still his
duty to diligently study the case he agreed to
handle.
24. First of all, there are a lot of remedies Atty. Padilla
can do from the moment he received the CAs
notice up to receiving disbarment complaint.

PROBLEMS:

1. There are a lot of remedies Atty. Padilla can

do from the moment he received the C.A
notice and disbarment complaints against
him. But he did nothing.
2. As counsel; it is his duty to inform the status
of his clients case: Rule 18.04
3. Even it is true that he cant contact the
complainants, the last action he can do was to
fila a motion or notice of withdrawal,
provided that the reasons behind. HIS
FAILURE TO DO THIS MEASURES PROVE HIS
NEGLIGENCE.
4. FAILAURE TO COMMENT ON MOTION TO
DISMISS BY DUIGANS TO DISMISS, WAS
ALSO NEGLIGENCE.
VIOLATIONS:

18.02

A lawyer shall not handle any case or legal matter

without an adequate preparation. It is during the
time Atty. Padilla insisted that it is just 2-1 days left.

18.03

Failure to file a proper pleading and comment on

motion to dismiss on Duigans motion.

18.04

Failure to inform his client about the status of the

case. Instead upon CAs order, he assumed that the
complainants already settled the case.

Canon 5

Failure to file a proper pleasing.

Atty. Rosalie Dallong Galicinao
vs
Atty. Virgil R. Castro
1. Complainant informed respondent that the
record had not yet been transmitted since a
certified true copy of the decision of the Court
of Appeals should first be presented to serve
as basis for the transmittal of the records to
the court of origin.
2. Respondent retorted scornfully
3. Who will certify the Court of Appeals Decision,
the Court of Appeals? You mean to say, I
would still have to go to Manila to get a
certified true copy?
4. Complainant replied, Sir, its in the Rules but
you could show us the copy sent to the party
you claim to be representing.
5. Then you should have notified me of the said
requirement.
6. That was two weeks ago and I have been
frequenting your office since then, but you
never bothered to notify me.
7. Complainant replied, It is not our duty, Sir, to
notify you of the said requirement.
8. You mean to say it is not your duty to remand
the record of the case?
9. No, Sir, I mean, its not our duty to notify you
that you have to submit a copy of the Court of
Appeals decision.
10. You mean to say you dont care anymore? Is
that the way it is?
11. He then turned and left the office, banging the
door on his way out to show his anger.
12. Banging the door was so loud it was heard by
the people at the adjacent RTC, Branch 30
where a hearing was taking place.
13. Atty. Castro returned to the office still
enraged, and pointed his finger at complainant
and shouted.
14. Vulva of your mother! If you are harboring ill
feelings against my client, dont turn your ire
on me!
15. Atty. Galicinao was shocked at respondents
words but still managed to reply, I dont even
know your client, Sir.
16. Respondent left the office and as he passed by
complainants window, Vulva of your mother,
you woman!
17. Atty. Galicinao suffered from acute
embarrassment on what happened on her
 office seen by her staffs. She felt that the
credibility of her were tarnished and
diminished eliciting doubt on her ability to
command full respect from her staff.
18. Atty. Galicinao filed complaints after 3 days.
19. It was supported by affidavits signed by
employees of RTC- Bambang Nueva Viscaya
who witnessed the incident.
20. Atty. Castro admitted that he inquired about
the status of records
21. However he has no explanation on what has
happened that day, instead he narrated that
the records has not yet been transferred and
learned that these records was transmitted to
the court of origin.
22. On the hearing that was set by CBD, only Atty.
Galicinao appeared.
23. Respondent filed a manifestation physical
injuries and he was not mentally fit to prepare
the required pleadings as his vehicle rained
with bullets.
24. He also expressed public apology.
25. Commissioner recommended that respondent
be reprimanded and warned that any other
complaint for breach of his professional duties
shall be dealt with more severely.
26. It should be noted that Atty. Castro was not
the counsel of record. If he was, it is easy for
him to present the required certified true copy
of the decision
27. His explanation that he will enter his
appearance in the case when its records were
already transmitted to the MCTC is
unacceptable. Not being the counsel of record
and there being no authorization from either
the parties to represent them, respondent had
no right to impose his will on the clerk of
court.
28. In the course of his questionable activities
relating to Civil Case No. 784, respondent
acted rudely towards an officer of the court.
He raised his voice at the clerk of court and
uttered at her the most vulgar of invectives.
Not only was it ill-mannered but also
unbecoming considering that he did all these
to a woman and in front of her subordinates.
29. People are accountable for the consequences
of the things they say and do even if the
 repent afterwards. The fact remains that
things done cannot be undone and words
uttered cannot be taken back. Hence, he
should bear the consequences of his actions.
30. WHEREFORE, premises considered,
respondent is hereby FINED in the amount of
TEN THOUSAND (P10,000.00) PESOS with a
warning that any similar infraction with be
dealt with more severely. Let a copy of this
Decision be furnished the Bar Confidant for
appropriate annotation in the record of the
respondent.
ROSITA AND AMADOR TEJADA (PETITIONER)
vs
ATTY. ANTONIUTTI K PALAA (RESPONDENT)
1. Continued refusal to settle his long overdue
loan obligation to the complainants
2. Has an alleged parcel of land covered by
Transfer Certificate of Title No. (73196) that he
needs an amount of One Hundred Thousand
Pesos (P100,000.00) so that he could
reconstitute the torrens title on the same;
3. Partly evidenced by their written agreement.
4. Deliver the reconstituted title and give the
P170,000.00 to the petitioners spouses all
within a period of three months reckoned
from their execution of their written
agreement dated January 12, 2001;
5. After respondent lawyer, Antoniutti K. Palana
had gotten the P100,000.00
6. Had intentionally evaded the performance of
his due, just, legal and demandable obligations
to petitioner spouses.
7. Legal demands had already been made to
respondent lawyer but all of said demands
simply went unheeded
8. Despite due notice, respondent failed to file
his answer to the complaint as required by the
Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP.
Respondent likewise failed to appear.
9. The IBP declared respondent to have waived
his right.
10. Suspension from the practice of law for three
(3) months.
11. Petitioner Tejada was prove that there was an
arrangement and Atty. Palaa received the
P100,000 peso. Also it was prove that there
are demand letters sent to the respondent but
did nothing about it.
12. But the burden to prove that the respondent
fraudulently represent himself with the land
that he was the owner failed.
13. His failure to appear and answer on the
complaint was a violation to Sec. 2 Rule 138.
flouting resistance on the lawful order of court
14. IBP Governor Board adopted and approve the
findings of IBP Commissioner for refusal to
settle his obligations and failure to participate
in the proceedings at Commissions of Bar.
CANON 1
OBEY THE LAWS
Appear on the proceedings flouting
resistance on the lawful order of court.
PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND FOR
LEGAL PROCESSES
For his failure to answer

CANON 1.01
DECEITFUL CONDUCT
False representation for 100,000 which it
can only cost 3,645 and P20,000 in 2001

RULE 1.02
LESSENING CONFIDENCE IN THE LEGAL
SYSTEM
As he failed to live and embodied the CPR.

CANON 7
UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY
Unjustifiable withholding of petitioners
money years after it became due and
demandable
SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE
INTEGRATED BAR
Proceedings

RULE 7.03
PUBLIC OR PRIVATE LIFE
Financial obligations private life

RULE 1.01
CONTINUED POSSESSION
Good and regular standing

15. It is not enough that s/he denies the charges

against him; s/he must meet the issue and
overcome the evidence against him/her.
16. S/he must show proof that s/he still maintains
that degree of morality and integrity which at
all time is expected of him/her.
17. Lawyers Oath to delay no man for money or
malice as well as the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
18. Representations were false since the filing fee
for a petition for reconstitution in 2001 was
only P3,145
19. Other expenses including the publication of
the filing of the petition could not have cost
more than P20,000

HIS UNLAWFUL ACTS

1. Failure to pay the just and legal obligation

When he failed to pay his just and legal
obligation
2. Disobey the provision of the Court
He disobeyed the provisions of the Civil
Code which is one of the substantive laws
he vowed to uphold when he took his oath
as a lawyer.
3. Ignoring the directives done by IBP
He totally ignored the directives of IBP to
answer the complaint when he fully knew
as a lawyer that the compulsory bar
organization.
In which it is an organization formally
deputized by the court to investigate
complaints against lawyers.

20. Atty. Palaa is suspended for 6 months and

ordered to pay his loan obligation within 2
months from the date of this decision
promulgation.
 JUDGE RENE BACULI 1. During a hearing for a motion for
vs reconsideration, Atty. Battung was shouting
ATTY. MELCHOR BATTUNG while arguing.
2. Judge Baculi advised home to tone down, but
instead he continue shouting at the top of his
voice.
3. When Judge Baculi warned him for direct
contempt, Atty. Battung shouted then cite
me!
4. Baculi cited him for direct content, then
imposed a fine P100,000.
5. Atty. Battung left.
6. While other cases being heard, Atty. Battung
re-entered the court room and shouted I will
file gross ignorance against you, Im not afraid
of you!
7. Judge Baculi ordered the sheriff to escort him
out of the court room and cited him for direct
contempt for 2nd time
8. After the hearing, Judge Baculi went out and
Atty. Battung was waiting for him.
9. Respondent again shouted and threatened
Judge Baculi.
10. Staff and lawyers escorted him out of the
building.
11. Judge Baculi learned that when Atty Battung
left the court room, he continued shouting and
punched the table at the office of clerk court.
12. When atty. Battung filed an ejectment case,
Judge Baculi rendered a decision and after
13. Modifications- it became final and executory.
14. The clerk of the branch issued a certificate of
finality
15. Atty. Battung, as respondent filed a motion to
quash the execution as a ground to filed by the
defendant of lack of jurisdiction.
16. Judge Baculi said that, as a Lawyer, he knew
that an ejectment case are within the
jurisdiction of first level courts. His actions was
merely delaying the speedy and efficient
administration of justice.
17. Respondent answers was, Judge Baculi is the
one who disrespected him.
18. When Judge Baculi told me, Justify your
negligence before this court, which is an
impression for the public that I am,
NEGLIGENT, INCOMPETENT, MUMBLING,
 IRRESPONSIBLE LAWYER THAT MADE ME
REACT THAT WAY.
19. He force me to argue and uses the court room
to humiliate me.
20. Atty. Battung asked to dismiss the case.
21. During the investigation of IBP Commissioner,
Both parties agreed that the original copy of
the tape will be submitted to IBP for Review
22. Judge Baculi submitted the tape 2
stenographic notes.
23. Thereafter, it was observed that both were
already shouting at each other.
24. Atty. Battung, respondent. Claimed that he
was provoked by presiding judge that is why
he shouted back at him
25. But after hearing the tape, found out that Atty.
Battung was the one shouted first.
26. There are other lawyers and litigants who
submit their joint affidavit, stood as one telling
that it was Atty. Battung who shouted first.
27. Respondents failed to observe Canon 11 and
11.03

CANON 11
Lawyers requires to observe and maintain respect
to courts and judges.

CANON 11.03
Lawyers shall abstain from scandalous, menacing
language or behavior before courts.

28. Atty. Baculi should not have shouted the

judge, but he just need to file an action before
Office of Court Administrator if he believed
Justice Baculi did not act according to the
norms of court.
29. IBP Commissioner recommended 6 months
suspension.
30. IBP Governors adopt and recommended to be
reprimanded.
31. When the respondent publicly berated and
brazen threatened Judge Baculi that he would
file a case for gross ignorance of the law
against the latter
32. The respondent effectively acted in a manner
tending to erode the public confidence in
Judge Baculis competence and in his ability to
decide cases.
33. Under the Rules of Court; an objecting or
complaining lawyer cannot act in a manner
that puts the court in a bad light and bring the
justice system into disrepute.
34. WHEREOF, in view of the foregoing, Atty.
Melchor A. Battung is found GUILTY f violating
Rule 11.03, Canon 11 of the of Professional
Responsibility, for which he is SUSPENDED
from the practice of law for one (1) year
effective upon the finality of this Decision.

COURT RULING:
1. Found that Atty. Battung violated, Canon
11 and 11.03 disrespected Judge Baculi
when he shouted at Judge Baculi inside
the courtroom in the presence of litigants
and other lawyers.
2. It was seen by many witnesses, and
respondent continued to threaten Judge
Baculi even he was cited for a direct
contempt.
3. Plus, he even returned to the courtroom,
disrupt the ongoing proceedings.
4. Actions is not just against a person, but
also against court and to those disrupted
proceedings.
 JOSELITO F. TEJANO 1. Joselito F. Tejanofiled an Affidavit-Complaint1
vs beofre the Office of the Court Administrator
ATTY. BENJAMIN F. BATERINA (OCA) of the Supreme Court against Judge
Dominador LL. Arquelada. Presiding Judge of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and Tejanos
own counsel, Atty. Baterina.
2. Tejano accused Judge Arquelada of acting in
conspiracy with Atty. Baterina for the former
to take possession of his (Tejano) property
which is being under on a judge court.
3. A suit for recovery of the possession was filed
by Tejano, his mother and sister against
province of Ilocos Sur
4. It is the land used for construction of an access
road which was wholly owned by Tejanos
Family without a proper expropriation
proceedings.
5. Tejano accused Judge Arquelada of colluding
with Atty. Baterina in the formers bid to take
possession of their property and was
collectiong rentals from squatters who had
set up their businesses inside the whole of
Lot[No.] 5663.
6. In support of the accusations,
1. Attached copy of transfer certificate
title and lot no in the name of Karen
Laderas (Daughter of Judge Arquelada)
2. Receipts of rent paid to Terencio
Florendo ( sheriff at sala of Judge
Arquelada)
3. Receipt of rent paid to Aida Calibuso
(being noted by Laderas in collecting
rents)
4. And other receipts.
7. As to his counsel, Tejano alleged that Atty.
Baterina,
1. Failed to object when the trial court
pronounced that he and his co-
plaintiffs had waived their right to
present evidence after several
postponements in the trial because his
mother was ill and confined at the
hospital.
2. Manifested in open court that he
would file a motion for
reconsideration of the order declaring
their presentation of evidence
 terminated but failed to actually do so.
3. Not only failed to file said motion for
reconsideration but also declared in
open court that they would not be
presenting any witnesses without
consulting his clients.
4. Failed to comply with the trial courts
order to submit their formal offer of
exhibits.
8. The court administrator informed Tejano that
OCA has no jurisdiction over Atty. Baterina .
Tejano also informed that it should be filed at
OBC.
9. The court ordered Atty. Baterina to file a
comment on why he should not be disciplinary
dealt.
10. Atty. Baterina explained that he is
recuperating form a kidney transplant when
he received a complaint. He begged the Court
of Indulgence and his failure to comply doesnt
mean he want to disrespect the court.
11. Atty. Baterina also denied the allegation of bad
faith and negligence in handling the Tejano
case.
12. Reasons why he cat attend on case:
1. He was suspended for 2 years which he
was informed Tejano and his mother.
13. However, the court did not order for plaintiffs
to secure the another services of a lawyer.
14. They were not represented by a lawyer until
such time the case dismissed.
15. Atty. Baterina also said that there is bias and
conflict of interest of Judge alquelada as the
culprit in Tejano Predicament.
16. Resolution, found Atty. Baterinas explanation
not satisfactoryand admonished him to be
more heedful of the Courts directives in order
to avoid delay in the disposition of [the] case.
17. Respondents failed to inform the RTC that he
cant appear in representation of his client as
he was suspended for 2 years.
18. He should exerted a prudelence of properly
informing RTC to protect the night of his
clients.
19. He also failed to relay the consequences to his
clients and advised them to seek another
councel for appearance.
20. Meaning the inaction of Atty. Baterina falls a
 short diligence required as a lawyer.
21. IBP Governor adopted the resolution Atty.
Baterina is suspended 2 years but deleted the
fine.

RULING OF COURT
CANON 18
DILIGENCE
Inaction of Atty. Baterina

RULE 18.03
SHALL NOT NEGLECT A LEGAL MATTER
ENTUSTED TO HIM
Failure to inaction

RULE 18.04
SHALL KEEP THE LIENT INFORMED OF THE
STATUS OF HIS CASE
Failure to inform and advise his clients.

22. Atty. Baterinas duty to his clients did not

automatically cease with his suspension.
23. Suspension gave him a concomitant
responsibility to inform his clients that he
would be unable to attend to their case and
advise them to retain another counsel.
24. The client should never be left groping in the
dark and instead must be adequately and
fully informed about he developments in his
case.
25. Atty. Baterina practically abandoned this duty
when he allowed the proceedings to run its
course without any effort to safeguard his
clients.
26. Atty. Baterinas reckless disregard for orders
and directives of the courts is unbecoming of a
member of the Bar.
27. Not only did he fail to follow the trial courts
orders in his clients case, he even disregarded
court orders in his own disciplinary
proceedings.
28. He simply let the orders go unheeded,
neglecting his duty to the Court.
29. Atty. Abterina know that a resolution of this
Court is not a mere request but an order in
which should be complied with promptly and
completely.
30. Atty. Baterina was also suspended for two
 years after being found guilty of gross
misconduct. In that case, Arceli Sipin-Nabor
filed a complaint against Atty. Baterina for
failing to file her Answer.
31. Atty. Baterina was also found to have
convert[ed] the money of his client to his own
personal use without her consent.
32. Receiv[ed] the complaint into giving him the
amount of P2,000.00 purportedly to be used
for filing an answer with counterclaim which
he never did.
33. These two disciplinary cases against Atty.
Baterina show a pattern of neglecting his duty
to his clients.
34. As well as a propensity for disrespecting the
authority of the courts.
35. Such incorrigible behavior is unacceptable and
will not be tolerated among the members of
the Bar.
36. The Court deems it proper impose on Atty.
Baterina a longer suspension period of five (5)
years.
37. Atty. Benjamin F. Baterina is found GUILTY of
gross negligence. He is SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for five (5) years. He is also
STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the
same or a similar offense will be dealt with no
more severely.
PUNO J., CHAIRPERSON , SANDOVAL- GUTIERREZ
VS
CORONA, AZCUNA AND GARCIA, JJ.
RULING OF THE COURT
1. Lawyers may enforce his right by filing a
petition however avoid multiplicity of suit.
2. Pasig RTC branch had the jurisdiction over the
declaration of nullity of marriage but not a
motion for legal fees.
3. The 50M respondents demanding was 10% of
the properties awarded to the petitioner
4. Respondents were clearly demanding for
Additional fees in the case rendered.
5. The professional engagement with the
petitioner and respondents was governed by
quantum meruit AS MUCH AS LAWYERS
DESERVES
6. There is no agreement for the payment of
attorneys fees which serves as legal
mechanism that prevents a client from running
away on his obligations.
7. RULE 20.4 OF CPR, advices the lawyers to
avoid controversies with clients on their
compensation.
8. Suit to collect fees should be avoided and filed
only on the circumstances of ------ no other
way.
9. In this case, respondent seek for payment
theyve not meant to collect as they were
already adequately paid.
10. Practice of Law is a decent profession and not
a money making trade avoid nagsasamantala.
11. Respondent petition about the additional fees
was unjustified.
12. They should not charge the petitioner based
on percentage or absent of agreement.
13. Payments in cash, checks, free products,
services from petitioners business is sufficient
enough on their services as they not derived it
on the first place.
14. Power of the court to reduce or even damage
professional fees cannot be derived as they
submit themselves over the authority of the
court and subjected their fees to judicial
control.
15. -----------
1. Aurora Pineda filed an action for declaration of
nullity of marriage against petitioner Vinson

CLARITA SAMALA vs ATTY. LUCIANO VALENCIA
Pineda.
2. The Petitioner Vinson Pineda represented by:
1. Atty. Clodualdo de Jesus
2. Carlos Ambrosio
3. Emmanuel Mariano
3. Aurora proposed a settlement to petitioner
regarding to her visitation rights of their minor
child and their properties.
4. The petition of Aurora is approved and both
parties filed a motion of their agreement.
5. Trial court declared null and void the marriage
of Aurora Pineda and Vinson Pineda.
6. Throughout the proceedings, counsels were all
well compensated including their friends and
relatives, even availed free products and
treatments from Auroras derma clinic.
7. Counsels of the respondent billed 16.4M
which Aurora refused to pay.
8. Petitioner issued several checks of 1.12M for
settlement
9. However, counsels still not satisfied are filed a
motion for payment of lawyers fees
amounting to 50M.
10. Trial court ordered petitioner to pay 5M to
Atty. De Jesus, 2M to Atty. Ambrosio and 2M
to Atty. Mariano.
11. CA reduced it into 1M, 500,000 and 500,000.
ISSUE:
Whether RTC Pasig had jurisdiction over
the claim for additional fees
Whether respondents were entitled for
additional fees.
A DISBARMENT CASE FILED BECAUSE OF THE
FOLLOWING REASONS:
1. Serving two separate occasions as counsel
for contending parties
2. Misleading the court by submitting false
documentary evidences
3. Initiating cases in exchange for
nonpayment of rental fees
4. Being immoral by siring illegitimate
children