Alyssa Abigael C.

Gomez
1A
A.C. No. 8954 November 13, 2013
HON. MARIBETH RODRIGUEZ-MANAHAN
vs.
ATTY. RODOLFO FLORES

Facts:

Respondent Atty. Rodolto Flores (Atty. Flores) was counsel for the defendant in a civil case for damages

filed before the Municipal Trial Court of San Mateo, Rizal and presided by herein complainant Judge Manahan.

During the proceedings in such civil case, Judge Manahan issued an Order, whereby she voluntarily inhibited

from hearing the civil case because of the unethical actuations of Atty. Flores and his traits of dishonesty and

discourtesy which is not only directed to his own brethren in the legal profession, but also to the bench and

judges. This actuations would amount to grave misconduct, if not a malpractice of law, a serious ground for

disciplinary action of a member of the bar pursuant to Rules 139 a & b.

Upon receipt of the copy of the above Order, the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) deemed the

pronouncements of Judge Manahan as a formal administrative Complaint against Atty. Flores.

x x x During the Preliminary Conference of the civil case handled by Atty. Floresx x x, he entered his

appearance and was given time to file a Pre-Trial Brief. x x x Atty. Flores filed his Pre-Trial Brief but without

proof of MCLE compliance hence it was expunged from the records without prejudice to the filing of another Pre-

Trial Brief containing the required MCLE compliance. x x x Atty. Flores asked for ten (10) days to submit proof.

The preliminary conference was reset several times for failure of respondent Atty. Flores to appear and submit his

Pre-Trial Brief indicating thereon his MCLE compliance. The court a quo likewise issued Orders giving

respondent Atty. Flores a last chance to submit his Pre-Trial Brief with stern warning that failure to do so shall be

considered a waiver on his part.

Meanwhile, respondent Atty. Flores filed a Manifestation in Court dated September 14, 2010 stating

among others, the following allegations:

xxxx

4. When you took your oath as member of the Bar, you promised to serve truth, justice and fair play. Do you think

you are being truthful, just and fair by serving a cheater?

5. Ignorance of the law excuses no one for which reason even Erap was convicted by the Sandiganbayan. But

even worse is a lawyer who violates the law.

6. Last but not the least, God said Thou shall not lie. Again the Philippine Constitution commands: Give every

Filipino his due. The act of refusal by the plaintiff is violative of the foregoing divine and human laws.

xxxx

Respondent Atty. Flores later filed his Pre-Trial Brief bearing an MCLE number which was merely

superimposed without indicating the date and place of compliance. During the preliminary conference, respondent
Alyssa Abigael C. Gomez
1A
Atty. Flores manifested that he will submit proof of compliance of his MCLE on the following day. Again, Atty.

Flores failed to do so. Instead, respondent Atty. Flores filed a Letter of even date stating as follows:

If only to give your Honor another chance to prove your pro plaintiff sentiment, I am hereby filing the attached

Motion which you may once more assign to the waste basket of nonchalance.

With the small respect that still remains, I have asked the defendant to look for another lawyer to represent him

for I am no longer interested in this case because I feel I cannot do anything right in your sala.

The Investigating Judge found Atty. Flores to have failed to give due respect to the court by failing to obey court

orders, by failing to submit proof of his compliance with the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE)

requirement, and for using intemperate language in his pleadings. The Investigating Judge recommended that

Atty. Flores be suspended from the practice of law for one year.

Issue: WON there is misconduct on the part of Atty. Flores?

Ruling: Yes, there is misconduct on the part of Atty. Flores.

There is no doubt that Atty. Flores failed to obey the trial court’s order to submit proof of his MCLE

compliance notwithstanding the several opportunities given him. "Court orders are to be respected not because the

judges who issue them should be respected, but because of the respect and consideration that should be extended

to the judicial branch of the Government. This is absolutely essential if our Government is to be a government of

laws and not of men. Respect must be had not because of the incumbents to the positions, but because of the

authority that vests in them. Disrespect to judicial incumbents is disrespect to that branc the Government to which

they belong, as well as to the State which has instituted the judicial system."

Atty. Flores also employed intemperate language in his pleadings. As an officer of the court, Atty. Flores

is expected to be circumspect in his language. Rule 11.03, Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility

enjoins all attorneys to abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing language or behavior before the Courts.

Atty. Flores failed in this respect.

At this juncture, it is well to remind respondent that: While a lawyer owes absolute fidelity to the cause of

his client full devotion to his client's genuine interest and warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his client's

rights, as well as the exertion of his utmost learning and ability, he must do so only within the bounds of law. A

lawyer is entitled to voice his c1iticism within the context of the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech,

which must be exercised responsibly. After all, every right carries with it the corresponding obligation. Freedom

is not freedom from responsibility, but freedom with responsibility. The lawyer's fidelity to his client must not be

pursued at the expense of truth and orderly administration of justice. It must be done within the confines of reason

and common sense.

Alyssa Abigael C. Gomez
1A
A.C. No. 9310 February 27, 2013
VERLEEN TRINIDAD
vs.
ATTY. ANGELITO VILLARIN

Facts:

The instant case stemmed from a Complaint for specific performance filed with the Housing and Land

Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) by the buyers of the lots in Don Jose Zavalla Subdivision against the

subdivision's owner and developer- Purence Realty Corporation and Roberto Bassig.

In the final adjudication of that case, the HLURB ordered the respondents therein to accept the payments

of the buyers under the old purchase price. These buyers included some of the complainants in the instant case, to

wit: Florentina Lander, Celedonio Alojado, Aurea Tolentino and Rosendo Villamin.

The HLURB ordered the owner and the developer to deliver the Deeds of Sale and the Transfer

Certificates of Title to the winning litigants. The Decision did not evince any directive for the buyers to vacate

the property.

Purence Realty and Roberto Bassig did not appeal the Decision, thus making it final and executory.

Thereafter, the HLURB issued a Writ of Execution. It was at this point that respondent Villarin entered his special

appearance to represent Purence Realty. Specifically, he filed an Omnibus Motion to set aside the Decision and to

quash the Writ of Execution for being null and void on the ground of lack of jurisdiction due to the improper

service of summons on his client. This motion was not acted upon by the HLURB.

The respondent sent demand letters to herein complainants. In all of these letters, he demanded that they

immediately vacate the property and surrender it to Purence Realty within five days from receipt. Otherwise, he

would file the necessary action against them.

True enough, Purence Realty, as represented by respondent, filed a Complaint for forcible entry before

the MTC. Aggrieved, the four complainants filed an administrative case against respondent. A month after,

Alojado, Villamin and Tolentino filed a disbarment case against respondent.

As found by the IBP and affirmed by its Board of Governors, complainants asserted in their respective

verified Complaints that the demand letters sent by Villarin had been issued with malice and intent to harass them.

They insisted that the letters also contravened the HLURB Decision ordering his client to permit the buyers to pay

the balance of the purchase price of the subdivision lots.

In his Position Paper, Villarin denied the allegations of harassment and claimed that no malice attended

the sending of the demand letters. He narrated that when he inquired at the HLURB, he was informed that his

client did not receive a summons pertinent to the Complaint for specific damages. With this information, he

formed the conclusion that the HLURB Decision was void and not binding on Purence Realty. Since his client

was the lawful owner of the property, respondent issued the ejectment letters, which were indispensable in an
Alyssa Abigael C. Gomez
1A
action for unlawful detainer. Moreover, he insisted that the addressees of the letters were different from the

complainants who had filed the case with the HLURB.

Issue: Whether respondent should be administratively sanctioned for sending the demand letters despite a final

and executory HLURB Decision directing, not the ejectment of complainants, but the payment of the purchase

price of the lots by the subdivision buyers

Ruling: Yes such issuance was malicious. According to its Report, respondent counsel merely acted on his legal

theory that the HLURB Decision was not binding on his client, since it had not received the summons. Espousing

the belief that the proceedings in the HLURB were void, Villarin pursued the issuance of demand letters as a

prelude to the ejectment case he would later on file to protect the property rights of his client.

As the lawyer of Purence Realty, respondent is expected to champion the cause of his client with

wholehearted fidelity, care, and devotion.This simply means that his client is entitled to the benefit of any and

every remedy and defense – including the institution of an ejectment case – that is recognized by our property

laws.

Nevertheless, the Code of Professional Responsibility provides the limitation that lawyers shall perform

their duty to the client within the bounds of law. They should only make such defense only when they believe it to

be honestly debatable under the law.

In this case, respondent’s act of issuing demand letters, moved by the understanding of a void HLURB

Decision, is legally sanctioned. If his theory holds water, the notice to vacate becomes necessary in order to file an

action for ejectment. Hence, he did not resort to any fraud or chicanery prohibited by the Code, just to maintain

his client’s disputed ownership over the subdivision lots.

Even so, respondent cannot be considered free of error. The factual findings of the IBP board of

governors reveal that in his demand letter, he brazenly typified one of the complainants, Florentina Lander, as an

illegal occupant. However, this description is the exact opposite of the truth, since the final and executory

HLURB Decision had already recognized her as a subdivision lot buyer who had a right to complete her payments

in order to occupy her property. Respondent is very much aware of this ruling when he filed an Omnibus Motion

to set aside the HLURB Decision and the appurtenant Writ of Execution.

Given that respondent knew that the aforementioned falsity totally disregarded the HLURB Decision, he

thus advances the interest of his client through means that are not in keeping with fairness and honesty. What he

does is clearly proscribed by Rule 19.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which requires that a lawyer

shall employ only fair and honest means to attain lawful objectives. Lawyers must not present and offer in

evidence any document that they know is false.