Legal Profession Cases

1. GRANDE V. DE SILVA (407 SCRA 310)

Facts:
Complainant Emilio Grande was the private offended party in Criminal Cases Nos. 96-1346 to 96-1353, filed with the
Regional Trial Court of Marikina City, Branch 273, for Estafa and Violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22, entitled
"People of the Philippines, Plaintiff versus Sergio Natividad, Accused." During the proceedings, respondent Atty.
Evangeline de Silva, counsel for the accused, tendered to complainant Check No. 0023638 in the amount of
P144,768.00, drawn against her account with the Philippine National Bank, as settlement of the civil aspect of the case
against her client. Complainant refused to accept the check, but respondent assured him that the same will be paid
upon its presentment to her drawee bank. She manifested that as a lawyer, she would not issue a check which is not
sufficiently funded. Thus, respondent was prevailed upon by complainant to accept the check. Consequently, he
desisted from participating as a complaining witness in the criminal case, which led to the dismissal of the same and
the release of the accused, Sergio Natividad.

When complainant deposited the check, the same was returned unpaid by the drawee bank for the reason: "Account
Closed." On June 19, 1997, complainant wrote a letter to respondent demanding that she pay the face value of the
check. However, his demand was ignored by respondent; hence, he instituted a criminal complaint against her for
Estafa and Violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Marikina, which was
docketed as I.S. No. 97-1036. On September 22, 1997, the Marikina City Prosecutor filed the necessary information for
violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 against respondent Atty. Evangeline de Silva.

On November 10, 1997, complainant filed the instant administrative complaint for disbarment of respondent for deceit
and violation of the Lawyer's Oath.

Issue: Whether or not Atty. De Silva should be disbarred on the aforementioned grounds?

Ruling:
In a Report dated December 6, 2001, Investigating Commissioner Florimond C. Rous found respondent guilty of deceit,
gross misconduct and violation of the Lawyer's Oath. Thus, he recommended that respondent be suspended from the
practice of law for two (2) years.

The record shows that respondent prevailed upon complainant to accept her personal check by way of settlement for
the civil liability of her client, Sergio Natividad, with the assurance that the check will have sufficient funds when
presented for payment. In doing so, she deceived complainant into withdrawing his complaint against her client in
exchange for a check which she drew against a closed account. It is clear that the breach of trust committed by
respondent in issuing a bouncing check amounted to deceit and constituted a violation of her oath, for which she
should be accordingly penalized. Such an act constitutes gross misconduct and the penalties for such malfeasance is
prescribed by Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court.

Needless to state, respondent's persistent refusal to comply with lawful orders directed at her with not even an
explanation for doing so is contumacious conduct which merits no compassion. The duty of a lawyer is to uphold the
integrity and dignity of the legal profession at all times. She can only do this by faithfully performing her duties to
society, to the bar, to the courts and to her clients. The court cannot tolerate any misconduct that tends to besmirch the
fair name of an honorable profession.

CANON 1. A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE
RESPECT FOR LEGAL PROCESSES.

2. EDQUIBAL V. FERRER, JR. (450 SCRA 406)

Facts:
Complainant alleged that he engaged the services of respondent to assist his mother Ursula Edquibal in cases she filed
against his sister Delia Edquibal-Garcia involving a certain real property in Masinloc, Zambales. His mother obtained
favorable judgments in four (4) out of the five (5) cases handled by respondent. However, in Civil Case No. RTC- 1495-I
(filed with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 70, Iba, Zambales), the trial judge rendered a decision adverse to his
mother. Respondent then advised complainant to appeal to the Court of Appeals and that the cost involved is
P4,000.00. When complainant informed respondent that he does not have enough money, the latter said P2,000.00
would be sufficient for the moment. After receiving the money from complainant, respondent told him just to wait for
the result. The appeal was docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 65019.
 When complainant failed to hear from respondent in January 2001, he went to the Court of Appeals to follow-up the
appealed case. He then learned that the appeal was dismissed for failure of the appellant to file the required appellant's
brief.

In his comment 2 dated June 2, 2003, respondent denied that he filed an appeal, on behalf of complainant's mother,
with the Court of Appeals or received P2,000.00. What happened was that complainant told him that there is someone
in the Court of Appeals who can help him regarding his appeal. Respondent claimed that he "did his best" for
complainant's mother and did not even ask for attorney's fees.

Issue: Whether or not Atty. Ferrer, Jr. is guilty of professional misconduct and neglect of duty.

Ruling:
It is clear from the records of this case that per the records of CA-G.R. CV No. 65019, Respondent is the counsel of
record of defendants-appellants therein (including Complainant's mother). In the Resolution dated 31 August 2000, it
was explicitly noted that 'Notice sent to counsel for defendants-appellants requiring him to file appellant's brief within
forty-five (45) days from receipt thereof was received by him on March 16, 2000.' If it is true that Respondent never
agreed to handle the appeal, upon receipt of said notice, Respondent should have immediately manifested to the Court
of Appeals that he is not handling the appeal on behalf of said defendants-appellants. Thus, Section 2, Rule 44 of the
Rules of Civil Procedure clearly states that 'The counsel and guardians ad litem of the parties in the court of origin shall
be respectively considered as their counsel and guardians ad litem in the Court of Appeals.' By failing to do so, the
Court of Appeals had every reason to assume that he was likewise representing defendants-appellants in the appeal.
Accordingly, his failure to timely file the required appellants' brief resulted in the dismissal of the appeal.

The facts of this case clearly show that Respondent violated Canon 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
('CPR').

Undoubtedly, Respondent's failure to exercise due diligence in protecting and attending to the interest of Complainant
(Complainant's mother) caused the latter material prejudice. It should be remembered that the moment a lawyer takes
a client's cause, he covenants that he will exert all effort for its prosecution until its final conclusion. A lawyer who fails
to exercise due diligence or abandons his client's cause makes him unworthy of the trust reposed in him by the latter. .
. ."

Wherefore, He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3) months with a WARNING that a repetition of the
same or a similar offense shall be dealt with more severely. He is further DIRECTED to return immediately to the
complainant the amount of P2,000.00.

"Canon 17 — A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and
confidence reposed in him.
Canon 18 — A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.

Rule 18.03 — A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection
therewith shall render him liable.
Rule 18.04 — A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a
reasonable time to his client's request for information."

3. RAMOS V. IMBANG (A.C. NO. 6788, AUGUST 23, 2007)

Facts:
In 1992, the complainant Diana Ramos sought the assistance of respondent Atty. Jose R. Imbang in filing civil and
criminal actions against the spouses Roque and Elenita Jovellanos. She gave respondent P8,500 as attorney's fees but
the latter issued a receipt for P5,000 only.

The complainant tried to attend the scheduled hearings of her cases against the Jovellanoses. Oddly, respondent never
allowed her to enter the courtroom and always told her to wait outside. He would then come out after several hours to
inform her that the hearing had been cancelled and rescheduled. This happened six times and for each "appearance" in
court, respondent charged her P350.

After six consecutive postponements, the complainant became suspicious. She personally inquired about the status of
her cases in the trial courts of Biñ an and San Pedro, Laguna. She was shocked to learn that respondent never filed any
case against the Jovellanoses and that he was in fact employed in the Public Attorney's Office (PAO).
 Issue: Whether or not Atty. Jose R. Imbang should be disbarred or suspended for multiple violations of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.

Ruling:
The Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) rejected respondent's claim that he issued the receipt to accommodate a
friend's request. It found respondent guilty of violating the prohibitions on government lawyers from accepting private
cases and receiving lawyer's fees other than their salaries.

In this instance, respondent received P5,000 from the complainant and issued a receipt on July 15, 1992 while he was
still connected with the PAO. Acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney-client relationship. 26
Respondent's admission that he accepted money from the complainant and the receipt confirmed the presence of an
attorney-client relationship between him and the complainant. Moreover, the receipt showed that he accepted the
complainant's case while he was still a government lawyer. Respondent clearly violated the prohibition on private
practice of profession.

Aside from disregarding the prohibitions against handling private cases and accepting attorney's fees, respondent also
surreptitiously deceived the complainant. Not only did he fail to file a complaint against the Jovellanoses (which in the
first place he should not have done), respondent also led the complainant to believe that he really filed an action
against the Jovellanoses. He even made it appear that the cases were being tried and asked the complainant to pay his
"appearance fees" for hearings that never took place. These acts constituted dishonesty, a violation of the lawyer's oath
not to do any falsehood.

WHEREFORE, Atty. Jose R. Imbang is found guilty of violating the lawyer's oath, Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 18, Rule
18.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, he is hereby DISBARRED from the practice of law and his
name is ORDERED STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys. He is also ordered to return to complainant the amount of
P5,000 with interest at the legal rate, reckoned from 1995, within 10 days from receipt of this resolution.

CANON 1. — A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE
RESPECT FOR THE LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES.
Canon 18 — A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.
Rule 18.01. A lawyer should not undertake a legal service which he knows or should know that he is not
qualified to render. However, he may render such service if, with the consent of his client, he can obtain as
collaborating counsel a lawyer who is competent on the matter.

4. DAVILA V. GENEROSO (336 SCRA 576)

Facts:
Ms. Alice Davila filed a complaint on undue delay in the disposition of Criminal Case No. 12293 before respondent
Presiding Judge of Branch 34 of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City. Complainant Davila alleged that subject
criminal case was deemed submitted for decision way back on February 16, 1993 but has remained undecided.
Thereafter, the respondent judge was ordered to explain his failure to decide subject Criminal Case No. 12293 and to
comply with the directives of the Court Administrator in connection therewith. However, even after several resolutions
was issued, the respondent judge utterly failed to heed the orders of the Court.

Issue: Whether or not Judge Generoso is guilty of delaying the disposition of Davila’s case.

Ruling:
The Court Administrator recommended the dismissal from the service of respondent judge, with forfeiture of all
benefits and leave credits and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including
government-owned or controlled corporation.

After a careful study, and considering the failure of respondent judge to explain the undue delay in the disposition of
subject cases before his court and his repeated failure to comply with the orders issued in connection therewith, the
Court finds merit in the recommendation of the Court Administrator.

The failure of respondent judge to comply with the show-cause resolutions aforecited constitutes "grave and serious
misconduct affecting his fitness and worthiness of the honor and integrity attached to his office." It is noteworthy that
respondent judge was afforded several opportunities to explain his failure to decide the subject cases long pending
before his court and to comply with the directives of the Court, but he has failed, and continues to fail, to heed the
 orders of the Court, a glaring proof that he has become disinterested in his position in the judicial system to which he
belongs.

Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which provides that "[a] judge shall dispose of the court's
business promptly and decide cases within the required periods.

5. SSS V. CORRAL (440 SCRA 291)

Facts:
SSS sought to disbar respondent Atty. Napoleon Corral for preparing, notarizing, and filing with the Commission's
Regional Office in Bacolod City two complaints allegedly executed and verified by people who have been long dead.

The Commission alleged that respondent filed the first spurious complaint on April 18, 1986, on behalf of one
Hermogenes Bareno. The complaint was signed by respondent himself, but appeared to have been verified by Bareno
with a thumbmark and acknowledged before respondent on April 16, 1986. Later, upon investigation, it was
discovered that Bareno had died two years earlier.

The second spurious complaint, for its part, was filed on September 10, 1987, on behalf of one Domingo N. Panadero,
under similar circumstances. The complaint was likewise signed by respondent himself and likewise appeared to have
been verified by Panadero with a thumbmark and acknowledged before respondent shortly prior to filing. When this
complaint was investigated, it was discovered that Panadero had also died long before.

Adding to these charges, the Commission filed on May 16, 1994, a Supplemental Complaint. The Commission added
that on July 12, 1990, respondent had filed a third similarly spurious complaint. Like the other two complaints, the
third complaint was signed by respondent himself and likewise appeared to have been subscribed and sworn to before
him in Bacolod by the purported complainant, one Catalino de la Cruz, who, upon being investigated, declared in an
affidavit that he had never been to Bacolod City for the last ten years, that he had never verified any such complaint,
and that he did not even know who respondent was.

Issue: Whether or not Atty. Corral was guilty for misconduct and unethical practice of law.

Ruling:
Respondent failed to exercise utmost diligence in the performance of his duty under Section 1(a) of Public Act No.
2103, which requires a party to any document notarized by a notary public to personally appear before the latter.
Bareno, Panadero, and de la Cruz did not personally appear before respondent. The death certificates presented show
that both Bareno and Panadero had long been dead, while de la Cruz's unrebutted affidavit proves he had never been
to Bacolod City where he supposedly verified the complaint. It is a mystery, then, how respondent, in notarizing the
complaints, could have certified that Bareno, Panadero and de la Cruz personally appeared before him and swore to
the truth of the facts stated in the complaints.

By recklessly notarizing the complaints without ascertaining that Hermogenes Bareno, Domingo Panadero, and
Catalino de la Cruz were indeed personally appearing before him to attest to the contents and truth of what were
stated in the complaints he prepared, respondent undermined the confidence of the public on notarial documents. He
breached Canon I of the Code of Professional Responsibility which requires lawyers to uphold the Constitution, obey
the laws of the land and promote respect for the law and legal processes, and Rule 1.01 thereof, which proscribes
lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. Serious doubts exist in his fitness to
continue as a member of an esteemed and honorable profession.

WHEREFORE, for violating Public Act No. 2103, Section 1(a) and the Code of Professional Responsibility, respondent
Atty. Napoleon Corral's notarial commission, if still extant, is INDEFINITELY SUSPENDED.

Section 1(a) of Public Act No. 2103, which requires a party to any document notarized by a notary public to
personally appear before the latter.

6. TOLENTINO V. MENDOZA (440 SCRA 519)

Facts:
Complainants allege in their Affidavit-Complaint that respondent, a former Municipal Trial Court Judge, abandoned his
legal wife, Felicitas V. Valderia in favor of his paramour, Marilyn dela Fuente, who is, in turn, married to one Ramon G.
Marcos; respondent and Marilyn dela Fuente have been cohabiting openly and publicly as husband and wife in Brgy.
 Estrella, Naujan, Oriental Mindoro; respondent had fathered two children by his paramour Marilyn dela Fuente;
respondent and Marilyn dela Fuente declared in the birth certificates of their two daughters that they were married on
May 12, 1986, making it appear that their two children are legitimate, while in respondent's Certificate of Candidacy
filed with the COMELEC during the 1995 elections, respondent declared that his wife is Felicitas V. Valderia; in
respondent's certificate of candidacy for the 1998 elections, he declared his civil status as separated; such declarations
in the birth certificates of his children and in his certificate of candidacy are acts constituting falsification of public
documents; and respondent's acts betray his lack of good moral character and constitute grounds for his removal as a
member of the bar.

Issue: Whether or not Mendoza is guilty of gross immoral conduct and gross misconduct.

Ruling:
The evidence presented by complainants reach that quantum of evidence required in administrative proceedings
which is only substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conviction.

We must rule in the same wise in this case before us. The fact that respondent continues to publicly and openly cohabit
with a woman who is not his legal wife, thus, siring children by her, shows his lack of good moral character.
Respondent should keep in mind that the requirement of good moral character is not only a condition precedent to
admission to the Philippine Bar but is also a continuing requirement to maintain one's good standing in the legal
profession.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Norberto M. Mendoza is hereby found GUILTY of immorality, in violation of Rule 1.01
of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is SUSPENDED INDEFINITELY from the practice of law until he submits
satisfactory proof that he has abandoned his immoral course of conduct.

Under Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct. Respondent has violated this rule against engaging in immoral conduct.

7. TAHAW V. VITAN (441 SCRA 55)

Facts:
Violeta R. Tahaw claimed that she secured the services of respondent for filing the appropriate action for the partition
of a real property located in Makati City sometime in 1999. As agreed upon, petitioner delivered to respondent four (4)
checks in the total amount of P30,000.00 representing payment of the latter's professional fee. However, after almost a
year without petitioner hearing from respondent about the case he would file in court, petitioner sent respondent a
letter-inquiry as to the status of the case. Respondent assured complainant that he had already filed the appropriate
case in Makati. Not convinced by her counsel's assurance, complainant went to the Office of the Clerk of Court of
Makati City to check if a case was indeed filed by respondent for and in her behalf.

A Certification dated 15 August 2000 issued by the assistant Clerk of Court of Makati City confirmed complainant's
suspicion that respondent did not file the case as agreed upon. She wrote respondent informing him that she is
terminating the latter's services as counsel and demanded the refund of the P30,000.00. Respondent failed to refund
the aforesaid amount, and complainant was thus prompted to seek the assistance of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines

Issue: Whether or not Atty. Vitan is guilty of professional misconduct

Ruling:
IBP Commissioner Acerey C. Pacheco submitted his report and recommendation to the IBP Board of Governors. As per
the report, respondent's agreement to represent complainant in the partition case intended to be filed was established.
Likewise, the report pointed out the inconsistency between respondent's statement in his Answer denying that he
obligated himself to file the case upon receipt of P30,000.00 and complainant's dilly-dallying in giving him the amount
for filing fees, as against his assurances to complainant that the case was already filed. The report noted that
respondent's failure to reply to or deny complainant's allegation in her letter terminating his services was an
admission that he miserably failed to diligently attend to the latter's case. Finally, the report stated that respondent
failed to comply with his commitment to return the P30,000.00. Considering that the amount was paid by the
complainant for his professional services which he miserably failed to perform, the same must be returned to
complainant without delay. The report recommended that respondent be reprimanded and admonished to be more
careful in the performance of his duty to his clients.
 After a careful consideration of the record of the instant case, the Court agrees with the IBP in its findings and
conclusion that respondent has been remiss in his responsibilities.

Even if complainant did not disclose the previous litigation and agreements between her and her deceased husband,
respondent would eventually find out, as in fact he did, about it in the course of drafting the proposed complaint. Any
lawyer worth his salt would know that the partition case sought to be filed would have no basis and would not
prosper. Respondent should have immediately appraised complainant on the lack of merit of her case. Instead, he
asked for money for filing fees, and worse, pretended to have filed the complaint.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Jeremias P. Vitan is hereby found GUILTY of violation of Canons 7 and 17 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility for his failure to file the necessary pleading for his client's case and for the failure to return
and immediately deliver the funds of his client advanced for the purpose of filing the said case, upon demand, and even
after his commitment with the IBP to do so. The respondent is hereby SUSPENDED for a period of six (6) months
effective from the date of promulgation hereof, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same and similar acts
shall be dealt with more severely. Atty. Vitan is ORDERED to immediately RETURN the amount of P30,000.00 to
complainant.

Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that a "lawyer shall at all times uphold the
integrity and dignity of the legal profession.”
Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides: "A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client
and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him."

8. MACIAS V. SELDA (441 SCRA 65)

Facts:
The facts are undisputed. On January 24, 2000, respondent Selda withdrew as counsel for one Norma T. Lim, private
protestee in Election Case No. SE-01 entitled Ruth Maraon v. The Municipal Board of Canvassers, Salud, Zamboanga del
Norte, and Norma T. Lim for Annulment of Election, etc. 2 He basically submitted as ground for his withdrawal that he
could not cope up with the pace of the proceedings in view of his workload. He claimed that the hearings of the election
protest case would run from 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. and he still had to attend to his other cases including classes at
Philippine Advent College, which start at 5:30 p.m. on Mondays and Wednesdays.

In light of these representations, complainant granted the Motion and ordered respondent relieved of all his
responsibilities as counsel for private protestee. However, on May 22, 2000, respondent executed an affidavit
disavowing his grounds for withdrawing as counsel for private protestee. He swore that he only filed the Motion on
account of the pre- judgment of the case by complainant, who, on several occasions insinuated to him that his client
would lose in the protest. He stated that he was convinced that chaos would result if his client were unseated, and
withdrawal from the case was his best recourse.

Issue: Whether or not Atty. Selda is guilty of serious deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct as a lawyer and in utter
violation of the lawyer's oath.

Ruling:
When respondent executed his affidavit of May 22, 2000 retracting his reason for withdrawing as counsel for Norma T.
Lim, he acknowledged, under oath, his misrepresentation. He misled the court in clear violation of his oath as lawyer
and failed to abide by the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Candor towards the courts is a cardinal requirement of the practicing lawyer. In fact, this obligation to the bench for
candor and honesty takes precedence. Thus, saying one thing in his Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for Private
Protestee and another in his subsequent affidavit is a transgression of this imperative which necessitates appropriate
punishment.

The circumstances in this case demand that respondent be imposed suspension from the practice of law for one (1)
year. This serves the purpose of protecting the interest of the court, the legal profession and the public. For indeed, "if
respect for the courts and for judicial process is gone or steadily weakened, no law can save us as a society."

IN VIEW WHEREOF, the February 27, 2004 Resolution of the IBP Board of Governors in CBD Case No. 02-921 is
AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that respondent Atty. Alanixon A. Selda is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for
one (1) year, to commence upon receipt of this Decision. He is further sternly warned that a repetition of a similar
offense will call for a more severe consequence.
 Canon 10 — A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court.
Rule 10.01 — A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court, nor shall he
mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by an artifice.

9. ANDERSON, JR. V. CARDENO (448 SCRA 261)

Facts:
Complainant Rasmus G. Anderson, Jr., an American citizen from Kodiak, Alaska, USA, filed an action before the then
Court of First Instance of Rizal (Pasig), to recover title and possession of a parcel of land against the spouses Juanito
Maybituin and Rosario Cerrado, and Fernando Ramos. The case was dismissed by the trial court, which declared the
defendants the true and lawful owners of their respective portions of the land in question.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals modified the decision, stating that the respective Torrens Titles in the names of the
defendants spouses Maybituin and Fernando Ramos are maintained at this stage but without prejudice on the part of
the plaintiff to institute an action for reconveyance thereof after determining his rightful share from the estate of his
late father. However, the CA judgment was not appealed and, thereafter, it was duly entered.

On February 16, 1985, Anderson, Jr., through his counsel Atty. Cesar S. de Guzman, filed an Amended Complaint before
the Regional Trial Court. However, Atty. De Guzman died and upon referral by a friend, Anderson, Jr. engaged the
services of herein respondent Atty. Reynaldo A. Cardeñ o.

On July 19, 1990, Rasmus G. Anderson, Jr., filed an administrative complaint 4 before this Court wherein he alleged that
respondent Atty. Reynaldo A. Cardeñ o caused "the loss" or the adverse ruling against him in the aforementioned case
before the RTC.

Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Cardeño is guilty of violating Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and his lawyer's
oath.

Ruling:
Commission has arrived at a conclusion that there is apparent lack of interest on the part of the Complainant to further
pursue his case. The complainant could have appeared personally and present his evidence or could have his
deposition taken to support the allegations contained in his complaint. What he did was just to send a representative
by the name of Bienvenido Maregmen. Clearly, this is not sufficient to show the needed enthusiasm and interest to
support his accusations against the respondent.

We sustain the respondent in his position that he should be given the opportunity to confront the complainant and
cross-examine him. Here, the complainant failed to appear despite the several settings of hearings in this case. Based
on this alone, this Commission could have recommended the dismissal of the instant complaint for failure of the
complainant to substantiate his charges against the respondent.

However, the respondent has indubitably failed to perform an obligation which he owed to his client, the herein
complainant. The respondent himself categorically stated in his Comment filed with the Honorable Supreme Court on
October 2, 1990 that he prepared a Motion for Reconsideration in the case entitled "Rasmus Anderson v. Juanito
Maybituin, et al.", Civil Case No. 0110-B, then pending in the Regional Trial Court of Rizal, Branch 67-Binangonan. But
that certain "good friends" of the complainant made representations to him that they already made arrangements with
the presiding judge who they claimed had already been "bought". Respondent allowed these persons to take over in
the ling of the Motion for Reconsideration and did not even bother to check with the Court if the same has been filed or
not.

Clearly, the respondent was guilty of neglect of duty and this is a violation of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional
Ethics, which provides that a lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence; particularly, Rule 18.03
thereof which states that "a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection
therewith shall render him liable". He likewise breached his duty to the Honorable Supreme Court to report "corrupt"
judges for appropriate disciplinary action with the aim of improving the quality of justice and in helping restore the
people's faith in our judicial system.

Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Ethics, which provides that a lawyer shall serve his client with
competence and diligence; particularly, Rule 18.03 thereof which states that "a lawyer shall not neglect a legal
matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable".
10. SAN JOSE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. V. ATTY ROBERTO ROMANILLOS (A.C. NO. 5580, JUNE 15 2005)

Facts:
In 1985, respondent represented San Jose Homeowners Association, Inc. (SJHAI) before the Human Settlements
Regulation Commission (HSRC) in a case against Durano and Corp., Inc. (DCI) for violation of the Subdivision and
Condominium Buyer's Protection Act (P.D. No. 957). SJHAI alleged that Lot No. 224 was designated as a school site in
the subdivision plan that DCI submitted to the Bureau of Lands in 1961 but was sold by DCI to spouses Ramon and
Beatriz Durano without disclosing it as a school site.

While still the counsel for SJHAI, respondent represented Myrna and Antonio Montealegre in requesting for SJHAI's
conformity to construct a school building on Lot No. 224 to be purchased from Durano.

When the request was denied, respondent applied for clearance before the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board
(HLURB) in behalf of Montealegre. Petitioner's Board of Directors terminated respondent's services as counsel and
engaged another lawyer to represent the association.

Respondent also acted as counsel for Lydia Durano-Rodriguez who substituted for DCI in Civil Case No. 18014 entitled
"San Jose Homeowners, Inc. v. Durano and Corp., Inc." filed before the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 134.
Thus, SJHAI filed a disbarment case against respondent for representing conflicting interests, docketed as
Administrative Case No. 4783.

Thus, a second disbarment case was filed against respondent for violation of the March 8, 1999 Resolution in A.C. No.
4783 and for his alleged deceitful conduct in using the title "Judge" although he was found guilty of grave and serious
misconduct.

Respondent used the title "Judge" in his office letterhead, correspondences and billboards which was erected in several
areas within the San Jose Subdivision sometime in October 2001.

Issue: Whether or not he should be disbarred based on the aforementioned cases

Ruling:
Undoubtedly, respondent represented the inconsistent interests of SJHAI, DCI as substituted by Lydia Durano-
Rodriguez and the Montealegres. Respondent was admonished yet he continued to represent Durano-Rodriguez
against SJHAI.

It is inconsequential that petitioner never questioned the propriety of respondent's continued representation of Lydia
Durano-Rodriguez. The lack of opposition does not mean tacit consent. As long as the lawyer represents inconsistent
interests of two (2) or more opposing clients, he is guilty of violating his oath. Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility specifically mandates that a lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of
all concerned given after a full disclosure. Incidentally, it is also misleading for respondent to insist that he was
exonerated in A.C. No. 4783.

We agree with the IBP that respondent's continued use of the title "Judge" violated Rules 1.01 and 3.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in deceitful conduct and from using any misleading
statement or claim regarding qualifications or legal services. The quasi-judicial notice he posted in the billboards
referring to himself as a judge is deceiving. It was a clear attempt to mislead the public into believing that the order
was issued in his capacity as a judge when he was dishonorably stripped of the privilege.

Respondent did not honorably retire from the judiciary. He resigned from being a judge during the pendency of Zarate
v. Judge Romanillos, where he was eventually found guilty of grave and serious misconduct and would have been
dismissed from the service had he not resigned.

Considering the foregoing, respondent Judge Roberto B. Romanillos is hereby found guilty of grave and serious
misconduct affecting his integrity and honesty. He deserves the supreme penalty of dismissal. However, respondent, in
an obvious attempt to escape punishment for his misdeeds, tendered his resignation during the pendency of this case. .
. . Consequently, we are now precluded from dismissing respondent from the service. Nevertheless, the ruling in
People v. Valenzuela (135 SCRA 712 [1985]), wherein the respondent judge likewise resigned before the case could be
resolved, finds application in this case. Therein it was held that the rule that the resignation or retirement of a
respondent judge in an administrative case renders the case moot and academic, is not a hard and fast rule.
ACCORDINGLY, in view of our aforestated finding that respondent Judge Romanillos is guilty of grave and serious
misconduct which would have warranted his dismissal from the service had he not resigned during the pendency of
this case, and it appearing that respondent has yet to apply for his retirement benefits and other privileges if any; the
Court, consistent with the penalties imposed in Valenzuela (supra.), hereby orders the FORFEITURE of all leave and
retirement benefits and privileges to which herein respondent Judge Romanillos may be entitled WITH PREJUDICE to
reinstatement and/or reemployment in any branch or instrumentality of government, including government-owned or
controlled agencies or corporations.

Disbarment is the most severe form of disciplinary sanction. We are mindful that the power to disbar must always be
exercised with great caution, for only the most imperative reasons, and in clear cases of misconduct affecting the
standing and moral character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and as a member of the bar.

This is not respondent's first infraction as an officer of the court and a member of the legal profession. He was stripped
of his retirement benefits and other privileges in Zarate v. Judge Romanillos. In A.C. No. 4783, he got off lightly with just
an admonition. Considering his previous infractions, respondent should have adhered to the tenets of his profession
with extra fervor and vigilance. He did not. On the contrary, he manifested undue disrespect to our mandate and
exhibited a propensity to violate the laws. He is thus unfit to discharge the duties of his office and unworthy of the trust
and confidence reposed on him as an officer of the court. His disbarment is consequently warranted.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Roberto B. Romanillos is DISBARRED and his name is ORDERED STRICKEN from the
Roll of Attorneys. Let a copy of this Decision be entered in respondent's record as a, member of the Bar, and notice of
the same be served on the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and on the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation
to all courts in the country.

Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility specifically mandates that a lawyer shall not represent
conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure.

Rules 1.01 and 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in deceitful
conduct and from using any misleading statement or claim regarding qualifications or legal services
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court provides:

SEC. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court; grounds therefor. — A member of the bar
may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice,
or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime
involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before admission to
practice, or for a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or wilfully
appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at law
for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.