253-280 Praleg Cases

253
TOPIC: Notarization
CASE TITLE: ACTS COMPLAINED OF: LEGAL BASIS: SUPREME COURT’S CASE DISPOSITION:
Pacita Caalim- RULING:
Verzonilla v. Atty.
Victoriano Pascua Atty. Pascua He violated Rule 1.02, Atty. Pascua cannot Atty. Victoriano
drafted and Canon 1 of the escape liability for Pascua is
CASE NO.: notarized an Code of making an suspended from the
A.C. No. 6655 instrument that did Professional untruthful practice of law for
not state the true Responsibility statement in a a period of two (2)
DATE OF PROMULGATION: consideration of public document years. In addition,
October 11, 2011 the sale so as to for an unlawful his present notarial
reduce the capital purpose. As the commission, if any,
PONENTE: gains and other second deed he is revoked, and he
Villarama, Jr. taxes due on the notarized indicated is disqualified from
transaction. an amount much reappointment as a
lower than the notary public for a
actual price paid period of two (2)
for the property years. He is further
sold, he abetted in warned that any
depriving the similar act or
Government of the infraction in the
right to collect the future shall be
correct taxes due. dealt with more
His act clearly severely.
violated Rule 1.02,
Canon 1 of the
Code of
Professional
Responsibility
which states that a
lawyer shall not
counsel or abet
activities aimed at
defiance of the law
or at lessening
confidence in the
legal system.
254
TOPIC: Gross ignorance of the law

Atty. Franklin G. RULING:
Gacal v. Judge
Jaime I. Infante Judge Infante He violated Rule 114, It is axiomatic that The court finds and
granted bail to the Section 7 of the bail cannot be declares Judge
CASE NO.: accused who is Rules of Court, as allowed to a person Jaime I. Infante
A.M. No. RTJ- 04- charged with amended. charged with a guilty of gross
1845 murder without capital offense, or ignorance of the
setting a hearing an offense law and the rules;
DATE OF PROMULGATION: for the application punishable with and, accordingly,
October 5, 2011 of bail and he reclusion perpetua fine him in the
ordered his release or life amount of
PONENTE: immediately after imprisonment, P20,000.00, with a
Bersamin allowing bail. without a hearing stern warning that
upon notice to the a repetition of the
Prosecution. Any offense or the
judge who so commission of
allows bail is guilty another serious
of gross ignorance offense will be
of the law and the more severely dealt
rules, and is with.
subject to
appropriate
administrative
sanctions.
255
TOPIC: Grave misconduct

Tomas p. Tan, Jr. v. RULING:
Atty. Haide V.
Gumba Atty. Gumba The CPR Canons and Rules Here, respondent’s Atty. Haide B. Vista-
deceived Tan into she violated are: actions clearly Gumba is found
CASE NO.: lending money to show that she administratively
A.C. No. 9000 her. She offered as Canon 7 deceived liable for grave
security a land complainant into misconduct. She is
DATE OF PROMULGATION: covered by a TCT Rule 1.01, Canon 1 lending money to suspended from the
October 5, 2011 under her father’s her through the practice of law for
name with a use of documents six (6) months,
PONENTE: Special Power of and false effective
Villarama, Jr. Attorney(SPA) representations immediately, with a
which she falsely and taking warning that a
misrepresented as advantage of her repetition of the
authorizing her to education and same or a similar
sell the property complainant’s act will be dealt
and she had led ignorance in legal with more severely.
him to believe that matters. As
he could register manifested by
the open deed of complainant, he
sale if she fails to would have never
pay the loan. granted the loan to
respondent were it
not for
respondent’s
misrepresentation
that she was
authorized to sell
the property and if
respondent had not
led him to believe
that he could
register the open
deed of sale if she
fails to pay the
loan. By her
misdeed,
respondent has
eroded not only
complainant’s
perception of the
legal profession but
the public’s
perception as well.
Her actions
constitute gross
misconduct for
which she may be
disciplined.
256
TOPIC: Unauthorized practice of law

Atty. Edita Noe- RULING:
Lacsamana v. Atty.
Yolando Busmente Dela Rosa, who is Atty. Busmente violated The lawyer’s duty The Court
not a member of Canon 9 of the to prevent, or at suspends Atty.
CASE NO.: the Bar, Code of the very least not Yolando F.
A.C. No. 7269 misrepresented Professional to assist in, the Busmente from the
herself as Responsibility unauthorized practice of law for
DATE OF PROMULGATION: Busmente’s practice of law is six months.
November 23, 2011 collaborating founded on public
counsel in a civil interest and policy.
case with the Public policy
PONENTE: assistance of Atty. requires that the
Carpio Busmente. 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.
257
TOPIC: Client’s funds

Teresita Bayonla v. RULING:
Atty. Purita Reyes
Atty. Reyes failed to She violated Rule By not delivering The Court finds and
CASE NO.: deliver to her client 16.01 and Rule Bayonla’s share pronounces Atty.
A.C. No. 4808 the amount she 16.03, Canon 16 of despite her Purita A. Reyes
collected for her the Code of demand, Atty. guilty of violating
DATE OF PROMULGATION: despite demand Professional Reyes violated the Rule 16.01 and
November 22, 2011 from the client. Responsibility aforestated canons. Rule 16.03 of
The money Canon 16 of the
PONENTE: collected by Atty. Code of
Bersamin Reyes as the Professional
lawyer of Bayonla Responsibility, and
was unquestionably suspends her from
money held in trust the practice of law
to be immediately for a period of two
turned over to the years effective
client. The upon receipt of this
unjustified Decision, with
withholding of warning that a
money belonging to similar offense by
the client warrants her will be dealt
the imposition of with more severely.
disciplinary
sanctions on the
lawyer. His failure
to immediately
account for and to
deliver the money
upon demand was
deceit, for it
signified that she
had converted the
money to her own
use, in violation of
the trust Bayonla
had reposed in her.
258
TOPIC: Conflict of interest

Lydia Castro-Justo RULING:
v. Atty. Rodolfo
Galing Atty Galing advised He violated Rule The prohibition The Court resolved
Justo and drafted a 15.03, Canon 15 of against to suspend Atty.
CASE NO.: demand letter for the Code of representing Rodolfo T. Galing
A.C. No. 6174 her against Ms. Ko Professional conflicting interest from the practice of
which Atty. Galing Responsibility. is founded on law for one (1)
DATE OF PROMULGATION: later on principles of public year, with a
November 16, 2011 represented in policy and good warning that a
court. taste. In the course repetition of the
PONENTE: of the lawyer-client same or similar
Perez relationship, the offense will
lawyer learns of warrant a more
the facts connected severe penalty
with the client’s
case, including the
weak and strong
points of the case.
The nature of the
relationship is,
therefore, one of
trust and
confidence of the
highest degree. It
behooves lawyers
not only to keep
inviolate the clients
confidence, but
also to avoid the
appearance of
treachery and
double-dealing for
only then can
litigants be
encouraged to
entrust their
secrets to their
lawyers, which is of
paramount
importance in the
administration of
justice.
259
TOPIC: Lawyer’s competence and diligence

Rogelio F. Estavillo RULING:
v. Atty. Gemmo
Guillermo Atty. Guillermo and He violated Canon 18 Rule 18.03 of the The court adopted
Atty. Labayog failed and Rule 18.03 of Code of the IBP’s resolution
CASE NO.: to file an answer the Code of Professional that respondents
A.C. No. 6899 for their client Professional Responsibility be suspended from
within the period Responsibility enjoins a lawyer the practice of law
DATE OF PROMULGATION: fixed by the Rules not to neglect a for three (3)
November 16, 2011 of Court. legal matter months for
entrusted to him, violation of Rule
PONENTE: and his negligence 18.03 of the Code
Brion in connection of Professional
therewith shall Responsibility.
render him liable.
Every case a
lawyer accepts
deserves his full
attention, skill and
competence,
regardless of its
importance and
whether he accepts
it for a fee or for
free. He must
constantly keep in
mind that his
actions or
omissions or
nonfeasance would
be binding upon his
client. Thus, he is
expected to be
acquainted with
the rudiments of
law and legal
procedure, and a
client who deals
with him has the
right to expect not
just a good amount
of professional
learning and
competence but
also a whole-
hearted fealty to
the clients cause.
260

Maritess Freeman RULING:
v. Atty. Zenaida
Reyes Atty. Reyes She violated Canon 16 The Court ruled Atty. Zenaida P.
obtained money of the Code of that the relation Reyes is found
CASE NO.: from her client Professional between attorney guilty of gross
A.C. No. 6246 without rendering Responsibility and and client is highly misconduct and
proper legal Rule 16.03 thereof. fiduciary in nature. DISBARRED from
DATE OF PROMULGATION: services to assist Being such, it the practice of law.
November 15, 2011 her in securing visa requires utmost Let her name be
applications and good faith, loyalty, stricken off the Roll
PONENTE: she appropriated fidelity, and of Attorneys. This
Per Curiam the proceeds of the disinterestedness Decision is
insurance policies on the part of the immediately
of her client’s attorney. Its executory.
deceased husband. fiduciary nature is Respondent is
intended for the ORDERED to turn
protection of the over to
client. The Canon complainant
of Professional Marites E.
Ethics provides Freeman the
that the lawyer proceeds of the
should refrain from insurance policies
any action whereby remitted to her by
for his personal Lincoln Financial
benefit or gain, he Group, in the
abuses or takes amount of
advantage of the 10,489.57, and
confidence reposed Eagle Star Life
in him by his client. Assurance
Money of the client Company Limited,
or collected for the 471.06, or in the
client, or other total amount of
trust property 10,960.63, which is
coming into the approximately
possession of the equivalent to
lawyer, should be P700,000.00,
reported and pursuant to the
accounted for prevailing
promptly and exchange rate at
should not, under the time of the
any circumstances, subject transaction.
be commingled
with his own or be
used by him.
Consequently, a
lawyer's failure to
return upon
demand the funds
or property held by
him on behalf of his
client gives rise to
the presumption
that he has
appropriated the
same for his own
use to the
prejudice of, and in
violation of the
trust reposed in
him by, his client. It
is a gross violation
of general morality
as well as of
professional ethics;
it impairs the
public confidence
in the legal
profession and
deserves
punishment.
261
TOPIC: Inexcusable ignorance of the law

Office of the Court RULING:
Administrator v.
Atty. Daniel B. Judge Liangco He violated Canon 1, and Contrary to Canon The Court resolves
Liangco acted upon the Canon 10, Rule 10.03 of 1 of the Code of to DISBAR Atty.
Petition for the Code of Professional Professional Daniel B. Liangco
CASE NO.: Declaratory Relief Responsibility. Responsibility, for the following
A.C. No. 5355 filed by the respondent offenses:
Sangguniang malevolently GROSS
DATE OF PROMULGATION: Bayan of San Luis, violated the basic MISCONDUCT in
December 13, 2011 Pampanga, without constitutional right violation of Canon
the mandatory of Gozun not to be 1, Sections 4 and 5
PONENTE: notice to Gozun deprived of a right of the New Code of
Per curiam who would be or property without Judicial Conduct
affected by the due process of law. for the Philippine
action. The judge, Also, under Canon Judiciary
upon receipt of the 10, Rule 10.03, INEXCUSABLE
Petition, had it respondent as IGNORANCE OF
docketed in his lawyer is mandated THE LAW in
court, designated to observe the violation of Canons
Gozun as Rules of Procedure 1 and 10, Rule
respondent in the and not to misuse 10.03 of the Code
case title, and them to defeat the of Professional
quickly disposed of ends of justice. In Responsibility.
the matter by this case, however,
issuing a the opposite
Resolution all on happened.
the same day that Respondent
the Petition was recklessly used the
filed without notice powers of the court
and hearing. He to inflict injustice.
maintained close As judge of a first-
relations with the level court,
municipal vice- respondent is
mayor of San Luis, expected to know
Pampanga, a party- that he has no
litigant who had an jurisdiction to
obvious interest in entertain a petition
the outcome of the for declaratory
case. relief. Moreover, he
is presumed to
know that in his
capacity as judge,
he cannot render a
legal opinion in the
absence of a
justiciable
question.
Displaying an utter
lack of familiarity
with the rules, he
in effect erodes the
public’s confidence
in the competence
of our courts.
Moreover, he
demonstrates his
ignorance of the
power and
responsibility that
attach to the
processes and
issuances of a
judge, and that he
as a member of the
bar should know.
262
TOPIC: Preponderance of Evidence

Siao Aba et al. v. RULING:
Atty. Salvador de
Guzman, Jr. et al. Complainants None The Court has The Court affirm
alleged that consistently held the Decision of the
CASE NO.: respondents that in suspension Board of Governors
A.C.No. 7649 persuaded them to or disbarment of the Integrated
file an illegal proceedings Bar of the
DATE OF PROMULGATION: recruitment case against lawyers, Philippines,
December 14, 2011 against certain the lawyer enjoys adopting the
persons for money the presumption of Report and
PONENTE: and when they had innocence, and the Recommendation
Carpio a change of heart, burden of proof of the Investigating
the respondents rests upon the Commissioner, and
instigated and filed complainant to dismiss the charges
fabricated criminal prove the against Attys.
complaints against allegations in his Wenceslao Peewee
them. complaint. The Trinidad and
evidence required Andresito Fornier
in suspension or for utter lack of
disbarment merit. We reverse
proceedings is the Decision of the
preponderance of Board of Governors
evidence. In case of the Integrated
the evidence of the Bar of the
parties are equally Philippines,
balanced, the modifying and
equipoise doctrine increasing the
mandates a penalty in the
decision in favor of Report and
the respondent. Recommendation
Complainants of the Investigating
failed to Commissioner, and
substantiate their accordingly
charges against DISMISS the
respondents charges against
Trinidad and Atty. Salvador P. De
Fornier. Guzman, Jr. also for
The Court reverses utter lack of merit.
the Decision of the
Board of Governors
and the Report and
Recommendation
of the Investigating
Commissioner
regarding De
Guzmans liability
for the following
reasons: (a) the
documents
submitted by
complainants in
support of their
complaint are not
credible; (b)
complainants did
not appear in any
of the mandatory
conference
proceedings to
substantiate the
allegations in their
complaint; and (c)
complainants were
not able to prove
by preponderance
of evidence that De
Guzman
communicated with
them for the
purpose of filing
fabricated illegal
recruitment
charges for
purposes of
extortion.
263
TOPIC: Gross misconduct

Espina & RULING:
Madarang Co. &
Makar Agricultural Judge Indar He violated Canon 3 of Here, respondent The Court finds
Commercial & granted an ex parte the Code of Judicial Judge Indar failed respondent Judge
Development Corp. petition for the Conduct, to conform with the Cader P. Indar Al
v. Hon. Cader P. issuance of a writ particularly the high standards of Haj GUILTY of
Indar of possession to following Rules competence and gross misconduct
revive an order 3.01, 3.02, 3.08, diligence required for committing
CASE NO.: which has been and 3.09. of judges under violations of the
A.M. No. RTJ-07- declared null and Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial
2069 void and set aside Code of Judicial Conduct, and is
by the Court of Conduct. In the FINED the amount
DATE OF PROMULGATION: Appeals and instant case, of Twenty-Five
December 14, 2011 affirmed by the respondent Judge Thousand
Supreme Court. Indar failed to (P25,000.00) pesos.
PONENTE: exert due diligence He is likewise
Leonardo-De required of him to WARNED that a
Castro ascertain the facts repetition of the
of the case before foregoing or similar
he came out with transgressions
the Order dated shall be dealt with
February 14, 2005. more severely.
Had he taken time
and effort to read
and examine the
pleadings and the
records of the case,
he could have
known that the
Order dated
December 7, 1983
was already
nullified and set
aside by the Court
of Appeals.
264
TOPIC: Simple misconduct

Aida R. Campos, et RULING:
al. v. Judge Eliseo
M. Campos Judge Campos He violated Section 9 Simple misconduct The Court finds
caused the in relation to is a transgression respondent Eliseo
CASE NO.: registration of the Section 11(B), Rule of some established M. Campos GUILTY
A.M. No. MTJ-10- land in the name of 140 of the Rules of rule of action, an of simple
1761 his minor son. He Court. unlawful behavior, misconduct and
manipulated the or negligence FINE him Twenty
DATE OF PROMULGATION: transaction in such committed by a Thousand Pesos
February 8, 2012 a way that the title public officer. In (P20,000) to be
ended with his son this case, deducted from
PONENTE: despite his son’s respondent knew at whatever benefits,
Carpio lack of legal that time of the if any, that he is
capacity to enter registration of the still entitled to
into the transaction property that he after his
as there was a had a pending case resignation from
pending case and that he could the judiciary. If
against him and he possibly lose the there is none,
was afraid that if case. In order to respondent is
he loses the case, manipulate the ORDERED to pay
the property would situation and directly the fine
be taken from him. taking advantage of P20,000.
of his knowledge of
the law, respondent
caused the
registration of the
property in
Alistairs name with
the intention of
defrauding a
possible judgment-
obligee. Clearly, it
was an improper
behavior which
warrants a
disciplinary
sanction by this
Court.
265

CASE TITLE: ACTS COMPLAINED OF: LEGAL BASIS: SUPREME COURT’S CASE DISPOSITION
Spouses Democrito RULING:
and Olivia Lago v.
Judge Godofredo B. Judge Abdul failed He violated Rule 58, Rule 58, as Atty. Joselito M.
Abdul, Jr. to raffle the Section 5 of the amended, Silvosa is hereby
complainant’s case Rules of Court mandates a full and DISBARRED and
CASE NO.: and failed to cause comprehensive his name
A.M. No. RTJ-10- the notification and hearing for the ORDERED
2255 service of summons determination of STRICKEN from
to complainants the propriety of the the Roll of
DATE OF PROMULGATION: after he issued the issuance of a writ Attorneys. Let a
January 17, 2011 72-hour TRO of preliminary copy of this
against them. He injunction, Decision be
PONENTE: extended the 72- separate from the furnished to the
Nachura hour TRO, which summary hearing Office of the Bar
had already and for the extension of Confidant, to be
obviously expired, the 72-hour TRO. appended to
into a full 20-day The preliminary respondent’s
TRO injunction prayed personal record as
Also, he ordered for by the applicant attorney.
the issuance of a can only be heard
writ of preliminary after the trial court
injunction without has ordered the
the required issuance of the
hearing and usual 20-day TRO.
without prior Within that period
notice to the of 20 days, the
defendants, herein court shall order
complainants. the party sought to
be enjoined to
show cause at a
specified time and
place why the
injunction should
not be granted.
During that same
period, the court
shall also
determine the
propriety of
granting the
preliminary
injunction and then
issue the
corresponding
order to that effect.
In the case of
respondent judge,
he gravely failed to
comply with what
the rule requires,
i.e., to give
complainants the
opportunity to
comment or object,
through a full-
blown hearing, to
the writ of
injunction prayed
for. Instead,
respondent judge
railroaded the
entire process by
treating the
summary hearing
for the extension of
the TRO as the
very same hearing
required for the
issuance of the writ
of preliminary
injunction. Verily,
the absence of the
hearing required
by the Rules of
Court is downright
reprehensible and,
thus, should not be
countenanced. The
requirement of a
hearing is so
fundamental that
failure to comply
with it not only
amounts to gross
ignorance of rules
and procedure, but
also to an outright
denial of due
process to the
party denied such a
hearing.
Undoubtedly, the
acts and omissions
of respondent
judge warrant
sanction from this
Court.
266
TOPIC: Gross misconduct

Corazon T. Nevada RULING:
v. Atty. Rodolfo D.
Casuga Atty. Casuga He violated Section In the instant case, the Court finds
represented 27, Rule 138 of the by maintaining an Atty. Rodolfo D.
CASE NO.: himself as a duly- Revised Rules of office within the Casuga GUILTY of
A.C. No. 7591 authorized Court, Canon 16 of Hotel, taking gross misconduct
representative of the Code of advantage of his for violation of
DATE OF PROMULGATION: Nevada when in Professional apparent close Canon 16 of the
March 20, 2012 fact he was not. He Responsibility, and relationship to Code of
also took Rule 16.03 thereof. Nevada, and Professional
PONENTE: possession of the through the use of Responsibility and
Velasco, Jr. valuables false the Notarial Rules.
purportedly with representations, He is hereby
the obligation of Casuga led Chul to SUSPENDED for a
selling them and to believe that he was period of four (4)
remit any proceeds the administrator years from the
to Nevada. of the Hotel, when practice of law. The
However, despite in fact he was not. notarial
repeated demands By doing so, he commission of Atty.
by Nevada for made it appear that Casuga, if still
Casuga to return he was duly existing, is hereby
the valuables or authorized to enter REVOKED and he
otherwise remit the into contracts for is DISQUALIFIED
proceeds of the the Hotel and to from being
sale, no jewelry or receive rentals commissioned as
money was ever from its occupants. Notary Public also
returned. His fraudulent for four (4) years.
scheme enabled Additionally, he is
Casuga to collect ordered to return
rentals from the the amount of PhP
occupants of the 90,000, the piece of
Hotel, Chul in jewelry subject of
particular, which this case or their
he did not transmit equivalent of PhP
to Nevada. Worse 300,000, and the
still, Casuga Rolex watch valued
obtained money at USD 12,000 or
belonging to the its equivalent in
Hotel. Such Philippine Peso to
misrepresentation Corazon T. Nevada
properly within thirty (30)
constitutes gross days from finality
misconduct for of this Decision;
which he must be otherwise, he shall
disciplined. be cited for
Having been contempt. Lastly,
tasked to sell such Atty. Casuga is
valuables, Casuga warned that a
was duty-bound to repetition of the
return them upon same or similar
Nevada’s demand. acts will be dealt
His failure to do so with more severely.
renders him
subject to
disciplinary action.
Having failed to
return, upon
demand, the items
entrusted to him by
Nevada or remit
the proceeds of the
sale, Casuga
violated Canon 16
and Rule 16.03 of
the Code.
267

Aurora D. Cerdan v. RULING:
Atty. Carlo Gomez
Atty. Gomez He violated Canon 16 of Atty. Gomez has no Atty. Carlo Gomez
CASE NO.: entered into a the Code of Professional right to unilaterally is hereby declared
A.C. No. 9154 compromise Responsibility and Rule retain his lawyer’s GUILTY of violation
agreement where 16.01 thereof. lien. Having of Canon 16 of the
DATE OF PROMULGATION: he agreed that his obtained the funds Code of
March 19, 2012 client shall receive in the course of his Professional
40% of the professional Responsibility and
PONENTE: proceeds of an employment, Atty. is SUSPENDED
Mendoza account which was Gomez had the from the practice of
contrary to the obligation to law for a period of
original agreement. account and deliver one (1) year
He also included in such funds to his effective upon
the compromise client when they receipt of this
agreement other became due, or Resolution, with
bak accounts and upon demand. a WARNING that a
other properties Moreover, there repetition of the
which were not was no agreement same or similar
included in the between him and acts will be dealt
scope of his SPA. complainant that with severely.
Atty. Gomez failed he could deduct
to account for the therefrom his
money he received claimed attorney’s
for complainant as fees. The fiduciary
a result of the nature of the
compromise relationship
agreement. Worse, between counsel
he remitted the and client imposes
amount of on a lawyer the
₱290,000.00 only, duty to account for
an amount the money or
substantially less property collected
than the share of or received for or
complainant. from the client. He
Records reveal that is obliged to render
complainants share a prompt
from the FCB accounting of all
savings accounts the property and
amounted to money he has
₱442,547.88 but collected for his
only P290,000.00 client.
was remitted by
Atty. Gomez after
deducting his
share.
268
TOPIC: Client’s property

Lorenzo D. RULING:
Brennisen v. Atty.
Ramon U. Contawi Atty. Contawi He violated the following In this case, ATTY. RAMON U.
mortgaged and Canons and Rules under respondent's CONTAWI, having
CASE NO.: sold Brennisen’s the Code of Professional established acts clearly violated his
A.C. No. 7481 property which was Responsibility: exhibited his lawyer's oath and
entrusted to him, Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 unfitness and plain the Canons of
DATE OF PROMULGATION: without the latter's thereof inability to Professional
April 24, 2012 consent. Canon 16 and Rules 16.01 discharge the Responsibility
and 16.03 thereof bounden duties of a through his
PONENTE: Canon 17 member of the unlawful, dishonest
Per Curiam legal profession. and deceitful
He failed to prove conduct, is
himself worthy of DISBARRED and
the privilege to his name ordered
practice law and to STRICKEN from
live up to the the Roll of
exacting standards Attorneys.
demanded of the
members of the
bar. It bears to
stress that [t]he
practice of law is a
privilege given to
lawyers who meet
the high standards
of legal proficiency
and morality. Any
violation of these
standards exposes
the lawyer to
administrative
liability.
Moreover,
respondent's
argument that
there was no
formal lawyer-
client relationship
between him and
complainant will
not serve to
mitigate his
liability. There is no
distinction as to
whether the
transgression is
committed in a
lawyer's private or
professional
capacity, for a
lawyer may not
divide his
personality as an
attorney at one
time and a mere
citizen at another.
269
TOPIC: Client’s cause

Suzette de Mundo RULING:
v. Atty. Arnel
Capistrano Atty. Capistrano He violated Canon 16 of Indeed, when a Atty. Arnel C.
failed to act on his the Code of Professional lawyer takes a Capistrano, having
CASE NO.: client’s case and to Responsibility and Rules client’s cause, he clearly violated
A.C. No. 6903 file the agreed 16.01 and 16.02 thereof covenants that he Canons 16 and 18
petition for and Canon 18 of the same will exercise due of the Code of
DATE OF PROMULGATION: declaration of and its Rules 18.03 and diligence in Professional
April 16, 2012 marriage after 18.04. protecting the Responsibility, is
receiving money latter’s rights. SUSPENDED from
PONENTE: from her. He also Failure to exercise the practice of law
Perlas-Bernabe failed to account that degree of for one year with a
and return the vigilance and stern warning that
funds entrusted to attention expected a repetition of the
him for the cost of of a good father of same or similar
the suit. a family makes the acts shall be dealt
lawyer unworthy of with more severely.
the trust reposed He is ORDERED to
on him by his client return to Suzette
and makes him Del Mundo the full
answerable not just amount of
to his client but PhP73,500.00
also to the legal within 30 days
profession, the from notice hereof
courts and society. and DIRECTED to
His workload does submit to the Court
not justify neglect proof of such
in handling one’s payment.
case because it is
settled that a
lawyer must only
accept cases as
much as he can
efficiently handle.
Moreover, a lawyer
is obliged to hold in
trust money of his
client that may
come to his
possession. As
trustee of such
funds, he is bound
to keep them
separate and apart
from his own.
Money entrusted to
a lawyer for a
specific purpose
such as for the
filing and
processing of a
case if not utilized,
must be returned
immediately upon
demand. Failure to
return gives rise to
a presumption that
he has
misappropriated it
in violation of the
trust reposed on
him. And the
conversion of funds
entrusted to him
constitutes gross
violation of
professional ethics
and betrayal of
public confidence
in the legal
profession.
270

Josefina Anion v. RULING:
Atty. Clemencio
Sabitsana, Jr. Atty. Sabitsana He violated Rule The relationship Atty. Clemencio C.
prepared and 15.03, Canon 15 of between a lawyer Sabitsana, Jr. is
CASE NO.: executed in his the Code of and his/her client found GUILTY of
A.C. No. 5098 client’s favor a Professional should ideally be misconduct for
Deed of Sale over a Responsibility. imbued with the representing
DATE OF PROMULGATION: parcel of land highest level of conflicting
April 11, 2012 owned by his trust and interests in
client’s common- confidence. This is violation of Rule
PONENTE: law husband. He the standard of 15.03, Canon 15 of
Brion later on filed a civil confidentiality that the Code of
case against his must prevail to Professional
client for the promote a full Responsibility. He
annulment of the disclosure of the is hereby
deed in behalf of clients most SUSPENDED for
his client’s confidential one (1) year from
common-law information to the practice of law.
husband’s legal his/her lawyer for
wife. an unhampered
exchange of
information
between them.
Needless to state, a
client can only
entrust confidential
information to
his/her lawyer
based on an
expectation from
the lawyer of
utmost secrecy and
discretion; the
lawyer, for his part,
is duty-bound to
observe candor,
fairness and loyalty
in all dealings and
transactions with
the client. Part of
the lawyer’s duty in
this regard is to
avoid representing
conflicting
interests, a matter
covered by Rule
15.03, Canon 15 of
the Code of
Professional
Responsibility. To
be held
accountable under
this rule, it is
enough that the
opposing parties in
one case, one of
whom would lose
the suit, are
present clients and
the nature or
conditions of the
lawyer’s respective
retainers with each
of them would
affect the
performance of the
duty of undivided
fidelity to both
clients.
On the basis of the
attendant facts of
the case, the court
finds substantial
evidence to support
Atty. Sabitsanas
violation of the
above rule. By his
acts, not only did
Atty. Sabitsana
agree to represent
one client against
another client in
the same action; he
also accepted a
new engagement
that entailed him to
contend and
oppose the interest
of his other client
in a property in
which his legal
services had been
previously
retained.
Atty. Sabitsana did
not make a full
disclosure of facts
to the complainant
and to Zenaida
Caete before he
accepted the new
engagement with
Zenaida Caete.
Moreover, the
records show that
Atty. Sabitsana
failed to obtain the
written consent of
his two clients, as
required by Rule
15.03, Canon 15 of
the Code of
Professional
Responsibility.
271
TOPIC: Supreme Court’s resolutions

Office of the Court RULING:
Administrator v.
Judge James V. Go Judge Go failed to Code of Judicial Resolutions of this Judge James V. Go,
immediately Conduct Court should not presiding judge of
CASE NO.: arraign the be treated lightly. the Municipal Trial
A.M. No. MTJ-07- accused in 632 As a judge, Court in Cities,
1667 criminal cases, to respondent must Branch 2, Butuan
archive 140 be the first to City is DISMISSED
DATE OF PROMULGATION: criminal cases, to exhibit respect for from the service,
April 10, 2012 act on summons authority. Judges with forfeiture of
(should be should respect the all retirement
PONENTE: subpoenas) issued orders and benefits, except
Per Curiam in 477 criminal decisions of higher accrued leave
cases, to act on 13 tribunals much credits, and with
cases which had more so this Court prejudice to
not been acted from which all reemployment in
upon for a other courts should any branch, agency
considerable length take their bearings. or instrumentality
of time, to resolve A resolution of the of the government
the pending Supreme Court including
incidents or should not be government-owned
motions in 15 construed as a or controlled
criminal cases, to mere request and corporations.
act on 17 civil should not be
cases from the time complied with
of their filing, to partially,
take further action inadequately or
on 32 civil cases, selectively.
and to resolve In the present case,
motions or the court finds that
incidents in 88 civil Judge Go failed to
cases. heed the above
He also pronouncements.
deliberately and He did not file the
continuously fails required comment
and refuses to to the court’s show
comply with the cause resolutions
resolution of [the despite several
Supreme] Court. opportunities
granted him by this
Court. His willful
disobedience and
disregard to the
show-cause
resolutions
constitutes grave
and serious
misconduct
affecting his fitness
and worthiness of
the honor and
integrity attached
to his office. It is
noteworthy that
Judge Go 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 this
Court, but he has
failed, and
continuously
refuses to heed the
same. This
continued refusal
to abide by lawful
directives issued by
this Court is
glaring proof that
he has become
disinterested to
remain with the
judicial system to
which he purports
to belong.
272

State Prosecutors RULING:
II Josef Albert T.
Comilang v. Judge Notwithstanding Code of Judicial No less than the Judge Medel
Medel Arnaldo the temporary Conduct: Code of Judicial Arnaldo B. Belen,
Belen restraining order Canon 2 and its conduct mandates having been found
(TRO) enjoining Rule 2.01 that a judge shall guilty of grave
CASE NO.: Judge Belen from Canon 3 and its be faithful to the abuse of authority
A.M. No. RTJ-10- executing and Rule 3.01 laws and maintain and gross
2216 enforcing his professional ignorance of the
assailed Order and competence. law, is DISMISSED
DATE OF PROMULGATION: Decision for a Indeed, from the service,
June 26, 2012 period of 60 days, competence is a with forfeiture of
which was mark of a good all benefits except
PONENTE: subsequently judge. A judge accrued leave
Per Curiam extended with the must be acquainted credits, if any, and
issuance of a writ with legal norms with prejudice to
of preliminary and precepts as reemployment in
injunction, he well as with the government or
proceeded to issue procedural rules. any subdivision,
orders requiring When a judge agency or
complainant to to displays an utter instrumentality
explain his non- lack of familiarity thereof, including
filing of a with the rules, he government-owned
supersedeas bond, erodes the public’s and controlled
issued subpoenas confidence in the corporations and
to compel his competence of our government
attendance before courts. Such is financial
court hearings gross ignorance of institutions. He
relative to the the law. Verily, shall forthwith
contempt failure to follow CEASE and DESIST
proceedings, and basic legal from performing
finally, ajudged commands any official act or
complainant guilty embodied in the function
of indirect law and the Rules appurtenant to his
contempt for his constitutes gross office upon service
non-compliance ignorance of the on him of this
with the issued law, from which no Decision.
subpoenas. one is excused, and
surely not a judge.
Moreover, refusal
to honor an
injunctive order of
a higher court
constitutes
contempt, as in this
case, where Judge
Belen, in
contumaciously
defying the
injunctive order
issued by the CA in
CA-G.R. SP No.
94069, was found
guilty of indirect
contempt in CA-
G.R. SP No.
101081.
Judge Belen's
actuations,
therefore, cannot
be considered as
mere errors of
judgment that can
be easily brushed
aside. Obstinate
disregard of basic
and established
rule of law or
procedure amounts
to inexcusable
abuse of authority
and gross
ignorance of the
law. Likewise,
citing State
Prosecutor
Comilang for
indirect contempt
notwithstanding
the effectivity of
the CA-issued writ
of injunction
demonstrated his
vexatious attitude
and bad faith
towards the former,
for which he must
be held
accountable and
subjected to
273
TOPIC: Acts of a judge in his judicial capacity

Juvy Ciocon-Reer v. RULING:
Judge Antonio
Lubao Not all The Court denies
administrative the motion for
CASE NO.: complaints against reconsideration of
A.M. OCA IPI No. judges merit a the Courts
09-3210-RTJ corresponding Resolution dated
penalty. In the 24 November 2010
DATE OF PROMULGATION: absence of fraud, dismissing the
June 20, 2012 dishonesty or complaint against
corruption, the acts Judge Antonio C.
PONENTE: of a judge in his Lubao for being
Carpio judicial capacity judicial in nature.
are not subject to
We agree with the
OCA that the
remedy of the
complainants in
this case is judicial
in nature. Hence,
the denial of their
motion for
reconsideration of
this Courts 24
November 2010
Resolution
dismissing the
administrative case
against Judge
Lubao is in order.
274

Eladio Perfecto v. RULING:
Judge Alma
Consuelo Desales Judge Esidera The respondent
Judge Esidera violated Judge Alma
Esidera failed to act on A.M. No. 03-1-09- Judge should be Consuelo Desales-
Perfecto’s case SC, 16 August 2004 conversant with Esidera, Regional
CASE NO.: within a reasonable (Rule on Guidelines this rule. She must Trial Court, Branch
A.M. No. RTJ-11- period of time. to be Observed by know the laws and 20, Catarman,
2258 Trial Court Judges apply them Northern Samar, is
and Clerks of Court properly. Service in found LIABLE for
DATE OF PROMULGATION: in the Conduct of the judiciary gross ignorance of
June 20, 2012 Pre-trial and Use of involves continuous the law and is fined
Deposition- study and research Ten Thousand
PONENTE: Discovery from beginning to Pesos (P10,000.00),
Brion Measures) end. The with a stern
respondent warning against
deserves to be the commission of
sanctioned for a similar offense.
gross ignorance of
the law. With her
inaction on the
petition for
contempt, she
betrayed her
unbecoming lack of
familiarity with
basic procedural
rules such as what
was involved in the
contempt
proceedings before
her court. She
should have known
that while the
petitioners have
the responsibility
to move ex parte to
have the case
scheduled for
preliminary
conference, the
court (through the
branch clerk of
court) has the duty
to schedule the
case for pre-trial in
the event that the
petitioners fail to
file the motion.
As presiding judge,
she should account
for the anomaly
that since the
respondents filed
their answer, the
petition for
contempt had been
gathering dust or
had not moved in
the respondent’s
court. Clearly, the
respondent fell
short of the
standards of
competence and
legal proficiency
expected of
magistrates of the
law in her handling
of the petition for
contempt.
275
TOPIC: Lawyer’s Competence

Emilia Hernandez RULING:
v. Atty. Venancio
Padilla Atty. Padilla filed a He violated Canon 5 and Rule 18.02 of the Atty. Venancio
Memorandum of Rules 18.02, 18.03, and Code provides that Padilla is found
CASE NO.: Appeal for his 18.04, Canon 18 of the a lawyer shall not guilty of violating
A.C. No. 9387 client instead of an Code of Professional handle any legal Rules 18.02, 18.03,
Appellant’s Brief. Resonsibility matter without 18.04, as well as
DATE OF PROMULGATION: adequate Canon 5 of the
June 20, 2012 preparation. While Code of
it is true that Professional
PONENTE: respondent was not Responsibility.
Sereno complainant’s Hence, he
lawyer from the is SUSPENDED
trial to the from the practice of
appellate court law for SIX (6)
stage, this fact did MONTHS and
not excuse him STERNLY
from his duty to WARNED that a
diligently study a repetition of the
case he had agreed same or a similar
to handle. If he felt offense will be
he did not have dealt with more
enough time to severely.
study the pertinent
matters involved,
as he was
approached by
complainant’s
husband only two
days before the
expiration of the
period for filing the
Appellants Brief,
respondent should
have filed a motion
for extension of
time to file the
proper pleading
instead of whatever
pleading he could
come up with, just
to beat the
deadline set by the
Court of Appeals.
Also, instead of
explaining his side
by filing a
comment, as
ordered by the
appellate court, he
chose to ignore the
CAs Order. As a
litigator, he was
expected to know
this procedure. He,
as counsel, had the
duty to inform his
clients of the status
of their case. His
failure to do so
amounted to a
violation of Rule
18.04 of the Code,
which reads:
18.04 - A lawyer
shall keep the
client informed of
the status of his
case and shall
respond within a
reasonable time to
the clients request
for information.
If it were true that
all attempts to
contact his client
proved futile, the
least respondent
could have done
was to inform the
CA by filing a
Notice of
Withdrawal of
Appearance as
counsel. He could
have thus
explained why he
was no longer the
counsel of
complainant and
her husband in the
case and informed
the court that he
could no longer
contact them. His
failure to take this
measure proves his
negligence.
Lastly, the failure
of respondent to
file the proper
pleading and a
comment on
Duigans Motion to
Dismiss is
negligence on his
part.
Lawyers should not
neglect legal
matters entrusted
to them, otherwise
their negligence in
fulfilling their duty
would render them
liable for
Respondent has
failed to live up to
his duties as a
lawyer. When a
lawyer violates his
duties to his client,
he engages in
unethical and
unprofessional
conduct for which
he should be held
accountable.
276
TOPIC: Practice of Law

Fidela Bengco and RULING:
Teresita Bengco v.
Atty. Pablo Atty. Bernardo, Atty. Bernardo The practice of law Atty. Pablo S.
Bernardo representing violated Rules 2.03 is not a business. It Bernardo is found
himself to be the and 3.01 of the is a profession in guilty of violating
CASE NO.: lawyer of Code of which duty to the Code of
A.C. No. 6368 Gatchalian who is Professional public service, not Professional
the buyer of the lot Responsibility. money, is the Responsibility.
DATE OF PROMULGATION: which primary Accordingly, he is
June 13, 2012 complainants want consideration. Law SUSPENDED from
to buy convinced yering is not the practice of law
PONENTE: complainants to primarily meant to for ONE (1)
Reyes finance and deliver be a money-making YEAR effective
to them the amount venture, and law upon notice hereof.
of P495,000 as advocacy is not a
advance money for capital that Further, the Court
them to expedite necessarily yields ORDERS Atty.
the titling of the profits. The gaining Pablo S. Bernardo
subject land. He of a livelihood (1) to RETURN the
and his companion should be a amount
represented that secondary of P200,000.00 to
they have contacts consideration. The Fidela Bengco and
at NAMREA, duty to public Teresita Bengco
DENR, CENRO and service and to the within TEN (10)
the Register of administration of DAYS from receipt
Deeds which justice should be of this Decision and
representation they the primary (2) to SUBMIT his
knew to be false, consideration of proof of compliance
fraudulent and lawyers, who must thereof to the
were only made to subordinate their Court, through the
induce personal interests Office of the Bar
complainants to or what they owe Confidant within
give and deliver to to themselves. TEN (10) DAYS
them the amount. therefrom; with a
Once in possession STERN WARNING
of the said amount, that failure to do so
far from complying shall merit him the
with their additional penalty
obligation to of suspension from
expedite and cause the practice of law
the titling of the for one (1) year.
subject land,
respondent and
Magat
misappropriated,
misapplied and
converted the said
amount to their
personal use and
benefit and despite
demand upon them
to return the said
amount, they failed
and refused to do
so.
277
TOPIC: Practice of law
Rodrigo A. Molina RULING:
v. Atty. Ceferino R.
Magat Atty. Magat He violated Rule 10.01 of The practice of law Atty. Ceferino R.
misleaded the the Code of is a privilege Magat is hereby
CASE NO.: court when he filed Professional bestowed on those ordered
A.C. No. 1900 the motion to Responsibility. who show that they SUSPENDED from
dismiss the possess and the practice of law
DATE OF PROMULGATION: criminal charges continue to possess for six (6) months
June 13, 2012 on the basis of the legal with a WARNING
double jeopardy qualifications for it. that the
PONENTE: when in fact, no Indeed, lawyers are commission of the
Mendoza similar case was expected to same or similar
filed to be the basis maintain at all offense in the
of double jeopardy. times a high future would be
Atty. Magat standard of legal dealt with more
appeared as proficiency and severely.
counsel before a morality, including
trial court on at honesty, integrity
least two (2) and fair dealing.
occasions They must perform
notwithstanding their four-fold duty
the fact that he had to society, the legal
been suspended by profession, the
the Supreme Court courts and their
from the practice clients, in
of law. accordance with
the values and
norms of the legal
profession as
embodied in the
Code of
Professional
Responsibility.
Atty. Magat’s act
clearly falls short
of the standards
set by the Code of
Professional
Responsibility,
particularly Rule
10.01. the Court
agrees with the
observation of the
IBP that there was
a deliberate intent
on the part of Atty.
Magat to mislead
the court when he
filed the motion to
dismiss the
criminal charges
on the basis of
double jeopardy.
Atty. Magat should
not make any false
and untruthful
statements in his
pleadings. If it
were true that
there was a similar
case for slight
physical injuries
that was really filed
in court, all he had
to do was to secure
a certification from
that court that,
indeed, a case was
filed.
278
TOPIC: Ignorance of the law

City Prosecutor RULING:
Armando P.
Abanado v. Judge Judge Bayona None. The Court finds The complaint
Abraham Bayona insists in ordering that respondent against Judge
the City Prosecutor erred in insisting Abraham A. Bayona
CASE NO.: to produce a on the production of the Municipal
A.M. No. MTJ-12- Resolution which of the Jarder Trial Court in
1804 was no longer part Resolution when all Cities, Bacolod
of the records as it other pertinent City, Branch 7 is
DATE OF PROMULGATION: was disapproved by documents DISMISSED.
July 30, 2012 the City Prosecutor. regarding the
As it was not preliminary
PONENTE: produced, he set investigation have
Per Curiam the hearing for been submitted to
contempt charges his court, and in
against the going so far as to
prosecutor. motu proprio
initiating a
proceeding for
contempt against
complainant.
However, not every
judicial error is
tantamount to
ignorance of the
law and if it was
committed in good
faith, the judge
need not be
subjected to
administrative
sanction. While
complainant
admitted that he
erred in insisting
on the production
of the Jarder
Resolution despite
the provisions of
the DOJ-NPS
Manual, such error
cannot be
categorized as
gross ignorance of
the law as he did
not appear to be
motivated by bad
faith. Indeed, the
rules of procedure
in the prosecution
office were not
clear as to whether
or not an
investigating
prosecutor’s
resolution of
dismissal that had
been reversed by
the city prosecutor
should still form
part of the records.
Neither did
respondent’s action
amount to gross
misconduct. Gross
misconduct
presupposes
evidence of grave
irregularity in the
performance of
duty. In the case at
bar, respondent’s
act of requiring
complainant to
explain why he
should not be cited
in contempt for his
failure to submit
the Jarder
Resolution in court
was in accordance
with established
rules of procedure.
Furthermore,
complainant did
not abuse his
contempt power as
he did not pursue
the proceedings in
view of the May 29,
2009 and June 15,
2009 Gellada
orders. Lastly, as
previously
discussed,
respondent issued
those orders in
good faith as he
honestly believed
that they were
necessary in the
fair and just
issuance of the
warrant of arrest in
Criminal Case No.
09-03-16474.
279
TOPIC: Undue delay in case disposition

Atty. Felino RULING:
Bangalan v. Judge
Benjamin Turgano Judge Turgano He violated Article The Constitution Judge Benjamin D.
decided the case VIII, Section 15 of provides that all Turgano is found
CASE NO.: after 15 months, the 1987 lower courts must GUILTY of undue
A.M. No. RTJ-12- beyond the 90-day Constitution and decide or resolve delay in the
2317 period required by Canon 6, Sec. 5 of cases or matters disposition of Civil
law. the New Code of brought before Case No. 11140-15.
DATE OF PROMULGATION: Judicial Conduct them three months He is hereby
July 25, 2012 for the Philippine from the time a REPRIMANDED,
Judiciary. case or matter is with a WARNING
PONENTE: submitted for that the
Sereno decision. Canon 6, commission of the
Sec. 5 of the New same or a similar
Code of Judicial offense will be
Conduct for the dealt with more
Philippine severely.
Judiciary, which
became effective
on June 1, 2004,
also provides that
judges shall
perform all duties,
including the
delivery of
reserved decisions,
efficiently, fairly
and with
reasonable
promptness.
If a judge is unable
to comply with the
90-day
reglementary
period for deciding
cases or matters,
he can, for good
reasons, ask for an
extension, which
request is generally
granted. Indeed,
the Court usually
allows reasonable
extensions of time
to decide cases in
recognition of the
heavy caseload of
the trial courts. As
respondent failed
to ask for an
extension in this
case, he is deemed
to have incurred
delay.
The need to
impress upon
judges the
importance of
deciding cases
promptly and
expeditiously
cannot be stressed
enough, for delay
in the disposition of
cases and matters
undermines the
people’s faith and
confidence in the
judiciary. As oft
stated, justice
delayed is justice
denied.
280

Atty. Policario RULING:
Catalan, Jr. v. Atty.
Joselito Silvosa Atty. Silvosa He violated Rule 6.03 An attorney is Atty. Joselito M.
appeared as of the Code of employed — that is, Silvosa is hereby
CASE NO.: counsel for the Professional he is engaged in DISBARRED and
A.C. No. 7360 accused in the Responsibility his professional his name
same case for capacity as a ORDERED
DATE OF PROMULGATION: which he lawyer or counselor STRICKEN from
July 24, 2012 previously — when he is the Roll of
appeared as listening to his Attorneys. Let a
PONENTE: prosecutor. client’s preliminary copy of this
Per curiam Atty. Silvosa made statement of his Decision be
an attempt to bribe case, or when he is furnished to the
Pros. Toribio and giving advice Office of the Bar
failed. thereon, just as Confidant, to be
Atty. Silvosa’was truly as when he is appended to
convicted of the drawing his client’s respondent’s
crime of direct pleadings, or personal record as
bribery by the advocating his attorney.
Sandiganbayan and client’s pleadings,
such became final. or advocating his
client’s cause in
open court.
Hence the
necessity of setting
down the existence
of the bare
relationship of
attorney and client
as the yardstick for
testing
incompatibility of
interests. This
stern rule is
designed not alone
to prevent the
dishonest
practitioner from
fraudulent conduct,
but as well to
protect the honest
lawyer from
unfounded
suspicion of
unprofessional
practice. It is
founded on
principles of public
policy, on good
taste. As has been
said in another
case, the question
is not necessarily
one of the rights of
the parties, but as
to whether the
attorney has
adhered to proper
professional
standard. Indeed,
the prohibition
against
representation of
conflicting
interests applies
although the
attorney’s
intentions were
honest and he
acted in good faith.
Silvosa’s 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. Silvosa’s
conviction of the
crime. The court is
constrained to
impose a penalty
more severe than
suspension
because it finds
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.

253-280 Praleg Cases

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

253-280 Praleg Cases

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

253

TOPIC: Gross ignorance of the law

TOPIC: Grave misconduct

TOPIC: Unauthorized practice of law

TOPIC: Client’s funds

TOPIC: Conflict of interest

TOPIC: Lawyer’s competence and diligence

TOPIC: Client’s funds

TOPIC: Inexcusable ignorance of the law

TOPIC: Preponderance of Evidence

TOPIC: Gross misconduct

TOPIC: Simple misconduct

TOPIC: Gross ignorance of the law

TOPIC: Gross misconduct

TOPIC: Client’s funds

TOPIC: Client’s property

TOPIC: Client’s cause

TOPIC: Conflict of interest

TOPIC: Supreme Court’s resolutions

TOPIC: Gross ignorance of the law

TOPIC: Acts of a judge in his judicial capacity

TOPIC: Gross ignorance of the law

TOPIC: Lawyer’s Competence

TOPIC: Practice of Law

TOPIC: Ignorance of the law

TOPIC: Undue delay in case disposition

TOPIC: Conflict of interest

You might also like