NAVARRO V. ATTY YGONA Falsification of Public Document, and the instant administrative case against Atty.

Ygoña.[14] The Spouses Navarro asserted that, driven by their dire need for the proceeds of
A notarized document is entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. A notary public must the loan and lacking familiarity with the particulars of the transaction, they hastily signed the
exercise utmost care in performing his duties to preserve the public's confidence in the
Deed of Absolute Sale, of which the date and other relevant portions were allegedly left
integrity of notarized documents.[1] blank.[15]
The relevant facts, as borne by the records, are as follows: According to the Spouses Navarro, and as admitted by Grauel, the Promissory Note, the Real
Estate Mortgage, and the Deed of Absolute Sale were all executed on November 22,
Complainants spouses Felix and Fe Navarro (Spouses Navarro) were the owners of a parcel of 2002.[16] The Real Estate Mortgage was notarized by Atty. Ygoña on the same date. However,
land (subject property) located at Barrio Panadtaran, San Fernando, Cebu, Philippines, the Deed of Sale was notarized only on October 22, 2004.[17]
covered by Tax Declaration No. 0137-7148.[2]
In their complaint,[18] the Spouses Navarro alleged that the Deed of Absolute Sale was
Sometime in November 2002, the Spouses Navarro obtained a loan from Mercy Grauel fictitious and that their signatures therein were forged. In impugning the validity of the Deed
(Grauel) in the amount of P300,000.00.[3] As a collateral for the loan, the Spouses Navarro of Absolute Sale, the Spouses Navarro pointed out several irregularities, particularly, the
executed and signed a Promissory Note and a Real Estate Mortgage over the subject property Community Tax Certificates (CTC) used in the Deed of Absolute Sale and the
on November 22, 2002.[4] In addition, Grauel proposed to the Spouses Navarro the execution Acknowledgment portion.[19] In addition, the Spouses Navarro presented a
of a Deed of Absolute Sale conveying the subject property to Grauel, in the event that the Certification[20] issued by the Office of the Clerk of Court (Notarial Section), Regional Trial
Spouses Navarro would fail to pay the loan.[5] Grauel admitted that she made the proposal to Court of Cebu, 7thJudicial Region, confirming that Atty. Ygoña had submitted his notarial
avoid the tedious process of foreclosing a property, and that the Deed of Absolute Sale would report for the year 2004, but the subject Deed of Absolute Sale notarized on October 22,
serve merely as an additional security for the loan.[6] According to Grauel, the Spouses 2004 was not among the documents listed.
Navarro agreed to her proposal and voluntarily signed the Deed of Absolute Sale.[7]
For his part, Atty. Ygoña averred that at the time the Deed of Absolute Sale was presented to
Grauel repeatedly demanded payment from the Spouses Navarro, but her demands went him for notarization, it was complete in all material particulars, and that the Spouses Navarro
unheeded.[8] Grauel recounted that due to her hectic schedule, she forgot to register the Real freely and voluntary executed and signed the same.[21] Atty. Ygoña also emphasized that the
Estate Mortgage with the Office of the Register of Deeds. It was only on March 2004 when
Spouses Navarro did not deny the genuineness of their signatures in the Deed of Absolute
Grauel filed her request and paid the corresponding fees for the registration of the Real Sale.[22]
Estate Mortgage. Despite this, the Real Estate Mortgage was not registered because the
Office of the Register of Deeds allegedly just sat on Grauel's request.[9] In a Resolution[23] dated September 19, 2005, the City Prosecutor dismissed the criminal
complaint for Estafa against Atty. Ygoña as there was no proof that he conspired with Grauel
Upon instructions made by Grauel, Atty. Ygoña sent the Spouses Navarro a letter, received on in committing the crime against the Spouses Navarro. However, in the same Resolution, the
September 24, 2004, demanding payment of the loan.[10] According to Grauel, since the City Prosecutor recommended the filing of an Information for Estafa under Article 315, No.
Spouses Navarro could no longer pay, Grauel proposed that the Spouses Navarro convey to 3(a) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) against Grauel after finding probable cause that she
her the subject property to extinguish all their obligations arising from the employed deceit and fraud when she induced the Spouses Navarro to sign the Deed of
loan.[11] Thereafter, on October 22, 2004, Atty. Ygoña notarized the Deed of Absolute Sale Absolute Sale purposely as an assurance before granting the loan, but used it to transfer the
which Grauel used to cause the transfer of the tax declaration over the subject property to title over the property to her name, to the prejudice of the Spouses Navarro.[24]
her name.[12]
At the scheduled mandatory conference on August 13, 2010, the Spouses Navarro and Atty.
Upon learning that Grauel filed a civil case for Quieting of Title, the Spouses Navarro filed an Ygoña were present, and assisted by their respective counsels, jointly moved for the resetting
adverse claim in order to restore their right over the subject property.[13] The Spouses of the case to give them enough time to go over the records.[25]
Navarro also filed a criminal complaint against Grauel and Atty. Ygoña for Estafa through
During the last mandatory conference on November 19, 2010, the Spouses Navarro,
represented by Atty. Rainier C. Lacap, and Atty. Ygoña agreed that stipulations, admissions, The Court does not entirely agree with the basis of Commissioner Andres in finding Atty.
and issues shall be limited to the pleadings already filed.[26] The mandatory conference was Ygoña liable forhis failure to diligently perform his notarial functions. Commissioner Andres
terminated and the parties submitted their respective position papers. Thereafter, the case concluded that Atty. Ygoña should have been aware that the Deed of Absolute Sale he had
was deemed submitted for decision. notarized was in the nature of a pactum commissorium. The Court finds that this issue should
be resolved in a separate civil action. Likewise, the issue of whether or not the Deed of
After due proceedings, Commissioner Mario V. Andres (Commissioner Andres) rendered a Absolute Sale was indeed forged, is civil, and perhaps criminal, in nature, and should be
Report and Recommendation[27] on June 10, 2013, concluding that Atty. Ygoña failed to passed upon in a proper case.[34] Nevertheless, the Court agrees that Atty. Ygoña was remiss
diligently perform his notarial functions after notarizing the Deed of Absolute Sale, when he in the exercise of his notarial functions.
should have already been aware of a possible badge of pactum commissorium in the
transaction - that the lender, Grauel, intended an automatic appropriation of the subject Notarization is not merely an empty or meaningless exercise. It is invested with public
property in case of nonpayment of the loan by the Spouses Navarro.[28] The dispositive interest, such that only those qualified and authorized may act as notaries
portion reads: public.[35] Notarization converts a private document into a public document, making it
admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity.[36] A notarized document is,
WHEREFORE, the Undersigned respectfully recommends that if the notarial commission of the therefore, entitled to full faith and credit upon its face, and the courts, administrative
Respondent still exists, that it be hereby revoked and that he be disqualified from being agencies, and the public at large must be able to rely upon the acknowledgment executed by
commissioned as a notary public for two (2) years. It is also recommended that herein a notary public.[37]Corollary to this, notaries public must observe utmost care and diligence in
Respondent be suspended from the practice of law for three (3) to six (6) months.[29] carrying out their duties and functions.
In its Resolution[30] dated August 9, 2014, the IBP Board of Governors resolved to adopt and In Salita v. Salve,[38] a case with a similar factual milieu, the Court revoked therein respondent
approve the said Report and Recommendation, thus: Atty. Salve's notarial commission and disqualified him from being commissioned as a notary
for a period of (2) years, for his gross neglect in the performance of his duty as a notary when
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, the Report and he notarized the pre-formed Deed of Absolute Sale without therein complainant Salita's
Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in the above-entitled case, herein made presence before him. The Court found that it was unfathomable for Salita to appear before
part of this Resolution as Annex "A", and finding the recommendation fully supported by
Atty. Salve to have the Deed of Absolute Sale notarized, as it would be detrimental to his own
evidence on record and the applicable laws, and for failure to exercise the utmost diligence in interests.[39]
the performance of his functions as a notary public, Atty. Margarita G. Ygoña's Notarial
Commission is hereby Immediately Revoked. Atty. Margarito G. Ygoña is further DISQUALIFIED Here, Atty. Ygoña should have been more circumspect in notarizing the Deed of Absolute
from being commissioned as notary public for two (2) years and SUSPENDED from the practice Sale. Assuming that there is truth in Atty. Ygoña's assertion that the Spouses Navarro freely
of law for three (3) months.[31] and voluntarily signed and executed the Deed of Absolute Sale, the Court agrees with
On February 25, 2016, the IBP Board of Governors denied Atty. Ygoña's Motion for Commissioner Andres that the discrepancies in the CTCs used in the Deed of Absolute are too
Reconsideration finding no reason to reverse its previous decision.[32] On August 26, 2016, the glaring to ignore.[40] Thus, serious doubt exists as to whether the Spouses Navarro did indeed
IBP Board of Governors denied Atty. Ygoña's Second Motion for Reconsideration for the appear before Atty. Ygoña to have the Deed of Absolute Sale notarized, as required by the
following reasons: (1) neither the Rules of Court nor the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline Rules on Notarial Practice.[41]
Rules allow the filing of the same; (2) for being dilatory; and (3) the issues therein had already
been passed upon.[33] Moreover, the Court notes the Certification from the Office of the Clerk of Court confirming
that the notarial report submitted by Atty. Ygoña did not contain the subject Deed of
After a judicious examination of the records and submission of the parties, this Court affirms Absolute Sale.[42] This failure on the part of Atty. Ygoña to record the transaction in his books
the resolution of the IBP Board of Governors finding respondent Atty. Ygoña administratively and include the same in his notarial register, as required by the Rules on Notarial
liable, but modifies the penalty imposed. Practice,[43] warrants a corresponding sanction.
 Complainant also alleged that respondent was guilty of conflict of interest when he
As for the penalty to be imposed, the Court takes into account the dismissal of the criminal represented the occupants of the lot owned by complainant's family, who previously donated
case for falsification filed against Atty. Ygoña. Despite the ruling of the IBP Board of a parcel of land to the Roman Catholic Church, which deed of donation respondent notarized.
Governors on Atty. Ygoña's Second Motion for Reconsideration, the Court deems it necessary
to point out that the Spouses Navarro previously filed a disbarment case[44] against the Complainant further accused respondent of conniving with Regional Trial Court (RTC), Naval,
former counsel of Grauel, Atty. Gregorio B. Escasinas, concerning the same civil action Biliran, Branch 16 Judge Enrique C. Asis, who was his former client in an administrative case,
involving the subject property. This shows the Spouses Navarro's propensity to file suits to rule in his clients' favor. Complainant narrated the outcomes in the "cases of Estrellers
against the lawyers of their opponent, which the Court should not overlook. Thus, which were filed in the [Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC)] and reversed by the RTC, in the
considering the foregoing, the Court agrees with, and hereby adopts, the recommended exercise of its appellate jurisdiction to favor respondent x x x and his client[s] x x x."
penalty of the IBP that respondent Atty. Ygoña's notarial commission be revoked and that he
be disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public for two (2) years. However, the Complainant charged respondent with grave misconduct when he defied the accessory
Court does not agree that the acts of Atty. Ygoña warrant the recommended penalty of penalty of his dismissal as a judge. Respondent worked as Associate Dean and Professor of
suspension from the practice of law for three (3) months. the Naval Institute of Technology (NIT) - University of Eastern Philippines College of Law,
which is a government institution, and received salaries therefor, in violation of the accessory
WHEREFORE, Atty. Margarita G. Ygoña is found GUILTY of gross negligence in the penalty of dismissal which is his perpetual disqualification from reemployment in any
performance of his duties as notary public. His notarial commission, if still existing, is government office.
hereby REVOKED and he is DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as a notary public for a
period of two (2) years. He is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar act In his Comment[2] dated 16 December 2007, respondent basically denied the charges against
will be dealt with more severely. him. Respondent alleged that "the [Certificate to File Action] he used when he filed Civil Case
No. [B-] 1118 for quieting of title before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 16, Naval, Biliran
was the certification of Lupon Chairman, the late Rodulfo Catigbe, issued on May 9, 2001."[3]

MALABED V. ATTY DELA PENA Respondent also claimed that the free patent title was attached to the folio of the records in
Civil Case No. B-1118 and he furnished a copy of the same to complainant's counsel.
In her Complaint[1] dated 7 August 2007, complainant charged respondent with dishonesty Assuming opposing counsel was not furnished, respondent wondered why he raised this
for "deliberately and repeatedly making falsehood" that "misled the Court." First, matter only upon filing of the instant complaint.
complainant claimed that the Certificate to File Action in the complaint filed by respondent
refers to a different complaint, that is the complaint filed by complainant's brother against Respondent argued that notarization of the deed of donation had no relation to the case filed
Fortunato Jadulco. In effect, there was no Certificate to File Action, which is required for the against the occupants of the lot. Respondent likewise stressed that the matter regarding
filing of a civil action, in the complaint filed by respondent on behalf of his client Fortunato Judge Asis's rulings favorable to his clients should be addressed to Judge Asis himself.
Jadulco.
As regards the charge of grave misconduct for defying the accessory penalty of dismissal from
Second, complainant alleged that respondent did not furnish her counsel with a copy of the the service, respondent admitted that he accepted the positions of Associate Dean and
free patent covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 1730, but respondent forwarded Professor of the NIT - University of Eastern Philippines College of Law, which is a government
a copy to the Court of Appeals. Complainant claimed that she could not properly defend institution. However, respondent countered that he was no longer connected with the NIT
herself without a copy of the title. She further claimed that the title presented by respondent College of Law; and thus, this issue had become moot. Respondent further claimed that his
was fabricated. To support such claim, complainant presented Certifications from the designation as Assistant Dean was only temporary, and he had not received any salary except
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and the Registry of Deeds in honorarium. Respondent stated that he even furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC)
Naval, Biliran, allegedly confirming that there is no file in their offices of OCT No. 1730. and the MCLE Office a copy of his designation as Associate Dean, and since there were no
objections, he proceeded to perform the functions appurtenant thereto. He likewise
submitted an affidavit from Edgardo Garcia, complainant in the administrative case against
him, who interposed no objection to his petition for judicial clemency filed before this Court. RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby unanimously ADOPTED and APPROVED the
Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in the above-entitled case,
Complainant filed a Reply-Affidavit[4] on 22 January 2008. Respondent filed a Rejoinder to herein made part of this Resolution as Annex "A" and finding the recommendation fully
Reply[5] on 20 February 2008. Complainant filed a Surrejoinder to the Rejoinder to Reply[6] on supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, and finding
20 February 2008. All these submissions basically reiterated the respective arguments of the Respondent guilty of dishonesty and grave misconduct, Atty. Meljohn B. De La Peña is hereby
parties and denied each other's allegations. SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year.[9]
The Issue
The Ruling of the IBP
The sole issue in this case is whether respondent is guilty of dishonesty and grave
In his Report and Recommendation,[7] Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commissioner misconduct.
Norberto B. Ruiz noted the foul language used by respondent in his pleadings submitted
before the IBP. Respondent described complainant's counsel as "silahis" and accused
complainant of "cohabiting with a married man x x x before the wife of that married man The Ruling of the Court
died." According to the IBP Commissioner, such offensive language "[is a] clear
manifestation[] of respondent's gross misconduct that seriously affect his standing and Respondent is guilty of gross misconduct.
character as an officer of the court."
Using foul language in pleadings
With respect to the charges of dishonesty and grave misconduct, the IBP Commissioner
found that respondent is guilty of the same "as evidenced by the numerous documents In his Comment, respondent called complainant's counsel "silahis by nature and
attached by complainant in all the pleadings she has submitted." Respondent committed acts complexion"[10] and accused complainant of "cohabiting with a married man x x x before the
of dishonesty and grave misconduct (1) for using a Certificate to File Action which was used in wife of that married man died."[11] In his Rejoinder, respondent maintained that such
a complaint filed by complainant's brother Conrado Estreller against Fortunato Jadulco, who language is not foul, but a "dissertation of truth designed to debunk complainant's and her
counsel's credibility in filing the administrative case."[12]
is respondent's client; (2) for not furnishing complainant's counsel with a copy of the free
patent covered by OCT No. 1730 which was attached to the Comment respondent filed with
the Court of Appeals; and (3) for accepting the positions of Associate Dean and Professor of We are not convinced. Aside from such language being inappropriate, it is irrelevant to the
the NIT - University of Eastern Philippines College of Law and receiving salaries therefor, in resolution of this case. While respondent is entitled and very much expected to defend
violation of the accessory penalty of prohibition on reemployment in any government office himself with vigor, he must refrain from using improper language in his pleadings. In Saberon
as a result of his dismissal as a judge. v. Larong,[13] we stated:

The IBP Commissioner recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law x x x [W]hile a lawyer is entitled to present his case with vigor and courage, such enthusiasm
for one year.[8] does not justify the use of offensive and abusive language. Language abounds with countless
possibilities for one to be emphatic but respectful, convincing but not derogatory, illuminating
On 28 October 2011, the IBP Board of Governors issued a Resolution adopting the IBP but not offensive.
Commissioner's recommendation. The Resolution reads:
RESOLUTION NO. XX-2011-137 On many occasions, the Court has reminded members of the Bar to abstain from all offensive
Adm. Case No. 7594 personality and to advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness,
Adelpha E. Malabed vs. Atty. Meljohn De La Peña unless required by the justice of the cause with which he is charged. In keeping with the dignity
of the legal profession, a lawyers language even in his pleadings must be dignified.
For using improper language in his pleadings, respondent violated Rule 8.01 of Canon 8 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility which states: Admittedly, the Court of Appeals was furnished a copy of OCT No. 1730, which means that a
copy of the title exists. There is no showing that respondent deliberately did not furnish
Rule 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive, complainant's counsel with a copy of the title. The remedy of complainant should have been
offensive or otherwise improper. to file with the Court of Appeals a motion to furnish complainant or counsel with a copy of
the title so she and her counsel could examine the same.
Non-submission of certificate to file action
Moreover, whether OCT No. 1730 is fabricated, as complainant alleges, is a question of fact
The submission of the certificate to file action, which evidences the non-conciliation between demanding an examination of the parties' respective evidence. Obviously, this matter falls
the parties in the barangay, is a pre-condition for the filing of a complaint in outside the scope of this administrative case, absent any clear and convincing proof that
court.[14] Complainant claims that there is no such certificate in the complaint filed by respondent himself orchestrated such fabrication. The DENR and Registry of Deeds
respondent on behalf of Fortunato Jadulco, et al. Instead, what respondent submitted was certifications do not prove that respondent manufactured OCT No. 1730. Such documents
the certificate to file action in the complaint filed by complainant's brother, Conrado Estreller, merely confirm that OCT No. 1730 does not exist in their official records.
against Fortunato Jadulco.[15]

Respondent counters that what he used "when he filed Civil Case No. [B-] 1118 for Quieting Conflict of interest
of Title, etc. x x x was the certification x x x issued on May 9, 2001, x x x."
Complainant accuses respondent of conflict of interest when the latter allegedly notarized a
Based on the records, the complaint for quieting of title in Civil Case No. B-1118 was filed deed of donation of a parcel of land executed by complainant's family in favor of the Roman
with the RTC on 18 October 2000. The Certificate of Endorsement, which respondent claimed Catholic Church. Eventually, respondent allegedly sought to litigate as counsel for the
was the certificate to file action he used in Civil Case No. B-1118, was issued on 9 May 2001, opposing parties who are occupants in the lot owned by complainant's family.
or after the filing of the complaint on 18 October 2000. It is apparent that the Certificate of
Endorsement did not exist yet when the complaint in Civil Case No. B-1118 was filed. In other Suffice to state that notarization is different from representation. A notary public simply
words, there is no truth to respondent's allegation that the subject matter of Civil Case No. B- performs the notarial acts authorized by the Rules on Notarial Practice, namely,
1118 was brought before the Lupon Tagapamayapa and that a certificate to file action was
acknowledgments, oaths and affirmations, jurats, signature witnessings, and copy
issued prior to the filing of the complaint. Clearly, respondent misrepresented that he filed a certifications. Legal representation, on the other hand, refers to the act of assisting a party as
certificate to file action when there was none, which act violated Canon 10, Rule 10.01, and counsel in a court action.
Rule 10.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, to wit:
As regards complainant's serious accusations against respondent of conniving with Judge Asis
CANON 10. A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT. and conspiring with the latter to render judgments favorable to respondent's clients, such are
bare allegations, without any proof. Complainant simply narrated the outcomes of the
Rule 10.01 - A lawyer shall not do any falsehood; nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor proceedings in Civil Case Nos. 1017, 860 and 973, which were filed by the Estrellers in the
shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice. MCTC and reversed by the RTC. Complainant conveniently failed to present any concrete
evidence proving her grave accusation of conspiracy between respondent and Judge Asis.
Rule 10.02 - A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the contents of a paper, x Moreover, charges of bias and partiality on the part of the presiding judge should be filed
x x. against the judge, and not against the counsel allegedly favored by the judge.
Failure to furnish opposing counsel with copy of title

With regard to respondent's alleged act of not furnishing complainant's counsel with a copy Violation of prohibition on reemployment in government office
of the free patent title, we find that it does not constitute dishonesty.
 to the institution of the civil action of his client, Fortunato Jadulco, in Civil Case No. B-1118;
In our 9 February 1994 Resolution,[16] we dismissed respondent as Acting Judge of Municipal (2) using improper language in his pleadings; and (3) defying willfully the Court's prohibition
Trial Court of Naval, Leyte and Presiding Judge of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Caibiran- on reemployment in any government office as accessory penalty of his dismissal as a judge.
Culaba, Leyte for partiality, with prejudice to reappointment to any public office, including Gross misconduct is defined as "improper or wrong conduct, the transgression of some
government-owned or controlled corporations. established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in
character, and implies a wrongful intent and not a mere error in judgment."[19]
There is no dispute that respondent knows full well the consequences of his dismissal as a
judge, one of which is the accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification from reemployment Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, gross misconduct is a ground for
in any government office, including government-owned or controlled corporations. Despite disbarment or suspension from the practice of law.
being disqualified, respondent accepted the positions of Associate Dean and Professor of NIT-
College of Law, a government institution, and received compensation therefor. 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
Respondent alleges that his designation was only temporary, and "no fixed salary was Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral
attached to his designation except for honorarium." Respondent also claims that he furnished conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation
a copy of his designation to the OBC and MCLE office as a "gesture of x x x respect, courtesy of the oath which he is required to take before admission to practice, or for a willful
and approval from the Supreme Court." He further avers that complainant in the disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willfully appearing as
administrative case against him (as a judge) posed no objection to his petition for clemency. 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
Respondent's contentions are untenable. The prohibition on reemployment does not malpractice.
distinguish between permanent and temporary appointments. Hence, that his designation
was only temporary does not absolve him from liability. Further, furnishing a copy of his In view of respondent's repeated gross misconduct, we increase the IBP's recommended
designation to the OBC and MCLE office does not in any way extinguish his permanent penalty to suspension from the practice of law for two (2) years.
disqualification from reemployment in a government office. Neither does the fact that
complainant in his previous administrative case did not object to his petition for clemency. WHEREFORE, we find respondent Atty. Meljohn B. De la Peña GUILTY of gross misconduct and
accordingly SUSPEND him from the practice of law for two (2) years with a WARNING that the
In view of his disqualification from reemployment in any government office, respondent commission of the same or similar act or acts shall be dealt with more severely.
should have declined from accepting the designation and desisted from performing the
functions of such positions.[17] Clearly, respondent knowingly defied the prohibition on
reemployment in a public office imposed upon him by the Court.
CARLOS V. LINSANGAN
In Santeco v. Avance,[18] where respondent lawyer "willfully disobeyed this Court when she
continued her law practice despite the five-year suspension order," the Court held that Complainants are children of the late Juan De Dios E. Carlos (Juan) who presently seek to
failure to comply with Court directives constitutes gross misconduct, insubordination or disbar respondent Atty. Jaime S. Linsangan (Atty. Linsangan). Atty. Linsangan acted as counsel
disrespect which merits a lawyer's suspension or even disbarment. for their late father in several cases, one of which involving the recovery of a parcel of land
located in Alabang, Muntinlupa City. Complainants alleged that Atty. Linsangan forced them
to sign pleadings and documents, sold the parcel of land in Alabang, Muntinlupa City in
Gross Misconduct cahoots with complainants' estranged mother, and evaded payment of income taxes when
he divided his share in the subject property as his supposed attorney's fees to his wife and
In sum, respondent committed gross misconduct for (1) misrepresenting that he submitted a children, all in violation of his oath as lawyer.
certificate to file action issued by the Lupon Tagapamayapa when in fact there was none prior
 NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the foregoing premises, the parties hereto have
mutually agreed and bound themselves as follows:
The Facts and Antecedent Proceedings
1. That ATTORNEY shall continue to take all legal steps to recover the 10,000 square meters
The parcel of land located in Alabang, Muntilupa City and covered by Transfer Certificate of covered by TCT No. 139061, or any portion thereof acceptable to CLIENT, through any or all of
Title (TCT) No. 139061 with an area of 12,331 square meters was previously owned by the the Court cases mentioned above, or such other Court cases as may be necessary;
Spouses Felix and Felipa Carlos. Their son, Teofilo Carlos (Teofilo), convinced them to transfer
said title to his name with a promise to distribute the same to his brothers and sisters. Teofilo 2. That ATTORNEY shall not enter into any compromise agreement without the written consent
delivered the owner's duplicate copy of the title to his brother, Juan. However, Teofilo sold of CLIENT. CLIENT may enter into any compromise agreement only upon consultation with
the entire property to Pedro Balbanero (Pedro). Pedro, however, failed to pay the agreed ATTORNEY;
installment payments.
3. That ATTORNEY shall avail of all legal remedies in order to recover the property and shall
For purposes of recovering the subject property from Teofilo (and Teofilo's supposed wife, continue the prosecution of such remedies to the best of his knowledge, ability, and
Felicidad), and from Pedro, Juan engaged the services of Atty. Linsangan. It appears that Atty. experience, all within legal and ethical bounds;
Linsangan, for Juan, filed the following cases: (a) a case[1] against Felicidad which was settled
with the latter acknowledging Juan's one-half interest and ownership over the property; (b) a 4. That CLIENT shall shoulder all necessary and incidental expenses in connection with the said
case against Pedro which was concluded on September 12, 1997; and (c) another cases;
case[2] against Felicidad, albeit filed by another lawyer who acted under the direct control and
supervision of Atty. Linsangan. In this case against Felicidad, it appears that the other half of 5. That considering, among others, the extent of services rendered by ATTORNEY; the value of
the property was adjudicated to Juan, as Teofilo's sole heir. Said adjudication was appealed to the property sought to be recovered; the importance of the case to CLIENT; the difficulty of
the CA.[3] recovery (considering that the Balbanero spouses have a favorable Court of Appeals['] Decision
in C.V. No. 29379, while Felicidad Sandoval's name appears in the TCT No. 139061 as wife of
It further appears that Atty. Linsangan represented Juan in the following cases, likewise all the registered owner, Teofilo Carlos), the professional ability and experience of ATTORNEY; as
involving the subject property: (a) an action for partition[4] filed by Bernard Rillo against well as other considerations, CLIENT hereby confirms and ratifies that he has agreed and bound
Pedro; (b) an ejectment case[5] filed by Juan against Pedro; and (c) Juan's intervention in the himself to pay ATTORNEY a contingent fee in an amount equivalent to FIFTY PERCENT (50%) of
case[6] between Pedro and Teofilo. the market value of the property, or portion thereof, which may be recovered, or the zonal value
thereof, whichever is higher.
It finally appears that Atty. Linsangan also represented Juan in the certiorari cases and
petitions for review filed before the CA[7] and this Court,[8] likewise involving the same The said attorney's fees shall become due and payable upon recovery of the property, or any
property. portion thereof, (a) upon finality of a favorable Court decision, or (b) compromise settlement,
whether judicially or extrajudicially, through the execution of any document acknowledging or
During the pendency of the above cases, or on September 22, 1997, Atty. Linsangan and Juan transferring CLIENT's rights over the property, or any portion thereof, whether or not through
executed a Contract for Professional Services[9] enumerating the above cases being handled ATTORNEY's, CLIENT's, or other person's efforts or mediation, or (c) or by any other mode by
by Atty. Linsangan for Juan. In said Contract, Atty. Linsangan and Juan agreed, as follows: which CLIENT's interest on the subject property, or a portion thereof, is recognized, or
registered, or transferred to him; or (d) should CLIENT violate this contract; or (e) should CLIENT
x x x x terminate ATTORNEY's services without legal or just cause.

WHEREAS, the Parties have decided to consolidate their agreements in connection with 6. That CLIENT undertakes and binds himself to pay the said attorney's fees to the following:
ATTORNEY's engagement as CLIENT's attorney to recover the subject property;
(a) To ATTORNEY himself; (d) To James Lorenz O. Linsangan - 500 square meters;
(b) In case of ATTORNEY'S death or disability, to LORNA OBSUNA LINSANGAN; (e) To Atty. Jaime S. Linsangan - 250 square meters.[18]
(c) In case of death or disability of ATTORNEY and LORNA OBSUNA LINSANGAN, jointly and
Said Supplemental Compromise Agreement was likewise approved by the trial court in its
severally, to LAUREN KYRA LINSANGAN, LORRAINE FREYJA LINSANGAN, and JAMES LORENZ
LINSANGAN; Decision[19] dated December 18, 2009. There was no mention in the record, however, that
(d) In default of all the [foregoing], to the estate of ATTORNEY. the Compromise Agreement and the Supplemental Compromise Agreement were likewise
presented for approval before the several courts where the other cases were pending.
7. That this Contract shall be binding and enforceable upon CLIENT's heirs, successors-in-
interest, administrators, and assigns, if any. On December 10, 2015, Atty. Linsangan executed a Deed of Absolute Sale[20] with a certain
Helen S. Perez (Helen) covering the entire 12,331 square meters of the subject property for a
8. That finally, CLIENT hereby authorizes, at ATTORNEY's option, the annotation of this contract purchase price of One Hundred Fifty Million Pesos (PhP150,000,000). Atty. Linsangan sold the
on TCT No. 139061 or any subsequent title which may be issued. (Emphasis supplied) entire property using the following:

x x x x[10] 1. a Special Power of Attorney[21] dated August 26, 2010, executed by his wife Lorna Linsangan,
and children, Lauren Kyra O. Linsangan, Lorraine Freyja O. Linsangan and James Lorenz O.
However, it was not only Juan who went after the property, but also Bernard Rillo and Alicia Linsangan to sell their shares in the subject property;
Carlos, a sister-in-law. The latter also filed an action[11] for recovery of their share and by
Compromise Agreement, an area of 2,331 square meters was awarded in their favor, leaving 2. a Special Power of Attorney[22] dated September 2009, executed by Juan's wife, Bella N. Vda.
a 10,000 square meter portion of the property.[12] de Carlos, and their children, Jo-Ann Carlos Tabuton, Jacqueline Carlos-Dominguez and Jimmy
N. Carlos to represent them in all cases involving their interests and shares in the properties of
This remaining 10,000 square meter portion was eventually divided in the case filed by Juan Juan;
against Felicidad (which Atty. Linsangan admits[13] to have filed albeit through another lawyer
who acted under his control and supervision), through a Compromise Agreement wherein 3. a Special Power of Attorney[23] dated September 30, 2009 executed by Lorna A. Carlos,
7,500 square meters of the subject property was given to the heirs of Juan while the Jerusha Ann A. Carlos and Jan Joshua A. Carlos to represent them in all cases involving their
remaining 2,500 square meters thereof was given to Felicidad.[14] In said Compromise interests and shares in the properties of Juan;
Agreement, the parties likewise agreed to waive as against each other any and all other
claims which each may have against the other, including those pending in the CA[15] and this 4. a Special Power of Attorney[24] dated May 2013 executed by Porfirio C. Rillo and Jose Rillo to
Court. This Compromise Agreement was approved by the trial court on December 11, sell their shares consisting of 200 square meter portion and 199 square meter portion,
2009.[16] respectively, of the subject property;
Subsequently, a Supplemental Compromise Agreement[17] dated December 16, 2009 was 5. a Special Power of Attorney[25] dated October 15, 2009 executed by Jocelyn N. Carlos and
submitted by the heirs of Juan and Atty. Linsangan, dividing among them the 7,500 square Jennifer N. Carlos to represent them in all cases involving their interests and shares in the
meter-portion of the property as follows: 3,750 square meters to the heirs of Juan and 3,750 properties of Juan;
square meters to Atty. Linsangan pursuant to the Contract for Professional Services. In said
Supplemental Compromise Agreement, Atty. Linsangan waived in favor of his wife and 6. a Special Power of Attorney[26] dated May 28, 2010 executed by Bernard Rillo in favor of
children his 3,750 square meter share, except as to the 250 square meters thereof, as Alicia D. Carlos to sell his share in the subject property by virtue of a Compromise Agreement
follows: dated September 3, 1987 in the case of Bernard Rillo, et al. vs. Teofilo Carlos, et al., Civil Case
No. 11975, Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch CXLIV.
(a) To Mrs. Lorna O. Linsangan - 2,000 square meters;
(b) To Lauren Kyra O. Linsangan - 500 square meters; On November 28, 2015, Helen issued several checks[27] in varying amounts either made
(c) To Lorraine Freyja O. Linsangan - 500 square meters; payable to Cash or to Jaime S. Linsangan or Lorna O. Linsangan and simultaneous thereto,
Atty. Linsangan released the owner's duplicate original of TCT No. 139061 to Helen.[28] It
further appears that in lieu of one check in the amount of PhP2,500,000, Atty. Linsangan
received, in cash, the amounts of PhP2,000,000 on December 4, 2015,[29] and PhP500,000 on The Ruling of this Court
December 10, 2015,[30] from Helen.
After a careful review of the record of the case, the Court finds that respondent committed
Upon learning of the sale, complainants allegedly requested from Atty. Linsangan for their acts in violation of his oath as an attorney thereby warranting the Court's exercise of its
shares in the proceeds and for the copies of the Special Power of Attorney as well as the case disciplinary power.
records, but that Atty. Linsangan refused.[31] Complainants also requested from Atty.
Linsangan, this time through another lawyer, Atty. Victor D. Aguinaldo, that their shares in We begin by emphasizing that the practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by
the subject property be at least segregated from the portion sold.[32] the State upon those who show that they possess, and continue to possess, the qualifications
required by law for the conferment of such privilege.[41] Whether or not a lawyer is still
On August 20, 2016, complainants wrote a letter[33] to Atty. Linsangan revoking the Special entitled to practice law may be resolved by a proceeding to suspend or disbar him, based on
Power of Attorney which they executed in the latter's favor. In said letter, complainants conduct rendering him unfit to hold a license or to exercise the duties and responsibilities of
accused Atty. Linsangan of conniving with their mother, Bella N. Vda. De Carlos, in submitting an attorney. The avowed purpose of suspending or disbarring an attorney is not to punish the
the Compromise Agreement and in selling the subject property. Complainants, however, lawyer, but to remove from the profession a person whose misconduct has proved him unfit
recognized Atty. Lisangan's services for which they proposed that the latter be paid on the to be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities belonging to an office of an attorney, and
basis of quantum meruit instead of fifty percent (50%) of the subject property.[34] thus to protect the public and those charged with the administration of justice.[42] The
lawyer's oath is a source of obligations and its violation is a ground for suspension,
Subsequently, or in September 2016, complainants filed the instant administrative disbarment or other disciplinary action.[43]
complaint[35] against Atty. Linsangan accusing the latter of forcing them to sign pleadings filed
in court, copies of which were not furnished them; of selling the subject property in cahoots The record shows and Atty. Linsangan does not deny, that while the cases involving the
with their mother; of evading the payment of income taxes when he apportioned his share in subject property were still pending resolution and final determination, Atty. Linsangan
the subject property to his wife and children.[36] entered into a Contract for Professional Services with Juan wherein his attorney's fees shall
be that equivalent to 50% of the value of the property, or a portion thereof, that may be
By way of Comment,[37] Atty. Linsangan avers that the Supplemental Compromise Agreement recovered. It is likewise not denied by Atty. Linsangan that he apportioned upon himself, and
was never questioned by the complainants until now[38] and that they had never requested to his wife and children, half of the property awarded to complainants as heirs of Juan,
for a copy thereof from him. Atty. Linsangan admits that the subject of the sale with Helen is through a Supplemental Compromise Agreement. Similarly, such Supplemental Compromise
the property in Alabang, Muntinlupa City and that complainants were not given a share from Agreement was entered into by Atty. Linsangan and the heirs of Juan concurrently with the
the payments because such were specifically made applicable to his and his family's share in pendency of several cases before the CA and this Court[44] involving the very same property.
the subject property only.[39] Atty. Linsangan also contends that the proposal that he be paid What is more, Atty. Linsangan, probably anticipating that he may be charged of having undue
on the basis of quantum meruit is only for the purpose of reducing his 50% share as stated in interest over his client's property in litigation, caused another lawyer to appear but all the
the Contract for Professional Services he executed with Juan, so that the balance thereof may while making it absolutely clear to Juan that the latter's appearance was nevertheless under
accrue to complainants.[40] Atty. Linsangan's "direct control and supervision."

Plainly, these acts are in direct contravention of Article 1491(5)[45] of the Civil Code which
The Issue forbids lawyers from acquiring, by purchase or assignment, the property that has been the
subject of litigation in which they have taken part by virtue of their profession. While Canon
The threshold issue to be resolved is whether respondent is guilty of violating his lawyer's 10 of the old Canons of Professional Ethics, which states that "[t]he lawyer should not
oath. purchase any interests in the subject matter of the litigation which he is conducting," is no
longer reproduced in the new Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), such proscription still
applies considering that Canon I of the CPR is clear in requiring that "a lawyer shall uphold the appropriated the same, without the knowledge and consent of the complainants. Such act
Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal process" and constitutes a breach of his client's trust and a violation of Canon 16[53] of the CPR. Indeed, a
Rule 138, Sec. 3 which requires every lawyer to take an oath to "obey the laws as well as the lawyer is not entitled to unilaterally appropriate his client's money for himself by the mere
legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein."[46] Here, the law transgressed by fact that the client owes him attorneys fees.[54] The failure of an attorney to return the client's
Atty. Linsangan is Article 1491(5) of the Civil Code, in violation of his lawyer's oath. money upon demand gives rise to the presumption that he has misappropriated it for his own
use to the prejudice and violation of the general morality, as well as of professional ethics; it
While jurisprudence provides an exception to the above proscription, i.e., if the payment of also impairs public confidence in the legal profession and deserves punishment. In short, a
contingent fee is not made during the pendency of the litigation involving the client's lawyer's unjustified withholding of money belonging to his client, as in this case, warrants the
property but only after the judgment has been rendered in the case handled by the imposition of disciplinary action.[55]
lawyer,[47] such is not applicable to the instant case. To reiterate, the transfer to Atty.
Linsangan was made while the subject property was still under litigation, or at least Pointedly, the relationship of attorney and client has consistently been treated as one of
concurrently with the pendency of the certiorari proceedings in the CA and the petitions for special trust and confidence. An attorney must therefore exercise utmost good faith and
review in this Court.[48] As mentioned, there was nothing in the record which would show that fairness in all his relationship with his client. Measured against this standard, respondent's act
these cases were likewise dismissed with finality either before the execution of, or by virtue clearly fell short and had, in fact, placed his personal interest above that of his clients.
of, the Compromise Agreement and the Supplemental Compromise Agreement between Considering the foregoing violations of his lawyer's oath, Article 1491(5) of the Civil Code,
complainants and Atty. Linsangan. Rule 9.02, Canon 9, and Canon 16 of the CPR, the Court deems it appropriate to impose upon
respondent the penalty of six (6) months suspension from the practice of law.[56]
What is more, Atty. Linsangan, at the guise of merely waiving portions of the subject property
in favor of his wife and children, actually divided his attorney's fee with persons who are not WHEREFORE, We find Atty. Jaime S. Linsangan LIABLE for violations of his lawyer's oath,
licensed to practice law in contravention of Rule 9.02,[49] Canon 9[50] of the CPR. Article 1491(5) of the Civil Code, Rule 9.02, Canon 9, and Canon 16 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and he is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for SIX (6)
Another misconduct committed by Atty. Linsangan was his act of selling the entire 12,331 months effective from the date of his receipt of this Decision.
square meters property and making it appear that he was specifically authorized to do so by
complainants as well as by the other persons[51] to whom portions of the property had been
previously adjudicated. However, a perusal of the supposed Special Power of Attorney SPS SALONOY V. ATTY GATCHALIAN
attached to the Deed of Absolute Sale, save for that executed by his wife and children, only
authorizes Atty. Linsangan to represent complainants in the litigation of cases involving Juan's Complainants engaged the legal services of respondent for an ejectment case in which they
properties. Nothing in said Special Power of Attorney authorizes Atty. Linsangan to sell the were the defendants.[3] After filing their Answer to the complaint, complainants received a
entire property including complainants' undivided share therein. notice from the court setting the preliminary conference on March 25, 2009 at 8:30 in the
morning. When complainants went to respondent's office to confer with him about it, the latter
Atty. Linsangan's reasoning that he only took it upon himself to sell the property because told them that he did not receive the notice and that he could not attend the preliminary
complainants were unfamiliar with real estate transactions does not exculpate him from conference due to a conflict in his schedule. Complainants expressed that they can attend the
liability. If indeed that were the case, then it is incumbent upon Atty. Linsangan to make it conference even without him. He allegedly advised them not to attend anymore as he would
clear to the complainants that he was acting in such capacity and not as their lawyer.[52] But arrange with the court for a new schedule when he is available.[4]
even this, Atty. Linsangan failed to do. Complainants relied on respondent's advice and did not attend the preliminary conference
anymore. Thereafter, they found out that respondent not only failed to attend the scheduled
Worse, Atty. Linsangan does not deny having received the downpayment for the property preliminary conference, but also failed to take any steps to have it cancelled or reset to another
from Helen. Atty. Linsangan does not also deny failing to give complainants' share for the date. They also learned that, contrary to respondent's representation, he did receive the notice
reason that he applied said payment as his share in the property. In so doing, Atty. Linsangan setting the date of the preliminary conference. Subsequently, complainant received an
determined all by himself that the downpayment accrues to him and immediately
Order[5] dated March 25, 2009 that deemed the ejectment case submitted for decision due to immaterial. What was relevant was his course of action when confronted with a conflict of
complainants' failure to appear during the preliminary conference. When they approached schedule in his court appearances.[15]
respondent about it, he belittled the matter and told them not to worry as he would take care
Moreover, the Investigating Commissioner found complainants' version of facts more in line
of it.[6]
with common experience as opposed to respondent's version. Notably, there was no cogent
Subsequently, the trial court issued a Decision[7] dated April 21, 2009 adverse to the explanation why complainants would dismiss his alleged instruction to attend the conference
complainants. Respondent received it on May 4, 2009 but failed to inform complainants about without him.[16]
the status of the case as to enable them to prepare the next course of action. Complainants
learned about the adverse ruling upon inquiring with the trial court only on May 13, 2009, or In a Resolution[17] dated August 9, 2014, the IBP Board of Governors (Board) adopted and
nine (9) days after respondent's receipt thereof, when their period to appeal was almost about approved the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner.
to lapse.[8] Respondent moved for reconsideration but was denied in a Resolution[18] dated September 23,
2016.
Complainants went to respondent's office wherein the latter prepared a Notice of Appeal.
Afterwards, complainants terminated respondent's legal services and engaged another lawyer The Issue Before the Court
to prepare their Memorandum of Appeal. On appeal, the ejectment case was remanded to the
court of origin.[9] The essential issue in this case is whether or not respondent should be held administratively
liable for violating the CPR.
In sum, complainants assail respondent's negligent and complacent handling of their case.[10]
The Court's Ruling
In his Comment,[11] respondent contended that when complainants informed him about the
scheduled preliminary conference, he told them that he would be unable to attend due to a The Court resolves to adopt the IBP's findings and recommendation.
conflict in schedule, as he was committed to attend a criminal case hearing in Quezon City. Every lawyer is duty-bound to serve his clients with utmost diligence and competence, and
Nevertheless, he instructed complainants to attend the preliminary conference even without never neglect a legal matter entrusted to him.[19] A lawyer owes fidelity to the clients'
his appearance and inform the court about the conflict in schedule. He denied having advised cause[20] and, accordingly is expected to exercise the required degree of diligence in handling
complainants not to attend the preliminary hearing and belittled the Order dated March 25, their affairs.[21] Consequently, he is expected to maintain at all times a high standard of legal
2009. Finally, he alleged that the Order dated March 25, 2009 was complainants' fault, due to proficiency, and to devote one's full attention, skill, and competence to the case, whether it is
their failure to attend the preliminary conference, and upon telling this to complainants, they accepted for a fee or for free.[22] The relevant provisions of the CPR read thus:
terminated his legal services.[12]
CANON 18 — A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.
On June 22, 2011, while the case was pending before the IBP, complainants filed a
Manifestation and Motion to Withdraw Complaint.[13] Rule 18.03 — A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him liable.
The IBP's Report and Recommendation Jurisprudence provides that the lawyer's duties of competence and diligence include not
In the IBP's Report and Recommendation[14] dated August 29, 2013, the Investigating merely reviewing cases or giving sound legal advice, but also consist of properly representing
Commissioner recommended the suspension of respondent from the practice of law for six (6) a client before any court or tribunal, attending scheduled hearings and conferences, preparing
months for breach of Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). He explained and filing the required pleadings, prosecuting handled cases with reasonable dispatch, and
that the submission of the ejectment case for resolution and the eventual adverse decision urging their termination without waiting for the client or the court to prod him to do so.[23] A
against complainants were attributable to respondent's negligence. Knowing that he had a lawyer's negligence in fulfilling these duties subjects him to disciplinary action.[24]
conflict in schedule, respondent should have prepared and filed an appropriate motion to Guided by these edicts, the Court rules that respondent failed to exercise the diligence
cause the cancellation and resetting of the scheduled preliminary conference. Whether he required of lawyers in handling complainants' case. Based on the records, he failed to file the
advised complainants to attend the preliminary conference on March 25, 2009 or not is necessary motion to postpone the hearing due to a conflict in his schedule, and as a result,
complainants lost their opportunity to present their evidence in the ejectment case. As When an action or proceeding is initiated in our courts, lawyers become the eyes and ears of
complainants' counsel in the ejectment case, respondent was expected to exercise due their clients. Lawyers are expected to prosecute or defend the interests of their clients
diligence. He should have been more circumspect in preparing and filing the motion, without need for reminders. The privilege of the office of attorney grants them the ability to
considering the serious consequence of failure to attend the scheduled preliminary conference warrant to their client that they will manage the case as if it were their own. The relationship
- i.e. the defendant's failure to appear thereat entitles the plaintiff to ajudgment,[25] as what between an attorney and client is a sacred agency. It cannot be disregarded on the flimsy
happened in this case. excuse that the lawyer accepted the case only because he or she was asked by an
acquaintance. The professional relationship remains the same regardless of the reasons for
The Court likewise finds respondent liable for failing to immediately inform complainants about
the acceptance by counsel and regardless of whether the case is highly paying or pro bono.
the trial court's adverse decision. To emphasize, a lawyer has an obligation to promptly apprise
clients regarding the status of a case as expressed in Rule 18.04, Canon 18 of the CPR: Atty. Mercedes Buhayang-Margallo's (Atty. Margallo) inaction resulted in a lost appeal,
Rule 18.04 — A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond terminating the case of her client not on the merits but due to her negligence. She made it
within a reasonable time to the client's request for information. appear that the case was dismissed on the merits when, in truth, she failed to file the
To be clear, a lawyer need not wait for their clients to ask for information but must advise them Appellant's Brief on time. She did not discharge her duties of candor to her client.
without delay about matters essential for them to avail of legal remedies. In the present case,
respondent failed to immediately notify complainants about the adverse decision of the trial This court resolves the Petition for Review[1] filed by Atty. Margallo under Rule 139-B, Section
court. Had the complainants not inquired with the trial court, they would have lost their 12 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Resolution of the Board of Governors of the Integrated
opportunity to appeal. For this reason, respondent is also administratively liable for negligence Bar of the Philippines.
under Rule 18.04 of the CPR.
In the Resolution[2] dated March 21, 2014, the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of
As regards the proper penalty, recent cases show that in similar instances where lawyers the Philippines affirmed with modification its earlier Resolution[3] dated March 20, 2013. In
neglected their clients' affairs by failing to attend hearings and/or failing to update clients its delegated capacity to conduct fact finding for this court, it found that respondent Atty.
about court decisions, the Court suspended them from the practice of law for six (6) months. Margallo had violated Canon 17 and Canon 18, Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of
In Caranza Vda. de Saldivar v. Cabanes,[26] a lawyer was suspended for failure to file a pretrial Professional Responsibility.[4] Consequently, the Board of Governors recommended that Atty.
brief and to attend the scheduled preliminary conference. In Heirs of Ballesteros v. Apiag,[27] a Margallo be suspended from the practice of law for two (2) years.[5]
lawyer was likewise suspended for not attending pre-trial, failing to inform clients about the
dismissal of their case, and failing to file position papers. In Spouses Aranda v. Elayda,[28] a In the Complaint[6] filed on January 20, 2010 before the Commission on Bar Discipline of the
lawyer suffered the same fate when he failed to appear in a scheduled hearing despite due Integrated Bar of the Philippines, complainant Reynaldo Ramirez (Ramirez) alleged that he
notice, which resulted in the submission of the case for decision. Consistent with these cases, engaged Atty. Margallo's services as legal counsel in a civil case for Quieting of Title entitled
the Court agrees with the IBP's recommendation to suspend respondent from the practice of "Spouses Roque v. Ramirez."[7] The case was initiated before the Regional Trial Court of
law for six (6) months. Binangonan, Rizal, Branch 68.[8]
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Eduardo Z. Gatchalian is found GUILTY of violating Canon 18,
Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, he According to Ramirez, Atty. Margallo contacted him on or about March 2004, as per a referral
is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months effective from the finality of this from a friend of Ramirez's sister.[9] He alleged that Atty. Margallo had offered her legal
Resolution, and is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt services on the condition that she be given 30% of the land subject of the controversy instead
with more severely. of attorney's fees.[10] It was also agreed upon that Ramirez would pay Atty. Margallo
P1,000.00 per court appearance.[11]

On October 19, 2006, the Regional Trial Court promulgated a Decision adverse to
Ramirez.[12] Atty. Margallo advised him to appeal the judgment. She committed to file the
RAMIREZ V. BUHAYANG-MARGALLO Appeal before the Court of Appeals.[13]
 of the Integrated Bar of the
The Appeal was perfected and the records were sent to the Court of Appeals sometime in Philippines
2008.[14] On December 5, 2008, the Court of Appeals directed Ramirez to file his Appellant's
Brief. Ramirez notified Atty. Margallo, who replied that she would have one prepared.[15] The dispute was set for mandatory conference on June 3, 2010.[27] Only Ramirez appeared
despite Atty. Margallo having received notice.[28] The mandatory conference was reset to July
On January 8, 2009, Ramirez contacted Atty. Margallo to follow up on the Appellant's 22, 2010. Both parties then appeared and were directed to submit their position papers.[29]
Brief. Atty. Margallo informed him that he needed to meet her to sign the documents
necessary for the brief.[16] Commissioner Cecilio A.C. Villanueva recommended that Atty. Margallo be reprimanded for
her actions and be given a stern warning that her next infraction of a similar nature shall be
On several occasions, Ramirez followed up on the status of the brief, but he was told that dealt with more severely.[30] This was based on his two key findings. First, Atty. Margallo
there was still no word from the Court of Appeals.[17] allowed the reglementary period for filing an Appellant's Brief to lapse by assuming that
Ramirez no longer wanted to pursue the case instead of exhausting all means possible to
On August 26, 2009, Atty. Margallo informed Ramirez that his Appeal had been protect the interest of her client.[31] Second, Atty. Margallo had been remiss in her duties as
denied.[18] She told him that the Court of Appeals' denial was due to Ramirez's failure to counsel, resulting in the loss of Ramirez's statutory right to seek recourse with the Court of
establish his filiation with his alleged father, which was the basis of his claim. [19] She also Appeals.[32]
informed him that they could no longer appeal to this court since the Decision of the Court of
Appeals had been promulgated and the reglementary period for filing an Appeal had already In the Resolution[33] dated March 20, 2013, the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of
lapsed.[20] the Philippines adopted and approved the recommendation of the Commission on Bar
Discipline. The Board of Governors resolved to recommend a penalty of reprimand to Atty.
Ramirez went to the Court of Appeals. There, he discovered that the Appellant's Brief was Margallo with a stern warning that repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with
filed on April 13, 2009 with a Motion for Reconsideration and Apologies for filing beyond the more severely.
reglementary period.[21]
Ramirez seasonably filed a Motion for Reconsideration on July 16, 2013.[34] In the Resolution
Ramirez alleged that Atty. Margallo had violated Canon 17 and Canon 18, Rules 18.03 and dated March 21, 2014, the Board of Governors granted Ramirez's Motion for Reconsideration
18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.[22] By way of defense, Atty. Margallo argued and increased the recommended penalty to suspension from practice of law for two (2)
that she had agreed to take on the case for free, save for travel expense of P1,000.00 per years.[35]
hearing. She also claimed that she had candidly informed Ramirez and his mother that they
only had a 50% chance of winning the case.[23] She denied ever having entered into an On August 20, 2014, Atty. Margallo filed a Petition for Review under Rule 139-B, Section 12 of
agreement regarding the contingent fee worth 30% of the value of the land subject of the the Rules of Court.[36] She alleged that the recommended penalty of suspension was too
controversy. severe considering that she had been very careful and vigilant in defending the cause of her
client. She also averred that this was the first time a Complaint was filed against her.[37]
Atty. Margallo asserted that she would not have taken on the Appeal except that the mother
of Ramirez had begged her to do so.[24] She claimed that when she instructed Ramirez to see Ramirez thereafter filed an undated Motion to adopt his Motion for Reconsideration
her for document signing on January 8, 2009, he ignored her. When he finally showed up on previously filed with the Commission on Bar Discipline as a Comment on Atty. Margallo's
March 2009, he merely told her that he had been busy.[25] Her failure to immediately inform Petition for Review.[38] In the Resolution[39] dated October 14, 2014, this court granted
Ramirez of the unfavorable Decision of the Court of Appeals was due to losing her client's Ramirez's Motion. Atty. Margallo filed her Reply[40] on October 6, 2014.
number because her 8-year-old daughter played with her phone and accidentally erased all
her contacts.[26] This court's ruling

Mandatory conference and findings The Petition is denied for lack of merit.
 . . . .
The relationship between a lawyer and a client is "imbued with utmost trust and
confidence."[41] Lawyers are expected to exercise the necessary diligence and competence in Case law further illumines that a lawyer's duty of competence and diligence includes not
managing cases entrusted to them. They commit not only to review cases or give legal merely reviewing the cases entrusted to the counsel's care or giving sound legal advice,
advice, but also to represent their clients to the best of their ability without need to be but also consists of properly representing the client before any court or tribunal, attending
reminded by either the client or the court. The expectation to maintain a high degree of legal scheduled hearings or conferences, preparing and filing the required pleadings, prosecuting the
proficiency and attention remains the same whether the represented party is a high-paying handled cases with reasonable dispatch, and urging their termination without waiting for the
client or an indigent litigant.[42] client or the court to prod him or her to do so.

Canon 17 and Canon 18, Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility Conversely, a lawyer's negligence in fulfilling his duties subjects him to disciplinary action. While
clearly provide: such negligence or carelessness is incapable of exact formulation, the Court has consistently
held that the lawyer's mere failure to perform the obligations due his client is per se a
violation.[44] (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)
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.
Respondent Atty. Margallo was unjustifiably remiss in her duties as legal counsel to Ramirez.
CANON 18 - A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.
The lack of communication and coordination between respondent Atty. Margallo and her
Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in client was palpable but was not due to the lack of diligence of her client. This cost
connection there with shall render him liable. complainant Ramirez his entire case and left him with no appellate remedies. His legal cause
was orphaned not because a court of law ruled on the merits of his case, but because a
Rule 18.04 - A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond person privileged to act as counsel failed to discharge her duties with the requisite
within a reasonable time to client's request for information. diligence. Her assumption that complainant Ramirez was no longer interested to pursue the
Appeal is a poor excuse. There was no proof that she exerted efforts to communicate with
her client. This is an admission that she abandoned her obligation as counsel on the basis of
In Caranza Vda. De Saldivar v. Cabanes, Jr.,[43] a lawyer was suspended after failing to justify an assumption. Respondent Atty. Margallo failed to exhaust all possible means to protect
his absence in a scheduled preliminary conference, which resulted in the case being complainant Ramirez's interest, which is contrary to what she had sworn to do as a member
submitted for resolution. This was aggravated by the lawyer's failure to inform his client of the legal profession. For these reasons, she clearly violated Canon 17 and Canon 18, Rules
about the adverse ruling of the Court of Appeals, thereby precluding the litigant from further 18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
pursuing an Appeal. This court found that these actions amounted to gross negligence
tantamount to breaching Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility: A problem arises whenever agents, entrusted to manage the interests of another, use their
authority or power for their benefit or fail to discharge their duties. In many agencies, there
is information assymetry between the principal and the entrusted agent. That is, there are
The relationship between an attorney and his client is one imbued with utmost trust and facts and events that the agent must attend to that may not be known by the principal.
confidence. In this light, clients are led to expect that lawyers would be ever-mindful of their
cause and accordingly exercise the required degree of diligence in handling their affairs. Verily, This information assymetry is even more pronounced in an attorney-client
a lawyer is expected to maintain at all times a high standard of legal proficiency, and to devote relationship. Lawyers are expected not only to be familiar with the minute facts of their cases
his full attention, skill, and competence to the case, regardless of its importance and whether but also to see their relevance in relation to their causes of action or their defenses. The
he accepts it for a fee or for free. salience of these facts is not usually patent to the client. It can only be seen through
familiarity with the relevant legal provisions that are invoked with their jurisprudential
interpretations. More so with the intricacies of the legal procedure. It is the lawyer that recommendatory, consistent with the constitutional powers of this court. Its recommended
receives the notices and must decide the mode of appeal to protect the interest of his or her penalties are also, by its nature, recommendatory. Despite the precedents, it is the Integrated
client. Bar of the Philippines that recognizes that the severity of the infraction is worth a penalty of
two-year suspension. We read this as a showing of its desire to increase the level of
Thus, the relationship between a lawyer and her client is regarded as highly professionalism of our lawyers.
fiduciary. Between the lawyer and the client, it is the lawyer that has the better knowledge
of facts, events, and remedies. While it is true that the client chooses which lawyer to This court is not without jurisdiction to increase the penalties imposed in order to address a
engage, he or she usually does so on the basis of reputation. It is only upon actual current need in the legal profession. The desire of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines to
engagement that the client discovers the level of diligence, competence, and accountability ensure a higher ethical standard for its members' conduct is laudable. The negligence of
of the counsel that he or she chooses. In some cases, such as this one, the discovery comes respondent Atty. Margallo coupled with her lack of candor is reprehensible.
too late. Between the lawyer and the client, therefore, it is the lawyer that should bear the
full costs of indifference or negligence. WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review is DENIED. The Recommendations and Resolution of the
Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines dated March 21, 2014 is ACCEPTED,
Respondent Atty. Margallo's position that a two-year suspension is too severe considering ADOPTED AND AFFIRMED. Atty. Mercedes Buhayang-Margallo is hereby SUSPENDED from the
that it is her first infraction cannot be sustained. In Caranza Vda. De Saldivar, we observed: practice of law for two (2) years, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar act
shall be dealt with more severely. This decision is immediately executory.

As regards the appropriate penalty, several cases show that lawyers who have been held liable
for gross negligence for infractions similar to those of the respondent were suspended for a
period of six (6) months. In Aranda v. Elayda, a lawyer who failed to appear at the scheduled
hearing despite due notice which resulted in the submission of the case for decision was found SULTAN V. ATTY MACABANDING
guilty of gross negligence and hence, suspended for six (6) months. In Heirs of Tiburcio F. According to the complainant, he ran for the position of Mayor for the Municipality of
Ballesteros, Sr. v. Apiag, a lawyer who did not file a pre-trial brief and was absent during the Buadipuso Buntong, Lanao del Sur in 2007. He filed his Certificate of Candidacy (COC) dated
pre-trial conference was likewise suspended for six (6) months. In Abiero v. Juanino, a lawyer March 29, 2007 with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) for the May 14, 2007
who neglected a legal matter entrusted to him by his client in breach of Canons 17 and 18 of elections.[2]
the Code was also suspended for six (6) months. Thus, consistent with existing jurisprudence,
the Court finds it proper to impose the same penalty against respondent and accordingly Thereafter, an Affidavit of Withdrawal of Certificate of Candidacy for Municipal
suspends him for a period of six (6) months.[45] (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted) Mayor[3] (Affidavit of Withdrawal) dated April 10, 2007 was notarized and submitted by the
respondent to the COMELEC, withdrawing the complainant's candidacy without the latter's
Caranza Vda. De Saldivar did not leave the clients without procedural remedies. On the other knowledge or authorization.
hand, respondent Atty. Margallo's neglect resulted in her client having no further recourse in
court to protect his legal interests. This lack of diligence, to the utmost prejudice of When the complainant learned of this, he wrote a letter[4] dated April 18, 2007 and submitted
complainant Ramirez who relied on her alleged competence as counsel, must not be an Affidavit[5] to Mamangcoday Colangcag (Colangcag), Acting Election Officer of the
tolerated. It is time that we communicate that lawyers must actively manage cases entrusted COMELEC in Buadipuso Buntong, Lanao del Sur. The complainant alleged that he neither
to them. There should be no more room for an inertia of mediocrity. executed the Affidavit of Withdrawal nor authorized anybody to prepare a document to
withdraw his COC. He asked that the withdrawal be ignored and that his name be retained on
Parenthetically, it is this court that has the constitutionally mandated duty to discipline the list of candidates.
lawyers.[46] Under the current rules, the duty to assist fact finding can be delegated to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines. The findings of the Integrated Bar, however, can only be On May 16, 2007, the complainant filed a petition with the COMELEC to count the votes cast
in his favor. The complainant also filed a criminal complaint on May 17, 2007 with the RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby unanimously ADOPTED and APPROVED the
Prosecutor's Office of Marawi City against Abdulmojib Moti Mariano (Mariano) who was Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in the above-entitled case,
another candidate for the mayoralty position, the respondent, and Colangcag for Falsification herein made part of this Resolution as Annex "A" and finding the recommendation fully
of Public Documents.[6] Information[7] was thereby filed against the respondent and Colangcag supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, and considering
which was docketed as Criminal Case No. 5842-08 in the Regional Trial Court of Lanao Del respondent's irregular notarization and submission of complainant's Affidavit of Withdrawal of
Sur, Marawi City. Certificate of Candidacy to the COMELEC without complainant's knowledge and authorization,
Atty. Casan Macabanding is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months
Meanwhile, the COMELEC Second Division found merit in the complainant's petition and and SUSPENDED from being commissioned as Notary Public for two (2) years.[18]
ordered the reinstatement of his name in the list of candidates for the position of mayor in its
Resolution[8] dated June 12, 2007. All votes cast in favor of the complainant were also
counted. Thus, Mariano elevated the matter to the COMELEC en banc, which issued The respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration,[19] which the IBP Board of Governors
a subpoena requiring the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to study the signature denied in its Resolution No. XX-2014-76[20]dated March 8, 2014 for being a mere reiteration
appearing on the Affidavit of Withdrawal. Subsequently, the NBI transmitted its Questioned of matters already threshed out and taken into consideration.[21]
Documents Report No. 428-907[9] to the COMELEC en banc, stating that the signature in the
Affidavit of Withdrawal and the specimen signatures of the complainant were not written by
one and the same person.[10] Issue

On May 14, 2008, the complainant filed the present administrative complaint against the
respondent with prayer for his disbarment. After the respondent filed his comment[11] on the WHETHER THE RESPONDENT SHOULD BE HELD ADMINISTRATIVELY LIABLE BASED ON THE
complaint, the case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT.
Bar Discipline for investigation, report and recommendation.[12]

The respondent countered that the instant administrative case was filed against him as Ruling of the Court
political harassment because his family supported the complainant's opponent,
Mariano.[13] He admitted that he notarized the affidavit after it was signed by the complainant The Court agrees with the findings of the IBP but modify the penalty imposed.
voluntarily and in the presence of witnesses and thereafter, submitted the same to the
COMELEC. However, the complainant changed his mind when Mariano, who was the only The complainant presented the findings of the NBI which are hereunder reproduced:
remaining mayoralty candidate, refused to pay millions of pesos to the complainant.[14] The
respondent withheld the identity of the witnesses allegedly to avoid problems within their
family. FINDINGS:

On July 1, 2009, the Investigating Commissioner issued a Report and Laboratory and scientific comparative examination of the specimens submitted, under
Recommendation,[15] recommending "that the respondent be suspended from the active stereoscopic microscope and magnifying lenses, with the aid of photographic enlargements
practice of law for six (6) months and two (2) years as notary public."[16] (Comparison charts), reveal that there exist fundamental, significant differences in writing
characteristics/habits between the questioned signature "DOMADO DISOMIMBA" (written in
On May 15, 2011, the IBP Board of Governors passed Resolution No. XIX-2011- Arabic characters/alphabet), on one hand, and the sample specimen signatures "DOMADO
297[17] adopting the recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner: DISOMIMBA" (written in Arabic characters/alphabet), on the other hand, such as in:

- Structural pattern of characters/elements

- Direction of strokes
- Proportion characteristics
- Other minute identifying details
In Siao v. Atty. De Guzman, Jr., this Court reiterated its oft[-] repeated ruling that in suspension
or disbarment proceedings, lawyers enjoy the presumption of innocence, and the burden of
CONCLUSION: proof rests upon the complainant to clearly prove her allegations by preponderant evidence.
Elaborating on the required quantum of proof, this Court declared thus:
Based on the above FINDINGS, the questioned signature "DOMADO DISOMIMBA" (written in
Arabic characters/alphabet), on one hand, and the sample specimen signatures "DOMADO Preponderance of evidence means that the evidence adduced by one side is, as a whole,
DISOMIMBA" (written in Arabic characters/alphabet), on the other hand, WERE NOT WRITTEN superior to or has greater weight than that of the other. It means evidence which is more
by one and the same person.[22] (Underscoring and emphasis in the original) convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto.
Under Section 1 of Rule 133, in determining whether or not there is preponderance of
The respondent maintained that the NBI officer who examined the complainant's signature is evidence, the court may consider the following: (a) all the facts and circumstances of the case;
not an expert in Arabic language and thus, could not give an expert opinion regarding a (b) the witnesses' manner of testifying, their intelligence, their means and opportunity of
signature written in Arabic language.[23] knowing the facts to which they are testifying, the nature of the facts to which they testify, the
probability or improbability of their testimony; (c) the witnesses' interest or want of interest,
On this score, the Court refers to Mayor Abdulmojib Moti Mariano v. Commission on Elections and also their personal credibility so far as the same may ultimately appear in the trial; and (d)
and Domado Disomimba Sultan,[24]wherein the Court resolved with finality the dismissal of the number of witnesses, although it does not mean that preponderance is necessarily with
Mariano's petition before the Court alleging that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of the greater number.
discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in ordering the complainant's reinstatement in x x x x[28] (Citation omitted)
the list of mayoralty candidates.

Mariano's petition challenged the issuances of the COMELEC which were anchored on its The complainant adduced preponderant evidence that his signature was indeed forged in an
finding that the affidavit of withdrawal of candidacy imputed to the complainant was forged. affidavit which the respondent notarized and submitted to the COMELEC. Consequently, the
It was dismissed by the Court in the Resolution dated August 19, 2008. On October 9, 2008, respondent should be held administratively liable for his action. "Where the notary public is a
the complainant was then proclaimed as the duly-elected mayor of Buadiposo Buntong, lawyer, a graver responsibility is placed upon his shoulder by reason of his solemn oath to obey
Lanao del Sur, having obtained the highest number of votes (4,078). Mariano filed a motion the laws and to do no falsehood or consent to the doing of any. The Code of Professional
for reconsideration claiming that the COMELEC's failure to avail of the services of an Arabic Responsibility also commands him not to engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
expert was tantamount to grave abuse of discretion.[25] The Court denied the motion and conduct and to uphold at all times the integrity and dignity of the legal profession."[29] "It should
addressed the issue raised in this wise: be noted that a notary public's function should not be trivialized and a notary public must
discharge his powers and duties which are impressed with public interest, with accuracy and
fidelity. A notary public exercises duties calling for carefulness and faithfulness. Notaries must
Contrary to petitioner's basic stance, a handwriting expert does not have to be a linguist at the inform themselves of the facts they certify to; most importantly, they should not take part or
same time. To be credible, a handwriting expert need not be familiar with the language used allow themselves to be part of illegal transactions."[30] In fact, the respondent admitted that
in the document subject of his examination. The nature of his examination involves the study the affidavit was notarized in his office without the presence of the complainant.[31]
and comparison of strokes, the depth and pressure points of the alleged forgery, as compared
to the specimen or original handwriting or signatures.[26] (Emphasis and underscoring ours) In Carlito Ang v. Atty. James Joseph Gupana,[32] the respondent therein was suspended from
the practice of law for one year; his notarial commission was revoked and he was also
disqualified from reappointment as notary public for a period of two years for notarizing an
In administrative cases against lawyers, the quantum of proof required is preponderance of
affidavit of loss without the presence of the party acknowledging the document.
evidence. In Rodica v. Lazaro,[27] the Court expounded:
The same sanctions were imposed against the erring lawyer in Agbulos v. Viray,[33] where the complainant through a document denominated as Confirmation of Sale.[4]
respondent therein admitted "that not only did he prepare and notarize the subject affidavit
but he likewise notarized the same without the affiant's personal appearance. He explained The process of conveying the title of the lot in the name of Mallari spawned the legal tussle
that he did so merely upon the assurance of his client Dollente that the document was between the parties. According to the complainant, an agreement was made between him
executed by complainant."[34] and Mallari wherein he undertook to facilitate the steps in order to have the title of the lot
transferred under Mallari's name.[5] However, without his knowledge and consent, Mallari
In Isenhardt v. Real,[35] the respondent therein was subjected to similar penalties when he who was not able to withstand the delay in the delivery of the title of the land sold to her
notarized a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) supposedly executed by the complainant. It was allegedly filed an Application for Certification of Alienable and Disposable Land[6] as a
proven by documentary evidence that the complainant was in Germany at that time and preliminary step for the segregation and titling of the same before the Community
therefore could not have appeared before the respondent to have the SPA notarized. Environment and Natural Resources Office of the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR), San Fernando City, La Union using the complainant's name and signing the
The complainant in Linco v. Lacebal[36] filed an administrative case against the respondent said application.[7] A civil case for collection of sum of money was instituted by Mallari before
notary public for notarizing a deed of donation despite the latter's knowledge that the the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Aringay, La Union seeking reimbursement tor the expenses
purported donor had already passed away on an earlier date. For this reason, the respondent's she incurred by reason of the transfer and titling of the property she purchased.[8] A
notarial commission was revoked and he was disqualified from being commissioned as a notary compromise agreement[9] was forged between the parties which failed because two out of
public for a period of two years. Furthermore, he was suspended from the practice of law for the four checks issued by the complainant were unfunded.[10] This prompted Mallari to file a
one year. criminal case for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22, otherwise known as The Bouncing
Checks Law, against the complainant before the MTC of Aringay, La Union.[11]
Thus, based on prevailing jurisprudence, the penalties meted out against a lawyer
commissioned as a notary public who fails to discharge his duties as such are: the revocation Ultimately, a criminal case for falsification of public document against Mallari was filed before
of notarial commission, disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for a the Office of the Prosecutor and now pending before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities
period of two years, and suspension from the practice of law for one year. (MTCC) of San Fernando City, La Union, Branch 1.[12] The complainant alleged that it was
through the conspiracy of Mallari and the respondent that the crime charged was
WHEREFORE, Atty. Casan Macabanding is found administratively liable for misconduct and consummated.[13]
is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year. Further, his notarial commission, if any,
is REVOKED and he is DISQUALIFIED from reappointment as Notary Public for a period of two Notwithstanding the Office of the Prosecutor's determination that the evidence presented
(2) years, with a stern warning that repetition of the same or similar conduct in the future will was insufficient to establish conspiracy between Mallari and the respondent, thereby
be dealt with more severely. He is DIRECTED to report to this Court the date of his receipt of dropping the latter's name from the indictment, the complainant remained unfazed and thus,
this Decision to enable it to determine when the revocation of his notarial commission and his initiated the present petition for disbarment seeking the imposition of disciplinary sanction
disqualification from being commissioned as notary public shall take effect. against the respondent.[14] The complainant claimed that the respondent, by notarizing the
assailed Application for Certification of Alienable and Disposable Land, made it appear that he
executed the same when the truth of the matter was he never went to the office of the
respondent for he was in Manila at the time of the alleged notarization and was busy
performing his duties as a doctor.[15]
MALVAR V. ATTY BALEROS
The complainant is the owner of a parcel of land located,in Barangay Pagudpud, San On August 19, 2014, the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the
Fernando City, La Union.[2] On January 7, 2011, the complainant executed a Deed of Absolute Philippines (IBP) issued a Notice of Mandatory Conference[16] requiring both parties to appear
Sale[3] in favor of Leah Mallari (Mallari) over the said lot for the amount of Five Hundred before it on November 18, 2014. However, the scheduled mandatory conference was reset
Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00). This transaction was acknowledged by the children of the to December 2, 2014[17] here the complainant personally appeared while the respondent was
represented by her attorney-in-fact and counsel.[18]
The complainant buttressed in his position paper that the respondent consummated the Whether administrative liability should attach to the respondent by reason of the following
crime of falsification of public document as delineated under Article 171 of the Revised Penal acts alleged to have been committed by her:
Code and thus, the presumption of regularity in the notarization of the contested document
has been overthrown and cannot work in her favor.[19] He recapped that he never appeared
before the respondent to have the subject document notarized.[20] The complainant stressed 1. Falsification of the Application for Certification of Alienable and Disposable Land;
that the respondent made a mockery of the Notarial Rules by notarizing the Application for
Certification of Alienable and Disposable Land in his absence. 2. Notarization of the aforesaid document in the absence of the complainant; and

In her Position Paper,[21] the respondent refuted the allegations against her by narrating that 3. Double Entries in the Notarial Registry.
Benny Telles, the complainant and his sons came to her office to have the subject document
notarized and that she is certain as to the identity of the complainant.[22] Moreover, she Ruling of the Court
argued that the charges filed against her were all part of the complainant's scheme to avoid
his obligations to Mallari as the buyer of his lot.[23] After a close scrutiny of the facts of the case, the Court finds no compelling reason to deviate
from the resolution of the IBP Board of Governors.

Ruling of the IBP With regard to the imputation of falsification of public document, the Court shall not inquire
into the merits of the said criminal case pending adjudication before the MTCC and make a
On June 15, 2015, Commissioner Maria Angela Esquivel (Commissioner Esquivel) found that ruling on the matter. Commissioner Esquivel correctly declined to resolve the falsification
the respondent was negligent in the performance of her duties as a notary public and case pending resolution before the regular court to which jurisdiction properly pertains.
violated the Notarial Rules, thereby recommending disciplinary imposition against her. The Though disbarment proceedings are sui generis as they belong to a class of their own and are
pertinent portion of the Report and Recommendation[24] reads: distinct from that of civil or criminal actions, it is judicious for an administrative body like IBP-
CBD not to pre-empt the course of action of the regular courts in order to avert contradictory
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, it is hereby recommended that the Respondent's findings.[28]
commission as a notary public be revoked; that she be disqualified for being a notary public for
two (2) years with a stem warning that a repetition of similar offense shall be dealt with more The Court concurs with the conclusion of Commissioner Esquivel that the respondent
severely.[25] violated several provisions of the Notarial Rules. The complainant insists that the Application
for Certification of Alienable and Disposable Land was notarized sans his presence. An
In a Resolution[26] dated June 20, 2015, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved
affidavit requiring a jurat which the respondent admittedly signed and notarized on August
Commissioner Esquivel's report and recommendation with modification, to wit:
18, 2010 forms part of the subject document. The jurat is that end part of the affidavit in
which the notary certifies that the instrument is sworn to before her, thus, making the
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, with modification,
notarial certification essential.[29] The unsubstantiated claim of the respondent that the
the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in the above-entitled case,
complainant appeared before her and signed the contested document in her presence
herein made part of this Resolution as Annex "A", for failure of Respondent to observe due
cannot prevail over the evidence supplied by the complainant pointing that it was highly
diligence in the performance of her duties and obligations as a Notary Public specifically Rule
improbable if not impossible for him to appear before the respondent on the date so alleged
VI, Section 2 of the Notarial Law. Thus, [the respondent's] notarial commission, if presently
that the subject document was notarized. The complainant furnished in his Sworn Judicial
commissioned, is immediately REVOKED. Furthermore, [she] is DISQUALIFIED from being
Affidavit submitted before the court patients' record cards showing that he attended to a
commissioned as a Notary Public for two (2) years and SUSPENDED from the practice of law for
number of them on August 18, 2010 in De Los Santos Medical Center, E. Rodriguez, Sr.
six (6) months.[27] (Emphasis and italics in the original)
Avenue, Quezon City.[30]
The Issues
A jurat as sketched in jurisprudence lays emphasis on the paramount requirements of the Granting that the complainant was present before the notary public at the time of the
physical presence of the affiant as well as his act of signing the document before the notary notarization of the contested document on August 18, 2010, the respondent remained
public.[31] The respondent indeed transgressed Section 2(b) of Rule IV of the Notarial Rules by unjustified in not requiring him to show a competent proof of his identification. She could
affixing her official signature and seal on the notarial certificate of the affidavit contained in have escaped administrative liability on this score if she was able to demonstrate that she
the Application for Certification of Alienable and Disposable Land in the absence of the personally knows the complainant. On the basis of the very definition of a jurat under Section
complainant and for failing to ascertain the identity of the affiant. The thrust of the said 6 of Rule II of the Notarial Rules, case law echoes that the non-presentation of the affiant's
provision reads: competent proof of identification is permitted if the notary public personally knows the
former.[33] A 'jurat' refers to an act in which an individual on a single occasion: (a) appears in
SEC. 2. Prohibitions. person before the notary public and presents an instrument or document; (b) is personally
known to the notary public or identified by the notary public through competent evidence of
x x x x identity; (c) signs the instrument or document in the presence of the notary; and (d) takes an
oath or affirmation before the notary public as to such instrument or document.[34]
(b) A person shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as signatory to the
instrument or document - Further, the respondent displayed lack of diligence by the non observance of the obligations
imposed upon her under Section 2 of Rule VI of the Notarial Rules, to wit:
(1) is not in the notary's presence personally at the time of the notarization; and SEC. 2. Entries in the Notarial Register.
is not personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified by the notary (a) For every notarial act, the notary shall record in the notarial register at the time of
(2)
through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules. notarization the following:
The physical presence of the affiant ensures the proper execution of the duty of the notary
public under the law to determine whether the former's signature was voluntarily
affixed.[32] Aside from forbidding notarization without the personal presence of the affiant, (1) the entry number and page number;
the Notarial Rules demands the submission of competent evidence of identity such as an (2) the date and time of day of the notarial act;
identification card with photograph and signature which requirement can be dispensed with (3) the type of notarial act;
provided that the notary public personally knows the affiant. Competent evidence of identity (4) the title or description of the instrument, document or proceeding;
under Section 12 of Rule II of the Notarial Rules is defined as follows: (5) the name and address of each principal;
the competent evidence of identity as defined by the Rules if the signatory is not
(6)
Sec. 12. Competent Evidence of Identity. - The phrase "competent evidence of identity" refers personally known to the notary;
to the identification of an individual based on: the name and address of each credible witness swearing to or affirming the person's
(7)
identity;
(8) the fee charged for the notarial act;
at least one current identification document issued by an official agency bearing the the address where the notarization was performed if not in the notary's regular place of
a) (9)
photograph and signature of the individual; or business; and
(10) any other circumstance the notary public may deem of significance or relevance.
the oath or affirmation of one credible witness not privy to the instrument, document or
transaction who is personally known to the notary public and who personally knows the x x x x
b) individual, or of two credible witnesses neither of whom is privy to the instrument,
document or transaction who each personally knows the individual and shows to the (e) The notary public shall give to each instrument or document executed, sworn to, or
notary public documentary identification. acknowledged before him a number corresponding to the one in his register, and shall also state
on the instrument or document the page/s of his register on which the same is recorded. No In addition to the above charges, Commissioner Esquivel noted that the respondent failed to
blank line shall be left between entries. retain an original copy in her records and to submit the duplicate copy of the document to the
Clerk of Court. However, in a previous case, the Court ruled that the requirement stated under
x x x x (Emphasis ours) Section 2(h) of Rule VI of the Notarial Rules applies only to an instrument acknowledged before
the notary public and not to the present document which contains a jurat.[42] "A jurat is a
The same notarial details were assigned by the respondent to two distinct documents. In an distinct creature from an acknowledgment."[43] It is that part of an affidavit in which the notary
order of the MTCC where the criminal case for falsification of document was pending, Clerk certifies that before him or her, the document was subscribed and sworn to by the executor;
of Court Atty. Raquel Estigoy-Andres (Atty. Estigoy-Andres) was directed to transmit the while an acknowledgment is the act of one who has executed a deed in going before some
original document of the Application for Certification of Alienable and Disposable Land which competent officer or court and declaring it to be his act or deed.[44] Hence, no liability can be
was notarized by the respondent.[35] A similar order was issued by the MTCC requiring the ascribed to the respondent relative to such ground.
DENR for the production of the impugned document.[36] The DENR issued a certification that
despite diligent efforts they could not locate the said document but which they were certain The Court finds unacceptable the respondent's defiance of the Notarial Rules. Under the
was received by their office.[37] Meanwhile, upon Atty. Estigoy-Andres' certification,[38] it was circumstances, the respondent should be made liable not only as a notary public who failed to
discovered that as per the respondent's notarial register submitted to the Office of the Clerk discharge her duties as such but also as a lawyer who exhibited utter disregard to the integrity
of Court, Document No. 288, Page No. 59, Book No. LXXIII, Series of 2010 does not pertain to and dignity owing to the legal profession. The acts committed by the respondent go beyond
the Application for Certification of Alienable and Disposable Land but to a notarized being mere lapses in the fulfilment of her duties under the Notarial Rules, they comprehend a
document denominated as Joint Affidavit of Adjoining Owners[39]executed by Ricardo Sibayan parallel breach of the CPR particularly Canon 9, Rule 9.01, Canon 1, Rule 1.01 which provides
and Cecilia Flores. Undoubtedly, the document entitled Application for Certification of that "a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct" and the
Alienable and Disposable Land nowhere appears in the respondent's notarial register. The Lawyer's Oath which amplifies the undertaking to do no falsehood and adhere to laws and the
respondent further exposed herself to administrative culpability when she regretfully offered legal system being one of their primordial tasks as officers of the court. Given the evidentiary
plain oversight as an excuse for the non-inclusion of the challenged document in her notarial value accorded to notarized documents, the failure of the notary public to record the
register and by stating that it is her office staff who usually fills it up. document in her notarial register corresponds to falsely making it appear that the document
was notarized when, in fact, it was not.[45] It cannot be overemphasized that notaries public are
To reiterate, the respondent admitted having signed and notarized the Application for urged to observe with utmost care and utmost fidelity the basic requirements in the
Certification of Alienable and Disposable Land but based from the foregoing, she indubitably
performance of their duties; otherwise, the confidence of the public in the integrity of
failed to record the assailed document in her notarial book. It is axiomatic that notarization is notarized deeds will be undermined.[46]
not an empty, meaningless or routinary act. It is through the act of notarization that a private
document is converted into a public one, making it admissible in evidence without need of In a number of cases, the Court has subjected lawyers who were remiss in their duties as
preliminary proof of authenticity and due execution.[40] "If the document or instrument does notaries public to disciplinary sanction. Failure to enter the notarial acts in one's notarial
not appear in the notarial records and there is no copy of it therein, doubt is engendered that register, notarizing a document without the personal presence of the affiants and the failure
the document or instrument was not really notarized, so that it is not a public document and to properly identify the person who signed the questioned document constitute dereliction of
cannot bolster any claim made based on this document."[41] The respondent's delegation of a notary public's duties which warrants the revocation of a lawyer's commission as a notary
her notarial function of recording entries in her notarial register to her staff is a clear public.[47] Upholding the role of notaries public in deterring illegal or immoral arrangements,
contravention of the explicit provision of the Notarial Rules dictating that such duty be the Court in the case of Dizon v. Atty. Cabucana, Jr.[48] prohibited the respondent for a period
fulfilled by her and not somebody else. This likewise violates Canon 9, Rule 9.01 of the CPR of two (2) years from being commissioned as a notary public for notanzmg a compromise
which provides that: agreement without the presence of all the parties. In the case of Atty. Benigno T. Bartolome v.
Atty. Christopher A. Basilio,[49] which factual milieu is similar to the present case, the Court
A lawyer shall not delegate to any unqualified person the performance of any task which by meted out against therein respondent the penalty of revocation of notarial commission and
law may only be performed by a member of the Bar in good standing. disqualification for two (2) years from being appointed as a notary public and suspension for
six (6) months from the practice of law due to various infringement of the Notarial Rules such
as failure to record a notarized document in his notarial register and notarizing a document However, while Atty. Mejica's MR was still pending before the Office of the Provincial
without the physical presence of the affiant. Prosecutor (OPP), he filed on March 31, 2009, for the second time, the same
complaint[6] before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Oras, Eastern Samar, docketed
Following jurisprudential precedents and as a reminder to notaries public that their solemn as Criminal Case No. (0)2009-03.
duties which are imbued with public interest are not to be taken lightly, the Court deems it
proper to revoke the notarial register of the respondent if still existing and to disqualify her On July 6, 2009, the MCTC issued an Order[7] dismissing the complaint of Atty. Mejica on the
from appointment as a notary public for two (2) years. She is also suspended from the practice ground that the same had already prescribed. An MR was filed but the same was denied in an
of law for six (6) months. Contrary to the complainant's proposition to have the respondent Order[8] dated September 14, 2009.
disbarred, the Court is of the belief that her acts do not merit such a grave penalty and the
sanctions so imposed suffice. The Court held in an array of cases that "removal from the Bar Consequently, Lim filed the instant case alleging that Atty. Mejica deliberately committed
should not really be decreed when any punishment less severe - reprimand, temporary forum shopping when he filed the same complaint with the same attachments with the MCTC
suspension or fine would accomplish the end desired."[50] during the pendency of his MR to the dismissal of his complaint before the OPP.[9]

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Cora Jane P. Baleros is GUILTY of violating the 2004 Rules on On November 16, 2009, the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the IBP issued an
Notarial Practice, the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer's Oath. Her notarial Order[10] directing Atty. Mejica to submit his answer to Lim's complaint within 15 days from
commission, if still existing, is hereby REVOKED, and she is hereby DISQUALIFIED from receipt of the order.
reappointment as Notary Public for a period of two (2) years. She is likewise SUSPENDED from
the practice of law for six (6) months effective immediately. Further, she is WARNED that a In his Answer,[11] Atty. Mejica argued that the filing of the case before the MCTC pending the
repetition of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely. resolution of his MR before the OPP was made in good faith. He argued that he did not know
that an oral defamation case may be filed directly with the MCTC.[12]

According to Atty. Mejica, he consulted his friend, Atty. Emmanuel C. Apelado, a Public
Attorney's Office lawyer, when he found out that the person drafting the pleadings of Lim
DELIA LIM V. ATTY MEJICA was the same person who was handling the case in the OPP. He alleged that he was advised,
On July 16, 2008, Atty. Mejica filed a criminal action for grave oral defamation against Lim, that an oral defamation case is not subject to preliminary investigation and as such he could
then incumbent Vice Mayor of Oras, Eastern Samar, before the Office of the Assistant file the same directly with the MCTC.[13]
Provincial Prosecutor (OAPP) of Oras, Eastern Samar, docketed as I.S. No. 08-90-0. He alleged
that Lim uttered against him the following slanderous words at the Session Hall of the Also, he argued that since the criminal complaint was filed before the OAPP, its resolution for
Sangguniang Bayan of Oras: "HI AGUS BALDADO NAG KIHA KAN ATTY. AKI MEJICA HA IBP UG probable cause would not be a bar for the court's judicial determination of probable cause
YANA HI ATTY. MEJ[I]CA SUSPENDIDO HIT IYA KA ABOGADO SAKOP HIN UNOM KA BULAN, considering that in case of oral defamation, preliminary investigation is not required.[14]
IPAN NUMAT NIYO" (Mr. Agus Baldado filed a case against Atty. Mejica before the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines (IBP) and now Atty. Mejica is suspended from practice of his profession On August 31, 2010, the IBP-CBD issued a Notice[15] directing the parties to appear for a
as a lawyer for a period of six (6) months, you relay this information). [2] mandatory conference. During the mandatory conference, however, only Lim and her
counsel appeared, while Atty. Mejica was absent.[16]
On February 19, 2009, acting Provincial Prosecutor Cornelio M. Umil II issued a
Resolution[3] dismissing the complaint of Atty. Mejica for lack of probable cause. A Motion for On January 10, 2011, the IBP-CBD issued an Order[17] terminating the mandatory conference
Reconsideration[4] (MR) was filed, but the same was denied in a Resolution[5] dated May 20, and directing both parties to submit their respective position papers within a non-extendible
2009. period of 30 days upon receipt of the said order.
 Recommendation and Resolutions of the IBP the pending case, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the
other case.[25](Citation omitted and italics in the original)
On November 17, 2011, the IBP-CBD issued a Report and Recommendation[18] finding Atty.
In the present case, the Court finds that the second requisite of forum shopping does not
Mejica liable for violating Rule 12.02 of Canon 12 of the CPR, and recommended that he be
suspended for a period of six (6) months. Subsequently, the Report and Recommendation of exist since there is no identity of relief in I.S. No. 08-90-0 filed before the OAPP of Oras,
the IBP-CBD was adopted and approved by the IBP Board of Governors in a Eastern Samar and in Criminal Case No. (0)2009-03 filed before the MCTC of the same place.
Resolution[19] dated June 20, 2013. The IBP Board of Governors, however, modified the
penalty by reducing the suspension to three (3) months. In I.S. No. 08-90-0, the complaint seeks for the finding by the prosecutor of probable cause
against Lim for Grave Oral Defamation so that the latter could be held for trial. Meanwhile, in
On October 23, 2013, an MR[20] was filed by Atty. Mejica but the same was denied by the IBP Criminal Case No. (0)2009-03, the complaint seeks for the conviction of Lim.
Board of Governors in a Resolution[21]dated September 27, 2014. The IBP Board of Governors,
however, after considering this Court's previous sanctions imposed against Atty. Mejica, In Co v. Lim, et al.,[26] the Court, for the purpose of determining the existence of forum
increased his suspension to five (5) years. shopping, held that the determination made by the Secretary of Justice on whether there is
a prima facie case for the prosecution of the case is distinct from the judicial determination of
the RTC that there is no probable cause for the continued hearing of the criminal case.
The Issue Moreover, the Court held that these are two distinct actions which should be independently
assailed. The former is pursuant to the powers and functions of the Department of Justice as
Essentially, the case directly poses to the Court the question of whether the instant provided for under the Revised Administrative Code while the latter is in accord to the judicial
disbarment complaint constitutes a sufficient basis to suspend Atty. Mejica from the practice powers conferred by Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution.[27]
of law for five (5) years for violation of the CPR.
Applying the foregoing, it is clear that in the present case, the exercise of the OPP of its
investigative power to determine the existence of probable cause to the complaint filed by
Ruling of the Court Arty. Mejica is likewise different and distinct from the power of the court to hold Lim for trial
for the offense charged.
There is no violation of the rule against non-forum shopping
Moreover, it is well settled that "[w]hat is pivotal in determining whether forum shopping
"There is forum shopping whenever as a result of an adverse opinion in one forum, a party exists or not is the vexation caused the courts and parties-litigants by a party who asks
seeks a favorable opinion (other than by appeal or certiorari) in another."[22] "The test for different courts and/or administrative agencies to rule on the same or related cases and/or
determining forum shopping is whether in the two (or more) cases pending, there is an grant the same or substantially the same reliefs, in the process creating the possibility of
identity of parties, rights or causes of action, and relief sought."[23] conflicting decisions being rendered by the different courts and/or administrative agencies
upon the same issues."[28] In the present case, however, there is no sufficient evidence to
In Yu v. Lim,[24] the Court discussed the requisites of forum shopping as follows: prove that Atty. Mejica deliberately filed the two complaints for such purpose. As aptly
explained by him, the same was a result of a mere inadvertence and that the same was
Forum shopping exists when the elements of litis pendentia are present or where a final immediately rectified upon coming to his knowledge.
judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another. Litis pendentia requires the
concurrence of the following requisites: (1) identity of parties, or at least such parties as those Assuming, however, that there is identity of relief, the complaint pending before the OPP
representing the same interests in both actions; (2) identity of rights asserted and reliefs cannot be considered for purposes of determining if there was forum shopping. The power of
prayed for, the reliefs being founded on the same facts; and (3) identity with respect to the the prosecutor, pursuant to Section 3, Chapter 1, Title III, Book IV of the Administrative Code
two preceding particulars in the two cases, such that any judgment that may be rendered in of 1987, is only investigatory in character. It states:
Section 3. Powers and Functions. To accomplish its mandate, the Department shall have the conducted before the filing of a complaint or information for an offense where the penalty
following powers and functions: prescribed by law is at least four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day without regard to
the fine.
x x x x
In the present case, considering that the crime charged is Grave Oral Defamation which is
punishable by arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum
Investigate the commission of crimes, prosecute offenders and administer the probation period, the complaint should clearly be filed directly with the MCTC pursuant to above-
(2)
and correction system. quoted provisions. Thus, the OPP of Oras, Eastern Samar did not acquire jurisdiction over the
offense charged.
xxxx
Atty. Mejica is liable for violation of Canon 10 of the CPR
Clearly, the prosecutor's resolution does not constitute as a valid and final judgment because
his duty, should he find probable cause to prosecute the respondent, is to file the appropriate
Nonetheless, the Court finds that Atty; Mejica failed to exercise candor and courtesy to the
information before the proper court. court when he failed to inform the same of the pendency of his MR before the OPP in
connection with the same cause of action. Likewise, records show that he failed to withdraw
As to the institution of the criminal action, Section 1, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of his MR before the OPP despite the subsequent filing of his complaint before the MCTC.
Criminal Procedure states:
Although it is the MCTC that has jurisdiction over the complaint filed by Atty. Mejica, he made
Section 1. Institution of criminal actions. — Criminal actions shall be instituted as follows: a mockery of the judicial process and further eroded public confidence in lawyers when he
ignored the proceedings he initiated in the OPP.
(a) For offenses where a preliminary investigation is required pursuant to Section 1 of Rule 112,
by filing the complaint with the proper officer for the purpose of conducting the requisite
For these acts, the Court finds Atty. Mejica liable under Canon 10 of the CPR for violating the
preliminary investigation. lawyer's duty to observe candor and fairness in his dealings with the court. It states:
(b) For all other offenses, by filing the complaint or information directly with the Municipal Trial CANON 10. A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the Court.
Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, or the complaint with the office of the prosecutor. In
Manila and other chartered cities, the complaints shall be filed with the office of the prosecutor Clearly, Atty. Mejica committed an act of professional misconduct and thereby failed to live
unless otherwise provided in their charters. up to the exacting ethical standards imposed on members of the Bar.

The institution of the criminal action shall interrupt the running period of prescription of the Proper penalty to be imposed against Atty. Mejica
offense charged unless otherwise provided in special laws.
As to the penalty, Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court provides:
Moreover, Section 1, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, when preliminary
investigation shall be conducted, provides: SEC. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court; grounds therefore. - A
member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme
Section 1. Preliminary investigation defined; when required. - Preliminary investigation is an Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral
inquiry or proceeding to determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well- conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation
founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty thereof, of the oath which he is required to take before admission to practice, or for a wilful
and should be held for trial. 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
Except as provided in Section 7 of this Rule, a preliminary investigation is required to be
law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes The Court, however, finds Atty. Aquilino Mejica to have violated Canon 10 of the Code of
malpractice. Professional Responsibility. He is hereby meted out the penalty of SUSPENSION from the
practice of law for SIX (6) MONTHS with WARNING that a similar offense by him will be dealt
In the present case, the IBP found that this is not Atty. Mejica's first infraction. In Baldado v.
with more severely.
Atty. Mejica,[29] the Court suspended him for three (3) months for his negligence in failing to
protect the interest of his client. Also, in Caspe v. Mejica,[30] he was suspended for two (2)
years for his corrupt motive in facilitating the filing of cases against the complainant therein,
in violation of the CPR.
DELES V. GELLADA
The Court, however, repeatedly held "[t]hat the supreme penalty of disbarment is meted out
only in clear cases of misconduct that seriously affect the standing and character of the Before the Court is a Motion for Clemency Ad Cautelam filed by petitioner Atty. Romulo A.
lawyer as an officer of the court."[31] While the Court will not hesitate to remove an erring Deles praying that the Court, acting as a Court of Equity, set aside the sentence of
lawyer from the Bar, where the evidence calls for it, the Court will also not disbar him where Imprisonment for Indirect Contempt of Court for joining rallies and demonstrations within
a lesser penalty will suffice to accomplish the desired end. the immediate vicinity of the Supreme Court or the Halls of Justice carrying placards, posters
and streamers announcing, among other things:
Also, it is well-settled that "[t]he appropriate penalty to be imposed on an errant attorney Judge Labayen — Judge Diamante —
involves the exercise of sound judicial discretion based on the facts of the case."[32] Judge Hilario — Judge Rojo —
Judge Demonteverde — Hoodlums in Robes —
Under the circumstances, considering that there was no bad faith or malice on the part of STOP Demolition of Farmers (sic) Beneficiaries Houses —
Atty. Mejica and that it was merely a result of his wrong notion that the complaint for oral Pls. Do not usurp the powers of DAR, PARAD & DARAB, other RESIGN.
defamation is within the jurisdiction of the OPP, the Court finds it appropriate to impose and, in its place, to impose against petitioner the penalty of Suspension for Sixty (60) days from
upon him the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for six (6) months. This serves the practice of law, and in addition thereto, to impose on him a fine of P4,000.00 as originally
the purpose of protecting the interest of the court, the legal profession and the public. meted out by MTCC Judge Lorna P. Demonteverde.
In his Comment, Judge Pepito Gellada, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 53,
"Candor and fairness are demanded of every lawyer."[33] It is a cardinal requirement for every Negros Occidental interposes no objection for the lower court's judges have been vindicated,
practicing lawyer.[34] "They are bound by their oath to speak the truth and to conduct and justice has been served with the affirmation of the Court of the indirect contempt
themselves according to the best of their knowledge and discretion, and with fidelity to the committed by petitioner and the corresponding penalty of 20 days imprisonment and fine of
courts and their clients."[35] P4,000.00. Moreover, petitioner Atty. Romulo A. Deles appears to be contrite and sincere in
his plea for clemency.
As a final note, the Court emphasizes its reminder to all members of the bar in Belleza v. Atty.
Macasa,[36] wherein it states: ACCORDINGLY, the Motion for Clemency Ad Cautelam is GRANTED. The penalty of
imprisonment of 20 days is SET ASIDE. In its stead Atty. Romulo A. Deles is SUSPENDED from
Lawyers should always live up to the ethical standards of the legal profession as embodied in the practice of law for a period of 60 days which is immediately executory from receipt of this
the [CPR]. Public confidence in law and in lawyers may be eroded by the irresponsible and Resolution. The fine of P4,000.00 originally imposed stands.
improper conduct of a member of the bar. Thus, every lawyer should act and comport himself
in a manner that would promote public confidence in the integrity of the legal
profession.[37] (Citations omitted)
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Resolution No. XXI-2014-595 dated September 27,
NONATO V. FUDOLIN
2014 of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors is hereby SET ASIDE.
n a verified complaint dated October 18, 2006, the complainant alleged that his father, the complainant among them.
late Restituto Nonato (Restituto), was the duly registered owner of a 479-sq.m. real property
(property) at Hinigaran, Negros Occidental. The property became the subject of ejectment The complainant alleges that he and his father Restituto did not know of the ejectment suit's
proceedings filed by Restituto against Anselmo Tubongbanua (Anselmo), before the dismissal as the respondent had failed to furnish them a copy of the MTC's dismissal order.
Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Hinigaran, Province of Negros Occidental, docketed as Civil The complainant also asserts that the respondent did not inform them about the filing of the
Case No. MTC-282. When the complaint was filed, Restituto was represented by Atty. Felino motion for reconsideration or of its denial by the MTC. The complainant claims that he only
Garcia (Atty. Garcia). However, at the pre-trial stage, Atty. Garcia was replaced by Atty. found out that the case had been dismissed when he personally went to the Office of the
Fudolin, the respondent in the present case. MTC Clerk of Court and was informed of the dismissal.

The complainant alleged that although his father Restituto paid the respondent his Because of the patent negligence, the complainant informed the respondent that his failure
acceptance fees, no formal retainer agreement was executed. The respondent also did not to file the position paper could be a ground for his disbarment. Furthermore, the
issue any receipts for the acceptance fees paid. complainant, without the respondent's intervention, entered into an oral extrajudicial
compromise with the daughter of defendant Anselmo.
The respondent, on the other hand, averred that Restituto, and not the complainant,
engaged his services on Restituto's representation that they were relatives. For this reason, On August 17, 2007, the respondent wrote the complainant and apologized for his repeated
he accepted the case on a minimal acceptance fee of P20,000.00 and appearance fee of failure to communicate with him. He reasoned out that he failed to file the position paper
P1,000.00, and did not execute any formal retainer agreement. due to his poor health. He also claimed that he had suffered a stroke and had become
partially blind, which caused the delay in the preparation of the pleadings in the ejectment
The complainant asserted that during the pendency of the ejectment proceedings before the case.[2]
MTC, the respondent failed to fully inform his father Restituto of the status and
developments in the case. Restituto could not contact the respondent despite his continued In his Answer[3] dated December 22, 2006, the respondent asserted that at the time he
efforts. The respondent also failed to furnish Restituto copies of the pleadings, motions and received the MTC's directive to submit a position paper, he was already suffering from
other documents filed with the court. Thus, Restituto and the complainant were completely "Hypertensive Cardiovascular Disease, Atrial Fibrillation, Intermittent, and Diabetes Mellitus
left in the dark regarding the status of their case. Type II." The respondent also alleged that further consultations confirmed that he had an
undetected stroke and arterial obstruction during the previous months. His health condition
After an exchange of initial pleadings in the ejectment proceedings, the MTC ordered the led to his loss of concentration in his cases and the loss of some of the case folders, among
parties to submit their respective position papers. Since neither party complied with the them the records of the ejectment case. The respondent also claimed that he focused on his
court's directive, the MTC dismissed the complaint as well as the counterclaim on May 26, health for self-preservation, and underwent vascular laboratory examinations; thus, he failed
2005. to communicate with the late Restituto and the complainant.

The respondent filed a motion for reconsideration from the order of dismissal. He justified his The respondent further averred that his failure to file the position paper in the ejectment
failure to file the position paper by arguing that he misplaced the case records, adding that he proceedings was not due to willful negligence but to his undetected stroke. He never
was also burdened with numerous other cases. The MTC denied the motion. revealed the gravity of his illness to his clients or to the court out of fear that his disclosure
would affect his private practice.
The respondent filed a second motion for reconsideration, this time alleging that the
ejectment case was a meritorious one such that its dismissal would cause injustice to Lastly, the respondent alleged that after the ejectment suit's dismissal, he exerted all efforts,
Restituto (the plaintiff). He also filed a supplemental motion, but the court denied both to the point of risking his poor health, by filing successive pleadings to convince the court to
motions. reconsider its dismissal order. Because the dismissal was purely based on a technical ground,
he maintained that his failure to file the position paper did not amount to the abandonment
On September 15, 2005, Restituto died and all his properties passed on to his heirs, the of his client's case.
 competent lawyer in a similar situation. By consenting to be his client's counsel, a lawyer
impliedly represents that he will exercise ordinary diligence or that reasonable degree of care
The IBP's Report and Recommendation and skill demanded by his profession, and his client may reasonably expect him to perform
his obligations diligently.[7] The failure to meet these standards warrants the imposition of
IBP Investigating Commissioner Acerey C. Pacheco issued his Report and Recommendation, disciplinary action.
finding the respondent guilty of both negligence and betrayal of his client's confidence. The
Investigating Commissioner found that the respondent's failure to file the position paper in In this case, the record clearly shows that the respondent has been remiss in the
the ejectment proceedings and to apprise the client of the status of the case demonstrated performance of his duties as Restituto's counsel. His inaction on the matters entrusted to his
his negligence and lack of prudence in dealing with his clients. care is plainly obvious. He failed to file his position paper despite notice from the MTC
requiring him to do so. His omission greatly prejudiced his client as the Court in fact
The Investigating Commissioner likewise held that the respondent's failure to promptly dismissed the ejectment suit.
inform his clients, including the complainant, of his medical condition deprived them of the
opportunity to seek the services of other lawyers. Had he notified the complainant's father of In addition, the respondent failed to inform Restituto and the complainant of the status of
his illness before the case was dismissed, the latter could have engaged the services of the case. His failure to file the position paper, and to inform his client of the status of the
another lawyer, and the case would not have been dismissed on a mere technical ground. case, not only constituted inexcusable negligence; but it also amounted to evasion of
duty.[8]All these acts violate the Code of Professional Responsibility warranting the court's
The Investigating Commissioner recommended the respondent's suspension for one (1) imposition of disciplinary action. The pertinent provisions of the Code of Professional
month from the practice of law. Responsibility provide:

In a Resolution[4] dated May 14, 2011, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the Canon 17 - A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust
Investigating Commissioner's Report and Recommendation after finding it to be fully and confidence reposed in him.
supported by the evidence on record and by the applicable laws and rules.
Canon 18 - A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.
The complainant moved to reconsider the resolution but the IBP Board of Governors denied
his motion in a resolution[5] dated June 21, 2013. Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him liable.

The Issue Rule 18.04 - A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond
within a reasonable time to the client's request for information.
The issue in this case is whether or not the respondent could be held administratively liable
for negligence in the performance of duty. In Perla Compania de Seguros, Inc. v. Saquilabon,[9] we considered a lawyer's failure to file a
brief for his client to be inexcusable negligence. We held that the lawyer's omission amounted
to a serious lapse in the duty he owed his client and in his professional obligation not to delay
The Court's Ruling litigation and to aid the courts in the speedy administration of justice.

Except for the recommended penalty, we adopt the findings of the IBP. Similarly in Uy v. Tansinsin,[10] we ruled that a lawyer's failure to file the required pleadings and
to inform his client about the developments in her case fell below the standard and amounted
A lawyer is bound to protect his client's interests to the best of his ability and with utmost to a violation of Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. We emphasized the
diligence.[6] He should serve his client in a conscientious, diligent, and efficient manner; and importance of the lawyers' duty to keep their clients adequately and fully informed about the
provide the quality of service at least equal to that which he, himself, would expect from a developments in their cases, and held that a client should never be left in the dark, for to do
so would be to destroy the trust, faith, and confidence reposed in the retained lawyer and in WHEREFORE, premises considered, we hereby SUSPEND Atty. Eutiquio M. Fudolin, Jr. from the
the legal profession as a whole. practice of law for a period of two (2) years for violating Rules 18.03 and Rule 18.04, Canon 18,
and Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. We also WARNhim that the
We also emphasized in Villaflores v. Limos[11] that the trust and confidence reposed by a client commission of the same or similar act or acts shall be dealt with more severely.
in his lawyer impose a high standard that includes the appreciation of the lawyer's duty to his
clients, to the profession, to the courts, and to the public. Every case a lawyer accepts deserves Atty. Eutiquio M. Fudolin, Jr. is DIRECTED to formally MANIFEST to this Court, upon receipt of
his full attention, diligence, skill and competence, regardless of its importance and whether he this Decision, the date of his receipt which shall be the starting point of his suspension. He shall
accepts it for a fee or for free.[12] furnish a copy of this Manifestation to all the courts and quasi-judicial bodies where he has
entered his appearance as counsel.
Because a lawyer-client relationship is one of trust and confidence, there is a need for the client
to be adequately and fully informed about the developments in his case. A client should never
be left groping in the dark; to allow this situation is to destroy the trust, faith, and confidence
reposed in the retained lawyer and in the legal profession in general. [13]
PUZA V. ATTY ARELLANO
The respondent has apparently failed to measure up to these required standards. He neglected Subject of this disposition is the February 25, 2016 Resolution[1] of the Integrated Bar of the
to file the required position paper, and did not give his full commitment to maintain and defend Philippines-Board of Governors (IBP-BOG), which adopted and approved with modification
his client's interests. Aside from failing to file the required pleading, the respondent never the Report and Recommendation[2] of the Investigating Commissioner.
exerted any effort to inform his client of the dismissal of the ejectment case. In her Complaint,[3] dated August 26, 2005, Arlene 0. Villaflores-Puza (complainant) accused
Atty. Rolando B. Arellano (respondent) of notarizing affidavits of his witnesses without a
We also find the respondent's excuse - that he had an undetected stroke and was suffering notarial commission.
from other illnesses - unsatisfactory and merely an afterthought. Even assuming that he was
then suffering from numerous health problems (as evidenced by the medical certificates he The Complaint
attached), his medical condition cannot serve as a valid reason to excuse the omission to file
Complainant was the defendant in a case for declaration of nullity of marriage filed by her
the necessary court pleadings. The respondent could have requested an extension of time to
husband, Ernesto Puza (Puza), who was represented by respondent as his counsel. On July 21,
file the required position paper, or at the very least, informed his client of his medical condition;
2005, Puza, through respondent, filed his formal offer of evidence, which included some
all these, the respondent failed to do.
affidavits of witnesses notarized by him.
Furthermore, the respondent's subsequent filing of successive pleadings (after the ejectment In the aforesaid affidavits, it was indicated that respondent was issued a notarial commission
case had been dismissed) significantly weakens his health-based excuse. His efforts not only in Mandaluyong City. Upon inquiry, however, complainant discovered that he was never issued
contradict his explanation that his physical predicament forced him to focus on his illnesses; a notarial commission in Mandaluyong City. In support thereof, she attached a
they also indicate that his illnesses (allegedly "Hypertensive Cardiovascular Disease, Atrial Certification,[4] issued by the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Fibrillation, Intermittent, and Diabetes Mellitus Type II") were not at all incapacitating. Mandaluyong City, attesting that he was not a commissioned notary public in said city.

All told, we find that the respondent violated Canon 17, Canon 18, and Rules 18.03 and 18.04 Report and Recommendation
of the Code of Professional Responsibility. We, however, find the IBP's recommended penalty In her Report and Recommendation,[5] dated February 10, 2016, Commissioner Rebecca
(one (1) month suspension from the practice of law) to be a mere slap on the wrist considering Villanueva-Maala (Commissioner Villanueva-Maala) recommended respondent's suspension
the gravity of the infractions committed. Thus, we deem it appropriate to impose the penalty from the practice of law for a period of five (5) years. She stressed that respondent's failure to
of two (2) years suspension, taking into account the respondent's acts and omissions, as well answer the complaint against him, in spite of due notice and order to attend the scheduled
as the consequence of his negligence. hearings, illustrated his flouting resistance to the lawful orders of the court, which deserves
disciplinary action. In addition, Commissioner Villanueva-Maala noted that notarizing IBP, not only because he is a member, but more importantly because the IBP is the Court-
documents without a notarial commission constituted gross misconduct and deserved to be designated investigator of his case.[12]
punished.
Thus, the Court agrees with the suspension meted against respondent. In addition, he should
In its February 25, 2016 Resolution,[6] the IBP-BOG adopted and approved with modification be forever barred from being commissioned a notary public all over the Philippines after
the recommendation of Commissioner Villanueva-Maala. The resolution reads: exhibiting conduct, which renders him unfit to perform the sacred duties of a notary public.
Respondent deliberately performed notarial acts despite full knowledge that he was never
RESOLVED to ADOPT with modification the recommendation of the Investigating commissioned as a notary in Mandaluyong City.
Commissioner reducing the penalty to THREE (3) YEARS SUSPENSION FROM THE PRACTICE OF
LAW to make it commensurate with the gravity of the offense committed.[7] WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Rolando B. Arellano is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for
three (3) years and PERMANENTLY DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as a Notary Public.
Hence, the case was transmitted to the Court for review.
WEE-CRUZ V. ATTY LIM
The Court's Ruling
This administrative case arose from a Complaint[1] for disbarment or suspension filed by Jen
The Court agrees with the IBP-BOG but modifies the penalty imposed. Sherry Wee-Cruz (complainant) against Atty. Chichina Faye Lim (respondent) before the
In Mariano v. Atty. Echanez,[8] the Court reiterated that notarization is not a hollow act which Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). The IBP found respondent guilty of gross misconduct
may be brushed aside lightly: because of her issuance of worthless checks to complainant's brother. The IBP Board of
Governors thereafter resolved to disbar respondent from the practice of law.[2]
Time and again, this Court has stressed that notarization is not an empty, meaningless and
routine act. It is invested with substantive public interest that only those who are qualified or As a preliminary matter, this Court reiterates that it alone has the power to discipline lawyers
authorized may act as notaries public. It must be emphasized that the act of notarization by a and remove their names from the rolls.[3]The IBP Board of Governors may
notary public converts a private document into a public document making that document only recommend the dismissal of a complaint or the imposition of disciplinary action on a
admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity. A notarial document is by law respondent lawyer.[4]
entitled to full faith and credit upon its face, and for this reason, notaries public must observe
with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of their duties.[9] While it adopts the factual findings of the IBP, this Court finds that the penalty of suspension
Any transgression of the notarial rules should not be treated trivially but must be punished for two years will suffice.
accordingly to preserve the integrity of notarization. Under the rules, only persons who are
commissioned as notary public may perform notarial acts within the territorial jurisdiction of
the court which granted the commission.[10] ANTECEDENT FACTS

In the present case, it was sufficiently established that respondent was without a notarial The parties to this case were childhood friends.[5] This relationship enabled respondent to
commission when he notarized the affidavits he offered in evidence. This was supported by the borrow substantial amounts of money from complainant and the latter's
certification issued by the RTC of Mandaluyong City that from January 1998 until August 2005, brother.[6] Complainant enumerated three instances when her trust was abused by
respondent was never commissioned as a notary public. A lawyer who notarizes documents respondent in order to obtain loans the latter could not pay.
without a valid notarial commission is remiss in his professional duties and responsibilities.[11]
First instance. In 2008, respondent asked if she could use the credit card of complainant to
Further, it is noteworthy that respondent did not even attempt to answer the accusations
purchase something.[7] As the latter was then unable to get out of the house because of a
against him. He failed to comply with the orders of the investigating commissioner and he did
delicate pregnancy, she had to ask respondent to withdraw PI0,000 from her ATM card to pay
not attend the scheduled hearings. On this ground alone, respondent could have been
for her credit card bill.[8] Complainant tendered both her ATM card, which had an available
penalized more heavily because he was bound to comply with all the lawful directives of the
balance of P78.000, and her credit'card.[9]She later found out that respondent had depleted
all the funds in the ATM card and used up a considerable amount from the cash advance limit circumstance.[24]
of the credit card.[10] Despite the repeated demands of complainant and the consequent
execution of a promissory note by respondent, the latter still failed to pay the principal On 14 April 2016, respondent filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before this Court. She
amount of P1 42,000 and the interests thereon that had accrued.[11] asserts that she did not exhibit any immoral or deceitful conduct because the acts were done
in her private capacity.[25] She insists that she exhibited good faith and an honest intention to
Second instance. Also in 2008, respondent incurred a P1.055 million loan from complainant's settle, as she made partial payments amounting to P1.2 million.[26] She blames complainant
brother.[12] The loan was covered by postdated checks, which were later dishonored and for not giving adequate time for the former to settle the face value of the checks.[27] In
returned by the bank for the reason that the account had been closed.[13] In September 2010, closing, respondent submits that disbarment would be too harsh a penalty, considering the
respondent issued a promissory note, which remained unfulfilled as of the date of filing of absence of bad faith, malice or spite on her part.[28]
the Complaint.[14]

Third instance. In February 2010, respondent issued postdated checks payable to "Cash" as THE RULING OF THE COURT
partial payment of the outstanding loan accommodation for more than f 3 million, which had
been extended to her by complainant.[15] These checks were later dishonored and returned Respondent must be suspended from the practice of law for violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1
by the bank for the reason that the account had been closed.[16] of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Complainant and her brother repeatedly called and sent text messages to petitioner to Respondent cannot evade disciplinary sanctions by implying that there was no attorney-client
inform her that her checks had been dishonored and to demand that she make good on her relationship between her and complainant. In Nulada v. Paulma,[29] this Court reiterated that
checks.[17] On 7 October 2010, complainant personally handed a demand letter to by taking the Lawyer's Oath, lawyers become guardians of the law and indispensable
respondent.[18] As the latter still failed to honor her promises to pay, complainant instituted a instruments for the orderly administration of justice. As such, they can be disciplined for any
criminal complaint. The Office of the City Prosecutor found probable cause to indict misconduct, be it in their professional or in their private capacity, and thereby be rendered
respondent for four counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Big. 22 (B.P. 22); and Article 315, unfit to continue to be officers of the court.[30]
par. 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code.[19]
In this case, complainant and her brother categorically stated that they had agreed to lend
On 15 March 2011, complainant lodged a Complaint against respondent before the IBP. substantial amounts of money to respondent, because "she's a lawyer."[31] Indeed, lawyers
are held by the community in very high esteem; yet respondent eroded this goodwill when
she repeatedly broke her promises to pay and make good on her checks.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE IBP
On several occasions, this Court has had to discipline members of the legal profession for
Despite due notice, respondent did not submit an Answer, appear at the mandatory their issuance of worthless checks. In Enriquez v. De Vera,[32] the correlation between BP 22
conference, or submit a position paper.[20] and administrative cases against lawyers was explained:

IBP Commissioner Felimon C. Abelita III took the silence and nonparticipation of respondent Being a lawyer, respondent was well aware of the objectives and coverage of [BP] 22. If he did
as an admission of guilt.[21] He pointed out that her attitude was a clear defiance of the not, he was nonetheless presumed to know them, for the law was penal in character and
commission and the institution it represented.[22] Hence, he recommended that respondent application. His issuance of the unfunded check involved herein knowingly violated [BP] 22,
be suspended until she is able to pay in full her indebtedness to complainant's brother.[23] and exhibited his indifference towards the pernicious effect of his illegal act to public interest
and public order. He thereby swept aside his Lawyer's Oath that enjoined him to support the
The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the Report and Recommendation of Constitution and obey the laws.
Commissioner Abelita with the modification that respondent be disbarred, not merely
suspended. The board considered her disrespect and disregard of its orders as an aggravating
This Court, however, agrees with respondent that the penalty of disbarment would be too
harsh. Recognizing the consequence of disbarment on the economic life and honor of an erring
lawyer, this Court held in Anacta v. Resurrection[33] that disbarment should not be decreed
where any punishment less severe would accomplish the end desired.

In Nulada, this Court cited Heenan v. Espejo[34] A-l Financial Services, Inc. v. Valerio,[35] Dizon v.
De Taza, [36] and Wong v. Moya[37] as basis for meting out two-year suspensions to lawyers who
had issued in worthless checks and failed to pay their debts. In Sanchez v. Torres,[38] the same
penalty was imposed. The respondent lawyer therein was found guilty of wilful dishonesty and
unethical conduct for failing to pay his debt and for issuing checks without sufficient funds. As
in this case, Atty. Torres exploited his friendship with the complainant therein in order to
borrow a substantial amount of money. We find it appropriate to impose the same penalty on
respondent in this case.

WHEREFORE, Atty. Chichina Faye Lim is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for two years. Let
a copy of this Decision be entered in her personal record at the Office of the Bar Confidant,
and a copy be served on the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Office of the Court
Administrator for circulation to all the courts in the land.