RE: SC DECISION DATED A.C. No.

7940
MAY 20, 2008 IN G.R. NO. 161455
UNDER RULE 139-B OF THE
RULES OF COURT

FACTS:

In this case, it resolves the question of whether or not the conviction of a lawyer for a crime
involving moral turpitude constitutes sufficient ground for his disbarment from the practice of
law under Sec. 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.

In 1996, Elmer Abastillas, the playing coach of Ozamis City Volleyball team, wrote a letter to the
mayor of the city, requesting financial assistance for his team. It was immediately approved.

Ferraren, a city council member, was designated as officer-in-charge of the city while the mayor
was away. During his designation, Abastillas eventually got the financial assistace for his
volleyball team.

Atty. Pactolin, the respondent lawyer, got a copy of Abastillas letter. By using the said letter, he
filed a complaint with the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman Mindanao against Ferraren. He
alleged that the financial assistance was an illegal disbursement of public funds. In his
complaint, he attached a copy of the falsified letter of Abastillas. It was shown that it was
Ferraren and not the mayor who approved the disbursement.

Consequently, a criminal case was filed against Atty. Pactolin for falsification of public
document. Eventually, he was found guilty of falsification of public document.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. Pactolin should be disbarred after conviction by final judgment of the
crime of falsification.

RULING:

Yes. The court upheld the finding of the Sandiganbayan that the copy of the letter submitted by
Atty. Pactolin was spurious. The court ruled that since Atty. Pactolin doesn’t have a clear
satisfactory explanation regarding his possession and use of the letter, the Sandiganbayan was
correct in concluding that it was him who actually falsified the letter.

The decision of the court had long become final and executory. In a similar case, the court held
that in disbarment cases, it is no longer called upon to review the judgment of conviction, which
has become final. Since the crime of falsification is contrary to justice, honesty and good morals,
it therefore involves moral turpitude. The court has consistently pronounced that disbarment is
the appropriate penalty for conviction by final judgment for a crime involving moral turpitude.
Therefore, Atty. Pactolin is disbarred.
CABILES V. CEDO, ADM. CASE NO. 10245

CANON 5 - A lawyer shall keep abreast of legal developments, participate in continuing legal
education programs, support efforts to achieve high standards in law schools as well as in the
practical training of law students and assist in disseminating information regarding the law and
jurisprudence.

FACTS:

Complainant, Elibena Cabiles, filed an administrative complaint before the IBP seeking
disbarment of Atty. Leandro Cedo for neglecting the two cases she referred to him to handle –
one labor case and one criminal case.

In the labor case, she engaged the services of Atty. Cedo to handle an illegal dismissal case. He
was paid P5,000 for drafting a position paper and P2000 for every entry of appearance.

During the hearing with the NLRC, only the complainant showed up. Atty. Cedo misled Cabiles
by claiming it was really the complainant who was absent during said hearing.

Cabiles also claimed that Atty. Cedo failed to indicate his Mandatory Continuing Legal Education
(MCLE) Compliance in his position paper and Memorandum on Appeal. Upon checking with the
MCLE office, it was proven that Atty. Cedo had not complied with the 1 st, 2nd, and 3rd compliance
periods of MCLE requirements.

In the criminal case, Cabiles claimed that despite payment of P45,000 as professional fee, Atty.
Cedo did not exert any effort to file a complaint foe unjust vexation before the City Prosecutor.
For this reason, the City Prosecutor dismissed her complaint on the ground of prescription.

Atty. Cedo did not refute Cabiles’ claim that he indeed failed to indicate his MCLE Compliance in
the position paper and memorandum.

IBP found Atty. Cedo guilty of having violated Canons 5, 17, 18 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and recommended his suspension for two years. He was also found guilty of gross
negligence in representing his client.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. Cedo violated Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility when he
failed to indicate his MCLE Compliance in his pleadings.

RULING:

Yes. The court found Atty. Cedp guilty of having violated Canon 5 of CPR and recommended his
suspension for one year.

The court ruled that Bar Matter 850 mandates continuing legal education for IBP members as an
additional requirement to enable them to practice law.1âwphi1 This is "to ensure that
throughout their career, they keep abreast with law and jurisprudence, maintain the ethics of
the profession and enhance the standards of the practice of law. Non-compliance with the MCLE
requirement subjects the lawyer to be listed as a delinquent IBP member.

Even if respondent attended an MCLE Program covered by the Fourth Compliance Period, his
attendance therein would only cover his deficiency for the First Compliance Period, and he was
still considered delinquent and had to make up for the other compliance periods. Consequently,
we declared respondent lawyer therein a delinquent member of the IBP and suspended him
from law practice for six months or until he had fully complied with all the MCLE requirements
for all his non-compliant periods.

IN RE CLEMENTE M. SORIANO, G.R. NO. 24114, JUNE 30, 1970

FACTS:

Atty. Clemente Soriano is a member of the Philippine Bar since 1954. By a virtue of a pleading
entitled “Appearance”, he became the chief counsel of record and entered his appearance in
the case of UP v. Mencias Tiburcio for respondents Marcelino Tiburcio, et al.,

The appearance he made was done one (1) year and eight (8) months after the decision in the
case became final. He even asked the court to exhume the said case from the archives.

Atty. Soriano alleged that respondents went to him to engage his professional services for the
two cases.

At a conference, Marcelino informed him as to the status of the two cases. According to
Marcelino, Varsity Hills was set for a hearing while the other case in controversy was still
pending and the date of hearing was undetermined.

Atty. Soriano also relied upon the statement of a mutual acquaintance that the two cases were
still pending before the court. Consequently, he prepared a letter and agreed to render his
professional service in consideration of a contingent fee of hectares of land involved in said
case.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. Soriano was guilty of gross negligence in the performance of his duties as a
lawyer.

RULING:

Yes. The court ruled that Atty. Soriano was guilty of gross negligence. The inexcusable ignorance
would meet no less than his suspension from the practice of law were it not for his candor at the
hearing and in owing his mistake and the apology he made to the court.
The court also said in its ruling that the entry of appearance of a counsel which has long been
sealed and terminated by a final judgment is a deviation from normal judicial process. Before
taking over a case, a lawyer is enjoined to obtain the conformity of the counsel he would
substitute.

In the case at bar, Atty. Soriano failed to give notice to the previous counsel of the two cases
referred or communicate as to the status of the previous case. Had he been less precipitate in
his actions, he would have surely detected the existence of a final judgment in the present case.

Therefore, Atty. Soriano has been ordered by the court to withdraw the appearance that has
entered as chief counsel of record for the respondents.

COBB-PEREZ V. LANTIN, G.R. NO. L-22320, JULY 29, 1968

FACTS:

Spouses Perez in this case were involved in a civil case where a simple money judgment was
rendered against them. To execute the judgment, the court levied upon shares of stock of the
spouses.

With the help of petitioners’ counsels Attys. Raizas and Bolinas, they resorted to a series of
actions and petitions for the sole purpose of delaying the execution of the simple money
judgment, which has long become final and executory.

The petitioners did was to attack the execution in a piecemeal fashion causing the
postponement of the execution sale of for six times. More than eight years after the finality of
the judgment have passed and the same has yet to be satisfied.

For eight years, they filed several preliminary injunctions, motions to recall writ of execution,
motions to reconsider, etc. Some of the actions were filed only to be abandoned or withdrawn.
There was one instance wherein they filed a writ of preliminary injunction with the CFI of Rizal
knowing fully well that it had no jurisdiction because the case was originally filed in Manila.

In the court’s final judgment, the writ if execution against the spouses the spouses was upheld
and in addition the SC assessed treble costs against petitioners to be paid jointly by their
counsels.

Attys. Baizas and Bolinas seek reconsideration of the decision in so far as it reflects adversely
upon their professional conduct and condemns them to pay the treble costs adjudged against
their client.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Attys. Baizas and Bolinas should pay the treble costs.

RULING:
Yes. The court ruled that they are compelled to observe that during the litigation in the case, the
petitioners and their counsel resorted to series of actions for the sole purpose of delaying the
execution of simple money judgment, which has long become final and executor.

In the case at bar, both counsels were contending that if there was delay it was because they
happened to be more assertive.

The court said that a counsel’s assertiveness in espousing with candor and honesty his client’s
cause must be encouraged.

It is the duty of a counsel to advise his client’s if he finds that his client’s cause is defenseless
then it is his duty to advise the latter to acquiesce and submit rather than traverse the
incontrovertible.

A lawyer must resist the whims and caprices of his client and temper his client’s propensity to
litigate.

Therefore, Motion of Reconsideration was denied and both counsels were ordered to pay jointly
and severally the treble costs filed against them.

IN RE SOTTO, 82 PHIL. 595 (1949)

FACTS:

Atty. Vicente Sotto was required to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt in
connection with his written statement of the SC’s decision in the matter of Angel Parazo’s case,
which was published in Manila Times and in other newspapers in the locality.

Sotto was given ten more days to file his answer and although the answer was filed on a later
date, the court still admitted it.

In Sotto’s statement, he alleged that he does deny the authencity of the statement as it has
been published. Among of these statements published by Sotto are the following:

In the interpreted case of the SC in Angel Parazo case, he regret to say that High Tribunal
has not erroneously interpreted the law, but it is once more putting in evidence the
incompetency of narrow mindedness of the majority of the members of the court.
He also said in his statement that the members of the SC should be changed to put an end
to so much evil.
He also said that thee must be a complete reorganization of the SC.

In this answer, he contended that under the Constitution the SC has no power to impose
correctional penalties upon the citizens and it can only impose fines and imprisonment by virtue
of law.

He also alleged in the exercise of the freedom of speech granted by the Constitution, he made
his statement in the press with utmost good faith and with no intention of offending any of the
majority of the honorable members of the court, who in his opinion, erroneously decided the
Parazo case. According to him, he has not attacked or intended to attack the honesty or integrity
of anyone.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. Sotto is guilty of contempt.

RULING:

Yes. The court finds Atty. Sotto guilty of contempt. The court finds that Atty. Sotto knowingly
published false imputations against its members. He accused them as to have committed
“blunders and injustices deliberately”.

He has maliciously branded them to be incompetent, narrow-minded, perpetrators of evil, and a

Respondent has not presented any evidence or offered any to support his slanderous
imputations and no single word in his answer showing that he ever believed that the
imputations are based on fact.

It is well-settled that an attorney as an officer of the court is under special obligation to be