EN BANC

In an Order dated November 12, 2002, Judge Tan xxx

[ADM. CASE No. 7006 : October 9, 2007] favorably resolved the Motion to Fix the Amount of Bail
Bond, and fixed the amount of the bond at P40,000.
Bagabuyo said he would contest Tan's decision before
RE : SUSPENSION OF ATTY. ROGELIO Z. the Court of Appeals and would file criminal and
BAGABUYO, FORMER SENIOR STATE Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration of the administrative charges of certiorari against the judge.
PROSECUTOR. Order dated November 12, 2002, which motion was
denied for lack of merit in an Order dated February 10,
Bagabuyuo said he was not afraid of being cited in
2003. In October, 2003, respondent appealed from the
DECISION contempt by Judge Tan.
Orders dated November 12, 2002 and February 10,
2003, to the Court of Appeals (CA).
AZCUNA, J.: "This is the only way that the public would know that
there are judges there who are displaying judicial
Instead of availing himself only of judicial remedies,
arrogance." he said.3
This administrative case stemmed from the events of respondent caused the publication of an article
the proceedings in Crim. Case No. 5144, regarding the Order granting bail to the accused in the
entitled People v. Luis Bucalon Plaza, heard before the August 18, 2003 issue of the Mindanao Gold Star In an Order dated August 21, 2003, the RTC of Surigao
sala of Presiding Judge Jose Manuel P. Tan, Regional Daily. The article, entitled "Senior prosecutor lambasts City, Branch 29, directed respondent and the writer of
Trial Court (RTC) of Surigao City, Branch 29. Surigao judge for allowing murder suspect to bail out," the article, Mark Francisco of the Mindanao Gold Star
reads: Daily, to appear in court on September 20, 2003 to
explain why they should not be cited for indirect
Crim. Case No. 5144 was originally raffled to the sala
contempt of court for the publication of the article which
of Judge Floripinas C. Buyser, RTC of Surigao City, SENIOR state prosecutor has lashed at a judge in
degraded the court and its presiding judge with its lies
Branch 30. In an Order dated March 14, 2002, Judge Surigao City for allowing a murder suspect to go out on
and misrepresentation.
Buyser denied the Demurrer to the Evidence of the bail.
accused, declaring that the evidence thus presented by
the prosecution was sufficient to prove the crime of The said Order stated that contrary to the statements in
Senior state prosecutor Rogelio Bagabuyo lambasted
homicide and not the charge of murder. Consequently, the article, Judge Buyser described the evidence for
Judge Manuel Tan of the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
the counsel for the defense filed a Motion to Fix the the prosecution as not strong, but sufficient to prove
Branch 29 based in Surigao City for ruling on a motion
Amount of Bail Bond. Respondent Atty. Rogelio Z. the guilt of the accused only for homicide. Moreover, it
that sought a bailbond for Luis Plaza who stands
Bagabuyo, then Senior State Prosecutor and the was not true that Judge Buyser inhibited himself from
charged with murdering a policeman . . . .
deputized prosecutor of the case, objected thereto the case for an unclear reason. Judge Buyser, in an
mainly on the ground that the original charge of Order dated August 30, 2002, declared in open court in
murder, punishable with reclusion perpetua, was not Plaza reportedly posted a P40-thousand bail bond. the presence of respondent that he was inhibiting
subject to bail under Sec. 4, Rule 114 of the Rules of himself from the case due to the harsh insinuation of
Court.1 respondent that he lacked the cold neutrality of an
Bagabuyo argued that the crime of murder is a non-
impartial judge.
bailable offense. But Bagabuyo admitted that a judge
2
In an Order dated August 30, 2002,  Judge Buyser could still opt to allow a murder suspect to bail out in
inhibited himself from further trying the case because of cases when the evidence of the prosecution is weak. On the scheduled hearing of the contempt charge,
the "harsh insinuation" of Senior Prosecutor Rogelio Z. Mark Francisco admitted that the Mindanao Gold Star
Bagabuyo that he "lacks the cold neutrality of an Daily caused the publication of the article. He disclosed
But in this murder case, Bagabuyo said the judge who
impartial magistrate," by allegedly suggesting the filing that respondent, in a press conference, stated that the
previously handled it, Judge F[lori]pinas B[uy]ser,
of the motion to fix the amount of bail bond by counsel crime of murder is non-bailable. When asked by the
described the evidence to be strong. B[uy]ser inhibited
for the accused. trial court why he printed such lies, Mr. Francisco
from the case for an unclear reason.
answered that his only source was respondent. 4 Mr.
Francisco clarified that in the statement alleging that
The case was transferred to Branch 29 of the RTC of
Judge Buyser inhibited himself from the case for an
Surigao City, presided by Judge Jose Manuel P. Tan.
unclear reason, the phrase "for an unclear reason,"
was added by the newspaper's Executive Editor Herby Surigao City, Branch 29, required respondent to Order dated October 20, 2003. However, respondent
S. Gomez.5 explain and to show cause within five days from receipt did not appear in the scheduled hearing of January 12,
thereof why he should not be held in contempt for his 2004.
media interviews that degraded the court and the
Respondent admitted that he caused the holding of the
presiding judge, and why he should not be suspended
press conference, but refused to answer whether he On January 15, 2004, the trial court received
from the practice of law for violating the Code of
made the statements in the article until after he shall respondent's Answer dated January 8, 2004.
Professional Responsibility, specifically Rule 11.05 of
have filed a motion to dismiss. For his refusal to Respondent denied the charge that he sought to be
Canon 118 and Rule 13.02 of Canon 13.9
answer, the trial court declared him in contempt of interviewed by radio station DXKS. He, however, stated
court pursuant to Sec. 3, Rule 71 of the Rules of that right after the hearing of September 30, 2003, he
Court.6 The Court's Order dated September 30, 2003 In the Order, the trial court stated that respondent was was approached by someone who asked him to
reads: interviewed by Jun Clergio, and that the interview was comment on the Order issued in open court, and that
repeatedly aired on September 30, 2003 and in his his comment does not fall within the concept of indirect
news program between 6:00 and 8:00 a.m. on October contempt of court. He also admitted that he was
ORDER
1, 2003. He was also interviewed by Tony Consing on interviewed by his friend, Tony Consing, at the latter's
October 1 and 2, 2003, between 8:00 and 9:00 a.m. in instance. He justified his response during the interview
Mr. Mark Francisco for publishing this article which is a his radio program. In those radio interviews, as a simple exercise of his constitutional right of
lie clothed in half truth to give it a semblance of truth is respondent allegedly called Judge Tan a judge who freedom of speech and that it was not meant to offend
hereby ordered to pay a fine of P10,000. Prosecutor does not know the law, a liar, and a dictator who does or malign, and was without malice.
Bagabuyo, for obstinately refusing to explain why he not accord due process to the people.
should not be cited for contempt and admitting that the
On February 8, 2004, the trial court issued an Order,
article published in the Mindanao Gold Star Daily on
The hearing for the second contempt charge was set the dispositive portion of which reads:
August 18, 2003 and quoted in the Order of this Court
on December 4, 2003.
dated August 21, 2003 which is contemptuous was
caused by him to be published, is hereby adjudged to WHEREFORE, finding preponderant evidence that
have committed indirect contempt of Court pursuant to On November, 20, 2003, respondent filed an Urgent Prosecutor Bagabuyo has grossly violated the Canons
Section 3 of Rule 71 of the Rules of Court and he is Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer to of the legal profession and [is] guilty of grave
hereby ordered to suffer the penalty of 30 days in jail. Contempt alleging that he was saddled with work of professional misconduct, rendering him unfit to
The BJMP is hereby ordered to arrest Prosecutor equal importance and needed ample time to answer continue to be entrusted with the duties and
Rogelio Z. Bagabuyo if he does not put up a bond the same. He also prayed for a bill of particulars in responsibilities belonging to the office of an attorney,
of P100,000.00. order to properly prepare for his defense. he is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law.

SO ORDERD.7 In an Order dated November 20, 2003, the trial court Likewise, he is also found guilty of indirect contempt of
denied the motion. It stated that a bill of particulars is court, for which he is hereby ordered to suffer the
not applicable in contempt proceedings, and that penalty of IMPRISONMENT for ninety (90) days to be
Respondent posted the required bond and was
respondent's actions and statements are detailed in the served at the Surigao City Jail and to pay the maximum
released from the custody of the law. He appealed the
Order of October 20, 2003. fine of THIRTY THOUSAND PESOS (P30,000.00).
indirect contempt order to the CA.
Future acts of contempt will be dealt with more
severely.
On the scheduled hearing of December 4, 2003
Despite the citation of indirect contempt, respondent
respondent neither appeared in court nor informed the
presented himself to the media for interviews in Radio
court of his absence. The trial court issued an Order Let copies of the relevant records be immediately
Station DXKS, and again attacked the integrity of
dated December 4, 2003 cancelling the hearing "to forwarded to the Supreme Court for automatic review
Judge Tan and the trial court's disposition in the
give Prosecutor Bagabuyo all the chances he asks for," and for further determination of grounds for [the]
proceedings of Crim. Case No. 5144.
and ordered him to appear on January 12, 2004 to disbarment of Prosecutor Rogelio Z. Bagabuyo.10
explain in writing or orally why he should not be cited in
In an Order dated October 20, 2003, the RTC of contempt of court pursuant to the facts stated in the
The trial court found respondent's denials to be lame as
the tape of his interview on October 2, 2003, duly ignorant of the law should not only be removed as a xxx
transcribed, showed disrespect of the court and its judge but should also be disbarred. Just take a look at
officers, thus: his Order, Ton, and see what a liar he is . . . .)
TONY CONSING : So karon, unsay plano nimo karon?

TONY CONSING: Fiscal, nanglabay ang mga oras, xxx

(So what is your plan now?)
nanglabay ang gamay'ng panahon ang samad sa
imong kasingkasing nagpabilin pa ba ni. O ingnon nato
BAGABUYO : Yes, nag-ingon ang
duna na bay pagbag-o sa imong huna-huna karon? BAGABUYO : Sumala sa akong gui-ingon moundang
iyang Order. . . . Ngano nga nakaingon ako
lang ako kon matangtang na siya sa pagka
nga bakakon kini, nag-ingon nga kini konong order
abogado. . . .
(Fiscal, after the lapse of time, are you still hurt? Or given in open court, ang kalooy sa dios, ang
have you not changed your mind yet?) iyang order sa Korte wala siya mag-ingon ug kantidad
nga P100,000.00 nga bail bond. . . . (As I have said, I will only stop if he is already
disbarred. . . .)
BAGABUYO : Ang akong huna-huna kon aduna man
ugaling pagbag-o ang pagsiguro, ang mga Huwes nga (Yes, his Order said that . . . . Why did I say that he is a
dili mahibalo sa balaod tangtangon pagka abogado, liar? It states that this Order was "given in open court," xxx
mao kana. and in God's mercy, he did not state the amount
of P100,000.00 as bail bond. . . .)
BAGABUYO : Nasuko siya niini kay hambugero kuno,
(If my mind has changed at all, it is that I ensure that all pero angayan niyang hibaw-an nga ang trabajo sa
judges who are ignorant of the law should be disbarred. BAGABUYO : Kay dili man lagi mahibalo sa balaod, Huwes dili ang pagtan-aw kon ang tawo
That's it.) ako hambugero . . . . Ug ang akong gisulti mao lamang ang
balaod nga siya in fact at that time I said he is not
conversant of the law, with regards to the case of
xxx siyang gui-ingnan, Your Honor, I have the right to
murder. . . .
appeal. Mibalik dayon, ug miingon siya, BJMP arrest
Bagabuyo.
BAGABUYO : Mao kana ang tinuod, Ton, ug kining
(He got angry because I was allegedly bragging but he
akong guibatonan karon nga hunahuna mahitungod
should know that it is not for a judge to determine if a
nianang mga Huwes nga dili kahibalo sa balaod, (Because he does not know the law, I said, "Your
person is a braggart. . . .And what I said was based on
magkadugay magkalami. Kada adlao nagatoon ako. Honor, I have the right to appeal." Then he came back
the law. In fact, at that time, I said he is not conversant
Nagabasa ako sa mga bag-ong jurisprudence ug sa and said, "BJMP, arrest Bagabuyo.")
of the law, with regards to the case of murder . . . .)
atong balaod aron sa pagsiguro gayod nga inigsang-at
unya nako sa kaso nga disbarment niining di mahibalo
xxx
nga Huwes, sigurado gayod ako nga katangtangan xxx
siya sa lisensiya . . . . Ang kini nga Huwes nga dili
mahibalo sa balaod, pagatangtangon na, dili lamang BAGABUYO : . . . P100,000.00 ang iyang
BAGABUYO : Ah, mi sit down sab ako, contempt ra ba
sa pagka-Huwes kon dili sa pagka-abogado. Tan-awa guipapiyansa.
kadto . . . . Mao kana, pero unsa may iyang katuyoan -
ra gyod kining iyang gibuhat nga Order, Ton,
ang iyang katuyoan nga ipa-adto ako didto kay didto,
ang iyang pagkabakakon . . . .
Naunsa na? Dinhi makita nimo ang iyang pagka gross iya akong pakauwawan kay iya kong sikopon, iya kong
ignorance of the law. . . . ipa-priso, pero kay di man lagi mahibalo sa balaod,
(That's true, Ton, and this conviction I have now about ang iyang gui orderan BJMP, intawon por dios por
judges who are ignorant of the law is made firmer by Santo, Mr. Tan, pagbasa intawon ug balaod, naunsa
(He imposed a bail of P100,000.00. How come? This is
time. I study everyday. I read new jurisprudence and ka ba Mr. Tan? Unsa may imong hunahuna nga kon
where you will see his gross ignorance of the law. . . . )
the law to insure that when I file the disbarment case ikaw Huwes, ikaw na ang diktador, no way, no sir, ours
against this Judge who does not know his law, I am is a democratic country where all and everyone is
certain that he loses his license. . . . This judge who is entitled to due process of law - you did not accord me
due process of law . . . . respondent from the practice of law under Sec. 28, Rules of Court are deceit; malpractice; gross
Rule 138 of the Rules of Court12 for any of the causes misconduct in office; grossly immoral
mentioned in Sec. 2713 of the same Rule. Respondent conduct; conviction of a crime involving
(I sat down. . . . That's it. But what was his
was given the opportunity to be heard, but he opted to moral turpitude; any violation of the oath
purpose? He made me come in order to humiliate me
be silent. Thus, it held that the requirement of due which he is required to take before admission
because he wanted me arrested, he wanted me
process has been duly satisfied. to the practice of law; willful disobedience of
imprisoned, but because he is ignorant of the law, he
any lawful order of a superior court; corrupt
ordered the BMJP. For God's sake, Mr. Tan, what's
or willful appearance as an attorney for a
wrong with you, Mr. Tan? Please read the law. What is In accordance with the provisions of Sec. 29, 14 Rule
party to a case without authority to do so.
your thinking? That when you are a judge, you are also 138 and Sec. 9,15 Rule 139 of the Rules of Court, the
The grounds are not preclusive in nature
a dictator? No way, no sir, ours is a democratic country RTC of Surigao City, Branch 29, transmitted to the
even as they are broad enough as to cover
where all and everyone is entitled to due process of law Office of the Bar Confidant the Statement of Facts of
practically any kind of impropriety that a
- you did not accord me due process of law. . . .) respondent's suspension from the practice of law,
lawyer does or commits in his professional
dated July 14, 2005, together with the order of
career or in his private life. A lawyer must at
suspension and other relevant documents.
TONY CONSING: So mopasaka no time be wanting in probity and moral fiber
kang disbarment, malaumon kita nga maaksiyonan which are not only conditions precedent to
kini, with all this problem sa Korte Suprema. In its Report dated January 4, 2006, the Office of the his entrance to the Bar, but are likewise
Bar Confidant found that the article in the August 18, essential demands for his continued
2003 issue of the Mindanao Gold Star Daily, which membership therein.
(So you are filing a disbarment case? We hope that this
be given action with all the problems in the Supreme
maligned the integrity and independence of the court  Lawyers are licensed officers of the courts
and its officers, and respondent's criticism of the trial who are empowered to appear, prosecute
Court.)
court's Order dated November 12, 2002, which was and defend; and upon whom peculiar duties,
aired in radio station DXKS, both in connection with responsibilities and liabilities are devolved by
BAGABUYO : Dili ako mabalaka niana kay usa Crim. Case No. 5144, constitute grave violation of oath law as a consequence.17 Membership in the
ka truck ang akong jurisprudence, nga ang mga Huwes of office by respondent. It stated that the requirement of bar imposes upon them certain
nga di mahibalo sa balaod pagatangtangon gayod sa due process was complied with when respondent was obligations.18 Canon 11 of the Code of
ilang pagka Huwes. . . . Apan unsa man intawon ang given an opportunity to be heard, but respondent chose Professional Responsibility mandates a
balaod ang iyang gibasa niini nadunggan ko nga kini to remain silent. lawyer to "observe and maintain the respect
kuno siya madjongero, mao bitaw na, madjong ang due to the courts and to judicial officers and
iyang guitunan? [he] should insist on similar conduct by
The Office of the Bar Confidant recommended the
implementation of the trial court's order of suspension others." Rule 11.05 of Canon 11 states that a
(I am not worried because I have a truckload of dated February 8, 2004, and that respondent be lawyer "shall submit grievances against a
jurisprudence that judges who are ignorant of the law suspended from the practice of law for one year, with a judge to the proper authorities only."
must be removed from the Bench. But what law has he stern warning that the repetition of a similar offense will
been reading? I heard that he is a be dealt with more severely. Respondent violated Rule 11.05 of Canon 11 when he
mahjong aficionado (mahjongero) and that is why he is admittedly caused the holding of a press conference
studying mahjong.11 where he made statements against the Order dated
The Court approves the recommendation of the Office
of the Bar Confidant. It has been reiterated November 12, 2002 allowing the accused in Crim.
The trial court concluded that respondent, as a member in Gonzaga v. Villanueva, Jr.16 that: Case No. 5144 to be released on bail.
of the bar and an officer of the court, is duty bound to
uphold the dignity and authority of the court, and Respondent also violated Canon 11 when he indirectly
 A lawyer may be disbarred or suspended for
should not promote distrust in the administration of stated that Judge Tan was displaying judicial arrogance
any violation of his oath, a patent disregard
justice. in the article entitled, Senior prosecutor lambasts
of his duties, or an odious deportment
unbecoming an attorney. Among the grounds Surigao judge for allowing murder suspect to bail out,
The trial court stated that it is empowered to suspend enumerated in Section 27, Rule 138 of the which appeared in the August 18, 2003 issue of the
 5
Mindanao Gold Star Daily. Respondent's statements in Z. Bagabuyo is found guilty of violating Rule 11.05,  Id. at 114-115.
the article, which were made while Crim. Case No. Canon 11 and Rule 13.02, Canon 13 of the Code of
5144 was still pending in court, also violated Rule Professional Responsibility, and of violating the 6
 Sec. 3. Indirect contempt to be punished after charge
13.02 of Canon 13, which states that "a lawyer shall Lawyer's Oath, for which he is SUSPENDED from the
and hearing. - After a charge in writing has been filed,
not make public statements in the media regarding practice of law for one (1) year effective upon finality of
and an opportunity given to the respondent to comment
a pending case tending to arouse public opinion this Decision, with a STERN WARNING that the
thereon within such period as may be fixed by the court
for or against a party." repetition of a similar offense shall be dealt with more
and to be heard by himself or counsel, a person guilty
severely.
of any of the following acts may be punished for
In regard to the radio interview given to Tony Consing, indirect contempt:
respondent violated Rule 11.05 of Canon 11 of the Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Office of
Code of Professional Responsibility for not resorting to the Bar Confidant to be appended to respondent's
xxx
the proper authorities only for redress of his grievances personal record as an attorney, the Integrated Bar of
against Judge Tan. Respondent also violated Canon the Philippines, the Department of Justice, and all
11 for his disrespect of the court and its officer when he courts in the country for their information and guidance. (d) Any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly,
stated that Judge Tan was ignorant of the law, that as a to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of
mahjong aficionado, he was studying mahjong instead justice.
No costs.
of studying the law, and that he was a liar.
7
 Rollo, p. 126.
SO ORDERED.
Respondent also violated the Lawyer's Oath, as he has
sworn to "conduct [himself] as a lawyer according to 8
 CANON 11 - A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE AND
the best of [his] knowledge and discretion with all good Puno, C.J., Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago,
MAINTAIN THE RESPECT DUE TO THE COURTS
fidelity as well to the courts as to [his] clients." Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez,
AND TO JUDICIAL OFFICERS AND SHOULD INSIST
Corona, Carpio-Morales, Tinga, Chico-Nazario,
ON SIMILAR CONDUCT BY OTHERS
Garcia, Velasco, Jr., Nachura, Reyes, JJ., concur.
As a senior state prosecutor and officer of the court,
respondent should have set the example of observing
xxx
and maintaining the respect due to the courts and to Endnotes:
judicial officers. Montecillo v. Gica19 held:
Rule 11.05. - A lawyer shall submit grievances against
a Judge to the proper authorities only.
It is the duty of the lawyer to maintain towards the
courts a respectful attitude. As an officer of the court, it
is his duty to uphold the dignity and authority of the 1
 Sec. 4. Bail, a matter of right; exception. - - All 9
 CANON 13 - A LAWYER SHALL RELY UPON THE
court to which he owes fidelity, according to the oath he persons in custody shall be admitted to bail as a matter MERITS OF HIS CAUSE AND REFRAIN FROM ANY
has taken. Respect for the courts guarantees the of right x x x (b) before conviction by the Regional Trial IMPROPRIETY WHICH TENDS TO INFLUENCE OR
stability of our democratic institutions which, without Court of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion GIVES THE APPEARANCE OF INFLUENCING THE
such respect, would be resting on a very shaky perpetua, or life imprisonment. COURT
foundation.
2
 Rollo, p. 45. xxx
The Court is not against lawyers raising grievances
against erring judges but the rules clearly provide for 3
 Id. at 101. Rule 13.02. - A lawyer shall not make public
the proper venue and procedure for doing so, precisely
because respect for the institution must always be statements in the media regarding a pending case
maintained. 4 tending to arouse public opinion for or against a party.
 Id. at 115.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, Atty. Rogelio

10
 Rollo, pp. 153-154. Court of Appeals or in Regional Trial Court. In case of Lim Hio and Dolores Chu due to their encroaching on a
suspension of the respondent, the judge of [the] public callejon and on a portion of the Malabon-Navotas
11 Regional Trial Court or Justice of the Court of Appeals River shoreline to the extent, respectively, of an area of
 RTC Order, February 8, 2004, Rollo, pp. 144- 45 square meters and of about 600 square meters. The
shall forthwith transmit to the Supreme Court a certified
147. Emphasis supplied. suit, entitled Republic of the Philippines, represented by
copy of the order of suspension and a full statement of
the facts upon which [the] same is based. the Regional Executive Director, Department of
12
 Sec. 28. Suspension of attorney by the Court of Environment and Natural Resources v. Spouses Lim Hio
Appeals or a Regional Trial Court. - - The Court of 16
and Dolores Chu, Gorgonia Flores, and the Registrar of
 Adm. Case No. 1954, July 23, 2004, 435 SCRA 1, 9- Deeds of Malabon City , was docketed as Civil Case No.
Appeals or a Regional Trial Court may suspend an
10. 4674MN of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 74, in
attorney from practice for any of the causes named in
the last preceding section, and after such suspension Malabon City.1cralawredlaw
17
such attorney shall not practice his profession until  Reyes v. Chiong, Jr., A.C. No. 5148, July 1, 2003,
further action of the Supreme Court in the premises. 405 SCRA 212, 217. De Leon, having joined Civil Case No. 4674MN as a
voluntary intervenor two years later (April 21, 2008), now
13
 Sec. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by 18
 Ibid. accuses the respondent, the counsel of record of the
Supreme Court, grounds therefor. - - A member of the defendants in Civil Case No. 4674MN, with the serious
Bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as 19
administrative offenses of dishonesty and falsification
 No. L-36800, October 21, 1974, 60 SCRA 234, 245. warranting his disbarment or suspension as an attorney.
attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit,
malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, The respondent's sin was allegedly committed by his filing
grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction for defendants Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu of
of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation THIRD DIVISION various pleadings (that is, answer with counterclaim and
of the oath which he is required to take before   cross-claim in relation to the main complaint; and answer
admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience of to the complaint in intervention with counterclaim and
any lawful order of a superior court; corrupt or willful A.C. No. 8620 : January 12, 2011 cross-claim) despite said spouses being already
appearance as an attorney for a party to a case without deceased at the time of filing.2cralawredlaw
authority so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at JESSIE R. DE LEON, Complainant, v. ATTY. EDUARDO
law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through G. CASTELO, Respondent. De Leon avers that the respondent committed dishonesty
paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice. and falsification as follows: chanrob1esvirtwallawlibrary
DECISION
14
 Sec. 29. Upon suspension by Court of Appeals or xxx in causing it (to) appear that persons (spouses Lim
Regional Trial Court, further proceedings in Supreme Hio and Dolores Chu) have participated in an act or
Court. - Upon such suspension, the Court of Appeals or BERSAMIN, J.:
proceeding (the making and filing of the Answers) when
the Regional Trial Court shall forthwith transmit to the they did not in fact so participate; in fact, they could not
Supreme Court a certified copy of the order of This administrative case, which Jessie R. De Leon have so participated because they were already dead as
suspension and a full statement of the facts upon which initiated on April 29, 2010, concerns respondent attorney's of that time, which is punishable under Article 172, in
the same was based. Upon the receipt of such certified alleged dishonesty and falsification committed in the relation to Article 171, paragraph 2, of the Revised Penal
copy and statement, the Supreme Court shall make full pleadings he filed in behalf of the defendants in the civil Code.
investigation of the facts involved and make such order action in which De Leon intervened.
revoking or extending the suspension, or removing the
attorney from his office as such, as the facts warrant. Respondent also committed the crime of Use of Falsified
Antecedents Documents, by submitting the said falsified Answers in the
15
judicial proceedings, Civil Case No.
 Sec. 9. Procedure in Court of Appeals or Regional 4674MN; chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Trial Court. As far as may be applicable, the procedure On January 2, 2006, the Government brought suit for the
above outlined shall likewise govern the filing and purpose of correcting the transfer certificates of title
investigation of complaints against attorneys in the (TCTs) covering two parcels of land located in Malabon Respondent also made a mockery of the aforesaid judicial
City then registered in the names of defendants Spouses
proceedings by representing dead persons therein who, in their favor; and the filing. The complainant regarded as baseless the
he falsely made to appear, as contesting the complaints, justifications of the Office of the City Prosecutor for
counter-suing and cross-suing the adverse parties. Malabon City in dismissing the criminal complaint against
c. That because of the execution of the deed of absolute
the respondent and in denying his motion for
sale, William and Leonardo Lim had since honestly
reconsideration.
12. That, as a consequence of the above criminal acts, assumed that their parents had already caused the
complainant respectfully submits that respondent likewise transfer of the TCTs to their names.
violated: chanrob1esvirtwallawlibrary The Court usually first refers administrative complaints
against members of the Philippine Bar to the Integrated
3. Considering that William and Leonardo Lim themselves
Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation and
(a) His Lawyer's Oath: chanrob1esvirtwallawlibrary were the ones who had engaged his services, he (Atty.
appropriate recommendations. For the present case,
Castelo) consequently truthfully stated in the motion
however, we forego the prior referral of the complaint to
seeking an extension to file responsive pleading dated
xxx the IBP, in view of the facts being uncomplicated and
February 3, 2006 the fact that it was "the family of the
based on the pleadings in Civil Case No. 4674MN. Thus,
defendants" that had engaged him, and that he had then
we decide the complaint on its merits.
(b) The Code of Professional Responsibility:3cralawredlaw advised "the children of the defendants" to seek the
assistance as well of a licensed geodetic surveyor and
engineer; chanroblesvirtualawlibrary Ruling
xxx

4. He (Atty. Castelo) prepared the initial pleadings based We find that the respondent, as attorney, did not commit
On June 23, 2010, the Court directed the respondent to on his honest belief that Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores any falsehood or falsification in his pleadings in Civil Case
comment on De Leon's administrative Chu were then still living. Had he known that they were No. 4674MN. Accordingly, we dismiss the patently
complaint.4cralawredlaw already deceased, he would have most welcomed the frivolous complaint.
information and would have moved to substitute Leonardo
In due course, or on August 2, 2010,5cralaw the and William Lim as defendants for that
I
respondent rendered the following explanations in reason; chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
his comment, to wit: chanrob1esvirtwallawlibrary
Attorney's Obligation to tell the truth
5. He (Atty. Castelo) had no intention to commit either a
1. The persons who had engaged him as attorney to falsehood or a falsification, for he in fact submitted the
represent the Lim family in Civil Case No. 4674MN were death certificates of Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu in All attorneys in the Philippines, including the respondent,
William and Leonardo Lim, the children of Spouses Lim order to apprise the trial court of that fact; and have sworn to the vows embodied in following Lawyer's
Hio and Dolores Chu; chanroblesvirtualawlibrary Oath,7cralaw viz: chanrob1esvirtwallawlibrary
6. The Office of the Prosecutor for Malabon City even
2. Upon his (Atty. Castelo) initial queries relevant to the dismissed the criminal complaint for falsification brought I, ___________________, do solemnly swear that I will
material allegations of the Government's complaint in Civil against him (Atty. Castelo) through the resolution dated maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines; I
Case No. 4674MN, William Lim, the representative of the February 11, 2010. The same office denied the will support its Constitution and obey the laws as well as
Lim Family, informed him: chanrob1esvirtwallawlibrary complainant's motion for reconsideration on May 17, the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein;
2010. I will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in
court; I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any
a. That the Lim family had acquired the properties from groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent
Georgina Flores; chanroblesvirtualawlibrary On September 3, 2010, the complainant submitted
to the same. I will delay no man for money or malice, and
a reply,6cralaw whereby he asserted that the respondent's
will conduct myself as a lawyer according to the best of
claim in his comment that he had represented the Lim
b. That William and Leonardo Lim were already actively my knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well
family was a deception, because the subject of
managing the family business, and now co-owned the to the courts as to my clients; and I impose upon myself
the complaint against the respondent was his filing of
properties by virtue of the deed of absolute sale their this voluntary obligation without any mental reservation or
the answers in behalf of Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores
parents, Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu, had executed Chu despite their being already deceased at the time of
purpose of evasion. So help me God. admission to the Bar that he will "do no falsehood nor and the Code of Professional Responsibility
consent to the doing of any in court" and he shall "conduct
himself as a lawyer according to the best of his knowledge
The Code of Professional Responsibility echoes On April 17, 2006, the respondent filed an answer with
and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as
the Lawyer's Oath, providing:8cralawredlaw counterclaim and cross-claim in behalf of Spouses Lim
to his clients." He should bear in mind that as an officer of
Hio and Dolores Chu, the persons whom the Government
the court his high vocation is to correctly inform the court
as plaintiff named as defendants in Civil Case No.
CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE upon the law and the facts of the case and to aid it in
4674MN.14cralaw He alleged therein
CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND doing justice and arriving at correct conclusion. The
that: chanrob1esvirtwallawlibrary
PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL courts, on the other hand, are entitled to expect only
PROCESSES. complete honesty from lawyers appearing and pleading
before them. While a lawyer has the solemn duty to 2. The allegations in paragraph 2 of the complaint are
defend his client's rights and is expected to display the ADMITTED. Moreover, it is hereby made known that
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, utmost zeal in defense of his client's cause, his conduct defendants spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu had
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. must never be at the expense of truth. already sold the two (2) parcels of land, together with
the building and improvements thereon, covered by
CANON 10 - A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS Transfer Certificate of Title No. (148805) 139876
Their being officers of the Court extends to attorneys not
AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT. issued by the Register of Deeds of Rizal, to Leonardo
only the presumption of regularity in the discharge of their
C. Lim and William C. Lim, of Rms. 501 - 502 Dolores
duties, but also the immunity from liability to others for as
Bldg., Plaza del Conde, Binondo, Manila. Hence,
Rule 10.01 - A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor long as the performance of their obligations to their clients
Leonardo Lim and William Lim are their successors-
consent to the doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, does not depart from their character as servants of the
in-interest and are the present lawful owners thereof.
or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice. Law and as officers of the Court. In particular, the
statements they make in behalf of their clients that are
relevant, pertinent, or material to the subject of inquiry are In order to properly and fully protect their rights,
The foregoing ordain ethical norms that bind all attorneys, absolutely privileged regardless of their defamatory tenor. ownership and interests, Leonardo C. Lim and William
as officers of the Court, to act with the highest standards Such cloak of privilege is necessary and essential in C. Lim shall hereby represent the defendants-spouses
of honesty, integrity, and trustworthiness. All attorneys are ensuring the unhindered service to their clients' causes Lim Hio and Dolores Chu as substitute/representative
thereby enjoined to obey the laws of the land, to refrain and in protecting the clients' confidences. With the cloak parties in this action. In this manner, a complete and
from doing any falsehood in or out of court or from of privilege, they can freely and courageously speak for expeditious resolution of the issues raised in this
consenting to the doing of any in court, and to conduct their clients, verbally or in writing, in the course of judicial case can be reached without undue delay. A photo
themselves according to the best of their knowledge and and quasi-judicial proceedings, without running the risk of copy of the Deed of Absolute Sale over the subject
discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to incurring criminal prosecution or actions for property, executed by herein defendants-spouses Lim Hio
their clients. Being also servants of the Law, attorneys are damages.12cralawredlaw and Dolores Chu in favor of said Leonardo C. Lim and
expected to observe and maintain the rule of law and to William C. Lim, is hereto attached as Annex "1" hereof.
make themselves exemplars worthy of emulation by
others.9cralaw The least they can do in that regard is to Nonetheless, even if they enjoy a number of privileges by
refrain from engaging in any form or manner of unlawful reason of their office and in recognition of the vital role xxx
conduct (which broadly includes any act or omission they play in the administration of justice, attorneys hold
contrary to law, but does not necessarily imply the the privilege and right to practice law before judicial,
21. There is improper joinder of parties in the complaint.
element of criminality even if it is broad enough to include quasi-judicial, or administrative tribunals or offices only
Consequently, answering defendants are thus unduly
such element).10cralawredlaw during good behavior.13cralawredlaw
compelled to litigate in a suit regarding matters and facts
as to which they have no knowledge of nor any
To all attorneys, truthfulness and honesty have the II involvement or participation in.
highest value, for, as the Court has said in Young v.
Batuegas:11cralawredlaw Respondent did not violate the Lawyer's Oath 22. Plaintiff is barred by the principle of estoppel in
bringing this suit, as it was the one who, by its
A lawyer must be a disciple of truth. He swore upon his governmental authority, issued the titles to the subject
property. Registration in Malabon City under the Land Registration Hio and Dolores Chu having titled the street lot no. 3 and
Act; chanroblesvirtualawlibrary placed a wall at its opening on C. Arellano street, thus
closing any exit or egress or entrance to intervenor's
This action is barred by the principles of prescription and
property as could be seen from Annex "H" hereof and
laches for plaintiff's unreasonable delay in brining this suit, xxx
thus preventing intervenor from entering into his property
particularly against defendant Flores, from whom herein
resulted in preventing intervenor from fully enjoying all the
answering defendants acquired the subject property in
7. That intervenor Jessie de Leon, is the owner of a parcel beneficial benefits from his
good faith and for value. If truly plaintiff has a clear and
of land located in Malabon City described in TCT no. M- property; chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
valid cause of action on the subject property, it should not
15183 of the Register of Deeds of Malabon City,
have waited thirty (30) years to bring suit.
photocopy of which is attached to this Complaint as
10. That defendant spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu
Annex "G", and copy of the location plan of the
and later on defendant spouses Leonardo Lim and
Two years later, or on April 21, 2008, De Leon filed aforementioned property is attached to this complaint as
Sally Khoo and defendant spouses William Lim and
his complaint in intervention in Civil Case No. Annex "H" and is made an integral part
Sally Lee are the only people who could give
4674MN.15cralaw He expressly named therein as hereof; chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
permission to allow third parties to enter intervenor's
defendants vis-à-vis his intervention not only the Spouses
property and their control over intervenor's property
Lim Hio and Dolores Chu, the original defendants, but
8. That there are now more or less at least 40 squatters is enforced through his armed guard thus exercising
also their sons Leonardo Lim, married to Sally Khoo, and
on intervenor's property, most of them employees of illegal beneficial rights over intervenor's property at
William Lim, married to Sally Lee, the same persons
defendant spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu and intervenor's loss and expense, thus depriving
whom the respondent had already alleged in the answer,
defendant spouses Leonardo Lim and Sally Khoo and intervenor of legitimate income from rents as well as
supra, to be the transferees and current owners of the
defendant spouses William Lim and Sally Lee who had legitimate access to intervenor's property and the
parcels of land.16cralawredlaw
gained access to intervenor's property and built their worst is preventing the Filipino people from enjoying
houses without benefit of any building permits from the the Malabon Navotas River and enjoying the right of
The following portions of De Leon's complaint in government who had made their access to intervenor's access to the natural fruits and products of the
intervention in Civil Case No. 4674MN are property thru a two panel metal gate more or less 10 Malabon Navotas River and instead it is defendant
relevant, viz: chanrob1esvirtwallawlibrary meters wide and with an armed guard by the gate and spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu and defendant
with permission from defendant spouses Lim Hio and spouses Leonardo Lim and Sally Khoo and defendant
Dolores Chu and/or and defendant spouses Leonardo Lim spouses William Lim and Sally Lee using the public
2. Defendant spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu, are
and Sally Khoo and defendant spouses William Lim and property exclusively to enrich their
Filipino citizens with addresses at 504 Plaza del
Sally Lee illegally entered intervenor's property thru a pockets ; chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Conde, Manila and at 46 C. Arellano St., San Agustin,
wooden ladder to go over a 12 foot wall now separating
Malabon City, where they may be served with
intervenor's property from the former esquinita which is
summons and other court xxx
now part of defendant spouses Lim Hio and Dolores
processes ; chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Chu's and defendant spouses Leonardo Lim and Sally
Khoo's and defendant spouses William Lim and Sally 13. That defendant spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu
3. Defendant spouses Leonardo Lim and Sally Khoo Lee's property and this illegally allowed his employees as and defendant spouses Leonardo Lim and Sally Khoo
and defendant spouses William Lim and Sally Lee are well as their relatives and friends thereof to illegally enter and defendant spouses William Lim and Sally Lee
all of legal age and with postal address at Rms. 501- intervenor's property through the ladders defendant were confederating, working and helping one another
502 Dolores Bldg., Plaza del Conde, Binondo, Manila, spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu installed in their wall in their actions to inhibit intervenor Jessie de Leon to
alleged purchasers of the property in question from and also allowed said employees and relatives as well as gain access and beneficial benefit from his
defendant spouses Lim Hio and Dolores friends to build houses and shacks without the benefit of property ; chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Chu ; chanroblesvirtualawlibrary any building permit as well as permit to occupy said illegal
buildings; chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
On July 10, 2008, the respondent, representing all the
4. Defendants Registrar of Deeds of Malabon City holds defendants named in De Leon's complaint in intervention,
office in Malabon City, where he may be served with 9. That the enlargement of the properties of spouses Lim responded in an answer to the complaint in intervention
summons and other court processes. He is charged with Hio and Dolores Chu had resulted in the closure of street with counterclaim and cross-claim,17cralaw stating that
the duty, among others, of registering decrees of Land lot no. 3 as described in TCT no. 143828, spouses Lim "spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu xxx are now both
deceased," to wit: chanrob1esvirtwallawlibrary legal interest on the property. It is on this factual same be granted.
ground that this Motion for Substitution is based and
certainly not on the wrong position of Intervenor de
xxx xxx
Leon that the same is based on the death of
defendants Lim Hio and Dolores Chu .
2. The allegations in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Complaint Did the respondent violate the letter and spirit of
are ADMITTED, with the qualification that defendants- the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional
4. Under the foregoing circumstances and facts, the
spouses Leonardo Lim and Sally Khoo Lim, William Responsibility in making the averments in the aforequoted
demise of defendants Lim Hio and Dolores Chu no
Lim and Sally Lee Lim are the registered and lawful pleadings of the defendants?
longer has any significant relevance to the instant
owners of the subject property covered by Transfer
Motion . To, however, show the fact of their death, photo
Certificate of Title No. M-35929, issued by the Register
copy of their respective death certificates are attached A plain reading indicates that the respondent did not
of Deeds for Malabon City, having long ago acquired
hereto as Annexes "1" and "2" hereof. misrepresent that Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu were
the same from the defendants-spouses Lim Hio and
still living. On the contrary, the respondent directly stated
Dolores Chu, who are now both deceased . Copy of the
in the answer to the complaint in intervention with
TCT No. M-35929 is attached hereto as Annexes "1" and 5. The Motion for substitution of Defendants in the
counterclaim and cross-claim, supra, and in
"1-A". The same title has already been previously Principal Complaint dated March 18, 2009 shows in detail
the clarification and submission, supra, that the Spouses
submitted to this Honorable Court on December 13, 2006. why there is the clear, legal and imperative need to now
Lim Hio and Dolores Chu were already deceased.
substitute herein movants-defendants Lim for defendants
Lim Hio and Dolores Chu in the said principal complaint.
xxx
Even granting, for the sake of argument, that any of the
respondent's pleadings might have created any
6. Simply put, movants-defendants Lim have become the
The respondent subsequently submitted to the RTC a so- impression that the Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu
indispensable defendants in the principal complaint of
called clarification and submission,18cralaw in which he were still living, we still cannot hold the respondent guilty
plaintiff DENR, being now the registered and lawful
again adverted to the deaths of Spouses Lim Hio and of any dishonesty or falsification. For one, the respondent
owners of the subject property and the real parties-in-
Dolores Chu, as follows: chanrob1esvirtwallawlibrary was acting in the interest of the actual owners of the
interest in this case. Without them, no final determination
properties when he filed the answer with counterclaim
can be had in the Principal complaint.
and cross-claim on April 17, 2006. As such, his pleadings
1. On March 19, 2009, herein movants-defendants Lim
were privileged and would not occasion any action against
filed before this Honorable Court a Motion for Substitution
7. Significantly, the property of intervenor Jessie de Leon, him as an attorney. Secondly, having made clear at the
of Defendants in the Principal Complaint of the plaintiff
which is the subject of his complaint-in-intervention, is start that the Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu were no
Republic of the Philippines, represented by the
identically, if not similarly, situated as that of herein longer the actual owners of the affected properties due to
DENR; chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
movants-defendants Lim, and likewise, may as well be a the transfer of ownership even prior to the institution of the
proper subject of the Principal Complaint of plaintiff action, and that the actual owners (i.e., Leonardo and
2. The Motion for Substitution is grounded on the fact DENR. William Lim) needed to be substituted in lieu of said
that the two (2) parcels of land, with the spouses, whether the Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu
improvements thereon, which are the subject matter were still living or already deceased as of the filing of the
8. Even the plaintiff DENR, itself, concedes the fact that
of the instant case, had long been sold and pleadings became immaterial. And, lastly, De Leon could
herein movants-defendants Lim should be substituted as
transferred by the principal defendants-spouses Lim not disclaim knowledge that the Spouses Lim Hio and
defendants in the principal complaint as contained in their
Hio and Dolores Chu to herein complaint-in- Dolores Chu were no longer living. His joining in the
Manifestation dated June 3, 2009, which has been filed in
intervention defendants Leonardo C. Lim and William action as a voluntary intervenor charged him with notice
this case.
C. Lim, by way of a Deed of Absolute Sale , a copy of of all the other persons interested in the litigation. He also
which is attached to said Motion as Annex "1" thereof. had an actual awareness of such other persons, as his
WHEREFORE, herein movants-defendants Lim most own complaint in intervention, supra, bear out in its
respectfully submit their Motion for substitution of specific allegations against Leonardo Lim and William
3. Quite plainly, the original principal defendants Lim
Defendants in the Principal Complaint and pray that the Lim, and their respective spouses. Thus, he could not
Hio and Dolores Chu, having sold and conveyed the validly insist that the respondent committed any
subject property, have totally lost any title, claim or dishonesty or falsification in relation to him or to any other
 11
party. Associate Justice cralaw A.C. No. 5379, May 9, 2003, 403 SCRA 123.

12
III WE CONCUR: cralaw Agpalo, Legal and Judicial Ethics, Eighth Edition
(2009), pp.8-9.
Good faith must always motivate any complaint CARPIO
13
against a Member of the Bar MORALES, Chairperson, BRION, VILLARAMA, JR., cralaw Id. , p. 8.
and SERENO, JJ.
According to Justice Cardozo,19cralaw "xxx the fair fame 14
cralaw Rollo, pp. 22-33 (Note that the cross-claim was
of a lawyer, however innocent of wrong, is at the mercy of against Georgina Flores, the transferor/predecessor-in-
the tongue of ignorance or malice. Reputation in such a interest of Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu).
calling is a plant of tender growth, and its bloom, once
lost, is not easily restored." chanroblesvirtualawlibrary 15
cralaw Id. , pp. 34-42.
cralaw Endnotes:
A lawyer's reputation is, indeed, a very fragile object. The 16
1 cralaw The Registrar of Deeds of Malabon City was also
Court, whose officer every lawyer is, must shield such cralaw Rollo, pp. 8-21.
named by the complainant as a defendant to
fragility from mindless assault by the unscrupulous and
his complaint in intervention.
the malicious. It can do so, firstly, by quickly cutting down 2
cralaw Id., pp. 1-7.
any patently frivolous complaint against a lawyer; and,
secondly, by demanding good faith from whoever brings 17
cralaw Rollo, pp. 43-54.
any accusation of unethical conduct. A Bar that is 3
cralaw Id. , pp. 4-5.
insulated from intimidation and harassment is encouraged 18
cralaw Id. , pp. 56-61.
to be courageous and fearless, which can then best 4
cralaw Id. , p. 62.
contribute to the efficient delivery and proper
administration of justice. 19
cralaw People of the State of New York ex rel.
5
cralaw Id., pp. 63-76. Alexander Karlin v. Charles W. Culkin, as Sheriff of the
County of New York, 248 N.Y. 465, 162 N.E. 487, 60
The complainant initiated his complaint possibly for the
A.L.R. 851.
sake of harassing the respondent, either to vex him for 6
cralaw Id., pp. 137-153.
taking the cudgels for his clients in connection with Civil
Case No. 4674MN, or to get even for an imagined wrong 7
in relation to the subject matter of the pending action, or to cralaw Form No. 28, attached to the Rules of Court.
accomplish some other dark purpose. The worthlessness
of the accusation - apparent from the beginning - has 8
cralaw Macias v. Selda, A.C. No. 6442, October 21, EN BANC
impelled us into resolving the complaint sooner than later. 2004, 441 SCRA 65.
G.R. No. 176389 : January 18, 2011
WHEREFORE, we dismiss the complaint for disbarment 9
cralaw Agpalo, Comments on the Code of Professional
or suspension filed against Atty. Eduardo G. Castelo for Responsibility and the Code of Judicial Conduct, 2001
utter lack of merit. ANTONIO LEJANO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE
Edition.
PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

SO ORDERED. 10
cralaw In Re:Report on the Financial Audit Conducted
G.R. No. 176864 : January 18, 2011
on the Books of Accounts of Atty. Raquel G. Kho, Clerk of
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Court IV, Regional Trial Court, Oras, Eastern Samar , A.
M. No. P-06-2177, April 13, 2007, 521 SCRA 25. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. HUBERT
JEFFREY P. WEBB, ANTONIO LEJANO, MICHAEL A.
 GATCHALIAN, HOSPICIO FERNANDEZ, MIGUEL is no limit to attempts to prosecute the accused for the decision"6cralaw is, without more, a mere conclusion
RODRIGUEZ, PETER ESTRADA and GERARDO same offense after he has been acquitted, the infinite drawn from personal perception.
BIONG, Appellants. power and capacity of the State for a sustained and
repeated litigation would eventually overwhelm the
Complainant Vizconde cites the decision in Galman v.
accused in terms of resources, stamina, and the will to
RESOLUTION Sandiganbayan7cralaw as authority that the Court can set
fight.
aside the acquittal of the accused in the present case. But
the government proved in Galman that the prosecution
DECISION : December 14, 2010
As the Court said in People of the Philippines v. was deprived of due process since the judgment of
Sandiganbayan:2cralawredlaw acquittal in that case was "dictated, coerced and
ABAD, J.: scripted."8cralaw It was a sham trial. Here, however,
Vizconde does not allege that the Court held a sham
[A]t the heart of this policy is the concern that permitting
review of the decision of the CA. He has made out no case
SERENO, J. - Concurring Opinion the sovereign freely to subject the citizen to a second
that the Court held a phony deliberation in this case such
judgment for the same offense would arm the government
that the seven Justices who voted to acquit the accused,
with a potent instrument of oppression. The provision
On December 14, 2010 the Court reversed the judgment the four who dissented, and the four who inhibited
therefore guarantees that the State shall not be permitted
of the Court of Appeals (CA) and acquitted the accused in themselves did not really go through the process.
to make repeated attempts to convict an individual for an
this case, Hubert Jeffrey P. Webb, Antonio Lejano, alleged offense, thereby subjecting him to embarrassment,
Michael A. Gatchalian, Hospicio Fernandez, Miguel expense, and ordeal and compelling him to live in a Ultimately, what the complainant actually questions is the
Rodriguez, Peter Estrada, and Gerardo Biong of the continuing state of anxiety and insecurity, as well as Court's appreciation of the evidence and assessment of
charges against them on the ground of lack of proof of enhancing the possibility that even though innocent he the prosecution witnesses' credibility. He ascribes grave
their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. may be found guilty. Society's awareness of the heavy error on the Court's finding that Alfaro was not a credible
personal strain which a criminal trial represents for the witness and assails the value assigned by the Court to the
On December 28, 2010 complainant Lauro G. Vizconde, individual defendant is manifested in the willingness to limit evidence of the defense. In other words, private
an immediate relative of the victims, asked the Court to the government to a single criminal proceeding to complainant wants the Court to review the evidence anew
reconsider its decision, claiming that it "denied the vindicate its very vital interest in the enforcement of and render another judgment based on such a re-
prosecution due process of law; seriously misappreciated criminal laws. 3cralawredlaw evaluation. This is not constitutionally allowed as it is
the facts; unreasonably regarded Alfaro as lacking merely a repeated attempt to secure Webb, et al's
credibility; issued a tainted and erroneous decision; conviction. The judgment acquitting Webb, et al is final and
Of course, on occasions, a motion for reconsideration after
decided the case in a manner that resulted in the can no longer be disturbed.
an acquittal is possible. But the grounds are exceptional
miscarriage of justice; or committed grave abuse in its and narrow as when the court that absolved the accused
treatment of the evidence and prosecution gravely abused its discretion, resulting in loss of WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES for lack of merit
witnesses."1cralawredlaw jurisdiction, or when a mistrial has occurred. In any of such complainant Lauro G. Vizconde's motion for
cases, the State may assail the decision by special civil reconsideration dated December 28, 2010.
But, as a rule, a judgment of acquittal cannot be action of certiorari under Rule 65.4cralawredlaw
reconsidered because it places the accused under double For essentially the same reason, the Court DENIES the
jeopardy. The Constitution provides in Section 21, Article Here, although complainant Vizconde invoked the motions for leave to intervene of Fr. Robert P. Reyes,
III, that: chanrob1esvirtwallawlibrary exceptions, he has been unable to bring his pleas for Sister Mary John R. Mananzan, Bishop Evangelio L.
reconsideration under such exceptions. For instance, he Mercado, and Dante L.A. Jimenez, representing the
Section 21. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of avers that the Court "must ensure that due process is Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption and of former
punishment for the same offense. x x x afforded to all parties and there is no grave abuse of Vice President Teofisto Guingona, Jr.
discretion in the treatment of witnesses and the
evidence."5cralaw But he has not specified the violations of
To reconsider a judgment of acquittal places the accused No further pleadings shall be entertained in this case.
due process or acts constituting grave abuse of discretion
twice in jeopardy of being punished for the crime of which that the Court supposedly committed. His claim that "the
he has already been absolved. There is reason for this highly questionable and suspicious evidence for the SO ORDERED.
provision of the Constitution. In criminal cases, the full defense taints with serious doubts the validity of the
power of the State is ranged against the accused. If there
 2
ROBERTO A. ABAD cralaw G.R. Nos. 168188-89, June 16, 2006, 491 SCRA On July 31, 2001, Teresita D. Santeco filed a Verified
Associate Justice 185. Complaint2 with the Committee on Bar Discipline of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines praying that appropriate
3 sanctions be meted on respondent Atty. Luna B. Avance
WE CONCUR: cralaw Id. at 207.
for mishandling Civil Case No. 97-275.
4
CORONA, C.J. - I vote to grant the M.R. cralaw Castro v. People, G.R. No. 180832, July 23, 2008,
Complainant averred that she was the defendant in an
559 SCRA 676, 683-684.
action for ejectment docketed as Civil Case No. 50988
CARPIO, J. - No part, prior inhibition filed with Branch 62 of the Makati City Metropolitan Trial
5
cralaw Supra note 1, at 7. Court (MTC). On March 3, 1997, the trial court rendered
judgment against her. Thereafter, she filed a supersedeas
VELASCO, JR., J.- No part due to relastionship to a
6 bond with the Clerk of Court of the Makati MTC.
party cralaw Id. at 12.

7 Sometime in February 1997, during the pendency of the

NACHURA, J. - No part; filed pleading as Sol Gen cralaw 228 Phil. 42 (1986). ejectment case, complainant filed an action to Declare
Deed of Absolute Sale Null and Void and for
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. - I vote to grant the 8
cralaw Id. at 89. Reconveyance with Damages with Branch 147 of the
motion for reconsideration Makati City Regional Trial Court. The case was
entitled, Feliciana David Santeco, et al. v. Ramon
EN BANC Gutierrez, et al., and docketed as Civil Case No. 97-275.
VILLARAMA, JR., J. - I vote to grant the motion for
reconsideration
A.C. No. 5834 : December 11, 2003 On or before March 1998, complainant terminated the
services of her then counsel and engaged the services of
BRION, J. - Same vote as J. Villarama respondent Atty. Luna B. Avance as her counsel de
TERESITA D. SANTECO, complainant, vs. ATTY.
LUNA B. AVANCE, Respondent. parte in both cases. Complainant agreed to and did pay
DEL CASTILLO, J. - No part respondent P12,000.00 as acceptance fee for her
services.3cräläwvirtualibräry
DECISION
CARPIO MORALES, PERALTA, BERSAMIN, ABAD,
PEREZ, MENDOZA, and In June 1997 and August 2000, complainant paid
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: respondent the sums of P1,500.00 and P500.00
respectively in full satisfaction of their acceptance fee.
SERENO, JJ. - See concurring Opinion However, respondent refused to issue to complainant the
The relationship between a lawyer and a client is highly
fiduciary; it requires a high degree of fidelity and good corresponding receipts therefor, despite demands to do
  faith.1 The Code of Professional Responsibility states: so.

CANON 17. A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO CAUSE OF In an Order dated July 6, 1998 in Civil Case No. 97-275,
HIS CLIENT AND HE SHALL BE MINDFUL OF THE the Presiding Judge of Branch 147 of the Makati City RTC
TRUST AND CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM. expunged from the record the testimony of a witness for
cralaw Endnotes: complainant, who was one of the plaintiffs
therein.4 Respondent, as her counsel, filed a Motion to
CANON 18. A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT Reconsider and/or Set Aside Order of July 6, 1998.5 The
  WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE. motion was denied by the trial court in an Order
dated June 30, 1999.6 Thereafter, on August 27,
1
cralaw Private Complainant's Motion for Reconsideration, We are once again called upon to reiterate these dicta in 1999,7 Civil Case No. 97-275 was dismissed for failure to
p. 8. the instant administrative matter before us. prosecute. Respondent filed a Motion to Reconsider
and/or Set Aside Order of August 27, After the filing of the administrative complaint, docketed as Respondent also violated Canon 18.03 for having failed to
1999.8cräläwvirtualibräry CBD Case No. 01-861, an Order dated August 1, file the [petition for] certiorari before the Court of Appeals
200111 was issued by the Commission on Bar Discipline as she promised the complainant and even got litigation
requiring respondent to submit her Answer within fifteen expenses relative to the same.
Subsequently, respondent made representations with
(15) days from receipt thereof. A copy of said Order was
complainant that she was going to file a petition for
received by respondent on August 8, 2001. Respondent
certiorari with the Court of Appeals, assailing the dismissal Likewise, respondent violated Canon 20 when she
failed to file her Answer, which compelled complainant to
of Civil Case No. 97-275. For the proposed service, discontinued her legal services for complainant without
file a Motion To Declare Respondent In Default And To Set
respondent charged complainant the total sum of any notice of withdrawal and even ignored the issuances
Case For Hearing Ex Parte.12 She furnished respondent
P3,900.00, which the latter paid. 9 After waiting for some of the Commission for her to answer the complaint filed
copy of the motion by personal service. The copy was
time without any word from respondent, complainant against her.
received by one Kins Avance on October 3,
personally verified with the docket section of the Court of
2001.13cräläwvirtualibräry
Appeals whether or not a petition for certiorari was filed.
On August 3, 2002, the Board of Governors of the
She was dismayed to discover that no such petition had
Integrated Bar of the Philippines issued Resolution No.
been filed. Respondent still failed to file her Answer. Thus, the
XV-02-408, adopting and approving the report and
Commission on Bar Discipline issued an Order
recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner.
dated October 30, 2001 setting the case for hearing
Complainant also alleged that respondent took from her
on November 20, 2001. This Order was received by
the official receipt and pictures of the torn-down structures
respondent on November 8, 2001, as reflected in the While we agree that indeed respondent is liable, we find
which were the subject of Civil Case No. 50988, issued by
Registry Return Receipt thereof. the recommended penalty not commensurate to the
the Clerk of Court of Branch 62 of the Makati City MTC,
degree of her malfeasance.
evidencing her deposit of the supersedeas bond.
Respondent obtained the same under the pretext that she On the scheduled hearing on November 20, 2001, only the
needed them in the motion for the withdrawal of complainant appeared.14 In order to abbreviate There can be no question that respondent was grossly
complainants deposit. proceedings, the Commission on Bar Discipline issued an remiss in the performance of her duties as counsel for
Order15 requiring both parties to submit their respective complainant. The records show that in engaging the
memoranda within twenty (20) days from receipt, after services of respondent, complainant agreed to and did pay
Complainant further averred that respondent told her to go
which the case shall be deemed submitted for decision respondent P12,000.00 as acceptance fee.17 It also
to the court to claim the check for the supersedeas bond
with or without memoranda. Respondent received a copy appears that on April 20, 1998, a witness for complainant
and have the same encashed with the Landbank.
of the Order on November 27, 2001, per the Registry in Civil Case No. 97-275 testified before the court on direct
However, upon verification with the MTC, she discovered
Return Receipt. examination. For lack of material time, the cross-
that there was no such check and that she needs to
examination was reset to June 1, 1998. However, the
present the official receipt to withdraw said deposit. She
witness failed to attend the hearing on the said date.
tried to recover the official receipt from respondent but the Pursuant to the foregoing Order, complainant filed her
Respondent, on the other hand, arrived late. Over the
latter kept avoiding her. Position Paper on December 13, 2001.16 Again,
vehement objections of defense counsel, the trial court
respondent did not file her memorandum.
reset the hearing to July 6, 1998, with the warning that in
Thus, complainant filed an action against respondent the event the witness fails to appear on said date, her
before the Barangay Office of Barangay Nangka, Marikina On March 14, 2002, Investigating Commissioner Lydia A. direct examination shall be expunged. The witness again
City. Respondent, however, repeatedly failed to appear at Navarro submitted a Report finding respondent culpable failed to appear at the next hearing because she went to
the conciliation proceedings, despite notice of the as charged and recommended that she be suspended Baguio. Respondent was likewise not around when the
hearings, prompting the Lupong Tagapayapa, to issue a from the practice of law for two (2) years. She found that: case was called. Thus, on motion of adverse counsel, the
certification to file action.10 Since then, respondent trial court ordered that the testimony of the witness be
persistently avoided complainant and failed to represent stricken off the record.18cräläwvirtualibräry
As it is, respondent violated Canon 16 of the Code of
her in Civil Cases Nos. 50988 and 97-275. According to
Professional Responsibility for having failed to account to
complainant, respondent just stopped appearing as her
the complainant the official receipt of the supersedeas These incidents show respondents lackadaisical manner in
counsel of record without any justifiable reason. Hence,
bond she got from complainant to withdrew (sic) the same handling her clients cause. Again, for respondents failure
she prayed that appropriate sanctions be meted on
from the court relative to the ejectment case. to appear during the hearings scheduled on August 23 and
respondent.
27, 1999, Civil Case No. 97-275 was dismissed for failure
to prosecute.19 Her failure to appear during those hearings
constitutes inexcusable negligence as it proved fatal to the Aggravating her gross negligence in the performance of CANON 1. A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE
cause of complainant.20 She thereafter filed a Motion to her duties, respondent abruptly stopped appearing as CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND
Reconsider and/or Set Aside Order of August 27, 1999 complainants counsel even as proceedings were still PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LEGAL PROCESSES.
on February 8, 200021 way beyond the reglementary pending with neither a withdrawal nor an explanation for
period for the filing thereof. She proffered the lame excuse doing so. This was in gross violation of the following:
The inevitable conclusion is that respondent gravely
that notices sent to her were returned to the trial court with
abused the confidence that complainant reposed in her
the notation: Moved.22 However, it was her duty to notify
CANON 22. A LAWYER SHALL WITHDRAW HIS and with palpable bad faith. Her persistent refusal to
the court of the change in her address, if she had indeed
SERVICES ONLY FOR GOOD CAUSE AND UPON comply with lawful orders directed at her without any
moved.
NOTICE APPROPRIATE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES. explanation for doing so, is contumacious conduct which
(Italics supplied) merits no compassion.
Even as the aforesaid motion for reconsideration was
pending, she made representations with complainant that
It must be remembered that while the right of the client to A lawyer has the duty to uphold the integrity and dignity of
she would file a petition for certiorari with the Court of
terminate the relation is absolute, i.e., with or without the legal profession at all times and to faithfully perform
Appeals assailing the trial courts dismissal of Civil Case
cause,25 the right of the attorney to withdraw or terminate her duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and to her
No. 97-275. For the filing and preparation thereof, she
the relation other than for sufficient cause is considerably clients.32 We can not tolerate any misconduct that tends to
charged and was paid the sum of P3,900.00 by
restricted.26 Among the fundamental rules of ethics is the besmirch the fair name of an honorable profession.
complainant.23 Respondent, however, did not file the
principle that an attorney who undertakes to conduct an
petition without notifying the complainant.
action impliedly stipulates to carry it to its termination.27 He
All told, respondent has dismally failed to do her duty to
is not at liberty to abandon it without reasonable
her client and has clearly violated the Code of Professional
Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility cause.28cräläwvirtualibräry
Responsibility. Respondents actions erode the public
mandates that a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter
perception of the legal profession. They constitute gross
entrusted to him. Her negligence in connection therewith
The grounds wherein a lawyer may withdraw his services misconduct, and the sanctions for such malfeasance is
shall render her liable. Verily
are well-defined,29 and the abruptness of respondents provided by Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court
withdrawal hardly fits into any of them. Be that as it may, which states:
Once he agrees to take up the cause of a client, a lawyer whether or not a lawyer has a valid cause for withdrawing
owes fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of from a case, he can not just do so and leave the client out
SEC. 27. Disbarment and suspension of attorneys by
the trust and confidence reposed in him. He must serve in the cold unprotected.30 An attorney may only retire from
Supreme Court, grounds therefore. A member of the bar
the client with competence and diligence and champion a case either by written consent of his client or by
may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney
the latters cause with wholehearted fidelity, care and permission of the court after due notice and hearing, in
by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice or other
devotion. Elsewise stated, he owes entire devotion to the which event the lawyer should see to it that the name of
gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct
interest of the client, warm zeal in the maintenance and the new counsel is recorded in the
or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral
defense of his clients rights, and the exertion of his utmost case.31cräläwvirtualibräry
turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is
learning and ability to the end that nothing be taken or
required to take before the admission to practice, or for a
withheld from his client, save by the rules of law, legally
Respondents consistent refusal to comply with lawful willful disobedience appearing as attorney for a party
applied. This simply means that his client is entitled to the
orders in the proceedings before the Commission on Bar without authority to do so.
benefit of any and every remedy and defense that is
Discipline, with no explanation offered to justify them, not
authorized by the law of the land and he may expect his
only underscores her utter lack of respect for authority, but
lawyer to assert every such remedy or defense. If much is The penalty of suspension for a period of two (2) years
also a defiance for law and order which is at the very core
demanded from an attorney, it is because the entrusted recommended by the Board of Governors of the IBP is too
of her profession. Such defiance is anathema to those who
privilege to practice law carries with it the correlative duties light and inadequate given the prevailing facts of this case.
seek a career in the administration of justice
not only to the client but also to the court, to the bar and to For the deliberate violation and defiance of not merely one
because obedience to the dictates of the law and justice is
the public. A lawyer who performs his duty with diligence but several Canons of the Code of Professional
demanded of every lawyer. How else would respondent
and candor not only protects the interest of his client; he Responsibility, coupled with palpable bad faith and
even endeavor to serve justice and uphold the law when
also serves the ends of justice, does honor to the bar and dishonesty in her dealings with complainant, respondent
she disdains to follow even simple directives? The first and
helps maintain the respect of the community to the legal deserves a graver penalty that of suspension for a period
foremost command of the Code of Professional
profession.24cräläwvirtualibräry of five (5) years from the practice of
Responsibility could not be any clearer:
law.33cräläwvirtualibräry
 9 27
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, respondent  Id., p. 4.  Id.
ATTY. LUNA B. AVANCE is hereby SUSPENDED from
the practice of law for a period of five (5) years. She is 10 28
 Id., p. 6.  Id., citing Stork v. Mishel, 6 ALR 174.
directed to return to complainant the amount of P3,900.00
within ten (10) days from notice.
11 29
 Id., p. 7.  Rule 22.01. A lawyer may withdraw his services in any
of the following cases:
This decision shall take effect immediately. Copies thereof
shall be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, to be 12
 Id., p. 8.
appended to respondents personal record. The Court a) When the client pursues an illegal or immoral course of
Administrator shall also furnish all lower courts with copies 13 conduct in connection with the matter he is handling;
 Id.
of this Decision.

14 b) When the client insists that the lawyer pursue conduct

 Id., p. 11.
SO ORDERED. violative of these canons and rules;
15
 Id., p. 12.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno, Vitug, Panganiban, c) When his inability to work with co-counsel will not
Quisumbing, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria- promote the best interest of his client;
Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., 16
 Id., pp. 13-18.
Azcuna, and Tinga, JJ., concur.
d) When the mental and physical condition of the lawyer
17
 Id., p. 19. renders it difficult for him to carry out the employment
effectively;
18
 Id., p. 25.
e) When the client deliberately fails to pay the fees for the
Endnotes: 19 services or fails to comply with the retainer agreement;
 Id., p. 27.

1
 Espiritu v. Atty. Juan Cabredo IV, A.C. No. 5831, 13 20 f) When the lawyer is elected or appointed to public office;
 See Rizalino Fernandez v. Atty. Reynaldo Novero, Jr.,
January 2003, citing Angeles v. Uy, 386 Phil. 6 [2000]. and
A.C. No. 5394, 2 December 2002.

2
 Rollo, p. 1. 21 g) Other similar cases.
 Rollo, pp. 28-36.
30
3
 Id., p. 19. 22  Pineda, Legal and Judicial Ethics, supra, p. 300.
 Id., pp. 29-30.
31
4
 Id., p. 20. 23  Guanzon v. Aragon, 107 Phil. 315 [1960]; see also
 Id., p. 19. Section 26, Rule 138 Rules of Court.
5
 Id., p. 22. 24
 Ramos v. Jacoba, A.C. No. 5505, 27 September 2001. 32
 Teodolfo Reyes v. Atty. Rolando Javier, A.C. No.
5574, 2 February 2002.
6
 Id., p. 25. 25
 Rincomada Telephone Co., Inc. v. Buenviaje, 263 Phil.
162 [1990], citing Aro v. Naawa, 137 Phil. 745 [1969]. 33
 Soledad Nuez v. Atty. Romulo Ricafort, A.C. No.
7
 Id., p. 27. 5054, 29 May 2002. SECOND DIVISION
26
 Pineda, E. L. Legal and Judicial Ethics, 1999 ed., p. 300,
8
 Id., pp. 28-32. citing 7. C.J.S. 940. G.R. No. 190171               March 14, 2011
ALEN ROSS RODRIGUEZ and REGIDOR their arrest will be issued, and they will not be released On August 7, 2009, Rodriguez filed his Motion for
TULALI, Petitioners, unless they comply with the order of this Court. Clarification as to the purpose of Judge Blancaflor’s
vs. continued inquiries considering that the decision in the
The Hon. BIENVENIDO BLANCAFLOR, in his capacity arson case had already been promulgated.
Let a copy of this Order be furnished the Secretary of
as the Acting Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial
Justice for appropriate action.
Court of Palawan, Branch 52, and PEOPLE OF THE
In an order dated August 13, 2009, Judge Blancaflor
PHILIPPINES, Respondents.
2 informed the petitioners that he was proceeding against
IT IS SO ORDERED.
them for direct contempt and violation of their oath of office
DECISION on the basis of Tulali’s Ex-Parte Manifestation.
The Facts
MENDOZA, J.: As earlier recited, after the submission of petitioners’
Previously pending before Judge Blancaflor was Criminal respective position papers, Judge Blancaflor issued the
Case No. 22240 for arson (arson case), entitled People of assailed October 13, 2009 Decision finding petitioners
This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule
the Philippines v. Teksan Ami, in which Tulali was the trial guilty of direct contempt. The penalty of indefinite
65 of the Revised Rules of Court filed by Alen Ross
prosecutor. suspension from the practice of law and a fine of
Rodriguez (Rodriguez), the Provincial Prosecutor of
₱100,000.00 each were imposed upon them.
Palawan; and Regidor Tulali (Tulali), Prosecutor I of the
Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Palawan, seeking to During the pendency of the case, Tulali was implicated in a
annul and set aside the October 13, 2009 Decision1 of controversy involving an alleged bribery initiated by Randy The petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration of the
respondent Judge Bienvenido Blancaflor (Judge Awayan (Awayan), the driver assigned to Judge Blancaflor decision but it was denied in the assailed November 6,
Blancaflor), Acting Presiding Judge of Branch 52, Regional under the payroll of the Office of the Governor of Palawan, 2009 Order.3
Trial Court, Palawan (RTC). The petition likewise seeks to and one Ernesto Fernandez (Fernandez), to assure the
prohibit Judge Blancaflor from implementing the said acquittal of the accused, Rolly Ami (Ami), and the
Hence, the petitioners interpose the present special civil
decision. dismissal of the arson case.
action before this Court anchored on the following

In his October 13, 2009 Decision, Judge Blancaflor found On June 29, 2009, a day before the scheduled
GROUNDS
petitioners Rodriguez and Tulali guilty of direct contempt promulgation of the decision in the arson case, Tulali filed
and ordered them to issue a public apology to the court. In an Ex-Parte Manifestation withdrawing his appearance in
the same decision, Judge Blancaflor suspended them the said case to prevent any suspicion of misdemeanor (A)
indefinitely from the practice of law. The dispositive portion and collusion. He attached to the said manifestation a
of the decision reads: copy of the administrative complaint against Awayan filed
RESPONDENT COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE
(but eventually withdrawn) by his superior, Rodriguez,
OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR
before the Office of the Governor of Palawan.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN ISSUING THE
rendered finding respondents PROVINCIAL ASSAILED DECISION AND ORDER
PROSECUTORS OF PALAWAN ALEN ROSS B. On June 30, 2009, Judge Blancaflor rendered his decision CONSIDERING THAT PETITIONERS WERE
RODRIGUEZ and PROSECUTOR REGIDOR TULALI as acquitting Ami of the crime of arson. DENIED THEIR RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS.
both guilty of direct contempt and for violation of their oath
of office as member of the bar and as officer of the Court,
Purportedly on the basis of the administrative complaint (B)
and hereby sentence them to suffer the penalty of
filed against Awayan and Rodriguez, Judge Blancaflor
INDEFINITE SUSPENSION from practice of law and for
summoned several witnesses including Tulali and heard
each to pay a fine of ₱100,000.00. RESPONDENT COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE
their testimonies. On July 30, 2009, he issued an order
OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR
summoning Rodriguez to appear before him for the
EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN ISSUING THE
Respondents are further directed to issue a public apology purpose of holding an inquiry on matters pertaining to his
ASSAILED DECISION AND ORDER
to the Court for the above grave offenses and should they possible involvement in Tulali’s filing of the ex-
CONSIDERING THAT HE GROSSLY
fail to do so after the finality of this Sentence, a warrant for parte manifestation and the administrative complaint
VIOLATED THE RULES ON CONTEMPT.
against Awayan, among others.
 (C) In this case, the Court cannot sustain Judge Blancaflor’s The penalty of indefinite suspension from the practice of
order penalizing petitioners for direct contempt on the law and to pay a fine of ₱100,000.00 each with the
basis of Tulali’s Ex-Parte Manifestation. additional order to issue a public apology to the Court
SINCE THE ASSAILED DECISION AND
under pain of arrest, is evidently unreasonable, excessive
ORDER ARE VOID, A WRIT OF PROHIBITION
and outside the bounds of the law.
MUST BE ISSUED AGAINST RESPONDENT.4 Direct contempt is any misbehavior in the presence of or
so near a court as to obstruct or interrupt the proceedings
before the same, including disrespect toward the court, Petitioners also fault Judge Blancaflor for non-observance
Petitioners argue that the contempt proceedings are null
offensive personalities toward others, or refusal to be of due process in conducting the contempt proceedings. It
and void for contravening their rights to due process of
sworn or to answer as a witness, or to subscribe an must be emphasized that direct contempt is adjudged and
law. They claim that they were denied their rights to be
affidavit or deposition when lawfully required to do so.8 punished summarily pursuant to Section 1, Rule 71 of the
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against
Rules. Hence, hearings and opportunity to confront
them, to confront the witnesses and present their own
witnesses are absolutely unnecessary.
evidence. According to petitioners, Judge Blancaflor’s Based on the foregoing definition, the act of Tulali in filing
disregard of due process constituted grave abuse of the Ex-Parte Manifestation cannot be construed as
discretion which was further aggravated by the unlawful contumacious within the purview of direct contempt. It In the same vein, the petitioners’ alleged "vilification
manner of simultaneously conducting suspension and must be recalled that the subject manifestation bore campaign" against Judge Blancaflor cannot be regarded
contempt proceedings against them. Tulali’s voluntary withdrawal from the arson case to dispel as direct contempt. At most, it may constitute indirect
any suspicion of collusion between him and the accused. contempt, as correctly concluded by the OSG. For indirect
Its filing on the day before the promulgation of the decision contempt citation to prosper, however, the requirements
Petitioners further argue that the penalty imposed upon
in the pending criminal case, did not in any way disrupt the under Sections 3 and 4, Rule 71 of the Rules must be
them in the "direct contempt" proceeding is clearly
proceedings before the court. Accordingly, he should not satisfied, to wit:
oppressive and without basis.
be held accountable for his act which was done in good
faith and without malice.
Sec. 3. Indirect contempt to be punished after charge and
In its Manifestation in Lieu of Comment, 5 the Office of the
hearing. – After a charge in writing has been filed, and an
Solicitor General (OSG) stated that Judge Blancaflor
Neither should Rodriguez be liable for direct contempt as opportunity given to the respondent to comment thereon
committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
he had no knowledge of, or participation in, the within such period as may be fixed by the court and to be
excess of jurisdiction in holding petitioners guilty of direct
preparation and filing of the subject manifestation. It was heard by himself or counsel, a person guilty of any of the
contempt as the judgment was not based on law and
signed and filed by Tulali alone in his capacity as the trial following acts may be punished for indirect contempt:
evidence.
prosecutor in the arson case. The attached complaint
against Awayan was filed with the Office of the Palawan
xxx
The petition is impressed with merit. Governor, and not with the RTC.

(d) any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to

The power to punish a person in contempt of court is Apparently, Judge Blancaflor’s conclusion, that the subject
impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice;
inherent in all courts to preserve order in judicial manifestation containing derogatory matters was
proceedings and to uphold the orderly administration of purposely filed to discredit the administration of justice in
justice. However, judges are enjoined to exercise the court, is unfounded and without basis. There being no x x x.
power judiciously and sparingly, with utmost restraint, and factual or legal basis for the charge of direct contempt, it is
with the end in view of utilizing the same for correction and clear that Judge Blancaflor gravely abused his discretion in
Sec. 4. How proceedings commenced. — Proceedings for
preservation of the dignity of the court, and not for finding petitioners guilty as charged.
indirect contempt may be initiated motu proprio by the
retaliation or vindictiveness. It bears stressing that the
court against which the contempt was committed by an
power to declare a person in contempt of court must be
Such grave abuse of authority is likewise manifested from order or any other formal charge requiring the respondent
exercised on the preservative, not the vindictive principle;
the penalty imposed on the petitioners. Under Section 1, to show cause why he should not be punished for
and on the corrective, not the retaliatory, idea of
Rule 71 of the Revised Rules of Court, direct contempt contempt.
punishment.6 Such power, being drastic and extraordinary
before the RTC or a court of equivalent or higher rank is
in its nature, should not be resorted to unless necessary in
punishable by a fine not exceeding ₱2,000.00 or
the interest of justice.7 In all other cases, charges for indirect contempt shall be
imprisonment not exceeding ten (10) days, or both.
commenced by a verified petition with supporting
particulars and certified true copies of documents or c. Before Randy Awayan was terminated on pettiness in the performance of his duties. He should
papers involved therein, and upon full compliance with the June 30, 2009 was he allowed to answer the always bear in mind that the power of the court to punish
requirements for filing initiatory pleadings for civil actions in charges against him, i.e., calling him bag man for contempt should be exercised for purposes that are
the court concerned. If the contempt charges arose out of and facilitator and Ernesto Fernandez, calling impersonal, because that power is intended as a
or are related to a principal action pending in the court, the him "extortionist." safeguard not for the judges as persons but for the
petition for contempt shall allege that fact but said petition functions that they exercise.10
shall be docketed, heard and decided separately, unless
Aside from the allegations of Salam Ami, any
the court in its discretion orders the consolidation of the
other evidentiary basis for your conclusion that Contempt and suspension proceedings are supposed to
contempt charge and the principal action for joint hearing
Ernesto Fernandez was an extortionist and that be separate and distinct. They have different objects and
and decision.
Awayan was a bag man and facilitator; purposes for which different procedures have been
established. Judge Blancaflor should have conducted
In the present case, Judge Blancaflor failed to observe the separate proceedings. As held in the case of People v.
What was your role in obtaining the release of
elementary procedure which requires written charge and Godoy,11 thus:
accused Rolly Ami from the City Jail without
due hearing. There was no order issued to petitioners.
permission from the Court on June 29, 2009 at
Neither was there any written or formal charge filed
2:00 0’clock in the afternoon and having been A contempt proceeding for misbehavior in court is
against them. In fact, Rodriguez only learned of the
interviewed in the Office of the Provincial designed to vindicate the authority of the court; on the
contempt proceedings upon his receipt of the July 30,
Prosecutor (c/o Prosecutor Tulali) and how long other hand, the object of a disciplinary proceeding is to
2009 Order, requiring him to appear before the Court in
was Rolly Ami interviewed? deal with the fitness of the court's officer to continue in that
order to clarify certain matters contained in the said order.
office, to preserve and protect the court and the public
Tulali, on the other hand, only learned of the proceedings
from the official ministrations of persons unfit or unworthy
when he was ordered to submit his compliance to explain d. Rolly Ami is publicly known as illiterate
to hold such office. The principal purpose of the exercise
how he came in possession of the administrative complaint (cannot read or write) but he was made to sign
of the power to cite for contempt is to safeguard the
against Awayan. affidavits in the absence of his lawyer on June
functions of the court and should thus be used sparingly
29, 2009 at 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon, why?
on a preservative and not, on the vindictive principle. The
The fact that petitioners were afforded the opportunity to principal purpose of the exercise of disciplinary authority
file their appropriate pleadings is not sufficient as the e. Rolly Ami was fetched upon his release by by the Supreme Court is to assure respect for orders of
proceedings ex-parte to hear the witnesses’ testimonies SPO4 Efren Guinto, a close associate of yours, such court by attorneys who, as much as judges, are
had already been completed. and directly went to the Palawan Pawnshop to responsible for the orderly administration of justice.
pawn expensive jewelry (watch and ring), why?
In the course of his investigation, Judge Blancaflor showed x x x. It has likewise been the rule that a notice to a lawyer
that he no longer had the cold impartiality expected of a What is your participation in the media coverage Re: to show cause why he should not be punished for
magistrate. He had clearly prejudged petitioners as VILIFICATION CAMPAIGN of the Judge of Branch 52 contempt cannot be considered as a notice to show cause
manifested in the questions propounded in his July 30, RTC-Palawan from July 1 to 10, 2009. Do you recognize why he should not be suspended from the practice of law,
2009 Order, as follows: that as a member of the Bar and as an officer of the Court, considering that they have distinct objects and for each of
pursuant to the rules of judicial ethics and your oath of them a different procedure is established. Contempt of
office as a lawyer, your loyalty and fidelity is primarily to court is governed by the procedures laid down under Rule
a. Your [petitioner Rodriguez’s] participation, if
the Court? Do you still recognize this duty and obligation? 9 71 of the Rules of Court, whereas disciplinary actions in
any, in the filing of the ex-parte manifestation by
the practice of law are governed by file 138 and 139
Prosecutor Tulali together with the attachment of
thereof.
your letter to Gov. Joel T. Reyes dated May 8, Indeed, Judge Blancaflor failed to conform to the standard
2009 filed on June 29, 2009 with the Clerk of of honesty and impartiality required of judges as mandated
Court, Branch 52, Regional Trial Court, under Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Thus, it was grossly improper for Judge Blancaflor to
Palawan; consider his July 30, 2009 Order on the contempt charge
as the notice required in the disciplinary proceedings
As a public servant, a judge should perform his duties in suspending petitioners from the practice of law.1avvphi1
b. Whether or not the letter was received and accordance with the dictates of his conscience and the
read by Gov. Joel T. Reyes, if you know, and if light that God has given him. A judge should never allow
so what was the official action thereon; himself to be moved by pride, prejudice, passion, or
Granting that the simultaneous conduct of contempt and suspension of a member of the Bar from his office as JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA
suspension proceedings is permitted, the suspension of attorney, to wit: (1) deceit, (2) malpractice, (3) gross Associate Justice
petitioners must still fail. misconduct in office, (4) grossly immoral conduct, (5)
conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, (6) violation
WE CONCUR:
of the lawyer's oath, (7) willful disobedience of any lawful
This Court is not unmindful of a judge’s power to suspend
order of a superior court, and for (8) willfully appearing as
an attorney from practice for just cause pursuant to
an attorney for a party without authority to do so. Judge ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Section 28, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court. Judge
Blancaflor failed to show that the suspension was for any Associate Justice
Blancaflor, however, must be reminded that the
of the foregoing grounds. Chairperson
requirements of due process must be complied with, as
mandated under Section 30, Rule 138 of the same Rules
which specifically provides, viz: In fine, having established that Judge Blancaflor PRESBITERO J. DIOSDADO M.
committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or VELASCO, JR.* PERALTA
excess of jurisdiction, petitioners are entitled to the remedy Associate Justice Associate Justice
Sec. 30. Attorney to be heard before removal or
of prohibition under Section 2, Rule 71 of the Rules on
suspension. – No attorney shall be removed or suspended
Contempt which provides:
from the practice of his profession, until he has had full ROBERTO A. ABAD
opportunity upon reasonable notice to answer the charges Associate Justice
against him, to produce witnesses in his own behalf, and SEC. 2. Remedy therefrom. - The person adjudged in
to be heard by himself or counsel. But if upon reasonable direct contempt by any court may not appeal therefrom,
notice he fails to appear and answer the accusation, the but may avail himself of the remedies of certiorari or ATTESTATION
court may proceed to determine the matter ex parte. prohibition. The execution of the judgment shall be
suspended pending resolution of such petition, provided I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had
such person files a bond fixed by the court which rendered been reached in consultation before the case was
Indeed, a lawyer may be disbarred or suspended for any
the judgment and conditioned that he will abide by and assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
misconduct showing any fault or deficiency in his moral
perform the judgment should the petition be decided
character, honesty, probity or good demeanor. His guilt,
against him.
however, cannot be presumed. It must indicate the ANTONIO T. CARPIO
dubious character of the acts done, as well as the Associate Justice
motivation thereof. Furthermore, a disbarred lawyer must Accordingly, an order of direct contempt is not immediately Chairperson, Second Division
have been given full opportunity upon reasonable notice to executory or enforceable. The contemnor must be
answer the charges against him, produce witnesses in his afforded a reasonable remedy to extricate or purge himself
own behalf, and to be heard by himself and counsel. 12 of the contempt. Where the person adjudged in direct CERTIFICATION
contempt by any court avails of the remedy of certiorari or
prohibition, the execution of the judgment shall be Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and
In the case at bench, there was no prior and separate
suspended pending resolution of such petition provided the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that the
notice issued to petitioners setting forth the facts
the contemnor files a bond fixed by the court which conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
constituting the misconduct and requiring them, within a
rendered the judgment and conditioned that he will abide consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of
specified period from receipt thereof, to show cause why
by and perform the judgment should the petition be the opinion of the Court’s Division.
they should not be suspended from the practice of their
decided against him.13
profession. Neither were they given full opportunity to
defend themselves, to produce evidence on their behalf RENATO C. CORONA
and to be heard by themselves and counsel. Undoubtedly, WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The October 13, Chief Justice
the suspension proceedings against petitioners are null 2009 Decision and November 6, 2009 Order are hereby
and void, having violated their right to due process. annulled and set aside. Judge Bienvenido Blancaflor is
hereby permanently enjoined from implementing the said
decision and order. This injunctive order is immediately
Likewise, Judge Blancaflor’s suspension order is also void
executory.
as the basis for suspension is not one of the causes that
will warrant disciplinary action. Section 27, Rule 138 of the Footnotes
Rules enumerates the grounds for disbarment or SO ORDERED.
 13
* Designated as additional member in lieu of Tiongco v. Salao, A.M. No. RTJ-06-2009, July the respondent shouted, "Then cite me!"5 Judge Baculi
Associate Justice Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, 27, 2006, 496 SCRA 575, 583, citing Oclarit v. cited him for direct contempt and imposed a fine of
per Special Order No. 933 dated January 24, Paderanga, 403 Phil 146, 152 (2001). P100.00. The respondent then left.
2011.
While other cases were being heard, the respondent re-
1
 Annex "A" of Petition, rollo, pp. 41-46. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation entered the courtroom and shouted, "Judge, I will file gross
ignorance against you! I am not afraid of you!"6 Judge
2 Baculi ordered the sheriff to escort the respondent out of
 Id. at 46. A.C. No. 8920               September 28, 2011 the courtroom and cited him for direct contempt of court for
the second time.
3
 Id. at 47. JUDGE RENE B. BACULI, Complainant,
vs. After his hearings, Judge Baculi went out and saw the
4
 Id. at 11. ATTY. MELCHOR A. BATTUNG, Respondent. respondent at the hall of the courthouse, apparently
waiting for him. The respondent again shouted in a
5 DECISION threatening tone, "Judge, I will file gross ignorance against
 Id. at 67. you! I am not afraid of you!" He kept on shouting, "I am not
afraid of you!" and challenged the judge to a fight. Staff
6
 Baculi v. Belen, A.M. No. RTJ-09-2176, April BRION, J.: and lawyers escorted him out of the building. 7
20, 2009, 586 SCRA 69, 80.
Before us is the resolution1 of the Board of Governors of Judge Baculi also learned that after the respondent left the
7
Bank of Philippine Island v. Labor Arbiter the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) finding Atty. courtroom, he continued shouting and punched a table at
Roderick Joseph Calanza, et al., G.R. No. Melchor Battung liable for violating Rule 11.03, Canon 11 the Office of the Clerk of Court.8
180699, October 13, 2010, citing Lu Ym v. of the Code of Professional Responsibility and
Mahinay, G.R. No. 169476, June 16, 2006, 491 recommending that he be reprimanded. The complainant
is Judge Rene B. Baculi, Presiding Judge of the Municipal Violation of Canon 12 of the Code of Professional
SCRA 253.
Trial Court in Cities, Branch 2, Tuguegarao City. The Responsibility
respondent, Atty. Battung, is a member of the Bar with
8
 Section 1, Rule 71 of the Revised Rules of postal address on Aguinaldo St., Tuguegarao City. According to Judge Baculi, the respondent filed dilatory
Court. pleadings in Civil Case No. 2640, an ejectment case.
Background
9
 Rollo, pp. 8-9. Judge Baculi rendered on October 4, 2007 a decision in
Judge Baculi filed a complaint for disbarment 2 with the Civil Case No. 2640, which he modified on December 14,
10
Baculi v. Belen, A.M. No. RTJ-09-2176, April Commission on Discipline of the IBP against the 2007. After the modified decision became final and
20, 2009, 586 SCRA 69, 80, citing Nazareno v. respondent, alleging that the latter violated Canons executory, the branch clerk of court issued a certificate of
Barnes, 220 Phil. 451, 463 (1985), citing Austria 113 and 124 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. finality. The respondent filed a motion to quash the
v. Masaquel, 127 Phil. 677, 690 (1967). previously issued writ of execution, raising as a ground the
motion to dismiss filed by the defendant for lack of
Violation of Canon 11 of the Code of Professional jurisdiction. Judge Baculi asserted that the respondent
11
 312 Phil. 977, 1032, 1033 (1995). Responsibility knew as a lawyer that ejectment cases are within the
jurisdiction of First Level Courts and the latter was merely
12
 Re: Administrative Case No. 44 of the Judge Baculi claimed that on July 24, 2008, during the delaying the speedy and efficient administration of justice.
Regional Trial Court, Branch IV, Tagbilaran City, hearing on the motion for reconsideration of Civil Case No.
Against Atty. Samuel C. Occena, 433 Phil. 138, 2502, the respondent was shouting while arguing his The respondent filed his Answer,9 essentially saying that it
154 (2002). motion. Judge Baculi advised him to tone down his voice was Judge Baculi who disrespected him.10 We quote from
but instead, the respondent shouted at the top of his voice. his Answer:
When warned that he would be cited for direct contempt,
 23. I only told Judge Rene Baculi I will file Gross Commissioner De la Rama narrated his findings, as Court: Do not shout.
ignorance of the Law against him once inside follows:12
the court room when he was lambasting me[.]
Atty. Battung: Because the court is shouting.
At the first part of the hearing as reflected in the TSN, it
24. It was JUDGE BACULI WHO was observed that the respondent was calm. He politely
(Page 3, TSN July 24, 2008)
DISRESPECTED ME. He did not like that I just argued his case but the voice of the complainant appears
submit the Motion for Reconsideration without to be in high pitch. During the mandatory conference, it
oral argument because he wanted to have an was also observed that indeed, the complainant maintains Note: * it was at this point when the respondent shouted at
occasion to just HUMILIATE ME and to make a high pitch whenever he speaks. In fact, in the TSN, the complainant.
appear to the public that I am A NEGLIGENT where there was already an argument, the complainant
LAWYER, when he said "YOU JUSTIFY YOUR stated the following:
Thereafter, it was observed that both were already
NEGLIGENCE BEFORE THIS COURT" making
shouting at each other.
it an impression to the litigants and the public
Court: Do not shout.
that as if I am a NEGLIGENT, INCOMPETENT,
MUMBLING, and IRRESPONSIBLE LAWYER. Respondent claims that he was provoked by the presiding
Atty. Battung: Because the court is shouting. judge that is why he shouted back at him. But after hearing
the tape, the undersigned in convinced that it was Atty.
25. These words of Judge Rene Baculi made
Battung who shouted first at the complainant.
me react[.] Court: This court has been constantly under this kind of
voice Atty. Battung, we are very sorry if you do not want to
appear before my court, then you better attend to your Presumably, there were other lawyers and litigants present
xxxx
cases and do not appear before my court if you do not waiting for their cases to be called. They must have
want to be corrected! (TSN, July 24, 2008, page 3) observed the incident. In fact, in the joint-affidavit
28. Since I manifested that I was not going to submitted by Elenita Pacquing et al., they stood as one in
orally argue the Motion, Judge Rene Baculi saying that it was really Atty. Battung who shouted at the
(NOTE: The underlined words – "we are very sorry" [–
could have just made an order that the Motion judge that is why the latter cautioned him "not to shout."
were] actually uttered by Atty. Battung while the judge was
for Reconsideration is submitted for resolution,
saying the quoted portion of the TSN)
but what he did was that he forced me to argue
The last part of the incident as contained in page 4 of the
so that he will have the room to humiliate me as
TSN reads as follows:
he used to do not only to me but almost of the That it was during the time when the complainant asked
lawyers here (sic). the following questions when the undersigned noticed that
Atty. Battung shouted at the presiding judge. Court: You are now ordered to pay a fine of ₱100.00.
Atty. Battung asked that the case against him be
dismissed. Court: Did you proceed under the Revised Rules on Atty. Battung: We will file the necessary action against this
Summary Procedure? court for gross ignorance of the law.
The IBP conducted its investigation of the matter through
Commissioner Jose de la Rama, Jr. In his Commissioner’s * Court: Yes, proceed.
Report,11 Commissioner De la Rama stated that during the
mandatory conference on January 16, 2009, both parties
Atty. Battung: It is not our fault Your Honor to proceed (NOTE: Atty. Battung went out the courtroom)
merely reiterated what they alleged in their submitted
because we were asked to present our evidence ex parte.
pleadings. Both parties agreed that the original copy of the
Your Honor, so, if should we were ordered (sic) by the
July 24, 2008 tape of the incident at the courtroom would Court: Next case.
court to follow the rules on summary procedure. (TSN
be submitted for the Commissioner’s review. Judge Baculi
page 3, July 24, 2008)
submitted the tape and the transcript of stenographic
notes on January 23, 2009. Interpreter: Civil Case No. 2746.
It was observed that the judge uttered the following:
(Note: Atty. Battung entered again the courtroom)
Atty. Battung: But what we do not like … (not finished) On October 9, 2010, the IBP Board of Governors passed a this guarantee, the institution would be resting on very
Resolution adopting and approving the Report and shaky foundations.
Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner, with
Court: The next time…
the modification that the respondent be reprimanded.
A lawyer who insults a judge inside a courtroom
completely disregards the latter’s role, stature and position
Atty. Battung: We would like to clear …
The Court’s Ruling in our justice system. When the respondent publicly
berated and brazenly threatened Judge Baculi that he
Court: Sheriff, throw out the counsel, put that everything in would file a case for gross ignorance of the law against the
We agree with the IBP’s finding that the respondent
record. If you want to see me, see me after the court. latter, the respondent effectively acted in a manner tending
violated Rule 11.03, Canon 11 of the Code of Professional
to erode the public confidence in Judge Baculi’s
Responsibility. Atty. Battung disrespected Judge Baculi by
competence and in his ability to decide cases.
Next case. shouting at him inside the courtroom during court
Incompetence is a matter that, even if true, must be
proceedings in the presence of litigants and their counsels,
handled with sensitivity in the manner provided under the
and court personnel. The respondent even came back to
Civil Case No. 2746 for Partition and Damages, Roberto Rules of Court; an objecting or complaining lawyer cannot
harass Judge Baculi. This behavior, in front of many
Cabalza vs. Teresita Narag, et al. act in a manner that puts the courts in a bad light and bring
witnesses, cannot be allowed. We note that the
the justice system into disrepute.
respondent continued to threaten Judge Baculi and acted
(nothing follows) in a manner that clearly showed disrespect for his position
even after the latter had cited him for contempt. In fact, The IBP Board of Governors recommended that Atty.
after initially leaving the court, the respondent returned to Battung be reprimanded, while the Investigating
Commissioner De la Rama found that the respondent the courtroom and disrupted the ongoing proceedings. Commissioner recommended a penalty of six (6) months
failed to observe Canon 11 of the Code of Professional These actions were not only against the person, the suspension.
Responsibility that requires a lawyer to observe and position and the stature of Judge Baculi, but against the
maintain respect due the courts and judicial officers. The court as well whose proceedings were openly and
respondent also violated Rule 11.03 of Canon 11 that We believe that these recommended penalties are too light
flagrantly disrupted, and brought to disrepute by the
provides that a lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, for the offense.
respondent.
offensive or menacing language or behavior before the
courts. The respondent’s argument that Judge Baculi In Re: Suspension of Atty. Rogelio Z. Bagabuyo, Former
provoked him to shout should not be given due Litigants and counsels, particularly the latter because of
Senior State Prosecutor,14 we suspended Atty. Bagabuyo
consideration since the respondent should not have their position and avowed duty to the courts, cannot be
for one year for violating Rule 11.05, Canon 11, and Rule
shouted at the presiding judge; by doing so, he created the allowed to publicly ridicule, demean and disrespect a
13.02, Canon 13 of the Code of Professional
impression that disrespect of a judge could be tolerated. judge, and the court that he represents. The Code of
Responsibility, and for violating the Lawyer’s Oath for
What the respondent should have done was to file an Professional Responsibility provides:
airing his grievances against a judge in newspapers and
action before the Office of the Court Administrator if he radio programs. In this case, Atty. Battung’s violations are
believed that Judge Baculi did not act according to the Canon 11 - A lawyer shall observe and maintain the no less serious as they were committed in the courtroom in
norms of judicial conduct. respect due the courts and to judicial officers and should the course of judicial proceedings where the respondent
insist on similar conduct by others. was acting as an officer of the court, and before the
With respect to the charge of violation of Canon 12 of the litigating public. His actions were plainly disrespectful to
Code of Professional Responsibility, Commissioner De la Judge Baculi and to the court, to the point of being
Rule 11.03 - A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous,
Rama found that the evidence submitted is insufficient to scandalous and offensive to the integrity of the judicial
offensive or menacing language or behavior before the
support a ruling that the respondent had misused the system itself.
Courts.
judicial processes to frustrate the ends of justice.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, Atty. Melchor A.
We ruled in Roxas v. De Zuzuarregui, Jr.13 that it is the
Commissioner De la Rama recommended that the Battung is found GUILTY of violating Rule 11.03, Canon
duty of a lawyer, as an officer of the court, to uphold the
respondent be suspended from the practice of law for six 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, for which he
dignity and authority of the courts. Respect for the courts
(6) months. is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year
guarantees the stability of the judicial institution; without
effective upon the finality of this Decision. He is STERNLY
WARNED that a repetition of a similar offense shall be Special Order No. 1107 dated September 27, PRESIDING JUDGE JOSE L. MADRID, REGIONAL
dealt with more severely. 2011. TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 51, SORSOGON
CITY, Complainant,
1 vs.
Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Office of the  Rollo, p. 161.
ATTY. JUAN S. DEALCA, Respondent.
Bar Confidant, to be appended to the respondent’s
personal record as an attorney; the Integrated Bar of the 2
 Id. at 1-5.
Philippines; the Department of Justice; and all courts in the DECISION
country, for their information and guidance.
3
 Canon 11 – A lawyer shall observe and
BERSAMIN, J.:
maintain the respect due the courts and to
SO ORDERED.
judicial officers and should insist on similar
conduct by others. Complainant Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court
ARTURO D. BRION* has had enough of the respondent, a law practitioner, who
Associate Justice 4 had engaged in the unethical practice of filing frivolous
 Canon 12 – A lawyer shall exert every effort
administrative cases against judges and personnel of the
and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy
courts because the latter filed a motion to inhibit the
WE CONCUR: and efficient administration of justice.
complainant from hearing a pending case. Hence, the
complainant has initiated this complaint for the disbarment
MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO** 5
 Rollo, p. 2. of respondent on the ground of gross misconduct and
Associate Justice gross violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
6
 Ibid.
JOSE PORTUGAL JOSE CATRAL Antecedents
PEREZ MENDOZA*** 7
 Id. at 8-12.
Associate Justice Associate Justice On February 7, 2007, Atty. Juan S.Dealca entered his
8 appearance in Criminal Case No. 2006-6795, entitled
 Id. at 13.
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO "People of the Philippines v. Philip William Arsenault" then
Associate Justice pending in Branch 51 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in
9
 Id. at 20-28. Sorsogon City, presided by complainant Judge Jose L.
Madrid.1 Atty. Dealca sought to replace Atty. Vicente Judar
10
who had filed a motion to withdraw as counsel for the
 Id. at 24. accused. But aside from entering his appearance as
counsel for the accused, Atty. Dealca also moved that
11
 Id. at 162-175. Criminal Case No. 2006-6795 be re-raffled to another
Footnotes Branch of the RTC "[c]onsidering the adverse incidents
12
between the incumbent Presiding Judge and the
 Id. at 169-171. undersigned," where" he does not appear before the
* Designated as Acting Chairperson in lieu of
Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio, per Special incumbent Presiding Judge, and the latter does not also
Order No. 1083 dated September 13, 2011. 13
 G.R. Nos. 152072 & 152104, July 12, 2007, hear cases handled by the undersigned."2
527 SCRA 446.
** Designated as Additional Member in lieu of Judge Madrid denied Atty. Dealca’s motion to re-raffle
Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio, per Special 14
 A.C. No. 7006, October 9, 2007, 535 SCRA through an order issued on February 14, 2007,3 viz:
Order No. 1084 dated September 13, 2011. 200.
xxxx
*** Designated as Additional Member in lieu of A.C. No. 7474               September 9, 2014
Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes, per
This Court will not allow that a case be removed from it In his comment-complaint,6 Atty. Dealca asserted that complainants against court officers, judges and personnel
just because of the personal sentiments of counsel who Judge Madrid’s issuance of the February 14, 2007 order as a consequence of the IBP Election and incidents in
was not even the original counsel of the litigant. unconstitutionally and unlawfully deprived the accused of cases that respondent had handled as counselfor the
the right to counsel, to due process, and to a fair and parties in the said cases.
impartial trial; that Judge Madrid exhibited bias in failing to
Moreover, the motion of Atty. Dealca is an affront to the
act on the motion to lift and set aside the warrant ofarrest
integrity of this Court and the other Courts in this province It will be noted that in Bar Matter No. 1197, the
issued against the accused; and that it should be Judge
as hewould like it to appear that jurisdiction over a Family respondents were judges (Judge Jose L. Madrid & Judge
Madrid himself who should be disbarred and accordingly
Court case is based on his whimsical dictates. Honesto A. Villamor) and lawyers in IBP Sorsogon
dismissed from the Judiciary for gross ignorance of the
Chapters, who are no doubt officers of the court, and the
law.
case aroused (sic) out ofthe unfavorable consensus of the
This was so because Atty. Dealca had filed Administrative
IBP chapter members that was adverse to the position of
as well as criminal cases against this Presiding Judge
On July 17, 2007, the Court referred the matter to the IBP the respondent. The other four (4) cases aroused [sic] out
which were all dismissed by the Hon. Supreme Court for
for appropriate investigation,report and of the cases handled by respondent for the complainants
utter lack ofmerit. This is why he should not have accepted
recommendation.7 Several months thereafter, the Court who failed to secure a favorable action from the court.
this particular case so as not to derail the smooth
also indorsed pertinent documents in connection with A.M.
proceedings in this Court with his baseless motions for
OCA IPI No. 05-2385-RTJ, entitled "Joseph Yap III v.
inhibition. It is the lawyer’s duty to appear on behalf of a Specifically, Adm. Matter OCA IPI No. 04-2113-RTJ was a
Judge Jose L. Madrid and Court Stenographer MerlynD.
client in a case but not to appear for a client to remove a result of the case before the sala of Judge Jose L. Madrid
Dominguez, both of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch
case from the Court. This is unethical practice in the first (RTC 51) entitled "Alita P. Gomez vs. Rodrigo Jarabo, et
51, Sorsogon City" (Yap v. Judge Madrid).8
order. al.," for: Accion Publiciana and Damages, that was
handled by respondent for the complainant Alita Gomez.
On June 6, 2007, the Court in Yap v. Judge OMB-L-C-0478-E was an off shoot of Civil Case No. 2001-
WHEREFORE, foregoing considered, the Motion of Atty.
Madriddismissed for its lack of merit the administrative 6842 entitled "Marilyn D. Yap, Joseph D. Yap V, et al., vs.
Juan S. Dealca is hereby DENIED. Relative to the Motion
complaint against Judge Madrid for allegedly falsifying the Joseph H. Yap III" for: Support pending before the sala
to Withdraw as Counsel for the Accused filed by Atty.
transcript of stenographic notes of the hearing on March 4, ofcomplainant Judge Jose L. Madrid (RTC 51).
Vicente C. Judar dated January 29, 2007, the same is
2005 in Civil Case No. 2001-6842 entitled Joseph D. Yap Respondent, after an unfavorable decision against
hereby DENIED for being violative of the provisions of
V, et al. v. Joseph H. Yap III, but referred to the Integrated defendant Joseph H. Yap III, entered his appearance and
Section 26 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and pleaded for the latter. As a result of an adverse order, this
recommendation the propensity of Atty. Dealca to file ombudsman case arose.
So also, the Appearance of Atty. Juan S. Dealca as new administrative or criminal complaints against judges and
counsel for accused Philip William Arsenault is likewise court personnel whenever decisions, orders or processes
Administrative Matter OCA IPI No. 05-2191-RTJ was also
DENIED. were issued adversely to him and his clients. 9
a result of the Civil Case No. 5403 entitled "Salve Dealca
Latosa vs. Atty. Henry Amado Roxas, with Our Lady’s
SO ORDERED. In compliance with the referral,the IBP-Sorsogon Chapter Village Foundation and Most Reverend Arnulfo Arcilla, DD
submitted its report with the following findings and as third party defendant that was heard, tried, decided and
recommendation:10 pending execution before the sala of Judge Honesto A.
Consequently, Judge Madrid filed a letter complaint4 in the Villamor (RTC 52).
Office of the Bar Confidant citing Atty. Dealca’sunethical
practice of entering his appearance and then moving for xxxx
the inhibition of the presiding judge on the pretext of Administrative Matter OCA IPI No. 05-2385-RTJ was also
previous adverse incidents between them. a consequence of Civil Case No. 2001-6842 entitled
The documentary evidence offered by complainants show
"Marilyn D. Yap, Joseph D. Yap V, et al., vs. Joseph H.
that respondent Atty. Juan S. Dealca filed by himself (1)
Yap III" for Support pending before the sala of complainant
On April 10, 2007, we treated the complaint as a regular Bar Matter No. 1197 and acting as counsel for the
JudgeJose L. Madrid (RTC 51).
administrative complaint, and required Atty. Dealca to complainants (2) Adm. Matter OCA IPI No. 04-2113-RTJ;
submit his comment.5 (3) OMB-L-C-05-0478-E;(4) Adm. Matter OCA IPI No. 05-
2385-RTJ and (5) Adm. Matter OCA IPI No. 05-2191-RTJ. All these four (4) cases are precipitated by the adverse
These five (5) cases are factual evidence of the cases that ruling rendered by the court against the clients of the
respondent had filed by himself and as counsel for the respondent that instead of resorting to the remedies
available under the Rules of Procedure, respondent WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully recommended that in I
assisted his clients in filing administrative and criminal view of the above-foregoings [sic], a penalty of
case against the judges and personnel of the court. SUSPENSION in the practice of law for a period of six (6)
Atty. Dealca must guard against his own impulse of
monthsfrom finality of the decision be ordered against
initiating unfounded suits
respondent Atty. Juan S. Dealca.
The other documentary evidence of the complainants such
as the (a) VERIFIED COMPLAINT dated March 7, 2003 in
Atty. Dealca insists on the propriety of the administrative
Civil Service Case entitled "EDNA GOROSPE-DEALCA Findings and Recommendation of the IBP
and criminal cases he filed against judges and court
vs. JULIANA ENCINASCARINO, et al.; (b) NOTICE OF
personnel, including Judge Madrid. He argues that as a
RESOLUTION on October 22, 2005 in Adm. Case No.
IBP Commissioner Salvador B. Hababag ultimately vigilant lawyer, he was duty bound to bring and prosecute
6334 entitled "SOFIAJAO vs. ATTY. EPIFANIA RUBY
submitted his Report and Recommendation11 finding Atty. cases against unscrupulous and corrupt judges and court
VELACRUZ-OIDA" passed by the Board ofGovernors of
Dealca guilty of violating the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code personnel.15
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines which Resolution No.
of Professional Responsibility by filing frivolous
XVII-2005-92 provides: "RESOLVED to ADOPT and
administrative and criminalcomplaints; and recommending
APPROVE the Report and Recommendation of the We see no merit in Atty. Dealca’s arguments.
that Atty. Dealca be suspended from the practice of law for
Investigating Commissioner dismissing the case for lacks
one year because his motion to inhibit Judge Madrid was
(sic) merit; (c) RESOLUTION of the Third Division of the
devoid of factual or legal basis, and was grounded on Although the Court always admires members of the Bar
Supreme Court dated February 1, 2006 in Administrative
purely personal whims. who are imbued with a high sense of vigilance to weed out
Case No. 6334 (Sofia Jao vs. Epifania Ruby Velacruz-
from the Judiciary the undesirable judges and inefficient or
Oida) – The notice of resolution dated October 22, 2005
undeserving court personnel, any acts taken in that
ofthe Integrated Bar ofthe Philippines (IBP) dismissing the In Resolution No. XVIII-2008-41,12 the IBP Board of
direction should be unsullied by any taint of insincerity or
case for lack of merit; (d) VERIFIED COMPLAINT in Adm. Governors modified the recommendation and dismissed
self interest. The noble cause of cleansing the ranks of the
Case No. 6334 dated February 17, 2004 entitled "Sofia the administrative complaint for its lack of merit, thus:
Judiciary is not advanced otherwise. It is for that reason
Jao vs. Atty. Epifania Ruby Velacruz-Oida" for: Malpractice
that Atty. Dealca’s complaint against Judge Madrid has
(Forum Shopping), and (e) ORDER dated January 18,
RESOLVED to AMEND, as it is hereby AMENDED, the failed our judicious scrutiny, for the Court cannot find any
2007 by Acting Presiding Judge RAUL E. DE LEON in
Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner, and trace of idealism or altruismin the motivations for initiating
Criminal Cases Nos. 2451 to 2454 entitled "People of the
APPROVE the DISMISSAL of the above-entitled case for it. Instead, Atty. Dealca exhibited his proclivity for
Philippines vs. Cynthia Marcial, et al. For: Falsification of
lack of merit. Judge Madrid filed a petition,13 which the IBP vindictiveness and penchant for harassment, considering
Medical Records" which provides for the dismissal of the
cases against all the accused, do not show participation Board of Governors treated as a motion for that, as IBP Commissioner Hababag pointed out, 16 his
reconsideration, and soon denied through its Resolution bringing of charges against judges, court personnel and
on the part of the respondent that he signed the pleadings,
No. XX-2012-545.14 even his colleagues in the Law Profession had all
although the verified complaint is one executed by the wife
stemmed from decisions or rulings being adverse to his
of the respondent. Moreover, these cases are pertaining to
clients or his side. He well knew, therefore, that he was
persons other than judges and personnel of the court that Issues
thereby crossing the line of propriety, because neither
are not squarely covered by the present investigation
vindictiveness nor harassment could be a substitute for
against respondent, although, it is an undeniable fact that
(1) Did Atty. Dealca file frivolousadministrative resorting tothe appropriate legal remedies. He should now
respondent had appeared for and in behalf of his wife, the
and criminal complaints against judges and be reminded that the aim of every lawsuit should be to
rest of the complainants in the Civil Service Case and
court personnel in violation of the Lawyer’s Oath render justice to the parties according to law, not to harass
Sofia Jao against Land Bank of the Philippines, the latter
and the Code of Professional Responsibility? them.17
case resulted in the administrative case of Atty. Epifania
Ruby Velacruz-Oida, respondent’s sister member of the
Bar. All these documentary evidence from (a) to (e) are (2) Was Atty. Dealca guilty of unethical practice The Lawyer’s Oath is a source ofobligations and duties for
helpful in determining the "PROPENSITY" of the in seeking the inhibition of Judge Madrid in every lawyer, and any violation thereof by an attorney
respondent as a member of the bar in resorting to Criminal Case No. 2006-6795? constitutes a ground for disbarment, suspension, or other
harassment cases instead of going through the disciplinary action.18 The oath exhorts upon the members
procedures provided for by the Rules of Court in the event of the Bar not to "wittingly or willingly promote or sue any
of adverse ruling, order or decision of the court. Ruling of the Court groundless, false or unlawful suit." These are not mere
facile words, drift and hollow, but a sacred trust that must
We REVERSE Resolution No. XX-2012-545. be upheld and keep inviolable.19
xxxx
As a lawyer, therefore, Atty. Dealca was aware of his duty Atty. Dealca was apparently referring to the minute declared that resolutions were not decisions withinthe
under his Lawyer’s Oath not to initiate groundless, false or resolutions the Court could have promulgated in frequently constitutional contemplation, for the former "merely hold
unlawful suits. The duty has also been expressly dismissing his unmeritorious petitions. His arrogant that the petition for review should not be entertained and
embodied inRule 1.03, Canon 1 of the Code of posturing would not advance his cause now. He thereby even ordinary lawyers have all this time so understood it;
Professional Responsibility thuswise: demonstrated his plain ignorance of the rules of procedure and the petition to review the decisionof the Court of
applicable to the Court.The minute resolutions have been Appeals is not a matter of right but of sound judicial
issued for the prompt dispatch of the actions by the discretion, hence there is no need to fully explain the
Rule 1.03 – A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or
Court.24 Whenever the Court then dismisses a petition for Court’s denial since, for one thing, the facts and the law
interest, encourage any suit or proceeding or delay any
review for its lack of merit through a minute resolution, it is are already mentioned in the Court of Appeal’s decision." It
man’s cause.
understood that the challenged decision or order, together pointed out that the constitutional mandate was applicable
with all its findings of fact and law, is deemed sustained or only in cases submitted for decision, i.e., given due course
His being an officer of the court should have impelled him upheld,25 and the minute resolution then constitutes the to and after the filing of briefs or memoranda and/or other
to see to it that the orderly administration of justice must actual adjudication on the merits of the case. The pleadings, but not where the petition was being refused
not be unduly impeded. Indeed, as he must resist the dismissal of the petition, or itsdenial of due course due course, with the resolutions for that purpose stating
whims and caprices ofhis clients and temper his clients’ indicates the Court’s agreement with and its adoption of the legal basis of the refusal. Thus, when the Court, after
propensities to litigate,20 so must he equally guard himself the findings and conclusions of the court a quo. 26 deliberating on the petition and the subsequent pleadings,
against his own impulses of initiating unfounded suits. decided to deny due course to the petition and stated that
While it is the Court’s duty to investigate and uncover the the questions raised were factual, or there was no
The requirement for stating the facts and the law does not
truth behindcharges against judges and lawyers, it is reversible error in the lower court’s decision, there was a
apply to the minute resolutions that the Court issuesin
equally its duty to shield them from unfounded suits that sufficient compliance with the constitutional requirement. 30
disposing of a case. The Court explained why in Borromeo
are intended to vex and harass them, among other
v. Court of Appeals:27
things.21
II
The [Supreme] Court x x x disposes of the bulk of its cases
Moreover, Atty. Dealca must be mindful of his mission to
by minute resolutions and decrees them as final and Atty. Dealca violated Canon 11 and Rule 11.04 of the
assist the courts in the proper administration of justice. He
executory, as where a case is patently without merit, Code of Professional Responsibility
disregarded his mission because his filing of the
where the issues raised are factual in nature, where the
unfounded complaints, including this one against Judge
decision appealed from is supported by substantial
Madrid, increased the workload of the Judiciary. Although Atty. Dealca maintains that Judge Madrid should have "in
evidence and is in accord with the facts of the case and
no person should be penalized for the exercise ofthe right good grace inhibited himself" upon his motion toinhibit in
the applicable laws, where it is clear from the records that
to litigate, the right must nonetheless be exercised in good order to preserve "confidence in the impartiality of the
the petition is filed merely to forestall the early execution of
faith.22 Atty. Dealca’s bringing of the numerous judiciary."31 However, IBP Commissioner Hababag has
judgment and for non-compliance with the rules. The
administrative and criminal complaints against judges, recommended that Atty. Dealca be sanctioned for filing the
resolution denying due course or dismissing the petition
court personnel and his fellow lawyers did not evince any motion to inhibit considering that the motion, being purely
always gives the legal basis.
good faith on his part, considering that he made based on his personal whims, was bereft of factual and
allegations against them therein that he could not legal bases.32
substantially prove, and are rightfully deemed frivolous xxxx
and unworthy of the Court’s precious time and serious
The recommendation of IBP Commissioner Hababag is
consideration.
The Court is not ‘duty bound’ to render signed Decisions warranted.
all the time. It has ample discretion to formulate Decisions
Repeatedly denying any wrongdoing in filing the various and/or Minute Resolutions, provided a legal basis is given,
Lawyers are licensed officers of the courts empowered to
complaints, Atty. Dealca had the temerity to confront even depending on its evaluation of a case.
appear, prosecute and defend the legal causes for their
the Court with the following arrogant tirade, to wit:
clients. As a consequence, peculiar duties, responsibilities
The constitutionality of the minute resolutions was the and liabilities are devolved upon them by law. Verily, their
With due respect, what could be WRONG was the issue raised in Komatsu Industries (Phils.), Inc. v. Court of membership in the Bar imposes certain obligations upon
summary dismissal of cases filed against erring judges Appeals.28 The petitioner contended that the minute them.33
and court personnel ‘for lack of merit’, i.e. without even resolutions violated Section 14,29 Article VIII of the
discussing the facts and the law of the case.23 Constitution. The Court, throughJustice Regalado,
In this regard, Canon 11 and Rule 11.04 of the Code of the latter’s sacred duty to decide cases without fear of WE CONCUR:
Professional Responsibility pertinently state: repression. Thus, it was incumbent upon Atty. Dealca to
establish by clear and convincing evidence the ground of
(On Leave)
bias and prejudice in order to disqualify Judge Madrid from
Canon 11 — A lawyer shall observe and maintain the MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO*
participating in a particular trial in which Atty. Dealca was
respect due to the courts and to the judicial officers and Chief Justice
participating as a counsel.36 The latter’s bare allegations of
should insist on similar conduct by others.
Judge Madrid’s partiality or hostility did not
suffice,37 because the presumption that Judge Madrid
xxxx would undertake his noble role to dispense justice ANTONIO T.
PRESBITERO J.
according to law and the evidence and without fear or CARPIO**
VELASCO, JR.
favor should only be overcome by clear and convincing Associate Justice
Rule 11.04 — A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge Associate Justice
evidence to the contrary.38 As such, Atty. Dealca clearly Acting Chief Justice
motives not supported by the record or haveno materiality contravened his duties as a lawyer as expressly stated in
to the case.1âwphi1 Canon 11 and Rule 11.04, supra.
TERESITA J.
LEONARDO-DE ARTURO D. BRION
In light of the foregoing canons, all lawyers are bound to CASTRO Associate Justice
On a final note, it cannot escape our attention that this is
uphold the dignity and authority of the courts, and to Associate Justice
not the first administrative complaint to be ever brought
promote confidence in the fair administration of justice. It is against Atty. Dealca.1avvphi1 In Montano v. Integrated
the respect for the courts that guarantees the stability of Bar of the Philippines, 39 we reprimanded him for violating
the judicial institution; elsewise, the institution would be DIOSDADO M. MARIANO C. DEL
Canon 22 and Rule 20.4, Canon 20 of the Code of
resting on a very shaky foundation.34 PERALTA CASTILLO
Professional Responsibility, and warned him that a
repetition of the same offense would be dealt with more Associate Justice Associate Justice
The motion to inhibit filed by Atty. Dealca contained the severely. Accordingly, based on the penalties the Court
following averment, to wit: imposed on erring lawyers found violating Canon 1, Rule MARTIN S. JOSE PORTUGAL
1.03,40 and Canon 11, Rule 11.0441 of the Code, we deem VILLARAMA, JR. PEREZ
appropriate to suspend Atty. Dealca from the practice of Associate Justice Associate Justice
Considering the adverse incidents between the incumbent law for a period one year. ACCORDINGLY, the Court
Presiding Judge and the undersigned, he does not appear FINDS and DECLARES respondent ATTY. JUAN S.
before the incumbent Presiding Judge, andthe latter does DEALCA GUILTY of violating Canon 1, Rule 1.03 and ESTELA M. MARIO VICTOR F.
not also hear cases handled by the undersignedx x Canon 11, Rule 11. 04 of the Code of Professional PERLAS-BERNABE LEONEN
x.35 (Bold emphasis supplied) Responsibility; and SUSPENDS him from the practice of Associate Justice Associate Justice
law for one year effective from notice of this decision, with
Atty. Dealca’s averment that Judge Madrid did not hear a STERN WARNING that any similar infraction in the
cases being handled by him directly insinuated that judges future will be dealt with more severely. FRANCIS H. JARDELEZA
could choose the cases they heard, and could refuse to Associate Justice
hear the cases in which hostility existed between the Let copies of this decision be furnished to the Office of the
judges and the litigants or their counsel. Such averment, if Bar Confidant to be appended to Atty. Dealca's personal
true at all, should have been assiduously substantiated by record as an attorney; to the Integrated Bar of the
him because it put in bad light not only Judge Madrid but Philippines; and to all courts in the country for their
all judges in general. Yet, he did not even include any information and guidance.
particulars that could have validated the averment. Nor did
he attach any document to support it. Footnotes
SO ORDERED.
Worth stressing, too, is that the right of a party to seek the * On Wellness Leave.
inhibition or disqualification of a judge who does not LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
appear to be wholly free, disinterested, impartial and Associate Justice
independent in handling the case must be balanced with
** Acting Chief Justice in lieu of Chief Justice There were other Justices Puno, Kapunan, Pardo, Ynares-
Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno, who is on Wellness administrative/criminal cases lodged Santiago, et al., A.M. No. 03-11-30-SC, June 9,
Leave, per Special Order No. 1770. by the respondent against fellow 2005, 460 SCRA 1, 14;Tan v. Judge Nitafan,
lawyer[s], court personnel, G.R. No. 76965, March 11, 1994, 231 SCRA
1 government employees. Most of all 129, 136.
 Rollo,p. 26.
cases were dismissed for utter lack of
merit. All acts intensifies [sic] the 26
 Agoy v. Araneta Center, Inc., G.R. No.
2
 Id. at 26. conclusion that respondent instead of
196358, March 21, 2012, 668 SCRA 883,
going through the procedures
889;Smith Bell and Company (Phils.), Inc. v.
provided for by the Rules in the event
3
 Id. at 4-5. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 56294, May 20,
of adverse ruling, order or decision of
1991, 197 SCRA 201, 207-208.
the court, have resorted to
4
 Id. at 2. harassment cases.
27
 G.R. No. 82273, June 1, 1990, 186 SCRA 1,
17 5.
5
 Id. at 7.  Reyes v. Chiong, Jr., A.C. No. 5148, July 1,
2003, 405 SCRA 212, 218.
28
6  G. R. No. 127682, April 24, 1998, 289 SCRA
 Id. at 10-17.
18 604, 608; citing Novino v. Court of Appeals, No.
 Vitriolo v. Dasig, A.C. No. 4984, April 1, 2003,
L-21098, May 31, 1963, 8 SCRA 279, 280
7
400 SCRA 172, 179.
 Id. at 92.
29
19  Section 14. No decision shall be rendered by
 Sebastian v. Calis, A.C. No. 5118, September
8
 Id. at 95, 99-120. The following were endorsed: any court without expressing therein clearly and
9, 1999, 314 SCRA 1, 7.
(a) Motion for Reconsideration and Request for distinctly the facts and the law on which it is
Inhibition dated February 22, 2007 of Atty. based. No petition for review or motion for
20
Dealca; (b) Comment of Judge Madrid; and (c)  Aguilar v. Manila Banking Corporation, G.R. reconsideration of a decision of the court shall
Rejoinder of Atty. Dealca. No. 157911, September 19, 2006, 502 SCRA be refused due course or denied without stating
354, 381. the legal basis therefor.
9
 Id. at 144.
21 30
 Cervantes v. Sabio, A.C. No. 7828, August 11,  Komatsu Industries (Phils.), Inc. v. Court of
10
2008, 561 SCRA 497, 501; Dayag v. Gonzales, Appeals, supra note 28, citing Que v. People,
 Id. at 146-155. A.M. No. RTJ-05-1903, June 27, 2006, 493 Nos. L-75217-18, September 21, 1987, 154
SCRA 51, 61-62. SCRA 160, 165; Nunal v. Commission on Audit,
11
 Id. at 287-292. G. R. No. 78648, January 24, 1989, 169 SCRA
22 356, 362-363; and Cadiente v. Narisma, A.M.
 Arnado v. Suarin, A.M. No. P-05-2059, August
No. MTJ-91-576, En Banc Resolution, March 11,
12
 Id. at 286. 19, 2005, 467 SCRA 402, 408.
1993.
23
13
 Id. at 295-298.  Rollo, p. 384. 31
 Rollo, p. 368.
24
14
 Id. at 408.  Separate Opinion of J. Melo inYale Land 32
 Id. at 292.
DevelopmentCorporation v. Caragao, G.R. No.
15
135244. April 15, 1999, 306 SCRA 1, 12.
 Id. at 384. 33
 Re: Suspension of Atty. Rogelio Z. Bagabuyo,
25 Former Senior State Prosecutor, Adm. Case.
 PEPSICO, Inc. v. Lacanilao, G.R. No. 146007.
16
 Id. at 291, where IBP Commissioner Hababag No. 7006, October 9, 2007, 535 SCRA 200, 214;
June 15, 2006, 490 SCRA 615, 623; Complaint
observed in his report that: of Mr. Aurelio Indencia Arrienda Against SC
 Reyes v. Chiong, Jr., A.C. No. 5148, July 1, De Vera) in his handling of the election protest case Atty. De Vera filed a pleading to rectify this error (i.e., an
2003, 405 SCRA 212, 217. involving the candidacy of MariecrisUmaguing Answer to Counterclaim with Omnibus Motion,10 seeking,
(Umaguing), daughter of Sps. Willie and Amelia Umaguing among others, the withdrawal of Lachica’s and Almera’s
34 (complainants), for the SangguniangKabataan (SK) affidavits), it was observed that such was a mere flimsy
 Roxas v. De Zuzuarregui, Jr.,G.R. No.
Elections, instituted before the Metropolitan Trial Court of excuse since Atty. De Vera had ample amount of time to
152072, July 12, 2007, 527 SCRA 446, 463-464
Quezon City, Branch 36 (MeTC), docketed as ELEC. have the affidavits personally signed by the affiants but still
.
CASE No. 07-1279.2chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary hastily filed the election protest with full knowledge that the
affidavits at hand were
35
 Rollo, p. 26. The Facts falsified.11chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

36 As alleged in the Complaint, Umaguing ran for the position In further breach of his oath as a lawyer, the complainants
 People v. Ong, G.R. Nos. 162130-39, May 5,
of SK Chairman in the SK Elections for the year 2007 but pointed out that Atty. De Vera did not appear before the
2006, 489 SCRA 679, 688; Webb v. People,
lost to her rival Jose Gabriel Bungag by one (1) MeTC, although promptly notified, for a certain December
G.R. No. 127262, July 24, 1997, 276 SCRA 243,
vote.3 Because of this, complainants lodged an election 11, 2007 hearing; and did not offer any explanation as to
253.
protest and enlisted the services of Atty. De Vera. On why he was not able to attend.12chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
November 7, 2007, complainants were asked by Atty. De
37
 Deutsche Bank Manila v. Sps. Chua Yok See, Vera to pay his acceptance fee of P30,000.00, plus The complainants then confronted Atty. De Vera and
G.R. No. 165606, February 6, 2006, 481 SCRA various court appearance fees and miscellaneous asked for an explanation regarding his non-appearance in
672, 695. expenses in the amount of P30,000.00. 4 According to the the court. Atty. De Vera explained that he was hesitant in
complainants, Atty. De Vera had more than enough time to handling the particular case because of the alleged
38 prepare and file the case but the former moved at a glacial favoritism of Judge Belosillo. According to Atty. De Vera,
 Duma v. Espinas, G.R. No. 141962, January Judge Belosillo received P60,000.00 from the defense
25, 2006, 480 SCRA 53, 67. pace and only took action when the November 8, 2008
deadline was looming.5 Atty. De Vera then rushed the counsel, Atty. Carmelo Culvera, in order to acquire a
preparation of the necessary documents and attachments favorable decision for his client. Atty. De Vera averred that
39
 A.C. No. 4215, May21, 2001, 358 SCRA I. for the election protest. Two (2) of these attachments are he would only appear for the case if the complainants
the Affidavits6 of material witnesses Mark Anthony Lachica would give him P80,000.00, which he would in turn, give to
40 (Lachica) and Angela Almera (Almera), which was Judge Belosillo to secure a favorable decision for
 Saa v. Integrated Bar of the Philippines, G.R. Umaguing.13chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
No. 132826, September 3, 2009, 598 SCRA 6. personally prepared by Atty. De Vera. At the time that the
aforesaid affidavits were needed to be signed by Lachica
and Almera, they were unfortunately unavailable. To On December 12, 2007, for lack of trust and confidence in
41
 Baculi v. Battung, A.C. No. 8920, September remedy this, Atty. De Vera allegedly instructed the integrity and competency of Atty. De Vera, as well as
28, 2011, 658 SCRA 209. AbethLalong-Isip (Lalong-Isip) and Hendricson Fielding his breach of fiduciary relations, the complainants asked
(Fielding) to look for the nearest kin or relatives of Lachica the former to withdraw as their counsel and to reimburse
and Almera and ask them to sign over the names.7 The them the P60,000.00 in excessive fees he collected from
A.C. No. 10451, February 04, 2015 them, considering that he only appeared twice for the
signing over of Lachica’s and Almera’s names were done
by Christina Papin (Papin) and Elsa Almera-Almacen, case.14chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
SPOUSES WILLIE AND AMELIA respectively. Atty. De Vera then had all the documents
UMAGUING, Complainants, v. ATTY. WALLEN R. DE notarized before one Atty. DonatoManguiat (Atty. In view of the foregoing, complainants sought Atty. De
VERA, Respondents. Manguiat).8chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Vera’s disbarment.15chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Later, however, Lachica discovered the falsification and In his Counter-Affidavit, 16 Atty. De Vera vehemently denied
DECISION all the accusations lodged against him by complainants.
immediately disowned the signature affixed in the affidavit
and submitted his own Affidavit, 9 declaring that he did not He averred that he merely prepared the essential
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.: authorize Papin to sign the document on his behalf. documents for election protest based on the statements of
Lachica’s affidavit was presented to the MeTC and drew his clients.17 Atty. De Vera then explained that the signing
the ire of Presiding Judge Edgardo Belosillo (Judge of Lachica’s falsified Affidavit was done without his
This administrative case stemmed from a Complaint1 for knowledge and likewise stated that it was Christina Papin
Belosillo), who ruled that the affidavits filed by Atty. De
the alleged betrayal of trust, incompetence, and gross who should be indicted and charged with the
Vera were falsified. Judge Belosillo pointed out that while
misconduct of respondent Atty. Wallen R. De Vera (Atty. corresponding criminal offense. He added that he actually
sought to rectify his mistakes by filing the aforementioned the IBP Investigating Commissioner remarked that the the courts as to my clients; and I impose upon myself this
Answer to Counterclaim with Omnibus Motion in order to lawyer’s first duty is not to his client but to the voluntary obligation without any mental reservation or
withdraw the affidavits of Lachica and Almera. As he administration of justice, and therefore, his conduct ought purpose of evasion. So help me God.29 (Emphasis and
supposedly felt that he could no longer serve complainants to and must always be scrupulously observant of the law underscoring supplied)
with his loyalty and devotion in view of the aforementioned and ethics of the profession.24chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
The Lawyer’s Oath enjoins every lawyer not only to obey
signing incident, Atty. De Vera then withdrew from the
the laws of the land but also to refrain from doing any
case.18 To add, he pointed out that along with his Formal In a Resolution25 dated December 14, 2012, the Board of
falsehood in or out of court or from consenting to the doing
Notice of Withdrawal of Counsel, complainants executed a Governors of the IBP resolved to adopt the findings of the
of any in court, and to conduct himself according to the
document entitled “Release Waiver & Discharge,” 19 which, IBP Commissioner. Hence, for knowingly submitting a
best of his knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity
to him, discharges him and his law firm from all causes of falsified document in court, a two (2) month suspension
to the courts as well as to his clients. Every lawyer is a
action that complainants may have against him, including was imposed against Atty. De Vera.
servant of the law, and has to observe and maintain the
the instant administrative case.
rule of law as well as be an exemplar worthy of emulation
On reconsideration,26 however, the IBP Board of
by others. It is by no means a coincidence, therefore, that
After the conduct of the mandatory conference/hearing Governors issued a Resolution27 dated February 11, 2014,
the core values of honesty, integrity, and trustworthiness
before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) affirming with modification their December 14, 2012
are emphatically reiterated by the Code of Professional
Commission on Bar Discipline, the matter was submitted Resolution, decreasing the period of suspension from two
Responsibility.30 In this light, Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the
for report and recommendation. (2) months to one (1) month.
Code of Professional Responsibility provides that “[a]
lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing
The Report and Recommendation of the IBP The Issue Before the Court of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to
be misled by any artifice.”
In a Report and Recommendation20 dated December 5, The sole issue in this case is whether or not Atty. De Vera
2009, the IBP Commissioner found the administrative should be held administratively liable. After an assiduous examination of the records, the Court
action to be impressed with merit, and thus recommended finds itself in complete agreement with the IBP
that Atty. De Vera be suspended from the practice of law The Court’s Ruling Investigating Commissioner, who was affirmed by the IBP
for a period of two (2) months.21chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Board of Governors, in holding that Atty. De Vera
The Court adopts and approves the findings of the IBP, as sanctioned the submission of a falsified
While no sufficient evidence was found to support the the same were duly substantiated by the records. affidavit, i.e.,Almera’s affidavit, before the court in his
allegation that Atty. De Vera participated in the falsification However, the Court finds it apt to increase the period of desire to beat the November 8, 2008 deadline for filing the
of Lachica’s affidavit, the IBP Commissioner ruled suspension to six (6) months. election protest of Umaguing. To this, the Court is wont to
oppositely with respect to the falsification of Almera’s sustain the IBP Investigating Commissioner’s appreciation
affidavit, to which issue Atty. De Vera deliberately omitted Fundamental is the rule that in his dealings with his client of Elsa Almera-Almacen’s credibility as a witness given
to comment on. The Investigating Commissioner pointed and with the courts, every lawyer is expected to be honest, that nothing appears on record to seriously belie the same,
out that the testimony of Elsa Almera-Almacen, Almera’s imbued with integrity, and trustworthy. These expectations, and in recognition too of the fact that the IBP and its
sister – attesting that Lalong-Isip approached her and though high and demanding, are the professional and officers are in the best position to assess the witness’s
asked if she could sign the affidavit, and her vivid ethical burdens of every member of the Philippine Bar, for credibility during disciplinary proceedings, as they – similar
recollection that Atty. De Vera was present during its they have been given full expression in the Lawyer’s Oath to trial courts – are given the opportunity to first-hand
signing, and that Lalong-Isip declared to Atty. De Vera that that every lawyer of this country has taken upon admission observe their demeanor and comportment. The assertion
she was not Almera – was found to be credible as it was as a bona fide member of the Law Profession, thus: 28 that Atty. De Vera authorized the falsification of Almera’s
too straightforward and hard to ignore.22 It was also I, ___________________, do solemnly swear that I will affidavit is rendered more believable by the absence of
observed that the backdrop in which the allegations were maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines; I will Atty. De Vera’s comment on the same. In fact, in his
made, i.e., that the signing of the affidavits was done on support its Constitution and obey the laws as well as the Motion for Reconsideration of the IBP Board of Governors’
November 7, 2007, or one day before the deadline for the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein; I Resolution dated December 14, 2012, no specific denial
filing of the election protest, showed that Atty. De Vera will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any was proffered by Atty. De Vera on this score. Instead, he
was really pressed for time and, hence, his resort to the in court; I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any only asserted that he was not the one who notarized the
odious act of advising his client’s campaigners Lalong-Isip groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent subject affidavits but another notary public, who he does
and Fielding to look for kin and relatives of the affiants for to the same. I will delay no man for money or malice, and not even know or has seen in his entire life,31 and that he
and in their behalf in his earnest desire to beat the will conduct myself as a lawyer according to the best of my had no knowledge of the falsification of the impugned
deadline set for the filing of the election protest.23 To this, knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to documents, much less of the participation in using the
same.32 Unfortunately for Atty. De Vera, the Court views is in no sense a party, and has generally no interest in the complainants Spouses Willie and Amelia Umaguing the
the same to be a mere general denial which cannot outcome except as all good citizens may have in the amount of P60,000.00 which he admittedly received from
overcome Elsa Almera-Almacen’s positive testimony that proper administration of justice.37 the latter as fees intrinsically linked to his professional
he indeed participated in the procurement of her signature engagement within ninety (90) days from the finality of this
All told, Atty. De Vera is found guilty of violating the
and the signing of the affidavit, all in support of the claim of Decision. Failure to comply with the foregoing directive will
Lawyer’s Oath and Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the Code of
falsification. warrant the imposition of further administrative penalties.
Professional Responsibility by submitting a falsified
document before a court.
The final lining to it all – for which the IBP Board of Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Office of the
Governors rendered its recommendation – is that Almera’s Bar Confidant, to be appended to respondent’s personal
As for the penalty, the Court, in the case of Samonte v.
affidavit was submitted to the MeTC in the election protest record as attorney. Further, let copies of this Decision be
Atty. Abellana38 (Samonte), suspended the lawyer therein
case. The belated retraction of the questioned affidavits, furnished the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the
from the practice of law for six (6) months for filing a
through the Answer to Counterclaim with Omnibus Motion, Office of the Court Administrator, which is directed to
spurious document in court. In view of the antecedents in
does not, for this Court, merit significant consideration as circulate them to all courts in the country for their
this case, the Court finds it appropriate to impose the
its submission appears to be a mere afterthought, information and guidance.
same here.
prompted only by the discovery of the falsification. Truth
be told, it is highly improbable for Atty. De Vera to have SO ORDERED.
Likewise, the Court grants the prayer for
remained in the dark about the authenticity of the
reimbursement39 for the return of the amount of
documents he himself submitted to the court when his Sereno, C. J., (Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro,
P60,000.00,40 comprised of Atty. De Vera’s acceptance fee
professional duty requires him to represent his client with Bersamin, and Perez, JJ., concur.cralawlawlibrary
and other legal expenses intrinsically related to his
zeal and within the bounds of the law.33 Likewise, he is
professional engagement,41 for he had actually admitted
prohibited from handling any legal matter without adequate
his receipt thereof in his Answer before the Endnotes:
preparation34 or allow his client to dictate the procedure in
IBP.42chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
handling the case.35chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
As a final word, the Court echoes its unwavering
On a related point, the Court deems it apt to clarify that the 1
exhortation in Samonte:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary Rollo, pp. 2-8.
document captioned “Release Waiver & Discharge” which
Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are designed to
Atty. De Vera, in his Counter-Affidavit, claimed to have 2
ensure that whoever is granted the privilege to practice  See Order dated December 6, 2007; id. at 200.
discharged him from all causes of action that complainants
law in this country should remain faithful to the Lawyer’s
may have against him, such as the present case, would 3
Oath. Only thereby can lawyers preserve their fitness to  Id. at 2.
not deny the Court its power to sanction him
remain as members of the Law Profession. Any resort to
administratively. It was held in Ylaya v. 4
falsehood or deception, including adopting artifices to  Id.
Gacott36 that:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
cover up one’s misdeeds committed against clients and
A case of suspension or disbarment may proceed 5
the rest of the trusting public, evinces an unworthiness to  Id. at 3.
regardless of interest or lack of interest of the complainant.
continue enjoying the privilege to practice law and
What matters is whether, on the basis of the facts borne 6
highlights the unfitness to remain a member of the Law  Id. at 241-242.
out by the record, the charge of deceit and grossly
Profession. It deserves for the guilty lawyer stern
immoral conduct has been proven. This rule is premised 7
disciplinary sanctions.43  Id. at 3.
on the nature of disciplinary proceedings. A proceeding for
suspension or disbarment is not a civil action where the WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Wallen R. De Vera 8
 Id.
complainant is a plaintiff and the respondent lawyer is a (respondent) is found GUILTY of violating the Lawyer’s
defendant. Disciplinary proceedings involve no private Oath and Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the Code of 9
 Id. at 244.
interest and afford no redress for private grievance. They Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, he
are undertaken and prosecuted solely for the public is SUSPENDED for six (6) months from the practice of 10
 Id. at 171-185.
welfare. They are undertaken for the purpose of law, effective upon receipt of this Decision, with a stern
preserving courts of justice from the official administration warning that any repetition of the same or similar acts will 11
 See id. at 3-4.
of persons unfit to practice in them. The attorney is called be punished more severely.
to answer to the court for his conduct as an officer of the 12
 Id. at 4.
court. The complainant or the person who called the Moreover, respondent is ORDERED to return to
attention of the court to the attorney’s alleged misconduct
13
 Id. at 4-5. On December 16, 2005, the complainant, Torben B.
35
 CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, Canon Overgaard, a Dutch national, through his business partner
14
 Id. at 5. 19, Rule 19.03. John Bradley, entered into a Retainer Agreement 1 with the
respondent, Atty. Godwin R. Valdez. For the amount of
15 36
 Id. at 7.  A.C. No. 6475, January 30, 2013, 689 SCRA 452. PhP900,000.00, the complainant engaged the services of
the respondent to represent him as his legal counsel in two
16 37
 Dated May 6, 2008. Id. at 9-13.  Id. at 481, citing Bautista v. Atty. Bernabe, 517 Phil. 236, cases filed by him and two cases filed against him, all
241 (2006). pending in Antipolo City; including a dismissed complaint
17
 Id. at 9. which was appealed before the Department of Justice. The
38
 Supra note 28. Agreement stipulated that fees would cover acceptance
18
 See id. at 10-11. and attorney's fees, expenses of litigation, other legal
39
 See Opposition/Comment (to Respondent’s Motion for incidental expenses, and appearance fees. 2
19
 Id. at 16. Reconsideration) dated April 15, 2013; rollo, p. 621.
20 40 The cases filed by the complainant included a complaint
 Id. at 601-605. Signed by Commissioner Oliver A.  See Complaint where only the amount of P60,000.00
for Estafa, Grave Threats, Coercion, Unjust Vexation and
Cachapero. was definitively stated; id. at 2.
Oral Defamation3 pending before the Office of the City
21 41 Prosecutor of Antipolo and a civil case for Mandamus,
 Id. at 605.  See Pitcher v. Gagate, A.C. No. 9532, October 8, 2013,
Injunction with prayer for Temporary Restraining Order
707 SCRA 13, 25-26.
22 and Damages4 which is on trial at Branch 71, Regional
 Id. at 603-604.
42 Trial Court of Antipolo City. On the other hand, the cases
Rollo, p. 31.
23 filed against the complainant included a criminal case for
 Id. at 604.
43 Other Light Threats at Branch 2 of the Municipal Trial
 See Samonte v. Atty. Abellana, supra note 28.
24 Court of Antipolo,5 and violation of Section 5(a) of Republic
 Id. at 603-604.
Act No. 9262, the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their
25 EN BANC Children Act of 20046 before the Family Court of Antipolo
 Id. at 600.Signed by National Secretary Nasser A.
City. A complaint for Illegal Possession of Firearms was
Marohomsalic.
also filed against Torben Overgaard which was dismissed
[A.C. NO. 7902 : September 30, 2008]
26 by the City Prosecutor of Antipolo City. This was appealed
 See Atty. De Vera’s Motion for Reconsideration dated
to the Department of Justice by way of Petition for
March 20, 2013; id. at 606-614.
TORBEN B. OVERGAARD, Complainant, v. ATTY. Review.7
27 GODWIN R. VALDEZ, Respondent.
 Id. at 637.
Upon the execution of the Retainer Agreement, the
28
 See Samonte v. Atty. Abellana, A.C. No. 3452, June 23, DECISION complainant paid the respondent USD16,854.00 through
2014. telegraphic bank transfer,8 as full payment for the services
to be rendered under the Agreement. The respondent then
29
 Id. PER CURIAM: assured the complainant that he would take good care of
the cases he was handling for the complainant.9
30
 Id. Complainant seeks the disbarment of Atty. Godwin R.
Valdez from the practice of law for gross malpractice,
31 On April 11, 2006, four months after the execution of the
Rollo, p.610. immoral character, dishonesty and deceitful conduct. The Retainer Agreement, the complainant, through his
complainant alleges that despite receipt of legal fees in
32 business partner John Bradley, demanded from the
 Id. at 611. compliance with a Retainer Agreement, the respondent respondent a report of the action he had taken with
refused to perform any of his obligations under their
33 respect to the cases entrusted to him. However, despite
 CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, Canon contract for legal services, ignored the complainant's his continued efforts to contact the respondent to inquire
19. requests for a report of the status of the cases entrusted to on the status of the cases, he was unable to reach him; his
his care, and rejected demands for return of the money
34 phone calls were not answered and his electronic mails
 CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, Canon paid to him. were ignored.10
18, Rule 18.02.
The complainant had no knowledge of the developments Mandatory Conference was set on September 21, by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other
of the cases that the respondent was handling for him. 2007,19 but the respondent failed to attend despite being gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct,
Upon his own inquiry, he was dismayed to find out that the duly notified.20 This prompted the Commission on Bar or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral
respondent did not file his entry of appearance in the Discipline to issue an Order declaring the respondent in turpitude or for any violation of the oath which he is
cases for Other Light Threats and Violation of Section 5(a) default for failure to submit an Answer and failure to attend required to take before admission to practice, or for a
of the Anti-Violence Against Women and Children the Mandatory Conference.21 The investigation proceeded willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court,
Act.11 The respondent also did not inform him that he was ex parte. or for corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a
entitled to prepare a Counter-Affidavit to answer the party to a case without authority to do so. The practice of
complaint for Other Light Threats. The complainant had no soliciting cases for the purpose of gain, either personally or
The complainant submitted his position paper on October
knowledge that there had already been arraignments for through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.
5, 2007,22 with a prayer that the respondent be disbarred
the criminal cases against him, and that there were
from the practice of law, and to be ordered to return the
already warrants of arrest12 issued for his failure to attend
amount of PhP900,000.00. A Clarificatory Hearing was Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court,
the arraignments. He was constrained to engage the
scheduled on December 11, 2007, 23 and again, it was only a member of the Bar may be disbarred or suspended on
services of another lawyer in order to file a Motion to Lift
the complainant who was in attendance; the respondent any of the following grounds: (1) deceit; (2) malpractice or
the Warrant of Arrest in the case for Other Light
failed to attend the hearing despite notice. The case was other gross misconduct in office; (3) grossly immoral
Threats,13 and an Omnibus Motion to Revive the Case and
then submitted for resolution based on the pleadings conduct; (4) conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude;
Lift the Warrant of Arrest in the case for Violation of
submitted by the complainant and the hearings (5) violation of the lawyer's oath; (6) willful disobedience of
Section 5(a) of the Anti-Violence Against Women and
conducted.24 any lawful order of a superior court; and (7) willful
Their Children Act.14
appearance as an attorney for a party without authority. A
lawyer may be disbarred or suspended for misconduct,
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Investigating
The complainant alleges that the respondent did not do a whether in his professional or private capacity, which
Commissioner Antonio S. Tria, to whom the instant
single thing with respect to the cases covered under the shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty,
disciplinary case was assigned for investigation, report and
Retainer Agreement. Not only did the respondent fail to probity and good demeanor, or unworthy to continue as an
recommendation, found the respondent guilty of violating
enter his appearance in the criminal cases filed against the officer of the court.
Canon 15, Canon 16, Rule 16.01, Canon 17, Canon 18,
complainant, he also neglected to file an entry of
and Rule 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
appearance in the civil case for Mandamus, Injunction and
In his Report dated January 29, 2008, he recommended The respondent has indubitably fallen below the exacting
Damages that the complainant filed. The respondent also
that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for standards demanded of members of the bar. He did not
did not file a Comment on the complaint for Illegal
a period of three (3) years. The IBP Board of Governors, merely neglect his client's cause, he abandoned his client
Possession of Firearms which was dismissed and under
through Resolution No. XVIII-2008-126, dated March 6, and left him without any recourse but to hire another
review at the Department of Justice.15
2008, approved the recommendation of Commissioner lawyer. He not only failed to properly handle the cases
Tria, and further ordered the complainant to return the which were entrusted to his care, he refused to do a single
Due to the above lapses of the respondent, on November PhP900,000.00 to the complainant within 60 days from thing in connection with these cases. He did not file any
27, 2006, the complainant wrote the respondent and receipt of the notice. pleading to defend his client; he did not even enter his
demanded the return of the documents which were turned appearance in these cases. Moreover, he disregarded the
over to him, as well as the PhP900,000.00 that was paid in complainant's letters and electronic mails and rejected the
We agree. We find the respondent Atty. Godwin R. Valdez
consideration of the cases he was supposed to handle for complainant's phone calls. All the complainant was asking
to have committed multiple violations of the canons of the
the complainant.16 However, complainant was unable to for was a report of the status of the cases but the
Code of Professional Responsibility.
get any word from the respondent despite repeated and respondent could not be reached no matter what the
continuous efforts to get in touch with him. complainant did to get in touch with him. After receipt of
The appropriate penalty to be imposed on an errant the full amount of fees under the Retainer Agreement, he
attorney involves the exercise of sound judicial discretion simply disappeared, leaving the client defenseless and
Hence, on December 28, 2006, Torben Overgaard was
based on the facts of the case. Section 27, Rule 138 of the plainly prejudiced in the cases against him. Warrants of
constrained to file an administrative complaint against Atty.
Rules of Court provides, viz: arrest were even issued against the complainant due to
Godwin R. Valdez before the Integrated Bar of the
the respondent's gross and inexcusable negligence in
Philippines, alleging that the respondent engaged in
failing to ascertain the status of the case and to inform his
unlawful, dishonest, immoral and deceitful Sec. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by client of the arraignment. It was not a mere failure on the
conduct.17 Despite the order to submit an Answer to the Supreme Court, grounds therefor. - A member of the bar respondent's part to inform the complainant of matters
complaint against him,18 the respondent failed to comply. A may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney concerning the cases, it was an unmistakable evasion of
duty. To hide from the complainant, avoid his calls, ignore was practically useless; he was not just negligent, he was Acceptance of money from a client establishes an
his letters, and leave him helpless is unforgivable; and to indolent; and rather than being of help to the complainant, attorney-client relationship and gives rise to the duty of
commit all these acts and omissions after receiving the full he prejudiced the client. Respondent's inaction with fidelity to the client's cause. Money entrusted to a lawyer
amount of legal fees and after assuring the client of his respect to the matters entrusted to his care is obvious; and for a specific purpose - such as for filing fees - but not
commitment and responsibility violates the Code of his failure to file an answer to the complaint for disbarment used for failure to file the case, must immediately be
Professional Responsibility. against him and to attend the hearings in connection returned to the client on demand. 33
therewith, without any explanation or request for resetting,
despite proper notice from the IBP, is clear evidence of
Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional In Sencio v. Calvadores,34 the respondent lawyer Sencio
negligence on his part.
Responsibility states that "a lawyer shall not engage in was engaged to file a case, which he failed to do. His
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct." client demanded that he return the money which was paid
Deceitful conduct involves moral turpitude and includes The Code of Professional Responsibility further provides to him but he refused. Sencio similarly failed to answer the
anything done contrary to justice, modesty or good that a lawyer is required to keep the client informed of the complaint and disregarded the orders and notices of the
morals.25 It is an act of baseness, vileness or depravity in status of his case and to respond within a reasonable time IBP on many occasions.35 The respondent lawyer was
the private and social duties which a man owes to his to the client's request for information. 32 The respondent did ordered to return the money that he received from the
fellowmen or to society in general, contrary to justice, the opposite. Despite the complainant's efforts to consult complainant with interest at 12% per annum from the date
honesty, modesty, or good morals.26 Representing to the him and notwithstanding numerous attempts to contact of the promulgation of the resolution until the return of the
complainant that he would take care of the cases filed him, simply to ask for an update of the status of the cases, amount.36
against him,27 assuring the complainant that his property the respondent was able to avoid the complainant and
involved in a civil case would be safeguarded, 28 and then never bothered to reply.
The practice of law is not a right, but a privilege. It is
collecting the full amount of legal fees of PhP900,000.00,
granted only to those of good moral character.37 The Bar
only to desert the complainant after receipt of the fees,
After months of waiting for a reply from the respondent, must maintain a high standard of honesty and fair
were manifestly deceitful and dishonest.
and discovering that the respondent had been remiss in dealing.38 Lawyers must conduct themselves beyond
his duties, the complainant demanded the return of the reproach at all times, whether they are dealing with their
The relationship of an attorney to his client is highly documents he had turned over to the respondent. He also clients or the public at large, 39 and a violation of the high
fiduciary. Canon 15 of the Code of Professional demanded the return of the money he had paid for the moral standards of the legal profession justifies the
Responsibility provides that "a lawyer shall observe legal services that were not rendered and expenses of imposition of the appropriate penalty, including suspension
candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and litigation which were not incurred. However, the and disbarment.40
transactions with his client." Necessity and public interest respondent rejected the complainant's demands.
enjoin lawyers to be honest and truthful when dealing with
The respondent demonstrated not only appalling
his client. A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client
Rule 16.01, Canon 16 of the Code of Professional indifference and lack of responsibility to the courts and his
and shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in
Responsibility, provides that "a lawyer shall account for all client but also a wanton disregard for his duties as a
him.29 However, instead of devoting himself to the client's
money and property collected or received for and from the lawyer. It is deplorable that members of the bar, such as
cause, the respondent avoided the complainant, forgot
client." The complainant paid $16,854.00 to the the respondent, betray not only the trust of their client, but
about the cases he was handling for him and ostensibly
respondent via telegraphic bank transfer. This was also public trust. For the practice of law is a profession, a
abandoned him. The client reposed his trust in his lawyer
considered as complete payment for the PhP900,000.00 form of public trust, the performance of which is entrusted
with full faith that the lawyer would not betray him or
that was stipulated as the consideration for the legal to those who are qualified and who possess good moral
abscond from his responsibilities. By assuring the
services to be rendered. However, since the respondent character.41 Those who are unable or unwilling to comply
complainant that he would take care of the cases included
did not carry out any of the services he was engaged to with the responsibilities and meet the standards of the
in the Retainer Agreement, and even accepting fees, the
perform, nor did he appear in court or make any payment profession are unworthy of the privilege to practice law.
respondent defrauded the complainant when he did not do
in connection with litigation, or give any explanation as to We must protect the administration of justice by requiring
a single thing he was expected to do.
how such a large sum of money was spent and allocated, those who exercise this function to be competent,
he must immediately return the money he received from honorable and reliable in order that the courts and clients
A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and the client upon demand. However, he refused to return the may rightly repose confidence in them.
diligence.30 A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter money he received from the complainant despite written
entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection demands, and was not even able to give a single report
In this case, we find that suspension for three years
therewith shall render him liable. 31 Respondent should regarding the status of the cases.
recommended by the IBP is not sufficient punishment for
indeed be held liable, for he was not just incompetent, he
 2 21
the unacceptable acts and omissions of respondent. The  Id.  Id., p. 21.
acts of the respondent constitute malpractice and gross
misconduct in his office as attorney. His incompetence and 3 22
 Id., p. 5.  Id., p. 22.
appalling indifference to his duty to his client, the courts
and society render him unfit to continue discharging the
trust reposed in him as a member of the bar. We could not 4
 Id., p. 6. 23
 Id., p. 41.
find any mitigating circumstances to recommend a lighter
penalty. For violating elementary principles of professional 5 24
 Id., p. 7.  Id., p. 43.
ethics and failing to observe the fundamental duties of
honesty and good faith, the respondent has proven himself
unworthy of membership in this noble profession. 6
 Id., p. 8. 25
 In re Basa, 41 Phil. 275, 276 (1920), citing Bouvier's Law
Dictionary.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, respondent Atty. Godwin R. Valdez 7
 Id., p.9
is hereby DISBARRED and his name is ordered 26
 In re Gutierrez, AC No. L-363, July 31, 1962, 5 SCRA
STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys. He is ORDERED to 8 661.
immediately return to Torben B. Overgaard the amount of  Id., pp. 4, 45.
$16,854.00 or its equivalent in Philippine Currency at the 27
time of actual payment, with legal interest of six percent 9  Rollo at p. 4.
 Id., p. 5.
(6%) per annum from November 27, 2006, the date of
extra-judicial demand. A twelve percent (12%) interest per 10
28
 Id., at p. 26.
annum, in lieu of six percent (6%), shall be imposed on  Id, p. 46.
such amount from the date of promulgation of this decision 29
until the payment thereof. He is further ORDERED to 11  CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, Canon
 Id., p. 2.
immediately return all papers and documents received 17.
from the complainant. 12
 Id., p. 10 and 11. 30
 CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, Canon
Copies of this Decision shall be served on the Integrated 18.
13
Bar of the Philippines, the Office of the Bar Confidant and  Id., p. 72.
all courts. 31
 CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, Canon
14
 Id., p. 75. 18, Rule 18.03.
SO ORDERED.
32
15
 Id., p. 23-24.  CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, Canon
Puno, CJ., Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Carpio, 18, Rule 18.04.
Austria-Martinez, Corona,* Carpio Morales, Azcuna, 16
 Id., p. 12 and 40.
Tinga, Chico-Nazario, Velasco, Jr., Nachura, Reyes, 33
 Barnachea v. Quiocho, A.C. No. 5925, March 11, 2003,
Leonardo-De Castro, Andbrion, JJ., concur. 17 399 SCRA 1.
 The administrative complaint was docketed as CBD
Case No. 06-1894.
Endnotes: 34
 A.C. No. 5841, January 20, 2003, 395 SCRA 393.
18
 Rollo, p. 13.
35
 Id.
19
 Id., p. 19.
36
* On official leave.  See also Emiliano Court Townhouses Homeowners
20 Association v. Atty. Michael Dioneda, A.C. No. 5162,
 Id. March 20, 2003, 399 SCRA 296.
1
 Rollo, p. 3.
37
 People v. Santodides, G.R. No. 109149, December 21, The following day, complainant made a partial payment Date Amount
1999, 321 SCRA 310. of P15,000 to respondent thru their mutual friend Chua.
On November 17, 2004, she gave him an November 11, 2004 P15,000.00
38 additional P10,000. She paid the P5,000 balance on
 Maligsa v. Cabanting, A.C. No. 4539, May 14, 1997, 272
November 18, 2004. Both payments were also made thru A week after 10,000.00
SCRA 408, 413.
Chua. On all three occasions, respondent did not issue
any receipt. November 18, 2004 5,000.00
39
 Gatchalian Promotions Talents Pool, Inc. v.
Naldoza, A.C. No. 4017, September 29, 1999, 315 SCRA
On November 21, 2004, respondent received P18,000 4. That the above-mentioned amounts which I supposed
406.
from complainant for the purpose of posting a bond to as Attorney's Fees were immediately forwarded by me to
secure the provisional liberty of her (complainant's) son. Atty. [Macasa];
40
 Ere v. Rubi, A.C. No. 5176, December 14, 1999, 320 Again, respondent did not issue any receipt. When
SCRA 617. complainant went to the court the next day, she found out
that respondent did not remit the amount to the court. 5. That I am executing this affidavit in order to attest to the
truth of all the foregoing statements.
41
 Director of Religious Affairs v. Bayot, 74 Phil 477 (1944)
Complainant demanded the return of the P18,000 from
respondent on several occasions but respondent ignored x x x           x x x          x x x4
EN BANC her. Moreover, respondent failed to act on the case of
complainant's son and complainant was forced to avail of In a letter dated May 23, 2005,5 the IBP Negros Occidental
[A.C. NO. 7815 : July 23, 2009] the services of the Public Attorney's Office for her son's chapter transmitted the complaint to the IBP's Commission
defense. on Bar Discipline (CBD).6
DOLORES C. BELLEZA, Complainant, v. ATTY. ALAN S.
MACASA, Respondent. Thereafter, complainant filed a verified complaint2 for In an order dated July 13, 2005,7 the CBD required
disbarment against respondent in the Negros Occidental respondent to submit his answer within 15 days from
chapter of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). receipt thereof. Respondent, in an urgent motion for
RESOLUTION Attached to the verified complaint was the affidavit3 of extension of time to file an answer dated August 10,
Chua which read: 2005,8 simply brushed aside the complaint for being
PER CURIAM: "baseless, groundless and malicious" without, however,
I, JOE CHUA, of legal age, Filipino and resident of Purok offering any explanation. He also prayed that he be given
This treats of the complaint for disbarment filed by Sawmill, Brgy. Bata, Bacolod City, after having been sworn until September 4, 2005 to submit his answer.
complainant Dolores C. Belleza against respondent Atty. to in accordance with law, hereby depose and state:
Alan S. Macasa for unprofessional and unethical conduct Respondent subsequently filed urgent motions9 for second
in connection with the handling of a criminal case involving 1. That I am the one who introduce[d] Mrs. Dolores C. and third extensions of time praying to be given until
complainant's son. Belleza [to] Atty. Alan Macasa when she looked for a November 4, 2005 to submit his answer. He never did.
lawyer to help her son in the case that the latter is facing
On November 10, 2004, complainant went to see sometime [i]n [the] first week of November 2004; When both parties failed to attend the mandatory
respondent on referral of their mutual friend, Joe Chua. conference on April 19, 2006, they were ordered to submit
Complainant wanted to avail of respondent's legal services 2. That by reason of my mutual closeness to both of them, their respective position papers.10
in connection with the case of her son, Francis John I am the one who facilitated the payment of Mrs.
Belleza, who was arrested by policemen of Bacolod City DOLORES C. BELLEZA to Atty. Alan Macasa;
earlier that day for alleged violation of Republic Act (RA) In its report and recommendation dated October 2,
9165.1 Respondent agreed to handle the case 2007,11 the CBD ruled that respondent failed to rebut the
for P30,000. 3. That as far as I know, I received the following amount charges against him. He never answered the complaint
from Mrs. Dolores Belleza as payment for Atty. Alan despite several chances to do so.
Macasa:
The CBD found respondent guilty of violation of Rule 1.01 against him. In doing so, he failed to observe Rule 12.03 x x x           x x x          x x x
of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides: of the Code of Professional Responsibility:
Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, Rule 12.03 - A lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection
dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. of time to file pleadings, memoranda or briefs, let the therewith shall render him liable.
period lapse without submitting the same or offering an
explanation for his failure to do so.
It also found him guilty of violation of Rules 16.01 and x x x           x x x          x x x
16.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility:
Respondent also ignored the CBD's directive for him to file
CANON 19 - A LAWYER SHALL REPRESENT HIS
his position paper. His propensity to flout the orders of the
Rule 16.01 - A lawyer shall account for all money or CLIENT WITH ZEAL WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE
CBD showed his lack of concern and disrespect for the
property collected or received for or from the client. LAW.
proceedings of the CBD. He disregarded the oath he took
when he was accepted to the legal profession "to obey the
Rule 16.02 - A lawyer shall keep the funds of each client laws and the legal orders of the duly constituted legal A lawyer who accepts the cause of a client commits to
separate and apart from his own and those others kept by authorities." He displayed insolence not only to the CBD devote himself (particularly his time, knowledge, skills and
him. but also to this Court which is the source of the CBD's effort) to such cause. He must be ever mindful of the trust
authority. and confidence reposed in him, constantly striving to be
worthy thereof. Accordingly, he owes full devotion to the
The CBD ruled that respondent lacked good moral
interest of his client, warm zeal in the maintenance and
character and that he was unfit and unworthy of the Respondent's unjustified disregard of the lawful orders of
defense of his client's rights and the exertion of his utmost
privileges conferred by law on him as a member of the bar. the CBD was not only irresponsible but also constituted
learning, skill and ability to ensure that nothing shall be
The CBD recommended a suspension of six months with a utter disrespect for the judiciary and his fellow
taken or withheld from his client, save by the rules of law
stern warning that repetition of similar acts would merit a lawyers.13 His conduct was unbecoming of a lawyer who is
legally applied.16
more severe sanction. It also recommended that called upon to obey court orders and processes and is
respondent be ordered to return to complainant expected to stand foremost in complying with court
the P18,000 intended for the provisional liberty of the directives as an officer of the court.14 Respondent should A lawyer who accepts professional employment from a
complainant's son and the P30,000 attorney's fees. have known that the orders of the CBD (as the client undertakes to serve his client with competence and
investigating arm of the Court in administrative cases diligence.17 He must conscientiously perform his duty
against lawyers) were not mere requests but directives arising from such relationship. He must bear in mind that
The Board of Governors of the IBP adopted and approved which should have been complied with promptly and by accepting a retainer, he impliedly makes the following
the report and recommendation of the CBD with the completely.15 ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ representations: that he possesses the requisite degree of
modification that respondent be ordered to return to
learning, skill and ability other lawyers similarly situated
complainant only the amount of P30,000 which he
possess; that he will exert his best judgment in the
received as attorney's fees.12 Respondent Grossly Neglected
prosecution or defense of the litigation entrusted to him;
The Cause of His Client
that he will exercise reasonable care and diligence in the
We affirm the CBD's finding of guilt as affirmed by the IBP use of his skill and in the application of his knowledge to
Board of Governors but we modify the IBP's Respondent undertook to defend the criminal case against his client's cause; and that he will take all steps necessary
recommendation as to the liability of respondent. complainant's son. Such undertaking imposed upon him to adequately safeguard his client's
the following duties: interest.18 ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ
Respondent Disrespected
Legal Processes CANON 17 - A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE A lawyer's negligence in the discharge of his obligations
CAUSE OF HIS CLIENT AND HE SHALL BE MINDFUL arising from the relationship of counsel and client may
OF THE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM. cause delay in the administration of justice and prejudice
Respondent was given more than enough opportunity to the rights of a litigant, particularly his client. Thus, from the
answer the charges against him. Yet, he showed perspective of the ethics of the legal profession, a lawyer's
indifference to the orders of the CBD for him to answer CANON 18 - A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT
lethargy in carrying out his duties to his client is both
and refute the accusations of professional misconduct WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.
unprofessional and unethical.19
If his client's case is already pending in court, a lawyer In this case, after accepting the criminal case against Respondent never denied receiving P18,000 from
must actively represent his client by promptly filing the complainant's son and receiving his attorney's fees, complainant for the purpose of posting a bond to secure
necessary pleading or motion and assiduously attending respondent did nothing that could be considered as the provisional liberty of her son. He never used the
the scheduled hearings. This is specially significant for a effective and efficient legal assistance. For all intents and money for its intended purpose yet also never returned it
lawyer who represents an accused in a criminal case. purposes, respondent abandoned the cause of his client. to the client. Worse, he unjustifiably refused to turn over
Indeed, on account of respondent's continued inaction, the amount to complainant despite the latter's repeated
complainant was compelled to seek the services of the demands.
The accused is guaranteed the right to counsel under the
Public Attorney's Office. Respondent's lackadaisical
Constitution.20 However, this right can only be meaningful
attitude towards the case of complainant's son was
if the accused is accorded ample legal assistance by his Moreover, respondent rendered no service that would
reprehensible. Not only did it prejudice complainant's son,
lawyer: have entitled him to the P30,000 attorney's fees. As a rule,
it also deprived him of his constitutional right to counsel.
the right of a lawyer to a reasonable compensation for his
Furthermore, in failing to use the amount entrusted to him
services is subject to two requisites: (1) the existence of an
... The right to counsel proceeds from the fundamental for posting a bond to secure the provisional liberty of his
attorney-client relationship and (2) the rendition by the
principle of due process which basically means that a client, respondent unduly impeded the latter's
lawyer of services to the client. 31 Thus, a lawyer who does
person must be heard before being condemned. The due constitutional right to bail.
not render legal services is not entitled to attorney's fees.
process requirement is a part of a person's basic rights; it
Otherwise, not only would he be unjustly enriched at the
is not a mere formality that may be dispensed with or
Respondent Failed to Return expense of the client, he would also be rewarded for his
performed perfunctorily.
His Client's Money negligence and irresponsibility.

The right to counsel must be more than just the presence

The fiduciary nature of the relationship between counsel Respondent Failed to Uphold the Integrity and Dignity
of a lawyer in the courtroom or the mere propounding of
and client imposes on a lawyer the duty to account for the of the Legal Profession
standard questions and objections. The right to counsel
money or property collected or received for or from the
means that the accused is amply accorded legal
client.25
assistance extended by a counsel who commits himself to For his failure to comply with the exacting ethical
the cause for the defense and acts accordingly. The right standards of the legal profession, respondent failed to
assumes an active involvement by the lawyer in the When a lawyer collects or receives money from his client obey Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility:
proceedings, particularly at the trial of the case, his for a particular purpose (such as for filing fees, registration
bearing constantly in mind of the basic rights of the fees, transportation and office expenses), he should
CANON 7. A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD
accused, his being well-versed on the case, and his promptly account to the client how the money was spent. If
THE INTEGRITY AND THE DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL
knowing the fundamental procedures, essential laws and he does not use the money for its intended purpose, he
PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE
existing jurisprudence.21 must immediately return it to the client.26 His failure either
INTEGRATED BAR. (emphasis supplied)
to render an accounting or to return the money (if the
intended purpose of the money does not materialize)
' ∞ - ○ - ∞'
constitutes a blatant disregard of Rule 16.01 of the Code Indeed, a lawyer who fails to abide by the Canons and
of Professional Responsibility. 27 Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility
[T]he right of an accused to counsel is beyond question a disrespects the said Code and everything that it stands for.
fundamental right. Without counsel, the right to a fair trial In so doing, he disregards the ethics and disgraces the
Moreover, a lawyer has the duty to deliver his client's
itself would be of little consequence, for it is through dignity of the legal profession.
funds or properties as they fall due or upon demand.28 His
counsel that the accused secures his other rights. In other
failure to return the client's money upon demand gives rise
words, the right to counsel is the right to effective
to the presumption that he has misappropriated it for his Lawyers should always live up to the ethical standards of
assistance of counsel.22
own use to the prejudice of and in violation of the trust the legal profession as embodied in the Code of
reposed in him by the client. 29 It is a gross violation of Professional Responsibility. Public confidence in law and
The right of an accused to counsel finds substance in the general morality as well as of professional ethics; it impairs in lawyers may be eroded by the irresponsible and
performance by the lawyer of his sworn duty of fidelity to public confidence in the legal profession and deserves improper conduct of a member of the bar.32 Thus, every
his client.23 Tersely put, it means an effective, efficient and punishment.30 Indeed, it may border on the criminal as it lawyer should act and comport himself in a manner that
truly decisive legal assistance, not a simply perfunctory may constitute a prima facie case of swindling or estafa. would promote public confidence in the integrity of the
representation.24 legal profession.33
 * 16
Respondent was undeserving of the trust reposed in him.  On official leave.  Edquibal v. Ferrer, Jr., A.C. No. 5687, 3 February 2005,
Instead of using the money for the bond of the 450 SCRA 406.
complainant's son, he pocketed it. He failed to observe 1
 Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
candor, fairness and loyalty in his dealings with his 17
 See Canon 18 of the Code of Professional
client.34 He failed to live up to his fiduciary duties. By
Responsibility.
keeping the money for himself despite his undertaking that 2
 Rollo, pp. 2-5.
he would facilitate the release of complainant's son,
respondent showed lack of moral principles. His 3
18
 Islas v. Platon, 47 Phil. 162 (1924).
 Annex "A" of the Complaint. Id., p. 6.
transgression showed him to be a swindler, a deceitful
person and a shame to the legal profession. 19
4  See Villaflores v. Limos, A.C. No. 7504, 23 November
 Id.
2007, 538 SCRA 140.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Alan S. Macasa is hereby
found GUILTY not only of dishonesty but also of 5
 Id., p. 1. 20
 See Section 14(2), Article III, Constitution.
professional misconduct for prejudicing Francis John
Belleza's right to counsel and to bail under Sections 13 6
and 14(2), Article III of the Constitution, and for violating  The CBD docketed the complaint as CBD Case No. 05- 21
 People v. Molina, 423 Phil. 637 (2001).
Canons 1, 7, 17, 18 and 19 and Rules 12.03, 16.01, 16.02, 1524.
16.03 and 18.03 of the Code of Professional 22
Responsibility. He is therefore DISBARRED from the 7  Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 US 365 (1986) cited
 Id., p. 8.
practice of law effective immediately. in People v. Liwanag, 415 Phil. 271 (2001).
8
 Id., pp. 9-10. 23
Respondent is hereby ORDERED to return to complainant  Callangan v. People, G.R. No. 153414, 27 June 2006,
Dolores C. Belleza the amounts of P30,000 and P18,000 493 SCRA 269 citing People v. Ferrer, 454 Phil. 431
with interest at 12% per annum from the date of
9
 Dated September 2, 2005 and October 4, 2005, (2003).
promulgation of this decision until full payment. respectively. Id., pp. 16-17 and 21-22, respectively.
Respondent is further DIRECTED to submit to the Court 24
 Id.
proof of payment of the amount within ten days from 10
 Order dated April 19, 2006. Id., p. 27.
payment. Failure to do so will subject him to criminal 25
prosecution.  See Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional
Despite receipt by the parties of the order, no position Responsibility.
paper was filed. Hence, the investigating commissioner
Let copies of this resolution be furnished the Office of the resolved the case based on the pleadings and papers 26
Bar Confidant to be entered into the records of respondent  In re Nueno, 48 Phil. 178 (1948).
available to him.
Atty. Alan S. Macasa and the Office of the Court
Administrator to be furnished to the courts of the land for 11
27
 See Atty. Navarro v. Atty. Meneses III, 349 Phil. 520
their information and guidance.  Prepared and signed by CBD Commissioner Salvador B.
(1998).
Hababag. Id., pp. 32-36.

SO ORDERED. 12
28
 Rule 16.03 - A lawyer shall deliver the funds and
 Resolution No. XVIII-2007-182 dated October 12, 2007.
property of his client when due or upon demand. However,
he shall have a lien over the funds and may apply so much
13
 Sibulo v. Ilagan, A.C. No. 4711, 25 November 2004, 486 thereof as may be necessary to satisfy his lawful fees and
Phil. 197 (2004). disbursements, giving notice promptly thereafter to his
client. He shall also have a lien to the same extent on all
Endnotes: 14 judgments and executions he has secured for his client as
 Id. provided for in the Rules of Court.

15
 Id. 29
 Pentecostes v. Ibañez, 363 Phil. 624 (1999).
30
 Id. In complainant's Affidavit,2 complainant and respondent In a letter3 dated May 24, 2000, complainant reiterated his
agreed that complainant was to pay respondent Twenty demand for the return of the owner's duplicate of the OCT.
31 Thousand Pesos (PhP20,000.00) as acceptance fee and On June 11, 2000, complainant made the same demand
 Arce v. Philippine National Bank, 62 Phil. 570 (1935).
Two Thousand Pesos (PhP2,000.00) as appearance fee. on respondent over the telephone. Respondent reiterated
Complainant paid respondent the amounts due him, as his previous demand and angrily told complainant to
32
 Ducat v. Villalon, 392 Phil. 394 (2000). evidenced by receipts duly signed by the latter. During the comply, and threatened to have the OCT cancelled if the
last hearing of the case, respondent demanded the latter refused to pay him.
33 additional amount of Ten Thousand Pesos
 Id. (PhP10,000.00) for the preparation of a memorandum,
On June 26, 2000, complainant learned that on April 6,
which he said would further strengthen complainant's
2000, respondent registered an adverse claim on the
34
 CANON 15 - A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR, position in the case, plus twenty percent (20%) of the total
subject OCT wherein he claimed that the agreement on
FAIRNESS AND LOYALTY IN ALL HIS DEALINGS AND area of the subject property as additional fees for his
the payment of his legal services was 20% of the property
TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS CLIENT. services.
and/or actual market value. To date, respondent has not
returned the owner's duplicate of OCT No. 0-94 to
THIRD DIVISION Complainant did not accede to respondent's demand for it complainant and his co-heirs despite repeated demands to
was contrary to their agreement. Moreover, complainant effect the same.
co-owned the subject property with his siblings, and he
A.C. No. 6281               September 26, 2011 could not have agreed to the amount being demanded by
In seeking the disbarment or the imposition of the
respondent without the knowledge and approval of his co-
appropriate penalty upon respondent, complainant invokes
VALENTIN C. MIRANDA, Complainant, heirs. As a result of complainant's refusal to satisfy
the following provisions of the Code of Professional
vs. respondent's demands, the latter became furious and their
Responsibility:
ATTY. MACARIO D. CARPIO, Respondent. relationship became sore.

Canon 20. A lawyer shall charge only fair and reasonable

DECISION On January 12, 1998, a Decision was rendered in LRC
fees.
Case No. M-226, granting the petition for registration,
which Decision was declared final and executory in an
PERALTA, J.: Order dated June 5, 1998. On March 24, 2000, the Land Canon 16. A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and
Registration Authority (LRA) sent complainant a copy of properties of his client that may come into his possession.
This is a disbarment case against Atty. Macario D. Carpio the letter addressed to the Register of Deeds (RD) of Las
filed by Valentin C. Miranda. 1 Piñas City, which transmitted the decree of registration
Canon 16.03. A lawyer shall deliver the funds and
and the original and owner's duplicate of the title of the
properties of his client when due or upon demand. x x x
property.
The facts, as culled from the records, are as follows:
In defense of his actions, respondent relied on his alleged
On April 3, 2000, complainant went to the RD to get the
Complainant Valentin C. Miranda is one of the owners of a retaining lien over the owner's duplicate of OCT No. 0-94.
owner's duplicate of the Original Certificate of Title (OCT)
parcel of land consisting of 1,890 square meters located at Respondent admitted that he did not turn over to
bearing No. 0-94. He was surprised to discover that the
Barangay Lupang Uno, Las Piñas, Metro Manila. In 1994, complainant the owner's duplicate of OCT No. 0-94
same had already been claimed by and released to
complainant initiated Land Registration Commission (LRC) because of complainant's refusal, notwithstanding
respondent on March 29, 2000. On May 4, 2000,
Case No. M-226 for the registration of the aforesaid repeated demands, to complete payment of his agreed
complainant talked to respondent on the phone and asked
property. The case was filed before the Regional Trial professional fee consisting of 20% of the total area of the
him to turn over the owner's duplicate of the OCT, which
Court of Las Piñas City, Branch 275. During the course of property covered by the title, i.e., 378 square meters out of
he had claimed without complainant's knowledge, consent
the proceedings, complainant engaged the services of 1,890 square meters, or its equivalent market value at the
and authority. Respondent insisted that complainant first
respondent Atty. Carpio as counsel in the said case when rate of PhP7,000.00 per square meter, thus, yielding a
pay him the PhP10,000.00 and the 20% share in the
his original counsel, Atty. Samuel Marquez, figured in a sum of PhP2,646,000.00 for the entire 378-square-meter
property equivalent to 378 square meters, in exchange for
vehicular accident. portion and that he was ready and willing to turn over the
which, respondent would deliver the owner's duplicate of
owner's duplicate of OCT No. 0-94, should complainant
the OCT. Once again, complainant refused the demand,
pay him completely the aforesaid professional fee.
for not having been agreed upon.
Respondent admitted the receipt of the amount of and recommendations of the IBP-CBD. Respondent's professional fee consisting of 20% of the total area
PhP32,000.00, however, he alleged that the amount claim for his unpaid professional fees that would legally covered by OCT No. 0-94. The agreement between the
earlier paid to him will be deducted from the 20% of the give him the right to retain the property of his client until he parties only shows that respondent will be paid the
current value of the subject lot. He alleged that the receives what is allegedly due him has been paid has no acceptance fee and the appearance fees, which the
agreement was not reduced into writing, because the basis and, thus, is invalid. respondent has duly received. Clearly, there is
parties believed each other based on their mutual trust. He no unsatisfied claim for attorney's fees that would entitle
denied that he demanded the payment of PhP10,000.00 respondent to retain his client's property. Hence,
Section 37, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court specifically
for the preparation of a memorandum, since he considered respondent could not validly withhold the title of his client
provides:
the same unnecessary. absence a clear and justifiable claim.

Section 37. Attorney’s liens. – An attorney shall have a lien

In addition to the alleged agreement between him and Respondent's unjustified act of holding on to complainant's
upon the funds, documents and papers of his client, which
complainant for the payment of the 20% professional fees, title with the obvious aim of forcing complainant to agree to
have lawfully come into his possession and may retain the
respondent invoked the principle of "quantum meruit" to the amount of attorney's fees sought is an alarming abuse
same until his lawful fees and disbursements have been
justify the amount being demanded by him. by respondent of the exercise of an attorney's retaining
paid, and may apply such funds to the satisfaction thereof.
lien, which by no means is an absolute right, and cannot at
He shall also have a lien to the same extent upon all
all justify inordinate delay in the delivery of money and
In its Report and Recommendation4 dated June 9, 2005, judgments for the payment of money, and executions
property to his client when due or upon demand. 11
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Commission on Bar issued in pursuance of such judgments, which he has
Discipline (IBP-CBD) recommended that respondent be secured in a litigation of his client, from and after the time
suspended from the practice of law for a period of six (6) when he shall have caused a statement of his claim of Atty. Carpio failed to live up to his duties as a lawyer by
months for unjustly withholding from complainant the such lien to be entered upon the records of the court unlawfully withholding and failing to deliver the title of the
owner's duplicate of OCT No. 0-94 in the exercise of his rendering such judgment, or issuing such execution, and complainant, despite repeated demands, in the guise of an
so-called attorney's lien. In Resolution No. XVII-2005- shall have caused written notice thereof to be delivered to alleged entitlement to additional professional fees. He has
173,5 dated December 17, 2005, the IBP Board of his client and to the adverse party; and he shall have the breached Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 and Rule 16.03 of Canon
Governors adopted and approved the Report and same right and power over such judgments and 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which read:
Recommendation of the IBP-CBD. executions as his client would have to enforce his lien and
secure the payment of his just fees and disbursements.
CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE
Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration of the CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND
resolution of the IBP Board of Governors adopting the An attorney's retaining lien is fully recognized if the PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL
report and recommendation of the IBP-CBD. Pending the presence of the following elements concur: (1) lawyer- PROCESS.
resolution of his motion for reconsideration, respondent client relationship; (2) lawful possession of the client's
filed a petition for review6 with this Court. The Court, in a funds, documents and papers; and (3) unsatisfied claim
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
Resolution7 dated August 16, 2006, directed that the case for attorney's fees.9 Further, the attorney's retaining lien is
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
be remanded to the IBP for proper disposition, pursuant to a general lien for the balance of the account between the
this Court's resolution in Noriel J. Ramientas v. Atty. attorney and his client, and applies to the documents and
Jocelyn P. Reyala.8 funds of the client which may come into the attorney's CANON 16 - A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL
possession in the course of his employment. 10 MONEYS AND PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT THAT
MAY COME INTO HIS POSSESSION.
In Notice of Resolution No. XVIII-2008-672, dated
December 11, 2008, the IBP Board of Governors affirmed In the present case, complainant claims that there is no
Resolution No. XVII-2005-173, dated December 17, 2005, such agreement for the payment of professional fee Rule 16.03 - A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property
with modification that respondent is ordered to return the consisting of 20% of the total area of the subject property of his client when due or upon demand.1âwphi1 However,
complainant's owner's duplicate of OCT No. 0-94 within and submits that their agreement was only for the payment he shall have a lien over the funds and may apply so much
fifteen days from receipt of notice. Hence, the present of the acceptance fee and the appearance fees. thereof as may be necessary to satisfy his lawful fees and
petition. disbursements, giving notice promptly thereafter to his
client. He shall also have a lien to the same extent on all
As correctly found by the IBP-CBD, there was no proof of
judgments and executions he has secured for his client as
The Court sustains the resolution of the IBP Board of any agreement between the complainant and the
provided for in the Rules of Court.
Governors, which affirmed with modification the findings respondent that the latter is entitled to an additional
Further, in collecting from complainant exorbitant fees, to save his client the time and effort in going to the RD to PEREZ* MENDOZA
respondent violated Canon 20 of the Code of Professional get the title. Associate Justice Associate Justice
Responsibility, which mandates that "a lawyer shall charge
only fair and reasonable fees." It is highly improper for a
Respondent's inexcusable act of withholding the property ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE
lawyer to impose additional professional fees upon his
belonging to his client and imposing unwarranted fees in Associate Justice
client which were never mentioned nor agreed upon at the
exchange for the release of said title deserve the
time of the engagement of his services. At the outset,
imposition of disciplinary sanction. Hence, the ruling of the
respondent should have informed the complainant of all
IBP Board of Governors, adopting and approving with
the fees or possible fees that he would charge before
modification the report and recommendation of the IBP-
handling the case and not towards the near conclusion of
CBD that respondent be suspended from the practice of
the case. This is essential in order for the complainant to
law for a period of six (6) months and that respondent be
determine if he has the financial capacity to pay Footnotes
ordered to return the complainant's owner's duplicate of
respondent before engaging his services.
OCT No. 0-94 is hereby affirmed. However, the fifteen-day
period from notice given to respondent within which to * Designated additional member in lieu of
Respondent's further submission that he is entitled to the return the title should be modified and, instead, Associate Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., per
payment of additional professional fees on the basis of the respondent should return the same immediately upon Special Order No. 1102 dated September 21,
principle of quantum meruit has no merit. "Quantum receipt of the Court's decision. 2011.
meruit, meaning `as much as he deserved' is used as a
basis for determining the lawyer's professional fees in the
WHEREFORE, Atty. Macario D. Carpio is SUSPENDED 1
 The case was initially referred by this Court to
absence of a contract but recoverable by him from his
from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for
client."12 The principle of quantum meruit applies if a
effective upon receipt of this Decision. He is ordered to investigation, report and recommendation and
lawyer is employed without a price agreed upon for his
RETURN to the complainant the owner's duplicate of OCT docketed as ADM. Case No. 6281; rollo, p. 36.
services. In such a case, he would be entitled to receive
No. 0-94 immediately upon receipt of this decision. He is
what he merits for his services, as much as he has
WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar act shall
earned.13 In the present case, the parties had already 2
 Rollo, pp. 7-10.
be dealt with more severely.
entered into an agreement as to the attorney's fees of the
respondent, and thus, the principle of quantum 3
meruit does not fully find application because the Let a copy of this Decision be furnished to the Office of the  Id. at 24.
respondent is already compensated by such agreement. Bar Confidant, to be appended to the personal record of
Atty. Macario D. Carpio as a member of the Bar; the 4
 Id. at 312-323.
Integrated Bar of the Philippines; and the Office of the
The Court notes that respondent did not inform
Court Administrator for circulation to all courts in the
complainant that he will be the one to secure the owner's 5
 Id. at 311.
country for their information and guidance.
duplicate of the OCT from the RD and failed to
immediately inform complainant that the title was already
6
in his possession. Complainant, on April 3, 2000, went to SO ORDERED.  Id. at 273-281.
the RD of Las Piñas City to get the owner's duplicate of
OCT No. 0-94, only to be surprised that the said title had 7
 Id. at 325.
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
already been claimed by, and released to, respondent on
Associate Justice
March 29, 2000. A lawyer must conduct himself, especially
8
in his dealings with his clients, with integrity in a manner  A.C. No. 7055, July 31, 2006, 497 SCRA 130,
that is beyond reproach. His relationship with his clients WE CONCUR: 137-138. In that case, the Court held that:
should be characterized by the highest degree of good
faith and fairness.14 By keeping secret with the client his In concurrence with the above, now,
acquisition of the title, respondent was not fair in his ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice therefore, BE IT RESOLVED, as it is
dealing with his client. Respondent could have easily hereby resolved, that in accordance
informed the complainant immediately of his receipt of the with our ruling in Halimao v.
owner's duplicate of the OCT on March 29, 2000, in order JOSE PORTUGAL JOSE CATRAL Villanueva, pertinent provisions of
Rule III of the Rules of Procedure of 5. For records of cases already received from his client;1 and (2) violating the prohibition on
the Commission on Bar Discipline, as transmitted to this Court where there representing conflicting interests.2
contained in the By-Laws of the IBP, exist pending motions for
particularly §1 and §2, are hereby reconsideration filed in due time
In her complaint, Josefina M. Aniñon (complainant) related
deemed amended. Accordingly, §1 of before the IBP, the latter is directed to
that she previously engaged the legal services of Atty.
said rules now reads as follows: withdraw from this Court the subject
Sabitsana in the preparation and execution in her favor of
resolutions, together with the whole
a Deed of Sale over a parcel of land owned by her late
records of the cases, within 30 days
SECTION. 1. Pleadings. - The only common-law husband, Brigido Caneja, Jr. Atty. Sabitsana
from notice, and, thereafter, to act on
pleadings allowed are verified allegedly violated her confidence when he subsequently
said motions with reasonable
complaint, verified answer, verified filed a civil case against her for the annulment of the Deed
dispatch.
position papers and motion for of Sale in behalf of Zenaida L. Cañete, the legal wife of
reconsideration of a Brigido Caneja, Jr. The complainant accused Atty.
9
resolution. (Emphasis supplied.)  Ampil v. Hon. Agrava, 145 Phil. 297, 303 Sabitsana of using the confidential information he obtained
(1970). (Emphasis supplied) from her in filing the civil case.
And in §2, a motion for
10
reconsideration is, thus, removed from  Id. at 305-306. Atty. Sabitsana admitted having advised the complainant
the purview of the class of prohibited in the preparation and execution of the Deed of Sale.
pleadings. Further, the following 11 However, he denied having received any confidential
 Lemoine v. Atty. Balon, Jr., 460 Phil. 702, 714
guidelines shall be observed by the information. Atty. Sabitsana asserted that the present
(2003).
IBP in respect of disciplinary cases disbarment complaint was instigated by one Atty. Gabino
against lawyers: Velasquez, Jr., the notary of the disbarment complaint who
12
 Rilloroza v. Eastern Telecommunications lost a court case against him (Atty. Sabitsana) and had
Phils., Inc., 369 Phil. 1, 11 (1999). instigated the complaint for this reason.
1. The IBP must first afford
a chance to either party to
file a motion for 13
 Lorenzo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 85383, The Findings of the IBP Investigating Commissioner
reconsideration of the IBP August 30, 1990, 189 SCRA 260, 264.
resolution containing its
In our Resolution dated November 22, 1999, we referred
findings and 14
 Schulz v. Atty. Flores, 462 Phil. 601, 613 the disbarment complaint to the Commission on Bar
recommendations within
(2003). Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for
fifteen (15) days from notice
investigation, report and recommendation. In his Report
of receipt by the parties
and Recommendation dated November 28, 2003, IBP
thereon; A.C. No. 5098               April 11, 2012 Commissioner Pedro A. Magpayo Jr. found Atty.
Sabitsana administratively liable for representing
2. If a motion for JOSEFINA M. ANIÑON, Complainant, conflicting interests. The IBP Commissioner opined:
reconsideration has been vs.
timely filed by an aggrieved ATTY. CLEMENCIO SABITSANA, JR., Respondent. In Bautista vs. Barrios, it was held that a lawyer may not
party, the IBP must first
handle a case to nullify a contract which he prepared and
resolve the same prior to
DECISION thereby take up inconsistent positions. Granting that
elevating to this Court the
Zenaida L. Cañete, respondent’s present client in Civil
subject resolution together
Case No. B-1060 did not initially learn about the sale
with the whole record of the BRION, J.: executed by Bontes in favor of complainant thru the
case;
confidences and information divulged by complainant to
We resolve this disbarment complaint against Atty. respondent in the course of the preparation of the said
xxxx Clemencio Sabitsana, Jr. who is charged of: (1) violating deed of sale, respondent nonetheless has a duty to
the lawyer’s duty to preserve confidential information decline his current employment as counsel of Zenaida
Cañete in view of the rule prohibiting representation of The issue in this case is whether Atty. Sabitsana is guilty Jurisprudence has provided three tests in determining
conflicting interests. of misconduct for representing conflicting interests. whether a violation of the above rule is present in a given
case.
In re De la Rosa clearly suggests that a lawyer may not The Court’s Ruling
represent conflicting interests in the absence of the written One test is whether a lawyer is duty-bound to fight for an
consent of all parties concerned given after a full issue or claim in behalf of one client and, at the same time,
After a careful study of the records, we agree with the
disclosure of the facts. In the present case, no such written to oppose that claim for the other
findings and recommendations of the IBP Commissioner
consent was secured by respondent before accepting client.http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/aug200
and the IBP Board of Governors.
employment as Mrs. Cañete’s counsel-of-record. x x x 5/ac_6708.htm - _ftn Thus, if a lawyer’s argument for one
client has to be opposed by that same lawyer in arguing
The relationship between a lawyer and his/her client for the other client, there is a violation of the rule.
xxx
should ideally be imbued with the highest level of trust and
confidence. This is the standard of confidentiality that must
Another test of inconsistency of interests is whether the
Complainant and respondent’s present client, being prevail to promote a full disclosure of the client’s most
acceptance of a new relation would prevent the full
contending claimants to the same property, the conflict of confidential information to his/her lawyer for an
discharge of the lawyer’s duty of undivided fidelity and
interest is obviously present. There is said to be unhampered exchange of information between them.
loyalty to the client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or
inconsistency of interest when on behalf of one client, it is Needless to state, a client can only entrust confidential
double-dealing in the performance of that
the attorney’s duty to contend for that which his duty to information to his/her lawyer based on an expectation from
duty.http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/aug2005
another client requires him to oppose. In brief, if he argues the lawyer of utmost secrecy and discretion; the lawyer, for
/ac_6708.htm - _ftn Still another test is whether the lawyer
for one client this argument will be opposed by him when his part, is duty-bound to observe candor, fairness and
would be called upon in the new relation to use against a
he argues for the other client. Such is the case with which loyalty in all dealings and transactions with the client. 6 Part
former client any confidential information acquired through
we are now confronted, respondent being asked by one of the lawyer’s duty in this regard is to avoid representing
their connection or previous
client to nullify what he had formerly notarized as a true conflicting interests, a matter covered by Rule 15.03,
employment.10 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005
and valid sale between Bontes and the complainant. Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
/aug2005/ac_6708.htm - _ftn [emphasis ours]
(footnotes omitted) 3 quoted below:

On the basis of the attendant facts of the case, we find

The IBP Commissioner recommended that Atty. Sabitsana Rule 15.03. -A lawyer shall not represent conflicting
substantial evidence to support Atty. Sabitsana’s violation
be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one interests except by written consent of all concerned given
of the above rule, as established by the following
(1) year.4 after a full disclosure of the facts.
circumstances on record:

The Findings of the IBP Board of Governors "The proscription against representation of conflicting
One, his legal services were initially engaged by
interests applies to a situation where the opposing parties
the complainant to protect her interest over a
are present clients in the same action or in an unrelated
In a resolution dated February 27, 2004, the IBP Board of certain property. The records show that upon the
action."7 The prohibition also applies even if the "lawyer
Governors resolved to adopt and approve the Report and legal advice of Atty. Sabitsana, the Deed of Sale
would not be called upon to contend for one client that
Recommendation of the IBP Commissioner after finding it over the property was prepared and executed in
which the lawyer has to oppose for the other client, or that
to be fully supported by the evidence on record, the the complainant’s favor.
there would be no occasion to use the confidential
applicable laws and rules.5 The IBP Board of Governors
information acquired from one to the disadvantage of the
agreed with the IBP Commissioner’s recommended
other as the two actions are wholly unrelated."8 To be held Two, Atty. Sabitsana met with Zenaida Cañete
penalty.
accountable under this rule, it is "enough that the opposing to discuss the latter’s legal interest over the
parties in one case, one of whom would lose the suit, are property subject of the Deed of Sale. At that
Atty. Sabitsana moved to reconsider the above resolution, present clients and the nature or conditions of the lawyer’s point, Atty. Sabitsana already had knowledge
but the IBP Board of Governors denied his motion in a respective retainers with each of them would affect the that Zenaida Cañete’s interest clashed with the
resolution dated July 30, 2004. performance of the duty of undivided fidelity to both complainant’s interests.
clients."9
The Issue
 Three, despite the knowledge of the clashing penalty is consistent with existing jurisprudence on the administrative proceedings, the opportunity to explain
interests between his two clients, Atty. administrative offense of representing conflicting one’s side or the opportunity to seek a reconsideration of
Sabitsana accepted the engagement from interests.12 the action or ruling complained of.15 These opportunities
Zenaida Cañete. were all afforded to Atty. Sabitsana, as shown by the
above circumstances.
We note that Atty. Sabitsana takes exception to the IBP
Four, Atty. Sabitsana’s actual knowledge of the recommendation on the ground that the charge in the
conflicting interests between his two clients was complaint was only for his alleged disclosure of All told, disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui
demonstrated by his own actions: first, he filed a confidential information, not for representation of generis.16 In the exercise of its disciplinary powers, the
case against the complainant in behalf of conflicting interests. To Atty. Sabitsana, finding him liable Court merely calls upon a member of the Bar to account
Zenaida Cañete; second, he impleaded the for the latter offense is a violation of his due process rights for his actuations as an officer of the Court with the end in
complainant as the defendant in the case; and since he only answered the designated charge. view of preserving the purity of the legal profession. We
third, the case he filed was for the annulment of likewise aim to ensure the proper and honest
the Deed of Sale that he had previously administration of justice by purging the profession of
We find no violation of Atty. Sabitsana’s due process
prepared and executed for the complainant. members who, by their misconduct, have proven
rights. Although there was indeed a specific charge in the
themselves no longer worthy to be entrusted with the
complaint, we are not unmindful that the complaint itself
duties and responsibilities of an attorney.17 This is all that
By his acts, not only did Atty. Sabitsana agree to represent contained allegations of acts sufficient to constitute a
we did in this case. Significantly, we did this to a degree
one client against another client in the same action; he violation of the rule on the prohibition against representing
very much lesser than what the powers of this Court allows
also accepted a new engagement that entailed him to conflicting interests. As stated in paragraph 8 of the
it to do in terms of the imposable penalty. In this sense, we
contend and oppose the interest of his other client in a complaint:
have already been lenient towards respondent lawyer.
property in which his legal services had been previously
retained.
Atty. Sabitsana, Jr. accepted the commission as a Lawyer
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court resolves to
of ZENAIDA CANEJA, now Zenaida Cañete, to recover
ADOPT the findings and recommendations of the
To be sure, Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of lands from Complainant, including this land where lawyer
Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the
Professional Responsibility provides an exception to the Atty. Sabitsana, Jr. has advised his client [complainant] to
Philippines. Atty. Clemencio C. Sabitsana, Jr. is found
above prohibition. However, we find no reason to apply the execute the second sale[.]
GUILTY of misconduct for representing conflicting
exception due to Atty. Sabitsana’s failure to comply with
interests in violation of Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code
the requirements set forth under the rule. Atty. Sabitsana
Interestingly, Atty. Sabitsana even admitted these of Professional Responsibility. He is hereby SUSPENDED
did not make a full disclosure of facts to the complainant
allegations in his answer.13 He also averred in his Answer for one (1) year from the practice of law.
and to Zenaida Cañete before he accepted the new
that:
engagement with Zenaida Cañete. The records likewise
show that although Atty. Sabitsana wrote a letter to the Atty. Sabitsana is DIRECTED to inform the Court of the
complainant informing her of Zenaida Cañete’s adverse 6b. Because the defendant-to-be in the complaint (Civil date of his receipt of this Decision so that we can
claim to the property covered by the Deed of Sale and, Case No. B-1060) that he would file on behalf of Zenaida determine the reckoning point when his suspension shall
urging her to settle the adverse claim; Atty. Sabitsana Caneja-Cañete was his former client (herein complainant), take effect.
however did not disclose to the complainant that he was respondent asked [the] permission of Mrs. Cañete (which
also being engaged as counsel by Zenaida she granted) that he would first write a letter (Annex "4") to
SO ORDERED.
Cañete.11 Moreover, the records show that Atty. Sabitsana the complainant proposing to settle the case amicably
failed to obtain the written consent of his two clients, as between them but complainant ignored it. Neither did she
required by Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of object to respondent’s handling the case in behalf of Mrs. ARTURO D. BRION
Professional Responsibility. Cañete on the ground she is now invoking in her instant Associate Justice
complaint. So respondent felt free to file the complaint
against her.14 1âwphi1
Accordingly, we find — as the IBP Board of Governors did WE CONCUR:
— Atty. Sabitsana guilty of misconduct for representing
conflicting interests. We likewise agree with the penalty of We have consistently held that the essence of due
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA*
suspension for one (1) year from the practice of law process is simply the opportunity to be informed of the
Chief Justice
recommended by the IBP Board of Governors. This charge against oneself and to be heard or, as applied to
Associate Justice
 JOSE PORTUGAL MARIA LOURDES P. A. Pormento, Sr. v. Pontevedra, A.C. No. 5128,
PEREZ SERENO March 31, 2005, 454 SCRA 167; and Ruben E.
Associate Justice Associate Justice Agpalo, Legal Ethics 223 (6th ed. 1997), citing
Memphis & Shelby County Bar Ass’n v.
Sanderson, 52 Tenn. App. 684; 378 SW2d 173
BIENVENIDO L. REYES (1963); B.A. Op. 132 (15 March 1935).
Associate Justice
11 
Rollo. p. 82.

12 
Quiambao v. Bamba, supra note 7, at 16,
citing Vda. de Alisbo v. Jalandoon, Sr., Adm.
Footnotes Case No. 1311, July 18, 1991, 199 SCRA 321;
Philippine National Bank v. Cedo, Adm. Case
No. 3701, March 28, 1995, 243 SCRA 1;
* Additional Member vice Justice Antonio T. Maturan v. Gonzales, A.C. No. 2597, March 12,
Carpio per raffle dated March 19, 2012. 1998, 287 SCRA 443; and Northwestern
University, Inc. v. Arquillo, A.C. No. 6632,
1 
Rollo, pp. 5-6. See paragraphs 6, 9 and 10 of August 2, 2005, 465 SCRA 513.
the complaint.
13 
Rollo, p. 55.
2 
Ibid.
14 
Id. at 55-56.
3 
Pages 7 to 8 of the Report and
Recommendation. 15 
Teresita T. Bayonla v. Atty. Purita A. Reyes,
A.C. No. 4808, November 22, 2011,
4 
Id. at 8-9. citing Samalio v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
140079, March 31, 2005, 454 SCRA 462.
5 
Resolution No. XVI-2004-124.
16 
Teresita T. Bayola v. Atty. Purita A. Reyes,
6 
supra note 13, citing Suzuki v. Tiamson, Adm.
CODE OF PROFESSIONAL Case No. 6542, September 30, 2005, 471 SCRA
RESPONSIBILITY, Canon 15. 129.

7 
Quiambao v. Bamba, Adm. Case No. 6708, 17 
Ibid.
August 25, 2005, 468 SCRA 1, 11.

8 
Ibid.

9 
Ibid.

10 
Id. at 10-11, citing Tiania v. Ocampo, A.C.
Nos. 2285 and 2302, August 12, 1991, 200
SCRA 472, 479; Abaqueta v. Florido, A.C. No.
5948, January 22, 2003, 395 SCRA 569;