BLANZA VS ARCANGEL

Facts:
1. On April, 1955, Atty. Arcangel volunteered to help them in
their respective pension claims in connection with the death
of their husbands, both P.C. soldiers.
a. They handed Arcangel pertinent documents and also
affixed their signatures on blank papers.
b. After which, they noticed that respondent lost interest and
no progress was made. After 6 years they finally asked
respondent to return the said documents but the latter
refused.
c. Upon questioning by Fiscal Rana to whom the case was
referred by the Solicitor General respondent admitted
having received the documents but explained that it was
for photostating purposes only.
d. His failure to immediately return them was due to
complainants refusal to hand him money to pay for the
photostating costs which prevented him from withdrawing
the documents.
e. Anyway, he had already advanced the expenses himself
and turned over the documents to the fiscal.
2. Fiscal found respondents explanation satisfactory and
recommended the respondents exoneration.
a. However, Sol Gen feels that respondent deserves at least
a severe reprimand considering:
1) his failure to attend to complainants pension claims for 6
years;
2) his failure to immediately return the documents despite
repeated demands upon him, and
3) his failure to return to complainant Pasion, allegedly all of her
documents.
Issue: WON Atty. Arcangel is guilty of professional non-feasance
Held: No.
1. Respondents explanation for the delay in filing the claims in
returning the documents has not been controverted by
complainants.
2. On the contrary, they admitted that respondent asked them
to shoulder the photostating expenses but they did not give

him any money. Hence, complainants are partly to

blame.
3. Moreover, the documents and their photostats were
actually returned by respondent during the fiscals
investigation with him paying for the photostating costs
himself.
4. As for the alleged failure of the respondent to all her
documents to complainant Pasion, the former denies this.
the affidavit of Mrs. Blanza pardoning respondent cannot
prejudice complainant Pasion because res inter alios
acta alteri nocere non debet.

Tan v. Pacuribot (2007)

Erection fail, but rape/sexual harrassment either way
Sexual harrassment charges against judge who forced 2
employees of the court to have sex with him (despite his penal
erection failure).
Violated Canon 1 and 2 of Code of Judicial Conduct. DISMISSED
from the service for gross misconduct and immorality prejudicial
to the best interest of the service,