Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 3

9. Case title: Jessie De Leon v. Atty. Eduardo G.

Castelo
Petitioners Claims: Complainant Jessie De Leon, a voluntary intervenor, accused the respondent, the counsel
of record of the defendants in the Civil Case with serious administrative offenses of dishonesty and
falsification committed warranting his disbarment or suspension as an attorney. Petitioner claims that was
allegedly committed was Atty. Castelos filing for defendants Lim Hio and Dolores Chu of various pleadings
despite said spouses being already deceased at the time of the filing. Also, respondent is accused of using
mockery of the aforesaid judicial proceedings by representing dead persons, he falsely made to appear, as
contesting the complaints, counter-suing and cross-suing the adverse parties which violated his Lawyers
Oath and The Code of Professional Responsibility.
Respondents Claims: Respondent counter claims that the parties who hired him as the their attorney to
represent the Lim Family were the children of the deceased spouses. Also, upon is initial inquiries to the
allegations of the Governments complain, he was informed that the family had already acquired the
properties, that William and Leonardo Lim were already actively managing the business and are now coowners f the properties by virtue of the dead of absolute sales their parents had executed in their favors and
that the execution had been honestly assumed by the siblings that their parents had already caused the
transfer of the TCTs to their names. Also, he prepared the pleadings believing that the Spouses were still
alive thus not changing the siblings as defendants. He has no intention to commit either falsehood or
falsification, and even submitted the death certificates of Spises to apprise the trial court of the fact.
Issue/s: Ruling per Issue: The court found that there was no falsehood or falsification that was committed in
the pleadings in the Civil Case. A plain reading indicated that the respondent did not misrepresent that
Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu were still living. He directly stated in the answer to the complain in
intervention with counterclaim and cross-claim, supra and in the clarification and submission, supra, that the
Spouses Lim Hio and Doleres Chu were already deceased. Another is, the respondent was acting in the
interest of the actual owners of the properties when he foled the answer with counterclaim and cross-claim.
Thus, the complaint is dismissed.
10. Case title: Atty. Alfonso L. Dela Victoria v. Atty. Maria Fe Orig-Maloloy-on
Petitioners Claims: Complainant, a former judge, Atty. Alfonso Dela Victoria, charged Atty. Maria Fe Maloloyon with gross ignorance of the law for her refusal to accept the cash bond being tendered by his clients.
Petitioner claims that he went to the Office of the Prosecutor because his clients were being detained of
warrantless arrest and after an inquest, he learned that the criminal information agains the Veranos, which
recommended a bail of 2000 each, had not yet been filed with the proper court at still lacked the signature of
the City Prosecutor. Before he left the MTCC, he passed by the office of Atty. Maloloy-on offering to post a
cash bond of 4,000, but atty. Maloloy-on was out of the office, thus instructed his daughter-in-law to wait for
the attorney. Later that day, atty. Maloloy-on did not accept the cash bond because no information has been
filed yet, and therefore clients cannot avail of the remedy yet because the office are only open until 12 noon.
Petitioner further alleged that when he went to see the respondent again, and asked why she refused to
accept the bond, but the Atty. Maloloy-on lectured him and insisted the refusal. This constituted gross
ignorance of the law and would not have filed this complaint if respondent apologized for procedural lapses.
Respondents Claims: Respondent Atty. Maria Maloloy-on clarified on his statement tat the office is only open
from 8:00am until 4:00pm on Saturdays and that she was present on November 12, 2005. At 11:30am that
day, she went out to buy lunch and at her return , the Veranos told her that they were posting a cash bond
for their temporary release, and handed her a piece of paper with the amount of 2000. She went to the City
Prosecutors Office to verify the status of the criminal information. But there wasnt any criminal information
filed, the City Prosecutor had left, the MTCC Executive Judge was no longer in the office and found out from
Branch Clerk of Court Atty Villariza that there was no motion to fix bail that was filed. She told the Veranos
that there was no information filed and come back Monday and the case shall be prioritized. Whereas, Atty
Dela Vicoria, barged into her office, in a demanding and high-handed manner why she refused to accept the
cash bond.
Issue/s: Ruling per Issue: The court affirmed the OCAs decision and denied Atty. Dela Victorias unfounded
administrative complaint and further investigation against Atty. Maloloy-on. Petitioner failed to substantiate
his complain as to Atty. Maloloy-on who proved truthful her defense when she submitted a copy of the entire

court records involving criminal case against the Veranos. It was the failure of Atty. Maloloy-on to apologize
to the respondent that drove him to push through with the case. He filed is case for alleged gross ignorance
of the law, without competent evidence to support it. Complainant is found guilty of Contempt of Court and is
fined 2000, with a stern warning of that a repition of the same or similar offense in the future shall be dealt
more severely.
11. Case title: Marrieta Duque v. Judge Crisostomo L. Garrido Petitioners Claims: Complainant is the alleged
common-law wife of the murdered victim in the criminal case. Complainant claims that respondent Judge
violated Section 15, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution for rendering a decision beyond ninety days in
Criminal Case without requesting an extension of time from this Court and thus charged with gross violation.
The prosecution filed its Memorandum submitting the case for resolution on August 10, 2005 but the
respondent issued a Decision on December 12, 2005 which was promulgated January of 2006. Complainant
further alleged that neither the offended party nor the handling prosecutor was notified of the promulgation.
Respondents Claims:
Issue/s: Ruling per Issue:
12. CASE TITLE: Denis B. Habawel and Alexis F. Medina v. The Court of Tax Appeals
PETITIONER'S CLAIM: Petitioner Habawel and Medina were the counsel of Surfield Development Corporation
which sought refund of excess realty taxes paid from 1995 2000 against the City Treasurer of Mandaluyong
City. The City Govt of Mandaluyong denied to claim for refund so Surfield initiated a civil action against the
latter. Habawel and Medina submitted a compliance, in which they appeared to apologize butnonetheless
justified their language as, among others, necessary to bluntly call the Honorable Courts attention to the
grievousness of the error by calling a spade by spade. RESPONDENT'S CLAIM: The CTA FD found the apology
wanting in sincerity and humility, observing that they chose words that were so strong, which brings
disrepute the Courts honor and integrity for brazenly pointing to the Courts alleged ignorance and grave
abuse of discretion, and thus found themguilty of direct contempt of court for failing to uphold their duty of
preserving the integrity andrespect due to the courts.
ISSUE: Whether or not the language employed by Habawel and Medina in their motion andcompliance were
contumacious?
RULING: Yes. The test for criticizing a judges decision is whether or not the criticism is bona fide ordone in
good faith, and does not spill over the walls of decency and propriety. By the statements employed, Habawel
and Medina clearly and definitely overstepped thebounds of propriety as attorneys, and disregarded their
sworn duty to respect the courts. An imputation in a pleading of gross ignorance against a court or its judge,
especially in the absence of any evidence, is a serious allegation, and constitutes direct contempt of court. It
is settled that derogatory, offensive or malicious statements contained in pleadings or written submissions
presented to the same court or judge in which the proceedings are pending are treated as direct contempt
because they are equivalent to a misbehavior committed in the presence of or so near a court or judge as to
interrupt the administration of justice. No attorney, no matter his great fame or high prestige, should ever
brand a court or judge asgrossly ignorant of the law, especially if there was no sincere or legitimate reason
for doing so.
13. CASE TITLE: Ma. Luisa Hadjula v. Atty. Roceles F. Madianda
PETITIONER'S CLAIM: Complainant Hadjula claimed that in 1998, she approached respondent for legal advice
and in their conversation, petitioner alleged that in this conversation which is supposed to be confidential,
she opened personal secret, produced copies of a marriage contract, a birth certificate and a baptisimal
certificate, only to find out that respondent would refer her to a lawyer friend. Complainant states that it was
malicious for the respondent to have refused handling her case only after she had revealed her secrets. She
now seeks for the suspension and/or disbarment of respondent for the latter's act of disclosing personal
secrets and confidential information she revealed in the course of seeking respondent's legal advice.
RESPONDENT'S CLAIM: Respondent denied giving legal advice to the complainant and dismissed any
suggestion about the existence of a lawyer-client relationship between them. Respondent also claims that

the observation that the supposed confidential data and sensitive documents adverted to are matters of
common knowledge.
ISSUE:
RULING: The court ruled that the moment complainant approached the then receptive respondent to seek
legal advice, a veritable lawyer-client relationship evolved between the two. Such relationship imposes upon
the lawyer certain restrictions circumscribed by the ethics of the proffesion. The respondent is to keep
confidential all information acquired or revealed during the consultations. A lawyer-client relationship was
already established in the case the very moment complainant asked for legal advise regarding the former's
business. The respondent indeed breached his duty of preserving the confidence of a client. The court ruled
that respondent is reprimanded and admonished to be circumspect in her handling of information acquired
as a result of lawyer-client relationship. She is sternly warned against a repetition of similar act.

14. CASE TITLE: Heirs of Falame v. Atty Edgar J. Baguio


PETITIONER'S CLAIM: Complainants alleged that their father, the late Lydio "Jerry" Falame, engaged the
services of respondent to represent him in an action for forcibly entry. Respondent claimed that respondent,
as counsel for the defendants, filed the answer to the complaint in the first civil case. Subsequently, when
the parties to the first civil case were required to file their positoon papers, respondent used and submitted
evidences, executed before respondent, in which Raleigh stated that Lydio owned the property subject of the
first civil case. Respondents claimed that even after the MTC had ruled in favor of the defendants in the first
civil case, Lydio retained the services of respondent as his legal adviser and counsel for his businesses until
Lydio's death. However, in representation of spouses Raleigh and Noemi Falame, respondent filed a case
against complainants allegedly involving the property subject of the first civil case. This complaint sought the
declaration of nullity of the deed of sale. Complainants claimed that by acting as counsel for the spouse
FAlame, they were impleaded as defendants, respondent violated his oath of office and duty as attorney.
Also, the second civil case is a baseless and fabricated suit which respondent filed as counsel for
complainants' uncle against the heirs of respondent's deceased client.
RESPONDENT'S CLAIM: Respondent claimed that Lydio had not reatained him as counsel in any case or
transaction. Stressing the long interval of twelve years separating the termination of the first civil case and
his acceptance of the second civil case, respondent emphasized that the first civil case was not between
Lydio and Raleigh but rather between their heirs. He maintained that since the second civil case was still
pending before the rial court, the IBP had no jurisdiction over the instant case. And that the complainants
filed the case when Raleigh could no longer testify in his own favor as he had died a year ago/
ISSUE:
RULING: The Court ruled that the IBP erred in holding that the administrative complaint had been filed out of
time since it was filed on January 16, 2004 after the second civil case was filed on October 23, 2000. The
Court therefore rules that respondent has been adequately apprised of and heard on the issue. In the
administrative cases, the requirement of notice and hearing does not connote fill adversarial proceedings.
Actual adversarial proceedings only become necessary for clarification when there is a need to propound
searching questions to witnesses who give vague testimonies. Due process is fulfilled when the parties were
given reasonable opportunity to be heard and to submit evidence. Respondent Atty Baguio is guilty of
representing conflicting interests and meted out the penalty of Reprimand.