Case No.

9 CANON 9

ATTY. EDITA NOE-LACSAMANA VS ATTY. YOLANDO F. BUSMENTE

A.C. No. 7269 / November 23, 2011

Carpio, J:

Facts:

In a civil case before the RTC, Pasig City, Atty. Edita Noe-Lacsamana alleged in her complaint that
she was the counsel for Irene Bides, the plaintiff in the case, while Atty. Yolando Busmente was the counsel
for the defendant Imelda B. Ulaso. Alleging that Ulaso's deed of sale over the property subject of Civil Case
No. SCA-2481 was annulled, an ejectment case was filed before the MTC, San Juan, in which, Busmente also
appeared as a counsel. Another case for falsification was filed against Ulaso where Busmente also
appeared as counsel. Noe-Lacsamana alleged that one Atty. Elizabeth Dela Rosa or Atty. Liza Dela Rosa
would accompany Ulaso in court, projecting herself as Busmente's collaborating counsel. He further alleged
that the court orders and notices specified Dela Rosa as Busmente's collaborating counsel but upon
verification with the court and the IBP, she discovered that Dela Rosa was not a lawyer. Busmente asserted
that Dela Rosa was a law graduate and has been his paralegal assistant for a few years, but ended in 2000.
He also alleged that Dela Rosa was able to misrepresent herself as a lawyer in the case by conniving with
the his former secretary, Regine Macasieb and he also alleged that he did not represent Ulaso in Civil Case
No. 9284 and his signature in the answer presented as proof by Noe-Lacsamana was forged.

Issue:

Whether or not Busmente is guilty of directly or indirectly assisting Dela Rosa in her illegal practice of
law that warrants his suspension from the practice of law?

Ruling:

The court agreed with IBP’s decision in suspending Busmente from the practice of law for 6 months. It
has been established that Dela Rosa who is not a member of the Bar misrepresented herself as respondent’s
collaborating counsel. There was also sufficient evidence to prove that respondent allowed Dela Rosa to
illegally practice law, appear in court, and give legal assistance to respondent’s client. In Busmente’s
allegation that he was totally unaware of Civil Case No. 9284, it was clearly showed in Ulaso’s counter-
affidavit that the respondent was the legal counsel and that he allowed Dela Rosa to give legal assistance
to Ulaso and he also failed to impugn his signatures in other documents.

Proven that Busmente allowed Dela Rosa to appear in court and give legal assistance, the
respondent violated Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which states that “A lawyer shall not,
directly or indirectly, assist in the unauthorized practice of law.” The term “practice of law” implies
customarily or habitually holding oneself out to the public as a lawyer for compensation as a source of
livelihood or in consideration of his services. Holding one’s self out as a lawyer may be shown by acts
indicative of that purpose, such as identifying oneself as attorney, appearing in court in representation of a
client, or associating oneself as a partner of a law office for the general practice of law. The lawyer's duty to
prevent, or at the very least not to assist in, the unauthorized practice of law is founded on public interest
and policy. Public policy requires that the practice of law be limited to those individuals found duly qualified
in education and character.
Case No. 10 CANON 10

OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR VS. ATTY. DANIEL B. LIANGCO

A.C. No. 5355 / December 13, 2011

Per Curiam:

Facts:

Complainant Hermogenes T. Gozun was in open and adverse possession of subject land for a period
of more than thirty years. His family's house was erected on the land. Gozun inherited the house and lot from
his parents. However, the municipality of San Luis, Pampanga claimed to own the same lot. The
Sangguniang Bayan issued a Resolution stating that the subject lot is owned by the Municipal Government
of San Luis, Pampanga and that the new site of the Rural Health Center will rise in it. Romulo M. Batu, Vice
Mayor, on behalf of the Sangguniang Bayan, filed with the MTC, San Luis, Pampanga, a petition for
declaratory relief wherein respondent Atty. Daniel Liangco was the judge. On that same day of the filing of
petition, Judge Liangco issued a resolution effecting the eviction of Gozun and all other persons in the
subject lot, even without serving summons or giving notice of the petition for declatory relief to complainant
Gozun. Agents of the municipal government demolished Gozun’s house, using respondent judge's resolution
and the mayor's executive order as basis. Gozun then filed an administrative complaint with the Office of
the Court Administrator, alleging that respondent judge's issuance of the resolution amounts to "gross
misconduct, gross inefficiency and incompetence”.

Issue:

Whether or not Judge Liangco be disbarred for misconduct as a member of the bar?

Ruling:

The investigating commissioner found that, based on the facts of the case, there was clear,
convincing and satisfactory evidence to warrant the disbarment of respondent. It was observed that he had
exhibited lapses, as well as ignorance of well-established rules and procedures, that the present complaint
was not the first of its kind to be filed against him, and that before his dismissal from the judiciary, respondent
was suspended for 6 months, and that he still have pending administrative cases for dishonesty, gross
ignorance of the law, and direct bribery.

The IBP found that respondent had acted with manifest bias and partiality in favor of a party-litigant
and shown inexcusable ignorance of the Rules of Procedure. In the case at bar, respondent acted upon the
Petition for Declaratory Relief filed by the Sangguniang Bayan of San Luis, Pampanga, without the
mandatory notice to Gozun who would be affected by the action. As judge of a first-level court, respondent
is expected to know that he has no jurisdiction to entertain a petition for declaratory relief. Moreover, he is
presumed to know that in his capacity as judge, he cannot render a legal opinion in the absence of a
justiciable question. Displaying an utter lack of familiarity with the rules, he in effect erodes the public's
confidence in the competence of our courts. Moreover, he demonstrates his ignorance of the power and
responsibility that attach to the processes and issuances of a judge, and that he as a member of the bar
should know.

Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that a lawyer must uphold the
Constitution and promote respect for the legal processes. Contrary to this edict, respondent malevolently
violated the basic constitutional right of Gozun not to be deprived of a right or property without due process
of law. Under Canon 10, Rule 10.03, respondent as lawyer is mandated to observe the Rules of Procedure
and not to misuse them to defeat the ends of justice. In this case, however, the opposite happened.
Respondent recklessly used the powers of the court to inflict injustice.

Wherefore, the Court resolved to disbar Atty. Daniel B. Liangco for gross misconduct and inexcusable
ignorance of the law.
Case No. 11 CANON 10

RENATO M. MALIGAYA VS. ATTY. ANTONIO G. DORONILLA, JR.

A.C. No. 6198 / September 15, 2006

Corona, J.:

Facts:

Civil Case No. Q-99-38778 was an action for damages filed by complainant Renato M. Maligaya, a
doctor and retired colonel of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, against several military officers for whom
Atty. Antonio Doronilla,Jr. of the Judge Advocate General's Service, stood as counsel. During the hearing, he
stated: “We had an agreement that if we withdraw the case against him, he will also withdraw all the cases.
So, with that understanding, he even retired and he is now receiving pension.” He was then asked to put his
statements in writing and to file the appropriate pleading but failed to do so. Renato Maligaya then filed a
complaint charging Atty. Doronilla of unethical conduct for having uttered a falsehood in open court during
the said hearing and this was referred to an investigating commissioner, Lydia Navarro.

Issues:

1. Whether or not Atty. Doronilla is guilty of purposely stating a falsehood in violation of Canon 10,
Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility?
2. Whether or not Atty. Doronilla be suspended from his government military service?

Ruling:

The IBP approved the recommendation of Lydia Navarro finding Atty. Doronilla guilty of purposely
stating a falsehood in violation of Canon 10, Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. By stating
untruthfully in open court that complainant had agreed to withdraw his lawsuits, Atty. Doronilla breached
these peremptory tenets of ethical conduct. He also violated the lawyer's oath to "do no falsehood, nor
consent to the doing of any in court," of which Canon 10 and Rule 10.01 are but restatements. His act
infringed on every lawyer's duty to "never seek to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an artifice or
false statement of fact or law."

However, the court disagrees with the IBP’s recommendation of suspending Atty. Doronilla from the
government military service. The suspension referred to in the foregoing provision means only suspension
from the practice of law. After all, the only purpose of this administrative case is to determine Atty. Doronilla's
liability as a member of the legal profession, not his liability as a legal officer in the military service. Thus, it
would be improper for the court to order, as a penalty for his breach of legal ethics and the lawyer's oath,
his suspension from employment in the Judge Advocate General's Service. The suspension from employment
as a military legal officer may well follow as a consequence of his suspension from the practice of law but
that should not be reason to impose it as a penalty for his professional misconduct.

Wherefore, Atty. Antonio G. Doronilla was suspended from the practice of law for 2 months.
Case No. 12 CANON 10

PABLO R. OLIVARES AND/OR OLIVARES REALTY CORPORATION VS. ATTY. ARSENIO C. VILLALON, JR.
A.C. No. 6323 / April 13, 2007

Corona, J.:

Facts:

Pablo R. Olivares was repeatedly sued by Sarah Divina Morales Al-Rasheed, client of Atty. Arsenio C.
Villalon, Jr., for violations of the lease contracts which they executed over a commercial apartment in
Olivares Building in Parañaque. First, Al-Rasheed filed an action for damages and prohibition with prayer for
preliminary mandatory injunction in the Regional Trial Court of Manila and second, she filed an action for
breach of contract with damages in the Regional Trial Court of Parañaque, Branch 274. First case was
dismissed for improper venue while second case was dismissed for failure to prosecute. She then re-filed the
previous case but was again dismissed, on grounds of res judicata and prescription. Atty. Villalon asserted
that he was only performing his legal obligation as a lawyer to protect and prosecute the interests of his
client and he denied that he was forum shopping.

Issue:

Whether or not Atty. Villalon, Jr. be disbarred or suspended for violation of Rule 12.02 and Rule 10.03
of the Code of Professional Responsibility?

Ruling:

The IBP adopted and approved the findings of the CBD that respondent violated Rule 12.02, Canon
12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility as well as the proscription on forum shopping. It was found that
respondent assisted Al-Rasheed in repeatedly suing Olivares for the same cause of action and subject
matter, in which he should have refrained from filing the second complaint against Olivares. The court
therefore concludes that respondent willfully violated Rule 12.02, Canon 12 which provides that “A lawyer
shall not file multiple actions arising from the same cause.” Furthermore, he violated Rule 10.03, Canon 10 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that “A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure
and shall not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice”.

A lawyer's fidelity to his client must not be pursued at the expense of truth and justice. Lawyers have
the duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. Filing multiple actions constitutes an
abuse of the Court's processes. It constitutes improper conduct that tends to impede, obstruct and degrade
justice. Those who file multiple or repetitive actions subject themselves to disciplinary action for
incompetence or willful violation of their duties as attorneys to act with all good fidelity to the courts, and to
maintain only such actions that appear to be just and consistent with truth and honor. The Court finds that a
reprimand is insufficient and rules instead that CBD's recommendation for a six-month suspension from the
practice of law to be more commensurate to the violation committed.