JOHN SIMON VERTULFO

LAW- 4B

LEGAL COUNSELLING

1. A.C. No. 11981, July 03, 2018

LEAH B. TADAY, Complainant, v. ATTY. DIONISIO B. APOYA, JR., Respondent.

Facts:

Complainant, Leah Taday, an OFW in Norway asked her parents who were then
living in the Philippines to seek legal services for the nullification of her marriage. Her
parents contracted the legal services of herein respondent. The respondent was
informed that the complainant is living abroad but assured them that he can find ways to
push for the resolution of the case despite her absence.
Respondent drafted the Petition for annulment, notarized it and sent it to the RTC.
While Petitioner was on a vacation in the philippines she payed the respondent amd a
decision was delivered granting the annulment. Complainant was suspicious as the
decision came from a different branch presided by a different judge where the case was
originally filed. Complainant's family became skeptical as the said decision seemed to
come too soon and was poorly crafted.
They did discovered that the court which rendered the decision did not exist.
Respondent denied delivering any decision relative to the annulment case of
complainant. He asserted that the said decision was only a product of her imagination.
Respondent likewise denied that he filed an urgent motion to withdraw the petition in the
RTC, Branch 131. He claimed that he merely drafted the said motion and gave it to
complainant's parents but he never signed it.
Then, the parties submitted After the parties submitted their respective position
papers, the case was submitted for decision.
The IBP recommended that respondent was guilty for violation of the code fo
professional responsibility.
Respondent filed a motion for Reconsideration which was denied. Then a second
motion for reconsideration which was also denied.

Issue: WON Respondent violated Canon 1, Rules 1.01 and 1.02 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility?

Ruling: Yes, he is guilty for violation of Canon 1, Rules 1.01 and 1.02

CANON 1 - A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and
promote respect for law and for legal processes.

RULE 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.

RULE 1.02 A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or
at lessening confidence in the legal system.
The Supreme Court adopts the findings of the Commission and agrees with the
recommendation of the IBP Board to disbar respondent. It held that Respondent
issued a fake decision, the same with the petition prepared with a non-existent court.
Furthermore, respondent committed unlawful, dishonest, immoral and deceitful
conduct, and lessened the confidence of the public in the legal system. Instead of
being an advocate of justice, he became a perpetrator of injustice. His reprehensible
acts do not merit him to remain in the rolls of the legal profession. Thus, the ultimate
penalty of disbarment must be imposed upon him.
2. A.M. No. 93-10-1296-RTC August 12, 1998R E :
S U S P E N S I O N O F C L E R K O F C O U RT R O G E L I O R . J O B O C O , R
T C , B R A N C H 1 6 N AVA L , BILIRAN
Facts:
This is a series of complaints and counter-complaints between Judge Bonifacio S. M
aceda,then Acting Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Br. 16, Naval, Biliran
(now RTC Judge in LasPiñas, Metro Manila) and Atty. Rogelio R. Joboco, then
Branch Clerk of Court of the same Regional Trial Court (now Assistant Prosecutor
in Samar). Judge Maceda charges Atty. Joboco of (1) Infidelity in the
Custody of Case Records, (2) Dishonesty,(3) Sabotaging Judicial Reforms, (4) Grave
Misconduct, Usurpation of Judicial Authority, Tampering of Subpoena, (5)
Insubordination, (6) Falsification of Accomplishment of Certificate of Service, and
(7)Agitating Workers to go on Mass Leave and Notorious Undesirability.Atty. Joboco, on
the other hand, alleges (1) Oppression, (2) Continuing Oppression, (3) GrossIgnorance of
the Law, (4) Abuse of Position, (5) Gross Abuse of Discretion Using his Position, and
(6)Conduct Unbecoming of a Judge.
The controversy began when Judge Maceda issued a suspension order to Atty.
Jaboco for infidelity in the custody of case records. Atty. Jaboco claims that Judge
Maceda and Mr. Amante, a court personnel had access to the records.He related that
Judge Maceda borrowed the said records from him in order to conduct an inventory of
the cases and then never returned the same to him.[4] He also alleges that Mr. Amante
borrowed the keys to the office to finish typing the transcript of stenographic notes. He
allege that it was a vindicitive design as complainant Atty. Velasquez is a law partner of
then Judge Adriano Villamor, who was dismissed from the service in an administrative
case where he was one of the witnesses.
Judge Maceda, on the other hand, contends that as Clerk of Court, Atty. Joboco was
personally liable for the missing case records and the responsibility thereto cannot be
passed on to other court personnel who were his subordinates. Furthermore, atty Jacobo
has misplaced past records and evaded directions by the other Judges.
Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Joboco is guilty of infidelity in the Custody of Court Records,
Usurpation of Judicial Authority, Grave Misconduct
Ruling:
Yes, he is guilty.
The Supreme court held that Atty. Jacobo liable for the charge of Grave Abuse of
Discretion, Usurpation of Judicial Authority and Tampering of Subpoena by acting on an
oral motion for postponement. By his act of giving due course to the informal motion for
resetting despite being notified of the reassignment of Judge Maceda to Naval, he
arrogated unto himself the authority to exercise judicial discretion which is clearly
beyond the pale of his prerogative. The Branch Clerk of Court is the administrative
assistant of the presiding judge whose duty is to assist in the management of the calendar
of the court and in all other matters not involving the discretion or judgment of the
judge.[30] Clearly, Atty. Joboco overstepped the boundaries of his function as such by
undertaking the aforementioned act which falls squarely within the discretion or
judgment of the Presiding Judge.
Although we are inclined to impose the penalty of suspension on Atty. Joboco,
his subsequentappointment as 3rd Assistant City Prosecutor of Calbayog City
has made the aforesaid sanction impracticable. The diversity and multiplicity of Atty.
Joboco's transgressions clearly reflect his
defiantd e m e a n o r a n d c o n t u m a c i o u s c h a r a c t e r w h i c h c a n n o t b e c o u n t e n
a n c e d i n t h e j u d i c i a r y. S u c h recalcitrant attitude manifested by Atty.
Joboco in his capacity as Branch Clerk of Court not only diminishes his integrity
as an officer of the court but degrades the dignity of the judicial system aswell.