Summary of Doctrines. LEGAL ETHICS Practice of Law (Rule 138) APPEARANCE AS COUNSEL FOR THE HUSBAND CONSTITUTES PRACTICE OF Law Alvin S. Feliciano v. Atty. Carmelita Bautista-Lozada A.C. No, 7593; March 11, 2015 Peralta, Joost THE CANONS REQUIRE OBSERVANCE OR NO! AND,CANDOR Philippine Association of ‘CourtsEmpleya @sented by its President, Atty: Virginia C. RafaelveAt Diaz hot A.C. No, 10134; November 26, 2014 Mendoza, Jt cveeesessseennie ce 7 DUTY TO RESPECT THE LAW AND"THELEGALPROE! > Fernando Chu v. Atty. Jose’C'Guicoyur AC. No. 10573; January 13, 2015 Per CUFIAM.ceeseeseees 19 3 BREACH OF THE LAWYER'S OATH - Rlerencio A. Saladaga v. Atty. Arturo B. Astorga A.C. No. 4897/A.C. No.:4728; November 25, 2¢ Leonardo-De Castro, J : MEMBERS OF THE BAR ARE-EXPEGIED: AT. ALLVTIMES TO-UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF THE: GAL PROFESSION Rebecea Marie Uy Yupangco-Nakpil viAtty, Roberts A.C.Nu, 9115; September 17, 2014: 8 Perlas-Bemabe, J. . 21 A LAWYER'S RELATIONSHIP.WITH OTHERS: BY THE HIGHEST DEGREE OF'GOOD FAITH, Ai kD. BE’CHARACTERIZED SS‘AND CANDOR Tan v. Diamante AC. No. 7766; August 5, 2014 Per Curiam “tae 22 GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS’ GROSS NEGLECT OF DUTY Edila S. Bueno and Milagros E. Quinajon v. Office of the Ombudsman, Napoleon S. Ronquillo, Jr., Edna G. Rafia and Romeo G. Refrato GR, No. 191712; September 17, 2014 Villarama, Jr, J. 23 MIOLATION OF THE RULE ON VENUE IS GROSS IGNORANCE OF THE Law Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Alan L. Flores, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 7, Tubod, ‘anao del Norte and Forma: Acting Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 24, Kapatagan, Lanao del NortelProsecutor Diosdado D. Cabrera Vs. Judge Alan L. Flores, Presiding SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF Law 2010 CENTRALIZED BaR OPERATIONSJudge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 7, Tubod, Lanao del Norte and Former Acting Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 21, Kapatagan, Lanao del Norte AM. No. RTJ-12-2325/A.M, No. RTJ-15-2419; April 14, 2015 Per Curiam, 24 FAILURE TO ATTEND AND INFORM CLIENT ABOUT PRE-TRIAL PROCEEDING CONSTITUTES MISCONDUCT Davao Import Distributors, Inc. (DIMDI) v. Atty. Johnny Landero AG. No. 5116; April 13, 2015 Del Castillo, J scsseee oO a " 26 MERE OMISSION OF AMOUNT Gk WAGES SHOWING:,OF INTENT TO DEFRAUD, IS NOT PRORESSIONAL- MISCONDUCT . Atty. Alfredo Villamor, Jr. v. Attys."Hans : ‘Santés and 4 AC. No. 9868; April 22, 20155"): Brion, J! ar % AS CUSTODIANS OF COURT FUNDS AND REVENUE HAVE THE DUTY TO. IMMEDIATELY DEPOSIT::THE RECEIVED BY THEM FOR THEY ARE)NO’ THEIR CUSTODY Office of the Court Administrator v/ Remedios | AM. No, P-12-209: prt4, 2015 Per Curiam eevee oa 28 LAWYER WHO WILLFULLY RESORTS.70:ANY- =AUSEHOOD INORDER TO MISLEAD THE COURTS OR °HISHCLIENTS“ON ‘THE! STATUS OF THEIR CAUSES Henry Samonte v. Atty. Gines Abellania AG. No. 3452; June 23, 2014.) 2 Bersamin, J 29 : : ve DELIBERATE FAILURE TO IST DEBTS ANGLISSUANCE OF WORTHLESS CHECKS CONSTITUTES'GROSS'MISCONDUCT Estrella R. Sanchez v. Atty. Nicolas G” Torres M:D AC. No. 10240; November 25,2014 Per Curiam, 30 ‘P22 IS A CRIME INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE. Marivie C. Vitor v. Caroline Grace Zafra AM, No. P-11-2917; December 02, 2014 Per Curiam, 34 DEMANDING AMOUNT MORE THAN THE PRESCRIBED FEES; PROHIBITION AGAINST LOANS FROM CLIENT: CONFLICT OF INTEREST EXISTS WHERE THE COUNSEL FOR THE COMPLAINANT IS ALSO THE LAWYER WHO NOTARIZED THE DEED BEING ASSAILED BY THE COMPLAINANT Erlinda Foster v. Atty. Jaime V. Agtang AC. No. 10579; December 10, 2014 ji SANBEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2016 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS.Per Curiam, THE PROHIBITION AGAINST REPRESENTING CONFLICTING INTERESTS IS ABSOLUTE AND THE RULE APPLIES EVEN IF THE LAWYER HAS ACTED IN GOOD FAITH AND WITH NO INTENTION TO REPRESENT CONFLICTING INTERESTS Daria 0. Daging v. Atty. Riz Tingalon L. Davis A.C. No. 9295; November 12, 2014 Gel Castillo, J ‘| ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP. CONFLICT OF INTEREST 0 Caroline Castafieda Jimeneziv Atty: A.C. No. 10548; December 10, 2014, Mendoza, J Bes ELEMENT OF OBSTINATE REFUSAL TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT'S ORDERS NOT ONLY BETRAYS A RECALCITRANT FLAW/IN'HERIGHARACTER BUT ALSO UNDERSCORES HER DISRESPECT OF THE'C Jimmy Anudon and Juanita Anudon-v.Atty: A.C, No. 5482; February 10, 2015 Leonen, Jo... i LAWYER'S DUTY IS TO UPHOLD THE DIGNi COURTS TO WHICH IT OWES Francia v. Atty. Abdon AC, No. 10031; July 23,2014 =": Reyes, J seaettbagen fi Sige fe NON-APPEARANCE IN.HEARINGS BEFORE THE IBP*INDICATES A LACK OF RESPECT FOR THE IBP’S'RULES AND PROCEDURES ANDIIS.A VIOLATION OF THE CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY Pot Jose B. Caspe v. Atty“Aquilino.A. Mejica A.C. No. 10679; March 10, 20157), Villarama, Je, J : INFLUENCE PEDDLING IS NOT LIMITED TO THE-REGULAR COURTS, BUT EVEN IN ALL OTHER VENUES IN THE JUSTICE SECTOR limenez v. Atty. Verano, Jr. / Atty. Lozano v. Atty. Verano, Jr. A.C, No. 8208//.4.C. No, 10288; July 13, 2014 Sereno, CJ... sie CONTRACTING A MARRIAGE DURING THE SUBSISTENCE OF A PREVIOUS ONE AMGUNTS TO & GROSSLY IMMORAL CONDUCT Or. Elmar O. Perez v. Atty. Tristan A, Catindig and Atty. Karen E. Baydo AC. No. 5816; March 10, 2015 Per Curiam. : i WHILE IT IS THE COURT'S DUTY TO INVESTIGATE AND UNCOVER THE TRUTH BEHIND THE CHARGES AGAINTS JUDGES. AND LAWYERS, IT IS 32 33 34 36 37 38 39 40 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2016 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS iitEQUALY ITS DUTY TO SHIELD THEM FROM UNFOUNDED SUITS THAT ARE INTENDED TO VEX AND HARASS THEM Presiding Judge Jose L. Madrid v. Atty. Juait'S. Dedica AC No: 7474; September 09, 2014 Bersamin, J. it LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE OF HIS CLIENT Shirley Olayta-Camba v. Atty. Otilio Sy Bongon, A.C. No. 8826; March 25, 2015 Perias-Bernabe, J eRe LAWYER HOLDS IN TRUSTIALE MONI ers aND R THAT MAY COME INTO HIS'ROSSESSION Eduardo A. Maglente v. Atty. Delfin R, Agea AC. No. 10672; March 18, 2015 Perlas-Bernabe, J. nESIOF HIS CLIENT Net FAILURE TO ACCOUNT AND'RETURN MONE DUEVAND DEMANDABLE AS AVIOLATION OF TRUST Rolando Viray v. Atty. Eugenio T.Sanigas A.C. No. 7337; September 29, 2014 Del Castillo, J. = A LAWYER'S FAILURE TO RETURN UPON:DEMAND THE FUNDS HELD BY HIM ON BEHALF OF HIS CLIENT;GIVES ‘RISE TO“THE PRESUMPTION THAT HE HAS APPROPRIATED THE:SAME FOR HIS:OWN USE IN VIOLATION OF THE TRUST REPOSED IN:HIM'BY:HIS:CEIENT Marilen G Soliman v. Aty. Dias Letigs:Amboy AC. No. 10568; January 13, 2015% Reyes, J. : ACCEPTANCE OF MONEY’FROM A CLIENT ESTABLISHES AN ATTORNEY- CLIENT RELATIONSHIP AND: GIVES RISE TO THE iDUTY-OF FIDELITY TO THE CLIENT'S CAUSE Melody Nery v. Atty. Glicerio A. Sampana.* AS. No. 10196; September 09, 2014 Carpio, Acting Cu A LAWYER MUST BE ZEALOUS TO HIS CLIENT'S CAUSE AS IF IT WAS HIS Own Felipe Layos v. Atty. Marlito |. Villanueva ACC. No. 8085; December 01, 2014 Perlas-Bernabe, J A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO HIS CLIENT'S CAUSE AND MUST ALWAYS BE MINDFUL OF THE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM Almira C. Foronda v. Atty. Jose L. Alvarez, Jr. AC, No. 9976; June 25, 2014 Reyes, J iy SANBEDACOLLEG: OF LAW 2016 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS a1 42 43 4 45 a7 48 49FAILURE TO EXERT EFFORTS TO COMMUNICATE WITH CLIENT IS DEEMED ABANDONMENT AS COUNSEL Reynaldo G. Ramirez v. Atty. Mercedes Buhayang-Margallo ‘AC. No. 10537; February 3, 2015 Leonen, J... DILIGENCE: IS REQUIRED NOT ONLY FROM LAWYERS BUT ALSO FROM CLIENTS Pedro Resurreccion, et al. v. People of the Philippines G.R. No. 192866; July 9, 2014 Ask A \ AN Brion, J. ATTORNEY'S PROFESSIONAL FEES IN THEYABSENCE OF AN EXPRESS AGREEMENT *, Augusto M. Aquino v. Hoi? tsmael P!: G.R.No. 191470; January 26, 2015 Peralta, J. | LAW FIRM, 5 The Law Firm of Laguesma Magsalin Gonsilta a t GR No. 185544; January 18,2018 , Leonen, J. : Suspension, Disbarment and Discipl (Rule 139-B, Rules of Court) MEMBERSHIP IN THE BAR IS NOTA’ WITH CONDITIONS. Conrado Que v. Atty. Anastacio Revilla “ A.C. No. 7054; December-4:2009 Per Curiam .. STITUTES A GROUND FOR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION EVEN‘IF-THESSAME.WAS CONTRACTED IN, PRIVATE CAPACITY Antonina S. Sosa v. Atty. Manuel VeMendoza AG. No. 8776; March 23, 2018 Brion, J. A LAWYER WHO CORRUPTLY APPEARS FOR A PARTY WITHOUT AUTHORITY MAY BE DISCIPLINED OR PUNISHED FOR CONTEMPT Or. Domiciano F. Villahermosa, Sr. v. Atty. Isidro L. Caracol AC. No. 7325; january 21 21, 2018 Villarama, Jt, Jose. MAKING FALSE DECLARATIONS IN THE CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM ‘SHOPPING IS A GROUND FOR SUMMARY DISMISSAL THEREOF AND FOR DIRECT CONTEMPT Crisostomo, et al. v. Atty. Nazareno 54 52 54 56 87 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF Law 2016 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONSAC. No. 6677; June 10, 2014 Perlas-Besnabe, J. A PERSON IS GUILTY OF INDIRECT CONTEMPT BY WITHHOLDING THE TRUTH IN THE COURSE OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS Re: Letter of Erlinda llusorio-Bilder, POTC, Philcomsat, Requesting Investigation of Certain members ui tie Judiciary AM No. 07-11-14-SC; April 14, 2015 Per Curiam oe FALSIFICATION OF AFFIOAVI IOUATIGNSGFETHESL AWYER'S OATH AND THE CPR (FALSEHOOD)'AND:AS GROUND !FOR|SUSPENSION Spouses Willie and Ameiia Gmaguing V. Atty Walléh’R’DeVera AC. No, 10451; February 4, 2015 Perlas-Bernabe, J... Lads SUSPENSION FROM THE PRACTICE OF LAW INCLUDES SUSPENSION FROM PUBLIC OFFICE ne Lingan v. Attys. Calubaquib’& Baliga ASC. No. 5377; June 30, 2034 Leonen, J MISREPRESENTATION, DECEIT, AND FAILURE TO. ACCOUNT FOR AND RETURN OF CLIENT'S MONEY: .DESPITE SEVERAL DEMANDS ARE GROUNDS FOR SUSPENSION Agot v. Atty. Rivera 5 AC, No. 8000; August 5, 2014 Perlas-Bernabe, J i . UNDULY BORROWING MONEY FROM.CLIENT AND BLATANTLY REFUSING TO PAY AS AGROUND FOR'SUSPENSION Spouses Henry A. Concepcion and Blesilda S. Coéepcion.v. Atty. Elmer A. dela Rosa =e Gere A.C. No, 19681: February 3; 2015 Petlas-Berabe, J ADMINISTRATIVE LIABILITY ATTACHES ONLY TO CIRCUMSTANCES FOR WHICH A LAWYER IS PERSONALLY ACCOUNTABLE Michael Ruby v. Atty. Erlinda B. Espejo and Atty. Rudolph AC. No, 10558; February 23, 2015 Reyes, J : i ja Bayot DEMAND FOR AND RECEIPT OF EXORBITANT SUMS OF MONEY FROM CLIENTS TO EXPEDITE THE PROCEEDINGS OF THEIR CASES PENDING IN COURT ARE REPREHENSIBLE Amado T. Dizon v. Atty. Norlita de Taza AC. No. 7676; June 10, 2014 Reyes, J... . vi SANBEDACOUEGE OF Law 2016 CeNTRAUZED Bar OPERATIONS 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 67MISAPPROPRIATION AS A GROUND FOR DISBARMENT CF Sharp Crew Management Incorporated v. Nicolas C. Torres A.C. No. 10438; September 23, 2014 Per Curiam LEGAL ADVICE GIVEN IN GOOD FAITH NOT A GROUND FOR DISBARMENT Atty. Alan Paguis 7. Atty. Manuel Molina AC. No. 9881; June 4, 2014 Sereno, CJ. i CONVICTION FOR HOMICIDESIS'GF Melvyn G. Garcia v. Raul HiSésbreiio” AG. No. 7973 and A.C. No. 10487: February 3-20: Per Curiam «00... ht 45 at eo Levis F ADMINISTRATIVE. CASES AGAINE MUST BE PROVED.-WITH PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE : : Domado Disomimba Sultan v. Atty: Casan Maé: A.C. No. 7919; October 8, 2014 Reyes, J QUANTUM OF PROOF REQUIRED IN Di: PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE sR Raul C. Lanuza and Reynaldo C. Rasing:v: Attys. Frankie O. Magsalin ili and Pablo R. Cruz/Raui C. Lanuza:and Reynaldo C/ Rasing,v. Attys, Frankie O. Magsalin Ill, Peter Andew S. Govind Pablo'RCruzs”* AC. No. 7687/A.C. No. 7688; Dacember 3.2014" fo Mendoza, J ‘ JUDICIAL ETHICS Discipline of Members of the Judiciary”. PROHIBITION OF JUDGES TO SERVE Ys ATTORNEY IN FACT; IMPROPRIETY Gonrado Abe Lopez, Represented“by Atty.°Remuatdo Jubay v. Judge Rogelio S. Lucmayon, Municipal Trial Court in‘Cities, Branch 1, Mandaue City, Cebu AM. No, MTJ-13-1837; September 24, 2014 Brion, J : Fipugy, POSTING IMPROPER PHOTOS IN FRIENDSTER AND OTHER SOCIAL MEDIA SITES SUBJECTS A JUDGE TO ADMINISTRATIVE LIABILITY Antonio M. Lorenzana v, Judge Ma. Cecilia |, Austria, RTC, Br. 2, Batangas City A.M. No. RTJ-09-2200; April 2, 2014 BIION, Jesse ASJUDGE OWES THE PUBLIC AND THE COURT THE DUTY TO KNOW THE LAW BY HEART AND HAVE THE BASIC RULES OF PROCEDURE AT THE 68 6 70 n 72 73 75 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2016 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS viiPALM OF HIS HANDS. Atty. Ferdinand Rey Garay v. Judge Rolando S, Venadas, Sr. A.M. No. RTJ-06-2000; June 18, 2014 Det Castillo, J. GIVING DUE COURSE TO A PETITION.QUESTIONING REASSIGNMENT TO COVERNMENT OFFICE IS GROSS IGNORANCE OF THE LAW Efren T. Uy, et al. v. Judge Alan L. Flores. AM. No. RTJ-12-2332; June 25, 2014 Villarama, Jr, J ie TRIAL ‘JUDGE 1S NOT souls ian coe JUDICIAL FUNCTION AND OFFICE tt it George T. Chua v. Judge Fortunite L..Madrona.-- A.M. No. RTJ-14-2394; September-4; 2014 Bersamin, J. aseeneedenn br s MISCONDUCT, GROSS iNSUBORDINATION JUDICIAL SERVICE DESPITE ELECTION TO BUBLIC.OF Office of the Court-Administrator v. Executive Judge Daet, Camarines Norte AM. No, RTJ-08-2140; October 7, 2014 Perlas-Bemabe, J CORRUPTION, CLEAR INTENT TO'VIOLATE THE LAW OR FLAGRANT DISREGARD OF AN ESTABLISHED\RULE MUST'BE"SHOWN TO PROVE GRAVE MISCONDUCT 4 Re: Anonymous letter v: Judge Corazon'D. Soluren,’Presiding Judge, and Rabindranath A. Tuazon, Legal Researcher, both | of Br.-91, Regional Trial Court, Baler Aurora AM. No. P-14-3217; October8,. 2014 "= Perlas-Bemabe, J... DUTY OF THE JUDGE TO MAINTAINJUDICIALSCOMPETENCE Gaspar Bandoy v. Judge Jose S. Jacinto, Jr A.M. No. RTJ-14-2399; November 19,2014 Mendoza, J CLEAR “AND CONVINCING ‘EVIDENCE {S NECESSARY TO PROVE A CHARGE OF BIAS AND PARTIALITY Antonio S. Ascaiio, Jr. v. Judge Jacinto, Jr A.M, No, RTJ-15-2405; January 12, 2015 Sereno, CJ. i GROSS IGNORANCE OF ThE LAW Chua Keng Sin v. Judge Job M. Mangente A.M, No. MTJ-15-1851 February 11, 2015 Leonen J ‘SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF Law 2016 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS: 76 78 73 at 82 83 84GOOD FAITH NOT AN EXCUSE FOR NEGLECT OF DUTY Office of the Court Administrator v. Constantino P, Redofia, Former Clerk of Court il, Municipal Trial Court, Tanauan, Leyte AM, No. P-14-3194, January 27, 2015 Per Curiam......... ett HONEST MISTAKE IN-APPRECIATION OF FACTS NOT GROSS IGNORANCE OF THE LAW Yolanda A. Andres, Minette A. Mercado, and Elito P. Andres v. Atty. Salimathar V. Nambi : : AC\No. 7158; March 09, 201526 Del Castillo, J = si ideas nie at JUDGE'S FRATERNIZING WITHsLITJGANTS-TARNISHES APPEARA\ iMPARTIALEY SERA AN SHE 8 Re: Allegations Made Ufider) Oath atythe-Sefa(S BludsRibbon / ov paseapinsesp ISSUE: ee Does the omission of the specification of the amotin! OF amadés in the:prayer of the comptaint Violate the Code of Professional Responsibillty?” HELD: 5 NO, it does not constitute a violation of the Code" Rule 1.01 of the CPR provides thal. a lawyer'shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. Further, under the ruling’ét the Court in: Manchester Development Corporation V. Court of Appeals (the Manchesterdoitring), course! who files the original complaint and ‘omits the specification of the amount of:damages in. the ‘prayer although the amount ci'the claim is alleged in the body of the complaift siicWsicleamintent to evade the payment of the correct filing fees if not to mislead the docket ‘clerkcirithe assessment of the filing fee. In this case, it appears from the.pleadings of thé respondents. that they properly detailed the subject checks and the vaiueS_which.they represent{ Thetpleeding also appears to be one for specific performance with injunction betausexthessdine"Was meant to require the adverse to deliver the actual checks and to resirais-him “roi negotiating or encashing thé checks in question, Even assuming that the alleged omissiondoes not fully comply with the Manchester doctrine, this Court stil finds that it is not a sufficient ground for disbarment, because there is no clear showing that the respondents defrauded or misied the court or othenwise intended to evade the payment of the proper docket fees. Thus, the respondents are not guilty of “deceitful conduct". They also cannot be held liable pursuant to the Manchester doctrine. Therefore, they should not be disbarred, SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2016 CenTRAtiZeD BaROreraTions — 27AS CUSTODIANS OF COURT FUNDS AND REVENUES, CLERKS OF COURTS HAVE THE DUTY TO IMMEDIATELY DEPOSIT-THE VARIOUS FUNDS RECEIVED BY THEM FOR ‘THEY ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO KEEP FUNDS IN THEIR CUSTODY Office of the Court Administrator v. Remedios R. Viesca A.M. No. P-12-3092; April 14, 2015 Per Curiam FACTS: This is an administrative case for dismissal from service recommended by the compiainant Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) against respondent Remedios R. Viesca, Clerk of Court of MTC of San Antonio, Nueva Ecija i. js the Memorandum filed by the Audit Team of the Financial Manager me nt OCA against respondent Fecommending dismissal from service avec Neglect of Duty and Grave Misconduct, for her failure to ae Foe pnd remit peperous judiciary collections to the Revenue Section, Accounting Division, YG, Alter conducting @ financial» audit onv:the {books o:the MTGrthe AuiiéFeam found that respondent Viesca failed to ‘deposit her judiciary’ collectitins ‘regularly, ¢esulting in computed shortages amounting to P529,738.50; albeit already:ceslitit@dsDespite the restitution, the Audit Tear nevertheless believed that the respondent misappropiiated'the shortages for her personal use based on her statements. io ds in her comment, respondent Viesca maintained that she nevermisappropriated the collections entrusted to her for her personal ‘use. Although. during tirivestigation, responderit_ made categorical statement that she failed to remit collections because she used them since her salary was withheld. Also, she averred that she was fully aware. of her duties and responsibilities as Clerk of Court and that her only mistake was to authorize hér co-Clerk of Court to receive the collections on her beat ISSUE: : Should the respondent be held ‘administratively ‘lable for,.gross neglect of duty, grave misconduct and serious dishonesty? HELD: : fi v YES, the respondent is guilty “of gross neglect of \dily,~grave misconduct and serious dishonesty. In OCA v. Acampado, the SC held that Clerks of Count are the custodians of the courts’ funds and revenues, records, properties, and premises, They are liable for any loss, shortage, destruction or Impairment of those entrusted to them. Any shertages in the amounts to be remitted and the delay in the actual remittance constitute gross neglect of duty for which the clerk of court shall be held administratively liable. In this case, Viesva herself admitied that she was fully aware of the duties and responsibilities altendant to her position as Clerk of Court. Despite such knowledge, she still failed to timely remit her judiciary collections and submit monthly reports pertaining thereto, resulting in computed shortages as found by the Audit Team. Worse, Viesca admitted to the misappropriation of such shortages for her own personal use, offering the unacceptable excuse that her salaries had been withheld on account of her failure to submit the required financial reports: Viesca’s restitution of the aforesaid shortages did not operate to exculpate her of any 2g SANBEDA COLLEGE OF Law 2016 CENTRAUZED BAR OPERATIONSadministrative liability, since as correctly painted out by the OCA, ‘her belated remittance of the judiciary collections had effectively deprived the Court of interest such amounts would have carmed if hey were deposited in a bank, Thus, she should be held administratively held liable. LAWYER WHO WILLFULLY RESORTS TC ANY FALSEHOOD IN ORDER 7G MISLEAD THE COURTS OR HIS CLIENTS ON THE STATUS OF THEIR CAUSES Henry Samonte v. Atty. Gines Abellana A.C. No. 3152: June 23, 2014 Bersamin, J. sie FACTS: ea A en, This is an administrative complaint silediby: comblelnianGHlniy’Samonte against respondent Ally, Gines Abellana for proféssiénal'miscondUctForeonsideration is the. report of the IBP Board of Governors recommending that respondent be.disarred ye. end ATE Lek Complainant alleged, among’ others, thatsrespondent;committed serious “A6t8 of professional misconduct through falsification’ of documents. Atty: Abellafia made it appear that he had filed Civil Case No. CEB-62/0 on*June 10,1988, sconféttiabtysyith their agreement, although the complaint was actually filed on June 14, 1988. In-otitér words, respondent-superimposed “0” on “4” lo make st appear that the civil case was filed om the:tite’agreed upon. ISSUE: ees 's respondent guilty of making the false and untruthful’statements in court? HELD: YES. respondent is guilly of making the félse.and untruthful statements in court. By the Lawyer's Oath is every lawyer enjoined’not only. to obey the laws of the land but also to refrain fom doing any. falsehood in of out of:court,cr from consenting to the doing of any in court, ang to conduct himself according tothe best dtiis Knowledge-and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as ‘to his clients: ye Rule 10.01 - 4 lawyer shall not do any falsehooil.“hor conséniite'the doing of any in Court: not shall he mislead, or allow the Courtto,be misled by aqy, anifide: Rule 11.02 - A lawyer shall punctually appeerat-courtkerings. Rule 18.04 - A lawyer shall keep the client. informethof the status of his case and shall respond within @ reasonable time to client's request for information Ally, Abeliana failed the expectations of honesty, integrity and trustworthiness in his dealings with Samente as the client, and with the RTC as the trial court. He resorted to outright falsification by superimposing “0” on "4" in order to misiead Samonte into believing that he had already filed the complaint in court on June 10, 1988 as promised, instead of on June 14, 1988, the date when he nad actually done so. Hence, the respondent is guilty of making the false and untruthful statements in court. DELIBERATE FAILURE TO PAY JUST DEBTS AND ISSUANCE OF WORTHLESS CHECKS CONSTITUTES GROSS MISCONDUCT SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 9 2016 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS @Estrelia R. Sanchez v. Atty. Nicolas C. Torres, M.D. A.C. No. 10240; November 25, 2014 Per Curiam FACTS: This is a complaint filed by complainant Estrella R. Sanchez against respondent Atty. Nicolas C. Torres. For consideration is the report and recommendation of the IBP finding respondent guilty of violating the Code of Professional Respdinsibility (CPR) for non-payment of just debt and for issuing worthless checks Complainant extended a loan to respgndent.qn.the, promise that the latter will pay the same after one month. To bolster complainant's tsust.aachige ig ‘cespespondent issued two checks in the amount equal to the- amount lganedia Aterean 4 respondent failed to pay. ‘Thereafter, respondent assured complainant tat the Gilecksiioglésbe deposited.again and that they will be henored upon presentment for payment. However. said checks wére.returned due to “Account Ciosed.” Despite repeated demands, respondent failed to paysthe obligation. As mandatory conference. SSUE. Was respondent guilty of gross-misconduct? RULING: oe eae YES, respondent is guilty of willful dishonesty anvounting:te-gross misconduct. §n Barrientos v. Ally. Libiran-Meteoro, the SC ruled thatdeliberate failure to pay just debts and ne issuance of worthless checks constitute. gross :migeonduct for which lawyers may be sanctioned with suspension from the practicesof law Here, respondent failed to pay the loan’ which he contragted from complainant and, worse, he issued unfunded checks. “Tus, respondents guity of grass shgeont 30 SANBEDACOLLEGE OF Law 2016 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONSa, [ne 8P22 IS A CRIME INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE Marivie C. Vitor v. Caroline Grace Zafra A.M, No. P-11-2917; December 02, 2014 Per Curiam FACTS: unbecoming of a court personneltfogthe tatensda tupestey ftissmount of P37,500.00 she had Owed to the former. Vitor averred.thatZatrathad 1ésuealtomoks)e post-dated checks as payment of hier loan; that the checks had bounced upon ogsited for the reasOnuthat the account had been closed; and that Zafra had'then | ignored herirspeated demands'to gaythe amounts of Be Checks. thereby forcing’ her to bring Her¥crinjinalscomplainizagainst ‘Batre for violation, ot Balas Pambansa Blg'"22 a te The complainant Marivie C. itor cae line Grace Zafra with conduct Seat pg a i ISSUE: eee {s the respondent administratively liable-for violation: HELD: The Uniform Rules on Administrative’ Cases in the fv ‘Services defines “just debts" as those (1) Claims adjudicated by a’ court of-law,:of-(2)"claimssthe existence and justness of which are admitted by the debtor. Under the: Unitorm: Rules, willfulfailure to.pay just debts is classified as | light offense with the corresponding :psnaity.of reprisiand for the first offense, suspension for ene fo 30 days for the second\offense:. and sdisirigsal for the. third offense. With her Indebledness having been adjudicatedwithifinality BYE colirt of law. her liability under the law is disputed. However, the coriviction ‘of,Zafta of erimifial offénises requires the imposition of higher penalties. f ; : 6 This is particularly so here, considéring:that Court gsi alfeatly-classified and characterized the wolation of Batas Pambansa “Big.”\22F Law 2016 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS.Mark Jimenez, filed a complaint for estafa against complainant, Jimenez alleged that he was the true and beneficial owner of the shares of stock in Clarion Realty and Development Corporation, which was incorporated specifically for the purpose of puirchasing a residential house. Jimenez’s complaint for estafa was based on complainant's alleged participation in the fraudulent means in selling the subject property acquired by Clarion with Jimenez's money. Complainant was duty- bound to remit all the proceeds of the sale to Jimenez as the true and beneficial owner. Complainant and her co-respondents, however, misappropriated end converted the funds for their personal use and benefit. in support of Jimenez's complaint for estafa, Atty. .ancisco executed an affidavit reiterating its factual averments. Complainant was shocked upon reading the allegations in the complaint and felt even more betrayed when she read,the,aidaylof Ally. Francisco, on whom she relied as her persona! {awyer and Clariondetcorogratel =o EerdsSecretary of Clarion. This prompted epics icting interests. her to, : nese ting conflicti ig intere According to her, she uals onferred,with Atty, Francisco regarding the iég DK implications of Clarion's transactions. More significantly? the cpriéipal/documents elativi"tc’ the sale -and transfer of Clarion’s property ‘wero: all Preparsdagtycitted by Atty. Frandjseo" ‘or the members of his law office ISSUE: For a lawyer to be guilty of representing “confi dpe the following must be present: 1. ‘There exists an attorney-client relationship;.or-a prospective attorney-client relationship, and it is by reason of this relationship that the client’madé,thé, cérrimunication; 2. The client made the communication in confidence; and 3: The tegat adyjce must’be sought trom the attomey in his professional capacity. Considering these factors}-the" Court held that the evidence falis to demonstrate the claims of'complainanty The ‘complainant failed to establish the professional relationship between her and Atty. Francisco’ The records are further bereft of any indication that the “advice” regarding'the’ sale of the: subjectsbroperty was-given to Atty. Francisco in confidence. Neither was theré‘a ‘demonstration! of whatishe had communicated to Atty Francisco nor @ recital of circlimstances under whichathé “confidential communication was relayed, All that complaint alleged. her complsipaitweethat “she sought legal advice from respondent in various occasions. There was no testimony: as to the specific confidential information allegedly divulged by Aly. Francisco without her consent. It is, therefore, dificutt, it not impossible, to determine if there was any violation of the rule on pnvileged communication, Such confidential information is a crucial link in establishing a breach of the rule on privileged communication between attormey and client. It is not enough to merely assert the attomey-client privilege. It cannot be gainsaid then that complainant, who has the burden of proving that the privilege applies, failed in this regard. Hence, Atty. Francisco did not violate the rule on conflict of interests. SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2016 Centrauizeo Bar Orenarions 9°OBSTINATE REFUSAL TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT'S ORDERS NOT ONLY BETRAYS A RECALCITRANT FLAW IN HER CHARACTER BUT ALSO UNDERSCORES HER DISRESPECT OF THE COURT’S LAWFUL ORDERS Jimmy Anudon and Juanita Anudon v. Atty. Arturo B. Cefra AC. No, 5482; February 10, 2015 Leonen, J. FACTS: c This is a case for disciplinary action fied by complainants, Jimmy Anudon (Jimmy) and Juanits Andon (Juanita) against respondent Ay, Arturo B. Cera For consideration s the report of the IBP Board af Govemors recommending | aati tne respondent's notarial commission and his permanent disquaificationsfidm. reappoint me nt | public and suspension from the practice of law. Complainants and Jimmy's stings co-pun.9 ratcel lang. Respondent an 2fplainants are distant relatives. Respondent is a practicing lawyer iand"a commissioned ;Retary public. The respondent notarized’a Deed ofvAbsolite’Sale where:the games of JohnnyAnudon, Aifonso Anudon, Benita Anudon-Esguerra, arid the’complairiants appearéd'as vendors; while the name of Celino Paran, Jr, (Paran) appeared*as the'wendéte!Cohiplajfiunts claimed that the Deed of Absolute Sale was falsified. They alléged that:theyididsuUsigaithe said. document, The NBI's Questioned Documents Division...certified bats complainant's signatures were forged. Complainants filed an administrative complaintiagajnstirespoadent. Respondent filed multiple Motions for Extension of Time, which the court granted. However, despite the aliuwance for extension of time, he did not comply with this court's order toile a Comment. In his comment, respondent admfitted:kriowing that ‘coejain’ affixed the signatures of Johnny. Alfonso, and Benita with the full knowledge: and permission of-theithree. He allowed this on the basis of hs bela that this was jusiied since Locjan-ngeded the proceeds of the sale forthe amputation of his mother's leg. ISSUES: 4. Did respondent violate the i Notaraltaw? 2._ Did respondent violate the. CPR? *5 HELD: 1. YES, respondent violated the’ Notaiattaw ges Rule !V, Section 2(b) states: SEC..2. Prohibitions, (b) A person shatl not perform a notarial act if the person involved as signatory to the instrument or document— (1) is not in the notary’s presence personally at the time of the notarization. Here, respondent notarized the questioned Deed of Sate despite the fact that Jimmy and Juanita were not present. Complainants, as vendors, were not able to review the document given for notarization. The Deed of Absolute Sale was brought to respondent by Paran’s Tepresentatives, who merely informed respondent that the vendors signed the document. Respondent should have exercised vigilance and not just relied on the representations of the vendee. ‘Thus, he violated the Notarial Law. 36 SANBEDA COLLEGE OF Law 2016 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS2. YES, respondent is guilty of violating the Code. Canon 1 of the CPR requires a lawyer to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes, In the instant case, the respondent contumaciously delayed compliance with this court's order to tile a Comment, taking him more than seven years after this cours order. Hence, his actions show utter disrespect for legal processes. LAWYER'S DUTY IS TO UPHOLD Ti MAND AUTHORITY OF THE COURTS TO WHICH IT OWES FIDELITY Ey Francia v. Atty; Abdon A.C. No. 19031; July 23, 2014" Reyes, J. BEDA OF LA‘ Poke Fact! ‘ This is a 5d by Goniptainsinr Raut Sisiisiaa(Htari6i3}, praying for the disbarment of fespondent Labor Arbiter(LA) Reynaldo V. Abdotpibdar) for Violation of tne lawyer's oath and the CPR. For consideration is the. resolution PAHCHIER Board of Gévernors recommending respondent's suspension from practice of law. Makati Cinema Square to seek his favolvingithe labor union of Nueva Ecija Ill Electric Cooperative (NEECO Ill): There respondent “Who isa iLabor Arbiter at the NLRC, San Femendo, Pampanga, told complainant to.aise’P 1,000,000 in‘order to faciitate the release oF a favoiable decision, In a subsequent mevting.-camblainant gave P350,000 to respondent Months afler the said meeting, complainantiwas-adviséd by his counsel that the CA already entered 2 decision adverse to them. ‘Cémplaingnt filed iin administrative complaint against respondent. wy For his part, the respondent denied that heifidde anyfepresentation to the complainant; that he had the capacity to facilitate the fetease of a favérable. decision in the CA; and that he received honey in exchange therefor. He. admitted that he had/a chance"meeting with the complainant at the Makati Cinema Square in December 2006u:Sine ey Nave not seen each other for a Jong lime, they had a short conversation over snacks Upondhe complainant's moitation ISSUE: 's the respondent guilty of violating Canon 7 of the CPR? HELD: YES, the respondent is quilty of violating the CPR. Ganon 7 of the CPR mandates that a lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. itis every lawyer's duty te maintain the high regard fo the profession by staying true to his oath and kesping his aelions t eyond reproach The respondent, as a memb er of the legal profession, has a further responsibility to safeguard the dignity of the courts whi ich Ihe public perceives as the bastion of justice. He must at all times SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2016 CeNTRAUZED BAR OPERATIONS 37keep its good name untamished and not be instrumental to its disrepute, The respondent however, compromised the integrity of the judiciary by his association with @ scoundrel who ‘earns a living by dishonoring the court and maliciously imputing corrupt motives on its members. Hence, respondent violated Canon 7 of the CPR. NON-APPEARANCE IN HEARINGS BEFORE THE IBP INDICATES A LACK OF RESPECT FOR’ iiE IBP'S RULES AND PROCEDURES AND IS A VIOLATION OF THE CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY AG. No. 10679; March 10, 2015, Villarama, Jr., J FACTS: This is a complaint for disbarment filed by PO*: Jose B! Saspe against Atty ~Aquilino A. Mejica for alloged violation of Code of:Professional:Responsibilty; (CPR) For consideration in this case is recommendation of the IBP findinig' the’ respondent guilty of Vialating the:Code of Professional Responsibility. Cuspe alleged the controversy started'when Atty. -Mojica disregarded conflict of interest rules Caspe said that when he filed a complaint-for atlempted murder against Antonio Rodriguez, Jr., Aly. Mejics served as Caspe’s counsel. When Rodriguez. Jrfiled his counter-affidavit, it was Aly, Mejica who counseled and represented him. In the scheduled Mandatory Conference, Atty. Mejica’failed to appear. He manifested that he never received a copy of the complaints. against him. This resulted.to a rescheduled hearing Again, Ally, Mejica failed to appear IBP CBD issued warning. him that hig feillyesto appeat-in,the naxt/rescheduled hearing would render him in default and the case would'be submitted for decision. Despite warning, Atty. Mejica failed to appear again in the newischeduled hearing.,Thus, 'BP CBD found respondent guilty of violating Rules 1.03, 4.04-and 10/0;ol.the Code of Professional Responsibility ISSUE: af che Did respondent Atty. Mejica violate: the” Code-of- Professional Responsibiliy in not atiending the scheduled hearings? HELD: YES, Ally. Mejica violated the Code of Professional Responsibility in not attending the scheduled hearings. Section 5, Rule V of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission on Bar Discipline integrated Bar of the Philippines provides that non-appearance at the mandatory conference or at the Glarificatory questioning date shall be deemed a waiver of right to participate in the proceeding. Ex parte conference or hearings sh ill then be conducted. Pleadings submitted or filed which are not verified shall not be given weight by the Investigating Commissioner. In Cabauatan v. Venida, we stated that not heeding the IBP’s directives constitutes utter disrespect for the judiciary and his fellow lawyers. A Resolution of this Court is not a mere request but an order gg SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF Law 2016 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONShe 7 7 b which should be complied with promptly and completely. This is also true of the orders of the 'BP as the investigating arm of the Court in administrative cases against lawyers. It is the Court's opinion that Atty. Mejica's attitude toward the proceedings before the 1BP indicates a lack of respect for the IBP’s rules and procedures. Atty. Mejica during the course of these proceedings has missed all four scheduled hearings supposedly since he was not furnished any copy of the complaint. Respondent should strive harder to live up to his duties of observing and maintaining the respect due to the courts, respect for law and for legal processes, and of upholding the integrity and dignity of the lega! profession in order to perform his responsibilities as a lawyer effectively. lawyer fo observe and give dueestieehto ol iesta EE Se INFLUENCE PEDDLING 1S, NOT-LUMTED TO THE, REGULAR COURTS, OTHER VENUES IN THE JUSTICESSECTOR Go inid Ay, 4 iat ele ES EE OVE nh” Jimenez v. Atty. Verano, Jr’Tatty? Lozano VAtty. Verano. Jt. A.C. No. 8108 / A.C, No. 102997 july 15*2014% 2 amie: Sereno, Cu Ba Thus the courts hold that. Atty, Mejica_furths ty. A oo Say thee consolidated administrative sases.filédibefore ine |BPeagainst Atty, Felisberto Verano ions af the Code of Professional Responsibilily#;FGr consideration is the Resolution of the Board cf Governors of the Integrated Bar of the-Philippines (IBP) finding respondent liable for improper and inappropriate ‘onduct tending ‘to“infliience”andior giving the appearance of influence upon a public official Brodett and Teoson (the "Alabang: Boys") were'the'accised ih cases‘filed by the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PD'E4) for the.illegal-Sale and i8é“of;dangerolis. drugs. In a Joint Inquest Resolution issued on 2 December 2008; the’ charges were dropped ‘or lack of probable cause. Because of the failure of. Prosecutor’ JohniRisResado,to ask,clatificatory questions during the evaluation of the case, several‘mecia oultléts:reparted: onsincidents of bribery and "cover-up" allegedly prevalent in investigations of.the dfuig’tréde, .This, profipted the House Committee on legal Orugs to conduct its ow.congressional heagingssyipiils” not serve 2s commensurate penalty for the-effepse. £2." j fe amg CONTRACTING A: MARRIAGE CURING THE! UBS Dr. Elmar 0. Perez v.-Atty. Tristan Ajatinaig ana jantygaren EiBaydo AG. No. 5816; March 10, 2015 : SOAS Per Curiam ft seaesny FACTS: This is an administrative complaint’ led bya Elmar-as Ally, Tristan A, .Catindig. (Catindig)i nang Karen, E! Bava (Baydo) f6r gross immorality and violation of the CPR, a a already wed to Lily Corazon’ Gomez. car cto sere a divorce decree from the Dominican Republic. Complainiagt/claimed that"Catindigassiged her that the said divorce decree was lawful and valid an that there was nojlongekany impediment to their marriage bia Statetot Virginia, USA. Years later, complainant came to know tiat her maitidge to Atty. Catindig is a nullity since the divorce decree that was obtained from the Dominican Republic by the latter and Gomez is not recognized by Philippine laws. When she confronted Atty. Catindig about it, the latter allegedly assured her that he would legalize their union once he oblains a deciaration cf nullity of his marriage to Gomez under the laws of the Philippines. ISSUE: q Did the respondent commit gross immorality in contracting a marriage during the subsistence of arather marriage? HELD: YES, the respondent is guilty of committing gross immorality in contracting a marriage during the subsistence of another marriage. 40 SANBEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2016 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONSThe CPR provides that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct (Rule 1.01) and that a lawyer shall not engage in cenduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous ‘manner {o the discredit of the legal profession (Rule7.03). {In the case at bar, the respondent upon contracting a second marriage during the subsistence of a previous one indeed established a pattern of conduct thet is grossly immoral which is not only corrupt and unprincipled, but reprehensible to a high degree. Hence, he committed gross immorality THE CHARGES-AGAINTS JUD ‘THEM FROM UNFOUNDED SUE Presiding Judge'Jése L. Madrid vaAtty. NulariSibaalbgas, AC No. 7474; September 0972014 | ergs em Bersamin, J. sis a WHILE IT IS THE COURT'S ua 3 np oes piesidi Ally. Juan Dealca (Dealca) for'misconduct and grave the eeport of the IP recommendibg respondent’ dose L.-Magrid (Madrid) against tof the:CPR. For consideration is fom the practice of law. Respondent entered his appearance in a. Respondent sought to replace Ally: fe" Judarwho had filed a ‘motion to withdraw as, counsel for the accused in, said casesButlaside froméhtering his appearance as counsel for the accused, respondent also moved:tiiatitivescriminalcaseibetre-raffled-io another Branch of the RTC on account of the adverse lincidentssbatwekn itive! incumbent Presiding Judge and the undersigned. Respondent ‘maintains. idge Mauirid.should have-.in good grace inhibited himself upon his motion “to jrihibit ‘in {0 pfeservercenfidence~in the impartiality of the ndent, judiciary. This motion was.dénied by the Fesp f fiiminiats'ca8e “presidéd by the complainant Bf et Sy! Respondent asserted that--éemplainant’s “tésfance‘dtithe: “February 14. 2007 order unconstitutionality and uniawfulldeptived the aceurerstiie-rgnt to counsel, to due process and to 2 fair and impartial trial; thay the leitteiexbibitéd-bids-in failing to act on the motion 10 lilt and set aside warrant of arrest issued.-against~the accused: and that it should be the campiainant himself who should be digbérred and decSrdingly dismissed form the Judiciary for 9108s ignorance of the law. ISSUE: Is respondent guilty of violating Rule 11.04, Ganon 11 of the CPR? ‘SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW : 4 2016 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS: 7HELD: YES, respondent violated Rule 11.04, Canon 17 of the.CPR, Canon 11 — A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to the judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct by others. x x x x Rule 11.04 — A laviyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives not supported by the record or have no materiality to the case. Worth stressirig is that the right of a party to seek the inhibition or disqualificatio:-c* a judge who does not appear to be wholly free, disinterested, impartial and independent in handling the case must be balanced with the latter's sacred duty to decide cases without fear of repression, The falters bare allegations of Judge Madrig’s partially, or hosilily did not suffice, because the presumption that compan! wont era tis ala, dispense justice according to Jaw and the evidence and withoutte aio overcome by clear and convincing evidence to the contiary’ 7 As'such, respondent clearly contravened hissduties'asiatiawiyer as exoressly Siatéd in Canon 11 and Rule 11.04 of the CPR. a aie Shirley Otayta-Camba.v. Atty. Otilie: Sy Bongon A.C. No. 8826; March 25, 2015 Perlas-Bemabe, J FACTS: 8s An administrative complaint for disbarmentiwas filed by Qlayta-Camba against Atty Bongon for his failure to return the money onstage ign by his glicht--For consideration in this case i the State ,propertic: aggregate amount of P112,499:55"t9. respondent. Resporident” failed lo update complainant regarding tho status of the “inaitels preferred to thimsethys, complainant terminated her ‘engagement with respondent and'demardetrforsheristam FOr PY 12, 499.55, but to no avail In his defense, respondent asserts that“he only raceiled P55,000,00 and that the rest of the money was received by a certain Rowena Delos Reyes-Kelly who was not an employee of his law firm. Further, respondent averred that he had already offered to return the amount of P30, 000.00 to complainant. ISSUE: Is the respondent administratively liable? HELD: YES, the respo. dent is administratively liable Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the CPR states that a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him fiable, It must be stressed 42 SANBEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2016 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS:(eae thal once a fawyer takes up the cause of his alient, ne is duty-bound to serve the latter with Competence, and to attend to such client's cause with diligence, care, and devotion whether he accepts it for a fee or for free. He owes fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed upon him. In this ease, complainant engaged the services of respondent and in connection therewith, allegedly gave various amounts to respondent, of which the latter admitted the receipt of only 58,000.00. Despite the foregoing, respondent failed to comply with his undertaking snd offered the excuse that the reconstitution of the titles and ihe preparation of the Deed were. delayed due to the Deed’s several revisions; and that Bernabe Olayta’s Surviving heirs were living in different places, making it difficult to secure their Presence, much less obtain their Signatures to the said Deed, wey sy eber LAWYER HOLDS IN TRUST ALL MONEYS! AND COME INTO HIS POSSESSION Eduardo A. Maglente v. Atty:Delfir R: Agcaoill;/Ji: A.C. No. 10672; March'18, 2015 Perlas-Bernahe, J FACTS - ¢ [hs is 2 disbarment complaint Med by conwlaingnt Eduardo MAglente (Mgiente) against respondent Atty. Delfin Rs Agcaoili (Ally. Agcaoili) for misappropriation of his client's funds, For consideration is the Report and Recommenilation of tNe !BP Investigating Commissioner finding Fespondent guilty of violating Rule#f6:07 of the Code f Professional Responsibility (CR) Complainant engaged ihe services of respondent for, the Purpose of filing a case in order to Getermine the true owner of the land:being. occupied by the former, He gave respondent an amount intended to cover the'fling feessforsthe action to°be instiluted. This is evidenced by a piten acknowledgment executed by respondent himself. Qespite the payment, respondent failed to fle an action in:court’ Responidght! explainéd thatithe:money given to him was net snough to fully pay for the filingifes.in court” Cémplainantedlleged that when he persisted in Seeking restitution of the aforagaidsum; respondent ici sniniito shut up because #t was nat hie money in ihs trot place’ Thus, the ‘presentigamjaistrative' complaint seeking the return of the full amount he'had paid to respondent ‘ : “ <> in is defense, respondent denied spending complainant's money, explaining that he had already prepared the initiatory pleading and was poised to file the same, when he diseoverce through the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo City that the fling fee was quite costly. ISSUE, {s the respondent administratively lable for violating Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility? HELD: XES. Respondent must be held administratively liable for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility, SAN BEDA ColLece oF Law 2026 CENTRALIZED BaR OPeRaTions 43‘Rule 16.01 of the CPR provides that a lawyer stiall account for all money or property collected or received for or from the client while Rule 16.03 of the same Code provides that a lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his ‘client when due or upon demand, When a lawyer receives money from the client for a particular purpose, the lawyer is bound to render an accounting to the client showing that the money was spent for the intended purpose. Consequently, if the money was not used accordingly, the same must be immediately, returned to the client. A lawyer's failure to retum the ‘oney to his client despite numerous demands is a violation of the trust reposed on him and is indicative of his lack of integrity, as in this case. Respondent failed to exercise such ski common posse nd rece Period of one (1) year and ordered to.returg to seek the amount of ‘Pdeys0b. 00. Si ar ah VIOLATION OF TRUST ae Rolando Viray v. Atty. Eugenio T. Sanicas AG. No. 7337; September 29, 2014 Sire Del Castillo, J wee FACTS: This is a Complsint for DisbarmeniGross-lmmoral Conducted by complainant Rolando Viray against respondent Atty, Eugenio. Sanicas: (For consideration is the recommendation of the IBP that respondent be meted the’ penalty’ of suspensio Complainant alleges that he engaged the Services bt respondent relative to a labor case he filed against Ester Lopez and Teodoro Lopezillf(spousesitéoez). The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of ‘complainant and an Alias Writ of Executiontwas issueg.’During the implementation of said writ, however, complainant discovered: that respondent had already. collected the total amount of 95,000.00 from spouses Lopez.Compiainant also discoveged'that respondent misrepresented to spouses Lopez that he is alithorized to receive payineftsorrhis behalf, when in truth and in fact he is not. Consequently, compiainaitimade:sevéral-Yerbal demands to the respondent to remit to him the amount of iess his attomey's*fees.. But responcent did not budge. Thus, Complainant, lodged! a complaint before’ the Cifice eiithe Punwng Baranyay uf Broy. Felisa, Bacolod City. Respondent, however, ignored ike summons to allend a conference before the barangay to resoive the issues. Respondent denies that he was not authorized to accept it. He explains that complainant agreed to pay him additional attorney's fees equivalent to 25% of the total monetary award, on top of the aitorney’s fees that may be awarded by the labor tribunal, and to refund all expenses Fespondent incurred relative to the case. ISSUE: Is respondent guilty of gross misconduct for his failure to promptly account to his client the funds teceived in the course of his professional engagement and return the same upon demand? 44 SANBEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2016 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONSHELD: YES, respondent is guilty of gross misconduct for funds received in the course of his professional demand. failure to promptly account to his client the engagement and return the same upon ‘The Code of Professional Responsibility demands the utmost degree of fidelity and good faith in Cealng with the moneys entrusted to lawyers because of their fiduciary relationship Specifically, Rule 16.01 of the Code imposes upon the lawyer the duty to “account for all money or Property collected or received for or from the client.” Rule 16.0% thereof, on the other hand, mandates that “a lawyet shall deliver the funds x x x of his client when due or uzon demand.” in this case, despite the number of times.aver.closg to three months he had been receiving payment, respondent neither infomiedthe¥cojiplairia Mt. SHSisbfact nor rendered an accounting thereon. Yo make matters worsesigspondequiinheiaind dito deliver to the complainant said amount, which’he merely receiv ‘behalf oF Fis‘crenBven, after demand-7Complainant brought the matter'before the barangay,..but respondent Simply ighored the apie. Such failure and ‘nordinate refusal on the part ofthe sréspondeat.tosrender an accdiinti ‘money after demand raises:therpresumptign that he ‘gorvertedyitto:his owsijise: Thus, respondent is guilty of gross*miscoridtct fol hist faiie funds received in the course demand Plomptly account to his client the Of his’ professional “engageltient and ‘return the same upon & LAWYER'S FAILURE TO RETURN UPON-DEMAND:THE FUNDS. HELD BY HIM ON BENALF OF HIS CLIENT GIVES RISE\TO°THESPRESUMPTION THAT HE HAS APPROPRIATED THE SAME FOR HIS‘OQWN USE INVIOLATION’ OF THE TRUST REPOSED IN HIM BY HiS CLIENT Mariten G. Soliman v, Atty. Ditas LeriossAmboy _ « , AG. No. 10568; January 13, 2015-0. oF ye Reyes, J. ge cars FACTS: 3 cs LAS: This is an administrative coingidint filed by arlén Gy-Solinfit (Soliman) against Atty. Ditas Lerios-Amboy (Atty, Amboy) for>viclation of the iCgde.tot-Professional Responsibility, Fr consideration is the Report of the IEP"iningvesponderitguily of the charges against hin, and recommending his suspension irom the practice of law far two (2) years. in her complaint, Soliman claimed that she engaged the services of Alty. Amboy in a partion case. in accordance with the Retainer A, ‘greement between the parties, Soliman agreed to pay ‘Bay Amboy P50, 000.00 as acceptance fae. Upon the latter's engagement, Soliman paid her £25, 000.00. Later on, Atty. Amboy advised Soliman to no longer institute a partition case sines ese aher co-owners of the property were amenable to the partition thereof. Instead, Ally. AmDoy {ust facilitated the issuance of the liles to the said property from the co-owners to the vidividecl gamers; the P25, 000.00 already paid to her was then treated as payment for her professional services. Thereafter, Soliman kept on asking Atty. Amboy for any update on the release of the Said tiles, but the latter was not responding to her queri2s. Soliman asked Atty. Marasigan if he fecelved the PS0,000.00 as payment for the release of the said titles. Atty. Marasigan denied having received any amount to facilitate the reiease of the titles and claimed that ihe reason why the same could not be processed was that Atty. Amboy failed to file certain documents, SAN BEDA ConLEGE OF LAW 2016CeNTRALIZED BAR Operations — 45For her part, Atty. Amboy admitted that she had a retainer agreement with Soliman, but denied having received any amount from the latter pursuant to the said agreement. She claimed that the retainer agreement was not implemented since the partition case was not instituted. She claimed that she merely undertook to research, gather and collate all dacuments required in the partition and in the transfer of the titles from the co-owners to the individual owners. She denied having failed to submit the relevant documents fo the RD which caused the delay in the processing of the said lilles. She likewise denied hating asked Soliman for P50,000.00 to facilitate the ; lease of the said titles. ISSUE: Is Aly. Ditas Lerios-Amboy quily of misappr her? HELD: YES, Ally, Ditas Lerios-Amboy gully of isgporayyating ghthe money given, bane complainant to her. : ‘The Code of Professional Responsibility clearly ‘states that” alawier ‘owes fidelity to the cause of his client and that he should be mindful of the'trust and¢anfideitce reposed:in him. A lawyer is mandated to serve his client with competence and'dlligence;ito never neglect a legal matter entrusted to him; and to keep his client informed ofithe:stallis’of his case and respond within a reasonable time to the client's request for information. Ajawyer’s failure to return upon demand the funds held by him on behalf of his client gives ris®/t6, the presumption that he has appropriated the same for his own use in violation of the’trustreposed in him by his client. Such act is @ gross violation of general morality as:well as ofsprofessional ethics confidence in the tegal profession and deserves punishrient® I impairs public The circumstances of this case clearly show that Alty“Amboy, after receiving P25,000.00 as payment for her professional services, failed to" su:mit material ‘documents relative to the issuance Of separate certificates of-tila: tothe individual owners, of the property. it was her negligence which caused the delay inthe issUance‘ofthe, certificates of title. Clearly, this is not a simple case of negligence and incompetehice by a counsel\in dealing with a client. Atty. Amooy’s acts undermined the'legal processes, which»she wong uphold and defend. ; Aare Therefore, Ally. Amboy is guilly-ofjti appropr ng wt Bete @y given by the complainant to her. : 46 SANBEDA COLLEGE OF Law 2016 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS:Melody Nery v. Atty. Glicerio A. Sampana AC. No. 10196; September 09, 2014 Carpio, Acting Cu. FACTS: This is a disharment complaint filed by Melody R. Nery (Nery) against Atty. Glicerio A. Sampana (Sampana) for failing to file the Petition for adoption despite receiving his legal fees and for making Nery believe that the petition was already filed. For consideration is the resolution of the. '8P which found Sampana guilty of m, Practice lorsmaking Nery believe that he already filed the Petition for adoption and for fallngye flesthespention leSpit iving his legal fees. jisgpiion by an alien atlopter. The, peliian.for. annulment wag everitually. granted and Nery paid P200,-000.00 to Sampana:thni: “she leamed frartifMiSdesto that the Rearing eo euabtion was already’ fledand: pablishgo: and:they cede MG-Tehearse for the nearing. Later, he informed her thal the"hearing was feset- Wher, she askethwhy she received peaighee from the court, he informed-herttat hess eewas not needed as it was only a iurisdictione! hearing. When she verified with th eiscovered that.no such petition for Ghoaton was filed. Thus she met Modesto. anckaehed fer fsimbursement; the latter agreed, but sepnded that his legal fees be deducted, lo whichishéaie me agree, as the petition for adoption was nol filed. Despite sevéral demands fof-feimbérsement, Modesto failed to do the same, However, Sampania alleged that-receivingstone ts ‘age annulment of marriage and adapticn: 8: petition : Nery for both cases of i Nery as lo the filing of the ISSUE: HELD: wines : YES, Atty. Sampana is quilty of rhalpractice 22" ae el) bee Acceptar of money from a clishvestibtisnessaneailt HHiiey-Client relationship and gives rise to the duly of fidelity to the client's Cause. Every Case.accepted by a lawyer deserves full attention, diligence, skill arid competence, regardiess of importance. A. lawyer also awes it to the court, HOt Gents, and other lawyers te be candid and tay Thus, the Code of Professional Responsibility clearly states: CANON 15 = lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with his client CANON 16 - A tawye into his possession. Rule 16.03 - A lawy, demand, © shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client thatmay come “* shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon SANBEDACOLLEGEOFLAW —,, « 1A Cecea Senceeitt ie c CANON 17 - A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his clien!'and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. CANON 18 - A lawyer shail serve his client with competence and diligence. Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shail not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. Sampana admitted that he received “one package fee” for both cases of annulment and adoption. Despite receiving this fee, ne unjustifiably failed to file the petition for adoption and fell short of his duty of due diligence and candor to his client. Having no valid reason not to file the Petition for adoption, Sampana misinformed Nery of the status of the petition. He then conceded that the annulment cases overshadows ion for adoption. He even kept the money given him, in violation of eae, a jents funds upon demand. A lawyer's failure to return uponsthentertat eufundsitield by him gives rise to the presumption that he has appropriated'tHe same tor'histownluge tiiviolation offthesrust reposed in him by his client and of the public confidence jn the legal, profession ne ie ee Thus, Sampana is guilty of misleading Mery:asia "he fling Qf tye\petiiorfor'adoption thereby vioated the Code of Professional Responsibility Felipe Layos v. Atty. Marlito |. Villanueva A.C. No. 8085; December 01, 2014 Perlas-Bemabe, J. zy FACTS: This is a cornplaint for violation of the.Gode: ofProfessional Responsibility filed by Felipe Layos against Atty. Marlitc Villanueva for-his*censtaot failure'9 appear. during court hearings which resulted in the trial court's issuance of an order waiving the defense’s (Layos) right to cross- examine 2 prosecution witness. For-consideration ‘is:the decision of the IBP recommending the suspension of Alty. Villanueva, tlandevarin’ a crirhingrcase ‘against him. It was alleged that the former's constant failure-tovappear during cour heatlfigs resulted in the RTC’s issuance ‘of an Order waiving the defense’s-rightitotargss:examine™a’ prosecution witness. Despite ihe issuance of such order, respondent remained absent and thus, complainant was only able to move for reconsideration thru respondent, only four (4) years later which was also denied. Layas engaged the services ofvAtty Villanueva denied being remiss in his duty as complainant's counsel. He averred that during the hearing on Apnl 4, 2002 where the criminal case was supposed to be amicably settled, his car broke down and thus, he was unable to atlend the hearing, AVter his car was fixed, he decided to go back to his office and asked his secietary to call complainant to know what happened in the said hearing but was unable te contact complainant and that he never heard from the latter for along time. Respondent claimed that he holcnger received any notices from the RTC, and thus, he assumed that the amicable Settlement pushed through and that the case was dismissed already. 4g) SANBEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2016 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONSISSUE: |s the respondent administratively liable for violating Canons 17 and 18 of the CPR? HELD: YES, respondent must be held liable for violation of CPR. Under Canon 17 and Canon 18, Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the CPR, itis the lawyer's duty to Serve his client's interest with utmost zeal, candor and diligence. As such, he must keep abreast of.all the developments in his client's case and should inform the latter of the same, as it is Crucial in maintaining the latter's confidenea. it must be stressed that public interest requires that an attorney exert his best efforts in the prosecution or defense of a client's cause. A lawyer wsho performs that duty with dligence 2nd candey.nol only protects the interests of his client, he also serves the ends of justicesdiiés to} 2 iGshelps maintain the respect of the community to the legal profession/@l- awe SHENpar of the whole sysiem of administering justice in this jurisdiction" e ee Since missing the April 4, 2002 hearngl ‘espahdeAvinoMonger kept ttack*ar complainant's Syminal case and merely assumed thauthe'samne wastalready, amicably seltled”and terminated ‘Thereafter, when respondent finaliy"knew"that the” dase"wWac stil on-going; he attended the November 15, 2005 hearing, anddiscoveredithetiaivcoyaisviesuance of the order which is prejudicial to complainant's cause. Déspi lef alaiining developments, respondent did not immediately seek any remedy to further. the interests. Gf his‘clietsinstead, he passively relied on the representations of the: court empioyees that HtheVAveUldssehd him'a copy of the aforesaid Cider. Worse, when he finally secured'a Copy.‘it'stild@ok him:over 2 year just to move the trial ‘court to reconsider Thus, respondent must be held liabletfor Violation ofCPR A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO-HIS/CHIEN: 'S:CAUSE AND MUST ALWAYS BE MINDFUL. C8 THE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE REPOSED | IN HIM L poet Almira C. Foronda v. Atty-Jose L. A AC. No. 9976: June 25, 2014,- > Reyes, J i Facts: 7 tte i This is a complaint for disbarment filed by Alraira Foronda against Atty. Jose L. Alvarez for fraud and deceil; dishonesty and misrepreséntation for.thisinforming’ her of the status of her annulment case; and failure to return legal fees already received. For consideration in this case is the recommendation of the IBP, directing the suspension of the respondent from the practice of law for one year with warning that repetition of the similar conduct shall be dealt with more severely. Foronda is an oversees Filipino worker in Dubai, She retumed to the Philippines to institute a Case for. the nullification of her marriage and. engaged the services of alty. Alvarez, paying him the legal fees agreed upon. In September 2008, the complainant inquired about the status of her case and was allegedly told by the respondent that her pelition was pending in court; and in another time, she was told that a decision by the court was already forthcoming, However, when she came back to the country in May 2009, the respondent told her that her petition was still Pending in court and apologized for the delay. Eventually, the complainant was able to get a ‘SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF Law 2016 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS 49copy of her petition and found out that it was filed only on July 16, 2009. The complainant further alleged in her complaint that the week after she signed the coniract of service with the respondent, the latter requested for a meeting: Thinking that they were going to discuss her case, she agreed. But during the meeting, the respondent invited her to be an investor in the lending business allegedly ran by the respondent's sister-infaw. The respondent encouraged her to invest P 200,000.00. The complainant finally agreed on the condition that the respondent shall issue personal and postdated checks in her favor representing the five percent (5%) interest that the complainant's money shall eam. According to the complainant, upon Presentment of these checks, the drawee-bank honored the first two (2) checks, but-:7 rest were dishonored for being drawn against a closed account. By way of special and affirmative defense, i! herespepdent asserted the fotowing: that t was the complainant who owed hira notarialsfee, al iru ti ae 0 as he notarized a deed of conditional saie executed betweenthenandia certains ROsdlingtAARuiz over a real property and that the contract he executed: withthe: Spier anwas jefe contract of loan. Being a contract of loan, he cannot be held guilty of violation of Batas Pambansa Bilabig.22 (B.P. Big. 22) since the checks he issued were lo-servetonlysas.seetiiy fori, ? ISSUE: . Did the respondent commit acts violative of theiCadevor HELD: : YES. Respondent committed acts in violation of Cade.of.Professionai Responsibility Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibilily states thal a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him and that a lawyer shall serve his client with-competence ‘and-diligence and shall not neglect a legal mailer entrusted to him, and the negligence.in, connection therewith shail render him liable. On, the oles hand, Rule 1.01 of the same Code reaures tha! a lawyer shall not engage in unlavaui, dishonesi, immoral or deceitful conduct: ‘Once a lawyer agrees to take up the. cau and must always be mindful of the trust ai Canons of Professional: Responsibility: ‘devotion. of aclient, the lawyer‘owes fidelity to such cause ‘confidence reposedhin- him. He is required by the ‘undertake.sthe task with zeal, care and utmost In this case, the respondent’s.act*ofi issuing worthlessechecks is a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The issuancetiofycheckS:which” were later dishonored for having been drawn against a closed acc-ount indicates a-lawyer’s unfitness for the trust and confidence reposed on him, shows siich lack of personal honesty)and good moral character as to render him unworthy of public confidence, and constitutes @ ground for disciplinary action. It cannot be denied that the respondent's unfulfilled promise to seitle his obligation and the issuance of worthless. checks have.seriously breached the complainant's trust. She went so far as to file ‘muhiple criminal cases for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 against him. Hence, respondent violated CANONS 1, 17, and 48 of the Code of Professional Responsibility 50 SANBEDACOLLEGE OF LAW 2016 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS:id YAO SS FAILURE TO EXERT EFFORTS TO COMMUNICATE WITH CLIENT IS DEEMED ABANDONMENT AS COUNSEL Reynaldo G. Ramirez v. Atty. Mercedes Buhayang-Margallo A.C. No. 10537; February 3, 2015 Leonen, J. FACTS: This is an administrative complaint fled by Reynaldo Ramirez against Atty. Margallo for the latter's inaction as counsel which resulted in a lost appeal, terminating the case of her clint not on the merits but due to her negligence. For consideration is the recommendation of the IBP thal Ally. Margallo be suspended from the practice. law for 2 years According to.Ramirez, he conttacteditieisewness WEGEllBin a civil case for Quioting of Title. The trial coun decided’ against" Ramiree Anes WaSperfected andthe Court of Appeals directed Ramirez to file his Appelants, Ale Aly. Margallo told Nirtat she would have one prepared: Subsequently, AieMalgalle'intoanbé-him that hie Appe@ithad been denied {or his fallure to establish tis-fliation withshissallegecstather gwhich:was the basis of his claim When Ramirez went to the’CA-he distovered"that'the Apyellart's Brief.was filed beyond the SHeaitis“pologies for filing beyond the ‘egiementary period, witha Motion for Records reglementary period Alty, Margallo argued that. she ‘had agréed'to take! Enjlhelcas She also claimed that she informed Ramirez thatriney ‘oni case. She denied having entered into a contingencyjadfeeinent. She also asserted that when she instructed Ramirez to see her for'documentisigaifig=he!merely ignored her. Alty, Margatio: filed a Petition for Review on the’tecommiended penaily' of suspension alleging that it was too severe. ae aaa free, save for travel expense, a 50% chance of winning the ISSUE: “ {s the respondent administratively liable HELD: uae _ YES, the respondent adminisiratively liable! 4 ea Canon 17 of tine Code of Professitnal Responsibiliy sialides tata lawyer owes fidelity to the + cause of his client and he shall'Berinafblefatnestfeet and confidence reposed in him, while Canon 18 provides that @ lawyer shall-Sarvevhigclient with competence and olligence. In connection with these, under Rule 18,03%'a lawyer Shall not neglect a iegal matter envusiod to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shali render him liable. Rule 18.04 further Brovides that its the lawyer's duty to keep the client informed of the status of his case and fo] fespond within a reasonable time to client's request for information. When an action or proceeding is initiated in our courss, lawyers become the eyes and ears of their clients. Lawyers are expected to prosecute or defend the interests of their clients without need for reminders. The professional relationship remains the same regardless of the reasons for the ‘acceptance by counsel and regardless of whether the case is highly paying or pro bono In this case, the lack of communication and coordination between respondent Atty. Margallo and he* client was palpable but was not due to the lack of diligence of ner client. This cost complainant Ramirez his entire case and left him with no appellate remedies. His legal cause was orphaned not because @ court of law ruled on the merits of his case, but because a person SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF Law 2016 CENTRALIZED Bar OPERATIONS eeprivileged lo act as counsel failed to discharge her duties with the requisite dligence. Her assumption that complainant Ramirez was no longer interested to pursue the Appeal is a poor excuse. There was no proof that she exerted efforts to communicate with her client. This is an admission that she abandoned her. obligation as counsel on the basis of an assumption. Respondent Aity. Margallo failéd to exhaust all possible means to protect complainant Ramirez's interest, which is contrary.to what she had sworn to do as a member of the legal profession. For these reasons, she clearly violated Carion 17 and Canon 18, Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility Thus, Atty. Margallo is administratively liable and is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for two (2) years, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar act stall be dealt with more severely. Pedro Resurreccion, et al. v. Peoplelot the Lis, G.R. No. 192866; July 9, 2014 “rs re Brion, J . ae FACTS: This is @ petition for review on certiorari filed: by:Pedrd Resurrection, et al Sandiganbayan resolution finding petitioners guilty. of , assailing the faiversation of public funds Al the time material to the controvers local governa the petitioners ns in the 1eni unit of the Municipality of Pilar, Surigao, del Norte: Resurreccion was the Municipal Mayor, Cometa was the Municipal: Budget Officer and Literato was the Municipal Engineer. The State Auditor, Romeo’Gorral Uy, of-the Commission on Audit (GOA) Regional Office of Butuan City and Freda PallerNapana of the Provincial Auditor's Office in Surigao Cit conducted a special audit and post auditZof the, various disbursements, transactions a: financial accounts of the Municipality’of Pilar, Surage: delNorte and'found some irregularities. The petitioners contend that the’ Sandigahbayan gravelyierred in convicting them based only on the evidence presented by the. prosecution-\They_allribula:theiefaiure to present evidence to their former counsel's (Atty. Mane} Corpuz's) negligenca andtlaim that they were denied due process of law. They argue that:Atly.|Corpuz’s failurejtoriiform them about the developments affecting their case and the schedule! hearing:foritKe reception of evidence - resulting in the waiver of presentation of defense evidence, as they were not able to present evidence in their behalf constitutes gross negligence that warrants the application of the rule that “negtigence and dereliction of duty of the counsel bind the client.” ISSUE: Is the negligence of the former counsel of the petitioners in allegedly not informing them about the status of their case a valid ground to set aside the judgment for conviction? cception to the general HELD: NO, the negligence of the former counsel of the petitioners in allegedly not informi ig them about the status of their cage is not a valid ground to set aside the judgment for conviction. Nothing is more settled than the rule that the negligence and mistakes of the counsel are binding on the client. 52 SANGEDACOLLEGE OF LAW 2016 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONSAs can be gleaned from the records, however, the petitioners have ali executed their respective written waivers of appearance during the prosecution's presentation of evidence which the court approved. When it was the defense'’s tum to present its witnesses, Resurreccion and his co- accused failed to appear during the hearing. On the first scheduled date, the petitioners failed to attend because of the inclement weather. By agreement of the parties, the hearing was set on another date but the petitioners were still absent, compelling the court to cancel the hearing The hearing was again moved to another date but despite notices given to the petitioners, and a ‘stem warning from the court that theif absence on the next scheduledhearing would warrant the termination of the preseriuuon of their evidence, the petitioners again failed to appear, Hence, Ally. Corpuz cannot entirely be faulted for the. waiver of the petitioners’ defense. Truly, a litigant bears the responsibilty to monitor the status. ¢..for no prudent party leaves the fate of his case entirely in the hands ofyaisilayer tli aI ygto be in contact with his lawyer frorn time to time in order to Dé a ack deipomente of his case. Hence, to merely rely.on’ the bare reasuparie wvedvERMbing Is beingakeh cared of is not enough. As clients, it is the petitioners’ coralative.duty to De*in contagh with. Atty. Corpuz from time to time to. inform themselvestof the statisof.théincase. Diligent from lawyers but alsosrom theigclients.ey2 e= eye pS ci GF Thus, the negligence ‘of the fotrisrecuinvel Raa allegedly: “not informing them about the status of their case ig not a Yalid aroungsto ok a ihe judgmentytor conviction % PPR IaReS 4 fs Augusto M. Aquino v. Hon. Ismaé! GR. No, 191470, January 26, 2095' Peralta, J : FACTS: : This is a special civil action, for cer Aquino assailing the Ordersssued by'Piesiding Judge @asabar.in-rélation to Agrarian Case No. 1217-G, for allegedly having\been, issued: Wh grave"abuse ofédiscretion amounting 10 lack or excess of jurisdiction. ; ene The case was for the determinatiir Spiheustisompsacation for the expropriation and taking of Ally, Domingo's rice lands by the Department “of Agrarian Reform (DAR), pursuant to Presidential Decree (P 0.) 27. Eventiially, the RTC, acting as Special Agrarian Court (RTCISAC) issued a Decision fixing the just compensation for Atty. Domingo’s property at 2,459,319 70 or P40,626.54 per hectare, ar an increase of P1,975,083.43 over the initial DAR and the Land Bank valuation. Land Bank moved for reconsideration, but was denied, thus, it filed a petition for review docketed Land Benk assailed ‘the appellate court's decision and resolution before the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari, the Court denied the same for failure to sufficiently show any ible error in the appellate court's decision Petitioner wrote private sespondent and informed her of the finality of the RTC/SAC decision as affirmed by the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Cour. He then requested her to inform the Land Bank of the segregation of petitioner's thirty percent (30%) contingent attorney's fees out of the increase of the just compensation for the subject property, or thirty percent (30%) of the total increase amounting to Php1,975,983.43. Petitioner claimed never to have received a reply SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2016 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS baer rae pee ‘h 1 Pabachomm from private respondent. Petitioner filed a Motion for Approval of Charaing Attorney's Lien and for the Order of Paysnent, He further executed an Affidavit altesting io the circumstances surrounding the legal services he has rendered for the deceased Atty. Domingo and the successful prosecution of the Agrafian case trom the RTC/SAC through the appellate court and the Supreme Court. Private respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss/Expunge Petitioner's Motion, Issu 's petitioner entitled to the payment of his Attorney's Fees?, HELD: YES, petitioner is entitled to the payment of his Attorney's Fees. Quantum meruit ~ literally meaningzasiiHUGNas ROUBSCHBSinis used as basis for determining an attorney's professional feesti ne bagi SSfegreément. Further, Rule: 20.01 of the iGddesor™Profeeck SAGHISIDIIy lists the -gUidelines for determining the proper amount of attamey fees,.t0 wits... ASRS, a) The time spent and the’extent of the servicessendered or-required:” b) The novelty and difficult of the questions involve ¢) The important of the’ subject matter, oer ) The skill demanded, oe 2) The probability of losing other empioyment as aresultof 1) The customary cl which he ozlongs; 4) The amount invoived in the controversy andsthi service, oo h) The contingency or certainty of compensation: i} The character of the employmerit, whether occasional or established; and j) The professional stanaing of the fawyer...- icceplance of the proftered case; {ges for similar services aridithesschedule of fees of the IBP chapter to benéfits: resulting to the client from the is, therefore, through petitioner's ’effort-for,a lengthy. period of Seven (7) years that the just compensation for the property owned:-by: deceased” Atty. Domingo increased. It cannot be denied then that private respondents benefited:from the’Said increase in the just compensation. Thus, considering petitioner’s:effort andthe. amount”of time.spent in ensuring the successful disposition of the case, petitionerrightfully deserves to seayarded reasonabie attorney's fees for services rendered, Therefore, the petitionar is entitlgd.toithe-payment of his attorney’s fees. A GOVERNMENT ENTITY ENGAGING THE LEGAL‘SERVICES OF A PRIVATE LAW FIRM ‘The Law Firm of Laguesma Magsalin Consulta and Gastardo v. COA GR. Wo. 185544; January 13, 2015 Leonen, J FACTS: Clark Development Corporation (CDC), a government-owned and control corporation, hired the services of petitioner the law firm Laguesme Magsalin Consulta and Gastardo to assist in handling the corporation's labor cases, COC sought the approval the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC) which gave CDC a pro-forma tetainership agreement containing the suggested terms and condition of the retainership. OGCC told CDC to return the pro-forma retainership agreement once all the parties had signed the same. 54 SANBEOACouLese oF Law 2016 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONSIn.the meantime, petitioner commenced: rendering services. Without submitting the contract to OGCC, CDC sought the Commission of Audit's (COA) approval for the payment of retainer fees to petitioner. COA told CDC to seek the approval of OGCC. Thus, CDC presented the setainership agreement to OGCC for approval but the latter refused to approve the same on the ground that the terms and conditions stated therein were different from their proposed terms and condition. Nonetheless, OGCC opined that CDC may pay patitioner on the basis of quantum meruit. CDC impressed upon GOA the opinion of CDC that petitioner is entitled to the payment of fees on the basis of quantum meruit. But COA did not approve the release of funds for payment to petitioner, ISSUE: eee 1s CDC liable to pay petitioner onthe ta oe 4 Sena HELD: ‘ SAN NO, CDC is not isbleto pay petitioner gute: yasisrof quantum meruit. ~~) ‘ay, quantum meruit: — literally Basis fordetermining anvattorney’s orofessional lees in the absence of an express agreement: Thgieseyery, ofattorney’s fees on the basis of quantum meruitis a device that prevents.'an unsqrupulodSiclient fromrunning away with the fruits of the legal services of counsel without paying for'itahd'also evoids’ unjust enrichment on the part of the attorney himself. An\!attomey! mu igwithat he. is,-entitled to reasonable compensation far the effort in pursuing the cligsi's;Calisesfaking intovaccount certain factors in fixing the amount of lega}fees SE RE ERE eRe? EE re. oe 2 Se Hore, the Board of Directors; acting ombehalt at vices of petitioner, without theiMecsssary, Hiations for the hiring of pnvate coupsel TH Se Cee eo it was erroneous for Goverment Comperate:Counsel Bevanadera’ to'bind Clark Development Corporation, a government ehtity,/o pay petitioner on’ quantum: meruit basis for legal services, which were neither approved-noratithorized bythe governisient, Even granting that petitioner ought to be paid for services rendered, jt should not be thetgovernment's liability, but that of the officials who engaged the services of petitisnerwithatiktNe required authorization 2 oN Thus, CDC is not bound to pay pelitioner‘on the basi8.6f quantum.meruit. SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 55 2016 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS.Suspension, Disbarment : and Discipline of Lawyers (Rule 139-B, Rules of Court) IEMBERSHIP IN THE BAR IS NOT A RIGHT BUT A PRIVILEGE BURDENED WITH CONDITIONS Conrado Que v. Atty. Anastacio Revilla, Jr. ‘Ac No. 7054; December 4, 2009 Per Curiam FACTS This is an appeal for judicial clem seeks to be reinstated as a meme rastacio E. Revilla, Jr., respondent, who nae tna Decision dated December 4, 2008, this Court disbarred thet ‘aw on the following grounds: abuse:of court procedairesjafd processes; fling. siutipie actions and forum-shopping; wilful, intentional and.deiibérale,fesprt Jo falsehood antl deception before the courts; maligning the name. of-'nis fellow’ lawyer...dndvfiaudulent and unauthorized opearances in cout, Adciionaly. dsbarment i mesepynagguse His not he espondents first ethical infraction of the same nature. is time? oe Hipistta the.respondent's professional legal career for the sake of the public, the profes penalty of disbarment has already taken is lell on h [ep Uressed that in the years that he had been excluded from the practice of lav, he devoted his time’ lo Christian and charily pursuits and @ regular lecturer on Legal Aspectof Martiag ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent has‘suffic reinstatement as a member of the Philip sonduct and character for ELD: NO, the cespondent has not completely rehabilitated vines aiid does not deserve to resume his membership in the Bar Jurisprudence states that membership in thie Bar is’@ privilage burdened with conditions. It is not @ natural, absolute or constitutional right granted to everyone who demands it, but rather, @ special privilege granted and continued only to those who demonstrate special fitness in intetlectual attainment and in moral character. tn the present case, we are not fully convinced thet the passage of more than four (4) years is sufficient to enable the respondent to reflect and to realize his professional transgressions. We emphasize that this is the second time that the respondent was accused and was found guilty of gross miscondust. Considering the respondent's. earlier disbarment case and another disbarment case against him still pending raview by the Court, w° are not fully and convincingly satisfied that the respondent has already reformed 56 SANBEDA COLLEGE OF Law SER Peat ar iWILLFUL FAILURE TO PAY CONTRACTET ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION, EVEN IF THE CAPACITY ‘D DEBT CONSTITUTES A GROUND FoR SAME WAS: CONTRACTED IN PRIVATE Antonina S. Sosa v. Atty. Manuel V. Mendoza A.C, No. 8776; March 23, 2015 Brion, J FACTS:. " This is a cace tor ai ‘Suspension filed by complainant Antonina S. Sosa (Sosa) against respondent Atty. Manuel V. Mendoza (Mendoza) for violating Rule 1.01 of the CPR. ie Ms. Sosa alleged that she extent BF a penalty or collection charge of} Has tailed to comply with his obligationfon'dte ate HaNUftoiay, he requested Ms. Sosa not to deposit the postdated check, he, iss ued ..Si 12. ceeded and deferred’ Sdeposit of the check. The check'was, subsequentiyArelurnedidistedotedtafter Ms Soga fihally deposited it Complainant demanded payinentof therloansplus intesst andicallection.chiafde8 but to no avail Afier repeated unheeded “deirianits “coniplainan® ted "he “complaint~for disbarment or Suspension, charging respondent tor Violation @eRty G#IKeICPR.- Respondent admitted in his Brief Comment the éxistence of thelloan anita ‘ald Obligation blomever, he alleged that he only received One Hindred:Thous GB856(P700:000.00);from one Elenita Cruz (Flenita), a ‘riend of the complainant, HoweveewesBandeRtadis not fattach an affidavit from Hlerita nor any evidence: proving that he only rese/ediP00 A6oi00. 7 y, Mendoza. They agreed that ise of default. Atty. Mendoza ISSUE: 's respondent administratively Habis tort complainant? : HELD: YES, respondent is administrativel from compiainant. Rule 1.01.of the Codeioh/Professiol shall nol engage in unlawful, dishonest ig a. Qe The facts of the case show that‘A\ Mendoza'efigagegtin ithgiépet or wrong conduct, as found under Rule 1.0%, as the failura:toypay the loan was (ui uitinctiaracter and implied. wrongful intent and net = error in judgrpent"Tassrespebdeht is"administratively able i SN A LAWYER WHO CORRUPTLY APPEARS FOR A PARTY WITHOUT AUTHORITY MAY BE DISCIPLINED OR PUNISHED FOR CONTEMPT. Dr, Domiciano F. Villahermosa, Sr. v. Atty. Isidro L, Caracol A.C. No. 7325; January 21,2015 Villarama, Jr. J FACTS: This is @ case for disharment/suspension filed by complainant Dr. Domiciano F. Villahermosa (Villahermosa”), Sr. against respondent Atty. Isidro L. Caracol (‘Caracol ") for violating the awyer’s oath. For consideration is the report of the IBP Board of Governors recommending that respondent be suspended from the practice of law. ‘SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF Law 2016 CENTRALIZED BAR Operations 57Complainant is the respondent in two land cases involving cancellation of emancipation patents and transfer certificate of titles (TCT) derived from Original Certificate of Tille (OCT) No. 43: which was a homestead patent granted to deceased Micael Babele, who has two sons ~ Fernando and Efren. The Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) issued 4 decision ordering the cancellation of the emancipation patents and TCTs derived from OCT No. 433 Stating that it was not covered. by the agrarian reform iaw. Meanwhile, respondent filed a ‘motion for execution with the DARAB praying for the full implementation of decision: filed a Motion for Issuance of Second Alias Writ of Executien and Demolit h he signed 25 “Counsel for the. Plaintiff Efren Babela’. Coinplainant filed: this complaint alleging that respondent had no authority to file the motions since he obtained no authority from the plaintiffs and the counsel of record. Complainant yposited. that Efren could not have authorized i respondent to file the second. mo co oN Matteady been dead for more than a ptt a year. {mn his defense, respondent insists that Efren, authorized hirn to appear as “additional counsel" He said that he had consulted the colingel oftrecdrdcwine! ddvised him to go abioad with the filing, Leu Ler myers AAAS ISSUE: ca JF LAY 's respondent guilty of violating’Rule'38; Se&tionsaAiot HELD: Hace ‘YES, respondent is yuilty of violating Rule 13 fresumplion of a lawyer's appearance onibehaif. altornay to appear. ~ An attorney is presumed taibe in which he appears, and no written power of attoreyis veGbired to authorize him to appear in Court for his client, but the-presidingyjsdge\may.” on motion of either party and on reasonable grounds therefor being shown, require any-atiorneyswlio, assumes: the right to appear ina case {0 produce or prove the authority under whichshevappeais and to disclose, whenever pertinent {to any issue, the name of the person'iwho‘employed thin! ad may thereupon make such order as justice requires. An attomey willfullyappésting in court for a person without being employed, unless by leave of the court, may bespunished for’contempt as. arvofficer of the court who has misbehaved in his official tansactions."3"1' 2 fo 4 a a AG Lawyers must be mindful that-arhattorney has Ho"Bowerto, & being retained nor may he appearsincout without being.eriployéd unless by leave of court, If a lawyer comuptly or willfully appears’ as‘aitatlomeyfér'S-pary to a case without authority, he may be disciplined or punished for contempt'as an officer cf the court who has imisbehaved in his official transaction, ’ ) fhekthe ROC which provides for a gligpts hence, “SEC. 21. Authority of rapet authorized to represent any cause. counsel for a person without Hore, respondent was presumed to have authority when he appeared in the proceedings before the DARAB. However, he knew that Efren had already passed away al the time he filed the Notion for Issuance of Second Alias Writ of Execution and Demolition. As an honest, prudent and conscientious lawyer, he should have informed the Court of his client's passing and Presented authority that he was retained by the client's successors-in-interest and thus. the Parties may have been substituted. Atty. Caracol is hereby suspended from the practice of law. 5g SANBEDA COLLEGE OF Law 2016 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONSMAKING FALSE DECLARATIONS IN THE CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING IS A GROUND FOR SUMMARY DISMISSAL THEREOF AND FOR DIRECT. CONTEMPT Crisostomo, et al. v. Atty. Nazareno A.C. No. 6877; June 10, 2014 Peilas-Berabe, J FACTS: This is an administrative complaint filed by complainant Euprocina |. Crisostomo (Crisostomo}, et. al. against the respondent Atty. Philip Z. A. Nazareno (Nazareno) charging him with making false declarations certifications against forum shopping in disregard of Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court, and malpractice as a notary-public.ig. violation of the CPR. Fer consideration is fei ig, A the report of IBP Board of Governorgi fent’s suspension. Cn Bas Rudex, represented by respodli ite hiear three Mor feview before thé HLURB. In each of the certifications against forum, spoppit 9 altace to the'the petiti@pst“Rudex, stated that it has not commenced or has Kfioledge dhahisimitar action or prBeagdliig involving the same issues pending before vany eo~rt,"tripunal~opzagency.. These~répfeséntations in the certificates of non-foruim shopping wete”ntade” notWithstai¢ing the fact tRat>Rudex previously filed an ejectment case on Septemibers;"20apssuaINKIsSHs Sioting. Again, on January 29, 2004, Rudex, filed'simiter complaint fo its ps cae ber 9, 2002-ejectment complaint Again, on April 1, 2004,"six (6) similan,complainis\fert jgsion were'filed by respondent on behalf of Rudex before the HLURB. The certificalion Siegainstorum shopping were all notarized by ihe respondent. : ISSUE Is the respondent guilty of. falséde should be suspended? HELD: : a YES, respondent is guilty-of false declaration Under Section 5, Rule 7 ofthe. Rulesei against forum shopping constitutes. indirect urt, and subjects the erring counsel to the corresponding administrative atid’Criminafiactions. Rule 1.01, Canon of the CPR provides that a lawyer shall not-éhgage in unlawful Yishoriest, immoral or deceitful conduct. Furthermore, Rule 70.01, Canon”19 alsdiptovidesithata lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor Consent to the doing of any in Court; noxstiall’he'mistead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice, oa : ission of false entries in a. certification In the case at bar, owing to the evident similarity of the issues involved in each set of cases, the respondent should have truthfully declared the existence of any pending related cases in the certifications against forum’ shopping attached to the pertinent pleadings. Hence, is guilly of false dectarations in the certificate against forum shopping. SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 59 2016 CENTRALIZED Bar OPERATIONSCOURSE OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS Re: Letter of Erlinda llusorio-Bilder, POTC, Philcomsat, Requesting Investigation of Certain members of the Judiciary AM No. 07-11-14-SG; April 14, 2015 Per Curiam FACTS: This case was an offshoot of the investigation ordered by thén Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno regarding claim that accounting entries in Philcomsat Holdings Corporation's (PHC) books revealed disbursements for representation in favor.of_the SC. For consideration before the SC is the recommentation of the thressnembeciavestioalog’gemmitiee (IC) that conducted the aforementioned investigation requicing: Desi eae a Luis K. Lokin, Jr. to show cause why they should not be:ciled’in*contempt'for ‘allegedly:ntecooperatingwwith’ and lying in the investigation conducted by the thr e sinvestigating Comimitiee fo: ge by the SC. wFAP ESE a In response to a letter:of Erlinda,Bilinet’ yihjch: claimed that:PH@'s’ funds:Were being used by certain individuals to obtain favorable“tuling’trém the courts; then ChiefJustice Puno created a three-member investigating committeie"(IC}*tojigok@iftoteéeallegations: The IC concluded that Bildner failed to make a case of the liability of any member OF IHekSC. ‘Nonetheless, the IC noted that there were accounting eniries.in. PC's books withypolations indicating that a certain check was paid as representation to the SC to get favorable injtction‘iIt;also noted that a certain check was onginally made payable to-Atty. Lokin, PR'to-the S@:injuction. However, it was crossed out and the name Veronica Nepomuceno was lyped:in its Steed.’Casas admitted that she made the entries. When asked by the IC, Casas indicated" thet’sh2:hatl no idea who instructed her to make the notations; but’ nonetheless #:statedin“her “affidavit'that the amount in question was: actually paid to one of PHC's suppliérs, Onithie other‘hand, Atty. Lokin, Jr. denied that he was the recipient of the check. eo * Lokin's Defense was that he.was notrespopsible for-wriling the subject notations, and that he had no participation in the preparation‘ ot-agproval of vouchers.andchecks of PHC. He claimed that the checks of PHC were-prepared:tindefithe supervision. ardinstruction of Tan and Philip Brodett. He merely signed:it-in.the regulapsperformarice ok higsfunctions and that he does not know Nepomuceno. For her parti,Casas averréd'that sh¢\could-not remember the details of the subject notations and the inquliries:she jmade with Tan/ang’Brodett as regards such notations. ‘As to the amount, she claims that’the%dishursements*weré actually made to one of PHC's suppliers. peas ISSUE: Vere Ally. i.okin and Casas guilty of indirect contemp!? HELD: Alty. Lokin was guilty of indirect contempt, while Casas was absolves. Withholding the truth in the course of judicial proceedings evidently tends to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice (Rules of Court, Rule 71, Sec. 3(d)). Wilifully doing so is an affront to a court's authority and dignity; itis contumacious, Lokin’s defensive averment of how checks are prepared for PHC was but a reference to intricacies internal to PHC as a corporation. These processes are immaterial to the fact that 60“ SANBLDACOLLEGE OF Law 2016 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONSLokin himself signed to the crossing oul of his own name and to his namie being replaced by another. Reference to these processes thus only serves to muddle the issue. Ultimately, all that Lokin aid was insist on his deniai. Hé continuously fails to shed light on the circumstances relating to Check No. 309381 despite how common sense dictates that he must know something about it. As such, he continues to willfully withhold truthful information from this court Casas was but a part of PHC's accounting staff, She answers to several superiors. She was not sufficiently situated in PHC’s hierarchy to make decisions herself. Moreover, making entries in several records was merely a part of her regular functions as an accounting clerk. ©n account of the volume of accounting records she'must deal with an a daily basis, il was quite plausible for her to not remember the details attending every single entry. In any case, it works to her favor that she (subsequently) made an effort J aoe administrative matter. i Hence, Atty. Lokin'was guilty offers stihan y ay SAN BEDA % FALSIFICATION. OF, AFFIDAVIT, AS VIOLATION/OFETHE LAWYER'S. O} iFALSEHOOD) AND:AS GROUND FOR SUSPENSION. aera x SSO SCO Spouses Willie and Amelia Umagi AC. No. 10451; February:4, 2015, Peilas-Bernabe, J ' FACTS: a This is an administrative case filed by:the complainants espotises Willie’ and Amelia Umaguing (Spouses Umaguing) ‘against respondent,“At\y:' De*Vera (De Vera), for his alleged betrayal of trust, incompetence, and grass’ misé¢niduct if hisiWAndling of the election protest case. For consideration is the report of ‘the:-(BP.-Board of ‘Gdvernors recommending respondent's suspension from the practice of law. Mariecris ran for the position of SK Chairman’ bat last to"her rival Jose Bungag by one vote. Thus, complainants lodged:an’electionipfotest and effisted, the*services of the respondent. When the deadline forvfiliia”the eléctich; protest” was, coming, respondent rushed the preparation of the necessary documents and’aitéchm forte ‘election protest, among which are the Affidavits of material witnesses} Lachica and{ii fawhio were unavailable at the time when the affidavits needed lo be-signBdnRresseuMforlimé, respondent advised his client's campaigners, Lalong-Isip and Fielding, to look for-Rin.and relatives of the affiants and ask them {0 sign over the affiants’ names. However, later, “Lachica disowned the signature and her affidavit was presented before the court. This drew the ire of the court which ruled that the affidavits submitted were falsified. Consiciering the foregoing, comolainants instituted an administrative case against respondent In defense, respondent vehemently denied alt the accusations against him. He averred that he merely prepared the essential documents for election protest based on the statements of his clients. He then explained that the signing of Lachica’s falsified Affidavit was done without his knowledge, claiming that he actually sought to rectify his mistakes by filing the Answer to Counterclaim with Omnibus Motion to withdraw the affidavits of Lachica and Almera, SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 1 2016 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS 7es a ISSUE: Is respondent guilty of violating the Lawyer’s Oath and Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the CPR by submitting a falsified document before a court? HELD: YES, respondent is guilty of violating the lawyer's oath and Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the CPR, ‘The Lawyer's Oath enjoins every lawyer not only to obey the laws of the land but also to refrain from doing any falsehood in or out of court or from consenting to the doing of any in court, and to conduct himself according to the best of his knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity to the courts as well as to his clients. Additionally, Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the GPR provides that fat He Wasthct the one whosnotarized the subject affidavits but another notery.public,.and,that he had no knowledge. of the 3 falsification of the impugned documents, much less ‘of: thé participation’in using thé samé.-This is a mere general denial which cannot-overcomerElsa Almera-Almacen’s. (Almera’s sister) positive testimony that he indeed participated in the procurement of ner sighature-and’the signing of the affidavit, allin support of the claim of falsification: 2; 5 Thus, respondent is suspended for six (8). months from the praclice of law, with a stern warning that repelition af the same or similar acts will be: punished more severely. iste SUSPENSION FROM THE PRACTICE OF LAW:INCLUDES!SUSPENSION FROM PUBLIC OFFICE $ Lingan v. Attys. Calubaquib & Baliga’, AG. No, 5377; June 20, 2014 Leonen, J FACTS: Pe ‘ This is a complaint for disbarment fled bygVictor Lingan agaidsi/Attys. Romeo Calubaquib and Jimmy Baliga, notaries public,-forfalsitying certain public, decuiniénts. For consideration in this case is the report of the IBP- finding respondenté liablesfor inexcusable negligence and recommending the revocation of the ‘comimission:ofrespéndehits as notaries public for two years: from receipt of the final decision. z Attys. Romeo 1, Calubaquib and Jimmy P. Baliga was found guilty of violating Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and of the Lawyer's Oath, Respondents allowed their secretaries to nolarize documents in their stead, in violation of Sections 2455 and 2466 of the Nolarial Law. The court suspended respondents from the practice of law for one year, revoked their notarial commissions, and disqualified them from reappointinent as notaries public for two years After the court had suspended Atty. Baliga from the practice of iaw, the Commission on Human Rights En Banc issued the resolution, suspending him from his position as Director/Attorney VI of the. Commission on Human Rights Regional Office for Region It According to the Commission on Human Rights En Banc, Atty. Baliga's suspension from the practice of law “prevented him from assuming his post [as Regional Director] for want of eligibility in the meantime that his authority to practice law is suspended, 62. SANBEDACOWEGE OF LAW eed ie ere a er- fF Ally. Baliga argued that he cannot be suspended for acts not connected with his function as Commission on Human Rights Regional Director. According to Atty. Baliga, his suspension from the practice 6f law did not include his suspension from public office. ISSUE: Does respondent's suspension from the practice of law include his suspension from public office? HELD: YES, -:copondent's suspension from the practice of law includes his suspension from public office. : The exercise of the powers andefunétiai constitutes practice of law. Thusiili bar in good standing and authofized’t3" fie Regional, Bigector loses this euthority, such as‘when he or she..is disbarred. oc suspended ‘from the ‘Bias of law, the Regional Director loses,a necessary.qualification.tatthe.Bdsition he or shes EOE bat As a resull, the disbarred or’suspendéd la ust'desistYrom Rolding:thé-pesition of Regional Director. 9 Thus, respondent's suspension from/the.prac office, MISREPRESENTATION, DE EIT, AND FA\URESTO: CLIENT'S MOME "ACCOUNT-FOR AND RETURN OF Y DESPITE SEVERAL DEMANDS ARE GROUNDS FOR SUSPENSION Agot v. Atty. Rivera A.C. No, 8900; August'S, 2014 Perlas-Bernabe, J 5 FACTS: a ths This is an administrative caseifiled by coniglainant, Gtlamelyh got (Agot) charging respondent Ally. Luis P. Rivera (Rivera). of-vidlating PR’ and the\|aywjer’s oath for misrepresentation, deceit, and failure to account-“for..and. return hef \neriéy-despite several demands, For consideration is the report of ‘the'IBRMBoapdeoiSBvertiors recommending respondent's suspension ee Complainant alleged that she was invited as maid of honor in her best friend's wedding at USA. For her US visa, complainant sought the services of respondent who represented himself as an immigration lawyer. The two entered into a Contract of Legal Services, whereby respondent undertook to facilitate and secure the release of a US immigrant visa in complainant's faver prior to the scheduled wedding. In consideration therefore, complainant paid respondent the downpayment and undertook to pay the balance after the issuance of the US visa. The parties likewise stipulated that should complainant's visa application bé denied for any reason other than her absence on the day of the interview and/or for records of criminal Conviction and/or any court-issued hold departure order, respondent is obligated to return the said downpayment. However, respondent failed to perform his undertaking within the agreed SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2016 Centrauized BaROreRaTions °°period. Several demands being unheeded, complainant filed’a criminal complaint for Estafa and the instant-administrative complaint against respondent. ISSUE: Is the respondent guilly of violating the CPR and the lawyer's oath for misrepresentation, deceit, and failure to account for and return his client's money? HELD: YES, respondent is guilty of violating the CPR and the lawyer's oath. As officers of the court, lawyers are bound to maintain not only a high standard of legal proficiency, but also of moralily, honesty,.igtearity,and fair dealing. As provided in Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the CPR, a lawyereshallingt Gee ‘GQiteledishonest, isamoral or deceitful conduct 2) ee ay u 4 In the case at bar, respondent misrepresented himselt-as.an imitigration lawyethus, falling to perform his obligations under the Céntract"Sueti®negiett'of a legal matter éftrdsted to him by his client constitutes inexcusable: negligence, itr violation pf Rules8.03, Canon 18 of the CPR which provides that a lawyer shall not neglect leaal'matter"enirusted to higtzand his negligence in connection therewith shall render his Hable aiMith SegashtGaie respond] the down payment advanced by the? complainan:. ea Respondent demanded 75,000.00 ffom the ee {tGiexpedite, the,proceedings before the Court. A’ month -eailier, ‘Respondent, hadi alisadyeuernanded and received a total of 800,000.00 from the compiainant's sibling AuroraeBizontfofexpedite the proceedings of their case belore the Court. Respondent issued -handwritfenfaidisigned receipis to the complainants. In the receipts, respondent stated that the amount wouldsbe'used to expedite the case and which will result !o favorable judgment within two ment iSiromn ‘eceiptof said amount ake was sli! pending. He esfourd. ISSUE; is the respondent administratively lidblesfet issuing bolincipg checks and demanding and/or receiving money from her. clients" undehthifg ise athaving ibe proceedings before the court expedited? Ae ) en HELD: “WTS Seisogemes ie = YES, respondent is liable for the issiance“of* oe and receiving the said amounts. o N Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. provides for ihe disbarment or suspension of a lawyer for any of the following: (1) deceit; (2) malpractice; (3) gross misconduct in office; (4) grossly immoral conduct; (5) conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude: (6) violation of the tawyer's oath; (7) willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court; and (8) willfully appearing as an attorney for a party without authority to do so. In this case, the respondent manifested a propensity for borrowing money, issuing bouncing checks and. incurring: debts, which she leit unpaid without any reason. The actions of the respondent in making it appear to the complainant that the proceedings before the Court can be expedited and ruled in their favor in exchange for an exorbitant amount of money just te milk more money from her clients are reprehensible and her greed more than apparent when she even used the name of the Court‘to defraud her client. SAN BeDA COLLEGE OF Law 2016 CentRauizeo BarOreraTions ©”‘Therefore, the respondent should be suspended her from the practice of law for two years. MISAPPROPRIATION AS A GROUND FOR DISBARMENT CF Sharp Crew Management Incorporated v. Nicolas C. Torres AG. No. 10438; September 23, 2014 Per Curiam FACTS: This is an administrative complaint_fled,,by-CE,Sharp Crew Management Inc. respondent Nicolas C. Torresgwitl S consideration is the report of the! the CPR. against fessional Responsibility. Far inistratively liable for violating OS ‘Complainant hired:respondent, a métiicalidectoxianidla lawyer by professiog-a8 its Legal and Claims Manager who: was tasked; inter“alia; to serve-astitsflegak counsél'and to oversee the administration and, management “of” legal cases” and medi¢al-relatedi7claims instituted by seafarers against complainant's various principals ¥Amoraiths'cases respondent handled in his capacity as Legal and Claims Manager were! iaims) of Seafarers-Bernardo R. Mangi (Mangi), Rodelio J. Sampani (Sampani), Joseph C. Delgado (Delgado), and Edmundo M. Chua (Chua) : i In its administrative complaint, it was alleged thal'perirespandent's request, complainant issued checks in various amounts-as settlement of the respective'claims of Mangi, Sampani, Delgado, and Chua. However, complainantlater discovered that respondent never gave the checks to the seafarers and instead, had them: deposited at ar ISSUE: a Is the respondent liable for violating ithe CPR? HELD: YES, respondent is liable for lating theiGPR 7 Oy It is fundamental that the relationShig between a layyerrand-nis client is highly fiduciary and ascribes to a lawyer a great degree offidelityandzadod faith: The highly fiduciary nature of this relationship imposes upon the lawyer the‘duly to~account for the money or property collected or received for or from his client. This is the’ standard laid down by Rules 16.01 and 16.03, Canon 16 of the CPR. in light of the foregoing, it has been heid that @ lawyer's failure to return upon demand the funds held by him on behalf of his client gives rise to the presumption that he has. appropriated the same for his own use in violation of the trust reposed in him by his client. Such act is a gross violation of general morality as weil as of professional ethics. In this case, the IBP Investigating Commissioner correctly found that complainant had duly proven its charges against respondent. In particular, complainant had exposed respondent's modus operandi of repeatedly requesting the issuance of checks purportedly for the purpose of settling seafarers’ claims against the complainant's various principals, only to have such checks deposited to an unauthorized bank account,. It is well-settled that "when a lawyer receives money from the client for a particular purpose, the lawyer is bound to render an accounting to the client showing that the money was spent for a particular purpose. And if he does not use the 69 SANBEDAC 2LLEGE OF LAW 2016 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS| | money for the intended purpose, the lawyer must immediately retum the money to his client.” This, respondent failed to do, Clearly, respondent's acts of misappropriation constitute dishonesty, abuse of trust and confidence reposed in him by the complainant, and betrayal of his client's interests which he is duty-bound to protect. They are contrary to the mandate of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of-the CPR which provides that “[a] lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.” Such malfeasance is not only unacceptable, disgraceful, and dishonorable to the legal profession; it also reveals a basic nioral flaw thet makes him unfit to practice law. Therefore, respondent is liable for violating the CPR. AC. No. 9881; June-4, Por4 Sereno, CJ FACTS: se This is an administrative complaint for‘dishonest Molina for allegedly advising his clients,to enford had never besn a party to the:agteemient!. Thé:isuastigating: Commissioner recommended the dismissal for lack of merit, which was edopled by thE NBP'Boarcof Governors. Atty Paguia filed a motion for reconsideration that was denied sNOxpetilion for: review has been filed with the Supreme Court in Pagiia against Atty. Manuel ee dn the coniplainant's ciient who at Times Street, Quezon iy. Mrand’t me im who Sere Alty contract with the other whit owners exesptMr./Abreu, ollent of Aly.’ Paguia, regarding the common right of way, parking areas: andiseciirity sUetét-on, the parties were involved in’cases relating to the agreement, Atty’ Pagulathenscharg 3d/Atty; Molina with providing legal advice to the latter's clients to the effecr’that inelebieein nt is biting on, gampleinant’ 's client, Mr. Abreu, Malina’s clients, entered into a HELD, NO, he is not guilty of dishonesty. Itis a settled rule that an attomey is not liable for an honest mistake or error. The default rule is presumption .of.good faith, On the ether hand, bad faith is never presumed and should be proven with evidence showing that the legal advice, assuming it was indeed given, was coupled with bad faith, malice, or ilkwill. in this regard, there are two things to be considered in administrative cases against lawyers: quantum of proof, which requires clearly preponderant evidence; and burden of proof, which is on the complainant, In the present case, the allegation of giving legal advice is without factual basis. The complaint was not substantiated in this case, either in the complaint or in the corresponding hearings. Nowhere do the records state that Atty. Paguia saw respondent giving the legal advice to the SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2016 CENTRAUZED BAR OPERATIONS — ©?clients of the latter. Bare allegations are not proof. Even if we assume that Atty. Molina did provide ‘his clients legal advice, he stilt cannot be held administratively liable without any showing that his act was attended with bad faith or malice. The presumption of good faith, therefore, stands in this case. Therefore, the complaint should be dismissed. CONVICTION FOR HOMICIDE IS.GROUND FOR DISBARMENT Melvyn G. Garcia v, Raul H. Sesbreiio AC. No. 7973 and A.C. No. 10487; Februag Per Curiam FACTS: ae This is an administrative compiaint,for disbarment filed, by, Dr. Mélvyn Garcige(Garcia) against Ally. Raul H. Sesbre‘io for practicing law'despite-his! previous conviction#tor’ homicide and despite the fact that he is only on:paroles. “aE YF, Whefi Garcia was in Japan, Atty. Sesbrefio represeateasttietatiidren of Garcia who were then already 39 and 35 years old'in an action for’ supportgagainstGarcia, which was dismissed, When Garcia retumed, Atty. Sesbrefio filed a Second AmendediComplaint against Garcia, who thereafter learned that Ally. Sesbrefio was convicted. of-honitcide by the RTC of Cebu and was on parole at the time Garcia alleged that homicide {sa crime against moral turpitide thus, Atty. Sasbrefio should not be allowed to continue his practice of taw. For his part, Atty. Sesbreno argued that the complaint was motivated by resentment and revenge-when né.acted as pro bono counsel for Garcia’s children, He further averred that homicide does not involve moral turpitude. involved in 2 convic administratively tiable? ian for hortitide, for ;purpos: HELD: 3 YES, homicide is a crime involving moral turpitude} afid-conviction thereof may lead to administrative liability Moral turpitude is an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private duties which a man ‘owes to his fellow men of to society in general, contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals. Conviction of a crime involving moral lurpilude is a ground for disbarment under Sect 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. In this case, it appears from the findings of the trial court that the victims in the homicide case were shown to be a foe of Aity. Sesbrefio and neither of them was shown to have wronged him, They simply happened to be at the wrong place and time. The circumstances leading ‘o the death of Amparado solely caused by Atty. Sesbrefio bear the earr 1arks of moral turpitude. Thus, Atty. Sesbrefio's conviction for homicide is sufficient to merit his disbarment. 70 SANBEDACOULEGE OF Law 2016 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS.j | i I ' ADMINISTRATIVE CASES AGAINST LAWYERS MUST BE PROVED WiTH PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE Domado Disomimba Sultan v. Atty. Casan Macabanding A.C. No. 7919; October 8, 2014 Reyes, J FACTS, This is an administrative complaint fled by Domado Sultan against Atty. Macabanding for allegedly hvng notarized a falsified affidavit. According to the coniplainant,.he can for ihe Position of Mayor for the. Municipality of Sucidipuso Buntong, Lanao del Sur in'2407. He filed his Centificate of Candidacy (COC) dated, March.29,..2007 with the Commission on Elections ehigneue: (COMELEC) for the May 14, 200798té6tions ei “aGpAffidavit of Withdrawal of Certificate of Candidacy for Municipal ly ite ai @ by the respondent to the *CanicidaeyatlMtnouD™ the latter's -rlowledge or SAM SEA 7 COMELEC, withdrawing the Séompiatien authorization Upon learning of this, Sultan yrote ja feltersano submitted anAftidavit, pMhi@ Acting Election Officer of the COMELEG in’Buadiptiso'Buntong, Lainao det’Sur. The cokfplainant alleged that he neither executed the Affidavit of WithdraWalangm SitheRZee¥anybodytorprepare a document to withdraw his COC.’ He-asked that thie withdravai:be"igriored-and that His's ‘name be retained on the Hist of ‘candidates. " Meahwhite, the. COMBLEG Second. Division~found merit in the ae The Code of Professional. Responsisiityisco Bucomniand’ >"lawyer-not to engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceittul conduakaindit:uphold af all times‘thé. integrity and dignity of the legal profession, Further,-alawyet, whentadtitg as.a“notary ‘public;-must discharge his powers and duties which are impréssediyith public itSrést, with‘accucacy and fidelity. Notaries must inform themselves of the facts-theyegnity to; most la tly, they should not take part or allow themselves to be part of illggairtvatisactionestRarther,’it I. setlied that in administrative cases against lawyers, the quantum of prof fequiréchis preponderance of evi evidence adduced by one side is, as a.whole. siipefionto or has greater we other. nee, i, that the ight than that of the 'n this case, Sultan presented the findings of the NBI that the questioned signature and the sample specimen signatures were not written by one and the same person, He adduced preponderant evidence that his signature was indeed forged in an affidavit which the respondent notarized and submitted to the COMELEC. The quantum of proof thus required to hold Atty. Macabanding administratively liable has thus been satisfied. Therefore, Atty. Macabanding should be su spended from practice for one year and disquaiified from being commissioned as notary public SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 4 2016 CentRaLzeD BAR OPeraTIONs 7sea QUANTUM OF PROOF REQUIRED IN DISBARMENT PROCEEDINGS Is PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE Raul C. Lanuza and Reynaldo C. Rasing v. Attys. Frankie O. Magsalin Ill and Pablo R. CruziRaul C. Lanuza and Reynaldo C. Rasing v. Attys. Frankie ©. Magsalin lll, Peter Andew S. Go and Pablo R. Cruz A.C. No. 7687/A.C, No. 7688: December 3, 2014 Mendoza, J. FACTS: This is a disbarment complained filed against the Respondents, which stemmed from a labor case filed by complainant Lanuza again Hoteliers, Inc. (PHI), a client of Respondents Atty. Magsalin, Atyaiaia Biom.the law firm P.R. Cruz Law Offices (PRC Law Office). 20 et Complaint through counsel allegedly received, the-Notige of dtlgment on Niech 28, 2007, Subsequently, Aity. Garcia received“by! ‘registeredis/niaik the Compliancpand Motion for Reconsideration both: dated April12; 2007 sled by:PHil fanchsigned by Atfy-Magsalin. jn the said pleadings, PHI stated “that it teceived Notice of “utidgmient on Aprit 10, 2007. This information caused Atty Garcia to wonder why ahespestinaimould belatedly deliver the said Notice of Judgment and the CA decision to the PRE CawiOifice, which was also located in Quezon City, tiirteen (13). days after he receives’his own-copies, Teresite 1cag, secretary of PRC Law Office, allegedly altered the true date of receipt of ine Notice of Judgment when she signed and stampedion‘the registry return receipt the date, April 10, 2007, to mislead the CA and the opposing partythat’they received their copy of the CA docision on a later data and not March-29; 2007 The“cémplainants added that the alteration ‘as very evident on the registry return receipt\which bore two.(2) stamped dates of receipt, -with one stamped date "snowpaked” or covered: with a liquid-cotirection fiuid'to conceal the true date written on the registry return receipt % ess) ISSUE Ave the respondents administratively lablerfe Judgment? HELD ‘ NO, the evidentiary records are insuffcientiteitroldgthétrésporidents liable for the acts alleged in the complaint The burden of proof in disbarment and suspension proceedings always rests on the complainant, The Court exercises iis disciplinary power only if the complainant establishes the complaint by clearly prepcnderant evidence that warrants ‘the imposition of the harsh penalty. As a rule, an attorney enjoys the legal presumption that he is Innocent of the charges made against him until the contrary is proved, In this case, had Calucag stamped an inaccurate date on the registry return receipts, Postman Pecante, who withessed and hid full view of the receiving and stamping of the said registry return receipts, would have called her attention to correct the same or would “ave refused to receive them altogether for being erroneous. Here, Postman Pecante having accepted two registry return receipts with the dates, April 10, 2007 and July 23, 2007, respectively, can only mean that the said postman considered the dates indicated therein to be correct and accurate. 72 SANBEDACOLLEGEOF LAW 2016 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONSthus, absent evidence in the requisite quaritm of proof, the Presumption of innocence and segularity stil stands in the Respondents’ favor. ‘Therefore, the complaint should be disr Judicial Ethics PROHIBITION OF JUDGES! IMPROPRIETY Conrado Abe .Lopez, RepreseniadChy Wats Rdniualdo Lucmayon, MunicipaliTriakC ourt in Site Branch fy Manglauacity. cope” IN FACT; Rogelio: S. A.M, No. MTJ-13-1837; Septembér24- 01d? & Brion, J. * Facts «a ned BL bial : This is an administrative’case filed by.complainant JADE 'Lopez:(Lopez) charging Judge Rogelio 8. Luemayon (Lucmayon) wi feConptionana malpractice relative to a land dispute involving their families. For considerationsisithesOffice of, the. Court Administrator's (OCA) recommendation finding tespondent quill of rbot i : The complainant alleged’ that hepighelited¥ariotdrém, his adoptive “father Restituto Lopez. ‘Sometime in 2004, he met with the fespondent ands rSpendent allegedly deceived him into signing a Special Power-of Attorneys todprocess\the/saie gf Lot.No. 1696 to the prospective ‘er, Abuitiz Group of-Company. 1Wn-to the; ecdmplaihantthei sajd SPA contained at the bottom portion, @ so-called:" Waiver of Rights thatuité reSpondent’had deceptively inserted in order to strip him of his ownership of toBNGis1 696. After signingjthe document (notarized by 2 certain Atty, Arturo C. Mata-without theteginplainants*presenceyy-the respondent allegedly told the complainant that he no longe/trad any Ng Bove! ther SrapBfty: in, March 2005; the father of ihe respondeni, Pedro Lucmayon(edro), ordered hifn tdkeBase’ cultivating the land, because of the Waiver of Rights in the SPA*h6-signadzithe,socslains miso asserted that the respondent had caused Pedro and his siblings to execute a-docuriént entitied "Supplemental Extrajudicial Settlement,” wherein his name and thechame of his adgptive mother were excluded, The fespondent insisted that the complainant still failed to adduce substantial evidence establishing his administrative liability. He gointed out that contrary to the complainant's Contention, Atty. Mata never admitted that he notarized the. Waiver of Rights outside the complainant's presence. He also alleged that the mere fact that the complainant appointed him as altomey-in-fact does not ipso facto taint his actions with impropriety ISSUES: 1. Is respcadent guilty of violating Rule 6.06 of the Code of Judicial Conduct? 2. Is respcadent guilty of impropriety? SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2016 CenrrauzeD BAR OreraTiONs 7°Sn HELD: 1. YES, respondent is guilly of violating Rule 5.06 of the Code. As a general rule, a judge is prohibited from serving as executor, administrator, trustee, guardian or other fiduciary. The intent of the rule is to limit a judge's involvement in the affairs and interests of private individuals to minimize the risk of conflict with his judicial ‘duties. When a member of the bench serves-as administrator of the properties of private individuals, he runs the risk of losing his neutrality and impartiality, especially when the interests of his principal conflicts with those of the litigant who comes before his court. The only exception to this rule is when the estate or trust belongs to, or the ward is a member of his immediate family, and only if his service as executor, administrator, trustee, guardian or fiduciary will not interfere with the proper.pertorgange of his judicial duties aoe ae ne in this case, since complainantiele A jpondent’s "immediate family" as herein defined, the latter'svappointment"as thé*tormerswattorney-in-fact-is not a valid exception to the rule. Furthermore, by serving, as.atlorney-in-fact, the resporident undertook to perform all acts necessary to-prétect the icomplainants interest. In effget-the respondent acted as the complainant's fiduclanys.io-gicect andypatentiviolation of the-prohibition against ude Ee Caron Il of the Code of Judicial Conduct provides ; Seen Rule 2.00; A judge shculd avoid impropriety“and*ihe “appearance of impropriety in all activites. Rule 2.01: A judge should so‘behaveat'all “imeg asito promote public confidence in the integrity anc impartiality of the Judiciary: 6 The respondent's acts of: (1) making tiie complaifidnt’ sign’at teast two (2) documents — consisting of SPA and Waiver‘of Rights. withoutsthe presence of a counsel, and (2) allowing the notarization of the documents‘outside tHe presence: of the executor, amount to impropriety. While no’ evidence diréctiysshows*thattheyrespondent had deceived the complainant into signing these “document®-"this, Courteanfiot ignore the fact that the documents the respondent’ himself/prepared areatlydpiéjudiced the complainant. We also note that the Waiver of Rights benefittédtthesespondent and his family. As a jucge who is more learned in the law than the complainant-the. respondent, at the very least should have taken the appropriate steps to avcid impropriety~and the appearance of, impropriety in his dealings his step, the respondent failed 0 take. Thus, respondent is guilty of violating Rule 5.08 of the Code of Judicial Conduct and impropriety 74 SANBEDA COLLEGEOF Law 2016 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS:POSTING IMPROPER PHOTOS IN FRIENDSTER AND OTHER SOCIAL MEDIA SITES SUBJECTS A JUDGE TO ADMINISTRATIVE LIABILITY. Antonio M. Lorenzana v. Judge Ma. Cecilia |’ Austria, RTC, Br. 2, Batangas Gtiy AM. No. RTJ-09-2200; April 2, 2014 Brion, J. FACTS, ‘The respondent, Judge Ma, Cecilia Austria was charged with administrative complaint for Grave Ignorance of the Law, Conduct of Unbecoming of a Judge and in a supplemental co.zaint for ‘Acts of Impropriety. ‘The complainant alleged that thesasitiigen ghimpropriety when she displayed her photographs in a social netwerkis r” and posted her persona! details as an RTC.Judge, ee {compatible partner. She also posed with her upper body barely sovet a) & shawl, allegedly suggest stat nothing was wom undemeath'except probably a SESE Ay ” - g Respondent submitted that ‘weiphinds Shey could hardly be considered £ uw 4 Judge’ Ausiria should therefore be admonished SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2016 CENTRALZED Bax OreraTions 7°A JUDGE OWES THE PUBLIC AND THE COURT THE DUTY TO KNOW THE LAW BY HEART AND HAVE THE BASIC RULES OF PROCEDURE AT THE PALM OF HIS HANDS: Alty. Ferdinand Rey Garay v. Judge Rolando S. Venadas, Sr. A.M. No. RTJ-06-2000; June 16, 2014 Del Castillo, J. FACTS: This is, among others, an administrative complaint against Respondent. !wige Rolando S. Venadas, Sr. of the RTC of Malaybalay, Bukidnon, Branch 8, for Grave Abuse of Authority and Grave Misconduct. BStSBSayalo, Philippine National Bank was é ligiffailed to redeem the property lighitinethelp of Atty. Rey7Ferdinand T Garay to reacquire the property. The follcwing.day: Atty. Garay"went to thesbank alone and offered to buy the property by making?a-dowtd MEAS approved Atty.,Garay's offer. PNB then filed an Ex-Parte Petition’ for; issuance: off'a Writ ofPossession ‘Before the RTC of Malaybalay City, Bukidnon. Respondent Judge ‘granted"the’ petition and: issued a Writ of Possession in favor of, PNB." Spouses" SoMpilowethiehtmiovedl for a reconsideration of the isstiance of the Writ of Possession afguing thatiAlly:”Gatay.ewno was the former counsel of Lilly, was barred from purchasing the property:pursuant to/naragraph 5, Article 1491 of the Civil Code. Respondent judge issued an Order heldgiaeyance.tho implementation of the Wri of Possession. Spouses Reynaldo and Hilly Ga:Sonit foreclosed and sold at public auctor within the one. yeat redemption peribd and scl Aggtieved, Atty. Garay filed an:administrative: charge. ‘against respondent Judge for holding in abeyance the Writ of Possession’he'earlier'issued’and for ignoring Sections 4,63 6,64 and 665 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court-as heproceeded tohear the motion despite lack of notice to PN3. In his defense, respondent Judge’argded that:he-did‘not annul the Writ of Possession but merely stayed its execution and implementation to-prevent any injustice. He insists there was no violation of due process because dujed a hearing for PNB to present its evidence. - ISSUE: 1 respondent Judge liabie for-committing gravé"abuse pt discretion in holding in abeyance the implementation of the Writ of Possession and thus be admfisira'vely sanctioned? HELD: ete YES, respondent Judge is gullty of grave abuse of ailthority bordering on gross ignorance of procedure for blatantly disregarding Sections 4, 5, and 6, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court Blatant disregard of basic, elementary, and well-known rules of procedure and law is gross ignorance of. the.law, which is classified as a serious charge.under Rule 140, Section 8 of the Rules of Cour as amended by A.M: Ne. 01-8:10-SC, punishable by either dismissal from service, suspension for mere than three months but not exceeding six months, or a fine of more thar, P20,000.00 but not exceeding P40,000.00. In this case the redemption period had long tapsed when PNB applied for the issuance of the Writ of Possession. In fact, the title over the subject property had already been consolidated in PNB's name. Thus, it was ministerial upon respondent Judge to issue the Writ of Possession in favor of PNB, the registered owner of the subject properly. The spouses Sombilon failed to 76 SANBEDACOULEGE OF (AW 2016 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS‘ eee ae comply with the three-day notice rule and the required proof of service embodied in Sections 4, 5, and 6 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court. thereby rendering the motion fatally defective Despite this, respondent stil took cognizance of the motion filed by spouses Sombilon, depriving PNB and Atty. Garay of their right to due process. There. was no reason for respondent Judge to hold in abeyance the implementation of the Writ of Possession, Hence, he is guilty of grave abuse of authori 'y bordering on gross ignorance of the law and is ordered to pay a fine of P20,000.00, GIVING DUE COURSE TO A_ PETITIO N QUESTIONING REASSIGNMENT TO GOVERNMENT OFFICE IS GROSS IGN " eae. ais Efren T. Uy,et al. v. Judge Alan AM, No. RTJ-12:2332; June 2 Villarama, Jr, Js° : AS FACTS; : Cow [EL + This fs an administrative complain agalrist Judge AISA L. PIbres'icr gross {ignorance of the law, manifest partiality, “denial of dtfe*proéess-andueeiie ial tothe-best interest of the service. i is # Jas“Regional Director of sagayande Oro: City and reassigned him he-Ereau's Head. Office in Quezon City. iGOrder. Aggrieved, Gandarosa filed a piayer'for a temporary vesiiaining order ich 7 of Tubod; Lattao dei Norley presided:by Judge Fiores. Meanwhile, the new Commissioner of Internal Revehue!-Sixto S.ESduivias,1V, issued'a new Revenue Travel Assignment Order reiterating Heft'sorder. Secretary Teves also approved Esquivias's order Gandarosa thus filed “a: "petition tor :inditect;-contempt against. .Secretary Teves and, Commissioner Esquivias > a: AE BIR Commissioner Lilian -B. Hefti relieved Mustapha; Revenue Region No. 16,-Guredu of Internal Revels: C as Chief of Staff of the’ Special Concéms Group ai Secretary of Finance MargaritelB. Teves appraved, Rule 65 petition for certiorari andlom prohibition with before tive RTC Br Ganidaros: Judge Flores treated the comrents filedibyithe BIRvand thé Secretary of Finance, and issued Seven orders granting the pettions.’ These were "however, reversed by the Court of Appeals which in turn ruled that the trial-coutt| lacks jurisdictiGa\ovér'the Rule 65 petition, For ns part Judge Flores claims inter alia that While Hé'thayshaveterred’in' laking cognizance of Gandarosa’s cases, he did so in good faith and without malice os. Issue: |s respondent judge guilty of gross ignorance of the law? HELD: YES, respondent is guilty of gross ignorance of the law. {tis setiled that there is gross ignorance of the law when an error committed by the judge was gross or patent, deliberate or malicious. It may also be committed when a judge ignores, Contradicts or fails to apply settled law and jurisprudence because of bad faith, fraud, Jishonesty OF corruption. Gross ignorance of the law or incompetence cannot be excused by a claim of good faith. Further, in Republic v. Judge Caguica, the Court said that the rules on jurisdiction are basic and judges should know them by heart. SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2016 CENTRALIZED BAR aeXa. In this case, respondent assumed jurisdiction over the Rule 65 pelition assailing Hefti's order when he should have dismissed the petition for Gandarose’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies. And even assuming that the trial court has jurisdiction, Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court requires that the petition must be filed in the Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the territorial area as defined by the Supreme Court. Judge’Flores issued a temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction against the Secretary of Finance and Commissioner of Internai Revenue who both hold office in Metro’ Manila, well beyond his territorial jurisdiction. Judge Flores also erred is treating the comment of the Secretary of Finance and Commissioner of Intemal Revenue as 4 mere scrap of.paper.because the comment was filed through LBC, despite the established rule is that the Uate’ot delivery of Plsadings to a private letter-forwarding agency is not to be considered:as Mella i See and that in such cases, the Wermoth date of actual receipt by the court,“an the private capigt. is deemed the dale of filing of that pleading t ee, The law is basic and: jurisprudence is ‘lear;but Judge Florgs failed to. apply’them. Given his errors, Judge Flores. commitiéd gross"anid ‘patent’ errorswhich” make “him. liable for gross ignorance of the law notwithstanding his"claim’offgood fai Therefore, Judge Flores should be suspendedf jout salary and other benefits for three months and one day TRIAL JUDGE IS NOT AOMINISTRATIVELY’ LIABLE FOR|PERFORMING HIS JUDICIAL FUNCTION AND OFFICE ; George T. Chua v. Judge Fortunito L. Madrona AM, No. RTJ-14-2394; September t, 2014 Bersamin, J. FACTS: Complainant George T. Chua, as the-president of ManilayBay. Development Corporation (MBDC), filed a complaint-affidavit'to charge Judge, Madrona. with manifest partiality, gross misconduct, and gross ignorance. of the law. |Forsiconsideration is the Report and Recommendation of the investigaling Justice:to:dismiss the complaint for lack of merit In an action for reformation filed by Uni wide Holdings; inc. (Uni wide) against MBDC, MBODC moved for the dismissal of the complaint on the last day for the filing of its responsive pleading, instead of fiting its answer. The RTC denied the motion to dismiss. MBDC filed its motion for reconsideration, and before MBDS could file its reply as directed by Judge Madrona, Uniwide filed a motion’ to declare MBDC in default. Judge Madrona then issued another order simultaneously declaring MBOC in default and declaring its motion for reconsideration moot ‘The complainant asserted that the order declaring MBDC in deiault, and rendering the motion for reconsideration maot showed Juuige Madrona's manifest pertialty in favor ef Uniwide. On the allegation of gross misconduct, the complainant points out Jucye Madrona’s refusal tc dismiss the complaint, which on its face had no basis and had already presoribed. With regard to the allegation of gross ignorance of the law, Judge Madrona refused to reconsider the default declaration despite having been fronted with jurisprudence regarding the correct counting of the 7g SANBEDA COLLEGE OF Law 2016 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS& . La reglementary period, and declared MBDC in default without a for reconsideration, N earlier resolution of the motion Judge Madrona Madrona justified his order declaring MBDC in default by reasoning that MBDC only had five days from the receipt of the order denying the motion to dismiss within which to file ils answer pursuant to Section 4, Rule 16 of the Rules of Court; and that MBDC filed its motion for reconsideration beyond the period allowed to file an answer. ISSUE, |s Judge Madrono ....nistratively liable for partiality, gross misconduct, and gross ignorance of the law? HELD: NO. Judge Madrono is not adr ignorance of the law. FOSS misconduct, and gross 7 it wa No administrative recourse could stppianttér ielaihplahe proper exercis#Sby the. CA of its cortiorari jurisdiction: Furthermoresnot pvery-etroryor mhistakesby a judae itvthé performance of his official duties asa judge ‘renidérs hin administratively table. "Indeed, -novjudge can be held administratively lable’ for gross "miscondiet” ign REEEMeAew, or‘incompetence in the i adjudication of cases unless his acts constituted aul jogesty or corruption; or were imbued with malice or ill-will, bad faith, or deliberate intentits dowininjdstice. Here, it is clear that Judge Matrans's orders were. biguresolutions” of the motion to dismiss, mation for reconsideration, and motion to declare” MBOC jin“default, and thus involved the exercise of his judicial functions. Assuming that Juda) res fa thereby erred, his errors were 8) correctible only through available judicial-emedies; not by administrative or disciplinary actions. Fraud, dishonesty oF corruption, for:that thosorders were:imbued with malice o1 ill-will, bad faith, or deliberate intent to do arvinjustice did riot obtain here: Hence, the administrative complaint against respond: ‘Madrona is dismissed for lack of merit . Conf aah RTC JUDGE LIABLE FOR GRAVE ABUSE” OF AUTHORITY. GRAVE MISCONDUCT, GROSS INSUBORDINATION,. AND! ACTS INIMIGALTO-JUDICIAL SERVICE DESPITE ELECTION TO PUBLIC OFFICE 5 : sap Office of the Court Administrator. v. Executive Judge Owen 8. Amor, RTC, Daet, Camarines Norte AM. No. RTJ-08-2140; October 7, 2014 Pertas-Bernabe, J FACTS: Acting Presiding Judge Manuel E. Contreras (Judge Contreras) of MTC Paracale accuses respondent Executive Judge Owen B. Amor (Judge Amor) of RTC Daet, Camarines Norte, of Grave Abuse of Authority, Grave Misconduct, and Acts inimical to Judicial Service. For consideration is OCA’s Report and Recommendation finding Judge Amor administratively liable as charged. ‘SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 79 2016 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONSJudge Contreras alleges that Judge Amor (a) abused his authority in impounding the tricycle of a certain Gervin Ojeda when the latter bumped respondent's vehicle and failed to pay for the incurred damages and exerted undue influence on the security guards of the Hall of Justice in his attempt to obstruct the investigation of Judge Contreras; (b) was discourteous in dealing with a fellow judge when the latter was merely asking for reconsideration of her detail to another station; (c) used his office and position to intervene in behalf of a lawyer charged with contempt of court and tolerated the latter's abusive practice as a lawyer in exchange for gold; (d) was habitually absent; and (e) gave orders to a Clerk of Court to submit all petitions for extra-judicial foreclosures to him which resulted in dolays in the’proceedings and asked the latter to demand “grease money" from newspaper publishers in order not to be blacklisted, lespite repeated orders from the Court he 2002 Barangay Elections, tig decision. Judge Amor failed 10 comment on the Y Meanwhile, he filed his certifigate Pas resulting in his automatic resighation,fronythetse ISSUE: é i Is respondent judge administratively liable let BGE Ale of Authority, Grave Misconduct, Gross Insubordination, and. Acts Injmicabio’udicial'Senicg? 5g | HELD: . an, YES. Respondent judge is administratively’ age misconduct, gross insubordination, and’acts inimical toy judic Serice Grave abuse oF authority fs defined as a miscemeanor ccjgmitted by @ public oficer, who, under color of his office, wrongfully inflicts upon a person’ anysbodily harm, imprisonment, or other injury; itis an act characterized with cruelly, severity,(O7e¥e8sSive use of authority. Misconduct, on the other hand, is a transgression of some established ‘and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or.gross negligence by.the public ‘officer. To warrant dismissal from service, the misconduct must be. grave’zserious, mportant, weighty, momentous, and not Ailing. The misconduct must imply wrongfulvintention tand;not a.mere error of judgment and must also have a direct relation to and. be conneciedt-with the performance of the public officer's official duties amounting either to maladministrationtor willful,intentional neglect, or failure to discharge the duties of the office. In. order*to differéntiategrave misconduct from simple misconduct, the elements.of-coruption, ‘cléaéintent.ta violateyitie-law, or flagrant disregard of established rule, must be manifest in,the former” These,ai ijimical to judicial service, and thus, constitute conduct prejudicial to.the best interest service as they violate the norm of public accountability and diminish ~ or tehd:toxciminishe="the people's faith in the Judiciary. Respondent's failure to file a comment.despite all the ‘opportunities afforred him constituted a waiver of his right to defend himself, Respondent's silence may thus be construed as an implied admission and acknowledgement of the veracity of the allegations against him. Further, responcent is guilty of of Gross Misconduct and insubordination for refusing to comply with the numerous directives of the Court to file a comment on the administrative complaint against him. Respondent's continued refusal to abide by the lawful directives issued by the Court is glaring proof that he has become disinterested to remain with the judicial system to which he purports to belong Finally, respondent's automatic resicnation due to his filing uf a COC for the 200? Barangay Elections did not divest the Court of its jurisdiction in determining his administrative liability, It is well-settled that resignation should not be used either as an escape or an easy way out to 80 SANBEDA COLLEGE OF Law 2016 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONSa evade an administrative liability” or administrative ‘sanction. tn this light, respondent's administrative liability for his acts stands. Thus, respondent is guilty of Grave Abuse of Authority, Grave Misconduct, Acts inimical to Judicial Service, and insubordination CORRUPTION, CLEAR INTENT TO VIOLATE THE LAW OR FLAGRANT DISREGARD OF AN ESTABLISHED RULE MUST BE SHOWN TO PROVE GRAVE MISCONDUCT Re: Anonymous letter v. Judge Corazon D. Soluren, Presiding Judge, and Rabindranath A. Tuazon, Legal Researcher, both of, sgignal Trial Court, Baler Aurora Perlas-Bernabe, J FACTS: The concerned citizens of Aurora, Giidzba'vent-aacahahfthous letter to theye about the alleged illédal acisrof resppndents: SeOREECpragen Spturgn 4BoTGren) and Legal Researcher il Rabindranat'y’rudzo#(Tuazony, Both’ of RTC’ Baler. Aiyorer Branch 91. For consideration is the Report ang"R& rnin acoriig that the complaint against Judge Soluren-be considered Slosed apiftértiiatédjergthe ground:that her compulsory retirement had divested ‘it of jurisdiction,to hearitnes ae iergtve campiint against her, end finding Tuzon guilty of Grave Misconduct... = oe tit complaining In the Anonymous Letter, it was alleged that Ju ides jue to deposit with her court settlement foraiogsicage ‘Tuazon would merely acknowisdgestedeint oF" hatalanee nt money for the different casos through handwritten notes without-issuing:any® “officiatyreceipts therefore and Judge Soiuren ould order the dismissal. ofith ponding cases :Howeyer, whien'the parties requested for release of the said money, Tuazon Would filo” timgayieomply with thie same. ISSUE 14d beervinstructing party-litigants Sin her. sala, It was elaborated that HELD: . NO. The case against Judge Séluver ‘had already a ted ‘and terminated in view of her compulsory retirement. As for Tuazon nesssablesestiipleisconcuct only. Misconduct is a transgression of sor tablished Sdetinte rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by the public ctficer. To warrant dismissal from service, the misconduct must be grave, serious, important, weighty, momentous, and not trifling. The misconduct must imply a wrongful intention and not a mere error of judgment and must also have a direct relation to and be connected with the performance of the public officer's official duties amounting either tc maladministration or willful, inteniional neglect, or failure to discharge the duties of the office. In order to differentiate Grave Misconduct from Simple Misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of an estabjished rule, must be manifest in the former. in the instant case, Tuazon readily acknowledged that he accepted various amounts of settlement money from party-itigants and kept them in his custody without authority to do so and without issuing any official receipts therefor. In doing so, he clearly went beyond his duties SAN BEDA COLL:GE OF LAW 2016 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS Bta FE a ane ch as a Legal Researcher of the RTC thus committed a form of misconduct. Considering, however, the absence of any proof that Tuazon’s actions were tainted with corruption, or with @ clear intent to violate the law, or would constitute a flagrant disregard of an established rule — say for instance, by the actual misappropriation of any amount which came to his possession — Tuazon cannot be held liable for Grave Misconduct but only for Simple Misconduct. Hence, ‘respondent Tuazon is found guilty of simple misconduct. DUTY OF THE JUDGE TO MAINTAIN JUDICIAL COMPETENCE Gaspar Bandoy v. Judge Jose S. Jaci AM. No. RTJ-74-2399; Novemberit9i.20 14! Mendoza, J. ee FACTS: ae we This is an administrative case againstrespdsdest:liidgé ddse S. Jacinto,"Jr. Guage Jacinto, Jr Jr) tiled by Gaspar Bandoy (Bandoy) forsGrave ABUSE of Authowity. For Corisideration is the OCA's recommendation that Judge Jacinto; ‘r.~ be found Quilty of Bias ang:Partiality ané Gross ignorance of the Law and, Procedure!” “rss sbuse of discretion by displaying joavascharged with Ballot Switching SeSarraignment until De Jesus, Jr. manifest bias and partiality in favor af De Jesu when he granted several postporiements-of De J entered a plea of not guilty supposedly inside Judge ISSUE + L Is the respondent guilly of gross: ignoratice’ of law land, procedure. and displayed vias and partiality? Lona ; 7 Ae a HELD: 5S) f YES, Rule 3.01, Canon 3 of the Code’ of wudicial Condéct-mandat to the law and maintain professional competence. é Ag that a judge shall be faithful Bt” OSE Given the exacting standards\required of nidgistraes ing application of the law and procedure, Judge Jacinto, Jr. is“administratively guilty soigatoss ignorance of Rule 116 of the Revised Rules of Court, specifically Sécttstts(alsthereof'réquiring arraignment of an accused to be made in open court, Thus, anything less than-is required by Section 1(a) of Rule 116 conslitutes gross ignorance of the law." Canon 2, Rule 2.01 and Canon 3 of the Code of Judigial Conduct likewise emphasize that judges, as officers of the court, have the duly to see to it that justice is dispensed with evenly and fairly, Not only must they De honest and impartial, but they must also appear to be honest and impartial in the dispensation of justice. Here, the Court cannot fathom why the arraignment of De Jesus, Jr. was postponed from 2007 1. 2011 without appropriate action coming fram the court. Judge Jacinto, Jr. should have availed ©, known legal remedies to compe! De Jesus, Jr to personally appear for his arraignment, but he did nol. The appearance of leniency seemingly exhibited in favor of De Jesus, Jr. gives an impression of bias and partiality that should be addressed and corrected. a2 SANBEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2016 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS| | HO Hence, the Court finds respondent Judge Jose S. Jacint to, Jr. guilty of Gross Ignorance of the Law and Procedure and of Bias and Partiality CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE IS NECESSARY TO PROVE A CHARGE OF BIAS AND PARTIALITY Antonio S. Ascafio, Jr. v. Judge Jacinto, Jr AM. No. RTJ-15-2405; January 12, 2015. Sereno, CJ. FACTS: This is an administrative Complai San Jose, Occidental Mindoro Bggpief Code of Judicial ‘Conduct & JudiciaPE ties and'Se MOPAR 3019, otheawise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Fa’ ration,is the = Act. Fa? corigic report and/éécrmmendation of the Investigating-Justice finding Judgé Jacinta Jeatiith.avatis unbecoming tisBe, Ge ig Jr. (Judge Jacinto Jr.) of RTC. fa siviolations of the Canons of the WL ESE ay Complainants were" dection-Weaderstarnne escckd bt halt tSédas Inyfhierpublic market of Occidental Mindoro, which Mayor VillaroSa ors. fénial Mindoro, allegedly wanted to demolish so that the’ Municipality cag use theiss. Fectithe new."San Jose Commercial Complex.” Complainants'filed a Petition for Prohibifionswithtirgent Application for the Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and Writtot:Prelitainny Injunction (WPI) against the Municipality and Mayor-Villarosa arid it was raffled’atihersala of Judge-Jacinto, Jr. Complainants allege that, during the first hearingswhile- the:e! Aone of whom were parties to the:cas@jWere'all'alldWed inside the courtroom only 412 out of the more thar: 500 members: accompatiying?iconiplainant&on thal day were-allowed to enter; that complainants were once ‘escorted out of thexcoultrdonekeept for Julieta 0. Toledo, who was scheduled to give her ‘testimony; thatthe questions tpropounded: by respondent to their wilnesses "were all geared: towards'establishing” that they’should have no right 10 oppose the Mayor's plan; that at the next hearing. Mayor-Villaross"Stepped out of the courtroom through the door used by the judge..and the employees of the,court-and respondent Judge suddenly explained that the Mayor‘hadite’excus: esse fogeain impgant- appointment; and that during both hearings held on 2 and%3i.ddly,.2012\“fesBondenty “aigtisd, berated, accused, scolded, confused and admonished petitioners, without basis of sification, Stone cS ISSUE: ss, Is Judge Jacinto, Jr. guilty of violatingtKe canons bf the Code of Judicial Conduct & Judicial Ethics and Sec 3(e) of RA 3019 known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act? ire entourage of Mayor Villarosa, HELD: Judge Jacinto, Jr. violated canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct & Judicial Ethics, but not Sec 3{e) of RA 3019 known as the Antl-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Clear and convincing evidence is necessary to prove-a charge of bias and partiality. Here, the circumstances detailed by petitioners failed to prove that respondent exhibited “manifest partiality, evideni bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence” in the discharge of his judicial functions, as required by Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019, when he issued the Order lifting the TRO. As to the fact that he did not allow the “more than 500 members” who accompanied SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2016 CENTRALIZED BAR Operations ©petitioners during the hearing to enter the courtroom, due to the standard sizes of our courtrooms, it is highly improbable that this huge group could have been accommodated inside. With respect to the exclusion of the’ other withesses while Julieta Toledo wes giving her testimony, this is sanctioned by Section 15, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court. However, respondent failed to conduct himself in accordance with the mandate of Section 6, Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary. He also violated Section 1 of Canon 2 and Section 1 of Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary. As stated in the report, respondent raised his voice and uttered abrasive and Unnecessary remarks to petitioners’ witness. Also, instead of reprimanding M=y9r Villarosa for rot asking for the cout’s permission to leave while the trial was ongoing, respondent appeared to serve as the former's advocate. Honce, Judge Jacinto, Jr. is quinysofi“iblatta Ger jofe Coue of Judicial Conduct & Judicial Ethic y S Ware e. : alias 2 N.S ie GROSS IGNORANCE OF THE LAW:NOTIEXCUSEDLEYGO0D FAITH ' 7 SES UE CASAS Chua Keng Sin v, Judge Job'M: Mangente A.M. No. MTJ-15-1851; February; 2015* Leonen J. FACTS: sony Complainant Chua Keng Sin: (Chua)! fled asComplaint” Mangente (Mangente): for for oross ignorance 4 consideration is the recommendation ot the CCA\tin for gross ignorance of the-law and delay. E "against respondent Judge Jab M. jibe: Iaw and gross inefficiency, For Fludge’Mangente administratively fiable ‘Complainant was charged by his!brothér-with’attempted) murder, which case was raffled to the Branch presided by respondent. Complainantfiled-a Motionsto Dismiss the case on the ground that his brother's Complaint was filed!in cour without in“required.certification to file action from the Lupon under the LGC: provisions‘onéiatarungang*Pambarangay. Respondent Judge denied complainant's Motion to Dismiss onthiexgraund thal i was\a,protibited pleading under the Revised Rules on Summary*Procedur mplainant’ sought {hié-reconsideration of the Order. Aiter almost two (2) years, respohdént,denied'tHié’ Motion Se OReconsideration on the ground that the Lupon had issued @ certificatétteLfile action, althégbiiattact such certificate was issued by the Lupon for another case compiainanttfledragainstihis*brother. Respondent admitted and apologized-for his mistake, “attributing it to pure oversight and inadvertence,” because of heavy workload. ISSUE: |s the respondent guilty of gross ignorance of the law? 84 SANBEDACOUEGEOF LAW 2016 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS1 HELD: YES. Respondent guilty of gross ignorance of the law. In Re: Anonymous letter dated August 12, 2010, complaining against Judge Ofelia T. Pinto, it was held that judges are “expected to exhibit more than just a cursory acquaintance with statutes and procedural rules and to apply them property in ali good faith.” Judges are “likewise expected to demonstrate mastery of the principles of law, keep abreast of prevailing jurisprudence, and discharge their duties in accordance therewith.” When a law or a rule is basic, judges owe it to their office to simply apply the law. “Anything less is grass ignorance of the law.” Gross ignorance of the law may also be comriiued when a judge ignores, contradicts Or fails to apply settled taw and jurisprudence because of bad faith, fraud, dishonesty or corruption. Gross.ignorance of the law or incompetence cannat be excused by 2.claim of good faith or yeeoIplainant, (nvartriminal case no less. This is a’reflection of his, competency.as. a.iudge in dlschargind\hiSofficial duties. Judges are to betreminded that it isittietheghit dtingoinpetence to dispenge, Ses callously and in ulter disregard of procedurairules? Whetherthe'resartio shortcuts is,dayfie"out of ignorance ‘or convenience is immaterial.” *~* pee - > Office of the Court. Administrator v, ConstantinosP::Redona, Former Clerk of Court I Municipal Trial Court, TanauanyLeytes A.M, No, P-14-3194, January 27/2015)! ot Per Curiam 7 Y ee - FACTS: This administrative maitet stemmed frorn:thie' financial qudit on the Books of Accounts of the Municipal Trial Court, Tenauan,Leyteacdnduéted by the Audit Teani;of the Court Management Office (Team) due to the application for'Separation benefits, under-Section 11, paragraph (b) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8294-Ofi€nstantino'P"Redofia’ ‘The“audit covered the accountability period of Constantino P. Redéfa‘énd Renulfo R. Balarigysfortier Clerk of Court Il and Officer-in- Charge, respectively, of the sanié,court?Ramconsiderationis the recommendation of the audit team that their audit report be docketed isa regularadministrative matter against Redofa for gioss misconduct, gross neglect oft.duly, dishoriesty and delay in the denosit of court collectigns, and thatRedofia’s relitement benefits, except accrued eave credits. nz forfeited The records show the following: (1) The unreported and unremitted collections with a total amount of P71,900.00 resulting to a shortage of P71,900.00; (2) To cover up for the missing Collections, Redofia cancelled several original receipts (3) For the December 2009 monthly report, Redofia issued a certification of “no collection” of fiduciary fund and again cancelled officias receipts amounting to P12,000.00 and P8,060.00, respectively, to cover up for the missing collections; (4) Redofia allegedly posted cash baibond for his friend, the accused Raymunda Abarca, out of pity; and (6) in several instances, Redofia incurred delay for a period of four (4) years and nine (9) months in the remittances of his collections on fiduciary fund. SAN BeDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2016 CenTRALIZED Bar Orerarions — ®°in hs defense, claims good faith, his forgettulness, and the lack of secured storage area for the collections. ISSUE: Is respondent liable for gross neglect of duty and gross dishonesty? HELD: YES. Respondent is liable for gross negiect of duty and gross dishonesty. ‘SC Circular No. 13-92 commands that all fiduciary collections "shall be deposited immediately by the Clerk of Court concerned, upon receipt thereof, with an authorized depositary bank.” Settled is the role of clerks of courts as judicialoftigers. saeusted with the delicate function with regard to collection of legal fees,%and: arses ly and effectively implement Fegulations. Shortages in the. amounlsHoghecta ars of delay in the actual remittances constitute gross neglect of duty for which’ Red Id be administratively liable. Safekeeping of public and trust funds‘ essestial:tovariorderly administration of justice, No protestation of good faith can override’ the smandatory ‘nature fof the circulars designed to promote full accountability of government funds. Here, Redoita's claim of good faith, his forgetfulness and la collections are lame excuses 10 evade punishment for'tis: neglect of ‘any ‘Tho unwarranted failure to fulfil these responsibilities deserves ‘administrative «sanction and not even the full payment of the collection shortages will exempt the acociintable officer from liability. Moreover, failure to comply with pertinent Court circulars designed:tapromote full accountability for public funds constitutes grave misconduct, Equally appalling’is: thé tampering of the court records, such as the unwarranted cancellation of official recsipts‘which' were committed with conscious and deliberate efferts to conceal the missing’collections:thus evineing @ malicious and immoral propensity. af Hence, respondent is liable for gross)negiect.of-duty:and gross dishonesty HONEST MISTAKE IN APPRECIATION‘OF FACTS: NOT GROSS.IGNORANCE OF THE LAW Yolanda A. Andres, Minette A-Mor A.C.No. 7158; March 09, 2015 7° ~ Del Castillo, J FACTS: This is a Complaint for Disbarment filed against then Labor Arbiter Salimathar V. Nambi (respondent) on the ground of gross ignorance of the law, by M.A. Blocks Work, Inc. and its incorporators (complainants). For consideration is the IBP's Report and Recommendation, adapted by the IBP Board of Governors, finding respondent guilty of gross ignorance of the law. Respondent rendered a Decision in a consolidated labor case against M.A. Mercado Construction and spouses Maximo and Aida Mercado (spouses Mercado), ordering them to reinstate therein complainants to their former positions without loss of seniot ty rights and to pay their full back wages. An Alias Writ of Execution was issued to implernent the Decision. ‘Thereafter, the complainants in. the labor case filed an Ex Parte Motion for Amendment of an Alias Writ of Execution, claiming that they could hardly collect the judgment award from M.A. Mercado Construction because it allegedly transferred its assets to M.A. Blocks Work, inc. They a6 SANBEDACOLLEGE OF LAW 2016 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS.alt its incorporators/stockholders as additional entity/personalities against which the writ of execution shall be enforced. The respondent granted the motion to amend the alias writ of execution. MA Blocks Work, Inc., together with three of its stockholders filed an Urgent Motion to Quash the Amended Alias Writ of Execution, contending that they are not bound by the judgment as they were not parties to-the labor case. However, respondent denied the Urgent Motion to Quash. Aggrieved, complainants filed the instant Complaint for Disbarmient for gross ignorance of the law. ISSUE: at Is the respondent guilty of grogsvignSraace! Responsibility when he issued"an, Arm judgment against M.A. Blocks Werk;"Iiié. and labor case? HELD: yg LEZ NO. Respondent is ‘not guilty “of “gress” ignlorance Professional Responsibility : z As a tule, for one to be held administratively ascounts@ for afoss ignorance of the law, there must be a showing that the error was gross and patent as to Support a conclusion that the actor was so moved with malice, bad faith, corruption, fraud, Sad dishonesty Perusing the records of the case particularly respondent's ‘Order denying complainants’ Urgent Motion to Quash, the respondent's ruling was not arrived at afbitrarily; on’the contrary, he cited grounds based on his personal assessment cof, the facts, at/hand..In-any event, respondent snould nat be held accountable for committing an’honest mistake or ary error in the appreciation Of the facts of the case-before him. Otherwise every Iabor arbiter or any judicial or quasi-judicial officer for that matter, would be confinually plagued with the possibilty of being administratively sanctioned for every honest mistake-or error:he commits. 1. YES, he is liable for judicial sigeoriduct iis Canon 1 of the Code of Justa Concise eaben sage to uphold and exempiify judicial Independence in both its individudL-and institution! aspects. Canon 2 requires a judge to aol not only impropriety but also the mere appearance of impropriety in all activities as reminded by the Court in the case cf Gandeza Jr v. Tabin, In this case, Respondent Judge Rubia clearly failed to live up to the standards of his office. By participating in the dinner meeting and by failing to admonish respondent Pecafia for her admitted impropriety, respondent Judge Rubia violated Canons 1 and 2 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct, Therefore, responc'ent Judge Rubia should be dismissed from the service. SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LW. 2016 CenTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS2. YES, she is liable. Canon 1 of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel -provides that court personnel shall not discriminate by dispensing special favors to anyone, and that they shall not allow kinship, rank, position or favors from any party to influence their official acts or duties. (Section 1). Section 5 of the same Code provides that court personnel shall use the resources, property and finds under their official custody in a judicious manner and solely in accordance with the prescribed, statutory and regulatory guidelines or procedures. Further, the Court has declared in jurisprudence that court personnel, regardless of position or rank, are expected to conduct themselves in accordance with the strict standards of integrity and morality As 2 court employee, respondent Pegat litigants in a way that cou'd.cony ees 1e general public places in the judiciary. Respondent Pecatiais! ppesxonsreerth complzinant in her home ‘She sitould'have refused Sethe Ore ident Gation'with complainant, save for those in her official capacity,.as a Data 4 Encoder “of the courtytFais continued ‘communication between complainantarldiréspondentiPecata makes fertlpable for failure to adhare to the strict stderr emOr of eH personnel” shave known better than to interact with Por Curiam FACTS: Maniou T. Rivers. (Rivera) filed a complaigkatfidavit charging Judgs aime C. Blancafior (Judge Biancatlor) with Bribery; Gross Misconduct ly and violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. For consideration’isttheinvestigating Justice's finding that respondent is, guilly of (1) bribery, gross misconduct arideyiblation of RA. ath vate! (2) immorality Soy Rivera is engaged in assisting-tigants to-obt aos fefusal to approve a mation tovéduce bail bond, despit (2) rolusal o order an accused's reldasesdes tive Judge's grant of the motion: and {3) relusal to order an accused's releasedespite-his.own approval of the motion to reduce bail Bond. Rivera aso alleged respondents offer of money to winesses fo prevent them trom estifying in the motion for his inhibition she previously flled against him in the Leron case, and that nt only id Judge Blaneatlor refer lawyers to the parties inthe Leron case But gave them hints that they would prevail in the. case, Lastly, Rivera maintained that Judge Blancatlor maintained 20 iit relationship with & woman not inis wife. wa “Site alleged respondent's: (7) idéino“ objection” from the prosecutor, Judge Biancatlor argued that he refused to act on the motions because he hates drugs and there was a delay in the prccessing of the bail bond. He denied the alieged offer offer made in the |.eron case. However, he adduced offered no evidence as to the matter of immorality. 90 SAN BEDACOLLEGE OF Law 2016 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONSISSUE 1 2 ee 's the judge guilty of bribery, gross misconduct and violation of R.A. 30197 's the judge guilty of immorality? HELD. YES, the judge is guilty of bribery, gross misconduct and violation of R.A. 3019. The Now Code of Judicial Concluct for the Philippine Judiciary which mandates that "judges shall perform their judicial duties without favor, bias or prejudice,” and that they “shail ensure that his or her conduct, both in and out of court, maintains and enhances the confidence of tne public, the legal profession and litigants in the impartiality of the judge and of the judiciary.” Septet. ei rsh Here, Judge Blancaflor's usexplaine motions for release can only ‘support Rivera's claim thatihisihaction Was due to Riverals intervention. in.thé approval of ‘he motions, a-clear sign of his personal bias.agd prejudice against her. wThiScin our view, is patently 2 grossimisconduct on thesrart Bf Jidge-Blaheatior. A aa PLE OEE ws RA. No. 3019, the Anti-Gratt ‘and CoWfupt Pictices "Act" particulary" Section 3(e) which Provides: “In addition to acts ‘ér orissiofis!Sfiptiblie\siticers already: penalized by existing faw, the following shall constitute ‘corrupt. Placli¢egrofvany:‘public officer and are hereby Goctared to be -untawful: ‘x x..x/Causingzanyiinduesigjury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private: party. anye tedibenefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official-aciministrativetoiedcialfunctions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence x = The circumstances of the Leronicaséteftaiidge'Glaricafior no other recourse but to inhibit. It was more prudent forithe judge to. inhibit en to"GB placed under @ cloud oF vievust by the parties - Hence, Judge Blancaflor's interférenee: not only gross misconduct; it also constitutes a violation oF RA. NoK30i9} fattiand Gorrupt Practices Act ts. y i Be eae The Code of Judicial Ethics-miaftdates that the cdplitee judge must be free of.a whiff of impropriety not only with respect-to“HIStgeHONaMCasof his official duties, but also to his behavior outside his sala and as a-phivate indivjdyal. There is no dichotomy of morality: 2 Bublic official is also judged by his private morals “The code dictates that a judge, in order to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, must behave with propriety at all times. Here, for maintaining a relationship with a woman not his wife; Judge Blancatlor crossed the line of a proper and acceptable conduct as a magistrate and a private person, Hence, Judge Blancatlor is guilty of gress misconduct, violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. No. 3019) and immorality. SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF Law 2016 CenrrauizeD Bar Operations 7?CAUSE OF DELAY CONSIDERED iN COMPLAINTS FOR UNDUE DELAY IN RENDERING DECISION Re: Complaint Dated January 28, 2014 of Wenefredo Parrefto against Hon. Celia C. Librea-Leagogo, Hon. Elihu A. Ybafiez and Hon. Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, Associate Justices of the Court Of Appeals, Relative to CA G.R. SP No. 108607 OCA IPINO. 14-220-CA-J; March 17, 2015 Bersamin, J FACTS: An administrative complaint was brought ag: C. Libreateagogo (Justice Librea-Lea Ybanez) and Associate Justi delay in rendering a decision st Court of Appeals (CA) Associate Justice Celia jate Justice Elihu A. Ybafiez (Wustice zaro-Javier) for their undue ane It appears that.on: June 26, 2012, ‘the » Sopciel Sitogay,160 Bivision oie issued its, resolution submitting-C.A-G.R. SP ‘No/08807/eridecisiorh However, the-complainants lament that from the issuance of the'resolatign tuntithe:slingcttheir carfplaint on Hebruary 8, 2074, the respondents, who comprised’ ‘tne Special Y6th Divisions of hé’CA“had nol rendered the decision, which the complainants insisti a falory: period within which the respondents should decide under Section 18¢),:Acielo2VilNvol the 1987 Constitution. The complainants insist that it was ia-patent. violalionsof'thesmandatory period within which the respondents should decide under Section 45(1)>Asticle NAN peg 1987 'Constitution. Justice Librea-Leagogo denied tiabiity'for incurting-pavaundas delay because of her short stint as the Chaitperson of the’ 16th Division, and considedingifufthey thal C.A.-G.R, SP No. 108807 followed Justice Ybafiez’as the: ‘Ssigned%ponente: He teanster fo the Fourteenth (14th) Division pursuant to CA Office Order Noi229%%2-ABRi:and eventually to the Thirteenth (13th) Dhvision, the Division thatultimatel cums awaited decision on February 28, 2014 ihe Zero" Batklog Peale 8) on prioritized oldor cases, and that he had tendered the:deGisign in'GIA-GIR. SP-No. 108807 on February 28, 2014 before becoming aware.of'the ag ae conta A 6 Justice Lazaro-Javier explalieaipatyshe merely"‘tilled im tnesbier’y Vacancy in the 16" Division when the resolution was submitledsatid/had nothing mordsé-qorwith the case upon the return of the member for whom she filled itz." ‘ ISSUE: {Are the respondents liable for undue delay in deciding C.A.-G.R. SP No. 108607? HELD: NO. The administrative complaint is without merit Pursuant to Section 4, Rule VI of the 2009 Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals (IRCA), the adjudication of cases Was the. responsibility of the assigned Justice and the Members of the Division to which he dr she then belonged. Determining who should be administratively accountable must consider the specific role each of the respondents played leading to the resolution of C.A.-G.R. SP No. 108807. Under the applicable rule of the 2009 IRCA, the liability for undue delay in resolving C.A.~G.R. SP No. 108807 might devolve only on the Members of the 43th Division who actually promulgated the decision 92. SANBEDACOILEGE OF Law 2016 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONSHere, Justice Librea-Leagogo and Justice Lazaro-Javier were not part of the 13" Division that promulgated the decision. As for Justice Ybanez, although often holding that a heavy caseload 's insufficient reason to excuse a Judge from disposing his cases within the reglementary period, the Court has applied this rule by considering the causes of the delay. in Marquez v. Manigbas, the Court relieved the respondent judge from liability because the delay had been caused by the sudden deluge of cases brought about by the expansion of the jurisdiction of the municipal trial courts. in Santos 'v. Lorenzo, the Court held that a delay of seven months in deciding a case could be excused because of the heavy caseload of the trial courts in the National Capital Judicial Region. In Lubator’ v. Lazaro, the Court, in sparing the respondent from the sanctions earlier imposed for undue delay, cited the good faith of the judge, the motivation of the complainant for bringing, the charge, a the excessively heavy caseload of 5 CAui@Hewanly Fridays for the study of her 3,500 cases, 1,800 of which invalvedtt cases and the resolution of pendi 5 oper orders. The Court, in ie reversing the sanctions, observ id Court to disregard respondent Judge's limitations, and.e the rule.” z SBAATY EL, i .3{) eu) ERE PEE AY oy The facts show thatthe detdyrin chlcte Se Ae Sodad eMhid nat ‘Hevsaid to have been incurred by with malice or deliberate attempt toi SUIS PBR sationot justice. MISCONDUCT MUST BE’GRAVE, SERIOUS IMPORTA NOT TRIFLING TO WARRANT DISMISSAL Municipal Trial Court, Mahaplag;Leyte;vs Clerill Bryan‘Antonio'C’Leonido A.M, No. P-14-3222; August 12, 20145/5 4 sin ZF , Perlas-Bemabe, J : Presiding Judge Jose’B: Lagado‘and'Clerk’of Couirtll Josefina C,-Empuesto, both of the FACTS: %. Complainants Présiding Judge Jose B*Eagado (Jude® Lagado}iand Clerk of Court Il Josefina C. Empuesto (Empuesto), bottivof MTC Mahaplag, Leyte\ tharged respondent Clerk i! Bryan Antonio C. Leonido (Leonido).cfsdhe same court wwittfDishonesty and Misconduct. For consideration is the OCA's recoipmiondationgfindingiteonido guity of Gross Misconductand Dishonesty. ea ‘Complainants alleged that Leonido intercepted and withdrew checks representing their second quincena salary as well as their share in the Judiciary Development Fund and Special Allowance for Judges Fund (subject checks) from the Nall Distribution Center without their authority and knowledge. Leonido allegedly was able to claim the subject checks from the postal office by submitting a forged authorization letter purportedly from Empuesto and presenting a photocopy of his Supreme Court identification card. Thereafter, Leonido allegedly kept the Subject checks in his possession without informing compiainants of such fact. Judge Lagado repeatedly ‘tried contacting Leonido, but to no avail. Eventually, complainants were able to recover the subject checks through Lecnido's wife who turned them over to a certain Edgar M. Miralles, a court aide of the MTC. ‘SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 93 2016 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONSBR, — Leonido failed to comment on the charges against him hence, the Court dropped Leonido from the rolls for his absences without official leave, without prejudice to the outcome of the instant case. ISSUE: Is respondent guilty of Dishonesty and Grave Misconduct? HELD: YES. Respondent is guilty of dishonest, cad grave misconduct. Dishonesty is the disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, defraud, or betray; unworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of honesty, probity, 1 i,,ptinciple, and lack of faimess and straightforwardness. Misconductorth sion of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly FB dss negligence by the public officer. To warrant dismissal from the'service, the'miseondUehimustbe grave, serious, important, weighty, momentous, and not trifling. The misconductmust implywrongtul intention and not a mere efror of judgment and must-also*fave a diréeterelation to and be. conriected with the performance of the public officer's official:duties, amounting eithey:tormalacministration or willful, intentional neglect, or failure to discharge the duties of the’btfiée. In order'to differentiate gross misconduct from simple misconduct; the’ élementsof’eoiguptichinclear ‘intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rule, must be'manifestiniihetformer. In this case, the OCA correctly found Leonida guilty dfDishanesty and Gross Misconduct for fraudulently intercepting the subject checks through. the:use of a falsified authorization letter purportedly signed by Empuesto and keeping such chétks’in his possession without the complainants’ knowledge and cuthority. The subsequentifetuin of the subject checks to their awful owners is of no monient as it did not change thé-unlawful nature of Leonido’s acts which is tantamount to stealing, Thievery, no matterhow petty;;nas no place:in the judiciary As such, respondent is found guilty of- Dishonesty and/Grave/Misconduct. DISMISSAL FOR SECOND CFFENSE FOR.HABITUAL” ABSENTEEISM Office of the Court Administrator v. Edgar’S: Cruz, Clérk:lil, Regional Trial Court, Branch 52, Guagua, Pampanga "Pate S AM. No, P-14-3260; September 16/2014 ee Per Curiam FACTS: Edgar S. Cruz (Cruz), Clerk Sil, Branch 52, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Guagua, Pampanga was charged with the violation of Section 46 (b) of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service due 10 his alleged habitual absenteeism. For consideration is the OCA’s recommendation that he be dismissed from service. A report entitled "Summary of Absences incurred by Edgar $. Cruz” submitted by the Chief of the Leave Division, Office of Administrative Services (OAS), Offic: of the Court Administrator (OCA) indicated that Cruz incurred three (3) unauthorized absences in November and four (4) unauthorized absences in December 2017. An evaluation of his record with the Employees’ Leave Division, OAS, OCA revealed that Cruz has the propensity of not reporting for work. From 94 SANBEDACOLLEGE OF LAW 2016 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS.January to April 2042 alone, Cruz incurred thiay (30) absences. He had also been previously willy of absenteeism arid tardiness. Cruz admitted skipping work without filing the corresponding leave applications during the dates mentioned in the report of the Leave Division, OAS, OCA. In his comment, Cruz could only present medical certificates to substantiate his explanation that he fell sick during the subject dates. He, however, failed to submit any duly accomplished and approved leave applications from his executivelpresiding judge. ISSUE, Is the respondent guilty of habitual absenteeism? HELD: ‘The Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive, Ofder No. 2 and o1féPertinent Civ Service Laws (Civil'Service Rules)-triandate’ that ah fernployee must submitfar” application for both sick and vacation leaves. Under Administratiyex@ircular/No, A4-20024MR9: Reiterating the Civil Service Commission's’ Policy ‘on’ Habitual Absenteeisim),""[aln officer-or employee in the civil service shall be considered habitually absent if etiNctirstutauthorized-absences exceeding the aliowable 2.5 days monthly leave credit under: thédiawifor-al least'three (3) months in a semester or at least three (3) consecutive months. duriag:thelyear( |". Moreover, under Section 46 (b) of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases‘iftthe GivilService, frequent unauthorized absences in reporting for duty is classified as a gravé-clfense’ punishable by suspension of six {6) months and one (1) day to one (1) yeor forthe first offers and dismissal from the service {or the second offense. Aithough strictly speaking respondent Cruz fnay not yet:be considered. habitually absent on the basis of his unauthorized absences. in. November: and/ December 2011, he should still be penalized because his omissions clearly catuséd inefficietcy,and harnpered public service. Hence, Cruz is dismissed from service for having béerstound, guilty: of habitual absenteeism twice rie HABITUAL ABSENTEESIM IS;A CONDUCT pre susiciat ‘OTHE PUBLIC SERVICE aves Leave Division - 0.A.S., Office of the Court Admi AM, No. P-11-2930; February 17, 2018 Per Curiam sifator v. Tyke J. Sarceno FACTS) The Office of the Court Adrinistrator (OCA) recommended the filing of an administrative complaint for habitual absenteeism agains! respondent Tyke J. Sarceno (Sarceno), Clerk Ill of the RTC The facts show that Sarceno had incurred absences totaling 92 days spread in the months of June, July, August, and September, all in 2709, a total of 37 absences in 2010. 34 of which were in the months of July, August and S.ptember, all in 2010, and had remained abe ont without official leave as of December 14, 2050. SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2016 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS Fitis noted also that he had not been administratively charged with habitual absenteeism despite the strong recommendation by the OCA as early as in December 2009. Sarceno explained then that he had been experiencing abdominal pains, high fever, and influenza: that when the abdominal pain had become unbearable, he had applied for sick leave. Sarceno continued to incur unexplained absences. ISSUE: is Respondent Sarceno guilty of habitual absentesism? HELD: YES. Respondent Sarceno is guilty of habitual absenteeism Adrinistrative Circular No. 14; considered habitually absent! allowable 2.5 days‘monthly (eave eae ‘ind iaree (3) mogths:ih a semester of at least three. (3) consecutive months dur} moe year: Mone fer, in Loyagt¥sManatad, the Court considered a court employee'srprcionged! Gbsehéckas conduct grejsdicial to the best interest of the public service'because ofztstadverse: stfeet afinefficiency Ta.thé public service Conduct is prejudicial to the publc'service"t it violates tte a of public"accountability and By the hebitualty and frequency of his unauthorized ehsen Senos did not live up to the dogree of accountability, efficiency, and integrity thatthe Judigiary has required of is officials and employees, His position as Clerk Ill-was essential ‘rd indispensable to the Judiclary’s primary mandate of the proper administration: of justice:Thisimandate diciated that he as a court empicyee should devote his office hours:strictly'touihe public service, if only to repay and serve the people whose taxes were-usedsta maintain‘the Judiciary. His habitual absenteeism severcly compromised the integrity‘and: image#that:the \Judicjary sought to preserve, and thus violated this mandate. As the OCA pointed’@ut,Sarceno}again wenton AWOL in 2010 despite having expressed his “repentance witha resolye:to comact his shortcomings.” Hence, Sarceno is quilly of habitual absentecism*and:cohBlict ‘prejudicial to the best interest of the public service. aye wes FALSIFICATION OF TIME RECORDS constiruies pisssiesty Office of the Court Administrator'v: Punyafteeniet Clerk Il, RTC Branch 199, Las Pinas Gity AM, No, P-13-3130; September 22, 2014 Peralta, J FACTS: “The case involves Atty. May Hemandez (Atty. Hernandez}, Clerk ill, RTC Branch 199 in Las Pinas City, being accused of dishonesty. For consideration is OCA's recommendation that, respondent may be held liable for dishonesty. The letter sender alleged tha! respondent would arrive late for work, but to make it appear that she arrived on time, she wou d insert her name right above or almost on the same line as the series of "X" marks in the court's attendance logbook, which is the dividing line between the list of names of people who arrived on time and those who were already tardy. ‘Seba COWEGE OF Law a 2016 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONSRespondent readily admitted her wrongdoing, stating that she had actually been tardy for the months of September and October 2010. ISSUE is Ally. Hernandez administratively liable for committing acts of dishonesty? OCA Circular No. 2-2003 (dated 9 January 2003) in part reads: In the submission of Certificates of Seryi Judges and court personnel, thegfoll month, every official and empl Service Form No: 48)'8undy Ca in and departure from the office xx |: After the end of each he Daily Time Record (Civil freccurately the-time of arrival oe EDA > ¥ Under Secticns 48, Rule 1026f the F vise Rules ey fitnigaiveyCaseygf-he Civil Service, promulgated on 19 November"2011,talsiigation DTR is classified as-a grave offense that is punish carries the penaity of dismissal irom'the services@itit accrued ieave credits, and perpetual disqualifications{ea alsification of time ‘records ‘consiitutes /dishorie disposition tolie, cheat, deceive, or defrauds unl ser probity or integrity in principle; tack of faimess. arid Straig deceive or betray.” ee ment benefits, except Hfiploymentfin government service. iGnesty has“been defined as "the 8Sislack of integrity; lack of honesty, Here, the conduct of making it appear thatishe‘alwaSyreported for work cn tiine although, facl, she was often tardy, is deplorablerandsfalls‘way;Helowthe standard set for employees of the Judiciary. BAe Fy f ” £ 3 Section 46, Rule 10 of the 'RevisedRy ‘AdMinistrative.Cases in the Civil Service, promulgated on November: 18,2011, /stalesithat falsifi@ation ofsofficial document, such as an employee's Daily Time Record.(GTR), isi Grave offense thats: punishable by dismissal from the service, Under the circumstances, howeverthe Couikdcs “not believe that such extreme Penalty should be imposed ‘on-*espofdent. Sectiofi48kble 10 of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil’ Serviceiprovidesstharthe-uisciplining authority may consider mitigating circumstances in imposing the-proper perialty Hence, Hernandez is guilty of dishonesty. SAN BEA COLLEGE OF LAW 2016 CeNTRALIZAD BAROrERATIONS «77So PROHIBITION TO JUDICIARY OFFIC LLOYEES FROM ENGAGING DIRECTLY.IN ANY PRIVATE BUSINESS, VOCATION OR PROFESSION Re: Anonymous Letter Complaint on the Alleged Involvement and for Engaging in the Business of Lending Money at Usurious Rates of Interest of Ms. Dolores T. Lopez, SC Chief Judicial Staff Officer, And Mr. Fernando M: Montalvo, SC Supervising Judicial Staff Officer, Checks Disbursement Division, Fiscal Management and Budget Office. A.M, No. 2010-21-SC: September 30, 2014 Bersumin, J FACTS: An undated anonymous letter-complaint a (CID) of the Office of Administrative” Semucese(OA profitable money-lending with UsuriOUs: ings chemeyetigagediin by respondents Dolores T. Lopez (Lopez), an SC Chief Judicidl’StarOfficerandertaygelM. Montaivor(Motalvo), an SC Supervising Judicial Staff Officer, both, of, the Checks Disbursement Divisigni“of the Court's Fiscal Management and Budget Office™(FMBO)-Tiie:OASerecommended: the: dismissal of the letier complaint against Montalvo; foritack ofsmerity"bugsendogged Lopez's suspénsion “for thirty (30) days for lending money’ with interest to! enurhiber of economically. challenged employees and janitors eo 2 .ddressed,to the Complaints and Investigation Division ese f8the,Supreme Court assailed the ae Med in the’ money-lending activities idvess and employees of the janitorial ihvihe help.of the personnel of the targeling the low-salaried employees of the Court ike th sorvices; that such money-lending had been going on'\ Checks Disbursement Division of FMBO. byventicine yees of the Court to pledge forthcoming benefits at a discounted’ rate; and :thatafound"300 Automated Teller Machine {ATM) cards ‘were surrendered: “by the’tbOtrowers “to “thé “respondents as collateral for the individual borrowings. * x Lopez acknowledged that she was-the’ only: person. inthe" Checks Disbursement Division of F MBO who had tent money, absolving Mofitalve and the. otter members of the staff of that office by saying that they had nothing to do:withiher transactions, She stressed that her transactions did not result in any conflict of interest; and? did nolzcompromise the integrity of her office because her transactions had been done:during break’ times, orioutside of office hours. on ce On his part, Montalvo denied the*charges against hifi, smaititgining that the anonymous lelter- complaint was a malicious alterript. to’ dairiagerhissreputal on”and the reputation of his office. He declared that he lent money only to slosest-acquaintances as was customary among friends. ISSUES: i Is Montalvo administratively liable for their money-lending activities? 2 Is Lopez administratively liable for their money-lending activities? HELD: 1. NO. Montalvo ie not administratively liable for their money-tending activities ‘The Court concurs with the findings of the OAS that the:complaint against Montalvo had no factuat basis. His involvement in money lending was not shown to be habitual, going on only as far as accommodating his friends during their personal emergencies without imposing any interests. 9g SANBEDACOLLEGE OF LAW 2016 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS,2. YES. Lopez is administratively fable for their money-lending activities. Administrative Circular No. 5 (Re: Prohibition for Ali Officials and Employees of the Judiciary to Work as Insurance Agents), dated October 4, 1988, has prohibited all officials and employees of the Judiciary from engaging directly in any private business, vocation or profession, even outside their office hours. The prohibition has been at ensuring that full- time officers and employees of the courts render full-time service, for only thereby could any undue delays in the administration of justice and in the disposition of court cases be avoided. The nature of the work of court employees and officials demanded their highest degree of efficiency and responsibility, but they would not ably meet the demand except by devoting their undivided time to the government service. This explains why court employees have been enjoined to strictly observe official time and to devote every second or mornent of such time to Serving the public. oun ee wa Although many “moonlighting*ctiviliesiwens ‘ or tolerated: had the actors:notibeeri*empt iblic:sector, moonlighting, allbeit not usually treated:as a serious misconduct, can,amount to a malfeasance iAstfice by the very nature of the-position held. In:the*case Gb Eépez/“her being the [CHyeF-Of the Checks Disbursement Division of the*FMBO;:asmajor office:of the Court itself, Sufély put the integrity of the Checks Disbursément ‘Division "zind"the“etireFNBO Under'go:’much undeserved suspicion. od i GRAVE MISCONDUCT, GROSS DISHONES: THE BEST INTEREST OF THE'SERVICE - Alleged Icss of various boxes ‘of -copy:;paperiiuring their transfer from the Property Division, Office of. Administrative ‘Services ‘tothe -varicus rooms of PhiljalReiease of compulsory retirement benefits under’ R'A8294 of Mr. Isidro P. Austria etc. A.M. No, 2008-23-SC/A.M::No, 2014-025'Ret; September 30, 2014 Bersamin, J Susy 6Oe FACTS: 5 a This is an administrative mattenindtiring into thé"léss of 140-reams of Iorig copy paper, and 40 reams of short copy paper, valued/at,P27,000.00, deliveret:to the Philippine Judicial Academy (PHILJA). Also for consideration is, the“applicationtter-thé-felease of his retirement benefits due to his intervening compulsory retirement from thé-service by Mr. Isidro P. Austria (Austria), former Supply Officer il, Philippine Judicial Academy: Supreme Court ‘The preliminary investigation revealed that: (a) Austria had admitted having used the SC’s Lite Ace van with Plate. No. SEF 868 to unload 50 reams of short bond paper contained in five boxes in intramuros to pay his outstanding personal debt of P5,000.00; (b) Store Keeper IV Lenin Mario Ordofiez had claimed thal he supervised and made the transfer of 300 reams in 30 boxes of long bond paper to the OCA stock room, but the verification had shown only 270 reams in 27 boxes; he had admitted riding the PHILJA van with Plate No. SFV 785 te deliver the reams of copy paper to the Repro Room without the proper trip ticket, leaving the boxes of copy paper there without padlocking the stockrooms; (c) driver Eusebio M. Glor of the Administrative Division had admitted driving the Lite Ace van with Plate No. SEF 868 {o Intramuros with Austria on board, and had acknowledged facilitating the unlawful transfer of 50 reams of copy paper in 50 boxes; and (d) Judicial Staff Employee Il Elizalde S. Carmona had driven the PHILJA van SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2016 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS: idawilh Plate No. SFV 785 upon the request of Ordonez without the corresponding frip ticket, and had assisted Ordofiez only in the transfer of the boxes from the OCA stockroom to the Repro Room, ISSUE: ‘Ae responcien's administratively lable for the loss of the reams of copy paper’? HELD: YES. There is grave misconcuct when the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the iaw, or flagrant disregard of established rule are present. Dishonesty is defined as a disposition to lie, cheat, deceive or defraud; untrustworthiness, lack of integrity; lack of honesty, probity or integrity in principle; lack of ‘aimess. and astaightfonvardness. Botn gross misconduct and dishonesty aro grave offenses tha tale yen for the first offense. aaa Br OR et CN aa Conduct prejudicial to the bestijlerasorthe Senvice iSalsowlassified as a grave-sifense under Section 22(i) of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book.V of Exectitive Order NG*292 and other pertinent Civil Service laws, with the®penalty forth Hirst*sffense being suspension for six (6) nid for the, gecar ondgoftense being!disthissal. The Civil Service laws and rules contain rio“description’of wifat pec acts ‘constitute-the grave offense of conduct prejudicial to. the (best*intérest™offtie jever, jurisprudence has been instructive, with the Court having considered nee for omissions as constitutive of f5(a)-misappropriation of public {unds; (b) abandonment cf office; (¢} failure,to oe without prior notice; (d) failure to keep public records and property sate’ (e) makings ies in public documents; and <*) falsification of court orders. On the otherhand ae fity is. the fallure to give one’s aitention te 3 task expected of him. Gross neglectisisichiealect.thdt, from the gravity of the case or the frequency of instances;“becomes st Vits charactar as to endanger or threaten the pulic. welfare, The-term.dgesiapt necespey incude-wilfur neglect or intentional official wrongdoing 4 For making false statemerts, committingipesjury ani sfealing the .gopy.paper, Austria and Glor are guity of grave misconduct, gross}cishonesty ‘anc ‘cosduct prefuidicial to the best interest of the service. Ae Nfs « \V@ a direct hand in the theft of ee found by the OAS, he failed to sourity personnel; anid that he did the reams of copy paper delivered to Odoez is guilty of gross naglect’ohyduly. Evervit he, ais the copy paper, his negligence, faéji ‘ated the theft, AG) safely store and to endorse the copy” papeztgdthesas not also conduct an actual count and maké-a record-of all his safekeeping > ‘The recommended sanction for Carmona is warning. Such sanction is sufficient considering that Ordoniez merely solicited the help of Cardona in transferring the reams of copy paper from the OCA stockroom to the Reoro Room in the SC New Building. Although Carmona admittedly used ‘a trip ticket not authorized for the iransfer, we cannot appreciate that fact against him because the rule on securing trip tickets was not yet strictly implemented at that time. At any rate, it nowhere appeared that Carmona directly participated in the theft. Hence, Glor ind Austria are guilty of gross dishonesty, grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, Ordonez is guilty of gross neglect of duty. yop SAH BEDA COLLEGE oF Law 2016 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS:£ LOAFING IS A GRAVE OFFENSE; SLEEPING IS A LIGHT OFFENSE Ireneo Garcia, Record Officer |, MeTC, OCC, Caloocan City v. Clerk of Court IV Atty. Monalisa A. Buencamino, et al./Executive Judge Mariam G. Bien, MeTC, Br. 53, Caloocan City v. Ireneo Garcia, Record Officer |, et al/Clerk of Court IV Atty. Monalisa A. Buencamino, et al. v. Ireneo Garcia and Utility Woker ! Honeylee Vargas Gatbunton- Guevarra AM. No. P-09-2691/A.M, No. P-09-2687/A.M. No, P-14-3247; October 13, 2014 Mendoza, «| FACTS: For resolution of the Court are three (3) originated from the Novembe (Garcia) of the Office or the Ciere ane stemmed froméa formal letteasbyaJUUG administrative cases, two (2) of which i. Officer | lreneo Garcia iykhhe other administrative case je Bien) te Assistant Court Administrator Jesus Edwin A. Villasor (A GA vueeey jegarding“an inciderft Between Process Server Salvador Toriaga (Toriaga) anidsaicia, Woe we cooldbdbbEGE OF LAW 9 The facts of the cases’show the'foltowing? ~*~ arte i> one BS ied it-ink fact, Toriaga admitted “office comfort room, a) a shouting incident‘between Garcia land Tolia hurling invectives against Garcia.for) the, latte Garcia, on the other hand, did hot etule tHe misbehavior displayed by Toriaga: 5 b} Garcia’s alleged habitual absenteeism, loat not refute. ce c) Garcia and Guevarra maintained’a1 ra iélationstipias evidenced by marriage contract ot Guevarra with ner husband, tne birthicertificatelof.oneef Guevara's Children with Garcia, and the affidavit of acknowledgemenvadiniseiSidkpateenity-by Garci gerionvacmiss gE pseeyyoy Gorco., ISSUE: Should Garcia, Toriaga, and'Guew aisgraceful and immoral conduct HELD: iil YES. : S Firstly, Garcia and Toriaga are both guilty for simple misconduct, Simple misconduct is defined as an unacceptable behavior which transgresses the established rules of conduct for public officers, work-ralsted or not. Here, although Garcia had committed an impropriety relating to the use of the office lavatory, it was not a license for Toriaga to make such outbursts during office hours and within the office premises, Clearly, both employees failed to live up to the high: standards of propriety and decorum expected of employees of the Judiciary. Secondly, loafing, just like frequent unauthorized absences, is a grave offense while sleeping during office hours, an act violative of office rules and regulations, is a light offense. Garcia was ‘SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2016 CeNTRAUZED Bar OPeRATIONS «10%guilty of loafing for which the rules impose a penalty of suspension from work for six (6) months and one (1) day fo one (1) year for the first offense, dismissal for the second, as well as vioialion of reasonable office rules and regulations with reprimand as the penalty for the first offense. Lastly, a5 regards the charge of disgraceful and immoral conduct against Garcia and Guevara, Garcia and Guevarra failed to refute the alleged illicit relationship and simpiy labeled the charge against them as malicious, fabricated and baseless. Such a relationship is highly frowned upon, especially when court employees are involved because they are expected to maintain moral righteousness and uprightness in their professions! and private conduct tc preserve the integrity and dignity oi tne courts of justice. isan ceful and immoral conduct but also the: iv ae ice rules and regulations. a es BifenSe omRAIegraceful and, immoral conduct. EDA ue ety § gt “EE Oy PROHIBITION AGAINST “ANY FORM“ OF SOLICITATIONS OF \-GIFT OR OTHER PECUNIARY OR MATERIAL BENEFITS OR'CONT UBUD! 1S ; ua PRI RONS: Soave Judge Juan Gabriel H. Aland v. Padma.L. SahivGourtinterpreter, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Maluso, Basiian : ee AM. No, P-14-3252, October 14, 2014 Per Curiam, FACTS: Judge Juan Gabriel H. Alano (JudigevAlsno) PMynigipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Sumisip, Maluso and Lantawan,-BasilansPrgvince’ filegf sn} administrative complaint against Padma L. Sahi (Sahi), Court InterdretérstMatithe “same (court, charging her with violations of Sections 1 and 2, Canon’ of the Code of Gonduct-for-Court Personnel, violation of Section 3(2) of Republic Act No. 3019; otherwise! knownids' the" AnL-Graft and,Corrupt Practices Act, Grave Misconduct and Absence Without Leavel(AINOL). For cénsideration is the Investigating Judge's recommendation that Sahi-be'dismissed-ttormiservice” Record shows that during Seveiaidinstances, sat ioleldé-ina received various sums of money from parly ligants in the-GlectionsiprotestSZs@s" pending -before the 2nd MCTC of Sumisip, Malco and Lantawan, Basilan Province despite constant reminders frem Judge Alano fot to demand, soft or receive money-or other gifts.or benefits from any party litigant. These findings are corroborated by affidavits executed by the parties who stated that Sahi exacted money from them in exchange for favorable judgments in the sala of Judge Alano ‘Anent Sahi's continuous absences, records show that she had been AWOL from June 18, 2008 until September 24, 2008, or for 67 consecutive working days. ISSUE: Is respondent Sahi guilty of grave misconduct and AWOL? HELD: YES. Respondent Sahi is guilty of grave misconduct and AWOL. 402 _ SANBEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2016 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS.a JOO 4 Section 2, Canon | of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel, provides that " Shall not solicit or accept any gift, favor or benefit bases on any explicit or implicit that such gif, favor of benefit shail influince their offi states that “court personnel shall not x x x solicit favor, hospitality or service under circumstances a major purpase of the donor is to influer ‘court personnel it understanding ficial actions," while Section 2(e), Canon lil OF accept any gift, loan, gratuity, discount, from which it could reasonably be inferred that he Court personne! in performing official duties, Here, the corrupt practice of Sahil in soliciting and receiving bribe money from party litigants. on the pretext that they will obtain a favorable judgment undoubtedly degraded the judiciary and diminished the respect and regard of the people for the court and its pérsonnel. Such practice Constitutes grave misconduct in office which is appalling, It is a grave offense that carries an equally grave penalty. Under Sectior g},of-Rule, XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No< 202% PEdinent CKisService Laws, gross misconduct is classified as a grave offense. The i Ses igsdiSmigcal ev : EES ai ARGUE RSG Gl miseal even for the first offense ns ee As regards AWOL, pursuant to Section 63, Rule.XV| of the Omnibus puso Leave, as amended by Civil’Service ResolutiohNo&070631? ain ferpleyee's AWOL for atidast 30 working days warrants his separation'from the service 2 yyy fs Se Here, by going on AWOL, Sabi grossly*ighioredgandsabeindoned the duties of her office, She failed to remain faithful to the:high standards iofpliglélaccountabiliy imposed on all those in government service. 7 eee found guilty of gravemiscondust ang: AWOL. Hence, respondent Sahi is USE OF INTEMPERATE LANGUAGE"IS?A ‘VIOLATION OF THE SUB JUDICE RULE IN CLASS DISCUSSION AS CONDUCTUNBECOMING'OF A JUDGE Jill M. Tormis v. Judge Meinrad6'P: Paredes A.M, No. RTJ-13-2366; February 4; 2015, Mendoza, J FACTS: gt ES This is a complaint filed by.-complainant Jill"N"Tormig “(Tormis) against respondent Judge Meinrado P. Paredes (Paredes)sforgrave misconduct..korconsideration is the report and recommendation of Justice SempioDiy-fetéanmendi§:that respondent be reprimanded, Complainant is respondent's student{id’ political fawyeview. According to the complainant respondent named her mother, Judge Tormis, as one of the judges involved in the marriage scams in Cebu City. He also said ihat Judge Tormis was abusive of her position as a judge, corrupt and ignorant of the law. Respondent also included Judge Tormis in his discussions not only once but several times. He also include in his discussion her brother Francis, stating that Francis was a “courtnoted addict.” To avoid humiliation, Jill dropped from the class and transfered to another law school. Respondent,asserted that his discussions of the administrative case of Judge Tormis in class was an exercise of his right to freedom of expression. He also said that he could not be held administr-tively liable for his comments against Judge Tormis and Francis as these were uttered while he was not in the exercise of his judicial functions. SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2016 CENTRALIZED Bar OPERATIONS 109ISSUE: {s the respondent guilty of grave misconduct for violating the sub judice rule and for using intemperale language during class discussions? HELD: NO, the respondent is not guilty of grave misconduct; however, he is held administratively liable {or his negative portrayal of Judge Tormis and Francis in his class discussions. Misconduct is defined as a transgression of some establish=4 and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer. Considering the acts of the respondent, were..made. charged of misconduct as ttiese-acts|were notirelaled:te. judge. However, sub judice rulesander’Seation#) Canoh restricts comments and disclosures*pertaining lo"théyudicialproceedings in order to avoid prejudging the issue, influencing the coutt,..or..obsttucting the administration“of justice. The pendency of the administrative casé&iof-Judge Tormis-dnéthe publicity cixth-miarriage scams did not give respondent unrestrainediicenge to.criticizeJudgeTegmis in hisiclass discussions. his class discussions, he cannot be disebarge of his official turistions as low Code of Judicial Conduct GROUND FOR THE REMOVAL OF ‘A JUDICIAL BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT Josephine Jazmines Tan v. Sibanah'Usman A.M, No. RTJ-14-23907 August 13,°2014 Peralta, J FACTS: Respondent Judge Sibanah Usman’ (dudge:Usman),was-chargedswith bribery and corruption by Josephine Jazmines Tan (Tan). For'cgnsideration’istHé Investigating Justice’s recommendation complainant do not constitute bribery or corruption, Complainant is one of the plaintiffs aad'atetised:inra'ivir case and a criminal case respectively then pending before Branch 28, presided-by respondent. She ciaimed that relative tc said cases, respondent was paid by their opponent, a certain Allan Tan, thiough Jaime Cui, Jr., as evidenced by a receipt stating that money was received by Nilda Cinco in behalf of respondent of the rescondent, in consideration of the aforesaid case. However, compiainent, deseie notice, failed to attend the héaring of the case. Respondent countered that the allegations of bribery and corruption are, baseless and unfounded. He denied that he received any money from Jaime Cui, Jr. or from anyone relative to said subject cases. Mr. Cui and Ms. Cinco, swore in their affidavits and during the hearing that no money was received and that no receipt was issued thereto. ISSUE: Is the respondent guilty of bribery and corruption? to SA BEDACCLLEGE OF LAW 2016 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONSHELD: NO. Respondent is not quilty of bribery and corruption. The Rules of Court requires that if a judge should be disciplined for grave misconduct or any graver offense,-as in this case, the evidence against him should be competent and derived trom irect knowledge, The Judiciary to which respondent belongs demands no less. Before any of its members could be faulted, competent evidence should be presented, since the charge is penal in character. Thus, the ground for the removal of a judicial officer should be established beyond reasonable doubi. By merely presenting a “receipt” to support an accusation of bribery will not stand alone. White it may be considered as proof that indeed there igney received, it does not prove however that respondent received the say otal an ia presented the subject receipt, there was no.aliegation as to - ng acted. oe s{fom whom she obtained said tf ‘anawauincnticity of saidypectipt was not receipt. It did -not help also tha jae exec ithe sufficiently established. a ese ee een 7 ANS. DAM SEE i t Hence, the instant administrative complaint-against yaspondentiUsman,i8;sisrfissed for failure of complainant to substantiate thé Gharges. "=" PE" Bnd 4 SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE REQUIRED .IN SEXU/ MENT.IN THE JUDICIARY Samahan Ng Mga Babae Sa Hudikatura (Samai Trial Court, Branch 149, Makati City” AM, No, RTJ-13-2362; February 25, 2015 Vilarama, Jr, J FACTS, A group of female court employées “sty!ec as ““Semahan na mga Babae sa Hudikatura® (SAMABAHU) sent the Court 3 lettercontainirig the names of the allegad victims and allegations charging respondent Judge: Cesar 0. Untaian (Judge Untalan) with sexual harassment. For consideration js the’ |nvestigating Justice's, finding ‘that respondent is guilty beyond reasonable doubtof sexual harassment. 3 In its investigation, the OCA metWith tivo female enfployeeS:of Makati City RTC, namely Mrs. Rowena "Weng" P. Ripdos (Riodd8),”Cférk:\IkatBratich1457"and Ms. Marissa Fe B. Herradura (Herradura). Ripdos and Herradura executed their-respective affidavit-complaints before the City Prosecutor of Makati alleging that‘tespondent sexually harassed them. Ripdos claimed that after the alleged incident respondent threatened her with a low performance rating. Respondent then warmed her not to complain to the administration because ho one will believe her because she is just an employee and her enemy is a Judge and he can have her removed. Herradura corroborated the statement of Ripdos that she divulged to her what respondent did to her. She narrated her own experience with respondent whom she claimed pinched her breast twice while she was working infront of the computer and respondent was standing behind her. However, both Ripdos and Herradura did not report the alleged lascivious acts by respondent to the proper authorities until two years later when the OCA team went to their branch. ‘SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF Law 2016 CenrRauzeo BAR OreRATIONS 109Respondent denied ail the allegations and argued that the standard of substantial evidence is not met ISSUE Js the respondent guilty of sexual harassment? HELD: NO. Respondent is not guilty of sexual harassment. Under Section 3 of A.M. No. 03-03-13-SC (Re: Rule on Administrative Procedure in Sexual Harassment Cases and Guidelines on Proper Work Decorum in the Judiciary), work-related sexual harassment is committed by an. official.or employee in the Judiciary who, having authority, influence or moral. ascendancy,overtanollieriiiiva, work environment, demands, requests or otherwise requirés:.anyeSexualifayoritoms tieeother: regardiess of whether the demand, request or requirement for'submission is"acceptedibigtie latter. It isscostimitted when ‘the sexual favor is made as a condition in the hiring.or in the employment, e=employment or continued.employment of said individual, or a1 granting-bai individual iavurabie conwpensation, terms, conditions, promotions, or privileges? or: the-Tettisa! tei,grant the sexual‘ favor results in limiting, segregating or classifying the employee which in’any ‘way would discriminate, deprive or diminish employment opportunities or otherwiseladveielyraifect said employee. However, since in administrative proceedings: the: complainantshas the burden of proving the allegations in, his complaint with substantial evidence,:thé Court finds that Ripdos and Herradura failed to substantiate their charges against respondentiby’the:required-quantum of proof. White it is tur that their affidavits were replete with.details describing the alleged sexual advances, such detailed narration by itself will not suffice and. will.nat. automatically result in a guilly verdict. The seeming lack of urgency-cn their part-in taking Concrele adminisirative actinn against a wayward judge bears heavily on their case. There:is no sufficient evidence to create a moral certainly that Judge Cesar ©. Untalan committed the acts complained of. Hence, the compiaint must be dismissed forlack of-substantial evidence. 30g SAY BEDA COLLEGE oF Law 2016 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONSNotarial Practice (A. M. No. 02-8-13-SC, as amended) NOTARIAL COMMISSION IS A LICENSE HELD PERSONALLY BY THE NOTARY PUBLIC. Crescenciano M. Pitogo v. Atty. Joselito Troy Suello A.C. No, 10695; March 18, 2015 Leonen, J. FACTS: This is an administrative complaint filed by Crescenciano M. Pitogo (Pitogo) against Atty. Joselito Troy Susilo (Suello) for diserepanities ae tries in his notarial register. The Commission on Bar Discipiing ‘of the IBF mimes Stigilo's suspension from the law 4 fadopted by the | practice for six months and!the:samel be Govemors while modifying the penalty, BETS 5 A motorcycle, purchased from EMCOR, ‘inc! wa regiseres in, Pitogo's né evtaced on three documents notarized by Suelio,: which: indicate erie registered’ in, Suello's notarial register. Pitogo obtained @ copy.ot, the.three, documents,from.the Land, Fransportation Office (LTO). He requested Suello to certify. the exihenicay ate Weracity of the Said documents he obtained from LTO. He wanted to determine if {he docdiiests Were duly notarized by Suello or Ptogo ateges that there were decrepancies betweehithe Wjee'docurnents notarized by Susto and Surllo's entries in his rotaria 8 15 “the etween the Book Numbs Socuments. cerllfed the documents as true copies. Suello expla Pitogo’s documents, ISSUE a sie Is respondent administratively liable forshis¢néaligence if keeping-and maintaining his notarial register? a HELD: { YES, respondent is liable for his: nldonepe, soul In Bole v. Jud Edvardo, the Court helt a Nottial register is prima facia evidence of the facts there stated. It has the presumption of regularity"and to contradict the veracity of the entry, evidence must be clear, convincing, and more than merely preponderant. Thus, every notarial act in the notarial register is required under Rule VI, Section 2 of the Notarial Rules, and failing in this duty shall give rise to administrative liability under Section 1 (b) (2), Rule XI, also of the Notarial Rules. ‘When respondent negligently failea to enter the details of the three documents on his notarial register, he cast doubt on the authenticity of complainant's documents. He also cast doubt on the credibility of the notarial register and the notarial process. He violated not only the Notarial Rules but also the Code of Professional Responsibility, which requires lawyers to promote respect for law and legal processes. Respondent's secretary cannot. be’ blamed for the erroneous entries in the notarial register. The notarial commission is a license held personally SAN BEDA COLLEGE 0" LaW 2016 CentRauizeD Bar OPERATIONS 107meet by the notary public. It cannot be further delegated. It is the notary public alone who is personally responsible for the correctness of the entries ir; his or her notarial register. Therefore, Respondent should be suspended from the practice of taw for three (3) months and disqualified from being commissioned as notary public for one (1) year. MAINTAINING SEVERAL NOTARIAL REGISTERS IN SEPARATE OFFICES IS A VIOLATION OF THE NOTARIAL PRACTICE RULES Joy A. Gimeno v. Atty. Paul Centillas Zaide AG. No. 10303; April 22, 2015 Brion, J. FACTS: nat it 6 ‘The case invalved-a complaint filed by Joy. Gimeno.with the IBP*Commissioh on-Bar Discipline against Atty. Paul. Centillas Zoide-for“ustirpingsacnotary%public’s offices féisiffcation, use of abusive language, and violatiorrof lawyetscliznttirusty Sor Gimeno alleged that hefore: Zaide” Was “Aartited "OE RBAr and was given his notarial commission, he had notarized 2 partial extraitidiciakiparitigmwith deed:of absolute sale on March 29, 2002, Likewise, Zaide.was\ alleged’ to: havesmade!{alse anc: irregular entries in his nolarial registers. Gimeno also alleged that Zaide Violated tawyer-client trust when he appeared against her ina complaint for Estafa and violation of'RANO1@%ashe was her previous counsel in an annulment of case tite, aes Zaide, in his Answer, denied all the:allégations impuited'to-him by Gimeno. He said that he did not notarize a partial extrajudicial-partition as: ancther‘lawyer notarized-the same. Furthermore ho explained the irregular and non-sequentiatentriestinhisnotariai registers were due to his need to us2 several notarial registers simultaneously ‘in his separate satelite offices. Lastly, Zaide argued that Gimeno was nevepthis# sas. Shesdid not-personally hire him as her counsel; that it was one of his-old lawifiim/Siparinerstthat was herreal-counsel. ‘The IGP Investigating Commissioner reveir mended.tHat Zaidedbe suspended for a total of nine months for maintaining severabnotarial registers in differentbfiices as well as for using abusive and insulting language. The IBP:Baardtof Governors’ adaptéd-and approved the same findings. but modified the penalty to ofie:year'suspansionstigi slaw practice as well as revocation of notarial commissian, if any. rn a. ISSUE, Did Zaide commit a violation of the Rules on Notarial Practice? HELD: YES, he was remiss in his duties as’a notary public, for which he should be administratively sanctioned. Secticn 1(a), Rule VI of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice Rules provides that “a notary public shall |eep only one notarial register at any given time The same Rules strictly require a notary public to maintain .only. one active notarial egister and ensure that the ‘entries in it-are chronologically arranged. Since a notarial commission is personal to each lawyer, the notary public must also personally administer the notarial acts that the law authorizes him to execute. jog SANBEDACOLLEGE OF Law 2016 CENTRAUZED BAR OPERATIONSLikewise, the chronological sequence of entries in the notarial registers is a msl to prevent the fampant practice of leaving blank spaces in the notarial register to allow the antedating of notarizations, In this case, Gimeno's allegation that Zaide usurped a notarial office was untenable as the records showed that Zaide’s details as a lawyer and as a notary public were inexistent at the time the alleged notarization happened. However, Zaide violated the Rules on Notarial Practice when he maintained different notarial registers in several offices, resulting in irregular numbering of notarized documents. Therefore, for being guilty of violating the 2004 Rules on Notariat Practice, Atty. Zaide should be suspended from the practice of law for one year, hic commission as notary public should be revoked, and he should be disqualified from being commissiones: as @ notary public for two years, ae me NOTARY PUBLIC. ACKNOWLEDGING*TH APPEARED BEFORE HER De Jesus v. Atty.:Sanchez-Malit « A.C. No. 6470; July 8, 2014 Sereno, Cu, FACTS: This is Afidavit-Complsint filed oy Mercegita: Confidenal, alleging that on 1. March’ 2002, ‘Atty™ oy notarized 2 Real Estate Morigage of a public 1 mals absoiule and registered owner The mortgages sued De Jesus for, péury,and:for collection of sum-of money. She ciaimed that Sanchez-Malit was @ consultant of the-lecaligoverament unit of Dinalupihan, Bataan, and was therefore aware that the market stall-yasi pore Oned, Prior thereto, Sanchez-Malit had lessees, However, De Jesus-only found: that the éssees.had not signed the agreement when she lost her copy and she-asked for anther copy trom respondent. “ue In her Comment, Sanchez-Malitvéxpiained that the’ ‘idk gage contract was prepared in the presence of complainant and that {heblattémbadhnssid'itbefore affixing her signature. However, De Jesus urgently needed the loan proceeds $0, the contract was hastily done, lt was only copied from a similar file in respondent's computerand the phrase “absolute and registered owner’ was inadvertently teft unedited, With respect to the lease agreement, respondent countered that the document attached to the Affidavit-Complaint was actually new. She gave the court's copy of the agreement to complainant to accommodate the latter's request for an extra copy. Thus, respondent prepared and notarized a new one, relying on complainant's assurance that the lessees would sign it and that it would be returned in lieu of the original copy for the court. Complainant, however, reneged on her promise, ‘The {BF Investigating Commissioner recommended that respondent's notarial commission be immediately revoked and that she should be disqualified as a notary public for two years. The 1BP Board of Governors adonted and approved the findings and recommendations of the Cominissioner with medication as regards the perialty. SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF Law 2016 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS ieISSUE: Did the respondent violate her duties as notary public? HELD: YES, she committed misconduct and grievously violated her notarial duties Itis a settied rule in notarial practice that a notary public should not notarize a document unless the persons who signed it are the very same ones who executed it and who personally appeared before the said notary public to attest to the contents and truth of what are stated therein. This is because notarization converts a private document into @ public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. Thus, that 2 notary public must observe with utmost care the basic,reauirements in the performance of his notarial duties. in the integrity of a notarizedidocuip alge iifiereatne notary public admittedly has personal knowledge of a falsestaternentoreinformationg contained in the instrument to be: notarized, yet proceeds to affix'thernotarial’searon'itthetouttimust not hesitate’to discipline the notary public accordingly as the.cireumstances.of.the.case may dictate\Role 10.01 of the Code of- Professional Responsibility‘and ‘thesiawyer’s oath likewise mandate;thiat a lawyer shalt do no falsehood nor give aid’or:ctinsenttto the'samer f : In acknowledging that the parties’ persotially’camezand:appeaieu before her-when they did not, respondent was remiss ini the above-cited duties‘of a notary public and-a lawyer. Therefore, Sanchez-Malit should be perpeiually disqualified frombeing commissioned as notary public and should be suspended from practice’ for-one year,.and her existing com notary pub" should be revoked. ission as NOTARY PUBLIC MAY NOTARIZE DOCUMENTS ‘ONLY WHEN THE AFFIANTS THEREIN APPEAR BEFORE HIM Emerita 8. Mahilum v. Atty: Samuel A.C. No. 10450; July 30, 2014 Reyes, J FACTS: “ ; ‘This is an administrative complaintfifed by Mahilum feritherdisbarment of Atty. Lezama, 4 notary public, for having notarized a ‘Déed* of*Donationespite "the absence of the affiants, Finding Lezame guilty, the IBP Committee on BarDiscipline recommended the revocation of his notaria! commission and his temporary disqualification from being commissioned as a Notary Public for two years, Mahilum averred that Lezama notarized a Deed of Donation executed by her estranged husband, Rodolfo as donor, and their common daughter, Jennifer as donee, pertaining to the donor's share of one-half portion over a parcel of land in Bacolod City. According to Mahilum, she has personel knowledge that Jennifer could not have personally appeared before Lezama because at the time, Jennifer was in the USA working at the State Fund Office in California Aity. Lezama asserted that the donor, donee and instrumental witnesses to the donation were all physically present when the document was signed. He stated that he is personally acquainted with Rodolfo and had no reason to cast doubts upon him when he introduced his daughter Jennifer who came all the way from the USA to visit her father. He further averred that 110 SAN BEDACOULEGE OF Law 2016 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONSMehitum has a iong-runring feud with Rodolfo and she and some of their common children are using this complaint as part of their personal vendetta against Rodolfo who happens to be fiends with Lezama. ISSUE. 's the respondent administratively liable for notarizing the documents despite the absence of a party to the instrument? HELD: ‘YES, he is liable for the improper notarization. Section 1 of Public Act No. 2103 ¢t ea eae that affiants must personaliy appear before the notary publiga LIKEWISE, WUE Sectien (Bol Rule IV of the Rules on Notarial Practice of 2004, a commissioned noterysBubliCis enjgideditgcar performing a notarial act unless the affiant is: (1) in his presencevatithettiie of the nota iad (2) persoraly:Known to him oF otherwise identified by him through cqmpetent evidence,ct entity as defined Phy. the Rules AaSSE RO EILE Po ‘n this case, Lezama violated*Rule 1:012Caneq, 146,0fthe Gade of Professional Responsibility when he netarized the ‘Deed-bf Dovistios "ith "0S of the affiants, mo Thus, Aity. Lezame's notarial:commission shoal Se aGHe ora he should be disaualified from being commissioned’as a’notary public fortone year Jone os NOTARIZED DOCUMENT WITH BLANK SPACES'GN'THE IDENTITY PORTIONS OF THE SURAT VIOLATES THE NOTARIAL RULES Imelda Cato Gaddi v. Atty, Lope: si AC. No. 8637; September 15, 2014 ae Carpio, Acting Cu. FACTS: This is an administrative complaint fieiiby ipielda Cato Gadiai;(Gadai) against Atty. Lope M ‘Velasco (Velasco) for violation-< ‘Section, 2 (8) abd Rule VI, Section 3 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Che Gaddi was the operations and AocouftinememanageiGi the Bert Lozada Swimming Schoot (BLSS) when she broached the idea of-openingra branch of BLSS in Solana, Nueva Vizcaya Believing that Angelo agreed, Gaddi cpened a BLSSviit Solano. However, Angeio informed the management did not authorize a BLSS in Solano. In filing this complaint, Gaddi denied that she personally appeared before Velasco. She alleged that she did not consent to its notarization nor did she personally know him, give any competent evidence of identity or sign the notarial register Velasco alleged that he was commissioned ‘notary public for Makati City. He alleged that Gaddi appeared before him in his notarial office in Makati and requested for the notarization of a four-page handwritten document. ISSUE: ls Ally. Lope M. Velasco guilty of noncompliance with the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice? SAN BEDA COWEGE OF Law 2016 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS: aHELD: YES, Velasco is guilty for violating the said Notafial Rules. It is a settled rule in notarial practice that a notarial document is, by law, entitled to full faith and credit upon its face; for this reason, notaries public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of their duties. In the present case, contrary to Velasco's claim that Gaddi appeared before him and presented two identification cards as proof of her-'4>ntity, the notarial certificate, in rubber Stamp, the unfiled spaces in the jurat clearly establish that Velasco had been remiss in his duty of ascertaining the identity of the'Signatory to the document. Velasco did not comply with the most basic function that a notary public must, Saat s ,to,require the presence of Gaddi; otherwise, he could have ascertained thataiNalnaqdwettcn as executed involuntarily and i jis signature in an incompiete refused to notarize the docum ah more: notarial certificate “He is thus guiltyiatnoncoriplia pe Rules on hotarial Practice Therefore, Alty. Velasco should bel'suspendeditiomsthies practice of lawstorone year, his incumbent notarial commissioshouldiberreyoked; atid hesstroulc’ be.disaiielitied from being commissioned as a notary pubiic fortwo years.” "nt" DUTY TO FUNCTION-AS A NOTARY PUBLI Heirs of Pedro Alilano represented by Pavid'Alilano A.C. No. 10432; March 24, 2015 Villarama, Jr., J. FACTS: ‘ This is a disbarment complaint filed:betore the Integrated. Bar of the Pnilippines (IBF) by the heirs of Pedro Alilano. against Atty: Roberto E. Examen for misconduct and malpractice for falsifying documents and presenting theseias:evidence jn court. Pedro Alilano and his wife, Florentina, were the holders.of Original Certificate of Title of a parcel of land. It appears that on’March 31, 1984!and September i2:-1984, two Absolute Deeds of Sale wore executed by the Spouses Alilano i favor of Ramgy-Examen and his wife, Edna. Both documents were notarized by respondent Aily. Roberta Examen; brother of the vendee. The heirs of Alilano alleged thal Atty. Examen violated’the notarial law when he notarized the absolute deeds of sale since a notary public is prohibitec from notarizing @ document when one of the parties is a relative by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree or affinity within the second civil degree. Atty. Examen had allegedly notarized the documents knowing that the cedula or residence certificate number used by Ramon Examen was not actually his but the residence certificate number of Florentina. Atty. Examen also falsely acknowledged that the two witnesses personally appeared before him when they did not. ISSUES: 1. Is the Respondent guilty of violating the notarial Jaw when he notarized the deeds of sale executed by his brother? 112 SANBEDA COLLEGE oF Law 2016 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS2, 1s the Respondent administratively fable when he notarized the subject documents knowing that the cedula used was not that of his brother? HELD: 4. NO, he not violate the Notarial Law in this regard Under Sections 231-259, Chapter 11 of the Revised Administrative Code, which was the governing law al the time of the notarization, a notary public is not prohibited from notarizing a deed when one of the parties is a relative by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree or affinity within the second degree. Thus, Atty. Examen was not ot comet ige the document even if one of the parties Lis clear that the-residence*certift a fon Seen and as notarized by Atly. Examen in both Absolute Deeds of ae “act the: ‘feSidence certificate of Ramon. but Florentina’s residence ceriificates gunbel ue negligent, act of not checking the work of his secretary aad merely perfunatée ee 10! ee g'docuniénts, he violated Ganon of the CPR. He thus ran afoul Rule 4,02 eee Ta Thus, Atty. Examen*shouldibe suspended, can from commission as‘notary public should be revoked Re: Violation of Rules on‘ Notarial Pri AM, No, 09-6-1-86; January.212016 Mendoza, J z > begat ws FACTS ~— SS ‘This case slemméd from three (2) lttér-Complainis¥@p Violation of Rules on Notarial Practice against, among others, Atty. Sigpno. In the first case, complainants alleged that Aity, Siapno was.maintaining a notatial office along Lingayen, Pangasinan, and was performing ‘notarial acts and practices in Lingayen, Natividad and Dagupan City without the requisite notarial cominission, and that Ally. Siapno had delegated his notarial authority to his secretaries, Mina Bautista (Bautista) and Mary Ann ‘Arenas (Arenas), who wrote legal instruments and signed the documents on his betialf. For his part, Atty, Siapno denied the accusations and averred that the law office in Lingryen, Pangasinan, was not his and that Bautista and Arenas were not his secretaries. SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2016 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS ciaISSUE as there a violation on the 2004 Rules on Noterial Commission when he performed notarial functions without commission? MELD: YES, notarization without commissio: is a violation of the said Notarial Rules. Section 41, Rule Ill of the 2004 Rules.on Notarial Practice provides that only persons who are commissioned as notary public may perform notarial acts within the territorial jurisdiction of the court which granted the cominission. Clearly, Atty. Siapno could not perform notarial functions in Lingayen, Natividad and Dagupan Gity of the Province of Pangasinan since he was not By performing notarial acts w violated aot only: his oath to ob slice but also Canons 1 and 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which’ proscribéséall,lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral lot deceifulcohduct and directs, ther! to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legahprofession at all times: » ah al Géipmissjonied» as notary public ius aieon Therefore, Atly. Sapno. shoukt’*be™barred'stroiniel permanently and suspended from the practice dflaw'for 314 SANBEDA CoLLEGE OF Law 2016 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS: