CASE DIGESTS

(1995)

By:
TANJUSAY, MARIA KATRINA S.
LLB-3B

WELLINGTON REYES vs. ATTY. SALVADOR M. GAA

A.M. No. 1048/ 246 SCRA 64 July 14, 1995
Case Nature: DISBARMENT- Violation of lawyers oath (RULE 138,
Section 27, Rules of Court)
FACTS
Wellington Reyes, a complainant, reported to the National Bureau
of Investigation (NBI) that he had been the victim of extortion by Atty.
Gaa, a respondent lawyer and a former Assistant City Fiscal of Manila,
who was investigating a complaint for estafa filed by complainants
business rival. According to complainant, he had given respondent
P500.00 on March 1, 1971 and a total of P1, 500.00 on three other
occasions. He said that another payoff was scheduled at 11:00 A.M. on
the same day in respondents office at the City Hall. An entrapment was
set up by the NBI after complainant furnished the NBI agents several
peso bills totaling P150.00 for marking. The paper bills were sent to the
Forensic and Chemistry Division of the NBI and subsequently returned
to complainant for use in the entrapment. When complainant went to
respondents office, he was told that the latter would not return until
around 2:30 P.M. As there were other persons doing business with
respondent. When finally complainant was able to see the respondent
after thirty minutes of waiting, the complainant then handed to
respondent the marked money which he placed inside his right pocket.
The NBI agents then apprehended respondent and brought him to the
NBI Forensic and Chemistry Division for examination. Respondents
hands were found positive of the yellow florescent powder applied earlier
to the marked money. Respondent was thereafter taken to the Office of
the

Anti-Organized

Crime

Division

of

the

NBI

where

he

was

photographed, fingerprinted and record checked. Respondent declined to

give a sworn statement to explain his side of the case, invoking his right

against

self-incrimination.

Thereafter,

the

NBI

recommended

the

prosecution of respondent for violation of Section 3(b) of R.A. No. 3019.

The NBI recommended to the Secretary of Justice the filing of
administrative charges and the institution of disbarment proceedings
against him. An administrative complaint for disbarment charges
respondent with malpractice and willful violation of his oath as an
attorney. In an answer to such complaint, respondent asserted that
complainant surreptitiously planted the marked money in his pocket
without his knowledge and consent. He further said that the criminal
case (IS No. 71-6558) filed against him by the NBI was still pending
preliminary investigation by the City Fiscal of Manila. In connection with
the incident of March 30, 1971, he said that he had filed a criminal
complaint

for

incriminatory

machination,

perjury

and

attempted

corruption of a public official against complainant with the City Fiscal of

Manila. In reply to the answer, complainant denied that the several cases
against respondent were motivated by revenge, malice or personal ill will.
He said that the investigating fiscal had recommended the dismissal of
the charges filed by his business rival. In a resolution dated December
23, 1971, this Court resolved to refer the disbarment case to the Solicitor
General for investigation, report and recommendation. However, upon
the adoption of Rule 139-B of the Revised Rules of Court, the case was
transferred to the IBP Board of Governors for investigation and
disposition. On March 15, 1993, Commissioner Vicente Q. Roxas of the
Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP) recommended that respondent be disbarred.
ISSUE
Whether or not the extortion committed by Atty. Salavador Gaa
shall be considered as a ground for disbarment?

HELD
YES.

The

extortion

committed

by

respondent

constitutes

misconduct as a public official, which also constitutes a violation of his

oath as a lawyer. The lawyers oath (Revised Rules of Court, Rule 138,
Section 18; People v. De Luna, 102 Phil. 968 [1958]) imposes upon every
lawyer the duty to delay no man for money or malice. The lawyers oath
is a source of his obligations and its violation is a ground for his
suspension,

disbarment

or

other

disciplinary

action.

Where

the

misconduct of a lawyer as a government official is of such a character as

to affect his qualification as a lawyer or to show moral delinquency, then
he may be disciplined as a member of the bar on such grounds
(Gonzales-Austria v. Abaya, 176 SCRA 634 [1989]). The respondent is
DISBARRED and his name is ordered STRICKEN OFF from the Roll of
Attorneys.

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK vs. ATTY. TELESFORO S. CEDO

Adm. Case No. 3701/ 243 SCRA 1 March 28, 1995
Case Nature: Violation of Canon 6, Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility
FACTS
The Philippine National Bank (PNB) charged respondent Atty.
Telesforo S. Cedo, former Asst. Vice-President of the Asset Management
Group of complainant bank, with violation of Canon 6, Rule 6.03 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, thus: A lawyer shall not, after
leaving government service, accept engagement or employment in
connection with any matter in which he had intervened while in said
service. Complainant averred that while respondent was still in its
employ,

he

participated

in

arranging

the

sale

of

steel

sheets

(denominated as Lots 54-M and 55-M) in favor of Milagros Ong Siy for
P200, 000. He even noted the gate passes issued by his subordinate,
Mr. Emmanuel Elefan, in favor of Mrs. Ong Siy authorizing the pull-out
of the steel sheets from the DMC Man Division Compound. When a civil
action arose out of this transaction between Mrs. Ong Siy and
complainant bank before the RTC of Makati, Branch 146, respondent
who had since left the employ of complainant bank, appeared as one of
the counsels of Mrs. Ong Siy. Moreover, while respondent was still the
Asst. Vice President of complainants Asset Management Group, he
intervened in the handling of the loan account of the spouses Ponciano
and Eufemia Almeda with complainant bank by writing demand letters to
the couple. When a civil action ensued between complainant bank and
the Almeda spouses as a result of this loan account, the latter were
represented by the law firm Cedo, Ferrer, Maynigo &Associates of which
respondent is one of the Senior Partners. In his Comment on the
complaint, respondent admitted that he appeared as counsel for Mrs.
Ong Siy but only with respect to the execution pending appeal of the RTC

decision. He alleged that he did not participate in the litigation of the

case before the trial court. With respect to the case of the Almeda
spouses, respondent alleged that he never appeared as counsel for them.
He contended that while the said law firm is designated as counsel of
record, the case is actually handled only by Atty. Pedro Ferrer.
Respondent averred that he did not enter into a general partnership with
Atty. Ferrer nor with the other lawyers named therein. They are only
using the aforesaid name to designate a law firm maintained by lawyers,
who although not partners, maintain one office as well as one clerical
and supporting staff. On the other hand, during the investigation
conducted by the IBP, it was discovered that respondent was previously
fined by this Court in the amount of P1, 000.00 in connection with the
cases entitled Milagros Ong Siy vs. Hon. Salvador Tensuan, et al. for
forum shopping, where respondent appeared as counsel for petitioner
Milagros through the said law firm. The IBP further found that the
charges against respondent were fully substantiated. In one of the
hearings of the Almeda spouses case, respondent attended the same
with his partner Atty. Ferrer, and although he did not enter his
appearance, he was practically dictating to Atty. Ferrer what to say and
argue before the court. Furthermore, during the hearing of the
application for a writ of injunction in the same case, respondent
impliedly admitted being the partner of Atty. Ferrer, when it was made of
record that respondent was working in the same office as Atty. Ferrer.
The IBP noted that assuming the alleged set-up of the firm to be true, it
is in itself a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility (Rule
15.02) since the clients secrets and confidential records and information
are exposed to the other lawyers and staff members at all times. The IBP
thus recommended the suspension of respondent from the practice of
law for 3 years.

ISSUE
Whether or not the act of Atty. Cedo as counsel of other party in a
case against PNB, his former employer, constitutes a violation of the
Code of Professional Responsibility?
HELD
YES. The Court finds the occasion appropriate to emphasize the
paramount importance of avoiding the representation of conflicting
interests. The alleged set-up of the firm is in itself a violation of the Code
of Professional Responsibility. Having been an executive of complainant
bank, respondent now seeks to litigate as counsel for the opposite side, a
case against his former employer involving a transaction which he
formerly handled while still an employee of complainant, in violation of
Canon 6 of the Canons of Professional Ethics on adverse influence and
conflicting interests. ACCORDINGLY, this Court resolves to SUSPEND
respondent ATTY. TELESFORO S. CEDO from the practice of law for
THREE (3) YEARS, effective immediately.

MAXIMINO GAMIDO Y BUENAVENTURA vs. NEW BILIBID PRISONS

(NBP) OFFICIALS G.R. No. 114829 March 1, 1995
Case Nature: Grave Misconduct
FACTS
The respondent, Atty. Icasiano M. dela Rea of No. 42 National Road
corner Bruger Subdivision, Putatan, Muntinglupa, Metro Manila was
under a disciplinary action when he appeared in the jurat of the petition
in this case that the petitioner subscribed the verification and swore to
before him, as notary public, on 19 April 1994, when in truth and in fact
the petitioner did not. However, he later admitted having executed the
jurat without the presence of petitioner Gamido. He honestly admits that
he notarized the document not in Gamidos presence. He was in a belief
that since it is jurat and not an acknowledgment, its alright to do so
considering that prior to such date and thereafter, he know Mr. Gamido
since he have been in and out of New Bilibid Prisons, not only because
his office is there only across the Municipal Building of Muntinlupa,
Metro Manila but because he handled a number of cases involving
prisoners and guards of NBP as well as some of its personnel. That in
fact, he attempted to have the document personally signed by Gamido
but considering that he have to strictly observe rules and regulations of
the NBP, particularly on visit, he did not pursue anymore his intention to
have it notarized before him. Further, Atty. Dela Rea claimed that in
notarizing the document, he honestly feel and by heart and in good faith,
that as a notary public and as a practicing lawyer, he could modestly
contribute in the orderly administration of justice. He contended that he
signed the petition not in Gamidos presence it is never intended to do a
wrong, to commit illegal or criminal acts but merely in the honest and
sincere belief that it is valid and legal.

ISSUE
Whether or not Atty. Icasiano M. dela Rea s claim or belief that
the presence of Gamido was not necessary for the execution of jurat
constitutes a grave misconduct?
HELD
YES. A jurat is not a part of a pleading but merely evidences the
fact that the affidavit was properly made but, in a jurat, the affiant must
sign the document in the presence of and take his oath before a notary
public or any other person authorized to administer oaths.
Administratively, as a lawyer commissioned as a notary public, Atty.
Icasiano M. dela Rea committed grave misconduct when he agreed to
prepare the jurat in the petition in this case in the absence of petitioner
Gamido, thereby making it appear that the latter personally signed the
certification of the petition and took his oath before him when in truth
and in fact the said petitioner did not. . If this had been his belief since
he was first commissioned as a notary public, then he has been making
a mockery of the legal solemnity of an oath in a jurat. Notaries public
and

others

authorized

by

law

to administer

oaths

or

to

take

acknowledgments should not take for granted the solemn duties

appertaining to their offices. Such duties are dictated by public policy
and are impressed with public interest.
He is hereby FINED in the sum of FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,
000.00), without prejudice to criminal prosecution as may be warranted
under the circumstances. He is WARNED that the commission of the
same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely.

NICANOR GONZALES vs. ATTY. MIGUEL SABACAJAN

Adm. Case No. 4380/ 249 SCRA 276 October 13, 1995
Case Nature: Violations of Canon 15, Rule 15.07 and Canon 19, Rule
19.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
FACTS
An administrative case was filed by Nicanor Gonzales and Salud B.
Pantanosas against Atty. Miguel Sabacajan. In a verified complaint, it
alleged that complainants were informed by the Register of Deeds of
Cagayan de Oro City that the complainants owners duplicate of title
covering their lands, Transfer Certificate of Titles were entrusted to the
office secretary of the respondent who in turn entrusted the same to
respondent.

However

the

latter

admitted

and

confirmed

to

the

complainants that their titles are in his custody and has even shown the
same the complainant Salud but when demanded to deliver the said
titles to the complainant in a formal demand letter, the respondent
refused without any justification to give their titles and when confronted,
respondent challenged the complainants to file any case in any court
even in the Honorable Supreme Court. That respondents dare or
challenge is a manifestation of his arrogance taking undue advantage of
his legal profession over innocence and ignorance of the complainants,
one of whom is his blood relative, his aunt, for which complainants
shudder with mental anguish. In spite of repeated demands, the
respondent still refused to surrender the said titles to the rightful
owners, the complainants which act is tantamount to willful and
malicious defiance of legal and moral obligations emanating from his
professional capacity as a lawyer who had sworn to uphold law and
justice, to the prejudice and damage of the complainants. In an answer,
the respondent admitted having met Salud but claims that, to his
recollection, Nicanor Gonzales/Serdan has never been to his office.
Respondent likewise denied that he challenged anyone to file a case in

any court, much less the Supreme Court. He also claims that he referred
complainant Pantanosas to his client, Mr. Samto M. Uy of Iponan,
Cagayan de Oro City, for whom he worked out the segregation of the
titles, two of which are the subject of the instant case. Respondent
likewise submitted xerox copies of certain certificates of title in an effort
to explain why he kept the certificates of title of complainants, that is,
supposedly for the purpose of subdividing the property. However, an
examination of the same does not show any connection thereof to
respondents claim. In fact, the two sets of certificates of title appear to
be entirely different from each other.
ISSUE
Whether or not Atty. Sabacajan has violated the Code of
Professional Responsibility for his refusal without just cause to return/
give to complainants their certificates of titles?
HELD
YES. The Court accordingly finds that respondent has not
exercised the good faith and diligence required of lawyers in handling the
legal affairs of their clients. If complainants did have the alleged
monetary obligations to his client, that does not warrant his summarily
confiscating their certificates of title since there is no showing in the
records that the same were given as collaterals to secure the payment of
a debt. Neither is there any intimation that there is a court order
authorizing him to take and retain custody of said certificates of title.
Apparently, respondent has disregarded Canon 15, Rule 15.07 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that a lawyer shall
impress upon his client the need for compliance with the laws and
principles

of

fairness.

Instead,

he

unjustly

refused

to

give

to

complainants their certificates of titles supposedly to enforce payment of

their alleged financial obligations to his client and presumably to impress

the latter of his power to do so.
In addition, Canon 19, Rule 19.01 ordains that a lawyer shall employ
only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client
and shall not present, participate in presenting, or threaten to present
unfounded charges to obtain an improper advantage in any case or
proceeding. Respondent has closely skirted this proscription, if he has
not in fact transgressed the same.
Atty. Miguel Sabacajan is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law
until he can duly show to this Court that the disputed certificates of title
have been returned to and the receipt thereof duly acknowledged by
complainants, or can present a judicial order or appropriate legal
authority justifying the possession by him or his client of said
certificates. He is further WARNED that a repetition of the same or
similar or any other administrative misconduct will be punished more
severely.

ELENA VDA. DE ECO vs. ATTY. BENJAMIN RAMIREZ

A.C. No. 1647 January 20, 1995
Case Nature: Malpractice: Violation Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules
of Court
FACTS
Elena Vda. De Eco, an illiterate from Sorsogon, filed a complaint
against respondent Benjamin Ramirez. The latter was then counsel for
Communications Insurance Co., Inc. The former filed suit against the
Hapseng

Bakery

and

Grocery

and

its

insurer,

Communications

Insurance Co., Inc. for the death of her husband while in the employ of
the bakery. Accordingly, she went to the office of Communications
Insurance Co., Inc. to follow up the case. Complainant and her daughter
Beata Elona were met by respondent lawyer who asked them to wait a
while. Afterward, he told them that the insurance company was not liable
for her husbands death but the company will help by giving them
P650.00 as limos. He asked her to get a residence certificate in order
for her to receive the money. Once she had the residence certificate, she
received the money only after she thumb marked a blank piece of paper
and her daughter signed as witness. Later, the Workmens Commission
decided the case in favor of Vda. De Eco and ordered the Hapseng Bakery
and the Insurance Co. jointly and severally to pay the sum of P4, 880.00.
Atty.Ramirez made to believe them that the sum of P4, 880.00 was
already paid to Vda. De Eco but in truth and in fact he gave her only
P650.00. In his answer, respondent lawyer admitted having met Vda. De
Eco at his office in January 1976 but denied that he gave her only
P650.00. He claims that complainant signed a receipt on January 15,
1976 for P4, 880.00 and not a blank piece of paper. The IBP commenced
its investigation, the complainant failed to appear; nor could service of
notices be made on her. The Investigating Commissioner however,

pointed out in his report that under Rule 139-B, the IBP cannot dismiss
outright a complaint against a member of the bar simply because the
complainant has lost interest in the case, specially where prima facie
evidence exists.3 Moreover, respondent lawyers verified answer and
admissions during hearings before the Investigating Commissioner
constitute sufficient evidence for a just disposition of the case. The IBP
Board of Governors resolved to adopt and approve the report of
Investigating Commissioner Vicente Q. Roxas finding respondent lawyer
Benjamin Ramirez guilty of having committed acts not befitting a
member of the bar. The Board of Governors also increased the
recommended penalty from six (6) months to one year suspension.
ISSUE
Whether or not the Atty. Ramirezs act of deceiving his client into
signing a receipt for the Commissions award without receiving the full
amount constitutes malpractice and may be suspended?
HELD
YES. By preponderance of evidence, it has been amply proved that
respondent lawyer Benjamin Ramirez deceived complainant by making it
appear in a document on January 15, 1976 that she received P4, 880.00
or more than what she actually received. Under Section 27 of Rule 138 of
the Rules of Court, a member of the bar may be removed or suspended
from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit,
malpractice or other gross misconduct in such office. Respondents act of
defrauding an illiterate complainant of the monetary award for her
husbands death, for which she waited nearly ten years, is deplorable
and should not be viewed lightly. Not only does respondent degrade
himself as a lawyer but he thereby besmirches the honorable profession
to which he belongs. For the foregoing reasons, the respondent is
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one year from
receipt of this Resolution.