HUEYSUWAN-FLORIDO vs FLORIDO
Reference: AC No. 5624 January 20, 2004
FACTS: This is an administrative complaint for the
disbarment of respondent Atty. James Benedict C.
Florido and his eventual removal from the Roll of
Attorneys for allegedly violating his oath as a
lawyer by manufacturing, flaunting and using a
spurious and bogus Court of Appeals Resolution.
Natasha V. Heysuwan-Florido, the complainant,
averred that she was the legitimate spouse of the
respondent Atty. James Benedict Florido, the
respondent, but because of the estranged relation,
they lived separately. They have two children
whom the complainant has the custody.
Complainant filed a case for the annulment of her
marriage; meanwhile there, was another related
case pending in the Court of Appeals.
Sometime in the middle of December 2001,
respondent went to complainants residence in
Tanjay City, Negros Oriental and demanded that
the custody of their two minor children be
surrendered to him. He showed complainant a
photocopy of an alleged Resolution issued by the
Court of Appeals which supposedly granted his
motion for temporary child custody. Complainant
called up her lawyer but the latter informed her
that he had not received any motion for temporary
child custody filed by respondent.
Complainant asked respondent for the original
copy of the alleged resolution of the Court of
Appeals, but respondent failed to give it to her.
Complainant then examined the resolution closely
and noted that it bore two dates: November 12,
2001 and November 29, 2001. Sensing something
amiss, she refused to give custody of their children
to respondent. The complainant verified the
authenticity of the Resolution and obtained a
certification dated January 18, 2005[from the Court
of Appeals stating that no such resolution ordering
complainant to surrender custody of their children
to respondent had been issued.
ISSUES: Whether or not Atty. Florido was liable for
making false court resolution?
RULINGS: YES. A lawyer who used a spurious
Resolution of the Court of Appeals is presumed to
have participated in its fabrication.
Candor and fairness are demanded of every
lawyer. The burden cast on the judiciary would be
intolerable if it could not take at face value what is
asserted by counsel. The time that will have to be
devoted just to the task of verification of
allegations submitted could easily be imagined.
Even with due recognition then that counsel is
expected to display the utmost zeal in the defense
of a clients cause, it must never be at the expense
of the truth. Thus, the Code of professional
Responsibility states:
CANON 10. A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS
AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT.
Rule 10.01 - A lawyer shall not do any falsehood;
nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor shall
he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any
artifice.
Rule 10.02 - A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote
or misrepresent the contents of a paper, the
language or the argument of an opposing counsel,
or the text of a decision or authority, or knowingly
cite as a law a provision already rendered
inoperative by repeal or amendment, or assert as
a fact that which has not been proved.
The records show that respondent used offensive
language in his pleadings in describing
complainant and her relatives. A lawyers language
should be forceful but dignified, emphatic but
respectful as befitting an advocate and in keeping
with the dignity of the legal profession. The
lawyers arguments whether written or oral should
be gracious to both court and opposing counsel
and should be of such words as may be properly
addressed by one gentlemen to another. By calling
complainant, a sly manipulator of truth as well as a
vindictive congenital prevaricator, hardly measures
to the sobriety of speech demanded of a lawyer.
DE ZUZUARREGUI VS ATTY SOGUILON
FACTS: Before us is an administrative case for
disbarment filed by complainant against
respondent Atty. Apolonia A.C. Soguilon.
Complainant accuses respondent of misconduct,
concealment of the truth and misleading the court.
Respondent acted as counsel for the petitioner in a
petition for reconstitution, respondent introduced
as evidence the certified copy of the technical
description and the sketch plan of the land.
Exhibits F and G,- This is not an updated
survey data; This plan is used for reference
purposes only. the trial court allowed reconstitution
of the title. As such, complainant submitted that
respondent was remiss in not calling the attention
of the trial court to the notations indicated in the
documents, emphasizing her duty to avoid
concealment of the truth from the court.
In answer to these allegations, she refuted all the
charges against her. Anent the annotations on the
documents, respondent stated that she could not
be charged of concealing facts from the court as
she had submitted the documents without
alteration for the evaluation of the trial court.
The Court referred the matter to the IBP for
investigation. Decided - Clearly, what should have
been fatal omissions on the part of Respondent, as
counsel of the petitioner in the Petition for
Reconstitution were allowed to pass without
challenge. A simple perusal of the Decision x x x
shows that there was reversible error on the part of
the presiding judge of RTC of Quezon City.
x x x However, the disciplinary process does not
punish errors, mistakes or incompetence. Errors
and mistakes are corrected by legal remedies such
as motions for reconsideration, appeals, and
petitions for relief. The reversal of the June 5, 1995
Decision of the trial court has remedied the error
committed.
PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is submitted that
respondent did not commit any act for which she
should be disciplined or administratively
sanctioned.
It is therefore recommended that this CASE BE
DISMISSED for lack of merit.
ISSUE: WON respondent employ deceit or
misrepresentation in acting as counsel for the
petitioner in the petition for reconstitution of title.
RULING: NO- Respondents failure to point out the
notations in the documents she had submitted, in
the Courts opinion, the Commissioner correctly
observed that there was absence of proof that
respondent had intended to mislead or deceive the
trial court. In fact, the said notations were laid bare
for the trial courts evaluation. There were no
attempts on respondents part to manipulate or
hide them.
In administrative cases for disbarment or
suspension against lawyers, the quantum of proof
required is clearly preponderant evidence and the
burden of proof rests upon the complainant. In the
present case, the Court finds that complainant,
who notably owns one of the properties subject of
the title sought to be reconstituted, and is
consequently an adverse party, failed to present
clear and preponderant evidence to show
respondents guilt of the charges he had leveled
against her. In any event, it is worth mentioning
that the prejudice, if any, caused by respondents
oversight against complainant and other interested
parties had been rectified later on by a different
judge who set aside the order of reconstitution.
All told, the lapses of respondent were committed
without malice and devoid of any desire to dupe or
defraud the opposing party. They are innocuous
blunders that were made without intent to harm.
As plain acts of inadvertence, they do not reach
the level of professional incompetence. While
professional incompetence is not among the
grounds of disbarment enumerated in Section 27,
Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court yet there
are instances where a lawyer may be disciplined
for inexcusable ignorance as the list is not
exclusive. Indeed, the Court is convinced that
respondent should not be sanctioned.
The petition for review is DENIED. The Resolution
of the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines is AFFIRMED.
MARIVELES VS ATTY MALLARI
FACTS: Mario S. Mariveles filed an administrative
complaint against his former counsel, Attorney
Odilon C. Mallari, whose legal services he had
engaged in 1984 to handle his defense in Criminal
Case (BP Blg 22). After an adverse decision was
rendered, Mariveles instructed Attorney Mallari to
appeal the trial court's decision to the Court of
Appeals, which the respondent did. However, in
the Court of Appeals, despite numerous extensions
of time, totalling 245 days, which he obtained from
the Court, Attorney Mallari failed to file the
appellant's brief, resulting in the dismissal of the
appeal.
ISSUE: WON Atty Mallari is guilty of abandonment
and dereliction of duty toward his client?
RULING: YES. The Court finds respondent Attorney
Odilon C. Mallari guilty of abandonment and
dereliction of duty toward his client and hereby
orders him DISBARRED from the legal profession
and to immediately cease and desist from the
practice of law. The respondent demonstrated not
only appalling indifference and lack of
responsibility to the courts and his client but also a
shameless disregard for his duties as a lawyer. He
is unfit for membership in this noble profession.
In sum, what was committed by the respondent is
a blatant violation of our Code of Professional
Responsibility.
Rule 12.03 A lawyer shall not, after obtaining
extensions of time to file pleadings, memoranda or
briefs, let the period lapse without submitting the
same or offering an explanation for his failure to do
so.
Rule 18.03 A lawyer shall not neglect a legal
matter entrusted to him and his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him liable.
Suffice it to state that a lawyer has no business
practicing his profession if in the course of that
practice, he will eventually wreck and destroy the
future and reputation of his client and thus
disgrace the law profession. The last thing that his
peers in the law profession and the IBP would do is
to disrobe a member of the profession, for he has
worked for the attainment of his career burning the
midnight oil throughout school and passing the
bar. The undersigned, however, could not find any
mitigating circumstances to recommend a lighter
penalty. Disbarment is the only recourse to remove
a rotten apple if only to instill and maintain the
respect and confidence of all and sundry to the
noble profession.
MACIAS VS ATTY SELDA
FACTS: Petition for Administrative Discipline
against Atty. Alanixon A. Selda for violation of the
lawyers oath.
Respondent Selda withdrew as counsel for one
Norma T. Lim, private protestee in Election Case.
He basically submitted as ground for his
withdrawal that he could not cope up with the pace
of the proceedings in view of his workload. He
claimed that the hearings of the election protest
case would run from 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. and he
still had to attend to his other cases including
classes at Philippine Advent College, which start at
5:30 p.m. on Mondays and Wednesdays. However,
respondent executed an affidavit disavowing his
grounds for withdrawing as counsel for private
protestee. He swore that he only filed the Motion
on account of the pre-judgment of the case by
complainant, who, on several occasions insinuated
to him that his client would lose in the protest. He
stated that he was convinced that chaos would
result if his client were unseated, and withdrawal
from the case was his best recourse. This Court set
aside complainants inhibition after finding no
strong and valid reason therefor, and directed him
to continue hearing the case and to resolve it with
reasonable dispatch.
Deploring the act of respondent as serious deceit,
malpractice, gross misconduct as a lawyer and in
utter violation of the lawyers oath, complainant
requested the IBP to investigate the matter and
recommend to the Court an appropriate penalty
against respondent. He failed to file his answer and
personally appear before the IBP investigation, as
a result decision was rendered based on the
pleading and was suspended from the practice of
law for 2 years. - It reduced the suspension of
respondent to 6 months.
ISSUE: WON respondent violated his lawyers aoth
and the act would be a violation of the lawyers
duty of candor, fairness and good faith to the
court.
RULING: We affirm the findings of the IBP on the
culpability of respondent.
All members of the legal profession made a solemn
oath to, inter alia, do no falsehood and conduct
[themselves] as [lawyers] according to the best of
[their] knowledge and discretion with all good
fidelity as well to the courts as to [their] clients.
These particular fundamental principles are
reflected in the Code of Professional Responsibility,
specifically:
Canon 10 A lawyer owes candor, fairness and
good faith to the court.
Rule 10.01 A lawyer shall not do any falsehood,
nor consent to the doing of any in Court, nor shall
he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by an
artifice.
When respondent executed his affidavit retracting
his reason for withdrawing as counsel for Norma T.
Lim, he acknowledged, under oath, his
misrepresentation.
Candor towards the courts is a cardinal
requirement of the practicing lawyer. In fact, this
obligation to the bench for candor and honesty
takes precedence. Thus, saying one thing in his
Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for Private
Protestee and another in his subsequent affidavit
is a transgression of this imperative which
necessitates appropriate punishment.
The circumstances in this case demand that
respondent be imposed suspension from the
practice of law for one (1) year. This serves the
purpose of protecting the interest of the court, the
legal profession and the public. For indeed, if
respect for the courts and for judicial process is
gone or steadily weakened, no law can save us as
a society.
LIBIT V OLIVA
A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to
the doing of any in court nor shall he mislead or
allow the court to be misled by any artifice.
FACTS: Judge Domingo Panis in Pedro Cutingting
v. Alfredo Tan ordered the NBI Director to conduct
an investigation to determine the author of the
falsified Sheriffs return in said case. As a result of
which, the NBI charged respondents Attys. Edelson
Oliva and Florando Umali for obstruction of justice.
The case was referred to the Commission on Bar
Discipline of the IBP.
In view of NBIs report that Umalis signature in the
complaint in the civil case was not his, the case
was dismissed with respect to him.
ISSUE: W/N respondent violated Code of Ethics
HELD: Yes. After the careful review of the record of
the case and the report and recommendation of
the IBP, the Court finds that respondent Atty.
Edelson G. Oliva committed acts of misconduct
which warrant the exercise by the Court of its
disciplinary powers. The facts, as supported by the
evidence, obtaining in this case indubitably reveal
respondents failure to live up to his duties as a
lawyer in consonance with the strictures of the
lawyers oath, the Code of Professional
Responsibility, and the Canons of Professional
Ethics. A lawyers responsibility to protect and
advance the interests of his client does not
warrant a course of action propelled by ill motives
and malicious intentions against the other party.
In this case, respondent Atty. Edelson Oliva has
manifestly violated that part of his oath as a
lawyer that he shall not do any falsehood. He has
likewise violated Rule 10.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility which provides:
A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to
the doing of any in court nor shall he mislead or
allow the court to be misled by any artifice.
Accordingly, the Court resolved to impose upon
Atty. Edelson Oliva the supreme penalty of
DISBARMENT. His license to practice law in the
Philippines is CANCELLED and the Bar Confidant is
ordered to strike out his name from the Roll of
Attorneys.
MOLINA VS ATTY MAGAT
Before the Court is the undated Resolutionof the
Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) finding Atty. Ceferino R. Magat
(Atty. Magat) liable for unethical conduct and
recommending that he be reprimanded.
Attorney; False and untruthful statements in
pleadings. The practice of law is a privilege
bestowed on those who show that they possess
and continue to possess the legal qualifications for
it. Lawyers are expected to maintain at all times a
high standard of legal proficiency and morality,
including honesty, integrity and fair dealing. They
must perform their four-fold duty to society, the
legal profession, the courts and their clients, in
accordance with the values and norms of the legal
profession as embodied in the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
Atty. Magats act clearly falls short of the standards
set by the Code of Professional Responsibility,
particularly Rule 10.01, which provides:
Rule 10.01 A lawyer shall not do any falsehood,
nor consent to the doing of any in Court; nor shall
he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any
artifice.
The Court ruled that there was a deliberate intent
on the part of Atty. Magat to mislead the court
when he filed the motion to dismiss the criminal
charges on the basis of double jeopardy. Atty.
Magat should not make any false and untruthful
statements in his pleadings. If it were true that
there was a similar case for slight physical injuries
that was really filed in court, all he had to do was
to secure a certification from that court that,
indeed, a case was filed.
CERVANTES V SABIO AC NO 7828, AUG 11,
2008
FACTS: Judge Cervantes (complainant) was the
presiding judge of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC)
of Cabuyao, Laguna until his optional retirement on
November 23, 2005. Some of the cases lodged in
his sala were ejectment cases filed by Extra-
Ordinary Development Corporation (EDC) against
the clients of Atty. Jude Josue L. Sabio
(respondent). It appears that respondent had filed
motions for inhibition of complainant "on the basis
of the fact that EDC gave him a house and lot
putting into serious doubt his impartiality,
independence and integrity." The motions were
denied.
After the retirement of complainant, respondent,
by Affidavit-Complaint sought the investigation of
complainant for bribery.
In support of the charge, respondent submitted a
Sinumpaang Salaysay of Edwin P. Cardeo , a
utility worker in the MTC of Cabuyao, stating that
inter alia , orders and decisions of complainant
were not generated from the typewriter of the
court but from a computer which the court did not
have, it having acquired one only on May 2, 2005;
that there had been many times that a certain Alex
of EDC would go to the court bearing certain
papers for the signature of complainant; that he
came to learn that a consideration of P500.00
would be given for every order or decision released
by complainant in favor of EDC; and that he also
came to know that attempts at postponing the
hearings of the complaints filed by EDC were
thwarted by complainant as he wanted to expedite
the disposition thereof.
By Resolution of August 30, 2006 , this Court, after
noting the July 20, 2006 Memorandum of the
Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) relative to
respondent's complaint against complainant,
approved the recommendation of the OCA to
dismiss the complaint for lack of merit, "the
complaint being unsubstantiated and motivated by
plain unfounded suspicion, and for having been
filed after the effectivity of his optional
retirement."
Thus, spawned the present verified December 18,
1996 letter-complaint of complainant against
respondent, for disbarment. The Investigating
Commissioner thus concluded that while the
evidence on record is sufficient to show that the
allegations in respondent's affidavit-complaint
against herein complainant were false, the
evidence nonetheless show[s] that respondent had
knowingly and maliciously instituted a groundless
suit, based simply on his unfounded suspicions
against complainant and that he violated Canons
10, 11, & 12 and Rule 11.04 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility under his oath of office.
He accordingly recommended that respondent be
fined in the amount of P5,000, with a stern
warning that a repetition of the same or similar act
will be dealt with more severely.
The Board of Governors of the IBP, by Notice of
Resolution, informs that on November 22, 2007, it
adopted the following Resolution adopting and
approving with modification the Report and
Recommendation of the Investigating
Commissioner.
ISSUES: (1)Whether or not the complaint filed by
respondent against the complainant before the
Office of the Court Administrator in Admin Matter
OCA IPI No. 06-1842-MTJ was malicious, false and
untruthful.
(2)If in the affirmative, whether or not, respondent
is guilty under the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
RULINGS: (1) the IBP Commissioner did not find
respondents complaint against herein
complainant false and untruthful, it noting that
respondents complaint was dismissed by this
Court due to insufficiency of evidence which, to the
IBP, merely shows a "failure on the part of
respondent to prove his allegations" against
complainant. Noting, however, this Courts August
30, 2006 Resolution finding respondents
complaint "unsubstantiated and motivated by
plain, unfounded" suspicion, the Investigating
Commissioner concluded that respondent
"knowingly instituted not only a groundless suit
against herein complainant, but also a suit based
simply on his bare suspicion and speculation."
(2) the IBP found that by filing the groundless
bribery charge against complainant, respondent
violated the proscription of the Code of
Professional Responsibility against "wittingly or
willingly promot[ing] or su[ing] any groundless
suit" including baseless administrative complaints
against judges and other court officers and
employees. The Investigating Commissioner thus
concluded that while the evidence on record is
sufficient to show that the allegations in
respondents affidavit-complaint against herein
complainant were false, the evidence nonetheless
show[s] that respondent had knowingly and
maliciously instituted a groundless suit, based
simply on his unfounded suspicions against
complainant; and that he violated Canons 10, 11,
& 12 and Rule 11.0411 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility under his oath of office.
He accordingly recommended that respondent be
fined in the amount of P5,000, with a stern
warning that a repetition of the same or similar act
will be dealt with more severely.
ALONSO VS. RELAMIDA, JR. AC NO 8481
FACTS: Jennifer Ebanen filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal against Servier Philippines, Incorporated
in the NLRC. On July 5, 2002, the labor Arbiter
ruled in favor of Servier, stating that Ebanen
voluntarily resigned. Ebanen appealed at the NLRC
which only affirmed the appealed decision. Ebanen
filed for reconsideration but was denied. The case
eventually reached the Supreme Court. On
February 17, 2005, the Courts Resolution dated
August 4, 2004 has already become final and
executory; thus, a corresponding Entry of
Judgment has been issued dismissing the petition
and holding that there was no illegal dismissal
since Ebanen voluntarily resigned.
However, despite the judgment, Ebanen through
Atty. Relamida, Jr. filed a second complaint on
August 5, 2005 for illegal dismissal based on the
same cause of action of constructive dismissal
against Servier. Thus, on October 13, 2005,
Servier, thru counsel, filed a letter-complaint
addressed to the then Chief Justice Hilario Davide,
Jr., praying that respondents be disciplinary
sanctioned for violation of the rules on forum
shopping and res judicata.
Respondents admitted the filing of the second
complaint against Servier. However, they opined
that the dismissal did not amount to res judicata,
since the decision was null and void for lack of due
process since the motion for the issuance of
subpoena duces tecum for the production of vital
documents filed by the complainant was ignored
by the Labor Arbiter.
ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent guilty of
forum shopping and res judicata thus violating
Canon 12 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility?
RULING: During the IBP hearing, Atty. Relamida is
ot a lawyer but the daughter of Atty. Aurelio the
senior partner of A.M. Sison Jr. and Partners Law
Offices where he is employed as associate lawyer.
Atty. Relamida reasoned out that as a courtesy to
Atty. Aurelio and Ebanen, he had no choice but to
represent the latter. Moreover, he stressed that his
client was denied of her right to due process due
to the denial of her motion for the issuance of a
subpoena duces tecum. He then argued that the
decision of the Labor Arbiter was null and void;
thus, there was no res judicata. He maintained that
he did not violate the lawyers oath by serving the
interest of his client. The IBP-CBD recommended
that Atty. Relamida, Jr. be suspended for 6 months
for violating the rules on forum shopping and res
judicata.
The Supreme Court agrees to this finding. A lawyer
owes fidelity to the cause of his client, but not at
the expense of truth and the administration of
justice. The filing of multiple petitions constitutes
abuse of the courts processes and improper
conduct that tends to impede, obstruct and
degrade the administration of justice and will be
punished as contempt of court. Needless to state,
the lawyer who files such multiple or repetitious
petitions (which obviously delays the execution of
a final and executory judgment) subjects himself to
disciplinary action for incompetence (for not
knowing any better) or for willful violation of his
duties as an attorney to act with all good fidelity to
the courts, and to maintain only such actions as
appear to him to be just and are consistent with
truth and honor.
The filing of another action concerning the same
subject matter, in violation of the doctrine of res
judicata, runs contrary to Canon 12 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, which requires a lawyer
to exert every effort and consider it his duty to
assist in the speedy and efficient administration of
justice. By his actuations, respondent also violated
Rule 12.02 and Rule 12.04 of the Code, as well as a
lawyers mandate "to delay no man for money or
malice."
WHEREFORE, Resolution No. XVIII-2008-286 of the
IBP, which found respondent Atty. Ibaro B.
Relamida, Jr. guilty of violating the Rules on Res
Judicata and Forum Shopping, is AFFIRMED. Atty.
Relaminda is hereby SUSPENDED for six (6)
months from the practice of law, effective upon the
receipt of this Decision
ZALDIVAR VS GONZALES 166 SCRA 316, OCT
7, 1988
FACTS: Zaldivar was the governor of Antique. He
was charged before the Sandiganbayan for
violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Act. Gonzales was the then Tanodbayan who was
investigating the case. Zaldivar then filed with the
Supreme Court a petition for Certiorari, Prohibition
and Mandamus assailing the authority of the
Tanodbayan to investigate graft cases under the
1987 Constitution. The Supreme Court, acting on
the petition issued a Cease and Desist Order
against Gonzalez directing him to temporarily
restrain from investigating and filing informations
against Zaldivar.
Gonzales however proceeded with the
investigation and he filed criminal informations
against Zaldivar. Gonzalez even had a newspaper
interview where he proudly claims that he scored
one on the Supreme Court; that the Supreme
Courts issuance of the TRO is a manifestation
theta the rich and influential persons get
favorable actions from the Supreme Court, [while]
it is difficult for an ordinary litigant to get his
petition to be given due course.
Zaldivar then filed a Motion for Contempt against
Gonzalez. The Supreme Court then ordered
Gonzalez to explain his side. Gonzalez stated that
the statements in the newspapers were true; that
he was only exercising his freedom of speech; that
he is entitled to criticize the rulings of the Court, to
point out where he feels the Court may have
lapsed into error. He also said, even attaching
notes, that not less than six justices of the
Supreme Court have approached him to ask him to
go slow on Zaldivar and to not embarrass the
Supreme Court.
ISSUE: Whether or not Gonzalez is guilty of
contempt.
RULING: Yes. The statements made by respondent
Gonzalez clearly constitute contempt and call for
the exercise of the disciplinary authority of the
Supreme Court. His statements necessarily imply
that the justices of the Supreme Court betrayed
their oath of office. Such statements constitute the
grossest kind of disrespect for the Supreme Court.
Such statements very clearly debase and degrade
the Supreme Court and, through the Court, the
entire system of administration of justice in the
country.
Gonzalez is entitled to the constitutional guarantee
of free speech. What Gonzalez seems unaware of
is that freedom of speech and of expression, like
all constitutional freedoms, is not absolute and
that freedom of expression needs on occasion to
be adjusted to and accommodated with the
requirements of equally important public interests.
One of these fundamental public interests is the
maintenance of the integrity and orderly
functioning of the administration of justice. There
is no antinomy between free expression and the
integrity of the system of administering justice.
Gonzalez, apart from being a lawyer and an officer
of the court, is also a Special Prosecutor who owes
duties of fidelity and respect to the Republic and to
the Supreme Court as the embodiment and the
repository of the judicial power in the government
of the Republic. The responsibility of Gonzalez to
uphold the dignity and authority of the Supreme
Court and not to promote distrust in the
administration of justice is heavier than that of a
private practicing lawyer.
Gonzalez is also entitled to criticize the rulings of
the court but his criticisms must be bona fide. In
the case at bar, his statements, particularly the
one where he alleged that members of the
Supreme Court approached him, are of no relation
to the Zaldivar case.
The Supreme Court suspended Gonzalez
indefinitely from the practice of law.
MACEDA VS OMBUDSMAN G.R. NO. 102781.
APRIL 22, 1993
FACTS: Respondent Napoleon Abiera of PAO filed a
complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman
against petitioner RTC Judge Maceda. Respondent
Abiera alleged that petitioner Maceda has falsified
his certificate of service by certifying that all civil
and criminal cases which have been submitted for
decision for a period of 90 days have been
determined and decided on or before January 31,
1989, when in truth and in fact, petitioner Maceda
knew that no decision had been rendered in 5 civil
and 10 criminal cases that have been submitted
for decision. Respondent Abiera alleged that
petitioner Maceda falsified his certificates of
service for 17 months.
ISSUE: Whether or not the investigation made by
the Ombudsman constitutes an encroachment into
the SCs constitutional duty of supervision over all
inferior courts
RULING: A judge who falsifies his certificate of
service is administratively liable to the SC for
serious misconduct and under Sec. 1, Rule 140 of
the Rules of Court, and criminally liable to the
State under the Revised Penal Code for his
felonious act. In the absence of any administrative
action taken against him by the Court with regard
to his certificates of service, the investigation
being conducted by the Ombudsman encroaches
into the Courts power of administrative
supervision over all courts and its personnel, in
violation of the doctrine of separation of powers.
Art. VIII, Sec. 6 of the Constitution exclusively vests
in the SC administrative supervision over all courts
and court personnel, from the Presiding Justice of
the CA down to the lowest municipal trial court
clerk. By virtue of this power, it is only the SC that
can oversee the judges and court personnels
compliance with all laws, and take the proper
administrative action against them if they commit
any violation thereof. No other branch of
government may intrude into this power, without
running afoul of the doctrine of separation of
powers. Where a criminal complaint against a
judge or other court employee arises from their
administrative duties, the Ombudsman must defer
action on said complaint and refer the same to the
SC for determination whether said judge or court
employee had acted within the scope of their
administrative duties.
AFURONG VS AQUINO AC NO 1571 SEPT 23,
1999
FACTS: Afurong filed a complaint for ejectment
against Victorino Flores for nonpayment of rentals
and the court rendered judgment in favor of
petitioner and the court issued a writ of execution.
Facing eviction, Flores sought help from Citizens
Legal Assistance Office and they assigned Atty.
Angel G Aquino to his case. He filed two petitions.
When the court set a pre trial, he filed an Urgent
Motion for Postponement and signed his name as
counsel for Flores and indicated the address of
Citizens Legal Assistance Office as his office
address notwithstanding the fact that he was
separated from Citizens Legal Assistance Office at
that time. In the aforesaid motion, he stated that
he could not attend the pretrial conference
because he had to attend the hearing of a Habeas
Corpus Case before the Juvenile and Domestic
Relations Court that same day and hour. But the
Clerk of Court of the JDR Court certified that a
decision had been rendered on the aforementioned
special proceedings case and that there was no
hearing. Thus, Afurong filed a verified letter
complaint for disbarment against Aquino, for filing
frivolous harassment cases to delay the execution
of a final decision, committing falsehood in an
Urgent Motion for Postponement, and
misrepresenting himself as an attorney for the
Citizens Legal Assistance Office.
Atty. Aquino denied the charges against him and
contended that such acts had been done without
malice. In a Reply, complainant asserted that Atty.
Aquino was declared guilty of contempt of court
and correspondingly fined by this Court for making
false allegations in his Urgent Motion for
Postponement. The IBP Commission on Bar
Discipline submitted a Report finding that Aquino
failed to perform his duties expected of an
attorney as provided under the existing Canons of
Professional Ethics and Sec. of Rule of the ROC in
force at the time of the commission of the acts in
question. They recommended that he be penalized
with months suspension. Board of Gov. of the IBP
resolved to adopt and approve the report and
recommendation of the Investigating
Commissioner
ISSUE: Whether or not Aquino failed to perform
his duties expected of an attorney as provided
under the existing Canons of Professional Ethics
and Sec. of Rule of the ROC in force at the time of
the commission of the acts in question
RULING: The Revised Rules of Court provides that
it is the duty of an attorney to counsel or maintain
such actions or proceedings only as appear to him
to be just, and such defenses only as he believes
to be honestly debatable under the law.
Respondent Atty. Aquino should not have filed a
petition for certiorari considering that there was no
apparent purpose for it than to delay the execution
of a valid judgment. Aquino committed falsehood
when he stated in his Urgent Motion for
Postponement that he had to attend the hearing of
a special proceedings case the same day as the
pretrial of the Civil Case. Such act violates the
Canons of Professional Ethics which obliges an
attorney to avoid the concealment of the truth
from the court. A lawyer is mandated not to
mislead the court in any manner. Lower court
correctly declared respondent in contempt of court
for conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to
impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of
justice, in violation of Section d, Rule of the
Revised Rules of Court. Atty. Aquino purposely
allowed the court to believe that he was still
employed with the Citizens Legal Assistance Office
when in fact he had been purged from said office.
The Court hereby finds respondent Atty. Angel G.
Aquino guilty of malpractice and SUSPENDS him
from the practice of law for six months
commencing upon receipt of notice hereof.
FABROA VS. PAGUINTO [A.C. NO. 6273,
MARCH 15, 2010]
FACTS: Complainant, Atty. Iluminada M. Vaflor-
Fabroa, who was Chairperson of the General
Mariano Alvarez Service Cooperative, Inc.
(GEMASCO), was removed as a member of the
Board of Directors (the Board) and thereafter,
respondent, Oscar Paguinto and his group took
over the GEMASCO office and its premises, the
pumphouses, water facilities, and operations.
Complainant thus filed a complaint for annulment
of the proceedings of her removal as well as other
members of the Board and a complaint against
respondent for disbarment alleging that
respondent had violated the Code of Professional
Responsibility, particularly, among others, Canon
10 A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith
to the court, when having ordered to submit
position papers and despite grant, on his motion,
of extension of time, did not file any position paper
and further ignored the Courts subsequent show
cause order. Moreover, respondent caused the
filing of baseless criminal complaints against
complainant.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondents acts
constitute a violation of the provisions of the Code
of Professional Responsibility, particularly, Canon
10.
HELD: Yes, lawyers are called upon to obey court
orders and processes and respondents deference
is underscored by the fact that willful disregard
thereof will subject the lawyer not only to
punishment for contempt but to disciplinary
sanctions as well. In fact, graver responsibility is
imposed upon a lawyer than any other to uphold
the integrity of the courts and to show respect to
their processes. The Court further noted that
respondent had previously been suspended from
the practice of law for violation of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, however, that
respondent has not reformed his ways. Hence, a
more severe penalty is thus called for, respondent
was subjected to suspension for two years.
FORONDA VS. GUERRERO, A.C. NO. 5469.
AUGUST 10, 2004
FACTS: The complainant [attorney-in-fact] alleged
that his principals, Ramona and Concepcion
Alcaraz, filed Civil Case for specific performance
and damages before the Regional Trial Court of
Quezon City. The case involved a parcel of land
which were sold to the Alcarazes. Thereafter, while
the case was pending, Catalina Balais-Mabanag,
assisted by her husband Eleuterio Mabanag, and
with the respondent as their lawyer, intervened in
the case. In their intervention, Spouses Mabanag
questioned the eligibility of the Alcarazes to won
lands in the Philippines.
The RTC rendered a Decision in favor of the
plaintiffs Alcarazes. Mabanag, through the
assistance of respondent Guerrero as her counsel
appealed the decision to the CA. The CA affirmed
the decision. Unsatisfied with the decision of the
CA, Mabanag and respondent as counsel appeal
the decision to the SC. The SC affirmed the
decision of the court a qou.
Respondent in trying to justify his acts contended
that his action of questioning the eligibility of the
Spouses Alcazares is necessary in the validity of
the decision and the determination of the validity
of the sale. If the Spouses Alcazares are ineligible
to own lands in the Philippines then the sale is
void.
ISSUE: Whether or not the act of respondent
constitutes forum shopping, thus warrant sanction.
HELD: Yes, explained the court- "it has, thus, been
clearly established that in filing such numerous
petitions in behalf of his client, the respondent
thereby engaged in forum shopping. The essence
of forum shopping is the filing of multiple suits
involving the same parties for the same cause of
action, either simultaneously or successively, for
the purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment. It
exists when, as a result of an adverse opinion in
one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion in
another, or when he institutes two or more actions
or proceedings grounded on the same cause to
increase the chances of obtaining a favorable
decision. An important factor in determining the
existence of forum shopping is the vexation
caused to the courts and the parties-litigants by
the filing of similar cases to claim substantially the
same reliefs.
Indeed, while a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of
his client, it should not be at the expense of truth
and the administration of justice. Such filing of
multiple petitions constitutes abuse of the Courts
processes and improper conduct that tends to
impede, obstruct and degrade the administration
of justice and will be punished as contempt of
court. In filing multiple petitions before various
courts concerning the same subject matter, the
respondent violated Canon 12 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, which provides that a
lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his
duty to assist in the speedy and efficient
administration of justice. He also violated Rule
12.02 and Rule 12.04 of the Code, as well as a
lawyers mandate to delay no man for money or
malice.
Respondent is suspended for 1 year in the practice
of law.
CONRADO QUE V. ATTY. ANASTACIO REVILLA,
JR. (2009)
Doctrine:
- While a lawyer owes absolute fidelity to the cause
of his client, full devotion to his genuine interest,
and warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of
his rights, as well as the exertion of his utmost
learning and ability, he must do so only within the
bounds of the law.
FACTS: Respondent former Atty. Anastacio Revilla
represented numerous clients that lost to an
unlawful detainer case against complainant
Conrado Que. However, even before representing
these people, the SC had opportunity to discipline
him in two prior cases: Plus Builders, Inc. and
Edgardo Garcia v. Atty Anastacio Revilla, Jr. Now for
this case, respondent is facing a complaint for the
following acts, all orchestrated to stall the
execution of the MTCs final judgment in favor of
the complainant:
1. Respondents abuse of court processes in
remedies: he filed two petitions for annulment of
title, a petition for annulment of judgment and a
petition for declaratory relief. He also raised the
lack of jurisdiction of the MTC and RTC in these
petitions;
2. Commission of forum-shopping;
3. Lack of candor toward his adversary (Atty. Uy)
and the courts by resorting to numerous
falsehoods;
4. The willful insult and maligning of his clients
former and deceased counsel Atty. Catolico;
5. Unauthorized appearance for 15 of his clients,
most of whom were deceased;
6. Filing a second and fraudulent petition for
annulment of title as counsel for the Republic of
the Philippines
when obviously unauthorized to do so (only the
Solicitor General can do this)
ISSUE 1. Whether or not respondent ought to be
disbarred for his numerous infractions of the laws.
HELD/RATIO: 1. YES. The respondent has violated
the following:
a. Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility;
b. Rule 10.03, Canon 10 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility;
c. Rule 12.02, Rule 12.04, Canon 12 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility;
d. Rule 19.01, Canon 19 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility;
e. Rule against forum-shopping;
f. Sections 20(d), 21 and 27, Rule 138 of the Rules
of Court
Aside from these, respondent also resulted to fraud
before the court and even represented the
Republic without its consent. The Court decided it
had given respondent enough opportunities to
stop, but he didnt comply, so, he was disbarred.
MEJIA VS. REYES
FACTS: Francisco S. Reyes, a practicing lawyer,
was appointed bank attorney and notary public for
the Baguio Branch of the Philippine National Bank.
While still holding such position his professional
services were engaged by Jose G. Mejia and Emilia
N. Abrera, residents of Baguio City, to bring an
action in court against the Philippine National Bank
and the Rehabilitation Finance Corporation (now
the Development Bank of the Philippines) as
successor-in-interest of the defunct Agricultural
and Industrial Bank for the cancellation of a
mortgage on a parcel of land situated in Baguio
City.
[C]omplainants Jose G. Mejia and Emilia N. Abrera
allege that they had desired to take an appeal from
the judgment rendered by the Court of First
Instance of Baguio but did not, upon the
respondents advice; that thereafter for the first
time they learned that the respondent was counsel
and notary public of the Baguio Branch of the
Philippine National Bank; that his representing
them against the Philippine National Bank, in
whose Baguio Branch he was bank attorney and
notary public, without revealing to them such
connection with the Bank, constitutes malpractice;
and pray this Court to disbar him.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Atty. Reyes is guilty of
malpractice and should be disbarred.
HELD: YES. But the malpractice committed is not
so serious. Respondent was just admonished and
warned not to repeat it.
Lawyers are prohibited from representing
conflicting interests in a case. The respondents act
of appearing and acting as counsel for the
complainants Jose G. Mejia and Emilia N. Abrera in
the civil case against the Philippine National Bank,
that had appointed him bank attorney and notary
public, constitutes malpractice. However, it does
not appear satisfactorily proven that during the
pendency of their case the complaints did not
know of the respondents connection with the bank
as attorney and notary public. Evidence shows that
the Philippine National Bank knew that the
respondent was appearing as counsel for the
complainants, yet it did not revoke or cancel his
appointment as bank attorney and notary public.
NICANOR GONZALES vs. ATTY. MIGUEL
SABACAJAN
FACTS: The verified complaint wherefor alleges:
xxx xxx xxx
4. That sometime in October, 1994, complainants
were informed by the Register of Deeds of
Cagayan de Oro City that the complainants'
owner's duplicate of title covering their lands,
Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. T-91736 and T-
91735 were entrusted to the office secretary of the
respondent who in torn entrusted the same to
respondent;
5. That respondent admitted and confirmed to
the complainants that their titles are in his custody
and has even shown the same (to) the
complainant Salud B. Pantanosas but when
demanded (sic) to deliver the said titles to the
complainant in a formal demand letter, marked as
ANNEX "A," respondent refused and continues to
refuse 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;
6. That respondent's dare or challeng(e) is a
manifestation of his arrogance taking undue
advantage of his legal profession over the
simplicity, innocence and ignorance of the
complainants, one of whom is his blood relative,
his aunt, for which complainants shudder with
mental anguish;
7. That due to his challeng(e), the complainants
sent a letter to the Honorable Supreme Court for
enlightenment, copy of which is attached as
ANNEX "B", for which the Honorable Supreme
Court required 19 legible copies of a verified
complaint;
8. That in spite of repeated demands, request(s)
and pleas towards respondent, respondent still
fail(ed) and stubbornly refused without justification
to surrender the said titles to the rightful owners,
the complainants here(in), 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;
xxx xxx xxx
On March 22, 1995, the Court required respondent
to comment on the foregoing complaint. In his
unverified "Answer" thereto, respondent admitted
having met Salud Pantanosas 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.
He contends that the truth of the matter is that
complainants have been charged with a number of
criminal and civil complaints before different
courts. He also asserts that he was holding the
certificates of title in behalf of his client, Samto M.
Uy.
Atty. Sabacajan stresses, by way of defense, that
"the instant action was chosen precisely to
browbeat him into delivering the Certificates of
Title to them without said certificates passing the
hands of Mr. Samto Uy with whom the
complainants have some monetary obligations."
ISSUE: WON respondent violated the Code of
Professional Responsibility?
RULINGS: 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.
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.
As a lawyer, respondent should know that there
are lawful remedies provided by law to protect the
interests of his client. The records do not show that
he or his client have availed of said remedies,
instead of merely resorting to unexplained, if not
curt, refusals to accommodate the requests of
complainants. Also, he cannot be unaware of the
imposable sanctions on a counsel who resorts to
unlawful means that would cause injustice to the
adversaries of his client.
The Court finds that respondent admitted having
taken possession of the certificates of title of
complainants but refused to surrender the same
despite demands made by the latter. It follows,
therefore, that it was incumbent upon him to show
that he was legally justified in doing so. Instead, all
he did was to inform this Court that "his obligation
to deliver the certificates to Mr. Samto Uy excludes
the delivery of said certificates to anyone else."
Respondent attached some certifications to his
"Answer" to support his contention that
complainants are notorious characters. However,
the certifications indicate that most of the cases
stated therein, especially those involving fraud,
have been dismissed. With respect to those still
pending, there is no indication as to the identity of
the party who instituted the same, aside from the
consideration that the remedy thereon is judicial in
nature. At any rate, these aspersions on the
character of complainants have no bearing on the
misconduct of respondent charged in the present
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 respondent's claim. In fact,
the two sets of certificates of title appear to be
entirely different from each other.