5 Case Digests
5 Case Digests
5 Case Digests
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
Anti-Organized
Crime
Division
of
the
NBI
where
he
was
self-incrimination.
Thereafter,
the
NBI
recommended
the
for
incriminatory
machination,
perjury
and
attempted
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
disbarment
or
other
disciplinary
action.
Where
the
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.
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
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
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
ISSUE
of
fairness.
Instead,
he
unjustly
refused
to
give
to
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
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.