8 - Macia V Selda

SECOND DIVISION
[A.C. No. 6442. October 21, 2004.]

HON. MARIANO S. MACIAS, complainant, vs. ATTY. ALANIXON A.
SELDA, respondent.
DECISION
PUNO, J :
p
For violation of the lawyer's oath, Judge Mariano S. Macias, Presiding Judge of
Regional Trial Court, Branch 28, Liloy, Zamboanga del Norte, led before the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) a Petition for Administrative Discipline
against Atty. Alanixon A. Selda. 1
The facts are undisputed. On January 24, 2000, respondent Selda withdrew as
counsel for one Norma T. Lim, private protestee in Election Case No. SE-01 entitled
Ruth Maraon v. The Municipal Board of Canvassers , Salud, Zamboanga del Norte,
and Norma T. Lim for Annulment of Election, etc. 2 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.
In light of these representations, complainant granted the Motion and ordered
respondent relieved of all his responsibilities as counsel for private protestee.
However, on May 22, 2000, respondent executed an adavit disavowing his
grounds for withdrawing as counsel for private protestee. He swore that he only
led 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.
On the basis of respondent's adavit, his former client and private protestee in
subject election protest case, moved for the inhibition of complainant. On June 2,
2000, complainant granted the motion for his inhibition if only to disabuse any
doubt on his impartiality. But on August 23, 2000, this Court set aside
complainant's inhibition after nding no strong and valid reason therefor, and
directed him to continue hearing the case and to resolve it with reasonable dispatch.
aEIcHA
Deploring the act of respondent as "serious deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct as

a lawyer and in utter violation of the lawyer's oath," complainant requested the IBP
to investigate the matter and recommend to the Court an appropriate penalty
against respondent. On January 30, 2002, the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline 3
required respondent to answer. He failed.
On November 21, 2003, after several postponements led by the parties, their
failure to personally appear before the IBP investigating commission, and the
request of complainant to resolve the case on the basis of the pleadings,
Commissioner Rebecca Villanueva-Maala, submitted her report and recommended
to the IBP Board of Governors that respondent be suspended from the practice of
law for two (2) years.
The Board, in its Resolution No. XVI-2004-122 dated February 27, 2004, adopted
and approved with modication the Report and Recommendation of Commissioner
Maala. It reduced the suspension of respondent to six (6) months; hence, the
transmittal of the case and its records to this Court for nal resolution 4 pursuant to
Rule 139-B, Section 12(b) of the Rules of Court, viz:
Review and Decision by the Board of Governors . . . . (b) If the Board, by
the vote of a majority of its total membership, determines that the
respondent should be suspended from the practice of law or disbarred, it
shall issue a resolution setting forth its ndings and recommendations
which, together with the whole record of the case, shall forthwith be
transmitted to the Supreme Court for final action.
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 delity as well to the courts as to [their]
clients." These particular fundamental principles are reected 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 adavit of May 22, 2000 retracting his reason for
withdrawing as counsel for Norma T. Lim, he acknowledged, under oath, his
misrepresentation. He misled the court in clear violation of his oath as lawyer and
failed to abide by the Code of Professional Responsibility.
TaSEHD
Candor towards the courts is a cardinal requirement of the practicing lawyer. 5 In

fact, this obligation to the bench for candor and honesty takes precedence. 6 Thus,
saying one thing in his Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for Private Protestee and
another in his subsequent adavit is a transgression of this imperative which
necessitates appropriate punishment.
The appropriate penalty to be imposed on an errant attorney involves the exercise
of sound judicial discretion based on the facts of the case. Section 27, Rule 138 of
the Rules of Court provides, viz:

Sec. 27.
Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court,
grounds therefor. A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended
from his oce as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit,
malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such oce, grossly immoral
conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude
or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before admission
to practice, or for a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior
court, or for corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a
case without authority to do so. The practice of soliciting cases for the
purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers,
constitutes malpractice.
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." 7
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the February 27, 2004 Resolution of the IBP Board of
Governors in CBD Case No. 02-921 is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that
respondent Atty. Alanixon A. Selda is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one
(1) year, to commence upon receipt of this Decision. He is further sternly warned
that a repetition of a similar offense will call for a more severe consequence.
Let a copy of this Decision be attached to the personal record of respondent with the
Oce of the Bar Condant. Likewise, let copies of this Decision be furnished the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines and all its chapters, and to all the courts in the
land.
IaAEHD
Austria-Martinez, Callejo, Sr., Tinga and Chico-Nazario, JJ ., concur.

Footnotes
1.
Dated January 14, 2002; docketed as CBD Case No. 02-921.
2.
Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for Private Protestee dated January 21, 2000.
3.
Signed by Victor C. Fernandez, IBP Director for Bar Discipline.
4.
Notice of Resolution signed by Othelo C. Carag, IBP National Secretary.
5.
Paluwagan ng Bayan Savings Bank v. King, 172 SCRA 60 (1989).
6.
Muoz v. People, 53 SCRA 190 (1973).
7.
William T. Gossett, President, American Bar Association, 1969.

8 - Macia V Selda

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

8 - Macia V Selda

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

8 - Macia V Selda

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SECOND DIVISION

[A.C. No. 6442. October 21, 2004.]

Deploring the act of respondent as "serious deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct as

We affirm the findings of the IBP on the culpability of respondent.

Candor towards the courts is a cardinal requirement of the practicing lawyer. 5 In

the Rules of Court provides, viz:

Austria-Martinez, Callejo, Sr., Tinga and Chico-Nazario, JJ ., concur.

Dated January 14, 2002; docketed as CBD Case No. 02-921.

Signed by Victor C. Fernandez, IBP Director for Bar Discipline.

Notice of Resolution signed by Othelo C. Carag, IBP National Secretary.

Paluwagan ng Bayan Savings Bank v. King, 172 SCRA 60 (1989).

Muoz v. People, 53 SCRA 190 (1973).

William T. Gossett, President, American Bar Association, 1969.

You might also like