SBCA | PALE | TEJADA, ANTOINETTE S.

| CASE DIGEST 2019 - 2020

EDGARDO AREOLA, complainant, vs. ATTY. MARIA VILMA
MENDOZA, respondent. Areola initiated this complaint when he felt insulted because Atty. Mendoza
[A.C. No. 10135. January 15, 2014.] refused to acknowledge the pleadings and motions, he prepared for his co-
detainees who are PAO clients of Atty. Mendoza.
Facts:
Edgardo D. Areola (Areola) a.k.a. Muhammad Khadafy against Atty. Maria Atty. Mendoza made it appear that the judge is easily moved if a party resorts
Vilma Mendoza (Atty. Mendoza), from the (PAO) for violation of her to dramatic antics such as begging and crying in order for their cases to be
attorney's oath of office, deceit, malpractice or other gross misconduct in dismissed.
office under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court, and for
violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Atty. Mendoza's improper advice only lessens the confidence of the public in
our legal system. Judges must be free to judge, without pressure or influence
Areola stated that he was filing the complaint in behalf of his co-detainees from external forces or factors according to the merits of a case. Atty.
Allan Seronda, Aaron Arca, Joselito Mirador, Spouses Danilo Perez and Mendoza's careless remark is uncalled for.
Elizabeth Perez. He alleged that on October 23, 2006, during Prisoners'
Week, Atty. Mendoza, visited the Antipolo City Jail and called all detainees NESTOR B. FIGUERAS and BIENVENIDO VICTORIA, JR.,
with pending cases. complainants, vs. ATTY. DIOSDADO B. JIMENEZ, respondent.
[A.C. No. 9116. March 12, 2014.]
Petitioner’s Claims:
Atty. Mendoza asseverated that the filing of the administrative complaint Petitioner’s Claims:
against her is a harassment tactic by Areola as the latter had also led several The case emanated from an issue involving a resident complaining to their
administrative cases against judges in the courts of Antipolo City including homeowner’s association which the law firm of the respondent handled
the jail warden of Taytay, Rizal where Areola was previously detained. poorly. In such case, the RTC ruled in favor of the resident to which the
Association appealed but was later on denied the Court of Appeals being
Nonetheless, Atty. Mendoza admitted in her Answer that she advised her expired by 95 days and the subsequent motion for extension were not
clients and their relatives to approach the judge and the fiscal "to beg and meritorious.
cry" so that their motions would be granted and their cases against them
would be dismissed. Eight years later, petitioner herein filed a case for disbarment against the
defendant for violation of the CPR particularly Rule 12.03, Canon 12; Canon
Issue: 17 and Rule 18.03, Canon 18 thereof for his negligence in handling the
Whether or not Atty. Mendoza violated the Code of Professional appeal and willful violations of his duties as an officer of the court.
Responsibility
Defendant’s Claim/s:
Held: Defendant in this case answered that when he discovered of the omissions of
After a judicious examination of the records, the Court finds that the instant the handling lawyer, he imposed proper sanctions and that he personally took
Complaint against Atty. Mendoza profoundly lacks evidence to support the the responsibility of the said case. Further, Atty. Jimenez alleged that this
allegations contained therein. All Areola have been empty assertions against disbarment case is filed in order to harass him and that the complainants were
Atty. Mendoza that she demanded money from his co-detainees. not his clients, thus they are not a proper party to file a disbarment case
against him.
Consequently, the Court rejects Areola's statements, especially as regards
Atty. Issue:
Mendoza's alleged demands of money.
 SBCA | PALE | TEJADA, ANTOINETTE S. | CASE DIGEST 2019 - 2020
1. Whether or not the complainants are proper parties to file a Held:
disbarment case by reason that they are not the clients of the Yes. The Court concurs with the findings of the IBP in its report and its
defendant recommendation, except as to the recommended penalty to be imposed upon
2. Whether or not Atty. Jimenez suspension by the IBP is proper the responded and the monetary award in favor of the complainant.

Held: Clearly, respondent’s acts of misappropriation constitute dishonesty, abuse of

trust and confidence reposed in him by the complainant, and betrayal of his
1. Yes. The court ruled that in Heck v. Judge Santos, any interested client’s interests which he is duty-bound to protect.
person or the court motu proprio may initiate disciplinary
proceedings. CHAMELYN A. AGOT, complainant, vs. ATTY. LUIS P. RIVERA,
2. Yes, the Court finds that the suspension of the respondent from the respondent.
practice of the law is proper. The court agreed that the respondent [A.C. No. 8000. August 5, 2014.]
had been remiss in the performance of his duties as counsel in the
Association. In failing to file the appellant’s brief on behalf of his Petitioner’s Claim/s:
client, respondent had fallen short of his duties as counsel as set forth Chamelyn Agot was invited to a wedding to be held in United States of
in the CPR. America. By this reason, she sought the services of Atty. Rivera to process
her visa believing that the lawyer was an immigration lawyer. Atty. Rivera
CF SHARP CREW MANAGEMENT INCORPORATED, complainant, demanded a downpayment from the complaint worth P350,000.00 for the
vs. NICOLAS C. TORRES, respondent. services. Respondent failed to perform his undertaking within the agreed
[A.C. No. 10438.September 23, 2014.] period. Petitioner demanded the return of her money, but the respondent did
not heed to her demand.
Facts:
Complainant is a corporation engaged in overseas maritime employment. Respondent’s Claim:
Respondent, a medical doctor and a lawyer by profession, is their legal Atty. Rivera claimed that his failure to comply with the contract was due to
counsel handling all matters raised by the corporation’s employees. The the false pretenses of a certain Rico Pineda, who he believed to be a consul
corporation filed this case as Atty. Nicolas Torres requested several checks for the US Embassy and to whom he delivered the amount given by the
serving as a claim of specific employees as a settlement from the company. complainant to progress the visa. But Pineda could no longer be located.
However, the checks were not given to their employees and was discovered
that such checks were in respondent’s personal bank account. Issue:
Whether or not the respondent should be held administratively liable
The IBP Investigating officer found that the checks were requested and was
lawfully due to the employees. Held:
Yes. The court ruled that respondent has no specialization in immigration law
Respondent’s Claim: but merely had a contact allegedly with Pineda, a purported US consul, who
Atty. Torres explained that he failed to answer the IBP as he was detained supposedly processes US visa applications for him. Respondent also failed to
due to criminal charges filed by the complainant. perform his obligations under their contract, flagrant violation of Rule 18.03,
Canon 18 of the CPR.
Issue:
Whether or not the respondent should be held administratively liable for Under Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the CPR, once a lawyer takes up the cause of
violating the CPR his client, he 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
 SBCA | PALE | TEJADA, ANTOINETTE S. | CASE DIGEST 2019 - 2020
for a fee or for free. He owes fidelity to such cause and must always be The court will not permit the respondent’s good record to be tarnished by his
mindful of the trust and confidence reposed upon him. having promptly reacted to Heck’s remark.

MARIETTA DUQUE, Complainant, vs. JUDGE CRISOSTOMO L.

HEINZ R. HECK, complainant, vs. CITY PROSECUTOR CASIANO GARRIDO, Respondent.
A. GAMOTIN, JR., respondent. [A.M. NO. RTJ-06-2027 February 27, 2009.]
[A.C. No. 5329. March 18, 2014.]
Petitioner’s Claim/s:
Facts: The complainant filed this case against the judge who rendered a decision of
a criminal case involving her husband beyond the 90-day period prescribed
This case emanated from a criminal case in which the complainant is by the 1987 Constitution. Further, the complainant alleged procedural
involved with and did not accept the result of such case. In such previous infirmities.
case, Cabrera, the respondent, was represented by Atty. Adaza. He filed a
motion for reconsideration and was granted by the OCP. By this move, Heck Respondent’s Claim/s:
was angered and claimed that Atty. Adaza and the City Prosecutor had Judge Garrido denied the allegation and explained that he was on official
private meetings and questioned the propriety of the private meeting and the leave as he left for the United States. He also maintained that there was no
possibility of connivance between the city prosecutor and Atty. Adaza. impropriety or procedural infirmity in the promulgation of the decision even
if there is no present prosecutor. In addition, the respondent judge states that
Heck claimed that the respondent of this case acted violently and offensive in the complainant is neither a private complainant in the criminal case and thus
his presence and his family and questioned as to why does he still work with not entitled to a notice of promulgation.
Atty. Adaza knowingly that the latter is suspended from the practice of law.
Issue:
Respondent’s Claim: Whether or not the respondent judge should be held administratively liable
These allegations were denied by the respondent and claimed that he did not for rendering a decision beyond the 90-day period in violation of Section 15,
act violently nor utter words that are offensive and that he did not know that Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution and Canon 3, Rule 3.05 of the Code of
Atty. Adaza is suspended. In the heat of their fight, Heck remarked that he Judicial Conduct
does not believe in the Philippine legal system to which the respondent
replied that he should go back to his country if he does not follow the law. Ruling Per Issue:
Yes. The court ruled that the rules prescribing the time within which certain
Issue: acts must be done are indispensable to prevent needless delays in the orderly
Whether or not City Prosecutor Casiano Gamotin Jr should be held and speedy disposition of cases. Thus, the 90-day period within which to
administratively liable for being offensive towards the complainant decide cases is mandatory.

Ruling Per Issue: However, respondent issued it only on December 12, 2005 which was more
No. The court ruled that evidence adduced by the complainant is insufficient than four months after the case had been submitted for decision. Respondent
to warrant the disbarment of the respondent. The respondent was not then Judge Garrido clearly violated both the Constitution and the Code of Judicial
reacting to an attack on his person, but to Heck's disrespectful remark against Conduct when he failed to decide the criminal case within the 90-day period
Philippine authorities in general. Any self-respecting government official like to decide cases prescribed for the lower courts.
the respondent should feel justly affronted by any expression or show of
disrespect in his presence, including harsh words like those uttered by Heck.
 SBCA | PALE | TEJADA, ANTOINETTE S. | CASE DIGEST 2019 - 2020
Failure of a judge, such as respondent herein, to decide a case within the [A.M. No. RTJ-10-2248. September 29, 2010.]
prescribed period is inexcusable and constitutes gross inefficiency warranting
a disciplinary sanction. Petitioner’s Claim:
Judge Angeles charges the respondent with violations of the 1987
Constitution, New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary,
Code of Judicial Conduct, CPR, and R.A. 6713, Falsification of Official
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, vs. Documents and Dishonesty.
JUDGE HARUN B. ISMAEL, Respondent.
[A.M. No. RTJ-07-2045 January 19, 2010] Respondent’s Claim:
She claims that complainant's charges are harsh, rash and baseless, calculated
Facts: merely to harass and "destroy the reputation of a younger sister in the
A judicial audit was conducted in the RTC of Pagadian, Zamboanga del Sur, profession."
Branch 22, presided over by respondent Judge Harun B. Ismael.
Issue:
The audit resulted in the issuance of a memorandum dated June 9, 2005 by
the OCA directing respondent to explain his failure to decide and act on
current and inherited cases, as well as to resolve incidents in various cases Ruling per Issue:
pending before him, within the reglementary period provided by law.
However, the OCA found that the judge failed to comply fully with its
directives. IMELDA R. MARCOS, complainant, vs. JUDGE FERNANDO VIL
PAMINTUAN, respondent.
Nonetheless, the OCA established that respondent committed gross [A.M. No. RTJ-07-2062. * January 18, 2011.]
inefficiency when he unduly delayed actions in a huge number of cases.
Petitioner’s Claim:
Issue: Imelda Marcos filed this petition charging Judge Pamintuan with Gross
Whether or not Judge Harun B. Ismael is guilty of gross inefficiency Ignorance of the Law for reversing motu proprio the final and executory
order of then Acting Presiding Judge Antonio Reyes in a civil case. 10 years
Held: later, Judge Pamintuan set the case for hearing and released the custody of
The court considered the findings of the OCA. It is settled that failure to the Golden Buddha to its rightful owner.
decide or resolve cases within the reglementary period constitutes gross
inefficiency and is not excusable. Marcos averred that the act of Judge Pamintuan in reversing a final and
executory order constituted gross ignorance of the law.
The New Code of Judicial Conduct requires that a judge shall perform all
judicial duties, including the delivery of reserved decisions, efficiently, fairly Respondent’s Claim:
and with reasonable promptness. 10 Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code 11 Judge Pamintuan argued that Marcos could have just led a pleading
admonishes all judges to dispose of the court's business promptly and decide manifesting lack of interest or moving for the recall of the subpoena, but she
cases within the period specified in Section 15 (1) and (2), Article VIII of the did not. In fact, her counsel, Atty. Robert Sison, entered his appearance and
Constitution. actually appeared in court. With her appearance through counsel, she
subjected herself to the jurisdiction of the court.
JUDGE ADORACION G. ANGELES, complainant, vs. JUDGE MARIA
ELISA SEMPIO DIY, Presiding Judge, respondent. Issue/s:
 SBCA | PALE | TEJADA, ANTOINETTE S. | CASE DIGEST 2019 - 2020
Whether or not Judge Pamintuan should be administratively liable for gross to promote the welfare of his family or community, like a homeowner’s
ignorance of the law association.

Ruling per Issue: As a trustee of her village's homeowner’s association, Justice Inting has the
right to stand her ground on any legitimate issue that might arise in the
course of the discharge of her duties. She could of course be wrong on those
issues but it is not for this that she can be subjected to administrative action.
Emil Medenilla, Pedro Anonuevo, Jericho Inocentes, Carlito Salomon None of those issues are related to her work as Justice of the CA. Court
and Atty. Jesus F. Acpal against Justice Socorro B. Inting of the Court of dismisses the complaint.
Appeals).
[A.M. No. 11-190-CA-J. April 24, 2012.] OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, complainant, vs.
JUDGE CADER P. INDAR, respondent.
[A.M. No. RTJ-10-2232. April 10, 2012.]
Petitioner’s Claims:
Complainant officers and trustees of Katarungan Village Homeowners Petitioner’s Claims:
Association, Inc., (the Association) of Barangay Poblacion, Muntinlupa City
grave misconduct, grave abuse of authority, and conduct unbecoming of a The Civil Registrar of Manila submitted copies of Decisions, Orders and
Court of Appeals Justice in violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct and Resolutions, all signed by Judge Indar, in cases for annulment of marriage,
Code of Professional Responsibility. correction of entry and other similar cases from RTC-Cotabato City, Branch.
All the decisions were accompanied by the corresponding Letter of Atty.
Complaint alleged that She violated Rule 5.01 (d) and Rule 5.10 of Canon 5 Silongan, arming each of the decisions as true and authentic based on the
of the Code of Judicial Conduct when she joined the political party of her records, while thirty six (36) of such decisions are accompanied by Atty.
group and contributed to its party funds. Silongan's certication arming the genuineness of Judge Indar's signature
affixed on the Decisions.
Respondent’s Claims:
Justice Inting assails the complaint as motivated by ill will, malice, and a According to Justice Borreta, Judge Indar's act of issuing decisions on
desire to prevent her from fulfilling her duties as member of the Association's annulment of marriage cases without complying with the stringent procedural
board of trustees. She rejects as baseless the charge that the Association's and substantive requirements of the Rules of Court for such cases clearly
elections partake of political activities. And, although she was active in the violates the Code of Judicial Conduct. Judge Indar made it appear that the
affairs of the annulment cases underwent trial, when the records show no judicial
Association, she excelled in her work as Justice of the CA as borne by its proceedings occurred.
records
Respondent’s Claims:
Issue/s: There is no response from the respondent as his whereabouts were unknown.
whether or not there is sufficient basis to warrant further administrative The notices sent by the authorities were left unheeded or unanswered.
investigation of the complaint against Justice Inting
Issue/s:
Ruling per Issue: Judge Indar is guilty of gross misconduct and dishonesty
The Code of Judicial Ethics does not bar him from joining associations or
institutions that promote the common good. To be sure, no social or moral Ruling per Issue:
considerations prevent him from taking active part in organizations that aim The Court condemns Judge Indar's reprehensible act of issuing Decisions that
 SBCA | PALE | TEJADA, ANTOINETTE S. | CASE DIGEST 2019 - 2020
voided marital unions, without conducting any judicial proceedings. Atty. Alvero claimed that he did not know Barcenas prior to the filing of the
instant complaint nor did he know that San Antonio was an employee of
Judge Indar issued Decisions on numerous annulment of marriages cases Barcenas. Atty. Alvero stressed that there was no lawyer-client relationship
when in fact he did not conduct any judicial proceedings on the cases. Not between him and Barcenas. Finally, Atty. Alvero prayed that the instant
even the complaint be dismissed.
filing of the petitions occurred. Judge Indar made it appear in his Decisions
that the annulment cases complied with the stringent requirements of the Issue/s:
Rules of Court and the strict statutory and jurisprudential conditions for Whether or not Atty. Alvero should be held administratively liable
voiding marriages, when quite the contrary is true, violating Canon 3 of the
Code of Judicial Conduct which mandates that a judge "perform official Ruling per Issue:
duties honestly." Yes. Atty. Alvero admitted to having received the amount of P300,000.00
from San Antonio, specically for the purpose of depositing it in court.
Indisputably, Judge Indar's gross misconduct and dishonesty likewise However, as found by the IBP-CBD, Atty. Alvero presented no evidence that
constitute a breach of the following Canons of the Code of Professional he had indeed deposited the amount in or consigned it to the court. Neither
Responsibility: Rule 1.01, Canon 1 and Canon 7. was there any evidence that he had returned the amount to Barcenas or San
Antonio.
Judge Indar's dishonest act of issuing decisions making it appear that the
annulment cases underwent trial and complied with the Rules of Court, laws, When a lawyer receives money from a client for a particular purpose, the
and established jurisprudence violates the lawyer's oath to "do no falsehood, lawyer is bound to render an accounting to the client showing that the money
nor consent to the doing of any in court." Such violation is also a ground for was spent for a particular purpose. And if he does not use the money for the
disbarment. intended purpose, the lawyer must immediately return the money to his
client.
REYNARIA BARCENAS, complainant, vs. ATTY. ANORLITO These, Atty. Alvero failed to do.
ALVERO, respondent.
[A.C. No. 8159. April 23, 2010.] JESSIE R. DE LEON, complainant, vs. ATTY. EDUARDO G.
CASTELO, respondent
[A.C. No. 8620. January 12, 2011.]
Petitioner’s Claims:
Barcenas, through her employee Rodolfo San Antonio (San Antonio), Petitioner’s Claims:
entrusted to Atty. Alvero the amount of P300,000.00, which the latter was Jessie R. De Leon initiated on April 29, 2010, concerns respondent attorney's
supposed to give to a certain Amanda Gasta to redeem the rights of his alleged dishonesty and falsification committed in the pleadings he filed in
deceased father as tenant of a rice field located in Laguna. behalf of the defendants in the civil action in which De Leon intervened. She
claims that Atty. Castelo represented a deceased spouse in a civil action to
In the said receipt, Atty. Alvero said that he would deposit the money in which the lawyer is a representative and used falsified documents in
court pleadings in such civil case.
because Amanda Gasta refused to accept the same. Subsequently, Barcenas
discovered that Atty. Alvero did not deposit the money in court, but instead Respondent’s Claims:
converted and used the same for his personal needs. Atty. Castelo claims that the persons who had engaged him as attorney to
represent the Lim family in Civil Case were William and Leonardo Lim, the
Respondent’s Claims: children of Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu. He (Atty. Castelo) prepared
the initial pleadings based on his honest belief that Spouses Lim Hio and
 SBCA | PALE | TEJADA, ANTOINETTE S. | CASE DIGEST 2019 - 2020
Dolores Chu were then still living. Had he known that they were already their overall language was "tempered, restrained and respectful" and should
deceased, he would have most welcomed the information and would have not be construed as a display of contumacious attitude or as "a flouting or
moved to substitute Leonardo and William Lim as defendants for that reason. arrogant
belligerence in defiance of the court" to be penalized as direct contempt.
Issue/s:
Whether or not Atty. Castelo should be held administratively liable for Respondent’s Claim:
falsehood The CTA First Division contends that a reading of the motion for
reconsideration and the character of the words used therein by the petitioners
Ruling per Issue: indicated that their statements reflected no humility, nor were they
No. The court ruled that the respondent did not commit any falsehood or “expressive of a contrite heart;" and that their submissions instead "reflected
falsification in his pleadings. arrogance and sarcasm, that they even took the opportunity to again deride
the public respondent on the manner of how it wrote the decision."
CANON 10 — A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD
FAITH TO THE COURT. Rule 10.01 — A lawyer shall not do any Issue/s:
falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or Whether or not the petitioner’s motion contained disrespectful words which
allow the Court to be misled by any artifice. warranted direct contempt of court

The respondent did not misrepresent that Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu Ruling per Issue:
were still living. On the contrary, the respondent directly stated in the answer Yes. Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates all
to the complaint in intervention with counterclaim and cross-claim, and in the attorneys to observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial
clarification and submission, that the Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu officers and to insist on similar conduct by others. It is settled that
were already deceased. For one, the respondent was acting in the interest of derogatory, offensive or malicious statements contained in pleadings or
the actual owners of the properties when he filed the answer with written submissions presented to the same court or judge in which the
counterclaim and cross-claim on April 17, 2006. Thus, he could not validly proceedings are pending are treated as direct contempt because they are
insist that the respondent committed any dishonesty or falsification in equivalent to a misbehavior committed in the presence of or so near a court
relation to him or to any other party. or judge as to interrupt the administration of justice.

IN RE: SUPREME COURT RESOLUTION DATED

DENIS B. HABAWEL and ALEXIS F. MEDINA, petitioners, vs. THE 28 APRIL 2003 IN G.R. NOS. 145817 AND
COURT OF TAX APPEALS, respondent. 145822, [A.C. No. 6332. April 17, 2012.]
[G.R. No. 174759. September 7, 2011.]

Petitioner’s Claim: Petitioner’s Claim:

Petitioners were the counsel of Surfield which sought from the Office of the
City Treasurer of Mandaluyong City the refund of excess realty taxes paid Respondent’s Claim:
from 1995 until 2000. Petitioners continue to posit that the phrase gross
ignorance of the law was used in its strict legal sense to emphasize the Issue/s:
gravity of the error of law committed by the CTA First Division. The
statements described by the CTA First Division as "abrasive, offensive, Ruling per Issue:
derogatory, offensive and disrespectful" should be viewed within the context
of the general tone and language of their motion for reconsideration; that
 SBCA | PALE | TEJADA, ANTOINETTE S. | CASE DIGEST 2019 - 2020
ATTY. EDITA NOE-LACSAMANA, complainant, vs. received from his clients for purposes of the civil action to recover their
ATTY. YOLANDO F. BUSMENTE, respondent. property from a foreclosing banking institution he was handling for them.
[A.C. No. 7269. November 23, 2011.]
The complainant’s relatives issued a check for purposes of payment over a
Petitioner’s Claim: land involved in a case to which the respondent is their counsel. Upon
Atty. Noe-Lacsamana filed this disbarment case against Atty. Busmente checking the status of their case, they figured that it had no progress. They
which emanated from a civil case handled by both lawyers for their separate demanded the return of money from their counsel. But failed to do so. Hence,
clients. Petitioner alleges that during the civil case they handled, Atty. this petition.
Busmente allowed Atty. Dela Rosa as collaborating counsel who was
discovered to be a non-member of the Bar. Respondent’s Claim:
Atty. Ricafort claims that the P65,000 was not for the purpose of redeeming
Respondent’s Claim: the property but as his compensation for hiring him as their lawyer. He
Atty. Busmente claims that Atty. Dela Rosa is a law graduate and that he explained that the money was part of his ‘package deal’ and that there was no
employed the latter until 2000. He also alleged that Dela Rosa consignation that happened as it was not mentioned to him.
misrepresented herself with the help of Atty. Busmente’s former secretary.
Issue/s:
Issue/s: Whether or not Atty. Ricaforte should be held liable for failure to account for
whether Busmente is guilty of directly or indirectly assisting Dela Rosa in and sums of money received from the clients
her illegal practice of law that warrants his suspension from the practice of
law Ruling Per Issue:
Yes. Atty. Ricaforte violated Canon 15, and Canon 16 of the Code of
Ruling per Issue: Professional Responsibility by taking advantage of the vulnerability of his
Yes. Canon 9. A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, assist in the clients and by being dishonest in his dealings with them by refusing to return
unauthorized practice of law. In this case, it has been established that Dela the amount of P65,000.00 to them.
Rosa, who is not a member of the Bar, misrepresented herself as Busmente's
collaborating counsel in Civil Case No. 9284. Busmente's office continued to He was all too aware that he was accountable for the moneys entrusted to
receive all the notices of Civil Case No. 9284. The 7 December 2004 Order him by the clients, and that his only means of ensuring accountability was by
of Judge Elvira DC. Panganiban (Judge 8 Panganiban) in Civil Case No. issuing and keeping receipts. Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional
9284 showed that Atty. Elizabeth Dela Rosa was still representing Ulaso in Responsibility expressly enjoins such accountability, viz.: Rule 16.01 — A
the case. lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or
The counter-affidavit submitted in this case clearly showed that Busmente from the client. Definitely, Atty. Ricafort had a highly fiduciary and
was the legal counsel in Civil Case No. 9284 and that he allowed Dela Rosa confidential relation with the Tarogs. As such, he was burdened with the
to give legal assistance to Ulaso. legal duty to promptly account for all the funds received from or held by him
for them.
ERLINDA R. TAROG, complainant, vs. ATTY. ROMULO L.
RICAFORT, respondent. IMELDA BIDES-ULASO, Complainant, versus ATTY. EDITA NOE-
[A.C. No. 8253. March 15, 2011.] LACSAMANA, Respondent.
[A.C. No. 7297 2009 Sep 29, 1st Division]
Petitioner’s claims:
Complainant filed this complaint for the disbarment of Atty. Romulo L. Petitioner’s Claims:
Ricafort for his failure to account for and to return the sums of money
 SBCA | PALE | TEJADA, ANTOINETTE S. | CASE DIGEST 2019 - 2020
Complainant amended her complain in a civil case which is handled by the Complainant filed a complaint for forcible entry against therein defendants
respondent to demand the declaration of nullity of deed of sale of which docketed as entitled John Hegna v. Mr. & Mrs. Eliseo Panaguinip, with the
Bides is the registered owner. The amended complaint of Bides contained a Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch 8 of Cebu City. MTCC
so-called amended verification and affidavit of non-forum shopping on rendered a Decision in favor of complainant. Subsequently, respondent Atty.
which was a signature preceded by the word "for" above the printed name Goering G.C. Paderanga filed an Affidavit of Third-Party Claim.
"IRENE BIDES". The signature bore a positive resemblance to the complainant filed a criminal complaint for falsification of public documents
respondent's signature as the notary on the jurat of the amended verification against respondent; false testimony and perjury. Complainant averred that the
and affidavit of non-forum shopping. Seeing the defective execution of the third-party claim was full of irregularities
amended verification and affidavit of non-forum shopping, Ulaso and her co-
defendants filed a motion to dismiss citing the defect as a ground, along with Respondent’s Claim:
another. respondent argued that he did not falsify any document and maintained that
he had already satisfactorily explained the irregularities before the Office of
Respondent’s Claims: the City Prosecutor. He added that the genuineness and due execution of the
Atty. Noe-Lacsamana claims that an inadvertent mistake committed in deeds of sale had not been affected by the fact that he failed to register the
relation to the signature appearing above the printed name of the affiant, but same. Also, he alleged that the MTCC Decision dated December 21, 2001
offering the excuse that the defective amended verification and affidavit of was unjust and void due to lack of jurisdiction, and for being based on
non-forum shopping had actually been only a "sample-draft" intended to spurious claims.
instruct Irene Mallari, the respondent's new secretary, on where Bides, as Issue/s:
affiant, should sign. Whether or not the respondent should be held administratively liable for
deceit

Issue/s: Ruling per Issue:

Whether or not Atty. Noe-Lacsamana should be held liable for violation of the Court is more inclined to believe that when complainant and defendants-
the Notarial Law spouses failed to reach an agreement, respondent came forward as a third-
party claimant to prevent the levy and execution of said properties. He,
Ruling Per Issue: therefore, violated Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
Yes. The court affirmed the recommendations of the IBP Committee which which provides that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
stated that even if her tale is true, the fact that she notarized her own immoral or deceitful conduct.
signature is inexcusable. It cannot be pardoned as a simple act of negligence
as standards set by notarial law are stringent enough to require all notaries Of these irregularities, only one can directly be attributable to respondent —
public to exercise caution in order to protect the integrity and veracity of his non-registration of the sale transaction. While the act of registration of a
documents. She gave her secretary blanket authority where she should have document is not necessary in order to give it legal effect as between the
exercise sufficient prudence to protect the integrity of her documents. parties, requirements for the recording of the instruments are designed to
prevent frauds and to permit and require the public to act with the
presumption that a recorded instrument exists and is genuine. Respondent's
JOHN CHRISTEN S. HEGNA, Complainant, versus ATTY. GOERING act of non-registration of the deeds of sale to avoid paying tax may not be
G.C. PADERANGA, Respondent. illegal per se; but, as a servant of the law, a lawyer should make himself an
2009 Sep 8, 3rd Division, A.C. No. 5955 exemplar for others to emulate.

Petitioner’s Claim:
 SBCA | PALE | TEJADA, ANTOINETTE S. | CASE DIGEST 2019 - 2020
ROLANDO SAA, Petitioner, versus INTEGRATED BAR OF THE constituted direct contempt of court. Accordingly, Pobre asks that disbarment
PHILIPPINES, COMMISSION ON BAR DISCIPLINE, BOARD OF proceedings or other disciplinary actions be taken against the lady senator.
GOVERNORS, PASIG CITY and ATTY. FREDDIE A. VENIDA,
Respondents. 2009 Sep 3, 1st Division, G.R. No. 132826 Respondent’s Claims:
She, however, explained that those statements were covered by the
Petitioner’s Claims: constitutional provision on parliamentary immunity, being part of a speech
Petitioner Rolanda Saa filed a complaint for disbarment against respondent she delivered in the discharge of her duty as member of Congress or its
Atty. Freddie A. Venida in this Court. In his complaint, Saa stated that Atty. committee. The purpose of her speech, according to her, was to bring out in
Venida's act of filing two cases against him was oppressive and constituted the open controversial anomalies in governance with a view to future
unethical practice. He ascribes grave abuse of discretion to the IBP when it remedial legislation. The immunity Senator Santiago claims is rooted
adopted and affirmed the report of the investigating commissioner dismissing primarily on the provision of Article VI, Section 11 of the Constitution.
his complaint.
Issue/s:
Respondent’s Claims: Whether or not the speech is within the parliamentary immunity
Commissioner George S. Briones recommended the dismissal of the Whether or not the respondent should be liable for disciplinary action
complaint for lack of merit. It found no evidence that the two cases filed by Ruling per Issue:
Atty. Venida against Saa were acts of oppression or unethical practice. Atty. This Court is aware of the need and has in fact been in the forefront in
Venida averred that Saa did not spefically allege his supposed infractions. He upholding the institution of parliamentary immunity and promotion of free
asked to be furnished a copy of the complaint. He also prayed for the speech. Neither has the Court lost sight of the importance of the legislative
dismissal of the complaint. and oversight functions of the Congress that enable this representative body
to look diligently into every affair of government, investigate and denounce
Issue/s: anomalies, and talk about how the country and its citizens are being served.
Whether or not the IBP committed grave abuse of discretion Courts do not interfere with the legislature or its members in the manner they
perform their functions in the legislative floor or in committee rooms. Any
Ruling per Issue: claim of an unworthy purpose or of the falsity and mala fides of the statement
No. The court ruled that grave abuse of discretion refers to a capricious, uttered by the member of the Congress does not destroy the privilege. The
whimsical, arbitrary or despotic exercise of judgment by reason of passion or disciplinary authority of the assembly 4 and the voters, not the courts, can
personal hostility as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. There was no grave properly discourage or correct such abuses committed in the name of
abuse of discretion in this case. There was in fact a dearth of evidence parliamentary immunity.
showing oppressive or unethical behavior on the part of Atty. Venida.
Without convincing proof that Atty. Venida was motivated by a desire to file 2nd issue:
baseless legal actions, the findings of the IBP stand. A careful re-reading of her utterances would readily show that her statements
were expressions of personal anger and frustration at not being considered
ANTERO J. POBRE, complainant, vs. SEN. MIRIAM for the post of Chief Justice. In a sense, therefore, her remarks were outside
DEFENSORSANTIAGO, respondent. the pale of her official parliamentary functions. Even parliamentary
[A.C. No. 7399. August 25, 2009.] immunity must not be allowed to be used as a vehicle to ridicule, demean,
and destroy the reputation of the Court and its magistrates, nor as armor for
Petitioner’s Claims: personal wrath and disgust. Authorities are agreed that parliamentary
To Pobre, the statements reflected in this case, an excerpt from a speech of immunity is not an individual privilege accorded the individual members of
the respondent, a total disrespect on the part of the speaker towards then the Parliament or Congress for their personal benefit, but rather a privilege
Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban and the other members of the Court and for the benefit of the people and the institution that represents them. The
 SBCA | PALE | TEJADA, ANTOINETTE S. | CASE DIGEST 2019 - 2020
factual and legal circumstances of this case, however, deter the Court from Although we sustain his status to institute the instant case, we cannot render a
doing so, even without any sign of remorse from her. Basic constitutional favorable judgment because there was no breach of contract. Even if there
consideration dictates this kind of disposition. was such a breach, he had waived his right to claim against the respondents
by accepting payment and/or absolving from liability those who were
RAUL H. SESBREÑO, Petitioner, versus HON. COURT OF APPEALS primarily liable to him. Thus, no liability can be imputed to the province of
Respondents. 2008 Apr 16, 3rd Division, G.R. No. 161390 Cebu or to the respondent public officials, either in their personal or official
capacities.
Petitioner’s Claims:
Sesbreno handled the case of camineros when they were removed from their HEIRS OF LYDIO "JERRY" FALAME, namely: MELBA FALAME,
work. The complainant registered his charging/retaining lien based on the LEO FALAME and JERRY FALAME, complainants, vs. ATTY.
Agreement. When Gov. Gullas assumed his official position and the EDGAR J. BAGUIO, respondent
camineros settled the issue at hand in another Agreement. Apparently, the [A.C. No. 6876. March 7, 2008.]
camineros waived their right to reinstatement embodied in the CFI decision
and the province agreed that it immediately pay them their back salaries and Petitioner’s claims:
other claims. He alleged that by directly paying the camineros the amounts complainants alleged that on 15 July 1991, their father, the late Lydio "Jerry"
due them, the respondents induced the camineros to violate their written Falame (Lydio), engaged the services of respondent to represent him in an
contract for attorney's fees. action for forcible entry in entitled "Heirs of Emilio T. Sy, represented by
Anastacia Velayo Vda. de Sy and Belen V. Sy vs. Lydio 'Jerry' Falame,
Respondent’s Claims: Raleigh Falame and Four (4) John Does," in which Lydio was one of the
The appellate court concluded that petitioner failed to sufficiently establish defendants. Complainants claimed that even after the Municipal Trial Court
his allegation that the respondents induced the camineros to violate the of Dipolog City had ruled in favor of the defendants in the rst civil case,
agreement for attorney's fees and the compromise agreement, and that he Lydio retained the services of respondent as his legal adviser and counsel for
suffered damage due to respondents' act of directly paying the camineros the his businesses until Lydio's death on 8 September 1996.
amounts due them.
However, on 23 October 2000, in representation of spouses Raleigh and
Issues/s: Noemi
Whether or not there was a breach of contract that would entitle the Falame, respondent filed a case against complainants allegedly involving the
complainant of his retaining lien property subject of the first civil case, entitled "Spouses Rally F. Falame and
Noemi F. Falame v. Melba A. Falame, Leo A. Falame, Jerry A. Falame, Jr.,
Ruling per Issue: Sugni Realty Holdings and Development Corporations, their representatives,
No. When the judgment debt was fully satisfied, petitioner could have agents and persons acting in their behalf" before the Regional Trial Court of
enforced his lien either against his clients (the camineros herein) or against Dipolog City, Branch 6.
the judgment debtor (the respondents herein). The clients, upon receiving
satisfaction of their claims without paying their lawyer, should have held the complainants alleged that the second civil case is a baseless and fabricated
proceeds in trust for him to the extent of the amount of his recorded lien, suit which respondent filed as counsel for complainants' uncle against the
because after the charging lien had attached, the attorney is, to the extent of heirs of respondent's deceased client.
said lien, regarded as an equitable assignee of the judgment or funds
produced by his efforts. The judgment debtors may likewise be held Respondent’s claims:
responsible for their failure to withhold from the camineros the amount of Insisting that he did not betray the confidence reposed in him by Lydio as the
attorney's fees due the petitioner. latter's counsel in the first civil case, respondent maintained that he did not
reveal or use any fact he acquired knowledge of during the existence of the
 SBCA | PALE | TEJADA, ANTOINETTE S. | CASE DIGEST 2019 - 2020
attorney-client relation in the first civil case as he had never even conferred Pastor. The parties, however, were not able to amicably settle their dispute
with nor talked to Lydio in the first place. and Regina and Antonio filed the ejectment case. It was then that Elizabeth
sought his legal assistance. He acceded to her request. He handled her case
Stressing the long interval of twelve years separating the termination of the for free because she was financially distressed and he wanted to prevent the
first civil case and his acceptance of the second civil case, respondent pointed commission of a patent injustice against her.
out that the first civil case was not between Lydio and Raleigh but rather
between the heirs of Emilio T. Sy on one hand and Lydio and Raleigh on the Issue/s:
other where physical possession of property was at stake. Whether or not the respondent should be administratively liable for violations
of Rule 6.03 of the CPR, Canon 1 of the CPR and Section 7 (b)(2), RA 6713
Issue/s:
Whether or not the respondent violated Rule 15.03 of the CPR Ruling Per Issue:
In the first issue, the court ruled that respondent cannot be found liable for
Ruling per issue: violation of Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. As worded,
Yes. The court ruled the termination of attorney-client relation provides no that Rule applies only to a lawyer who has left government service and in
justification for a lawyer to represent an interest adverse to or in conflict with connection "with any matter in which he intervened while in said service."
that of the former client. The client's confidence once reposed should not be Respondent was an incumbent punong barangay at the time he committed the
divested by mere expiration of professional employment. Even after the act complained of. Therefore, he was not covered by that provision.
severance of the relation, a lawyer should not do anything which will
injuriously affect his former client in any matter in which he previously In the second issue, the court ruled that in acting as counsel for a party
represented him nor should he disclose or use any of the client's confidences without first securing the required written permission, respondent not only
acquired in the previous relation. engaged in the unauthorized practice of law but also violated civil service
The fact that the attorney-client relation had ceased by reason of Lydio's rules which is a breach of Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
death or through the completion of the specic task for which respondent was Responsibility.
employed is not reason for respondent to advocate a position opposed to that In the third issue, the court ruled that section 90 of RA 7160, not Section 7
of Lydio. (b) (2) of RA 6713, governs the practice of profession of elective local
government officials. Accordingly, as punong barangay, respondent was not
WILFREDO M. CATU, Complainant, versus ATTY. VICENTE G. forbidden to practice his profession. However, he should have procured prior
RELLOSA, Respondent. permission or authorization from the head of his Department, as required by
2008 Feb 19, 1st , A.C. No. 5738 civil service regulations.

Petitioner’s claim/s: MANUEL L. LEE, complainant, vs. ATTY. REGINO B. TAMBAGO,

Complainant led the instant administrative complaint, claiming that respondent.
respondent committed an act of impropriety as a lawyer and as a public [A.C. No. 5281. February 12, 2008.]
officer when he stood as counsel for the defendants despite the fact that he
presided over the conciliation proceedings between the litigants as punong Petitioner’s Claim/s:
barangay. Manuel L. Lee charged respondent Atty. Regino B. Tambago with violation
of the Notarial Law and the ethics of the legal profession for notarizing a
Respondent’s claim/s: spurious last will and testament. In his complaint, complainant averred that
In his defense, respondent claimed that one of his duties as punong barangay his father, the decedent Vicente Lee, Sr., never executed the contested will.
was to hear complaints referred to the barangay's Lupong Tagapamayapa. As Furthermore, the spurious will contained the forged signatures of Cayetano
such, he heard the complaint of Regina and Antonio against Elizabeth and Noynay and Loreto Grajo, the purported witnesses to its execution.
 SBCA | PALE | TEJADA, ANTOINETTE S. | CASE DIGEST 2019 - 2020
that the City Prosecutor might quash the information prepared by the inquest
Complainant also questioned the absence of notation of the residence Prosecutor; that even as he tried to explain that he had "already made an
certificates of the purported witnesses Noynay and Grajo. He alleged that arrangement with the Executive Judge," Atty. Maloloy-on still insisted and
their signatures had likewise been forged and merely copied from their tried to justify her refusal to accept the offered cash bond.
respective voters' affidavits.
This, according to Atty. Dela Victoria, constituted gross ignorance of the
Respondent’s Claim/s: law, even as he said that he would not have filed this complaint if only Atty.
He claimed that the complaint against him contained false allegations: (1) Maloloy-on "apologized for her procedural lapses."
that complainant was a son of the decedent Vicente Lee, Sr. and (2) that the
will in question was fake and spurious. He alleged that complainant was "not Respondent’s Claim/s:
a legitimate son of Vicente Lee, Sr. and the last will and testament was Atty. Maloloy-on claims that Atty. Dela Victoria barged into her office, in a
validly executed and actually notarized by respondent per affidavit. He demanding and high-handed manner, inquired why she refused to accept the
claimed that no copy of the contested will could be found there because none cash bond; that she told him she was present then and tried to explain her
was filed. side, but Atty. Dela Victoria kept cutting her short and lectured her on Rule
114, Section 17 (c); that she explained that there was no refusal to accept the
Issue/s: bond but merely a failure to post bond because of the absence of an order
Whether or not respondent is guilty of violation of the Notarial Law and the from the Executive Judge granting bail; that Atty. Dela Victoria stood up,
ethics of the legal profession for notarizing a spurious last will and testament shouted at her, and as he made for the door, he turned around and shouted,
"What kind of a Clerk of Court are you? You are ignorant of the law.
Ruling Per Issue: Bullshit!"
Yes. The court ruled that a notarial will, as the contested will in this case, is
required by law to be subscribed at the end thereof by the testator himself. In Issue/s:
addition, it should be attested and subscribed by three or more credible Whether or not the respondent should be liable for gross ignorance of the law
witnesses in the presence of the testator and of one another. The will in for her refusal to accept the cash bond being tendered by his clients
question was attested by only two witnesses, Noynay and Grajo. On this
circumstance alone, the will must be considered void. Ruling Per Issue:
No. The court ruled that the respondent should have known that he could not
Respondent's failure, inadvertent or not, to file in the archive’s division a insist on the acceptance of the cash bond in favor of his clients without the
copy of the notarized will was therefore not a cause for disciplinary action. necessary order from the court granting his motion to post the same. It was
Nevertheless, respondent should be faulted for having failed to make the the failure of Atty. Maloloy-on to apologize to Atty. Dela Victoria that drove
necessary entries pertaining to the will in his notarial register. him to institute this administrative case, especially after being "lectured" on
why she could not accept his tendered cash bond. Obviously, he considered
ATTY. ALFONSO L. DELA VICTORIA, complainant, vs. ATTY. this an affront, given that he is a former judge and has been engaged in the
MARIA FE ORIG-MALOLOY-ON, respondent. practice of law for three (3) decades. Thus, he filed his complaint for alleged
[A.M. No. P-07-2343. August 14, 2007.] gross ignorance of the law, even without competent evidence to support it.

Petitioner’s Claim/s: MA. LUISA HADJULA, Complainant, versus ATTY. ROCELES F.

Atty. Dela Victoria alleged that he went to see Atty. Maloloy-on to inquire MADIANDA, Respondent.
why she refused to accept the cash bond, but that instead of giving a proper 2007 Jul 3, 1st Division, A.C. No. 6711
explanation, Atty. Maloloy-on "lectured" him, claiming that she could not
accept the bond because there was no information to be used as basis, and Petitioner’s Claim/s:
 SBCA | PALE | TEJADA, ANTOINETTE S. | CASE DIGEST 2019 - 2020
Complainant claimed that, sometime in 1998, she approached respondent for Complainant alleges: He is the brother of accused Genuival Cagas
some legal advice. Complainant further alleged that, in the course of their (Genuival). For almost 11 years, the accused had lingered in jail but no
conversation which was supposed to be kept confidential, she disclosed decision was rendered. Respondent failed to resolve the cases submitted for
personal secrets and produced copies of a marriage contract, a birth decision for over four years, prompting Genuival to file motions to resolve
certificate and a baptismal certificate, only to be informed later by the the cases. Napoleon Cagas charging Judge Rosario B. Torrecampo with
respondent that she (respondent) would refer the matter to a lawyer friend. It Serious Neglect of Duty, Falsification of Public Documents, Incompetence,
was malicious, so complainant states, of respondent to have refused handling Knowingly Rendering an Unjust Judgment, and Infidelity to the Canons of
her case only after she had already heard her secrets. Legal Ethics and Moral Standards relative to Criminal Case Nos. P-2196 to
P-2201 entitled "People of the Philippines v. Genuival Cagas, Wilson Butin
Complainant averred that her friendship with respondent soured after her and Julio Astillero.
filing, in the later part of 2000, of criminal and disciplinary actions against From June 2000 to January 2005, 55 months had elapsed before respondent
the latter. wrote her decision.

Respondent’s Claim/s: Respondent’s Claim/s:

Respondent denied giving legal advice to the complainant and dismissed any Judge Torrecampo claims that she requested for another extension to decide
suggestion about the existence of a lawyer-client relationship between them. Criminal Case Nos. P-2196 to P-2201 due to health problems, resulting to her
Respondent also stated the observation that the supposed confidential data hospitalization on February 17 to 19, 2003 for hypertension and pulmonary
and sensitive documents adverted to are in fact matters of common Kock's disease. She took a two-month leave of absence on doctor's advice
knowledge in the BFP. and
returned to duty in May 2003. There cannot, therefore, be falsification of
Issue/s: public documents under the circumstances. Her inability to decide the cases
Whether or not the respondent should be held liable for violating attorney- within the required period was due to illness and other circumstances beyond
client privilege communication her control.

Ruling per Issue: Issue/s:

Yes. The court stated that respondent indeed breached his duty of preserving Whether or not the judge should be held liable for failing to decide cases on
the confidence of a client. As found by the IBP Investigating Commissioner, due time
the documents shown and the information revealed in confidence to the
respondent in the course of the legal consultation in question, were used as Ruling Per Issue:
bases in the criminal and administrative complaints lodged against the Yes. The court ruled that Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct
complainant. The moment complainant approached the then receptive also directs judges to dispose of the court's business promptly and decide
respondent to seek legal advice, a veritable lawyer-client relationship evolved cases within the required periods. For it cannot be gainsaid that justice
between the two. Such relationship imposes upon the lawyer certain delayed is justice denied. The Court has consistently impressed upon
restrictions circumscribed by the ethics of the profession. members of the judiciary the need to decide cases promptly and
expeditiously under the time-honored precept that justice delayed is justice
NAPOLEON CAGAS, Complainant, versus JUDGE ROSARIO B. denied. The Court has consistently impressed upon members of the judiciary
TORRECAMPO, Respondent. the need to decide cases promptly and expeditiously under the time-honored
2007 Mar 12, 3rd Division, A.M. No. RTJ-06-1979 precept that justice delayed is justice denied.

Petitioner’s Claim/s: CYNTHIA ADVINCULA, complainant vs. ATTY. ERNESTO M.

MACABATA, respondent
 SBCA | PALE | TEJADA, ANTOINETTE S. | CASE DIGEST 2019 - 2020
[A.C. No. 7204. March 7, 2007.] respondent's acts are not grossly immoral nor highly reprehensible to warrant
disbarment or suspension.
Petitioner’s Claim/s:
Complainant charged the respondent with gross immorality. The complaint’s FIDELA VDA. DE ENRIQUEZ, Complainant, versus ATTY. MANUEL
root cause was when the complainant hired the lawyer for his services to G. SAN JOSE, Respondent.
recover a sum of money at a certain travel agency. The complainant would 2007 Feb 23, 2nd Division, A.C. No. 3569
meet the respondent to discuss formalities. However, Cynthia was kissed on
the cheeks by the respondent when she was dropped off by the lawyer at her Petitioner’s Claims:
destination. She also alleged that she seemed like she was drugged and was According to the complainant, respondent failed to file the appropriate civil
touched without her consent. Thus, she filed this disbarment case. case, despite payment to him of P2,000 attorney's fees, so she decided to
withdraw the case from respondent. She demanded the return of the pertinent
Respondent’s Claim/s: documents but despite repeated demands, respondent refused and failed to
Atty. Macabata did not deny that he kissed his client in her cheek. He further return the documents. As a result, the action for unlawful detainer prescribed.
alleged complainant rode with him in his car where he held and kissed Complainant alleged further, that her daughter who worked for respondent
complainant on the lips as the former offered her lips to him; and, that the was not paid her salary. Complainant prayed that Atty. San Jose be disbarred
corner of Cooper Street and Roosevelt Avenue, where he dropped off the or suspended from the practice of law.
complainant, was a busy street teeming with people, thus, it would have been
impossible to commit the acts imputed to him. Respondent’s Claims:
Respondent denied being negligent. He alleged that he received a letter from
Issue/s: the complainant informing him that the lessee had already agreed to vacate
whether respondent committed acts that are grossly immoral or which the
constitute serious moral depravity that would warrant his disbarment or premises, and thus, the filing of an unlawful detainer case had become
suspension from the practice of law. unnecessary.

Ruling per issue: Issue/s:

No. The court ruled for such conduct to warrant disciplinary action, the same Whether or not the respondent should be held administratively liable for
must not simply be immoral, but grossly immoral. It must be so corrupt as to negligence
constitute a criminal act, or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high
degree or committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to Ruling per Issue:
shock the common sense of decency. Yes. The court ruled that the Code of Professional Responsibility in Rule
18.03 enjoins a lawyer not to neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his
Guided by the denitions above, we perceived acts of kissing or beso-beso on negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. It is the duty of a
the cheeks as mere gestures of friendship and camaraderie, forms of lawyer to serve his client with competence and diligence and he should exert
greetings, casual and customary. The acts of respondent, though, in turning his best efforts to protect, within the bounds of the law, the interest of his
the head of complainant towards him and kissing her on the lips are client. It is not enough that a practitioner is qualified to handle a legal matter;
distasteful. However, such act, even if considered offensive and undesirable, he is also required to prepare adequately and give the appropriate attention to
cannot be considered grossly immoral. his legal work. In this case, respondent fell short of the diligence required of
a lawyer entrusted with a case. The failure to file a pleading is by itself
If respondent truly had malicious designs on complainant, he could have inexcusable negligence on the part of respondent.
brought her to a private place or a more remote place where he could freely
accomplish the same. All told, as shown by the above circumstances,
 SBCA | PALE | TEJADA, ANTOINETTE S. | CASE DIGEST 2019 - 2020
CLARITA J. SAMALA, complainant, vs. ATTY. LUCIANO D. of morality of the community.
VALENCIA, respondent.
[A.C. No. 5439. January 22, 2007.]

Petitioner’s Claim/s:
Samala filed this complaint for disbarment on the following grounds: (a)
serving on two separate occasions as counsel for contending parties; (b)
knowingly misleading the court by submitting false documentary evidence.
The petitioner alleged that the respondent is involved in two cases with
adverse positions.

Respondent’s Claim/s:
Atty. Luciano admitted to being involved with two cases but he alleged that
there was no conflict of interest as one of the cases have already terminated
long before the second case came.

Issue/s:
Whether or not Atty. Luciano should be held administratively liable for
violation of the CPR

Ruling per issue:

Yes. The court ruled that Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility provides that a lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests
except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the
facts. A lawyer may not, without being guilty of professional misconduct, act
as counsel for a person whose interest conflicts with that of his present or
former client. He may not also undertake to discharge conflicting duties any
more than he may represent antagonistic interests. This stern rule is founded
on the principles of public policy and good taste.

On knowingly misleading the court by submitting false documentary

evidence, the court ruled that Respondent failed to comply with Canon 10 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that 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.

On having a reputation for being immoral by siring illegitimate children, the

court ruled that under Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct. Thus, in several cases, the Court did not hesitate to
discipline a lawyer for keeping a mistress in defiance of the mores and sense