MACARUBBO V.

MACARUBBO
A.C. NO. 6148, JANUARY 22, 2013
FACTS:

Respondent Atty. Macarubbo, whose disbarment was grounded on the decision dated February
27, 2004, filed a Motion for Reconsideration and Appeal for Compassion and Mercy, but was
denied with finality on June 1, 2004. Respondent was disbarred for the reason that he entered
into a bigamous marriage with complainant Florence Teves, while his first marriage to Helen
Esparza still existed. Respondent also contracted a third marriage with one Josephine
Constantino.

On June 4, 2012, seeking judicial clemency and reinstatement in the Roll of Attorneys, he then
filed a Petition for Extraordinary Mercy, but was denied by the Court due to lack of merit. The
said petition was then re-endorsed by the Office of the Vice President for reconsideration.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent should be given judicial clemency

RULING:

YES. In Re: Letter of Judge Augustus C. Diaz, guidelines for appeals for judicial clemency were
laid down. The guidelines include: (1) having a proof of remorse and reformation, (2) enough
time have lapsed to ensure reform, (3) his age should show that he still has productive years
ahead of him, (4) there must be showing of promise, and (5) other relevant factors that may
justify clemency. Also, to be reinstated, the person must be of good moral character.

In accordance to the aforementioned guidelines, Atty. Macarubbo asked for pardon from his
children and maintained a genial relationship with them. He also returned to his hometown,
Enrile, Cagayan, to tend for his sick mother until her death. He was appointed as Private
Secretary to the Mayor of Enrile, and then became the Local Assessment Operations Officer in
the Assessor’s Office. He also became a part-time instructor at local colleges. Moreover,
respondent helped his friends who were in dire need. Numerous testimonies from his friends, his
workplace, the local police, etc. regarding his reformed behavior were also delivered.
Respondent was also even backed by the IBP Cagayan Chapter for his plea for reinstatement.
Lastly, at the age of 58, he still has more years to be productive and serve the upliftment of the
law profession and the society.

The Supreme Court affirmed that respondent was able to abide by the guidelines stated therein;
thus, the instant petition was granted.

Respondent was reminded that such privilege required his strict compliance with the rules and
the law.
 ORCINO V. GASPAR
A.C. NO. 3773, SEPTEMBER 24, 1997
FACTS:

Complainant Angelita Orcino sought for Atty. Gaspar’s legal services in a criminal case for the
slaying of her husband. Orcino paid in partial amounts three times for the legal fees, in the total
amount of P20,000. Respondent was able to fulfill his duties as counsel on the onset of the
contract and was able to gather evidence against the suspects. Atty. Gaspar attended the earlier
bail hearings that were postponed due to motion of the suspects’ counsel. Until the succeeding
scheduled hearing where respondent failed to attend, all the accused were granted bail.
Complainant, infuriated by those events, went directly to respondent’s residence to know the
reason for his absence. He said that he did not receive any formal notice for the said hearing.
Orcina then started accusing Gaspar of jeopardizing the case and the latter denied the accusation
and said that those accusations were just fueled by rumors from her relatives. Orcina requested
for the records of the case and said that she could refer to them to another lawyer without
returning said documents to respondent.

Subsequently, respondent filed a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel where the trial court ordered
him to secure his client’s consent regarding the motion. The trial court had him reminded that
“his appearance as private prosecutor shall continue until he has secured this consent.”
Complainant, however, refused to provide her consent to respondent’s motion for withdrawal.
Hearings went on and respondent still did not appear in any of those, forcing Orcina to engage in
the services of another counsel. Hence, this complaint.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent is excused from representing his client if the latter said that
she could refer the case to another lawyer

RULING:

NO. As compared to the right of the attorney to withdraw his services, only the client has the
absolute right to terminate such relation even in the absence of a cause. Section 26 of Rule 138
of the Revised Rules of Court provides that the lawyer cannot terminate the attorney-client
relation without the client’s consent. Moreover, in the circumstance that the client cannot provide
his consent, the lawyer must submit an application to the court, and the court shall determine if
he is to be allowed to retire. In Rule 22.01 of Canon 22 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, the lawyer can withdraw his services only for good cause in which grounds were
provided therein.

Nonetheless, the case does not fall under any circumstance stated in Rule 22.01 of Canon 22.
Respondent’s withdrawal was only made on the ground that there no longer existed the
confidence between them which was not one of the cases provided for in Rule 22.01. Respondent
also failed to submit an application to the court in the absence of the client’s consent to the
motion for withdrawal.
 ESPINA V. CHAVEZ
A.C. NO. 7250, APRIL 20, 2015
FACTS:

Atty. Espina represented his parents in an ejectment case against Enguio, who was then
represented by Atty. Chavez, a Public Attorney of the Public Attorney’s Office. The MTC where
dismissed the ejectment suit and then the RTC affirmed said decision. Chavez, when the
ejectment suit was still pending, assisted Enguio in filing a falsification case against Espina, his
wife, and his parents. Atty. Chavez submitted a transmittal letter to the Provincial Prosecutor
endorsing a criminal complaint be filed against Espina for violation of Art. 72 of the RPC (Use
of falsified document). Complainant Espina claims that the filing of the falsification case was a
means employed by Chavez to gain an advantage in the proceedings of the ejectment suit against
Enguio, in violation of Rule 19.01 of Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Hence, this Complaint for Disbarment/Suspension against Chavez.

The Provincial Prosecutor of Agusan del Norte later on dismissed the falsification complaint for
lack of probable cause.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Chavez violated Rule 19.01 of Canon 19 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility for assisting Enguio with the filing of the falsification complaint to
the Provincial Prosecutor

RULING:

NO. The IBP Commissioner held that the falsification complaint is not groundless. He perceived
conflicting statements in the ejectment complaint by Espina’s parents. These averments were the
alleged discovery of Enguio’s illegal occupation on November 2003 and the letter demanding
Enguio to vacate the disputed property which was sent to her as early as 1997.

The IBP Board of Governors and the Court affirmed the report and recommendation. The Court
finds Atty. Espina’s arguments unmeritorious and without basis. Rule 19.01 disallows filing or
threats of filing patently frivolous and meritless appeals for the purpose of gaining advantage
over any case or proceeding. There are two indispensable elements for a lawyer to be considered
to have been violated said rule: (1) the filing or threat of filing

The IBP Board of Governors and the Court affirmed the report and recommendation. The Court
finds Atty. Espina’s arguments unmeritorious and without basis. There are two indispensable
elements for a lawyer to be considered to have violated Rule 19.01 of Canon 19: (1) the filing or
threats of filing patently frivolous and meritless appeals and (2) the filing or threat of filing is
intended to gain improper advantage in a case or proceeding. The Court held that complainant
failed to provide substantial evidence that Atty. Chavez goaded Enguio into filing the criminal
complaint against Espina and that he also failed to show that the said complaint was
unmeritorious and used to Atty. Chavez’s advantage over the ejectment proceedings.
The Court noted that respondent is a lawyer of the PAO and in his capacity, has the duty to
properly and lawfully assist his client in the latter’s best interests. Though the complaint may be
erroneous, it was not groundless. There were inconsistent averments found in the documents
provided by Espina in the ejectment suit, which then became the basis of the falsification
complaint. It is not required by law for a lawyer to be infallible when he endorses a complaint to
the prosecutor, as long as it is not patently frivolous and used as a means to gain improper
advantage.

The Court also indicated that it is imprudent for every criminal complaint that is associated with
a separate case or proceeding to be considered as violative of Rule 19.01. It is but equally
important for the State to prosecute individuals committing criminal offenses.