WEEK 11 since he was acquitted of the criminal

110. Gatchalian Promotions vs. Naldoza charge.

Facts: (2) Whether or not respondent is

negligent when he appealed the decision
The case at bar is a petition for of the POEA knowing it to be final and
disbarment against Atty. Primo L. executory.
Naldoza for appealing a decision which is
final and executory, deceitfully obtaining Held:
$2,555 from the client allegedly for “cash
bond” in the appealed case, and issuing a (1) Administrative cases against lawyers
spurious receipt to conceal the illegal act. belong to a class of their own. They are
Respondent denies that he persuaded distinct from and they may proceed
complainant to file an appeal and asserted independently of civil and criminal cases.
that it was the latter who initiated the
action to delay the execution of POEA xxx
decision. He also denied the two other
Thus, a criminal prosecution will not
charges. Trial procedures were instituted
constitute a prejudicial question even if
before the IBP.
the same facts and circumstances are
Meanwhile, a criminal case based on the attendant in the administrative
same facts was filed before RTC Makati, proceedings.
Branch 141. Although acquitted on
It should be emphasized that a finding of
reasonable doubt, he was declared civilly
guilt in the criminal case will not
liable in the amount of $2,555. Having
necessarily result in a finding of liability
been acquitted in the criminal case, he
in the administrative case. Conversely,
manifested a Motion for Dismissal of the
respondent’s acquittal does not
IBP case.
necessarily exculpate him
Commissioner Jose brushed aside administratively. In the same vein, the
respondent's contention on the ground trial court’s finding of civil liability against
that the criminal case for estafa is the respondent will not inexorably lead to
completely different from the proceedings a similar finding in the administrative
before him. Acquittal in the former did action before this Court.
not exonerate respondent in the latter. He
(2) Complainant has failed to present
further noted that the RTC Decision itself
proof regarding the status of the appeal.
hinted at the administrative liability of
Neither has there been any showing that
respondent, since it found him civilly
the appeal was dismissed on the ground
liable to herein complainant for $2,555.
that the POEA Decision had become final
He was suspended by the IBP for one (1)
and executory. Worse, there has been no
year. Thus, he appealed before the
evidence that respondent knew that the
Supreme Court.
case was unappealable. Indeed, the
Issues: records of this Court shows that the
Petition for Review was dismissed for
(1) Whether or not respondent should be petitioner's failure to submit an Affidavit
freed of the administrative proceeding of Service and a legible duplicate of the
assailed Order. Clearly, this charge has no the removal of the name of the delinquent
leg to stand on. member from the Roll of Attorneys.

Under the Code of Professional Responsibility:

xxx
Rule 1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
WHEREFORE, Primo R. Naldoza is
hereby DISBARRED. The Office of the Rule 10.01 — A lawyer shall not do any
Clerk of Court is directed to strike out his falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any court;
nor shall he mislead or allow the court to be
name from the Roll of Attorneys and to misled by any artifice.
inform all courts of this Decision.
112. Letter of Atty. Cecilio Arevalo BM 1370
111. Santos vs. Llamas
Facts: 
FACTS:

Atty. Francisco Llamas was complained of not Atty. Arevalo wrote a letter to the SC requesting
paying his IBP dues.He was also cited in the for exemption from payment of his IBP dues from
complaint as not paying his professional tax or 1977-2005 in the amount of P12,035.00. He
PTR as it was intermittently indicated in his contends that after admission to the Bar he
pleadings filed in court. It was also an alleged
worked at the Civil Service Commission then
falsity when he included his “IBP-Rizal 259060”
where in fact he was not in good standing.
migrated to the US until his retirement. His
Petitioner cited that Atty. Llamas was dismissed contention to be exempt is that his employment
as Pasay City Judge. But later revealed that the with the CSC prohibits him to practice his law
decision was reversed and he was subsequently profession and he did not practice the same
promoted as RTC Judge of Makati. He also had while in the US. The compulsion that he pays his
criminal case involving estafabut was appealed
IBP annual membership is oppressive since he
pending in the Court of Appeals. In the numerous
violations of the Code of Professional
has an inactive status as a lawyer. His removal
Responsibility, he expressed willingness to settle from the profession because of non-payment of
the IBP dues and plea for a more temperate the same constitutes to the deprivation of his
application of the law. property rights bereft of due process of the law.
ISSUE:
Issues:
Whether or not Atty. Llamas is guilty of violating
the Code of Professional Responsibility.
1. Is petitioner entitled to exemption from
HELD: payment of his dues during the time that he was
inactive in the practice of law that is, when he
YES. Respondent was suspended from the
practice of law for one (1) year, or until he has was in the Civil Service from 1962-1986 and he
paid his IBP dues. was working abroad from 1986-2003?
RATIO:
2.  Does the enforcement of the penalty of
Even if he had “limited” practice of law, it does removal amount to a deprivation of property
not relieve him of the duties such as payment of without due process?
IBP dues. Rule 139-A provides:

Sec. 10. Effect of non-payment of dues. — Held:

Subject to the provisions of Section 12 of this
Rule, default in the payment of annual dues for 1. No. A membership fee in the Bar association is
six months shall warrant suspension of an exaction for regulation. If the judiciary has
membership in the Integrated Bar, and default in
inherent power to regulate the Bar, it follows that
such payment for one year shall be a ground for
as an incident to regulation, it may impose a
membership fee for that purpose. It would not be Facts:
possible to put on an integrated Bar program Barrera, 72 y/o, was the administratrix of the
without means to defray the expenses. The estate of her late husband and Atty. Laput was
doctrine of implied powers necessarily carries her counsel in a special proceeding for the same
estate.
with it the power to impose such exaction.
Barera filed an administrative complaint against
Atty. Laput seeking to disbar him, alleging that
The payment of dues is a Atty. Laput presented certain pleading to her for
necessary consequence of membership in the signature, however she refused to do so because
she still wanted to verify the pleading by asking
IBP, of which no one is exempt. This means that somebody to translate the said pleadings, with
the compulsory nature of payment of dues that Atty. Laput got angry and forced her to sign
subsists for as long as ones membership in the the pleadings, he even drew his revolver and
IBP remains regardless of the lack of practice of, place it on his lap, to intimidate and compel her.
Atty. Laput denied the allegations, that the
or the type of practice, the member pleadings he asked Barrera to sign was Notice for
is engaged in. Rendition of Final Acctg and Partition of Estate,
this was useless and unnecessary papers but he
still prepared the same because Barrera was
reluctant to file her final accounts and closing the
2. No. Whether the practice of law is a property proceedings.
right, in the sense of its being one that entitles Atty. Laput even alleged that criminal complaint
the holder of a license to practice a profession, was filed by Barrera against him for coercion, but
we do not here pause to consider at length, as it this was dismissed by City Fiscal.
[is] clear that under the police power of the State,
and under the necessary powers granted to the Issue: WON Atty. Laput is administratively liable.
Court to perpetuate its existence, the Ruling:
respondents right to practice law before the
YES, Atty. Laput is guilty of gross misconduct and
courts of this country should be and is a matter
SC meted the penalty of suspension from
subject to regulation and inquiry. And, if the practice of law for 1 year.
power to impose the fee as a regulatory measure
is recognize[d], then a penalty designed It was found out that Barrera was not inclined to
cause the proceedings for settlement of the
to enforce its payment, which penalty may be
estate of her husband to be closed, while Atty.
avoided altogether by payment, is not void as Laput wanted to close the proceedings so that he
unreasonable or arbitrary. could collect his fees, with that Atty. Laput
prepared petition for declaration of Barrera as the
But we must here emphasize that the practice of universal heir and termination of the
law is not a property right but a mere privilege, proceedings.
and as such must bow to the inherent regulatory That the refusal of Barrera in signing the
power of the Court to exact compliance with the pleadings is manifestation of distrust to Atty.
lawyers public responsibilities. Laput, that when he drew his gun, he did not
point it to her, he merely displayed it to
intimidate her.
As a final note, it must be borne in mind that
membership in the bar is a privilege burdened The act of Atty. Laput was improper and
with conditions, one of which is the payment of censurable considering the fact that he was
dealing with 72 years old woman. Being member
membership dues. Failure to abide by any of
of the Bar and officer of the Court, he should
them entails the loss of such privilege if the have set example as man of peace and champion
gravity thereof warrants such drastic move. of Rule of law, worse is that Atty. Laput should be
the one who will protect and defend his own
client, which is Barrera.
113. VDA. DE BARRERA vs. Atty. LAPUT
But SC enumerated the 2 extenuating Whether or not Daarol is administratively liable
circumstances in favor of Atty. Laput: for deceit & gross immoral conduct

- that Atty. Laput was insulted by Barrera

and was obfuscated because her refusal to
RULING:
sign was a manifestation of her lack of
confidence to him; and’ YES. It appears on the record that Daarol failed
- Atty. Laput required her to do something to inform Barriento of his real status as a married
harmless. individual. He only told her after she got
pregnant. He also misrepresented himself as
114. VICTORIA BARRIENTOS VS.
being eligible to remarry since she was separated
TRANSFIGURACION DAAROL (A.C. NO.
from his wife for 16 years and he was working for
1512)
the annulment of his first marriage. It turned out
FACTS: that he never bothered to annul the same and
knew fully well that mere separation does not
Barrientos (20 y/o) came to know Daarol back in
vest him the legal capacity to remarry. He also
college as he was her sister’s friend, former
said that: “I see nothing wrong with this
student of her father and former classmate of her
relationship despite my being married.” Worse,
mother. He courted her and knowing that he was
he even suggested abortion and alleged that he
single, she accepted his offer of love. Daarol
was a Moslem convert, thus, allowed to enter into
invited her to a party and with the consent of her
multiple marriages. His acts of deceit and
father, she went with him. After leaving the
immoral tendencies shows his moral delinquency.
party, he invited her for a joy ride then took her
Good moral character is a continuing
to the airport. He parked the car where there
requirement.
were no houses. While they were having a
conversation, Daarol reiterated his promise to The Supreme Court found him guilty of GROSSLY
marry her and then started to caress her private IMMORAL CONDUCT and is hereby DISBARRED.
part. When she asked him of what he was doing,
Daarol answered, “Day, do not be afraid of me. I
will marry you.” Out of love, she finally agreed to 115 FELICITAS BERBANO VS. WENCESLAO
have sexual intercourse with him. As a result of BARCELONA (A.C. NO. 6084)
their intimate relations, she got pregnant and (Nung sinearch ko po yung case number, ito po yung
informed Daarol of the same, but the latter lumabas, hindi Berbano v. Beltran)
suggested to have the fetus aborted but she
objected. He did not insist anymore, then told her
FACTS:
not to worry since they would get married. They
Berbano was one of the heirs of Hilapo, owner of a
decided to get married in Manila but when
parcel of land. The same property was being claimed in a
Barriento’s family arrived in Manila, Daarol told
case pending with the Commission on the Settlement of
Barriento’s mother that he could not marry their
child because he was already married but
Land Problems (COSLAP). The heirs appointed Mr.
assured them that they separated for 16 years Daen as their Attorney-in-fact, giving him the full
and would work for the annulment of his authority to prosecute the case in their behalf. Daen was
marriage. She delivered the baby and since then, later arrested by the police. Daen engaged the services of
Daarol never came to see her. She filed an Atty. Barcelona to secure the release of the former from
administrative complaint against Daarol with the prison. Atty. Barcelona told Berbano that she needs to
National Electrification Administration but was produce Php50,000 to cause the release of Daen.
dismissed. She instituted this complaint seeking Berbano told Atty. Barcelona that she could not produce
the disbarment of Daarol for deceit and grossly the money since it was already late in the evening, but
immoral conduct. Solicitor General recommended the latter insisted. Berbano and her relatives were able to
for Daarol’s disbarment. raise an amount of Php15,700. Atty. Barcelona accepted
the money and told her that he would go and see
somebody (a justice) from the SC who could help the
ISSUE: release of Daen. When they met again, Berbano gave
Atty. Barcelona a check (Php24,000) and the latter told
her that he just came from the SC where he “fixed” the
case of Daen. The next day, instead of Php5,000, alleged connection with a Justice of SC, he deserves to
Berbano paid Php10,000 and gave it Atty. Barcelona’s be DISBARRED for GROSS MISCONDUCT. This was
wife. Atty. Barcelona informed them that he could not not the first time Barcelona was charged and found
secure the release of Daen because the checkhad not guilty of conduct unbecoming a lawyer and was
been encashed so Daen’s nephew gave him Php15,000 suspended for 6 months. In one case, he also
plus Php1,000 for his gasoline expenses. Since then, he misrepresented himself that he could secure the
never returned any calls made by Berbano. An restructuring of the complainant’s loan with PNB
administrative complaint was filed by Berbano, seeking through his connection with a certain employee of PNB.
for the disbarment of Atty. Barcelona. IBP-BOG found
him guilty of Malpractice and Serious breach of CPR
and recommended for his suspension from the practice 116. TABAS VS. MANGIBIN, AC NO. 5602
of law for 6 years. Facts:
This is a disbarment case filed by TABAS against ATTY.
ISSUE: MANGIBIN for having allegedly committed forgery. The
Whether or not Atty. Barcelona is administratively liable case started when a certain ANASTACIA GALVAN
for malpractice and serious breach of CPR that warrants mortgaged to TABAS a piece of real property to secure
suspension Php48k loan by virtue of a deed of mortgage of real
property. However, a certain LILIA CASTILLEJOS, falsely
RULING: representing herself as complainant, appeared before
The court disagrees with IBP-BOG in reducing the
ATTY. MANGIBIN and asked the latter to prepare a
penalty to suspension. Atty. Barcelona should not only
discharge/cancellation of the said mortgage and to
be suspended but DISBARRED from practice. The
notarize it afterwards. ATTY. MANGIBIN prepared the
object of disbarment proceeding is not only to punish the
lawyer alone but to safeguard the administration of discharge of real estate mortgage, and without asking
justice by protecting the court and the public from the LILIA CASTILLEJOS other than a Community Tax Cert.
misconduct of officers of the court, and to remove from (CTC), ATTY. MANGIBIN notarized the same. Meanwhile,
the profession of law, persons who are unfit to continue the mortgagor ANASTACIA GALVAN mortgaged the
discharging the trust reposed in them as member of the subject property again, that time to RURAL BANK OF
bar. The Commission and IBP-BOG gave weight to NAGUILIAN. When TABAS learned the cancellation of
Berbano’s testimony in the Affidavit-Complaint. Non- the said mortgage, she informed ATTY. MANGIBIN but
presentation of the check given to Atty. Barcelona does the latter denies liability for the falsification under a
not affect the case. Atty. Barcelona violated the ff. claim of good faith. He interposed that he did not know
canons: of the fraudulent intent of LILIA CASTILLEJOS and that
the he cannot be faulted for simply relying on the CTC
CANON 1- A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of
presented to him. He argues that it is beyond the "realm
the land, and promote respect for law and for legal processes.
CANON 7- A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and of his duty" and scope of work to investigate the
dignity of the legal profession and support the activities of the identity of persons appearing before him and cites that
integrated bar. as a matter of routine, he normally requires only the
CANON 11- A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to
the courts and to judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct CTCs of persons appearing before him. When the case
by others. was referred to IBP for investigation, the IBP merely
CANON 16- A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties gave a warning. On the other hand, the Office of the Bar
of his client that may come into his possession.
RULE 16.01- A lawyer shall account for all money or property
Confidant which was required to comment, found ATTY.
collected or received for or from the client. MANGIBIN liable for gross negligence and
recommended for 1 year suspension.
Instead of promoting respect for law and the legal
processes, Barcelona demeaned the legal profession by Issue/s: W/N ATTY. MANGIBIN is liable for violating
taking money from his client under the pretext of having Notarial Law and therefore should be suspended for
connections with a member of the Court, making it practice of law?
appear that the Court accepts money. Considering the
amount (64K) he collected from Berbano and Daen’s Ruling: YES. His notarial commission was REVOKED,
nephew for the immediate release of Daen through his and he is DISQUALIFIED from reappointment as Notary
Public for a period of two (2) years. Also, SUSPENDED Hence, he breached Canon I of the Code of Professional
to practice law for ONE (1) YEAR. Responsibility, which requires lawyers to promote
respect for the law and legal processes as well as to
Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary uphold the Constitution and obey the laws of the land.
act.19 It is invested with substantive public interest,
such that only those who are qualified or authorized
may act as notaries public. It converts a private 117. SESBRENO VS. CA
document into a public one, making it admissible in Facts:
court without further proof of its authenticity. Notaries
public must observe with utmost care the basic 52 employees sued the Province of Cebu and then
requirements in the performance of their duties. Governor Rene Espina for reinstatement and
backwages. Later on, SESBRENO, replaced the
In the acknowledgment portion of the document, there employees’ former counsel Atty. Pacquiao. 32 of the 52
is the phrase "Before me…personally appeared Hilda A. employees signed two (2) documents agreeing to pay
Tabas…known to me and to me known to be the same SESBRENO 30% as attorney’s fees and 20% as expenses
person who executed the foregoing document." to be taken from their back salaries. Thereafter, the
Respondent thereby attested that he knows Hilda A. trial court ordered the Province of Cebu to reinstate the
Tabas, whose name appeared in the acknowledgment, petitioning employees and pay them back salaries.
and that she personally appeared before him. Indeed, it Later, a compromise agreement was entered into by the
was his duty to ascertain the identity of the person parties (Province and employees) in April 1979 whereby
appearing before him and to make sure that she is the former employees waived their right to
indeed Hilda A. Tabas. Considering the ease with which reinstatement among others. Likewise, pursuant to said
CTCs may be obtained and the legal effect that compromise agreement, the Province of Cebu released
notarization brings to the deed of discharge of real P2,300,000.00 (represented back salaries, terminal
estate mortgage that he himself prepared, respondent leave pay and gratuity pay due to the employees) to the
should have requested other forms of identification or petitioning employees through petitioner as "Partial
asked questions to ascertain her identity. Respondent’s Satisfaction of Judgment."
conduct showed serious lack of due care in the
performance of his duties as a notary public. Because However, sometime in November and December 1979,
of his carelessness, respondent failed to notice the ten (10) employees, herein private respondents, filed
glaring difference in the signature of mortgagee in the manifestations before the trial court asserting that they
deed of real estate mortgage from her purported agreed to pay petitioner 40% to be taken only from
signature in the questioned discharge of real estate their back salaries. Thus, lower court issued orders, with
mortgage. which SESBRENO complied, requiring him to release
P10,000.00 to each of the ten private respondents and
It was respondent who prepared the questioned to retain 40% of the back salaries pertaining to the
discharge of real estate mortgage, which he latter out of the P2,300,000.00 released to him. On
subsequently notarized. Hence he had adequate March 28, 1980, the trial court fixed SESBRENO's
opportunity to verify the identity of Lilia Castillejos. attorney's fees at 40% of back salaries, terminal leave,
Not only did he have to interview her regarding her gratuity pay and retirement benefits and 20% as
personal circumstances, but also he had to interview expenses, or a total of 60% of all monies paid to the
her regarding the background of the deed of real employees (BUT was changed to 50% after the motion
estate mortgage to be cancelled. Apparently, for recon by private respondent)
respondent merely took the word of Lilia Castillejos
that she was Hilda Tabas and did not realize the need SESBRENO appealed to CA claiming additional fees,
to require her to present other forms of identification. reimbursement for expenses and a clear statement that
Such neglect is inexcusable. the fee be likewise taken from retirement pay awarded
to his clients. CA denied it ruling that attorney’s fees
are always subject to judicial control and thereby ruled
an amount equivalent to 20% of all back salaries which Here, It effectively deprives the appellees of a
the Province of Cebu has awarded to herein 10 meaningful victory of the suit they have passionately
petitioners. CA found 50% to be excessive and pursued. Balancing the allocation of the monetary
unconscionable as well as contrary to contract of award, 50% of all monies to the lawyer and the other
professional services. Hence, this Petition by SESBRENO 50% to be allocated among all his 52 clients, is too lop-
claiming that attorney’s fees amounting to 50% of all sided in favor of the lawyer. The ratio makes the
monies awarded to his clients as contingent fees should practice of law a commercial venture, rather than a
be upheld for being consistent with prevailing case law noble profession. It would, verily be ironic if the counsel
and the contract of professional services between the whom they had hired to help would appropriate for
parties. himself 50% or even 60% of the total amount collectible
by these employees.
ISSUE/S: W/N SESBRENO should be awarded 50% of all
monies awarded to his clients as contingent fees?
118. YUZON V. AGLERON, GR 10684
RULING: NO. It is a settled rule that what a lawyer may Facts:
charge and receive as attorney's fees is always subject
This is a disbarment case filed by ILUMINADA YUZON
to judicial control. In the case at bench, it was agreed
before the IBP against ATTY. AGLERON for
that SESBRENO was to be paid 30% as attorney’s fees
misappropriating the amount of Php582,000.00 which
and 20% as expenses to be taken from their back
the latter received in trust from the former.
salaries. A contingent fee arrangement is valid in this
Informatively, YUZON gave AGLERON the amount a
jurisdiction and is generally recognized as valid and
total amount of 1M for the purchase of House and Lot
binding but must be laid down in an express contract.
of a certain ALEXANDER situated in Mati, Davao,
The amount of contingent fees agreed upon by the
Oriental. Since the purchase did not materialize, YUZON
parties is subject to the stipulation that counsel will be
demanded the return of the said amount but AGLERON
paid for his legal services only if the suit or litigation
failed to return. YUZON sent a demand letter to
prospers. A much higher compensation is allowed as
AGLERON but the latter replied that he already returned
contingent fees in consideration of the risk that the
the amount of P418,000.00, and that the remaining
lawyer may get nothing if the suit fails. Contingent fee
balance is only P582,000.00 which shall be paid upon
contracts are under the supervision and close scrutiny
payment of his client who borrowed the said amount
of the court in order that clients may be protected from
for his emergency operation after an accident which
unjust charges. Its validity depends in large measure on
took place on January 13, 2009. Thus, YUZON filed a
the reasonableness of the stipulated fees under the
case for estafa and admin.case. IBP recommended the
circumstances of each case. Stipulated attorney's fees
penalty of suspension of one (1) year from the practice
are unconscionable whenever the amount is by far so
of law in any court was imposed on Atty. Agleron.
disproportionate compared to the value of the services
rendered as to amount to fraud perpetrated upon the
client. This means to say that the amount of the fee
ISSUE/S: W/N ATTY. AGLERON violated the CPR?
contracted for, standing alone and unexplained would
be sufficient to show that an unfair advantage had RULING: YES. He was SUSPENDED for 1 year, WARNED
been taken of the client, or that a legal fraud had been and ordered to pay the balance.
perpetrated on him. The decree of unconscionability or
Here, there is no question as to whether or not the
unreasonableness of a stipulated amount in a
respondent lawyer misappropriated the amount of
contingent fee contract, will not however, preclude
money the complainant entrusted to him, since Atty.
recovery. It merely justifies the court's fixing a
Agleron already admitted the same, in clear violation of
reasonable amount for the lawyer's services. If found
his fiduciary duty to his client. Jurisprudence is
to be excessive, the Court must ascertain what is
instructive that a lawyer's failure to return upon
reasonable or that which is based on Quantum meruit
demand the monies he/she holds for his/her client gives
(as much as he deserves)
rise to the presumption that he/she has appropriated
the said monies for his/her own use, to the prejudice
and in violation of the trust and confidence (fiduciary) Atty. Maglalang denied all the allegations, Goopio
reposed in him/her by his/her client. was never became his client, that he only met
her when she was introduced to him by his
Proceeding from the premise that indeed Atty. Agleron former client, Consuji.
merely wanted to help another client who is going
As his defense, he alleged that without his
through financial woes, he, nevertheless, acted in
knowledge and participation, Consuji
disregard of his duty as a lawyer with respect to surreptiously used his name and reputation and
Iluminada. Such act is a gross violation of general manipulated the supposed engagement of his
morality, as well as of professional ethics. services as counsel of Goopio through execution
of falsified GPA.
Further, respondent also violated Rules 16.01 and
16.03, Canon 16 of the Code of Professional IBP – found Atty. Maglalang guilty of violating
Responsibility (CPR) when he failed to return upon Sec. 27 or Rule 138 and Canon 16, and meted
demand the amount Iluminada entrusted to him, viz.: the penalty of suspension from practice of law for
3 years and ordered the return of P400K.
CANON 16 — A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL
Issue:
MONIES AND PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT THAT MAY
COME INTO HIS POSSESSION. WON Atty. Maglalang is administratively liable.

Rule 16.01 — A lawyer shall account for all money or Ruling:

property collected or received for or from the client.
NO, SC dismissed the disbarment case against
Rule 16.03 — A lawyer shall deliver the funds and Atty. Maglalang but he was reprimanded only, for
property of his client when due or upon demand. being negligent for failure to discover the
manipulations of his former client, Consuji.

The intent of disbarment or suspension of lawyer

119. GOOPIO v. ATTY. MAGLALANG is to protect the courts and the public from
members of the bar who have become unfit and
Facts: unworthy to be part of the noble profession.
However, considering the gravity of the
Goopio filed a disbarment case against Atty.
consequences of this penalty, the Court held that
Maglalang for violation of Sec. 27, Rule 138 of
lawyer enjoys the presumption of
ROC.
innocence, and the burden of proof rests
Goopio alleged that she engaged the legal upon the complainant to satisfactorily prove
services of Atty. Maglalang to resolve a property the allegations in his complaint through
dispute concerning her 12 parcels of land in substantial evidence.
Negros Occidental. That she issued and executed
In this case, Goopio failed to discharge the
General Power of Atty. In favor of Atty.
burden of proof. The Court states that although
Maglalang considering that at that time she was
disbarment proceeding is not akin to criminal
working in Switzerland. She further alleged that
proceeding, Best Evidence Rule (no evidence
she paid him amounting to P400K, that Atty.
shall be admissible other than the original
Maglalang even presented an official receipt
document itself, must be complied specially if the
covering the alleged deposit of the said amount
body of proof consist mainly of the documentary
with the court.
evidence, and the content of which will prove
That later on, she was billed a total of P114K, either the falsity or veracity of the charge for
P84K of which she paid in full. But she discovered disbarment.
that no petition was filed nor pending before the
Disbarment proceeding is a sui generis because it
RTC, and that such inaction of Atty. Maglalang
involves investigations by the Court of one of its
caused her continued accrual of interest as well
officer, not trial of action or a suit; it is neither a
as other charges on her properties. She further
criminal nor civil in nature, these are not
alleged that Atty. Maglalang admitted all the
intended to nflict penal or civil sanction, but only
allegations when he was confronted by her
to determine the answer whether the respondent
representative.
is still fit to continue to be an officer of the court.
The quantum of proof of substantial evidence manipulations of his former client, in contrary to
must be discharged by the complainant, in order lawyer must at all-time exercise care and
for the Court to exercise its disciplinary powers. diligence in conducting the affairs of his practice,
and being vigilance in ensuring that his
- Goopio submitted as evidence a mere
documents and other implements are not being
photocopies of GPA and acknowledgement
used for fraudulent activities.
receipt, in violation of Best Evidence
Rule. This disbarment case of Atty.
Maglalang centered on the truth and
120. Domingo v. Rubio, et. al, A.C. No. 7927,
genuineness of the said documents,
19 October 2016
to prove atty-client relationship
between Atty. Maglalang and Goopio,
that if the said documents are FACTS: The PNP of Legaspi filed a case for murder in the
genuine Atty. Maglalang had the duty Office of the City Prosecutor of Legazpi city arising from the
and obligation to file the petition on killing of one Juan Edgardo Yap Bongalon resulting to the
behalf of Goopio, and the inaction of filing of Information in the RTC Legaspi charging Ariel Dayap
Atty. Maglalang will subject him to and four other persons who were then not identified with
disciplinary sanctions. particularity as having acted in conspiracy with Dayap to
commit the murder. Dayap executed an extrajudicial
[Non-appearance of Atty. Maglalang in second confession to the effect that he had conspired with four other
mandatory conference does not mean leniency in persons (Arena, Marquez, Bongalon (widow of the victim),
the consideration of evidence submitted by with the last being the mastermind. Thus office of the city
Goopio, she must present the original copies of prosecutor sought leave of court to conduct a preliminary
the documents.] investigation preparatory to amending the information to
Furthermore, the offer of Atty. Maglalang to include the other four in charge. However the assigned
restitute to Goopio the money cannot be investigating prosecutor requested her inhibition from
interpreted as an indirect admission of guilt, this conducting further preliminary investigation because Lorna
only show his honest desire to resolved the case Bongalon had branded her as biased. Request for inhibition
immediately and to protect his reputation, was granted and the case was re-assigned to ACP Nicasio
considering that the success of a lawyer in his Rubio, who ultimately rendered a resolution recommending
profession depends almost entirely on his the dismissal of the charge as to the four alleged co-
reputation, but this not means precluding the conspirators upon finding that the extrajudicial confession of
Court from weighing in on the merit of the case. Dayap had been uncounselled. Approving the resolution, CP
Palmarin Rubio moved for the withdrawal of the information,
Sec. 27, Rule 130 of ROC categorically states that but the RTC denied the motion to withdraw because the
an offer of compromise in civil cases may not be confession of Dayap already established a probable cause.
taken as admission of any liability, and PNP Legaspi presented additional evidence thus a new
considering that the Court promotes settlement complaint was filed and reassigned for preliminary
of cases outside the court and to avoid investigation to ACP Rubio, who, after conducting the
unnecessary litigation. But in disbarment preliminary investigation, issued his resolution finding
proceeding, any offer or attempt of compromise probable cause for parricide against complainant, Arena,
by the parties is not only inadmissible as Marquez and Bongalon, acting in conspiracy with Dayap and
evidence to prove guilt on the part of offeror, for robbery only against Dayap, Arena and Marquez. The
considering that it is completely immaterial to amended information for parricide was allowed by the RTC
the outcome of the disbarment complaint, it and the RTC issued the warrants for the arrest of the newly
may not hold or sway for or impute guilt in any of charged accused. Bongalon sought a reinvestigation but the
the parties involved, because it is solely resides RTC did not give due course to her motion. Accordingly, she
within the province of the Court’s disciplinary moved for the deferment of her arraignment to enable her to
power. appeal to DOJ by petition for review. In the meantime, the
complainant was arrested, he executed an extrajudicial
In conclusion, SC did not find Atty. Maglalang
confession with the assistance of a counsel. Acting favorably
guilty for violating Sec. 27, Rule 138 of ROC
on Bongalon’s petition for review, the SOJ directed CP Rubio
considering that Goopio does not have any
to cause with leave of court the withdrawal of the
evidentiary leg to stand on. But the Court found
information for parricide against her, the complainant and
him guilty of negligence for failure to discover the
their 3 co-accused and to file in lieu thereof another
information for murder only against Dayap. Respondents filed and responsibility. How they could be held answerable or
a MR vis-à-vis the resolution of the SOJ arguing that the accountable as lawyers for their official acts escapes us but at
extrajudicial confession by the complainant had not been least the court now gives them some consolation by
made part of the petition for review filed by Bongalon’s dismissing the disbarment proceedings as unworthy and
counsel. It appears that the respondents failed to send a copy devoid of substance.
of their motion for reconsideration to the SOJ despite
furnishing all the parties copies of the motion. According to
the complainant, CP Rubio and ACP Rubio, intentionally not 121. Section 5 of Bar Matter No. 1645
sending him a copy of their motion for recon to the DOJ
despite furnishing their motion for recon to the other parties “Section 5. Service or dismissal. - If the complaint appears to
and by belatedly submitting their MR to the DOJ which be meritorious, the Investigator shall direct that a copy
eventually got a copy of it, acted fraudulently. CP Rubio and thereof be served upon the respondent, requiring him to
ACP countered that their failure to send a copy to the answer the same within fifteen (15) days from the date of
complainant and to the DOJ was due to sheer oversight, service.
explaining that the releasing clerk of the office of the city
prosecutor of Legazpi city had not sent the MR despite If the complaint does not merit action, or if the answer shows
furnishing copies thereof to all other parties. Based on the to the satisfaction of the Investigator that the complaint is
foregoing, the complainant initiated the complaint for not meritorious, the Investigator will recommend to the
disbarment against CP Rubio and ACP Rubio directly in this Board of Governors the dismissal of the complaint.
court. IBP-CBD recommended that the complaint for
disbarment be dismissed for lack of merit
Thereafter, the procedure in Section 12 of this Rule shall
apply. No investigation shall be interrupted or terminated by
ISSUE: Whether or not the act of the respondents in respect reason of the desistance, settlement, compromise,
of the filing of the motion for reconsideration constituted a restitution, withdrawal of the charges, or failure of the
ground for disbarment complainant to prosecute the same, unless the Supreme
Court motu propio or upon recommendation of the IBP Board
HELD: No. The complainant’s reliance on section 27, rule 138 of Governors, determines that there is no compelling reason
was obviously misplaced. The observation of the investigating to continue with the disbarment or suspension proceedings
commissioner that the secretary of justice was not the same against the respondent.”
as the superior court referred to by the rule was correct. As
such, the filing by the respondent of the motion for (Amendment pursuant to Supreme Court Resolution dated
reconsideration was not a defiance or willful disobedience to May 27, 1993 re Bar Matter No. 356)
the lawful order of the superior court. Their filing of motion
for reconsideration was a valid recourse for them to prevent
“Section 12. Review and recommendation by the Board of
the withdrawal of the information against the complainant
Governors.
considering that the new evidence consisting of the
complaint’s own extrajudicial confession has not been
brought to the attention of the SOJ. At any rate, it was not the a) Every case heard by an investigator shall be reviewed by
SOJ who would ultimately determine whether the info against the IBP Board of Governors upon the record and evidence
the complainant, among others, would be withdrawn or not. transmitted to it by the Investigator with his report.
This was because the RTC as the trial court already acquired
jurisdiction over the criminal case. As such, the decision b) After its review, the Board, by the vote of a majority of its
whether or not to allow the withdrawal of the information total membership, shall recommend to the Supreme Court
upon motion of the public prosecutor in compliance with the the dismissal of the complaint or the imposition of
directive of the SOJ then pertained to the RTC. The rule disciplinary action against the respondent.
therefore in this jurisdiction is that once a complaint or
information is filed in court any disposition of the case as its The Board shall issue a resolution setting forth its findings and
dismissal or the conviction or acquittal of the accused rests in recommendations, clearly and distinctly stating the facts and
the sound discretion of the court. Based on all established the reasons on which it is based.
attendance circumstances, the complainant had no legal or
factual basis for his disbarment complaint against the
The resolution shall be issued within a period not exceeding
respondents. The case involved their official acts as public
thirty (30) days from the next meeting of the Board following
prosecutors, focusing on how they had proceeded in a
the submission of the Investigator's report.
pending matter was entirely within their official competence
c) The Board's resolution, together with the entire records
and all evidence presented and submitted, shall be
transmitted to the Supreme Court for final action within ten
(10) days from issuance of the resolution.

d) Notice of the resolution of the Board shall be given to all

parties through their counsel, if any.”