10 Philippine Cases (Promulgated 2017-2021) Involving Issues

Relative to The Lawyer’s Duty to The Court

 EN BANC
ATTY. HERMINIO HARRY L. ROQUE, JR., COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. RIZAL P.
BALBIN, RESPONDENT.
A.C. NO. 7088, December 04, 2018
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

FACTS:
Complainant alleged that he was the plaintiff's counsel in a case entitled FELMAILEM, Inc. v.
Felma Mailem.
Shortly after securing a favorable judgment for his client, herein respondent-as counsel for the
defendant, and on appeal-started intimidating, harassing, blackmailing, and maliciously
threatening complainant into withdrawing the case filed by his client.
Initially, respondent moved for an extension of time to file his comment, which was granted by
the Court. However, respondent failed to file his comment despite multiple notices, prompting the
Court to repeatedly fine him and even order his arrest.
To date, the orders for respondent's arrest remain unserved and are still standing. Eventually, the
Court dispensed with respondent's comment and forwarded e records to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) for its investigation, report, and recommendation.
In a Report and Recommendation, the Investigating Commissioner found respondent
administratively liable, and accordingly, recommended that he be suspended from the practice of
law for a period of one (1) year, with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar infractions
in the future shall merit more severe sanctions.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent should be administratively sanctioned for the acts complained of.

RULING:
Lawyers are licensed officers of the court who are empowered to appear, prosecute, and defend;
and upon whom peculiar duties, responsibilities, and liabilities are devolved by law as a
consequence. Membership in the Bar imposes upon them certain obligations. Mandated to
maintain the dignity of the legal profession, they must conduct themselves honorably and fairly.
Respondent's administrative liability, the Court notes that respondent initially moved for an
extension of time to tile comment but did not file the same) prompting the Court to repeatedly
fine him and order his arrest. Such audacity on the part of respondent - which caused undue
delay in the resolution of this administrative case - is a violation of Canon 11, Canon 12, Rule
12.03, and Rule 12.04 of the CPR, which respectively read:

CANON 11 - A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial
officers and should insist on similar conduct by others.

CANON 12 - A lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and
efficient administration of justice.

CANON 12 - A lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and
efficient administration of justice.

Rule 12.03 - A lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions of time to file pleadings, memoranda
or briefs, let the period lapse without submitting the same or offering an explanation for his failure
to do so.

Rule 12.04 - A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment or misuse
Court processes. Verily, respondent's acts of seeking for extension of time to file a comment, and
thereafter, failing to file the same and ignoring the numerous directives not only indicated a high
degree of irresponsibility, but also constituted utter disrespect to the judicial institution. The orders
of the Court are not to be construed as a mere request, nor should they be complied with partially,
inadequately, or selectively; and the obstinate refusal or failure to comply therewith not only
betrays a recalcitrant flaw in the lawyer's character, but also underscores his disrespect to the
lawful orders of the Court which is only too deserving of reproof. Undoubtedly, the Court's
patience has been tested to the limit by what in hindsight amounts to a lawyer's impudence and
disrespectful bent. At the minimum, members of the legal fraternity owe courts of justice respect,
courtesy, and such other becoming conduct essential in the promotion of orderly, impartial, and
speedy justice. What respondent has done was the exact opposite; hence, he must be disciplined
accordingly.

Having established respondent's administrative liability, the Court now determines the proper
penalty to be imposed on him.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Rizal P. Balbin is found guilty of violating Canon 8, Canon 11,
Canon 12, Rule 12.03, Rule 12.04, Canon 19, and Rule 19.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Accordingly, he is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of
two (2) years, effective immediately upon his receipt of this Decision. He is STERNLY
WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
 EN BANC
FRANCISCO PAGDANGANAN, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. ROMEO C. PLATA, RESPONDENT.
A.C. No. 12701 (C.B.D. 12-3626), February 26, 2020
HERNANDO, J.:
FACTS:
The history of the two opposing parties go way back. Atty. Plata is the legal counsel of Jose F. Eustaquio
(Eustaquio), the legitimate owner of a land in Taytay, Rizal with Original Certificate of Title No. 1921.
Pagdanganan is a member of the Samahang Maralita ng Sitio Bato-Bato Neighborhood Association, Inc.
(SAMANAI).
SAMANAI, through its members and representatives, entered into a contract to sell with Eustaquio to buy
and occupy a portion of said land. When SAMANAI failed to pay the remaining balance in monthly
installments of the agreed contract terms, Eustaquio filed a complaint for unlawful detainer docketed as
Civil Case No. 2087-11 against Spouses Nestor and Yolanda Morales and all persons claiming rights under
the land, including herein complainant, Pagdanganan. The court was in favor of Eustaquio, ordering the
representatives of SAMANAI to, among others, vacate the property, demolish the houses built thereon, and
pay Eustaquio rent money until the portion of the land is completely vacated.
Grave Threats, Qualified Theft, Disbarment and Revocation of Notarial Commission, all of which are still
pending in their respective jurisdictions, was also failed against Atty. Equila and Morales by Eustaquio.
Atty. Equila then submitted his counter-affidavit together with the Sinumpaang Salaysay signed by the
different members of SAMANAI, except herein complainant so Loyola signed her name above
Pagdanganan's printed name in the Sinumpaang Salaysay.
For the alleged unfair and untruthful statements made in the Sinumpaang Salaysay against him and his
client, Atty. Plata filed a case for Perjury with Damages on September 11, 2012 against Atty. Equila,
Morales, Rigor, Loyola, Francisco, Baylon, Rotaquio and herein complainant, Pagdanganan. In his
Complaint-Affidavit, Atty. Plata prayed for the following: Ten Million Pesos (P10,000,000.00) as moral
damages; Ten Million Pesos (P10,000,000.00) as exemplary damages; and Five Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P500,000.00) as litigation expenses.

Thus, Pagdanganan filed this Complaint against Atty. Plata with the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD)
of the IBP. Pagdanganan alleged, both in his Complaint and Position Paper, that he was not a signatory to
the Sinumpaang Salaysay, hence, his inclusion as defendant in the perjury case was "not candid nor fair.
“He also alleged that the staggering amount of damages being prayed for was "a mockery of [the] legal
system." The pertinent portions of the Complaint read:
6. Respondent alleged that he is a reputable practitioner but complainant's inclusion to the perjury case
contradicts such claim. Likewise, complainant's inclusion in the perjury with damages and the case itself
filed by respondent is to intimidate complainant and others in order not to testify in several cases connected
to the fraudulent sale between Jose Eustaquio and occupants of a parcel of land located in Sitio Malamok,
Brgy. Dolores, Taytay, Rizal;

7. It is not candid nor fair for the respondent knowingly to include complainant in the perjury case when
the latter is not signatory to the sinumpaang salaysay. The perjury case with P20,000,000.00 damages filed
by respondent against herein complainant is an act done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty and good
morals. The filing of perjury case with P20,000,000.00 damages against respondent is intended merely to
harass, to injure, and oppress the complainant;
8. These practices committed by respondent are unprofessional and unworthy of an officer of the law
charged with the duty of aiding in the administration of justice. Respondent committed serious misconduct
and a willful violation of the lawyer's oath.

Investigating Commissioner Eduardo R. Robles of the CBD recommended that Atty. Plata be suspended
from the practice of law for a period of two years.

ISSUE:
Whether Atty. Plata is guilty of misconduct meriting his suspension from the practice of law for two years.

RULLING:
The Court adopts the findings and the recommendation of the IBP.
Upon examination of the records, it becomes apparent that these suits are mere harassing tactics against
Pagdanganan, his correspondents and their counsel. The Court is mindful of Atty. Plata's duty to defend his
client's cause with utmost zeal. However, professional rules, as above-quoted, impose limits on a lawyer's
zeal and hedge it with necessary restrictions and qualifications. Atty. Plata's filing of several cases against
the adverse parties and their counsel lays bare his intent to repress the opposing counsel from exerting
utmost effort in protecting his clients' interests. The filing of several groundless suits and the reservation of
filing another perjury suit in the future despite the pendency of another perjury case reveal Atty. Plata's
gross indiscretion as a colleague in the legal profession, in blatant violation of his oath and duties as a
lawyer. Atty. Plata's harassing tactics of filing multiple groundless and baseless suits are contrary to the
following Rules and Canons in the Code of Professional Responsibility:
CANON 8 - A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor towards his professional
colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against his opposing counsel.

Rule 10.03 - A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat the ends of
justice.

Rule 12.02 - A lawyer shall not file multiple actions arising from the same cause.

Rule 12.04 - A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment or misuse a Court
process.

Without prejudice to the outcome of the perjury case with damages, the Court emphasizes that there is no
hard and fast rule for determining what would be a fair amount of moral or exemplary damages, each case
having to be governed by its attendant particulars. The amount of moral damages should be commensurate
with the actual loss or injury suffered.] However, where the awards of moral and exemplary damages are
far too excessive compared to the actual losses sustained by the aggrieved party, the Court has ruled that
they should be reduced to more reasonable amounts.

WHEREFORE, the Court ADOPTS and APPROVES the Resolutions of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines-Board of Governors . Accordingly, Atty. Romeo C. Plata is found GUILTY of violating the
Lawyer's Oath, the Duties of Attorneys and the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is
hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for two years with a STERN WARNING that a repetition
of the same or a similar offense will warrant the imposition of a more severe penalty.
 EN BANC
PRUDENCIO B. PORTUGUESE,* JR., COMPLAINANT, V. ATTY. JERRY R.
CENTRO, RESPONDENT.
A.C. No. 12875, January 26, 2021
HERNANDO, J.:
FACTS:
Respondent was complainant’s counsel in Civil Case No. 7177 pending before the Regional Trial
Court (RTC), Branch 32 of Surigao City. Respondent drafted and filed the Answer to the
Complaint. Complainant alleged that at the termination of the proceedings, the parties were
required to file their memoranda. After several follow-ups, respondent informed complainant that
the memorandum was already filed in court. However, to his and his family's shock, complainant
was served a copy of a Notice by a sheriff, giving them three days to comply with the Writ of
Execution in connection with the civil case. Apparently, this was the first time that complainant
learned of the rendition of a judgment in the said case.
Complainant claimed that Atty. Centro received a copy of the RTC’s Decision, but the latter never
advised him about it. Complainant asserted that Atty. Centro also failed to do the following: file
any pleading to contest the Motion for Execution; notify him of the scheduled hearing on the
Motion for Execution; and inform him about the trial court's resolution granting the Motion for
Execution.
The Investigating Commissioner recommended the suspension of Atty. Centro from the practice
of law for three (3) years. The Investigating Commissioner found that Atty. Centro's inaction
deprived the complainant of a relief from the adverse decision in the civil case. As counsel for
Portuguese, he neglected to perform his duty to exert efforts to avail of every remedy and defense
authorized by the law in order to protect his client's cause. Also, respondent's failure to file a
memorandum was a breach of Rule 12.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) which
requires lawyers to seasonably file pleadings and to offer an explanation for failure to do so.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent be suspended from the practice of law.

RULING:
We adopt the findings and recommendation of the IBP to suspend respondent from the practice of
law for a period of three (3) years.

The Lawyer's Oath mandates every lawyer to conduct himself/herself according to the best of
his/her knowledge and discretion, with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to his/her clients.
Atty. Centro unfortunately departed from his sworn oath by committing the following acts: 1)
failing to file a Memorandum and even misrepresenting about filing it; 2) failing to inform
Portuguese of the RTC's Decision; 3) failing to protect Portuguese's interest against the adverse
RTC's Decision; 4) failing to inform Portuguese of the Motion for Execution, the scheduled
hearing, and the resolution granting the said motion; and 5) failing to file an Answer to the instant
Complaint. Worse, when Portuguese confronted him about the deliberate lapses concerning the
civil case, the latter merely replied that there was nothing more he could do and that he was giving
up the case for good. Considering the foregoing, Atty. Centro is undoubtedly guilty of violating
the following provisions of the CPR, to wit:

CANON 11 - A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE AND MAINTAIN THE RESPECT DUE TO THE
COURTS AND TO JUDICIAL OFFICERS AND SHOULD INSIST ON SIMILAR CONDUCT
BY OTHERS.

Rule 12.03 - A lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions of time to file pleadings, memoranda
or briefs, let the period lapse without submitting the same or offering an explanation for his failure
to do so.

In the case at bench, Atty. Centro, just like other lawyers who have been penalized before him,
"demonstrated not just a negligent disregard of his duties as a lawyer but a wanton betrayal of the
trust of his client, the Court, and the public, in general." As commensurate penalty for the damage
he brought upon Portuguese, a three-year suspension from the practice of law upon him is fitting.
WHEREFORE, for violating the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility,
Atty. Jerry R. Centro is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3) years
and WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely.
Respondent is DIRECTED to file a Manifestation to this Court that his suspension has started,
copy furnished all courts and quasi-judicial bodies where he has entered his appearance as counsel.
 FIRST DIVISION
ROMULO DE MESA FESTIN, COMPLAINANT, V. ATTY. ROLANDO V.
ZUBIRI, RESPONDENT.
A.C No. 11600, June 19, 2017
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
FACTS:
Complainant alleged that he was elected as Mayor of the Municipality of San Jose, Occidental Mindoro in
the May 2013 elections. His opponent, Jose Tapales Villarosa (Villarosa), filed an election protest against.
After deciding in favor of Villarosa, the RTC issued an Order dated January 15, 2014 (January 15, 2014
Order), granting his motion for execution pending appeal, was granted.
The OIC-Branch Clerk of Court [(COC)] is hereby directed to issue a Writ of Execution Pending
Appeal after the lapse of twenty (20) working days to be counted from the time [complainant's] counsel
receives a copy of this Special Order, if no restraining order or status quo order is issued pursuant to Section
11 (b), Rule 14 of A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC. (Emphasis supplied)
Distressed, complainant filed a petition for certiorari before the Commission on Elections (COMELEC),
seeking a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against the issuance of the writ of execution pending appeal.
The COMELEC then issued TRO directly to the presiding RTC Judge to cease and desist from enforcing
the January 15, 2014 Order, effective immediately. RTC issued another order pertinent portion of which
reads:
In view thereof, the OIC-Branch [COC] is directed NOT TO ISSUE a Writ of Execution in accordance
with the [January 15, 2014] Order until further notice.
Despite the TRO and the RTC's February 25, 2014 Order, respondent, as counsel of Villarosa, filed five (5)
manifestations addressed to the COC insisting on the writ's issuance. Notably, he did not serve copies of
these manifestations to the other party.
In these manifestations, respondent claimed that his client received the RTC's January 15, 2014 Order on
January 18, 2014, and counting from said date, the twenty-day period ended on February 12, 2014. Since
the COMELEC only issued the TRO on February 13, 2014, the TRO no longer had any effect. Respondent
further asserted that the TRO was addressed only to the RTC Judge, and not to the COC; therefore, the
COC is not bound by the TRO. For these reasons, respondent insisted that the COC could legally issue the
writ of execution pending appeal.
Thus, complainant filed a disbarment complaint, which argued that respondent violated his ethical duties
when he misled and induced the COC to defy lawful orders - particularly, the COMELEC's TRO and the
RTC's February 25, 2014 Order. As a result, respondent allegedly violated Canons 1, 10, 15, and 19 of the
CPR.
Respondent claimed that:
1. Since the case records had been transmitted to the COMELEC on January 31, 2014, the RTC
was divested of jurisdiction over the case; therefore, it had no more power to issue the February
25, 2014 Order.
2. No false information or factual errors were present in the manifestations. He only expressed in
his speech his sincere conviction that the COMELEC's TRO was no longer binding because the
twenty-day period had already passed when it was issued. He clarified that there was no
regulation broken by filing manifestations to support his position.
 3. Third, he allegedly filed those manifestations pursuant to his duty under Canon 18 of the CPR to
represent his client with competence and diligence.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent should be held administratively liable for the acts complained of.

RULING:
After a judicious review of the case records, the Court agrees with the IBP that respondent should be held
administratively liable for his violations of the CPR. However, the Court finds it proper to impose a lower
penalty.
Rule 10.03, Canon 10 of the CPR require lawyers to conduct themselves with fairness towards their
professional colleagues, to observe procedural rules, and not to misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.
These provisions read thus:
CANON 10 - A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT.

Rule 10.03 - A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat the ends of
justice.

Contrary to these edicts, respondent improperly filed the five (5) motions as "manifestations" to sidestep
the requirement of notice of hearing for motions. In effect, he violated his professional obligations to respect
and observe procedural rules, not to misuse the rules to cause injustice, and to exhibit fairness towards his
professional colleagues.

In the present case, respondent filed five (5) manifestations before the COC praying for affirmative reliefs.
The Court agrees with the IBP that these "manifestations" were in fact motions, since reliefs were prayed
for from the court - particularly, the issuance of the writ of execution pending appeal. By labelling them as
manifestations, respondent craftily sidestepped the requirement of a notice of hearing and deprived the other
party of an opportunity to oppose his arguments. Moreover, the fact that he submitted these manifestations
directly to COC, instead of properly filing them before the RTC, highlights his failure to exhibit fairness
towards the other party by keeping the latter completely unaware of his manifestations. Undoubtedly,
respondent violated his professional obligations under the CPR.

The Court stresses that a lawyer's primary duty is to assist the courts in the administration of justice. Any
conduct that tends to delay, impede, or obstruct the administration of justice contravenes this obligation.
Indeed, a lawyer must champion his client's cause with competence and diligence, but he cannot invoke
this as an excuse for his failure to exhibit courtesy and fairness to his fellow lawyers and to respect legal
processes designed to afford due process to all stakeholders.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Rolando V. Zubiri (respondent) is found GUILTY of violating Canon
1, Canon 8, and Rule 10.03, Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, he
is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3) months effective from the finality of this Decision,
and is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely.
 EN BANC
VIRGILIO J. MAPALAD, SR., COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. ANSELMO S. ECHANEZ,
RESPONDENT.
A.C. No. 10911, JUNE 06, 2017
TIJAM, J.:
FACTS:
Complainant alleged that in an action for Recovery of Possession and Damages with Writ of Preliminary
Mandatory Injunction docketed as Civil Case No. 1635-1-784 before the Municipal Trial Court in Santiago
City, Isabela, complainant was one of the plaintiffs while respondent was the defendants' counsel therein.
In another case docketed as Special Civil Action No. 3573, respondent, for the same clients, filed a Petition
for Injunction wherein he once again only indicated his MCLE Compliance Number. Respondent also filed
a Motion for Leave of Court dated July 13, 2009 in the said special civil action, indicating his MCLE
Compliance Number without the date of issue.
Upon inquiry with the MCLE Office, complainant discovered that respondent had no MCLE compliance
yet
Complainant argues that respondent's act of deliberately and unlawfully misleading the courts, parties, and
counsels concerned into believing that he had complied with the MCLE requirements when in truth he had
not, is a serious malpractice and grave misconduct. The complainant, thus, prayed for the IBP to
recommend respondent's disbarment to this Court.
In a resolution dated February 10, 2010, this Court required the respondent to file a comment on the
complaint within 10 days from notice.
This Court, thus, issued another resolution dated July 11, 2011 requiring the respondent to show cause why
he should not be disciplinarily dealt with or held in contempt for such failure and, again, to file a comment
to the complaint.
On August 14, 2013, the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) issued a Notice of Mandatory
Conference/Hearing. After a careful evaluation of the pieces of evidence submitted by the complainant, it
is recommended that ATTY. ANSELMO S. ECHANEZ be DISBARRED and that his name be stricken
from the Roll of Attorneys upon finality of the decision.

ISSUE:
Should respondent be administratively disciplined based on the allegations in the complaint and evidence
on record?

RULING:
We answer in the affirmative.
Respondent's act of filing pleadings that he fully knew to contain false information is a mockery of the
courts, especially this Court, considering that it is this Court that authored the rules and regulations that the
respondent violated.
The Lawyer's Oath in Rule 138, Section 3 of the Rules of Court requires commitment to obeying laws and
legal orders, doing no falsehood, and acting with fidelity to both court and client, among others.
Canon 10, Rule 10.01 of the CPR provides:

CANON 10 – A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court.

Rule 10.01 – A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor shall he
mislead, or allow the Court to be mislead by any artifice.
Court orders should be respected not only because the authorities who issued them should be respected, but
because of the respect and consideration that should be extended to the judicial branch of the government,
which is absolutely essential if our government is to be a government of laws and not of men.

Clearly, respondent's act of ignoring the said court orders despite notice violates the lawyer's oath and runs
counter to the precepts of the CPR. By his repeated dismissive conduct, the respondent exhibited an
unpardonable lack of respect for the authority of the Court.
WHEREFORE, respondent Anselmo S. Echanez is hereby DISBARRED from the practice of law, and
his name is ORDERED STRICKEN FROM THE ROLL OF ATTORNEYS.
 THIRD DIVISION
DR. EDUARDO R. ALICIAS, JR. COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. VIVENCIO S.
BACLIG, RESPONDENT.
A.C. No. 9919, July 19, 2017
TIJAM, J.:
FACTS:
The case stemmed from the amended complaint for declaration of nullity of void documents, recovery of
ownership and possession, accounting of the natural, industrial fruits derived from the illegal occupation of
the subject property, exercise of the right of legal redemption with damages, and application for a writ of
preliminary injuction filed by Eleuterio Lamorena, Higinio Rene Lamorena, Oscar Lamorena and Eloisa
Lamorena, duly represented by their Attorney-in-Fact, Marissa L. Peña, and Marissa L. Peña, in her own
behalf (Lamorena, et. al.) against Robert R. Alicias (Robert) and Urvillo A. Paa (Paa). Atty. Baclig was
hired by Lamorena, et. al. as their counsel.
An amended complaint for reconveyance, annulment of deeds and quieting of title was filed by
Lamorena, et. al. against herein complainant and Urvillo Paa. However, it was not Atty. Baclig who acted
as counsel in this case.
On May 14, 2013, the complainant filed an administrative case for disbarment against Atty. Baclig before
Us.
The complainant averred that Atty. Baclig consented to false assertions when his clients allegedly made
false statements in their amended complaint. Complainant also stated that Atty. Baclig knowingly filed an
action which was: (1) already barred by res judicata and laches; and (2) without the jurisdiction of the RTC
where such complaint was filed. Lastly, complainant claimed that Atty. Baclig consented to the filing of a
complaint, which asserted similar relief, when a similar case was filed before the MTCC.

In his Comment, Atty. Baclig contended that the allegations in the subject complaint contained absolutely
privileged communication, which insulates him from liability. Also, the issues as to whether or not the
assertions in the subject complaint are false statements and whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction over
the subject matter of the action are yet to be decided; hence, the complaint against him holds no water.

ISSUE:
Is Atty. Baclig administratively liable?

RULING:
We rule that there was forum shopping in this case, for while the case before the MTCC was pending, Atty.
Baclig consented to the filing of another complaint before another forum, i.e., RTC. Such cases deal with
the same parties and same reliefs. Thus, a ruling in one case would resolve the other, and vice versa.

Moreover, regardless of the fact that Atty. Baclig did not act as counsel in the case before the MTC, it
would not exempt him from culpability. Atty. Baclig did not categorically deny the allegations of
complainant regarding the commission of forum shopping. Moreover, it is surprising that he was able to
answer the 10 causes of action raised by complainant, except the issue on forum shopping. Hence, he is
deemed to have admitted that he has knowledge of the pendency of a similar complaint before the MTC
when a complaint before the RTC was filed.

In this regard, We emphasize that the filing of another action concerning the same subject matter runs
contrary to Canon 1 and Rule 12.04 of Canon 12 of the CPR. Canon 1 of the CPR requires a lawyer to exert
every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice and Rule
12.04 of Canon 12 prohibits the undue delay of a case by misusing court processes.
We reiterate that a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client, but not at the expense of truth and the
administration of justice. The filing of multiple petitions constitutes abuse of the court's processes and
improper conduct that tends to impede, obstruct and degrade the administration of justice and will be
punished as contempt of court.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, We find the complaint meritorious and

accordingly CENSURE Atty. Vivencio S. Baclig for violating Canon 1 and Rule 12.04 of Canon 12 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility. He is STERNLY WARNED that any future violation of his duties as
a lawyer will be dealt with more severely.
 FIRST DIVISION
JOY T. SAMONTE, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. VIVENCIO V. JUMAMIL,
RESPONDENT.
A.C No. 11668, July 17, 2017
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
FACTS:
Complainant Joy T. Samonte received summons from the NLRC, relative to an illegal dismissal case, filed
by four (4) persons claiming to be workers in her small bananaplantation. Consequently, engaged the
services of respondent Atty. Vivencio V. Jumamilt to prepare her position paper and paid him the amount
of P8,000 as attorney’s fees.

Despite constantly reminding respondent of the deadline for the submission of her position paper,
complainant discovered that respondent still failed to file the same.

Complainant was then held liable by the Labor Arbiter and was ordered to pay the workers a total amount
of P633,143.68. When complainant confronted the respondent, the latter casually answered to just sell her
farm in order to pay the farmers.

The IBP-CBD found respondent administratively liable and, accordingly, recommended that he be
suspended from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year. Essentially, the IBP-CBD found respondent
guilty of violating Rule 10.01, Canon 10, and Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility (CPR), as well as the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent should be held administratively liable.

RULING:
The Court concurs with and affirms the findings of the IBP, with modification, however, as to the penalty
in order to account for his breach of the rules on notarial practice.

Lawyers are required to maintain, at all times, a high standard of legal proficiency, and to devote their full
attention, skill, and competence to their cases, regardless of their importance, and whether they accept them
for a fee or for free.[17] To this end, lawyers are enjoined to employ only fair and honest means to attain
lawful objectives.[18] These principles are embodied in Rule 10.01 of Canon 10 and Rule 18.03 of Canon
18 of the CPR, which respectively read as follows:

CANON 10 – A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT.

Rule 10.01 – A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor shall he
mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Vivencio V. Jumamil is found GUILTY of violating Rule 10.01, Canon
10 and Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, he is
hereby SUSPENDED for a period of one (1) year, effective upon his receipt of this Resolution. Moreover,
in view of his violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, his notarial commission, if still existing, is
hereby REVOKED, and he is DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as a notary public for a period
of two (2) years. Finally, he is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall
be dealt with more severely.
 THIRD DIVISION
MARJORIE A. APOLINAR-PETILO, COMPLAINANT, V. ATTY. ARISTEDES
A. MARAMOT, RESPONDENT.
A.C. No. 9067, January 31, 2018
BERSAMIN, J.:
FACTS:
Complainant Marjorie A. Apolinar-Petilo (Marjorie) alleges that the respondent consented to, abetted and
participated in the illegal act of falsifying a public document in violation of Article 171(4) in relation to
Article 172(2) of the Revised Penal Code; and that he thereby violated the Lawyer's Oath, Rules 1.01 and
1.02 of Canon 1 and Rule 10.01 of Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
The public document in question was the deed of donation executed in favor of Princess Anne Apolinar-
Petilo (Princess Anne) and Ma. Mommayda V. Apolinar (Mommayda) who were a minor at the time.
Marjorie insists that he was thereby guilty of falsification first in his capacity as a lawyer by preparing the
deed of donation and indicating therein that both donees were then "of legal age"; and as a notary public by
notarizing the document. She claims that he, being Mommayda's counsel in the latter's adoption case, was
aware of the untruthful statements he made in the deed of donation because he thereafter submitted the deed
of donation as evidence therein.
In his answer, respondent states that Margarita was a grandaunt who owned a parcel of land in Calapan,
Oriental Mindoro that she wanted to donate to Princess Anne, Marjorie's own daughter, and Mommayda,
the adopted daughter of Justina; that upon learning of Princess Anne's minority, he advised that she had
to be represented by either parent.

Margarita eventually died, so Justina and her husband Tomas went to see the respondent and confided
to him that they were entangled in a court battle with Marjorie, their niece, over Margarita's properties,
including the apartment in Manila where they had been occupying since 1980. They then learned from
the respondent that because Mommayda's birth certificate had been simulated, they needed to legally
adopt her in order to enable her to inherit from them. Hence, they filed a petition for the adoption of
Mommayda, which did not sit well with Marjorie.

The respondent submits that there was nothing illegal in the deed of donation; that as the sole owner of
the donated land, Margarita had an absolute right to dispose of her property by donation; that no law
prohibited donations to minors; and that the filing of the petition for judicial partition was an express if
not implied ratification of the defect in the donation; and that in regard to the submission of the simulated
birth certificate in evidence, the purpose of filing the petition for adoption was to rectify the simulation
and to convert the relationship between Mommayda and her adopting parents into a legal one.

During the mandatory conference set by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar
Discipline, Marjorie admitted that a petition for judicial partition involving the donated land was meanwhile
filed; that a compromise agreement was reached; and that Princess Anne sold her share to Mommayda.

In his position paper, the respondent asserts that the complaint was pure harassment calculated only to
besmirch and malign his reputation; and that the complaint was also a premeditated tactic to prolong or pre-
empt the adoption case considering that a favorable ruling thereat would adversely affect Marjorie's rights
as an heir of Mommayda's parents.
The IBP Commissioner recommended that, in view of the foregoing considerations, the undersigned
Commissioner finds respondent Atty. Aristedes A. Maramot to have violated the Notarial Law, his act
having undermined the confidence of the public on notarial documents; and, respectfully recommends his
suspension from notarial practice for a period of one (1) year while the other complaints against him are
recommended dismissed for lack of merit.

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent committed falsehood thus violating Canon 10 rule 10.01 of CPR?

RULING:

We affirm the Resolutions of the IBP Board of Governors.

Every lawyer before entering his duties and responsibilities as a member of the Bar and an officer of the
Court, professes as a natural course the promises contained in the Lawyer's Oath.

The letter and spirit of the Lawyer's Oath are oftentimes forgotten or taken for granted in the course of the
lawyer's practice of law. To give teeth thereto, the Court has adopted and instituted the Code of Professional
Responsibility to govern every lawyer's relationship with his profession, the courts, the society, and his
clients

Pertinent in this case, Rule 10.1 of Canon 10, which provide:

CANON 10 - x x x

Rule 10.01 - A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court; nor shall he
mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.

WHEREFORE, the Court FINDS and DECLARES respondent ATTY. ARISTEDES

MARAMOT guilty of violating the Lawyer's Oath, Rules 1.01 and 1.02 of Canon 1 and Rule 10.01 of
Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and the Rules on Notarial Practice; SUSPENDS him
from the practice of law for six months effective from notice of this decision, with revocation of his notarial
commission and disqualification from being re-appointed as Notary Public for two years effective upon
receipt; and warns him of a more stringent penalty upon repetition of the offense.
 EN BANC
NICANOR D. TRIOL, COMPLAINANT, V. ATTY. DELFIN R. AGCAOILI, JR.,
RESPONDENT.
A.C No. 12011, June 26, 2018
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
FACTS:
The complainant claimed that he and his sister Grace D. Triol (Grace) share ownership of a parcel of land
in Quezon City that measures 408.80 square meters and is covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No.
129010. Sometime in January 2011, the complainant made the decision to sell the subject land to a man
named Leonardo P. Caparas (Caparas), but was unable to do so because he could not get Grace, who was
already a resident of the United States (U.S.), to sign the sale document. A Deed of Absolute Sale dated
March 11, 2011 (subject deed) purportedly conveying the subject land to Fajardo without the consent of
the complainant and Grace was later discovered by the complainant.

In his defense, respondent disavowed knowledge of the execution and notarization of the subject deed,
claiming that he did not know complainant, Grace, and Caparas. He maintained that his signature on the
subject deed was forged, since he would never notarize an instrument without the signatory parties
personally appearing before him. He likewise asserted that he could not have notarized it, as he was not a
commissioned notary public in Quezon City in 2011.

The IBP Investigating Commissioner recommended the dismissal of the complaint, there being no
substantial evidence to show that respondent is guilty of violating Section 1 (b) (7), Rule XI of the 2004
Rules on Notarial Practice (2004 Notarial Rules).

The IBP Board of Governors reversed the recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner, and
accordingly, imposed the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years, as
well as disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for the same period. It likewise directed
the revocation of his current notarial commission, if any, and ordered the Commission on Bar Discipline
Director Ramon S. Esguerra (CIBD Dir. Esguerra) to prepare an extended resolution explaining its action.

That while respondent provided his specimen signature in his Answer, he failed to substantiate its
genuineness and authenticity, given that he did not submit a copy of his signature appearing in the records
of the Office of the Clerk of Court or any other official document containing the same specimen signature.
As such, the probative value of the subject deed containing his notarization, as well as the
certifications from the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City that he was not a
commissioned notary public in 2011 and 2012, stands.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent should be held administratively liable.

RULING:
The Court concurs with the findings of the IBP.

It is settled that "notarization is not an empty, meaningless routinary act, but one invested with substantive
public interest. Notarization converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible in
evidence without further proof of its authenticity. Thus, a notarized document is, by law, entitled to full
faith and credit upon its face. It is for this reason that a notary public must observe with utmost care the
basic requirements in the performance of his notarial duties; otherwise, the public's confidence in the
integrity of a notarized document would be undermined."

In the realm of legal ethics, a breach of the aforesaid provision of the 2004 Notarial Rules would also
constitute a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), considering that an erring lawyer
who is found to be remiss in his functions as a notary public is considered to have violated his oath as a
lawyer as well.

He does not only fail to fulfill his solemn oath of upholding and obeying the law and its legal processes,
but he also commits an act of falsehood and engages in an unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful
conduct.[21] Thus, Rule 1.01, Canon 1 and Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the CPR categorically state:
CANON 1 – A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for
law and legal processes.
Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

CANON 10 – A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court.

Rule 10.01 — A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor shall
he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice. (Emphases and underscoring supplied)

By misrepresenting himself as a commissioned notary public at the time of the alleged notarization, he did
not only cause damage to those directly affected by it, but he likewise undermined the integrity of the office
of a notary public and degraded the function of notarization.[25] In so doing, his conduct falls miserably
short of the high standards of morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing required from lawyers, and it is
only but proper that he be sanctioned.

WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Atty. Delfin R. Agcaoili, Jr. (respondent) GUILTY of
violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly,
the Court hereby SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years; PROHIBITS him
from being commissioned as a notary public for a period of two (2) years; and REVOKES his incumbent
commission as a notary public, if any. He is WARNED that a repetition of the same offense or similar acts
in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
 EN BANC
ATTY. FERDINAND S. AGUSTIN, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. DOMINGO C.
LAENO, ATTY. ROMEO R. ROBISO, ATTY. REGINALDO D. BERGADO,
RESPONDENTS.
A.C No. 8124, March 19, 2019
PER CURIAM:
FACTS:
Atty. Laeno and the mother of complainant Atty. Ferdinand S. Agustin, Marcelina Agustin, agreed to the
sale of a house and lot registered under E.M. Laeno and Associates for P6,500,000.00. In the agreement to
sell and the completion of the sale thereof, Marcelina was represented by her daughter Perpetua. After the
property was transferred in the name of Marcelina, Perpetua entered into a rental agreement with Atty.
Laeno at P20,000.00 per month over the same property.

Marcelina through her son Atty. Agustin instituted an ejectment case against Atty. Laeno for not paying the
rental fees and refusing to leave the premises. To their discovery, the sale of the above-mentioned property
was covered by two (2) Deeds of Absolute Sale executed and signed by Atty. Laeno and both were notarized
by Atty. Bergado. None of these documents reflected the true consideration of the property. One said it was
for P2,000,000.00 and the other said it was for P2,500,000.00.

The Investigating Commissioner of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) is convinced that the
undervalued consideration in the two deeds is to avoid payment of the proper taxes. Moreover, Atty. Laeno
offered one of these bogus deeds as evidence before the Supreme Court. The Commissioner also noted that
the other respondent, Atty. Bergado, all owed the said two deeds to be notarized although both refer to one
and the same property; notarized at the same date since both documents bear the same notarial document
number as Doc. 138; Page No. 28; Book VII, Series of 2002

In the ejectment case, Atty. Laeno denied dealing with Marcelina and recognized only Perpetua as the
beneficial and absolute owner of the subject property. He further claimed that there is an unpaid balance of
P1,500,000.00. According to the Commissioner, Atty. Laeno made it appear that Perpetua's loan with the
wife of Atty. Laeno was connected with the consideration of the sale on the subject property as the unpaid
portion.

The Investigating IBP Commissioner absolved Atty. Robiso from any administrative liability. The
Commissioner, however, found Atty. Laeno guilty of misconduct for executing two (2) Deeds of Absolute
Sale covering one (1) property and one (1) transaction; instituting several suits as a ploy to avoid being
evicted from the property despite a final adjudication in the ejectment suit; and knowingly introducing a
bogus deed of sale as evidence. Similarly, Atty. Bergado is guilty of affixing his seal as a notary on the two
(2) Deeds of Sale covering one and the same property, and of assisting in causing several annotations on
Marcelina's property although the latter was never a party to the case.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Laeno should suspended acts complained of.

RULING:
We agree with the IBP-Board of Governors' report and recommendation with regard to Atty. Laeno. We
must, however, modify the penalty imposed against him by increasing the penalty to five (5) years.
Atty. Laeno's acts of (i) executing two deeds of sale that covered one single property, (ii) indicating an
undervalued consideration contrary to what was agreed on by the contracting parties, and (iii) offering one
of these bogus deeds as evidence before the Court is exactly what is proscribed under the following Canons
of the Code of Professional Responsibility:

CANON 10 - A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court.
Next, Atty. Laeno's resort to several suits against Marcelina and Perpetua to avoid eviction or cause the
delay in the execution of an unfavorable judgment in an ejectment suit is likewise contrary to Canon 12.

Canon 12 - A lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient
administration of justice.
Certainly, he had a duty as an officer of the court to abide by the judgment rendered even if it was
unfavorable to him. Therefore, a five (5) year suspension is appropriate to penalize his reprehensible
transgressions.

WHEREFORE, Atty. Domingo C. Laeno is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for five (5)
years. For insufficiency of Evidence, the case against Atty. Romeo R. Robiso is hereby DISMISSED.