)\tpublit of t{Je ~bilipptne~

&uprtme ~ourt
~«colob ~it!'

EN BANC

VIVIAN A. RUBIO, A.C. No. 13358

Complainant, [Formerly CBD Case No. 18-
5770]

Present:

GESMUNDO, CJ,
LEONEN,
CAGUIOA,
HERNANDO,
LAZARO-JAVIER,
- versus - INTING,
ZALAJ\1EDA,
LOPEZ, M.,
GAERLAN,
ROSARIO,
LOPEZ, J.,
DIMAAMPAO*
MARQUEZ,** '
KHO,JR. and
SINGH, JJ

Promulgated:
ATTY. JOSEF. CAOIBES, JR.,
Respondent.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

DECISION

PERCURIAM:

Before this Court is the Complaint-Affidavit 1 filed by Vivian A.

Rubio (complainant) against Atty. Jose F. Caoibes, Jr. (respondent)
before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for the alleged
• On official leave.
•• On official business.
1 Rollo, pp. 2-13.
 Decision 2 A.C. No. 13358
[Formerly CBD Case No. 18-5770]

violation of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, Bar Matter (B.M.) No. 850, 2
A.M. No. 02-08-13-SC promulgated on July 6, 2004, or the 2004 Rules
on Notarial Practice (the Notarial Rules), and the Code of Professional
Responsibility (CPR).

The Antecedents

In the Complaint-Affidavit, complainant alleged the following:

Respondent filed a complaint for Estafa against her over the

amount of P4,500.00 with the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Calaca,
Batangas. Before the prosecution could continue to present its evidence,
respondent moved for the mediation of the matter. Consequently, she
agreed to pay respondent !'200,000.00 for the dismissal of all the cases
that he filed against her and her mother Luz Rubio. 3 She paid
Pl00,000.00 on April 3, 2018, as evidenced by a Deposit Receipt. 4
Based on the Acknowledgment Receipt, 5 she fully paid the amount due
on April 10, 2018.

However, respondent refused to sign the Affidavit of Desistance

that complainant's counsel had drafted; instead, he prepared his own
document entitled Combined Affidavits of Admissions and Desistance 6
(Combined Affidavits). She refused to sign the Combined Affidavits
because it required her to admit her guilt of the charges against her. 7 As a
result, respondent did not move for the dismissal of the pending cases
against her. In addition, respondent disparaged her in his Letters 8 to her
counsei dated May 4 and May 16, 2018. 9

Notably, she was facing three more criminal cases in the MTC of
Calaca, Batangas and MTC of Balayan, Bata.ngas, at the time she filed
the present disbarment complaint. 10

2 Entitled, '"Adopting the Revised Rules on the Continuing Legal Education for Members of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines," dated October 2, 2001.
3 Rollo, pp. 2-3, 159-160.
4
Id. at 14.
Id. at 15.
6 Id. at 17-18.
7 Id.at3.
8 Id. at 21-22, 23-25.
9 Id. at 3-4.
10 Id.at 160.
Decision 3 A.C. No. 13358
[Formerly CBD Case No. 18-5770]

Appalled by the events that transpired, she began to inquire on the

demeanor of respondent. She learned that on April 17, 2018, respondent
filed a "Manifestation and Urgent Omnibus Motion for Immediate
Voluntary Inhibition Instead of a Motion for Reconsideration in ths [sic]
Case arid the Same Inhibition Also in Undersigned's Other Psersonal
[sic] Cases in this Court an.cl in the MTC ofBalayan, Batangas" 11 (2018
Manifestation and Motion) in Criminal Case No. 3553 entitled People of
the Philippines vs. Rosaura Hernandez y Malabanan, which was
pending before the MTC of Calaca and presided by Judge Vicente B.
Montes (Judge Montes). She observed that respondent used cruel and
disrespectful words against Judge Montes in the 2018 Manifestation and
Motion, and he even threatened to file an administrative case against the
latter and walked out from his sala. 12

Complainant also discovered that respondent filed a

"Manifestation (RE: Decision of Acquittal)" 13 (2015 Manifestation)
dated March 23, 2015 in Criminal Case No. 6594 entitled People of the
Philippines vs. Joemari P. Rivera that was pending before the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Balayan. In the 2015 Manifestation, she noted that
respondent (the private complainant in the case) attacked the integrity of
Judge Rolando E. Silang (Judge Silang), who acquitted the accused
therein to the dismay of respondent. 14

Many cases had been filed by respondent and have been pending
for years because judges have opted to inhibit due to the motions for
inhibition filed by respondent. 15

Further, respondent had indicated in his pleadings the statement,

"MCLE Compliance presently being updated." However, per the
Certification 16 dated April 24, 2018 from the Mandatory Continuing
Legal Education (MCLE) Office, she and her counsel had confirmed that
respondent was neither compliant with nor exempt from the MCLE
requirement. Nloreover, respondent used various Roll of Attorneys
numbers (roll numbers) that did not belong to him in his pleadings. 17

11 Id. at 26-29.
12 Id. at 4-5, 160.
13 ld. at 40-45.
14 Id. at 5, 160.
15 ld. at 5.
16 ld. at 73.
11 ld. at 5-6, 160-161.
Decision 4 A.C. No. 13358
[Formerly CBD Case No. 18-5770]

Respondent was issued a notarial comm1ss10n by the RTC of

Lemery, Batangas, but he notarized documents in Calaca, Batangas
which was clearly outside of his notarial commission's jurisdiction.
Notably, the Office of the Clerk of Court of the RTC of Balayan,
Batangas issued a Certification 18 dated May 16, 2018 that respondent
was not among those who are commissioned as notary public in and for
the municipalities within its territorial jurisdiction from 2014 up to the
present. 19

Complainant posited that the foregoing acts of respondent violated

Rules 1.01 and 1.02, Canon l; Rule 3.01, Canon 3; Canon 5; Rule 10.01,
Canon 10; Canon 11; and Rules 12.02 and 12.04, Canon 12 of the
CPR. 20 Thus, complainant filed the disbarment complaint against him
before the IBP. 21

On July 30, 2018, the IBP required respondent to file his answer to
the complaint within 15 days from his receipt thereof. 22 Respondent
thereafter filed the following motions:

1. Very Urgent Ex-Parte Last Motion for Additional Five (5)

Days to Answer23 dated October 24, 2018, praying that he be
allowed a last extension to file his answer until October 29,
2018;

2. Undated Ex-Parte Manifestation and Motion24 in which he

stated that he has abandoned his law practice and has no
source of income apart from his notarial practice in Calaca,
Batangas and prayed that he be allowed to file his answer
until November 4, 2018;

3. Urgent Ex-Parte Manifestation and Motion25 dated

November 5, 2018, seeking 10 more additional days to file
his answer, or until November 15, 2018; and
18 Id. at 80.
19 Id.at6, 161.
20 !d.at7-9.
21 ld.at2-13.
22
!d.at9l.
23 ld.at97.
24 ld.at10L
25 Id. at 94.
Decision 5 A.C. No. 13358
[Formerly CBD Case No. 18-5770]

4. Urgent Ex-Parte Manifestation and Motion (Definitely for a

Last Extension of Time to File Answer) 26 dated November
15, 2018, praying that he be allowed to file his answer on or
before November 21, 2018.

On December 11, 2018, the IBP finally received respondent's

Answer27 dated November 21, 2018. 28 Respondent argued that:

First, complainant did not come to court with clean hands. She
was convicted in Criminal Case No. 7981 of Estafa wherein he was the
private complainant. Complainant's conviction had become final and
executory and she is currently under probation based on the MTC's
Order29 dated October 2, 2018. In addition, complainant is in an immoral
live-in relationship and has three children who have different fathers.
Complainant has never been married. 30

Second, the last case that he handled was Criminal Case No. 3553
before the MTC of Calaca, Batangas. He ceased to appear as counsel
after June 21, 2018 because his MCLE requirement was not up to date.
He can no longer afford to complete his MCLE requirement due to his
physical and economic situation. Thus, he decided to abandon his legal
practice. 31

Third, he did not notarize documents outside of his notarial

commission's jurisdiction. This is because his notarial commission
covered the Province of Batangas per the Certification32 dated August
22, 2017 issued by Executive Judge Mary Jane B. Valeza-Maranan of the
RTC of Lemery, Batangas. 33

Both parties attended the mandatory conference on March 9, 2020.

The IBP then issued an Order34 dated July 24, 2020 directing the parties
26 Id. at 95. Underscoring in the original.
27 Id. at 103-107,
28 Id. at 158.
29 Id. at 108; signed by Judge Designate Elizabeth TvL Evangelista-Ilagan.
30 id. at 103-104, 16L
31 Id. at 104-105, 161.
32 Id. at 109.
33 Id. at 105, 162.
34 Id. at 143- I 44.
Decision 6 A.C. No. 13358
[Formerly CBD Case No. 18-5770]

to inform the Commission if they were capable of participating by video

conference or if they were willing to waive the conduct of another
mandatory conference and proceed with the submission of their position
papers. Complainant only manifested her preference to receive notices
through her email. As such, the IBP declared the mandatory conference
waived in its Order35 dated February 4, 2021. Complainant filed her
position paper as required by the IBP while respondent did not. 36

Report and Recommendation of the IBP

In the Report and Recommendation37 dated May 31, 2021,

Investigating Commissioner Rogelio D. Torres, Jr. (Investigating
Commissioner) recommended that respondent be disbarred from the
practice of law in view of his transgressions, viz.:

In view of the foregoing premises, the undersigned is

compelled to respectfully recommended [sic] that the instant
Complaint be sustained and respondent be held administratively liable
for violating the Lawyer's Oath, Code of Professional Responsibility
and Rules on Notarial Practice. It is recommended that the respondent
be DISBARRED.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. 38 (Emphases omitted.)

The Investigating Commissioner's findings and conclusions are as

follows:

First, respondent violated the Lawyer's Oath when he offered to

have the criminal cases against complainant dismissed despite knowing
that once a criminal case is filed, only its civil aspect may be dismissed
by the parties. Moreover, he demanded the amount of P200,000.00 from
complainant which is 4,444% higher than the original amount of
1'4,500.00 that the latter owed. Respondent took advantage of
complainant and her mother when he asked for a significant amount,
only to renege on his commitment to sign an affidavit of desistance in
relation to the criminal cases after he received payment thereof. 39

35 Id. at 145-146.
36 ld. at 159.
37
Id.atl58-171.
38
Id. at 171.
39
Id. at 163-164.
Decision 7 A.C. No. 13358
[Formerly CBD Case No. 18-5770]

Second, respondent violated Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the CPR and

B.M. No. 113240 dated April 1, 2003, as amended, when he used
different roll numbers in his pleadings. According to the Certification
dated April 24, 2018 issued by the MCLE Office, respondent's roll
number is 30889. However, he used the following roll numbers in the
pleadings he filed with the MTC and the RTC:

Pleading Roll No.

Very Urgent Motion for Voluntary Inhibition41 in Criminal 30889
Case No. 6603 pending before the RTC of Balayan,
Batangas (Very Urgent Motion)
2018 Manifestation and Motion42 31889
Motion to Apply Sec. ll(e), Rule 119 of the Revised Rules 31889
on Criminal Procedure on Reverse Trial in this Case43 m
Criminal Case No. 3553 (Motion to Apply)
Very Imphatic [sic] Manifestation44 in Criminal Case Nos. 31889
3529, 3554, 3555, and 7978 pending before the MTC of
Calaca ("Very Imphatic" Manifestation)
Compromise Agreement4 5 m Criminal Case No. 3507 3888946
pending before the MTC of Calaca (Compromise
Agreement)

40 Bar Matter No. 1132 (Re: Resolution No. ll2-2002 of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of !locos
Norte, Request to Require Lawyers to Indicate in the Pleading their Number in the Roll of
Attorneys.)
xxxx
The Court Resolved upon recommendation of the Office of the Bar Confidant, to GRANT the
request of L':ie Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan ofilocos Norte to require all lawyers to indicate their Roll of Attorneys Number in
all papers or pleadings submitted to the various judicial or quasi-judicial bodies in addition to the
requirement of indicating the current Professional Tax Receipt (PTR) and the IBP Official Receipt
or Life Member Number.
All pleadings, motions and papers filed in court. whether personal(v or by mail. which do not bear
counsel's Roll ofAttorneys Number as herein required may not be acted upon by the court, without
prejudice to whatever disciplinary actfon the court may Lake against the erring counsel who shall
likewise be required to comply with the requirement within five (5) days from notice. Failure to
comply with such requirement shall be a ground for further disciplinary sanction and for contempt
of court.
Strict compliance herewith is hereby e11joined effective immediately. (Italics in the originai.)
" Rollo, pp. 46-60.
42 ld. at 26-29.
43 ld.at74-75.
44 Id. at 76-79.
45 Id. at 81-85.
46 Id. at ] 64-165.
Decision 8 A.C. No. 13358
[Formerly CBD Case No. 18-5770]

Third, respondent used offensive language m his pleadings m

violation of Rule 11.03, Canon 11 of the CPR:
- -- .

Pleading Statement
2018 Manifestation "x xx Judge Montes has the penchant to be a small
and Motion dictator exercising his judicial power largely on the
basis of what he personally desires and not on the
basis of what the law provides. x x x Undersigned
submits that the same was far from a proper display
of a judicial temperan1ent conducive to the
development of trust in the judicial system, but
more of a display of power based on either pure
ignorance of the law or a callous disregard of the
sarne." 47
2015 Manifestation "2.l.b.-2 Why, in the first place, did he waste
precious judicial time, as well as the time of those
who were parties to this charade of a hearing, when
he could have dismissed the case outright because
the Jriformation was 'defective'?

2.1.c. In so rendering a decision of acquittal, the

presiding judge, in effect, gave premium to non-
performance and to lies, in fact a case of the truth
of the prosecution versus the lies of the accused,
and the Holy Scriptures tell me that all lies
originate from the 'father' thereof, Satan the Devil.
XXX

2.1.d. Some justice indeed m which the court,

which is supposed to be an instrument of justice
based on truth, through the presiding judge,
actuaily became, wittingly or unwittingly, the
instrument of falsehood and injustice and thus,
Iverily, not the True God, Almighty God, but of His
!archenemy, the Devil! I

I
xxxx I

2.2. The pronouncement in the decision x x x IS

- - ~
I

47 fd. at 27.
Decision 9 A.C. No. 13358
[Formerly CBD Case No. 18-5770]

VERYDEFINITELYABIGLIE!" 4 8
Very Urgent "2.2.b. That Her Honor, with evident gusto and
Motion alacrity, thereafter allowed the hearing to indeed
proceed even without the presence of the accused
and his counsel and despite clear showing that they
had not been properly notified pursuant to the
mandate of the Rules of Court, is nauseating and
revolting to one's sense of rudimentary justice and
fair play, to say the least, more especially so in the
light of the blatantly false accusation of the private
prosecutor that the accused was then already in
hiding; x x x.

xxxx

5 .1. In the first place, since the phrase

'denied/denial of due process' is a phrase
commonly used by lawyers in the pursuit of their
client's cause, Her Honor has completely no reason
to be onion-skinned and overly sensitive, nay
allergic and paranoid, about it." 49

Fourth, it appears that respondent failed to comply with the

MCLE requirement since it was first imposed under B.M. No. 850 in
2001 in breach of Canon 5 of the CPR. Worse, he made it appear that he
actually complied with the requirement, which manifested bad faith,
dishonesty, and deceit. 50

Fifth, respondent violated Section 11, Rule III of the Notarial

Ruies when he notarized documents in Calaca, Batangas considering that
his notarial commission's jurisdiction only covered Lemery, Batangas. 51

In conclusion, the Investigating Commissioner opined that

respondent had disgraced the legal profession and failed to live up to his
duties as a lawyer under the Lavvyer's Oath, the CPR, and the Notarial
Rules, making him unworthy to continue to be a member of the Bar. 52
48 Id. at 41.
49 Id. at 49 and 59.
so ld. at 167-168.
51 Id. at 170-17!.
52 ld. at 171.
Decision 10 A.C. No. 13358
[Formerly CBD Case No. 18-5770]

On August 28, 2021, the IBP Board of Governors issued

Resolution No. CBD-XXV-2021-08-34, 53 which provides:

RESOLVED to A1ODIFY, as it is hereby MODIFIED, the

Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in
the instant case, and instead to recommend the imposition upon
Respondent Atty. Jose F Caoibes, Jr., the penalty of INDEFINITE
SUSPENSION .from the practice of law in lieu of disbarment, taking
into account the Respondent 's age. 54 (Emphases omitted and italics in
the original.)

Issue

Whether respondent should be held administratively liable for his

actions.

The Court's Ruling

The Court adopts and approves the findings of the IBP, with
modification as to the penalty imposed on respondent.

Respondent misled complainant

with respect to the Compromise
Agreement.

Complainant alleged that respondent misled her into paying

P200,000.00 by promising that he will have the cases he filed against her
and her mother dismissed. She contended that respondent reneged on his
promise despite receipt of the full payment from complainant. 55

Respondent did not deny that he received the sum of P200,000.00

from complainant. Notably, he expressly stated in his Letter56 dated May
4, 2018, addressed to complaina.,t's counsel, that only the civil aspect of
the criminal case of Estafa against complainant shall be settled.
However, this Letter was made after complainant already fully paid the
53 Id. at I 56.
54 Id.
55
Id. at I 59- I 60.
56 Id.at21-22.
Decision 11 A.C. No. 13358
[Formerly CBD Case No. 18-5770]

amount agreed upon. More importantly, the allegations of complainant

are supported by the Joint Affidavit57 dated May 24, 2018 executed by
Judge Montes and Atty. Myraflor L. Chavez, complainant's counsel,
stating:

3. That it was Atty. Jose F. Caoibes, Jr. who requested the

undersigned Judge to mediate between him and accused Vivian
Rubio, and the undersigned counsel Atty. Chavez was requested
to a conference at the judge's chamber. Atty. Caoibes made a
proposal that he be paid the amount of Two hundred thousand
pesos (Php200,000.00) and upon full payment he will dismiss
all the cases against Vivian Rubio and her mother, Luz Rubio,
including the case pending before the Prosecutor's Office; that
Vivian Rubio accepted the proposal and indeed paid the said
amount starting that day;

4. We also attest to the fact that the private complainant, Atty.

Caoibes, swore by his Lawyers Oath, that he will dismiss all
those cases he filed against Vivian Rubio and her mother Luz
Rubio, upon fall payment;

5. The accused Vivian Rubio stay [sic] true to her word and paid
the last installment for the entire amount of Two Hundred
Thousand Pesos (Php200,000.00) last April 10, 2018;

6. That the private complainant refused to sign the affidavit of

desistance prepared (by undersigned Atty. Chavez) and instead
submitted a document denominated as Combined Affidavit of
Admission and Desistance, wherein in that draft document
Vivian Rubio, will sign the document impliedly admitting the
charges, filed by Atty. Caoibes, and in the same document Atty.
Caoibes, moved to dismiss the case because of repentance and
apology by the accused; which was not signed by Vivian Rubio
because that is not part of the agreement during the proposal for
settlement;

7. That until now Atty. Jose F. Caoibes, Jr. did not moved [sic] for
the dismissal of the case, as promised by him;

xx x x58 (Italics supplied.)

Indeed, the Combined Affidavits 59 prepared by respondent

required complainant to virtualiy admit her guilt of the charges against

57 ld. at l 9-20.
58 ld. at 19.
59 See Combined Affidavits of Admissions and Desi stance (Combined Affidavits) id. at 17-18.
0
 Decision 12 A.C. No. 13358
[Formerly CBD Case No. 18-5770]

·h- 6 ' comp1·

,ms ran count er t o thevery reason wny
e,. ocr,· amant agree d to a
settlement in the first place, which was to have the cases against her
dismissed.

As such, complainant duly established that respondent had

deceived her into thinking that he would have the criminal charges
against her dismissed when, in fact, he was well aware that the parties
cannot enter into a compromise agreement regarding the criminal aspect
of the case. 61 Even assuming that respondent was clear that he only
wished to settle the civil aspect of the case, he still failed to uphold his
end of the bargain when he did not move for the dismissal thereof
despite receiving the full amount due from complainant. 62

For misleading complainant, respondent failed to abide by the

La,vyer's Oath and Rule 1.01 of the CPR, which states that "[a] lawyer
shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct."

Respondent notarized documents

beyond his territorial jurisdiction.

Respondent admitted in his Answer that most of the documents he

notarized were from the Municipality of Calaca, Batangas where his
office is located. 63 He also did not deny that he notarized the
Compromise Agreement. 64 Moreover, respondent argued that he did not
exceed the territorial jurisdiction of his notarial commission according to
the Certification65 dated August 22, 2017 from the Executive Judge of
Branch 5, RTC of Lemery, Batangas which states that he was a
"NOTARY PUBLIC for and in the province of Batangas for a term
beginning August 22, 2017 and ending December 31, 2018." 66
60
The Combined Affidavits state in part: "1.l. Totoong /ahat ang mga sinabi ni Atty. Jose F
Caoibes, Jr. !ungkol sa mga pangyayaring umakay sa akin xx xx.
1.2. Tinatanggap kong isang malaking pagkukulang at pagkakamali sa aking panig ang hindi
pagtupad sa aking pangako ng agarang pagbahalik ng perang may kugundahang-loob na
ipinagkatiwala ni Atty Caoibes sa akin, gayundin ang hindi pagbibigay-pansin o pagwawalang-
bahala sa kanila xx xx." Id. at 17.
61 The Letter dated May 4, 2018 states in pa,"t: "[l]t is also beyond cavil and is a basic principle of
law that such ·payments' MERELY SETTLE THE CJV!LASPECTS OF OUR CASES, NOT THE
CRIMINAL ASPECTS THEREOF." ld. at2L (Emphases omitted.)
62
See Joint Affidavit dated May 24, 2018, id. at 19.
63 id. at 105.
64 ld. at 85.
65 Id. at i09.
66 !d.
Decision 13 AC. No. 13358
[Formerly CBD Case No. 18-5770]

Pertinently, Section 11, Rule III of the Notarial Rules provides:

SECTION 11. Jurisdiction and Term. - A person

commissioned as notary public may perform notarial acts in any place
within the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court for a
period of two (2) years commencing the first day of January of the
year in which the commissioning is made, unless earlier revoked or
the notary public has resigned under these Rules and the Rules of
Court.

Under Section 18 67 of Batas Pambansa Bilang 129, or The

Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, the Court shall define the territory
over which a branch of t.he RTC shall exercise its authority. Pursuant
thereto, the Court issued A.M. No. 94-9-305-RTC 68 dated October 11,
1994 defining the territorial jurisdiction of the RTCs in the province of
Batangas. In particular, A.M. No. 94-9-305-RTC provides that t.he RTC
of Lemery (Branch 5) has territorial jurisdiction over the Municipalities
of Agoncillo, Lemery, Batangas, and San Luis. Meanwhile, the RTCs of
Ba!ayan (Branches 9 to 11) have territorial jurisdiction over the
Municipalities ofBalayan, Calaca, Calatagan, and Tuy.

Thus, respondent can only perform notarial acts, including the

notarization of documents, within the Municipalities of Agoncillo,
Lemery, and San Luis, because this is the territorial jurisdiction of the
RTC of Lemery, his commissioning court. Certainly, he violated the
Notarial Rules when he notarized documents in Calaca, Batangas which
falls outside the jurisdiction of his notarial commission. 69

67 Section 18 of Batas Pambansa Bilang 129 provides:

SECTION 18. Authority to Define Territory Appurtenant to Each Branch. - The
Supreme Court shall define the territory over which a branch of the Regional Trial Court
shall exercise its authority. The territory thus defined shail be deemed to be the territorial
area of the branch concerned for purposes of determining the venue of a11 suits,
proceedings or actions, whether civil or criminal, as well as determining the Metropolitan
Trial Courts, Municipal Triai Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts over which the
said branch may exercise appe11ate _jurisdiction. The power herein granted shall be
exercised with a view to making the courts rcadi.ly accessible to the people of the different
parts of the region and making the attendance of litigants and witnesses as inexpensive as
possible.
68 Re: Re-Definition of the Territorial Jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court Branches in the
Province ofBatangas.
69
Rollo, p. 171.
Decision 14 AC. No. 13358
[Formerly CBD Case No. 18-5770]

Respondent's act likewise constitutes as a breach of Rule 1.01,

Canon 1 of the CPR: 70

CANON 1 -A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the

laws of the land and promote respect for law and for legal processes.

Rule 1.01 -A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,

immoral or deceitful conduct.

Respondent's actions cannot be countenanced. After all, "[a]

notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its
face." 71 As such, notaries public are mandated to strictly observe the
basic requirements provided in the Notarial Rules in the performance of
their notarial duties. 72 Respondent's failure to do so placed at risk the
confidence of the public in the integrity of this form of conveyance. 73

Respondent used foul language zn

his pleadings.

The use of derogatory language 1s expressly prohibited by the

CPR:

CANON 8 - A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy,

fairness and candor toward his professional colleagues, and shall
avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel.

Rule 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings,

use language which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.

Accordingly, the Court has reminded members of the Bar that

while their language may be forceful and emphatic, it must always be
dignified, respectful, and befitting of the legal profession. 74 The use of
intemperate and unkind ascription is not acceptable in the judicial

70 See Almazan, Sr. v. Atty. Suerte-Felipe, 743 Phil. 131, l36(2014). See also Judge Laquindanum v.
Atty. Quinzana. 608 Phil. 727, 737-738 (2009).
71 See Sps. Gacuya v. Atty. Solbita, 782 Phil. 253, 257 (2016), citing Bernardo v. Atty. Ramos, 433
Phil. 8, 15-16 (2002).
72 Id., c]tingArrietav. Llosa, 346 Phil. 932,937 (1997).
73 Id.
74 J'viartin v. Atty Ala, A.C. No. 10556 (Notice), June 30, 2021, citing Noble If! E Atty. Ailes, 762
Phil. 296,301 (2015), The Lmifirm ofChawz MirandaAseoche v Lazaro, 794 Phil. 308 (2016),
and Par.ks v: Misa, Jr., A.C. No. 11639, February 5, 2020.
Decision IS A.C. No. 13358
[Formerly CBD Case No. 18-5770]

forum.7 5 Specifically with respect to the courts, lawyers must abide by

the following:

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.

xxxx

Rule 11.03 - A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous,

offensive or menacing language or behavior before the Courts.

Rule I 1.04 - A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives

not supported by the record or have no materiality to the case.

Rule I 1.05 - A lawyer shall submit grievances against a

Judge to the proper authorities only.

Here, respondent did not refute or defend the questionable

language that he used in his pleadings. 76 As such, the Court concurs with
the IBP that respondent indeed violated the CPR when he made
intemperate statements in the pleadings that he filed before the lower
courts. In particular, these are:

A. 2015 Manifestation

2. l.b.-2 Why, in the first place, did he waste precious judicial

time, as well as the time of those who were parties to this charade of a
hearing, when he could have dismissed the case outright because the
Information was "defective"?

2.1.c. In so rendering a decision of acquittal, the presiding

judge, in effect, gave premium to non-performance and to lies, in fact
a case of the truth of the prosecution versus the lies of the accused,
and the Holy Scriptures tell me that all lies originate from the "father"
thereof, Satan the Devil. (The Gospel according to St. John, Chap. 8,
verse 44.)

2.1.d. Some justice indeed in which the court, which is

supposed to be an instm.'11ent of justice based on truth, through the
presiding judge, actually became, wittingly or unwittingly, the
instrument of falsehood a,1d injustice and thus, verily, not of the True
God, Almighty God, but of His archenemy, the Devil!
75
Id.
76 See rollo, p. 167.
Decision 16 A.C. No. 13358
[Formerly CBD Case No. 18-5770]

xxxx

2.2. The pronouncement in the decision, for instance, that "not

a scintilla of evidence was presented by the prosecution showing that
the refusal or neglect by the accused to construct the subject canal
was for the purpose of obtaining, directly or indirectly, from any
person interested in tile matter some pecuniary or material benefit in
favor of an interested party, or discriminating against ar1other" IS
VERY DEFINITELY A BIG LIE! xx x

xxxx

3.1.1.- b. There being no attestation and/or authentication xx

x, despite the timely objection thereto, IS PLAIN AND SIMPLE
IGNORANCE OF PROCEDURE!

3.1.2. It is doubly subscribing to a lie and sheer negligence and

laziness, bordering on outright incompetence, to believe that the
prosecution "failed to dispute the accuracy" of Exhibit "2" in the iight
of my Reply Affidavit which the decision itself admitted x xx.

xxxx

3.1.2.- c. Candor compels undersigned to confess that the false

statement in the decision that "(u)nquestionably in this case,
Chairman Rivera had constructed water outlet in the area which,
however, was described by Atty. Caoibes, Jr. as 'superficial cleaning
of a minuscule portion of a canal"' xx x, is nauseating (nakakasuka,
in the vernacular) to say the least.

xxxx

6. It is saddening and depressing to think that, in coming up

with his twisted and unjust decision, the presiding judge would ignore
the facts on record, choose to believe in the clear lies of the accused,
practically even resort to twisting the record of the case, in effect
labeling me and my son liars and the prosecution incompetent to
justify an acquittal!

xxxx

6.4. l.- b. Should the True God be kind and gracious enough to
favor undersigned with a resurrection in His promised new order of
things where he would certainly meet the late father of the presiding
judge, undersigned would certainly tel1 him that this baseless, untrue,
unfair, twisted and unjust decision based on lies and biatar1t
falsehoods is his son's (who aspired to his position, albeit in a more
Decision l7 A.C. No. 13358
[Formerly CBD Case No. 18-5770]

successful way) "parting gift" to the undersigned m this life. 77

(Emphases omitted.)

B. Motion for Immediate Inhibition in Criminal Case No. 6603

pending before the RTC of Balayan, Branch 10 (Motion for Immediate
Inhibition)

Reacting to the aforesaid developments, Judge Areta, in

bewildering display of what amounts to total submission to the whims
and caprices of the private prosecution, and total abandon of the
starkly clear provisions of the Rules x xx, in her September 23, 2013
Order, again affixed her imprimatur to the prosecution's dilatory
moves by decreeing "the proceeding in this case suspended until ti'-ie
said appeal is resolved", meaning AGAIN INDEFINITELY!

xxxx

Moreover, although undersigned, and more surely his then

counsel, were loathed to impute laziness against Judge Areta, it was
surely no easy and inexpensive tasks [sic] for undersigned to himself
go through the already voluminous files in this case, and to sort out
their intended documentary exhibits, have them photocopied and
marked, pursuant to the instructions of Judge Areta, instead of her
going through the records herself as such documentary exhibits were
mentioned and enumerated and marked by undersigned's counsel to
her one by one. x x x

xxxx

x x x IN THE SAID HEARING, JUDGE ARETA

VIRTUALLY LAWYERED FOR THE PROSECUTION! It is hard
enough to face the State, represented by the public prosecution, with
all the governmental resources behind it; IT IS DOUBLY DIFFICULT
WHEN THE JUDGE HERSELF, AS IN THIS CASE, IS ON THE
SIDE OF THE PROSECUTION!7 8 (Emphases omitted and
underscoring in the original.)

C. 2018 Manifestation and Motion

Jt is not amiss to state at this juncture that Judge Montes is not

averse to resorting to this kind of an anomalous unproceduraJ [sic]
irregularity in other criminal cases pending before his court.

xxxx
77
Rollo, pp. 41-45.
78
Id. at 66-70.
Decision 18 A.C. No. 13358
[Formerly CBD Case No. 18-5770]

It is undersigned's honest observation that in the conduct of

his courtroom, Judge Montes has the penchant to be a small dictator
exercising his judicial power largely on the basis of what he
personally desires and not on the basis of what the law provides. xx x
Undersigned submits that the same was far from a proper display of a
judicial temperament conducive to the development of trust in the
judicial system, but more of a display of power based either on pure
ignorance of the law or a callous disregard of the same.

xxxx

The foregoing actuation and clear quibbling of Judge Montes

unmistakably display his already unreasonably insane and hostile
attitude towards the undersigned, hence, there is a very imminent
possibility that undersigned will not be treated fairly and justly by
said judge. 79

As a member of the Bar, respondent certainly has not oniy the

right but also the obligation to criticize the actions of courts and judges
using respectful and dignified language through legitimate channels. 80
However, respondent did not simply criticize the judges in his pleadings
in the case -he insulted them.

In the 2015 Manifestation, respondent implied that Judge Silang

was working for the devil. He even threatened to speak ill of Judge
Silang before the latter's late father should they meet in heaven. Then, in
the Motion for Immediate Inhibition, respondent accused Judge Areta of
incompetence, laziness, and partiality in favor of the prosecution.
Finally, in the 2018 Manifestation and Motion, he claimed tliat Judge
Montes behaved like a dictator and was engaged in unscrupulous
practices.

Evidently, the unsubstantiated allegations that respondent

included in the pleadings mentioned above are patently disrespectful and
unacceptable in the judicial forum. Assu1ning arguendo that there was
basis for resuondent's comolaints, he should have submitted such
' the proper authority.
evidence before "
Respondent clearly violated the

79 Id. at 26-28.
80 See Judge Ramos v. At!}~ Lazo, A.C. No. !0204, September 14, 2020, citing Judge Lerew-om 1,:
Atty. Jacoba and Atty. Velasco, 519 Phii. 195,209 (2006).
Decision 19 A.C. No. 13358
[Formerly CBD Case No. 18-5770]

CPR with the baseless and undignified statements that he made in his
pieadings. 81

Respondent did not comp(v with the

MCLE requirement.

B.M. No. 850, issued on October 2, 2001, requires all members of

the Bar, who are not otherwise exempt, to complete every three years at
least 36 hours of continuing legal education activities approved by t.he
MCLE Office. 82

Then, in the Resolution dated February 17, 2015, the Court further
mandated all lawyers "to file a written entry of appearance indicating
their MCLE exemption or compliance number for the current or
immediately preceding compliance period and date of issuance thereof
before appearing as counsel or engaging in oral argument in open court
or before a quasi-judicial body." Thus, a lawyer appearing in court must
show compliance with the MCLE requirement in accordance with Canon
5 of the CPR which provides:

CANON 5 - A lawyer shall keep abreast of legal

developments, participate in continuing legal education programs,
support efforts to achieve high standards in law schools as well as in
the practical training of law students and assist in disseminating
information regarding the law and jurisprudence.

In the case, the Certification83 from the MCLE Office shows that
respondent never complied with the requirement for MCLE at all.
Respondent has no record of either compliance or exemption from the
first compliance period for April 15, 2001 to April 14, 2004 until the fifth
compliance period for April 15, 2013 to April 14, 2016. And yet, he
admittedly appeared before the courts as counsel prior to June 21, 2018.
Without a doubt, respondent acted in clear violation of B.JVI. No. 850 and
Canon 5.

Worse, respondent misrepresented that he was either in the process

of complying ,vith the l\1CLE requirement or has complied with it. As
81
Rollo, p. !67.
82 Section 2, Rule 2, B.M. No. 850 dated Octnher 2. 2001.
83 Rollo, p. 73.
Decision 20 A.C. No. 13358
[Formerly CBD Case No. 18-5770]

the Investigating Commissioner duly observed, respondent stated that:

(a) his MCLE compliance was presently being updated in his 2018
Manifestation and Motion, Motion to Apply, and "Very Imphatic"
Manifestation; and (b) he complied with the MCLE requirement for the
3rd and 4th compliance periods in the J3t1i IBP National Convention held
in Subic Bay Freeport Zone, Olongapo City, on April 7 to 9, 2011 in his
Very Urgent Motion. 84 Indeed, respondent's misleading statements, too,
are tantamount to a violation of Canons 1, 7, 85 and 10 of the CPR.

Respondent used different roll

numbers in his pleadings.

B.M. No. 1132 requires lawyers to indicate their roll numbers in

all papers or pleadings that they submit to the various judicial or quasi-
judicial bodies. This is to preserve and protect the integrity of legal
practice. Indicating one's roll number would enable parties to easily
verify if a person claiming to be a lawyer is indeed a member of the
Bar. 86 As such, the importance of this requirement cannot be undermined.

In the case, it is undisputed that respondent used dijferent roll

numbers in his practice of law in violation of B.M. No. 1132. According
to the Certification from the MCLE Office, respondent's roll number is
30889. 87 However, he used roll number 31889 in his 2018 Manifestation
and Motion, Motion to Apply, and "Very Imphatic" Manifestation88 and
roll number 38889 in the Compromise Agreement that he notarized. 89
The only pleading in the records of the case that states respondent's
correct roll number is his Very Urgent Motion. 90 Notably, respondent did
not offer any explanation for the discrepancies. 91

Considering the lack of an explanation from respondent as well as

the frequency of his erroneous statements, the Court cannot just overlook
his failure to indicate his correct roil number in the pleadings mentioned
84 Id. at 167-170.
85 Canon 7 of the Code of Profossio11al Responsibility provides:
CANON 7 - A la'll'Yer sha!l at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the iegal ·
profession, and support the activities. of the lntegrated Bar.
86 Intestate Estare ofJose Uy v. Atty. 1Haghari, 768 Phil. 10, 24-25 (20 l 5).
87 Rollo, p. 73.
88 Id. at 29, 75, and 78.
89 Id. at 85.
90 ld. at 60.
91
Id. at 165.
Decision 21 A.C. No. 13358
[Formerly CBD Case No. 18-5770]

above and consider it as a mere oversight. 92 Respondent's act of

misleading the courts and the public in this regard is inconsistent with
the Lawyer's Oath as well as Canon 10 and Rule 10.1 of the CPR, which
state:

CANON l O - A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith

to the court.

Rule 10.01 -A lawyer shall not do a..,y falsehood, nor

consent to the doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead or allow the
Court to be misled by any artifice.

Respondent did not comply with the

order of the IBP

Respondent did not file his position paper as required by the IBP
in its Order93 dated February 4, 2021. The lawful order of the IBP is not a
mere request that respondent should have disregarded. His failure to file
his position paper is inconsistent with his duties under Canons 1, 7, and
11 of the CPR. 94

The Proper Penalty

Disbarment is the most severe penalty that the Court can impose
upon erring lawyers. As such, it is reserved for "clear cases of
misconduct that seriously affect the standing and character of the lawyer
as an officer of the court and member of the [B]ar." 95 In deciding
whether the penalty of disbarment must be imposed, the Court may
consider the following questions:

1. "Do the transgressions of the erring lawyer justify his or her

disbarment?" 96

92 Id. at 165.
" id. at 145.
94 See Quitazol v. Alty. Capela, A.C. No. 12072 f.Resolmion), December 9, 2020, citing Cabauatan v.
Atty Venida, 721 Phil. 733, 738-739 (2013).
95 De Chavez-Blanco v. Atty. Lu.masag, jr., 603 Phil. 59, 67 (2009).
96 Genatu v. ri.tty. ivlallari, A.C. No. 12486, October LS, 2019.
Decision 22 A.C. No. 13358
[Formerly CBD Case No. 18-5770]

2. "What circumstances in the erring lawyer's life can we draw

upon to avoid disbarment as an outcorne?" 97

3. "Would the legal profession be better off without this erring

lawyer in the Roll of Attorneys, and would others be deterred
from following the erring lawyer's type ofpractice?" 98

The Court may also consider the previous disciplinary record of

the lawyer in determining the appropriate penalty. 99 In other words, the
proper penalty to be imposed against an erring lawyer is ultimately
subject to the exercise of sound judicial discretion of the Court based on
t..h.e surrounding facts. 100

It is noteworthy that respondent was previously penalized for his

transgressions during his time as a judge.

First, in Judge Alumbres v. Judge Caoibes, J1'., 101 the Court

imposed the penalty of a fine of f'20,000.00 upon respondent for
inflicting fistic blows upon his fellow judge. 102

Second, in Spouses Montero/a v. Judge Caoibes, Jr., 103 the Court

penalized respondent with a fine off'30,000.00 for his gross ignorance of
procedural law and the unreasonable delay in the issuance of an order for
execution. 104

Third, the Court fined respondent in the amount of I'40,000.00 in

Unitrust Development Bank v. Judge Caoibes, Jr., 105 because of his
undue delay in resolving a motion to dismiss. 106

97 Id.
98 Id.
99 See Sismaet v. Atty. Cruzabra, A.C. No_ 5001, September 7, 2020. See aiso Philippine fnyestment
One, Inc. v. Atty Lomcda, 859 Phil. 41 (2D 19). and San Jose Homeowners Association Inc. v. Atty.
Romanii!os, 499 Phil. 99. 107-108 (2005).
wo Sps. Concepcion" Atty. De!a Rosa. 752 Phil. 485,496 (2015).
101 425 Phil. 55 (2002).
102 Id. at 64-65.

10, 429 Phi!. 59 (2002).

104 Id. at 69.

10, 456 Phil. 676 (2003).

IOG ld. at 682-686.
Decision 23 A.C. No. 13358
[Formerly CBD Case No. 18-5770]

Lastly, in Sison v. Judge Caoibes, Jr., 107 the Court dismissed

respondent from service due to serious impropriety unbecoming a judge
in violation of Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. In that case,
respondent issued an Order citing the complainant therein in contempt of
court and ordering his arrest and commitment due to the latter's failure to
appear despite being required by the court. Notably, the complainant was
required to appear in court after he issued a traffic violation receipt to
respondent's son who was running an errand for his father. 108

Here, the infractions committed by respondent show his failure to

comply with the exacting standards expected from members of the Bar.
He engaged in various forms of deception. He disrespected judges of the
court, notwithstanding the fact that he was formerly a judge himself.
Respondent also manifested a clear disregard for the rules governing
members of the Bar.

All told, respondent has not proven himself worthy of the privilege
bestowed upon him to practice law. Though the Court may temper
penalties for infractions committed by members of the bar in view of
their advanced age, 109 the Court finds that the gravity of the infractions
committed by respondent in the present case and in previous cases
warrant the penalty of disbarment.

WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Atty. Jose F. Caoibes,

Jr. GUILTY of violation of the Lawyer's Oath, the Code of Professional
Responsibility, the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, and Bar Matter No.
850. Accordingly, the Court hereby imposes upon him the penalty of
DISBARlv'IENT from practice of law and his name is ORDERED
STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys, effective immediately.

Let copies of this Decision be furnished to the Office of the Bar

Confidant to be appended to respondent's personal record as an attorney;
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for its information and guidance;
and the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts in
the country.

107 473 Phil. 251 (2004).

108 Id. at 262-265.
109 SeeAngeles v. Atty. lina-ac,A.C. No. 12063, January 8, 2019.
 Decision 24 A.C. No. 13358
[Formerly CBD Case No. 18-5770]

SO ORDERED.

AL~ .GESMU
7 ~77:hief Justice

-~~· '7»~
~ /;5/tt J.,k/Pf ~
MARYi M.V.F. LEONEN '-----. ALF
'·
Associate Justice ---,.,.,._
I I
.
i,/1 I •

Associate Justice
AMY IJ,ti;;,;J;;:i:;IER
Aisociate Justice
,,,------

Associate 'Justice

-;:: s~e
SAMUEL H. GAERLAN
Associate Justice

OR. ROSARIO . JHOSE~OPEZ

Associate Justice

(On official leave) (On official business)

JAPAR B. DIMAAMPAO JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ
Assodate Justice Associate Justice

,.// ~
MA~OlVl~NA u. SINGH
Associate Justice ,,,,,,,- Associate Justice
/
,,/

///