RECENT RULINGS RE LEGAL ETHICS Capili v.

Bentulan (2013) Attorney; the failure to file a brief resulting in the dismissal of an appeal constitutes inexcusable negligence. In Dalisay Capili v. Atty. Alfredo L. Bentulan , the Court held that the failure to file a brief resulting in the dismissal of an appeal constitutes inexcusable negligence. In this case, the Court cannot accept as an excuse the alleged lapse committed by his client in failing to provide him a copy of the case records. In the first place, securing a copy of the case records was within Atty. San Juan s control and is a tas! that the lawyer underta!es. Second, Atty. San Juan, unli!e his client, !nows or should have !nown, that filing an appellant s brief within the reglementary period is critical in the perfection of an appeal. "he preparation and the filing of the appellant s brief are matters of procedure that fully fell within the exclusive control and responsibility of Atty. San Juan. It was incumbent upon him to execute all acts and procedures necessary and incidental to the perfection of his client s appeal. "hird, Atty. San Juan lac!ed candor in dealing with his client. #e omitted to inform "omas of the progress of his appeal with the Court of Appeals. $orse, he did not disclose to "omas the real reason for the Court of Appeal s dismissal of the appeal. %either did Atty. San Juan file a motion for reconsideration, or otherwise resort to available legal remedies that might have protected his client s interest.
Teno o v. E!"ave# (2013)

Attorney; practice of law; notary. "he practice of law is imbued with public interest and &a lawyer owes substantial duties not only to his client, but also to his brethren in the profession, to the courts, and to the nation, and ta!es part in one of the most important functions of the State ' the administration of (ustice ' as an officer of the court.) Accordingly, *)lawyers are bound to maintain not only a high standard of legal proficiency, but also of morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing.) Similarly, the duties of notaries public are dictated by public policy and impressed with public interest. &%otari+ation is not a routinary, meaningless act, for notari+ation converts a private document to a public instrument, ma!ing it admissible in evidence without the necessity of preliminary proof of its authenticity and due execution.) In misrepresenting himself as a notary public, respondent exposed party,litigants, courts, other lawyers and the general public to the perils of ordinary documents posing as public instruments. -espondent committed acts of deceit and falsehood in open violation of the explicit pronouncements of the Code of .rofessional -esponsibility. /vidently, respondent s conduct falls miserably short of the high standards of morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing re0uired from lawyers. "hus, he should be sanctioned. Efigenia M. Tenoso vs. Atty. Anselmo S. Echanez. A.C. %o. 1213. April 44, 5642 Attorney; a lawyer shall not assist in the unauthori+ed practice of law. Atty. 7ancolo admitted that the Complaint he filed for a former client before the 8ffice of the 8mbudsman was signed in his name by a secretary of his law office. #e li!ewise categorically stated that because of some minor lapses, the communications and pleadings filed against "apay and -ustia were signed by his secretary, albeit with his tolerance. Clearly, he violated -ule 9.64 of Canon 9 of the Code of .rofessional -esponsibility :C.-;, which provides< CA%8% 9 ' A =A$>/- S#A== %8", ?I-/C"=> 8- I%?I-/C"=>, ASSIS" I% "#/ @%A@"#8-IA/? .-AC"IC/ 8B =A$.

-ule 9.64 ' A lawyer shall not delegate to any un0ualified person the performance of any tas! which by law may only be performed by a member of the 7ar in good standing. Atty. 7ancolo s authority and duty to sign a pleading are personal to him. Although he may delegate the signing of a pleading to another lawyer, he may not delegate it to a non,lawyer. Burther, under the -ules of Court, a counsel s signature serves as a certification that :4; he has read the pleading; :5; to the best of his !nowledge, information and belief there is good ground to support it; and :2; it is not interposed for delay. "hus, by affixing one s signature to a pleading, it is counsel alone who has the responsibility to certify to these matters and give legal effect to the document. Bor violating rule 9.64 of the C.-, Atty. 7acolo was meted with the penalty the suspension from the practice of law for one year. odrigo E. Tapay and Anthony !. ustia v. Attys. Charlie Bancolo and !anus !arder" A.C. #o. $%&'. March (&) (&*+. Attorney; disbarment complaint; outright dismissal is warranted if the complaint, on its face, lac!s merit. Bor resolution is the Cotion for -econsideration filed by the complainant upon the dismissal of the Complaint for disbarment he instituted against the respondent lawyers. Complainant claims he was denied due process because :4; she was not allowed to file a -eply and :5; the Court deviated from usual procedure when it resolved the disbarment Complaint without first declaring the case to have been submitted for resolution. "he Supreme Court has the power to outrightly dismiss a Complaint for disbarment when on its face, it is clearly wanting in merit. "hus, in ,nternational Militia of -eople against Corruption . Terrorism v. Chief !ustice Davide) !r. / et.0) the Court, after finding the Complaint insufficient in form and substance, dismissed the same outright for utter lac! of merit. In the instant case, the Court did not dismiss outright the disbarment Complaint. In fact, it even re0uired the respondents to file their respective Answers. "hen, after a (udicious study of the records, it proceeded to resolve the same although not in complainant s favor. 7ased on the Complaint and the supporting affidavits attached thereto, and the respective Comments of the respondents, the Court found that the presumption of innocence accorded to respondents was not overcome. Coreover, the Court no longer re0uired complainant to file a -eply since it has the discretion not to re0uire the filing of the same when it can already (udiciously resolve the case based on the pleadings thus far submitted. And contrary to complainant s mista!en notion, not all petitions or complaints reach the reply or memorandum stage. ?epending on the merits of the case, the Court has the discretion either to proceed with the case by first re0uiring the parties to file their respective responsive pleadings or to dismiss the same outright. =i!ewise, the Court can proceed to resolve the case without need of informing the parties that the case is already submitted for resolution. !asper !unno 1. odica v. Atty. Manuel M. Lazaro) et al." A.C. #o. $(2$. March *() (&*+. Attorney; duty to exercise due diligence. "he Court reiterated its ruling in Del Mundo v. Capistrano that &when a lawyer ta!es a client s cause, he covenants that he will exercise due diligence in protecting the latter s rights. Bailure to exercise that degree of vigilance and attention expected of a good father of a family ma!es the lawyer unworthy of the trust reposed on him by his client and ma!es him answerable not (ust to client but also to the legal profession, the court and society.) -espondent s infractions were aggravated by his failure to comply with C7? s directives for him to file his pleadings on time and to religiously attend hearings, demonstrating not only his irresponsibility but also his disrespect for the (udiciary and his fellow lawyers. Such conduct was unbecoming of a lawyer who is called upon to obey court orders and processes and is expected to stand foremost in complying with court directives as an officer of the court. As a member of the bar, he ought to have !nown that the orders of the C7? as the investigating arm of the Court in administrative cases against lawyers were not mere re0uests but directives which should have been complied with promptly and completely. 3loria -. !inon v. Atty. Leonardo E. !iz" A.C. #o. $%*2. March 2) (&*+.

Attorney; duty to hold in trust money received from client. Coney entrusted to a lawyer for a specific purpose, such as for the processing of transfer of land title, but not used for the purpose, should be returned to the client immediately. "he Court held in Dhali4al v. Dumaguing that a lawyer s failure to return the funds he holds on behalf of a client, despite latter s demand, gives rise to the presumption that he has appropriated the same for his own use and constitutes a gross violation of general morality and professional ethics. 3loria -. !inon v. Atty. Leonardo E. !iz" A.C. #o. $%*2. March 2) (&*+. Court personnel; simple neglect of duty; failure of branch cler! of court to !eep and maintain a general doc!et. 7ranch cler! of court Cr. "eves admitted that he failed to !eep and maintain a general doc!et of cases assigned to their branch. As such, he failed to comply with his duty under Section 1, -ule 42D of the -ules of Court, thus< Sec. 1. 3eneral doc5et. 6 "he cler! shall !eep a general doc!et, each page of which shall be numbered and prepared for receiving all the entries in a single case, and shall enter therein all cases, numbered consecutively in the order in which they were received, and under the heading of each case, a complete title thereof, the date of each paper filed or issued, of each order or (udgment entered, and of each other step ta!en in the case so that by reference a single page the history of the case may be seen. $ith this infraction, Cr. "eves was held liable for simple neglect of duty. 7ffice of the Court Administrator v. 8on. osa9ella M. Tormis) -resideing !udge) Municipal Trial Court in Cities /MTCC0) Branch ') Ce9u City and Mr. eynaldo S. Teves) Branch Cler5 of Court) same court" A.M. #o. MT!:*(:*;*;. March *() (&*+. Court personnel; simple neglect of duty; failure of branch cler! of court to schedule the promulgation of cases. In the ?atan case, Cr. "eves, instead of scheduling the case for promulgation, (ust gave the accused a copy of the unpromulgated decision at the time when the presiding (udge was serving her suspension. Section D, -ule 456 of the -ules of Court states that< Sec. D. .romulgation of (udgment. ' "he (udgment is promulgated by reading it in the presence of the accused and any (udge of the court in which it was rendered. #owever, if the conviction is for a light offense, the (udgment may be pronounced in the presence of his counsel or representative. $hen the (udge is absent or outside the province or city, the (udgment may be promulgated by the cler! of court x x x. Clearly, as found by the 8CA, Cr. "eves is guilty of simple neglect of duty. It is his duty to calendar the case for promulgation in accordance with the -ules of Court. #e did not only fail to do so. -ather, he, in fact, served copies of the decision to the accused without the (udgment having been promulgated first. 7ffice of the Court Administrator v. 8on. osa9ella M. Tormis) -resideing !udge) Municipal Trial Court in Cities /MTCC0) Branch ') Ce9u City and Mr. eynaldo S. Teves) Branch Cler5 of Court) same court" A.M. #o. MT!:*(:*;*;. March *() (&*+. Court personnel; simple neglect of duty; imposable penalty. Simple neglect of duty is defined as the &failure of an employee to give one s attention to a tas! expected of him, and signifies a disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference.) @nder the -evised @niform -ules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, simple neglect of duty is a less grave offense penali+ed with suspension for one month and one day to six months for the first offense, and dismissal for the second. In the determination of the proper penalty, the Court loo!ed into Cr. "eves past administrative cases. Considering his past infractions and having been warned that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely, Cr. "eves still has not reformed. #e has remained undeterred in disregarding the law and he appears to be unfa+ed by the previous penalties and warnings he received. Cr. "eves repeated infractions seriously compromise efficiency and

hamper public service which the Court can no longer tolerate. As such, he was meted with the penalty of dismissal from service with forfeiture of all benefits and privileges, except accrued leave credits, if any, with pre(udice to reemployment in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including government,owned or controlled corporations. 7ffice of the Court Administrator v. 8on. osa9ella M. Tormis) -resideing !udge) Municipal Trial Court in Cities /MTCC0) Branch ') Ce9u City and Mr. eynaldo S. Teves) Branch Cler5 of Court) same court" A.M. #o. MT!:*(:*;*;. March *() (&*+. Judges; duty to adopt an efficient system to monitor the status of cases. "he 8CA found that the court failed to maintain a general doc!et boo! to !eep trac! of the cases under it. Although the duty is vested with Cr. "eves as the 7ranch Cler! of Court, it is the duty of Judge "ormis to ma!e sure that the members of her staff perform their duties. "he 8CA also found that Cr. "eves repeatedly submitted inaccurate reports as to the actual number of cases pending with their court. "his is brought about by their failure to adopt an efficient system of monitoring their cases. Again, this is the primary responsibility of Judge "ormis. Binally, the 8CA noted that Judge "ormis failed to conduct an actual physical inventory of cases to !eep abreast of the status of the pending cases and to be informed that every case is in proper order. Judge "ormis is guilty of violating Supreme Court rules, directives, and circulars for her failure to comply with her duty to provide an efficient court management system in her court which includes the preparation and use of doc!et inventory and monthly report of cases as tools thereof. 7ffice of the Court Administrator v. 8on. osa9ella M. Tormis) -residing !udge) Municipal Trial Court in Cities /MTCC0) Branch ') Ce9u City and Mr. eynaldo S. Teves) Branch Cler5 of Court) same court" A.M. #o. MT!:*(:*;*;. March *() (&*+. Judges; gross ignorance of the law; when the law is sufficiently basic, not to be aware of it constitutes gross ignorance of the law. Judge "ormis issued the warrant of arrest in violation of the -ule on Summary .rocedure that the accused should first be notified of the charges against him and given the opportunity to file his counter,affidavits and other countervailing evidence. "he -evised -ules on Summary .rocedure has been in effect since %ovember 4E, 4994. It finds application in a substantial number of civil and criminal cases. Judge "ormis cannot claim to be unfamiliar with the same. /very (udge is re0uired to observe the law. $hen the law is sufficiently basic, a (udge owes it to his office to simply apply it; and anything less than that would be constitutive of gross ignorance of the law. In short, when the law is so elementary, not to be aware of it constitutes gross ignorance of the law. 7ffice of the Court Administrator v. 8on. osa9ella M. Tormis) -resideing !udge) Municipal Trial Court in Cities /MTCC0) Branch ') Ce9u City and Mr. eynaldo S. Teves) Branch Cler5 of Court) same court" A.M. #o. MT!:*(: *;*;. March *() (&*+. Judges; gross inefficiency; gross ignorance of the law; imposable penalties. @nder -ule 436 of the -ules of Court, as amended by A.C. %o. 64,1,46,SC dated September 44, 5664, violation of Supreme Court rules, directives and circulars, and gross inefficiency are categori+ed as less serious charges with the following sanctions< :a; suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one nor more than three months; or :b; a fine of more than .46,666.66 but not exceeding .56,666.66. Coreover, gross ignorance of the law is classified as serious charge under Section 1, -ule 436 of the -evised -ules of Court, and penali+ed under Section 44 :a;, -ule 436 of the same -ules by< :4; ?ismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or part of the benefits as the Court may determine, and dis0ualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including government,owned or controlled corporations. .rovided, however, that the forfeiture of benefits shall, in no case, include accrued leave credits; :5; Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for more than three :2;, but not exceeding six :D; months; or :2; a fine of more than .56,666.66, but not exceeding .36,666.66. In determining the proper imposable penalty, we also consider Judge "ormis wor! history which reflects how she performed her (udicial functions. $e find that there are several

administrative cases already filed against her, with most of these cases being decided against her. "hese cases show her inability to properly discharge her (udicial duties. Considering her past infractions and ta!ing into account the number of irregularities she committed in this present case) Judge "ormis was meted with the penalty of dismissal from service with forfeiture of all benefits and privileges, except accrued leave credits, if any, with pre(udice to reemployment in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including government,owned or controlled corporations. 7ffice of the Court Administrator v. 8on. osa9ella M. Tormis) -resideing !udge) Municipal Trial Court in Cities /MTCC0) Branch ') Ce9u City and Mr. eynaldo S. Teves) Branch Cler5 of Court) same court" A.M. #o. MT!:*(:*;*;. March *() (&*+. Judges; motion to inhibit; grounds. As held in Sps. 8izon v. Sps. dela 1uente , &an inhibition must be for (ust and valid reason.) Complainant s mere imputation that the case was decided by the magistrates of the Court with extreme bias and pre(udice is baseless and clearly unfounded. !asper !unno 1. odica v. Atty. Manuel M. Lazaro) et al." A.C. #o. $(2$. March *() (&*+. Judges; undue delay in deciding cases. "he honor and integrity of the (udicial system is measured not only by the fairness and correctness of decisions rendered, but also by the efficiency with which disputes are resolved. @nder the 491F Constitution, trial (udges are mandated to decide and resolve cases within 96 days from submission for decision or resolution. Corollary to this constitutional mandate, Section E, Canon D of the %ew Code of Judicial Conduct for the .hilippine Judiciary re0uires (udges to perform all (udicial duties efficiently, fairly, and with reasonable promptness. "he mandate to promptly dispose of cases or matters also applies to motions or interlocutory matters or incidents pending before the magistrate. @nreasonable delay of a (udge in resolving a pending incident is a violation of the norms of (udicial conduct and constitutes gross inefficiency that warrants the imposition of an administrative sanction against the defaulting magistrate. 7ffice of the Court Administrator v. 8on. osa9ella M. Tormis) -residing !udge) Municipal Trial Court in Cities /MTCC0) Branch ') Ce9u City and Mr. eynaldo S. Teves) Branch Cler5 of Court) same court" A.M. #o. MT!:*(: *;*;. March *() (&*+" 7ffice of the Court Administrator v. !udge 1ernando 3. 1uentes) TC) Br. '$) Tag9ilaran City < -aulino Bural) Sr. v. !udge 1ernando 3. 1uentes) TC) Br. '$) Tag9ilaran City" A.M. #o. T!:*+:(+'( < A.M. #o. T!:*(:(+*;. March %) (&*+. Judge Buentes III concedes that there is no valid (ustification for the delay in resolving the cases pending in his court. Indeed, his fre0uent travels to his residence in 8+amis City, which led to travel fatigue and poor health, will not absolve him from liability. If a (udge is unable to comply with the period for deciding cases or matters, he can, for good reasons, as! for an extension. $ithout an extension granted by the Court, the failure to decide even a single case within the re0uired period constitutes gross inefficiency that merits administrative sanction. 7ffice of the Court Administrator v. !udge 1ernando 3. 1uentes) TC) Br. '$) Tag9ilaran City < -aulino Bural) Sr. v. !udge 1ernando 3. 1uentes) TC) Br. '$) Tag9ilaran City" A.M. #o. T!:*+: (+'( < A.M. #o. T!:*(:(+*;. March %) (&*+. Judges; undue delay in deciding cases; administrative sanctions. An inexcusable failure to decide a case within the prescribed 96,day period constitutes gross inefficiency, warranting the imposition of administrative sanctions such as suspension from office without pay or fine on the defaulting (udge. "he fines imposed vary in each case, depending on the following factors< :4; the number of cases not decided within the reglamentary period; :5; the presence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances; :2; the damage suffered by the parties as a result of the delay; :3; the health and age of the (udge; and :E; other analogous circumstances. In this case, the fine was reduced considering that this was the first infraction of Judge Buentes III in his more than 4E years in the service. "he Court li!ewise too! into consideration the fact that the respondent (udge exerted earnest efforts to fully comply with the Court s directives as contained in the resolution. 7ffice of the Court Administrator v. !udge 1ernando 3. 1uentes) TC) Br. '$) Tag9ilaran City < -aulino Bural) Sr. v. !udge 1ernando 3. 1uentes) TC) Br. '$) Tag9ilaran City" A.M. #o. T!:*+:(+'( < A.M. #o. T!:*(:(+*;. March %) (&*+.

Judges; undue delay in deciding cases; suspension from office is not a (ustification for the delay. -espondent (udge claimed that the delay was the conse0uence of the three suspension orders issued against her as she was suspended for an aggregate period of almost one year and six months. -ecords reveal, however, that Judge "ormis was repeatedly suspended in cases wherein she committed a breach of her duty as a member of the 7ench. She cannot, therefore, be allowed to use the same to (ustify another violation of her solemn oath to dispense (ustice. /ven if she was allowed to avail of this excuse, as aptly observed by the 8CA, several of the cases that she failed to dispose of had been overdue for decision or resolution even prior to said suspensions. 7ffice of the Court Administrator v. 8on. osa9ella M. Tormis) -residing !udge) Municipal Trial Court in Cities /MTCC0) Branch ') Ce9u City and Mr. eynaldo S. Teves) Branch Cler5 of Court) same court" A.M. #o. MT!:*(:*;*;. March *() (&*+. Jurisdiction of the Court over administrative proceedings. An administrative matter was instituted against Judge Grageda, based on the result of a (udicial audit conducted after his retirement. According to the Supreme Court, for it to ac0uire (urisdiction over an administrative proceeding, the complaint must be filed during the incumbency of the respondent public official or employee. "his is because the filing of an administrative case is predicated on the holding of a position or office in the government service. #owever, once (urisdiction has attached, the same is not lost by the mere fact that the public official or employee was no longer in office during the pendency of the case. In present case, Judge Grageda s retirement effectively barred the Court from pursuing the instant administrative proceeding that was instituted after his tenure in office, and divested the Court, much less the 8ffice of the Court Administrator :8CA;, of any (urisdiction to still sub(ect him to the rules and regulations of the (udiciary andHor to penali+e him for the infractions committed while he was still in the service. Accordingly, the complaint against retired Judge Grageda was dismissed. 7ffice of the Court Administrator v. !esus L. 3rageda" A.M. #o. T!: *&:((+2. March **) (&*+. Attorney; forum shopping as contempt of court. A disbarment complaint against Atty. Gon+ales was filed for violating the Code of .rofessional -esponsibility for the forum shopping he allegedly committed. "he court held that the respondent was guilty of forum shopping. =awyers should be reminded that their primary duty is to assist the courts in the administration of (ustice. Any conduct that tends to delay, impede or obstruct the administration of (ustice contravenes this obligation. "he Court has repeatedly warned lawyers against resorting to forum shopping since the practice clogs the Court doc!ets and can lead to conflicting rulings. $illful and deliberate forum shopping has been made punishable either as direct or indirect contempt of court. In engaging in forum shopping, Atty. Gon+ales violated Canon 4 of the Code of .rofessional -esponsibility which directs lawyers to obey the laws of the land and promote respect for the law and legal processes. #e also disregarded his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of (ustice, and the prohibition against unduly delaying a case by misusing court processes. "hus, the court sub(ected Atty. Gon+ales to censure. Anastacio #. Teodoro ,,, vs. Atty. omeo S. 3onzales. A.C. %o. DFD6. January 26, 5642 Attorney; neglect. Complainant filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Gacott who allegedly deceived the complainant and her husband into signing a &preparatory) ?eed of Sale that respondent converted into a ?eed of Absolute Sale in favor of his relatives. "he respondent is reminded that his duty under Canon 4D is to &hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his possession.) Allowing a party to ta!e the original "C"s of properties owned by another ' an act that could result in damage ' should merit a finding of legal malpractice. $hile it was his legal staff who allowed the complainant to borrow the "C"s and it does not appear that the respondent was aware or present when the complainant borrowed the "C"s, the court still held the respondent liable, as the "C"s were entrusted to his care and custody; he failed to exercise due diligence in caring for his client s properties that were in his custody.

Coreover, Canon 41, -ule 41.62 re0uires that a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. $hat amounts to carelessness or negligence in a lawyer s discharge of his duty to his client is incapable of an exact formulation, but the Court has consistently held that the mere failure of a lawyer to perform the obligations due his client is per se a violation. In Canoy v. 7rtiz, the court held that a lawyer s failure to file a position paper was per se a violation of -ule 41.62 of the Code of .rofessional -esponsibility. Similar to Canoy, the respondent clearly failed in his duty to his client when, without any explanation, he failed to file the Cotion for =eave to Intervene on behalf of the spouses >laya. 1e A. =laya vs. Atty. 3lenn Carlos 3acott. A.C. %o. D3FE. January 26, 5642 Attorney; lac! of diligence. Complainant filed a case for disbarment against Atty. Cefra for violating Canon 41 of the Code of .rofessional -esponsibility and -ules 421 and429 of the -ules of Court. "he court held that Atty. Cefra was guilty of negligence in handling the complainants case. #is acts in the present administrative case also reveal his lac! of diligence in performing his duties as an officer of the Court. "he Code of .rofessional -esponsibility mandates that &a lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.) It further states that &a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.) In addition, a lawyer has the duty to &!eep the client informed of the status of his case.) Atty. Cefra failed to live up to these standards as shown by the following< :4; Atty. Cefra failed to submit a formal offer of documentary evidence within the period given by the -"C; :5; #e failed to comply with the two orders of the -"C directing him to submit a formal offer of documentary evidence; :2; Atty. Cefra failed to file an appropriate motion or appeal, or avail of any remedial measure to contest the -"C s decision; :3; #e failed to file an appropriate motion or appeal, or avail of any remedial measure to contest the -"C s decision which was adverse to complainants. "hus, the above acts showing Atty. Cefra s lac! of diligence and inattention to his duties as a lawyer warrant disciplinary sanction. "he court has repeatedly held that &ItJhe practice of law is a privilege bestowed by the State on those who show that they possess the legal 0ualifications for it. =awyers are expected to maintain at all times a high standard of legal proficiency and morality, including honesty, integrity and fair dealing. "hey must perform their fourfold duty to society, the legal profession, the courts and their clients, in accordance with the values and norms of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of .rofessional -esponsibility.) Sps. Arcing and Cresing Bautista) et al. vs. Atty. Arturo Cefra A.C. %o. EE26. January 51, 5642. Attorney; reinstatement in the -oll of Attorneys; guidelines in resolving re0uests for (udicial clemency; good moral character re0uirement. In e> Letter of !udge Augustus C. Diaz) Metropolitan Trial Court of ?uezon City) Branch +@) Appealing for Clemency, the Court laid down the following guidelines in resolving re0uests for (udicial clemency, to wit< :a; "here must be proof of remorse and reformation. "hese shall include but should not be limited to certifications or testimonials of the officer:s; or chapter:s; of the Integrated 7ar of the .hilippines, (udges or (udges associations and prominent members of the community with proven integrity and probity. A subse0uent finding of guilt in an administrative case for the same or similar misconduct will give rise to a strong presumption of non,reformation. :b; Sufficient time must have lapsed from the imposition of the penalty to ensure a period of reform. :c; "he age of the person as!ing for clemency must show that he still has productive years ahead of him that can be put to good use by giving him a chance to redeem himself. :d; "here must be a showing of promise :such as intellectual aptitude, learning or legal acumen or contribution to legal scholarship and the development of the legal system or administrative and other relevant s!ills;, as well as potential for public service.

:e; "here must be other relevant factors and circumstances that may (ustify clemency. Coreover, to be reinstated to the practice of law, the applicant must, li!e any other candidate for admission to the bar, satisfy the Court that he is a person of good moral character. In a previous ?ecision, the Court disbarred respondent from the practice of law for having contracted a bigamous marriage with complainant "eves and a third marriage with one Constantino while his first marriage to /spar+a was still subsisting. "hese acts, according to the court, constituted gross immoral conduct. In this case, the court held that -espondent has sufficiently shown his remorse and ac!nowledged his indiscretion in the legal profession and in his personal life. #e has as!ed forgiveness from his children by complainant "eves and maintained a cordial relationship with them as shown by the herein attached pictures. After his disbarment, respondent returned to his hometown in /nrile, Cagayan and devoted his time tending an orchard and ta!ing care of his ailing mother until her death in 5661. In 5669, he was appointed as .rivate Secretary to the Cayor of /nrile, Cagayan and thereafter, assumed the position of =ocal Assessment 8perations 8fficer IIH8ffice,In,Charge in the Assessor s 8ffice, which office he continues to serve to date. Coreover, he is a part,time instructor at the @niversity of Cagayan Kalley and B.=. Kargas College during the School >ear 5644,5645. -espondent li!ewise too! an active part in socio, civic activities by helping his neighbors and friends who are in dire need. Certain documents also attest to -espondent s reformed ways such as< :4; Affidavit of Candida .. Cabborang; :5; Affidavit of -eymar .. -amire+; :2; Affidavit of -oberto ?. "allud; :3; Certification from the Cunicipal =ocal Government 8ffice. Burthermore, respondent s plea for reinstatement is duly supported by the I7., Cagayan Chapter and by his former and present colleagues. #is parish priest certified that he is faithful to and puts to actual practice the doctrines of the Catholic Church. #e is also observed to be a regular churchgoer. -espondent has already settled his previous marital s0uabbles, as in fact, no opposition to the instant suit was tendered by complainant "eves. #e sends regular support to his children in compliance with the ?ecision dated Bebruary 5F, 5663. "he Court notes the eight :1; long years that had elapsed from the time respondent was disbarred and recogni+es his achievement as the first lawyer product of =emu %ational #igh School, and his fourteen :43; years of dedicated government service from 491D to July 5666 as =egal 8fficer of the ?epartment of /ducation, Culture and Sports; Supervising Civil Service Attorney of the Civil Service Commission; 8mbudsman Graft Investigation 8fficer; and State .rosecutor of the ?epartment of Justice. Brom the attestations and certifications presented, the Court finds that respondent has sufficiently atoned for his transgressions. At E1 years of age, he still has productive years ahead of him that could significantly contribute to the upliftment of the law profession and the betterment of society. $hile the Court is ever mindful of its duty to discipline and even remove its errant officers, concomitant to it is its duty to show compassion to those who have reformed their ways as in this case. "hus, the court reinstated respondent to the practice of law. #e was, however, reminded that such privilege is burdened with conditions whereby adherence to the rigid standards of intellect, moral uprightness, and strict compliance with the rules and the law are continuing re0uirements. 1lorence Teves Macaru99o vs. Atty. Edmundo L. Macaru99o" e> -etition /for EAtraordinary Mercy0 of Edmundo L. Macaru99o. A.C. %o. D431. January 55, 5642 Court personnel; refusal to perform duty. Section 4, Canon IK of the Code of Conduct for Court .ersonnel en(oins court personnel to perform their official duties properly and with diligence at all times. Cler!s of Court are primarily responsible for the speedy and efficient service of all court processes and writs. #ence, they cannot be allowed to slac!en on their wor! since they are charged with the duty of !eeping the records and the seal of the court, issuing processes, entering (udgments and orders, and giving certified copies of records upon re0uest. As such, they are

expected to possess a high degree of discipline and efficiency in the performance of their functions to help ensure that the cause of (ustice is done without delay. As an officer of the court, respondent Cler! of Court was duty,bound to use reasonable s!ill and diligence in the performance of her officially,designated duties as cler! of court, failing which, warrants the imposition of administrative sanctions. In this case, respondent un(ustifiably failed to issue the alias writs of execution to implement the (udgment in a Civil Case, despite orders from the -"C. Coreover, she failed to file the re0uired comment in disregard of the duty of every employee in the (udiciary to obey the orders and processes of the Court without delay. Such act evinces lac! of interest in clearing her name, constituting an implied admission of the charges. Mariano T. 7ng vs. Eva 3. Basiya:Saratan) Cler5 of Court) TC) Br. +() ,loilo City . A.C. %o. .,45,2696. January F, 5642 Judge; disciplinary proceedings against (udges; presumption of regularity. Jurisprudence is replete with cases holding that errors, if any, committed by a (udge in the exercise of his ad(udicative functions cannot be corrected through administrative proceedings, but should instead be assailed through available (udicial remedies. ?isciplinary proceedings against (udges do not complement, supplement or substitute (udicial remedies and, thus, cannot be pursued simultaneously with the (udicial remedies accorded to parties aggrieved by their erroneous orders or (udgments. /ven if the CA decision or portions thereof turn out to be erroneous, administrative liability will only attach upon proof that the actions of the respondent CA Justices were motivated by bad faith, dishonesty or hatred, or attended by fraud or corruption, which were not sufficiently shown to exist in this case. %either was bias as well as partiality established. Acts or conduct of the (udge clearly indicative of arbitrariness or pre(udice must be clearly shown before he can be branded the stigma of being biased and partial. In the same vein, bad faith or malice cannot be inferred simply because the (udgment or order is adverse to a party. #ere, other than ACA=I s bare and self,serving claim, no act clearly indicative of bias and partiality was alleged except for the claim that respondent CA Justices misapplied the law and (urisprudence. "hus, the presumption that the respondent (udge has regularly performed his duties shall prevail. e> Berified complaint of AMA Land) ,nc. against 8on. Danton ?. Bueser) et al. A.C. %o. 8CA I.I %o. 45,565,CA,J. January 4E, 5642 Judge; gross ignorance of law. Judge Sarmiento, Jr. was charged with gross ignorance of the law, manifest partiality and dereliction and neglect of duty. "he court held that the (udge did not commit gross ignorance of the law. Gross ignorance of the law on the part of a (udge presupposes an appalling lac! of familiarity with simple rules of law or procedures and well, established (urisprudence which tends to erode the public trust in the competence and fairness of the court which he personifies. "he complaint states that respondent (udge, in arbitrary defiance of his own September 5E, 566D ?ecision which constitutes res (udicata or a bar to him to pass upon the issue of Geoffrey, Jr s. custody, granted, via his Carch 4E, 5644 8rder, provisional custody over Geoffrey, Jr. to /ltesa. "he ?ecision adverted to refers to the (udgment on compromise agreement. -espondent (udge cannot be held guilty of the charges hurled by the complainant against him since there is no finding of strong reasons to rule otherwise. "he preference of a child over F years of age as to whom he desired to live with shall be respected. Coreover, custody, even if previously granted by a competent court in favor of a parent, is not permanent. 3eoffrey Bec5ett vs. !udge 7legario . Sarmiento) !r.) TC) Branch (') Ce9u City . A.C. %o. -"J,45,525D. January 26, 5642 Judge; misconduct. Cisconduct means intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule of law or a standard of behavior. "o constitute an administrative offense, misconduct should relate to or be connected with the performance of the official functions of a public officer. In grave misconduct, as distinguished from simple misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of an established rule must be established.

In this case, the actions of the Sandiganbayan Justices respecting the execution of the final (udgment against accused Kelasco were shown to be in respectful deference to the Court s action on the various petitions filed by the former. -ecords are bereft of evidence showing any trace of corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of the rules as to hold the Sandiganbayan Justices administratively liable for grave misconduct. e> Complaint of Leonardo A. Belasco against Associate !ustices 1rancisco 8. Billaruz) !r.) et al. A.C. %o. 8CA I.I %o. 46,5E,S7,J. January 4E, 5642 Judge; no abuse of authority when (udge did not renew a temporary appointment. Complainant, a former Court Stenographer III at the -"C, failed to show any proof that she was entitled to a permanent position. 8ther than her allegation that she was given two &very satisfactory) and one &satisfactory) rating, there was no evidence presented that she has met the prescribed 0ualification standard for the position. &Such standard is a mix of the formal education, experience, training, civil service eligibility, physical health and attitude that the (ob re0uires.) -espondent (udge, who is the immediate supervisor of complainant, is in the best position to observe the fitness, propriety and efficiency of the employee for the position. It should be impressed upon complainant that her appointment in the Judiciary is not a vested right. It is not an entitlement that she can claim simply for the reason that she had been in the service for almost two years. "he subse0uent filing of complaint against Atty. 7or(a :officer,in,charge of the .A8,Kirac; manifests complainant s propensity to file complaints whenever she does not get what she wants. Such attitude should not be tolerated. 8therwise, (udges will be placed in hostage situations by employees who will threaten to file complaints whenever they do not get their way with their (udges. Since there is no proof that respondent (udge abused her position, the case against her should be dismissed. -espondent (udge should, however, be reminded to be circumspect in her actuations so as not to give the impression that she is guilty of favoritism. Careen -. MagtagDo9 vs. !udge 3enie 3. 3apas:Ag9ada. 8CA I.I %o. 44,2D24,-"J. January 4D, 5642 Attorney; failure to account for money. "he Code of .rofessional -esponsibility provides< Canon 4D,A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his possession. -ule 4D.64,A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from the client. -ule 4D.65,A lawyer shall !eep the funds of each client separate and apart from his own and those of others !ept by him. -ule 4D.62,A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon demand. Coney entrusted to a lawyer for a specific purpose but not used for the purpose, should be immediately returned. A lawyer s failure to return upon demand the funds held by him on behalf of his client gives rise to the presumption that he has appropriated the same for his own use in violation of the trust reposed in him by his client. Such act is a gross violation of general morality as well as of professional ethics. It impairs public confidence in the legal profession and deserves punishment. Emilia 7. Dhali4al vs. Atty. A9elardo B. Dumaguing. A.C. %o. 9296, August 4, 5645. Attorney; grave misconduct and dishonesty. "he purpose of disbarment is to protect the courts and the public from the misconduct of the officers of the court and to ensure the administration of (ustice by re0uiring that those who exercise this important function shall be competent, honorable and trustworthy men in whom courts and clients may repose confidence. "he Court cited the case of In -e< Sotto and ruled that &8ne of the 0ualifications re0uired of a candidate for

admission to the bar is the possession of good moral character, and, when one who has already been admitted to the bar clearly shows, by a series of acts, that he does not follow such moral principles as should govern the conduct of an upright person, and that, in his dealings with his clients and with the courts, he disregards the rule of professional ethics re0uired to be observed by every attorney, it is the duty of the court, as guardian of the interests of society, as well as of the preservation of the ideal standard of professional conduct, to ma!e use of its powers to deprive him of his professional attributes which he so unworthily abused. -ule 4.64 of the Code of .rofessional -esponsibility states that &a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.) "he Code exacts from lawyers not only a firm respect for law, legal processes but also mandates the utmost degree of fidelity and good faith in dealing with clients and the moneys entrusted to them pursuant to their fiduciary relationship. .ursuant to Section 5F, -ule 421 of the -ules of Court, respondent may either be disbarred or suspended for committing deceitful and dishonest acts. "his rule provides that in any of the following circumstances, to wit< :4; deceit" :5; malpractice; :2; gross misconduct; :3; grossly immoral conduct;/20 conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude" /%0 violation of the la4yerEs oath" /@0 4ilful diso9edience of any la4ful order of a superior court" or /;0 corruptly or 4ilfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case 4ithout authority to do so" the Court is vested with the authority and discretion to impose either the extreme penalty of disbarment or mere suspension. 3race M. Anacta vs. Atty. Eduardo D. esurrecction. A.C. %o. 96F3, August 43, 5645. Attorney; immorality. "he practice of law is considered a privilege bestowed by the State on those who show that they possess and continue to possess the legal 0ualifications for the profession. As such, lawyers are expected to maintain at all times a high standard of legal proficiency, morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing, and must perform their four,fold duty to society, the legal profession, the courts and their clients, in accordance with the values and norms embodied in the Code. =awyers may, thus, be disciplined for any conduct that is wanting of the above standards whether in their professional or in their private capacity. "he settled rule is that betrayal of the marital vow of fidelity or sexual relations outside marriage is considered disgraceful and immoral as it manifests deliberate disregard of the sanctity of marriage and the marital vows protected by the Constitution and affirmed by our laws. -espondent violated the =awyer s 8ath43 and -ule 4.64, Canon 4 of the Code which proscribes a lawyer from engaging in &unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.) Engr.3il9ert Tum9o5on vs. Atty. Mariano . -efianco. A.C. %o. D44D, August 4, 5645 Attorney; representing conflicting interest. Canon 4E, -ule 4E.62 of the Code of .rofessional -esponsibility provides that a lawyer cannot represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. An attorney owes his client undivided allegiance. 7ecause of the highly fiduciary nature of their relationship, sound public policy dictates that he be prohibited from representing conflicting interests or discharging inconsistent duties. An attorney may not, without being guilty of professional misconduct, act as counsel for a person whose interest conflicts with that of his present or former client. "his rule is so absolute that good faith and honest intention on the erring lawyer s part does not ma!e it inoperative. "he reason for this is that a lawyer ac0uires !nowledge of his former client s doings, whether documented or not, that he would ordinarily not have ac0uired were it not for the trust and confidence that his client placed on him in the light of their relationship. It would simply be impossible for the lawyer to identify and erase such entrusted !nowledge with faultless precision or loc! the same into an iron box when suing the former client on behalf of a new one. Santos Bentura 8ocorma 1oundation) ,nc.) represented 9y 3a9riel 8. A9ad vs. Atty. ichard B. 1un5. A.C. %o. 9693, August 4E, 5645

Attorney; sharing of fees with non, lawyers. -espondent s defense that forgery had attended the execution of the August 44, 499E letter was belied by his July 4D, 499F letter admitting to have underta!en the payment of complainant s commission but passing on the responsibility to Sps. >ap. Clearly, respondent has violated -ule 9.65, Canon 9 of the Code which prohibits a lawyer from dividing or stipulating to divide a fee for legal services with persons not licensed to practice law, except in certain cases which do not obtain in the case at bar. Engr. 3il9ert Tum9o5on vs. Atty. Mariano . -efianco. A.C. %o. D44D, August 4, 5645. Court personnel; disgraceful and immoral conduct. Immorality has been defined to include not only sexual matters but also conduct inconsistent with rectitude, or indicative of corruption, indecency, depravity, and dissoluteness; or is willful, flagrant or shameless conduct showing moral indifference to opinions of respectable members of the community, and an inconsiderate attitude toward good order and public welfare. -espondent engaged in sexual relations with a married man which not only violate the moral standards expected of employees of the Judiciary but is also a desecration of the sanctity of the institution of marriage. "he Code of Judicial /thics mandates that the conduct of court personnel must be free from any whiff of impropriety, not only with respect to his duties in the (udicial branch but also to his behavior outside the court as a private individual. "here is no dichotomy of morality; a court employee is also (udged by his private morals. "he exacting standards of morality and decency have been strictly adhered to and laid down by the Court to those in the service of the Judiciary. -espondent, as a court stenographer, did not live up to her commitment to lead a moral life. .ublic office is a public trust. "he good of the service and the degree of morality, which every official and employee in the public service must observe, if respect and confidence are to be maintained by the Government in the enforcement of the law, demand that no untoward conduct affecting morality, integrity, and efficiency while holding office should be left without proper and commensurate sanction, all attendant circumstances ta!en into account. !udge Armando S. Adla4an) -residing !udge) %th MCTC) Bonifacio:Don Mariano Marcos) Misamis 7ccidental vs. Estrella -. Capilitan) %th MCTC) Bonifacio:Don Mariano Marcos) Misamis 7ccidental. A.C. %o. .,45,2616. August 59, 5645 Court personnel; dishonesty and falsification of public document. $illful concealment of facts in the .ersonal ?ata Sheet :.?S; constitutes mental dishonesty amounting to misconduct. =i!ewise, ma!ing a false statement in one s .?S amounts to dishonesty and falsification of an official document. ?ishonesty has been defined as intentionally ma!ing a false statement on any material fact. ?ishonesty evinces a disposition to lie, cheat, deceive or defraud; untrustworthiness; lac! of integrity, lac! of honesty, probity or integrity in principle; lac! of fairness and straightforwardness; disposition to defraud, deceive or betray. Civil service rules mandate the accomplishment of the .?S as a re0uirement for employment in the government. #ence, ma!ing false statements in one s .?S is ultimately connected with one s employment in the government. "he employee ma!ing false statements in his or her .?S becomes liable for falsification. Coreover, for respondent to be meted the penalty of dismissal, her dishonesty need not be committed in the performance of official duty. As the Court has previously ruled< &"he rationale for the rule is that if a government officer or employee is dishonest or is guilty of oppression or grave misconduct, even if said defects of character are not connected with his office, they affect his right to continue in office. "he Government cannot tolerate in its service a dishonest official, even if he performs his duties correctly and well, because by reason of his government position, he is given more and ample opportunity to commit acts of dishonesty against his fellow men, even against offices and entities of the government other than the office where he is employed; and by reason of his office, he en(oys and possesses a certain influence and power which renders the victims of his grave misconduct, oppression and dishonesty less disposed and prepared to resist and to counteract his evil acts and actuations. $hen official documents are falsified, intent to in(ure a third person is irrelevant because the

principal thing punished is the violation of public faith and the destruction of the truth as claimed in that document."he act undermines the integrity of government records and therein lies the pre(udice to public service. "he act need not result in disruption of service or loss to the government. It is the act of dishonesty itself that taints the integrity of government service. A government officer s dishonesty affects the morale of the service, even when it stems from the employee s personal dealings. Such conduct should not be tolerated from government officials, even when official duties are performed well. /mployment in the (udiciary demands the highest degree of responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency from its personnel. All (udiciary employees are expected to conduct themselves with propriety and decorum at all times. An act that falls short of the exacting standards set for public officers, especially those in the (udiciary, shall not be countenanced. Manolito C. Billordon vs. Marilyn C. Avila) Court ,nterpreter ,) Municipal Trial Court in Cities. Branch +) Ce9u City. A.C. %o. .,46,5169, August 46, 5645 Court personnel; neglect of duty. Simple neglect of duty is defined as the failure to give attention to a tas! or the disregard of a duty due to carelessness or indifference. "he Court ruled in .ilipina v. -oxas< &"he Court cannot countenance neglect of duty for even simple neglect of duty lessens the people s confidence in the (udiciary and ultimately in the administration of (ustice. 7y the very nature of their duties and responsibilities, public servants must faithfully adhere to, hold sacred and render inviolate the constitutional principle that a public office is a public trust; that all public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency. Memoranda of !udge Eliza B. =u issued to Legal esearcher Marie !oy -. Lagman and to Court Stenographer Soledad !. Bassig) all of Metropolitan Trial Court) Branch '@) -asay City. A.C. %o. .,45,2622, August 4E, 5645. Court personnel; simple neglect of duty. -ule 29, Section 43 of the -ules of Court clearly mandates the sheriff or other proper officer to file a return and when necessary, periodic reports, with the court which issued the writ of execution. "he writ of execution shall be returned to the court immediately after the (udgment had been partially or fully satisfied. In case the writ is still unsatisfied or only partially satisfied 26 days after the officer s receipt of the same, said officer shall file a report with the court stating the reasons therefor. Subse0uently, the officer shall periodically file with the court a report on the proceedings ta!en to enforce the writ every 26 days until said writ is fully satisfied or its effectivity expires. "he officer is further re0uired to furnish the parties with copies of the return and periodic reports. ?ifficulties or obstacles in the satisfaction of a final (udgment and execution of a writ do not excuse respondent s total inaction. %either the -ules nor (urisprudence recogni+es any exception from the periodic filing of reports by sheriffs It is almost trite to say that execution is the fruit and end of the suit and is the life of law. A (udgment, if left unexecuted, would be nothing but an empty victory for the prevailing party. "herefore, sheriffs ought to !now that they have a sworn responsibility to serve writs of execution with utmost dispatch. $hen writs are placed in their hands, it is their ministerial duty to proceed with reasonable celerity and promptness to execute them in accordance with their mandate. @nless restrained by a court order, they should see to it that the execution of (udgments is not unduly delayed. Accordingly, they must comply with their mandated ministerial duty as speedily as possible. As agents of the law, high standards are expected of sheriffs Canon IK, Section 4 of the Code of Conduct for Court .ersonnel that reads, &Court personnel shall at all times perform official duties properly and with diligence.) Astorga and epol La4 7ffices) represented 9y Atty. Arnold B. Lugares vs. Leodel #. oAas) Sheriff ,B) egional Trial Court) Branch %%) Ma5ati City. A.C. %o. .,45,2659, August 4E, 5645.

Attorney; representation of non,client. Atty. /spe(o s claim that he drafted and signed the pleading (ust to extend assistance to -odica deserves scant consideration. It is true that under

-ules 5.64and 5.65, Canon 5 of the Code of .rofessional -esponsibility, a lawyer shall not re(ect, except for valid reasons, the cause of the defenseless or the oppressed, and in such cases, even if he does not accept a case, shall not refuse to render legal advise to the person concerned if only to the extent necessary to safeguard the latter s right. #owever, in this case, -odica cannot be considered as defenseless or oppressed considering that she is properly represented by counsel in the -"C case. %eedless to state, her rights are amply safeguarded. It would have been different had -odica not been represented by any lawyer, which, however, is not the case. "he Court wonders why Atty. /spe(o, !nowing fully well that -odica is not their law firm s client and without the !nowledge and consent of his superiors, gave in to -odica s re0uest for him to indicate in the said motion the names of his law firm, Atty. Canuel and Atty. Cichelle for the purpose of &giving more weight and credit to the pleading.) As a member of the bar, Atty. /spe(o ought to !now that motions and pleadings filed in courts are acted upon in accordance with their merit or lac! of it, and not on the reputation of the law firm or the lawyer filing the same. Core importantly, he should have thought that in so doing, he was actually assisting -odica in misrepresenting before the -"C that she was being represented by the said law firm and lawyers, when in truth she was not. It is well to remind Atty. /spe(o that before being a friend to -odica, he is first and foremost an officer of the court. #ence, he is expected to maintain a high standard of honesty and fair dealings and must conduct himself beyond reproach at all times. #e must li!ewise ensure that he acts within the bounds of reason and common sense, always aware that he is an instrument of truth and (ustice. !asper !unno 1. odica vs. Atty. Manuel M. Lazaro) et al . A.C. %o. 95E9, August 52, 5645 Attorney; dis0ualification as notary public. A notary public should not notari+e a document unless the person who signs it is the same person who executed it, personally appearing before him to attest to the contents and the truth of what are stated therein. "his is to enable the notary public to verify the genuineness of the signature of the ac!nowledging party and to ascertain that the document is the party s free act. "he duties of a notary public is dictated by public policy and impressed with public interest. It is not a meaningless ministerial act of ac!nowledging documents executed by parties who are willing to pay the fees for notari+ation. It is of no moment that the sub(ect S.A was not utili+ed by the grantee for the purpose it was intended because the property was allegedly transferred from complainant to her brother by virtue of a deed of sale consummated between them. $hat is being penali+ed is respondent s act of notari+ing a document despite the absence of one of the parties. A notari+ed document is by law entitled to full credit upon its face and it is for this reason that notaries public must observe the basic re0uirements in notari+ing documents. 8therwise, the confidence of the public in notari+ed documents will be undermined. #esa ,senhardt vs. Atty. Leonardo M. eal) A.C. %o. 15E3, Bebruary 4E, 5645. Attorney; government service; applicability of Code of .rofessional -esponsibility. "he Code of .rofessional -esponsibility does not cease to apply to a lawyer simply because he has (oined the government service. $here a lawyer s misconduct as a government official is of such nature as to affect his 0ualification as a lawyer or to show moral delin0uency, then he may be disciplined as a member of the bar on such grounds. Martin Lahn ,,, and !ames -. Concepcion vs. La9or Ar9iter !ovencio Li. Mayor) !r.) A.C. %o. F326, Bebruary 4E, 5645.