Republic of the Philippines versus Kenrick Development Corporation, GR No.

149576, August 8, 2006

Facts: There was a land dispute between RP and Kenrick Development Corporation which let the OSG to file a case of revocation
and cancellation of the titles in possession of Kenrick. The respondent filed an answer which was purportedly signed by Atty. Onofre
Garlitos Jr as counsel for respondent. Since respondent cannot be located, issued an alias summons by publication against him. The
case was punctuated by various postponements of motions to dismiss, motions to declare defendants in default and other
procedural matters.
As counsel of the respondent, he sent an unsigned pleading to respondents president, Vicotr Ong whic was signed by another
person not him. He authorized no one to sign in his behalf either and he did not know who finally signed it. He did not disown the
pleading and continued to represent respondent in the civil case.
Issue: Is Garlitios guilty of violating the Code of Professional responsibility when he sent an unsigned pleading to his client?
Held: Yes. Rule 9.01 of the CPR provides that A lawyer shall not delegate any unqualified person the performance of any task
which by law may only be performed by a member of the Bar in good standing.
The pleadin was signed by an unqualified person, something the law strongly proscribes.
The Court declared that a copy of the decision be furnished with the Commision on Bar Discipline to commence the disbarment
proceedings of Garlitos due to his unprofessional conduct not befitting his position as an officer of the court.
Romer Almojuela, Jr. versus Revelino M. Ringor, et al, AM No. MTJ-04-1521, July 27, 2004
Facts: Romeo Almojuela charges Judge Ringor of grave misconduct, gross ignorance of the law, dishonesty and violation of judicial
ethics. Almojuela was one of the accused in a criminal cases where he acquired a waiver exculpating him from the charges by the
offended party, Belinda Enriques. The complainant filed an omnibus motion for the quashal of the complaint. At the hearing of the
motion, the criminal complainants including Enriques did not oppose the motion.
On January 15, 2003 the judge granted the complainants motion to quash.
But on March 24, 2003 the judge reversed the motion due to coercion that occurred in acquiring the waiver exculpating the
complainant of his charges. j
Issue: Is the judge guilty of gross misconduct?
Held: Yes. The judge lacked judicious reasoning and intentionally violated the law when he rescinded his January order with
another order after the charges has already been dismissed. He had ample opportunity to question the latter during the prelim
investigation regarding the waiver. Yet he grossly neglected to do so and failed in his duty as public officer.
Judge is guilty and is ordered to pay a fine of 25,000 and sternly warned that another offense of similar acts shall be dealt with
more severely.