Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
vs. SIMEON
RESOLUTION
ROMERO, J.:
In a complaint made way back in 1971, Patricia
Figueroa petitioned that respondent Simeon Barranco,
Jr.
be
denied
admission
to
the
legal
profession. Respondent had passed the 1970 bar
examinations
on
the
fourth
attempt,
after
unsuccessful attempts in 1966, 1967 and 1968. Before
he could take his oath, however, complainant filed the
instant petition averring that respondent and she had
been sweethearts, that a child out of wedlock was
born to them and that respondent did not fulfill his
repeated promises to marry her.
The facts were manifested in hearings held before
Investigator Victor F. Sevilla in June and July
1971. Respondent and complainant were townmates
in Janiuay, Iloilo. Since 1953, when they were both in
their teens, they were steadies. Respondent even
acted as escort to complainant when she reigned as
Narvasa,
JJ., on leave
C.J.,
Hermosisima,
Jr.,
to shift gears, and that the ride had lasted for only two
to three minutes.3 He claimed that De Leon was
allowing herself to be used by his detractors in the
Public Attorneys Office (PAO) after he had opposed
the practice of certain PAO staff members of charging
indigent clients for every document that they
prepared. In his complaint affidavit for theft, he stated
that he had another passenger in his car at the time
he gave a ride to De Leon, who did not notice the
presence of the other passenger because the ride
lasted for only two to three minutes; and that the
other passenger was Emma Crespo, who executed her
own affidavit attesting that she had witnessed De
Leons act of taking his (Pedrea) cellphone from the
handbrake box of the car.4
Only De Leon appeared during the hearing.5 Hence,
Atty. Pedrea was deemed to have waived his right to
participate in the proceedings.6
Thereafter, the IBP Investigating Commissioner
recommended the disbarment of Atty. Pedrea and the
striking off of his name from the Roll of
Attorneys.7 Holding that a disbarment case was sui
generis and could proceed independently of the
criminal case that was based on the same facts; and
that the proceedings herein need not wait until the
criminal case for acts of lasciviousness brought
against Atty. Pedrea was finally resolved, the IBP
Investigating Commissioner found that Atty. Pedrea
had made sexual advances on De Leon in violation of
and gross
For
the
second
time,
TOP
RATEs Verification/Certification did not state that
its Manifestation and Motion dated 21 December 2001
was then still pending with the Court of Appeals.
On 18 February 2002 BAIKAL filed with this Court
a Manifestation and Motion alleging that it opts to wait
for whatever decision the x x x Court of Appeals may
render in the x x x Manifestation and Motion filed [with
the Court of Appeals] by Top Rate Construction and
General Services, without prejudice, however, to such
remedies as may be available to [Baikal Realty
Corporation] in case of an adverse decision of the
Court of Appeals.
On 6 March 2002 this Court resolved to deny TOP
RATEs Petition for Review for petitioners failure to take
the appeal within the reglementary period of fifteen
(15) days in accordance with Section 2, Rule 45 in
relation to Section 5 (a), Rule 56, in view of the denial
of petitioners motion for extension of time to file
petition in the resolution of 30 January 2002.[24]
On 15 March 2002 TOP RATE moved for
reconsideration of this Courts Resolution of 30 January
2002 by granting Top Rates timely filed motion for
extension of time, and requiring the respondent
PAXTON to comment on the timely filed Petition for
Review on Certiorari.[25] The motion, which was signed
again by the same Gana and Manlangit Law Office
through Attys. Luis Ma. Gil L. Gana and Elmer E.
Manlangit, did not mention the Manifestation and
On
16
June
2003
this
Court
issued
a Resolution denying with finality TOP RATEs motion
for reconsideration of the Resolution of 9 December
2002 which in turn denied petitioners urgent motion to
recall entry of judgment, and further requiring TOP
RATE to comment on the twin Manifestations of
PAXTON.
In its Comment dated 18 July 2003, TOP RATE
asserted that nowhere was it stated in the 27 March
2003 Resolution of the Court of Appeals that the
appellate
court
was
invalidating
its Amended
Decision of 2 August 2002, and that since the filing of
its Petition for Review with this Court was premature,
the subsequent dismissal thereof did not set aside
the Amended Decision, which allegedly stands as the
decision to be executed by the trial court.
The issues to be resolved herein are: (a) whether
Top Rate Construction and General Services, Inc., and
its counsel Gana & Manlangit Law Office through
Attys. Luis Ma. Gil L. Gana and Elmer E.
Manlangit are guilty of forum shopping, and whether
such transgression is willful and deliberate; (b)
whether Attys. Luis Ma. Gil L. Gana and Elmer E.
Manlangit are administratively liable for violation of
the Code of Professional Responsibility; and, (c)
whether the Amended Decision of 2 August 2002 may
be reversed and set aside in the instant proceedings
for being void on its face.
We have no doubt that Top Rate Construction and
General Services, Inc. and its lawyer Gana &
file petition for review and its Petition for Review itself,
which contained no reference to the filing or pendency
of the Manifestation and Motion filed with the Court of
Appeals. In fact, even as TOP RATE moved to
reconsider the denial of its motion for time
and Petition for Review, there was no mention
whatsoever of its existence.
We also keenly observe how Attys. Luis Ma. Gil
L. Gana and Elmer E. Manlangit instigated the
Court of Appeals to rule on their Manifestation and
Motion of 21 December 2001, thereby consummate
and realize the fruits of their forum shopping, when
they
nonchalantly
alleged
in
one
of
their Manifestations before the Court of Appeals that
the appellate court may already proceed to resolve
TOP RATEs Manifestation and Motion despite their
knowledge that their Petition for Review had been
denied with finality and that their motion to withdraw
such petition was not granted.
Obviously, under the foregoing state of facts,
forum shopping was crafted willfully and deliberately
with the sole objective of endorsing whichever
proceeding would yield favorable consequences to
TOP RATEs interests.
On the second issue, we hold that Attys. Luis Ma.
Gil L. Gana and Elmer E. Manlangit of the Gana
and Manlangit Law Office, counsel of record of TOP
RATE, are administratively liable for grotesque
violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility. In
arriving at this conclusion, we strongly note
WHEREFORE,
we
Resolve
to
(a) REVERSE and SET ASIDE the Amended Decision of
2 August 2002 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No.
CV-60656 and REINSTATE its Decision of 21 May 2001
(affirming in toto the Joint Decision of 13 March 1998
of the RTC-Br. 21, Imus, Cavite); (b) DECLARE Attys.
Luis Ma. Gil L. Gana and Elmer E. Manlangit of
the Gana and Manlangit Law Office as well as its
client Top Rate Construction and General Services,
Inc., in CONTEMPT of this Court and DIRECT Atty.
Luis Ma.
Gil L.
Gana, Atty.
Elmer E.
Manlangit and Top Rate Construction and General
Services, Inc., to each pay a fine of P10,000.00 within
five (5) days from finality of this Resolution; and,
(c) SUSPEND from the practice of law Attys. Luis Ma.
Gil L. Gana and Elmer E. Manlangit for six (6)
months effective from finality of this Resolution, with
warning that any future violation of their duties as
lawyers will be dealt with more severely.
Top Rate Construction and General Services, Inc.
shall PAY double costs in this instance.
Let copies of this Resolution be attached to the Bar
records of Attys. Luis Ma. Gil L. Gana and Elmer E.
Manlangit, and served upon the Court of Appeals, the
RTC-Br. 21, Imus, Cavite, the Office of the Bar
Confidant of this Court, and the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines, for proper dissemination among its
chapters all over the country, and for whatever
appropriate action they may deem proper to take
under the premises.
SO ORDERED.
Quisumbing,
Austria-Martinez,
Sr., and Tinga, JJ., concur
Callejo,
EN BANC
[A.C. No. 5161. April 14, 2004]
ISIDRA
TING-DUMALI, complainant,
vs. ATTY.
ROLANDO S. TORRES, respondent.
PER CURIAM:
RESOLUTION
LAWYER'S OATH
We
fully
agree
with
the
Investigating
Commissioner in her findings of facts and conclusion
of culpability. The respondent has sufficiently
demonstrated that he is morally and legally unfit to
remain in the exclusive and honorable fraternity of the
legal profession. In his long years as a lawyer, he must
have forgotten his sworn pledge as a lawyer. It is time
once again that the Court inculcate in the hearts of all
lawyers that pledge; thus:
SO HELP ME GOD.
This oath to which all lawyers have subscribed in
solemn agreement to dedicate themselves to the
pursuit of justice is not a mere ceremony or formality
for practicing law to be forgotten afterwards; nor is it
mere words, drift and hollow, but a sacred trust that
lawyers must uphold and keep inviolable at all
times. By swearing the lawyers oath, they become
guardians of truth and the rule of law, as well as
instruments in the fair and impartial dispensation of
justice.[6] This oath is firmly echoed and reflected in
the Code of Professional Responsibility, which
provides:
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.
Rule 1.02 A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities
aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening
confidence in the legal system.
...
CANON 7 A lawyer shall at all times uphold the
integrity and dignity of the legal profession, and
support the activities of the Integrated Bar.
October 1, 2013
Background Facts
The complainant, German Bernardo D. Mattus and
Dexter Aligan were the accused in Criminal Case No.
10309-02 a case for estafa thru falsification of public
document filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Branch 20, Imus, Cavite. The complainant and her
husband, German, engaged the services of Atty.
Villaseca to represent them in the proceedings. The
complainant maintained that she and German were
convicted due to Atty. Villasecas gross and
inexcusable negligence in performing his duties as
their counsel.
In her complaint-affidavit,1 the complainant alleged,
among others, that Atty. Villaseca: (1) was often
absent during court hearings but still collected
appearance fees; (2) frequently sought the
postponement of trial when he was present; (3) failed
to ask the RTC to direct a National Bureau of
Investigation expert to examine the signatures of the
spouses Leslie and Zuraida Porter2 in the special
power of attorney (SPA); (4) failed to file a demurrer to
evidence despite having been granted sufficient time
by the RTC to submit one; (5) failed to present
evidence on behalf of the defense, and only filed a
memorandum; (6) did not inform her and German of
the dates of the presentation of defense evidence and
the promulgation of judgment; and (7) erroneously
indicated the wrong case number in the notice of
appeal. According to the complainant, Atty. Villasecas