RODOLFO M. BERNARDO VS. ATTY.

ISMAEL MEJIA the rigid standards of mental fitness, maintenance of the highest degree of morality and
faithful compliance with the rules of the legal profession are the continuing requirements
FACTS: On January 23, 1987, Rodolfo M. Bernardo, Jr. accused his retained attorney, for enjoying the privilege to practice law.
Ismael F. Mejia, of the following administrative offenses: 1) Misappropriating and
converting to his personal use: a) part of the sum of P27,710.00 entrusted to him for BELO-HENARES VS. ATTY. GUEVARRA
payment of real estate taxes on property belonging to Bernardo, situated in a
subdivision known as Valle Verde I; and b) part of another sum of P40,000.00 entrusted FACTS: This instant administative case arose from a verified complaint for disbarment
to him for payment of taxes and expenses in connection with the registration of title of filed by complainant complainant Maria Victoria G. Belo-Henares (complainant) against
Bernardo to another property in a subdivision known as Valle Verde V; 2) Falsification of respondent Atty. Roberto "Argee" C. Guevarra (respondent) for alleged violations of the
certain documents, to wit: a) a special power of attorney dated March 16, 1985, Code of Professional Responsibility.
purportedly executed in his favor by Bernardo (Annex P, par. 51, complainants affidavit
dates October 4, 1989); b) a deed of sale dated October 22, 1982 (Annex O, par. 48, Complainant is the Medical Director and principal stockholder of the Belo Medical
id.); and c) a deed of assignment purportedly executed by the spouses Tomas and Group, Inc. (BMGI), a corporation duly organized and existing under Philippine laws 2
Remedios Pastor, in Bernardos favor (Annex Q, par. 52, id.); 3) issuing a check, and engaged in the specialized field of cosmetic surgery.3 On the other hand,
knowing that he was without funds in the bank, in payment of a loan obtained from respondent is the lawyer of a certain Ms. Josefina "Josie" Norcio (Norcio ), who filed
Bernardo in the amount of P50,000.00, and thereafter, replacing said check with others criminal cases against complainant for an allegedly botched surgical procedure on her
known also to be insufficiently funded. buttocks in 2002 and 2005, purportedly causing infection and making her ill in 2009.

ISSUE: Whether the applicant shall be reinstated in the Roll of Attorneys rests to a great In 2009, respondent wrote a series of posts on his Facebook account insulting and
extent on the sound discretion of the Court verbally abusing complainant. The complaint further alleged that respondent posted
remarks on his Facebook account that were intended to destroy and ruin BMGI's
HELD: The applicant must, like a candidate for admission to the bar, satisfy the Court medical personnel, as well as the entire medical practice of around 300 employees for
that he is a person of good moral character, a fit and proper person to practice law. The no fair or justifiable cause. His posts include the following excerpts:
Court will take into consideration the applicants character and standing prior to the
disbarment, the nature and character of the charge/s for which he was disbarred, his Argee Guevarra Quack Doctor Becky Belo: I am out to get Puwitic Justice here! Kiss My
conduct subsequent to the disbarment, and the time that has elapsed between the Clients Ass, Belo. Senator Adel Tamano, dont kiss Belos ass. Guys and girls, nagiisip
disbarment and the application for reinstatement. The Court is inclined to grant the na akong tumakbo sa Hanghalan 2010 to Kick some ass!!! I will launch a national
present petition. Fifteen years has passed since Mejia was punished with the severe campaign against Plastic Politicians -No guns, No goons, No gold -IN GUTS I TRUST!
penalty of disbarment. Although the Court does not lightly take the bases for Mejias
disbarment, it also cannot close its eyes to the fact that Mejia is already of advanced Argee Guevarra Dr. Vicki Belo, watch out for Josefina Norcios Big Bang on Friday -You
years. While the age of the petitioner and the length of time during which he has will go down in Medical History as a QUACK DOCTOR!!!! QUACK QUACK QUACK
endured the ignominy of disbarment are not the sole measure in allowing a petition for QUACK. CNN, FOX NEWS, BLOOMBERG, CHICAGO TRIBUNE, L.A. TIMES c/o my
reinstatement, the Court takes cognizance of the rehabilitation of Mejia. Since his partner in the U.S., Atty. Trixie Cruz-Angeles (September 22 at 11:18pm)
disbarment in 1992, no other transgression has been attributed to him, and he has
shown remorse. Obviously, he has learned his lesson from this experience, and his Argee Guevarra is amused by a libel case filed by Vicki Belo against me through her
punishment has lasted long enough. Thus, while the Court is ever mindful of its duty to office receptionist in Taytay Rizal. Haaaaay, style-bulok at style-duwag talaga. Lalakarin
discipline its erring officers, it also knows how to show compassion when the penalty ng Reyna ng Kaplastikan at Reyna ng Payola ang kaso si Imelda Marcos nga sued
imposed has already served its purpose. After all, penalties, such as disbarment, are me for P300 million pesos and ended up apologizing to me, si Belo pa kaya?
imposed not to punish but to correct offenders. We reiterate, however, and remind (September 15 at 12:08pm
petitioner that the practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions. Adherence to
Argee Guevarra get vicki belo as your client!!! may extra-legal budget yon. Kaya Lang, manifests the intention to keep certain posts private, through the employment of
bistado ko na kung sino-sino ang tumatanggap eh, pag nalaman mo, baka bumagsak pa measures to prevent access thereto or to limit its visibility. This intention can materialize
isang ahensya ng gobyerno dito, hahaha (August 9 at 10:31pm) in cyberspace through the utilization of Facebook's privacy tools. In other words,
utilization of these privacy tools is the manifestation, in the cyber world, of the user's
Argee Guevarra ATTENTION MGA BA TCHMATES SA DOJ: TIMBREHAN NJYO AKO invocation of his or her right to informational privacy. The bases of the instant complaint
KUNG MAGKANONG PANGSUHOL NJ BELO PARA MADIIN AKO HA???? I just are the Facebook posts maligning and insulting complainant, which posts respondent
[want] to know how much she hates me, ok? Ang payola budget daw niya runs into tens insists were set to private view. However, the latter has failed to offer evidence that he
of millions . (September 15 at 3:57pm) xxx xxx xxx utilized any of the privacy tools or features of Facebook available to him to protect his
Asserting that the said posts, written in vulgar and obscene language, were designed to posts, or that he restricted its privacy to a select few. Therefore, without any positive
inspire public hatred, destroy her reputation, and to close BMGI and all its clinics, as well evidence to corroborate his statement that the subject posts, as well as the comments
as to extort the amount of P200 Million from her as evident from his demand letter dated thereto, were visible only to him and his circle of friends, respondent's statement is, at
August 26, 2009, complainant lodged the instant complaint for disbarment against best, self-serving, thus deserving scant consideration.
respondent before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), docketed as CBD Case
No. 09-2551. Moreover, even if the Court were to accept respondent's allegation that his posts were
limited to or viewable by his "Friends" only, there is no assurance that the same -or
In defense, respondent claimed that the complaint was filed in violation of his other digital content that he uploads or publishes on his Facebook profile -will be
constitutionally-guaranteed right to privacy, asserting that the posts quoted by safeguarded as within the confines of privacy, in light of the following:
complainant were private remarks on his private account on Facebook, meant to be Facebook "allows the world to be more open and connected by giving its users the tools
shared only with his circle of friends of which complainant was not a part. He also to interact and share in any conceivable way";
averred that he wrote the posts in the exercise of his freedom of speech, and contended A good number of Facebook users "befriend" other users who are total strangers;
that the complaint was filed to derail the criminal cases that his client, Norcio, had filed The sheer number of "Friends" one user has, usually by the hundreds; and
against complainant. He denied that the remarks were vulgar and obscene, and that he A user's Facebook friend can "share" the former's post, or "tag" others who are not
made them in order to inspire public hatred against complainant. He likewise denied that Facebook friends with the former, despite its being visible only to his or her own
he attempted to extort money from her, explaining that he sent the demand letter as a Facebook friends.
requirement prior to the filing of the criminal case for estafa, as well as the civil case for
damages against her. Finally, respondent pointed out that complainant was a public Thus, restricting the privacy of one's Facebook posts to "Friends" does not guarantee
figure who is, therefore, the subject of fair comment. absolute protection from the prying eyes of another user who does not belong to one's
circle of friends. The user's own Facebook friend can share said content or tag his or her
ISSUES: own Facebook friend thereto, regardless of whether the user tagged by the latter is Face
Whether respondent can validly invoke his right to privacy. book friends or not with the former. Also, when the post is shared or when a person is
Whether respondent can validlyn invoke freedom of speech. tagged, the respective Facebook friends of the person who shared the post or who was
tagged can view the post, the privacy setting of which was set at "Friends." Under the
RULING Respondent never denied that he posted the purportedly vulgar and obscene circumstances, therefore, respondent's claim of violation of right to privacy is negated.
remarks about complainant and BMGI on his Facebook account. In defense, however,
he invokes his right to privacy, claiming that they were "private remarks" on his "private As to the second issue, it has been held that the freedom of speech and of expression,
account" that can only be viewed by his circle of friends. Thus, when complainant like all constitutional freedoms, is not absolute. As such, the constitutional right of
accessed the same, she violated his constitutionally guaranteed right to privacy. freedom of expression may not be availed of to broadcast lies or half-truths, insult
others, destroy their name or reputation or bring them into disrepute.
The defense is untenable. Before, can have an expectation of privacy in his or her online
social networking activity -in this case, Facebook -it is first necessary that said user
A punctilious scrutiny of the Facebook remarks complained of disclosed that they were
ostensibly made with malice tending to insult and tarnish the reputation of complainant
and BMGI. Calling complainant a "quack doctor," "Reyna ng Kaplastikan," "Reyna ng
Payola," and "Reyna ng Kapalpakan," and insinuating that she has been bribing people
to destroy respondent smacks of bad faith and reveals an intention to besmirch the
name and reputation of complainant, as well as BMGI. Respondent also ascribed
criminal negligence upon complainant and BMGI by posting that complainant disfigured
( "binaboy ") his client Norcio, labeling BMGI a "Frankenstein Factory," and calling out a
boycott of BMGI's services -all these despite the pendency of the criminal cases that
Norcio had already filed against complainant. He even threatened complainant with
conviction for criminal negligence and estafa -which is contrary to one's obligation "to act
with justice."
In view of the foregoing, respondent's inappropriate and obscene language, and his act
of publicly insulting and undermining the reputation of complainant through the subject
Facebook posts are, therefore, in complete and utter violation of the following provisions
in the Code of Professional Responsibility:
Rule 7.03 -A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to
practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous
manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
Rule 8.01 -A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is
abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.
Rule 19.01 -A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful
objectives of his client and shall not present, participate in presenting or threaten to
present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage in any case or
proceeding.
By posting the subject remarks on Facebook directed at complainant and BMGI,
respondent disregarded the fact that, as a lawyer, he is bound to observe proper
decorum at all times, be it in his public or private life. He overlooked the fact that he
must behave in a manner befitting of an officer of the court, that is, respectful, firm, and and Rule12.04, Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, as well as the rule
decent. Instead, he acted inappropriately and rudely; he used words unbecoming of an
officer of the law, and conducted himself in an aggressive way by hurling insults and
maligning complainant's and BMGI' s reputation.
That complainant is a public figure and/or a celebrity and therefore, a public personage petition for certiorari to question the lower courts jurisdiction may be a procedurally
who is exposed to criticism does not justify respondent's disrespectful language. It is the legitimate (but substantially erroneous) move, the respondents subsequent petitions
cardinal condition of all criticism that it shall be bona fide, and shall not spill over the involving the same property and the same parties not only demonstrate his attempts to
walls of decency and propriety. In this case, respondent's remarks against complainant
breached the said walls, for which reason the former must be administratively
sanctioned.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Roberto "Argee" C. Guevarra is found guilty of violation
of Rules 7.03, 8.01, and 19.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is
hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year, effective upon
his receipt of this Decision, and is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or
similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
CONRADO QUE vs. ATTY. ANASTACIO REVILLA, JR.
FACTS: In a complaint for disbarment Conrado Que (complainant) accused Atty.
Anastacio RevillaJr. (respondent) before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Committee
on Bar Discipline(IBP Committee on Bar Discipline or CBD) of committing the following
violations of the provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 138 of
the Rules of Court. Complainant alleged the respondents commission of forum-
shopping by filing the subject cases in order to impede, obstruct, and frustrate the
efficient administration of justice for his own personal gain and to defeat the right of the
complainant and his siblings to execute the MeTC and RTC judgments in the unlawful
detainer case. In his Answer, the respondent declared that he is a member of the
Kalayaan Development Cooperative (KDC) that handles pro bono cases for the
underprivileged, the less fortunate, the homeless and those marginalized sector in Metro
Manila. He agreed to take over the cases formerly handled by other KDC members.
Investigating Commissioner ruled that the act of the respondent in filing two petitions for
annulment of title, a petition for annulment of judgment and later on a petition for
declaratory relief were all done to prevent the execution of the final judgment in the
unlawful detainer case and constituted prohibited forum-shopping.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent is guilty of forum shopping
HELD: YES. Respondent is guilty of forum shopping. Respondent violated Rule 12.02
againstforum shopping, both of which are directed against the filing of multiple actions to
attain the same objective. Both violations constitute abuse of court processes they tend
to degrade the administration of justice; wreak havoc on orderly judicial procedure; and
add to the congestion of the heavily burdened dockets of the courts. While the filing of a
secure favorable ruling using different for a, but his obvious objective as well of
preventing the execution of MeTC and RTC decisions in the unlawful detainer case
against his clients. This intent is most obvious with respect to the petitions for annulment
of judgment and declaratory relief , both geared towards preventing the execution of the
unlawful detainer decision, long after this decision had become final. Hence, Atty.
Anastacio Revilla,Jr. is found liable for professional misconduct for violations of the
Lawyers Oath and Canons of Professional Responsibility and should be disbarred from
the practice of law.
ethical rules. A lawyer should not steal another lawyers client, nor induce the latter to
retain him by a promise of better service, good result or reduced fees for his services.
Tolentino never denied having Linsangans clients in his own client list. He also did not
deny Labianos connection to his office. Hence, Tolentino committed an unethical,
predatory overstep in anothers legal practice. The SC also noted that Tolentino violated
Rules 1.03, 2.03, 16.04 and Canon 3 of the CPR, and Section 27, Rule 130 of the Rules
of Court. The SC also reminded lawyers what professional cards should contain: (1)
lawyers name, (2) name of firm with which he is connected, (3) address, (4) telephone
number, and (5) special branch of law practiced.

LINSANGAN VS TOLENTINO PEOPLE VS. HON. MACEDA

Doctrines: A lawyer should not steal another lawyers client, nor induce the latter to FACTS: On September 8, 1999, we denied the Peoples motion seeking reconsideration
retain him by a promise of better service, good result or reduced fees for his services. of our August 13, 1990 decision in these cases. In said resolution, we held that
FACTS: Pedro Linsangan of the Linsangan Linsangan & Linsangan Law Office filed a respondent Judge Bonifacio Sanz Maceda committed no grave abuse of discretion in
disbarment complaint against Atty. Tolentino. He alleged that Tolentino is guilty of issuing the order of August 8, 1989 giving custody over private respondent Avelino T.
solicitation of clients and encroachment of professional services. Linsangan claimed that Javellana to the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 12, San Jose,
Tolentino and his paralegal, Labiano, convinced his clients to transfer legal Antique, Atty. Deogracias del Rosario, during the pendency of Criminal Cases Nos.
representation. Linsangan said that Tolentino promised them financial assistance and 3350-3355. At that time, sufficient reason was shown why private respondent Javellana
expeditious collection on their claims. Tolentino apparently called and texted should not be detained at the Antique Provincial Jail. The trial courts order specifically
Linsangans clients. To support his allegations, Linsangan presented the sworn affidavit provided for private respondents detention at the residence of Atty. del Rosario.
of James Gregorio attesting that Labiano tried to convince him to sever his association However, private respondent was not to be allowed liberty to roam around but was to be
with Linsangan and employ Tolentinos services and even be able to get a loan of held as detention prisoner in said residence.
P50,000. Linsangan also presented Labianos calling card which specifically states, w/
financial assistance. Tolentino denied knowing Labiano and the printing and circulation This order of the trial court was not strictly complied with because private respondent
of the said calling cared in his answer. However, he later admitted that he knew her was not detained in the residence of Atty. Del Rosario. He went about his normal
during the mandatory hearing. The Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the IBP activities as if he were a free man, including engaging in the practice of law. Despite our
found that Tolentino encroached on the professional practice of Linsangan, violating resolution of July 30, 1990 prohibiting private respondent to appear as counsel in
Rule 8.02. He also contravened the rule against soliciting cases for gain. The CBD Criminal Case No. 4262, the latter accepted cases and continued practicing law.
recommended that Tolentino be reprimanded with a stern warning that any repetition On April 7, 1997, Senior State Prosecutor Henrick F. Guingoyon filed with the Supreme
would merit a heavier penalty. Court a motion seeking clarification on the following questions: "(1) Does the resolution
of this Honorable Court dated July 30, 1990, prohibiting Atty. Javellana from appearing
ISSUES: Whether or not the Tolentino should be disbarred? as counsel refer only to Criminal Case No. 4262? (2) Is Atty. now (Judge) Deogracias
del Rosario still the custodian of Atty. Javellana? and (3) Since it appears that Atty. (now
RULING: 1. NO. HOWEVER, the SC held that he should be suspended from the Judge) del Rosario never really held and detained Atty. Javellana as prisoner in his
practice of law for a period of one year and is sternly warned that a repetition of the residence, is not Atty. Javellana considered an escapee or a fugitive of justice for which
same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely. Rule 8.02 requires warrant for his arrest should forthwith be issued?" Mis spped
that A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, encroach upon the professional
employment of another lawyer. Tolentino violated such canon. The means employed by In a resolution dated June 18, 1997, we "noted" the above motion.
Tolentino in furtherance of such misconduct themselves constituted distinct violations of
After we denied the motion for reconsideration on September 8, 1999, the trial court the accused in Criminal Cases Nos. 3350-3355 must be confined in the Provincial Jail of
resumed hearing Criminal Cases Nos. 3350-3355. Earlier, on August 2, 1999, Rolando Antique.
Mijares filed with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 12, San Jose, Antique, a motion
seeking the revocation of the trial courts custody order and the imprisonment of private Considering that the pendency of Criminal Cases Nos. 3350-3355 has dragged on for
respondent Javellana in the provincial jail. more than ten (10) years, the presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 12,
San Jose, Antique, is ordered to continue with the trial of said criminal cases with all
On November 15, 1999, private respondent Javellana filed with the Supreme Court an deliberate dispatch and to avoid further delay.
urgent motion seeking to clarify whether the June 18, 1997 resolution finally terminated
or resolved the motion for clarification filed by the State Prosecutor on April 7, 1997. WHEREFORE, the August 8, 1989 order of the trial court is hereby SET ASIDE. All
accused in Criminal Cases Nos. 3350-3355, including Avelino T. Javellana and Arturo F.
Private respondent Javellana has been arrested based on the filing of criminal cases Pacificador are ordered detained at the Provincial Jail of Antique, San Jose, Antique,
against him. By such arrest, he is deemed to be under the custody of the law. The trial effective immediately, and shall not be allowed to go out of the jail for any reason or
court gave Atty. Deogracias del Rosario the custody of private respondent Javellana guise, except upon prior written permission of the trial court for a lawful purpose.
with the obligation "to hold and detain" him in Atty. del Rosarios residence in his official
capacity as the clerk of court of the regional trial court. Hence, when Atty. del Rosario Let copies of this resolution be given to the Provincial Director, PNP Antique Provincial
was appointed judge, he ceased to be the personal custodian of accused Javellana and Police Office, San Jose, Antique and to the Provincial Jail Warden, Provincial Jail of
the succeeding clerk of court must be deemed the custodian under the same Antique, San Jose, Antique.
undertaking.
ZETA VS. MALINAO
In our mind, the perceived threats to private respondent Javelanas life no longer exist.
Thus, the trial courts order dated August 8, 1989 giving custody over him to the clerk of Administrative complaint against Felicisimo Malinao court interpreter of the Court of First
court must be recalled, and he shall be detained at the Provincial Jail of Antique at San Instance of Catbalogan, Samar charging as follows:
Jose, Antique.
l ILLEGALLY APPEARING IN COURT. MR. Malinao has been appearing in the
Regarding his continued practice of law, as a detention prisoner private respondent municipal court of this town for parties like attorney when he is not an attorney. Reliable
Javellana is not allowed to practice his profession as a necessary consequence of his information also says he has been appearing in the municipal courts of Daram,
status as a detention prisoner. The trial courts order was clear that private respondent Zumarraga, Talalora and even Sta. Rita. He is not authorized to do so we believe. He
"is not to be allowed liberty to roam around but is to be held as a detention prisoner." makes it his means of livelihood as he collects fees from his clients. He competes with
The prohibition to practice law referred not only to Criminal Case No. 4262, but to all attorneys but does not pay anything. We believe that his doing so should be stopped for
other cases as well, except in cases where private respondent would appear in court to a good government. These facts can be checked with records of those municipal courts.
defend himself. Spped 2 GRAVE MISCONDUCT IN OFFICE. Being employed in the Court of First
Instance he would instigate persons, especially in his barrio to grab land rob or coerce.
As a matter of law, when a person indicted for an offense is arrested, he is deemed In fact he has cases in the municipal court in this town involving himself and his men. He
placed under the custody of the law. He is placed in actual restraint of liberty in jail so incite them telling them not to be afraid as he is a court employee and has influence
that he may be bound to answer for the commission of the offense. He must be detained over the judges. Those persons being ignorant would believe him and so would commit
in jail during the pendency of the case against him, unless he is authorized by the court crimes. This act of Mr. Malinao is contrary to good order and peace as he is using his
to be released on bail or on recognizance. Let it be stressed that all prisoners whether supposed influences to urge persons to commit crimes.
under preventive detention or serving final sentence can not practice their profession nor 3 CRIME OF FALSIFICATION. Information has it that he is unfaithfully filing his
engage in any business or occupation, or hold office, elective or appointive, while in time record in the CFI. Even he has been out practicing in the municipal courts
detention. This is a necessary consequence of arrest and detention. Consequently, all sometimes he would fill his time record as present. He receives salary for those absent
days. This can be checked with time record he has submitted and if he has any
application for leave. He may try to cure it by submitting application for leave but this
should not be allowed as he has already committed crime.
4 VIOLATION OF EXECUTIVE ORDER AND CIVIL SERVICE LAW.-WE have
reliable information it is prohibited for a civil service employee to engage in private
practice any profession or business without permission from the Department Head. Mr.
Malinao we are sure has not secured that permission because he should not be allowed
to practice as he is not an attorney. If that were so, he violated that Executive Order and
Civil Service Law and we are urgently and earnestly requesting the Commissioner of
Civil Service to investigate him on this. If warranted he should be given the
corresponding penalty as dismissal because we believe he deserve it. (Page 2, Record.)
After respondent filed the following 3rd indorsement relative to the above complaint:
Respectfully returned to the Honorable, the Secretary of Justice, Manila, thru the
Honorable District Judge, Court of First Instance, Branch I, Catbalogan, Samar, and thru
the Honorable Judicial Superintendent, Department of Justice, Manila, the
undersigned's reply to the preceding endorsements, to wit: That the alleged letter-
complaint of one Julio Zeta is not inclosed in the first indorsement, which absence has
also been noticed and noted on the right hand corner of the said first indorsement by the
Clerk of Court, of this Court; that despite this absence, and without waiving, however,
his right to any pertinent provision of law, but for respect and courtesy to a Superior, he
hereby states that he has not violated any rule or law, much less Sec. 12, Rule XVIII of
the Civil Service Rules; that his participation for defendants' cause was gratuitous as
they could not engage the services of counsel by reason of poverty and the absence of
one in the locality, said assistance has also checked the miscarriage of justice by the
Presiding Municipal Judge, now resigned; that he is attaching herewith a carbon-original
of a pleading submitted by Atty. Simeon Quiachon the attorney of record for the
defendants in Civil Case No. 24, entitled 'Jose Kiskisan versus Fidel Pacate, et al. for
Forcible Entry, in the Municipal Court of Talalora, Samar, which is a 'Motion To
Withdraw Exhibits', as Annex 'A', as part of this reply. (Page 5, Rec.)
the Department of Justice that had jurisdiction over the matter then, referred the said
complaint and answer to District Judge Segundo Zosa, Court of First Instance,
Catbalogan, Western Samar, for investigation, report and recommendation, and after
due hearing, Judge Zosa submitted his report pertinent parts of which read thus:
Inspite of diligent efforts exerted by the Court to subpoena the complainant, Julio Zeta,
who is said to be a resident of Zumarraga, Samar the same had failed because the said
Julio Zeta appears to be a fictitious person. Inspite of the failure of the complainant to
appear in the investigation in connection with his complaint against Felicisimo Malinao, With respect to the crime of falsification of his daily time record as shown by the
the Court nevertheless proceeded to investigate the case against him by calling Judge evidence, he had made it appear that he was present in his office on December 15,
Restituto Duran of Sta. Rita, Samar, Judge Juanito Reyes of Zumarraga, Samar and
Judge Miguel Avestruz of Daram, Samar. Judge Restituto Duran of Sta. Rita, Samar,
declared that according to his docket books the respondent appeared as counsel for
Vicente Baculanlan in criminal case No. 1247 in the Municipal Court of Sta. Rita, Samar,
for grave threats and in criminal case No. 1249 for the same accused and Romulo
Villagracia for illegal possession of firearm on August 5, 1960 and on September 17,
1970.
Judge Miguel Avestruz of Daram, Samar, declared that the respondent appeared as
counsel in civil case No. 39 in the Municipal Court of Daram, Samar, entitled Felix
Versoza versus Victor Payao, et al., for forcible entry on December 15, 1962, January
26, 1963, February 18, 1963 and on March 1, 1963.
Judge Juanito Reyes declared that on March 27, 1969, the respondent appeared as
counsel for the defendant in civil case No. 318 of the Municipal Court of Zumarraga
entitled Restituto Centino versus Jesus Tizon for forcible entry and again on June 17,
1970 in the same case.
From the certification of the Clerk of this Court, it appears that the respondent had the
following entries in his daily time record:
1. Was on leave from office on August 5, 1960 and September 17, 1960;
2. Was present in office on December l5, 1962;
3. Was present in office on January 26, 1963, and present also on February 18, 1963
but undertime by 1 hour;
4. Was on leave from office on March 1, 1963;
5. Was on leave from office on March 27, 1969; and
6. Was present in office on June 17, 1970 but undertime by 5 hours.
Comparing the dates when the respondent appeared before the aforementioned
Municipal Courts with his daily time records, he made it appear that on December 15,
1962 and February 18, 1963 he was present in his office although according to the
testimony of Judge Miguel Avestruz he was before his Court on December 15, 1962 as
well as on February 18, 1963. Again according to Judge Juanito Reyes the respondent
appeared in his Court on June 17, 1970. The respondent again made it appear in his
daily time record that he was present with an undertime of five hours. The respondent
did not offer any plausible explanation for this irregularity.
1962, February 18, 1963 and June 17, 1970 when as a matter of fact he was in the
Municipal Court of Daram attending to a case entitled Felix Versoza versus Victor
Payao, et al., for forcible entry as well as in the Municipal Court of Zumarraga attending
to Civil Case No. 318 entitled Restituto Centino versus Jesus Tizon for forcible entry.
The Inquest Judge respectfully recommends that he be given stern warning and severe
reprimand for this irregularity.
With respect to the fourth charge, for violation of Section 12, Rule XVIII, Republic Act
2260, as amended, again the evidence shows that respondent had been appearing as
counsel in the municipal courts of Sta. Rita, Daram and Zumarraga in violation of the
rules of the Civil Service Law. (Pp. 28-31, Record.)
We have carefully reviewed the record, and We find the conclusions of fact of the
Investigator to be amply supported by the evidence, particularly the documents
consisting of public records and the declarations of the judges before whom respondent
had appeared. It is clear to Us that respondent, apart from appearing as counsel in
various municipal courts without prior permission of his superiors in violation of civil
service rules and regulations, falsified his time record of service by making it appear
therein that he was present in his office on occasions when in fact he was in the
municipal courts appearing as counsel, without being a member of the bar, which,
furthermore, constitutes illegal practice of law. We, therefore, adopt the above findings
of fact of the Investigator.
The defense of respondent that "his participation (sic) for defendants' cause was
gratuitous as they could not engage the services of counsel by reason of poverty and
the absence of one in the locality" cannot, even if true, carry the day for him, considering he is a practicing lawyer was the result of inadvertence and cannot, by itself, establish
that in appearing as counsel in court, he did so without permission from his superiors
and, worse, he falsified his time record of service to conceal his absence from his office
on the dates in question. Indeed, the number of times that respondent acted as counsel
under the above circumstances would indicate that he was doing it as a regular practice
obviously for considerations other than pure love of justice. In the premises, it is quite
obvious that the offense committed by respondent is grave, hence it warrants a more
drastic sanction than that of reprimand recommended by Judge Zosa. We find no
alternative than to separate him from the service, with the admonition that he desist from
appearing in any court or investigative body wherein Only members of the bar are LUZVIMINDA C. LIJAUCO vs. ATTY. ROGELIO P. TERRADO
allowed to practice.
WHEREFORE, respondent Felicisimo Malinao is hereby ordered dismissed from his Atty.Rogelio P. Terrado for P 70,000 to assist in recovering her deposit with Planters
position as interpreter in the Court of First Instance, CFI, Zumarraga, Western Samar Development Bank in the amount of P180,000 and the release of her foreclosed house
with prejudice to reemployment in the judicial branch of the government.
TAN AND PAGAYOKAN VS. BALAJADIA
FACTS: Petitioners allege that on May 8, 2005, respondent filed a criminal case against
them with the Office of the City of Prosecutor of Baguio City for usurpation of authority,
grave coercion and violation of city tax ordinance due to the alleged illegal collection of
parking fees by petitioners from respondent. Respondent avers that he is a practicing
lawyer though the IBP and Office of the Bar Confidant disproved the same, as he has
never been admitted to the Bar. He claims that the secretary of Atty. Paterno Aquino
prepared the subject complaint-affidavit which was patterned after Atty. Aquinos
complaint-affidavit. It appears that Atty. Aquino had previously filed a complaint-affidavit
against petitioners involving the same subject matter. Petitioners reiterate that
respondent should be made liable for indirect contempt for having made untruthful
statements in the complaint-affidavit and that he cannot shift the blame to Atty. Aquinos
secretary.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent is liable for indirect contempt.
HELD: NO. Sec. 3(e), Rule 71 of the Rules of Court provides for indirect contempt. In
the case at bar, a review of the records supports respondents claim that he never
intended to project himself as a lawyer to the public. It was a clear inadvertence on the
part of the secretary of Atty Aquino. The affidavit of Liza Laconsay attesting to the
circumstances that gave rise to the mistake in the drafting of the complaint-affidavit
conforms to the documentary evidence on record. Taken together, these circumstances
show that the allegation in paragraph 5 of respondents complaint-affidavit was, indeed,
the result of inadvertence. Respondent has satisfactorily shown that the allegation that
intent as to make him liable for indirect contempt. In the case at bar, no evidence was
presented to show that respondent acted as an attorney or that he intended to practice
law. Consequently, he cannot be made liable for indirect contempt considering his lack
of intent to illegally practice law. However, while the evidence on record failed to prove
respondents deliberate intent to misrepresent himself as an attorney and act as such
without authority, he is hereby warned to be more careful and circumspect in his future
actions.
FACTS: Sometime in January 2001, Luzviminda C. Lijauco engaged the services of
and lot located in Calamba, Laguna. The said foreclosed house and lot is the subject ofa
petition for the issuance of writ of possession then pending before the RTC of Binan
Laguna docketed as LRC Case No. B-2610.Ms. Lijauco alleged that Atty. Terrado failed
to appear in the hearing for the issuance of Writ of Possession and did not protect her
interest in allowing her to participate in a Compromise Agreement in order to end the
LRC Case No. B-2610. She filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Terrado for
gross misconduct, malpractice and conduct unbecoming of an officer of the court. In his
defense, Atty. Terrado claims that the P 70,000 legal fees he received is purely and
solely for the recovery of the P180,000 savings account. The complaint was then
referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and
recommendation. The Investigating Commissioner submitted his report finding Atty.
Terrado guilty of violating Rule 1.01 and 9.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
(CPR) and recommended that he be suspended from the practice of law for six (6)
months. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the recommendation of the investigating
commissioner.
ISSUE: Whether or not the ruling of the IBP Board of Governors is proper?
HELD: YES. The Supreme Court agreed with the findings of the IBP. The records show
that Atty. Terrado acted as complainants counsel in the drafting of the compromise
agreement between Ms. Lijauco and the bank regarding LRC Case No. B-2610. He
lured Ms. Lijauco to participate in a compromise agreement with a false and misleading
assurance that the latter can still recover her foreclosed property even after three years
from foreclosure. Atty. Terrado violated Rule 1.01 Canon 1 of the CPR which says that a
lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
Furthermore, the Investigating Commissioner observed that the fee of P 70,000 for legal
assistance in the recovery of the deposit amounting to P 180,000 is unreasonable and is
violative of Canon 20 of the CPR. Atty. Terrado was also found guilty of violating
Rule9.02 of the CPR by openly admitting that he divided the legal fees with two other
people as a referral fee.
PLUS BUILDERS, INC. and E. C. GARCIA, vs. ATTY. A. E. REVILLA, JR.,
FACTS: Complainants charged Atty. Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr. with committing a willful
and intentional falsehood before the court; misusing court procedure and processes to
delay the execution of a judgment; and collaborating with non-lawyers in the illegal
practice of law. Plus Builders Inc. filed before the Provincial Adjudicator of Cavite
(PARAD) of DAR, the Provincial Adjudicator of Cavite (PARAD) rendered a consolidated
Decision in favor of petitioner/complainant [Plus Builders, Inc.], and against
[tenants/farmers]. Tenants/farmers filed several verified pleadings as part of the records
of DARAB cases above-mentioned alleging under oath that they were 'MAGSASAKANG
NAMUMUWISAN' or mere tenants of subject properties, acknowledging the rights of the
registered owners at that time, even before the ownership and title were transferred to
Petitioner/ Complainant Plus Builders, Inc. On Dec[ember] 17, 1999, counsel for
TENANTS/FARMERS who at that time was Atty. Damian S. J. Vellaseca, filed a pro-
forma Motion for Reconsideration and Manifestation x x x. As a result, PARAD did not
give due course to the same. another counsel for TENANTS/FARMERS, by the name of
Atty. Willy G. Roxas, who represented himself as counsel for TENANTS/FARMERS,
filed a manifestation stating that he is representing TENANTS/FARMERS and alleged
that they were 'bona fide' members of the [Kalayaan Development Cooperative] (KDC).
Thereafter, he filed a Notice of Appeal on March 27, 2000 stating that they received the
Decision on March 14, 2000 and alleged that the Decision is against the law and
jurisprudence. On May 31, 2001, Respondent Anastacio Revilla Jr., knowing that there
was a monetary judgment by way of Disturbance Compensation granted to
Tenants/Farmers, filed a 'Motion for Leave of Court to Allow Correction of Caption and
Amendment of Judgment' After realizing that his motion failed to give him beneficial
monetary gain from the PARAD judgment, a Petition for Preliminary Injunction with
prayer for Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order and to Quash Alias Writ of
Execution with Demolition plus Damages dated July 18, 2001 was filed by Respondent
before the DARAB Central Office, Quezon City, notwithstanding the fact that this instant
case was appealed by another lawyer. Report and Recommendation of the IBP-CBD
Investigating Commissioner Espina found respondent guilty of violating the attorney's
oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. Allegedly, respondent had
"maliciously concealed the defeat of his clients in the case before the PARAD of Cavite
and the higher courts," in order to secure a temporary restraining order from the RTC of
Imus, Cavite. As a result, he was able to delay the execution of the provincial
adjudicator's Decision dated November 15, 1999. Moreover, Commissioner Espina
opined that the charge that respondent had been engaged in the unlawful practice of law
was neither satisfactorily explained nor specifically denied by the latter. The failure of
respondent to do so led to the presumption that the allegation was true.
HELD: Lawyers are officers of the court, called upon to assist in the administration of
justice. They act as vanguards of our legal system, protecting and upholding truth and
the rule of law. They are expected to act with honesty in all their dealings, especially
with the courts. Verily, the Code of Professional Responsibility enjoins lawyers from
committing or consenting to any falsehood in court or from allowing the courts to be
misled by any artifice. Moreover, they are obliged to observe the rules of procedure and
not to misuse them to defeat the ends of justice. Canon 9 and Rule 9.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility provide thus: "Canon 9 A lawyer shall not directly or
indirectly assist in the unauthorized practice of law. 'Rule 9.01 A lawyer shall not
delegate to any unqualified person the performance of any task which by law may only
be performed by a member of the Bar in good standing.'"