BAR DISCIPLINE

In A.M. No. 07-7-17-SC (Re: Letter of Judge Augustus C. Diaz, Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 37, Appealing
for Clemency), the Court laid down the following guidelines in resolving requests for judicial clemency, thus:

1. There must be proof of remorse and reformation. These shall include but should not be limited to certifications or
testimonials of the officer(s) or chapter(s) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, judges or judges associations and
prominent members of the community with proven integrity and probity. A subsequent finding of guilt in an
administrative case for the same or similar misconduct will give rise to a strong presumption of non-reformation.

2. Sufficient time must have lapsed from the imposition of the penalty to ensure a period of reform.

3. The age of the person asking 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.

4. There 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 skills), as well as potential
for public service.

5. There must be other relevant factors and circumstances that may justify clemency."

A.C. No. 5161, August 25, 2015

RE: IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT OF ROLANDO S. TORRES AS A MEMBER OF THE PHILIPPINE
BAR.

-For resolution is the Petition1 filed by respondent Rolando S. Torres (respondent) who seeks judicial clemency in order to
be reinstated in the Roll of Attorneys.
-Records show that respondent was administratively charged by his sister-in-law, complainant Isidra Ting-Dumali
(complainant), for "presentation of false testimony; participation in, consent to, and failure to advise against, the forgery
of complainant's signature in a purported Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement; and gross misrepresentation in court for the
purpose of profiting from such forgery."

-1. Torres participated in, consented to, and failed to advise against, the perjury committed by his wife Felicisima and his
sister-in-law and after his disbarment," has been "assisting the poor and indigent litigants in our community," and that
"he has been very active in spreading the words and gospel of the Almighty God." Aside from these bare statements, no
other proof was presented to specify the actual engagements or activities by which respondent had rendered free legal
services to indigents or had ministered to the members of his community or church, hence, insufficient to demonstrate
any form of consistency in his supposed desire to reform.
--The other testimonials which respondent submits stated that "as a former law practitioner, [respondent] is humble,
simple, and respectful to fellow lawyers, Court Personnel, and the Presiding Judge," and that "he used to give free legal
advice and assisted indigent litigants in their court cases."
--It should be discerned that the root cause of respondent's disbarment was his fraudulent acts against his sister-in-law.
However, no proof was presented to show that he had reconciled or even attempted to reconcile w/ her so as to show
remorse for his previous faults. Its dismissal, could not prove that he was actually innocent of the administrative charges
against him, since the considerations of an administrative case are evidently different from that in a criminal case.
--No other evidence was presented in his Petition to demonstrate his potential for public service, or that he - now being
68 years of age - still has productive years ahead of him that can be put to good use by giving him a chance to redeem
himself. Thus, the third and fourth guidelines were neither complied with.
--the petition is DENIED.
Miriam when they executed a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate wherein the two made it appear that they were
the sole heirs of the late spouses Julita Reynante and Vicente Ting, knowing fully well that the same was false. He
presented that document to the Register of Deeds of Cavite for the transfer of the title over Lot No. 1586 in the names of
his wife and Miriam. The lot was later sold to Antel Holdings, Inc.
-2. The respondent participated in, consented to, and failed to advise against, the forgery of complainant's signature in a
purported Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement when he knew that she was in Italy at that time working as an overseas
contract worker. He even presented the falsified document to the Register of Deeds of Cavite to transfer the title over the
property in favor of his wife Felicisima and sister-in law Marcelina. The forgery or falsification was made to enable them
to sell Lot 1603 to Antel Holdings, Inc.

-3. In Re: Petition for Judicial Reconstitution of the Original Copy. and Owner's Duplicate Copy of TCT No. T-1869 Covering
Lot No. 1605 of the Registry of Deeds for the Province of Cavite, filed by complainant's sisters Marcelina and Felicisima,
the respondent made gross misrepresentation and offered false testimony to the effect that Marcelina and Felicisima are
the only children and legal heirs of the late spouses Vicente Ting and Julita Reynante for the purpose of obtaining a new
title in their names. With the reconstituted title, and with the express conformity of the respondent, Felicisima and
Marcelina were able to sell Lot 1605 to Antel Holdings, Inc. and profited from the sale to the exclusion of their other
siblings. Partial payment was even received pending the reconstitution proceedings.
-found Atty. Torres guilty of gross misconduct and violation of the lawyer's oath, as well as Canons 1 & 10 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. He is thus ordered DISBARRED from the practice of law, and his name is ordered stricken off
the Roll of Attorneys, effective immediately.
-More than 10years from his disbarment, or on June 23, 2015, respondent filed the instant Petition once more seeking
judicial clemency from the Court to reinstate him in the Roll of Attorneys. (first on May 2004, Sep 2004, then on Jan 2006)
--Membership in the Bar is a privilege burdened with conditions. It is a special privilege granted and continued only to
those who demonstrate special fitness in intellectual attainment and in moral character.
--The same reasoning applies to reinstatement of a disbarred lawyer. The Court should see to it that only those who
establish their present moral fitness & knowledge of the law will be readmitted to the Bar. Thus, though the doors to the
practice of law are never permanently closed on a disbarred attorney, the Court owes a duty to the legal profession as
well as to the general public to ensure that if the doors are opened, it is done so only as a matter of justice.
--The basic inquiry in a petition for reinstatement to the practice of law is whether the Iawver has sufficiently
rehabilitated himself or herself in conduct and character. Whether the applicant shall be reinstated in the Roll of
Attorneys rests to a great extent on the sound discretion of the Court. The lawyer has to demonstrate and prove by clear
and convincing evidence that he or she is again worthy of membership in the Bar. The Court will take into consideration
his or her character and standing prior to the disbarment, the nature and character of the charge/s for which he or she
was disbarred, his or her conduct subsequent to the disbarment, and the time that has elapsed in between the disbarment
and the application for reinstatement."
---INSERT GUIDELINES (Letter of Judge Diaz)
--not meritorious.
--respondent's present petition has failed to show substantial proof of his reformation as required in the first guideline
above.
--judicial "clemency, as an act of mercy removing any disqualification, should be balanced with the preservation of public
confidence in the courts. Thus the Court will grant it only if there is a showing that it is merited. Proof of reformation and
a showing of potential and promise are indispensable."
--the only ostensible proof of reformation that respondent has presented is a Certification signed by Reverend Nelson
Feranil, Administrative Pastor of the Buenavista Evangelical Church in General Trias, Cavite, which generally states that
respondent, "before

LIGAYA MANIAGO vs ATTY. LOURDES I. DE DIOS

-The instant case arose from an Affidavit-Complaint filed by Maniago, seeking the disbarment of Atty. de Dios for engaging
in the practice of law despite having been suspended by the Court.
-Complainant alleged that she filed a criminal case against Hiroshi Miyata, a Japanese national, for violation of PD No. 603.
The accused was represented by Atty. De Dios. Complainant then learned from the RTC staff that Atty. De Dios had an
outstanding suspension order from the Supreme Court since 2001, and was, therefore, prohibited from appearing in court.
Complainant further alleges that there is a civil case and another case filed against Miyata, where Atty. De Dios appeared
as his counsel. In her Comment, Atty. De Dios admitted that there were cases filed against her client, Miyata. She, however,
denied that she was under suspension when she appeared as his counsel in the cases.
-Respondent explained that an administrative case was indeed filed against her where she was meted the penalty of 6-
month suspension. She served the suspension immediately upon receipt of the Courts Resolution on May 16, 2001 up to
Nov 16, 2001. In a Manifestation filed on Oct 19, 2001, respondent formally informed the Court that she was resuming
her practice of law on Nov 17, 2001.
-A problem arose when Judge Farrales, in her capacity as Acting Exec Judge of the RTC, Olongapo City, erroneously issued
a directive on March 15, 2007, ordering respondent to desist from practicing law and revoking her notarial commission
for the years 2007 & 2008. Knowing that the directive was rather questionable, respondent, nonetheless, desisted from
law practice in due deference to the court order. Thereafter, respondent filed a Motion for Clarification with the SC on
account of Judge Farrales letters to all courts in Olongapo City and to some municipalities in Zambales.
--According to the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC), a suspended lawyer must first present proof(s) of his compliance by
submitting certifications from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and from the Executive Judge that he has indeed
desisted from the practice of law during the period of suspension. Thereafter, the Court, after evaluation, and upon a
favorable recommendation from the OBC, will issue a resolution lifting the order of suspension and thus allow him to
resume the practice of law. The OBC alleged that it was unfortunate that this procedure was overlooked in A.C. No. 4943,
where Atty. De Dios was able to resume her practice of law w/out submitting the required certifications and passing
through the OBC for evaluation. In order to avoid confusion and conflicting directives from the Court, the OBC
recommended that the Court adopt a uniform policy on the matter of the lifting of the order of suspension of a lawyer
from the practice of law.
--As much as the Court will not hesitate to discipline an erring lawyer, it should, at the same time, also ensure that a lawyer
may not be deprived of the freedom and right to exercise his profession unreasonably.

--following guidelines be observed in the matter of the lifting of an order suspending a lawyer from the practice of law:
1) After a finding that respondent lawyer must be suspended from the practice of law, the Court shall render a decision
imposing the penalty;
2) Unless the Court explicitly states that the decision is immediately executory upon receipt thereof, respondent has 15
days within which to file a motion for reconsideration thereof. The denial of said motion shall render the decision final
and executory;
3) Upon the expiration of the period of suspension, respondent shall file a Sworn Statement with the Court, through the
Office of the Bar Confidant, stating therein that he or she has desisted from the practice of law and has not appeared in
any court during the period of his or her suspension;
4) Copies of the Sworn Statement shall be furnished to the Local Chapter of the IBP and to the Executive Judge of the
courts where respondent has pending cases handled by him or her, and/or where he or she has appeared as counsel;
5) The Sworn Statement shall be considered as proof of respondent’s compliance with the order of suspension;
6) Any finding or report contrary to the statements made by the lawyer under oath shall be a ground for the imposition
of a more severe punishment, or disbarment, as may be warranted.

B.M. No. 1755: RE. CLARIFICATION ON RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE COMMISSION ON BAR DISCIPLINE

Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court governs the investigation of administrative complaints against lawyers by the IBP, Sec 12
of said rule prescribes the procedure before the IBP, thus:
a) Every case heard by an investigator shall be reviewed by the IBP Board of Governors upon the record and
evidence transmitted to it by the Investigator with his report. The decision of the Board upon such review shall be
in writing and shall clearly and distinctly state the facts and the reasons on which it is based. It shall be
promulgated within a period not exceeding 30 days from the next meeting of the Board following the submittal
of the Investigator's report.
b) If the Board, by the vote of a majority of its total membership, determines that the respondent should be
suspended from the practice of law or disbarred, it shall issue a resolution setting forth its findings and
recommendations which, together with the whole record of the case, shall forthwith be transmitted to the
Supreme Court for final action.
 c) If the respondent is exonerated by the Board or the disciplinary sanction imposed by it is less than suspension
or disbarment (such as admonition, reprimand, or fine) it shall issue a decision exonerating respondent or
imposing such sanction. The case shall be deemed terminated unless upon petition of the complainant or other
interested party filed with the SC within 15 days from notice of the Board's resolution, the SC orders otherwise.
d) Notice of the resolution or decision of the Board shall be given to all parties through their counsel. A copy of
the same shall be transmitted to the Supreme Court.
To implement Rule 139-B, the Court, in Bar Matter No. 1755, approved the Rules of Procedure of the Commission on Bar
Discipline (CBD) of the IBP on September 25, 2007. The rules pertinent to pleadings, notices, and appearances are provided
in Secs. 1 and 2 of Rule III which read:

RULE III
PLEADINGS, NOTICES AND APPEARANCES

SECTION 1. Pleadings. The only pleadings allowed are verified complaint, verified answer and verified position papers.
SEC. 2. Prohibited Pleadings. The following pleadings shall not be allowed, to wit:
a. Motion to dismiss the complaint or petition
b. Motion for a bill of particulars
c. Motion for a new trial
d. Petition for relief from judgment
e. Motion for reconsideration
f. Supplemental pleadings
Further, the following guidelines shall be observed by the IBP in respect of disciplinary cases against lawyers:

1. The IBP must first afford a chance to either party to file a motion for reconsideration of the IBP resolution
containing its findings and recommendations within 15 days from notice of receipt by the parties thereon;
2. If a motion for reconsideration has been timely filed by an aggrieved party, the IBP must first resolve the same
prior to elevating to this Court the subject resolution together with the whole record of the case;
3. If no motion for reconsideration has been filed within the period provided for, the IBP is directed to forthwith
transmit to this Court, for final action, the subject resolution together with the whole record of the case;
4. A party desiring to appeal from the resolution of the IPB may file a petition for review before this Court within
15 days from notice of said resolution sought to be reviewed; and
5. For records of cases already transmitted to this Court where there exist pending motions for reconsideration
filed in due time before the IBP, the latter is directed to withdraw from this Court the subject resolutions together
with the whole records of the cases, within 30 days from notice, and, thereafter, to act on said motions with
reasonable dispatch.
Thus, in answer to the query of Deputy Clerk of Court and Bar Confidant Ma. Cristina B. Layusa dated March 17, 2008 on
whether the Feb 12, 2008 Resolution in BM No. 1755 has effectively superseded Ramientas, the Court resolved as follows:
1. On the amendment to Secs. 1 and 2 of Rule III of the CBD Rules of Procedure, the fallo in Ramientas is repealed and
superseded by the Feb 12, 2008 Resolution. A party can no longer file a motion for reconsideration of any order or
resolution of the Investigating Commissioner, such motion being a prohibited pleading.
2. Regarding the issue of whether a motion for reconsideration of a decision or resolution of the BOG can be entertained,
an aggrieved party can file said motion w/ the BOG w/in 15 days from notice of receipt thereof by said party.
In case a decision is rendered by the BOG that exonerates the respondent or imposes a sanction less than suspension or
disbarment, the aggrieved party can file a motion for reconsideration within the 15-day period from notice. If the motion
is denied, said party can file a petition for a review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court with this Court within 15 days from
notice of the resolution resolving the motion. If no motion for reconsideration is filed, the decision shall become final and
executory and a copy of said decision shall be furnished this Court.

If the imposable penalty is suspension from the practice of law or disbarment, the BOG shall issue a resolution setting
forth its findings and recommendations. The aggrieved party can file a motion for reconsideration of said resolution with
the BOG within 15 days from notice. The BOG shall first resolve the incident and shall thereafter elevate the assailed
resolution with the entire case records to this Court for final action. If the 15-day period lapses without any motion for
reconsideration having been filed, then the BOG shall likewise transmit to this Court the resolution with the entire case
records for appropriate action.

MULTIPLE DISBARMENT:
MANUEL C. YUHICO vs ATTY. FRED L. GUTIERREZ - A.C. No. 8391

-Before us is a Complaint for disciplinary action against respondent Atty. Gutierrez filed by Yuhico for violation of Rule 1.01
of the CPR.
-Complainant Yuhico alleged that he met Gutierrez at the Office of the City Prosecutor in Pasig City. Yuhico was there to
testify at the preliminary investigation of a Complaint for Estafa against one Jose Chicharro, who was then being
represented by Gutierrez. He claimed that they eventually became acquainted as they frequently saw each other during
the hearings of the case.
-Yuhico averred that Gutierrez phoned him and asked for a cash loan of P30,000. Gutierrez then claimed that he needed
money to pay for the medical expenses of his mother who was seriously ill. Yuhico immediately handed the money. In
turn, Gutierrez promised to pay the loan very soon, since he was expecting to collect his attorney's fees from a Japanese
client.
-Gutierrez again asked Yuhico for a loan, this time in the amount of P60,000, allegedly to pay the medical expenses of his
wife who was also hospitalized. Again, Yuhico readily issued to Atty. Gutierrez an Equitable PCI Bank check amounting
to P60,000.00. Again, Gutierrez promised to pay his two loans totalling to P90,000.00 within a short time.
-Yuhico asked Gutierrez to pay his loans. Atty. Gutierrez failed to pay.
-Later, Yuhico alleged that Gutierrez attempted to borrow money from him again. He said Gutierrez claimed that his
daughter needed P70,000 to pay the fees required to take the licensure examination in the U.S. Medical Board.
-However, this time, Yuhico refused to lend Gutierrez any amount of money. Instead, he demanded from Gutierrez the
payment of his debts. Gutierrez failed to make the payment.
-Gutierrez added that he has no intention of evading his obligation to pay his debts, but he is currently in financial distress,
thus, he cannot pay his debts yet. He claimed he will pay his debts when his financial condition improves.
--The IBP-CBD recommended to the Court that, instead of rendering the instant case moot, Gutierrez should be disbarred
anew effective upon the expiration of the sanction pursuant to the March 26, 2004 Supreme Court Decision.
The IBP-CBD explained that while we do not have jurisprudence on the issue of double or multiple disbarment, the
American jurisprudence, however, recognizes double or multiple disbarments as well as the minimum requirement of five
(5) years for readmission to the Bar.
--In view of the foregoing, while we agree with the findings of the IBP, we cannot, however, adopt its recommendation to
disbar Gutierrez for the second time, considering that Gutierrez had already been previously disbarred. Indeed, as the IBP
pointed out, we do not have double or multiple disbarment in our laws or jurisprudence. Neither do we have a law
mandating a minimum 5-year requirement for readmission, as cited by the IBP. Thus, while Gutierrez's infraction calls for
the penalty of disbarment, we cannot disbar him anew.