2018

JANUARY

 A.C. No. 10689 [Formerly CBD Case No. 11-3171], January 08, 2018 - ROMEO A.
ALMARIO, Complainant, v. ATTY. DOMINICA LLERA-AGNO, Respondent.

FACTS:

This administrative case stemmed from a Complaint before the Commission on Bar Discipline of
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) seeking to disbar Atty. Dominica L. Agno (respondent
lawyer), for notarizing a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) without the personal appearance of
one of the his client, Mallari, who is the defendant in a civil case against the complainant,
Almario. The said SPA was falsified because one of the affiants (Mallari) could not possibly have
executed the same because she was in Japan at the time the SP A was executed. The Board of
Governors of the IBP recommended that she be suspended for six months as notary public.

Atty. Agno contends that:

(1) This is her first offense since she was first commissioned as a notary public in 1973;

(2) The case involved only one document;

(3) The notarization was done in good faith; therein Atty. Agno was pressed for time in filing
their Answer in the civil case, and that in any event, Mallari undertook to have the SPA
acknowledged before the Philippine Consulate in Tokyo, Japan on August 28, 2006, (thereby
giving it retroactive effect when the SPA was executed July 26, 2006).

(4) The civil case wherein the questioned SP A was used ended in a Compromise Agreement; and
finally

(5) She is already 71 years old and is truly sorry for what she had done, and promises to be more
circumspect in the performance of her duties as a notary public.

HELD:

The Court opts to suspend respondent lawyer as a notary public for two months, instead of six
months as the IBP had recommended. SC is impelled by the reasons that: first, the apparent
absence of bad faith in her notarizing the SPA in question; second, the civil case wherein the
flawed SP A was used ended up in a judicial Compromise Agreement; and finally, this is her first
administrative case since she was commissioned as a Notary Public in 1973. In addition,
respondent lawyer invites our attention to the fact that she is already in the twilight years of her
life.
 A.M. No. RTJ-18-2514 (Formerly A.M. No. 16-10-387-RTC), January 30, 2018 - OFFICE
OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. JUDGE HECTOR B. SALISE,
PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 7, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BAYUGAN CITY, AGUSAN DEL
SUR, Respondent

FACTS:

This case is pursuant to the judicial audit conducted in the Regional Trial Courts (RTC), Branch 6,
Prosperidad and Branch 7, Bayugan City, both in the Province of Agusan del Sur. At that time,
respondent Judge Hector B. Salise was the Acting Presiding Judge of Branch 6 and the Executive
Judge of Branch 7.

The judicial audit team found that Judge Salise grants Urgent Petition for Bail in cases which no
bail was recommended. Judge Salise dismissed several cases before this court would suggest
impropriety, manifest bias and partiality, grave abuse of discretion, and gross ignorance of the
law and procedure. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended the imposition
of the extreme penalty of dismissal,

Judge Salise contends that he did them in good faith and without malice. He fervently asked for
the kind indulgence and consideration of the Court for the lapses, delays, negligence, and
inadvertence, and promised to be more circumspect in the future.

HELD:

The Court finds Judge Salise guilty of serious misconduct and dismisses him from the service
with forfeiture of retirement benefits, except leave credits, and with prejudice to re-
employment in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned
and controlled corporations.

The aforementioned circumstances surrounding the proceedings and disposition of cases are far
too flagrant to simply be ignored and their totality strongly indicates Judge Salise's corrupt
tendencies. His assertions that his procedural lapses were committed in good faith and without
any monetary consideration simply do not hold water. The number of cases involved and the
manner by which he disposed of said cases clearly show a pattern of misdeeds and a propensity
to violate the law and established procedural rules.
 A.C. No. 5473, January 23, 2018 - GENE M. DOMINGO, Complainant, v. ATTY.
ANASTACIO E. REVILLA, JR., Respondent.

FACTS:

The complaint, Domingo, alleged that Atty. Revilla deliberately induced and persuaded him into
releasing almost half a million pesos on the false pretense of having performed and
accomplished legal services for him.

Atty. Revilla claimed that Domingo demanded him to pursue the case no matter how much it
would cost him or else he would sue him if he did not.

in another complaint against Atty. Revilla Jr., (Que v. Revilla, Jr.) the Court had disbarred him
from the Legal Profession upon finding him guilty of violations of the Lawyers Oath; Canon 8;
Rules 10.01 and 10.03, Canon 10; Rules 12.02 and 12.04, Canon 12; Rule 19.01, Canon 19 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility; and Sections 20(d), 21 and 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of
Court.

HELD:

In view of his prior disbarment, the Court can no longer impose the appropriate penalty of
disbarment as deserved because there is no double or multiple disbarments in this jurisdiction.

Therefore, the Court finds and declares Atty. Revilla, Jr. guilty of violating Rule 1.01 of Canon 1,
Rules 15.06 and 15.07 of Canon 15, and Rule 18.03 of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, but, in view of his continuing disbarment, hereby metes the penalty of FINE of
₱l00,000.00.

The Court accepts the findings against the respondent but modifies the recommended penalty
considering that his violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility constituted deliberate
deception of the client instead of mere negligence.
 A.C. No. 10783, January 31, 2018 - ATTY. BENIGNO BARTOLOME, Complainant, v.
ATTY. CHRISTOPHER A. BASILIO, Respondent.

FACTS:

The case is about the resolution for the Motion to Lift Suspension dated July 19, 2017
filed by respondent Atty. Basilio, as well as the Report and Recommendation dated
September 13, 2017 of the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC), recommending that: (a)
Basilio be meted with an additional penalty of fine in the amount of ₱10,000.00 for his
failure to immediately comply with the Court's order of suspension from the practice of
law, as mandated in the Decision dated October 14, 2015 of the Court; and (b) the lifting
of the order of suspension be held in abeyance pending the payment of the fine.

Basilio contends that he did not immediately comply with the suspension order because he
believed that his suspension was held in abeyance pending resolution of his motion for
reconsideration of the Decision, following the guidelines in “Maniago v. De Dios”, wherein it was
stated that "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." On this score,
he maintained that what were immediately executory were only the revocation of his notarial
commission and the 2-year prohibition of being commissioned as a notary public.

HELD:

The clause "effective immediately" was placed at the end of his penalty which is his
suspension from the practice of law.

The Court finds Atty. Basilio guilty of indirect contempt. He is fined in the amount
₱10,000.00 and sternly warned that a repetition of the same or similar infractions will be
dealt with more severely. The lifting of the order of suspension from the practice of law
is held in abeyance pending his payment of the fine and presentation of proof thereof
  A.C. No. 8208, January 10, 2018 - RET. JUDGE VIRGILIO ALPAJORA, Complainant, v.
ATTY. RONALDO ANTONIO V. CALAYAN, Respondent.

FACTS:

Complainant, Ret. Judge Alpajora charged Atty. Calayan with:

a. filing a malicious and harassment administrative case against him, (Atty. Calayan filed an
administrative complaint against Ret. Judge Alpajora before the OCA for ignorance of the law and/or
issuance of undue order. This complaint was dismissed by the Court on the ground that the matters
raised were judicial in nature.)

b. propensity for dishonesty in the allegations in his pleadings,

c. misquoting provisions of law, and

d. misrepresentation of facts. Complainant prayed for respondent's disbarment and cancellation of

his license as a lawyer.

IBP Board of Governors issued a Resolution adopting and approving the report and recommendation
of the Investigating Commissioner. It recommended the suspension of respondent from the practice
of law for 2 years.

HELD:

The Court adopts and approves the Resolution of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines - Board of
Governors. Atty. Calayan is found guilty of violating The Lawyer's Oath and The Code of Professional
Responsibility and he is hereby ordered suspended from the practice of law for 2 years, with a stern
warning that a repetition of the same or a similar offense will warrant the imposition of a more
severe penalty.
  A.C. No. 9000, January 10, 2018 - TOMAS P. TAN, JR., Complainant, v. ATTY. HAIDE V.
GUMBA, Respondent.

FACTS:

Atty. Gumba was suspended from the practice of law for 6 months after complainant, Tan, filed a
complaint against her for not settling her loan or obligation with Tan.

The Court notified respondent of her suspension. However, she continued to engage in the practice
law by filing pleadings and appearing as counsel in courts during the period of her suspension.

Atty. Gumba claimed that she had not received an authentic copy of the Court's Resolution of her
suspension.

HELD:

The Court suspended Atty. Gumba from the practice of law for an additional period of 6 months
from her original 6 months suspension and warned that a repetition of the same or similar offense
will be dealt with more severely.
  A.C. No. 10684, January 24, 2018 - ILUMINADA D. YUZON, Complainant, v. ATTY.
ARNULFO M. AGLERON, Respondent.

FACTS:

Yuzon filed a complaint before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines- Commission on Bar Discipline
(IBP-CBD) seeking to disbar Atty. Agleron, for misappropriating the amount of P582,000.00 which
the Atty. Agleron received in trust from Yuzon. The money is meant for the purchase of a house and
a lot however, since the intended purchase did not materialize, Yuzon demanded the return of the
said amount but Atty. Agleron failed to return.

Atty. Agleron contends that the money was never misappropriated nor converted to the personal
use as it was borrowed for the emergency operation of a client who, at that time has nobody to turn
to for help. Thus, Atty. Agleron's infraction should not warrant the imposition of the supreme
penalty of disbarment. Atty. Agleron prayed that, if he be found guilty, the lesser penalty of fine
should be imposed considering he rendered almost 50 years of service in the government, and he is
also an Officer and Member of the IBP, Davao Oriental Chapter.

HELD:

The Court resolves to adopt the findings of fact of the IBP. The Investigating Commissioner is
convinced that Atty. Agleron is guilty of Gross Misconduct under Section 27, Rule 138 for violating
his duty to his client by converting and using his client's money.

Atty. Agleron is held guilty of Gross Misconduct in violation of Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of
Court, as well as Rules 16.01 and 16.03, Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Accordingly, he is suspended from the practice of law for a period of 1 year, with a warning that a
repetition of the same or similar acts in the future will be dealt with more severely. He is also
ordered to pay complainant the amount of P582, 000.00, with 12% interest from the date of
demand 6% per annum until full payment.
  A.C. No. 9129, January 31, 2018 - MARIA EVA DE MESA, Complainant, v. ATTY. OLIVER
O. OLAYBAL, Respondent.

FACTS:

De Mesa charges Atty. Olaybal with betrayal of trust and confidence, malpractice and gross
misconduct as a lawyer. He was her counsel in her criminal cases for violation of Batas Pambansa
Blg. 22. Following Atty. Olaybal’s advice to settle amicably the amount of P78,640.00, De Mesa
handed two checks to him which he instead deposited them to his account.

Atty. Olayba asserted that the deposit of the checks in his personal account was due to the honest
mistake of his son without his knowledge and consent.

HELD:

The Court suspends Atty. Olayba from the practice of law for a period of 6 months; orders him to
return to the complainant the amount of P78,640.00 within 30 days from receipt hereof; and warns
him that a stiffer penalty will be imposed on him should he commit a similar offense hereafter.

The explanation of Atty. Olayba was improbable for being contrary to human experience. His failure
to deliver the checks to Asialink and instead depositing the checks in his account and
misappropriating the funds for his personal benefit constituted a serious breach by him of Canon 16,
Rule 16.01; and Rule 16.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which state as follows:

Canon 16 — A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS AND PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT THAT
MAY COME TO HIS POSSESSION.

Rule 16.01 — A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from the
client.

Rule 16.02 — A lawyer shall keep the funds of each client separate and apart from his own and those
of others kept by him.
  A.C. No. 9067, January 31, 2018 - MARJORIE A. APOLINAR-PETILO, Complainant, v.
ATTY. ARISTEDES A. MARAMOT, Respondent.

FACTS:

Complainant, Marjorie, complains that that Atty. Maramot falsified a public document, a deed of
donation. According to her, Atty. Maramot had known of the minority of the donees but indicated
therein that both donees were then "of legal age". He has also executed the notarial
acknowledgment for the deed of donation despite one of the party not having actually appeared
before him.

Atty. Maramot pleads for the mitigation of his liability considering that he has exhibited candor in
admitting his offense. He represents that his act was not gross enough as to justify suspension; that
the complainant had thereby suffered no damage, but had actually benefitted from the act; that he
had notarized in good faith.

HELD:

The Court finds and Atty. Maramot guilty of violating the Lawyer's Oath, Rules 1.01 and 1.02 of
Canon 1 and Rule 10.01 of Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and the Rules on
Notarial Practice. Atty Maramot is suspended from the practice of law for 6 months, with
revocation of his notarial commission and disqualification from being re-appointed as Notary Public
for 2 years.

As a lawyer, he should not invoke good faith and good intentions as sufficient to excuse him from
discharging his obligation to be truthful and honest in his professional actions. His duty and
responsibility in that regard were clear and unambiguous.
  A.M. No. RTJ-16-2470 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 12-3987-RTJ), January 10, 2018 -
PROSECUTOR LEO T. CAHANAP, Complainant, v. JUDGE LEONOR S. QUIÑONES,
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 6, ILIGAN CITY, LANAO DEL NORTE, Respondent.

FACTS:

Prosecutor Cahanap filed the instant administrative complaint charging Judge Quinones with Gross
Ignorance of the Law, Gross Misconduct and violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct for she
maltreats the prosecutors assigned to her, disrespects her staff, always tardy.

HELD:

The Court hereby finds Judge Quiñones guilty of Oppression (gross misconduct constituting
violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct) and fined in the amount P40, 000.00; and Habitual
Tardiness and fined in the amount of P20, 000.00.
FEBRUARY

 A.C. No. 9512, February 05, 2018 - ROBERTO P. MABINI, Complainant, v. ATTY. VITTO
A. KINTANAR, Respondent.

FACTS:

Mabini filed a complaint against Atty. Kintanar for misconduct on the sole ground that he notarized a
document executed by his wife, Evangeline C. Kintanar. Mabini claims that Atty. Kintanar knew that
he was not authorized to notarize a document of his wife, or any of his relative within the fourth civil
degree, whether by affinity or consanguinity; thus, for having done so, respondent committed
misconduct as a lawyer/Notary Public.

Atty. Kintanar contends that the said Affidavit executed by his wife appeared to have been notarized
back in 2002; as such, it was governed by Revised Administrative Code of 1917, which did not
prohibit a Notary Public from notarizing a document executed by one's spouse.

HELD:

The Complaint against Atty. Kintanar is DISMISSED for lack of merit. A lawyer cannot be held liable
for a violation of his duties as Notary Public when the law in effect at the time of his complained act
does not provide any prohibition to the same, as in the case at bench.
  A.C. No. 10441, February 14, 2018 - SUSAN T. DE LEON, Complainant, v. ATTY.
ANTONIO A. GERONIMO, Respondent.

FACTS:

De Leon filed a disbarment case against her counsel for a labor case, Atty. Geronimo. De Leon was
disappointed that their Motion for Reconsideration was composed of only 3 pages and the
arguments did not address all the issues in the assailed decision. After Atty. Geronimo had provided
her with copies of the LA and NLRC decisions, De Leon never heard from him again. When she called
him to follow up on the status of the motions, she was so furious to learn that, not only had the
motions been denied by the NLRC, but worse, Atty. Geronimo no longer appealed the case to the
CA.

HELD:

The Court suspends Atty. Geronimo from the practice of law for a period of 6 months and warns him
that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.

Atty. Geronimo's failure to inform his client about the adverse ruling of the NLRC, thereby precluding
her from further pursuing an appeal, is a clear breach of Canons 17 and 18 of the CPR.

As regards the appropriate penalty, several cases show that lawyers who have been held liable for
gross negligence for infractions similar to those of Atty. Geronimo's were suspended for a period of
6 months.
  A.C. No. 11829, February 26, 2018 - MARIA ROMERO, Complainant, v. ATTY.
GERONIMO R. EVANGELISTA, JR., Respondent.

FACTS:

Romero filed a complaint for disbarment of Atty. Evangelista with the IBP for his alleged violation of
several provisions2 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) and Canon 63 of the Canons of
Professional Ethics.

Atty. Evangelista, who once lawyered for Romero’s aunt, had accepted and handled legal actions
against her. In his defense, Atty. Evangelista argued that his client (Romero’s aunt) did not file a
complaint against him.

HELD:

The Court finds Atty. Evangelista, Jr. guilty of representing conflicting interests in violation of Rule
15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is suspended from the practice of law
for a period of 6 months.

The participation of Atty. Evangelista’s client in the filing of the action is not necessary since his
culpability had been established by documentary evidence on record.
  A.C. No. 10756 (Formerly CBD Case No. 11-3218), February 21, 2018 - JUNIELITO R.
ESPANTO, Complainant, v. ATTY. ERWIN V. BELLEZA, Respondent.

FACTS:

Espanto complains against Atty. Belleza for grave misconduct, malpractice, deliberate falsehood,
violation of oath of office and violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility in connection with
the demolition of Espanto’s 2-storey residential house without his knowledge and against his will.

Atty. Belleza issued the notice to vacate to Espanto while the case was still pending litigation; failed
to inform Espanto of the sale of Espanto’s neighbor property in contravention to the stipulation in
the acknowledgment receipt; and notarized the deed of sale in violation of the compromise
agreement due to the absence of relocation survey.

HELD:

The Court finds Atty. Belleza guilty of violations of Canons 1 and 19 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility for which he is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of6 months.
  A.M. No. MTJ-17-1893 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 15-2773-MTJ), February 19, 2018 -
TEODORA ALTOBANO-RUIZ, Complainant, v. HON. RAMSEY DOMINGO G. PICHAY,
PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 78, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, PARAÑAQUE CITY,
Respondent.

FACTS:

Ruiz filed a complaint against Judge Pichay for gross ignorance of the law and gross misconduct in
connection with the latter's act of granting bail in favor of Francis Eric Paran. Judge Pichay approved
bail application of Paran and issued corresponding release orders when Paran’s case is pending in
courts outside his territorial jurisdiction.

Section 17 (a) of Rule 114 of the Rules of Court, as amended by Administrative Circular No. 12-94
which governs the approval of bail bonds for criminal cases pending outside the judge's territorial
jurisdiction is instructive.

HELD:

The Court found Judge Pichay found GUILTY of GROSS IGNORANCE OF THE LAW, and
a FINE equivalent to the amount of P40, 000.00 is hereby imposed upon him.
MARCH

 OCA IPI No.17-4663-RTJ, March 07, 2018 - ATTY. BERTENI C. CAUSING AND
PERCIVAL CARAG MABASA, Complainants, v. PRESIDING JUDGE JOSE LORENZO R.
DELA ROSA, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 4, MANILA, Respondent.

FACTS:

Atty. Causing and his client, Mabasa, charged Judge Dela Rosa with gross ignorance of the law, gross
misconduct and gross incompetence for reversing the dismissal of Criminal Case wherein Mabasa
was one of the accused. Atty. Causing contends that Judge Dela Rosa should know that granting the
prosecution's Motion for Reconsideration was tantamount to a violation of the constitutional right
against double jeopardy when the dismissal of the criminal case was due to a violation of the
accused’s right to speedy trial is equivalent to a dismissal on the merits of the case.

OCA recommended that the administrative complaint against Judge Dela Rosa be dismissed for lack
of merit. Respondent Judge has already admitted that he made a mistake in issuing the said order as
this would have constituted a violation of the right of the accused against double jeopardy. To rectify
his error, he granted the motion for reconsideration filed by the accused.

HELD:

The Court dismissed administrative complaint against Judge Dela Rosa for lack of merit.
  A.C. No. 9257 (Formerly CBD Case No. 12-3490), March 05, 2018 - EDGAR M. RICO,
Complainant, v. ATTY. REYNALDO G. SALUTAN, Respondent.

FACTS:

Rico complains Atty. Salutan for allegedly misleading the court and for contempt of court, in the
course of championing his client’s (Abrille) cause. Rico has to vacate the subject property as MTCC
granted Abrille’s 4th motion for the issuance of a Writ of Execution.

Atty. Salutan denied the charges and argued that he merely advocated for his client's cause and did
the same within the bounds of the law and of the rules. He merely did what a zealous lawyer would
naturally do in representation of his client.

HELD:

The Court DISMISSES the instant Complaint against Atty. Salutan for utter lack of merit.

Rico failed to show any badge of deception on the lawyer's part. There was no court decision
declaring that Villa Abrille’s title was fake or that it had encroached on Rico's property. All that Atty.
Salutan did was to zealously advocate for the cause of his client. He was not shown to have misled or
unduly influenced the court through misinformation. He merely persistently pursued said cause and
he did so within the bounds of the law and the existing rules. He succeeded at finally having the writ
of execution, albeit at the 4th time, implemented.
  A.M. No. RTJ-15-2435 (Formerly A.M. No. 15-08-246-RTC), March 06, 2018 - OFFICE
OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. JUDGE WINLOVE M. DUMAYAS,
BRANCH 59, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, MAKATI CITY, Respondent.

FACT:

This case stemmed from the charges against Judge Dumayas for allegedly rendering decisions
without citing the required factual and legal bases and by ignoring the applicable jurisprudence,
which constitutes gross misconduct and gross ignorance of the law.

Judge Dumayas argued that judges cannot be held civilly, criminally, and administratively liable for
any of their official acts, no matter how erroneous, as long as they act in good faith.

HELD:

The Court finds Judge Dumayas GUILTY of gross ignorance of the law or procedure and gross
misconduct and hereby DISMISSES him from the service with FORFEITURE of retirement benefits,
except leave credits, and with prejudice to re-employment in any branch or instrumentality of the
government, including government-owned and controlled corporations.

Judge Dumayas has the 13 administrative cases filed against him for the same complaint of gross
misconduct and gross ignorance of the law. These cases show how poorly he has been performing as
a member of the bench. The Court takes the aforementioned incidents as evidence of Judge
Dumayas’ stubborn tendency to not follow the rule of law and procedure in rendering judgments
and orders. This definitely has tainted the integrity and seriously compromised the reputation, not
only of his court, but more importantly, of the entire judicial system which he represents.
  A.C. No. 7186, March 13, 2018 - ROMEO A. ZARCILLA AND MARITA BUMANGLAG,
Complainants, v. ATTY. JOSE C. QUESADA, JR., Respondent.

FACTS:

Zarcilla and Bumanglag first filed a Petition for Disbarment of Atty. Quesada for gross misconduct in
February, 2006. According to complainants, Atty. Quesada falsified a deed of sale and notarized a
Joint-Affidavit where Zarcilla’s then already deceased parents are the petitioners on the said
document.

Atty. Quesada failed to answer the charges against him despite numerous notices that he was fined
3,000 or imprisonment of 10 days. He ignored the same for more than five years. Consequently, this
case has dragged on for an unnecessary length of time.

HELD:

The Court finds Atty. Quesada GUILTY of gross misconduct and wilful disobedience of lawful orders
rendering him unworthy of continuing membership in the legal profession. He is DISBARRED from
the practice of law and his name stricken-off of the Roll of Attorneys, effective immediately. We,
likewise, REVOKE his incumbent notarial commission, if any, and PERPETUALLY DISQUALIFY him from
being commissioned as a notary public.
  A.M. No. 17-11-06-CA, March 13, 2018 - RE: ANONYMOUS LETTER-COMPLAINT (WITH
ATTACHED PICTURES) AGAINST ASSOCIATE JUSTICE NORMANDIE B. PIZARRO,
COURT OF APPEALS.

FACTS:

This administrative matter arose from an anonymous letter-complaint charging Associate Justice
Pizarro of the Court of Appeals of habitually gambling in casinos, "selling" decisions, and immorally
engaging in an illicit relationship.

The anonymous complaint accused Justice Pizarro of selling favorable decisions, having a mistress,
and habitually playing in casinos; and essentially charging him of dishonesty and violations of the
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Law, immorality, and unbecoming conduct. Attached to the
anonymous letter-complaint are 4 sheets of photographs showing Justice Pizarro sitting at the casino
tables.

HELD:

The accusations, with the only exception of gambling in casinos, are not supported by any evidence
or by any public record of indubitable integrity. The Court finds respondent Justice Pizarro guilty of
conduct unbecoming of a member of the judiciary. Considering, however, that this is the respondent
justice's first transgression, and further bearing in mind his immediate admission of his indiscretion
as well as the number of years he has been in government service, the Court finds the imposition of
a fine in the amount of ₱100,000.00 sufficient in this case

The Court finds respondent Associate Justice. Pizarro GUILTY of conduct unbecoming of a member of
the judiciary, and is hereby ORDERED to pay a fine in the amount of ₱100, 000.00.
  A.C. No. 9119, March 12, 2018 - EUGENIO E. CORTEZ, Complainant, v. ATTY.
HERNANDO P. CORTES, Respondent.

FACTS:

Cortez filed a complaint against his counsel, Atty. Cortes for grave misconduct, and violation of the
Lawyer's Oath and the Code for Professional Responsibility. Cortez alleged that he and Atty. Cortes
had a handshake agreement on a 12% contingency fee as and by way of attorney's fees.

After winning the case, Atty. Cortes insisted on the 50% of the total award.

Atty. Cortes insisted that the alleged 12% agreement is false and pointed out that the fifty-fifty
sharing arrangement is not unconscionably high because the complainant was given the option to
hire other lawyers, but still he engaged his services.

HELD:

The IBP Commission on Discipline pointed out that since what respondent handled was merely a
labor case, his attorney's foes should not exceed 10%, the rate allowed under Article 11120 of the
Labor Code. Although 50% contingency fee was excessive, the Court do not agree that the 10%
limitation as provided in Article 111 is automatically applicable.

Atty. Cortes is found GUILTY of violation of Canon 20 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and
is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for 3 months, and is ordered to return to complainant
Eugenio E. Cortez the amount he received in excess of the 12% allowable attorney's fees.

The Court find that the recommended suspension of 6 months is too harsh and considering that
Atty. Cortes is nearing ninety years old and that there was no question that Atty. Cortes was able to
get a favorable outcome, a reduction of the suspension is proper.
  A.C. No. 11871 [Formerly CBD Case No. 154520], March 05, 2018 - POTENCIANO R.
MALVAR, Complainant, v. ATTY. FREDDIE B. FEIR, Respondent.

FACTS:

This is a Petition for Disbarment filed by petitioner Potenciano R. Malvar against Atty. Freddie B. Feir
for violation of Canori 19, Rule 19.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer's
Oath.1

 A.C. No. 6927, March 14, 2018 - TOMAS N. OROLA AND PHIL. NIPPON AOI INDUSTRY,
INC., Complainants, v. ATTY. ARCHIE S. BARIBAR, Respondent.
 A.C. No. 10244 [Formerly CBD Case No. 07-2085], March 12, 2018 - REMIGIO P.
SEGOVIA, JR., FRANCISCO RIZABAL, PABLITO RIZABAL, MARCIAL RIZABAL ROMINES,
PELAGIO RIZABAL ARYAP AND RENATO RIZABAL, Complainants, v. ATTY. ROLANDO S.
JAVIER, Respondent.
 A.C. No.11156 [Formerly CBD Case No. 12-3680], March 19, 2018 - MICHELLE YAP,
Complainant, v. ATTY. GRACE C. BURI, Respondent.
 A.M. No. MTJ-17-1899 (Formerly OCA EPI No. 14-2646-MTJ), March 07, 2018 - ATTY.
MELVIN M. MIRANDA, Complainant, v. PRESIDING JUDGE WILFREDO G. OCA,
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, REAL, QUEZON (FORMER ACTING PRESIDING JUDGE,
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 71, PASIG CITY), Respondent.
 A.C. No. 11774 (Formerly CBD Case No. 14-4186), March 21, 2018 - READY FORM
INCORPORATED, Complainant, v. ATTY. EGMEDIO J. CASTILLON, JR., Respondent.

APRIL

 A.C. No. 9676, April 02, 2018 - IN RE: DECISION DATED SEPTEMBER 26, 2012 IN OMB-
M-A-10-023-A, ETC. AGAINST ATTY. ROBELITO* B. DIUYAN
 IPI No. 17-267-CA-J, April 24, 2018 - RE: VERIFIED COMPLAINT OF FERNANDO
CASTILLO AGAINST ASSOCIATE JUSTICE MARIFLOR PUNZALAN-CASTILLO, COURT OF
APPEALS, MANILA.

MAY

JUNE

 A.C. No. 10178, June 19, 2018 - KIMELDES GONZALES, Complainant, v. ATTY. PRISCO
B. SANTOS, Respondent.
 A.C. No. 11550, June 04, 2018 - MANUEL B. TROVELA, Complainant, v. MICHAEL B.
ROBLES, ASSISTANT CITY PROSECUTOR; EMMANUEL L. OBUNGEN, PROSECUTOR II;
JACINTO G. ANG, CITY PROSECUTOR; CLARO A. ARELLANO, PROSECUTOR GENERAL;
AND LEILA M. DE LIMA, FORMER SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Respondents.
 A.C. No. 10267, June 18, 2018 - HELEN GRADIOLA,* Complainant, v. ATTY. ROMULO A.
DELES, Respondent.
 A.C. No. 11173 (Formerly CBD No. 13-3968), June 11, 2018 - RE: CA-G.R. CV NO.
96282 (SPOUSES BAYANI AND MYRNA M. PARTOZA VS. LILIAN* B. MONTANO AND
AMELIA SOLOMON), Complainant, v. ATTY. CLARO JORDAN M. SANTAMARIA,
Respondent.
 A.C. No. 12011, June 26, 2018 - NICANOR D. TRIOL, Complainant, v. ATTY. DELFIN R.
AGCAOILI, JR., Respondent.
 A.M. No. RTJ-18-2523 (Formerly OCA I.P.I No. 14-4353-RTJ), June 06, 2018 - EXTRA
EXCEL INTERNATIONAL PHILIPPINES, INC., REPRESENTED BY ATTY. ROMMEL V.
OLIVA, Complainant, v. HON. AFABLE E. CAJIGAL, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL
TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 96, QUEZON CITY, Respondent.
  A.C. No. 3951, June 19, 2018 - UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK, Complainant, v.
ATTY. LAURO G. NOEL, Respondent.
 A.C. No. 12156, June 20, 2018 - PAULINO LIM, Complainant, v. ATTY. SOCRATES R.
RIVERA, Respondent.
 A.M. No. RTJ-16-2460, June 27, 2018 - ATTY. JEROME NORMAN L. TACORDA AND
LETICIA RODRIGO-DUMDUM, Complainants, v. JUDGE PERLA V. CABRERA-FALLER,
EXECUTIVE JUDGE, AND OPHELIA G. SULUEN, OFFICER-IN-CHARGE/LEGAL
RESEARCHER II, BOTH OF BRANCH 90, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, DASMARIÑAS CITY,
CAVITE, Respondents.
 A.M. No. RTJ-16-2454, June 06, 2018 - PHILIP SEE, Complainant, v. JUDGE ROLANDO
G. MISLANG, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 167, PASIG CITY,
Respondent.
 A.C. No. 11396, June 20, 2018 - FRANCO B. GONZALES, Complainant, v. ATTY. DANILO
B. BAÑARES, Respondent.
 A.C. No. 3921, June 11, 2018 - DELFINA HERNANDEZ SANTIAGO, Complainant, v.
ATTY. ZOSIMO SANTIAGO AND ATTY. NICOMEDES TOLENTINO, Respondents.
 A.C. No. 10992, June 19, 2018 - RODOLFO M. YUMANG, CYNTHIA V. YUMANG AND
ARLENE TABULA, Complainants, v. ATTY. EDWIN M. ALAESTANTE, Respondent.; A.C.
No. 10993, , June 19, 2018 - BERLIN V. GABERTAN AND HIGINO GABERTAN,
Complainants, v. ATTY. EDWIN M. ALAESTANTE, Respondent.
 A.C. No. 11944 (Formerly CBD No. 12-3463), June 20, 2018 - BSA TOWER
CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION, Complainant, v. ATTY. ALBERTO CELESTINO B. REYES
II, Respondent.
 A.C. No. 12084, June 06, 2018 - HERNANIE P. DANDOY, Complainant, v. ATTY.
ROLAND G. EDAYAN, Respondent.
 A.C. No. 12025, June 20, 2018 - EDMUND BALMACEDA, Complainant, v. ATTY. ROMEO
Z. USON, Respondent.
 A.C. No. 12121 (Formerly CBD Case No. 14-4322), June 27, 2018 - CELESTINO
MALECDAN, Complainant, v. ATTY. SIMPSON T. BALDO, Respondent.
 A.M. No. RTJ-18-2525 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 15-4435-RTJ), June 25, 2018 - SAMUEL
N. RODRIGUEZ, Complainant, v. HON. OSCAR P. NOEL, JR., EXECUTIVE
JUDGE/PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF GENERAL SANTOS CITY,
BRANCH 35, Respondent.
 A.M. No. RTJ-18-2527 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 16-4563-RTJ), June 18, 2018 - ATTY.
MAKILITO B. MAHINAY, Complainant, v. HON. RAMON B. DAOMILAS, JR., PRESIDING
JUDGE, AND ATTY. ROSADEY E. FAELNAR-BINONGO, CLERK OF COURT V, BOTH OF
BRANCH 11, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, CEBU CITY, CEBU, Respondents.
 A.C. No. 11326 (Formerly CBD Case No. 14-4305), June 27, 2018 - PELAGIO VICENCIO
SORONGON, JR., Complainant, v. ATTY. RAMON Y. GARGANTOS, SR., Respondent.

JULY

 A.M. No. P-16-3595 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 15-4446-P), June 26, 2018 - HON.
DENNIS PATRICK Z. PEREZ, PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 67, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT,
BINANGONAN, RIZAL, Complainant, v. ALMIRA L. ROXAS, CLERK III, BRANCH 67,
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BINANGONAN, RIZAL, Respondent.
 A.C. No. 10145, June 11, 2018 - OLIVER FABUGAIS, Complainant, v. ATTY. BERARDO
C. FAUNDO JR., Respondent.
 A.C. No. 11981, July 03, 2018 - LEAH B. TADAY, Complainant, v. ATTY. DIONISIO B.
APOYA, JR., Respondent.
 A.C. No. 12137, July 09, 2018 - PHENINAH* D.F. WASHINGTON, Complainant, v. ATTY.
SAMUEL D. DICEN, Respondent.
  A.M. No. RTJ-16-2484, July 23, 2018 - THE OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR,
Complainant, v. HON. SELMA P. ALARAS, PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 62, REGIONAL
TRIAL COURT, MAKATI CITY, Respondent
 A.C. No. 10557 (Formerly CBD Case No. 07-1962), July 10, 2018 - JERRY M. PALENCIA,
Complainant, v. ATTY. PEDRO L. LINSANGAN, ATTY. GERARD M. LINSANGAN, AND
ATTY. GLENDA M. LINSANGAN-BINOYA, Respondents.
 A.M. No. MTJ-16-1879 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 14-2719-MTJ), July 24, 2018 -
ANONYMOUS, Complainant, v. JUDGE BILL D. BUYUCAN, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL
COURT, BAGABAG-DIADI, NUEVA VIZCAYA, Respondent.
 A.C. No. 10555, July 31, 2018 - EVELYN T. GOOPIO, Complainant, v. ATTY. ARIEL D.
MAGLALANG, Respondent.
 A.C. No. 12005, July 23, 2018 - ACHERNAR B. TABUZO, Complainant, v. ATTY. JOSE
ALFONSO M. GOMOS, Respondent.
 A.C. No. 8854, July 03, 2018 - JULIETA DIMAYUGA, Complainant, v. ATTY. VIVIAN G.
RUBIA, Respondent.
 A.C. No. 8962, July 09, 2018 - JILDO A. GUBATON, Complainant, v. ATTY. AUGUSTUS
SERAFIN D. AMADOR, Respondent.
 A.C. No. 12062, July 02, 2018 - HEIR OF HERMINIGILDO* A. UNITE, REPRESENTED BY
HIS SOLE HEIR, FLORENTINO S. UNITE, Complainant, v. ATTY. RAYMUND P. GUZMAN,
Respondent
 A.C. No. 5473, July 03, 2018 - GENE M. DOMINGO, Complainant, v. ATTY. ANASTACIO
E. REVILLA, JR., Respondent.
 A.C. No. 11724 (Formerly CBD No. 14-4109), July 31, 2018 - HDI HOLDINGS
PHILIPPINES, INC., Complainant, v. ATTY. EMMANUEL N. CRUZ, Respondent.
 A.C. No. 5580, July 31, 2018 - SAN JOSE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. AS
REPRESENTED BY REBECCA V. LABRADOR, Complainant, v. ATTY. ROBERTO B.
ROMANILLOS, Respondent.
 A.C. No. 12012, July 02, 2018 - GERONIMO J. JIMENO, JR., Complainant, v. ATTY.
FLORDELIZA M. JIMENO, Respondent.
 A.M. No. RTJ-17-2491 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 10-3448-RTJ), July 04, 2018 - LUCIO L.
YU, JR., Complainant, v. PRESIDING JUDGE JESUS B. MUPAS, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT,
BRANCH 112, PASAY CITY, Respondent.
 A.C. No. 12044, July 23, 2018 - MARTIN J. SIOSON, Complainant, v. ATTY. DIONISIO
B. APOYA, JR., Respondent
 A.C. No. 12066, August 28, 2018 - VICENTE FERRER A. BILLANES, Complainant, v.
ATTY. LEO S. LATIDO, Respondent.
 A.C. No. 9850, August 06, 2018 - ATTY. MA. ROWENA AMELIA V. GUANZON,
Complainant, v. ATTY. JOEL G. DOJILLO, Respondent.
 A.C. No. 12174, August 28, 2018 - ALFRED LEHNERT, Complainant, v. ATTY. DENNIS L.
DIÑO, Respondent.

SEPTEMBER

OCTOBER