Manuel L. Valin vs. Atty. Rolando T.

Ruiz
A.C. No. 10564; November 7, 2017 Gesmundo, J.

FACTS:
The complainants are the surviving children of Sps. Pedro F. Valinand Cecilia Lagadon. Pedro was the original registered owner of a parcel of land who died
in while he was in Haiwaii.

Honorio discovered that the subject land has been transferred to respondent, the godson of Pedro, by virtue of a Deed of Absolute Sale dated July 15, 1996,
and executed purportedly by Pedro with the alleged consent of his spouse, Cecilia.

Complainants claimed that the subject deed was obviously falsified and the signatures therein of Pedro and Cecilia were forgeries because Pedro was
already dead and Cecilia was in Hawaii at that time. They also asserted that Pedro's Community Tax Certificatewhich was used to identify Pedro in the
deed, was also falsified as it was issued only on January 2, 1996 long after Pedro's death. The complainants pointed to respondent as the author of the
falsifications and forgeries because the latter caused the registration of the subject land unto his name and he benefited from the same.

In his Answer, respondent denied the allegations against him. He claimed that Rogelio L. Valin, one of the children of Pedro and Cecilia, sold the subject
land to him sometime in 1989 allegedly in representation of Pedro. Rogelio offered to sell the subject land and claimed that it was his share in their family's
properties. He then asked Rogelio for his authority to sell the subject land but the latter claimed that he could not locate his authority from his parents in their
house. Rogelio, as the vendor, undertook to process the transfer of the title of the subject land.

CASE HISTORY:
The IBP-CBD recommended the suspension of respondent from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years.

IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the report and recommendation of the IBP-CBD for the suspension from the practice of law for a period of
two (2) years.

ISSUE:
Should Atty. Ruiz be held liable?

LAW/S APPLICABLE:
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
Rule 10.01 - A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any
artifice.

RULING:
Yes, Atty. Ruiz violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer’s Oath.

The lawyer's oath enjoins every lawyer not only to obey the laws of the land but also to refrain from doing any falsehood in or out of court or from consenting
to the doing of any in court, and to conduct himself according to the best of his knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity to the courts as well as to his
clients. Every lawyer is a servant of the law, and has to observe and maintain the rule of law as well as be an exemplar worthy of emulation by others.

Respondent violated the lawyer's oath and Rule 1.01 and 10.01 of the CPR when he participated and benefited from the falsified deed. Even though he
acted in his personal capacity in the improper sale and registration of the subject, he is not excused from liability. A lawyer may be disciplined for acts
committed even in his private capacity for acts which tend to bring reproach on the legal profession or to injure it in the favorable opinion of the public. There

1
is no distinction as to whether the transgression is committed in a lawyer's private life or in his professional capacity, for a lawyer may not divide his
personality as an attorney at one time and a mere citizen at another.

The Court is convinced that respondent was the author or, at the very least, has connived with the author of the subject deed and Pedro's CTC for his
personal benefits. Respondent incessantly closed his eyes until he became blind to the anomalies surrounding the sale of the subject land. Whether through
deliberate intent or gross negligence, he participated in the successful registration and release of the title that originated from an absolutely falsified deed of
sale.

The Court hereby suspended Atty. Ruiz from the practice of law for two (2) years.

OPINION:
I agree with the pronouncement of the SC. Respondent's acts are inconsistent with the sacred oath to do no falsehood norconsent to the doing of any in
court. His several attempts to evade responsibility likewise should be meted with the penalty of suspension from the practice of law.

2
Marjorie A. Apolinar-Petilo vs. Atty. Aristedes A. Maramot
A.C. No. 9067; January 31, 2018 Bersamin, J.

FACTS:
Marjorie A. Apolinar-Petilo filed a complaint against Atty. Aristeredes A. Maramot alleging that the respondent consented to, abetted and participated in the
illegal act of falsifying a public document in violation of Article 171(4) in relation to Article 172(2) of the RPC; and that he thereby violated the Lawyer's Oath
and Code of Professional Responsibility.

According to Atty. Maramot, Margarita wanted to donate her property in favor of her two grandnieces, Princess Anne Apolinar-Petilo and Ma. Mommayda V.
Apolinar, who were only 12 years old and 16 1/2 years old, at the time of its execution. Upon learning of their minority, Atty. Maramot advised Margarita that
they had to be represented by their parents. However, Margarita persisted and prevailed over him, so he prepared a deed of donation but left the date,
document number, and page number in blank, and reserved the notarization for later after the parties had signed the document.

Asserting that the respondent had known of the minority of the donees but indicated therein that both donees were then "of legal age". She claims that he,
being Mommayda's counsel in the latter's adoption case, was aware of the untruthful statements he made in the deed of donation because he thereafter
submitted the deed of donation as evidence therein.

Upon learning of their minority, Atty. Maramot advised Margarita that they had to be represented by their parents. However, Margarita persisted and
prevailed over him, so he prepared a deed of donation but left the date, document number, and page number in blank, and reserved the notarization for later
after the parties had signed the document. Atty. Maramot adverted to Margarita's assurance that she would herself procure the signatures of the parents of
Princess Anne on the document.

Respondent claimed that Marjorie -exasperated and dissatisfied with the outcome - then turned against him and instituted the complaint for his disbarment
or suspension from the practice of law. Respondent asserts that the complaint was pure harassment calculated only to besmirch and malign his reputation.

Atty. Maramot further alleged that there was nothing illegal in the said deed of donation as Margarita had the right to dispose her property by donation.
Complainant alleged that Atty. Maramot consented to, abetted and participated in the illegal act of falsifying a deed of donation executed by her aunt,
Margarita Apolinar, in favor of Margarita’s grandnieces, by preparing a deed of donation, and indicating that the donees were of legal age despite knowing
that they are minors.

CASE HISTORY:
The IBP-CBD ruled that respondent violated the Notarial Lawandrecommended his suspension from notarial practice for a period of one (1) year while the
other complaints against him are recommended dismissed for lack of merit.

IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved with modification the Report and Recommendation of IBP-CBD. Thus, suspending respondent from the
practice of law for one (1) year, immediate Revocation of his Notarial Commission if presently Commissioned and Disqualified from reappointment as Notary
Public for Two (2) years.

Respondent's Motion for Reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE:
WON Atty. Maramot, committed a falsehood in his preparation of the deed of donation.

3
LAW/S APPLICABLE:
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

Rule 1.02 - A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system.

Rule 10.01 - A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any
artifice.

Lawyer’s Oath

RULING:
Yes. Atty. Maramot committed dishonesty when he prepared such Deed of Donation, and thereby violating his Oath and the CPR.

A lawyer must be a disciple of truth. He swore upon his admission to the Bar that he will do no falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in court and he
shall conduct himself as a lawyer according to the best of his knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to his clients. He should
bear in mind that as an officer of the court his high vocation is to correctly inform the court upon the law and the facts of the case and to aid it in doing justice
and arriving at correct conclusion.

Every lawyer before entering his duties and responsibilities as a member of the Bar and an officer of the Court, professes as a natural course the promises
contained in the Lawyer's Oath.

Here, Atty. Maramot prepared the deed of donation and at the time of his preparation of the document, he actually knew that Princess Anne and Mommayda
were minors. Despite his awareness, he still indicated in the deed of donation that the donees were of legal age. Such act was contrary to his oath as a
lawyer not to utter a falsehood. He thereby consciously engaged in an unlawful and dishonest conduct, defying the law and contributing to the erosion of
confidence in the Law Profession.

SC SUSPENDED him from the practice of law for six months with revocation of his notarial commission and disqualification from being re-appointed as
Notary Public for two years.

OPINION:
I agree with the SC. While a lawyer owes fidelity to his client’s cause, his conduct must not at the expense of truth. Respondent engaged himself in an
unlawful and dishonest conduct, contributing to the erosion of confidence in the Law Profession. Thus, it is deemed proper that he be suspended.

4
A.C. 5473 Gene M. Domingo vs Atty Anastacio Revilla Jr. January 23, 2018
Facts:
In April 2000, Complainant-Gene Domingo contracted the services of respondent. The latter was asked to handle the cases to be filed against
complainant’s cousin, Melchor Arruiza, as well as the settlement of the estate of complainant’s mother. The respondent allegedly represented that he would
take on the cases on behalf of the law firm of Agabin Verzola, Hermoso Layaoen and De Castro, where he worked as an associate. Because of this,
complainant paid the initial amount of Php 80,000.00.
Because complainant worked in USA, he would maintain constant communication to get updates on the cases. Complainant misrepresented that
respondent had
- filed the annulment of adoption of Melchor Arruiza;
- processed the transfer of titles of the properties to Domingo’s children and that such would be ready by July, 2000;
- the presiding judge would rule in complainant’s favor if he be given 10% of the value of the property in Paranaque City, and allocate PHP 50,000 “for
the boys” in the CA and SC;
- that the judge received the money and decided in complainant’s favor. Such decision was appealed to the CA and eventually to the SC;
- the SC had to meet en banc regarding the case;
- the consideration for the above-mentioned transactions amounted to PHP433,002.

Complainant paid the amount but was never given a copy of the decisions and titles despite repeated demand. When he wrote the firm to inform the
latter of respondent’s actions, the latter informed him that he had never been its client. Complainant terminated respondent’s services and sought the
counsel of another law firm. The firm secured a certification from the RTC of Abra to the effect that no case had been filed against Melchor Arruiza.
Complainant filed his complaint for disbarment on July 24, 2001 before the SC. It was only subsequent thereto, that respondent filed a case for the
annulment of the adoption decree, which was on August 27, 2001.
• Disbarment case was filed before the SC onJuly 24, 2001; remanded to the

• IBP Investigating Commissioner-

▫ decided on September 6, 2002 , for the complainant

▫ recommended the penalty of reprimand with a stern warning for respondent’s negligence, and restitution of PHP 513,000 + interest

• IBP Board of Governors-

▫ decided on October 19, 2002, for the complainant

• SC-

▫ decided on January 23, 2018, for the respondent

Issue Law Ruling

Should respondent be held guilty Rule 1.01 of the Code of Yes. Respondent misled
for deliberate deliberation instead Professional Responsibility complainant into thinking the law
of negligence? firm would handle the case and
that he instituted the action

5
 despite not having done so. He
also kept demanding money from
complainant despite not having
furnished the latter with copies of
court documents,which in the first
place, he could not produce.

Moreover, his mere failure to

Rule 18.03, Code of Professional perform the obligations due to his
Responsibility client is considered per se a
A lawyer shall not neglect a legal violation of Rule 18
matter entrusted to him and his
negligence in connection
therewith shall render him liable.
Opinion:
I agree with the Court’s decision. Respondent belatedly filed the case under the threat that an
administrative case will be filed against him. Had he intended to act in his client’s best interests, he would
have filed the case upon receipt of sufficient evidence, and updated his client regarding the development
of the case. He did not only tarnish his reputation, but that of the court when he misrepresented that he
could influence the RTC judge in deciding the case for complainant’s cause. As such, disbarment is
proper.

6
A.C. 11149 Laurence Punla and Marilyn Santos vs Atty Eleonor Villa-Ona August 15, 2017
On January 2012, complaintnts requested respondent to notarize a deed of sale. Subsequent thereto, they asked respondent to represent them in
two annulment cases, for PHP 350,000.00; they paid the consideration in full. Respondent stated that she would finish the cases within six months from
complainant’s final payment on March, 2012.
Complainants followed up their cases on September 2012; they were ignored by respondent. The former sought a refund of the paid amount, and
such letter was received by respondent on October 1, 2012. A disbarment case was filed; the IBP directed respondent to file her answer but none was
filed.A mandatory conference was set on December 4, 2013 but respondent failed to attend such.
Case History:
Investigating Commissioner:January 15, 2013 for the complainant
- upon verification, respondent lawyer was found to be administratively charged before the office and is involved in 10 active cases

IBP Board of Governors: February 20, 2015 for the complainant

- recommended the penalty of disbarment

SC: August 15, 2017

Issue Law Ruling
Should respondent be held Canon 18, Code Of Professional Yes. Once a lawyer takes up the
administratively liable? Responsibility cause of the client, she is duty-
bound to serve the latter with
A lawyer shall serve his client zeal especially upon acceptance
with competence and diligence. for a fee. A lawyer’s failure to
return upon demand the money
she holds for his client gives rise
to the presumption that she has
appropriated such for her own
use.
Opinion:
I agree with the court’s ruling, albeit its futility. The court had previously disbarred respondent in AC
10107, Yatcos vs Atty Eleonor Maravilla-Ona for issuing several worthless checks as rental payment.
Nonetheless, respondent should be held guilty for failure to return the lawyer’s fee paid by herein
complainants. Respondent’s repeated and continuous disregard of her sworn duties as a member of the
bar warrants discontinuance from service to protect future clients.

7
Buenviaje vs. Magdamo
A.C. No. 11616. August 23, 2017.

FACTS:
In the instant Complaint dated December 28, 2007, Buenviaje alleged that he was married to the late Fe Gonzalo-Buenviaje as evidenced by NSO issued
Marriage Contract. Fe died on September 17, 2007.

Meanwhile, Atty. Magdamo was the counsel of Fe’s sisters, Lydia and Florenia Gonzalo, who filed a criminal case for bigamy against Buenviaje. They
claimed that Buenviaje was married to a certain Amalia Ventura in 1978, thus, making him guilty of bigamy.

In an attempt to protect the rights and interests of his clients in securing the monies of their deceased sibling Fe Gonzalo, Atty. Magdamo sent a Notice of
Death of Depositor dated October 11, 2007 to the Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI)-Dagupan Branch where Buenviaje and Fe appeared to have a joint
account. The portion of the notice provides:

“FE SOLIS GONZALO was formerly an Overseas Filipina Worker (OFW) Nurse in Switzerland whose lifetime savings is now in an account in BPI-Dagupan.
She came back to the Philippines to spend the last days of her life with her family in San Fabian, Pangasinan. Unfortunately, while she was terminally ill and
while residing in Manila so as to be near Saint LukeÊs Hospital, a clever swindler by the name of LITO BUENVIAJE made it appear on spurious documents
that he is the husband of Fe Gonzalo when in truth and in fact LITO BUENVIAJE is married to AMALIA VALERA.

Moreover, ever since 24 August 2007, LITO V. BUENVIAJE has been a fugitive from justice as he has been hiding from the criminal charge in People of the
Philippines versus Lito Buenviaje y Visayana, case number 7H-103365, pending in the City of Manila.

Fe never had a husband or child in her entire life. “

Aggrieved, Buenviaje filed the instant administrative complaint against Atty. Magdamo for violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 7, Rule 7.03 and Rule 19.01 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility.

Buenviaje alleged that he discovered the Notice’s existence sometime in December 2007 when he inquired about the remaining balance of his joint account
with Fe. He lamented that he was shocked upon reading the letter and felt humiliated at the words written against him as the bank manager and the other
bank personnel might have really thought that he was a swindler and a fugitive from justice.

Buenviaje denied Atty. Magdamo’s allegation that Fe was never married as they were in fact married in a public civil rights in the presence of many relatives
of Fe. As to his alleged marriage with a certain Amalia Valera, Buenviaje admitted that he had extramarital relationship with her and that they had two (2)
sons. When they separated and he subsequently worked overseas, it did not stop him from fulfilling his responsibilities as a father to his sons. He was then
advised to remit money to Amalia but he was told that he needed a marriage contract to be able to do so, thus, he asked someone to make a marriage
contract for remittance purposes and that he was told that there would be no record of it. Buenviaje claimed that at that time, he really believed that no valid
marriage took place between him and Amalia and that he was single up to the time he married Fe.

Buenviaje lamented that Atty. Magdamo employed dirty and dishonest means and tactics to ensure that BPI will prevent him from withdrawing money from
the joint account that he has with his late wife. He averred that in referring to him as a “swindler,” Atty. Magdamo succeeded in intimidating BPI-Dagupan
into extrajudicially “freezing” the joint account and in not transacting with him.

8
Buenviaje further added that Atty. Magdamo even made threats to him as evidenced by his text messages to him Finally, Buenviaje questioned Atty.
Magdamo’s fitness to continue in the practice of law as he has displayed lack of ability to distinguish a fugitive from justice and a respondent in a criminal
investigation; employed of dirty and unprofessional tactics of calling him a “swindler”; and by referring to his marriage contract with his wife as “spurious
document,” He, thus, prayed that considering Atty. Magdamo’s actuations, he should be disbarred or suspended from the practice of law.

ISSUE:

Is Atty. Magdamo liable for violation of Canons 8 and 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility?

LAW APPLICABLE:
CANON 8 Code of Professional Responsibility.

CANON 8 – A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor towards his professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against
the opposing counsel.

Rule 8.01 – A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.

Rule 10.02 of CPR:

A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the contents of a paper, the language or the argument of opposing counsel, or the text of a decision
or authority, or knowingly cite as law a provision already rendered inoperative by repeal or amendment, or assert as a fact that which has not been proved.

CASE HSTORY:

1. January 9, 2008, the IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) directed Atty. Magdamo to submit his answer on the complaint against him
2. October 23, 2013- the IBP-CBD recommended that Atty. Magdamo be reprimanded for his unethical actuations.
3. October 10, 2014- the IBP-Board of Governors, resolved to adopt and approve with modification the Report and Recommendation of the IBP-CBD,
and instead suspend Atty. Magdamo from the practice of law for three (3) months
4. MAy 28, 2016- the IBP-Board of Governors resolved to deny Atty. MagdamoÊs motion for reconsideration and affirm the latterÊs suspension.

RULING:

Yes. We concur with the findings and recommendation of the IBP-Board of Governors.
The practice of law is a privilege given to lawyers who meet the high standards of legal proficiency and morality. Any violation of these standards exposes
the lawyer to administrative liability. Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

In the instant case, Atty. Magdamo’s actuations do not measure up to this Canon. The records show that he referred to Buenviaje as a “swindler.” He made
this imputation with pure malice for he had no evidence that Buenviaje is committing swindling activities. Even if he was suspicious of Buenviaje, he should
have refrained from making such malicious reference or name-calling for he should know as a lawyer that the mere filing of a complaint against a person
does not guarantee a finding of guilt, and that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Here, other than the criminal complaint for bigamy which
Fe’s siblings filed before the prosecutor’s office, there were no other cases decided against Buenviaje.

9
Atty. Magdamo’s malicious imputation against Buenviaje is further aggravated by the fact that said imputation was made in a forum which is not a party to
the legal dispute between Fe’s siblings and Buenviaje. He could have just informed BPI-Dagupan of the death of its client and that there is a pending
litigation regarding their client’s estate, and he did not have to resort to name-calling and make unnecessary commentaries in order to support his cause.

Undoubtedly, his malicious imputation against Buenviaje is unfair as the latter was unnecessarily exposed to humiliation and shame even as there was no
actual case yet to be filed in the courts. Moreover, Atty. Magdamo is likewise out of line when he made inference to the marriage documents of Buenviaje
and Fe as “spurious” as well as his conclusion that “Fe never had a husband or child in her entire life.” He should know better that without the courts’
pronouncement to this effect, he is in no position to draw conclusions and pass judgment as to the existence, and validity or nullity of the marriage of
Buenviaje and Fe. That is not his job to do. While his statements in the Notice given to BPI-Dagupan might be prompted by a good cause, it were
nevertheless careless, premature and without basis. At the very least, Atty. Magdamo’s actuations are blatant violation of Rule 10.02 of CPR.

Equally incredulous is Atty. Magdamo’s statement in the Notice that “Lito V. Buenviaje has been a fugitive from justice as he has been hiding from the
criminal charge in People v. Lito Buenviaje y Visayana, case number 7H- 103365, pending in the City of Manila.” Upon review, it appears that case number
7H-103365 is the same bigamy case which Fe’s siblings filed against Buenviaje before the Prosecutor’s Office of Manila. At the time Atty. Magdamo made
the subjects statement in the Notice to BPI-Dagupan, he knew that there was no final resolution yet from the prosecutor’s office, no case has yet to be filed
in the courts, there was no warrant of arrest against Buenviaje, and more importantly, there was no evidence that Buenviaje had any intent to flee
prosecution as he even filed the instant case and participated in the proceedings hereto. A mere charge or allegation of wrongdoing does not suffice.
Accusation is not synonymous with guilt. There must always be sufficient evidence to support the charge. As to why Atty. Magdamo made such malicious
statements is beyond this Court’s comprehension.

We had an occasion to say that the use of disrespectful, intemperate, manifestly baseless, and malicious statements by an attorney in his pleadings or
motions is a violation of the lawyer’s oath and a transgression of the canons of professional ethics.10 The Court has constantly reminded lawyers to use
dignified language in their pleadings despite the adversarial nature of our legal system. Though a lawyer’s language may be forceful and emphatic, it should
always be dignified and respectful, befitting the dignity of the legal profession. The use of intemperate language and unkind ascriptions has no place in the
dignity of judicial forum. Atty. Magdamo

In this case, Atty. Magdamo’s statements against Buenviaje were not only improper but it also undoubtedly tended to mislead BPI-Dagupan into thinking
that the latter is a swindler and a fugitive as it was made without hesitation notwithstanding the absence of any evidentiary support. The Court cannot
condone this irresponsible and unprofessional behavior.

Finally, it must be emphasized anew that, in support of the cause of their clients, lawyers have the duty to present every remedy or defense within the
authority of the law. However, a clientÊs cause does not permit an attorney to cross the line between liberty and license.14 The lawyerÊs duty to its clients
must never be at the expense of truth and justice.

Based on the foregoing, We cannot countenance Atty. Magdamo’s use of offensive and disrespectful language in his Notice addressed to BPI-Dagupan. He
clearly violated Canons 8 and 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, for his actions erode the publicÊs perception of the legal profession. We, thus,
sustain the findings and recommendation of the IBP-Board of Governors.

ACCORDINGLY, the Court AFFIRMS the October 10, 2014 and May 28, 2016 Resolutions of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Board of Governors in
CBD Case No. 08- 2141 and ORDERS the suspension of Atty. Melchor G. Magdamo from the practice of law for three (3) months effective upon his receipt
of this Decision.

10
OPINION

I agree with the decision of the Supreme Court that lawyers should use dignified language in their pleadings despite the adversarial nature of our legal
system. Though a lawyer’s language may be forceful and emphatic, it should always be dignified and respectful, befitting the dignity of the legal profession.
The use of intemperate language and unkind ascriptions has no place in the dignity of judicial forum.
However, I think the suspension of 3 months for the violation of cannon 8 is not enough to clearly impose the gravity of its value to all practicing lawyers. At
least 6 months to 1 year suspension would be enough to make a point that a lawyer should strictly adhere to this canon.

11
SUSAN T. DE LEON, complainant, vs. ATTY. ANTONIO A.
GERONIMO, respondent.

A.C. No. 10441. February 14, 2018

FACTS:

This case is pursuant to a disbarment complaint which Susan T. De Leon filed against Atty. Antonio A. Geronimo, for purportedly committing acts in violation
of the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).

Complainant Susan T. De Leon engaged the services of Atty. Antonio A. Geronimo on March 28, 2003 to represent her in a labor case, where De Leon’s
employees filed complaints for illegal dismissal and violations of labor standards against her.

LA dismissed the complaints for illegal dismissal against De Leon.

Without being informed by Atty. Geronimo, the employees filed an appeal before the NLRC. NLRC reversed LA Decision.

When De Leon received a copy of the Motion for Reconsideration which Atty. Geronimo prepared, she was disappointed since the motion was composed of
only three (3) pages and the arguments did not address all the issues in the assailed decision.

Atty. Geronimo provided her with copies of some of the records of her case, particularly the LA and NLRC’s decisions, after which, De Leon never heard
from him again.

On March 1, 2006, De Leon decided to call Atty. Geronimo to follow up on the status of the MR and the Supplemental MR but to her surprise, Atty.
Geronimo informed her said motions had already been denied by the NLRC which he had received sometime in September 2005.

when asked if he elevated the case to the CA, he said he did not.

When asked why, he said “it did not matter anyway since she did not have any money”, further telling her, “Di ba wala ka naman properties?”. De Leon
likewise asked him why he did not inform her that he had already received a copy of the Resolution denying the motions, to which he replied, “Wala ka
naman pera!” At that point, De Leon told him that she’s terminating his services as her counsel. Thereafter, Atty. Geronimo filed a withdrawal of appearance
as counsel.

On the other hand, ATTY. Geronimo has a different version stating it was De Leon said that she had no more money since her garment factory was already
closed and she was unemployed.

Atty. Geronimo told her that without money in the bank (De Leon construed this as “Wala ka naman pera »), the sheriff could not get anything from her.
He also asked about her house and lot. De Leon said that they were living in the house owned by her husband’s parents and they did not own any real
property (De Leon construed this as “Di ba wala ka naman properties? »)

12
He reiterated that without any money or property, the sheriff could not get anything from her. De Leon then remarked that she would no longer file a petition
before the CA or if she would, another lawyer would have to prepare it for her. Thus, and since he was no longer in possession of the records of De Leon’s
case, Atty. Geronimo could not prepare the petition for certiorari before the CA.

ISSUE:

Is Atty. Geronimo guilty of violation of the Lawyer’s Oath?

LAW APPLICABLE:

Canon 17 and Canon 18, Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
Rule 18.03 – A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
Rule 18.04 – A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to clientÊs request for information.

CASE HISTORY:

- Nov 26, 2003, Labor Arbiter (LA) rendered a Decision1 dismissing said complaints for illegal dismissal against De Leon, but ordering her to pay each of the
employees P5,000.00 as financial assistance.
- NLRC reversed LA decision ordering De Leon and her co-respondents to reinstate the employees and pay them more than P7 Million.
- January 31, 2011 the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) recommended Atty. Geronimo’s suspension from the
practice of law for Atty. Geronimo failure to file an appeal before the CA without justifiable reasons
- December 29, 2012, the IBP Board of Governors passed Resolution No. XX-2012-650,6 which adopted the above mentioned recommendation with
modification

RULING:

The Court finds no cogent reason to depart from the findings and recommendation of the IBP that Atty. Geronimo must be sanctioned for his acts.
Here, when De Leon received a copy of the Motion for Reconsideration which Atty. Geronimo prepared, she was disappointed since the motion was
composed of only three (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’s decisions, De Leon never heard from him again.

When she called him on March 1, 2006 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.

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.

Clients are led to expect that lawyers would be ever- mindful of their cause and accordingly exercise the required degree of diligence in handling their
affairs.

13
Verily, a lawyer is expected to maintain at all times a high standard of legal proficiency, and to devote his full attention, skill, and competence to the case,
regardless of its importance and whether he accepts it for a fee or for free.
A lawyer’s duty of competence and diligence includes not merely reviewing the cases entrusted to the counsel’s care or giving sound legal advice, but also
consists of properly representing the client before any court or tribunal, attending scheduled hearings or conferences, preparing and filing the required
pleadings, prosecuting the handled cases with reasonable dispatch, and urging their termination without waiting for the client or the court to prod him or her
to do so. Therefore, a lawyer’s negligence in fulfilling his duties subjects him to disciplinary action.

Atty. Geronimo’s negligence cost De Leon her entire case and left her with no appellate remedies. Her legal cause was orphaned, not because a court of
law ruled on the merits of her case, but because a person privileged to act as her counsel failed to discharge his duties with the requisite diligence.
Atty. Geronimo failed to exhaust all possible means to protect his client’s interest, which is contrary to what he had sworn to do as a member of the legal
profession.

WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court SUSPENDS Atty. Antonio A. Geronimo from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months and
WARNS him that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.

OPINION:

I agree with the decision of the Supreme Court. However, in my opinion, the suspension for 6 months is not enough to make a point not just to atty.
Geronimo but also to all practicing lawyers. Violation of the lawyer’s oath put at risk not just the reputation of the profession but also the life and/or career of
its clients. A suspension of at least 1 year would be proper.

14