Judge Eloida R. De Leon-Diaz v. Atty.
Ronaldo ● It may be true that in the case of
Antonio V. Calayan
● Atty. Calayan harassed other judges
during the raffling of cases through
frelentless filing of unnecessary
pleadings.
● Resultingly, he also filed an
administrative complaint against Judge
De Leon-Diaz.
● Calayan said that the reason behind the
pleadings was because of the onereous
receivership in 2007 which was initiated
by his mother and siblings. Thus, his
business suffered. There were also loans
which they were required to pay.
● Calayan used the doctrine in ​In the matter
of the proceedings for disciplinary action
against Atty. Almacen, et. al v. Yaptinchay -
that encourages a lawyer’s criticism of
erring magistrates.
● See: penalty of censure for lawyers.
● CANON 8 - A LAWYER SHALL CONDUCT
HIMSELF WITH COURTESY, FAIRNESS
AND CANDOR TOWARDS HIS
PROFESSIONAL COLLEAGUES, AND
SHALL AVOID HARASSING TACTICS
AGAINST OPPOSING COUNSEL.
● Rule 10.03 - A lawyer shall observe the
rules of procedure and shall not misuse
them to defeat the ends of justice.
● CANON 12 - A LAWYER SHALL EXERT
EVERY EFFORT AND CONSIDER IT HIS
DUTY TO ASSIST IN THE SPEEDY AND
EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATION OF
JUSTICE.
● Rule 12.03 - A lawyer shall not, after
obtaining extensions of time to file
pleadings, memoranda or briefs, let the
period lapse without submitting the same
or offering an explanation for his failure
to do so.
● Calayan did not deny the filing of several
cases against judges and even to adverse
parties to the case, including their
counsels.
Almacen, the decisions of courts and
judges are always subject, but it was
never the intention of the case to grant
these lawyers an unbridled right to
disregard all respect towards the
magistrate and to final any and all kinds
of pleadings, motions, and complaints as
they please.
- But it is the cardinal condition of
all such criticism that it shall be
bona fide, and shall not spill over
the walls of decency and propriety.
A wide chasm exists between fair
criticism, on the One hand, and
abuse and slander of courts and
the judges thereof, on the other.
Intemperate and unfair criticism
is a gross violation of the duty of
respect to courts. It is Such a
misconduct that subjects a lawyer
to disciplinary action.
- For, membership in the Bar
imposes upon a person obligations
and duties which are not mere flux
and ferment. His investiture into
the legal profession places upon
his shoulders no burden more
basic, more exacting and more
imperative than that of respectful
behavior toward the courts. He
vows solemnly to conduct himself
"with all good fidelity ... to the
courts; and the Rules of Court
constantly remind him "to observe
and maintain the respect due to
courts of justice and judicial
officers." The first canon of legal
ethics enjoins him "to maintain
towards the courts a respectful
attitude, not for the sake of the
temporary incumbent of the
judicial office, but for the
maintenance of its supreme
importance."
Gilda Flores 1J SBU LAW 1
 ● Justice is what the facts and law dictate,
and not that which a lawyer wants it to
be.
● Callayan does not possess the right to
attack the judgment of a court for merely
being adverse to his position.
● The court in this case did not impose a
separate penalty to Calayan because he
was already suspended for two years in
another case involving essentially the
same parties. Imposing another penalty
will result in a double penalty.
● MICHELLE YAP V. ATTY. GRACE BURI -
Time and again, the Court has stressed
the settled principle that the practice of
law is not a right but a privilege
bestowed by the State on those who
show that they possess, and continue to
possess, the qualifications required by
law for the conferment of such
privilege. Membership in the bar is a
privilege burdened with conditions. A
high sense of morality, honesty, and fair
dealing is expected and required of a
member of the bar. The nature of the
office of a lawyer requires that he shall
be of good moral character. This
qualification is not only a condition
precedent to the admission to the legal
profession, but its continued possession
is essential to maintain one's good
standing in the profession.
Consequently, a lawyer can be deprived
of his license for misconduct
ascertained and declared by judgment
of the Court after giving him the
opportunity to be heard.
Victoria C. Sousa v. Atty. J. Albert R. Tinapay
● San Gabriel v. Sempio - Once a lawyer
agrees to handle a case, he is required to
undertake the task with zeal, care, and
utmost devotion. Acceptance of money
from a client establishes an
attorney-client relationship and gives rise
to the duty of fidelity to the client’s cause.
● Respondent did not enter his appearance
as her counsel in the proceedings before
the MCTC. Furthermore, during the
pre-trial of the refiled case in the RTC,
complainant was declared in default since
neither she nor her former counsel
appeared. Respondent never admitted in
court that he is the counsel of the
complainant, but he continuously
accepted payment. He also remained
silent and did not accept any notice for his
substitution as the new counsel of the
complainant.
● It was found that respondent was treated
unprofessionally, that’s why he treated
them unprofessionally as well.
● Vda De Saldivar v. Atty. Cabanes, Jr- The
relationship between an attorney and
his/her client is one imbued with utmost
trust and confidence. Clients are led to
expect that lawyers would be
ever-mindful of their cause and exercise
the required degree of diligence in
handling their affairs. In addition, the
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.
Gilda Flores 1J SBU LAW 2
 - Conversely, a lawyer's negligence
in fulfilling his duties subjects him
to disciplinary action. While such
negligence or carelessness is
incapable of exact formulation,
the Court has consistently held
that the lawye​r’s mere failure to
perform the obligations due his
client is per se a violation
● CANON 17 - A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY
TO THE CAUSE OF HIS CLIENT AND HE
SHALL BE MINDFUL OF THE TRUST AND
CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM.
● CANON 18 - A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS
CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND
DILIGENCE.
● Rules 18.01 - A lawyer shall not
undertake a legal service which
he knows or should know that he
is not qualified to render.
However, he may render such
service if, with the consent of his
client, he can obtain as
collaborating counsel a lawyer
who is competent on the matter.
● Rule 18.02 - A lawyer shall not
handle any legal matter without
adequate preparation.
● 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 the
client's request for information.
● No lawyer is obliged to act either as
adviser or advocate for every person who
may wish to become his client. Every
lawyer has the right to decline
employment, but once he agrees to take
on the cause of a client, the lawyer owes
fidelity to such cause and must always be
mindful of the trust and confidence
reposed in him. At that point, he owes
entire devotion to the interest of the
client, warm zeal in the maintenance and
defense of his client’s rights as well as the
exertion of his utmost learning and ability
to the end that nothing be taken or
withheld from his client, save by the rules
of law, legally applied. Simply put, a client
is entitled to the benefit of any and every
remedy authorized by law and he may
expect his lawyer to assert every such
remedy or defense (Santiago v. Atty..
Fojas).
● Reyes v. Atty. Vitan - the act of receiving
money as acceptance fee for the legal
services in handling complainant’s case
and then failing to render such services is
a clear violation of Canon 18.
● Hence, the respondent is suspended.
LEDESMA D. SANCHEZ v. ATTY. CARLITO R.
INTON
● A notarized document, is by law, entitled
to full faith and credit upon its face. It is
for this reason that a notary public must
observe with utmost care the basic
requirements in the performance of his
notarial duties; otherwise, the public’s
confidence in the integrity of a notarized
document would be underfied.
- Triol v. Agcaoili, Jr. - notaries
must inform themselves of the
facts they certify to; most
importantly, they should not take
part or allow themselves to be
part of illegal transactions
● See: notarial rules. The respondent in this
case failed to conform to the following to
Section 2(b), Rule IV: A notary public
should not notarize a document unless
the signatory to the document is in the
notary’s presence personally at the time
of the notarization, and personally known
to the notary public or otherwise
identified through competent evidence of
identity.
Gilda Flores 1J SBU LAW 3
 - The physical presence of the
affiant ensures the proper
execution of the duty of the
notary public under the law to
determine whether the former’s
signature was voluntarily affixed.
On the other hand, the
submission of competent
evidence of identity as defined
under Section 12, Rule II of
Notarial Rules ensures that
affiant is the same person who he
or she claims to be.
- SEC. 12. Competent Evidence of
Identity. - The phrase “competent
evidence of identity” refers to the
identification of an individual
based on:
- (a) at least one current
identification document
issued by an official
agency bearing the
photograph and
signature of the
individual; or chan
robles virtual law library
- (b) the oath or
affirmation of one
credible witness not
privy to the instrument,
document or transaction
who is personally known
to the notary public and
who personally knows
the individual, or of two
credible witnesses
neither of whom is privy
to the instrument,
document or transaction
who each personally
knows the individual and
shows to the notary
public documentary
identification.
● Furthermore, Section 5 (b) Rule IV of the
Notarial rules prohibits a notary public
from notarizing a document that contains
an incomplete notarial certificate.
- A notarial certificate, as defined
in Section 8, Rule II of the
Notarial Rules requires a
statement of the facts attested to
by the notary public in a
particular notarization. This
includes the jurat or the act by
which an individual on a single
occasion (a) appears in person
before the notary public and
presents an instrument or
document, (b) is personally
known to the notary public or
identified by the notary public
through competent evidence of
identity as defined in the Rules; (
c ) signs the instrument or
document in the presence of the
notary and ( d) takes an oath or
affirmation before the notary
public as to such instrument or
document (Section 6, Rule II).
● Almario v. Llera-agno - a notary public
must not notarize a document unless the
person who signed it are the very same
persons who executed the same and
personally appeared before him to attest
to the truth of the contents thereof . The
purpose of this requirement is to enable
the notary public to verify the
genuineness of the signature of the
acknowledgement party to ascertain that
the document is the party’s free and
voluntary act and deed.
● Respondent also violated the notarial
rules when he allowed his secretaries to
perform notarial acts in his behalf. Section
7, Rule II of the Notarial Rules defines
notarization or notarial act as any act that
a notary public is empowered to perform
under said rules. A notary public is any
person commissioned to perform under
the same RUles. IN performing a notarial
act, a notary public is required to, among
others: sign by hand on the notarial
Gilda Flores 1J SBU LAW 4
 certificate, and affix his official signature
only at the time the said act is performed.
● Gimeno v. Atty. Zaide - since a notarial
commission is personal to each lawyer,
the notary public must also personally
administer the notarial acts that the law
authorizes him to execute. This important
duty is vested with public interest. Thus,
no other person, other than the notary
public, should perform it.
● Spouses Chambon v. Atty. Ruiz - A notary
public carries with him a duty imbued
with public interest. At all times, a notary
public must be wary of the duties
pertaining to his office. Thus, those who
are not qualified live up with the mandate
of such office must, in absolute terms, be
stripped off with such authority.
● A violation of the notarial rules would
also constitute a violation of the CPR.
● In this case: CANON 1 - A LAWYER
SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION,
OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND
PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW OF AND
LEGAL PROCESSES.
○ Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not
engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct.
○ Canon 10, Rule 10.01 - 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.
● Respondent was suspended and
prohibited from being commissioned as a
notary public for a period of two years.
His incumbent commission as a notary
public was also revoked.
HERNANDO PETELO v. ATTY. SOCRATES
RIVERA
● This case revolves around the
unauthorized filing by the respondent of a
complaint.
● In the said complaint, there was a
declaration that Fe Mojico Petelo, through
her Attorney in fact, hernando petelo,
engaged the legal services of Atty. Rivera
and that the latter caused the preparation
of the complaint.
● Atty. Rivera did not attend the hearings
- For rivera’s comments, they
were inconsistent.
- The court of makati said that “
since the complaint was not
signed by a lawyer authorized by
petelo, the lawyer who signed the
pleading violated Section 3, Rule
7 Of the Rules of Court.” n
- It was also mentioned in Atty.
Rivera’s comments that he was
informed that the Petelo he filed
for was not the Petelo which
caused the preparation of the
case. Atty. Rivera saw nothing
wrong with what he did and even
prayed for the dismissal of the
case.
- In some other comments and
replies, he denied participation in
the said case.
- In his position paper, Atty. Rivera
admitted that he learned about
the case through a disbarred
lawyer. He said that the office of
the disbarred lawyer has been
using his signature/details
without his authority.
● Atty. Rivera’s act of allowing persons
other than himself to use his signature in
papers and pleadings, in effect, allowed
non-lawyers to practice law.
● Canon 9, Rule 9.01 - CANON 9 - A
LAWYER SHALL NOT, DIRECTLY OR
INDIRECTLY, ASSIST IN THE
UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW.
○ Rule 9.01 - A lawyer shall not
delegate to any unqualified
Gilda Flores 1J SBU LAW 5
 person the performance of any
task which by law may only be
performed by a member of the
bar in good standing.
● Canon 1, Rule 1.1 - - A LAWYER SHALL
UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE
LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE
RESPECT FOR LAW OF AND LEGAL
PROCESSES.
○ Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not
engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct.
● Canon 10, 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.
● Alawi v. Alaya - the title of attorney is
reserved to those who having obtained
the necessary degree in the study of law
and successfully taken the Bar
Examinations, have been admitted to the
INtegrated Bar of the Philippines and
remain members thereof in good standing
and it is only they who are authorized to
practice law in this jurisdiction.
● Practice of law; twin standards - legal
proficiency and morality.
● Pantamosas v. Pamatong - The practice of
law is so delicately imbued with public
interest that it is both a power and a duty
of this court to control and regulate it in
order to protect and promote the public
welfare.
● Atty. Rivera has abused a right personal
to him when he allowed another ( a
non-lawyer) to sign pleadings and to file a
suit.
● Republic v. Kenrick Development
Corporation
Contrary to respondent’s position, a signed
pleading is one that is signed either by the party
himself or his counsel. Section 3, Rule 7 is clear on
this matter. It requires that a pleading must be
signed by the party or counsel representing him.
Therefore, only the signature of either the party
himself or his counsel operates to validly convert a
pleading from one that is unsigned to one that is
signed.
Counsel’s authority and duty to sign a pleading are
personal to him. He may not delegate it to just any
person.
The signature of counsel constitutes an assurance
by him that he has read the pleading; that, to the
best of his knowledge, information and belief, there
is a good ground to support it; and that it is not
interposed for delay. 16 Under the Rules of Court, it
is counsel alone, by affixing his signature, who can
certify to these matters.
The preparation and signing of a pleading
constitute legal work involving practice of law
which is reserved exclusively for the members of the
legal profession. Counsel may delegate the signing
of a pleading to another lawyer 17 but cannot do so
in favor of one who is not. The Code of Professional
Responsibility provides:
Rule 9.01 ― A lawyer shall not delegate to any
unqualified person the performance of any task
which by law may only be performed by a member
of the Bar in good standing.
Moreover, a signature by agents of a lawyer
amounts to signing by unqualified persons, 18
something the law strongly proscribes.
Therefore, the blanket authority respondent claims
Atty. Garlitos entrusted to just anyone was void. Any
act taken pursuant to that authority was likewise
void. There was no way it could have been cured or
ratified by Atty. Garlitos’ subsequent acts.
Moreover, the transcript of the November 26, 1998
Senate hearing shows that Atty. Garlitos consented
to the signing of the answer by another "as long as
it conformed to his draft." We give no value
whatsoever to such self-serving statement.
Gilda Flores 1J SBU LAW 6
No doubt, Atty. Garlitos could not have validly given
blanket authority for just anyone to sign the
answer. The trial court correctly ruled that
respondent’s answer was invalid and of no legal
effect as it was an unsigned pleading. Respondent
was properly declared in default and the Republic
was rightly allowed to present evidence ex parte.
Respondent insists on the liberal application of the
rules. It maintains that even if it were true that its
answer was supposedly an unsigned pleading, the
defect was a mere technicality that could be set
aside.
Procedural requirements which have often been
disparagingly labeled as mere technicalities have
their own valid raison d’ etre in the orderly
administration of justice. To summarily brush them
aside may result in arbitrariness and injustice.
The Court’s pronouncement in Garbo v. Court of
Appeals is relevant:
Procedural rules are [tools] designed to facilitate
the adjudication of cases. Courts and litigants alike
are thus [enjoined] to abide strictly by the rules.
And while the Court, in some instances, allows a
relaxation in the application of the rules, this, we
stress, was never intended to forge a bastion for
erring litigants to violate the rules with impunity.
The liberality in the interpretation and application
of the rules applies only in proper cases and under
justifiable causes and circumstances. While it is true
that litigation is not a game of technicalities, it is
equally true that every case must be prosecuted in
accordance with the prescribed procedure to insure
an orderly and speedy administration of justice.
Like all rules, procedural rules should be followed
except only when, for the most persuasive of
reasons, they may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of
an injustice not commensurate with the degree of
his thoughtlessness in not complying with the
prescribed procedure. In this case, respondent
failed to show any persuasive reason why it should
be exempted from strictly abiding by the rules.
As a final note, the Court cannot close its eyes to the
acts committed by Atty. Garlitos in violation of the
ethics of the legal profession. Thus, he should be
made to account for his possible misconduct.
● The right to practice law is not a natural
right or constitutional right but is in the
nature of a privilege or a franchise. It is
limited to persons of good moral
character with special qualifications duly
ascertained and certified. The right does
not only presuppose in its possessor
integrity, legal standing, and attainment,
but also the exercise of a special privilege,
highly personal and partaking of the
nature of a public interest (People v.
Santocildes Jr.)
● Atty. Rivera is suspended.
Adelfa Properties, Inc v. Atty. Restituto S.
Mendoza
● Atty. Mendoza was working in a company
owned by the Villars and during one of
the company assessments, he threatened
one of senior officers after finding the
unfavorable results. He retorted “ I will
bring down this company with me. “
● Atty. Mendoza admitted to someone that
he took part in the preparation of the
illegal and irregular transactions of adelfa
or its affiliates and that head information
and documents which are damaging to
the political career of Senator Villar.
● Despite being reminded that he is bound
by the attorney-client confidentiality
rules, Atty. Mendoza continued to demand
that he be paid a certain amount of
money; otherwise, he would surrender all
the documents he had against Senator
Villar to Senator Lacson.
● The complainant did not accede Atty.
Mendoza’s demands, the latter allegedly
made a phone call to Engr. Santos, one of
Adelfa’s officers. The former threatened
that he will go all out against Senator
Villar and that he knew where he and his
Gilda Flores 1J SBU LAW 7
 family reside should he release indecent
photos of him.
● Atty. Mendoza also publicly declared that
he will testify against Senator Villar on
the alleged land grabbing issue
committed by complainant and its
affiliates.
● In engaging the services of an attorney,
the client reposes on him special powers
of trust and confidence, their relationship
is strictly personal and highly confidential
and fiduciary (Regala v. Sandiganbayan).
● Only in such confidentiality and
protection will a person be encouraged to
repose his confidence in an attorney. The
hypothesis is that abstinence from
seeking legal advice in a good cause is an
evil which is fatal to the administration of
justice (Hilado v. David).
● Preservation and protection of that
relation will encourage a client to entrust
his legal problems to an attorney, which is
of paramount importance to the
administration of justice.
● Mercado v. Atty. Vitriolo - an attorney is
to keep inviolate his client’s secrets or
confidence and not to abuse them. Thus,
the duty of a lawyer to preserve his
client’s secrets and confidence outlasts
the termination of the attorney- client
relationship, and even continue even after
the client’s death.
Factors to establish the existence of said
privilege:
(1) There exists an attorney-client
relationship or a prospective
attorney-client relationship and it is by
reason of this relationship that the client
made the communication.
Matters disclosed by a attorney in his professional capacity.
prospective client are protected by the
rule on privileged communication even if
the prospective client does not thereafter
retain the lawyer or the latter declines the
employment. The reason for this is to
make the prospective client free to
discuss whatever he wishes with the
lawyer without fear that what he tells the
lawyer will be divulged or used against
him, and for the lawyer to be equally free
to obtain information from the
prospective client.
(2) The client made the communication in
confidence.
The mere relation of attorney
and client does not raise a
presumption of confidentiality.
The client must intend the
communication to be
confidential.
A confidential communications
refers to information transmitted
by voluntary act of disclosure
between attorney and client in
confidence and by means which,
so far, as the client is aware,
discloses the information to no
third person other than one
reasonably necessary for the
transmission of the information
or the accomplishment for the
purpose for which it was given.
A compromise agreement
prepared by a lawyer pursuant to
the instruction of his client and
delivered to the opposing party,
an offer and counter-offer for
settlement, or a document given
by a client to his counsel not in
his professional capacity, are not
privileged communications, the
element of confidentiality not
being present.
(3) The legal advice must be sought from the
The communication made by a
client to his attorney must not be
intended for mere information, but for the
purpose of seeking legal advice from his
Gilda Flores 1J SBU LAW 8
 attorney as to his rights or obligations.
The communication must have been
transmitted by a client to his attorney for
the purpose of seeking legal advice.
● The filing of the illegal dismissal case
against complainant and the disclosure of
information in support thereof is not per
se a violation of the rule on privileged
communication because it was necessary
in order to establish his cause of action
against complainant.
- Mere allegation, without
evidence as to the specific
confidential information
allegedly divulged by Atty.
Mendoza is difficult, if not
impossible to determine if there
was any violation of the rule on
privileged communication. Such
confidential information is a
crucial link in establishing the
breach of the rule on privileged
communication between
attorney and client. It is not
enough to merely assert the
attorney-client privilege. The
burden of proving that the
privilege applies is placed upon
the party asserting the privilege.
● The degree of proof indispensable in a
disbarment case was not met.
● However, due to Atty. Mendoza’s act of
divulging information gathered in the
course of his employment to media, he is
deemed to have violated the following:
● Rule 13.02 - A lawyer shall not make
public statements in the media regarding
a pending case tending to arouse public
opinion for or against a party.
● Canon 21 - CANON 21 - A LAWYER SHALL
PRESERVE THE CONFIDENCE AND
SECRETS OF HIS CLIENT EVEN AFTER
THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATION IS
TERMINATED.
Rule 21.01 - A lawyer shall not
reveal the confidences or secrets
of his client except;
(a) When authorized by the client
after acquainting him of the
consequences of the disclosure;
(b) When required by law;
(c) When necessary to collect his
fees or to defend himself, his
employees or associates or by
judicial action.
Rule 21.02 - A lawyer shall not, to
the disadvantage of his client, use
information acquired in the
course of employment, nor shall
he use the same to his own
advantage or that of a third
person, unless the client with full
knowledge of the circumstances
consents thereto.
● Section 27, Rule 138 Revised Rules of
Court - grounds for disbarment.
● Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of
Professional responsibility provides:
● Rule 15.03 - A lawyer shall not represent
conflicting interests except by written
consent of all concerned given after full
disclosure of the facts.
- Applies to privileged
communication as well
- This prohibition is founded on
principles of public policy, good
taste and, more importantly,
upon necessity. In the course of a
lawyer-client relationship, the
lawyer learns all the facts
connected with the client's case,
including its weak and strong
points. Such knowledge must be
considered sacred and guarded
with care. No opportunity must
be given to him to take advantage
of his client; for if the confidence
is abused, the profession will
suffer by the loss thereof. It
behooves lawyers not only to
keep inviolate the client's
confidence, but also to avoid the
Gilda Flores 1J SBU LAW 9
 appearance of treachery and
double ─ dealing for only then
can litigants be encouraged to
entrust their secrets to their
lawyers, which is paramount in
the administration of justice. It is
for these reasons that we have
described the attorney-client
relationship as one of trust and
confidence of the highest degree
(Pacana v. Atty. Pascual-Lopez
● There is no violation as to the
non-disclosure of privileged
communication in this case. The
complainant did not even specify the
alleged communication in confidence
disclosed by respondent; complainant
merely claimed that the privileged was
broken without averring any categorical
and concrete allegations and evidence to
support their claim, but in allowing
himself to be interviewed by media
constitutes gross misconduct in his office
as attorney, for which a suspension from
the practice of law is warranted.
● Suspended + stern warning.
Angel Arde v. Atty. Evangeline De Silva
● Respondent in this case was said to have
misappropriated, misapplied and/or
converted to her personal interest the
money allotted for the licensing and
registration of BFAD products. This was
evidenced by vouchers and receipts
issued under her name.
● Despite several demands she failed to
return the said amount; hence, a case for
estafa was filed.
● Misappropriation of funds - Canon 16,
Rules 16.01 and 16.03
CANON 16 - A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN
TRUST ALL MONEYS AND PROPERTIES
OF HIS CLIENT THAT MAY COME INTO
HIS PROFESSION.
Rule 16.01 - A lawyer shall
account for all money or property
collected or received for or from
the client.
Rule 16.03 - A lawyer shall
deliver the funds and property of
his client when due or upon
demand. However, he shall have
a lien over the funds and may
apply so much thereof as may be
necessary to satisfy his lawful
fees and disbursements, giving
notice promptly thereafter to his
client. He shall also have a lien to
the same extent on all judgments
and executions he has secured
for his client as provided for in
the Rules of Court.
● Because of the nature of the atty-client
relationship, lawyers have the duty to
account for the money or property they re
receive for or from their clients (CF Sharp
Crew Management, Inc. v. Torres).
- When they receive money from a
client for a particular purpose,
they are bound to render an
accounting of how the money
was spent for the said purpose;
and in case the money was not
used for the intended purpose,
the lawyer must immediately
return the money to the client.
- Failure of a lawyer to return the
money entrusted to him/her by
his/her client upon demand
creates a presumption that
he/she has appropriated the
same for his/her own use.
● Her mere refusal/ and or failure to return
the money to the client without justifiable
reason is sufficient reason for the Court to
finder guilty of misappropriation, which is
a violation of the Lawyer’s Oath and the
CPR.
Gilda Flores 1J SBU LAW 10
 - She breached her client’s trust
by failing to fulfill the obligation
and return the amount.
● Canon 1, Rule 1.01 - Rule 1.01 - A lawyer
shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct.
● Respondent was previously suspended
from the practice of law for BP 22 and
estafa.
● Despite being suspended, she still
practiced law.
● Respondent is found guilty of gross
misconduct = hence, disbarment.
To stress, the practice of law is a privilege given to
lawyers who meet the high standards of legal
proficiency and morality, including honesty,
integrity and fair dealing. They must perform their
fourfold duty to society, the legal profession, the
courts and their clients, in accordance with the
values and norms of the legal profession as
embodied in the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Falling short of this standard, the
Court will not hesitate to discipline an erring
lawyer by imposing an appropriate penalty based
on the exercise of sound judicial discretion in
consideration of the surrounding facts.
Atty. Francis Gustillo v. Atty. Estefano H.Dela
Cruz
● The respondent in this case is charged for
his non compliance with MCLE and for
knowingly using a false MCLE compliance
number in his pleadings.
● See: BM NO. 850 - EXCEPTIONS TO
MCLE
● Bar Matter No.. 1922 - THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF
Recommendation of MCLE Board to
indicate in all pleadings filed with the
courts the counsel’s mcle certificate of
compliance and certificate of
exemption as amended
- Expressly directs attorneys to
indicate their MCLE certificate of
compliance or certificate of
exemption in all pleadings they
filed in the court. The
requirement ensures that the
practice of law is reserved only
for those who have complied
with the recognized mechanism
for keeping abreast with law,
jurisprudence, maintaining the
ethics of the profession, and
enhancing the standards of the
practice of law.
● Intestate Estate of Jose Uy v. Mahaghari III
- ​These requirements are not mere
frivolities. They are not mere markings on
a piece of paper. To willfully disregard
them is, thus, to willfully disregard
mechanisms put in place to facilitate
integrity, competence, and credibility in
legal practice; it is to betray apathy for the
ideals of the legal profession and
demonstrates how one is wanting of the
standards for admission to and continuing
inclusion in the bar. Worse, to not only
willfully disregard them but to feign
compliance only, in truth, to make a
mockery of them reveals a dire, wretched,
and utter lack of respect for the profession
that one brandishes.
● The respondent did not meet the MCLE
requirements corresponding to the
second, third, fourth, and fifth compliance
periods. His actuations were designed to
mislead the courts, his clients, and his
colleagues in the profession, as well as
other persons who have trusted in his
representation of his compliance.
● The respondent did not present any
acceptable proof for his alleged exception.
● CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD
THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR
LAW OF AND LEGAL PROCESSES.
● CANON 7 - A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL
TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND
DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION
AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE
INTEGRATED BAR (See: In re IBP case)
● CANON 10 - A LAWYER OWES CANDOR,
FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE
COURT.
Gilda Flores 1J SBU LAW 11

● BM 1922 provides penalties for the
alleged act.
- Read with Section 2, Rule 13 of
B.M. No. 850 and its IRR
- In such a situation, the client
shall be allowed to secure the
services of a new attorney with
concomitant the right to demand
the return of fees already paid to
the noncompliant attorney. The
latter is also discharged from the
case.
● Since the respondent did not only violate
BM 1922, but also deceived, the courts,
the clients, and the public, there is a
ground for disbarment -”for any deceit,
malprractice or other gross misconduct in
such office or for any violation of the
oath.”
● Barrios v. Martinez - Of all classes and
professions, the lawyer is most sacredly
bound to uphold the laws. He is their
sworn servant; and for him, of all men in
the world, to repudiate and override the
laws, to trample them underfoot and to
ignore the very bands of society, argues
recreancy to his position and office and
sets a pernicious example to the
insubordinate and dangerous elements of
the body politic.
Ana Maria Kare v. Atty. Catalina L. Tumaliuan
● As payment for the house she brought,
the respondent offered her car as part of
the payment. The complainant agreed so
as long as there is proof of a full transfer
and title.
● But Respondent only pretended to have
such a title. The car was actually
mortgaged with BDO.
● Respondent denied the charges against
her and said that the complainant was the
one who did not transfer the title of her
house and that she violated the rule
against forum shopping.
● Respondent also said that she cannot be
held liable because she never made Kare
believe that the vehicle was free from all
liens and encumbrances as she merely
stated “full title and ownership” She also
remarked that Kare was aware of the
mortgage.
● See: doctrine of caveat emptor
● The most important factor in determining
the existence of forum shopping is the
vexation caused the courts and
parties-litigants by a party who asks
different courts to rule on the same or
related causes or grant the same or
substantially the same reliefs.
● See; three ways of committing forum
shopping.
● The dismissal of an administrative case
does not necessarily foreclose the filing of
a criminal prosecution for the same or
similar acts which were the subject of the
administrative complaint.
● Canon 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD
THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF
THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR
LAW OF AND LEGAL PROCESSES.
○ Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not
engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct.
● In the absence of any indication that the
respondent duly notified Kare, that the
vehicle she was using was actually
encumbered, Kare’s awareness cannot be
hastily presumed.
● The mortgage restriction on the sale of
the vehicle such that a sale executed by
the respondent without the prior
written consent of the BDO hslal give
the latter the right to declare the
entire obligation due and demandable,
to take actual possession of the vehicle
without the need of any court order,
and to sell and dispose of the same.
- A lawyer who drafts a contract
must see to it that the
agreement faithfully and
clearly reflects the intention of
Gilda Flores 1J SBU LAW 12
 the contracting parties.
Otherwise, the respective
rights and obligations of the
contracting parties will be
uncertain, which opens the
door to legal disputes between
the said parties.
● Saladaga v. Astorga -”dishonest” means
the disposition to lie, cheat, deceive,
defraud or betray; be untrustworthy,
lacking in integrity, honesty, probity,
integrity in principle, fairness, and
straightforwardness.
- Conduct is “deceitful” - means the
proclivity for fraudulent and
deceptive misrepresentation
artifice or device that is used
upon another who is ignorant of
the true facts, to the prejudice
and damages of the party
imposed upon. In order to be
deceitful must either have
knowledge of the falsity or acting
in reckless and conscious
ignorance thereof, especially if
the parties are not on equal
terms and was done with the
intent that the aggrieved party
act thereon and the latter acted
in reliance of the false statement
or deed in the manner
contemplated to his injury.
- Failure to live by the standards of
the legal profession and to
discharge the burden of the
privilege conferred on one as a
member of the bar warrant the
suspension or revocation of that
privilege.
● This court, however, will not adopt the
recommendation to restitute Kare by
transferring full title to the latter and if
the transfer is not possible, to mutually
rescind the contract of sale of said vehicle.
​Why? - Roa v. Atty. Moreno: in
disciplinary proceedings against lawyers,
the only issue is whether the officer of the
court is still fit to be allowed to continue
as a member of the bar. The Court’s only
concern is the determination of
respondent’s administrative liability.
Their findings have no material bearing
on other judicial action which the parties
may choose to file against each other.
- Thus, Tumuliuan may also be
held civilly and/or criminally
liable. Each case must be
resolved in accordance with the
facts and the law applicable and
the quantum of proof required in
each.
- See: double jeopardy.
Mike A. Fermin v. Atty. Lintang H. Bedol
● The complainant in this case
filed for a special election with
the COMELEC; however, before
the resolution was released, the
respondent already posted a
notice informing the people that
a special election will take place.
He also issued other notices
regarding: 1) a conference which
will be held in his office and 2)
the venue for the canvassing of
votes.
● As an excuse he said that the
election personnel in the
province cannot afford to have
only a day before election to
notify the parties and to prepare
for the election the next day. As
to the conference held, it was
done to do away with violation of
the Fair Elections Act and the
parties’ duties respecting the
special election. He claimed that
all the cases filed by complainant
against him with the COMELEC
were dismissed for lack of cause
of action.
● See: section 4, R.A 7166
● Canon 1 clearly mandates the
obedience of every lawyer to
Gilda Flores 1J SBU LAW 13
 laws and legal processes. To the
best of his ability, a lawyer is
expected to respect and abide by
the law and, thus, avoid any act
or omission that is contrary
thereto. A lawyer's personal
deference to the law not only
speaks of his character but it also
inspires respect and obedience to
the law, on the part of the public.
As servants of the law and
officers of the court, lawyers are
required to be at the forefront of
observing and maintaining the
rule of law. They are expected to
make themselves exemplars
worthy of emulation. This, in fact,
is what a lawyer's obligation to
promote respect for law and legal
processes entails. Moreso, a
lawyer who is occupying a public
office
- Lawyers in n public office, such
as respondent who was then a
Provincial Election Supervisor of
Maguindanao, are expected not
only to refrain from any act or
omission which tend to lessen
the trust and confidence of the
citizenry in government but also
uphold the dignity of the legal
profession at all times and
observe a high standard of
honesty and fair dealing (Ramos
v. Atty Imbang). A government
lawyer is a keeper of public faith
and is burdened with a high
degree of social responsibility,
higher than his brethren in public
practice (Atty. Vitrolio v. Atty.
Dasig).
● Respondent’s issuance of notices has no
basis in law. Members of the bar are
reminded that their first duty is to comply
with the rules of procedure, rather than
seek exceptions as loopholes (Guarin v.
Atty. Limpin).
Re: Investigation Report on the alleged
extortion activities of presiding judge
godofredo B. Abul Jr.
● Death of the respondent judge during the
pendency of his administrative case shall
not terminate the proceedings against
him, much less absolve him, or cause the
dismissal of the complaint if the
investigation was completed prior to his
demise. If death intervenes before he has
been dismissed from service, the
appropriate penalty is forfeiture of all
retirement and other benefits, except
accrued leaves.
- Does the benefits of a judge
extend to his/her family
members? - i think yes. This was
discussed in statcon.
● Respondent Judge was charged with
extortion committed against prison
inmates detained for violation of R.A NO.
9165
● It has been settled that the death of a
respondent does not preclude a finding of
administrative liability; HOWEVER, it may
necessitate the dismissal of the case upon
a consideration of the following factors:
first, if the respondent’s right to due
process was not observed; second, the
presence of exceptional circumstances in
the case on the grounds equitable and
humanitarian reasons; and third, the kind
of penalty imposed.
● In this case, none of the foregoing factors
exists. First, respondent Judge's right to
due process was not violated. As borne by
the records, he was duly informed of the
accusations against him, having been
furnished with a copy of the
letter-complaint of Fr. Saniel and its
attached affidavits, as well as a copy of the
investigation report of Atty. Garcia. In
fact, he filed his comment thereon, which
the Court received on 19 April. 2017.
Gilda Flores 1J SBU LAW 14
 Second, his death alone is insufficient to
justify the dismissal of the case on the
ground of equitable or humanitarian
consideration. A case was ordered
dismissed by the Court by reason of the
respondent's death for equitable and
humanitarian considerations as the
liability was incurred by reason of
respondent's poor health. In this case,
there was no circumstance other than
respondent Judge's death that may
warrant the invocation of equitable or
humanitarian ground in his favor. Third,
the penalty of fine may still be imposed
notwithstanding his death. In fact, in one
case, the respondent who died before the
investigating judge was able to finish and
submit his report but was duly notified of
the proceedings against him and was
directed to file his answer, although he
opted not to comply therewith, was still
meted the penalty of forfeiture of his
retirement benefits, except his accrued
leave credits, after having been found
guilty of grave misconduct.
● Based on the results of the investigation
Judge Abul had violated Canon 2, Canon 3
and Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial
Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary in a
manner that amounted to grave
misconduct.
● The Code of Judicial Ethics mandates that
the conduct of a judge must be free of
every whiff of impropriety not only in
regard to his discharge of judicial duties,
but also to his behavior outside his office
and even as a private individual. Indeed,
judges should be extra prudent in
associating with litigants and counsel who
have matters pending before them in
order to avoid even the mere perception
of possible bias or partiality. They should
be scrupulously careful with respect to
pending or prospective litigations before
them to avoid anything that may tend to
awaken the suspicion that their personal,
social or sundry relations could influence
their objectivity, for not only must they
possess proficiency in law but they must
also act and behave in such manner that
would assure litigants and their counsel,
with great comfort, of the judges'
competence, integrity and independence.
In view of this, whether or not Judge Abul really
demanded money in exchange for either the
liberty of Reyes and Montilla or the dismissal of
the criminal case filed against them even became
immaterial herein. By simply meeting and talking
with them as the accused whose cases were then
pending in his sala, Judge Abul already
transgressed ethical norms and compromised his
integrity and impartiality as the trial judge. His
actuations flagrantly violated the following norms
and canons of The New Code of Judicial Conduct
for the Philippine Judiciary, to wit:
CANON 2
Integrity
Integrity is essential not only to the proper
discharge of the judicial office but also to the
personal demeanor of judges.
SECTION 1. Judges shall ensure that not only is
their conduct above reproach, but that it is
perceived to be so in the view of a reasonable
observer.
SECTION 2. The behavior and conduct of judges
must reaffirm the people's faith in the integrity of
the judiciary. Justice must not merely be done but
must also be seen to be done.
CANON 3
Impartiality
Impartiality is essential to the proper discharge of
the judicial office. It applies not only to the
decision itself but also to the process by which the
decision to made.
SECTION 1. Judges shall perform their judicial
duties without favor, bias or prejudice.
SECTION 2. Judges shall ensure that his or her
conduct, both in and out of court, maintains and
Gilda Flores 1J SBU LAW 15
enhances the confidence of the public, the legal
profession and litigants in the impartiality of the
judge and of the judiciary.
SECTION 3. Judges shall, so far as is reasonable, so
conduct themselves as to minimize the occasions
on which it will be necessary for them to be
disqualified from hearing or deciding
cases.
CANON 4
Propriety
Propriety and the appearance of propriety are
essential to the performance of all the activities of
a judge.
SECTION 1. Judges shall avoid impropriety and the
appearance of impropriety in all of their activities
● On the case he acquitted, it was noticed
that: he highly questionable
circumstances surrounding their acquittal
on reasonable doubt give credence to the
allegation of corruption against him. The
decision was premature and grossly
unprocedural, the same being in violation
of Section 5, Rule 30 of the Rules of Court.
Notably, he allowed the accused to
manipulate the proceedings when he
unduly acted favorably on their
memorandum praying for their acquittal
despite the vehement opposition thereto
of the prosecution, correctly pointing out
that the same could not be treated as
demurrer to evidence having been filed
out of time. Worse, without considering
the merits of the prosecution's opposition
to the memorandum despite its legal and
logical soundness, he submitted the case
for decision by merely stating in his order
that "the defense has filed a
memorandum indicating that they (sic)
are submitting the case for decision based
on prosecution's evidence and the
prosecution has submitted its comment."
With extraordinary and undue speed, he
penned the decision on the same day that
the case was submitted for decision, and
he promulgated the decision without the
presence of the accused in violation of
Section 6, Rule 120 of the Revised Rules
of Criminal Procedure
● Plainly enough, Judge Abul's actuations
and behavior constituted grave
misconduct. It is settled that grave
misconduct exists where the requisites of
corruption, clear intent to violate the law
or flagrant disregard of established rule
are present. As an element of grave
misconduct, corruption consists in the act
of an official or fiduciary person who
unlawfully and wrongfully uses his
station or character to procure some
benefit for himself or for another person,
contrary to duty and the rights of others.
● Gonzales v. Escalona - we held that the
Court is not ousted of its jurisdiction by
the mere fact that the respondent public
official had meanwhile ceased to hold
office. Verily, jurisdiction over the case or
subject matter, once acquired, continues
until final resolution. With more reason is
this true herein because Judge Abul was
fully afforded due process during the
investigation.
● The court had also warned the
respondent judge before in another case,
to be more circumspect in issuing orders
which must truly reflect the actual facts
they represent to obviate engendering
views of partiality among others.
● Penalty: Under Section 11, Rule 140 of
the Rules of Court, grave misconduct
constituting violations of the Code of
Judicial Conduct is a serious offense that
results in dismissal from the service,
forfeiture of all or part of the benefits, and
perpetual disqualification from
reappointment or appointment to any
public office, including
government-owned and controlled
corporations, except accrued leave
credits.
● Had Judge Abul not died, he would have
been meted the extreme penalty of
Gilda Flores 1J SBU LAW 16
 dismissal, with the concomitant forfeiture
of all retirement and allied benefits due to
him, except accrued leaves, as an
accessory penalty. Considering that his
intervening death has rendered his
dismissal no longer feasible, the accessory
penalty of forfeiture of all such retirement
and allied benefits, except accrued leaves,
then becomes the viable sanction.
● WHEREFORE, the Court FINDS and
DECLARES the late Presiding Judge
Godofredo B. Abul, Jr. of Branch 4,
Regional Trial Court, Butuan City, Agusan
del Norte GUILTY of GROSS
MISCONDUCT; and, accordingly,
FORFEITS all benefits, including
retirement gratuity, exclusive of his
accrued leaves, which shall be released to
his legal heirs.
Annaliza C. Chan v. Atty. Rebene C. Carrera
● Carrera pursued Chan and then one day
the latter told the former that it was best
for him to pursue someone else because
she was still married although they’re just
separated.
● Carrera, however, did not seem to mind.
He even represented that he can annul
her marriage for her and support her
daughter. Eventually, Chan grew fond of
Carrera.
● ever, around the time when Chan and
Carrera moved to another house at
Project 8, Quezon City, Chan discovered
that Carrera was not in fact a widower
and that his wife was still alive. Even
though his wife was confined in an
institution, he was still validly married to
her. Chan further discovered that Carrera
also had a child with another woman.
Because of this, Chan wanted to leave
Carrera. Unfortunately, she found out that
she was pregnant with his child.
Nevertheless, while Chan decided to stay
with Carrera, their relationship was no
longer harmonious. Throughout her
pregnancy, Carrera often scolded her and
treated her badly. He accused her of
stealing his credit card and withdrawing
from his account. In one instance, Carrera
even denied being the father of the child
she was carrying. Aside from this, Chan
often caught Carrera having illicit
relationships with other women. When
confronted, he would usually make empty
promises to change his ways. Chan
thought about the welfare of their child
and felt that she had no choice but to
remain with Carrera.
● Despite his infractions, Chan nonetheless
helped Carrera during his time of need.
When his business suffered from
irreversible losses, she worked hard as
his paralegal and referred him clients.
Because of her help, he was able to
recover his losses, save his school from
closing, and was even able to purchase
more properties. Still, Carrera refused to
give up his womanizing. This time, when
Chan confronted Carrera about it, he got
furious, asked her to leave their home, to
return the car he gave her, and forbade
her from working as his paralegal. He also
consistently humiliated her such that
when she would visit his office to ask for
financial support for their son, he would
utter invective words first before giving
her money.
● Carrera denied all the allegations against
him. He said that he was a good husband
and a good father and that Chan only
wanted.
● During the filing of the complaints, CHan
realized she was just being irrational. The
english translation of her complaint was
an exaggeration.
- However, Chan's motion to
withdraw does not serve as a bar
for the investigation of the
administrative case against
Carrera. Section 5, Rule 139-B of
the Rules of Court provides that
"no investigation shall be
interrupted or terminated by
Gilda Flores 1J SBU LAW 17
 reason of the desistance,
settlement, compromise,
restitution, withdrawal of the
charges, or failure of the
complainant to prosecute the
same.
- Ferancullo v. Atty. Ferancullo -
In view of its nature,
administrative proceedings
against lawyers are not strictly
governed by the Rules of Court.
As we held in In re Almacen, a
disbarment case is sui generis
for it is neither purely civil nor
purely criminal but is rather
an investigation by the court
into the conduct of its officers.
Hence, an administrative
proceeding continues despite
the desistance of a misconduct should be suspended
complainant, or failure of the
complainant to prosecute the
same.
● It is a fundamental principle that
members of the legal profession must
conform to the highest standards of
morality and that the Court is duty​
bound to ensure compliance
therewith. As such, any deviation
initially raised as the private concern
of a complainant becomes a matter of
judicial interest. Indeed, Chan may
very well be disinterested in pursuing
the instant complaint, but this shall not
necessarily set Carrera free from any
liability he may have already incurred.
● Rule 1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.
● Rule 7.03 — A lawyer shall not engage in
conduct that adversely reflects on his
fitness to practice law, nor should he,
whether in public or private life, behave
in a scandalous manner to the discredit of
the legal profession.
● a married person's abandonment of his or
her spouse in order to live and cohabit
with another constitutes immorality. The
offense may even be criminal — either as
concubinage or as adultery. Immoral
conduct, or immorality, is that which is so
wilful, flagrant, or shameless as to show
indifference to the opinion of good and
respectable members of the community.
As a basis of disciplinary action, such
immoral conduct, or immorality must be
so corrupt as to virtually constitute a
criminal act or so unprincipled as to be
reprehensible to a high degree or
committed under such scandalous or
revolting circumstances as to shock the
common sense of decency. That the illicit
partner is himself or herself married
compounds the immorality (Amalia R.
Ceniza v. Atty. Ceniza Jr).
- any lawyer guilty of gross
or disbarred even if the
misconduct relates to his or her
personal life for as long as the
misconduct evinces his or her
lack of moral character, honesty,
probity or good demeanor. Every
lawyer is expected to be
honorable and reliable at all
times, for a person who cannot
abide by the laws in his private
life cannot be expected to do so
in his professional dealings.
● ​It is this clear and outright admission that
is the basis for Carrera's disbarment. His
endless accomplishments listed in his
curriculum vitae cannot render him
innocent of the charges against him. On the
contrary, the Court wonders how despite
all these achievements in his professional
career, Carrera allowed himself to falter in
such a highly scandalous manner. His level
of knowledge and experience should have
alerted him of his duty to keep with the
standards of morality imposed on every
lawyer. To recall, he even proposed to Chan
his services in annulling her marriage.
● Respondent is disbarred.
Gilda Flores 1J SBU LAW 18
RANDY N. SEGURA, COMPLAINANT v.
PROSECUTOR MARILOU R. GARACHICO-FABILA
● The respondent found probable cause and
recommended the filing of an information
against complainant for violation of Sec
5(e)(2) of R.A NO. 9262
- In his complaint, complainant
ascribed bias to respondent,
saying that as early as May 2,
2009, long before he received a
subpoena from respondent in
March 2010, the latter was
already investigating the case
by inquiring from his work
agency the details of his
contract. Complainant likewise
imputed partiality on the part
of respondent for holding that
he did not submit evidence to
show that he was providing
financial support to his wife
and children, when he so did.
- the public prosecutor has
broad discretion to determine
whether probable cause exists,
and whether the case should
be filed in court.
● Alicias v. Atty. Macatangay - the Court
pronounced that jurisdiction over
administrative cases against government
lawyers relating to acts committed in the
performance of their official functions,
lies with the Ombudsman which exercises
administrative supervision over them;
thus:
○ Republic Act No. 6770 21 (R.A.
No. 6770), otherwise known as
"The Ombudsman Act of 1989,"
prescribes the jurisdiction of the
Office of the Ombudsman. Section
15, paragraph 1 of R.A. No. 6770
provides:
○ Section 15. Powers, Functions
and Duties. — The Office of the
Ombudsman shall have the
following powers, functions and
duties:
○ (1) Investigate and prosecute on
its own or on complaint by any
person, any act or omission of
any public officer or employee,
office or agency, when such act or
omission appears to be illegal,
unjust, improper or inefficient. It
has primary jurisdiction over
cases cognizable by the
Sandiganbayan and, in the
exercise of his primary
jurisdiction, it may take over, at
any stage, from any investigatory
agency of Government, the
investigation of such cases.
○ The 1987 Constitution clothes
the Office of the Ombudsman
with the administrative
disciplinary authority to
investigate and prosecute any act
or omission of any government
official when such act or
omission appears to be illegal,
unjust, improper, or inefficient.
The Office of the Ombudsman is
the government agency
responsible for enforcing
administrative, civil, and criminal
liability of government officials
"in every case where the
evidence warrants in order to
promote efficient service by the
Government to the people."
○ Samson vs. Restrivera- ​the
jurisdiction of the Ombudsman
encompasses all kinds of
malfeasance, misfeasance, and
non-feasance committed by any
public officer or employee during
his or her tenure. Consequently,
acts or omissions of public
officials relating to the
performance of their functions as
Gilda Flores 1J SBU LAW 19
 government officials are within
the administrative disciplinary
jurisdiction of the Office of the
Ombudsman.
● Spouses Buffe v. Secretary Gonzales -
IBP has no jurisdiction over
government lawyers who are charged
with administrative offenses involving
their official duties. These are acts or
omissions connected with their duties
as government lawyers exercising
official functions in the CSC and within
the administrative disciplinary
jurisdiction of their superior or the
Office of the Ombudsman.
● In his complaint, complainant
imputes to respondent manifest
bias and partiality in the conduct
of the preliminary investigation
and issuance of the Resolution
which recommended the filing of
a criminal case against him. The
acts complained of arose from
respondent's performance or
discharge of official duties as a
public prosecutor. Hence, the
authority to investigate and
discipline respondent exclusively
pertains to her superior, the
Secretary of Justice
- respondent's
accountability as an
official performing or
discharging her official
duties is always to be
differentiated from her
accountability as a part which tends visibly to
member of the
Philippine Bar. For this
reason, the IBP has no
jurisdiction to
investigate respondent
for he is a government
lawyer.
- Case dismissed for lack
of jurisdiction.
VIDAYLIN YAMON-LEACH, COMPLAINANT, v.
ATTY. ARTURO B​.​ ASTORGA
● The respondent in this case made a
promises to execute several deeds and
despite being paid the amounts he
requested for the fulfillment of the said
promises, he did not do so.
● He also did not file his comment with the
Court when he was asked to (2003-2019).
● He even had the audacity to ask for
extensions.
- The court deemed it proper to
waive his right to commend and
proceed with the resolution of
the case.
● Respondent's attitude in repeatedly
ignoring the orders of this Court without
any justifiable reason, much less
explanation, only shows his utter
disrespect to the judicial institution.
● Respondent is an officer of the court. As
an officer of the court, respondent is
expected to know that a resolution of this
Court is not a mere request but an order
which should be complied with promptly
and completely and not partially,
inadequately or selectively.
- Moreover, as the courts'
indispensable partner in the
sacred task of administering
justice, graver responsibility is
imposed upon a lawyer, like
herein respondent, than any
other to uphold the integrity of
the courts and to show respect to
its processes. Thus, any act on his
obstruct, pervert or impede and
degrade the administration of
justice constitutes professional
misconduct calling for the
exercise of disciplinary action
against him
● Respondent’s failure to comply with the
court’s directives to file his comment =
Gilda Flores 1J SBU LAW 20
 willful disobedience and gross
misconduct.
● Gross misconduct - any inexcusable,
shameful, flagrant, or unlawful conduct on
the part of the person concerned in the
administration of justice which is
prejudicial to the rights of the parties or
to the right determination of a cause."
- It is a "conduct that is
generally motivated by a
premeditated, obstinate,
or intentional purpose.
● Sebastian v. Atty. Bajar - a criminality although the concept is broad
respondent-lawyer's failure to comply
with the lawful orders of this Court
constitutes gross misconduct and
insubordination or disrespect which,
alone, can merit the penalty of
disbarment.
● Due to the delay he cause, he is guilty of of
violating Canon 12 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility (Code), which
provides that "[a] lawyer shall exert every
effort and consider it his duty to assist in
the speedy and efficient administration of
justice." He also violated Rules 12.03 and
12.04, Canon 12 of the same Code, which
state, respectively, that "[a] lawyer shall
not, after obtaining extensions of time to
file pleadings, memoranda or briefs, let
the period lapse without submitting the
same or offering an explanation for his
failure to do so" and "[a] lawyer shall not
unduly delay a case, impede the execution
of a judgment or misuse court processes.
● Four-fold duty of lawyers: to the
profession, to the society, the courts, and
their clients in accordance with the values
and norms of the legal profession as
embodied in the Code.
- Falling short of this standard, the
Court will not hesitate to
discipline an erring lawyer by
imposing an appropriate penalty
based on the exercise of sound
judicial discretion in
consideration of the surrounding
facts
● Respondent was also said to have violated
Article 19 of the Civil Code.
● Respondent is, likewise, guilty of
violating Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code
which states that "a lawyer shall not
engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct." Any act or omission
that is contrary to, or prohibited or
unauthorized by, or in defiance of,
disobedient to, or disregards the law is
unlawful. Unlawful conduct does not
necessarily imply the element of
enough to include such element. To be
dishonest means the disposition to lie,
cheat, deceive, defraud, or betray; be
unworthy; lacking in integrity, honesty,
probity, integrity in principle, fairness,
and straightforwardness, while conduct
that is deceitful means the proclivity for
fraudulent and deceptive
misrepresentation, artifice or device that
is used upon another who is ignorant of
the true facts, to the prejudice and
damage of the party imposed upon
(Gonzales v. Atty. Banares).
● Saladaga v. Atty. Astorga - In order to
be deceitful, the person must either have
knowledge of the falsity or acted in
reckless and conscious ignorance thereof,
especially if the parties are not on equal
terms, and was done with the intent that
the aggrieved party act thereon, and the
latter indeed acted in reliance of the false
statement or deed in the manner
contemplated to his injury.
● San Juan v. Atty. Venida - deceitful
conduct involves moral turpitude and
includes anything done contrary to
justice, modesty or good morals.
- It is an act of baseness, vileness
or depravity in the private and
social duties which a man owes
to his fellowmen or to society in
general, contrary to justice,
honesty, modesty, or good
morals.
Gilda Flores 1J SBU LAW 21
 ● Good moral character = continuing
requirement for membership in the bar.
● Respondent was also penalized in two
previous administrative cases.
● Respondent is disbarred.
MARIFE A. VENZON, COMPLAINANT, v. ATTY.
AMADOR B. PELEO III
● The respondent in this case was charged
with violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR)
and Section 3(D) of Republic Act 9262
(RA 9262) or the Anti-Violence Against
Women and Their Children Act of 2004
for his alleged refusal to provide child
support to his son, a minor.
● Complainant engaged the services for the
nullity of her marriage. When the
annulment came through, complainant
and respondent were already in a serious
relationship. Sometime in 1998, she gave
birth to respondent’s son.
● During the succeeding years, respondent
no longer visited them as frequently as
before; he also stopped giving them
financial support. Respondent
continuously ignored her pleas.
● Turns out , illing up the blank spaces on
his son's Certificate of Live Birth, he
indicated that they got married on May 1,
1996 in Manila when in truth they never
got married. In fact, they only met for the
first time on May 6, 1996.
- And, Respondent was legally married
to Erlinda Sierra when he intimately
got involved with her. He remained a
married man before, during, and after
he sired a son with her. He led her to
believe he was determined to sever his
marital ties with his wife by filing a
petition for judicial declaration of
nullity of marriage. As it tuned out, he
never actually meant it to be.
● It was also pointed out that he had been
having illicit affairs with many other
women.
● He also fraudulently secured a senior
citizen card.
● Respondent is charged with violation of
Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, Respondent
is charged with violation of Rule 1.01,
Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, forbidding lawyers from
engaging in un​lawful, dishonest, or
deceitful conduct. The specific acts he
allegedly committed are as follows:
1. Maintaining a sexual relation with complainant
when his marriage with his spouse had not been
terminated.
2. Maintaining several other faithless relations
with other women while in permanent relations
with his spouse and complainant.
- Illicit relations - ground for disbarment
3. Misusing the legal process of filing a petition for
nullity of marriage to convince complainant that
he was truly determined to end his marriage with
his wife.
- Lawyers are ordained to avoid casual
resort to judicial processes for their
personal gain. As officers of the court,
they ought to foster respect for court
procedures and processes and be the
frontline of defense against those who
wittingly and willingly misuse and/or
abuse them. Court processes are, and
should forever be, available only for the
redress of genuine grievances and should
not be used to suit the whims of
unscrupulous individuals. By his actions,
respondent undeniably misused and
abused the court processes to suit his
whims. Respondent is guilty of violating
Canon 10, Rule 10.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, viz:
CANON 10 - A LAWYER OWES CANDOR,
FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE
COURT
Gilda Flores 1J SBU LAW 22
 ​Rule 10.03 - A lawyer shall observe the rules of
procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat the
ends of justice.
4. Falsifying entries in his son's birth certificate.
- falsification is a crime. Falsification of a
public document aggravates this crime.
That he did so to give the impression to
the public that his son is of legitimate
status is foisting a fraud on both the
public and his son. This act shows that he
is not only prone to committing a crime,
something that should already impact on
his fitness to remain as a lawyer, but is
also a serial fraudster.
- The respondent cannot be relieved by his
justifications and submis​sions. 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.
- Young v. Batuegas - 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. The courts, on the other hand,
are entitled to expect only complete
honesty from law​yers appearing and
pleading before them. While a lawyer has
the solemn duty to defend his client's
rights and is expected to display the
utmost zeal in defense of his client's
cause, his conduct must never be at the
expense of truth.
5. Failing to give child support.
- Not doing so is contrary to law.
6. Seriously disrespecting the authority and
dignity of the IBP when he disregarded an
agreement brokered by the IBP between him and
complainant.
- Canon 7. A lawyer shall at all times
uphold the integrity and dignity of the
legal profession and support the activities
of the integrated bar.
7. Deceiving the government and private
businesses by availing of the Senior Citizens' card
to which he was not entitled.
- This is plain dishonesty and fraud, again,
a transgression of his series of
transgressions of his lawyer's oath to do
no falsehood. His temerity in claiming he
did it "for discount purposes only
● Estrada v. Escrtor - concurring opinion
- Clearly, "immorality" as a
category of offense for the
dismissal of a public servant or a
judicial employee should not be
construed as any violat​ ion of
moral prescriptions. Otherwise,
this tack would only embroil this
Court in the eternal debate on
divergent moral theories and
systems. For a public servant, the
pivotal question in determining
administrative culpabil​ity ought
to be whether the challenged
conduct was ultimately prejudicial
to public service. We cannot snoop
into bedrooms and peer under bed
cov​ ers without running afoul of
every person's constitutionally
protected ind ​ ividuality. Quite
interestingly, in American
jurisprudence, conduct affecting
one's personal character has been
excluded from the ambit of
actionable behavior. It stressed:
"But conduct amounting to mere
irregularity or merely affecting
one's character as a private
individual is not usually covered
by the term 'malconduct'."
Gilda Flores 1J SBU LAW 23
 - It is more than a matter of
sympathy; it is a clear does of
justice indeed to conclude that
respondent did not fail to live up
to her ethical obl​ igations; in
conscience and in law, this Court
should be the last, and never, to
cast the stone and stamp the
badge of infamy upon her
legitimate desire for personal
security and safety that in reality
has bothered no one, least of all,
our own judicial institution.
● Respondent is disbarred.
J​ULIANA P. AREVALO, SOUVEN P. AREVALO
AND OSCAR P. AREVALO, JR., v. HON. ELI C.
POSUGAC
● The respondent in this case was charged
with grave misconduct and gross
ignorance of the law which lead to the
complainants’ arbitrary arrest.
● The provincial prosecutor’s office
dismissed the case since there was no
sufficient ground to engender a
well-founded belief that the crimes as
charged (grave threats) were committed.
● Guillermo v. Judge Reyes, Jr. - ​"It is
elementary that not every error or
mistake that a judge commits to the
performance of his duties renders him
liable, unless he is shown to have acted in
bad faith or with deliberate intent to do
an injustice. Good faith and absence of
malice, corrupt motives or improper
considerations are sufficient defenses in
which a judge charged with ignorance of
the law can find refuge.
● Heirs of Nasser D. Yasin v. Felix - "It
bears reiterating that to constitute gross
ignorance of the law, it is not enough that
the subject's decision, order or actuation
of the judge in the performance of his
official duties is contrary to existing law
and jurisprudence but, most importantly,
he must be moved by bad faith, fraud,
dishonesty or corruption.
● Aside from the arbitrary arrest, The
Respondent made an erroneous
interpretation of the applicable
procedural rules by not forwarding the
cases to the Office of the Provincial
Prosecutor for preliminary investigation
as required by Sec. 1, Rule 112 when the
applicable penalty is prision correccional.
● Complainants also said that they were
unlawfully deprived of their liberty due
process as well their basic rights under
Section 1, Article III of the 1987
Constitution and speedy disposition of
cases.
● Justice v. Judge Mislang - G ross
ignorance of the law is the disregard of
basic rules and settled jurisprudence. A
judge may also be administratively liable
if shown to have been motivated by bad
faith, fraud, dishonesty or corruption in
ignoring, contradicting or failing to apply
settled law and jurisprudence. Though
not every judicial error bespeaks
ignorance of the law and that, if
committed in good faith, does not warrant
administrative sanction, the same applies
only in cases within the parameters of
tolerable misjudgment. Where the law is
straightforward and the facts so evident,
failure to know it or to act as if one does
not know it constitutes gross ignorance of
the law. A judge is presumed to have
acted with regularity and good faith in the
performance of judicial functions. But a
blatant disregard of the clear and
unmistakable provisions of a statute, as
well as Supreme Court circulars enjoining
their strict compliance, upends this
presumption and subjects the magistrate
to corresponding administrative
sanctions.
- For liability to attach for
ignorance of the law, the assailed
order, decision or actuation of
the judge in the performance of
official duties must not only be
Gilda Flores 1J SBU LAW 24
 found erroneous but, most
importantly, it must also be
established that he was moved by
bad faith, dishonesty, hatred, or
some other like motive. Judges
are expected to exhibit more than
just cursory acquaintance with
statutes and procedural laws.
They must know the laws and
apply them properly in all good
faith. Judicial competence
requires no less. Thus,
unfamiliarity with the rules is a
sign of incompetence. Basic rules
must be at the palm of his hand.
When a judge displays utter lack
of familiarity with the rules, he
betrays the confidence of the
public in the courts. Ignorance of
the law is the mainspring of
injustice. Judges owe it to the
public to be knowledgeable,
hence, they are expected to have
more than just a modicum of
acquaintance with the statutes
and procedural rules; they must
know them by heart. When the
inefficiency springs from a failure
to recognize such a basis and
elemental rule, a law or a
principle in the discharge of his
functions, a judge is either too
incompetent and undeserving of
the position and the prestigious
title he holds or he is too vicious
that the oversight or omission
was deliberately done in bad
faith and in grave abuse of
judicial authority
● The judge in this case erred in two basic
rules on summary procedure and
preliminary investigations - Sec. 16.
Arrest of accused. - The court shall not
order the arrest of the accused except for
failure to appear whenever required.
Release of the person arrested shall either
be on bail or on recognizance by a
responsible citizen acceptable to the
court.
● Section 1 of Rule 112 of the Revised Rules
of Criminal Procedure, on the other hand,
prescribes the cases where preliminary
investigations are vital, to wit:
Section 1. Preliminary investigation
defined; when required. - Preliminary
investigation is an inquiry or proceeding
to determine whether there is sufficient
ground to engender a well-founded belief
that a crime has been committed and the
respondent is probably guilty thereof, and
should be held for trial.
Except as provided in Section 7 of this
Rule, a preliminary investigation is
required to be conducted before the filing
of a complaint or information for an
offense where the penalty prescribed by
law is at least four (4) years, two (2)
months and one (1) day without regard to
the fine.
● The outright issuance of warrants of
arrest against the complainants
notwithstanding the applicability of the
the foregoing rules showed his serious
lack of knowledge and understanding of
basic legal rules and principles.
● Uy v. Judge Javellana - Every judge is
required to observe the law. When the
law is sufficiently basic, a judge owes it
to his office to simply apply it; and
anything less than that would be
constitutive of gross ignorance of the
law. In short, when the law is so
elementary, not to be aware of it
constitutes gross ignorance of the law
● Good faith in respondent’s case is futile.
● their bail and left the disputed subject of
land, fails to vindicate. Magistrates are
seriously reminded to be constantly
prudent and cautious in their actions,
prompted by the truth that the faith of the
public in our courts depends principally
on the proper discharge of their vital
functions. A judge's careful and proper
application of basic laws and procedural
Gilda Flores 1J SBU LAW 25
 rules from the onset of criminal cases is
warranted, especially as in this case
where the respondent judge's ruling to
issue warrants of arrest affected
complainants' basic constitutional rights.
● Penalty: Considering the circumstances
of the present case, the Court deems that
the penalty of fine in the amount of Forty
Thousand Pesos (P40,000.00) should be
imposed upon the respondent judge. This
is coupled with a warning that a same or
similar act shall be dealt with by the Court
more severely. Under Section 8 of Rule
140 of the Rules of Court on the Discipline
of Judges and Justices, as amended by
A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC, gross ignorance of
the law is a serious charge that carries
with it the following imposable penalties:
Dismissal from the service,
forfeiture of all or part of the benefits as
the Court may determine, and
disqualification from reinstatement or
appointment to any public office,
including government-owned or
controlled corporations; Provided,
however, That the forfeiture of benefits
shall in no case include accrued leave
credits;
Suspension from office without
salary and other benefits for more than
three (3) but not exceeding six (6)
months; or
A fine of more than P20,000.00
but not exceeding P40,000.00.
Presiding Judge Tomas Eduardo Maddela III v.
Presiding Judge Norman Pamintuan
- Consolidated cases: OFFICE OF THE
COURT ADMINISTRATOR,
COMPLAINANT, v. PRESIDING JUDGE
NORMAN V. PAMINTUAN
● The subject of the complaint is the alleged
failure and neglect of Judge Norman .
Pamintuan to perform the solemnization
of marriage of applicants after their
requests had been raffled to him,
pursuant to OCA.
● See: Guidelines on the Solemnization of
Marriage by the Members of the Judiciary.
● Judge Maddela and Judge Ligaya alleged
that the Office of the Clerk of Court-RTC
referred and endorsed the requests for
solemnization of marriage to other judges
because respondent was, on the
scheduled dates, either absent or
unavailable due to either high blood
pressure, flu, loose bowel movement, or
fever. They further averred that, being
among the judges to whom said requests
were consequently referred, they were
confronted with verbal complaints from
the couples intending to get married and
from their parents and relatives who
found themselves being ushered out of
the courtroom after being told that
respondent was absent.
- This was said to constitute to
“shirking from judicial duty”
- OCA Circular No. 87-2008, which
mandates the strict observance
by judges in multiple sala courts
of the raffling of requests for
solemnization of marriage due to
numerous anomalies discovered
during various judicial audits in
the lower courts. The circular
provides in paragraph (c) that
"[u]nless for valid reasons, the
refusal of a judge to participate in
the raffle of request for
solemnization of marriage shall
be construed as shirking from
judicial duty.
● The respondent was also charged for
bribery. He was trying to coax Judge
Paradeza to render a judgment of
conviction in a criminal case.
● The respondent also failed to decide 16
cases within the mandated period. The
cases were undisposed of despite the
lapse of the reglementary period.
In sum, respondent is charged with the
following acts: Respondent is charged with the
Gilda Flores 1J SBU LAW 26
following acts: (1) shirking from his judicial duty
to solemnize marriages raffled to him, (2)
attempting to bribe Exec. Judge Paradeza to
influence the outcome of a pending case in the
latter's sala, (3) engaging in conflict-of-interest
activities, and (4) failing to decide cases within the
mandated period.
There is substantial evidence to hold respondent
administratively liable for these charges.
1. OCA Circular No. 87-2008provides that
the Court, in its August 12, 2008
Resolution in A.M. No. 08-7-429-RTC,
resolved, among others, to "DIRECT the
Judges of multiple sala courts to strictly
observe the raffling of requests for
solemnization of marriage because of
numerous anomalies discovered in the
solemnization of marriage during various
judicial audits in the lower court. Unless
for valid reasons, the refusal of a judge to
participate in the raffle of request for
solemnization of marriage shall be
construed as shirking from judicial duty.
- Respondent was only on sick
leave for four days. For his other
absences he did not file
applications for leave. As a result
of his absences, three other
requests for marriages were re
raffled.
- Hence, such acts constitute a
violation of Supreme Court rules,
directives, and circulars.
2. The standard of substantial evidence is
satisfied when there is reasonable ground
to believe that respondent is responsible
for the misconduct complained of, even if
such evidence might not be
overwhelming or even preponderant.
- "[a]n accusation of bribery is
easy to concoct and difficult to
disprove
- is is owing to the fact that in
cases of this nature, no witness
can be called to testify on the
attempt at bribery. No third party
is ordinarily involved to witness
the incident. The only ones
present in such a case is the one
offering the bribe and the one to
whom the bribe is offered. This is
the reality of a charge of gross
misconduct on the basis of
bribery..
- is owing to the fact that in cases
of this nature, no witness can be
called to testify on the attempt at
bribery. No third party is
ordinarily involved to witness the
incident. The only ones present
in such a case is the one offering
the bribe and the one to whom
the bribe is offered. This is the
reality of a charge of gross
misconduct on the basis of
bribery.
- This is based on Mr. Dalit's
personal knowledge of the events
that day. Further, Mr. Dalit and
Atty. Aquino's accounts establish
that Exec. Judge Paradeza had
relayed to them the bribery
attempt of respondent
immediately after it occurred.
Their statements on this point
are admissible on the basis of the
doctrine of independently
relevant statements.
- Mr. Dalit further attested that
after respondent had left the
office, Exec. Judge Paradeza
immediately called him and
relayed to him respondent's
bribery attempt relating to the
case of People v. Terrie.
Further, he attested that Exec.
Judge Paradeza called Atty.
Aquino to his office and also
informed him of respondent's
attempt to bribe him.
● Gubaton v. Amador - that "[u]nder the
doctrine of independently relevant
statements, only the fact that such
statements were made is relevant, and
Gilda Flores 1J SBU LAW 27
 the truth or falsity thereof is
immaterial. The doctrine on
independently relevant statements
holds that conversations
communicated to a witness by a third
person may be admitted as proof that,
regardless of their truth or falsity, they
were actually made. Evidence as to the
making of such statements is not
secondary but primary, for in itself it
(a) constitutes a fact in issue or (b) is
circumstantially relevant to the
existence of such fact. Accordingly, the
hearsay rule does not apply and,
hence, the statements are admissible
as evidence
● Office of the Ombudsman v. De Zosa -
Misconduct is a transgression of some
established and definite rule of action,
more particularly, unlawful behavior or
gross negligence by the public officer. To
warrant dismissal from service, the
misconduct must be grave, serious,
important, weighty, momentous, and not
trifling. The misconduct must imply
wrongful intention and not a mere error
of judgment and must also have a direct
relation to and be connected with the
performance of the public officer's official
duties amounting either to
maladministration or willful, intentional
neglect, or failure to discharge the duties
of the office. In order to differentiate
gross misconduct from simple
misconduct, the elements of corruption,
clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant
disregard of established rule, must be
manifest in the former."
● Judge Buenaventura v. Mahalot -
Corruption, as an element of grave
misconduct, consists in the act of an
official or fiduciary person who
unlawfully and wrongfully uses his
station or character to procure some
benefit for himself or for another person,
contrary to duty and the rights of others.
● Furthermore, respondent’s act is violative
of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for
the Philippine Judiciary, specifically
Canons 1, 2, and 4.
CANON 1
Independence
SECTION 3. Judges shall refrain from influencing
in any manner the outcome of litigation or dispute
pending before another court or administrative
agency.
CANON 2
Integrity
SECTION 1. Judges shall ensure that not only is
their conduct above reproach, but that it is
perceived to be so in the view of a reasonable
observer.
SECTION 2. The behavior and conduct of judges
must reaffirm the people's faith in the integrity of
the judiciary. Justice must not merely be done but
must also be seen to be done.
CANON 4
Propriety
SECTION 1. Judges shall avoid impropriety and the
appearance of impropriety in all of their activities.
3. The New Code of Judicial Conduct for the
Philippine Judiciary mandates that
"propriety and the appearance of
propriety are essential to the
performance of all the activities of a
judge." Further, Section 1 of Canon 4
provides that "]judges shall avoid
impropriety and the appearance of
impropriety in all of their activities."
- Section 4 of Canon 1 states that
"judges shall not allow family,
social, or other relationships to
influence judicial conduct or
judgment. The prestige of judicial
office shall not be used or lent to
advance the private interests of
Gilda Flores 1J SBU LAW 28
 others, nor convey or permit
others to convey the impression
that they are in a special position
to influence the judge."
● he engaged in the following activities: (1)
the organization of the Freddie Aguilar
concert and solicitation of donations
therefor; (2) the celebration of the 60th
birthday of his wife in a venue owned by a
person who apparently has a pending
case for trafficking in the RTC of Olongapo
City; and (3) the organization of a
shooting event in his name and request of
donations therefor.
- The Court finds that his
participation in the above
activities, while not directly
related to his judicial functions,
duties, and responsibilities,
nonetheless constitutes a for the 16 cases.
violation of the New Code of
Judicial Conduct for the
Philippine Judiciary. As
previously stated, judges are
mandated to avoid the
appearance of impropriety in
their activities. Further, judges
shall not allow others to convey
the impression that they are in a
special position to influence him.
By engaging in such activities
that impart a sense of
impropriety, respondent violated
provisions of the New Code of
Judicial Conduct for the
Philippine Judiciary. It also
conveys the impression that he
may be influenced by certain
people involved in the said
activities.
4. “ The 1987 Constitution mandates that all
cases or matters be decided or resolved
by the lower courts within three months
from date of submission. Judges are
expected to perform all judicial duties,
including the rendition of decisions,
efficiently, fairly, and with reasonable
promptness.”
- the Court has previously
proclaimed that "[j]udges have
the sworn duty to administer
justice and decide cases promptly
and expeditiously because justice
delayed is justice denied.
- Despite having a minimal
caseload of sixty-two (62) cases,
respondent failed to decide
sixteen (16) cases, or 25.8%,
within the mandated period of
ninety (90) days.
- He argues, however, that he
should not be faulted for the
delay in the resolution of these
cases because it was caused by
the unexpected resignation of his
stenographer who failed to
complete and submit the TSNs
- The Court cannot exonerate
respondent from administrative
liability based on his flimsy
reason.
● Office of the Court Administrator v. Lopez
et al - the court in this case reminded
judges to decide cases with dispatch
and the failure of a judge to decide a
case within the required period is not
excusable and constitutes gross
inefficiency and non-observance of this
rule is a ground for administrative
sanction against the defaulting judge.
Upon proper application in
meritorious cases, however, the Court
has granted judges of lower courts
additional time to decide cases beyond
the 90-day reglementary period.
- In the instant case, respondent could
have applied for additional time to
decide the 16 cases beyond the
mandated reglementary period. He did
not do so. His failure to apply for
additional time is fatal to his defense.
Respondent's failure to decide the 16
cases within the mandated period
constitutes gross inefficiency and
Gilda Flores 1J SBU LAW 29
 undue delay in rendering decisions
assigned to him.
PENALTY: In previous administrative cases, the
Court imposed the penalty corresponding to the
most serious charge and considered the rest as
aggravating circumstances in accordance with
Section 50, Rule 10 of the Revised Rules on
Administrative Cases in the Civil Service
(RRACCS). However, it is more proper to impose
upon respondent separate penalties for each
offense he is adjudged administratively liable.
- BASIS: Boston Finance and Investment
Corp v. Judge Gonzales - set forth the
following guidelines in the imposition of
penalties in administrative matters
involving members of the Bench or court
personnel:
(a) Rule 140 of the Rules of Court shall
exclusively govern administrative cases
involving judges or justices of the lower
courts. If the respondent judge or justice
of the lower court is found guilty of
multiple offenses under Rule 140 of the
Rules of Court, the Court shall impose
separate penalties for each violation; and
(b) The administrative liability of court
personnel (who are not judges or justices
of the lower courts) shall be governed by
the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel,
which incorporates, among others, the
civil service laws and rules. If the
respondent court personnel is found
guilty of multiple administrative offenses,
the Court shall impose the penalty
corresponding to the most serious charge,
and the rest shall be considered as
aggravating circumstances
● The court in the present case did not
apply the said case; the discipline of
judges or justices of the lower courts, the
instant matter presenting the first
opportunity to do so, the Court applied
the said case in Re: Complaint Against Mr.
Ramdel Rey M De Leon and and Office of
the Court Administrator v. Laranjo.
Specifically, the Court applied its ruling on the
discipline of court personnel by imposing the
penalty for the most serious charge in the said
cases and considering the other charges as
aggravating circumstances.
Considering the foregoing, the Court shall impose
upon respondent separate penalties for each
count of administrative offense.
Gross misconduct is classified as a serious charge
under Section 8, Rule 14095 of the Rules of Court,
as amended by A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC. Section 11
(A) thereof provides that "[i]f the respondent is
guilty of a serious charge, any of the following
sanctions may be imposed:
Dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or part
of the benefits as the Court may determine, and
disqualification from reinstatement or
appointment to any public office, including
government-owned or controlled corporations.
Provided, however, that the forfeiture of benefits
shall in no case include accrued leave credits;
Suspension from office without salary and other
benefits for more than three (3) but not exceeding
six (6) months[;] or
A fine of more than P20,000.00 but not exceeding
P40,000.00."
On the other hand, under Section 9, Rule 14097 of
the Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. No.
01-8-10-SC, the offenses "undue delay in
rendering decisions" and "violation of Supreme
Court rules, directives, and circulars" are classified
as less serious charges. Thus, respondent may be
imposed with any of the following sanctions for
each of the said less serious charges:
Suspension from office without salary and other
benefits for not less than one (1) nor more than
three (3) months; or
A fine of more than P10,000.00 but not exceeding
P20,000.00.
For his gross misconduct in attempting to bribe
Exec. Judge Paradeza to enter a guilty verdict in
the case of People v. Terrie, the Court imposes
upon respondent the penalty of dismissal from
Gilda Flores 1J SBU LAW 30
service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits,
except his accrued leave credits, and with
prejudice to re-employment in the government,
including government-owned or controlled
corporations.

Considering that the Court has already dismissed

respondent, the penalty of suspension from office
without salary and other benefits is no longer
possible. Hence, the penalty of fine is more
appropriate in the case of his three less serious
charges.99 The Court, thus, imposes on
respondent a fine of Twelve Thousand Pesos
(P12,000.00) each for (1) undue delay in
rendering a decision in the cases assigned to him,
(2) violation of the Supreme Court rules,
directives, and circulars due to his act of shirking
from judicial duty, and (3) violation of the New
Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine
Judiciary by engaging in conflict-of-interest
activities.

Gilda Flores 1J SBU LAW 31