CANON 10 by: Rowneylin SJ. Sia Rudecon Management Corporation and Atty. Rugelio D. Tacorda v. Atty. Manuel N.

Camacho (A.C. No. 6403, August 31, 2004) FACTS: On September 3, 1998, Sisenando Singson, represented by herein respondent Atty. Manuel N. Camacho, filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City a complaint against herein complainant Rudecon Management Corporation for damages and reconveyance, docketed as Civil Case No. Q-98-35444. The case was originally raffled to Branch 79, RTC, Quezon City but was eventually re-raffled to Branch 85 of the same court. On September 21, 1998, Singson, again represented by Atty. Camacho, filed with Branch 78, RTC, Quezon City a "Motion for Intervention (With Attached Answer in Intervention With Affirmative Defenses and Compulsory Counterclaim)" in Civil Case No. Q-98-35326, entitled, "Rudecon Management Corporation,plaintiff-appellee vs. Ramon M. Veluz, defendantappellant," a case for unlawful detainer on appeal before said court. On October 1, 1998, Rudecon filed a motion before Branch 78 seeking to cite Singson and his counsel, Atty. Camacho, for contempt for having allegedly violated the rule against forum shopping. And the court, in its dispositive portion found them guilty. On the basis of the above-cited order, Rudecon and Tacorda filed the instant complaint for disbarment or suspension against Atty. Camacho. ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Manuel N. Camacho is liable for violation of Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. RULING: Although respondent was held to be guilty in forum shopping, the court agreed with respondent that there was no intention on his part to mislead the court by concealing the pendency of Civil Case No. Q-98-35444 in Branch 79 when they filed the Motion for Intervention and Answer in Intervention in Civil Case No. Q-98-35326 in Branch 78. Indeed, the first paragraph of the said Answer in Intervention shows that respondent and his client called the trial courts attention with respect to the pendency of Civil Case No. Q-98-35444. Herein complainant, which is the plaintiff in Civil Case No. Q-98-35326, does not dispute respondents allegation that the latter and his client attached to their Answer in Intervention a copy of their complaint in Civil Case No. Q-98-35444.

Complainants seek the disbarment or suspension of respondent from the practice of law for his having allegedly violated Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, however, in administrative cases for disbarment or suspension against lawyers, the quantum of proof required is clearly preponderant evidence and the burden of proof rests upon the complainant. Moreover, an administrative case against a lawyer must show the dubious character of the act done as well as of the motivation thereof. In the present case, complainant failed to present clear and preponderant evidence to show that respondent willfully and deliberately resorted to falsehood and unlawful and dishonest conduct in violation of the standards of honesty as provided for by the Code of Professional Responsibility which would have warranted the imposition of administrative sanction against him. Wherefore, Resolution No. XVI-2004-43 dated February 27, 2004 of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines is SET ASIDE and the instant administrative case filed against Atty. Manuel N. Camacho is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

Atty. Iluminada M. Vaflor-Fabroa v. Atty. Oscar Paguinto (A.C. No. 6723, March 15, 2010) FACTS: On October 10, 2001, complainant, who was Chairperson of the General Mariano Alvarez Service Cooperative, Inc. (GEMASCO), received a Notice of Special General Assembly of GEMASCO on October 14, 2001 to consider the removal of four members of the Board of Directors (the Board), including her and the General Manager. The notice was signed by respondent. At the October 14, 2001 Special General Assembly presided by respondent and PNP Sr. Supt. Angelito L. Gerangco (Gerangco), who were not members of the then current Board, Gerango, complainants predecessor, as Chair of the GEMASCO board, declared himself Chair, appointed others to replace the removed directors, and appointed respondent as Board Secretary. On October 15, 2001, respondent and his group took over the GEMASCO office and its premises, the pump houses, water facilities, and operations. On even date, respondent sent letternotices to complainant and the four removed directors informing them of their removal from the Board and as members of GEMASCO, and advising them to cease and desist from further discharging the duties of their positions. Complainant thus filed on October 16, 2001 with the Cooperative Development Authority (CDA)-Calamba a complaint for annulment of the proceedings taken during the October 14, 2001 Special General Assembly. The CDA Acting Regional Director (RD), by Resolution of February 21, 2002, declared the questioned general assembly null and void for having been conducted in violation of GEMASCOs By-Laws and the Cooperative Code of the Philippines. The RDs Resolution of February 21, 2002 was later vacated for lack of jurisdiction of CDA. Thus, complainant files a disbarment case against respondent. ISSUE: Whether or not respondent is liable for violation of Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. RULING: Respondents cavalier attitude in repeatedly ignoring the orders of the Supreme Court constitutes utter disrespect to the judicial institution. Respondents conduct indicates a high degree of irresponsibility. A Courts Resolution is "not to be construed as a mere request, nor should it be complied with partially, inadequately, or selectively". Respondents obstinate refusal

to comply with the Courts orders "not only betrays a recalcitrant flaw in her character; it also underscores her disrespect of the Courts lawful orders which is only too deserving of reproof. Lawyers are called upon to obey court orders and processes and respondents deference is underscored by the fact that willful disregard thereof will subject the lawyer not only to punishment for contempt but to disciplinary sanctions as well. In fact, graver responsibility is imposed upon a lawyer than any other to uphold the integrity of the courts and to show respect to their processes. The Court notes that respondent had previously been suspended from the practice of law for six months for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, he having been found to have received an acceptance fee and misled the client into believing that he had filed a case for her when he had not. It appears, however, that respondent has not reformed his ways. A more severe penalty this time is thus called for. Wherefore, respondent, Atty. Oscar P. Paguinto, is SUSPENDED for two years from the practice of law for violation of Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyers Oath, effective immediately.