canons 131415

7/30/2019 canons 131415

1/30

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

A.C. No. 7199 July 22, 2009[Formerly CBD 04-1386]

FOODSPHERE, INC., Complainant,vs.ATTY. MELANIO L. MAURICIO, JR., Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

CARPIO MORALES, J.:

Foodsphere, Inc. (complainant), a corporation engaged in the business of meat processing and manufacture and distribution of canned goods andgrocery products under the brand name "CDO," filed a Verified Complaint1 for disbarment before the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of theIntegrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) against Atty. Melanio L. Mauricio, Jr., popularly known as "Batas Mauricio" (respondent), a writer/columnist oftabloids including Balitang Patas BATAS, Bagong TIKTIK, TORO and HATAW!, and a host of a television program KAKAMPI MO ANG BATAS telecastover UNTV and of a radio program Double B-BATAS NG BAYAN aired over DZBB, for (1) grossly immoral conduct; (2) violation of lawyers oath and(3) disrespect to the courts and to investigating prosecutors.

The facts that spawned the filing of the complaint are as follows:

On June 22, 2004, a certain Alberto Cordero (Cordero) purportedly bought from a grocery in Valenzuela City canned goods including a can of CDOLiver spread. On June 27, 2004, as Cordero and his relatives were eating bread with the CDO Liver spread, they found the spread to be sour and soondiscovered a colony of worms inside the can.

Corderos wife thus filed a complaint with the Bureau of Food and Drug Administration (BFAD). Laboratory examination confirmed the presence ofparasites in the Liver spread.

Pursuant to Joint DTI-DOH-DA Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1993, the BFAD conducted a conciliation hearing on July 27, 2004 during whichthe spouses Cordero demanded P150,000 as damages from complainant. Complainant refused to heed the demand, however, as being incontravention of company policy and, in any event, "outrageous."

Complainant instead offered to return actual medical and incidental expenses incurred by the Corderos as long as they were supported by receipts, butthe offer was turned down. And the Corderos threatened to bring the matter to the attention of the media.

Complainant was later required by the BFAD to file its Answer to the complaint. In the meantime or on August 6, 2004, respondent sent complainantvia fax a copy of the front page of the would-be August 10-16, 2004 issue of the tabloid Balitang Patas BATAS, Vol. 1, No. 122which complainant foundto contain articles maligning, discrediting and imputing vices and defects to it and its products. Respondent threatened to publish the articles unlesscomplainant gave in to the P150,000 demand of the Corderos. Complainant thereupon reiterated its counter-offer earlier conveyed to the Corderos, butrespondent turned it down.

Respondent later proposed to settle the matter for P50,000, P15,000 of which would go to the Corderos andP35,000 to his Batas Foundation. Andrespondent directed complainant to place paid advertisements in the tabloids and television program.

The Corderos eventually forged a KASUNDUAN3seeking the withdrawal of their complaint before the BFAD. The BFAD thus dismissed thecomplaint.4Respondent, who affixed his signature to the KASUNDUAN as a witness, later wrote in one of his articles/columns in a tabloid that heprepared the document.

On August 11, 2004, respondent sent complainant an Advertising Contract5asking complainant to advertise in the tabloid Balitang Patas BATAS for itsnext 24 weekly issues at P15,000 per issue or a total amount of P360,000, and a Program Profile6of the television program KAKAMPI MO ANG

BATAS also asking complainant to place spot advertisements with the following rate cards: (a) spot buy 15-second TVC at P4,000; (b) spot buy 30-second TVC at P7,700; and (c) season buy [13 episodes, 26 spots] of 30-second TVC for P130,000.

As a sign of goodwill, complainant offered to buy three full-page advertisements in the tabloid amounting toP45,000 at P15,000 per advertisement, andthree spots of 30-second TVC in the television program at P7,700 each or a total of P23,100. Acting on complainants offer, respondent relayed to itthat he and his Executive Producer were disappointed with the offer and threatened to proceed with the publication of the articles/columns.7

On August 28, 2004, respondent, in his radio program Double B- Batas ng Bayan at radio station DZBB, announced the holding of a supposed contestsponsored by said program, which announcement was transcribed as follows:

"OK, at meron akong pa-contest, total magpapasko na o ha, meron pa-contest si Batas Mauricio ang Batas ng Bayan. Ito yung ating pa-contest,hulaan ninyo, tatawag kayo sa telepono, 433-7549 at 433-7553. Ang mga premyo babanggitin po natin sa susunod pero ito muna ang contest, o, aling
http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt1http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt2http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt2http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt3http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt3http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt4http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt4http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt5http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt5http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt6http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt6http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt7http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt1http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt2http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt3http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt4http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt5http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt6http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt7

7/30/2019 canons 131415

2/30

liver spread ang may uod? Yan kita ninyo yan, ayan malalaman ninyo yan. Pagka-nahulaan yan ah, at sasagot kayo sa akin, aling liver spread angmay uod at anong companya ang gumagawa nyan? Itawag po ninyo sa 433-7549 st 433-7553. Open po an[g] contest na ito sa lahat ng atingtagapakinig. Pipiliin natin ang mananalo, kung tama ang inyong sagot. Ang tanong, aling liver spread sa Pilipinas an[g] may uod?8(Emphasis anditalics in the original; underscoring supplied)

And respondent wrote in his columns in the tabloids articles which put complainant in bad light. Thus, in the August 31- September 6, 2004 issueofBalitang Patas BATAS, he wrote an article captioned "KADIRI ANG CDO LIVER SPREAD!" In another article, he wrote "IBA PANG PRODUKTO NGCDO SILIPIN!"9 which appeared in the same publication in its September 7-13, 2004 issue. And still in the same publication, its September 14-20, 2004issue, he wrote another article entitled "DAPAT BANG PIGILIN ANG CDO."10

Respondent continued his tirade against complainant in his column LAGING HANDA published in another tabloid, BAGONG TIKTIK, with the followingarticles:11 (a) "Uod sa liver spread," Setyembre 6, 2004 (Taon 7, Blg.276); 12(b) "Uod, itinanggi ng CDO," Setyembre 7, 2004 (Taon 7, Blg.277);13(c)"Pagpapatigil sa CDO," Setyembre 8, 2004 (Taon 7, Blg.278);14 (d) "Uod sa liver spread kumpirmado," Setyembre 9, 2004 (Taon 7, Blg.279);15 (e)"Salaysay ng nakakain ng uod," Setyembre 10, 2004 (Taon 7, Blg.280);16 (f) "Kaso VS. CDO itinuloy," Setyembre 11, 2004 (Taon 7, Blg.281);17(g)"Kasong Kidnapping laban sa CDO guards," Setyembre 14, 2004 (Taon 7, Blg.284); 18(h) "Brutalidad ng CDO guards," Setyembre 15, 2004 (Taon 7,Blg.285);19(i) "CDO guards pinababanatan sa PNP," Setyembre 17, 2004 (Taon 7, Blg.287);20(j) "May uod na CDO liver spread sa Puregold binili,"Setyembre 18, 2004 (Taon 7, Blg.288);21(k) "Desperado na ang CDO," Setyembre 20, 2004 (Taon 7, Blg.290);22(l) "Atty. Rufus Rodriguez pumadrinosa CDO," Setyembre 21, 2004 (Taon 7,Blg. 291);23 (m) "Kasunduan ng CDO at Pamilya Cordero," Setyembre 22, 2004 (Taon 7,Blg. 292);24(n) "Bakitnagbayad ng P50 libo ang CDO," Setyembre 23, 2004 (Taon 7,Blg. 293).25

In his September 8, 2004 column "Anggulo ng Batas"published in Hataw!, respondent wrote an article "Reaksyon pa sa uod ng CDO Liver Spread." 26

And respondent, in several episodes in September 2004 of his television program Kakampi Mo ang Batas aired over UNTV, repeatedly complained ofwhat complainant claimed to be the "same baseless and malicious allegations/issues" against it. 27

Complainant thus filed criminal complaints against respondent and several others for Libel and Threatening to Publish Libel under Articles 353 and 356of the Revised Penal Code before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City and Valenzuela City. The complaints were pending at he time of thefiling of the present administrative complaint.28

In the criminal complaints pending before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Valenzuela City, docketed as I.S. Nos. V-04-2917-2933, respondent filedhis Entry of Appearance with Highly Urgent Motion to Elevate These Cases to the Department of Justice,29alleging:

x x x x

2.N. The question here is this: What gives, Honorable (???) Prosecutors of the Office of the City Prosecutor of Valenzuela City?

x x x x

2.R. Can an ordinary person like Villarez simply be tossed around, waiting for miracles to happen?

2.S. Why? How much miracle is needed to happen here before this Office would ever act on his complaint?

x x x x

8. With a City Prosecutor acting the way he did in the case filed by Villarez, and with an investigating prosecutor virtually kowtowing to the wishes of hisboss, the Chief Prosecutor, can Respondents expect justice to be meted to them?

9. With utmost due respect, Respondents have reason to believe that justice would elude them in this Office of the City Prosecutor of Valenzuela City,not because of the injustice of their cause, but, more importantly, because of the injustice of the system;

10. Couple all of these with reports that many a government office in Valenzuela City had been the willing recipient of too many generosities in the pastof the Complainant, and also with reports that a top official of the City had campaigned for his much coveted position in the past distributing products ofthe Complainant, what would one expect the Respondents to think?

11. Of course, not to be lost sight of here is the attitude and behavior displayed even by mere staff and underlings of this Office to people who darecomplain against the Complainant in their respective turfs. Perhaps, top officials of this Office should investigate and ask their associates and relativesincognito to file, even if on a pakunwari basis only, complaints against the Complainant, and they would surely be given the same rough and insultingtreatment that Respondent Villarez got when he filed his kidnapping charge here;30

And in a Motion to Dismiss [the case] for Lack of Jurisdiction31which respondent filed, as counsel for his therein co-respondents-staffers of thenewspaper Hataw!, before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Valenzuela City, respondent alleged:

x x x x

5. If the Complainant or its lawyermerely used even a little of whatever is inside their thick skulls,they would have clearly deduced that this Officehas no jurisdiction over this action.32(Emphasis supplied)
http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt8http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt8http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt9http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt10http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt11http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt11http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt12http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt12http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt13http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt13http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt14http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt14http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt15http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt15http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt16http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt16http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt17http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt17http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt18http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt18http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt19http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt19http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt19http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt20http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt20http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt20http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt21http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt21http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt22http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt22http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt23http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt23http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt24http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt24http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt25http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt26http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt27http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt28http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt29http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt29http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt30http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt30http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt31http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt31http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt32http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt32http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt32http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt8http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt9http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt10http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt11http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt12http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt13http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt14http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt15http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt16http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt17http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt18http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt19http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt20http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt21http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt22http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt23http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt24http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt25http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt26http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt27http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt28http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt29http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt30http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt31http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt32

7/30/2019 canons 131415

3/30

x x x x

Meanwhile, on October 26, 2004, complainant filed a civil case against respondent and several others, docketed as Civil Case No. 249-V-04, 33 beforethe Regional Trial Court, Valenzuela City and raffled to Branch 75 thereof.

The pending cases against him and the issuance of a status quo order notwithstanding, respondent continued to publish articles againstcomplainant34and to malign complainant through his television shows.

Acting on the present administrative complaint, the Investigating Commissioner of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) came up with the followingfindings in his October 5, 2005 Report and Recommendation:35

I.

x x x x

In Civil Case No. 249-V-04 entitled "Foodsphere, Inc. vs. Atty. [Melanio] Mauricio, et al.", the Order dated 10 December 2004 (Annex O of theComplaint) was issued by Presiding Judge Dionisio C. Sison which in part reads:

"Anent the plaintiffs prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order included in the instant plaintiffs motion, this Court, inasmuch as thedefendants failed to appear in court or file an opposition thereto, is constrained to GRANT the said plaintiffs prater, as it is GRANTED, in order tomaintain STATUS QUO, and that allthe defendants, their agents, representatives or any person acting for and in behalf are hereby restrained/enjoinedfrom further publishing, televising and/or broadcasting any matter subject of the Complaint in the instant case more specifically the imputation of vicesand/or defects on plaintiff and its products."

Complainant alleged that the above-quoted Order was served on respondent by the Branch Sheriff on 13 December 2004. Respondent has not deniedthe issuance of the Order dated 10 December 2004 or his receipt of a copy thereof on 13 December 2004.

Despite his receipt of the Order dated 10 December 2004, and the clear directive therein addressed to him to desists [sic] from "further publishing,televising and/or broadcasting any matter subject of the Complaint in the instant case more specifically the imputation of vices and/or defects onplaintiff and its products", respondent in clear defiance of this Order came out with articles on the prohibited subject matter in his column "Atty. Batas",2004 in the December 16 and 17, 2004 issues of the tabloid "Balitang Bayan Toro" (Annexes Q and Q-1 of the Complaint).

The above actuations of respondent are also in violation of Rule 13.03 of the Canon of Professional Responsibilitywhich reads: "A lawyer shall notmake public statements in the media regarding a pending case tending to arouse public opinion for or against a party."

II.

x x x x

In I.S. No. V.04-2917-2933, then pending before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Valenzuela City, respondent filed his "Entry of Appearance withHighly Urgent Motion to Elevate These Cases To the Department of Justice". In said pleading, respondent made the following statements:

x x x x

The above language employed by respondent undoubtedly casts aspersions on the integrity of the Office of the City Prosecutor and all theProsecutors connected with said Office. Respondent clearly assailed the impartiality and fairness of the said Office in handling cases filed before it anddid not even design to submit any evidence to substantiate said wild allegations. The use by respondent of the above-quoted language in his pleadingsis manifestly violative of Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides: "A lawyer [s]hall [o]bserve and [m]aintain [t]he [re]spect[d]ue [t]o [t]he [c]ourts [a]nd [t]o [j]udicial [o]fficers [a]nd [s]hould [i]nsist [o]n [s]imilar [c]onduct [b]y [o]thers ."

III.

The "Kasunduan" entered into by the Spouses Cordero and herein complainant (Annex C of the Complaint) was admittedly prepared, witnessed andsigned by herein respondent.

x x x x

In its Order dated 16 August 2004, the Bureau of Food and Drugs recognized that the said "Kasunduan" was not contrary to law, morals, goodcustoms, public order and policy, and this accordingly dismissed the complaint filed by the Spouses Cordero against herein complainant.

However, even after the execution of the "Kasunduan" and the consequent dismissal of the complaint of his clients against herein complainant,respondent inexplicably launched a media offensive intended to disparage and put to ridicule herein complainant. On record are the numerous articlesof respondent published in 3 tabloids commencing from 31 August to 17 December 2004 (Annexes G to Q-1). As already above-stated, respondentcontinued to come out with these articles against complainant in his tabloid columns despite a temporary restraining order issued against him expresslyprohibiting such actions. Respondent did not deny that he indeed wrote said articles and submitted them for publication in the tabloids.
http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt33http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt34http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt34http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt35http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt33http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt34http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt35

7/30/2019 canons 131415

4/30

Respondent claims that he was prompted by his sense of public service, that is, to expose the defects of complainants products to the consumingpublic. Complainant claims that there is a baser motive to the actions of respondent. Complainant avers that respondent retaliated for complainantsfailure to give in to respondents "request" that complainant advertise in the tabloids and television programs of respondent. Complainants explanationis more credible. Nevertheless, whatever the true motive of respondent for his barrage of articles against complainant does not detract from the factthat respondent consciously violated the spirit behind the "Kasunduan" which he himself prepared and signed and submitted to the BFAD for approval.Respondent was less than forthright when he prepared said "Kasunduan" and then turned around and proceeded to lambaste complainant for whatwas supposedly already settled in said agreement. Complainant would have been better of with the BFAD case proceeding as it could have defendeditself against the charges of the Spouses Cordero. Complainant was helpless against the attacks of respondent, a media personality. The actuations ofrespondent constituted, to say the least, deceitful conduct contemplated under Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of ProfessionalResponsibility.36 (Underscoring supplied)

The IBP Board of Governors, by Resolution No. XVIII-2006-114 dated March 20, 2006, adopted the findings and recommendation of the InvestigatingCommissioner to suspend respondent from the practice of law for two years.

The Court finds the findings/evaluation of the IBP well-taken.

The Court, once again, takes this occasion to emphasize the necessity for every lawyer to act and comport himself in a manner that promotes publicconfidence in the integrity of the legal profession,37which confidence may be eroded by the irresponsible and improper conduct of a member of the bar.

By the above-recited acts, respondent violated Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which mandates lawyers to refrain from engagingin unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. For, as the IBP found, he engaged in deceitful conduct by, inter alia, taking advantage of thecomplaint against CDO to advance his interest to obtain funds for his Batas Foundation and seek sponsorships and advertisements for the tabloidsand his television program.

He also violated Rule 13.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which mandates:

A lawyer shall not make public statements in the media regarding a pending case tending to arouse public opinion for or against a party.

For despite the pendency of the civil case against him and the issuance of a status quo order restraining/enjoining further publishing, televising andbroadcasting of any matter relative to the complaint of CDO, respondent continued with his attacks against complainant and its products. At the sametime, respondent violated Canon 1 also of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which mandates lawyers to "uphold the Constitution, obey the lawsof the land and promote respect for law and legal processes." For he defied said status quo order, despite his (respondents) oath as a member of thelegal profession to "obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities."

Further, respondent violated Canon 8 and Rule 8.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which mandate, viz:

CANON 8 - A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor toward his professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tacticsagainst opposing counsel.

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

language.

Apropos is the following reminder in Saberon v. Larong:38

To be sure, the adversarial nature of our legal system has tempted members of the bar to use strong language in pursuit of their duty to advance theinterests of their clients.

However, while a lawyer is entitled to present his case with vigor and courage, such enthusiasm does not justify the use of offensive and abusivelanguage. Language abounds with countless possibilities for one to be emphatic but respectful, convincing but not derogatory, illuminating but notoffensive.1awphi1

On many occasions, the Court has reminded members of the Bar to abstain from all offensive personality and to advance no fact prejudicial to thehonor and reputation of a party or witness, unless required by the justice of the cause with which he is charged. In keeping with the dignity of the legalprofession, a lawyers language even in his pleadings must be dignified.39 (Underscoring supplied)

By failing to live up to his oath and to comply with the exacting standards of the legal profession, respondent alsoviolated Canon 7 of the Code ofProfessional Responsibility, which directs a lawyer to "at all times uphold the integrity and the dignity of the legal profession." 401avvph!1

The power of the media to form or influence public opinion cannot be underestimated. In Dalisay v. Mauricio, Jr.,41the therein complainant engagedtherein-herein respondents services as "she was impressed by the pro-poor and pro-justice advocacy of respondent, a media personality,"42only tolater find out that after he demanded and the therein complainant paid an exorbitant fee, no action was taken nor any pleadings prepared by him.Respondent was suspended for six months.

On reading the articles respondent published, not to mention listening to him over the radio and watching him on television, it cannot be gainsaid thatthe same could, to a certain extent, have affected the sales of complainant.
http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt36http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt36http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt37http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt37http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt38http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt38http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt39http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt39http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt40http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt40http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt41http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt41http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt41http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt42http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt42http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt36http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt37http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt38http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt39http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt40http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt41http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt42

7/30/2019 canons 131415

5/30

Back to Dalisay, this Court, in denying therein-herein respondents motion for reconsideration, took note of the fact that respondent was motivated byvindictiveness when he filed falsification charges against the therein complainant.43

To the Court, suspension of respondent from the practice of law for three years is, in the premises, sufficient.

WHEREFORE, Atty. Melanio Mauricio is, for violation of the lawyers oath and breach of ethics of the legal profession as embodied in the Code ofProfessional Responsibility, SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three years effective upon his receipt of this Decision. He is warned that arepetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.

Let a copy of this Decision be attached to his personal record and copies furnished the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Office of the CourtAdministrator for dissemination to all courts.

SO ORDERED.


Manila

SECOND DIVISION

A.M. No. 1769 June 8, 1992

CESAR L. LANTORIA, complainant,vs.ATTY. IRINEO L. BUNYI, respondent.

PER CURIAM:

This is an administrative complaint filed by Cesar L. Lantoria, seeking disciplinary action against respondent Irineo L. Bunyi, member of the PhilippineBar, on the ground that respondent Bunyi allegedly committed acts of "graft and corruption, dishonesty and conduct unbecoming of a member of theIntegrated Bar of the Philippines, and corruption of the judge and bribery", in connection with respondent's handling of Civil Case Nos. 81, 83 and 88then pending before the Municipal Court of Experanza, Agusan del Sur, presided over by Municipal Judge Vicente Galicia 1 in which respondent Bunyiwas the counsel of one of the parties, namely, Mrs. Constancia Mascarinas.

Respondent Bunyi alleged that Mrs. Constancia M. Mascarinas of Manila was the owner of d farm located in Esperanza, Agusan del Sur, and thatherein complainant Lantoria was the manager and supervisor of said farm, receiving as such a monthly allowance. 2 It appears that the complaint inCivil Case Nos. 81, 83 and 88 sought to eject the squatters from the aforementioned farm. 3 These cases were assigned to the Municipal Court ofEsperanza, Agusan del Bur, the acting municipal judge of which was the Honorable Vicente Galicia (who was at the same time the regular judge of the

municipal court of Bayugan, Agusan del Sur). 4The defendants in the mentioned civil cases were, in due course, declared in default.

In relation to the same three (3) civil cases, the records of the present case show that complainant Lantoria wrote a letter to respondent Bunyi, dated23 April 1974, which reads as follows:

Atty. Ireneo Bunye928 Rizal AvenueSanta Cruz, Manila

Dear Atty. Bunye:

xxx xxx xxx

Upon informing him of your willingness to prepare the corresponding judgements (sic) on the 3 defaulted cases he said he hasno objection in fact he is happy and recommended that you mail the said decisions in due time thru me to be delivered to him.

xxx xxx xxx

I will communicate with you from time to time for any future development.
http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt43http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt43http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/ac_7199_2009.html#fnt43

7/30/2019 canons 131415

6/30

My best regards to you and family and to Mrs. Constancia Mascarinas and all.

Very trulyyours,

(SGD.)CESAR L

LANTORIA

Major InfPC (ret)

ExecutiveDirector5

On 01 June 1974, respondent Bunyi wrote to the complainant regarding the said three (3) cases, in this wise:

Dear Major Lantoria,

At last, I may say that I have tried my best to respond to the call in your several letters received, which is about the preparationof the three (3) Decisions awaited by Judge Galicia. The delay is that I have been too much occupied with my cases and otherprofessional commitments here in Manila and nearby provinces. Not only to Mrs. Mascarinas I would say that I am so sorry butalso to you. Mrs. Mascarinas has been reminding me but I always find myself at a loss to prepare these Decisions at an earlydate sa (sic) possible. So also with my calendar as to the dates for the next hearing of the remaining cases over there.

Herewith now, you will find enclosed the three (3) Decisions against the (3) defaulted defendants. I am not sure if they will suitto satisfy Judge Galicia to sign them at once. However, it is my request to Judge Galicia, thru your kind mediation, that if thepreparation of these Decisions do not suit his consideration, then I am ready and willing to accept his suggestions or correctionto charge or modify them for the better. And to this effect, kindly relay at once what he is going to say or thinks if he signs themreadily and please request for each copy for our hold.

xxx xxx xxx

Please excuse this delay, and thanks for your kind assistance in attending to our cases there. Regards to you and family andprayer for your more vigor and success.

Brotherlyyours,

(SGD.)IRINEO L.BUNYI6

Counse

It also appears that respondent Bunyi wrote an earlier letter to complainant Lantoria, dated 04 March 1974, the contents of which read as follows:

928 RizalAve., Sta.Cruz,ManilaMarch 4,1974

Dear Major Lantoria,

This is an additional request, strictly personal and confidential. Inside the envelope addressed to Judge Vicente C. Galicia, arethe Decisions and Orders, which he told me to prepare and he is going to sign them. If you please, deliver the envelope to himas if you have no knowledge and information and that you have not opened it. Unless, of course, if the information comes fromhim. But, you can inquire from him if there is a need to wait from his words about them, or copies to be furnished me, after hesigns them, it could be made thru you personally, to expedite receiving those copies for our hold. According to him, thisenvelope could be delivered to him at his residence at No. 345 M. Calo St., Butuan City, during week end. or, at Bayugan if youhappen to go there, if he is not in Butuan City.

Thanking You for your kind attention and favor.

Truly yours

7/30/2019 canons 131415

7/30

(SGD.) L.BUNYI 7

Three years after, that is, on 11 April 1977, complainant filed with this Court the present administrative case against respondent Bunyi, predicatedmainly on the above-quoted three (3) letters dated 04 March, 23 April and 01 June, 1974. Complainant contends that respondent won the said three (3)cases because to (respondent) was the one who unethically prepared the decisions rendered therein, and that the preparation by respondent of saiddecisions warranted disciplinary action against him.

By way of answer to the complaint, respondent, in a motion to dismiss 8 the administrative complaint, admitted the existence of the letter of 01 June1974, but explained the contents thereof as follows:

xxx xxx xxx

b) In the second place, the said letter of June 1, 1974, is self-explanatory and speaks for itself, that if ever the same was writtenby the Respondent, it was due to the insistence of the Complainant thru his several letters received, that the decisions inquestion be drafted or prepared for Judge Galicia, who considered such preparation as a big help to him, because he was atthat time holding two (2) salas one as being the regular Municipal Judge of Bayugan and the other, as the acting Judge ofEsperanza, both of Agusan del Sur, with many pending cases and it was to the benefit of the Complainant that the earlydisposition of the cases involved would not suffer inconsiderable delay. But, the intention to draft or prepare the decisions inquestion was never spawned by the Respondent. Instead, it came from the under-standing between the Judge and thecomplainant who, from his several letters, had demonstrated so much interest to eject at once the squatters from the farm hewas entrusted to manage. Furthermore, the Complainant's conclusion that the said decisions were lutong macao is purely non-sense as it is without any factual or legal basis. He himself knew that Judge Galicia asked for help in the drafting of saiddecisions as at any rate they were judgments by default, the defendants lost their standing in court when they were declared indefault for failure to file their answers and to appear at the place and time set for hearing thereof (See first paragraph, letter of

June 1, 1974)

c) Thirdly, in the same letter, the decisions as prepared were in the form of drafts, as in fact, the letter mentioned subject tosuggestion or correction to change or modify for the better by Judge Galicia (Second paragraph, Ibid);

d) Fourthly, in the some letter, Responding (sic) even apologized for the delay in sending the same to the Complainant andexpressed his gratitude for his assistance in attending to the cases involved (Last paragraph, Ibid.)

In its resolution dated 28 November 1977, this Court referred the case to the Solicitor General for investigation, report and recommendation. 9 On 21July 1980, the Solicitor General submitted his report to the Court, with the following averments, to wit: 1) that the case was set for hearing on April 12,September 29, and December 18, 1978, but in all said scheduled hearings only respondent Bunyi appeared; 2) that in the hearing of 16 January 1979,both respondent and complainant appeared; 3) that at the same hearing, the Solicitor General reported the following development

Atty. Mercado submitted a letter of complainant dated January 16, 1979 sworn to beforethe investigating Solicitor, praying that the complaint be considered withdrawn, dropped

or dismissedon the ground that complainant "could hardly substantiate" his charges andthat he is "no longer interested to prosecute" the same. For his part, respondentmanifested that he has no objection to the withdrawal of the complaint against him. At thesame time, he presented complainant Lantoria as a witness are elicited testimony to theeffect that complainant no longer has in his possession the original of the letters attachedto his basic complaint, and hence, he was not prepared to prove his charges. 10 (emphasissupplied)

In his aforesaid report, the Solicitor General found as follows: a) that the letters of respondent Bunyi (dated 4, March and 1 June 1974), addressed tocomplainant, showed that respondent had indeed prepared the draft of the decisions in Civil Case Nos. 81, 83 and 88 of the Municipal Court ofEsperanza, Agusan del Sur, which he submitted to Judge Vicente Galicia thru the complainant; b) that those letters indicated that respondent hadprevious communications with Judge Galicia regarding the preparation of the decisions; c) that the testimony of complainant to the effect that he hadlost the original of said letters, and complainant's withdrawal of the complaint in the case at bar are of no moment, as respondent Bunyi, and his motionto dismiss filed with the Supreme Court, admitted that he prepared the draft of the decisions in the said civil cases, and be affirmed the existence of theletters.

Hence, in his report, the Solicitor General found that respondent is guilty of highly unethical and unprofessional conduct for failure to perform his duty,as an officer of the court, to help promote the independence of the judiciary and to refrain from engaging in acts which would influence judicialdetermination of a litigation in which he is counsel. 11 The Solicitor General recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for aperiod of one (1) year. He filed with the Court the corresponding complaint against respondent.

In his answer12 to the complaint filed by the Solicitor General, respondent manifested that in the future he would be more careful in observing his dutiesas a lawyer, and in upholding the provisions of the canons of professional ethics.

On 10 December 1980, the date set by this Court for the hearing of this case, the hearing was postponed until further notice. On 9 March 1981,respondent filed a manifestation 13 alleging that no hearing was as yet set in the case since the last setting on 10 December 1980, and he requested

7/30/2019 canons 131415

8/30

that the next hearing be not set until after six (6) months when be expected to return from the United States of America where he would visit hischildren and at the same time have a medical check-up.

On 28 October 1981, the date set by this Court for bearing in this case, respondent Bunyi and the Solicitor General appeared, and respondent wasdirected to submit his memorandum. Respondent Bunyi filed his memorandum on 16 November 1981. In said memorandum, 14 respondent submittedthat although he prepared the draft of the decisions in the civil cases, he did not offer Judge Galicia any gift or consideration to influence the Judge inallowing him to prepare the draft decisions. 15 He also offered his apology to the Court for all the improprieties which may have resulted from hispreparation of the draft decisions.

We agree with the observation of the Solicitor General that the determination of the merits of the instant case should proceed notwithstandingcomplainant's withdrawal of his complaint in the case, the respondent himself having admitted that the letters in question truly exist, and that he evenasked for an apology from the Court, for whatever effects such letters may have had on his duty as a lawyer.

With the admission by respondent of the existence of the letters upon which the present administrative complaint is based, the remaining issue to beresolved is the effect of the acts complained of on respondent's duty both as a lawyer and an officer of the Court.

We find merit in the recommendation of the Solicitor General that respondent, by way of disciplinary action, deserves suspension from the practice oflaw.

The subject letters indeed indicate that respondent had previous communication with Judge Galicia regarding the preparation of the draft decisions inCivil Case Nos. 81, 83, and 88, and which he in fact prepared. Although nothing in the records would show that respondent got the trial court judge'sconsent to the said preparation for a favor or consideration, the acts of respondent nevertheless amount to conduct unbecoming of a lawyer and anofficer of the Court.

Clearly, respondent violated Canon No. 3 of the Canons of Professional Ethics (which were enforced at the time respondent committed the actsadmitted by him), which provides as follows:

3. Attempts to exert personal influence on the court

Marked attention and unusual hospitality on the part of a lawyer to a judge, uncalled for by the personal relations of the parties,subject both the judge and the lawyer to misconstructions of motive and should be avoided. A lawyer should not communicateor argue privately with the judge as to the merits of a pending cause and deserves rebuke and denunciation for any device orattempt to gain from a judge special personal consideration or favor. A self-respecting independence in the discharge ofprofessional duty, without denial or diminution of the courtesy and respect due the judge's station, is the only proper foundationfor cordial personal and official relations between bench and bar.

In the new Code of Professional Responsibility 16 a lawyer's attempt to influence the court is rebuked, as shown in Canon No. 13 and Rule 13.01, whichread:

CANON 13 A lawyer shall rely upon the merits of his cause and refrain from any impropriety which tends to influence, or

gives the appearance of influencing the court.

Rule 13.01 A lawyer shall not extend extraordinary attention or hospitality to, nor seek opportunity for, cultivating familiaritywith judges.

Therefore, this Court finds respondent guilty of unethical practice in attempting to influence the court where he had pending civil case. 17

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Irineo L. Bunyi is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year from the date of noticehereof. Let this decision be entered in the bar records of the respondent and the Court Administrator is directed to inform the different courts of thissuspension.

SO ORDERED.

FIRST DIVISION

[A.C. No. 3455. April 14, 1998]

7/30/2019 canons 131415

9/30

ARSENIO A. VILLAFUERTE, complainant, vs. ATTY. DANTE H.CORTEZ, respondent.

R E S O L U T I O N

VITUG, J.:

Feeling aggrieved by what he perceives to be a neglect in the handling of his casesby respondent lawyer, despite the latter's receipt of P1,750.00 acceptance and retainerfees, complainant Arsenio A. Villafuerte seeks, in the instant proceedings, thedisbarment of Atty. Dante H. Cortez.

From the records of the case and the Report submitted by the Commission on BarDiscipline ("CBD") of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines ("IBP"), it would appear thatsometime in January 1987, complainant, upon the referral of Atty. Rene A. V. Saguisag,went to the office of respondent lawyer to discuss his case for "reconveyance" (CivilCase No. 83-18877). During their initial meeting, complainant tried to reconstruct

before respondent lawyer the incidents of the case merely from memory prompting thelatter to ask complainant to instead return at another time with the records of thecase. On 30 January 1987, complainant again saw respondent but still sans therecords. Complainant requested respondent to accept the case, paying to the latter thesum of P1,750.00 representing the acceptance fee of P1,500.00 and P250.00 retainerfee for January 1987. Respondent averred that he accepted the money with muchreluctance and only upon the condition that complainant would get the records of thecase from, as well as secure the withdrawal of appearance of, Atty. Jose Dizon, theformer counsel of complainant. Allegedly, complainant never showed up thereafter untilNovember 1989 when he went to the office of respondent lawyer but only to leave acopy of a writ of execution in Civil Case No. 062160-CV, a case for ejectment, which,

according to respondent, was never priorly mentioned to him by complainant. Indeed,said respondent, he had never entered his appearance in the aforenumbered case.

In its report, IBP-CBD concluded that the facts established would just the sameindicate sufficiently a case of neglect of duty on the part of respondent. The CBDrejected the excuse proffered by respondent that the non-receipt of the records of thecase justified his failure to represent complainant. The IBP-CBD, throughCommissioner Julio C. Elamparo, recommended to the IBP Board of Governors thesuspension of respondent from the practice of law for three months with a warning thata repetition of similar acts could be dealt with more severely than a mere 3-monthsuspension.

On 30 August 1996, the IBP Board of Governors passed Resolution No. XII-96-191which -

"RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED andAPPROVED, the Report and Recommendation of the InvestigatingCommissioner in the above-entitled case, hereinmade part of thisResolution/Decision as Annex `A;' and, finding the recommendation therein to

7/30/2019 canons 131415

10/30

be fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws andrules, Respondent Atty. Dante Cortez is hereby SUSPENDED from thepractice of law for three (3) months with a warning that a repetition of theacts/omission complained of will be dealt with more severely."[1]

Both respondent lawyer and complainant filed with the IBP-CBD their respectivemotions for the reconsideration of the foregoing resolution.

On 23 August 1997, the Board of Governors passed Resolution No. XII-97-66 that -

"RESOLVED to CONFIRM Resolution NO. XII-96-191 of the Board ofGovernors Meeting dated August 30, 1996 SUSPENDING Atty. DanteCortez from the practice of law for three (3) months with a warning thatrepetition of the acts/omission complained of will be dealt with moreseverely."[2]

The Court agrees with the IBP-CBD in its findings and conclusion that respondentlawyer has somehow been remiss in his responsibilities.

The Court is convinced that a lawyer-client relationship, given the circumstances,has arisen between respondent and complainant. Respondent lawyer has admittedhaving received the amount of P1,750.00, including its nature and purpose, fromcomplainant. His acceptance of the payment effectively bars him from altogetherdisclaiming the existence of an attorney-client relationship between them. It would notmatter really whether the money has been intended to pertain only to Civil Case No. 83-18877 or to include Civil Case No. 062160-CV, there being no showing, in any event,that respondent lawyer has attended to either of said cases. It would seem that he

hardly has exerted any effort to find out what might have happened to his client'scases. A lawyer's fidelity to the cause of his client requires him to be ever mindful of theresponsibilities that should be expected of him. [3] He is mandated to exert his best effortsto protect, within the bounds of the law, the interests of his client. The Code ofProfessional Responsibility cannot be any clearer in its dictum than when it has statedthat a "lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence," [4] decreeing furtherthat he "shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him." [5]

Complainant, nevertheless, is not entirely without fault himself. He cannot expecthis case to be properly and intelligently handled without listening to his own counsel andextending full cooperation to him. It is not right for complainant to wait for almost twoyears and to deal with his lawyer only after receiving an adverse decision.

All considered, the Court deems it proper to reduce the recommended period ofsuspension of the IBP from three months to one month.

WHEREFORE, Atty. Dante H. Cortez is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice oflaw for a period of one month from notice hereof, with a warning that a repetition ofsimilar acts and other administrative lapses will be dealt with more severely thanpresently.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/apr1998/ac_3455.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/apr1998/ac_3455.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/apr1998/ac_3455.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/apr1998/ac_3455.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/apr1998/ac_3455.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/apr1998/ac_3455.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/apr1998/ac_3455.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/apr1998/ac_3455.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/apr1998/ac_3455.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/apr1998/ac_3455.htm#_edn5

7/30/2019 canons 131415

11/30

Let a copy of this Resolution be made a part of the personal records of respondentlawyer in the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court of the Philippines, and letcopies thereof be furnished to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and be circulated toall courts.

SO ORDERED.


Manila

THIRD DIVISION

A.C. No. 6155 March 14, 2006

MA. GINA L. FRANCISCO, JOSEPHINE S. TAN and CARLOS M. JOAQUIN,Complainants,vs.ATTY. JAIME JUANITO P. PORTUGAL, Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

TINGA, J.:

Complainants filed before this Court an affidavit-complaint1on 15 August 2003 against Atty. Jaime Juanito P. Portugal (respondent) for violation of theLawyers Oath, gross misconduct, and gross negligence. Complainants are related to petitioners in G.R. No. 152621-23 entitled SPO1 Ernest C.Francisco, SPO1 Donato F. Tan and PO3 Rolando M. Joaquin v. People of the Philippines, in whose behalf respondent filed the Petition for Review onCertiorari (Ad Cautelam) in the case.

The complaint against respondent originated from his alleged mishandling of the above-mentioned petition which eventually led to its denial with finalityby this Court to the prejudice of petitioners therein.

The facts are as follows:

On 21 March 1994, SPO1 Ernesto C. Francisco, SPO1 Donato F. Tan and PO3 Rolando M. Joaquin (eventually petitioners in G.R. No. 152621-23,collectively referred to herein as the accused) were involved in a shooting incident which resulted in the death of two individuals and the serious injuryof another. As a result, Informations were filed against them before the Sandiganbayan for murder and frustrated murder. The accused pleaded notguilty and trial ensued. After due trial, the Sandiganbayan2found the accused guilty of two counts of homicide and one count of attempted homicide.

At that juncture, complainants engaged the services of herein respondent for the accused. Respondent then filed a Motion for Reconsideration with theSandiganbayan but it was denied in a Resolution dated 21 August 2001. Unfazed by the denial, respondent filed an Urgent Motion for Leave to FileSecond Motion for Reconsideration, with the attached Second Motion for Reconsideration.3Pending resolution by the Sandiganbayan, respondent alsofiled with this Court a Petition for Review on Certiorari (Ad Cautelam) on 3 May 2002.

Thereafter, complainants never heard from respondent again despite the frequent telephone calls they made to his office. When respondent did notreturn their phone inquiries, complainants went to respondents last known address only to find out that he had moved out without any forwardingaddress.

More than a year after the petition was filed, complainants were constrained to personally verify the status of thead cautelam petition as they hadneither news from respondent about the case nor knowledge of his whereabouts. They were shocked to discover that the Court had already issued aResolution4 dated 3 July 2002, denying the petition for late filing and non-payment of docket fees.

Complainants also learned that the said Resolution had attained finality and warrants of arrest 5 had already been issued against the accused becauserespondent, whose whereabouts remained unknown, did nothing to prevent the reglementary period for seeking reconsideration from lapsing.

In his Comment,6respondent states that it is of vital significance that the Court notes that he was not the original counsel of the accused. He only metthe accused during the promulgation of the Sandiganbayan decision convicting the accused of two counts of homicide and one count of attemptedhomicide. He was merely requested by the original counsel to be on hand, assist the accused, and be present at the promulgation of theSandiganbayan decision.

Respondent claims that there was no formal engagement undertaken by the parties. But only because of his sincere effort and in true spirit of theLawyers Oath did he file the Motion for Reconsideration. Though admitting its highly irregular character, respondent also made informal but urgent andpersonal representation with the members of the Division of the Sandiganbayan who promulgated the decision of conviction. He asserts that becauseof all the efforts he put into the case of the accused, his other professional obligations were neglected and that all these were done withoutproper and adequate remuneration.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt6

7/30/2019 canons 131415

12/30

As to the ad cautelam petition, respondent maintains that it was filed on time. He stresses that the last day of filing of the petition was on 3 April 2002and on that very day, he filed with this Court a Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review,7 seeking an additional thirty (30) days to file thepetition. Subsequently, on 3 May 2002, he filed the petition by registered mail and paid the corresponding docket fees. Hence, so heconcludes, it was filed within the reglementary period.

Soon thereafter, respondent recounted all the "herculean" efforts he made in assisting the accused for almost a year after the promulgation of theSandiganbayan decision. He considered the fact that it was a case he had just inherited from the original counsel; the effect of his handlingthe case on his other equally important professional obligations; the lack of adequate financial consideration for handling the case; and his plansto travel to the United States to explore further professional opportunities. He then decided to formally withdraw as counsel for the accused. He

wrote a letter to PO3 Rolando Joaquin (PO3 Joaquin), who served as the contact person between respondent and complainants, explaininghis decision to withdraw as their counsel, and attaching the Notice to Withdraw which respondent instructed the accused to sign and filewith the Court. He sent the letter through registered mail but unfortunately, he could not locate the registry receipt issued for the letter.

Respondent states that he has asked the accused that he be discharged from the case and endorsed the Notice of Withdrawal to PO3 Joaquinfor the latter to file with the Court.Unfortunately, PO3 Joaquin did not do so, as he was keenly aware that it would be difficult to find a newcounsel who would be as equally accommodating as respondent. Respondent suggests this might have been the reason for the several callscomplainants made to his office.

On 9 February 2004, the Court resolved to refer the matter to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation. 1awph!l.net

The case was assigned to Investigating Commissioner Leland R. Villadolid,Jr. (Commissioner Villadolid) who sent notices of hearing to the partiesbut of the three complainants, only complainant Carlos Joaquin appeared. Thus, in the mandatory conference held, the other two complainants weredeclared as having waived their rights to further participate in the IBP proceedings.8

The parties were directed to file their respective position papers and on 27 May 2005, Commissioner Villadolid submitted his Report andRecommendation finding respondent guilty of violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility9 and recommended the imposition ofpenalty ranging from reprimand to suspension of six (6) months.1awph!l.net10 On 12 November 2005, the Board of Directors of the IBP resolved to adoptand approve Commissioner Villadolids recommendation to find respondent guilty and specifically to recommend his suspension for six (6) months aspenalty.

The only issue to be resolved in the case at bar is, considering all the facts presented, whether respondentcommitted gross negligence or misconduct in handling G.R. No. 152621-23, which eventually led to the adcautelam petitions dismissal with finality.

After careful consideration of the records of the case, the Court finds the suspension recommended by the IBP proper.

HELD:

In a criminal case like that handled by respondent in behalf of the accused, respondent has a higher duty to be circumspect in defending the accused

for it is not only the property of the accused which stands to be lost but more importantly, their right to their life and liberty. As held in Regala v.Sandiganbayan:11

Thus, in the creation of lawyer-client relationship, there are rules, ethical conduct and duties that breathe life into it, among those, the fiduciary duty tohis client which is of very delicate, exacting and confidential character, requiring a very high degree of fidelity and good faith, that is required by reasonof necessity and public interest x x x .

It is also the strict sense of fidelity of a lawyer to his client that distinguishes him from any other profession in society. x x x 12

At the onset, the Court takes notice that the ad cautelam petition was actually filed out of time. Though respondent filed with the Sandiganbayan anUrgent Motion for Leave to File Second Motion for Reconsideration with the attached Second Motion for Reconsideration, he should have known that asecond motion for reconsideration is a prohibited pleading13and it rests on the sound discretion of the Sandiganbayan to admit it or not. Thus, in effect,the motion did not toll the reglementary period to appeal. Having failed to do so, the accused had already lost their right to appeal long beforerespondent filed his motion for extension. Therefore, respondent cannot now say he filed the ad cautelam petition on time. Also important to note is theallegation of complainants that the Sandiganbayan denied the second motion for reconsideration in its Resolution dated 7 February 2002. Thisrespondent does not dispute.

As to respondents conduct in dealing with the accused and complainants, he definitely fell short of the high standard of assiduousness that a counselmust perform to safeguard the rights of his clients. As aptly observed by Commissioner Villadolid, respondent had not been quite candid in his dealingswith the accused or complainants. The Court notes that though respondent represented to the accused that he had changed his office address, still,from the examination of the pleadings14he filed, it can be gleaned that all of the pleadings have the same mailing address as that known tocomplainants. Presumably, at some point, respondents office would have received the Courts Resolution dismissing the petition. Of course, theprudent step to take in that situation was to at least inform the client of the adverse resolution since they had constantly called respondents office tocheck the status of the case. Even when he knew that complainants had been calling his office, he opted not to return their calls.

Respondent professed an inkling that the several phone calls of complainants may have been about the letter he sent PO3 Joaquin regarding hisdesire to be discharged as counsel of the case. However, though aware of such likelihood, respondent still did not return their calls. Had he done so,he and complainants could have threshed out all unresolved matters between them.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt14

7/30/2019 canons 131415

13/30

Had respondent truly intended to withdraw his appearance for the accused, he as a lawyer who is presumably steeped in court procedures andpractices, should have filed the notice of withdrawal himself instead of the accused. At the very least, he should have informed this Court through theappropriate manifestation that he had already given instructions to his clients on the proper way to go about the filing of the Notice of Withdrawal, assuggested by Commissioner Villadolid. In not so doing, he was negligent in handling the case of the accused.

Certainly, respondent ought to know that he was the one who should have filed the Notice to Withdraw and not the accused. His tale that he sent aregistered letter to the accused and gave them instructions on how to go about respondents withdrawal from the case defies credulity. It should havebeen respondent who undertook the appropriate measures for the proper withdrawal of his representation. He should not have relied on his client to doit for him if such was truly the case. Without the presentation of the alleged registry receipt (or the return card, which confirms the receipt of the mail by

the recipient) of the letter he allegedly sent to PO3 Joaquin, the Court cannot lend credence to respondents naked claim, especially so thatcomplainants have been resolute in their stand that they did not hear from respondent after the latter had filed the ad cautelam petition. He couldrelieve himself of his responsibility as counsel only first by securing the written conformity of the accused and filing it with the court pursuant to Rule138, Section 26 of the Rules of Court.15

The rule in this jurisdiction is that a client has the absolute right to terminate the attorney-client relation at anytime with or without cause. The right of anattorney to withdraw or terminate the relation other than for sufficient cause is, however, considerably restricted. Among the fundamental rules of ethicsis the principle that an attorney who undertakes to conduct an action impliedly stipulates to carry it to its conclusion. He is not at liberty to abandon itwithout reasonable cause. A lawyers right to withdraw from a case before its final adjudication arises only from the clients written consent or from agood cause.16

We agree with Commissioner Villadolid that the dismissal of the ad cautelam petition was primarily due to the gross negligence of respondent. TheCourt has stressed in Aromin v. Boncavil17that:

Once he agrees to take up the cause of the client, the lawyer owes fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidencereposed in him. He must serve the client with competence and diligence, and champion the latters cause with wholehearted fidelity, care, anddevotion. Elsewise stated, he owes entire devotion to the interest of the client, warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his clients rights, and theexertion of the 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. Thissimply means that his client is entitled to the benefit of any and every remedy and defense that is authorized by the law of the land and he may expecthis lawyer to assert every such remedy or defense. If much is demanded from an attorney, it is because the entrusted privilege to practice law carrieswith it the correlative duties not only to the client but also to the court, to the bar, and to the public. A lawyer who performs his duty with diligence andcandor not only protects the interest of his client; he also serves the ends of justice, does honor to the bar, and helps maintain the respect of thecommunity to the legal profession.18

Respondent has time and again stated that he did all the endeavors he enumerated without adequate or proper remuneration. However, complainantshave sufficiently disputed such claim when they attached in their position paper filed before the IBP a machine validated deposit slip in the amountof P15,500.00 for the Metro Bank savings account of one Jaime Portugal with account number 7186509273. 19Respondent has neither admitted nordenied having claimed the deposited amount.

The Court also rejects respondents claim that there was no formal engagement between the parties and that he made all his efforts for the casewithout adequate and proper consideration. In the words of then Justice Panganiban (presently Chief Justice) in Burbe v. Atty. Magulta: 20

After agreeing to take up the cause of a client, a lawyer owes fidelity to both cause and client, even if the client never paid any fee for the attorney-

client relationship. Lawyering is not a business; it is a profession in which duty of public service, not money, is the primary consideration.21

Also to the point is another case where this Court ruled, thus:

A written contract is not an essential element in the employment of an attorney; the contract may be express or implied. To establish the relation, it issufficient that the advice and assistance of an attorney is sought and received in any matter pertinent to his profession. x x x 22

Hence, even if respondent felt under-compensated in the case he undertook to defend, his obligation embodied in the Lawyers Oath and the Code ofProfessional Responsibility still remains unwavering. The zeal and the degree of fervor in handling the case should neither diminish nor cease justbecause of his perceived insufficiency of remuneration.

Lastly, the Court does not appreciate the offensive appellation respondent called the shooting incident that the accused was engaged in. He describedthe incident, thus: "the accused police officers who had been convicted of [h]omicide for the salvage of Froilan G. Cabiling and Jose M. Chua and[a]ttempted [h]omicide of Mario C. Macato."23Rule 14.0124of the Code of Professional Responsibility clearly directs lawyers not to discriminate clientsas to their belief of the guilt of the latter. It is ironic that it is the defense counsel that actually branded his own clients as being the culprits that"salvaged" the victims. Though he might think of his clients as that, still it is unprofessional to be labeling an event as such when even the

Sandiganbayan had not done so.

The IBP Board of Governors recommended the suspension of respondent for six (6) months, the most severe penalty recommended by CommissionerVilladolid, but did not explain why such penalty was justified. In a fairly recent case where the lawyer failed to file an appeal brief which resulted to thedismissal of the appeal of his client in the Court of Appeals, the Court imposed upon the erring lawyer the penalty of three (3) months suspension. 25TheCourt finds it fit to impose the same in the case at bar.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3) months. Let a copy of the Resolution befurnished the Bar Confidant for appropriate annotation in the record of respondent.

SO ORDERED.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/ac_6155_2006.html#fnt25

7/30/2019 canons 131415

14/30

SECOND DIVISION

[A.M. No. 5925. March 11, 2003]

RUBY MAE BARNACHEA, complainant, vs. ATTY. EDWIN T.QUIOCHO, respondent.

R E S O L U T I O N

CALLEJO, SR., J.:

On January 3, 2002, Ruby Mae Barnachea filed a verified complaint forbreach of lawyer-client relations against respondent Atty. Edwin T. Quiocho.

It appears that respondent had not been in the private practice of the lawfor quite some time. However, in September 2001, he decided to revive hislegal practice with some associates. Complainant engaged the legal servicesof respondent for the latter to cause the transfer under her name of the titleover a property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 334411 previouslyowned by her sister, Lutgarda Amor D. Barnachea. The latter sold saidproperty to complainant under an unnotarized deed of absolutesale. Complainant drew and issued BPI Family Bank Check No. 0052304 inthe amount of P11,280.00 and BPI Family Bank Check No. 0052305 in the

amount of P30,000.00, both dated September 5, 2001, or the total amountof P41,280.00 for the expenses for said transfer and in payment forrespondents legal services. Respondent enchased the checks.

However, despite the lapse of almost two months, respondent failed tosecure title over the property in favor of complainant. The latter demandedthat respondent refund to her the amount of P41,280.00 and return thedocuments which she earlier entrusted to him. However, respondent failed tocomply with said demands. On November 1, 2001, complainant received aletter from respondent informing her that he had failed to cause the transfer of

the property under her name and that he was returning the documents andtitle she had entrusted to him and refunding to her the amount of P41,280.00through his personal check No. DIL 0317787. Said check was drawn againsthis account with the Bank of Commerce (Diliman Branch) in the amountof P41,280.00 and was postdated December 1, 2001. Respondent toldcomplainant that he needed more time to fund the check. However,respondent failed to fund the check despite the demands of complainant.

7/30/2019 canons 131415

15/30

In his Answer to the complaint, respondent denied that complainantcontracted his legal services. Although respondent admitted having receivedthe two checks from complainant, he claimed that said checks were intendedto cover actual and incidental expenses for transportation, communication,representation, necessary services, taxes and fees for the cancellation andtransfer of TCT No. 334411 under the name of complainant and not for legalservices. He asserted that he acted in good faith as shown by the fact of hisreturn of complainants documents with an explanatory letter and his issuanceof a personal check for P41,280.00 dated December 1, 2001. He insisted thathe would not compromise for such meager amount his personal standing aswell as his membership in the legal profession. His failure to transfer the titleof the property under the name of the complainant was caused by his difficultyin making good the claimed amount, compounded by his affliction withdiabetes and the consequent loss of sight of his right eye.

Respondent further alleged that he was a licensed real estate andinsurance broker and had been a freelance business management consultant.

At the same time he engaged in real estate brokering, pre-need productsmarketing for Prudential Life, and life insurance underwriting for InsularLife. In 1999, he gave up the practice of his profession as a lawyer andsubsequently managed to put up a business center with fellow insuranceunderwriters for their common insurance underwriting practice. He furtherclaimed that sometime in August, 2001, an insurance client introducedcomplainant as an insurance prospect to him. In the course of their dealing,complainant intimated to respondent her willingness to consider respondents

insurance proposal provided the latter would help her facilitate thecancellation and eventual transfer to her name the property covered by TCTNo. 334411 in the name of complainants sister, Lutgarda Amor D.Barnachea. Respondent agreed to help complainant in the transfer of the titleto her name, with the condition that no diligent study or verification ofcomplainants documents, nor preparation of any additional document or anyapplication or petition whatsoever, will be made by respondent. He explainedto complainant that his task was merely to go through the regular process ofpresenting the available documents, paying the taxes and fees, and followingup the processing for the cancellation and issuance of the certificate of

title. In other words, respondent offered to complainant services which a non-lawyer familiar with the procedure and the related offices can perform andprovide to the complainant with respect to the transfer of the title of theproperty in her name.

Respondent asserted that in the latter part of September 2001, hediscovered and became aware for the first time that the original copy of TCT

7/30/2019 canons 131415

16/30

No. 334411 with the Register of Deeds of Quezon City was destroyed in a firein Quezon City Hall several years earlier and that complainants copy of thetitle needed to be reconstituted before it can be cancelled and transferred. Atabout the same time, the working relations of respondent in the businesscenter with his non-lawyer associates had become difficult and strained,impelling him to sever his business relations with them and cease from togoing to the business center. Consequently, telephone communicationsbetween respondent and complainant at the business center wascut. Communications became much more limited when, apart from the factthat respondent did not have a landline at his residence, respondents mobilephone was stolen sometime in October 2001.

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) designated Atty. Dennis B.Funa as Commissioner to conduct a formal investigation of thecomplaint. Despite several settings, respondent failed to appear and adduce

evidence.

On April 26, 2002, Investigating Commissioner Dennis B. Funa submittedhis report and recommendation stating in part that:

1. Respondent is not able to meet his financial obligations due to financial

difficulties, and that respondent is in good faith in his failure to meet this obligation.

2. It is recommended that respondent be ORDERED TO REPAY HIS CLIENT

within ninety (90) days from receipt of this Decision. The principal amount being

P41,280.00. Failure to comply with the Order shall be considered as proof of evident

bad faith, and shall be considered in the continuing evaluation of the case in view of

the continued failure to repay his client.

3. Respondent should also be given a WARNING that a repetition shall be dealt with

more severely.[1]

The Investigating Commissioner gave credence to the claim ofcomplainant that she engaged the legal services of respondent and paid himfor his services and that respondent failed in his undertaking and refund theamount of P41,280.00 to complainant despite her demands and thatrespondent appeared to be evading the complainant.

On October 19, 2002, the IBP Board of Governors passed Resolution No.XV-2002-550 adopting and approving the Investigating Commissionersrecommendation with the additional sanction ofreprimand for respondent:
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/mar2003/ac_5925.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/mar2003/ac_5925.htm#_ftn1

7/30/2019 canons 131415

17/30

RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED,

the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner of the above-

entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution/Decision as Annex A; and,

finding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the

applicable laws and rules, with modification. Respondent is hereby reprimanded and

ordered to return the Forty One Thousand Two Hundred Eighty (P41,280.00) Pesos

to complainant within ninety (90) days from receipt of notice. [2]

While the Court agrees with the Board of Governors that respondentshould be meted a disciplinary sanction, it finds that the penalty of reprimandrecommended by the Board of Governors is not commensurate to the gravityof the wrong committed by respondent. As found by the InvestigatingCommissioner, the complainant engaged the legal services of the respondent.

As admitted in his letter to the complainant, respondent had just resumed hisprivate practice of law two months before complainant contracted his servicesfor the notarization of the Deed of Absolute Sale, the registration thereof withthe Register of Deeds and the transfer of the title over the property to thecomplainant:

NOVEMBER 1, 2002

DEAR RUBY,

I AM SORRY I AM RETURNING YOUR DOCUMENTS WITHOUT CHANGES.

I HAD A SERIES OF MONEY PROBLEMS RIGHT AFTER YOU GAVE ME THETWO CHECKS AND COMING WITH THE AMOUNTS WITH PERSONAL

FUNDS.

I WAS REVIVING MY LEGAL PRACTICE ONLY FOR TWO MONTHS WHICH

WE MET AND HAD JUST SET UP THE OFFICE WITH TWO ASSOCIATES

WHICH A FEW WEEKS LATER WE HAD DISAGREEMENTS AND DECIDED

TO DISBAND. I WILL HAVE TO REFURBISH MY OFFICE. I AM ISSUING

MY PERSONAL CHECK TO GUARANTEE THE AMOUNT I TOOK. I NEED A

LITTLE TIME TO COVER THE AMOUNT. THANKS FOR YOUR

UNDERSTANDING.

(Sgd.) EDWIN.[3]

Respondents claim that complainant did not retain his legal services fliesin the face of his letter to complainant. Even if it were true that no attorney-client relationship existed between them, case law has it that an attorney may
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/mar2003/ac_5925.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/mar2003/ac_5925.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/mar2003/ac_5925.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/mar2003/ac_5925.htm#_ftn3

7/30/2019 canons 131415

18/30

be removed or otherwise disciplined not only for malpractice and dishonesty inthe profession but also for gross misconduct not connected with hisprofessional duties, making him unfit for the office and unworthy of theprivileges which his license and the law confer upon him.[4]

In this case, respondent failed to comply with his undertaking for almosttwo months. Worse, despite demands of complainant, he failed to refund theamount of P41,280.00 and to return to complainant the deed of absolute saleand title over the property. Respondents claim that complainant could notcontact him because he did not have any landline at his residence and that hismobile phone was stolen in October 2001, is hard to believe. He failed toadduce a morsel of evidence to prove that his telephone at the businesscenter was cut or that his mobile phone had been stolen. Even then,respondent could have easily contacted the complainant at her residence orcould have written her a letter informing her that the original copy of TCT No.

324411 in the custody of the Register of Deeds was burned when the QuezonCity Hall was gutted by fire and that there was a need for the reconstitution ofsaid title. Neither did respondent adduce evidence that he was a lifeinsurance underwriter for Insular Life or that he had been sick with diabetesand had lost his sight in his right eye. Respondent simply refused to adduceevidence to prove his allegations in his Answer to the complaint.

The Court is led to believe that respondents failure to cause the transferof the title of the property under the name of complainant was due to afinancial problem that beset him shortly after he received the checks from

complainant. It can easily be inferred from respondents letter that he usedcomplainants money to alleviate if not solve his financial woes. Whatcompounded respondents unethical conduct was his drawing of a personalcheck and delivering the same to complainant without sufficient funds in hisbank account to cover the check. Even as he promised to fund his accountwith the drawee bank, respondent failed to do so when the check becamedue.

A lawyer is obliged to hold in trust money or property of his client that maycome to his possession. He is a trustee to said funds and property.[5] He is tokeep the funds of his client separate and apart from his own and those of

others kept by him. Money entrusted to a lawyer for a specific purpose suchas for the registration of a deed with the Register of Deeds and for expensesand fees for the transfer of title over real property under the name of his clientif not utilized, must be returned immediately to his client upon demandtherefor. The lawyers failure to return the money of his client upon demandgave rise to a presumption that he has misappropriated said money inviolation of the trust reposed on him. [6] The conversion by a lawyer funds
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/mar2003/ac_5925.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/mar2003/ac_5925.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/mar2003/ac_5925.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/mar2003/ac_5925.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/mar2003/ac_5925.htm#_ftn5

Documents

canons 131415