Ethics Canon 7

8/19/2019 Ethics Canon 7

1/25

ETHICS CASES: ATTY. AYO – CANON 71

[ADM. CASE No. 6595. April 15, 2005]OSE!H SAMA"A, complainant , vs. ATTY. ANTON#ITTI $. !A"AA, respondent .

% E S O " # T I O N

A&C#NA, J.:

This is a complaint filed by Joseph Samala against respondent Atty. Antonuitti K. Palaa for allegedfraudulent activities that violate the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Sometime in ebruary !""#, complainant $as loo%ing for a company $here he could invest his dollar savings. &e met Raymond Taino, a trader'employee of irst (mperial Resources, (nc. )(R(*, a company locatedat +egaspi illage, -a%ati City. Taino introduced him to (R( -anager Jun Agustin, Chief Trader iosdado/ernal, and +egal 0fficer Antonuitti K. Palaa, the r espondent herein.

Complainant e1pressed his concern to the said three officers of (R( about having been $arned of numerous fraudulent businesses in the Philippines. Respondent assured him that through (R( he $ould bedirectly putting his investment $ith 2astern anguard ore1 +imited, a reputable company based in the irgin

(slands $hich has been in the foreign e1change business for #3 years. The three officers presented to him their company profile and documents purporting to establish their relationship $ith 2astern anguard ore1 +imited.

ue to the personal representations and assurances of respondent, Agustin, and /ernal, complainant $asconvinced and he invested his dollar savings $ith (R( on -arch 4, !""#.

Subse5uently, complainant decided to pull out his investment. 0n April 6, !""#, he sent (R( a letter re5uesting the $ithdra$al of his investment amounting to 7S8#",""" and giving (R( #" days to prepare themoney.

0n April #6, !""#, complainant as%ed Agustin $hen his money $ould be returned. Agustin told him thatthe re5uest $as sent to Thomas 9iu of 2astern anguard at 0rtigas Center. Complainant $ent to see Thomas9iu at his office. 9iu $as surprised $hen he sa$ the documents involving complainants investment. 9iu phoned Agustin and demanded an e1planation as to $here the money $as. Agustin said that he $ould returncomplainants investment at (R(s office in -a%ati. 0n the same day, in the presence of respondent, Agustindelivered to complainant a chec% in the amount of P

6:;,";6."4, as the peso e5uivalent of complainantsinvestment $ith (R(. 0n -ay !, !""#, the said chec% $as dishonored because it $as dra$n against insufficientfunds.

Complainant informed respondent of the dishonor of the chec%. Respondent assured him that the chec%$ould be replaced. 0n June #, !""#, respondent, as legal officer of (R(, gave complainant P!6",""" in cashand a chec% in the amount of P

3!4,";6."4. Respondent told complainant that the chec% $as signed by (R(President Paul esiderio in his )respondents* presence and assured complainant that the chec% $ould be

funded. /ut on June !


2/25


(t is evident from the foregoing that respondent and his cohorts violated the main purpose of the (R( /y'+a$sparticularly investment or foreign e1change business $hich must have been the reason $hy 9iu $as surprisedand got mad $hen complainant approached him about his dollar savings investment of 7S#",""" received bythe respondent as +egal 0fficer and the t$o )!* other alleged officers Agustin and /ernal of the (R(?,@ atransaction e1pressly prohibited by the (R( /y'la$s.?!@

Respondent $as found to have violated Rule :."3 of Canon : of the Code of Professional Responsibility,$hich statesB

Rule :."3 A la$yer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice la$, nor shall he,$hether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.

Commissioner =avarro thus recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of la$ for si1)D* months.

(n its Resolution dated July 3", !"";, the /oard of Eovernors of the (/P adopted and approved theReport and Recommendation of the (nvestigating Commissioner $ith the modification that respondent should besuspended from the practice of la$ for three )3* years.

This Court agrees $ith the (/P /oard of Eovernors.

The Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that a la$yer shall at all times uphold the integrity anddignity of the legal profession. ?3@ To this end, nothing should be done by any member of the legal fraternity $hichmight tend to lessen in any degree the confidence of the public in the fidelity, honesty and integrity of theprofession.?;@

(n this case, respondent assured complainant that by investing his dollar savings $ith (R(, his investment$as in a stable company, even if, as it $as later discovered, the by'la$s of (R( prohibited it from engaging ininvestment or foreign e1change business and its primary purpose is to act as consultant in providing professionale1pertise and reliable data analysis related to partnership and so on.

Fhen complainant decided to $ithdra$ his investment from (R(, the first chec% given to him in theamount of his total investment bounced. Thereafter, respondent, as legal officer of (R(, gavecomplainant P!6",""" in cash and a chec% for P3!4,";6."4. Respondent assured complainant that the secondchec% $as a good chec% and that it $as signed by Paul esiderio, the alleged president of (R(. &o$ever, thesaid chec% bounced because it $as dra$n against insufficient funds, and the dra$er of the chec%, Paulesiderio, could not be located $hen sought to be served a $arrant of arrest since his identity $as un%no$n andhis residential address $as found to be non'e1istent.

&ence, it is clear that the representations of respondent as legal officer of (R( caused material damage tocomplainant. (n so doing, respondent failed to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession andlessened the confidence of the public in the honesty and integrity of the same.

'HE%E(O%E, respondent Atty. Antonuitti K. Palaa is found E7(+T9 of violating Rule :."3 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and hereby S7SP2=2 from the practice of la$ for a period of three )3* yearseffective from receipt of this Resolution, $ith a FAR=(=E that a repetition of the same or similar acts $ill bedealt $ith more severely. +et a copy of this resolution be spread on the records of respondent, and furnished toall courts, the (ntegrated /ar of the Philippines, and the 0ffice of the /ar Confidant.

SO O%DE%ED.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/apr2005/ac_6595.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/apr2005/ac_6595.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/apr2005/ac_6595.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/apr2005/ac_6595.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/apr2005/ac_6595.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/apr2005/ac_6595.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/apr2005/ac_6595.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/apr2005/ac_6595.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/apr2005/ac_6595.htm#_ftn4


3/25


A.M. No. 192) A*+*- , 197)I/ - M--r o3 - I4! Mrip D* Dli/*/8 o3 A--. MA%CIA" A. EDI"ION I4!A;i/i-r-i

R 2 S 0 + 7 T ( 0 =CAST%O, C.J.:The respondent -arcial A. 2dillon is a duly licensed practicing attorney in the Philippines.

0n =ovember !4, #4:6, the (ntegrated /ar of the Philippines )(/P for short* /oard of Eovernorsunanimously adopted Resolution =o. :6'D6 in Administrative Case =o. -'# )(n the -atter of the-embership ues elin5uency of Atty. -arcial A. 2dillon* recommending to the Court the removal of thename of the respondent from its Roll of Attorneys for Gstubborn refusal to pay his membership duesG to

the (/P since the latterHs constitution not$ithstanding due notice.

0n January !#, #4:D, the (/P, through its then President +iliano /. =eri, submitted the said resolution tothe Court for consideration and approval, pursuant to paragraph !, Section !;, Article ((( of the /y'+a$sof the (/P, $hich readsB

.... Should the delin5uency further continue until the follo$ing June !4, the /oardshall promptly in5uire into the cause or causes of the continued delin5uency andta%e $hatever action it shall deem appropriate, including a recommendation to theSupreme Court for the removal of the delin5uent memberHs name from the Roll of Attorneys. =otice of the action ta%en shall be sent by registered mail to the member and to the Secretary of the Chapter concerned.

0n January !:, #4:D, the Court re5uired the respondent to comment on the resolution and letter adverted to aboveI he submitted his comment on ebruary !3, #4:D, reiterating his refusal to pay themembership fees due from him.

0n -arch !, #4:D, the Court re5uired the (/P President and the (/P /oard of Eovernors to reply to2dillonHs commentB on -arch !;, #4:D, they submitted a >oint reply.Thereafter, the case $as set for hearing on June 3, #4:D. After the hearing, the parties $ere re5uired tosubmit memoranda in amplification of their oral arguments. The matter $as thenceforth submitted for resolution.

At the threshold, a painsta%ing scrutiny of the respondentHs pleadings $ould sho$ that the propriety andnecessity of the integration of the /ar of the Philippines are in essence conceded. The respondent,ho$ever, ob>ects to particular features of Rule of Court #34'A )hereinafter referred to as the CourtRule* 1 in accordance $ith $hich the /ar of the Philippines $as integrated and to the provisions of par. !, Section !;, Article (((, of the (/P /y'+a$s )hereinabove cited*.

The authority of the (/P /oard of Eovernors to recommend to the Supreme Court the removal of adelin5uent memberHs name from the Roll of Attorneys is found in par. ! Section !;, Article (ll of the (/P/y'+a$s )supra*, $hereas the authority of the Court to issue the order applied for is found in Section #"of the Court Rule, $hich readsB

S2C. #". Effect of non-payment of dues. — Sub>ect to the provisions of Section #!of this Rule, default in the payment of annual dues for si1 months shall $arrantsuspension of membership in the (ntegrated /ar, and default in such payment for one year shall be a ground for the removal of the name of the delin5uent member from the Roll of Attorneys.

The all'encompassing, all'inclusive scope of membership in the (/P is stated in these $ords of the CourtRuleB

S2CT(0= #. Organization. There is hereby organied an official national body tobe %no$n as the H(ntegrated /ar of the Philippines,H composed of all persons $hosenames no$ appear or may hereafter be included in the Roll of Attorneys of theSupreme Court.

The obligation to pay membership dues is couched in the follo$ing $ords of the Court RuleBS2C. 4. Membership dues. 2very member of the (ntegrated /ar shall pay suchannual dues as the /oard of Eovernors shall determine $ith the approval of the

Supreme Court. ...

The core of the respondentHs arguments is that the above provisions constitute an invasion of hisconstitutional rights in the sense that he is being compelled, as a pre'condition to maintaining his status

as a la$yer in good standing, to be a member of the (/P and to pay the corresponding dues, and that asa conse5uence of this compelled financial support of the said organiation to $hich he is admittedlypersonally antagonistic, he is being deprived of the rights to liberty and property guaranteed to him by theConstitution. &ence, the respondent concludes, the above provisions of the Court Rule and of the (/P/y'+a$s are void and of no legal force and effect.

The respondent similarly 5uestions the >urisdiction of the Court to stri%e his name from the Roll of Attorneys, contending that the said matter is not among the >usticiable cases triable by the Court but israther of an Gadministrative nature pertaining to an administrative body.GThe case at bar is not the first one that has reached the Court relating to constitutional issues thatinevitably and ine1tricably come up to the surface $henever attempts are made to regulate the practiceof la$, define the conditions of such practice, or revo%e the license granted for the e1ercise of the legalprofession.

The matters here complained of are the very same issues raised in a previous case before the Court,entitled GAdministrative Case =o. 6!D, (n the -atter of the Petition for the (ntegration of the /ar of thePhilippines, Roman 0aeta, et al., Petitioners.G The Court e1haustively considered all these matters inthat case in its Resolution ordaining the integration of the /ar of the Philippines, promulgated on January4, #4:3. The Court there made the unanimous pronouncement that it $as

... fully convinced, after a thoroughgoing conscientious study of all the argumentsadduced in Adm. Case =o. 6!D and the authoritative materials and the mass of factual data contained in the e1haustive Report of the Commission on /ar (ntegration, that the integration of the Philippine /ar is Hperfectly constitutional andlegally unob>ectionableH. ...

/e that as it may, $e no$ restate briefly the posture of the Court.

An G(ntegrated /arG is a State'organied /ar, to $hich every la$yer must belong, as distinguished frombar associations organied by individual la$yers themselves, membership in $hich is voluntary.(ntegration of the /ar is essentially a process by $hich every member of the /ar is afforded anopportunity to do his share in carrying out the ob>ectives of the /ar as $ell as obliged to bear his portionof its responsibilities. 0rganied by or under the direction of the State, an integrated /ar is an officialnational body of $hich all la$yers are re5uired to be members. They are, therefore, sub>ect to all therules prescribed for the governance of the /ar, including the re5uirement of payment of a reasonableannual fee for the effective discharge of the purposes of the /ar, and adherence to a code of professionalethics or professional responsibility breach of $hich constitutes sufficient reason for investigation by the/ar and, upon proper cause appearing, a recommendation for discipline or disbarment of the offendingmember. 2

The integration of the Philippine /ar $as obviously dictated by overriding considerations of public interestand public $elfare to such an e1tent as more than constitutionally and legally >ustifies the restrictions thatintegration imposes upon the personal interests and personal convenience of individual la$yers.

Apropos to the above, it must be stressed that all legislation directing the integration of the /ar havebeen uniformly and universally sustained as a valid e1ercise of the police po$er over an importantprofession. The practice of la$ is not a vested right but a privilege, a privilege moreover clothed $ithpublic interest because a la$yer o$es substantial duties not only to his client, but also to his brethren inthe profession, to the courts, and to the nation, and ta%es part in one of the most important functions of the State the administration of >ustice as an officer of the court. ? The practice of la$ being clothed$ith public interest, the holder of this privilege must submit to a degree of control for the common good,to the e1tent of the interest he has created. As the 7. S. Supreme Court through -r. Justice Robertse1plained, the e1pression Gaffected $ith a public interestG is the e5uivalent of Gsub>ect to the e1ercise of the police po$erG )=ebbia vs. =e$ 9or%, !4# 7.S. 6"!*.

Fhen, therefore, Congress enacted Republic Act =o. D34: 5 authoriing the Supreme Court to Gadoptrules of court to effect the integration of the Philippine /ar under such conditions as it shall see fit,G it didso in the e1ercise of the paramount police po$er of the State. The ActHs avo$al is to Graise the standardsof the legal profession, improve the administration of >ustice, and enable the /ar to discharge its publicresponsibility more effectively.G &ence, the Congress in enacting such Act, the Court in ordaining theintegration of the /ar through its Resolution promulgated on January 4, #4:3, and the President of the

Philippines in decreeing the constitution of the (/P into a body corporate through Presidential ecree =o.#


4/25


The State, in order to promote the general $elfare, may interfere $ith and regulate personal liberty,property and occupations. Persons and property may be sub>ected to restraints and burdens in order tosecure the general prosperity and $elfare of the State )7.S. vs. Eome Jesus, 3# Phil !#


5/25


[4.M. No. 79. *l 0, 200?]IN %E: S#S!ENSION (%OM THE !%ACTICE O( "A' IN THE TE%%ITO%Y O( @#AM O(ATTY. "EON @. MA#E%A

% E S O " # T I O N

TIN@A, J.:

-ay a member of the Philippine /ar $ho $as disbarred or suspended from the practice of

la$ in a foreign >urisdiction $here he has also been admitted as an attorney be meted the samesanction as a member of the Philippine /ar for the same infraction committed in the foreign >urisdictionM There is a Rule of Court provision covering this cases central issue.7p to this >uncture, its reach and breadth have not undergone the test of an unsettled case.

(n a $etter dated August !", #44D,?#@ the istrict Court of Euam informed this Court of thesuspension of Atty. +eon E. -a5uera )-a5uera* from the practice of la$ in Euam for t$o )!* yearspursuant to the %ecision rendered by the Superior Court of Euam on -ay :, #44D in SpecialProceedings Case =o. SP"":6'4;,?!@ a disciplinary case filed by the Euam /ar 2thics Committeeagainst -a5uera.

The Court referred the matter of -a5ueras suspension in Euam to the /ar Confidant for comment in its !esolution dated =ovember #4, #44D.?3@ 7nder Section !:, Rule #3< of the RevisedRules of Court, the disbarment or suspension of a member of the Philippine /ar in a foreign

>urisdiction, $here he has also been admitted as an attorney, is also a ground for his disbarment or suspension in this realm, provided the foreign courts action is by reason of an act or omissionconstituting deceit, malpractice or other gross misconduct, grossly immoral conduct, or a violationof the la$yers oath.

(n a Memorandum dated ebruary !", #44:, then /ar Confidant Atty. 2rlinda C. erosarecommended that the Court obtain copies of the record of -a5ueras case since the documents

transmitted by the Euam istrict Court do not contain the factual and legal bases for -a5uerassuspension and are thus insufficient to enable her to determine $hether -a5ueras acts or omissions $hich resulted in his suspension in Euam are li%e$ise violative of his oath as a member of the Philippine /ar.?;@

Pursuant to this Courts directive in its !esolution dated -arch #


6/25


0n January ect to disciplinaryaction by the Superior Court of Euam.?!!@

-a5uera did not deny that Castro e1ecuted a 5uitclaim deed to the property in his favor ascompensation for past legal services and that the transaction, e1cept for the deed itself, $as oraland $as not made pursuant to a prior $ritten agreement. &o$ever, he contended that thetransaction $as made three days follo$ing the alleged termination of the attorney'clientrelationship bet$een them, and that the property did not constitute an e1orbitant fee for his legalservices to Castro.?!3@

0n -ay :, #44D, the Superior Court of Euam rendered its %ecision?!;@ suspending -a5uerafrom the practice of la$ in Euam for a period of t$o )!* years and ordering him to ta%e the -ulti'State Professional Responsibility 21amination )-PR2* $ithin that period. The court found that the

attorney'client relationship bet$een -a5uera and Castro $as not yet completely terminated $henthey entered into the oral agreement to transfer Castros right of redemption to -a5uera onecember !#, #4


7/25


of the Civil Code of the Philippines. Paragraph 6 of Article #;4# ?!ect of the litigation handled by the la$yer.7nder Article #;4!,?!4@ the prohibition e1tends to sales in legal redemption.

The prohibition ordained in paragraph 6 of Article #;4# and Article #;4! is founded on publicpolicy because, by virtue of his office, an attorney may easily ta%e advantage of the credulity andignorance of his client?3"@ and unduly enrich himself at the e1pense of his client.

The case of n re0 !uste?3#@ illustrates the significance of the aforementioned prohibition. (nthat case, the attorney ac5uired his clients property sub>ect of a case $here he $as acting ascounsel pursuant to a deed of sale e1ecuted by his clients in his favor. &e contended that the sale$as made at the instance of his clients because they had no money to pay him for hisservices. The Court ruled that the la$yers ac5uisition of the property of his clients under thecircumstances obtaining therein rendered him liable for malpractice. The Court heldB

Fhether the deed of sale in 5uestion $as e1ecuted at the instance of the spouses driven byfinancial necessity, as contended by the respondent, or at the latters behest, as contended by the

complainant, is of no moment. (n either case an attorney occupies a vantage position to pressupon or dictate his terms to a harassed client, in breach of the rule so amply protective of theconfidential relations, $hich must necessarily e1ist bet$een attorney and client, and of the rights of both.?3!@

The Superior Court of Euam also hinted that -a5ueras ac5uisition of Castros right of redemption, his subse5uent e1ercise of said right, and his act of selling the redeemed property for huge profits $ere tainted $ith deceit and bad faith $hen it concluded that -a5uera charged Castroan e1orbitant fee for his legal services. The court held that since the assignment of the right of redemption to -a5uera $as in payment for his legal services, and since the property redeemed byhim had a mar%et value of 7S8!;


8/25


A.C. No. 2505 (r*r 21, 1992

EAN@E"INE "EDA, complainant,vs.ATTY. T%E4ONIAN TA4AN@, respondent.

!E% C#%IAM:

Complainant, 2vangeline +eda, s5uarely puts in issue respondent Atty. Trebonian TabangHs goodmoral character, in t$o Complaints she had filed against him, one doc%eted as /ar -atter =o. :<instituted on D January #4

0n #; ebruary #4


9/25


(n his Comment in the present case, Respondent avers that he and Complainant had covenantednot to disclose the marriage not because he $anted to finish his studies and ta%e the /ar first butfor the reason that said marriage $as void from the beginning in the absence of the re5uisites of

Article :D of the Civil Code that the contracting parties shall have lived together as husband and$ife for at least five )6* years before the date of the marriage and that said parties shall state thesame in an affidavit before any person authoried by la$ to administer oaths. &e could not haveabandoned Complainant because they had never lived together as husband and $ife. Fhen heapplied for the #4


10/25


(t cannot be overemphasied that the re5uirement of good moral character is not only a conditionprecedent toadmission to the practice of la$I its continued possession is also essential for remaining in the practice of la$)People v. Tuanda, Adm. Case =o. 33D", 3" January #44", #


11/25


@.%. No. "=5751 /*r 16, 19)2

MACA%IO (ESTIN, 4ENAMIN (AMI"A%A, CA%"ITO (ETA"C#%IN, @A"ICANA (O%MADE%O, SE@#NDO(A4A4AI%, %O""O (AINSAN, DAID (ETA"E%O, (%ANCISCO (O%(IEDA, OSE !A& /; CA%"ITO(ONTE, petitioners,vs.O%Y (. (ADE%AN@A, NO%4E%TA %IOS, ANTO"IN (%#E"DA, (I"EMON MA%TIN#I""A, AE"INO(A4ONAN, E%NESTO (E%%ANC#""O, E"ME% (A4AYOS, !ED%O (ADE%O@AO, %EYNA"DO(ETA"E%O, %ADI@ONDES (AMINI, respondents.

(E%NANDO, C.J.:

The congenital infirmity from $hich this 5uo $arran to suit suffers is 5uite obvious considering that on the facts of the case and the applicable la$, this Court had rendered a decision as far bac% as June !D, #4


12/25


!. The la$ as to this particular controversy has thus been enunciated. To repeat, the parties, no$ petitioners andno$ respondents, $ho litigated the same matter in aderanga, must abide by such >udgment. As categoricallystated in Kabigting v. Acting irector of PrisonsB 11 G(t need not be stated that the Supreme Court, being the courtof last resort, is the final arbiter of all legal 5uestions properly brought before it and that its decision in any givencase constitutes the la$ of that particular case.G 12 This Court has li%e$ise noted the amplitude of its coverage.Fhat is e1press as $ell as $hat is implied in a decision is included, to be implemented faithfully, nocircumvention or evasion being allo$ed. 1 Recently, in /ueno (ndustrial and evelopment Corporation v. R. C. A5uino Timber and Ply$ood Co., (nc., 1? it $as noted ho$ steadfast this Court has been in relying on suchconcept. 15

3. =or is this all. =ot$ithstanding the decision of this Court in aderanga, no$ final, based on authoritativedoctrines, counsel for petitioner, a certain Eilbert -. abella, had the temerity to state the follo$ing in his petitionBGRespondents if allo$ed to continue holding the position as -ayor, ice'-ayor and members of theSangguniang /ayan of /anton, Romblon, in $anton violation of the constitutional prohibition in effect we would be creating an electi1e officers of a Municipality who are abo1e the law by 3udicial flat 4emphasis ours5 . G 16 Thishighly'gratuitous statement is offensive not so much because of the lac% of the proper respect o$ing this Court,imputing to it a >udgment based solely on G>udicial fiat,G but even more so, because of its lac% of appreciation of the controlling >ural norms. Such a display of arrogance could, of course, be traceable to his ine1perience as alegal practitioner having been admitted to the bar only on April !", #4:ects as a student and thereafter during this brief period of hisprofessional career. 0bviously, he failed to do so. (n addition to the previously'cited cases of eneuela, illegasand Potencion, the Aguinaldo decision, relied upon in aderanga, li%e$ise made mention of Arcenas v.Commission on 2lections 17 and Singco v. Commission on 2lections. 1) (t provided the opportunity, therefore, for this Court to reiterate the principle $ith greater precision. Thereafter, +aguda v. Commission on2lections 19 applied the Aguinaldo doctrine. A reminder is, therefore, not out of place. Justice +aurel spo%e of aGbecoming modestyG 20 being a desirable trait in lo$er court >udges. (t applies as $ell to practitioners, especially

so $hen the litigations entrusted to them may ta1 their ability to the utmost. Fhile the circumstance of counsel for petitioner Eilbert -. abella being ne$ in the profession may be mitigating, it cannot entirely e1culpate him.

F&2R20R2, the petition is dismissed for lac% of merit. Attorney Eilbert -. abella is hereby admonished to bemore careful in his choice of language and to devote greater time, attention, and effort in the preparation of pleadings for submission to this Court. +et a copy of this admonition be spread on his record.


13/25


A.C. No. ??97 Sp-r 26, 2001

M%. /; M%S. EN#STIANO @. SA4#%NIDO, complainants, vs.ATTY. ("O%ANTE E. MAD%OFO, Respondent.

#IS#M4IN@, J .:

or our resolution is the administrative complaint! for disbarment of respondent, Atty. lorante 2.

-adroNo filed by spouses enustiano and Rosalia Saburdino. Complainants allege that respondent hasbeen harassing them by filing numerous complaints against them, in addition to committing acts of dishonesty.

Complainant enustiano Saburnido is a member of the Philippine =ational Police stationed at/alingasag, -isamis 0riental, $hile his $ife Rosalia is a public school teacher. Respondent is a former >udge of the -unicipal Circuit Trial Court, /alingasag'+agonglong, -isamis 0riental.

Previous to this administrative case, complainants also filed three separate administrative cases againstrespondent.

(n A. -. =o. -TJ'4"'3udiciary against respondent. Respondent $as therein found guilty of pointing a high'po$ered firearm at complainant, $ho $as unarmed at the time, during a heatedaltercation. Respondent $as accordingly dismissed from the service $ith pre>udice to reemployment ingovernment but $ithout forfeiture of retirement benefits.

Respondent $as again administratively charged in the consolidated cases of "ealana-Abbu 1. 6udgeMadro7o, A.-. =o. 4!'#'"


14/25


Thus, respondent $as considered to have $aived his right to present evidence in his behalf during saidhearing. =either did respondent submit his memorandum as directed by the (/P.

After evaluating the evidence before it, the (/P concluded that complainants submitted convincing proof that respondent indeed committed acts constituting gross misconduct that $arrant the imposition of administrative sanction. The (/P recommends that respondent be suspended from the practice of la$ for one year.

Fe have e1amined the records of this case and find no reason to disagree $ith the findings andrecommendation of the (/P.

A la$yer may be disciplined for any conduct, in his professional or private capacity, that renders him unfitto continue to be an officer of the court. ## Canon : of the Code of Professional Responsibility commandsall la$yers to at all times uphold the dignity and integrity of the legal profession. Specifically, in Rule :."3,the Code providesB

R7+2 :."3. A la$yer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness topractice la$, nor shall be $hether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner tothe discredit of the legal profession.

Clearly, respondentHs act of filing multiple complaints against herein complainants reflects on his fitness tobe a member of the legal profession. &is act evinces vindictiveness, a decidedly undesirable trait $hether

in a la$yer or another individual, as complainants $ere instrumental in respondentHs dismissal from the >udiciary. Fe see in respondentHs tenacity in pursuing several cases against complainants not thepersistence of one $ho has been grievously $ronged but the obstinacy of one $ho is trying to e1actrevenge.

RespondentHs action erodes rather than enhances public perception of the legal profession. (t constitutesgross misconduct for $hich he may be suspended, follo$ing Section !:, Rule #3< of the Rules of Court,$hich providesB

S2CT(0= !:. %isbarment or suspension of attorneys by "upreme /ourt grounds therefor . A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by theSupreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grosslyimmoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for anyviolation of the oath $hich he is re5uired to ta%e before admission to practice, or for a $ilfuldisobedience appearing as an attorney for a party to a case $ithout authority so to do.1 1 1

Complainants as% that respondent be disbarred. &o$ever, $e find that suspension from the practice of la$ is sufficient to discipline respondent.

The supreme penalty of disbarment is meted out only in clear cases of misconduct that seriously affectthe standing and character of the la$yer as an officer of the court. #! Fhile $e $ill not hesitate to removean erring attorney from the esteemed brotherhood of la$yers, $here the evidence calls for it, $e $ill alsonot disbar him $here a lesser penalty $ill suffice to accomplish the desired end. #3 (n this case, $e findsuspension to be a sufficient sanction against respondent. Suspension, $e may add, is not primarilyintended as a punishment, but as a means to protect the public and the legal profession.#;

'HE%E(O%E, respondent Atty. lorante 2. -adroNo is found E7(+T9 of gross misconduct and isS#S!ENDED from the practice of la$ for one year $ith a FAR=(=E that a repetition the same or similar act $ill be dealt $ith more severely. RespondentHs suspension is effective upon his receipt of notice of this decision. +et notice of this decision be spread in respondentHs record as an attorney in this Court, andnotice of the same served on the (ntegrated /ar of the Philippines and on the 0ffice of the Court Administrator for circulation to all the courts concerned.

S0 0R2R2.

A.C. No. 696 O8-or 25, 2005

%OSA"IE DA""ON@=@A"ICINAO, /omplainant vs.ATTY. I%@I" %. CAST%O, !espondent. % E S O " # T I O N T(=EA, 6 .B This administrative case concerns a la$yer $ho hurled invectives at a Cler% of Court. -embers of the bar decorum must at all times comfort themselves in a manner befitting their noble profession.

Complainant Atty. Rosalie allong'Ealicinao is the Cler% of Court of the Regional TrialCourt )RTC* of /ambang, =ueva icaya. 0n < -ay !""3, she filed $ith the Commission on /ar iscipline )C/* of the (ntegrated /ar of the Philippines )(/P* a /omplaint-Affida1i t ?#@ $ithsupporting documents?!@ against respondent Atty. irgil R. Castro for 7nprofessional Conduct,

specifically violation of Canon :, Rule :."3, Canon < and Rule


15/25


your client, Sir. Respondent left the office and as he passed by complainants $indo$, he againshouted, ;#innam nga babai< )ulva of your mother, you $omanO* ?6@

Complainant suffered acute embarrassment at the incident, as it happened in her office of $hichshe $as, and still is, the head and in front of her staff. She felt that her credibility had beentarnished and diminished, eliciting doubt on her ability to command full respect from her staff. ?D@

The /omplaint-Affida1it , filed three days after the incident, $as supported by an Affida1i t ?:@ signedby employees of RTC'/ambang, =ueva icaya $ho $itnessed the incident.The Affida1it narrated the same incident as $itnessed by the said employees. A Motion to 8ile

Additional Affida1it=%ocumentary E1idence $as filed by complainant on !6 September !""3.?


16/25


S2C0= ((S(0=

[A.C. No. 6?0). A*+*- 1, 200?]ISID%A 4A%%IENTOS, complainant, vs. ATTY. E"E%I&&A A. "I4I%AN=METEO%O respondent.

% E S O " # T I O NA#ST%IA=MA%TINE&, J .:

/efore this Court is a complaint for disbarment filed against Atty. 2leria A. +ibiran'-eteoro for deceit and non'payment of debts.

A letter'complaint dated -ay !#, !""# $as filed $ith the (ntegrated /ar of the Philippines )(/P*under the names of (sidra /arrientos and 0livia C. -ercado, $hich $as signed, ho$ever, by (sidra only. (tstates thatB sometime in September of !""", respondent issued several 25uitable PC(/an% Chec%s in

favor of both (sidra and 0livia, amounting to PD:,"""."", and in favor of 0livia, totaling P!3;,"""."", for the payment of a pre'e1isting debtI the chec%s bounced due to insufficient funds thus charges for violation of /.P. !! $ere filed by (sidra and 0livia $ith the City Prosecutor of CabanatuanI respondentsent te1t messages to complainants as%ing for the deferment of the criminal charges $ith the promisethat she $ill pay her debtI respondent ho$ever failed to fulfill said promiseI on -ay #D, !""#, respondent,through her sister'in'la$, tried to give complainants a title for a parcel of land in e1change for thebounced chec%s $hich $ere in the possession of complainantsI the title covered an area of 6,""" s5uaremeters located at /antug, +a Torre, Talavera, =ueva 2ci>a, registered in the name of ictoria illamar $hich $as allegedly paid to respondent by a clientI complainants chec%ed the property and discoveredthat the land belonged to a certain ra. &elen Earcia, the sole heir of ictoria illamar, $ho merelyentrusted said title to respondent pursuant to a transaction $ith the uedancorI complainants tried to getin touch $ith respondent over the phone but the latter $as al$ays unavailable, thus the presentcomplaint.?#@

0n July #3, !""#, in compliance $ith the 0rder ?!@ of the (/P'Commission on /ar iscipline )C/*,respondent filed her Ans$er alleging thatB she issued several 25uitable PC(/an% chec%s amountingto P!3;,"""."" in favor of 0livia but not to (sidraI said chec%s $ere issued in payment of a pre'e1isting

obligation but said amount had already been paid and replaced $ith ne$ chec%sI (sidra signed adocument attesting to the fact that the sub>ect of her letter'complaint no longer e1istsI?3@ she also issued infavor of 0livia several 25uitable PC(/an% chec%s amounting to PD:,"""."" for the payment of a pre'e1isting obligationI the chec%s $hich $ere the sub>ect of the complaint filed at the City Prosecutors 0fficein Cabanatuan City are already in the possession of respondent and the criminal case filed bycomplainants before the -unicipal Trial Court of Cabanatuan City /ranch 3 $as already dismissedI the(nformations for iolation of /.P. !! under (.S. =os. "#'#;"4"'"3?;@ $ere never filed in courtI 0liviaalready signed an affidavit of desistanceI respondent did not send te1t messages to (sidra and 0liviaas%ing for deferment of the criminal complaints neither did she present any title in e1change for her bounced chec%sI she never transacted $ith (sidra since all dealings $ere made $ith 0liviaI and thepresent complaint $as initiated by (sidra only because she had a misunderstanding $ith 0livia and she$ants to e1tract money from respondent.?6@

Attached to said Ans$er is an affidavit signed by 0livia C. -ercado $hich states as follo$sB#. That ( am one of the complainants for the isbarment of Atty. 2leria +ibiran'-eteoro filed before the(ntegrated /ar of the Philippines =ational 0ffice in Pasig City, Philippines doc%eted as C/ case no. "#'


17/25


reasons, respondent could have already paid the complainant despite respondents %no$ledge that theamount complainant $anted to collect from her is merely the interest of her debt since she alreadyreturned most of the pieces of >e$elry she purchased and she already paid for those that she $as notable to return. Respondent prays that the resolution of the case be deferred and that she be givenanother 4" days from said date or until January #4, !""3 to settle $hatever balance remains after proper accounting and presentation of receipts.?#D@

0n ebruary !:, !"";, the /oard of Eovernors of the (/P passed a resolution as follo$sBR2S0+7T(0= =0. ('!""3'D:

C/ Case =o. "#'


18/25


2= /A=C

[A.C. No. 5151. O8-or 19, 200?]!ED%O @. TO"ENTINO, %OMEO M. "AY@O, SO"OMON M. "#MA"AN@, S%., ME"ITON D.

EAN@E"ISTA, S%., /; NE"SON 4. ME"@A%, complainants, vs. ATTY.NO%4E%TO M. MENDO&A, respondent .

% E S O " # T I O NA#ST%IA=MA%TINE&, J .:

/efore us is a complaint filed by Pedro E. Tolentino, Romeo -. +aygo, Solomon -.+umalang, Sr., -eliton . 2vangelista, Sr., and =elson /. -elgar against Atty. =orberto -.-endoa for Erossly (mmoral Conduct and Eross -isconduct.

Complainants allege in their Affidavit'Complaint that respondent, a former -unicipal TrialCourt Judge, abandoned his legal $ife, elicitas . alderia in favor of his paramour, -arilyn delauente, $ho is, in turn, married to one Ramon E. -arcosI respondent and -arilyn dela uentehave been cohabiting openly and publicly as husband and $ife in /rgy. 2strella, =au>an, 0riental-indoroI respondent had fathered t$o children by his paramour -arilyn dela uenteI respondentand -arilyn dela uente declared in the birth certificates of their t$o daughters that they $eremarried on -ay #!, #4an, 0riental -indoro, are merely filing this case to e1act revenge on him for hisfiling of criminal charges against themI complainants illegally procured copies of the birthcertificates of -ara Khrisna Charmina dela uente -endoa and -yrra Khrisna =ormina delauente -endoa, in violation of Rule !;, Administrative 0rder =o. #, series of #443, thus, suchdocuments are inadmissible in evidenceI respondent did not participate in the preparation andsubmission $ith the local civil registry of sub>ect birth certificatesI respondent never declared thathe had t$o $ives, as he has al$ays declared that he is separated in fact from his $ife, elicitas .alderiaI and complainants have used this issue against him during elections and yet, the peopleof =au>an, 0riental -indoro still elected him as -ayor, hence, respondent has not offended thepublics sense of morality.

The administrative case $as referred to the (ntegrated /ar of the Philippines )hereinafter (/P* for investigation, report and recommendation. Thereafter, the Commission on /ar isciplineof the (/P conducted hearings.

Fitnesses for complainants, =elson /. -elgar and Romeo -. +aygo, submitted their affidavits as their direct testimony and $ere sub>ected to cross'e1amination by respondents

counsel.Fitness =elson /. -elgar declares in his affidavit as follo$sB &e %no$s respondent for they

both reside in =au>an, 0riental -indoro. Respondent is %no$n as a practicing la$yer and a former -unicipal Trial Court Judge. Respondent has been cohabiting openly and publicly $ith -arilyndela uente, representing themselves to be husband and $ife, and from their cohabitation, theyproduced t$o children, namely, -ara Khrisna Charmina dela uente -endoa and -yrra Khrisna=ormina dela uente -endoa. Sometime in #446, he )$itness -elgar* received a letter from aconcerned citien, informing him that respondent $as married to elicitas alderia of San Rafael,/ulacan, on January #D, #4


19/25


dela uente -endoa and -yrra Khrisna =ormina dela uente -endoa out of his cohabitation$ith -arilyn dela uente are inadmissible because they $ere allegedly secured in violation of

Administrative 0rder =o. #, Series of #443. The rest of the e1hibits are either hearsay or self'serving according to respondent.The $itnesses $ho are also t$o of the complainants herein, on the other hand, categorically statein their affidavits ?21hibits A and /@ particularly in paragraph ! that Respondent has beencohabiting openly and publicly $ith -arilyn de la uente, representing themselves to be husbandand $ife. (n paragraph #" of said affidavits the $itnesses also categorically state that respondenthas even represented to all and sundry that -arilyn de la uente is his $ife. These categoricalstatements made under oath by complainants are not hearsay and remain un'rebutted.Respondent chose not to rebut them.

21hibit 2, the Certificate of Candidacy e1ecuted by respondent sho$s that respondent is marriedto one, elicitas . alderia. As sho$n by 21hibit &, a marriage certificate, -arilyn de la uente ismarried to one, Ramon E. -arcos. uly certified true copies of said e1hibits have been presentedby complainants.Fith respect to 21hibits and '#, $e believe that they are competent and relevant evidence andadmissible in this proceedings. The e1clusionary rule $hich bars admission of illegally obtainedevidence applies more appropriately to evidence obtained as a result of illegal searches andseiures. The instant case cannot be analogous to an illegal search or seiure. A person $hoviolates Rule !; of Administrative 0rder =o. # Series of #443 as cited by respondent ris%s thepenalty of imprisonment or payment of a fine but it does not ma%e the document so issuedinadmissible as evidence specially in proceedings li%e the present case. 21hibits and '# $hichare duly certified birth certificates are therefore competent evidence to sho$ paternity of saidchildren by respondent in the absence of any evidence to the contrary./y and large the evidence of complainants consisting of the testimonies of $itnesses =elson-elgar and Romeo +aygo, and corroborated by the documentary e1hibits $ill sho$ that indeed

respondent has been cohabiting publicly $ith a certain -arilyn de la uente $ho is not his $ife andthat out of said cohabitation respondent sired t$o children. These facts $e repeat have not beendenied by respondent under oath since he chose to >ust argue on the basis of the improper motivations and the inadmissibility, hearsay and self'serving nature of the documents presented.Complainants have presented evidence sufficient enough to convince us that indeed respondenthas been cohabiting publicly $ith a person $ho is not his $ife. The evidence ta%en together $illsupport the fact that respondent is not of good moral character. That respondent chose not to denyunder oath the grave and serious allegations made against him is to our mind his undoing and hissilence has not helped his position before the Commission. As bet$een the documents andpositive statements of complainants, made under oath and the arguments and comments of respondent submitted through his la$yers, $hich $ere not verified under oath by respondenthimself, $e are inclined and so give $eight to the evidence of complainants. The direct andforthright testimonies and statements of =elson -elgar and Romeo +aygo that respondent $asopenly cohabiting $ith -arilyn de la uente is not hearsay. The $itnesses may have admitted thatrespondent -endoa did not tell them that a certain -arilyn de la uente $as his paramour )for

$hy $ould respondent admit that to complainants* but the $itnesses did state clearly in their affidavits under oath that respondent $as cohabiting $ith -arilyn de la uente $ho is notrespondents $ife. Again their categorical statements ta%en together $ith the other documents, areenough to convince us and conclude that respondent is not of good moral character.-embers of the /ar have been repeatedly reminded that possession of good moral character is acontinuing condition for membership in the /ar in good standing. The continued possession of good moral character is a re5uisite condition for remaining in the practice of la$ ? Mortel 1s.

Aspiras #"" Phil. 6

his moral character $hich good moral character $e repeat is a continuing condition for a member to remain in good standing. 7nder Rule #."# of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a la$yer

shall not engage in unla$ful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. Respondent has violated thisrule against engaging in immoral conduct.Fe agree, as cited by the respondent, $ith the pronouncement made in Santos vs. ischoso, ust basedon the evidence presented. The evidence presented sho$s that respondent no longer possess)sic* that good moral character necessary as a condition for him to remain a member of the /ar ingood standing. &e is therefore not entitled to continue to engage in the practice of la$.

Fe find such report and recommendation of the (/P to be fully supported by the pleadingsand evidence on record, and, hence, approve and adopt the same.

The evidence presented by complainants reach that 5uantum of evidence re5uired inadministrative proceedings $hich is only substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant evidencethat a reasonable mind might accept as ade5uate to support a conviction.?#!@

Fitness -elgars testimony that respondent had been publicly introducing -arilyn delauente as his $ife is corroborated by the contents of an article in the &au3anews, introducingrespondent as one of =au>ans public servants, and stating therein that respondent has beenblessed $ith t$o beautiful children $ith his $ife, -arilyn dela uente.?#3@ (t should be noted that saidpublication is under the control of respondent, he being the Chairman of the /oard thereof. Thus, itcould be reasonably concluded that if he contested the truth of the contents of sub>ect article inthe &au3anews, or if he did not $ish to publicly present -arilyn dela uente as his $ife, he couldhave easily ordered that the damning portions of said article to be edited out.

Fith regard to respondents argument that the credibility of $itnesses for the complainants istainted by the fact that they are motivated by revenge for respondents filing of criminal casesagainst them, $e opine that even if $itnesses -elgar and +aygo are so motivated, the credibility of their testimonies cannot be discounted as they are fully supported and corroborated by

documentary evidence $hich spea% for themselves. The birth certificates of -ara KhrisnaCharmina dela uente -endoa and -yrra Khrisna =ormina dela uente -endoa born on June#D, #4


20/25


ho$ever, that said rule against unreasonable searches and seiures is meant only to protect aperson from interference by the government or the state. ?#6@ (n 2eople 1s. 'ipol ,?#D@ $e e1plainedthatBThe Constitutional proscription enshrined in the /ill of Rights does not concern itself $ith therelation bet$een a private individual and another individual. (t governs the relationship bet$een theindividual and the State and its agents. The /ill of Rights only tempers governmental po$er andprotects the individual against any aggression and un$arranted interference by any department of government and its agencies. Accordingly, it cannot be e1tended to the acts complained of in thiscase. The alleged $arrantless search made by Ro5ue, a co'employee of appellant at thetreasurers office, can hardly fall $ithin the ambit of the constitutional proscription on un$arrantedsearches and seiures.

Conse5uently, in this case $here complainants, as private individuals, obtained the sub>ectbirth records as evidence against respondent, the protection against unreasonable searches andseiures does not apply.

Since both Rule !;, Administrative 0rder =o. #, series of #443 and the Revised Rules on2vidence do not provide for the e1clusion from evidence of the birth certificates in 5uestion, saidpublic documents are, therefore, admissible and should be properly ta%en into consideration in theresolution of this administrative case against respondent.

erily, the facts stated in the birth certificates of -ara Khrisna Charmina dela uente-endoa and -yrra Khrisna =ormina dela uente -endoa and respondents Certificate of Candidacy dated -arch 4, #446 $herein respondent himself declared he $as married to elicitasalderia, $ere never denied nor rebutted by respondent. &ence, said public documents sufficientlyprove that he fathered t$o children by -arilyn dela uente despite the fact that he $as still legallymarried to elicitas alderia at that time.

(n /ar -atter =o. ##6;,?#:@ good moral character $as defined thusB. . . good moral character is $hat a person really is, as distinguished from good reputation or from

the opinion generally entertained of him, the estimate in $hich he is held by the public in the place$here he is %no$n. -oral character is not a sub>ective term but one $hich corresponds toob>ective reality. The standard of personal and professional integrity is not satisfied by suchconduct as it merely enables a person to escape the penalty of criminal la$.

(n ?aguirre 1s. /astillo,?#oined, hearings $ere conducted before the 0ffice of the Solicitor Eeneral and,subse5uently, before the (ntegrated /ar of the Philippines )(/P* Commission on /ar iscipline

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jul2003/140549.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jul2003/140549.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/mar2003/ac_4921.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/mar2003/ac_4921.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/feb2004/ac_5082.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/feb2004/ac_5082.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/feb2004/ac_5082.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/feb2004/ac_5082.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/feb2004/ac_5082.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/1481.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/1481.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/1481.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/1481.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/1481.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/1481.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jul2003/140549.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/mar2003/ac_4921.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/feb2004/ac_5082.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/ac_5151.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/1481.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/1481.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/1481.htm#_ftn3


21/25


)Commission*. At the hearings, Rebecca presented both oral and documentary evidence tosupport her allegations of abandonment and immorality.

Aside from her testimony, Rebecca presented t$o other $itnesses, viB enancia -. /arrientos,her sister, $ho identified a letter dated August !ust the absence of bad character. Suchcharacter e1presses itself in the $ill to do the unpleasant thing if it is right and the resolve not to dothe pleasant thing if it is $rong. This must be so because vast interests are committed to his careIhe is the recipient of unbounded trust and confidenceI he deals $ith his clients property, reputation,his life, his all.?6@

(mmoral conduct has been described as that conduct $hich is so $illful, flagrant, or shameless asto sho$ indifference to the opinion of good and respectable members of the community. To be thebasis of disciplinary action, such conduct must not only be immoral, but grossly immoral. That is, itmust be so corrupt as to virtually constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible

to a high degree or committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shoc% thecommon sense of decency.?D@

As officers of the court, la$yers must not only in fact be of good moral character but must also beseen to be of good moral character and leading lives in accordance $ith the highest moralstandards of the community.?:@ A member of the bar and an officer of the court is not only re5uiredto refrain from adulterous relationships or %eeping a mistress but must also so behave himself asto avoid scandaliing the public by creating the impression that he is flouting those moralstandards.

A revie$ of the records readily reveals that despite the protracted delay in the hearings mainlycaused by respondents failure to appear, complainant relentlessly pursued this administrative caseagainst her husband. She $as, to be sure, able to establish by clear, convincing, and preponderantevidence his commission of marital i nfidelity and abandonment of his family.

Although respondent in his ans$er denied abandoning complainant and their children and offeredan e1planation as to the cause of his and his $ifes separation, he opted not to ta%e the $itnessstand and be cross' e1amined on his s$orn ans$er. =either did he bother to call and present hisalleged paramour, /enita, $ho could have had disproved an e1isting adulterous relationshipbet$een them, or, at least, confirm his protestation about the paternity of her four children.Significantly, /enitas husband, no less, ris%ed personal ridicule by testifying on the illicit liaisonbet$een his $ife and respondent. The fact that respondents philandering $ays are far removed from the e1ercise of his profession$ould not save the day for him. or a la$yer may be suspended or disbarred for any misconduct$hich, albeit unrelated to the actual practice of his profession, $ould sho$ him to be unfit for theoffice and un$orthy of the privileges $ith $hich his license and the la$ invest him. ?


22/25


As $e have already ruled, disbarment is $arranted against a la$yer $ho abandons his la$ful $ifeto maintain an illicit relationship $ith another $oman $ho had borne him a child. ?#!@ (n the instantcase, respondents grossly immoral conduct compels the Court to $ield its po$er to disbar. Thepenalty is most appropriate under the premises. 'HE%E(O%E, Atty. Ponciano P. Arnobit is hereby DIS4A%%ED. +et a copy of this ecision beentered into the records of respondent in the 0ffice of the /ar Confidant and his name stric%enfrom the Roll of Attorneys. +i%e$ise, copies of this ecision shall be furnished the (/P andcirculated by the Court Administrator to all appellate and trial courts. This ecision ta%es effect immediately.

SO O%DE%ED.

S2C0= ((S(0=

[A.C. No. 5?5?. Noobsat the early age of seventeen. &e too% the #4:: bar e1ams and landed =o. #3 $ith an average of


23/25


0n "! -ay !""!, complainant submitted a letter ?:@ to the (/P $ithdra$ing the complaint shefiled against respondent, stating that after much reflection and recall of the antecedent facts thatled to the filing of the complaint, ( have finally decided to $ithdra$ the same as it arose purely outof misunderstanding and miscommunication and definitely not $arranting any disciplinary actionmuch less disbarment and apologie for $hatever inconvenience the complaint had cause?d@ theoffice.

(n an 0rder dated #4 June !""!, Commissioner Rebecca illanueva'-aala of the (/P,Commission on /ar iscipline )C/*, to $hom the case $as assigned for investigation, report andrecommendation, notified the parties to appear for a hearing at said office on "3 July !""!.

Per order dated "3 July !""! of Commissioner -aala, it appears that $hen the case $ascalled for hearing, neither complainant nor respondent appeared. (t $as not sho$n, ho$ever,$hether they received notices of the scheduled hearing, hence, the same $as ordered cancelledand reset to #: July !""!.

(n a resolution dated "6 August !""!, this Court acting on the letter of complainant dated "!-ay !""!, resolved to note the same and referred it to the (/P.

0n ": 0ctober !""!, complainant submitted to the (/P a motion to hold and to 5uash$ithdra$al of the administrative case e1pressing a desire to actively pursue her complaint.

According to complainant, respondent begged her to dismiss the administrative complaintshe filed and promised to settle his obligations $ith her. (t $as only for this reason that she agreedto sign a $ritten $ithdra$al of her complaint. This $as, ho$ever, a mere promise $hich remained

unfulfilled.?ection from therespondent.?#!@

0n 3# January !""3, the (/P, in Compliance?#3@ $ith this Courts resolution dated !"=ovember !""!?#;@ directing it to submit a status report on the case every first day of the monthuntil termination of the investigation, stated that because of complainants failure to appear andaffirm her Affidavit of esistance despite several hearings set by the Commission, it no$considered the cases submitted for report and recommendation and to be decided on the meritsthereof.

Per report of Commissioner Rebecca illanueva'-aala, respondent Atty. Ramon S. io $asfound to have committed gross misconduct, and he $as, thus, recommended to be suspended for a period of one year from the practice of his profession as a la$yer and member of the bar. This

$as reduced to si1 months by the (/P /oard of Eovernors in a resolution dated !# June !""3,$hich readsB

%ESO"#TION NO. G=200=?A;. C No. 5?5?Crli/ Y. %/+B/i


24/25


The later case of 21ecutive Judge Pacifico S. /ulado v. omingo Tiu, Jr. )A.-. =o. P'4D'#!##, 3#-arch !""", pp. ;'6, 3!4 SCRA 3"udiciary, cannot simply close its eyes to respondents acts of e1tremeintransigence. Fithdra$al of the complaint $ill not free respondent from his administrative liability)2streller v. -anatad, Jr., !D< SCRA D"< ?#44:@*, particularly because administrative proceedingsare imbued $ith public interest, public office being a public trust ) Eacho v. uentes, Jr., !4# SCRA;:; ?#44udiciaryI other$ise, our disciplinary po$er may be put to naught ) Sandoval v. -analo, !D"SCRA D## ?#44D@*.

inally, in >oli1ar 1. "imbol ,?!"@ the Court, citing n re %a1ies,?!#@ ruled that the discipline of la$yers cannot be cut short by a compromise or $ithdra$al of chargesB(t is contended on the part of the plaintiff in error that this settlement operated as an absolution andremission of his offense. This vie$ of the case ignores the fact that the e1ercise of the po$er is notfor the purpose of enforcing civil remedies bet$een parties, but to protect the court and the publicagainst an attorney guilty of un$orthy practices in his profession. &e had acted in clear disregardof his duty as an attorney at the bar, and $ithout good fidelity to his client. The public had rights

$hich -rs. Curtis could not thus settle or destroy. The un$orthy act had been fully consummated.

Respondents act of having borro$ed the title to the land of complainant, his presumed useof the said title for his personal gain, his failure to return the same despite repeated demands and$orse, his issuance of three chec%s in e1change for the said land title $hich bounced, constitutegross misconduct for $hich he must be disciplined. (n this connection Rule #D."; of the Code of Professional Responsibility is une5uivocal. (t statesBRule #D."; A la$yer shall not borro$ money from his client unless the clients interests are fullyprotected by the nature of the case or by independent advice. =either shall a la$yer lend money toa client e1cept, $hen in the interest of >ustice, he has to advance necessary e1penses in a legalmatter he is handling for the client. ?!!@

(n the case of 6udge Adoracion @. Angeles 1. Atty. Thomas ;y 6r.?!3@ this Court heldBThe relationship bet$een a la$yer and a client is highly fiduciaryI it re5uires a high degree of fidelity and good faith. (t is designed to remove all such temptation and to prevent everything of

that %ind from being done for the protection of the client )Agpalo, +egal 2thics, #44! ed., p. #


25/25


compelled the complainant to go to court for the recovery of the proceeds of the sale and, in theprocess, to spend money, time and energy therefore. Then, despite his deliberate failure to ans$er the complaint resulting in his having been declared in default, he appealed from the >udgment tothe Court of Appeals. Again, bad faith attended such a step because he did not pay the doc%et feedespite notice. =eedless to state, respondent $anted to prolong the travails and agony of thecomplainant and to en>oy the fruits of $hat rightfully belongs to the latter. 7nsatisfied $ith $hat hehad already un>ustly and unla$fully done to complainant, respondent issued chec%s to satisfy thealias $rit of e1ecution. /ut, remaining unrepentant of $hat he had done and in continued pursuit of a clearly malicious plan not to pay complainant of $hat had been validly and la$fully ad>udged bythe court against him, respondent closed the account against $hich the chec%s $ere dra$n. There$as deceit in this. Respondent never had the intention of paying his obligation as proved by the

fact that despite the criminal cases for violation of /.P. /lg. !!, he did not pay the obligation.

Fhile the case of &uez 1. !icafor t ?3:@ holds some similarity to the present case, it is materialto note that this is the first time that a complaint of this nature has been filed against therespondent. +i%e$ise, unli%e the &uez case, the criminal cases filed by the complainant have notbeen finally disposed of, hence, no conviction against respondent $as ever obtained. 0n all foursto this case is the case of $ao 1. Medel .?3oined her peers, seriously and irreparably tarnishing the image of the profession she should holdin high esteem.

This Court >ustified the imposition of a lighter penalty of si1 months upon Atty. +ibiran'-eteoro instead of one year as $as imposed in the case of $ao 1. Medel ?;3@ on the ground of Atty.+ibiran'-eteoros payment of a portion of her debt to the complainant.

(n the same manner, $e find that the lesser penalty of si1 months cannot be imposed uponherein respondent Atty. io on the ground that, >ust li%e the case of $ao 1. Medel , there is nosho$ing of any restitution $hatsoever in this case on the part of the respondent. +i%e$ise, the

fraudulent manner by $hich he $as able to entice complainant to entrust to him the title to her landshould also be ta%en into account.

As $as so aptly stated in /uizon 1. Macalino0 ?;;@

Such conduct indicates the respondents unfitness for the trust and confidence reposed on him,sho$s such lac% of personal honesty and good moral character as to render him un$orthy of public confidence and constitutes a ground for disciplinary action.

'HE%E(O%E, respondent Atty. Ramon S. io is found guilty of ER0SS -(SC0=7CTand is S7SP2=2 from the practice of la$ for one )#* year $ith a $arning that a repetition of thesame or similar act $ill be dealt $ith more severely. Respondents suspension is effective upon hisreceipt of notice of this ecision.

+et notice of this ecision be spread on respondents record as an attorney in this Court, andto the (ntegrated /ar of the Philippines and to the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts

concerned.

SO O%DE%ED.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/nov2004/ac_5454.htm#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/nov2004/ac_5454.htm#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jul2003/ac_5916.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jul2003/ac_5916.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jul2003/ac_5916.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/nov2004/ac_5454.htm#_ftn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jan1998/ac_3919.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jan1998/ac_3919.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/nov2004/ac_5454.htm#_ftn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/nov2004/ac_5454.htm#_ftn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/nov2004/ac_5454.htm#_ftn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/nov2004/ac_5454.htm#_ftn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/nov2004/ac_5454.htm#_ftn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/nov2004/ac_5454.htm#_ftn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/nov2004/ac_5454.htm#_ftn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/nov2004/ac_5454.htm#_ftn43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/nov2004/ac_5454.htm#_ftn43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/nov2004/ac_5454.htm#_ftn44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/nov2004/ac_5454.htm#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jul2003/ac_5916.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/nov2004/ac_5454.htm#_ftn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jan1998/ac_3919.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/nov2004/ac_5454.htm#_ftn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/nov2004/ac_5454.htm#_ftn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/nov2004/ac_5454.htm#_ftn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/nov2004/ac_5454.htm#_ftn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/nov2004/ac_5454.htm#_ftn43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/nov2004/ac_5454.htm#_ftn44

Documents

Ethics Canon 7