In re Almacen G.R. No. L-27654 (In the Matter of Proceedings for Disciplinary Action against Atty. Vicente Raul Almacen vs. Virginia Yaptinchay)

Facts of the Case:

Atty. Almacen was the counsel of Virginia Yaptinchay in a civil case. They lost in a civil case but Almacen filed for a Motion for Reconsideration. He notified the opposing party of said motion but failed to indicate the time and place of hearing of said motion.   He appealed to the Court of Appeals but motion was denied.  He filed an appeal on certiorari before the Supreme Court which outrightly denied his appeal in a minute resolution.Atty. Almacen called such minute resolution as unconstitutional. He filed before the Supreme Court a petition to surrender his lawyer’s certificate as he claimed that it was useless to continue practicing his profession when members of the high court are men who are calloused to pleas for justice, who ignore without reasons their own applicable decisions and commit culpable violations of the Constitution with impunity.He argues that due to the minute resolution, his client was made to pay P120,000.00 without knowing the reasons why and that his client became “one of the sacrificial victims before the altar of hypocrisy”. He also contends that justice as administered by the present members of the Supreme Court is not only blind, but also deaf and dumb.The Supreme Court did not immediately act on Almacen’s petition as the Court wanted to wait for Almacen to actually surrender his certificate.Almacen, however, did not surrender his lawyer’s certificate though he now argues that he chose not to.Issue:Whether or not Almacen should be disciplined?Ruling:Yes. The Supreme Court clarified that minute resolutions are needed because the Supreme Court cannot accept every case or write full opinion for every petition they reject.  The Supreme Court must decide “only on cases which present questions whose resolutions will have immediate importance beyond the particular facts and parties involved”. 

The Supreme Court regarded Almacen’s criticisms as uncalled for. His right to criticize the decision of the courts has always been encouraged, but it shall be bona fide, and shall not spill over the wall of decency and propriety. 

 ADM. CASE NO. 6876 March 7, 2008 HEIRS OF LYDIO "JERRY" FALAME, namely: MELBA FALAME, LEO FALAME and JERRYFALAME,petitioners,vs.

ATTY. EDGAR J. BAGUIO,respondent. FACTS:Respondent Atty. Baguio jointly represented Lydio and Raleigh as defendants in the first civil case. As defense counsel in the first civil case, respondent advocated the stance that Lydio solely owned the property subject of the case. In the second civil case involving the same property, respondent, as counsel for Raleigh and his spouse, has pursued the inconsistent position that Raleigh owned the same property in common with Lydio, with complainants, who inherited the property, committing acts which debase respondent's rights as a co-owner.ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Baguio is guilty of representing conflicting interests between his clients.RULING: Yes, Atty. Baguio is guilty. A lawyer may not act as counsel for a person whose interest conflicts with that of his present or former client as provided inRule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The rule holds even if the inconsistency is remote or merely probable or the lawyer has acted in good faith and with no intention to represent conflicting interests. Furthermore, the termination of attorney-client relation provides no justification for a lawyer to represent an interest adverse to or in conflict with that of the former client. The client's confidence once reposed should not be divested by mere expiration of professional employment or even death..

Vitug vs. RongcalCATHERINE JOIE P. VITUG, complainant, vs.ATTY. DIOSDADO M. RONGCAL, respondent.A.C. No. 6313September 7, 2006

FACTS:

Catherine Joie P. Vitug sought the service of respondent Atty. Diosdado M. Rongcal who was introduced to her by a common friend. Complainant asked Atty. Rongcal to represent her in the support case she was going to file against her former lover, Arnulfo Aquino. Soon after, herein complainant and respondent started having sexual relationship with each other. According to Vitug, respondent also gave her sweet inducements such as the promise of a job, financial security for her daughter, and his services as counsel for the prospective claim for support against Aquino.

On 9 February 2001, respondent allegedly convinced complainant to sign an Affidavit of Disclaimer which the latter signed without reading the said affidavit. It was said that Aquino will give complainant a lump sum provided she would execute an affidavit to the effect that Aquino is not the father of her daughter. Complainant argues that respondent's acts constitute a violation of his oath as a lawyer. She filed an administrative case against Rongcal which was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines which recommended the suspension of Rongcal from the practice of law. The same was approved by the IBP Board of Governors.Respondent then filed a Motion for Reconsideration with Motion to Set Case for Clarificatory Questioning with the IBP and a Motion to Reopen/Remand Case for Clarificatory Questioning with the Supreme Court.

ISSUE: WON respondent be disbarred for immorality.

RULING: 

One of the conditions prior to admission to the bar is that an applicant must possess good moral character. Said requirement persists as a continuing condition for the enjoyment of the privilege of law practice, otherwise, the loss thereof is a ground for the revocation of such privilege.

ON SEXUAL RELATION AND ON RESPONDENT’S SUBSEQUENT MARRIAGE:By his own admission, respondent is obviously guilty of immorality in violation of Rule 1.01 of the Code which states that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

We find credence in respondent's assertion that it was impossible for her not to have known of his subsisting marriage.

We believe that complainant’s allegations of deceit were not established by clear preponderant evidence required in disbarment cases. We are left with the most logical conclusion that she freely and wittingly entered into an illicit and immoral relationship with respondent sans any misrepresentation or deceit on his part.

ON THE AFFIDAVIT SIGNED:Complainant does not deny being a college graduate or that she knows and understands English. The Affidavit is written in short and simple sentences that are understandable even to a layman. The inevitable conclusion is that she signed the Affidavit voluntarily and without any coercion whatsoever on the part of respondent.

It was not unlawful for respondent to assist his client in entering into a settlement with Aquino after explaining all available options to her. The law encourages the amicable settlement not only of pending cases but also of disputes which might otherwise be filed in court.This court finds Atty. Diosdado M. Rongcal GUILTY of immorality and imposes on him a FINE of P15,000.00 with a stern warning

that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future will be dealt with more severely.

Verzonilla vs Pascua

Attorney; misconduct. With his admission that he drafted and notarized another instrument that did not state the true consideration of the sale so as to reduce the capital gains and other taxes due on the transaction, respondent cannot escape liability for making an untruthful statement in a public document for an unlawful purpose. As the second deed indicated an amount much lower than the actual price paid for the property sold, respondent abetted in depriving the Government of the right to collect the correct taxes due. Not only did respondent assist the contracting parties in an activity aimed at defiance of the law, he likewise displayed lack of respect for and made a mockery of the solemnity of the oath in an Acknowledgment. By notarizing such illegal and fraudulent document, he is entitling it full faith and credit upon its face, which it obviously does not deserve considering its nature and purpose. Respondent’s actions violated not only Rule 1.02, Canon 1 of the Code of Responsibility, but pertinent sections of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice as well. Thus, respondent is meted the penalty of revocation of notarial commission and suspension from the practice of law for a period of two years. Pacita Caalim-Verzonilla v. Atty. Victoriano G. Pascua. A.C. No. 6655. October 11, 2011

Gatchalian Promotions Talent Pool, Inc. vs. Naldoza, 315 SCRA 406

Facts:

The case at bar is a petition for disbarment against Atty. Primo L. Naldoza for appealing a decision which is final and executory, deceitfully obtaining $2,555 from the client allegedly for “cash bond” in the appealed case, and issuing a spurious receipt to conceal the illegal act. Respondent denies that he persuaded complainant to file an appeal and asserted that it was the latter who initiated the action to delay the execution of POEA decision. He also denied the two other charges. Trial procedures were instituted before the IBP.

Meanwhile, a criminal case based on the same facts was filed before RTC Makati, Branch 141. Although acquitted on reasonable doubt, he was declared civilly liable in the amount of $2,555. Having been acquitted in the criminal case, he manifested a Motion for Dismissal of the IBP case.

Commissioner Jose brushed aside respondent's contention on the ground that the criminal case for estafa is completely different from the proceedings before him. Acquittal in the former did not exonerate respondent in the latter. He further noted that the RTC Decision itself hinted at the administrative liability of respondent, since it found him civilly liable to herein complainant for $2,555. He was suspended by the IBP for one (1) year. Thus, he appealed before the Supreme Court.

Issues:

(1) Whether or not respondent should be freed of the administrative proceeding since he was acquitted of the criminal charge.

(2) Whether or not respondent is negligent when he appealed the decision of the POEA knowing it to be final and executory.

Held:

(1) Administrative cases against lawyers belong to a class of their own. They are distinct from and they may proceed independently of civil and criminal cases.

x x x

Thus, a criminal prosecution will not constitute a prejudicial question even if the same facts and circumstances are attendant in the administrative proceedings.

It should be emphasized that a finding of guilt in the criminal case will not necessarily result in a finding of liability in the administrative case. Conversely, respondent’s acquittal does not necessarily exculpate him administratively. In the same vein, the trial court’s finding of civil liability against the respondent will not inexorably lead to a similar finding in the administrative action before this Court.

(2) Complainant has failed to present proof regarding the status of the appeal. Neither has there been any showing that the appeal was dismissed on the ground that the POEA Decision had become final and executory. Worse, there has been no evidence that respondent knew that the case was unappealable. Indeed, the records of this Court shows that the Petition for Review was dismissed for petitioner's failure to submit an Affidavit of Service and a legible duplicate of the assailed Order. Clearly, this charge has no leg to stand on.