Here are select January 2013 rulings of the Supreme Court of the Philippines on legal and judicial ethics:Attorney; forum shopping as contempt of court.A disbarment complaint against Atty. Gonzales was filed for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility for the forum shopping he allegedly committed. The court held that the respondent was guilty of forum shopping. Lawyers should be reminded that their primary duty is to assist the courts in the administration of justice. Any conduct that tends to delay, impede or obstruct the administration of justice contravenes this obligation. The Court has repeatedly warned lawyers against resorting to forum shopping since the practice clogs the Court dockets and can lead to conflicting rulings. Willful and deliberate forum shopping has been made punishable either as direct or indirect contempt of court. In engaging in forum shopping, Atty. Gonzales violated Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which directs lawyers to obey the laws of the land and promote respect for the law and legal processes. He also disregarded his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice, and the prohibition against unduly delaying a case by misusing court processes. Thus, the court subjected Atty. Gonzales to censure.Anastacio N. Teodoro III vs. Atty. Romeo S. Gonzales.A.C. No. 6760. January 30, 2013Attorney; neglect.Complainant filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Gacott who allegedly deceived the complainant and her husband into signing a preparatory Deed of Sale that respondent converted into a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of his relatives.The respondent is reminded that his duty under Canon 16 is to hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his possession. Allowing a party to take the original TCTs of properties owned by another an act that could result in damage should merit a finding of legal malpractice. While it was his legal staff who allowed the complainant to borrow the TCTs and it does not appear that the respondent was aware or present when the complainant borrowed the TCTs, the court still held the respondent liable, as the TCTs were entrusted to his care and custody; he failed to exercise due diligence in caring for his clients properties that were in his custody.Moreover, Canon 18, Rule 18.03 requires that a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. What amounts to carelessness or negligence in a lawyers discharge of his duty to his client is incapable of an exact formulation, but the Court has consistently held that the mere failure of a lawyer to perform the obligations due his client isper sea violation. InCanoy v. Ortiz, the court held that a lawyers failure to file a position paper wasper sea violation of Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Similar toCanoy, the respondent clearly failed in his duty to his client when, without any explanation, he failed to file the Motion for Leave to Intervene on behalf of the spouses Ylaya.Fe A. Ylaya vs. Atty. Glenn Carlos Gacott.A.C. No. 6475. January 30, 2013Attorney; lack of diligence.Complainant filed a case for disbarment against Atty. Cefra for violating Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rules 138 and139 of the Rules of Court. The court held that Atty. Cefra was guilty of negligence in handling the complainants case. His acts in the present administrative case also reveal his lack of diligence in performing his duties as an officer of the Court. The Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that a lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence. It further states that a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. In addition, a lawyer has the duty to keep the client informed of the status of his case. Atty. Cefra failed to live up to these standards as shown by the following: (1) Atty. Cefra failed to submit a formal offer of documentary evidence within the period given by the RTC; (2) He failed to comply with the two orders of the RTC directing him to submit a formal offer of documentary evidence; (3) Atty. Cefra failed to file an appropriate motion or appeal, or avail of any remedial measure to contest the RTCs decision; (4) He failed to file an appropriate motion or appeal, or avail of any remedial measure to contest the RTCs decision which was adverse to complainants.Thus, the above acts showing Atty. Cefras lack of diligence and inattention to his duties as a lawyer warrant disciplinary sanction. The court has repeatedly held that [t]he practice of law is a privilege bestowed by the State on those who show that they possess the legal qualifications for it. Lawyers are expected to maintain at all times a high standard of legal proficiency and morality, including honesty, integrity and fair dealing. They must perform their fourfold duty to society, the legal profession, the courts and their clients, in accordance with the values and norms of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility.Sps. Arcing and Cresing Bautista, et al. vs. Atty. Arturo CefraA.C. No. 5530. January 28, 2013.Attorney; reinstatement in the Roll of Attorneys; guidelines in resolving requests for judicial clemency; good moral character requirement.InRe: Letter of Judge Augustus C. Diaz, Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 37, Appealing for Clemency, the Court laid down the following guidelines in resolving requests for judicial clemency, to wit:(a) There must be proof of remorse and reformation. These shall include but should not be limited to certifications or testimonials of the officer(s) or chapter(s) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, judges or judges associations and prominent members of the community with proven integrity and probity. A subsequent finding of guilt in an administrative case for the same or similar misconduct will give rise to a strong presumption of non-reformation.(b) Sufficient time must have lapsed from the imposition of the penalty to ensure a period of reform.(c) The age of the person asking for clemency must show that he still has productive years ahead of him that can be put to good use by giving him a chance to redeem himself.(d) There must be a showing of promise (such as intellectual aptitude, learning or legal acumen or contribution to legal scholarship and the development of the legal system or administrative and other relevant skills), as well as potential for public service.(e) There must be other relevant factors and circumstances that may justify clemency.Moreover, to be reinstated to the practice of law, the applicant must, like any other candidate for admission to the bar, satisfy the Court that he is a person of good moral character.In a previous Decision, the Court disbarred respondent from the practice of law for having contracted a bigamous marriage with complainant Teves and a third marriage with one Constantino while his first marriage to Esparza was still subsisting. These acts, according to the court, constituted gross immoral conduct.In this case, the court held that Respondent has sufficiently shown his remorse and acknowledged his indiscretion in the legal profession and in his personal life. He has asked forgiveness from his children by complainant Teves and maintained a cordial relationship with them as shown by the herein attached pictures. After his disbarment, respondent returned to his hometown in Enrile, Cagayan and devoted his time tending an orchard and taking care of his ailing mother until her death in 2008. In 2009, he was appointed as Private Secretary to the Mayor of Enrile, Cagayan and thereafter, assumed the position of Local Assessment Operations Officer II/Office-In-Charge in the Assessors Office, which office he continues to serve to date. Moreover, he is a part-time instructor at the University of Cagayan Valley and F.L. Vargas College during the School Year 2011-2012. Respondent likewise took an active part in socio-civic activities by helping his neighbors and friends who are in dire need.Certain documents also attest to Respondents reformed ways such as: (1) Affidavit of Candida P. Mabborang; (2) Affidavit of Reymar P. Ramirez; (3) Affidavit of Roberto D. Tallud; (4) Certification from the Municipal Local Government Office.Furthermore, respondents plea for reinstatement is duly supported by the IBP- Cagayan Chapter and by his former and present colleagues. His parish priest certified that he is faithful to and puts to actual practice the doctrines of the Catholic Church. He is also observed to be a regular churchgoer. Respondent has already settled his previous marital squabbles, as in fact, no opposition to the instant suit was tendered by complainant Teves. He sends regular support to his children in compliance with the Decision dated February 27, 2004.The Court notes the eight (8) long years that had elapsed from the time respondent was disbarred and recognizes his achievement as the first lawyer product of Lemu National High School, and his fourteen (14) years of dedicated government service from 1986 to July 2000 as Legal Officer of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports; Supervising Civil Service Attorney of the Civil Service Commission; Ombudsman Graft Investigation Officer; and State Prosecutor of the Department of Justice. From the attestations and certifications presented, the Court finds that respondent has sufficiently atoned for his transgressions. At 58 years of age, he still has productive years ahead of him that could significantly contribute to the upliftment of the law profession and the betterment of society. While the Court is ever mindful of its duty to discipline and even remove its errant officers, concomitant to it is its duty to show compassion to those who have reformed their ways as in this case.Thus, the court reinstated respondent to the practice of law. He was, however, reminded that such privilege is burdened with conditions whereby adherence to the rigid standards of intellect, moral uprightness, and strict compliance with the rules and the law are continuing requirements.Florence Teves Macarubbo vs. Atty. Edmundo L. Macarubbo; Re: Petition (for Extraordinary Mercy) of Edmundo L. Macarubbo.A.C. No. 6148. January 22, 2013Court personnel; refusal to perform duty.Section 1, Canon IV of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel enjoins court personnel to perform their official duties properly and with diligence at all times. Clerks of Court are primarily responsible for the speedy and efficient service of all court processes and writs. Hence, they cannot be allowed to slacken on their work since they are charged with the duty of keeping the records and the seal of the court, issuing processes, entering judgments and orders, and giving certified copies of records upon request. As such, they are expected to possess a high degree of discipline and efficiency in the performance of their functions to help ensure that the cause of justice is done without delay.As an officer of the court, respondent Clerk of Court was duty-bound to use reasonable skill and diligence in the performance of her officially-designated duties as clerk of court, failing which, warrants the imposition of administrative sanctions. In this case, respondent unjustifiably failed to issue the alias writs of execution to implement the judgment in a Civil Case, despite orders from the RTC. Moreover, she failed to file the required comment in disregard of the duty of every employee in the judiciary to obey the orders and processes of the Court without delay. Such act evinces lack of interest in clearing her name, constituting an implied admission of the charges.Mariano T. Ong vs. Eva G. Basiya-Saratan, Clerk of Court, RTC, Br. 32, Iloilo City.A.M. No. P-12-3090. January 7, 2013Judge; disciplinary proceedings against judges; presumption of regularity.Jurisprudence is replete with cases holding that errors, if any, committed by a judge in the exercise of his adjudicative functions cannot be corrected through administrative proceedings, but should instead be assailed through available judicial remedies. Disciplinary proceedings against judges do not complement, supplement or substitute judicial remedies and, thus, cannot be pursued simultaneously with the judicial remedies accorded to parties aggrieved by their erroneous orders or judgments.Even if the CA decision or portions thereof turn out to be erroneous, administrative liability will only attach upon proof that the actions of the respondent CA Justices were motivated by bad faith, dishonesty or hatred, or attended by fraud or corruption, which were not sufficiently shown to exist in this case. Neither was bias as well as partiality established. Acts or conduct of the judge clearly indicative of arbitrariness or prejudice must be clearly shown before he can be branded the stigma of being biased and partial. In the same vein, bad faith or malice cannot be inferred simply because the judgment or order is adverse to a party. Here, other than AMALIs bare and self-serving claim, no act clearly indicative of bias and partiality was alleged except for the claim that respondent CA Justices misapplied the law and jurisprudence. Thus, the presumption that the respondent judge has regularly performed his duties shall prevail.Re: Verified complaint of AMA Land, Inc. against Hon. Danton Q. Bueser, et al.A.M. No. OCA IPI No. 12-202-CA-J. January 15, 2013Judge; gross ignorance of law.Judge Sarmiento, Jr. was charged with gross ignorance of the law, manifest partiality and dereliction and neglect of duty. The court held that the judge did not commit gross ignorance of the law. Gross ignorance of the law on the part of a judge presupposes an appalling lack of familiarity with simple rules of law or procedures and well-established jurisprudence which tends to erode the public trust in the competence and fairness of the court which he personifies. The complaint states that respondent judge, in arbitrary defiance of his own September 25, 2006 Decision which constitutes res judicata or a bar to him to pass upon the issue of Geoffrey, Jrs. custody, granted, via his March 15, 2011 Order, provisional custody over Geoffrey, Jr. to Eltesa. The Decision adverted to refers to the judgment on compromise agreement.Respondent judge cannot be held guilty of the charges hurled by the complainant against him since there is no finding of strong reasons to rule otherwise. The preference of a child over 7 years of age as to whom he desired to live with shall be respected. Moreover, custody, even if previously granted by a competent court in favor of a parent, is not permanent.Geoffrey Beckett vs. Judge Olegario R. Sarmiento, Jr., RTC, Branch 24, Cebu City.A.M. No. RTJ-12-2326. January 30, 2013Judge; misconduct.Misconduct means intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule of law or a standard of behavior. To constitute an administrative offense, misconduct should relate to or be connected with the performance of the official functions of a public officer. In grave misconduct, as distinguished from simple misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of an established rule must be established.In this case, the actions of the Sandiganbayan Justices respecting the execution of the final judgment against accused Velasco were shown to be in respectful deference to the Courts action on the various petitions filed by the former. Records are bereft of evidence showing any trace of corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of the rules as to hold the Sandiganbayan Justices administratively liable for grave misconduct.Re: Complaint of Leonardo A. Velasco against Associate Justices Francisco H. Villaruz, Jr., et al.A.M. No. OCA IPI No. 10-25-SB-J. January 15, 2013Judge; no abuse of authority when judge did not renew a temporary appointment.Complainant, a former Court Stenographer III at the RTC, failed to show any proof that she was entitled to a permanent position. Other than her allegation that she was given two very satisfactory and one satisfactory rating, there was no evidence presented that she has met the prescribed qualification standard for the position. Such standard is a mix of the formal education, experience, training, civil service eligibility, physical health and attitude that the job requires. Respondent judge, who is the immediate supervisor of complainant, is in the best position to observe the fitness, propriety and efficiency of the employee for the position. It should be impressed upon complainant that her appointment in the Judiciary is not a vested right. It is not an entitlement that she can claim simply for the reason that she had been in the service for almost two years.The subsequent filing of complaint against Atty. Borja (officer-in-charge of the PAO-Virac) manifests complainants propensity to file complaints whenever she does not get what she wants. Such attitude should not be tolerated. Otherwise, judges will be placed in hostage situations by employees who will threaten to file complaints whenever they do not get their way with their judges.Since there is no proof that respondent judge abused her position, the case against her should be dismissed. Respondent judge should, however, be reminded to be circumspect in her actuations so as not to give the impression that she is guilty of favoritism.Kareen P. Magtagob vs. Judge Genie G. Gapas-Agbada.OCA IPI No. 11-3631-RTJ. January 16, 2013Here are select November 2013 rulings of the Supreme Court of the Philippines on legal and judicial ethics:Attorney; Accountability for Money Received from Client.Atty. Lawsin undertook to process the registration and eventually deliver, within a period of 6 months, the certificate of title over a certain parcel of land (subject land) in favor of complainant acting as the representative of the Heirs of the late Isabel Segovia. Atty. Lawsin received from complainant the amounts of P15,000 and P39,000 to cover for the litigation and land registration expenses, respectively. Atty. Lawsin, however, failed to fulfil his undertaking and failed to return the money to complainant. The Supreme Court held that Atty. Lawsins failure to properly account for and duly return his clients money despite due demand is tantamount to a violation of Rules 16.01 and 16.03, Canon 16 of the Code. Complainants purported act of maligning him does not justify the latters failure to properly account for and return his clients money upon due demand. Verily, a lawyers duty to his client is one essentially imbued with trust so much so that it is incumbent upon the former to exhaust all reasonable efforts towards its faithful compliance.Azucena Segovia-Ribaya v. Atty. Bartolome C. Lawsin,A.C. No. 7965, November 13, 2013.Attorney; Administrative Proceedings; Sole Issue.Complainants filed a complaint for dishonesty against respondent, a retired judge, for knowingly making untruthful statements in the complaint he filed against them. The Supreme Court held that in administrative cases, the only issue within the ambit of the Courts disciplinary authority is whether a lawyer is fit to remain a member of the Bar. Other issues are proper subjects of judicial action. On its face, the 12 September 2006 complaint filed by the Spouses Williams against Atty. Enriquez does not merit an administrative case. In order for the Court to determine whether Atty. Enriquez is guilty of dishonesty, the issue of ownership must first be settled. The issue of ownership of real property must be settled in a judicial, not administrative, case.Sps. David Williams and Marissa Williams v. Atty. Rudy T. Enriquez,A.C. No. 7329, November 27, 2013.Attorney; Gross Neglect of Duty.A complaint was filed against Atty. Venida for serious misconduct and gross neglect of duty. Complainant alleged that she engaged the services of respondent to handle her case before the CA but the respondent had been remiss. Thus, her case was dismissed. The Supreme Court held that this is a clear violation of Rule 18.04, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which enjoins lawyers to keep their clients informed of the status of their case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the clients request for information. Respondents refusal to obey the orders of the IBP is not only irresponsible, but also constitutes utter disrespect for the judiciary and his fellow lawyers. His conduct is unbecoming of a lawyer, for lawyers are particularly called upon to obey court orders and processes and are expected to stand foremost in complying with court directives being themselves officers of the court.Aurora H. Cabauatan v. Atty. Freddie A. Venida,A.C. No. 10043, November 20, 2013.Attorney; Mishandling of Clients Case.Complainant-Spouses filed an administrative case against Atty. Dublin for gross negligence and dereliction of duty for mishandling their case. The Supreme Court held Atty. Dublin guilty of mishandling Civil Case No. 23,396-95. Records show that the 10-day period given to him to submit his formal offer of documentary evidence pursuant to the RTC Order lapsed without any compliance from him. Atty. Dublin violated the Code of Professional Responsibility particularly Canon 18 and Rule 18.03. Respondent admitted that he deliberately failed to timely file the formal offer of exhibits because he believed that the exhibits were fabricated and the same would be refused admission by the RTC. However, if respondent truly believed that the exhibits to be presented in evidence by his clients were fabricated, then he had the option to withdraw from the case. Canon 22 allows a lawyer to withdraw his services for good cause such as [w]hen the client pursues an illegal or immoral course of conduct with the matter he is handling or [w]hen the client insists that the lawyer pursue conduct violative of these canons and rules. Thus, Atty. Dublin was imposed the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for 6 months.Sps. George A. Warriner and Aurora R. Warriner v. Atty. Reni M. Dublin,A.C. No. 5239, November 18, 2013.Attorney; Notary Public; Notarial Register.Complainants filed a complaint against Atty. Kilaan for falsification of documents, dishonesty and deceit. Complainants alleged that Atty. Kilaan intercalated certain entries in the application for issuance of Certificate of Public Convenience (CPC) to operate a public utility jeepney filed before the LTFRB. Complainants also alleged that the Verification in Batingweds application for CPC was notarized by Atty. Kilaan as Doc. No: 253, Page No. 51, Book No. VIII, Series of 2003. However, upon verification of Atty. Kilaans Notarial Registry submitted to the RTC, the said notarial entry actually refers to a Deed of Sale and not the Verification of Batingweds application. It is settled that it is the notary public who is personally accountable for the accuracy of the entries in his Notarial Register. The Court is not persuaded by respondents explanation that he is burdened with cases thus he was constrained to delegate the recording of his notarial acts in his Notarial Register to his secretary. Rule VI, Sections I and 2 of the 2004 Rules of Notarial Practice require a notary public to keep and maintain a Notarial Register wherein he will record his every notarial act. His failure to make the proper entry or entries in his notarial register concerning his notarial acts is a ground for revocation of his notarial commission. Since Atty. Kilaan failed to make the proper entries in his Notarial Register, his notarial commission may be properly revoked.Mariano Agadan, et al. v. Atty. Richard Baltazar Kilaan,A.C. No. 9385, November 11, 2013.Attorney; Respect to Courts.Complainant alleged that Atty. Flores failed to give due respect to the court by failing to obey court orders, by failing to submit proof of his compliance with the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) requirement, and for using intemperate language in his pleadings. The Supreme Court held that Atty. Flores failed to obey the courts order to submit proof of his MCLE compliance notwithstanding the several opportunities given him. Court orders are to be respected not because the judges who issue them should be respected, but because of the respect and consideration that should be extended to the judicial branch of the Government. This is absolutely essential if our Government is to be a government of laws and not of men. Respect must be had not because of the incumbents to the positions, but because of the authority that vests in them. Moreover, Atty. Flores employed intemperate language in his pleadings. As an officer of the court, Atty. Flores is expected to be circumspect in his language. Rule 11.03, Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility enjoins all attorneys to abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing language or behaviour before the Courts.Hon. Maribeth Rodriguez-Manahan, Presiding Judge, Municipal Trial Court, San Mateo, Rizal v. Atty. Rodolfo Flores,A.C. No. 8954, November 13, 2013.Court Personnel; Dishonesty.Complainants accused respondent sheriff of grave misconduct, dishonesty and conduct unbecoming an officer of the court for unlawfully and forcibly acquiring part of their lot. The Supreme Court held that respondent is guilty of simple dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, but not of grave misconduct. Dishonesty is intentionally making a false statement on any material fact and a disposition to lie, cheat, deceive or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity, lack of honesty, probity or integrity in principle; lack of fairness and straightforwardness; disposition to defraud, deceive or betray. Respondent did not have a hand in the re-survey conducted by the DAR in 2003 which resulted in the increased land area of his lot. Nonetheless, respondents acts thereafter displayed his lack of honesty, fairness, and straightforwardness, not only with his neighbors, but also with the concerned government agencies/officials. Respondents deportment under the circumstances likewise constitute conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. Respondent appears to have illegally forced his way into the disputed area. As a Sheriff, he is expected to be familiar with court procedure and processes, especially those concerning the execution of orders and decisions of the courts.Heirs of Celestino Teves, represented by Paul John Teves Abad, Elsa C. Aquino and Filimon E. Fernan v. Augusto Felicidario,A.M. No. P-12-3089, November 13, 2013.Court Personnel; Grave Misconduct and Dishonesty.Complainant alleged that the respondent failed to execute the decision in a land registration case despite receiving an amount for the implementation of the Alias Writ. The Supreme Court held that the deposit and payment of expenses incurred in enforcing writs are governed by Section 10, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, as revised by A.M. No. 04-2-04-SC. The rule clearly requires that the sheriff executing a writ shall provide an estimate of the expenses to be incurred, and such estimated amount must be approved by the court. Upon approval, the interested party shall then deposit the amount with the clerk of court and ex officio sheriff. The expenses shall be disbursed to the assigned deputy sheriff to execute the writ, subject to liquidation upon the return of the writ. In this case, the money which respondent had demanded and received from complainant was not among those prescribed and authorized by the Rules of Court as it was not even accounted for earlier in his Manifestation. He merely reported his receipt of the P20,000 in his liquidation of expenses only after complainant demanded an accounting and in compliance to Judges directive. The Court has ruled that any amount received by the sheriff in excess of the lawful fees allowed by the Rules of Court is an unlawful exaction and renders him liable for grave misconduct and gross dishonesty.Eleanor P. Olivan v. Arnel A. Rubio, etc.,A.M. No. P-13-3063, November 26, 2013.Court Personnel; Gross Dishonesty.An administrative complaint was filed against Ibay, Clerk II of MTCC, for stealing a check. The Supreme Court held that in the absence of substantial defense to refute the charges against her, Ibay is liable for the loss of the check and the forgery of De Ocampos signature, leading to the checks encashment. The case against Ibay is bolstered by the fact that Judge Eduarte found striking similarities between her handwriting in the inventory of cases and the forged endorsement in the check. Thus, there is substantial evidence to dismiss Ibay on the ground of dishonesty. Section 52(A) (1) of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service provides that dishonesty is a grave offense punishable by dismissal from the service even when committed for the first time. Persons involved in the dispensation of justice, from the highest official to the lowest clerk, must live up to the strictest standards of integrity, probity, uprightness, honesty and diligence in the public service. The Supreme Court will not tolerate dishonesty, for the judiciary deserves the best from all its employees.Executive Judge Henedino P. Eduarte, RTC, Br. 20, Cauayan, Isabela v. Elizabeth T. Ibay, Clerk II, MTCC, Cauayan, Isabela,A.C. No. P-12-3100, November 12, 2013.Judges; Absence Without Approved Leave.Judge Villacorta III was granted authority to travel until February 3, 2011. However, he only returned to work on February 16, without securing an extension of his authority to travel abroad. This happened again for a second time. The Supreme Court held that OCA Circular No. 49-2003 (Guidelines on Requests for Travel Abroad and Extensions for Travel/Stay Abroad) requires that a request must be made for an extension of the period to travel/stay abroad, and that the request be received by the OCA ten (10) working days before the expiration of the original travel authority. Failure to do so would make the absences beyond the original period unauthorized. In this case, Judge Villacorta was in a position to file an application for leave to cover his extended stay abroad. Section 50 of Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 41, series of 1998, states that an official or an employee who is absent without approved leave shall not be entitled to receive the salary corresponding to the period of the unauthorized leave of absence.Re: Unauthorized Travel Abroad of Judge Cleto R. Villacorta III, Regional Trial Court, Branch 6, Baguio City,A.M. No. 11-9-167-RTC, November 11, 2013.Judges; Judicial Clemency in Administrative Cases.Judge Pacalna was held administratively liable for dishonesty, serious misconduct and gross ignorance of the law or procedure, and for violation the Code of Judicial Conduct. He then filed a Petition for Judicial Clemency. The Supreme Court laid down the following guidelines in resolving requests for judicial clemency: (1) There must be proof of remorse and reformation. These shall include but should not be limited to certifications or testimonials of the officer(s) or chapter(s) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, judges or judges associations and prominent members of the community with proven integrity and probity. A subsequent finding of guilt in an administrative case for the same or similar misconduct will give rise to a strong presumption of non-reformation; (2) Sufficient time must have lapsed from the imposition of the penalty to ensure a period of reformation; (3) The age of the person asking for clemency must show that he still has productive years ahead of him that can be put to good use by giving him a chance to redeem himself; (4) There must be a showing of promise (such as intellectual aptitude, learning or legal acumen or contribution to legal scholarship and the development of the legal system or administrative and other relevant skills), as well as potential for public service; (5) There must be other relevant factors and circumstances that may justify clemency. In this case, Judge Pacalnas petition is not supported by any single proof of his professed repentance and therefore, must be denied.Mamasaw Sultan Ali v. Judge Baguinda-Ali Pacalna, et al.,A.M. No. MTJ-03-1505, November 27, 2013.Judges; Retirement Benefits.The surviving spouse of Judge Gruba applied for retirement/gratuity benefits under Republic Act No. 910. The 5-year lump sum gratuity due to Judge Gruba was paid to his heirs. On January 13, 2010, Congress amended Republic Act No. 910 and passed Republic Act No. 9946 which provided for more benefits, including survivorship pension benefits, among others. On January 11, 2012, Mrs. Gruba applied for survivorship pension benefits under Republic Act No. 9946. In a Resolution dated January 17, 2012, this Court approved the application of Mrs. Gruba. She received 1,026,748.00 for survivorship pension benefits from January 1, 2011 to April 2012. Later, however, the Supreme Court revoked the resolution dated January 17, 2012. The Supreme Court held that the law accommodates the heirs of Judge Gruba by entitling them to receive the improved gratuity benefits under Republic Act No. 9946, but it is clear that Mrs. Gruba is not entitled to the survivorship pension benefits. However, despite the fact that Mrs. Gruba is not entitled to receive survivorship pension, she no longer needs to return the survivorship pension benefits she received from January 2011 to April 2012 amounting to 1,026,748.00. The Supreme Court, in the past, has decidedpro hac vicethat a surviving spouse who received survivorship pension benefits in good faith no longer needs to refund such pensions.Re: Application for Survivorship Pension Benefits Under Republic Act 9946 of Mrs. Pacita A. Gruba, Surviving Spouse of the Late Manuel K. Gruba, Former CTA Associate Judge,A.M. No. 14155-Ret. November 19, 2013.Here are select October 2013 cases on legal and judicial ethics:Attorney; Gross Immoral Conduct.Respondent Pedrea, a Public Attorney, was charged for sexual harassment. The Supreme Court held that the records show that the respondent rubbed the complainants right leg with his hand; tried to insert his finger into her firmly closed hand; grabbed her hand and forcibly placed it on his crotch area; and pressed his finger against her private part. Given the circumstances in which he committed them, his acts were not merely offensive and undesirable but repulsive, disgraceful and grossly immoral. They constituted misconduct on the part of any lawyer. In this regard, immoral conduct is gross when it is so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act, or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree, or when committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the communitys sense of decency. Atty. Pedreas misconduct was aggravated by the fact that he was then a Public Attorney mandated to provide free legal service to indigent litigants, and by the fact that complainant was then such a client. He also disregarded his oath as a public officer to serve others and to be accountable at all times, because he thereby took advantage of her vulnerability as a client then in desperate need of his legal assistance. Thus, respondent was meted out the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for two (2) years.Jocelyn De Leon v. Atty. Tyrone Pedrena,A.C. No. 9401, October 22, 2013.Attorney; Gross Misconduct.A complaint for disbarment was filed against Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Atty. Salvador N. Pe, Jr. for falsifying an inexistent decision of the RTC. The Supreme Court held that the respondent was guilty of grave misconduct for having authored the falsification of the decision in a non-existent court proceeding. Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility demands that all lawyers should uphold at all times the dignity and integrity of the Legal Profession. Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that a lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession. Lawyers are further required by Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility not to engage in any unlawful, dishonest and immoral or deceitful conduct. Gross immorality, conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or fraudulent transactions can justify a lawyers disbarment or suspension from the practice of law. Specifically, the deliberate falsification of the court decision by the respondent was an act that reflected a high degree of moral turpitude on his part. Worse, the act made a mockery of the administration of justice in this country, given the purpose of the falsification, which was to mislead a foreign tribunal on the personal status of a person. Thus, the Court disbarred the respondent.Atty. Oscar L. Embido, etc. v. Atty. Salvador N. Pe, Jr., etc.,A.M. No. 6732, October 22, 2013.Attorney; Gross Negligence.Respondent Villaseca was charged for gross and inexcusable negligence in handling a criminal case, as a consequence of which the complainants were convicted. The Supreme Court held that Atty. Villasecas failure to submit a demurrer to evidence constitutes inexcusable negligence; it showed his lack of devotion and zeal in preserving his clients cause. Furthermore, Atty. Villasecas failure to present any testimonial, object or documentary evidence for the defense reveals his lack of diligence in performing his duties as an officer of the Court; it showed his indifference towards the cause of his clients. Considering that the liberty and livelihood of his clients were at stake, Atty. Villaseca should have exerted efforts to rebut the presented prosecution evidence. The Court emphasized that while a lawyer has complete discretion on what legal strategy to employ in a case entrusted to him, he must present every remedy or defense within the authority of the law to support his clients cause.Mary Ann T. Mattus v. Albert T. Villaseca,A.C. No. 7922, October 1, 2013.Attorney; Lawyer-Client Relationship.Respondent Gagate was accused of gross ignorance of the law and unethical practice of law. The Supreme Court emphasized that the relationship between a lawyer and his client is one imbued with utmost trust and confidence. In this regard, clients are led to expect that lawyers would be ever-mindful of their cause and accordingly exercise the required degree of diligence in handling their affairs. For his part, the lawyer is expected to maintain at all times a high standard of legal proficiency, and to devote his full attention, skill, and competence to the case, regardless of its importance and whether he accepts it for a fee or for free. To this end, he is enjoined to employ only fair and honest means to attain lawful objectives. These principles are embodied in Canon 17, Rule 18.03 of Canon 18, and Rule 19.01 of Canon 19 of the Code. Thus, the Court found that the respondent failed to exercise the required diligence in handling complainants cause since he: (1) failed to represent her competently and diligently by acting and proffering professional advice beyond the proper bounds of law; and, (2) abandoned his clients cause while the grave coercion case against them was pending.Maria Cristina Zabaljauregui Pitcher v. Atty. Rustico B. Gagate,A.C. No. 9532, October 8, 2013.Attorney; Lawyer-Client Relationship.Respondent Obias was charged for grave misconduct and/or gross malpractice. The Supreme Court held that since respondent publicly held herself out as lawyer, the mere fact that she also acted as a real estate broker did not divest her of the responsibilities attendant to the legal profession. In this regard, the legal advice and/or legal documentation that she offered and/or rendered regarding the real estate transaction subject of this case should not be deemed removed from the category of legal services. Case law instructs that if a person, in respect to business affairs or troubles of any kind, consults a lawyer with a view to obtaining professional advice or assistance, and the attorney voluntarily permits or acquiesces with the consultation, then the professional employment is established.Moreover, according to the Court, respondent grossly violated the trust and confidence reposed in her by her clients, in contravention of Canons 17 and 18 of the Code. Records disclose that instead of delivering the deed of sale covering the subject property to her clients, she wilfully notarized a deed of sale over the same property in favor of another person. It is a core ethical principle that lawyers owe fidelity to their clients cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in them. Thus, respondent was disbarred by the Court.Ma. Jennifer Tria-Samonte v. Epifania Fanny Obias,A.C. No. 4945, October 8, 2013.Judiciary; Accountability.Respondent Arnejo, a stenographer of the RTC, was accused of receiving payment for the TSN on 22 July 2010 and remitting the money to the cashier of the Clerk of Court only on 19 and 23 December 2010. The Supreme Court held that the respondent violated the Code of Conduct of Court Personnel and Code of Ethics for Government Officials and Employees. The Court will not tolerate the practice of asking for advance payment from litigants, much less the unauthorized acceptance of judicial fees. Section 11, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, specifically provides that payment for requests of copies of the TSN shall be made to the Clerk of Court. Clearly, therefore, payment cannot be made to respondent, as it is an official transaction, and, as such, must be made to the Clerk of Court. Respondent, being a stenographer, is not authorized to accept payment for judicial fees, even if two-thirds of those fees would be paid to her. Moreover, the issuance of an acknowledgment receipt cannot be construed as having been done in good faith, considering the fact that respondent only remitted the payment for the TSN five (5) months after her receipt of the supposed judicial fee, or only after the instant Complaint had been filed against her. Her belated remittance was tainted with bad faith.Joefil Baguio v. Maria Fe Arnejo, Stenographer III, Regional Trial Court, Branch 24, Cebu City,A.M. No. P-13-3155, October 21, 2013.Judiciary; Applicability of Sec. 7, Rule III, IRR of R.A. No. 10154.The issue presented in this case is whether or not Section 7, Rule III of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. (RA) 10154 applies to the employees of the Judiciary. The Supreme Court ruled that the subject provision which requires retiring government employees to secure a prior clearance of pendency/non-pendency of administrative case/s from, among others, the CSC should not be made to apply to employees of the Judiciary. To deem it otherwise would disregard the Courts constitutionally-enshrined power of administrative supervision over its personnel. Besides, retiring court personnel are already required to secure a prior clearance of the pendency/non-pendency of administrative case/s from the Court which makes the CSC clearance a superfluous and non-expeditious requirement contrary to the declared state policy of RA 10154. The Court, however, noted that since the Constitution only accords the Judiciary administrative supervision over its personnel, a different treatment of the clearance requirement obtains with respect to criminal cases. As such, a clearance requirement which pertains to criminal cases may be imposed by the appropriate government agency, i.e., the Office of the Ombudsman, on retiring court personnel as it is a matter beyond the ambit of the Judiciarys power of administrative supervision.Re: Request for guidance/clarification on Section 7, Rule III of Republic Act No. 10154 Requiring Retiring Government Employees to Secure a Clearance of Pendency/Non-Pendency of Case/s from the Civil Service Commission,A.M. No. 13-09-08-SC, October 1, 2013.Judiciary; Duty of Sheriff to Promptly Serve Summons.Sherriff Nery was accused of failing to serve summons to the defendant in a case where he asked for transportation expense, and despite being given an amount. The Supreme Court found the respondent guilty. Summons to the defendant in a case shall forthwith be issued by the clerk of court upon the filing of the complaint and the payment of the requisite legal fees. Once issued by the clerk of court, it is the duty of the sheriff, process server or any other person serving court processes to serve the summons to the defendant efficiently and expeditiously. Failure to do so constitutes simple neglect of duty, which is the failure of an employee to give ones attention to a task expected of him, and signifies a disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference. Moreover, sheriffs are not allowed to receive any payments from the parties in the course of the performance of their duties. They cannot just unilaterally demand sums of money from the parties without observing the proper procedural steps under Section 10, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, as amended.Atty. Vladimir Alarique T. Cabigao v. Naeptali Angelo V. Nery, Sheriff III, Branch 30, Metropolitan Trial Court, Manila,A.M. No. P13-3153, October 14, 2013.Judge; Gross Ignorance of the Law.Judge Clemens was charged for gross ignorance of the law and violation of the Child Witness Examination Rule. The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint for lack of merit since the acts of Judge Clemens were far from being ill-motivated and in bad faith as to justify any administrative liability on his part. A complete reading of the TSN reveals that he was vigilant in his conduct of the proceedings. In the instances mentioned in the Complaint-Affidavit, he had been attentive to the manifestations made by Atty. Tacorda and had acted accordingly and with dispatch. Further, contrary to the allegations of Atty. Tacorda, the TSN showed that the respondent Judge was very much concerned with following the proper conduct of trial and ensuring that the One-Day Examination of Witness Rule was followed; but at the same time, he was sensitive to the fact that the witness was already exhausted, having testified for almost three (3) hours.Atty. Jerome Norman L. Tacorda for: Odel L. Gedraga v. Judge Reynaldo B. Clemens, presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Br. 31, Calbayog City, Western Samar,A.M. No. RTJ-13-2359, October 23, 2013.Judge; Gross Ignorance of the Law.Complainant filed a case against Judge Patricio accusing him of gross ignorance of the law, manifest bias and partiality for refusing to execute a judgment which was already final and executory. The rule is that once a judgment attains finality, it thereby becomes immutable and unalterable. Thus, the Supreme Court held that Judge Patricio demonstrated ignorance of such rule by repeatedly refusing to execute the final and executory judgment of conviction against the accused. The rules on execution are comprehensive enough for a judge not to know how to apply them or to be confused by any auxiliary incidents. The issuance of a writ of execution for a final and executory judgment is ministerial. In other words, a judge is not given the discretion whether or not to implement the judgment. He is to effect execution without delay and supervise implementation strictly in accordance with the judgment. Judge Patricios acts unmistakably exhibit gross ignorance of the law.Jesus D. Carbajosa v. Judge Hannibal R. Patricio, Presiding Judge, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, President Roxas, Capiz,A.M. No. MTJ-13-1834, October 2, 2013.Judge; Gross Misconduct.Judge Pardo was accused of corruption. Judge Pardo did not deny that Rosendo, a litigant who had a pending application for probation in hissala, went to his house, had a drinking spree with him and stayed there for more than two hours. The Supreme Court held Judge Pardo liable for gross misconduct. Citing jurisprudence, the Court held that a judges acts of meeting with litigants outside the office premises beyond office hours and sending a member of his staff to talk with complainant constitute gross misconduct. Moreover, a judge was held liable for misconduct when he entertained a litigant in his home and received benefits given by the litigant.Atty. Jessie Tuldague and Atty. Alfredo Baldajo, Jr. v. Judge Moises Pardo and Jaime Calpatura, etc. / Atty. Jessie Tuldague and Atty. Alfredo Baldajo, Jr. v. Jaime Calpatura, etc. / Re: Report on the Judicial Audit and Investigation Conducted in the RTC, Cabarroguis, Quirino,A.M. No. RTJ-05-1962/ A.M. OCA IPI No. 05-2243-P/ A.M. No. 05-10-661-RTC, October 25, 2013.Judge; Grave Misconduct; Gross Neglect of Duty; Gross Dishonesty; Penalty. Grave misconduct, gross neglect of duty and gross dishonesty of which Judge Salubre, Edig, Palero and Aventurado are found guilty, even if committed for the first time, are punishable by dismissal and carries with it the forfeiture of retirement benefits, except accrued leave benefits, and the perpetual disqualification for reemployment in the government service. As to Judge Salubre and Edig, however, in view of their deaths, the supreme penalty of dismissal cannot be imposed on them anymore. It is only the penalty of dismissal that is rendered futile by their passing since they are not in the service anymore, but it is still within the Courts power to forfeit their retirement benefits.Report on the financial audit conducted in the MTCC, Tagum City, Davao del Norte / Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Ismael L. Salubre, et al.,A.M. OCA IPI No. 09-3138-P/A.M. No. MTJ-05-1618, October 22, 2013.Judge; Remedy for Correcting Actions of Judge.A complaint for gross ignorance of the law, grave misconduct, oppression, bias and partiality was filed against Judge Omelio. The Supreme Court reiterated the rule that the filing of an administrative complaint is not the proper remedy for correcting the actions of a judge perceived to have gone beyond the norms of propriety, where a sufficient remedy exists. The actions against judges should not be considered as complementary or suppletory to, or substitute for, the judicial remedies which can be availed of by a party in a case. Moreover, the grant or denial of a writ of preliminary injunction in a pending case rests on the sound discretion of the court taking cognizance of the case, since the assessment and evaluation of evidence towards that end involves findings of fact left to the said court for its conclusive determination. Hence, the exercise of judicial discretion by a court in injunctive matters must not be interfered with, except when there is grave abuse of discretion.Ma. Regina S. Peralta v. Judge George E. Omelio / Romualdo G. Mendoza v. Judge George E. Omelio / Atty. Asteria E. Cruzabra v. Judge George E. Omelio,A.M. No. RTJ-11-2259/A.M. No. RTJ-11-2264/A.M. No. RTJ-11-2273, October 22, 2013.Here are select September 2013 rulings of the Supreme Court of the Philippines on legal and judicial ethics:Attorney; Attorneys Fees.The case initially concerned the execution of a final decision with the Court of Appeals in a labor litigation. Petitioner Malvar, however, entered into a compromise agreement with the respondents pending appeal without informing her counsel. Malvars counsel filed a Motion to Intervene to Protect Attorneys Rights.The Supreme Court, on considerations of equity and fairness, disapproved of the tendencies of clients compromising their cases behind the backs of their attorneys for the purpose of unreasonably reducing or completely setting to naught the stipulated contingent fees. Thus, the Court granted the Motion for Intervention to Protect Attorneys Rights as a measure of protecting the Intervenors right to his stipulated professional fees. The Court did so in the interest of protecting the rights of the practicing Bar rendering professional services on contingent fee basis.Although the compromise agreement was still approved by the Court, the payment of the counsels adequate and reasonable compensation could not be annulled by the settlement of the litigation without the counsels participation and conformity. He remains entitled to the compensation, and his rights are safeguarded by the Court because its members are officers of the Court who are as entitled to judicial protection against injustice or imposition of fraud committed by the client as much as the client is against their abuses as her counsel. In other words, the duty of the Court is not only to ensure that the attorney acts in a proper and lawful manner, but also to see to it that the attorney is paid his just fees. Even if the compensation of the attorney is dependent only on winning the litigation, the subsequent withdrawal of the case upon the clients initiative would not deprive the attorney of the legitimate compensation for professional services rendered.Czarina T. Malvar v. Kraft Foods Phils., Inc., et al.,G.R. No. 183952, September 9, 2013.Attorney; Attorney-Client Relationship.A disbarment complaint was filed against respondent Atty. Ramos for representing conflicting interests in the same case. The Supreme Court held that Atty. Ramos violated Rule 15.03 of Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Under the afore-cited rule, it is explicit that a lawyer is prohibited from representing new clients whose interests oppose those of a former client in any manner, whether or not they are parties in the same action or on totally unrelated cases. The prohibition is founded on the principles of public policy and good taste. It behooves lawyers not only to keep inviolate the clients confidence, but also to avoid the appearance of treachery and double-dealing for only then can litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their lawyers, which is of paramount interest in the administration of justice. Atty. Ramos justification that no confidential information was relayed to him is not an excuse since the rule on conflict of interests provides an absolute prohibition from representation with respect to opposing parties in the same case. Thus, a lawyer cannot change his representation from one party to the latters opponent in the same case.Joseph L. Orola, et al. v. Atty. Joseph Ador Ramos,A.C. No. 9860, September 11, 2013.Attorney; Gross Misconduct.The Supreme Court held that Atty. Alcid, Jr. violated Canon 18 and Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Atty. Alcid, Jr. violated his oath under Canon 18 to serve his client with competence and diligence when he filed a criminal case for estafa when the facts of the case would have warranted the filing of a civil case for breach of contract. To be sure, after the complaint for estafa was dismissed, Atty. Alcid, Jr. committed another similar blunder by filing a civil case for specific performance and damages before the RTC, when he should have filed it with the MTC due to the amount involved. Atty. Alcid, Jr. did not also apprise complainant of the status of the cases. Atty. Alcid, Jr. is not only guilty of incompetence in handling the cases. His lack of professionalism in dealing with complainant is gross and inexcusable. The legal profession dictates that it is not a mere duty, but an obligation, of a lawyer to accord the highest degree of fidelity, zeal and fervor in the protection of the clients interest. The most thorough groundwork and study must be undertaken in order to safeguard the interest of the client. Atty. Alcid, Jr. has defied and failed to perform such duty and his omission is tantamount to a desecration of the Lawyers Oath.Julian Penilla v. Atty. Quintin P. Alcid, Jr.,A.C. No. 9149, September 4, 2013.Attorney; Practice of Law.Petitioner Medado passed the bar examinations in 1979. He took the Attorneys Oath thereafter, and was scheduled to sign the Roll of Attorneys, but failed to do so because he had misplaced the Notice to Sign the Roll of Attorneys. Several years later, he found such Notice and realized he never signed the Roll of Attorneys. Medado filed this Petition to allow him to sign in the Roll of Attorneys. The Supreme Court held that while an honest mistake of fact could be used to excuse a person from the legal consequences of his acts as it negates malice or evil motive, a mistake of law cannot be utilized as a lawful justification, because everyone is presumed to know the law and its consequences. Knowingly engaging in unauthorized practice of law transgresses Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Such Canon also applies to law students and Bar candidates. Medado was imposed a penalty akin to suspension by allowing him to sign one (1) year after receipt of the Courts Resolution.In Re: Petition to Sign in the Roll of Attorneys,B.M. No. 2540, September 24, 2013.Court Personnel; Gross Dishonesty; Gross Misconduct. The audit team discovered cash shortages in the books of accounts of the Office of the Clerk of Court, RTC, Lipa City. As clerk of court, Atty. Apusen is primarily accountable for all funds collected for the court, whether personally received by him or by a duly appointed cashier who is under his supervision and control. As custodian of court funds, revenues, records, properties and premises, he is liable for any loss, shortage, destruction or impairment of said funds and properties. Being a cash clerk, Savadera is an accountable officer entrusted with the great responsibility of collecting money belonging to the funds of the court. Clearly, she miserably failed in such responsibility upon the occurrence of the shortages. The Supreme Court held that no position demands greater moral righteousness and uprightness from its holder than a judicial office. Those connected with the dispensation of justice, from the highest official to the lowliest clerk, carry a heavy burden of responsibility. As frontliners in the administration of justice, they should live up to the strictest standards of honesty and integrity. They must bear in mind that the image of a court of justice is necessarily mirrored in the conduct, official or otherwise, of the men and women who work there.Office of the Court Administrator v. Donabel M. Savadera, et al.,A.M. No. P-04-1903, September 10, 2013.Judge; Delay in deciding cases.Judge Lazaro was accused of undue delay in the resolution of the Motion to Dismiss a civil case considering that she had resolved the Motion to Dismiss beyond the 90-day period prescribed for the purpose without filing any request for the extension of the period. The Supreme Court held that the 90-day period within which a sitting trial Judge should decide a case or resolve a pending matter is mandatory. If the Judge cannot decide or resolve within the period, she can be allowed additional time to do so, provided she files a written request for the extension of her time to decide the case or resolve the pending matter. The rule, albeit mandatory, is to be implemented with an awareness of the limitations that may prevent a Judge from being efficient. Under the circumstances specific to this case, it would be unkind and inconsiderate on the part of the Court to disregard Judge Lazaros limitations and exact a rigid and literal compliance with the rule. With her undeniably heavy inherited docket and the large volume of her official workload, she most probably failed to note the need for her to apply for the extension of the 90-day period to resolve the Motion to Dismiss.Danilo E. Lubaton v. Judge Mary Josephine P. Lazaro, Regional Trial Court, Br. 74, Antipolo, Rizal,A.M. RTJ-12-2320, September 2, 2013.Judge; Delay in deciding cases.Judge Baluma was asked to explain his failure to act on the twenty-three (23) cases submitted for decision/resolution. The Supreme Court held that it has consistently impressed upon judges the need to decide cases promptly and expeditiously under the time-honored precept that justice delayed is justice denied. Every judge should decide cases with dispatch and should be careful, punctual, and observant in the performance of his functions for delay in the disposition of cases erodes the faith and confidence of our people in the judiciary, lowers its standards and brings it into disrepute. Failure to decide a case within the reglementary period is not excusable and constitutes gross inefficiency warranting the imposition of administrative sanctions on the defaulting judge. Judge Balumas gross inefficiency, evident in his undue delay in deciding 23 cases within the reglementary period, merits the imposition of administrative sanctions.Re: Cases Submitted for Decision before Hon. Teofilo D. Baluma, Former Judge, Branch 1, Regional Trial Court, Tagbilaran City, Bohol,A.M. No. RTJ-13-2355, September 2, 2013.Judge; Gross Inefficiency.Judge Soriano failed to decide thirty-six (36) cases submitted for decision in MTC and MTCC, which were all due for decision at the time he compulsorily retired. The Supreme Court held that Judge Soriano has been remiss in the performance of his judicial duties. Judge Sorianos unreasonable delay in deciding cases and resolving incidents and motions, and his failure to decide the remaining cases before his compulsory retirement constitutes gross inefficiency which cannot be tolerated. Inexcusable failure to decide cases within the reglementary period constitutes gross inefficiency, warranting the imposition of an administrative sanction on the defaulting judge. Judge Sorianos inefficiency in managing his caseload was compounded by gross negligence as evinced by the loss of the records of at least four (4) cases which could no longer be located or reconstituted despite diligent efforts by his successor. Judge Soriano was responsible for managing his court efficiently to ensure the prompt delivery of court services, especially the speedy disposition of cases. Thus, Judge Soriano was found guilty of gross inefficiency and gross ignorance of the law, and fined P40,000 to be taken from the amount withheld from his retirement benefits.Office of the Court Administrator v. Hon. Santiago E. Soriano,A.M. No. MTJ-07-1683, September 11, 2013.Here are select July 2013 rulings of the Supreme Court of the Philippines on legal and judicial ethics:Attorney; Attorney-client relationship.Respondent Atty. Ramon SG Cabanes, Jr. was charged for gross negligence in violation of Canon 17, and Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Supreme Court held him guilty of gross negligence. The relationship between an attorney and his client is one imbued with utmost trust and confidence. In this light, clients are led to expect that lawyers would be ever-mindful of their cause and accordingly exercise the required degree of diligence in handling their affairs. Verily, a lawyer is expected to maintain at all times a high standard of legal proficiency, and to devote his full attention, skill, and competence to the case, regardless of its importance and whether he accepts it for a fee or for free. A lawyers duty of competence and diligence includes not merely reviewing the cases entrusted to the counsels care or giving sound legal advice, but also consists of properly representing the client before any court or tribunal, attending scheduled hearings or conferences, preparing and filing the required pleadings, prosecuting the handled cases with reasonable dispatch, and urging their termination without waiting for the client or the court to prod him or her to do so. While such negligence or carelessness is incapable of exact formulation, the Court has consistently held that the lawyers mere failure to perform the obligations due his client is per se a violation. Thus, the court suspended respondent for six (6) months.Josefina Caranza Vda de Saldivar v. Atty. Ramon SG Cabanes, Jr.,A.C. No. 7749, July 8, 2013Attorney; Conflict of interest.The rule prohibiting conflict of interest was fashioned to prevent situations wherein a lawyer would be representing a client whose interest is directly adverse to any of his present or former clients. In the same way, a lawyer may only be allowed to represent a client involving the same or a substantially related matter that is materially adverse to the former client only if the former client consents to it after consultation. The rule is grounded in the fiduciary obligation of loyalty. Throughout the course of a lawyer-client relationship, the lawyer learns all the facts connected with the clients case, including the weak and strong points of the case. Knowledge and information gathered in the course of the relationship must be treated as sacred and guarded with care. It behooves lawyers not only to keep inviolate the clients confidence, but also to avoid the appearance of treachery and double-dealing, for only then can litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their lawyers, which is paramount in the administration of justice. The nature of that relationship is, therefore, one of trust and confidence of the highest degree.Contrary to Atty. Eras ill-conceived attempt to explain his disloyalty to Samson and his group, the termination of the attorney-client relationship does not justify a lawyer to represent an interest adverse to or in conflict with that of the former client. The spirit behind this rule is that the clients confidence once given should not be stripped by the mere expiration of the professional employment. Even after the severance of the relation, a lawyer should not do anything that will injuriously affect his former client in any matter in which the lawyer previously represented the client. Nor should the lawyer disclose or use any of the clients confidences acquired in the previous relation. Thus, Atty. Era was found guilty of Rule 15.03 of Canon 15 and Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and was suspended from the practice of law for two (2) years.Ferdinand A. Samson v. Atty. Edgardo O. Era,A.C. No. 6664, July 16, 2013.Attorney; Disbarment and suspension of lawyers; Burden of proof.The burden of proof in disbarment and suspension proceedings always rests on the shoulders of the complainant. The Court exercises its disciplinary power only if the complainant establishes the complaint byclearly preponderant evidencethat warrants the imposition of the harsh penalty. As a rule, an attorney enjoys the legal presumption that he is innocent of the charges made against him until the contrary is proved. An attorney is further presumed as an officer of the Court to have performed his duties in accordance with his oath. In this case, complainants failed to discharge their burden of proving that respondents ordered their secretary to stamp a much later date instead of the actual date of receipt for the purpose of extending the ten-day period within which to file a Motion for Reconsideration under the NLRC Rules of Procedure. Such claim is merely anchored on speculation and conjecture and not backed by any clear preponderant evidence necessary to justify the imposition of administrative penalty on a member of the Bar.Jaime Joven and Reynaldo C. Rasing v. Atty. Pablo R. Cruz and Frankie O. Magsalin III,A.C. No. 7686, July 31, 2013.Attorney; Honesty; Practice of law is not a right but a privilege.Lawyers are officers of the court, called upon to assist in the administration of justice. They act as vanguards of our legal system, protecting and upholding truth and the rule of law. They are expected to act with honesty in all their dealings, especially with the court. Verily, the Code of Professional Responsibility enjoins lawyers from committing or consenting to any falsehood in court or from allowing the courts to be misled by any artifice. Moreover, they are obliged to observe the rules of procedure and not to misuse them to defeat the ends of justice. Indeed, the practice of law is not a right but merely a privilege bestowed upon by the State upon those who show that they possess, and continue to possess, the qualifications required by law for the conferment of such privilege. One of those requirements is the observance of honesty and candor. Candor in all their dealings is the very essence of a practitioners honorable membership in the legal profession. Lawyers are required to act with the highest standard of truthfulness, fair play and nobility in the conduct of litigation and in their relations with their clients, the opposing parties, the other counsels and the courts. They are bound by their oath to speak the truth and to conduct themselves according to the best of their knowledge and discretion, and with fidelity to the courts and their clients.Sonic Steel Industries, Inc. v. Atty. Nonnatus P. Chua,A.C. No. 6942, July 17, 2013.Court personnel; Gross dishonesty; Misrepresentation of eligibility; Penalty.Respondent, a court stenographer III, was charged with gross dishonesty in connection with her Civil Service eligibility where she was accused of causing another person to take the Civil Service Eligibility Examination in her stead. Before the Decision was imposed, however, respondent already resigned. The Supreme Court held that the respondents resignation from the service did not cause the Court to lose its jurisdiction to proceed against her in this administrative case. Her cessation from office by virtue of her intervening resignation did not warrant the dismissal of the administrative complaint against her, for the act complained of had been committed when she was still in the service. Nor did such cessation from office render the administrative case moot and academic. Otherwise, exacting responsibility for administrative liabilities incurred would be easily avoided or evaded.Respondents dismissal from the service is the appropriate penalty, with her eligibility to be cancelled, her retirement benefits to be forfeited, and her disqualification from re-employment in the government service to be perpetual. Her intervening resignation necessarily means that the penalty of dismissal could no longer be implemented against her. Instead, fine is imposed, the determination of the amount of which is subject to the sound discretion of the Court.Concerned Citizen V. Nonita v. Catena, Court Stenographer III, RTC, Br. 50, Puerto Princesa, Palawan,A.M. OCA IPI No. 02-1321-P, July 16, 2013.Court personnel; Misconduct; Penalty under the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service; Effect of death in an administrative case.Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction from duty, unlawful behavior, wilful in character, improper or wrong behavior. A misconduct is grave or gross if it is out of all measure; beyond allowance; flagrant; shameful or such conduct as is not to be excused. Respondent Ongs and Buencaminos acts of using the levied car for personal errands and losing it while under their safekeeping constitute grave misconduct and gross neglect of duty. These are flagrant and shameful acts and should not be countenanced. Respondents acts warrant the penalty of dismissal as provided in Rule 10, Section 46 of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service. As for respondent Buencamino, his death is not a ground for the dismissal of the Complaint against him. Respondent Buencaminos acts take away the publics faith in the judiciary, and these acts should be sanctioned despite his death.Sheriffs are reminded that they are repositories of public trust and are under obligation to perform the duties of their office honestly, faithfully, and to the best of their abilities. Being frontline officials of the justice system, sheriffs and deputy sheriffs must always strive to maintain public trust in the performance of their duties.Office of the Court Administrator v. Noel R. Ong, Deputy Sheriff, Br. 49, et al.,A.M. No. P-09-2690, July 9, 2013.Court personnel; Simple neglect of duty; Penalty under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases; Mitigating circumstances.The Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) charged respondent Sheriff lV Famero with Gross Neglect of Duty amounting to Gross Misconduct for refusing to implement the Writ of Execution issued in a civil case involving DBP. The Supreme Court held that the respondent cannot fully be excused for his failure to make periodic reports in the proceedings taken on the writ, as mandated by Section 14, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.For the respondents lapses in the procedures in the implementation of the writ of execution, he was found guilty of simple neglect of duty, defined as the failure of an employee to give attention to the task expected of him. Under Section 52(B)(1) of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, simple neglect of duty is a less grave offense punishable by suspension from office for one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months for the first offense, and dismissal for the second offense. In the imposition of the appropriate penalty, Section 53 of the same Rules allows the disciplining authority to consider mitigating circumstances in favor of the respondent. The court considered his length of service in the Judiciary, acknowledgment of infractions, remorse and other family circumstances, among others, in determining the proper penalty. He was also found to be entitled to the following mitigating circumstances: (1) his more than 24 years of service in the Judiciary; (2) a clear record other than for the present infraction which is his first offense, (3) the resistance of the informal settlers to leave the property; (4) fear for his life; and (5) his well-grounded recognition that he could not undertake any demolition without the appropriate court order. After considering the attendant facts and the mitigating circumstances, the court also considered that the efficiency of court operations may ensue if the respondents work were to be left unattended by reason of his suspension. Thus, he was imposed the penalty of fine instead of suspension from service.Development Bank of the Philippines, etc. Vs. Damvin V. Famero, Sheriff IV, RTC, Br. 43, Roxas, Oriental Mindoro,A.M. No. P-0-2789, July 31, 2013.Judge; Gross Inefficiency; Duties include prompt disposition or resolution of cases.As a frontline official of the Judiciary, a trial judge should always act with efficiency and probity. He is duty-bound not only to be faithful to the law, but also to maintain professional competence. The pursuit of excellence ought always to be his guiding principle. Such dedication is the least that he can do to sustain the trust and confidence that the public have reposed in him and the institution he represents.The Court cannot overstress its policy on prompt disposition or resolution of cases. Nonetheless, the Court has been mindful of the plight of our judges and understanding of circumstances that may hinder them from promptly disposing of their businesses. Hence, the Court has allowed extensions of time to decide cases beyond the 90-day period. All that a judge needs to do is to request and justify an extension of time to decide the cases, and the Court has almost invariably granted such request. Judge Carbonells failure to decide several cases within the reglementary period, without justifiable and credible reasons, constituted gross inefficiency. Considering that Judge Carbonell has retired due to disability, his poor health condition may have greatly contributed to his inability to efficiently perform his duties as a trial judge. That mitigated his administrative liability, for which reason the Court reduced the recommended penalty of fine from P50,000 to P20,000.Re: Failure of Former Judge Antonio A. Carbonell to Decide Cases Submitted for Decision and Resolve Pending Motions in the RTC, Branch 27, San Fernando, La Union,A.M. No. 08-5-305-RTC, July 9, 2013Here are select June 2013 rulings of the Supreme Court of the Philippines on legal and judicial ethics:Attorney; the failure to file a brief resulting in the dismissal of an appeal constitutes inexcusable negligence.InDalisay Capili v. Atty. Alfredo L. Bentulan, the Court held that the failure to file a brief resulting in the dismissal of an appeal constitutes inexcusable negligence. In this case, the Court cannot accept as an excuse the alleged lapse committed by his client in failing to provide him a copy of the case records.In the first place, securing a copy of the case records was within Atty. San Juans control and is a task that the lawyer undertakes.Second, Atty. San Juan, unlike his client, knows or should have known, that filing an appellants brief within the reglementary period is critical in the perfection of an appeal. The preparation and the filing of the appellants brief are matters of procedure that fully fell within the exclusive control and responsibility of Atty. San Juan. It was incumbent upon him to execute all acts and procedures necessary and incidental to the perfection of his clients appeal.Third, Atty. San Juan lacked candor in dealing with his client. He omitted to inform Tomas of the progress of his appeal with the Court of Appeals. Worse, he did not disclose to Tomas the real reason for the Court of Appeals dismissal of the appeal. Neither did Atty. San Juan file a motion for reconsideration, or otherwise resort to available legal remedies that might have protected his clients interest.Atty. San Juans negligence undoubtedly violates the Lawyers Oath that requires him to conduct [himself] as a lawyer according to the best of (his) knowledge and discretion, with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to (his) clients[.] He also violated Rule 18.03 and Rule 18.04, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.Rex Polinar Dagohoy v. Atty. Artemio V. San Juan.A.C. No. 7944, June 3, 2013.Attorney; IBP findings and recommended penalties in administrative cases against lawyers are only recommendatory.IBPs recommended penalty of three (3) months suspension from the practice of law is not commensurate to the gravity of the infractions committed. These infractions warrant the imposition of a stiffer sanction. The following acts and omissions of Atty. San Juan were considered: first, the negligence in handling his clients appeal; second, his failure to act candidly and effectively in communicating information to his client; and more importantly, third, the serious and irreparable consequence of his admitted negligence which deprived his client of legal remedies in addressing his conviction.InPineda v. Atty. Macapagal, the Court imposed a one (1) year suspension from the practice of law on a lawyer who, like Atty. San Juan, had been found guilty of gross negligence in handling his clients case. With this case as the norm, Atty. San Juan should be meted a suspension of one (1) year from the practice of law for his negligence and inadequacies in handling his clients case.Moreover, IBPs findings and stated penalty are merely recommendatory; only the Supreme Court has the power to discipline erring lawyers and to impose against them penalties for unethical conduct. Until finally acted upon by the Supreme Court, the IBP findings and the recommended penalty imposed cannot attain finality until adopted by the Court as its own. Thus, the IBP findings, by themselves, cannot be a proper subject of implementation or compliance.Rex Polinar Dagohoy v. Atty. Artemio V. San Juan.A.C. No. 7944, June 3, 2013.Court personnel; dishonesty.Ismael Hadji Ali, a court stenographer I at the Sharia Circuit Court, represented that he took and passed the Civil Service Professional Examination but evidence showed that another person took the exam for him. Per CSC Memorandum Circular No. 15, Series of 1991, the use of spurious Civil Service eligibility constitutes dishonesty, among others. Dishonesty is a malevolent act that has no place in the judiciary. Hadji Ali failed to observe the strict standards and behavior required of an employee in the judiciary. He has shown unfitness for public office. Pursuant to the Civil Service Rules, Hadji Ali was dismissed from the service with forfeiture of retirement and other benefits.Civil Service Commission v. Ismael A. Hadji Ali, et al.,A.M. No. SCC-08-11-P, June 18, 2013.Court personnel; dishonesty and grave misconduct.Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior as well as gross negligence by a public officer. To warrant dismissal from service, the misconduct must be grave, serious, important, weighty, momentous and not trifling. The misconduct must imply wrongful intention and not a mere error of judgment. The misconduct must also have a direct relation to and be connected with the performance of the public officers official duties amounting either to maladministration or willful, intentional neglect, or failure to discharge the duties of the office.Dishonesty is the disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, defraud or betray; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of honesty, probity, or integrity in principle; and lack of fairness and straightforwardness.In this case, respondent deceived complainants family who were led to believe that he is the legal representative of the Hodges Estate. Boasting of his position as a court officer, a City Sheriff at that, complainants family completely relied on his repeated assurance that they will not be ejected from the premises.In Re: Complaint Filed by Paz De Vera Lazaro Against Edna Magallanes, Court Stenographer III, RTC Br. 28 and Bonifacio G. Magallanes, Process Server, RTC Br. 30, Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya, the Court stressed that to preserve decency within the judiciary, court personnel must comply with just contractual obligations, act fairly and adhere to high ethical standards. In that case, the court held that court employees are expected to be paragons of uprightness, fairness and honesty not only in their official conduct but also in their personal dealings, including business and commercial transactions to avoid becoming the courts albatross of infamy.More importantly, Section 4(c) of Republic Act No. 671350 or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees mandates that public officials and employees shall remain true to the people at all times. They must act with justness and sincerity and shall not discriminate against anyone, especially the poor and the underprivileged. They shall at all times respect the rights of others, and shall refrain from doing acts contrary to law, good morals, good customs, public policy, public order, public safety and public interest.Rodolfo C. Sabidong v. Nicolasito S. Solas.A.M. No. P-01-1448, June 25, 2013.Court personnel; Prohibition in acquiring property involved in litigation within the jurisdiction of their courts.Article 1491, paragraph 5 of the Civil Code prohibits court officers such as clerks of court from acquiring property involved in litigation within the jurisdiction or territory of their courts. The rationale is that public policy disallows the transactions in view of the fiduciary relationship involved, i.e., the relation of trust and confidence and the peculiar control exercised by these persons. In so providing, the Code tends to prevent fraud, or more precisely, tends not to give occasion for fraud, which is what can and must be done.For the prohibition to apply, the sale or assignment of the property must take place during the pendency of the litigation involving the property. Where the property is acquired after the termination of the case, no violation of paragraph 5, Article 1491 of the Civil Code attaches.In this case, when respondent purchased Lot 11-A on November 21, 1994, the Decision in Civil Case No. 14706 which was promulgated on May 31, 1983 had long become final. Be that as it may, it cannot be said that the property is no longer in litigation at that time considering that it was part of the Hodges Estate then under settlement proceedings.A thing is said to be in litigation not only if there is some contest or litigation over it in court, but also from the moment that it becomes subject to the judicial action of the judge. A property forming part of the estate under judicial settlement continues to be subject of litigation until the probate court issues an order declaring the estate proceedings closed and terminated. The rule is that as long as the order for the distribution of the estate has not been complied with, the probate proceedings cannot be deemed closed and terminated. The probate court loses jurisdiction of an estate under administration only after the payment of all the debts and the remaining estate delivered to the heirs entitled to receive the same.Rodolfo C. Sabidong v. Nicolasito S. Solas.A.M. No. P-01-1448, June 25, 2013.Here are select April 2013 rulings of the Supreme Court of the Philippines on legal and judicial ethics:Attorney; practice of law; notary.The practice of law is imbued with public interest and a lawyer owes substantial duties not only to his client, but also to his brethren in the profession, to the courts, and to the nation, and takes part in one of the most important functions of the State the administration of justice as an officer of the court. Accordingly, lawyers are bound to maintain not only a high standard of legal proficiency, but also of morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing.Similarly, the duties of notaries public are dictated by public policy and impressed with public interest. Notarization is not a routinary, meaningless act, for notarization converts a private document to a public instrument, making it admissible in evidence without the necessity of preliminary proof of its authenticity and due execution.In misrepresenting himself as a notary public, respondent exposed party-litigants, courts, other lawyers and the general public to the perils of ordinary documents posing as public instruments. Respondent committed acts of deceit and falsehood in open violation of the explicit pronouncements of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Evidently, respondents conduct falls miserably short of the high standards of morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing required from lawyers. Thus, he should be sanctioned.Efigenia M. Tenoso vs. Atty. Anselmo S. Echanez.A.C. No. 8384. April 11, 2013Court personnel; dishonesty.InCivil Service Commission v. Perocho, Jr., the Court defined dishonesty as intentionally making a false statement in any material fact, or practicing or attempting to practice any deception or fraud in securing his examination, registration, appointment or promotion. Thus, dishonesty, like bad faith, is not simply bad judgment or negligence. Dishonesty is a question of intention. In ascertaining the intention of a person accused of dishonesty, consideration must be taken not only of the facts and circumstances which gave rise to the act committed by the respondent, but also of his state of mind at the time the offense was committed, the time he might have had at his disposal for the purpose of meditating on the consequences of his act, and the degree of reasoning he could have had at that moment. Evidence showed that respondent was not the one who took the Civil Service Sub-Professional Examinations. The Court, citing the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel, stressed that its employees should hold the highest standard of integrity for they are a reflection of the esteemed institution which they serve. It certainly cannot countenance any form of dishonesty perpetrated by its employees.Civil Service Commission vs. Merle Ramoneda-Pita.A.M. No. P-08-2531.April 11, 2013Court Personnel; simple neglect of duty.In this case, the personnel in charge of the court records failed to elevate the case records to the Court of Appeals within the prescribed period due to the alleged heavy workload. The Court held that he was guilty of simple neglect of duty. Section 1, Canon IV of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel commands court personnel to perform their duties properly and with diligence at all times. The administration of justice is an inviolable task and it demands the highest degree of efficiency, dedication and professionalism.The Court is not unaware of the heavy workload of court personnel, given the number of cases filed and pending before it. However, unless proven to exist in an insurmountable degree, this circumstance cannot serve as an excuse to evade administrative liability; otherwise, every government employee faced with negligence and dereliction of duty would resort to that excuse to evade punishment, to the detriment of the public service.Clearly, Salazar is guilty of simple neglect of duty, which is defined as the failure to give proper attention to a task expected of an employee, thus signifying a disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference.In the determination of the penalties to be imposed, mitigating, aggravating and alternative circumstances attendant to the commission of the crime shall be considered. The Court has mitigated imposable penalties for various special reasons. It has considered length of service in the judiciary, acknowledgement of infractions, remorse and family circumstances, among others, in determining the applicable penalty. In this case, while Salazar is a second time offender for simple neglect of duty, her long years of service in the judiciary and the admission of her negligence are circumstances to mitigate her culpability.Judge Renato A. Fuentes, RTC, Br. 17, Davao City vs. Atty. Rogelio F. Fabro, etc., et al.A.M. No. P-10-2791.April 17, 2013Judge; Court Personnel; Grave misconduct; Gross neglect of d