A.C. No. 10135, January 15, 2014 EDGARDO AREOLA, Complainant, v. ATTY. MARIA VILMA MENDOZA, Respondent. RE OL!

TION REYE , J." This refers to the administrative complaint 1 filed by Edgardo D. Areola (Areola) a.k.a. Muhammad hadafy against Atty. Maria !ilma Mendo"a (Atty. Mendo"a)# from the $ublic Attorney s %ffice ($A%) for violation of her attorney s oath of office# deceit# malpractice or other gross misconduct in office under &ection '(# )ule 1*+ of the )evised )ules of ,ourt# and for violation of the ,ode of $rofessional )esponsibility. -n the letter.complaint dated /ovember 1*# '001 addressed to the 2onorable ,ommissioners# ,ommission on 3ar Discipline of the -ntegrated 3ar of the $hilippines (-3$)# Areola stated that he 4as filing the complaint in behalf of his co.detainees Allan &eronda# Aaron Arca# 5oselito Mirador# &pouses Danilo $ere" and Eli"abeth $ere". 2e alleged that on %ctober '*# '001# during $risoners 6eek# Atty. Mendo"a# visited the Antipolo ,ity 5ail and called all detainees 4ith pending cases before the )egional Trial ,ourt ()T,)# 3ranch (*# Antipolo ,ity 4here she 4as assigned# to attend her speech7lecture.'Areola claimed that Atty. Mendo"a stated the follo4ing during her speech8 9% kayong may mga kasong drugs na may pangpiyansa o pang. areglo ay maging praktikal sana kayo kung gusto ninyong makalaya agad. :pang makatiyak kayo na hindi masasayang ang pera ninyo ay sa akin ninyo ibigay o ng kamag.anak ninyo ang pera at ako na ang bahalang maglagay kay 5udge Martin at ;iscal ban<ui= at kayong mga detenidong mga babae na no bail ang kaso sa drugs# iyak. iyakan lang ninyo si 5udge Martin at palalayain na kayo. Malambot ang puso noon.9 * Atty. Mendo"a allegedly said that as she is handling more than 100 cases# all detainees should prepare and furnish her 4ith their &inumpaang &alaysay so that she may kno4 the facts of their cases and their defenses and also to give her the necessary payment for their transcript of stenographic notes. > Areola furthermore stated that 4hen he helped his co.inmates in drafting their pleadings and filing motions before the )T, 3ranch (*# Antipolo ,ity# Atty. Mendo"a undermined his capability# to 4it8 (1) Atty. Mendo"a purportedly scolded detainee &eronda 4hen she learned that the latter 4as assisted by Areola in filing a Motion to Dismiss for !iolation of )epublic Act /o. +?>' (&peedy Trial Act of 1??+) in the latter@s criminal case for rape# 4hich 4as pending before the )T,# 3ranch (*# Antipolo ,ity. &he got angrier 4hen &eronda retorted that he allo4ed Areola to file the motion for him since there 4as nobody to help him. (') Areola assisted &pouses Danilo and Eli"abeth $ere" in filing their 5oint Motion for ,onsolidation of Trial of ,onsolidated %ffenses and 5oint Motion to $lead Auilty to a Besser %ffense. The spouses 4ere like4ise scolded for relying on the ,omplainant and alleged that the respondent asked for $'#000.00 to represent them. (*) Areola helped another co.detainee# Mirador in filing an 9EC.parte Motion to $lead Auilty to a Besser %ffense9. 6hen Atty. Mendo"a learned of it# she allegedly scolded Mirador and discredited Areola. D -n her unverified Ans4er1 dated 5anuary D# '00(# Atty. Mendo"a asseverated that the filing of the administrative complaint against her is a harassment tactic by Areola as the latter had also filed several administrative cases against Eudges in the courts of Antipolo ,ity including the Eail 4arden of Taytay# )i"al 4here Areola 4as previously detained. These actuations sho4 that Areola has a penchant for filing various charges against anybody 4ho does not accede to his demand. ( Atty.

Mendo"a contended that Areola is not a la4yer but represented himself to his co.detainees as one.+&he alleged that the motions7pleadings prepared and7or filed by Areola 4ere not proper. After both parties failed to appear in the Mandatory ,onference set by the -3$ on August 1D# '00+# the -nvestigating ,ommissioner considered the non.appearance as a 4aiver on their part. /onetheless# in the interest of Eustice# both parties 4ere re<uired to submit their respective position papers.? %n December '?# '00?# the -nvestigating ,ommissioner issued his )eport and )ecommendation. 10The -nvestigating ,ommissioner stated that the ,omplainant is kno4ledgeable in the field of la4. 6hile he may be of service to his fello4 detainees# he must# ho4ever# be subservient to the skills and kno4ledge of a full fledged la4yer. 2e ho4ever found no convincing evidence to prove that Atty. Mendo"a received money from Areola@s co.detainees as alleged. The charges against Atty. Mendo"a 4ere also uncorroborated# vi"8 There is no convincing evidence that 4ill prove that the respondent received money from the inmates since the charges are uncorroborated. -n fact# the complainant is not the proper party to file the instant case since he 4as not directly affected or inEured by the act7s being complained of. /o single affidavits of the affected persons 4ere attached to prove the said charges. 2ence# it is simply hearsay in nature.11 /onetheless# Atty. Mendo"a admitted in her Ans4er that she advised her clients and their relatives to approach the Eudge and the fiscal 9to beg and cry9 so that their motions 4ould be granted and their cases against them 4ould be dismissed. To the -nvestigating ,ommissioner# this is highly unethical and improper as the act of Atty. Mendo"a degrades the image of and lessens the confidence of the public in the Eudiciary. 1' The -nvestigating ,ommissioner recommended that Atty. Mendo"a be suspended from the practice of la4 for a period of t4o (') months. 1* -n a /otice of )esolution1> dated /ovember 1?# '011# the 3oard of Aovernors resolved to adopt and approve the )eport and )ecommendation of the -nvestigating ,ommissioner. Atty. Mendo"a sought to reconsider the )esolution 1D dated /ovember 1?# '011 but the -3$ 3oard of Aovernors denied her motion in its )esolution 11 dated May 10# '01*. The )esolution of the -3$ 3oard of Aovernors 4as transmitted to the ,ourt for final action pursuant to )ule 1*?.3# &ection 1'# $aragraph b1( of the )evised )ules of ,ourt. The ,ourt@s )uling After a Eudicious eCamination of the records# the ,ourt finds that the instant ,omplaint against Atty. Mendo"a profoundly lacks evidence to support the allegations contained therein. All Areola has are empty assertions against Atty. Mendo"a that she demanded money from his co.detainees. The ,ourt agrees 4ith the -3$ that Areola is not the proper party to file the ,omplaint against Atty. Mendo"a. 2e is not even a client of Atty. Mendo"a. 2e claims that he filed the ,omplaint on behalf of his co.detainees &eronda# Arca# Mirador and &pouses $ere"# but it is apparent that no document 4as submitted 4hich 4ould sho4 that they authori"ed Areola to file a ,omplaint. They did not sign the ,omplaint he prepared. /o affidavit 4as even eCecuted by the said co.detainees to substantiate the matters Areola raised. ,onse<uently# the ,ourt reEects Areola@s statements# especially as regards Atty. Mendo"a@s alleged demands of money. The ,ourt agrees 4ith the observations of the -nvestigating ,ommissioner that Areola initiated this complaint 4hen he felt insulted because Atty. Mendo"a refused to ackno4ledge the pleadings and motions he prepared for his co.detainees 4ho are $A% clients of Atty. Mendo"a. 1+ -t appears that Areola is <uite kno4ledgeable 4ith $hilippine la4s. 2o4ever# no matter ho4 good he thinks he is# he is still not a la4yer. 2e is not authori"ed to give legal advice and file pleadings by himself before the courts. 2is familiarity 4ith $hilippine la4s should be put to good use by cooperating 4ith the $A%

instead of filing baseless complaints against la4yers and other government authorities. -t seems to the ,ourt that Areola thinks of himself as more intelligent and better than Atty. Mendo"a# based on his criticisms against her. -n his )eply1? # he made fun of her grammatical errors and tagged her as using carabao english'0 . 2e also called the $A% as 9$a.Amin %ffice9 '1 4hich seriously undermines the reputation of the $A%. 6hile Areola may have been frustrated 4ith the 4ay the $A% is managing the significant number of cases it deals 4ith# all the more should he eCert efforts to utili"e his kno4ledge to 4ork 4ith the $A% instead of maligning it. -nterestingly# Atty. Mendo"a admitted that she advised her clients to approach the Eudge and plead for compassion so that their motions 4ould be granted. This admission corresponds to one of Areola@s charges against Atty. Mendo"aFthat she told her clients 9 -yak.iyakan lang ninyo si 5udge Martin at palalayain na kayo. Malambot ang puso noon.9 Atty. Mendo"a made it appear that the Eudge is easily moved if a party resorts to dramatic antics such as begging and crying in order for their cases to be dismissed. As such# the ,ourt agrees 4ith the -3$ 3oard of Aovernors that Atty. Mendo"a made irresponsible advices to her clients in violation of )ule 1.0' and )ule 1D.0( of the ,ode of $rofessional )esponsibility. -t is the mandate of )ule 1.0' that 9a la4yer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the la4 or at lessening confidence in the legal system.9 )ule 1D.0( states that 9a la4yer shall impress upon his client compliance 4ith the la4s and the principles of fairness.9 Atty. Mendo"a@s improper advice only lessens the confidence of the public in our legal system. 5udges must be free to Eudge# 4ithout pressure or influence from eCternal forces or factors '' according to the merits of a case. Atty. Mendo"a@s careless remark is uncalled for. -t must be remembered that a la4yer@s duty is not to his client but to the administration of Eustice. To that end# his client@s success is 4holly subordinate. 2is conduct ought to and must al4ays be scrupulously observant of the la4 and ethics. Any means# not honorable# fair and honest 4hich is resorted to by the la4yer# even in the pursuit of his devotion to his client@s cause# is condemnable and unethical.'* -n spite of the foregoing# the ,ourt deems the penalty of suspension for t4o (') months as eCcessive and not commensurate to Atty. Mendo"a@s infraction. Disbarment and suspension of a la4yer# being the most severe forms of disciplinary sanction# should be imposed 4ith great caution and only in those cases 4here the misconduct of the la4yer as an officer of the court and a member of the bar is established by clear# convincing and satisfactory proof. '> The ,ourt notes that 4hen Atty. Mendo"a made the remark 9-yak.iyakan lang ninyo si 5udge Martin at palalayain na kayo. Malambot ang puso noon9# she 4as not compelled by bad faith or malice. 6hile her remark 4as inappropriate and unbecoming# her comment is not disparaging and reproachful so as to cause dishonor and disgrace to the 5udiciary. -n several administrative cases# the ,ourt has refrained from imposing the actual penalties in the presence of mitigating factors. ;actors such as the respondent@s length of service# the respondent@s ackno4ledgement of his or her infractions and feeling of remorse# family circumstances# humanitarian and e<uitable considerations# respondent@s advanced age# among other things# have had varying significance in the ,ourt@s determination of the imposable penalty. 'D The ,ourt takes note of Atty. Mendo"a@s lack of ill.motive in the present case and her being a $A% la4yer as her main source of livelihood.'1 ;urthermore# the complaint filed by Areola is clearly baseless and the only reason 4hy this 4as ever given consideration 4as due to Atty. Mendo"a@s o4n admission. ;or these reasons# the ,ourt deems it Eust to modify and reduce the penalty recommended by the -3$ 3oard of Aovernors. 62E)E;%)E# premises considered# the ,ourt finds Atty. Maria !ilma Mendo"a A:-BTG of giving improper advice to her clients in violation of )ule 1.0' and )ule 1D.0( of the ,ode of $rofessional )esponsibility and is accordingly meted out the penalty of )E$)-MA/D# 4ith the &TE)/ 6A)/-/A that a repetition of the same or similar act 4ill be dealt 4ith more severely.

O ORDERED. #IENVENIDO L. REYE Associate Justice $E CONC!R" MARIA LO!RDE %. A. Chief Justice Chairperson TERE ITA J. LEONARDO&DE CA TRO Associate Justice ERENO

L!CA %. #ER AMIN Associate Justice

MARTIN . VILLARAMA, JR. Associate Justice