CASE DIGESTS

(1995)

By:

TANJUSAY, MARIA KATRINA S.

LLB-3B
 WELLINGTON REYES vs. ATTY. SALVADOR M. GAA

A.M. No. 1048/ 246 SCRA 64 July 14, 1995

Case Nature: DISBARMENT- Violation of lawyers oath (RULE 138,

Section 27, Rules of Court)

FACTS

Wellington Reyes, a complainant, reported to the National Bureau

of Investigation (NBI) that he had been the victim of extortion by Atty.

Gaa, a respondent lawyer and a former Assistant City Fiscal of Manila,

who was investigating a complaint for estafa filed by complainants

business rival. According to complainant, he had given respondent

P500.00 on March 1, 1971 and a total of P1, 500.00 on three other

occasions. He said that another payoff was scheduled at 11:00 A.M. on

the same day in respondents office at the City Hall. An entrapment was

set up by the NBI after complainant furnished the NBI agents several

peso bills totaling P150.00 for marking. The paper bills were sent to the

Forensic and Chemistry Division of the NBI and subsequently returned

to complainant for use in the entrapment. When complainant went to

respondents office, he was told that the latter would not return until

around 2:30 P.M. As there were other persons doing business with
respondent. When finally complainant was able to see the respondent

after thirty minutes of waiting, the complainant then handed to

respondent the marked money which he placed inside his right pocket.

The NBI agents then apprehended respondent and brought him to the

NBI Forensic and Chemistry Division for examination. Respondents

hands were found positive of the yellow florescent powder applied earlier

to the marked money. Respondent was thereafter taken to the Office of

the Anti-Organized Crime Division of the NBI where he was

photographed, fingerprinted and record checked. Respondent declined to

give a sworn statement to explain his side of the case, invoking his right

against self-incrimination. Thereafter, the NBI recommended the

prosecution of respondent for violation of Section 3(b) of R.A. No. 3019.

The NBI recommended to the Secretary of Justice the filing of

administrative charges and the institution of disbarment proceedings

against him. An administrative complaint for disbarment charges

respondent with malpractice and willful violation of his oath as an

attorney. In an answer to such complaint, respondent asserted that

complainant surreptitiously planted the marked money in his pocket

without his knowledge and consent. He further said that the criminal

case (IS No. 71-6558) filed against him by the NBI was still pending

preliminary investigation by the City Fiscal of Manila. In connection with

the incident of March 30, 1971, he said that he had filed a criminal

complaint for incriminatory machination, perjury and attempted

corruption of a public official against complainant with the City Fiscal of

Manila. In reply to the answer, complainant denied that the several cases

against respondent were motivated by revenge, malice or personal ill will.

He said that the investigating fiscal had recommended the dismissal of

the charges filed by his business rival. In a resolution dated December

23, 1971, this Court resolved to refer the disbarment case to the Solicitor

General for investigation, report and recommendation. However, upon the

adoption of Rule 139-B of the Revised Rules of Court, the case was

transferred to the IBP Board of Governors for investigation and

disposition. On March 15, 1993, Commissioner Vicente Q. Roxas of the

Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines

(IBP) recommended that respondent be disbarred.

ISSUE

Whether or not the extortion committed by Atty. Salavador Gaa

shall be considered as a ground for disbarment?

HELD

YES. The extortion committed by respondent constitutes

misconduct as a public official, which also constitutes a violation of his

oath as a lawyer. The lawyers oath (Revised Rules of Court, Rule 138,

Section 18; People v. De Luna, 102 Phil. 968 [1958]) imposes upon every

lawyer the duty to delay no man for money or malice. The lawyers oath is

a source of his obligations and its violation is a ground for his

suspension, disbarment or other disciplinary action. Where the

misconduct of a lawyer as a government official is of such a character as

to affect his qualification as a lawyer or to show moral delinquency, then

he may be disciplined as a member of the bar on such grounds

(Gonzales-Austria v. Abaya, 176 SCRA 634 [1989]). The respondent is

DISBARRED and his name is ordered STRICKEN OFF from the Roll of

Attorneys.

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK vs. ATTY. TELESFORO S. CEDO

Adm. Case No. 3701/ 243 SCRA 1 March 28, 1995

Case Nature: Violation of Canon 6, Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional

Responsibility

FACTS
 The Philippine National Bank (PNB) charged respondent Atty.

Telesforo S. Cedo, former Asst. Vice-President of the Asset Management

Group of complainant bank, with violation of Canon 6, Rule 6.03 of the

Code of Professional Responsibility, thus: A lawyer shall not, after

leaving government service, accept engagement or employment in

connection with any matter in which he had intervened while in said

service. Complainant averred that while respondent was still in its

employ, he participated in arranging the sale of steel sheets (denominated

as Lots 54-M and 55-M) in favor of Milagros Ong Siy for P200, 000. He

even noted the gate passes issued by his subordinate, Mr. Emmanuel

Elefan, in favor of Mrs. Ong Siy authorizing the pull-out of the steel

sheets from the DMC Man Division Compound. When a civil action arose

out of this transaction between Mrs. Ong Siy and complainant bank

before the RTC of Makati, Branch 146, respondent who had since left the

employ of complainant bank, appeared as one of the counsels of Mrs.

Ong Siy. Moreover, while respondent was still the Asst. Vice President of

complainants Asset Management Group, he intervened in the handling

of the loan account of the spouses Ponciano and Eufemia Almeda with

complainant bank by writing demand letters to the couple. When a civil

action ensued between complainant bank and the Almeda spouses as a

result of this loan account, the latter were represented by the law firm

Cedo, Ferrer, Maynigo &Associates of which respondent is one of the

Senior Partners. In his Comment on the complaint, respondent admitted

that he appeared as counsel for Mrs. Ong Siy but only with respect to the

execution pending appeal of the RTC decision. He alleged that he did not

participate in the litigation of the case before the trial court. With respect

to the case of the Almeda spouses, respondent alleged that he never

appeared as counsel for them. He contended that while the said law firm

is designated as counsel of record, the case is actually handled only by

Atty. Pedro Ferrer. Respondent averred that he did not enter into a

general partnership with Atty. Ferrer nor with the other lawyers named

therein. They are only using the aforesaid name to designate a law firm

maintained by lawyers, who although not partners, maintain one office

as well as one clerical and supporting staff. On the other hand, during

the investigation conducted by the IBP, it was discovered that respondent

was previously fined by this Court in the amount of P1, 000.00 in

connection with the cases entitled Milagros Ong Siy vs. Hon. Salvador

Tensuan, et al. for forum shopping, where respondent appeared as

counsel for petitioner Milagros through the said law firm. The IBP further

found that the charges against respondent were fully substantiated. In

one of the hearings of the Almeda spouses case, respondent attended

the same with his partner Atty. Ferrer, and although he did not enter his

appearance, he was practically dictating to Atty. Ferrer what to say and

argue before the court. Furthermore, during the hearing of the

application for a writ of injunction in the same case, respondent

impliedly admitted being the partner of Atty. Ferrer, when it was made of

record that respondent was working in the same office as Atty. Ferrer.

The IBP noted that assuming the alleged set-up of the firm to be true, it

is in itself a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility (Rule

15.02) since the clients secrets and confidential records and information

are exposed to the other lawyers and staff members at all times. The IBP

thus recommended the suspension of respondent from the practice of

law for 3 years.

ISSUE

Whether or not the act of Atty. Cedo as counsel of other party in a

case against PNB, his former employer, constitutes a violation of the Code

of Professional Responsibility?

HELD

YES. The Court finds the occasion appropriate to emphasize the

paramount importance of avoiding the representation of conflicting

interests. The alleged set-up of the firm is in itself a violation of the Code

of Professional Responsibility. Having been an executive of complainant

bank, respondent now seeks to litigate as counsel for the opposite side, a

case against his former employer involving a transaction which he

formerly handled while still an employee of complainant, in violation of

Canon 6 of the Canons of Professional Ethics on adverse influence and

conflicting interests. ACCORDINGLY, this Court resolves to SUSPEND

respondent ATTY. TELESFORO S. CEDO from the practice of law for

THREE (3) YEARS, effective immediately.

 MAXIMINO GAMIDO Y BUENAVENTURA vs. NEW BILIBID PRISONS

(NBP) OFFICIALS G.R. No. 114829 March 1, 1995

Case Nature: Grave Misconduct

FACTS

The respondent, Atty. Icasiano M. dela Rea of No. 42 National Road

corner Bruger Subdivision, Putatan, Muntinglupa, Metro Manila was

under a disciplinary action when he appeared in the jurat of the petition

in this case that the petitioner subscribed the verification and swore to

before him, as notary public, on 19 April 1994, when in truth and in fact

the petitioner did not. However, he later admitted having executed the

jurat without the presence of petitioner Gamido. He honestly admits that

he notarized the document not in Gamidos presence. He was in a belief

that since it is jurat and not an acknowledgment, its alright to do so

considering that prior to such date and thereafter, he know Mr. Gamido

since he have been in and out of New Bilibid Prisons, not only because

his office is there only across the Municipal Building of Muntinlupa,

Metro Manila but because he handled a number of cases involving

prisoners and guards of NBP as well as some of its personnel. That in

fact, he attempted to have the document personally signed by Gamido

but considering that he have to strictly observe rules and regulations of

the NBP, particularly on visit, he did not pursue anymore his intention to

have it notarized before him. Further, Atty. Dela Rea claimed that in

notarizing the document, he honestly feel and by heart and in good faith,

that as a notary public and as a practicing lawyer, he could modestly

contribute in the orderly administration of justice. He contended that he

signed the petition not in Gamidos presence it is never intended to do a

wrong, to commit illegal or criminal acts but merely in the honest and

sincere belief that it is valid and legal.

ISSUE

Whether or not Atty. Icasiano M. dela Rea s claim or belief that

the presence of Gamido was not necessary for the execution of jurat

constitutes a grave misconduct?

HELD

YES. A jurat is not a part of a pleading but merely evidences the

fact that the affidavit was properly made but, in a jurat, the affiant must

sign the document in the presence of and take his oath before a notary

public or any other person authorized to administer oaths.

Administratively, as a lawyer commissioned as a notary public, Atty.

Icasiano M. dela Rea committed grave misconduct when he agreed to

prepare the jurat in the petition in this case in the absence of petitioner

Gamido, thereby making it appear that the latter personally signed the

certification of the petition and took his oath before him when in truth

and in fact the said petitioner did not. . If this had been his belief since

he was first commissioned as a notary public, then he has been making

a mockery of the legal solemnity of an oath in a jurat. Notaries public

and others authorized by law to administer oaths or to take

acknowledgments should not take for granted the solemn duties

appertaining to their offices. Such duties are dictated by public policy

and are impressed with public interest.

He is hereby FINED in the sum of FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,

000.00), without prejudice to criminal prosecution as may be warranted

under the circumstances. He is WARNED that the commission of the

same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely.

NICANOR GONZALES vs. ATTY. MIGUEL SABACAJAN

Adm. Case No. 4380/ 249 SCRA 276 October 13, 1995

Case Nature: Violations of Canon 15, Rule 15.07 and Canon 19, Rule

19.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility

FACTS

An administrative case was filed by Nicanor Gonzales and Salud B.

Pantanosas against Atty. Miguel Sabacajan. In a verified complaint, it

alleged that complainants were informed by the Register of Deeds of

Cagayan de Oro City that the complainants owners duplicate of title

covering their lands, Transfer Certificate of Titles were entrusted to the

office secretary of the respondent who in turn entrusted the same to

respondent. However the latter admitted and confirmed to the

complainants that their titles are in his custody and has even shown the

same the complainant Salud but when demanded to deliver the said

titles to the complainant in a formal demand letter, the respondent

refused without any justification to give their titles and when confronted,

respondent challenged the complainants to file any case in any court

even in the Honorable Supreme Court. That respondents dare or

challenge is a manifestation of his arrogance taking undue advantage of

his legal profession over innocence and ignorance of the complainants,

one of whom is his blood relative, his aunt, for which complainants

shudder with mental anguish. In spite of repeated demands, the

respondent still refused to surrender the said titles to the rightful

owners, the complainants which act is tantamount to willful and

malicious defiance of legal and moral obligations emanating from his

professional capacity as a lawyer who had sworn to uphold law and

justice, to the prejudice and damage of the complainants. In an answer,

the respondent admitted having met Salud but claims that, to his

recollection, Nicanor Gonzales/Serdan has never been to his office.

Respondent likewise denied that he challenged anyone to file a case in

any court, much less the Supreme Court. He also claims that he referred

complainant Pantanosas to his client, Mr. Samto M. Uy of Iponan,

Cagayan de Oro City, for whom he worked out the segregation of the

titles, two of which are the subject of the instant case. Respondent

likewise submitted xerox copies of certain certificates of title in an effort

to explain why he kept the certificates of title of complainants, that is,

supposedly for the purpose of subdividing the property. However, an

examination of the same does not show any connection thereof to

respondents claim. In fact, the two sets of certificates of title appear to

be entirely different from each other.

ISSUE

Whether or not Atty. Sabacajan has violated the Code of

Professional Responsibility for his refusal without just cause to return/

give to complainants their certificates of titles?

HELD

YES. The Court accordingly finds that respondent has not

exercised the good faith and diligence required of lawyers in handling the

legal affairs of their clients. If complainants did have the alleged

monetary obligations to his client, that does not warrant his summarily

confiscating their certificates of title since there is no showing in the

records that the same were given as collaterals to secure the payment of

a debt. Neither is there any intimation that there is a court order

authorizing him to take and retain custody of said certificates of title.

Apparently, respondent has disregarded Canon 15, Rule 15.07 of the

Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that a lawyer shall

impress upon his client the need for compliance with the laws and

principles of fairness. Instead, he unjustly refused to give to

complainants their certificates of titles supposedly to enforce payment of

their alleged financial obligations to his client and presumably to impress

the latter of his power to do so.

In addition, Canon 19, Rule 19.01 ordains that a lawyer shall employ

only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client

and shall not present, participate in presenting, or threaten to present

unfounded charges to obtain an improper advantage in any case or

proceeding. Respondent has closely skirted this proscription, if he has

not in fact transgressed the same.

Atty. Miguel Sabacajan is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law

until he can duly show to this Court that the disputed certificates of title

have been returned to and the receipt thereof duly acknowledged by

complainants, or can present a judicial order or appropriate legal

authority justifying the possession by him or his client of said

certificates. He is further WARNED that a repetition of the same or

similar or any other administrative misconduct will be punished more

severely.

ELENA VDA. DE ECO vs. ATTY. BENJAMIN RAMIREZ

 A.C. No. 1647 January 20, 1995

Case Nature: Malpractice: Violation Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules

of Court

FACTS

Elena Vda. De Eco, an illiterate from Sorsogon, filed a complaint

against respondent Benjamin Ramirez. The latter was then counsel for

Communications Insurance Co., Inc. The former filed suit against the

Hapseng Bakery and Grocery and its insurer, Communications

Insurance Co., Inc. for the death of her husband while in the employ of

the bakery. Accordingly, she went to the office of Communications

Insurance Co., Inc. to follow up the case. Complainant and her daughter

Beata Elona were met by respondent lawyer who asked them to wait a

while. Afterward, he told them that the insurance company was not liable

for her husbands death but the company will help by giving them

P650.00 as limos. He asked her to get a residence certificate in order for

her to receive the money. Once she had the residence certificate, she
received the money only after she thumb marked a blank piece of paper

and her daughter signed as witness. Later, the Workmens Commission

decided the case in favor of Vda. De Eco and ordered the Hapseng Bakery

and the Insurance Co. jointly and severally to pay the sum of P4, 880.00.

Atty.Ramirez made to believe them that the sum of P4, 880.00 was

already paid to Vda. De Eco but in truth and in fact he gave her only

P650.00. In his answer, respondent lawyer admitted having met Vda. De

Eco at his office in January 1976 but denied that he gave her only
P650.00. He claims that complainant signed a receipt on January 15,

1976 for P4, 880.00 and not a blank piece of paper. The IBP commenced

its investigation, the complainant failed to appear; nor could service of

notices be made on her. The Investigating Commissioner however, pointed

out in his report that under Rule 139-B, the IBP cannot dismiss outright

a complaint against a member of the bar simply because the complainant

has lost interest in the case, specially where prima facie evidence exists.3

Moreover, respondent lawyers verified answer and admissions during

hearings before the Investigating Commissioner constitute sufficient

evidence for a just disposition of the case. The IBP Board of Governors

resolved to adopt and approve the report of Investigating Commissioner

Vicente Q. Roxas finding respondent lawyer Benjamin Ramirez guilty of

having committed acts not befitting a member of the bar. The Board of

Governors also increased the recommended penalty from six (6) months

to one year suspension.

ISSUE

Whether or not the Atty. Ramirezs act of deceiving his client into

signing a receipt for the Commissions award without receiving the full

amount constitutes malpractice and may be suspended?

HELD

YES. By preponderance of evidence, it has been amply proved that

respondent lawyer Benjamin Ramirez deceived complainant by making it

appear in a document on January 15, 1976 that she received P4, 880.00

or more than what she actually received. Under Section 27 of Rule 138 of

the Rules of Court, a member of the bar may be removed or suspended

from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit,

malpractice or other gross misconduct in such office. Respondents act of

defrauding an illiterate complainant of the monetary award for her

husbands death, for which she waited nearly ten years, is deplorable and

should not be viewed lightly. Not only does respondent degrade himself as

a lawyer but he thereby besmirches the honorable profession to which he

belongs. For the foregoing reasons, the respondent is SUSPENDED from

the practice of law for a period of one year from receipt of this Resolution.