Dizon vs.

Cabucana

Complaint: Atty. Cabucana notarized the Compromise Agreement in the absence of most of the
signatories/affiants which caused delay in the resolution of a civil case regarding a parcel of land which
complainant is one of the parties.

Defense: the complaint was intended to harass him because he was the private prosecutor in a criminal
case filed against complainant before the MTCC; that complainant had no cause of action as his right was
not violated because he was just a "would be" buyer and not a party to the compromise agreement; and
that complainant would not suffer any damage by the pendency of the case or by any defects obtaining in
the notarization of the compromise agreement.

Ruling: Atty. Is suspended for 3 months; his incumbent notarial commission revoked; prohibited from
being commissioned as a notary public for two (2) years.

Section 1, Public Act No. 2103, otherwise known as the Notarial Law states:

The acknowledgment shall be before a notary public or an officer duly authorized by law of the country to
take acknowledgments of instruments or documents in the place where the act is done. The notary public
or the officer taking the acknowledgment shall certify that the person acknowledging the instrument or
document is known to him and that he is the same person who executed it, acknowledged that the same is
his free act and deed. The certificate shall be made under the official seal, if he is required by law to keep
a seal, and if not, his certificate shall so state.

As a notary public, Atty. Cabucana should not notarize a document unless the person who signs it
is the same person executing it and personally appearing before him to attest to the truth of its contents.
This is to enable him to verify the genuineness of the signature of the acknowledging party and to
ascertain that the document is the party's free and voluntary act and deed.
 Macarubbo vs. Macarubbo

Complainant: Atty. Edmundo Macarubbo (respondent) deceived Florence Macarubbo (complainant) into
marrying him despite his prior subsisting marriage with a certain Helen Esparza. Although respondent
admitted that he was married to Helen Esparza, he succeeded in convincing complainant, her family and
friends that his previous marriage was void. Respondent entered into a third marriage with one Josephine
T. Constantino; and that he abandoned complainant and their children without providing them any regular
support up to the present time, leaving them in precarious living conditions.

Defense:

Respondent denied employing deception in his marriage to complainant, insisting instead that
complainant was fully aware of his prior subsisting marriage to Helen Esparza, but that she
dragged him against his will to a sham wedding to protect her and her familys reputation
since she was then three-months pregnant.

The RTC Branch IV of Tuguegarao City declared his marriage to complainant void ab initio.
The marriage was indeed a sham and makes believe one, vitiated by fraud, deceit, force and
intimidation, and further exacerbated by the existence of a legal impediment and want of a
valid marriage license.

Complainants name does not appear in the National Index of Marriages for Bride, that the
National Statistics Office-Office of Civil Registrar General has no record of the December
28, 1991 marriage of complainant and respondent; that Marriage License No. 772176221
which was used in complainant and respondents marriage is not on file in its records.

Respondent denied ever abandoning complainants children; that he left complainant and
their two children with her consent after explaining to her that the pain and shame of living
in sin and ridicule was unbearable.

Ruling: Atty. Macarubbo is disbarred. Sorry mga bakla, iniklian ko na to. Explainer at defensive talaga si
Atty.

Respondent here has exhibited the vice of entering into multiple marriages and then leaving them
behind by the mere expedient of resorting to legal remedies to sever them. The impact of respondents
conduct is incalculable upon his ex-wives as well as the children he had by them, their lives having been
dislocated beyond recall.

Such pattern of misconduct by respondent undermines the institutions of marriage and family,
institutions that this society looks to for the rearing of our children, for the development of values
essential to the survival and well-being of our communities, and for the strengthening of our nation as a
whole. This must be checked if not stopped.
 As officers of the court, lawyers must not only in fact be of good moral character but must also be
perceived to be of good moral character and must lead a life in accordance with the highest moral
standards of the community. The moral delinquency that affects the fitness of a member of the bar to
continue as such, including that which makes a mockery of the inviolable social institution of
marriage, outrages the generally accepted moral standards of the community.

Contreras vs. Solis

Complaint: respondent issued an order authorizing the release of Mamangon from the provincial jail in
a habeas corpus proceeding upon the posting of a cash bond in the amount of P25,000.00. Respondent
judge tried to extort the same amount of money from complainant. If the latter would give the same
amount offered by Mamangon, the former would no longer release Mamangon.

Defense: He never asked money from complainant. He merely instructed one of his staff to advise
Armando Contreras about the habeas corpus proceeding so that he can participate in it. It was quite late in
the afternoon of that day and the clerks were no longer available to type the notice or order. He also
explains that complainant misconstrued his mentioning an amount, i.e., P20,000.00 to be extortion when
all he meant was that this would be how much he will spend to hire a lawyer to represent his cause in the
proceedings.

Respondent Judge justified his reliance on Section 2, Rule 72 of the Rules of Court which provides
that in the absence of special provisions, the rules provided for in ordinary actions shall, as far as
practicable, be applicable in special proceedings. A habeas corpus belongs to the category of special
proceedings.

In the same Order, Judge Solis further argued that because of Sec. 14 of Rule 102, he took into
consideration the fact that since the penalty for the crime at the time was only reclusion perpetua and not
death, he did not find it necessary to apply the provisions of criminal procedure on bail.

Ruling: Respondents pretended innocence over the perceived meaning of his insinuation is unpersuasive
considering his long years in the practice of law. Thus, the intention of respondent in meeting with
complainant and in giving him advise is, to say the least, far from the behavior of a member of judiciary,
who should, at all times, avoid the slightest of hint of anomaly and corruption.

Verily, the duty of a judge is not only to administer justice but also to conduct himself in a
manner that would avoid any suspicion of irregularity. He has the avowed duty of promoting confidence
in the judicial system.

A judges official conduct and his behavior in the performance of his duties should be free from
appearance of impropriety and must be beyond reproach. Any act which would give the appearance of
impropriety is in itself reprehensible, calling for disciplinary action. This is the price which must be paid
by one who joins the Judiciary. Whatever may have been respondent judges motive in meeting
complainant, such action certainly could but be said as giving rise to questions on his
honesty. Respondent judge is thus guilty of committing acts of impropriety prejudicial to the integrity of
the judiciary.

Respondent judge guilty of committing acts of impropriety prejudicial to the integrity of the
Judiciary, for which infraction he is hereby ordered to pay a fine of Two Thousand (P2,000.00), with the
warning that a repetition of a similar conduct shall be dealt with more severely.

Lorenzo vs. Marquez

Complaint: (1) Harassment in failing to indorse the reappointment of complainant Mercedita G. Lorenzo
as Municipal Trial Court Aide;

(2) for violation of Section 1, Rule 137 of the Rules of Court in deciding Civil Case No. 1202
entitled Kilusang Bayan Pampananalapi ng Sariaya vs. Gilda Balid, et al., when he was the former
counsel of the plaintiff; and

(3) for issuing a subpoena for the appearance of Jose D. Obosa, a prison inmate of the National
Bilibid Prisons (NBP) to appear before him when said person has no case pending before him nor is he a
witness in any pending case therein.

Defense: (1) He did not recommend the reappointment of complainant Mercedita G. Lorenzo because she
was inefficient. Such reluctance of the respondent must be because she was a protegee of the respondent's
predecessor, former Judge Jose Parentela, Jr., who reportedly exposed the illegal issuance of
the subpoena to Obosa by the respondent.

No defense for (2)

(3) The reason he subpoenaed Obosa was due to his interest in having the accused Salamat
arrested as he was still at large. He stated that during one of his speaking engagements in San Narciso,
Quezon, he met a certain Rivera who told him that Obosa was a friend of Salamat who may be able to tell
the respondent about the whereabouts of Salamat. Respondent added that it was the complainant
Maximino Torres who requested the issuance of said subpoena for Obosa.

Ruling: Respondent is found guilty of grave and serious misconduct for the deciding Civil Case; and for
having illegally issued a subpoena for the appearance of prison inmate Jose T. Obosa of the NBP before
him. Respondent it is hereby DISMISSED from the service with prejudice to reinstatement in the
government and forfeiture of his retirement benefits, if any, but without prejudice to the payment of his
accrued leave or salaries already earned.

In causing Jose Obosa to get out of the NBP allegedly to appear before him, the respondent
wittingly or unwittingly, furnished Obosa the opportunity to participate in the commission of a crime or
crimes. In fact, Obosa is now being held to account as a principal in the murder of Secretary Ferrer and
his driver.

The respondent committed grave and serious misconduct in the performance of his duty. He
demonstrated his unfitness to be a judge as in fact by his behavior he has placed the judiciary in
disrepute. He abused the great powers of his office so that he should not stay a moment longer as a
member of the judiciary.

Castillo vs. Calanog

Complaint: When Emma Castillo intervened in the case for the intestate proceedings for her late
common-law husband, she asked the help of Judge Calanog. The latter asked the complainant to see him
at his office. He invited her to eat lunch but instead of taking them into a restaurant, he proceeded to a
motel where he made sexual advances on complainan however he did not succeed. Respondent then
proposed that he be complainants sub-husband and promised to give his condominium unit located at
Pagasa Bliss Condominium, Quezon City, as well as to provide financial support for complainants two
(2) minor children and place them in an exclusive school for girls.

After giving birth to their son, respondent stopped giving support as well as paying for the rent of
the condo unit despite repeated demands.

Defense:

He simply averred that the complainant "has expressly stated that she is no longer interested in
pursuing the same (complaint) and therefore, pray that the said complaint be considered
withdrawn."
He "vehemently denies for being untrue the material allegations of complainant

Ruling: Judge Calanog has behaved in a manner not becoming of his robes and as a model of rectitude,
betrayed the peoples high expectations, and diminished the esteem in which they hold the judiciary in
general.

The circumstances show a lack of circumspection and delicadeza on the part of the respondent judge by
failing to avoid situations that make him suspect to committing immorality and worse, having that
suspicion confirmed.

The Code of Judicial Ethics mandates that the conduct of a judge must be free of a whiff of impropriety
not only with respect to his performance of his judicial duties, but also to his behavior outside his sala and
as a private individual. There is no dichotomy of morality: a public official is also judged by his private
morals. The Code dictates that a judge, in order to promote public confidence in the integrity and
impartiality of the judiciary, must behave with propriety at all times. As we have very recently explained,
a judges official life cannot simply be detached or separated from his personal existence.

Thus:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

-Being the subject of constant public scrutiny, a judge should freely and willingly accept restrictions on
conduct that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen.

-A judge should personally judicial integrity and exemplify honest public service. The personal behavior
of a judge, both in the performance of official duties and in private life should be above suspicion.

Hon. Manuel M. Calanog, Jr., is found guilty of IMMORALITY and is hereby DISMISSED from
the roll of judges, with prejudice to his reinstatement or appointment to any public office including a
government-owned or controlled corporation, and forfeiture of retirement benefits, if any.