[A.C. No. 8254 (Formerly CBD Case No.

04-1310) : February 15, 2012]

NESA ISENHARDT, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. LEONARDO M. REAL, RESPONDENT.

Facts:
Allegedly, on 14 September 2000 respondent notarized a SPA supposedly executed by complainant but the latter
never appeared to the former as she was in Germany at that time. The SPA authorizes complainant’s brother to
mortgage her real property located in Antipolo City.Complainant presented a certified true copy of her German
passport] and a Certification from the BID indicating that she arrived in the Philippines on 22 June 2000 and left the
country on 4 August 2000. The passport further indicated that she arrived again in the Philippines only on 1 July
2001.Complainant submitted that because of respondent’s act, the property subject of the SPA was mortgaged and
later foreclosed by the Rural Bank of Antipolo City.

In his answer, respondent denied the allegations in the complaint and claimed that she met the complainant through
her brother Wilfredo Gusi and sister-in-law Lorena Gusi who seek advice for a computer business which will be
financed by the complianant. Respondent also claimed that Sps Gusi and the complainant appeared onSeptember 14,
2000 in his office to have the SPA notarized. The parties signed and presented TCTs and the original Transfer
Certificate of the property subject of fhte SPA.

He further averred that his services was engaged by the Gusi in a civil case but it was discontinued because of non-
payment of his services. Furthermore, he claimed that the claims of the complainant has already prescribed and the
SPA was never used to prejudice third person and did not cause grave injury to the complainant. The IBP Board of
Governors issued a resolution adopting the report and recommendationand of the Investigating Commissioner. After
due proceeding, found respondent guilty of gross negligence as a notary public and recommended that he be
suspended from the practice of law for one year and disqualified from reappointment as notary public for two (2)
years.

Feel aggrieved, respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the aforesaid Resolution. This was, however,
denied by the IBP Board of Governors in a Resolution dated 11 December 2009.

Issue: Whether or not respondent is guilty of gross negligence as a notary public.

Ruling:

The SC sustained the findings and recommendation of the IBP. The SC held that the findings of
the Investigating Commissioner are supported by evidence on record, as well as applicable laws
and rules. Respondent violated his oath as a lawyer and the Code of Professional Responsibility
when he made it appear that complainant personally appeared before him and subscribed an SPA
authorizing her brother to mortgage her property.

A notary public should not notarize a document unless the person who signs it is the same person
who executed it, personally appearing before him to attest to the contents and the truth of what
are stated therein. This is to enable the notary public to verify the genuineness of the signature
of the acknowledging party and to ascertain that the document is the party’s free act. Such
provision is embodied in Section 1, Public Act No. 2103, otherwise known as the Notarial Law
and which further was further emphasized in Section 2 (b) of Rule IV of the Rules on Notarial
Practice of 2004.

Respondent’s claim of prescription of the offense pursuant to Section 1, Rule VIII of the Rules
of Procedure of the Commission on Bar Discipline, the rule should be construed to mean two
years from the date of discovery of the professional misconduct. To rule otherwise would cause
injustice to parties who may have discovered the wrong committed to them only at a much later
date. In this case, the complaint was filed more than three years after the commission of the act
because it was only after the property was foreclosed that complainant discovered the SPA.

The duties of a notary public is dictated by public policy and impressed with public interest It is
not a meaningless ministerial act of acknowledging documents executed by parties who are
willing to pay the fees for notarization. It is of no moment that the subject SPA was not utilized
by the grantee for the purpose it was intended because the property was allegedly transferred
from complainant to her brother by virtue of a deed of sale consummated between them. What is
being penalized is respondent’s act of notarizing a document despite the absence of one of the
parties. By notarizing the questioned document, he engaged in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct.A notarized document is by law entitled to full credit upon its face and it is for
this reason that notaries public must observe the basic requirements in notarizing documents.
Otherwise, the confidence of the public in notarized documents will be undermined.

[A.C. No. 7430 : February 15, 2012]

MARTIN LAHM III AND JAMES P. CONCEPCION, COMPLAINANTS, VS. LABOR

ARBITER JOVENCIO LL. MAYOR, JR., RESPONDENT.

Facts:

On September 5, 2006 a certain David Edward Toze filed a complaint for illegal
Ssdismissal before the Labor Arbitration Branch of the NLRC against the members of the
Board of Trustees of the International School, Manila which was raffled to the sala of the
respondent. Impleaded as among the party-respondents are the complainants in the instant
case.

Subsequently Toze filed a Verified Motion for the Issuance of a TRO and/or Preliminary
Injunction Against the Respondents. The latter’s counsel ask for extension of time to
oppose and make a comment to the motion for the Issuance of TRO/Pre. Inj. Thereafter,
respondent issued an order which directed the parties to maintain the status quo ante. The
complainant sought for a reconsideration. Meanwhile, Toze was reinstated and assumed
his former position as Superintendent. The Illegal Dismissal case was not resolved
instead respondent issued an order requiring the parties to appear in his office to thresh
out Toze’s claim of moral and exemplary damages.
Hence, the complainants filed a complainant for the disbarment of the respondent for
alleged gross misconduct and violation of lawyer’s oath. Respondent Mayor argues that
the complaint should be dismissed for being premature and a subterfurge in order to
compel him to inhibit in resolving the said illegal dismissal case. Based on finding, the
Investigating Commissioner recommended respondent to be suspended for a period of six
months which was adopted and approved by the IBP Board of Governors in it’s
Resolution. Respondent sought to reconsider but it was denied, hence, this appeal.

Issue : Whether nor not respondent is guilty of gross misconduct and violation of
lawyer’s oath

Ruling:

The SC agreed with the resolution of IBP Board of Governors that the respondent should be
sanctioned. Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides that a lawyer may be removed or
suspended from the practice of law, inter alia, for gross misconduct and violation of the lawyer’s
oath. A member of the Bar who assumes public office does not shed his professional obligations.
Hence, the Code of Professional Responsibilitywas not meant to govern the conduct of private
practitioners alone, but of all lawyers including those in government service. This is clear from
Canon 6 of said Code. Lawyers in government are public servants who owe the utmost fidelity to
the public service. Thus, they should be more sensitive in the performance of their professional
obligations, as their conduct is subject to the ever-constant scrutiny of the public.
Here, the respondent, being part of the quasi-judicial system of our government, performs
official functions that are akin to those of judges. Accordingly, the present controversy may be
approximated to administrative cases of judges whose decisions, including the manner of
rendering the same, were made subject of administrative cases.

When the law is sufficiently basic, a judge owes it to his office to know and to simply apply it.
Anything less would be constitutive of gross ignorance of the law. In the case at bench,
respondent is found guilty of gross ignorance of the law.

The role of the labor arbiters, with regard to the issuance of writs of preliminary injunctions
and/or writ of preliminary injunction, at present, is limited to reception of evidence as may be
delegated by the NLRC(.Section 4, Rule X of the 2005 Rules of Procedure of the NLRC).

Wherefore, respondent is suspended from the practice of law for a period of six months, with a
Warning that commission of the same or similar offense in the future will result in the
disposition of a more severe penalty.

CORAZON T. NEVADA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. RODOLFO D. CASUGA,

RESPONDENT.

Facts

Nevada is the principal stockholder of C.T. Nevada & Sons, Inc., a family corporation which
operates the Mt. Crest Hotel located at Legarda Road, Baguio City.

Complainant alleged that she and Casuga are members of the One in Jesus Christ Church, a
religious group which counts the latter as one of its “elders.” According to Nevada, she has
allowed the use of one of the Hotel’s functions rooms for church services. And in time, Casuga
was able to gain her trust and confidence.

Nevada further alleged that unknown to her, Casuga, sometime in 2006, started to represent
himself as the administrator of the Hotel. On March 1, 2006, he entered into a contract of lease
with a certain Jung Jong Chul covering an office space in the Hotel. Casuga signed the lease
contract over the printed name of one Edwin T. Nevada and notarized the document himself.
Upon contract signing, the amount of PhP 90,000 as rental deposit for the office space. The
amount thus deposited, so Nevada claims, was never turned over to her or to C.T. Nevada &
Sons, Inc.

Nevada adds that, in the course of their acquaintanceship, Casuga was able to acquire from her
several pieces of jewelry with an aggregate value of PhP 300,000 and a solid gold Rolex watch
with diamond dials valued at USD 12,000. Casuga took possession of the valuables purportedly
with the obligation of selling them and to remit any proceeds to Nevada. However, despite
repeated demands by Nevada for Casuga to return the valuables or otherwise remit the proceeds
of the sale, no jewelry or money was ever returned.

Casuga submitted an Affidavit stating that Nevada informally instituted him as the administrator
of the Hotel in a limited capacity but denied receiving the PhP 90,000 from Chul. With regard
to the pieces of jewelry and the Rolex watch, Casuga stated that Nevada actually pawned them in
a pawnshop and that she later asked his wife to redeem them using their own money. Thereafter,
Nevada asked Casuga’s wife to sell the valuables and reimburse herself from the proceeds of the
sale.

.
Mandatory conference were set but Casuga never appeared. Report of the Commission through
Nevada’s position paper was submitted for resolution and Casuga was suspended for one (1)
year for gross misconduct, violation of the notarial law and infidelity in the custody of monies,
jewelries and a Rolex watch which pertain to the complainant and the family corporation.

The Issues

Whether or not respondent is guilty for the charges detailed or implied in the basic complaint;
and the propriety of the return to Nevada of the items, or their money value, and the amount
subject of the case.

The Court’s Ruling

The SC agreed with the CBD’s inculpatory findings, as endorsed by the IBP Board of
Governors, and the recommended upgrading of penalties, as shown in Resolution No. XIX-2010-
461, but subject to the modification as follows:

1.Casuga is guilty of gross misconduct for misrepresenting himself

The grounds for removal of a judge of first instance under Philippine law are two: (1) Serious
misconduct and (2) inefficiency. The latter ground is not involved in these proceedings. As to the
first, the law provides that “sufficient cause” must exist in the judgment of the Supreme Court
involving “serious misconduct. The word “misconduct” implies a wrongful intention and not
a mere error or judgment. For serious misconduct to exist, there must be reliable evidence
showing that the judicial acts complained of were corrupt or inspired by an intention to
violate the law, or were in persistent disregard of well-known legal rules.

Respondent Casuga represented himself as a duly-authorized representative of Nevada when in

fact he was not. Plainly enough, Casuga is guilty of misrepresentation, when he made it appear
that he was authorized to enter into a contract of lease in behalf of Nevada when, in fact, he was
not. Following the principle laid down in Tan, Casuga’s misrepresentation properly constitutes
gross misconduct for which he must be disciplined.Notably, in Tan, the respondent lawyer was
held guilty of misconduct and suspended from the practice of law for six (6) months.

Casuga also violated Canon 16

of the Code of Professional Responsibility
Casuga’s failure to return such property or remit the proceeds of the sale is a blatant violation of
Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (the Code). The Code’s Canon 16 and Rule
16.3

From the records of the case, there is likewise a clear breach of lawyer-client relations. When a
lawyer receives money from a client for a particular purpose, the lawyer is bound to render an
accounting to the client showing that the money was spent for a particular purpose. And if he
does not use the money for the intended purpose, the lawyer must immediately return the money
to his client. Thus, the same penalty should be imposed upon Casuga.

Casuga violated the Notarial Rules

The Notarial Rules, A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC, provides in its Rule IV, Section 1(c) and Sec. 3(a)
when a notary public may sign a document in behalf of another person

None of the requirements contained in Rule IV, Sec. 1(c), as would justify a notary signing in
behalf of a contracting party, was complied with in this case. Moreover, Casuga’s act of affixing
his signature above the printed name “Edwin T. Nevada,” without any qualification, veritably
made him a party to the contract of lease in question. Thus, his act of notarizing a deed to which
he is a party is a plain violation of the aforequoted Rule which he can be disciplinarily
sanctioned provided under Rule XI, Sec. 1(b)(10) of the Notarial Rules

WHEREFORE, the Court finds Atty. Rodolfo D. Casuga GUILTY of gross misconduct for
violation of Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Notarial Rules. He is
hereby SUSPENDED for a period of four (4) years from the practice of law. The notarial
commission of Atty. Casuga, if still existing, is hereby REVOKED and he is DISQUALIFIED
from being commissioned as Notary Public also for four (4) years. Additionally, he is ordered to
return the amount of PhP 90,000, the pieces of jewelry subject of this case or their equivalent of
PhP 300,000, and the Rolex watch valued at USD 12,000 or its equivalent in Philippine Peso to
Corazon T. Nevada within thirty (30) days from finality of this Decision; otherwise, he shall be
cited for contempt. Lastly, Atty. Casuga is warned that a repetition of the same or similar acts
will be dealt with more severely.

[A.C. No. 5098 : April 11, 2012]

JOSEFINA M. ANIÑON, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. CLEMENCIO SABITSANA, JR.,

RESPONDENT.

Facts:
Josefina M. Aniñon (complainant) had previously engaged the legal services of Atty. Sabitsana
in the preparation and execution in her favor of a Deed of Sale over a parcel of land owned by
her late common-law husband, Brigido Caneja, Jr. Atty. Sabitsana allegedly violated her
confidence when he subsequently filed a civil case against her for the annulment of the Deed of
Sale in behalf of Zenaida L. Cañete, the legal wife of Brigido Caneja, Jr. The complainant
accused Atty. Sabitsana of using the confidential information he obtained from her in filing the
civil case.

Atty. Sabitsana admitted having advised the complainant in the preparation and execution of the
Deed of Sale. However, he denied having received any confidential information. Atty. Sabitsana
asserted that the present disbarment complaint was instigated by one Atty. Gabino Velasquez,
Jr., the notary of the disbarment complaint who lost a court case against him (Atty. Sabitsana)
and had instigated the complaint for this reason.

In a resolution dated February 27, 2004, the IBP Board of Governors resolved to adopt and approve the Report and
Recommendation of the IBP Commissioner after finding it to be fully supported by the evidence on record and
Respondent was suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year.

Atty. Sabitsana moved to reconsider the above resolution, but the IBP Board of Governors denied his motion.

The Issue

Whether Atty. Sabitsana is guilty of misconduct for representing conflicting interests.

The Court’s Ruling

The SC agreed with the findings and recommendations of the IBP Commissioner and the IBP Board of
Governors. The SC rules that the relationship between a lawyer and his/her client should ideally be imbued with
the highest level of trust and confidence. This is the standard of confidentiality that must prevail to promote a full
disclosure of the client’s most confidential information to his/her lawyer for an unhampered exchange of
information between them. Needless to state, a client can only entrust confidential information to his/her lawyer
based on an expectation from the lawyer of utmost secrecy and discretion; the lawyer, for his part, is duty-bound to
observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all dealings and transactions with the client. Part of the lawyer’s duty in this
regard is to avoid representing conflicting interests, a matter covered by Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility

Jurisprudence has provided three tests in determining whether a violation of the above rule is present in a given case.
One test is whether a lawyer is duty-bound to fight for an issue or claim in behalf of one client and, at the same time,
to oppose that claim for the other client. Thus, if a lawyer’s argument for one client has to be opposed by that same
lawyer in arguing for the other client, there is a violation of the rule.

Another test of inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance of a new relation would prevent the full
discharge of the lawyer’s duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to the client or invite suspicion of
unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the performance of that duty. Still another test is whether the lawyer would
be called upon in the new relation to use against a former client any confidential information acquired through their
connection or previous employment

On the basis of the attendant facts of the case, substantial evidence proved to support Atty. Sabitsana’s violation of
the above rule: first, he filed a case against the complainant in behalf of Zenaida Cañete; second, he impleaded the
complainant as the defendant in the case; and third, the case he filed was for the annulment of the Deed of Sale that
he had previously prepared and executed for the complainant.

By his acts, not only did Atty. Sabitsana agree to represent one client against another client in the same action; he
also accepted a new engagement that entailed him to contend and oppose the interest of his other client in a property
in which his legal services had been previously retained.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court resolves to ADOPT the findings and recommendations of the
Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. Atty. Clemencio C. Sabitsana, Jr. is found
GUILTY of misconduct for representing conflicting interests in violation of Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. He is hereby SUSPENDED for one (1) year from the practice of law.

SUZETTE DEL MUNDO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. ARNEL C. CAPISTRANO, RESPONDENT.

The Facts

On January 8, 2005, Suzette and her friend Ricky S. Tuparan (Tuparan) engaged the legal services of Atty.
Capistrano to handle the judicial declaration of nullity of their respective marriages allegedly for a fee of
PhP140,000.00 each. On the same date, a Special Retainer Agreement was entered into by and between Suzette and
Atty. Capistrano which required an acceptance fee of PhP30,000.00, appearance fee of PhP2,500.00 per hearing and
another PhP2,500.00 per pleading. In addition, Atty. Capistrano allegedly advised her to prepare amounts for filing
fee, summons, Fiscal and Psychiatrist. In accordance with their agreement, Suzette gave Atty. Capistrano the total
amount of PhP78,500.00, to wit:

For every payment that Suzette made, she would inquire from Atty. Capistrano on the status of her case. In response,
the latter made her believe that the two cases were already filed and awaiting notice of hearing. Sometime in July
2005, when she could hardly reach Atty. Capistrano, she verified her case the OCC and discovered that while the
case of Tuparan had been filed on January 27, 2005, no petition has yet been filed for her.

Hence, Suzette called for a conference, which was set on July 28, 2005, where she demanded the refund of the total
amount of PhP78,500.00, but Atty. Capistrano instead offered to return the amount of PhP63,000.00 on staggered
basis claiming to have incurred expenses in the filing of Tuparan’s case, to which she agreed. On the same occasion,
Atty. Capistrano handed to her copies of her unfiled petitionTuparan’s petition and his Withdrawal of Appearance in
Tuparan’s case with instructions to file them in court, as well as a list containing the expenses he incurred and the
schedule of payment of the amount of PhP63,000.00.

However, Atty. Capistrano only returned the amount of PhP5,000.00 and thereafter, refused to communicate with
her, prompting the institution of this administrative complaint.

In his Comment/Answer, Atty. Capistrano acknowledged receipt of the amount of PhP78,500.00 from Suzette and
his undertaking to return the agreed sum of PhP63,000.00. He also admitted responsibility for his failure to file
Suzette’s petition and cited as justification his heavy workload and busy schedule as then City Legal Officer of
Manila and lack of available funds to immediately refund the money received.

The case was referred to the IBP for investigation, and through Commissioner Quisumbing, respondent was found
to have neglected his client’s interest by his failure to inform Suzette of the status of her case and to file the agreed
petition for declaration of nullity of marriage. It also concluded that his inability to refund the amount he had
promised Suzette showed deficiency in his moral character, honesty, probity and good demeanor. Hence, he was
held guilty of violating Rule 18.03, and Rule 18.04, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and
recommended the penalty of suspension for two years from the practice of law.
The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the report and recommendation of Commissioner Quisumbing
through Resolution No. XVIII-2007-98[10] with modification ordering the return of the sum of PhP140,000.00
attorney’s fees to Suzette.However, upon Atty. Capistrano’s timely motion for reconsideration, the IBP Board of
Governors passed Resolution reducing the penalty of suspension from two years to one year:

The Issue

Whether Atty. Arnel C. Capistrano violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.

The Ruling of the Court

The Court concurred with the findings and recommendation of the IBP-CBD but takes exception to the amount of
PhP140,000.00 recommended to be returned to Suzette.

Indisputably, Atty. Capistrano committed acts in violation of his sworn duty as a member of the bar. He had violated
pertinent provisions of the Canons of Professional Responsibility particularly Canon 16, 16.01, 16.02, Canon 18,
18.03 and rule 18-04.Indeed, when a lawyer takes a client’s cause, he covenants that he will exercise due diligence
in protecting the latter’s rights. Failure to exercise that degree of vigilance and attention expected of a good father of
a family makes the lawyer unworthy of the trust reposed on him by his client and makes him answerable not just to
his client but also to the legal profession, the courts and society. His workload does not justify neglect in handling
one’s case because it is settled that a lawyer must only accept cases as much as he can efficiently handle.

Moreover, a lawyer is obliged to hold in trust money of his client that may come to his possession. As trustee of
such funds, he is bound to keep them separate and apart from his own. Money entrusted to a lawyer for a specific
purpose such as for the filing and processing of a case if not utilized, must be returned immediately upon demand.
Failure to return gives rise to a presumption that he has misappropriated it in violation of the trust reposed on him.
And the conversion of funds entrusted to him constitutes gross violation of professional ethics and betrayal of public
confidence in the legal profession.

To stress, the practice of law is a privilege given to lawyers who meet the high standards 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.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Arnel C. Capistrano, having clearly violated Canons 16 and 18 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one year with a stern warning that a
repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely. He is ORDERED to return to Suzette Del
Mundo the full amount of PhP73,500.00 within 30 days from notice hereof and DIRECTED to submit to the Court
proof of such payment.

LORENZO D. BRENNISEN, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. RAMON U. CONTAWI, RESPONDENT.

The Facts

Complainant is the registered owner of a parcel of land located in San Dionisio, Parañaque City covered by TCT of
the Register of Deeds for the Province of Rizal. Being a resident of the USA, he entrusted the administration of the
subject property to respondent, together with the corresponding owner's duplicate title.

Unknown to complainant, however, respondent, through a spurious SPA, mortgaged and subsequently sold the
subject property to one Roberto Ho . As a result, TCT in the name of complainant was cancelled , replaced and
issued in favor of Ho.

Thus, on April 16, 2007, complainant filed an administrative complaint against respondent for having violated his
oath as a lawyer, causing him damage and prejudice.

In his counter-affidavit, respondent denied any formal lawyer-client relationship between him and the complainant,
claiming to have merely extended his services for free. He also denied receiving money from the complainant for the
purpose of paying the real estate taxes on the property. Further, he averred that it was his former office assistants, a
certain Boy Roque and one Danilo Diaz, who offered the subject property to Ho as collateral for a loan.
Nevertheless, respondent admitted to having confirmed the spurious SPA in his favor already annotated at the back
of TCT under the complainant’s name upon the prodding of Roque and Diaz, and because he was also in need of
money at that time. Hence, he signed the real estate mortgage and received his proportionate share of P130,000.00
from the proceeds of the loan, which he asserted to have fully settled.

He denied signing the Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of Ho and insisted that it was a forgery. Nonetheless, he
sought complainant's forgiveness and promised to repay the value of the subject property.

The Court resolved to refer the case to the IBP for investigation, report and recommendation. In its Report , it was
found that respondent had undeniably mortgaged and sold the property of his client without the latter's knowledge or
consent, facilitated by the use of a falsified SPA. Hence, in addition to his possible criminal liability for
falsification, the IBP-CBD deduced that respondent violated various provisions of the Canons of Professional
Responsibility and accordingly recommended that he be disbarred and his name stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.
The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the report of Commissioner De Mesa .

The Issue

whether respondent violated his lawyer's oath when he mortgaged and sold complainant's property, which was
entrusted to him, without the latter's consent.

The Court's Ruling

The Court concurred with the findings and recommendation

of Commissioner De Mesa and the IBP
Board of Governors that respondent acted with deceit when, through the use of a falsified
document, he effected the unauthorized mortgage and sale of his client's property for his personal
benefit.

Consequently, Commissioner De Mesa and the IBP Board of Governors correctly recommended
his disbarment for violations of the pertinent provisions of the Canons of Professional
Responsibility particularly Canon 1, 1.01, 16, 16.01, 16.03 and 17

In this case, respondent's established acts exhibited his unfitness and plain inability to discharge the bounden duties
of a member of the legal profession. He failed to prove himself worthy of the privilege to practice law and to live up
to the exacting standards demanded of the members of the bar. It bears to stress that “[t]he practice of law is a
privilege given to lawyers who meet the high standards of legal proficiency and morality. Any violation of these
standards exposes the lawyer to administrative liability.

Moreover, respondent's argument that there was no formal lawyer-client relationship between him and complainant
will not serve to mitigate his liability. There is no distinction as to whether the transgression is committed in a
lawyer's private or professional capacity, for a lawyer may not divide his personality as an attorney at one time and a
mere citizen at another.

With the foregoing disquisitions, the Court thus finds the penalty of disbarment proper in this case, as recommended
by Commissioner De Mesa and the IBP Board of Governors. Section 27, Rule 38 of the Rules of Court. cralaw

WHEREFORE, respondent ATTY. RAMON U. CONTAWI, having clearly violated his lawyer's oath and the
Canons of Professional Responsibility through his unlawful, dishonest and deceitful conduct, is DISBARRED and
his name ordered STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys.

AC. No. 7940 : April 24, 2012]

RE: SC DECISION DATED MAY 20, 2008 IN G.R. NO. 161455 UNDER RULE 139-B OF THE RULES OF
COURT, VS. ATTY. RODOLFO D. PACTOLIN, RESPONDENT.

The Facts and the Case

In May 1996, Elmer Abastillas, the playing coach of the Ozamis City volleyball team, wrote Mayor Benjamin A.
Fuentes of Ozamis City, requesting financial assistance for his team. Mayor Fuentes approved the request and sent
Abastillas’ letter to the City Treasurer for processing. Mayor Fuentes also designated Mario R. Ferraren, a city
council member, as Officer-in-Charge (OIC) of the city while Mayor Fuentes was away. Abastillas eventually got
the P10,000.00 assistance for his volleyball team.

Meanwhile, respondent lawyer, Atty. Rodolfo D. Pactolin, then a Sangguniang Panlalawigan member of Misamis
Occidental, got a photocopy of Abastillas’ letter and, using it, filed on June 24, 1996 a complaint with the Office of
the Deputy Ombudsman-Mindanao against Ferraren for alleged illegal disbursement of P10,000.00 in public funds.
Atty. Pactolin attached to the complaint a copy of what he claimed was a falsified letter of Abastillas, which showed
that it was Ferraren, not Mayor Fuentes, who approved the disbursement.

Aggrieved, Ferraren filed with the Sandiganbayan a Criminal complaint against Atty. Pactolin for falsification of
public document. The Sandiganbayan found Atty. Pactolin guilty of falsification under Article 172 .Atty. Pactolin
appealed to this Court but it affirmed his conviction. Since the Court treated the matter as an administrative
complaint against him as well under Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, it referred the case to the IBP for appropriate
action.Complainant Ferraren neither appeared nor submitted any pleading during the administrative proceedings
before the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline, the IBP Board of Governors passed Resolution aadopting and
approving the Investigating Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation that the case against Atty. Pactolin be
dismissed for insufficiency of evidence.

The Issue Presented

Whether or not Atty. Pactolin should be disbarred after conviction by final judgment of the crime of falsification.

The Court’s Ruling

This Court upheld the finding of the Sandiganbayan that the copy of Abastillas’ letter which Atty. Pactolin attached
to his complaint was spurious. Given the clear absence of a satisfactory explanation regarding his possession and
use of the falsified Abastillas’ letter, this Court held that the Sandiganbayan did not err in concluding that it was
Atty. Pactolin who falsified the letter. This Court relied on the settled rule that in the absence of satisfactory
explanation, one found in possession of and who used a forged document is the forger and therefore guilty of
falsification.

Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, a lawyer may be removed or suspended on the following grounds:
(1) deceit; (2) malpractice; (3) gross misconduct in office; (4) grossly immoral conduct; (5) conviction of a crime
involving moral turpitude; (6) violation of the lawyer’s oath; (7) willful disobedience of any lawful order of a
superior court; and (8) corruptly or willfully appearing as a lawyer for a party to a case without authority so to do.

This Court has ruled that the crime of falsification of public document is contrary to justice, honesty, and good
morals and, therefore, involves moral turpitude. [8] Moral turpitude includes everything which is done contrary to
justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals. It involves an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private duties
which a man owes his fellowmen, or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and
duty between man and woman, or conduct contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals.

Here, Atty. Pactolin’s disbarment is warranted. The Sandiganbayan has confirmed that although his culpability for
falsification has been indubitably established, he has not yet served his sentence. His conduct only exacerbates his
offense and shows that he falls short of the exacting standards expected of him as a vanguard of the legal profession.

WHEREFORE, Atty. Rodolfo D. Pactolin is hereby DISBARRED and his name REMOVED from the Rolls of
Attorney. Let a copy of this decision be attached to his personal records and furnished the Office of the Bar
Confidant, Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts in
the country.

RODRIGO A. MOLINA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. CEFERINO R. MAGAT, RESPONDENT.

The Facts:

Complainant filed cases of Assault Upon an Agent of a Person in Authority and Breach of the Peace and Resisting
Arrest against one Pascual de Leon . The counsel of record for accused de Leon in both cases was Atty. Magat; that
a case for slight physical injuries was filed against him (Molina) by de Leon as a counter-charge and Atty. Magat
was also the private prosecutor; that Atty. Magat subsequently filed a motion to quash the information on Assault
upon an Agent of a Person in Authority on the sole ground of double jeopardy claiming that a similar case for slight
physical injuries was filed in court by a certain Pat. Molina . Based on the record, no case of slight physical injuries
was filed by Molina against de Leon and Atty. Magat was very much aware of such fact as he was the counsel and
private prosecutor on record of de Leon from the very start of the case. Complainant averred that Atty. Magat’s act
of filing the Motion to Quash was a malicious act done in bad faith to mislead the court, thus, a betrayal of the
confidence of the court of which he is an officer and likewise committed willful disobedience of the court order
when he appeared as counsel for de Leon on two (2) occasions despite the fact that he was suspended from the
practice of law.

In his Answer, Atty. Magat averred that in so far as the filing of the motion to quash was concerned, he was really
under the impression that a criminal case in lieu of the two (2) charges was indeed filed and that the said motion was
opposed by the other party and was denied by the court. He admitted his appearances in court while under
suspension. He explained that his appearance in the hearing was to inform the court that the accused was sick and
to prevent the issuance of a warrant of arrest against the accused. In the January 9, 1978 hearing, he appeared
because the accused had no money and pleaded that his testimony be finished. Atty. Magat begged for the
indulgence of the court and conveyed his repentance and apology and promised that the same would not happen
again.

The complaint was endorsed to the OSG for investigation, report and recommendation. The latter transmitted the
records of the case to the IBP for proper disposition. In it’s Report and Recommendation, found merit in the
complaint and recommended that Atty. Magat be reprimanded and fined P50,000.00. The IBP Board of Governors
passed its Resolution] adopting the findings of the Investigating Commissioner. It, however, deleted the imposition
of fine.

Issue:

Whether or not the respondent is guilty of malicious acts and betrayal of the confidence of the court

Ruling:

The Court agrees with the findings of the IBP but not with respect to the penalty.

The practice of law is a privilege bestowed on those who show that they possess and continue to possess the legal
qualifications for it. Indeed, 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 four-fold 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.

Atty. Magat’s act clearly falls short of the standards set by the Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly Rule
10.01, which provide that “ A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court; nor shall
he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice”.

In this case, the Court agrees with the observation of the IBP that there was a deliberate intent on the part of Atty.
Magat to mislead the court when he filed the motion to dismiss the criminal charges on the basis of double jeopardy.
Atty. Magat should not make any false and untruthful statements in his pleadings. If it were true that there was a
similar case for slight physical injuries that was really filed in court, all he had to do was to secure a certification
from that court that, indeed, a case was filed.

Furthermore, Atty. Magat expressly admitted appearing in court on two occasions despite having been suspended
from the practice of law by the Court. Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, a member of the bar may
be disbarred or suspended from office as an attorney for a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior
court and/or for corruptly or wilfully appearing as an attorney without authority to do so.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Ceferino R. Magat is hereby ordered SUSPENDED from the practice of law for
six (6) months with a WARNING that the commission of the same or similar offense in the future would be dealt
with more severely.
 A.C. No. 6368 : June 13, 2012]

FIDELA BENGCO AND TERESITA BENGCO, COMPLAINANTS, VS. ATTY. PABLO S. BERNARDO,
RESPONDENT.

Facts:

Atty. Pablo Bernardo with the help and in connivance and collusion with a certain Andres Magat wilfully and
illegally committed fraudulent act with intent to defraud herein complainants Fidela G. Bengco and Teresita N.
Bengco by using false pretenses, deceitful words to the effect that he would expedite the titling of the land belonging
to the Miranda family of Tagaytay City who are the acquaintance of complainants herein and they convinced herein
complainant[s] that if they will finance and deliver to him the amount of [P]495,000.00 as advance money he would
expedite the titling of the subject land and further by means of other similar deceit like misrepresenting himself as
lawyer of William Gatchalian, the prospective buyer of the subject land and the one handling Gatchalian’s business
transactions. He also misrepresented having contracts at NAMREA, DENR, CENRO and REGISTER OF DEEDS
which representation but he well knew were false, fraudulent and were only made to induce the complainant[s] to
give and deliver the said amount and once in possession of said amount.

The respondent denied the allegations against him. Tthe IBP ordered the respondent to submit a verified comment
and the latter requested for an extension of time to comply due to his medical confinement. Thereafter, the
respondent filed a second motion for extension praying for another 20 days alleging that he was still recovering
from his illness. The case was set for mandatory conference but the respondent failed to appear; thus, the IBP
considered the respondent in default for his failure to appear and for not filing an answer despite extensions granted.
The case was then submitted for report and recommendation. and it was recommended that ATTY. PABLO A.
BERNARDO be SUSPENDED for a period of TWO YEARS from the practice of his profession as a lawyer and as
a member of the Bar. The IBP Board of Governors issued a Resolution ADOPTing and APPROVing the report and
recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner with Modification.

On May 16, 2007, the respondent promptly filed a Motion for Reconsideration[17] of the aforesaid Resolution of the
The Court adopts and agrees with the findings and conclusions of the IBP.

Issue:

Whether respondent is guilty of committing malpractice and conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar and violation
of his duties and oath as a lawyer.

Ruling:

The court adopted and agreed with the findings and conclusions of the IBP.

The court ruled that the respondent’s defense of prescription is untenable. The Court has held that administrative
cases against lawyers do not prescribe. The lapse of considerable time from the commission of the offending act to
the institution of the administrative complaint will not erase the administrative culpability of a lawyer. Otherwise,
members of the bar would only be emboldened to disregard the very oath they took as lawyers, prescinding from the
fact that as long as no private complainant would immediately come forward, they stand a chance of being
completely exonerated from whatever administrative liability they ought to answer for. ]

Further, consistent with his failure to file his answer after he himself pleaded for several extensions of time to file
the same, the respondent failed to appear during the mandatory conference, as ordered by the IBP. As a lawyer, the
respondent is considered as an officer of the court who is called upon to obey and respect court processes. Such acts
of the respondent are a deliberate and contemptuous affront on the court’s authority which can not be countenanced.
Lawyers may be disciplined – whether in their professional or in their private capacity – for any conduct that is
wanting in morality, honesty, probity and good demeanor. It is embodied in Rule 2.03 that A lawyer shall not do or
permit to be done any act designed primarily to solicit legal business and Rule 3.01 that A lawyer shall not use or
permit the use of any false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory or unfair statement or
claim regarding his qualifications or legal services.

It is likewise settled that a disbarment proceeding is separate and distinct from a criminal action filed against a
lawyer despite having involved the same set of facts. Jurisprudence has it “that a finding of guilt in the criminal case
will not necessarily result in a finding of liability in the administrative case. Conversely, the respondent’s acquittal
does not necessarily exculpate him administratively.

As the records reveal, the RTC eventually convicted the respondent for the crime of Estafa for which he was meted
the penalty of sentenced to suffer six (6) years and one (1) day of Prision Mayor as minimum to twelve (12)
years and one (1) day of Reclusion Temporal as maximum. Such criminal conviction clearly undermines the
respondent’s moral fitness to be a member of the Bar. Rule 138, Section 27 provides that:

SEC. 27. Disbarment and suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court, grounds therefor. – A member of the bar may
be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice or other
gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral
turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before the admission to practice, or for a
wilful disobedience appearing as attorney for a party without authority to do so.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, respondent Atty. Pablo S. Bernardo is found guilty of violating the Code
of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, he is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for ONE (1) YEAR
effective upon notice hereof. Further, the Court ORDERS Atty. Pablo S. Bernardo (1) to RETURN the amount of
P200,000.00 to Fidela Bengco and Teresita Bengco within TEN (10) DAYS from receipt of this Decision and (2) to
SUBMIT his proof of compliance thereof to the Court, through the Office of the Bar Confidant within TEN (10)
DAYS therefrom; with a STERN WARNING that failure to do so shall merit him the additional penalty of
suspension from the practice of law for one (1) year.
Emiliana Hernandez vs. Atty. Venancio Padilla

Facts:
Complainant and her husband were the respondents in an ejectment case filed against them. The RTC ordered that
the Deed of Sale executed in favor of complainant be cancelled; and that the latter pay the complainant therein, Elisa
Duigan, attorney’s fees and moral damages.

Complainant and her husband filed their Notice of Appeal with the RTC. Thereafter, the Court of Appeals (CA)
ordered them to file their Appellants’ Brief and the respondent represented them in the case. He filed a
Memorandum on Appeal instead of an Appellants’ Brief. Thus, Duigan filed a Motion to Dismiss the Appeal. The
CA granted the Motion. The Resolution became final and executory. Complainant was informed of the Resolution
when the Sheriff of the RTC went to her house and informed her of the Resolution. Hence, Complainant filed an
Affidavit of Complaint] with the Committee on Bar Discipline of the IBP seeking the disbarment of respondent on
grounds of deceit, malpractice, and grave misconduct. Complainant prays for moral damages in the amount of
₱350,000.
The Director of Bar Discipline ordered respondent to submit an answer to the Complaint. In his Counter-
Affidavit/Answer respondent prayed for the outright dismissal of the Complaint. He explained that he was not the
lawyer of complainant. He averred that prior to the mandatory conference set by the IBP he had never met
complainant, because it was her husband who had personally transacted with him. According to respondent, the
husband “despondently pleaded to me to prepare a Memorandum on Appeal because according to him the period
given by the CA was to lapse within two or three days.” Thus, respondent claims that he filed a Memorandum on
Appeal because he honestly believed that “it is this pleading which was required.

THE IBP Investigating Commissioner found that respondent violated Canons 5, 17, and 18 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility (the Code). He recommended that respondent be suspended from practicing law from 3
to 6 months. The board of governors of the IBP issued A Resolution adoptING and approving the Report and
Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner. Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration which the IBP
board of governors partly granted by reducing the penalty imposed to one-month suspension from the practice of
law.

Issue: Whether or not respondent is guilty of malpractice, deceit and grave misconduct

Ruling:
.
The SC adopted the factual findings of the board of governors of the IBP but, however, disagrees with its
Decision to reduce the penalty to one-month suspension. It affirmed the six-month suspension the Board originally
imposed.

Acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney-client relationship and gives rise to the duty of
fidelity to the client’s cause. Once a lawyer agrees to handle a case, it is that lawyer’s duty to serve the client with
competence and diligence. Respondent has failed to fulfill this duty. Regardless of the particular pleading his client
may have believed to be necessary, it was respondent’s duty to know the proper pleading to be filed in appeals from
RTC decisions. Respondent, as a litigator, was expected to know the procedure and this is embodied in Canon 5 of
the Code

Respondent’s plea for leniency should not have been granted.The supposed lack of time given to
respondent to acquaint himself with the facts of the case does not excuse his negligence. Rule 18.02 of the Code
provides that a lawyer shall not handle any legal matter without adequate preparation.
Second, respondent, as counsel, had the duty to inform his clients of the status of their case. His failure to
do so amounted to a violation of Rule 18.04 of the Code.
Lastly, the failure of respondent to file the proper pleading and a comment on Duigan’s Motion to Dismiss
is negligence on his part. Under 18.03 of the Code, a lawyer is liable for negligence in handling the client’s case.
Lawyers should not neglect legal matters entrusted to them, otherwise their negligence in fulfilling their
duty would render them liable for disciplinary action. ]
Respondent has failed to live up to his duties as a lawyer. When a lawyer violates his duties to his client, he
engages in unethical and unprofessional conduct for which he should be held accountable. 1[30]
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Venancio Padilla is found guilty of violating Rules 18.02, 18.03, 18.04,
as well as Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Hence, he is SUSPENDED from the practice of law
for SIX (6) MONTHS and STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or a similar offense will be dealt
with more severely.
 Jessie De Leon vs. Atty. Eduardo G. Casteloi

Facts:
On January 2, 2006, the Government brought suit for the purpose of correcting theTCTs covering two
parcels of land located in Malabon City then registered in the names of defendants Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores
Chu due to their encroaching on a public callejon and on a portion of the Malabon-Navotas River shoreline
De Leon, having joined the Civil Case as a voluntary intervenor two years later, now accuses the
respondent, the counsel of record of the defendants in Civil Case with the serious administrative offenses of
dishonesty and falsification warranting his disbarment or suspension as an attorney. The respondent’s sin was
allegedly committed by his filing for defendants Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu of various pleadings despite said
spouses being already deceased at the time of filing.
Respondent also committed the crime of Use of Falsified Documents, by submitting the said
falsified Answers in the judicial proceedings in the said Civil Case. Respondent also made a mockery of the
aforesaid judicial proceedings by representing dead persons therein who, he falsely made to appear, as
contesting the complaints, counter-suing and cross-suing the adverse parties. As a consequence of the
above criminal acts, complainant submits that respondent likewise violated His Lawyer’s Oath and the
Code of Professional Responsibility.
The Court directed the respondent to comment on De Leon’s administrative complaint and the latter
rendered his explanations. The complainant submitted a reply, whereby he asserted that the respondent’s claim in
his comment that he had represented the Lim family was a deception, because the subject of the complaint against
the respondent was his filing of the answers in behalf of Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu despite their being
already deceased at the time of the filing. The complainant regarded as baseless the justifications of the Office of the
City Prosecutor for Malabon City in dismissing the criminal complaint against the respondent and in denying his
motion for reconsideration.

Issue: Whether or not respondent is guilty of falsehood or falsification in his pleadings.

Ruling:
The Court found that the respondent, as attorney, did not commit any falsehood or falsification in his
pleadings in Civil Case No. 4674MN. A plain reading indicates that the respondent did not misrepresent that
Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu were still living. On the contrary, the respondent directly stated in the answer to
the complaint in intervention with counterclaim and cross-claim, supra, and in the clarification and submission,
supra, that the Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu were already deceased.

Even granting, for the sake of argument, that any of the respondent’s pleadings might have created any
impression that the Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu were still living, still cannot hold the respondent guilty of any
dishonesty or falsification. For one, the respondent was acting in the interest of the actual owners of the properties
when he filed the answer with counterclaim and cross-claim. As such, his pleadings were privileged and would not
occasion any action against him as an attorney. Secondly, having made clear at the start that the Spouses Lim Hio
and Dolores Chu were no longer the actual owners of the affected properties due to the transfer of ownership even
prior to the institution of the action, and that the actual owners (i.e., Leonardo and William Lim) needed to be
substituted in lieu of said spouses, whether the Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu were still living or already
deceased as of the filing of the pleadings became immaterial. And, lastly, De Leon could not disclaim knowledge
that the Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu were no longer living. His joining in the action as a voluntary intervenor
charged him with notice of all the other persons interested in the litigation. He also had an actual awareness of such
other persons, as his own complaint in intervention, bear out in its specific allegations against Leonardo Lim and
William Lim, and their respective spouses. Thus, he could not validly insist that the respondent committed any
dishonesty or falsification in relation to him or to any other party.

WHEREFORE, the complaint for disbarment or suspension filed against Atty. Eduardo G. Castelo is
dismissed for utter lack of merit.

DECISION

PER CURIAM:
notice, the amount of P3,900.00 which complainant paid her for the filing of
a petition for certiorari with the February 24, 2004.

Let all courts, through the Office of the Court Administrator, as well as the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Office of the Bar Confidant, be
notified of this Resolution, and be it duly recorded in the personal file t
Office. The said certification reads:

This is to certify that as per records of the Cashier Division, there is no

record of payment made by one ATTY. LUNA B. AVANCE in the amount of
Thirty Thousand Pesos (P3ayment for COURT FINE imposed in the resolution
dated 29 Sept. 2009 Re: Adm. Case No. 5834.[10]

In view of the foregoing, the Court finds respondent unfit to continue as a

member of the bar.

As an officer of the court, it is a lawyer’s duty to uphold the dignity and

authority of 9 Resolution.

We have held that failure to comply with Court directives constitutes gross
misconduct, insubordination or disrespect which merits a lawyer’s
suspension or even disbar2] degree of irresponsibility. A Court’s Resolution
is “not to be construed as a mere request, nor should it be complied with
partially, inadequately, or selectively. Respondent’s obstinate refusal to
comply with the Court’s orders not “only betrays a recalcitrant flaw in her
character; it also underscores her disrespect of the Court’s lawful orders
which is only too deserving of reproof.”[14]

Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court a member of the bar may
be disbarred or suspended from office as an attorney for gross misconduct
and/or for a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, to
wit:

from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit,
malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral
conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude,
or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before admission
to practice, or for a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a
superior court, or for corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a
party to a case without authority so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at
law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or
brokers, constitutes malpractice. (Emphasis supplied.)

In repeatedly disobeying this Court’s orders, respondent proved herself

unworthy of membership in the Philippine Bar. Worse, she remains
indifferent to the need to reform herself. Clearly, she is unfit to discharge
the duties of an officer of the court and deserves the ultimate penalty of
disbarment.

WHEREFORE, respondent ATTY. LUNA B. AVANCE is hereby DISBARRED

for gross misconduct and willful disobedience of lawful orders of a superior
court. Her name is ORDERED STRICKEN OFF from the Roll of Attorneys.

Let a copy of this decision be attached to respondent’s personal record with

the Office of the Bar Confidant and copies be furnished to all chapters of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines and to all courts of the land.

TERESITA D. SANTECO, A.C. No. 5834

search
Vs.
ATTY. LUNA B. AVANCE,

Facts:

Complainant filed an administrative complaint against respondent for mishandling a

civil case to declare a deed of absolute sale null and void and for reconveyance and
damages.

In an En Banc Decision, the Court found respondent guilty of gross

misconduct for abandoning her client’s cause in bad faith and
persistent refusal to comply with lawful orders directed at her
without any explanation for doing so. She was ordered suspended
from the practice of law for a period of five years, and was likewise
directed to return to complainant the amount of P3,900.00 which
complainant paid her for the filing of a petition for certiorari with
the Court of Appeals (CA), which she never filed.

Respondent moved to reconsider the decision but her motion was

denied. Subsequently, while respondent’s five-year suspension
from the practice of law was still in effect, Judge Consuelo Amog-
Bocar, sent a letter-report to the Court Administrator informing
that respondent had appeared and actively participated in three
cases wherein she misrepresented herself as “Atty. Liezl Tanglao.”
When her opposing counsels confronted her and showed to the
court a certification regarding her suspension, respondent admitted
and conceded that she is Atty. Luna B. Avance, but qualified that
she was only suspended for three years and that her suspension
has already been lifted. Judge Amog-Bocar further stated that
respondent nonetheless withdrew her appearance from all the
cases.

The Court, required respondent to comment, however, failed to file

the required comment. The Court reiterated the directive to
comment. Still, respondent failed to comply despite notice. The
Court issued a Resolution finding respondent guilty of indirect
contempt.Despite due notice, respondent failed to pay the fine
imposed.

Issue: Whether or not respondent is guilty of indirect contempt

Ruling:

The Court found respondent unfit to continue as a member of the

bar.

As an officer of the court, it is a lawyer’s duty to uphold the dignity

and authority of the court. The highest form of respect for judicial
authority is shown by a lawyer’s obedience to court orders and
processes.Here, respondent’s conduct evidently fell short of what is
expected of her as an officer of the court as she obviously
possesses a habit of defying this Court’s orders. She willfully
disobeyed this Court when she continued her law practice despite
the five-year suspension order against her and even
misrepresented herself to be another person in order to evade said
penalty. Thereafter, when she was twice ordered to comment on
her continued law practice while still suspended, nothing was heard
from her despite receipt of two Resolutions from this Court. Neither
did she pay the P30,000.00 fine imposed.

Respondent’s cavalier attitude in repeatedly ignoring the orders of

the Supreme Court constitutes utter disrespect to the judicial
institution. Respondent’s conduct indicates a high degree of
irresponsibility. A Court’s Resolution is “not to be construed as a
mere request, nor should it be complied with partially,
inadequately, or selectively. Respondent’s obstinate refusal to
comply with the Court’s orders not “only betrays a recalcitrant flaw
in her character; it also underscores her disrespect of the Court’s
lawful orders which is only too deserving of reproof.”[

Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court a member of the
bar may be disbarred or suspended from office as an attorney for
gross misconduct and/or for a willful disobedience of any lawful
order of a superior court
 In repeatedly disobeying this Court’s orders, respondent proved
herself unworthy of membership in the Philippine Bar. Worse, she
remains indifferent to the need to reform herself. Clearly, she is
unfit to discharge the duties of an officer of the court and deserves
the ultimate penalty of disbarment.

WHEREFORE, respondent ATTY. LUNA B. AVANCE is hereby

DISBARRED for gross misconduct and willful disobedience of
lawful orders of a superior court. Her name is ORDERED
STRICKEN OFF from the Roll of Attorneys.

onveyance and damages, which complainant had filed before the Regional T

Patricia Gone Versus Atty. Macario Ga

Facts:

Complainant alleged that on 13 December 1983, the NLRC building in Intramuros, Manila was burned and among
the records destroyed was his appealed case. Complainant Gone further reported that as early as 8 March 1984,
Atty. Ga had obtained a certification from the NLRC that the records of NLRC Case were burned. Despite
knowledge of the destruction of the records, Atty. Ga allegedly did not do anything to reconstitute the records of
the appealed case. Complainant allegedly sent a letter to Atty. Ga requesting him to return the records of the case
in his possession. As of date of complaint, Atty. Ga has yet to turn over the records. Complainant submits that his
counsel’s continued refusal has caused great injustice to him and his family. IBP Commission on Bar Discipline,
issued an Order directing respondent Ga to file his answer on the complaint. Atty. Ga explained that during the
pendency of their motion for reconsideration, the NLRC Office in Manila caught fire. Although worried of the
records of their case, he was relieved when he received summons from the NLRC setting the case for hearing. It
was unfortunate, however, that in the two scheduled hearings set by the NLRC herein complainant failed to
appear. For such absence, the NLRC allegedly shelved their case. Atty. Ga averred that had it not been for the
instant complaint, he would not have, as he never, heard from complainant Gone since 1984. What he was aware
of was the latter’s abandonment of his family way back in 1978. Complainant’s wife is the relative of Atty. Ga,
being the daughter of his first cousin.

Motion to Dismiss was filed by respondent due to complainant’s absence in several hearing.However the
Commissioner handling the case submitted her report recommending that respondent Atty. Ga be censured for
violation of Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which was adopted and approved with
modification by the IBP Board of Governors. Atty. Ga was directed to reconstitute and turn over the records of the
case to complainant, with stern warning that failure to do so would merit a stiffer penalty. No motion for
reconsideration was filed.

Issue: Whether or not respondent had violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Ruling:

The court agreed with the findings and recommendation of the IBP. The Code of Professional Responsibility
mandates lawyers to serve their clients with competence and diligence Rule 18.03 and Rule 18.04 state:

Rule 18.03. A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his
negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.

Rule 18.04. A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall
respond within a reasonable time to the client’s request for information.

Respondent Atty. Ga breached these duties when he failed to reconstitute or turn over the records of the
case to his client, herein complainant Gone. His negligence manifests lack of competence and diligence required of
every lawyer. His failure to comply with the request of his client was a gross betrayal of his fiduciary duty and a
breach of the trust reposed upon him by his client.

In addition, respondent’s disregard of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline’s directive for him to
reconstitute and turn over the records of the case to complainant. Likewise, respondent unjustifiably ignored the
directive of the Court for him to explain his failure to comply with IBP Resolution. Respondent’s unjustified
disregard of the lawful orders of this Court and 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.
As an officer of the Court, respondent is expected to know that a resolution of this Court is not a mere
request but an order which should be complied with promptly and completely. This is also true of the orders of
the IBP as the investigating arm of the Court in administrative cases against lawyers. ]

Wherefore, respondent Macario Ga is hereby fined in the amount of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) for
his failure to comply with the directive in Resolution No. XVIII-2007-94 dated 19 September 2007 of the Board of
Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. Atty. Ga is given a final warning that a more drastic
punishment shall be imposed upon him should he fail to comply with the directive for him to reconstitute and turn
over the records of the case to complainant.

A.C. No. 6689 August 24, 2011

RIZALINA L. GEMINA vs. ATTY. ISIDRO S. MADAMBA,

Facts:

Allegedly, Complainant is an heir of the registered owner of several parcels of land located in Laoag
City.2 These parcels of land were unlawfully sold by Francisco Eugenio in connivance with the
respondent. The documents pertaining to the transactions over these lands were notarized by the
respondent either without the presence of the affiants or with their forged signatures. The documents the
complainant referred to were:1. Waiver of Rights & Interest; 2. Affidavit of Buyer/Transferee;3. Deed of
Adjudication3 & Sale;4. Affidavit of Non-Tenancy and 5. Deed of Absolute Sale.

In his Comments and Compliance ,7 the respondent admitted the complainant’s allegations on the
notarization of the subject documents, but denied any participation in the sale and transfer of the lands
covered by the documents. He claimed that it was his secretary who prepared and drafted the
 documents. He claimed that his only participation was to affix his signature on the documents. He
apologized and committed himself not to repeat these misdeeds.
In a resolution the case was referred to the IBP for investigation, report and recommendation.8
In the position paper she submitted to the IBP, the complainant reiterated her charges against the
respondent. The respondent likewise reiterated in his position paper10 his explanations contained in his
comment submitted to this Court. The Commissioner –in-charge of the case submitted to the IBP Board
of Governors her Report and Recommendation, recommending the dismissal of the complaint for lack of
merit, finding that no documentary evidence was presented to support the same. She insisted that
respondent notarized documents without the appearance before him of the persons who executed the
same, but no clear and sufficient evidence was also presented. The report was adopted and approved by
the IBP Board of Governors. Hence, this appeal

Issue: Whether respondent violated the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Ruling
.
The court disagree with the findings of Commissioner Maala for the following reasons: First, the IBP
cannot inquire into whether the complainant is an heir of the registered owner of the land. It is not within
its authority to determine whether the complainant has a legal right to the properties involved in the
transactions and to require her to submit proof to that effect. Its function is limited to disciplining lawyers,
and it cannot determine issues of law and facts regarding the parties’ legal rights to a dispute. Second,
from the respondent’s own admissions, it cannot be doubted that he is guilty of the charges against him.
His admissions show that he had notarized documents without reading them and without ascertaining
what the documents purported to be. He had completely entrusted to his secretary the keeping and the
maintenance of his Notarial Register. This eventually resulted in inaccuracies in the entry of the notarial
acts in his Notarial Register.
The IBP resolution, based wholly on Commissioner Maala’s Report and Recommendation, totally missed
and disregarded the submitted evidence and the respondent’s testimony during the hearing of the
complaint. The IBP apparently had treated the respondent with exceptional leniency. The respondent’s
age and sickness cannot be cited as reasons to disregard the serious lapses he committed in the
performance of his duties as a lawyer and as a notary public. The inaccuracies in his Notarial Register
entries and his failure to enter the documents that he admittedly notarized constitute dereliction of duty as
a notary public. He cannot escape liability by putting the blame on his secretary. The lawyer himself, not
merely his secretary, should be held accountable for these misdeeds.16
. A notary public exercises duties calling for carefulness and faithfulness. Notaries must inform
themselves of the facts they certify to; most importantly, they should not take part or allow themselves to
be part of illegal transactions.17
Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requires every lawyer to uphold the Constitution, obey
the laws of the land, and promote respect for the law and legal processes. The Notarial Law and the 2004
Rules on Notarial Practice, moreover, require a duly commissioned notary public to make the proper
entries in his Notarial Register and to refrain from committing any dereliction or any act which may serve
as cause for the revocation of his commission or the imposition of administrative sanctions. 18
Under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, the respondent’s failure to make the proper entry or entries in
his Notarial Register of his notarial acts, his failure to require the presence of a principal at the time of the
notarial acts, and his failure to identify a principal on the basis of personal knowledge by competent
evidence are grounds for the revocation of a lawyer’s commission as a notary public. 19
WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Atty. Isidro S. Madamba GUILTY of violating the Notarial Law,
the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility, and hereby orders the
REVOCATION of his notarial commission, if still existing. He is further SUSPENDED indefinitely from
reappointment as a Notary Public. Considering the seriousness of his violations, he deserves disbarment
from the practice of law but taking into account his old age and sickness, the Court, for humanitarian
reasons, hereby orders his SUSPENSION from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year.1avvphi1

A.C. No. 8253 March 15, 2011

ERLINDA R. TAROG, vs.ATTY. ROMULO L. RICAFORT,

Facts:
In 1992, the Tarogs sought the advice of Atty. Jaime L. Miralles regarding their bank-foreclosed property located in the Bicol Region.
Atty. Miralles advised them to engage a Bicol-based attorney for that purpose. Thus, they went to see Atty. Ricafort accompanied by
Vidal Miralles, their friend who was a brother of Atty. Miralles. 1 They ultimately engaged Atty. Ricafort as their attorney on account of
his being well-known in the community, and being also the Dean of the College of Law of Aquinas University where their son was
then studying.
Having willingly accepted the engagement, Atty. Ricafort required the Tarogs to pay an amount of P65,000. He explained the
importance of depositing P65,000.00 in court to counter the P60,000.00 deposited by Antonio Tee, the buyer of the foreclosed
property. After they informed him that they had only P60,000.00, he required them to add some more amount. To raise the said
amount for the Tarogs, Vidal solicited a loan from one Sia with the guarantee of his brother Atty. Miralles. Sia issued a check in that
amount in the name of Arnulfo.4
Through the persuasion of the respondent, Arnulfo entrusted the check to him. After some time, the Tarogs visited Atty. Ricafort to
verify the status of the consignation. Atty. Ricafort informed them that he had not deposited the amount in court, but in his own
account. He promised to return the money, plus interest. Despite several inquiries about when the amount would be returned,
however, the Tarogs received mere assurances from Atty. Ricafort that the money was in good hands.
The Tarogs further claimed that the court where their complaint for annulment of sale was being heard, had required the parties to
file their memoranda. Accordingly, they delivered P15,000.00 to Atty. Ricafort for that purpose, but he did not file the memorandum. 6
When it became apparent to the Tarogs that Atty. Ricafort would not make good his promise of returning the P65,000.00, plus
interest, Arnulfo demanded by his letter dated December 3, 2002 that Atty. Ricafort return the P65,000.00, plus interest, and the
P15,000.00 paid for the filing of the memorandum.7 Yet, they did not receive any reply from Atty. Ricafort.
In his defense, Atty. Ricafort denied that the P65,000.00 was intended to be deposited in court, insisting that the amount was
payment for his legal services under a "package deal," that is, the amount included his acceptance fee, attorney’s fee, and
appearance fees from the filing of the complaint for annulment of sale until judgment, but excluding appeal. The IBP-CBD
recommended that respondent be DISBARRED ordered to return the amount of P65,000 and P15,000 which he got from his client.

The IBP Board of Governors recommended that in lieu of Disbarment of respondent he is indefinitely suspended from the practice of
Law and return the amount of P65,000 and P15,000 to complainant.
Atty. Ricafort filed a second motion for reconsideration, 17 assailing the resolution of the IBP Board of Governors for violating Section
12, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court requiring the decision of the IBP Board of Governors to be in writing and to clearly and distinctly
state the facts and reasons on which the decision was based.

Issue: Whether respondent had violated Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which is tantamount to
gross misconduct
Ruling:
The court affirmed the findings of the Commissioner Reyes, because they were supported by substantial evidence. However, the
court imposed the penalty of disbarment instead of the recommended penalty of indefinite suspension, considering that Atty. Ricafort
committed a very serious offense that was aggravated by his having been previously administratively sanctioned for a similar offense
on the occasion of which he was warned against committing a similar offense.
The court ruled that the version of the complainants was more credible than version of Atty Ricarfort and that his acts and actuations
constituted serious breach of his fiduciary duties as an attorney (Rule 16.01,16.02) which constituted grave and gross misconduct in
blatant violation of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Romulo L. Ricafort is guilty of a violation of Canon 16, Rule 16.01 and Canon 17 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and, accordingly, disbar him. The Bar Confidant is directed to strike out his name from the Roll of Attorneys.
Atty. Ricafort is ordered to return to Erlinda R. Tarog the sums of P65,000.00 and P15,000.00, plus interest of six percent per annum
reckoned from the demand made on December 3, 2002, within twenty days from notice.

rial Court (RTC) of Makati City.

In an En Banc Decision[2] dated December 11, 2003, the Court found

respondent guilty of gross misconduct for, among others, abandoning her
client’s cause in bad faith and persistent refusal to comply with lawful orders
directed at her without any explanation for doing so. She was ordered
suspended from the practice of law for a period of five years, and was
likewise directed to return to complainant, within ten (10) days from notice,
the amount of P3,900.00 which complainant paid her for the filing of a
petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which she never filed.

Respondent moved to reconsider[3] the decision but her motion was denied
in a Resolution[4] dated February 24, 2004.

Subsequently, while respondent’s five-year suspension from the practice of

law was still in effect, Judge Consuelo Amog-Bocar, Presiding Judge of the
RTC of Iba, Zambales, Branch 71, sent a letter-report[5] dated November
12, 2007 to then Court Administrator Christopher O. Lock informing the
latter that respondent had appeared and actively participated in three cases
wherein she misrepresented herself as “Atty. Liezl Tanglao.” When her
opposing counsels confronted her and showed to the court a certification
regarding her suspension, respondent admitted and conceded that she is
Atty. Luna B. Avance, but qualified that she was only suspended for three
years and that her suspension has already been lifted. Judge Amog-Bocar
further stated that respondent nonetheless withdrew her appearance from all
the cases. Attached to the letter-report were copies of several pertinent
orders from her court confirming the report.

Acting on Judge Amog-Bocar’s letter-report, the Court, in a Resolution[6]

dated April 9, 2008, required respondent to comment within ten (10) days
from notice. Respondent, however, failed to file the required comment. On
June 10, 2009, the Court reiterated the directive to comment; otherwise the
case would be deemed submitted for resolution based on available records
on file with the Court. Still, respondent failed to comply despite notice.
Accordingly, this Court issued a Resolution[7] on September 29, 2009
finding respondent guilty of indirect contempt. The dispositive portion of the
Resolution reads:

ACCORDINGLY, respondent is hereby found guilty of indirect contempt and

is hereby FINED in the amount of Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) and
STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar infractions will
be dealt with more severely.

Let all courts, through the Office of the Court Administrator, as well as the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Office of the Bar Confidant, be
notified of this Resolution, and be it duly recorded in the personal file of
respondent Atty. Luna B. Avance.[8]

A copy of the September 29, 2009 Resolution was sent to respondent’s

address of record at “26-B Korea Ave., Ph. 4, Greenheights Subd., Nangka,
Marikina City” by registered mail. The same was delivered by Postman
Hermoso Mesa, Jr. and duly received by one Lota Cadete on October 29,
2009, per certification[9] dated February 3, 2011 by Postmaster Rufino C.
Robles of the Marikina Central Post Office.

Despite due notice, however, respondent failed to pay the fine imposed in
the September 29, 2009 Resolution based on a certification issued by Araceli
C. Bayuga, Chief Judicial Staff Officer of the Cash Collection and
Disbursement Division, Fiscal Management and Budget Office. The said
certification reads:

This is to certify that as per records of the Cashier Division, there is no

record of payment made by one ATTY. LUNA B. AVANCE in the amount of
Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) as payment for COURT FINE imposed in
the resolution dated 29 Sept. 2009 Re: Adm. Case No. 5834.[10]

In view of the foregoing, the Court finds respondent unfit to continue as a

member of the bar.

As an officer of the court, it is a lawyer’s duty to uphold the dignity and

authority of the court. The highest form of respect for judicial authority is
shown by a lawyer’s obedience to court orders and processes.[11]

Here, respondent’s conduct evidently fell short of what is expected of her as

an officer of the court as she obviously possesses a habit of defying this
Court’s orders. She willfully disobeyed this Court when she continued her
law practice despite the five-year suspension order against her and even
misrepresented herself to be another person in order to evade said penalty.
Thereafter, when she was twice ordered to comment on her continued law
practice while still suspended, nothing was heard from her despite receipt of
two Resolutions from this Court. Neither did she pay the P30,000.00 fine
imposed in the September 29, 2009 Resolution.

We have held that failure to comply with Court directives constitutes gross
misconduct, insubordination or disrespect which merits a lawyer’s
suspension or even disbarment.[12] Sebastian v. Bajar[13] teaches

Respondent’s cavalier attitude in repeatedly ignoring the orders of the

Supreme Court constitutes utter disrespect to the judicial institution.
Respondent’s conduct indicates a high degree of irresponsibility. A Court’s
Resolution is “not to be construed as a mere request, nor should it be
complied with partially, inadequately, or selectively. Respondent’s obstinate
refusal to comply with the Court’s orders not “only betrays a recalcitrant flaw
in her character; it also underscores her disrespect of the Court’s lawful
orders which is only too deserving of reproof.”[14]

Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court a member of the bar may
be disbarred or suspended from office as an attorney for gross misconduct
and/or for a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, to
wit:

SEC. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court;

grounds therefor. — A member of the bar may be disbarred or
suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any
deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly
immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral
turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before
admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience of any lawful order
of a superior court, or for corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney
for a party to a case without authority so to do. The practice of soliciting
cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid
agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice. (Emphasis supplied.)

In repeatedly disobeying this Court’s orders, respondent proved herself

unworthy of membership in the Philippine Bar. Worse, she remains
indifferent to the need to reform herself. Clearly, she is unfit to discharge
the duties of an officer of the court and deserves the ultimate penalty of
disbarment.

WHEREFORE, respondent ATTY. LUNA B. AVANCE is hereby DISBARRED

for gross misconduct and willful disobedience of lawful orders of a superior
court. Her name is ORDERED STRICKEN OFF from the Roll of Attorneys.

Let a copy of this decision be attached to respondent’s personal record with

the Office of the Bar Confidant and copies be furnished to all chapters of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines and to all courts of the land.

SO ORDERED.