A.C. No.

5246 March 20, 2003

EDGAR O. PEREA, complainant, vs. ATTY. RUBEN ALMADRO, respondent

FACTS: Before the Court is a complaint for disbarment filed by Edgar O. Perea against
Atty. Ruben Almadro for gross neglect of his duties as lawyer of herein complainant.
Respondent was complainant’s counsel before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City
where he is being charged with the crime of Frustrated Homicide. Complainant suffered
financially and emotionally due to respondent’s neglect of his duties. Respondent has not
attended any of his hearings which led complainant to plead with respondent to withdraw
formally as his counsel so he could hire another lawyer. The respondent filed three
motions for extension of time to file comment. On November 17, 2000, respondent,
through the law firm Sua and Alambra, filed a Manifestation and Motion that respondent
has not yet received a copy of the complaint hence it asked the Court to order the
complainant to furnish them a copy. On December 20, 2000, respondent through said law
firm submitted an Answer to the complaint, contending that: two days after the RTC
granted the manifestation of defense to file motion for leave to file demurrer to evidence,
he had finished the draft of the motion and the accompanying pleading which he stored
in a magnetic computer diskette intended for editing prior to its submission in court; a few
days before the deadline, herein respondent tried to retrieve the draft from the diskette
but said drafts were nowhere to be found despite efforts to retrieve them; this led him to
believe that the drafts must have been finalized and the edited versions accordingly filed
since it is his practice to expunge from the diskette drafts that were already finalized and
acted upon; meanwhile, the presiding judge of the RTC retired, as a consequence,
actions on pending cases were held in abeyance; moreover, communications with the
herein complainant had become rarer; thereafter, he also became preoccupied running
for congress which he subsequently lost, then he was offered a position in the Philippine
Stock Exchange as head of the Compliance and Surveillance Division. On June 13, 2001,
the IBP through Commissioner Renato G. Cunanan submitted its report, that they are not
convinced about the truth of respondent’s affirmative allegations. It is clear that he as well
as his counsels are lying. They strongly recommend that respondent be suspended from
the practice of law for two (2) years and that he be fined Ten Thousand (PhP10,000.00)
Pesos. The report was adopted and approved by the Board of Governors of the IBP
Commission on Bar Discipline with some modifications and considering that Atty. Ruben
L. Almadro’s actuations reveal not only serious neglect or indifference to his duties as a
lawyer but more gravely his open disrespect for the court and the authority it represent.
Respondent is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year and FINED
for Ten Thousand (P 10,000.00) Pesos. Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration on
September 11, 2002, this time in his own behalf, of the above quoted IBP Board
Resolution. This was denied on October 19, 2002.

ISSUE: Whether Atty, Ruben Almadro is guilty for gross neglect of his duties as a lawyer
of herein complainant

HELD: YES. The Court found respondent Atty. Ruben Almadro guilty of serious neglect
of his duties as a lawyer and of open disrespect for the court and the authority it
represents, as embodied in Canon 18, Rules 18.03 and 18.04 and Canon 10, Rule 10.01
of the Code of Professional Responsibility. It is plain from the records that respondent
lawyer failed to submit a demurrer to evidence for which he had earlier asked permission
from the trial court and which his client, herein complainant was relying on. More than
that, he failed to contact his client and to apprise the latter about the developments of the
case leaving complainant completely surprised and without any protection when years
later, he received summons from the trial court asking him to present evidence in his
defense and, not long after, the trial court issued a warrant for his arrest. In other cases,
the Court also held that while a lawyer may decline a person to become his client for valid
reasons, once he agrees to take up the cause of a client, he begins to owe fidelity to such
cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.
Respondent’s negligence is compounded by his attempt to have this tribunal believe the
story of how his draft, stored in a magnetic diskette, mysteriously disappeared and how
the absence of such file in his diskette led him to believe that the same was already filed
in court. In his Answer, he even tried to depict himself as a conscientious lawyer by stating
that he was actually mulling on the procedural steps he would undertake regarding
complainant’s case when instead he received a copy of this complaint for disbarment.
Such story, as observed by the IBP, is not only outrageous but is contemptuous as it
makes a mockery of the Court. Such behavior cannot be countenanced and deserves
stern penalty therefor. He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year and
FINED in the amount of Ten Thousand (P10,000.00) Pesos, with a WARNING that any
or similar acts of dishonesty would be dealt with more severely
A.C. No. 8096 July 5, 2010
REY J. VARGAS AND EDUARDO A. PANES, JR., Complainants, vs. ATTY. MICHAEL
A. IGNES, ATTY. LEONARD BUENTIPO MANN, ATTY. RODOLFO U. VIAJAR, JR.,
AND ATTY. JOHN RANGAL D. NADUA, Respondents.

FACTS: Before the Court is a petition for review of Resolution No. XVIII-2008-335 passed
on July 17, 2008 by the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
in CBD Case No. 07-1953. The IBP Board of Governors dismissed the disbarment case
filed by the complainants against the respondents. Complainants contend that the IBP
Board of Governors erred in dismissing the case because respondents had no authority
from the OGCC to file the complaints and appear as counsels of KWD in Civil Case No.
1799, SCA Case No. 50-24 and Civil Case No. 1796-25. On March 10, 2008,
complainants filed a manifestation before the IBP with the following attachments: (1) the
transcript of stenographic notes taken on January 28, 2008 in Civil Case No. 1799, and
(2) the notice of appeal dated February 28, 2008 of the January 7, 2008 Order dismissing
Civil Case No. 1799. Aforesaid transcript showed that Atty. Ignes appeared as counsel of
KWD and Ms. Gomba. He also signed the notice of appeal. In his report and
recommendation, the Investigating Commissioner recommended that the charge against
Atty. Ignes be dismissed for lack of merit. The Investigating Commissioner held that Atty.
Ignes had valid authority as counsel of KWD for one (1) year, from April 2006 to April
2007, and he was unaware of the pre-termination of his contract when he filed pleadings
in SCA Case No. 50-24 and Civil Case No. 1799 in February and March 2007. As to Attys.
Viajar, Jr., Mann and Nadua, the Investigating Commissioner recommended that they be
fined ₱5,000 each for appearing as attorneys for a party without authority to do so, per
Santayana v. Alampay. The Investigating Commissioner found that they failed to secure
the conformity of the OGCC and COA to their engagement as collaborating counsels for
KWD. As aforesaid, the IBP Board of Governors reversed the recommendation of the
Investigating Commissioner and dismissed the case for lack of merit.

ISSUE/S:
1) Did respondents willfully appear as counsel of KWD without authority?
2) Whether the respondents have valid authority to appear as counsels of KWD?

HELD:
1) YES. Attys. Nadua, Viajar, Jr. and Mann had no valid authority to appear as
collaborating counsels of KWD in SCA Case No. 50-24 and Civil Case No. 1799. Nothing
in the records shows that Atty. Nadua was engaged by KWD as collaborating counsel.
Resolution No. 009 did not grant authority to Attys. Nadua, Viajar, Jr and Mann to act as
collaborating counsels of KWD. That Atty. Ignes was not notified of the pre-termination of
his own retainership contract cannot validate an inexistent authority of Attys. Nadua,
Viajar, Jr. and Mann as collaborating counsels. In Phividec Industrial Authority v. Capitol
Steel Corporation, we listed three (3) indispensable conditions before a GOCC can hire
a private lawyer: (1) private counsel can only be hired in exceptional cases; (2) the GOCC
must first secure the written conformity and acquiescence of the Solicitor General or the
Government Corporate Counsel, as the case may be; and (3) the written concurrence of
the COA must also be secured. Whereas, in the case of Atty. Ignes, he also appeared as
counsel of KWD without authority, after his authority as its counsel had expired. True, the
OGCC and COA approved his retainership contract for one (1) year effective April 17,
2006. But even if we assume as true that he was not notified of the pre-termination of his
contract, the records still disprove his claim that he stopped representing KWD after April
17, 2007. Atty. Ignes portrayed that his appearance on January 28, 2008 was merely as
counsel of Ms. Gomba. He indicted himself, however, when he said that Ms. Gomba
represents KWD per the case title. In fact, the extremely urgent motion sought the return
of the facilities of KWD to its Arellano Office. Clearly, Atty. Ignes filed and argued a motion
with the interest of KWD in mind. The notice of appeal in Civil Case No. 1799 further
validates that Atty. Ignes still appeared as counsel of KWD after his authority as counsel
had expired.
2) YES. The following circumstances convince us that, indeed, respondents willfully and
deliberately appeared as counsels of KWD without authority. One, respondents have
admitted the existence of Memorandum Circular No. 9 and professed that they are aware
of our ruling in Phividec. Two, despite the question on respondents’ authority as counsels
of KWD which question was actually raised earlier in Civil Case No. 1799 by virtue of an
urgent motion to disqualify KWD’s counsels26 dated February 21, 2007 and during the
hearing on February 23, 200727 respondents still filed the supplemental complaint in the
case on March 9, 2007. And despite the pendency of this case before the IBP, Atty. Ignes
had to be reminded by the RTC that he needs OGCC authority to file an intended motion
for reconsideration in behalf of KWD. Wherefore, the assailed Resolution No. XVIII-2008-
335 passed on July 17, 2008 by the IBP Board of Governors in CBD Case No. 07-1953
is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Respondents Attys. Michael A. Ignes, Leonard Buentipo
Mann, Rodolfo U. Viajar, Jr., and John Rangal D. Nadua are found GUILTY of willfully
appearing as attorneys for a party to a case without authority to do so and FINED ₱5,000
each, payable to this Court within ten (10) days from notice of this Resolution. They are
STERNLY WARNED that a similar offense in the future will be dealt with more severely.
A.C. No. 10532 [Formerly CBD Case No. 10-2773], NOVEMBER 7 · 2017
REYNALDO A. CABUELLO (DECEASED), SUBSTITUTED BY BEATRIZ CABUELLO
CABUTIN, Complainant, vs. ATTY. EDITHA P. TALABOC, Respondent

FACTS: Complainant engaged the services of respondent to represent his parents who
were the accused in Criminal Cases pending before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Calbiga, Samar, Branch 33. Alejandro and Cecilia Cabuello were charged with the crime
of qualified theft of coconuts. In his Complaint, complainant stated that respondent,
neglected the criminal cases of his parents. Complainant alleged that he paid for the legal
services of respondent, but she did not attend any hearing. She also failed to file the
necessary complaint against the policemen (who arrested the accused) as agreed upon
by them. Complainant stated that he filed this complaint so the respondent will not repeat
her negligence of duty toward her client's case and for the return of the payments given
to respondent, because she failed to fulfill her legal obligation toward his parents as their
lawyer. On July 25, 2011, Investigating Commissioner Victor C. Fernandez submitted his
Report and Recommendation on the administrative complaint, finding respondent guilty
of violating Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and
recommended the suspension of respondent from the practice of law for six months. On
March 20, 2013, the IBP Board of Governors passed Resolution No. XX-2013-234, which
adopted and approved with modification the Investigating Commissioner's Report and
Recommendation, finding that respondent violated Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, and sanctioned respondent with suspension from the
practice of law for six (6) months and ordered her to return the amount received from
complainant with legal interest from the time the demand was made within thirty (30) days
from receipt of notice. On July 10, 2013, respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration of
the IBP Resolution.

ISSUE/S:
1) Whether the complainant is correct that the recoverable amount from the respondent
is P97,500.00
2) Whether the respondent violated Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility

HELD:
1) NO. In the absence of receipts or documentary evidence to substantiate the amount of
P97,500.00 sought to be recovered by complainant from respondent, complainant is
entitled to a refund in the amount of P50,000.00, which had been admittedly received by
respondent from the Cabuellos as payment for attorney's/acceptance fees and other
expenses including refund of a PAL ticket and which amount respondent offered to return
to Cecilia Cabuello. The attorney's fees shall be those stipulated in the retainer's
agreement between the client and the attorney, which constitutes the law between the
parties for as long as it is not contrary to law, good morals, good customs, public policy
or public order. In this case, there was no retainer's agreement between the parties to be
able to ascertain the attorney's fees agreed upon and received by respondent.
2) YES. The records show that as counsel of the complainant's parents, respondent was
remiss in her duty toward them by never appearing in the hearings of the criminal case,
which contributed to the delay of the pre-trial of the case for eleven months or almost a
year until the trial court finally appointed a counsel de oficio for respondent's clients so
the pre-trial and trial on the merits could proceed. Respondent kept on filing a motion to
reset the scheduled pre-trial, including those dates of hearings requested by her, from the
start until her withdrawal as counsel. Based on the foregoing, it is clear that respondent
indeed violated Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. A member
of the legal profession owes his/her client entire devotion to the latter's genuine interest,
and warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his/her rights. Verily, the entrusted
privilege to practice law carries with it the corresponding duties, not only to the client, but
also to the court, to the bar and to the public. Wherefore, premises considered, the Court
finds respondent Atty. Editha P. Talaboc GUILTY of violating Canons 17 and 18 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility. Hence, respondent is SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for ONE (1) YEAR, which shall take effect immediately upon receipt of this
Decision by the respondent, and she is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same
or a similar offense shall be dealt with more severely. Respondent is also DIRECTED to
return to complainant Beatriz Cabuello Cabutin the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos
(P50,000.00), with interest at the legal rate of six percent ( 6%) per annum, from the date
of receipt of this Decision until fully paid.
A.C. No. 11149, AUGUST 15, 2017
LAURENCE D. PUNLA and MARILYN SANTOS, Complainants, vs. ATTY. ELEONOR
MARA VILLA-ONA, Respondent.

FACTS: The present administrative case stemmed from a Complaint-Affidavit1 filed with
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline (IBPCBD) by
complainants Laurence D. Punla and Marilyn Santos against respondent Atty. Eleonor
Maravilla-Ona, charging the latter with violation of the lawyer's oath, for neglecting her
clients' interests. In a complaint-affidavit filed on 15 January 2013, complainants alleged
that they got to know respondent lawyer sometime in January 2012 when they requested
her to notarize a Deed of Sale; that subsequently, they broached the idea to respondent
that they intend (sic) to file two (2) annulment cases and they wanted respondent to
represent them; that respondent committed to finish the two (2) annulment cases within
six (6) months from full payment; that the agreed lawyer's fee for the two annulment cases
is P350,000.00; that the P350,000.00 was paid in full by complainants. On the
commitment of respondent that she will (sic) finish the cases in six (6) months,
complainants followed up their cases in September 2012 or about 6 months from their
last payment in March 2012. They were ignored by respondent. On 25 September 2012,
complainants sent a letter (Annex "E") to respondent demanding that the P350,000.00
they paid her be refunded in full within five (5) days from receipt of the letter. In a
Certification dated 07 November 2012 (Annex "F"), the Philpost of Dasmarinas, Cavite,
attested that complainants' letter was received by respondent on 01 October 2012. No
refi.md was made by respondent. In an Order4 dated January 25, 2013, the IBP directed
respondent to file her Answer within 15 days. No answer was filed. A Mandatory
Conference/Hearing was set on December 4, 20135 but respondent did not appear, so it
was reset to January 22, 2014. However, respondent again failed to attend the mandatory
conference/hearing as scheduled. Hence, in an Order7 dated January 22, 2014, the
mandatory conference was terminated and both parties were directed to submit their
verified position papers. The Investigating Commissioner was of the opinion that
respondent is guilty of violating Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. In addition, the IBP Investigating Commissioner found that respondent has
been charged with several infractions. Consequently, the Investigating Commissioner
recommended that respondent be disbarred and ordered to pay complainants the amount
of P350,000.00 with legal interest until fully paid. The IBP Board of Governors, in
Resolution No. XXI-2015-15612 dated February 20, 2015, resolved to adopt the findings
of the Investigating Commissioner as well as the recommended penalty of disbarment.

ISSUE: Whether the Respondent should be disbarred

HELD: YES. The Court resolves to adopt the findings of fact of the IBP but must, however,
modify the penalty imposed in view of respondent's previous disbarment. Here, there is
no question as to respondent's guilt. It is clear from the records that respondent violated
her lawyer's oath and code of conduct when she withheld from complainants the amount
of P350,000.00 given to her, despite her failure to render the necessary legal services,
and after complainants demanded its return. It cannot be stressed enough that once a
lawyer takes up the cause of a client, that lawyer is duty-bound to serve the latter with
competence and zeal, especially when he/she accepts it for a fee. Moreover, a lawyer's
failure to return upon demand the monies he/she holds for his/her client gives rise to the
presumption that he/she has appropriated the said monies for his/her own use, to the
prejudice and in violation of the trust reposed in him/her by his/her client. The Court
cannot overlook the reality that several cases had been filed against respondent, as
pointed out by the IBP. In fact, one such case eventually led to the disbarment of
respondent. In Suarez v. Maravilla-Ona, the Court meted out the ultimate penalty of
disbarment and held that the misconduct of respondent was aggravated by her unjustified
refusal to obey the orders of the IBP directing her to file an answer and to appear at the
scheduled mandatory conference. This constitutes blatant disrespect towards the IBP and
amounts to conduct unbecoming a lawyer. While indeed respondent's condemnable acts
ought to merit the penalty of disbarment, we cannot disbar her anew, for in this jurisdiction
we do not impose double disbarment. Wherefore, the Court hereby ADOPTS the findings
of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and FINDS respondent ATIY. ELEONOR MARA
VILLA-ONA GUILTY of gross and continuing violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and accordingly FINED P40,000.00. Respondent is also ORDERED to
PAY complainants the amount of P350,000.00, with 12% interest from the date of demand
until June 30, 2013 and 6% per annum from July 1, 2013 until full payment. This is without
prejudice to the complainants' filing of the appropriate criminal case, if they so desire.

A.C. No. 704, SEPTEMBER 5, 2016

THE LAW FIRM OF CHAVEZ MIRANDA ASEOCHE represented by its founding
partner, ATTY. FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ, Complainant, vs. ATTYS. RESTITUTO S.
LAZARO and RODEL R. MORTA, Respondents.

FACTS: On 8 February 2006, the Law Firm of Chavez Miranda Aseoche (complainant),
through its founding partner, Atty. Francisco M. Chavez, filed a Complaint-Affidavit1
before this Comi. Complainant sought the disbarment of Attys. Restituto S. Lazaro and
Rodel R. Morta (respondents) for violation of Canons 8 and 10 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. It was alleged that respondents falsely and maliciously accused
complainant and its lawyers of antedating a Petition for Review filed with the Department
of Justice (DOJ) on 10 October 2005. In a Resolution dated 7 August 2006, the Court
referred this case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report
and recommendation. In his Report and Recommendation dated 7 July 2008,
Commissioner Rico A. Limpingco found respondents guilty of violating the Code of
Professional Responsibility agreeing with the complainant that the accusation that they
antedated the mailing of the DOJ petition is violative of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and the duty of all lawyers to observe civility and propriety in their
pleadings. Wherefore, premises considered, it is respectfully recommended by the IBP
Commissioner that respondent Attys. Restituto Lazaro and Rodel Morta be reprimanded
for using improper language in their pleadings with a warning that a repetition of the same
will be dealt with more severely. On 14 August 2008, the IBP Board of Governors issued
Resolution No. XVIII-2008-391, which adopted and approved Commissioner Limpingco's
Report and Recommendation finding the recommendation fully supported by the
evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, and for using improper language
in their pleadings Atty. Restituto Lazaro and Atty. Rodel Morta are REPRIMANDED with
a Warning that a repetition of the same will be dealt with more severely. On 14 November
2008, respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution dated 14 August
2008. They argued that the Complaint against them should have been dismissed on the
following grounds: (a) complainant's failure to implead the public prosecutor, who must
be considered an indispensable party to the case, since the pleading in question could
not have been filed without her conformity; (b) as the subject pleadings had been signed
by the public prosecutor, their contents enjoyed the presumption of regularity and legality,
upon which respondents were entitled to rely; ( c) respondents relied in good faith on the
review, supervision and direction of the public prosecutor in the filing of the pleading in
question; and ( d) the statements in the pleading were covered by the doctrine of
privileged communication. Respondents also contended that Atty. Chavez should be
disciplined for the derogatory statements made against them in the pleadings he
submitted during the IBP investigation. Complainant filed a Comment/Opposition to
respondents' Motion for Reconsideration on 8 January 2009. On 22 March 2014, the IBP
Board of Governors issued Resolution No. XXI-2014-146 granting respondent's Motion
for Reconsideration and recommending the dismissal of the instant case on the basis of
complainant's failure to implead an indispensable party

ISSUE/S:
1) Whether there is a cause for the dismissal of the instant case
2) Whether the respondents violated Canons 8 and 10 of Professional Responsibility
3) Whether the respondent’s defense of absolute privilege is tenable
4) Whether the use of impertinent and abusive language merit disbarment

HELD:
1) NO. After a judicious examination of the records of this case, the Court resolves to SET
ASIDE Resolution No. XXI-2014-146 of the IBP Board of Governors. Not only are the
grounds cited as bases for the dismissal of the complaint inapplicable to disbarment
proceedings. We are also convinced that there is sufficient justification to discipline
respondents for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Non-joinder of a
party is not a ground to dismiss a disciplinary proceeding. Although this ground for
dismissal was not explained at length in its resolution, the IBP Board of Governors
appeared to have given credence to the argument proffered by respondents. They had
argued that the public prosecutor was an indispensable party to the proceeding, and that
her non-joinder was a ground for the dismissal of the case. That ruling is patently
erroneous. In previous cases, the Court has explained that disciplinary proceedings
against lawyers are sui generis. These proceedings are neither purely civil nor purely
criminal, but are rather investigations by the Court into the conduct of its officers. The
Court emphasized that in disbarment proceedings, the Court merely calls upon members
of the bar to account for their actuations as officers of the Court. Consequently, only the
lawyer who is the subject of the case is indispensable. No other party, not even a
complainant, is needed. Respondents cannot utilize the presumption of regularity
accorded to acts of the public prosecutor as a defense for their own misconduct. It must
be emphasized that the act in question, i.e. the preparation of the pleadings subject of the
Complaint, was performed by respondents and not by the public prosecutor. Hence, any
impropriety in the contents of or the language used in these pleadings originated from
respondents.
2) YES. The Court noted that essential allegations of the Complaint-Affidavit have already
been admitted by respondents. In the Comment they submitted to the Court, they even
reproduced the pertinent portions of their pleadings that contained the allegations of
antedating. This Court has repeatedly urged lawyers to utilize only respectful and
temperate language in the preparation of pleadings, in keeping with the dignity of the legal
profession. Their arguments, whether written or oral, should be gracious to both the court
and the opposing counsel and should consist only of such words as may be properly
addressed by one honorable member of the bar to another. In this case, respondents
twice accused complainant of antedating a petition it had filed with the DOJ without any
proof whatsoever. This allegation of impropriety undoubtedly brought complainant and its
lawyers into disrepute. The accusation also tended to mislead the courts, as it was made
without hesitation notwithstanding the absence of any evidentiary support. The Court
cannot condone this irresponsible and unprofessional behavior.
3) NO. Respondents' defense of absolute privilege is likewise untenable. Indulging in
offensive personalities in the course of judicial proceedings constitutes unprofessional
conduct subject to disciplinary action, even if the publication thereof is privileged. While
lawyers may enjoy immunity from civil and criminal liability for privileged statements made
in their pleadings, they remain subject to this Court's supervisory and disciplinary powers
for lapses in the observance of their duty as members of the legal profession.
4) NO. The Court believe that the use of intemperate and abusive language does not
merit the ultimate penalty of disbarment. Nonetheless, respondents should be disciplined
for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility and sternly warned that the Court will
deal with future similar conduct more severely. Wherefore, premises considered, the
Resolution dated 22 March 2014 issued by the IBP Board of Governors is hereby SET
ASIDE. Attys. Restituto Lazaro and Rodel Morta are hereby ADMONISHED to use only
respectful and temperate language in the preparation of pleadings and to be more
circumspect in dealing with their professional colleagues. They are likewise STERNLY
WARNED that a commission of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with
more severely.
A.M. No. P-17-3676 [formerly OCA IPI No. 12-3985-P], JUNE 5, 2017
ELEANOR OLYMPIAGERONILLA and EMMA OLYMPIA GUTIERREZ, represented
by ATTY. BEATRIZ O. GERONILLA-VILLEGAS, Complainants, vs. RICARDO V.
MONTEMAYOR, JR., SHERIFF IV AND ATTY. LUNINGNING CENTRON,
CLERK OF COURT VI and EXOFFICIO SHERIFF, Respondents

FACTS: The instant administrative case arose from a verified Complaint-Affidavit dated
October 15, 2012 for dereliction of duty, serious misconduct, negligence, dishonesty, and
conduct prejudicial to the service filed by complainants Eleanor Olympia-Geronilla and
Emma Olympia Gutierrez, represented by Atty. Beatriz O. Geronilla-Villegas
(complainants) against respondents Sheriff Ricardo V. Montemayor, Jr. (Sheriff
Montemayor) and Clerk of Court Atty. Luningning Y. Centron (Atty. Centron;
respondents), both from the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court (OCC-
RTC) of Calapan City, Oriental Mindoro. Complainants alleged that they are the plaintiffs
in an ejectment case, wherein they won. Notwithstanding the RTC's affirmance of the
MCTC's Decision and the issuance of a writ of execution, the judgment in favor of the
complainants remained unsatisfied. Complainants reported18 the matter to Atty. Centron,
who, however, failed to take appropriate action on Sheriff Montemayor' s unwarranted
refusal to carry out the demolition. Hence, the instant administrative case against both
Sheriff Montemayor and Atty. Centron for dereliction of duty, serious misconduct,
dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the service. Atty. Centron asserted25 that she
never tolerated Sheriff Montemayor' s alleged dereliction of duty nor did she fail to act on
complainants' concerns after they were brought to her attention. In fact, she gave Sheriff
Montemayor written directives to carry out the writ of demolition and even reminded him
of the money judgment contained in the MCTC's Decision, which he must also enforce in
favor of complainants. In its Report 28 dated January 13, 2017, the Office of the Court
Administrator (OCA) recommended that Atty. Centron be held liable for simple neglect of
duty and fined in the amount of Pl 0,000.00, with a stern warning that a repetition of the
same or any similar act shall be dealt with more severely. OCA found Atty. Centron remiss
in the performance of her duties as Clerk of Court in view of her failure to effectively
supervise Sheriff Montemayor in carrying out his tasks.

ISSUE: Whether Atty Centron should be held administratively liable as recommended by

OCA?

HELD: YES. The Court concurs with the findings and conclusions of the OCA. Atty.
Centron should be held administratively liable for her failure to take a more decisive action
against Sheriff Montemayor' s unwarranted refusal to enforce the MCTC Decision in favor
of complainants. Although she may have advised and/or reminded him with respect to the
performance of his duties, her apparently lackadaisical attitude in this matter evinces a
similar failure on her part to perform her duty of effectively supervising him. Moreover,
instead of taking Sheriff Montemayor's stance that a resurvey should be conducted on
the subject property based on his groundless belief that a portion thereof should be
excluded from the judgment, she should have firmly reminded him of his mandated
ministerial task of implementing writs promptly and expeditiously, and that he had no
discretion with regard to the merits of the judgment. Atty. Centron's failure in this respect
renders her administratively liable for simple neglect of duty. Simple neglect of duty is
defined as the failure of an employee to give attention to a task expected of him and
signifies a disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference, a less grave
offense punishable by suspension from office for one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6)
months for the first offense, and dismissal for the second offense under Section 46 (D) of
the RRACCS. However, the Court, in several cases, imposed the penalty of fine in lieu of
suspension as an alternative penalty in order to prevent any undue adverse effect on
public service which would ensue if work were otherwise left unattended by reason of
respondent's suspension. Therefore, the Court imposes on Atty. Centron the penalty of
fine in the amount of Pl 0,000.00, with a stem warning that a repetition of the same or any
similar act shall be dealt with more severely.
A.C. No. 8101 February 4, 2015
MELANIO S. SALITA, Complainant, vs. ATTY. REYNALDO T. SALVE, Respondent

FACTS: This instant administrative case arose from an Affidavit-Complaint1 filed by

complainant Melania S. Salita (Salita) against respondent Atty. Reynaldo T. Salve (Atty.
Salve) in connection with the latter's alleged falsification of public documents. On
December 14, 2002, Salita - the registered owner of a parcel of land located at Visayan
Village, Tagum City2 with Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-678503 (subject property) -
applied for a loan from one Jocelyn Rodriguez (Rodriguez) in the amount of ₱50,000.00
and, in such regard, signed blank documents, including an "incomplete" Promissory Note
(PN). Subsequently, he restructured the aforesaid loan and further signed several
documents prepared by the latter, including two (2) Real Estate Mortgage Agreements
dated November 9, 20055 and November 18, 20056 (REM instruments), and a pre-
formed Deed of Absolute Sale7 covering the subject property as collateral. On November
15, 2006, Salita was able to pay his loan in full. Notwithstanding such full payment,
Rodriguez, on September 17, 2007, instituted an ejectment complaint against Salita
before the Office of the Barangay of Visayan Village, Tagum City, presenting in
furtherance of his cause the pre-formed Deed of Absolute Sale and the two (2) REM
instruments signed by the latter. Upon checking the said documents, Salita discovered
that the Deed of Absolute Sale had already been notarized by Atty. Salve and his
Community Tax Certificate Numbers were allegedly falsified. In a Report and
Recommendation dated January 4, 2010, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
Investigating Commissioner dismissed Salita’s complaint for lack of merit.25 He found
that Salita was not able to obtain the required quantum of proof to hold Atty. Salve
administratively liable, especially considering that Salita’s criminal complaint was
dismissed for lack of probable cause. In a Resolution27 dated December 29, 2012
(December 29, 2012 Resolution), the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the
IBP Investigating Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation dismissing the case for
lack of merit.

ISSUE: Whether Atty. Salve should be held administratively liable

HELD: YES. To recount, records reveal that Rodriguez used, among others, the Deed of
Absolute Sale notarized by Atty. Salve to file an ejectment complaint against Salita.
However, it must be remembered that Salita was merely made to sign such document as
collateral for his loan and that he had already fully paid the same, as evidenced by the
notarized Release of Real Estate Mortgage executed by Rodriguez herself. Considering
the circumstances, it is simply unfathomable for Salita to appear before Atty. Salve to
have the said document notarized, as it will be detrimental to his own interests. Hence,
the Court finds that Atty. Salve notarized the pre-formed Deed of Absolute Sale without
Salita’s presence before him. Verily, a notary public should not notarize a document
unless the persons who signed the same are the very same persons who executed and
personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and the truth of what are stated
therein. These acts of the affiants cannot be delegated because what are stated therein
are facts they have personal knowledge of and are personally sworn to. Otherwise, their
representative’s names should appear in the said documents as the ones who executed
the same. The function of a notary public is, among others, to guard against any illegal or
immoral arrangements. Only Atty. Salve’s administrative liability for gross negligence in
his conduct as a notary public stands. Wherefore, respondent Atty. Reynaldo T. Salve is
found GUILTY of gross negligence in his conduct as a notary public. His notarial
commission, if still existing, is hereby REVOKED and he is DISQUALIFIED from being
commissioned as a notary public for a period of two (2) years.
A.C. No. 11346
DR. BASILIO MALVAR, Complainant, vs. ATTY. CORA JANE P. BALEROS,
Respondent

FACTS: The complainant is the owner of a parcel of land located .in Barangay Pagudpud,
San Fernando City, La Union. On January 7, 2011, the complainant executed a Deed of
Absolute Sale in favor of Leah Mallari (Mallari) over the said lot for the amount of Five
Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00). This transaction was acknowledged by the
children of the complainant through a document denominated as Confirmation of Sale.
The process of conveying the title of the lot in the name of Mallari spawned the legal
tussle between the parties. However, without his knowledge and consent, Mallari who
was not able to withstand the delay in the delivery of the title of the land sold to her
allegedly filed an Application for Certification of Alienable and Disposable Land using the
complainant's name and signing the said Application. The complainant claimed that the
respondent, by notarizing the assailed Application for Certification of Alienable and
Disposable Land, made it appear that he executed the same when the truth of the matter
was he never went to the office of the respondent for he was in Manila at the time of the
alleged notarization and was busy performing his duties as a doctor. On June 15, 2015,
Commissioner Maria Angela Esquivel found that the respondent was negligent in the
performance of her duties as a notary public and violated the Notarial Rules, thereby
recommending disciplinary imposition against her and recommended that the
Respondent's commission as a notary public be revoked; that she be disqualified for
being a notary public for two (2) years with a stem warning that a repetition of similar
offense shall be dealt with more severely. In a Resolution dated June 20, 2015, the IBP
Board of Governors adopted and approved Commissioner Esquivel's report and
recommendation with modification, respondent's] notarial commission, if presently
commissioned, is immediately REVOKED. Furthermore, she is DISQUALIFIED from
being commissioned as a Notary Public for two (2) years and SUSPENDED from tile
practice of law for six (6) months.

ISSUE: Whether administrative liability should attach to the respondent by reason her
acts violating the provisions of the Notarial Rules

HELD: YES. The Court concurs with the conclusion of Commissioner Esquivel that the
respondent violated several provisions of the Notarial Rules. The complainant insists that
the Application for Certification of Alienable and Disposable Land was notarized sans his
presence. An affidavit requiring a jurat which the respondent admittedly signed and
notarized on August 18, 2010 forms part of the subject document. The jurat is that end
part of the affidavit in which the notary certifies that the instrument is sworn to before her,
thus, making the notarial certification essential. The respondent indeed transgressed
Section 2(b) of Rule IV of the Notarial Rules by affixing her official signature and seal on
the notarial certificate of the affidavit contained in the Application for Certification of
Alienable and Disposable Land in the absence of the complainant and for failing to
ascertain the identity of the affiant. Further, the respondent displayed lack of diligence by
the nonobservance of the obligations imposed upon her under Section 2 of Rule VI of the
Notarial Rules with regard to the entries in the Notarial Register. The respondent's
delegation of her notarial function of recording entries in her notarial register to her staff
is a clear contravention of the explicit provision of the Notarial Rules dictating that such
duty be fulfilled by her and not somebody else. The respondent further exposed herself
to administrative culpability when she regretfully offered plain oversight as an excuse for
the non-inclusion of the challenged document in her notarial register and by stating that
it is her office staff who usually fills it up. This likewise violates Canon 9, Rule 9.01 of the
CPR. In addition to the above charges, Commissioner Esquivel noted that the respondent
failed to retain an original copy in her records and to submit the duplicate copy of the
document to the Clerk of Court. Wherefore, respondent Atty. Cora Jane P. Baleros is
GUILTY of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, the Code of Professional
Responsibility and the Lawyer's Oath. Her notarial commission, if still existing, is hereby
REVOKED, and she is hereby DISQUALIFIED from reappointment as Notary Public for
a period of two (2) years. She is likewise SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6)
months effective immediately. Further, she is WARNED that a repetition of the same or
similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
A.C. No. 6258 August 24, 2010
LUZVIMINDA R. LUSTESTICA, Complainant, vs. ATTY. SERGIO E. BERNABE,
Respondent.

FACTS: For consideration is the disbarment complaint filed by Luzviminda R. Lustestica

(complainant) against Atty. Sergio E. Bernabe (respondent) for notarizing a falsified or
forged Deed of Donation of real property despite the nonappearance of the donors,
Benvenuto H. Lustestica (complainant’s father) and his first wife, Cornelia P. Rivero, both
of whom were already dead at the time of execution of the said document. The IBP
Commission on Bar Discipline recommended the penalty of suspension, for a period of
one (1) year, from the practice of law and disqualification from reappointment as Notary
Public for a period of two (2) years.

ISSUE: Whether Atty Bernabe is liable for gross negligence, in the performance of his
duties as notary public, and for his deceitful and dishonest attestation, in the course of
administering the oath taken before him.

HELD: YES. The records undeniably show the gross negligence exhibited by the
respondent in discharging his duties as a notary public. He failed to ascertain the identities
of the affiants before him and failed to comply with the most basic function that a notary
public must do, i.e., to require the parties’ presentation of their residence certificates or
any other document to prove their identities. Given the respondent’s admission in his
pleading that the donors were already dead when he notarized the Deed of Donation, we
have no doubt that he failed in his duty to ascertain the identities of the persons who
appeared before him as donors in the Deed of Donation. Under the circumstances, we
find that the respondent should be made liable not only as a notary public but also as a
lawyer. He not only violated the Notarial Law (Public Act No. 2103), but also Canon 1 and
Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Considering that this is already Atty.
Bernabe’s second infraction, we find the IBP’s recommendation to be very light; it is not
commensurate with his demonstrated predisposition to undertake the duties of a notary
public and a lawyer lightly. As such, the Court declared respondent Atty. Sergio E.
Bernabe liable for gross negligence, in the performance of his duties as notary public,
and for his deceitful and dishonest attestation, in the course of administering the oath
taken before him. Respondent Atty. Sergio E. Bernabe is hereby DISBARRED from the
practice of law and his name is ORDERED STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys. He is
also PERPETUALLY DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as a notary public.
A.C. No. 11480 [Formerly CBD Case No. 05-1558]
ARLENE VILLAFLORESPUZA, Complainant, vs. ATTY. ROLANDO B. ARELLANO,
Respondent

FACTS: Complainant was the defendant in a case for declaration of nullity of marriage
filed by her husband, Ernesto Puza (Puza), who was represented by respondent as his
counsel. On July 21, 2005, Puza, through respondent, filed his formal offer of evidence,
which included some affidavits of witnesses notarized by him. In her Complaint, dated
August 26, 2005, Arlene O. Villaflores-Puza (complainant) accused Atty. Rolando B.
Arellano (respondent) of notarizing affidavits of his witnesses without a notarial
commission. IBP Commissioner Rebecca Villanueva-Maala recommended respondent's
suspension from the practice of law for a period of five (5) years. She stressed that
respondent's failure to answer the complaint against him, in spite of due notice and order
to attend the scheduled hearings, illustrated his flouting resistance to the lawful orders of
the court, which deserves disciplinary action. In addition, Commissioner Villanueva-Maala
noted that notarizing documents without a notarial commission constituted gross
misconduct and deserved to be punished. IBP-BOG adopted and approved with
modification the recommendation of Commissioner Villanueva-Maala reducing the
penalty to THREE (3) YEARS SUSPENSION FROM THE PRACTICE OF LAW to make
it commensurate with the gravity of the offense committed.

ISSUE: Whether the respondent was guilty of flouting resistance to the lawful orders of
the court which deserved disciplinary action and notarizing documents without a notarial
commission constituted gross misconduct and deserved to be punished?

HELD: YES. Any transgression of the notarial rules should not be treated trivially but must
be punished accordingly to preserve the integrity of notarization. Under the rules, only
persons who are commissioned as notary public may perform notarial acts within the
territorial jurisdiction of the court which granted the commission. In the present case, it
was sufficiently established that respondent was without a notarial commission when he
notarized the affidavits he offered in evidence. Further, it is noteworthy that respondent
did not even attempt to answer the accusations against him. He failed to comply with the
orders of the investigating commissioner and he did not attend the scheduled hearings.
On this ground alone, respondent could have been penalized more heavily because he
was bound to comply with all the lawful directives of the IBP, not only because he is a
member, but more importantly because the IBP is the Court-designated investigator of
his case. Wherefore, respondent Atty. Rolando B. Arellano is SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for three (3) years and PERMANENTLY DISQUALIFIED from being
commissioned as a Notary Public.
B.M. No. 1222, APRIL 24, 2009
RE: 2003 BAR EXAMINATION, ATTY. DANILO DE GUZMAN, Petitioner

FACTS: Petitioner prays that this Honorable Court in the exercise of equity and
compassion, grant his plea for judicial clemency, and thereupon, order his reinstatement
as a member in good standing of the Philippine Bar. on February 4, 2004, the Court
promulgated a Resolution, in B.M. No. 1222, the Court decided that he be disbarred from
the practice of law. The subject of the Resolution is the leakage of questions in Mercantile
Law during the 2003 Bar Examinations. Petitioner at that time was employed as an
assistant lawyer in the law firm of Balgos & Perez, one of whose partners, Marcial Balgos,
was the examiner for Mercantile Law during the said bar examinations. The Court had
adopted the findings of the Investigating Committee, which identified petitioner as the
person who had downloaded the test questions from the computer of Balgos and faxed
them to other persons. The Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) has favorably
recommended the reinstatement of petitioner in the Philippine Bar on January 6, 2009.

ISSUE: Whether petitioner has sufficiently proved that he is worthy of being readmitted
to the bar

HELD: YES. The Court ruled that it is of no doubt that petitioner had a promising future
ahead of him where it not for the decision of the Court stripping off his license, being
barely thirty years old and had only been in the practice of law for five (5) years when he
was disbarred. Petitioner is also of good moral repute, not only before but likewise, after
his disbarment, as attested to overwhelmingly by his constituents, colleagues as well as
people of known probity in the community and society. Way before the petitioner was
even admitted to the bar, he had already manifested his intense desire to render public
service as evidenced by his active involvement and participation in several social and
civic projects and activities. Likewise, even during and after his disbarment, which could
be perceived by some as a debilitating circumstance, petitioner still managed to continue
extending his assistance to others in whatever means possible. This only proves
petitioners strength of character and positive moral fiber. While we do believe that
petitioner sincerely did not intend to cause the damage that his action ensued, still, he
must be sanctioned for unduly compromising the integrity of the bar examinations as well
as of this Court. We are convinced, however, that petitioner has since reformed and has
sincerely reflected on his transgressions. Wherefore, premises considered, it is
respectfully recommended that the instant Petition for Judicial Clemency and
Compassion dated 10 November 2008 of petitioner DANILO G. DE GUZMAN be
GRANTED. Petitioners disbarment is now commuted to suspension, which suspension is
considered as served in view of the petitioners five (5) year disbarment. Hence, petitioner
may now be allowed to resume practice of law.
B.M. Nos. 979 and 986 December 10, 2002
RE: 1999 BAR EXAMINATIONS, MARK ANTHONY A. PURISIMA, petitioner.

FACTS: Petitioner passed the 1999 Examinations. But in a Resolution dated 13 April
2000 the Court disqualified him from becoming a member of the Philippine Bar and
declared his examinations null and void on two (2) grounds: (a) Petitioner failed to submit
the required certificate of completion of the pre-bar review course under oath for his
conditional admission to the 1999 Bar Examinations; and (b) He committed a serious act
of dishonesty which rendered him unfit to become a member of the Philippine Bar when
he made it appear in his Petition to Take the 1999 Bar Examinations that he took his pre-
bar review course at the Philippine Law School (PLS) when, as certified by Acting
Registrar Rasalie G. Kapauan, PLS had not offered such course since 1967. Petitioner
moved for a reconsideration of the 13 April 2000 Resolution but his motion was denied.
On 29 October 2001, retired Regional Trial Court Judge Amante P. Purisima, father of
petitioner, filed a Petition to Reopen Bar Matter 986. However, the Court in its Resolution
of 27 November 2001 "noted without action" the said petition and further resolved "that
no further pleadings will be entertained." On 2 July 2002 petitioner filed a Motion for Due
Process stating, among others, his reasons why in his Petition to take the 1999 Bar
Examinations it was stated that he was enrolled in and regularly attending the pre-bar
review course at the PLS and not at the University of Santo Tomas (UST) where he in
fact took the said course as evidenced by the Certification dated 22 July 1999 of Dean
Amado L. Damayuga of the UST Faculty of Civil Law. Pursuant to the Court Resolution
of 1 October 2002, the OBC conducted a summary hearing on 30 October 2002 and on
7 November 2002 the OBC submitted its Report and Recommendation that petitioner’s
explanation fortified by unquestionably genuine documents in support thereof, we
respectfully submit that petitioner should be given the benefit of the doubt.

ISSUE: Whether the petitioner did enroll in and complete his pre-bar review course in
UST as he herein avows and may he be allowed to take the Lawyer’s Oath

HELD: YES. Considering petitioner’s explanation, fortified by undisputedly genuine

documents, at the very least, petitioner should be given the benefit of the doubt and be
allowed to take his oath. The testimony of petitioner and Ms. Felipe during the 30 October
2002 hearing that the subject Certification of Dean Dimayuga was duly submitted to the
OBC a week after the filing of the Petition to take the bar appears to be credible. It is
supported by documentary evidence showing that petitioner actually enrolled and
completed the required course in UST. Indeed, it must be stressed that there is nothing
on record which impugns the authenticity of the subject Certification as well as that of the
other documentary evidence proferred by petitioner to establish that he was duly enrolled
and took the pre-bar review course in UST, not in PLS. The Court is well aware of
instances in the past when, as a measure of compassion and kindness, it has acted
favorably on similar petitions. In his letter petitioner’s father pleaded that "the denial of
permission for Mark to take his oath for about three (3) years now should be enough
penalty." Wherefore, premises considered, as recommended by the Office of the Bar
Confidant in its Report and Recommendation MARK ANTHONY A. PURISIMA who
passed the 1999 Bar Examinations is now allowed to take the Lawyer’s Oath and be
admitted to the Philippine Bar. He is further allowed to sign the Roll of Attorneys upon
payment of the required fees.