Pobre v. Defensor-Santiago (A.C. No.

7399)

August 25, 2009 | A.C. No. 7399

Antero J. Pobre, complainant

Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago, respondent

FACTS:

In one of her privilege speeches before the Senate, Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago delivered the
following remarks: 

x x x I am not angry. I am irate. I am foaming in the mouth. I am homicidal. I am suicidal. I am

humiliated, debased, degraded. And I am not only that, I feel like throwing up to be living my
middle years in a country of this nature. I am nauseated. I spit on the face of Chief Justice
Artemio Panganiban and his cohorts in the Supreme Court, I am no longer interested in the
position [of Chief Justice] if I was to be surrounded by idiots. I would rather be in a different
environment than in a Supreme Court of idiots. x x x

Her speech came as a response to the decision of the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) declaring
that only sitting members of the Supreme Court can be nominated for the impending vacancy of
the CJ post. Consequently, nominees who were not incumbent members of the Court, including
Sen. Defensor-Santiago, were automatically disqualified. 

Private complainant Antero J. Pobre filed the instant petition before the Court, contending that
the lady senator's utterances amounted to a total disrespect towards then CJ Panganiban and a
direct contempt of Court. Accordingly, he wanted disbarment proceedings or other disciplinary
actions to be taken against Sen. Defensor-Santiago.

ISSUE: 

Whether or not there is a ground for Sen. Defensor-Santiago to be disbarred or subjected to

disciplinary action by the Court for her questioned speech.

HELD:
No, the Court sided with Sen. Defensor-Santiago's defense that she should be afforded
parliamentary immunity from suit pursuant to Section 11, Art. VI of the 1987 Constitution, which
section states in part that "no [Senator] x x x shall be questioned nor be held liable in any other
place for any speech or debate in the Congress or in any committee thereof." Although there was
no express admission on the part of the lady senator that she did indeed say those words, there
was no categorical denial either, which the Court ultimately regarded as an implied admission. 

Despite the dismissal of the letter-complaint, the Court heavily chastised the lady senator
for indulging in "insulting rhetoric and offensive personalities." In fact, her excuse that her
questioned speech was a prelude to crafting remedial legislation on the JBC struck the Court as
being a mere afterthought in light of the controversy her utterances had managed to stir. 

Still, the Court held  that parliamentary immunity is essential because without it, the parliament
or its equivalent would "degenerate into a polite and ineffective forum." However, it should be
noted that "[l]egislators are immune from deterrents to the uninhibited discharge of of their
legislative duties, not for their private indulgence, but for the public good."

A.C. No. 10753 (Formerly CBD Case No. 10-2703), January 26, 2016
ATTY. PABLO B. FRANCISCO, Complainant, v. ATTY. ROMEO M. FLORES, Respondent.

FACTS:
Atty. Francisco prays that Atty. Flores "be found guilty of violation of Canons 10 and 18 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility. The facts shows that Atty. Francisco filed a Complaint
for forcible entry against Rainier Fineza and his mother, Teodora Fineza, (Finezas who were
represented by Atty. Flores.

ISSUE: The issue in this case is whether respondent Atty. Romeo M. Flores violated Canons 10
of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Regarding the Finezas' Petition for Relief from Judgment, Atty. Flores alleges that he only
assisted in the filing of the Petition.40 He could not act as counsel because he had "no personal
knowledge as to when the [Finezas] learned . . . of the denial of the Motion for Reconsideration."

Atty. Flores also argues that he did not violate Canon 18 because in another case,42 which also
involved Atty. Francisco and the Finezas, he was able to prevent the demolition of the Finezas'
family home.43

The Commission on Bar Discipline recommended that Atty. Flores be found guilty of violating
Rules 10.01 and 10.03 of Canon 10. The Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines adopted and approved the said Report and Recommendation. However, the Board of
Governors Resolution is also silent on the issue of whether Atty. Flores violated Canon 18 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility.
RULING:

Respondent is guilty of violating Canon 10, Rule 10.01 when Respondent did not state the exact
date when he received a copy of the Motion for Issuance of a Writ of Execution. The record
shows that he received it on June 3, 2009.74 Respondent then alleges that he immediately
informed the Finezas about the matter, but later on contradicted himself when he stated "that he
has no personal knowledge as to when the Fineza[s] learned or had knowledge of the denial of
the Motion for Reconsideration."75

Respondent's statement that he had no knowledge when the Finezas learned about the denial of
their Motion for Reconsideration is also contradicted by the Finezas' allegations in their Petition
for Relief.
Name: SORIANO, Portia Wynona
Section: 1F

NEMESIO FLORAN and CARIDAD FLORAN, complainants, vs. ATTY. ROY PRULE EDIZA,
respondent.
AC No. 5325, February 9, 2016
Per Curiam
Facts: Nemesio and Caridad Floran filed a complaint against Atty. Roy Ediza (Ediza) regarding
the complainants’ 3.5525 hectare parcel of land in Misamis Oriental. The said land was
not registered. The Court found that Ediza deceived the complainants by asking them to
unknowingly sign a deed of sale of the part of the subject land to him. Aside from that, the
complainants also gave Ediza half of the proceeds of the sale of a part of the of the subject land.
Such proceeds amounted to P125,463 and such was given for the registration of the land. In its
resolution in 2011, the Court suspended Ediza and ordered him to return the documents of the
land and the P125,463 to the complainants. Ediza was able to serve his suspension. However, he
failed to return the documents and the money to the complainants. As such, the complainants
kept on sending the letters to the Chief Justice to follow up with the case. In response to the
letters of the complainants, the Court kept on ordering Ediza to return the documents and the
money. Despite repeated orders of the court, he still failed to deliver the documents and the
money. Some of the reasons provided by Ediza everytime he was asked to show cause include:
(1) vagueness of the description on the documents that should be returned; (2) finding new
evidence to reopen the case and support his defense; and (3) demanding that he should not be
ordered to return the same for already complying with the suspension.
Issue: Whether or not Ediza should be disbarred
Held: Yes. The Court finds that Ediza should be disbarred because he failed to obey the orders
and processes of the Court. First, it is mandated under Canon 12 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility that “A lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the
speedy and efficient administration of justice.” Second, it is provided in Rule 12.04 of the same
code that “A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment or misuse
Court process.” In this case, it is clearly seen that Ediza kept on delaying the case by claiming
ignorance over the documents, allegedly discovering new evidence, and filing motions. Lastly,
Section 27 or Rule 138 provides that the Court can disbar a lawyer for a willful disobedience
of any lawful order of a superior court. In this case, Ediza kept on disobeying the Court by not
returning the documents and the money to the complainants despite numerous order. Thus, the
Court disbarred Ediza.
HEIRS OF JUAN DE DIOS E. CARLOS vs ATTY.

Said Supplemental Compromise Agreement

JAIME S. LINSANGAN was likewise approved by the trial court. no mention in
A.C. No. 11494, July 24, 2017 the record, however, that the CA and SCA were
presented for approval before several courts where
FACTS: the other cases were pending.
This is a petition for disbarment against Atty. Jaime
Linsangan filed by Complainants who are the children In 2015, Atty. Linsangan executed a Deed
of
of the late Juan De Dios E. Carlos (Juan). Absolute Sale with a certain Helen Perez covering the
Respondent acted as counsel for their late father in entire 12k sqm of the subject property for a
purchase
several cases, one of which involving the recovery of price of 150 Million Pesos. Atty. Linsangan
sold the
a parcel of land located in Alabang, Muntinlupa City. entire property.
Complainants alleged that Atty. Linsangan forced
them to sign pleadings and documents, sold the In 2016, complainants wrote a letter to Atty.
parcel of land in Alabang, Muntinlupa City in cahoots Linsangan revoking the SPA which they
executed in
with complainants' estranged mother, and evaded the latter's favor. In said letter, complainants
accused
payment of income taxes when he divided his share in Atty. Linsangan of conniving with their
mother, Bella
the subject property as his supposed attorney's fees N. Vda. De Carlos, in submitting the CA and
in selling
to his wife and children, all in violation of his oath as the subject property. Complainants,
however,
lawyer. recognized Atty. Lisangan's services for which they
proposed that the latter be paid on the basis of
The parcel of land located in Alabang, Muntilupa City quantum meruit instead of fifty percent
(50%) of the
and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. subject property.
139061 with an area of 12,331 square meters was
previously owned by the Spouses Felix and Felipa Atty. Linsangan avers that the Supplemental
Carlos. Their son, Teofilo Carlos (Teofilo), convinced Compromise Agreement was never
questioned by the
them to transfer said title to his name with a promise complainants until now and that they had
never
to distribute the same to his brothers and sisters. requested for a copy thereof from him. Atty.
Teofilo delivered the owner's duplicate copy of the title Linsangan admits that the subject of the
sale with
to his brother, Juan. However, Teofilo sold the entire Helen is the property in Alabang, Muntinlupa
City and
property to Pedro Balbanero (Pedro). Pedro, however, that complainants were not given a share
from the
failed to pay the agreed installment payments. payments because such were specifically made
applicable to his and his family's share in the subject
During the pendency of about 6 cases property only. Atty. Linsangan also contends that the
likewise involving the same subject property, In 1997, proposal that he be paid on the basis of
quantum
Atty. Linsangan and Juan executed a Contract for meruit is only for the purpose of reducing his
50%
Professional Services enumerating the cases being share as stated in the Contract for
Professional
handled by Atty. Linsangan for Juan. Services he executed with Juan, so that the balance
(par 5) CLIENT hereby confirms bounds thereof may accrue to complainants.
himself to pay ATTORNEY a contingent fee in an
amount equivalent to FIFTY PERCENT (50%) of the ISSUE:
market value of the property, or portion, which may be Whether or not respondent is guilty of
recovered, or the zonal value, whichever is higher. violating his lawyer's oath.
A Supplemental Compromise Agreement in
2009 was submitted by the heirs of Juan and Atty. RULING:
Linsangan, dividing among them the 7.5k sqm-portion After a careful review of the record of the
of the property as follows: 3,750 square meters to the case, the Court finds that respondent
committed acts
heirs of Juan and 3,750 square meters to Atty. in violation of his oath as an attorney thereby
Linsangan pursuant to the Contract for Professional warranting the Court's exercise of its
disciplinary
Services. In said Supplemental Compromise power.
Agreement, Atty. Linsangan waived in favor of his wife
and children his 3,750 square meter share.
these acts are in direct contravention of Article constitutes a breach of his client's trust and a
violation
1491(5) of the Civil Code which forbids lawyers from of Canon 16 of the CPR. Indeed, a lawyer is
not
acquiring, by purchase or assignment, the property entitled to unilaterally appropriate his client's
money
that has been the subject of litigation in which they for himself by the mere fact that the client
owes him
have taken part by virtue of their profession. While attorney’s fees. The failure of an attorney to
return the
Canon 10 of the old Canons of Professional Ethics, client's money upon demand gives rise to the
which states that " the lawyer should not purchase presumption that he has misappropriated it
for his
any interests in the subject matter of the litigation own use to the prejudice and violation of the
general
which he is conducting," is no longer reproduced in morality, as well as of professional ethics; it
also
the new Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), impairs public confidence in the legal
profession and
such proscription still applies considering that Canon I deserves punishment. In short, a lawyer's
unjustified
of the CPR is clear in requiring that "a lawyer shall withholding of money belonging to his client,
as in this
uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land case, warrants the imposition of disciplinary
action.
and promote respect for law and legal process"
and Rule 138, Sec. 3 which requires every lawyer to the relationship of attorney and client has
consistently
take an oath to "obey the laws as well as the legal been treated as one of special trust and
confidence.
orders of the duly constituted authorities therein." An attorney must therefore exercise utmost
good faith
Here, the law transgressed by Atty. Linsangan is and fairness in all his relationship with his client.
Article 1491(5) of the Civil Code, in violation of his Measured against this standard, respondent's
act
lawyer's oath. clearly fell short and had, in fact, placed his personal
interest above that of his clients. Considering the
Atty. Linsangan, at the guise of merely waiving foregoing violations of his lawyer's oath, Article
portions of the subject property in favor of his wife and 1491(5) of the Civil Code, Rule 9.02,
Canon 9, and
children, actually divided his attorney's fee with Canon 16 of the CPR, the Court deems it
appropriate
persons who are not licensed to practice law in to impose upon respondent the penalty of six (6)
contravention of Rule 9.02, Canon 9 of the CPR. months suspension from the practice of law.

Another misconduct committed by Atty. Linsangan WHEREFORE, we find Atty. Jaime S.

Linsangan
was his act of selling the entire 12,331 square meters LIABLE for violations of his lawyer's oath,
Article
property and making it appear that he was specifically 1491(5) of the Civil Code, Rule 9.02,
Canon 9, and
authorized to do so by complainants as well as by the Canon 16 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility
other persons to whom portions of the property had and he is hereby SUSPENDED from the
practice of
been previously adjudicated. However, a perusal of law for SIX (6) months effective from the
date of his
the supposed Special Power of Attorney attached to receipt of this Decision. Let copies of this
Decision be
the Deed of Absolute Sale, save for that executed by circulated to all courts of the country for
their
his wife and children, only authorizes Atty. Linsangan information and guidance, and spread in
the personal
to represent complainants in the litigation of cases record of Atty. Linsangan.
involving Juan's properties. Nothing in said Special
Power of Attorney authorizes Atty. Linsangan to sell
the entire property including complainants' undivided
share therein.

Worse, Atty. Linsangan does not deny having

received the downpayment for the property from
Helen. Atty. Linsangan does not also deny failing to
give complainants' share for the reason that he
applied said payment as his share in the property. In
so doing, Atty. Linsangan determined all by himself
that the downpayment accrues to him and
immediately appropriated the same, without the
knowledge and consent of the complainants.

Last modified: 2:33 PM