LEGAL PROFESSION CASE DIGESTS

#1
Talisic vs Atty. Riñen
AC No. 8761, February 12, 2014
First Division, J. Reyes

FACTS:
Petitioner Wilberto claimed that his mother Aurora died on May 7, 1987, and it
was only after his father’s death on November 2, 2000 that Wilberto and his siblings
knew of the transfer of the parcel of land originally owned Aurora. While Wilberto
believed that his father’s signature on the deed was authentic, his and his siblings’
supposed signatures were merely forged.
Atty. Rinen denied the charge against him and explained that it was only on
April 7, 1994 that he came to know of the transaction between the Spouses Durante
and the Talisics, when they approached him in his office as the then Presiding Judge
of the Municipal Trial Court, Real, Quezon, to have the subject deed prepared and
notarized. His clerk of court prepared the deed and upon its completion, ushered the
parties to his office for the administration of oath.
After due proceedings, Investigating Commissioner Felimon C. Abelita III
(Commissioner Abelita) issued the Report and Recommendation dated November 20,
2012 for the cancellation of Atty. Rinen’s notarial commission and his suspension from
notarial practice for a period of one year.

ISSUE:
WON Atty. Riñen should be removed from being a notary public.

HELD:
Yes. Faithful observance and utmost respect of the legal solemnity of the oath in an
acknowledgment or jurat is sacrosanct. It must then be stressed that, "a notary
public's function should not be trivialized and a notary public must discharge his
powers and duties which are impressed with public interest, with accuracy and
fidelity."
Atty. Rinen did not deny his failure to personally verify the identity of all parties who
purportedly signed the subject document. There was a failure on the part of Atty. Rinen
to exercise the due diligence that was required of him as a notary public ex–officio.
Thus, Atty. Rinen’s notarial commission was revoked and he was disqualified from
being commissioned as a notary public for one year.
#2
Ang vs Atty. Gupana
AC No. 4545, February 5, 2014
First Division, J. Villarama Jr.

FACTS:
Ang alleged that on May 31, 1991, he and the other heirs of the late Candelaria
Magpayo executed an Extra-judicial Declaration of Heirs and Partition. When he tried
to secure a TCT in his name, he found out that said TCT number hadalready been
cancelled and in lieu thereof, new TCTs had been issued in the names of William
Magpayo, Antonio Diamante, Patricia Diamante, Lolita D. Canque, Gregorio
Diamante, Jr. andFe D. Montero.
Ang alleged that there is reasonable ground to believe that respondent had a
direct participation in the commission of forgeries and falsifications as he was the one
who prepared and notarized the Affidavit of Loss and Deed of Absolute Sale that led to
the transfer and issuance of the new TCTs. The Deed of Absolute Sale which was
allegedly executed by Candelaria Magpayo on April 17, 1989, was antedated and
Magpayo’s signature was forged as clearly shown by the Certification issued by the
Office of the Clerk of Court of the RTC of Cebu since the Notarial Report indubitably
showed that the document executed was an affidavit, not a Deed of Absolute Sale.

ISSUE:
WON the respondent is administratively liable for violating the notarial law and the
Code of Professional Responsibility.

HELD:
Yes. The Supreme Court found Atty. Gupana administratively liable under
Section 1 of Public Act No. 2103, otherwise known as the Notarial Law, for violation of
his notarial duties when he failed to require the personal presence of Candelaria
Magpayo when he notarized the Affidavit of Loss which Candelaria allegedly executed
on April 29, 1994. Candelaria, however, was already dead since March 26, 1991. Hence,
it is clear that the jurat was made in violation of the notarial law.
Thus, the Supreme Court held that Atty. Gupana’s revocation of his notarial
commission, disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for a period
of two years and suspension from the practice of law for one year are in order.
#3
Dizon vs Atty. Cabucana
AC No. 10185, March 12, 2014
Third Division, J. Mendoza

FACTS:
Dizon alleged that he was one of the “would be” buyers of a parcel of land owned
by Callangan in a Civil Case filed before the MTC. On that case, a compromise
agreement was executed by the parties before respondent, Atty. Mercelino Cabucana,
Jr.
At the hearing, the signatories regarding the compromise agreement therein
testified that they signed the instrument in the court room of MTCC but not in the
presence of Atty. Cabucana as Notary Public; hence, there was delay in the decision of
the case which caused damage and injury to the complainant. They also alleged that
Atty. Cabucana violated the Notarial Law by notarizing in the absence of most of the
signatories.

ISSUE:
WON Atty. Cabucana violated Section 2 (b) of Rule IV of the Rules on Notarial Practice
of 2004.

HELD:
Yes. Section 2 (b) of Rule IV of the Rules on Notarial Practice of 2004 providest:
A person shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as signatory to
the instrument or document
(1) is not in the notary's presence personally at the time of the
notarization; and
(2) is not personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified
by the notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined
by these Rules.

As a notary public, Atty. Cabucana should not notarize a document unless the person
who signs it is the same person executing it and personally appearing before him to
attest to the truth of its contents. This is to enable him to verify the genuineness of the
signature of the acknowledging party and to ascertain that the document is the party's
free and voluntary act and deed.
#4
Jandoquile vs Atty. Revilla Jr.
AC No. 9514, April 10, 2013
First Division, J. Villarama Jr.

FACTS:
Atty. Revilla, Jr. notarized a complaint-affidavit signed by Heneraline L.
Brosas, Herizalyn Brosas Pedrosa and Elmer L. Alvarado. Heneraline Brosas is a sister
of Heizel Wynda Brosas Revilla, Atty. Revilla, Jr.'s wife. Jandoquile complains that
Atty. Revilla, Jr. is disqualified to perform the notarial act per Section 3( c), Rule IV of
the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Jandoquile also complains that Atty. Revilla, Jr.
did not require the three affiants in the complaint-affidavit to show their valid
identification cards.
Atty. Revilla, Jr. readily admitted that he notarized the complaint-affidavit
signed by his relatives within the fourth civil degree of affinity.

ISSUE:
WON the single act of notarizing the complaint-affidavit of relatives within the fourth
civil degree of affinity and, at the same time, not requiring them to present valid
identification cards is a ground for notarial disqualification.

HELD:
Yes. Section 3(c), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice clearly
disqualifies him from notarizing the complaint-affidavit, from performing the notarial
act, since two of the affiants or principals are his relatives within the fourth civil degree
of affinity.
Furthermore, the affiants need not present valid identification cards since Atty.
Revilla Jr. knows them personally. But Atty. Revilla, Jr. is not without fault for failing
to indicate such fact in the "jurat" of the complaint-affidavit. No statement was
included therein that he knows the three affiants personally.
#5
Adm. Case No. 9612 March 13, 2013
JOHNNY M. PESTO, Complainant, vs. MARCELITO M. MILLO,
Respondent.
FACTS
Johnny averred that in May 1990, his wife retained the services of Atty. Millo
to handle the transfer of title over a parcel of land to her name, and the adoption of her
niece, Arvi Jane Dizon; that Johnny and Abella gave to Atty. Millo the amounts of
₱14,000.00 for the transfer of title and ₱10,000.00 for the adoption case; and that
Atty. Millo thereafter repeatedly gave them false information and numerous excuses
to explain his inability to complete the transfer of title by stating that he has paid the
capital gains tax in 1991 but failed to show a receipt for the supposed payment.
Likewise, Johnny blamed Atty. Millo for letting the adoption acase be
considered closed by the Tarlac office of the Department of Social Welfare and
Development (Tarlac DSWD) due to two years of inaction.
Johnny brought this administrative complaint in the IBP on March 1995,
praying for disciplinary action to be taken against Atty. Millo, and seeking the refund
of ₱15,643.75 representing the penalties for the non-payment of the capital gains tax,
and of the ₱10,000.00 given for the adoption case. He constituted one Tita Lomotan
as his attorney-in-fact to represent him during his and his wife’s absence from the
country.
On July 1995, the IBP ordered Atty. Millo to file his answer but he neither filed
an answer nor appeared in the hearings. In the meantime, the IBP required Johnny
through Lomotan to engage a counsel. The proceedings were held in abeyance to await
the appropriate motion from Johnny’s counsel.
The administrative matter did not move for several years. The long delay
prompted Johnny to write to the President of the IBP on October 1998. It was only on
April 2001, however, that the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) scheduled
another hearing on June 2001. At that hearing, Atty. Millo appeared through a
representative, and presented a manifestation/motion, whereby he claimed that
Johnny had meanwhile died, and that Abella would be withdrawing the complaint
against him.
On October 2001, the IBP-CBD deemed the case submitted for resolution.
However, on October 2010, the Investigating Commissioner Fernandez submitted and
report and recommendation finding Atty. Millo liable violating Canon 18 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility, and recommended his suspension from the practice of
law for six months.
The IBP Board of Governors affirmed the findings of Investigating
Commissioner Fernandez, but lowered the suspension to two months; and ordered
Atty. Millo to return the amount of ₱16,000.00.
 Atty. Millo moved for a reconsideration but it was denied by the IBP Board of
Governors.
ISSUE
Whether or not an attorney who gives wrong information to his client regarding
the matter subject of their professional relationship is guilty of misconduct as an
officer of the Court
RULING
Yes, Atty. Millo is guilty of misconduct as an officer of the Court as he violated
the Lawyer's Oath to conduct himself as a lawyer according to the best of his knowledge
and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to his client and Rule 18.03,
Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by which he is called upon to serve
his client with competence and diligence.
In this case, he accepted sums of money from Johnny and Abella to efficiently
transfer the title to his clients and handle the adoption case but he failed to do so.
Furthermore, the SC increased the suspension period to six months as he was
not remorseful regarding his misconduct given that he ignored the administrative
complaint filed against him despite having several opportunities to address such
complaint.
#6
A.C. No. 9310 February 27, 2013
TRINIDAD et al., Complainants vs. ATTY. ANGELITO VILLARIN,
Respondent.
Facts
The instant case stemmed from a Complaint for specific performance filed with
the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) by the buyers of the lots in Don
Jose Zavalla Subdivision against the subdivision's owner and developer- Purence
Realty Corporation and Roberto Bassig.
In the final adjudication of that case on 11 October 2000, the HLURB ordered
the respondents therein to accept the payments of the buyers under the old purchase
price. These buyers included some of the complainants in the instant case.
The HLURB ordered the owner and the developer to deliver the Deeds of Sale
and the Transfer Certificates of Title to the winning litigants. The Decision did not
evince any directive for the buyers to vacate the property.
Purence Realty and Roberto Bassig did not appeal the Decision, thus making it
final and executory. Thereafter, the HLURB issued a Writ of Execution. As Purence
Realty’s representative, Atty. Villarin filed an Omnibus Motion to set aside the
Decision and to quash the Writ of Execution for being null and void on the ground of
lack of jurisdiction due to the improper service of summons on his client. This motion
was not acted upon by the HLURB.
Respondent lawyer sent demand letters to herein complainants. In all of these
letters, he demanded that they immediately vacate the property and surrender it to
Purence Realty within five days from receipt. Since the complainants did not vacate
the property, respondent lawyer filed a Complaint for forcible entry before the
Municipal Trial Court (MTC).
Aggrieved, the four complainants filed an administrative case against Atty.
Villarin asserting that the demand letters sent by the latter had been issued with malice
and intent to harass them.
In his Position Paper, Atty. Villarin claimed that since his client was the lawful
owner of the property, he issued the ejectment letters, which were indispensable in an
action for unlawful detainer.
Issue
Whether or not respondent should be administratively sanctioned for sending
the demand letters despite a final and executory HLURB Decision directing, not the
ejectment of complainants, but the payment of the purchase price of the lots by the
subdivision buyers
Ruling
 No, the respondent is not administratively liable for sending the demand letters
as respondent lawyer is championing the cause of his client which is entitled to the
benefit of any and every remedy and defense – including the institution of an
ejectment case – that is recognized by our property laws.
However, as he brazenly typified one of the complainants as an illegal occupant
despite the said complainant being recognized in the HLURB decision as a subdivision
lot buyer, the respondent lawyer was reprimanded with a warning that a repetition of
the same act shall be dealt with more severely.
#7
Adm. Case No. 6148 January 22, 2013
FLORENCE TEVES MACARUBBO, Complainant, vs. ATTY. EDMUNDO L.
MACARUBBO, Respondent.
Facts
Records show that in the Decision dated February 27, 2004, the Court disbarred
respondent from the practice of law for having contracted a bigamous marriage with
complainant Florence Teves and a third marriage with one Josephine Constantino
while his first marriage to Helen Esparza was still subsisting, which acts constituted
gross immoral conduct in violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility.
Aggrieved, respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration/Appeal for
Compassion and Mercy which the Court denied with finality. Eight years after,
respondent filed the instant Petition (For Extraordinary Mercy seeking judicial
clemency and reinstatement in the Roll of Attorneys but denied it for lack of merit.
The same petition was endorsed to this Court by the Office of the Vice President for
re-evaluation, prompting the Court to look into the substantive merits of the case.
Issue
Whether or not the respondent lawyer has sufficiently presented evidence for
him to be granted judicial clemency
Ruling
Yes, the respondent lawyer meets the guidelines and is granted judicial
clemency. The Court laid down the following guidelines in resolving requests for
judicial clemency, to wit:
1. There must be proof of remorse and reformation. These shall include but
should not be limited to certifications or testimonials of the officer(s) or
chapter(s) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, judges or judges
associations and prominent members of the community with proven
integrity and probity. A subsequent finding of guilt in an administrative case
for the same or similar misconduct will give rise to a strong presumption of
non-reformation.
2. Sufficient time must have lapsed from the imposition of the penalty to
ensure a period of reform.
3. The age of the person asking for clemency must show that he still has
productive years ahead of him that can be put to good use by giving him a
chance to redeem himself.
4. There must be a showing of promise (such as intellectual aptitude, learning
or legal acumen or contribution to legal scholarship and the development of
the legal system or administrative and other relevant skills), as well as
potential for public service.
5. There must be other relevant factors and circumstances that may justify
clemency.
 In this case, the respondent has presented the following in his petition for judicial
clemency:
1. He presented several affidavits, certification from LGUs, parish priest, and
the IBP Cagayan Chapter attesting his reformed ways;
2. He has asked forgiveness from his children by complainant Teves and
maintained a cordial relationship with them as shown by the herein attached
pictures and has supported them financially;
3. Eight years have lapsed from the imposition of the penalty;
4. Respondent is still 58 years old and has productive years ahead of him;
5. In 2009, he was appointed as Private Secretary to the Mayor of Enrile,
Cagayan and thereafter, assumed the position of Local Assessment
Operations Officer II/ Office-In-Charge in the Assessor’s Office, which office
he continues to serve to date;
6. He is a part-time instructor at the University of Cagayan Valley and F.L.
Vargas College during the School Year 2011-2012; and,
7. There were no counter claims coming from his wife, Teves.
#8
A.C. No. 9387 June 20, 2012
EMILIA R. HERNANDEZ, Complainant, vs. ATTY. VENANCIO B.
PADILLA, Respondent.
Facts
In a Decision dated 28 June 2002, 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 (Duigan), attorney’s fees and moral damages.
Complainant and her husband filed their Notice of Appeal with the RTC.
Thereafter, the CA ordered them to file their Appellants’ Brief. They chose respondent
to represent them in the case. On their behalf, 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 in a Resolution dated 16 December 2003.
No Motion for Reconsideration (MR) of the Resolution dismissing the appeal
was filed by the couple. Complainant and her husband failed to file an appeal, because
respondent never informed them of the adverse decision. Complainant further claims
that she asked respondent "several times" about the status of the appeal, but "despite
inquiries he deliberately withheld response [sic]," to the damage and prejudice of the
spouses.
The Resolution became final and executory on 8 January 2004. Complainant
was informed of the Resolution sometime in July 2005, when the Sheriff of the RTC
came to her house and informed her of the Resolution.
On 9 September 2005, complainant filed an Affidavit of Complaint with the
Committee on Bar Discipline of the IBP, seeking the disbarment of respondent on the
following grounds: deceit, malpractice, and grave misconduct. Complainant prays for
moral damages in the amount of ₱ 350,000.
Director of Bar Discipline Vinluan ordered respondent to submit an answer to
the Complaint. In his Counter-Affidavit/Answer, respondent prayed for the outright
dismissal of the Complaint as he was the lawyer of the complainant’s husband who
"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."
Before filing the Memorandum, respondent advised complainant’s husband to
settle the case. The latter allegedly "gestured approval of the advice."
The board of governors of the IBP issued a resolution in which respondent was
suspended from the practice of law for six months for violating Canons 5, 17, and 18 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration and the IBP partly granted his
Motion and reducing the penalty imposed to one-month suspension from the practice
of law.
Issue
 Whether or not respondent lawyer only represented the complainant’s husband
thereby invalidating the complaint

Ruling
No, the respondent lawyer represented the couple which validates the
complaint.
The Memorandum of Appeal filed in the appellate court revealed that he had
signed as counsel for the defendant-appellants therein, including complainant and her
husband. Furthermore, respondent lawyer received an acceptance fee amounting to ₱
7,000 which establishes the attorney-client relationship and gives rise to the duty of
fidelity to the client’s cause.
Respondent Atty. Venancio Padilla is found guilty of violating the following:
1. Rule 18.02 for not diligently studying a case he had agreed to handle; if he
felt he did not have enough time to study the pertinent matters involved, as
he was approached by complainant’s husband only two days before the
expiration of the period for filing the Appellant’s Brief, respondent should
have filed a motion for extension of time to file the proper pleading instead
of whatever pleading he could come up with;
2. Rule 18.03 for neglecting legal matters entrusted to him;
3. Rule 18.04 for failing to contact his client proved futile and not informing
the CA by filing a Notice of Withdrawal of Appearance as counsel and,
4. Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for negligence and that
the supposed lack of time given to respondent to acquaint himself with the
facts of the case does not excuse such.
Hence, he is suspended from the practice of law for 6 months instead of 1 month and
sternly warned that a repetition of the same or a similar offense will be dealt with more
severely.
Case #9
A.C. No. 5098, April 11, 2012
JOSEFINA M. ANIÑON, Complainant, vs. ATTY. CLEMENCIO
SABITSANA, JR., Respondent.

FACTS:
Josefina M. Aniñon 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.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Sabitsana is guilty of misconduct for representing conflicting
interests.

HELD:
Yes, 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.
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.
Thus, Atty. Sabitsana is suspended for one (1) year from the practice of law.
Case #10
A.C. No. 6116, August 1, 2012
ENGR. GILBERT TUMBOKON, Complainant, vs. ATTY. MARIANO R.
PEFIANCO, Respondent.

FACTS:
Before the Court is an administrative complaint for disbarment filed by
complainant Engr. Gilbert Tumbokon against respondent Atty. Mariano R. Pefianco
for grave dishonesty, gross misconduct constituting deceit and grossly immoral
conduct.
Respondent undertook to give him 20% commission, later reduced to 10%, of
the attorney's fees the latter would receive in representing Spouses Amable and
Rosalinda Yap (Sps. Yap), whom he referred, in an action for partition of the estate of
the late Benjamin Yap (Civil Case No. 4986 before the Regional Trial Court of Aklan).
Their agreement was reflected in a letter dated August 11, 1995. However, respondent
failed to pay him the agreed commission notwithstanding receipt of attorney's fees
amounting to 17% of the total estate or about ₱ 40 million. Instead, he was informed
through a letter dated July 16, 1997 that Sps. Yap assumed to pay the same after
respondent had agreed to reduce his attorney's fees from 25% to 17%. He then
demanded the payment of his commission which respondent ignored.
In his defense, respondent explained that he accepted Sps. Yap's case on a 25%
contingent fee basis, and advanced all the expenses. He disputed the August 11, 1995
letter for being a forgery and claimed that Sps. Yap assumed to pay complainant's
commission which he clarified in his July 16, 1997 letter. He, thus, prayed for the
dismissal of the complaint and for the corresponding sanction against complainant's
counsel, Atty. Florencio B. Gonzales, for filing a baseless complaint.
IBP Commissioner recommended that respondent be suspended for one (1)
year from the active practice of law, for violation of the Lawyer's Oath, Rule 1.01, Canon
1; Rule 7.03, Canon 7 and Rule 9.02, Canon 9 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility (Code).
Respondent moved for reconsideration which was denied in Resolution No.
XIX-2011-141 dated October 28, 2011.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent violated Canon 9, Rule 9.02 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

HELD:
Yes, Atty. Mariano R. Pefianco is found guilty of violation of the Lawyer’s
Oath, Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and
Rule 9.02, Canon 9 of the same Code
 The practice of law is considered a privilege bestowed by the State on those who
show that they possess and continue to possess the legal qualifications for the
profession. As such, lawyers are expected to maintain at all times a high standard of
legal proficiency, morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing, and must perform their
four-fold duty to society, the legal profession, the courts and their clients, in
accordance with the values and norms embodied in the Code. Lawyers may, thus, be
disciplined for any conduct that is wanting of the above standards whether in their
professional or in their private capacity.
In the present case, respondent's defense that forgery had attended the
execution of the August 11, 1995 letter was belied by his July 16, 1997 letter admitting
to have undertaken the payment of complainant's commission but passing on the
responsibility to Sps. Yap. Clearly, respondent has violated Rule 9.02, Canon 9 of the
Code which prohibits a lawyer from dividing or stipulating to divide a fee for legal
services with persons not licensed to practice law, except in certain cases which do not
obtain in the case at bar.
Thus, Atty. Pefianco is suspended for one (1) year from the practice of law.
Case #11
A.C. No. 6368, June 13, 2012
FIDELA BENGCO AND TERESITA BENGCO, Complainants, vs. ATTY.
PABLO S. BERNARDO, Respondent.

FACTS:
Fidela Bengco and Teresita Bengco filed a complaint for disbarment against
Atty. Pablo S. Bernardo for deceit, malpractice, conduct unbecoming a member of the
Bar, and violation of duties and oath as a lawyer. From 15 April 1997 to 22 July 1997,
the respondent – with the connivance of Andres Magat – willfully and illegally
committed fraudulent act with intent to defraud against the complainants by using
false pretenses and deceitful words to the effect that he would expedite the titling of
land belonging to the Miranda Family of Tagaytay City, who are the acquaintance of
the complainants.
It started when the respondent convinced the complainants to finance and
deliver to him PhP 495,000.00 as advanced money to expedite the titling of the subject
land. He further committed misrepresentation by presenting himself as the lawyer of
William Gatchalian, the prospective buyer of the land. He also led complaints to
believe that he has contracts at NAMRIA, DENR, CENRO and the Register of Deeds
which representation he well knew were false, fraudulent and were only made to
induce the complainants to give and deliver the said amount. Upon receipt of the
money, he did not comply with his obligation to expedite the titling of the land but
instead use the money for personal use. The complainants demanded the return of the
money to no avail.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent violated the provisions of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

HELD:
Yes, respondent Atty. Pablo S. Bernardo is found guilty of violating the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
The Supreme Court held that the respondent committed the acts complained
of. He, himself, admitted in his answer that his legal services were hired by the
complainants through Magat regarding the purported titling of land supposedly
purchase. He used his position as a lawyer in order to deceive the complainants into
believing that he can expedite the titling of the subject properties. He never denied
that he did not benefit from the money given by the complainants in the amount of
PhP 495,000.00.
The Supreme Court finds the respondent in violation of the Rule 2.03, Canon 2
and Rule 3.01, Canon 3 of the CPR. The respondent was suspended from practice of
law for one year and return the amount of PhP 200,000.00 to Fidela Bengco and
Teresita Bengco with 10 days upon receipt of decision. The respondent is required to
submit to the Supreme Court proof of compliance.
Thus, Atty. Bernardo is suspended for one (1) year from the practice of law.
Case #12
A.M. No. RTJ-10-2232, April 10, 2012
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant,
vs. JUDGE CADER P. INDAR, Presiding Judge and Acting, and Presiding
Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 14, Cotabato City and Branch 15,
Shariff Aguak, Maguindanao, respectively, Respondent.

FACTS:
This is an administrative complaint for gross misconduct and dishonesty
against respondent Judge Cader P. Indar, Al Haj (Judge Indar), Presiding Judge of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 14, Cotabato City and Acting Presiding Judge of
the RTC, Branch 15, Shariff Aguak, Maguindanao.
In this case, Judge Indar issued decisions on numerous annulment of marriage
cases which do not exist in the records of RTC-Shariff Aguak, Branch 15 or the Office
of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court, Cotabato City.
There is nothing to show that (1) proceedings were had on the questioned cases;
(2) docket fees had been paid; (3) the parties were notified of a scheduled hearing as
calendared; (4) hearings had been conducted; or (5) the cases were submitted for
decision. As found by the Audit Team, the list of case titles submitted by the Local Civil
Registrars of Manila and Quezon City are not found in the list of cases filed, pending
or decided in RTC, Branch 15, Shariff Aguak, nor in the records of the Office of the
Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court, Cotabato City.
In other words, Judge Indar, who had sworn to faithfully uphold the law, issued
decisions on the questioned annulment of marriage cases, without any showing that
such cases underwent trial and complied with the statutory and jurisprudential
requisites for voiding marriages. Such act undoubtedly constitutes gross misconduct.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Judge Indar is guilty of gross misconduct and dishonesty.

HELD:
Yes, Judge Indar is guilty of gross misconduct and dishonesty,
constituting violations of the Lawyers Oath, and Canons 1 and 7 and Rule
1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
The Rules of Court expressly prohibits the grant of preliminary injunction
without hearing and prior notice to the party or person sought to be enjoined. In this
case, the judge has issued an order which was in effect a TRO ex parte in violation of
the rules, and thus, is found guilty of the ignorance of law.
The Court condemns Judge Indar’s reprehensible act of issuing Decisions that
voided marital unions, without conducting any judicial proceedings. Such malfeasance
not only makes a mockery of marriage and its life-changing consequences but likewise
grossly violates the basic norms of truth, justice, and due process. Not only that, Judge
Indar’s gross misconduct greatly undermines the people’s faith in the judiciary and
betrays public trust and confidence in the courts. Judge Indar’s utter lack of moral
fitness has no place in the Judiciary. Judge Indar deserves nothing less than dismissal
from the service.
The Court finds respondent Judge Cader P. Indar, Al Haj, Presiding Judge of
the RTC, Branch 14, Cotabato City and Acting Presiding Judge of the RTC, Branch 15,
Shariff Aguak, Maguindanao, guilty of Gross Misconduct and Dishonesty for which he
is dismissed from the service, with forfeiture of all benefits due him, except accrued
leave benefits, if any, with prejudice to re-employment in any branch of the
government, including government-owned or controlled corporations.
Thus, Judge Indar is disbarred and his name ordered stricken from the Roll of
Attorneys.
#13
STATE PROSECUTORS JOSEF ALBERT T. COMILANG, et al. vs. JUDGE
MEDEL ARNALDO B. BELEN, A.M. No. RTJ-10-2216, June 26, 2012

FACTS:
- State Prosecutor Comilang was designated to assist in the prosecution of cases
in Calamba City. Sometime in 2005, he manifested before Judge Belen his
inability to appear and moved all scheduled hearings be deferred because of his
previously-scheduled preliminary investigation.

- However, Judge Belen issued his Order in Estacio Case requiring him to explain
his failure to inform the court and pay a fine and eventually, held Comilang
liable for contempt of court.

- In 2006, State Prosecutor Comilang filed with the (CA) a petition for certiorari
and prohibition with prayer for temporary restraining order and/or writ of
preliminary injunction assailing Judge Belen’s Order and Decision in the
Estacio Case.

- The CA issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) enjoining Judge Belen from
executing and enforcing his assailed Order and Decision for a period of 60 days,
which was subsequently extended with the issuance of a writ of preliminary
injunction.

- Notwithstanding the TRO, Judge Belen issued an Order rendering State

Prosecutor guilty of indirect content of court for his failure to obey a duly served
subpoena and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment and fine.

- Aggrieved, State Prosecutor Comilang filed a complaint-affidavit before the

Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) charging Judge Belen with manifest
partiality and malice, evident bad faith, inexcusable abuse of authority, and
gross ignorance of the law in issuing the show cause orders, subpoenas and
contempt citations, in grave defiance to the injunctive writ issued by the CA.

ISSUE:
- WON Judge Belen's actuations showed grave abuse of authority and gross
ignorance of the law warranting his dismissal from service as RTC Judge?

HELD:
- Yes, x x x x.

- Judge Belen blatantly violated the injunctive writ issued by the CA enjoining
the implementation of his assailed Orders. A preliminary injunction is a
provisional remedy, an adjunct to the main case subject to the latter’s outcome.
Its sole objective is to preserve the status quo until the court hears fully the
merits of the case. Its primary purpose is to preserve and protect the rights of
the litigants during the pendency of the case.
- In the case at hand, Judge Belen’s actions in requiring State Prosecutor
Comilang to explain his non-filing of a supersedeas bond, in issuing subpoenas
to compel his attendance before court hearings relative to the contempt
proceedings, and finally, in finding him guilty of indirect contempt for his non-
compliance with the issued subpoenas, he effectively defeated the status quo
which the writ of preliminary injunction aimed to preserve. His actuations,
therefore, cannot be considered as mere errors of judgment that can be easily
brushed aside. Obstinate disregard of basic and established rule of law or
procedure amounts to inexcusable abuse of authority and gross ignorance of
the law. Likewise, citing State Prosecutor Comilang for indirect contempt
notwithstanding the effectivity of the CA-issued writ of injunction
demonstrated his vexatious attitude and bad faith towards the former, for
which he must be held accountable and subjected to disciplinary action.

- Respondent Judge is dismissed from service.

#14
ALEN ROSS RODRIGUEZ AND REGIDOR TULALI vs. HON.
BLANCAFLOR, G.R. No. 190171, March 14, 2011

FACTS:

- Regidor Tulali was the trial prosecutor of a criminal case for arson entitled People
vs. Teksan Ami that was pending before Judge Blancaflor. During the pendency
of the case, Tulali was accused of bribery initiated by Randy Awayan, the driver
assigned to Judge Blancaflor who was under the payroll of the Governor of
Palawan to assure the acquittal of the accused Rolly Ami and the dismissal of
the arson case.

- A day before the promulgation of the decision in the said case, Tulali filed an
Ex-Parte Manifestation withdrawing his appearance. Attached to the
manifestation was a copy of the administrative complaint against Awayan filed
by Rodriguez.

- After the acquittal of Ami, Judge Blancaflor summoned several witnesses

including Tulali to hear their testimonies regarding the administrative
complaint filed against Awayan and Rodriguez. Subsequently, he summoned
Rodriquez to appear before him for the purpose of holding an inquiry on the
possible involvement in Tulali’s manifestation and administrative case.

- Rodriguez filed his Motion for clarification as to the purpose of Judge

Blancaflor’s continued inquiries considering that the decision in the arson case
had already been promulgated.

- In October 13, 2009 Decision, Judge Blancaflor found petitioners guilty of

direct contempt and ordered them to issue a public apology to the court. The
penalty of indefinite suspension from the practice of law was also imposed upon
them.

- Hence, this petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 before this
Court.

ISSUE:
- WON Judge Blancaflor gravely abused his discretion in finding petitioners
guilty as charged.

HELD:
- Yes, x x x x.

- Direct contempt is any misbehavior in the presence of or so near a court as to

obstruct or interrupt the proceedings before the same, including disrespect
toward the court, offensive personalities toward others, or refusal to be sworn
 or to answer as a witness, or to subscribe an affidavit or deposition when
lawfully required to do so.

- Based on the foregoing definition, the act of Tulali in filing the Ex-
Parte Manifestation cannot be construed as contumacious within the purview
of direct contempt. It must be recalled that the subject manifestation bore
Tulali’s voluntary withdrawal from the arson case to dispel any suspicion of
collusion between him and the accused. Its filing on the day before the
promulgation of the decision in the pending criminal case, did not in any way
disrupt the proceedings before the court. Accordingly, he should not be held
accountable for his act which was done in good faith and without malice.

- Neither should Rodriguez be liable for direct contempt as he had no knowledge

of, or participation in, the preparation and filing of the subject manifestation. It
was signed and filed by Tulali alone in his capacity as the trial prosecutor in the
arson case. The attached complaint against Awayan was filed with the Office of
the Palawan Governor, and not with the RTC.

- Apparently, Judge Blancaflor’s conclusion, that the subject manifestation

containing derogatory matters was purposely filed to discredit the
administration of justice in court, is unfounded and without basis. There being
no factual or legal basis for the charge of direct contempt, it is clear that Judge
Blancaflor gravely abused his discretion in finding petitioners guilty as charged.

- Petition granted.
#15
JOVITO OLAZO vs. JUSTICE DANTE TINGA (Ret.), A.M. No. 10-5-7-SC,
December 7, 2010
FACTS:
- Mr. Jovito Olazo filed a disbarment case against retired Supreme Court
Associate Justice Dante Tinga. He alleged that the said respondent violated
Rule 6.02, Rule 6.03, and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
for representing conflicting interests.

- In the first charge, the complainant claimed that the respondent abused his
position as Congressman and as a member of the Committee on Awards when
he unduly interfered with the complainant’s sales application because of his
personal interest over the subject land.

- The second charge involves another parcel of land within the proclaimed areas
belonging to Manuel Olazo, the complainant’s brother. The complainant
alleged that the respondent persuaded Miguel Olazo to direct Manuel to convey
his rights over the land to Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez.

- In the third charge, the complainant alleged that the respondent engaged in
unlawful conduct considering his knowledge that Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez was
not a qualified beneficiary under Memorandum No. 119. The complainant
averred that Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez is not a bona fide resident of the
proclaimed areas and does not qualify for an award.

- The complainant further claimed that the respondent violated Section 7(b)(2)
of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and
Employees or Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6713 since he engaged in the practice of
law, within the one-year prohibition period, when he appeared as a lawyer for
Ramon Lee and Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez before the Committee on Awards

ISSUE:
- WON Justice Tinga engaged in the practice of law and is liable under Rules
6.02, 6.03, and 1.01 of the Professional Responsibility.

HELD:
- No, x x x x.
- In Cayetano v. Monsod, the practice of law is defined as any activity, in and out
of court, that requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge,
training and experience. Moreover, to engage in the practice of law is to perform
those acts which are characteristics of the profession; to practice law is to give
notice or render any kind of service, which device or service requires the use in
any degree of legal knowledge or skill.
- In the case at hand, the complainant, however, failed to sufficiently establish
that the respondent was engaged in the practice of law. At face value, the legal
service rendered by the respondent was limited only in the preparation of a
single document.

- All told, considering the serious consequences of the penalty of disbarment or

suspension of a member of the Bar, the burden rests on the complainant to
present clear, convincing and satisfactory proof for the Court to exercise its
disciplinary powers. The respondent generally is under no obligation to prove
his/her defense, until the burden shifts to him/her because of what the
complainant has proven. Where no case has in the first place been proven,
nothing has to be rebutted in defense.

- Administrative cases dismissed.

#16
JESSIE R. DE LEON vs. ATTY. EDUARDO G. CASTELO
FACTS:
This case stems from a suit where the government sought the transfer
certificates of title (TCTs) covering two parcels of land of the Spouses Lim Hio and
Dolores Chu encroaching on a public Callejon (side street) and on a portion of the
Malabon-Navotas River shoreline.
De Leon, as voluntary intervenor, accuses Castelo with the serious administrative
offenses of dishonesty and falsification warranting his disbarment or suspension as an
attorney. He claims that Castelo made it appear that spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu
have participated in the making and filing of the Answers when they were already dead
as of that time.
Castelo claims that he prepared the initial pleadings based on his honest belief that
Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu were then still living. Had he known that they were
already deceased, he would have most welcomed the information and would have
moved to substitute Leonardo and William Lim as defendants for that reason
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Castelo should be disbarred for alleged falsification.

HELD:
No, Atty. Castelo should not be disbarred for alleged falsification.
Lawyers are expected to observe and maintain the rule of law and to make
themselves exemplars worthy of emulation by others.
In the case at hand, Castelo expressly named therein as defendants vis-à-vis his
intervention not only the Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu, the original defendants,
but also their sons Leonardo Lim, and William Lim, the same persons whom the
respondent had already alleged in the answer to be the transferees and current owners
of the parcels of land. There was no misrepresentation of Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores
Chu.
The Court, whose officer every lawyer is, must shield such fragility from mindless
assault by the unscrupulous and the malicious. It can do so, firstly, by quickly cutting
down any patently frivolous complaint against a lawyer; and, secondly, by demanding
good faith from whoever brings any accusation of unethical conduct. A Bar that is
insulated from intimidation and harassment is encouraged to be courageous and
fearless, which can then best contribute to the efficient delivery and proper
administration of justice.
#17
ERESITA D. SANTECO vs. ATTY. LUNA B. AVANCE
FACTS:
Complainant averred that she was the defendant in an action for ejectment in
which a judgment was rendered against her. Sometime in February 1997, during the
pendency of the ejectment case, complainant filed an action to Declare Deed of
Absolute Sale Null and Void and for Reconveyance with Damages.
On or before March 1998, complainant terminated the services of her then counsel
and engaged the services of
respondent Atty. Luna B. Avance as her counsel de parte in both cases.
Complainant agreed to and did pay respondent P12,000.00 as acceptance fee for
her services. In June 1997 and August 2000, complainant paid respondent the sums
of P1,500.00 and P500.00 respectively in full satisfaction of their acceptance fee.
However, respondent refused to issue to complainant the corresponding receipts
therefor, despite demands to do so. Also, during trial of both, the respondent always
arrived late. Thus, complainant filed an action against respondent before the Barangay
Office of Barangay Nangka, Marikina City.
The respondent repeatedly failed to appear at the conciliation proceedings, despite
notice of the hearings, prompting the Lupong Tagapayapa, to issue a certification to
file action.
Complainant filed administrative case against respondent. IBP found that
respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. It ordered the two years
suspension of the respondent.
ISSUE:
- Whether or not Atty. Avance violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.
HELD:
Yes, Atty. Avance violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.
There can be no question that respondent was grossly remiss in the performance
of her duties as counsel for complainant. The records show that in engaging the
services of respondent, complainant agreed to and did pay respondent P12,000.00 as
acceptance fee.
Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that a lawyer shall
not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him. Her negligence in connection there with
shall render her liable. Elsewise stated, he owes entire devotion to the interest of the
client, warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his client’s rights, and the exertion
of his utmost learning and ability to the end that nothing be taken or withheld from
his client, save by the rules of law, legally applied.
#18
RIZALINA L. GEMINA vs. ATTY. ISIDRO S. MADAMBA
FACTS:
The complainant claims she is an heir of the registered owner of several parcels of
land located in Laoag City. 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. She also alleged that the Waiver
of Rights and Interests shows that it was entered in the respondent’s Notarial Register
number.
However, when she went to the Office of the Clerk of Court (OCC), Regional Trial
Court, Isabela, to request for a copy, she found out that the said document was an
Affidavit of Buyer/Transferee allegedly executed by the Spouses Efren Alonzo and
Imelda Alonzo on September 29, 2003.
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 was already 82 years old and insulin dependent, so he had no
more time to prepare documents and enter documents in his notarial register. He
begged for leniency and consideration from the Court, and asked for forgiveness for
his inadvertent acts. He apologized and committed himself not to repeat these
misdeeds.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Madamba violated the Notarial Law or the 2004 Rules on
Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
HELD:
Yes, Atty. Madamba violated the Notarial Law or the 2004 Rules on Notarial
Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
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.
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
ESPINOSA VS OMANA
FACTS:
 Omana prepared a contract entitled “Kasunduan ng Paghihiwalay” to address
the Marantal and Espinosa’s concern to dissolve their marriage and legally live
separately.
 Marantal and Espinosa thereafter started implementing its terms and
conditions
 However, Marantal violated the terms and took custody over the children and
took possession of most of their conjugal property
 Espinosa found out through his law graduate colleague (the complainant in this
case) that the contract was invalid
 Espinosa and his colleague filed for disbarment for Omana for misconduct and
grave abuse of discretion
 Omana counter-argued that Espinosa was the one who created the document
and illegally obtained his notary seal through his staff
ISSUE: Whether or not Omana should be disbarred for notarizing an extrajudicial
dissolution of the conjugal partnership without judicial approval
RULING:
YES.
This Court has ruled that the extrajudicial dissolution of the conjugal partnership
without judicial approval is void. The Court has also ruled that a notary public should
not facilitate the disintegration of a marriage and the family by encouraging the
separation of the spouses and extrajudicially dissolving the conjugal partnership,
which is exactly what Omaña did in this case.
Even if it were true that it was her part-time staff who notarized the contract, it only
showed Omaña’s negligence in doing her notarial duties.
#20
CAALIM-VERZONILLA VS PASCUA
FACTS:
 Verzonilla filed a complaint seeking the disbarment of respondent Atty. Pascua.
 She alleged that Pascua falsified a public document and evades the payment of
correct taxes through the use of falsified documents.
 The respondent prepared and notarized two Deeds of Extra-judicial Settlement
of the estate of deceased Lope Caalim.
 The first deed was in the amount of Php 250,000 and the second deed was at
Php 1,000,000 both having the same identical registration nos., page nos., and
book nos.
 She alleged that Pascua falsified the signature of the heirs of Lope Caalim to
favor the spouses Mipanga.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Pascua should be disbarred for notarizing a document
without the presence of one of the signatories
RULING: YES
The notary public who notarized the document despite the non-appearance of one of
the signatories was meted the penalties of revocation of his notarial commission and
disqualification from reappointment for two years.
In Gonzales, 640 SCRA 352 (2005), The notary public who notarized the document
despite the non-appearance of one of the signatories was meted the penalties of
revocation of his notarial commission and disqualification from re-appointment for
two years. The notary in Gonzales was likewise suspended from the practice of law for
one year. Said penalty was in accord with the cases of Bon v. Ziga, 429 SCRA 177
(2004), Serzo v. Flores, 435 SCRA 412 (2004), Zaballero v. Montalvan, 429 SCRA 74
2004, and Tabas v. Mangibin, 421 SCRA 511 (2004). The Court found that by
notarizing the questioned deed, the respondent in Gonzales engaged in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
#21
BACULI VS BATTUG
FACTS:
 Judge Baculi filed a petition for disbarment against Atty. Battung for gross
misconduct
 Petitioner alleged that respondent was shouting while arguing his motion
 Petitioner added that respondent threatened to file a case against him even after
the hearing
 Respondent on the other hand claimed that it was the petitioner who
disrespected him in the first place as the petitioner accused him of negligence
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty Batung should be disbarred for the alleged disrespect
towards Judge Baculi
RULING: YES.
The respondent violated Rule 11.03, Canon 11 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and thus should be disbarred. The pieces of evidence presented clearly
manifested that Atty. Batung disrespected Judge Baculi.
These actions were not only against the person, the position and the stature of Judge
Baculi, but against the court as well whose proceedings were openly and flagrantly
disrupted, and brought to disrepute by the respondent.
Litigants and counsels, particularly the latter because of their position and avowed
duty to the courts, cannot be allowed to publicly ridicule, demean and disrespect a
judge, and the court that he represents.