ENRIQUE A.

ZALDIVAR, petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN and HONORABLE RAUL M. GONZALEZ,
claiming to be and acting as Tanodbayan-Ombudsman under the 1987
Constitution, respondents.

G.R. Nos. 79690-707 October 7, 1988

Facts:

Petitioner Zaldivar is one of several defendants in Criminal Cases Nos.

12159-12161 and 12163-12177 (for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Act) pending before the Sandiganbayan. The Office of the Tanodbayan conducted the
preliminary investigation and filed the criminal informations in those cases (originally
TBP Case No. 86-00778). The instant proceeding is not addressed to the fact that
respondent has criticized the Court; it is addressed rather to the nature of the criticism
or comment in the manner in which it was carried out.

The following are the subjects of this Resolution:

1) a Motion, dated 9 February 1988, to Cite in Contempt filed by petitioner Enrique A.

Zaldivar against public respondent Special Prosecutor (formerly Tanodbayan) Raul M.
Gonzalez, in connection with G.R. Nos. 79690-707 and G.R. No. 80578.

2) a Resolution of this Court dated 2 May 1988 requiring respondent Hon. Raul
Gonzalez to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt and/or subjected
to administrative sanctions for making certain public statements.

Respondent Gonzales disclaims intent to attack and denigrate the Court. He

stated that,

a)  the Supreme Court deliberately rendered an erroneous or wrong decision, when it

rendered its per curiam Decision dated 27 April 1988 in G.R. Nos. 79690-707 and
80578, which was issued as an act of retaliation by the Court against him for the
position he had taken "that the (Supreme Court) Justices cannot claim immunity from
suit or investigation by government prosecutors," and in order to stop respondent from
investigating against "some of (the) proteges or friends (of some Supreme Court
Justices)." ;

b) the second charge that he hurdled against members of the Supreme Court is that
they have improperly Id pressured" him to render decisions favorable to their
"colleagues and friends," including dismissal of "cases" against two (2) members of the
Court. ;
and c) the Court  allegedly "dismissed judges 'without rhyme or reason' and disbarred
lawyers 'without due process.'" 

Respondent has not denied making the above statements; indeed, he

acknowledges that the newspaper reports of the statements attributed to him are
substantially correct. He also defends himself and contended that his conduct has
shown no injury to the judiciary. Moreover, he pointed out that the Court denied his
Motion for Reconsideration  of its per curiam Decision of 27 April 1988 and reiterated
and amplified that Decision in its Resolution of 19 May 1988.

Lastly, he  suggests that punishment for contempt is not the proper remedy in this case
and suggests that the members of this Court have recourse to libel suits against him. 

Issue:

1. Whether or not the misconduct with which the respondent is charged

constitutes contempt of court.

2. Whether or not the statements made by respondent Gonzales may reasonably

be regarded by this Court as contumacious or as warranting exercise of the
disciplinary authority of this Court over members of the Bar.

Held:

1. Yes. Respondent’s statements, especially the charge that the Court

deliberately rendered an erroneous and unjust decision in the
Consolidated Petitions, necessarily implying that the justices of this Court
betrayed their oath of office, merely to wreak vengeance upon the
respondent, constitute the grossest kind of disrespect to the Court.

Sec. 20-b., Rule 138 of Rules of Court

(b) To observe and maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers

2. Yes. The Supreme Court is compelled to hold that the statements made
by respondent Gonzales clearly constitute contempt and call for the
exercise of the disciplinary authority of the Supreme Court. Section 27,
Rule 138 of Rules of Court

Section 27. Attorneys removed or suspended by Supreme Court on what grounds. — A

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

The Court concludes that respondent Gonzalez is guilty both of contempt of

court in facie curiae and of gross misconduct as an officer of the court and member of
the Bar.

Respondent Atty. Raul M. Gonzalez is suspended from the practice of law indefinitely
and until further orders from this Court, the suspension to take effect immediately.

In the Matter of the IBP Membership Dues Delinquency of Atty. Marcial

A. Edillion

A.C. No. 1928. August 3, 1978

Facts:

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors unanimously

adopted Resolution recommending to the Court the removal of the name of Respondent
Atty. Marcial Edillion, a duly licensed practicing attorney in the Philippines, from its Roll
of Attorneys for  “stubborn refusal to pay his membership dues” to the IBP.
In the respondent’s comment, as required by the court, he argued that the above
provisions constitute an invasion of his Constitutional rights in the sense that he is being
compelled, as a precondition to maintaining his status as a lawyer in good standing, to
be a member of the IBP and to pay the corresponding dues, and that as a consequence
of this compelled financial support of the said organization to which he is admittedly
personally antagonistic, he is being deprived of the rights to liberty and property
guaranteed to him by the Constitution.
Consequently, the respondent concludes that the provisions of the Court Rule
and of the IBP By-Laws are void and of no legal force and effect.
Lastly, the respondent questioned the jurisdiction of the Court to strike his name
from the Roll of Attorneys, contending that the said matter is not among the justiciable
cases triable by the Court but is rather of an “administrative nature pertaining to an
administrative body.” 

Issues:
1. Whether or not the provision of the Court Rule requiring payment of a
membership fee is void.
2. Whether the power of SC to strike the name of a lawyer from its Roll of
Attorneys is valid.
Held:

1. No. There is nothing in the Constitution which prohibits the Court to promulgate
rules concerning the admission to the practice of law and the integration of the Philippine
Bar (Article X, Section 5 of the 1973 Constitution) from requiring members of a
privileged class, such as lawyers are, to pay a reasonable fee toward defraying
the expenses of regulation of the profession to which they belong. Apparently,
fee is indeed imposed as a regulatory measure, designed to raise funds for
carrying out the objectives and purposes of integration.

Section 9, Rule 139-A Integrated Bar of the Philippines

Section 9. Membership dues. — Every member of the Integrated Bar shall pay such
annual dues as the Board of Governors shall determine with the approval of the
Supreme Court. A fixed sum equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the collection from
each Chapter shall be set aside as a Welfare Fund for disabled members of the
Chapter and the compulsory heirs of deceased members thereof.

2. Yes. The Supreme Court has the power to strike name of a lawyer from its Roll of
Attorneys. The matters of admission, suspension, disbarment and reinstatement
of lawyers and their regulation and supervision have been and are indisputably
recognized as inherent judicial functions and responsibilities, and the authorities
holding such are legion.

Section 10, Rule 139-A Integrated Bar of the Philippines By-Laws

Section 10. Effect of non-payment of dues. — Subject to the provisions of Section

12 of this Rule, default in the payment of annual dues for six months shall warrant
suspension of membership in the Integrated Bar, and default in such payment for
one year shall be a ground for the removal of the name of the delinquent member
from the Roll of Attorneys.

Section 12, Rule 139-A Integrated Bar of the Philippines By-Laws

Section 12. Grievance procedures. — The Board of Governors shall provide in

the By-Laws for grievance procedures for the enforcement and maintenance of
discipline among all the members of the Integrated Bar, but no action involving
the suspension or disbarment of a member or the removal of his name from the
Roll of Attorneys shall be effective without the final approval of the Supreme
Court.

Respondent Marcial A. Edillon should be as he is hereby disbarred, and his

name is hereby ordered stricken from the Roll of Attorneys of the Court.
 CRAIG L. FORD, Complainant, v. ATTY. ESCOLASTICO DAITOL Respondent.

Adm. Case No. 3736. November 16, 1995

Facts:

Respondent Atty. Escolastico Daitol was the Counsel of Complainant Craig Ford
in a Civil Case No. CEB-5552 against the Philippine Commercial International Bank
("PCIB") wherein RTC rendered judgment in favor of complainant. After PCIB had filed
its appellant’s brief, the CA directed complainant to file his appellee’s brief. However,
respondent never filed the appellee’s brief with the CA.

After the complainant learned from respondent that the CA had issued a
resolution stating that the case had been submitted for decision without the appellee’s
brief, he (complainant) lodged a complaint against respondent before the Cebu City
Chapter of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines ("IBP"). Respondent did not file an
answer to the complaint and the case was forwarded to the IBP office in Manila.

Moreover, Complainant also filed a letter-complaint in the Court praying that

disciplinary action be taken against Respondent.

In his answer, respondent argued that before he could finish the draft of the
appellee’s brief, complainant allegedly terminated his services due to "various difficulties
and misunderstanding" between them but complainant denied this allegation stating that
he had already advanced an amount of P600.00 as attorney’s fees to respondent who
had assured him that he was preparing the appellee’s brief.

Pursuant to a resolution which referred the case to the IBP for investigation,
report and recommendation, hearings were conducted by the Commission on Bar
Discipline of the IBP. Respondent failed to show up and submit explanation. The
Commission denied respondent’s motion for transfer of venue from Manila to Cebu for
there were no compelling reasons therefor and not all the parties agreed to such
transfer. Instead, respondent was directed to submit by mail his affidavit and to attach
thereto his evidence to rebut the charge of complainant. Respondent did not submit any
such evidence. The Commission then considered him to have waived his right to
present evidence on his behalf.

Issue:
Whether or not respondent’s failure to file appellee’s brief on behalf of his client
constitutes inexcusable negligence and warrants disciplinary action.

Held:
Yes. This Court agrees with the IBP that respondent had been remiss in the
performance of his duties as counsel for complainant. A lawyer engaged to represent a
client in a case bears the responsibility of protecting the latter’s interest with utmost
diligence. In failing to file the appellee’s brief on behalf of his client, respondent had
fallen far short of his duties as counsel.

Rule 12.04, Rule 12 of Code of Professional Responsibility

A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment or
misuse Court processes.

Rule 18.03, Rule 18 of Code of Professional Responsibility

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

Section 12, Rule 139-A Integrated Bar of the Philippines By-Laws

Section 12. Grievance procedures. — The Board of Governors shall provide in

the By-Laws for grievance procedures for the enforcement and maintenance of
discipline among all the members of the Integrated Bar, but no action involving the
suspension or disbarment of a member or the removal of his name from the Roll of
Attorneys shall be effective without the final approval of the Supreme Court.

Section 12, Rule 139-B Disbarment and Discipline of Attorneys

Section 12. Review and decision by the Board of Governors.

a) Every case heard by an investigator shall be reviewed by the IBP Board of

Governors upon the record and evidence transmitted to it by the Investigator with
his report. The decision of the Board upon such review shall be in writing and
shall clearly and distinctly state the facts and the reasons on which it is based. It
shall be promulgated within a period not exceeding thirty (30) days from the next
meeting of the Board following the submittal of the Investigator's Report.

b) If the Board, by the vote of a majority of its total membership, determines that
the respondent should be suspended from the practice of law or disbarred, it
shall issue a resolution setting forth its findings and recommendations which,
together with the whole record of the case, shall forthwith be transmitted to the
Supreme Court for final action.

c) If the respondent is exonerated by the Board or the disciplinary sanction

imposed by it is less than suspension or disbarment (such as admonition,
reprimand, or fine) it shall issue a decision exonerating respondent or imposing
such sanction. The case shall be deemed terminated unless upon petition of the
complainant or other interested party filed with the Supreme Court within fifteen
(15) days from notice of the Board's resolution, the Supreme Court orders
otherwise.
 d) Notice of the resolution or decision of the Board shall be given to all parties
through their counsel. A copy of the same shall be transmitted to the Supreme
Court.

Respondent Atty. Escolastico Daitol is suspended from the practice of law for a
period of three (3) months with a warning.

NICANOR GONZALES and SALUD B.

PANTANOSAS, Complainants, v. ATTY. MIGUEL
SABACAJAN, Respondent.

Adm. Case No. 4380. October 13, 1995.

Facts:

Respondent Atty. Miguel Sabacajan admitted and confirmed to the complainants

Nicanor Gonzales and Salud Pantanosas that their titles are in his custody. However,
refused  to deliver the said titles to the complainant and even challenged the
complainants to file any case in any court even in the Honorable Supreme Court.

Complainants sent a letter for enlightenment to the Honorable Supreme Court

which required them 19 legible copies of a verified complaint.

In an unverified answer, respondent claimed that complainant Gonzales has

never been to his office. Respondent likewise denied that he challenged anyone to file a
case in any court, much less the Supreme Court. He also claims that he referred
complainant Pantanosas to his client, Mr. Samto M. Uy for whom he worked out the
segregation of the titles, two of which are the subject of the instant case. He contends
that the truth of the matter is that complainants have been charged with a number of
criminal and civil complaints before different courts. He also asserts that he was holding
the certificates of title in behalf of his client, Mr. Uy. Moreover, he stressed that the
instant action was chosen precisely to browbeat him into delivering the Certificates of
Title to them without said certificates passing the hands of Mr. Uy with whom the
complainants have some monetary obligations.

In a resolution, the Court referred this case to the office of the Bar Confidant for
the corresponding evaluation, report and recommendation.

In his answer, respondent attached some certifications to support his contention

that complainants are notorious characters. However, to support his contention that
complainants are notorious characters. Respondent likewise submitted xerox copies of
certain certificates of title to explain the purpose of subdividing the property but it did not
show any connection thereof to respondent’s claim. 

Issue:

Whether or not respondent failed to exercise good faith and diligence required in
handling the legal affairs of their clients.

Held:

Yes. As a lawyer, respondent should know that there are lawful remedies
provided by law to protect the interests of his client. The Court finds that respondent has
not exercised the good faith and diligence required of lawyers in handling the legal
affairs of their clients. If complainants did have the alleged monetary obligations to his
client, that does not warrant his summarily confiscating their certificates of title since
there is no showing in the records that the same were given as collaterals to secure the
payment of a debt. Neither is there any intimation that there is a court order authorizing
him to take and retain custody of said certificates of title.

Rule 15.07, Canon 15 of Code of Professional Responsibility

A lawyer shall impress upon his client compliance with the laws and the
principles of fairness.

Rule 19.01, Canon 19 of Code of Professional Responsibility

A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives
of his client and shall not present, participate in presenting, or threaten to present
unfounded charges to obtain an improper advantage in any case or proceeding.

Section 30, Rule 138 Rules of Court

Section 30. Attorney to be heard before removal or suspension. — No attorney shall be

removed or suspended from the practice of his profession, until he has had full
opportunity upon reasonable notice to answer the charges against him, to produce
witnesses in his own behalf, and to be heard by himself or counsel. But if upon
reasonable notice he fails to appear and answer the accusation, the court may proceed
to determine the matter ex parte.

Respondent is suspended from the practice of law until he can duly show to this
Court that the disputed certificates of title have been returned to and the receipt thereof
duly acknowledged by complainants, or can present a judicial order or appropriate legal
authority justifying the possession by him or his client of said certificates. 
 GISELA HUYSSEN, Complainant, v. ATTY. FRED L. GUTIERREZ, Respondent.

A.C. NO. 6707 : March 24, 2006

FACTS

Respondent Atty. Fred Gutierrez, a Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BID)

officer, received US$20,000 from complainant Gisela Huyssen. Accused of falsely
representing that it was needed in complainant’s application for Quota visa and failing to
return the same, respondent received demand letters from the World Mission for Jesus.
After respondent made several unfulfilled promises to return the deposited amount,
complainant referred the matter to a lawyer who sent two demand letters to respondent
and later on filed a complaint in the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines (IBP).

Respondent denied misappropriating the said amount, claiming that he gave it to

Atty. Mendoza, an Immigration lawyer, who assisted complainant and her children in
their application for visa. Atty. Mendoza revealed to the respondent that what was used
by the complainant as her show money from the bank is not really her money but
money of World Mission for Jesus, which therefore is a serious violation of the
Immigration Law as there was a misrepresentation. Moreover, the same amount used
by the complainant, was the very same amount used by her son Marcus Huyssen, in
obtaining his separate permanent visa. After the family secured their visas, complainant
demanded the return of their money given and surprisingly wanted to recover the same
amount.

Having aware of the consequences, as a lawyer, of signing the voucher,

respondent tried pay for it but was unable to raise the fund needed.

Complainant submitted her evidence and was set for reception of respondent's
evidence. However, the respondent failed to attend the scheduled hearings.

Investigating Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan submitted her report

recommending the disbarment of respondent. Respondent had many alibis, including
the death of Commissioner Verceles and existence of Atty. Mendoza, on why the
money could not immediately be returned to the complainant, and promised her several
times that he would repay her out of his personal funds. He even issued personal post-
dated checks on this, but which later bounced.

Issue:

Whether or not respondent’s acts constitute gross misconduct and deserves the
ultimate penalty of expulsion from the esteemed brotherhood of lawyers.
Held:

Yes, the respondent should be disbarred. The defense of denial proffered by

respondent is not convincing. The evidence, respondent’s letters to the complainant,
shows that he made it appear that the US$20,000 was officially deposited with the
Bureau of Immigration and Deportation, having only petty cash vouchers as proof of his
receipt. Moreover, the respondent’s issuance of his personal checks to cover the return
of the money to complainant points to the inescapable conclusion that respondent
received the money from complainant and appropriated the same for his personal use.

Lawyers in government service in the discharge of their official task have more
restrictions than lawyers in private practice. Want of moral integrity is to be more
severely condemned in a lawyer who holds a responsible public office.

Rule 6.02, Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility

A lawyer in the government service shall not use his public position to promote or
advance his private interests, nor allow the latter to interfere with his public duties.

Also, the act of issuing a bouncing check shows moral turpitude. A lawyer must
at all times conduct himself, especially in his dealings with his clients and the public at
large, with honesty and integrity in a manner beyond reproach. More importantly,
possession of good moral character must be continuous as a requirement to the
enjoyment of the privilege of law practice; otherwise, the loss thereof is a ground for the
revocation of such privilege.

Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility

A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

As a lawyer, who was also a public officer, respondent miserably failed to cope with the
strict demands and high standards of the legal profession.

Section 27 Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court

Sec. 27. Attorneys removed or suspended by the Supreme Court on what grounds.

A member of the bar may be removed or suspended from his office as attorney
by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such
office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral
turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before the
admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior
court, or for corruptly or willful appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without
authority so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either
personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.
 Respondent Atty. Fred L. Gutierrez is disbarred from the practice of law and
ordered to return the amount he received from the complainant with legal interest from
his receipt of the money until payment. The case shall be referred to the Office of the
Ombudsman for criminal prosecution for violation of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Acts and to the Department of Justice for appropriate administrative action.

VICTORINA BAUTISTA, Complainant, v. ATTY. SERGIO E. BERNABE, Respondent.

A.C. NO. 6963 : February 9, 2006

Facts:

Complainant Victorina Bautista alleged that respondent Atty. Sergio E. Bernabe

repared and notarized a Magkasanib na Salaysay purportedly executed by Donato
Salonga and complainant's mother, Basilia de la Cruz, who could not have executed the
joint affidavit on January 3, 1998 because she has been dead since January 28, 1961.

Respondent denied the falsification and disclaimed any knowledge about

Basilia's death but admitted that he allowed a certain Pronebo, allegedly a son-in-law of
Basilia, to sign above the name of the latter as shown by the word "by" on top of the
name of Basilia. Respondent filed a manifestation on the affidavit of desistance of
complainant.

In a resolution, the Board of Governors of the IBP adopted and approved the
recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner with modification that respondent
be suspended from the practice of law for one year and his notarial commission be
revoked and that he be disqualified for reappointment as notary public for two years.

Issue:

Whether or not Respondent's act failed to exercise utmost diligence in the

performance of his function as a notary public and to comply with the mandates of the
law.

Whether or not the charge of deceit and grossly immoral conduct has been
proven and justifies disciplinary proceedings.

Held:

Yes. A member of the bar who performs an act as 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. The acts of the affiants
cannot be delegated to anyone for what are stated therein are facts of which they have
personal knowledge. They should swear to the document personally and not through
any representative. Otherwise, their representative's name should appear in the said
documents as the one who executed the same. That is the only time the representative
can affix his signature and personally appear before the notary public for notarization of
the said document.

Sec. 12 (a). Rule II of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice

Sec. 12. Component Evidence of Identity. The phrase "competent evidence of identity"
refers to the identification of an individual based on:

(a) at least one current identification document issued by an official agency

bearing the photograph and signature of the individual, such as but not limited
to, passport, driver’s license, Professional Regulations Commission ID,
National Bureau of Investigation clearance, police clearance, postal ID,
voter’s ID, Barangay certification, Government Service and Insurance System
(GSIS) e-card, Social Security System (SSS) card, Philhealth card, senior
citizen card, Overseas Workers Welfare Administration (OWWA) ID, OFW ID,
seaman’s book, alien certificate of registration/immigrant certificate of
registration, government office ID, certification from the National Council for
the Welfare of Disable Persons (NCWDP), Department of Social Welfare and
Development (DSWD) certification; 

Yes.  Complainant's desistance or withdrawal of the complaint does not

exonerate respondent or put an end to the administrative proceedings. A case of
suspension or disbarment may proceed regardless of interest or lack of interest of the
complainant. What matters is whether, on the basis of the facts borne out by the record,
the charge of deceit and grossly immoral conduct has been proven. This rule is
premised on the nature of disciplinary proceedings. A proceeding for suspension or
disbarment is not a civil action where the complainant is a plaintiff and the respondent
lawyer is a defendant. Disciplinary proceedings involve no private interest and afford no
redress for private grievance. They are undertaken and prosecuted solely for the public
welfare. They are undertaken for the purpose of preserving courts of justice from the
official ministration of persons unfit to practice in them. The attorney is called to answer
to the court for his conduct as an officer of the court.

Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility

A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

Section 27, Rule 138 of Rules of Court

Section 27. Attorneys removed or suspended by Supreme Court on what grounds. — A

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

For that cause, notarial commission of respondent Atty. Sergio E. Bernabe is

revoked. He is disqualified from reappointment as Notary Public for a period of two
years. He is also suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year, effective
immediately. He is further warned that a repetition of the same or of similar acts shall be
dealt with more severely. Lastly, he is directed to report the date of receipt of this
Decision in order to determine when his suspension shall take effect.