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 an Anti-Graft and Corruption

case. 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. Gonzales disclaims intent to attack and denigrate the Court.

Gonzales 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. 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 Gonzales is charged constitutes

contempt of court.

2. Whether or not the statements made by 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. Gonzales’ 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
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. He is suspended from the practice of law indefinitely.

In the Matter of the IBP Membership DuesDelinquency of Atty. MARCIAL A.

EDILLION (IBP Administrative Case No. MDD-1), petitioner [A.C.1928, 19
December 1980]

Respondent Edillion was disbarred on 1978. He repeatedly pleaded that he be

reinstated and it was granted. IBP Board of Governors unanimously adopted a
Resolution recommending to the Court the removal of the name of the respondent from
its Roll of Attorneys for 'stubborn refusal to pay his membership dues' to the IBP.

Edillion argued that such provisions constitute an invasion of his constitutional

rights in the sense that he is being compelled, as a pre-condition to maintain 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 admitted personally antagonistic, he is being deprived of the
rights to liberty and property guaranteed to him by the Constitution. Hence, the
provisions of the Court Rule and of the IBP By-Laws are void and of no legal force and
effect.

Issues:

1. Whether or not Edillion should be disbarred due to his stubborn refusal to pay his
membership dues.

2. Whether or not the facts stated are circumstances that would call for reinstatement at
the bar.

Held:
1. Yes. Extreme penalty of disbarment should be imposed upon Edillion since he could
not be said to be that deficient in legal knowledge.

Reference was then made to the authority of the IBP Board of Governors to
recommend to the Supreme Court the removal of a delinquent member's name from the
Roll of Attorneys as found in Rules of Court: '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. 

2. Yes. There were other communications to the Court where a different attitude
on the respondent’s part was discernible.

The Court stated that reinstatement could be ordered considering the state of
respondent’s health and advanced age. Respondent likewise spoke of the welfare of
former clients who still rely on him for counsel. The resolution made it certain that there
was full acceptance on his part of the competence of this Tribunal in the exercise of its
plenary power to regulate the legal profession and can integrate the bar and that the
dues were duly paid. Moreover, the fact that more than two years had elapsed during
which he war, barred from exercising his profession was likewise taken into account.

The Court restores Edillon’s membership to the bar.

CRAIG L. FORD, Complainant, v. ATTY. ESCOLASTICO DAITOL Respondent.

Adm. Case No. 3736. November 16, 1995

Facts:

Respondent Daitol was the counsel of Complainant Ford against the Philippine
Commercial International Bank ("PCIB") wherein RTC rendered judgment in favor of
Ford. After PCIB had filed its appellant’s brief, the CA directed Ford to file his appellee’s
brief. However, Daitol never filed the appellee’s brief with the CA.

After Ford learned from Daitol that the CA had issued a resolution stating that the
case had been submitted for decision without the appellee’s brief, Ford lodged a
complaint against respondent before the Cebu City Chapter of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines ("IBP"). Daitol did not file an answer to the complaint and the case was
forwarded to the IBP office in Manila. He argued that before he could finish the draft of
the appellee’s brief, Ford allegedly terminated his services due to "various difficulties
and misunderstanding" between them but Ford 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. Daitol 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, he
was directed to submit by mail his affidavit and to attach thereto his evidence to rebut
the charge of complainant. He 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 Daitol’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.

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 Sabacajan admitted and confirmed to the complainants Nicanor

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

Gonzales and Pantanosas sent a letter for enlightenment to the Honorable

Supreme Court which required them 19 legible copies of a verified complaint.

Sabacajan claimed that complainant Gonzales has never been to his office. He
likewise denied that he challenged anyone to file a case in any court, much less the
Supreme Court. He also claims that he referred Pantanosas to his client, Mr. 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 Gonzales and Pantanosas
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. He
attached some certifications to support his contention that said complainants are
notorious characters. However, to support his contention, he 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 Sabacajan’s claim. 

Issue:

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

Held:

Yes. As a lawyer, Sabacajan should know that there are lawful remedies
provided by law to protect the interests of his client. The Court finds that Sabacajan 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.
 Sabacajan 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 Gutierrez, a Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BID) officer,

received US$20,000 from complainant Huyssen. Accused of falsely representing that it
was needed in application for Quota visa and failing to return the same, Gutierrez
received demand letters from the World Mission for Jesus. After he made several
unfulfilled promises to return the deposited amount, Huyssen filed a complaint in the
CBD IBP.

Gutierrez 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 and revealed that what was used by the Huyssen 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 Guyssen was the very same
amount used by her son Marcus 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. He even issued
personal post-dated checks on this, but which later bounced.

Issue:

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

Held:

Yes, Gutierrez should be disbarred. His defense of denial is not convincing. The
evidence show 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 issuance of his personal checks to cover the return of the
money to Huyssen points to the inescapable conclusion that respondent received the
money 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.

Gutierrez is disbarred from the practice of law and ordered to return the amount
he received 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 Bautista alleged that respondent Bernabe repared and notarized

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

Bernabe denied the falsification and disclaimed any knowledge about de la

Cruz's death but admitted that he allowed a certain Pronebo, allegedly de a Cruz’s son-
in-law to sign above the name of the latter as shown by the word "by" on top of de la
Cruz’s name. He 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 Bernabe failed to exercise utmost diligence in the performance of

his function as a notary public.

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.  Bautista'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 Bautista. 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.

Bernabe’s notarial commission 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.