UP Law Acads BarOps 2010
Legal Ethics
2008 DIGESTS
BASCOS VS. RAMIREZ
A.M. No. P-08-2418,, January 31, 2008
Facts : Petitioner charges respondent attorney with neglect of
duty, arrogance and willful and deliberate violation of
circulars of this Court in relation to P.D. 1079, and for several
attempts at extortion. The latter failed to raffle judicial and
extra-judicial notices and other court processes requiring
publication on more than 20 instances, oftentimes showing
his partiality to only one publication. The OCA recommended
that respondent be fine for P2,000 with a warning.
Issue/s: W/N the OCA’s recommendation is sufficient.
Held/Ratio: NO. Executive judges are required under the
P.D. to distribute those notices by raffle for publication to
qualified newspapers or periodicals. On the other hand,
Resolution No. A.M. 01-01-07-SC dated October 16, 2001
provides for uniform and comprehensive guidelines in the
accreditation of newspapers and other periodicals seeking to
publish the notices mentioned in P.D. No. 1079 and Circular
5-98 dated January 12, 1998. The distribution of notices for
publication by raffle is mandatory and cannot be dispensed
with. By failing to include more than twenty foreclosure cases
in the raffle, respondent showed a blatant disregard for the
procedure enjoined by P.D. No. 1079 and by this Court.
Respondent’s failure to heed the mandate of the law and
Supreme Court directives constitutes unjustified and
neglectful conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the
judicial system and the public, and signifies inefficiency and
incompetence in the performance of official duties. As a
member of the bar, respondent is, moreover, charged with the
duty to obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law
and legal processes. He deserves a penalty higher than that
recommended by the OCA.
Respondent is GUILTY of dereliction of duty, gross neglect,
insubordination and for violating the Code of Professional
Responsibility. He is ordered to pay a FINE of P20,000 with a
WARNING.
CONCIO VS. DOJ
G.R. No. 175057, January 29, 2008
Facts : In light of the Wowowee Ultra tragedy, the DOJ, acting
on a recommendation of the NBI based on complaints, formed
an investigating panel of prosecutors to find probable cause to
indict petitioners. Petitioners point out that they cannot be
compelled to submit their counter-affidavits because the NBI-
NCR Report, which they advert to as the complaint-affidavit,
was not under oath. These affidavits, petitioners further point
out, nonetheless do not qualify as a complaint within the
scope of Rule 110 of the Rules of Court as the allegations
therein are insufficient to initiate a preliminary investigation,
there being no statement of specific and individual acts or
omissions constituting reckless imprudence.
Issue/s: W/N respondent committed grave abuse of discretion
in proceeding with the preliminary investigation given the
fatal defects in the supposed complaint.
Held/Ratio: NO. A complaint for purposes of conducting a
preliminary investigation differs from a complaint for
purposes of instituting a criminal prosecution. The former is
conducted precisely to elicit further facts or evidence. Being
generally inquisitorial, the preliminary investigation stage is
often the only means of discovering the persons who may be
reasonably charged with a crime, to enable the preparation of
a complaint or information.
UP Law Acads BarOps 2010
Legal Ethics
As clearly worded n Rule 112 of the Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure, the complaint is not entirely the affidavit of the
complainant, for the affidavit is treated as a component of the
complaint.  The phraseology of the rule recognizes that all
necessary allegations need not be contained in a single
document.  It is unlike a criminal complaint or information
where the averments must be contained in one document
charging only one offense, non-compliance with which renders
it vulnerable to a motion to quash.
A preliminary investigation can thus validly proceed on the
basis of an affidavit of any competent person, without the
referral document, like the NBI-NCR Report, having been
sworn to by the law enforcer as the nominal complainant.  homicide on the ground that the Anti-Subversion Law had
A complaint for purposes of conducting preliminary
investigation is not required to exhibit the attending structure
of a “complaint or information laid down in Rule 110
(Prosecution of Offenses) which already speaks of the People
of the Philippines” as a party, an accused rather than a
respondent, and a court that shall pronounce judgment.
KAUNLARAN LENDING INVESTORS vs. UY
G.R. No. 154974, February 04, 2008
Issue/s: W/N KLII’s president has authority to sign the
certificate of non-forum shopping.
Held/Ratio: NO. For failure of KLII to present proof that its
president, Rolando Tan, was authorized to sign the
verification and certificate of non-forum shopping on its
behalf, the petition must be denied in light of this Court’s
ruling that
In case of a corporation, it has long been settled that
the certificate [of non-forum shopping] must be signed
for and on its behalf by a specifically authorized officer
or agent who has personal knowledge of the facts
required to be disclosed.
The merits of the petition, however, justify the relaxation of
the rule on verification and certificate of non-forum shopping.
ESPINA vs CERUJANO, et. al.
G.R. No. 149377, March 25, 2008.
(This case is in Spanish, couldn’t find an English version. So I
found this digest instead among those uploaded sa acads
yahoogroup)
Facts : Jesus Clarito Espina, a Prosecutor of the Office of the
Public Prosecutor of Lao-ang, Northern Samar, filed a motion
to dismiss a criminal case for robbery in band with multiple
been repealed. The trial court granted petitioner’s motion. The
decision in the said criminal case had already been final and
executory.
Miguel Cerujano, et. al. filed an administrative complaint
for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the
service against petitioner before the Department of Justice
(DOJ). The Secretary of Justice later formally charged
petitioner with conduct grossly prejudicial to the [best]
interest of the service. Then President Joseph Estrada issued
Administrative Order No. 62 dismissing petitioner from the
service.
The Court of Appeals (CA), upon a petition for review filed by
Espina, ruled that Espina was actually found guilty of grave
misconduct.
Issue/s: WHETHER Espina was guilty of grave misconduct
Held/Ratio: NO. Espina is guilty of conduct grossly
prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
A basic requirement of due process is that a person must
be duly informed of the charges against him and that a
UP Law Acads BarOps 2010
Legal Ethics
person can not be convicted of a crime which he was not
charged.  falsification of court orders.
Administrative proceedings are not exempt from basic and
fundamental procedural principles, such as the right to due
process in investigations and hearings.
Misconduct is “a transgression of some established and
definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or
gross negligence by a public officer.”  The misconduct is grave
if it involves any of the additional elements of corruption,
willful intent to violate the law or to disregard established
rules, which must be established by substantial evidence.
Espina cannot be held liable for grave misconduct under a
charge of “conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of
the service.” Conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of
the service does not necessarily include the elements of grave
misconduct.  The word “gross” connotes “something beyond
measure; beyond allowance; not to be excused; flagrant;
shameful” while “prejudicial” means “detrimental or
derogatory to a party; naturally, probably or actually bringing
about a wrong result.”  Facts : Jose C. Saberon charged Atty. Fernando T. Larong
 
Conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service
may or may not be characterized by corruption or a willful
intent to violate the law or to disregard established rules. 
 
Under the Civil Service law and rules, there is no concrete
description of what specific acts constitute the grave offense of
conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service,
although this Court has considered the following acts or
omissions, among others, as such:  misappropriation of public
funds, abandonment of office, failure to report back to work
without prior notice, failure to safe keep public  records and
property, making false entries in public documents and
While grave misconduct and conduct grossly prejudicial to the
best interest of the service are both grave offenses under the
Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No.
292, grave misconduct has a heavier penalty.  Grave
misconduct is penalized by dismissal from service. On the
other hand, conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of
the service is penalized by dismissal from service only on the
second offense; on the first offense, the penalty is suspension
for six months and one day, to one year.
 
The record does not show that any of the additional elements
to qualify the charge of conduct grossly prejudicial to the best
interest of the service to grave misconduct had been
established.
SABERON vs. LARONG
A.C. No. 6567, April 16, 2008.
(Found this sa yahoogroups as well)
before the Office of the Bar Confidant of grave misconduct for
allegedly using abusive and offensive language in pleadings
filed before the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP).
Saberon filed in the BSP a petition against Surigaonon Rural
Banking Corporation and Alfredo Tan Bonpin for cancellation
of the bank's registration and franchise. The petition arose
from the bank's and/or Bonpin's refusal to return various
checks and land titles, which were given to secure a loan
obtained by Saberon’s wife, despite alleged full payment of the
loan and interests.
UP Law Acads BarOps 2010
Legal Ethics
Larong, in-house counsel and acting corporate secretary of
the bank, filed an answer with affirmative defenses to the
petition in which he stated that the petition was another in the
series of blackmail  suits filed by Saberon.
The Investigation Commissioner of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) recommended that Larong be found guilty of
gross misconduct. The IBP Board of Governors, in a
resolution, however disagreed with the recommendation and
dismissed the case.
Issue/s:
1. WHETHER Larong is guilty of gross misconduct
2. WHETHER the matters stated in the answer Larong
filed before the BSP were privileged
3. WHETHER the IBP Board of Governor's Resolution is
illegal and void ab initio
4. WHETHER Larong should be disbarred
Held/Ratio:
1. NO. Larong is guilty of simple misconduct for using
intemperate language in his pleadings.
The Code of Professional Responsibility mandates:
CANON 8 - A lawyer shall conduct himself with
courtesy, fairness and candor toward his professional
colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against
opposing counsel.
Rule 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his professional
dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive or
otherwise improper.
CANON 11 - A lawyer shall observe and maintain the
respect due to the courts and to judicial officers and
should insist on similar conduct by others.
Rule 11.03 - A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous,
offensive or menacing language or behavior before the
Courts.
The adversarial nature of our legal system has tempted
members of the bar to use strong language in pursuit
of their duty to advance the interests of their clients.
However, while a lawyer is entitled to present his case
with vigor and courage, such enthusiasm does not
justify the use of offensive and abusive language. 
Members of the Bar should abstain from all offensive
personality and to advance no fact prejudicial to the
honor or reputation of a party or witness, unless
required by the justice of the cause with which he is
charged. In keeping with the dignity of the legal
profession, a lawyer's language even in his pleadings
must be dignified.
2. NO. Lawyers, though they are allowed a latitude of
pertinent remark or comment in the furtherance of the
causes they uphold and for the felicity of their clients,
should not trench beyond the bounds of relevancy and
propriety in making such remark or comment.
True, utterances, petitions and motions made in the
course of judicial proceedings have consistently been
considered as absolutely privileged, however false or
malicious they may be, but only for so long as they are
pertinent and relevant to the subject of inquiry.
Granting that the proceedings before the BSP partake
of the nature of judicial proceedings, the ascription of
'blackmail' in the answer and rejoinder filed by Larong
is not legitimately related or pertinent to the subject
matters of inquiry before the BSP.
3. YES. There was no compliance with the procedural
requirement that the IBP Board of Governors' decision
shall state clearly and distinctly the findings of facts or
law on which the same is based. Thus Section 12 of
Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court provides:
SEC. 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
UP Law Acads BarOps 2010
Legal Ethics
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.
4. NO. Disbarment and suspension of an attorney are the
most severe forms of disciplinary action, which should
be imposed with great caution. They should be meted
out only for duly proven serious administrative
charges.
Thus, while respondent is guilty of using infelicitous
language, such transgression is not of a grievous
character as to merit respondent's disbarment.
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR vs. PARDO and
TULDAGUE
A.M. No. RTJ-08-2109 (formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 06-
2463-RTJ, formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 06-1-45-RTC),
April 30, 2008.
(from yahoogroups)
Facts : Judge Moises M. Pardo, then Executive Judge and
Presiding Judge of Branch 31 and acting Presiding Judge of
Branch 32 of the two-sala Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Cabarroguis, Quirino, complained against Clerk of Court
Jessie W. Tuldague. Pardo wrote to the Deputy Court
Administrator about Tuldague’s grave and disrespectful
conduct in the conduct of raffle of cases by calling only the
OIC Branch Clerks of Court, and furnishing only Pardo about
the said raffle.
Tuldague in turn charged Judge Pardo for having disregarded
procedures and committed impropriety when he ordered the
civil docket clerk of his sala (Branch 31) to get the records of a
land registration case directly from the Office of the Clerk of
Court without the benefit of raffle.
Subsequently, Tuldague wrote a letter to Pardo stating:
I hope you will realize that your line of thinking is not to my
detriment  but to the damage and prejudice of court users.   If
you want to make the issue big, then you can bring this small
matter up to the Supreme Court  again and I'm willing and
ready to answer. From now on, I will be forwarding to your
office all Petitions for Extra-Judicial Foreclosure so you can
always be present and conduct the raffle yourself. I'm doing
this  in the interest of service and so as not to prejudice
innocent court users who have nothing to do with the   legal
controversy and friction between us.
Issue/s: WHETHER Tuldague should be held liable for the
charges filed against him
Held/Ratio: YES. Tuldague is guilty of violation of Supreme
Court Circular No. 7-2002 and be should be reprimanded for
such violation.
Tuldague is additionally guilty of gross discourtesy in the
course of official duties under Rule IV, Section 52 (B) (3) of the
Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil
Service for failure to accord respect for the person and rights
of the Judge. The belligerence he showed to Pardo, reflected in
his above-quoted letter - a case of res ipsa loquitur - betrays
his below-par conduct as a court employee.
As held in the case of Amane v. Atty. Mendoza-Arce, 376 Phil.
575 (1999):
…an employee of the judiciary is expected to accord respect
for the person and rights of others at all times, and his every
act and word characterized
by prudence,restraint, courtesy and dignity.
UP Law Acads BarOps 2010
Legal Ethics
Government service is people-oriented and where high-strung
and belligerent behavior is not allowed. No matter how
commendable respondent's motives may be, as a public officer,
courtesy should be his policy always.
RE: LETTER-COMPLAINT OF CONCERNED CITIZENS
AGAINST SOL GEN AGNES VST. DEVANADERA, ATTY.
ROLANDO FALLER, AND ATTY. SANTIAGO VARELA
A.M. No. 07-11-13-SC, June 30, 2008
Facts : “Concerned Citizens” filed a complaint for
disbarment/disciplinary action  against former Government
Corporate Counsel (GCC), now Solicitor General Agnes Vst.
Devanadera, along with the present GCC Alberto C. Agra and
other lawyers of the Office of the Government Corporate
Counsel (OGCC), for "engaging directly or indirectly in
partisan political activities" during the May 14, 2007 national
and local elections, and for violating the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act."  Mane’s capability in relation to him citing the fact the Mane
The respondents prayed for the outright dismissal of the
complaint for being anonymous and contrary to the intent of
Section 1, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court:
Proceedings for the disbarment, suspension, or
discipline of attorneys may be taken by the Supreme
Court motu proprio, or by the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) upon the verified complaint of any
person… supported by affidavits of persons having
personal knowledge of the facts therein alleged and/or
by such documents as may substantiate said facts
Issue/s: W/N the complaint for disbarment stands.
Held/Ratio: NO. Section 1 of Rule 139-B (Disbarment and
Discipline of Attorneys) of the Rules of Court requires that the
complaint against an attorney must be verified.  In Fernandez
v. Atty. Novero, Jr., however, this Court held that failure to
verify the complaint constitutes a mere formal defect, and the
Court may "order the correction of the unverified pleadings or
act on it and waive strict compliance with the rules in order
that the ends of justice may be served."
A reading of the complaint also shows that the allegations are
vague. And the attachments thereto are mere photocopies, not
to mention the plaint of the Solicitor General et al. that they
were not furnished copies of the annexes to the August 6,
2007 complaint.  The Court is thus inclined to, as it does,
dismiss the complaint.
MANE VS. BELEN
A.M. No. RTJ-08-2119, June 30, 2008
Facts : Atty. Mane charged Judge Belen of demeaning,
humiliating and berating him during a hearing in which the
former was counsel. According to Mane, Belen questioned
graduated from MLQU and Belen from UP.
Issue/s: W/N Belen’s actions and statements constitute
conduct unbecoming of a judge and a violation of the Code of
Judicial Conduct.
Held/Ratio: YES. Judges must address the merits of the
case, and not on the person of the counsel. And should
conduct themselves in a manner befitting gentlemen and high
officers of the court. (Canon 4 and 3; Rule 3.04)
UP Law Acads BarOps 2010
Legal Ethics
BONDAGJY VS. ARTADI
GR NO. 2170406, August 11, 2008
Facts :
 February 4, 1988 Petitioner and respondent were
married in accordance with Islamic Law
 March 1996  Respondent filed a complaint for
divorce by faskh before the Third Shari'a Circuit Court
at Isabela, Basilan, alleging as ground petitioner's
neglect or failure to provide support since October
1994. The Shari’a Court dismissed respondent’s
complaint as well as her motion for reconsideration,
which became final and executory.
 March 20, 1998 respondent filed a petition for
declaration of absolute nullity of marriage, custody
and support before the RTC but was dismissed on the
grounds of lack of jurisdiction over the persons of the
parties, they being Muslims at the time of the
marriage, and res judicata in view of the dismissal
order of the Third Shari'a Circuit Court.
 February 7, 2005 respondent filed another petition
for divorce by faskh before the Second Shari'a Circuit
Court at Marawi City on the grounds of neglect and
failure of petitioner to provide support and to perform
his marital obligations. The court dimissed
respondent’s petition on the ground of res judicata and
failure to comply with the rule on forum shopping.
 On respondent’s appeal to the Fourth Shari'a Judicial
District Court, the latter ruled that res judicata does
not apply in the case at bar since respondent may
have new evidence to prove that she is indeed entitled
to divorce.
Issue/s: W/N the Fourth Shari’a District Court erred in
reversing the findings of the Second Shari’a Circuit Court that
a) the case is barred by prior judgement or res judicata, which
was decided with finality involving the same parties and
issues and
b) non-compliance with the rule on certification against forum
shopping.
Held/Ratio: NO.
(a) For res judicata to bar the institution of a subsequent
action, the following requisites must concur: (1) the former
judgment or order must be final; (2) the judgment or order
must be on the merits; (3) it must have been rendered by a
court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties;
and (4) there must be, as between the first and second
actions, identity of parties, of subject matter, and of causes of
action.
 The presence of the first three requisites is not
disputed. It is with respect to the presence of the fourth
requisite - that there is identity of causes of action in SCC
Case No. 541 and Civil Case No. 2005-111 - that the
decision of the present petition hinges. The Court finds no
such identity of causes of action.
 The test of identity of causes of action lies not in the
form of an action but on whether the same evidence would
support and establish the former and present causes of
action. If the same evidence would sustain both actions,
they are considered the same and covered by the rule that
the judgment in the former is a bar to the subsequent
action.
 The Court finds that the causes of action are based on
different periods during which petitioner allegedly
neglected or failed to support his family and perform his
marital obligations.
 In the first case, petitioner's alleged negligence and/or
failure to support and perform his marital obligations
occurred at least six months before March 1996. Whereas
in the second case, similar grounds-bases of the cause of
UP Law Acads BarOps 2010
Legal Ethics
the action occurred at least six months before February 7,
2005. The causes of action in the two cases are thus
independent of each other, the circumstances relating to
non-support and non-performance of marital obligations
being disparate.
(b)The sworn certification of non-forum shopping need not be
in a separate segment. Section 5 of Rule 7 of the ROC
provides:
SEC. 5. Certification against forum shopping. -The plaintiff or
principal party shall certify under oath in the complaint or
other initiatory pleading asserting a claim for relief, or in a
sworn certification annexed thereto and simultaneously filed
therewith: (a) that he has not theretofore commenced any
action or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court,
tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of his
knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein; (b)
if there is such other pending action or claim, a complete
statement of the present status thereof; and (c) if he should
thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has
been filed or is pending, he shall report that fact within five (5)
days therefrom to the court wherein his aforesaid complaint or
initiatory pleading has been filed.
 As for the omission by respondent to include in the
certification the dismissal of the annulment case she filed
with the RTC of Muntinlupa City, it is not fatal. An omission
in the certificate of non-forum shopping about any event that
would not constitute res judicata and litis pendencia is not
fatal as to merit the dismissal and nullification of the entire
proceedings, given that the evils sought to be prevented by the
said certification are not present.
MEDIAN CONTAINER CORPORATION VS. METROPOLITAN
BANK
GR NO. 166904, August 11, 2008
Facts : Respondent filed a complaint for sum of money
against petitioner for failure to settle the amount of more than
P5,000,000 representing the outstanding balance of loans
contracted by MCC. Petitioner questions the certificate of non-
forum shopping filed by respodent which was signed by a
certain Atty. Alexander P. Mendoza on May 28, 2003.
Petitioner claims that Atty. Mendoza was only given authority
to execute the certificate only on June 3, 2003. The trial and
appellate court denied petitioner’s motion to dismiss.
Issue/s: W/N respondent failed to comply with the proper
procedure on the verification and certification of non-forum
shopping.
Held/Ratio: NO.
 Verification is a formal, not jurisdictional,
requirement. It is simply intended to secure an
assurance that the allegations in the pleading are true
and correct, and that the pleading is filed in good faith.
That explains why a court may order the correction of
the pleading if verification is lacking, or act on the
pleading although it is not verified, if the attending
circumstances are such that strict compliance with the
rules may be dispensed with in order to serve the ends
of justice.
 As for the required certification against forum
shopping, failure to comply therewith is generally not
curable by its submission subsequent to the filing of
the petition nor by amendment, and is cause for its
dismissal. A certification against forum shopping
signed by a person on behalf of a corporation which is
unaccompanied by proof that the signatory is
authorized to file the petition is generally likewise
cause for dismissal. In several cases, however, this
Court relaxed the application of these requirements
UP Law Acads BarOps 2010
Legal Ethics
upon appreciation of attendant special circumstances
or compelling reasons.
 In the case at bar, simultaneous with the filing of the
complaint, Metrobank submitted both a certification of
non-forum shopping and proof that Atty. Mendoza who
signed it on its behalf was authorized to do so. The
proof of authorization of Atty. Mendoza was dated later
than the date of his signing of the certification of non-
forum shopping, however, thus giving the impression
that he, at the time he affixed his signature, was not
authorized to do so. The passing on June 3, 2004 of a
Board Resolution of authorization before the actual
filing on June 23, 2004 of the complaint, however, is
deemed a ratification of Atty. Mendoza's prior
execution on May 28, 2004 of the verification and
certificate of non-forum shopping, thus curing any
defects thereof.
CERVANTES VS. SABIO
A.C. 7828, August 8, 2008
Facts : In another case, respondent filed a complaint against
petitioner for allegedly accepting bribes from Extra-Ordinary
Development Corporation (EDC), a company involved in an
edjectment case against respondent’s clients. The case against
petitioner judge was dismissed for lack of merit for being
based on unfounded suspicion. Petitioner then filed a
disbarment case against respondent.
Issue/s: W/N respondent is guilty of violating the Code of
Professional Responsibility for filing a malicious, false and
untruthful complaint.
Held/Ratio: YES.
 respondent violated the proscription of the Code of
Professional Responsibility against "wittingly or
willingly promot[ing] or su[ing] any groundless suit"
including baseless administrative complaints against
judges and other court officers and employees
 he violated Canons 10, 11, & 12 and Rule 11.04 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility under his oath of
office
 Respondent ought to be aware that if a court official or
employee or a lawyer is to be disciplined, the evidence
against him should be substantial, competent and
derived from direct knowledge, not on mere
allegations, conjectures, suppositions, or on the basis
of hearsay.
 Respondent is fined P5000 with a warning that a
repetition of the same or similar questioned act will be
dealt with more severely
SINSUAT VS. HIDALGO
A.M. No. RTJ-08-2133, August 6, 2008
Facts : Petitioner filed an anonymous complaint against
respondent judge for grave misconduct and gross ignorance of
the law for issuing a TRO and injunction despite the clear
proscription of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1818 and
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8975 and this Court's Administrative
Circular No. 11-2000 of November 13, 2000 against the
issuance of TROs and writs of injunction on government
infrastructure projects.
The OCA informed complainants, however, that the complaint
against respondent could not be given due course as it failed
UP Law Acads BarOps 2010
Legal Ethics
to comply with Section 1 of Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as
amended by A.M. No. 01-08-10-SC.
Respondent also seeks to for the dismissal of the complaint
since it was made after his compulsory retirement on July 19,
2006 at which time the Court no longer had administrative
jurisdiction over him
Issue/s:
(1) W/N the complaint may be given due course despite non-
compliance with Section 1, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court;
(2) W/N respondent was administratively liable for gross
ignorance of the law
Held/Ratio:
← (1) YES. Section 1 of Rule 140 of the Rules of Court
provides:
SECTION 1. How instituted. -- Proceedings for the discipline of
Judges of regular and special courts and Justices of the Court of
Appeals and the Sandiganbayan may be instituted motu proprio by
the Supreme Court or upon a verified complaint, supported by
affidavits of persons who have personal knowledge of the facts
alleged therein or by documents which may substantiate said
allegations, or upon an anonymous complaint, supported by public
records of indubitable integrity. The complaint shall be in writing
and shall state clearly and concisely the acts and omissions
constituting violations of standards of conduct prescribed for Judges
by law, the Rules of Court, or the Code of Judicial Conduct.
Under the above-quoted Rule, there are three ways by which
administrative proceedings against judges may be instituted:
(1) motu proprio by the Supreme Court; (2) upon verified
complaint with affidavits of persons having personal
knowledge of the facts alleged therein or by documents which
may substantiate said allegations; or (3) upon an anonymous
complaint supported by public records of indubitable integrity.
While the copy of the Motion which complainants furnished
the OCA was unverified as were their subsequent letters, the
OCA correctly treated them as anonymous complaint. The
Court has, on several occasions, been entertaining complaints
of this nature especially where respondents admitted the
material allegations of the complainants as in respondent's
case.
Anonymous complaints, as a rule, are received with caution.
They should not be dismissed outright, however, where their
averments may be easily verified and may, without much
difficulty, be substantiated and established by other
competent evidence.
Here, the motion and letters sufficiently averred the specific
acts upon which respondent's alleged administrative liability
was anchored. And the averments are verifiable from the
records of the trial court and the CA's Decision.
(2) YES. Respondent's retirement in the interim does not per
se warrant the dismissal of the administrative complaint.
The Court finds that, indeed, respondent is liable for gross
misconduct. As the CA explained, respondent failed to heed
the mandatory ban imposed by P.D. No. 1818 and R.A. No.
8975 against a government infrastructure project, which the
rural electrification project certainly was. He thereby likewise
obstinately disregarded this Court's various circulars
enjoining courts from issuing TROs and injunctions against
government infrastructure projects in line with the
proscription under R.A. No. 8975.
The questioned acts of respondent also constitute gross
ignorance of the law for being patently in disregard of simple,
elementary and well-known rules which judges are expected
to know and apply properly.
UP Law Acads BarOps 2010
Legal Ethics

The Court finds respondent, then Judge Vicente A. Hidalgo, contract of sale or real estate produces effects between the
GUILTY of gross misconduct and gross ignorance of the law parties.
and imposes upon him a fine of P40,000.

CAMCAM VS. CA
GR NO. 142977, September 30, 2008

Issue/s: W/N an irregular notarization of a deed renders it

null and void.

Held/Ratio: NO. An irregular notarization merely reduces the

evidentiary value of a document to that of a private document,
which requires proof of its due execution and authenticity to
be admissible as evidence. The irregular notarization - or, for
that matter, the lack of notarization - does not thus
necessarily affect the validity of the contract reflected in the
document. Tigno v. Aquino enlightens:
x x x [F]rom a civil law perspective, the absence of
notarization of the Deed of Sale would not necessarily
invalidate the transaction evidenced therein. Article 1358 of
the Civil Code requires that the form of a contract that
transmits or extinguishes real rights over immovable property
should be in a public document, yet it is also an accepted rule
that the failure to observe the proper form does not render the
transaction invalid. Thus, it has been uniformly held that the
form required in Article 1358 is not essential to the validity or
enforceability of the transaction, but required merely for
convenience. We have even affirmed that a sale of real
property though not consigned in a public instrument or
formal writing, is nevertheless valid and binding among the
parties, for the time-honored rule is that even a verbal