GIMENO V. ZAIDE (Rule 11.

03)

Facts

1. Complainant Joy Gimeno filed against Atty. Zaide with: (1) usurpation of a notary public's office; (2)
falsification; (3) use of intemperate, offensive and abusive language; and (4) violation of lawyer-client
trust.
2. She contended that Atty. Zaide called he a “notorious extortionist” in one of his pleadings. She also
observed that Zaide referred to his opposing counsel as someone suffering from "serious mental
incompetence" in one of his pleadings. According to Gimeno, these statements constitute intemperate,
offensive and abusive language, which a lawyer is proscribed from using in his dealings
3. IBP found Atty. Zaide administratively liablie for violating the Notarial Practice Rules, representing
conflicting interests, and using abusive and insulting language in his pleadings.In its resolution, the IBP
Board of Governors imposed penalty of 1 year suspension from practice of law, revocation of notarial
commission and 2 years suspension as notary public

Issue

Whether or not Atty. Zaide violated Rule 8.01, Canon 8 and Rule 11.03, Canon 11 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility

Ruling

1. YES. Atty. Zaide is found guilty for using intemperate, offensive and abusive language in violation of
Rule 8.01, Canon 8 and Rule 11.03, Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

2. As shown in the record, Atty. Zaide, in the reply that he drafted in the Ombudsman case, called
Gimeno a "notorious extortionist." And in another case, Gimeno observed that Atty. Zaide used
demeaning and immoderate language in presenting his comment against his opposing counsel.

3. This clearly confirms Atty. Zaide's lack of restraint in the use and choice of his words — a conduct
unbecoming of an officer of the court.

4. On many occasions, the Court has reminded the members of the Bar to abstain from any offensive
personality and to refrain from any act prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or a witness. In
keeping with the dignity of the legal profession, a lawyer's language even in his pleadings, must be
dignified.

5. The Court adopts the recommended penalty of the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines. Atty. Zaide is declared DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as a notary public for a
period of 2 years. He is also SUSPENDED for 1 year from the practice of law.

SAMONTE V. ABELLANA (Rule 11.02)

Facts
1. Complainant Samonte brought administrative complaint against Atty. Abellana who had represented
him in a civil case. In the administrative complaint, he enumerated serious acts of professional
misconduct by Atty. Abellana. One of the acts complained of by Samonte is gross negligence and
tardiness in attending the scheduled hearings among others (falsification of documents, dereliction of duty
and dishonesty for not issuing official receipts)
2. To support his complaint, Samonte attached a photocopy of an order issued in which RTC observed
that “the formal offer of plaintiff’s exhibits is rather very late”
3. In his defense, Atty. Abellana admitted that although he had been at times late for the hearings he had
nonetheless efficiently discharged his duties as the counsel for Samonte; that he had not caused any delay
in the case; that it was Samonte who had been unavailable at times because of his work as an airline pilot;
that the complainant had discharged him as his counsel in order to avoid paying his obligation to him; and
that the complainant filed disbarment case against him after he lost his own civil case in the RTC.
4. The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline found Atty. Abellana negligent in handling certain aspects of
his client's case and recommended for his disbarment. It observed that although the negligence of Atty.
Abellana did not necessarily prejudice his client's case, his lack of honesty and trustworthiness as an
attorney, and his resort to falsehood and deceitful practices were a different matter. However, IBP Board
of Governors albeit adopting findings of IBP Investigating Commissioner, suspended Atty. Abellana from
practice of law for 1 year.

Issue
Whether or not Atty. Abellana should be disbarred for the acts he committed

Ruling
1. NO. The Court adopts and approves the findings of the IBP Board of Governor.
2. Every lawyer is a servant of the Law, and has to observe and maintain the rule of law as well as be an
exemplar worthy of emulation by others. It is by no means a coincidence, therefore, that honesty, integrity
and trustworthiness are emphatically reiterated by the Code of Professional Responsibility
2. The finding on Atty. Abellana's neglect in the handling of Samonte's case was entirely warranted. He
admitted being tardy in attending the hearings of the civil case. He filed the formal offer of evidence in
behalf of his client way beyond the period to do so, a fact that he could not deny because the RTC Judge
had himself expressly noted the belated filing in the order issued in the case. Atty. Abellana was fortunate
that the RTC Judge exhibited some tolerance and liberality by still admitting the belated offer of evidence
in the interest of justice.
3. The Court affirms IBP Board of Governors Resolution subject to modification that Atty. Abellana be
suspended for 6 months from practice of law.

FERNANDEZ V. STA CRUZ (Rule 11.01)

Facts
1. Atty. Fernandez filed an administrative complaint against Respondent Judge Sta. Cruz for: 1) conduct
unbecoming of a judge; (2) gross ignorance of the law, (3) grave abuse of authority, (4) deliberate intent
to cause an injustice, and (5) direct defiance of the Constitution in relation to complainant’s case
2. On scheduled arraignment of criminal case (People v. Monsod) handled by Atty. Fernandez , Judge
Sta. Cruz called Atty. Fernandez’ attention regarding the latter's attire. It appears that when Fernandez
appeared in court for the arraignment, he was wearing denim jeans (maong) and a T-shirt to which Judge
Sta. Cruz did not allow him to enter appearance for that day and appointed another lawyer to act as
counsel de officio for the accused.
3. In OCA’s report and recommendation, it found Judge Sta. Cruz guilty of conduct unbecoming of a
judge. OCA found that although it is proper for Respondent Judge to call the attention of Complainant for
his improper attire in court which the latter admitted, the manner by which Respondent Judge
admonished Complainant in Court was reprehensible.

Issue
Whether or not Judge Sta. Cruz is guilty of grave abuse of authority, gross ignorance of the law and
defiance of the Constitution for disallowing entry of appearance by Atty. Fernandez for not wearing
proper attire which is in violation of Rule 11.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility

Ruling
1. The Court agrees with the findings of the OCA, with modification on penalty imposed upon
Respondent Judge.
2. The allegation that Respondent Judge abused his authority, was grossly ignorant of the law,
deliberately intended to cause injustice, and acted in defiance of the Constitution, when he appointed a
PAO lawyer to substitute Complainant in representing the accused for the day's hearing, has no merit.
Quite the contrary, it is within Respondent Judge's prerogative not to recognize the lawyer appearing
before his sala when there exists a valid and reasonable cause, which, in Complainant's case, was a
violation of Rule 11.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requiring lawyers to appear in court
properly attired. For this reason, Respondent Judge is not guilty of grave abuse of authority, gross
ignorance of the law, and defiance of the Constitution.
3. However, SC bears emphasis that ” A judge should always conduct himself in a manner that would
preserve the dignity, independence, and respect for himself, the Court, and the Judiciary as a whole. He
should choose his words and exercise more caution and control in expressing himself.”. He is found
guilty of Conduct Unbecoming of a Judge and thus reprimanded with a stern warning that repetition of
similar offense shall be dealt with severely.

ALPAJORA V. CALAYAN (Rule 11.04)

Facts
1. Judge Alpajora filed counter-complaint against Atty. Calayan chargin him with (a) filling a malicious
and harassment administrative case, (b) propensity for dishonesty in the allegations in his pleadings, (c)
misquoting provisions of law, and (d) misrepresentation of facts. Complainant prayed for respondent's
disbarment and cancellation of his license as a lawyer
2. Complainant averred that the administrative case against him by respondent was brought about by his
issuance of an omnibus order. Judge Alpajora claimed that his order was not acceptable to Atty. Calayan
because he knew the import and effect of the said order. Complainant further revealed that due to the
series of motions for recusation or inhibition of judges, there is no presiding judge in Lucena City
available to try and hear the Calayan cases. Moreover, respondent filed 9 criminal charges against
opposing lawyers and their respective clients before the City Prosecutor of Lucena City. In addition, there
were 4 administrative cases filed against opposing counsels pending before the IBP Commission on Bar
Discipline.
3. In his defense, Atty. Calayan countered that subject case is barred by res judicata. He claimed that
counter-complaint was unverified and failed to adduce quantum of evidence to disbar him.
4. In its Report and Recommendation, the Investigating Commissioner noted that, instead of refuting the
allegations and evidence against him, respondent merely reiterated his charges against complainant. Atty.
Calayan violated Canon 11 of the CPR by attributing to complainant illmotives that were not supported
by the record or had no materiality to the case. He charged complainant with coaching adverse counsel on
account of their alleged close ties, inefficiency in dealing with his pleadings, acting with dispatch on the
adverse party's motions, partiality to the plaintiffs because he was a townmate of Presiding Judge
Encomienda.. According to the Investigating Commissioner, these charges are manifestly without any
basis and also established respondent's disrespect for the complainant.
5. IBP Board of Governors recommended suspension of respondent from practice of law for 2 years.

Issue
Whether or not Atty. Calayan violated Rule 11.04, and Canon 11 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

Ruling
1. Yes. The Court finds respondent guilty of attributing unsupported ill-motives to complainant.
2. Atty. Calayan has consistently attributed unsupported imputations against the complainant in his
pleadings. He insisted that complainant antedated the order, dated August 15, 2008, because the
envelopes where the order came from were rubber stamped as having been mailed only on August 26,
2008. He also accused Judge Alpajora of being in cahoots and of having deplorable close ties with the
adverse counsels; and that complainant irrefutably coached said adverse counsels. However, these bare
allegations are absolutely unsupported by any piece of evidence. Atty. Calayan did not present any proof
to establish complainant's alleged partiality or the antedating. The date of mailing indicated on the
envelope is not the date of issue of the said order.
3. As officers of the court, lawyers are duty-bound to observe and maintain the respect due to the courts
and judicial officers. They are to abstain from offensive or menacing language or behavior before the
court and must refrain from attributing to a judge motives that are not supported by the record or have no
materiality to the case.
4. The Court adopts and approves IBP Board of Governors’ Resolution, Atty. Calayan is found guilty and
he is suspended from practice of law for 2 years with stern warning that repetition of similar offense shall
be dealt with severely.