Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The Court finds that the Complaint against Atty. Mendoza lacks
evidence to support the allegations contained therein. The court
noted that empty assertions was made against Atty. Mendoza on the
issue that she demanded money from his co-detainees.
The Court agrees with the IBP that Areola is not the proper party to
file the Complaint against Atty. Mendoza. He is not even a client of
Atty. Mendoza. It is apparent that no document was submitted which
would show that Areola was authorized to file a Complaint.
It appears that Areola is quite knowledgeable with Philippine laws.
However according to the court, no matter how good he thinks he
is, he is still not a lawyer. He is not authorized to give legal advice
and file pleadings by himself before the courts. The court was also
inclined into thinking that Areola considers himself as more
intelligent and better than Atty. Mendoza, based on his criticisms
against her. There is apparently an instance where Areola made fun
of Atty. Mendoza’s grammatical errors and tagged her as using
carabao English.
On the remarks on the women detainees which she admitted, the
court thinks that Atty. Mendoza these are irresponsible advices to
her clients in violation of Rule 1.02 and Rule 15.07 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. It is the mandate of Rule 1.02 that "a
lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the
law or at lessening confidence in the legal system." Rule 15.07 states
JMD BLE DIGEST THE CLIENTS UST-1B
that "a lawyer shall impress upon his client compliance with the laws
and the principles of fairness."
However, the Court deems the penalty of suspension for two (2)
months as excessive and not commensurate to Atty. Mendoza’s
infraction. It should be noted that suspension of a lawyer should be
imposed with great caution and only in those cases where the
misconduct of the lawyer is established by clear, convincing and
satisfactory proof. While Atty. Mendoza indeed uttered those
remarks, the court believes that she was not compelled by bad faith
or malice in doing so.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds Atty. Maria
Vilma Mendoza GUILTY of giving improper advice to her clients
in violation of Rule 1.02 and Rule 15.07 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and is accordingly meted out the penalty of
REPRIMAND, with the STERN WARNING that a repetition of the
same or similar act will be dealt with more severely.