Ancheta Cabarroguis v.

Basa AC 8789, March 11, 2020

DOCTRINE: The Court finds that Atty. Basa violated the Lawyer's Oath, Canon 1, Rule 1.03,25 Canon 8, Rule
8.01,26 Canon 12, Rules 12.02 and 12.04,27 and Canon 19, Rule 19.0128 of the CPR when he:

(1) Filed baseless criminal suits against Atty. Cabarroguis;

(2) Poked fun at Atty. Cabarroguis by deliberately misspelling his name in an omnibus motion; and

(3) Caused delay in the estafa case after moving for the inhibition of the presiding judge after eight years in trial.

FACTS: Atty. Cabarroguis alleged in his complaint that he was the retained legal counsel of his friend, Godofredo
V. Cirineo, Jr., who filed an estafa case against his sister-in-law, Erlinda Basa-Cirineo. Erlinda was represented by
her brother, Atty. Basa. Atty. Cabarroguis accused Atty. Basa of dilatory tactics when, after eight years of court
trial, Atty. Basa asked for the inhibition of the presiding judge, Hon. Renato Fuentes which lead to the inhibition of
all other judges to whom the case was raffled.

Atty. Cabarroguis further alleged that Atty. Basa exhibited his immaturity through an omnibus motion filed by Atty.
Basa in a civil case, where he repeatedly spelled Atty. Cabarroguis' first name, Honesto, as "HONESTo." And
through a demand letter in which Atty. Basa purportedly misspelled the first name of Atty. Cabarroguis as
"Honest."

Atty. Cabarroguis also alleged that in retaliation against him for being the private prosecutor in the  estafa case
against Atty. Basa's sister, Erlinda, Atty. Basa filed numerous administrative, civil, and criminal cases against him
which were all malicious and unfounded. 

Atty. Cabarroguis thereafter filed the instant petition for review before the Court where he maintained that Atty.
Basa's act of filing and/or instigating the filing of multiple cases against him clearly constitutes bad faith.

ISSUE: Whether the IBP correctly dismissed the complaint against Atty. Basa.

RULING: No. The Court finds that Atty. Basa violated the Lawyer's Oath, Canon 1, Rule 1.03,25 Canon 8, Rule
8.01,26 Canon 12, Rules 12.02 and 12.04,27 and Canon 19, Rule 19.0128 of the CPR when he:

(1) Filed baseless criminal suits against Atty. Cabarroguis;

(2) Poked fun at Atty. Cabarroguis by deliberately misspelling his name in an omnibus motion; and

(3) Caused delay in the estafa case after moving for the inhibition of the presiding judge after eight years in
trial.

The Court agrees with the original findings of the IBP that Atty. Basa employed harassing tactics against Atty.
Cabarroguis after he, on behalf of his client, filed an estafa case against Atty. Basa's sister in 2002.

He is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months effective upon receipt of a copy
of this Decision.

Atty. Basa recklessly applied the same cause of action in four different complaints that were all dismissed for lack
of probable cause. The filing of frivolous suits against his opposing counsel manifests, at the very least, his gross
indiscretion as a colleague in the legal profession and his malicious desire to vex Atty. Cabarroguis.
While it may be argued that the omnibus motion did not use language that can easily be characterized as such,
the Court finds Atty. Basa's method underhanded, a subtle way of name-calling, was improperly offensive to Atty.
Cabarroguis just the same.

The inhibition of Judge Fuentes leading to five more inhibitions of the other judges to whom the case was re-
raffled, caused untold delay in the resolution of the case to the prejudice of Atty. Cabarroguis' client.

Suplico v. Lokin A.C. 9152, July 1, 2020

DOCTRINE: In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant, and for the court to
exercise its disciplinary powers, the case against the respondent must be established by clear, convincing and
satisfactory proof.  Considering the serious consequence of the disbarment or suspension of a member of the Bar,
this Court has consistently held that clear preponderant evidence is necessary to justify the imposition of the
administrative penalty.

FACTS: Petitioners Atty. Suplico and Raval filed a Complaint for disbarment against their former partners,
respondents Atty. Lokin and Salvador before the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (CBP) for alleged violation of
Rule 7.03, Canon 7 of the CPR and the Lawyer's Oath for the latter's refusal to turnover the respective shares of
Atty. Sulpicio and Atty. Raval from the attorney's fees. The amount, which was the equivalent of 40% of the
P362,078,428.74 representing the total amount which Aerocom Investors & Managers, Inc. (Aerocom) recovered
from the PCGG in Civil Case No. 0044 before the Sandiganbayan.

ISSUE: Whether or not the dismissal of the disbarment complaint against respondent Lokin and Atty. Salavador is
correct.

RULING: No. The disbarment is unwarranted. Petitioners Atty. Suplico and Raval failed to discharge the burden of
proving that respondents Atty. Lokin and Salvador indeed committed deceit, fraud or misconduct in violation of
Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility with respect to the distribution of the attorney's
fees received by the defunct law firm from the Aerocom case.

There is a death of evidence on the legal fees agreed upon between the defunct law firm and Aerocom as
compensation for the legal services it rendered in the Aerocom case. Petitioners Atty. Suplico and Atty. Raval
failed to discharge their burden of proving that an agreement on the attorney's fees amounting to 40% of the
total recovery award in favor of Aerocom existed; and that there was indeed receipt by the law firm of the
alleged amount that should be turned over to petitioners Atty. Suplico and Raval.

Contrary to petitioners Atty. Suplico and Raval’s assertion, the duty of obtaining evidence with regard to the
agreement on the legal fees between Aerocom and their former law firm and the amount paid by Aerocom to
respondents Atty. Lokin and Salvador belonged to them as complainants and not to the investigating body.

Furthermore, the Court could not turn a blind eye to the Release, Waiver and Quitclaim of Atty. Suplico which he
voluntarily executed, and never refuted. This effectively discharged the Raval Suplico and Lokin, Lawyers from any
action or obligation arising from Atty. Suplico as a partner. As seasoned members of the legal profession, it is but
safe to assume that they voluntarily executed their quitclaims and waived their rights to the law partnership
with full knowledge of its repercussions.
Sta. Maria v. Atayde A.C. 9197, February 20, 2020

DOCTRINE: It is undisputed that Atty. Elayda did not act upon the RTC order submitting the spouses Aranda's case
for decision. Thus, a judgment was rendered against the spouses Aranda for a sum of money. Notice of said
judgment was received by Atty. Elayda who again did not file any notice of appeal or motion for
reconsideration and thus, the judgment became final and executory. Atty. Elayda did not also inform the
spouses Aranda of the outcome of the case. The spouses Aranda came to know of the adverse RTC judgment,
which by then had already become final and executory, only when a writ of execution was issued and
subsequently implemented by the sheriff.

Evidently, Atty. Elayda was remiss in his duties and responsibilities as a member of the legal profession. His
conduct shows that he not only failed to exercise due diligence in handling his clients' case but in fact abandoned
his clients' cause. He proved himself unworthy of the trust reposed on him by his helpless clients. Moreover, Atty.
Elayda owes fealty, not only to his clients, but also to the Court of which he is an officer.

FACTS: Complainants Damaso Sta. Maria, Juanito Tapang and Liberato Omania charged respondent Atty. Ricardo
Atayde, Jr. with violation of Canon 18 of the CPR for Atty.’s Atayde’s failure to file an appeal brief or a motion for
reconsideration causing the complainants' claim over the 2,507 square meter land deemed lost forever.
Respondent Atty. Atayde in his comment stated that he intentionally did not file the appeal brief because he was
informed by one of the complainants, Severino Pascual that the parties had already settled their differences and
that complainant Damaso Sta. Maria also peacefully vacated the property. 

ISSUE: Is respondent Atty. Ricardo Atayde Jr. liable for violation of Canon 18 and Rule 18.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility (CPR)?

RULING: Yes. ATTY. RICARDO ATAYDE, JR. is found guilty of violation of Canon 18 and Rule 18.03 of the CPR. He
is SUSPENDED FOR SIX (6) MONTHS from the practice of law.