VANTAGE LIGHTING PHILIPPINES, INC. v. ATTY. JOSE DIÑO, JR.

A.C Nos. 7389 & 10596, 02 July 2019, EN BANC (Jardeleza, J.)

FACTS
Vantage Lighting Philippines, Inc. (Vantage) employed the services of Atty. Jose Diño, Jr.
(Atty. Diño) in order to file a complaint against PHCP Co. and Hitachi Plant Engineering Co. Ltd, and to
obtain a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) in their favor.
Atty. Diño, as counsel, facilitated the prosecution of the case. He requested the
disbursement of certain amounts in order to bribe the judge to whom the case was raffled to.
Atty. Diño informed Vantage that it had to pay P150,000 to the judge to whom the civil complaint of
Vantage would be raffled for the issuance of a TRO.
Atty. Diño informed Vantage that if it is unable to give him the cash before 2:00 o'clock
that same afternoon, Atty. Diño will just advance the P20,000 to the judge to whom the case
would be raffled. Thinking that the payment for the TRO is just a regular legal expense, Vantage
agreed to reimburse the P20,000 to Atty. Diño who promised that the P20,000 would be returned to
Vantage if the TRO would not be issued. Since the TRO was not issued, Vantage sent its
messenger to pick up the P20,000 from Atty. Diño who refused to return the same and declared
that he would just apply the amount to his legal fees.
Atty. Diño also asked for another P65,000 for the issuance of the TRO. Vantage, however,
informed him that the P65,000 was re-deposited after Atty. Diño intimated that no TRO would be
issued. Then, Atty. Diño called Vantage in anger, threatening that Vantage will be sorry if they fail to
pay his fees and reimburse him the amount of P130,000 which he allegedly gave to the fixers as
payment to the judge. Due to non-payment of the money advanced by Atty. Diño to fix the
issuance of a TRO, he withdrew his services as counsel for Vantage and filed several civil,
criminal, and administrative complaints against the officers and legal counsel of the company.
On the other hand, Vantage instituted a disbarment case against Atty. Diño.
Vantage alleged that Atty. Diño clearly violated the Code for Professional
Responsibility (CPR).
The Investigating Commissioner and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
recommended the disbarment of Atty. Diño.

RULING
YES. By representing to his clients that he can secure the issuance of a TRO by
bribing the judge P150,000.00, Atty. Diño violated Canon 13 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which provides:
 As an officer of the Court, Atty. Diño has a paramount duty to protect the court's
integrity and assist it in the administration of justice according to law. He should not espouse
a belief that the judicial system can be bought, much less contribute to the perpetuation
of such belief. Unfortunately, instead of relying on the merits of his clients' cause, Atty. Diño
represented to his clients that the judicial system can be bribed. This inexcusable, shameful
and unlawful act of Atty. Diño, by itself, constitutes gross misconduct.
The Court also found that Atty. Diño violated Canon 8 of the CPR when he
filed a disbarment case to harass the new counsels of Vantage. By resorting to such
harassment tactics against the opposing counsel, he failed to conduct himself with
courtesy, fairness and candor towards his professional colleagues.
In view of Atty. Diño‘s acts of professional malpractice and gross misconduct, the
Court found that Atty. Diño’s conduct warrants disbarment from the practice of law.

VENSON R. ANG v. ATTY. SALVADOR B. BELARO, JR.

A.C. No. 12408, 11 December 2019, SECOND DIVISION (Hernando, J.)

FACTS
The late Peregrina Dela Rosa (Peregrina) owned a parcel of land with a
building erected
thereon and she appointed complainant Venson R. Ang (Venson) as administrator of the
subject property. Upon Peregrina’s demise, the property was inherited by Venson and his
siblings. The siblings never partitioned the property or assigned their rights to any of
the co-owners.
Venson and his siblings were surprised to learn that Peregrina’s title to the
subject property was already cancelled by virtue of an Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate
Among Heirs with Waiver of Rights (Extrajudicial Settlement). The same was notarized
by respondent Atty. Salvador Belaro, Jr. (Atty. Belaro) before whom Venson and his siblings
purportedly personally appeared and subscribed therein. Aside from the Extrajudicial
Settlement, other documents such as a Deed of Absolute Sale and Acknowledgement
Receipt were likewise found to be notarized by Atty. Belaro. As a result, Venson filed
the instant letter-complaint.
The Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) issued an Order directing the parties to file
their respective verified position papers. The parties filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss
before the SBD seeking the dismissal of the complaint claiming it arose from
misapprehension of facts.
In the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner, the signatures
of Atty. Belaro appear to be falsified. Despite the alleged forgery, his notarial seal was
used in the documents. Based on this, the Investigating Commissioner concluded that
respondent Atty. Belaro failed to properly secure the same since no other person was
allowed to use it other than him. The Investigating Commissioner therefore found Atty.
Belaro negligent in the performance of his duties and obligations as a notary public. He
thus recommended that Atty. Belaro be
suspended from the practice of law for six months and ineligible for being
commissioned as notary public for one year.
The IBP Board of Governors (IBP-BOG) adopted and approved the Report
and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner, with modification be instead
meted the penalty of revocation of his existing commission, disqualification from
appointment as notary public for two years and suspension from the practice of
law for three months.
ISSUE
Is Atty. Belaro liable for breach of notarial law and for violation of the Code of
Professional
Responsibility?

RULING
YES. The act of notarization is not an ordinary routine but is imbued with
substantive public interest. It converts a private document into a public document
resulting in the document’s admissibility in evidence without further proof of its
authenticity. A notarial document is therefore entitled to full faith and credit on its
face and by law. It is the duty of notaries public to observe utmost care in complying
with the formalities intended to protect the integrity of the notarized document and
the act or acts it embodies.
Contrary to the findings of the IBP, the questioned signatures were different
from Atty. Belaro’s specimen signatures on file with the Regional Trial Court even to
the naked eye. Nonetheless, Atty. Belaro is not exculpated from administrative liability. As
observed by the IBP, the Extrajudicial Settlement bore his notarial seal. The 2004 Rules on
Notarial Practice clearly states that, when not in use, the official seal of the notary
public must be kept safe and secure and shall be accessible only to him or the person
duly authorized by him. Here, Atty. Belaro utterly failed to sufficiently provide any
laudable explanation why his notarial seal was found in the documents.
Undoubtedly, Atty. Belaro failed to discharge with fidelity the sacred duties of his
office which are dictated by public policy and impressed with public interest. His
negligence therefore not only caused damage to those directly affected by the
notarized documents but also undermined the integrity of a notary public and degraded
the function of notarization. Hence, it is but proper to hold Atty. Belaro liable for his
negligence as a notary public and as a lawyer.

RE: ANONYMOUS COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTY. CRESENCIO P. CO UNTIAN, JR.

A.C. No. 5900, 10 April 2019, EN BANC (J. Reyes, Jr., J.)
FACTS
The Complaint requested the Court to investigate the alleged sexual
harassments that
Atty. Untian, Jr. had committed against students of Xavier University, Cagayan de Oro
City (Xavier), particularly Antoinette Toyco (Toyco), Christina Sagarbarria (Sagarbarria)
and Lea Dal (Dal).
Toyco claimed that Atty. Untian, Jr. initially expressed amorous interest when he
sent her flowers anonymously through another law student. She stated that thereafter,
Atty. Untian, Jr. would often text her through the phone of another law student. Toyco
noted eventually that Atty. Untian, Jr. texted her through his own phone where he
would send romantic messages, poems, love notes and sweet nothings. She said that
Atty. Untian, Jr. also invited her to go to Camiguin with another law student but she
turned it down. Toyco explained that while she was never sexually assaulted, Atty.
Untian, Jr.'s unwelcome advances made her feel degraded as she could not easily ignore
Atty. Untian, Jr. for fear of reprisal.
On the other hand, Sagarbarria narrated that Atty. Untian, Jr. showed her a
photograph revealing only the face of a woman and asked her if she knew who the
woman in the picture was. After she realized that the woman in the picture looked like
her, Atty. Untian, Jr. revealed the entire photograph revealing a naked woman and teased
her within hearing distance of other law students. Sagarbarria denied that she was the
woman because she had a distinctive mark on her back for the past six years. She
averred that the incident caused her depression, fearing what other law students
may think of her.
Meanwhile, Dal recounted that in one of her recitations during Atty. Untian, Jr.'s class, she
clarified a question propounded to her saying "Sir, come again?" Atty. Untian, Jr. retorted
"What? You want me to come again? I have not come the first time and don't you know
that it took me five minutes to come, and you want me to come again?" She later
learned that Atty. Untian, Jr. would narrate the said incident to almost all of his
classes. Dal felt offended that she was subjected to such sexually charged language and
the fact that her embarrassment was retold in other classes.
Atty. Untian, Jr. explained that Dal answered disrespectfully when she was called for
recitation uttering "Come again?" He posited that to inject humor during class, he
responded "Never use slang language in my class because you might be misinterpreted.
What do you mean by 'come again?' It takes me several minutes before I come again."
Atty. Untian, Jr. expounded that the joke was directed at himself and that Dal never
showed any resentment or showed any sign of humiliation as she even laughed at the
joke and continued to sit in front of the class.
In his Report and Recommendation, Commissioner Salvador Hababag
 (Commissioner Hababag) recommended that Atty. Untian, Jr. be suspended from the
practice of law for two years. He observed that Atty. Untian, Jr. was given all the
opportunity to explain his side in the investigation that Xavier had conducted.
Commissioner Hababag reminded that lawyers must be of good moral character and
must continue to possess it so long as he is part of the legal profession.
In its Resolution, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Board of Governors
(IBP-BOG) affirmed with modification the recommendation of Commissioner Hababag. It
resolved to disbar Atty. Untian, Jr. on the ground of gross immoral conduct.

Issue: Should Atty. Untian, Jr. be held administratively liable?

Ruling: YES. Atty. Untian, Jr. is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for five (5) years and ten
(10) years from teaching law in any school effective upon the finality of this
Resolution, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act will
be dealt with more severely.
Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) provides that a
lawyer shall not engage in an unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. On the
other hand, Canon 7 mandates that lawyers shall, at all times, uphold the integrity and
dignity of the legal profession. Further, Rule 7.03 of the CPR commands lawyers not to
engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, or behave in a
scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession. Much is expected of
lawyers in that it does not suffice that they are persons of integrity and values, but
must also appear to be so in the eyes of the people, and of God. Notwithstanding the
relativity of morality, lawyers, as keepers of public faith, are burdened with a high degree
of social responsibility — they must handle their personal affairs with greater caution.
In other words, members of the bar are measured in a more demanding light because
their actions or inactions not only affect themselves, but also the legal profession and
the public's trust and respect for the law. As such, any errant behavior on the part of
the lawyer, whether in a public or private capacity, which tends to show deficiency in
moral character, honesty, probity or good demeanor, is sufficient to warrant
suspension or disbarment.
It must be remembered that lawyers are both preachers and stewards of law,
justice, morals and fairness in that they are duty-bound to propagate observance and
deference thereto. It is not enough that they know right from wrong, just from unjust,
moral or immoral, because they must not only speak of such ideals, but must also live
by them. Lawyers, aside from being competent and adept in dealing with the
intricacies of the law, must also be individuals of honor and virtue. Legal knowledge
and ability, without the guidance of morals and justice, is a dangerous tool, which
may harm, instead of uplift others.

JOANN G. MINAS COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. DOMINGO A. DOCTOR, JR., RESPONDENT.

JOSELITO C. CABALLERO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. ARLENE G. PILAPIL, RESPONDENT.

Gracita P. Domingo-Agaton Vs. Atty. Nini D. Cruz

VALENTIN C. MIRANDA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. MACARIO D. CARPIO, RESPONDENT.
ATTY. PEDRO B. AGUIRRE, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. CRISPIN T. REYES, RESPONDENT.
RENE J. HIERRO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. PLARIDEL C. NAVA II, RESPONDENT.
IRENE R. PUNO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. REDENTOR S. VIAJE, RESPONDENT.

BENJAMIN M. KATIPUNAN, JR., PETITIONER, VS. ATTY. REBENE C.

CARRERA, RESPONDENT. [ A.C. No. 12661, February 19, 2020 ]

RUBEN A. ANDAYA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. EMMANUEL ALADIN A.

TUMANDA,[1] RESPONDENT. [ A.C. No. 12209, February 18, 2020 ]

MICHAEL M. LAPITAN, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. ELPIDIO S. SALGADO, RESPONDENT.

[ A.C. No. 12452, February 18, 2020 ]

LEILANI JACOLBIA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. JIMMY R. PANGANIBAN, RESPONDENT.

[ A.C. No. 12627, February 18, 2020 ]

SPOUSES DARITO P. NOCUENCA AND LUCILLE B. NOCUENCA, COMPLAINANTS, VS.

ATTY. ALFREDO T. BENSI, RESPONDENT.
[ A.C. No. 12609, February 10, 2020 ]
JONATHAN C. PARUNGAO, COMPLAINANT, V. ATTY. DEXTER B. LACUANAN,
RESPONDENT.
[ A.C. No. 12071, March 11, 2020 ]

ATTY. HONESTO ANCHETA CABARROGUIS, COMPLAINANT, V. ATTY. DANILO A. BASA,

RESPONDENT.
[ A.C. No. 8789, March 11, 2020 ]

SANTIAGO B. BURGOS, COMPLAINANT, V. ATTY. JOVENCIO JAMES G. BEREBER,

RESPONDENT.
[ A.C. No. 12666, March 04, 2020 ]

IN RE: PETITION FOR THE DISBARMENT OF ATTY. ESTRELLA O. LAYSA,

PATRICIA MAGLAYA OLLADA COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. ESTRELLA O. LAYSA

RESPONDENT.
[ A.C. No. 7936, June 30, 2020 ]