FERDINAND A. CRUZ v. ALBERTO MINA, GR No.

154207, 2007-04-27

 Facts: On September 25, 2000, Ferdinand A. Cruz (petitioner) filed before the MeTC a formal Entry of
Appearance, as private prosecutor, in Criminal Case No. 00-1705 for Grave Threats, where his father,
Mariano Cruz, is the complaining witness.
 The petitioner, describing himself as a third year law student, justifies his appearance as private
prosecutor on the bases of Section 34 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court and the ruling of the Court En
Banc in Cantimbuhan v. Judge Cruz, Jr.[2] that a non-lawyer may appear before the inferior courts as an
agent or friend of a party litigant.
 However, in an Order dated February 1, 2002, the MeTC denied permission for petitioner to appear as
private prosecutor on the ground that Circular No. 19 governing limited law student practice in
conjunction with Rule 138-A of the Rules of Court
 On February 13, 2002, petitioner filed before the MeTC a Motion for Reconsideration seeking to reverse
the February 1, 2002 Order alleging that Rule 138-A, or the Law Student Practice Rule, does not have the
effect of superseding Section 34 of Rule 138, for the authority to... interpret the rule is the source itself of
the rule, which is the Supreme Court alone.
 March 4, 2002, the MeTC denied the Motion for Reconsideration.
 April 2, 2002, the petitioner filed before the RTC a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus with Prayer for
Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order against the private respondent and the public
respondent MeTC.
 the RTC, in a Resolution dated May 3, 2002, resolved to deny the issuance of an injunctive writ... on the
ground that the crime of Grave Threats, the subject of Criminal Case No. 00-1705, is one that can be
prosecuted de oficio, there being no claim for civil indemnity, and that therefore, the intervention of a
private prosecutor is not legally tenable.
 The petitioner argues that nowhere does the law provide that the crime of Grave Threats has no civil
aspect. And last, petitioner cites Bar Matter No. 730 dated June 10, 1997 which expressly... provides for
the appearance of a non-lawyer before the inferior courts, as an agent or friend of a party litigant, even
without the supervision of a member of the bar.
 On June 5, 2002, the RTC issued its Order denying the petitioner's Motion for Reconsider

 Issues:

 The basic question is whether the petitioner, a law student, may appear before an inferior court as an
agent or friend of a party litigant.

 Ruling:

 The courts a quo held that the Law Student Practice Rule as encapsulated in Rule 138-A of the Rules of
Court, prohibits the petitioner, as a law student, from entering his appearance in behalf of his father, the
private complainant in the criminal case without the... supervision of an attorney duly accredited by the
law school

 However, in Resolution[6] dated June 10, 1997 in Bar Matter No. 730, the Court En Banc clarified:

 The rule, however, is different if the law student appears before an inferior court, where the issues and
procedure are relatively simple. In inferior courts, a law student may appear in his personal capacity
without the supervision of a lawyer.
 ec. 34. By whom litigation is conducted. In the court of a justice of the peace, a party may conduct his
litigation in person, with the aid of an agent or friend appointed by him for that purpose, or with the aid
of an attorney. In any other court, a... party may conduct his litigation personally or by aid of an attorney,
and his appearance must be either personal or by a duly authorized member of the bar.

 Thus, a law student may appear before an inferior court as an agent or friend of a party without the
supervision of a member of the bar.[

 There is really no problem as to the application of Section 34 of Rule 138 and Rule 138-A. In the former,
the appearance of a non-lawyer, as an agent or friend of a party litigant, is expressly allowed, while the
latter rule provides for conditions when a law student, not as an... agent or a friend of a party litigant, may
appear before the courts.

 Petitioner expressly anchored his appearance on Section 34 of Rule 138. The court a quo must have been
confused by the fact that petitioner referred to himself as a law student in his entry of appearance. Rule
138-A should not have been used by the courts a quo in... denying permission to act as private prosecutor
against petitioner for the simple reason that Rule 138-A is not the basis for the petitioner's appearance.

 Section 34, Rule 138 is clear that appearance before the inferior courts by a non-lawyer is allowed,
irrespective of whether or not he is a law student.

 Petitioner further argues that the RTC erroneously held that, by its very nature, no civil liability may flow
from the crime of Grave Threats, and, for this reason, the intervention of a private prosecutor is not
possible.
 It is clear from the RTC Decision that no such conclusion had been intended by the RTC. In denying the
issuance of the injunctive court, the RTC stated in its Decision that there was no claim for civil liability by
the private complainant for damages, and that the records of the... case do not provide for a claim for
indemnity; and that therefore, petitioner's appearance as private prosecutor appears to be legally
untenable.
 Under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable
except in instances when no actual damage results from an offense, such as espionage, violation of
neutrality, flight to an enemy country, and crime against popular... representation.
 The petitioner is correct in stating that there being no reservation, waiver, nor prior institution of the civil
aspect in Criminal Case No. 00-1705, it follows that the civil aspect arising from Grave Threats is deemed
instituted with the criminal action, and, hence, the... private prosecutor may rightfully intervene to
prosecute the civil aspect
 JOSELANO GUEVARRA v. ATTY. JOSE EMMANUEL EALA, AC. NO. 7136, 2007-08-01

 Facts:

 He first met respondent in January 2000 when his (complainant's) then-fiancee Irene Moje (Irene)
introduced respondent to him as her friend who was married to Marianne (sometimes spelled "Mary Ann")
Tantoco with whom he had three children.

 After his marriage to Irene on October 7, 2000, complainant noticed that from January to March 2001, Irene
had been receiving from respondent cellphone calls, as well as messages some of which read "I love you," "I
miss you," or "Meet you at Megamall."

 Irene habitually went home very late at night or early in the morning... sometimes did not go home from
work... replied that she slept at her parents' house in Binangonan, Rizal or she... was busy with her work

 February or March 2001, complainant saw Irene and respondent together on two occasions. On the second
occasion, he confronted them following which Irene abandoned the conjugal house.

 April 22, 2001, complainant went uninvited to Irene's birthday celebration at which he saw her and
respondent celebrating with her family and friends

 Irene went to the... conjugal house and hauled off all her personal belongings

 Complainant later found, in the master's bedroom, a folded social card bearing the words "I Love You" on its
face, which card when unfolded contained a handwritten letter dated October 7, 2000, the day of his
wedding to Irene

 Complainant soon saw respondent's car and that of Irene constantly parked at No. 71-B 11th Street, New
Manila where, as he was to later learn sometime in April 2001, Irene was already residing... when his friends
saw Irene on... or about January 18, 2002 together with respondent during a concert, she was pregnant...
respondent admitted having sent the I LOVE YOU card

 FLAUNTING THEIR ADULTEROUS RELATIONSHIP... denies having ever flaunted an adulterous relationship
with Irene... low profile and known only to the immediate members of their... respective families... legally
married to Mary Anne Tantoco... adulterous conduct with the complainant's wife... abandoning or
neglecting of his own family... flaunted his aversion to the... institution of marriage, calling it a "piece of
paper.

 Respondent's... relationship with Irene was not under scandalous circumstances and that as far as his
relationship with his own family:

 Respondent has maintained a civil, cordial and peaceful relationship with [his wife] Mary Anne as in fact
they still occasionally meet in public, even if Mary Anne is aware of Respondent's special friendship with
Irene.

 Respondent also denies that he has flaunted his aversion to the institution of marriage... his reference [in
his above-quoted handwritten letter to Irene] to the marriage between Complainant and Irene... as a piece
of paper was merely with respect to the formality of the marriage contract... under the circumstances the
acts of Respondent with respect to his purely personal and low profile special relationship with Irene is
 neither under scandalous... circumstances nor tantamount to grossly immoral conduct as would be a
ground for disbarment pursuant to Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court

 Irene gave birth to a girl and Irene named respondent in the Certificate of Live Birth as the girl's father.
Complainant attached to the Reply, as Annex "A," a copy of a Certificate of

 Live Birth[13] bearing Irene's signature and naming respondent as the father of her daughter Samantha
Irene Louise Moje who was born on February 14, 2002 at St. Luke's Hospital.

 Complainant's REPLY merited a REJOINDER WITH MOTION TO DISMISS... denied having "personal
knowledge of the Certificate of Live Birth attached to the complainant's Reply."

 Respondent moved to dismiss the complaint due to the pendency of a civil case filed by complainant for the
annulment of his marriage to Irene, and a criminal complaint for adultery against respondent and Irene
which was pending before the Quezon City Prosecutor's Office.

 After investigation, IBP-CBD Investigating Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan, in a 12-page REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION[18] dated October 26, 2004, found the charge against respondent sufficiently proven.

 respondent be disbarred for violating Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility

 Rule 1.01: A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct... and Rule 7.03 of
Canon 7 of the same Code... lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to
practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit
of the legal profession.

 he IBP Board of Governors, however, annulled and set aside the Recommendation of the Investigating
Commissioner and accordingly dismissed the case for lack of merit, by Resolution dated January 28, 2006

 RESOLVED to ANNUL and SET ASIDE, as it is hereby ANNULLED AND SET ASIDE, the Recommendation of the
Investigating Commissioner, and to APPROVE the DISMISSAL of the above-entitled case for lack of merit.
[20] (Italics and emphasis in the... original)

 Hence, the present petition[21] of complainant before this Court, filed pursuant to Section 12 (c), Rule
139[22] of the Rules of Court.

 While it may be true that the love letter dated October 7, 2000 (Exh. "C") and the news item published in
the Manila Standard (Exh. "D"), even taken together do not sufficiently prove that respondent is carrying on
an adulterous relationship with complainant's... wife, there are other pieces of evidence on record which
support the accusation of complainant against respondent.

 in his Answer dated 17 October 2002, respondent through counsel made the following statements to wit:...
their relationship was low profile and known only to immediate members of their respective families...
neither under scandalous circumstances nor tantamount to grossly immoral conduct

 These statements of respondent in his Answer are an admission that there is indeed a "special"
relationship... taken together with the Certificate of Live Birth of Samantha Louise Irene Moje (Annex "H-
1")... sufficiently prove that there was indeed an illicit relationship
 Irene supplied the information... that respondent was the father of the child... respondent admitted his
special relationship with Irene there is no reason to believe that Irene would lie or make any
misrepresentation regarding the paternity of the child... respondent has not categorically denied that he is
the father of Samantha Louise Irene Moje... he does not deny carrying on an adulterous relationship with
Irene, "adultery" being defined under Art. 333 of the Revised Penal Code as that "committed by any married
woman who shall have sexual intercourse with a man not her husband and by... the man who has carnal
knowledge of her, knowing her to be married, even if the marriage be subsequently declared void.

 What respondent denies is having flaunted such relationship, he maintaining that it was "low profile... and
known only to the immediate members of their respective families.

 Literally Franklin A. Ricafort... preponderant evidence... quantum of evidence needed in an administrative

case against a lawyer

 In a criminal case, proof beyond reasonable doubt is necessary; in an administrative case for disbarment or
suspension, "clearly preponderant evidence" is all that is required... respondent, during the pendency of the
investigation of the case before the IBP Commissioner, filed a Manifestation[41] on March 22, 2005
informing the IBP-CBD that complainant's petition for nullity of his (complainant's) marriage to

 Irene had been granted by Branch 106 of the Quezon City Regional Trial Court, and that the criminal
complaint for adultery complainant filed against respondent and Irene... had been... withdrawn

 That the marriage between complainant and Irene was subsequently declared void ab initio is immaterial...
respondent should be aware that a man... and a woman deporting themselves as husband and wife are
presumed, unless proven otherwise, to have entered into a lawful contract of marriage.

 Moje's subsequent relocation in No. 71-B, 11th Street, New Manila, Quezon City... cohabited... herself
admits that she came to live in the said address whereas Eala asserts that that was where he held office

 ISSUES:

 Ruling:

 SEC. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court, grounds therefor.

 may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorne... for any violation of the oath which he is
required to take before admission to practice... grossly immoral conduct," not "under scandalous
circumstances." Sexual intercourse under scandalous circumstances is, following Article 334 of the Revised
Penal Code... betrayals of the marital vow of... fidelity... deliberate disregard of the sanctity of marriage and
the marital vows... carrying on an illicit affair with a married woman, a grossly immoral conduct and
indicative of an extremely low regard for the fundamental ethics of his profession... renders him regrettably
unfit and undeserving of the treasured honor and privileges which his license confers upon him

 Respondent in fact also violated the lawyer's oath he took before admission to practice law which goes

 I will support its Constitution and obey the laws

 Section 2 of Article XV (The Family) of the Constitution reading:

  Section 2. Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the family and shall be protected
by the State.

 respondent violated Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which proscribes a
lawyer from engaging in "unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct," and Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 of
the same Code which proscribes... a lawyer from engaging in any "conduct that adversely reflects on his
fitness to practice law."

 WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. Resolution No. XVII-2006-06 passed on January 28, 2006 by the
Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines is ANNULLED and SET ASIDE.

 Respondent, Atty. Jose Emmanuel M. Eala, is DISBARRED for grossly immoral conduct, violation of his oath
of office, and violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

CYNTHIA ADVINCULA v. ATTY. ERNESTO M. MACABATA, AC. NO. 7204, 2007-03-07

Facts:

 before Us is a complaint[1] for disbarment filed by Cynthia Advincula against respondent Atty. Ernesto M.
Macabata, charging the latter with Gross Immorality.

 On February 10, 2005, met (sic) at Zensho Restaurant in Tomas Morato, Quezon City to discuss the
possibility of filing the complaint against Queensway Travel and Tours because they did not settle their
accounts as demanded. After the dinner, respondent sent complainant home and... while she is about to
step out of the car, respondent hold (sic) her arm and kissed her on the cheek and embraced her very
tightly.

 Again, on March 6, 2005, at about past 10:00 in the morning, she met respondent at Starbucks coffee
shop in West Avenue, Quezon City to finalize the draft of the complaint to be filed in Court. After the
meeting, respondent offered again a ride, which he usually did every time... they met. Along the way,
complainant was wandering (sic) why she felt so sleepy where in fact she just got up from bed a few hours
ago. At along Roosevelt Avenue immediately after corner of Felipe St., in San Francisco Del Monte,
Quezon City when she was almost restless... respondent stopped his car and forcefully hold (sic) her face
and kissed her lips while the other hand was holding her breast. Complainant even in a state of shocked
(sic) succeeded in resisting his criminal attempt and immediately manage (sic) to go (sic) out of the car.

 On the following day, March 7, 2005 respondent sent another message to complainant at 3:55:32 pm
saying 'I don't know wat 2 do s u may 4give me. 'Im realy sri. Puede bati na tyo.� (I don't know what to
do so you may forgive me. I'm really sorry. Puede bati na tayo).

 Respondent replied "talk to my lawyer in due time." Then another message was received by her at
4:06:33 pm saying "Ano k ba. I'm really sri. Pls. Nxt ime bhave n me." (Ano ka ba. I'm really sorry. Please
next time behave na ko), which is a clear manifestation of admission of... guilt

 Issues:

 whether respondent committed acts that are grossly immoral or which constitute serious moral depravity
that would warrant his disbarment or suspension from the practice of law.
  Ruling:

 Lawyers are expected to abide by the tenets of morality, not only upon admission to the Bar but also
throughout their legal career, in order to maintain their good standing in this exclusive and honored
fraternity. They may be suspended from the practice of law or disbarred for... any misconduct, even if it
pertains to his private activities, as long as it shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity
or good demeanor.[10]... mmorality has not been confined to sexual matters, but includes conduct
inconsistent with rectitude, or indicative of corruption, indecency, depravity and dissoluteness; or is
willful, flagrant, or shameless conduct showing moral indifference to opinions of respectable members...
of the community, and an inconsiderate attitude toward good order and public welfare.[26]

 Guided by the definitions above, we perceived acts of kissing or beso-beso on the cheeks as mere
gestures of friendship and camaraderie,[27] forms of greetings, casual and customary. The acts of
respondent, though, in turning the head of... complainant towards him and kissing her on the lips are
distasteful. However, such act, even if considered offensive and undesirable, cannot be considered grossly
immoral.

 Moreover, while respondent admitted having kissed complainant on the lips, the same was not motivated
by malice. We come to this conclusion because right after the complainant expressed her annoyance at
being kissed by the respondent through a cellular phone text message,... respondent immediately
extended an apology to complainant also via cellular phone text message. The exchange of text messages
between complainant and respondent bears this out.

 Be it noted also that the incident happened in a place where there were several people in the vicinity
considering that Roosevelt Avenue is a major jeepney route for 24 hours. If respondent truly had
malicious designs on complainant, he could have brought her to a private place... or a more remote place
where he could freely accomplish the same.

 All told, as shown by the above circumstances, respondent’s acts are not grossly immoral nor highly reprehensible to
warrant disbarment or suspension.

 Censure or reprimand is usually meted out for an isolated act of misconduct of a lesser nature. It is also
imposed for some minor infraction of the lawyer's duty to the court or the client.[37] In the Matter of
Darrell Adams,[38] a lawyer was publicly reprimanded for grabbing a female client, kissing her, and raising
her blouse which constituted illegal conduct involving moral turpitude and conduct which adversely
reflected on his fitness to practice law.

 based on the circumstances of the case as discussed and considering that this is respondent's first offense,
reprimand would suffice.

 We laud complainant's effort to seek redress for what she honestly believed to be an affront to her honor.
Surely, it was difficult and agonizing on her part to come out in the open and accuse her lawyer of gross
immoral conduct. However, her own assessment of the incidents is... highly subjective and partial, and
surely needs to be corroborated or supported by more objective evidence.

 Principles:
 he question as to what disciplinary sanction should be imposed against a lawyer found guilty of
misconduct requires consideration of a number of factors.[33] When deciding upon the appropriate
sanction, the Court must consider that the primary purposes of... disciplinary proceedings are to protect
the public; to foster public confidence in the Bar; to preserve the integrity of the profession; and to deter
other lawyers from similar misconduct

 Disciplinary proceedings are means of protecting the... administration of justice by requiring those who
carry out this important function to be competent, honorable and reliable men in whom courts and
clients may repose confidence.[35] While it is discretionary upon the Court to impose a particular
sanction...

 that it may deem proper against an erring lawyer, it should neither be arbitrary and despotic nor
motivated by personal animosity or prejudice, but should ever be controlled by the imperative need to
scrupulously guard the purity and independence of the bar and to exact from the... lawyer strict
compliance with his duties to the court, to his client, to his brethren in the profession and to the public.

B. R. SEBASTIAN ENTERPRISES, INC. VS. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

o On January 16, 1974, Atty. Crispin D. Baizas died as a result of a brief heart attack. In
consequence (sic) of his death, the law firm "Baizas, Alberto & Associates" was in a terribly
confused state of affairs. In effect, said law firm was dissolved. Atty. Ruby Alberto formed her
own law office and other associates left the dissolved law firms (sic) joining other offices or
putting up their own. Atty. Jose Baizas, son of deceased Crispin D. Baizas, took over the
management of why may have been left of his father's office, it appearing that some, if not
many, cases of the defunct office were taken over by the associates who left the firm upon its
dissolution.

o But, none of the former partners and associates/assistants of the dissolved law firm filed the
required appellant's brief for herein petitioner in its appealed case before the respondent Court
of Appeals. No notice was served upon petitioner by any of the surviving associates of the
defunct law firm that its appellant's brief was due for filing or that the law office had been
dissolved and that the law office had been dissolved and that none of the lawyers herein
formerly connected desired to handle the appealed case of petitioner. . . .

o The circumstances that the law firm "Baizas, Alberto & Associates" was dissolved and that none
of the associates took over petitioner's case, and no notice of such state of affairs was given to
petitioner who could have engaged the services of another lawyer to prosecute its appeal before
respondent Court, constitutes (sic) an UNAVOIDABLE CASUALTY that entitles petitioner to the
relief prayed for. On the other hand, the non-dissolution of said law firm "Baizas, Alberto &
Associates" will not defeat petitioner's claim for relief since, in such event, the said firm had
ABANDONED petitioner's cause, which act constitutes fraud and/or reckless inattention the
result of which is deprivation of petitioner's day in court. In the abovementioned Yuseco case,
this Honorable Court had emphatically and forcefully declared that it will always be disposed to
grant relief to parties aggrieved by perfidy, fraud, reckless inattention and downright
incompetence of lawyers, which has the consequence of depriving their day (sic) in court.
o We find no merit in petitioner's contentions. Petitioner's counsel was the law firm of BAIZAS,
ALBERTO & ASSOCIATES and not merely Atty. Crispin Baizas. Hence, the death of the latter did
not extinguish the lawyer-client relationship between said firm and petitioner.

o In Gutierrez & Sons, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 32 the appeal filed by the law firm of BAIZAS,
ALBERTO & ASSOCIATES on behalf of respondent therein was dismissed for failure to comply
with the requisites enumerated in the Rules of Court; the excuse presented by said counsel was
also the death of Atty. Crispin Baizas. This Court held therein that:

o The death of Attorney Baizas was not a valid excuse on the part of his associates for not
attending to Alvendia's appeal, supposing arguendo that his office was solely entrusted with the
task of representing Alvendia in the Court of Appeals. Attorney Espiritu (not Attorney Baizas) was
the one actually collaborating with Viola in handling Alvendia's case. He did not file a formal
appearance in the Court of Appeals.

o Undoubtedly, there was inexcusable negligence on the part of petitioner's counsel in failing to
file the Appellant's Brief. As revealed by the records, petitioner's counsel, the BAIZAS ALBERTO &
ASSOCIATES law firm, received the notice to file Brief on 19 February 1974. It failed to do so
within the 45 days granted to it. Said law firm also received a copy of the respondent Court's
Resolution of 9 July 1974 requiring it to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for
failure to file the Brief within the reglementary period. Petitioner chose not to comply with it,
thus compelling the respondent Court to issue on 9 September 1974 a Resolution dismissing the
appeal, a copy of which the former also received. Then, on 28 September 1974, the BAIZAS LAW
OFFICE moved for reconsideration of the said Resolution which respondent Court denied in its
Resolution of 9 October 1974. Nothing more was heard from petitioner until after a year when,
on 6 November 1975, it filed the instant petition in reaction to the issuance of a writ of execution
by the trial court following receipt of the records for the respondent Court.

o The "confusion" in the office of the law firm following the death of Atty. Crispin Baizas is not a
valid justification for its failure to file the Brief. With Baizas' death, the responsibility of Atty.
Alberto and his Associates to the petitioner as counsel remained until withdrawal by the former
of their appearance in the manner provided by the Rules of Court. This is so because it was the
law firm which handled the case for petitioner before both the trial and appellate courts. That
Atty. Espiritu, an associate who was designated to handle the case, later left the office after the
death of Atty. Baizas is of no moment since others in the firm could have replaced him.. Upon
receipt of the notice to file Brief, the law firm should have re-assigned the case to another
associate or, it could have withdrawn as counsel in the manner provided by the Rules of Court so
that the petitioner could contract the services of a new lawyer.

o Compounding such negligence is the failure of the BAIZAS LAW OFFICE, which filed on 28
September 1974 the motion for reconsider the Resolution of 9 September 1974, to take any
further appropriate action after the respondent Court denied said motion on 9 October 1974.
The appearance of said counsel is presumed to be duly authorized by petitioner. The latter has
neither assailed nor questioned such appearance.

o The rule is settled that negligence of counsel binds the client. 33

 o Moreover, petitioner itself was guilty of negligence when it failed to make inquiries from counsel
regarding its case. As pointed out by respondents, the president of petitioner corporation claims
to be the intimate friend of Atty. Crispin Baizas; hence, the death of the latter must have been
known to the former. 34 This fact should have made petitioner more vigilant with respect to the
case at bar. Petitioner failed to act with prudence and diligence, thus, its plea that they were not
accorded the right to procedural due process cannot elicit either approval or sympathy. 35

o Based on the foregoing, it is clear that there was failure to show a good and sufficient cause
which would justify the reinstatement of petitioner's appeal. Respondent Court of Appeals did
not them commit any grave abuse of discretion when it denied petitioner's motion to reinstate
its appeal.

o WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby DISMISSED and the temporary restraining order issued in this
case is lifted.

o Costs against petitioner.

o IT SO ORDERED.

o Gutierrez, Jr., Feliciano, Bidin and Romero, JJ., concur.

THIRD DIVISION

A.C. No. 5333. October 18, 2000

ROSA YAP PARAS, complainant, vs. ATTY. JUSTO DE JESUS PARAS, Respondent

(1) On the Charge of Falsification of Public Documents:

That during the sugarboom in the 1970's, his wife executed in his favor a Special Power of Attorney to negotiate
for an agricultural or crop loan authorizing him "to borrow money and apply for and secure any agricultural or crop
loan for sugar cane from the Bais Rural Bank, Bais City . . ." (Rollo, Annex "3", p. 262)

(2) On the Charge of Forgery:

That the Report of the National Bureau of Investigation which found that "the questioned signatures (referring to
the alleged forged signatures of complainant) and the standard sample signatures JUSTO J. PARAS were written by
one and the same person"(Annex "B" of the Complaint, Rollo, p. 26) was doctored, and that his wife filed against
him a string of cases for falsification of public documents because he intends to disinherit his children and
bequeath his inchoate share in the conjugal properties to his own mother.

(3) On the Charge of Grossly Immoral Conduct and Concubinage:

That this is a malicious accusation fabricated by his brother-in-law, Atty. Francisco D. Yap to disqualify him from
getting any share in the conjugal assets. He cites the dismissal of the complaint for concubinage filed against him
by his wife before the City Prosecutor of Negros Oriental as proof of his innocence.

Respondent, however, admits that he, his mother and sister, are solicitous and hospitable to his alleged concubine,
Ms. Jocelyn Ching and her daughter, Cyndee Rose (named after his own deceased daughter), by allowing them to
stay in their house and giving them some financial assistance, because they pity Ms. Ching, a secretary in his law
office, who was deserted by her boyfriend after getting her pregnant.

(4) On the Charge of Obstruction of Justice:

That "the legal remedies pursued by (him) in defense and offense are legitimate courses of action done by an
embattled lawyer."

The Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines investigated the complaint against
respondent summarizing the causes of action as follows:

(1) Falsification of complainant's signature and misuse of conjugal assets; and

(2) Immorality and criminal acts of concubinage with one Ms. Ma. Jocelyn A. Ching (for) siring an illegitimate child
with her while married to complainant, and, abandonment of his own family.

(Rollo, Report of the IBP, p. 34)

No actual hearing was conducted as the parties agreed to merely submit their respective memoranda, depositions,
and other pieces of evidence attached to their pleadings.

Thereafter, the CBD found respondent guilty as charged and recommended:

(1) Respondent's suspension from the practice of law for three (3) months on the first charge; and

(2) Respondent's indefinite suspension from the practice of law on the second charge.

(ibid., p. 57)

The CBD held that the dismissal of the criminal cases against respondent for falsification and use of falsified
documents (Criminal Case No. 11768) and for concubinage (I.S. No. 93-578) will not bar the filing of an
administrative case for disbarment against him. In a criminal case, proof beyond reasonable doubt is required for
conviction, while in an administrative complaint, only a preponderance of evidence is necessary.
The CBD gave credence to the NBI Report that "the questioned signatures (referring to the signatures appearing in
the loan agreements, contracts of mortgage, etc.) and the standard sample signatures of respondent were written
by one and the same person." This affirms the allegation of complainant Rosa Yap Paras that her husband forged
her signatures in those instruments. Respondent denies this but his denial was unsubstantiated and is, therefore,
self-serving.

In finding respondent liable for Immorality, the CBD relied heavily on the uncontroverted sworn affidavit-
statements of respondent's children and three other eyewitnesses to respondent's illicit affair with Ms. Jocelyn
Ching. For a better appreciation of their statements, their affidavits are hereby reproduced in full. Thusly,

"I, DAHLIA Y. PARAS, of legal age, single, resident of Bindoy, Negros Oriental, but presently living in Dumaguete
City, after being duly sworn hereby depose and say:

1. I am a nurse by profession. I finished my BSN degree at the College of Nursing, Silliman University.

2. My mother is Rosa Yap Paras and my father Justo J. Paras. My father has left the family home in Bindoy and now
lives at his mother's house at San Jose Ext., Dumaguete City.

3. My father has a "kabit" or concubine by the name of Ma. Jocelyn Ching. They have a child named Cyndee Rose,
who was delivered at the Silliman University Hospital Medical Center on July 19, 1990.

4. Jocelyn used to be the secretary of my father and Atty. Melchor Arboleda when they practice law together in
1988 to 1989. Their relationship started in 1989. When she became pregnant, my father rented an apartment for
her at the Amigo Subdivision, Dumaguete City.

5. Following delivery of the baby, my father built a house for Jocelyn in Maayong Tubig, Dauin, Negros Oriental. My
father spend time there often with Jocelyn and their child.

6. I used to visit my father at San Jose Extension these past years, and almost every time I was there, I would see
Jocelyn, sitting, watching TV, serving coffee in my father's law office, and one time, she was washing my father's
clothes.

7. I first saw their child Cyndee Rose in 1992, about early May, at San Jose Extension. I was there to ask for my
allowance. He was there at the time, and when I looked at Cyndee Rose closely, I became convinced that she was
my father's daughter with Jocelyn.

8. Incidentally, I had an elder sister also named Cindy Rose (now deceased).

9. In September 1992 when I went to visit my father, I saw toys and child's clothes in my father's room.

10. Whenever, I saw Jocelyn at San Jose Extension, I wanted to talk to her or be alone with her, but she would
deliberately avoid me. I could see that she was hiding something from me." p. 109, Records.

SUPPLEMENTAL AFFIDAVIT

xxx

1. . . . sometime during the period of April-September, 1992, I made several visits to my father at his mother's
house in San Jose Extension, Dumaguete City, where he had moved after he left our home in Bindoy;
2. That these visits were made on different times and different days of the week;

3. That most of my visits, I would meet a woman who was also living at my father's place. This woman is now
known to me to be Ma. Jocelyn Ching;

4. That my basis for observing that Ms. Ching was living in my father's house is that during my visits, whether
during office hours or after office hours, I would meet her at my father's place, not his office; she was wearing
house clothes and slippers, such as skimpy clothes, shorts and T-shirt, not street or office clothes; she was
generally unkempt, not made up for work or going out; on one occasion, I even saw her, washing my father's
clothes as well as a small child's clothing; and she conducted herself around the house in the manner of someone
who lived there;

5. That on one of my visits, I confirmed that Ms. Ching was living with my father from Josie Vailoces, who was then
a working student living at my father's place;

6. Ms. Vailoces subsequently confirmed under oath the fact that my father and Ms. Jocelyn Ching were living
together as husband and wife at my father's place in a deposition taken in connection with Civil Case No. 10613,
RTC-Dumaguete City, Branch 30, the Honorable Enrique C. Garovillo, presiding. A copy of the transcript of the
deposition of Ms. Vailoces is already part of the record of this case. For emphasis, photocopies of the pertinent
portion of the written deposition of Josie Vailoces is hereto attached as Annexes "A"and "A-1." p. 111, Records

Respondent's son has this to say:

"I, RHOUEL Y. PARAS, 15 years old, single, resident of Bindoy, Negros Oriental, but presently living in Dumaguete
City, after being duly sworn according to law, depose and say:

1. I am a high school student at the Holy Cross Highhool, Dumaguete City.

2. My mother is Rosa Yap Paras, and my father Justo J. Paras, a lawyer.

3. My father has left our home in Bindoy, and now lives at his mother's house in San Jose Extension, Dumaguete
City. He is not giving us support any more.

4. However, from October 1991 to December 1992, I was getting my allowance of P50.00 a week. I would go to
their house at San Jose Extension and personally ask him for it.

5. In October 1992, between 11:30 AM and 1:00 PM, I went to San Jose Extension for my weekly allowance. I asked
Josephus, an adopted son of my father's sister, if my father was around. Josephus said my father was in his room.

6. So I went direct to his room and because the door was not locked, I entered the room without knocking. There I
saw my father lying in bed side by side with a woman. He was only wearing a brief. The woman was wearing shorts
and T-shirt.

7. They both appeared scared upon seeing me. My father hurriedly gave me P100.00 and I left immediately
because I felt bad and embarrassed.

8. Before that incident, I used to see the woman at my father's house in San Jose Extension. Every time I went to
see my father, she was also there.
9. I later came to know that she was Ms. Jocelyn Ching, and that she was my father's "kabit" or concubine.

10. I am no longer getting my weekly allowance from my father." p. 112, Records

Added to the foregoing sworn statements of respondent's children is the damaging statement under oath of
Virgilio Kabrisante who was respondent's secretary when respondent was a mayor of Bindoy, Negros Oriental
which reads as follows:

"I, VIRGILIO V. KABRISANTE, of legal age, married, Filipino, a resident of Malaga, Bindoy, Negros Oriental, after
having been sworn in accordance with law, do hereby depose and state that:

1. I personally know Justo J. Paras, having been his secretary during his incumbency as Mayor of Bindoy, Negros
Oriental. In fact, through the latter's recommendation and intercession, I was later on appointed as OIC Mayor of
the same town from December 1986 to January 1987.

2. When Justo J. Paras decided to practice law in Dumaguete City, I became his personal aide and performed
various chores for the same. As his personal aide, I stayed in the same house and room with the latter.

3. Sometime in January 1989, Justo J. Paras confided to me that he felt attracted to my lady friend named Ma.
Jocelyn A. Ching. He then requested me to invite the latter to a dinner date at Chin Loong Restaurant.

4. Conveying the invitation which was accepted by Ma. Jocelyn Ching, the latter, Justo J. Paras and myself then had
dinner at the above-mentioned restaurant.

5. At the behest of Justo J. Paras, I invited Ma. Jocelyn A. Ching, on several occasions, always to a picnic at a beach
in Dauin, Negros Oriental. Said invitations were always accepted by the latter.

6. At each of the above-mentioned picnics, I observed that Justo J. Paras and Ma. Jocelyn A. Ching had become
more and more intimate with each other.

7. Sometime in March 1989, at around 7:00 o'clock in the evening on a Friday, I accompanied Justo J. Paras to the
area in front of the Silliman University Medical Center, where he said he was going to meet someone.

8. After waiting for a few minutes, Ma. Jocelyn Ching arrived and immediately boarded at the back seat of the
Sakbayan vehicle I was driving for Justo J. Paras. The latter then requested me to drive both of them (Justo Paras
and Ma. Jocelyn A. Ching) to Honeybee Motel somewhere in Sibulan, Negros Oriental.

9. When we arrived there, Justo J. Paras asked me to wait for them outside the room, while he and Ma. Jocelyn A.
Ching entered the said room.

10. I waited outside the room for about two (2) hours after which the two of them emerged from the room. We
then proceeded to Chin Loong to eat supper.

11. After eating supper, we dropped Ma. Jocelyn A. Ching off in front of the Dumaguete City Cockpit.

12. This meeting was repeated two more times, at the same place and always on a Friday.

13. On April 3, 1988, I went home to Bindoy and stopped working for Justo Paras." pp. 56-57, Records.
SUPPLEMENTAL AFFIDAVIT

xxx

1. Sometime in May 1989, I returned to Dumaguete City to look for a job, having been jobless since I left
Dumaguete City to go home to Bindoy, Negros Oriental.

2. While looking for a job, I stayed at the house where my friend, Bernard Dejillo was staying at Mangnao,
Dumaguete City. My friend Bernard Dejillo was occupying a room at the second floor of the said house which he
shared with me.

3. Sometime in the last week of May 1989, in the course of my job hunting, I met Justo J. Paras. Having not seen
each other for some time, we talked for a while, discussing matters about the barangay elections in Bindoy, Negros
Oriental.

4. When our discussion was finished, Justo J. Paras asked me where I was staying, to which I answered that I was
staying at the aforementioned house. He then requested me to find out if there was an available room at the said
house which he could rent with Ma. Jocelyn A. Ching. I told him that I would have to ask my friend Bernard Dejillo
about the matter.

5. When I arrived at the house that evening, I asked my friend Bernard Dejillo about the matter, to which the latter
signified his approval. He told me that a room at the first floor of the same house was available for rental to Justo
Paras and Ma. Jocelyn A. Ching.

6. The next day, I immediately informed Justo J. Paras of Bernard Dejillo's approval of his request.

7. Sometime in the first week of June 1989, Ma. Jocelyn Ching moved in to the room she had rented at the first
floor of the house I was also staying at.

8. Almost every night thereafter, Justo J. Paras would come to the house and stay overnight. When he came at
night Justo J. Paras and I would converse and while conversing, drink a bottle of Tanduay Rum. Oftentimes, Ma.
Jocelyn Ching would join in our conversation.

9. After we finish drinking and talking, Justo J. Paras and Ma. Jocelyn Ching would enter the room rented and sleep
there, while I would also go upstairs to my room.

10. The next morning I could always observe Justo J. Paras came out of said room and depart from the house.

11. The coming of Justo J. Paras to the house I was staying ceased after about one (1) month when they
transferred to another house.

12. I myself left the house and returned to Bindoy, Negros Oriental some time in June 1989.

13. Sometime in January 1993, on a Saturday at about noontime, I went to the house of Justo J. Paras to consult
him about a Kabataang Barangay matter involving my son. When I arrived at his house, I noticed that the same was
closed and there was no one there.
14. Needing to consult him about the above-mentioned matter, I proceeded to the resthouse of Justo J. Paras
located at Maayong Tubig, Dauin, Negros Oriental.

15. When I arrived at the said resthouse, Justo J. Paras was not there but the person in charge of the said
resthouse informed me that Justo J. Paras was at his house at Barangay Maayong Tubig, Dauin, Negros Oriental.
The same person also gave me directions so that I could locate the house of Justo J. Paras he referred to earlier.

16. With the help of the directions given by said person, I was able to locate the house of Justo J. Paras.

17. At the doorway of the said house, I called out if anybody was home while knocking on the door.

18. After a few seconds, Ma. Jocelyn Ching opened the door. Upon seeing the latter, I asked her if Justo J. Paras
was home. She then let me in the house and told me to sit down and wait for a while. She then proceeded to a
room.

19. A few minutes later, Justo J. Paras came out of the same room and sat down near me. I noticed that the latter
had just woke up from a nap.

20. We then started to talk about the matter involving my son and sometime later, Ma. Jocelyn Ching served us
coffee.

21. While we were talking and drinking coffee I saw a little girl, about three (3) years old, walking around the sala,
whom I later came to know as Cyndee Rose, the daughter of Justo J. Paras and Ma. Jocelyn Ching.

22. After our conversation was finished, Justo J. Paras told me to see him at this office at San Jose Extension,
Dumaguete City, the following Monday to discuss the matter some more.

23. I then bid them goodbye and went home to Bindoy, Negros Oriental.

24. I am executing this affidavit as a supplement to my affidavit dated 22 July 1993." pp. 58-60, Records

(ibid., pp. 44-52)

The CBD likewise gave credence to the sworn affidavits and the deposition of two other witnesses, namely,
Salvador de Jesus, a former repairman of the Paras' household, and, Josie Vailoces, a working student and former
ward of the Paras' family, who both gave personal accounts of the illicit relationship between respondent and
Jocelyn Ching, which led to the birth of Cyndee Rose. De Jesus swore that while doing repair works in the Paras'
household he observed Ms. Ching and Cyndee Rose practically living in the Paras' house (p. 85, Rollo, Annex "H").
Vailoces, on the other hand, deposed that she was asked by respondent Paras to deliver money to Ms. Ching for
the payment of the hospital bill after she gave birth to Cyndee Rose. Vailoces was also asked by respondent to
procure Cyndee Rose Paras' baptismal certificate after the latter was baptized in the house of respondent; she
further testified that in said baptismal certificate, respondent appears as the father of Cyndee Rose which explains
why the latter is using the surname "Paras." (p. 87, Annex "I", Rollo)

The findings and the recommendations of the CBD are substantiated by the evidentiary record.

ON THE CHARGE OF FALSIFICATION OF COMPLAINANT'S SIGNATURE

The handwriting examination conducted by the National Bureau of Investigation on the signatures of complainant
Rosa Yap Paras and respondent Justo de Jesus Paras vis--vis the questioned signature "Rosa Y. Paras" appearing in
the questioned bank loan documents, contracts of mortgage and other related instrument, yielded the following
results:

CONCLUSION:

1. The questioned and the standard sample signatures JUSTO J. PARAS were written by one and the same person.

2. The questioned and the standard sample signatures ROSA YAP PARAS were not written by one and the same
person.

(Annex "B", Rollo, p. 26, emphasis ours;)

The NBI did not make a categorical statement that respondent forged the signatures of complainant. However, an
analysis of the above findings lead to no other conclusion than that the questioned or falsified signatures of
complainant Rosa Y. Paras were authored by respondent as said falsified signatures were the same as the sample
signatures of respondent.

To explain this anomaly, respondent presented a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) executed in his favor by
complainant to negotiate for an agricultural or crop loan from the Bais Rural Bank of Bais City. Instead of
exculpating respondent, the presence of the SPA places him in hot water. For if he was so authorized to obtain
loans from the banks, then why did he have to falsify his wife's signatures in the bank loan documents? The
purpose of an SPA is to especially authorize the attorney-in-fact to sign for and on behalf of the principal using his
own name.

ON THE CHARGE OF IMMORALITY AND CONCUBINAGE

The evidence against respondent is overwhelming. The affidavit-statements of his children and three other persons
who used to work with him and have witnessed the acts indicative of his infidelity more than satisfy this Court that
respondent has strayed from the marital path. The baptismal certificate of Cyndee Rose Paras where respondent
was named as the father of the child (Annex "J", Rollo, p. 108); his naming the child after his deceased first-born
daughter Cyndee Rose; and his allowing Jocelyn Ching and the child to live in their house in Dumaguete City bolster
the allegation that respondent is carrying on an illicit affair with Ms. Ching, the mother of his illegitimate child.

It is a time-honored rule that good moral character is not only a condition precedent to admission to the practice
of law. Its continued possession is also essential for remaining in the practice of law (People vs. Tunda, 181 SCRA
692 [1990]; Leda vs. Tabang, 206 SCRA 395 [1992]). In the case at hand, respondent has fallen below the moral bar
when he forged his wife's signature in the bank loan documents, and, sired a daughter with a woman other than
his wife. However, the power to disbar must be exercised with great caution, and only in a clear case of
misconduct that seriously affects the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the Court and as a
member of the bar (Tapucar vs. Tapucar, Adm. Case No. 4148, July 30, 1998). Disbarment should never be decreed
where any lesser penalty, such as temporary suspension, could accomplish the end desired (Resurrecion vs.
Sayson, 300 SCRA 129 [1998]).

In the light of the foregoing, respondent is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for SIX (6) MONTHS on the
charge of falsifying his wife's signature in bank documents and other related loan instruments; and for ONE (1)
YEAR from the practice of law on the charges of immorality and abandonment of his own family, the penalties to
be served simultaneously. Let notice of this decision be spread in respondent's record as an attorney, and notice of
the same served on the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and on the Office of the Court Administrator for
circulation to all the courts concerned.

SO ORDERED.