Vanessa V.

Malolot, EH 202

CARLINA P. ROBIÑOL, complainant, vs. ATTY. EDILBERTO P.

BASSIG, respondent A.C. No. 11836. November 21, 2017, EN BANC,
TIJAM

“For lawyers are particularly called upon to obey court orders and
processes and are expected to stand foremost in complying with court
directives being themselves officers of the court”

FACTS:

1. Complainant Carlina Robiñol alleged that respondent Atty.

Basig rented a house from her in Brgy. Tañong, Marikina City,
for a monthly rental of P8,500.00.

2. The lease was without any written contract and was for a period
of two years.

3. It was agreed that Atty. Bassig will pay a one month advance
and another one month deposit, both of which are equivalent
of one month rental payment. However, he did not comply with
the same.

4. Robiñol chanced upon Atty. Bassig's daughter and learned that

Atty. Bassig was living with her. Robiñol then went to the said
house and demanded payment from Atty. Bassig. As a
consequence, he executed a promissory note dated August 18,
2012, undertaking to pay the amount of P127,500.00 on
installment basis. Atty. Bassig reneged on his obligation.

5. Robiñol was constrained to hire a counsel to protect her

interest.

6. A Notice of Mandatory Conference/Hearing dated January 21,

2015 was issued by the IBP Commissioner Rebecca Villanueva-
Maala.
 7. Only Robiñol appeared in the scheduled mandatory
conferences.

ISSUE:

A. Whether or not Atty. Bassig should be given disciplinary actions

for his acts.

HELD:

Yes. For his behavior, Atty. Bassig committed an act in violation

of Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, to wit:

Canon 11 — A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect

due to the courts and to judicial officers and should insist on similar
conduct by others.

His attitude of refusing to obey the orders of the IBP indicates his lack
of respect for the IBP's rules and regulations, but also towards the IBP
as an institution.

Atty. Bassig's conduct is unbecoming of a lawyer, for lawyers are

particularly called upon to obey court orders and processes and are
expected to stand foremost in complying with court directives being
themselves officers of the court. In disregarding the orders of the IBP,
he exhibited a conduct which runs contrary to his sworn duty as an
officer of the court

xxx
NICANOR D. TRIOL, complainant, vs. ATTY. DELFIN R. AGCAOILI, JR.,
respondent
A.C. No. 12011. June 26, 2018, EN BANC, PERLAS-BERNABE

“Rule 10.01 - A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the
doing of any in court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be
misled by any artifice.”

FACTS:

1. Nicanor D. Triol and and his sister, Grace D. Triol (Grace), are co-
owners of a parcel of land with an area of 408.80 square meters
situated in Quezon City and covered by Transfer Certificate of
Title No. 129010.

2. January 2011- Complainant decided to sell the subject land to a

certain Leonardo P. Caparas but was unable to do so, as he
could not obtain the signature of Grace who was already
residing in the United States (U.S.) at that time.

3. March 11, 2011 – Deed of Absolute Sale was executed and

notarized by respondent supposedly conveying the subject land
to Fajardo without the authority of complainant and Grace;
neither did they give their consent to the same, as they
allegedly did not personally appear before respondent when
the subject deed was notarized.

4. Respondent disavowed knowledge of the execution and

notarization of the subject deed, claiming that he did not know
complainant, Grace, and Caparas.

5. Respondent maintained that his signature on the subject deed

was forged, since he would never notarize an instrument
without the signatory parties personally appearing before him
and assessed that he could not have notarized it, as he was not
a commissioned notary public in Quezon City in 2011.

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent should be held administratively liable.

HELD:

Yes. The Court concurs with the findings of the IBP.

In the realm of legal ethics, a breach of the aforesaid provision of the
2004 Notarial Rules would also constitute a violation of the Code of
Professional Responsibility (CPR), considering that an erring lawyer
who is found to be remiss in his functions as a notary public is
considered to have violated his oath as a lawyer as well. He does not
only fail to fulfill his solemn oath of upholding and obeying the law
and its legal processes, but he also commits an act of falsehood and
engages in an unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful conduct. 21 Thus,
Rule 1.01, Canon 1 and Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the CPR categorically
state:

CANON 1 — A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the

laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes.
Rule 1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct.

xxx xxx xxx

CANON 10 — A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to

the court.
Rule 10.01 — A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent
to the doing of any in court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court
to be misled by any artifice.

By misrepresenting himself as a commissioned notary public at the

time of the alleged notarization, he did not only cause damage to
those directly affected by it, but he likewise undermined the integrity
of the office of a notary public and degraded the function of
notarization. In so doing, his conduct falls miserably short of the high
standards of morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing required
from lawyers, and it is only but proper that he be sanctioned.

xxx
 MARJORIE A. APOLINAR-PETILO, complainant, vs. ATTY.
ARISTEDES A. MARAMOT, respondent
A.C. No. 9067. January 31, 2018, THIRD DIVISION, BERSAMIN

“A lawyer is a disciple of truth because he swore upon his admission to

the Bar that he would do no falsehood nor consent to the doing of any
in court, and that he would conduct himself as a lawyer according to
the best of his knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to
the courts as to his clients”

FACTS:

1. Complainant Marjorie A. Apolinar-Petilo alleged that

respondent consented and participated in falsifying a public
document in violation of Canons 1 and 10 of the CPR.

2. The document was a deed of donation

3. Complainant alleged that respondent indicated in the

document that the 2 donees (Princess and Mommayda) were
of “legal age” despite knowing that both were minors.
Respondent notarized the document.

4. Respondent was counsel of Mommayda’s adoption case.

5. Respondent contended that Margarita Apolinar was a

grandaunt who wanted to donate to Princess and
Mommayda.

6. Respondent knew about Princess’ minority but Margarita

persisted.

7. When Margarita died, Marjorie and Justina were entangled in

a court battle involving Margarita’s properties.

8. Respondent contended that there was nothing illegal in the

deed since Margarita had an absolute right to dispose her
property by donation and that no law prohibited donations
to minors.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent committed falsehood and violated Canon
10, Rule 10.1 of the CPR?
HELD:

Yes. Lawyer’s oath provides that a lawyer “xxx will do no falsehood,

nor consent to the doing of any in court. The Court has adopted and
instituted the Code of Professional Responsibility to govern every
lawyer's relationship with his profession, the courts, the society, and
his clients.
Pertinent in this case are Rule 1.01 and Rule 1.02 of Canon 1; and Rule
10.1 of Canon 10, which provide:

CANON 1 — x x x
Rule 1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
Rule 1.02 — A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities
aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the
legal system.
CANON 10 — x x x
Rule 10.01 — A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor
consent to the doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or
allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.

At the time of his preparation of the document, he actually knew that

Princess Anne was a minor; hence, his claim of having then advised
that her parents should represent her in the execution of the
document. Mommayda was likewise a minor. His awareness of the
latter's minority at the time was not disputed because he was also
representing Mommayda in the latter's adoption proceedings aside
from being Mommayda's neighbor. Nonetheless, he still indicated in
the deed of donation that the donees were of legal age. His doing so,
being undeniably dishonest, was contrary to his oath as a lawyer not
to utter a falsehood. He thereby consciously engaged in an unlawful
and dishonest conduct, defying the law and contributing to the
erosion of confidence in the Law Profession.

The respondent cannot be relieved by his justifications and

submissions. As a lawyer, he should not invoke good faith and good
intentions as sufficient to excuse him from discharging his obligation
to be truthful and honest in his professional actions. His duty and
responsibility in that regard were clear and unambiguous.

xxx
ANTONIO X. GENATO, complainant, vs. ATTY. ELIGIO P. MALLARI,
respondent
A.C. No. 12486. October 15, 2019, EN BANC

“Lawyers are officers of the court. They are called upon to assist in the
administration of justice. They act as vanguards of our legal system to
protect and uphold truth and the rule of law. They are expected to act
with honesty in all their dealings, especially with the court."

FACTS:

1. Complainant Antonio Genato seeks the disbarment of Atty.

Eligio P. Mallari.

2. Atty. Mallari and his wife claimed to own a 133 hectare real
property located in San Fernando, Pampanga.

3. Respondent induced complainant to invest P18 million in the

property.

4. Complainant discovered that the property actually belonged to

the Philippine National Bank (PNB) and had been divided for
distribution to land reform beneficiaries.

5. Complainant filed a criminal complaint for estafa against

respondent but it was dismissed.

6. Complainant drew attention to cases and instances involving

respondent which showcased the latter's propensity to deceive,
his unethical behavior, and his abusive use of power as a
member of the bar:

 In "Eligio P. Mallari v. Government Service Insurance

System (GSIS) and the Provincial Sheriff," respondent
employed dilatory tactics to stop the execution of a final
and executory decision involving his debt with GSIS which
he had evaded to pay for twenty-four (24) years

 Respondent paid advertisements published in The

Philippine Star and the Philippine Daily Inquirer,
challenging Court of Appeals' Associate Justice Apolinario
 D. Bruselas, Jr. to a "public and televised debate" in
relation to an issuance in the case entitled "PNB v. Eligio
P. Mallari, et al”.

 Respondent employed delaying tactics to prevent the

enforcement of a writ of possession issued in the case
docketed G.R. No. 157660 entitled "Eligio P. Mallari v.
Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank."

 Respondent filed baseless harassment cases against the

lawyers of PNB and the Register of Deeds of Pampanga

7. Respondent denied the charges and asserted that he was only

protecting and defending his proprietary rights.

8. As for the challenge to Associate Justice Bruselas, Jr. to a public

and televised debate, he claimed it was his right as an officer of
the court to mount such challenge because the latter issued a
"VOID" resolution.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. Mallari should be disbarred.

HELD:

Yes. A lawyer must obey the law and must not abuse court
processes

Rule 10.03, Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility

mandates all lawyers to observe the rules of procedure and not
misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.

Lawyers are officers of the court. They are called upon to assist in the
administration of justice. They act as vanguards of our legal system to
protect and uphold truth and the rule of law. They are expected to act
with honesty in all their dealings, especially with the court

The Court keenly notes that respondent has not disobeyed a lawful
court order only on a single occasion. He has repeatedly defied court
issuances and abused processes which should have otherwise been
availed of only by litigants with genuine causes. Respondent's
circumvention of a lawful court order is aggravated by his use of his
knowledge of law as a tool to perpetrate disrespect for court
dispositions and his purpose to harass judges, court personnel,
lawyers, and adverse parties alike.

For his deliberate disregard of the lawful orders of the court,

respondent had transgressed the following Canons of the Code of
Professional Responsibility:

Rule 10.03, Canon 10 A lawyer shall observe the rules of

procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.

Rule 12.04, Canon 12 A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case,

impede the execution of a judgment or misuse Court processes.

A lawyer must respect the duly constituted authority.

It is a lawyer's sworn duty to maintain a respectful attitude towards

the courts. By provoking a sitting Justice of the Court of Appeals to a
debate, respondent violated his basic obligation under the Rules of
Court to obey the laws of the Philippines, and to observe and
maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers.
He also transgressed Rule 11.05, Canon 11 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, which provides:

11.05 — A lawyer shall submit grievances against a Judge to the

proper authorities only.

Violation of the Lawyer's Oath

Considering respondent's actions vis-à-vis these sworn duties, it is

clear as day that he committed a violation of his basic oath as a
lawyer. His unfitness to remain in the legal profession has now
become indubitable.

Respondent has not shown any bit of remorse for his conduct
prejudicial to the best interests of the legal profession.

Respondent Atty. Eligio Mallari is found GUILTY of violation of Rule

10.03, Canon 10, Rule 11.05, Canon 11, and Rule 12.04, Canon 12, of
the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer's Oath.
Respondent is also ordered DISBARRED from the practice of law. His
name is ordered STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys.

xxx
 JUDGE ARIEL FLORENTINO R. DUMLAO, JR., complainant, vs.
ATTY. MANUEL N. CAMACHO, respondent A.C. No. 10498.
September 4, 2018, EN BANC

“Lawyers should always live up to the ethical standards of the legal

profession as embodied in the Code. Public confidence in law and in
lawyers may be eroded by the irresponsible and improper conduct of a
member of the bar. Thus, every lawyer should act and comport himself
in a manner that would promote public confidence in the integrity of
the legal profession.”

FACTS:

1. Complainant is the presiding judge of RTC Dagupan City,

Pangasinan Branch 42 where CV Case No. 2004-0181- D was
pending. Respondent was the counsel of the plaintiff.

2. While the case was pending, respondent attempted to

fraternize with the complainant.

3. Respondent started calling complainant and bribed him in

exchange for the denial of the notice of appeal filed by
defendants and the issuance of a writ of execution. The promise
was accompanied by a threat that if the offer is refused,
respondent would file a disbarment case against complainant
and he insinuated that through his connections, complainant
would surely be disbarred

4. March 6, 2014 - Pathways, through respondent, filed a Motion

to Deny Appeal with motion for the issuance of execution.

5. April 1, 2014 - RTC denied defendants' notice of appeal because

it was filed by Atty. Baniqued, who was not properly substituted
as the counsel for defendants.

6. April 28, 2014 - RTC issued a Certificate of Finality and a Writ of

Execution.

7. Respondent went to the RTC together with the representatives

of Pathways. He demanded Sheriff Nabua to go with them and
 serve the writ of execution at the office of defendants in
Mandaluyong City.

8. May 22, 2014 - Respondent barged into complainant's

chambers and demanded that he order the court sheriff to sign
the Garnishment Order, 4 which respondent himself prepared.

9. Sheriff Nabua justifiably refused to sign the document prepared

by respondent.

10. Complainant received several text messages from respondent.

11. Respondent had been previously disbarred in Sison, Jr. v. Atty.

Camacho

ISSUE:

Whether or not the acts of respondent violates the Lawyer’s Oath and
Code of Professional Responsibility.

HELD:

YES. The Court finds that respondent violated the Code and the
Lawyer's Oath for influence peddling, attempted bribery, threatening
court officers and disrespecting court processes.

A lawyer that approaches a judge to try to gain influence and receive

a favorable outcome for his or her client violates Canon 13 of the
Code. 17 Canon 13 and Canon 13.01 state:

CANON 13 — A LAWYER SHALL RELY UPON THE MERITS OF

HIS CAUSE AND REFRAIN FROM ANY IMPROPRIETY WHICH TENDS
TO INFLUENCE, OR GIVES THE APPEARANCE OF INFLUENCING THE
COURT.

Rule 13.01 — A lawyer shall not extend extraordinary attention

or hospitality to, nor seek opportunity for cultivating familiarity with
Judges.
A lawyer who commits attempted bribery, or corruption of public
officials, against a judge or a court personnel, violates Canon 10 and
Rule 10.01 of the Code, to wit:

CANON 10 — A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND

GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT.

Rule 10.01 — A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent

to the doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court
to be misled by any artifice.

Respondent fraternized with complainant and gave an impression

that he was an influence peddler. He tried to impress complainant
with his influence by dropping names of two Justices of the Supreme
Court, who were supposedly his colleagues and close friends. He
related to complainant that he would share a portion of his attorney's
fees with complainant in exchange for the issuance of the writ of
execution and the denial of the notice of appeal filed by defendants.
He also insisted that a portion of the judgment would be donated to
the U.P. Law Center. Evidently, this constitutes attempted bribery or
corruption of public officers on the part of respondent as he offered
monetary consideration in exchange for a favorable ruling.

A lawyer must not disrespect the officers of the court. Disrespect to

judicial incumbents is disrespect to that branch of the government to
which they belong, as well as to the State which has instituted the
judicial system. It is the duty of a lawyer to observe and maintain the
respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers. A lawyer who
disrespects the court and its officers violates Canon 11 and Canon
11.03 of the Code, to wit:

CANON 11 — A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE AND MAINTAIN THE

RESPECT DUE THE COURTS AND TO JUDICIAL OFFICERS AND
SHOULD INSIST ON SIMILAR CONDUCT BY OTHERS.

Rule 11.03 — A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive

or menacing language or behavior before the Courts.

In this case, while defendants' notice of appeal was pending before

the sala of complainant, respondent called him. Respondent said that
if the notice of appeal is not denied, he would file a disbarment case
against complainant and insinuated that, through his connections
with the Court, the complainant was sure to be disbarred.

Instead of respecting the court processes, respondent blatantly seized

for himself the execution of the judgment by drafting his own version
of the order of garnishment and demanded that Sheriff Nabua sign it.

The acts of respondent are palpably irregular and disrespectful to the

court and its officers. For his wanton disregard of the good conduct
expected from lawyers before the courts, respondent violated Rules
11.03 and 19.01 and Canons 11 and 19 of the Code.

Respondent also violated the Lawyer's Oath to obey the laws as well
as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein; to do
no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; and to
conduct himself as a lawyer according to the best of his knowledge
and discretion, with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to his
clients.

The Court finds Atty. Manuel N. Camacho GUILTY of violating Canons

10, 11, 13, 19 and Rules 10.01, 11.03, 13.01 and 19.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer's Oath and is hereby
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for two (2) years. However,
considering that he has already been previously disbarred, this
penalty can no longer be imposed.

xxx
 HELEN GRADIOLA, complainant, vs. ATTY. ROMULO A. DELES,
respondent.
A.C. No. 10267. June 18, 2018, FIRST DIVISION, DEL CASTILLO

FACTS:

1. Complainant Helen Gradiola filed for disbarment of Atty.

Romulo A. Deles for violating the CPR, specifically, Rule 9.01
and Rule 9.02 of Canon 9 and Rule 10.01 and Rule 10.02 of
Canon 10.

2. Deles was her counsel but he delegated his professional duties

to “Atty. Ernesto Araneta”. Respondent lawyer allowed “Atty.
Araneta” to do the legal research works and preparation of
various pleadings relative to the civil case.

3. Gradiola was assured that her case was in “good hands”

because her counsel and “Atty. Araneta” have “contact” in the
CA in Cebu City.

4. Gradiola was shown a photocopy of a resolution declaring that

she and her husband as owners of the four lots subject matter
of their civil case.

5. Respondent lawyer nonetheless cautioned that their adversaries

in the case had appealed to the Supreme Court, hence they had
to prepare their own "position paper" to support the appeal.
And, that naturally, it would inevitably entail monetary
expenses.

6. Gradiola was billed P207, 000. “Atty. Araneta” split the fees with
Atty. Deles.

7. Gradiola discovered that:

 Atty Araneta was disbarred

 The resolution was fabricated
 The position paper was a simulation
 She and her husband lost the case. Res judicata
 8. Complainant filed for estafa against Atty. Araneta and
administrative complaint for disbarment against Atty. Deles.

9. Atty. Deles suffered a stroke and underwent a brain surgery

three weeks prior to the receipt of the order from IBP.

10. Atty. Deles was represented by a counsel, Atty. Mampang.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. Deles violated Rule 9.01 and Rule 9.02 of Canon
9 and Rule 10.01 and Rule 10.02 of Canon 10.

HELD:

While Atty. Araneta admitted to his involvement in a fraudulent

scheme, the court cannot immediately conclude that Atty. Deles was
also involved. It must be stressed that because of his medical
condition, he could not yet explain his side. Although an answer was
filed, it was John (respondent’s son) who signed it.

With respondent not yet in a condition to factually dispute the

accusations and defend himself, and considering there was no client-
lawyer relationship established between him and Atty. Mampang,
proceeding with the investigation of the administrative case against
him would amount to a denial of a fair and reasonable opportunity to
be heard.

Wherefore, Resolution No. XX-2013-511 of the Integrated Bar of the

Philippines adopting and approving the Report and Recommendation
of the Investigating Commissioner is hereby ANNULLED and SET
ASIDE. This case is ordered REMANDED to the Commission on Bar
Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for further
investigation, report and recommendation.

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines is hereby instructed to: 1)

require respondent lawyer's son, John P. Deles, to provide an update
on his father's health condition and, on the basis of such update; 2) to
hold the case in abeyance if respondent lawyer's stroke aftermath has
significantly impaired his cognitive ability and speech that he is not
capable of presenting his defense or 3) to direct respondent lawyer to
file his Answer and continue with the proceedings if he is found to be
medically fit and his condition having improved over time, having
regained his cognitive and communication skills.

xxx
 ROMEO TELLES, complainant, vs. ATTY. ROGELIO P. DANCEL ,
respondent
A.C. No. 5279. September 8, 2020, EN BANC

“The duties of a lawyer may be classified into four general categories.

The duties he owes to the court, to the public, to the bar, and to his
client. A transgression by a lawyer of any of his duties makes him
administratively liable and subject to the Court's disciplinary authority”

FACTS:

1. Romeo Telles filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty.

Rogelio Dancel for gross negligence and inefficiency as a lawyer
in handling Telles' case.

2. Atty. Dancel was Telles' legal counsel for an action for

Annulment of a Deed of Quitclaim. After losing in the trial court,
Telles, through Atty. Dancel elevated the case to the Court of
Appeals.

3. Atty. Dancel filed four motions for extension of time to file

appellant's brief but despite the grant of all motions for
extension, for a total of 75 days, Atty. Dancel still failed to file
the required appellant's brief . CA eventually dismissed Telles'
appeal.

4. Atty. Dancel also did not inform Telles of the dismissal of the
appeal, nor did he offer any explanation for his failure to file the
appellant's brief.

5. Telles eventually engaged the services of another lawyer.

6. Telles discovered that the trial court denied his Formal Offer of
Evidence for having been filed out of time. Atty. Dancel filed the
said pleading 88 days after the given period.

7. August 2, 2000 – Court required Atty. Dancel to file his

Comment to Telles' Complaint. Atty. Dancel did not comply
8. August 21, 2000 – The Court required Atty. Dancel to show
cause why he should not be disciplinarily dealt with for such
failure.

9. September 11, 2000 - Atty. Dancel filed a Motion for Extension

of Time to File Answer.

10. October 11, 2000 – Atty. Dancel filed a Motion for Extension of
15 days to File Answer.

11. October 26, 2000 – Atty. Dancel filed another motion.

12. November 29, 2000 - The Court granted Atty. Dancel's

motions.

13. August 21, 2002 - The Court issued a show cause order to Atty.
Dancel, asking him to explain why he should not be
disciplinarily dealt with for failure to file the required comment.

14. July 14, 2003 - The Court resolved to impose on Atty. Dancel a
fine of P1,000.00 or to suffer imprisonment of 10 days in case
he fails to pay, and ordered him to file the required comment,
within 10 days from notice. Atty. Dancel did not comply.

15. July 19, 2006 - The Court resolved to impose upon Dancel a
fine of P2,000.00 and reiterate the order for him to file his
comment.

16. August 17, 2006 - Atty. Dancel filed a Motion for

Reconsideration stating that it was his first time to know that an
administrative case was filed against him by Telles, and that he
has not received a copy of the Court's Resolution dated July 14,
2003, since his secretary misplaced the same.

17. November 29, 2006 – The Court granted Atty. Dancel's request
that he be furnished with copies of the complaint and the
Resolution dated July 14, 2003. Atty. Dancel still did not comply.

18. April 20, 2009 – The Court directed the National Bureau of
Investigation to arrest and detain him, and directed Atty. Dancel
to pay the fine of P3,000.00 and file the required Comment.
 19. August 10, 2009 - The Court noted Atty. Dancel's payment of
the P3,000.00 fine.

20. November 19, 2014 - The Court required Atty. Dancel to

comply with the Resolution dated August 2, 2000 requiring him
to comment on the complaint under pain of a more severe
sanction, within 10 days from notice.

21. October 15, 2015 - Atty. Dancel filed his one-page Comment.

22. Atty. Dancel submitted to the Court a copy of the Certificate of

Death of Telles showing that the latter died on August 10, 2000,
shortly after filing the instant complaint. Atty. Dancel claims that
Telles failed to substantiate the complaint against him.

23. June 18, 2018 - The Court referred the instant case to the
Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) for investigation, report and
recommendation.

24. April 30, 2018 - Atty. Dancel sent a letter requesting for an
early resolution of the case.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. Rogelio Dancel should be disbarred for gross

negligence and inefficiency as a lawyer in handling Telles' case.

HELD:

Yes. Atty. Dancel, in failing to file the appellant's brief on behalf of his
client, had clearly fallen short of his duties as counsel as set forth in
Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. A lawyer shall
exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and
efficient administration of justice. Rule 12.03 in particular states that a
"lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions of time to file pleadings,
memoranda or briefs, let the period lapse without submitting the
same or offering an explanation for his failure to do so."

Canon 18 further exhorts lawyers to serve their clients with

competence and diligence. They shall not neglect legal matters
entrusted to them and shall keep their clients informed of the status
of their cases.

Atty. Dancel was also duty-bound to inform Telles of the dismissal of

their appeal before the CA following Rule 18.04, Canon 18 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility which requires that a lawyer shall
keep the client informed of the status of his case.

If he were truly incapable of properly handling his cases due to his

physical condition, he should have excused himself from his client's
case. Instead, he even took on filing an appellant's brief before the
CA, when he already neglected filing a Formal Offer of Evidence
before the trial court. Even so, both the trial court and the CA gave
him several extensions that would have enabled him to prepare and
submit the required pleadings, if he were truly keen in honoring his
duty to his client and to the court. It was only after 15 years that Atty.
Dancel filed a one-page Comment, claiming to be afflicted with
diabetes, nary a proof to support such claim.

Atty. Dancel's propensity for filing motions for extension of time and
not filing the required pleading was clearly established. He also did
not inform his client of the dismissal of their appeal, obviously to hide
his ineptitude and neglect. To prevent any other unknowing client
who might engage his services, only to lose their case due to Atty.
Dancel's indifference and nonchalant attitude, we find that the
imposition of the most severe penalty is in order.

Respondent Atty. Rogelio P. Dancel was DISBARRED for violating

Rule 12.03, Canon 12 and Rule 18.04, Canon 18 of the Code
of·Professional Responsibility and his name was ORDERED STRICKEN
OFF from the Roll of Attorneys.

xxx
 JUDGE ROSEMARIE V. RAMOS, Regional Trial Court, Branch 19,
Bangui, Ilocos Norte, complainant, vs. ATTY. VICENTITO M. LAZO,
respondent.
A.C. No. 10204. September 14, 2020, THIRD DIVISON, GAERLAN

” A lawyer must uphold the dignity and authority of the courts to which
he owes fidelity, and preserve the people's faith in the judiciary”

FACTS:

1. September 9, 2013 - Atty. Lazo, a member of the Sangguniang

Panlalawigan of Ilocos Norte delivered a speech during the
Question and Privilege Hour of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan.

2. September 16, 2013 - Atty. Lazo again delivered a speech

before the Sangguniang Panlalawigan.

3. Lazo hurled baseless accusations against Judge Ramos,

accusing her of bribery, corruption, bias, prejudice and
immorality.

4. December 9, 2013 - Atty. Lazo, in his personal capacity, filed an

administrative complaint against Judge Ramos.

5. October 3, 2013 - Judge Ramos filed a Verified Disbarment

Complaint/Letter Affidavit (With Urgent Prayer for
Injunction/Gag Order) against Atty. Lazo. She alleged that Atty.
Lazo violated Canons 1, Rule 1.02; Canon 11, Rules 11.04 and
11.05; and Canon 13, Rule 13.02 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility

6. July 15, 2016 - IBP Commissioner Bantilan issued a Report and

Recommendation 15 recommending Atty. Lazo's suspension
from the practice of law for a period of one year. Commissioner
Bantilan opined that Atty. Lazo was compelled by bad faith and
malice in delivering his speeches.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Lazo is administratively liable for violating Canon
1, Rule 1.02, Canon 11, Rules 11.04 and 11.05, Canon 13, and Rule
13.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
HELD:

The Court finds Atty. Lazo administratively liable.

Canon 11 mandates that lawyers shall observe and maintain the

respect due to the courts and judicial officers. Relative thereto, Rules
11.04 and 13.02 forbid lawyers from attributing to a Judge "motives
not supported by the record or have no materiality to the case"; and
"[making] any public statements in the media regarding a pending
case tending to arouse public opinion for or against a party,"
respectively. Furthermore, Rule 11.05 ordains that any grievances
against judges must be submitted to the proper authorities only.
Compliance with the rules of conduct is essential for the proper
administration of justice.

While a lawyer, as an officer of the court, has the right to criticize the
acts of courts and judges, the same must be made respectfully and
through legitimate channels. In this case, Atty. Puti violated the
following provisions in the Code of Professional Responsibility:

CANON 11 — A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect

due to the courts and to judicial officers and should insist on similar
conduct by others.
Rule 11.03 — A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive
or menacing language or behavior before the Courts.
Rule 11.04 — A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives
not supported by the record or have no materiality to the case.

The right to criticize is not an unbridled freedom to malign and

slander the courts and its officers; and criticisms must be supported
by evidence and ventilated in the proper forum. The statements of
Atty. Lazo defamed Judge Ramos and tarnished her judicial office.

Atty. Lazo hurled baseless accusations against Judge Ramos, accusing

her of bribery, corruption, bias, prejudice and immorality. These
serious allegations were aired in public, without affording Judge
Ramos an opportunity to defend herself. Atty. Lazo's utterances
incited public defiance and eroded the public's confidence in the
court.

Atty. Lazo violated Canon 1, Rule 1.02, Canon 11, Rule 11.04, Rule
11.05, and Rule 13.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility when
he uttered baseless and unsubstantiated grave accusations against
Judge Ramos before the public and in the presence of the media.

Atty. Vicentito M. Lazo was found GUILTY of violating the Code of

Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, he was SUSPENDED from
the practice of law for a period of one (1) year.

xxx
 EDUARDO L. ALCANTARA, complainant, vs. ATTY. SAMUEL M.
SALAS, respondent.
A.C. No. 3989. December 10, 2019, FIRST DIVISION, J.C REYES, JR.

“The Code of Professional Responsibility demands the utmost degree of

fidelity and good faith in dealing with the moneys entrusted to lawyers
because of their fiduciary relationship. Any lawyer who does not live up
to this duty must be prepared to take the consequences of his
waywardness.”

FACTS:

1. March 16, 1993 - Eduardo L. Alcantara filed an amended sworn

letter-complaint for unethical, unprofessional, and corrupt
practices against his counsel, respondent Atty. Samuel M. Salas.

2. May 19, 1980 – Alcantara hired the services of Atty. Salas in

filing a civil action for specific performance with damages.

3. April 26, 1990 - Having lost in the trial court, Atty. Salas
appealed to the CA. It was the last time Alcantara heard from
Atty. Salas.

4. July 1992 - Alcantara received news that his appeal was

dismissed. The CA sent a notice to file brief twice and, in both
instances, the notices were returned unclaimed because the
addressee has moved.

5. Alcantara informed Atty. Salas of the dismissal but Atty. Salas

blamed Alcantara for not checking the status of the case and
having lost communication with him.

6. Alcantara hired a new lawyer to continue his case to the

Supreme Court, which rendered a final decision unfavourable to
him.

7. Atty. Salas averred that it should have been the duty of the CA
to send the notices at his then current residential address as
recorded in the two other cases that were consolidated with a
third case. He did not notify the CA of the change of address in
the third case.
 8. August 25, 1993 - the Court referred the matter to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report
and recommendation.

9. July 28, 1994 - IBP conducted a hearing wherein the parties

presented their respective cause of actions and defenses.

10. October 18, 2011 - The IBP Investigating Commissioner, Oliver

A. Cachapero, issued a Report and Recommendation finding
Atty. Salas to have violated Rule 12.03 8 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility (CPR).

11. February 13, 2013 - IBP Board of Governors issued Resolution

No. XX-2013-175 adopting and approving with modification the
Investigating Commissioner's Report and Recommendation.

12. The IBP Board of Governors suspended Atty. Salas from the
practice of law for two months, with a stern warning that a
repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more
severely.

13. Atty. Salas moved for reconsideration,

ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. Salas committed gross negligence in failing to

file the appellant's brief in the CA.

HELD:

The Court affirms the IBP's ruling with modification as to penalty to

conform to the jurisprudence.

In addition to the IBP's finding of violation of Rule 12.03 of the CPR,

the Court finds other violations, such as Canons 17 and 18, and Rule
18.03 on a lawyer's duty to his/her client.

CANON 17 — A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE OF

HIS CLIENT AND HE SHALL BE MINDFUL OF THE TRUST AND
CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM.
 CANON 18 — A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH
COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.

The transcript of stenographic notes dated July 28, 1994 reveals that
Atty. Salas admitted to not filing the appellant's brief in the CA and
not updating the appellate court of his then current mailing address.
Atty. Salas made a similar admission in his Respondent's
Manifestation and Memorandum in Aid of Resolution.

It is crystal clear that the root cause of non-filing of appellant's brief

was Atty. Salas' failure to inform the CA of the change in his mailing
address. Had he done so, he would have received the CA's notices
requiring him to file the appellant's brief. Had he been diligent in his
duty, Alcantara's appeal would not have been dismissed. There is no
one to blame but Atty. Salas, because as a handling lawyer and officer
of the court, he must be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed
in him by his client.

Respondent Atty. Samuel M. Salas was found GUILTY of violating

Rule 12.03 of Canon 12, Canon 17, and Rule 18.03 of Canon 18 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility. He was SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for six (6) months.

xxx
 LEILANI JACOLBIA, complainant, vs. ATTY. JIMMY R.
PANGANIBAN, respondent
A.C. No. 12627. February 18, 2020, EN BANC, PERLAS-BERNABE

“Every lawyer owes fidelity to the causes and concerns of his clients. He
must be ever mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him by his
clients. His duty to safeguard the clients' interests commences from his
engagement as such, and lasts until his effective release by the clients.”

FACTS:

1. Sometime in 2004, complainant engaged the services of

respondent to facilitate the transfer and registration of a title.

2. Complainant paid respondent the amount of P244,865.00 as

legal fees, inclusive of all other necessary expenses, and turned
over all the relevant documents, including the original copy of
Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. M-3772.

3. Several years had passed without respondent taking any action

in transferring and registering the title to the property.

4. May 16, 2013 - Complainant sent a demand letter 5 requiring

respondent to return all pertinent documents, including OCT
No. M-3772, and refund the amount she paid him, 6 but to no
avail.

5. September 26, 2016 - IBP-CBD issued an Order 8 requiring

respondent to submit his answer to the complaint and furnish
complainant with a copy thereof within fifteen (15) days from
receipt, with a warning that failure to do so will render him in
default and the case shall be heard ex parte.

6. April 5, 2017 - IBP-CBD issued a Notice of Mandatory

Conference 9 notifying the parties to appear for mandatory
conference on May 24, 2017, with a warning that non-
appearance by the parties shall be deemed a waiver of their
right to participate in further proceedings.

7. Respondent failed to appear at the scheduled mandatory

conference and file his answer to the complaint.
 8. July 12, 2017 - respondent filed a motion to reset the
mandatory conference and to hold in abeyance the filing of his
position paper, which was denied in an Order dated August 15,
2017. Subsequently, respondent failed to file his position paper.

9. February 10, 2018 - Investigating Commissioner found

respondent to have violated the Lawyer's Oath and the CPR,
and accordingly, recommended his suspension from the
practice of law for one (1) year at the discretion of the Board of
Governors, with a warning that repetition of similar conduct in
the future will warrant a more severe penalty.

10. Investigating Commissioner opined that respondent fell short

of the diligence required of a lawyer entrusted with a case,
considering that he failed to carry complainant's case to its
conclusion.

11. May 19, 2018 - IBP Board of Governors adopted the

Investigating Commissioner's recommendation.

12. December 11, 2018 - Investigating Commissioner stressed that

respondent's acts of: (a) obtaining money for his legal services
but failing to render the same; (b) failing to return
complainant's money and relevant documents despite
demands; and (c) failing to appear before the IBP-CBD and
submit his answer, mandatory conference brief, and position
paper, violated the CPR, particularly Canons 1, 2, 7, 17, and 18
thereof.

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent should be administratively sanctioned for

the acts complained of.

HELD:

The Court concurs and affirms the findings and recommendation of

the IBP Board of Governors.
Every lawyer owes fidelity to the causes and concerns of his clients.
He must be ever mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him
by his clients. His duty to safeguard the clients' interests commences
from his engagement as such, and lasts until his effective release by
the clients. During that time, he is expected to take every reasonable
step and exercise ordinary care as his clients' interests may require. 22
In furtherance thereto, Canons 2, 17, 18, and Rule 18.03 of the CPR
provide:
CANON 2 — A lawyer shall make his legal services available in an
efficient and convenient manner compatible with the independence,
integrity and effectiveness of the profession.

CANON 17 — A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he

shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.

CANON 18 — A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and

diligence.

Rule 18.03 — A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to

him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him
liable.

Records reveal that sometime in 2004, complainant engaged the

services of respondent for the processing of the transfer and
registration of a land title, and in connection therewith, paid the latter
the amount of P244,865.00. Such neglect of a legal matter entrusted
to him by complainant constitutes flagrant violations of the above-
mentioned tenets of the CPR.

Upon complainant's demand, respondent refused to return the

amount of P244,865.00 he received as legal fees as well as all
pertinent documents entrusted to him by complainant, including the
original copy of OCT No. M-3772. Respondent did not even offer any
justifiable reason for such continued refusal. Clearly, such act
constitutes a violation of Canon 16 and Rules 16.01 and 16.03 of the
CPR, which state:

CANON 16 — A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties

of his client that may come into his profession.
Rule 16.01 — A lawyer shall account for all money or property
collected or received for or from the client.

Rule 16.03 — A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his
client when due or upon demand. x x x

A lawyer's failure to return upon demand the funds held by him on

behalf of his client, as in this case, gives rise to the presumption that
he has appropriated the same for his own use in violation of the trust
reposed in him by his client. This act is a gross violation of general
morality, as well as of professional ethics.

The Court notes respondent's repeated disregard of the IBP-CBD's

orders and proceedings. Records show that despite being required to
do so, respondent failed to file his answer, mandatory conference
brief, and position paper. He also failed to appear at the schedule
mandatory conference despite due notice. Instead, respondent
merely filed a motion to reset the mandatory conference and to hold
in abeyance the filing of his position paper, which caused undue
delay in the resolution of the instant administrative case, in violation
of Canons 11, 12, and Rule 12.04 of the CPR, 25 to wit:

CANON 11 — A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to

the courts and to judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct
by others.

CANON 12 — A lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his duty
to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice.

Rule 12.04 — A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the
execution of a judgment or misuse court processes.

It should be emphasized that as a member of the IBP, respondent is

duty-bound to comply with all the IBP's lawful directives in deference
to its authority over him.Verily, his failure to comply with the orders of
the IBP without justifiable reason manifests his disrespect of judicial
authorities, for which he must be disciplined accordingly.

Atty. Jimmy R. Panganiban was found administratively liable for

violating Canons 2 and 11, Rule 12.04 of Canon 12, Rules 16.01 and
16.03 of Canon 16, Canon 17, and Rule 18.03 of Canon 18 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, he was SUSPENDED from
the practice of law for a period of three (3) years, with a STERN
WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt
with more severely. He was ORDERED to pay a fine in the amount of
P15,000.00 for failure to comply with the directives of the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline.

xxx