Cariaga vs.

People

FACTS:

Petitioner Cenita M. Cariaga is a municipal treasurer of Cabatuan, Isabela whose been

charged with three separate cases before the Regional Trial Court of Isabela, all for
malversation of public funds. Cariaga was convicted for the said cases. Hence, an
appeal was filed before the Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals dismissed petitioners appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that it
is the Sandiganbayan which has exclusive appellate jurisdiction thereon. Petitioner,
admitting the procedural error committed by her former counsel, implores the Court to
relax the Rules to afford her an opportunity to fully ventilate her appeal on the merits
and requests the Court to endorse and transmit the records of the cases to the
Sandiganbayan in the interest of substantial justice.

ISSUE:

WHETHER THE APPEAL OF [PETITIONER] WRONGFULLY DIRECTED TO THE

COURT OF APPEALS BE DISMISSED OUTRIGHT OR BE ENDORSED AND
TRANSMITTED TO THE SANDIGANBAYAN WHERE THE APPEAL SHALL THEN
PROCEED IN DUE COURSE.

HELD:

Since the appeal involves criminal cases, and the possibility of a person being deprived
of liberty due to a procedural lapse militates against the Courts dispensation of justice,
the Court grants petitioners plea for a relaxation of the Rules.

For rules of procedure must be viewed as tools to facilitate the attainment of justice,
such that any rigid and strict application thereof which results in technicalities tending to
frustrate substantial justice must always be avoided.

In Ulep v. People, the Court remanded the case to the Sandiganbayan when it found
that

x x x petitioners failure to designate the proper forum for her appeal was inadvertent.
The omission did not appear to be a dilatory tactic on her part. Indeed, petitioner had
more to lose had that been the case as her appeal could be dismissed outright for lack
of jurisdiction which was exactly what happened in the CA.

The trial court, on the other hand, was duty bound to forward the records of the case to
the proper forum, the Sandiganbayan. It is unfortunate that the RTC judge concerned
ordered the pertinent records to be forwarded to the wrong court, to the great prejudice
of petitioner. Cases involving government employees with a salary grade lower than 27
are fairly common, albeit regrettably so. The judge was expected to know and should
have known the law and the rules of procedure. He should have known when appeals
are to be taken to the CA and when they should be forwarded to the Sandiganbayan.
He should have conscientiously and carefully observed this responsibility specially in
cases such as this where a persons liberty was at stake. (emphasis and underscoring
supplied)

The slapdash work of petitioners former counsel and the trial courts apparent ignorance
of the law effectively conspired to deny petitioner the remedial measures to question her
conviction.[11]

While the negligence of counsel generally binds the client, the Court has made
exceptions thereto, especially in criminal cases where reckless or gross negligence of
counsel deprives the client of due process of law; when its application will result in
outright deprivation of the clients liberty or property; or where the interests of justice so
require. [12] It can not be gainsaid that the case of petitioner can fall under any of these
exceptions.

Moreover, a more thorough review and appreciation of the evidence for the prosecution
and defense as well as a proper application of the imposable penalties in the present
case by the Sandiganbayan would do well to assuage petitioner that her appeal is
decided scrupulously.

WHEREFORE, the assailed Resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No.

29514 are SET ASIDE. Let the records of the cases be FORWARDED to the
Sandiganbayan for proper disposition.

MARTIN J. SIOSON, v. ATTY. APOYA, JR.

A.C. No. 12044, July 23, 2018
CAGUIOA, J.:
FACTS:
Sioson engaged the services of Atty. Apoya, Jr. in handling the petition for review he
had earlier filed before the DOJ, in connection with his complaint for Qualified Theft.
Atty. Apoya, Jr. required the payment of an acceptance fee of P10,000.00, appearance
fee of P2,500.00 per hearing and 15% of whatever amount collected from the case as
success fee. Atty. Apoya, Jr. also told Sioson that he would submit a manifestation
before the DOJ to correct the allegations stated in Sioson's petition. Sioson issued a
Check to pay Atty. Apoya, Jr. P10,000.00 as acceptance fee. Atty. Apoya, Jr. then
deposited the said check to his (BPI) Account. On December 6, 2013, Sioson sent a
text message to Atty. Apoya, Jr. inquiring on the status of his case. Atty. Apoya, Jr.
replied that he would file first a Notice of Entry of Appearance prior to the filing of the
manifestation he and Sioson discussed on November 27, 2013. On December 11,
2013, Sioson sent another text message to Atty. Apoya, Jr., requesting for a status
update on the case. Atty. Apoya, Jr. told Sioson to wait for the order of the DOJ
notifying the latter of the Notice of Entry of Appearance he had filed. Sioson went to the
DOJ to follow up on his case. He discovered that Atty. Apoya, Jr. had not filed an Entry
of Appearance in relation to his case. Sioson called Atty. Apoya, Jr. but the latter's
phone could not be reached. Sioson averred that Atty. Apoya, Jr. thereafter continued to
ignore his text messages. Sioson requested Atty. Apoya, Jr. for a status update on his
petition for review but did not respond to the said letter. Sioson wrote another letter to
Atty. Apoya, Jr., he demanded for Atty. Apoya, Jr. to return the P10,000.00 he had
given the latter as acceptance fee. Likewise, he asked for the return of all the
documents he sent pertaining to his case. Otherwise, he will be constrained to file a
Disbarment Case against him before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for violation of
"Canon Code" specifically Canons 16 and 18. On April 4, 2014, Sioson filed a Verified
Complaint before the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (CBD-IBP), praying that Atty. Apoya, Jr. be disciplined and be disbarred
from the practice of law. The CBD-IBP issued an Order requiring Atty. Apoya, Jr. to
submit a duly verified Answer, within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the order. In his
Answer dated May 21, 2014, Atty. Apoya, Jr. vehemently denied that Sioson was his
client. He alleged that he does not know Sioson personally. Respondent respectfully
stressed that he never had an occasion to meet herein complainant. Respondent never
received any amount from the complainant representing as acceptance fee.
Respondent likewise never received any documents from the complainant pertaining to
the case Qualified Theft he mentioned in his letter. That there is absolutely no attorney-
client relationship exist between the respondent and the complainant in this case. Thus,
respondent felt a coercion and threat with respect to the said letter came from the
complainant for compelling respondent to return something which he did not received
from the complainant and threatening to harm and or filing an administrative against the
respondent. Consequently, respondent filed Criminal Complaint GRAVE THREATS and
GRAVE COERCION against the complainant before the office of the City Prosecutor of
Caloocan City. After due proceedings, Investigating Commissioner Erwin L. Aguilera
rendered a Report and Recommendation13 on November 26, 2014, recommending that
Atty. Apoya, Jr. be suspended from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months and
that he be ordered to return the amount of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) to
Sioson. The IBP Board of Governors passed a Resolution20 denying respondent Atty.
Apoya, Jr.'s Motion for Reconsideration
 ISSUE:
Whether or not ATTY. DIONISIO B. APOYA, JR. violated the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
RULING:
The Court agrees with the IBP Board of Governors that Atty. Apoya, Jr.'s refusal to
return Sioson's money upon demand and his failure to respond to Sioson's calls, text
messages and letters asking for a status update on the case filed before the DOJ reveal

Atty. Apoya, Jr.'s failure to live up to his duties as a lawyer in consonance with the
strictures of his oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. The acts committed
by Atty. Apoya, Jr. thus fall squarely within the prohibition of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, Rule
16.01 of Canon 16, and Rule 18.03 and Rule 18.04 of Canon 18 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility CPR. Any act or omission that is contrary to, or prohibited or
unauthorized by, or in defiance of, disobedient to, or disregards the law is unlawful. To
this end, nothing should be done by any member of the legal fraternity which might tend
to lessen in any degree the confidence of the public in the fidelity, honesty and integrity
of the profession FALLO: WHEREFORE, the Court finds Atty. Dionisio B. Apoya, Jr.
LIABLE for violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01, Canon 16, Rule 16.01, Canon 18, and Rule
18.03 and Rule 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and he is hereby
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months effective immediately upon
receipt of this Decision. Atty. Apoya, Jr. is also ordered to return the amount of Ten
Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) to complainant Martin J. Sioson within thirty (30) days
from receipt of this Decision.

JUDGE NIMFA P. SITACA, Complainant, v. ATTY. DIEGO M.

PALOMARES, Respondent.

Facts

Judge Nimfa Penaco-Sitaca seeks the disbarment of Atty. Diego M. Palomares, Jr., for
having filed a falsified bail bond.

Judge Nimfa Penaco-Sitaca was the Acting Presiding Judge of Branch 35 of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Ozamis City. Among the cases in her sala was Criminal
Case No. RTC-1503 for murder against Dunhill Palomares, a son of Atty. Diego M.
Palomares, Jr., herein respondent. Sometime in September 1997, Atty. Palomares, in
representation of Dunhill, filed a bail bond of P200,000.00 to secure the latters release.
The bail bond was purportedly signed and approved by the late Judge Nazar U.
Chavez, then Presiding Judge of RTC Branch 18 of Cagayan de Oro City, and with it
was a corresponding order of release signed by RTC Branch 18 Clerk of Court Atty.
Glenn Peter C. Baldado. When informed of the filing by Atty. Palomares of the bail
bond, ostensibly signed by Judge Chavez, Judge Sitaca approved the release of the
accused.

When RTC Branch 35 Clerk of Court Atty. Roy P. Murallon later requested Atty.
Baldado to forward to the Ozamis City RTC the original records and supporting
documents on the bail bond, Atty. Baldado, by then already a practicing lawyer,
disavowed the existence of the bail bond. Atty. Baldado wrote to say that per the official
records of Cagayan de Oro RTC, Branch 18, the bail bond did not exist, that no
approval was made by Judge Chavez, and that no order for the release of Dunhill was
issued. Atty. Baldado concluded that the bail bond was a forged document.

Judge Sitaca directed Atty. Palomares to explain. In his letter to Judge Sitaca, Atty.
Palomares stated that he was the corporate legal counsel of Bentley House
International Corporation, and when the bail application was approved for P200,000.00,
he requested the amount from Jonathon Stevenz and Cristina Q. Romarate, Chief
Operations Officer and Treasurer, respectively, of Bentley House International
Corporation. Instead of giving the money, Stevenz and Romarate proposed to utilize the
services of William Guialani. He acceded. Guialani then delivered the release order,
which Atty. Palomares immediately presented to the Branch 35 clerk of court of RTC
Ozamis City. The clerk of court read the release order and then issued the
corresponding order for the release of Dunhill Palomares. Atty. Palomares denied any
wrongdoing in connection with the submission of the falsified bail bond and offered, in
any event, to replace the bail bond with a cash bond.

Judge Sitaca, finding the explanation unsatisfactory, filed disbarment proceedings

against Atty. Palomares.

The Court, in its 02 nd August 2000 resolution, required Atty. Palomares to comment on
the complaint for disbarment. In his comment, Atty. Palomares reiterated his previous
explanation to Judge Sitaca. In addition, he intimated that Judge Sitaca was covering up
for the negligence of her clerk of court. He claimed that Judge Sitaca was not around
when the release order was issued because it was a Saturday and only a skeletal force
was in the office. Atty. Palomares said that he had asked the help of Atty. Manuel
Ravanera to prove that the bail bond was secured by Guialani who could have possibly
been in cahoots with some court employees.

In its resolution of 19 March 2003, the Court referred the case to the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation.

In a Report and Recommendation, dated 24 July 2003, Commissioner Milagros V. San

Juan held that there was no doubt that the bail bond and order of release were
"fictitious. She stated that while there was no conclusive proof that Atty. Palomares had
been the author of the fictitious bail and release order, it could not be denied, however,
that it was he who presented the papers to the court. Atty. Palomares failed to
satisfactorily explain, she stated, why he had to take a circuitous route and secure the
services of Guialani despite his claim that he could have easily availed himself of the
facilities of other insurance companies. She recommended that Atty. Palomares be
suspended from the practice of law for a period of eighteen (18) months. The
recommendation was adopted by the IBP Board of Governors on 30 August 2003 in its
Resolution No. XVI-2002-81.