Legal and Judicial Ethics

COMPILATION OF YEAR 2020 CASES

Submitted to:

ATTY. JAPHET MASCULINO

Professor

Submitted by:

GROUP V
Patricia Nicole Balbin
Jayraldin B. Abejo
Genara L. Ducasi
Alexis Z. Ligayo
Glendy Rose N. Obahid

January 20, 2023

 Table of Contents of 2020 Cases
JANUARY CASES
CASE DIGEST TITLE/ G.R. NO./ DATE Reporter
Zenaida Martin-Ortega v Atty. Angelyn A. Tadena
(A.C. No. 12018 January 29, 2020)
Joann G. Minas Vs. Atty. Domingo A. Doctor, Jr.
(A.C. No. 12660 January 28, 2020)
Librada A. Ladrera Vs. Atty. Ramiro S. Osorio
(A.C. No. 10315 January 22, 2020)
Joselito C. Caballero v Atty. Arlene G. Pilapil PATRICIA NICOLE BALBIN
(A.C. No. 7075 January 22, 2020)
Valentin C. Miranda v Atty. Macario D. Carpio
(A.C. No. 6281 January 15, 2020)
Atty. Pedro B. Aguirre v Atty. Crispin T. Reyes
(A.C. No. 4355 January 8, 2020)
Rene J. Hierro v Atty. Plaridel C. Nava II
(A.C. No. 9459 January 8, 2023)
FEBRUARY CASES
Clara R. Ick, et al. v Atty. Allan S. Amazona
(A.C. No. 12375 February 26, 2023)
Francisco Pagdanganan v Atty. Romeo C. Plata
(A.C. No. 12701 February 26, 2020)
Irene R. Puno v Atty. Redentor S. Viaje
(A.C. No. 12085 February 26, 2020)
Benjamin M. Katipunan v Atty. Rebene C. Carrera
(A.C. No.12661 February 19, 2020)
Ruben A. Andaya v Atty. Emmanuel Aladin A. Tumanda PATRICIA NICOLE BALBIN
(A.C. No. 12209 February 18, 2020)
Atty. Plaridel C. Nava II v Atty. Ofelia M.D. Artuz
(A.C. No. 7253 February 18, 2020)
Michael M. Lapitan v Atty. Elpidio S. Salgado
(A.C. No. 12452 February 18, 2020)

Damaso Sta. Maria, Juanito Tapang and Liberato Tapang and Liberato Omania v Atty. Ricardo Atayde
(A.C. No. 9197 February 12, 2020)
Spouses Darito P. Nocuenca and Lucille B. Nocuenca Vs. Atty. Alfredo T. Bensi
(A.C. No. 12609 February 10, 2020)

Wilma L. Zamora v Atty. Makilito B. Mahinay

(A.C. No.12622 February 10, 2020)
A
MARCH CASES
Atty. Honesto Ancheta Cabarroguis VS. Atty. Danilo Basa
A.C. No. 8789 March 11, 2020
Jonathan C. Parungao Vs. Atty. Dexter B. Lacuanan
A.C. No. 12071, March 11, 2020
ADELA H. VIOLAGO VS. ATTY. BONIFACIO F. ARANJUEZ, JR., JAYRALDIN B. ABEJO
A.C. No. 10254, March 09, 2020
SANTIAGO B. BURGOS,VS. ATTY. JOVENCIO JAMES G. BEREBER
A.C. No. 12666, March 04, 2020 

CESAR C. CASTRO, vs. ATTY. ENRICO G. BARIN

A.C. No. 9495 March 02, 2020 
JUNE CASES
MATTHEW CONSTANCIO M. SANTAMARIA VS.
ATTY. RAUL O. TOLENTINO
A.C. No. 12006, June 29, 2020
WILLY FRED U. BEGAY VS. ATTY. PAULINO I. SAGUYOD,
A.M. No. P-17-3652 June 23, 2020
JESUS DAVID VS. ATTY. DIOSDADO M. RONGCAL,
ATTY. ILDEFONSO C. TARIO, ATTY. MARK JOHN M. SORIQUEZ, ATTY. EMILIANO S. POMER,
ATTY. MARILET SANTOS-LAYUG, AND ATTY. DANNY F. VILLANUEVA
A.C. No. 12103 June 23, 2020 JAYRALDINE B. ABEJO

FELICITAS H. BONDOC, REPRESENTED BY CONRAD H. BAUTISTA, VS.ATTY. MARLOW L.

LICUDINE
A.C. No. 12768 June 23, 2020
SPOUSES ELENA ROMEO CUÑA, SR., VS.
ATTY. DONALITO ELONA
A.C. No. 5314 June 23, 2020
DR. MARIA ENCARNACION R. LEGASPI VS.
ATTY. FLORENCIO D. GONZALES
A.C. No. 12076 June 22, 2020 
MARY JANE D. YUCHENGCO VS. ATTY. ANATHALIA B. ANGARE

IN RE: PETITION FOR THE DISBARMENT OF ATTY. ESTRELLA O. LAYSA, PATRICIA MAGLAYA
OLLADA
VS. ATTY. ESTRELLA O. LAYSA RESPONDENT.

FATHER SATURNINO URIOS UNIVERSITY (FSUU) INC., AND/OR REV. FR. JOHN CHRISTIAN U.
YOUNG - PRESIDENT, PETITIONERS, VS. ATTY. RUBEN B. CURAZA, RESPONDENT.

ROGELIO PASAMONTE VS. ATTY. LIBERATO TENEZA

A.C. No. 11104 June 09, 2020
JULY CASES
USUSAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ATTY. ROEL A. PACIO, PETITIONER,
VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
[ G.R. No. 209462, July 15, 2020 ]

NENITA KO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. LADIMIR IAN G. MADURAMENTE AND ATTY. MERCY
GRACE L. MADURAMENTE, RESPONDENTS.
[ A.C. No. 11118 (Formerly CBD Case No. 08-2140), July 14, 2020 ]

PEDRO SALAZAR, COMPLAINANT, VS.

ATTY. ARMAND DURAN, RESPONDENT.
[ A.C. No. 7035, July 13, 2020 ]
HEIRS OF ODYLON UNITE TORRICES, REPRESENTED BY SOLE HEIR MIGUEL B. TORRICES,
COMPLAINANT, V. ATTY. HAXLEY M. GALANO, RESPONDENT. GENARA L. DUCASI
[ A.C. No. 11870, July 07, 2020 ]

LETECIA G. SIAO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. BAYANI S. ATUP, RESPONDENT.

[ A.C. No. 10890, July 01, 2020 ]

ATTY. FERNANDO P. PERITO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. BERTRAND A. BATERINA, ATTY. RYAN
R. BESID, ATTY. RICHIE L. TIBLANI, AND ATTY. MARI KHRIS R. PAMMIT, RESPONDENTS.
[ A.C. No. 12631, July 08, 2020 ]

VALENTINO C. LEANO, COMPLAINANT, V. ATTY. HIPOLITO C. SALATAN, RESPONDENT.

A.C. No. 12551, July 08, 2020
ATTY. ROLEX T. SUPLICO AND CBD ATTY. DEMAREE J.B. RAVAL, PETITIONERS , VS. ATTY.
LUIS K. LOKIN, JR. AND ATTY. SALVADOR C. HIZON, RESPONDENTS
[ A.C. No. 9152 [Formerly Case No. 05-1430], July 01, 2020 ]

AUGUST CASES
CORAZON KANG IGNACIO, COMPLAINANT, V. ATTY. MONTE P. IGNACIO, RESPONDENT.; A.C.
NO. 11988 - JANINA B. DE LA CRUZ AS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT OF CORAZON KANG IGNACIO,
COMPLAINANT VS. ATTY. MONTE P. IGNACIO RESPONDENT.
A.C. No. 9426, August 25, 2020

A.M. No. P-10-2812[Formerly OCA IPI No. 10-3420-P] - ANONYMOUS COMPLAINT AGAINST CLERK
OF COURT V ATTY. ZENALFIE M. CUENCO, COURT INTERPRETER CHRISTIAN V. CABANILLA,
COURT STENOGRAPHERS FILIPINAS M. YABUT AND SIONY P. ABCEDE, AND LOCALLY-FUNDED GENARA L. DUCASI
EMPLOYEE ALELI DE GUZMAN, ALL OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 72, MALABON
CITY, AND OFFICER VANISSA L. ASIS OF THE PHILIPPINE MEDIATION CENTER.
A.M. No. P-10-2812[Formerly OCA IPI No. 10-3420-P], August 18, 2020

SEPTEMBER CASES
Atty. Esther Gertrude D. Biliran Vs. Atty. Danilo A. Bantugan
A.C. No. 8451. September 30, 2020
Delta Venture Resources, Inc. Vs. Atty. Cagliotro Miguel Martinez
A.C. No. 9268. September 30, 2020
JIMMY N. GOW, COMPLAINANT, V. ATTYS. GERTRUDO A. DE LEON AND FELIX B. DESIDERIO,
JR., RESPONDENTS
A.C. No. 12713, September 23, 2020
LORNA L. OCAMPO, COMPLAINANT, V. ATTY. JOSE Q. LORICA IV, RESPONDENT. GENARA L. DUCASI
A.C. No. 12790, September 23, 2020

MANUEL R. LEONOR, COMPLAINANT, V. ATTYS. DICKSON C. AYON-AYON AND EULOGIO C.

MANANQUIL, JR., RESPONDENTS.
A.C. No. 12624 [Formerly CBD Case No. 15-4508], September 16, 2020
ATTY. BRYAN S. LIM AND NESTOR R. WONG, COMPLAINANTS, V. ATTY. JOSE C. TABILIRAN,
JR., RESPONDENT.
A.C. No. 10793, September 16, 2020

EDWIN JET M. RICARDO, JR., Complainant, v. ATTY. WENDELL L. GO, Respondents.

A.C. No. 12280, September 16, 2020

HENRIETTA PICZON-HERMOSO AND BEZALEL PICZON HERMOSO, COMPLAINANTS, VS. ATTY.

SYLVESTER C. PARADO, RESPONDENT.
[ A.C. No. 8116, September 16, 2020 ]

MYRIAM TAN-TE SENG, COMPLAINANT, V. ATTY. DENNIS C. PANGAN, RESPONDENT.

A.C. No. 12829 [Formerly CBD Case No. 15-4821], September 16, 2020

CATHERINE V. VILLARENTE, COMPLAINANT, V. ATTY. BENIGNO C. VILLARENTE, JR.,

RESPONDENT.
A.C. No. 8866 (Formerly CBD Case No. 12-3385), September 15, 2020
A.C. No. 10738, September 14, 2020
MARCELINA ZAMORA, COMPLAINANT, VS.
ATTY. MARILYN V. GALLANOSA, RESPONDENT.
A.C. No. 10204, September 14, 2020
JUDGE ROSEMARIE V. RAMOS, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 19, BANGUI, ILOCOS NORTE,
Complainant, v. ATTY. VICENTITO M. LAZO, Respondents.
ALEXIS Z. LIGAYO
A.C. No. 10306, September 16, 2020
FATIMA S. INGRAM, PETITIONER,
V. ATTY. JOSE Q. LORICA IV, RESPONDENT,
A.C. No. 8700, September 08, 2020
NENA YBAÑEZ ZERNA, COMPLAINANT,
V. ATTY. MANOLO M. ZERNA, RESPONDENT.

A.C. No. 5279, September 08, 2020

ROMEO TELLES, COMPLAINANT,
VS. ATTY. ROGELIO P. DANCEL, RESPONDENT.
A.C. No. 10713 [Formerly CBD Case No. 15-4731], September 08, 2020
BRYCE RUSSEL MITCHELL, COMPLAINANT,
V. ATTY. JUAN PAOLO F. AMISTOSO, RESPONDENT.
A.C. No. 12709, September 08, 2020
LILIA YUSAY-CORDERO,
COMPLAINANT,
V. ATTY. JUANITO AMIHAN, JR., RESPONDENT.
OCTOBER CASES
A.C. No. 12086 [Formerly CBD Case No. 12-3300], October 07, 2020
ANTONIO T. AGUINALDO, COMPLAINANT,
V. ATTY. ISAIAH C. ASUNCION, JR., RESPONDENT.

A.C. No. 12486, October 15, 2019

ANTONIO X. GENATO, COMPLAINANT, v. ATTY. ELIGIO P. MALLARI, RESPONDENT.

A.C. No. 9114, October 06, 2020

JOSE R. REYES, JR., COMPLAINANT,
VS. ATTY. SOCRATES R. RIVERA, RESPONDENT.
A.C. No. 11217, October 07, 2020
LINO C. BERNAL, JR., Complainant,
v. ATTY. ERNESTO M. PRIAS, Respondent.
A.C. No. 10636, October 12, 2020 ALEXIS Z. LIGAYO
MANUEL B. TABLIZO, COMPLAINANT,
V. ATTYS. JOYRICH M. GOLANGCO, ADORACION A. AGBADA, ELBERT L. BUNAGAN, AND
JOAQUIN F. SALAZAR, RESPONDENTS.

A.M. No. P-20-4041 [Formerly OCA I.P.I No. 20-4997-P], October 13, 2020
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant,
v. ATTY. JOAN M. DELA CRUZ, CLERK OF COURT V, BRANCH 64, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT,
MAKATI CITY, Respondent.

.R. No. 216634, October 14, 2020

HON. PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, HON. ROZANNO
RUFINO B. BIAZON, AND ATTY. JUAN LORENZO T. TAÑADA, IN THEIR RESPECTIVE CAPACITIES
AS COMMISSIONER AND DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF THE BUREAU OF CUSTOMS,
PETITIONERS,
V. ATTY. CHRISTOPHER S. DY BUCO, RESPONDENT.
A.C. No. 8959, October 07, 2020
RISIE G. BAYGAR, COMPLAINANT,
V. ATTY. CLARO MANUEL M. RIVERA, RESPONDENT.
A.C. No. 12766 (Formerly CBD Case No. 12-3589), October 07, 2020
RODOLFO L. ORENIA III, COMPLAINANT,
V. ATTY. ROMEO S. GONZALES, RESPONDENT.
A.C. No. 12017, October 14, 2020
ROGER B. DAP-OG, COMPLAINANT,
VS. ATTY. LUEL C. MENDEZ, RESPONDENT.
A.C. No. 12733, October 14, 2020
SPOUSES VIRGINIA AND RAMON ALDEA, Complainants,
v. ATTY. RENATO C. BAGAY, Respondent.
A.C. No. 8522, October 06, 2020
TEODORO L. CANSINO and EMILIO L. CANSINO, JR., Complainants,
v. ATTY. VICTOR D. SEDERIOSA, Respondent.

A.C. No. 10699 [Formerly CBD Case No. 15-4793], October 06, 2020 ]
WILFREDO C. CABALLERO, COMPLAINANT,
VS. ATTY. GLICERIO A. SAMPANA, RESPONDENT.
NOVEMBER CASES
[ A.C. No. 12081 [Formerly CBD Case No. 14-4225], November 24, 2020 ]
ALBERTO LOPEZ, COMPLAINANT, ALEXIS Z. LIGAYO
VS. ATTY. ROSENDO C. RAMOS, RESPONDENT.
NOVEMBER CASES
John Paul Keiner v. Atty. Ricardo R. Amores
(A.C. No. 9417, November 18, 2020)
Edgardo A. Tapang v. Atty. Marian C. Donayre
(A.C. No. 12822, November 18, 2020)
Rosalinda Taghoy , et al. v. Atty. Constantine Tecson III
(A.C. No. 12446, November 16, 2020)
Joel A. Pilar v. Atty. Clarence T. Ballicud
(A.C. No. 12792, November 16, 2020)
Atty. Virgilio A. Sevandal v. Atty. Melita B. Adama
(A.C. No. 10571, November 11, 2020)
Eduardo Manalang v. Atty. Cristina Buendia
(A.C. No. 12079, November 10, 2020)
Divine Grace P. Cristobal v. Atty. Jonathan A. Cristobal
(A.C. No. 12702, November 8, 2020)
Salvacion C. Romo v. Atty. Orheim T. Ferrer GLENDY ROSE N. OBAHID
(A.C. No. 12833, November 10, 2020)
Atty. Joseph Vincent T. Go v. Atty. Virgilio T. Teruel
(A.C. No. 11119, November 4, 2020)
Edralyn B. Berzola v. Atty. Marlon O. Baldovino
(A.C. No. 12815, November 03, 2020)
Rommel N. Reyes v. Atty. Gerald Z. Gubatan
(A.C. No. 12839, November 3, 2020)
Atty. Antonio B. Manzano v. Atty. Carlos P. Rivera
(A.C. No. 12173, November 03, 2020)
Professional Services, Inc. v. Atty. Socrates R. Rivera
(A.C. No. 11241, November 03, 2020)
DECEMBER CASES
Adelita S. Villamor v. Atty. Ely Galland A. Jumao-as
(A.C. No. 8111, December 9, 2020)
Michelle A. Buenaventura v. Atty. Dany B. Gille
(A.C. No. 7446, December 09, 2020)
Napoleon S. Quitazol v. Atty. Henry S. Capela GLENDY ROSE N. OBAHID
(A.C. No. 12072, December 09, 2020)
In Re: OMB-C-C-13-0104 Atty. Socrates G. Maranan V. Francisco Domagoso v. Atty. Socrates G. Maranan
(A.C. No. 12877, December 07, 2020)

Judge Juanita T. Guerrero v. Atty. Ma. Eleanor La-Arni A. Giron

(A.C. No. 10928, December 09, 2020)

JANUARY 2020
PATRICIA NICOLE BALBIN
 CASE DIGEST FACTS ISSUE CANON PENALTY
TITLE/ G.R. NO./ VIOLATED
DATE

Zenaida Martin-  July 12, 2012: Gross misconduct complaint for disbarment of Atty.
Ortega v Atty. Tadena as she was alleged to have intimidated the complainant’s Whether Atty. Tadena Gross misconduct  Atty. Angelyn Tadena is
Angelyn A. Tadena bodyguard when it stopped Atty. Tadena’s client from entering the is guilty of gross as a violation of admonished with stern
(A.C. No. 12018 condominium unit of complainant. misconduct as a Lawyer’s oath and warning that a repetition
January 29, 2020) representative of Mr. the Code of will be dealt severely.
 December 7, 2011: Dr. Ortega, the client of Atty. Ortega and husband of Leonardo Ortega Professional  Office of the Bar
the complainant with which a pending annulment case was on-going (husband of Responsibility Confidant is directed to
have forcefully destroy and enter the premises of the complainant of complainant) that will initiate an administrative
which she had found that 12 of her luxury bags were missing. warrant a disbarment proceeding against Atty.
Tadena and her
companions.
 On an affidavit dated December 7, 2011 and December 21 2011: The
court finds that the bodyguard have not mentioned the direct
involvement of Atty. Tadena nor her presence during the said incident.
But, the Dr. Ortega must have been advised properly by Atty. Tadena to
make proper representation before entering the said premises.

Whether or not Atty. Canon 16, Rule 2 years suspension and the
Joann G. Minas Vs.  Joann G. Minas (complainant) owned FV/JVPHIL 5 fishing vessel with Doctor should be held 16.01 and Rule remaining balance of
Atty. Domingo A. Filipino and Taiwanese crew members was apprehended by the PCG, liable for his failure to 16.03, and Canon P800,000.00 and US $4,600.00
Doctor, Jr. and BFAR. account the money 18, Rule 18.03 and with legal interest will be paid
(A.C. No. 12660  Criminal cases were filed before the RTC of Ilagan, Isabela and received from Rule 18.04 of Code within 90 days.
January 28, 2020) administrative cases before the MARINA and BFAR. complainant and serve of Professional
 2 other cases were filed against the Prosecutor’s Office of the Province his client with Responsibility.
of Zambales and City of Olongapo. competence and
 The complainant engaged the services of Atty. Doctor of which he diligence, in violation
asked for the following fees: of Canon 16, Rule
 Acceptance Fee: P100,000.00 (paid in cash) 16.01 and Rule 16.03,
 Increased in Acceptance Fee: P200,000.00 (paid in cash) and Canon 18, Rule
18.03 and Rule 18. 04
 Administrative Penalty & Miscellaneous Fees: P400,000.00 (June 8,
of Code of Professional
 2011: personally handed in a brown envelope at the front of BID Office
Intramuros, Manila)
 Replevin Bond: P400,000.00 to release the vessel (June 21, 2011: paid
in cash)
 Administrative Fine to convince BFAR to end the administrative case:
US $50,000.00. (June 21, 2011: (paid in cash)
 The accused assured the complainant that the vessel will be release in 2
days and the BFAR case will be terminated in 3 days. But, no receipt
was received by the complainant. Responsibility.
 Complainant later found out that no replevin bond was posted,
prosecution had presented its evidence ex-parte, since complainant was
declared in default for failure of Atty. Doctor to file required answer on
her behalf.
 Complainant called the accused and demanded the return of
P800,000.00 and the US $50,000.00 but only the US $ 40,000.00 was
returned, then after US $2,000.00 and US $ 1,500.00

2004 Rules on
 December 16, 2013 filed a Sinumpaang Salaysay alleging Atty. Osorio Whether Atty. Osorio Notarial Practice,
Librada A. Ladrera of notarizing the following documents: violated the Rules on particularly  6 months suspension in
Vs. Atty. Ramiro S. a) Deed of Absaloute (sic) Sale (6/30/8) Notarial Practice, the paragraphs (2), (8), the practice of law
Osorio b) Acknowledgment of Debt and Promissory Note (7/30/8) Lawyer’s Oath, and the and (10), Rule IX;  Notarial Commission is
(A.C. No. 10315 c) Deed of Conditional Transfer and Waiver of Possessory Rights Code of Professional Section 2, revoked
January 22, 2020) (4/24/9) Responsibility. paragraph (a) and  2 years prohibition from
 2) The documents stated the complainant’s name and of her daughter Discharging him as €, Rule VI, Canon being commissioned as a
Jeralyn Ladrera Kumar were indicated as buyers from the respondent’s duly commissioned 1, Rule 1.01 of the notary public
client – Dalia Valladolid-Rousan without their presence and knowledge. notary public. CPR; and the
Lawyer’s Oath

Joselito C. Caballero  September 20, 2005: Gross misconduct complaint charging Atty Pilapil  2 years suspension
v Atty. Arlene G. of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility. Whether Atty. Pilapil is Lawyer’s oath and  Returned the sum of
Pilapil  June 2004: Complainant engaged the services of the counsel to prepare guilty of violating Canon 11, Rule P53,500.00 with a legal
(A.C. No. 7075 a Deed of Sale and later on must be amended to include the names of Canon 11, Rule 16.01, 16.01, Rule 16.03 interest of 5% per annum
January 22, 2020) complainant sisters as vendees. Respondent asked for P53,500.00 Rule 16.03 of Canon of Canon 16and until full payment from
 November 2004: Complainant again engaged the services of respondent 16and Canon 17 of the Canon 17 of the the receipt of decision
for another Deed of Sale of another land he and his sisters purchased Code of Professional Code of  Additional fine of
and respondent has been given P69,000.00 for she will also be the one Responsibility Professional P1,00.00 imposed on
to deliver capital gains tax payment to the BIR. Responsibility resolution dated October
  July 25, 2005: In respondent’s letter to the IBP as a response to the
complaint against her (with which, she was not able to attend), she 18, 2010 within 10 days
claimed that she had advised the complainant’s sister to hire a fixer with from the receipt of
which respondent had given the P45,000.00 which later she claimed had decision
disappeared.
Valentin C. Miranda  September 26,2011: 6 months suspension and was ordered by the court
v Atty. Macario D. to return the complainants copy of OCT 0-94 but failed to comply.
Carpio  July 28, 2014: The court ask for his response upon the failure of such. A
(A.C. No. 6281 Lift of suspension was denied
letter dated May 25, 2014 the said respondent state that it was the Whether Atty. Carpio
January 15, 2020) Violation of and an additional 6 months
complainant who failed to get the copy and it was him not the is gulty of violating the
Lawyer’s oath suspension in the practice of law
complainant who obtained it from the court. lawyer’s oath
upon reception of decision.
 The respondent also claim that he thought his suspension is already
lifted contradicting his line of accepting a case due to financial reasons
after it was officially lifted.
Atty. Pedro B.  Guilty of simple
Aguirre v Atty. misconduct violating
Crispin T. Reyes Rule 8.01 of the Code of
(A.C. No. 4355 Professional
January 8, 2020) Responsibility
December 1, 1994: December 23, 1993 statement of the respondent that he was Whether the complaint  Pay a fine of P2,000.00
the one who made Supreme Court case (GR 70054) win. And made this false of disbarment against within 5 days from
claim a memo to the Banco Filipino Board of Directors. An amended complaint Atty. Reyes will still Guilty of violating reception of decision
and the false claim memo contain words which are malicious. But, the proceed despote the Rule 8.01  Absolved of charges of
complainant died. death of Atty. Aguirre? forum-shopping and
violations of Rule 19.01,
Rule 10.03 in relation to
Rule 12.02 of the Code
of Professional
Responsibility

Rene J. Hierro v  May 9,2012: Letter-complaint for disbarment referred to the Integrated Whether Atty. Plaridel Guilty of gross Disbarment
Atty. Plaridel C. Bar of the Philippines against respondent for violation of Rule 7.03, Nava II is guilty of immorality
Nava II Rule 15.03, Canon 17, Rule 21.01 and Canon 22 of the Code of violating Rule 7.03, violating Rule
(A.C. No. 9459 Professional Responsibility. Rule 15.03, Canon 17, 15.03 and Rule
January 8, 2023)  The respondent become the counsel of Annalyn Hierro in her prayer for Rule 21.01 and Canon 7.03 of the Code of
issuance of Temporary Protection Order against her spouse, who used to 22 of the Code of Professional
be a client of respondent as well. Professional Responsibility
 He later had an adulterous relationship with his client, Annalyn and Responsibility.
 fathered a child from her.
 Abandoned his former client as the latter’s counsel for Criminal Case
No. S-799-09 which resulted to his client’s conviction.

FEBRUARY 2020
PATRICIA NICOLE BALBIN
CASE DIGEST FACTS ISSUE CANON VIOLATED PENALTY
TITLE/ G.R. NO./
DATE
Clara R. Ick, et al.  May 9, 2016: respondent notarized a letter dated March 7, 2016 used to Whether Atty.
v Atty. Allan S. facilitate registration of South Forbes Phuket Mansions Homeowners Amazona is guilty of Lawyer’s Oath Dismissed
Amazona Association, Inc which falsely stated that most owners are abroad that it notarizing a false
(A.C. No. 12375 is difficult to secure their signatures. And, the attached attendance and document
February 26, 2023) signatures of a meeting of homeowners was in fact a meeting for a
property manager held December 13, 2015.

Francisco  May 5, 2009: SAMANAI members and representatives enter into a

Pagdanganan v contract to sell with Eustaquio to buy and occupy a portion of land when Whether Atty. Plata is Violation of Lawyer’s Suspension of 2 years from
Atty. Romeo C. the SAMANAI failed to pay Eustaquio filed a complaint for unlawful guilty of misconduct Oath, Canon 8, Rule the practice of law.
Plata detainer Civil Case No. 2087-11. MTC of Tagaytay, Rizal ruled in favor meriting his suspension 10.03, Rule 12.02, and
(A.C. No. 12701 of Eustaquio. from the practice of Rule 12.04 of the Code
February 26, 2020)  September 11, 2012: Atty. Plata for his client, filed a case of Perjury with law for 2 years. of Professional
Damages against Atty. Equila among others including complainant but responsibility.
with which the sinumpaang salaysay was signed by another party.

Irene R. Puno v  November 2006: Complainant is an heir of Magdalena T. Roque and a Disbarment
Atty. Redentor S. stockholder of GRDC. Complainant was introduced by her brother to a Whether Atty. Viaje is Guilty of fraud, duress
Viaje contractor that also introduced the complainant to Atty. Viaje. Atty. Viaje guilty of deceit and and coercion in violation
(A.C. No. 12085 then was hired as counsel of GRDC. fraud of Lawyer’s Oath
February 26, 2020)  January 2007: Atty. Viaje asked complainant to sign an Affidavit of on-
Holding of Annual Stocks Holders Meeting of GRDC as o update the
general information sheet of the company.
 Later, complainant discovered that Atty. Viaje made it appear that the
affidavit was signed December 20, 2006 and Atty. Viaje and some
indivisuals (Sy and Gozun) have become stockholders of GRDC.
 July 2007: Complainant found out that Atty. Viaje become the controlling
stockholder of the company.
 October 2007: A copy of summons LRC Case No. 174-0-07 before the
RTC of Olongapo City was received by the complainant and Atty. Viaje
made her signed a Voting Trust Agreement for a period of 5 years in
exchange for dropping the case.
 Benjamin M.  January 25, 2005: The complainant as a seafarer for Philippine
Katipunan v Atty. Transmarine Company Inc. had been diagnosed with heart ailment which Whether Atty. Carrera Violation of Lawyer’s 1 month suspension
Rebene C. Carrera he contracted while in service and which his employer denied his is guilty of violating Oath, Canon 18, Rule
(A.C. No.12661 disability benefits claim. The Labor Arbiter ruled in his favor and the Lawyer’s Oath, 18.03 and Rule 18.04 of
February 19, 2020) awarded him a total of $60,000.00 but he was dissatisfied and wanted an Section 27, Rule 138 of the Code of Professional
award of $90,000.00. He engaged the counsel’s services all the way to the the Revised Rules of Responsibility and
Supreme Court. Court when he Canon 15 of the Canons
 April 6, 2006: The National Labor Relations Commission was reversed allegedly failed to of Professional Ethics
and his motion for reconsideration was denied. The Court of Appeals inform complainant
upon certiorari also affirmed NLRC’s decision. that the latter’s petition
 August 11, 2008: The court required him to submit a copy of verified for review on certiorari
statement with the exact date as he filed the motion for reconsideration, in G.R. No. 183172
affidavit of service, verification and certification of non-forum shopping. was already denied
 January 27, 2010: The court denied the petition and respondent received a
copy of the resolution dated February 25, 2010 but failed to inform the
complainant and upon inquiry, the respondent just inform him that it was
pending.
 May 11, 2010: He happened to only knew the resolution this as he visited
the respondent with which still Atty. Carrera said itw as pending in the
Supreme Court. On the file folder, complainant was surprised that on
January 27, 2010 the court denied his petition. And respondent did not
file it on 15 days from notice.

Ruben A. Andaya v  July 16, 2008: Respondent borrowed P500,000.00 from complainant and
Atty. Emmanuel issued a post-dated check dated July 31, 2008 that was later then Whether Atty. Canon 1, Rule 1.01, 3 years suspension in the
Aladin A. Tumanda dishonored. Tumanda is guilty of Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of practice of law
(A.C. No. 12209  The complainant then sent a demand letter which the respondent offered violating Canon 1 the the Code of Professional
February 18, 2020) his Mercedes Benz as payment and issued a Deed of Absolute Sale but Code of Professional Responsibility
respondent failed to turn over the said vehicle. As was discovered later on Responsibility in
by the complainant that it was sold to another person. issuing a worthless
check
 Atty. Plaridel C.  2006: a petition for disbarment against Atty. Artuz was made by the
Nava II v Atty. respondent in violation of Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Whether or not Judge Lawyer’s Oath, Rule
Ofelia M.D. Artuz Responsibility and Grave Misconduct and violation of RA 6713. Artuz should be 1.01 of Canon 1, Canon Disbarment
(A.C. No. 7253  July 28, 2005: The comment on his Request for Inhibition for his client disbarred for alledgely 7, Rule 8.01 of Canon 8,
February 18, 2020) was viciously maligned him and his father as the respondent was then a and willfully Rule 10.01 of Canon 10,
prosecutor with which he was not in good terms. maligning, insulting and Canon 11 of the
 October 9, 2006: Atty. Artuz took her oath as presiding judge of MTCC and scorning Atty. Code of Professional
Branch 5, Iloilo City which Atty. Nava II opposed as there are pending Nava II and his father Responsibility
criminal cases against her which she did not disclosed in her personal
data sheet.

Michael M. Lapitan 1. June 2010: Salgado was the National Secretary General of the National
v Atty. Elpidio S. and Real Estate Association, Inc. Entered into contract with TICC as
Salgado venue for June 26, 2010 event. He did not pay the supposed 50%
(A.C. No. 12452 downpayment of P100,000.00 which he said to be paid after the event.
February 18, 2020) 2. June 29, 2010: The check issued by Salgado to Lapitan of P210,253.90
was dishonored.
1. Written demands upon Salgado were ignored and he went into hiding. Whether Atty. Salgado
Notices of dishonor were made but Salgado refused to pay. is guilty of violating
Canon 1, Rule 1.01, 1.02,
2. October 1, 2010: criminal complaint for Estafa under Article 315 of the Canon 1, Rule 1.01,
Canon 7 and Rule 7.03 of
Revised Penal Code and violation of Batasang Pambansa Blg. 22 was 1.02, Canon 7 and Rule Disbarment
the Code of Professional
filed against Salagado by Lapitan in the RTC and MTC of Tagaytay City. 7.03 of the Code of
Responsibility.
3. March 19, 2013: Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Professional
Discipline acted on Lapitan’s complaint. Responsibility.
Damaso Sta. Maria, Respondent was the counsel of complainant’s Criminal Cases No. 5208
Juanito Tapang and and 5208 at RTC Branch 30, Cabanatuan City.
Liberato Tapang May 24, 2010: The Court of Appeals directed them to file an appeal brief
and Liberato in accordance with Section 7, Rule 44 of the Rules of Court.
Omania v Atty. Complainants gave the respondent P2,000.00 and he assured them that it
Ricardo Atayde will be filed before the deadline. But the respondent failed.
Whether Atty. Atayde
(A.C. No. 9197 October 26, 2010: The Court of Appeals dismissed the Appeal for failure
is guilty of violating Canon 18 and Rule 18.03
February 12, 2020) of the filing of appeal brief.
Canon 18 and Rule of the Code of
December 29, 2011: Respondent claimed that he was informed by the 6 months suspension
18.03 of the Code of Professional
complainants of the cases of his client that they already settled their
Professional Responsibility
differences. Since, he cannot reach them he assumed that all is well. The
Responsibility
money alleged to have been given to him was never accepted and that it
was the complainant who want to extort money from him.

Spouses Darito P.  January 25, 2007: Civil Case No. 6143-L RTC of Lapu-Lapu City
Nocuenca and declared the parents of Lucille the lawful owners of 428.8-square- Whether Atty. Bensi
Lucille B. meter portion of Lot No. 1499-C. must be disbarred for
Nocuenca Vs. Atty.  June 5, 2013: Atty. Bensi and his son assaulted them and a complaint Physical Injuries is not a
violating Rule 1.01,
Alfredo T. Bensi against Atty. Bensi was filed in the MTC of Lapu-Lapu City. crime involving Moral Case Dismissed due to lack
Canon 1 and Rule
(A.C. No. 12609 Turpitude to warrant of merit.
10.01, Canon 10 of the
February 10, 2020) disbarment.
Code of Professional
Responsibility

Wilma L. Zamora v Zamora was the complainant against PJH Lending Corporation in the MTC
Atty. Makilito B. Mandaluyong City with which the court ruled in favor of PJH Lending If IBP correctly
Mahinay Corporation. The RTC of Mandaluyong also ruled in their favor. Atty. dismissed the
(A.C. No.12622 Mahinay in behalf of his clients filed a motion for reconsideration with which complaint against Atty,
February 10, 2020) he threatened the judge with an administrative complaint should it will not be Mahinay on violation Dismissed for lack of Case dismissed for lack of
granted. of Canon 11 and Rule substantial evidence merit
11.03 of the Code of
Professional
Responsibility
Roselyn S. Parks v September 12, 2013: Atty. Misa allowed his client to demolished the wall of
Atty. Joaquin L. the house of the complainant’s father without lawful order. The client had Did Atty. Misa violate
Misa, Jr. inflicted bodily harm against the complainant’s father in the presence of Atty. the Code of
(A.C. No.11639 Misa that led to a malicious mischief and less serious physical injuries Professional Rule 8.01, Canon 8 and
February 5, 2020) against them. Atty. Misa executed a counter-affidavit containing defamatory Responsibility by his Rule 11.03, Canon 11 of Admonished with stern
and lsibelous statement made public when it was sent to the prosecutor. use of derogatory and the Code of Professional warning
defamatory language Responsibility
against Roselyn in his
counter-affidavit?

MARCH 2020
 JAYRALDIN B. ABEJO
Docket Case Title/ FACTS ISSUE CANON VIOLATED PENALTY
A.C. No./Date
Atty. Cabarroguis alleged in his complaint that he was the
retained legal counsel on his friend, Godofredo V. Cirineo, Jr., Suspended from the practice of law for
who fled an Estafa case against his sister-in-law, Erlinda Basa- Whether the IBP correctly Lawyer's Oath, Canon 1, six (6) months.
Atty. Honesto Cirineo. Erlinda was represented by her brother, Atty. Basa. dismissed the complaint Rule 1.03, Canon 8,
Ancheta Atty. Cabarroguis accused Atty. Basa of dilatory tactics when, against Atty. Basa. Rule8.01,Canon 12,
Cabarroguis VS. after eight years of court trial, Atty. Basa asked for the inhibiton Rules 12.02 and 12.04,
Atty. Danilo Basa of the presiding judge, Hon. Renato Fuentes which lead to and Canon 19, Rule
A.C. No. 8789 the inhibition of all other judges to whom the case was raffled. 19.0128 of the CPR
March 11, 2020 Atty. Cabarroguis further alleged that Atty. Basa exhibited his
immaturity through an omnibus motion filed in a civil case,
where he repeatedly spelled Atty. Cabarroguis first name,
Honesto, as "HONESTo."
And through a demand letter in which Atty. Basa purportedly
misspelled the first name of Atty. Cabarroguis as"Honest."Atty.
Cabarroguis also alleged that in retaliation against him for
being the private prosecutor in the estafa case against Atty.
Basa's sister. Atty. Basa filed numerous administrative, civil,
and criminal cases against him which were all malicious and
unfounded. Atty. Cabarroguis thereafter filed the instant petition
for review before the Court where he maintained that Atty.
Basa's act of filing and/or instigating the filing of multiple cases
against him clearly constitutes bad faith.
Complainant narrates that he filed a criminal complaint for Whether Atty. Barin Rule 15.01 of Canon 15 SUSPENDED from the practice of law
Estafa against Perlita G. Calmiong. During its pendency, violated the Lawyer's of the Code of for two (2) months
Jonathan C. complainant inquire on the status of his complaint, and was Oath, the Code of Professional
Parungao surprised when he was furnished a copy of a motion to withdraw Professional Responsibility.
Vs. information with an attached affidavit of desistance allegedly Responsibility and the
Atty. Dexter B. notarized by Atty. Barin, counsel of Ms. Calamiong. 2004 Rules on Notarial
Lacuanan Complainant denies that he prepared and/or signed both the Practice, for his acts of
motion to withdraw and the affidavit of desistance, and alleges notarizing an affidavit of
A.C. No. 12071, forgery on the part of Ms. Calamiong and Atty. Barin. Further, desistance without
March 11, 2020 he claims that he did not personally appear before Atty. Barin complainant's personal
for the notarization of the affidavit of desistance. Atty. Barin appearance.
submitted his refutes complainant's allegation that he falsified
the motion to withdraw and the affidavit of desistance. He
 admits that Ms. Calamiong is a client of his law office and that
she sought his advice with regard to the Estafa case filed against
her by complainant.
He explains that,complainant accompanied by Ms. Calamiong,
went to his office to personally subscribe on the affidavit of
desistance. Atty. Barin further states that complainant presented
his Senior Citizen card, and that he required the latter to present
additional proof of identification, to which he presented his
Philippine passport. After signing the above-mentioned
documents, Atty. Barin advised Ms. Calamiong to submit the
same to the OCP-Tarlac City, to which she acceded.
Complainant is a member of the E. Quiogue Extension
Neighborhood Association(Neighborhood Association) and one
of the defendants in an ejectment case. Respondent represented
the Neighborhood Association in the Ejectment Case. REPRIMANDED for failing to observe
As alleged by complainant, as of the time of the filing of the Whether or not respondent his duty and REMINDED that a
ADELA H. administrative case, the Neighborhood Association had already should be administratively repetition of the same or similar acts
VIOLAGO lost before the Municipal Trial Court and the Regional Trial disciplined for negligence Canon 18, will be dealt with more severely
VS. Court. Thereafter, respondent filed a petition for review before in handling the Ejectment Rule 18.03
the Court of Appeals on behalf of the Neighborhood Case on behalf of
ATTY. Association. complainant.1âшphi1
BONIFACIO F. Complainant claims that she was not made aware of the status of
ARANJUEZ, JR., their petition for review before the Court of Appeals and that it
was only after she and other members of the Neighborhood
Association inquired on October 16, 2013 that they discovered
A.C. No. 10254, that it was already dismissed by the Court of Appeals on July
March 09, 2020 25, 2013 due to several fatal defects.
As a result, complainant sought the advice of various lawyers
regarding the matter, who informed her that respondent's
mistakes were supposedly "BASIC" for which reason the Court
of Appeals dismissed their Petition for Review.
Due to respondent's supposed negligence, complainant and
another member of the Neighborhood Association submitted
a Resignation Letter10 dated November 06, 2013 informing the
officers of the Neighborhood Association that they will be
resigning from the said Association and expressed their
intention to engage the services of another counsel and
requested that respondent file a formal Motion to Withdraw as
counsel for complainant in the Ejectment Case.11 However, as
 alleged by complainant, respondent failed to act on their request
or even reply to their Letter.
SANTIAGO B. Burgos alleged that he is a member-consumer of District III  of Whether or not Bereber is No Canons Violated Dismissed for Lack of Merit
BURGOS, Capiz Electric Cooperative, Inc. (CAPELCO), a non-stock, non- guilty of representing
VS. profit electric cooperative supervised by the National conflict of interests in
ATTY. Electrification Administration (NEA), which currently provides violation of the pertinent
JOVENCIO electric services to the Province of Capiz. provisions of the Code of
JAMES G. On July 1, 2015, Burgos and two other member-consumers of Professional
BEREBER District III of CAPELCO, on the basis of a NEA Responsibility (CPR)
Comprehensive Operations Audit, filed an administrative
complaint with the NEA against several management staff of
A.C. No. 12666, CAPELCO and certain members of its Board of Directors for
March 04, 2020  committing acts constituting Grave Misconduct, Neglect of
Duty, and Falsification.
Burgos insisted that Bereber failed to advance their interests,
and as such, had no regard for professionalism, ethics, integrity,
and "delicadeza" when he represented the accused members of
the Board of Directors and management staff in the proceedings
before the NEA.
Bereber admitted in his Verified Answer, and other allied
pleadings that the accused members of the Board of Directors
consulted with him and sought his legal services in connection
with the administrative complaint filed by Burgos with the
NEA. Bereber then drafted, prepared, and signed their answer to
the NEA complaint, and appeared as counsel/collaborating
counsel for them in the same case during the preliminary
conferences before the NEA.
This notwithstanding, Bereber insisted that he did not represent
conflicting interests and, perforce, cannot be held
administratively liable therefor.
Complainant narrates that he filed a criminal complaint for Whether Atty. Barin Rule 15.01 of Canon 15 SUSPENDED from the practice of law
Estafa/Swindling against one Perlita G. Calmiong (Ms. violated the Lawyer's of the Code of for two (2) months with
Calamiong). During its pendency, complainant went to Tarlac Oath, the Code of Professional WARNING that a repetition of the same
CESAR C. City to inquire on the status of his complaint, and was surprised Professional Responsibility or similar acts will be dealt with more
CASTRO, when he was furnished a copy of a motion to withdraw Responsibility and the severely
vs. ATTY. information with an attached affidavit of desistance allegedly 2004 Rules on Notarial
ENRICO G. notarized by Atty. Barin, counsel of Ms. Calamiong Practice, for his acts of
BARIN Complainant denies that he prepared and/or signed both the notarizing an affidavit of
 A.C. No. 9495 motion to withdraw and the affidavit of desistance, and alleges desistance without
March 02, 2020  forgery on the part of Ms. Calamiong and Atty. Barin. Further, complainant's personal
he claims that he did not personally appear before Atty. Barin appearance
for the notarization of the affidavit of desistance
Atty. Barin submitted his comment and he admits that Ms.
Calamiong is a client of his law office and that she sought his
advice with regard to the Estafa case filed against her by herein
complainant.
After signing the above-mentioned documents, Atty. Barin
advised Ms. Calamiong to submit the same to the OCP-Tarlac
City, to which she acceded. He asserts that he did not falsify the
signature of herein complainant and that complainant personally
appeared before him to acknowledge the documents.
JUNE 2020
JAYRALDIN B. ABEJO
MATTHEW Atty. Raul O. Tolentino (respondent) drafted and notarized a Whether or not Canon 18 Rule 18.03 of REPRIMANDED for failing to observe
CONSTANCIO M. document known as Irrevocable General Power of Attorney respondents failure to file the Code of Professional his duty and REMINDED that a
SANTAMARIA which made possible the conveyance of 10 real properties the Appelant brief is liable Responsibility repetition of the same or similar acts
VS. Miriam (mother)and Manuel (father). for negligence of duty will be dealt with more severely
ATTY. RAUL O. When Manuel filed a criminal complaint against Miriam fo
TOLENTINO adultery, respondents appeared to her counsel the latter in
A.C. No. 12006, Regional Trial Court which the case unresolved for
June 29, 2020 unreasonable lenght of time. When Mariam was dying of
cancer, she wrote a letter to the Supreme Court pleading for the
relief from the delay of the case.
Eventually, RTC rendered its decision dismissing the case in
favor of Miriam. Manuel elevated the adverse judgment to the
Court of Appeals. While the case was pending, Meriam died.
Unfortunately, respondent being her counsel of record, failed to
inform the court of his clients death. Worse, he neglected to file
an Appelle’s Brief.
Complainant Begay states that he is the owner of Garden of Whether or not Atty. Saguyod is being DISMISSED from the service, with
Samantha Memorial Park located in Estacion, Paniqui, Tarlac. respondents will be held charged for his second forfeiture of his retirement benefits,
The memorial park, consisting of three (3) parcels of land, is liable for misconduct offense of simple except accrued leave credits, with
WILLY FRED U. under litigation in a case he filed against the Rural Bank of San misconduct, violating prejudice to re-employment in any
BEGAY Luis Pampanga, Inc. He prays for the nullification of the real Code of Conduct for branch or instrumentality of the
VS. estate mortgages, promissory notes, foreclosure proceedings, Court Personnel and government, including government-
ATTY. PAULINO transfer certificates of title, award of damages, and the issuance Section 4(e), Republic owned or controlled corporation.
 I. SAGUYOD, of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction pendente lite which Act No. 6713.
A.M. No. P-17- commanded the Rural Bank of San Luis to desist from obtaining
3652  possession of the memorial park.
June 23, 2020
Unknown to complainant Begay, on 2 December 2014, the
Rural Bank of San Luis filed an ex parte motion for the issuance
of a writ of possession, through an extrajudicial foreclosure sale
per Certificate of Sale. Complainant Begay avers that the Rural
Bank of San Luis failed to disclose in its ex parte motion that he
was in possession of the subject lot in the concept of an owner.
Respondent Atty. Saguyod issued the Writ of Possession
addressed to the court's Deputy Sheriff, respondent Clemente.
Respondent Sheriff Clemente issued the notice to vacate
addressed to complainant Begay, who was not a party to the but
not to mortgagor Bautista.
Complainant Begay filed a Motion to Quash questioning the
propriety of the writ of possession and requesting that he be
allowed to speak during the hearing. However, respondent Atty.
Saguyod failed to include him in the said hearing. He states that
he filed a Motion to Quash the Writ of Possession on the
grounds that he is the real owner who is in actual possession of
the subject property. Since he was not made a party to the
foreclosure proceedings and to the ex parte motion, his right to
due process was violated. 
JESUS DAVID complainant Jesus David (David) is the heir of Leonardo T. Whether or not Lawyer's Oath, Canons 1, Atty. Ildefonso C. Tario, Atty. Mark
VS. David (Leonardo) who was the plaintiff in a case for forcible respondent lawyers 10 and 12, and Rules John M. Soriquez, Atty. Emiliano S.
ATTY. entry, entitled "Leonardo T. David v. Danny Cordova, et al., " committed acts in 10.03 and 12.04 of the Pomer, Atty. Marilet Santos-Layug, and
DIOSDADO M. that was filed before the First Municipal Circuit Trial Court violation of their Oath and Code of Professional Atty. Danny F. Villanueva are
RONGCAL, (MCTC) of Dinalupihan-Hermosa, Bataan the Code of Professional Responsibility. hereby SUSPENDED from the practice
ATTY. The MCTC ruled in favor of Leonardo and ordered the Responsibility (CPR). of law for a period of one year.
ILDEFONSO C. defendants to vacate Lot No. 774 covered by Transfer
TARIO, ATTY. Certificate of Title, the Supreme Court upheld the MCTC Atty. Diosdado M. Rongcal is
MARK JOHN M. Decision.  hereby DISBARRED and his
SORIQUEZ, Subsequently, David moved for the issuance of a writ of name ORDERED STRICKEN
ATTY. EMILIANO execution before the MCTC. However, Atty. Rongcal, in behalf OFF from the Roll of Attorneys.
S. POMER, ATTY. of Cordova, filed a Motion to Suspend Proceedings seeking to
MARILET suspend the issuance of a writ in favor of David.
SANTOS-LAYUG, The MCTC,denied the motion to suspend proceedings but
AND ATTY. granted Leonardo's motion for issuance of a writ of execution
 DANNY F. and directed the issuance of the said writ. Atty. Rongcal then
VILLANUEVA filed a Motion for Reconsideration but it was denied for lack of
merit by the As a result thereof, Cordova filed a complaint for
A.C. No. 12103 nullity of TCT No. T-206001 against the late Leonardo before
June 23, 2020 the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bataan. Hence, Atty. Rongcal
sought the suspension of the issuance of a writ of execution
while the RTC case is still pending.
Later on, Atty. Tario filed a Motion to Quash Writ of Execution,
Atty. Tario filed another motion, this time a Motion to Clarify
Order and Writ, Atty. Villanueva likewise subsequently filed a
Recusation
David filed an Urgent Manifestation before the RTC informing
the trial court that the MCTC Decision sought, to be enjoined
has long been final and executory. 
Attys. Soriquez, Pomer and Santos-Layug filed their Position
Pape alleging that the execution of the final and executory
MCTC Decision can still be restrained because of a supervening
event .
Thus, the complaint against them should be dismissed for lack
of factual or legal basis as it was only filed to strike fear in their
hearts for defending Cordova.
FELICITAS H. Felicitas H. Bondoc (complainant) represented by Conrad H. SUSPENDED from the practice of law
BONDOC, Bautista (son) filed was looking for a lawyer in the Philippines for two (2) years with a STERN
REPRESENTED to handle the civil case for annulment of marriage that she was Whether or not Canons 1 and 16, and WARNING that the repetition of a
BY CONRAD H. going' to file against her husband, Benjamin Bondoc.  respondents would be held Rules 1.01, 16.01, 16.02, similar violation will be dealt with even
BAUTISTA, Respondent, being introduced to the complainant to handle the liable and 16.03 of the Code of more severely.
VS. case. Complainant and respondent agreed on their legal Professional
ATTY. MARLOW engagement wherein respondent shall file the civil case for Responsibility and the Atty. Marlow L. Licudine is
L. LICUDINE annulment on behalf of complainant paying for 2,000.00 Lawyer's Oath hereby ORDERED to return to
A.C. No. 12768 Canadian Dollars (CAD$) as initial down payment for the legal complainant Felicitas H. Bondoc the
June 23, 2020 fees. amount of CAD$2,000.00, with interest
Several months passed but complainant did not receive any at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per
update regarding the civil case that respondent was supposed to annum from the date of demand until
file, she discovered that respondent divulged her personal full payment, within ninety (90) days
information. from the finality of this Decision.
Due to respondent's inaction in the civil case and the
unwarranted disclosure incident, complainant decided to Also hereby meted a FINE in the
terminate respondent's engagement as counsel. amount of P10,000.00 for disobedience
Complainant was briefly in the Philippines. During that time, of the orders of the Integrated Bar of the
 she talked to respondent. According to complainant, respondent Philippines - Commission on Bar
said that he already spent the money she gave him but they Discipline. Failure to comply with the
verbally agreed that he would return half of the amount foregoing directives will warrant the
received. imposition of a more severe penalty.
Complainant through her son sent a demand letter requesting the
respondents to return the money as what they have agreed.
Several of follows up but respondents failed to comply her
promised.
Thereafter, respondent was never heard of again.
Thus, complainant filed this instant administrative case against
respondent.

SPOUSES ELENA In their Complaint and Position Paper, complainants alleged that Whether or not respondent Rules 16.01 and DISBARRED and his name ORDERED
ROMEO CUÑA, they were applicants/occupants of a Four Thousand Two deserves to be sanctioned 16.03,Rules 10.3, 12.04, STRICKEN OFF from the Roll of
SR., VS. Hundred Ninety-Seven (4,297) square meters parcel of land for his unbecoming and Canon 11 of the CPR Attorneys effective immediately. He
ATTY. situated in Tagum City, Davao Del Norte. At the instance of and behavior as a member of is ORDERED to: (1) return OCT No. P-
DONALITO through the efforts of herein respondent, complainants, in the bar. 29483 to complainants Romeo Cuña,
ELONA September of 1992, were able to acquire ownership and Sr. and Elena Cuña; (2) deliver to
A.C. No. 5314 possession of the property by virtue of a favorable decision of complainants the amount of P12,726.00,
June 23, 2020 the Bureau of Lands. with interest at the rate of 6% per
annum from the finality of this Decision
Respondent made complainants sign a Special Power of until full payment;64 and (3) promptly
Attorney (SPA)23 which gave respondent absolute authority to submit to this Court written proof of his
sell the property to third parties. Respondent did not explain the compliance within fifteen (15) days
contents of the SPA and the implications thereof to herein from payment of the full amount.
complainants.

During the period, respondent, on several occasions, released to

complainants various sums of money ranging between One
Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) to Two Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P200,000.00). Complainants alleged, however, that respondent
did not advise them of their source, and for what reason the
sums of money were released to them.

After respondent paid to the government the appraised value of

the land which amounted to One Hundred Seven Thousand Four
Hundred Twenty-Four and 40/100 Pesos (P107,424.40), the
owner's duplicate of OCT No. P-29483 covering the property
 was issued in the name of herein complainants in July of 1996.
OCT No. P-29483, however, remained in the possession of
respondent despite complainants' repeated demands to return the
same. For this reason, complainants were constrained to file a
complaint against respondent before the Office of the
Ombudsman (OMB) for violation of Republic Act No. 3019 or
the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act on the ground of
respondent's willful refusal to tum over to them OCT No. P-
29483. It was during the proceedings before the OMB that they
discovered respondent's alleged misconduct.
DR. MARIA Maria Encarnacion R. Legaspi (Legaspi) alleged that on June Did Atty. Gonzales violate Rule 15.02, Canon 15 of SUSPENDED from the practice of law
ENCARNACION 13, 2013, she went to the residence of respondent Atty. the rule on conflict of the Code of Professional for a period of ONE (1) YEAR, with a
R. LEGASPI VS. Florencio D. Gonzales (Atty. Gonzales) in New Buswang, interest? Responsibility stern warning that a repetition of the
ATTY. Kalibo, Aldan to consult him about the presence of an illegal same or similar acts will be dealt with
FLORENCIO D. settler in a parcel of land owned by Legaspi and her family. more severely
GONZALES According to Legaspi, she related to Atty. Gonzales that a
A.C. No. 12076 certain Romeo Aguarino (Aguarino) squatted on their property
June 22, 2020  and despite the demand letters for him to leave, the latter kept
staying. In this regard, Legaspi asked Atty. Gonzales how much
legal fees would be charged in order that Aguarino may be
removed from the property. Atty. Gonzales said that his fee is
P20,000.00 and that another P100,000.00 will be needed as
initial expense to talk to the people who would have influence
over Aguarino. Atty. Gonzales allegedly said that if his services
are not engaged, the illegal settler would likely get another
lawyer and try to get millions from the Legaspis. After a few
days, Legaspi found out that Atty. Gonzales had become the
legal counsel of Aguarino in the unlawful detainer case filed by
Rafel Realty and Development Corporation (Rafel Realty; the
company of the Legaspis) against the latter. The said case was
amicably settled, whereby Aguarino was given money and a
parcel of land owned by Legaspi. According to Legaspi, she felt
obligated to the company to give up her property to Aguarino
since she was the one who consulted with Atty. Gonzales, who
later betrayed them to the detriment of the company. Lastly,
Legaspi alleged that Atty. Gonzales received a portion of the
 settlement money from Aguarino.

In his Answer, Atty. Gonzales countered that no lawyer-client

relationship was established between him and Legaspi because
no fee or charges have been paid. Further, Atty. Gonzales added
that Legaspi cannot claim that there is conflict of interest as she
was not the same party who signed the compromise agreement
with Aguarino but Atty. Ma. Felomina Legaspi-Rosales,5 who
represented Rafel Realty.

MARY JANE D. Complainant was the duly elected President and authorized Whether or not respondent Violation of the 2004 REVOKED, and DISQUALIFIED from
YUCHENGCO representative of Amendoza Palawan Corporation, a domestic failed to appreciate the Rules on Notarial reappointment as Notary Public for a
VS. corporation, and the complainant in Amendoza Palawan formalities required by the Practice period of two (2) years.
ATTY. Corporation v. Johnny R. Mendoza which was a civil case for notarial rules and/or was SUSPENDED from the practice of law
ANATHALIA B. recovery of possession with damages. careless in implementing for six (6) months
ANGARE the rules WARNED that a repetition of the same
Respondent notarized a falsified and defective "Deed of or similar acts in the future shall be
Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate of Late Cristituto Dandal, Sr. dealt with more severely.
with Absolute Sale

The Deed suffers from the following defects: (1) it was not
dated; (2) it lacked the names and signatures of the required
witnesses; (3) it lacked the details of the required competent
identification cards of the parties thereto; (4) it was notarized
without the presence of the parties and without verifying
whether their signatures were genuine; and (5) while respondent
was commissioned as notary public for the City of Puerto
Princesa

Respondents argued that she inadvertently notarized the Deed as

part of the Answer filed in Civil Case No. 5436, and insisted
that the notarization of the Deed was a pure and honest mistake.

The IBP Investigating Commissioner Jose Alfonso M. Gomos

(IBP Investigating Commissioner) ruled that while there was not
enough evidence to support the suggestion that respondent
falsified any of the documents involved, it was clear that either
 respondent did not appreciate the formalities required by the
notarial rules or was careless in observing them, or both.
IN RE: PETITION Complainant, a senior citizen residing in Kaybagal, Tagaytay Whether or not Atty. Rule 16.01, Canon 16 THREE-YEAR SUSPENSION from
FOR THE City, needed legal services for a problem she had against her Laysa be disbarred from and Rule 18.03, Canon the practice of law 
DISBARMENT OF lessor Melates M. Salcedo. At Casino Filipino, Tagaytay City, the practice of law for her 18 of the Code of
ATTY. ESTRELLA complainant was introduced to a certain Atty. Laysa, who then act of abandoning a client's Professional ORDERED to immediately pay a fine
O. LAYSA, agreed to prepare a Demand Letter3 dated December 27, 2006 cause, and for her Responsibility; and for of P5,000.00 for her failure to pay her
against complainant's lessor.4 continuous evasion of her her nonpayment of Integrated Bar of the Philippines dues,
PATRICIA responsibilities to the bar. Integrated Bar of the and for her noncompliance with the
MAGLAYA Thereafter, complainant and Atty. Laysa met again at Casino Philippines membership Mandatory Continuing Legal Education
OLLADA Filipino where Atty. Laysa gave complainant a copy of the dues since 2004 and requirements
lessor's response letter. Displeased with the contents of the noncompliance with the
VS. response letter, complainant asked Atty. Laysa to file a case second to fifth ORDERED to return within ten (10)
against her lessor; complainant issued Equitable PCI Bank Mandatory Continuing days from notice of this Decision the
ATTY. Check No. 01415125 in the amount of P35,000.00 to Atty. Legal Education. amount of P30,000.00 to complainant
ESTRELLA O. Laysa. Patricia Maglaya Ollada with interest at
LAYSA the legal rate of 12% per annum from
RESPONDENT. After having he check encashed on January 8, 2007, Atty. Laysa her date of receipt on January 8, 2007
allegedly did not respond or communicate anymore with the until June 30, 2013, and 6% per
complainant. There being no update on the status of her case, annum from July 1, 2013 until full
and due to her poor health, the complainant eventually lost payment
interest to pursue her case and demanded from Atty. Laysa the
return of the balance of her P35,000.00, through a Letter dated
July 24, 2007. Atty. Laysa, however, ignored the complainant's
demand. As such, the complainant retained the services of
another counsel, Atty. Cecilia Corazon S. Dulay-Archog. The
new counsel sent another Demand Letter  dated August 21, 2007
to Atty. Laysa for the return of P30,000.00. The amount of
P5,000.00 was deducted from P35,000.00 in view of the letter
drafted by Atty. Laysa to the complainant's lessor.

Despite receipt of the complainant's demand letters, Atty. Laysa

still did not return the complainant's money.

FATHER Father Saturnino Urios University (the University) hired Atty.  Respondent Father Saturnino Urios
SATURNINO Curaza to teach commercial law subjects in the Commerce University (FSUU) to pay complainant
 URIOS Department during the second semester of school year 1979 to Whether or not even if Republic Act No. 7641 his retirement benefits to be computed
UNIVERSITY 1980. He was subsequently given teaching loads in the College part-time instructors Atty. based on his average monthly pay for
(FSUU) INC., of Engineering and the College of Arts and Sciences. He later Curaza were entitled to the last Five (5) years of his
AND/OR REV. FR. taught subjects as a pioneering professor in the College of Law. retirement benefits under employment with respondent multiplied
JOHN CHRISTIAN Republic Act No. 7641 by twenty four (24) years.
U. YOUNG - Atty. Curaza wrote a letter applying for early retirement,
PRESIDENT, pursuant to the University's Personnel Policy and Procedure and Plus 10% of whatever amount that may
PETITIONERS, the Retirement Pay Law. Having received no response, he be computed as attorney's fees.
VS. ATTY. followed-up his request with the University's Human Resource
RUBEN B. Management and Development Office, where he was informed
CURAZA, that his retirement application could not be approved as the
RESPONDENT. University did not grant retirement benefits to its part-time
teachers. 

Thus, Atty. Curaza filed a complaint against the University, its

president and vice president for retirement benefits, damages,
and attorney's fees before the National Labor Relations
Commission Regional Arbitration Branch XIII in Butuan City.
ROGELIO Rogelio alleged that he and Atty. Teneza have known each other Whether or not Atty. Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and DISBARRED 
PASAMONTE VS. for at least 25 years. Atty. Teneza handled Rogelio's ejectment Teneza be disbarred from Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the from the practice of law and his name
ATTY. LIBERATO cases and was even the godparent of one of his children. the practice of law due to Code of Professional stricken off the Roll of Attorneys
TENEZA Rogelio went to the house of Atty. Teneza. To his surprise, Atty. his alleged immoral acts. Responsibility
Teneza already planned and arranged Rogelio's wedding with
A.C. No. 11104 Mary Grace dela Roca (Mary Grace). Rogelio objected since he
is already married, which Atty. Teneza knew
June 09, 2020 A few months later, Mary Grace, assisted by Atty. Teneza, filed
a case against Rogelio for bigamy and violation of Republic Act
(RA) No. 9262. Rogelio then discovered that Atty. Teneza
himself was engaged in a bigamous marriage. As, such, Rogelio
filed also a bigamy case against Atty. Teneza
Atty. Teneza admitted that he was a wedding sponsor in the
marriage of Francisco with Cristina and with Michelle. He
explained that he stood as one of their principal sponsors in their
marriages, if something goes wrong in any of these marriage, he
would stand witness and testify on the facts of said marriages
against his own brother-in-law
IBP-CBP found Atty. Teneza to be wanting in integrity,
honesty, probity, trustworthiness and morality when he
 conspired to a bigamous marriage. The IBP Board of Governors
held that Atty. Teneza's utter disregard for the sanctity of
marriage, not only of his own but also those of around him,
shows his unfitness to continue practicing law

JULY 2020
GENARA L. DUCASI

CASE TITLE FACTS ISSUE CANON/LAW PENALTY

G.R No VIOLATED
Date
1. USUSAN Before the Court is a Petition for Review on  Whether the  Rule 45 of the  CA rule to let the Land Registration
DEVELOPMENT Certiorari (Petition) under Rule 45 of the Rules CA committed Rules of Court Administration issue the decree of
CORPORATION, of Court (Rules) assailing the Decision dated an error of law (Rules) registration in favor of Ususan
REPRESENTED BY March 12, 2013 and Resolution dated October 1, in reversing the assailing the Development Corporation, now DMCI
ATTY. ROEL A. PACIO, 2013 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. RTC Decision Decision2 dated Project Developers, Inc.
PETITIONER, VS. CV No. 94909, which granted the appeal of the granting the March 12, 2013
REPUBLIC OF THE Republic of the Philippines (Republic), through application for and Resolution3
PHILIPPINES, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), and original dated October
RESPONDENT. reversed as well as set aside the Decision dated registration of 1, 2013 of the
[ G.R. No. 209462, July 15, December 7, 2009 of the Regional Trial Court, the subject lot. Court of
2020 ] Branch 153 of Pasig City (RTC) in LRC Case Appeals
No. N-11571-TG, which granted petitioner
Ususan Development Corporation's (now DMCI
Project Developers, Inc., petitioner) application
for registration and confirmation of title of a
parcel of land (Psu-244418) situated at Pusawan,
Barangay Ususan, Taguig City with an area of
3,975 square meters (subject lot). The CA
Resolution denied petitioner's motion for
reconsideration.
2. NENITA KO, This is a Petition for disbarment filed by Nenita  Whether  Lawyer's Oath DISBARRED and
COMPLAINANT, VS. Ko (Nenita) against respondents Atty. Ladimir respondent and Canons 7, ORDERED to RETURN to complainant Nenita
ATTY. LADIMIR IAN G. Ian G. Maduramente (Atty. Ladimir) and Atty. lawyers are 15, 17, and 18, Kothe amount of Four Million Pesos
MADURAMENTE AND Mercy Grace L. Maduramente (Atty. Mercy; both guilty of and Rules 1.01, (P4,000,000.00), if it is still unpaid, with interest
ATTY. MERCY GRACE collectively, respondent lawyers) for committing dishonesty and 7.03, and 16.03 of six percent (6%) per annum reckoned from the
 L. MADURAMENTE, dishonest acts and grave misconduct in violation grave of the CPR date of finality of this Decision until full
RESPONDENTS. of the Code of Professional Responsibility misconduct. payment.
[ A.C. No. 11118 (Formerly (CPR), involving check issued by Atty. Ladimir
CBD Case No. 08-2140), in the amount of P4,000,000.00 was dishonored
July 14, 2020 ] due to closed account.
3. PEDRO SALAZAR, This is an administrative complaint filed by  Whether Atty.  Lawyer's Oath Atty. Armand Duran is REPRIMANDED WITH
COMPLAINANT, VS. Pedro Salazar against Atty. Armand Duran for Duran should and Canon 10, A STERN WARNING that a repetition of the
ATTY. ARMAND unethical conduct, dishonesty, false testimony, be Rule 10.01 of same or any similar act will be dealt with more
DURAN, RESPONDENT. violation of the lawyer's oath, and for acts administrativel the Code of severely.
[ A.C. No. 7035, July 13, inimical to his client. Pedro and Atty. Duran y liable for Professional
2020 ] executed two contracts for attorney's fees: one, a unethical Responsibility.
contract on contingent basis wherein 20% of any conduct,
and all proceeds of the partition case will be paid dishonesty,
to Atty. Duran; and second, a contract wherein false
the attorney's fees and acceptance fee were set at testimony,
P50,000.00 each, subject to certain conditions. violation of the
Atty. Duran intervened, claiming 20% of the just lawyer's oath,
compensation due to Pedro. Pedro alleged that it and for acts
was during the hearing on the motion that Atty. inimical to his
Duran committed false testimony. Atty. Duran client.
testified that he signed the LBP check only as a
witness, and that it was Pedro who received the
money.
4. HEIRS OF ODYLON On July 23, 2012, Atty. Galano, in his capacity  Whether or not  Rule 10.01 of SUSPENDED from the practice of law for two
UNITE TORRICES, as a commissioned Notary Public in the Province Atty. Galano is the Code of years. Further, his notarial commission, if still
REPRESENTED BY of Cagayan, notarized a Deed of Absolute Sale administrativel Professional existing, is REVOKED and he is
SOLE HEIR MIGUEL B. purportedly executed between Dominga Unite y liable for Responsibility, PERPETUALLY DISQUALIFIED from
TORRICES, Torrices (Dominga), married to Miguel G. violating the and the reappointment as Notary Public.
COMPLAINANT, V. Torrices (Miguel), as vendor, and Felipe U. rules on Lawyer's Oath.
ATTY. HAXLEY M. Tamayo, married to Divina Tamayo, as vendee. notarial
GALANO, The property was sold for a consideration of practice, as
RESPONDENT. P200,000.00. The Deed of Absolute Sale was well as Rule
[ A.C. No. 11870, July 07, entered in Atty. Galano's Notarial Register as 10.01 of the
2020 ] Doc. No. 1130, Page No. 226, Book No. XXIII, Code of
Series of 2012. However, the Heirs of Torrices Professional
questioned the authenticity of the Deed of Responsibility,
Absolute Sale, considering that the alleged and the
vendor Dominga died on June 6, 1974, while her Lawyer's Oath,

5. LETECIA G. SIAO,
COMPLAINANT, VS.
ATTY. BAYANI S. ATUP,
RESPONDENT.
[ A.C. No. 10890, July 01,
2020 ]
6. ATTY. FERNANDO P.
PERITO,
COMPLAINANT, VS.
ATTY. BERTRAND A.
BATERINA, ATTY.
RYAN R. BESID, ATTY.
RICHIE L. TIBLANI,
AND ATTY. MARI
KHRIS R. PAMMIT,
RESPONDENTS.
[ A.C. No. 12631, July 08,
2020 ]
7. VALENTINO C. LEANO,
COMPLAINANT, V.
ATTY. HIPOLITO C.
husband Miguel, whose signature likewise thru notarizing
appeared on the said Deed, passed away in the the Deed of
early 1970s. The Heirs of Torrices accused Atty. Absolute Sale
Galano of conspiring with the vendees by dated July 23,
making it appear that Dominga and Miguel were 2012 in the
still alive when the Deed of Absolute Sale was absence of the
notarized. affiants.
Letecia alleged that Atty. Atup had appended a  Whether or  Canon 1 and SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for a
falsified Special Power of Attorney (SPA) not, Atty. Rule l0.03, period of one month. He is likewise STERNLY
purportedly executed in 1999 by the latter's Bayani S. Atup Canon 10 of the WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar
client, Gabriel Yap, Sr. (Gabriel), to the Motion is liable for Code of acts will be dealt with more severely.
for Reconsideration elated November 15, 2013 falsification of Professional
that he filed before the Court of Appeals (CA) in SPA and be Responsibility.
the case of "Cebu South Memorial Garden, disbar.
Gabriel Yap, Sr., et al. v. Letecia Siao, et al.,"
docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 02037. Letecia
also asserted that Atty. Atup had failed to
formally inform the CA that Gabriel had already
passed away within 30 days from such fact of
death, in violation of Section 16, Rule 3 of the
Rules of Court.
Atty. Perito was the lawyer for the accused in a  Whether or  Canons 8, 17 Petition for Disbarment against Atty. Bertrand A.
kidnapping case entitled People v. Josephine and not, the and 19 of the Baterina, Atty. Ryan R. Besid, Atty. Riche L.
Jason Bracamonte which was filed before Petition for CPR and Tiblani, and Atty. Mari Khris R. Pammit is
Branch 169 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Disbarment Lawyer’s Oath. hereby DISMISSED.
Malabon. The case was initially filed by Antonio against Atty.
Galian (Galian) but he was later substituted by Bertrand A.
Geri Villa. Respondents Attys. Baterina and Baterina, Atty.
Besid were the private prosecutors. Ryan R. Besid,
Atty. Riche L.
Tiblani, and
Atty. Mari
Khris R.
Pammit will
prosper.
This administrative case is rooted on the  Whether Atty.  Notarial Rules The couer decides that his notarial commission, if
Affidavit-Complaint filed by Valentino C. Leano Salatan and the Code of still existing, is REVOKED, and he is
(Leano) before the Office of the Bar Confidant violated the Professional hereby PERPETUALLY
 SALATAN,
RESPONDENT.
A.C. No. 12551, July 08,
2020
8. ATTY. ROLEX T.
SUPLICO AND CBD
ATTY. DEMAREE J.B.
RAVAL, PETITIONERS ,
VS. ATTY. LUIS K.
LOKIN, JR. AND ATTY.
SALVADOR C. HIZON,
RESPONDENTS
[ A.C. No. 9152 [Formerly
Case No. 05-1430], July 01,
2020 ]
CASE TITLE
G.R No
Date
AUGUST 2020 CASES
BY: GENARA L. DUCASI
1. CORAZON KANG
seeking to disbar Atty. Hipolito C. Salatan (Atty. Notarial Rules Responsibility DISQUALIFIED from being reappointed as
Salatan) and to revoke his notarial - commission when he (CPR). Notary Public. Respondent Atty. Hipolito C.
for violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial notarized Salatan is likewise SUSPENDED from the
Practice (Notarial Rules), on the grounds that, Teresita's practice of law for a period of one (1) year,
Atty. Salatan had affixed his official signature Affidavit. effective immediately.
and seal on the notarial certificate of Teresita's
affidavit without properly identifying the person
who signed the document.
Petitioners filed a Complaint for disbarment  Whether or  Violation of The Court RESOLVES to DISMISS the case
against their former partners, respondents before not, Rule 7.03,4 against respondents Atty. Luis K. Lokin, Jr. and
the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (CBP) respondents Canon 7 of the Atty. Salvador C. Hizon and considers the case as
for alleged violation of Rule 7.03, Canon 7 of committed Code of CLOSED and TERMINATED.
the Code of Professional Responsibility and the deceit, fraud or Professional
Lawyer's Oath for the latter's refusal to turnover misconduct in Responsibility
the respective shares of Atty. Sulpicio and Atty. violation of and the
Raval from the attorney's fees purportedly Rule 7.03 of Lawyer's Oath.
amounting to P144,831,371.49.5 The amount, Canon 7 of the
which was the equivalent of 40% of the Code of
P362,078,428.74 representing the total amount Professional
which Aerocom Investors & Managers, Inc. Responsibility
(Aerocom) recovered from the President with respect to
Commission on Good Government (PCGG) in the distribution
Civil Case No. 0044 before the Sandigan. Thus, of the
Investigating Commissioner De la Rama attorney's fees
concluded that considering the evidence on the received by the
retainer's agreement is wanting, petitioners failed defunct law
to prove deceit, misconduct, and malpractice firm from the
which would warrant the disbarment of Aerocom case.
respondents. Hence, he recommended for the
dismissal of the complaint.
FACTS ISSUE CANON VIOLATED PENALTY
Atty. Ignacio married Corazon on August 4,  Whether or  Canon 1, Rule SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a
 IGNACIO, 1985. On February 28 1989, Corazon gave birth not, 1.01 and Canon period of five years.
COMPLAINANT, V. to their child without Atty. Ignacio. In April Commission 7, Rule 7.03 of
ATTY. MONTE P. 1990, Atty. Ignacio brought the child to the US. on Bar the Code of
IGNACIO, On the same year, Corazon divorced Atty. Discipline of Professional
RESPONDENT.; A.C. NO. Ignacio. the Integrated Responsibility.
11988 - JANINA B. DE LA Moreover, Corazon claimed that Atty. Ignacio Bar of the
CRUZ AS ATTORNEY- committed bigamy because he was previously Philippines
IN-FACT OF CORAZON married to Celia Tingson Valenzuela on July 3, (IBP)
KANG IGNACIO, 1978. As supporting evidence, Corazon recommendatio
COMPLAINANT VS. submitted the corresponding marriage certificate n to disbar of
ATTY. MONTE P. and contract. Also, Corazon narrated that Atty. Atty. Ignacio
IGNACIO Ignacio fathered several children with different for gross
RESPONDENT. women, namely: Maria Juliana, Don Basilio and immoral
A.C. No. 9426, August 25, Monte John with Felisa Dela Cruz; Michelle and conduct in
2020 an unnamed son with a certain Cecilia from contracting a
Mindoro; Monteson I and Monteson II with a bigamous
certain Virginia from Pangasinan; and Joker with marriage will
Lily Dela Cruz. Lastly, Corazon averred that she sustain.
lent USD 9,300.00 to Atty. Ignacio as bail in the
murder case for which he was implicated. Yet,
Atty. Ignacio did not pay his debt despite
demand.
2. A.M. No. P-10- In an undated Letter-Complaint1 from the  Whether or not  Section 50,  Clerk of Court Zenalfie M. Cuenco -
2812[Formerly OCA IPI Taongbayan ng Pilipinas, respondents Clerk of the Rule 10 of the GUILTY of serious dishonesty, grave
No. 10-3420-P] - Court V Atty. Zenalfie M. Cuenco (Atty. respondents 2017 Rules on misconduct, and falsification of official
ANONYMOUS Cuenco), Court Interpreter Christian V. should be held Administrative document. FORFEITURE of all
COMPLAINT AGAINST Cabanilla (Cabanilla), Stenographers Filipinas administrativel Cases in the retirement benefits, excluding accrued
CLERK OF COURT V M. Yabut (Yabut) and Siony P. Abcede y liable for the Civil Service leave credits, and her PERPETUAL
ATTY. ZENALFIE M. (Abcede), Local Government-Funded employee irregularities in  Section 1, DISQUALIFICATION from employment
CUENCO, COURT Aleli De Guzman (De Guzman), and Mediation the Malabon Canon IV of the in any branch or instrumentality of the
INTERPRETER Officer Vanissa L. Asis (Asis; collectively, RTC, Branch CCCP government, including government-owned
CHRISTIAN V. respondents) were the subject of various 72.  Section 5, or controlled corporations.
CABANILLA, COURT irregularities in the Malabon City Regional Trial Canon III of the  Court Interpreter Christian V.
STENOGRAPHERS Court (Malabon RTC), Branch 72, IN Code of Cabanilla - GUILTY of serious
FILIPINAS M. YABUT RELATION TO -falsified daily time records Conduct for dishonesty, grave misconduct, and
AND SIONY P. ABCEDE, (DTRs), attended school during office hours, and Court Personnel falsification of official document.
AND LOCALLY- lacked the required skills expected of one's (CCCP) DISMISSAL from the service,
FUNDED EMPLOYEE position. CANCELLATION of ELIGIBILITY,
ALELI DE GUZMAN, FORFEITURE of all retirement benefits,
 ALL OF THE REGIONAL excluding accrued leave credits, and
TRIAL COURT, PERPETUAL DISQUALIFICATION
BRANCH 72, MALABON from employment in any branch or
CITY, AND OFFICER instrumentality of the government,
VANISSA L. ASIS OF including government-owned or
THE PHILIPPINE controlled corporations.
MEDIATION CENTER.  Court Stenographer Siony P. Abcede -
A.M. No. P-10- GUILTY of serious dishonesty and
2812[Formerly OCA IPI incompetence. DISMISSAL from the
No. 10-3420-P], August 18, service, CANCELLATION of
2020 ELIGIBILITY, FORFEITURE of all
retirement benefits, excluding accrued
leave credits, and PERPETUAL
DISQUALIFICATION from employment
in any branch or instrumentality of the
government, including government-owned
or controlled corporations;
 Court Stenographer Filipinas M. Yabut
- GUILTY of serious dishonesty and
falsification of official document.
SUSPENSION for six (6) months.
 Aleli De Guzman - the Court REFERS
the case to the Presiding Judge of the
Malabon City Regional Trial Court,
Branch 72 for the commencement of
contempt proceedings against her.
 Vanissa L. Asis - is DISMISSED for lack
of sufficient evidence.
SEPTEMBER 2020
GENARA L. DUCASI

CASE TITLE FACTS ISSUE CANON VIOLATED PENALTY

G.R No
Date
1. Atty. Esther Gertrude D. Complainant is a member of the IBP-Bohol  Whether Atty.  Rules 1.01 and DISMISSES the Letter-Complaint against
Biliran Vs. Atty. Danilo A. Chapter (IBP-Bohol). On September 14, 2009, Bantugan 7.03 of the CPR respondent Atty. Danilo A. Bantugan for lack of
Bantugan she filed a Letter-Complaint before the Office of should be held sufficient evidence.
A.C. No. 8451. September the Court Administrator (OCA) charging administrativel
 30, 2020 respondent Atty. Bantugan with misuse of funds y liable for
and property of the Legal Assistance for violating Rules
Effective Law Enforcement Program (LAELEP) 1.01 and 7.03
and claiming that the IBP-Bohol failed to file the of the CPR.
appropriate criminal and/or administrative action
against Atty. Bantugan. Complainant alleged
that Atty. Bantugan took a check payable to cash
in the amount of P27,500.00 from LAELEP/IBP-
Bohol staff which was intended for JJ's Seafood
Village as payment. However, no payment was
effected and demands were made by the owner
of JJ's Seafood Village. Thus, during the
succeeding administration of IBP-Bohol (2005-
2007), a Special Committee6 was formed to
investigate LAELEP and Atty. Bantugan, and
make recommendations therefor.
2. Delta Venture Resources, On August 5, 2011, the Development Bank of  Whether or not  Section 7.03, DISMISSES the complaint against Atty.
Inc. Vs. Atty. Cagliotro the Philippines (DBP) filed with the Office of Atty. Martinez Canon 7 of the Cagliostro Miguel Martinez for utter lack of merit
Miguel Martinez the Ombudsman (OMB) a Complaint against its should be held CPR and substance.
A.C. No. 9268. September former directors and officers, as well as the administrativel  Canons of
30, 2020 officers of Deltaventure, namely Josephine A. y liable for Professional
Manalo, Ma. Lourdes A. Torres, and Roberto V. violation of the Ethics,
Ongpin (Mr. Ongpin) for violation of Section CPR and the  Lawyer's Oath.
3(e), (g), and (j) of Republic Act No. (RA) 3019 Lawyer's Oath.
in relation to RA 8791, Bangko Sentral ng
Pilipinas (BSP) Rules and Regulations, and DBP
Rules and Regulations, THRU allegedly issuing
an untruthful secretary's certificate.
3. JIMMY N. GOW, complainant engaged the services of the De  Whether  Rule 16.01 and complaint against respondents Atty. Gertrudo A.
COMPLAINANT, V. Leon and Desiderio Law Firm (respondents' law respondents Rule 16.03, De Leon and Atty. Felix B. Desiderio, Jr. is
ATTYS. GERTRUDO A. firm) to handle cases involving the Uniwide violated Rule Canon 16 of the DISMISSED.
DE LEON AND FELIX B. Group of Companies. Pursuant to the 16.01 and Rule CPR
DESIDERIO, JR., engagement, complainant personally delivered 16.03, Canon
RESPONDENTS P3,000,000.00 to Atty. De Leon to cover, among 16 of the CPR.
A.C. No. 12713, September others, the acceptance fee of P500,000.00 and
23, 2020 for the cost of the operations, research, leg work,
preparation of pleadings, filing of complaints,
and media coverage. Respondents, however, did
 not draw up a formal agreement for the
engagement, nor did they issue any
acknowledgment or official receipt.
4. LORNA L. OCAMPO, Complainant and her husband, Cosme Ocampo,  Whether Atty.  Canon 17, Rule Court finds respondent Atty. Jose Q. Lorica IV
COMPLAINANT, V. (Spouses Ocampo) were the respondents in a Lorica should 18.04, Canon GUILTY of violating Canon 17, Rule 18.04,
ATTY. JOSE Q. LORICA civil case for quieting of title with damages and be 18, and Rule Canon 18, and Rule 22.02, Canon 22 of the Code
IV, RESPONDENT. annulment of documents filed by a certain administrativel 22.02, Canon of Professional Responsibility as well as the
A.C. No. 12790, September Andrea Gamboa (Gamboa) before Branch 47, y sanctioned 22 of the CPR Lawyer's Oath, and hereby SUSPENDS him from
23, 2020 Regional Trial Court (RTC), Urdaneta City, for the manner as well as the the practice of law for a period of one (1) year.
Pangasinan. While the case was pending, their in which he Lawyer's Oath. He is likewise STERNLY WARNED that a
counsel, Atty. Eladio C. Velasco (Atty. handled repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt
Velasco), passed away without the knowledge of complainant s with more severely.
the court. Thereafter, the RTC declared them in case.
default and rendered judgment in Gamboa's
favor. Complainant alleged that Atty. Lorica
received a copy of the CA Decision on March
10, 2014, but he failed to notify them of the
adverse ruling right away, instead of informing
them of the CA Decision personally or by
contacting them through their mobile phone,
Atty. Lorica wrote them a Letter dated March
11, 2014 advising them that they had fifteen
days from March 10, 2014 within which to file a
motion for reconsideration with the CA.
5. MANUEL R. LEONOR, Complaint filed by Manuel R. Leonor  Whether or  Administrative complaint for disbarment/disciplinary action
COMPLAINANT, V. (complainant) with the Integrated Bar of the not, Matter (A.M.) against respondents Atty. Dickson C. Ayon-Ayon
ATTYS. DICKSON C. Philippines (IBP)-Commission on Bar Discipline respondents No. 02-8-13- and Atty. Eulogio C. Mananquil, Jr. is
AYON-AYON AND (CBD) filed on January 29, 2015 against Atty. may be disbar SC, or the 2004 DISMISSED.
EULOGIO C. Dickson C. Ayon-Ayon (Atty. Ayon-Ayon) and on the grounds Rules on
MANANQUIL, JR., Atty. Eulogio C. Mananquil, Jr. (Atty. of violation Notarial
RESPONDENTS. Mananquil) for notarizing the Deed of Absolute Rules on Practice.
A.C. No. 12624 [Formerly Sale (Deed) dated March 13, 2014 and Sworn Notarial
CBD Case No. 15-4508], Statement dated April 15, 2014, respectively, Practice.
September 16, 2020 without them requiring the physical appearance
of complainant and his wife, Teresita R. Leonor
(Teresita) (collectively, Spouses Leonor), in
violation of Administrative Matter (A.M.) No.
02-8-13-SC, or the 2004 Rules on Notarial
 Practice.
6. ATTY. BRYAN S. LIM Before the Court is an administrative complaint  Whether or not  Section 2 (e) Atty. Jose C. Tabiliran Jr. is hereby
AND NESTOR R. WONG, for disbarment filed on May 7, 2015 by respondent and Section 2 SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a
COMPLAINANTS, V. complainants Atty. Bryan S. Lim (Atty. Lim) should be (h), Rule VI of period of two (2) years; his notarial commission,
ATTY. JOSE C. and Nestor R. Wong (Nestor; collectively, administrativel the Notarial if still existing, is REVOKED; and he is
TABILIRAN, JR., complainants), before the Office of the Bar y sanctioned Rules. PERMANENTLY BARRED from being
RESPONDENT. Confidant, against respondent Atty. Jose C. for the acts commissioned as notary public. He is STERNLY
A.C. No. 10793, September Tabiliran, Jr. (respondent), charging the latter complained of. WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar
16, 2020 with violation of the Rules on Notarial Practice act will be dealt with more severely.
(Notarial Rules) and pertinent provisions of the
Code of Professional Responsibility (Code) and
immorality.
7. EDWIN JET M. In a complaint for malpractice or unethical  Whether or  Article 1491(5) administrative case is DISMISSED for lack of
RICARDO, JR., conduct, Edwin Jet M. Ricardo, Jr. not, of the Civil merit.
Complainant, v. ATTY. (complainant) charges Atty. Wendell L. Go malpractice or Code
WENDELL L. GO, (respondent) with having interest, and in fact unethical
Respondents. having acquired, a property under litigation. conduct
A.C. No. 12280, September Also, complainant charges respondent with tantamount to
16, 2020 extortion for sending a demand letter dated Administrative
February 4, 2018 for payment of rentals. Complaint
Involved in this administrative case is a house against Atty.
and lot located in Banawa, Cebu City, originally Wendell L. Go
covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) will sustain.
No. 58099 in the name of Spouses Edwin
Ricardo, Sr. and Divinagracia Ricardo (Spouses
Ricardo).
8. HENRIETTA PICZON- Before the Court is an administrative  Whether or not  2004 Rules on SUSPENSION from the practice of law for a
HERMOSO AND complaint1 for disbarment filed by complainants Atty. Parado Notarial period of two (2) years; PROHIBITS him from
BEZALEL PICZON Henrietta Piczon-Hermoso and Bezalel Piczon should be held Practice. being commissioned as a notary public for a
HERMOSO, Hermoso (complainants) against respondent administrativel  Rule 1.01, period of two (2) years; and REVOKES his
COMPLAINANTS, VS. Atty. Sylvester C. Parado (Atty. Parado) for y liable. Canon 1 and incumbent commission as a notary public, if any.
ATTY. SYLVESTER C. purportedly notarizing two documents without Rule 10.01, He is WARNED that a repetition of the same
PARADO, the affiants personally appearing before him, in Canon 10 offense or similar acts in the future shall be dealt
RESPONDENT. violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. with more severely.
[ A.C. No. 8116, September
16, 2020 ]
9. MYRIAM TAN-TE SENG, Myriam Tan-Te Seng charged respondent Atty.  Whether or  Lawyer's Oath, In A.C. No. 12829 (formerly CBD 15-4821), he
COMPLAINANT, V. Dennis C. Pangan with violations of Lawyers not, respondent Rule 1.02; is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one
 ATTY. DENNIS C. Oath and CPR, on the grounds of improper or be liable for Canon 15, (1) year.
PANGAN, abusive , and offensive languages, also in his actuations Rules 15.02 and
RESPONDENT. connection with how he performed as a lawyer and improper 15.03; and In A.C. No. 12830 (formerly CBD 16-4966), he
A.C. No. 12829 [Formerly in transaction about the estate or property. handling of Canon 21, is ADMONISHED to refrain from using abusive
CBD Case No. 15-4821], clients, and be Rules 21.01 and and offensive language in his pleadings and is
September 16, 2020 suspended in 21.02 of the STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the
the practice of CPR. same or similar acts will be dealt with more
law. severely.
10. CATHERINE V. Before the Court is a complaint asking for the  Whether  Rule 1.01 and GUILTY of gross immorality in, the court
VILLARENTE, disbarment of respondent Atty. Benigno C. respondent Rule 7.03 of the ordered that the respondent will be
COMPLAINANT, V. Villarente, Jr. (respondent) after the latter Atty. Code of DISBARRED from the practice of law effective
ATTY. BENIGNO C. continued cohabiting with his mistress and for Villarente, Jr., Professional upon receipt of this Decision. His name
VILLARENTE, JR., siring another child, despite the clear warning by a retired judge, Responsibility is ORDERED stricken off from the Roll of
RESPONDENT. the Court against the commission of the same or should be Attorneys.
A.C. No. 8866 (Formerly similar act. disbarred.
CBD Case No. 12-3385),
September 15, 2020
 SEPTEMBER 2020
ALEXIS Z. LIGAYO

CASE TITLE FACTS ISSUE VIOLATION/S PENALTY

A.C. No. 10738, Respondent approached complainant and offered legal service
September 14, with the latter’s husband case in the NLRC against DMC Inc.
2020 Respondent opined to change the position paper, and assuring
MARCELINA she will surely win the case with professional fee of 20% of the
ZAMORA, judgment payable only after winning the case, and need not
COMPLAINANT, pay anything while the new position paper is being drafted, but
VS. she failed to prepare it and failed to attend the scheduled
ATTY. MARILYN hearings that resulted to the submission of the case for
V. GALLANOSA, resolution. Complainant received the decision of the case, and
RESPONDENT. informed the respondent, the latter instructed her to email a
copy since she has not received a copy with assurance to file
an appeal. Reglementary period had lapsed without an appeal
filed. Respondent was confronted, but denied being
complainant's lawyer since she did not sign the position paper
and never received any fees.
Whether or not Rule 2.03 of the CPR when she solicited legal Six months suspension from
respondent business on a contingent basis; the practice of law and with
should be stern warning. 
administratively Canon 17 of the CPR when she denied any
sanctioned. professional relations with complainant;
Rule 3.01 of the CPR when she made it appear
with great certainty that she will win the case;
Rule 18.03 of the CPR when she abandoned the
case and allowed the appeal period to lapse;
Rules 8.01 and 8.02, Canon 8 of the CPR when
she maligned the position paper prepared by the
PAO and made baseless accusations against the
Labor Arbiter, the corporate lawyer, and the
PAO; and

Rule 15.06 of the CPR when she assured the

admission by the Labor Arbiter of a new position
paper, thereby implying that she has influence
over the said official.

CASE TITLE FACTS ISSUE VIOLATION PENALTY

A.C. No. 10204, Complainant filed a Verified Disbarment Complaint/Letter Whether or not Rule 1.02 - A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities One year suspension from
September 14, Affidavit (With Urgent Prayer for Injunction/Gag Order) against respondent is aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence the practice of law.
2020 the respondent, (SP member), alleging that respondent violated administratively in the legal system.
the CPR. She claimed that respondent slandered and insulted liable for violating Rule 11.03 - A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous,
JUDGE her in public out of personal interest and pure malice. Likewise, the CPR. offensive or menacing language or behavior before the
 charged respondent of "maliciously flaunting his unfounded, Courts.
ROSEMARIE V. baseless and highly speculative imputations" against her in the
RAMOS, public and the media, thereby stirring "anti-sentiments against Rule 11.04 -A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge
REGIONAL her" and the office she holds. motive not supported by the record or have no
TRIAL COURT, materiality to the case.
BRANCH 19,
BANGUI, Rule 11.05 - A lawyer shall submit grievances against a
ILOCOS NORTE, judge to the proper authorities only.
Complainant, v.
ATTY. Rule 13.02 - A lawyer shall not make public statements
VICENTITO M. in the media regarding a pending case tending to arouse
LAZO, public opinion for or against a party.
Respondents.

CASE TITLE FACTS ISSUE VIOLATION PENALTY

A.C. No. 10306, Spouses Blanco executed a promissory note for payment of Whether Canon 7- A lawyer shall at all times Suspension for six months
September 16, sum of money in favor of the Ingram’s and it was notarized by respondent uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal from the practice of law.
2020 respondent. When they defaulted, the Ingram’s instituted violated a lawyer profession and support the activities of the Immediate revocation of his
criminal and civil cases. Spouses Blanco engaged the legal owes candor, integrated bar. notarial commission.
FATIMA S. services of respondent for their foregoing cases. fairness and Disqualification from being
INGRAM, good faith to the commissioned as a notary
PETITIONER, Respondent filed an answer to the civil complaint, wherein the court. public for a period of two
validity of the promissory note was raised as an issue that the years.
V. execution of the said promissory note was attended with Admonished with a stern
coercion, threats, intimidation. It stated in the answer that “The warning.
ATTY. JOSE Q. execution of the alleged promissory note was without due
LORICA IV, regard to the defendants' pleas at the time as they were
RESPONDENT, subjected to coercion, threats, intimidation and the like, thus
defendant Victor Ferdinand Blanco was forced to sign the
same.” and “sent coercive and threatening communications
unto the defendants, who were forced to execute the subject
promissory note.

Complainant posits that respondent who notarized the

promissory note is estopped from assailing the validity thereof
inasmuch as he certified that the maker thereof acknowledged
before him that the instrument is the latter's own free will and
voluntary act and deed.
 CASE TITLE FACTS ISSUE VIOLATION PENALTY
A.C. No. 8700, Complainant and respondent were legally married in Whether Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that Disbarred from the practice of
September 08, Dumaguete City, and they have three daughters. After taking respondent adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall law, and his name was
2020 oath as a member of the Bar, complainant alleged that violated CODE he whether in public or private life, behave in a stricken off from the Roll of
respondent stopped extending financial support to them and OF scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal Attorneys.
NENA YBAÑEZ started having illicit affairs with women. First, with “Grace” (a PROFESSIONA profession.
ZERNA, Balikbayan), and second with Judelyn, due to respondent's L Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
COMPLAINANT, extramarital affairs they frequently argue and fight and RESPONSIBILIT dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
complainant getting mauled, thus she filed a complaint for Less Y.
V. Serious Physical Injuries against the respondent before the
Provincial Prosecutor. Respondent also have romantic relations
with Evelyn, complainant filed concubinage for allegedly openly
ATTY. MANOLO
cohabiting with Evelyn and siring a child, and abandoning his
M. ZERNA,
financial obligation to his legal family, resulting in severe
RESPONDENT.
financial difficulties as well as mental and emotional anguish.

CASE TITLE FACTS ISSUE VIOLATION PENALTY

A.C. No. 5279, Respondent was complainant’s legal counsel for an action for Whether or not Rule 12.03 - A lawyer shall not, after obtaining DISBARRED and his name
September 08, Annulment of a Deed of Quitclaim. After losing in the trial court, respondent extensions of time to file pleadings, memoranda or ORDERED STRICKEN
2020 complainant through respondent elevated the case to the CA. violated Code of briefs, let the period lapse without submitting the same OFF from the Roll of
Respondent filed four motions for extension of time to file Professional or offering an explanation for his failure to do so. Attorneys.
ROMEO appellant's brief. Despite the grant of all motions for extension, Responsibility. Rule 18.04 - A lawyer shall keep the client informed of
TELLES, for a total of 75 days, respondent still failed to file the required the status of his case and shall respond within a
COMPLAINANT, appellant's brief. The CA eventually dismissed complainant’s reasonable time to the client's request for information.
appeal. Also, respondent did not inform complainant of the
VS. dismissal, nor did he offer any explanation for his failure to file
the appellant's brief. Complainant only learned of the dismissal
of his appeal through acquaintances, and he eventually
ATTY. ROGELIO
engaged the services of another lawyer.
P. DANCEL,
RESPONDENT.
 CASE TITLE FACTS ISSUE VIOLATION PENALTY
A.C. No. 10713 Complainant, a Canadian alleged that he and respondent had Whether or not Lawyer's Oath and Three years suspension from
[Formerly CBD agreed to a professional fee of P650,000.00 for the handling of respondent the Rule 16.04 - A lawyer shall not borrow money from his the practice of law and
Case No. 15- annulment case. He alleged that respondent made several Lawyer’s Oath client unless the client's interests are fully protected by warned that a repetition of the
4731], September cash advances from him with a total amount of P800,000.00 and the Code of the nature of the case or by independent advice. Neither same offense shall be dealt
08, 2020 already above the agreed professional fee, also respondent Professional shall a lawyer lend money to a client except, when in the with more severely.
borrowed P65,000.00. Responsibility. interest of justice, he has to advance necessary
BRYCE RUSSEL However, respondent vanished completely and failed to return expenses in a legal matter he is handling for the client.
MITCHELL, his e-mails and telephone calls. During the scheduled hearings
COMPLAINANT, of the case, respondent also failed to appear. Thus,
complainant was constrained to hire another lawyer.
V.

ATTY. JUAN
PAOLO F.
AMISTOSO,
RESPONDENT.

CASE TITLE FACTS ISSUE VIOLATION PENALTY

 Spouses Hector and Lilia executed a SPA authorizing Lilia's Whether or not Lawyer's Oath, and Notarial commission
A.C. No. 12709, father, Yusay Sr. to sell and mortgage a titled land. Yusay Sr. respondent Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, was immediately revoked. 
September 08, mortgaged the property to the bank and surrendered its title, should dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. One year disqualification from
2020 and in 2015 complainant fully paid the loan and got back the administratively being commissioned as a
said title, but she noticed annotation on it "Deed of Portion charge. notary public.
LILIA YUSAY- Sale" between her, as seller, represented by her father Yusay One year suspension from
CORDERO, Sr., and et al., as buyers. The deed was notarized by the practice of law.
respondent. Verified by complainant Sternly warned. 
COMPLAINANT, she discovered that respondent was not a commissioned
notary public in 2003 and that no copy of the deed was
V. recorded with the Office of the Clerk of Court of the
RTC. Complainant filed an administrative complaint against
ATTY. JUANITO respondent before the IBP for violation of the Lawyer's Oath
AMIHAN, JR., and the Canons of Professional Responsibility.
RESPONDENT.
 OCTOBER 2020
ALEXIS Z. LIGAYO

CASE TITLE FACTS ISSUE VIOLATIONS PENALTY

A.C. No. 12086 [Formerly Complainant alleged that he, and together with the
CBD Case No. 12-3300], respondent, respondent's mother and their agent Gan
October 07, 2020 talked about the sale of respondent's property at
Banauang, Moncada, Tarlac, consisting of 4.4 hectares.
ANTONIO T. Respondent agreed to sell the property to complainant.
AGUINALDO, As part of the agreement, the complainant handed to
COMPLAINANT, respondent P100,000 as earnest money. Respondent
went back to the complainant asking for P400,000.00,
V. which the complainant refused to give due to the fact that
the respondent failed to present documents pertaining to
ATTY. ISAIAH C. the property. Due to the continued failure of respondent
ASUNCION, JR., to give the particular details of the property subject of
RESPONDENT. their agreement, complainant sought the return of his
money. Despite repeated demand, respondent failed to
return the earnest money to the damage of the
complainant.
Whether or not
respondent should Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Respondent Atty. Isaiah C.
administratively charge. Responsibility provides: Asuncion, Jr. was
found GUILTY, he
was SUSPENDED from the
CANON 1 - A lawyer shall uphold the
practice of law for a period of
Constitution, obey the laws of the land six (6) months,
with WARNING that a similar
and promote respect for law of and legal misconduct in the future shall
processes. be dealt with more severely.
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.
Canon 1 clearly mandates the obedience
of every lawyer to laws and legal
processes. To the best of his ability, a
lawyer is expected to respect and abide
by the law and, thus, avoid any act or
omission that is contrary thereto. A
lawyer's personal deference to the law not
only speaks of his character but it also
inspires respect and obedience to the law,
on the part of the public.

CASE TITLE FACTS ISSUE VIOLATIONS PENALTY

A.C. No. 12486, October 15, 2019 Respondent and his wife claimed to Whether or not respondent should Rule 10.03, Canon 10 Respondent Atty. Eligio Mallari was
be the owner of a 133 hectare real administratively charge. found GUILTY. He was
 property located in San Fernando, ordered DISBARRED from the
ANTONIO X. GENATO, Pampanga which he allegedly A lawyer shall observe the rules of practice of law. His name was
COMPLAINANT, v. ATTY. ELIGIO acquired by virtue of a judgment procedure and shall not misuse ordered STRICKEN from the Roll of
P. MALLARI, RESPONDENT. award in a previous case. them to defeat the ends of justice. Attorneys.

Respondent induced complainant Rule 12.04, Canon 12

to invest P18 Million in the property.
In turn, respondent would give A lawyer shall not unduly delay a
complainant the exclusive power to case, impede the execution of a
sell a portion of the land, about 33 judgment or misuse Court
hectares, and all proceeds of the processes.
sale would go to complainant. The
latter, however, discovered that the
11.05 - A lawyer shall submit
property actually belonged to the
grievances against a Judge to the
PNB and had been divided for
proper authorities only.
distribution to land reform
beneficiaries.
Violation of the
Lawyer's Oath

CASE TITLE FACTS ISSUE VIOLATIONS PENALTY

A.C. No. 9114, Complainant sought respondent in filing dissolution of marriage Whether or not CANON 1 – A LAWYER SHALL Atty. Socrates R. Rivera was
October 06, 2020 with a fee of P150,000 on installment basis. Respondent have respondent should UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, found GUILTY. He was
received four payments a totaling 130,0000. Then respondent administratively OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND DISBARRED from the practice of
JOSE R. REYES, JR., instructed the complainant to prepare the remaining balance of charge. AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR law and his name is ordered
COMPLAINANT, P50,000.00 to be paid upon complainant's receipt of the LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES. stricken off from the Roll of
Decision of the case. Respondent furnished complainant with a Attorneys.
VS. Decision purportedly rendered by the Presiding Judge of RULE 1.01. – A lawyer shall not
Branch 206 of the RTC of Muntinlupa City, purportedly granted engage in unlawful, dishonest, Further, Atty. Socrates R. Rivera
complainant's Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage. immoral or deceitful conduct. was ORDERED to return to
ATTY. SOCRATES R.
Complainant doubted that there was no single hearing and complainant Jose R. Reyes, Jr.
RIVERA,
suspicious since the petition was supposedly filed before within ten (10) days from receipt of
RESPONDENT.
Branch 215 of the RTC of Muntinlupa City, while the Decision this Decision the legal fees he
furnished by respondent was rendered by Branch 206 of the received from the latter in the
said RTC. Complainant learned that no Civil Case was filed amount of P100,000.00, which shall
before Branch 215 of the RTC of Muntinlupa City, and was earn legal interest at the rate of six
shocked when he discovered that Branch 215 does not in fact percent (6%) per annum from his
exist, and no such case was filed with Branch 206 as certified receipt of this Decision until full
by the Office of the Clerk of Court of Muntinlupa City. payment.
 CASE TITLE FACTS ISSUE VIOLATIONS PENALTY
Whether or not
A.C. No. 11217, Respondent went to the City Treasurer of Antipolo City to redeem a property respondent The Court, therefore, finds Respondent Atty. Ernesto M. Prias
October 07, 2020 registered under the name of Solid Builders, Inc. by claiming to be the should respondent liable for violation was found GUILTY of violating the
authorized representative of the delinquent taxpayer/person holding a lien or administratively of the Lawyer's Oath and Lawyer's Oath and Rules 1.01 and
LINO C. BERNAL, claim over the property. Respondent paid the unpaid real property taxes charge. Rules 1.01 and 1.02, Canon 1.02, Canon 1 of the Code of
JR., Complainant, plus the corresponding interest. 1 of the CPR which provide: Professional Responsibility. The
Court SUSPENDED him from the
v. Respondent was informed that the payment tendered by him will only practice of law for two years. He
CANON 1 - A lawyer shall
redound to the benefit of the declared owner indicated on the Tax was WARNED that a repetition of
ATTY. ERNESTO Declaration, and was also advised to submit proof of his authority, or any uphold the Constitution, obey the same offense or similar acts in
M. PRIAS, proof of ownership, or any mode of conveyance to redeem the subject the future shall be dealt with more
Respondent. property in behalf of the registered owner. the laws of the land and severely.
promote respect for law of
However, respondent failed to submit any proof of authority to qualify him as
a person having legal interest or as a duly authorized representative of the and legal processes.
registered owner of the subject property.
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not
Complainant, in his capacity as City Treasurer, sent respondent a
Letter informing him that the payment he tendered for the redemption of the engage in unlawful,
subject property could no longer serve its purpose of redemption for failure dishonest, immoral or
to show sufficient proof of legal representation.
deceitful conduct.
Rule 1.02 - A lawyer shall not
counsel or abet activities
aimed at defiance of the law
or at

CASE TITLE FACTS ISSUE VIOLATIONS PENALTY

A.C. No. 10636, The complainant filed complaint before the PPO of Whether or not respondent Administrative case for The administrative case for Grave
October 12, 2020 Catanduanes, averring that Zafe and Alberto, then former should administratively charge. Grave Misconduct in the Misconduct against respondents
and incumbent Mayors, respectively, of the Virac, Ombudsman. Atty. Elbert L. Bunagan, Atty.
MANUEL B. Catanduanes, violated RA 3019 and 6713 when they failed to Joaquin F. Salazar, Atty. Joyrich M.
TABLIZO, sign each and every page of certain municipal tax Golangco, and Atty. Adoracion A.
COMPLAINANT, ordinances as required by the Local Government Code and Agbada, in their respective
for still implementing them in the said Municipality, despite capacities as officials of the Office
their defect and nullity. The complaint was indorsed to the of the Deputy Ombudsman for
 Ombudsman for Luzon and raffled to respondent Atty. Luzon, was DISMISSED for lack of
V. Bunagan. After an exchange of pleadings by the parties, merit.
respondent Atty. Bunagan issued a Consolidated Resolution,
ATTYS. JOYRICH reviewed by respondent Atty. Salazar. The complaint was
M. GOLANGCO, dismissed against respondents former Municipal
ADORACION A. Mayors ALBERTO and ZAFE, both of the Local Government
AGBADA, ELBERT of Virac, Catanduanes for lack of merit. The Consolidated
L. BUNAGAN, AND Resolution was approved by Ombudsman Conchita Carpio
JOAQUIN F. Morales. Thereafter, complainant filed Complaint-Affidavit
SALAZAR, against respondents before the Office of the Court
RESPONDENTS. Administrator, averring that "respondents maliciously failed to
follow/observe the standards of personal conduct provided
under R.A. No. 6713 and R.A. No. 6770 in the discharge and
execution of their official duties for failing and/or refusing to
investigate in the real sense of the word, the charges against
Alberto and Zafe. However, failed to appear in any of the
mandatory conferences.

CASE TITLE FACTS ISSUE VIOLATIONS PENALTY

A.M. No. P-20-4041 When Chief Justice Diosdado M. Peralta visited the first and Whether or not Section 2, Canon IV of the The Court found Atty. Joan M. Dela
[Formerly OCA I.P.I second level courts of Makati City in 2019. Respondent was respondent should Code of Conduct for Court Cruz, Clerk of Court V, Branch 64,
No. 20-4997-P], standing at the doorway of the court, leaning on the door frame, administratively Personnel, requires that "court Regional Trial Court, Makati
October 13, 2020 and effectively blocking the entrance when the Chief Justice charge. personnel shall carry out their City, GUILTY of gross discourtesy in the
arrived at Branch 64. Respondent remained in such position responsibilities as public course of official duties, and was
OFFICE OF THE even while speaking with the Chief Justice. servants in as courteous a FINED, in lieu of suspension, in the
COURT After the Chief Justice asked respondent where Presiding Judge manner as possible." amount equivalent to her Three (3)
ADMINISTRATOR, Bibat-Palamos was, respondent nonchalantly replied that the month Salary, computed at the salary
Complainant, latter was teaching at San Beda College. The Chief Justice rate at the time of her resignation, which
inquired if Branch 64 had any cases scheduled on that day and amount shall be deducted from her
v. respondent made a curt remark that their Branch does not accrued leave credits or any other
schedule cases on Fridays. This merited a reminder from the monetary benefits she may be entitled.
Chief Justice that under the Rules on Continuous Trial, trial
ATTY. JOAN M. DELA
courts should hear criminal cases even on Fridays Respondent,
CRUZ, CLERK OF
however, did not appear to be at least apologetic for failing to set
COURT V, BRANCH
any hearing for that day, and continued to talk brashly and
64, REGIONAL TRIAL
impertinently to the Chief Justice.
COURT, MAKATI
CITY, Respondent.
 CASE TITLE
G.R. No. 216634, October 14,
2020
HON. PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR.,
IN HIS CAPACITY AS
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, HON.
ROZANNO RUFINO B. BIAZON,
AND ATTY. JUAN LORENZO T.
TAÑADA, IN THEIR RESPECTIVE
CAPACITIES AS
COMMISSIONER AND DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER OF THE
BUREAU OF CUSTOMS,
PETITIONERS,
V.
ATTY. CHRISTOPHER S. DY
BUCO, RESPONDENT.
FACTS ISSUE VIOLATIONS PENALTY
Atty. Dy Buco, et al. are members of the Run-After-The-Smugglers Whether or not None The petitions were DENIED
Group of the Bureau of Customs were charged by the OP for serving of respondent is guilty of by the Supreme Court.
LAO in the warehouse of Sanyo Seiki and interception of an Isuzu grave misconduct, grave The Decision dated August
delivery truck. The OP ruled that there was also Gross Incompetence abuse of authority or 15, 2014 and the Resolution
and Inefficiency committed by Atty. Dy Buco and his group in their failure oppression, gross dated January 29, 2015
to obtain Mission Orders which are sufficient in form and substance incompetence and respectively of the Court of
before proceeding in its implementation and execution; that Atty. Dy inefficiency and conduct Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
Buco and his group are liable for Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest prejudicial to the best 126239 were AFFIRMED.
of the Service as their acts constituted harassment, corrupt and interest of the service.
retaliatory tactics against Sanyo Seiki for the latter's filing of criminal and
administrative charges against Deputy Commissioner Chavez with the
Office of the Ombudsman; that the seizure of Sanyo Seiki's truck without
a warrant was flawed considering the absence of probable cause; and
that Atty. Dy Buco and his group had no authority to demand payment of
duties and taxes on account of the sales invoice presented by Sanyo
Seiki showing that the seized stainless steel items were not imported, but
locally purchased from a common bonded warehouse.

The OP denied the Motion for Reconsideration filed by Atty. Dy Buco, he

appealed to the CA, and it found the appeal meritorious, the same was
affirmed by the SC.

CASE TITLE FACTS ISSUE VIOLATIONS PENALTY

A.C. No. 8959, Respondent, together with BPLO officers and LGU offices issued a Closure Whether or not No violation of The administrative complaint
October 07, 2020 Order and seized the billiard accessories to which complainant protested respondent should Lawyer's Oath and the against respondent Atty. Claro
since the Closure Order did not include the seizure of the said administratively CPR. Manuel M. Rivera was
RISIE G. items. However, respondent allegedly threatened complainant with charge. DISMISSED for lack of merit.
BAYGAR, imprisonment instead of just seizing the items. Complainant and her father
COMPLAINANT, secured the necessary business permits, and proceeded to respondent's
office asking for the release of the seized items. But, respondent refused and
V. instead asked her to pay additional fines for their release.

ATTY. CLARO The Municipal Treasurer issued another Closure Order against complainant's

MANUEL M. father for failure to pay the fines and penalties. Then, complainant and her
RIVERA, father were surprised when they learned that respondent filed a criminal
RESPONDENT. complaint against them for Violation of Municipal Ordinance No. 2006-006 for
operating a business without securing a business permit. Hence, filing of
complaint for disbarment against respondent.
 CASE TITLE FACTS ISSUE VIOLATIONS PENALTY
A.C. No. 12766 In 1998, respondent notarized a Deed of Sale executed by Antonio Whether or not Rule 9.01, Canon 9 of the The notarial commission of respondent
(Formerly CBD Guanzon. The document was recorded in respondent's notarial respondent Code of Professional. Atty. Romeo S. Gonzales was REVOKED;
Case No. 12-3589), registry and certified by the Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial should and he was DISQUALIFIED from being
October 07, 2020 Court (RTC), Quezon City. Thereafter, respondent notarized another administratively Rule 9.01. A lawyer shall not commissioned as notary public for a period
document called Director's Certificate, and was assigned the same charge. delegate to any unqualified of one (1) year. He was also
RODOLFO L. notarial details as the Deed of Sale he notarized the day prior. person the performance of SUSPENDED from the practice of law for
ORENIA III, Respondent failed to record the Director's Certificate in his notarial any task which by law may three (3) months effective immediately with
COMPLAINANT, register. only be performed by a a WARNING that the repetition of a similar
member of the Bar in good violation will be dealt with more severely.
V. Complainant averred that in addition to respondent’s failure to record standing. He was DIRECTED to report the date of
the Director’s Certificate in his notarial register, he also participated in his receipt of the Decision to enable the
its falsification because the Director's Certificate was never authorized Court to determine when his suspension
ATTY. ROMEO S.
by the Anaped's Board of Directors. He further averred that the parties shall take effect.
GONZALES,
RESPONDENT. to the purported Director's Certificate could not have personally signed
and executed the certificate in the presence of respondent.
Accordingly, respondent also misrepresented himself as the Corporate
Secretary of Anaped when he signed the minutes of the meeting.
Lastly, complainant accused respondent liable for conduct
unbecoming a lawyer because he attempted to hit him and told him
"ulol ka" during the preliminary investigation of the counter-complaint
he filed. This prompted him to file the instant case for disbarment
against respondent with the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline.

CASE TITLE FACTS ISSUE VIOLATIONS PENALTY

A.C. No. 12017, Complainant was at the Community Environment and Natural Whether or not the Lawyer's Oath and The Court found Atty. Mendez GUILTY. He
October 14, 2020 Resources Office, DENR-XI, Bangkal, Davao City, to accompany respondent should Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the was SUSPENDED from the practice of law
his brother Ruben to attend a hearing/conference in a case administratively Code of Professional for a period of one (1) year. He was
ROGER B. DAP- entitled Heirs of Betil Sigampong Rep. By Rodolfo Sigampong, charge. Responsibility WARNED that a repetition of the same or
OG, Protestants versus Timotea Ninsnea, et al. respondent where
 Roger's wife, Gemma was one of the respondents. similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
COMPLAINANT,
After the hearing, Roger, together with Ruben and Atty. Ladaga,
VS. went to the CENRO canteen to photocopy some documents. 

ATTY. LUEL C. According to Roger, respondent approached their table and asked
MENDEZ, for his name. Meanwhile, Rodolfo, one of the protestants, verbally
RESPONDENT. confirmed the latter's identity as Roger he then shook hands with
respondent, but was surprised when respondent suddenly called
him “demon”. Roger demanded explanation, but respondent, stood
up and tried to grab Roger from across the table. Roger managed
to move back but respondent still managed to scratch his neck.
Respondent slapped Roger's left cheek. Roger tried to move away
but respondent, together with Rodolfo and several others, pursued
him and managed to land some punches on him. Roger's
companion, Jimmy eventually succeeded in disengaging Roger
from respondent but not before the latter hit Roger's right
shoulder. During the commotion, the group of respondent was
hurling invectives and accusations at Roger.

CASE TITLE FACTS ISSUE VIOLATIONS PENALTY

Spouses Libang died in 1996 and in 2000, respectively. Leaving parcel of land with an area of Whether or not Rule 1.01, Respondent Atty. Renato C.
A.C. No. 12733, 7,214 square meters registered under TCT No. T-5690 located at Limay, Bataan, which was in respondent Canon 1 of the Bagay was found GUILTY. He
October 14, part inherited by their legitimate daughter, complainant Virginia Libang Aldea. should Code of was SUSPENDED from the
2020 administratively Professional practice of law for two (2) years,
Complainants discovered the existence of an Extra-Judicial Settlement of Estate with Sale, charge. Responsibility effective immediately. The
SPOUSES purportedly executed by the heirs of spouses Libang, transferring the ownership of the subject and the 2004 Court REVOKED his notarial
VIRGINIA AND property to spouses Enrico and Arlina Datu. It was notarized by Atty. Bagay in 2010. Virginia Rules on commission. PERMANENTLY
RAMON ALDEA, assisted by her husband Atty. Ramon Aldea filed a criminal complaint for estafa through Notarial DISQUALIFIES him from being
Complainants, falsification of public documents against respondent and several others before the Office of the Practice commissioned as a notary
City Prosecutor of Balanga City, as well as the complaint for disbarment against respondent. public, and with a STERN
v. WARNING that the repetition of
According to Virginia, the signature appearing above her printed name in the Extra-Judicial a similar violation will be dealt
ATTY. RENATO Settlement of Estate with Sale was forged, simulated and falsified, as she was never a party to with even more severely. He
C. BAGAY, the document, and did not participate in the signing and execution thereof. She also assailed the was DIRECTED to REPORT the
Respondent. CTC bearing her name. Moreover, she maintained that respondent acted with malice in date of his receipt of this
notarizing the spurious document, notwithstanding the absence of the affiants therein. Virginia Decision to enable the Court to
swore that she did not appear and acknowledge the document before the respondent. While determine when his suspension
Leonida, another heir, was already dead as early as 1990. shall take effect.
 Respondent admitted his notarization in 2010 of the Extra-Judicial Settlement of Estate with
Sale, with Leonida and Virginia, along with a certain Libang, as purported affiants, and recorded
such document. He allegedly notarized the document in good faith, and without motive of being
a party to the falsity of the document, as he did not know any of the parties therein.

CASE TITLE FACTS ISSUE VIOLATIONS PENALTY

A.C. No. 8522, Complainants alleged that respondent was a friend Whether respondent is Rule 1.01 -A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, Respondent Atty. Victor
October 06, 2020 and law school classmate of their brother Paulino. administratively liable immoral or deceitful conduct. D. Sederiosa was
They claimed that respondent notarized the for engaging in the SUSPENDED from the
TEODORO L. following spurious documents despite the death of practice of law during CANON 7 - A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD practice of law for TWO
CANSINO and their parents and/or the non-personal appearance his suspension, and for THE INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL (2) YEARS, on top of the
EMILIO L. of the affiants. red notarizing documents PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ONE (1) YEAR
CANSINO, despite the revocation INTEGRATED BAR. SUSPENSION
JR., Complainants, The Extrajudicial Settlement stated that Emilio Sr. of his notarial previously imposed upon
and Victoria adjudicated and partitioned between commission, and for Rule 7.03 -A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that him. His notarial
v.  themselves the properties of their deceased being commissioned adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor should commission
daughter, Belen L. Cansino. as notary public he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous was REVOKED. He was
notwithstanding his manner to the discredit of the legal profession. PERMANENTLY
ATTY. VICTOR D.
In a Report and Recommendation in 2014, the disqualification. DISQUALIFIED from
SEDERIOSA, Resp
Investigating Commissioner found respondent CANON 9 - A LAWYER SHALL NOT, DIRECTLY OR acting as notary public.
ondent.
liable for the acts complained of and INDIRECTLY, ASSIST IN THE UNAUTHORIZED
recommended his suspension from the practice of PRACTICE OF LAW.
law for a period of one year and the revocation of
his notarial commission during the period thereof. CANON 10 - A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS
AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT.

CANON 15 - A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR,

FAIRNESS AND LOYALTY IN ALL HIS DEALINGS AND
TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS CLIENT.

CASE TITLE FACTS ISSUE VIOLATIONS PENALTY

A.C. No. 10699 Complainant, an employee of the NFA, alleged that in 1995, he was Whether or not Rule 1.01 of the Code of Respondent Glicerio A.
[Formerly CBD Case awarded by the GSIS a low-cost housing unit located at Menzyland respondent Professional Responsibility Sampana was found GUILTY of
No. 15-4793], Subdivision, Bulacan. To pay for the said property, he was granted by the should states that "[a] lawyer shall not gross misconduct and was
October 06, 2020 ] GSIS a real estate loan amounting to P216,000.00, with a monthly administratively engage in unlawful, dishonest, DISBARRED from the practice
amortization of P2,584.44 for a period of 25 years. In 1997, owing to charge. immoral or deceitful conduct." of law. Respondent's name was
WILFREDO C. financial constraints, complainant transferred his right over the housing unit As such, membership in the stricken off from the Roll of
CABALLERO, to respondent in consideration of the amount of P60,000.00, upon the legal profession is a privilege Attorneys immediately.
COMPLAINANT, condition that the latter would assume the obligation of paying the that is bestowed upon
 remaining monthly amortizations, and this was sealed with Deed of individuals who are not only
VS. Transfer of Rights that states “WHEREAS, the TRANSFEREE, hereby learned in law, but are also
agree to assume the obligation of the TRANSFEROR under the terms and known to possess good moral
ATTY. GLICERIO A. conditions embodied in the Deed of Conditional Sale executed by the character
SAMPANA, GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM in favor of the
RESPONDENT. TRANSFEROR and the latter has consented and agreed to Transfer all
their rights and interest over the subject property to the TRANSFEREE.”

Complainant’s obligation had increased, thus GSIS issued its Final

Demand to the complainant informing him that his unpaid obligation had
reached the amount of the P2,980,183.80 due to his failure to pay his
housing arrearages, and requiring him to immediately pay or restructure his
account through the GSIS Housing Loan Restructuring and Remedial
Program. Hence, this administrative complaint alleging that due to
respondent's empty promises, misrepresentations, maneuverings, and
deceitful offers to assume complainant's financial obligation to GSIS and
buy the property, complainant's loan ballooned to its current total,
jeopardizing his retirement benefits.

NOVEMBER 2020
ALEXIS Z. LIGAYO

CASE TITLE FACTS ISSUE VIOLATIONS PENALTY

[ A.C. No. 12081 Lopez alleged that he was the vendee of a parcel of land Whether or not Respondent violated Rule 1.02, Respondent ATTY. ROSENDO C.
[Formerly CBD Case No. at No. 362-A L. Tondo, Manila. The property was respondent should Canon 1 of the CPR, to wit: RAMOS was SUSPENDED from
14-4225], November 24, originally covered under a TCT No.143583 before the administratively the practice of law for a period of
2020 ] ROD of Manila, in Aurea Munar Masangkay's name. charge. CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL two (2) years. Notarial commission,
UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, if any, was REVOKED, and he
ALBERTO LOPEZ, Lopez discovered that TCT 143583 had been cancelled, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND is DISQUALIFIED from
COMPLAINANT, upon the issuance of TCT 184238 to Ronquillo. AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR reappointment as a notary public
According to Lopez, it was thru a forged deed of sale LAW OF AND LEGAL PROCESSES. for a period of two (2) years. He
VS. notarized by the respondent, which enabled the regular was STERNLY WARNED that any
issuance of a new title in Ronquillo's name. Rule 1.02 - A lawyer shall not counsel similar act or infraction in the future
or abet activities aimed at defiance of shall be dealt with more severely.
ATTY. ROSENDO C.
RAMOS, RESPONDENT. the law or at lessening confidence in
the legal system.
 NOVEMBER 2020
GLENDY ROSE N. OBAHID
CASE TITLE FACTS ISSUE CANON VIOLATED PENALTY
John Paul Keiner v. Atty. Ricardo John Paul alleges that Atty. Amores committed an act that is in Should Atty. Amores be held 2004 Rules on Notarial The Court finds respondent
R. Amores violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice6 (Rules on administratively liable for Practice6 (Rules on Atty. Ricardo R. Amores
(A.C. No. 9417, November 18, Notarial Practice) and Canons 1, 10, and 19 of the Code of violating the Rules on Notarial Practice) and guilty of violating the 2004
2020) Professional Responsibility (CPR) Notarial Practice when he Canons 1, 10, and 19 of Rules on Notarial Practice and
notarized a document without the Code of Professional the Code of Professional
John Paul was the accused in a criminal case for Estafa the presence of the signatory Responsibility (CPR) Responsibility. Accordingly, his
entitled People of the Philippines v. John Paul Kiener, pending and failed to indicate his notarial commission, if still
before the MTC in Lapu-Lapu City, Cebu. Atty. Amores was the commission number in the existing, is revoked, and he is
private prosecutor on behalf of private complainant Pado's notarial certificate? hereby disqualified from being
Divecamp Resort Corporation. He was also a commissioned reappointed as Notary Public
notary public at that time. for a period of two (2) years.

Irene Medalla, the Corporate Secretary of the Corporation,

executed a Secretary's Certificate on July 18, 2007. The
Secretary's Certificate authorized Cho Chang Je, the Chairman
of the Board of Directors of the Corporation, to file the criminal
case on behalf of the Corporation against John Paul. Atty.
Amores was the one who notarized the Secretary's
Certificate.The Secretary's Certificate was attached to the
Complaint-Affidavit filed in the criminal case.

John Paul claims that the Secretary's Certificate was defective

and improperly notarized. He alleges that Atty. Amores as notary
public failed to indicate the serial number of his notarial
commission in the notarial certificate, and that Irene's signature
appears to have been printed or scanned (digital copy) into the
document. He asserts that because of the use of a printed
signature, Irene could not have been physically present before
Atty. Amores when the document was signed and notarized.

Edgardo A. Tapang v. Atty.
Marian C. Donayre
(A.C. No. 12822, November 18,
2020)
Edgardo Tapang alleged that he was the respondent in a labor Whether Atty. Donayre
case for illegal dismissal and monetary claims filed by Ananias should be held
Bacalso (Bacalso) before the Labor Arbiter (LA). The case was administratively liable for
docketed as NLRC Case No. RAB VII-09-2458-2009. violating the rule against
forum shopping when she
There being no appeal filed by Bacalso with the National Labor deliberately filed another
Rule 10.03, Canon 10, and The Court finds respondent
Rules 12.02 and 12.04, Atty Donayre guilty of violating
Canon 12 of the Code of Canon 1, Rule 10.3, Canon 10,
Professional and Rules 12.02 and 12.04,
Responsibility.  Canon 12 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and
 Relations Commission (NLRC), the LA Decision became final labor case, docketed as the Lawyer's Oath. Atty.
and executory on June 16, 2010. Atty. Donayre, as the counsel NLRC RAB-VII Case No. 07- Donayre is suspended from the
on record for Bacalso, received a copy of the Decision on May 1396-10, based on the same practice of law for a period of
31, 2010. cause of action, involving two (2) years with a stern
the same parties, and with warning that a repetition of
On July 5, 2010, Atty. Donayre filed another illegal dismissal the same prayer before the similar acts will be dealt with
complaint on Bacalso's behalf with the same claims as the earlier LA. more severely.
case against complainant before the LA docketed as NLRC RAB-
VII Case No. 07-1396-10. This prompted the complainant to file a
Motion to Dismiss on the ground of res judicata, citing the
previous dismissal of NLRC Case No. RAB VII-09-2458-2009.
However, instead of acting on the motion, the LA directed the
parties to submit their respective position papers.

In the Decision dated March 23, 2011, the LA rendered judgment

in favor of Bacalso and ordered the complainant to pay the
former: (a) ₱77,688.00 as separation pay; (b) ₱19,422.00 as 13 th-
month pay; and (c) ₱9,711.00 as attorney's fees. On appeal, the
NLRC overturned the LA's ruling and dismissed NLRC RAB-VII
Case No. 07-1396-10 on the grounds of res judicata and the lack
of an employer-employee relationship between the complainant
and Bacalso.

Hence, the complainant filed the instant administrative case

Rosalinda Taghoy , et al. v. Atty.
Constantine Tecson III
(A.C. No. 12446, November 16,
2020)
against Atty. Donayre for her alleged violation of the rule against
forum shopping.
Sometime in 2006, complainants engaged the legal services of Whether Atty. Tecson is
Atty. Constantine Tecson III (Atty. Tecson) as counsel in an administratively liable for his
ejectment case filed against them by a certain Rayos. They paid negligence to protect his
him ₱5,000.00 to file a motion for reconsideration. After clients' cause in the
evaluating the case, Atty. Tecson opined that Rayos' transfer ejectment proceedings and
certificate of title (TCT) was questionable and advised his inaction in filing the
complainants to file a separate case to annul Rayos' TCT. The annulment of title
complainants agreed to file a separate case and paid Atty. proceedings.
Tecson a total of ₱71,000.00 as of February 2006, representing
partial payment of the professional fees.
Canon 18, Rules 18.01, The Court
18.02, 18.03, and 18.04 of suspends respondent Atty.
the Code of Professional Constantine Tecson III from the
Responsibility (CPR). practice of law for a period of
three (3) months, effective
upon the receipt of the
decision. He is sternly
warned that a repetition of the
same or similar acts shall be
dealt with more severely. 

In the meantime, Atty. Tecson failed to file the complainants'

position paper in the ejectment case despite the court's order, as
well as the appeal memorandum, which caused the dismissal of
the complainants' appeal to the ejectment case. Allegedly, Atty.
Tecson assured the complainants that he filed the necessary
pleadings, but this proved to be false upon verification with the

Joel A. Pilar v. Atty. Clarence T.
Ballicud
(A.C. No. 12792, November 16,
2020)
Atty. Virgilio A. Sevandal v. Atty.
Melita B. Adama
(A.C. No. 10571, November 11,
2020)
court. Atty. Tecson also did not file the case for the annulment of
Rayos' TCT. Accordingly, the complainants asked Atty. Tecson
to refund the ₱71,000.00 and the ₱5,000.00 which they paid to
him.
Atty. Tecson refused to refund the amount, which prompted the
complainants to file the instant disbarment case.
KWP is a corporation registered with the Securities and Whether Atty. Ballicud is Rule 1.02, Canon 1, and Atty. Clarence T. Ballicud is
Exchange Commission (SEC) on January 3, 2007, primarily guilty of misconduct for Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of suspended from the practice of
engaged in manufacturing, distributing, and dealing wear representing conflicting the Code of Professional law for six (6) months. He is
resistant linings, other industrial supplies and related products. interests for being Gabriel’s Responsibility. warned that a repetition of the
KWP engaged the services of Atty. Ballicud to draft legal dummy and having same or similar wrongdoing in
documents, such as policy on retirement benefits, voluntary confidential information about the future will be dealt with
resignation, and shareholder's agreement, from 2010 to 2013. KWP’s business operations more severely.
when he, together with
After the termination of Atty. Ballicud's engagement, [KWP came others, incorporated EAT.
across EAT, a company engaged in selling, assembling, and
distributing electrical products], and other merchandise similar to
KWP's products. Allegedly, KWP had previously lost several
project bids to EAT which resulted in the loss of clients and
business opportunities on their part. This prompted KWP to
investigate EAT. K WP found out that EAT was registered with
the SEC on March 27, 2013, with Atty. Ballicud as its President
and one of the incorporators. Further investigation revealed that
the other incorporators are the nephews of KWP's former
President, Dennis M. Gabriel (Dennis), who resigned in 2014.
Thus, on November 10, 2016, KWP's Vice President for
Technical and Sales, Pilar, filed a disbarment complaint against
Atty. Ballicud with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for
representing clients with conflicting interests
Atty. Sevandal claimed that through a verbal agreement on Whether Atty. Sevandal is Rule 8.02, Canon 8 of the The Court finds Atty. Virgilio A.
February 2, 2011, Merlina Borja-Sevandal (Merlina) engaged his guilty of encroaching the CPR Sevandal guilty of encroaching
professional services to provide legal advice and assistance, as professional services of Atty. the professional services of
well as file court cases when necessary, to Merlina's claims with Melita B. Adame. Atty. Melita B. Adame. He is
Fuyoh Shipping Co. (Fuyoh Shipping), Bandila Maritime hereby suspended from the
Services, Inc. (Bandila Maritime), Social Security System (SSS), practice of law for one (1)
and other offices for whatever benefits she was entitled to as the year, effective upon receipt of
surviving spouse of Master Camilo Verano Sevandal (Camilo). this Decision and directed
Camilo died on January 27, 2011 and was employed as a Ship to return the amount of
Master by Fuyoh Shipping/Bandila Maritime at the time of his ₱300,000.00 to Merlina B.
death. The aforementioned verbal agreement was substantiated Sevandal. He is
by an Affidavit4 dated December 7, 2011, executed by Josefina likewise warned that a
Verano Sevandal, Merlina's first cousin, attesting that she was in repetition of the same or similar
the meeting with Atty. Sevandal and Merlina on February 2, 2011 acts shall be dealt with more
and witnessed the agreement of the parties on Atty. Sevandal's severely.
10% contingent fee for handling Merlina's case.

On March 9, 2011, Atty. Sevandal and Merlina executed a

Retainer Contract5 with respect to the recovery of Merlina's
share on the (1) conjugal partnership property, which she
acquired during her marriage, and (2) legitime as heir and
surviving spouse of Camilo. As compensation, Merlina promised
to pay: (1) acceptance and success fees amounting to 10% of
the prevailing market value of all real and/or personal property
restored/vested in the possession of the client; (2) appearance
fees; (3) hotel, travel and food expenses; and (4) cash advances
of (a) ₱100,000.00 upon receipt by the client of the insurance
proceeds from the employer/office concerned, and (b)
₱150,000.00 upon the filing of the complaint in the proper court.
Further, it was expressly stated in the Retainer Contract that the
contract covers the litigation at the level of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) only and that if there would be any appeal or petition
before the appellate courts, a new retainer contract would be
executed by the parties.

On April 26, 2011, Atty. Sevandal filed a claim for death and
other benefits that Merlina may be lawfully entitled to with DRPI,
the indemnity agent of Fuyoh Shipping and Bandila Maritime.
Meanwhile, on May 3, 2011, Atty. Adame, in behalf of Merlina,
filed a Complaint with the National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC) against Fuyoh Shipping and Bandila Maritime for the
payment of death benefits, sickness allowance, damages, and
attorney's fees.

On May 4, 2011, DRPI informed Atty. Sevandal that Merlina's

claim for death benefits was discontinued due to the filing of the
complaint by Atty. Adame with the NLRC. However, it was
intimated that if the NLRC complaint would he withdrawn, the
settlement of Merlina's claim would be resumed by DRPI and that
in less than two (2) months, Merlina would receive a check
covering the death benefits. Atty. Sevandal alleged that Merlina
was amenable to the withdrawal of the NLRC complaint.

It is undisputed that Atty. Sevandal was not the counsel of record

in NLRC Case No. NCR OFW (M) 05-06890-11. It was Atty.
Adame who filed the complaint with the NLRC and the only

Eduardo Manalang v. Atty.
Cristina Buendia
(A.C. No. 12079, November 10,
2020)
counsel on record of Merlina.
Atty. Sevandal's insistence that he executed a Retainer Contract
and an Addendum to Retainer Contract with Merlina as basis for
appearing on her behalf before the NLRC is untenable. First, the
Retainer Contract covered services for the recovery of the client's
share in the conjugal partnership property acquired during the
marriage, as well as her legitime as heir and surviving spouse of
her deceased husband. The scope explicitly stated that the
contract covers the litigation at the level of the RTC
only. Next, the Addendum to Retainer Contract was dubious
according to the findings of the IBP since (1) the said Addendum
did not amend or expand the scope of Atty. Sevandal's
engagement as provided in the Retainer Contract, i.e., still limited
to the RTC level only, and (2) it appeared that there were two
different versions as annexed in the Complaint and respondent's
Position Paper.
Sometime in 2011, Manalang engaged the services of Atty. Whether Atty. Buendia Lawyer’s Oath and Canon The Court finds respondent
Buendia for the declaration of nullity of his marriage. Atty. violated the Lawyer's Oath 1, Rules 1.01 and 1.02 of Atty. Cristina Benosa
Buendia told Manalang that the proceeding usually lasts from and the Code of Professional the Code of Professional Buendia guilty of violating
one (1) to two (2) years, but with her services, it can be hastened Responsibility when she Responsibility. Canon 1, Rules 1.01 and 1.02
to six (6) months to one (1) year. Manalang hesitated at first, but deliberately misled and of the Code of Professional
Atty. Buendia assured him that everything was legal. Thus, an deceived her client by Responsibility. She is hereby
agreement was made where Manalang would pay legal fees fabricating a court decision. disbarred from the practice of
amounting to ₱275,000.00 plus documentation and out of pocket law and her name stricken from
expenses. the Roll of Attorneys.
Respondent is ordered to
When Manalang followed up on the status of the case sometime return to complainant Eduardo
in April 2012, Atty. Buendia assured him that everything was B. Manalang, within 30 days
going smoothly. At that time, Manalang manifested that if there from notice, the sum of
were problems in expediting the resolution of the case, he was ₱270,000.00 with an interest at
willing to go through the usual process even if it takes longer. the rate of six percent (6%) per
However, Atty. Buendia replied: "Ed, hindi na pwede kasi annum from the date of the
magbabayad na naman ikaw niyan. Di bale maiksing panahon promulgation of this Resolution
na lang naman, matatapos na din." She then told him to put his until fully paid.
trust and confidence in her.
From June to September 2012 Manalang tried to contact Atty.
Buendia to follow-up his case but she never answered his calls.
Manalang also visited Atty. Buendia's office three times, but she
was always unavailable.
On September 7, 2012, Atty. Buendia eventually agreed to meet

Divine Grace P. Cristobal v. Atty.
Jonathan A. Cristobal
(A.C. No. 12702, November 8,
2020)
Manalang in the office of one Atty. Neil Salazar (Atty. Salazar)
located along Visayas Avenue. During the meeting, Manalang
learned from Atty. Buendia that Atty. Salazar was actually the
one handling his case. He also found out that his case was filed
in Ballesteros, Cagayan. Atty. Buendia explained that she and
Atty. Salazar knew someone in Cagayan who can help them, and
that they will get results by November 6, 2012. She ako promised
that she will update Manalang within 15 days, but never did.
Manalang tried to contact Atty. Buendia from September 22,
2012, to April 2013, to no avail. It was only on April 15, 2013, that
Atty. Buendia messaged Manalang to say the annulment case
was finally resolved and the decision was already available.
However, Manalang remained doubtful of his case being filed
because he was never furnished a copy of the decision.
On April 28, 2013, Manalang met Atty. Buendia in her office in
Kamuning and asked for a copy of the decision.  Atty. Buendia
Ꮮαwρhi ৷
initially refused, but when Manalang insisted, she hesitatingly
gave him a copy of a decision rendered by the 33rd Branch of
the Regional Trial Court in Ballesteros, Cagayan dated
December 28, 2011.
When Manalang inspected the decision, he observed that it
contained fabricated details regarding his marriage, such as
physical violence allegedly inflicted on him. He also noticed that
the facts therein were different from what he had narrated to Atty.
Buendia. These made him doubt the veracity of the documents.
his made Manalang grow even more suspicious which is why he
took it upon himself to go to Ballesteros, Cagayan to find out the
status of his case. There, he learned that there was "absolutely
no case filed for the dissolution of [his] marriage." As soon as he
found out, he contacted Atty. Buendia but she never responded.
Divine and Atty. Cristobal were married on May 1, 1999 and were Whether Atty. Cristobal’s Rules 1.01 and 7.03 of the The Court found Atty. Jonathan
blessed with four (4) children. They did not encounter any major actions fall short of the Code of Professional A. Cristobal is found guilty of
marital problem during the early years. of their married life. exavcting moral standard Responsibility. violating Rules 1.01 and 7.03 of
However, Atty. Cristobal's behavior changed when he became a required of the noble the Code of Professional
lawyer in March 2003. He became abusive and irresponsible profession of law. Responsibility and is hereby
towards his family and subjected Divine to verbal, emotional, suspended for a period of three
psychological, and physical abuse. Divine described six (6) (3) months from the practice of
particular instances of such abuse. law, with a warning that a
repetition of the same or similar
On January 30, 2005, the spouses had a heated argument over offense will warrant a more
severe penalty.
money. In the presence of two (2) of their children, Atty.
Cristobal's mother (Araceli), his brother (Jay), his sister (Joyce),
and his cousins, Atty. Cristobal choked and pushed Divine,
punched her at the back, and shouted "mayabang ka, akala mo
ikaw ang gumgastos ng lahat!" Divine reported the incident at the
Ilagan Police Station and secured a Medical Certificate on the
same day.

Sometime in April 2006, Atty. Cristobal threw a Red Horse beer

bottle at Divine because she protested Atty. Cristobal's payment
of his family's utility bills. The argument started when Divine
asked for money to buy food but was not given money by Atty.
Cristobal because he paid for the said utility bills. It was then that
Atty. Cristobal threatened that they separate and uttered, "you
may get the car, the house, the children but you can never have
me!"
Sometime in April 2007, Divine requested Atty. Cristobal to
purchase milk for their son. Atty. Cristobal retorted, "eh di ikaw
ang mag-utos, leche ka!" He then pulled Divine's hair and
punched her back, causing Divine to fall down the stairs. Atty.
Cristobal shouted, "umuwi na kayo! Ayaw ko na kayong makita!
Lumayas ka ditol [sic]" in the presence of their children.6 Since
they were at Araceli's house at the time of the incident, Divine
and her children returned to their rented place in Bagumbayan,
Ilagan, Isabela. For one month, Atty. Cristobal did not go home to
their rented house. Divine went back to Araceli's house with her
children when she realized she was solely paying for the rent in
addition to the family loan she took out in July 2004.

On May 15, 2009, Divine confronted Atty. Cristobal about her

suspicions that he was having an affair with one of his students in
St. Ferdinand College. Atty. Cristobal responded, "lumayas ka na
ayaw na kita!" He then pushed her, causing her to lose her
balance and hit her forehead on their house's gate. During a car
ride on July 17, 2009, the spouses were with Joyce and three of
their children when Atty. Cristobal ordered Divine to step out of
the car. He pulled her hair, yelled, "umuwi ka na sa nanay mo!"
"ayaw na kitang makita!," and "papatayin kita!"Atty. Cristobal
then drew out his hand gun and threatened to shoot her. On
December 11, 2009, Atty. Cristobal boxed Divine's right eye.
According to Divine, she simply followed Atty. Cristobal to his law
office to chat but Atty. Cristobal was hostile and misinterpreted
everything Divine said. It was because of this incident that Divine
filed with the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Ilagan, Isabela

Salvacion C. Romo v. Atty.
Orheim T. Ferrer
(A.C. No. 12833, November 10,
2020)
Atty. Joseph Vincent T. Go v.
Atty. Virgilio T. Teruel
(A.C. No. 11119, November 4,
2020)
a Complaint against Atty. Cristobal for violation of the Anti-
Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004
(AVAWC) on December 14, 2009.
In 2006, Salvacion Romo (Salvacion) engaged the legal services Whether Atty. Ferrer is guilty Rule 1.01, Canon 16, Atty. Orheim T. Ferrer
of Atty. Orheim Ferrer (Atty. Ferrer) in prosecuting an action for of abuse of confidence Rules 16.1, 16.02 and is suspended from the practice
violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang (BP) 22 against Amada Yu reposed in him by Romo. 16.03 and Canon 17 of the of law for a period of six
(Amada). Thereafter, Amada settled the case and gave a total Code of Professional months. He is likewise sternly
amount of ₱375,000.00 to Atty. Ferrer on different dates. Responsibility. warned that a repetition of the
same or similar acts will be
Yet, Atty. Ferrer remitted only ₱80,000.00 to Salvacion. As such, dealt with more severely. Atty.
Salvacion demanded from Atty. Ferrer the balance of Orheim T. Ferrer is also
₱295,000.00. Atty. Ferrer agreed to pay his obligation on or ordered to return to the
before October 15, 2012 and promised to deliver a land title as complainant within ten (10)
collateral. However, Atty. Ferrer did not comply with his days from notice the sum of
undertakings. Salvacion sent a final demand letter to Atty. Ferrer ₱295,000.00 with the interest of
but was ignored. Thus, Salvacion filed an administrative six percent (6%) per
complaint against Atty. Ferrer for failure to account the funds annum from receipt of this
entrusted to him docketed as Commission on Bar Discipline Resolution until the full amount
(CBD) Case No. 13-3782. As supporting evidence, Salvacion, is satisfied.
submitted the special power of attorney, acknowledgment
receipts signed by Atty. Ferrer, the memorandum of agreement,
and the demand letters.
On the other hand, Atty. Ferrer countered that he remitted
₱120,000.00 to Salvacion, and not only ₱80,000.00. The other
payments from Amada were given personally to Salvacion's
daughter. Atty. Ferrer did not issue receipts because he trusted
Salvacion and her daughter. Moreover, Atty. Ferrer claimed that
the acknowledgement receipts showing various amounts that he
allegedly received from Amada were fabricated. Atty. Ferrer
likewise argued that he signed the memorandum of agreement
because Salvacion threatened him with the filing of a disbarment
suit. As evidence, Atty. Ferrer presented the affidavits of his
employees in the law office. Lastly, Atty. Ferrer manifested to
return the funds and humbly asked to settle the amounts in
partial periodic payments. 
Atty. Go claimed that Atty. Teruel maliciously charged him with Whether Atty. Teruel is guilty Rules 12.02 and 12.04 as Atty. Virgilio T. Teruel is hereby
deliberate misrepresentation and intellectual dishonesty. of shopping forum when he well as Canon 8 of the found guilty of violating the
Apparently, Atty. Teruel alleged that Atty. Go's associate in the filed the Complaint of Fr. Code of Professional Lawyer's Oath and the Code of
law office misrepresented the date of receipt of the Notice of Reyes followed by his own Responsibility (CPR). Professional Responsibility and
Appealed Case in Civil Case No. 1176 to supposedly mislead Counter-Complaint a day is meted the penalty of
Branch 68 of the RTC of Dumangas, Iloilo that the law office after, both against Atty. Go. suspension from the practice of
timely filed its Memorandum of Appeal. Atty. Teruel filed his law for a period of six (6)

Edralyn B. Berzola v. Atty. Marlon
O. Baldovino
(A.C. No. 12815, November 03,
2020)
Answer on May 13, 2011 while Atty. Go filed a Reply 7 on June 3, months.
2011. Afterwards, Atty. Teruel filed a Rejoinder to Reply and
Counter-Complaint.
Significantly, on June 21, 2011, a day before Atty. Teruel filed his
Rejoinder to Reply and Counter-Complaint, Atty. Teruel's client,
Rev. Fr. Antonio P. Reyes (Fr. Reyes), initiated a Complaint for
grave professional misconduct against Atty. Go. Notably, Atty.
Teruel prepared the complaint of Fr. Reyes against Atty. Go. The
Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the IBP (IBP-CBD) then
directed Atty. Go to submit his answer therein in an Order dated
July 29,2011. Atty. Go filed separate motions in CBD Case Nos.
11-2989 and 11-3105 praying that Atty. Teruel and Fr. Reyes be
cited for contempt and both Atty. Teruel's Counter-Complaint and
Fr. Reyes' Complaint be dismissed on the ground of forum
shopping.
On January 28, 2002, Lawrence Antonio (Lawrence) and Edralyn Whether Atty. Baldovino is Canons 1 (Rule 1.01 1), 7, Atty. Marlon O. Baldovino is
Berzola (Edralyn) were lawfully married in Sta. Ignacia, Tarlac. guilty of knowingly assisting 10 (Rule 10.01), Rule disbarred from the practice of
On December 9, 2009, Presiding Judge Liberty Castañeda of the a witness to misrepresent 12.06, and 19 (Rule 19.01) law and his name is ordered
Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 67 of Paniqui, Tarlac declared himself or to impersonate of the Code of Professional stricken from the Roll of
their marriage void in a Decision rendered in Civil Case No. 128- another and therefore guilty Responsibility. Attorneys. He is also
P'09. Upon checking the records of the case, Edralyn learned of deceitful conduct and perpetually disqualified from
that Lawrence personally submitted himself to a psychological deserves administrative being commissioned as a
examination on February 27, 2009. Afterward, Atty. Marlon sanctions. notary public.
Baldovino (Atty. Baldovino) represented Lawrence in filing a
petition for nullity of marriage on March 26, 2009 on the ground
of psychological incapacity. Atty. Baldovino likewise notarized the
verification attached to the petition that Lawrence signed on
March 25, 2009 and his judicial affidavit 4 executed on June 10,
2009. However, Lawrence was absent in the Philippines on those
dates since he left for Italy as an undocumented worker on
August 7, 2007 and returned only on March 14, 2011. Also, Atty.
Baldovino indicated that Lawrence is a resident of Barangay
Cabayaoasan, Paniqui, Tarlac instead of Barangay Cabugbugan,
Sta. Ignacia, Tarlac. Worse, Edralyn discovered that her
signature was forged to make it appear that she personally
received the summons although she was not in the Philippines at
the time it was served on April 10, 2009. Lastly, the psychologist
who examined Lawrence was not registered with the
Professional Regulatory Commission. Aggrieved, Edralyn filed a
complaint for falsification and use of falsified document against
Lawrence and Atty. Baldovino before the office of the public
prosecutor. In his counter-affidavit, Lawrence revealed that he
never participated in the proceedings in Civil Case No. 128-P'09

Rommel N. Reyes v. Atty. Gerald
Z. Gubatan
(A.C. No. 12839, November 3,
2020)
Atty. Antonio B. Manzano v. Atty.
but merely relied on the representation of his counsel.
Reyes alleged that he is the President and Chairman of Integra Whether Atty. Gubatan is Rule 16.04 of the CPR. Atty. Gerald Z. Gubatan is
Asia Konstruct, Inc. (Coiporation). He and Atty. Gubatan have guilty of abusing the trust and hereby suspended for three (3)
been friends since they were schoolmates in college and confidence reposed on him months from the practice of
because of this friendship, he agreed to lend money to Atty. by the Reyes through his law, effective upon the receipt
Gubatan on six different occasions. On October 3, 2006, Reyes persistent refusal to settle his of this Resolution. He is
agreed to lend Atty. Gubatan the sum of ₱88,000.00 which was obligations despite demands. warned that a repetition of the
payable in 30 days. The loan is evidenced by a promissory note. same or a similar act will be
dealt with more severely.
On November 20, 2006, despite the lapse of the 30-day period
without paying the first loan he contracted, Atty. Gubatan again
borrowed ₱150,000.00 with an interest of 2% per month. This
second loan was evidenced by an Acknowledgment/Agreement
where he promised to pay Reyes immediately after the release of
his loan with Banco de Oro. On November 24, 2006, Atty.
Gubatan borrowed from Reyes the amount of ₱17,000.00
payable in 30 days, as evidenced by a promissory note.
After these three loan transactions, Atty. Gubatan went to Reyes
and tried to borrow money again. Because Reyes claimed that
he no longer had personal funds to lend him, Atty. Gubatan
persuaded him to be allowed to borrow from the Corporation. On
December 19, 2006, Atty. Gubatan borrowed from the
Corporation the amount of ₱200,000.00 with 2% interest per
month. This was evidenced by a promissory note. Thereafter, on
August 12, 2007, Atty. Gubatan again asked Reyes for a loan,
this time amounting to ₱57,676.00 payable in 30 days. This was
likewise evidenced by a promissory note.
Despite the fact that the foregoing promissory notes and an
acknowledgment/agreement were all duly signed and executed
by Atty. Gubatan, he failed and refused to pay his obligations to
Reyes and the Corporation.
On March 13, 2009, Reyes sent a demand letter to Atty. Gubatan
demanding the settlement of his loans amounting to ₱769,014.00
inclusive of interest. Atty. Gubatan still failed to pay. Hence, on
September 15, 2009, Reyes filed an instant complaint. In
addition, Reyes and the Corporation also filed two complaints
against Atty. Gubatan for collection of sum of money with
damages before the Metropolitan Trial Court in Quezon City
(MTC).
On August 19,2014, Lupo G. Tan, Rema Tan-Manzano, and Whether Atty. Rivera is guilty Canon 7, and Rules 1.01 Atty. Carlos P. Rivera is found
Carlos P. Rivera
(A.C. No. 12173, November 03,
2020)
Professional Services, Inc. v.
Atty. Socrates R. Rivera
(A.C. No. 11241, November 03,
2020)
Sonia G. Tan, represented by Atty. Manzano, filed a complaint of falsification of public and 7.03 of the Code of guilty of violating the 2004
for accion publiciana against Pedro Pando, Rene Bloza, Arcelie documents, and allegedly Professional Responsibility, Rules on Notarial Practice,
Bayaca (Bayaca), and Marlon Urata (Urata) before the Regional notarizing the answer filed in and the Lawyer's Oath. Canon 7, and Rules 1.01 and
Trial Court (RTC), Branch 33 of Ballesteros, Cagayan, docketed Civil Case No. 33-467-2014 7.03 of the Code of
as Civil Case No. 33-467-2014. without the personal Professional Responsibility,
appearance of the affiants, and the Lawyer's Oath.
In his Return of Summons dated September 12, 2014, the Sheriff and worse, without a notarial Accordingly, he is perpetually
assigned at RTC Branch 33 reported that he failed to personally commission. disqualified from being
serve a copy of the complaint and its annexes against commissioned as a notary
defendants Bayaca, who was abroad, and Urata, who was in public. Atty. Rivera is likewise
Manila. On October 14, 2014, the defendants, through their suspended from the practice of
counsel, Atty. Rivera, filed their Answer before the RTC. A copy law for a period of three (3)
thereof was mailed to Atty. Manzano's address in Las Pinas City. years and is sternly warned
The Answer appeared to have been signed by Pando and Bloza. that a repetition of the same will
Interestingly, it also bore the signatures of Bayaca and Urata. be dealt with more severely.
The Answer was prepared and notarized on the same date by
Atty. Rivera in his law office situated in Tuguegarao City,
Cagayan. However, upon inquiry, Atty. Rivera was not
commissioned as a notary public for and in the Province of
Cagayan at the time he notarized the Answer in 2014 as stated
in the Certification issued by the Office of the Clerk of Court of
the RTC of Tuguegarao City, Cagayan.
Believing that the signatures of Bayaca and Urata were forged,
Atty. Manzano advised Lupo Tan to file a criminal complaint for
Falsification of Public Documents and Use of Falsified
Documents against Atty. Rivera, Pando and Bloza before the City
Prosecution Office of Tuguegarao City.
Complainant is a medical care and hospital management Whether Atty. Rivera is guilty Canon 1, Rule 1.01, and The Court find Socrates R.
business entity. It engaged the services of Atty. Rivera as Head of deceit and grave 1.02; Canon 7; Canon 16, Rivera guilty of violation of the
of its Legal Services Department sometime in September 2008. misconduct when he Rules 16.01, 16.02, and Code of Professional
As such, Atty. Rivera was tasked to determine what cases and performed a series of 16.03, of the Code of Responsibility and the Lawyer's
legal actions could be filed and pursued to protect complainant's fraudulent acts against the Professional Responsibility Oath and is hereby disbarred
interests. Most of these cases involved collection cases. complainant. (CPR; and the Lawyer’s from the practice of law. His
Oath. name is ordered stricken off the
To facilitate the filing of cases on complainant's behalf, Atty. Roll of Attorneys. However,
Rivera had the authority to request for cash advances to cover considering that he has already
the expenses related to the filing of collection cases subject to been disbarred in A.C. No.
liquidation and must be supported by official receipts. 9114 (Reyes v. Rivera), this
penalty can no longer be
imposed but nevertheless
should be considered in the
omplainant alleged that Atty. Rivera accepted and
event that he should apply for
 the lifting of his disbarment.
misappropriated the amount of PI 4,35 8,477.15 through an Accordingly, and in view of his
elaborate scheme as follows: continuing disbarment,a
penalty of FINE in the amount
1. From 2009 to 2012, while still working for complainant, of 1100,000.00 is imposed
Atty. Rivera misrepresented and pretended to have filed upon him.
civil actions and/or instituted proceedings purportedly for
and on behalf of complainant when in fact none was filed; Further, he is ordered to return
the amount of P14,358,477.15
2. Atty. Rivera pretended to have paid filing and other to complainant Professional
miscellaneous fees in connection with said actions and/or Services, Inc. within ten (10)
proceedings he allegedly filed; days from receipt of this
Decision, which shall earn legal
interest at the rate of six
3. Atty. Rivera pocketed the money purportedly for filing
percent (6%) per annum from
fees and other related fees in the total amount of
his receipt of this Decision until
P14,358,477.15.
full payment.
Atty. Rivera filled out cash advance slips and fraudulently stated
that the amounts he requested were for filing fees and/or
expenses related to the filing of collection cases for the
complainant. To make the transaction appear credible, Atty.
Rivera attached a copy of the first page of the complaints he was
supposed to file. He then submitted the cash advance slip with
the attached first page of the complaint to complainant's
Accounting Department.

Relying on Atty. Rivera's representations, complainant's

Accounting Department processed the requested cash advance
and prepared the checks payable to Atty. Rivera. Upon release
of the check, Atty. Rivera immediately deposited and/or withdrew
the amount specified therein.

Since complainant requires liquidation for all cash advances by

authorized employees, Atty. Rivera submitted liquidation slips
with fake official receipts purportedly covering the expenses
made in relation to the fraudulent filing. Complainant found out
that the receipts that Atty. Rivera had submitted were fraudulent
because the Clerk of Court of the Pasig Regional Trial Court
(RTC) certified that the purported official receipts were in fact
spurious.
DECEMBER 2020
GLENDY ROSE N. OBAHID
Adelita S. Villamor v. Atty. Ely Villamor alleged that Felipe Retubado (Retubado) and Atty. Whether Atty. Jumao-as is Canon 15, Rule 15.03 The Court finds Atty. Ely
Galland A. Jumao-as Jumao-as coaxed her into organizing a lending company. guilty of representing Code of Professional Galland A. Jumao-as guilty of
(A.C. No. 8111, December 9, 2020) Retubado volunteered to handle the day-to-day operation while conflicting interests and Responsibility. violating Canon 15, Rule 15.03
Atty. Jumao-as would handle the legal side of the business. deliberately intending to Code of Professional
Persuaded by these representations, Villamor acceded. attract clients with interests Responsibility. He is
adverse to his former hereby suspended from the
True to his word, respondent took care of the registration of the employer. practice of law for a period of
company with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) two (2) years and warned that a
as well as preparation and drafting of some legal documents repetition of the same or similar
such as the Articles of Incorporation (AOI). In addition, when the acts will be dealt with more
company needed additional funds, Atty. Jumao-as informed severely.
Villamor that she could borrow from Debbie Yu (Yu). Soon after,
Atty. Jumao-as delivered the amount of P500,000.00 to Villamor,
which amount was infused into the lending business as additional
capital. Atty. Jumao-as then prepared a promissory note where
all three of them signed as co-borrowers. Villamor, however, was
neither given a copy of the said promissory note nor had any
occasion to meet Yu.

In March 2007, respondent requested Villamor to sign blank SEC

pre-printed AOI forms. That same month, Atty. Jumao-as gave
Villamor a copy of the Certificate of Registration of their lending
company which they named as AEV Villamor Credit, Inc. To her
surpise, Villamor noted that respondent and Retubado each own
30,000 shares of stock or 48% of the company despite the fact
that they only contributed a minimal amount of money.

In April 2008, respondent told Villamor to issue a postdated

check amounting to P650,000.00 in the name of Yu as a belated
security for their loan of P500,000.00, with P150,000.00
representing accrued interest. Respondent assured Villamor that
said check will not be negotiated.

In May 2008, Atty. Jumao-as and Retubado left Villamor's

company and joined Yu's 3E's Debt Equity Grant Co., also a
lending company. Subsequently, Villamor also came to know that
Atty. Jumao-as and Retubado were trying to convince the
collectors of AEV Villamor Credit, Inc. to abandon Villamor and to
join their new lending company. They told Villamor's collectors to
remit their collections to 3E's Debt Equity Grant Co. since
Villamor owed Yu the amount of P650,000.00 and that they could
join their new company after they have fully remitted the amount
of P650,000.00. Worse, on October 8, 2008, Atty. Jumao-as sent

Michelle A. Buenaventura v. Atty.
Dany B. Gille
(A.C. No. 7446, December 09,
2020)
a demand letter to Villamor, for and in behalf of Yu, demanding
payment of P650,000.00.
Villamor alleged that respondent represented conflicting interests
when he sent her the demand letter in behalf of his new client,
Yu. Atty. Jumao-as also breached her trust and confidence when
he deceitfully organized 3E's Debt Equity Grant Co. in direct
competition to AEV Villamor Credit, Inc. and for manipulating her
collectors into leaving AEV Villamor Credit, Inc. and remitting
their collections to 3E's Debt Equity Grant, Co.
Sometime in 2006, Michelle consulted Atty. Gille about a property Whether Atty. Gille is guilty of Rules 1.01, 7.03, and Atty. Dany B. Gille is found
mortgaged to her. Upon hearing her predicament, Atty. Gille gross misconduct. 16.04, of the Code of guilty of violating Rules 1.01,
offered his legal services to Michelle for P25,000.00 to which the Professional Responsibility, 7.03, and 16.04, of the Code of
latter agreed. Respondent then prepared an adverse claim for and of the Lawyer's Oath. Professional Responsibility,
her, among others. and of the Lawyer's Oath. He is
thus disbarred from the practice
Subsequently, Atty. Gille borrowed P300,000.00 from Michelle. of law and his name stricken off
As a collateral, Atty. Gille gave Michelle a copy of Transfer from the Roll of Attorneys,
Certificate of Title (TCT) No. N-272977 which allegedly covered a effective immediately.
1,000-square meter land situated in Quezon City worth P20
Million and a check postdated August 10, 2006 as payment for
the principal obligation.
When Michelle and her father Adolfo went to the Register of
Deeds (RD) of Quezon City, they were surprised upon being
informed by Atty. Elbert T. Quilala (Atty. Quilala) of the RD
Quezon City that the TCT was a forgery issued by a syndicate.
Michelle and Adolfo then demanded from Atty. Gille the return of
the borrowed amount. During their meeting that same day,
respondent promised to pay on July 18, 2006. However, he failed
to pay on said date. Instead, he executed a promissory note
acknowledging having issued a check postdated August 10,
2006, and promising to pay Michelle the outstanding amount on
September 10, 2006. Atty. Gille then had the promissory note
notarized and furnished Michelle a copy thereof.
On its due date, Michelle deposited the check but it was
dishonored due to "Account Closed". As a result, she filed a
criminal complaint for Estafa against Atty. Gille before the Office
of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City. Michelle likewise filed the
instant Petition for suspension or disbarment against respondent

Napoleon S. Quitazol v. Atty.
Henry S. Capela
(A.C. No. 12072, December 09,
2020)
for allegedly committing deceit, and gross immoral conduct in
violation of his Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional
Responsibility (CPR).
Napoleon S. Quitazol (Napoleon) engaged the services of Atty. Whether Atty. Capela is guilty Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of Atty. Henry S. Capela is found
Henry S. Capela (Atty. Capela) in a civil case for breach of of leaving his client in the the Code of Professional administratively liable for
contract and damages before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of dark destroying the trust, Responsibility. violation of Rule 18.03, Canon
Alaminos City, Pangasinan. In the retainer agreement, Atty. faith and confidence reposed 18 of the Code of Professional
Capela indicated his office address at Unit 1411, 14th Floor, not only in him, as a lawyer, Responsibility. He
Tower One & Exchange Plaza, Ayala Triangle 1, Ayala Avenue, but also in the legal is suspended from the practice
Makati City. As acceptance fee, Napoleon agreed to deliver to profession as a whole. of law for a period of six (6)
Atty. Capela the possession of his Toyota Corolla GLI model, as months, effective immediately
well as its official receipt and certificate of registration. Atty. Whether Atty. Capela is held upon respondent's receipt of
Capela entered his appearance and filed an answer before the liable for misconduct by his this Resolution, with a stern
RTC. On February 12, 2014, a preliminary conference was held unjustified refusal to heed warning that a repetition of the
and the opposing counsel manifested the possibility of a order of the IBP. same, or similar acts will be
compromise agreement, however, Atty. Capela was not dealt with more severely. Atty.
present. The agreement was then set to be heard on March Henry S. Capela is also meted
26, May 7,9 and August 6, 2014, but Atty. Capela failed to a fine in the amount of
appear. Left without a lawyer, Napoleon was constrained to P5,000.00 for disobedience to
agree to the Compromise Agreement, which was approved by the orders of the Integrated Bar
the RTC on August 19, 2014. Napoleon felt shortchanged with of the Philippines. 
Atty. Capela's non-appearance, thus, he demanded the return of
the motor vehicle and P38,000.00, but Atty. Capela did not yield.
Consequently, Napoleon instituted a Complaint before the IBP
Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) against Atty. Capela for
violation of Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility (CPR). Napoleon alleged that Atty. Capela's
continued absence during the hearings constitutes neglect of his
duty to represent his client. Left without counsel, he was forced to
enter into an amicable settlement to his damage and prejudice.
The IBP-CBD required Atty. Capela to submit his answer with a
warning that failure to do so would render him in default, and the
case shall be heard ex-parte. Atty. Capela did not file an answer.
Later, the parties were notified to appear for a mandatory
conference on March 26, 2015. The notice stated that non-
appearance by any of the parties shall be deemed a waiver of
their right to participate in further proceedings. At the mandatory
conference, only Napoleon appeared. Thus, the IBP issued an
Order noting Atty. Capela's failure to file an answer, and his
absence during the mandatory conference. He was declared in
default and considered to have waived his right to participate in
further proceedings. Meantime, on April 30, 2015, Napoleon died

In Re: OMB-C-C-13-0104 Atty.
Socrates G. Maranan V.
Francisco Domagoso v. Atty.
Socrates G. Maranan
(A.C. No. 12877, December 07,
2020)
Judge Juanita T. Guerrero v. Atty.
Ma. Eleanor La-Arni A. Giron
(A.C. No. 10928, December 09,
2020)
and was substituted by his brother Frank S. Quitazol.
Records bear out that Atty. Maranan filed a criminal complaint Whether Atty. Maranan 2004 Rules on Notarial Atty. Socrates G. Maranan
before the Ombudsman against then Vice Mayor Francisco "Isko committed a violation of the Practice (Atty. Maranan) is found
Moreno" Domagoso (Domagoso) of the City of Manila, charging 2004 Rules on Notarial guilty of violating the 2004
him with Falsification of Public Documents and violation of Practice4 (2004 Notarial Rules on Notarial
Section 3 (e) of Republic Act No. 3019 for having signed, in Rules) and/or Code of Practice.  Accordingly,
ℒαwρhi ৷ he
behalf of the Manila City Government, consultancy contracts with Professional Responsibility in is suspended from the practice
persons who were either deceased or out of the country for relation to his notarization of of law for a period of six (6)
extended periods of time. In defense, Domagoso claimed, among the consultancy contracts month. Moreover, his notarial
others, that he signed the consultancy contracts upon the subject of the said case. commission, if any, is
assurance of his former Secretary, Abraham Cabochan, that hereby immediately revoked,
everything was in order, and pointed out that it was Atty. and he is disqualified from
Maranan who actually notarized the subject contracts. After due being commissioned as a
proceedings, the Ombudsman dismissed the charges against notary public for a period of two
Domagoso and referred the matter to the IBP for determination of (2) years.
Atty. Maranan's administrative liability for having notarized the
consultancy contracts.
For his part, Atty. Maranan denied having authored or notarized
the consultancy contracts, as shown by the wide disparity
between his alleged signatures in the said contracts and his
signatures appearing in the facsimile of signatures submitted to
the Notarial Section of the Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional
Trial Court of Manila (RTC). Moreover, he averred that the
consultancy contracts do not appear in any of his monthly
notarial reports that he regularly submitted to the RTC.
Executive Judge Guerrero alleged that the Office of the Clerk of Whether Atty. Giron is guilty Lawyer's oath as well as Atty. Ma. Eleanor La-Ami A.
Court of Muntinlupa City conducted an inventory of its notarial of engaging in unlawful, Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Giron is found guilty of
records. Upon verification, respondent, Atty. Giron, was found to dishonest, immoral or Code of Professional malpractice as a notary public,
have submitted notarial reports beyond the expired term of her deceitful conduct and for not Responsibility. and of violating the lawyer's
notarial commission. Further, the dates appearing on the notarial upholding the integrity and oath as well as Rule 1.01,
stamps of the documents notarized by respondent, which should dignity of the legal profession Canon 1 of the Code of
indicate the expiry date of her term, were erased or tampered by performing notarial acts Professional Responsibility.
with to make it appear that she still had a valid commission. without the necessary Accordingly, she is suspended
commission from the court. from the practice of law for two
By Resolution dated 20 January 2016, the Court required (2) years and barred
respondent to comment on the letter-report and referred this permanently from being
administrative case to Executive Judge Guerrero for further commissioned as Notary
investigation, report, and recommendation. Public, with warning that a
repetition of similar acts shall
In her comment, respondent asserted she believed in good faith be dealt with more severely.
that her notarial commission was valid and had yet to expire on
31 December 2015 when she notarized the said documents. As
respondent received the notarial commission on 27 September
2013, she was under the impression that her two (2)-year
commission was for the years 2014 and 2015. Respondent
apologized for her error in notarizing documents beyond the
actual expiration of her commission on 31 December 2014. She
had no intention of exercising her privileges as a notary public
beyond the validity of her commission. Moreover, respondent
averred it was the first and only time she applied for a notarial
commission. She merely notarized a few documents exclusively
for clients or members of her law firm. Respondent further
submitted that her continued filing of a notarial report
conclusively established her good faith.

In her Report/Recommendation dated 27 September 2017,

Executive Judge Guerrero noted that respondent's appointment
and commission as notary public was for a specified term
beginning on 27 September 2013 and ending on 31 December
2014. While respondent claimed good faith, she was given a
copy of her appointment which expressly provided that her
commission as notary public for Muntinlupa City would end on 31
December 2014. Also, the fact that the dates on the stamped
portions of the notarized documents were erased or altered to
make it appear that her term ends in 2015 belied her claim of
good faith.

Contrary to respondent's claim that the documents involved were

few and limited, the Executive Judge found that respondent
notarized a total of twenty-eight (28) documents after the
expiration of her term. Despite respondent's profuse apologies,
she remains liable for violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial
Practice for performing notarial acts beyond the validity of her
commission. Thus, the Executive Judge recommended
respondent's disqualification from being commissioned as notary
public for a period of two (2) years, with a warning that repetition
of a similar violation will be dealt with severely.