A.M. No.

01-12-02-SC             April 4, 2003

IN RE: USE BY ATTY. RENERIO G. PAAS AS AN OFFICE IN HIS

PRIVATE PRACTICE OF HIS PROFESSION THE OFFICE OF HIS WIFE,
PASAY CITY METC JUDGE ESTRELLITA M. PAAS

Facts:
Pasay City Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Branch 44 Presiding Judge Estrellita M. Paas
administratively charged Court Aide/Utility Worker Edgar E. Almarvez with "discourtesy,
disrespect, insubordination, neglect in performing his duties, disloyalty, solicitation of monetary
consideration and gross violation of the Civil Service Law."
In a separate case for inhibition of Judge Paas in a criminal case, it was revealed that Judge Paas'
husband, private practitioner Atty. Paas, was using his wife's office as his office address in his
law practice, in support of which were submitted copies of a Notice of Appeal signed by Atty.
Paas, notices from Pasay City RTC Branch 109 and from the Supreme Court with respect to the
case of People vs. Louie Manabat, et al. (GR Nos. 140536-37) which indicated Atty. Paas'
address to be Room 203, Hall of Justice, Pasay City, the office assigned to Pasay City MeTC,
Branch 44.
Judge Paas executed a Supplemental Affidavit wherein she admitted that Atty. Paas did use her
office as his return address for notices and orders in Crim. Case Nos. 98-1197 to 98-
1198, "People vs. Louie Manabat y Valencia and Raymond dela Cruz y Salita," (now docketed in
this Court as G.R. Nos. 140536-37), lodged at the Pasay City RTC, Branch 109, but only to
ensure and facilitate delivery of those notices, but after the cases were terminated, all notices
were sent to his office address in Escolta.

Issue:
Whether the use of Atty. Renerio G.Paas as an office in his private practice of his profession the
office of his wife in MeTC Pasay City is in violation of rules of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

Held:
Yes. Atty. Paas was guilty of using a fraudulent, misleading, and deceptive address that had no
purpose other than to try to impress either the court in which his cases are lodged, or his client,
that he has close ties to a member of the judiciary, in violation of the rules of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
This Court does not subscribe to the proffered excuse that expediency and a desire to ensure
receipt of court orders and notices prompted Atty. Paas and Judge Paas to allow him to have his
court notices sent to office of Judge Paas, especially given the fact that for his other cases, Atty.
Paas used his office address but there is no showing that he failed to receive the notices sent to
that address. While a lawyer should make the necessary arrangements to ensure that he is
properly informed of any court action, these should not violate his lawyer's oath or the Code of
Professional Responsibility, nor provide an opportunity for a member of the judiciary to breach
his or her responsibilities under Supreme Court circulars and the Code of Judicial Conduct.
Atty. Renerio Paas was found GUILTY of SIMPLE MISCONDUCT and was SUSPENDED
from the practice of law for a period of THREE (3) MONTHS, with warning that repetition of
the same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely.
A.M. No. RTJ-10-2232               April 10, 2012

OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant,

vs.
JUDGE CADER P. INDAR, Presiding Judge and Acting, and Presiding Judge of the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 14, Cotabato City and Branch 15, Shariff Aguak,
Maguindanao, respectively, Respondent

Facts:
This case originated from reports by the Local Civil Registrars of Manila and Quezon City to the
Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) that they have received an alarming number of
decisions, resolutions, and orders on annulment of marriage cases allegedly issued by Judge
Indar.
To verify the allegations against Judge Indar, the OCA conducted a judicial audit in RTC-Shariff
Aguak, Branch 15, where the Audit Team found that the list of cases submitted by the Local
Civil Registrars of Manila and Quezon City do not appear in the records of cases received,
pending or disposed by RTC-Shariff Aguak, Branch 15. Likewise, the annulment decisions did
not exist in the records of RTC-Cotabato, Branch 14. The Audit Team further observed that the
case numbers in the list submitted by the Local Civil Registrars are not within the series of case
numbers recorded in the docket books of either RTC-Shariff Aguak or RTC-Cotabato.

Issue:
Whether Judge Indar is guilty of gross misconduct and dishonesty.

Held:
Yes. The Court defines misconduct as "a transgression of some established and definite rule of
action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer." The
misconduct is grave if it involves any of the additional elements of corruption, willful intent to
violate the law, or to disregard established rules, which must be established by substantial
evidence. As distinguished from simple misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to
violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rule, must be manifest in a charge of grave
misconduct. In this case, Judge Indar issued decisions on numerous annulment of marriage cases
which do not exist in the records of RTC-Shariff Aguak, Branch 15 or the Office of the Clerk of
Court of the Regional Trial Court, Cotabato City. In other words, Judge Indar, who had sworn to
faithfully uphold the law, issued decisions on the questioned annulment of marriage cases,
without any showing that such cases underwent trial and complied with the statutory and
jurisprudential requisites for voiding marriages. Such act undoubtedly constitutes gross
misconduct.

The Court also defines dishonesty as "disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud;
untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of honesty, probity or integrity in principle; lack of
fairness and straightforwardness; disposition to defraud, deceive or betray." In this case, Judge
Indar issued Decisions on numerous annulment of marriage cases when in fact he did not
conduct any judicial proceedings on the cases. Not even the filing of the petitions occurred.
Judge Indar made it appear in his Decisions that the annulment cases complied with the stringent
requirements of the Rules of Court and the strict statutory and jurisprudential conditions for
voiding marriages, when quite the contrary is true, violating Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial
Conduct which mandates that a judge "perform official duties honestly."
A.C. No. 8392            June 29, 2010
[ Formerly CBD Case No. 08-2175 ]

ROSARIO T. MECARAL, Complainant, vs. ATTY. DANILO S. VELASQUEZ, Respondent

Facts:

Rosario T. Mecaral (complainant) charged Atty. Danilo S. Velasquez (respondent) before the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Committee on Bar Discipline (CBD) with Gross
Misconduct and Gross Immoral Conduct.

After respondent hired her as his secretary in 2002, she became his lover and common-law wife.
In October 2007, respondent brought her to the mountainous Upper San Agustin in Caibiran,
Biliran where he left her with a religious group known as the Faith Healers Association of the
Philippines, of which he was the leader. Although he visited her daily, his visits became scarce in
November to December 2007, prompting her to return home to Naval, Biliran. Furious,
respondent brought her back to San Agustin where, on his instruction, his followers tortured,
brainwashed and injected her with drugs. When she tried to escape on December 24, 2007, the
members of the group tied her spread-eagled to a bed. Made to wear only a T-shirt and diapers
and fed stale food, she was guarded 24 hours a day by the women members including a certain
Bernardita Tadeo.

Hence, the present disbarment complaint against respondent. Additionally, complainant charges
respondent with bigamy for contracting a second marriage to Leny H. Azur on August 2, 1996,
despite the subsistence of his marriage to his first wife, Ma. Shirley G. Yunzal

Issue:

Whether respondent acts of converting his secretary into a mistress, her subsequent detention and
torture and contracting two marriages constitute a grossly immoral conduct and in violation of
Code of Professional Responsibility.

Held:

Yes. CANON 1 provides that a lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land
and promote respect for law and legal processes. The practice of law is not a right but a privilege
bestowed by the state upon those who show that they possess, and continue to possess, the
qualifications required by law for the conferment of such privilege. When a lawyer’s moral
character is assailed, such that his right to continue practicing his cherished profession is
imperiled, it behooves him to meet the charges squarely and present evidence, to the satisfaction
of the investigating body and this Court, that he is morally fit to keep his name in the Roll of
Attorneys. Respondent has not discharged the burden. He never attended the hearings before the
IBP to rebut the charges brought against him, suggesting that they are true.

Respondent, Atty. Danilo S. Velasquez, was DISBARRED, and his name was ORDERED
STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys.
A.C. No. 4191               June 10, 2013

ANITA C. PENA, Complainant, vs. ATTY. CHRISTINA C. PATERNO, Respondent.

Facts:

Anita C. Peña filed an Affidavit-Complaint against respondent Atty. Christina C. Paterno.

Complainant alleged that she was the owner of a parcel of land known as Lot 7-C, Psd-74200,
located in Bayanbayanan, Parang, Marikina, Metro Manila. She personally knew respondent
Atty. Christina C. Paterno, as respondent was her lawyer in a legal separation case, which she
filed against her husband and the aforementioned property was her share in their property
settlement. Complainant stated that she also knew personally one Estrella D. Kraus, as she was
respondent's trusted employee who did secretarial work for respondent.

Sometime in 1986, respondent suggested that she (complainant) apply for a loan from a bank to
construct townhouses on her property for sale to interested buyers, and that her property be
offered as collateral. Respondent assured complainant that she would work out the speedy
processing and release of the loan. Complainant agreed, but since she had a balance on her loan
with the GSIS, respondent lent her the sum of ₱27,000.00, without any interest, to pay the said
loan. When her title was released by the GSIS, complainant entrusted it to respondent who would
handle the preparation of documents for the loan and follow-up the same, and complainant gave
respondent the authority for this purpose.

When complainant visited her property, she discovered that her apartment was already
demolished, and in its place, four residential houses were constructed on her property, which she
later learned was already owned by one Ernesto D. Lampa, who bought her property from
Estrella D. Kraus. Complainant immediately confronted respondent about what she discovered,
but respondent just brushed her aside and ignored her. After verification, complainant learned
that her property was sold to Krisbuilt Traders Company, Ltd., and respondent was the Notary
Public before whom the sale was acknowledged. Krisbuilt Traders Company, Ltd., through its
Managing Partner, Estrella D. Kraus, sold the same to one Ernesto D. Lampa.

This case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation and
recommendation.

Issue:

Whether there was clear and preponderant evidence showing that respondent violated the Canons
of Professional Responsibility.

Held:

Yes. Given the facts of this case, wherein respondent was in possession of complainant's copy of
the certificate of title to the property in Marikina, and it was respondent who admittedly prepared
the Deed of Sale, which complainant denied having executed or signed, the important evidence
of the alleged forgery of complainant's signature on the Deed of Sale and the validity of the sale
is the Deed of Sale itself. However, a copy of the Deed of Sale could not be produced by the
Register of Deeds of Marikina City, as it could not be located in the general files of the registry,
and a certification was issued stating that the Deed of Sale may be considered lost. Moreover,
respondent did not submit to the Clerk of Court of the RTC of Manila her Notarial Report for the
month of November 1986, including the said Deed of Sale, which was executed on November
11, 1986.

Hence, Investigating Commissioner Sordan opined that it appears that efforts were exerted to get
rid of the copies of the said Deed of Sale to prevent complainant from getting hold of the
document for the purpose of handwriting verification from an expert to prove that her alleged
signature on the Deed of Sale was forged. The failure of respondent to submit to the proper RTC
Clerk of Court her Notarial Register/Report for the month of November 1986 and a copy of the
Deed of Sale, which was notarized by her within that month, has far-reaching implications and
grave consequences, as it in effect suppressed evidence on the veracity of the said Deed of Sale
and showed the deceitful conduct of respondent to withhold the truth about its authenticity.
During her testimony, it was observed by the Investigating Commissioner and reflected in the
transcript of records that respondent would neither directly confirm nor deny that she notarized
the said Deed of Sale.

For the aforementioned deceitful conduct, respondent is disbarred from the practice of law. As a
member of the bar, respondent failed to live up to the standards embodied in the Code of
Professional Responsibility, particularly the following Canons:

CANON 1 - A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote
respect for law and for legal processes.

Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

Rule 1.02 - A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at
lessening confidence in the legal system.

CANON 7 - A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession,
and support the activities of the Integrated Bar.

Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice
law, nor should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the
discredit of the legal profession.1âwphi1

Respondent Atty. Christina C. Paterno is DISBARRED from the practice of law as well as for
violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the notarial commission of Atty.
Christina C. Paterno, if still existing, is perpetually REVOKED.