In re Almacen G.R. No.
L-27654 (In the Matter of Proceedings for Disciplinary
Action against Atty. Vicente Raul Almacen vs. Virginia Yaptinchay)
Facts of the Case:
Atty. Almacen was the counsel of Virginia Yaptinchay in a civil case. They
lost in a civil case but Almacen filed for a Motion for Reconsideration. He notified
the opposing party of said motion but failed to indicate the time and place of
hearing of said motion. He appealed to the Court of Appeals but motion was
denied. He filed an appeal on certiorari before the Supreme Court which outrightly
denied his appeal in a minute resolution.
Atty. Almacen called such minute resolution as unconstitutional.
He filed before the Supreme Court a petition to surrender his lawyers certificate as
he claimed that it was useless to continue practicing his profession when members
of the high court are men who are calloused to pleas for justice, who ignore
without reasons their own applicable decisions and commit culpable violations of
the Constitution with impunity.
He argues that due to the minute resolution, his client was made to pay
P120,000.00 without knowing the reasons why and that his client became one of
the sacrificial victims before the altar of hypocrisy.
He also contends that justice as administered by the present members of the
Supreme Court is not only blind, but also deaf and dumb.
The Supreme Court did not immediately act on Almacens petition as the Court
wanted to wait for Almacen to actually surrender his certificate.
Almacen, however, did not surrender his lawyers certificate though he now argues
that he chose not to.
Issue:
Whether or not Almacen should be disciplined?
Ruling:
Yes. The Supreme Court clarified that minute resolutions are needed because the
Supreme Court cannot accept every case or write full opinion for every petition
they reject.
The Supreme Court must decide only on cases which present questions whose
resolutions will have immediate importance beyond the particular facts and parties
involved.
The Supreme Court regarded Almacens criticisms as uncalled for. His right to
criticize the decision of the courts has always been encouraged, but it shall be bona
fide, and shall not spill over the wall of decency and propriety.
ADM. CASE NO. 6876 March 7, 2008
HEIRS OF LYDIO "JERRY" FALAME, namely: MELBA FALAME, LEO
FALAME and JERRYFALAME,
petitioners,
vs.
ATTY. EDGAR J. BAGUIO,
respondent.
FACTS:
Respondent Atty. Baguio jointly represented Lydio and Raleigh as defendants in the first civil
case. As defense counsel in the first civil case, respondent advocated the stance that Lydio solely
owned the property subject of the case. In the second civil case involving the same property,
respondent, as counsel for Raleigh and his spouse, has pursued the inconsistent position that
Raleigh owned the same property in common with Lydio, with complainants, who inherited the
property, committing acts which debase respondent's rights as a co-owner.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Baguio is guilty of representing conflicting interests between
his clients.
RULING: Yes, Atty. Baguio is guilty.
A lawyer may not act as counsel for a person whose interest conflicts with that of his
present or former client as provided in
Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
. The rule holds even if the inconsistency is remote or merely probable or the lawyer has acted
in good faith and with no intention to represent conflicting interests. Furthermore, the
termination of attorney-client relation provides no justification for a lawyer to represent an
interest adverse to or in conflict with that of the former client. The client's confidence once
reposed should not be divested by mere expiration of professional employment or even death..
Vitug vs. Rongcal
CATHERINE JOIE P. VITUG, complainant, vs.
ATTY. DIOSDADO M. RONGCAL, respondent.
A.C. No. 6313
September 7, 2006
FACTS:
Catherine Joie P. Vitug sought the service of respondent Atty. Diosdado M.
Rongcal who was introduced to her by a common friend. Complainant
asked Atty. Rongcal to represent her in the support case she was going to
file against her former lover, Arnulfo Aquino. Soon after, herein
complainant and respondent started having sexual relationship with each
other. According to Vitug, respondent also gave her sweet inducements
such as the promise of a job, financial security for her daughter, and his
services as counsel for the prospective claim for support against Aquino.
On 9 February 2001, respondent allegedly convinced complainant to sign
an Affidavit of Disclaimer which the latter signed without reading the said
affidavit. It was said that Aquino will give complainant a lump sum
provided she would execute an affidavit to the effect that Aquino is not
the father of her daughter.
Complainant argues that respondent's acts constitute a violation of his
oath as a lawyer. She filed an administrative case against Rongcal which
was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines which recommended
the suspension of Rongcal from the practice of law. The same was
approved by the IBP Board of Governors.
Respondent then filed a Motion for Reconsideration with Motion to Set
Case for Clarificatory Questioning with the IBP and a Motion to
Reopen/Remand Case for Clarificatory Questioning with the Supreme
Court.
ISSUE: WON respondent be disbarred for immorality.
RULING:
One of the conditions prior to admission to the bar is that an applicant
must possess good moral character. Said requirement persists as a
continuing condition for the enjoyment of the privilege of law practice,
otherwise, the loss thereof is a ground for the revocation of such
privilege.
ON SEXUAL RELATION AND ON RESPONDENTS SUBSEQUENT MARRIAGE:
By his own admission, respondent is obviously guilty of immorality in
violation of Rule 1.01 of the Code which states that a lawyer shall not
engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
We find credence in respondent's assertion that it was impossible for her
not to have known of his subsisting marriage.
We believe that complainants allegations of deceit were not established
by clear preponderant evidence required in disbarment cases. We are left
with the most logical conclusion that she freely and wittingly entered into
an illicit and immoral relationship with respondent sans any
misrepresentation or deceit on his part.
ON THE AFFIDAVIT SIGNED:
Complainant does not deny being a college graduate or that she knows
and understands English. The Affidavit is written in short and simple
sentences that are understandable even to a layman. The inevitable
conclusion is that she signed the Affidavit voluntarily and without any
coercion whatsoever on the part of respondent.
It was not unlawful for respondent to assist his client in entering into a
settlement with Aquino after explaining all available options to her. The
law encourages the amicable settlement not only of pending cases but
also of disputes which might otherwise be filed in court.
This court finds Atty. Diosdado M. Rongcal GUILTY of immorality and
imposes on him a FINE of P15,000.00 with a stern warning that a
repetition of the same or similar acts in the future will be dealt with
more severely.
Verzonilla vs Pascua
Attorney; misconduct. With his admission that he drafted and notarized
another instrument that did not state the true consideration of the sale so
as to reduce the capital gains and other taxes due on the transaction,
respondent cannot escape liability for making an untruthful statement in a
public document for an unlawful purpose. As the second deed indicated an
amount much lower than the actual price paid for the property sold,
respondent abetted in depriving the Government of the right to collect the
correct taxes due. Not only did respondent assist the contracting parties in
an activity aimed at defiance of the law, he likewise displayed lack of
respect for and made a mockery of the solemnity of the oath in an
Acknowledgment. By notarizing such illegal and fraudulent document, he is
entitling it full faith and credit upon its face, which it obviously does not
deserve considering its nature and purpose. Respondents actions violated
not only Rule 1.02, Canon 1 of the Code of Responsibility, but pertinent
sections of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice as well. Thus, respondent
is meted the penalty of revocation of notarial commission and suspension
from the practice of law for a period of two years. Pacita CaalimVerzonilla v. Atty. Victoriano G. Pascua. A.C. No. 6655. October 11,
2011
Gatchalian Promotions Talent Pool, Inc. vs. Naldoza, 315 SCRA 406
Facts:
The case at bar is a petition for disbarment against Atty. Primo L. Naldoza
for appealing a decision which is final and executory, deceitfully obtaining
$2,555 from the client allegedly for cash bond in the appealed case, and
issuing a spurious receipt to conceal the illegal act. Respondent denies that
he persuaded complainant to file an appeal and asserted that it was the
latter who initiated the action to delay the execution of POEA decision. He
also denied the two other charges. Trial procedures were instituted before
the IBP.
Meanwhile, a criminal case based on the same facts was filed before RTC
Makati, Branch 141. Although acquitted on reasonable doubt, he was
declared civilly liable in the amount of $2,555. Having been acquitted in the
criminal case, he manifested a Motion for Dismissal of the IBP case.
Commissioner Jose brushed aside respondent's contention on the ground
that the criminal case for estafa is completely different from the
proceedings before him. Acquittal in the former did not exonerate
respondent in the latter. He further noted that the RTC Decision itself
hinted at the administrative liability of respondent, since it found him
civilly liable to herein complainant for $2,555. He was suspended by the
IBP for one (1) year. Thus, he appealed before the Supreme Court.
Issues:
(1) Whether or not respondent should be freed of the administrative
proceeding since he was acquitted of the criminal charge.
(2) Whether or not respondent is negligent when he appealed the decision
of the POEA knowing it to be final and executory.
Held:
(1) Administrative cases against lawyers belong to a class of their own. They
are distinct from and they may proceed independently of civil and criminal
cases.
xxx
Thus, a criminal prosecution will not constitute a prejudicial question even
if the same facts and circumstances are attendant in the administrative
proceedings.
It should be emphasized that a finding of guilt in the criminal case will not
necessarily result in a finding of liability in the administrative case.
Conversely, respondents acquittal does not necessarily exculpate him
administratively. In the same vein, the trial courts finding of civil liability
against the respondent will not inexorably lead to a similar finding in the
administrative action before this Court.
(2) Complainant has failed to present proof regarding the status of the
appeal. Neither has there been any showing that the appeal was dismissed
on the ground that the POEA Decision had become final and executory.
Worse, there has been no evidence that respondent knew that the case was
unappealable. Indeed, the records of this Court shows that the Petition for
Review was dismissed for petitioner's failure to submit an Affidavit of
Service and a legible duplicate of the assailed Order. Clearly, this charge has
no leg to stand on.
