BALINGIT v.
CERVANTES
FACTS:
On July 9, 2011, complainant's two sons figured in a head-on collision with
the car driven by David A. Alizadeh. As a result, on July 13, 2011, an
information for criminal negligence was led against David with the MTCC in
Antipolo City. Subsequently, complainant engaged the legal services of
respondents in filing a separate civil suit for damages and an administrative
case with the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) against David, who
recently passed the physician board exam at that time. Despite respondents'
receipt of the P45,000.00 and complainant's submission to respondents of
the necessary documents, as of December 19, 2011, respondents have failed
to institute the separate civil suit for damages agreed upon.
The criminal case was referred to mediation by the trial court for possible
settlement of the civil aspect of the case. Atty. Cervantes demanded 10% of
the amount of the compromise as attorney's fees and P5,000.00 as
appearance fee from complainant. As complainant still refused to pay, Atty.
Cervantes led a criminal complaint for estafa.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondents are guilty of being remiss in their duties as
counsels for complainant.
HELD:
Yes. Respondents clearly transgressed Canons 15, 16, 17, and 18 when they
failed and refused to file the separate civil action for damages against
David despite their receipt of payment and the relevant documents from
complainant. When a lawyer accepts a case, he undertakes to give his
utmost attention, skill, and competence to it. His client has the right to
expect that he will discharge his duties diligently and exert his best efforts,
learning, and ability to prosecute or defend his client's cause with reasonable
dispatch. Atty. Cervantes even demanded payment outside the scope of
respondents' engagement.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Teodoro B. Delarmente and Atty. Renato M. Cervantes
are hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months.
SPS. JACINTO v. BANGOT, JR.
FACTS:
The complainants averred that a private survey team had conducted a
survey of Cad. 237 Lot No. 1351 on October 10-11, 2008 pursuant to the
order of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 39, in Cagayan de Oro City in
connection with the reconstitution of the lost certificate of title of said lot by
the owners. After conducting the perimeter survey, the survey team had
tried to enter the premises owned by them but they had prevented the team
from doing so because their premises had already been segregated.
The complainants had then consulted with the respondent, briefing him on
their concern, and delivering to him the documents pertinent to their land.
After scrutinizing the documents, he had told them that he would be
initiating a case for certiorari in their behalf to nullify the order for the
reconstitution of the lost title. He had then insinuated that one of their lots
would be his attorney's fees.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent violated his ethical duties as a member of the
Bar in his dealings with the complainants.
HELD:
Yes. Surely, the totality of the respondent's actuations inevitably eroded
public trust in the Legal Profession. On the basis of his acts and actuations,
the attorney's fees in the form of the lot he charged from them were
unconscionable and unreasonable, and should be struck down for failing to
pass muster under the guidelines.
He also breached the following canons of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, to wit: Canons 15, 17, 18, and 20. The law is neither a trade
nor a craft but a profession whose basic ideal is to render public service and
to secure justice for those who seek its aid.
WHEREFORE, this Court SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for five (5)
years.
SALABAO v. VILLARUEL, JR.
FACTS:
Complainant narrates that in 1995, she led a case against Elmer Lumberio
for his deceitful or fraudulent conduct of taking her precious real property
situated in Taguig City. Respondent then entered the picture as counsel for
Lumberio.
In 2002, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 162, Pasig City which tried Civil
Case No. 65147 issued its resolution in her favor. In order to delay the case,
Respondent brought the case on appeal to the Court of Appeals. The Court of
Appeals decided in her favor but Respondent again led an appeal before the
Supreme Court. Lumberio lost and the case became final and executory.
Respondent tried to defer the execution of the decision of the RTC by
bringing to the Court of Appeals a Petition for Annulment of Judgment. When
rebuffed, he again appealed to the Supreme Court. Still, Respondent led a
Petition for Certiorari seeking to annul the 29 November 2007 Order of the
RTC before the Court of Appeals. Once again, he led a new complaint before
the RTC. Respondent led several Motion, Inhibition and Contempt that were
meant to delay the resolution of the case. He likewise led an administrative
case against Judge Briccio Ygaña of RTC Branch 153, Taguig City.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent violated his ethical duties under the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
HELD:
Yes. Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that "A
lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy
and efficient administration of justice." In this case, the judgment in favor of
complainant had become final and executory by July 27, 2005. Respondent
however proceeded to file no less than twelve (12) motions and cases in
various courts subsequent to the Entry of Judgment.
It is quite clear that respondent has made a mockery of the judicial process
by abusing Court processes, employing dilatory tactics to frustrate the
execution of a final judgment, and feigning ignorance of his duties as an
officer of the court. He has breached his sworn duty to assist in the speedy
and efficient administration of justice, and violated the Lawyer's Oath, Rules
10.03 and 12.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and Rule 138,
Sec. 20 (c) and (g) of the Rules of Court.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Andres C. Villaruel, Jr. is hereby suspended
from the practice of law for a period of eighteen (18) months.
CAPINPIN, JR. v. CESA, JR.
FACTS:
On February 14, 1997, complainant executed a real estate mortgage (REM) 2
on his two lots in favor of Family Lending Corporation (FLC) as security for a
loan amounting to PhP5 Million with interest at two percent (2%) per month.
On April 29, 2002, due to complainant's default in payment, FLC, through its
President Dr. Eli Malaya (Dr. Malaya), initiated foreclosure proceedings
against the mortgaged properties. Complainant availed of legal remedies to
stop the said foreclosure proceedings. For these cases, FLC engaged
respondent's legal services.
The complaint alleges that during the above-cited proceedings, respondent,
without the knowledge of his client FLC, approached complainant to
negotiate the deferment of the auction sale and the possible settlement of
the loan obligation at a reduced amount without resorting to the auction
sale. Respondent allegedly represented himself as being capable of
influencing the sheriff to defer the auction sale, as well as his client FLC
through Dr. Malaya to accept the amount of PhP7 Million to fully settle the
loan obligation.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Cesa, Jr. should be administratively disciplined based on
the allegations in the complaint and evidence on record.
HELD:
Yes. The Court is in full accord with the findings of the Investigating
Commissioner that respondent violated Canon 15, Rule 15.03 and Canon 16,
Rule 16.01 of the CPR. It must be stressed that FLC engaged respondent's
legal services to represent it in opposing complainant's actions to forestall
the foreclosure proceedings. As can be gleaned from respondent's position
paper, however, it is admitted that respondent extended help to the
complainant in negotiating with FLC for the reduction of the loan payment
and cessation of the foreclosure proceedings.
Evidently, respondent was working on conflicting interests — that of his
client, which was to be able to foreclose and obtain the best amount they
could get to cover the loan obligation, and that of the complainant's, which
was to forestall the foreclosure and settle the loan obligation for a lesser
amount.
ACCORDINGLY, this Court ORDERS the suspension of Atty. Estanislao L. Cesa,
Jr. from the practice of law for one (1) year effective immediately upon
receipt of this Decision.
SANCHEZ v. AGUILOS
FACTS:
Complainant Nenita D. Sanchez has charged respondent Atty. Romeo G.
Aguilos (respondent) with misconduct for the latter's refusal to return the
amount of P70,000.00 she had paid for his professional services despite his
not having performed the contemplated professional services. She avers that
in March 2005, she sought the legal services of the respondent to represent
her in the annulment of her marriage with her estranged husband. The
respondent accepted the engagement, fixing his fee at P150,000.00, plus
the appearance fee of P5,000.00/hearing. He told her that he would only
start working on the case upon her full payment of the acceptance fee. She
had only learned then that what he had contemplated to file for her was a
petition for legal separation, not one for the annulment of her marriage. He
further told her that she would have to pay a higher acceptance fee for the
annulment of her marriage. She subsequently withdrew the case from him,
and requested the refund of the amounts already paid, but he refused to do
the same as he had already started working on the case.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent should be held administratively liable for
misconduct.
HELD:
Yes. The respondent offered himself to the complainant as a lawyer who had
the requisite professional competence and skill to handle the action for the
annulment of marriage for her. Clearly, the respondent misrepresented his
professional competence and skill to the complainant. As the foregoing
findings reveal, he did not know the distinction between the grounds for
legal separation and for annulment of marriage. Such knowledge would have
been basic and expected of him as a lawyer accepting a professional
engagement for either causes of action.
As such, the respondent failed to live up to the standards imposed on him as
an attorney. He thus transgressed Canon 18, and Rules 18.01, 18.02 and
18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Atty. Romeo G. Aguilos is hereby FINED P10,000.00 for misrepresenting his
professional competence to the client, and REPRIMANDS him for his use of
offensive and improper language towards his fellow attorney, with the stern
warning that a repetition of the offense shall be severely punished.
The Court ORDERS Atty. Romeo G. Aguilos to RETURN to the complainant
within thirty (30) days from notice the sum of P70,000.00, plus legal interest
of 6% per annum reckoned from the date of this decision until full payment.
MADRIA v. RIVERA
FACTS:
In November 2002, complainant Flordeliza A. Madria consulted the
respondent in his law office in Tuguegarao City, Cagayan to inquire about
the process of annulling her marriage with her husband, Juan C. Madria. The
respondent told her that she had a strong case, and guaranteed that he
could obtain for her the decree of annulment.
The complainant's daughter Vanessa thereafter made several follow-ups on
behalf of her mother. In the latter part of April 2003, the respondent
informed the complainant that her petition had been granted.
Believing that the documents were authentic, the complainant used the
purported decision and certificate of finality in applying for the renewal of
her passport. Her former partner, Andrew Dowson Grainge, had led a
complaint charging that she had fabricated the decision for the annulment of
her marriage. Only then did she learn that the decision and the certificate
of finality given by the respondent did not exist in the court records. As a
result, the complainant faced criminal charges for violation of the Philippine
Passport Act in the RTC in Tuguegarao City.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent violated his ethical duties under the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
HELD:
Yes. The respondent acknowledged authorship of the petition for annulment
of marriage, and of the simulation of the decision and certificate of finality.
Simulating or participating in the simulation of a court decision and a
certificate of finality of the same decision is an outright criminal
falsication or forgery. One need not be a lawyer to know so, but it was
worse in the respondent's case because he was a lawyer. Thus, his acts were
legally intolerable. Specifically, his deliberate falsification of the court
decision and the certificate of finality of the decision reflected a high degree
of moral turpitude on his part, and made a mockery of the administration of
justice in this country. He thereby became unworthy of continuing as a
member of the Bar.
Canon 15 and Rule 18.04 of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility required the respondent be true to the complainant as his
client. Falsifying or simulating the court papers amounted to deceit,
malpractice or misconduct in office, any of which was already a ground
sufficient for disbarment under Section 27, Rule 38 of the Rules of Court.
WHEREFORE, the Court FINDS and HOLDS Atty. CARLOS P. RIVERA guilty of
GRAVE MISCONDUCT and VIOLATION OF THE LAWYER'S OATH ; and,
ACCORDINGLY, ORDERS his DISBARMENT. Let his name be STRICKEN from
the ROLL OF ATTORNEYS.
