A.C. No. 11149 and, ₱50,000.00 on 15 March 2012 deposited to respondent's Metrobank account no.

495-3-
49509141-5 (Annex "D").
Attorneys; Legal Ethics; Once a lawyer takes up the cause of a client, that lawyer is duty-
bound to serve the latter with competence and zeal, especially when he/she accepts it for a On the commitment of respondent that she will (sic) finish the cases in six (6) months,
fee.—There is no question as to respondent’s guilt. It is clear from the records that complainants followed up their cases in September 2012 or about 6 months from their last
respondent violated her lawyer’s oath and code of conduct when she withheld from payment in March 2012. They were ignored by respondent. On 25 September 2012,
complainants the amount of P350,000.00 given to her, despite her failure to render the complainants sent a letter (Annex "E") to respondent demanding that the ₱350,000.00 they
necessary legal services, and after complainants demanded its return. It cannot be stressed paid her be refunded in full within five (5) days from receipt of the letter. In a Certification
enough that once a lawyer takes up the cause of a client, that lawyer is duty-bound to serve dated 07 November 2012 (Annex "F"), the Philpost of Dasmarinas, Cavite, attested that
the latter with competence and zeal, especially when he/she accepts it for a fee. The lawyer complainants' letter was received by respondent on 01 October 2012. No [Link] was made by
owes fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed respondent.3
upon him/her. Moreover, a lawyer’s failure to return upon demand the monies he/she holds
for his/her client gives rise to the presumption that he/she has appropriated the said monies In an Order4 dated January 25, 2013, the IBP directed respondent to file her Answer within
for his/her own use, to the prejudice and in violation of the trust reposed in him/her by 15 days. No answer was filed. A Mandatory Conference/Hearing was set on December 4,
his/her client. Punla vs. Maravilla-Ona, 837 SCRA 145, A.C. No. 11149 August 15, 2017 20135 but respondent did not appear, so it was reset to January 22, 2014.6 However,
respondent again failed to attend the mandatory conference/hearing as scheduled. Hence, in
LAURENCE D. PUNLA and MARILYN SANTOS, Complainants, an Order7 dated January 22, 2014, the mandatory conference was terminated and both
vs. parties were directed to submit their verified position papers.
ATTY. ELEONOR MARA VILLA-ONA,, Respondent.
Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner
DECISION
The Investigating Commissioner was of the opinion that respondent is guilty of violating
PER CURIAM: Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, to wit:8

The present administrative case stemmed from a Complaint-Affidavit1 filed with the There is clear violation of Canons 17 and 18, Canons of Professional Responsibility. These
Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline (IBPCBD) by complainants canons, quoted hereunder, [state]:
Laurence D. Punla and Marilyn Santos against respondent Atty. Eleonor Maravilla-Ona,
charging the latter with violation of the lawyer's oath, for neglecting her clients' interests. CANON 17 - A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the
trust and confidence reposed in him.
Factual Background
CANON 18 - A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.
The facts, as culled from the disbarment complaint, are summarized in the Report and
Recommendation2 of Investigating Commissioner Ricardo M. Espina viz.: Of particular concern is Rule 18.04, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
which requires a lawyer to always keep the client informed of the developments in his case
In a complaint-affidavit filed on 15 January 2013, complainants alleged that they got to know and to respond whenever the client requests for information. Respondent has miserably failed
respondent lawyer sometime in January 2012 when they requested her to notarize a Deed of to comply with this Canon.9
Sale; that subsequently, they broached the idea to respondent that they intend (sic) to file two
(2) annulment cases and they wanted respondent to represent them; that respondent In addition, the IBP Investigating Commissioner found that respondent has been charged
committed to finish the two (2) annulment cases within six (6) months from full payment; that with several infractions. Thus:
the agreed lawyer's fee for the two annulment cases is P350,000.00; that the ₱350,000.00
was paid in full by complainants, as follows: ₱100,000.00 on 27 January 2012 as evidenced
by respondent's Official Receipt (O.R.) No. 55749 of even date (Annex "A"); ₱150,000.00 on 28 Moreover, verification conducted by this Office shows that this is not the first time that
January 2012 as evidenced by respondent's Official Receipt (O.R.) No. 56509 of even date respondent lawyer has been administratively charged before this Office. As shown in the table
(Annex "B"); ₱50,000.00 on 14 March 2012 personally handed to respondent lawyer and below, respondent is involved in the following active cases:
evidenced by respondent's handwritten acknowledgement receipt of same date (Annex "C");

1
 Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court; grounds therefor. - A member of the bar may be
COMPLAINANTS CASE NO. STATUS PENALTY WHEN FILED disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or
other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime
Ten (10) consolidated cases:   involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before admission to
1. Felisa Amistoso, et al. A.C. No. 6369 Pending with Suspension practice, or for a wilful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or wilfully
2. Anita Lagman A.C. No. 6371 Supreme Court appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do x x x.
3. Isidro H. Montoya A.C. No. 6458
4. NoelAngcao A.C. No. 6459 Here, there is no question as to respondent's guilt.1âwphi1 It is clear from the records that respondent
5. Mercedes Bayan A.C. No. 6460 violated her lawyer's oath and code of conduct when she withheld from complainants the amount of
6. Rustica Canuel A.C. No. 6462 ₱350,000.00 given to her, despite her failure to render the necessary legal services, and after
7. Anita Canuel A.C. No. 6457 complainants demanded its return.
8. Elmer Canuel A.C. No. 6463
9. Evangeline Sangalang A.C. No. 6464 It cannot be stressed enough that once a lawyer takes up the cause of a client, that lawyer is duty-bound
10. Felisa Amistoso A.C. No. 6469 to serve the latter with competence and zeal, especially when he/she accepts it for a fee. The lawyer owes
fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed upon him/her.13
11. Beatrice Yatco, et al. CBD Case No. 10- Pending with Suspension July 26, 2010 Moreover, a lawyer's failure to return upon demand the monies he/she holds for his/her client gives rise
2733 Supreme Court to the presumption that he/she has appropriated the said monies for his/her own use, to the prejudice
and in violation of the trust reposed in him/her by his/her client.14
12. Nonna Guiterrez CBD Case No. 12- For report and   May 23, 2012
3444 recommendation What is more, this Court cannot overlook the reality that several cases had been filed against respondent,
as pointed out by the IBP.1âwphi1 In fact, one such case eventually led to the disbarment of respondent.
13. Bienvenida Flor Suarez CBD Case No. 12- For report and   August 01, 2012 In Suarez v. Maravilla-Ona, 15 the Court meted out the ultimate penalty of disbarment and held that the
3534 recommendation misconduct of respondent was aggravated by her unjustified refusal to obey the orders of the IBP
directing her to file an answer and to appear at the scheduled mandatory conference. This constitutes
blatant disrespect towards the IBP and amounts to conduct unbecoming a lawyer.
Clearly, respondent lawyer has been a serial violator of the Canons of Professional Responsibility as
shown in the thirteen (13) pending cases filed against her. Add to that the present case and that places In the same case, the Court took note of the past disbarment complaints that had been filed against Atty.
the total pending administrative cases against respondent at fourteen (14). That these 14 cases were filed Maravilla-Ona viz.:
on different dates and by various individuals is substantial proof that respondent has the propensity to
violate her lawyer's oath- and has not changed in her professional dealing with the public.10
x x x In A.C. No. 10107 entitled Beatrice C. Yatco, represented by her AttorneyIn- Fact, Marivic Yatco v.
Atty. Eleonor Maravilla-Ona, the complainant filed a disbarment case against Atty. Maravilla-Ona for
Consequently, the Investigating Commissioner recommended that respondent be disbarred and ordered issuing several worthless checks as rental payments for the complainant's property and for refusing to
to pay complainants the amount of ₱350,000.00 with legal interest until fully paid.11 vacate the said property, thus forcing the latter to file an ejectment case against Atty. Maravilla-Ona. The
IBP required Atty. Maravilla-Ona to file her Answer, but she failed to do so. Neither did she make an
Recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors appearance during the scheduled mandatory conference. In its Resolution dated February 13, 2013, the
IBP found Atty. Maravilla-Ona guilty of serious misconduct[,] and for violating Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the
Code. The Court later adopted and approved the IBP's findings in its Resolution of September 15, 2014,
The IBP Board of Governors, in Resolution No. XXI-2015-15612 dated February 20, 2015, resolved to and suspended Atty. Maravilla-Ona from the practice of law for a period of one year.
adopt the findings of the Investigating Commissioner as well as the recommended penalty of disbarment.

In yet another disbarment case against Atty. Maravilla-Ona, docketed as A.C. No. 10944[,] and entitled
The issue in this case is whether respondent should be disbarred. Norma M Gutierrez v. Atty. Eleonor Maravilla-Ona, the complainant therein alleged that she engaged the
services of Atty. Maravilla-Ona and gave her the amount of ₱80,000.00 for the filing of a case in court.
Our Ruling However, Atty. Maravilla-Ona failed to file the case, prompting the complainant to withdraw from the
engagement and to demand the return of the amount she paid. Atty. Maravilla-Ona returned
₱15,000.00[,] and executed a promissory note to pay the remaining ₱65,000.00. However, despite several
The Court resolves to adopt the findings of fact of the IBP but must, however, modify the penalty imposed demands, Atty. Maravilla-Ona failed to refund completely the complainant's money. Thus, a complaint for
in view of respondent's previous disbarment. disbarment was filed against Atty. Maravilla-Ona for grave misconduct, gross negligence and
incompetence. But again, Atty. Maravilla-Ona failed to file her Answer and [to] appear in the mandatory
Rule 138, Sec. 27 of the Rules of Court provides the penalties of disbarment and suspension as follows: conference before the IBP. The IBP found that Atty. Maravilla-Ona violated Canon 16, Rule 16.03 of the
Code [of Professional Responsibility] and recommended her suspension for a period of five (5) years,
considering her previous infractions. The Court, however, reduced Atty. Maravilla-Ona's penalty to

2
suspension from the practice of law for a period of three (3) years, with a warning that a repetition of the
same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely. She was also ordered to return the complainant's
money.

Clearly, Atty. Maravilla-Ona exhibits the habit of violating her oath as a lawyer and the Code [of
Professional Responsibility], as well as defying the processes of the IBP. The Court cannot allow her
blatant disregard of the Code [of Professional Responsibility] and her sworn duty as a member of the Bar
to continue. She had been warned that a similar violation [would] merit a more severe penalty, and yet,
her reprehensible conduct has, again, brought embarrassment and dishonor to the legal profession.16

Back to the case at bar: While indeed respondent's condemnable acts ought to merit the penalty of
disbarment, we cannot disbar her anew, for in this jurisdiction we do not impose double disbarment.

WHEREFORE, the Court hereby ADOPTS the findings of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and FINDS
respondent ATIY. ELEONOR MARA VILLA-ONA GUILTY of gross and continuing violation of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and accordingly FINED ₱40,000.00. Respondent is also ORDERED to PAY
complainants the amount of ₱350,000.00, with 12% interest from the date of demand until June 30,
2013 and 6% per annum from July 1, 2013 until full payment.17 This is without prejudice to the
complainants' filing of the appropriate criminal case, if they so desire.

Furnish a copy of this Decision to the Office of the Bar Confidant, which shall append the same to the
personal record of respondent; to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines; and the Office of the Court
Administrator, which shall circulate the same to all courts in the country for their information and
guidance.

This Decision shall be immediately executory.

SO ORDERED.

3
 Same; Lawyering is not a moneymaking venture and lawyers are not merchants.—We believe
and so hold that the contingent fee here claimed by Atty. Cortes was, under the facts
Cortez vs. Cortes obtaining in this case, grossly excessive and unconscionable. The issues involved could
hardly be said to be novel and Atty. Cortes in fact already knew that complainant was already
Attorney’s Fees; Contingent Fee; A contingent fee arrangement is valid in this jurisdiction. It hard up. We have held that lawyering is not a moneymaking venture and lawyers are not
is generally recognized as valid and binding, but must be laid down in, an express contract.— merchants. Law advocacy, it has been stressed, is not capital that yields profits. The returns
We have held that a contingent fee arrangement is valid in this jurisdiction. It is generally it births are simple rewards for a job done or service rendered. It is a calling that, unlike
recognized as valid and binding, but must be laid down in an express contract. The case of mercantile pursuits which enjoy a greater deal of freedom from governmental interference, is
Rayos v. Atty. Hernandez, 515 SCRA 517 (2007), discussed the same succinctly, thus: A impressed with a public interest, for which it is subject to State regulation. Here, considering
contingent fee arrangement is valid in this jurisdiction and is generally recognized as valid that complainant was amenable to a 12% contingency fee, and which we likewise deem to be
and binding but must be laid down in an express contract. The amount of contingent fee the reasonable worth of the attorney’s services rendered by Atty. Cortes under the
agreed upon by the parties is subject to the stipulation that counsel will be paid for his legal circumstances, Atty. Cortes is hereby adjudged to return to complainant the amount he
services only if the suit or litigation prospers. A much higher compensation is allowed as received in excess of 12% of the total award. If the Law has to remain an honorable profession
contingent fee in consideration of the risk that the lawyer may get nothing if the suit fails. and has to attain its basic ideal, those enrolled in its ranks should not only master its tenets
Contracts of this nature are permitted because they redound to the benefit of the poor client and principles but should also, by their lives, accord continuing fidelity to such tenets and
and the lawyer especially in cases where the client has meritorious cause of action, but no principles. Cortez vs. Cortes, 858 SCRA 156, A.C. No. 9119 March 12, 2018
means with which to pay for legal services unless he can, with the sanction of law, make a
contract for a contingent fee to be paid out of the proceeds of the litigation. Oftentimes, the A.C. No. 9119, March 12, 2018
contingent fee arrangement is the only means by which the poor and helpless can seek
redress for injuries sustained and have their rights vindicated. EUGENIO E. CORTEZ, Complainant, v. ATTY. HERNANDO P. CORTES, Respondent.

Same; Quantum Meruit; Generally, the amount of attorney’s fees due is that stipulated in the DECISION
retainer agreement which is conclusive as to the amount of the lawyers compensation. In the
TIJAM, J.:
absence thereof, the amount of attorney’s fees is fixed on the basis of quantum meruit, i.e.,
the reasonable worth of the attorney’s services.—Generally, the amount of attorney’s fees due
The instant controversy arose from a Complaint-Affidavit1 filed by complainant Eugenio E.
is that stipulated in the retainer agreement which is conclusive as to the amount of the
Cortez2 against respondent Atty. Hernando P. Cortes (Atty. Cortes) for grave misconduct, and
lawyers compensation. In the absence thereof, the amount of attorney’s fees is fixed on the
violation of the Lawyer's Oath and the Code for Professional Responsibility.
basis of quantum meruit, i.e., the reasonable worth of the attorneys services. Courts may
ascertain also if the attorney’s fees are found to be excessive, what is reasonable under the Complainant alleged that he engaged the services of Atty. Cortes as his counsel in an illegal
circumstances. In no case, however, must a lawyer be allowed to recover more than what is dismissal case against Philippine Explosives Corporation (PEC). He further alleged that he
reasonable, pursuant to Section 24, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. Canon 20 of the Code of and Atty. Cortes had a handshake agreement on a 12% contingency fee as and by way of
Professional Responsibility states that “A lawyer shall charge only fair and reasonable fees.” attorney's fees.3
Rule 20.01 of the same canon enumerates the following factors which should guide a lawyer
in determining his fees: (a) The time spent and the extent of the services rendered or required; Atty. Cortes prosecuted his claims for illegal dismissal which was decided in favor of
(b) The novelty and difficulty of the questions involved; (c) The importance of the subject complainant. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the National Labor Relations
matter; (d) The skill demanded; (e) The probability of losing other employment as a result of Commission ordering PEC to pay complainant the total amount of One Million One Hundred
acceptance of the proffered case; (f) The customary charges for similar services and the Thousand Pesos (P1,100,000) three staggered payments. PEC then Issued City Bank Check
schedule of fees of the IBP Chapter to which he belongs; (g) The amount involved in the No. 1000003986 dated March 31, 2005 in the amount of Five Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos
controversy and the benefits resulting to the client from the service; (h) The contingency or (P550,000), Check No. 1000003988 in the amount of Two Hundred Seventy-Five Thousand
certainty of compensation; (i) The character of the employment, whether occasional or Pesos (P275,000) dated April 15, 2005, and Check No. 1000003989 also in the amount of
established; and (j) The professional standing of the lawyer. Two Hundred Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P275,000) dated April 30, 2005, all payable in
the name of complainant.4

4
Complainant narrated that after the maturity of the first check, he went to China Bank, Atty. Cortes posited that the check forms part and parcel of the judgment award to which he
Southmall Las Pinas with Atty. Cortes and his wife to open an account to deposit the said had a lien corresponding to his attorney's fees and complainant should have at least invited
check. Atty. Cortes asked complainant to wait outside the bank while he personally, for and him to witness the "harvest of the fruits."12
in his behalf, facilitated the opening of the account. After thirty minutes, he was asked to go
inside and sign a joint savings account with Atty. Cortes.5 Atty. Cortes insisted that the alleged 12% agreement is false, being merely a concoction of
complainant's fertile and unstable mind. He also pointed out that the fifty-fifty sharing
On April 7, 2005, complainant alleged that when he was about to withdraw the amount of the arrangement is not unconscionably high because the complainant was given the option to
initial check deposited, Atty. Cortes arrived with his wife and ordered the bank teller to hold hire other lawyers, but still he engaged his services.13
off the transaction. When complainant asked why he did that, Atty. Cortes answered that
50% of the total awarded claims belongs to him as attorney's fees. When complainant After hearing and submission of position papers, the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline, in a
questioned him, Atty. Cortes became hysterical and imposingly maintained that 50% of the Report and Recommendation dated April 11, 2007, recommended the six-month suspension
total awarded claims belongs to him.6 of Atty. Cortes. It ruled that a contingent fee arrangement should generally be in writing, and
that contingent fees depend upon an express contract without which the lawyer can only
Complainant then tried to pacify Atty. Cortes and his wife and offered to pay P200,000, and recover on the basis of quantum meruit. It also pointed out that the Labor Code establishes a
when Atty. Cortes rejected it, he offered the third check amounting to P275,000, but Atty. limit as to the amount of attorney's fees that a lawyer may collect or charge his client in labor
Cortes still insisted on the 50% of the total award. Complainant was then forced to endorse cases.
the second and third checks to Atty. Cortes, after which he was able to withdraw the proceeds
of the first check. With the help of the lawyers in the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), The report and recommendation was adopted and approved by the IBP Board of Governors in
complainant was able to have the drawer of the checks cancel one of the checks endorsed to an August 17, 2007 Resolution:
Atty. Cortes before he was able to encash the same.
RESOLUTION NO. XVIII-2007-74
Atty. Cortes, in his Answer, admitted that his services were engaged by complainant to
pursue the labor claims. He, however, denied that they agreed on a 12% contingency fee by CBD Case No. 05-1482
way of attorney's fees.7
Eugenio E. Cortez vs.
Atty. Cortes claimed that complainant is a relative of his, but considering that the case was to
Atty. Hernando P. Cortes
be filed in Pampanga and he resided in Las Pinas, he would only accept the case on a fifty-
fifty sharing arrangement.8 RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED the Report
and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner of the above-entitled case, herein
Atty. Cortes alleged that the checks were issued pursuant to the pre-execution agreement
made part of this Resolution as Annex "A"; and, finding the recommendation fully supported
reached by the parties at the office of Labor Arbiter Herminio V. Suelo. He and complainant
by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, and for violation of Article 11(b)
agreed that the amount of the first check be divided fifty-fifty, the whole of the second check
of the Labor Code, Atty. Hernando P. Cortes is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law
would be the complainant's, and the third check would be his.9
for six (6) months and Ordered to Return to complainant whatever amount he received in
Atty. Cortes further alleged that he had to assist complainant in the opening of an account to excess of the 10% allowable attorney's fees in labor case (sic).
deposit the checks. Atty. Cortes had to convince the bank manager to accept the checks
TOMAS N. PRADO
issued in the name of Eugene E. Cortez despite the fact that complainant's ID's are all in the
name of Eugenio E. Cortez.10 He claimed that anyone in his place would have demanded for National Secretary14
the holding off of the transaction because of the base ingratitude, patent deception and
treachery of complainant.11 A motion for reconsideration15 was filed by Atty. Cortes, which was denied by the IBP Board
of Governors.16

5
The issue, plainly, is whether or not the acts complained of constitute misconduct on the part xxxx
of Atty. Cortes, which would subject him to disciplinary action.
Contrary to Evangelina's proposition, Article 111 of the Labor Code deals with the
We rule in the affirmative. extraordinary concept of attorneys fees. It regulates the amount recoverable as attorney's fees
in the nature of damages sustained by and awarded to the prevailing party. It may not be
We have held that a contingent fee arrangement is valid in this jurisdiction. It is generally used as the standard in fixing the amount payable to the lawyer by his client for the legal
recognized as valid and binding, but must be laid down in an express contract.17 The case of services he rendered.22 (Emphasis Ours)
Rayos v. Atty. Hernandez18 discussed the same succinctly, thus:
It would then appear that the contingency fees that Atty. Cortes required is in the ordinary
A contingent fee arrangement is valid in this jurisdiction and is generally recognized as sense as it represents reasonable compensation for legal services he rendered for
valid and binding but must be laid down in an express contract. The amount of contingent complainant. Necessarily, the 10% limitation of the Labor Code would not be applicable.
fee agreed upon by the parties is subject to the stipulation that counsel will be paid for his Beyond the limit fixed by Article 111, such as between the lawyer and the client, the
legal services only if the suit or litigation prospers. A much higher compensation is allowed as attorney's fees may exceed 10% on the basis of quantum meriut.23 We, however, are hard-
contingent fee in consideration of the risk that the lawyer may get nothing if the suit fails. pressed to accept the justification of the 50% contingency fee that Atty. Cortes is insisting on
Contracts of this nature are permitted because they redound to the benefit of the poor client for being exorbitant.
and the lawyer especially in cases where the client has meritorious cause of action, but no
means with which to pay for legal services unless he can, with the sanction of law, make a Generally, the amount of attorney's fees due is that stipulated in the retainer agreement
contract for a contingent fee to be paid out of the proceeds of the litigation. Oftentimes, the which is conclusive as to the amount of the lawyers compensation. In the absence thereof,
contingent fee arrangement is the only means by which the poor and helpless can seek the amount of attorney's fees is fixed on the basis of quantum meruit, i.e., the reasonable
redress for injuries sustained and have their rights vindicated.19 (Emphasis Ours) worth of the attorneys services.24 Courts may ascertain also if the attorney's fees are found
to be excessive, what is reasonable under the circumstances. In no case, however, must a
In this case, We note that the parties did not have an express contract as regards the lawyer be allowed to recover more than what is reasonable, pursuant to Section 24, Rule
payment of fees. Complainant alleges that the contingency fee was fixed at 12% via a 13825 of the Rules of Court.26
handshake agreement, while Atty. Cortes counters that the agreement was 50%.
Canon 20 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that "A lawyer shall charge only
The IBP Commission on Discipline pointed out that since what respondent handled was fair and reasonable fees." Rule 20.01 of the same canon enumerates the following factors
merely a labor case, his attorney's fees should not exceed 10%, the rate allowed under Article which should guide a lawyer in determining his fees:
11120 of the Labor Code.
(a) The time spent and the extent of the services rendered or required;
Although we agree that the 50% contingency fee was excessive, We do not agree that the 10%
limitation as provided in Article 111 is automatically applicable. (b) The novelty and difficulty of the questions involved;

The case of Masmud v. NLRC (First Division), et al.,21 discussed the matter of application of (c) The importance of the subject matter;
Article 111 of the Labor Code on attorney's fees:
(d) The skill demanded;
There are two concepts of attorney's fees. In the ordinary sense, attorney's fees represent
the reasonable compensation paid to a lawyer by his client for the legal services rendered to (e) The probability of losing other employment as a result of acceptance of the proffered
the latter. On the other hand, in its extraordinary concept, attorney's fees may be awarded by case;
the court as indemnity for damages to be paid by the losing party to the prevailing party,
such that, in any of the cases provided by law where such award can be made, e.g., those (f) The customary charges for similar services and the schedule of fees of the IBP Chapter
authorized in Article 2208 of the Civil Code, the amount is payable not to the lawyer but to to which he belongs;
the client, unless they have agreed that the award shall pertain to the lawyer as additional
(g) The amount involved in the controversy and the benefits resulting to the client from the
compensation or as part thereof.
service;

6
 (h) The contingency or certainty of compensation;

(i) The character of the employment, whether occasional or established; and SO ORDERED.

(j) The professional standing of the lawyer.

Here, as set out by Atty. Cortes himself, the complainant's case was merely grounded on
complainant's alleged absence without leave for the second time and challenging the plant
manager, the complainant's immediate superior, to a fist fight. He also claimed that the travel
from his home in Las Pinas City to San Fernando, Pampanga was costly and was an ordeal.
We likewise note that Atty. Cortes admitted that complainant was a close kin of his, and that
complainant appealed to his services because, since his separation from work, he had no
visible means of income and had so many mouths to feed. These circumstances cited by Atty.
Cortes to justify the fees; to Our mind, does not exculpate Atty. Cortes, but in fact, makes Us
question all the more, the reasonableness of it.

We believe and so hold that the contingent fee here claimed by Atty. Cortes was, under the
facts obtaining in this case, grossly excessive and unconscionable. The issues involved could
hardly be said to be novel and Atty. Cortes in fact already knew that complainant was already
hard up. We have held that lawyering is not a moneymaking venture and lawyers are not
merchants.27 Law advocacy, it has been stressed, is not capital that yields profits.28 The
returns it births are simple rewards for a job done or service rendered. It is a calling that,
unlike mercantile pursuits which enjoy a greater deal of freedom from governmental
interference, is impressed with a public interest, for which it is subject to State regulation.29

Here, considering that complainant was amenable to a 12% contingency fee, and which we
likewise deem to be the reasonable worth of the attorney's services rendered by Atty. Cortes
under the circumstances, Atty. Cortes is hereby adjudged to return to complainant the
amount he received in excess of 12% of the total award. If the Law has to remain an
honorable profession and has to attain its basic ideal, those enrolled in its ranks should not
only master its tenets and principles but should also, by their lives, accord continuing fidelity
to such tenets and principles.30

We, however, find that the recommended suspension of six months is too harsh and
considering that Atty. Cortes is nearing ninety years old and that there was no question that
Atty. Cortes was able to get a favorable outcome, a reduction of the suspension is proper. We
then reduce and sanction Atty. Cortes to a three-month suspension from the practice of law.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent Atty. Hernando P. Cortes is found GUILTY of

violation of Canon 20 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is hereby SUSPENDED
from the practice of law for three (3) months, and is ordered to return to complainant Eugenio
E. Cortez the amount he received in excess of the 12% allowable attorney's fees.

7
A.C. No. 10580 The Facts

Attorneys; Legal Ethics; A lawyer brings honor to the legal profession by faithfully performing Sometime in 2009, Spouses Geraldy and Lilibeth Victory (Spouses Victory) were enticed by
his duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and to his clients.—Emphatically, a lawyer shall respondent to enter into a financial transaction with her with a promise of good monetary
at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. The bar should maintain a returns. As respondent is a lawyer and a person of reputation, Spouses Victory entrusted
high standard of legal proficiency as well as honesty and fair dealing. A lawyer brings honor their money to respondent to invest, manage, and administer into some financial transactions
to the legal profession by faithfully performing his duties to society, to the bar, to the courts that would earn good profit for the parties.1
and to his clients.
Respondent called and asked Geraldy Victory (Geraldy) whether he wanted to invest his
Same; Same; As a lawyer, respondent is expected to act with the highest degree of integrity money. The respondent promised that for an investment of PhP 400,000, she will give Geraldy
and fair dealing.—Exercising its disciplinary authority over the members of the bar, this PhP 600,000 in 30 days; and for PhP 500,000, she will give Geraldy PhP 625,000.2
Court has imposed the penalty of suspension or disbarment for any gross misconduct that a
lawyer committed, whether it is in his professional or in his private capacity. Good character The investment transactions went well for the first 10 months. Spouses Victory received the
is an essential qualification for the admission to and continued practice of law. Thus, any agreed return of profit. Some of such financial transactions were covered by Memoranda of
wrongdoing, whether professional or nonprofessional, indicating unfitness for the profession Agreement.3
justifies disciplinary action. In this case, it is without dispute that respondent has an
outstanding obligation with Spouses Victory, as the latter’s investments which they coursed
through the respondent fell through. To make matters worse, respondent issued several Later on, respondent became evasive in returning to Spouses Victory the money that the
checks to settle her obligation; unfortunately, said checks bounced. As a lawyer, respondent latter were supposed to receive as part of the agreement. Respondent failed to settle and
is expected to act with the highest degree of integrity and fair dealing. She is expected to account the money entrusted to her by Spouses Victory.4
maintain not only legal proficiency, but also a high standard of morality, honesty, integrity
and fair dealing so that the people’s faith and confidence in the judicial system is ensured. Spouses Victory alleged that the outstanding obligation of respondent is PhP 5 Million plus
She must, at all times, faithfully perform her duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and to interest or a total of PhP 8.3 Million.5
her clients, which include prompt payment of financial obligations.
Spouses Victory filed a criminal complaint for estafa and violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22
Same; Same; Failure to Pay Just Debts; Suspension from Practice of Law; The deliberate with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Sta. Rosa, Laguna.6
failure to pay just debts and the issuance
After the filing of said criminal case, respondent met with Spouses Victory. Respondent
of worthless checks constitute gross misconduct, for which a lawyer may be sanctioned with proposed to reduce her obligation from PhP 8.3 Million to PhP 7.5 Million in staggered
suspension from the practice of law.—It must be considered that the deliberate failure to pay payments, to which Spouses Victory agreed. Respondent then issued three postdated checks
just debts and the issuance of worthless checks constitute gross misconduct, for which a in the amount of PhP 300,000 each. However, said checks bounced.7
lawyer may be sanctioned with suspension from the practice of law. Lawyers are instruments
for the administration of justice and vanguards of our legal system. We cannot exempt Report and Recommendation
respondent from liability just because she encountered financial difficulties in the course of of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
her investment deals. Respondent even admitted that she continued to do business despite Commission on Bar Discipline
such financial hardships; as such, her monetary obligations with different investors
accumulated at an alarming rate. In an attempt to settle her obligations, respondent issued
checks, which all bounced. Victory vs. Mercado, 830 SCRA 631, A.C. No. 10580 July 12, The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)-Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) found that
2017 respondent indeed lured Spouses Victory in entering into a series of financial transactions
with a promise of return of profit. Respondent, however, failed to deliver such promise. On
such premise, the IBP-CBD recommended respondent's suspension, to wit:
SPOUSES GERALDY AND LILIBETH VICTORY, Complainants
vs.
ATTY. MARIAN JOS. MERCADO, Respondent On the basis of the foregoing, it is respectfully recommended that respondent Atty. Marian Jo
S. Mercado be SUSPENDED for SIX (6) MONTHS from the practice of law.8
This is a disbarment case against respondent Atty. Marian Jo S. Mercado for violation of the
Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer's Oath. Resolutions of the IBP Board of Governors

8
On March 20, 2013, the IBP Board of Governors issued Resolution No. XX-2013-199, which Exercising its disciplinary authority over the members of the bar, this Court has imposed the
reads: penalty of suspension or disbarment for any gross misconduct that a lawyer committed,
whether it is in his professional or in his private capacity. Good character is an essential
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby unanimously ADOPTED and APPROVED, qualification for the admission to and continued practice of law. Thus, any wrongdoing,
with modification, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in the whether professional or non-professional, indicating unfitness for the profession justifies
above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex "A ", and finding the disciplinary action.13
recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules
and considering Respondent's violation of Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for In this case, it is without dispute that respondent has an outstanding obligation with
evading the settlement of her financial obligations to the complainants and for not bothering to Spouses Victory, as the latter's investments which they coursed through the respondent fell
appear in the investigation of this case, Atty. Marian Jo S. Mercado is hereby DISBARRED.9 through. To make matters worse, respondent issued several checks to settle her obligation;
(Emphasis supplied) unfortunately, said checks bounced.

Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration,10 which was denied in Resolution No. XXI- As a lawyer, respondent is expected to act with the highest degree of integrity and fair
2014-158, to wit: dealing. She is expected to maintain not only legal proficiency, but also a high standard of
morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing so that the people's faith and confidence in the
RESOLVED to DENY Respondent's Motion for Reconsideration, there being no cogent reason to judicial system is ensured. She must, at all times, faithfully perform her duties to society, to
reverse the findings of the Commission and it being a mere reiteration of the matters which had the bar, to the courts and to her clients, which include prompt payment of financial
already been threshed out and taken into consideration. However, considering that Respondent obligations.14
is currently settling her financial obligations to Complainants and very apologetic and granting
her good faith in her investment transaction with Complainants, Resolution No. XX-2013-199 It must be considered that the deliberate failure to pay just debts and the issuance of
dated March 20, 2013 is hereby AFFIRMED, with modification, and accordingly the penalty worthless checks constitute gross misconduct, for which a lawyer may be sanctioned with
earlier imposed on Atty. Marian Jo S. Mercado is hereby reduced to SUSPENSION from the suspension from the practice of law. Lawyers are instruments for the administration of justice
practice of law for one (1) year. 11 (Emphasis supplied) and vanguards of our legal system.15

Issue We cannot exempt respondent from liability just because she encountered financial
difficulties in the course of her investment deals. Respondent even admitted that she
Should the respondent be held administratively liable based on the allegations in the continued to do business despite such financial hardships; as such, her monetary obligations
pleadings of all parties on record? with different investors accumulated at an alarming rate. In an attempt to settle her
obligations, respondent issued checks, which all bounced.
Our Ruling
To Our mind, the actuations of respondent fell short of the exacting standards expected of
every member of the bar.
Emphatically, a lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession. The bar should maintain a high standard of legal proficiency as well as honesty
and fair dealing. A lawyer brings honor to the legal profession by faithfully performing his In this case, while respondent admitted her responsibility and signified her intention of
duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and to his clients.12 Canon 1, Rule 1.01, and complying with the same, We cannot close our eyes to the fact that respondent committed
Canon 7 provides: infractions. To uphold the integrity of the legal profession, We deem it proper to uphold the
findings as well as the sanction imposed by the IBP Board of Governors.
CANON 1 - A LA WYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE
WHEREFORE, premises considered, We resolve to SUSPEND Atty. Marian Jo S. Mercado from the
LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND FOR LEGAL PROCESSES.
practice of law for one (1) year to commence immediately from the receipt of this Decision, with a
WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar offense will warrant a more severe penalty.
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
Let copies of this Decision be furnished all courts, the Office of the Bar Confidant, and the Integrated Bar
CANON 7 - A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF of the Philippines for their information and guidance. The Office of the Bar Confidant is directed to
THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR. append a copy of this Decision to respondent's record as member of the Bar.

9
SO ORDERED. The parties come from wealthy families in Negros Oriental. They were married on May 21,
1964 and have two grown-up children. They have vast sugarlands and other businesses.
A.C. No. 5333. October 18, 2000.* Respondent was a Municipal Judge for 14 years and served as Mayor in their town for 2
terms during the administration of President Aquino. Complainant is a businesswoman.
Sometime in 1988, their marriage fell apart when due to "marital strain that has developed
(A.C. No. CBD 371) through the years," respondent left his wife and children to live with his mother and sister in
Dumaguete City and thence started his law practice. Complainant, in the meantime, filed a
ROSA YAP PARAS, complainant, vs. ATTY. JUSTO DE JESUS PARAS, respondent. case for the dissolution of their marriage, which case is still pending in court.

Administrative Law; Attorneys; Disbarment; Good moral character is not only a condition The complaint charged:
precedent to admission to the practice of law; Continued possession is also essential for
remaining in the practice of law; Power to disbar must be exercised with great caution and DISHONESTY, FALSIFICATION and FRAUD
only in clear case of misconduct that seriously affects the standing and character of the
lawyer as an officer of the Court and as a member of the bar; It should never be decreed
where any lesser penalty such as temporary suspension could accomplish the end desired.— … respondent obtained loans from certain banks in the name of complainant by
It is a time-honored rule that good moral character is not only a condition precedent to counterfeiting complainant's signature, falsely making it appear that complainant was the
admission to the practice of law. Its continued possession is also essential for remaining in applicant for said loans. Thereafter, he carted away and misappropriated the proceeds of the
the practice of law (People vs. Tunda, 181 SCRA 692 [1990]; Leda vs. Tabang, 206 SCRA 395 loans.
[1992]). In the case at hand, respondent has fallen below the moral bar when he forged his
wife’s signature in the bank loan documents, and, sired a daughter with a woman other than . . . to guarantee the above loans, respondent mortgaged some personal properties belonging
his wife. However, the power to disbar must be exercised with great caution, and only in a to the conjugal partnership without the consent of complainant.
clear case of misconduct that seriously affects the standing and character of the lawyer as an
officer of the Court and as a member of the bar (Tapucar vs. Tapucar, Adm. Case No. 4148, GROSSLY IMMORAL CONDUCT AND CONCUBINAGE
July 30, 1998). Disbarment should never be decreed where any lesser penalty, such as
temporary suspension, could accomplish the end desired. Paras vs. Paras, 343 SCRA 414,
A.C. No. 5333 October 18, 2000 Respondent is . . . engaged in the immoral and criminal act of concubinage as he maintained
an illicit relationship with one Ms. Jocelyn A. Ching, siring an illegitimate child with her while
married to complainant.
A.C. No. 5333               October 18, 2000
UNETHICAL AND UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT
ROSA YAP PARAS, complainant,
vs.
ATTY. JUSTO DE JESUS PARAS, respondent. Respondent abused courts of justice and misused his legal skills to frighten, harass and
intimidate all those who take a position diametrically adverse to his sinister plans by
unethically filing complaints and other pleadings against them. He utilized strategies to
DECISION obstruct justice.

MELO, J: OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE

This has reference to a case for disbarment initiated by complainant Rosa Yap Paras against (Respondent) utilized strategies to obstruct justice. In the criminal actions initiated against
her husband, Atty. Justo de Jesus Paras. The parties exchanged tirades and barbs in their him, respondent used his legal skills not to prove his innocence but to derail all the
copious pleadings, hurling invectives, cutting remarks and insults at each other. Reduced to proceedings.
its essentials, Rosa Paras charged her husband with dishonesty and falsification of public
documents, harassment and intimidation, and immorality for siring a child with another
woman. Respondent denied the allegations, contending that his wife, in cahoots with her (Complaint, Rollo, p. 2)
family, is out to destroy and strip him of his share in their multi-million conjugal assets.
In his Answer, respondent interposed the following defenses:

10
(1) On the Charge of Falsification of Public Documents: No actual hearing was conducted as the parties agreed to merely submit their respective
memoranda, depositions, and other pieces of evidence attached to their pleadings.
That during the sugarboom in the 1970's, his wife executed in his favor a Special Power of
Attorney to negotiate for an agricultural or crop loan authorizing him "to borrow money and Thereafter, the CBD found respondent guilty as charged and recommended:
apply for and secure any agricultural or crop loan for sugar cane from the Bais Rural Bank,
Bais City . . ." (Rollo, Annex "3", p. 262) (1) Respondent's suspension from the practice of law for three (3) months on the first
charge; and
(2) On the Charge of Forgery:
(2) Respondent's indefinite suspension from the practice of law on the second charge.
That the Report of the National Bureau of Investigation which found that "the questioned
signatures (referring to the alleged forged signatures of complainant) and the standard (ibid., p. 57)
sample signatures JUSTO J. PARAS were written by one and the same person…"(Annex "B" of
the Complaint, Rollo, p. 26) was doctored, and that his wife filed against him a string of cases
for falsification of public documents because he intends to disinherit his children and The CBD held that the dismissal of the criminal cases against respondent for falsification and
bequeath his inchoate share in the conjugal properties to his own mother. use of falsified documents (Criminal Case No. 11768) and for concubinage (I.S. No. 93-578)
will not bar the filing of an administrative case for disbarment against him. In a criminal
case, proof beyond reasonable doubt is required for conviction, while in an administrative
(3) On the Charge of Grossly Immoral Conduct and Concubinage: complaint, only a preponderance of evidence is necessary.

That this is a malicious accusation fabricated by his brother-in-law, Atty. Francisco D. Yap to The CBD gave credence to the NBI Report that "the questioned signatures (referring to the
disqualify him from getting any share in the conjugal assets. He cites the dismissal of the signatures appearing in the loan agreements, contracts of mortgage, etc.) and the standard
complaint for concubinage filed against him by his wife before the City Prosecutor of Negros sample signatures of respondent were written by one and the same person." This affirms the
Oriental as proof of his innocence. allegation of complainant Rosa Yap Paras that her husband forged her signatures in those
instruments. Respondent denies this but his denial was unsubstantiated and is, therefore,
Respondent, however, admits that he, his mother and sister, are solicitous and hospitable to self-serving.
his alleged concubine, Ms. Jocelyn Ching and her daughter, Cyndee Rose (named after his
own deceased daughter), by allowing them to stay in their house and giving them some In finding respondent liable for Immorality, the CBD relied heavily on the uncontroverted
financial assistance, because they pity Ms. Ching, a secretary in his law office, who was sworn affidavit-statements of respondent's children and three other eyewitnesses to
deserted by her boyfriend after getting her pregnant. respondent's illicit affair with Ms. Jocelyn Ching. For a better appreciation of their
statements, their affidavits are hereby reproduced in full. Thusly,
(4) On the Charge of Obstruction of Justice:
"I, DAHLIA Y. PARAS, of legal age, single, resident of Bindoy, Negros Oriental, but presently
That "the legal remedies pursued by (him) in defense and offense are legitimate courses of living in Dumaguete City, after being duly sworn hereby depose and say:
action done by an embattled lawyer."
1. I am a nurse by profession. I finished my BSN degree at the College of Nursing,
The Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines investigated Silliman University.
the complaint against respondent summarizing the causes of action as follows:
2. My mother is Rosa Yap Paras and my father Justo J. Paras. My father has left the
(1) Falsification of complainant's signature and misuse of conjugal assets; and family home in Bindoy and now lives at his mother's house at San Jose Ext.,
Dumaguete City.
(2) Immorality and criminal acts of concubinage with one Ms. Ma. Jocelyn A. Ching (for) siring
an illegitimate child with her while married to complainant, and, abandonment of his own 3. My father has a "kabit" or concubine by the name of Ma. Jocelyn Ching.1âwphi1
family. They have a child named Cyndee Rose, who was delivered at the Silliman University
Hospital Medical Center on July 19, 1990.
(Rollo, Report of the IBP, p. 34)

11
 4. Jocelyn used to be the secretary of my father and Atty. Melchor Arboleda when 5. That on one of my visits, I confirmed that Ms. Ching was living with my father from Josie
they practice law together in 1988 to 1989. Their relationship started in 1989. When Vailoces, who was then a working student living at my father's place;
she became pregnant, my father rented an apartment for her at the Amigo
Subdivision, Dumaguete City. 6. Ms. Vailoces subsequently confirmed under oath the fact that my father and Ms. Jocelyn
Ching were living together as husband and wife at my father's place in a deposition taken in
connection with Civil Case No. 10613, RTC-Dumaguete City, Branch 30, the Honorable Enrique
5. Following delivery of the baby, my father built a house for Jocelyn in Maayong C. Garovillo, presiding. A copy of the transcript of the deposition of Ms. Vailoces is already part
Tubig, Dauin, Negros Oriental. My father spend time there often with Jocelyn and of the record of this case. For emphasis, photocopies of the pertinent portion of the written
their child. deposition of Josie Vailoces is hereto attached as Annexes "A"and "A-1." p. 111, Records

6. I used to visit my father at San Jose Extension these past years, and almost every Respondent's son has this to say:
time I was there, I would see Jocelyn, sitting, watching TV, serving coffee in my
father's law office, and one time, she was washing my father's clothes. "I, RHOUEL Y. PARAS, 15 years old, single, resident of Bindoy, Negros Oriental, but presently living in
Dumaguete City, after being duly sworn according to law, depose and say:
7. I first saw their child Cyndee Rose in 1992, about early May, at San Jose Extension. I was
there to ask for my allowance. He was there at the time, and when I looked at Cyndee Rose 1. I am a high school student at the Holy Cross High School, Dumaguete City.
closely, I became convinced that she was my father's daughter with Jocelyn.

2. My mother is Rosa Yap Paras, and my father Justo J. Paras, a lawyer.

8. Incidentally, I had an elder sister also named Cindy Rose (now deceased).

3. My father has left our home in Bindoy, and now lives at his mother's house in San Jose
9. In September 1992 when I went to visit my father, I saw toys and child's clothes in my Extension, Dumaguete City. He is not giving us support any more.
father's room.

4. However, from October 1991 to December 1992, I was getting my allowance of P50.00 a week.
10. Whenever, I saw Jocelyn at San Jose Extension, I wanted to talk to her or be alone with her, I would go to their house at San Jose Extension and personally ask him for it.
but she would deliberately avoid me. I could see that she was hiding something from me." p.
109, Records.
5. In October 1992, between 11:30 AM and 1:00 PM, I went to San Jose Extension for my
weekly allowance. I asked Josephus, an adopted son of my father's sister, if my father was
SUPPLEMENTAL AFFIDAVIT around. Josephus said my father was in his room.

x x x           x x x          x x x 6. So I went direct to his room and because the door was not locked, I entered the room without
knocking. There I saw my father lying in bed side by side with a woman. He was only wearing a
1. . . . sometime during the period of April-September, 1992, I made several visits to my father brief. The woman was wearing shorts and T-shirt.
at his mother's house in San Jose Extension, Dumaguete City, where he had moved after he left
our home in Bindoy; 7. They both appeared scared upon seeing me. My father hurriedly gave me P100.00 and I left
immediately because I felt bad and embarrassed.
2. That these visits were made on different times and different days of the week;
8. Before that incident, I used to see the woman at my father's house in San Jose Extension.
3. That most of my visits, I would meet a woman who was also living at my father's place. This Every time I went to see my father, she was also there.
woman is now known to me to be Ma. Jocelyn Ching;
9. I later came to know that she was Ms. Jocelyn Ching, and that she was my father's "kabit" or
4. That my basis for observing that Ms. Ching was living in my father's house is that during my concubine.
visits, whether during office hours or after office hours, I would meet her at my father's place,
not his office; she was wearing house clothes and slippers, such as skimpy clothes, shorts and 10. I am no longer getting my weekly allowance from my father." p. 112, Records
T-shirt, not street or office clothes; she was generally unkempt, not made up for work or going
out; on one occasion, I even saw her, washing my father's clothes as well as a small child's
clothing; and she conducted herself around the house in the manner of someone who lived Added to the foregoing sworn statements of respondent's children is the damaging statement under oath
there; of Virgilio Kabrisante who was respondent's secretary when respondent was a mayor of Bindoy, Negros
Oriental which reads as follows:

12
"I, VIRGILIO V. KABRISANTE, of legal age, married, Filipino, a resident of Malaga, Bindoy, Negros SUPPLEMENTAL AFFIDAVIT
Oriental, after having been sworn in accordance with law, do hereby depose and state that:
x x x           x x x          x x x
1. I personally know Justo J. Paras, having been his secretary during his incumbency as Mayor
of Bindoy, Negros Oriental. In fact, through the latter's recommendation and intercession, I was
1. Sometime in May 1989, I returned to Dumaguete City to look for a job, having been jobless
later on appointed as OIC Mayor of the same town from December 1986 to January 1987.
since I left Dumaguete City to go home to Bindoy, Negros Oriental.

2. When Justo J. Paras decided to practice law in Dumaguete City, I became his personal aide
2. While looking for a job, I stayed at the house where my friend, Bernard Dejillo was staying at
and performed various chores for the same. As his personal aide, I stayed in the same house
Mangnao, Dumaguete City. My friend Bernard Dejillo was occupying a room at the second floor
and room with the latter.
of the said house which he shared with me.

3. Sometime in January 1989, Justo J. Paras confided to me that he felt attracted to my lady
3. Sometime in the last week of May 1989, in the course of my job hunting, I met Justo J.
friend named Ma. Jocelyn A. Ching. He then requested me to invite the latter to a dinner date at
Paras. Having not seen each other for some time, we talked for a while, discussing matters
Chin Loong Restaurant.
about the barangay elections in Bindoy, Negros Oriental.

4. Conveying the invitation which was accepted by Ma. Jocelyn Ching, the latter, Justo J. Paras
4. When our discussion was finished, Justo J. Paras asked me where I was staying, to which I
and myself then had dinner at the above-mentioned restaurant.
answered that I was staying at the aforementioned house. He then requested me to find out if
there was an available room at the said house which he could rent with Ma. Jocelyn A. Ching. I
5. At the behest of Justo J. Paras, I invited Ma. Jocelyn A. Ching, on several occasions, always told him that I would have to ask my friend Bernard Dejillo about the matter.
to a picnic at a beach in Dauin, Negros Oriental. Said invitations were always accepted by the
latter.
5. When I arrived at the house that evening, I asked my friend Bernard Dejillo about the matter,
to which the latter signified his approval. He told me that a room at the first floor of the same
6. At each of the above-mentioned picnics, I observed that Justo J. Paras and Ma. Jocelyn A. house was available for rental to Justo Paras and Ma. Jocelyn A. Ching.
Ching had become more and more intimate with each other.
6. The next day, I immediately informed Justo J. Paras of Bernard Dejillo's approval of his
7. Sometime in March 1989, at around 7:00 o'clock in the evening on a Friday, I accompanied request.
Justo J. Paras to the area in front of the Silliman University Medical Center, where he said he
was going to meet someone.
7. Sometime in the first week of June 1989, Ma. Jocelyn Ching moved in to the room she had
rented at the first floor of the house I was also staying at.
8. After waiting for a few minutes, Ma. Jocelyn Ching arrived and immediately boarded at the
back seat of the Sakbayan vehicle I was driving for Justo J. Paras. The latter then requested me
8. Almost every night thereafter, Justo J. Paras would come to the house and stay overnight.
to drive both of them (Justo Paras and Ma. Jocelyn A. Ching) to Honeybee Motel somewhere in
When he came at night Justo J. Paras and I would converse and while conversing, drink a bottle
Sibulan, Negros Oriental.
of Tanduay Rum. Oftentimes, Ma. Jocelyn Ching would join in our conversation.

9. When we arrived there, Justo J. Paras asked me to wait for them outside the room, while he
9. After we finish drinking and talking, Justo J. Paras and Ma. Jocelyn Ching would enter the
and Ma. Jocelyn A. Ching entered the said room.
room rented and sleep there, while I would also go upstairs to my room.

10. I waited outside the room for about two (2) hours after which the two of them emerged from
10. The next morning I could always observe Justo J. Paras came out of said room and depart
the room. We then proceeded to Chin Loong to eat supper.
from the house.

11. After eating supper, we dropped Ma. Jocelyn A. Ching off in front of the Dumaguete City
11. The coming of Justo J. Paras to the house I was staying ceased after about one (1) month
Cockpit.
when they transferred to another house.

12. This meeting was repeated two more times, at the same place and always on a Friday.
12. I myself left the house and returned to Bindoy, Negros Oriental some time in June 1989.

13. On April 3, 1988, I went home to Bindoy and stopped working for Justo Paras." pp. 56-57,
Records. 13. Sometime in January 1993, on a Saturday at about noontime, I went to the
house of Justo J. Paras to consult him about a Kabataang Barangay matter involving
13
 my son. When I arrived at his house, I noticed that the same was closed and there was no one The findings and the recommendations of the CBD are substantiated by the evidentiary record.
there.
ON THE CHARGE OF FALSIFICATION OF COMPLAINANT'S SIGNATURE
14. Needing to consult him about the above-mentioned matter, I proceeded to the resthouse of
Justo J. Paras located at Maayong Tubig, Dauin, Negros Oriental. The handwriting examination conducted by the National Bureau of Investigation on the signatures of
complainant Rosa Yap Paras and respondent Justo de Jesus Paras vis-à-vis the questioned signature
15. When I arrived at the said resthouse, Justo J. Paras was not there but the person in charge "Rosa Y. Paras" appearing in the questioned bank loan documents, contracts of mortgage and other
of the said resthouse informed me that Justo J. Paras was at his house at Barangay Maayong related instrument, yielded the following results:
Tubig, Dauin, Negros Oriental. The same person also gave me directions so that I could locate
the house of Justo J. Paras he referred to earlier. CONCLUSION:

16. With the help of the directions given by said person, I was able to locate the house of Justo 1. The questioned and the standard sample signatures JUSTO J. PARAS were written by one
J. Paras. and the same person.

17. At the doorway of the said house, I called out if anybody was home while knocking on the 2. The questioned and the standard sample signatures ROSA YAP PARAS were not written by
door. one and the same person.

18. After a few seconds, Ma. Jocelyn Ching opened the door. Upon seeing the latter, I asked her (Annex "B", Rollo, p. 26, emphasis ours;)
if Justo J. Paras was home. She then let me in the house and told me to sit down and wait for a
while. She then proceeded to a room.
The NBI did not make a categorical statement that respondent forged the signatures of complainant.
However, an analysis of the above findings lead to no other conclusion than that the questioned or
19. A few minutes later, Justo J. Paras came out of the same room and sat down near me. I falsified signatures of complainant Rosa Y. Paras were authored by respondent as said falsified
noticed that the latter had just woke up from a nap. signatures were the same as the sample signatures of respondent.

20. We then started to talk about the matter involving my son and sometime later, Ma. Jocelyn To explain this anomaly, respondent presented a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) executed in his favor by
Ching served us coffee. complainant to negotiate for an agricultural or crop loan from the Bais Rural Bank of Bais City. Instead
of exculpating respondent, the presence of the SPA places him in hot water. For if he was so authorized
21. While we were talking and drinking coffee I saw a little girl, about three (3) years old, to obtain loans from the banks, then why did he have to falsify his wife's signatures in the bank loan
walking around the sala, whom I later came to know as Cyndee Rose, the daughter of Justo J. documents? The purpose of an SPA is to especially authorize the attorney-in-fact to sign for and on
Paras and Ma. Jocelyn Ching. behalf of the principal using his own name.
22. After our conversation was finished, Justo J. Paras told me to see him at this office at San
Jose Extension, Dumaguete City, the following Monday to discuss the matter some more. ON THE CHARGE OF IMMORALITY AND CONCUBINAGE
23. I then bid them goodbye and went home to Bindoy, Negros Oriental.
24. I am executing this affidavit as a supplement to my affidavit dated 22 July 1993." pp. 58-60,
Records The evidence against respondent is overwhelming. The affidavit-statements of his children and three
(ibid., pp. 44-52) other persons who used to work with him and have witnessed the acts indicative of his infidelity more
than satisfy this Court that respondent has strayed from the marital path. The baptismal certificate of
Cyndee Rose Paras where respondent was named as the father of the child (Annex "J", Rollo, p. 108); his
The CBD likewise gave credence to the sworn affidavits and the deposition of two other witnesses, naming the child after his deceased first-born daughter Cyndee Rose; and his allowing Jocelyn Ching and
namely, Salvador de Jesus, a former repairman of the Paras' household, and, Josie Vailoces, a working the child to live in their house in Dumaguete City bolster the allegation that respondent is carrying on an
student and former ward of the Paras' family, who both gave personal accounts of the illicit relationship illicit affair with Ms. Ching, the mother of his illegitimate child.
between respondent and Jocelyn Ching, which led to the birth of Cyndee Rose. De Jesus swore that while
doing repair works in the Paras' household he observed Ms. Ching and Cyndee Rose practically living in
the Paras' house (p. 85, Rollo, Annex "H"). Vailoces, on the other hand, deposed that she was asked by It is a time-honored rule that good moral character is not only a condition precedent to admission to the
respondent Paras to deliver money to Ms. Ching for the payment of the hospital bill after she gave birth to practice of law. Its continued possession is also essential for remaining in the practice of law (People vs.
Cyndee Rose. Vailoces was also asked by respondent to procure Cyndee Rose Paras' baptismal certificate Tunda, 181 SCRA 692 [1990]; Leda vs. Tabang, 206 SCRA 395 [1992]). In the case at hand, respondent
after the latter was baptized in the house of respondent; she further testified that in said baptismal has fallen below the moral bar when he forged his wife's signature in the bank loan documents, and,
certificate, respondent appears as the father of Cyndee Rose which explains why the latter is using the sired a daughter with a woman other than his wife. However, the power to disbar must be exercised with
surname "Paras." (p. 87, Annex "I", Rollo) great caution, and only in a clear case of misconduct that seriously affects the standing and character of
the lawyer as an officer of the Court and as a member of the bar (Tapucar vs. Tapucar, Adm. Case No.

14
4148, July 30, 1998). Disbarment should never be decreed where any lesser penalty, such as temporary basis of quantum meruit is also authorized “when the counsel, for justifiable cause, was not
suspension, could accomplish the end desired (Resurrecion vs. Sayson, 300 SCRA 129 [1998]). able to finish the case to its conclusion.” Moreover, quantum meruit becomes the basis of
recovery of compensation by the attorney where the circumstances of the engagement
In the light of the foregoing, respondent is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for SIX (6)
indicate that it will be contrary to the parties’ expectation to deprive the attorney of all
MONTHS on the charge of falsifying his wife's signature in bank documents and other related loan
instruments; and for ONE (1) YEAR from the practice of law on the charges of immorality and compensation.
abandonment of his own family, the penalties to be served simultaneously. Let notice of this decision be
spread in respondent's record as an attorney, and notice of the same served on the Integrated Bar of the Attorneys; Legal Ethics; Misconduct; The attorney who fails to accomplish the tasks he
Philippines and on the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all the courts concerned. should naturally and expectedly perform during his professional engagement does not
discharge his professional responsibility and ethical duty toward his client. The respondent
SO ORDERED.
was thus guilty of misconduct, and may be sanctioned according to the degree of the
misconduct.—The opinion of IBP Investigating Commission De La Rama, Jr. in favor of the
FIRST DIVISION respondent was too generous. We cannot see how the respondent deserved any compensation
because he did not really begin to perform the contemplated tasks if, even based on his
A.C. No. 10543, March 16, 2016
version, he would prepare the petition for legal separation instead of the petition for
Attorneys; Legal Ethics; Misrepresentation of Professional Competence; Clearly, the annulment of marriage. The attorney who fails to accomplish the tasks he should naturally
respondent misrepresented his professional competence and skill to the complainant. He did and expectedly perform during his professional engagement does not discharge his
not know the distinction between the grounds for legal separation and for annulment of professional responsibility and ethical duty toward his client. The respondent was thus guilty
marriage.—Clearly, the respondent misrepresented his professional competence and skill to of misconduct, and may be sanctioned according to the degree of the misconduct. As a
the complainant. As the foregoing findings reveal, he did not know the distinction between consequence, he may be ordered to restitute to the client the amount received from the latter
the grounds for legal separation and for annulment of marriage. Such knowledge would have in consideration of the professional engagement, subject to the rule on quantum meruit, if
been basic and expected of him as a lawyer accepting a professional engagement for either warranted. Accordingly, the respondent shall be fined in the amount of P10,000.00 for his
causes of action. His explanation that the client initially intended to pursue the action for misrepresentation of his professional competence, and he is further to be ordered to return
legal separation should be disbelieved. The case unquestionably contemplated by the parties the entire amount of P70,000.00 received from the client, plus legal interest of 6% per annum
and for which his services was engaged, was no other than an action for annulment of the reckoned from the date of this decision until full payment.
complainant’s marriage with her husband with the intention of marrying her British fiancée.
Same; Same; This duty of lawyers is further emphasized in the Code of Professional
They did not contemplate legal separation at all, for legal separation would still render her
Responsibility (CPR), whose Canon 8 provides: “A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy,
incapacitated to remarry. That the respondent was insisting in his answer that he had
fairness and candor toward his professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics
prepared a petition for legal separation, and that she had to pay more as attorney’s fees if she
against opposing counsel.”—The Rules of Court mandates members of the Philippine Bar to
desired to have the action for annulment was, therefore, beyond comprehension other than to
“abstain from all offensive personality and to advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or
serve as a hallow afterthought to justify his claim for services rendered.
reputation of a party or witness, unless required by the justice of the cause with which he is
Attorney’s Fees; The attorney’s fees shall be those stipulated in the retainer’s agreement charged.” This duty of lawyers is further emphasized in the Code of Professional
between the client and the attorney, which constitutes the law between the parties for as long Responsibility, whose Canon 8 provides: “A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy,
as it is not contrary to law, good morals, good customs, public policy or public order.—The fairness and candor toward his professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics
attorney’s fees shall be those stipulated in the retainer’s agreement between the client and against opposing counsel.” Rule 8.01 of Canon 8 specifically demands that: “A lawyer shall
the attorney, which constitutes the law between the parties for as long as it is not contrary to not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive or otherwise
law, good morals, good customs, public policy or public order. The underlying theory is that improper.”
the retainer’s agreement between them gives to the client the reasonable notice of the
Same; Same; In maintaining the integrity and dignity of the legal profession, a lawyer’s
arrangement on the fees. Once the attorney has performed the task assigned to him in a valid
language — spoken or in his pleadings — must be dignified.—The Court recognizes the
agreement, his compensation is determined on the basis of what he and the client agreed. In
adversarial nature of our legal system which has necessitated lawyers to use strong language
the absence of the written agreement, the lawyer’s compensation shall be based on quantum
in the advancement of the interest of their clients. However, as members of a noble
meruit, which means “as much as he deserved.” The determination of attorney’s fees on the
profession, lawyers are always impressed with the duty to represent their clients’ cause, or,
15
as in this case, to represent a personal matter in court, with courage and zeal but that should P90,000.00;1 that she had gone to his residence in May 2005 to inquire on the developments
not be used as license for the use of offensive and abusive language. In maintaining the in her case, but he told her that he would only start working on the case upon her full
integrity and dignity of the legal profession, a lawyer’s language — spoken or in his pleadings payment of the acceptance fee; that she had only learned then that what he had
— must be dignified. As such, every lawyer is mandated to carry out his duty as an agent in contemplated to file for her was a petition for legal separation, not one for the annulment of
the administration of justice with courtesy, dignity and respect not only towards his clients, her marriage; that he further told her that she would have to pay a higher acceptance fee for
the court and judicial officers, but equally towards his colleagues in the Legal Profession. the annulment of her marriage;2 that 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
Same; Same; Simple Misconduct; The respondent’s statement in his answer that the demand already started working on the case;3 that she had sent him a letter, through Atty. Isidro S.C.
from Atty. Martinez should be treated “as a mere scrap of paper or should have been Martinez, to demand the return of her payment less whatever amount corresponded to the
addressed by her counsel x x x to the urinal project of the Metropolitan Manila Development legal services he had already performed;4 that the respondent did not heed her demand letter
Authority (MMDA) where it may service its rightful purpose” constituted simple misconduct despite his not having rendered any appreciable legal services to her;5 and that his constant
that the Supreme Court (SC) cannot tolerate.—The respondent’s statement in his answer that refusal to return the amounts prompted her to bring an administrative complaint against
the demand from Atty. Martinez should be treated “as a mere scrap of paper or should have him6 in the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) on March 20, 2007.
been addressed by her counsel x x x to the urinal project of the MMDA where it may service
its rightful purpose” constituted simple misconduct that this Court cannot tolerate. In his In his answer dated May 21, 2007,7 the respondent alleges that the complainant and her
motion for reconsideration, the respondent tried to justify the offensive and improper British fiancee sought his legal services to bring the petition for the annulment of her
language by asserting that the phraseology was not per se uncalled for and improper. He marriage; that based on his evaluation of her situation, the more appropriate case would be
explained that he had sufficient cause for maintaining that the demand letter should be one for legal separation anchored on the psychological incapacity of her husband; that she
treated as a mere scrap of paper and should be disregarded. However, his assertion does not and her British fiancee agreed on P150,000.00 for his legal services to bring the action for
excuse the offensiveness and impropriety of his language. He could have easily been legal separation, with the fiancee paying him P70,000.00, as evidenced by his handwritten
respectful and proper in responding to the letter. Sanchez vs. Aguilos, 787 SCRA 457, A.C. receipt;8 that for purposes of the petition for legal separation he required the complainant to
No. 10543 March 16, 2016 submit copies of her marriage contract and the birth certificates of her children with her
husband, as well as for her to submit to further interviews by him to establish the grounds
NENITA D. SANCHEZ, Petitioner, v. ATTY. ROMEO G. AGUILOS, Respondent. for legal separation; that he later on communicated with her and her fiancee upon finalizing
the petition, but they did not promptly respond to his communications; that in May 2005, she
DECISION admitted to him that she had spent the money that her fiancee had given to pay the balance
of his professional fees; and that in June 2005, she returned to him with a note at the back of
BERSAMIN, J.:
the prepared petition for legal separation essentially requesting him not to file the petition
This administrative case relates to the performance of duty of an attorney towards his client because she had meanwhile opted to bring the action for the annulment of her marriage
in which the former is found and declared to be lacking in knowledge and skill sufficient for instead.
the engagement. Does quantum meruit attach when an attorney fails to accomplish tasks
The respondent admits that he received the demand letter from Atty. Martinez, but states
which he is naturally expected to perform during his professional engagement?
that he dismissed the letter as a mere scrap of paper because the demand lacked basis in
Antecedents law. It is noted that he wrote in the last part of his answer dated May 21, 2007 in relation to
the demand letter the following:
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 chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
his professional services despite his not having performed the contemplated professional
Hence, respondent accordingly treated the said letter demand for refund dated 15 August
services. She avers that in March 2005, she sought the legal services of the respondent to
2005 (Annex "B" of the complaint) as a mere scrap of paper or should have been addressed by
represent her in the annulment of her marriage with her estranged husband, Jovencio C.
her counsel ATTY. ISIDRO S.C. MARTINEZ, who unskillfully relied on an unverified
Sanchez; that the respondent accepted the engagement, fixing his fee at P150,000.00, plus
information furnished him, to the urinal project of the MMDA where it may serve its rightful
the appearance fee of P5,000.00/hearing; that she then gave to him the initial amount of
purpose.9ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
16
Findings and Recommendation of the IBP

The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) summoned the parties to a mandatory (3)
conference on August 3, 2007,10 but only the complainant and her counsel attended the
conference. On his part, the respondent sent a letter dated July 20, 2007 to the IBP-CBD to Lastly, for failure to conduct himself with courtesy, fairness towards his colleagues and for
reiterate his answer.11 Due to his non-appearance, the IBP-CBD terminated the conference using offensive or improper language in his pleading, which was filed right before the
on the same day, but required the complainant to submit a verified position paper within 10 Commission on Bar Discipline, he must also be sanctioned and disciplined in order to avoid
days. She did not submit the position paper in the end. repetition of the said misconduct.

In his commissioner's report dated July 25, 2008,12 IBP Investigating Commissioner Jose I.
De La Rama, Jr. declared that the respondent's insistence that he could have brought a
petition for legal separation based on the psychological incapacity of the complainant's WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, it is most respectfully recommended that Atty.
husband was sanctionable because he himself was apparently not conversant with the Romeo G. Aguilos be ordered to return to complainant Nenita D. Sanchez the amount of
grounds for legal separation; that because he rendered some legal services to the P30,000.00 which the former received as payment for his services because it is excessive.
complainant, he was entitled to receive only P40,000.00 out of the P70,000.00 paid to him as
acceptance fee, the P40,000.00 being the value of the services rendered under the principle of It is also recommended that the Atty. Romeo G. Aguilos be suspended from the practice of
quantum meruit; and that, accordingly, he should be made to return to her the amount of law for a period of six (6) months for failure to show his respect to his fellow lawyer and for
P30,000.00. using offensive and improper language in his pleadings.

IBP Investigating Commissioner De La Rama, Jr. observed that the respondent's statement in Through Resolution No. XVIII-2008-476 dated September 20, 2008,14 the IBP Board of
the last part of his answer, to the effect that the demand letter sent by Atty. Martinez in Governors affirmed the findings of Investigating Commissioner De La Rama, Jr., but modified
behalf of the complainant should be treated as a scrap of paper, or should have been the recommendation of the penalty, viz.:
addressed "to the urinal project of the MMDA where it may serve its rightful purpose," was
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
uncalled for and improper; and he opined that such offensive and improper language uttered
by the respondent against a fellow lawyer violated Rule 8.0113 of the Code of Professional RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby unanimously ADOPTED AND
Responsibility. APPROVED, with modification, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating
Commissioner of the above entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex "A",
IBP Investigating Commissioner De La Rama, Jr. ultimately recommended as follows:
and, finding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary applicable laws and rules, and considering respondent's failure to show respect to his fellow
lawyer and for showing offensive and improper words in his pleadings, Atty. Romeo G.
The undersigned Commissioner is most respectfully recommending the following: Aguilos, is hereby WARNED and Ordered to Return the Thirty Thousand (P30,000.00) Pesos
to complainant within thirty (30) days from receipt of notice.15ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
(1)
The respondent filed a motion for reconsideration,16 which the IBP Board of Governors
To order the respondent to return to the complainant the amount of P30,000.00 which he denied through Resolution No. XXI-2014-177 dated March 23, 2014.17
received for the purpose of preparing a petition for legal separation. Undersigned believes that
considering the degree of professional services he has extended, the amount of P40,000.00 he Issues
received on March 10, 2005 would be sufficient payment for the same
The two issues for consideration and resolution are: (a) whether or not the respondent should
(2) be held administratively liable for misconduct; and (b) whether or not he should be ordered to
return the attorney's fees paid.
For failure to distinguish between the grounds for legal separation and annulment of
marriage, respondent should be sanctioned. Ruling of the Court
17
We adopt and affirm Resolution No. XVIII-2008-476 and Resolution No. XXI-2014-177, but . . . respondent suggested to them to file instead a legal separation case for the alleged
modify the recommended penalty. psychological incapacity of her husband to comply with his marital obligations developed or
of their marriage on February 6, 1999. (please see par. 2 of the Answer).
1.
If the intention was to file a petition for legal separation, under A.M. 02-11-11-SC, the
Respondent was liable for misconduct, and he should be ordered to return the entire amount grounds are as follows:
received from the client
Sec. 2. Petition-
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. (a) Who may and when to file - (1) A petition for legal separation may be filed only by the
He required her to pay P150,000.00 as attorney's fees, exclusive of the filing fees and his husband or the wife, as the case may be, within five years from the time of the occurrence of
appearance fee of P5,000.00/hearing. Of that amount, he received the sum of P70,000.00. any of the following causes:

On the respondent's conduct of himself in his professional relationship with the complainant
as his client, we reiterate and adopt the thorough analysis and findings by IBP Investigating
Commissioner De La Rama, Jr. to be very apt and cogent, viz.: (a) Repeated physical violence or grossly abusive conduct directed against the petitioner,
a common child, or a child of the petitioner;
As appearing in Annex "4", which is the handwritten retainer's contract between the
respondent and the complainant, there is a sweeping evidence that there is an attorney-client (b) Physical violence or moral pressure to compel the petitioner to change religious or
relationship. The respondent agreed to accept the case in the amount of P150,000.00. The political affiliation;
acceptance fee was agreed upon to be paid on installment basis. Excluded in the agreement is
the payment of appearance fee, filing fee and other legal documentation. (c) Attempt of respondent to corrupt or induce the petitioner, a common child, or a child
of the petitioner, to engage in prostitution, or connivance in such corruption or inducement;
That next question is - for what case the P150,000.00 was intended for? Was it intended
for the filing of the annulment case or legal separation? (d) Final judgment sentencing the respondent to imprisonment of more than six years,
even if pardoned;
In the verified Answer filed by the respondent, even the latter is quite confused as to what
action he is going to file in court. The intention of the British national and the complainant (e) Drug addiction or habitual alcoholism of the respondent;
was to get married. At that time and maybe up to now, the complainant is still legally married
(f) Lesbianism or homosexuality of the respondent;
to a certain Jovencio C. Sanchez. That considering that the two are intending to get married,
we can safely assume that the complainant was contemplating of filing a petition for (g) Contracting by the respondent of a subsequent bigamous marriage, whether in or
annulment of marriage in order to free her from the marriage bond with her husband. It is outside the Philippines;
only then, granting that the petition will be granted, that the complainant will be free to
marry the British subject. The legal separation is but a separation of husband and wife from (h) Sexual infidelity or perversion of the respondent;
board and bed and the marriage bond still exists. Granting that the petition for legal
separation will be granted, one is not free to marry another person. (i) Attempt on the life of petitioner by the respondent; or

(j) Abandonment of petitioner by respondent without justifiable cause for more than one
year.
A reading of the answer filed by the respondent would show that he himself is not well
versed in the grounds for legal separation. He stated the following; Psychological incapacity, contrary to what respondent explained to the complainant, is not
one of those mentioned in any of the grounds for legal separation.

18
 Even in Article 55 of the Family Code of the Philippines, psychological incapacity is never a Rule 18.02 - A lawyer shall not handle any legal matter without adequate preparation.
ground for the purpose of filing a petition for legal separation.
Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence
On the other hand, psychological incapacity has always been used for the purpose of filing in connection therewith shall render him liable. (Emphasis supplied)
a petition for declaration of nullity or annulment of marriage.
The next to be dealt with is the matter of the attorney's fees. We can easily agree that every
That as provided for by Article 36 of the New Family Code, it stales that "a marriage attorney is entitled to have and receive a just and reasonable compensation for services
contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration, was psychologically incapacitated performed at the special instance and request of his client. As long as the attorney is in good
to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage, shall likewise be void even if faith and honestly trying to represent and serve the interests of the client, he should have a
such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization." reasonable compensation for such services.19

That lawyers shall keep abreast of the legal developments and participate in continuing The attorney's fees shall be those stipulated in the retainer's agreement between the client
legal education program (Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility) in order to and the attorney, which constitutes the law between the parties for as long as it is not
prevent repetition of such kind of advise that respondent gave to the complainant. In giving contrary to law, good morals, good customs, public policy or public order.20 The underlying
an advise, he should be able to distinguish between the grounds for legal separation and theory is that the retainer's agreement between them gives to the client the reasonable notice
grounds for annulment of marriage. But as the respondent stated in his answer, it appears of the arrangement on the fees. Once the attorney has performed the task assigned to him in
that he is mixed up with the basic provisions of the law.18ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary a valid agreement, his compensation is determined on the basis of what he and the client
Clearly, the respondent misrepresented his professional competence and skill to the agreed.21 In the absence of the written agreement, the lawyer's compensation shall be based
complainant. As the foregoing findings reveal, he did not know the distinction between the on quantum meruit, which means "as much as he deserved."22 The determination of
grounds for legal separation and for annulment of marriage. Such knowledge would have attorney's fees on the basis of quantum meruit is also authorized "when the counsel, for
been basic and expected of him as a lawyer accepting a professional engagement for either justifiable cause, was not able to finish the case to its conclusion."23 Moreover, quantum
causes of action. His explanation that the client initially intended to pursue the action for meruit becomes the basis of recovery of compensation by the attorney where the
legal separation should be disbelieved. The case unquestionably contemplated by the parties circumstances of the engagement indicate that it will be contrary to the parties' expectation to
and for which his services was engaged, was no other than an action for annulment of the deprive the attorney of all compensation.
complainant's marriage with her husband with the intention of marrying her British fiancee.
They did not contemplate legal separation at all, for legal separation would still render her Nevertheless, the court shall determine in every case what is reasonable compensation based
incapacitated to re-marry. That the respondent was insisting in his answer that he had on the obtaining circumstances,24 provided that the attorney does not receive more than
prepared a petition for legal separation, and that she had to pay more as attorney's fees if she what is reasonable, in keeping with Section 24 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, to wit:
desired to have the action for annulment was, therefore, beyond comprehension other than to
serve as a hallow afterthought to justify his claim for services rendered. chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

As such, the respondent failed to live up to the standards imposed on him as an attorney. He Section 24. Compensation of attorneys; agreement as to fees - An attorney shall be entitled
thus transgressed Canon 18, and Rules 18.01, 18.02 and 18.03 of the Code of Professional to have and recover from his client no more than a reasonable compensation for his services,
Responsibility, to wit: with a view to the importance of the subject matter of the controversy, the extent of the
services rendered, and the professional standing of the attorney. No court shall be bound by
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary the opinion of attorneys as expert witnesses as to the proper compensation, but may
disregard such testimony and base its conclusion on its own professional knowledge. A
CANON 18 - A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND written contract for services shall control the amount to be paid therefor unless found by the
DILIGENCE. court to be unconscionable or unreasonable.

Rules 18.01 - A lawyer shall not undertake a legal serviee which he knows or should know The courts supervision of the lawyer's compensation for legal services rendered is not only for
that he is not qualified to render. However, he may render such service if, with the consent of the purpose of ensuring the reasonableness of the amount of attorney's fees charged, but also
his client, he can obtain as collaborating counsel a lawyer who is competent on the matter. for the purpose of preserving the dignity and integrity of the legal profession.25cralawred

19
The respondent should not have accepted the engagement because as it was later revealed, it Respondent did not conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor towards his
was way above his ability and competence to handle the case for annulment of marriage. As a professional colleague
consequence, he had no basis to accept any amount as attorney's fees from the complainant.
He did not even begin to perform the contemplated task he undertook for the complainant The Rules of Court mandates members of the Philippine Bar to "abstain from all offensive
because it was improbable that the agreement with her was to bring the action for legal personality and to advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or
separation. His having supposedly prepared the petition for legal separation instead of the witness, unless required by the justice of the cause with which he is charged."26 This duty of
petition for annulment of marriage was either his way of covering up for his incompetence, or lawyers is further emphasized in the Code of Professional Responsibility, whose Canon 8
his means of charging her more. Either way did not entitle him to retain the amount he had provides: "A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor toward his
already received. professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel." Rule
8.01 of Canon 8 specifically demands that: "A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings,
The written receipt dated March 10, 2005 shows that the respondent received P70,000.00 as use language which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper."
acceptance fee. His refusal to return the amount to the complainant rested on his claim of
having already completed the first phase of the preparation of the petition for legal separation The Court recognizes the adversarial nature of our legal system which has necessitated
after having held conferences with the complainant and her British fiancee. In this respect, lawyers to use strong language in the advancement of the interest of their clients.27 However,
IBP Investigating Commission De la Rama, Jr. opined that the respondent could retain as members of a noble profession, lawyers are always impressed with the duty to represent
P40,000.00 of the P70,000.00 because the respondent had rendered some legal services to their clients' cause, or, as in this case, to represent a personal matter in court, with courage
the complainant, specifically: (a) having the complainant undergo further interviews towards and zeal but that should not be used as license for the use of offensive and abusive language.
establishing the ground for legal separation; (b) reducing into writing the grounds discussed In maintaining the integrity and dignity of the legal profession, a lawyer's language - spoken
during the interviews based on her statement in her own dialect (Annexes 1 and 2) after he or in his pleadings - must be dignified.28 As such, every lawyer is mandated to carry out his
could not understand the written statement prepared for the purpose by her British fiancee; duty as an agent in the administration of justice with courtesy, dignity and respect not only
(c) requiring her to submit her marriage contract with her husband Jovencio C. Sanchez towards his clients, the court and judicial officers, but equally towards his colleagues in the
(Annex 3), and the certificates of live birth of her four children: Mary Joy, Timothy, Christine, Legal Profession.
and Janette Anne, all surnamed Sanchez (Annexes 4, 5, 6 and 7); and (d) finalizing her
petition for legal separation (Annex 8) in the later part of April, 2007. The respondent's statement in his answer that the demand from Atty. Martinez should be
treated "as a mere scrap of paper or should have been addressed by her counsel x x x to the
The opinion of IBP Investigating Commission De la Rama, Jr. in favor of the respondent was urinal project of the MMDA where it may service its rightful purpose" constituted simple
too generous. We cannot see how the respondent deserved any compensation because he did misconduct that this Court cannot tolerate.
not really begin to perform the contemplated tasks if, even based on his version, he would
prepare the petition for legal separation instead of the petition for annulment of marriage. The In his motion for reconsideration, the respondent tried to justify the offensive and improper
attorney who fails to accomplish the tasks he should naturally and expectedly perform during language by asserting that the phraseology was not per se uncalled for and improper. He
his professional engagement does not discharge his professional responsibility and ethical explained that he had sufficient cause for maintaining that the demand letter should be
duty toward his client. The respondent was thus guilty of misconduct, and may be sanctioned treated as a mere scrap of paper and should be disregarded. However, his assertion does not
according to the degree of the misconduct. As a consequence, he may be ordered to restitute excuse the offensiveness and impropriety of his language. He could have easily been
to the client the amount received from the latter in consideration of the professional respectful and proper in responding to the letter.
engagement, subject to the rule on quantum meruit, if warranted.
As penalty for this particular misconduct, he is reprimanded, with the stern warning that a
Accordingly, the respondent shall be fined in the amount of P10,000.00 for his repetition of the offense will be severely [Link]
misrepresentation of his professional competence, and he is further to be ordered to return
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the Resolution No. XVIII-2008-476 dated September 20,
the entire amount of P70,000.00 received from the client, plus legal interest of 6% per annum
2008 of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors, with the MODIFICATION
reckoned from the date of this decision until full payment.
that Atty. Romeo G. Aguilos is hereby FINED P10,000.00 for misrepresenting his professional
2. competence to the client, and REPRIMANDS him for his use of offensive and improper

20
language towards his fellow attorney, with the stern warning that a repetition of the offense act of borrowing does not constitute an exception. Respondent lawyer used his client’s jewelry
shall be severely punished. in order to obtain, and then appropriate for himself, the proceeds from the pledge. In so
doing, he had abused the trust and confidence reposed upon him by his client. That he might
The Court ORDERS Atty. Romeo G. Aguilos to RETURN to the complainant within thirty (30) have intended to subsequently pay his client the value of the jewelry is inconsequential. What
days from notice the sum of P70,000.00, plus legal interest of 6% per annum reckoned from deserves detestation was the very act of his exercising influence and persuasion over his
client in order to gain undue benefits from the latter’s property. The Court has repeatedly
the date of this decision until full payment.
emphasized that the relationship between a lawyer and his client is one imbued with trust
and confidence. And as true as any natural tendency goes, this “trust and confidence” is
Let copies of this decision be attached to the personal records of Atty. Romeo G. Aguilos as a prone to abuse. The rule against borrowing of money by a lawyer from his client is intended
member of the Philippine Bar, and be furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant, the to prevent the lawyer from taking advantage of his influence over his client. The rule
Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Office of the Court Administrator for proper presumes that the client is disadvantaged by the lawyer’s ability to use all the legal
dissemination to all courts throughout the country. maneuverings to renege on his obligation. Suffice it to say, the borrowing of money or
property from a client outside the limits laid down in the CPR is an unethical act that
warrants sanction.

SO [Link] Same; Same; As “vanguards of the law and the legal system, lawyers must at all times
conduct themselves, especially in their dealings with their clients and the public at large, with
January 19, 2016 honesty and integrity in a manner beyond reproach.”—Given the circumstances, the Court
does not harbor any doubt in favor of respondent lawyer. Obviously, his unfulfilled promise to
facilitate the redemption of the jewelry and his act of issuing a worthless check constitute
A.C. No. 10912 grave violations of the CPR and the lawyer’s oath. These shortcomings on his part have
seriously breached the highly fiduciary relationship between lawyers and clients. Specifically,
Attorneys; Disbarment; Disbarment of lawyers is a proceeding that aims to purge the law his act of issuing worthless checks patently violated Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the CPR which
profession of unworthy members of the bar.—The Court acknowledges the fact that requires that “[a] lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
respondent lawyer failed to refute the accusations against him despite the numerous conduct.” This indicates a lawyer’s unfitness for the trust and confidence reposed on him,
opportunities afforded to him to explain his side. All means were exhausted to give shows such lack of personal honesty and good moral character as to render him unworthy of
respondent lawyer a chance to oppose the charges against him but to no avail and for public confidence, and constitutes a ground for disciplinary action, and thus seriously and
reasons only for known to him. Whether respondent lawyer had personally read the orders by irreparably tarnishes the image of the profession. Such conduct, while already off-putting
the IBP-CBD or his mother failed to forward the same for his personal consideration may only when attributed to an ordinary person, is much more abhorrent when exhibited by a member
be an object of surmise in which the Court cannot indulge. “Disbarment of lawyers is a of the Bar. In this case, respondent lawyer turned his back from the promise that he once
proceeding that aims to purge the law profession of unworthy members of the bar. It is made upon admission to the Bar. As “vanguards of the law and the legal system, lawyers
intended to preserve the nobility and honor of the legal profession.” Surely, respondent must at all times conduct themselves, especially in their dealings with their clients and the
lawyer’s failure or refusal to participate in the IBP-CBD proceedings does not hinder the public at large, with honesty and integrity in a manner beyond reproach.”
Court from determining the full extent of his liability and imposing an appropriate sanction, if
any. Same; Same; Disbarment should not be decreed where any punishment less severe, such as
reprimand, suspension, or fine, would accomplish the end desired.—As to the penalty
Same; Same; Respondent lawyer used his client’s jewelry in order to obtain, and then commensurate to respondent lawyer’s actions, the Court takes heed of the guidepost provided
appropriate for himself, the proceeds from the pledge. In so doing, he had abused the trust by jurisprudence, viz.: “Disbarment should not be decreed where any punishment less severe,
and confidence reposed upon him by his client.—In the case at bench, the complaint such as reprimand, suspension, or fine, would accomplish the end desired. This is as it
stemmed from the use by respondent lawyer of his client’s property. He had, indeed, come should be considering the consequence of disbarment on the economic life and honor of the
into possession of valuable pieces of jewelry which he presented as security in a contract of erring person.” Hence, caution is called for amidst the Court’s plenary power to discipline
pledge. Complainant voluntarily and willingly delivered her jewelry worth P135,000.00 to erring lawyers. In line with prevailing jurisprudence, the Court finds it proper to impose the
respondent lawyer who meant to borrow it and pawn it thereafter. This act alone shows penalty of three-year suspension against respondent lawyer, with a stern warning that a
respondent lawyer’s blatant disregard of Rule 16.04. Complainant’s acquiescence to the repetition of any of the infractions attributed to him in this case, or any similar act, shall
“pawning” of her jewelry becomes immaterial considering that the CPR is clear in that lawyers merit a heavier penalty.
are proscribed from borrowing money or property from clients, unless the latter’s interests are
fully protected by the nature of the case or by independent advice. Here, respondent lawyer’s

21
Same; In disciplinary proceedings against lawyers, the only issue is whether the officer of the (Case No. 06-359) filed with the Metropolitan
court is still fit to be allowed to continue as a member of the Bar.—Anent the monetary Trial Court, Bacoor, Cavite
demands made by complainant, the Court reiterates the rule that in disciplinary proceedings
against lawyers, the only issue is whether the officer of the court is still fit to be allowed to Paulina T. Yu v. Pablo and Radel Gamboa for
continue as a member of the Bar. Thus, the Court is not concerned with the erring lawyer’s qualified theft/ estafa (LS. No. XV-07-INV-
P8,000.00
civil liability for money received from his client in a transaction separate, distinct, and not 116-05339) filed with the City Prosecutor of
intrinsically linked to his professional engagement. Accordingly, it cannot order respondent Manila
lawyer to make the payment for the subject jewelry he pawned, the value of which is yet to be
determined in the appropriate proceeding. Paulino T. Yu v. Roberto Tuazon et al. (Civil
Case No. LP-00-0087) filed before the P15,000.00
Regional Trial Court of Las Piñas2
Attorney’s Fees; There is a distinction between attorney’s fee and acceptance fee.—There is a
distinction between attorney’s fee and acceptance fee. It is well-settled that attorney’s fee is
understood both in its ordinary and extraordinary concept. In its ordinary sense, attorney’s On November 29, 2011, while the lawyer-client relationship was subsisting, respondent
fee refers to the reasonable compensation paid to a lawyer by his client for legal services lawyer borrowed pieces of jewelry from complainant and pledged the same with the Citystate
rendered. Meanwhile, in its extraordinary concept, attorney’s fee is awarded by the court to Savings Bank, Inc. for the amount of P29,945.50, as shown in the Promissory Note with Deed
the successful litigant to be paid by the losing party as indemnity for damages. On the other of Pledge.3 Respondent lawyer appropriated the proceeds of the pledge to his personal use. In
hand, acceptance fee refers to the charge imposed by the lawyer for merely accepting the order to facilitate the redemption of the said jewelry, respondent lawyer issued to
case. This is because once the lawyer agrees to represent a client, he is precluded from complainant, Citystate Savings Bank Check No. 0088551, dated August 31, 2011, in the
handling cases of the opposing party based on the prohibition on conflict of interest. Thus, amount of P34,500.00. Upon presentment, however, complainant was shocked to learn that
this incurs an opportunity cost by merely accepting the case of the client which is therefore the check was dishonored for the reason, "Account Closed. "4 Complainant immediately
indemnified by the payment of acceptance fee. Since the acceptance fee only seeks to notified respondent lawyer of the dishonor of the check.
compensate the lawyer for the lost opportunity, it is not measured by the nature and extent of
the legal services rendered. Yu vs. Dela Cruz, 781 SCRA 188, A.C. No. 10912 January 19,
In a letter,5 dated March 23, 2012, complainant demanded for the refund of the acceptance
2016
fees received by respondent lawyer prior to the "abandonment" of the cases and the payment
of the value of the jewelry, but to no avail.
PAULINA T. YU, Complainant,
vs.
In another letter,6 dated April 18, 2012, this time represented by another lawyer, Atty.
ATTY. BERLIN R. DELA CRUZ, Respondent.
Francisco C. Miralles, complainant yet again demanded the redemption of the check in cash
within five days from notice; the refund of the paid acceptance fees, in exchange for which no
DECISION service was rendered; the payment of the value of the pledged jewelry in the amount of
P100,000.00 in order to avoid the interests due and the possible foreclosure of the pledge;
PERCURIAM: and moral damages of P300,000.00.

Subject of this disposition is the September 28, 2014 Resolution1 of the Integrated Bar of the For his failure to heed the repeated demands, a criminal case for violation of Batas Pambansa
Philippines Board of Governors (IBP-BOG) which adopted and approved the findings and the Blg. 22 was filed with the Office of the City Prosecutor, Las Piñas City, against him.7
recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner for the disbarment of Atty. Berlin Dela
Cruz (respondent lawyer). On June 7, 2012, a verified complaint was filed with the IBP-Commission

It appears from the records that respondent lawyer agreed to represent Paulina T. Yu on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD),8 where complainant prayed for the disbarment of respondent
(complainant) in several cases after having received various amounts as acceptance fees, to lawyer on account of grave misconduct, conduct unbecoming of a lawyer and commission of
wit: acts in violation of the lawyer's oath. The IBP-CBD required respondent lawyer to submit his
answer to the complaint.9 Despite having been duly served with a copy of the complaint and
the order to file his answer, as shown in a certification10 issued by the Post Master of the Las
Case Title Acceptance Fees
Piñas Central Post Office, respondent still failed to file an answer.
People v. Tortona for attempted homicide P20,000.00

22
Respondent lawyer was likewise notified of the scheduled mandatory conference/hearing on thereafter. This act alone shows respondent lawyer's blatant disregard of Rule 16.04.
November 23, 2012, but only the complainant and her counsel appeared on the said Complainant's acquiescence to the "pawning" of her jewelry becomes immaterial considering
day.1âwphi1 The IBP-CBD then ordered the resetting of the mandatory conference for the that the CPR is clear in that lawyers are proscribed from borrowing money or property from
last time to January 11, 2013 and the personal service of the notice thereof to respondent clients, unless the latter's interests are fully protected by the nature of the case or by
lawyer's given address.11 Notwithstanding the receipt of the notice by respondent lawyer's independent advice. Here, respondent lawyer's act of borrowing does not constitute an
mother,12 he still failed to appear during the conference, prompting complainant to move for exception. Respondent lawyer used his client's jewelry in order to obtain, and then
the termination of the conference and the submission of the case for report and appropriate for himself, the proceeds from the pledge. In so doing, he had abused the trust
recommendation. and confidence reposed upon him by his client. That he might have intended to subsequently
pay his client the value of the jewelry is inconsequential. What deserves detestation was the
On June 7, 2013, the Investigating Commissioner recommended the disbarment of very act of his exercising influence and persuasion over his client in order to gain undue
respondent lawyer from the practice of law.13 Based on the evidence on record, respondent benefits from the latter's property. The Court has repeatedly emphasized that the relationship
lawyer was found to have violated Rule 16.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), between a lawyer and his client is one imbued with trust and confidence. And as true as any
which proscribed the borrowing of money from a client, unless the latter's interests were fully natural tendency goes, this "trust and confidence" is prone to abuse.22 The rule against
protected by the nature of the case or by independent advice. Worse, respondent lawyer had borrowing of money by a lawyer from his client is intended to prevent the lawyer from taking
clearly issued a worthless check in violation of law which was against Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of advantage of his influence over his client.23 The rule presumes that the client is
the CPR stating that, "[a] lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest and immoral or disadvantaged by the lawyer's ability to use all the legal maneuverings to renege on his
deceitful conduct." obligation.24 Suffice it to say, the borrowing of money or property from a client outside the
limits laid down in the CPR is an unethical act that warrants sanction.
On September 28, 2014, the IBP-BOG affirmed the said recommendation in Resolution No.
XXI-2014-698.14 Due to complainant's respect for respondent lawyer, she trusted his representation that the
subject jewelry would be redeemed upon maturity. She accepted respondent lawyer's check,
which was eventually dishonored upon presentment. Despite notice of the dishonor,
Neither a motion for reconsideration before the BOG nor a petition for review before this respondent lawyer did not take steps to remedy the situation and, on the whole, reneged on
Court was filed. Nonetheless, the IBP elevated to this Court the entire records of the case for his obligation, constraining complainant to avail of legal remedies against him.
appropriate action with the IBP Resolution being merely recommendatory and, therefore,
would not attain finality, pursuant to par. (b), Section 12, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court.15
Given the circumstances, the Court does not harbor any doubt in favor of respondent lawyer.
Obviously, his unfulfilled promise to facilitate the redemption of the jewelry and his act of
The Court acknowledges the fact that respondent lawyer failed to refute the accusations issuing a worthless check constitute grave violations of the CPR and the lawyer's oath. These
against him despite the numerous opportunities afforded to him to explain his side. All shortcomings on his part have seriously breached the highly fiduciary relationship between
means were exhausted to give respondent lawyer a chance to oppose the charges against him lawyers and clients. Specifically, his act of issuing worthless checks patently violated Rule
but to no avail and for reasons only for known to him. Whether respondent lawyer had 1.01 of Canon 1 of the CPR which requires that "[a] lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
personally read the orders by the IBP-CBD or his mother failed to forward the same for his dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct." This indicates a lawyer's unfitness for the trust and
personal consideration may only be an object of surmise in which the Court cannot indulge. confidence reposed on him, shows such lack of personal honesty and good moral character as
"Disbarment of lawyers is a proceeding that aims to purge the law profession of unworthy to render him unworthy of public confidence, and constitutes a ground for disciplinary
members of the bar. It is intended to preserve the nobility and honor of the legal action,25 and thus seriously and irreparably tarnishes the image of the profession.26 Such
profession."16 Surely, respondent lawyer's failure or refusal to participate in the IBP-CBD conduct, while already off-putting when attributed to an ordinary person, is much more
proceedings does not hinder the Court from determining the full extent of his liability and abhorrent when exhibited by a member of the Bar.27 In this case, respondent lawyer turned
imposing an appropriate sanction, if any. his back from the promise that he once made upon admission to the Bar. As "vanguards of
the law and the legal system, lawyers must at all times conduct themselves, especially in
After a judicious review of the records, the Court finds no reason to deviate from the findings their dealings with their clients and the public at large, with honesty and integrity in a
of the Investigating Commissioner with respect to respondent lawyer's violation of Canons manner beyond reproach."28
1,17 16,18 17,19 and Rules 1.01,20 16.04,21 of the CPR.
As to the penalty commensurate to respondent lawyer's actions, the Court takes heed of the
In the case at bench, the complaint stemmed from the use by respondent lawyer of his guidepost provided by jurisprudence, viz.: "Disbarment should not be decreed where any
client's property. He had, indeed, come into possession of valuable pieces of jewelry which he punishment less severe, such as reprimand, suspension, or fine, would accomplish the end
presented as security in a contract of pledge. Complainant voluntarily and willingly delivered desired. This is as it should be considering the consequence of disbarment on the economic
her jewelry worth Pl35,000.00 to respondent lawyer who meant to borrow it and pawn it life and honor of the erring person."29 Hence, caution is called for amidst the Court's plenary

23
power to discipline erring lawyers. In line with prevailing jurisprudence,30 the Court finds it WHEREFORE, finding respondent Atty. Berlin R. Dela Cruz GUILTY of violating Canons 1, 16,
proper to impose the penalty of three-year suspension against respondent lawyer, with a stem 17, and Rules 1.01 and 16.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Court hereby
warning that a repetition of any of the infractions attributed to him in this case, or any SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for THREE YEARS with a STERN WARNING that a
similar act, shall merit a heavier penalty. repetition of the same or similar act would be dealt with more severely.

Anent the monetary demands made by complainant, the Court reiterates the rule that in Let copies of this decision be furnished the Bar Confidant to be entered in the personal record
disciplinary proceedings against lawyers, the only issue is whether the officer of the court is of the respondent as a member of the Philippine Bar; the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for
still fit to be allowed to continue as a member of the Bar.31 Thus, the Court is not concerned distribution to all its chapters; and the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all
with the erring lawyer's civil liability for money received from his client in a transaction courts throughout the country.
separate, distinct, and not intrinsically linked to his professional engagement. Accordingly, it
cannot order respondent lawyer to make the payment for the subject jewelry he pawned, the SO ORDERED.
value of which is yet to be determined in the appropriate proceeding.

As to the return of acceptance fees, a clarification is in order. The Investigating Commissioner

erred in referring to them as "attorney's fees"-

As to the charge that respondent abandoned the cases he accepted after payment of
attorney's fees, this commission is not fully satisfied that the complainant was able to prove it
with substantial or clear evidence. It was not fully explained in the complaint how or in what
manner were the cases "abandoned" by the respondent; and what prejudice was caused to
the complainant. This Commission noted that not a single document or order coming from
the court of prosecutor's office was appended to the Complaint-Affidavit that would at least
apprise this body of what the respondent actually did with the cases he represented.32

There is a distinction between attorney's fee and acceptance fee. It is well-settled that
attorney's fee is understood both in its ordinary and extraordinary concept.33 In its ordinary
sense, attorney's fee refers to the reasonable compensation paid to a lawyer by his client for
legal services rendered. Meanwhile, in its extraordinary concept, attorney's fee is awarded by
the court to the successful litigant to be paid by the losing party as indemnity for damages.34
On the other hand, acceptance fee refers to the charge imposed by the lawyer for merely
accepting the case. This is because once the lawyer agrees to represent a client, he is
precluded from handling cases of the opposing party based on the prohibition on conflict of
interest. Thus, this incurs an opportunity cost by merely accepting the case of the client
which is therefore indemnified by the payment of acceptance fee. Since the acceptance fee
only seeks to compensate the lawyer for the lost opportunity, it is not measured by the nature
and extent of the legal services rendered.35

In the case at bench, the amounts of P20,000.00, P18,000.00, and P15,000.00, respectively,
were in the nature of acceptance fees for cases in which respondent lawyer agreed to
represent complainant. Despite this oversight of the Investigating Commissioner, the Court
affirms the finding that aside from her bare allegations, complainant failed to present any
evidence showing that respondent lawyer committed abandonment or neglect of duty in
handling of cases. Hence, the Court sees no legal basis for the return of the subject
acceptance fees.

24
 visible to anyone, depending on the user’s privacy settings. Belo-Henares vs. Guevarra, 811
SCRA 392, A.C. No. 11394 December 1, 2016Same; Same; Before one can have an
expectation of privacy in his or her online social networking activity — in this case, Facebook
— it is first necessary that said user manifests the intention to keep certain posts private,
through the employment of measures to prevent access thereto or to limit its visibility.—To
address concerns about privacy, but without defeating its purpose, Facebook was armed with
different privacy tools designed to regulate the accessibility of a user’s profile, as well as
information uploaded by the user. In H v. W, the South Gauteng High Court of
Johannesburg, Republic of South Africa recognized this ability of the users to “customize
their privacy settings,” but with the cautionary advice that although Facebook, as stated in
its policies, “makes every effort to protect a user’s information, these privacy settings are
however not foolproof.” Consequently,before one can have an expectation of privacy in his or
her online social networking activity — in this case, Facebook — it is first necessary that said
user manifests the intention to keep certain posts private, through the employment of
measures to prevent access thereto or to limit its visibility. This intention can materialize in
cyberspace through the utilization of Facebook’s privacy tools. In other words, utilization of
these privacy tools is the manifestation, in the cyber world, of the user’s invocation of his or
her right to informational privacy.

Same; Same; Restricting the privacy of one’s Facebook posts to “Friends” does not guarantee
absolute protection from the prying eyes of another user who does not belong to one’s circle of
friends.—Restricting the privacy of one’s Facebook posts to “Friends” does not guarantee
absolute protection from the prying eyes of another user who does not belong to one’s circle of
friends. The user’s own Facebook friend can share said content or tag his or her own
Facebook friend thereto, regardless of whether the user tagged by the latter is Facebook
friends or not with the former. Also, when the post is shared or when a person is tagged, the
respective Facebook friends of the person who shared the post or who was tagged can view
A.C. No. 11394, December 01, 2016 the post, the privacy setting of which was set at “Friends.” Under the circumstances,
therefore, respondent’s claim of violation of right to privacy is negated.
Social Media; Facebook; Words and Phrases; Facebook is a “voluntary social network to
which members subscribe and submit information. x x x It has a worldwide forum enabling Same; Same; Freedom of Expression; The constitutional right of freedom of expression may
friends to share information such as thoughts, links, and photographs, with one another.”— not be availed of to broadcast lies or half-truths, insult others, destroy their name or
Facebook is currently the most popular social media site, having surpassed one (1) billion reputation or bring them into disrepute.—Time and again, it has been held that the freedom
registered accounts and with 1.71 billion monthly active users. Social media are web-based of speech and of expression, like all constitutional freedoms, is not absolute. While the
platforms that enable online interaction and facilitate users to generate and share content. freedom of expression and the right of speech and of the press are among the most zealously
There are various classifications of social media platforms and one can be classified under the protected rights in the Constitution, every person exercising them, as the Civil Code stresses,
“social networking sites” such as Facebook. Facebook is a “voluntary social network to which is obliged to act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith. As
members subscribe and submit information. x x x It has a worldwide forum enabling friends such, the constitutional right of freedom of expression may not be availed of to broadcast lies
to share information such as thoughts, links, and photographs, with one another.” Users or half-truths, insult others, destroy their name or reputation or bring them into disrepute. A
register at this site, create a personal profile or an open book of who they are, add other users punctilious scrutiny of the Facebook remarks complained of disclosed that they were
as friends, and exchange messages, including automatic notifications when they update their ostensibly made with malice tending to insult and tarnish the reputation of complainant and
profile. A user can post a statement, a photo, or a video on Facebook, which can be made BMGI. Calling complainant a “quack doctor,” “Reyna ng Kaplastikan,” “Reyna ng Payola,” and

25
“Reyna ng Kapalpakan,” and insinuating that she has been bribing people to destroy MARIA VICTORIA G. BELO-HENARES, Complainant, v. ATTY. ROBERTO "ARGEE" C.
respondent smacks of bad faith and reveals an intention to besmirch the name and GUEVARRA, Respondent.
reputation of complainant, as well as BMGI. Respondent also ascribed criminal negligence
upon complainant and BMGI by posting that complainant disfigured (“binaboy”) his client DECISION
Norcio, labeling BMGI a “Frankenstein Factory,” and calling out a boycott of BMGI’s services
all these despite the pendency of the criminal cases that Norcio had already filed against PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
complainant. He even threatened complainant with conviction for criminal negligence and
The instant administrative case arose from a verified complaint1 for disbarment filed by
estafa — which is contrary to one’s obligation “to act with justice.”
complainant Maria Victoria G. Belo-Henares (complainant) against respondent Atty. Roberto
Same; Same; By posting the subject remarks on Facebook directed at complainant and Belo "Argee" C. Guevarra (respondent) for alleged violations of Rules 1.01 and 1.02, Canon 1; Rule
Medical Group, Inc. (BMGI), respondent disregarded the fact that, as a lawyer, he is bound to 7.03, Canon 7; Rule 8.01 of Canon 8; and Rule 19.01, Canon 19 of the Code of Professional
observe proper decorum at all times, be it in his public or private life.—By posting the subject [Link]
remarks on Facebook directed at complainant and BMGI, respondent disregarded the fact
The Facts
that, as a lawyer, he is bound to observe proper decorum at all times, be it in his public or
private life. He overlooked the fact that he must behave in a manner befitting of an officer of Complainant is the Medical Director and principal stockholder of the Belo Medical Group,
the court, that is, respectful, firm, and decent. Instead, he acted inappropriately and rudely; Inc. (BMGI), a corporation duly organized and existing under Philippine laws2 and engaged in
he used words unbecoming of an officer of the law, and conducted himself in an aggressive the specialized field of cosmetic surgery.3 On the other hand, respondent is the lawyer of a
way by hurling insults and maligning complainant’s and BMGI’s reputation. certain Ms. Josefina "Josie" Norcio (Norcio), who filed criminal cases against complainant for
an allegedly botched surgical procedure on her buttocks in 2002 and 2005, purportedly
Same; Same; That complainant is a public figure and/or a celebrity and therefore, a public
causing infection and making her ill in 2009.4
personage who is exposed to criticism does not justify respondent’s disrespectful language.—
That complainant is a public figure and/or a celebrity and therefore, a public personage who In 2009, respondent wrote a series of posts on his Facebook account, a popular online social
is exposed to criticism does not justify respondent’s disrespectful language. It is the cardinal networking site, insulting and verbally abusing complainant. His posts include the following
condition of all criticism that it shall be bona fide, and shall not spill over the walls of decency excerpts:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
and propriety. In this case, respondent’s remarks against complainant breached the said
walls, for which reason the former must be administratively sanctioned. Argee Guevarra Quack Doctor Becky Belo: I am out to get Puwitic Justice here! Kiss My
Client's Ass, Belo. Senator Adel Tamano, don't kiss Belo's ass. Guys and girls, nagiisip na
Attorneys; Legal Ethics; Lawyers may be disciplined even for any conduct committed in their akong tumakbo sa Hanghalan 2010 to Kick some ass!!! I will launch a national campaign
private capacity, as long as their misconduct reflects their want of probity or good demeanor, against Plastic Politicians No guns, No goons, No gold - IN GUTS I TRUST!
a good character being an essential qualification for the admission to th practice of law and
for continuance of such privilege.—“Lawyers may be disciplined even for any conduct Argee Guevarra Dr. Vicki Belo, watch out for Josefina Norcio's Big Bang on Friday - You
committed in their private capacity, as long as their misconduct reflects their want of probity will go down in Medical History as a QUACK DOCTOR!!!! QUACK QUACK QUACK QUACK.
or good demeanor, a good character being an essential qualification for the admission to the CNN, FOX NEWS, BLOOMBERG, CHICAGO TRIBUNE, L.A. TIMES c/o my partner in the
practice of law and for continuance of such privilege. When the Code of Professional U.S., Atty. Trixie Cruz-Angeles :) (September 22 at 11:18pm)
Responsibility or the Rules of Court speaks of conduct or misconduct, the reference is not
confined to one’s behavior exhibited in connection with the performance of lawyers’ Argee Guevarra is amused by a libel case filed by Vicki Belo against me through her office
professional duties, but also covers any misconduct, which — albeit unrelated to the actual receptionist in Taytay Rizal. Haaaaay, style-bulok at style-duwag talaga. Lalakarin ng Reyna
practice of their profession — would show them to be unfit for the office and unworthy of the ng Kaplastikan at Reyna ng Payola ang kaso... si Imelda Marcos nga sued me for P300 million
privileges which their license and the law invest in them.” Accordingly, the Court finds that pesos and ended up apologizing to me, si Belo pa kaya? (September 15 at 12:08pm)6
respondent should be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year, as
originally recommended by the IBP-CBD, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or Argee Guevarra get vicki belo as your client!!! may 'extra-legal' budget yon. Kaya lang,
similar act shall be dealt with more severely. Belo-Henares vs. Guevarra, 811 SCRA 392, A.C. histado ko na kung sino-sino ang tumatanggap eh, pag nalaman mo, baka bumagsak pa
No. 11394 December 1, 2016 isang ahensya ng gobyerno dito, hahaha (August 9 at 10:31pm)7
26
 Argee Guevarra ATTENTION MGA BATCHMATES SA DOJ: TIMBREHAN NIYO AKO KUNG Argee Guevarra Guys, pandemonium has broken loose in [BMGI's] 6 clinics after Ms. Josie
MAGKANONG PANGSUHOL NI BELO PARA MADIIN AKO HA???? I just [want] to know how Norio's tell-all. With only 2 surgeons of BMGI certified by PAPRAS, there is real-and-present
much she hates me, ok? Ang payola budget daw niya runs into tens of millions.... (September danger that surgeries like liposuction, nose lift, boob jobs which have been performed by
15 at 3:57pm)8 [BMGI's] physicians, every patient runs the risk of something going wrong with the
procedures they have undergone under [BMGI's] hands:(" (July 12 at 12:21am)16
Argee Guevarra thinks aloud how the payola machinery of vicki belo killed the news of a
picket demonstration in front of the Belo clinic. I wonder how television, print[,] and radio Argee Guevarra [T]hey perform plastic surgery procedures without licensed and trained
programs can kill the story when the next rallies will have the following numbers 100, 200, doctors, they nearly killed a client of mine, medical malpractice, use of banned
500 and 1000. Kung magkaasaran pa, 10,000 demonstrators will be assembled in front of the substances/fillers on patients. just recently, in flawless clinic, a patient who had a simple
Belo Medical Clinic at Tomas Morato on July 27, 2009. Hahahahaha! (July 17 at 7:56pm)9 facial landed in the hospital ... (August 9 at 10:04pm)17

Argee Guevarra Nakakatawa nga, 10milyon pa budget... [I] didn't know that my reputation Argee Guevarra braces for typhoon Ramil without forgetting to ask comrades and friends in
is worth that much. Aba ako kaya magdemanda sa kanila :) Ikot-ikot daw ang mga P.R. ni Cebu to greet Vicki Belo with a boycott once she visits there on Oct. 20. Cebu's royal set
Belo trying to convince editors to pin me down with something eh alam ko na wala naman already knows that she is not a certified plastic surgeon: Boycott Belo, Flawless Reckless,
akong sex video!!! Adik talaga sa botox si Aling Becky at may tama na sa utak - eh kung Belat Essentials!!!! (October 18 at 6:23pm)18
gagastos ka lang ng 10 milyon para sa tirang-pikon laban sa akin at to protect your burak na
reputasyon as a plastic surgeon, i-donate mo na lang yon sa biktima ni Ondoy, Pepeng at Argee Guevarra [W]ell, with all the kababuyan of the Belo clinic, its money-making
Ramil! Yung mga homeboys ko sa Pasig na nilimas [ni] Ondoy ang kukubra sa yo! (October machines, dapat convert them into public health clinics!!! instead of pandering to the vanities
23 at 5:31pm)10 of those who want to look like Dra. Belo. (July 11 at 2:16am)19

Argee Guevarra is inspired by Jose Norio's courageous act of showing her face on national Argee Guevarra darling kellyn, so far, i have 3 other ex-belo patients who will tell all too!!!!!
television to expose the Reyna ng Kaplastikan, Reyna ng Kapalpakan. Inspired by shock Grabe pala ang mga kapalpakan niyan. So did u leave Belo Clinic because it has become a
nevertheless by the fact that the much needed partial restoration of her behind would cost a Frankenstein Factory? (July 11 at 2:30am)20
staggering $500,000-$1,000,000 Stanford Medical Hospital and she will still remain
permanently disabled for the rest of her life... (July 11 at 2:08am)11 Argee Guevarra BOYCOTT BELO! FLAWLESS RECKLESS! BELAT ESSENTIALS!!! I'll be
gone for a week to a place where there will be no facebook so please, add Trixie Cruz-Angeles
Argee Guevarra Just got my internet connection. WILL EMAIL U THE LURID if you want to find out more about our anti-quack doctor campaign! (September 24 at
UNASSAILABLE FACTS ABOUT VICKI BELO'S QUACK DOCTORING. (October 27, 2009)12 3:00pm)21

Argee Guevarra yeah... actually the issue is simple and you will easily see which side you'll Argee Guevarra Anyone care to sponsor T-shirts bearing this slogan? - BOYCOTT BELO!
be taking- just pay Ms. Josie Norcio a visit at St. Luke's at talagang binaboy siya ng Reyna ng FLAWLESS RECKLESS! BELAT ESSENTIALS! (September 23 at 12:17arn)22
Kaplastikan (July 10 at 12:08am)13
Argee Guevarra Pare, eksena on Thursday I will go to the hearing with a placard -
The complaint further alleged that respondent posted remarks on his Facebook account that BOYCOTT BELO!!! FLAWLESS RECKLESS!!! BELAT ESSENTIALS!!! I will vote for Adel
were intended to destroy and ruin BMGI's medical personnel, as well as the entire medical Tamano (La Salle-Ateneo lower batch sa akin at mabuti ang pamilya niyan)... BUT WOULD
practice of around 300 employees for no fair or justifiable cause,14 to YOU??? (September 23 at 1:50am)23
wit:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

Argee Guevarra yup... [I'll] even throw the kitchen sink at her. Enjoy nga ito, we will
paralyze the operations of all her clinic and seek out her patients and customers to boycott Argee Guevarra advocates a national patients' boycott of the Belo Medical Group. To all my
her. [So] far, good response – 70% decrease in her July sales... (August 9 at 10:29pm)15 friends and comrades, please stay away from Belo's clinics. I have 2 cousins and 3 friends
already who have canceled their lipo from belo. Please help me shut down the Belo Medical
Group until they perform their moral and legal obligation to Ms. Josie Norcio... (July 17 at
2:12pm)24
27
Moreover, respondent, through his Facebook account, posted remarks that allegedly chanrobleslaw
threatened complainant with criminal conviction, without factual basis and without proof,25
as follows:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary Asserting that the said posts, written in vulgar and obscene language, were designed to
inspire public hatred, destroy her reputation, and to close BMGI and all its clinics, as well as
Argee Guevarra Mr. Jay, by next year- GMA will no longer be president and she will be to extort the amount of P200 Million from her as evident from his demand letter35 dated
jailed for plunder; Vicky Belo will no longer be a doctor and she will be in the middle of a August 26, 2009, complainant lodged the instant complaint for disbarment against
criminal prosecution. The General Surgeon of France will have a Philippine version. By respondent before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), docketed as CBD Case No. 09-
October and November, some congressmen I have spoken with will be issuing summons to 2551.
Vicky Belo for a congressional inquiry; the subject - legislation regulating the practice of
cosmetic surgery! (September 22 at 11:31pm)26 In defense,36 respondent claimed that the complaint was filed in violation of his
constitutionally-guaranteed right to privacy,37 asserting that the posts quoted by
Argee Guevarra Celso de1os Angeles can still get medical attention in prison - from Vicky complainant were private remarks on his private account on Facebook, meant to be shared
Belo after she gets convicted too for criminal negligence and estafa (July 15 at 10:05am)27 only with his circle of friends of which complainant was not a part.38 He also averred that he
wrote the posts in the exercise of his freedom of speech, and contended that the complaint
Argee Guevarra is preparing himself for a campaign against the Belo Medical Group for its was filed to derail the criminal cases that his client, Norcio, had filed against complainant.39
criminal negligence which nearly killed Ms. Josie Norcio over a botched butt augmentation He denied that the remarks were vulgar and obscene, and that he made them in order to
procedure. He found out that the Dr. Belo herself marketed the product to Ms. Norcio, the inspire public hatred against complainant.40 He likewise denied that he attempted to extort
operation was carried out by her doctors who were not licensed by the Philippine Association money from her, explaining that he sent the demand letter as a requirement prior to the filing
of Plastic Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons.............. (July 9 at 8:54pm)28 of the criminal case for estafa, as well as the civil case for damages against her. 41 Finally,
respondent pointed out that complainant was a public figure who is, therefore, the subject of
Complainant likewise averred that some of respondent's Facebook posts were sexist, vulgar, fair comment.42
and disrespectful of women,29 to wit:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
After the mandatory conference had been terminated,43 the parties were directed to file their
Argee Guevarra but can u help me too with maricar reyes? who's the hottest cebuana chic respective position papers.44 Thereafter, the IBP, through the Commission on Bar Discipline
chick there nowadays? haven't been there for quite some time... pa-chicks ka naman!!! I'm (CBD), set the case for clarificatory hearing.45 Upon termination thereof, the case was
sure marami kang 25-and-below naprends diyan (August 10 at 8:36pm)30 deemed submitted for report/recommendation.46
Argee Guevarra hay joseph!!! how's the gayest lawyer in cebu? our forces will soon picket IBP's Report and Recommendation
the belo clinic there, can u tell me where that is? halato ko na sayo si hayden, promise!"
(August 10 at 12:23am)31 In its Report and Recommendation47 dated August 13, 2013, the IBP-CBD recommended
that respondent be suspended for a period of one (1) year from the practice of law, with a
Argee Guevarra joseph, i can't say i love u too - baka belo's team will use all sorts of stem warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.48
attacks na against me. to thwart them, being the gayest gay in the philippines, can u issue a It held respondent liable for violation of Rule 7.03,49 Rule 8.01,50 and Rule 19.0151 of the
certification that i am so not like your type? at yung preferred ko lang ay thin, thalino and Code of Professional Responsibility for having posted the above-quoted remarks on his
thisay? (September 23 at 12:01am)32 Facebook account, pointing out that respondent cannot invoke the "private" nature of his
posts, considering that he had at least 2,000 "friends" who can read and react thereto.
Finally, complainant averred that the attacks against her were made with the object to extort
Moreover, the IBP-CBD maintained that the criminal cases he had filed against complainant
money from her, as apparent from the following reply made by respondent on a comment on
on behalf of Norcio had been dismissed for insufficient evidence; therefore, he can no longer
his Facebook post:33chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
campaign against complainant whose alleged crimes against Norcio had not been
Kellyn Conde Sy utang mo! Pay up time:) (July 11 at 2:37am) established.52

Argee Guevarra kellyn, sisingilin ko muna si belo... at saka sabi mo naman, maibagsak ko In a Resolution53 dated September 27, 2014, the IBP Board of Governors resolved to adopt
lang ang kaplastikan ni belo, quits na tayo ...(July 11 at 2:38am)34 and approve the August 13, 2013 Report and Recommendation of the IBP-CBD

28
Respondent moved for reconsideration,54 arguing that there was no specific act attributed to information uploaded by the user. In H v. W,63 the South Gauteng High Court of
him that would warrant his suspension from the practice of law. He also averred that the libel Johannesburg, Republic of South Africa recognized this ability of the users to "customize
cases filed against him by an employee of BMGI had already been dismissed, without their privacy settings," but with the cautionary advice that although Facebook, as stated in its
prejudice, for lack of jurisdiction.55 policies, "makes every effort to protect a user's information, these privacy settings are
however not foolproof."64
In a Resolution56 dated October 28, 2015, the IBP Board of Governors partially granted
respondent's motion, reducing the penalty from one (1) year to six (6) months Consequently, before one can have an expectation of privacy in his or her online social
[Link] networking activity - in this case, Facebook - it is first necessary that said user manifests the
intention to keep certain posts private, through the employment of measures to prevent
The Issue Before the Court access thereto or to limit its visibility. This intention can materialize in cyberspace through
the utilization of Facebook's privacy tools. In other words, utilization of these privacy tools is
The sole issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not respondent should be held the manifestation, in the cyber world, of the user's invocation of his or her right to
administratively liable based on the allegations of the verified informational privacy.65
[Link]
The bases of the instant complaint are the Facebook posts maligning and insulting
The Court's Ruling complainant, which posts respondent insists were set to private view. However, the latter has
failed to offer evidence that he utilized any of the privacy tools or features of Facebook
The Court has examined the records of this case and concurs with the IBP's findings, except
available to him to protect his posts, or that he restricted its privacy to a select few. Therefore,
as to the penalty imposed on respondent.
without any positive evidence to corroborate his statement that the subject posts, as well as
At the outset, the Court notes that respondent never denied that he posted the purportedly the comments thereto, were visible only to him and his circle of friends, respondent's
vulgar and obscene remarks about complainant and BMGI on his Facebook account. In statement is, at best, self-serving, thus deserving scant consideration.66
defense, however, he invokes his right to privacy, claiming that they were "private remarks"
Moreover, even if the Court were to accept respondent's allegation that his posts were limited
on his "private account"57 that can only be viewed by his circle of friends. Thus, when
to or viewable by his "Friends" only, there is no assurance that the same - or other digital
complainant accessed the same, she violated his constitutionally guaranteed right to privacy.
content that he uploads or publishes on his Facebook profile - will be safeguarded as within
The defense is untenable. the confines of privacy, in light of the following:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

Facebook is currently the most popular social media site, having surpassed one (1) billion (1)
registered accounts and with 1.71 billion monthly active users.58 Social media are web-based
Facebook "allows the world to be more open and connected by giving its users the tools to
platforms that enable online interaction and facilitate users to generate and share content.
interact and share in any conceivable way";
There are various classifications59 of social media platforms and one can be classified under
the "social networking sites" such as Facebook.60 (2)
Facebook is a "voluntary social network to which members subscribe and submit A good number of Facebook users "befriend" other users who are total strangers;
information. x x x It has a worldwide forum enabling friends to share information such as
thoughts, links, and photographs, with one another."61 Users register at this site, create a (3)
personal profile or an open book of who they are, add other users as friends, and exchange
messages, including automatic notifications when they update their profile. A user can post a The sheer number of "Friends" one user has, usually by the hundreds; and
statement, a photo, or a video on Facebook, which can be made visible to anyone, depending
on the user's privacy settings.62 (4)

To address concerns about privacy, but without defeating its purpose, Facebook was armed
with different privacy tools designed to regulate the accessibility of a user's profile, as well as
29
 A user's Facebook friend can "share" the former's post, or "tag" others who are not Facebook posts are, therefore, in complete and utter violation of the following provisions in
Facebook friends with the former, despite its being visible only to his or her own Facebook the Code of Professional Responsibility:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
friends.67
Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to
chanrobleslaw practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to
the discredit of the legal profession.
Thus, restricting the privacy of one's Facebook posts to "Friends" does not guarantee absolute
protection from the prying eyes of another user who does not belong to one's circle of friends. Rule 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive,
The user's own Facebook friend can share said content or tag his or her own Facebook friend offensive or otherwise improper.
thereto, regardless of whether the user tagged by the latter is Facebook friends or not with
the former. Also, when the post is shared or when a person is tagged, the respective Facebook Rule 19.01 - A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful
friends of the person who shared the post or who was tagged can view the post, the privacy objectives of his client and shall not present, participate in presenting or threaten to present
setting of which was set at "Friends."68 Under the circumstances, therefore, respondent's unfounded criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage in any case or proceeding.
claim of violation of right to privacy is negated.
chanrobleslaw
Neither can the Court accept the argument that the subject remarks were written in the
exercise of his freedom of speech and expression. By posting the subject remarks on Facebook directed at complainant and BMGI, respondent
disregarded the fact that, as a lawyer, he is bound to observe proper decorum at all times, be
Time and again, it has been held that the freedom of speech and of expression, like all it in his public or private life. He overlooked the fact that he must behave in a manner
constitutional freedoms, is not absolute.69 While the freedom of expression and the right of befitting of an officer of the court, that is, respectful, firm, and decent. Instead, he acted
speech and of the press are among the most zealously protected rights in the Constitution, inappropriately and rudely; he used words unbecoming of an officer of the law, and
every person exercising them, as the Civil Code stresses, is obliged to act with justice, give conducted himself in an aggressive way by hurling insults and maligning complainant's and
everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.70 As such, the constitutional right of BMGI's reputation.
freedom of expression may not be availed of to broadcast lies or half-truths, insult others,
destroy their name or reputation or bring them into disrepute.71 That complainant is a public figure and/or a celebrity and therefore, a public personage who
is exposed to criticism72 does not justify respondent's disrespectful language. It is the
cardinal condition of all criticism that it shall be bona fide, and shall not spill over the walls
of decency and propriety.73 In this case, respondent's remarks against complainant breached
A punctilious scrutiny of the Facebook remarks complained of disclosed that they were the said walls, for which reason the former must be administratively sanctioned.
ostensibly made with malice tending to insult and tarnish the reputation of complainant and
BMGI. Calling complainant a "quack doctor," "Reyna ng Kaplastikan," "Reyna ng Payola," and "Lawyers may be disciplined even for any conduct committed in their private capacity, as long
"Reyna ng Kapalpakan," and insinuating that she has been bribing people to destroy as their misconduct reflects their want of probity or good demeanor, a good character being
respondent smacks of bad faith and reveals an intention to besmirch the name and an essential qualification for the admission to the practice of law and for continuance of such
reputation of complainant, as well as BMGI. Respondent also ascribed criminal negligence privilege. When the Code of Professional Responsibility or the Rules of Court speaks of
upon complainant and BMGI by posting that complainant disfigured ("binaboy") his client conduct or misconduct, the reference is not confined to one's behavior exhibited in
Norcio, labeling BMGI a "Frankenstein Factory," and calling out a boycott of BMGI's services connection with the performance of lawyers' professional duties, but also covers any
all these despite the pendency of the criminal cases that Norcio had already filed against misconduct, which—albeit unrelated to the actual practice of their profession—would show
complainant. He even threatened complainant with conviction for criminal negligence and them to be unfit for the office and unworthy of the privileges which their license and the law
estafa which is contrary to one's obligation "to act with justice."· invest in them."74 Accordingly, the Court finds that respondent should be suspended from
the practice of law for a period of one (1) year, as originally recommended by the IBP-CBD,
In view of the foregoing, respondent's inappropriate and obscene language, and his act of with a stem warning that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more
publicly insulting and undermining the reputation of complainant through the subject severely.

30
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Roberto "Argee" C. Guevarra is found guilty of violation of subjective term but one which corresponds to objective reality.” Such requirement has four
Rules 7.03, 8.01, and 19.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is hereby (4) ostensible purposes, namely: (a) to protect the public; (b) to protect the public image of
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year, effective upon his receipt of lawyers; (c) to protect prospective clients; and (d) to protect errant lawyers from themselves.
this Decision, and is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be
dealt with more [Link] a copy of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar Same; Same; Same; Lawyers are expected to abide by the tenets of morality, not only upon
Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and the Office of the Court Administrator for admission to the Bar but also throughout their legal career, in order to maintain their good
circulation to all the [Link] ORDERED. standing in this exclusive and honored fraternity.—Verily, lawyers are expected to abide by
the tenets of morality, not only upon admission to the Bar but also throughout their legal
career, in order to maintain their good standing in this exclusive and honored fraternity. They
may be suspended from the practice of law or disbarred for any misconduct, even if it
pertains to his private activities, as long as it shows him to be wanting in moral character,
honesty, probity or good demeanor.

Same; Same; Same; It has been established that respondent habitually watches pornographic
materials in his office-issued laptop while inside the office premises, during office hours, and
with the knowledge and full view of his staff. Obviously, the Supreme Court (SC) cannot
countenance such audacious display of depravity on respondent’s part not only because his
obscene habit tarnishes the reputation of the government agency he works for — the Civil
Aviation Authority of the Philippines (CAAP) where he was engaged at that time as Acting
Corporate Secretary — but also because it shrouds the legal profession in a negative light.—
Without a doubt, it has been established that respondent habitually watches pornographic
materials in his office-issued laptop while inside the office premises, during office hours, and
with the knowledge and full view of his staff. Obviously, the Court cannot countenance such
audacious display of depravity on respondent’s part not only because his obscene habit
tarnishes the reputation of the government agency he works for — the CAAP where he was
engaged at that time as Acting Corporate Secretary — but also because it shrouds the legal
profession in a negative light. As a lawyer in the government service, respondent is expected
to perform and discharge his duties with the highest degree of excellence, professionalism,
intelligence, and skill, and with utmost devotion and dedication to duty. However, his
aforesaid habit miserably fails to showcase these standards, and instead, displays sheer
unprofessionalism and utter lack of respect to the government position he was entrusted to
hold. His flimsy excuse that he only does so by himself and that he would immediately close
his laptop whenever anyone would pass by or come near his table is of no moment, because
the lewdness of his actions, within the setting of this case, remains. The legal profession —
EN BANC much more an engagement in the public service should always be held in high esteem, and
those who belong within its ranks should be unwavering exemplars of integrity and
A.C. No. 8560, September 06, 2016 professionalism. As keepers of the public faith, lawyers, such as respondent, are burdened
with a high degree of social responsibility and, hence, must handle their personal affairs with
Attorneys; Legal Ethics; Good Moral Character; Good moral character is a trait that every greater caution. Indeed, those who have taken the oath to assist in the dispensation of justice
practicing lawyer is required to possess. Good moral character is a trait that every practicing should be more possessed of the consciousness and the will to overcome the weakness of the
lawyer is required to possess. It may be defined as “what a person really is, as distinguished flesh, as respondent in this case.
from good reputation, or from the opinion generally entertained of him, or the estimate in
which he is held by the public in the place where he is known. Moral character is not a
31
Administrative Proceedings; Evidence; Substantial Evidence; In administrative proceedings, reprimand to disbarment. In Advincula v. Macabata, 517 SCRA 600 (2007), the lawyer was
the quantum of proof necessary for a finding of guilt is substantial evidence, i.e., that amount reprimanded for his distasteful act of suddenly turning the head of his female client towards
of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a him and kissing her on the lips. In De Leon v. Pedreña, 708 SCRA 13 (2013), the lawyer was
conclusion.—Based on a survey of cases, the recent ruling on the matter is Cabas v. Sususco, suspended from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years for rubbing the female
793 SCRA 309 (2016), which was promulgated just this June 15, 2016. In the said case, it complainant’s right leg with his hand, trying to insert his finger into her firmly closed hand,
was pronounced that: In administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof necessary for a grabbing her hand and forcibly placed it on his crotch area, and pressing his finger against
finding of guilt is substantial evidence, i.e., that amount of relevant evidence that a her private part. While in Guevarra v. Eala, 529 SCRA 1 (2007), and Valdez v. Dabon, Jr., 775
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Further, the complainant SCRA 1 (2015), the Court meted the extreme penalty of disbarment on the erring lawyers who
has the burden of proving by substantial evidence the allegations in his complaint. The basic engaged in extramarital affairs. Here, respondent exhibited his immoral behavior through his
rule is that mere allegation is not evidence and is not equivalent to proof. Charges based on habitual watching of pornographic materials while in the office and his acts of sexual
mere suspicion and speculation likewise cannot be given credence. (Emphasis supplied) harassment against complainant. Considering the circumstances of this case, the Court
Accordingly, this more recent pronouncement ought to control and therefore, quell any deems it proper to impose upon respondent the penalty of suspension from the practice of
further confusion on the proper evidentiary threshold to be applied in administrative cases law for a period of two (2) years. Reyes vs. Nieva, 802 SCRA 196, A.C. No. 8560 September 6,
against lawyers. 2016

Attorneys; Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui generis. Neither purely civil nor CARRIE-ANNE SHALEEN CARLYLE S. REYES, Complainant, v. ATTY. RAMON F. NIEVA,
purely criminal, they do not involve a trial of an action or a suit, but is rather an investigation Respondent.
by the Supreme Court (SC) into the conduct of one of its officers. Not being intended to inflict
punishment, it is in no sense a criminal prosecution.—The evidentiary threshold of DECISION
substantial evidence — as opposed to preponderance of evidence — is more in keeping with
the primordial purpose of and essential considerations attending this type of cases. As case PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
law elucidates, “[d]isciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui generis. Neither purely civil
For the Court's resolution is the Complaint1 dated March 3, 2010 filed by complainant
nor purely criminal, they do not involve a trial of an action or a suit, but is rather an
Carrie-Anne Shaleen Carlyle S. Reyes (complainant) against respondent Atty. Ramon F. Nieva
investigation by the Court into the conduct of one of its officers. Not being intended to inflict
(respondent), praying that the latter be disbarred for sexually harassing her.
punishment, it is in no sense a criminal prosecution. Accordingly, there is neither a plaintiff
nor a prosecutor therein. It may be initiated by the Court motu proprio. Public interest is its
primary objective, and the real question for determination is whether or not the attorney is
The Facts
still a fit person to be allowed the privileges as such. Hence, in the exercise of its disciplinary
powers, the Court merely calls upon a member of the Bar to account for his actuations as an
Complainant alleged that she has been working at the Civil Aviation Authority of the
officer of the Court with the end in view of preserving the purity of the legal profession and
Philippines (CAAP) as an Administrative Aide on a Job Order basis since October 2004.
the proper and honest administration of justice by purging the profession of members who by
Sometime in January 2009, she was re¬assigned at the CAAP Office of the Board Secretary
their misconduct have proved themselves no longer worthy to be entrusted with the duties
under the supervision of respondent, who was then acting as CAAP Acting Board Secretary.
and responsibilities pertaining to the office of an attorney. In such posture, there can thus be
During complainant's stint under respondent, she would notice that during office hours,
no occasion to speak of a complainant or a prosecutor.”
respondent would often watch "pampagana" videos saved in his office laptop, all of which
turned out to be pornographic films. Complainant also averred that whenever respondent got
Same; Good Moral Character; Sexual Harassment; Watching Pornographic Materials;
close to her, he would hold her hand and would sometimes give it a kiss. During these
Penalties; Suspension from Practice of Law; Respondent exhibited his immoral behavior
instances, complainant would remove her hands and tell him to desist. According to
through his habitual watching of pornographic materials while in the office and his acts of
complainant, respondent even offered her a cellular phone together with the necessary load to
sexual harassment against complainant. Considering the circumstances of this case, the
serve as means for their private communication, but she refused the said offer, insisting that
Court deems it proper to impose upon respondent the penalty of suspension from the practice
she already has her own cellular phone and does not need another one.2
of law for a period of two (2) years.—Jurisprudence provides that in similar administrative
cases where the lawyer exhibited immoral conduct, the Court meted penalties ranging from

32
Complainant also narrated that at about 5 o'clock in the afternoon of April 1, 2009, he need one for any urgent matter that would arise;12 and (e) he would not do the acts he
respondent texted her to wait for him at the office. Fearing that respondent might take allegedly committed on April 2, 2009 as there were other people in the office and that those
advantage of her, complainant convinced two (2) of her officemates to accompany her until people can attest in his favor.13 Respondent then pointed out that the administrative case
respondent arrived. Upon respondent's arrival and seeing that complainant had companions, filed against him before the CODI was already dismissed for lack of basis and that
he just told complainant and the other two (2) office staff to lock the door when complainant was only being used by other CAAP employees who were agitated by the reforms
he helped implement upon his assumption as CAAP consultant and eventually as Acting
they leave.3 Corporate Board Secretary.14

Complainant further recounted that on the following day, April 2, 2009, respondent called her The IBP's Report and Recommendation
on her cellular phone, asked if she received his text message, and told her he would tell her
something upon his arrival at the office. At about 9:30 in the morning of even date, In a Report and Recommendation15 dated August 14, 2012, the Integrated Bar of the
respondent asked complainant to encode a memorandum he was about to dictate. Suddenly, Philippines (IBP) Investigating Commissioner recommended the dismissal of the instant
respondent placed his hand on complainant's waist area near her breast and started administrative complaint against respondent.16 He found that complainant failed to
caressing the latter's torso. Complainant immediately moved away from respondent and told substantiate her allegations against respondent, as opposed to respondent's defenses which
him "sumosobra na ho kayo sir." Instead of asking for an apology, respondent told are ably supported by evidence. Citing respondent's evidence, the Investigating Commissioner
complainant he was willing to give her P2,000.00 a month from his own pocket and even gave opined that since the CAAP Office of the Board Secretary was very small, it is implausible that
her a note stating "just bet (between) you and me, x x x kahit na si mommy," referring to a startling occurrence such as an attempted sexual molestation would not be noticed by not
complainant's mother who was also working at CAAP. At around past 11 o'clock in the only the other occupants of said office area, but also by those occupying the office adjacent to
morning of the same day, while complainant and respondent were left alone in the office, it, i.e., the CAAP Operations Center, which is separated only by glass panels. Further, the
respondent suddenly closed the door, grabbed complainant's arm, and uttered "let's seal it Investigating Commissioner drew attention to the investigation conducted by the CODI
with a kiss," then attempted to kiss complainant. This prompted complainant to thwart showing that the collective sworn statements of the witnesses point to the eventual
respondent's advances with her left arm, raised her voice in order to invite help, and conclusion that none of the alleged acts of misconduct attributed to respondent really
exclaimed "wag naman kayo ganyan sir, yung asawa nyo magagalit, sir may asawa ako." After occurred.17
respondent let her go, complainant immediately left the office to ask assistance from her
former supervisor who advised her to file an administrative case4 against respondent before In a Resolution18 dated May 10, 2013, the IBP Board of Governors (IBP Board) unanimously
the CAAP Committee on Decorum and Investigation (CODI).5 reversed the aforesaid Report and Recommendation. As such, respondent was found guilty of
committing sexual advances, and accordingly, recommended that he be suspended from the
Finally, complainant alleged that after her ordeal with respondent, she was traumatized and practice of law for three (3) months.
was even diagnosed by a psychiatrist to be suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder with
recurrent major depression.6 Eventually, complainant filed the instant complaint. In view of respondent's Motion for Reconsideration,19 the IBP Board referred the case to the
IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) for study, evaluation, and submission of an
In his defense,7 respondent denied all of complainant's allegations. He maintained that as a Executive Summary to the IBP Board.20
79-year old retiree who only took a position at the CAAP on a consultancy basis, it was very
unlikely for him to do the acts imputed against him, especially in a very small office space In the Director's Report21 dated July 8, 2014, the IBP-CBD National Director recommended
allotted for him and his staff. In this regard, he referred to his Counter-Affidavit8 submitted that the current IBP Board adhere to the report and recommendation of the Investigating
before the CODI, wherein he explained, inter alia, that: (a) while he indeed watches Commissioner as it is supported by the evidence on record; on the other hand, the reversal
"interesting shows" in his office laptop, he never invited anyone, including complainant, to made by the previous IBP Board is bereft of any factual and legal bases, and should therefore,
watch with him and that he would even close his laptop whenever someone comes near him;9 be set aside. In this light, the current IBP Board issued a Resolution22 dated August 10,
(b) he never held and kissed complainant's hand because if he had done so, he would have 2014 setting aside the previous IBP Board's Resolution, and accordingly, dismissed the
been easily noticed by complainant's co-staffers;10 (c) he did offer her a cellular phone, but administrative complaint against respondent.
this was supposed to be an office phone which should not be used for personal purposes, and
thus, could not be given any sexual meaning;11 (d) he did tell complainant to wait for him in The Issue Before the Court
the afternoon of April 1, 2009, but only for the purpose of having an available encoder should
33
The essential issue in this case is whether or not respondent should be held administratively Their exalted positions as officers of the court demand no less than the highest degree of
liable for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). morality.

The Court's Ruling The Court explained in Arnobit v. Atty. Arnobit that "as officers of the court, lawyers must not
only in fact be of good moral character but must also be seen to be of good moral character
Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the CPR provides: and leading lives in accordance with the highest moral standards of the community. A
member of the bar and an officer of the court is not only required to refrain from adulterous
CANON 1 - A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote relationships or keeping a mistress but must also behave himself so as to avoid scandalizing
respect for law and legal processes. the public by creating the impression that he is flouting those moral standards."
Consequently, any errant behavior of the lawyer, be it in his public or private activities, which
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
tends to show deficiency in moral character, honesty, probity or good demeanor, is sufficient
The provision instructs that "[a]s officers of the court, lawyers are bound to maintain not only to warrant suspension or disbarment.27 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
a high standard of legal proficiency, but also of morality, honesty, integrity, and fair
Verily, lawyers are expected to abide by the tenets of morality, not only upon admission to the
dealing."23
Bar but also throughout their legal career, in order to maintain their good standing in this
In similar light, Rule 7.03, Canon 7 of the CPR states: exclusive and honored fraternity. They may be suspended from the practice of law or
disbarred for any misconduct, even if it pertains to his private activities, as long as it shows
CANON 7 - A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession him to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity or good demeanor.28
and support the activities of the Integrated Bar.
After due consideration, the Court reverses the findings and recommendations of the IBP, and
xxxx finds respondent administratively liable for violations of the CPR, as will be explained
hereunder.
Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to
practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to To recapitulate, the IBP found that as compared to complainant's purposedly bare and
the discredit of the legal profession. uncorroborated allegations, respondent's evidence point to the conclusion that none of the
alleged sexual advances made by respondent against complainant actually occurred. As such,
Good moral character is a trait that every practicing lawyer is required to possess. It may be it absolved respondent from any administrative liability. In support of such finding, the IBP
defined as "what a person really is, as distinguished from good reputation, or from the largely relied on the following: (a) the five (5) photographs29 respondent submitted to the
opinion generally entertained of him, or the estimate in which he is held by the public in the CODI to show that respondent's office space was so small that any commotion caused by a
place where he is known. Moral character is not a subjective term but one which corresponds sexual harassment attempt would have been easily noticed by the other occupants thereof;30
to objective reality."24 Such requirement has four (4) ostensible purposes, namely: (a) to and (b) the investigation conducted by the CODI per the Transcript31 submitted by
protect the public; (b) to protect the public image of lawyers; (c) to protect prospective clients; respondent where the witnesses said that they did not notice anything out of the ordinary on
and (d) to protect errant lawyers from themselves.25 April 2, 2009, the date when respondent's alleged sexual advances against complainant were
committed.32 However, the foregoing evidence, taken as a whole, did not actually refute
In Valdez v. Dabon,26 the Court emphasized that a lawyer's continued possession of good complainant's allegation that at around past 11 o'clock in the morning of April 2, 2009,
moral character is a requisite condition to remain a member of the Bar, viz.: respondent closed the door, grabbed complainant's right arm, uttered the words "let's seal it
with a kiss" and attempted to kiss complainant despite the latter's resistance.
Lawyers have been repeatedly reminded by the Court that possession of good moral character
is both a condition precedent and a continuing requirement to warrant admission to the Bar A careful perusal of the aforesaid Transcript shows that at around past 11 o'clock in the
and to retain membership in the legal profession. This proceeds from the lawyer's bounden morning of April 2, 2009, there was a time that complainant and respondent were indeed left
duty to observe the highest degree of morality in order to safeguard the Bar's integrity, and alone in the office:
the legal profession exacts from its members nothing less. Lawyers are called upon to Mr. Mendoza: Ngayon, puwede mo bang idescribe sa amin nung 9:30 to 11:00 sinu-sino kayo
safeguard the integrity of the Bar, free from misdeeds and acts constitutive of malpractice. doon?

34
Witness 1: Tatlo (3) lang kami sir po dun. Si Ma'am Carrie Anne [complainant], si sir Nieva Witness 4: Andun po sa ORCC [CAAP Operations Center].
[respondent] tsaka aka po.
Mr. Borja: Si ano naman Donna [Witness 5] ganun din? Kasi sinasabi dito noong bandang
Mr. Mendoza: So ikaw lang ang witness, ang taong naroon 9:30 to 11? ganung oras past eleven (11) parang nag-advance yata si Atty. Nieva [respondent] kay Ms.
Reyes (Caan) [complainant] ngayon nung chinachansingan siya parang ganun ang dating eh
Witness 1: Yes sir. "Iraised up my voice also, so that the OPCEN personnel will hear of the alarm" may narinig ba
Mr. Mendoza: Saan kayo kumakain ng lunch? kayo na sumigaw siya?
Witness 1: Sa loob po kami naglulunch.
Mr. Mendoza: Pag nag-order ng pagkain minsan may natitira pa bang iba? Witness 4: Eh kasi sir wala pong braket yun yung time na ano yung RPCC 764 so nag-
Witness 1: Itong po yung dalawa yung natira nung umalis po aka. Um... pagbalik ko po wala cocoordinate kami...
na po si Ma'am Caan [complainant] si Ma'am Amy nalang po ang nandoon.
Mr. Mendoza: So siya [complainant] nalang at tsaka si Atty. Nieva [respondent] ang naiwan Mr. Borja: Ano yung 764?
doon sa room? Eh nasaan na yung ibang OJT pa?
Witness 1: Tatlo lang po kasi kami nun sir, nasa Land Bank po yung dalawa. Witness 4: Yung sa Tuguegarao yung nawawala siya so may alerfa tapos ditressfa so intransi
Mr. Mendoza: So nasa Land Bank sila. So totoong may nangyari na naiwan silang dalawa po kami... opo...
[complainant and respondent] na time na silang dalawa lang ang naiwan sa kuwarto?
Mr. Borja: So busing-busy ka sa telepono?
Witness 1: Opo nung mga quarter to 12 siguro po nun.
Witness 4: Opo lahat kami.
Mr. Mendoza: Ilang beses na may nangyayaring ganun na silang naiiwan doon sa kuwarto?
Mr. Borja: Pati ikaw?
Witness 1: Yun lang po kasi yung natatandaan ko po sir na time na naiwan sila eh.
Witness 5: Opo.
xxxx
Mr. Borja: Sinong walang ginagawa nun?
Mr. Abesamis: Umalis ka sa room para bumili ng pagkain nandoon si Atty. Nieva
[respondent]? Witness 4: Wala kasi kanya-kanya kami ng coordination lahat kami nasa telepono.

Witness 1: Andoon pa po silang dalawa [complainant and respondent]. Pero tapos na po Mr. Borja: Kaya kapag kumakalampag yung pader [sa] kabila hindi niyo maririnig?
silang magtype nun tas nag decide na maglunch na eh.
Witness 4: Hindi siguro sir kasi kung nakasara din sila ng pinto tapos kanya-kanya kaming
Mr. Abesamis: Saan? Sino ang naiwan? may kausap sa telepono eh.

Witness 1: Dalawa pa lang sila sir pagbalik ko tatlo na sila pero wala naman po si Ma'am Mr. Borja: Kung hindi kayo nakikipag-usap ngayon wala kayong ginagawa, narinig niyo ang
Caan [complainant]. Nung umalis po ako si sir Nieva [respondent] tsaka si Ma'am Caan yung usapan doon sa kabila.
nandoon then pagbalik ko po wala na si Ma'am Caan, si sir Nieva tsaka silang dalawa na po
yung nandoon. Witness 5: Yes sir.

Mr. Abesamis: Ok. So wala na silang kasamang iba? Atty. Gloria: Lalo na pag malakas.

Witness 1: Opo.33 Mr. Borja: Pag malakas pero therein normal voice lang level.
The same Transcript also reveals that the CODI interviewed the occupants of the adjacent
office, i.e., the CAAP Operations Center, which, according to the IBP Investigating Witness 4: Kasi minsan malakas din yung radio nila eh. Kung minsan kasi sir may mga
Commissioner, was only separated from complainant and respondent's office, i.e. the CAAP music sila. Eto sir yung time na kinuha... Dami nila eh... Lumabas nakita naming mga ano
Office of the Board Secretary, by glass panels. Pertinent parts of the interview read: mga 10:45 na yan nabasa sir.
Mr. Borja: Nung oras ng mga alas onse (11) pagitan ng alas onse (11) hanggang alas dose
(12), nasaan ka joy [Witness 4]? Mr. Borja: Pero ang pinag-uusapan natin lagpas ng alas onse (11) ha bago mag-alas dose (12)
ang pinaka latest message mo dito 02/03/06 11:06. So between 11:06 to 12 wala kayong...

35
 Witness 4: Busy kami.
Witness 4: Kasi nakikipag-coordination talaga kami kahit... kami lang nandoon sa telepono.
Mr. Abesamis: Hindi makikilatis yung ano...
Mr. Borja: Written pero voice coordination niyo sa telepono kayo?
Witness 4: Kasi may time na sumigaw na babae nga pero kala lang namin ah...
Witness 4: Tsaka naka log-in sa log book.
Mr. Abesamis: Nung date na iyon o hindi?
xxxx
Witness 4: Hindi, hindi pa sigurado eh kasi...
Mr. Abesamis: Ma'am Joy [Witness 4] sabi niyo kanina naririnig niyo si sir [respondent] sa
kabila kung wala kayong kausap lalong-lalo na kapag malakas yung salita? Mr. Abesarnis: Hindi yung date bang iyon ang sinasabi mo?

Witness 4: Opo. Witness 4: Hindi kasi busy talaga kami sa coordination nung ano eh nung time na iyon.
Nasabay kasi eh nung time na iyon hinahanap pa namin yung requirement.
Mr. Abesamis: So ibig sabihin kahit hindi malakas may possibility na maririnig niyo yung
usapan kung walang radio? Siguro if intelligible or knowledgeable pero maririnig mo sa Mr. Mendoza: Pero bago yung bago mag April 2, meron ba kayo na tuligan na nag-aanuhan
kabila? ng ganun, nagrereklamo tungkol kay Atty. Nieva [respondent], wala? May narinig kayong
movie na parang sounding na porno ganun?
Witness 4: Kung mahina o normal yung usapan?
Witness 4: Wala music lang talaga sir.
Mr. Abesarnis: Normal na usapan, conversation.
Mr. Mendoza: So music.
Witness 4: Hindi siguro pag sarado sila.
Witness 4: Kung minsan kasi binubuksan nila yung door pag mainit yung kuwarto nila.
Mr. Abesamis: Pero kung halimbawa sisigaw?
Mr. Borja: At that time hindi bukas iyon?
Witness 4: Maririnig siguro kasi kapag nagdidictate si Attorney [respondent] minsan naririnig
namin. Witness 4: Kami ano eh may cover ng ano cartolina na white.

Mr. Mendoza: Maski sarado yung pinto? Mr. Borja: Makakatestify lang kayo sa audio eh, kasi wala kayong nakikita.34
The above-cited excerpts of the Transcript show that at around past 11 o'clock in the morning
Witness 4: Ah opo. of April 2, 2009, complainant and respondent were left alone in the CAAP Office of the Board
Secretary as complainant's officemates were all out on errands. In this regard, it was error on
Mr. Mendoza: Naririnig? the part of the IBP to hastily conclude from the testimonies of complainant's officemates who
were interviewed by the CODI that nothing out of the ordinary happened. Surely, they were
Witness 4: Kung malakas. not in a position to confirm or refute complainant's allegations as they were not physically in
the office so as to make a credible testimony as to the events that transpired therein during
Mr. Mendoza: Ah kung malakas? that time.

Witness 4: Opo. Neither can the testimonies of those in the CAAP Operations Center be used to conclude that
respondent did not do anything to complainant, considering that they themselves admitted
Mr. Abesamis: So wala kayong naririnig man lang kahit isang word na malakas doon sa that they were all on the telephone, busy with their coordinating duties. They likewise
kanila during the time na nangyari ito? clarified that while their office is indeed separated from the CAAP Office of the Board
Secretary only by glass panels, they could not see what was happening there as they covered
Witness 4: Nung time na iyan wala kasi kaming maalala... the glass panels with white cartolina. In light of their preoccupation from their official duties
as well as the fact that the glass panels were covered, it is very unlikely for them to have
Mr. Abesamis: Walang possibility na narinig niyo pero mas busy kayo sa telephone operation. noticed any commotion happening in the adjacent CAAP Office of the Board Secretary.

36
 with the knowledge and full view of his staff. Obviously, the Court cannot countenance such
Furthermore, the IBP should have taken the testimonies of the witnesses in the CODI audacious display of depravity on respondent's part not only because his obscene habit
proceedings with a grain of salt. It bears noting that all those interviewed in the CODI tarnishes the reputation of the government agency he works for - the CAAP where he was
proceedings were job order and regular employees of the CAAP. Naturally, they would be
engaged at that time as Acting Corporate Secretary - but also because it shrouds the legal
cautious in giving any unfavorable statements against a high-ranking official of the CAAP
such as respondent who was the Acting Board Secretary at that time - lest they earn the ire of profession in a negative light. As a lawyer in the government service, respondent is expected
such official and put their career in jeopardy. to perform and discharge his duties with the highest degree of excellence, professionalism,
intelligence, and skill, and with utmost devotion and dedication to duty.42 However, his
aforesaid habit miserably fails to showcase these standards, and instead, displays sheer
unprofessionalism and utter lack of respect to the government position he was entrusted to
Thus, the IBP erred in concluding that such Transcript shows that respondent did not hold. His flimsy excuse that he only does so by himself and that he would immediately close
perform the acts complained of. On the contrary, said Transcript proves that there was his laptop whenever anyone would pass by or come near his table is of no moment, because
indeed a period of time where complainant and respondent were left alone in the CAAP Office the lewdness of his actions, within the setting of this case, remains. The legal profession -
of the Board Secretary which gave respondent a window of opportunity to carry out his acts much more an engagement in the public service should always be held in high esteem, and
constituting sexual harassment against complainant. those who belong within its ranks should be unwavering exemplars of integrity and
professionalism. As keepers of the public faith, lawyers, such as respondent, are burdened
More importantly, records reveal that complainant's allegations are adequately supported by with a high degree of social responsibility and, hence, must handle their personal affairs with
a Certificate of Psychiatric Evaluation35 dated April 13, 2009 stating that the onset of her greater caution. Indeed, those who have taken the oath to assist in the dispensation of justice
psychiatric problems - diagnosed as post-traumatic stress disorder with recurrent major should be more possessed of the consciousness and the will to overcome the weakness of the
depression started after suffering the alleged sexual molestation at the hands of respondent. flesh, as respondent in this case.43
Moreover, complainant's plight was ably supported by other CAAP employees36 as well as a
retired Brigadier General of the Armed Forces of the Philippines37 through various letters to In the Investigating Commissioner's Report and Recommendation adopted by the IBP Board
authorities seeking justice for complainant. Perceptibly, complainant would not seek help of Governors, the quantum of proof by which the charges against respondent were assessed
from such supporters, and risk their integrity in the process, if none of her allegations were was preponderance of evidence. Preponderance of evidence "means evidence which is of
true. Besides, there is no evidence to establish that complainant was impelled by any greater weight, or more convincing than that which is offered in opposition to it."44 Generally,
improper motive against respondent or that she had reasons to fabricate her allegations under Rule 133 of the Revised Rules on Evidence, this evidentiary threshold applies to civil
against him. Therefore, absent any competent proof to the contrary, the Court finds that cases:
complainant's story of the April 2, 2009 incident was not moved by any ill-will and was
SECTION 1. Preponderance of evidence, how determined. - In civil cases, the party having the burden of
untainted by bias; and hence, worthy of belief and credence.38 In this regard, it should be
proof must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence. In determining where the preponderance
mentioned that respondent's averment that complainant was only being used by other CAAP
or superior weight of evidence on the issues involved lies, the court may consider all the facts and
employees to get back at him for implementing reforms within the CAAP was plainly circumstances of the case, the witnesses' manner of testifying, their intelligence, their means and
unsubstantiated, and thus, a mere self-serving assertion that deserves no weight in law.39 opportunity of knowing the facts to which they are testifying, the nature of the facts to which they testify,
the probability or improbability of their testimony, their interest or want of interest, and also their
In addition, the Court notes that respondent never refuted complainant's allegation that he personal credibility so far as the same may legitimately appear upon the trial. The court may also
would regularly watch "pampagana" movies in his office-issued laptop. In fact, respondent consider the number of witnesses, though the preponderance is not necessarily with the greater number.
readily admitted that he indeed watches "interesting shows" while in the office, albeit insisting (Emphasis supplied)
that he only does so by himself, and that he would immediately dose his laptop whenever
anyone would pass by or go near his table. As confirmed in the Transcript40 of the Nonetheless, in non-civil cases such as De Zuzuarregui, Jr. v. Soguilon45 cited by the IBP Investigating
Commissioner, the Court had pronounced that the burden of proof by preponderance of evidence in
investigation conducted by the CODI, these "pampagana" movies and "interesting shows"
disbarment proceedings is upon the complainant.46 These rulings appear to conflict with other
turned out to be pornographic materials, which respondent even asks his male staff to jurisprudence on the matter which contrarily hold that substantial evidence is the quantum of proof to be
regularly play for him as he is not well-versed in using computers.41 applied in administrative cases against lawyers.47 The latter standard was applied in administrative
cases such as Foster v. Agtang,48 wherein the Court had, in fact, illumined that:
Without a doubt, it has been established that respondent habitually watches pornographic
materials in his office-issued laptop while inside the office premises, during office hours, and
37
[T]he quantum of evidence required in civil cases is different from the quantum of evidence required in has established her claims through relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
administrative cases. In civil cases, preponderance of evidence is required. Preponderance of evidence is support a conclusion - that is, that respondent had harassed her and committed despicable acts which
"a phrase which, in the last analysis, means probability of the truth. It is evidence which is more are clear ethical violations of the CPR. In fine, respondent should be held administratively liable and
convincing to the court as worthier of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto." In therefore, penalized.
administrative cases, only substantial evidence is needed. Substantial evidence, which is more than a
mere scintilla but is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a Jurisprudence provides that in similar administrative cases where the lawyer exhibited immoral conduct,
conclusion, would suffice to hold one administratively liable.49 (Emphasis supplied; citations omitted) the Court meted penalties ranging from reprimand to disbarment. In Advincula v. Macabata,55 the
lawyer was reprimanded for his distasteful act of suddenly turning the head of his female client towards
Similarly, in Peña v. Paterno,50 it was held: him and kissing her on the lips. In De Leon v. Pedreña,56 the lawyer was suspended from the practice of
law for a period of two (2) years for rubbing the female complainant's right leg with his hand, trying to
Section 5, in [comparison with] Sections 1 [(Preponderance of evidence, how proved)] and 2 [(Proofbeyond insert his finger into her firmly closed hand, grabbing her hand and forcibly placed it on his crotch area,
reasonable doubt)], Rule 133, Rules of Court states that in administrative cases, only substantial and pressing his finger against her private part. While in Guevarra v. Eala57 and Valdez v. Dabon,58 the
evidence is required, not proof beyond reasonable doubt as in criminal cases, or preponderance of Court meted the extreme penalty of disbarment on the erring lawyers who engaged in extramarital affairs.
evidence as in civil cases. Substantial evidence is that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable Here, respondent exhibited his immoral behavior through his habitual watching of pornographic
mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.51 (Emphasis supplied; citations omitted) materials while in the office and his acts of sexual harassment against complainant. Considering the
circumstances of this case, the Court deems it proper to impose upon respondent the penalty of
Based on a survey of cases, the recent ruling on the matter is Cabas v. Sususco,52 which was suspension from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years.
promulgated just this June 15, 2016. In the said case, it was pronounced that:
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Ramon F. Nieva is found GUILTY of violating Rule 1.01, Canon 1, and
In administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof necessary for a finding of guilt is substantial Rule 7.03, Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, he is hereby SUSPENDED
evidence, i.e., that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years, effective upon the finality of this Decision, with a
support a conclusion. Further, the complainant has the burden of proving by substantial evidence the STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
allegations in his complaint. The basic rule is that mere allegation is not evidence and is not equivalent to
proof. Charges based on mere suspicion and speculation likewise cannot be given credence.53 (Emphasis Let copies of this Decision be served on the Office of the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the
supplied) Philippines and all courts in the country for their information and guidance and be attached to
respondent's personal record as attorney.
Accordingly, this more recent pronouncement ought to control and therefore, quell any further confusion
on the proper evidentiary threshold to be applied in administrative cases against lawyers.

Besides, the evidentiary threshold of substantial evidence - as opposed to preponderance of evidence - is

more in keeping with the primordial purpose of and essential considerations attending this type of cases.
As case law elucidates, "[d]isciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui generis. Neither purely civil nor
purely criminal, they do not involve a trial of an action or a suit, but is rather an investigation by the
Court into the conduct of one of its officers. Not being intended to inflict punishment, it is in no sense a
criminal prosecution. Accordingly, there is neither a plaintiff nor a prosecutor therein. It may be initiated
by the Court motu proprio. Public interest is its primary objective, and the real question for
determination is whether or not the attorney is still a fit person to be allowed the privileges as such.
Hence, in the exercise of its disciplinary powers, the Court merely calls upon a member of the Bar to
account for his actuations as an officer of the Court with the end in view of preserving the purity of the
legal profession and the proper and honest administration of justice by purging the profession of
members who by their misconduct have proved themselves no longer worthy to be entrusted with the
duties and responsibilities pertaining to the office of an attorney. In such posture, there can thus be no
occasion to speak of a complainant or a prosecutor."54

With the proper application of the substantial evidence threshold having been clarified, the Court finds
that the present charges against respondent have been adequately proven by this standard. Complainant
38
 Attorneys; Gross Immoral Conduct; Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides for
the imposition of the penalty of disbarment or suspension if a member of the Bar is found
guilty of committing grossly immoral conduct.—Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court
provides for the imposition of the penalty of disbarment or suspension if a member of the Bar
is found guilty of committing grossly immoral conduct, to wit: SEC. 27. Disbarment or
suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court, grounds therefor.—A member of the bar may be
disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit,
malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason
of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which
he is required to take before the admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience of any
lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a
party to a case without authority to do so. x x x. In order to justify the imposition of the above
administrative penalties on a member of the Bar, his/her guilt must first be established by
substantial evidence. As explained in Re: Rafael Dimaano, A.M. No. 17-03-03-CA & I.P.I. No.
17-258-CA-J [Resolution] (2017), substantial evidence or that amount of relevant evidence
that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. After a thorough
review of the records of the case, the Court upholds the findings of the IBP as there is indeed
substantial evidence that respondent committed gross immorality by maintaining an
extramarital affair with complainant.

Same; Same; Clearly, the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) was convinced that
respondent and complainant were involved in an illicit relationship that eventually turned
sour and led to the filing of the replevin case.—The MTCC plainly disbelieved respondent’s
claim that he merely left his bag of clothing in complainant’s house before he left for his place
of work in Metro Manila — a claim which he likewise made in the present case. The trial court
further posited that the pieces of furniture sought to be recovered by respondent were indeed
bought by him but the same were intentionally given to complainant out of love. Clearly, the
MTCC was convinced that respondent and complainant were involved in an illicit relationship
that eventually turned sour and led to the filing of the replevin case. A perusal of the above
decision reveals that the findings and conclusions therein were arrived at by the MTCC after a
trial on the merits of the case. In other words, the trial court first heard the parties and
received their respective evidence before it rendered a decision. As such, the trial court
cannot be accused of arriving at the aforementioned findings lightly. Accordingly, the Court
finds no reason to mistrust the observations and findings of the MTCC. Respondent did not
even point out any reason for us to do so. While the issues in the replevin case and the
instant administrative case are indeed different, they share a common factual backdrop, i.e.,
the parties’ contrasting account of the true nature of their relationship. From the evidence of
both parties, the MTCC chose the complainant’s version of the events. Incidentally, it was
respondent himself who brought to light the existence of the MTCC’s decision in the replevin
case when he attached the same to his answer in the present case to substantiate his
narration of facts. Thus, he cannot belatedly plead that the decision be disregarded after the
statements and findings therein were used against him.

Same; Same; From the facial expressions and the body language of respondent and
complainant in these pictures, the same unfailingly demonstrate their unmistakable
closeness and their lack of qualms over publicly displaying their affection towards one
another.—One of the annexed pictures shows the couple in a restaurant setting, smiling at
A.C. No. 5573 the camera while seated beside each other very closely that their arms are visibly touching.
39
Another picture shows the couple in the same setting, this time with complainant smiling as Before the Court is an administrative complaint filed by complainant Gizale O. Tumbaga
she embraced respondent from behind and they were both looking at the camera. From the against respondent Atty. Manuel P. [Link], charging him with gross immorality, deceitful
facial expressions and the body language of respondent and complainant in these pictures, and fraudulent conduct, and gross misconduct. The parties hereto paint contrastive pictures
the same unfailingly demonstrate their unmistakable closeness and their lack of qualms over not only of their respective versions of the events but also of their negative portrayals of each
publicly displaying their affection towards one another. Thus, the attempts of respondent to other's character. They are, thus, separately outlined below.
downplay his relationship with complainant flop miserably. Curiously, respondent did not
bother to explain the aforesaid pictures. The Complaint

Same; Same; The Supreme Court (SC) finds that respondent should be held liable for having In a verified complaint1 dated October 9, 2001 filed directly with the Court, complainant
illicit relations with complainant.—Respondent failed to prove his defense when the burden of narrated that she met respondent sometime in September 1999. He was then the City Legal
evidence shifted to him. He could neither provide any concrete corroboration of his denials in Officer of Naga City from whom complainant sought legal advice. After complainant consulted
this case nor satisfactorily prove his claim that complainant was merely extorting money from with him a few times, he visited her often at her residence and brought gifts for her son, Al
him. In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that respondent should be held liable for having Greg Tumbaga. Respondent even volunteered to be the godfather of Al Greg. In one of his
illicit relations with complainant. As to whether respondent also sired complainant’s second visits, respondent assured complainant's mother that although he was already married to
child, Billy John, the Court finds that the same was not sufficiently established by the Luzviminda Balang,2 his marriage was a sham because their marriage contract was not
evidence presented in this case. The paternity and/or acknowledgement of Billy John, if registered. In view of respondent's persistence and generosity to her son, complainant
indeed he is respondent’s illegitimate child, must be alleged and proved in separate believed his representation that he was eligible to marry her.
proceedings before the proper tribunal having jurisdiction to hear the same.
Complainant averred that on December 19, 1999, she moved in with respondent at the
Same; Same; Suspension from Practice of Law; Considering respondent’s blatant attempts to Puncia Apartment in Naga City. In April 2000, she became pregnant. Respondent allegedly
deceive the courts and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) regarding his true wanted to have the baby aborted but complainant refused. After the birth of their son, Billy
relationship with complainant, we agree with the IBP Board of Governors that the proper John, respondent spent more time with them. He used their apartment as a temporary law
penalty in this instance is a three (3)-year suspension from the practice of law.—As to the office and he lived there for two to three days at a time.
penalty that should be imposed against respondent in this case, the Court had occasion to
rule in Samaniego v. Ferrer, 555 SCRA 1 (2008), that: We have considered such illicit relation
as a disgraceful and immoral conduct subject to disciplinary action. The penalty for such After Billy John was baptized, complainant secured a Certificate of Live Birth from the Office
immoral conduct is disbarment, or indefinite or definite suspension, depending on the of the Civil Registrar of Naga City and gave it to respondent to sign. He hesitantly signed it
circumstances of the case. Recently, in Ferancullo v. Ferancullo, Jr., 509 SCRA 1 (2006), we and volunteered to facilitate its filing. After respondent failed to file the same, complainant
ruled that suspension from the practice of law for two years was an adequate penalty secured another form and asked respondent to sign it twice. On February 15, 2001, the
imposed on the lawyer who was found guilty of gross immorality. In said case, we considered Certificate of Live Birth was registered.
the absence of aggravating circumstances such as an adulterous relationship coupled with
refusal to support his family; or maintaining illicit relationships with at least two women Thereafter, complainant related that respondent rarely visited them. To make ends meet, she
during the subsistence of his marriage; or abandoning his legal wife and cohabiting with decided to work in a law office in Naga City. However, respondent compelled her to resign,
other women. x x x However, considering respondent’s blatant attempts to deceive the courts assuring her that he would take care of her financial needs. As respondent failed to fulfill his
and the IBP regarding his true relationship with complainant, we agree with the IBP Board of promise, complainant sought assistance from the Office of the City Fiscal in Naga City on the
Governors that the proper penalty in this instance is a three-year suspension from the second week of March 2001. In the early morning of the conference set by said office,
practice of law. respondent gave complainant an affidavit of support and told her there was no need for him
to appear in the conference. Complainant showed the affidavit to Fiscal Elsa Mampo, but the
GIZALE O. TUMBAGA, Complainant latter advised her to have the respondent sign the affidavit again. Fiscal Mampo was unsure
vs. of the signature in the affidavit as she was familiar with respondent's signature. Complainant
ATTY. MANUEL P. TEOXON, Respondent confronted respondent about the affidavit and he half-heartedly affixed his true signature
therein.
DECISION
In May 2001, complainant went to respondent's office as he again reneged on his promise of
support. To appease her anger, respondent executed a promissory note. However, he also
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.: failed to honor the same.

40
In June· 2001, complainant moved out of the Puncia Apartment as respondent did not pay Complainant allegedly made it look like he appeared before Notary Public Vicente Estela on
the rentals therefor anymore. In the evening of September 9, 2001, respondent raided February 15, 2001, but he argued that it was physically impossible for him to have done so
complainant's new residence, accompanied by three SWAT members and his wife. Visibly as he attended a hearing in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Libmanan, Camarines Sur that
drunk, respondent threatened to hurt complainant with the bolo and the lead pipe that he day. He also contended that complainant forged his signature in the Affidavit of Support.
was carrying if she will not return the personal belongings that he left in their previous
apartment unit. As respondent barged into the apartment, complainant sought help from the As to the pictures of respondent with Billy John, he argued that the same cannot prove
SWAT members and one of them was able to pacify respondent. Respondent's wife also tried paternity. He explained that in one of his visits to Al Greg, complainant left Billy John in his
to attack complainant, but she too was prevailed upon by the SWAT members. The incident care to keep the child from falling off the bed. However, complainant secretly took his picture
was recorded in the police blotter. as he was lying in the bed holding Billy John. As to his picture with Billy John taken at the
beach, respondent alleged that at that time complainant gave Billy John to respondent as she
To corroborate her allegations, complainant attached the following documents to her wanted to go swimming. While he was holding the child, complainant secretly took their
complaint, among others: (a) pictures showing respondent lying in a bed holding Billy John,3 picture. Respondent accused complainant of taking the pictures in order to use the same to
respondent holding Billy John in a beach setting,4 complainant holding Billy John in a beach extort money from him. This is the same scheme allegedly used by complainant against her
setting,5 respondent holding Billy John in a house setting,6 and respondent and complainant previous victims, who paid money to buy peace with her.
seated beside each other in a restaurant7 ; (b) the Certificate of Live Birth of Billy John with
an Affidavit of Acknowledgment/Admission of Paternity showing respondent's signature8 ; (c) Respondent further alleged that politics was also involved in the filing of the complaint as
the affidavit of support9 executed by respondent; (d) the promissory note10 executed by complainant was working in the office of then Representative Luis Villafuerte, the political
respondent; (e) the police blotter entry11 dated September 9, 2001; and (f) copies of opponent of Representative Roco.
pleadings12 showing the signature of respondent.
Respondent attached to his answer the following documents, among others: (a) the affidavit of
Respondent's Answer Antonio Orogo14 ; (b) the Decision15 dated May 8, 2006 of the MTCC of Naga City in Civil
Case No. 11546, which is the replevin case; (c) copies of the Minutes of Proceedings 16 and
In his answer,13 respondent denied the allegations in the complaint. He asserted that the Order17 of the RTC of Libmanan, Camarines Sur, both dated January 15, 2001, showing
complainant merely wanted to exact money from him. that respondent attended a hearing therein on said date; and (d) a photocopy18 of
respondent's credit card and automated teller machine (ATM) card showing his signature.
Respondent alleged that he became the godfather of complainant's son, Al Greg, but he was
only one of four sponsors. He began to visit complainant's residence to visit his godson. He The Proceedings before the IBP
also denied being the father of Billy John since complainant supposedly had several live-in Commission on Bar Discipline
partners. He cited the affidavit of Antonio Orogo, complainant's uncle, to attest to his
allegations. According to the affidavit, Al Greg is the son of the complainant's live-in partner The parties appeared before the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline for a few hearings and the
named Orac Barrameda. Cpmplainant allegedly used Al Greg to extort money from Alfrancis marking of their respective. evidence. Complainant marked the following documents, among
Bichara, the former governor of Albay, with whom complainant also had a sexual others, in addition to those already attached to the complaint: (a) a picture19 showing
relationship. respondent seated in a restaurant with complainant hugging him; (b) a receipt 20 issued by
the Clerk of Court of the MTCC of Naga City, enumerating the objects (consisting mostly of
Respondent denied that he lived together with complainant at the Puncia Apartment since he items of clothing) returned by complainant to respondent in the replevin case; and (c)
was already married. As complainant was his kumadre, he would pass by her house receipts21 purportedly showing respondent's payment of the rentals for complainant's
whenever he visited the house of Representative Sulpicio S. Roco, Jr. Respondent was then a apartment unit.
member of Representative Roco's legislative staff. Sometimes, respondent would leave a bag of
clothing in complainant's house to save money for his fare in going to the office of On motion of complainant, the IBP issued an order22 directing respondent, complainant, and
Representative Roco in the House of Representatives in Quezon City. In one instance, Billy John to undergo DNA testing in the DNA laboratory of the National Bureau of
complainant and her mother refused to return one of his bags such that he was forced to file Investigation (NBI) to determine the child's paternity. Upon motion23 from respondent,
a replevin case. The Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Naga City decided the case in however, the IBP annulled its prior order in the interest of the speedy disposition of the
his favor. case.24

Respondent also claimed that complainant falsified his signature in the Certificate of Live
Birth of Billy John so he filed a complaint for the cancellation of his acknowledgment therein.

41
On November 14, 2008, the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline issued its Report and Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to
Recommendation,25 finding that respondent maintained an illicit affair with complainant and practice law, nor should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner
that he should be meted the penalty of suspension for a period of two (2) years. to the discredit of the legal profession.

In the Resolution No. XVIII-2009-1526 dated February 19, 2009, the IBP Board of Governors Accordingly, it is expected that every lawyer, being an officer of the Court, must not only be in
approved the above recommendation and increased the recommended period of suspension to fact of good moral character, but must also be seen to be of good moral character and leading
three (3) years. lives in accordance with the highest moral standards of the community. More specifically, a
member of the Bar and officer of the Court is required not only to refrain from adulterous
Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration27 of the above resolution. Attached thereto relationships or keeping mistresses but also to conduct himself as to avoid scandalizing the
were: (a) the affidavits28 of Representative Roco and respondent's wife, Minda B. Teoxon, public by creating the belief that he is flouting those moral standards. If the practice of law is
which allegedly refuted complainant's contention that respondent lived with complainant at to remain an honorable profession and attain its basic ideals, whoever is enrolled in its ranks
the Puncia Apartment in Naga City; (b) the transcript of stenographic notes (TSN) dated May should not only master its tenets and principles but should also, in their lives, accord
10, 200529 in Civil Case No. 11546 for replevin, wherein complainant supposedly admitted to continuing fidelity to them. The requirement of good moral character is of much greater
her past relationships; and (c) a letter30 from the University of Nueva Caceres that informed import, as far as the general public is concerned, than the possession of legal learning.
respondent that he was chosen to be the recipient of its Diamond Achiever Award.
Immoral conduct has been described as conduct that is so willful, flagrant, or shameless as
The IBP Board of Governors denied the motion for reconsideration in its Resolution No. XX- to show indifference to the opinion of good and respectable members of the community. To be
2012-53931 dated December 14, 2012. the basis of disciplinary action, such conduct must not only be immoral, but grossly immoral,
that is, it must be so corrupt as to virtually constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to
be reprehensible to a high degree or committed under such scandalous or revolting
The IBP thereafter transmitted the record of the case to the Court for final action. circumstances as to shock the common sense of decency. (Citations omitted; emphasis
supplied.)
The Ruling of the Court
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides for the imposition of the penalty of
The Court agrees with the conclusion of the IBP that the actuations of respondent in this case disbarment or suspension if a member of the Bar is found guilty of committing grossly
showed his failure to live up to the good moral conduct required of the members of the legal immoral conduct, to wit:
profession.
SEC. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court, grounds therefor. - A
We held in Advincula v. Advincula32 that: member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme
Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral
The good moral conduct or character must be possessed by lawyers at the time of their .conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any
application for admission to the Bar, and must be maintained until retirement from the violation of the oath which he is required to take before the admission to practice, or for a
practice of law. In this regard, the Code of Professional Responsibility states: willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willfully
appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority to do so. x x x.
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
In order to justify the imposition of the above administrative penalties on a member of the
Bar, his/her guilt must first be established by substantial evidence.33 As explained in Re:
xxxx Rafael Dimaano,34 substantial evidence or that amount of relevant evidence that a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
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. After a thorough review of the records of the case, the Court upholds the findings of the IBP
as there is indeed substantial evidence that respondent committed gross immorality by
xxxx maintaining an extramarital affair with complainant.

One of the key pieces of evidence that the IBP considered in ruling against respondent is the
Decision dated May 8, 2006 of the MTCC of Naga City in Civil Case No. 11546 for replevin.
42
In said case, respondent made it appear that he was merely seeking to recover personal buying and selling of [furniture] he should have known that if he really intended to be paid
belongings that he left behind at one time in complainant's house. The items included a back for it, he should have asked [complainant] to [sign] a promissory note or even a
traveling bag with various articles of clothing and file folders of cases that he was handling. memorandum. As it is, he failed to show any evidence of such an undertaking. That it was a
He also tried to recover the pieces of furniture that he allegedly bought for the complainant, gift of love is more like it.35
which the latter failed to reimburse as promised. These include a brass bed with foam
mattress, a plastic dining table with six plastic chairs, a brass sala set with a center table, The IBP posited that the above ruling was more than sufficient to prove that respondent tried
and a plastic drawer. For her defense, complainant argued that the respondent gradually left to distort the truth that he and complainant did live together as husband and wife in one
the items of clothing in their apartment unit during the period that they cohabited therein apartment unit. The Court agrees with the IBP on this matter.
from time to time. She also said that the furniture were gifts to her and Billy John.
The MTCC plainly disbelieved respondent's claim that he merely left his bag of clothing in
In its decision, the MTCC did rule in favor of respondent.1âwphi1 However, the following complainant's house before he left for his place of work in Metro Manila - a claim which he
elucidation by the MTCC is quite telling: likewise made in the present case. The trial court further posited that the pieces of furniture
sought to be recovered by respondent were indeed bought by him but the same were
To the Court, this is one case that should not have been brought to court because intentionally given to complainant out of love. Clearly, the MTCC was convinced that
[respondent] could have resorted to a more diplomatic or tactful way of retrieving his personal respondent and complainant were involved in an illicit relationship that eventually turned
belongings rather than going on record with a lot of pretext and evasion as if the presiding sour and led to the filing of the replevin case.
judge is too naive to appreciate human nature and the truth. [Respondent] would have done
well if he was gentleman, candid and responsible enough to admit his misadventure and A perusal of the above decision reveals that the findings and conclusions therein were arrived
accept responsibility for his misdeeds rather than try to distort facts and avoid facing the at by the MTCC after a trial on the merits of the case. In other words, the trial court first
truth. It is not manly. heard the parties and received their respective evidence before it rendered a decision. As
such, the trial court cannot be accused of arriving at the aforementioned findings lightly.
Of course, the [MTCC] is fully convinced that the personal belongings listed in the complaint
[are] owned by him and the [furniture] that were eventually sold by [complainant] was bought Accordingly, the Court finds no reason to mistrust the observations and findings of the
by him, even without showing any receipts for it. However, the [MTCC] is not persuaded by MTCC. Respondent did not even point out any reason for us to do so. While the issues in the
his allegation that he left his bag with [complainant] because he was in a hurry in going to replevin case and the instant administrative case are indeed different, they share a common
Manila. He boldly declared in [the trial court] that he has three residences in Naga City and of factual backdrop, i.e., the parties' contrasting account of the true nature of their relationship.
all places he had to leave his shirt and underwear with a lady whom he had visited "only From the evidence of both parties, the MTCC chose the complainant's version of the events.
twice". Incidentally, it was respondent himself who brought to light the existence of the MTCC
decision in the replevin case when he attached the same to his answer in the present case to
[Respondent] could deny all the way up to high heaven that he has no child with substantiate his narration of facts. Thus, he cannot belatedly plead that the decision be
[complainant] but the [MTCC] will forever wonder why the latter would refuse to part with the disregarded after the statements and findings therein were used against him .
shirts and pants unless she is a bareface extortionist. But to the [MTCC], she did not appear
to be so. In fact, the [MTCC] had the occasion to observe [complainant] with two little Complainant further attached pictures of respondent with her and Billy John as proof of their
handsome boys who appeared to be her sons. Hence, this lends credence to the fact that she romantic relations. A perusal of these pictures convinces this Court that while the same
might have really demanded money in exchange for the shirts and pants to support her cannot indeed prove Billy John's paternity, they are nevertheless indicative of a relationship
children. between complainant ~d respondent that is more than merely platonic.

Be that as it may, the [MTCC] is duty bound to apply the law. There is no issue on the One of the annexed pictures shows the couple in a restaurant setting, smiling at the camera
ownership of the personal belongings contained in a bag allegedly left by the [respondent] in while seated beside each other very closely that their arms are visibly touching. Another
the house of [complainant]. picture shows the couple in the same setting, this time with complainant smiling as she
embraced respondent from behind and they were both looking at the camera. From the facial
xxxx expressions and the body language of respondent and complainant in these pictures, the
same unfailingly demonstrate their unmistakable closeness and their lack of qualms over
However, as far as the [furniture] is concerned, like the brass bed, sala set, dining table and publicly displaying their affection towards one another. Thus, the attempts of respondent to
plastic drawer, the [MTCC] is not persuaded by [respondent's] claim that he meant to be paid downplay his relationship with complainant flop miserably. Curiously, respondent did not
by [complainant] for it. [Respondent] is a lawyer and although he is not engage[d] in the bother to explain the aforesaid pictures.

43
In his answer to the complaint, respondent only managed to comment on the pictures of In the affidavit, Orogo claimed that respondent did not live with complainant in the Puncia
himself with Billy John. Even then, respondent's accounts as to these pictures are too flimsy Apartment in Naga City. Orogo further accused complainant and her mother of engaging in
and incredible to be accepted by the Court. Respondent previously admitted to the the practice of extorting money from various men since she was just 11 years old. The alleged
genuineness of the pictures but not to the alleged circumstances of the taking thereof.36 instances of extortion involved the complainant falsely accusing one man of rape and falsely
However, respondent's allegation that the pictures were surreptitiously taken by complainant claiming to another man that he was the father of her first child.
falls flat on its face. The pictures clearly show that he and Billy John were looking directly at
the camera when the pictures were taken. Moreover, the angles from which the pictures were The Court can hardly ascribe any credibility to the above affidavit. Given the materiality of
taken suggest that the person taking the same was directly in front of respondent and Billy Orogo's statements therein, not to mention the gravity of his accusations against complainant
John. and her mother, he should have been presented as a witness before the IBP investigating
commissioner in order to confirm his affidavit and give complainant the opportunity to cross-
In his motion for reconsideration of the IBP Board of Governors Resolution No. XVIII-2009-15, examine him. For whatever reason, this was not done. As it is, Orogo's affidavit lacks
respondent further argued that the pictures were not conclusive and the admission of the evidentiary value. In Boyboy v. Yabut,40 we cautioned that:
same was not in accordance with the Rules of Court as nobody testified on the circumstances
of the taking of the pictures and the accuracy thereof.37 The IBP correctly disregarded this It is not difficult to manufacture charges in the affidavits, hence, it is imperative that their
argument given that technical rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly applied in truthfulness and veracity be tested in the crucible of thorough examination. The hornbook
administrative proceedings. Administrative due process cannot be fully equated to due doctrine is that unless the affiants themselves take the witness stand to affirm the averments
process in its strict judicial sense.38 in their affidavits, those affidavits must be excluded from the proceedings for being
inadmissible and hearsay x x x. (Citation omitted.)
With respect to the affidavit of support, the promissory note, and the Certificate of Live Birth
of Billy John that contained an Affidavit of Acknowledgment/ Admission of Paternity, In like manner, the Court cannot give much weight to the affidavits of Representative Roco
respondent likewise failed to provide sufficient controverting evidence therefor. and Minda B. Teoxon, both of whom attested to the statements of respondent regarding his
places of residence during the time material to this case. It should be stressed that said
In the affidavit of support and the promissory note, respondent supposedly promised to affidavits were executed only on June 15, 2009 or about four months after the IBP Board of
provide monetary support to Billy John, whom he acknowledged as his illegitimate son. Governors issued its Resolution No. XVIII-2009-15 on February 19, 2009, which affirmed
Respondent verbally repudiated said documents, pointing out that the same were typewritten respondent's culpability for grossly immoral conduct. This attenuates the credibility of the
while he used a computer in his office, not a typewriter.39 Respondent further accused statements as the same were only given as corroborative statements at so late a time given
complainant of falsifying his signatures therein and, to prove his charge, he submitted the relevancy thereof.
photocopies of his credit card and A TM card that allegedly showed his customary signatures.
In the face of the accusations and the evidence offered against him, respondent was duty-
The Court, still, finds this refutation wanting. To the naked eye, the sample signatures in the bound to meet the same decisively head-on. As the Court declared in Narag v. Narag41 :
credit card and A TM card do appear to be different from the ones in the affidavit of support,
the promissory note, and the Certificate of Live Birth. However, we likewise compared the While the burden of proof is upon the complainant, respondent has the duty not only to
sample signatures to respondent's signatures in his pleadings before the IBP and other himself but also to the court to show that he is morally fit to remain a member of the bar.
documents submitted in evidence and we find that the signatures in the two sets appear to be Mere denial does not suffice. Thus, when his moral character is assailed, such that his right
likewise dissimilar, which suggests respondent uses several different signatures. Thus, to continue practicing his cherished profession is imperiled, he must meet the charges
respondent's claim of forgery is unconvincing. Moreover, as the IBP noted, the records of the squarely and present evidence, to the satisfaction of the investigating body and this Court,
case do not indicate if he filed criminal charges against complainant for her alleged acts of that he is morally fit to have his name in the Roll of Attorneys. x x x. (Citation omitted.)
falsification.
Unfortunately, respondent failed to prove his defense when the burden of evidence shifted to
As to the Certificate of Live Birth of Billy John, respondent did file a complaint for the him. He could neither provide any concrete corroboration of his denials in this case nor
cancellation of his acknowledgment therein. Thus, the Court will no longer discuss the satisfactorily prove his claim that complainant was merely extorting money from him.
parties' arguments regarding the validity of respondent's signature in said certificate of birth
as the issue should be threshed out in the proper proceeding.
In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that respondent should be held liable for having illicit
relations with complainant. As to whether respondent also sired complainant's second child,
In his answer to the complaint, respondent attached the affidavit of Antonio Orogo in order to Billy John, the Court finds that the same was not sufficiently established by the evidence
belie complainant's allegations and that she merely wanted to exact money from respondent. presented in this case. The paternity and/or acknowledgement of Billy John, if indeed he is
44
respondent's illegitimate child, must be alleged and proved in separate proceedings before the
proper tribunal having jurisdiction to hear the same.

As to the penalty that should be imposed against respondent in this case, the Court had
occasion to rule in Samaniego v. Ferrer,42 that:

We have considered such illicit relation as a disgraceful and immoral conduct subject to
disciplinary action. The penalty for such immoral conduct is disbarment, or indefinite or
definite suspension, depending on the circumstances of the case. Recently, in Ferancullo v.
Ferancullo, Jr., we ruled that suspension from the practice of law for two years was an
adequate penalty imposed on the lawyer who was found guilty of gross immorality. In said
case, we considered the absence of aggravating circumstances such as an adulterous
relationship coupled with refusal to support his family; or maintaining illicit relationships FIRST DIVISION
with at least two women during the subsistence of his marriage; or abandoning his legal wife
and cohabiting with other women. (Citations omitted.) A.C. No. 6980, August 30, 2017

However, considering respondent's blatant attempts to deceive the courts and the IBP Attorneys; Legal Ethics; As vanguards of our legal system, lawyers are expected to maintain
regarding his true relationship with complainant, we agree with the IBP Board of Governors not only legal proficiency but also a high standard of morality, honesty, integrity and fair
that the proper penalty in this instance is a three-year suspension from the practice of law. dealing.—Lawyers are instruments in the administration of justice. As vanguards of our legal
system, they are expected to maintain not only legal proficiency but also a high standard of
WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Atty. Manuel P. Teoxon GUILTY of gross morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing. [It is only in living up to the very high standards
immorality and is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of three (3) years and tenets of the legal profession that] the people’s faith and confidence in the judicial system
effective upon notice hereof, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar can be ensured. Lawyers may be disciplined — whether in their professional or in their
offense shall be punished with a more severe penalty. private capacity — for any conduct that is wanting in morality, honesty, probity and good
demeanor.
Let copies of this Decision be entered in the personal record of respondent as a member of the
Philippine Bar and furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Same; Same; As the lawyer who assisted in the sale of the properties through the use of the
Philippines, and the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts in the country. falsified Special Power of Attorney (SPA) in question, he ought to know that the use of such
falsified or forged SPA gives rise to grievous legal consequences which must inevitably
SO ORDERED. enmesh him professionally.—There can be no debate either as to the fact that respondent
made use of a forged or falsified SPA in his dealings with PCFI. As the lawyer who assisted in
the sale of the properties through the use of the falsified SPA in question, he ought to know
that the use of such falsified or forged SPA gives rise to grievous legal consequences which
must inevitably enmesh him professionally. As a member of the Bar in apparent good legal
standing, he effectively held himself out as a trustworthy agent for the principals he was
purportedly representing in the transaction/s in question.

Same; Disbarment; Disbarment cases are aimed at purging the legal profession of individuals
who obdurately scorn and despise the exalted standards of the noble profession of law.—
Respondent’s contention that the DOJ had resolved to withdraw the criminal complaints filed
against him and his co-accused, the spouses Cledera, does not persuade. The dismissal or
withdrawal of the criminal complaints/information/s at the instance of the DOJ, is of no
moment. As a member of the Bar, respondent should know that administrative cases against
lawyers are sui generis, or a class of their own. “Disciplinary proceedings involve no private

45
interest and afford no redress for private grievance.” Disbarment cases are aimed at purging for Estata through Falsification of Public Document were filed against respondent and the
the legal profession of individuals who obdurately scorn and despise the exalted standards of spouses Cledera.3
the noble profession of law. It is within this Court’s power, as a check and balance to its own
system, to ensure undeviating integrity by members of the Bar — both on the professional Complainants moreover claimed that respondent notarized 12 falsified Deeds of Donation,
and the personal level. It is only by maintaining this integrity and this loyalty to the law, to dated September 17 and 18, 2003, and supposedly executed in Carmona, Cavite, under
the Courts of Justice and to their client and the public at large, that lawyers are enabled to which it was made to appear that Atty. Casal purportedly donated 66 pieces of property to
maintain the trust reposed upon them and to deliver justice inside and outside the Gloria; that they (complainants) caused to be verified/examined Atty. Casal's "superimposed"
courtroom. Sta. Ana vs. Cortes, 838 SCRA 54, A.C. No. 6980 August 30, 2017 signatures on these deeds of donation by the Questioned Documents Division of the National
Bureau of Investigation (NBI); and that in its Disposition Forms, the NBI concluded that "the
CESAR O. STA. ANA, CRISTINA M. STA. ANA AND ESTHER STA. ANA-SILVERIO, signatures appearing on the said questioned documents are mere xerox copies which do not
Complainants, v. ATTY. ANTONIO JOSE F. CORTES, Respondent. truly and clearly reflect the minute details of the writing strokes and other aspects relative to
the preparation of the questioned signatures."4
RESOLUTION
In his answer, respondent asserted that all the criminal complaints against him had been
DEL CASTILLO,***J.: dismissed, and the criminal information/s instituted therefor had been withdrawn by the
Department of Justice (DOJ), hence, he had been exonerated of all the charges against him.
This is a complaint for disbarment filed by complainants against Atty. Antonio Jose F. Cortes Respondent adverted to the Resolution of Regional State Prosecutor Ernesto C. Mendoza,
(respondent) against whom they imputed deceit and falsification of public documents in the which in part declared -
sale of two parcels of property located at Bo. Lantic, Carmona, Cavite and covered by Transfer
Certificates of Title (TCT) Nos. T-1069335 and T-1069336; and in the donation of66 pieces of x x x the signatures of Cesar E. Casal appearing on the said questioned documents are
property by Atty. Cesar Casal (Atty. Casal) and his wife, Pilar P. Casal (Pilar). mere xerox copies which do not truly and clearly reflect the minute details of the writing
strokes and other aspects relative to the preparation of the questioned signatures.
Factual Antecedents
Nowhere in this report was there a categorical statement that the document was falsified or
In a sworn letter dated August 4, 2005, complainants alleged that respondent was left ith the the signatures were forged. x x x5
care and maintenance of several properties either owned or under the administration of Atty.
Casal since the latter's death; that respondent abused his authority, as such administrator, In a Resolution6 dated November 27, 2006, the Court resolved to refer this administrative
and engineered the sale or transfer of the said properties, specifically the two parcels of land case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and
covered by TCT Nos. T-1069335 and T-1069336, which were owned originally by their recommendation.
(complainants') ancestors; that on May 19, 2004, respondent, in connivance with Cesar Inis
(Inis) and A Casal's alleged adopted daughter, Gloria Casal Cledera (Gloria), and her Report and Recommendation of the IBP
husband, Hugh Cledera (the spouses Cledera), sold the abovementioned parcels of land to the
Property Company of Friends, Inc. (PCFI).1 The Investigating Commissioner summarized the charges against respondent as
follows:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Complainants further averred that as the said properties were originally in the names of Inis,
Ruben Loyola (Loyola), Angela Lacdan (Lacdan) and Cesar Veloso Casal (Veloso), these (a)
persons, in conspiracy with respondent, caused to be executed a Special Power of Attorney2
(SPA) dated May 4, 2004, under which Loyola, Lacdan and Veloso purportedly authorized First, [r]espondent was involved in the preparation of the Loyola SPA, which was used to
their co-owner Inis to sell the said properties; that this SPA was, however, forged or falsified, sell the [s)ubject [p]roperties to PCFI, despite the fact that two (2) of the alleged signatories
because Loyola was already dead on August 15, 1994, whereas Lacdan died on August 31, therein were already dead at the time the Loyola SPA was executed;
2001, and at the time of the execution of the SPA in Catmona, Cavite, Veloso was in fact in
(b)
Tacloban City; and that indeed, as a consequence of respondent's wrongdoing, criminal cases

46
 Second, [r]espondent prepared and notarized 12 Deeds of Donation, which [appear] to be 1. ATTY. ANTONIO JOSE F. CORTES be suspended from the practice of law for a period
spurious because the signatures of Atty. Casal thereon were only superimposed; ranging from six (6) months to two (2) years with a STERN WARNING that repetition of the
same or similar acts or conduct shall be dealt with more severely; and
(c)
2. ATTY. ANTONIO JOSE F. CORTES be barred from being commissioned as a notary
Third, [r]espondent notarized the 12 Deeds of Donation in Quezon City, within his public for a period of two (2) years, and in the event that he is presently commissioned as
territorial jurisdiction as a notary public x x x despite the fact that Atty. Casal signed the notary public, that his commission be immediately revoked and suspended for such period.12
same in x x x Cavite, or outside his jurisdiction as a notary public;
In its Resolution13 dated May 10, 2013, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved
(d) the findings of the Investigating Commissioner but modified the recommended penalty to a
one-year suspension from the practice of law, with revocation of respondent's notarial license,
Fourth, [r]espondent caused the preparation of the Casal SPA, which appears to be plus a two-year disqualification from reappointment as notary public. The pertinent portion of
spurious because the signature of Atty. Casal thereon was only superimposed; and the Resolution reads:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
(e)

Fifth, [r]espondent knowingly used the spurious Casal SPA and executed a Deed of Sale in RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby unanimously ADOPTED and
favor of PCFI involving other properties.7 APPROVED with modification, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating
Commissioner in the above-entitled case, herein made part ofthis Resolution as Annex "A",
After due proceedings, the Investigating Commissioner submitted a Report8 dated May 14,
and finding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable
2010, finding respondent not only guilty of dishonesty and deceitful conduct, but also guilty
laws and rules and considering Respondent's violation of the Notarial Law, Atty. Antonio Jose
of having violated hls oath as a notary public.
F. Cortes is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year and his Notarial
In finding respondent guilty of using a falsified document, the Investigating Commissioner Commission immediately REVOKED presently commissioned. Further, he is DISQUALIFIED
noted that although there was no direct evidence that it was respondent himself who from reappointment as Notary Publicfor two (2) years.
prepared or drafted the SPA, there was evidence nonetheless that respondent did actively
No motions for reconsideration having been filed by any of the parties, the case is before us
participate, or take part, in the offer and sale of the properties to the PCFI; and that since the
for fmal resolution.
execution of the forged or falsified SPA is a crucial or critical component of the eventual
consummation of the sale to PCFI, respondent could not be heard to say that he had no Our Ruling
knowledge of the use of a falsified document.9
Lawyers are instruments in the administration of justice. As vanguards of our legal system,
As regards the 12 Deeds of Donation allegedly executed by Atty. Casal, the Investigating they are expected to maintain not only legal proficiency but also a high standard of morality,
Commissioner lent more credence to the unbiased or impartial report of the NBI's finding that honesty, integrity and fair dealing. [It is only in living up to the very high standards and
the signatures of Atty. Casal were per se mere xerox copies; and that moreover, respondent tenets of the legal profession that] the people's faith and confidence in the judicial system can
had violated Section 24010 of the Revised Administrative Code, when he caused to be be ensured. Lawyers may be disciplined - whether in their professional or in their private
acknowledged the Deeds of Donation in his law office in Quezon City, despite the fact that capacity - for any conduct that is wanting in morality, honesty, probity and good
these were supposedly signed and executed by Atty. Casal in Cavite. The Investigating demeanor.14
Commissioner opined that respondent "ought to have known that since he was outside his
territorial jurisdiction as a notary public, he could not have performed the acts of a notary In the instant case, respondent acted with deceit when he used the falsified documents to
public at the time of the signing of the 12 Deeds of Donation, including the taking of oath of effect the transfer of properties owned or administered by the late Atty. Casal. In a letter15
the parties."11 sent by Atty. Florante O. Villegas, counsel for the PCFI, to the spouses Cledera, the former
explicitly stated that respondent did have a hand in the negotiation leading to the sale of the
The Investigating Commissioner thus recommended:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary properties covered by TCT Nos. T-1069335 and T-1069336. In clarifying that it only entered

47
into a Deed of Absolute Sale because of the "offer and representation that spouses Cesar and 6) That in the Agreement of Purchase and Sale, it was agreed that the seller shall register
Pilar Casal are the true owners of the subject parcels of land,"16 the PCFI, through its legal the several Deeds of Sale and deliver the titles over said properties to Pro-friends (PCFI). In
counsel, declared:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary the above-mentioned Agreement of Purchase and Sale, Sps. Casal were represented by their
duly authorized attorney-in-fact, Atty. Antonio Jose F. Cortes, of legal age, Filipino, with
We understand that you, together with Atty. Antonio Jose F. Cortes, offered to sell the said address at 2/F ELCO Bldg., 202 E. Rodriguez, Sr., Blvd., Quezon City. Present during
parcels ofland to our client, and that on September 17, 2003, an agreement of Purchase and negotiations for the terms and conditions to be contained in the Agreement of Purchase and
Sale was executed between Spouses Cesar E. Casal and Pilar P. Casal (represented by Atty. Sale aside from myself and [Link] were Sps. Hugh and Gloria Cledera, the son-in-law
Cortes as their attorney-in-fact) and our client.17 (Emphasis supplied) and daughter, respectively of Sps. Casal; x x19 (Emphasis supplied)

Moreover, Mr. Guillermo C. Choa, President of the PCFI, narrated in his affidavit18 the events Likewise, it cannot be denied that it was respondent who engineered the execution of the 12
leading to another sale likewise involving properties coowned by Atty. Casal through the use Deeds of Donation involving 66 pieces of Atty. Casal's property. Respondent was personally
of the spurious SPA, to wit:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary present dwing the alleged signing of the Deeds of Donation in Cavite, which deeds he brought
afterwards to his law office in Quezon City, and notarized the same. Indeed, in his Affidavit,
3) That sometime in August 2003, Sps. Hugh Cledera and Gloria Casal Cledera and Atty. respondent stated:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Antonio Jose F. Cortes offered to me for sale several parcels of land owned by Cesar E. Casal
(father of Gloria Casal Cledera) including Lot 5, Psu 10120 and Lot 6, Psu 101205 containing 11. When I presented the documents for signature of the donorsspouses, Cesar E. Casal
an area of 39,670 square meters and 47,638 square meters, more or less, located at Bo. and Pilar P. Casal, the late Cesar E. Casal stamped the rubber facsimile of his genuine
Lantic, Carmona, Cavite which was then registered in the name of Eduardo Gan, et al. under signature in all the spaces provided in all copies of the Deeds of Donation. At the same time
TCT No. T-79153 of the Register of Deeds fur the Province of Cavite. and place, I also saw his wife Pilar P. Casal affixed [sic] her own signature in the Deeds of
Donation. Also present dming the signing occasion was the donee herself, Dr. Gloria P. Casal,
4) That Sps. Hugh Cledera and Gloria Casal Cledera together with Atty. Cortes also as well as, [sic] her husband, Dr. Hugh Cledera who affixed their signatures in all the copies
presented to me the following documents, to wit: of the Deeds of Donation in my presence.
a

TCT No. T-79153 of the Registry of Deeds for the Province of Cavite. 12. Thereafter, I gathered and brought all the signed copies of the Deeds of Donation to my
office in Quezon City, and notarized them. Record shows that I notarized them and entered
the documents in my Notarial Registry on September 17 and 18, 2003.20 (Emphasis
supplied)
b)
By using the falsified SPA and by knowingly notarizing documents outside of his notarial
commission's jurisdiction, respondent was evidently bereft of basic integrity which is an
indispensable sine qua non of his ongoing membership, in good standing, in the legal
Deed of Absolute Sale dated December 15, 1990 executed by heirs of Eduardo B. Gan, et profession, and as a duly-commissioned notary public.
al. in favor of Cesar E. Casal, Cesar Inis, Ruben Loyola and Angela Lacdan.
In actively participating in the offer and sale of property to PCFI, respondent was guilty of
c deceit and dishonesty by leveraging on the use of a spurious Special Power of Attorney
Deed of Absolute Sale dated December 19, 1990 executed by Cesar Veloso Casal, et. al. in There can be no debate either as to the fact that respondent made use of a forged or falsified
favor ofSps. Cesar and Pilar Casal. SPA in his dealings with PCFI. As the lawyer who assisted in the sale of the properties
through the use of the falsified SPA in question, he ought to know that the use of such
xxxx
falsified or forged SPA gives rise to grievous legal consequences which must inevitably
enmesh him professionally. As a member of the Bar in apparent good legal standing, he

48
effectively held himself out as a trustworthy agent for the principals he was purportedly enabled to maintain the trust reposed upon them and to deliver justice inside and outside the
representing in the transaction/s in question. courtroom.

WHEREFORE, Atty. Antonio Jose F. Cortes is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law
for one (1) year and his Notarial Commission immediately REVOKED, if he is presently
Respondent's act of notarizing a forged Deed of Donation outside of his jurisdiction is a commissioned. Furthermore, he is DISQUALIFIED from reappointment as Notary Public for
violation of his duties as a notary public, as well as a blatant falsification of public document two (2) years, reckoned from the date of finality of this Resolution.

This Court agrees with the fmdings of the IBP Board of Governors which upheld the impartial Furnish a copy of this Resolution to the Office of the Bar Confidant, which shall append the
report of the NBI and its findings that the signatures on the Deeds of Donation were mere same to the personal record of respondent; to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines; and the
photocopies attached to the said Deeds.21 Given the fact that respondent admitted to having Office of the Court Administrator, which shall circulate the same to all courts in the country
been with the late Atty. Casal at the time of the execution of the Deed, it would not be far- for their infonnation and guidance.
fetched to say that the use of the said mere photocopies was with his knowledge and consent.
What is more, his act of bringing the Deeds of Donation that were executed in Carmona,
Cavite, to his law office in Quezon City, and notarizing them there, not only violated Section
240 of the Revised Administrative Code but "also [partook] of malpractice of law and
falsification."22

Section 240 of the Revised Administrative Code explicitly states:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

Sec. 240. Territorial jurisdiction. - The jurisdiction of a notary public in a province shall be
co-extensive with the province. The jurisdiction of a notary public in the City of Manila shall
be co-extensive with said city. No notary shall possess authority to do any notarial act beyond THIRD DIVISION
the limits of his jurisdiction.23 (Emphasis supplied)
[ A.C. No. 11482, July 17, 2017 ]
Needless to say, respondent cannot escape from the clutches of this provision.

The dismissal of the criminal complaints against respondent did not change the sui generis Attorney-Client Relationship; Legal Ethics; Acceptance of money from a client establishes an
attorney-client relationship and gives rise to the duty of fidelity to the client’s cause.—The
character of disbarment proceedings
Court affirms the Resolution No. XXII-2016-178 dated February 25, 2016 of the IBP Board of
Governors, reducing the recommended penalty from six months to reprimand with stern
warning. However, on the undisputed factual finding that respondent only performed
preparatory legal services for complainant’s son, he is not entitled to the entire Php100,000
Respondent's contention that the DOJ had resolved to withdraw the criminal complaints filed but only to fees determined on the basis of quantum meruit, Section 24, Rule 138, and
against him and his co-accused, the spouses Cledera,24 does not persuade. The dismissal or Canon 20, Rule 20.01 of the CPR and that the remainder should be restituted to
withdrawal of the criminal complaints/ information/sat the instance of the DOJ, is of no complainant. Acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney-client relationship
moment. As a member of the Bar, respondent should know that administrative cases against and gives rise to the duty of fidelity to the client’s cause. Canon 18 of the CPR mandates that
lawyers are sui generis, or a class of their own. "Disciplinary proceedings involve no private once a lawyer agrees to handle
interest and afford no redress for private grievance."25 Disbarment cases are aimed at
purging the legal profession of individuals who obdurately scorn and despise the exalted a case, it is the lawyer’s duty to serve the client with competence and diligence.
standards of the noble profession of law. It is within this Court's power, as a check and
balance to its own system, to ensure undeviating integrity by members of the Bar both on the Attorneys; Legal Ethics; Negligence; It is undisputed that respondent came to see
professional and the personal level. It is only by maintaining this integrity and this loyalty to complainant’s son, his client, only once for about twenty (20) minutes and no more
thereafter; it is likewise undisputed that respondent failed to attend the scheduled
the law, to the Courts of Justice and to their client and the public at large, that lawyers are
arraignment despite the latter’s commitment to either find a way to attend, or send a

49
collaborating counsel to do so; that he forgot the date of arraignment is an equally dismal
excuse.—We agree with the finding of the Investigating Commissioner that respondent failed
to competently and diligently attend to the legal matter entrusted to him. It is undisputed Same; Legal Ethics; The Supreme Court (SC) had not shied from ordering a return of
that respondent came to see complainant’s son, his client, only once for about 20 minutes acceptance fees in cases wherein the lawyer had been negligent in the handling of his client’s
and no more thereafter; it is likewise undisputed that respondent failed to attend the case.—Be that as it may, the Court had not shied from ordering a return of acceptance fees in
scheduled arraignment despite the latter’s commitment to either find a way to attend, or send cases wherein the lawyer had been negligent in the handling of his client’s case. Thus, in
a collaborating counsel to do so; that he forgot the date of arraignment is an equally dismal Cariño v. Atty. De Los Reyes, 362 SCRA 374 (2001), the respondent lawyer who failed to file a
excuse. Equally revealing of respondent’s negligence was his nonchalant attitude towards complaint-affidavit before the prosecutor’s office, returned the Php10,000 acceptance fee paid
complainant’s request for a refund of a portion of, not even the entire, Php100,000. In his to him and was admonished to be more careful in the performance of his duty to his clients.
Answer before the IBP, respondent simply denied having received any of the letters sent by Likewise, in Voluntad-Ramirez v. Baustista, 683 SCRA 327 (2012), the respondent lawyer was
complainant. Respondent’s claim that it was complainant who failed to talk to him and his ordered to return the Php14,000 acceptance fee because he did nothing to advance his
admission that he “forgot about complainant” reveal his rather casual and lackadaisical client’s cause during the six-month period that he was engaged as counsel.
treatment of the complainant and the legal matter entrusted to him. If it were true that
complainant already failed to communicate with him, the least respondent could have done
was to withdraw his appearance as counsel. But even this measure, it appears, respondent Attorney’s Fees; Respondent only conferred once with the complainant’s son for twenty (20)
failed to perform. His failure to take such action speaks of his negligence. minutes, filed his entry of appearance, obtained copies of the case records and inquired twice
as to the status of the case. For his efforts and for the particular circumstances in this case,
respondent should be allowed a reasonable compensation of Php3,000.—Respondent only
Administrative Proceedings; Substantial Evidence; In administrative proceedings, only conferred once with the complainant’s son for 20 minutes, filed his entry of appearance,
substantial evidence is required to warrant disciplinary sanctions.—In administrative obtained copies of the case records and inquired twice as to the status of the case. For his
proceedings, only substantial evidence is required to warrant disciplinary sanctions. efforts and for the particular circumstances in this case, respondent should be allowed a
Substantial evidence is consistently defined as relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might reasonable compensation of Php3,000. The remainder, or Php97,000 should be returned to
accept as adequate to support a conclusion. While the Court finds respondent guilty of the complainant. Ignacio vs. Alviar, 831 SCRA 166, A.C. No. 11482 July 17, 2017
negligence, We cannot ascribe to him any unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct
nor causing undue delay and impediment to the execution of a judgment or misusing court
processes. As such, and consistent with current jurisprudence, We find the penalty of JOCELYN IGNACIO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. DANIEL T. ALVIAR, RESPONDENT.
reprimand with stern warning commensurate to his offense.
DECISION
Attorney’s Fees; In its ordinary concept, attorney’s fee refers to the reasonable compensation
paid to a lawyer by his client for legal services rendered. While, in its extraordinary concept, TIJAM, J.:
attorney’s fee is awarded by the court to the successful litigant to be paid by the losing party
as indemnity for damages.—Attorney’s fee is understood both in its ordinary and This is an administrative case filed by complainant Jocelyn Ignacio against respondent Atty.
extraordinary concept. In its ordinary concept, attorney’s fee refers to the reasonable Daniel T. Alviar for violation of Canon 1 [1], Rule 1.01[2] of the Code of Professional
compensation paid to a lawyer by his client for legal services rendered. While, in its Responsibility (CPR) for his alleged refusal to refund the amount of acceptance fees; Canon
extraordinary concept, attorney’s fee is awarded by the court to the successful litigant to be 12[3], Rule 12.04[4] and Canon 18[5] Rule 18.03[6] for his alleged failure to appear in the criminal
paid by the losing party as indemnity for damages. In the present case, the Investigating case he is handling and to file any pleading therein.
Commissioner referred to the attorney’s fee in its ordinary concept.
The Facts
Acceptance Fees; Acceptance fee refers to the charge imposed by the lawyer for mere
acceptance of the case. The rationale for the fee is because once the lawyer agrees to In March 2014, respondent was referred to complainant for purposes of handling the case of
represent a client, he is precluded from handling cases of the opposing party based on the complainant's son who was then apprehended and detained by the Philippine Drug
prohibition on conflict of interest.—Acceptance fee refers to the charge imposed by the lawyer Enforcement Agency (PDEA) in Quezon City. Respondent agreed to represent complainant's
for mere acceptance of the case. The rationale for the fee is because once the lawyer agrees to son for a stipulated acceptance fee of PhP100,000. Respondent further represented that he
represent a client, he is precluded from handling cases of the opposing party based on the could refer the matter to the Commission on Human Rights to investigate the alleged illegal
prohibition on conflict of interest. The opportunity cost of mere acceptance is thus arrest made on complainant's son. [7]
indemnified by the payment of acceptance fee. However, since acceptance fee compensates
the lawyer only for lost opportunity, the same is not measured by the nature and extent of the After the initial payments of PhP20,000 and PhP30,000 were given to respondent, the latter
legal services rendered. visited complainant's son at the PDEA detention cell. [8] There, respondent conferred with

50
complainant's son for some 20 minutes. After which, respondent left. [9] WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the undersigned recommends that respondent be
meted out with the penalty of suspension for six (6) months from the practice of law and
Respondent, through his secretary, secured from the Office of the Pasay City Prosecutor plain ordered to restitute the amount of One Hundred Thousand (Php100,000) Pesos to the
copies of the case records. Respondent also verified twice from the Hall of Justice if the case complainant.
was already filed in court. [10] It was at this time that respondent asked, and was paid, the
remaining balance of PhP50,000. Subsequently, respondent filed his notice of appearance as Respectfully Submitted.[20]
counsel for complainant's son.[11] Resolution of the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines

Sometime in April 2014, complainant informed respondent that her son's arraignment was On February 25, 2016, the IBP Board of Governors passed Resolution No. XXII-2016-178 [21]
set on April 29, 2014. Respondent, however, replied that he cannot attend said arraignment lowering the recommended penalty to reprimand with stem warning, thus:
due to a previously scheduled hearing. He committed to either find a way to attend the RESOLVED to ADOPT with modification the recommendation of the Investigating
hearing or ask another lawyer-friend to attend it for him. Commissioner reducing the penalty to REPRIMAND WITH STERN WARNING. [22]
Pursuant to Rule 139-B, the records of the administrative case were transmitted by the IBP to
On April 26, 2014, complainant wrote a 1etter [12] to respondent informing the latter that she the Court for final action. Complainant further seeks a review [23] of the Resolution No. XXII-
had decided to seek the intercession of another lawyer owing to the fact that respondent 2016-178 dated February 25, 2016.
cannot attend her son's scheduled arraignment. Complainant then requested that respondent
retain a portion of the PhP100,000 to fairly remunerate respondent for the preparatory legal The Issue
service he rendered. Respondent denies having received said letter. [13]
The threshold issue to be resolved is whether respondent is guilty of negligence in handling
On the date of the arraignment, neither respondent nor his promised alternate, appeared. the case of complainant's son.
When asked, respondent replied that he forgot the date of arraignment. [14]
The Ruling of the Court
This incident prompted complainant to write another letter [15] dated May 6, 2014 to
respondent, requesting the latter to formally withdraw as counsel and emphasized that The Court affirms the Resolution No. XXII-2016-178 dated February 25, 2016 of the IBP
respondent's withdrawal as counsel is necessary so that she and her son can hire another Board of Governors, reducing the recommended penalty from six months to reprimand with
lawyer to take his stead. In said letter, complainant also reiterated her request that a portion stem warning. However, on the undisputed factual finding that respondent only performed
of the PhP100,000 be remitted to them after respondent deducts his professional fees preparatory legal services for complainant's son, he is not entitled to the entire PhP100,000
commensurate to the preparatory legal service he rendered. [16] but only to fees determined on the basis of quantum meruit, Section 24, Rule 138, and Canon
20, Rule 20.01 of the CPR and that the remainder should be restituted to complainant.
When respondent failed to take heed, complainant filed on June 16, 2014, the instant
administrative complaint before the Commission on Bar Discipline, Integrated Bar of the Acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney-client relationship and gives rise to
Philippines. the duty of fidelity to the client's cause. [24] Canon 18[25] of the CPR mandates that once a
lawyer agrees to handle a case, it is the lawyer's duty to serve the client with competence and
At the proceedings therein, respondent failed to attend the initial mandatory conferences and diligence.
to file his responsive pleading, citing as reason therefor the persistent threats to his life
allegedly caused by a former client. [17] Upon finally submitting his Answer[18], respondent In Voluntad-Ramirez v. Atty. Bautista[26], the Court citing Santiago v. Fojas[27] expounds:
denied having neglected his duties to complainant's son. It is axiomatic that no lawyer is obliged to act either as adviser or advocate for every person
who may wish to become his client. He has the right to decline employment, subject,
Report and Recommendation of the Commission on Bar Discipline however, to Canon 14 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Once he agrees to take up
the cause of [his] client, the lawyer owes fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of
On January 21, 2016, the Investigating Commissioner found respondent  liable for negligence the trust and confidence reposed in him. He must serve the client with competence and
under Rule 18.03 of the CPR and recommended a penalty of six months suspension from the diligence, and champion the latter's cause with wholehearted fidelity, care and devotion.
practice of law. The Investigating Commissioner observed that while respondent performed Elsewise stated, he owes entire devotion to the interest of his client, warm zeal in the
some tasks as lawyer for complainant's son, such do not command a fee of PhP100,000. It maintenance and defense of his client's rights, and the exertion of his utmost learning and
was also emphasized that respondent's failure to attend the arraignment shows the latter's ability to the end that nothing be taken or withheld from his client, save by the rules of the
failure to handle the case with diligence. [19] law, legally applied. This simply means that his client is entitled to the benefit of any and
every remedy and defense that is authorized by the law of the land and he may expect his
As such, the Investigating Commissioner disposed: lawyer to assert every such remedy or defense. If much is demanded from an attorney, it is
51
because the entrusted privilege to practice law carries with it the correlative duties not only to indemnified by the payment of acceptance fee. However, since acceptance fee compensates
the client but also to the court, to the bar, and to the public. A lawyer who performs his duty the lawyer only for lost opportunity, the same is not measured by the nature and extent of the
with diligence and candor not only protects the interest of his client; he also serves the ends legal services rendered.[37]
of justice, does honor to the bar, and helps maintain the respect of the community to the
legal profession.[28] In this case, respondent referred to the PhP100,000 as his acceptance fee while to the
We agree with the finding of the Investigating Commissioner that respondent failed to complainant, said amount answers for the legal services which respondent was engaged to
competently and diligently attend to the legal matter entrusted to him. It is undisputed that provide. Preceding from the fact that complainant agreed to immediately pay, as she, in fact,
respondent came to see complainant's son, his client, only once for about 20 minutes and no immediately paid the sums of PhP20,000, PhP30,000 and PhP50,000, said amounts
more thereafter;[29] it is likewise undisputed that respondent failed to attend the scheduled undoubtedly pertain to respondent's acceptance fee which is customarily paid by the client
arraignment despite the latter's commitment to either find a way to attend, or send a upon the lawyer's acceptance of the case.
collaborating counsel to do so;[30] that he forgot the date of arraignment is an equally dismal
excuse. Be that as it may, the Court had not shied from ordering a return of acceptance fees in cases
wherein the lawyer had been negligent in the handling of his client's case. Thus, in Carino v.
Equally revealing of respondent's negligence was his nonchalant attitude towards Atty. De Los Reyes,[38] the respondent lawyer who failed to file a complaint-affidavit before the
complainant's request for a refund of a portion of, not even the entire, PhP100,000. In his prosecutor's office, returned the PhP10,000 acceptance fee paid to him and was admonished
Answer before the IBP, respondent simply denied having received any of the letters sent by to be more careful in the performance of his duty to his clients. Likewise, in Voluntad-Ramirez
complainant.[31] Respondent's claim that it was complainant who failed to talk to him and his v. Baustista,[39] the respondent lawyer was ordered to return the PhP14,000 acceptance fee
admission that he "forgot about complainant" [32] reveal his rather casual and lackadaisical because he did nothing to advance his client's cause during the six-month period that he was
treatment of the complainant and the legal matter entrusted to him. engaged as counsel.

If it were true that complainant already failed to communicate with him, the least respondent This being the case, the next query to be had is how much of the acceptance fee should
could have done was to withdraw his appearance as counsel. But even this measure, it respondent restitute. In this regard, the principle of quantum meruit (as much as he deserves)
appears, respondent failed to perform. His failure to take such action speaks of his may serve as a basis for determining the reasonable amount of attorney's fees. Quantum
negligence. meruit is a device to prevent undue enrichment based on the equitable postulate that it is
unjust for a person to retain benefit without working for it.
In administrative proceedings, only substantial evidence is required to warrant disciplinary
sanctions. Substantial evidence is consistently defined as relevant evidence as a reasonable Also, Section 24, Rule 138 should be observed m determining respondent's compensation,
mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. [33] While the Court finds respondent thus:
guilty of negligence, We cannot ascribe to him any unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful SEC. 24. Compensation of attorney's; agreement as to fees. An attorney shall be entitled to
conduct nor causing undue delay and impediment to the execution of a judgment or misusing have and recover from his client no more than a reasonable compensation for his services,
court processes. As such, and consistent with current jurisprudence, We find the penalty of with a view to the importance of the subject matter of the controversy, the extent of the
reprimand with stem warning commensurate to his offense. [34] services rendered, and the professional standing of the attorney. No court shall be bound by
the opinion of attorneys as expert witnesses as to the proper compensation, but may
As regards the restitution of the acceptance fees, We find it necessary to first distinguish disregard such testimony and base its conclusion on its own professional knowledge. A
between an attorney's fee and an acceptance fee as the former depends on the nature and written contract for services shall control the amount to be paid therefor unless found by the
extent of the legal services rendered, while the other does not. court to be unconscionable or unreasonable.
The criteria found in the Code of Professional Responsibility are also to be considered in
On one hand, attorney's fee is understood both in its ordinary and extraordinary concept. [35] assessing the proper amount of compensation that a lawyer should receive. [40] Canon 20, Rule
In its ordinary concept, attorney's fee refers to the reasonable compensation paid to a lawyer 20.01 provides:
by his client for legal services rendered. While, in its extraordinary concept, attorney's fee is CANON 20 A LAWYER SHALL CHARGE ONLY FAIR AND REASONABLE FEES.
awarded by the court to the successful litigant to be paid by the losing party as indemnity for
damages.[36] In the present case, the Investigating Commissioner referred to the attorney's fee Rule 20.01. A lawyer shall be guided by the following factors in determining his fees:
in its ordinary concept.
(a) The time spent and the extent of the services rendered or required;
On the other hand, acceptance fee refers to the charge imposed by the lawyer for mere
acceptance of the case. The rationale for the fee is because once the lawyer agrees to (b) The novelty and difficulty of the question involved;
represent a client, he is precluded from handling cases of the opposing party based on the
prohibition on conflict of interest. The opportunity cost of mere acceptance is thus (c) The importance of the subject matter;

52
(d) The skill demanded;

(e) The probability of losing other employment as a result of acceptance of the proffered case;

(f) The customary charges for similar services and the schedule of fees of the IBP Chapter to
which he belongs;

(g) The amount involved in the controversy and the benefits resulting to the client from the
service;

(h) The contingency or certainty of compensation;

(i) The character of the employment, whether occasional or established; and

(j) The professional standing of the lawyer.

Here, respondent only conferred once with the complainant's son for 20 minutes, filed his
entry of appearance, obtained copies of the case records and inquired twice as to the status of
the case. For his efforts and for the particular circumstances in this case, respondent should
be allowed a reasonable compensation of PhP3,000. The remainder, or PhP97,000 should be
returned to the complainant.

WHEREFORE, We find Atty. Daniel T. Alviar LIABLE for violation of Canon 18 and Rule 18.03
of the Code of Professional Responsibility and he is hereby REPRIMANDED with a stem
warning that a repetition of the same or similar act would be dealt with more severely. Atty.
Daniel T. Alviar is ordered to RESTITUTE to complainant the amount of PhP97,000 out of the
Php100,000 acceptance fee.

SO ORDERED.

A.C. No. 10859

[Formerly CBD Case No. 09-2514]

Notary Public; 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice; Under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, a
person commissioned as a notary public may perform notarial acts in any place within the
territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court for a period of two (2) years commencing
the first day of January of the year in which the commissioning is made.—Under the 2004
Rules on Notarial Practice, a person commissioned as a notary public may perform notarial
acts in any place within the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court for a period of
two (2) years commencing the first day of January of the year in which the commissioning is
made. Commission either means the grant of authority to perform notarial or the written
evidence of authority. Without a commission, a lawyer is unauthorized to perform any of the

53
notarial acts. A lawyer who acts as a notary public without the necessary notarial In her verified complaint,3 dated April 6, 2009, which was indorsed by the Court to the IBP,
commission is remiss in his professional duties and responsibilities. complainant Maria Fatima Japitana (Fatima) accused respondent Atty. Sylvester C. Parado
(Atty. Parado) of performing notarial acts without authority to do so, knowingly notarizing
Same; Same; Section 2(b), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice requires the forged documents, and notarizing documents without requiring sufficient identification from
presentation of a competent evidence of identity, if the person appearing before the notary the signatories.
public is not personally known by him.—Atty. Parado knowingly performed notarial acts in
2006 in spite of the absence of a notarial commission for the said period. Further, he was The Complaint
dishonest when he testified in court that he had a notarial commission effective until 2008,
when, in truth, he had none. Atty. Parado’s misdeeds run afoul of his duties and On June 22, 2006, Atty. Parado notarized the Real Estate Mortgage4 between RC Lending
responsibilities, both as a lawyer and a notary public. Moreover, even if Atty. Parado had a Investors, Inc. (RC Lending), as mortgagee, and Maria Theresa G. Japitana (Theresa) and Ma.
valid notarial commission, he still failed to faithfully observe the Rules on Notarial Practice Nette Japitana (Nette), as mortgagors. It was supposedly witnessed by Maria Sallie Japitana
when he notarized the Real Estate Mortgage and the Affidavit of Conformity with the persons (Sallie) and Maria Lourdes Japitana-Sibi (Lourdes) and her husband Dante Sibi (Dante),
who executed the said documents merely presenting their Residence Certificate or Fatima's sisters and brother-in-law, respectively. The mortgage covered a parcel of land on
Community Tax Certificate (CTC) before him. Section 2(b), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on which the family home of the Japitanas was constituted. On the same date, Atty. Parado
Notarial Practice requires the presentation of a competent evidence of identity, if the person notarized the Affidavit5 allegedly executed by Theresa, Nette, Lourdes, Dante, and Sallie to
appearing before the notary public is not personally known by him. Section 12, Rule II of the show their conformity to the Real Estate Mortgage over the land where their family home was
same Rules defines competent evidence of identity as: (a) at least one current identification situated.
document issued by an official agency bearing the photograph and signature of the
individual; or (b) the oath or affirmation of one credible witness not privy to the instrument,
document or transaction, who is personally known to the notary public and who personally On October 23, 2006, RC Lending, through Cristeta G. Cuenco (Cuenco), filed its Petition for
knows the individual, or of two credible witnesses neither of whom is privy to the instrument, ExtraJudicial Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage.6 Consequently, the Transfer Certificate of
document or transaction who each personally knows the individual and shows to the notary Title (TCT) was issued under the name of RC Lending. On February 3, 2009, it filed an ex-
public a documentary identification. parte motion7 for the issuance of a break-open order, for RC Lending to effectively take the
possession of the subject property as it was gated and nobody would answer in spite of the
sheriffs repeated knocking.
Same; Same; Atty. Parado did not claim to personally know the persons who executed the
said documents. Hence, the presentation of their Community Tax Certificates (CTCs) was
insufficient because those cannot be considered as competent evidence of identity, as defined Fatima, however, assailed that the signatures in the Real Estate Mortgage as well as in the
in the Rules.—Atty. Parado did not claim to personally know the persons who executed the Affidavit, both notarized on June 22, 2006, were forgeries. She asserted that Atty. Parado did
said documents. Hence, the presentation of their CTCs was insufficient because those cannot not require the persons who appeared before him to present any valid identification. Fatima
be considered as competent evidence of identity, as defined in the Rules. Reliance on the alleged that Atty. Parado manually forged the signatures of Sallie, Lourdes and Dante, as
CTCs alone is a punishable indiscretion by the notary public. Doubtless, Atty. Parado should witnesses to the Real Estate Mortgage. She added that her sister, Theresa, was a
be held accountable for failing to perform his duties and responsibilities expected of him. The schizophrenic since 1975. More importantly, Fatima averred that Atty. Parado had no notarial
penalty recommended, however, should be increased to put premium on the importance of authority, as certified8 by the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu (RTC).
the duties and responsibilities of a notary public. Pursuant to the pronouncement in Re:
Violation of Rules on Notarial Practice, 746 SCRA 331 (2015), Atty. Parado should be Proceedings before the IBP
suspended for two (2) years from the practice of law and forever barred from becoming a
notary public. Japitana vs. Parado, 782 SCRA 34, A.C. No. 10859 January 26, 2016 The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (CED) issued the order,9 dated September 17, 2009,
directing Atty. Parado to submit his answer to the verified complaint within fifteen (15) days
C. PARADO, Respondent. from receipt of the said order. On February 17, 2001, the IBP CBD issued the Notice of
Mandatory Conference,10 requiring both parties to attend the mandatory conference set on
D E C I S I O N MARIA FATIMA JAPITANA, Complainant, March 16, 2011. On the said date, The IBP CBD issued another order,11 resetting the
vs. mandatory conference to April 6, 2011 because Atty. Parado failed to appear before the
ATTY. SYLVESTER commission.

This refers to the September 27, 2014 Resolution1 of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines- On April 6, 2011, Atty. Parado again failed to appear. The IBP CBD then issued the order 12
Board of Governors (IBP-BOG), which adopted and approved with modification, the Report and terminating the mandatory conference and directing both parties to submit their respective
Recommendation2 of the Investigating Commissioner. position papers within ten (10) days from receipt of the order.
54
In her position paper,13 Fatima reiterated that Atty. Parado was guilty of unethical conduct Parado had not been issued a notarial commission for the year 2006. He failed to refute the
for performing notarial acts without the necessary authority, and that he knowingly notarized same as he neither appeared during the mandatory conference nor filed his position paper.
forged documents. Atty. Parado, on the other hand, failed to submit his position paper.
Under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice,16 a person commissioned as a notary public may
Report and Recommendation perform notarial acts in any place within the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning
court for a period of two (2) years commencing the first day of January of the year in which
In his October 31, 2011 Report and Recommendation,14 Investigating Commissioner Oliver the commissioning is made. Commission either means the grant of authority to perform
A. Cachapero (Commissioner Cachapero) noted that Atty. Parado had previously testified in notarial or the written evidence of authority.17
court that the mortgagors and the witnesses personally appeared before him and that it was
he who required them to affix their thumb marks and their signatures - which the parties and Without a commission, a lawyer is unauthorized to perform any of the notarial acts. A lawyer
the witnesses in the Real Estate Mortgage did. Commissioner Cachapero opined that there who acts as a notary public without the necessary notarial commission is remiss in his
was no evidence to support that Atty. Parado lied as the court had not set aside his professional duties and responsibilities. In Re: Violation of Rules on Notarial Practice,18 the
testimonies. Consequently, he concluded that it was not proven that Atty. Parado forged the Court emphasized that notaries public must uphold the requirements in acting as such, to
assailed documents and notarized the same. wit:

Commissioner Cachapero, however, found that Atty. Parado was dishonest when he testified Under the rule, only persons who are commissioned as notary public may perform notarial
that he was issued a notarial commission effective until 2008. His claim was belied by the acts within the territorial jurisdiction of the court which granted the commission. Clearly,
certification issued by the Clerk of Court of the RTC stating that Atty. Parado had not been Atty. Siapno could not perform notarial functions in Lingayen, Natividad and Dagupan City of
issued a notarial commission for 2006. As such, he recommended that Atty. Parado be the Province of Pangasinan since he was not commissioned in the said places to perform such
suspended from the practice of law for one (1) year. act.

On September 27, 2014, the IBP-BOG resolved to revoke Atty. Parado's notarial commission, Time and again, this Court has stressed that notarization is not an empty, meaningless and
if presently commissioned, for testifying that he had a notarial commission valid until 2008, routine act. It is invested with substantive public interest that only those who are qualified or
contrary to the certification issued by the Clerk of Court of the RTC and for ignoring the authorized may act as notaries public. It must be emphasized that the act of notarization by a
notices sent by the Commission on Bar Discipline. Likewise, the Board of Governors notary public converts a private document into a public document making that document
disqualified Atty. Parado from being commissioned as a notary public for two (2) years and admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity.1âwphi1 A notarial document is
suspended him from the practice of law for six (6) months. Specifically, Resolution No. XXI- by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face, and for this reason, notaries public must
2014-616, reads: observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of their duties.

xxx for testifying in Court that Respondent himself was issued notarial commission up to the By performing notarial acts without the necessary commission from the court, Atty. Siapno
year 2008 which was belied by the Certificate of the Clerk of Court VII of Cebu City pointing violated not only his oath to obey the laws particularly the Rules on Notarial Practice but also
out that Respondent was not issued a Notarial Commission for the year 2006, and for Canons 1 and 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which proscribes all lawyers from
ignoring the notices of the Commission, Atty. Sylvester C. Parado's notarial commission if engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct and directs them to uphold the
presently commissioned is immediately REVOKED. integrity and dignity of the legal profession, at all times.

FURTHER, he is DISQUALIFIED from being Commissioned as Notary Public for two (2) 1ears In a plethora of cases, the Court has subjected lawyers to disciplinary action for notarizing
and SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months.15 documents outside their territorial jurisdiction or with an expired commission. xxxx
[Emphases Supplied]
The Court's Ruling
Atty. Parado knowingly performed notarial acts in 2006 in spite of the absence of a notarial
The Court agrees with the IBP BOG but modifies the penalty imposed. commission for the said period. Further, he was dishonest when he testified in court that he
had a notarial commission effective until 2008, when, in truth, he had none. Atty. Parado's
misdeeds run afoul of his duties and responsibilities, both as a lawyer and a notary public.
A close perusal of the records reveals that Atty. Parado had no existing notarial commission
when he notarized the documents in question in 2006. This is supported by the certification
issued by the Clerk of Court of the RTC stating that based on the Notarial Records, Atty. Moreover, even if Atty. Parado had a valid notarial commission, he still failed to faithfully
observe the Rules on Notarial Practice when he notarized the Real Estate Mortgage and the
55
Affidavit of Conformity with the persons who executed the said documents merely presenting
their Residence Certificate or Community Tax Certificate (CTC) before him.

Section 2(b), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice requires the presentation of a
competent evidence of identity, if the person appearing before the notary public is not
personally known by him. Section 12, Rule II of the same Rules defines competent evidence of
identity as: (a) at least one current identification document issued by an official agency
bearing the photograph and signature of the individual; or (b) the oath or affirmation of one
credible witness not privy to the instrument, document or transaction, who is personally
known to the notary public and who personally knows the individual, or of two credible
witnesses neither of whom is privy to the instrument, document or transaction who each
personally knows the individual and shows to the notary public a documentary identification.

Atty. Parado did not claim to personally know the persons who executed the said documents.
Hence, the presentation of their CTCs was insufficient because those cannot be considered as
competent evidence of identity, as defined in the Rules. Reliance on the CTCs alone is a
punishable indiscretion by the notary public.19

Doubtless, Atty. Parado should be held accountable for failing to perform his duties and
responsibilities expected of him. The penalty recommended, however, should be increased to
put premium on the importance of the duties and responsibilities of a notary public.
Pursuant to the pronouncement in Re: Violation of Rules on Notarial Practice,20 Atty. Parado
should be suspended for two (2) years from the practice of law and forever barred from
becoming a notary public.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Sylvester C. Parado is SUSPENDED from the practice of law
for two (2) years and PERMANENTLY DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as Notary
Public.

This order is IMMEDIATELY EXECUTORY.

Let copies of this decision be furnished all courts in the country and the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines for their information and guidance. Let a copy of this decision be also appended to
the personal record of Atty. Sylvester C. Parado as a member of the Bar.

February 2, 2016
SO ORDERED

A.C. No. 9807

Notary Public; Atty. Ogena was negligent in the performance of his duty as a notary public.
He failed to require the personal presence of the signatories of the documents and proceeded
to notarize the aforementioned documents without the signatures of all the parties.—
Doubtless, Atty. Ogena was negligent in the performance of his duty as a notary public. He
failed to require the personal presence of the signatories of the documents and proceeded to
notarize the aforementioned documents without the signatures of all the parties. Likewise,
Atty. Ogena failed to comply with the most basic function that a notary public must do — to
56
require the parties to present their residence certificates or any other document to prove their manifested her desire to represent the heirs of Martin Sistual, so her two children, Isidro
identities. Sistual and Flordelisa Sistual, also executed an SPA in her favor; that the heirs of Martin
Sistual opposed the appointment of Erlinda and executed another SPA,8 dated October 5,
Same; By notarizing the aforementioned documents, Atty. Ogena engaged in unlawful, 1995, in favor of Bienvenido; and that in the October 5, 1995 SPA, Atty. Ogena wrote the
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. His conduct is fraught with dangerous possibilities names of complainants Erlinda and Flordeliza Sistual but they did not sign it.
considering the conclusiveness on the due execution of a document that our courts and the
public accord to notarized documents.—By notarizing the aforementioned documents, Atty. As to the incident that led to the subdivision of TCT No. T-60467, [Link] explained that
Ogena engaged in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. His conduct is fraught Bienvenido, upon the prodding of the heirs of Martin Sistual with the exception of the
with dangerous possibilities considering the conclusiveness on the due execution of a complainants, caused the subdivision of the property covered by TCT No. T-60467 into
document that our courts and the public accord to notarized documents. His failure to several sub-lots identified as TCT Nos. 76078,9 76079,10 76080,11 76081,12 76082,13
perform his duty as a notary public resulted not only in damaging complainants’ rights but 76083,14 76084,15 76085,16 and 76086,17 and that the corresponding subdivision plans
also in undermining the integrity of a notary public and in degrading the function of and technical descriptions thereof were duly approved by the Regional Director, Bureau of
notarization. Thus, Atty. Ogena should be liable for such negligence, not only as a notary Lands, Davao City; and that the subdivided lots were in the names of all the heirs of Martin
public but also as a lawyer. Sistual vs. Ogena, 782 SCRA 622, A.C. No. 9807 February 2, Sistual including the complainants.
2016
On September 7, 1996, the heirs of Dolores Sistual Tulay executed an Extrajudicial
ERLINDA SISTUAL, FLORDELISA S. LEYSA, LEONISA S. ESPABO and ARLAN C. SISTUAL, Settlement18 whereby the 1/7 share of their mother in the lot covered by TCT No. T-60467
Complainants, was waived, repudiated and relinquished in favor of their father, Domingo Tulay; that the
vs. heirs of Manuel Sistual also executed an Extrajudicial Settlement19 waiving their 1/7 share
ATTY. ELIORDO OGENA, Respondent in the same property in favor of their mother, Erlinda.

DECISION On April 10 and 15, 1997, the heirs of Martin Sistual including complainants executed two
deeds of donation20 in favor of Barangay Lamian conveying the lot covered by TCT Nos. T-
PER CURIAM: 76083 and T-76086 to be used for its public market.

In a Complaint,1 dated June 1, 2006, filed before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Atty. Ogena denied that the aforementioned documents were falsified as they were actually
(JBP),complainants Erlinda C. Sistual, Flordelisa2 S. Leysa, Leonisa S. Espabo, and Arlan C. executed and duly signed by all the parties therein; and that all the signatures of
Sistual (complainants) alleged that respondent Atty. Eliordo Ogena (Atty. Ogena), who was the complainants appearing in the aforementioned documents were identical; that the deeds of
legal counsel of their late father, Manuel A. Sistual (Manuel), wilfully, unlawfully and donation were duly attested to by Barangay Captain Conrado Toledo and the barangay
feloniously falsified several documents which included, among others, a Special Power of kagawads;21 and that the aforementioned documents did not in any way prejudiced the
Attorney (SPA), Extra-Judicial Settlement of Estate, Affidavit of Identification of Heirs, Deed of complainants. The execution thereof did not defraud them or any of the heirs of Martin Sistual
Donation, and a Deed of Absolute Sale by making it appear that all the children of Manuel as the issuance of the nine (9) new and separate titles in the names of all the heirs, as co-
and their mother, Erlinda Sistual (Erlinda), executed the documents; that as a result of the owners, was beneficial and favorable to all of them.
falsification of the said documents, Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 60467, registered in
the name of "Heirs of Martin Sistual, represented by Manuel Sistual,"3 was cancelled and was Finally, as to the Absolute Deed of Sale,22 dated July 18, 1989, executed by spouses Manuel
subdivided into several lots; and that these lots were sold to interested buyers. and Erlinda in favor of Socorro Langub, Atty. Ogena also denied that this was falsified as this
was duly executed, signed and subscribed by all the parties. Atty. Ogena submitted a copy of
In his Answer with Affirmative/Special Defenses and Motion to Dismiss,4 Atty. Ogena denied the said deed of sale23 to prove that it was duly executed and signed by Manuel and Erlinda,
the allegations. He averred that in 1987, he was engaged by Manuel to represent the heirs of as the vendors; and Socorro Langub, as the vendee.
Martin Sistual in a complaint for recovery of possession filed by Abid Mendal (Abid) and
Abundio Sistual (Abundio);5 that Manuel was the representative of the Heirs of Martin In its Report and Recommendation,24 the IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) stated
Sistual; that the heirs of Martin Sistual were able to obtain a favorable decision6 in the said that it is bereft of any jurisdiction to determine whether Atty. Ogena committed forgery in the
case; that pursuant to the said decision, Lot 464 was awarded to the heirs of Martin Sistual aforementioned documents. It, however, found several irregularities in the documents
and TCT No. T-60467 was issued in their names; that when Manuel died on November 15, notarized by Atty. Ogena. First, in the SPA, the signatures of Flordelisa Sistual and Isidro
1993, the heirs of Martin Sistual executed an SPA,7 dated December 31, 1993, designating Sistual were absent and the Community Tax Certificates (CTC) of the signatories namely:
Bienvenido Sistual (Bienvenido) as their attorney-in-fact; that Erlinda, the wife of Manuel, Bernardina Sistual Anson, Jesusa Sistual Español, and Erlinda, were not indicated. In the

57
Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate of Deceased Manuel, although all the heirs signed, only the require the parties to present their residence certificates or any other document to prove their
CTC of Erlinda and Flordelisa were indicated. In the Affidavit of Identification of Heirs of identities. This Court, in Gonzales v. Atty. Ramos,31 wrote:
Martin Sistual, the CTC of Solfia S. Maribago was absent; and in the Extrajudicial Settlement
of Estate of Deceased Dolores Sistual with Waiver of Hereditary Shares, only the CTC of Notarization is not an empty, meaningless routinary act. It is invested with substantive public
Domingo Tulay was indicated. Thus, the IBP-CBD recommended that Atty. Ogena’s notarial interest. The notarization by a notary public converts a private document into a public
commission be revoked and that he be permanently disqualified from reappointment as document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. A
Notary Public; and that he be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year. notarial document is, by law, entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. A notary public
must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of their duties;
On December 10, 2011, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved with modification otherwise, the public’s confidence in the integrity of the document would be undermined.
the Report and Recommendation of the IBP-CBD.1âwphi1 The IBP Board of Governors
revoked Atty. Ogena’s commission as notary public and permanently disqualified him from By notarizing the aforementioned documents, Atty. Ogena engaged in unlawful, dishonest,
reappointment as Notary Public. It, however, deleted the penalty of suspension.25 immoral or deceitful conduct.32 His conduct is fraught with dangerous possibilities
considering the conclusiveness on the due execution of a document that our courts and the
On March 29, 2012, Atty. Ogena filed a motion for reconsideration before the IBP. public accord to notarized documents.33 His failure to perform his duty as a notary public
resulted not only in damaging complainants' rights but also in undermining the integrity of a
In a Resolution, dated November 10, 2012, the IBP Board of Governors denied the motion for notary public and in degrading the function of notarization. Thus, Atty. Ogena should be
reconsideration and affirmed with modification its earlier resolution, revoking Atty. Ogena’s liable for such negligence, not only as a notary public but also as a lawyer.
notarial commission indefinitely.
Pursuant to the pronouncement in Re: Violation of Rules on Notarial Practice,34 Atty. Ogena
The Court agrees with the findings of the IBP except as to the penalty it imposed. To begin should be suspended for two (2) years from the practice of law and forever barred from
with, complainants’ allegation of forgery was not clearly substantiated and there was no becoming a notary public.
concrete proof that the complainants were prejudiced. They submitted a copy of the
affidavits26 for falsification executed by Erlinda and Flordelisa, both subscribed before the WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Eliordo Ogena is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for
City of Prosecutor on February 20, 2006; Memoranda for Preliminary Investigation 27 issued two (2) years and is BARRED PERMANENTLY from being commissioned as Notary Public.
by Office of the City Prosecutor, Koronadal, South Cotabato; Letter,28 Memorandum,29 and
Order30 issued by the Bureau of Lands, but these do not suffice to prove the allegation of This decision is IMMEDIATELY EXECUTORY.
forgery and/or falsification.
Let copies of this decision be furnished all courts in the country and the Integrated Bar of the
Atty. Ogena, however, violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice specifically Rule IV, Philippines for their information and guidance. Let also a copy of this decision be appended to
Section 2(b), which provides: the personal record of Atty. Eliordo Ogena in the Office of the Bar Confidant.

Section 2. Prohibitions. – (a) x x x SO ORDERED

(b) A person shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as signatory to the FIRST DIVISION
instrument or document –
A.C. No. 6980, August 30, 2017
(1) is not in the notary's presence personally at the time of the notarization; and
Attorneys; Legal Ethics; As vanguards of our legal system, lawyers are expected to maintain
(2) is not personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified by the notary public not only legal proficiency but also a high standard of morality, honesty, integrity and fair
through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules.1avvphi1 dealing.—Lawyers are instruments in the administration of justice. As vanguards of our legal
system, they are expected to maintain not only legal proficiency but also a high standard of
Doubtless, Atty. Ogena was negligent in the performance of his duty as a notary public. He morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing. [It is only in living up to the very high standards
failed to require the personal presence of the signatories of the documents and proceeded to and tenets of the legal profession that] the people’s faith and confidence in the judicial system
notarize the aforementioned documents without the signatures of all the parties. Likewise, can be ensured. Lawyers may be disciplined — whether in their professional or in their
Atty. Ogena failed to comply with the most basic function that a notary public must do - to
58
private capacity — for any conduct that is wanting in morality, honesty, probity and good Factual Antecedents
demeanor.
In a sworn letter dated August 4, 2005, complainants alleged that respondent was left ith the
Same; Same; As the lawyer who assisted in the sale of the properties through the use of the care and maintenance of several properties either owned or under the administration of Atty.
falsified Special Power of Attorney (SPA) in question, he ought to know that the use of such Casal since the latter's death; that respondent abused his authority, as such administrator,
falsified or forged SPA gives rise to grievous legal consequences which must inevitably and engineered the sale or transfer of the said properties, specifically the two parcels of land
enmesh him professionally.—There can be no debate either as to the fact that respondent covered by TCT Nos. T-1069335 and T-1069336, which were owned originally by their
made use of a forged or falsified SPA in his dealings with PCFI. As the lawyer who assisted in (complainants') ancestors; that on May 19, 2004, respondent, in connivance with Cesar Inis
the sale of the properties through the use of the falsified SPA in question, he ought to know (Inis) and A Casal's alleged adopted daughter, Gloria Casal Cledera (Gloria), and her
that the use of such falsified or forged SPA gives rise to grievous legal consequences which husband, Hugh Cledera (the spouses Cledera), sold the abovementioned parcels of land to the
must inevitably enmesh him professionally. As a member of the Bar in apparent good legal Property Company of Friends, Inc. (PCFI).1
standing, he effectively held himself out as a trustworthy agent for the principals he was
purportedly representing in the transaction/s in question. Complainants further averred that as the said properties were originally in the names of Inis,
Ruben Loyola (Loyola), Angela Lacdan (Lacdan) and Cesar Veloso Casal (Veloso), these
Same; Disbarment; Disbarment cases are aimed at purging the legal profession of individuals persons, in conspiracy with respondent, caused to be executed a Special Power of Attorney2
who obdurately scorn and despise the exalted standards of the noble profession of law.— (SPA) dated May 4, 2004, under which Loyola, Lacdan and Veloso purportedly authorized
Respondent’s contention that the DOJ had resolved to withdraw the criminal complaints filed their co-owner Inis to sell the said properties; that this SPA was, however, forged or falsified,
against him and his co-accused, the spouses Cledera, does not persuade. The dismissal or because Loyola was already dead on August 15, 1994, whereas Lacdan died on August 31,
withdrawal of the criminal complaints/information/s at the instance of the DOJ, is of no 2001, and at the time of the execution of the SPA in Catmona, Cavite, Veloso was in fact in
moment. As a member of the Bar, respondent should know that administrative cases against Tacloban City; and that indeed, as a consequence of respondent's wrongdoing, criminal cases
lawyers are sui generis, or a class of their own. “Disciplinary proceedings involve no private for Estata through Falsification of Public Document were filed against respondent and the
interest and afford no redress for private grievance.” Disbarment cases are aimed at purging spouses Cledera.3
the legal profession of individuals who obdurately scorn and despise the exalted standards of
the noble profession of law. It is within this Court’s power, as a check and balance to its own Complainants moreover claimed that respondent notarized 12 falsified Deeds of Donation,
system, to ensure undeviating integrity by members of the Bar — both on the professional dated September 17 and 18, 2003, and supposedly executed in Carmona, Cavite, under
and the personal level. It is only by maintaining this integrity and this loyalty to the law, to which it was made to appear that Atty. Casal purportedly donated 66 pieces of property to
the Courts of Justice and to their client and the public at large, that lawyers are enabled to Gloria; that they (complainants) caused to be verified/examined Atty. Casal's "superimposed"
maintain the trust reposed upon them and to deliver justice inside and outside the signatures on these deeds of donation by the Questioned Documents Division of the National
courtroom. Sta. Ana vs. Cortes, 838 SCRA 54, A.C. No. 6980 August 30, 2017 Bureau of Investigation (NBI); and that in its Disposition Forms, the NBI concluded that "the
signatures appearing on the said questioned documents are mere xerox copies which do not
CESAR O. STA. ANA, CRISTINA M. STA. ANA AND ESTHER STA. ANA-SILVERIO, truly and clearly reflect the minute details of the writing strokes and other aspects relative to
Complainants, v. ATTY. ANTONIO JOSE F. CORTES, Respondent. the preparation of the questioned signatures."4

RESOLUTION In his answer, respondent asserted that all the criminal complaints against him had been
dismissed, and the criminal information/s instituted therefor had been withdrawn by the
DEL CASTILLO,***J.: Department of Justice (DOJ), hence, he had been exonerated of all the charges against him.
Respondent adverted to the Resolution of Regional State Prosecutor Ernesto C. Mendoza,
This is a complaint for disbarment filed by complainants against Atty. Antonio Jose F. Cortes which in part declared -
(respondent) against whom they imputed deceit and falsification of public documents in the
sale of two parcels of property located at Bo. Lantic, Carmona, Cavite and covered by Transfer x x x the signatures of Cesar E. Casal appearing on the said questioned documents are
Certificates of Title (TCT) Nos. T-1069335 and T-1069336; and in the donation of66 pieces of mere xerox copies which do not truly and clearly reflect the minute details of the writing
property by Atty. Cesar Casal (Atty. Casal) and his wife, Pilar P. Casal (Pilar). strokes and other aspects relative to the preparation of the questioned signatures.

59
 Nowhere in this report was there a categorical statement that the document was falsified or In finding respondent guilty of using a falsified document, the Investigating Commissioner
the signatures were forged. x x x5 noted that although there was no direct evidence that it was respondent himself who
prepared or drafted the SPA, there was evidence nonetheless that respondent did actively
In a Resolution6 dated November 27, 2006, the Court resolved to refer this administrative participate, or take part, in the offer and sale of the properties to the PCFI; and that since the
case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and execution of the forged or falsified SPA is a crucial or critical component of the eventual
recommendation. consummation of the sale to PCFI, respondent could not be heard to say that he had no
knowledge of the use of a falsified document.9
Report and Recommendation of the IBP
As regards the 12 Deeds of Donation allegedly executed by Atty. Casal, the Investigating
The Investigating Commissioner summarized the charges against respondent as Commissioner lent more credence to the unbiased or impartial report of the NBI's finding that
follows:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary the signatures of Atty. Casal were per se mere xerox copies; and that moreover, respondent
had violated Section 24010 of the Revised Administrative Code, when he caused to be
(a)
acknowledged the Deeds of Donation in his law office in Quezon City, despite the fact that
First, [r]espondent was involved in the preparation of the Loyola SPA, which was used to these were supposedly signed and executed by Atty. Casal in Cavite. The Investigating
sell the [s)ubject [p]roperties to PCFI, despite the fact that two (2) of the alleged signatories Commissioner opined that respondent "ought to have known that since he was outside his
therein were already dead at the time the Loyola SPA was executed; territorial jurisdiction as a notary public, he could not have performed the acts of a notary
public at the time of the signing of the 12 Deeds of Donation, including the taking of oath of
(b) the parties."11

The Investigating Commissioner thus recommended:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

1. ATTY. ANTONIO JOSE F. CORTES be suspended from the practice of law for a period
Second, [r]espondent prepared and notarized 12 Deeds of Donation, which [appear] to be
ranging from six (6) months to two (2) years with a STERN WARNING that repetition of the
spurious because the signatures of Atty. Casal thereon were only superimposed;
same or similar acts or conduct shall be dealt with more severely; and
(c)
2. ATTY. ANTONIO JOSE F. CORTES be barred from being commissioned as a notary
Third, [r]espondent notarized the 12 Deeds of Donation in Quezon City, within his public for a period of two (2) years, and in the event that he is presently commissioned as
territorial jurisdiction as a notary public x x x despite the fact that Atty. Casal signed the notary public, that his commission be immediately revoked and suspended for such period.12
same in x x x Cavite, or outside his jurisdiction as a notary public;
In its Resolution13 dated May 10, 2013, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved
(d) the findings of the Investigating Commissioner but modified the recommended penalty to a
one-year suspension from the practice of law, with revocation of respondent's notarial license,
Fourth, [r]espondent caused the preparation of the Casal SPA, which appears to be plus a two-year disqualification from reappointment as notary public. The pertinent portion of
spurious because the signature of Atty. Casal thereon was only superimposed; and the Resolution reads:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

(e)

Fifth, [r]espondent knowingly used the spurious Casal SPA and executed a Deed of Sale in RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby unanimously ADOPTED and
favor of PCFI involving other properties.7 APPROVED with modification, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating
Commissioner in the above-entitled case, herein made part ofthis Resolution as Annex "A",
After due proceedings, the Investigating Commissioner submitted a Report8 dated May 14, and finding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable
2010, finding respondent not only guilty of dishonesty and deceitful conduct, but also guilty laws and rules and considering Respondent's violation of the Notarial Law, Atty. Antonio Jose
of having violated hls oath as a notary public. F. Cortes is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year and his Notarial

60
Commission immediately REVOKED presently commissioned. Further, he is DISQUALIFIED a
from reappointment as Notary Publicfor two (2) years.
TCT No. T-79153 of the Registry of Deeds for the Province of Cavite.
No motions for reconsideration having been filed by any of the parties, the case is before us
for fmal resolution.

Our Ruling b)

Lawyers are instruments in the administration of justice. As vanguards of our legal system,
they are expected to maintain not only legal proficiency but also a high standard of morality,
honesty, integrity and fair dealing. [It is only in living up to the very high standards and Deed of Absolute Sale dated December 15, 1990 executed by heirs of Eduardo B. Gan, et
tenets of the legal profession that] the people's faith and confidence in the judicial system can al. in favor of Cesar E. Casal, Cesar Inis, Ruben Loyola and Angela Lacdan.
be ensured. Lawyers may be disciplined - whether in their professional or in their private
capacity - for any conduct that is wanting in morality, honesty, probity and good c
demeanor.14
Deed of Absolute Sale dated December 19, 1990 executed by Cesar Veloso Casal, et. al. in
In the instant case, respondent acted with deceit when he used the falsified documents to favor ofSps. Cesar and Pilar Casal.
effect the transfer of properties owned or administered by the late Atty. Casal. In a letter15
sent by Atty. Florante O. Villegas, counsel for the PCFI, to the spouses Cledera, the former xxxx
explicitly stated that respondent did have a hand in the negotiation leading to the sale of the
properties covered by TCT Nos. T-1069335 and T-1069336. In clarifying that it only entered 6) That in the Agreement of Purchase and Sale, it was agreed that the seller shall register
into a Deed of Absolute Sale because of the "offer and representation that spouses Cesar and the several Deeds of Sale and deliver the titles over said properties to Pro-friends (PCFI). In
Pilar Casal are the true owners of the subject parcels of land,"16 the PCFI, through its legal the above-mentioned Agreement of Purchase and Sale, Sps. Casal were represented by their
counsel, declared:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary duly authorized attorney-in-fact, Atty. Antonio Jose F. Cortes, of legal age, Filipino, with
address at 2/F ELCO Bldg., 202 E. Rodriguez, Sr., Blvd., Quezon City. Present during
We understand that you, together with Atty. Antonio Jose F. Cortes, offered to sell the said negotiations for the terms and conditions to be contained in the Agreement of Purchase and
parcels ofland to our client, and that on September 17, 2003, an agreement of Purchase and Sale aside from myself and [Link] were Sps. Hugh and Gloria Cledera, the son-in-law
Sale was executed between Spouses Cesar E. Casal and Pilar P. Casal (represented by Atty. and daughter, respectively of Sps. Casal; x x19 (Emphasis supplied)
Cortes as their attorney-in-fact) and our client.17 (Emphasis supplied)
Likewise, it cannot be denied that it was respondent who engineered the execution of the 12
Moreover, Mr. Guillermo C. Choa, President of the PCFI, narrated in his affidavit18 the events Deeds of Donation involving 66 pieces of Atty. Casal's property. Respondent was personally
leading to another sale likewise involving properties coowned by Atty. Casal through the use present dwing the alleged signing of the Deeds of Donation in Cavite, which deeds he brought
of the spurious SPA, to wit:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary afterwards to his law office in Quezon City, and notarized the same. Indeed, in his Affidavit,
respondent stated:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
3) That sometime in August 2003, Sps. Hugh Cledera and Gloria Casal Cledera and Atty.
Antonio Jose F. Cortes offered to me for sale several parcels of land owned by Cesar E. Casal 11. When I presented the documents for signature of the donorsspouses, Cesar E. Casal
(father of Gloria Casal Cledera) including Lot 5, Psu 10120 and Lot 6, Psu 101205 containing and Pilar P. Casal, the late Cesar E. Casal stamped the rubber facsimile of his genuine
an area of 39,670 square meters and 47,638 square meters, more or less, located at Bo. signature in all the spaces provided in all copies of the Deeds of Donation. At the same time
Lantic, Carmona, Cavite which was then registered in the name of Eduardo Gan, et al. under and place, I also saw his wife Pilar P. Casal affixed [sic] her own signature in the Deeds of
TCT No. T-79153 of the Register of Deeds fur the Province of Cavite. Donation. Also present dming the signing occasion was the donee herself, Dr. Gloria P. Casal,
as well as, [sic] her husband, Dr. Hugh Cledera who affixed their signatures in all the copies
4) That Sps. Hugh Cledera and Gloria Casal Cledera together with Atty. Cortes also of the Deeds of Donation in my presence.
presented to me the following documents, to wit:

61
 12. Thereafter, I gathered and brought all the signed copies of the Deeds of Donation to my The dismissal of the criminal complaints against respondent did not change the sui generis
office in Quezon City, and notarized them. Record shows that I notarized them and entered character of disbarment proceedings
the documents in my Notarial Registry on September 17 and 18, 2003.20 (Emphasis
supplied)

By using the falsified SPA and by knowingly notarizing documents outside of his notarial Respondent's contention that the DOJ had resolved to withdraw the criminal complaints filed
commission's jurisdiction, respondent was evidently bereft of basic integrity which is an against him and his co-accused, the spouses Cledera,24 does not persuade. The dismissal or
indispensable sine qua non of his ongoing membership, in good standing, in the legal withdrawal of the criminal complaints/ information/sat the instance of the DOJ, is of no
profession, and as a duly-commissioned notary public. moment. As a member of the Bar, respondent should know that administrative cases against
lawyers are sui generis, or a class of their own. "Disciplinary proceedings involve no private
In actively participating in the offer and sale of property to PCFI, respondent was guilty of interest and afford no redress for private grievance."25 Disbarment cases are aimed at
deceit and dishonesty by leveraging on the use of a spurious Special Power of Attorney purging the legal profession of individuals who obdurately scorn and despise the exalted
standards of the noble profession of law. It is within this Court's power, as a check and
There can be no debate either as to the fact that respondent made use of a forged or falsified balance to its own system, to ensure undeviating integrity by members of the Bar both on the
SPA in his dealings with PCFI. As the lawyer who assisted in the sale of the properties professional and the personal level. It is only by maintaining this integrity and this loyalty to
through the use of the falsified SPA in question, he ought to know that the use of such the law, to the Courts of Justice and to their client and the public at large, that lawyers are
falsified or forged SPA gives rise to grievous legal consequences which must inevitably enabled to maintain the trust reposed upon them and to deliver justice inside and outside the
enmesh him professionally. As a member of the Bar in apparent good legal standing, he courtroom.
effectively held himself out as a trustworthy agent for the principals he was purportedly
representing in the transaction/s in question. WHEREFORE, Atty. Antonio Jose F. Cortes is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law
for one (1) year and his Notarial Commission immediately REVOKED, if he is presently
commissioned. Furthermore, he is DISQUALIFIED from reappointment as Notary Public for
two (2) years, reckoned from the date of finality of this Resolution.
Respondent's act of notarizing a forged Deed of Donation outside of his jurisdiction is a
violation of his duties as a notary public, as well as a blatant falsification of public document Furnish a copy of this Resolution to the Office of the Bar Confidant, which shall append the
same to the personal record of respondent; to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines; and the
This Court agrees with the fmdings of the IBP Board of Governors which upheld the impartial Office of the Court Administrator, which shall circulate the same to all courts in the country
report of the NBI and its findings that the signatures on the Deeds of Donation were mere for their infonnation and guidance.
photocopies attached to the said Deeds.21 Given the fact that respondent admitted to having
been with the late Atty. Casal at the time of the execution of the Deed, it would not be far- SO ORDERED.
fetched to say that the use of the said mere photocopies was with his knowledge and consent.
What is more, his act of bringing the Deeds of Donation that were executed in Carmona,
Cavite, to his law office in Quezon City, and notarizing them there, not only violated Section
240 of the Revised Administrative Code but "also [partook] of malpractice of law and
falsification."22

Section 240 of the Revised Administrative Code explicitly states:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

Sec. 240. Territorial jurisdiction. - The jurisdiction of a notary public in a province shall be
co-extensive with the province. The jurisdiction of a notary public in the City of Manila shall
be co-extensive with said city. No notary shall possess authority to do any notarial act beyond A.C. No. 10132, March 24, 2015
the limits of his jurisdiction.23 (Emphasis supplied)

Needless to say, respondent cannot escape from the clutches of this provision.
62
Attorneys; Disbarment; In disbarment cases the only issue that is to Notary Public; Rules on Notarial Practice; Under the 2004 Rules on
be decided by the Supreme Court (SC) is whether the member of the Notarial Practice, Rule IV, Section 3(c), a notary public is disqualified
bar is fit to be allowed the privileges as such or not.—In disbarment among others to perform the notarial act if he is related by affinity or
cases the only issue that is to be decided by the Court is whether the consanguinity to a principal within the fourth civil degree.—Note must
member of the bar is fit to be allowed the privileges as such or not. It be taken that under 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, Rule IV, Section
is not therefore the proper venue for the determination of whether 3(c), a notary public is disqualified among others to perform the
there had been a proper conveyance of real property nor is it the notarial act if he is related by affinity or consanguinity to a principal
proper proceeding to take up whether witnesses’ signatures were in within the fourth civil degree, to wit: SEC. 3. Disqualifications.—A
fact forged. notary public is disqualified from performing a notarial act if he: x x x
x (c) is a spouse, common-law partner, ancestor, descendant, or
Same; Same; Prescription; In Bengco v. Bernardo, 672 SCRA 8 (2012),
relative by affinity or consanguinity of the principal within the fourth
where the Supreme Court (SC) stated that putting a prescriptive
civil degree. That Atty. Examen was not incompetent to act as a
period on administrative cases involving members of the bar would
notary public in the present case does not mean that he can evade
only serve to embolden them to disregard the very oath they took as
administrative liability under the CPR in conjunction with the
lawyers, prescinding from the fact that as long as no private
provisions of the Notarial Law.
complainant would immediately come forward, they stand a chance of
being completely exonerated from whatever administrative liability Same; Same; The Notarial Law requires notaries public to certify that
they ought to answer for.—We therefore ruled in Frias v. Bautista- a party to the instrument acknowledged before him has presented the
Lozada, 489 SCRA 345 (2006), that Rule VIII, Section 1 of the Rules of proper residence certificate (or exemption from the residence
Procedure of the IBP CBD was void and had no legal effect for being certificate) and to enter its number, place of issue and date as part of
ultra vires and thus null and void. This ruling was reiterated in the the certification. Failure to perform his duties results in the
more recent case of Bengco v. Bernardo, 672 SCRA 8 (2012), where revocation of a notary’s commission.—In Soriano v. Atty. Basco, 470
the Court stated that putting a prescriptive period on administrative SCRA 423 (2005), the Court stated that notaries public are required to
cases involving members of the bar would only serve to embolden follow formalities as these are mandatory and cannot be simply
them to disregard the very oath they took as lawyers, prescinding neglected. Thus, the Notarial Law requires them to certify that a party
from the fact that as long as no private complainant would to the instrument acknowledged before him has presented the proper
immediately come forward, they stand a chance of being completely residence certificate (or exemption from the residence certificate) and
exonerated from whatever administrative liability they ought to to enter its number, place of issue and date as part of the
answer for. Atty. Examen’s defense of prescription therefore is of no certification. Failure to perform his duties results in the revocation of
moment and deserves scant consideration. a notary’s commission. The Court said: As a lawyer commissioned as
a notary public, respondent is mandated to discharge with fidelity the
sacred duties appertaining to his office, such duties being dictated by
63
public policy and impressed with public interest. Faithful observance Same; Same; Code of Professional Responsibility; By his negligent act
and utmost respect for the legal solemnity of an oath in an of not checking the work of his secretary and merely perfunctorily
acknowledgment are sacrosanct. He cannot simply disregard the notarizing documents, it cannot be said that he upheld legal
requirements and solemnities of the Notarial Law. (Emphasis processes thus violating Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
supplied) Here, based on the submission of the complainants, it is Responsibility (CPR); A lawyer’s mandate includes thoroughly going
clear that the residence certificate number used by Ramon Examen over documents presented to them typed or transcribed by their
and as notarized by Atty. Examen in both Absolute Deeds of Sale was secretaries.—In violating the provisions of the Notarial Law, Atty.
not in fact the residence certificate of Ramon but Florentina’s Examen also transgressed his oath as a lawyer, provisions of the CPR
residence certificate number. Atty. Examen interposes that he was in and Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court which provides: SEC. 
good faith in that it was office practice to have his secretary type up 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court;
the details of the documents and requirements without him checking grounds therefor.—A member of the bar may be disbarred or
the correctness of same. suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any
deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly
Same; Same; A notary public must discharge his powers and duties,
immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving
which are impressed with public interest, with accuracy and fidelity.
moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required
Good faith cannot be a mitigating circumstance in situations since the
to take before admission to practice, or for a wilful disobedience of any
duty to function as a notary public is personal.—A notary public must
lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly and willfully
discharge his powers and duties, which are impressed with public
appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to
interest, with accuracy and fidelity. Good faith cannot be a mitigating
do. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain,
circumstance in situations since the duty to function as a notary
either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes
public is personal. We note that the error could have been prevented
malpractice. By his negligent act of not checking the work of his
had Atty. Examen diligently performed his functions: personally
secretary and merely perfunctorily notarizing documents, it cannot be
checked the correctness of the documents. To say that it was his
said that he upheld legal processes thus violating Canon 1 of the CPR.
secretary’s fault reflects disregard and unfitness to discharge the
Neither can it be said that he promoted confidence in the legal
functions of a notary public for it is he who personally acknowledges
system. If anything, his acts serve to undermine the functions of a
the document. He was behooved under Section 251, Chapter 11 of the
diligent lawyer. He thus ran afoul Rule 1.02 of the CPR. We cannot
Revised Administrative Code to check if the proper cedulas were
stress enough that as a lawyer, respondent is expected at all times to
presented and inspect if the documents to be acknowledged by him
uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and refrain
reflected the correct details. This Court cannot stress enough that
from any act or omission which might lessen the trust and confidence
notarization is not a routinary act. It is imbued with substantive
reposed by the public in the integrity of the legal profession. A
public interest owing to the public character of his duties.
lawyer’s mandate includes thoroughly going over documents

64
presented to them typed or transcribed by their secretaries. Heirs of In his defense, Atty. Examen pointed out that there was no longer any prohibition under the
Revised Administrative Code for a notary public to notarize a document where one of the
Pedro Alilano vs. Examen, 754 SCRA 187, A.C. No. 10132 March 24, parties is related to him by consanguinity and affinity.14 With regard to the use of
2015 Florentina’s residence certificate as Ramon’s, Atty. Examen said that he was in good faith and
that it was office practice that the secretary type details without him personally examining
HEIRS OF PEDRO ALILANO REPRESENTED BY DAVID ALILANO, Complainants, v. ATTY. the output.15 In any event, he reasoned that the use of another’s residence certificate is not
ROBERTO E. EXAMEN, Respondent. a ground for disbarment and is barred by prescription based on IBP Resolution No. XVI-
2004-13 dated January 26, 2004 where it was proposed that the Rules of Procedure of the
DECISION Commission on Bar Discipline Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Section 1, Rule VIII, be
revised to include a prescription period for professional misconduct: within two years from
VILLARAMA, JR., J.:
the date of the act.16cralawred
Before us is a complaint1 for disbarment filed before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP) by the heirs of Pedro Alilano against Atty. Roberto E. Examen for misconduct and
malpractice for falsifying documents and presenting these as evidence in court thus violating In its Report and Recommendation,17 the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) found
the Lawyer’s Oath,2 Canons 1,3 104 and 19,5 and Rules 1.01,6 1.02,7 10.01,8 and 19.019 of Atty. Examen liable for breach of the Notarial Law and introducing false Absolute Deeds of
the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). Sale before court proceedings. It stated that there was ample evidence to support the
complainants’ contention that the Spouses Alilano did not voluntarily and knowingly convey
Pedro Alilano and his wife, Florentina, were the holders of Original Certificate of Title (OCT)
their property, i.e. denials under oath by attesting witnesses and NBI Report by Handwriting
No. P-23261 covering a 98,460 sq. m. parcel of land identified as Lot No. 1085 Pls-544-D
Expert Jennifer Dominguez stating that Pedro Alilano’s signature in the September 1984
located in Paitan, Esperanza, Sultan Kudarat. Pedro and Florentina died on March 6, 1985
Absolute Deed of Sale was significantly different from the specimen signatures. It also noted
and October 11, 1989, respectively.
that Ramon Examen’s residence certificate number, date and place of issue were also falsified
It appears that on March 31, 1984 and September 12, 1984 Absolute Deeds of Sale10 were since the residence certificate actually belonged to Florentina Pueblo. It thus recommended
executed by the Spouses Alilano in favor of Ramon Examen and his wife, Edna. Both that the penalty of disbarment be imposed.
documents were notarized by respondent Atty. Roberto Examen, brother of the vendee.
The IBP Board of Governors (BOG) in its June 26, 2007 Resolution18 adopted the IBP CBD’s
Sometime in September 1984, Spouses Examen obtained possession of the property.
report but modified the penalty to suspension from the practice of law for a period of two
On January 12, 2002, the heirs of Alilano filed a suit for recovery of possession before the years and a suspension of Atty. Examen’s Notarial Commission for a period of two years.
Regional Trial Court of Sultan Kudarat against Edna Examen and Atty. Roberto Examen.11
Atty. Examen moved for reconsideration. In its Notice of Resolution, the IBP BOG denied the
It was during this proceeding that Atty. Examen introduced into evidence the March 31, 1984
motion for reconsideration. It also modified the penalty imposed to suspension from the
and September 12, 1984 Absolute Deeds of Sale.
practice of law for a period of one year and disqualification from re-appointment as Notary
On November 15, 2003,12 the heirs of Alilano filed this complaint alleging that Atty. Examen, Public for a period of two years.19cralawred
based on Barretto v. Cabreza,13 violated the notarial law when he notarized the absolute
We agree with the IBP that Atty. Examen is administratively liable and hereby impose a
deeds of sale since a notary public is prohibited from notarizing a document when one of the
modified penalty.
parties is a relative by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree or affinity within the
second civil degree. It is also alleged that Atty. Examen notarized the documents knowing In disbarment cases the only issue that is to be decided by the Court is whether the member
that the cedula or residence certificate number used by Ramon Examen was not actually his of the bar is fit to be allowed the privileges as such or not.20 It is not therefore the proper
but the residence certificate number of Florentina. Atty. Examen also falsely acknowledged venue for the determination of whether there had been a proper conveyance of real property
that the two witnesses personally appeared before him when they did not. Lastly, it is alleged nor is it the proper proceeding to take up whether witnesses’ signatures were in fact forged.
that despite knowing the infirmities of these documents, Atty. Examen introduced these
documents into evidence violating his oath as a lawyer and the CPR. NO PRESCRIPTION OF ACTIONS FOR

65
ACTS OF ERRING MEMBERS OF THE BAR January 3, 1916 Revised Administrative Code, which took effect in 1917. In 2004, the
Revised Rules on Notarial Practice27 was passed by the Supreme Court.
In Frias v. Atty. Bautista-Lozada,21 the Court En Banc opined that there can be no
prescription in bar discipline cases. It pointed out this has been the policy since 1967 with In Kapunan, et al. v. Casilan and Court of Appeals,28 the Court had the opportunity to state
the Court’s ruling in Calo, Jr. v. Degamo22 and reiterated in Heck v. Santos23 where we had that enactment of the Revised Administrative Code repealed the Spanish Notarial Law of
the chance to state:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary 1889. Thus:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

If the rule were otherwise, members of the bar would be emboldened to disregard the very It is petitioners’ contention that Notary Public Mateo Canonoy, who was related to the parties
oath they took as lawyers, prescinding from the fact that as long as no private complainant in the donation within the fourth civil degree of affinity, was, under Articles 22 and 28 of the
would immediately come forward, they stand a chance of being completely exonerated from Spanish Notarial Law, incompetent and disqualified to authenticate the deed of donation
whatever administrative liability they ought to answer for. It is the duty of this Court to executed by the Kapunan spouses in favor of their daughter Concepcion Kapunan Salcedo.
protect the integrity of the practice of law as well as the administration of justice. No matter Said deed of donation, according to petitioners, became a mere private instrument under
how much time has elapsed from the time of the commission of the act complained of and the Article 1223 of the old Civil Code, so that under the ruling laid down in the case of Barretto
time of the institution of the complaint, erring members of the bench and bar cannot escape vs. Cabreza (33 Phil., 413), the donation was inefficacious. The appellate court, however, in
the disciplining arm of the Court. This categorical pronouncement is aimed at unscrupulous the decision complained of held that the Spanish Notarial Law has been repealed with the
members of the bench and bar, to deter them from committing acts which violate the Code of enactment of Act No. 496. We find this ruling to be correct. In the case of Philippine Sugar
Professional Responsibility, the Code of Judicial Conduct, or the Lawyer’s Oath. x x x Estate vs. Poizart (48 Phil., 536), cited in Vda. de Estuart vs. Garcia (Adm. Case No. 212,
prom. February 15, 1957), this Court held that “The old Spanish notarial law and system of
Thus, even the lapse of considerable time from the commission of the offending act to the conveyance was repealed in the Philippines and another and different notarial law and
institution of the administrative complaint will not erase the administrative culpability of a system became the law of the land with the enactment of Act No. 496.”29 (Emphasis
lawyer…. (Italics supplied)24cralawlawlibrary supplied)cralawlawlibrary

We therefore ruled in Frias, that Rule VIII, Section 1 of the Rules of Procedure of the IBP CBD
was void and had no legal effect for being ultra vires and thus null and void.25cralawred
In this case, the heirs of Alilano stated that Atty. Examen was prohibited to notarize the
This ruling was reiterated in the more recent case of Bengco v. Bernardo,26 where the Court absolute deeds of sale since he was related by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree
stated that putting a prescriptive period on administrative cases involving members of the bar with the vendee, Ramon. The prohibition might have still applied had the applicable rule been
would only serve to embolden them to disregard the very oath they took as lawyers, the Spanish Notarial Law. However, following the Court’s ruling in Kapunan, the law in force
prescinding from the fact that as long as no private complainant would immediately come at the time of signing was the Revised Administrative Code, thus, the prohibition was
forward, they stand a chance of being completely exonerated from whatever administrative removed. Atty. Examen was not incompetent to notarize the document even if one of the
liability they ought to answer for. parties to the deed was a relative, his brother. As correctly observed by the IBP
CBD:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Atty. Examen’s defense of prescription therefore is of no moment and deserves scant
consideration. At the time of notarization, the prevailing law governing notarization was Sections 231-259,
Chapter 11 of the Revised Administrative Code and there was no prohibition on a notary
THE SPANISH NOTARIAL LAW OF public from notarizing a document when one of the interested parties is related to the notary
public within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or second degree of
1889 WAS REPEALED BY THE REVISED
affinity.30cralawlawlibrary
ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OF 1917
Note must be taken that under 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, Rule IV, Section 3(c), a
Prior to 1917, governing law for notaries public in the Philippines was the Spanish Notarial notary public is disqualified among others to perform the notarial act if he is related by
Law of 1889. However, the law governing Notarial Practice is changed with the passage of the affinity or consanguinity to a principal within the fourth civil degree, to
wit:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

66
SEC. 3. Disqualifications. – A notary public is disqualified from performing a notarial act if cralawlawlibrary
he:
Under Chapter 11, Section 249 of the Revised Administrative Code provided a list of the
xxxx grounds for disqualification:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

(c) is a spouse, common-law partner, ancestor, descendant, or relative by affinity or SEC. 249. Grounds for revocation of commission. – The following derelictions of duty on the
consanguinity of the principal within the fourth civil [Link] part of a notary public shall, in the discretion of the proper judge of first instance, be
sufficient ground for the revocation of his commission:
That Atty. Examen was not incompetent to act as a notary public in the present case does not
mean that he can evade administrative liability under the CPR in conjunction with the xxxx
provisions of the Notarial Law.
(f) The failure of the notary to make the proper notation regarding cedula
[Link]

NOTARIES PUBLIC MUST PERFORM

THEIR DUTIES DILIGENTLY AND xxxx

WITH UTMOST CARE cralawlawlibrary

In Nunga v. Atty. Viray,31 this Court stated:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

…[N]otarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. It is invested with substantive In Soriano v. Atty. Basco,33 the Court stated that notaries public are required to follow
public interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries formalities as these are mandatory and cannot be simply neglected. Thus, the Notarial Law
public. The protection of that interest necessarily requires that those not qualified or requires them to certify that a party to the instrument acknowledged before him has
authorized to act must be prevented from imposing upon the public, the courts, and the presented the proper residence certificate (or exemption from the residence certificate) and to
administrative offices in general. It must be underscored that the notarization by a notary enter its number, place of issue and date as part of the certification. Failure to perform his
public converts a private document into a public document making that document admissible duties results in the revocation of a notary’s commission. The Court
in evidence without further proof of the authenticity thereof. A notarial document is by law said:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. For this reason, notaries public must observe
with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of their duties.32 (Emphasis As a lawyer commissioned as a notary public, respondent is mandated to discharge with
supplied; citations omitted)cralawlawlibrary fidelity the sacred duties appertaining to his office, such duties being dictated by public policy
and impressed with public interest. Faithful observance and utmost respect for the legal
Thus under the prevailing law at the time of notarization it was the duty of the notary public solemnity of an oath in an acknowledgment are sacrosanct. He cannot simply disregard the
to comply with the requirements of the Notarial Law. This includes the duty under Chapter requirements and solemnities of the Notarial Law.34 (Emphasis supplied)cralawlawlibrary
11, Section 251 of the Revised Administrative Code:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Here, based on the submission of the complainants, it is clear that the residence certificate
SEC. 251. Requirement as to notation of payment of cedula [residence] tax. – Every contract, number used by Ramon Examen and as notarized by Atty. Examen in both Absolute Deeds of
deed, or other document acknowledged before a notary public shall have certified thereon Sale was not in fact the residence certificate of Ramon but Florentina’s residence certificate
that the parties thereto have presented their proper cedula [residence] certificates or are number.35 Atty. Examen interposes that he was in good faith in that it was office practice to
exempt from the cedula [residence] tax, and there shall be entered by the notary public as a have his secretary type up the details of the documents and requirements without him
part of such certification the number, place of issue, and date of each cedula [residence] checking the correctness of same.
certificate as aforesaid.

67
A notary public must discharge his powers and duties, which are impressed with public The Court notes that the case between the parties is not the first that reached this Court. In
interest, with accuracy and fidelity.36 Good faith cannot be a mitigating circumstance in Edna Examen and Roberto Examen v. Heirs of Pedro Alilano and Florentina Pueblo,40 Atty.
situations since the duty to function as a notary public is personal. We note that the error Examen and his sister-in-law questioned via a petition for certiorari41 the propriety of three
could have been prevented had Atty. Examen diligently performed his functions: personally Court of Appeals’ Resolutions relating to a case involving Lot No. 1085 Pls-544-D this time
checked the correctness of the documents. To say that it was his secretary’s fault reflects with respect to its fruits. There the Court of Appeals (CA) after giving Atty. Examen 90 days
disregard and unfitness to discharge the functions of a notary public for it is he who to file his appellant’s brief, denied a second motion for extension of time merely on the basis
personally acknowledges the document. He was behooved under Section 251, Chapter 11 of of a flimsy reason that he had misplaced some of the transcript of the witnesses’ testimonies.
the Revised Administrative Code to check if the proper cedulas were presented and inspect if The CA did not find the reason of misplaced transcript as good and sufficient cause to grant
the documents to be acknowledged by him reflected the correct details. This Court cannot the extension pursuant to Section 12,42 Rule 44 of the Revised Rules of Court. It stated that
stress enough that notarization is not a routinary act. It is imbued with substantive public it was a “flimsy and lame excuse to unnecessarily delay the proceedings.”43 The CA was of
interest owing to the public character of his duties37. the opinion that defendant-appellant’s, herein respondent, motion was “a mockery of the
procedural rules.”44 This Court denied the petition for various procedural
Atty. Examen posits that the failure of a notary to make the proper notation of cedulas can defects.45cralawred
only be a ground for disqualification and not the proper subject for a disbarment proceeding.
We disagree. With respect to the penalty imposed, given that Atty. Examen not only failed to uphold his
duty as a notary public but also failed to uphold his lawyer’s oath and ran afoul the
In violating the provisions of the Notarial Law, Atty. Examen also transgressed the his oath as provisions of the CPR, the Court deems it proper to suspend Atty. Examen from the practice
a lawyer, provisions of the CPR and Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court which of law for a period of two years following this Court’s decision in Caalim-Verzonilla v.
provides:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary Pascua.46cralawred

SEC. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court; grounds therefor. – A WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Roberto E. Examen is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice
member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme of law for TWO (2) YEARS. In addition, his present notarial commission, if any, is hereby
Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral REVOKED, and he is DISQUALIFIED from reappointment as a notary public for a period of
conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any two (2) years from finality of this Decision. He is further WARNED that any similar act or
violation of the oath which he is required to take before admission to practice, or for a wilful infraction in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly and willfully appearing
as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do. The practice of soliciting cases
at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers,
constitutes [Link] Let copies of this Decision be furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant to be appended to
respondent’s personal record as an attorney, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, the
By his negligent act of not checking the work of his secretary and merely perfunctorily Department of Justice and all courts in the country for their information and guidance.
notarizing documents, it cannot be said that he upheld legal processes thus violating Canon
1 of the CPR. Neither can it be said that he promoted confidence in the legal system. If SO [Link]
anything, his acts serve to undermine the functions of a diligent lawyer. He thus ran afoul
Rule 1.02 of the CPR. We cannot stress enough that as a lawyer, respondent is expected at all
times to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and refrain from any act or
omission which might lessen the trust and confidence reposed by the public in the integrity of
the legal profession.38 A lawyer’s mandate includes thoroughly going over documents
presented to them typed or transcribed by their secretaries.39cralawred

68
 The facts which spawned the filing of the complaint are not disputed.

In Civil Case No. 94-334, Vinas Kuranstalten Gesmbh, Bearthold Rindlefleisch and Candido
Flor v. Lugait Aqua Marine Industries and Heinz R. Heck, lodged at the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 19, Cagayan de Oro City, the therein defendants of which complainant was one filed a
June 21, 1994 Motion to Dismiss the case on the ground that the trial court has no
jurisdiction over the case, the dispute being an intra-corporate matter which was at the time
within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Commission. The motion was
denied by respondent.2cräläwvirtualibräry

Counsel for the therein defendants, Atty. Samuel Jardin, subsequently filed a motion to
withdraw as counsel which was, by Order of April 1, 1996, granted by respondent who reset
the hearing of even date to June 10 and 11, l996.3 On the scheduled hearing of the case on
THIRD DIVISION June 10, 1996, as the defendants never received a copy of the April 1, 1996 Order, neither
they nor their counsel showed up. What transpired on June 10, 1996 is reflected in the
Courts; Judges; Duties; Impropriety; Dishonesty; A judge should avoid impropriety and the Order4 of even date issued by respondent:
appearance of impropriety in all activities.—This Court agrees with the findings of the OCA.
Respondent’s order for the counsel of one of the parties to draft the decision and his adoption When this case was called for continuation of trial today, only Atty. Manuel Singson [counsel
verbatim of the draft clearly violate the Code of Judicial Conduct, the pertinent canons of for the plaintiff] appeared. Defendants and counsel did not, despite due notice.
which read: Canon 2 A JUDGE SHOULD AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE OF
All the exhibits presented and reserved by the plaintiffs are now admitted by the Court for the
IMPROPRIETY IN ALL ACTIVITIES. x x x Canon 3 A JUDGE SHOULD PERFORM OFFICIAL
purposes for which they are offered.
DUTIES HONESTLY, AND WITH IMPARTIALITY AND DILIGENCE ADJUDICATIVE
RESPONSIBILITIES. x x x (Emphasis and underscoring supplied), in relation to the above- As prayed for by Atty. Manuel Singson, defendants LAMI and Heinz R. Heck are considered as
quoted Section 1 of Rule 36 of the Revised Rules of Court. By such order, respondent having waived their right to present their evidence.
abdicated a function exclusively granted to him by no less than the fundamental law of the
land. It is axiomatic that decision-making, among other duties, is the primordial and most The case is submitted for decision.
important duty of a member of the bench. He must use his own perceptiveness in
understanding and analyzing the evidence presented beforehim and his own discernment
when determining the proper action, resolution or decision. Delegating to a counsel of one of
the parties the preparation of a decision and parroting it verbatim reflect blatant judicial Atty. Manuel Singson is hereby authorized to draft the decision.
sloth. Heck vs. Santos, 401 SCRA 46, A.M. No. RTJ-01-1630 April 9, 2003
SO ORDERED.
A.M. No. RTJ-01-1630. April 9, 2003
xxx
HEINZ R. HECK, complainant, vs. Judge ANTHONY E. SANTOS, respondent.
The defendants did not also receive a copy of the above-quoted June 10, 1996 Order.
DECISION
By Compliance5 dated August 14, 1996, Atty. Singson submitted a draft decision6 for
CARPIO-MORALES, J.: respondents approval.

By a verified complaint1dated March 9, 2001, Heinz R. Heck (complainant) prays that On October 2, 1996, respondent rendered a decision which was copied verbatim from the
disbarment and other disciplinary sanctions be meted against respondent Judge Anthony E. draft decision submitted by Atty. Singson.7cräläwvirtualibräry
Santos (respondent).

69
Hence, arose the present administrative complaint against respondent 1.) for violating Section nevertheless points out that had defendants been vigilant, they would have known about the
1, Rule 36 of the Revised Rules of Court which reads: hearing scheduled on June 10, 1996 and made sure that they were represented by counsel
thereat. Respondent concludes that the defendants negligence and seeming disinterest in
SECTION 1. Rendition of judgments and final orders. A judgment or final order determining pursuing their defense drew the plaintiffs to move that they be deemed to have waived their
the merits of the case shall be in writing, personally and directly prepared by the judge, right to present evidence, leaving him no choice but to grant the same.15cräläwvirtualibräry
stating clearly the facts and the law on which it is based, signed by him, and filed with the
clerk of court. (Italics in the original; emphasis and underscoring supplied); On his order to the counsel for the plaintiffs to draft the decision, respondent explains that he
did so on the premise that the defendants were considered to have waived their right to
2.) For violating the Code of Judicial Ethics, respondent having in the course of the hearing of present evidence, thus leaving the plaintiffs evidence uncontroverted. To him, the order is
the case stepped down the rostrum and mingled with Atty. Singson;8 3.) for gross ignorance consistent with his practice of promptly disposing of cases before him.16cräläwvirtualibräry
of the law, incompetence and violation of the 1987 Constitution when in his decision, he
granted to the plaintiffs Vinas Kuranstalten Gesmbh, an Austrian corporation, and Bearthold As for his adoption verbatim of the draft decision prepared by the plaintiffs counsel,
Rindlefleisch, an Austrian citizen, 40% pro-indiviso share in the parcels of land in Lugait, respondent submits that he did so after a very careful and thorough study of all the evidence
Misamis Oriental and directed the therein defendant-herein complainant to execute a real presented, adding that had he been motivated by anything less than good faith, he would
estate mortgage on the remaining portion of the parcel of land covered by TCT No. have refrained from ordering the plaintiffs counsel to draft the decision.17cräläwvirtualibräry
272.9cräläwvirtualibräry
As to the allegation that he stepped down the rostrum and mingled with the plaintiffs
By Comment10 dated August 10, 2001, respondent gives his side of the case as follows: counsel, respondent brands it as a figment of complainants imagination and a desperate
attempt to discredit him.18cräläwvirtualibräry
After a careful and thorough study of the motion to dismiss, he was convinced that the RTC,
not the SEC, has jurisdiction over the case, and finding that there were genuine issues raised Finally, on the charge of gross ignorance of the law, respondent denies the same and avers
therein, he deemed it best to conduct a trial on the merits rather than dismiss the complaint that assuming arguendo that he committed errors in his judgment, they could be corrected
outright.11cräläwvirtualibräry on appeal.19cräläwvirtualibräry

With respect to complainants failure to receive the April 1, 1996 Order, respondent avers that In its Evaluation, Report and Recommendation,20 the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA)
he should not be faulted therefor, for the parties, during the hearing of January 29, 1996, made the following findings with the corresponding recommendation:
jointly moved that the hearing of the defendants objection to the plaintiffs formal offer of
exhibits and the presentation of the defendants evidence be set on April 1 and 2, 1996, xxx
despite which none of the parties appeared on April 1, 1996; instead, the trial court received
a motion to withdraw as the defendants counsel filed by Atty. Jardin, prompting him It is our observation that the filing of the instant complaint against the respondent judge for:
(respondent) to issue the Order of April 1, 1996 resetting the hearing to June 10 and 11, (a) denying the motion to dismiss; (b) granting plaintiff Vinas Kuranstalten Gesmbh a 40%
1996 and directing the defendants to engage the services of a new pro-indiviso shares of parcels of land in Lugait, Misamis Oriental and (d) [sic] directing the
counsel.12cräläwvirtualibräry defendant (herein complainant) to execute a real estate mortgage on the rest of the portion of
a parcel of land covered by TCT No. 272 (10272) of Misamis Oriental, will not help
Respondent avers that since the two envelopes, each containing a copy of the April 1, 1996 complainants cause. These are judicial issues and there are judicial remedies available to
Order, which were addressed to the defendants were returned to the court (Return to Sender) him. Assailing the wisdom of the issuance of such orders by the respondent judge is not
unclaimed, service of said order was deemed complete five days from receipt of the first notice proper in an administrative complaint. It is axiomatic that an administrative complaint is not
issued by the postmaster.13 Respondent adds that, at all events, it was incumbent upon the the appropriate remedy for every act of a judge deemed aberrant or irregular where a judicial
defendants to personally check what transpired on April 1, 1996. remedy exist (sic) and is available (Santos vs. Orlino, 296 SCRA 101).

With respect to the June 10, 1996 Order, respondent apologizes for the inadvertence and Anent complainants non-receipt of orders dated April 1, 1996 and June 10 1996 which were
plain oversight of the court personnel in still sending a copy thereof to Atty. Jardin, whom both issued by respondent Judge, the undersigned believes that Judge Santos was able to
they thought was still the defendants counsel of record,14 instead of to the defendants. He explain his point on the matter in his Answer/Comment. Likewise, the allegation that the

70
respondent judge went down to the rostrum to chat with the plaintiffs will not hold water. primordial and most important duty of a member of the bench.21 He must use his own
This is only a bare allegation unsupported by convincing evidence to pin down the perceptiveness in understanding and analyzing the evidence presented before him and his
respondent. own discernment when determining the proper action, resolution or decision. Delegating to a
counsel of one of the parties the preparation of a decision and parroting it verbatim reflect
xxx blatant judicial sloth.

We however, do believe that respondent judge should not be totally exonerated. It is made of Lack of malice or bad faith is not an excuse. It bears emphasis that a judge must not only
record that respondent judge issued an order allowing plaintiffs[] counsel to draft the decision render a just, correct and impartial decision. He should do so in such a manner as to be free
of the case (Civil Case No. 94-334). Finding the draft to be well-written, respondent adopted from any suspicion as to his fairness, impartiality and integrity.22cräläwvirtualibräry
the same as his own by copying the handiwork in toto. This is highly irregular if not
anomalous because the drafting, .preparation and writing of a decision is the sole As the questioned acts of respondent violate the Code of Judicial Conduct which violation
responsibility of a judge. It cannot be delegated to anyone. In Section 1, Rule 36 of the Rules falls under the classification of a serious charge23 under Section 3 of Rule 14024 of the
of Court, it is clear that A judgment or final order determining the merits of the case shall be Revised Rules of Court, this Court does not find the recommended fine of P5,000.00
in writing, personally and directly prepared by the judge, stating clearly and distinctly the commensurate thereto. For Section 10 of Rule 140 provides:
facts and the law on which it is based, signed by him and filed with the Clerk of Court. Thus,
there is no gainsaying now that respondent violated the aforequoted provision for which he SECTION 10. Sanctions. A. If the respondent is found culpable of a serious charge, any of the
should be administratively sanctioned. following sanctions shall be imposed:

WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, it is respectfully recommended to this 1. Dismissal from the service with forfeiture of benefits (except accrued leaves) and
Honorable Court that respondent Judge Anthony E. Santos be FINED in the amount of Five disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office including a
Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) with a WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar offense government-owned or controlled corporation;
will be dealt with more severely.(Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
2. Suspension for three (3) months without salary and benefits; or
This Court agrees with the findings of the OCA. Respondents order for the counsel of one of
the parties to draft the decision and his adoption verbatim of the draft clearly violate the Code 3. A fine not less than P20,000.00 but not more than P40,000.00.
of Judicial Conduct, the pertinent canons of which read:
x x x (Emphasis supplied)
Canon 2

A JUDGE SHOULD AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY IN ALL

Respondent having retired on May 22, 2002, his dismissal or suspension is no longer
ACTIVITIES.
feasible. This leaves this Court only the third option - to mete him a fine of P20,000.00, to be
xxx deducted from his retirement benefits.

Canon 3 WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Anthony E. Santos is found GUILTY of violating Canons 2
and 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct in relation to Section 1 of Rule 36 of the Revised Rules
A JUDGE SHOULD PERFORM OFFICIAL DUTIES HONESTLY, AND WITH IMPARTIALITY of Court and is hereby ordered to pay a FINE of P20,000.00, to be deducted from his
AND DILIGENCE ADJUDICATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES. retirement benefits.

x x x (Emphasis and underscoring supplied), With respect to complainants prayer for disbarment, let the complaint be referred to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines for Investigation, Report and Recommendation.
in relation to the above-quoted Section 1 of Rule 36 of the Revised Rules of Court. By such
order, respondent abdicated a function exclusively granted to him by no less than the Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Court Administrator, Integrated Bar
fundamental law of the land. It is axiomatic that decision-making, among other duties, is the of the Philippines, and the Office of the Bar Confidant.

71
SO ORDERED. no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; I will not wittingly or willingly promote
or sue any groundless, false, or unlawful suit, or give aid nor consent to the same; I will delay
no man for money or malice, and will conduct myself as a lawyer according to the best of my
knowledge and discretion, with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to my clients; and I
impose upon myself these, voluntary obligations without any mental reservation or purpose
of evasion. So help me God.

Attorneys; Legal Ethics; MCLE Certificate of Compliance; In using a false Mandatory

Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) compliance number in his pleadings, respondent also
put his own clients at risk. Such deficiency in pleadings can be fatal to the client’s cause as
pleadings with such false information produce no legal effect.—In using a false MCLE
compliance number in his pleadings, respondent also put his own clients at risk. Such
deficiency in pleadings can be fatal to the client’s cause as pleadings with such false
information produce no legal effect. In so doing, respondent violated his duty to his clients.
Canons 17 and 18 of the CPR provide: CANON 17 – A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his
EN BAN client and shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed upon him. CANON 18 – A
lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.
A.C. No. 10911, June 06, 2017
Same; Same; Respondent’s act of ignoring the said court orders despite notice violates the
Attorneys; Legal Ethics; Respondent’s act of filing pleadings that he fully knew to contain
lawyer’s oath and runs counter to the precepts of the Code of Professional Responsibility
false information is a mockery of the courts, especially the Supreme Court (SC), considering
(CPR).—Court orders should be respected not only because the authorities who issued them
that it is this Court that authored the rules and regulations that the respondent violated.—
should be respected, but because of the respect and consideration that should be extended to
Respondent’s acts of misconduct are clearly manifest, thus, warranting the exercise by this
the judicial branch of the government, which is absolutely essential if our government is to be
Court of its disciplinary power. First. It was clearly established that respondent violated Bar
a government of laws and not of men. Clearly, respondent’s act of ignoring the said court
Matter No. 850. No less than the MCLE Office had issued a certification stating that
orders despite notice violates the lawyer’s oath and runs counter to the precepts of the CPR.
respondent had not complied with the first and second compliance period of the MCLE.
By his repeated dismissive conduct, the respondent exhibited an unpardonable lack of
Second. Despite such noncompliance, respondent repeatedly indicated a false MCLE
respect for the authority of the Court.
compliance number in his pleadings before the trial courts. In indicating patently false
information in pleadings filed before the courts of law, not only once but four times, as per Same; Same; MCLE Certificate of Compliance; Disbarment; Taken altogether, considering
records, the respondent acted in manifest bad faith, dishonesty, and deceit. In so doing, he respondent’s act of using a false Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) compliance
indeed misled the courts, litigants — his own clients included — professional colleagues, and number in his pleadings, his repeated failure to obey legal orders, and the fact that he had
all others who may have relied on such pleadings containing false information. Respondent’s already been sanctioned twice by the Supreme Court (SC) on separate cases, the Court is
act of filing pleadings that he fully knew to contain false information is a mockery of the constrained to affirm the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors’
courts, especially this Court, considering that it is this Court that authored the rules and Resolution No. XXI-2014-685, recommending his disbarment to prevent him from further
regulations that the respondent violated. engaging in legal practice.—Taken altogether, considering respondent’s act of using a false
MCLE compliance number in his pleadings, his repeated failure to obey legal orders, and the
Lawyer’s Oath; The Lawyer’s Oath in Rule 138, Section 3 of the Rules of Court requires
fact that he had already been sanctioned twice by this Court on separate cases, We are
commitment to obeying laws and legal orders, doing no falsehood, and acting with fidelity to
constrained to affirm the IBP Board of Governors’ Resolution No. XXI-2014-685,
both court and client.—The Lawyer’s Oath in Rule 138, Section 3 of the Rules of Court
recommending his disbarment to prevent him from further engaging in legal practice. It
requires commitment to obeying laws and legal orders, doing no falsehood, and acting with
cannot be overstressed that lawyers are instruments in the administration of justice. As
fidelity to both court and client, among others, viz.: I, x x x do solemnly swear that I will
vanguards of our legal system, they are expected to maintain legal proficiency and a high
maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, I will support the Constitution and
standard of honesty, integrity, and fair dealing. Also, of all classes and professions, the lawyer
obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein; I will do
is most sacredly bound to uphold the laws. He is their sworn servant; and for him, of all men
72
in the world, to repudiate and override the laws, to trample them underfoot and ignore the grave misconduct.7 The complainant, thus, prayed for the IBP to recommend respondent's
very bonds of society, is unfaithful to his position and office and sets a detrimental example disbarment to this Court.8
to the society. Mapalad, Sr. vs. Echanez, 826 SCRA 57, A.C. No. 10911 June 6, 2017
In a resolution dated February 10, 2010, this Court required the respondent to file a
VIRGILIO J. MAPALAD, SR., Complainant, v. ATTY. ANSELMO S. ECHANEZ, Respondent. comment on the complaint within 10 days from notice.9 Despite receipt thereof, however,
respondent failed to comply with the said resolution.10 This Court, thus, issued another
DECISION resolution dated July 11, 2011 requiring the respondent to show cause why he should not be
disciplinarily dealt with or held in contempt for such failure and, again, to file a comment to
TIJAM, J.: the complaint.11 However, the respondent again failed to comply.12
This administrative case arose from a verified Complaint for disbarment dated October 16,
2009 filed by complainant Virgilio Mapalad, Sr. against respondent Atty. Anselmo S. Echanez
before the Integrated Bar ofthe Philippines (IBP).1 On August 14, 2013, the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) issued a Notice of
Mandatory Conference/Hearing.13 On the date of the hearing, however, none of the parties
The Facts appeared despite due notice.14 Nonetheless, the IBP directed the parties to submit their
respective position papers within 10 days from notice.15 Only the complainant filed his
Complainant alleged that in an action for Recovery of Possession and Damages with Writ of
position paper, reiterating the allegations and arguments in his complaint.16
Preliminary Mandatory Injunction docketed as Civil Case No. 1635-1-784 before the
Municipal Trial Court in Santiago City, Isabela, complainant was one of the plaintiffs while
respondent was the defendants' counsel therein. As the said case was decided in favor of the
plaintiffs, respondent filed a Notice of Appeal dated May 22, 2009, in which respondent After investigation, the Investigating Commissioner of the IBP-CBD rendered a report17 dated
indicated his Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) Compliance No. II-0014038 December 17, 2013 with the following recommendation, to wit:
without indicating the date of issue thereof.2 On appeal, respondent filed the appellants'
brief, again only indicating his MCLE Compliance Number.3 WHEREFORE, after a careful evaluation of the pieces of evidence submitted by the
complainant, it is recommended that ATTY. ANSELMO S. ECHANEZ be DISBARRED and that
his name be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys upon finality of the decision.

In another case docketed as Special Civil Action No. 3573, respondent, for the same clients, SO ORDERED.18
filed a Petition for Injunction wherein he once again only indicated his MCLE Compliance
Number.4 Respondent also filed a Motion for Leave of Court dated July 13, 2009 in the said On September 28, 2014, the IBP Board of Governors issued Resolution No. XXI-2014-685,
special civil action, indicating his MCLE Compliance Number without the date of issue.5 adopting and approving the report and recommendation of the CBD-IBP Investigating
Commissioner, viz.:

RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, the

Upon inquiry with the MCLE Office, complainant discovered that respondent had no MCLE Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in the above-entitled case,
compliance yet. The MCLE Office then issued a Certification dated September 30, 2009, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex "A", and finding the recommendation to be fully
stating that respondent had not yet complied with his MCLE requirements for the First supported by the evidence on record and applicable laws, and for Respondent's violation of
Compliance Period (April 15, 2001 to April 14, 2004) and Second Compliance Period (April 15, the Lawyer's Oath, Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 10, Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional
2004 to April 14, 2007).6 Responsibility when he falsified his MCLE Compliance Number and used it in his pleadings in
Court, including his having ignored the Orders and notices of the Commission on Bar
Hence, this complaint. Complainant argues that respondent's act of deliberately and Discipline and his having been previously sanctioned twice by the IBP, Atty. Anselmo
unlawfully misleading the courts, parties, and counsels concerned into believing that he had Echanez is hereby DISBARRED and his name stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.19
complied with the MCLE requirements when in truth he had not, is a serious malpractice and
No motion for reconsideration was filed by either party.
73
The Issue myself as a lawyer according to the best of my knowledge and discretion, with all good fidelity
as well to the courts as to my clients; and I impose upon myself these, voluntary obligations
without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me God. (emphasis supplied)

Should respondent be administratively disciplined based on the allegations in the complaint Also, Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) provides:
and evidence on record?
CANON 1 – A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote
The Ruling respect for law and legal processes.

We answer in the affirmative. Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

Preliminarily, let it be stated that there is no denying that the respondent was given ample Canon 10, Rule 10.01 of the CPR likewise states:
opportunity to answer the imputations against him and defend himself but he did not do so
despite due notices. CANON 10 – A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court.

Rule 10.01 – A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court;
nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be mislead by any artifice.
At any rate, respondent's acts of misconduct are clearly manifest, thus, warranting the
exercise by this Court of its disciplinary power.

First. It was clearly established that respondent violated Bar Matter No. 85020. No less than In using a false MCLE compliance number in his pleadings, respondent also put his own
the MCLE Office had issued a certification stating that respondent had not complied with the clients at risk. Such deficiency in pleadings can be fatal to the client's cause as pleadings
first and second compliance period of the MCLE.21 with such false information produce no legal effect.25 In so doing, respondent violated his
duty to his clients.26Canons 17 and 18 of the CPR provide:
Second. Despite such non-compliance, respondent repeatedly indicated a false MCLE
compliance number in his pleadings before the trial courts.22 In indicating patently false CANON 17 – A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and shall be mindful of the
information in pleadings filed before the courts of law, not only once but four times, as per trust and confidence reposed upon him.
records, the respondent acted in manifest bad faith, dishonesty, and deceit. In so doing, he
indeed misled the courts, litigants – his own clients included – professional colleagues, and CANON 18 – A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.
all others who may have relied on such pleadings containing false information.23
Third. The respondent also repeatedly failed to obey legal orders of the trial court, the IBP-
Respondent's act of filing pleadings that he fully knew to contain false information is a CBD, and also this Court despite due notice. In the special civil action above-cited, the trial
mockery of the courts, especially this Court, considering that it is this Court that authored court directed the respondent to file a comment on a motion which raised in issue
the rules and regulations that the respondent violated.24 respondent's use of a false MCLE compliance number in his pleadings but he did not file
any.27 This Court also directed respondent to file a comment on the instant complaint but he
The Lawyer's Oath in Rule 138, Section 3 of the Rules of Court requires commitment to failed to do so.28 We then issued a show cause order against the respondent to explain why
obeying laws and legal orders, doing no falsehood, and acting with fidelity to both court and he should not be disciplined or held in contempt for failing to file the required comment but
client, among others, viz.: again, respondent did not heed this court's order.29 The IBP-CBD also notified the
respondent to appear before it for mandatory conference/hearing but the said notice was also
I, x x x do solemnly swear that I will maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippine, I ignored.30
will support the Constitution and obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly
constituted authorities therein; I will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court orders should be respected not only because the authorities who issued them should
court; I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false, or unlawful suit, be respected, but because of the respect and consideration that should be extended to the
or give aid nor consent to the same; I will delay no man for money or malice, and will conduct judicial branch of the

74
government, which is absolutely essential if our government is to be a government of laws SO ORDERED.
and not of men.31

Clearly, respondent's act of ignoring the said court orders despite notice violates the lawyer's
oath and runs counter to the precepts of the CPR. By his repeated dismissive conduct, the
respondent exhibited an unpardonable lack of respect for the authority of the Court.

Respondent's culpability is further highlighted by the fact that, as cited by the IBP Board of
Governors in its resolution, respondent had already been sanctioned by the IBP twice. In a
decision dated April 11, 2013 by this Court en banc, respondent was found guilty of engaging
in notarial practice without a notarial commission, and was thus suspended from the practice
of law for two years with the warning that a repetition of the same or similar act in the future
shall merit a more severe sanction.32 In another decision dated May 31, 2016, this Court en
banc again found respondent guilty of performing notarial acts without a notarial commission
and was thus suspended from the practice of law for two years and barred permanently from
being commissioned as notary public with a stem warning that a repetition of the same shall
be dealt with severely.33 It is noteworthy that in both cases, respondent already manifested
his lack of regard, not only for the charges against him, but most importantly to the orders of
the IBP and the courts. In the said cases, the respondent likewise failed to file answers,
comments, or position papers, or attended mandatory conferences despite due notices.34

Taken altogether, considering respondent's act of using a false MCLE compliance number in
his pleadings35, his repeated failure to obey legal orders36, and the fact that he had already
been sanctioned twice by this Court on separate cases37, We are constrained to affirm the
IBP Board of Governors' Resolution No. XXI-2014-685, recommending his disbarment to
prevent him from further engaging in legal practice.38 It cannot be overstressed that lawyers
are instruments in the administration of justice.39 As vanguards of our legal system, they are
expected to maintain legal proficiency and a high standard of honesty, integrity, and fair
dealing.40 Also, of all classes and professions, the lawyer is most sacredly bound to uphold
the laws.41 He is their sworn servant; and for him, of all men in the world, to repudiate and
override the laws, to trample them underfoot and ignore the very bonds of society, is
unfaithful to his position and office and sets a detrimental example to the society.42

WHEREFORE, respondent Anselmo S. Echanez is hereby DISBARRED from the practice of

law, and his name is ORDERED STRICKEN FROM THE ROLL OF ATTORNEYS. Let a copy of
this Decision be entered in his record as a member of the Bar; and let notice of the same be
served on the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and on the Office of the Court Administrator
for circulation to all courts in the country.

75
76