Cases on legal ethics: quantum of evidence, effect of desistance

7/26/2019 Cases on legal ethics: quantum of evidence, effect of desistance

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/cases-on-legal-ethics-quantum-of-evidence-effect-of-desistance 1/30

Quantum of evidence in administrative cases

SECOND DIVISION

A.C. No. 7687, December !, "#$

%A&' C. 'AN&(A AND %E)NA'DO C.

%ASIN*, Complainants, v. A++)S. %AN-IE O. A*SA'IN

III AND /A0'O %. C%&(, Respondents.

A.C. No. 7688

%A&' C. 'AN&(A AND %E)NA'DO C.

%ASIN*, Complainants, v. A++)S. %AN-IE O. A*SA'IN

III, /E+E% AND%E1 S. *O AND /A0'O %.

C%&(, Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

Before the Court are two (2) separate administrative cases for

disbarment led by complainants Raul C. Lanua (Lanuza) and

Reynaldo C. Rasin! (Rasing), doc"eted as #.C. $o. %&'%,

a!ainst lawyers ran"ie . *a!salin +++ ( Atty. Magsalin) and

ablo R. Cru ( Atty. Cruz

) and #.C. $o. %&'' a!ainst #tty.*a!salin, #tty. Cru and #tty. eter #ndrew -. o ( Atty. Go)

for alle!ed fraud, deceit, malpractice, and !ross misconduct in

violation of /ection 2%, Rule 01' of the Rules of Court and the

Code of rofessional Responsibility (CPR).

he Court eventually consolidated the two cases as they both

involve the same parties, revolve around the same set of

facts, and raise e3actly the same issues.chanrobleslaw

+2e acts

hese disbarment cases stemmed from a labor case led by

complainant Lanua a!ainst hilippine 4oteliers, +nc. (PHI),

which operated the 5usit 4otel $i""o (Dusit Hotel), a client of

respondents #tty. *a!salin, #tty. Cru and #tty. o, all from

the law rm, .R. Cru Law 6ces (PRC Law O!e). Both the

Labor #rbiter and the $ational Labor Relations Commission

("LRC) decided in favor of 4+. Lanua appealed the $LRC

decision before the Court of #ppeals (CA).

A.C. "o. #$%%

n *arch 21, 277%, the C# rendered a decision in C#8.R. /

$o. 92&:2, favorin! Lanua and directin! 4+ to reinstate him

with full bac"wa!es.

#ccordin! to Lanua, his le!al counsel, #tty. /olon R. arcia

( Atty. Gar!ia), received the $otice of ;ud!ment and their copy

of the C# 5ecision on *arch 2', 277% at his law o6ce located

in <ueon City. /ubse=uently, #tty. arcia received byre!istered mail the Compliance0 and *otion for

Reconsideration,2both dated #pril 02, 277%, led by 4+ and

si!ned by #tty. *a!salin. +n the said pleadin!s, 4+ stated that

it received $otice of ;ud!ment with a copy of the C# decision

on #pril 07, 277%. his information caused #tty. arcia to

wonder why the postman would belatedly deliver the said

$otice of ;ud!ment and the C# decision to the RC Law 6ce,

which was also located in <ueon City, thirteen (01) days

after he received his own copies.

#fterwards, #tty. arcia re=uested the <ueon City Central

ost 6ce (&CCPO) for a certication as to the date of the

actual receipt of the $otice of ;ud!ment with the C# decision

by the RC Law 6ce. +n the ctober 10, 277%

Certication,1 issued by Llewelyn . allarme ('allarme), Chief

of the Records /ection, <CC, it was stated that the

Re!istered Letter $o. /80>'2 addressed to #tty. *a!salin was

delivered by ostman Rosendo ecante (Postman Pe!ante)

and duly received by eresita Caluca! on *arch 29, 277%,

supposedly based on the lo!boo" of ostman ecante.

?ith the ctober 10, 277% Certication as basis, the

complainants lod!ed the disbarment complaint a!ainst #ttys.*a!salin, o and Cru, which was doc"eted as #.C. $o. %&''.

A.C. "o. #$%%

+n #.C. $o. %&'', the complainants alle!ed that eresita @essA

Caluca! (Calu!ag), secretary of RC Law 6ce, altered the

true date of receipt of the $otice of ;ud!ment with the C#

decision when she si!ned and stamped on the re!istry return

receipt the date, #pril 07, 277%, to mislead the C# and the

opposin! party that they received their copy of the C#

decision on a later date and not *arch 29, 277%. he

complainants added that the alteration was very evident on

the re!istry return receipt which bore two (2) stamped dates

of receipt, with one stamped date @snowpa"edA or covered

with a li=uid correction uid to conceal the true date written

on the re!istry return receipt. hey inferred that Caluca!

concealed what could probably be the true date of receipt,

and that the respondents must have induced Caluca! to alter

the true date of receipt because they stood to benet from

the additional thirteen (01) days to prepare their motion for

reconsideration.

+n their defense, the respondents denied the complainants

alle!ations and countered that they actually received the

$otice of ;ud!ment and their copy of the C# 5ecision on #pril

07, 277% based on the Re!istry Return Receipt: ((st return

re!eipt ) that was sent bac" to C#. /tamped on the 0st return

receipt was @RDCD+ED5 #R+L 07 277%A and si!ned by Caluca!

in front and within the full view of ostman ecante. herespondents claimed that e3aminin! and ndin! that the

return receipt had been faithfully accomplished and the date

indicated therein to be true and accurate, ostman ecante

accepted the said return receipt. #s borne out by the records,

the 0st return receipt pertainin! to the C# decision was duly

returned to the C# as the sender. Dventually, #tty. *a!salin

led the re=uired Compliance. Considerin! that #tty. Cru was

out of the country from #pril >, 277%, to *ay &, 277%, based

on a Bureau of +mmi!ration certication,> #tty. *a!salin

re=uested #tty. o, a senior associate in their law o6ce, to

review 4+s motion for reconsideration of the decision.

#fterwards, #tty. o si!ned the said motion for

reconsideration and had it led with the C#.

Relyin! on the date indicated in the return receipt,

respondents stated the date, #pril 07, 277%, in the led

compliance and motion for reconsideration .

o oppose complainants assertion of Caluca!s application of

@snowpa"eA in the 0st return receipt alle!edly to conceal the

true date of receipt of the C# decision, the respondents

secured a Certication&from the C#, which stated the

followin!F

his is to certify that the Re!istry Return Receipt dated *arch

21, 277%, attached to the dorsal portion of pa!e 279 of the

rollo of the above8captioned case, as per careful observation,

reveals no @snowpa"edA portion and that the white mar" that



appears on the upper, center portion of the subGect Re!istry

Return Receipt bearin! the stamp mar" of receipt of .R. Cru

Law 6ces is a part of the white envelope that contained the

decision of this Court which stuc" to the said Return Receipt.

A.C. "o. #$%#

#s the records would show, 4+ moved for reconsideration of

the said C# decision, but the C# denied the motion in its ;uly

:, 277% Resolution.

n ;uly 07, 277%, #tty. arcia received by re!istered mail the

$otice of Resolution from the C#. hereafter, #tty. arcia

received by re!istered mail the Compliance,% dated ;uly 2&,

277%, led by 4+, throu!h the RC Law 6ce. +n the said

Compliance, it was stated that the $otice of Resolution was

received on ;uly 21, 277% based on the Re!istry Return

Receipt' ()nd return re!eipt ) sent bac" to the C#.

#!ain wonderin! about the delay in the delivery of the

re!istered mail to the respondents, #tty. arcia re=uested the

<CC to issue a certication as to the date of the actual

receipt of the said $otice of Resolution by the RC Law 6ce.

+n the ctober 2>, 277% Certication9 issued by the <CC,

Chief of the Records /ection allarme, stated that the

Re!istered Letter $o. /800: addressed to #tty. *a!salin was

delivered by ostman ecante and duly received by Caluca!

on ;uly 0&, 277%, based on the lo!boo" of ostman ecante.

he ctober 2>, 277% Certication became the basis of the

other disbarment complaint a!ainst #ttys. *a!salin and Cru

doc"eted as #.C. $o. %&'%.

+n #.C. $o. %&'%, the complainants claimed that #ttys.

*a!salin and Cru must have induced Caluca! to alter the

true date of receipt of the $otice of Resolution or at least had

the "nowled!e thereof when she si!ned and stamped on the

2nd return receipt the date 8 ;uly 21, 277%. hey contended

that #ttys. *a!salin and Cru stood to benet from the

additional seven (%) days derived from the alle!ed altereddate as they, in fact, used the altered date in their subse=uent

pleadin!. #ttys. *a!salin and Cru falsely alle!ed such in the

compliance led before the C#H the motion for e3tension of

time to le a petition for review on !ertiorariH07 and the

petition for review on !ertiorari00 led before this Court. he

complainants insinuated that #tty. *a!salin and #tty. Cru

deliberately misled the C# and this Court by lin! the above8

mentioned pleadin!s with the full "nowled!e that they were

already time barred.

+n their defense, #ttys. *a!salin and Cru denied the

alle!ations in the complaint and retorted that they actually

received the subGect $otice of Resolution on the date 8 ;uly 21,

277% as indicated in the 2nd

return receipt which was also dulyaccepted by ostman ecante and appropriately returned to

the C# as sender. Relyin! on the date, ;uly 21, 277%, as

indicated in 2nd return receipt, #tty. *a!salin, on behalf of 4+,

led the compliance and the other pleadin!s before the C#

and this Court concernin! C#8.R. / $o. 92&:2. he

respondents asserted that the date in the 2nd return receipt

deserved full faith and credence as it was clearly indicated by

Caluca!, witnessed by ostman ecante and ultimately

processed by the <CC to be duly returned to the C#.

Re*erral to t+e I,P

+n its #pril 2, 277'02 and ;une 0&, 277'01 Resolutions, the

Court referred the said administrative cases to the +nte!rated

Bar of the hilippines (I,P) for investi!ation, report and

recommendation.

he complainants and the respondents all appeared at the

scheduled mandatory conference held before the Commission

on Bar 5iscipline (C,D). hereafter, the parties led their

respective position papers.

I,P-s Report and Re!ommendation

A.C. "o. #$%#

+n its *arch 9, 2779 Report and

Recommendation,0: Commissioner /alvador B. 4ababa!

(Commissioner Haaag) recommended that the

administrative complaint be dismissed for lac" of merit. +t

!ave more credence to the date indicated in the 2nd return

receipt which bore no alteration and was duly accepted by

ostman ecante than the ctober 2>, 277% Certication

issued by the <CC. 4e stated that the 2ndreturn receipt did

not contain any alteration as to the stampin! of the date 8 ;uly

21, 277%, and that ostman ecante would not have allowed

and accepted the 2nd return receipt from Caluca! if it

contained an inaccurate date other than the true date of

receipt. inally, the CB5 ruled that the complainants failed to

demonstrate the specic acts constitutin! deceit, malpractice

and !ross misconduct by evidence that was clear and free

from doubt as to the act char!ed and as to the respondents

motive.

n #pril 0%, 2779, the +B Board of overnors ( I,P/,OG)

resolved to adopt and approve the CB5 report and

recommendation throu!h its Resolution $o. IE+++827798

0%&.0> he complainants moved for reconsideration, but the

motion was denied.

A.C. "o. #$%%

+n its Report and Recommendation,0& dated *arch 07, 2779,the CB5 recommended that the complaint be dismissed for

lac" of merit. +t !ave credence to the date indicated in the

0st return receipt as the actual and true date of receipt of the

$otice of ;ud!ment with the attached C# decision by the

respondents. +t did not subscribe to the complainants theory

that Caluca! was induced by the respondents to conceal the

true date of receipt by applyin! a li=uid correction uid in the

0st return receipt. +t found the the Certication issued by #tty.

eresita R. *ari!omen su6cient to e3plain the presence of the

white substance appearin! on the 0st return receipt.

n #pril 0%, 2779, the +B8B resolved to adopt and approve

the CB5 report and recommendation throu!h its Resolution

$o. IE+++8277980%'.0%

he complainants moved forreconsideration, but the motion was denied.

?ith their motions for reconsideration in the two cases

denied, the complainants led their respective petitions for

review before this Court.

ISS&E

he vital issue for the Courts resolution is whether #ttys.

*a!salin, Cru and o should be held administratively liable

based on the alle!ations in the complaints.

+2e Court3s %u4in5

he petitions lac" merit.



he Court deems it appropriate to discuss #.C. $os. %&'% and

%&'' Gointly as they essentially revolve around the same

circumstances and parties.

he burden of proof in disbarment and suspension

proceedin!s always rests on the complainant. he Court

e3ercises its disciplinary power only if the complainant

establishes the complaint by clearly preponderant evidence

that warrants the imposition of the harsh penalty. #s a rule, an

attorney enGoys the le!al presumption that he is innocent of

the char!es made a!ainst him until the contrary is proved. #n

attorney is further presumed as an o6cer of the Court to have

performed his duties in accordance with his oath.0'

+n the cases at bench, the Court nds the evidentiary records

to be inconclusive, thus, insu6cient to hold the respondents

liable for the acts alle!ed in the complaint.

hou!h there is a variance between the <CC Certications

and the Re!istry Return Receipts as to the dates of the C#

receipt of the notices, decision and resolution by the

respondents, there is no clear and convincin! evidence to

prove that the respondents intentionally and maliciously made

it appear that they received the C# notices, decision and

resolution later than the dates stated in the <CC

Certications. he complainants would li"e to impress upon

the Court that the only lo!ical e3planation as to the

discrepancy on the dates between the <CC Certications

and the Re!istry Return Receipts was that the respondents

must have induced Caluca! to alter the true date of receipt by

the C# for the purpose of e3tendin! the period to le, the

otherwise time8barred, motion for reconsideration. Eerily, this

leap of inference proJered by the complainants is merely

anchored on speculation and conGecture and not in any way

supported by clear substantial evidence re=uired to Gustify the

imposition of an administrative penalty on a member of the

Bar.

Dven if the postmasters certications were to merit seriousconsideration, the Court cannot avoid the le!al reality that the

re!istry return card is considered as the o6cial C# record

evidencin! service by mail. his card carries the presumption

that it was prepared in the course of o6cial duties which have

been re!ularly performed. +n this sense, it is presumed to be

accurate, unless clearly proven otherwise.

he Court nds merit in the respondents ar!ument that had

Caluca! stamped an inaccurate date on the re!istry return

receipts, ostman ecante, who witnessed and had full view of

the receivin! and stampin! of the said re!istry return receipts,

would have called her attention to correct the same or would

have refused to receive them alto!ether for bein! erroneous.

4ere, ostman ecante havin! accepted two re!istry returnreceipts with the dates, #pril 07, 277%09 and ;uly 21,

277%,27 respectively, can only mean that the said postman

considered the dates indicated therein to be correct and

accurate.

?hile the Court will not avoid its responsibility in metin! out

the proper disciplinary punishment upon lawyers who fail to

live up to their sworn duties, the Court will not wield its a3e

a!ainst those the accusations a!ainst whom are not

indubitably proven.

#ccordin!ly, in the absence of a clear and convincin!

evidence, the complaint for disbarment should be dismissed.

1E%EO%E, the administrative complaints a!ainst #ttys.

ran"ie . *a!salin +++ and ablo R. Cru, inA.C. No. 7687H

and the administrative complaint a!ainst #ttys. ran"ie .

*a!salin +++, eter #ndrew /. o and ablo R. Cru, in A.C. No

7688, are hereby DISISSED.

SO O%DE%ED.

+I%D DIVISION

A.C. No. 66, Setember 9, "#

E'ICISIA ENDO(A VDA. DE

%O0OSA, Complainant , v. A++)S. :&AN 0. ENDO(A AND

E&SE0IO /. NAVA%%O, :%., Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

Before us is a complaint for disbarment a!ainst #tty. ;uan B.

*endoa (#tty. *endoa) for alle!ed deceitful acts a!ainst his

client, and #tty. Dusebio . $avarro, ;r. (#tty. $avarro) for

ne!li!ence in the handlin! of his clientKs defense in thecollection case led by #tty. *endoa.

actua4 Antecedents

Dladio *endoa (Dladio) applied for ori!inal re!istration of two

parcels of land (Lot $os. 1%%0 and 2:'9) situated in Calamba,

La!una before the Community Dnvironment and $atural

Resources 6ce (CD$R) at Los Banos, La!una and Land

*ana!ement Bureau (L*B) in *anila.0 ?hile his application

was still pendin!, Dladio died leavin! all his children as heirs

to his estateH amon! them is herein complainant elicisima

*endoa Eda. 5e Robosa (elicisima). DladioKs children

pursued the application and e3ecuted a /pecial ower of

#ttorney2 (/#) in favor of elicisima. heir relative, #tty.

*endoa, prepared and notaried the said /#. hey alsoen!a!ed the services of #tty. *endoa as their counsel in the

proceedin!s before the CD$R and L*B.

n ebruary 27, 0991, upon the behest of #tty. *endoa,

elicisima si!ned a Contract for /ervice1prepared by #tty.

*endoa. he said contract stipulated that in the event of a

favorable CD$R or L*B resolution, elicisima shall convey to

#tty. *endoa one8fth (0>) of the lands subGect of the

application or one8fth (0>) of the proceeds should the same

property be sold.

he CD$R and the L*B proceedin!s resulted in the dismissal

of elicisima and her siblin!sK application for Lot $o. 2:'9 and

the partial !rant of their application for Lot $o. 1%%0.: he

Bureau of Lands issued an ri!inal Certicate of itle (C)

coverin! one8third (EE) or about ',970 s=uare meters of Lot

$o. 1%%0 in the names of elicisima and her siblin!s.

/ubse=uently, elicisima and her siblin!s sold the land to

reeneld Corporation (reeneld) and received the amount

of 2,777,777.77 as down payment.

n ctober 0>, 099', #tty. *endoa, Goined by his wife

ilomena /. *endoa, led in the Re!ional rial Court (RC) of

anauan, Batan!as a Complaint> a!ainst elicisima and her

siblin!s (Civil Case $o. 807'7). #tty. *endoa claimed that

e3cept for the amount of :7,777.77, elicisima and her

siblin!s refused to pay his attorneyKs fees e=uivalent to 0> of



the proceeds of the sale of the land as stipulated in the

Contract for /ervice.

+n their #nswer with Counterclaim,& elicisima and her siblin!s

denied the Me3istence and authenticity of the 3 3 3 Contract of

/ervice,M addin! that it did not reect the true intention of the

parties as they only a!reed to pay #tty. *endoa +,>77.77

per appearance and up to 0,>77.77 for !asoline e3penses.

hey also asserted that, based on 0uantum meruit1 #tty.

*endoa is not entitled to the claimed attorneyKs fees

because they lost in one case and he failed to accomplish the

titlin! of the land awarded to them, which would have

enhanced the value of the property.

elicisima and her siblin!s hired the services of #tty. $avarro

as their counsel in Civil Case $o. 807'7.

n *arch 29, 2777, the RC rendered Gud!ment in favor of

#tty. *endoa and a!ainst elicisima and her siblin!s. he RC

ruled that elicisima failed to substantiate her claim that she

did not enter into a contin!ency contract for le!al services

with #tty. *endoa, and ordered elicisima to pay #tty.

*endoa 0,2>',777.77 (for the land sold at %,027,'77.77)

representin! attorneyKs fees as well as the total cost of suit.%

#tty. $avarro then led a $otice of #ppeal' on behalf of

elicisima. 4owever, #tty. *endoa moved for an e3ecution

pendin! appeal with the RC. /ince no opposition was led by

elicisima and her siblin!s, the RC !ranted the said motion

and issued a writ of e3ecution, which resulted in the levy and

eventual transfer of elicisimaKs properties covered by

ransfer Certicate of itle $os. 8:11'>9 and 8:11'&7 in

favor of #tty. *endoa as the hi!hest bidder in the e3ecution

sale.9

*eanwhile, the Court of #ppeals (C#) ordered elicisima to le

an appellantKs brief but #tty. $avarro failed to le the same

within the period !ranted by the C#. Conse=uently, the C#

dismissed elicisimaKs appeal for non8compliance with /ection

0(e), Rule >7 of the Revised Rules of Court.07

n ;une 1, 2771, elicisima led a complaint8a6davit for

disbarment before this Court a!ainst #tty. *endoa for

alle!edly deceivin! her into si!nin! the Contract for /ervice

by ta"in! advanta!e of her illiteracy, and a!ainst #tty.

$avarro for dereliction of duty in handlin! her case before the

C# causin! her properties to be levied and sold at public

auction.00

elicisima alle!es that #tty. *endoa made her si!n a

document at her house without the presence of her siblin!s.

/aid document (Contract for /ervice) was written in Dn!lish

which she does not understand. /he claims that #tty. *endoa

told her the document will shield her from her siblin!sKpossible future claims on the property because she alone is

entitled to the property as her siblin!s did not help her in

processin! the application for ori!inal re!istration. /he was

not !iven a copy of the said document and she discovered

only durin! the trial that #tty. *endoa anchors his claim over

Es of proceeds from the sale of the land awarded by the

CD$R and L*B on the same document she had si!ned.02

#s to #tty. $avarro, elicisima claims that her case before the

C# was ne!lected despite repeated follow8ups on her part.

/he also points out that #tty. $avarro abandoned her case

before the RC when the latter failed to le an opposition to

#tty. *endoaKs motion for e3ecution pendin! appeal, which

resulted in the loss of her properties.01

+n his Comment,0: #tty. *endoa avers that he has been a

lawyer since 09>: and retired sometime in 09'1 due to partia

disability. ie went bac" to practicin! his profession in 099& on

a selective basis due to his disability but completely stopped a

year after. Bein! '2 years of a!e at the time of lin! his

comment, #tty. *endoa admits that he is now totally

disabled, cannot wal" on his own, cannot even write and si!n

his name, and can only move about with the help of his family

for he has been suJerin! from a severe case of Macute !outy

arthritic attac"M which causes e3treme di6culty in movin!

virtually all his Goints. 4e points out that he had previously

handled pro ono a concubina!e case led by elicisima

a!ainst her husband, havin! yielded to her repeated pleas as

she was then nancially hard8up and psycholo!ically

distrau!ht. or the application with the CD$R and L*B, he

a!reed to be paid for his le!al services on a contin!ent basis,

which contract was subse=uently found by the RC to be valid

?hen it was time to collect his attorneyKs fees, elicisima and

her siblin!s refused to pay him without any Gustiable reason

and even threatened to shoot him if he continued to press for

his compensation. his left #tty. *endoa with no other

recourse but to avail of the Gudicial process to enforce his

claim.

Replyin! to the comment of #tty. *endoa, elicisima

maintains that she did not understand the contents of the

Contract for /ervice and if it was truly their a!reement

(contin!ent basis) they would not have !iven money to #tty.

*endoa amountin! to &&,777.77. in fact, she points out that

#tty. *endoa failed to recover one of the lands applied for

and to have the land awarded to them titled because he

became ill. urther, she denies the alle!ation that she and her

siblin!s threatened to shoot #tty. *endoa for how could they

do it to a lawyer who will certainly have them Gailed. Besides,

he never mentioned such incident durin! the hearin! of the

case.

n his part, #tty. $avarro asserts that he did his best to winelicisimaKs case althou!h he was unsuccessful. 4e e3plains

that even before handlin! elicisimaKs case, he had been

saddled by many cases involvin! politicians and

sympathiers, havin! previously served as councilor in the

*unicipality of /to. omas, Batan!as for two consecutive

terms. 4e thus emphasied to elicisima that in order to M"eep

the case aliveM, he could le the $otice of #ppeal in her

behalf, and instructed her to loo" for another lawyer who has

the time to attend to her case and that she would return to

him only when she failed to !et one. 4owever, #tty. $avarro

admits that since he was too preoccupied with so many cases

in the local courts, he had alto!ether for!otten about

elicisimaKs case, not havin! seen her a!ain as per their

a!reement.

#tty. $avarro avers that after a lon! time elicisima suddenly

showed up at his o6ce complainin! why there was no

appellantKs brief led on her behalf at the C#. 4e claims that

elicisima blamed her and even accused him of connivin! with

#tty. *endoa. elicisima would not accept his e3planation

and she obviously failed to understand his earlier instruction

as he had led the $otice of #ppeal precisely to !ive her

enou!h time to secure the services of a new lawyer havin!

told her that he was =uite busy with his other cases. 4e

therefore pleads for mercy and compassion if he had

somehow committed some lapses considerin! that this is the

rst time he was char!ed administratively in his almost 19



years of law practice and that he is too willin! to ta"e

complainantKs cause if not for such apparent

miscommunication between a lawyer and his client.0>

n 5ecember %, 277>, the Court referred the case to the

+nte!rated Bar of the hilippines (+B) for investi!ation, report

and recommendation.0&

n $ovember &, 277&, elicisima led a position

paper0% reiteratin! that #tty. *endoa clearly abused the trust

and condence she reposed in him, deprivin! her of her

material possessions by lin! suit to enforce the Contract for

/ervice. /he asserted that they could not have entered into a

contract with #tty. *endoa for the conveyance of a portion of

the land to be awarded by the Bureau of Lands as his

attorneyKs fees because they already a!reed to pay his fee per

hearin! plus transportation e3penses and the sum of

:7,777.77. /he contended that #tty. *endoa should be held

liable for deceit and misrepresentation for tric"in! her to si!n,

to her detriment, a document that she did not understand.

#s to #tty. $avarro, elicisima maintained that he abandoned

his responsibility to monitor and "eep her updated of the

status of her case before the C#. /he also alle!es that #tty.

$avarro made it appear to her that he had already led the

appellantKs brief when, in fact, there was no such underta"in!.

/he thus prayed that #tty. $avarro be held liable for

ne!li!ence in the conduct and manner of handlin! her case

before the C#.

I0/;s %eort and %ecommendation

#fter two postponements, the mandatory conference was

nally held on /eptember 2>, 277& where all parties appeared

e3cept for #tty. *endoa. Npon termination of the hearin!, the

parties were re=uired to le their position papers but only

elicisima complied.

n *arch &, 277%, the +nvesti!atin! Commissioner of the +B8

Commission on Bar 5iscipline (CB5) submitted her Report and

Recommendation0' ndin! #tty. *endoa !uilty of ta"in!advanta!e of elicisimaKs i!norance Gust to have the Contract

for /ervice si!ned. /he held that #tty. *endoa violated

Canon 0% of the Code of rofessional Responsibility (CR) that

a lawyer owes delity to the cause of his client and shall be

mindful of the trust and condence reposed on him, as well as

Rule 27.7:, Canon 27 which e3horts lawyers to avoid

controversies with clients concernin! matters of

compensation and to resort to Gudicial action only to prevent

imposition, inGustice or fraud.09

#s to #tty. $avarro, the +nvesti!atin! Commissioner held that

his participation in politics aJected his law practice and

caused him to for!et about elicisimaKs case. 4avin! failed to

le the appellantKs brief as ordered by the C#, #tty. $avarroeven led a *otion to ?ithdraw #ppearance at a very late

sta!e, leavin! no time for elicisima to secure the services of

another lawyer. 4is infraction caused the eviction of elicisima

and her children from their residence by virtue of the writ of

e3ecution and public auction of her real properties. he

+nvesti!atin! Commissioner further said that #tty. $avarroKs

acts showed lac" of dili!ence in violation of Canon 0' of the

CR and his LawyerKs ath.27

he +nvesti!atin! Commissioner recommended that both #tty.

*endoa and #tty. $avarro be suspended for two (2) years

from the practice of law.20

n /eptember 09, 277%, the +B Board of overnors issued a

Resolution22 modifyin! the +nvesti!atin! CommissionerKs

Report and Recommendation by lowerin! the period of

suspension from two (2) years to si3 (&) months.

#tty. $avarro led a motion for reconsideration21 contendin!

that the +B Board of overnors failed to consider that after

the lin! of the $otice of #ppeal, there was no more lawyer8

client relationship between him and elicisima. +nsistin! that

there was a miscommunication between him and elicisima

re!ardin! his instruction that she should en!a!e the services

of another lawyer after the lin! of the $otice of #ppeal, he

stressed that she only later found it di6cult to scout for a new

lawyer because she was bein! char!ed e3orbitant acceptance

fees. 4ence, elicisima should be held e=ually ne!li!ent in not

hirin! the services of another lawyer despite a clear

understandin! to this eJect. 4e further cites the lac" of

communication between him and elicisima, which resulted in

the late lin! of the $otice of ?ithdrawal that she volunteered

to le a lon! time a!o.

+n her comment to #tty. $avarroKs motion for reconsideration,

elicisima reiterated that #tty. $avarro should be held liable

for ne!li!ence in failin! to update her of the status of the case

and admittin! such oversi!ht. /he claims that despite several

demands, #tty. $avarro i!nored them and made himself

scarce.2:

n ebruary 2', 2702, the +B8CB5 forwarded the case to this

Court for proper disposition pursuant to /ection 02, Rule 0198

B of the Rules of Court. #mon! the records transmitted was

the Resolution dated ;anuary 0>, 2702 denyin! the motion for

reconsideration led by #tty. $avarro.2>

+2e Court;s %u4in5

he Court has consistently held that in suspension or

disbarment proceedin!s a!ainst lawyers, the lawyer enGoys

the presumption of innocence, and the burden of proof rests

upon the complainant to prove the alle!ations in hiscomplaint. he evidence re=uired in suspension or disbarment

proceedin!s is preponderance of evidence. +n case the

evidence of the parties are e=ually balanced, the e=uipoise

doctrine mandates a decision in favor of the respondent.2& or

the Court to e3ercise its disciplinary powers, the case a!ainst

the respondent must be established by clear, convincin! and

satisfactory proof.2%

reponderance of evidence means that the evidence adduced

by one side is, as a whole, superior to or has !reater wei!ht

than that of the other.2' +t means evidence which is more

convincin! to the court as worthy of belief than that which is

oJered in opposition thereto.29 Nnder /ection 0 of Rule 011, in

determinin! whether or not there is preponderance ofevidence, the court may consider the followin!F (a) all the

facts and circumstances of the caseH (b) the witnessesK

manner of testifyin!, their intelli!ence, their means and

opportunity of "nowin! the facts to which they are testifyin!,

the nature of the facts to which they testify, the probability or

improbability of their testimonyH (c) the witnessesK interest or

want of interest, and also their personal credibility so far as

the same may ultimately appear in the trialH and (d) the

number of witnesses, althou!h it does not mean that

preponderance is necessarily with the !reater number.

#fter a thorou!h review of the evidence and pleadin!s

submitted by the parties, we hold that elicisima was able to



prove her char!es a!ainst #tty. $avarro but not #tty.

*endoa.

Contract for Service with Atty. Mendoza

a contract for contingent fees

he Contract for /ervice dated ebruary 27, 0991 readsF

hat the client hereby employs the #ttorney as their counsel

for the titlin! and recovery of their two parcels of land

situated at Baran!ay *aunon!, Calamba, La!una, OLotP $o.

2:'9 with an area of appro3imately 20,%': /=uare *eters and

OLPot $o. 1%%0 with an area of more or less 2&,%71 and in

consideration of the services of the attorney, the client a!rees

to pay the followin!F

0. or the prosecution of said proceedin!s (titlin! and

recovery of the said parcels of land and hearin! at the Land

*ana!ement Bureau, *anila, and at the 6ce of the

Community Dnvironment and $atural Resources 6ce at Los

Baos, La!una the client will !ive the #ttorney one fth (0>O)P

of the said two parcels of land or one fth (0>O)P of the sellin!

price of the said properties if sold.

/aid #ttorney hereby accepts said employment on said terms

and conditions and to do his best care, s"ill and ability, and at

all times to protect the ri!hts and interest of said client.

2. hat the e3penses of the proceedin!s, and such others as

lin! fees, e3penses of publication, costs le!ally ta3able and

all others shall be for the account of the client.17chanrobleslaw

?e cannot sustain the ndin! of the +B that #tty. *endoa

misled elicisima into si!nin! the above contract which

supposedly was intended to protect her from the claims of her

siblin!s who did not spend for the application with the CD$R

and L*B. /uch ndin! was based solely on the statements of

elicisima in her a6davit8complaint. ?hile elicisima made a

reference to her testimony before the RC, she did not attach

the transcript of steno!raphic notes of the said testimonydetailin! the circumstances of her si!nin! the Contract for

/ervice. $either is the receipt by #tty. *endoa of the sum of

:7,777.77 after elicisima and her siblin!s sold the land, by

itself an indication of fraud and deceit in the e3ecution of the

Contract for /ervice.

Npon the other hand, #tty. *endoa presented the RC

5ecision in Civil Case $o. 807'7 dated *arch 29, 2777, the

relevant portions of which stateF

+t is not disputed that #tty. *endoa was paid +,777.77 for

every appearance and he was also !iven 177.77 for hirin! a

vehicle and driver for each scheduled hearin!. 4e also

received :7,777.77 from elicisima *endoa whendefendantsK one8third portion of Lot $o. 1%%0 was sold.

#tty. *endoa led the instant case to collect one8fth of the

sale price of defendantsK land which was sold for

%,027,'77.77 or the amount of 0,:2:,777.77 minus the

amount of :7,777.77 he received, or the amount of

0,1':,777.77.

5urin! her testimony, elicisima *endoa admitted the

authenticity of the /pecial ower of #ttorney whereby her

brothers and sisters authoried her to secure the services of

the plaintiJ ;uan *endoa addin! that it was in writin!, in

Dn!lish and was e3plained to her before she si!ned itH that on

the basis of the authority !iven her by her brothers and

sisters she en!a!ed the services of #tty. *endoaH that the

si!nature in the document, entitled Contract of /ervice, is that

of her name which she si!ned in Mhis house.M

n the basis of the evidence, the Court nds no !round to

support elicisimaKs claim that she did not enter into any

written a!reement with the plaintiJ, ;uan *endoa, for the

latter to render le!al services and the correspondin!

compensation therefor as set forth in the Contract of /ervice.

4owever, the Court nds that the amounts received by the

plaintiJ ;uan *endoa from defendant elicisima *endoa

durin! the course of his le!al services for the twenty hearin!s

in the amount of 0,177.77 per hearin! or a total of

2&,777.77 should also be deducted from his claim of

0,1':,777.77 leavin! an unpaid balance of +,2>',777.77

due plaintiJ ;uan *endoa for le!al services rendered the

defendants.10

iven the above ndin! of the RC that elicisima in fact

entered into a contract for le!al services with #tty. *endoa,

thus debun"in! her defense in her #nswer denyin! the

e3istence and authenticity of the said document, it appears

that elicisima raised the issue of voluntariness of her si!nin!

the Contract for /ervice only durin! the hearin! when she

supposedly testied that, havin! reached only rade +E and

trustin! completely her lawyer cousin, #tty. *endoa who told

her that the document will protect her from the claims of her

siblin!s, she actually si!ned the Contract for /ervice.12 he

RC, however, found the evidence adduced by elicisima as

insu6cient to defeat #tty. *endoaKs claim for attorneyKs fees.

/aid Gud!ment had attained nality and even pendin! appeal

was already e3ecuted on motion by #tty. *endoa.

+t bears to stress that a contin!ent fee arran!ement is valid in

this Gurisdiction and is !enerally reco!nied as valid and

bindin! but must be laid down in an e3press contract.11 he

validity of contin!ent fees depends, in lar!e measure, upon

the reasonableness of the amount 3ed as contin!ent fee

under the circumstances of the case.1: $evertheless, when itis shown that a contract for a contin!ent fee was obtained by

undue inuence e3ercised by the attorney upon his client or

by any fraud or imposition, or that the compensation is clearly

e3cessive, the Court must, and will protect the a!!rieved

party.1>

#part from the alle!ations in her a6davit8complaint,

elicisima failed to establish by clear and satisfactory proof of

the deception alle!edly committed by #tty. *endoa when

she a!reed in writin! for the latterKs contin!ent fees. raud

and irre!ularity in the e3ecution of their contin!ency fee

contract cannot be deduced from the fact alone that #tty.

*endoa led suit to enforce their contract.

Atty. Navarro 's Gross Negligence

?ith respect to #tty. $avarro, the facts on record clearly

established his failure to live up to the standards of dili!ence

and competence of the le!al profession.

Lawyers en!a!ed to represent a client in a case bear the

responsibility of protectin! the latterKs interest with warmth,

eal and utmost dili!ence.1& hey must constantly "eep in

mind that their actions or omissions would be bindin! on the

client.1%

+n this case, #tty. $avarro a!reed to represent elicisima and



her siblin!s in Civil Case $o. 807'7 and as their counsel he

led the #nswer with Counterclaim. 4e li"ewise attended the

hearin!s of the case until the RC rendered an adverse

Gud!ment. 4owever, after lin! the $otice of #ppeal, nothin!

was heard of a!ain from him. 4e did not le any opposition

when #tty. *endoa moved for e3ecution pendin! appeal,

which resulted in the sale of elicisimaKs properties at public

auction and eventual eviction of elicisima and her children

from the said premises. ?orse, he failed to le an appellantKs

brief despite receipt of the order from the C# directin! him to

do so within the period specied therein, and to le a motion

for reconsideration when the appeal was dismissed due to

non8lin! of such brief. 4is motion for e3tension of time to

submit an appellantKs brief was led 9! days late and was

thus denied by the C#. Barely a wee" after, he led a notice of

withdrawal of appearance bearin! the conformity of his clients

which was !ranted. +t is evident from the fore!oin! that #tty.

$avarro failed to inform elicisima of the status of the case so

that the latter was surprised upon bein! served the eviction

order of the court and eventual dismissal by the C# of their

appeal.

Canon 0' of the CR mandates that a lawyer shall serve his

client with competence and dili!ence. Rule 0'.71 further

provides that a lawyer shall not ne!lect a le!al matter

entrusted to him and his ne!li!ence in connection therewith

shall render him liable.

husF

nce he a!rees to ta"e up the cause of a client, a lawyer

owes delity to such cause and must always be mindful of the

trust and condence reposed in him. 4e must serve the client

with competence and dili!ence and champion the latterKs

cause with wholehearted delity, care and devotion. Dlsewise

stated, he owes entire devotion to the interest of the client,

warm eal in the maintenance and defense of his clientKs

ri!hts, and the e3ertion of his utmost learnin! and ability to

the end that nothin! be ta"en or withheld from his client, save

by the rules of law, le!ally applied. his simply means that hisclient is entitled to the benet of any and every remedy and

defense that is authoried by the law of the land and he may

e3pect his lawyer to assert every such remedy or defense. +f

much is demanded from an attorney, it is because the

entrusted privile!e to practice law carries with it the

correlative duties not only to the client but also to the court,

to the bar and to the public. # lawyer who performs his duty

with dili!ence and candor not only protects the interest of his

clientH he also serves the ends of Gustice, does honor to the

bar and helps maintain the respect of the community to the

le!al profession.1'

#tty. $avarroKs asseveration that he had instructed elicisima

to loo" for another lawyer and !iven them the $otice of?ithdrawal of #ppearance for them to le in the C#, fails to

convince. +f it is true that he did not a!ree to continue bein!

elicisimaKs counsel before the C#, he should have

immediately led the $otice of ?ithdrawal of #ppearance

himself after lin! the $otice of #ppeal. 5espite receipt of the

order to le appellantKs brief from the C#, he did not inform

elicisima about it nor did he in=uire from the latter whether

they already secured the services of a new counsel. hat such

withdrawal was led lon! after the e3piration of the period to

le appellantKs brief and the denial by the C# of the motion for

e3tension also belatedly led by him, clearly indicate that +e

never updated 'eli!isima on t+e status o* t+eir appeal, such

information bein! crucial after #tty. *endoa succeeded in

havin! the Gud!ment e3ecuted pendin! appeal.

#tty. $avarro, in fact, admitted that he for!ot about

elicisimaKs case due to his political activities. 5espite havin!

received notices from the C#, he allowed the period of lin!

the appellantKs brief to lapse and failed to le a motion for

e3tension before such period e3pired. 4e did le a motion for

e3tension but only three months later and when such motion

was denied, he nally moved to withdraw from the case.

here bein! no appellantKs brief led, the C# !ranted #tty.

*endoaKs motion to dismiss the appeal. Nnder the

circumstances, #tty. $avarro was !rossly ne!li!ent in his

duties, resultin! in !reat preGudice to elicisima who lost her

properties to satisfy the Gud!ment in favor of #tty. *endoa.

?e have held that the failure of counsel to submit the appeal

brief for his client within the re!lementary period

constitutes ine2!usale negligen!e19 an oJense that entails

disciplinary action.:7 he lin! of a brief within the period set

by law is a duty not only to the client, but also to the

court.:0 he failure to le an appellate court brief without any

Gustiable reason thus deserves sanction.:2

#tty. $avarroKs ne!li!ent handlin! of elicisimaKs case was

e3acerbated by his failure to inform her of the status of her

case. here was no mention in his pleadin!s of any attempt

on his part to contact elicisima at the crucial sta!es when

#tty. *endoa moved for e3ecution pendin! appeal and the

C# sent a directive for the lin! of the appellantKs brief. +f

indeed, he had already instructed elicisima to loo" for

another lawyer, he should have apprised her of these

developments and e3plained to her the ur!ency of lin! the

notice of withdrawal of appearance and entry of appearance

of a new counsel she may have already en!a!ed.

#tty. $avarroKs failure to communicate vital information to his

client violated Rule 0'.7: which providesF

Rule 0'.7: # lawyer shall "eep the client informed of the

status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable timeto the clientKs re=uest for information.

he lawyerKs duty to "eep his client constantly updated on the

developments of his case is crucial in maintainin! the clientKs

condence. +ndeed, the relationship of lawyer8client bein! one

of condence, there is ever present the need for the lawyer to

inform timely and ade=uately the client of important

developments aJectin! the clientKs case. he lawyer should

not leave the client in the dar" on how the lawyer is defendin!

the clientKs interests.:1

+n cases involvin! a lawyerKs failure to le a brief or other

pleadin! before an appellate court, this Court has imposed

suspension from the practice of law for periods ran!in! fromthree to si3 months, and in most serious cases, even

disbarment.::

?e nd the recommendation of the +B8Board of overnors to

suspend #tty. $avarro from the practice of law for si3 months

appropriate under the circumstances. Considerin! that this is

his rst administrative oJense, such penalty, and not

disbarment as prayed for by complainant, serves the purpose

of protectin! the interest of the public and the le!al

profession. or this Court will e3ercise its power to disbar only

in clear cases of misconduct that seriously aJects the

standin! and character of the lawyer as an o6cer of the court

and a member of the bar.:>



1E%EO%E, the Court nds respondent #tty. Dusebio .

$avarro, ;r. *&I'+) of violation of Rule 0'.71 and Rule 0'.7:

of the Code of rofessional Responsibility, and is

hereby S&S/ENDED from the practice of law for si3 (&)

months eJective upon nality of this 5ecision, with warnin!

that a repetition of the same or similar violation shall be dealt

with more severely. he char!es a!ainst #tty. ;uan B. *endoa

areDISISSED.

SO O%DE%ED.

SECOND DIVISION

A.C. No. #6!, Au5ust "6, "#

NOE' S. SO%%EDA, Complainant , v. A++). DAVID '.

-O, Respondent .

% E S O ' & + I O N

+2e Case

Before the Court is an administrative case led by $oel /./orreda (/orreda) a!ainst #tty. 5avid L. Qho (Qho) for

malpractice andor !ross misconduct.

+2e acts

he records reveal that on 1 ctober 277& *arissa L.

*acarilay (*acarilay), throu!h her then counsel /orreda,0 led

an administrative complaint2 a!ainst Qho before the

+nte!rated Bar of the hilippines (+B), doc"eted as CB5 Case

$o. 7&80'&& (*acarilayKs complaint). /orreda withdrew as

counsel for *acarilay on 07 *arch 277%.1 n > 5ecember

277%, /orreda led with the +B the present complaint:a!ainst

Qho, which contained e3actly the same alle!ations in

*acarilayKs complaint. /orreda alle!ed thatF (0) *acarilay,

throu!h him as counsel, led an arbitration case a!ainstCandelaria Qholoma (Candelaria) and +melda Qholoma

(+melda), QhoKs clients, before the Construction +ndustry

#rbitration Commission (C+#C)H (2) Qho notaried Candelaria

and +meldaKs a6davit in the arbitration case despite bein!

dis=ualied under the 277: Rules on $otarial ractice, since

Candelaria and +melda are QhoKs sister8in8law and niece,

respectivelyH (1) Qho did not furnish *acarilay and /orreda a

copy of his comment on their motion for substitution of

arbitratorH (:) Qho did not countervail the manifestation

alle!in! the mendacity of Qho and his clientsH (>) Qho

intentionally delayed the receipt of *acarilayKs motion for

time e3tensionH (&) Qho advised Robert Qholoma (Robert), the

husband of Candelaria, to forcibly eGect *acarilayKs watchman

in the disputed propertyH (%) Qho notaried the answer led bythe Qholomas in the case for forcible entryH (') Qho also

notaried the /pecial ower of #ttorney (/#) e3ecuted by the

Qholomas, which amounted to Mself8notariation,M because

Mthe one bein! !iven power is the law rm of Qho #ntonio

Eelasco ayos Law 6ces, of which OQhoP is the premier

partnerMH (9) Qho notaried the /# with only one of the three

si!natories e3hibitin! her cedulaH (07) Qho also notaried the

petition for review led by Candelaria and +melda before the

Court of #ppealsH and (00) Qho and his clients deliberately

failed to furnish the C+#C with a copy their appeal.

+n his #nswer,> Qho admitted that he notaried Candelaria and

+meldaKs a6davit, answer in the case for forcible entry, /#,

and petition for review. Qho, however, alle!ed that he acted in

!ood faith for he believed that the decision in Aznar ,rot+ers

Realty Co. v. Court o* Appeals,& where only Mthose convicted o

the crime involvin! moral turpitude were dis=ualied to

notarie documents,M was still the prevailin! rule. Qho pleaded

for liberality in the application of the then recently enacted

277: Rules on $otarial ractice, since there was no dama!e

caused by the notariation. 4e admitted that he was not yet

fully conversant with the new rules. #s to the other

alle!ations, Qho claimed that those were unsubstantiated

conclusions, conGectures and speculations. Qho admitted his

failure to furnish /orreda with a copy of the comment on the

motion for substitution of arbitrator and his failure to furnish

the C+#C with a copy of his clientsK appeal. 4owever, he

alle!ed that no dama!e was caused and he immediately

furnished the copies of the pleadin!s upon discovery of his

inadvertence.

inally, Qho claimed that M*acarilayKs penchant for deliberate

forum shoppin! and splittin! a cause of action, albeit baseless

and unfounded, must be sanctioned.M% +n an rder' dated 29

;anuary 2779, +B Commissioner Romualdo #. 5in, ;r. (+B

Commissioner) denied /orredaKs motion to consolidate thepresent complaint with *acarilayKs complaint, because there

was already a report and recommendation by a diJerent

commissioner in *acarilayKs complaint. n : #u!ust 2779,

Qho led an ur!ent manifestation,9pleadin! for the dismissal

of the present case. Qho attached a copy of this CourtKs

Resolution07 dated 17 *arch 2779, where the hird 5ivision of

this Court resolved to close and terminate CB5 Case $o. 7&8

0'&& (doc"eted as #.C. $o. '0&0), considerin! that no motion

for reconsideration was led a!ainst the +B

Resolution00 dismissin! the case for lac" of merit, and no

petition for review was led before the Court.

he Rulin! of the +B

+n a Report and Recommendation dated 10 *ay 2700,02

the+B Commissioner recommended the dismissal of the present

complaint a!ainst Qho because /orreda failed to establish his

alle!ations by clear, convincin!, and satisfactory evidence.

he +B Commissioner also found that /orreda did not

establish how QhoKs alle!ed violation of the 277: Rules on

$otarial ractice, if proven, would dama!e *acarilay. +n

Resolution $o. II82701807%01 issued on 02 ebruary 2701, the

+B Board of overnors adopted and approved the +B

CommissionerKs Report and Recommendation, dismissin! the

complaint for lac" of evidence. +n Resolution $o. II+8270:8

2200: issued on 2 *ay 270:, the +B Board of overnors

li"ewise denied the motion for reconsideration led by

/orreda, since the Board found no co!ent reason to reverse its

initial ndin!s and the matters raised were reiterations of

those which had already been ta"en into consideration.

he Rulin! of the Court

?e dismiss the complaint a!ainst Qho. #pplyin! the principle

of res 3udi!ata or bar by prior Gud!ment, the Court nds that

the present administrative case becomes dismissible. /ection

:%, Rule 19 of the Rules of Court enunciates the rule of res

3udi!ata or bar by prior Gud!ment.0> +t provides that a nal

Gud!ment on the merits rendered by a court of competent

Gurisdiction is conclusive as to the ri!hts of the parties and

their privies, and constitutes an absolute bar to subse=uent



actions involvin! the same claim, demand, or cause of

action.0& #.C. $o. '0&0 and the present case have

substantially identical parties, refer to the same subGect

matter, raise the same issue, and claim the same relief. he

present complaint is a mere duplication of *acarilayKs

complaint in #.C. $o. '0&0. hus, the Resolution of this Court

in #.C. $o. '0&0 is conclusive in the present case.

urthermore, /orreda failed to dischar!e the burden of

provin! QhoKs administrative liability by clear preponderance

of evidence.

he le!al presumption is that an attorney is innocent of the

char!es a!ainst him until the contrary is proved.0% he burden

of proof in disbarment and suspension proceedin!s always

rests on the complainant,0' and the burden is not satised

when complainant relies on mere assumptions and suspicions

as evidence.09 Considerin! the serious conse=uences of

disbarment and suspension, this Court has consistently held

that clear preponderant evidence is necessary to Gustify the

imposition of administrative penalty.27 +n the present case,

/orreda did not substantiate his alle!ations, and he relied on

his own assumptions and suspicions. /orreda did not show

how QhoKs alle!ed actions amount to malpractice or !ross

misconduct, which will subGect Qho to administrative sanction.

/orreda cannot shift the burden of proof to Qho by as"in! himto rebut his alle!ations. +t is a3iomatic that one who alle!es

an act has the onus of provin! it.20 +f the burden of proof is not

overcome, the respondent is under no obli!ation to prove his

defense.22

1E%EO%E, we DISISS the complaint a!ainst respondent

#tty. 5avid L. Qho. Costs a!ainst complainant. SO O%DE%ED.

I%S+ DIVISION

A.C. No. 8"6#, arc2 ##, "#

:ESSIE +. CA/&*AN AND %O0E%+ C.

+O%%ES, Complainants, v. A++). EDE%ICO S. +O'EN+INO,

:%., A++). %ENA+O *. C&NANAN, A++). DANIE' .

VIC+O%IO, :%., AND A++). E'0E%+ +.

Q&I'A'A, Respondents.

A.C. No. 87"

:ESSIE +. CA/&*AN AND %O0E%+ C.

+O%%ES, Complainants, v. A++). CONS+AN+E /. CA'&)A,

:%., AND A++). E'0E%+ +. Q&I'A'A, Respondent .

D E C I S I O N

+n this consolidated administrative case, complainants ;essie

. Campu!an and Robert C. orres see" the disbarment of

respondents #tty. ederico /. olentino, ;r., #tty. 5aniel .

Eictorio, ;r., #tty. Renato . Cunanan, #tty. Dlbert . <uilala and

#tty. Constante . Caluya, ;r. for alle!edly falsifyin! a court

order that became the basis for the cancellation of their

annotation of the notice of adverse claim and the notice of lis

pendens in the Re!istry of 5eeds in <ueon City.

Antecedents

#tty. Eictorio, ;r. had replaced #tty. Dd!ardo #bad as counsel

of the complainants in a civil action they brou!ht to see" the

annulment of ransfer Certicate of itle (C) $o. $8297>:&

of the Re!istry of 5eeds of <ueon City in the rst wee" of

;anuary 277% in the Re!ional rial Court (RC) in <ueon City

(Civil Case $o. <87%8>9>9'). hey impleaded as defendants

Ramon and ;osena Ricafort, ;uliet Ear!as and the Re!ister of

5eeds of <ueon City. hey caused to be annotated on C

$o. $8297>:& their a6davit of adverse claim, as well as the

notice of lis pendens.0 #tty. olentino, ;r. was the counsel of

defendant Ramon and ;osena Ricafort.

+n their sworn complaint for disbarment dated #pril 21, 2779

(later doc"eted as #.C. $o. '2&0),2 the complainants narrated

that as the survivin! children of the late /pouses #ntonio and

$emesia orres, they inherited upon the deaths of their

parents a residential lot located at $o. 2>0 Boni /errano

/treet, *urphy, Cubao, <ueon City re!istered under ransfer

Certicate of itle (C) $o. R8&:111(1>&>2) of the Re!ister

of 5eeds of <ueon CityH1 that on #u!ust 2:, 277&, they

discovered that C $o. R8&:111(1>&>2) had been unlawfully

cancelled and replaced by C $o. $8297>:& of the Re!ister

of 5eeds of <ueon City under the names of Ramon and

;osena RicafortH: and that, accordin!ly, they immediately

caused the annotation of their a6davit of adverse claim on

C $o. $8297>:&.

+t appears that the parties entered into an amicable

settlement durin! the pendency of Civil Case $o. <87%8>9>9'

in order to end their dispute,> whereby the complainants

a!reed to sell the property and the proceeds thereof would be

e=ually divided between the parties, and the complaint and

counterclaim would be withdrawn respectively by the

complainants (as the plaintiJs) and the defendants. ursuant

to the terms of the amicable settlement, #tty. Eictorio, ;r. led

a *otion to ?ithdraw Complaint dated ebruary 2&,

277',& which the RC !ranted in its order dated *ay 0&, 277'

upon notin! the defendantsK lac" of obGection thereto and the

defendantsK willin!ness to similarly withdraw their

counterclaim.%

he complainants alle!ed that from the time of the issuanceby the RC of the order dated *ay 0&, 277', they could no

lon!er locate or contact #tty. Eictorio, ;r. despite ma"in!

several phone calls and visits to his o6ceH that they found out

upon verication at the Re!ister of 5eeds of <ueon City that

new annotations were made on C $o. $8297>:&,

specicallyF (0) the annotation of the letter8re=uest appearin!

to be led by #tty. olentino, ;r.' see"in! the cancellation of

the a6davit of adverse claim and the notice of lis

pendens annotated on C $o. $8297>:&H and (2) the

arinotation of the decision dated *ay 0&, 277' rendered in

Civil Case $o. <87%8>9>9' by the RC, Branch 9>, in <ueon

City, !rantin! the complainantsK *otion to ?ithdraw

ComplaintH9 and that a copy of the letter8re=uest dated ;une

17, 277' addressed to #tty. <uilala, Re!istrar of 5eeds of<ueon City, disclosed that it was defendant Ramon Ricafort

who had si!ned the letter.

eelin! a!!rieved by their discovery, the complainants led

an appeal en !onsulta with the Land Re!istration #uthority

(LR#), doc"eted as Consulta $o. :%7%, assailin! the unlawful

cancellation of their notice of adverse claim and their notice

of lis pendens under primary entries D82%:2 and D81'2'89,

respectively. he LR# set Consulta $o. :%7% for hearin! on

*arch 17, 2779, and directed the parties to submit their

respective memoranda andor supportin! documents on or

before such scheduled hearin!.074owever, the records do not

disclose whether Consulta $o. :%7% was already resolved, or



remained pendin! at the LR#.

Nnable to receive any response or assistance from #tty.

Eictorio, ;r. despite their havin! paid him for his professional

services, the complainants felt that said counsel had

abandoned their case. hey submitted that the cancellation of

their notice of adverse claim and their notice of lis

pendens without a court order specically allowin! such

cancellation resulted from the connivance and conspiracy

between #tty. Eictorio, ;r. and #tty. olentino, ;r., and from the

ta"in! advanta!e of their positions as o6cials in the Re!istry

of 5eeds by respondents #tty. <uilala, the Chief Re!istrar, and

#tty. Cunanan, the actin! Re!istrar and si!natory of the new

annotations. hus, they claimed to be thereby preGudiced.

n ;uly &, 2779, the Court re=uired the respondents to

comment on the veried complaint.00

#tty. Eictorio, ;r. asserted in his Comment dated #u!ust 0%,

277902 that complainant Robert orres had been actively

involved in the proceedin!s in Civil Case $o. <87%8>9>9',

which included the mediation processH that the complainants,

after havin! a!!ressively participated in the draftin! of the

amicable settlement, could not now claim that they had been

deceived into enterin! the a!reement in the same way that

they could not fei!n i!norance of the conditions contained

thereinH that he did not commit any abandonment as alle!ed,

but had performed in !ood faith his duties as the counsel for

the complainants in Civil Case $o. <87%8>9>9'H that he should

not be held responsible for their representation in other

proceedin!s, such as that before the LR#, which re=uired a

separate en!a!ementH and that the only payment he had

received from the complainants were those for his appearance

fees of 0,777.77 for every hearin! in the RC.

+n his Comment dated #u!ust 2:, 2779,01 #tty. olentino, ;r.

refuted the char!e of conspiracy, stressin! that he was not

ac=uainted with the other respondents, e3cept #tty. Eictorio,

;r. whom he had met durin! the hearin!s in Civil Case $o. <8

7%8>9>9'H that althou!h he had notaried the letter8re=uestdated ;une 17, 277' of Ramon Ricafort to the Re!ister of

5eeds, he had no "nowled!e about how said letter8re=uest

had been disposed of by the Re!ister of 5eedsH and that the

present complaint was the second disbarment case led by

the complainants a!ainst him with no other motive e3cept to

harass and intimidate him.

#tty. <uilala stated in his Comment dated /eptember 0,

27790: that it was #tty. Caluya, ;r., another 5eputy Re!ister of

5eeds, who was the actual si!nin! authority of the

annotations that resulted in the cancellation of the a6davit of

adverse claim and the notice of lis pendens on C $o. $8

297>:&H that the cancellation of the annotations was

underta"en in the re!ular course of o6cial duty and in thee3ercise of the ministerial duty of the Re!ister of 5eedsH that

no irre!ularity occurred or was performed in the cancellation

of the annotationsH and that the Re!ister of 5eeds was

impleaded in Civil Case $o. <87%8>9>9' only as a nominal

party, thereby discountin! any involvement in the

proceedin!s in the case.

#tty. Cunanan did not le any comment.0>

#s the result of #tty. <uilalaKs alle!ation in his Comment in

#.C. $o. '2&0 that it had been #tty. Caluya, ;r.Ks si!nature that

appeared below the cancelled entries, the complainants led

another sworn disbarment complaint dated #u!ust 2&, 2707

alle!in! that #tty. Caluya, ;r. had for!ed the si!nature of #tty.

Cunanan.0& his disbarment complaint was doc"eted as #.C.

$o. '%2>, and was later on consolidated with #.C. $o.

'2&00% because the complaints involved the same parties and

rested on similar alle!ations a!ainst the respondents.

#tty. <uilala led his Comment in #.C. $o. '%2> to belie the

alle!ation of for!ery and to reiterate the ar!uments he had

made in #.C. $o. '2&0.0' n his part, #tty. Caluya, ;r.

manifested that he adopted #tty. <uilalaKs Comment.09

%u4in5

?e dismiss the complaints for disbarment for bein! bereft of

merit.

?ell entrenched in this Gurisdiction is the rule that a lawyer

may be disciplined for misconduct committed either in his

professional or private capacity. he test is whether his

conduct shows him to be wantin! in moral character, honesty,

probity, and !ood demeanor, or whether his conduct renders

him unworthy to continue as an o6cer of the Court.27 Eerily,

Canon % of the Code o* Pro*essional Responsiility mandates

all lawyers to uphold at all times the di!nity and inte!rity of

the Le!al rofession. Lawyers are similarly re=uired under

Rule 0.70, Canon 0 of the same Code not to en!a!e in any

unlawful, dishonest and immoral or deceitful conduct. ailure

to observe these tenets of the Code of rofessional

Responsibility e3poses the lawyer to disciplinary sanctions as

provided in /ection 2%, Rule 01' of the Rules o* Court , as

amended,viz.F

/ection 2%. Disarment or suspension o* attorneys y

4upreme Court1 grounds t+ere*or . S # member of the bar

may be disbarred or suspended from his o6ce as attorney by

the /upreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other !ross

misconduct in such o6ce, !rossly immoral conduct, or by

reason of his conviction of a crime involvin! moral turpitude,

or for any violation of the oath which he is re=uired to ta"e

before the admission to practice, or for a wilful disobedience

appearin! as an attorney for a party to a case withoutauthority so to do. he practice of solicitin! cases at law for

the purpose of !ain, either personally or throu!h paid a!ents

or bro"ers, constitutes malpractice.

he complainantsK alle!ations of the respondentsK acts and

omissions are insu6cient to establish any censurable conduct

a!ainst them.

/ection 07 of residential 5ecree $o. 0>29 (Property

Registration De!ree) enumerates the !eneral duties of the

Re!ister of 5eeds, as followsF

/ection 07. General *un!tions o* Registers o* Deeds. 8 3 3 3

+t shall be the duty of the Re!ister of 5eeds to immediate4<

re5ister an instrument presented for re!istration dealin! with

real or personal property which complies with all the

re=uisites for re!istration. 4e shall see to it that said

instrument bears the proper documentary science stamps and

that the same are properly canceled. +f the instrument is not

re!istrable, he shall forthwith deny re!istration thereof and

inform the presenter of such denial in writin!, statin! the

!round or reason therefor, and advisin! him of his ri!ht to

appeal by !onsulta in accordance with /ection 00% of this

5ecree. (Dmphasis supplied)



he aforementioned duty of the Re!ister of 5eeds is

ministerial in nature.20 # purely ministerial act or duty is one

that an o6cer or tribunal performs in a !iven state of facts, in

a prescribed manner, in obedience to the mandate of a le!al

authority, without re!ard to or the e3ercise of his own

Gud!ment upon the propriety or impropriety of the act done. +f

the law imposes a duty upon a public o6cer and !ives him

the ri!ht to decide how or when the duty shall be performed,

such duty is discretionary, not ministerial. he duty is

ministerial only when its dischar!e re=uires neither the

e3ercise of o6cial discretion nor the e3ercise of Gud!ment.22

+n Gariel v. Register o* Deeds o* Rizal,21 the Court

underscores that re!istration is a merely ministerial act of the

Re!ister of 5eeds, e3plainin!F

333 O?Phether the document is invalid, frivolous or intended

to harass, is not the duty of a Re!ister of 5eeds to decide, but

a court of competent Gurisdiction, and that it is his concern to

see whether the documents sou!ht to be re!istered conform

with the formal and le!al re=uirements for such documents.

+n view of the fore!oin!, we nd no abuse of authority or

irre!ularity committed by #tty. <uilala, #tty. Cunanan, and

#tty. Caluya, ;r. with respect to the cancellation of the notice

of adverse claim and the notice of lis pendens annotated on

C $o. $8297>:&. ?hether or not the RC order dated *ay

0&, 277' or the letter8re=uest dated ;une 17, 277' had been

falsied, fraudulent or invalid was not for them to determine

inasmuch as their duty to e3amine documents presented for

re!istration was limited only to what appears on the face of

the documents. +f, upon their evaluation of the letter8re=uest

and the RC order, they found the same to be su6cient in law

and tPo be in conformity with e3istin! re=uirements, it became

obli!atory for them to perform their ministerial duty without

unnecessary delay.2:

/hould they be a!!rieved by said respondentsK performance

of duty, complainants were not bereft of any remedy because

they could challen!e the performance of duty by brin!in! the

matter by way of !onsultawith the LR#, as provided by /ection00%2> of residential 5ecree $o. 0>29. But, as enunciated

in Gariel v. Register o* Deeds o* Rizal ,2& it was ultimately

within the province of a court of competent Gurisdiction to

resolve issues concernin! the validity or invalidity of a

document re!istered by the Re!ister of 5eeds.

he complainants char!e #tty. Eictorio, ;r. and #tty. olentino,

;r. with havin! conspired with each other to !uarantee that

the parties in Civil Case $o. <8>9>9' would enter into the

amicable settlement, and then to cause the cancellation of

the a6davit of adverse claim and notice of lis

pendens annotated on C $o. $8297>:&. he complainants

further fault #tty. Eictorio, ;r. with havin! abandoned their

cause since the issuance of the RC of its order dated *ay 0&,277'.

he complainantsK char!es are devoid of substance.

#lthou!h it is not necessary to prove a formal a!reement in

order to establish conspiracy because conspiracy may be

inferred from the circumstances attendin! the commission of

an act, it is nonetheless essential that conspiracy be

established by clear and convincin! evidence.2% he

complainants failed in this re!ard. utside of their bare

assertions that #tty. Eictorio, ;r. and #tty. olentino, ;r. had

conspired with each other in order to cause the dismissal of

the complaint and then dischar!e of the annotations, they

presented no evidence to support their alle!ation of

conspiracy. n the contrary, the records indicated their own

active participation in arrivin! at the amicable settlement with

the defendants in Civil Case $o. <87%8>9>9'. 4ence, they

could not now turn their bac"s on the amicable settlement

that they had themselves entered into.

Dven assumin! that #tty. Eictorio, ;r. and #tty. olentino, ;r.

initiated ahd participated in the settlement of the case, there

was nothin! wron! in their doin! so. +t was actually their

obli!ation as lawyers to do so, pursuant to Rule 0.7:, Canon 0

of the Code o* Pro*essional Responsiility1 viz.F

RNLD 0.7: 8 # lawyer shall encoura!e his clients to avoid, end

or settle a controversy if it will admit of a fair settlement.

+n ne, the presumption of the validity of the amicable

settlement of the complainants and the defendants in Civil

Case $o. <87%8>9>9' subsisted.2'

#nent the complainantsK char!e of abandonment a!ainst #tty.

Eictorio, ;r., Rule 0'.71 and Rule 0'.7:, Canon 0' of the Code

o* Pro*essional Responsiility are applicable, to witF

C#$$ 0' 8 # lawyer shall serve his client with competence

and dili!ence.

Rule 0'.71 8 # lawyer shall not ne!lect a le!al matter

entrusted to him, and his ne!li!ence in connection therewith


Rule 0'.7: 8 # lawyer shall "eep the client informed of the

status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time

to the clientKs re=uest for information.

here is no issue that the complainants en!a!ed the services

of #tty. Eictorio, ;r. as their counsel in Civil Case $o. <87%8

>9>9'. #tty. Eictorio, ;r. served as such counsel. ?ith #tty.

Eictorio, ;r. assistance, the complainants obtained a fair

settlement consistin! in receivin! half of the proceeds of the

sale of the property in litis, without any portion of theproceeds accruin! to counsel as his le!al fees. he

complainants did not competently and persuasively show any

unfaithfulness on the part of #tty. Eictorio, ;r. as far as their

interest in the liti!ation was concerned. 4ence, #tty. Eictorio,

;r. was not liable for abandonment.

#tty. Eictorio, ;r. could not be faulted for the perceived

inattention to any other matters subse=uent to the

termination of Civil Case $o. <87%8>9>9'. Nnless otherwise

e3pressly stipulated between them at any time durin! the

en!a!ement, the complainants had no ri!ht to assume that

#tty. Eictorio, ;r.Ks le!al representation was indenite as to

e3tend to his representation of them in the LR#. he Law

rofession did not burden its members with the responsibilityof indenite service to the clientsH hence, the rendition of

professional services depends on the a!reement between the

attorney and the client. #tty. Eictorio, ;r.Ks alle!ed failure to

respond to the complainantsK calls or visits, or to provide them

with his whereabouts to enable them to have access to him

despite the termination of his en!a!ement in Civil Case $o. <8

7%8>9>9' did not e=uate to abandonment without the credible

showin! that he continued to come under the professional

obli!ation towards them after the termination of Civil Case $o

<87%8>9>9'.cralawred

1E%EO%E, the Court DISISSES the baseless disbarment

complaints a!ainst #tty. ederico /. olentino, ;r., #tty. Renato



. Cunanan, #tty. 5aniel . Eictorio, ;r., #tty. Dlbert . <uilala

and #tty. Constante . Caluya, ;r.

SO O%DE%ED.

EN 0ANC

A.C. No. #79, December #, "#$

E%'INDA OS+E%, Complainant , v. A++). :AIE V.

A*+AN*, Respondent .

D E C I S I O N

his refers to the Resolution0 of the Board of overnors (,OG),

+nte!rated Bar of the hilippines (I,P), dated *arch 21, 270:,

a6rmin! with modication the ndin!s of the +nvesti!atin!

Commissioner, who recommended the suspension of

respondent #tty. ;aime E. #!tan! (respondent ) from the

practice of law for one (0) year for ethical impropriety and

ordered the payment of his unpaid obli!ations to complainant.

rom the records, it appears that the +B, thru its Commission

on Bar 5iscipline (C,D), received a complaint2, dated *ay 10,

2700, led by Drlinda oster (!omplainant ) a!ainst respondent

for @unlawful, dishonest, immoral and deceitfulA1 acts as a

lawyer.

+n its ;uly 0, 2700 rder,: the +B8CB5 directed respondent to

le his #nswer within 0> days from receipt of the order.

Respondent failed to do so and complainant sent a =uery as to

the status of her complaint. n ctober 07, 2700, the

+nvesti!atin! Commissioner issued the rder> settin! the case

for mandatory conferencehearin! on $ovember 0&, 2700. +t

was only on $ovember 00, 2700, or ve (>) days before the

scheduled conference when respondent led his veried

#nswer.&

5urin! the conference, only the complainant to!ether with her

husband appeared. /he submitted a set of documents

contained in a folder, copies of which were furnished the

respondent. he +nvesti!atin! Commissioner% indicated that

the said documents would be reviewed and the parties would

be informed if there was a need for claricatory =uestionin!H

otherwise, the case would be submitted for resolution based

on the documents on le. he *inutes' of the mandatory

conference showed that respondent arrived at 00F07 ocloc" in

the mornin! or after the proceedin! was terminated.

n 5ecember 02, 2700, the complainant led her Reply to

respondents #nswer.

n #pril 0', 2702, complainant submitted copies of the ;anuary 2:, 2702 5ecisions9 of the *unicipal rial Court in

/mall Claims Case $os. 2700877%% and 2700877%9, orderin!

respondent Odefendant thereinP to pay complainant and her

husband the sum of 077,777.77 and 22,777.77,

respectively, with interest at the rate of 02T per annum from

5ecember ', 2700 until fully paid, plus cost of suit.07

Com4ainant3s /osition

rom the records, it appears that complainant was referred to

respondent in connection with her le!al problem re!ardin! a

deed of absolute sale she entered into with ierra Realty,

which respondent had notaried. #fter their discussion,

complainant a!reed to en!a!e his le!al services for the lin!

of the appropriate case in court, for which they si!ned a

contract. Complainant paid respondent 27,777.77 as

acceptance fee and >,777.77 for incidental e3penses.00

n /eptember 2', 2779, respondent wrote a letter02 to

ropical Eillas /ubdivision in relation to the le!al problem

referred by complainant. 4e then visited the latter in her

home and as"ed for a loan of 077,777.77, payable in si3ty

(&7) days, for the repair of his car. Complainant, havin! trust

and condence on respondent bein! her lawyer, a!reed to

lend the amount without interest. # promissory note01

evidenced the loan.

+n $ovember 2779, complainant became aware that ierra

Realty was attemptin! to transfer to its name a lot she had

previously purchased. /he referred the matter to respondent

who recommended the immediate lin! of a case for

reformation of contract with dama!es. n $ovember ', 2779,

respondent re=uested and thereafter received from

complainant the amount of 0>7,777.77, as lin! fee.0: ?hen

as"ed about the e3orbitant amount, respondent cited the hi!h

value of the land and the sheriJs travel e3penses and

accommodations in *anila, for the service of the summons to

the defendant corporation. Later, complainant conrmed that

the fees paid for the lin! of Civil Case $o. 0:%908&>,

entitled 5rlinda 'oster v. 6ierra Realty and Development

Corporation, only amounted to 22,:07.77 per trial court

records.0>

5urin! a conversation with the Re!istrar of 5eeds,

complainant also discovered that respondent was the one who

notaried the document bein! =uestioned in the civil case she

led. ?hen as"ed about this, respondent merely replied that

he would ta"e a collaboratin! counsel to handle complainants

case. Npon readin! a copy of the complaint led by

respondent with the trial court, complainant noticed thatF 0P

the maGor diJerences in the documents issued by ierra

Realty were not alle!edH 2P the contract to buy and sell andthe deed of conditional sale were not attached theretoH 1P the

complaint discussed the method of payment which was not

the point of contention in the caseH and :P the very anomalies

she complained of were not mentioned. Respondent, however

assured her that those matters could be brou!ht up durin!

the hearin!s.

n #pril 21, 2707, respondent wrote to complainant,

re=uestin! that the latter e3tend to him the amount of

%7,777.77 or >7,777.77 @in the moment of ur!ency or

emer!ency.A0& Complainant obli!ed the re=uest and !ave

respondent the sum of 22,777.77.

n #u!ust 10, 2707, respondent came to complainants houseand demanded the sum of >7,777.77, purportedly to be

!iven to the Gud!e in e3chan!e for a favorable rulin!.

Complainant e3pressed her mis!ivin!s on this proposition but

she eventually !ave the amount of 2>,777.77 which was

covered by a receipt,0% statin! that @it is understood that the

balance of 2>,777.77 shall be paid later after favorable

Gud!ment for plaintiJ Drlinda oster.A n $ovember 2, 2707,

respondent insisted that the remainin! amount be !iven by

complainant prior to the ne3t hearin! of the case, because the

Gud!e was alle!edly as"in! for the balance. Uet a!ain,

complainant handed to respondent the amount of

2>,777.77.0'



n /eptember 29, 2707, complainants case was dismissed.

$ot havin! been notied by respondent, complainant learned

of the dismissal on 5ecember 0:, 2707, when she personally

chec"ed the status of the case with the court. /he went to the

o6ce of respondent, but he was not there. +nstead, one of the

o6ce staJ !ave her a copy of the order of dismissal.

n 5ecember 0>, 2707, respondent visited complainant and

!ave her a copy of the motion for reconsideration. n ;anuary

0>, 2700, complainant went to see respondent and re=uested

him to prepare a reply to the comment led by ierra Realty

on the motion for reconsiderationH to include additional facts

because the Land Re!istration #uthority would not accept the

documents unless these were amendedH and to ma"e the

additional averment that the defendant was usin! false

documents.

n ;anuary 0', 2700, respondents driver delivered to

complainant a copy of the reply with a messa!e from him that

the matters she re=uested to be included were mentioned

therein. Npon readin! the same, however, complainant

discovered that these matters were not so included. n the

same occasion, the driver also as"ed for 2,>77.77 on

respondents directive for the reimbursement of the value of a

bottle of wine !iven to the Gud!e as a present. Complainant

was also told that oral ar!uments on the case had been set

the followin! month.09

n ebruary 2, 2700, complainant decided to terminate the

services of respondent as her counsel and wrote him a letter

of termination,27 after her friend !ave her copies of documents

showin! that respondent had been ac=uainted with ierra

Realty since 5ecember 277%. /ubse=uently, complainant

wrote to respondent, re=uestin! him to pay her the amounts

he received from her less the contract fee and the actual cost

of the lin! fees. Respondent never replied.

%esondent3s /osition

+n his #nswer,20 respondent alle!ed that he was %2 years oldand had been en!a!ed in the practice of law since *arch

09%2, and was resident of the +B +locos $orte Chapter from

099' to 0999. 4e admitted the fact that he notaried the

5eed of #bsolute /ale subGect of complainants case, but he

=ualied that he was not paid his notarial fees therefor. 4e

li"ewise admitted actin! as counsel for complainant for which

he claimed to have received 07,777.77 as acceptance fee

and >,777.77 for incidental fees. #nent the loan of

077,777.77, respondent averred that it was complainant, at

the behest of her husband, who willin!ly oJered the amount

to him for his patience in visitin! them at home and for his

services. he transaction was declared as @no loanA and he

was told not to worry about its payment. #s re!ards the

amount of 0>7,777.77 he received for lin! fees, respondentclaimed that the said amount was su!!ested by the

complainant herself who was persistent in coverin! the

incidental e3penses in the handlin! of the case. 4e denied

havin! said that the sheriJs of the court would need the

money for their hotel accommodations. Complainants

husband approved of the amount. +n the same vein,

respondent denied havin! as"ed for a loan of >7,777.77 and

havin! received 22,777.77 from complainant. 4e also denied

havin! told her that the case would be discussed with the

Gud!e who would rule in their favor at the very ne3t hearin!.

+nstead, it was complainant who was bothered by the

possibility that the other party would befriend the Gud!e. 4e

never said that he would personally present a bottle of wine to

the Gud!e.

urther, respondent belied the Re!istrars comment as to his

representation of ierra Realty in the past. Respondent saw

nothin! wron! in this situation since complainant was fully

aware that another counsel was assistin! him in the handlin!

of cases. 4avin! been fully informed of the nature of her

cause of action and the conse=uences of the suit, complainant

was aware of the applicable law on reformation of contracts.

inally, by way of counterclaim, respondent demanded Gust

compensation for the services he had rendered in other cases

for the complainant.

%e4< of Com4ainant

+n her Reply,22 complainant mainly countered respondents

defenses by ma"in! reference to the receipts in her

possession, all evidencin! that respondent accepted the

amounts mentioned in the complaint. Complainant also

emphasied that respondent and ierra Realty had relations

lon! before she met him. ?hile respondent was employed as

rovincial Le!al 6cer of the rovincial overnment of +locos

$orte, he was involved in the preparation of several

documents involvin! lyin! E, an oil company owned by

Drnest Eillavicencio, who li"ewise owned ierra Realty.

Complainant insisted that the amount of 077,777.77 she

e3tended to respondent was never considered as @no loan.A

n ;une 2&, 2702, complainant furnished the +nvesti!atin!

Commissioner copies of the Resolution, dated ;une 27, 2702,

issued by the 6ce of the City rosecutor of Laoa! City,

ndin! probable cause a!ainst respondent for estafa.21

indin5s and %ecommendation of t2e I0/

+n its ;uly 1, 2702 Report and Recommendation,2: the

+nvesti!atin! Commissioner found respondent !uilty of ethical

impropriety and recommended his suspension from the

practice of law for one (0) year.

+n its /eptember 2', 2701 Resolution, the +B8B adopted

and approved with modication the recommendation of

suspension by the +nvesti!atin! Commissioner and ordered

respondent to return to complainantF 0) his loan of

022,777.77H and 2) the balance of the lin! fee amountin! to

02%,>97.77.

Respondent received a copy of the said resolution on ;anuary

0&, 270: to which he led a motion for

reconsideration.2> Complainant led her opposition thereto,

informin! the +B8B that an information char!in!

respondent for estafa had already been led in court and that

a correspondin! order for his arrest had been issued.2&

+n its *arch 21, 270: Resolution, the +B8B denied

respondents motion for reconsideration but modied the

penalty of his suspension from the practice of law by reducin!

it from one (0) year to three (1) months. Respondent was

li"ewise ordered to return the balance of the lin! fee

received from complainant amountin! to 02%,>97.77.

$o petition for review was led with the Court.

he only issue in this case is whether respondent violated the

Code of rofessional Responsibility (CPR).

+2e Court3s %u4in5



he Court sustains the ndin!s and recommendation of the

+nvesti!atin! Commissioner with respect to respondents

violation of Rules 0 and 0& of the CR. he Court, however,

modies the conclusion on his alle!ed violation of Rule 0>, on

representin! conictin! interests. he Court also diJers on the

penalty.

Rule 0.7, Canon 0 of the CR, provides that @OaP lawyer shall

not en!a!e in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful

conduct.A +t is well8established that a lawyers conduct is @not

conned to the performance of his professional duties. #

lawyer may be disciplined for misconduct committed either in

his professional or private capacity. he test is whether his

conduct shows him to be wantin! in moral character, honesty,

probity, and !ood demeanor, or whether it renders him

unworthy to continue as an o6cer of the court.A2%

+n this case, respondent is !uilty of en!a!in! in dishonest and

deceitful conduct, both in his professional and private

capacity. #s a lawyer, he clearly misled complainant into

believin! that the lin! fees for her case were worth more

than the prescribed amount in the rules, due to fei!ned

reasons such as the hi!h value of the land involved and the

e3tra e3penses to be incurred by court employees. +n other

words, he resorted to overpricin!, an act customarily related

to depravity and dishonesty. 4e demanded the amount of

0>7,777.77 as lin! fee, when in truth, the same amounted

only to 22,:07.77. 4is defense that it was complainant who

su!!ested that amount deserves no iota of credence. or one,

it is hi!hly improbable that complainant, who was then

pla!ued with the ri!ors of l iti!ation, would propose such

amount that would further burden her nancial resources.

#ssumin! that the complainant was more than willin! to shell

out an e3orbitant amount Gust to initiate her complaint with

the trial court, still, respondent should not have accepted the

e3cessive amount. #s a lawyer, he is not only e3pected to be

"nowled!eable in the matter of lin! fees, but he is li"ewise

duty8bound to disclose to his client the actual amount due,

consistent with the values of honesty and !ood faith e3pectedof all members of the le!al profession.

*oreover, the @duciary nature of the relationship between

the counsel and his client imposes on the lawyer the duty to

account for the money or property collected or received for or

from his client.A2' *oney entrusted to a lawyer for a specic

purpose but not used for the purpose should be immediately

returned. # lawyers failure to return upon demand the funds

held by him on behalf of his client !ives rise to the

presumption that he has appropriated the same for his own

use in violation of the trust reposed in him by his client. /uch

act is a !ross violation of !eneral morality as well as of

professional ethics. +t impairs public condence in the le!al

profession and deserves punishment.29

+t is clear that respondent failed to fulll this duty. #s pointed

out, he received various amounts from complainant but he

could not account for all of them. ?orse, he could not deny

the authenticity of the receipts presented by complainant.

Npon demand, he failed to return the e3cess money from the

alle!ed lin! fees and other e3penses. 4is possession !ives

rise to the presumption that he has misappropriated it for his

own use to the preGudice of, and in violation of the trust

reposed in him by, the client.17 ?hen a lawyer receives money

from the client for a particular purpose, the lawyer is bound to

render an accountin! to the client showin! that the money

was spent for the intended purpose. Conse=uently, if the

lawyer does not use the money for the intended purpose, the

lawyer must immediately return the money to the client.10

/omewhat showin! a propensity to demand e3cessive and

unwarranted amounts from his client, respondent displayed a

reprehensible conduct when he as"ed for the amount of

>7,777.77 as @representation e3pensesA alle!edly for the

benet of the Gud!e handlin! the case, in e3chan!e for a

favorable decision. Respondent himself si!ned a receipt

showin! that he initially too" the amount of 2>,777.77 and,

worse, he subse=uently demanded and received the other half

of the amount at the time the case had already been

dismissed. Nndoubtedly, this act is tantamount to !ross

misconduct that necessarily warrants the supreme penalty of

disbarment. he act of demandin! a sum of money from his

client, purportedly to be used as a bribe to ensure a positive

outcome of a case, is not only an abuse of his clients trust

but an overt act of underminin! the trust and faith of the

public in the le!al profession and the entire ;udiciary. his is

the hei!ht of indecency. #s o6cers of the court, lawyers owe

their utmost delity to public service and the administration o

Gustice. +n no way should a lawyer indul!e in any act that

would dama!e the ima!e of Gud!es, lest the publics

perception of the dispensation of Gustice be overshadowed by

ini=uitous doubts. he denial of respondent and his claim that

the amount was !iven !ratuitously would not e3cuse him from

any liability. he absence of proof that the said amount was

indeed used as a bribe is of no moment. o tolerate

respondents actuations would seriously erode the publics

trust in the courts.

#s it turned out, complainants case was dismissed as early as

/eptember 29, 2707. #t this Guncture, respondent proved

himself to be ne!li!ent in his duty as he failed to inform his

client of the status of the case, and left the client to

personally in=uire with the court. /urely, respondent was not

only !uilty of misconduct but was also remiss in his duty to his

client.

Respondents unbecomin! conduct towards complainant didnot stop here. Records reveal that he li"ewise violated Rule

0&.7:, Canon 0& of the CR, which states that @OaP lawyer

shall not borrow money from his client unless the clients

interests are fully protected by the nature of the case or by

independent advice. $either shall a lawyer lend money to a

client e3cept, when in the interest of Gustice, he has to

advance necessary e3penses in a le!al matter he is handlin!

for the client.A +n his private capacity, he re=uested from his

client, not Gust one, but two loans of considerable amounts.

he rst time, he visited his client in her home and borrowed

077,777.77 for the repair of his carH and the ne3t time, he

implored her to e3tend to him a loan of %7,777.77 or

>7,777.77 @in the moment of ur!ency or emer!encyA but

was only !iven 22,777.77 by complainant. hesetransactions were evidenced by promissory notes and

receipts, the authenticity of which was never =uestioned by

respondent. hese acts were committed by respondent in his

private capacity, seemin!ly unrelated to his relationship with

complainant, but were indubitably ac=uiesced to by

complainant because of the trust and condence reposed in

him as a lawyer. $owhere in the records, particularly in the

defenses raised by respondent, was it implied that these loans

fell within the e3ceptions provided by the rules. he loans of

077,777.77 and 22,777.77 were surely not protected by the

nature of the case or by independent advice. Respondents

assertion that the amounts were !iven to him out of the

liberality of complainant and were, thus, considered as @no



loan,A does not Gustify his inappropriate behavior. he acts of

re=uestin! and receivin! money as loans from his client and

thereafter failin! to pay the same are indicative of his lac" of

inte!rity and sense of fair dealin!. Np to the present,

respondent has not yet paid his obli!ations to complainant.

ime and a!ain, the Court has consistently held that

deliberate failure to pay Gust debts constitutes !ross

misconduct, for which a lawyer may be sanctioned with

suspension from the practice of law. Lawyers are instruments

for the administration of Gustice and van!uards of our le!al

system. hey are e3pected to maintain not only le!al

prociency, but also a hi!h standard of morality, honesty,

inte!rity and fair dealin! so that the peoples faith and

condence in the Gudicial system is ensured. hey must, at all

times, faithfully perform their duties to society, to the bar, the

courts and their clients, which include prompt payment of

nancial obli!ations.12

Eerily, when the Code or the Rules spea"s of @conductA or

@misconduct,A the reference is not conned to ones behavior

e3hibited in connection with the performance of the lawyers

professional duties, but also covers any misconduct which,

albeit unrelated to the actual practice of his profession, would

show him to be unt for the o6ce and unworthy of the

privile!es which his license and the law vest him with.

Nnfortunately, respondent must be found !uilty of misconduct

on both scores.

?ith respect to respondents alle!ed representation of

conictin! interests, the Court nds it proper to modify the

ndin!s of the +nvesti!atin! Commissioner who concluded

that complainant presented insu6cient evidence of

respondents @lawyerin!A for the opposin! party, ierra Realty.

Rule 0>.71, Canon 0> of the CR, provides that @OaP lawyer

shall not represent conictin! interest e3cept by written

consent of all concerned !iven after a full disclosure of the

facts.A he relationship between a lawyer and hisher client

should ideally be imbued with the hi!hest level of trust andcondence. his is the standard of condentiality that must

prevail to promote a full disclosure of the clients most

condential information to hisher lawyer for an unhampered

e3chan!e of information between them. $eedless to state, a

client can only entrust condential information to hisher

lawyer based on an e3pectation from the lawyer of utmost

secrecy and discretionH the lawyer, for his part, is duty8bound

to observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all dealin!s and

transactions with the client. art of the lawyers duty in this

re!ard is to avoid representin! conictin! interests.A11 hus,

even if lucrative fees oJered by prospective clients are at

sta"e, a lawyer must decline professional employment if the

same would tri!!er the violation of the prohibition a!ainst

conict of interest. he only e3ception provided in the rules isa written consent from all the parties after full disclosure.

he Court deviates from the ndin!s of the +B. here is

substantial evidence to hold respondent liable for

representin! conictin! interests in handlin! the case of

complainant a!ainst ierra Realty, a corporation to which he

had rendered services in the past. he Court cannot i!nore

the fact that respondent admitted to havin! notaried the

deed of sale, which was the very document bein! =uestioned

in complainants case. ?hile the +nvesti!atin! Commissioner

found that the complaint in Civil Case $o. 0:%908&> did not

=uestion the validity of the said contract, and that only the

intentions of the parties as to some provisions thereof were

challen!ed, the Court still nds that the purpose for which the

proscription was made e3ists. he Court cannot brush aside

the dissatised observations of the complainant as to the

alle!ations lac"in! in the complaint a!ainst ierra Realty and

the clear admission of respondent that he was the one who

notaried the assailed document. Re!ardless of whether it

was the validity of the entire document or the intention of the

parties as to some of its provisions raised, respondent fell

short of prudence in action when he accepted complainants

case, "nowin! fully that he was involved in the e3ecution of

the very transaction under =uestion. $either his unpaid

notarial fees nor the participation of a collaboratin! counsel

would e3cuse him from such indiscretion. +t is apparent that

respondent was retained by clients who had close dealin!s

with each other. *ore si!nicantly, there is no record of any

written consent from any of the parties involved.

he representation of conictin! interests is prohibited @not

only because the relation of attorney and client is one of trust

and condence of the hi!hest de!ree, but also because of the

principles of public policy and !ood taste. #n attorney has the

duty to deserve the fullest condence of his client and

represent him with undivided loyalty. nce this condence is

abused or violated the entire profession suJers.A1:

/ena4ties and /ecuniar< 'iabi4ities

# member of the Bar may be penalied, even disbarred or

suspended from his o6ce as an attorney, for violation of the

lawyers oath andor for breach of the ethics of the le!al

profession as embodied in the CR.1> or the practice of law is

@a profession, a form of public trust, the performance of which

is entrusted to those who are =ualied and who possess !ood

moral character.A1& he appropriate penalty for an errant

lawyer depends on the e3ercise of sound Gudicial discretion

based on the surroundin! facts.1%

Nnder /ection 2%, Rule 01' of the Revised Rules of Court, a

member of the Bar may be disbarred or suspended on any of

the followin! !roundsF (0) deceitH (2) malpractice or other!ross misconduct in o6ceH (1) !rossly immoral conductH (:)

conviction of a crime involvin! moral turpitudeH (>) violation of

the lawyerKs oathH (&) willful disobedience of any lawful order

of a superior courtH and (%) willful appearance as an attorney

for a party without authority. # lawyer may be disbarred or

suspended for misconduct, whether in his professional or

private capacity, which shows him to be wantin! in moral

character, honesty, probity and !ood demeanor, or unworthy

to continue as an o6cer of the court.

4ere, respondent demonstrated not Gust a ne!li!ent disre!ard

of his duties as a lawyer but a wanton betrayal of the trust of

his client and, in !eneral, the public. #ccordin!ly, the Court

nds that the suspension for three (1) months recommendedby the +B8B is not su6cient punishment for the

unacceptable acts and omissions of respondent. he acts of

the respondent constitute malpractice and !ross misconduct

in his o6ce as attorney. 4is incompetence and appallin!

indiJerence to his duty to his client, the courts and society

render him unt to continue dischar!in! the trust reposed in

him as a member of the Bar.

or ta"in! advanta!e of the unfortunate situation of the

complainant, for en!a!in! in dishonest and deceitful conduct,

for mali!nin! the Gud!e and the ;udiciary, for underminin! the

trust and faith of the public in the le!al profession and the

entire Gudiciary, and for representin! conictin! interests,



respondent deserves no less than the penalty of disbarment.1'

$otably, the Court cannot order respondent to return the

money he borrowed from complainant in his private capacity.

+n 6ria/4amonte v. Oias,19 the Court held that it cannot order

the lawyer to return money to complainant if he or she acted

in a private capacity because its ndin!s in administrative

cases have no bearin! on liabilities which have no intrinsic

lin" to the lawyers professional en!a!ement. +n disciplinary

proceedin!s a!ainst lawyers, the only issue is whether the

o6cer of the court is still t to be allowed to continue as a

member of the Bar. he only concern of the Court is the

determination of respondents administrative liability. +ts

ndin!s have no material bearin! on other Gudicial actions

which the parties may choose a!ainst each other.

o rule otherwise would in eJect deprive respondent of his

ri!ht to appeal since administrative cases are led directly

with the Court. urthermore, the =uantum of evidence

re=uired in civil cases is diJerent from the =uantum of

evidence re=uired in administrative cases. +n civil cases,

preponderance of evidence is re=uired. reponderance of

evidence is @a phrase which, in the last analysis, means

probability of the truth. +t is evidence which is more

convincin! to the court as worthier of belief than that which is

oJered in opposition thereto.A:7 +n administrative cases, only

substantial evidence is needed. /ubstantial evidence, which is

more than a mere scintilla but is such relevant evidence as a

reasonable mind mi!ht accept as ade=uate to support a

conclusion, would su6ce to hold one administratively

liable.:0 urthermore, the Court has to consider the

prescriptive period applicable to civil cases in contrast to

administrative cases which are, as a rule, imprescriptible.:2

hus, the +B8B was correct in orderin! respondent to

return the amount of 02%,>97.77 representin! the balance of

the lin! fees he received from complainant, as this was

intimately related to the lawyer8client relationship between

them. /imilar to this is the amount of >7,777.77 which

respondent received from complainant, as representatione3penses for the handlin! of the civil case and for the

purported purchase of a bottle of wine for the Gud!e. hese

were connected to his professional relationship with the

complainant. ?hile respondents deplorable act of re=uestin!

the said amount for the benet of the Gud!e is stained with

mendacity, respondent should be ordered to return the same

as it was borne out of their professional relationship. #s to his

other obli!ations, respondent was already adGud!ed as liable

for the personal loans he contracted with complainant, per the

small claims cases led a!ainst him.

#ll told, in the e3ercise of its disciplinary powers, @the Court

merely calls upon a member of the Bar to account for his

actuations as an o6cer of the Court with the end in view ofpreservin! the purity of the le!al profession.A:1 he Court

li"ewise aims to ensure the proper and honest administration

of Gustice by @pur!in! the profession of members who, by their

misconduct, have proven themselves no lon!er worthy to be

entrusted with the duties and responsibilities of an attorney.A::

1E%EO%E, ndin! the respondent, #tty. ;aime E.

#!tan!, *&I'+) of !ross misconduct in violation of the Code

of rofessional Responsibility, the Court hereby DIS0A%S him

from the practice of law and O%DE%S him to pay the

complainant, Drlinda oster, the amounts of 02%,>97.77,

>7,777.77 and 2,>77.77.

Let a copy of this 5ecision be sent to the 6ce of the Bar

Condant, the +nte!rated Bar of the hilippines and the 6ce

of the Court #dministrator to be circulated to all courts.

SO O%DE%ED.

%es :udicata in Administrative cases=

/ee /orreda v. Qho

E>ect of com4ainant3s desistance?disinterest

EN 0ANC

A.C. No. 96!, :une #6, "#

DOINIC /A&' D. 'A(A%E+O, Complainant , v. A++).

DENNIS N. ACO%DA, Respondent .

D E C I S I O N

/E% C&%IA

Before the Court is the present administrative case whicharose from the a6davitVcomplaint for disbarment0led with

the +nte!rated Bar of the hilippines (I,P) on ;uly %, 277&, by

5ominic aul 5. Laareto (Lazareto) a!ainst #tty. 5ennis $.

#corda (respondent ), for violation of the Code of

/rofessiona4 %esonsibi4it<.2ChanRoblesEirtualawlibrary

+2e Antecedents

Laareto, eldest son of the late 5amaso R. Laareto, for

himself and on behalf of his co8heirs (*amily ), specically

char!ed respondent with violatin! the followin! provisions of

the Code of rofessional ResponsibilityF

CANON # V # L#?UDR /4#LL N4L5 4D C$/+N+$,

BDU 4D L#?/ 4D L#$5 #$5 R*D RD/DC RL#? #$5 LD#L RCD//D/.

3 3 3 3

CANON 7 88 # L#?UDR /4#LL # #LL +*D/ N4L5 4D

+$DR+U 4D LD#L RD//+$, #$5 /NR 4D

#C+E++D/ 4D +$DR#D5 B#R.

3 3 3 3

CANON #8 V # L#?UDR /4#LL /DRED 4+/ CL+D$ ?+4

C*DD$CD #$5 5+L+D$CD.

3 3 3 3

%u4e #8.! V # lawyer shall not ne!lect a le!al matter

entrusted to him, and his ne!li!ence in connection therewith


%u4e #8.$ V # lawyer shall "eep the client informed of the

status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time

to the clients re=uest for information.

+n ;anuary 277:, Laareto and his family en!a!ed the

respondents services (the respondent was a member of the

law o6ce 7aromay ,aylon A!orda Landrito 8 Asso!iates1) to

handle the e3traGudicial settlement of the estate of Laaretos



father who died intestate. hey a!reed to set the deadline for

the lin! of the e3traGudicial settlement action on *ay 2&,

277:, to enable the family to avail of a 077,777.77 deduction

in estate ta3es.: hey also a!reed that titles to a parcel of

conGu!al land (Lots B D) at omas *apua /t., /ta. Cru,

*anila, left by the deceased, be transferred to Laaretos

mother, Cleotilde 5. Laareto.

Laareto !ave the respondent the ori!inal duplicate copies of

C $o. 27&77& for Lot B and C $o. 27&77' for Lot D,

to!ether with cash> representin! the respondents acceptance

fee (>7,777.77), and initial deposit to answer for e3traGudicial

transactions which include transfer ta3es and cost of

publication (%7,777.77) for a total of 027,777.77. /ince

then, Laareto had followed up the developments with the

respondent by phone, but he could not be contacted until he

received a fa3 messa!e from him as"in! for an additional

'',777.77,& which Laareto !ave in installments of

&&,777.77% and 27,777.77.'

*ay 277: passed without the papers for e3traGudicial

settlement bein! led. Laareto had not heard from the

respondent all this time, althou!h the lawyer sent a certain

*anny acheco (Pa!+e!o), alle!edly the liaison o6cer of the

law rm, to !et the second installment of 27,777.77. he

family received a li=uidation report from the respondent on

#u!ust 2:, 277:.9

n several occasions after #u!ust 2:, 277:, Laareto !ave

additional funds to respondent consistin! of 0>7,777.77 for

property ta3es and issuance of new titlesH 0>,777.77 for

additional transfer e3pensesH and another 07,117.77 for

additional property ta3es. /ince then, Laareto had not heard

from the respondent, until he wrote the family on #pril ',

277>, sayin! that acheco had not !iven an accountin! of the

monies the family had !iven him (respondent).

*eantime, Laareto and his family entered into ne!otiations

to sell Lot B with a certain *rs. $el *anano. hey as"ed the

respondent to prepare the deed of sale for the transactionHhowever, even if the respondent promised to !ive the matter

priority, he failed to attend to it. n #u!ust 0>, 277>, the

family wrote him a letter remindin! him of his promise, as well

as of his failure to act on the lin! of the e3traGudicial

settlement action which had e3pired a year a!o.07

n ctober ', 277>, Laareto and respondent a!reed that the

deed of sale and ta3 declaration for Lot B would be forwarded

to the family on or before $ovember 0, 277>, and in a wee"s

time, they would discuss the e3traGudicial settlement

=uestion.00

#fter more than a wee" without hearin! from the respondent,

Laareto was constrained to write the respondent anotherletter on #pril 1, 277&, and one more on *ay 20, 277&,

demandin! the return of the title to Lot D.02 hereafter,

Laareto made several follow8ups with the respondent S

throu!h his (respondents) relative *a. eresa untero and his

mother, as well as throu!h te3t messa!es S to no avail, until

the respondent admitted that he had lost C $o. 27&77'

coverin! Lot D.01

?ith this admission, Laareto re=uested the respondent to

e3ecute an a6davit of loss so that the family could secure a

duplicate copy of the C. he respondent did send a copy of

the a6davit of loss, but it was unsi!ned.0: D3asperated with

the di6culties he was havin! with the respondents

nonchalant and ne!li!ent attitude and his refusal to provide

his family a si!ned a6davit of loss, Laareto led the present

complaint.

hereafter, #tty. Runo +. olicarpio, +++ (#tty. olicarpio), the

respondents lawyer, proposed an amicable settlement with

Laareto. #s proposed, part of the money !iven to the

respondent for le!al services would be returned to the family

and they would be !iven the document @e3traGudicial

settlement with deed of sale,A as well as the o6cial receipts

for land ta3es and other e3penses. Laareto a!reed to the

proposal and submitted a manifestation on the matter to

the I0/ Investi5atin5 Commissioner, *ere4< %ico (Comm.

Ri!o).0>

nce a!ain, Laareto was !reatly disappointed. he

respondent failed to deliver on his commitmentsF there was

no return of part of the money !iven to respondent, no copy

of @e3traGudicial settlement with deed of sale,A and no receipts

of payments for transactions the respondent had entered into

in representation of the Laareto family. 1it2 t2is

deve4oment, 'a@areto 2ad no c2oice but to a5ree to

ust accet an aBdavit of 4oss for t2e receits and to

re4< on t2e ord of resondent3s counse4 t2at 2e as

assured b< 2is c4ient t2at 2e resondent 2ad F4ed t2e

eGtraudicia4 sett4ement aers it2 t2e %e5ister of

Deeds of ani4a.

ConseHuent4<, 'a@areto consented to t2e comromise

o>er, in eGc2an5e for 2is aBdavit of desistance. 4is

@family decided to wor" on the e3traGudicial settlement

themselves, to shorten their a!onyA0&and in doin! so, they

discovered thatF

(0) no @D3traGudicial /ettlementA was on le with the *anila

Re!ister of 5eeds, nor was there an @#6davit of ublicationHA

(2) what was on le with the Re!ister of 5eeds was only a

@5eed of #bsolute /aleA0% of Lot B dated /eptember 27, 277>,

where the si!nature 5. LaaretoA appeared above the name ofhis father, 5amaso R. Laareto, who had been dead since

$ovember 2&, 2771H and

(1) three copies of the tabloid Balitan! Detalye,0' !iven to the

family by the respondent, where the lawyer claimed the

@e3traGudicial settlementA was published, were one and the

same issue S ELN*D E+++8$. 10 *#U 2:817, 277:H 1.a, the

published notice was merely $D 5D#C4D5 /D#R#D #D

appearin! on a mere insert (pa!e &) titled 52tra3udi!ial

4ettlement o* 5state o* Damaso Lazareto wit+ Deed o* 4ale9

:.. elow it was t+e statement; Pulis+er; ,alitang Detalye9

Dates; May )<1 :( and 7une #1 )==<.

#larmed and shoc"ed at his discovery, Laareto moved for theadmission of newly discovered evidence,09 but the motion was

denied by Comm. Rico, as well as his subse=uent motion for

reconsideration.

4is a6davit of desistance and respondents apolo!y

notwithstandin!, Laareto e3pressed !rave concern over

respondents misrepresentations in performin! his tas"s as

the family lawyer in the settlement of his fathers estate.

$onetheless, he left it to Comm. Rico to resolve the case in

the li!ht of his a6davit of desistance and the circumstances

of the case.

+2e Case for t2e %esondent



+n his position paper,27 dated *arch 20, 277%, the respondent

alle!ed that upon his en!a!ement as counsel by Laaretos

family, he advised them that he could not determine the e3act

date of completion or termination of his assi!ned tas",

considerin! that he did not have full control over the

processin! of documents by the concerned a!encies.

4e denied Laaretos submission that he had been ne!li!ent

in the performance of his duties as lawyer for the settlement

of the estate of Laaretos deceased father. 4e claimed that

he performed the tas"s assi!ned to him with honesty and

dili!ence and that he intended, in !ood faith, to complete his

tas"s at the soonest possible time.

#dditionally, the respondent alle!ed that acheco stole a

substantial amount of money from the rm, as well as several

ori!inal documents, and that acheco could not be found

despite eJorts to locate him.20 Laareto, however, alle!ed that

the documents were returned to the respondent.22 he

respondent claimed that the he had to borrow money from his

relatives, friends, and even from informal lenders to enable

him to continue performin! his wor" for Laareto and his

family. 4e stressed that despite the losses he suJered, @he

was able to nalie all documents and transactions and to

deliver the certicate of title coverin! Lot B.A21

he respondent further claimed that he was determined to

complete the tas" assi!ned to him despite the fact that

Laareto, his mother Clotilde, and Ramon Laareto became

@impatientA and @intrusiveA in their lan!ua!e and dealin!s

with him.2:

4e insisted that he was not ne!li!ent in handlin! the tas"

entrusted to him by the Laareto family and that he was

entitled to the presumption of dili!ence as the Court held

in Adarne v. Aldaa.2> 4e stressed that Laareto had e3ecuted

an a6davit of desistance and had, in fact, a!reed to let him

continue as the family lawyer. his bein! the case, he

maintained, Laareto should be deemed to have abandonedhis cause of action a!ainst him. 4e thus prayed that the

complaint be dismissed.

+2e Investi5atin5 Commissioner3s %eort and

%ecommendation

Commissioner #n!elito C. +nocencio (Comm. Ino!en!io), who

too" over the investi!ation from Comm. Rico, rendered a

report dated *ay 0:, 277',2& recommendin! that disciplinary

action be ta"en a!ainst respondent. 4e resolved the case

based on the followin! issuesF (0) whether respondent was

ne!li!ent in handlin! the le!al matter entrusted to himH and

(2) whether respondent acted in bad faith in dealin! with

complainant Laareto and his family.

Comm. +nocencio found respondent liable in re!ard to the rst

issue. 4e was convinced that respondent committed a breach

of Rule 0'.71 of the Code of rofessional Responsibility by his

ne!li!ence in handlin! the le!al matter entrusted to him by

Laareto. Comm. +nocencio believed that had the respondent

been conscientious, dili!ent, and e6cient in renderin! le!al

services to Laareto and his family, the complaint could have

been avoided. 4e faulted the respondent for ma"in! e3cuses

S acheco abscondin! with the funds of the law rm and the

ne!ative attitude of the Laareto family in dealin! with him S

for his failure to fulll his contractual obli!ation to them rather

than what he had accomplished.

?ith respect to the second issue, however, Comm. +nocencio

believed the respondents dealin!s with Laareto and his

family were not attended with bad faith. 4e e3plained that

while the respondents eJorts did not produce the desired

results @as fast as they should have, a modicum of livin! up to

e3pectations could be discerned. 4e succeeded, thou!h

belatedly, in naliin! all documents and transactions and

deliverin! the certicate of title coverin! Lot

B.A2%ChanRoblesEirtualawlibrary

$otwithstandin! Laaretos a6davit of desistance, Comm.

+nocencio recommended that the respondent be severely

censured for his @malfeasanceA as lawyer for the Laareto

family.2' #lthou!h the family !ave the respondent the

opportunity to ma"e amends for his ne!li!ence in the

handlin! of the le!al matter entrusted to him, Comm.

+nocencio pointed out, the a6davit of desistance did not

completely e3culpate him from liability for @what has

occurred.A29

+2e I0/ %eso4ution and %e4ated Incidents

n ;uly 0%, 277', the +B Board of overnors passed

Resolution $o. IE+++8277'81:%,17 approvin!, it2

modiFcation, Comm. +nocencios recommendation. he

board susended respondent from the practice of law for one

month, for his failure to comply with his obli!ation towards

Laareto and his family.

he respondent moved for reconsideration10 of the +B

resolution, prayin! that the case be dismissed on the !rounds

of supervenin! events which occurred after the case was

submitted for resolution. 4e claimed that the very reason why

the complaint was led S his failure to return to Laareto the

C for Lot D of the estate of his deceased father S was non8

e3istent as the document was found amon! the records of his

former law o6ce and was returned to Laareto on ;une 9,

277%.12

he respondent ar!ued that in the li!ht of Comm. +nocenciosndin! that he did not act in bad faith in dealin! with Laareto

and the fact that he had returned the C of Lot D and

substantially all of the amounts paid to him, substantial

Gustice, fairness and e=uity demand that the case be

dismissed.

Laareto opposed11 the respondents bid to have the case

dismissed. 4e stron!ly ar!ued that while he and his family

had accepted the respondents personal apolo!y for the

!rievous betrayal of their trust and condence and the

wanton disre!ard of their interest in the e3traGudicial

settlement of his fathers property, it did not mean that the

respondent did not commit a violation of the Code of

rofessional Responsibility.

Laareto bewailed the fact that he was not !iven the

opportunity to present to Comm. Rico the @full facts and

issuesA of the case, as the +B investi!ator denied his motion

to admit newly discovered evidence such as the fa"e deed of

sale and the bo!us publication of the non8e3istent e3tra8

Gudicial settlement that respondent used in accomplishin! his

contract of le!al services with them. 4e lamented that he and

his family are now suJerin! from the falsication that

respondent resorted to as they were havin! di6culties in

transferrin! the title of the property (Lot D) to his mother.

4e thus maintained that the loss of the C of Lot D is not the



only basis of the complaint, but also respondents ne!li!ence,

misrepresentations, and bad faith in handlin! the le!al matter

the family entrusted to him. Laareto prayed that respondent

be meted the penalty of at least si3 months suspension from

the practice of law for the betrayal of their interest.

n ;une 9, 2702, the +B Board of overnors passed

Resolution $o. II82702809&1: !rantin! respondents motion

for reconsideration. Conse=uently, it dismissed the

administrative case a!ainst the respondent, with a warnin!

that he be circumspect in his future dealin!s.

+2e Court3s %u4in5

After an obective eGamination of t2e facts and t2e

evidence, e Fnd t2e dismissa4 of t2e case

unaccetab4e, notit2standin5 'a@areto3s aBdavit of

desistance and 2is si4ence it2 resect to said

dismissa4. he +B Board of overnors misappreciated the

!ravity and the scope of the respondents breach of his

contractual obli!ation with Laareto and his family. 4e had

been ne!li!ent in carryin! out the tas" entrusted to him by

Laareto and his family as found by Comm. +nocencio, a clear

violation of the Code of rofessional Responsibility.1> 4e had

been !rossly dishonest with respect to certain actions he

claimed he had ta"en in relation to his tas".

?e refer particularly to Laaretos discovery of a

misrepresentation committed by respondent in relation to the

amicable settlement proposed by respondents lawyer, #tty.

olicarpio, where #tty. olicarpio assured him that respondent

had already led the e3traGudicial settlement papers with the

*anila Re!ister of 5eeds. #tty. *ayla 5omin!o ( Atty.

Domingo), another lawyer for the respondent, testied that

she @tal"ed with #tty. #corda and he said that all proceedin!s

of the e3traGudicial settlement have already been

completed.A1& +t would be recalled in this respect that, as

a!reed upon, the respondent would furnish Laareto with

papers pertainin! to the e3traGudicial settlement of the estate

of Laaretos father,1% as the family decided to wor" on

respondents unnished tas" themselves, to miti!ate theira!ony.1'

o the Laareto familys @shoc",A they learned that only the

followin! were led with the *anila Re!istry of 5eedsF (0) a

copy of a 5eed of #bsolute /ale,19 which made it appear that

his father, who died on $ovember 2&, 2771,:7 si!ned the

document on /eptember 27, 277>, and that his mother si!ned

it also, without her and the family "nowin! about itH (2) a copy

of a detached @pa!e &A of the tabloid ,alitang Detalye, Eol.

E+++8$o. 10, *ay 2:817, 277:, with notice of the e3traGudicial

settlement of the estate of one 5amaso Laareto (Laareto

was !iven three copies of the same issue of the paper to

comply with the three8wee"ly publication re=uirement).

?ith the discovery, Laareto moved for the admission of

newly discovered documents by Comm. Rico, for mar"in!, but

she denied the motion on the !rounds that @>t?o admit t+ese

pie!es o* eviden!e now would +ave t+e e@e!t o* introdu!ing

new matters1 w+i!+ t+e Respondent is entitled to reut in t+e

interest o* !omplying wit+ t+e re0uirements o* due

pro!ess.A:0 urther, Comm. Rico declared that the pieces of

evidence alluded to did not relate to any alle!ations of the

complaint and were irrelevant to her investi!ation.

1e disa5ree it2 and cannot accet Commissioner

%ico3s conc4usion and reason. he lin! of the fa"e deed of

sale and the bo!us publication of the e3traGudicial settlement

of the estate of Laaretos deceased father were very much

relevant to the proceedin!s before Comm. Rico. hey were

ine3tricably lin"ed to the char!e of ne!li!ence a!ainst

respondent in his handlin! of the e3traGudicial settlement

matter entrusted to him by Laareto and his family.

#fter the family !ave him his acceptance fee and provided

him with the necessary funds for the underta"in!, respondent

became inaccessible and unheard of with respect to his tas"

(e3cept when he was as"in! for fundin!), until the a!reed

deadline for the lin! of the e3traGudicial settlement papers

e3pired. or some time, he could not even produce the title to

one of the lots (Lot D) handed to him by Laareto, and when

pressed to produce it, he admitted he could not nd it.:2 he

C of Lot D was returned to Laareto only on ;une 9, 277%,

after it was found amon! the les of the respondents former

law o6ce, almost a year after the complaint was led on ;uly

%, 277&, and three years after it was entrusted to him by

Laareto in ;anuary 277:.

?hile the respondent mi!ht have manifested, in !ood faith,

his intention to complete the tas" referred to him at the

earliest possible time, the results proved otherwise. 4e did not

complete the le!al matter referred to him by Laareto,

especially their a!reement that titles to Lots B and D were to

be transferred to Laaretos mother Clotilde. nly the C of

Lot B was delivered to the Laareto family in late 5ecember

277>. he transfer of Lot D to Clotilde was put on hold

because of the respondents ne!li!ence in the custody of the

C of Lot D, compellin! the family to wor" on the e3tra8

Gudicial settlement of the estate of the deceased Laareto on

their own.

*oreover, we are bothered by Laaretos submission that the

respondent resorted to dishonest means to ma"e it appear

that he had nally ta"en action on the le!al matter referred to

him thereby respondin!, althou!h belatedly, to the char!e of

ne!li!ence when one of his lawyers (#tty. 5omin!o) testied

at the hearin! before Comm. Rico that she was told by

respondent that @all proceedin!s of the D3traGudicial/ettlement have already been completed.A:1

4ad #tty. 5omin!os testimony been based on fact, then the

dismissal of the complaint could have been well Gustied

inasmuch as Laareto accepted the compromise a!reement

oJered by respondent after he was assured by #tty. olicarpio

that the papers for the e3traGudicial settlement of his fathers

estate had already been led with the Re!ister of 5eeds of

*anila.:: #s it turned out, all that were on le were a fa"e

deed of sale for Lot B and a bo!us publication of the

e3traGudicial settlement. +t is =uite unfortunate that Comm.

Rico denied Laaretos bid to have the newly discovered

documents admitted in evidence on the prete3t that they

were irrelevant to the proceedin!s before her.

n the contrary, and as we had stressed earlier, the

respondents claim that all the proceedin!s for the

e3traGudicial settlement of the estate of Laaretos father had

been completed was necessarily relevant to Laaretos

contention that the lawyer had been seriously remiss in the

fulllment of his contractual obli!ation to his family. he lin!

of the falsied documents by the respondent or by someone

actin! upon his instructions was clearly a dishonest attempt

to miti!ate the adverse eJect of his inaction or ne!li!ence on

the le!al matter entrusted to him.

$ecessarily also, the respondent committed a violation of



Canon 0 of the Code of rofessional Responsibility, cited in

Laaretos complaint. Rule 0.70, in particular, re=uires that >a?

lawyer s+all not engage in unlaw*ul1 dis+onest1 immoral or

de!eit*ul !ondu!t . he +B Board of overnors completely

disre!arded this particular aspect of the complaint a!ainst the

respondent which, to our mind, should have been !iven

proper consideration, if only to remind the members of the

Bar to always "eep faith with the tenets of the Code of

rofessional Responsibility and as importantly, with their oath.

urther, the ethics of the le!al profession ri!htly enGoins every

lawyer to act with the hi!hest standards of truthfulness, fair

play, and nobility in the course of his practice of law.:> /tated

diJerently, any member of the le!al fraternity should do

nothin! that would lessen in any de!ree the condence of the

public in the delity, honesty, and inte!rity of the le!al

profession.:&

Considerin! the fore!oin!, we nd the dismissal of the

administrative case improvident. ?hat to us comes out in bold

relief in readin! throu!h the records of this case is a web of

deceit and ne!li!ence perpetrated by the respondent a!ainst

the complainant and his family, to their preGudice and to the

preGudice of the profession that now has been brou!ht to

disrepute by the respondents @sharpA practices. 4ow the

respondent was able to e3tricate himself for what he did is

reprehensible and casts doubt on the inte!rity of the +B and

its Commissioners. hus, the respondent should be made to

answer for his dishonest dealin!s with Laareto and his family,

as well as for his ne!li!ence in the handlin! of the tas"

Laareto had entrusted to him. ?e say this notwithstandin!

the layman Laaretos desistance, as the respondents action

was a trans!ression not only of what is due Laareto as a

client but also of the profession and the nation that e3pect its

lawyers to live up to the hi!hest standards of performance in

this noble profession.

1E%EO%E, premises considered, Resolution $o. II827028

09&, dated ;une 9, 2702, of the +B Board of overnors is SE+

ASIDE. Respondent #tty. 5ennis $. #cordais O%DE%ED suspended from the practice of law for three (1)

years from and after notice of this 5ecision. ?e

also 1A%N him that the commission of the same or similar

act or acts shall be dealt with more severely.

#tty. 5ennis $. #corda is DI%EC+ED to formally ANIES+ to

this Court, upon receipt of this 5ecision, the date of his receipt

which shall be the startin! point of his suspension. 4e shall

furnish a copy of this *anifestation to all the courts and =uasi8

Gudicial bodies where he has entered his appearance as

counselH to his employer (if he is employed)H and to his law

rm.

Let a copy of this decision be attached to #tty. #cordasrecords with the 6ce of the Bar Condant and posted on the

/upreme Court website as a notice to the !eneral public.

SO O%DE%ED.

EN 0ANC

A.C. NO. 7#!6 = Au5ust #, "7J

:OSE'ANO *&EVA%%A, Complainant , v. A++). :OSE

EAN&E' EA'A, Respondent .

D E C I S I O N

;oselano uevarra (complainant) led on *arch :

2772 a Complaint for 5isbarmentO0P before the +nte!rated Ba

of the hilippines (+B) Committee on Bar 5iscipline (CB5

a!ainst #tty. ;ose Dmmanue

*. Dala a.".a. $oli Dala (respondent) for !rossly immora

conduct and unmiti!ated violation of the lawyers oath.

+n his complaint, uevarra !ave the followin!

accountF

4e rst met respondent in ;anuary 2777 when his

(complainants) then8ancee +rene *oGe (+rene) introduced

respondent to him as her friend who was married to *arianne

(sometimes spelled *ary #nn) antoco with whom he had

three children.

#fter his marria!e to +rene on ctober %, 2777

complainant noticed that from ;anuary to *arch 2770, +rene

had been receivin! from respondent cellphone calls, as well as

messa!es some of which read + love you, + miss you, or *eet

you at *e!amall.

Complainant also noticed that +rene habitually went

home very late at ni!ht or early in the mornin! of the

followin! day, and sometimes did not !o home from

wor". ?hen he as"ed about her whereabouts, she replied that

she slept at her parents house in Binan!onan, Rial or she

was busy with her wor".

+n ebruary or *arch 2770, complainant saw +rene

and respondent to!ether on two occasions. n the second

occasion, he confronted them followin! which +rene

abandoned the conGu!al house.

n #pril 22, 2770, complainant went uninvited to

+renes birthday celebration at which he saw her and

respondent celebratin! with her family and friends.ut o

embarrassment, an!er and humiliation, he left the venue

immediately. ollowin! that incident, +rene went to the

conGu!al house and hauled oJ all her personal belon!in!s

pieces of furniture, and her share of the household appliances

Complainant later found, in the masters bedroom, a

folded social card bearin! the words + Love Uou on its face

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/august2007/7136.htm#_ftn1




which card when unfolded contained a handwritten letter

dated ctober %, 2777, the day of his weddin! to +rene,

readin!F

*y everdearest +rene, By the time you open this, youll be moments away

from wal"in! down the aisle. + will say aprayer for you that you may nd meanin! in

what youre about to do./ometimes + wonder why we ever met. +s it only for

me to nd eetin! happiness but e3perienceeternal painW +s it only for us to nd a truelove but then lose it a!ainW r is it becausetheres a bi!!er plan for the two of usW

+ hope that you have e3perienced true happinesswith me. + have done everythin! humanlypossible to love you. #nd today, as youma"e your vows . . . + ma"e my own vow to

UNX + will love you for the rest of my life. + loved you from

the rst time + laid eyes on you, to the timewe spent to!ether, up to the nal momentsof your sin!le life. But more importantly, +

will love you until the life in me is !one anduntil we are to!ether a!ain. 5o not worry about meX + will be happy for you. +

have enou!h memories of us to last me alifetime. #lways remember thou!h that inmy heart, in my mind and in my soul, UN?+LL #L?#U/

. . . #$5 4D ?$5DRNL 4+$/ UN 5X

BD *+$D . . . . #$5 *+$D #L$D, and + ?+LL#L?#U/ BD UNR/ #$5 UNR/ #L$DX

+ LED UN RDEDR, + LED UN R#L?#U/. #/ L$ #/ +* L+E+$ *U ?DD+D

UNLL BDXO2P

Dternally yours, $L+

Complainant soon saw respondents car and that of

+rene constantly par"ed at $o. %08B 00th /treet, $ew *anila

where, as he was to later learn sometime in #pril 2770, +rene

was already residin!. 4e also learned still later that when his

friends saw +rene on or about ;anuary 0', 2772 to!ether with

respondent durin! a concert, she was pre!nant.

+n his #$/?DR,O1P respondent admitted havin! sent

the + LED UN card on which the above8=uoted letter was

handwritten.

n para!raph 0: of the C*L#+$ readin!F

0:. Respondent and +rene were evenL#N$+$ 4D+R #5NLDRN/RDL#+$/4+ as they attended socialfunctions to!ether. or instance, in or about

the third wee" of /eptember 2770, thecouple attended the launch of the ?ine #ll

Uou Can promotion of rench wines, held atthe *e!a /trip of /* *e!amall Bat *andaluyon!City. heir attendance wasreported in /ection B of the Manila4tandard issue of 2: /eptember 2770, onpa!e 20. Respondent and+rene were photo!raphed to!etherH theirpicture was captionedF Irene withSportscaster Noli Eala. # photocopy of the report is attached as #nne3 C.O:P (+talics

and emphasis in the ori!inalHC#+#L+-#+$ of the phrase auntin! theiradulterous relationship supplied),

respondent, in his #$/?DR, statedF:. Respondent

specically denies 2avin5 everKaunted an adulterous relationship with+rene as alle!ed in para!raph 0: of theComplaint, the truth of the matter bein!that their relationship was 4o roF4eand Lnon on4< to t2e immediatemembers of t2eir resectivefami4ies , and that Respondent, as far as

the !eneral public was concerned, wasstill "nown to be le!ally married to *ary#nne antoco.O>P (Dmphasis andunderscorin! supplied)

n para!raph 0> of the C*L#+$ readin!F

0>. Respondents adulterous conduct withthe complainants wife and hisapparent abandonin! or ne!lectin! of hisown family, demonstrate his !ross moraldepravity, ma"in! him morally unt to "eephis membership in the bar. 4e aunted hisaversion to the institution of marria!e,call in! it a piece of paper. *orally

reprehensible was his writin! the love letterto complainants bride on the very day of herweddin!, vowin! to continue his love for heruntil we are to!ether a!ain, as now theyare.O&P (Nnderscorin! supplied),

respondent stated in his #$/?DR as followsF

>. Respondent specically denies

the alle!ations in para!raph 0> of theComplaint re!ardin!his adulterous relationship and that his actsdemonstrate !ross moral depravity therebyma"in! him unt to "eep his membership inthe bar, the reason bein! that Respondents

relationship with +rene was not underscanda4ous circumstancesand that as faras his relationship with his own familyF

>.0 Respondent has

maintained a civil, cordial and peacefulrelationship with Ohis wifeP *ary #nneas in fact they still occasionally meet inpublic, even if *ary #nne is awareof Respondents special friendship with+rene.

3 3 3 3

>.> Respondent also denies

that he has aunted his aversion to the
















institution of marria!e by callin! theinstitution of marria!e a mere piece of paper because his reference Oin hisabove8=uoted handwritten letter to+reneP to the marria!e betweenComplainant and +rene as a piece of paper was merely with respect to theformality of the marria!e contract.O%P (Dmphasis and underscorin!supplied)

Respondent admittedO'P

para!raph 0' of the

C*L#+$ readin!F

0'. he Rules of Court re=uires

lawyers to support the Constitution andobey the laws. he Constitution re!ardsmarria!e as an inviolable social institutionand is the foundation of the family (#rticleIE, /ec. 2).O9P

#nd on para!raph 09 of the C*L#+$ readin!F

09. Respondents !rossly immoral conduct runsafou4 of t2e Constitution and t2e 4as2e, as a 4a<er, 2as been sorn tou2o4d. +n pursuin! obsessively his illicitlove for the complainants wife, he mocLedt2e institution of marria5e, betrayed hisown family, bro"e up the complainantsmarria!e, commits adultery with his wife,and de5rades t2e 4e5a4 rofession.O07P (Dmphasis and underscorin! supplied),

respondent, in his #$/?DR, statedF

%. Respondent specically

denies the alle!ations in para!raph 09 of

the Complaint, the reason bein!that under the circumstances the acts of Respondent with respect to his purelypersonal and low prole secia4re4ations2i it2 Irene is neit2erunder scanda4ous circumstances nortantamount to 5ross4< immora4conductas would be a !round fordisbarment pursuant to Rule 01',/ection 2% of the Rules of Court.O00P (Dmphasis and underscorin!supplied)

o respondents #$/?DR, complainant led a RDLU,

O02P alle!in! that +rene !ave birth to a !irl and +rene named

respondent in the Certicate of Live Birth as the !irls

father. Complainant attached to the RDLU, as #nne3 #, a copy

of a Certicate of Live BirthO01P bearin! +renes si!nature and

namin! respondent as the father of her dau!hter /amantha

+rene Louise *oGe who was born on ebruary 0:, 2772 at /t.

Lu"es 4ospital.

Complainants RDLU merited a RD;+$5DR ?+4

*+$ 5+/*+//O0:P dated ;anuary 07, 2771 from

respondent in which he denied havin! personal "nowled!e of

the Certicate of Live Birth attached to the complainants

Reply.O0>P Respondent moved to dismiss the complaint due to

the pendency of a civil case led by complainant for the

annulment of his marria!e to +rene, and a criminal complaint

for adultery a!ainst respondent and +rene which was pendin!

before the <ueon City rosecutors 6ce.

5urin! the investi!ation before the +B8CB5

complainants Complaint8#6davit and RDLU to #$/?DR were

adopted as his testimony on direct e3amination

O0&P Respondents counsel did not cross8e3amine complainant

O0%P

#fter investi!ation, +B8CB5 +nvesti!atin!

Commissioner *ila!ros E. /an ;uan, in a 028pa!e RDR #$5

RDC**D$5#+$ O0'P dated ctober 2&, 277:, found the

char!e a!ainst respondent su6ciently proven.

he Commissioner thus recommendedO09P tha

respondent be disbarred for violatin! %u4e #.# of Canon #

of t2e Code of /rofessiona4 %esonsibi4it< readin!F

Rule 0.70F # lawyer shall not

en!a!e in unlawful, dishonest, immoral ordeceitful conduct (Nnderscorin! supplied),

and %u4e 7.! of Canon 7 of t2e same Code readin!F

Rule %.71F # lawyer shall not

en!a!e in conduct that adversely reects onhis tness to practice law, nor shall he,whether in public or private life, behave in ascandalous manner to the discredit of thele!al profession. (Nnderscorin! supplied)

he +B Board of overnors, however, annulled and

set aside the Recommendation of the +nvesti!atin!

Commissioner and accordin!ly dismissed the case for lac" omerit, by Resolution dated ;anuary 2', 277& briey readin!F

%ESO'&+ION NO. MVII"66

C0D Case No. "9!6 :ose4ano C.*uevarra vs.Att<. :oseEmmanue4 . Ea4aa.L.a. No4i Ea4a

R54OL5D to A""BL and 456 A4ID51 as it is+erey A""BLL5D A"D 456 A4ID51 t+e







































Re!ommendation o* t+e InvestigatingCommissioner1 and to APPRO5t+eDISMISSA o* t+e aove/entitled !ase*or la! o* merit.O27P (+talics and emphasis inthe ori!inal)

4ence, the present petitionO20P of complainant before

this Court, led pursuant to /ection 02 (c), Rule 019 O22P of the

Rules of Court.

he petition is impressed with merit.

ddly enou!h, the +B Board of overnors, in settin!

aside the Recommendation of the +nvesti!atin! Commissioner

and dismissin! the case for lac" of merit, !ave no

reason therefor as its above8=uoted 118word Resolution

shows.

Respondent contends, in his CommentO21P on the

present petition of complainant, that there is no evidence

a!ainst him.O2:P he contention fails. #s the +B8CB5

+nvesti!atin! Commissioner observedF

?hile it may be true that the

love letter dated ctober %,2777 (D3h. C) and the news itempublished in the Manila 4tandard (D3h.5), even ta"en to!ether do notsu6ciently prove that respondent iscarryin! on an adulterous relationshipwith complainants wife, there are otherpieces of evidence on record whichsupport the accusation of complainanta!ainst respondent.

+t should be noted that in 2is

Anser dated #7 October "",resondent t2rou52 counse4 madet2e fo44oin5 statements to itFRespondent specically denies havin!OeverP aunted an adulterousrelationship with +rene as alle!ed inpara!raph O0:P of the Complaint, thetruth of the matter bein! OthatP theirrelationship was low prole and "nownonly to immediate members of theirrespective families . . . , and Respondentspecically denies the alle!ations inpara!raph 09 of the complaint, thereason bein! that under the

circumstances the acts of therespondents with respect to his purelypersonal and low prole relationship with+rene is neither under scandalouscircumstances nor tantamount to !rosslyimmoral conduct . . .

+2ese statements of

resondent in 2is Anser are anadmission t2at t2ere is indeed asecia4 re4ations2i beteen 2imand com4ainants ife, Irene,2ic2J taLen to5et2er it2 t2eCertiFcate of 'ive 0irt2 of Samant2a'ouise Irene oe AnneG #suBcient4< rove t2at t2ere as

indeed an i44icit re4ations2i betweenrespondent and +rene which resulted inthe birth of the child /amantha. In t2eCertiFcate of 'ive 0irt2 of Samant2ait s2ou4d be noted t2atcom4ainants ife Irene su4iedt2e information t2at resondentas t2e fat2er of t2e c2i4d. iven thefact that the respondent admitted hisspecial relationship with +rene t2ere isno reason to be4ieve t2at Ireneou4d 4ie or maLe an<

misreresentation re5ardin5 t2eaternit< of t2e c2i4d. +t should beunderscored thatresondent 2as notcate5orica44< denied t2at 2e is t2efat2er of Samant2a 'ouise Ireneoe.O2>P (Dmphasis and underscorin!supplied)

+ndeed, from respondents #$/?DR, he does not deny

carryin! on an adulterous relationship with +rene, adultery

bein! dened under #rt. 111 of the Revised enal Code as

that committed by any married woman who shall have se3ua

intercourse with a man not her husband and y t+e man w+o

+as !arnal nowledge o* +er1 nowing +er to e married , even

if the marria!e be subse=uently declared void.O2&P (+talics

supplied) ?hat respondent denies is havin!aunted such

relationship, he maintainin! that it was low prole and "nown

only to the immediate members of their respective families.

+n other words, respondents denial is a ne5ative

re5nant,

a denial pre!nant with the admission of thesubstantial facts in the pleadin! respondedto which are not s=uarely denied. +t was ineJect an admission of the averments it wasdirected at. /tated otherwise, a ne!ativepre!nant is a form of ne!ative e3pressionwhich carries with it in a6rmation or at leastan implication of some "ind favorable to theadverse party. +t is a denial pre!nant with anadmission of the substantial facts alle!ed inthe pleadin!. ?here a fact is alle!ed with=ualifyin! or modifyin! lan!ua!e and thewords of the alle!ation as so =ualied ormodied are literally denied, it has beenheld that the Hua4if<in5 circumstancesa4one are denied 2i4e t2e fact itse4f isadmitted.O2%P (CitationsomittedH emphasis and underscorin!supplied)

# ne!ative pre!nant too is respondents denial o

havin! personal "nowled!e of +renes dau!hter /amantha

Louise +rene *oGes Certicate of Live Birth. +n said certicate

+rene named respondent a lawyer, 1' years old as the childs

father. #nd the phrase $ *#RR+D5 is entered on the desired

information on 5#D #$5 L#CD *#RR+#D. # comparison

of the si!nature attributed to +rene in the certicateO2'P with




























her si!nature on the *arria!e CerticateO29Pshows that they

were a63ed by one and the same person. "otatu dignum is

that, as the +nvesti!atin! Commissioner noted, respondent

never denied bein! the father of the child.

ran"lin #. Ricafort, the records custodian of /t.

Lu"es *edical Center, in his ;anuary 29, 2771

#6davitO17P which he identied at the witness stand, declared

that +rene !ave the information in the Certicate of Live Birth

that the childs father is ;ose Dmmanuel *asacaet Dala, who

was 1' years old and a lawyer.O10P

?ithout doubt, the adulterous relationship between

respondent and +rene has been su6ciently proven by more

than clearly preponderant evidence that evidence adduced by

one party which is more conclusive and credible than that of

the other party and, therefore, has !reater wei!ht than the

otherO12P which is the =uantum of evidence needed in an

administrative case a!ainst a lawyer.

#dministrative cases a!ainst

lawyers belon! to a class of their own. heyare distinct from and they may proceedindependently of civil and criminal cases.

. . . of proof for these types of

cases diJer. +n a criminal case, proof beyondreasonable doubt is necessaryH in anadministrative case for disbarment orsuspension,c4ear4< reonderant

evidence is a44 t2at is reHuired.O11P (Dmphasis supplied)

Respondent insists, however, that disbarment does

not lie because his relationship with +rene was not, under

/ection 2% of Rule 01' of the Revised Rules of Court, readin!F/DC. 2%. Disarment or suspension o* attorneys y 4upreme Court1 groundst+ere*or. # member of the bar may bedisbarred or suspended from his o6ce asattorney by the /upreme Court for anydeceit, malpractice, or other !rossmisconduct in such o6ce, 5ross4< immora4conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a

crime involvin! moral turpitude, or for anyviolation of the oath which he is re=uired tota"e before admission to practice, or for awillful disobedience appearin! as anattorney for a party to a case withoutauthority so to do. he practice of solicitin!cases at law for the purpose of !ain, eitherpersonally or throu!h paid a!ents orbro"ers, constitutes malpractice.

he disbarment or suspension of a memberof the hilippine Bar by a competent courtor other disciplinatory a!ency in a forei!n

Gurisdiction where he has also beenadmitted as an attorney is a !round for his

disbarment or suspension if the basis of such action includes any of the actshereinabove enumerated.

he Gud!ment, resolution or order of theforei!n court or disciplinary a!ency shallbe prima *a!ie evidence of the !round fordisbarment or suspension (Dmphasis andunderscorin! supplied),

under scandalous circumstances.O1:P

he immediately8=uoted Rule which provides the

!rounds for disbarment or suspension uses the

phrase 5ross4< immora4 conduct, not under scandalous

circumstances. /e3ual intercourse under scandalous

circumstances is, followin! #rticle 11: of the Revised ena

Code readin!F

#R. 11:. Con!uinage. 8 #ny

husband who shall "eep a mistress in theconGu!al dwellin!, or, shall have se3ualintercourse, under scandalouscircumstances, with a woman who is not hiswife, or shall cohabit with her in any otherplace, shall be punishedby prision !orre!!ional in its minimum andmedium periods.

3 3 3 3,

an element of the crime of !on!uinage when a married man

has se3ual intercourse with a woman elsewhere.

?hether a lawyers se3ual con!ress with a woman

not his wife or without the benet of marria!e should be

characteried as !rossly immoral conduct depends on the

surroundin! circumstances.O1>P he case at bar involves a

relationship between a married lawyer and a married woman

who is not his wife. +t is immaterial whether the aJair was

carried out discreetly. Apropos is the followin! pronouncemen

of this Court in itug v. Rong!alFO1&P

n the char!e of immorality,

respondent does not deny that he had

an e3tra8marital aJair with complainant,albeit brief and discreet, and which act isnot socorrupt and false as to constitute acriminal act or so unprincipled as to bereprehensible to a hi!h de!ree in orderto merit disciplinary sanction. ?edisa!ree.

3 3 3 3

?hile it has been held in

disbarment cases that the mere fact of se3ual relations betweentwo unmarried adults is not su6cient towarrant administrative sanction for suchillicit behavior, it is not so with respect























to betra<a4s of t2e marita4 vo of Fde4it<. Dven if not all forms of e3tra8marital relations are punishable underpenal law, se3ual relations outsidemarria!e is considered dis!raceful andimmoral as it manifests de4iberatedisre5ard of t2e sanctit< of marria5e and t2e marita4vosprotected by the Constitution anda6rmed by our laws.O1%P (Dmphasis andunderscorin! supplied)

#nd so is the pronouncement in 6u!ay v. Atty. 6u!ay;

O1'P

he Court need not delve into

the =uestion of whether or not therespondent did contract a bi!amousmarria!e . . . +t is enou!h that therecords of this administrative casesubstantiate the ndin!s of the+nvesti!atin! Commissioner, as well asthe +B Board of overnors, i.e., thatindeed respondent has been carryin! onan i44icit a>air with a married woman,

a !rossly immoral conductand indicative of an eGtreme4< 4ore5ard for t2e fundamenta4 et2ics of 2is rofession. his detestablebehavior renders 2im re5rettab4<unFt and undeservin5 of t2etreasured 2onor and rivi4e5es2ic2 2is 4icense confers uon 2im.O19P (Nnderscorin! supplied)

Respondent in fact also violated the lawyers oath he

too" before admission to practice law which !oesF

+ YYYYYYYYY, havin! been permitted

to continue in the practice of law in thehilippines, do solemnly swear that +reco!nie the supreme authority of theRepublic of the hilippinesH + will support itsConstitution and obey the laws as well asthe le!al orders of the duly constitutedauthorities thereinH + will do no falsehood,nor consent to the doin! of any in courtH +will not wittin!ly or willin!ly promote or sueany !roundless, false or unlawful suit, nor!ive aid nor consent to the sameH + willdelay no man for money or malice, and willconduct myself as a lawyer accordin! to thebest of my "nowled!e and discretion with all!ood delity as well as to the courts as tomy clientsHand + impose upon myself this

voluntary obli!ation without any mentalreservation or purpose of evasion. /o helpme od. (Nnderscorin! supplied)

Respondent admittedly is aware of /ection 2 of #rticle IE (he

amily) of the Constitution readin!F

/ection 2. *arria!e, as an inviolable socialinstitution, is the foundation of the familyand shall be protected by the /tate.

+n this connection, the amily Code (D3ecutive rder $o. 279)

which echoes this constitutional provision, obli!ates the

husband and the wife to live to!ether, observe mutual love,

respect and delity, and render mutual help and support.O:7P

urthermore, respondent violated Rule 0.70

of Canon 0 of the Code of rofessional Responsibility which

proscribes a lawyer from en!a!in! in unlawful

dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct, and Rule %.71

of Canon % of the same Code which proscribes a lawyer from

en!a!in! in any conduct that adversely reects on his tness

to practice law.

Clutchin! at straws, respondent, durin!

the pendency of the investi!ation of the case before the +B

Commissioner, led a *anifestationO:0P on *arch 22, 277>

informin! the +B8CB5 that complainants petition for nullity of

his (complainants) marria!e to +rene had been !ranted by

Branch 07& of the <ueon City Re!ional rial Court, and that

the criminal complaint for adultery complainant led a!ainst

respondent and +rene based on the same set of facts alle!ed

in the instant case, which was pendin! review before the

5epartment of ;ustice (5;), on petition of complainant, had

been, on motion of complainant, withdrawn.

he /ecretary of ;ustices Resolution of ;anuary 0&277: !rantin! complainants *otion to ?ithdraw etition fo

Review readsF

Considerin! that the instant motion

was led before the nal resolution of thepetition for review, we are inclined to !rantthe same pursuant to /ection 07 of 5epartment Circular $o. %7 dated ;uly 1,2777, which provides that notwithstandin!the perfection of the appeal, the petitionermay withdraw the same at any time beforeit is nally resolved, in 2ic2 case t2eaea4ed reso4ution s2a44 stand as

t2ou52 no aea4 2as been taLen.O:2P (Dmphasis supplied by complainant)

hat the marria!e between complainant and +rene

was subse=uently declared void a initio is immaterial. he

acts complained of too" place before the marria!e wa

declared null and void.O:1P #s a lawyer, respondent should be

aware that a man and a woman deportin! themselves as

husband and wife are presumed, unless proven otherwise, to

have entered into a lawful contract of marria!e.O::P +n carryin!























on an e3tra8marital aJair with +rene prior to the Gudicial

declaration that her marria!e with complainant was null and

void, and despite respondent himself bein! married, he

showed disrespect for an institution held sacred by the law.

#nd he betrayed his untness to be a lawyer.

#s for complainants withdrawal of his petition for

review before the 5;, respondent !larin!ly omitted to state

that before complainant led his 5ecember 21, 2771 *otion

to ?ithdraw his etition for Review, the 5; had already

promul!ated a Resolution on /eptember 22, 2771 reversin5

t2e dismissa4 by the<ueon City rosecutors 6ce of

complainants complaint for adultery. +n reversin! the City

rosecutors Resolution, 5; /ecretary

/imeon 5atumanon! heldF

arenthetically the totality of evidence adduced by complainant would, inthe fair estimation of the 5epartment,su6ciently establish all the elements of theoJense of adultery on the part of bothrespondents. +ndeed, early on,respondent *oGe conceded to complainantthat she was !oin! out on dates withrespondent Dala, and this she did whencomplainant confronted herabout Dalas fre=uent phone calls and te3tmessa!es to her. Complainant alsopersonally witnessed *oGe and Dala havin!a rendevous on twooccasions. Respondent Dala never deniedthe fact that he "new *oGe to be marriedto complainantO.P +n fact, he (Dala) himself

was married to anotherwoman.*oreover, *oGes eventualabandonment of their conGu!al home, aftercomplainant had once more confronted herabout Dala, only served to conrm the illicitrelationship involvin! bothrespondents. his becomes all the moreapparent by *oGes subse=uent relocation in$o. %08B, 00th /treet, $ew*anila, <ueon City, which was a few bloc"saway from the church where she hade3chan!e marital vows with complainant.

+t was in this place that the two

lovers apparently cohabited. Dspeciallysince Dalas vehicle and that of *oGes were

always seen there. *oGe herself admits thatshe came to live in the said addresswhereas Dala asserts that that was where heheld o6ce. he happenstance that it was inthat said addressthat Dala and *oGe had decided to holdo6ce for the rm that both had formedsmac"s too much of a coincidence. or one,the said address appears to be a residentialhouse, for that was where *oGe stayed allthrou!hout after her separation fromcomplainant. +t was both respondents lovenest, to put shortH their illicit aJair that wascarried out there bore fruit a few monthslater when *oGe !ave birth to a !irl at thenearby hospital of /t. Lu"es *edical

Center. ?hat nally militates a!ainst therespondents is the indubitable fact that inthe certicate of birth of the!irl, *oGe furnished the informationthat Dala was the father. +2is seaLs a44too e4oHuent4< of t2e un4afu4 anddamnin5 nature of t2e adu4terous actsof t2e resondents. Complainantssupposed ille!al procurement of the birthcerticate is most certainly beside the pointforboth resondents Ea4a and oe 2ave

not denied, in an< cate5orica4 manner,t2at Ea4a is t2e fat2er of t2e c2i4dSamant2a Irene 'ouise oe.O:>P (Dmphasis and underscorin! supplied)

+t bears emphasis that adultery is a private oJens

which cannot be prosecuted de oE!io and thus leaves the 5

no choice but to !rant complainants motion to withdraw h

petition for review. But even if respondent and +rene were to b

ac=uitted of adultery after trial, if the +nformation for adulter

were led in court, the same would not have been a bar to th

present administrative complaint.

Citin! the rulin! in Pangan v. Ramos1O:&P viz F

3 3 3 he ac=uittal of respondent

Ramos OofP the criminal char!e is not a barto these OadministrativeP proceedin!s. hestandards of le!al profession are notsatised by conduct which merely enablesone to escape the penalties of 3 3 3 criminallaw. Moreover1 t+is Court1 in disarment pro!eedings is a!ting in an entirely di@erent !apa!ity *rom t+at w+i!+ !ourts assume intrying !riminal !aseO:%P (+talics in the

ori!inal),

this Court in Gat!+alian Promotions 6alents Pools1 In!.

Atty. "aldoza,O:'P heldF

#dministrative cases a!ainst

lawyers belon! to a class of their own. heyare distinct from and they may proceedindependently of civil and criminal cases.

1E%EO%E, the petition is *%AN+ED. Resolutio

$o. IE++8277&87& passed on ;anuary 2', 277& by the Board o

overnors of the +nte!rated Bar o

the hilippines is ANN&''ED and SE+ ASIDE.

Respondent, #tty. ;ose Dmmanuel *. Dal

is DIS0A%%ED for !rossly immoral conduct, violation of h

oath of o6ce, and violation of Canon 0, Rule 0.70 and Canon %

Rule %.71 of the Code of rofessional Responsibility.

Let a copy of this 5ecision, which

immediately e3ecutory, be made part of the records o













respondent in the 6ce of the Bar Condant, /upreme Court

of the hilippines. #nd let copies of the 5ecision be furnished

the +nte!rated Bar of the hilippines and circulated to all

courts.

his 5ecision ta"es eJect immediately.

SO O%DE%ED.

+I%D DIVISION

A.C. No. 9#$, arc2 ##, "#

S/O&SES %O*E'IO AA+O%IO AND AIDA

AA+O%IO, Complainants, v. A++). %ANCISCO D) )A/

AND A++). 1E'A . SI+ON)A/, Respondents.

% E S O ' & + I O N

his pertains to the complaint for disbarment led by /pousesRo!elio #matorio and #ida #matorio (#ida) (complainants)

a!ainst #ttys. rancisco 5y Uap (rancisco) and ?helma /iton8

Uap (respondents) for violatin! Rules 0.70, %.71, 07.70, 07.72

and 07.71 of the Code of rofessional Responsibility.

+n their complaint, the complainants alle!ed that the

respondents employed deceit to obtain favorable Gud!ments,

specically by failin! to inform the trial court that there was

already an out8of8court settlement between them and

maliciously manifestin! that their counsel, #tty. ;usto aras

(#tty. aras) was suspended from the practice of law.0

he complainants asseverated that they are clients of #tty.

aras in two collection cases, particularly, Civil Case $o. 27778109 and Civil Case $o. 27778120, which were led a!ainst

them by the respondents. +n Civil Case $o. 27778109,

respondents sued the complainants to compel them to pay

their indebtedness of 0',777.77, which was evidenced by a

promissory note. #fter they led their answer to the

complaint, however, the respondents led a motion to stri"e

out the same and to declare them in default on the !round

that the said pleadin! was prepared by a lawyer suspended

from the practice of law and lac"ed proper verication. he

motion was however denied.2chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

n the other hand, in Civil Case $o. 27778120, the

respondents sued the complainants to collect the amount of

9:,0%1.::. he answer led by #tty. aras was howeverstric"en oJ the record for the reason that he was suspended

from the practice of law at the time of its lin!.1

Nnable to nd a lawyer to replace #tty. aras, the

complainants decided to see" an out8of8court settlement. n

*ay 21, 2770, #ida went to the respondents law o6ce. /he

appealed for the respondents consideration and as"ed that

they be allowed to pay their obli!ations by way of installment.

he parties a!reed on the terms of payment and, on that

same day, #ida tendered her rst payment of 27,777.77,

which was received and duly ac"nowled!ed by rancisco in a

written document with the letterhead of Uap Law 6ce. ?hen

#ida as"ed the respondents if they should still attend the pre8

trial conference scheduled on *ay 2', 2770 and ;une 0', 2770

in the civil cases led a!ainst them, the latter told them they

need not attend anymore as they will be movin! for the

dismissal of the cases. Relyin! on the respondents assurance

the complainants did not attend the scheduled hearin!s.

/ubse=uently, they were surprised to receive copies of the

decisions of the trial court in the two civil cases led by the

respondents, declarin! them in default for non8appearance in

the pre8trial conference and orderin! them to pay the amount

of their indebtedness and dama!es. he decision however did

not mention the out8of8court settlement between the parties.

$onetheless, the complainants continued tenderin!

installment payments to the respondents upon the latters

assurance that they will disre!ard the decision of the trial

court since they already had an out8of8court settlement before

the rendition of said Gud!ment. hey were surprised to learn,

however, that the respondents led a motion for the issuance

of a writ of e3ecution in Civil Case $o. 27778109 and were in

fact issued said writ.: his prompted them to see" le!al advice

to address their predicament. hey went to #tty. ;ose E.

Carria!a who, after learnin! of the factual milieu of their case,

told them that they have a !ood !round to le a disbarment

case a!ainst the respondents. 4e, however, declined to

handle the case himself as he disclosed that his wife is a

relative of the respondents. +nstead, he referred the

complainants to #tty. aras, who had Gust resumed his practice

of law after his suspension.>

#s advised, the complainants went to #tty. aras to en!a!e

his services as their counsel. +nitially, #tty. aras refused to

handle their case as he revealed that the personal animosity

between him and the respondents may invite unwelcome

repercussions. Dven then, the complainants insisted to retain

his services as their counsel. hus, #tty. aras proceeded to

le a disbarment case a!ainst the respondents with the

+nte!rated Bar of the hilippines (+B).&

#s foretold by #tty. aras, the complainants e3perienced

unpleasant bac"lash which were alle!edly insti!ated by the

respondents who come from a very powerful and aZuentclan. hey received threats of physical harm and #idas

continued employment as a public school teacher was put in

Geopardy. #lso, suspicious8loo"in! individuals were seen

loiterin! around their house. ?hen they refused to yield to the

respondents intimidation, the latter resorted to the lin! of

char!es a!ainst them, to witF (0) an administrative case

a!ainst #ida for failure to pay the same debts subGect of this

caseH and (2) a criminal case for perGury a!ainst the

complainants. o alleviate their situation, they led a ;oint8

#6davit,% see"in! the assistance of this Court to warn the

respondents and to stop them from employin! deplorable acts

upon them.

+n their Comment on the Complaint and Counter8etition for5isbarment dated *arch 0:, 2771, the respondents denied

havin! resorted to deceitful means to obtain favorable

Gud!ments in Civil Case $os. 27778109 and 27778120. hey

admitted that they a!reed to an out8of8court settlement,

throu!h the intercession of Rosa Uap aras, estran!ed wife of

#tty. aras, but denied that the complainants ever tendered

any installment payment. hey claimed that #tty. aras

merely employed caGolery in order to entice the complainants

to le the instant case to retaliate a!ainst them. hey

asseverated that #tty. aras resented the fact that the

respondents served as counsel for his former wife, who

previously led the administrative case for immorality,

abandonment of family, and falsication and use of falsied



documents which resulted to his suspension.'

n their counter8petition for disbarment, the respondents

asserted that #tty. aras clearly deed the authority of this

Court when he represented the complainants and led an

answer on their behalf durin! the period of his suspension

from the practice of law. hey alle!ed that he appeared in

several cases and led numerous pleadin!s despite his

suspension.9chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

#fter the parties submitted their respective position papers,

the +nvesti!atin! Commissioner of the +B8Commission on Bar

5iscipline issued a Report and Recommendation07 dated ;une

21, 277>, which pertinently states as followsF

here is substantial evidence that Respondent rancisco Uap

haOsP deliberately ne!lected, at the very least, oJered andor

pleaded inaccurate alle!ationstestimonies to purposely

mislead or confuse the civil courts in 5uma!uete City.

rancisco Uap failed to controvert the e3istence and the

authenticity of the #c"nowled!ment Receipt dated *ay 20,

2770 which bore his si!nature and written in a @Uap Law

6ceA letterhead. /uch documentary evidence supports the

theory of the Complainants that there was indeed an out8of8

court settlement prior to the pre8trial hearin!s and that they

were most li"ely assured that these cases would be dismissed.

heir absence durin! the pre8trial hearin!s evidently resulted

to decisions adverse to them. *oreover, the *otions for the

?rit of D3ecution did not fail to mention the e3istence of

partial payments and the prior a!reement which, if disclosed,

would have led the court not to issue such writs. /ince

Respondent rancisco Uaps si!nature appear in all the

#c"nowled!ement Receipts and in all *otions led in the civil

courts, he alone should be penalied. n the other hand,

Respondent ?helma /iton Uap should not be penalied in the

absence of any evidence of her participation in such conduct.

3 3 3.

#ll told, this Commissioner recommends that only Respondent

rancisco Uap should be suspended from the practice of lawfor si3 (&) months. #t the same time, the Counter etition for

5isbarment led by herein Respondents a!ainst #tty. ;usto

aras, which appears to be EDRU meritorious, be !iven due

course in another proceedin! with utmost dispatch.00

Npon review of the report and recommendation of the

+nvesti!atin! Commissioner, the +B Board of overnors

issued Resolution $o. IE++8277>80>902 dated 5ecember 0%,

277>, disposin! thusF

RD/LED5 to #5 and #RED, as it is hereby #5D5

and #RED5, it2 modiFcation, the Report and

Recommendation of the +nvesti!atin! Commissioner of the

above8entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as#nne3 @#A, and, ndin! the recommendation fully supported

by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules,

and for deliberately ne!lectin!, oJerin! inaccurate alle!ations

to purposely mislead or confuse the courts, #tty. rancisco 5.

Uap is hereby S&S/ENDED from the practice of law for three

(1) months. #tty. ?helma . /iton8Uap is e3onerated in the

absence of any evidence of her participation in such conductH

however Respondents are 1arned for indirectly misleadin!

the Commission.01

n *arch 2%, 277&, the respondents led a *otion for

Reconsiderationetition for

Review.0:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

n #u!ust 9, 277%, the complainants led a

*anifestation,0> terminatin! the services of #tty. aras andor

aras8DnoGo and #ssociates as their counsel for the reason

that they can no lon!er aJord the services of a private

counsel.

/urprisin!ly, on the same day, the complainants e3ecuted a

;udicial #6davit,0& disclaimin! "nowled!e and participation in

the preparation of the complaint and the pleadin!s led on

their behalf by #tty. aras in connection with the disbarment

case a!ainst the respondents. hey claimed that they merely

si!ned the pleadin!s but the contents thereof were not

e3plained to them in a dialect which they understood. hey

li"ewise e3pressed lac" of intention to le a disbarment case

a!ainst the respondents and that, on the contrary, they were

very much willin! to settle and pay their indebtedness to

them. urther, they asserted that it was not the respondents,

but #tty. aras who instructed them not to attend the pre8trial

conference of the cases which eventually resulted to a

Gud!ment by default a!ainst them. hey claimed that #tty.

aras told them that he will be the one to attend the pre8trial

conference to settle matters with the respondents and the

court but he did not show up on the scheduled date. hey also

asseverated that most of the statements contained in the

complaint for disbarment were false and that they wished to

withdraw the said complaint.

n *ay 0:, 2700, the +B Board of overnors issued

Resolution $o. I+I8270080%2,0% which readsF

RD/LED5 to 5D$U Respondents *otion for Reconsideration

there bein! no co!ent reason to reverse the ndin!s of the

Commission and it bein! a mere reiteration of the matters

which had already been threshed out and ta"en into

consideration. hus, Resolution $o. IE++8277>80>9 dated 0%

5ecember 277> is hereby AI%ED.0'

n #u!ust 0', 2700, the respondents led a motion for

reconsideration, claimin! that the admission of the

complainants in the ;udicial #6davit dated #u!ust 9, 277%proved that the disbarment case led a!ainst them was Gust

fabricated by #tty. aras. hey pointed out the complainants

statement that they were Gust made to si!n the complaint for

disbarment by #tty. aras to retaliate a!ainst them for havin!

led a case a!ainst him for falsication of documents which

sent him to prison for some time.

n #u!ust 0', 2700, the complainants sent a letter09 to the

+B, e3pressin! disappointment over the fact that the +B

Board of overnors did not dismiss the disbarment case

a!ainst rancisco. he letter pertinently statedF

?e are very concerned and saddened by the fact that the

disbarment case a!ainst #U. R#$C+/C 5U U# was NO+DISISSED. +2e reason is t2at e 2ave submitted our

:&DICIA' AIDAVI+ re4atin5 t2e facts and

circumstances 2erein t2e said disbarment com4aint

as reared b< our former 4e5a4 counse4, A++). :&S+O

:. /A%AS consistin5 of fabrications and not on facts. It

as uon t2e mac2ination and insti5ation of A++).

:&S+O /A%AS, t2at t2e sim4e co44ection case of

/9$,. more or 4ess, became a mu4tifaceted case

in severa4 forums.27(Dmphasis in the ori!inal)

he instant case is now referred to this Court for nal action.

he Court notes that on /eptember 0&, 2700, the

complainants led a *otion to #dmit ;udicial #6davit with



*otion to 5ismiss andor ?ithdraw Complaint,20 reiteratin!

their claim that the lin! of the disbarment was a product of

#tty. aras maneuverin!s and that the alle!ations a!ainst the

respondents stated therein were false.

#fter a careful e3amination of the facts of this case, the Court

nds no compellin! reason to deviate from the resolution of

the +B Board of overnors.

$otably, the respondents see" a reconsideration of the

resolutions of the +B Board of overnors primarily on the

basis of the ;udicial #6davit dated #u!ust 9, 277%, wherein

the complainants cleared them of the char!es of misconduct

and turned the blame on their own counsel, #tty. aras, for

alle!edly havin! made up the alle!ations in the disbarment

complaint. ?hen the +B Board of overnors sustained the

imposition of suspension to rancisco, the complainants

themselves submitted a motion to admit the said Gudicial

a6davit to this Court, to!ether with a motion to dismiss and

withdraw complaint.

he =uestion now is whether the statements of the

complainants, specically contestin! the truthfulness of the

alle!ations hurled a!ainst the respondents in their own

complaint for disbarment necessarily results to ranciscos

absolution. he answer is in the ne!ative.

+t bears stressin! that membership in the bar is a privile!e

burdened with conditions. +t is bestowed upon individuals who

are not only learned in law, but also "nown to possess !ood

moral character. Lawyers should act and comport themselves

with honesty and inte!rity in a manner beyond reproach, in

order to promote the publics faith in the le!al

profession.22chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

he Code of rofessional Responsibility was promul!ated to

!uide the members of the bar by informin! them of the

deportment e3pected of them in leadin! both their

professional and private lives. rimarily, it aims to protect the

inte!rity and nobility of the le!al profession, to breed honestand principled lawyers and prune the association of the

unworthy.

+t is for the fore!oin! reason that the Court cannot simply

yield to complainants chan!e of heart by refutin! their own

statements a!ainst the respondents and prayin! that the

complaint for disbarment they led be dismissed. +t bears

emphasiin! that any misconduct on the part of the lawyer

not only hurts the clients cause but is even more dispara!in!

on the inte!rity of the le!al profession itself. hus, for

tarnishin! the reputation of the profession, a lawyer may still

be disciplined notwithstandin! the complainants pardon or

withdrawal from the case for as lon! as there is evidence to

support any ndin! of culpability. # case for suspension ordisbarment may proceed @re!ardless of interest or lac" of

interest of the complainants, if the facts proven so

warrant.A21 +t follows that the withdrawal of the complainant

from the case, or even the lin! of an a6davit of desistance,

does not conclude the administrative case a!ainst an errin!

lawyer.

his is so because the misconduct of a lawyer is deemed a

violation of his oath to "eep sacred the inte!rity of the

profession for which he must be disciplined. @he power to

discipline lawyers who are o6cers of the court may not be cut

short by compromise and withdrawal of the char!es. his is as

it should be, especially when we consider that the law

profession and its e3ercise is one impressed with public

interest. roceedin!s to discipline errin! members of the bar

are not instituted to protect and promote the public !ood only

but also to maintain the di!nity of the profession by the

weedin! out of those who have proven themselves unworthy

thereof.A2:

herefore, in the instant case, the Court cannot Gust set aside

the ndin! of culpability a!ainst the respondents merely

because the complainants have decided to for!ive them or

settle matters amicably after the case was completely

evaluated and reviewed by the +B. he complainants

for!iveness or even withdrawal from the case does not ipso

*a!to obliterate the misconduct committed by rancisco. o

be!in with, it is already too late in the day for the

complainants to withdraw the disbarment case considerin!

that they had already presented and supported their claims

with convincin! and credible evidence, and the +B has

promul!ated a resolution on the basis thereof.

o be clear, @OiPn administrative cases for disbarment or

suspension a!ainst lawyers, the =uantum of proof re=uired is

clearly preponderant evidence and the burden of proof rests

upon the complainant.A2> +n the present case, it was clearly

established that rancisco received 27,777.77 as initial

payment from the complainants in compliance with the terms

of their out8of8court settlement for the payment of the latters

outstandin! obli!ations. he amount was duly received and

ac"nowled!ed by rancisco, who drafted the same in a paper

with the letterhead of his own law o6ce, a fact he did not

deny. ?hile the respondents deny that they told the

complainants not to attend the pre8trial of the case anymore

and that they will be the one to inform the trial court of the

settlement, they did not brin! the said a!reement to the

attention of the court. hus, the trial court, oblivious of the

settlement of the parties, rendered a Gud!ment by default

a!ainst the complainants. he respondents even led a

motion for e3ecution of the decision but still did not inform the

trial court of the out8of8court settlement between them and

the complainants. hey deliberately failed to mention thissupervenin! event to the trial court, hence, violatin! the

standards of honesty provided for in the Code of rofessional

Responsibility, which statesF

C#$$ 0 V # lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the

laws of the land and promote respect for law and for le!al

processes.

Rule 0.70 V # lawyer shall not en!a!e in unlawful, dishonest,

immoral or deceitful conduct.

3 3 3 3

C#$$ 07 V # lawyer owes candor, fairness and !ood faith tothe court.

Rule 07.70 V # lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent

to the doin! of any in CourtH nor shall he mislead or allow the

court to be misled by any artice.

he complainants belated claim that the respondents were

faultless and that the alle!ations stated in the disbarment

complaint were Gust fabricated by their former counsel cannot

stand a!ainst the clear and preponderant evidence they

earlier presented. +t is ine3plicable how the complainants

could now claim that the respondents were blameless when

the records tell otherwise. hat they were simply duped by



#tty. aras into si!nin! the numerous pleadin!s he led on

their behalf is hardly believable considerin! that #ida is well8

lettered, bein! a public school teacher. hey also do not claim

that they were prevented from readin! the contents of the

pleadin!s or that their si!natures were simply for!ed. #t any

rate, while it may be true that #tty. aras fabricated some of

the facts stated in the disbarment complaint, these matters

are trivial and do not relate to the facts material to the char!e

of misconduct a!ainst rancisco. ?hat clearly appears is that

the facts material to the violation committed by rancisco are

well8established notwithstandin! #tty. aras supposed

fabrication of some insi!nicant particulars.

1E%EO%E, for deliberately misleadin! the Court, #tty.

rancisco 5y Uap is hereby S&S/ENDED from the practice of

law for a period of three (1) months eJective upon receipt of

this Resolution, with a S+E%N 1A%NIN* that a repetition of

the same or similar act in the future shall be dealt with

severely.

Let copies of this Resolution be furnished to the +nte!rated Ba

of the hilippines and the 6ce of the Court #dministrator

which shall circulate the same in all courts in the country, and

spread upon the personal records of the respondent lawyer in

the 6ce of the Bar Condant.

SO O%DE%ED.

Documents

Cases on legal ethics: quantum of evidence, effect of desistance