Finals 2.docx

Cristobal v. Renta A.C. No. 9925 VILLARAMA, JR., J.:

September 17, 2014

Facts: Complainant engaged the services of Renta, Pe & Associates Law Office for the filing of a petition for recognition for the minors Codie Darnell Green and Matthew Darnell Green" before the Bureau of Immigration. Respondent, the managing partner of the firm, signed the "Special Contract of Legal Services" and received the "full and package price" of P160,000 for the filing of the petition for recognition. However, no petition was filed. Complainant then filed against respondent due to the latter's failure to file the petition for recognition and return the amount of P160,000 despite demand. Respondent explained that it was supposedly Tan to file the petition but lost it without informing him of such fact and assured that he will return the money. Respondent submitted complainant's Affidavit of Desistance which averred that respondent cried for forgiveness and that he has forgiven him. Complainant confirmed that respondent had already refunded the amount he paid. Issue: Whether or not respondent may be disbarred for his breached duty to serve complainant with diligence and neglected a legal matter entrusted to him. Held: Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility reads: CANON 18 – A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE. x x x x Rule 18.03 – A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. We have held that once a lawyer agrees to handle a case, it is that lawyer's duty to serve the client with competence and diligence. On complainant’s affidavit of desistance, it was held that execution cannot have the effect of abating the instant proceedings against respondent in view of the public service character of the practice of law and the nature of disbarment proceedings as a public interest concern. A disbarment case is not an investigation into the acts of respondent but on his conduct as an officer of the court and his fitness to continue as a member of the Bar. It was held that the respondent violated Canon 18, Rule 18.03 and reprimanded with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar act would be dealt with more severely.

A.C. No. 5914, March 11, 2015 SPOUSES ROGELIO AMATORIO AND AIDA AMATORIO, Complainants, v. ATTY. FRANCISCO DY YAP AND ATTY. WHELMA F. SITON-YAP, Respondents. COMPLAINANT: Complainants alleged that the respondents employed deceit to obtain favorable judgments by failing to inform the trial court that there was already an out-of-court settlement between them and maliciously manifesting that their counsel, Atty. Paras was suspended from the practice of law. The complainants asseverated that they are clients of Atty. Paras in two collection cases filed against them by the respondents. In one case respondents sued the complainants to compel them to pay their debt of P18,000.00 evidenced by a promissory note. After they filed their answer, the respondents filed a motion to strike out the same and to declare them in default on the ground that the said pleading was prepared by a lawyer suspended from the practice of law. The motion was however denied. On the other case, the respondents sued the complainants to collect P94,173.44. The answer filed by Atty. Paras was however stricken off the record for the reason that he was suspended from the practice of law at the time of its filing. Complainants decided to seek an out-of-court settlement. Mrs. Amatorio went to the respondents’ law office. She appealed for the respondents’ consideration and asked that they be allowed to pay their obligations by way of installment. The parties agreed on the terms of payment and, on that same day, Aida tendered her first payment of P20,000.00, which was received and duly acknowledged. Relying on the respondents’ assurance that they did not need attend the pre-trial conference, complainants did not attend. The trial court declared them in default and ordering them to pay the amount of their indebtedness and damages. The decision however did not mention the out-of-court settlement between the parties. Nonetheless, the complainants continued tendering installment payments to the respondents upon the latter’s assurance that they will disregard the decision of the trial court since they already had an out-of-court settlement before the rendition of said judgment. They went to Atty. Carriaga who told them that they have a good ground to file a disbarment case against the respondents. He, however, declined to handle the case himself as he disclosed that his wife is a relative of the respondents. Instead, he referred the complainants to Atty. Paras, who had just resumed his practice of law after his suspension. As foretold by Atty. Paras, the complainants experienced unpleasant backlash which were allegedly instigated by the respondents who come from a very powerful and affluent clan. They received threats of physical harm and Aida’s continued employment as a public school teacher was put in jeopardy. Also, suspicious-looking individuals were seen loitering around their house. When they refused to yield to the respondents’ intimidation, the latter resorted to the filing of charges against them, to wit: (1) an administrative case against Aida for failure to pay the same debts subject of this case; and (2) a criminal case for perjury against the complainants. To alleviate their situation, they filed a Joint-Affidavit,7 seeking the assistance of this Court to warn the respondents and to stop them from employing deplorable acts upon them. RESPONDENT: Respondents asserted that Atty. Paras clearly defied the authority of this Court when he represented the complainants and filed an answer on their behalf during the period of his suspension from the practice of law. They alleged that he appeared in several cases and filed numerous pleadings despite his suspension.

The Investigating Commissioner ruled against that Francisco Yap’s signature appeared in all the Acknowledgement Receipts and in all Motions filed in the civil courts and that he alone should be penalized suspending him from the practice of law for three (3) months. On March 27, 2006, the respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration/Petition for Review. Complainants later filed a Manifestation, terminating the services of Atty. Paras and/or Paras-Enojo and Associates as their counsel for the reason that they can no longer afford the services of a private counsel and executed a Judicial Affidavit, disclaiming knowledge and participation in the preparation of the complaint and the pleadings filed on their behalf by Atty. Paras in connection with the disbarment case against the respondents. The IBP Board of Governors denied the motion for reconsideration. Respondents filed a motion for reconsideration, claiming that the admission of the complainants in the proved that the disbarment case filed against them was just fabricated by Atty. Paras. ISSUE: Whether the statements of the complainants, specifically contesting the truthfulness of the allegations hurled against the respondents in their own complaint for disbarment necessarily results to Francisco’s absolution. HELD: NO. The CPR was promulgated to guide the members of the bar by informing them of the deportment expected of them in leading both their professional and private lives. Primarily, it aims to protect the integrity and nobility of the legal profession, to breed honest and principled lawyers and prune the association of the unworthy. The Court cannot simply yield to complainants’ change of heart by refuting their own statements against the respondents and praying that the complaint for disbarment they filed be dismissed. It bears emphasizing that any misconduct on the part of the lawyer not only hurts the client’s cause but is even more disparaging on the integrity of the legal profession itself. Thus, for tarnishing the reputation of the profession, a lawyer may still be disciplined notwithstanding the complainant’s pardon or withdrawal from the case for as long as there is evidence to support any finding of culpability. A case for suspension or disbarment may proceed “regardless of interest or lack of interest of the complainants, if the facts proven so warrant.”23 It follows that the withdrawal of the complainant from the case, or even the filing of an affidavit of desistance, does not conclude the administrative case against an erring lawyer. This is so because The misconduct of a lawyer is deemed a violation of his oath to keep sacred the integrity of the profession for which he must be disciplined. Proceedings to discipline erring members of the bar are not instituted only to protect and promote the public good but also to maintain the dignity of the profession by the weeding out of those who have proven themselves unworthy thereof.” Therefore, in the instant case, the Court cannot just set aside the finding of culpability against the respondents merely because the complainants have decided to forgive them or settle matters amicably after the case was completely evaluated and reviewed by the IBP. The complainants’ forgiveness or even withdrawal from the case does not ipso facto obliterate the misconduct committed by Francisco. To begin with, it is already too late in the day for the complainants to withdraw the disbarment case considering that they had already presented and supported their claims with convincing and credible evidence, and the IBP has promulgated a resolution on the basis thereof. The complainants’ belated claim that the respondents were faultless and that the allegations stated in the disbarment complaint were just fabricated by their former counsel cannot stand against the clear and preponderant evidence they earlier presented. It is inexplicable how the complainants could now claim that the respondents were blameless when the records tell otherwise. That they were simply duped by Atty. Paras into signing the numerous pleadings he filed on their behalf is hardly believable considering that Aida is well-lettered, being a public school teacher. They also do not claim that they were prevented from reading the contents of the

pleadings or that their signatures were simply forged. At any rate, while it may be true that Atty. Paras fabricated some of the facts stated in the disbarment complaint, these matters are trivial and do not relate to the facts material to the charge of misconduct against Francisco. What clearly appears is that the facts material to the violation committed by Francisco are well-established notwithstanding Atty. Paras’ supposed fabrication of some insignificant particulars. WHEREFORE, for deliberately misleading the Court, Atty. Francisco Dy Yap is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of three (3) months effective upon receipt of this Resolution, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act in the future shall be dealt with severely.

OLAYTA-CAMBA vs. ATTY. SY BONGON A.C. No. 8826 March 25, 2015 PERLAS-BERNABE, J.: Facts: Complainant alleged she engaged the services of respondent for the titling and/or reconstituting the titles to the real estate properties of the late Bernabe Olayta, situated in the Municipalities of Camalig and Guinobatan, both in the province of Albay. In connection therewith, she claimed to have given the aggregate amount of P12,499.55 to respondent. Despite the foregoing, respondent failed to update complainant regarding the status of the matters referred to him. Thus, complainant terminated her engagement with respondent and demanded for the return of 112,499.55, but to no avail. Hence, she filed the instant complaint before the Court. Respondent asserts that he only received 55,000.00 and that the rest of the money was received by a certain Delos Reyes-Kelly who was not an employee of his law firm. Further, he averred that he had already offered to return the amount of 30,000.00 to complainant, claiming that he already earned the fees for legal services in the amount of 20,000.00 for having studied the matter entrusted to him and drafted the Deed of Extrajudicial Partition (Deed) that underwent several revisions. Issue: Whether or not respondent should be held administratively liable for the acts complained of Ruling: Yes. CANON 18 – A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE. Rule 18.03 – A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. Once a lawyer takes up the cause of his client, he is duty-bound to serve the latter with competence, and to attend to such client’s cause with diligence, care, and devotion whether he accepts it for a fee or for free. CANON 16 – A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS AND PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT THAT MAY COME INTO HIS POSSESSION. Rule 16.01 – A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from the client. Rule 16.03 – A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon demand. When a lawyer receives money from the client for a particular purpose, the lawyer is bound to render an accounting to the client showing that the money was spent for the intended purpose. Consequently, if not used accordingly, the money must be returned immediately to the client. Clearly, respondent failed to exercise such skill, care, and diligence as men of the legal profession commonly possess and exercise in such matters of professional employment and, hence, must be disciplined accordingly.

LETTER OF PRESIDING JUSTICE CONRADO M. VASQUEZ A.M. NO. 08-8-11-CA : October 15, 2008 PER CURIAM: Facts: Several motions for reconsideration of our Decision dated September 9, 2008, sanctioning several justices of the Court of Appeals (CA) for improprieties or irregularities in connection with CA G.R.-SP No. 103692, entitled "Antonio Rosete, et al. v. Securities and Exchange Commission, et al." (the Meralco-GSIS case). In the Motion for Reconsideration of Justice Sabio claims he did not violate Canon 13 of the Code of Professional Responsibility considering that: (a) it was his brother Chairman Camilo Sabio (Chairman Sabio) of the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) who initiated the call; (b) all Justice Sabio did was answer a call from his brother without knowing beforehand what the call was about; (c) Justice Sabio told his brother that he would vote according to his conscience and did not do as his brother asked; (d) after that call, they never spoke on the matter again; (e) even though Justice Sabio defended his brother's "act of enlisting the Justice's support," he (Justice Sabio) should not be made liable for his brother's act. From the foregoing, it would appear that Justice Sabio is arguing from the mistaken premise that he was likewise being held accountable under Canon 13 of the Code of Professional Responsibility or that he is being held accountable for the acts of his brother. The Panel of Investigators indeed used Canon 13 to characterize his conversation with his brother as improper and the same provision was the basis for this Court to refer Chairman Sabio's act to the Bar Confidant for appropriate action. Issue: Whether or not Judge Sabio violated the Canons of Judicial Ethics. Ruling: Yes. Under the Canons of Judicial Ethics, it states that: Canon 1. Independence. Sec. 1. Judges shall exercise the judicial function independently x x x free from extraneous influence, inducement, pressure, threat or interference, direct or indirect, from any quarter or for any reason; Sec. 4. Judges shall not allow family, social, or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment. The prestige of judicial office shall not be used or lent to advance the private interests of others, nor convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge; Sec. 5. Judges shall not only be free from inappropriate connections with, and influence by, the executive and legislative branches of government, but must also appear to be free therefrom to a reasonable observer. Justice Sabio, by his own action, or more accurately inaction, failed to maintain the high standard of independence and propriety that is required of him. While it is true that Justice Sabio could not have possibly known prior to his brother's call that his brother intended to speak to him about the Meralco-GSIS case, the fact remains that Justice Sabio continued to entertain a call from his brother, who also happens to be an officer of the executive branch, despite realizing that the conversation was going to involve a pending case. In his Motion, Justice Sabio asks the Court if he should have immediately slammed the phone on his brother. Certainly, such boorish behavior is not required. However, as soon as Justice Sabio realized that his brother intended to discuss a case pending before him or in his division, Justice Sabio should have respectfully but firmly ended the discussion. Justice Sabio in his own affidavit narrated that Chairman Sabio told him of matters in the Meralco-GSIS case that Justice Sabio himself had not been formally informed. He further alleged that his brother tried to convince him of rightness of the stand of GSIS and the SEC. The improper substance of the conversation was confirmed in Chairman Sabio's own statement before the Panel. Justice Sabio had no business discussing with his brother court matters which by his own account are not yet "official" and more importantly, he should not have allowed the conversation to progress to a point that his brother was already discussing the merits of the case and persuading him to rule in favor of one of the parties.

Perez vs Costales A.M. No. RTJ-04-1876, February 23, 2005 AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.: Facts: An administrative complaint was filed by Perez and Ronquillo, professors of the Don Mariano Marcos Memorial State University, South La Union, against Judge Costales of the RTC of Urdaneta City, charging him of violating Canons 2 and 3, and Rules 2.04 and 3.12 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, and for Harassment. Complainants are 2 of 4 professors accused by respondent’ wife of the crime of Estafa. Ronquillo is also an accused in a case for violation of BP 22. The following are the acts complained of against respondent Judge: 1) On June 24, 2002, respondent Judge was with his wife during the hearing of Criminal Case No. 4338 (B.P. Blg. 22 case); 2) On October 15, 2002, respondent Judge testified in behalf of the prosecution in Criminal Case No. 2722-BG (Estafa case); 3) Respondent Judge pressured and made follow-ups on the case with the public prosecutor; 4) Respondent Judge writote to the universitys administrative officials inquiring as to what actions have been taken or would be taken against the complainants The OCA found that respondent Judge should be reprimanded for having written the university officials Issue: Whether or not respondent should be held administratively liable Ruling: Yes. Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct decrees that a judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities. Specifically, Rule 2.01 mandates that a judge should so behave at all times as to promote public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary. This includes a judges behavior in the performance of his judicial duties, outside of it, and in his private capacity. In writing to the administrative officials, respondent judge obviously sought to influence or put pressure on them with regard to the actions to be taken against the four professors. His wife could have written the letter herself, as she is the complainant in the criminal cases against the four professors. Instead, it was respondent judge who did, and he even used and stated his judicial position in his letter, thereby insinuating that it should not be ignored or trifled with. It cannot be gainsaid that respondent Judge is aware that his judicial position alone could exert influence or authority over the university officials, and he took advantage of such authority.

RE: SUSPENSION OF CLERK OF COURT ROGELIO R. JOBOCO, RTC, BRANCH 16 NAVAL, BILIRAN A.M. No. 93-10-1296-RTC; August 12, 1998 MARTINEZ, J.: Facts: This is a series of complaints and counter-complaints between Judge Bonifacio S. Maceda,then Acting Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Br. 16, Naval, Biliran (now RTC Judge in Las Piñas, Metro Manila) and Atty. Rogelio R. Joboco, then Branch Clerk of Court of the same Regional Trial Court (now Assistant Prosecutor in Samar). Judge Maceda charges Atty. Joboco of (1) Infidelity in the Custody of Case Records, (2) Dishonesty,(3) Sabotaging Judicial Reforms, (4) Grave Misconduct, Usurpation of Judicial Authority, Tampering of Subpoena, (5) Insubordination, (6) Falsification of Accomplishment of Certificate of Service, and (7)Agitating Workers to go on Mass Leave and Notorious Undesirability. Atty. Joboco, on the other hand, alleges (1) Oppression, (2) Continuing Oppression, (3) Gross Ignorance of the Law, (4) Abuse of Position, (5) Gross Abuse of Discretion Using his Position, and (6)Conduct Unbecoming of a Judge. Issue: Whether or not Atty. Joboco is guilty of violating Canon 6 of the Canon of Judicial Ethics? Held: Although we are inclined to impose the penalty of suspension on Atty. Joboco, his subsequent appointment as 3rd Assistant City Prosecutor of Calbayog City has made the aforesaid sanction impracticable. The diversity and multiplicity of Atty. Joboco's transgressions clearly reflect his defiant demeanor and contumacious character which cannot be countenanced in the judiciary. Suchrecalcitrant attitude manifested by Atty. Joboco in his capacity as Branch Clerk of Court not onlydiminishes his integrity as an officer of the court but degrades the dignity of the judicial system aswell.WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, we find Atty. Rogelio R. Joboco GUILTY of the followingcharges: Infidelity in the Custody of Court Records, Usurpation of Judicial Authority, Grave Misconduct and Tampering Subpoena, Falsification of Certificates of Service,Misconduct for attempting to utilize the court employees for the ends of the local IBP and Absence Without Official Leave (AWOL). He is hereby FINED P20,000.00. All other charges against him are DISMISSED for lack of merit. The charges against Judge Bonifacio Sanz Maceda are hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. Heis, however, ADMONISHED for having abused his authority by unjustly refusing to sign the certificatesof service of his Clerk of Court which resulted in the withholding of the latter's salary. He is likewiseADVISED to exert care and consideration in his dealings with his office staff in order to avert anyfuture repetition of these administrative misdemeanors.