Thursday - Legal Ethics.docx

ROSE BUNAGAN-BANSIG vs. ATTY. ROGELIO JUAN A. CELERA A.C. No. 5581. January 14, 2014. PER CURIAM Facts: Bansig, sister of Bunagan narrated that, respondent and Grace Marie R. Bunagan, entered into a contract of marriage. However, notwithstanding respondent’s marriage with Bunagan, respondent contracted another marriage with a certain Ma. Cielo Paz Torres Alba, as evidenced by a certified xerox copy of the certificate of marriage. Bansig stressed that the marriage between respondent and Bunagan was still valid and in full legal existence when he contracted his second marriage with Alba, and that the first marriage had never been annulled or rendered void by any lawful authority. Bansig alleged that respondent’s act of contracting marriage with Alba, while his marriage is still subsisting, constitutes grossly immoral and conduct unbecoming of a member of the Bar, which renders him unfit to continue his membership in the Bar. Despite repeated summons and resolutions issued by the Court, Atty. Celera failed to properly answer the complaint. The complaint dragged on for over a decade. Issue: Whether respondent is still fit to continue to be an officer of the court in the dispensation of justice. Ruling: For purposes of this disbarment proceeding, these Marriage Certificates bearing the name of respondent are competent and convincing evidence to prove that he committed bigamy, which renders him unfit to continue as a member of the Bar The Code of Professional Responsibility provides: Rule 1.01- A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. Canon 7- A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession, and support the activities of the Integrated Bar. Rule 7.03- A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession. Respondent exhibited a deplorable lack of that degree of morality required of him as a member of the Bar. He made a mockery of marriage, a sacred institution demanding respect and dignity. His act of contracting a second marriage while his first marriage is subsisting constituted grossly

immoral conduct and are grounds for disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court. Considering respondent's propensity to disregard not only the laws of the land but also the lawful orders of the Court, it only shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity and good demeanor. He is, thus, unworthy to continue as an officer of the court. ATTY. ROGELIO JUAN A. CELERA, guilty of grossly immoral conduct and willful disobedience of lawful orders rendering him unworthy of continuing membership in the legal profession. He is thus ordered DISBARRED from the practice of law and his name stricken of the Roll of Attorneys, effective immediately. SOLIMAN M. SANTOS, JR. vs. ATTY. FRANCISCO R. LLAMAS A.C No. 4749. January 20, 2000. MENDOZA, J. Facts: This is a complaint for misrepresentation and non-payment of bar membership dues filed against respondent Atty. Francisco R. Llamas. In a letter-complaint to this Court dated February 8, 1997, complainant Soliman M. Santos, Jr., himself a member of the bar, alleged that Atty. Llamas, who for a number of years now, has not indicated the proper PTR and IBP OR Nos. and data in his pleadings. If at all, he only indicated IBP Rizal 259060 but he has been using this for at least 3 years already. On the other hand, respondent, who is now of age, averred that he is only engaged in a limited practice of law and under RA 7432, as a senior citizen, he is exempted from payment of income taxes and included in this exemption, is the payment of membership dues. Issue: Whether or not the respondent has misled the court about his standing in the IBP by using the same IBP O.R. number in his pleadings of at least 6 years and therefore liable for his actions. Whether or not the respondent is exempt from paying his membership dues owing to limited practice of law and for being a senior citizen. Ruling: Yes. By indicating "IBP-Rizal 259060" in his pleadings and thereby misrepresenting to the public and the courts that he had paid his IBP dues to the Rizal Chapter, respondent is guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides: Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. His act is also a violation of Rule 10.01 which provides that: A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor mislead or allow the court to be misled by any artifice. No. Rule 139-A requires that every member of the Integrated Bar shall pay annual dues and default thereof for six months shall warrant suspension of membership and if nonpayment covers a period of 1-year, default shall be a ground for removal of the delinquent’s name from the Roll of Attorneys. It does not matter whether or not respondent is only engaged in “limited” practice of law. Moreover, While it is true that R.A. No. 7432, grants senior citizens "exemption

from the payment of individual income taxes: provided, that their annual taxable income does not exceed the poverty level as determined by the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) for that year," the exemption however does not include payment of membership or association dues. Respondent's failure to pay his IBP dues and his misrepresentation in the pleadings he filed in court indeed merit the most severe penalty. However, in view of respondent's advanced age, his express willingness to pay his dues and plea for a more temperate application of the law, we believe the penalty of one year suspension from the practice of law or until he has paid his IBP dues, whichever is later, is appropriate. Respondent Atty. Francisco R. Llamas is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for ONE (1) YEAR, or until he has paid his IBP dues, whichever is later. JIMMY ANUDON and JUANITA ANUDON vs ATTY. ARTURO B. CEFRA A.C. No. 5482. February 10, 2015. LEONEN, J. Facts: Complainants Jimmy Anudon and Juanita Anudon are brother- and sister-in-law. Complainants, along with Jimmy’s brothers and sister, co-own a 4,446 square meter parcel of land located in Sison, Pangasinan. Atty. Cefra notarized a Deed of Absolute Sale over a land owned by the complainants. The names of petitioners appeared as vendors, while the name of Celino Paran, Jr. appeared as the vendee. The complainants claimed that the Deed of Absolute Sale was falsified. They alleged that they did not sign it before Atty. Cefra. The National Bureau of Investigation’s Questioned Documents Division certified that Jimmy and Juanita’s signatures were forged. This was contrary to Atty. Cefra’s acknowledgment over the document. Moreover, it was physically impossible for Jimmy’s brothers and sister to have signed the document because they were somewhere else at that time. Due to the forgery of the Deed of Absolute Sale, the Assistant Prosecutor, with Jimmy and Juanita as witness, filed a case of falsification of public document against Atty. Cefra and Paran. Issue: Whether or not the respondent guilty of violating the Notarial Law and Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). Ruling: Respondent Atty. Arturo B. Cefra violated the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility in notarizing a document without requiring the presence of the affiants. The notarization of documents ensures the authenticity and reliability of a document. As this court previously explained: Notarization of a private document converts such document into a public one, and renders it admissible in court without further proof of its authenticity. Courts, administrative agencies and the public at large must be able to rely upon the acknowledgment executed by a notary public and appended to a private instrument. Notarization is not an empty routine; to the contrary, it engages public interest in a substantial degree and the protection of that interest requires preventing those who are not qualified or authorized to act as notaries public from imposing upon the public and the courts and administrative offices generally.

Atty. Cefra claims that Jimmy and Juanita wanted to sell their land. Even if this is true, Jimmy and Juanita, as vendors, were not able to review the document given for notarization. The Deed of Absolute Sale was brought to Atty. Cefra by Paran’s representatives, who merely informed Atty. Cefra that the vendors signed the document. Atty. Cefra should have exercised vigilance and not just relied on the representations of the vendee. Aside from Atty. Cefra’s violation of his duty as a notary public, Atty. Cefra is also guilty of violating Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. This canon requires "[a] lawyer [to] uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes." He contumaciously delayed compliance with this court’s order to file a Comment. The act of disobeying a court order constitutes violation of Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which requires a lawyer to "observe and maintain the respect due to the courts" WHEREFORE, this court finds respondent Atty. Arturo B. Cefra GUILTY of notarizing the Deed of Absolute Sale dated August 12, 1998 in the absence of the affiants, as well as failure to comply with an order from this court. Accordingly, this court SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for two (2) years, REVOKES his incumbent notarial commission, if any, and PERPETUALLY DISQUALIFIES him from being commissioned as a notary public. Respondent is also STERNLY WARNED that more severe penalties will be imposed for any further breach of the Canons in the Code of Professional Responsibility. LICERIO DIZON vs ATTY. MARCELINO CABUCANA, JR. A.C. No. 10185. March 12, 2014. MENDOZA, J. Facts: On May 14, 2004, complainant Licerio Dizon (complainant) filed a petition against Atty. Marcelino Cabucana, Jr. (Atty. Cabucana), before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), praying for the disbarment of the latter for falsification of public document. In his petition, Dizon alleged that he was one of the would-be-buyers of a parcel of land owned by the heirs of the late Florentino Callangan, namely, Susana, Jun and Angeleta, all surnamed Callangan, a compromise agreement was executed by the parties in the said case and notarized before Atty. Cabucana on the same date it was signed at the MTCC; that at the hearing conducted on December 11, 2003 regarding the due execution and the veracity of the compromise agreement, the signatories therein testified that they signed the instrument in the court room of MTCC but not in the presence of Atty. Cabucana as Notary Public; that because of the irregularity in the due execution of the Compromise Agreement, there was undue delay in the resolution/decision of Civil Case No. 1-689 which caused damage and injury to complainant; that Atty. Cabucana violated the Notarial Law in notarizing the document in the absence of most of the signatories/affiants; and that he should be sanctioned in accordance with Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Code and Code of Professional Responsibility. Complainant further alleged that Atty. Cabucana uttered grave threats against him after the hearing of the said case in MTCC. In his Answer, Atty. Cabucana averred that the complaint was intended to harass him because he was the private prosecutor in a criminal case filed against complainant before the MTCC;

that complainant had no cause of action as his right was not violated because he was just a "would be" buyer and not a party to the compromise agreement; and that complainant would not suffer any damage by the pendency of the case or by any defects obtaining in the notarization of the compromise agreement. Issue: Is the respondent guilty in violation of the Notarial Law for notarizingthe docu%ents without the presence of all the parties therein Ruling: Section 1, Public Act No. 2103, otherwise known as the Notarial Law states: The acknowledgment shall be before a notary public or an officer duly authorized by law of the country to take acknowledgments of instruments or documents in the place where the act is done. The notary public or the officer taking the acknowledgment shall certify that the person acknowledging the instrument or document is known to him and that he is the same person who executed it, acknowledged that the same is his free act and deed. The certificate shall be made under the official seal, if he is required by law to keep a seal, and if not, his certificate shall so state. The requirement of affiant's personal appearance was further emphasized in Section 2 (b) of Rule IV of the Rules on Notarial Practice of 2004 which provides that: A person shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as signatory to the instrument or document – (1) is not in the notary's presence personally at the time of the notarization; and (2) is not personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules. As a notary public, Atty. Cabucana should not notarize a document unless the person who signs it is the same person executing it and personally appearing before him to attest to the truth of its contents. This is to enable him to verify the genuineness of the signature of the acknowledging party and to ascertain that the document is the party's free and voluntary act and deed. WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Atty. Marcelino Cabucana, Jr. GUILTY of violating Rule 1.01, Canon l of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, the Court SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for three (3) months, REVOKES his incumbent notarial commission, if any, and PROHIBITS him from being commissioned as a notary public for two (2) years, effective immediately, with a stern WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.

NESTOR FELIPE, ALBERTO V. FELIPE, AURORA FELIPE-ORANTE, ASUNCION FELIPEDOMINGO, MILAGROS FELIPE CABIGTING, and RODOLFO V. FELIPE vs. ATTY. CIRIACO A. MACAPAGAL A.C. No. 4549. December 2, 2013. DEL CASTILLO, J. Facts: Petition for disbarment was filed against respondent Atty. Ciriaco A. Macapagal. In A Resolution dated June 19, 1996, we required respondent to comment. Respondent received a copy of the Resolution on July 16, 1996.3 On August 15, 1996, respondent filed an Urgent Ex-Parte Motion For Extension Of Time To File Comment. He requested for additional period of 30 days within which to file his comment citing numerous professional commitments. We granted said request in our October 2, 1996 Resolution. The extended deadline passed sans respondent’s comment. Thus on January 29, 1997, complainants file an Urgent Motion To Submit The Administrative Case For Resolution Without Comment Of Respondent claiming the respondent is deemed to have waived his right to file comment. It took 11 years, more particularly on February 26, 2010, before the IBP, thru Investigating Commissioner Agustinus V. Gonzaga, submitted its Report and Recommendation. In his Report, the Investigating Commissioner quoted verbatim the allegations in the Petition; he then narrated the proceedings undertaken by the IBP. Unfortunately, no discussion was made regarding the merits of the complaint. However, it was recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one (1) month. In their Petition, complainants alleged that they are co-plaintiffs while respondent is the counsel for the defendants therein; that respondent committed dishonesty when he stated in the defendants' Answer that the parties therein are strangers to each other despite knowing that the defendants are half-brothers and half-sisters of complainants; and that they filed a criminal case for Perjury [against the defendants pending before Branch 36 of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila. Complainants also alleged that respondent introduced a falsified Certificate of Marriage as part of his evidence; and that they filed another Perjury charge. Complainants insisted that by the foregoing actuations, respondent violated his duty as a lawyer and prayed that he be disbarred and ordered to pay complainants the amount of ₱500,000 representing the damages that they suffered. Issue: Ruling: Respondent's unjustified disregard of the lawful orders of this Court and the IBP is not only irresponsible, but also constitutes utter disrespect for the judiciary and his fellow lawyers. His conduct is unbecoming of a lawyer, for lawyers are particularly called upon to obey court orders and processes and are expected to stand foremost in complying with court directives being themselves officers of the court. As an officer of the court, respondent is expected to know that a resolution of this Court is not a mere request but an order which should be complied with promptly and completely. This is also true of the orders of the IBP as the investigating arm of the Court in administrative cases against lawyers.

Under the circumstances, we deem a reprimand with warning commensurate to the infraction committed by the respondent. ACCORDINGLY , respondent Atty. Ciriaco A. Macapagal is REPRIMANDED for failing to give due respect to the Court and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. He is WARNED that commission of a similar infraction will be dealt with more severely. Resolution No. XX-2011-246 dated November 19, 2011 of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines is SET ASIDE. A.C. No. 4549 is DISMISSED without prejudice. Let a copy of this Resolution be entered in the personal records of respondent as a member of the Bar, and copies furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts in the country. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. THE HONORABLE JUANITO C. CASTANEDA, JR., HONORABLE CAESAR A. CASANOVA, HONORABLE CIELITO N. MINDARO-GRULLA, AS ASSOCIATE JUSTICES OF THE SPECIAL SECOND DIVISION, COURT OF TAX APPEALS; and MYRNA M. GARCIA AND CUSTODIO MENDOZA VESTIDAS, JR. G.R. No. 208290. December 11, 2013. PER CURIAM. Facts: Issue: Ruling: