Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Ble Cases
Ble Cases
AQUINO, J.:
+.wph!1
1wph1.t
VILLASANTA
A.M. No. 2349 July 3, 1992
DOROTHY B. TERRE, complainant, vs.ATTY. JORDAN
TERRE, respondent.
PER CURIAM:
In a sworn complaint filed with this Court on 24
December 1981, complainant Dorothy B. Terre charged
respondent Jordan Terre, a member of the Philippine Bar
with "grossly immoral conduct," consisting of contracting
a second marriage and living with another woman other
than complainant, while his prior marriage with
complainant remained subsisting.
The Court resolved to require respondent to answer the
complaint. 1 Respondent successfully evaded five (5)
SO ORDERED.
Padilla, Davide, Jr., Romero, Melo, Puno, Vitug,
Kapunan, Mendoza, Hermosisima, Jr.,
Panganiban and Torres, Jr., J.J., concur.
Narvasa, C.J., took no part.
Bellosillo and Francisco, JJ., are on leave.
Footnotes
1 Rollo, 1-2.
REGALA, J.:
2 Ibid., 15-16.
3 Ibid., 19-20.
1wph1.t
.
On December 6, 1963, a copy of the complaint
was sent by registered mail direct to Simbol at
232 Maria Cristina St., Dumaguete City. It was
returned to this Court with the notation on the
envelope that said respondent was no longer in
that city.
At the hearing set by this Court for February 3,
1964, Solicitor Sumilang V. Bernardo and Atty.
Tomas Yumul for complainant appeared. They
submitted the case for decision without oral
argument. There was no appearance for
respondent.
1. The problem that at once projects itself is: Can
we proceed further on the face of the facts that:
first, there is no answer to the complaint of the
Solicitor General; and, second, at the hearing
before this Court neither respondent nor counsel
appeared? The controlling statute, Section 30,
Rule 138, Rules of Court, reads:
SEC. 30. Attorney to be heard before removal or
suspension.No attorney shall be removed or
suspended from the practice of his profession,
recommendation.
and recommendation.
lawphil.net
Footnotes
the deadline.
(k) Respondent specifically denies the allegation
contained in paragraph 20 of the Complaint for
the reason that as already propounded in
paragraph 12 of this comment, the mere
inclusion of a person in the income tax return as
a spouse, does not, in truth and in fact, make a
person a legally married person. ... The inclusion
of Nenita Martelino Ureta as a spouse in the
income tax return was to indicate the mother of
the children who are listed as dependents in the
income tax return.
(l) Respondent specifically denies the allegation
contained in paragraph 21 of the Complaint. The
truth of the matter is, respondent has been filing
a complete and accurate income tax return
stating facts which he believes to be true. This is
evidenced by the fact that up to the present time,
no investigation, assessment or inspection of
books of accounts of respondent has been made
by the Bureau of Internal Revenue or other
government agencies; neither is there any
pending investigation of tax fraud against
respondent.
PER CURIAM:
PER CURIAM:
R E S O L U T I O N
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C.J., Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Feliciano,
Padilla, Bidin, Grio-Aquino, Regalado, Davide,
Jr., Romero, Nocon, Bellosillo, Melo and
Campos, Jr., JJ., concur.
DELAY
July 26, 1910
ELEUTERIO MONDAYA.
MAXIMO DELOLA.
SEGUNDO BECERRO.
TOMAS VILLAMOR.
ONOFRE ELIMANCE.
ANDRES CALINAUAN.
BERNARDINO TANDOY.
EUSEBIO LIRIO.
concur.
Footnotes
1
FERNANDO, J.:
Any effort on the litigant to delay, if not to defeat,
the enforcement of a final judgment, executory in
character, by raising an objection that at best
# Footnotes
1 Plaintiffs are Victoria Aguinaldo and Simeona
Aguinaldo.
2 Sec. 16, Rule 3, Rules of Court.
3 77 Phil. 703 (1946); Cf. Shioji v. Harvey, 43
8 Ibid., p. 394.
BARREDO, J.:
SO ORDERED.
SO ORDERED.
5
The sum and total of all the foregoing
considerations of equity:
1. It is very clear to Us that the procedural
maneuver resorted to by private respondent in
securing the decision in her favor was illconceived. It was characterized by that which
every principle of law and equity disdains
taking unfair advantage of the rules of procedure
in order to unduly deprive the other party of full
opportunity to defend his cause. The idea of
"dropping" the non-defaulted defendants with the
end in view of completely incapacitating their codefendants from making any defense, without
considering that all of them are indispensable
parties to a common cause of action to which
they have countered with a common defense
readily connotes an intent to secure a one-sided
decision, even improperly. And when, in this
connection, the obvious weakness of plaintiff's
evidence is taken into account, one easily
understands why such tactics had to be availed
of. We cannot directly or indirectly give Our
assent to the commission of unfairness and
inequity in the application of the rules of
procedure, particularly when the propriety of
reliance thereon is not beyond controversy.
Aquino
and
may administer the trust alone, . . . ." Also, coadministration herein will constitute a recognition of
both the extent of the interest of the widow in the
estate and the creditable services rendered to and
which may further be expected from private
respondent for the same estate.
Footnotes
1 Penned by Associate Justice Eduardo R.
Bengzon, with Associate Justices Fidel P.
Purisima and Salome A. Montoya, concurring;
Annex A, Petition; Rollo, 16.
2 Rollo, CA-G.R. SP No. 19797, 12-13.
3 Ibid., id., 14-15.
4 Ibid., id., 16-17.
5 Ibid., id., 18-19.
6 Ibid., id., 20-23.
7 Ibid., id., 25-26.
8 Ibid., id., 32-33.
11 Ibid., id., 6.
12 Rollo, 16-21.
QUIASON, J.:
This is a complaint for disbarment. Pursuant to
paragraph 2, Section 1, Rule 139-B of the
Revised Rules of Court, this Court resolved to
refer it to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP) for investigation, report and
recommendation.
On April 15, 1994, the IBP Board of Governors
rendered a decision, finding respondent guilty of
malpractice and recommending that he be
suspended from the practice of law.
I
Pacifica Millare, the mother of the complainant,
obtained a favorable judgment from the
Municipal Trial Court, Bangued, Abra (MTC)
which ordered Elsa Dy Co to vacate the
premises subject of the ejectment case (Civil
Case No. 844). Co, through respondent as
supplied).
thus:
thereof.
Appellant's insistence that in Civil Case No.
76412, he seeks to recover his distributive share
of the estate of the decedent Rosina, all the more
removes the said case from the jurisdiction of
Branch X; for as heretofore stated, the
distribution of the estate is within the exclusive
jurisdiction of the probate court. He must
therefore seek his remedy in the same probate
court Branch VIII which is hearing Special
Proceedings No. 63866, instead of filing a
separate civil case in Branch X.
Moreover, his petition for certiorari, prohibition
and mandamus in G.R. No. L-30935, entitled
Macias vs. University of Michigan, et al., wherein
he questions the validity of the aforesaid orders
of the Presiding Judge of Branch VIII in Special
Proceedings No. 63866, amply covers the same
subject matter and seeks substantially the same
relief as his complaint in Civil Case No. 76412
and the present petition (see pars. 26, 28, 30-40,
and the prayer in this petition, pp. 13-34, rec. of
L-30935). .
Appellant himself states that the decision in the
G.R. No. L-22304
Footnotes
1 Serrano, et al. vs. Chanco, et al., 5 Phil. 431,
434-35.
2 Benedicto, etc. vs. Javellana, 10 Phil. 197, 203.
3 75 Phil. 532, 535.
4 L-30871, Dec. 28, 1970, 36 SCRA 567, 573575, citing Cabigao vs. del Rosario, 44 Phil. 182;
Hubahib vs. Insular Drug, 64 Phil. 119; Manila
Railroad vs. Yatco, 23 SCRA 735 (1968);
Luciano vs. Prov'l Governor, 28 SCRA 517
(1969); Sterling Investment vs. Ruiz, 30 SCRA
318 (1969) ; Tuason vs. Torres, 21 SCRA 1169
(1967).
5 36 SCRA 573.
6 Pagkalinawan vs. Gomez, L-22585, Dec. 18,
1967, 21 SCRA 1275, 1280-1281.
claimant."
"Only regularly appointed Hearing Officer shall
hear and decide compensation claims. However,
when the exigencies of the service so require,
the Regional Administrator may designate any
other employee of the Regional Office, who is a
duly qualified member of the Philippine Bar or
has graduated from a law course in an
accredited law college, to act a hearing officer." .
2
1964.
Harrison Foundry and Machinery v. Harrison
Foundry Worker's Association, L-18432, June 29,
1963.
9
lawphi1.nt
February 6, 2002
D E C I S I O N
PUNO, J.:
This is a disbarment1 case filed by Alex Ong, a
businessman from Dumaguete City, against Atty.
Elpidio D. Unto, for malpractice of law and
conduct unbecoming of a lawyer.
The Commission on Bar Discipline of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP-Pasig City)
found Atty. Unto guilty of malpractice and
recommended the penalty of one-month
suspension from the practice of law or, at the
very least, a severe reprimand against him. 2
First, we look at the antecedent facts. The
records show that the complainant received a
demand-letter from the respondent, in the latters
capacity as legal counsel of one Nemesia
Garganian. The full text of respondents letter 3
reads:
"Dear Mr. Ong:
This is in connection with the claim of support of
Miss Nemesia Garganian (my client) from you for
court.
1wphi1
Footnotes
Id., p. 49.
Id., p. 10.
Id., p. 15.
Id., p. 20.
10
SO ORDERED.
11
12
Rollo, p. 49.
13
Id., p. 9.
15
16
17
Ducat, Jr.
vs. Villalon, Jr., 337 SCRA 622, 628
(2000).
18
19
Id., p. 629.
20
offenses:
10, Rollo.)
Deeds.
Upon receipt of the charges, NLTDRA
Administrator Teodoro G. Bonifacio directed
respondent to explain in writing why no
administrative disciplinary action should be taken
against him. Respondent was further asked
whether he would submit his case on the basis of
his answer, or be heard in a formal investigation.
In his answer dated July 9, 1987, respondent
denied the charges of extortion and of directly
receiving pecuniary or material benefit for himself
in connection with the official transactions
awaiting his action.
Although an investigator was appointed by
NLTDRA Administrator Bonifacio to hear Attorney
Collantes' charges against him, Attorney
Renomeron waived his right to a formal
investigation. Both parties submitted the case for
resolution based on the pleadings.
The investigator, Attorney Leonardo Da Jose,
recommended dropping the charges of: (1)
dishonesty; (2) causing undue injury to a party
through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or
SO ORDERED.
Fernan, C.J., Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera,
Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco,
Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento, Grio-Aquino,
Medialdea, Regalado and Davide, Jr., JJ.,
concur.
Id., p. 41.
11
12
Id., p. 45.
13
Id., p. 68.
14
Id., p. 84.
15
Id., p. 91.
16
17
Id., p. 93.
Id., p. 9.
Id., p. 13.
Id., p. 31.
10
Id., p. 3234.
20
Id.
23
24
25
26
Annex A
27
Id.
GUAM DIVORCE.
REGALADO, J.:
DON PARKINSON
THE
REPRESENTATION AND ADVISING OF A
PARTICULAR PERSON IN A PARTICULAR
SITUATION. At most the book assumes to offer
general advice on common problems, and does
not purport to give personal advice on a specific
problem peculiar to a designated or readily
identified person. Similarly the defendant's
publication does not purport to give personal
# Footnotes
1 Rollo, 5. A facsimile of the scales of justice is
21 Rollo, 130-131.