IN RE: PETITION TO SIGN IN THE ROLL
OF ATTORNEYSBM No. 2540
September 24, 2013
Statement of Facts:
Petitioner Michael Medado, who obtained his
law degree in the year 1979, took and
passed the same years bar examinations
and took the Attorneys Oath, failed to sign
the Attorneys Roll . After more than 30
years of practicing the profession of law, he
filed the instant Petition on February 2012,
praying that he be allowed to sign in the Roll
of Attorneys. Medado said that he was not
able to sign the Roll of Attorneys because he
misplaced the notice given to him and he
believed that since he had already taken the
oath, the signing of the Roll ofAttorneys is
not urgent, nor as crucial to his status as a
lawyer. The Office of the Bar Confidant
(OBC) after conducting clarificatory
conference on the matter recommended to
the Supreme Court that the instant petition
be denied for petitioners gross negligence,
gross misconduct and utter lack of merit.
Issue:
WON the petitioner be allowed to sign in the
roll of attorneys?
Ruling:
Yes, the Court allowed the petitioner to sign
the Roll of Attorneys subject to the payment
of a fine and the imposition of a penalty
equivalent to suspension from the practice
of law. The Court cannot forbid the petitioner
from signing the Roll of Attorneys because
such action constitutes disbarment. Such
penalty is reserved to the most serious
ethical transgressions of members of the
Bar. The Court cited three main points which
demonstrate Medados worth to become a
full-fledged member of the Philippine Bar.
First, Medado demonstrated good faith and
good moral character when he finally filed
the instant Petition to sign in the Roll of
Attorneys. It was Medado himself who
admitted his own error and not any third
person. Second, petitioner has not been
subject to any action for disqualification from
the practice of law. He strove to adhere to
the strict requirements of the ethics of the
profession and that he has prima facie
shown that he possesses the character
required to be a member of the Philippine
Bar. Third, Medado appears to have been a
competent and able legal practitioner,
having held various positions at the Laurel
Law Office, Petron, Petrophil Corporation, the
Philippine National Oil Company, and the
Energy Development Corporation. However,
the Court cannot fully free Medado from all
liability for his years of inaction. His
justification of his action, that it wasneither
willful nor intentional but based on a
mistaken belief and an honest error of
judgment was opposed by the Court.
A mistake of law cannot be utilized as a
lawful justification, because everyone is
presumed to know the law and its
consequences.
Although an honest mistake of fact could be
used to excuse a person from the legal
consequences of his acts he could no longer
claim it as a valid justification by the
moment he realized that what he had
signed was merely an attendance record.
His action of continuing the practice of law in
spite of his knowledge of the need to take
the necessary steps to complete all
requirements for the admission to the bar
constitutes unauthorized practice of law.
Such action transgresses Canon 9 of 'the
Code of Professional Responsibility, which
provides:
CANON 9 - A lawyer shall not, directly
or indirectly, assist in the unauthorized
practice of law.
With respect to the penalty, previous
violations of Canon 9 have warranted the
penalty of suspension from the practice of
law. However, in the instant case the Court
could not warrant the penalty of suspension
from the practice of law to Medado because
he is not yet a full-fledged lawyer. Instead,
the Court see it fit to impose upon him a
penalty similar to suspension by allowing
him to sign in the Roll of Attorneys one
( 1) year after receipt of the Resolution
and to fine him in the amount of
P32,000.The instant Petition to Sign in the
Roll of Attorneys is Affirmed. Petitioner
Michael A. Medado is ALLOWED to sign in
the Roll of Attorneys ONE (1) YEAR after
receipt of the Resolution. Petitioner is
likewise ORDERED to pay a FINE ofP32, 000
for his unauthorized practice of law. During
the one year period, petitioner is NOT
ALLOWED to practice law, and is STERNLY
WARNED that doing any act that constitutes
practice of law before he has signed in the
Roll of Attorneys will be dealt with severely
by the Court.
Re: 2003 Bar Examinations
B.M. No. 1222, 04 February 2004
Nature: Disbarment
Ponente: Per Curiam
Facts: On 22 September 2003,
Justice Jose Vitug, Chairman of the
2003 Bar examinations committee
apprised Chief Justice Hilario Davide,
Jr. and the other members of the court
of a rumored leakage on the bar
examination on Mercantile Law further
recommending that the bar exam be
nullified and an investigation be
conducted. However after receiving
numerous petitions and motions from
the Philippine Association of Law
schools agreeing to the nullification of
the bar exams on Mercantile Law but
voicing strong reservations against
holding another exam on the subject
due to physical, emotional and
financial difficulties that may be
encountered by the examinees. In a
resolution dated 29 September 2003,
the Court resolved to cancel the
scheduled examination in Mercantile
Law and allocate the 15 percentage
points among the seven bar exam
subjects. Further, they resolved to
create a Committee to conduct a
thorough investigation on the incident.
The investigation committee formed
by 3 retired associate justices of the
Supreme Court held nine (9) meetings
to conduct the investigation and
prepare the report. The investigation
yielded that Atty. Marcial O.T. Balgas,
examiner Mercantile Law, used his
office computer to prepare the
questions for the bar exams and that
one of his associate lawyers, Atty.
Danilo de Guzman, admitted that he
downloaded the test questionnaires
from Atty. Balgos computer and faxed
a copy to his fraternity brother. After
further investigation, it yielded that
the copy that was leaked and the
actual exam were 82% identical and
such were reproduced among the
barristers for that year. Aside from
Atty. De Guzman, several people were
also investigated on but yielded not
much evidence.
Issue: Whether or not the parties
involved in the leakage should be
disbarred?
Ratio: Atty. Danilo de Guzmans act
of downloading Atty. Balgos test
questionnaires in Mercantile Law from
Atty. Balgos computer without his
knowledge and permission was a
criminal act of larceny, a theft of
intellectual property. Besides larceny,
Atty. De Guzman likewise committed
an unlawful infraction of Atty. Balgos
right to privacy of communication and
to the security of his papers and
effects against unauthorized search
and seizure rights protected by the
Bill of rights of our Constitution. He
likewise disobeyed the first canon of
the lawyers Code of Professional
responsibility which provides that a
lawyer shall uphold the Constitution,
obey the laws of the land, and promise
respect for law and legal processes.
Further, the Committee upheld that
Atty. Balgos likewise committed
negligence in the preparation and
safekeeping of his proposed test
questions for the bar exam in
Mercantile Law. Knowing that he was
not proficient on the use of computers,
he could have used a typewriter where
he was more proficient.
Thus, the Committee recommended
that:
1 Atty. Danilo de Guzman be
DISBARRED for he has shown
that he was morally unfit to
continue as a member of the
legal profession, for grave
dishonesty, lack of integrity and
criminal behavior. He shall
likewise make a PUBLIC
APOLOGY and pay DAMAGES to
the Supreme Court for involving
it in another scandal.
2 Atty. Marcial O.T. Balgos should
be REPRIMANDED by the Court
and be required to make a
written apology for the scandal
he brought upon it as result of
his negligence and lack of due
care in preparing and
safeguarding his proposed test
questionnaires in Mercantile
Law.
Guevarra vs. Eala A.C. No. 7136
August 1, 2007
Joselano Guevarra vs. Atty. Jose
Emmanuel Eala
A.C. No. 7136
August 1, 2007
Facts: On March 4, 2002 a complaint
of disbarment was filed before the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines
Committee on Bar Discipline against
Atty. Jose Emmanuel M. Eala a.k.a. Noli
Eala for grossly immoral conduct and
unmitigated violation of the lawyers
oath. In the Complaint, Guevarra first
met the respondent in January 2000
when his then fiance Irene Moje
introduced respondent to him as her
friend who was married to Marianne
Tantoco with whom he had three
children.
After his marriage to Irene on October
7, 2000, Complainant noticed that
from January to March 2001, Irene had
been receiving from respondent
Cellphone calls, as well as messages
some which read I love you, I miss
you, or Meet you at Megamall. He
also noticed that Irene habitually went
home very late at night or early in the
morning of the following day, and
sometimes did not go home from
work. When he asked her
whereabouts, she replied that she
slept at her parents house in
Binangonan, Rizal or she was busy
with her work.
In February or March 2001,
complainant saw Irene and
Respondent together on two
occasions. On the second occasion, he
confronted them following which Irene
abandoned the conjugal house. On
April 22, 2001 complainant went
uninvited to Irenes birthday
celebration at which he saw her and
the respondent celebrating with her
family and friends. Out of
embarrassment, anger and
humiliation, he left the venue
immediately. Following that incident,
Irene went to the conjugal house and
hauled off all her personal belongings.
Complainant later found a handwritten
letter dated October 7, 2007, the day
of his wedding to Irene, Complainant
soon saw respondents car and that of
Irene constantly parked at No. 71-B11
Street, New Manila where as he was
later learn sometime in April 2001,
Irene was already residing. He also
learned still later that when his friends
saw Irene on about January 18, 2002
together with respondent during a
concert, she was pregnant.

Issue: Whether Concubinage or
Adulterous relationship, be the reason
for the disbarment of Atty. Jose
Emmanuel Eala.
Held: Lawyers oath stated that a
lawyer should support the Constitution
and obey the laws, Meaning he shall
not make use of deceit, malpractice,
or other gross misconduct, grossly
immoral conduct, or be convicted in
any crime involving moral turpitude. In
the case at bar Atty. Eala was accused
of Concubinage, under ART. 334 of the
Revised Penal Code, Any husband
who shall keep a mistress in a conjugal
dwelling, or, shall have sexual
intercourse, under scandalous
circumstances, with a woman who is
not his wife, or shall cohabit with her
in any other place, shall be punished
by prision correccional in its minimum
and medium period. Section 2 of ART.
XV states that Marriage, as an
inviolable social institution, is the
foundation of the family and shall be
protected by the state. Respondents
grossly immoral conduct runs afoul of
the constitution and the laws, that he
as a lawyer has sworn to uphold.
Hence the court declared Atty. Jose
Emmanul M. Eala DISBARRED for
grossly immoral conduct, violation of
his oath of office, and violation of
canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule
7.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
Figueroa vs. Barranco
Facts: Figueroa and Barranco were
sweethearts since their teens. Their
intimacy eventually resulted to a son
born out of wedlock. At this point
(1964) Barranco promised Figueroa
that he would marry her when he
passes the bar examinations. After
four takes, he finally passed but did
not hold true to his promise of
marriage. In 1971, their relationship
ended. Years later, he married another
woman. When Barranco was about to
take his oath to enter the legal
profession, Figueroa filed a complaint
relaying to the court what happened
between her and Barranco. Until
1988, Barranco has filed three motions
to dismiss because Figueroa still would
not persecute and because for the
past years, he has become elected in
the Sangguniang Bayan, has actively
participated in
various civicorganizations and has
acquired a good standing within his
community while the case was
pending. The court sought the opinion
of the IBP which recommended
that Barranco be allowed to take his
oath. Figueroa reappeared and
intercepted the scheduled oath-taking
of Barranco which led to its delay.
Issue: Whether or
not Barranco should be allowed to
take his oath despite the accusations
of Figueroa.
Held: Yes. The maintenance of
an intimate relationship between a
man and a woman, both of whom had
no impediment to marry and
voluntarily carried on with the affair,
does not amount to a grossly immoral
conduct even if a child was born out of
the relationship. His previous acts may
be said to be a question to his moral
character but none of these are
so corrupt and false as to constitute a
criminal act or so unprincipled or
disgraceful as to be reprehensible to a
high degree. Her allegations that she
was forced to have sexual relations
with him cannot lie as evidenced by
her continued cohabitation with him
even after their child was born in
1964. The ignobleness of his
treatment of Figueroa is sufficiently
punished by the 26 years that he has
been prevented from entering the
profession he has worked so hard for.
LAO vs. MEDEL
The deliberate failure to pay just
debts and the issuance of worthless
checks constitute gross misconduct,
for which a lawyer may be sanctioned
with one-year suspension from the
practice of law.
The Case and the Facts
This administrative case stems
from a Complaint-Affidavit filed with
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-
Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-
CBD) by Selwyn F. Lao. Atty. Robert W.
Medel was charged therein with
dishonesty, grave misconduct and
conduct unbecoming an attorney.
The material averments of the
Complaint are summarized by the IBP-
CBD in this wise:
The Complaint arose from the
[respondents] persistent refusal to
make good on four (4) RCBC checks
totaling [t]wenty [t]wo [t]housand
(P22,000.00) [p]esos. These
dishonored checks were issued by
defendant in replacement for previous
checks issued to the
complainant. Based on the exchange
of letters between the parties, it
appears that [respondent], in a letter
dated June 19, 2001, had committed
to forthwith effect immediate
settlement of my outstanding
obligation of P22,000.00 with Engr.
Lao, at the earliest possible time,
preferably, on or before the end of
June 2000. Again, in a letter dated July
3, 2000, the [respondent] made a
request for a final extension of only
ten (10) days from June 30, 2000 (or
not later than July 10, 2000), within
which to effect payment of P22,000.00
to Engr. Lao. Needless to say, the
initiation of this present complaint
proves that contrary to his written
promises, Atty. Medel never made
good on his dishonored
checks. Neither has he paid his
indebtedness.
In his Answer dated July 30, 2001,
Atty. Medel reasons that because all of
his proposals to settle his obligation
were rejected, he was unable to
comply with his promise to pay
complainant. Respondent maintains
that the Complaint did not constitute a
valid ground for disciplinary action
because of the following:
(a). Under Sec. 27, Rule 138 of the
Rules, a member of the Bar, may be
disbarred or suspended from his office
as attorney by the Supreme Court for
any deceit, malpractice, or other gross
misconduct in such office, grossly
immoral conduct, or by reason of his
conviction of a crime involving moral
turpitude, or for any violation of the
oath which he is required to take
before admission to practice, or for a
wil[l]ful disobedience of any lawful
order of a superior court, or for
corruptly or wil[l]fully appearing as an
attorney for a party to case without
authority so to do. The practice of
soliciting cases at law for the purpose
of gain, either personally or through
paid agents or brokers, constitutes
malpractice;
(a.1). Applying the afore-cited legal
provision to the facts obtaining in the
present case, it is clear that the
offense with which the respondent is
being charged by the complainant, is
merely a violation of Batas Pambansa
Bilang 22 (B.P. 22, for brevity), which
is a special law, and is not punishable
under the Revised Penal Code (RPC,
for brevity). It is self-evident therefore,
that the offense is not in the same
category as a violation of Article 315,
paragraph 2, (d), RPC, which is issuing
a post-dated check or a check in
payment of an obligation, with
insufficient funds in the drawee bank,
through false pretenses or fraudulent
acts, executed prior to or
simultaneously with the commission of
the fraud, which is a crime involving
moral turpitude;
(b). If the respondent is to be
disciplined by the Supreme Court,
under Sec. 27, Rule 138 of the Rules,
for the issuance of a worthless check,
in violation of B.P. 22, for payment of a
pre-existing obligation to the
complainant, then, verily, the said
Rule 138, Sec. 27, would be a cruel
and an unjust law, which the
Honorable Supreme Court would not
countenance;
(c). A careful examination of the
specific grounds enumerated, for
disbarment or suspension of a
member of the Bar, under Sec. 27 of
Rule 138 of the Rules, clearly shows
beyond a shadow of doubt that the
alleged issuance of a worthless check,
in violation of B.P. 22, is NOT one of
the grounds for disciplinary action
against a member of the Bar, to
warrant his disbarment or suspension
from his office as attorney, by the
Supreme Court; and
(d). The issuance of a worthless check
by a member of the Bar, in violation of
B.P. 22, does NOT constitute
dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct, under Canon 1 and Rule 1.01
of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. This is because, the
door to the law profession swings on
reluctant hinges. Stated otherwise,
unless there is a clear, palpable and
unmitigated immoral or deceitful
conduct, of a member of the Bar, in
violation of his oath as an attorney, by
the mere issuance of a worthless
check, in violation of B.P. 22, the
Supreme Court is inclined to give the
said attorney, the benefit of the doubt.
On August 22, 2001, complainant
submitted his Reply. Thereafter, IBP-
CBD Commissioner Renato G.
Cunanan, to whom the case was
assigned by the IBP for investigation
and report, scheduled the case for
hearing on October 4, 2001. After
several cancellations, the parties
finally met on May 29, 2002. In that
hearing, respondent acknowledged his
obligation and committed himself to
pay a total of P42,000 (P22,000 for his
principal debt and P20,000 for
attorneys fees). Complainant agreed
to give him until July 4, 2002 to settle
the principal debt and to discuss the
plan of payment for attorneys fees in
the next hearing.
On July 4, 2002, both parties
appeared before the IBP-CBD for their
scheduled hearing. But, while waiting
for the case to be called, respondent
suddenly insisted on leaving,
supposedly to attend to a family
emergency. Complainants counsel
objected and Commissioner Cunanan,
who was still conducting a hearing in
another case, ordered him to wait. He,
however, retorted in a loud voice, Its
up to you, this is only disbarment, my
family is more important. And, despite
the objection and the warning, he
arrogantly left. He made no effort to
comply with his undertaking to settle
his indebtedness before leaving.
Report and Recommendation of
the IBP
In his September 19, 2002
Report, Commissioner Cunanan found
respondent guilty of violating the
attorneys oath and the Code of
Professional Responsibility. The former
explained that, contrary to the latters
claim, violation of BP 22 was a crime
that involved moral turpitude. Further,
he observed that [w]hile no criminal
case may have been instituted against
[respondent], it is beyond cavil that
indeed, [the latter] committed not one
(1) but four counts of violation of BP
22. The refusal [by respondent] to pay
his indebtedness, his broken promises,
his arrogant attitude towards
complainants counsel and the
[commission sufficiently] warrant the
imposition of sanctions against
him. Thus, the investigating
commissioner recommended that
respondent be suspended from the
practice of law.
In Resolution No. XV-2002-598, the
Board of Governors of the IBP adopted
the Report and Recommendation of
Commissioner Cunanan and resolved
to suspend respondent from the
practice of law for two years. The
Resolution, together with the records
of the case, was transmitted to this
Court for final action, pursuant to Rule
139-B Sec. 12(b).
The Courts Ruling
We agree with the findings and
recommendation of the IBP Board of
Governors, but reduce the period of
suspension to one year.
Administrative Liability of
Respondent
Lawyers are instruments for the
administration of justice. As vanguards
of our legal system, they are expected
to maintain not only legal proficiency
but also a high standard of morality,
honesty, integrity and fair dealing. In
so doing, the peoples faith and
confidence in the judicial system is
ensured.
In the present case, respondent
has been brought to this Court for
failure to pay his debts and for issuing
worthless checks as payment for his
loan from complainant. While
acknowledging the fact that he issued
several worthless checks, he contends
that such act constitutes neither a
violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility; nor dishonest, immoral
or deceitful conduct.
The defense proffered by
respondent is untenable. It is evident
from the records that he made several
promises to pay his debt
promptly. However, he reneged on his
obligation despite sufficient time
afforded him. Worse, he refused to
recognize any wrongdoing and
transferred the blame to complainant,
on the contorted reasoning that the
latter had refused to accept the
formers plan of payment. It must be
pointed out that complainant had no
obligation to accept it, considering
respondents previous failure to comply
with earlier payment plans for the
same debt.
Moreover, before the IBP-CBD,
respondent had voluntarily committed
himself to the payment of his debts,
yet failed again to fulfill his
promise. That he had no real intention
to settle them is evident from his
unremitting failed commitments. His
cavalier attitude in incurring debts
without any intention of paying for
them puts his moral character in
serious doubt.
Verily, lawyers must at all times
faithfully perform their duties to
society, to the bar, to the courts and
to their clients. As part of those duties,
they must promptly pay their financial
obligations. Their conduct must always
reflect the values and norms of the
legal profession as embodied in the
Code of Professional Responsibility. On
these considerations, the Court may
disbar or suspend lawyers for any
professional or private misconduct
showing them to be wanting in moral
character, honesty, probity and good
demeanor -- or to be unworthy to
continue as officers of the Court.
It is equally disturbing that
respondent remorselessly issued a
series of worthless checks, unmindful
of the deleterious effects of such act
to public interest and public order.
Canon 1 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility mandates
all members of the bar to obey the
laws of the land and promote respect
for law. Rule 1.01 of the Code
specifically provides that [a] lawyer
shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct. In Co v. Bernardino, the Court
considered the issuance of worthless
checks as a violation of this Rule and
an act constituting gross
misconduct. It explained thus:
The general rule is that a lawyer may
not be suspended or disbarred, and
the court may not ordinarily assume
jurisdiction to discipline him for
misconduct in his non-professional or
private capacity (In Re Pelaez, 44 Phil.
5569 [1923]). Where, however, the
misconduct outside of the lawyer's
professional dealings is so gross a
character as to show him morally unfit
for the office and unworthy of the
privilege which his licenses and the
law confer on him, the court may be
justified in suspending or removing
him from the office of attorney (In Re
Sotto, 38 Phil. 569 [1923]).
The evidence on record clearly shows
respondent's propensity to issue bad
checks. This gross misconduct on his
part, though not related to his
professional duties as a member of the
bar, puts his moral character in
serious doubt. The Commission,
however, does not find him a hopeless
case in the light of the fact that he
eventually paid his obligation to the
complainant, albeit very much
delayed.
While it is true that there was no
attorney-client relationship between
complainant and respondent as the
transaction between them did not
require the professional legal services
of respondent, nevertheless
respondent's abject conduct merits
condemnation from this Court.
As early as 1923, however, the Court
laid down in In Re Vicente Pelaez [44
Phil.567 (1923)] the principle that it
can exercise its power to discipline
lawyers for causes which do not
involve the relationship of an attorney
and client x x x In disciplining the
respondent, Mr. Justice Malcolm said: x
x x As a general rule, a court will not
assume jurisdiction to discipline one of
its officers for misconduct alleged to
have been committed in his private
capacity. But this is a general rule with
many exceptions x x x. The nature of
the office, the trust relation which
exists between attorney and client, as
well as between court and attorney,
and the statutory rules prescribing the
qualifications of attorneys, uniformly
require that an attorney shall be a
person of good moral character. If that
qualification is a condition precedent
to a license or privilege to enter upon
the practice of the law, it would seem
to be equally essential during the
continuance of the practice and the
exercise of the privilege. So it is held
that an attorney will be removed not
only for malpractice and dishonesty in
his profession, but also for gross
misconduct not connected with his
professional duties, which shows him
to be unfit for the office and unworthy
of the privileges which his license and
the law confer upon him x x x.
Ten years later, in Piatt v. Abordo
where the erring lawyer was
suspended for one year from the
practice of law for attempting to
engage in an opium deal, Justice
Malcolm reiterated that an attorney
may be removed not only for
malpractice and dishonesty in his
profession, but also for gross
misconduct not related to his
professional duties which show him to
be an unfit and unworthy lawyer. The
courts are not curators of the morals
of the bar. At the same time the
profession is not compelled to harbor
all persons whatever their character,
who are fortunate enough to keep out
of prison. As good character is an
essential qualification for admission of
an attorney to practice, when the
attorney's character is bad in such
respects as to show that he is unsafe
and unfit to be entrusted with the
powers of an attorney, the courts
retain the power to discipline him x x x
Of all classes and professions, the
lawyer is most sacredly bound to
uphold the law x x x and to that
doctrine we give our unqualified
support."
We likewise take notice of the
high-handed manner in which
respondent dealt with Commissioner
Cunanan during the July 4, 2002
hearing, when the former was
expected to settle his obligation with
complainant. We cannot countenance
the discourtesy of respondent. He
should be reminded that the IBP has
disciplinary authority over him by
virtue of his membership therein.
Thus, it was imperative for him to
respect the authority of the officer
assigned to investigate his
case. Assuming that he had a very
important personal matter to attend
to, he could have politely explained his
predicament to the investigating
commissioner and asked permission to
leave immediately. Unfortunately, the
former showed dismal behavior by
raising his voice and leaving without
the consent of complainant and the
investigating commissioner.
We stress that membership in the
legal profession is a privilege. It
demands a high degree of good moral
character, not only as a condition
precedent to admission, but also as a
continuing requirement for the
practice of law. In this case,
respondent fell short of the exacting
standards expected of him as a
guardian of law and justice.
Accordingly, administrative
sanction is warranted by his gross
misconduct. The IBP Board of
Governors recommended that he be
suspended from the practice of law for
two years.However, in line
]
with Co v. Bernardino Ducat
Jr. v. Villalon
Jr. and Saburnido v. Madroo-- which
also involved gross misconduct of
lawyers -- we find the suspension of
one year sufficient in this case.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Robert W.
Medel is found guilty of gross
misconduct and is
hereby SUSPENDED for one year from
the practice of law, effective upon his
receipt of this Decision.He is warned
that a repetition of the same or a
similar act will be dealt with more
severely.
Let copies of this Decision be
entered in the record of respondent
and served on the IBP, as well as on
the court administrator who shall
circulate it to all courts for their
information and guidance.
SO ORDERED.
Cheng vs. Agravante [A.C. No.
6183. March 23, 2004]
Ponente: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
FACTS:
Respondent Atty. Alexander M.
Agravante served as counsel for The
Rogemson Co., Inc. (Rogemson for
brevity) in a case filed against it
before the National Labor Relations
Commissions (NLRC) by its former
employee, a certain Beaver Martin B.
Barril. The decision ordered
Rogemson to pay Barril separation pay
and backwages. A copy of said
decision was received by respondents
law office on September 8,
1998. However, respondent filed a
Memorandum of Appeal with the NLRC
only on September 22,
1998. Consequently, the NLRC
dismissed Rogemsons appeal.
The complainants terminated the
services of Atty. Agravante. Through
their new lawyers, complainants wrote
Atty. Agravante, demanding that they
be compensated for the pecuniary
damages they had suffered as a result
of his negligence. When it appeared
that Atty. Agravante had no intention
of responding to their letter, Edison G.
Cheng, General Manager of
Rogemson, filed an affidavit-complaint
with the IBP Commission on Bar
Discipline.
Agravante tells a different
story. Respondent alleges that he was
out of town on said date and only
returned to his office on September
10, 1998. Upon arriving at the office,
his secretary handed to him all the
correspondence addressed to him,
including the envelope containing the
Labor Arbiters decision. He alleges
that there were several markings on
this particular envelope, one of which
was the date September 10, 1998,
and he allegedly assumed that this
was the date of receipt by his office.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Atty. Agravante is
guilty of violating Rules 10.01 and
18.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
HELD:
YES. Respondent was suspended from
practice of law for one (1) year and is
fined the amount of Ten Thousand
Pesos (P10,000.00).
RATIO:
[R]espondents filing of the
Memorandum of Appeal four (4) days
after the deadline proves that his
efforts fell short of the diligence
required of a lawyer. His failure to
perfect an appeal within the
prescribed period constitutes
negligence and malpractice proscribed
by the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which provide that a
lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter
entrusted to him and his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him
liable.
Rule 10.01 A lawyer shall not do any
falsehood, nor consent to the doing of
any in court; nor shall he mislead or
allow the court to be misled by any
artifice.
Rule 18.03 A lawyer shall not
neglect a legal matter entrusted to
him and his negligence in connection
therewith shall render him liable.
[T]he belated filing of the
Memorandum of Appeal cannot in any
way mitigate respondents liability; on
the contrary, it shows ignorance on his
part. As a lawyer, he ought to know
that his Memorandum of Appeal,
having been filed beyond the
reglementary period, would surely be
struck down for late filing.
RAYOS-OMBAC v RAYOS
Facts: Mrs. Irene Rayos-Ombac (lola)
is the petitioner in this case. The
respondent is Atty. Orlando Rayos
(lawyer), her nephew. Jan. 1985:
lawyer induced lola, who was then 85
years old, to withdraw all her bank
deposits and entrust it to him for
safekeeping. Lawyer made lola believe
that if she would do so, all the money
will be excluded from the estate of her
deceased husband and therefore
exclude the other heirs from
inheriting. Lola then withdrew all her
money (P588K) and deposited it in the
account of lawyer in Union Bank. Upon
demands that the amount be returned,
lawyer informed lola that he can only
return P400K on installment. Pumayag
na lang si lola kasi kelangan niya
talaga ng pera. They signed a MOA
regarding this transaction. However,
the check given by lawyer to lola was
dishonored due to insufficient funds.
Lola then filed an estafa case against
lawyer. Lawyer offered as settlement 2
second-hand cars and cash amounting
to P40K. Lola refused the offer. Lawyer
also filed cases against Lola. Estafa -
because lola allegedly reneged on her
promise to sell a certain parcel of land.
Another accusing lola of making false
statements in the testate proceedings
of her deceased husband. Lola then
filed a case for disbarment on 2
grounds. (1) Defrauding lola and (2)
filing frivolous cases against her. IBP
recommended that lawyer be
suspended for 2 years. Lawyer then
filed this motion to lift the suspension
stating that lola has already withdrawn
her complaint for disbarment
Issue: W/N lawyer should be
suspended for 2 years
Held: Yes. In fact the SC raised the
penalty to disbarment. (pinabayaan na
lang sana niya yung suspension, baka
di pa siya disbarred). The withdrawal
of lola of her complaint has no effect
on the disbarment proceedings.
Lawyer violated the CPR as well as his
oath when he deceived his 85 year old
aunt. Lawyers wicked deed was
aggravated by the series of unfounded
suits he filed against lola. Lawyers
deceitful conduct makes him unworthy
of membership in the legal profession.
CRUZ VS JACINTO CASE DIGEST A.C.
No. 5235, March 22, 2000
FACTS: This is a disbarment case filed
by the spouses Fernando and Amelia
Cruz against Atty. Ernesto C. Jacinto, a
lawyer of the couple in an unrelated
case, wherein requested the Cruz
spouses for a loan in behalf of a
certain Concepcion G. Padilla, who he
claimed to be an old friend. The
spouses, believing and trusting the
representations of their lawyer that
Padilla was a good risk, authorized him
to start preparing all the necessary
documents relative to the registration
of the Real Estate Mortgage to secure
the payment of the loan in favor of the
Cruz spouses. Thereafter, the
complainants agreed to the request of
Atty. Jacinto and were presented by
the latter with a Real Estate Mortgage
Contract and a Transfer Certificate of
Title No. 127275 in the name of
Concepcion G. Padilla. Upon maturity
of the loan, the spouses demanded
payment from Concepcion G. Padilla
by going to the address given by the
respondent but there proved to be no
person by that name living therein.
When the complainants verified the
genuineness of TCT No. 127275 with
Register of Deeds of Quezon City, it
was certified by the said office to be a
fake and spurious title. Further efforts
to locate the debtor-mortgagor
likewise proved futile. In their sworn
affidavits given before the National
Bureau of Investigation (NBI), the
spouses claim that they relied much
on the reassurances made by Atty.
Jacinto as to Concepcion G. Padillas
credit, considering that he was their
lawyer. It was also their trust and
confidence in Atty. Jacinto that made
them decide to forego meeting the
debtor-mortgagor. The complainants
also presented as evidence the
testimonies of Estrella Ermino-
Palipada, the secretary of the
respondent at the Neri Law Office, and
Avegail Payos, a housemaid of Atty.
Jacinto. Ms. Palipada, where they were
instructed by Atty. Jacinto to falsify the
signatures of the notary public and
Deputy Register of Deeds. On the
other hand, Atty. Jacinto alleged that
the criminal information for estafa thru
falsification filed against him had
already been dismissed because of the
voluntary desistance of the
complainants. Moreover, Atty. Jacinto
averred that while he indeed
facilitated the loan agreement
between the Cruz spouses and
Concepcion G. Padilla, he had no idea
that the latter would give a falsified
Certificate of Title and use it to obtain
a loan. He claimed that he himself was
a victim under the circumstances.
Respondent further alleged that he
had not been remiss nor negligent in
collecting the proceeds of the loan;
that in fact, he had even advanced the
full payment of the loan due to the
complainants from his own savings,
even if Concepcion G. Padilla had not
yet paid, much less found.
ISSUE: Is Atty. Jacinto guilty of
professional misconduct?
HELD: YES Jessalyn R. Puerin Legal
Ethics I-Viada In the instant case, there
was a clear yet unrebutted allegation
in the complaint that the respondent
had ordered his secretary and
housemaid to falsify the signatures of
the notary public and the Deputy
Register of Deeds respectively to
make it appear that the real estate
mortgage contract was duly registered
and thus binding. Undeniably,
respondent represented complainants
in the loan transaction. By his own
admission, he was the one who
negotiated with the borrower, his long-
time friend and a former client. He
acted not merely as an agent but as a
lawyer of complaints, thus, the
execution of the real estate mortgage
contract, as well as its registration and
annotation on the title were entrusted
to him. In fact, respondent even
received his share in the interest
earnings which complainants realized
from the transaction. His refusal to
recognize any wrongdoing or
carelessness by claiming that he is
likewise a victim when it was shown
that the title to the property, the
registration of the real estate
mortgage contract, and the annotation
thereon were all feigned, will not at all
exonerate him. As a rule, a lawyer is
not barred from dealing with his client
but the business transaction must be
characterized with utmost honesty
and good faith. However, the measure
of good faith which an attorney is
required to exercise in his dealings
with this client is a much higher
standard than is required in business
dealings where the parties trade at
arms length. Business transactions
between an attorney and his client are
disfavored and discouraged by the
policy of the law. Hence, courts
carefully watch these transactions to
be sure that no advantage is taken by
a lawyer over his client. This rule is
founded on public policy for, by virtue
of his office, an attorney is in an easy
position to take advantage of the
credulity and ignorance of his client.
Thus, no presumption of innocence or
improbability of wrongdoing is
considered in an attorneys favor
(Nakpil vs. Valdes, 286 SCRA 758
[1998]). Further, his fidelity to the
cause of his client requires him to be
ever mindful of the responsibilities
that should be expected of him.
Respondent utterly failed to perform
his duties and responsibilities faithfully
and well as to protect the rights and
interests of his clients and by his
deceitful actuations constituting
violations of the Code of Professional
Responsibilities must be subjected to
disciplinary measures for his own
good, as well as for the good of the
entire membership of the Bar as a
whole. More importantly, while it may
be true that the complaint for Estafa
thru Falsification filed against the
Respondent had been dismissed, the
dismissal was because of the
complainants voluntary desistance
and not a finding of innocence. It
neither confirms nor denies
Respondents non culpability.
Furthermore, it is well-settled that
disciplinary proceedings are "sui
generis", the primary object of which
is not so much to punish the individual
attorney himself, as to safeguard the
administration of justice by protecting
the court and the public from the
misconduct of lawyers, and to remove
from the professions persons whose
disregard of their oath have proven
them unfit to continue discharging the
trust reposed in them as members of
the bar. Thus, disciplinary cases may
still proceed despite the dismissal of
civil and/or criminal cases against a
lawyer.
Nakpil vs Valdes
[A.C. No. 2040. March 4, 1998]
Ponente: PUNO, J.
FACTS:
Jose Nakpil, husband of the
complainant, became interested in
purchasing a summer residence in
Moran Street, Baguio City. For lack of
funds, he requested respondent to
purchase the Moran property for him.
They agreed that respondent would
keep the property in thrust for the
Nakpils until the latter could buy it
back. Pursuant to their agreement,
respondent obtained two (2) loans
from a bank which he used to
purchase and renovate the property.
Title was then issued in respondents
name. The ownership of the Moran
property became an issue in the
intestate proceedings when Jose
Nakpil died. Respondent acted as the
legal counsel and accountant of his
widow. Respondent excluded the
Moran property from the inventory of
Joses estate and transferred his title
to the Moran property to his company,
the Caval Realty Corporation.
ISSUE:
Whether or not there was conflict of
interest between the respondent Atty.
Valdes and the complainant.
HELD:
YES. Respondent was suspended from
practice of law for one (1) year.
RATIO:
[T]here is no question that the
interests of the estate and that of its
creditors are adverse to each other.
Respondents accounting firm
prepared the list of assets and
liabilities of the estate and, at the
same time, computed the claims of
two creditors of the estate. There is
clearly a conflict between the interest
of the estate which stands as the
debtor, and that of the two claimants
who are creditors of the estate.
[R]espondent undoubtedly placed his FACTS: A disbarment case was filed
law firm in a position where his loyalty against Atty. Llosa by Pike P. Arrieta for
to his client could be doubted. In the allegedly notarizing a Deed of
Absolute sale, wherein,
estate proceedings, the duty of
vendors noted were already dead prior
respondents law firm was to contest to its execution. In answer, respondent
the claims of these two creditors but admitted having notarized the Deed of
which claims were prepared by Absolute Sale. But before affixing his
respondents accounting firm. Even if notarial seal, he first ascertained the
the claims were valid and did not authenticity of the signatures, verified
prejudice the estate, the set-up is still the identities of the signatories, and
determined the voluntariness of its
undesirable. The test to determine
execution.
whether there is a conflict of interest
in the representation is probability, not However, in a later date, the
certainty of conflict. It was respondent sought to dismiss the
respondents duty to inhibit either of disbarment case admitting to the fact
his firms from said proceedings to the instant case is only a product of
avoid the probability of conflict of misunderstanding and
misinterpretation of some facts and is
interest.
now convinced that everything is in
order. The designated Investigating
Public confidence in law and lawyers Commissioner of the IBP
may be eroded by the irresponsible recommended the dismissal of
and improper conduct of a member of the instant case. The Board of
the bar. Thus, a lawyer should Governors of the IBP adopted the
determine his conduct by acting in a above recommendation and resolved
to dismiss the instant case after
manner that would promote public
finding no compelling reason to
confidence in the integrity of the legal continue with the disbarment
profession. Members of the bar are proceedings.
expected to always live up to the
standards embodied in the Code of
Professional Responsibility as the ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Joel A.
relationship between an attorney and Llosa be disbarred or suspended from
practice of law.
his client is highly fiduciary in nature
and demands utmost fidelity and good
faith. In the case at bar, respondent HELD: YES. Respondent ordered
exhibited less than full fidelity to his SUSPENDED for six months from
duty to observe candor, fairness and practice of law with a warning that
loyalty in his dealings and transactions another infraction will be dealt with
more severely. Citing Section 1 of
with his clients.
Public Act No. 2103 also known as the
Notarial law, the Supreme Court
explained the importance
of adherence to said law as part of the
Arrieta vs Llosa responsibility of a duly deputized
authority to conduct such notarial
process. Due diligence is to be
observed, this being part of a
lawyers professional responsibility and
procedural lapse is not an excuse to
cater to the convenience of clients.
Any violation is tantamount to
misconduct. Such misconduct is a
ground for disbarment as stated by
the Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules
of Court. Furthermore, the Supreme
Court stressed the primary
responsibility of lawyers as stated
in Canon I of the Code
of Professional Responsibility that a
lawyer shall uphold the Constitution,
obey the laws of the land and promote
respect for law and legal processes. A
lawyer must also refrain from
engaging in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct. Any
violation of his oath or of his duties as
an attorney and counsellor, which
include statutory grounds enumerated
in Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of
Court, all of these being broad enough
to cover practically any misconduct of
a lawyer in his professional or private
capacity may be disbarred or
suspended.
Rural Bank of Silay vs. Pilla
Rural Bank of Silay. Inc.
(complainant) filed with this Court the
instant complaint for disbarment
against Atty. Ernesto H. Pilla
(respondent) alleging deceit and gross
misconduct on the part of the latter.
The complaint alleges as follows:
1. That on July 23, 1975 the
respondent executed a Real Estate
Mortgage in favor of the complainant
over a parcel of land located in the
Municipality of Sagay, Negros
Occidental, covered by Transfer
Certificate of Title No. T-55380,
purportedly as Attorney-in-Fact of the
registered owners thereof, Pedro N.
Torres and Oscar D. Granada. A copy
of this Real Estate Mortgage is
herewith attached as Annex A.
2. That together with the aforesaid
Real Estate Mortgage the respondent
submitted a Special Power of Attorney
by virtue of which he was purportedly
authorized and empowered by the
registered owners Pedro Torres and
Oscar D. Granada to mortgage the
aforesaid parcel of land in favor of the
complainant. A copy of this Special
Power of Attorney is herewith attached
as Annex B.
3. That on the security of, among
others, the aforesaid parcel of land
over which the respondent
represented that he is authorized to
mortgage, complainant extended and
released a loan to the respondent in
the amount of P91,427.00.
4. That complainant subsequently and
much later learned that the
respondent was not at all authorized
and empowered by the registered
owner Oscar D. Granada to mortgage
the aforesaid parcel of land when it
was joined as a defendant in a
complaint filed by the aforesaid Oscar
D. Grananda for removal of cloud on
title with preliminary injunction and
damages. A copy of this complaint is
herewith attached as Annex C.
5. That in the aforesaid complaint as
well as in the hearing conducted in
connection therewith Oscar D.
Granada specifically and categorically
denied having executed and signed
the Special Power of Attorney, Annex
B, submitted by the respondent to the
complainant in support of his
application for a loan.
6. That the aforesaid civil case, Civil
Case No. 1 of the Regional Trial Court
of Negros Occidental, Branch 60, was
subsequently decided against the
respondent wherein the aforesaid
Court found that the Special Power of
Attorney, Annex B, was indeed forged
and falsified because the spouses
Oscar D. Grananda and Lolita L.
Granada have not signed the same
and wherein the Court also made the
finding that the defendant,
considering that he has benefited from
the said falsified document, is
presumed to have a hand in the
preparation of the same. A copy of this
Decision is herewith attached as
Annex D.
7. That the respondent has not
appealed from the aforesaid Decision
thereby making the findings of fact
made therein final as against him.
8. That the foregoing acts of the
respondent in presenting to the
complainant Bank a forged and
falsified Power of Attorney for the
purpose of obtaining a loan is a
betrayal of his oath as a lawyer to do
falsehood to no man and by his
conduct herein has forfeited his right
to continue further in the practice of
law.[1]
Upon the instance of the Court,
respondent filed his comment refuting
the charges of deceit and gross
misconduct against him. Respondent
denied employing any deceit or
misrepresentation in obtaining a loan
from complainant rural
bank. According to respondent, he did
not know that the signature of Oscar
Granada on the special power of
attorney appointing him (respondent)
as attorney-in-fact was forged. The
special power of attorney purportedly
authorized respondent to mortgaged
the parcel of land in Sagay, Negros
Occidental in favor of complainant
rural bank. Respondent also claimed
that if indeed said document was
forged, he was not a party to the
forgery. He cited the findings of the
trial court in Civil Case No. 1-C, thus:
Although there is no showing that Atty.
Ernesto H. Pilla has actually falsified
the signatures of the spouses, Atty.
Oscar D. Granada, yet considering that
he actually benefited from the said
falsified documents, he is presumed to
have a hand on the same. (Decision,
p. 20-annex D.)[2]
Respondent maintained that he
obtained the loan from complainant
rural bank without depriving it of the
opportunity to investigate his financial
capacity as well as to ascertain the
genuineness of the special power of
attorney under which he acted as the
mortgagor. Thus, respondent is of the
view that, under the circumstances, it
cannot be said that he employed
deceit and gross misconduct against
complainant rural bank.
After receipt of respondents
comment, the Court referred the
matter to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) for investigation. Both
parties adduced their respective
evidence before the Commission on
Bar Discipline of the IBP. Upon
agreement of the parties, the matter
was resolved on the basis of their
respective pleadings and the annexes
attached thereto. From these
pleadings, the IBP, through
Commissioner Julio C. Elamparo,
established the following
uncontroverted facts:
Purportedly acting as attorney-in-fact
of a certain Pedro Torres and Oscar D.
Granada, by virtue of a special power
of attorney, respondent applied for a
loan and concomitantly executed a
Real Estate Mortgage in favor of the
complainant bank covering the
property of Pedro Torres and Oscar D.
Granada. With such security,
complainant extended to the
respondent his loan in the amount of
P91, 427.00. In view of the failure of
the respondent to pay the loan, the
mortgaged property was foreclosed by
the complainant bank. Later, Oscar
Granada, the real registered owner of
the mortgaged property filed a
complaint against the respondent and
the complainant for the annulment of
the Real Estate Mortgage and Special
Power of Attorney. After the trial, the
court declared null and void the said
Special Power of Attorney as well as
the Real Estate Mortgage for being
products of forgery. This decision was
not appealed by the defendants.
There is no showing that respondent,
despite the adverse decision, returned
or offered to return the money he took
from the complainant bank. The bank
then instituted this disbarment
proceeding against the respondent.[3]
The IBP found from the above
facts that respondent violated his oath
as a lawyer to do no falsehood, thus:
This office believes that the actuation
of the respondent constitutes a
betrayal of his oath as a lawyer. The
findings of the Regional Trial Court of
Negros Occidental have persuasive
effect in this proceeding.
As found by the Regional Trial Court of
Negros Occidental in its decision in
Civil Case No. 1-C, entitled Spouses
Oscar D. Granada and Lolita L.
Granada vs. Ernesto H. Pilla, et al, the
plaintiffs Granada spouses have not
signed the questioned Special Power
of Attorney in favor of the respondent
and the said spouses signatures as
appearing in the Special Power of
Attorney are not their true and
genuine signatures for actually they
have not executed nor granted a
Special Power of Attorney in favor of
herein respondent authorizing him to
mortgage the one-third (1/3) share of
the said spouses in the mortgaged
property. The trial court stressed that:
Although there is no showing that Atty.
Ernesto H. Pilla has actually falsified
the signatures of the spouses,
Atty. Oscar D. Granada, yet
considering that he actually benefited
from the said falsified documents, he
is presumed to have a hand on the
same.
Defendant Antonio Pura testified and
in fact he admitted that he notarized
the said documents, Exhibit A and B, illegal and I have confidence
with the assurance of Atty. Pilla that in him considering that he is
the signatures appearing in the said a lawyer and he knows what
documents were the signatures of he was doing, I
Atty. Oscar D. Granada and of Pedro accommodated him.
Torres, registered owners of the
property in question. If indeed, respondent is not
responsible for the
Antonio G. Pura, the notary public who falsification of the Special
notarized the questioned Special Power of Attorney, why did
Power of Attorney in favor of the he not explain before the
respondent, testified in said Civil Case trial court or before this
as follows: office the circumstances on
how he obtained the
Q Now, compaero, will you same.He did not even
please relate to this bother to identify his
Honorable Court the alleged client who provided
circumstances under which him the forged Special
you notarized this Special Power of Attorney. Instead,
Power of Attorney now respondent is banking on
marked as Exh. A on April his defense that the
21, 1975? complainant bank has not
introduced any evidence to
A Yes, sir. I remember that on prove that he forged the
the same day, April 21, Special Power of
1975, defendant Atty. Attorney. He relied on the
Ernesto H. Pilla personally argument that his
appeared before me and he transaction with the
brought along with him this complainant bank was
Special Power of Attorney purely commercial business
executed in his favor. He and did not involve his
told me to notarize it. I capacity as a
asked him about the lawyer. Further, if it is
signature of Atty. Oscar D. true that the respondent
Granada if this is his maintains the highest
signature and he said Yes. I degree of morality and
also asked him about the integrity as he asserted,
signature of the other why did he represent before
principal and he said also the notary public that the
Yes. With that assurance signatures appearing in the
and being a brother lawyer I Special Power of Attorney
accommodated were the signatures of the
him. Knowing that he will real owners if he was not
not do anything that is actually aware that the
 signatures were that of the
real owners.
The office is convinced that the
actuation of the respondent is
misrepresentation constituting gross
misconduct at the very least. This is a
violation of his oath as a lawyer to do
falsehood to no man.
In conclusion, Commissioner
Elamparo recommended that
respondent be suspended from the
practice of law for five (5) years. The
IBP, through Resolution No. XIV-00-
175, dated 7 April 2000, of its Board of
Governors, substantially adopted and
approved the report and
recommendation of Commissioner
Elamparo but modified the
penalty. The IBP RESOLVED as follows:
to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is
hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, the
Report and Recommendation of the
Investigating Commissioner of the
above-entitled case, herein made part
of this Resolution/Decision as annex A,
and, finding the recommendation fully
supported by the evidence on record
and the applicable laws and rules, said
recommendation is with
modification that Respondent
be SUSPENDED from the practice of
law for THREE (3) years for
misrepresentation.[5]
We fully agree with the findings of
the Investigating Commissioner.
As correctly pointed out by the
trial court in Civil Case No. 1-C, since
respondent actually benefited from
the falsified document, he is presumed
to have a hand in the falsification of
the same. Respondent miserably failed
to rebut this presumption with his
barefaced denial that he had no
knowledge of the forgery. The Court
cannot give credence to respondents
negative assertion that he did not
know that the special power of
attorney issued in his favor was
falsified. As a lawyer, respondent
knows or ought to know that parties to
a public document must personally
appear before the notary public to
attest that the same is their own free
act and deed. In utter disregard of this
requirement, respondent caused the
special power of attorney to be
notarized without the parties
appearing before the notary
public.Thereafter, respondent
presented the same to complainant
rural bank in order to obtain a loan
therefrom. It is thus apparent that
respondent had a hand in the
falsification of the document
especially considering that it was he
who chiefly benefited from it. Indeed,
the settled rule is that in the absence
of satisfactory explanation, one found
in possession of and who used a
forged document is the forger and
therefore guilty of
falsification. Further, if a person had in
his possession a falsified document
and he made use of it (uttered it),
taking advantage of it and profiting
thereby, the clear presumption is that
he is the material author of the
falsification.
Respondents acts clearly fall short
of the standards set by the Code of
Professional Responsibility, particularly
Rule 1.01 thereof, which provides that
[a] lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct. The fact that the
conduct pertained to respondents
private dealings with complainant
rural bank is of no moment. A lawyer
may be suspended or disbarred for
ANY misconduct, even if it pertains to
his private activities, as long as it
shows him to be wanting in moral
character, honesty, probity, or good
demeanor.[8] Possession of good moral
character is not only a good condition
precedent to the practice of law, but a
continuing qualification for all
members of the bar.[9]
Considering the foregoing, the
recommendation of the IBP that
respondent be suspended from the
practice of law for a period of three (3)
years is approved.
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby
finds respondent Atty. Ernesto H. Pilla
guilty of misconduct. He is suspended
from the practice of law for a period of
three (3) years effective from receipt
of this Resolution, with a warning that
a repetition of the same or similar
offense will be more severely dealt
with.
Let a copy of this Resolution be
furnished, upon its finality, to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines and
all the courts in the Philippines, and
spread on the personal record of
respondent in the Office of the Bar
Confidant, Supreme Court of the
Philippines.
SO ORDERED.