PALE Case Survey

PROBLEMS AREAS IN LEGAL
ETHICS
2016 CASE SURVEY

 LEGAL ETHICS - JANUARY
PAULINA T. YU v. ATTY. BERLIN R. DELA CRUZ
A.C. No. 10912
JANUARY 19, 2016
ACTS COMMITTED: Respondent lawyer agreed to represent

Complainant, Paulina T. Yu for several cases. From which, multiple
Acceptance Fees were already paid to the Respondent Lawyer. On
one occasion, while the lawyer-client relationship was subsisting,
respondent lawyer borrowed pieces of jewelry from complainant and
was pledged for a loan from a bank. For redemption of said jewelry,
respondent lawyer issued a Bank Check but the same was
dishonored for the reason, "Account Closed". Complainant notified
respondent lawyer for the dishonored check but no response was
availed. Demand was instituted against respondent lawyer for the
payment of jewelry including the paid acceptance fees to him, but still
to no avail. Complaint has been filed for the acts of the said
respondent lawyer. Lawyer was made to respond to the complaint but
he continuously disregarded the notification made to him for the
reasons only known to him.
BASIS OF LEGAL ACTION:
CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION,
OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR
LAW OF AND LEGAL PROCESSES.
RULE 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct.
CANON 16 - A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS
AND PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT THAT MAY COME INTO HIS
PROFESSION.
RULE 16.04 - A lawyer shall not borrow money from his client unless
the client's interests are fully protected by the nature of the case or by
independent advice. Neither shall a lawyer lend money to a client
except, when in the interest of justice; he has to advance necessary
expenses in a legal matter he is handling for the client.
CANON 17 - A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE OF HIS
CLIENT AND HE SHALL BE MINDFUL OF THE TRUST AND
CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM.
Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 - AN ACT PENALIZING THE MAKING OR
DRAWING AND ISSUANCE OF A CHECK WITHOUT SUFFICIENT
FUNDS OR CREDIT AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
PENALTY IMPOSED: WHEREFORE, finding respondent Atty. Berlin

R. Dela Cruz GUILTY of violating Canons 1, 16, 17 and Rules 1.01
and 16.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Court
hereby SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for Three Years with
a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act would
be dealt with more severely.
ANTERO M. SISON, JR. v. ATTY. MANUEL N. CAMACHO
A.C. No. 10910 JANUARY 12, 2016
ACTS COMMITTED: Atty. Camacho was the counsel of MDAHI in

an insurance claim action against Paramount Life & General
Insurance Corp. On March 4, 2011, Atty. Camacho met with the
corporate secretary of MDAHI and proposed to increase claim on
insurance which will alongside require additional docket fees of P1,
288,260.00 which was granted by MDAHI and was given to Atty.
Camacho on May 27, 2011. Later on Atty. Sison learned that on May
26, 2011 the RTC had already rendered a decision in favor of MDAHI
granting its claim in approximately P65,000,000.00, despite that, Atty.
Camacho still accepted the supposedly additional docket fees. On
August 11, 2011, Atty. Camacho then again sent a letter to MDAHI
recommending a settlement with Paramount Insurance in the amount
of P15, 000,000.00, which the latter refused. Surprisingly, even
without the written conformity of MDAHI, Atty. Camacho filed
Satisfaction of Judgment before the RTC stating that the parties
entered into a compromise agreement.

RULE 16.01 - A lawyer shall account for all money or property
collected or received for or from the client.
Rules of Court, Rule 138, Sec. 23 - Authority of attorneys to bind
clients. — Attorneys have authority to bind their clients in any case by
any agreement in relation thereto made in writing, and in taking
appeals, and in all matters of ordinary judicial procedure. But they
cannot, without special authority, compromise their client's litigation,
or receive anything in discharge of a client's claim but the full amount
in cash.
PENALTY IMPOSED:
Atty. Manuel N. Camacho is found guilty of violating Rule 1.01 and
Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. For reasons
above-stated, he is DISBARRED from the practice of law and his
name stricken off the Roll of Attorneys, effective immediately.
Furthermore, Atty. Manuel N. Camacho is ORDERED to return to
Marsman-Drysdale Agribusiness Holdings Inc. the money intended to
pay for additional docket fees which he received from the latter in the
amount of P 1,288,260.00 within ninety (90) days from the finality of
this decision.
CHERYL E. VASCO-TAMARAY v. ATTY. DEBORAH DAQUIS
A.C. No. 10868 JANUARY 26, 2016
ACTS COMMITTED: Cheryl E. Vasco-Tamaray filed a Complaint

Affidavit against Atty. Deborah Z. Daquis for filing a Petition for
Declaration of Nullity of Marriage without her consent and forged her
signature on the Petition. Atty. Deborah denied the same and said
that she was the counsel of the complainant herein. However, facts
shows that the details used in the Petition did not correspond to the
truth. It was proven that the cedula used in the Notarized Petition was
not of the complainant, including the signature which was not
consistent to the signature she was using in other documents shown
in the evidence presented by her.

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 shall he whether in public or
private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the
legal profession.
CANON 10 - A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD
FAITH TO THE COURT.
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.
PENALTY IMPOSED:
The penalty of DISBARMENT is imposed upon respondent Atty.

Deborah Z. Daquis. The Office of the Bar Confidant is directed to
remove the name of Deborah Z. Daquis from the Roll of Attorneys.
ATTY. PABLO B. FRANCISCO vs. ATTY. ROMEO M. FLORES
A.C. No. 10753, January 26, 2016
ACTS COMMITTED :
Atty. Flores Atty. Pablo B. Francisco filed an administrative
Complaint for violation of Canons 10 and 18 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility against Atty. Romeo M. Flores before the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines, alleging dishonesty and negligence
on the part of Atty. Flores.
Atty. Francisco filed a Complaint for forcible entry against the Fineza
family before the Municipal Trial Court of Binangonan, Rizal. The
Finezas’ were represented by Atty. Flores.
Atty. Flores failed to notify his client of a court order denying their
Motion for Reconsideration and failed to resort to other remedies
available within the proper period making the Decision rendered final
and executory. Atty. Flores also helped prepare for his clients filing of
an improper Petition for Relief from Judgment but the said petition
was dismissed for being out of time.
During the pendency of this case, Atty. Flores submitted documents
signifying his innocence; however said documents were full of
inconsistencies disproving his defense.

Canon 10 - A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the
court.
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
Rule 10.03 - A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall
not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.
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.
PENALTY IMPOSED:
Suspension from the practice of law for two (2) years with a
warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with
more severely.
ENGEL PAUL ACA vs ATTY. RONALDO P. SALVADO
A.C. No. 10952, January 26, 2016
ACTS COMMITTED :
Atty. Salvado enticed Mr. Aca to invest in his business promising high
returns. Atty. Salvado issued several post-dated checks as security
for the said investment. When Mr. Aca presented the checks to the
bank, it was dishonored for insufficient funds or closed account.
Upon several verbal and written demands, Atty. Salvado failed to
keep his promises to pay and ultimately failed to settle his obligation.
Atty. Salvado also consistently refused to receive the demand letters
of Mr. Aca. Atty. Salvado resorted to deceiving attempts to evade
payment of his obligation when he instructed his subordinate not to
receive demand letters and tell others that he is not residing in his
house and fled to the province.

Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral
or deceitful conduct.

Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely
legal profession.
PENALTY IMPOSED:
Suspension from the practice of law for two (2) years.
 FEBRUARY
ERLINDA SISTUAL, FLORDELISA S. LEYSA, LEONISA S.

ESPABO AND ARLAN C. SISTUAL vs. ATTY. ELIORDO OGENA
A.C. No. 9807, February 02, 2016
ACTS COMMITTED :
Atty. Ogena prepared and notarized several documents regarding the

lands of the complainants and their family. Atty. Ogena allegedly
falsified the said documents however it was not substantially proven
and was found out that it was beneficial to the complainants. Atty.
Ogena however, in some of the documents that he notarized, he
failed to indicate the Community Tax Certificates (CTC) or any
Identification of all the signatories who signed the documents.

2004 Rules on Notarial Practice specifically Rule IV, Section 2(b),
which provides:
Section 2. Prohibitions.
(b) 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 throughcompetent evidence of identity as defined
by these Rules.
PENALTY IMPOSED:
Suspension from the practice of law for two (2) years and
is BARRED PERMANENTLY from being commissioned as Notary
Public.
Inocencio I. Balistoy vs. Atty. Florencio A. Bron
A.C. No. 8667. February 3, 2016
ACTS COMMITTED:
A complain by Inocencio Balistoy against Atty. Bron who allegedly
prepared, notarized, and filed a motion to dismiss and answer to the
civil case, knowing that the CTCs his clients showed him were
fraudulent, thereby consenting to a wrongdoing. Further, Atty. Bron
submitted a falsified medical certificate for his client Paul Wee who
was supposedly quarantined upon arrival from Malaysia, in
compliance with a court order for him to present proof that Paul could
not attend the hearing.
Atty. Bron maintained that he did not procure the CTCs, nor he had
opportunity, at the time of execution of the notarial act, to verify
whether the CTCs were duly issued by the proper authorities.

Atty. Bron, as a member of the Bar and a notary public, he could have
exercised caution and resourcefulness in notarizing the jurat in the
pleadings he filed in the civil case by seeing to it that the CTCs
presented to him were order in all respects. That he failed to do so
betrays carelessness in his performance of the notarial act and his
duty as a lawyer.
Canon 18, Rule 18.03. A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter
entrusted to him and his negligence in connection therewith shall
render him liable.
PENALTY IMPOSED:
Atty. Bron is Reprimanded for his lack of due care in notarizing the
motion to dismiss and the answer in Civil Case.
Adelpha E. Malabed vs. Atty. Meljohn B. De La Pena
A.C. No. 7594. February 9, 2016
ACTS COMMITTED:
Atty. Meljohn B. De La Pena is charged with dishonesty for

deliberately and repeatedly making falsehood that misled the court.
The respondent called complainants counsel silahis by nature and
complexion and accused him cohabitating with a married man.
The submission of the certificate to file action, which evidences the
non- conciliation between the parties in the barangay, is a pre-
condition for filing of complaint in court. Respondent submitted the
certificate to file action in the complaint filed but not the such
certification issued by the barangay.
Atty. De La Pena committed gross misconduct for misrepresenting
that he submitted a certificate to file action issued by the lupon
Tagapamayapa when in fact there was none prior to the institution of
the civil action, using improper language in his pleadings and defying
willfully the courts prohibition on reemployment.

Canon 10, a lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court.
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.
Canon 8, Rule 1, a lawyer shall not in his professional dealings, use

language which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.
PENALTY IMPOSED:
Atty. De La Pena was suspended for two years from the practice of
law with a warning that the commission of the same or similar act or
acts shall be dealt with more severely.
Nemesion Flooran and Caridad Floran vs. Atty. Roy Prule Ediza
A.C. No. 5325. February 9, 2016
ACTS COMMITED: Spouses Floran sought the assistance of

Atty. Ediza. On 24 September 1996, Atty. Ediza filed a Motion to
Dismiss on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction and cause of action. On
23 October 1996, the RTC granted the motion to dismiss the case
without prejudice based on non-compliance
with barangay conciliation procedures under the
Revised KatarungangPambarangay Law. It is clear from the records
that respondent Atty. Ediza deceived the Spouses Floran when he
asked them to unknowingly sign a deed of sale transferring a portion
of their land to him. Respondent also made it appear that the
original owner of the land conveyed her rights therto to respondent
and not to the Spouses Floran. When the sale of the Spouses
Floran’s land pushed through, respondent received half of the
proceeds given by the buyer and falsely misled the Spouses Floran
into thinking that he will register the remaining portion of the land.
Lamentably, Atty. Ediza played on the naïveté of the Spouses Floran
to deprive them of their valued property.

Canon 1: A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the
land and promote respect for the law and legal processes.
Rule 1.01: A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral
Canon 15: A lawyers shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all
his dealings and transactions with his clients.
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.
PENALTY IMPOSED:
Atty. Ediza is suspended from law practice for (6) six months.
He is directed to return to the
Spouses Nemesio and Caridad Floran the two (2) sets of documents
that he misled the spouses and Sartiga Epal to sign. He is further
ordered to pay SPS. Nemesio Floran and Caridad Floran, within 30
days from the receipt of the decision, in the amount of 125,463.38,
with legal interest from 8 of September 2000 until fully paid. And has
been warned that repetition of the act shall be dealt with more
severely.
Angelito Ramiscal and Mercedes Orzame vs. Atty. Edgar S. Orro
A.C. No. 10945. February 23, 2016
ACTS COMMITTED:
Complainants Spouses Angelito Ramiscal and Mercedes
Orzame (Ramiscals) engaged the legal services of respondent Atty.
Edgar S. Orro to handle a case in which they were the defendants
seeking the declaration of the nullity of title to a parcel of land situated
in the Province of Isabela.1 Upon receiving the P10,000.00
acceptance fee from them, the respondent handled the trial of the
case until the Regional Trial Court (RTC) decided it in their favor. As
expected, the plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), and
they ultimately filed their appellants’ brief. Upon receipt of the
appellants’ brief, the respondent requested from the complainants an
additional amount of P30,000.00 for the preparation and submission
of their appellees’ brief in the CA. They obliged and paid him the
amount requested.

Canon 17: A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he
shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.
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.
Rule 18.04: A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his
case and shall respond within reasonable time to the client’s request
for information
PENALTY IMPOSED:
Atty. Edgar Orro is suspended from the practice of law for a
period for two years effective upon notice, with the stern warning that
any similar infraction in the future will be dealt with more severely.
 MARCH
Spouses Eduardo G. Gacuya and Caridad Rosario Gacuya vs.

Atty. Reyman Solbita
A.C. No. 8840. March 8, 2016
ACTS COMMITTED:
Sometime in February, 2006, the complainants, spouses Gacuya,
approached Atty. Reyman Solbita and asked him to prepare a deed of
sale of their property covered by TCT No. T-5925 in favour of the
spouses Fernando and Marivic Gonzales. After the deed was prepared,
Atty. Solbita proposed that the notarisation of the deed of sale be
antedated, as his notarial commission expired on December, 2005, to
which the spouses Gacuya refused, claiming that they will be prejudiced
by the penalties or surcharges out of the late payment of capital gains
tax. Thus, Atty. Solbita notarized the document, which was entered in
his notarial book on February 21, 2006, the date it was executed by the
contracting parties and entered it as Doc. No. 440, Page No. 88, Page
No. X (sic), Series of 2006 despite an expired notarial commission.
Subsequently, the title was canceled due to the notarized deed of sale,
while the spouses Gacuya used the proceeds of the sale to pay their
mortgage debt with the DBP. Three days after the execution of the
document, the spouses Gacuya went to Atty. Soblita, carrying with them
a PNB manager’s check, and offered to return the amount to the
spouses Gonzales, as there was another buyer willing to buy the
property at a higher price. The spouses Gonzales of course refused,
prompting the spouses Gacuya to file a case for declaration of nullity of
documents, recovery of ownership and title with tender of payment
against the Gonzales spouses. Atty. Solbita claimed that he was asked
by the spouses Gacuuya to testify in their favour, to which Atty. Solbita
refused out of fairness to the parties. The RTC dismissed the complaint
for insufficiency of evidence.

Canon 1: A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws
of the land and promote respect for the law and legal processes.
Rule 1.01: A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
Rule 7: A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of
the legal profession and support the activities of the Integrated Bar.
PENALTY IMPOSED:
The Notarial Commission of Atty. Solbita was revoked and is
permanently barred from being commissioned as Notary Public. And
He is also suspended from the practice of law for a period of (2) two
years.
SPOUSES EDUARDO G. GACUYA AND CARIDAD ROSARIO
GACUYA VS. ATTY. REYMAN A. SOLBITA
(A.C. NO. 8840 [FORMERLY CBD CASE NO. 11-3121], MARCH 08,
2016)
ACT/S COMMITTED:
Atty. Solbita suggested to the parties in a Deed of Sale that he will
antedate the notarization of the Deed of Sale to December 31, 2005
since his Notarial Commission already expired and he was still in the
process of renewing the same for the year 2006. However, one of the
parties therein insisted that the instrument be notarized on the date it
was executed to avoid penalties or surcharges by the Bureau of
Internal Revenue (BIR) for late payment of capital gains tax. Atty.
Solbita notarized the document, which was entered in his notarial
book on February 21, 2006, the date it was executed by the
contracting parties and entered it as Doc. No. 440, Page No. 88,
Page No. X, Series of 2006, despite an expired notarial commission.
The total consideration is One Million Two Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P1,200,000.00), but what was reflected in the Deed of Sale was only
the amount of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) to save
on the capital gains tax.

Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which directs
every lawyer to uphold at all, times the integrity and dignity of the
legal profession.
Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
which provides: “A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct.”
PENALTY/S IMPOSED:
The notarial commission of Atty. Reyman A. Solbita, if still existing,
was REVOKED, and he is PERMANENTLY BARRED from being
commissioned as notary public, effective upon receipt of the copy of
this decision.
He was also SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of two
(2) years effective immediately, with a WARNING that a repetition of a
similar violation will be dealt with even more severely.
THE CHRISTIAN SPIRITISTS IN THE PHILIPPINES, INC. (PICO
CHAPTER) V. ATTY. DAIEL D. MANGALLAY
(A.C. NO. 10483, MARCH 16, 2016)
ACT/S COMMITTED:
The respondent attorney, as the plaintiff, successfully defeated the
local congregation of the Christian Spiritists in the Philippines, Inc.,
Pico Local Center (CSP-PLC), whose church building and other
structures were the objects of the action. After the defendants filed
their notice of appeal, the parties agreed to settle among themselves,
with the defendants withdrawing the notice of appeal and agreeing to
voluntarily vacate and remove their structures by August 31, 2013 in
consideration of the respondent's financial assistance of
P300,000.00. But, despite receiving the respondent's financial
assistance, the defendants reneged on their end of the agreement;
hence, at the respondent's instance, the trial court issued the writ of
execution and the writ of demolition, by virtue of which the structures
of the defendants were ultimately demolished.
This disbarment complaint against the respondent is based on his
allegedly gross misconduct and deceit in causing the demolition of
the structures without the demolition order from the court, violation of
the Lawyer’s Oath, and disobedience to a lawful order of the court,
positing that he thereby abused his legal knowledge.

NONE
PENALTIES IMPOSED:
NONE
The documents he (herein Respondent Atty. Mangallay) submitted to
substantiate his denial of professional wrongdoing are part of the
records of the trial court, and, as such, are sufficient to establish the
unworthiness of the complaint as well as his lawful entitlement to the
demolition of the structures of the defendants in the foregoing Civil
Case. Further, the demolition was authorized by the order issued by
the MTC. Furthermore, the sheriffs dutifully discharged their
functions. The presence of the respondent during the execution
proceedings was by no means irregular or improper, for he was the
plaintiff.
 APRIL
PEDRO RAMOS VS. ATTY. MARIA NYMPHA MANDAGAN
(A.C. NO. 11128, APRIL 6, 2016)
ACT/S COMMITTED:
Pedro, charged with murder before the Sandiganbayan, hired the

services of Atty. Maria Nympha Mandagan. The latter then
demanded from him the amount of P300,000.00 which shall be used
as bail bond in the event his petition for bail was granted, and another
P10,000.00 as operating expenses. Nevertheless, his petition for bail
was denied. Atty. Mandagan, instead of returning the P300,000.00,
withdrew as counsel in his case and refused to return the money
despite demand. Thus, he filed a disbarment case against Atty.
Mandagan. In her answer, Atty. Mandagan averred that the amount
was used as mobilisation expenses for preparation of witnesses,
pleadings and other documentary exhibits; it was never intended as
payment of bail. She added that from the time she accepted the case
up to her withdrawal as counsel, Ramos never gave her acceptance
fees, appearance fees and legal services fees.
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.
PENALTIES IMPOSED:
Atty. Maria Nympha C. Mandagan was SUSPENDED from practice of

law for a period of one (1) year effective upon receipt of the
Resolution, with WARNING that a similar offense will be dealt with
more severely.
HELEN CHANG v. ATTY. JOSE R. HIDALGO
A.C. No. 6934; April 6, 2016
ACTS COMMITTED:
Helen Chang engaged the services of Atty. Jose Hidalgo as legal
counsel to represent her in several collection cases pending in
various courts. Pursuant to the contract they executed, Chang issued
five (5) checks in favor of Atty. Hidalgo totaling ₱52,000.00. Atty.
Hidalgo also collected ₱9,500.00 as "hearing fee." Despite receiving
a total of ₱61,500.00, Atty. Hidalgo did not attend any of the hearings
in the collection cases and, instead, sent another lawyer without her
consent. The other lawyer failed to attend all hearings, which resulted
in the dismissal of the cases summarily.

Canon 17 and Canon 18, Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
CANON 17 — A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he

CANON 18 — A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and

diligence.

liable.
PENALTY IMPOSED:
Suspension from practice of law for a period of one (1) year, with
warning that repetition of the same or similar acts will merit a more
severe penalty. Atty. Hidalgo is also ordered to return to Helen Chang
the amount of P61, 500.00, with interest at 6% per annum from the
date of promulgation of this Resolution until fully paid.
COBALT RESOURCES, INC. v. ATTY. RONALD AGUADO
A.C. No. 10781; April 12, 2016
ACTS COMMITTED:
Atty. Ronald Aguado participated in hi-jacking the delivery van of

Cobalt Resources, Inc. which was loaded with cellular phones. The
group of armed men including Atty. Aguado pretended to be agents of
the Presidential Anti-Smuggling Group (PASG) with clad in vests
bearing the mark "PASG". The men who hijacked the delivery van
used the fake mission order identifying Atty. Aguado as the assistant
team leader and authorized them to seize Cobalt Resources’ cellular
phones. During the execution of the crime, Atty. Aguado carried a
fake ID bearing his picture and name showing that he was a PASG
legal consultant.

Canon 1 - A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the
land and promote respect for law and legal processes.

Rule 1.02 - A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at

defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system.
PENALTY IMPOSED:
Atty. Ronald C. Aguado is disbarred and his name is ordered stricken

off the roll of attorneys.
NEMIA CASTRO v. JUDGE CESAR A. MANGROBANG
A.M. No. RTJ-16-2455; April 11, 2016
ACTS COMMITTED:
It took Judge Mangrobang 10 months and nine months to resolve the

Omnibus Motion and Motion to Admit Postmaster's Certification filed
by Nemia Castro, respectively. Judge Mangrobang failed to resolve
said Motions within the 90-day reglementary period on all motions
and interlocutory matters pending before their courts for no justifiable
reason. He failed to ask before the Supreme Court for a reasonable
period of extension to resolve Castro's Motions.

Section 9(1), in relation to Section 11(B), Rule 140 of the Rules of
Court, as amended:
Undue delay in rendering a decision or order is a less serious
charge, for which the respondent judge shall be penalized with either
(a) suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not
less than one nor more than three months; or (b) a fine of more than
PI0,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00.
PENALTY IMPOSED:
FINED in the amount of P10,000.00, to be deducted from the
retirement benefits due and payable to him.
ALEX NULADA vs. ATTY. ORLANDO S. PAULMA
A.C. No. 8172, April 12, 2016
ACTS COMMITTED:
Atty. Orlando S. Paulma, respondent, issued a check in favor of

petitioner, Alex Nulada in the amount of P650,000.00 as payment of
the former’s debt. Upon presentation of check for payment, the same
was dishonored due to insufficient funds. Atty. Paulma failed to make
good the amount of the check despite notice of dishonor and
repeated demands, prompting complainant to file a criminal complaint
for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22.
Canon 1 – A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of

the land and promote respect for law of and legal processes
Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral

PENALTY IMPOSED:
Atty. Orlando S. Paulma is hereby suspended from practice of law for

a period of two (2) years, effective upon his receipt of this Resolution.
He is warned that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt
with more severely.
RENE B. HERMANO vs. ATTY. IGMEDIO S. PRADO, JR.
A.C. No. 7447, April 18, 2016
ACTS COMMITTED: Atty. Igmedio S. Prado, Jr., respondent, failed to

discharge his duties as counsel. He failed to prepare and file a
memorandum on complainant Rene B. Hermano’s behalf despite the
Regional Trial Court’s order to do so. The memorandum could have
been a helpful medium for the complainant to establish his claim of
self-defense in the criminal cases charged against him. However, due
to the respondent’s negligence, the complainant lost the opportunity
and was convicted of the charges. This was notwithstanding the fact
that the complainant paid him the amount of P10,000.00 to prepare
the said memorandum. The respondent had the temerity to insinuate
to the complainant that there is a good chance that the decision of the
Regional Trial Court will be overturned by the Court of Appeals should
they appeal the case. Out of desperation of his plight, the
complainant readily acquiesced and willingly paid out the amount of
P15,000.00, which the respondent required as professional fees.
Barely two days before the lapse of the period of filing the appellant’s
brief, however, the respondent was nowhere to be found and did not
even bother to communicate with the complainant to inform him of the
status of his case.

Canon 16 – A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of
his client that may come into his profession.
Rule 16.01 – A lawyer shall account for all money or property
Canon 17 – A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he
Canon 18 – A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and
diligence.
Rule 18.02 – A lawyer shall not handle any legal matter without
adequate preparation.
Rule 18.03 – A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to
liable.
Rule 18.04 – A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of
his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client’s
request for information.
PENALTY IMPOSED:
Atty. Igmedio S. Prado, Jr. is suspended from the practice of law for
six (6) months effective upon finality of this Decision and is ordered to
return the amount of P25,000.00 to complainant, Rene B. Hermano
for legal services he failed to render within thirty (30) days from
receipt of this Decision. He is further warned that a repetition of the
same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.
PHILCOMSAT HOLDINGS CORPORATION, Duly Represented by
ERLINDA I. BILDNER vs. ATTY. LUIS K. LOKIN, JR. and ATTY.
SIKINI C. LABASTILLA
A.C. No. 11139, April 19, 2016
ACTS COMMITTED:
Atty. Luis K. Lokin, Jr., director of PHILCOMSAT Holdings

Corporation, caused the creation of the subject checkbook entry in
the amount of P2,000,000.00 allegedly issued to the Sandiganbayan
as testified by compainant’s bookkeeper, Desideria D. Casas, in
exchange for the Sandiganbayan’s issuance of a Temporary
Restraining Order in connection with PHILCOMSAT’s injunction case
against the Philippine Overseas Telecommunications Corporation
thereby degrading the Sandiganbayan’s integrity and honor.
Circumstantial evidence showed that Atty. Sikini C. Labastilla,
conspired with Atty. Lokin in causing such contemptuous entry,
considering inter alia, that the former was the counsel who applied for
the said Temporary Restraining Order and that he admitted receipt of
the proceeds of the check, although allegedly for legal fees but failed
to properly account for the aforesaid amount and that Sheriffs Manuel
Gregorio Mendoza Torio and Romulo C. Barrozo of the
Sandiganbayan similarly testified that such Temporary Restraining
Order was only effected/served upon payment of the corresponding
fees.
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.
Canon 11 – A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to

the courts and to judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct
by others.
PENALTY IMPOSED:
Accordingly, Atty. Luis K. Lokin, Jr. is suspended from the practice of

law for a period of three (3) years, while Atty. Sikini C. Labastilla is
hereby suspended from the practice of law for a period of one (1)
year, effective upon the receipt of this Decision, with stern warning
that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more
severely.
Arthur S. Tulio vs. Atty. Gregory F. Buhangin
A.C. No. 7110, April 20, 2016
ACTS COMMITTED:
Atty. Buhangin represented opposing parties in the same case.

Atty. Buhangin represented Tulio and filed and a case for specific
performance and damages against Tulio’s siblings. This is regarding
the Deed of Waiver of Rights notarized by Atty. Buhangin and signed
by all of Tulio’s Siblings over an estate left by the mother. Later on,
Atty. Buhangin represented Tulio’s siblings and filed a case against
Tulio over legal matters which Tulio had entrusted to him regarding
the same case. Atty. Buhangin subsequently withdrew from his
appearance as counsel for Tulio’s siblings which was deemed by the
court too late. During the proceedings before the IBP, Atty. Buhangin
failed to attend all the mandatory conferences set by the IBP. He also
ignored the IBP’s directive to file his position paper. Because of such
acts, the case which was filed in 2006 dragged on for years.
Code of Professional Responsibility:
Canon 15 – A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all

Rule 15.3 – A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except

by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the
facts.

Lawyer’s Oath
The oath imposes upon every member of the Bar the duty to
delay no man for money or malice.
PENALTY IMPOSED:
Atty. Buhangin is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a

period of six (6) months, with a WARNING that a repetition of the
same or similar acts in the future will be dealt with more severely.
Teresita P. Fajardo vs. Atty. Nicanor C. Alvarez
A.C. No. 90118, April 20, 2016
ACTS COMMITTED:
Teresita hire Atty. Alvarez to handle several cases filed against

her before the Office of the Ombudsman. However, Atty. Alvarez did
not enter his appearance before the Office of the Ombudsman nor
sign any pleadings. Atty. Alvarez assured Teresita that he had friends
connected with the Office of the Ombudsman who could help with
dismissing her case for a certain fee. Atty. Alvarez said that he
needed money to pay his friends and acquaintances working at the
Office of the Ombudsman to have cases against Teresita dismissed.
2 weeks later, Teresita received a resolution and decision
recommending the filing of a criminal complaint against Teresita and
her dismissal from service respectively.
Canon of Professional Responsibility:
Canon 1 – A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the
land and promote respect for law of and legal process.

Rule 1.02 – A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at

of the legal profession and support the activities of the integrated bar.
Canon 13 – A lawyer shall rely upon the merits of his cause and
refrain from any impropriety which tends to influence, or gives the
appearance of influencing the court.
Lawyers Oath: Atty. Alvares violated his oath when he proposed to

gain a favorable outcome for complainant’s case by resorting to his
influence among staff in the Office where the case was pending.
PENALTY IMPOSED:
Atty. Alvarez is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one
(1) year with a WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts
shall be dealt with more severely.
 MAY
Datu Ismael Malangas vs. Atty. Paul C. Zaide
A.C. No. 10675, May 31, 2016
ACTS COMMITTED:
Atty. Zaide was engaged as Malangas’ lawyer to file a complaint for

damages against Alfeche and NEMA for Malangas’ injuries sustained
when he was pinned in between two vehicles during an accident
caused by the two mentioned above. Malangas gave Atty. Zaide 20,
000 pesos as acceptance fee and 50,000 pesos to pay for filing fees.
Atty. Zaide denies receiving such amounts of money.
Malangas discovered that his Complaint was dismissed by the

RTC because his lawyer did not attend two hearings in the case and
also because the lawyer did not submit an Opposition to the Motion to
Dismiss filed by NEMA. Atty. Zaide was asked to file a Motion for
reconsideration but he filed a Withdrawal of Appearance as counsel
instead leaving Malangas without counsel.

Canon 1; Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
Canon 16; 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. However, he shall have a lien over
the funds and may apply so much thereof as may be necessary to
satisfy his lawful fees and disbursements, giving notice promptly
thereafter to his client. He shall also have to the same extent on all
judgments and executions he has secured for his client as provided
for in the Rules of Court.
Canon 18; Rule 18.03 – A lawyer shall not neglect a legal
matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith
shall render him liable.
Rule 18.04 – A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the
status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the
client’s request for information.
PENALTY IMPOSED:
Atty. Zaide is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for two (2) years
and is ORDERED to return to the complainant the sums given to him
as acceptance fee and docket fees in the amount of 70,000 pesos.
DIONNIE RICAFORT V. ATTY. RENE MEDINA

A.C. No. 5179, May 31, 2016
ACTS COMMITTED:
When complainant Ricafort sideswiped respondent Atty. Medina’s car,
Atty. Medina snapped at him, saying: “Do you not know me?” and
proceeded to slap him in full public view, causing him great
humiliation, and then left.

Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
Rule 7.03 – A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely
legal profession.
PENALTY IMPOSED:
Atty. Medina is suspended from the practice of law for three (3)
months.
FLORA MARIANO V. ATTY. ANSELMO ECHANEZ
A.C. No. 10373, May 31, 2016
ACTS COMMITED:
Atty. Echanez performed notarial acts on several documents without
a valid notarial commission. He also did not present any defense on
the complaint against him and did not attend the mandatory
conference set by the IBP. He ignored the IBP’s directive to file his
answer and position paper which resulted in the years of delay in the
case resolution.

PENALTIES IMPOSED:
Atty. Echanez is suspended from the practice of law for two(2) years
and barred permanently from being commissioned as Notary Public
with a stern warning that repetition of the same shall be dealt with
severely.
RONALDO C. FACTURAN V. PROSECUTOR ALFREDO L.
BARCELONA
A.C. NO. 11069, JUNE 8, 2016
ACTS COMMITTED:
Prosecutor Amerkhan forwarded the records of the case, together
with his Resolution recommending the prosecution of Mendoza et al.
and the corresponding information, to Prosecutor Barcelona for his
approval and signature. However, Barcelona neither approved nor
signed the resolution. Instead, he removed the case records from the
office of the Provincial Prosecutor and brought them to his residence,
where they were kept in his custody. When directed to turn them over,
he failed to do so notwithstanding his assignments at the DOJ in
Manila. As a result, no further action had been taken on the case. It
appears that one of the respondents of that case was his cousin and
the others were his close friends.

Rule 6.02, Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
Rule 6.02 – A lawyer in the government service shall not use his
public position to promote or advance his private interests, nor allow
the latter to interfere with his public duties.
PENALTY IMPOSED:
Prosecutor Barcelona is suspended from the practice of law for a
period of one (1) year and is sternly warned that a repetition of the
same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
 JUNE
SPOUSES LAMBERTO AND GLORIA EUSTAQUIO VS. ATTY.

EDGAR R. NAVALES
A.C. NO. 10465, JUNE 08, 2016
Acts commited:
Atty. Edgar R. Navales failed to pay monthly rentals in the

aggregate amount of P139,000.00 and to vacate the leased
apartment owned by the spouses Lamberto and Gloria Eustaquio
despite repeated oral and written demands. This prompted
complainants to refer the matter to barangay conciliation, where the
parties agreed on an amicable settlement, whereby respondent
promised to pay complainants the amount of P131,000.00 on July 16,
2009 and to vacate the leased premises on July 31, 2009.
Respondent eventually reneged on his obligations under the
settlement agreement, constraining complainants to file an ejectment
case. The spouses contend that respondent miserably failed to
exemplify honesty, integrity, and respect for the laws when he failed
and refused to fulfill his obligations to complainants.
Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility - A lawyer

shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote
respect for law and for legal processes
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
Penalty imposed:
Suspension from the practice of law for an additional period of
six (6) months from his original six (6)-month suspension, totaling one
(1) year from service of this Decision, with a stern warning that a
repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
MA. CECILIA CLARISSA C. ADVINCULA Vs. ATTY. LEONARDO
C. ADVINCULA
A.C. NO. 9226 (FORMERLY CBD 06-1749), JUNE 14, 2016
ACTS COMMITTED:
Atty. Leonardo Advincula was sued by his wife, Dr. Ma. Cecilia
Clarissa Advincula for having an extra-marital sexual relations with
Ma. Judith Ortiz Gonzaga, whom he had a child and for failure of Atty.
Advincula failed to give support to his children with Dr. Cecilia which
is an unlawful and immoral act. In his answer, Atty. Advincula denied
the accusations and prayed that the disbarment case be dismissed
for lack of merit.

Rule 1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
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.
PENALTY IMPOSED:
Suspension from the practice of law for a period of three (3)

months effective upon notice with a stern warning that a more severe
penalty shall be imposed should he commit the same offense or a
similar offense.
ARNOLD PACAO VS. ATTY. SINAMAR LIMOS
A.C. NO. 11246, JUNE 14, 2016
ACTS COMMITTED:
For the third time, Atty. Sinamar Limos, represented herself to

be duly authorized by BHF to negotiate with spouses Arnold and
Mariadel Pacao for a possible settlement of the Qualified Theft
charged by BHF to its former vault custodian, Mariadel. As agreed
upon, Arnold paid an initial amount of P200, 000.00 to Atty. Limos,
who in turn signed an Acknowledgment Receipt recognizing her
undertaking as counsel of BHF. However, on June 2010, Arnold
learned that Atty. Limos was no longer BHF's counsel and was not
authorized to neither negotiate any settlement nor receive any money
in behalf of BHF and likewise, that the amount he gave to Atty. Limos
was not received by BHF. As a result, Arnold send a demand letter to
Atty. Limos to return the P200,000.00 initial settlement payment but
the latter failed and refused to do so.

Sec. 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court — 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
willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for
corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a 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.
PENALTY IMPOSED:
Disbarment and the lawyer’s name is stricken off from the Roll
of Attorneys effective immediately.
MARITA CABAS v. ATTY. RIA NINA L. SUSUSCO AND CHIEF
CITY PROSECUTOR EMELIE FE DELOS SANTOS
A.C. No. 8677, June 15, 2016
ACTS COMMITTED:
Cabas accused respondents of dereliction of duty and violation of
R.A. No. 6033 for their failure to immediately and promptly decide the
criminal case for malicious prosecution she filed, notwithstanding the
fact that they availed of the benefits granted by law to indigents under
R.A. No. 6033. Cabas pointed out that said complaint should have
been resolved in two (2) weeks after the complaint was filed with the
City Prosecutor's Office pursuant to R.A. No. 6033. In their
Comments, both respondents denied that they are guilty of dereliction
of duty and of violation of R.A. No. 6033.

Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility- A lawyer shall
uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote
respect for law of and legal process.
Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility- A lawyer shall

exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and
efficient administration of justice.
PENALTY IMPOSED:
In the present case, there is no sufficient, clear and convincing
evidence to hold both Atty. Sususco and Pros. Emilie Fe Delos
Santos administratively liable for Gross Neglect of Duty. As noted by
the IBP, Atty. Sususco, although the subject case was assigned
belatedly to her, was able to discharge her duties with promptness,
and was in fact able to submit the Resolution on March 28, 2010. As
to the liability of Pros. Emilie Fe Delos Santos of gross neglect of
duty, we likewise find no proof to support such allegation.
In order to be guilty of gross neglect of duty, it must be shown that

respondent manifested flagrant and culpable refusal or unwillingness
to perform a duty. However, in the instant case, Pros. Delos Santos'
delay in the approval of the resolution cannot be said as flagrant and
prompted by culpable refusal or unwillingness to perform her official
duties.
MYRNA M. DEVEZA v. ATTY. ALEXANDER M. DEL PRADO
A.C. No. 9574, June 21, 2016
ACTS COMMITTED:
Respondent purchased a lot to complainant on installment basis.
Respondent took all the copies of the Contract to Sell on the pretext
that he will have the document notarized but never gave complainant
a copy of the said document. However, respondent defaulted in his
obligation to pay the purchase price leaving a balance of
P565,950.00 which prompted complainant to send a demand letter.
Upon meeting, respondent brought out a completely filled up Deed of
Sale and asked complainant to sign it before he will give his payment.
After the Deed of Absolute Sale was signed, respondent gave
P5,000.00 and told complainant that he would have the document
first notarized before he will give his complete payment.

Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility- A lawyer shall at
all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and
support the activities of the integrated bar

not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
PENALTY IMPOSED:
Suspension from the practice of law for Five (5) years effective upon
receipt of this decision with a warning that a repetition of the same or
a similar act will be dealt with more severely.
 JULY
NORMA M. GUTIERREZ v. ATTY. ELEANOR A. MARAVILLA-ONA

A.C. No. 10944, July 12, 2016
ACTS COMMITTED:
On December 12, 2011, Norma secured Atty. Maravilla-Ona's
services to send a demand letter to a third person for which she paid
her P800.00. When Norma decided to pursue the case in court, she
paid Atty. Maravilla-Ona an additional P80,000.00 to file the case.
The latter, however, failed to file the case, prompting Norma to
withdraw from the engagement and to demand the refund of the
amounts she had paid. Atty. Maravilla-Ona failed to refund the entire
amount despite several demands. On March 15, 2012, Atty.
Maravilla-Ona returned P15,000.00 to Norma and executed a
promissory note to pay the remaining P65,000.00 on March 22, 2012.
Atty. Maravilla-Ona reneged on her promise.
Norma filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Maravilla-Ona for

grave misconduct, gross negligence, and incompetence.

Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility- A lawyer shall
hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come
into his profession.

deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon
demand. However, he shall have a lien over the funds and may apply
so much thereof as may be necessary to satisfy his lawful fees and
disbursements, giving notice promptly thereafter to his client. He shall
also have a lien to the same extent on all judgments and executions
he has secured for his client as provided for in the Rules of Court.
PENALTY IMPOSED:
Suspension from the practice of law for three (3) years with
a warning that a repetition of the same or a similar offense shall be
dealt with more severely.
Atty. Maravilla-Ona is also ordered to return to complainant Norma

Gutierrez the full amount of P65, 000.00 within ninety (90) days from
the finality of this Resolution. Failure to comply with this directive will
merit the imposition of the more severe penalty of disbarment from
the practice of law, which this Court shall impose based on the
complainant's motion with notice duly furnished to Atty, Maravilla-
Ona. This penalty shall be in lieu of the penalty of suspension
hereinabove imposed.
PATRICK A. CARONAN, Complainant, v. RICHARD A. CARONAN
A.K.A. "ATTY. PATRICK A. CARONAN," Respondent.
A.C. No. 11316, July 12, 2016
ACTS COMMITTED: Patrick and Richard “A.K.A Atty Patrick”

Caronan are siblings. Patrick obtained a degree in Business
administration while Richard enrolled for PMA however he was
discharged from PMA and never went back to school to earn a
college degree. Richard enrolled in a law school (SMU) in Nueva
Vizcaya and eventually passed the Bar Examination however he uses
the name of his brother Patrick.
Realizing that Richard had been using his name to perpetrate

crimes and commit unlawful activities, complainant took it upon
himself to inform other people that he is the real "Patrick A. Caronan"
and that respondent's real name is Richard A. Caronan.
Due to the controversies involving Richard’s use of the name

"Patrick A. Caronan," Patrick developed a fear for his own safety and
security. He also became the subject of conversations among his
colleagues, which eventually forced him to resign from his job at
PSC. Hence, Patrick filed the present Complaint-Affidavit to stop
Richard's alleged use of the former's name and identity, and illegal
practice of law.

Section 6, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, no applicant for admission
to the Bar Examination shall be admitted unless he had pursued and
satisfactorily completed a pre-law course.
PENALTY IMPOSED: Richard A. Caronan a.k.a. "Atty. Patrick A.

Caronan" is found GUILTY of falsely assuming the name, identity,
and academic records of Patrick A. Caronan to obtain a law degree
and take the Bar Examinations.
The name "Patrick A. Caronan" with Roll of Attorneys No.

49069 is ordered DROPPED and STRICKEN OFF the Roll of
Attorneys. Richard is PROHIBITED from engaging in the practice of
law or making any representations as a lawyer.He is BARRED from
being admitted as a member of the Philippine Bar in the future and
the Identification Cards issued by the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines to respondent under the name "Atty. Patrick A. Caronan"
and the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education Certificates issued in
such name are CANCELLED and/or REVOKED.
JUTTA KRURSEL, Complainant, v. ATTY. LORENZA A.

ABION, Respondent.
A.C. No. 5951, July 12, 2016
ACTS COMMITTED: Atty. Abion filed, on her client’s behalf, a

complaint against Robinsons Savings Bank and its officers before the
Monetary Board of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas for "Conducting
Business in an Unsafe and Unsound Manner in violation of Republic
Act No. 8791. Without Krursel's knowledge, Atty. Abion withdrew the
complaint with prejudice through a letter addressed to the Monetary
Board. Krursel claims that Atty. Abion forged her signature and that of
a certain William Randeli Coleman in the letter. She adds that she
never authorized nor acceded to Atty. Abion’s withdrawal of the
complaint. Atty. Abion demanded and received payments for
Php225,000 – legal services;Php55,000- for Sheriff services and
Php50,000 –for Atty. Soriano. Atty Abion failed to account for these
amounts despite her demands for a receipt.
Atty. Abion asked again with her a total amount of Php450,000 to
renew her passport however she rejected because it was obviously
fake.

Canon 7 of CPR – 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.
Canon 15 of CPR – A Lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and
loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with his client.
Canon 17 of CPR – A Lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client
and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.
Canon 18 of CPR – A Lawyer shall serve his client with competence
and diligence.
Rule 18.04 - A lawyer shall keep his elient informed of the status of
his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client's
PENALTY IMPOSED: Atty. Lorenza A. Abion is DISBARRED from the

practice of law. The Office of the Bar Confidant is DIRECTED to
remove the name of Lorenza A. Abion from the Roll of Attorneys.
Aurora Aguilar-Dyquiangco vs. Atty. Diana Lynn M. Arellano
A.C. No. 10541
ACTS COMMITTED: Atty. Diana received advanced payments of

Php10, 000 for filing fees and Php2000 as part of attorney’s fees out
of agreed amount of Php20, 000 from her client for the purpose of
filing a case of sum of money against Delia Antigua, complainant then
found out after three years that her case had not been filed. Atty.
Diana’s services were terminated but she in turn refused to return her
clinet’s documents alleging enforcement of her retainer’s lien.
During the existence of lawyer-client relationship, Atty. Diana
frequently borrowed money from her client’s husband for which she
issued postdated checks as security. The accumulated loans totaled
to Php360, 818.20 covered by ten (10) checks which all said checks
were dishonored due to insufficiency of funds and closure of
accounts.

Canon 16 of CPR – A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and
properties of his client that may come into his profession.
Rule 16.02 – A lawyer shall keep the funds of each client separate
and apart from his own and those of others kept by him.
Rule 16.04 – A lawyer shall not borrow money from his client unless
the client's interests are fully protected by the nature of the case or by
except, when in the interest of justice; he has to advance necessary
Canon 18 of CPR – A lawyer shall serve his client with competence
and diligence.
liable.
Canon 19 of CPR – A lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within
bound of the law.
Rule 19.01 – A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to
attain the lawful objectives of his client and shall not present,
participate in presenting or threaten to present unfounded criminal
charges to obtain an improper advantage in any case or proceeding.
PENALTY IMPOSED: The Court suspended respondent from the

practice of law for a period of THREE (3) YEARS. And ordered to
return the full amount of TWELVE THOUSAND PESOS (P12, 000.00)
within 30 days from notice hereof and to submit to the Court proof of
such payment. The Court sternly warned that a repetition of the same
or similar act will be dealt with more severely.
VERLITA V. MERCULLO and RAYMOND VEDANO, Complainants,

VS.
ATTY. MARIE FRANCES E. RAMON, Respondent.
A.C. No. 11078 July 19, 2016
ACTS COMMITTED:
The respondent Atty. Marie Frances E. Ramon had violated
Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer's Oath for
deceiving the complainants in order to obtain the substantial amount
of P350, 000.00 on the pretext of having the foreclosed asset of the
complainants mother redeemed. She further misled them about her
ability to realize the redemption by falsely informing them about
having started the redemption process. She concealed from them the
real story that she had not even initiated the redemption proceedings
that she had assured them she would do. Thus upon the discovery of
the false information, the complainants handed to her their demand
letter requiring her to return the amount she had received for the
redemption. She acknowledged the letter and promise to return the
money by depositing the amount in Verlita’s bank account. However,
she did not fulfill her promise and did not show up for her subsequent
scheduled hearings.

Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility- A lawyer
respect for law and for legal processes.
Rule 1.01- A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
PENALTY IMPOSED:
SUSPENSION from the practice of law for a period of five years
effective from notice, with the stern warning that any similar infraction
in the future will be dealt with more severely; orders her to return to
the complainants the sum of P350,000.00 within 30 days from notice,
plus legal interest of 6% per annum reckoned from the finality of this
decision until full payment; and directs her to promptly submit to this
court written proof of her compliance within the same period of 30
days from notice of this decision.
Gabino V. Tolentino and Flordeliza C. Tolentino,
Complainants. VS. Atty. Henry B. So and Atty. Ferdinand L.
Ancheta, Respondents.
A.C. No. 6387 July 19, 2016
ACTS COMMITTED:
Atty. Ancheta received the acceptance fee of P30, 000.00 for
allegedly promising them that there was still a remedy against the
adverse Court of Appeals Decision, and the complainants deposited
the amount of P200, 000.00 to Atty. Ancheta's bank account. Atty.
Ancheta made false promises to complainants that something could
still be done with complainant Flordeliza's case despite the Court of
Appeals Decision having already attained finality. Worse, he
proposed bribing the Justices of the Court of Appeals in order to solve
their legal dilemma. Atty. Ancheta should have very well known that a
decision that has attained finality is no longer open for reversal and
should be respected. Meanwhile Atty. So neglect in handling
complainant Flordeliza's case.
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.
Canon 15 -a lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all
Rule 15.05. - A lawyer, when advising his client, shall give a candid
and honest opinion on the merits and probable results of the client's
case, neither overstating nor understating the prospects of the case.
Rule 15.06. - A lawyer shall not state or imply that he is able to
influence any public official, tribunal or legislative body.
Rule 15.07. - A lawyer shall impress upon his client compliance with
the laws and the principles of fairness.
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
Rule 16.03. - A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client
when due or upon demand.
Canon 17 - a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he
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
liable.
PENALTY IMPOSED:
Atty. Henry B. So is DISMISSED for insufficiency of evidence
while Atty. Ferdinand L. Ancheta is DISBARD from the practice of law
and ORDERED to return to complainants the total amount of P230,
000.00, with legal interest at 12% per annum.
IN RE: RESOLUTION DATED AUGUST 14, 2013 OF THE COURT
OF APPEALS IN CA- PRESENT: GR.CV NO. 94656, v. ATTY.
GIDEON D.V. MORTEL,
A.C. No. 10117, July 25, 2016
ACTS COMMITTED:
The Court of Appeals again ordered Atty. Mortel to inform it of his
client address within 10 days from notice. Atty. Mortel did not comply.
The Court of Appeals then again directed Atty. Mortel, for the last
time, to inform it of his client address within 10 days from notice. Still,
Atty. Mortel did not comply. In another resolution the Court of Appeals
ordered Atty. Mortel to show cause, within 15 days, why he should not
be held in contempt for non-compliance with the Court of Appeals
Resolutions but Atty. Mortel ignored this. The Court of Appeals found
Atty. Mortel liable for indirect contempt. It ordered him to pay PI0,
000.00 as fine. Atty. Mortel did not pay. the Court of Appeals resolved
to again order Atty. Mortel to pay, within 10 days from notice, the fine
of P10, 000.00 imposed upon him under a Resolution; require Atty.
Mortel to follow the Resolutions that sought information from him as
to his client's present address; and warn him that failure to comply
with the Resolutions within the reglementary period will constrain the
Court of Appeals "to impose a more severe sanction against
him. Atty. Mortel snubbed the directives but according to the report
that Atty. Mortel still did not pay the fine imposed despite his receipt of
the resolutions.
Canon 7 - a lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of
the legal profession.
Canon 10 - a lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the
court.
Canon 11 - a lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to
the courts and to judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct
by others.
Canon 12 - a lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his duty to
assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice.
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
liable.
Rule 18.04 - a lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of
PENALTY IMPOSED:
Atty. Gideon. D.V. Mortel is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for
one year and is STERNLY WARNED that repetition of the same or
similar act shall be dealt with more severely.
Virgilio D. Magaway and Cesario M. Magaway

vs.
Atty. Mariano A. Avecilla
A.C. No. 7072, July 27, 2016
ACTS COMMITTED:
In consideration of thirty thousand pesos (PHP 30, 000), Atty.
Mariano A. Avecilla prepared, notarized and manipulated a falsified
Deed of Sale executed by Elena Gongon with her fictitious Residence
Certificate. Said document was instrumental in the anomalous
transfer of land Title in favor of certain Ramiscals.

Canon 1 (Code of Professional Responsibility) – A lawyer shall
uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote
respect for law and legal practices.
PENALTY IMPOSED:
The Supreme Court revoked the notarial commission of Atty. Mariano
A. Avecilla. He was also disqualified from being reappointed as a
Notary Public for a period of two years and suspended from the
practice for a period of one year with warning that the repetition of the
same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely. These
penalties imposed upon Atty. Avecilla were directed to take effect
immediately.
Ernesto B. Balburias
vs.
Atty. Amor Mia J. Francisco
A.C. No. 10631, July 27, 2016
ACTS COMMITTED:
Ernesto B. Balburias was prompted to file a complaint against Atty.
Amor Mia J. Francisco for allegedly uttering offensive remarks, to wit:
“Kaya ka naming bayaran…Kaya kitang bayaran sa halaga ng
complaint mo.”
Accordingly, Atty. Francisco approached Balburias and boasted that
she could buy her opponents, or at least corrupt them. Atty. Francisco
was the lawyer of Rosalyn A. Azogue, a former employee Balburias,
who filed a labor case against him.

The specific canon (in the Code of Professional Responsibility) as the
basis of the legal action in the case was not indicated. The IBP
report, nonetheless, found that there was no sufficient evidence to
prove that Atty. Francisco violated the Code and that her words were
viewed by the Investigating Commissioner as an effort to reach an
amicable settlement.
PENALTY IMPOSED:
There was no penalty imposed. Instead, the complaint was dismissed
by the Supreme Court since Balburias failed to satisfactorily show
that Atty. Francisco acted in bad faith. However, Atty. Francisco was
admonished to be more circumspect in her actions and to be more
courteous in dealing with litigants to avoid repetition of similar incident
in the future.
 AUGUST
Sps. Nunilo and Nemia Anaya
vs.
Atty. Jose B. Alvarez
A.C. No. 9436, August 1, 2016
ACTS COMMITTED:
Atty. Jose B. Alvarez asked Sps. Nunilo and Nemia Anaya cash in
exchange of four checks with the assurance that they will be honored
upon presentment and fully funded on due date. The checks were
dishonored by the drawee bank by reason that the account was
closed. Sps. Anaya made repeated demands to Atty. Alvarez but the
latter simply made and offer of PHP 20,000 as partial payment which
the Sps. Refused to accept as they wanted a return of the full amount
due.

Canon 16, Rule 16.04 (Code of Professional Responsibility) - A
lawyer shall not borrow money from his client unless the client's
interest are fully protected by the nature of the case or by
except, when in the interest of justice, he has to advance necessary
PENALTY IMPOSED:
The Supreme Court found Atty. Jose B. Alvarez guilty of gross
misconduct and suspended from the practice of law for one year,
effective upon his receipt of the decision with the warning that a
repetition of the same and any other misconduct will be dealt with
more severely.
BUDENCIO DUMANLAG, Complainant, v. ATTY. JAIME M.
BLANCO, JR., Respondent
A.C. No. 8825, August 03, 2016
ACTS COMMITTED:
A certain land appears to be owned by El Mavic Investment and

Development Co., Inc. (EMIDCI). However, the Heirs of Don Mariano
San Pedro also claims the said property through its agent Budecio
Dumanlag. Victoriano Chung, the president of EMIDCI, referred the
matter to Atty. Blanco as EMIDCI’s counsel. Out of good faith and in
defense of his client’s cause, Atty. Blanco rejected the complainant’s
claim twice and reasoned that the prior Supreme Court decision held
that the heirs were specifically prohibited from exercising any act of
ownership over the land. An administrative Complaint for Disbarment
was filed against respondent Atty. Jaime M. Blanco for rejecting
complainant’s claim over a parcel of land based on a Spanish title.
None.
Based on the findings of the investigating Commissioner Michael G.
Fabunan of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), the complaint
against the respondent, Atty. Jaime Blanco, lacks merit. It is based on
the following grounds: 1) the complaint was patently frivolous, and 2)
it was intended to harass respondent.
PENALTY IMPOSED:
None for respondent Atty. Jaime Blanco.
The Court RESOLVED to: (a) dismissed the administrative complaint
for disbarment against Atty. Jaime M. Blanco for utter lack of merit;
(b) imposed a FINE of P5,000 on complainant Budencio Dumanlag
for filing a malicious complaint; and (c) directed complainant
to SHOW CAUSE why he should not be cited for indirect contempt for
failing to comply with the final and executory decision dated 18
December 1996, insofar as it enjoins agents of the Estate of Mariano
San Pedro from exercising acts of possession or ownership or to
otherwise dispose of the subject land.
WILLIAM G. CAMPOS, JR., REPRESENTED BY ROSARIO B.
CAMPOS, RITA C. BATAC AND DORINA D.
CARPIO, Complainants, v. ATTY. ALEXANDER C.
ESTEBAL, Respondent
A.C. No. 10443, August 08, 2016
Acts committed:
Atty. Estebal failed to apply or secure for William G. Campos, Jr. and
Rosario Campos, Rita Batac, and Dorina Carpio, complainants, the
U.S. tourist visas that he promised. This began when Campos and
Atty. Estebal entered into a Service Contract stipulating an
acceptance/service fee of P200,000.00 exclusive of out-of-pocket
expenses such as tickets, filing fees, and application fees; and that in
case no visa is issued, Campos is entitled to a refund of what has
been actually paid less 7% thereof. Campos paid Atty. Estebal the
sum of P150,000.00. For their part, Batac and Carpio gave Atty.
Estebal the amounts of P75,000.00 and P120,000.00, respectively.
Due to the untoward event, complainants demanded for the return of
their monies. Atty, Estebal, however, failed to return the amount
despite repeated demands. Hence, complainants filed a Complaint
praying that Atty. Estebal be suspended or disbarred from the
practice of law, and that he be directed to return their monies. The
complainants contend that respondent failed to exemplify honesty,
and integrity, when he failed and refused to fulfill his obligations to
complainants.

Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility – A lawyer
shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and
transactions with his clients.
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
shall charge only fair and reasonable fees.
PENALTY IMPOSED:
Respondent Atty. Alexander C. Estebal is found GUILTY of violating
the Code of Professional Responsibility and is SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for a period of one (1) year. He is also ORDERED to
return the amounts of P135,000.00 to William G. Campos, Jr.,
P60,000.00 to Rita C. Batac; and P105,000.00 to Dorina D. Carpio.
Atty. Alexander C. Estebal is WARNED that a repetition of the same
or similar act will be dealt with more severely.
SPOUSES MANOLO AND MILINIA
NUEZCA, complainants, v. ATTY. ERNESTO V. VILLAGARCIA,
respondent
A.C. No. 8210, August 08, 2016
ACTS COMMITED:
Atty. Ernesto V. Villagarcia sent demand letters against

complainants spouses Manolo and Milinia Nuezca. The letters
contained threatening and libelous statements which was then sent to
different offices and persons. The letters apparently ridiculed
complainants to its recipients. The spouses contend that respondent
miserably failed to exemplify honesty, integrity, and respect for the
laws when he failed to fulfill his obligations to complainants.

Rule 8.01, Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility - A
lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is
abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.
PENALTY IMPOSED:
Respondent Atty. Ernesto V. Villagarcia was found GUILTY of
violation of Rule 8.01, Canon 8 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. He was suspended from the practice of law for a
period of one (1) month effective from service of this resolution. He
was warned that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt
with more severely.
CLEO DONGGA-AS vs. ATTY. ROSE BEATRIX CRUZ-ANGELES,
ATTY. WYLIE M. PALER, AND ATTY. ANGELES GRANDEA, OF
THE ANGELES,GRAQNDEA & PALER LAW OFFICE
A.C. NO. 11113 AUGUST 9, 2016
ACTS COMMITTED: Respondents received a total of P350, 000 to

handle the annulment of client’s marriage. Despite constant follow-
ups, respondents were unable to produce a petition for annulment,
with various reasons being given by respondents for their failure to do
so, including that there was no record of marriage, which was a false
statement as verified by complainant. Upon demand for a refund of
the aggregate amount of P350, 000 from respondents. Atty. Cruz-
Angeles and Atty. Paler refused to return the said amount and even
sent a fee for “consultants (prosecutors) fee amounting to P45, 000.
The rules and canon violated are the following:
Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral, or deceitful conduct.
land and promote respect for law of and legal processes.
Canon 11 – A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to
the court and to judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct
by others.
liable.
Canon 18 – A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and
diligence.
Rule 16.03 – A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client
when due or upon demand. However, he shall have a lien over the
funds and may apply so much thereof as may be necessary to satisfy
his lawful fees and disbursements, giving notice promptly thereafter
to his client. He shall also have a lien to the same extent on all
judgments and executions he has secured for his client as provided
for in the Rules of Court.
PENALTY IMPOSED: Respondents Atty. Rose Beatrix Cruz-Angeles
and Atty. Wylie M. Paler are SUSPENDED from the practice of law for
a period of three (3) years with STERN WARNING that a repetition of
the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
Respondents are ORDERED to return to return to complainant the
legal fees they received from the latter in the aggregate amount of
P350,000.00 within ninety (90) days from the finality of the decision.
ADEGOKE R. PLUMPTRE vs. ATTY. SOCRATES R. RIVERA
A.C.No.11350
AUGUST 9,2016
ACTS COMMITTED:
That on May 13, 2014, complainant Adegoke R. Plumptre filed

a complaint for disbarment against respondent before the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines. Complainant alleges that he called respondent
and asked for help in his application for a work permit from Bureau of
Immigration. The complainant paid respondent P10,000.00 as
professional fee. Complainant again paid P10,000.00 for the
processing of his work permit. Respondent also asked complainant
for P8,000.00, in which the P5,000 shall be given to a Las Piñas
Judge to reverse the Motion for Reconsideration and the P3,000.00
would be use to process the Motion for Reconsideration. Complainant
claims that after respondent received the money, he never received
any updates on the status of his work permit and pending court case.
The Court suspended respondent Rivera from the practice of law for
three years for violation of Canon 1, Canon 7 , Canon 16, Rule
16.01, Canon 17 and Rule 18.04 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

land and promote respect for law of and legal processes.
collected or received for or from the client
Canon 17- A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he
Canon 18- A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and
diligence.
PENALTY IMPOSED:
Respondent Atty. Socrates R. Rivera is SUSPENDED from the

practice of law for three (3) years. He is ORDERED to return to
complainant the amount of P28,000.00 with interest at 6% per annum
from the date of promulgation of the Resolution until fully paid.
OSCAR M. BAYSAC vs. ATTY. ELOISA M. ACERON-PAPA
A.C. NO. 10231
AUGUST 10,2016
ACTS COMMITTED: Complainant Oscar M. Baysac owns a property

that was registered with Registry of Deeds of Trece Martires City. The
property was mortgaged by the complainant to Spouses Emmanuel
and Rizalina Cruz. The Deed of Real Estate Mortgage was notarized
by Atty. Renelie B. Mayuga-Donato. The complainant went to the
Registry of Deeds of Trece Martires to get a certified true copy of the
certificate of title of the property because the property had a
prospective buyer. However, he was surprised to find out the TCT
had already been cancelled, and in lieu a new TCT was issued in
favor of Spouses Cruz. After investigation, it was found out that Atty.
Eloisa M, Aceron-Papa was the one who notarized the Deed of
Absolute Sale which was allegedly signed by the complainant. A
complaint for disbarment was filed against respondent for Violating
Section 1, Rule II of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.

Section 1, Rule II of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice
SECTION 1. Acknowledgment. - “Acknowledgment” refers to an act in
which an individual on a single occasion:
a) appears in person before the notary public and presents an
integrally complete instrument or document;
(b) is attested to be personally known to the notary public or

identified by the notary public through competent evidence of
identity as defined by these Rules; and
(c) represents to the notary public that the signature on the

instrument or document was voluntarily affixed by him for the
purposes stated in the instrument or document, declares that
he has executed the instrument or document as his free and
voluntary act and deed, and, if he acts in a particular
representative capacity, that he has the authority to sign in that
capacity.
PENALTY IMPOSED:
Atty. Eloisa M. Aceron-Papa is GUILTY of Violating the Notarial
Law and the Code of Profesional Responsibility. The Court
REVOKES her incumbent commission, if any; PROHIBITS her
from being commissioned as a notary public for two (2) years;
and SUSPENDS her from the practice of law for one (1) year,
effective immediately. She is further WARNED that a repetition
of the same of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with
more severely.
JEN SHERRY WEE-CRUZ, v. ATTY. CHICHINA FAYE LIM,
A.C. No. 11380, August 16, 2016
ACTS COMMITTED:
In February 2010, Atty. Lim issued postdated checks payable to
"Cash" as partial payment of the outstanding loan accommodation for
more than P3 million, which had been extended to her by Jen Sherry
Wee-Cruz . These checks were later dishonored and returned by the
bank for the reason that the account had been closed.
Jen Sherry Wee-Cruz and her brother repeatedly called and sent text
messages to petitioner to inform her that her checks had been
dishonored and to demand that she make good on her checks. On 7
October 2010, complainant personally handed a demand letter to
respondent. As the latter still failed to honor her promises to pay,
complainant instituted a criminal complaint.
The Office of the City Prosecutor found probable cause to indict

respondent for four counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22
(B.P. 22); and Article 315, par. 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code.

PENALTY IMPOSED
The Court SUSPENDED Atty. Chichina Faye Lim from the practice of
law for two years.
NILO B. DIONGZON - versus ATTY.WILLIAM MARINO,
A.C. No. 2404 August 17, 2016
ACTS COMMITED:
NILO DIONGZON retained ATTY. WILLIAM MARINO as his lawyer in
relation to the execution of two deeds of sale covering the boats the
former was selling to Spouses Almanzur and Milagros Gonzales. The
parties signed a retainer contract for legal services that covered legal
representation in cases and transactions involving the fishing
business of the complainant. February 1982, the Gonzales sued the
complainant for replevin and damages, and sought the annulment of
the aforementioned deeds of sale.
They were represented by Atty. Romeo Flora, the associate of the
respondent in his law office. It appears that the bond they filed to
justify the manual delivery of the boats subject of the suit had been
notarially acknowledged before the respondent without the
knowledge and prior consent of the complainant; and that the
respondent eventually entered his appearance as the counsel for the
Gonzaleses against the respondent. The complainant initiated this
administrative complaint for disbarment against the respondent by
verified letter-complaint.
Respondent violated Canon 15 of the Code of Professional

Responsibility, Canon 15-A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and
loyalty in all their dealings and transactions with their clients.
Canon 15.03 demands that: "A lawyer shall not represent conflicting
interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full
disclosure of the facts."
Representing a client against whom his first client has an adverse

claim is a violation of canon 15.03-a lawyer shall not represent
conflicting interest except by written consent of all concerned given
after a full disclosure of the facts
PENALTY IMPOSED
The Court finds and DECLARES Atty. William N. Mirano guilty of

ethical misconduct due to conflict of interest, and, ACCORDINGLY,
SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for ONE YEAR, effective
immediately upon receipt of this decision.
AVIDA LAND CORPORATION (FORMERLY LAGUNA
PROPERTIES HOLDINGS, INC.) v. ATTY. AL C. ARGOSINO,
A.C. No. 7437, August 17, 2016
ACTS COMMITTED:
The administrative proceeding arouse when the Respondent filed

filing numerous pleadings, that caused delay in the execution of a
final judgment, constitutes professional misconduct in violation of the
Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer's Oath.
Respondent cannot hide behind the pretense of advocating his

client's cause to escape liability for his actions that delayed and
frustrated the administration of justice. He even attempted to turn the
tables on complainant by pointing out that the "legal blunders" of the
latter's counsel contributed to the delay in the execution of the
judgment. Whether or not the actions or omissions of complainant's
counsel brought dire consequences to its client's cause is not a factor
in the instant case. Even assuming for argument's sake that
complainant's counsel committed procedural errors that prolonged
some of the case incidents, these errors did not prejudice the delivery
of justice, as they were later cured. More important, the so-called
"blunders" were independent of respondent's actions, which were the
direct cause of the delay. It was clear in the case that respondent
made a mockery of judicial processes, disobeyed judicial orders, and
ultimately caused unjust delays in the administration of justice.

Rule 12.04 - A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the
execution of judgment or misuse court processes.
Respondent also violated the Lawyer's Oath by disobeying the legal
orders of a duly constituted authority, and disregarding his sworn duty
to "delay no man for money or malice." And also guilty of professional
misconduct
PENALTY IMPOSED
Atty. Al C. Argosino is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one

(1) year effective upon the finality of this Resolution. He is STERNLY
WARNED that a repetition of a similar offense shall be dealt with
more severely.
ETHELENE W. SAN JUAN vs. ATTY. FREDDIE A. VENIDA,
A.C. No. 11317, August 23, 2016
ACTS COMMITTED:An administrative complaint filed by Ethelene W.

San Juan (Ethelene) against respondent Atty. Freddie A. Venida (Atty.
Venida) for violation of the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Atty. Venida was completely remiss and
negligent in handling Ethelene's case, notwithstanding his receipt of
the sum of Twenty-Nine Thousand Pesos (P29, 000.00) from her by
way of his acceptance and filing fees. Instead of filing the petition,
Atty. Venida gave his client a runaround and led her to believe that
the petition had already been filed. When pressed for updates, Atty.
Venida evaded Ethelene and refused to return her calls. Worse, the
fees remain unaccounted for, which were entrusted to him for the
filing of the petition.

Rule 1.01 of the Code states that "a lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
CANON 16 - A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS
AND PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT THAT MAY COME INTO HIS
PROFESSION.
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.
Rule 18.04 - A lawyer shall keep his client informed of the status of
PENALTY IMPOSED:
Atty. Freddie A. Venida was found GUILTY of violating Canons
16, 17, and 18, and Rules 1.01, 16.01, 18.03 and 18.04 of the .Code
of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, he is hereby DISBARRED
from the practice of law and his name is ORDERED stricken off from
the Roll of Attorneys, effective immediately.
Atty. Venida is ordered to refund the amount of P29,000 to

complainant Ethelene W. San Juan within thirty (30) days from notice.
Otherwise, he may be held in contempt of court.
VICENTE M. GIMENA vs. ATTY. SALVADOR T. SABIO,
A.C. No. 7178, August 23, 2016
ACTS COMMITTED: Complainant laments that his company, Simon

Peter Equipment and Construction Systems, Inc. (company) lost in
the case because respondent Atty. Sabio filed an unsigned position
paper and ignored the order of the labor arbiter directing him to sign
the pleading. Aware of the unfavorable decision, respondent did not
even bother to inform complainant of the same. The adverse decision
became final and executory, robbing complainant of a chance to file a
timely appeal.
Respondent countered that complainant engaged his services

in 2000. Complainant, however, did not pay the expenses and
attorney's fees for the preparation and filing of the position paper in
the amount of P20, 000.00. The lack of payment contributed to
respondent's oversight in the filing of the unsigned position paper.
Respondent also insisted that the unfavorable Decision of the labor
arbiter is based on the merits and not due to default. Respondent
further explained that he was not able to inform complainant of the
outcome of the case because he does not know the address of the
company after it allegedly abandoned its place of business in
Barangay Mansilingan, without leaving any forwarding address.
Respondent claimed that complainant only communicated to him
when the writ of execution was issued

liable.
Rule 18.04 - A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of
PENALTY IMPOSED:
Atty. Salvador T. Sabio was SUSPENDED from the practice of
law for THREE (3) YEARS. He was likewise STERNLY WARNED
that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with more
severely.
INTERADENT ZAHNTECHNIK, PHIL., INC., REPRESENTED BY
LUIS MARCO I. AVANCEÑA vs. ATTY. REBECCA S. FRANCISCO-
SIMBILLO
A.C. No. 9464, August 24, 2016
ACTS COMMITTED: The Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) received

a letter from the attorney for complainant Intradent Zahnetchnik
Philippines, Inc. informing about several criminal cases filed and
pending against respondent Rebecca Francisco-Simbillo. The
criminal cases had been filed by the complainant to charge the
respondent with estafa and qualified theft in the Office of the City
Prosecutor of Parañaque City, and with violation of Article 291 of the
Revised Penal Code in the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon.
The complainant pointed out that the charges for estafa and qualified
theft involved moral turpitude. In her comment, the respondent stated
that she had been employed by the complainant for four years; that
her employment had lasted until she was illegally dismissed; that she
instituted a labor case against the complainant; that the criminal
charges filed against her were intended to malign, inconvenience,
and harass her, and to force her to desist from pursuing the labor
case; and that at the time of the filing of her comment, the criminal
complaints brought against her were still pending determination of
probable cause by the respective Offices of the City Prosecutor.aw
On June 8, 2012, the respondent filed a manifestation stating
that the Office of the City Prosecutor of Parañaque City had already
dismissed the criminal charge.The complainant immediately
countered that although the Office of the City Prosecutor of
Parañaque City had dismissed its complaint for estafa and qualified
theft, it had timely brought an appeal to the Department of Justice
(DOJ); and that the criminal case against the respondent should still
be considered as pending.
BASIS OF LEGAL ACTION: None

PENALTY IMPOSED:
NONE. A complaint for disbarment based on the respondent
attorney's alleged moral turpitude cannot prosper after the criminal
cases charging him with offenses involving moral turpitude were
dismissed by the competent trial courts. The rule regarding this
ground for disbarment requires the respondent attorney's conviction
of the offense involving moral turpitude by final judgment.
The Court DISMISSED this disbarment case against
respondent Arty. Rebecca S. Francisco-Simbillo.
MANUEL B. BERNALDEZ vs. ATTY. WILMA DONNA C. ANQUILO-
GARCIA
A.C. No. 8698, August 31, 2016
ACT/S COMMITTED:
In his complaint, the complainant alleges that during the 2010
National and Local Elections, Atty. Anquilo-Garcia coerced and
threatened registered voters in the Municipality of Biri, Northern
Samar to sign blank and ready-made affidavits stating that they were
illiterate/disabled voters when in fact, they were not and that they
needed assistors in voting. According to the complainant, the
scheme was employed by Atty. Anquilo-Garcia to ensure the victory
of her husband, Jaime Garcia, Jr. (Garcia Jr.), who was running for
Mayor in Biri, Northern Samar.

Rule IV, Section 2(b) of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice reads:
Section 2. Prohibitions
(b) 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.
PENALTY IMPOSED:
REVOKE the notarial commission of respondent Atty. Wilma Donna
C. Anquilo-Garcia for breach of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice;
and DISQUALIFY her from reappointment as notary public for a
period of ONE (1) YEAR; and
SUSPEND Atty. Wilma Donna C. Anquilo-Garcia from the practice of

law for a period of SIX (6) MONTHS effective immediately for
violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. She is
further WARNED that a repetition of the same or of similar acts shall
TEODORO B. CRUZ, JR. v. ATTYS. JOHN G. REYES, ROQUE
BELLO AND CARMENCITA A. ROUS-GONZAGA
A.C. No. 9090, August 31, 2016
ACTS COMMITED:
Intentional Misrepresentation and Knowingly Handling a Case

Involving Conflict of Interest and Falsification, Knowingly Alleging
Untruths in Pleadings and Unethical Conduct.

Rule 15.03. - A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except
by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the
facts.
Respondent should have evaluated the situation first before agreeing
to be counsel for an unknown client.
PENALTY IMPOSED:
REPRIMANDED for his failure to exercise the necessary prudence
required in the practice of the legal profession. He is
further WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be
 SEPTEMBER
The Law Firm of Chavez Miranda Aseoche Vs. Attys. Restituto S.

Lazaro and Rodel R. Morta
A.C. No. 7045. September 5, 2016
ACTS COMMITTED:
Atty. Chavez filed a complaint against Atty. Lazaro and Atty. Morta, it
was alleged that respondents falsely and maliciously accused
complainant of antedating a Petition for Review filed with the
Department of Justice. Consequently respondents filed a Vehement
Opposition to the Motion for Inhibition which led to this disbarment
complaint.
CANON 8 - A LAWYER SHALL CONDUCT HIMSELF WITH
COURTESY, FAIRNESS AND CANDOR TOWARDS HIS
PROFESSIONAL COLLEAGUES, AND SHALL AVOID HARASSING
TACTICS AGAINST OPPOSING COUNSEL.
Rule 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use

Rule 8.02 - A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, encroach upon the
professional employment of another lawyer, however, it is the right of
any lawyer, without fear or favor, to give proper advice and assistance
to those seeking relief against unfaithful or neglectful counsel.
CANON 10 - A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD
FAITH TO THE COURT.
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
Rule 10.02 - A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent
the contents of a paper, the language or the argument of opposing
counsel, or the text of a decision or authority, or knowingly cite as law
a provision already rendered inoperative by repeal or amendment, or
assert as a fact that which has not been proved.
PENALTY IMPOSED:
Attys. Restituto Lazaro and Rodel Morta are hereby admonished to
use only respectful and temperate language in the preparation of
pleadings and to be more circumspect in dealing with their
professional colleagues. They are likewise sternly warned that a
commission of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt
with more severely.
Carrie-Anne Shaleen Caryle Reyes Vs. Atty. Ramon F. Nieva A.C.
No. 8560. September 6, 2016
ACTS COMMITTED:
Atty. Nieva is a Consultant in Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines
while respondent is an Administrative Aide on a Job Order assigned
at the CAAP Office of the Board Secretary. Complainant stated that
respondent would often watch pornographic films. Complainant also
averred that whenever respondent got close to her, he would hold her
hand and would sometimes give it a kiss. During these instances,
complainant would remove her hands and tell him to desist.
According to complainant, respondent even offered her a cellular
phone together with the necessary load to serve as means for their
private communication, but she refused the said offer, insisting that
she already has her own cellular phone and does not need another
one. Complainant recounted that on April 2, 2009 respondent asked
her to encode a memorandum. Suddenly, respondent placed his
hand on complainant’s waist area near her breast and starting
caressing the latter’s torso.



Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely

legal profession.
PENALTY IMPOSED:
Atty. Ramon F. Nieva is found guilty of violating Rule 1.01, Canon 1,
and Rule 7.03, Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Accordingly, he is hereby suspended from the practice of law for a
period of two (2) years, effective upon the finality of this Decision,
with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts will
Rhodna A. Bacatan Vs. Atty. Merari D. Dadula A.C. No. 10565.
September 7, 2016
ACTS COMMITTED:
Prosecutor Bacatan decided the two (2) cases filed by Atty. Dadula,
the first case complainant found probable cause for libel and
recommended its filing in court, while the second case it was
recommended for dismissal for lack of probable cause. Respondent
perceived an obvious disparity in her treatment of these two cases
and further noticing the swiftness of her (Prosecutor Bacatan)
Resolution and Order in this libel case which is utterly adverse
against the accused despite the glaring fact that no probable cause
exists to hold him for libel. Respondent then concluded that "[a]ll
these adverse actions of prosecutor Bacatan against herein accused
impels him to one inevitable conclusion: the prosecutor must have
been bribed. Pending the results of the investigation of this
Complaint, respondent also filed on December 20, 2010, a Complaint
for Violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act No. 3019 and a Petition
for Disbarment and Imposition of Appropriate Disciplinary Actions
before the Office of the Ombudsman for the Visayas and the IBP,
respectively. The petition contained the same allegations made on
the motion to determine probable cause and in the Rejoinder, but no
new issues were raised against the complainant.

CANON 8 - A LAWYER SHALL CONDUCT HIMSELF WITH
COURTESY, FAIRNESS AND CANDOR TOWARDS HIS
PROFESSIONAL COLLEAGUES, AND SHALL AVOID HARASSING
TACTICS AGAINST OPPOSING COUNSEL.
Rule 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use

Sec. 20. Duties of attorneys. - It is the duty of an attorney:
(g) Not to encourage either the commencement or the continuance
of an action or proceeding, or delay any man's cause, from any
corrupt motive or interest; Lawyer’s oath not to do falsehood nor
consent to the doing of any.
PENALTY IMPOSED:
Respondent violated Canon 8 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. While zeal or enthusiasm in championing a client's
cause is desirable, unprofessional conduct stemming from such zeal
or enthusiasm is disfavored. When without proof nor enough basis on
record, respondent swiftly concluded, based only on gut feeling, that
the complainant has been bribed or had acted for a valuable
consideration, her conduct has overstepped the bounds of comiesy,
fairness and candor.
DELIA LIM v. ATTY. AQUILINO MEJICA
A.C. No. 11121, September 13, 2016
ACTS COMMITTED:
Atty. Mejica filed a criminal action for grave oral defamation against
Lim and the same was dismissed due to lack of probable cause. Atty.
Mejica then filed a Motion for Reconsideration (MR), but the same
was denied. However, during the pendency of the MR, he filed for the
second time, the same complaint before the MCTC. The complaint
was dismissed by the MCTC and consequently an MR was filed but
the same was denied. Lim file a case for committing forum shopping
against Atty. Mejica. The latter argued that the filing of the case
before the MCTC pending the resolution of his MR of the criminal
case was made in good faith and that he did not know that an oral
defamation case may be filed directly with MCTC. Furthermore, he
argues that the resolution of the criminal case for probable cause
would not be a bar for the court’s judicial determination of probable
cause considering that the case is oral defamation, preliminary
investigation is not required.

Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility- A lawyer owes
candor, fairness and good faith to the court.
PENALTY IMPOSED:
Atty. Mejica is meted out of the penalty of SUSPENSION from the

practice of law for six (6) months with warning that a similar offense
by him will be dealt with more severely.
NICOLAS ROBERT MARTIN EGGER v. ATTY. FRANCISCO P.
DURAN
A.C. No. 11323, September 14, 2016
ACTS COMMITTED: Nicolas Robert Martin Egger (Mr. Egger)

engages the services of Atty. Francisco P. Duran( Atty. Duran) to file
on his behalf a petition for the annulment of his marriage. Mr. Egger
deposited to the bank account of Atty. Duran the total amount of one
hundred thousand pesos ( P100, 000.00) as a consideration thereof.
However, despite the payment, Atty. Duran never prepared, much
less filed, said petition. Mr. Egger terminated the services of Atty.
Duran by reason of loss of trust and confidence. Further, the wife of
Mr. Egger, Dioly Rose Reposo, wrote a letter demanding for the
return of the P100,000.00 her husband gave to Atty. Duran as
lawyer’s fees. As a reply, Atty. Duran wrote Mr. Egger a letter
promising to return the aforementioned amount before the end of May
2014. However, Atty. Duran did not fulfill his promise, prompting Mr.
Egger to hire a new counsel, who in turn, wrote another letter
demanding for the return of the lawyer’s fees. As the second demand
letter went unheeded, Mr. Egger file an instant case against Atty.
Duran.

Rule 16.01, Canon 16- The lawyer shall account for all money or
property collected or received for or from the client.
Rule 16.03, Canon 16- A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property
of his client when due or upon demand. However, he shall have a lien
over the funds and may apply so much thereof as may be necessary
to satisfy his lawful fees and disbursements, giving notice promptly
thereafter to his client. He shall also have a lien to the same extent on
all judgments and executions he has secured for his client as
provided for in the Rules of Court.
Rule 18.03, Canon 18- A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter
entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall
render him liable.
PENALTY IMPOSED:
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months,
effective upon finality of the decision, and sternly warned that a
repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more
severely.
ATTY. DELIO M. ASERON v. ATTY. JOSE A. DIÑO, JR.
A.C. No. 10782, September 14, 2016
ACTS COMMITTED:
Atty. Delio Aseron (Atty. Aseron) suffered from a vehicular accident

with a bus operated by Nova Auto Transport, Inc. (NATI) and during
that time was driven by Jerry Garcia (Garcia). As a consequence he
filed a criminal case against Garcia for Reckless Imprudence
resulting in Damage to Property with Serious Physical Injuries and a
civil case for Damages against Garcia and NATI. Atty. Jose Diño, Jr.
(Atty. Diño) was then the counsel of record for Garcia and NATI in
both cases. Atty. Aseron’s counsel claimed that Atty. Diño’s reply
letter to their demand letter to NATI demanding the latter damages in
the amount not less than two million pesos (P2,000,000.00) as a
result of the accident was couched in abusive, disrespectful
language, malicious and unfounded accusation and besmirched his
reputation. Because of the insulting remarks made by Atty. Diño in his
reply letter, Atty. Aseron filed a libel case against the former.
Moreover, Atty. Aseron positively affirmed that Atty. Diño made a
mockery of the Judicial system by employing unwarranted dilatory
tactics in the criminal and civil case by filing numerous motions that
were eventually denied by with the courts for lack of merit.
Furthermore, Atty. Aseron also alleged that Atty. Diño committed
malpractice by misleading the court when he admitted ownership of
the passenger bus with body number 054 and plate number TWC
653 as that of NATI in one pleading and denying it in another.

Rule 8.01, Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility- A
lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is
abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.
PENALTY IMPOSED:
A penalty of REPRIMAND against Atty. Jose A. Diño, Jr. is imposed

for breach of his ethical duties as a lawyer.
Patrick R. Fabie vs. Atty. Leonardo M. Real
A.C. No. 10574. September 20, 2016
ACTS COMMITED:
Patrick Fabie engaged the services of Atty. Leonardo Real to

facilitate the return of a parcel of land to his sister, Jaynie May Fabie.
The complainant gave respondent the necessary documents for

the purported transfer of ownership of the property as well as the
amount of P40,000.00 to answer for the expenses to be incurred in
connection therewith and for respondent's professional fees.
However, more than a year had passed without anything being

accomplished. Hence, complainant sought for the return of the items
received by respondent. While respondent gave back to complainant
TCT No. R-1971, he did not return the P40,000.00 and the other
documents. And since the demand letter for the return of the money
was left unheeded, complainant was constrained to lodge with the
Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP) the said Verified Petition.
Canon 18 – A lawter shall serve his client with competence and

diligence.

him, and his negligence in connection there with shall render him
liable.
Lawyer’s Oath – “conduct myself as a lawyer according to the best of

my knowledge and discretion, with all good fidelity as well to the
courts as to my clients”
PENALTY IMPOSED:
Suspension from the practice of law for a period of six (6)

months and to return P40, 000.00 given to him in connection with the
purported transfer of ownership of property with interest of 12% per
annum reckoned from the time he received the amount.
Datu Remigio M. Duque, Jr. vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
Chairman Sixto S. Brillantes, Commissioners Lucenito N. Tagle,
Elias R. Yusoph, and Christian Robert S. Lim; Attys. Ma. Josefina
E. Dela Cruz, Esmeralda A. Amora-Ladra, Ma. Juana S. Valleza,
Shemidah G. Cadiz, and Fernando F. Cot-om; and Prosecutor
Noel S. Action
A.C. No. 9912. September 21, 2016
ACTS COMMITTED:
Duque, who ran for Punong Barangay of Lomboy, La Paz,

Tarlac but lost, filed a petition for recount contesting the results in a
number of precincts where respondents were chairman and members
of the Board of Election Tellers (BETs). Duque alleged that there were
several irregularities in the canvassing of the ballots. Respondents,
however, vehemently denied said allegations.
Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Noel S. Adion recommended

that the complaint for violation of BP Blg. 881 be dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction as the COMELEC has the exclusive power to conduct
preliminary investigation of all election offenses, and to prosecute the
same. The records of the case were forwarded to the COMELEC but
was also dismissed by COMELEC En Banc for lack of probable
cause.
The complainant filed the instant disbarment complaint against

Commissioners Brillantes, et al.

None. The Court could not find any specific actuations and
sufficient evidence to show that respondents did engage in dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct in their capacity as lawyers.
Only judicial errors tainted with fraud, dishonesty, gross

ignorance, bad faith, or deliberate intent to do an injustice will be
administratively sanctioned. To hold otherwise would be to render
judicial office untenable, for no one called upon to try the facts or
interpret the law in the process of administering justice can be
infallible in his judgment.
PENALTY IMPOSED:
None since the case is dismissed for lack of merit.

Gina E. Endaya vs. Atty. Edgardo O. Palay
A.C. No. 10150. September 21, 2016
ACTS COMMITTED:
The records show that on July 27, 2004, Atty. Palay notarized
the Deed of Sale covering eight (8) parcels of land allegedly executed
and thumb marked by Engr. Atilano Villaos, father of the complainant.
Endaya claimed that Villaos was already confined at the

Philippine Heart Center from May 27 to August 17, 2004, and it was
therefore impossible that he appeared before Atty. Palay in Puerto
Princesa, Palawan, to affix his thumbmark in the Deed of Sale.
Villaos eventually passed away on August 28, 2004.
Atty. Palay said that he was approached by Villaos' driver

sometime in May 2004 to render notarial services and asked him to
meet Villaos in the car. According to Atty. Palay, it was Villaos who
begged him to be allowed to affix his thumbmark on the Deed of Sale
because the latter was already very ill and could no longer sign.

PENALTY IMPOSED:
The Court suspends Atty. Edgardo O. Palay from the practice of

law for six (6) months, revokes his incumbent notarial commission, if
any, and disqualifies him from being commissioned as a notary public
for two (2) years.
ATTY. MYLENE S. YUMUL-ESPINA, vs. ATTY. BENEDICTO D.
TABAQUERO
A.C. No. 11238, September 21, 2016
ACTS COMMITTED:
Shirley Atkinson is married to Derek Atkinson, a British Citizen. She
purchased two properties, both of which she intended to mortgage. In
order to facilitate the mortgage on TCT No. 142730, Derek allegedly
executed an Affidavit of Waiver of Rights which he subscribed before
complainant (as a notary public) on October 25, 1999.
Atty. Mylene filed a complaint-affidavit before the IBP
Commission on Bar Discipline against Atty. Tabaquero. She alleges
that in representing Derek in the criminal cases against her for
"Falsification of Document by a Notary Public," and against Shirley for
"Falsification of Public Document," respondent violated the CPR.
Respondent argues that he was engaged as counsel for Derek long
after the acquisition of the disputed properties.

1.03 – A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest,

encourage any suit or proceeding or delay any man s cause.
PENALTY IMPOSED:
The complaint against respondent Atty. Benedicto D. Tabaquero is
dismissed for lack of merit.
Complainant Atty. Mylene S. Yumul-Espina is GUILTY of
violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Accordingly, the Court
hereby SUSPENDS her from the practice of law for six (6)
months; REVOKES her incumbent commission as a notary public;
and PROHIBITS her from being commissioned as a notary public for
two (2) years, effective immediately. She is WARNED that a repetition
of the same offense or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with
more severely.
ROUEL YAP PARAS, vs. ATTY. JUSTO P. PARAS
A.C. No. 7348, September 27, 2016
ACTS COMMITTED:
Rouel Yap Paras (Rouel) charges his father Atty. Justo J. Paras
(Atty. Paras) with violation of his lawyer's oath and the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Atty. Paras allegedly voluntarily offered
properties he did not own nor possess to the Department of Agrarian
Reform for coverage under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program. Atty. Paras has been previously disciplined twice upon
complaint of his wife.

Canon 10 – A lawyer owes candor, fairness, and good faith to
the court.
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.
PENALTY IMPOSED:
Atty. Justo Paras is hereby DISBARRED from the practice of

law and his name stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.
LILY FLORES-SALADO, MINDA FLORES LURA, AND FE V.
FLORES, vs. ATTY. ROMAN A. VILLANUEVA, JR.
A.C. No. 11099, September 27, 2016
ACTS COMMITTED:
Complainants Lily Flores-Salado, Minda Flores Lura, and Fe

Flores lodged their complaint with the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) charging Atty. Roman A. Villanueva with gross
dishonesty on the basis of their assertion therein that they had not
signed the affidavit of waiver/withdrawal. They thereby further
charged him with dishonesty for concealing his true age in order to
secure his appointment in 2006 as a state prosecutor. They avered
that he was disqualified for the position because he had already been
70 years old at the time of his appointment, having been born on June
26, 1936.

Falsifying a public document concerning realty, and for
allegedly concealing his true age.
PENALTY IMPOSED:
Court DISMISSES the disbarment complaint against Atty.
Roman A. Villanueva, Jr. for lack of factual and legal merit.
Disbarment proceedings based on falsification or forgery of

public documents should not be the occasion to establish the
falsification or forgery. Such bases should first be duly and
competently established either in criminal or civil proceedings
appropriate for that purpose.
 OCTOBER
SPOUSES EMILIO AND ALICIA JACINTO VS. ATTY. EMELIE P.

BANGOT, JR.
A.C. No. 8494. October 5, 2016
ACTS COMMITTED:
Atty. Bangot, Jr. promised the elderly Spouses Jacinto that he
would be initiating a case for certiorari in their behalf to nullify the
order for the reconstitution of the lost title covering Cad. 237 Lot No.
1351; that he had then insinuated that one of their lots would be his
attorney’s fees; and that they had not initially agreed to the
insinuation because the lots had already been allocated to each of
their seven children, but they had ultimately consented to giving him
only a portion of Lot No. 37926-H with an area of 250 square meters.
Further, respondent counsel executed a Memorandum of Agreement
stating the foregoing and that such agreement is irrevocable. The
MOA was signed by the petitioners without reading the contents
because of their trust.

Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
Immoral or deceitful conduct.
Canon 15 – A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all


Canon 18.03 – A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to

liable.
Canon 20 – A lawyer shall charge only fair and reasonable fees.
Rule 20.4 – A lawyer shall avoid controversies with clients concerning

his compensation and shall resort to judicial action only to prevent
imposition, injustice or fraud.
PENALTY IMPOSED:
SUSPENSION from the practice of law for five (5) years
effective upon notice of this decision, with warning that sterner
sanctions will be meted on him for a similar offense; and that he is not
entitled to recover any attorney's fees from the complainants.
ELIZABETH RECIO VS ATTY. JOSELITO I. FANDIÑO
A.C. No. 6767, October 05, 2016
ACTS COMMITTED:
Elizabeth Recio, the bonds manager of Oriental Assurance
Corporation (ORASCO), filed an administrative complaint against
Atty. Joselito Fandino, alleging that they received several order from
Courts stating that bail bonds were issued by ORASCO and in fact
confiscated by various branches of the courts in Naga, Legazpi.
When they sought copies of the bail bonds, they noticed that the
signatures in the same were forgeries, being very different from the
signature of the authorised signing officer, Conrado Sicat; the
spurious bail bonds stated that all notices should be sent to RM 303
PNB BLDG. NAGA CITY, despite the fact that ORASCO has no
extension office in Naga City; and Atty. Fandino was the notary public
of the spurious bonds, while the address stated therein was also the
law office of the lawyer. Atty. Fandino also appeared in various
motions and signed and misrepresented himself as counsel of
ORASCO in several pleadings when in fact he was not authorised as
counsel for ORASCO. Sheriff Rolando Borja of Naga City also
prepared an affidavit where Atty. Fandino represented himself as
manager of ORASCO and will just settle the amount stated in a writ
of execution.
Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides the grounds for
discipline, to wit: Sec. 27. Attorneys removed or suspended by
Supreme Court on what grounds.- A member of the bar may be
removed 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 the admission to practice, or for a willful
disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or
willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a 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.
PENALTY IMPOSED:
Respondent Atty. Joselito I. Fandiño is SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for six (6) months; his incumbent commission if any is
REVOKED; and he is PROHIBITED from being commissioned as a
notary public for two (2) years, effective immediately. He is WARNED
that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt
with more severely.
DOLORES NATANAUAN VS. ATTY. ROBERTO P. TOLENTINO
A.C. No. 4269. October 11, 2016
ACTS COMMITTED:
Acts of falsification. Respondent is the brother of Alejo
Tolentino, the original vendee of the petitioners, and the parcel of land
consisting of fifty (sic) (50,000) square meters, more or less, was
subsequently conveyed, transferred and ceded to Buck Estate, Inc.,
of which he is one of the incorporators and stockholders, and which
mortgaged the parcel of land with the bank. Another important
document which points to respondent's fraudulent act is the very
Affidavit of Spouses Alejo and Filomena Tolentino dated December 2,
1990 strongly stating, among other things, that subject parcel of land
had never belonged to them, the true and absolute owner thereof
being respondent, Atty. Roberto P. Tolentino. More importantly, said
Deed of Sale and Joint-Affidavit were notarized by Perfecto P.
Fernandez, a close associate of respondent Atty. Roberto P.
Tolentino, both of them being residents and/or holding office in the
same address, and worse, who is not a notary public or lawyer.
Not content with the foregoing felonious, unlawful and malicious
acts, respondent Atty. Roberto P. Tolentino committed yet another
falsification when he filed and submitted to the Supreme Court a
Deed of Sale dated March 9, 1979 relative to that case entitled
["Banco de Oro v. Bayuga"], docketed as No. L-49568, 93 SCRA 443.
Such Deed of Sale shows that complainant and her brother and
sisters sold on installment basis the same parcel of land to
respondent.
Lastly, Commissioner Espina found that Atty. Tolentino's failure
to appear before the IBP-CBD was another ground for disciplinary
action. As a lawyer, he is required to submit himself to the disciplinary
authority of the IBP.
The Lawyer’s Oath
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.
Canon 10 - A lawyer owes candor, fairness, and good faith to the

court.
PENALTY IMPOSED:
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for THREE (3) YEARS
EFFECTIVE FROM NOTICE, with a STERN WARNING that any
similar infraction in the future will be dealt with more severely.
Spouses Edwin Buffo and Karen M. Silverio-Buffo vs. Sec. Raul
M. Gonzalez et al.
A.C. No. 8168. October 12, 2016
ACTS COMMITTED:
Former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo appointed Karen M.

Silverio-Buffo as Prosecutor I/Assistant Provincial Prosecutor of
Romblon province. On 15 August 2008, Silverio-Buffo took her oath
of office before Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila, Branch 24, Judge
Jesusa P. Maningas . She, then, furnished the Office of the President,
Civil Service Commission and Department of Justice (DOJ) with
copies of her oath of office. On 19 August 2008, Silverio-Buffo
informed the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Romblon that she
was officially reporting for work beginning that day. Romblon
Provincial Prosecutor Arsenio R.M. Almadin asked former Secretary
of Justice Raul M. Gonzalez to confirm the appointment of Silverio-
Buffo since the Provincial Prosecution Office did not receive any
official communication regarding Silverio-Buffe's appointment.
Gonzalez ordered Silverio-Buffo "to cease and desist from acting as
prosecutor in the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Romblon, or in
any Prosecutor's Office for that matter, considering that [she has] no
appointment to act as such, otherwise [she] will be charged of
usurpation of public office." Silverio-Buffo, together with her husband
Edwin B. Buffo, filed with the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) a
Joint Complaint-Affidavit alleging that former Congressman Eleandro
Jesus F. Madrona (Madrona), acting out of spite or revenge,
persuaded and influenced Gonzalez and Undersecretary Fidel J.
Exconde, Jr. (Exconde) into refusing to administer Silverio-Buffe's
oath of office and into withholding the transmittal of her appointment
papers to the DOJ Regional Office.

NONE. The Supreme Court DISMISSED the administrative complaint
against now deceased Secretary of Justice Raul M. Gonzalez for
being moot.
PENALTY IMPOSED:
NONE.
Atty Rutillo Pasok vs. Atty. Felipe G. Zapatos
A.C. No. 7388. October 19, 2016
ACTS COMMITTED:
Complainant alleged that respondent was the former Presiding Judge
of the Regional Trial Court of Branch 35, Ozamis City and retired as
such. But before his appointment as RTC Judge, he was the
Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities 1oth Judicial
Division, Tangub City where he presided [over] a Forcible Entry
entitled "Ronald Rupinta vs. Sps. Pacifico Conol and Malinda Conol."
Complainant was the counsel of Rupinta and the decision was
rendered against him by respondent. Also, while respondent was still
the Presiding Judge of MTCC, Tangub City, another civil complaint
was filed by Ronald Rupinta with his mother for Declaration of Nullity
of Deed of Absolute Sale, Reconveyancc of Ownership, Accounting of
Rents and Fruits and Attorney's Fees and Damages with Petition for
the Appointment of a Receiver. Complainant represented the plaintiffs
and the complaint was heard by respondent as Presiding Judge of
MTCC, 1oth Judicial Region, Tangub City. When the case was
already scheduled for trial on the merits, respondent suspended the
scheduled hearing "motu proprio" for reason that there was still
affirmative defenses raised by the defendants, like the issue of lack of
jurisdiction which prompted the plaintiff to file a Manifestation and
Memorandum which made respondent to (sic) inhibit himself from
trying the case. However, complainant was surprised when he
received a Manifestation from the defendants that they are now
represented by respondent, the former judge who presided over the
aforesaid case.
Despite the warning of the complainant that the appearance of
respondent is highly illegal, immoral, unethical and adverse to the
interest of the public, respondent, being the previous presiding judge,
continued on with his appearance for the appellees.

Respondent violated Rule 6.03 of Canon 6 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
PENALTY IMPOSED:
The Court SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for a period of
ONE (1) MONTH, with warning that a similar offense by him will be
Datu Budencio Dumanlag vs. Atty. Winston Intong
A.C. No. 8638. October 19, 2016
ACTS COMMITTED:
Respondent gave a letter to the complainant. Complainant took
offense with the aforequoted letter as it was allegedly intended "to
FORCE, COMPULSORY, to investigate, or fiscalize, in the moment
[complainant] in his LAW OFFICE at Purok 11 Poblacion Valencia
City, Bukidnon. Complainant averred further that the incorporation
papers of the Philippine Datus Cultural Minorities Assistance, Inc. and
the Frontier's Mining Prospectors and Location Corporation were
supposed to be notarized at respondent's law office, but the charge
for notarization amounting to Pl 0,000.00 was "very dear, very
expensive," and complainant could not afford the same. He then
accused respondent of soliciting cases for purposes of gain, which
act constitutes malpractice.

Respondent violated Rule 6.03 of Canon 6 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
PENALTY IMPOSED:
The Court REPRIMANDS respondent Atty. Winston B. Intong for
refusing to obey lawful orders of the Court and the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines, with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar
act or offense shall be dealt with more severely
 NOVEMBER
Manuel Enrique L. Zalamea, et al. Vs. Atty. Rodolfo P. De

Guzman, et al.
A.C. No. 7387. November 3, 2016
ACTS COMMITTED: Atty. De Guzman negotiated with BDO and was

able to secure a deal over a certain property for P20 Million, after
Manuel Enrique Zalmea approached and convinced him to help in the
reacquisition of property from BDO, since said property had been
mortgaged to Banco de Oro (BDO); the bank foreclosed it when they
failed to pay the loan. They likewise failed to redeem the property,
resulting in the consolidation of the ownership over the property in
BDO's name. Due to lack of funds on Manuel Enrique's part, De
Guzman's wife, Angel, agreed to shoulder the down payment but
under the condition that the property would later be transferred in the
name of a new corporation they had agreed to form, the EMZALDEK
Venture Corporation. Not long after, the relationship between the
Zalamea brothers and the Spouses De Guzman turned sour. The
Spouses De Guzman wanted reimbursement of the amounts which
they had advanced for the corporation, while the Zalamea brothers
claimed sole ownership over the Speaker Perez property. Hence, the
brothers filed a disbarment case against De Guzman for allegedly
buying a client's property which was subject of litigation.

CANON 1 – A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of
the land and promote respect for law and for legal processes.
CANON 16 – A lawyer shall not hold in trust all moneys and
properties of his client that may come into his profession.
CANON 17 – A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he
PENALTY IMPOSED: The relationship between the Spouses De

Guzman and the Zalamea brothers is one of business partners rather
than that of a lawyer and client. Atty. De Guzman's acquisition of the
Speaker Perez property was a valid consequence of a business deal,
not by reason of a lawyer-client relationship. The Court dismissed the
Petition for Disbarment against Atty. Rodolfo P. de Guzman, Jr. for
lack of merit.
Jose Antonio F. Balingit Vs. Atty. Renato M. Cervantes and Atty.
Teodoro B. Delarmente
A.C. No. 11059. November 9, 2016
ACTS COMMITTED: Atty. Delarmente received the sum of P45,

000.00 as partial acceptance fee for the filing of a civil suit for
damages as evidenced by a handwritten receipt. In addition, Atty.
Cervantes allegedly received P10, 000.00 without issuing any receipt.
However, despite respondents' receipt of the P45, 000.00 and
complainant's submission to respondents of the necessary
documents, when the present complaint was filed, and until today,
respondents have failed to institute the separate civil suit for
damages agreed upon. Atty. Cervantes, upon discovering that
complainant entered into a Compromise Agreement, attended the
November 9, 2011 hearing and sent a demand letter to complainant
seeking payment of Pl00, 000.00 as attorney's fees, representing
10% of the amount of the compromise, and appearance fee of P5,
000.00 from complainant. Complainant refused on the ground that the
compromise was entered into before the mediator. As complainant
still refused to pay, Atty. Cervantes filed a criminal complaint for
estafa against complainant.

CANON 15 - A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all
CANON 16 - A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of
CANON 17 - A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he
CANON 18 - A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and
diligence. Respondents
PENALTY IMPOSED: Atty. Teodoro B. Delarmente and Atty. Renato

M. Cervantes were SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6)
months. Both were STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same
or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely. They were also
DIRECTED to return to complainant the amount of P45, 000.00.
 DECEMBER
Maria Victoria G. Belo-Henares Vs. Atty. Roberto "Agree" C.

Guevarra
A.C. No. 11394. December 1, 2016
ACTS COMMITTED: Respondent wrote a series of posts on his

Facebook account, a popular online social networking site, insulting
and verbally abusing complainant.
The complaint further alleged that respondent posted remarks on his
Facebook account that were intended to destroy and ruin BMGI's
medical personnel, as well as the entire medical practice of around
300 employees. Moreover, respondent, through his Facebook
account, posted remarks that allegedly threatened complainant with
criminal conviction, without factual basis and without proof.
Complainant likewise averred that some of respondent's Facebook
posts were sexist, vulgar, and disrespectful of women.

Rule 7.03 -A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely
reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public
or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the
legal profession.
Rule 8.01 -A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use
Rule 19.01 -A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to
attain the lawful objectives of his client and shall not present,
participate in presenting or threaten to present unfounded criminal
charges to obtain an improper advantage in any case or proceeding.
PENALTY IMPOSED: SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a

period of one (1) year, effective upon his receipt of this Decision, and
is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts
will be dealt with more severely.
Joseph C. Chua Vs. Atty. Arturo M. De Castro
A.C. No. 10671. December 5, 2016
ACTS COMMITTED: Atty. De Castro. According to Chua, since the

filing of the collection case on took more than five (5) years to present
one witness due to his propensity to seek postponements of agreed
hearing dates for unmeritorious excuses. Atty. De Castro's flimsy
excuses would vary from simple absence without notice, to claims of
alleged ailment without any medical certificates, to claims of not being
ready despite sufficient time given to prepare, to the sending of a
representative lawyer who would profess non-knowledge of the case
to seek continuance, to a plea for the postponement without providing
any reason therefore. For his defense, Atty. De Castro countered that
his pleas for continuance and resetting were based on valid grounds.
Also, he pointed out that most of the resetting was without the
objection of the opposing counsel.

Rule 1.03 -A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest,
encourage any suit or proceeding or delay any man's cause.
Rule 10.3 -A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not
misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.
PENALTY IMPOSED:
The Court held that responsibility for the delays caused in the case
did not fall exclusively on the shoulders of Atty. De Castro, punishing
him with suspension from the practice of law for three (3) months
would be disproportionate to the acts imputable to him. More so, the
Court notes that the trial court itself did not consider his responsibility
for the delays sanctionable as contempt of court.
The Motion for Reconsideration filed by respondent Atty. Arturo M. De
Castro was GRANTED. Arturo M. De Castro is ADMONISHED to
exercise the necessary prudence required in the practice of his legal
profession in his representation of the defendant in Civil Case No.
7939 in the Regional Trial Court of Batangas City
JUDICIAL CONDUCT- FEBRUARY
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, VS. PRESIDING
JUDGE JOSEPH CEDRICK O. RUIZ, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT,
BRANCH 61, MAKATI CITY
A.M. No. RTJ-13-2361 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 13-4144-RTJ],
February 02, 2016
ACTS COMMITTED:
The Sandiganbayan found that the respondent "instigated" Police
Inspector Pepe Nortal in the withdrawal of a P1 million cash advance
from the CIF allotted for the Mayor's Office, and that he (the
respondent) received and used this amount for his personal benefit.
The court found that the respondent directed Nortal's request for the
cash advance because he (the respondent) already had four (4)
unliquidated cash advances as of December 31, 2006, and that three
of these cash advances (with a total of PI,3 84,280.00) already came
from the CIF. The testimonies of the city treasurer, the city
accountant, and the city budget officer supported the conclusion that
the respondent actively worked for the approval of the P1 million cash
advance.
The Sandiganbayan also found that the respondent acted in bad faith
since the cash advance was made five (5) days after he had lost his
bid for re-election, and that the proposed withdrawal covered the CIF
appropriations for the entire year

Section 27, Rule 138 of The Rules of Court – A member of the
bar may be removed 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 the admission to practice, or for a
willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for
corruptly or willful appearing as an attorney for a party to a 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.
PENALTY IMPOSED:
Respondent was dismissed from service with forfeiture of all benefits,
except accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to reemployment in
the Government or any of its subdivisions, instrumentalities, or
agencies including government-owned and -controlled corporations.
Consequently, Judge Ruiz was likewise declared DISBARRED and
STRICKEN FROM the roll of attorneys.
 MARCH
SPOUSES CESAR AND THELMA SUSTENTO vs. JUDGE FRISCO
T. LILAGAN
A.M. No. RTJ-11-2275, March 08, 2016
ACTS COMMITTED:
Complainants Spouses Sustento have charged the respondent with
undue delay in the resolution of the petition for certiorari they had
filed to assail the adverse order issued by Judge Sylvia Z. Pocpoc-
Lamoste of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch 1, in
Tacloban City in Civil Case No. 2008-05-CV-08 entitled Wilfreda
Pontillan v. Spouses Cesar Sustento and Thelma Sustento, and
undue delay in the resolution of their motion for reconsideration
beyond the prescribed 90-day period in violation of the Administrative
Circular No. 38-98 and Section 15, Article VIII of the Constitution.

Section 15, Article VIII of the Constitution –
1. All cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this Constitution
must be decided or resolved within twenty-four months from date of
submission for the Supreme Court, and, unless reduced by the
Supreme Court, twelve months for all lower collegiate courts, and
three months for all other lower courts.
2. A case or matter shall be deemed submitted for decision or
resolution upon the filing of the last pleading, brief, or memorandum
required by the Rules of Court or by the court itself.
3. Upon the expiration of the corresponding period, a certification to
this effect signed by the Chief Justice or the presiding judge shall
forthwith be issued and a copy thereof attached to the record of the
case or matter, and served upon the parties. The certification shall
state why a decision or resolution has not been rendered or issued
within said period.
4. Despite the expiration of the applicable mandatory period, the
court, without prejudice to such responsibility as may have been
incurred in consequence thereof, shall decide or resolve the case or
matter submitted thereto for determination, without further delay
Rule 3.05 of Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct - A judge
shall dispose of the court's business promptly and decide cases
within the required periods.
PENALTY IMPOSED:
A fine in the amount of P45, 000.00, with a warning that a similar
infraction in the future will be more severely sanctioned.
IN THE MATTER OF: ANONYMOUS COMPLAINT FOR
DISHONESTY, GRAVE MISCONDUCT AND PERJURY
COMMITTED BY JUDGE JAIME E. CONTRERAS (IN HIS
CAPACITY AS THE THEN 4th PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR OF
LIBMANAN, CAMARINES SUR)
A.M. No. RTJ-16-2452, March 09, 2016
ACTS COMMITTED:
When Judge Contreras applied for a position in the judiciary, he failed
to disclose in his Personal Data Sheet (PDS) that a previous
administrative case was filed against him while he was the 4 th
Assistant Provincial Prosecutor of Libmanan, Camarines Sur wherein
he was found guilty by the OMB for simple misconduct and was
meted out a penalty of admonition. He maintained that during the
Judicial and Bar Council's (JBC) interviews, he had been disclosing
information relating to the cases filed against him with the OMB. Also,
Judge Contreras claimed that in administrative cases, admonition is
not a penalty but merely an advice.

SEC. 8. Serious charges. – Serious charges include:
2. Dishonesty and violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Law (R.A. No. 3019)
PENALTY IMPOSED:
Suspension from the service for one (1) year without pay, with a
warning that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with
more severely
 APRIL
NEMIA CASTRO vs. JUDGE CESAR MANGROBANG
A.M No.RTJ-16-2455 April 11, 2016
ACTS COMMITTED:
Judge Mangrobang of RTC-Branch 22 of Imus, Cavite came across

Civil Case No.2187-00 filed by Nemia Castro against Spouses
Gueverra after a Motion for Re-Raffle filed by the spouses was
granted by the Executive Judge of Imus, Cavite due to Judge
Español’s retirement.
Thereafter, Judge Mangrobang issued an Order resolving the Motion

to Defer Action and Motion for Reconsideration in favor of spouses
Guevarra, this prompted Castro to file a Petition for Certiorari to CA
due to grave abuse of discretion. Due to withdrawal of Castro’s
lawyer for the third time, she filed a Motion to Secure Services of
Counsel with a prayer to suspend the hearing for civil case. When the
prayer was denied, Castro filed a Motion for Inhibition which was
opposed by spouses Guevarra. Then, on June 15, 2010, Castro filed
this administrative complaint for Gross Inefficiency, Neglect of Duty,
Gross Ignorance of the Law and Manifest Bias and Partiality due to
the Judge Mangrobang’s failure to promptly act on her two pending
motions (Omnibus Motions and Motion to Admit Postmaster’s
Certification) within 90-day period.

Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct – A judge should
perform official duties honestly, and with impartiality and diligence.
Rule 3.05 – A judge shall dispose of the court’s business

promptly and decide cases within the required periods.
PENALTY IMPOSED:
Fine in the amount of P10, 000, to be deducted from the retirement

benefits due and payable to Judge Mangrobang.
Re: Evaluation of Administrative Liability of Hon. Antonio C.
Lubao, etc.
A.M No. 15-09-314-RTC, April 19, 2016
ACTS COMMITTED:
A judicial audit was conducted in anticipation of Judge Lubao’s

compulsory retirement on January 13, 2015. From the audit
conducted by the OCA, the number of pending cases and matters
discovered were: 68 cases submitted for decision, 61 cases already
beyond the reglementary period, 41 cases with pending incidents, 29
cases already beyond the prescribed period to resolve, 41 cases
have yet to be acted upon, (composed of seven [7] newly-filed cases
and cases with no initial action taken, thirty-two [32] cases with no
further action, and two [2] cases with no further setting), one hundred
fifty-one (151) court processes (six [6] in civil cases and one hundred
forty-five [145] in criminal cases) – which returns have yet to be
received by the court, with most cases already due for archiving.
Despite several Memorandum, Judge Lubao failed to comply with the
directives claiming as a defense his health condition.

Violation of Administrative Circular Nos. 4-2004 and 81-2012 and
OCA Circular No. 81-2012.
Section 11(A), (B) and (C) of Rule 140 of the Rules of Court -
Gross misconduct and insubordination, for repeated failure to comply
with several memoranda from the OCA.
Section 9 of Rule 140 of the Rules of Court - ‘Violation of Supreme

Court rules, directives, and circulars’ and ‘Undue delay in rendering a
decision or order’.
Section 10 of the same Rule 140 - ‘Undue delay in the submission

of monthly reports’
PENALTY IMPOSED: For gross misconduct, P30, 000. Violation of

SC Rules, Directives and Circulars, P15, 000. Undue delay in
rendering a decision or order, P15, 000 and undue delay in the
submission of monthly reports, P5, 000. Meted the penalty of a fine in
the total amount of sixty-five thousand pesos.
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR vs. JUDGE ROMEO
CASALAN
A.M. No. RTJ-14-2385, April 20, 2016
ACTS COMMITTED:
This administrative matter arose from the judicial audit and inventory
of cases conducted in the RTC of Culasi, Antique, Branch 13 and
Branch 65 of Bugasong, Antique both presided over by the
Hon.Romeo B. Casalan. Records disclose the undisputed delay in
the disposition of numerous cases assigned to these branches.
Despite a grant of his request for 2-month extension to comply with
the directives, he still failed to resolve the pending cases subject of
the memoranda dated August 28 and 30, 2012. In fact, as of
December 2013, the List of Cases pending before Branch 13
indicates that 20 civil cases, 17 special proceedings, and 17 criminal
cases are already deemed submitted for decision but have yet to be
decided despite the lapse of the 90-day reglementary period. With
respect to Branch 64, the monthly report of September 2013 states
that 4 civil cases, 5 special proceedings, and a criminal case are
already deemed submitted for decision but are still undecided despite
the lapse of the reglementary period. No sufficient justification or valid
reason is offered by Judge Casalan for his failure to decide the said
cases.

Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of the Judicial Conduct – A judge
shall dispose of the court’s business promptly and decide cases
within the required periods.
Section 5, Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct - Judges

shall perform all judicial duties, including the delivery of reserved
decisions, efficiently, fairly and with reasonable promptness.
Section 9 of Rule 140 of the Rules of Court – undue delay in

rendering decision or order and of violation of SC rules and
directives.
PENALTY IMPOSED:
Fine in the amount equivalent to 3 months’ salary at the time of his

retirement for undue delay in the disposition of cases and for
insubordination, to be deducted from his retirement/gratuity benefits.
 JUNE
Moamar Pangandag vs. Presiding Judge Ottowa B. Abinal

A.M. No. MTJ-16-1877
ACTS COMMITTED:
Judge Ottowa B. Abinal, the judge of the 8th Municipal Circuit Trial
Court in Mulondo, Maguing, Lumba-Bayabao, and Taraka, Lanao del
Sur, took cognizance of a case for grave threats, a crime which
carried the penalty of reclusion temporal, a prison term that exceeded
six years, and thus his jurisdiction. However, he was of the opinion
that the allegations in the information only supported the second
form of grave threats, which merely carried the penalty of arresto
mayor. Moreover, he issued a warrant of arrest despite knowing that
the private complainant therein was his niece. 15 days later, he
voluntarily inhibited himself from hearing the case on account of such
relationship. He contended that he did not have to inhibit himself from
deciding whether to issue a warrant of arrest, as it was his ministerial
duty to do so.

Sec. 5(c), Canon 3 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct 1 Judges
should not take part in proceedings in which their impartiality might
reasonably be questioned, including those in which a party litigant is
related to them by consanguinity or affinity.
PENALTY IMPOSED:
Judge Ottowa B. Abinal is found guilty of gross ignorance of the law
or procedure for failing to immediately inhibit himself in the case
involving his niece. Accordingly, the Court imposes the penalty of fine
in the amount of P25,000 with a stern warning that a repetition of the
same or a similar infraction shall be penalized more severely.
 JULY
Department of Justice represented by Secretary Leila M. De
Lima vs. Judge Rolando G. Mislang, etc./Home Development
Mutual Fund (HDMF), represented by Atty. Jose Roberto F. Po vs.
Judge Rolando G. Mislang, etc.
A.M. No. RTJ-14-2369/A.M. No. RTJ-14-2372
ACTS COMMITTED: Judge Rolando G. Mislang issued Orders

granting Delfin Lee’s Petition for Injunction without waiting for the
Department of Justice’s memorandum, when it was previously agreed
upon that the resolution of such petition shall be made upon
submission of the parties’ respective memoranda. Public respondent
Judge anchored his issuance of the writ on the existence of a
prejudicial question. Unfortunately, he miserably failed to properly
apply the principles and rules on three (3) points, i.e., the prematurity
of the petition, the inapplicability of the prejudicial question, and the
lack of jurisdiction of the court.

Gross Ignorance of the Law Sections 6 and 7, Rule 111, Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure Section 6. Suspension by reason of
prejudicial question. — A petition for suspension of the criminal action
based upon the pendency of a prejudicial question in a civil action
may be filed in the office of the prosecutor or the court conducting the
preliminary investigation. When the criminal action has been filed in
court for trial, the petition to suspend shall be filed in the same
criminal action at any time before the prosecution rests. Section 7.
Elements of prejudicial question. — The elements of a prejudicial
question are: (a) the previously instituted civil action involves an issue
similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the subsequent
criminal action, and (b) the resolution of such issue determines
whether or not the criminal action may proceed.
PENALTY IMPOSED: The Court finds Judge Rolando G. Mislang,

Regional Trial Court, Pasig City, Branch 167, guilty of Gross
Ignorance of the Law in A.M. No. RTJ-14-2369 and A.M. No. RTJ-14-
2372 and orders his dismissal from the service with forfeiture of
retirement benefits, except leave credits, and with prejudice to re-
employment in any branch or instrumentality of the government,
including government-owned and controlled corporations.
 AUGUST
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR vs. HON.
ROSABELLA M. TORMIS, Presiding Judge, Municipal Trial Court
in Cities (MTCC), Branch 4, Cebu City and MR. REYNALDO S.
TEVES, Branch Clerk of Court
A.M. No. MTJ-12-1817 March 12, 2013
ACTS COMMITED:
Judge Rosabella M. Tormis of Branch 4 does not maintain a docket
book or any similar system of record-keeping and
monitoring. Specifically, the Audit Team found the following
irregularities committed by Branch 4:
(1) There were decisions/judgments in eleven (11) criminal cases
rendered by Judge Rosabella M. Tormis which have not been
promulgated despite the lapse of considerable length of time;
(2) There were two (2) inherited cases which remained undecided for
about ten (10) years or more;
(3) There were one hundred twelve (112) criminal and eighty-three
(83) civil cases submitted for decision before Judge Tormis which
have remained undecided beyond the reglementary period to decide
the same.

Section 5, Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct which
mandates judges to perform all judicial duties, including the delivery
of reserved decisions, efficiently, fairly and with promptness. Judge
Tormis is thus liable for gross inefficiency for his failure to decide
cases within the reglementary period.
PENALTY IMPOSED:
Mr. Reynaldo S. Teves is likewise found GUILTY of two counts of
Simple Neglect of Duty, and in view of his past infractions, he is
meted the supreme penalty of DISMISSAL from the service with
forfeiture of all benefits and privileges, except accrued leave credits, if
any, with prejudice to reemployment in any branch or instrumentality
of the government, including government-owned or controlled
corporations.
 OCTOBER
Wilfredo F. Tuvillo Vs. Judge Henry E. Laron/Melissa J. Tuvillo
a.k.a. Michelle Jimenez Vs. Judge Henry E. Laron A.M. No. MTJ-
10-1755/A.M. No. MTJ-10-1756
ACTS COMMITTED: Judge Henry E. Laron was administratively

charged for immoral conduct, unexplained wealth, and immorality. He
allegedly requested money from Melissa Tuvillo causing her and her
husband to lose their savings, when she sought his help in her case
for violation of B.P. Blg. 22. Moreover, he was also complained of for
having a Php. 9M house, several Lamarroza paintings, expensive
furniture, four Plasma televisions, a Nissan Patrol, and private
education of his three children; luxuries that are impossible for him to
acquire legally if based on his salary as a judge. In the midst of it all,
he also carried out an affair with Melissa, a married woman.

Canon 4, Section 1 of the Code of Judicial Conduct - A judge should
avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities.
Paragraph 3 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics - Avoidance of
appearance of impropriety - A judge's official conduct should be free
from the appearance of impropriety, and his personal behavior, not
only upon the bench and in the performance of official duties, but also
in his everyday life, should be beyond reproach.
PENALTY IMPOSED:
Judge Henry Laron, Presiding Judge of Branch 65, Metropolitan Trial
Court, Makati City, was found guilty of immorality and serious
misconduct. He is meted out the maximum penalty of dismissal from
the service, with forfeiture of all benefits except accrued leave credits,
and with prejudice to re-employment in any branch or instrumentality
of the government, including government-owned and controlled
corporations. The charge of unexplained wealth is dismissed for
insufficient evidence.

PALE Case Survey

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PALE Case Survey

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PROBLEMS AREAS IN LEGAL

2016 CASE SURVEY

ACTS COMMITTED: Respondent lawyer agreed to represent

PENALTY IMPOSED: WHEREFORE, finding respondent Atty. Berlin

ACTS COMMITTED: Atty. Camacho was the counsel of MDAHI in

BASIS OF LEGAL ACTION:

ACTS COMMITTED: Cheryl E. Vasco-Tamaray filed a Complaint

BASIS OF LEGAL ACTION:

The penalty of DISBARMENT is imposed upon respondent Atty.

BASIS OF LEGAL ACTION:

Canon 18 - A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and

BASIS OF LEGAL ACTION:

CANON 7 - A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE

ERLINDA SISTUAL, FLORDELISA S. LEYSA, LEONISA S.

Atty. Ogena prepared and notarized several documents regarding the

BASIS OF LEGAL ACTION:

(2) is not personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified

BASIS OF LEGAL ACTION:

Atty. Meljohn B. De La Pena is charged with dishonesty for

BASIS OF LEGAL ACTION:

Canon 8, Rule 1, a lawyer shall not in his professional dealings, use

ACTS COMMITED: Spouses Floran sought the assistance of

BASIS OF LEGAL ACTION:

BASIS OF LEGAL ACTION:

Spouses Eduardo G. Gacuya and Caridad Rosario Gacuya vs.

BASIS OF LEGAL ACTION:

BASIS OF LEGAL ACTION:

BASIS OF LEGAL ACTION:

(A.C. NO. 11128, APRIL 6, 2016)

Pedro, charged with murder before the Sandiganbayan, hired the

BASIS OF LEGAL ACTION:

Atty. Maria Nympha C. Mandagan was SUSPENDED from practice of

BASIS OF LEGAL ACTION:

CANON 17 — A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he

CANON 18 — A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and

Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to

Atty. Ronald Aguado participated in hi-jacking the delivery van of

BASIS OF LEGAL ACTION:

Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral

Rule 1.02 - A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at

Atty. Ronald C. Aguado is disbarred and his name is ordered stricken

It took Judge Mangrobang 10 months and nine months to resolve the

BASIS OF LEGAL ACTION:

Atty. Orlando S. Paulma, respondent, issued a check in favor of

BASIS OF LEGAL ACTION:

Canon 1 – A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of

Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral

Atty. Orlando S. Paulma is hereby suspended from practice of law for

ACTS COMMITTED: Atty. Igmedio S. Prado, Jr., respondent, failed to

BASIS OF LEGAL ACTION:

Atty. Luis K. Lokin, Jr., director of PHILCOMSAT Holdings

BASIS OF LEGAL ACTION:

Canon 11 – A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to

Accordingly, Atty. Luis K. Lokin, Jr. is suspended from the practice of

A.C. No. 7110, April 20, 2016

Atty. Buhangin represented opposing parties in the same case.

BASIS OF LEGAL ACTION:

Code of Professional Responsibility:

Canon 15 – A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all

Rule 15.3 – A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except

Canon 17 – A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he

Atty. Buhangin is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a

A.C. No. 90118, April 20, 2016