University of San Carlos

School of Law and Governance

LEGAL PROFESSION

Aring, Alyanna M.

Bello, Mary Grace B.

Elauria, Dobie Josh R.

Malamid, Iza E.

Pacho, Maria Isedra Silvestra V.

Sagocsoc, Johann Mae M.

EH 309

November 16, 2019

1. Find/Choose a news incident/event, local or international, within the past 2 years
involving lawyers or the legal profession. For reference, print out the article or submit
a clipping of the news item. Discuss the relevance or importance (or lack thereof) of
the role of lawyer(s) in the incident. If you were in the lawyer’s shoes, what would
you have done?

Source: Philippine Star [Clipping Attached]

It has been alleged that she was involved in corruption by allocating

PAO funds for her Dengvaxia crusade. As the Chief of the Public Attorney’s Office,
she should have exercised prudence in her public statements.

Independent health experts have been unable to confirm that any of the
dengue deaths they have examined resulted from taking Dengvaxia, the PAO’s
allegation in the 35 complaints, covering 33 deaths, that it has filed. But the PAO has
yet to present a single case proving that Dengvaxia caused death. It declared the
discovery of a “medical link” between deaths of dengue-infected children and the
Dengvaxia vaccine, without explaining the nature of that link.

Public Attorney’s Office chief Persida Acosta should immediately admit that
she committed a fatal mistake in making baseless accusations and unfounded
allegations that led to the Dengvaxia scare, so that hundreds of thousands of Filipino
children can be saved from measles and other infectious diseases that vaccinations
may help prevent.

As to the matter of the case filed in the Office of the Obudsman, PAO’s Chief
Acosta should cooperate during the investigation and face the accusations filed
against her. May this be a lesson to the people in the legal profession, not to involve
themselves in areas outside of their expertise.

2. What do you think should set the Carolinian lawyer apart from other lawyers?
 What sets a Carolinian lawyer apart from other lawyers is that they are
competent, socially responsible, and a life lifelong learner in an environment that fosters
excellence. These principles are always observed by Carolinian lawyers.

They are competent in the sense that they always seek excellence not just in
competitions or in exams but also in applying the learning that the school bestowed
upon its students. Aside from being competent, a Carolinian lawyer is also socially
responsible, they seek to know and understand different societal issues and respond to it
rationally without forgetting the core values of being a Carolinian. Lastly, a lifelong
learner that seeks to always learn, and to always adapt in every situation and still
manifest the Carolinian teachings.

3. What is your opinion on the state of the legal profession in the country? How can this
be improved or enhanced?

Media plays a very important role in relating to the public the actions taken
regarding these social issues and as it is our legal practitioners' role to ensure that social
justice is achieved for all despite of race, financial status, religion, political beliefs.

With the pressing social issues in the philippines at current, legal practitioners
are often put into question. There is no doubt that our country has competitive legal
practitioners who has sworn to protect every citizens given right. However, the media
plays a very important role in relating to the public the actions taken regarding these
social issues and how our legal practitioners are handling these issues as it is our
country's legal practitioners' role to ensure that social justice is achieved for all despite of
race, financial status, religion, political beliefs.

Judicial system in our country has always strived to deliver excellent service and
promote justice and protect life in all means possible. To better improve this,
transparency in all means possible should be encouraged, basic law should be integrated
in high school and college to promote deeper understanding about laws governing our
system so that citizens in legal age be allowed to represent themselves, express
themselves, and protect themselves.

4. As student of the law, how do you prepare yourself, ethics-wise, for the legal
profession?

As a law student, it is of utmost importance to learn, foster and abide by high

standards of ethical conduct.

Law students should learn how to spot ethical dilemmas that might arise in legal
practice. We should be aware of the particular laws and regulations governing the
conduct of the law profession so we could better equip and conduct ourselves once we
enter the legal profession.

This is the significance of teaching legal ethics in law schools. Ultimately, legal
ethics courses would help guide the conduct of students once we leave school and
become practitioners.

5. Research and digest three cases on bar integration.

In The Matter of the Integration of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines

49 SCRA 22, January 9, 1973

FACTS:

Republic Act. No. 6397 entitled “An Act Providing for the
Integration of the Philippine Bar and Appropriating Funds Therefore” was
passed in September 1971, ordaining “Within two years from the approval
of this Act, the Supreme Court may adopt rules of court to effect the
integration of the Philippine Bar.” The Supreme Court formed a
Commission on Bar Integration and in December 1972, the Commission
earnestly recommended the integration of the bar. The Court accepted all
comments on the proposed integration.

ISSUE(S):

1. Whether or not the Court has the power to integrate the Philippine bar.

2. Whether or not the integration of the bar is constitutional.

3. Whether or not the Court should ordain the integration of the bar at this
time.

RULING:

In ruling on the issues raised, the Court first adopted the definition
given by the Commission to “integration” in this wise: “Integration of the
Philippine Bar means the official unification of the entire lawyer
population of the Philippines. This requires membership and financial
support (in reasonable amount) of every attorney as conditions sine qua
non to the practice of law and the retention of his name in the Roll of
Attorneys of the Supreme Court.” The term “Bar” refers to the collectivity
of all persons whose names appear in the Roll of Attorneys. An Integrated
Bar (or unified Bar) perforce must include all lawyers.

Complete unification is not possible unless it is decreed by an entity

with power to do so; the State. Bar integration therefore, signifies the
setting up by government authority of a national organization of the legal
profession based on the recognition of the lawyer as an officer of the court.

Designed to improve the positions of the Bar as an instrumentality

of justice and the rule of law, integration fosters cohesion among lawyers,
and ensures, through their own organized action and participation, the
promotion of the objectives of the legal profession, pursuant to the
principle of maximum Bar autonomy with minimum supervision and
regulation by the Supreme Court.

On the first issue, the Court held that it may integrate the Bar in the
exercise of its power “to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice,
and procedure in all courts, and the admission to the practice of law.”
Indeed, the power to integrate is an inherent part of the Court’s
constitutional authority over the Bar.

The second issue hinges on the following constitutional rights:

freedom of association and of speech, as well as the nature of the dues
exacted from the lawyer, i.e., whether or not the Court thus levies a tax.
The Court held:

1. Integration is not violative of freedom of association because it does

not compel a lawyer to become a member of any group of which he
is not already a member. All that it does is “to provide an official
national organization for the well-defined but unorganized and
incohesive group of which every lawyer is already a member.” The
lawyer too is not compelled to attend meetings, participate in
activities, etc. The only compulsion is the payment of annual dues.
Assuming, however, that it does compel a lawyer to be a member
 of an integrated bar, the court held that “such compulsion is
justified as an exercise of the police power of the state”.
2. Integration is also not violative of the freedom of speech just
because dues paid by the lawyer may be used for projects or
programs, which the lawyer opposes. To rule otherwise would
make every government exaction a “free speech issue.”
Furthermore, the lawyer is free to voice his objections to positions
taken by the integrated bar.
3. The dues exacted from lawyers is not in the nature of a levy but is
purely for purposes of regulation.

As to the third issue, the Court believes in the timeliness of the

integration. Survey showed an overwhelming majority of lawyers who
favored integration.

In the Matter of the IBP Membership Dues

Delinquency of Atty. MARCIAL A. EDILLON

IBP Administrative Case No. MDD - 1 A.C. No. 1928

August 3, 1978

FACTS:

The respondent Marcial A. Edillon is a duly licensed practicing

Attorney in the Philippines. The IBP Board of Governors recommended to
the Court the removal of the name of the respondent from its Roll of
Attorneys for stubborn refusal to pay his membership dues assailing the
provisions of the Rule of Court 139-A and the provisions of par. 2, Section
24, Article III, of the IBP By-Laws pertaining to the organization of IBP,
payment of membership fee and suspension for failure to pay the same.

Edillon contends that the stated provisions constitute an invasion

of his constitutional rights in the sense that he is being compelled as a pre-
condition to maintain his status as a lawyer in good standing, to be a
member of the IBP and to pay the corresponding dues, and that as a
consequence of this compelled financial support of the said organization
to which he is admitted personally antagonistic, he is being deprived of the
rights to liberty and properly guaranteed to him by the Constitution.
Hence, the respondent concludes the above provisions of the Court Rule
and of the IBP By-Laws are void and of no legal force and effect.

ISSUE(S):

Whether or not the court may compel Atty. Edillon to pay his membership
fee to the IBP.

RULING:

The Integrated Bar is a State-organized Bar which every lawyer

must be a member of as distinguished from bar associations in which
membership is merely optional and voluntary. All lawyers are subject to
comply with the rules prescribed for the governance of the Bar including
payment a reasonable annual fees as one of the requirements. The Rules of
Court only compels him to pay his annual dues and it is not in violation of
his constitutional freedom to associate. Bar integration does not compel the
lawyer to associate with anyone. He is free to attend or not the meeting of
his Integrated Bar Chapter or vote or refuse to vote in its election as he
chooses. The only compulsion to which he is subjected is the payment of
annual dues. The Supreme Court in order to further the State’s legitimate
interest in elevating the quality of professional legal services, may require
thet the cost of the regulatory program – the lawyers.

Such compulsion is justified as an exercise of the police power of

the State. The right to practice law before the courts of this country should
be and is a matter subject to regulation and inquiry. And if the power to
impose the fee as a regulatory measure is recognize then a penalty
designed to enforce its payment is not void as unreasonable as arbitrary.
Furthermore, the Court has jurisdiction over matters of admission,
suspension, disbarment, and reinstatement of lawyers and their regulation
as part of its inherent judicial functions and responsibilities thus the court
may compel all members of the Integrated Bar to pay their annual dues.

Letter of Atty. Cecilio Y. Arevalo, Jr.

RequestingExemption From Payment of IBP Dues

B.M. No. 1370, May 9, 2005

FACTS:

In his letter, dated 22 September 2004, petitioner sought exemption from

payment of IBP dues in the amount of P12,035.00 as alleged unpaid
accountability for the years 1977-2005. He alleged that after being admitted
to the Philippine Bar in 1961, he became part of the Philippine Civil Service
from July 1962 until 1986, then migrated to, and worked in the USA in
December 1986 until his retirement in the year 2003. He maintained that he
cannot be assessed IBP dues for the years that he was working in the
Philippine Civil Service since the Civil Service law prohibits the practice of
one’s profession while in government service, and neither can he be
assessed for the years when he was working in the USA.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the petitioner is entitled to exemption from payment of his

dues during the time that he was inactive in the practice of law.

RULING:

The Supreme Court held that the payment of dues is a necessary

consequence of membership in the IBP, of which no one is exempt. This
means that the compulsory nature of payment of dues subsists for as long
as one’s membership in the IBP remains regardless of the lack of practice
of, or the type of practice, the member is engaged in.

There is nothing in the law or rules which allows exemption from

payment of membership dues. At most, as correctly observed by the IBP,
he could have informed the Secretary of the Integrated Bar of his intention
to stay abroad before he left. In such case, his membership in the IBP could
have been terminated and his obligation to pay dues could have been
discontinued.

But we must here emphasize that the practice of law is not a

property right but a mere privilege, and as such must bow to the inherent
regulatory power of the Court to exact compliance with the lawyer’s public
responsibilities.
6. Research and digest one case where a lawyer was reprimanded.

JOHNNY NG vs. ATTY. BENJAMIN C. ALAR

Adm. Case No. 7252 November 22, 2006

Facts:

Atty. Benjamin Alar is the counsel for the complainants in a labor

case filed with the Labor Arbiter which dismissed the complaint. On
appeal, NLRC’s First Division upheld the dismissal. In his Motion for
Reconsideration with Motion to Inhibit (MRMI), Atty. Alar used improper
and abusive language full of diatribes castigating the Labor Arbiter and the
ponente of the NLRC decision. Johnny Ng, one of the respondents, filed a
disbarment case against Alar before the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline
for such misbehavior.
Alar contended, inter alia, that the Rules of Court/Code of
Professional Responsibility applies only suppletorily at the NLRC when
the NLRC Rules of Procedure has no provision on disciplinary matters for
litigants and lawyers appearing before it and that Rule X of the NLRC
Rules of Procedure provides for adequate sanctions against misbehaving
lawyers and litigants appearing in cases before it. Finally he asserted that
the Rules of Court/Code of Professional Responsibility does not apply to
lawyers practicing at the NLRC, the latter not being a court and that LAs
and NLRC Commissioners are neither judges nor justices and the Code of
Judicial Conduct similarly do not apply to them, not being part of the
judiciary.

Issue:
Is a lawyer’s misbehavior before the NLRC susceptible of the provisions of
the Code of Professional Conduct?

Held:
The MRMI contains insults and diatribes against the NLRC,
attacking both its moral and intellectual integrity, replete with implied
accusations of partiality, impropriety and lack of diligence. Respondent
used improper and offensive language in his pleadings that does not admit
any justification. The assertion that the NLRC not being a court, its
commissioners, not being judges or justices and therefore not part of the
judiciary and that consequently, the Code of Judicial Conduct does not
apply to them, is unavailing. In Lubiano v. Gordolla, the Court held that
respondent became unmindful of the fact that in addressing the NLRC, he
nonetheless remained a member of the Bar, an oath-bound servant of the
law, whose first duty is not to his client but to the administration of justice
and whose conduct ought to be and must be scrupulously observant of law
and ethics.
Respondent has clearly violated Canons 8 and 11 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. His actions erode the public’s perception of the
legal profession.
Atty. Benjamin C. Alar is hereby REPRIMANDED with a stern
warning that severe penalties will be imposed in case similar misconduct
is again committed.

7. Research and digest one case where a lawyer was suspended.

TOMAS P. TAN, JR. vs. ATTY. HAIDE V. GUMBA

A.C. No. 9000, January 10, 2018

Facts:

Respondent obtained from complainant a ₱350,000.00 loan with

12% interest per annum and executed in favor of complainant an undated
Deed of Absolute Sale over a 105- square meter lot located in Naga City.
Attached to said Deed was a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) executed
by respondent's parents authorizing her to apply for a loan with a bank to
be secured by the subject property. Complainant and respondent agreed
that if the latter failed to pay the loan in or before August 2000,
complainant may register the Deed of Absolute Sale with the Register of
Deeds (RD).

Respondent failed to pay her loan when it fell due. And despite
repeated demands, she failed to settle her obligation. Complainant
attempted to register the Deed of Absolute Sale with the RD of Naga City
but to no avail because the said SPA only covered the authority of
respondent to mortgage the property to a bank, and not to sell it.
Complainant argued that if not for respondent's misrepresentation, he
would not have approved her loan. He added that respondent committed
dishonesty, and used her skill as a lawyer and her moral ascendancy over
him in securing the loan.

Commissioner Jose I. de la Rama, Jr. declared that respondent

acted beyond her authority. Having done so, she committed a gross
violation of the Lawyer's Oath as well as Canon 1, Rule 1.01, and Canon 7
of the Code of Professional Responsibility. As such, he recommended that
respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one year. The
Integrated Bar of the Philippines - Board of Governors (IBP-BOG)
resolved to adopt and approve the Report and Recommendation of
Commissioner de la Rama.

The Supreme Court issued a Resolution dated October 5, 2011,

which sustained the findings and conclusion of the IBP. The Court
nonetheless found the reduction of the penalty proper, pursuant to its
sound judicial discretion and on the facts of the case. Accordingly, it
suspended respondent from the practice of law for six months, effective
immediately, with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar act
will be dealt with more severely. On March 14, 2012, the Court resolved
to serve anew the October 5, 2011 Resolution upon respondent because its
previous copy sent to her was returned unserved.

Judge Margaret N. Armea of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities of

Naga City, Branch 2 inquired from the Office of the Court Administrator
(OCA) whether respondent could continue representing her clients and
appear in courts. She also asked the OCA if the decision relating to
respondent's suspension, which was downloaded from the internet,
constitutes sufficient notice to disqualify her to appear in courts for the
period of her suspension.

Her inquiry arose because respondent represented a party in a

case pending in her court. Judge Armea added that respondent denied
that she was suspended to practice law since she (respondent) had not yet
received a copy of the Court's resolution on the matter and insisted that
service of any pleading or judgment cannot be made through the internet.

Issue:
 A) Whether respondent disobeyed a lawful order of the Court by not
abiding by the order of her suspension.

B) Whether respondent deserves a stiffer penalty for such violation.

Ruling:

A) Yes. When the Court orders the suspension of a lawyer from the
practice of law, the lawyer must desist from performing all functions
which require the application of legal knowledge within the period of his
or her suspension. While service of a judgment or resolution must be
done personally or by registered mail and that mere showing of a
downloaded copy of the October 5, 2011 Resolution to respondent is not a
valid service, the fact, however, that respondent was duly informed of
her suspension remains unrebutted. During and even after the period of
her suspension and without filing a sworn statement for the lifting of her
suspension, respondent signed pleadings and appeared in courts as
counsel such acts of respondent are in violation of the order of her
suspension to practice law.

B) Yes. Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, a member of
the bar may be disbarred or suspended from the practice of law for
willful disobedience of any lawful order of the superior court, among
other grounds. Here, respondent willfully disobeyed the Court's lawful
orders by failing to comply with the order of her suspension, and to the
Court's directive to observe the guidelines for the lifting thereof.

Atty. Haide V. Gumba is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of

law for an additional period of six (6) months (from her original six (6)
months suspension) and WARNED that a repetition of the same or
similar offense will be dealt with more severely.

8. Research and digest one case where a lawyer was disbarred.

ROSALIE P. DOMINGO

vs. ATTY. JORGE C. SACDALAN

A.C. NO. 12475, MARCH 26, 2019

FACTS:

Complainant alleged that she engaged the services of respondent

to recover possession of a parcel of land from illegal settlers. The subject
land is co-owned by complainant with her sister, and is located at
Binangonan, Rizal. According to complainant, she gave respondent an
acceptance fee of P75,000.00. She further claimed that on July 12, 2016, she
gave respondent another P50,000.00 as deposit to cover the expenses
related to the expected litigation. Complainant also agreed to
respondent's request for cash advance and gave him P100,000.00 out of
compassion.

After granting the request, complainant inquired regarding the

status of her case. Respondent sent her a copy of the purported Complaint
For Ejectment filed in the Municipal Trial Court of Binangonan, Rizal
(MTC). However, respondent did not give any updates to complainant
regarding the case filed. Thus, she inquired directly with the MTC on the
status of her case. To her surprise, she was informed that there was no
such complaint for ejectment filed with the MTC. Consequently,
complainant confronted respondent about the purported ejectment
complaint. The latter explained that the non-filing of the complaint was
due to the mistake of his office staff. A complaint for ejectment was
eventually filed in the MTC, docketed as Civil Case No. 16-022. However,
in an Order dated October 10, 2016, the MTC dismissed the case for lack
of jurisdiction. It explained that the complaint did not comply with the
jurisdictional requirements for ejectment as it neither alleged the
requisites under forcible entry nor unlawful detainer. Complainant
terminated their legal engagement. Complainant also demanded
respondent to return the deposit of P50,000.00 and the cash advance of
P100,000.00.

Complainant engaged the services of another lawyer, Atty. Luis

Martin V. Tan, to communicate with respondent. The latter initially
agreed to return the P100,000.00 cash advance by November 30, 2016, and,
eventually, the P50,000.00 deposit. However, respondent still reneged on
his obligations. Complainant sent another Demand Letter to respondent
to comply with his obligations but it was unheeded. Thus, she filed this
instant administrative complaint alleging that respondent violated the
provisions of the Code for presenting a fake ejectment complaint and for
non-payment of the money he borrowed.

The IBP Commission required respondent to file his answer.

Respondent filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer. Several
months passed but respondent still failed to file his answer. Thus, even
without respondent's answer, the IBP Commission set the case for
mandatory conference. During the said conference, only the counsel of
complainant appeared.

Respondent filed a Motion to Admit with Manifestation. In his

Answer, respondent admitted the allegations in the complaint that he
received an acceptance fee of P75,000.00 and a deposit for legal expenses
in the amount of P50,000.00. He also admitted that he borrowed
P100,000.00 from complainant but that it was not a loan; rather, it was a
cash advance to be deducted from the appearance fees and other service
fees in the handling of cases. He also asserted that the said amount is fully
protected by the nature of the cases, which he is handling. On the alleged
fake receiving copy of the complaint, respondent averred that he relied in
good faith in the representations of his messenger and claimed that it was
an honest mistake. He added that when he learned of the non-filing of the
complaint, he immediately confronted his messenger and filed the
complaint in court.

The IBP Commission - found that respondent violated the Code

and recommended a penalty of suspension from the practice of law for
two (2) years. It was observed that respondent cannot blame his
messenger because he should have known that the receiving copy of the
complaint for ejectment was fake because of the questionable hand-
written docket number and receiving stamp. The IBP Commission
highlighted that respondent gave a shallow excuse of erratic internet
service for his failure to give case updates. It opined that respondent
indeed received P50,000.00 as deposit even though he had not rendered
substantial legal service; that he borrowed P100,000.00 from his client; and
that he failed to pay his monetary obligations. It likewise emphasized that
respondent failed to comply with the orders of the IBP Commission.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the court should adopt the findings of the IBP Commission

HELD:

YES. The Court adopted the findings of the IBP Commission but modifies
the recommended penalty of the IBP Board.

Lawyers should always live up to the ethical standards of the legal

profession as embodied in the Code. Public confidence in law and in
lawyers may be eroded by the irresponsible and improper conduct of a
member of the bar. Thus, every lawyer should act and comport himself in
a manner that would promote public confidence in the integrity of the
legal profession.

• Rule 1.01 of the Code states that a lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. It instructs
that as officers of the court, lawyers are bound to maintain not
only a high standard of legal proficiency, but also of morality,
honesty, integrity, and fair dealing.

• Rule 16.04 of the Code states that 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 independent advice. The
rule against borrowing of money by a lawyer from his client is
intended to prevent the lawyer from taking advantage of his
influence over his client.

• On the other hand, Rule 18.04 of the Code states that 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. It is the lawyer's duty to keep his client constantly
updated on the developments of his case as it is crucial in
maintaining the latter's confidence.

In this case, the Court finds that respondent violated Rule 1.01,
Rules 16.04, and 18.04 of the Code based on the substantial evidence
presented by complainant.

Fake complaint for ejectment - By delivering a fake receiving copy

of the complaint to his client, thereby deceiving the latter in filing the case,
respondent participated in deceitful conduct towards his client in
violation of Rule 1.01 of the Code. As a lawyer, respondent should have
noticed these irregularities before furnishing his client with the copy of
the said complaint. Further, respondent did not give any concrete detail
on the consequences incurred by his messenger; whether appropriate
criminal or disciplinary charges were instituted against him for faking the
said receiving copy. In any case, respondent cannot "pass the buck" to his
messenger and escape liability because he has a sworn duty to observe
due diligence and honesty in dealing with his client.

Respondent borrowed money from his client; return of the

amounts - Unless the client's interests are fully protected, a lawyer must
never borrow money from his or her client. The Court has consistently
held that deliberate failure to pay just debts constitutes gross misconduct,
for which a lawyer may be sanctioned. Lawyers are instruments for the
administration of justice and vanguards of our legal system. They are
expected to maintain not only legal proficiency, but also a high standard
of morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing so that the people's faith
and confidence in the judicial system is ensured. They must, at all times,
faithfully perform their duties to society, to the bar, the courts and to their
clients, which include prompt payment of financial obligations.

Respondent did not regularly update his client - Respondent

cannot invoke the distance of the parties or the erratic internet service in
failing to comply with his duty as a lawyer. If respondent was sincere in
updating complainant with her case, then he should have availed of the
numerous and modern channels of communication to reach his client, but
he failed to do so. Hence, respondent violated Rule 18.04, which requires
that a lawyer must regularly update his or her client regarding the status
of his or her case. As an officer of the court, it is the duty of an attorney to
inform his client of whatever important information he may have
acquired affecting his client's case. He should notify his client of any
adverse decision to enable his client to decide whether to seek appellate
review thereof. Keeping the client informed of the developments of the
case will minimize misunderstanding and loss of trust and confidence in
the attorney.

RULING:

• GUILTY of violating Rules 1.01, 16.04, and 18.04 of the Code of

Professional Responsibility

• DISBARRED from the practice of law and his name stricken off
the Roll of Attorneys

• ORDERED to return to complainant Rosalie P. Domingo the

amount of P50,000.00, as legal deposit to cover the expenses
related to the expected litigation, and P100,000.00, as cash advance
chargeable against his appearance fees and other fees, with
interest of 6% per annum reckoned from the date of the receipt of
this Decision

• FINE in the amount P5,000.00 for disobedience to the orders of

the Integrated Bar of the Philippines - Commission on Bar
Discipline. These payments shall be made within ten (10) days
from the receipt of this Decision.