' .

~epublit of tbe .tlbilippines L, "»LA " D ,.JID

~upreme Court TIME:_..:.:..::..=..:..__ _ _ _ _ __

:fflantla

THIRD DIVISION

NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution
dated July 24, 2019, which reads as follows:

"A.C. No. 12300 (EDWIN JOSEPH G. GALVEZ, complainant v.

ATTY. MARLON ALEXANDRE C. CRUZ and ATTY. PATRICK
JOHN REY E. CARPIO, respondents). - Lawyers are duty bound to
serve as the legal advocates of their clients by representing them zealously
as allowed by law, forwarding their cause competently and diligently. 1 They
should not be faulted for upholding their duty in the interest of justice.

This case involves the Complaint-Affidavit2 of Edwin Joseph G.

Galvez (Galvez), charging Attys. Marlon Alexandre C. Cruz (Atty. Cruz) and
Patrick John Rey E. Carpio (Atty. Carpio) for violating Canon 1, Rules 1.01
to 1.03, Canon 7, and Canon 19, Rule 19.01, all of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. 3 Galvez filed before this Court a Petition assailing the
October 27, 2017 Resolution 4 of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board
of Governors, which adopted the Investigating Commissioner's findings of
fact and recorpmendation to dismiss the Complaint for lack of merit. He,
however, later moved to withdraw5 his Petition.

Galvez was among the accused in a case for· qualified theft before the
Regional Trial Court. Attys. Cruz and Carpio were the private prosecutors. 6

On August 11, 2014, Galvez filed an Urgent Omnibus Motion before

the trial court. The Motion sought to: (1) quash the Information against him;
(2) reconsider the July 8, 2014 Order finding probable cause against him and
issuing an arrest warrant; and (3) lift the arrest warrant. 7

1
CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, Canons 17-19.
2
Rollo, pp. 1-7.
3
Id. at 5.
4
Id. at 220-221.
5
Id. at 443-444 ..
6
Id. at I.
7
Id. at 2 and 53.
~
- over- (113)
Resolution -2 - A.C. No. 12300
July 24, 2019

The trial court denied the Motion in its November 3, 2014 Order.
Galvez filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which the trial court also denied
in its January 8, 2015 Order. 8

Before the Court of Appeals, Galvez filed a Petition for Certiorari to

question the trial court Orders. 9

In its February 17, 2016 Decision/) the Court of Appeals granted the
Petition. 11 It ordered the dismissal of the Information against Galvez for
lack of jurisdiction, the recall of the arrest warrants, and the release of
Galvez from detention. 12 Galvez was subsequently released by vi11ue of the
13
Court of Appeals' February 17, 2016 Order of Release (Release Order).

Following the Decision, the prosecution, through Attys. Cruz and

Carpio, filed a Motion to Order the Immediate Arrest and Detention of
Accused Edwin Joseph G. Galvez (Motion to Order Arrest). 14 They argued
that Galvez's release was premature, if not illegal, since there was no recall
of the trial court's Commitment Order. 15

On March 17, 2016, Galvez filed before the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline a Complaint-Affidavit 16 against
A ttys. Cruz and Carpio, who allegedly transgressed Canon 1, Rules I .01 to
1. 03, Canon 7, and Canon I 9, Rule 19.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. 17 He claimed that by filing the Motion to Order Arrest to
harass him, the lawyers disregarded the Release Order and disrespected the

Id. at 49.
9
Id.
10
Id. at 49-64. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Francisco P. Acosta, and concurred in by
Associate Justices Noel G. Tijam (now a retired member of this Court) and Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr. of
the Fourth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
11
Id. at 63.
I:! Id.
13
Id. at 84.
14
Id. at 85-88.
15
Id. at 86.
ir, Id. at 1-7.
17
CODE OF PROl'ESSIONAL Rl:SPONSIBILITY, Canon I, Rules 1.01-1.03, Canon 7, and Canon 19, Rule
19.01 provide:
CANON I -- A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote
respect for law and for legal processes.
Rule 1.0 I A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
Rule 1.02 A lawyer shal I not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening
confidence in the legal system.
Rule 1.03 A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit or proceeding
or delay any man's cause.

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 19 - A lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within the bounds of the law.
Rule 19.0 I 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.
~
- over - (113)
Resolution -3 - A.C. No. 12300
July 24, 2019

Court of Appeals and the legal processes. He argued that a release order is
immediately executory since it is a writ of liberty. 18 He stressed that the
lawyers neither moved for the Release Order's reconsideration nor indicated its
existence in their Motion, 19 an omission allegedly "tantamount to bad faith and
intellectual di shone sty. " 20

In their Answer, 21 Attys. Cruz and Carpio argued that since the Court of
Appeals Decision was yet to be final, it "(could not] and should not be
considered immediately executory[.]" 22 They also pointed out that they were
not furnished copies of the Release Order. 23 Lastly, they claimed that they
were only doing their duty as legal advocates in filing the Motion to Order
Arrests. 24

In a November 2, 2016 Report and Recommendation, 25 Investigating

Commissioner Ricardo M. Espina recommended that the Complaint be
dismissed for lack of merit. He found that Galvez failed "to present clear
preponderant _proof' 26 of the violations committed by Attys. Cruz and
Carpio. 27 He also found that since the Motion to Order Arrest was not yet
resolved and that the Court of Appeals Decision was not yet final, 28 the
lawyers had the right to contest the Court of Appeals' ruling. He
emphasized that only acquittals by final judgment are immediately
executory. 29

On October 27, 2017, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of

Governors issued a Resolution30 adopting the Investigating Commissioner's
findings of fact and recommendation to dismiss the Complaint. 31

On April 10, 2018, Galvez filed before this Court a Petition32 assailing
the Board of Governors' Resolution. 33 He reiterates his arguments in his
pleadings before the Commission on Bar Discipline and insists that a release
order is a writ of liberty and, thus, "is inherently immediately executory." 34
However, on October 4, 2018, he filed before this Court a Motion to

18
Rollo, pp. 3-4 and 152-153.
19
Id. at 4 and 154.
20
Id. at 4.
21
Id. at 92-l03.
22
Id. at 92.
23
Id. at 99.
24
Id. at 10 I.
25
Id. at 222-225.
26
Id. at 224.
21 Id.
28
Id. at 224-225.
29 Id.
30
Id. at 220-22 I.
31
Id. at 220.
32
Id. at 226-242.
33
Id. at 239.
34
Id. at 235.

- over- (~)
Resolution - 4 - A.C. No. 12300
July 24, 2019

Withdraw Appeal. 35

The sole issue for this Court's resolution is whether or not Attys.
Marlon Alexandre C. Cruz and Patrick John Rey E. Carpio should be held
administratively liable for violating Canon 1, Rules 1.01 to 1.03, Canon 7,
and Canon 19, Rule 19.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility when
they filed a l\1otion to Order Arrest of complainant Edwin Joseph G. Galvez.

Complainant's filing of his Motion to Withdraw Appeal does not

entail his Petition's dismissal. In Fuji v. Atty. Dela Cruz, 36 the respondent
lawyer argued that the administrative case against her should be dismissed
37
because the complainant filed an Affidavit of Desistance. This Court held:

Contrary to respondent's stance, Fuji's purported Affidavit of

Desistance is not sufficient cause to dismiss this administrative complaint.
This COltrt has previously held that proceedings of this nature cannot be
"interrupted or terminated by reason of desistance, settlement,
compromise, restitution, withdrawal of the charges or failure of the
complainant to prosecute the same." The primary object of disciplinary
proceedings is to determine the fitness of a member to remain in the Bar.
It is conducted solely for the public welfare, and the desistance of the
complainant is irrelevant. What will be decisive are the facts borne out by
the evidence presented by the parties. 38 (Citations omitted)

39
In Fuji, this Court cited Rayos-Ombac v. Atty. Rayos, where the
complainant filed an Affidavit to withdraw the Disbarment Complaint after
the respondent lawyer had filed a Motion for Reconsideration before the
Board of Governors. 40 This Court held:

A case of suspension or disbarment may proceed regardless of interest or

lack of interest of the complainant. What matters is whether, on the basis
of the facts borne out by the record, the charge of deceit and grossly
immoral conduct has been duly proven. This rnle is premised on the
nature of disciplinary proceedings. A proceeding for suspension or
disbarment is not in any sense a civil action where the complainant is a
plaintiff and the respondent lawyer is a defendant. Disciplinary
proceedings involve no private interest and afford no redress for private
grievance. They are undertaken and prosecuted solely for the public
welfare. They are undertaken for the purpose of preserving courts of
justice from the official ministration of persons unfit to practice in them.
The attorney is called to answer to the court for his conduct as an officer
of the court. The complainant or the person who called the attention of the
court to the attorney's alleged misconduct is in no sense a party, and has
generally no interest in the outcome except as all good citizens may have

35
Id. at 443-444.
6
' 807 Phil. I (2017) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
17
Id. at 7-8 .
18
Id.at 10.
1
·" 349 Phil. 7 ( 1998) [Per J. Puno, En Banc].
.I() Id. at 14.
<'!I
- over - (113)
Resolution -5 - A.C. No. 12300
July 24, 2019

in the proper administration of justice. 41 (Citations omitted)

Filing the Motion to Withdraw Appeal will not render the case
dismissed. Hence, this Court will now proceed on the merits of the case.

Canon 1, Rules 1.01 to 1.03, Canon 7, and Canon 19, Rule 19.01 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility provide:

CANON 1 - 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,

immoral or deceitful conduct.

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.

RULE 1.03 A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest,
encourage any suit or proceeding or delay any man's cause.

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 19 - A lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within

the bounds 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.

Upon a careful review of the case records, this Court finds that
complainant failed to show how respondents violated the cited provisions of
the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Since the Court of Appeals merely dismissed the Information against

complainant and did not acquit him by final judgment, respondents may still
seek other remedies to contest its Decision and Release Order. Thus,
respondents' filing of the Motion to Order Arrest did not amount to
disrespecting the legal processes.

Respondents should not be faulted in seeking other lawful remedies to

41 Id. at 15.
tJ;"
- over- (113)
Resolution - 6 - A.C. No. 12300
July 24, 2019

forward their client's cause. Their filing of the Motion to Order Arrest may
even be considered a manner of complying with Canons I 7, I 8, and I 9 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility. 42 Such action not only showed their
diligence by keeping abreast on the status of the case against complainant,
but also displayed their competence by availing of other remedies to enforce
the arrest warrant against him.

43
In Ramirez v. Atty. Buhayang-Margallo, this Court reiterated:

The relationship between a lawyer and a client is "imbued with

utmost trust and confidence." Lawyers are expected to exercise the
necessary diligence and competence in managing cases entrusted to them.
They commit not only to review cases or give legal advice, but also to
represent their clients to the best of their ability without need to be
reminded by either the client or the court. The expectation to maintain a
high degree of legal proficiency and attention remains the same whether
44
the represented party is a high-paying client or an indigent litigant.
(Citations omitted)

Similarly, complainant failed to substantiate his allegations that

respondents only aimed to harass him by filing the Motion to Order Arrest,
and that they committed intellectual dishonesty by failing to mention the
Release Order in their Motion.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

WILFREDO V. LAPITAN
Division Clerk of Court
By:
~- ~~t> ~
MISAEL DbivnN~o c. BATTUNG 111
Deputy Division Clerk of Court ,,.t\:t t-2.1,1'j

42
CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, Canons 17-19 provide:
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 l 8 ---- A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.

CANON 19 - A lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within the bounds of the law.
4
' 752 Phil. 473 (2015) [Per J. Leonen, En Banc].
14
· Id. at 480-481.

- over - (t 13)
Resolution - 7 - A.C. No. 12300
July 24, 2019

Attys. E. Hans & S. Santos

RIVERA SANTOS & MARANAN
Counsel for Complainant
Unit 2902-D West Tower, Philippine Stock
Exchange Center; Exchange Road
1605 Ortigas Center, Pasig City

Attys. Marlon Alexandre C. Cruz &

Patrick John Rey E. Carpio
Respondents
CRUZ NERIA & CARPIO LAW OFFICES
303 Pacific Center Building, No. 33
San Miguel Avenue, Ortigas Center
1605 Pasig City

Atty. Ma. Cristina B. Layusa

Deputy Clerk of Court and Bar Confidant
OFFICE OF THE BAR CONFIDANT
Supreme Court, Manila

Atty. Marlou B. Ubano

Director for Bar Discipline
INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES
Dona Julia Vargas Avenue
Ortigas Center, 1600 Pasig City

JUDICIAL & BAR COUNCIL

Supreme Cowt, Manila

PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE

Supreme Court, Manila
[For uploading pursuant to A.M. 12-7-1-SC]

LIBRARY SERVICES
Supreme Court, Manila

A.C. No. 12300 (113)

le11/ URES