PRESIDING JUDGE JOSE L. MADRID, Complainant, -versus – ATTY. JUAN S.

DEALCA, Respondent. A.C. No. 7474, EN BANC, September 9, 2014, BERSAMIN, J.

The Lawyer’s Oath is a source of obligations and duties for every lawyer, and any
violation thereof by an attorney constitutes a ground for disbarment, suspension, or
other disciplinary action. The oath exhorts upon the members of the Bar not to "wittingly
or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit." These are not mere
facile words, drift and hollow, but a sacred trust that must be upheld and keep
inviolable. As a lawyer, therefore, Atty. Dealca was aware of his duty under his Lawyer’s
Oath not to initiate groundless, false or unlawful suits.

FACTS Respondent Atty. Juan Dealca was hired as a counsel in a pending criminal
case that was raffled to the sala of Judge Jose Madrid. Subsequently, Dealca moved
that the case be re-raffled to another Branch of the RTC considering the adverse
incidents between the respondent Presiding Judge and the complainant, which was
denied by Judge Madrid.

Thereafter, Judge Madrid filed a letter complaint in the Office of the Bar Confidant citing
Atty. Dealca’s unethical practice of entering his appearance and then moving for the
inhibition of the presiding judge on the pretext of previous adverse incidents between
them.

Atty. Dealca, on the other hand, asserted that Judge Madrid’s issuance of the order
unconstitutionally and unlawfully deprived the accused of the right to counsel, to due
process, and to a fair and impartial trial; that Judge Madrid exhibited bias in failing to act
on the motion to lift and set aside the warrant of arrest issued against the accused; and
that it should be Judge Madrid himself who should be disbarred and accordingly
dismissed from the Judiciary for gross ignorance of the law. The IBP submitted their
findings and recommended that Atty. Dealca be suspended from the practice of law for
a period of six months.

ISSUE Whether or not Atty. Dealca filed frivolous administrative and criminal complaints
against judges and court personnel in violation of the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of
Professional Responsibility. (YES)

RULING The Supreme Court ruled that there were no merits in Atty. Dealca’s
arguments. Atty. Dealca’s complaint against Judge Madrid has failed the judicious
scrutiny. The Court did not find any trace of idealism or altruismin the motivations for
initiating it. Instead, Atty. Dealca exhibited his proclivity for vindictiveness and penchant
for harassment, considering that, as IBP Commissioner Hababag pointed out, his
bringing of charges against judges, court personnel and even his colleagues in the Law
Profession had all stemmed from decisions or rulings being adverse to his clients or his
side. He well knew, therefore, that he was thereby crossing the line of propriety,
because neither vindictiveness nor harassment could be a substitute for resorting to the
appropriate legal remedies. He should now be reminded that the aim of every lawsuit
should be to render justice to the parties according to law, not to harass them. The
Lawyer’s Oath is a source of obligations and duties for every lawyer, and any violation
thereof by an attorney constitutes a ground for disbarment, suspension, or other
disciplinary action. The oath exhorts upon the members of the Bar not to "wittingly or
willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit." These are not mere
facile words, drift and hollow, but a sacred trust that must be upheld and keep
inviolable. As a lawyer, therefore, Atty. Dealca was aware of his duty under his Lawyer’s
Oath not to initiate groundless, false or unlawful suits. The duty has also been expressly
embodied in Rule 1.03, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility

Cordon v. Balicanta (2002) (lawyer who duped mother-daughter of their lands)

Facts:
When Rosaura Cordon”s husband died, she and her daughter, Rosemarie, inherited
around 21 parcels of land in Zamboanga City.
Atty. Jesus Balicanta settled the estate of her late husband and also advised the
Cordons on how to manage their inheritance. He enticed them to organize a corporation
and transfer their properties to such corporation for development.
Thus, Rosaura Enterprises, Inc. was born and the Cordons assumed majority
ownership. However, it was Balicanta who served as the Chairman of the Board,
President, General Manager, and Treasurer.
More than that, Balicanta also transferred the titles of the property to one Tion Suy
Ong. He also made them sign a voting trust agreement and a Special Power of Attorney
allowing Balicanta to sell and mortgage the Cordons” properties.
Using a spurious board resolution, Balicanta obtained a P2.2 Million loan from the Land
Bank of the Philippines, supposedly to develop the Baliwasan Commercial Center using
9 of the Cordons” properties as collateral.
However, it was later found out that the structure was made out of poor materials such
as sawali. For four years, Balicanta did not pay a single demand despite numerous
demand and notice from LBP.
Finally, in 1983, Rosemarie found out what was happening when she saw that Balicanta
had their ancestral home demolished, selling the land to Tion Suy Ong again, and
transferred her mom to a house in a different town on the pretext that their home was
being renovated.
Thereafter, the Cordons filed a disbarment case against Balicanta with the IBP
Comission on Bar Discipline. Commissioner Cunanan issued a report recommending
Balicanta”s disbarment. While Balicanta”s disbarment was pending review before
Executive VP and Northern Luzon Governor Pilando, Balicanta alleged that
Commissioner Cunanan”s report was penned by the Cordons” lawyers.
Aside from this, Balicanta”s main defense is that he hid not do anything out of line, that
he was only doing his job, and it was the Cordons who should be held accountable for
being negligent in the running of the corporation.
Issues:
1. W/N Atty. Balicanta should be disbarred
Held/Ratio:
1. YES, Balicanta”s actions show an organized plan to deceive the Cordons and deprive
them of their property. In fact, Balicanta”s deceptions show in the evidence he adduced
to supposedly defend himself. In his supporting evidence, it showed that the Cordons
only owned 266 of Rosaura Enterprises, Inc.”s shares when the factual finding of the
IBP Committee showed that the Cordons owned 1,711 out of 1,750 shares. Also,
Balicanta”s actions were done without the approval of the corporation”s Board of
Directors. It was also never explained why the Cordons, despite holding around 90% of
the company”s outstanding stock, were never participated in any of the corporation”s
actions. These fraudulent acts should not be permitted to continue, especially from the
member of the bar. The relation between an attorney and his client is highly fiduciary in
nature. Balicanta can”t hide behind the corporation”s separate juridical personality
because he blatantly used the corporate veil to perpetrate his fraudulent acts.
suspension.

Based on the aforementioned findings, this Court believes that the gravity of
respondent’s offenses cannot be adequately matched by mere suspension as
recommended by the IBP. Instead, his wrongdoings deserve the severe penalty of
disbarment, without prejudice to his criminal and civil liabilities for his dishonest acts.
Good moral standing is manifested in the duty of the lawyer “to hold in trust all moneys
and properties of his client that may come into his possession.” He is bound “to account
for all money or property collected or received for or from the client.” The relation
between an attorney and his client is highly fiduciary in nature. Thus, lawyers are bound
to promptly account for money or property received by them on behalf of their clients
and failure to do so constitutes professional misconduct.
Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. In addition, respondent’s actions clearly violated Canon 15 to 16 of the same Code.