Office of the Court Administrator vs. Judge Cander P.

Indar
(A.M. No. RTJ-10-2232, April 10, 2012)
Facts:
This case was originated from reports by the Local Civil Registrars of Manila and
Quezon City to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) that they have received an alarming
number of decisions, resolutions, and orders on annulment of marriage cases allegedly issued by
Judge Indar in his capacity as Presiding Judge in RTC-Shariff Aguak and as acting Presiding
Judge in RTC Cotabato.

Issue: It was alleged that Judge Indar made it appear that the annulment cases
underwent trial, when the records show no judicial proceedings occurred.

To verify the allegations against Judge Indar, the OCA conducted a judicial audit in
RTC-Shariff Aguak, where the Audit Team found that the list of cases submitted by the Local
Civil Registrars of Manila and Quezon City do not appear in the records of cases received,
pending or disposed by RTC-Shariff Aguak. Likewise, the annulment decisions did not exist in
the records of RTC-Cotabato. The Audit Team further observed that the case numbers in the list
submitted by the Local Civil Registrars are not within the series of case numbers recorded in the
docket books of either RTC-Shariff Aguak or RTC-Cotabato. Moreover the judicial audit team
also found out that Judge Indar affirmed in writing before the Australian Embassy the validity of
a decision he allegedly rendered, when in fact that case does not appear in the court’s records.

Issue: Whether Judge Indar is guilty of gross misconduct and dishonesty.

Held: Public office is a public trust This constitutional principle requires a judge, like any other
public servant and more so because of his exalted position in the Judiciary, to exhibit at all times
the highest degree of honesty and integrity As the visible representation of the law tasked with
dispensing justice, a judge should conduct himself at all times in a manner that would merit the
respect and confidence of the people.

In Office of the Court Administrator v. Lopez, the Court explained the difference between simple
misconduct and grave misconduct, thus:

The Court defines misconduct as “a transgression of some established and definite rule of action,
more particularly, unlawful behaviour or gross negligence by a public officer.” The misconduct
is grave if it involves any of the additional elements of corruption, wilful intent to violate the
law, or to disregard established rules, which must be established by substantial evidence. As
distinguished from simple misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law,
or flagrant disregard of established rule, must be manifest in a charge of grave misconduct.

The Court condemns Judge Indar’s reprehensible act of issuing Decisions that voided marital
unions, without conducting any judicial proceedings. Such malfeasance not only makes
a
mockery of marriage and its life-changing consequences but likewise grossly violates the basic
norms of truth, justice, and due process. Not only that, Judge Indar’s gross misconduct greatly
undermines the people’s faith in the judiciary and betrays public trust and confidence in the
courts. Judge Indar’s utter lack of moral fitness has no place in the Judiciary.
Judge
Indar deserves nothing less than dismissal from the service.

The Court defines dishonesty as:

“disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of

honesty, probity or integrity in principle; lack of fairness and straightforwardness; disposition to
defraud, deceive or betrayal”.

In this case, Judge Indar issued Decisions on numerous annulment of marriage cases
when in fact he did not conduct any judicial proceedings on the cases. Not even the filing of the
petitions occurred. Judge Indar made it appear in his Decisions that the annulment
cases
complied with the stringent requirements of the Rules of Court and the strict statutory and
jurisprudential conditions for voiding marriages, when quite the contrary is true, violating Canon
3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct which mandates that a judge “perform official
duties
honestly.”

WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Judge Cader P. Indar, Al Haj, guilty of
Gross
Misconduct and Dishonesty for which he is DISMISSED from the service

Case Digest: Engr. Gilbert Tumbokon, Complainant, v. Atty. Mariano R. Pefianco,

Respondent | A.C. No. 6116, 1 August 2012
January 14, 2018
Engr. Gilbert Tumbokon, Complainant, v. Atty. Mariano R. Pefianco, Respondent
A.C. No. 6116, 1 August 2012

Facts:
     According to the complainant, respondent undertook to give him 20% commission, later
reduced to 10%, of the attorney’s fees, the latter would received in representing Spouses Yap
whom he referred, in an action for partition of the estate of the spouses’ relative. Their agreement
was reflected in a letter dated 11 August 1995. However, respondent failed to pay him the agreed
commission notwithstanding receipt of attorney’s fees amounting to 17% of the total estate or
about PhP 40 million. Instead, the complainant was informed through a letter dated 16 July 1997
that Spouses Yap assumed to pay the same after the respondent had agreed to reduce his
attorney’s fees from 25% to 17%. He then demanded the payment of his commission which the
respondent ignored.

    Complainant further alleged that the respondent has not lived up to the high moral standards
required of his profession for having abandoned his legal wife with whom he has two children,
and cohabited with another with whom he has four children. He also accused the respondent of
engaging in money-lending business without the required authorization from the Bangko Sentral
ng Pilipinas.

    In his defense, the respondent disputed the 11 August 1995 letter for being a forgery and
claimed that the Spouses Yap assumed to pay.

Issue:
     Whether or not Atty. Pefianco is in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility
(CPR) and Lawyer’s Oath.

Held:
     Respondent’s defense that forgery of the 11 August 1995 letter was belied by his 16 July
1997 admitting to have undertaken the payment of the complaint’s commission but passing on
the responsibility to the Spouses Yap. Clearly, the respondent has violated Rule 9.02, Canon 9 of
the CPR which prohibits a lawyer from dividing or stipulating to divide a fee for legal services
with persons not licensed to practice law, except in certain cases which do not obtain in the case
at bar.

     Furthermore, the respondent did not deny the accusation that he abandoned his legal family to
cohabit with his mistress with whom he begot four children. The Supreme Court found credence
to IBP’s findings that the respondent violated the Lawyer’s Oath and Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the
CPR.

     The respondent was found guilty of violating the Lawyer’s Oath; Rule 1.01, Canon 1; and
Rule 9.02, Canon 9 of the CPR. The respondent was suspended from active practice of law for
one year.
 EUGENIA MENDOZA vs. ATTY. VICTOR V. DECIEMBRE
A.C. No. 5338
February 23, 2009
(en banc)

**Any departure from the path which a lawyer must follow as demanded by the virtues of his profession
shall not be tolerated by this Court as the disciplining authority for there is perhaps no profession after that
of the sacred ministry in which a high-toned morality is more imperative than that of law.

FACTS:
Complainant Augenia Mendoza, a mail sorter at the Central Post Office Manila, borrowed from Rodela Loans,
Inc., through respondent Atty. Victor Deciembre, the amount of P20,000.00 payable in six months at 20%
interest, secured by 12 blank checks, with numbers 47253, 47256 to 47266, drawn against the Postal Bank.
Although she was unable to faithfully pay her obligations on their due dates, she made remittances,
however, to respondent’s Metrobank account from November 11, 1998 to March 15, 1999 in the total sum
of P12,910.00. Claiming that the amounts remitted were not enough to cover the penalties, interests and
other charges, respondent warned complainant that he would deposit Postal Check No. 47253 filled up by
him on March 30, 1999 in the amount of P16,000.00. Afraid that respondent might sue her in court,
complainant made good said check and respondent was able to encash the same on March 30, 1999.
Thereafter, complainant made subsequent payments to the Metrobank account of respondent from April 13,
1999 to October 15, 1999, thereby paying respondent the total sum of P35,690.00.

Respondent filled up two of the postal checks she issued in blank, Check Nos. 47261 and 47262 with the
amount of P50,000.00 each and with the dates January 15, 2000 and January 20, 2000 respectively, which
respondent claims was in exchange for the P100,000.00 cash that complainant received on November 15,
1999. Complainant insisted however that she never borrowed P100,000.00 from respondent and that it was
unlikely that respondent would lend her such amount. Complainant also claimed that respondent victimized
other employees of the Postal Office by filling up, without authorization, blank checks issued to him as
condition for loans.
Respondent averred that his dealings with complainant were done in his private capacity and not as a
lawyer, and that when he filed a complaint for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. (B.P. Blg.) 22 against
complainant, he was only vindicating his rights as a private citizen. He alleged further that: it was
complainant who deliberately deceived him by not honoring her commitment to their November 15, 1999
transaction involving P100,000.00 and covered by two checks which bounced for the reason “account
closed”; the October 13, 1999 transaction was a separate and distinct transaction; complainant filed the
disbarment case against him to get even with him for filing the estafa and B.P. Blg. 22 case against the
former; complainant’s claim that respondent filled up the blank checks issued by complainant is a complete
lie; the truth was that the checks referred to were already filled up when complainant affixed her signature
thereto; it was unbelievable that complainant would issue blank checks, and that she was a mere low-
salaried employee, since she was able to maintain several checking accounts; and if he really intended to
defraud complainant, he would have written a higher amount on the checks instead of only P50,000.00.

ISSUE:      whether or not Atty. Victor Deciembre is guilty of guilty of gross misconduct and violation of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, and therefore should be disbarred from the practice of law.

HELD:
The practice of law is not a right but merely a privilege bestowed by the State upon those who show that
they possess, and continue to possess, the qualifications required by law for the conferment of such
privilege. A high sense of morality, honesty and fair dealing is expected and required of members of the bar.
They must conduct themselves with great propriety, and their behavior must be beyond reproach anywhere
and at all times.

ADVERTISEMENT
REPORT THIS AD

The fact that there is no attorney-client relationship in this case and the transactions entered into by
respondent were done in his private capacity cannot shield respondent, as a lawyer, from liability.

A lawyer may be disciplined for acts committed even in his private capacity for acts which tend to bring
reproach on the legal profession or to injure it in the favorable opinion of the public. Indeed, there is no
distinction as to whether the transgression is committed in a lawyer’s private life or in his professional
capacity, for a lawyer may not divide his personality as an attorney at one time and a mere citizen at
another.

In this case, evidence abounds that respondent has failed to live up to the standards required of members of
the legal profession. Specifically, respondent has transgressed provisions of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, to wit:

 * CANON 1 – A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote
respect for law and legal processes.
 Rule 1.01. – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
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.
As manifested [in the Olbes and Acosta] cases, respondent’s offenses are manifold. First, he demands
excessive payments from his borrowers; then he fills up his borrowers’ blank checks with fictitious amounts,
falsifying commercial documents for his material gain; and then he uses said checks as bases for filing
unfounded criminal suits against his borrowers in order to harass them. Such acts manifest respondent’s
perversity of character, meriting his severance from the legal profession.

While the power to disbar is exercised with great caution and is withheld whenever a lesser penalty could
accomplish the end desired, the seriousness of respondent’s offense compels the Court to wield its supreme
power of disbarment. Indeed, the Court will not hestitate to remove an erring attorney from the esteemed
brotherhood of lawyers where the evidence calls for it. This is because in the exercise of its disciplinary
powers, the Court merely calls upon a member of the Bar to account for his actuations as an officer of the
Court, with the end in view of preserving the purity of the legal profession and the proper and honest
administration of justice by purging the profession of members who by their misconduct have proved
themselves no longer worthy to be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities pertaining to the office of
an attorney.

As respondent’s misconduct brings intolerable dishonor to the legal profession, the severance of his privilege
to practice law for life is in order.
BARANDON V. FERRER (A.C. NO. 5768; MARCH 26, 2010)
CASE DIGEST: ATTY. BONIFACIO T. BARANDON, JR. V. ATTY. EDWIN Z.
FERRER, SR. (A.C. No. 5768; March 26, 2010).

FACTS: On January 11, 2001 complainant Atty. Bonifacio T. Barandon, Jr. filed a complaint-
affidavit with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD)
seeking the disbarment, suspension from the practice of law, or imposition of appropriate
disciplinary action against respondent Atty. Edwin Z. Ferrer, Sr. for filing a reply with
opposition to motion to dismiss that contained abusive, offensive and improper language
which insinuated that Atty. Barandon presented a falsified document in court. The said
document purported to be a notarized document executed at a date when Atty. Barandon
was not yet a lawyer.

Moreover, on December 19, 2000, Atty. Ferrer, evidently drunk, threatened Atty. Barandon
saying, “Laban kung laban, patayan kung patayan, kasama ang lahat ng pamilya. Wala na palang
magaling na abogado sa Camarines Norte, angabogadonarito ay mga taga-Camarines Sur,
umuwina kayo sa Camarines Sur, hindi kayo taga-rito” at the Municipal Trial Court in Daet
before the start of a hearing.

The Court had warned Atty. Ferrer in his first disbarment case against repeating his unethical act;
yet he faces a disbarment charge for sexual harassment of an office secretary of the IBP
Chapter in Camarines Norte; a related criminal case for acts of lasciviousness; and
criminal cases for libel and grave threats that Atty. Barandon filed against him.

On October 10, 2001 Investigating Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan of the IBP-CBD
submitted to this Court a Report, recommending the suspension for two years of Atty. Ferrer.
The Investigating Commissioner found enough evidence on record to prove Atty. Ferrer’s
violation of Canons 8.01 and 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He attributed to
Atty. Barandon, as counsel in Civil Case 7040, the falsification of the plaintiff’s affidavit despite
the absence of evidence that the document had in fact been falsified and that Atty. Barandon was
a party to it. The Investigating Commissioner also found that Atty. Ferrer uttered the threatening
remarks imputed to him in the presence of other counsels, court personnel, and litigants before
the start of hearing. On June 29, 2002 the IBP Board of Governors passed Resolution
adopting and approving the Investigating Commissioner’s recommendation but reduced
the penalty of suspension to only one year.

ISSUE: DID THE IBP BOARD OF GOVERNORS AND THE IBP INVESTIGATING

COMMISSIONER ERR IN FINDING RESPONDENT GUILTY OF THE CHARGES
AGAINST HIM AND IF THE PENALTY IMPOSED WAS JUSTIFIED?

HELD: The Supreme Court examined the records of this case and finds no reason to disagree
with the findings and recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors and the Investigating
Commissioner.

The practice of law is a privilege given to lawyers who meet the high standards of legal
proficiency and morality. Any violation of these standards exposes the lawyer to administrative
liability.
Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility commands all lawyers to conduct themselves
with courtesy, fairness and candor towards their fellow lawyers and avoid harassing tactics
against opposing counsel.

Atty. Ferrer’s actions do not measure up to this Canon. The evidence shows that he imputed to
Atty. Barandon the falsification of an affidavit without evidence that the document had indeed
been falsified. Moreover, Atty. Ferrer could have aired his charge of falsification in a proper
forum and without using offensive and abusive language against a fellow lawyer. The Court has
constantly reminded lawyers to use dignified language in their pleadings despite the adversarial
nature of our legal system.

Atty. Ferrer had likewise violated Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which
enjoins lawyers to uphold the dignity and integrity of the legal profession at all times. Several
disinterested persons confirmed Atty. Ferrer’s drunken invectives at Atty. Barandon shortly
before the start of a court hearing and Atty. Ferrer failed to show convincing evidence denying
the said charge against him.

All lawyers should take heed that they are licensed officers of the courts who are mandated to
maintain the dignity of the legal profession, hence they must conduct themselves honorably and
fairly. Atty. Ferrer’s display of improper attitude, arrogance, misbehavior, and misconduct in the
performance of his duties both as a lawyer and officer of the court, before the public and the
court, was a patent transgression of the very ethics that lawyers are sworn to uphold.
Consequently, the penalty of suspension of one from the practice of law is deemed just and
proper.

Foodsphere, Inc. vs. Atty. Mauricio, Jr. [AC No. 7199. July 22, 2009]

24SEP

Ponente: CARPIO-MORALES, J.
FACTS:
[A] certain Alberto Cordero (Cordero) purportedly bought from a grocery in Valenzuela City
canned goods including a can of CDO Liver spread.  As Cordero and his relatives were eating
bread with the CDO Liver spread, they found the spread to be sour and soon discovered a colony
of worms inside the can. This was complained before the BFAD. After conciliation meetings
between Cordero and the petitioner, the Corderos eventually forged a KASUNDUAN seeking the
withdrawal of their complaint before the BFAD.  The BFAD thus dismissed the
complaint. Respondent, Atty. Mauricio, Jr.,  who affixed his signature to the KASUNDUAN as a
witness, later wrote in one of his articles/columns in a tabloid that he prepared the document.
Complainant filed criminal complaints against respondent and several others for Libel and
Threatening to Publish Libel under Articles 353 and 356 of the Revised Penal Code before the
Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City and Valenzuela City.  The complaints were
pending at the time of the filing of the present administrative complaint. Despite the pendency of
the civil case against him and the issuance of a status quo order restraining/enjoining further
publishing, televising and broadcasting of any matter relative to the complaint of CDO,
respondent continued with his attacks against complainant and its products.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.

HELD:
YES. Respondent suspended for three (3) years from the practice of law.

RATIO:
The above actuations of respondent are also in violation of Rule 13.03 of the Canon of
Professional Responsibility which reads: “A lawyer shall not make public statements in the
media regarding a pending case tending to arouse public opinion for or against a party.”
The language employed by respondent undoubtedly casts aspersions on the integrity of the
Office of the City Prosecutor and all the Prosecutors connected with said Office. Respondent
clearly assailed the impartiality and fairness of the said Office in handling cases filed before it
and did not even design to submit any evidence to substantiate said wild allegations. The use by
respondent of the above-quoted language in his pleadings is manifestly violative of Canon 11
and the fundamental Canon 1 also of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which
mandates lawyers to “uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect
for law and legal processes.”  Respondent defied said status quo order, despite his
(respondent’s) oath as a member of the legal profession to “obey the laws as well as the legal
orders of the duly constituted authorities.”
Further, respondent violated Canon 8 and Rule 8.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which mandate, and by failing to live up to his oath and to comply with the
exacting standards of the legal profession, respondent also violated Canon 7 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, which directs a lawyer to “at all times uphold the integrity and
the dignity of the legal profession.”